City of Ann Arbor Planning Commission January, 4 2023

001thank you sorry about that I will start over thank you welcome to the January 20 January 4th 2023 regular meeting of the Ann Arbor Planning Commission for detailed information on meeting procedures please review the full printed meeting agenda provided Mr Leonard will you roll and call the role please yes sorry a little rusty after my holiday commissioner Gib Randall present commissioner Abrams commissioner sovay here commissioner Mills here commissioner Hammerschmidt commissioner dish commissioner Lee here commissioner Clark commissioner weich here I do want to alert the commission you have five members which is enough for Quorum it would not be the required six votes to take action on a petition I was expecting a six members so as we progress through the business hopefully we'll catch up in the event that we don't get a six-man member

002my recommendation would be to con hear the presentations conduct the public hearings on the action items but to postpone action on those items until the next Planning Commission meeting on January 17th okay great thank you all right um may I have a motion to approve the agenda commissioner sovay and seconded by commissioner Lee any discussion none all right all those in favor please say aye aye motion carries okay we also are we're on to item number four which is um may I have a motion to approve the minutes of the October 18th 2022 meeting um uh moved by commissioner millisecond by commissioner white any discussion none all those in favor please say aye motion carries all right we are on to item number five which are reports from City Administration city council um who we

003don't have tonight so perhaps Mr Leonard can fill us in on that and any other Liaisons yeah no uh no uh city council report the in addition to uh um commissioner dish being absent the city council moved their meetings for January to the 9th and the 23rd so they have not conducted their January meeting quite yet um as for me uh no reports I will uh just a brief update uh we continue to work with the um a selection committee on comprehensive plan we are at this point recommending uh proceeding with the interviewing of two firms interface Studios and housel Levine so we're hoping to get those uh interviews conducted in January with a recommendation following up after that so that's the only report I have thank you all right we are now on to

004public comment this is an opportunity for persons to speak up to three minutes about an issue that is not listed as a public hearing on this agenda we'll first call an individual's present to address the commission than remote participants to speak during this public hearing press star nine if listening by phone or use the raise hand feature if you're viewing to the web link for phone access call 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-6634-1226 and to a mute press star six City staff will still let callers that have raised their hand using the last three digits of your phone number or by name if available for those accessing through the web link when you hear an automated announcement that the host is allowing you to speak when speaking please move to a quiet area and mute

005any television or background sound so that we may hear you clearly sure no problem for either method of participation please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments is there anyone present that would like to speak at this time for any issue not listed on the agenda anybody remote Mr Leonard we do call her with a phone number ending with three four five you can press star six to unmute and address the Planning Commission for three minutes hi I'm a little confused um we can't address on anything that is and that is on the agenda is that true so what we have places excuse me we have places in the agenda for other items when we're discussing those items There's an opportunity for public comment for those items so this one is

006to kind of the catch-all for things that are not on the agenda okay can I just ask one question um did you receive the updated version of the pros planned from Pac because they made some changes yesterday I think we'll get that report when we get to that item on the agenda uh Mr Leonard knows what's going on okay thank you okay great thank you anybody else waiting virtually for us caller with the phone number ending with five three four you can press star 6 to unmute your phone and address the Planning Commission for three minutes good evening this is Tom stalberg calling from Lower Town in Ann Arbor and I'd like to discuss lower sound development it's going to be coming back from Morningside to having their community meeting later this month so under

007preview that without giving you all the details uh one of their phases was going to be approximately a condo that did not do well in pre-sales they moved that to their third phase and they're going to change it to Apartments a greater number of units than that and eliminate the parking which I believe would uh some first floor parking and perhaps a little bit more than just that the new building is uh gonna have a few units of affordable housing I'm guessing that has to do with the formula from the Brownfield negotiation but I'm not certain and the developer does wants to keep it all gas service as his original client pass and has stated some underground utility work to justify that uh however I am hopeful that this body and other members of the

008public will convince that developer that it's time to go uh to Electrify that building and whatever relatively small talk to their work for underground utilities uh well but water under the bridge we're in a different uh place right now in terms of planning initiatives if the developer's been paying attention to Planet Commission if we look at Valhalla for example Valhalla was four times the density that the comprehensive Plan called for Planet staff recommended not approving it for that reason that Planning Commission it was approved I believe largely in part because of the electrification of the building Morningside Lower Town project got a density that was even greater than the Zone category that was used about health how they got it that's another story for another day but it was not appropriate the current comprehensive plans

009the same as it was back then which called for mixed-use Urban Village at that site there's no mixed use being proposed and this phase so given that they got a Bonus density they didn't provide the affordable housing that they would have provided had it been approved as a PD isn't that saved them nine million or 93 units informal housing and given that the comprehensive class 30 more seconds with my today's planning Initiative for sustainability I hope that everybody can urge this developer to put into mixed use on that first floor and to build a building sustainably let's Electrify the perfect place to implement our current planning initiative thank you very much thank you is there anybody else in the queue there is not okay um could we hear about the public hearings for the next

