[Music] All right, welcome everybody to the city council meeting. Uh, first item of business as always is the pledge of allegiance. And I'll ask Councelor Silver to lead us. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Next, we had the consent agenda and I believe there was one item pulled uh C2. Is that correct, Councelor Jones? Yes. Thank you so much. This is for solid waste services. I have a few questions just on the change um that's being discussed here. I'll just start. How are you, Mr. Jenkins? I got to watch uh the videos because I was absent last week. So, you were there president. So, nice to hear you over the over my break, but nice to see you today. Um on page two and three, it discusses removing city manager and council from the appeals process for residents. uh doing uh dealing with administrative fees. How many times how many times has a case gone that far to come to us? So over the last year, well, mayor, council, city manager, Gregory Jenkins, I interim director of solid waste. Uh over the last uh year, we've had two to four complaints. Out of those, three of them were around this for the same property. And I don't believe any of those at least over the time I've been in room has made it up to the city manager's office. So I was just wondering what is the purpose of removing that option if we don't really ever see it. Well um mainly because as we have transition that over to an admin administrative fee. Uh that's more consistent with how our practices are. It stays in house. It doesn't come up to the city manager or council level. Right. And we are raising those fees. Can you tell me what the fee was and then what the current fee will be after this has gone through? I believe the past fee was $250 and I believe the current fee I don't try to get that done. I think they're different levels. [Music] Sorry about that. Uh $500. So, we're doubling the fees from 250 to 500. Okay. And then page three also removes the solid waste collection design manual. That doesn't mean we don't have one. It just means it's removing it from what? Why? From the code. Uh, one is I think uh we're right now we're working with planning on kind of updating and figuring out a better way to keeping up with some of the the zoning changes that are going on. And so, currently we're kind of tied without doing special exceptions. This would just give us more flexibility and start focusing on the long term uh what we need to have. But yes, we do still have it. It's just more of an administrative tool. Got it. And then can you speak to the number of incidents of trash burning that has occurred to warrant the addition of solid waste to the code because we are uh removing the fire chief from that option. Right. Right. Uh again over the over my period of interim we we haven't had anything that go that far. So, it's just administ because we're going to this administrative, we're just streamlining and taking out these other Yes. And yes, we've had because we were working on those things for a while now and so since we were coming to council, we just decided to kind of package it all together. Okay. And then lastly, um how many residents are currently receiving backyard pickup? So our we call we consider that our need assistance program and we have a roughly about 5,000 or so 5,000 residents specifically receiving that service. Right. And that doesn't always mean we're going behind somebody's house. It just means that we're doing something to accommodate them and that's something that they apply for. Correct. That is correct. Okay. All right. Those were my questions. I just wanted to uplift it because that is a big charge that's being uh added going from 250 to 500. So, I just wanted to daylight that for the community that those admin fees are are increasing substantially. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. And I guess we I'll do motion to approve. Okay. They the change of this I don't even know what to say. I'm so sorry. Motion to approve this this. Thank you. Okay. Is there any other discussion on this matter? If not, all in favor? I I. All oppose? Nay. All right. So, that passes. That uh brings us to the rest of the consent agenda. Move for approval. Okay. Any other questions or Okay. All in favor of the motion? I I All opposed. Okay. So, that brings us to uh the public comment and I will just go by this uh screen if y'all want to bring up. Okay. Thank you. Uh first is uh Miss Octavia Rainey. Good evening to good evening to to everyone. As you know, today I'm in my purple. My fourth w stand up. Fourth ward. My fourth word today. And I am proud and very proud of the fourth world association. Everything that they're doing and everything that they're working on. So I will be brief today. The fourth world association is here to ask for $300,000 in the consolidated plan. When the consolidated plan come up, they will be speaking. But I want to remind you that during the Raleigh redevelopment commission, they destroyed fourth ward. They destroyed fourth ward. It is a CDBG process. It really is. So now is the time for the city to step up and say, what are we going to do with fourth ward? We have a lot of ideas, a lot of motions to put in place, but we need money to do those things. So, the fourth world association is going to ask for $300,000 and which it should be approved. The only thing I don't know is that under the citizen participation plan, since that is not written in the consolidated plan, do you have to amend the consolidated plan to put the $300,000 in? But the $300,000 should be an approved item. You get $4 million for CDBG funds. What is $300,000 at a neighborhood that the Raleigh Redevelopment Commission destroyed, wiped it out, thought it was nothing. This is just a tip. And we have things that we need to get started and functioning on for the next year. Our signs is very important. There is no signs in fourth board to let you know where you're at, who you are. There is nothing nothing there. So the group will talk about our plans for the first year. We have a sevenyear plan because we know this can't be done all in one year. So we have a seven seven-year plan, but our first ask is for 300 $300,000 out of community development block grant. You receive $4 million from HUD under CDBG. What is that to ask? What is that to ask? So, I'm asking the director of community development, which I called it because I used to work there for 10 years. Move that money forward so we can get forward with the business of fourth board. It has been left behind too long. Thank you, Miss Rainey. Right. Next, we have Mama Sanders. Good afternoon. It's another amazing day in paradise. Um, thank you all for your service. Again, I appreciate y'all and everything you're doing and to our city staff. Um, every time I'm able to interact with somebody, I'm just always amazed by their dedication. So, we appreciate all of you. Um, I just really wanted to talk about um the All-American Cities Award. on I want to say it was March 10th, I believe it was, Raleigh Forward and Wake Up County co-hosted a meeting um where Taiisha from um community engagement and um spoke as well as Nick Vahos from the National Civic League and they talked about um he specifically talked about different um opportunities to do community engagement. And when he closed his remarks, he actually kind of issued an invitation for the city of Raleigh to look into um applying to for the All-American Cities Award next year. He said it's an open theme and it's going to rev but it's going to revolve around America's 250th um birthday. Um he said that the that the city of Raleigh has not won this since 1975. It's been 50 years. And um I had attended another community meeting where somebody asked me what it was. And when I looked it up, it was one of the main reasons why Raleigh won the award is because of Mayor Lightner, so far Raleigh's only black mayor. Um instituted the CAC's. And so it's really interesting that 45 years later, they were dismantled. um and nothing has really been done to solidify their um their return. And so, um, I would just want to put this out there that this is an initiative I think that the city should, um, work towards that I feel like one of the things that we can actually, um, work to prove is that Raleigh is the most compassionate city. And that is um, by definition, compassion isn't just a feeling of empathy, but it's a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. and that um we can you have to go um there are 20 cities that are semi- finalists and 10 cities are chosen every year. So you actually have to go improve what you've done, not just be given some high accolade because of statistics and data that other people are looking at from far away who are not experiencing the things that everyday people are experiencing here in Raleigh. So I'd like to see us actually try to make a difference and be able to prove that we are a number one city. Um because people here, all people here are experiencing Raleigh the way that all of our city documents say um that we want people to experience it. And so it's a compilation of ideas, but I believe that we can do it. So I'll be back to talk about more. Thanks. Thanks, Miss Sanders. Uh next we have Valerie Smith. Good evening, Mayor Cowell Wall, City of Council. My name is Valerie Smith and I'm here to stand in support of the four W Community District and its legacy to keep its memory alive. We are standing in solidarity to be able to sit down with our children and hopefully their children to tell them of what was once a thriving community where we taught them to dream big and to become productive citizens to achieve their heart's desire. Fourth Ward has produced just that. artists, teachers, lawyers, doctors entrepreneurs preachers churches, and prominent leaders who are among us today. And we would like to see this area commemorated as such. When we want to we want to show our next generation that this is where we played, we prayed, we cried, we overcame struggles, but somehow we stuck it out and we stuck together. We went to church on Sunday. We heard the preacher preach. We held on to our faith and hope for Monday and for the rest of the week. But even after the church service, we went to grandma house, auntie house. We went to big mama's house. We had fried chicken, collard green potato salad, corn bread. We enjoyed our community and that good oldfashioned cake made by scratch. And this is what we don't want to lose these precious memories. These are memories from where we come from as children and adults. We want to hold on to those memories. So in my conclusion, I am looking forward for you making fourth ward and the historical place of legacy for its people and the people all the people of this great community. And I'm going to leave you with one thing. All things are possible when we only believe. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Smith. Uh Jonathan Kramer. Hi, good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to speak and thank you for your service. Uh my name is Jonathan Kramer. My wife and I have lived in Raleigh for 27 years. Uh we've raised our kids here and there's nowhere on earth we'd rather be. We own a building at 2208 Garden Place which is 27607. It's one block off of NC State's campus. It is parallel to Hillsboro Street, one block off. It's a very small culde-sac with about six lots on it. It was built in the 1950s by NC State specifically for nursing students and for 70 years it has housed NC State students. My wife and I bought the building about six years ago. I think we defined it as a quad in that it's one building that has four apartments in it and within each apartment there's four bedrooms. So a total of 16 students in the building. There's a small strip of parking on Garden Place which is about I think about 150 yards long and on it there's a sign that says permit parking. It's only come to our um understanding recently that our renters aren't able to get a permit to park in this space. So, I'm coming to you to talk about this because it's my understanding from the city of Raleigh parking department that the folks who are able to get a parking pass to park in this area are single family homeowners, townhouse owners, duplex owners, but not quad owners. So, I came here to basically bring up the discussion of that. Right behind us is a project that was built about four years ago, very very well done, called the uh Clark Town Homes. There are 11 town homes within one structure, within one building, and they are allowed to get that permit parking permit pass. Yet, our structure, which has four apartments within the same structure, is not allowed to have it. So, I want to bring up that point. And the fact is right now on Garden Place, as I said, there are six lots. Three of them have quad buildings on it. We're one of them. Two of them are undeveloped lots. And one of them is a single family home that is currently uh unoccupied. So, if the three people on Garden Place are who have quads are not allowed to park on Garden Place, then who exactly are we keeping that parking spot for? So, I'd like to bring up what I think are two options that maybe will help the situation. One is if we took the sign down because it's a small street and under the current rules, the people who are on that street uh don't qualify to park there. And if we took the sign down and just left it as open parking, I think that would be a great compromise. The second thing is, as I said, the town houses behind us, which are 11 town houses with one within one structure, are allowed to have it. So, I know you've run out of time. I would suggest um Michael Moore or one of our transportation um could follow up with you and you could complete your comments. Sure. Appreciate that. Y go find them or uh Michael Moore is over here. Uh okay. Uh Nikki W. Good afternoon family. In April we observe National Child Abuse Prevention Month, Sexual Assault Awareness Month, National Fair Housing Month, and National Arab American Heritage Month. All very relevant. This week, we also observe Black Maternal Health Week, and most importantly, we honor the week of our savior sacrifice that we may have eternal life. Hallelujah. Today, I'll share a story that illustrates what many of us believe to be true, but have a hard time explaining. One day, a mouse realized the farmer had set a trap for him. Gaing his life was at stake. He went to the barn animals for help. He said to the chicken, "A trap has been set for me. Can you help me?" To which the chicken replied, "I'd like to help, but I'm too afraid. Maybe another time." He went to the sheep and asked, "Sheep, will you help me?" The farmer had set a mouse trap. The sheep replied, "With all due respect, it is a mouse trap, not a sheep trap. This is your fight, not mine. I'm out." The mouse ran to the cow and asked, "Cow, oh buddy, oh pal, the farmer has set a trap for me. You've got to help me." The cow replied, "I love you, but I don't want to get involved. Besides, I have some pressing matters to attend, too. Good luck, though. I'll pray for you." The mouse went back to the house and decided the safest place to stay was a hole in the wall. What he saw was a snake's tail get caught in the in the trap. It bit the farmer's wife and to make his wife better, the farmer prepared chicken soup. As guests came to visit his wife, the former prepared them mutton. And at the unfortunate demise of his wife, the former served beef at the funeral. There are several pieces of to examine here that will serve as opportunity for learning. But the moral of the story is the ripple effect chain reaction. When an event or an action in one area has unintended impacted another, the chicken never got another chance. The sheep was still affected and the cow didn't make it around to those less important things. Positive deeds beget positive impact that can travel beyond measure. But in this situation, a trap that was set for one indirectly affected many with no resolution for the intended. Thank you, Jesus. When people ask for our help, whether that be the unhoused, the elderly, the disabled, one another in good health, we must, won't we take the time to examine what can be done instead of instantly declining due to fear, busy schedules, and lack of concern or relation. This is so important that our savior gave us the commandment to love one another as we love ourselves twice before his crucifixion. Action in addition to prayer is necessary in life, family, community, and for national and international civility. You will not only be saving their life, you might just be saving your own. Congress is in recess until April 27th. Now is a perfect time to write them your stories. Remember to fix the ripple you must first find the rock. May the Lord bless and keep you. May he make his face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you. The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee and give you peace. Bless the Holy Week everyone. Thank you. Uh next we have Aaron Lewis. It's Mr. Lewis here. Okay. Uh we will move on to Athena Wallen. Hi, my name is Athena Wallen. Uh I don't know if you know, but I live on Brookside Drive. It also has a creek. So I'm going to be discussing a lot to you about rehabilitation efforts. Um so Raleigh became a biofilic city in October of 2022. And by doing so, Raleigh joined a worldwide network of cities dedicated to conserving and celebrating nature in all its forms and connecting nature and people in urban spaces. Part of celebrating our natural ecosystems is reanalyzing how we manage our storm water creeks and how we access them to manage them. Storm water has man-made assets both natural and or has assets both ma man-made and natural. So pipes and streams. Uh but while both of these types of assets mosy through public and private land, neither of them have easements or otherwise a generalized agreement for ongoing maintenance. Um can we please consider reanalyzing that uh especially in a form where creeklined properties um have wavering and moving and shifting property lines. Can we take that creek and the buffer, roll it into some type of community land trust or easement agreement so that we could begin managing it like an asset like those man-made pipes for storm water? Um, if neighborhoods have access or otherwise permission to help with the creek, that enables more helpers to help and we need more in between steps. Um, these stormwater creek ecosystems have a natural marriage to tree canopies, shade spaces, and wildlife corridors. These systems, when healthy, give us environmental resiliency, and these creek systems are struggling. They are in rapid states of erosion. These robust canopies take decades to nestle in, and then it takes a year to start to dismantle. Um, as root systems are removed from n from the neighborhood lot, from lot to lot to lot to lot, we have a domino effect of root systems decaying and soil becoming destabilized and the stream banks not having that integrity to keep up with all of the rain and runoff that we are expected to manage. So, if we could please reanalyze these creek systems. We have 700 miles approximately of creek in Raleigh and we have a lot of that on private land. So if we want to make effort towards connecting larger segments of these systems for ease of access and maintenance and ongoing community building goals, we have to start somewhere. Um to replenish our storm water creeks is to replenish the vitality of our neighborhoods. and I really want us to reconnect with these possibilities through our backyard stormwater creeks. So, please help us all. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Wallan. Uh final uh Huah Huang. Hi. Um 2128 B Road. Thanks for giving it time to speak. I was I meant to sign up for last week but things got a little busy. I am here to speak on a general public comment regarding these um on behalf of UI local 150 as as the rank and file member from NC State University but I'm also speaking here currently on behalf of my colleagues and the Raleigh city workers specifically in solid waste and department of water. Um to my understanding the annual city budget is coming up in was it late June or early July and this is why it's becoming more imperative that the city coun city council members and mayor do in fact schedule with the city workers and to dis and to learn from them and discuss with them like how to move forward when it comes to situ things they need like budget, overtime pay. Um they have they have demands that I think is our view would be good to know about as far as like what they need in order to live in order to be able to live and work in Raleigh and not work in Raleigh and having to drive 45 minutes from to and from Sanford. Uh to my understanding, I know a number of you have already met with them. So, thank you for doing that. At least if you have not responded, please do so that we can set the president should start um having the ability for workers to meet and confer with the city of Raleigh. And maybe that could set an example down the line for other workplaces in in Raleigh or even the Triangle area to start thinking, hey, maybe employees and employees should have being comfort with your bosses once every quarter because like things change, economies change, and maybe time discuss like how we can continue how we can continue paying you the the wages that that you you should be, which by the way should be at least 25 per hour. I don't think that's unreasonable at this point. Um I know the city workers is calling for 2819 per hour for for one thing and it would be good. And if the city's wondering how to come up with some money, I think they you you should reassess where you don't you probably don't need to spend money on there. This is where you might consider is considering um yeah re rep prioritize your budget so that you can prioritize paying your workers well and please do meet with them before the at least once before the budget hearing happens. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Hang. All right, that ends uh the public comment sign up. Uh we had one was there any voicemail? Okay, thank you. All right. Next, we have the report and recommendation of the planning commission and we have uh Binham Walter. Good afternoon, Madame Mayor, members of council. It's nice to be with you. I'm joined by Blanny Miller, chair of the planning commission. A reminder about some of the upcoming holidays over the next uh month or so. Some of them uh may conflict with upcoming. No, they do not. Uh we do have a couple of items scheduled and item scheduled for uh public hearing in May already. It's a continuation of an item you began discussion on in February and there's nothing scheduled yet for May 20. That is the date that we're suggesting for the items in front of you coming from planning commission today. So, there are five items we're suggesting for public hearing on the 20th. The first item on the planning commission's report today is not a request for public hearing, but rather a request for a 60-day extension of their review. This is a um case with some years on it. As you can see, from 2022, the applicant is actually making very good progress at this point. is anxious to re be able to respond to some feedback that the planning commission was able to give them during their uh most recent discussion. And so the applicant and the planning commission both are asking if they could please have a 60-day extension of their review to June 20 June 8th. The other items are are all requests for public hearing. Again, recommended for suggested for May 20. Uh three lots on Edinburgh Road. This is just off Glennwood Avenue. The applicant here is requesting to go from a residential district to an office mixeduse district with some conditions. Request is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the future land use map split vote from planning commission on this [Music] item. Some concerns about very um wellorganized neighbor presentation during the planning commission's discussion. Planning commission was responsive to that. The second item in front of uh coming off off the planning commissions report today is 2500 Barwell Road. This property is currently split zoned. It's just uh just over 43 acres currently zoned for residential development and manufactured housing. Uh this is a unusual district man. There's not a lot of that in the city and it's one of the few places in our in our district zoning district system that allows manufactured housing. So the request here is to go to residential 10 with conditions. This is consistent with the comprehensive plan in the future land use map. A split vote from planning commission here. A concern from a member that they would like to see affordable housing included in what's proposed here. This item is uh uh 5420 Lewisburg Road C5424. So this is just under four acres going from residential one which is a very low density district to residential 10 and they are offering some conditions here again consistent with future land use map and comprehensive plan and a unanimous recommendation from the planning commission for approval. This item is very close to where we are sitting right now. So 200 southwest street this is the uh Raleigh Union Station bus station. That's a request to reszone just under two acres. The uh it's a text change to zoning conditions. So all that would change here would be conditions. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the future land use map. Planning commission is recommending approval but by a split vote. So the change here I think you are all familiar with this request. uh would allow the applicant to offer a payment to the city's affordable housing fund or build affordable housing as part of their development. Um planning commission, the discussion there was about whether or not the project would include affordable units on site. What questions could I answer for you before you make a decision about extensions and hearing dates? I think there'll be a lot here since we have a lot of items. I'll start down here with council. Yeah. So, the one we just heard about um with the affordable housing potential change there. Um I guess just first I'll say I'd like to not see that until at least June 3rd. I want to make sure when we have our public hearing that it's on a Tuesday evening. Um because I do think there's going to be interest in this from the public. Um, I also I'm really looking for more detailed background about when these conditions were first put in place. And I don't know that we can get all of that right here uh in this discussion. I think we're going to need some additional um either a meeting or a 4x4 for background. Um, for example, you know, this is coming from Go Triangle is my understanding. was their initial RFP or that they put out, did it have these conditions asis? Are there any federal requirements? I know there's a lot of different funding sources that Good Triangle is using. Um, and if there's going to be a change here, you know, I'm I just want to understand, you know, if a developer put forth a proposal with these conditions in mind, were there other developers that perhaps didn't have the same opportunity because they said, "Oh, I can't meet those conditions." And so I'm just thinking about fairness overall. Um as well as the concern I think that we've certainly heard I've heard from residents that this is not equivalent. So if we're going to allow you know this payment in lie of putting affordable units on site, you know, on top of the bus station, where would those housing units go? Probably they'd not be anywhere near there is my guess, just because of the cost. And that does raise concerns to me about whether this is uh you know in the public's interest. Yeah. Um, we could keep asking questions, but I think because we all have a ton of questions about that particular case, I might just, um, ask the city manager uh, you know, can we go ahead and schedule and then maybe we just make a motion for a June 3rd date for public hearing. Motion. Sure. So, okay, before we vote, just want to flag if we set the public hearing, the applicant could not make any changes. So any additional information we might gather could not uh lead to any new conditions until the public hearing would be opened. Do I have that right? So if we so an alternative if we thought um revisions might be desirable, we could bring this back as a special item at sometime in May. Still set the public hearing for that June 3rd date, but not set them in their frozen period just yet. Just as a option. And also I'm actually withdrawing my second. I cannot I'm on the board for Go Triangle in this case. So I'm going to have to recuse myself from this case. So So I'm not sure what the uh the current motion would just be to have further information sometime in May and then uh have it be scheduled for June 3rd. I think yeah, if if if it's so it sounds okay to council member Harrison. What I think might be the best move is to bring this back as a special item May 20th to set the public hearing with the intention of setting the public hearing for June 3rd. That works for me, Marshall. Does that make sense? No. Um, we won't be able to meet to be able to discuss it prior to May 20th. Um, we've got the budget preview on the 19th and then the budget presentation is part of that um council meeting on the 20th. The 4x4 would not be until after the 20th of May. So we could wait until June 3 then for to put this as a special item if if we're trying to set the public hearing for the first meeting in July. That's how far it would to push it out to meet the Yeah, that's fine with me. I don't know if the applicant is here because we won't have a 4x4 this month because of inner city trip. Yeah. Yeah. Good afternoon, Molly Stewart, Morning Star Law Group. I do represent the applicant in this case. So, is does that timeline work for you? The June 3rd special item to be scheduled for July uh early July public hearing first public hearing. Yes. Thank you. We only have that one meeting in July, so it would be Yeah. Yep. Great. Thank you. Okay. So moved and all right. Um and we will have the state for the record that uh councelor Branch is it well is that you will be recusing yourself on the issue. Um so all in favor of the motion I I I All opposed. All right. Thank you. Okay. So that was that item. What other questions do we have? Yes. Couple. Um, one on the Edenberg case. I was curious. I I saw the intended purpose. Um, what I didn't quite understand was what aspects of their intended stated purpose cannot be done under their current zoning because they're building something that's going to look like a single family home. It's not going to act as a residential unit at first, but then it will later. Right. Is it? Yes. Right. So, what they have said they would like to do is build a model home and have their builder's office in the building that is the model home. Uh model home is a term of art in the UDO in the unified development ordinance that generally is only allowed in uh residential development of a larger size than this site. there's a minimum site size associated with that temporary use in a neighborhood. Um, so they don't meet the qualification for temporary model home use. So they are needing uh entitlement for a commercial use on this property uh for for a a temporary a 10-year time frame is what the conditions lay out. Got it. Okay. So if the phys if the site had been larger than the existing zoning would have allowed it. Got it. Okay. Helpful. Um and then my other question on the Lewisburg road case um can um what will be required by the code related to um like street connectivity? I know that the their parcel doesn't go all the way up to Lewisburg Road, but I would think the ultimate vision of the city would be to connect to Lewisburg. So, what kind of what would happen with street connectivity? I think a lot of it would depend on what kind of site plan they submitted, what might be required. Um, they have, you're asking if they would have to connect to Lewisburg. I guess I'm wondering if they'd have to like stub out. So that's any future development would have to pick up. I don't know, but I could certainly be prepared to answer you at time of public hearing. Sure. Yeah. All right, Council Jones. Um, thank you so much. Can I want to talk about the uh Glennwood Avenue Z722? Um, so this project is going on three years three years and I was wondering if you can walk me through the like the holdup. I've spoken with the applicant's lawyer and I've tried to meet with with the uh neighbors, but I'm not sure what's taking so long. Yes. So, there has been a long period of discussion between the neighborhoods representation and the the representative of the request. Took them a long time to come to some sort of agreement. Um they have, as I understand, a draft agreement. Uh and so after the last extension for this request was granted, the applicant did ask to um so up to this point, you know, they've been in front of planning commission asking to be deferred and so they finally asked to be discussed uh and then they wanted to be able to respond to comments from the planning commission about uh questions and concerns about the conditions that they had offered. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Are there questions? All right. Do we want to make a motion on some of these? I was going to make a if there's no issue of a joint motion to set the public hearing for all pending cases left for May 20th. Second. Okay. Extension. An extension and and include the assist extension for the first one. Okay. All in favor of the motion? I I All opposed. Okay. Thanks very much. Thank you. All right. Next, we have special items and the first one is uh resoning Z3924 on Honeyut Road and once again we have Vinyl Walter. Yes, ma'am. This was came out of a report of planning commission at your last meeting. the applicant um wanted the opportunity to revise conditions for consistency with the unified development ordinance that has happened. Uh and I can walk you through with an update of that. Uh we are suggesting a May 6 public hearing as you know you only have that one item scheduled at this time for that date. Uh and the changes to the conditions. So they have added uh a revision to their condition six that no public or private cross access connection from the property to any adjoining private property uh would be required. And then they have uh made some changes to the language around the provision of the multi-use path um that connects uh between the site of the request and the adjacent property to the west. Uh and then they have also uh made some provision about what the cross-section the two options for the cross-section of any new public street that serves the site uh what that would look like. So they've said that would either be the standard UDO required section of a sidewalk at least 6 feet in width on both sides of the street or potentially a multi-use path measuring 10 ft on a single side of the street. They are not committing to both. They are not committing to either or at this point. Okay. Questions for Miss Walters. My I don't have a question, but I have a comment. Uh the storm water advisory commission discussed this at their last meeting, and they meet again on May 1st, and there's some questions that they have. They're asking the applicant to come speak at that meeting so that they can address their questions, but they were wondering if we could hold off um putting this on the agenda until May 20th because they'd want to be able to give us a letter whether it's recommending approval or asking further questions and they felt that May 6th was too soon. Um so I just wanted to put that on you guys's thoughts as we decide what date to put that on. Yeah, u I would be opposed to that. Um I this one is in my district. I met with both the neighbors. Um they are comfortable with the application going forward. Uh if somebody wants to come to the public hearing and testify on May 6, I'd be comfortable with that. But this was a significant cooperation between the applicant and the neighbors. Uh clearly the multi- path uh which I'm sure will be a topic of discussion. Um, and so I understand your request, but this is something I think that all parties uh came to an agreement. I think they're ready to move forward on the May 6th. Yep. I just had a quick question to follow up. Council member Silver met with these neighbors a couple times last fall. Um, I'm typically in support of connecting our street grid, but when I went out there, I totally understood their concerns about cut through traffic in this area and I was in full support of not providing a full street connection, but just some pedestrian access, bicycle access. So, I just want to make sure with these new conditions that were added, still no street connection, but there's going to be some multi-use greenway type access for folks who may want to go out that way to any of the nearby retail. Right. So, what the conditions say is that um the subdivision plan would include that multi-use path at least 10 ft in width between the western boundary of the property at Chatter Drive, which is the neighbors to the west that would connect to either sidewalk or multi-use path that's built as part of the um whatever's developed on the site. Right. So, they're promising the connection between whatever circulation system they develop to serve the site to the Chatter Rightway, but there's still there's going to be no vehicular connection. Correct. That's all I wanted to make sure. I think the applicant has slipped up behind you to do a phone of friend. So, I think he's got something he wants to say. Would you like to hear from him? I I don't know. I mean, he's he came up, so I figure he's volunteering to say something. That was the only question I had. You answered it, but I'm always happy to hear from Mr. Burch. That's what Okay. Yep. And just to um piggyback on this part of the conversation, I also met with the residents. I know they don't want this grid access, but uh also that neighborhood is very difficult to access and I worry about like a missed opportunity for our like ability to improve their own uh emergency service access in particular, right? If a tree fell on the front of their neighborhood, it would be really difficult for us to serve their emergency services. And um when we last saw this item, I had hoped the revisions would include a section that would allow at least some emergency access. And I don't think this quite meets that brief. So it's I think like our greenway standards allows some of our emergency services to get down the greenway, but um like I think you can fit a police car and a an ambulance down the greenway, but um this I don't think quite gets there. Um, so that's still a revision I would be hoping to see and I I know we're set to meet soon. Um, but so sort of at the will of the body whether we set the public hearing and I'll ask you for the revision in two weeks from now or we don't set the public hearing and you provide the revision now, but that's something I'd still be looking for. Do you want to um Well, I would say do you want to make a motion on this? Um, yes, I do. Your district? Uh I just move that we set the public hearing for this case for May 6th. A second. Um I know we've had a lot of conversation. Uh any other Okay. So all in favor of the motion I I all opposed. Okay. So one in opposition and uh that passes. It sounds like you still may want to go to the storm water board and answer questions or Yes, I'll be you're on the agenda on the 1. I'll be there as well. So, I will um speak to them there and then try and amplify whatever we discuss at the table on the 6th um so that they they feel heard as well. Thank you. All right. Thank you all. Okay. Next, we have uh Miss Mallette to talk about council contingency items. Yes. Good afternoon, council. I will not be before you all long, but you all have several uh requests for to use your council contingency funds. And so want to just highlight here for your vote today is to approve council member Branch's request for governor Morehead school as well as council member Harrison's request for the women's center of Wake County as well as the mayor's request for the women's center of Wake County, the LGBTQIA center for Raleigh, as well as communities in schools for North Carolina. I know we have two requests that are pending for next um agenda which will appear May 6 for council member Jones as well as branch. Move for approval. Second. I just want to note I see the number um for the women's center here as 126. There is an error. It should be $13,628 which would clear you out. I know you want to be very clear that your balance will be $0 after this action taken today. Thank you. We still send them to you. Jane's broke, right? The action in the agenda is accurate. So, we apologize about that. Okay. Any questions or commentary? I just had a quick question. Um, as we move, I know that we like to do these by the beginning of June or do we have until the end of June to allocate these funds? As long as you take the action before the end of June, it'll be encumbered. Okay. Thank you. Right. If not, is there a motion to approve? All right, I'll second. I think m I think council member Branch had moved the approval. Oh, he already Okay. Yeah. Sorry. Missed that in in the blur of activity. Okay. So, council member Branch and then we'll have uh council Patton has a second. Um all in favor of the motion, I I. All opposed. Thank you very much. Okay. Next, we have the uh report and recommendation of the city manager. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. We have two items today on the agenda and then we have an introduction and an acknowledgement. So, we will kick it off with Mr. Kenneth Richie from the transportation department who will give us an update on the North Carolina State Transportation Improvement Program and is going to talk to us about the US um one Capitol Boulevard tolling opportunity. Good afternoon, mayor and council. Uh I will not be giving the whole presentation today. We've got some guest presenters here uh to speak to you in detail about the the history on the US1 North project. That's the 10 mile section from 540 up to Pernell Road at the Wake Franklin County line. And then to provide some background information as it relates to this tolling study that the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Executive Board commissioned in 2024 relating to this. So with that, I will introduce Chris Lucasina, the executive director of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, who will take us through the first section, and then David Roy from the North Carolina Turnpike Association will take it from there. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Chris Lucasina. I'm the executive director at the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. It's very nice to see several familiar faces uh up there on the council. I think um this is the first time in a couple years we've we've presented to you all. Uh so today I'm here to talk to you about the US1 North uh project um basically from I540 north to the Franklin County line. Uh there is a funded project with uh North Carolina Department of Transportation known as U5307. Um and it is broken up into four segments A through D moving north from I540. You can see the brakes there on the screen. And basically what this would do is convert the existing corridor into a uh full control of access freeway uh very similar to an interstate. It just would not officially be an interstate road. Uh the southern sections of that um would be uh widened from four to eight lanes. The northern sections four to six lanes. Capitol Boulevard, um, which is, I think, what, uh, everybody inside the city of Raleigh calls it. I think outside of the city, they call it US1, which is always an interesting dynamic. Um, but it's important to note that this is a a vital corridor for our region, for our state, and really for for the country. Um, and the section that we're here to really talk to you about today north of 540 is not in a vacuum by itself. Uh many of you are probably familiar with the city's corridor study between I540 moving south to I440 uh which has a um expressway component to it as well as local street component and and a lot of other multimmoal um elements. But I just wanted to point that out that this is not a standalone piece of a corridor. It's it's part of a much larger corridor that's very important to the region. So a little uh history on this project. Uh planning for these improvements uh began in the early 2000s. Uh in 2006, the US1 corridor study was completed. That was a regional study um that involved the city of Raleigh, uh the town of Wake Forest, Wake County, uh Campo and and the state of North Carolina. In 2007, in an effort to implement the recommendations of that study, something called the US1 Council of Planning was was created and that had representation from all the local jurisdictions as well as the state and it was designed to do the local jurisdictional part of implementing the recommendations of that study. So for nearly 20 years, the city of Raleigh as well as the other local jurisdictions have been trying to do their part by managing development in a way that would help implement these improvements or hopefully make it as um as make it less expensive when the big widening project came along. So that has been going on for quite a while and you can see on the screen here um s since that time in 2012 it was the big project was first funded in the state transportation improvement program. In 2016, the first project delay occurred for that funding. Uh and then by 2025, we've had five rounds of project delays for funding um of this project of this corridor. What that kind of looks like um financially here is over time uh a couple of things have occurred. Inflation has has u kicked in um rising costs outside of inflation have kicked in within the transportation sector as well. And the funded portions of this corridor have flexed around a little bit. Uh initially in 2012, it did not go all the funded portion did not go all the way to Franklin County. So I wanted to point that out that um over time the scope of the project has changed a little bit. Um but it has been pretty stable um in in its in its extent um for several years now. So in other words, time is money here, right? The longer it takes to implement this project, the more expensive it's going to be. Even if nothing else changes about the project, not one additional thing added to the project, just if we freeze the project scope in time today, and we wait more time, the cost of the project will continue to rise. I believe at the North Carolina Board of Transportation meeting this month, they uh looked at it and said, over a three-year period, they saw 67% increases in their average project costs. So, this is not this is something that's happening very quickly. This is not the first time we've had to deal with this with this issue of a major project, an important project for our region being delayed and delayed and delayed. NC540 um and I540 make up what used to be called the Raleigh Outer Loop uh and had been planned for over 50 years. And in the '90s, it began construction on the north side of Raleigh and that northern half of that circle was completed uh in the early 2000s. Uh and then they began the southern half and uh on on the west side through Morrisville and Kerry and they very quickly uh came to the conclusion that there would not be enough money to do that on the time in the in the time that they had initially thought they could do it. So the project started to get delayed and ultimately faced with 20 years of delay um for that project the decision was made to pursue tolling the southern half of that project and that was able to deliver the project um before it's scheduled to open the the last piece of 540 scheduled to open I believe in 2028. uh and uh at the time when the decision was made to toll it, what we were told by the state was they could start construction in 2030 for the over in Morrisville and Kerry. So it was a significant shortfall in funding similar to what we're seeing today. And that is really why um our board asked us to look for ways to either preserve the schedule for this project or accelerate it. So we looked at three options last year. Uh, one was what we called stay the course. And really what that meant was three of the four sections, uh, we'd have to wait to see if they were going to be programmed or not. Uh, the the the A section, which is the southernmost piece basically from from I540 up to Burlington Mills, that that had stayed what's called committed for funding. Um, but since that time with the latest draft tip, uh, it too is being delayed. So all four sections are programmed but are are scheduled to be delayed. Option two was um sort of going back to the drawing board. If we can't fund a freeway for this corridor, what could we do? And what and there are a lot of things you could do in this corridor. You could widen the lanes. You could put in what are called super streets or reduce conflict intersections. You could take some interch intersections and convert them to interchanges. But any one of those things would have to start as a standalone project and start from scratch in the funding process, which means it would be further delayed any of the improvements in the corridor. And then the third option was to consider converting the corridor into a into a tollled facility. And so um with these three options, the our our executive board um requested that the state conduct a toll study. And so the next several slides for you uh David Roy from the Turnpike Authority will be presenting them, but they he'll walk