010meeting on January 17th we have one new public hearing scheduled for January 17th it is for fire station number four uh proposal to replace the existing public fire station located at 2415 South Huron Parkway the new two-story fire station is supposed to be 12 000 square feet uh eight off street parking spaces are proposed as well as four Class C bicycle parking spaces most of the surface parking area will be located in schiffler park the project will provide a number of improvements to the park including a new larger basketball court and a rain Garden to capture storm water two driveways on South Huron Parkway are proposed to handle the movement of fire apparatus and parking space for fire personnel and several sustainability sustainable energy systems are proposed including geothermal heating and cooling as well as

011solar panels um as a reminder for those on the commission as a public project s over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in value which this is um per our resolution of city council come to the Planning Commission for review and measurement against City private development or uh standards so this public hearing and your review will be measuring the plan against the UDC however those comments and conclusions will be provided to the city council and only an advisory nature and I will be recusing myself for that project as I'm one of the designers on it okay we are on to item 8A which is our regular business so we'll first be looking at the 2024 through 2029 Capital Improvements plan um so uh I will hand it over to staff let me introduce uh Kayla

012Coleman Kayla has been with the city longer than I have I don't know how long but Kayla has recently stepped into the role of Capital Improvements uh planner for the city a role that was previously held by Deb Gosselin who you saw on many occasions Deb is probably now enjoying some warm weather with her feet up on a beach somewhere um as we've provided some uh presentations to you prior on the capital Improvement plan this is what we um will call a full Capital Improvement plan so it's really um opening the books and starting Anew if you will with both existing projects and brainstorming new projects across a lot of segments at the initial presentation there were some questions and comments by the Planning Commission um uh that actually I don't think there were that

013many questions or comments some think I'm conflating uh the next item on the agenda but in any event I'm going to shut up Kayla's going to go through a overview of the plan the projects that are going to be featured the duration of the plan she's going to also highlight some of the scoring that was an aspect I think that the commission was interested in and we've provided a supplementary document to the packet in that regard as well um and with that Kayla take it away thank you brat for the gracious introduction uh thank you uh planning Commissioners and Planning Commission chair for having me here this evening to present on the fiscal year 24-29 Capital Improvement plan I'm going to try to make sure I'm speaking into the microphone so I'm sorry if I'm

014not looking at you as I'm speaking um I'm going to get started here with just a couple of introductory slides uh thank you for inviting me back in September to share the overview of the CIP process with Commissioners I'm going to recap just a little bit of that for the benefit of the public who may be following along with the consideration of this item tonight and then we'll get on to some highlights of what's proposed in the the current fiscal fiscal year 24-29 CIP and we can talk also about those scoring metrics as Mr Leonard mentioned so just orienting everyone who may not be familiar with thinking in terms of City fiscal years we at the city here are currently in FY 23 that runs from July 1st of 22 through June 30th of 23

015and the CIP that we are currently working on and have proposed here for you this evening to consider is the FY 24-29 CIP and that will so that would begin in just a few months July 1st of 2023 would be the starting point for this proposed plan and this is a full update as I believe Mr Leonard mentioned as well this full update covers a full six-year plan which includes many new projects modifications to existing projects reprioritization and removal of some projects that were determined no longer necessary or relevant so again just for orientation what's what is a CIP why do we need it this schedule of Public Service expenditures covers a six-year period this planning tool is for large physical improvements that are being made to City infrastructure and assets that provide basic needs

016in order for the community to function and this is required by the state of Michigan that this plan be created the full update cycle that we're doing now for the all six years we refer to that as taking place in the even years and that in this case refers to fall of 2022 so although we're in 23 now in an odd year we developed staff's time um spent working on this took place in Fall of 2022 so it was an even year cycle and a CIP project has a minimum threshold of a hundred thousand dollars for any physical infrastructure improvements to be included in this plan and studies that lead to physical projects of at least 50 000 are also included in the plan the major asset categories are municipal facilities transportation and utilities of

017course there are many subcategories within that but I'll save us the time and encourage anyone looking for more information on that to refer to the September work session presentation this overview was covered in detail back in September I just want to highlight the relationship between the CIP process and the budget cycle the development of the CIP takes place in the fall these first couple of steps that staff spent time identifying projects scoping scoring based on defined metrics and then programming the proposed CIP is now presented here for Planning Commission consideration that will be public hearing opportunity tonight and ultimately whenever the CIP does become approved it will be handed off to lead into the city budget cycle so this is a foundational piece of the city's capital budget and once projects are approved in the

018capital budget they can actually move forward to design and implementation so the CIP is an essential piece of the process but projects being approved in the CIP does not guarantee that it will receive funding there is a next step to city council approval so now looking more closely at what is included in the 24 through 29 proposed plan we have about close to 1.2 billion dollars worth of total Capital infrastructure Investments when you look at the breakdown of where the dollars are falling most heavily it's in the city-owned buildings group and I know Deb Goslin when she was here a few years ago highlighted this dramatic shift the city-owned buildings slice of the pie used to be pretty tiny but there was with the affordable housing millage there was a major effort made to identify

019opportunities for affordable housing improvements and in the out of this 481 million dollars it's something around 430 million of that is affordable housing projects the remainder include things like fire stations Parks I'm sorry parks are called out separately but fire stations and other work on city-owned building like here at larcom City Hall call that would be included in the remainder of that asset group the water system is our other biggest chunk of our CIP and of that 276 million over 100 million of that is the water treatment plant replacement project so there is an a very significant project that is programmed over the next six years and continuing beyond in order to entirely replace and revamp that water treatment plant so that's quite significant the other pieces also all smaller slices of the pie also