you through the analysis they did and some of the results. All right. Well, uh thank you. Good afternoon. Again, David Roy, um the director of innovative finance with the uh North Carolina Turnpike Authority. Um just uh quickly for those folks that that may not be as familiar with the Turnpike Authority, uh we were established a little over 20 years ago and really our role is uh to develop uh toll facilities at the request of NPOS's, RPOS's, uh local communities across the state. Uh we are a business unit of NC DOT but we do maintain an autonomous board that's responsible for debt issuance, toll rate setting, uh etc. Just a little interesting factoid there. Toll facilities in North Carolina now serve almost 3 million customers annually and growing. Um really won't uh go into too much detail on this slide. I think the the the most important point to make here is is number one there tolling in North Carolina truly is a local decision. The state does not direct uh toll facilities. Instead, for a toll project in North Carolina to move forward, it must be requested and approved by the local planning organization. In this case, uh the C uh Campo here. So, um there are no direction from uh NC DOT or the state uh to move forward with the toll facility without that local approval. Um looking at the tolling analysis that was completed on Capitol Boulevard. Uh again, as Chris mentioned, um this is a proposed upgrade to uh US1 from I540 uh north about 10 miles to Pernell Road, basically the county line. Uh for programming purposes, it's broken into four segments there that you can see on the screen, A through D. Again, last year, uh, Campo, uh, requested the department and the turnpike authority to conduct a tolling analysis, uh, to look at potential ways to accelerate delivery of the proposed Capitol Boulevard upgrades. Uh, the bulk of the last year has been spent on the traffic and revenue forecast that's required and serves as the basis for that analysis. As part of that study and in coordination with Campo, we looked at four uh, different scenarios shown there on your screen. uh we looked at uh both expressway or all pay uh toll facilities as well as express lanes and we'll talk about uh those scenarios in a little more detail here in a second. Uh in each of those we also looked at the project as a standalone project for financing purposes as well as as an addition or an expansion to the existing Triangle Expressway system uh again for financing and we'll talk a little bit more about that as well in a second. So looking at the two types of roadway pricing that was analyzed again the expressway scenarios one and two. Uh these are similar to the triangle expressway here in Raleigh as well as the mineral expressway uh out in the Charlotte area. Um in these scenarios all lanes are told generally a fixed rate um with of course larger vehicles typically paying a higher toll rate. In North Carolina all told facilities must have a non-told alternative. uh in this case that alternative would be an alternative route such as falls of noose uh 401 Lincoln mill etc. uh the express lane scenarios that were analyzed scenarios three and four uh these are scenarios where not all of the lanes are told instead only the additional capacity or one lane in each direction is told uh one of the main purposes uh of express lanes are not just to generate funding to help with capital cost but also to help manage congestion in the corridor. uh the intent being to maintain reliable travel time option no matter what is going on in the general purpose lanes uh for commuters for transit vehicles emergency vehicles etc. So as opposed to a fixed toll rate that you see on the triangle expressway uh express lanes or managed lanes are typically dynamically priced meaning as congestion increases that toll rate would increase to allow for that uh relative free flow condition to be maintained. uh examples of these projects in North Carolina, the I77 north express lanes in the Charlotte region as well as future I485 uh also in the Charlotte region anticipated to open later this year. Uh in this case, the alternate route, the non-told alternative would be of course the adjacent general purpose lanes. So looking quickly at the financial analysis, the tolling analysis was completed for each of the scenarios. Again, scenarios one and two, the expressway scenarios. We looked at it from two perspectives. Uh one of course delivery, when could the project be delivered? Uh but also from a financing perspective, what could uh tolling do to help accelerate uh the project delivery based on funding availability. In those two scenarios, the expressway scenarios, we would anticipate reaching contract award and financial close or when all funding had been secured and committed for the project in spring of 2027. Uh the long lead time item there would be a NEPA reevaluation that would be required if the project was to be converted to a a toll project. Uh after contract award, we would anticipate approximately a six-year design and construction period. So anticipated opening for the entire corridor in the spring of 2033. Uh capital cost estimates for uh scenarios one and two approximately 1.65 billion in year of expenditure dollars. Of course, the big difference between this number and what Chris showed, uh, this is reflected in year of expenditure, not current year dollars. We also add contingencies in our analysis that would be on top of what the department would typically do for a project. Looking at financing for each of the scenarios. Scenario one, again, from a financing perspective, scenario one looks at it as a standalone uh, project. financing capacity approximately 800 million in this scenario which would mean the gap funding or the state funding that would be required uh for this scenario would be equivalent to what is currently shown or reflected in the draft stip for segments A and B. Scenario two the only difference being from a financing perspective we looked at that or treated this as a expansion of the existing triangle expressway system in this scenario financing capacity has increased significantly approximately 1.4 4 billion meaning the gap funding would be that would be required the state funding would be required a portion of segment A. Now this does not mean that toll revenue generated on the Triangle Expressway system would be used to support debt service on Capitol Boulevard but instead as a pledged revenue a back stop um to improve coverage ratios reserve funds etc. It also does not mean that tolling would necessarily be extended on the Triangle Expressway to accommodate Capitol Boulevard. Uh scenarios three and four, the express lane scenarios, uh we'll really jump to scenario four uh there again treating the express lanes as a system. Um from a uh schedule perspective because there would be a little more work required uh related to the NEPA reevaluation and design of express lane. Uh we have extended that uh that schedule approximately 6 months. uh contract award financial close anticipated fall of 27 with project opening fall of 2033. Capital cost estimate in that scenario is increased slightly um mostly because there would be additional uh footprint required for an express lane. Uh separation between the express lanes, the general purpose lanes, ingress egress points so folks could access the express lanes, direct connects um etc. So capital cost estimate there approximately 1.8 billion. financing capacity less in the express lane scenario mostly because um express lanes uh generally rely on congestion in the general purpose lanes to generate revenue in the express lanes. With the upgrades that are proposed, we would not anticipate seeing a lot of congestion in the early years of the uh general purpose lanes thereby reducing the revenue that would received in a express lane scenario. Financing capacity in scenario four approximately uh 600 million largely on the back of that system financing approach. Uh in that case the gap funding that would be required would be for segments A, B and C. Scenario three as a standalone project um from a financing perspective not a lot doing there. Um again just because of the revenues that we anticipate being generated in particularly in the early years uh for the express lanes. So as a standalone project we would anticipate requiring most if not all of the state funding that has been committed for this project. And that's really reflected in the schedule. You can see the schedule has been pushed significantly to the right uh based on funding availability from the department for each of those segments. Uh some key considerations uh for each of the scenarios. Again, scenarios one and two, the expressway or all pay scenarios. The toll rate structure uh we would anticipate to be fixed very consistent with uh what we see on the triangle expressway here uh and and the greater Raleigh area. uh from a NEPA reevaluation or schedule um perspective, we do deem this to be lower uh risk to the schedule because the footprint is remaining largely the same. We're just applying tolling um to the facility. Uh toll diversion impacts I know is of interest to a lot of folks. Um when comparing uh an upgraded Capitol Boulevard with a a that is told with an upgraded Capital Boulevard that is not told, we would anticipate some toll diversion impacts and we'll talk a little bit more about that in a second. Um, one thing that I don't think gets a lot of attention, but is important nonetheless, uh, maintenance for the facility over the life of the project. We would anticipate that toll revenue would support all roadway maintenance activities over the life of the project, very similar to again the Triangle Expressway here in Raleigh. Uh, bonus allocation. Uh, the state does allocate um up to $100 million to any that brings alternative funding to help support a project. Um, so in both of these scenarios, we would anticipate that full hund00 million being allocated to the no to prioritize other projects in the region. And then legislative needs, another key consideration. Um, in most of these scenarios, we would need some legislative action before the project could be pursued as a toll facility. Um, two, generally speaking, one, there's currently a restriction on tolling uh a currently non-told segment of the state highway uh system. So in scenario one and two where we are proposing to toll all of the lanes uh that would need to be uh carved out in legislation there. Uh second uh to treat this as an expansion of the triangle expressway system. Currently toll revenues are restricted to their use on that toll facility or a contiguous toll facility. Uh again because Capitol Boulevard is not currently contiguous with the triangles expressway system. We would need some relaxation of of that language to allow for a regional model there. In the express lane scenarios that were uh analyzed, scenarios three and four, again, the toll rate structure there is dynamic, meaning as congestion increases in the general purpose lanes, you would expect to see toll rates increase in the express lanes to help manage that free flow, relative free flow condition. Uh we do deem the express lane scenarios to be slightly higher uh risk from a schedule reevaluation perspective just because that footprint is uh expanding somewhat and less design work has been completed uh in this scenario. So there's more unknown there. uh from a diversion uh impacts uh perspective because you're only tolling the additional capacity and you're also further upgrading uh the general purpose lanes. We wouldn't anticipate seeing any uh material diversion impacts to the local roadway network as a result of tolling the express lanes. Uh bonus allocation, you can see in scenario four, we would still anticipate the full 100 million. Obviously, in scenario three, the standalone projects, something significantly less than that likely. Uh legislative needs because we're not tolling all of the lanes. we're only tolling uh the additional capacity. Uh we would not need that uh legislative uh carveout for tolling of existing capacity but in the system approach we would still need the the carveout for allowable uses of revenues. So turning to uh the diversion analysis because again I know there's a lot of interest on the impact of toll diversion on the local roadway network. Um I think uh it's important to to to note a couple of things. Um one is uh the impact of toll diversion on the local roadway network really depends on what the alternate scenario is. So you can see as part of our analysis we looked at three cases. Um the first case being uh upgrading uh Capitol Boulevard the proposed project uh and tolling it. So build toll. Uh the second case upgrading Capitol Boulevard the same project but as a non-told facility. So build no toll. And then case three of course um making no improvements to Capitol Boulevard. So uh the no build scenario essentially as Capitol Boulevard currently exists today. From a TNR perspective when we are looking at revenue forecasting obviously to toll diversion um is a negative impact to revenue. So we are looking at it um from a we're taking a conservative approach to diversion because the last thing we want is to get to uh the end of this go to financing and investment grade traffic and revenue study and all of a sudden we're seeing the revenues that we forecast be reduced you know 10 20 30% we're not able to deliver what we uh had uh intended to deliver or promised to deliver. Um I think the other kind of key consideration uh with with respect to diversion as it relates to the traffic and revenue work that we completed um that bullet number three we do assume that all other local roadway network improvements that have been identified in long-range transportation plans are completed regardless of funding commitment status. So that means if in the longrange transportation plan there's a widening of falls of noose in 2040, we have to assume that that takes place because again if the local roadway network is improved from a toll revenue perspective that would likely have a negative impact on revenues. So we don't want to be overstating our revenue forecast as a result. Um and then just lastly here um if the project were to move forward as a told facility certainly additional traffic analysis would need to be completed as part of uh the NEPA reevaluation process. And if that process identified additional improvements uh that were needed as part of this that would be in incorporated into the project at that point. Uh but just high level what were the findings of our toll diversion analysis? Um we looked at model year 2040 because I think that's representative of the overall forecast. Um not surprisingly in an upgraded scenario either as a toll facility or a non-told facility you would expect to see average uh throughrip travel times on Capitol Boulevard reduce significantly. And that's exactly what we saw. Um we would anticipate in 2040 uh through trips on Capitol Boulevard to be reduced by more than 20 uh by more than 40% and either a told or a non-told scenario. Uh similarly, in either uh scenario that includes an upgraded Capitol Boulevard, you would expect to see travel times through trip travel times during the peak period on Capitol Boulevard. um when compared to alternate facilities. So looking at the map over there on the right, uh not intended to be a complete picture of the analysis, but instead just a representation of several of the major alternate routes that were analyzed. Um you would expect to see travel times on Capitol Boulevard um reduced by more than half when compared to a local alternate route. So, for example, you would expect to be able to make a through trip um on Capitol Boulevard from 98 business to I540 in less than half the time it would take on Falls of Noose or 401 Ligan Mill. Um when looking at the local roadway network, again, this is where it really matters what your alternate case that you're comparing against um comes into play. So looking at case one, a scenario where Capitol Boulevard is upgraded as a toll facility um during peak periods, uh we would anticipate seeing some toll diversion um when compared against a scenario where Capitol Boulevard is otherwise upgraded as non-told. Not surprising there is some folks would certainly choose to take an alternate route as opposed to to paying the toll. What that means generally speaking, however, is that you would see travel times increased uh on local alternate routes by less than one minute. So potentially a trip on Falls of Noose could take one minute more uh in a scenario where Capital Boulevard is told versus not. That said, if you are comparing a told Capitol Boulevard, a scenario where a Capital Boulevard is upgraded as told uh against a scenario where no improvements are made on Capitol Boulevard, generally speaking, the local roadway network performs at similar or better levels. Um obviously again with uh the significant improvement that you would see on US1. So you would not anticipate seeing in that scenario a significant change in travel times on Falls when comparing the told the build scenario against a no build scenario. So I know I ran through that um relatively quickly just again uh to summarize the diversion analysis you know from a local roadway network perspective um comparing a build to told scenario against the no build scenario. Local roadway network performs very similarly when comparing a build told against a no build told scenario or no told a build no told scenario. Um you would anticipate to see some diversion impact. Uh that said, all of the segments that were studied did remain within the planned capacity despite seeing some increased traffic volumes. Generally speaking, what that equates to is around a minute or less of additional travel time on the alternate facilities. And then when looking at potential ways to mitigate those impacts, uh generally speaking, again, those impacts could be mitigated by simply accelerating already planned improvements to the uh local roadway network that are included in the local transportation plans. And then again finally if if this were to move forward as a toll facility uh an additional traffic analysis would be required uh before the project could move forward as part of the NEPA revaluation process and if there were other improvements that were identified at that time they would need to be incorporated in the project. Um so just quickly in summary overall um again you know tolling in North Carolina is a local decision. The department the turnpike authority are not advocating for a particular path forward. Uh we were requested to perform this analysis and support Campo in their decision-making process, but ultimately it is the locals that know what is best for their region and will make that decision. Um again, we looked at four different scenarios as part of this process. Uh three of the four that were analyzed did um show that they could likely provide some f flexibility and accelerated uh delivery schedule when compared against the current draft stip. Um, three of those four scenarios would also still likely require some legislative action before they could move forward. I know we've talked a lot about the diversion analysis, but again, you know, our role in this process is really to support Campo in the analysis and understanding the options uh so that they can uh move forward with the decision-making process to determine what's best for the region and and uh for the locals. I think that is me. Um certainly happy to take any questions or can turn it back over to Chris to close it out. Right. Thank you very Yes. And please just a couple more things. Um the Campo Executive Board is um requested public and stakeholder feedback to help inform a potential decision at their May 21st meeting. So a little over a month from now. Um we began online and inerson uh outreach efforts. Um here's just a summary of of those activities. I just want to draw a particular note to April 30th uh Abbottz Creek Community Center. there'll be a public drop-in session from 5:00 to 7:00 and May 5th at uh the Wake Forest Renaissance Center uh again from 5:00 to 7:00. Um and you know, if there's anything that that you all can do to get the word out um to the rest of the city, to the neighbors, to folks in the in the corridor who use the corridor, um we really want everyone to have the opportunity to provide their input. There's a QR code for you, uh publicinput.com/us1 tolling options. uh you can learn more about a lot of what we talked about today as well as take the online survey and that's all we have that back up uh maybe there go yep thanks before I know we'll have questions just one more so the just to be clear so this is the campo executive board's decision they are hoping to vote on May 21st is there in addition to all of these avenues and and opportunities. Is there an email for the Campo Executive Board so that folks can email those members? Yes. So the um we we have a public comment email. You can actually link to it through this website. Uh and there's also I think an online comment form and that actually I think it does generate an email that comes to us but yes great. Thank you. Okay. So now I will open it up for questions for anyone. Yes, definitely. Thank you for the information and presentation. My question is as you talked about alternative routes and if you have to make improvements depending on the NEPA um findings and and and other avenues, is there a possibility? Does this rogue would it qualify for bonus allocation funding um like 540 does for any improvements as well? Uh if if it were um to become a toll project, yes. and and you saw based on which option we might go with, the amount of of bonus allocation might be a little bit different. Uh so that bonus allocation could be used for some of those corridors um that might be impacted u by diversion. Um if if it wasn't needed there, then it it could be used in in other areas. The Campo does have a bonus allocation um policy. Um we had to create one once we got bonus allocation from the 540 project. Uh so um David had mentioned that uh if if we do move forward with the tolling options um they would conduct a an additional um traffic analysis that would result likely in additional um alternate route uh improvements particularly likely intersection improvements that the project would have to pay for. Uh I would view bonus allocation as something that would go beyond that um and and we could identify. There are some limitations on bonus allocation. It has to be used for roadway projects. uh we can't use it for transit or bike bed um specifically but it can be you know if you're widening a road you can add sidewalk as a part of that project for example. Uh so we would we would look to see okay what is the full project that needs to be done and then beyond that what it what do we need to do or what what could we do with that bonus allocation. Okay thank you um councelor Patton and then silver. Sure. Um, so I I think the profile of the people using this road varies depending on where they live on the corridor. And I certainly understand why there is momentum from our neighbors to the north to like figure out how they can zip their residents to the job centers as quickly as possible with as little friction as possible. The residents I represent live in town and use this as a local street. you know, this is how they get to their schools and their grocery stores and their churches. And um so I am getting a lot of constrnation from my residents about the idea of tolling the road that they have no other option to use. And if you go to that slide that shows Falls of the Noose and um 401, there's a lot of neighborhoods inside. Perfect. There's a lot of neighborhoods inside of that negative space that that you know the people coming from Youngsville and Wake Forest will be able to make a choice based on their individual situation whether which of those southbound routes they they choose but the residents living in in these spaces don't have the cross access. They can't just there are not as many options to cut across and choose Falls of the Newor 401. Um, so I think they're in a bit more of a precarious spot. So, first, can you speak to options for residents in that type of scenario like service roads and stuff? Yeah, I'm I'm glad you asked that question. So, uh, when last year when we looked at this corridor and and started the the discussion about potentially, you know, being converted to a toll, uh, facility, one of the things that we talked about was the the current project design for U5307 A through D. um uh remain um a and as much of the US1 corridor study that that has been adopted be incorporated into it. And so that includes um all of the um what we call frontage and backage roads. I think you would call that a service road. Um that is in the current design of U5307 uh as well as some other bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Um a permanent additional bridge I think on the east side over the Noose River for example. So, a lot of that local access and and ability to to use the corridor for local trips would still be there. Uh, and those access roads, those frontage and backage roads would not be told. Uh, just that main line is what would be told. Okay. Um, and then so I mean, I'll just speak for my residents. I think a lot of them will be happy to just cancel the project and and go with a status quo option, but I imagine I'm going to represent their voices. I imagine they're in the minority and the momentum is not in that direction right now. Um, oh, sorry, one one additional question I had before I go to comments. Um, was there any talk of doing like a partially told segment that the that the toll would cut off at Burlington Mills or something where the sort of character changed a little bit to the more urban environment? So, I want to make sure I understand your question. Your your question is would there be say tolls north of Burlington Mills but not south of Burlington? Was there any discussion of considering that like tolling north of the city basically? No. I mean I I think we looked at how how do you get the full project accomplished and I think part of the challenge here is we aren't looking for a project to go toll, right? I think everyone probably agree if we can get something not told we would take it. And I think the real issue came in with this being the fifth delay to this project and seeing the sort of the writing on the wall that our region saw in the early 2000s with 540 and saying well do we want to wait two more years for what is most likely another delay to the project and another delay and another delay. And so that's why I think it was really important to look at these scenarios to compare them not just the toll versus no toll because that's not really what what the question before us is. It's if we are going to go without tolls then we are going to trust that this project will be delivered on time and if it's not then say by 2040 we may still not have any improvements out there and continued growth and continued congestion uh in that corridor which in and of itself is a toll. Um, so you know, I think that looking at the the difference between toll and no toll is important, but also looking at either of those compared to a no build situation, which is very likely given the continued trend of delays in the state tip, not just for this project, but many of the projects in our region and a lot of projects all throughout the state. Understood. And so then just comments um from for my colleagues who will have to carry our voice to to the Campo board. um is that I you know if we never ran another urban highway through the city I think that that'd be fine but uh it seems like again that's not the momentum of the direction the moment momentum is in. I do think the express lanes is not great. I think it adds concrete and I think it's confusing to residents. I think we can imagine residents getting stuck in those lanes and not knowing how to get out. So I don't think that's um the ideal scenario. There was a letter issued by our staff to NC DOT staff that made a series of requests for um bike ped improvements and um cross cross access that um supports our city's internal policies. Um, I also think right now this plan, the U5307 plan calls for bus on shoulder and I think we can do better. And so if we're going to make the decision to toll, I'd ask that our that the Campo Executive Board take that letter into consideration, do the betterments that were requested by the city and figure out what's the ratchet up option from Bus on Shoulder for to make sure we don't preclude future transit opportunities. So, that's a great um point and and I think to that point, one of the things that we asked was when they looked at this project, toll or not, um if it's the express lane option, that that's a little more problematic from a BRT extension uh um scenario, but an all toll or no toll. Um being able to repurpose the median um in the future. Um, so it wouldn't be probably done as part of the project either way, but having the space and having everything designed to accommodate future BRT in that corridor to to extend that north BRT corridor further north over time. That is that is a consideration that we've asked for already. Thank you. All right. Well, Chris, first thank you for the presentation. It was a lot uh to digest. The point I want to make one is that you know Campo represents a look at the metropolitan region. This is part of a metropolitan system and with our growth coming whether it's looking to the south of Johnson County or Franklin County we have to stay connected and uh whether we like it or not uh cars and vehicles is part of that mobility equation. So from my perspective I'm very concerned about the delays. I won't rehash comments I made at a previous council meeting about the cost of delays and how much it buys us. Uh and I think also that we all know that uh road infrastructure is probably the most heavily subsidized infrastructure on the face of the planet. And so to look at a model that looks at tolling uh to me is the right way to go. I think you already suggested um the benefits that it buys you, the predictability about how you can build this sooner. Um I do agree uh about having additional facilities, but I wouldn't want those betterments to hold up this project any further because thinking about some additional facilities could add another $70 million to the project. So I do think it's something we could think of long term. It's very consistent with Campo and how they think about mobility options. But I think as we grow into the future uh to avoid more delays of seeing this project approach $3 billion, uh we have some issues we have to deal with with regional mobilities uh for people to travel through and end the capital city and beyond. And so uh while it may be uh painful for some, I think that we adapt to it over time. I think the tolling of all, not the express, uh, is a way of starting to build out a system that is sorely needed. What I'm gratified is that this goes to 540. I know there's another study south of 540. Uh so we don't know what that facility was going to look like, but in order to provide some relief of people who cannot afford to live in Raleigh and want to live in surrounding counties, uh that this may be a fair tradeoff in order for them to travel through the region, get home so they can spend more time with their families, but it'll come, I think, at a marginal cost. So, I know you're not polling each of this was information only, but from my perspective, I do this see as an important part of our regional transportation system uh to ensure that we're able to handle some of the growth and provide more options of affordable places for those that cannot be able to afford living in the city of Raleigh. So, that's just my uh comment, but again, I'm very concerned about further delays. And I heard you very carefully. You didn't get into detail about what those five delays were all about, but I can see how frustrating that is. having a few more conversations, you know, that what's the value if we say, "Hey, can you give me $40 million for public engagement?" And they say, "I would I can't we can't afford that." Well, that's built into the process. And so, I'm hoping, however this conversation goes on May 21st, the public now has an opportunity to weigh in. But my hope is that whatever decision is made, we move quickly so we can at least control those costs to bring this needed facility to the public. Are there other questions or comments? Do you all need further feedback from the city council? Yeah. So, uh, mayor, I know you had asked me a question a couple of weeks ago, and I went back and looked and and even for 540 when that was converted, um, uh, ultimately Campo is the entity for the region, for the locals that needs to to cast that vote, if you will. Um, but at that time, I think many of the local jurisdictions provided either a letter or a resolution to Campo to show the support for that vote. Uh so if you all are inclined to do that um please do so by May 21st or or shortly thereafter. Okay. Yep. I can work with the city manager. And I think I mean just for those listening that I think the sense is pragmatically that this project will never get built unless there is some sort of toll and that if there is a toll it would be better to just do the whole road and not express lanes. I think you heard that from several people uh already today. So, those were the internal discussions knowing that Campo makes the ultimate decision, but we can work with the city manager and um send some sort of feedback to the executive board. Thank you. Can I just add what council member Patton said? I I do agree with, but I wouldn't want the planning of the bicycle and pedestrian to hold up the project, but that's something should be thought about over time as that's being built out. So, we know that there are some alternatives to connectivity, but not something where let's wait another year to see how that works it out. Campo should start thinking now about how we could start or the city of Raleigh could start to augment some of those other choices. I'd like that to at least be I would just offer if we do ultimately go down the tolling route. Uh it would probably be a year or two in time, but um once we know and we're having the conversations about any bonus allocation, we'd be happy to come back and talk to you about that. Well, and then just a second. I've appreciated all of uh councelor Patton's thoughtful comments and this whole cross, right? We don't the last thing you want to do is build another Capitol Boulevard or Western Boulevard that creates this huge division of community. Um so as the if this does go forward, the city of Raleigh is incumbent on us to think about that now. Yeah. All right. All right. Thank you. So the next item um is a continuation of our efforts to support affordable housing. We have Annie Balman Mitchell here that's going to talk to us about joint venture rental development funding opportunities. Good afternoon, mayor and council. Annie Balman Mitchell with Housing and Neighborhoods. I'm very excited to be here today to discuss our rental development gap financing recommendations. We're going to provide a brief overview of our rental development program. We'll talk about the projects that we're recommending and we will end with our funding recommendations for council's consideration. Like to start out just by talking a little bit about rental development in general. When we really think about rental development, the cost to build and operate a property is what sets the rents. A major component of that is the development costs which are put forth then for ongoing payments. And the development costs are made of main three different components. You're going to have your hard costs which are going to have their fixed interest rates set forth by the general market. They're going to have um less flexible terms. You're going to have your equity investments from different investors. And you'll have soft costs which are more flexible and have lower interest rates. And that's where the city comes in. Speaking primarily about affordable housing specifically, the low-income housing tax credit is the primary mechanism through which affordable units are developed around the country that this program is responsible for approximately 80 to 90% of the units. As you can see from these two different examples, when you're looking at market rate units, they have a high amount of hard debt and those debt service payments throughout the lifetime of the project increase the rents. Whereas in tax credit developments, you're going to see a combination of tax credit equity, gap financing that is in the form of soft debt, which is the city's role, and along with a lower amount of hard debt, which reduces the amount of rent that has to be charged. For the city's program specifically, we look at a set of criteria when we're evaluating the applications. We primarily focus on financial feasibility. We want to see the likelihood of the project for moving forward. We take into consideration the development quality, the developer experience, and the location of the project. For the location of the project, we look at the affordable housing location policy along with its proximity to other existing affordable developments. We also provide bonus points for preservation projects, uh projects that provide deeper income targeting, projects with additional sustainability efforts, and senior housing. We also added one additional requirement to our notice of funding availability this year, which requires projects to set aside 5% of their units for referrals from city sponsored programs such as the bringing neighbors home pilot or any additional future programs. While we understand these units aren't going to be available and online for a couple of years, the goal is to set up a pipeline of units that are set aside for city referrals. Additionally, I wanted to highlight that this year in the first round of GAP financing, we received an unprecedented response. We received 17 applications requesting $55 million when our NOA indicated we would have approximately $15 million. With the ongoing conversations we've had with developers and the response that we received from our first round of NOA applications, we anticipate an increased level of gap financing requests in the future. Here you can see a map of the proposed projects. You'll notice that two of the projects, Groner Gardens and Heritage Park, are in the affordable housing opportunity areas. Three projects, Fiser Grove, Chapenoke, and Garner Station meet the transportation exception to our location policy given that they are within half a mile of a future BRT stop or a current stop that um has frequent transit. And the Builtmore Hills development is a preservation project, so that meets another exception to our location policy. As I mentioned, Builtmore Hills is a preservation project. This development was originally purchased in 2024 using the Wake Affordable Housing Preservation Fund in an effort to keep these units affordable. This development received an award from Raleigh Housing Authority of 25 project-based vouchers and is going to be developed by Preservation of affordable housing, a nonprofit developer focused on housing preservation. The Chapenoke development is going to be a 200 unit uh new construction project that's going to be serving households up to 70% of the median income. This site is on county owned land and they will execute a land lease with Wake County ensuring long-term affordability. The Fiser Grove project is uh created by DHIC and this will be a new construction family project serving households up to 60% of the area median income. And this will be the final stage stage of the Washington terrace development. Groner Gardens will be developed by CASA. This de development was originally purchased in 2022 using the wake affordable housing preservation funds and additional city acquisition dollars. As you'll see here, there are four units that are not going to be officially rent restricted. Picassa has indicated their intention to market those at affordable market rates. In addition to the seven supportive units and the three units set aside for city referrals, CASA has entered into a grant agreement with Alliance Health and they will be setting aside 10 units for Alliance referrals as well. Garner Station Apartments is going to be new construction of 141 family units serving households up to 70% of the area median income. This the Atlantic Housing Foundation is a nonprofit developer who has developed sites across the southeast. They are going to be partnering with the National Alliance on Mental Illness and Passage Homes to provide specialized supportive services for their residents and they'll have eight referral units set aside for the city. And finally, we have Heritage Park Senior. This is going to be the first phase of the larger Heritage Park redevelopment initiative which is going to be on 11 acres of land owned by the Raleigh Housing Authority. Once complete, the Heritage Park redevelopment project will create a thousand units of mixed income housing along with many additional amenities and commercial space. All of the units in this site will receive project-based vouchers. As shown here, you can see a breakdown of the available funding sources we have for our GAP financing awards in 2025. You'll note that the recommendations for these six projects will use the vast majority of our funds that we have for this year. Um, I would just like to note that if council moves forward with recommending with authorizing these recommendations, we will not have sufficient funds for an additional round of financing in 2025. And with that, I would like to request council's authorization to provide conditional commitment letters of $17,280,000 for the six rental developments which will provide 670 rental units. That's everything and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Questions? Not just a question, just if you can just share um the 9% are usually state competitive. So if that does not if it's not approved by the state, what happens to the money that we set aside for it? Correct. So all of our um commitments are conditioned upon the projects receiving their tax credit aotment and other financing to move forward. So that's why when we're coming to you all today, we're not bringing a budget memo um because we want to confirm the projects are actually receiving their tax credit awards. If the site does not receive their allocation in August, sometimes um they would have to reapply for the following year. So we would have access to those funds again. We include that language in our conditional commitment letters. Okay. Thank you for that sharing that information. And I also would say thank you. This is a mix of preserving and new. Um, and I think that's very key that we preserve a lot of what that we do have. Definitely. I just have a comment. I don't know if you were here earlier. Uh, again, these all seem to be great projects. I was just questioning uh when we went back to the selection criteria. I noticed although uh the top one was financial suitability uh location was 20, but it was pushed all the way down. And so I was informed earlier there is a policy that drove that 20 points and there are exemptions as you stated made. So just for awareness I was just curious about some of the other projects in other locations throughout the city that I'm sure people desire to live in but it just did not make the location criteria. So just for awareness I asked for a little bit more on that specific policy that drove that criteria to be at the 20 points but that's it. Otherwise these all seem to be great projects. I'm always curious about those that were not selected, but this is what's before us to vote on. Perfect. And we'll be sure and get you that information. Other questions? All right. Is there a motion? Move for approval. Second. Okay. All in favor of the motion? I I. All opposed. Thank you for all the work. Thank you so much. Awesome. And next, I'd like to introduce the newest member of our management team. our family continues to grow. Um, and so council will be excited about um the introduction of Miss Demetria Jones who is our intergovernmental and external affairs manager. For years, we've talked about creating an internal legislative agenda. This will be at the forefront of what Miss Jones will do. She comes to us um as a graduate of UNC Charlotte, a graduate of UNC MPA program, and for those legal eagles at the table, um North Carolina Central Law School. So, Jonathan's not Oh, there he is. Um and she did some significant policy work up under Governor Cooper's administration and most recently um statewide policy work for the League of Municipalities. So, um, I'll present to you Miss Demetria Jones. I'm not sure. Oh, thank you. Um, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to say anything, but just wanted to greet you all and say hello. I'm super excited to be working with each and every one of you. I know I've met some of you before in my previous capacities, but thrilled to be here with the city of Raleigh. Thank you. Welcome. Yes. And lastly, she came back. She started yesterday, so she's back. So, that's a good sign. Um, we didn't run her off on the first day. Um, just um, as a personal point of privilege, I want to really give a shout out to my team. Um, last weekend, we were able to pull off um, the unimaginable. Um, when we really think about how the Dreamville Music Festival has um, morphed into something that's kind of put Raleigh on the map. And there are a couple of departments that are directly involved, but there are many departments across the city that touch this festival from permitting to public safety to making sure that the the stages meet code and everything and all in between. And so I'd like to say that although this was the fifth and final iteration of Dreamville the way that we know it, I promised you I was going to work really hard to bring it back and it's coming back. And so we're already starting to have those conversations um right now. But we had a record number of attendees on Sunday. We had 53,357 scans and those are unique scans into the park on Sunday. So just a shout out to not only the Dreamville team and Jay Cole and for all that he's done, but to the city of Raleigh staff and the greater larger Raleigh community who who has made this event really successful. And so again, we will be looking like looking forward to what it looks like for the next four years as we are fully committed, but there are many in this room who deserves a a thanks as well. Well, and I'll just second thank you city manager for negotiating the next round of this so that we can continue the dream. Yes. and also as as you already noted Jay Cole for his vision and investment in his home state um in Raleigh of course also Fatville was represented there but um the fact that he brought so many incredible names to this city and what I mean just such a loving sort of inclusive environment um an incredible weekend for the city. So thank you. So I'm going to work with the mayor and we're going to do a thank you event. um she she asked and so we're going to put together something to acknowledge all the work behind the scenes. And I will close with Miss Octavia, I am feeling some kind of way, right? You didn't give me a purple t-shirt and and so I always come when you call. I always come. I always do the things. You didn't give me You didn't give me a purple t-shirt, but James got a purple t-shirt over here, but I don't. Okay. Y'all going to get me a t-shirt? Okay. What' you think? I didn't say I was giving 300,000. I just said I want a t-shirt. Let me be clear. Let me be clear. If that t-shirt cost 300,000, um, I will borrow James, right? We can swap off. All right, that concludes my report today. Thank you. All right. Uh, next we have report and recommendation of the design review commission. And we have Keegan McDonald and Will Gaskins. Good afternoon. Uh, Keegan McDonald. I'm I'm with Planning and Development. I am the land development manager. I'm here standing in for my colleague Casey Evans. She's the primary liaison to the design review commission. Does the vast majority of the work. Um, and she spent a great deal of time with the design review commission putting together this annual report for you all which covers calendar year of 2024 and then also their work plan for the upcoming fiscal year. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to the chair Will Gaskins who will provide you with this presentation. Good afternoon. As Keegan said, I'm Will Gaskins with chair of the design review commission. I know there's a lot of items on the agenda today, so I'll be judicious. to have our full report and the agenda materials today and I'm happy to take questions at the end on that. First like to start with some thank yous. Casey Evans, our primary staff leaison with the planning department as well as the entire planning department transportation staff. Um they spend a lot of time with us including late into the evenings on Thursdays as well as our council leaison mayor Pum uh port. Thank you. Quick reminder on the role. There we go. the role of the commission. So the design review commission this past year transitioned from the appearance commission to the design review commission. We primarily review design alternates. Um so we function as both a quasi judicial and an advisory board. And within that quasi judicial capacity, we review those design alternates and what is like a judicial hearing. Here's a look at our case distribution over the past year. uh well that you can't really see where that is, but uh a map that's not so washed out is in our actual report. Uh we had 13 cases, 37 design alternate requests. Uh this is a somewhat typical distribution of our our primary design alternate requests typically are transparency with screening being a second request. Terms of some of the trend review, I'm going to skip over these two items. Um those are items that were in last year's report and recommendation as well. Those continue to be items that we routinely see uh and our recommendations stand there. New this year is a recommendation as well as a trend here that we'll note of increasingly are seeing self- storage facilities. Um and where these self- storage facilities are being suggested are in places that are prominent and highly visible and they often trigger a number of design alternate requests. Um so we're not certain if that um may be appropriate or is the intent there. Um and also due to the what the design review commission reviews is intent versus uh what's proposed here in terms of visual interests and other things when it comes to transparency. And so in a number of cases when it comes to self-service facilities specifically, we kind of go counter in terms of intent where the intent would be to increase the visual interest to add architectural detail and other things. And that's not always what we would like to see when it comes to self-s storage facilities. Sometimes we'd rather have the facilities blend in or there to be more landscaping, that type of thing, which isn't expressly the intent um that we're holding that and reviewing that against. So recommendation here is simply uh further consider limiting location of those self-s storage facilities or look at uh through zoning or look at other use specific requirements for self- storage facilities to limit their use in highly visible locations. Here's a look at uh the last year in terms of the case load over the year. Uh I think last uh last year I was in front of you guys in May. So we're right on the tail end of a couple of months where we had declining case load. That trend totally reversed through the back half of the year. So that ramped up and now into 2025 we had a very steady slate with between one and I think we had five cases on the agenda last month. So uh that trend has changed. In terms of commission attendance we have got a full commission of 15 commission members, nine regular members, six alternate. Uh unfortunately we've had four regular members that have turned over in the last couple of months. So that's brought a little bit of an acute need for recruitment on our part. Um we haven't had any instances of not having quorum because we do have those um alternate members but that's definitely a high priority for us is keeping that uh membership high that allows us to you know review cases in an expeditious manner. Uh this past year we held our annual design sir Walter Raleigh awards. Uh that event was in September at Raleigh Union Station. We for those that have never attended that event it's a really good evening. We typically have 150 plus people in attendance. A number of commission members are often able to attend. The mayor often gives remarks at that event. We give out awards for community appearance across a number of categories. Uh and I've we've included some pictures here, but there's more pictures and visuals as well as the full list of award winners in the packet. Uh also the commission does projects which we call legacy projects where we help provide cap or seed funding to some kind of one-off projects that help contribute to the visual character of the city. So uh oftentimes these are really fun innovative projects like for example uh this past year we worked with NCATE and skate Raleigh in order to deploy these uh shade movable shade structures and this was a design build project with NC State students. So that was a just further level of value add there. We also helped contribute to the Commerce Place project through an artist and residence program. Um, again contributing to kind of a new template and design for the street in that location. Uh, we just held our annual retreat at the Crowder Woodland Center this past month. And now looking ahead to work plan items for this year. Uh, the the biggest one which I've highlighted here as new is the new streetscape plan review. So this will be an entirely new process that the city has where the commission will be operating similar to the planning commission operating in an advisory capacity where whether there is a streetscape plan request either to amend an existing streetscape plan or for the creation of a new streetscape plan. Uh those requests will come to the design review commission. We will then make a recommendation to council. Um so you would have the the chair here likely in some capacity similar to how planning commission comes uh to provide some comment on that. Uh we anticipate the first one of those cases to come this summer with some additional ones behind that. Uh looking at legacy projects, I I'll say PSA to those that may be watching the audience, we're currently looking for additional legacy projects for this year. So if there's project out there that could use an additional 5 to$10,000 in kind of gap financing within that space, uh predominantly in the placemaking space, uh we're looking for those projects. One of the things as we're looking to how our peer communities do this type of thing is Charlotte actually has a really interesting similar program called their placemaking grant that they run through their urban design center. Very similar structure about5 to $25,000 that they give out to an individual project. A little bit larger pot of money. Um but it's again kind of that seed or gap financing for projects like this in the placemaking space, murals, uh things that contribute to the visual character of the city, that type of thing. So as we move forward, we'd love to, you know, be able to pull some elements from that from a standardization of that process from an equitability perspective and distribution across the city, just kind of standardizing that process uh to provide some more consistency there. So would love feedback on that um in that in terms of that direction. And then lastly, looking ahead to 2025, Sir Walter Raleigh Awards, the call for submissions just went out this week. So you may have received an email about it. Uh we added one new category this year which is master plan as a new category for submission of awards. That event is coming up in September later this year. So when I've got the final date, I'll be sure to send that around and invite um all council to that. And like I said, the nominations are open. Now I will say this, I believe is the first year since I've been on the commission. Uh we've held this event at Ply Union Station for all of the past number of years. is the first year we've been notified that we would not receive a waiver there in terms of the fee for rental. So, we are unless that's something that can be revisited, we'll be looking for a new location for that event. And I'll pause there for any questions. Questions for Mr. Gaskins? Yep. Well, I know you've got some vacancies and we're talking about some of the criteria. Do you want to share that with the council in terms of what the backgrounds would be that you know would be necessary or not necessarily necessary but would be impactful for service on the board? Sure. So because the commission operates largely as a quad judicial where we have a need for high degree of expertise in a particular area uh architects and landscape architects are where we have the highest degree of overlap with the types of design alternate requests that receive. Um, beyond that, anyone with experience in kind of commercial development is greatly helpful with the commission. Uh, things like transportation engineer, uh, includes like driveway spacing, uh, that type of thing that may be outside of maybe architecture, landscape architecture, as well as, um, land use attorney, anything kind of in the commercial real estate adjacent space. And then lastly, just understanding the time commitment. So, the commission's typically two to three hours per month. We meet on the first and third Thursdays in the evening. Um but it's not uncommon that we would go late into the evening to be able to review the case load. So thank thank you for opportunity to speak more on that. All right. Absolutely. Yeah. Councelor Pat. Yeah. This um might not be a question for you will but I'm I'm c caught your uh mention that you gave us some trends last year that remain to the trends now and that there might be opportunity to consider modifications to the to the code to attend to these trends and then so it sounds like the transparency one is the trend that is carrying over and then this self- storage one is is a new recommendation from your group. Um, I guess I'm wondering like I would hate for you to make recommendations and then we just never do anything with them. Like what is need I'm looking at planning stuff or the manager I'm not sure what like what what would be a next step if we wanted to say like let's think about what text changes come out of these trends. Yeah. Good afternoon. Pat Young, Planning and Development. Yeah, as I mentioned in response to council member Silver's question earlier, this is a great example of area that we can and should look at ways to consolidate um what's currently uh quasi judicial procedure into administrative standards. So we will work with our team um uh to and the design review commission to really do a deep dive on these cases, look at what criteria or requirements would be appropriate and then uh very possibly bring you some recommended changes to the code possibly through an omnibus possibly through a change a standalone based on the extent of the change. Got it. Okay. So you don't need any action from usction at this time. Thank you. Okay, council. Well, thank you for the presentation. Um, are most of the projects you look at, uh, public sector projects or you get to look at public I'm sorry, private sector projects or do you get to look at public sector projects as well? Uh, majority would definitely be private sector though we do see the majority of the public sector projects as typically city projects I would say. So the civic example within the last two years as well as redat amphitheater more recently. Okay. Thank you. And I would just say thank you first for for being on this uh committee with the amount of hours you just described and then how are you working with the arts around placemaking of course downtown Raleigh Alliance around placemaking how much cross fertilization is there? Sure. So specifically with Raleigh Arts they're a great partner when it comes to things like this legacy project work where um especially helpful in getting the word out for us and being partners in that space. We do try to collaborate with other commissions across departmentally within the city. So going back to even our um Sir Walter Raleigh Awards for the last two years, we've worked with the Raleigh Historic Development Commission to be able to give out plaques um during that event as well to be able to combine forces in in that regard. That's great. Yeah. Okay. Do we need to approve a work plan? Okay. Do you want to I'll make a motion to approve the work plan. Okay. Second. All right. All in favor of the motion, I. All opposed. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Okay. Next, we have the Parks, Recreation, and Greenway Advisory Board. And we have Troy Burton here. Hello. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Troy Burton with Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources. And today I'm acting on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Greenway Advisory Board. Uh you have in your packet a proposal to rename the John P. Top Green Community Center to the John P. Top Green African-American Cultural Park. Um, and as as you know, the Raleigh voters passed a bond in 2022 identifying Top Green as one of the projects that would be uh utilized for bond funding. As part of that process, uh, our department transitioned the management of the park from our recreation division into our resources division. Of course, I represent historic resources and museums within resources. And so we are now moving forward with plans to adaptively reuse the space. Um part of that project scope is a renovation of the existing community center uh as well as an expansion with a new multi-purpose building uh site stormwater improvements, park improvements, um expanded exhibits, studio space, uh also I would just identify as a as a history nerd here, collection space to manage our artifacts. It will be our third uh space of that sort in the program with with conditioned uh space for our material culture collection. So, we're very excited about that. And it'll also act as the trail head to the South Park Heritage Trail. Um the bond budget uh scope is in there with $9.25 million. There's a public art component of 220,000. And you just a couple of slides here just showing the uh the schematic design where we are now in that [Music] process as well as some artist renderings of what the potential work would look like as we move towards project completion. And then just some more design drawings showing some of those schematic looks of the of the two buildings and how they speak to each other. And then a little bit of a schematic design plan of the scope of the existing building in front as well as the new proposed expansion in back. And then that corridor between the two spaces acting as that trail head for the South Park Heritage Trail. And then of course here's a proposed route of the South Park Heritage Trail. It's also a component of the project uh not in the the top green project proper but another bond program within the PRCR bond portfolio uh that is operating on its own uh timeline with its own u uh project specifications and then here is for John Ptop Green just our uh project schedule right now as we initiated that design development phase the community came to us with a request to rename the center Since we were adaptively reusing it with the focus being more on interpretive use, uh we felt like the the name change was appropriate. Uh in your packet, you have the the initial citizen petition asking for that name change and then it went to our PRGAB board following our name resolution uh with the city 278. That's included in your packet as well. And then uh just finally a recommendation uh passed at the March 20th PRGAB meeting to for council to uh rename the both the park proper as well as the building on the campus. And so we come to you today asking for your consideration of that recommendation. And just for clarity, you said it will be renamed to the John P. Top Green African-American Cultural Center and African-American Cultural Park. That's correct. The park is the park proper. the campus. The building will be renamed as well to the John P. Top Green African-American Cultural Center. So, two changes in our nomenclature, but it's still the to get to the to the park as well as this the building space itself. Awesome. Questions or a motion? I'm ready for a motion if there's no questions from counselors. Um, I just want to thank your work, your continued work with the community and I want to thank the community members that have played a part in working with staff as well as the parks board on getting us to this day. Um, so with that being said, I approve the recommended name change to the John P. Top Green African-American Culture Park for campus and top and John P. Top Green African-American Cultural Center. Second. Okay. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor I I. All opposed. Thank you so much for all the work. It's exciting. Okay. Next, we have the report and recommendation of the Raleigh Historic Development Commission and we have Aaron Morton Pew with planning and development and Rob Allen, commission chair. Good afternoon. Aaron Morton Pew, Planning and Development. Um, we are here as the Historic Preservation Planning Unit in partnership with the Raleigh Historic Development Commission to present this completed project to you. Uh, a quick refresher for newer council members, this project was first authorized in late 2019. Uh, was completed in two phases with a pretty significant pause during the pandemic. Uh, and phase two began in earnest in July of last year. So, you can imagine we're very excited to be bringing this forward to you today. Um the report and summary for the project are attached in the agenda materials. They're also available to the public on the city's website. Um and just as a reminder, this is a presentation to be received as information only. There's no required vote or action from city council today. And I'll now recognize the RHCC chair, Rob Allen, who will present a much abridged version of this project and report. Thanks, Aaron. Good afternoon. I'm Rob Allen, chair with Raleigh Historic Development Commission. Um, thanks for your time this afternoon to present this project. We're excited, as Aaron mentioned. Um, I'll be as brief as I can. Uh, we've got a short agenda here. Um, just an update on the project schedule, the goals, and the deliverable for the project. Um, so this study has been going on for a while since 2019. Um it was paused due to the pandemic. Um but particularly for newer council members who may not be familiar with this work, uh we want to provide a refresher on the updated schedule and where we are in the project. Um phase 2 began with a consultant early in July 2024 and was recently completed. Prior to completion, a draft report was made available in October of 2024. Um, the consultant delivered the final draft to city staff in January of 2025 and the full compiled report and project summary were published uh formally in March 2025 and then at last month or last week's RHDC regular monthly meeting um we accepted the report. Um so uh moving on to the goals of the project, we had several goals for this project. Principally to identify and learn about places in Raleigh that are important to the history of the LGBTQIA+ community. Um we also want to provide a general history of the of Raleigh's LGBTQIA+ communities. Uh this report is uh is very thorough, but it's not meant to be a comprehensive social history. Um it's an overview that can be used to help contextualize individual places within Raleigh's larger story. Uh this study and report should be used as a building block uh for preparing uh individual landmark applications or informing other future projects. Um the consultant also provided a framework for evaluating landmark eligibility and this was important uh particularly for the cultural history aspect of these places which are not necessarily important because how they look or their architectural significance but their uh cultural importance to the LGBTQIA plus community um throughout Raleigh's history. Uh the consultant also proposed alternative ideas to recognize identified places. Um, this could be useful in recognizing places that may not qualify for historic landmark status. Um, some spaces may have been demolished or removed. Um, and then there are some instances where maybe a property owner is not interested in pursuing historic designation. Um, the consultant also provided recommendations for future study topics. So, our deliverables um, which you see here, we held five community meetings both virtual and person. Uh we conducted four online surveys asking people to identify uh significant places, spaces, and rank sites for additional research uh to weigh potential recognition programs and next steps. Uh we conducted eight oral histories. Um those recordings and transcripts are still being processed and will be available on the city's uh historic resources digital collection. the full reports that we've discussed previously and two appendices. Uh, one that contains a full list of all the places we learned about and were told about during the course of the research phase and one appendix document containing more than 20 uh more detailed site evaluations with photos and a map to determine potential landmark eligibility. Um and for next steps um in addition to pursuing local landmark designation uh with interested property owners um we uh recommended the report recommended uh potential actions, programs and future research um within the conclusion chapter of the full report. Uh the consult consultant's top three recommendations which align with public input received during the project include uh digital mapping of the identified places from the study historic uh physical historic markers preferably be to be paired with uh digital mapping tool. Um and then oral histories specifically to learn more about historic places connected to less well represented groups in the report findings. um such as uh women's groups, transgender and non-binary groups of people um as well as people of color. So that's a brief summary and um I'll be happy to take any questions. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Yep. I don't have any questions. I just want to say thank you for doing this work. I know it kicked off like five years ago, interrupted during the pandemic. Um, I recall, uh, meeting with staff about this when I was first elected in 2019. And the conversation we had was there's a lot of history that's just not written down, recorded, it's not marked. Um, particularly in this area where we're sitting right now. And, um, with all the change and development and growth, which is great, if we don't find some way to preserve it, we're going to lose it. Um, and so the folks that keep it now were the ones that lived it and have the memories. But when they're no longer with us, what happens? And um so I'm was really excited to read the report. I know we've had a few touch points. Um as you know, I know this is for information, but I would just ask if city manager if we could possibly have in a manager's update some followup on the um recommended items. Um on the um the project summary presentation, the last two slides have the top three recommendations and then a series of other recommendations. Um the one I'm particularly interested in is some of the um physical markers and um digital mapping. Uh you'll notice when you look at like the top 20 sites, um I would say probably at the third to half they're all marked former because they just don't exist anymore. And so some way to preserve that I think would be great. But if we could just get that as a followup in the manager's update, I think that would be good. Thank you. Yes, council Harrison. Yeah, I just want to say I'm grateful for this work and the effort to document Raleigh's history from supportive spaces like LGBT friendly churches, bars, clubs, and notable homes to critical leaders including political organizers, university students, and my favorite uh there is a gay uh horiculturalist society. Uh Raleigh does have a rich history and I just am so thankful that our residents can find connection and solidarity despite at times limiting mainstream social expectations. I'm proud to live in this city. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thanks. All right. Uh next we have matters scheduled for public hearing and the first is the federal 2026 the 2030 consolidated plan and the annual action plan. Um and we have Nicholas Doula from housing and neighborhoods. Hey good afternoon um mayor, city council city manager and good people of Raleigh. I'm Nicholas Doula from the housing neighbors department. I'll be giving you an overview of the 2026 through 2030 consolidated plan and 2025 through 2026 annual action plan to start our public hearing. Um and so we'll get started. The agenda for this presentation is uh I'll provide an overview of the consolidated plan and the annual action plan. I'll talk about the purpose of the public hearing. I'll also talk about federal and local funds included in the plan. I'll talk about goals and programs uh included in the plan as well. And then we'll talk about the consolidated planning process. The city creates the consolidated plan and annual action plan to describe how it will spend federal funds that it receives from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development or HUD. HUD provides uh three grants to the city each year for community development purposes. And as a requirement to receive those grants, we have to uh create a consolidated plan and annual action plan. The consolidated plan is a five-year plan that lays out the uh overall community development goals and strategies that the city will use. The annual action plan is a component of the consolidated plan and it talks about the programs and the projects that will be completed by the city each year of the consolidated plan. So the purpose of the hearing is to get u public input on the proposed goals, programs and funding in the consolidated plan and annual action plan. input helps us refine the plans uh and learn more about community needs. Uh during this public hearing, staff will record all of the comments from the speakers who participate in the hearing. And after the public hearing, we'll follow up with each speaker to to provide a written response to their comments. So, three goals drive the consolidated plan and annual action plan. Those goals are increase affordable housing options, uh increase housing, uh stabilization and supportive services, and prevent and reduce homelessness. Each program and all of the funding in uh the consolidated plan and annual action plan uh are connected to uh one of these goals. As mentioned before, the city receives federal funds from uh HUD and also invests uh local dollars into the uh consolidate plan annual action plan. During the 5-year consolidated planning period, the city uh expects to receive around $28.7 million from the community development block grant program or CDBG. Uh this 5-year allocation includes five one-year allocations of around uh $2.8 $.8 million in uh CDBG funding and also one-time allocation of around $14.2 million uh from the section 108 loan guarantee program. We also expect to receive around $7 million from the home uh investment partnerships program. Uh this includes five one-year allocations of around $1.3 million. The last federal grant that we receive is the emergency solutions grant and we expect to receive around $1.2 million uh from that program which includes uh five one-year allocations of around uh $250. Um as far as local funds uh we expect to receive around or expect to invest around 77.1 million uh into the programs and activities. This includes five one-year allocations of around about $11 million from the design uh designated affordable housing fund. Uh it also includes one uh one-year allocation around $14 million in affordable housing bond funds. This also includes five one-year allocations of around $1.3 million from the Human Services Agency grant. So next we'll talk about the programs, the goals, programs, and funding included in the FY2025 through 2026 annual action plan. The first goal is increase affordable housing options. The programs under that goal are housing rehabilitation. This is where we provide funding to homeowners to make improvements to their home to allow them to stay housed. Um als it also includes rental development where we provide funding to affordable housing developers to help them construct and rehabilitate multif family housing that will be used as affordable housing. Uh home buyer assistance uh helps home buyers cover the costs of down payments whenever they're purchasing a home. Uh site improvements are improvements to sites that have been um acquired uh to develop affordable housing. This uh program also includes um property acquisition as well. The funding uh for these projects include CDBG funds, home funds, and local funds. Uh the amounts listed on the slide are the uh level of funding budgeted u for next year's annual action plan. The next goal is increase housing uh stabilization and supportive services. Programs under that goal include the human services agency grant uh the community enhancement grant. Both of these grants are made to nonprofits that provide services to low and moderate income uh individuals and also includes a program of home buyer counseling. This program helps position um folks to purchase homes uh within the city. Uh these programs will be funded with the uh CDBG or community development block grant and also local funds. The last goal is to pre prevent and reduce homelessness. Um programs under this goal include uh homeless services grants which is funding provided to um uh nonprofits that um provide services to families and households uh experiencing homelessness. uh tenant-based rental assistance to help uh folks experiencing homelessness to secure housing and maintain housing and then also support for emergency shelters that serve uh individuals that are experiencing homelessness. Uh funding for these programs includes community development block grant, emergency uh solutions grants, home funds, and local funds. Next, this is an overview of our consolidated planning process. Um, back in October, we began uh conducting public meetings to learn more about community needs. We also um put out a public survey uh to that folks could respond to to tell us more about community needs as well. Uh in December, we had our first public hearing uh to get more information about community needs. Uh from December to February, we drafted the plan. Uh in March, we uh published our plan uh on the city website and we held public meetings to provide an overview of the plan uh to the public. Uh in April here today, we're doing our second public hearing to get comments on the plan that that has been proposed and then we hope to come back next month u with the final plan so that city council can adopt the plan. So as part of our community engagement, uh CC staff hosted or attended around 38 events. We were able to connect with uh 533 participants. Uh those events included festivals, community events, our public meetings. Um part of those events as well included uh stakeholder consultations. The consultations are with uh service providers, government agencies, private companies that either um provide services to low and moderate income uh households or help to build affordable housing in our community. Um we did do an online survey and we uh received 584 survey responses which was pretty good. Um, finally, we posted our plan in March um for a 30-day comment period. And um that allowed folks to read the plan and and comment on the plan. And now I'll answer any questions you have. Okay. Questions for Mr. Doula? Thank you so much for this. In terms of the community engagement, um that's great. Uh you had so many responses, so many participants. Do you have the data from last year so that we can see if we're on an upward trajectory or or how that's going? We can get you that data. Uh I don't know it right off the top of my head but we did uh as part of our engagement uh we did benchmark against other communities and we uh some of those communities are Richmond, Denver, Nashville, uh Charlotte, Durham. Um and we found that our survey this year was very comparable to the survey results they got. We mainly looked at their number of community meetings and also if they had a survey their responses and so we got about a comparable response. That's great and I'm I'm super proud of that work. I want to be able to amplify that to the public and show that we are continuing to increase our participation participation number so to be able to get you know previous year's data that would be phenomenal. Thank you so much. I'll give it to you. Any other questions? Okay. So we can open the public hearing. Um so we've got you know eight minutes. We have nine people signed up. I'll just do like a minute per person if that's obviously there's been a lot of other um opportunity for input and if you have anything written that you want to sub you know you could submit that here too. So, um, I'll go ahead and just name the nine people if you want to line up. Um, Octavia Rainey, Rosa Rand, Michelle Joiner, Kathy McIntyre, Marama Ali, Dakia Davis, Akia Williams, Huah Huang, and Key Zama Steel. Okay, we're ready. We will start. One minute. First of all, fair housing was not included in the plan. I'm very disappointed. So, we're asking for $20,000 for fair housing. Number two, on under the citizen participation plan. Number one, relocation. It was not added in the consolidated plan that will call for a public hearing. I'm asking you do not take black people's home. If you ever have to go to relocation, do not use intimate domain. Number three, the fourth ward neighborhood association was not included and it is a part of the consolidated plan. It was omitted. It should have never been omitted. That is an error with that department. You must fund the $300,000 in the consolidated plan for the fourth neighborhood association. Thank you. Okay. Next, Miss Rosa Rand. Good afternoon. Uh, the Fourth Ward Historic Neighborhood Association is asking Raleigh City Council to number one establish signage and or markers throughout the area. They would say like welcome to fourth ward or you're now in fourth ward to reflect our community which was displaced. Formally include a fourth ward. Include fourth ward in the Chavis Dick Strollway. This will help ensure that our community is acknowledged as part of Raleigh's walkable heritage. We also want a member of the fourth ward historic neighborhood association to serve on the planning committee for the Chavis Dick Strollway. Continue our cultural and community work. We thank the city for supporting our residentled fourth ward reunion and gospel fest last year. We hope city council will continue to support that with a grant and we're asking for permission to use Dorothia Dicks Park which is in fourth ward and always has been. Thank you very much for any consideration. Have a good evening. Thank you Miss Rand. Okay. Uh Michelle Joiner. Okay. Michelle Joiner is not here. Kathy McIntyre. Okay. Also not here, uh, Marama Ali Dakia Davis. Okay. Hi, everybody. I will try uh to do this in a minute. Uh, Max. All right. Um, good afternoon, mayor and council members. My name is Dia Davis. I was born and raised in Raleigh. I live at 615 Sardis Drive in District D, which is not far from where I grew up in the fourth W community on Jamaica Drive. and I also spent time on Wesley North Street. I am a proud UNCCG graduate and also a Howard University alum. Um I currently work in private practice um as a licensed clinical social worker. This is just an example of the talent, leadership, and dedication that came out of Fourth Ward that Miss Valerie shared earlier. This place holds so many memories for me. It's where I learned to ride my bike, where I played in nearby creek, and I cut through the ball field with my dad to play on the Washington Elementary playground. Today, the area is almost unrecognizable due to urban renewal, which is discussed further in News and Observer articles, including one from August of 2024. The Western Boulevard extension, the Rockway development, and years of construction, have erased much of what once was. I am fortunate to still live nearby, but it is painful to drive through and see little acknowledgement of the community that shaped me and many others. Um, I'm here to ask that the city of Raleigh intentionally invests in preserving Fourth Ward as you implement the consolidated plan. This means designating Fourth Ward as a historic district, placing signage throughout the area, supporting our annual reunion, and recognizing spaces like Dixs Park and Heritage Park are a part of our legacy and not just downtown. I encourage you to review the handout that we've submitted. Um, and please ensure that communities like mine are not forgotten, but respected and included in Raleigh's future. Thank you. Thank you. Um, uh, Huah Huang. Oh, I I was is I Okay. Yes, you are here. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name um well good afternoon I'm sorry mayor and council. My name is Akia Williams and I am the great granddaughter of late Reverend Jesse Jones, founder and reverend of Union Baptist Church that is still located on 602 South South Saunders Street. I remember the stories of how my greatgrandfather obtained a loan for $10 to buy materials to remodel the structure to build the church as it is today. It's an honor to be a part of the Fourth Ward Neighborhood Association. Not only have I had the pleasure of being the descendant of my great-grandfather, but I live in Fourth Ward as a child, I am now an active participant of this community and alumni of North Carolina univers North Carolina Central University, an undergrad and North Carolina State University masters. I am a social worker, a therapist, an advocate, an ordained minister, and a business owner. I am here today to speak to the importance of preservation, preserving fourth ward, our home, churches, and businesses that remain are not just buildings. They are living pieces of our history, culture, and identity. Preservation is not just about protecting old structures. It's about protecting the soul of our community. When we preserve what's here, we honor the legacy of the generation who came before us, our ancestors who built this community with love and resilience and vision. I am asking that with adequate funding, the investment over the next 5 years, we can strengthen families, support local businesses, and restore vital community landmarks. This resources could help homeowners maintain their historic properties, support long-standing churches with repair and upkeep, and allow small local owned businesses to thrive rather than to be priced out. Targeted funding can also provide educational programs, job trainings, and youth engagements tied to preservations, empowerment. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. All right, next we have Hua Hang. Good afternoon again. Um, I just wanted to point out real quick that given the how much people wanted to say about something that you're going to plan for the city for next five years, maybe in maybe you should consider instead of one minute per person or 8 minute for nine people this maybe this kind hearing item should be more like I don't know 2 minutes per person like it's a public comment period because it's you're deciding something for the next five years. Okay. Okay, on to what I want to bring up as far as the way the things are being distributed. Um, throughout this presentation and the previous one that we've been to from Wake County Housing Justice Coalition, there's not a whole lot of discussion about affordable housing in the context of deeply affordable for people who only have 30 or 0 to 30% income. So the zero to 30% AMI that needs to be brought to a forefront of discussion especially when we have we still continue to have a cris a homeless crisis in the city of Raleigh that needs to be addressed and need to be looked at. So that is what I plan to discuss with you and I'll send a restoration comments. Thank you. Uh final was key zama steel. Okay. All right. Uh, I will close the public hearing and do we need a motion? No. What it is, staff takes the information and they bring us a final report in May. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yeah. And I'd just also like to add um I do appreciate everyone being here and following this process. I think sometimes our residents, you know, you all keep up much better than I think I can. So, thank you for just um keeping with us. Um I do have a question for this um consolidated plan to staff. Do we um focus on individual neighborhoods in that plan or is it a little broader? Mr. Doula is going to come answer that question and I'll follow up. We do we do have geographic focus areas. Um, a lot of our programs are citywide, but we have focused on uh some groups uh neighborhoods called downtown neighborhoods. Um, and and we have some other focus areas. I'm sorry, I blanketing on the the other ones that we have, but um so we do focus on some neighborhoods. Part of uh our previous plan, we did focus on uh East College Park as well. uh and we had a neighborhood uh strategy revitalization area and so we do focus on specific neighborhoods within the city. Uh a lot of our focus is um areas that have low and moderate income and places that we've made historic investments in. Well, I would say to that end, you know, if there is an opportunity to emphasize the fourth ward, um that is something I would be curious to see. And what might be most helpful for me is a uh just a manager's report about our efforts with the fourth ward. I know we did some great work last year. Um the you know the gospel fest the reunion the city was a huge partner in that but if there are other opportunities continue our partnership on signage and the javas dicks strollway use of dicks park. I just want to understand better what that might look like. Absolutely. Yes. Do that. Okay, that closes. Uh we'll move on to the next item if there's no further conversation on that. Uh we have petition annexation AX 3124 5300 Dale View Drive and we have Christopher Golden from Planning and Development. Good afternoon, honorable mayor, members of the council. My name is Christopher Golden and I'm with Planning and Development. So, I'm here to uh present an annexation uh for uh AX 3124 located at 5300 Dale View Drive. Um so, this annexation is zoned residential 4. It's just shy of 1 acre. Um you'll see a little more in the zoom out as we go through the slides that this is in what's known as an unincorporated county island, meaning that it is an area of county that is completely surrounded by city limits. So, this parcel is right at the edge. Um, this site currently has a single family home. They're looking to connect to water and sewer. So, the petitioner eventually is looking at subdividing this lot and constructing three housing units on that property. Uh, but there are no current development plans associated with that property at this time. So, there's uh water and Rogers Road. There's sewer adjacent. And there is a service consideration on this with fire being just out or being outside of the standard response time for a full fire response. So, I'll move through here. Uh, it looks a little washed out on the screen, but you can see the uh utility location that there is. Uh, there is sewer there available. Uh, there's actually water in Rogers Lane, which isn't picking up here on the display, but I'll move forward. That's just to the left of the parcel. You can see there, uh, it's located the intersection of Dale View and North Rogers Lane. U, the site location, you can see that it is contiguous. Uh it's inside the ETJ. It's the edge of city limits right there. Parcels to the west and to the south are in the city limits of Raleigh. Surrounded by some residential areas. Uh uh Rogers Lane Elementary School, some multif family and single single unit uh single family homes. Um on the zoomed out map, you can see uh the parcel outlined in red is located in that unincorporated county pocket. So, it's a small it's an area of county completely surrounded by city limits of Raleigh. Um, moving through you can see the current zoning of this property which is R4. Um, there are some other residential zones just around that R six and and uh predominantly R4. Um, and you can see the future land use here is low-scale residential which is in line with what's currently there and what the petitioner would eventually like to do. Um you can see the site plan topography and flood plane. It's fairly level. It's not located in a flood plane area. Um and you can see the aerial there showing the single family homes in the area, the single family home already on the site. And you can see here the street view u from various corners seeing that single family home and the yard associated with the parcel. And there you go. Uh so uh if you have I exited out of that and I didn't mean to. If you have any questions on that, I am more than happy to answer them for you. Questions? Not seeing any. Um and then we have no one signed up, but I'll go ahead and open the hearing. Okay. And close the hearing. And do we have a motion? I move for immediate um annization to the city limits. Second. Any other discussion? If not, all in favor? I. All oppose? Nay. All right. So, that passes. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next, we have resoning Z3124 901 Now Road and we have Hannah Real from planning. Good afternoon, Hannah Real, Planning and Development. So, this is request C3124 901 Nell Road. Uh this hearing was opened at your March 18th meeting continued to allow the conditions to be revised which they have been. An overview of the changes is the just an addition of one condition would be to limit the height to 45 ft. Otherwise in the requested district the height would be um up to 50 ft. Um so with with those uh that summary happy to answer questions before you continue. Okay. Any questions? All right. Uh, we have a public hearing. There's no one signed up, so I will open the hearing and close the hearing. Yeah, I'm prepared to make a motion for this. I appreciate the applicant adding these conditions. I do think this satisfies some of the concerns of the neighbors. Um, so with that, I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated April 15, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates described in the agenda item under recommended action. This approval is also deemed an amendment to the future land use map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement. Any other discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion I I. All opposed. Thank you. All right. Next, we have uh Z3524 4409 Creedmore Road and we have Binham Walter. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. This is a request to reszone just over four acres from office mixed use with a four-story height limit to commercial mixeduse with a sevenstory height limit. They're offering some conditions here. So, Glenwood Avenue is here. This is uh Crab Valley Mall over here. So, we're just across Creedmore from the mall. This is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the future land use map and planning commission did recommend approval unanimously. So, again, you can see the mall very clearly here and the site in question. And there's a small commercial building here now that has a I believe it has a coin shop in it. Uh the Crab Tree Creek runs roughly parallel to Glen Glennwood here. And so you can see the flood plane shown. Uh it does touch a corner of the site to the northeast, but most of the site is outside the flood plane. So there's a view of that site from Creedmore Road. they have prohibited a handful of uses here. So, um most things uh although that are already allowed in the office mixeduse district, they're continuing and then they're prohibiting um detention center, jail, prison, and then they are allowing uh overnight lodging. That seems to be really what they're after here is adding that entitlement. Uh and then they've specified a maximum square footage of office which is comparable to what they already have on the site. And then they have prohibited parking between the principal building and the Creedmore right ofway. So again that uh square footage limitation that they've put in place on office square foot square footage uh and um you know generally we don't project more than ground floor retail anywhere in Raleigh. So that's going to that's the same. This is consistent with the comprehensive plan with the future lane use map, the urban form map, number of consistent policies here. Uh planning commission recommends approval and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have before you hear from the applicant after you open the public hearing. Any questions? Okay. And um I do not have anyone signed up, but um Okay. Oh, yeah. All right. I do see you're on the flipped side of the paper. I'm going to open the hearing on Z3524 and welcome Molly Stewart to take the stand. Thank you. Good afternoon again, Molly Stewart, Morning Star Law Group here on behalf of the applicant. Not a lot to add to that summary. Um, Miss Walter is on to us. The goal is to construct a six-story hotel at this location. We have heard no issues uh throughout this process. Uh a couple of neighbors were interested in how the hotel uh might work well with some of the surrounding uses in particular. Um so like I said, not a lot to add, just a little bit more context. We do have uh CX12 next door, although it is conditioned down to nine stories. Uh the mall itself has 12 sitting there in a city growth center in the frequent transit area. Um certainly we thought this made sense for a hotel um to serve these uses and have not heard otherwise throughout the process. very happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. Any questions? I just have one. Okay. Um, will you have to make any intersection improvements? It looks like in the aerial there's a might be a crosswalk that would get your future guests over to Crabtree Valley Mall. But I I I don't travel this road every day, but it's kind of inhospitable to pedestrians. Sure, good question. Uh, it's a question that has come up and there is, it's a little hard to see here, but there is a crosswalk. There's also a stoplight um, here. Um, so it is sort of workable as you say, it's not ideal. Um, certainly a a hotel use would be interested in having that kind of connection. U, it's a NC DOT controlled roadway and so we would need to work with them during the site plan process to sort that out. I guess just as a followup, there is the connection to the greenway right off this property, right? So, if you could get