020contain a lot of really significant and important capital projects looking at the breakdown by number of projects we ended up with 500 total projects right on the dot by coincidence see if it turns out that way ever again I doubt it but um so the greatest number of projects is in the water system and so that was similar to what you see you saw that one having a large number of dollars it also has a very great number of projects Street construction coming in next As We Know many of our street infrastructure that that asset group requires a lot of investment to maintain and to keep it in in better condition we have a lot planned there so some of the highlights of kind of the types of projects that are included or changes that

021have happened since the last cycle this these items were also included in the memo that was provided to the Planning Commission but there's been a number of policy Direction new new changes that have happened over the last couple of years this is the first full CIP cycle since the adoption of the moving together toward Vision zero Transportation plan so although we saw that coming when the when Deb last presented a full CIP in 2020 there were some projects Incorporated in anticipation of that but this was our first full cycle with that component of the of the comprehensive plan for the city and the a20 carbon neutrality plan I believe was approved the June before I think it was June of 2020 so just before the last full CIP cycle however this being um it's second

022go round there were still opportunities to incorporate additional projects and clarify project Scopes based on our the city's adoption of that carbon neutrality plan and of course this fall the climate action millage resulted in a couple of new projects being incorporated as well as a number of projects having identified funding sources where before funding had been uncertain so projects that may have been floundering or were looking or may have been pushed further out were able to be brought forward and have a real tangible identifiable funding source that influenced things um I think a couple of the the all ages and abilities bike Network project received the climate action millage funding there was a sidewalk project on Earhart where funding from the climate action millage will go towards that I believe crosswalk lighting as well so

023a number of active Transportation items um will benefit from that millage the American Rescue plan act also led to some changes to the CIP again in some cases it was identifying a funding source for projects that were already identified needs the city clerk election center was also incorporated as a new project in a CIP based on the support of that having councils council's commitment to fund that through American Rescue plan Act Road Bond Council has approved a road bond that will help to further our investments in our road infrastructure and that will benefit a couple of specific Street projects but our local Street resurfacing project and our Capital preventative maintenance programs will benefit from that road Bond funding project coordination and efficiency is something I wanted to highlight this is an area that's always emphasized

024in the CIP process but this year we really made an effort to look at all of the upcoming Street projects and determine whether any correlated utility projects are needed so at the time when a street is opened up for utility work that's the most efficient time to make any improvements needed to aging water storm or sanitary infrastructure so there was a really dedicated effort to look for that for those parallel projects and and on the other hand I want to highlight that if you're tracking projects and how they had been represented in the CIP previously to how they may be shown in this proposed CIP you're going to notice many scheduled delays many projects that needed to be pushed further in the CIP cycle largely because of inflation and limited funding we've all seen inflation

025in our own consumer purchases the impacts to the construction sector are dramatic and the costs of some projects were increasing by um hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in some cases and there simply was not enough money available through util through the city's Revenue sources in order to be able to keep those projects programmed as planned we'll be able we will not be able to do as much work with the amount of money that we have because the work costs so much more we've also seen projects get delayed due to labor shortages due to supply chain and material shortages as well we've started utilizing the on hold project status a little more it was it was previously available in the CIP software in Alabama's but this year we looked more closely at projects

026that had been continuously getting bumped each year another year back and another year back and tried to think more critically about whether there is a commitment and an identified funding availability to to uh to predict that we think the project will move forward in the next six years and in cases where we really feel that funding is uncertain or the commitment's uncertain those have been moved to on hold they're still in the CIP we'll look at them each year as staff go through the CIP cycle and evaluate whether any of those now should come off of hold but the goal there in putting them on hold was to present to the public and to the planning Commissioners a CIP that is more reflective of reality to try to manage expectations and present something that we

027think is more tangible prioritization metrics a little on this I know we talked about this previous previously in September it was an area that the commission was interested in and we did move forward using our existing prioritization metrics that were established in 2020 when the new alivant software was adopted but we do see opportunities to continue improving metrics and we just want to note that as an area that we'd like to work on over the the gap between the next CIP cycle and I hope that it's something that planning Commissioners will participate with us in these discussions of course equity and sustainability are two areas where we want to continue improving how our metrics are defined there there are existing metrics that in the in many of the asset groups the metric relates to the

028percentage of households in poverty in a particular census tract so it's looking at where that project is expected to take place what is the percentage of households in poverty and then that would incorporate into the metric and while that's valuable there may be more that we could be looking at or other ways we could be thinking about sustainability and Equity so just wanted to note that those conversations did continue to happen throughout the CIP process with staff and it's an area that we see opportunity for improvement while we don't know the answer yet of what those metrics should be it's really about thinking about what projects are moving forward and are they the the projects that will provide the most benefit to the community as a whole and thinking about the different ways we could

029measure that and consider it in the process so another preview of something that's coming soon that I'm pretty excited about is that I we've been working with our staff that do geographic information systems so mapping mapping the CIP projects in a way that the community could spatially interact with the data so right now and in the past the CIP has existed as PDFs that are posted to the city web page and while we make every attempt to be completely transparent and the information is there it is hundreds of pages of material that can be kind of daunting to page through and find what you're looking for we have a draft dashboard that's in development that we believe could roll out hopefully in the next couple of months but certainly before the next full CIP cycle

030to be able to allow the public full interaction with the CIP data to click on individual polygons zoom into an area on the map of anywhere in the city where they're interested in seeing what might be planned in that area and see the details the project description the information and what is coming there this isn't another screenshot just showing how once you would click on an individual project it would pull up some information about that so we think we have the data available we have the tools we're just fine tuning cleaning it up and making sure everything is ready before we push it out publicly but we are pretty excited about that so that overview I turn it over to Commissioners for questions or maybe it's public hearing first I'll defer to Mr Leonard but

031I thank you all for your time and look forward to the discussion of the CIP thanks Kayla that's exciting to hear about the new things that are coming okay we will um move on to the public hearing part of this so this is an opportunity for people to be able to speak about the the CIP that we just heard about we'll first call an individuals present to address the commission and then remote participants to speak during this public hearing remotely press star nine of listening by phone or used to raise the hand feature if you went through the web link for phone access call 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-6634-1226 City staff will select callers that have raised their hand using the last three digits of your phone number or by name if available for

032those accessing through the web link when you hear an automated an automated announcement that the host is allowing you to speak when speaking please move to a quiet area and mute any television or background sound so that we may hear you clearly for either method of participation please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments is there anybody present that would like to address the Planning Commission on the Capital Improvements plan thank you Randall my name is Ken Garber I live at 28 Haverhill Court um I commend Miss Coleman and staff for their hard work on this CIP I spoke at this hearing the last two years running and both times I asked that Network geothermal Loops be built into some of these Street and Sewer projects so I'm really happy that

033this CIP includes a district geothermal field feasibility study and a downtown energy utility study along with the launch of a sustainable energy utility I'm super super pleased with this um next year we should see actual plans and budgets for specific District geothermal projects this is a five-year CIP I personally don't see any reason to wait for the outcomes of these studies before budgeting in some of these projects but that's just pushing me my other CIP comment is a bit of a rant sorry in advance this is about the 720 foot Airport runway extension the airport was designed for piston aircraft not for jets but more and more Jets and turbo jets are using it in bad weather they might have to cut back on passengers and payload in order to safely land or they might

034have to go elsewhere hence the longer Runway my question is why allow Jets here in the first place they're a climate disaster private jets are roughly 10 times more energy intensive per passenger than commercial planes and 50 times more energy intensive per passenger than trains football Saturdays see the most jet traffic why should we cater to Rich alumni just so they can jet in and out on game days let them fly commercial same for corporate travel cargo Jets can use Willow Run broader context Global Aviation emissions are set to Triple over the next 30 Years exceeding total emissions over the entire history of flight dating back to the Wright brothers this is massively unsustainable Aviation growth growth is wiping out the benefits of electric vehicles almost 2 million more flights a year touched down at

035U.S airports than 20 years ago and it's a tiny fraction of the global population doing the most damage most private jet traffic is discretionary the airport draft environmental assessment cites negligible climate impact but it only measures emissions at the airport not in the air that's like saying a Hummer is climate friendly based just on what it emits in the driveway last November 129 scientists blockaded 11 international airports and demand demand a ban on private jets 31 were arrested this Runway extension typifies the way we do transportation in this country if there is demand for more personal Mobility we automatically meet it with an utter lack of social responsibility um I don't expect you to cut this 6.5 million item tonight from the CIP too many people want it and I'm just one to range malcontent

036who doesn't thank you thank you anybody else present that would like to speak on the Capital Improvements plan do we have anybody in line virtually we do not okay well I will read the motion and then we can go into just two discussion whereas Section 1 185 of the Ann Arbor city code requires that the City Planning Commission annually prepare a Capital Improvements program identifying public improvements that will be needed within the ensuing six years in the general order of priority whereas the fiscal year 2024-29 Capital Improvements plan or CIP has been drafted by City asset category teams and reviewed by the City Planning Commission and whereas a duly noticed public hearing on the draft plan was held by the city planning commissioned on January 4th 2023 resolve the City Planning Commission hereby approves the

037fiscal year 2024 2029 Capital Improvements plan and resolved that the City Planning Commission recommends that the city council approved this fiscal year 2024-2029 Capital Improvements plan as the basis of the fiscal year 2024-2025 capital budget all right that's the motion moved by commissioner Mills seconded by commissioner weich we are in discussion commissioner Mills I'll start out by saying I feel like over the last I don't know actually know how many years I've been on Planning Commission seven or eight um we whenever the CIP came forward we would compliment Miss Goslin that continues on I am so excited about the staff that we have um in helping see us through this process I really really appreciate all of the attachments that you included in the staff report helping lay out it was really clear to follow

038kind of what the new projects are the list of I'd like the on hold that has perpetually been something that has been like this is so weird we have all of these projects that all just get pushed up to the last year and so having that category I think is really really helpful um I really appreciate the thought given to incorporating the policy context that you were talking about and I mean I that may have happened anyway but just seeing the slide of all of the things that that do affect kind of what the funding situation is what gets added to the list I think is really great so thank you very much um I have maybe I think two questions one is included in the packet for tonight was a memo to us from