there, you could get that's that's right. There isn't a direct connection from this property. And the reason for that, I think I can show you the uh I have an image here of uh the topography here uh is not conducive to making that connection at that location. There is one on the other side of Creedmore. Uh, and hopefully it actually flattens out a bit to the north here and so that would be a more ideal place for that connection. Okay. All right. Any other questions? If not, I'll close the hearing. I I'm ready to make a motion to approve. I just want to thank uh Molly and then also staff. I had a few questions prior about um some comments in the backup. uh both storm water and transportation had not checked the box, but I was clarified that those those are just comments that it was not a hesitation. There weren't any concerns. It was just making some comments. So, I really appreciate learning that yesterday. So, thank you for that. But with that, I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated April 15, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates described in the agenda item under recommended action. Right. Any other discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion, I I. All oppose? Nay. And that passes. All right. Next, we have uh Z382400 Edwards Mill. Hannah Recel from Planning and Development. Yes. So, this uh request Z3824 uh site of the Lenovo Center. This hearing is also open was open on the April 1st meeting. Uh continued to allow revisions to the request. So I can go over those now. Um first is an addition of a condition and I apologize for a few text heavy slides but I wanted you to have the benefit of the the full language. This is a a requirement to hold a neighborhood meeting um at site plan stage. So specifically uh after the first tier three site plan uh is submitted for subdist B that contains residential units. Um the meeting could be in person or virtual. Um and a written report would have to be submitted to the city. Uh following um there's some requirements about mailed notice uh specifically to a thousand foot radius and then some email um correspondence requirement for a few organizations in the area uh including uh West Raleigh Alliance, West Raleigh CAC, the Alliance for Reading Creek Trenton Corridor, the Raleigh School, and the Cardinal Gibbons High School. um as well as uh correspondence um to copy uh city staff and NC DOT staff too. And then um the final part of that condition um is uh subsequent reports uh in the years after um to update on construction and anticipated traffic improvements. There then some updates to the um pedestrian circulation street and block plan. Um specifically here uh the addition of a potential uh bicycle facility um along Steven Straoud way. You can see the the purple uh dotted line is new. Um and then uh potential um amenity area um located near this the letter C there or um up by Wade Avenue. Um there's also some notes about um what those asterisks would mean. Um it's refers to it as a hub and this would be an area for bike racks, bike share, scooter share, other similar um humanpowered transportation that could be in um districts B, C or D. Um that notes that these facilities location is subject to change is preliminary and then provides some standards about what would be provided in those areas. And then just two other um fairly small clarifications that were also made. One is just a clarification that the arena private access way um may be revised to include the bicycle uh facilities or multi-use pavement facilities and then a clarification in the stormwater plan that development in the special flood hazard areas is subject to UDO 9.3. So that concludes the the updates to the case. Happy to answer questions before you proceed. Questions for Mr. R. I'll start with council Harrison. Yeah, just one question. I just wanted to confirm on the public meeting condition that's been added that three public meetings are required. I think that doesn't show up clearly in our agenda item, but I just wanted to confirm that. Yeah, I believe that was a clarification made in the the signed copy. So there's uh yeah a requirement for the meeting um that happens within 30 days of the site plan submittal uh and then two um meetings subse in the next subsequent years um that yeah counci um I also wanted to confirm my understanding of the bike and ped conditions they use the word potential so they're they they are potential they may be included but that leaves the door open that they may also not be included. That's right. Is that right? Any other dis uh questions for Miss Recall? Okay. And then guidance here we had the we remained open and there is no time remaining. I'm not sure whether that's both for the support and the opposition. Okay. So for neither. So um I'm Did anyone sign up? Uh yes. So we can uh offer time. It just has to be equal. Equal. Yeah. How many signed up for and against? Uh we have five in support and two in opposition. And um so I could just we could do another eight minute clock. Four I think should be enough. All right. So, if that's amendable, um, on the supporting side, Jamie Schwedler. Um, good afternoon, Mayor Cow, members of council. Jamie Schwedler here to just explain the context of the things we were able to add at the zoning stage and our intent to work with our partners and the city as we work towards the phase one. uh what we heard at the uh planning or the last commission um meeting or the last council meeting was that this intent to hold the community meetings was important. The extension of three community meetings which we did hold as well as the uh potential for extended bike lanes within the site and connecting and so we've added those four conditions there that Hannah went over as well as a storm water clarification that was required by staff. Um, on the continued engagement, we did want to make sure we stress that that first meeting will be held within 30 days of submitting the uh, tier one site plan or tier three site plan, excuse me, for that entertainment district. We'll provide notice to the groups that you see on the screen because they've been engaged throughout this process and and deserve to be um, engaged as we go forward and we're committed to that. Um and that will not only provide that annual report in the years the two years after that initial hearing but have an additional meeting for for that. And the reason for that is in that first tier um the tier three site plan for phase um B or phase one will have the entertainment district with that minimum program that's required by the interlocal agreement and that will include a minimum of 200 apartments, 150 hotel rooms, 100,000 square ft of commercial and 150,000 square feet of office as a minimum. But recall that our maximums are up to a million square feet of non-residential um and and 800 dwelling units. So, we're talking about a significant amount of development tied to that first true site plan you're going to see in the entertainment district and connecting it um to that that engagement. Why is that engagement important? Because we anticipate that at that site plan, we'll be talking about that extension of the fourth leg of the Wade Park intersection. That intersection is important because we do believe that those increased bicycle and pedestrian facilities will all be co coordinated that time and give us more insight as to how those will all work together to get pedestrians and bicyclists safely across Edwards Mill Road. Um the bicycle circulation um to Council Member Patton's point is uh phrased sometimes in the potential and not in the affirmative. Um because the opportunity to add those bicycle lanes is important for us to explore. But because this is stateowned property, because we have stakeholders such as the Centennial Authority and NC State who operate a very successful stadium to our south, we need to make sure that when we're trying to incorporate these other modes of transportation other than just cars to the site, we're doing it in a way that doesn't interfere with our emergency contacts, that doesn't interfere with how our events flow and getting people in and out safely or quickly as we've heard from so many community members. And all of those things really factor into where you want to put bicycle lanes. Should they be bicycle lanes? Should they be flexible and could we put them entire along the entire length of the of the area there? So, you see the purple lines been added along Steven Straoud with a commitment to to explore that at site plan as well as that existing connection up to uh the Richland Creek as well as expanding the um event uh arena section along the blue line there that would allow us to incorporate those bike lanes. Um, we're also including some certainty and that those purple stars will be uh connection points where folks can uh approach the site on the Richland Creek Greenway or on the future Triangle Bikeway. They can connect and dismount. They can service their bikes with repair stations and then experience the rest of the center on foot. Um, the additional bike amenity areas are fixed, but the microobility hubs are flexible because staff wanted that flexibility to work with us. Um, no project will be consistent with every single comp plan, but the approving the project today is more certain to bring those desires to fruition for two reasons. Your UDO has oversight to allow your city to work with the DOT and other staff and all these stakeholders to make sure that these are carried forward. And that's a that's a condition of the site plan review. And then our obligations under the city agreements. You set the table for this game-changing project to be here and we're obligated to deliver it. We're not just committed to stay here for 20 years under the hurricane's lease. we must deliver this project. We appreciate your time and we look forward to this project moving forward. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And then in opposition, we have uh Jeff Bell and Tim Thronson. Good afternoon, mayor and city council members. My name is Jeff Bell and I'm the head of school at Colonel Gibbons High School. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. We support we support smart thoughtful development and we believe this project has real potential. But that support hinges on one thing. Student safety must be built into the foundation, not bolted on later. As the conditions are currently written, they fall short in several serious ways. First, there is no safe pedestrian crossing, no overpass, underpass, or even a signalized crosswalk at Edwards Mill Road and East Stevens Shroud Way. This area borders two of the top 10 crash prone intersections in Raleigh. More people and more traffic without proper infrastructure is a recipe for disaster. Second, there is no clear construction traffic management plan. We have 1600 students on campus, most of them inexperienced drivers. Introducing heavy construction traffic into that mix without a proactive, detailed plan puts our students and the community at real risk. Student safety is not optional. It's essential. Their safety must be at the center of this plan, not an afterthought. The developer has committed to just two years of traffic and construction reporting for a project expected to last 20 years. That means no long-term accountability despite decades of impact on our students. There's also no emergency access plan for our campus and no traffic impact analysis that meaningfully addresses pedestrian safety despite the city's own policy requiring it. And finally, there's no requirement for the developer to contribute to safety improvements. Even though increased pedestrian traffic is guaranteed, we're not asking for perfection. We're asking for partnership and for protection. This is your opportunity to make this project not just successful, but sustainable and safe for generations of students to come. Please include these projection these protections in the final conditions. Our students lives and safety depend on it. Thank you. Um, also I'll mention Tim Thron is away today. He hit a death in his family. So, in this place, we have two students to speak briefly if that's okay. Thank you. Hello everyone. Uh my name is Sophia Kelly and I'm a sophomore at Colonel Gibmens High School. I'm excited about the Lenovo Center project. It sounds like it could bring great things to the area, but as someone who walks these streets almost every day, I'm also really concerned. Right now, there's no safe way to cross Edwards Mill at East Steven Way. No crosswalk, no overpass, nothing. And this isn't a quiet street. Two nearby intersections rank among the most dangerous in Raleigh and in the entire state. That's not just a stat. That's where I walk to get to school, practice, or to meet my parents. We're not asking for safety features just because it would be nice. We're asking because without them, somebody's going to get seriously hurt. There are more than 1600 students at Gibbons, and a lot of us are new drivers or walking to and from campus every day. We're not against development, but it feels like this project is being built around us, not with us in mind. That has to change. Please make student safety part of the plan from the beginning, not after it's too late. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Hudson Beman and I'm a junior at Cardinal Given High School. Last year, one of my classmates was hit by a car crossing Trinity Road. Thankfully, they recovered, but it was a wake-up call for all of us. Just walking to school shouldn't be dangerous. With the Lenovo Center development moving forward, I'm asking you to make student and pedestrian safety a non-negotiable. We're not against growth. We're excited about it. But if this area is going to grow, the infrastructure must grow with it. We need protected crossings. We need smart traffic design. And we need real collaboration with our school because no one knows these patterns like we do. Please don't wait for another student to get hurt. You have a chance to get this right for the city and for the young people who live here every day. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Uh I can go ahead and close the public hearing and discussion. I mean, I'm I'm prepared to make a motion. I I I have a few comments I could make. I don't know if anybody else had any. I have a few, but go ahead. Well, yeah, go ahead and um if you want to do your comments. Okay. Um I think pedestrian safety is very important. Um most people know this. My husband and I have one car. I typically get around by foot and on scooter and so multimodal transportation and pedestrian safety is incredibly important to me. Um a lot of the concerns I'm hearing though, I think are issues that are going to be addressed in the sight site planning stage. I do think that that connection at the um Wade Park Boulevard is should be looked at as the primary point of ingress and egress for um connectivity. And I understand that Cardinal Gibbons does have access to Wade Park through some um right away on their existing land. And so I I hear the concerns. I don't think there's anything more we can do with conditions on this case to address anything at this time. I think that the applicants um have certainly done a great job with their revised conditions addressing a lot of these concerns. Is that the appropriate time? I'm going to make a motion to approve which I can read now if you want and then folks can make their comments up to you. Um I mean you could go ahead and make the motion if you want. Okay. I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated April 15, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates described in the agenda item under recommended action. Second. Okay. And then I know we have um I'll do councelor Harrison and then um do you want to go to like council member Harrison have the last word? Um yeah I had hoped that the newest revised conditions would bring me to being enthusiastic. Yes. Um the inclusion of the word potential um bike impedes me really queasy. Um, you know, I'm hopeful that advocacy and continued work with our staff will bring those to fruition and that we'll all be scooting around this arena district in in time. Um, so I, you know, I haven't gotten all the way to an enthusiastic yes, but I do look at the other, um, you know, public improvements that are made and the commitments that are made through other agreements that are also legally binding as part of this deal, like um, rent paid to the Centennial Authority, ground lease payments, um, you know, payment in lie of taxes that will come in time. And so I do think this project happening is better than it not happening and remaining all just parking lot. So I would designate myself as a reluctant yes at the appropriate time. Okay. Um councelor Silver very quick comment. I want to thank well first I understand the concerns of the students and uh I will echo what my colleague uh council member Lambert Melton said that you know our goal is to make sure at site plan that it is safe. Nobody wants to design a project that puts anyone in harm. And so we will trust that the designers as they build this out will make sure they provide safe uh crossings. In terms of the term about the bicycle facilities, uh I'm comfortable with the term potential as was stated. Uh there are other uh entities the state uh NC State and others and I'm equally concerned when you start to plan a bicycle facility. We know that site gets a lot of pedestrian cross activity and I just want to understand and that's being planned that they taking in consideration the mobility of bicycles and pedestrians uh cuz I know that that could certainly be an issue to look forward in the future. So I'm comfortable with the term potential uh and I take them at their faith that they will work with all the partners to see if it can be accomplished uh it will be accomplished but I do believe this is a important project fulfilling our growth center for the west part of Raleigh and for that reason I'll be supporting this case and then I I know council Harrison wants to have the last word I had something to say but I just want to make sure does any okay just from you know work history of working with our NC DOT. And I think this was clearly stated at our last meeting that this sighteline and distance from Stra to Trinity is so short that adding a light there, the state will not basically allow it. And I think one of the things that we have to really look at when we look at connectivity and pedestrian is not necessarily where you want to cross, but how do we make it safe to cross? And that's where I look at intersections in Trinity, making sure we the major improvements that will happen at that intersection. The new um entry that will be north of the school as well to allow pedestrian bike access. those two accesses and maybe working to try to change some habits. Um I always think about Capitol Boulevard a lot of times when we think about pedestrian safety and we have made major improvements but there are some bad habits. So if we can work with the new developer with our developers on this project continue the conversation with the school and how do we create positive habits for our pedestrian and our pedest and our bicycle and our cyclists I think is very key and I look forward to supporting this project. Yeah. And I would just say um I lived in this area for 15 years so I have walked it. I have biked it and I know it is it was built as a very car dependent out in the county. Everybody drived out uh drove out there and it has had um safety issues for decades. I think this program has been thoughtful in trying to address those and we will continue uh to work on those. Uh particularly just pledging that we are one entity. We will work with the NC DOT with the state uh agricultural department. There's a lot of players um and and make sure that this does become you know the thoughtful sort of pedestrian multimodal area that we all want it to be. Yeah. I've just got a few comments I want to make. Um again, thank you all for being here. um to the applicants for working with us, to the residents, um the neighbors for being engaged. That's what makes these projects better. And I do want to say for the public meetings, um I hope you'll send an invitation also to the Centennial Authority. I did speak to our reps there yesterday. Um please do send uh invitations to all of us at city council, too, so that we can be aware of those meetings. I want as many folks who are want to stay engaged to to be able to do that. Um, so again, thank you for adding that as a condition. And I will just reiterate, you know, some of my comments from before and what we've heard at the table is that we want to avoid this being an entertainment island where it's only accessible by car. And we know that the TIA does show extensive need for additional auto lanes. And although those, you know, may be required, I also want us all to commit, and I'm talking about us here at the table, city council, y'all as the applicants, our neighbors, the residents, students, really to work together beyond this reszoning case to advocate for improvements to multimodal access to the Lenovo Center. So, I'm talking about bus routes, BRT connection, maybe an Amtrak stop nearby, pedestrian facilities, bike lanes, greenway improvements. Those are all ongoing needs. And so, we're going to have to work together on those and stay in communication. And, you know, some of those improvements that I can think of just right off the top of my head, pedestrian wise, I'm thinking of, you know, just our connective tissue of how we get here. So, Youth Center Drive, no sidewalks there. Intermittent sidewalks currently on West Chase Boulevard. Non-existent sidewalks on Western Boulevard near the proposed BRT. Risky pedestrian crossings near Cardinal Gibbons. You know, how do students from NC State get here on Hillsboro Street? So, these are some of the spaces where I want us to identify the pain points and figure out the improvements together that we can make. Oaks and Spokes has also agreed to do a bicycle and walking audit of the Lenovo Center. So going out and just checking, you know, where would you go, you know, how would you get there uh from A to Z, different points of interest in the area. As we all know, much of the road network around the Lenovo Center is controlled by NC DOT. So we need them at the table. We're going to have to work with them and they have been fabulous partners on so many projects. So, keeping that conversation going is critical. You know, we've invested now $300 million in upgrading this arena. There is a huge opportunity here and we're going to see payments that will help keep our arena, you know, maintained over the years that will help us. It's a public asset. We're also going to see new sales tax dollars as well as the building of affordable housing. And I really thank my council members for advocating for that last year. That's huge. So there are huge economic benefits to this development, but I also want us to continue to push to ensure that the infrastructure keeps up with it. So thank you to all of you for planning to be part of that continued conversation. And I will just finish by um asking staff not for an answer right now, but if we could talk about whether a TIG, so a tax increment grant would be perhaps reasonable in this area. I think there are opportunities to capitalize on some of the increased sales taxes um and property taxes and so can we then make those improvements we need in infrastructure around there. So, I'm going to just finish with that and again, thank everyone who's been part of this uh resoning case. All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion, I All opposed. So, that is unanimous and we appreciate everybody's presence. All right. Uh, next we have resoning Z4624 4353 Pearl Road. Yes. So this is yet another continued hearing. It was opened on April 1st um and continued to allow the conditions to be revised which they have [Music] been. Specifically there's addition of two new conditions. Uh, one is committing to a minimum 10- foot sideyard setback uh on the west side of Pearl Road property and the second is a commitment for any tier three site plan to include at least one traffic calming treatment along the extension of uh Princess Curry Way um subject to city approval. So with that, happy to answer any questions before you proceed. Okay, any questions for Miss Raal? All right. Uh on this one, just Worth. Yes. Um and this was remained open, correct? Okay. So, uh Mr. Worth is here. Good afternoon, Mayor, members of council. Worth Mills here on behalf of the applicant. Um would like to request one more deferral to the May 6th meeting. Um after we submitted these updated conditions, I went out and met with uh one of the neighbors who lives immediately adjacent to the site. Uh that was after the deadline to submit additional conditions. Uh and um she would like to see um some sort of screening, probably a fence with um evergreen shrubs planted along the boundary line just to protect some of the privacy that she currently has. I think her bedroom is on the side uh uh second story side of uh of her home. So, um I think that'll be a quick deferral. We should have some straightforward conditions to address those concerns, but happy to answer any questions that you have this afternoon. Okay. Any other questions? No, I just want to mention that I did speak to um Miss Our um the resident and um we had a good conversation. She shared the same information. She didn't share with me that you were going to ask to defer. So, um it's good to hear that you're willing to defer to add this. So, I was at my motion would be to hold this open and bring it back during the day on May 6. Um with this being the only change. Um second, I'll just add and I emailed with Worth about this. I talked to Council Member Branch. I always get a little uncomfortable when folks ask for shielding from adjacent when it's residential to residential particularly when it's town homes. Like there's this sort of stigma about multif family living that it needs to be somehow um encapsulated separate and this is town home next to town home. So I was very confused by that but it was my understanding there was some stuff that went on with this initial development. There were promised that the woods adjacent were for conservation and not for future development. And so there were promises made to folks who live there. So I understand the uh the ask in this particular case. I'm happy to support it. But I want to go on record um because when I initially saw it, I felt very uncomfortable. But councelor Silver, and let me add talking about conditions, I was very uncomfortable with the traffic coming. This is a very small local street. I understand you felt that we had to address some of the concerns. Uh but in all my experience, this is one street I would never advocate for traffic coming. We see that on major streets or other street speech was a high volume of traffic. The condition is offered, but I think this is when we have to be very careful when we start uh asking for conditions. I know there was one resident, you know, I will echo the concern about the screening and this one traffic calming. Uh but the conditions offered is just something I think I'll just speak up a little bit more when we have this because as we were talking about you know there are certain places where just plenty more trees could be traffic coming. So when you get the site plan I understand the builder is going to have to figure this out but that was one where I just kind of scratched my head but there was a condition offered to address a concern of a neighbor. So with that I will just go along with the motion to continue this into May 6th. Yeah. Yes. And we had a motion and a second, right? Okay. Second performance. Okay. So, before you start talking about screening, um, yes. All in favor of the motion, I I. All opposed. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Thank you. All right. Next, we have Z5324, John P. Top Green Community Center. And we have Yes. Yes, ma'am. So, this is C5324. You heard a lot about the planned project here already this afternoon. Lauren Reid from Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources is here and can answer questions about that if you want to hear more, but I thought in the interest of time, I'd focus on the reasonzoning. So, this is a request of uh for 1.32 acres. This is actually um like five lots, five oddly shaped weird weird lots uh that the park center is that the park and the center are on. Uh this went in front of and and the request here would keep the residential 10 district and would simply remove the neighborhood conservation overlay district. The historic development commission took a look at this and uh recommended approval. The planning commission recommended uh unanimous approval and as we discussed uh this facility was renamed earlier in your meeting. Yeah. Uh so here's a look at that site. You can see the lot lines there and the uh parking lot and the building cross those lines currently. Um there no conditions offered as this is a general use resoning request. Typically the city does not offer conditions on its own property. So, South Park uh neighborhood is the neighborhood conservation overlay district here has a minimum and maximum lot size. Uh minimum and maximum lot widths. Uh front yard setback requires building entrance to face the street from which the building is addressed. No upper story entrance visible uh from an adjacent public street right ofway. limits building height to 28.7 ft. It's very specific. Um and requires off- streetet parking located to the side or rear of the building. Um with the exception uh just there's a lot here. So the uh lot size in particular and the height also very and the lot width max and all all those regulations are problematic for the vision that the community and the city have for this site. So that's why it's going to go away. uh if once you take action uh so the residential entitlement is not changing here. This is consistent with the future land use map and with the comprehensive plan overall. There are a number of consistent policies here. Two whole two pages uh there the there's a response time consideration here uh an existing response time consideration here. Again RHDC the Raleigh Historic Development Commission recommends approval and the planning commission also recommend approval. Any questions I could answer for you before you open the public hearing? Just want to repeat again, this is a general use case. That is correct. Just checking. Okay. Yeah, this is a general use case. All right. Affirmative. Any questions? Opening the hearing. Nobody has signed up. Closing the hearing. Okay. Do we have a vote motion? I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated April 15, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates described in the agenda items under recommended actions. Right. Second. Second. All in favor of the motion I I. All opposed. Thank you. Okay. Next we have text change to zoning conditions TCZ 41243616 Lewisberry Road and we have Miss Recal. Yes. So this request uh the the hearing was opened on uh March 18th and continued to this meeting to allow them to consider uh revised conditions in response to neighbor comments. Um they've submitted uh what are draft uh conditions to effect but have not submitted signed conditions in time for consideration at this meeting. Um so if you'd like to act on the version that is described in the in the agenda which includes the um one new condition uh with um hours of operation for commercial use um you have to uh continue uh until uh maybe the May 6th meeting to allow those to be received in time. Okay. And this is was this continued? So this is still open. This is still open. Yes. Do does somebody have a Yeah, I spoke with the applicant and I actually after they made this change received an email from the one one of two oppositional residents saying they were now in support. Uh so I'm sad to hear they haven't signed the conditions, but I I don't want to approve it without this one, which is the one that sort of brought everyone into to happiness. So I'll just make a motion to continue the case to the afternoon meeting of May 6th. Second. All in favor of the motion I I. All opposed. All right. Thank you. And that is the end of our hearings. Yes. Okay. The onward march. Uh we are now to the report and recommendation of the economic development and innovation. Um no items pending. Growth and natural resources. Uh three items pending. Our next meeting will be in May. Great. Then the safe, vibrant, and healthy community. Two pending items. We meet May 27th. Okay. And transportation. Uh transportation has one item pending and we will meet on April 24th from 3:00 to 5:00 in the council chambers. Great. Okay, next we have the report of the mayor and city council. And I will start with councelor Harrison. No report. Everyone have a great weekend. No report. Uh I have three items. One, uh my district E community meeting will be this Wednesday, April 16th from 6:00 to 8 at L Cusina Italian restaurant. Come out, have dinner as we discuss council matters. Uh the second is my decoding democracy book club will meet Saturday, April 19th at Oberlin Regional Library from 9:30 to 11:30. We'll be discussing ethics and government. And so I hope to see you there. And then lastly, I just want to keep everyone updated on communications with RCAC. We met last week um and I want to just go over some points of what we discussed uh and then we're going to continue meeting uh monthly moving forward. So we are there are three steps uh three next steps and the first one is that we are continuing to discuss with RCAC leadership to better understand their desire to move towards the community engagement network and everything that that offers. Um we have established that we're looking into providing past CAC contact list to any CAC who desires it. Um, so we're getting that checked off the list and we'll check back next month. And then, uh, the third thing is that we're finalizing the equipment needs for hybrid meetings. And so that could include something like a media kit, what we discussed, which would include an owl, uh, a screen and instructions on how to use it. And, um, but we'll finalize those those discussions next month. Uh, I'm really excited to work with staff and with our RCAC leadership and uh addressing their needs as well as seeing what staff can uh can and cannot do in terms of being equitable to all of the community organizations that we're working with. So, I really appreciate their work and if you have any questions about that, please let me know. Thank you. All right. I had three items all related to housing, which is the topic for today. First is just to thank Habitat for Humanity for all their work and giving me this great t-shirt that said everybody deserves an affordable home. Um second, we uh councelor Lambert Melton and I went to New York with one wake as well as uh assistant city manager Evan Raleigh. And I know there are more of you going up in May. So I just want to report that we have we're making those trips and at some point we'll need some sort of formal report back but we can wait until after the next group. Um they've uh made a number of just sort of requests in the meeting when we went up there but um that is and then the final is uh I wanted to bring up the issue of minor exempt subdivisions. I have had some constituent issues coming through my inbox and in talking with planning and assistant city manager Jones. Um the sort of I think this has been looked at before, but I just wanted to make a specific request to relook at whether we should change you know codes or what sort of impact that would have um if we allowed minor exempt subdivisions. All right, Councelor Silver, I just have one item. Uh, we have a very patriotic former city council member. Colonel, uh, Randy Stagner, uh, emailed me to inform me that this past Friday, I'm Sunday, uh, April 13th was the 160th anniversary of the pe of the peaceful repatriation of Raleigh back into the union. I have more to say. He wrote a lot more, but for those that like a little bit of history, uh that was April 13th, 1865, and that's when again Raleigh turned to the Union. Uh that's it for my report. All right. Um some good things that we did through the consent agenda today are that we authorized budget transfers for three affordable housing projects. The formerly Hope Street Apartments, Laurel Ridge Apartments. Uh we alo also approved Raleigh rainwater rewards um that will install um rain gardens in eight locations and five sisterns. Um we approved a contract for wrapping the RPD vehicles in the signature blue which is more cost effective than painting them and we accepted a Noah grant for building resilient communities. Um other announcements unrelated to the consent agenda. I just wanted to thank the NYCC mosque in North Raleigh for hosting Mayor Cowell and I at their Eidfest. Um, and also congratulate Southlight on their grand reopening, which we were able to attend this weekend. Um, they're doing important work in the harm reduction space. And my next office hours will be May 3rd from 10 to 12. No report. No report. Okay. Uh, next we go to appointments. So, I'll turn it over to Cassidy Bridget. Good afternoon. First under appointments, board of adjustment, one alternate vacancy. Rob Codddle received two votes. Keith Satisky received six. So Mr. Satisky would be appointed. Design review commission um one alternate vacancy. There were two nominations made here. Rachel Derodorian Bodine by Council Member Jones and um council member Patton nominated Cara Blue. So these will be returning on your next ballot. Um relating to Mr. Gaskin's earlier comments regarding desired skill sets. Um, Council Member Fort did forward staff an email this afternoon from the chair detailing more information on that. So, I will uh for forward that to the full council for their consideration. Um, another element here, I'll also note there's a vacancy announcement slated for the next meeting. There was a resignation following the agenda being pub this agenda being published. Um, so if you guys want me to to kind of bundle it in together, I can go ahead and announce that now. um or I can wait. Um I'll sure um so we did receive a resignation um believe it was yesterday uh regular member Megan Beachch. So um if the council desires you could consider the elevation of the longest serving alternate which is Claire Craraven um who has attended 11 out of 14 meetings which is above your threshold. Yep. I'll move to uh approve Claire second. Right. All in favor of that motion. I I all opposed. Okay. So um that means next ballot I'll be bringing back two alternates and then I'll include the information that the chair provided. Next is environmental advisory board one regular vacancy. Jeffrey Bullard received seven votes so would be appointed. Storm water management advisory commission one regular vacancy. Miss Marinell Ubaldo received seven votes so would be appointed. Next under nominations, bicycle and pedestrian advisory commission. Two regular vacancies. Term of Nicholas Neptune is expiring. He is not eligible for reappointment due to length of service. And then additionally, a resignation has been received from Shawn Fernandez. So there's two regular vacancies there. I'd like to put in a nomination for Ethan Gallagher. I'd like to nominate Amy Nabaku. How do you spell that? I'm gonna email it to you. Okay. All right. And apologize to her profusely for butchering her name. All right. So, I'll bring those two names back. Next is Environmental Advisory Board. One regular vacancy. The term of Denzel Burnside's expiring. He would like to be considered for reappoint. Um, per council's direction, he was requested to provide additional information on his attendance. However, none was provided in this case. I actually just spoke with him yesterday and he said he sent some information to the clerk's office. So, I don't know what happened, but he is also the vice chair of this committee. He's leading their Earth Day as well. I move to reappoint. Second. All in favor of the motion? I I All opposed. Okay. Mr. Burnside is reappointed. Next is Fair Housing Hearing Board. One regular vacancy resignation has been received from Christopher West. So that'll be coming back on your next ballot. I'd like to nominate Alicia Taylor. I'd also like to nominate Mon'nique Edwards. Okay. Next is um Hispanic and Immigrant Affairs Board. We have various um items. Can we go back for a second? How many boards is Alicia Taylor on? I would have to look. I don't know if the top because I think I've nominated her for one or two myself, so she may be at her maximum capacity. Um, so let me check. Substance use and human relations. Um Miss Taylor is on human relations. And also on substance use, so yeah, she would not be eligible to serve on a third. I didn't realize that. Thank you. You're welcome. I only know cuz I wrote nominated her for both of them. So I'm like, I know I did too already. Okay. So that'll be coming back. Um, Hispanic and Immigrant Affairs Board. We have terms of four members that are expiring soon here. Three of which would like to be considered for reappointment. Um Carol Berno Montanz is is the only one that doesn't wish to be considered. Um she's a professional regular member. Um and then the remaining three. Um Ann Robertson, professional regular, Eli While community regular, and Cotter Zar, excuse me for butchering that name, professional regular. they all um desire to be considered. Um per council's direction, information on Miss Robinson and Miss Wild's attendance was included in the agenda materials. Um and then also if uh the council may wish to consider elevation of the sole um professional alternate at the conclusion of the member's term that does not wish to be considered for reappointment. Move to reappoint the three eligible members and to elevate the alternate. Okay. Second from councelor Branch. All in favor of the motion. I I All opposed. Great. All right. So, I'll bring back the Sorry. Go ahead. Oh, I was just going to say I, you know, I know all three of these members are engaged and thoughtful members. I know this board has struggled to make quorum. They've retained their desire to meet only in person. You they wish for hybrid, but that's not an available option. it might be worth a nudge to their staff liaison to to push them again to accept the all virtual option because I know that all of these folks travel for work related to the work that informs their presence on this board. So we can staff can um reach out to the staff leaison and have them disseminate that information. Can I also ask can I don't remember if we talked about this but can they meet virtually let's say two every you know January and February and then in person in March like because I think I had spoke to them about having some opportunity for in person but primarily virtual. I will defer to the city attorney um or Taiisha on that. I'm not sure. I apologize. What was the question again? Yeah. So, can groups um who are meeting in person, can they meet virtually some of the time and in person some of the time? They're because I think what I've talked to them about recently is not necessarily that they're looking for hybrid option, but they just want to change it up, you know, because they do want to see each other on occasion, but they can't always. And I think that's what the council had the previous advice I gave was about you couldn't do the hybrid, right? And what I understood was there was an interest to do some virtual where everybody is virtual. And as I recall the consensus of council was for your non um statutory boards that don't have quasi judicial hearings and those type of things that they that they could do that or that the interest was of council that they do that which would be permissible. Okay. Could you also then ask the staff liaison just to convey that clearly so they know that's an option? Yeah, we'll we'll work with the city attorney's office and community engagement to uh relay the correct information to the um so we will be bringing back um a professional alternate slot then since we just made that elevation and that is everything um under appointments and nominations. All right, thank you. Um, and next we have the report and recommendation of the city attorney. No report. Okay. And then, uh, report and recommendation of the city clerk. I believe Lou had to step out. Um, you have copy draft copies of the April 1 regular session, April 7 budget work session, April 8th work session, and April 8th public comment session included in the agenda materials for consideration of approval. I would move to approve with a small modification um in the work session minutes. It reflects that I was in support of options one and two related to the composting and I think it was options two and three. So with that modification I um happy to approve. The clerk did receive a copy of that correction. So have it ready to go. Okay. All in favor of the motion. I I All opposed. Okay. Next, we have a motion to enter into close session pursuant to general statute 143-318.11A3 to consult with the city attorney in order to preserve the attorney client privilege and to consider giving instruction relative to the handling and or settlement of a potential claim in the following matters. the state of North Carolina versus Damen Devon Holloway, the city of Raleigh versus the Regional Property Group, and General Statute 143 318 111A5 to establish or instruct the city staff or negotiating agents concerning the position to be taken by or on behalf of the city in negotiating the terms of contracts for the acquisition of real property by purchase, option, exchange, or lease. So all in favor of the motion I I. All oppose. Right. We are now in close session. [Music] Down down down down down down down. [Music] Heat. Hey. Hey. Oh. [Music] Oh. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. [Music] Oh hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey, hey hey. [Music] Hey hey hey. [Music] Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] Nat. Hey. Hey. [Music] Down. Down. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Oh, [Music] Oh. [Music] Dang boy. [Music] Apple. Hey. Hey. I'm down. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Oh hey. [Music] Down. Hey. Hey. [Music] [Laughter] [Music] Hey hey [Music] Hey dad. Apple. Hey. Hey. [Music] Hey Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. Oh. Oh. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Ooh. Ooh. [Music] Oh. Oh. [Music] [Music] Hey hey hey. [Music] Hey hey hey. [Music] Hey, hey, hey hey. [Music] back. Hey Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Hey [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Oh. Oh. [Music] Oh. Heat. [Music] Oh okay. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey hey hey. [Music] Data. Hey. Hey. [Music] Hey. [Music] down. Baby down. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Hey, hey hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Oh. Oh. [Music] Oh. [Music] Hey hey hey. Da da da. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Oh hey. [Music] Down [Music] in down party. [Music] More people. [Music] [Laughter] [Music] Hey everybody hey [Music] D [Music] hey. Heat. Hey, Heat. [Music] Oh. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat. N. Oh. [Music] Oh. Heat. Heat. [Music] Ooh. Ooh. Ah. Oh. [Music] Oh. Heat. [Music] Hey, heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey hey hey. [Music] Hey hey hey hey hey. [Music] Hey hey hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey hey hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. N. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] N. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Oh. [Music] Oh heat. [Music] Oh okay. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. [Music] Hey hey hey. [Music] Hey, [Music] D hey down hey baby. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Oh, [Music] Oh. [Music] Baby daddy. [Music] D. Hey. Hey. [Music] Oh, hey. Heat. Hey, Heat. [Music] Down. [Music] Down. Heat. Heat. [Music] [Laughter] [Music] Papa Daddy. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey, [Music] hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Oh, hey. Heat. Heat. [Music] Ooh. Ooh. Ah. [Music] Oh. [Music] Oh. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. [Music] Hey hey [Music] hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey. [Music] Down. Down. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Hey hey hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. N. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Down down down down down down down down Heat. Heat. N. [Music] Oh. Oh. Heat. Heat. [Music] N. Heat. Heat. [Music] Oh hey. [Music] Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat. [Music] Hey hey hey. [Music] Everybody's got back [Music] down. Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Oh, [Music] Oh. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] D hey baby hey dancing. Da da da. [Music] Oh, hey. Heat. Heat. [Music] down. Down. [Music] [Laughter] [Music] Apple. Hey. Hey. [Music] Apple. Hey. Hey. [Music] Hey hey hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. Oh. Oh. [Music] Hey hey hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Oh. [Music] Oh. [Music] Hey hey hey. [Music] Hey, hey hey. [Music] Down. Down. Good evening. We gave we met in close session and gave direction to our We have come out of close. We have come out of close session. We gave direction to our staff and the meeting is adjourned. [Music]