039the Transportation Commission and their recommendations and I'm curious if you could help us understand like uh whether that has been addressed in the draft that we're seeing I didn't go Point by point but if and um and if not uh if we could talk about why not of course thank you is it okay if I address the questions please yes sure um thank you and that is probably an oversight on my end for not addressing that earlier so I apologize but the yes the Transportation Commission recommendations that have been provided to you have been Incorporated um I'm pulling them up right now just to skim through them so I can address them more specifically but staff from the so myself Steph from the Transportation that support the Transportation Commission and transportation Commissioners have met to

040review these and discuss how modifications could be made to the CIP and I believe that all of them have been addressed um all of the ones that are relevant to the CIP their their recommendations actually span Beyond just the capital Improvement plan and really some of these had to do with project implementation and budgeting and so those ones I will say they are within that same document but they're sort of for a later process but looking at the first section that have to do with capital Improvement plan projects we did incorporate the language about the desire for permanent physical protection curbs and bollards so there's a specific project in the CIP for the all ages and abilities bicycle Network and that scope has been modified to reflect the language proposed by the Transportation Commission the

041State Street um let me see and it the implementation of projects from the State Street Corridor um new projects should be added to reflect non-motorized connections so the way that those were Incorporated is there that there are existing uh projects in the CIP for the street construction component and we added scope items to note the non-motorized connections also needed as a component of that project so those are reflected um and the the final one I believe was incorporate I don't have the project number on the top of my head but there I believe there's an existing CIP project that reflected that band America Gallup Park um location that we may have made a modify I can look at that one in a little more detail but um I believe that it was a modification to

042the scope to reflect the commission's request there um and then the remainder of the recommendations were really about as I said like the implementation or the budgeting and not necessarily the CIP so those have been Incorporated um they were provided here for the commission so it was a comprehensive packet of all the recommendations and discussion that's taken place around the CIP given that it was dated September I assumed I just wanted that opportunity to say is this still something that we should be yeah um discussing so thank you very much for that I think that's all I have right now Mr White thanks uh for this presentation and report I just I had um two questions and I think I'll do the two uh the faking uh commissioner Mills for bringing up the Transportation Commission

043memo because that was going to be one so I would have had three um on slide six of your presentation which you gave to us and is in the staff report I just have a general question of why there's no um sub uh indication that 430 million of the 481 million is for affordable housing and why it's being labeled I I understand why it's being labeled because it is City owned but it just on the surface it seems like we're doing a lot in city-owned buildings that sort of supports the city services as opposed to affordable housing which sort of fits some other objectives so I just wonder from a policy or um a preference like why that's noted that way uh in your presentation sure so the way that the CIP is set up

044is by asset groups and it's meant to group like projects that um have similar characteristics together and so city-owned buildings is an entire asset group and within that that's where affordable housing projects are classified and um it's one of those things I'm hesitant because it sounds like I'm going to say well we're doing it that way because we've always done it that way but the reality is that those asset groups have been in place for I think decades I think we certainly can modify them there's no no reason why we could not but those asset groups have been in place for a very long time the influx of money towards affordable housing is recent sure and so in the past that was a small sliver and I suspect in the past the breakdown of that

045sliver of how much was fire stations versus Municipal facilities like the one we're in today versus affordable housing it was probably more comparable and right now it's really inflated I have no problem at all adding an asterisk to call out that and that's why I wanted to say it during the presentation is because I think it does misrepresent the data a little bit or it could lead to some confusion about you know why why are City on buildings getting 481 million dollars well that's specifically because 430 ish of that is affordable housing I'd be happy to add that note to the slide and provide it to planning staff to to replace or supplement what's in legistar if that would be helpful I think so I just think in terms of the general public it's something

046that's easily missed that there's those significant Investments and in particular that 200 million is to one development the 309 South Ashley development which is a significant investment in bringing affordable housing there it even exceeds the allocation that is for the Y lot so a lot of people are aware of the development that's happening there I'm not as sure that they're aware of what's coming to Ashley and the allocation that we have in this budget to forecast that and I just think in terms of communication and trying to cut through some of the communication for the general public it would just be helpful to see that there is a significant investment in affordable housing we hear at this table about affordable housing almost every time we hear about a development so it would be helpful to

047know wait look the city is investing almost a half a billion dollars in its five-year Capital plan in affordable housing so I would love to see that so thank you for being gracious there and then I just have a general question which I couldn't find the answer to so you may know or Mr Leonard may know um is bike infrastructure included in the road Bond funding I do not believe that bike infrastructure is included in the road Bond funding I would have to um to say that with certainty I would want to follow up with other staff or to see you know I don't know the answer to that my understanding of the road Bond was that it wasn't an intention to change the source and uses of those funds but it was a method

048of sort of front loading that so my understanding is that the splits would be the same but I I don't know if there was an intention to replicate the same for example for bike infrastructure if that's tracked in our active Transportation asset group separately yeah I'm fairly certain because we did make note in the CIP project descriptions where Road Bond funding was contributing to particular projects and the local Street resurfacing program received an influx of Road Bond funding that wouldn't impact bike infrastructure um in partic particularly because a local Street typically does not have marked bike Lanes or bike facilities that are um it like separate from just what's available on street so I'm thinking no in terms of the local Street resurfacing program Capital preventative maintenance is going to be things like crack sealing

049and patching that is not um not specific to bike infrastructure um the the only place I'm wondering there's a couple of specific capital projects and one of them is the Earhart Road resurfacing that those Street projects may include bike facility improvements that in that case it sort of is funding bikes if that road Bond money is going towards that project cost as a whole and part of that project is making bike improvements which I don't have to pull up the scope to see it because there are 500 of these I lose track of what's included in each one of them um that's the only one I can think of that it could be but I think as Mr Leonard said it was really about front loading the the road money for really Street focused projects

050not active Transportation so just a a couple of follow-up questions then so one can you clarify whether the there is a Prohibition of the road Bond funding for bike infrastructure where that infrastructure is on the road so I'm not talking about sidewalk or separate facility I'm talking about a protect it so you're going to resurface a road you know restripe the road when that occurs does does the bike infrastructure fit within that or does the city have to allocate additional funds outside of the road Bond funding in order to do that restriping and if the city were to put in um protected infrastructure like bollards or other separations would those be considered inside the road Bond funding or are those outside so that that's just like a general question because I'm just trying to understand

051soda the funding that we're allocating for roads but then or for infrastructure but really it's just car infrastructure it's it's not a a multimodal infrastructure and then if there is no um is is a restriction of the bond um or is it a restriction from the state on how those bonds can be used because I know the state has some say in dictating how local municipalities are able to utilize um some of those bond fundings for those kinds of projects and um yeah so I'm just trying to understand how like where what what the Horizon is for how we can achieve some of more of our goals of creating infrastructure that supports some of the a20 goals and and how that fits within the capital plan because I within the plan you've identified five miles

052per year um I wonder what it would look like if we reversed it and we only allocated five miles per year to cars and then we put the rest of that infrastructure to bikes uh how things might improve the infrastructure for us to use um the roadways uh outside of the use of cars so just trying to understand uh how this works uh within our structure and especially since it's a bond that has to go before the voters are the restrictions that come from the state or is this just as you indicated earlier maybe just the way we've been doing things so anything you can say to that I know I don't know that you were prepared to give me a complete answer for that so I don't expect one at this time well thank

053you commissioner white I think probably best I take that one back and I can relay a response to Mr Leonard to provide to the Planning Commission the only additional piece I can come I was able to pull up the scope for Earhart resurfacing which is specifically noted in the scope description as including road Bond funding it doesn't say exclusively funded by Road Bond but it does also include bike Lanes as part of that project scope so that's one where we could try to drill in to see um yeah it sounds like there may be other Project funding sources so it's possible that all the road work is being funded by the the road work that is for cars for pavement condition Improvement maybe is being funded by Road Bond and there could be other funding

054sources that are supporting the bike lane work I'm not sure but I will look into that as an example and drill into those questions more about any regulations on or prohibitions on how the bond funding can be used yeah and I think as I was listening to your response and thank you I wonder if there are um intentional Decisions by staff not to include bike infrastructure in the designs that utilize Road Bond funding so I'm just like where does it start does it start because the state says you can only do this for cars you cannot do this for bikes is it coming from the policy maker side so this the city council is saying we need to resurface these roads because they're in poor condition we don't really care about the bike infrastructure or

055is it coming from somewhere else such that as if I heard you correctly as you are looking at projects that re uh surface roads are also looking at utility upgrades you're also looking at potential easements and things like that well where does bike infrastructure sit in that car it does it have a seat at that table at the time that that planning gets done so that it could be included if there is no State uh prohibition of using those funds to expand it and my goal so like what is why is he like on this thing is to get more bike infrastructure that exceeds five miles per annual so thank you you finished go ahead commissioner survey kudos to all that um I mean I think I really maybe a mundane one um about like

056it's really helpful to see all the on hold uh pieces within the water there's a lot noted as on hold until Road resurfacing maybe this is just like it's a logistical question about how scoring happens and like if putting them on hold is part of the scoring system or was it kind of a qualitative decision that it was the one piece without the other an updated evaluation of the scoring metrics and it isn't the case isn't that we determined these projects scored low let's put them on hold there was usually some other factor of why it went on Holden in those water projects so we talked about the efficiency of if you're opening up the road because the pavement needs to be resurfaced that's a great time to repair to replace or improve the water

057infrastructure and a number of water projects we have identified needs are in infrastructure is aging we know that when the road gets done we want to improve the water infrastructure but we don't it would be very costly to the water fund to do it ahead of the road needing Improvement because then Road the street millage isn't going to contribute so if the we look at the Pacer rating of the street so that pays our rating has to do with pavement condition and if the pavement condition is high enough that it's in good enough condition then the engineers would discuss and determine that that's not a really good eligible use of Street millage dollars we have greater needs out there to put that street mileage money towards and if so then the water system would say

058well we don't want to pay to do all the road work and the water work so let's put it on hold and wait until if we can you know sometimes there's a greater need and projects have stayed in the plan if there was a water quality issue or you know some some greater identified reason why that that Water Project really needs to move forward then the water system will sometimes pay for the road work but in many of the cases it's not that there's any great problems happening right now there may have been a water main break here or there but proactively we know the infrastructure is getting old we want to take advantage of the first opportunity we get so we're tracking it so that when the pavement condition deteriorates enough we'll be ready

059to do that water project and that road project together great um maybe following back on the conversation of like I think what we're seeing is so many of our projects are now double dipping right finding the efficiency in that between uh housing and millages like complete Street roads and things like that and so it would be really nice to you know I think we're all kind of open to a conversation around like what those categories are and how much interplay there is in like future scoring um because I think that there's kind of complementary priorities or you know frictions within those two um so but I really really appreciate the work and I'm really excited about the maps thank you commissioner Lee thank you um yeah I'll voice everybody else's comments that very excellent presentation

060is very thorough thank you um one thing quick on the CIP metrics that you sent us makes reference to the master plan so we should just get it corrected to comprehensive plan um procedurally speaking just a quick question so we passed this as Planning Commission and then basically city council will refer to this as they're going through like the municipal budgeting process is that correct okay got it sounds good so this is still a required uh element oh yeah we need to make sure this goes through um one of the questions I had was is there any coordination with the university as far as getting feedback from them I'm sure one of the metrics was on cost sharing so just wanted to kind of get some feedback as to I know that they're working on

061their 10-year Vision as well as their 12-month planning process so what kind of coordination and interplay is there yeah I'm really glad you asked that because that's another thing I probably could have highlighted as well but we so the CIP process in addition to over 70 staff across the organization that are included in those meetings we include Community Partners and funding Partners such as the University of Michigan and they're invited to participate in the discussions for all of the asset groups okay so they participate in many of them I think there could be a couple that they find not particularly relevant or necessary but they are at the table for discussions on most particularly things like our Utility Systems our road systems active Transportation things like that where there could be overlap with work Bridges

062where there's been funding partnership recently as an example the university is there at the table they're invited to our the meetings that our staff hold as well um and we provide I've provided the report of the proposed CIP to University staff to see how things shake out what's what's programmed and proposed so that they can be conscious of that in their planning as well gotcha that's really helpful thank you um open spaces and park acquisition looks like we spent you know quite some money this prior year and we got two million dollars I think allocated can you just kind of from a budgeting standpoint is that city council really is the one that's making the determination as to how that fund is spent uh that is one I have to admit I don't have a

063whole lot of background on the open space acquisition it's one that is a pretty standard I'm trying to pull it up here in our system to see if I can find anything um it's it's been pretty standard I think oh it looks like the Greenbelt millage went into effect in 2003 extending funding for 30 years so I think it's based on the millage that has a consistent funding amount broken down oh okay the the number just kind of stood out to me it's 44 million dollars in the prior year and 60 million so I was like oh okay I happen to have um the parks director on a first name basis and I have invited him if um he'd like to address that as well Josh did you hear the question would you like it

064repeat it yeah I mean I think I pretty much understand I'm Kayla did an excellent job with that in regards to um it is based on the 30-year millage um roughly about two million dollars per year is budgeted for Acquisitions for the green belt and um and Parkland Acquisitions and then based on what we need to do per year is how we look at at that so there's obviously cost of properties these days is going up um but Remy long um and the staff associated with that do a great job of identifying what those dollars are and how we can best utilize them and they roll over from year to year so there's so so within uh Greenbelt millage as well as the park Parkland acquisition there are funds available for when properties do come

065about because trying to find a decent sized property in Ann Arbor these days is going to be a little bit more than two million dollars a year so that's how it gets put in there just more as a placeholder so that it gets done based on the millage so gotcha wow there it is thank you off you go Josh yeah uh last that was excellent um impeccable timing uh last question I have um coordination with um new zoning efforts um as far as coordinating we've talked a lot about coordinating Transportation use with land use planning and so are there um you know I'm taking a look at also what the Transportation Commission um I serve on the Transportation Commission so I have feedback into that um but uh just making sure that they are reflected

066in this plan so are there efforts I know I'm speaking predominantly to tc1 in whether it's Stadium State Eisenhower are those kinds of efforts kind of reflected in this plan I was just taking a look here to make sure that uh are there coordinations in that effort and is that an element that's weighted here in the CIP sure well we do have an asset group for Transit and we this year for the first time actually brought staff from the ride into the conversations so that we could ensure coordination with what the ride is planning for more and ensure that's reflected accurately in the CIP I can't recall any specific discussions in relation to the tc1 zoning and it could have just been timing in relation to when that was moving forward and the cap meetings

067were taking place but looks like Mr Leonard may be able to help out here yeah I don't uh something I don't think the CIP addresses tc1 but it's a conversation that we're starting with staff outside of the CIP one of the things that is happening is public services staff are starting some modeling and some scenarios for upgrading sort of our overall capacity of things like our water treatment plant and the like and part of that conversation is going to have to be the city really doing some scenario planning you know what is it going to look like there's there's probably different ways that we could approach that obviously what is our Horizon for population what is our Horizon for capacity um I don't know those answers I don't think that it is not going to

068be without challenges you know land use we have I would say from a planning perspective we've been pretty fortunate that we have had the capacity to address the development that both the private sector and Planning Commission city council have approved I don't know that that is ever ever always going to to be the case without some significant upgrades to our infrastructure and so you are seeing some of that the things we know in the CIP with the infrastructure we know but I don't know that that answers sort of the Horizon goals of what is the city's goals and some of this will be part of the comprehensive plan as well what is our population goal is our population goal incremental is it drastically increasing if the population goal is to double that's going to require

069some more significant infrastructure increases not only in the roads but in some of our larger facilities so in short I don't think that this CIP plan gets into that fine grain detail but those are some difficult decisions that I think that we have on the horizon gotcha thank you I think that's it for me in last shout out for the interactive GIS map because that is the actual underpinning of transparency and that accessibility is awesome so thank you for spearheading that thanks I would like to ask a follow-up question actually on on what commissioner Lee asked which is in that tc1 area um you know some of those areas are woefully deficient in terms of having even sidewalks for people to use and we may if if we're going to sort of expect people to

070walk and bike and take the bus and things like that we need to have those connections we may need to be ahead of some of the developments as they happen incrementally and so that's maybe another way that tc1 would interface with how to prioritize some of those areas so you know some have complete sidewalks and some just don't at all so that's another element that might be important to start thinking about as we're focusing on that as well I think the maps actually would help with that conversation a lot I think not only for on the areas that the Planning Commission has has sort of started or sort of has on the horizon to look at but tc1 is not limited to those corridors as well so I think um that that would be a

071welcome resource for the consideration not only from City about you you know as Kayla's not to reiterate it but we can't do all the things we want to do and to make those Investments maybe and prioritize them and tc1 is going to come at the cost of those Investments somewhere else so those are some of the the on the horizon decisions that I think we're going to have to Grapple with um and I think that that map would be actually a really useful tool not only on a planning perspective but it might even be a useful tool for us on a sort of development by development basis when we're considering those rezonings at this table yeah that makes a lot of sense anybody else uh this is just a clarifying question and I get stuck

072in ruts and then I go do some research and then I come back and ask a different question so um for the Michigan transportation funding the ACT 51 which is what I think is the apparatus that we're doing this road funding and is that correct so in my understanding and this is what I would like clarification for it's not there doesn't seem to be any prohibition for bike infrastructure to be included in those projects when they are utilizing that funding so I know we will get an update from you as we work through the capital plan so if as we get our next update if you could maybe put on your horizon to sort of um address that just to say just to help us understand where the decision making is coming from so if

073it is the case that just not happening because no one is advocating for it I mean I I have a a resolution out of legislar where the Transportation Commission is asking for an allocation that is uh to in because they're taking five percent of those revenues to do some infrastructure and they're recommending that that move from five percent to eighty percent and then a new reallocation so I hear Transportation asking for it and so I don't know if it helps for planning to take that up since the the the capital plan gets approved by planning um so just guidance on that like what level of recommendations because you know you indicated that there are 70 staffers that are looking at this and making recommendations and then you have this sort of volunteer board that comes

074at the end of the process and says but wait you forgot our pet projects so could you please put this in and put this in and put that in so as you prepare your next update for us if you could give at least me and maybe the commission some helpful handrails or or guard rails for where that feedback should come uh to you and how it should come to you as you do that planning that would be extremely helpful for me so that I can direct my questions and have them ready so more bike infrastructure is you know it's gonna come with the road infrastructure that's all I'm I don't even think I'm asking for anything special it's just put it in when we redo the road uh just a question on that I to

075put our transportation team on the spot um who aren't here it's the easiest way to do that um I I would be I wouldn't be surprised if they have um sort of a relatively ready to go presentation on how specifically transportation is funded and what a lot of your questions are I think are coming out of that you know transportation is a complex funding animal and I wonder if that would be getting too far in the weeds for the commission or if you would appreciate sort of an overview of the Michigan Transportation fund act 51 the road Bond like a lot of these questions that we seem to be spending and that's something that happens on a lot of petitions is we're particularly interested in multimodal transportation opportunities not motorized and bike I dare say

076there might be more interest in the intricacies of that than there are water and sewer funding and so not something you have to address now but if that's something that would be of interested interest to the Planning Commission we could schedule just sort of uh a bit of a tutorial on transportation funding and that might be a good forum to dive into some of those questions outside of the CIP process so that when the next time comes around we've armed you if you will with some of those constraints that do or don't exist for the plan itself I'll speak for myself personally yes and that could also just come in a presentation so it could be a five slide deck that just says here's how it works because the there's some confusion for me whether

077these bonds are bonds that go before the voters or if these are bonds that come out of act 51 and and I think the reason why I am interested at it isn't it at this juncture is this plan sits at this table so we approve this plan and and so understanding why in our infrastructure conversations we're not including bike infrastructure is a helpful clarification and is that because these funds prohibit us from doing that when we do the road or is there some other policy decision so as you think about who you might ask to prepare uh information pack if they could address whether this is a restriction of the funding source if this is a restriction of the policy makers or if it's just the way we have done things because we over in

078my view we over prioritize car based infrastructure and not multimodal infrastructure within our city and and it's reflected in our money right they you know the that saying that goes if you want to see what someone or something values look at where the money is and if I'm looking at the money we we really value car infrastructure we don't value bike infrastructure and and and this budget reflects that and and I just want to understand where the Genesis of that is is that a policy decision is that a funding restriction or is it just the way we've approached this well let me I will start with that resource and then if there's a desire to dive more into it we can always follow up with that thank you if I could add one um just

079additional note may or may not be helpful but in regard to whether the conversation is happening about active Transportation infrastructure along with Street construction it absolutely is and you it's you look in the project Scopes I hope that you'll see it more visible in this CIP as I mentioned in the policy overview this is the first full CIP that's happened since the new moving together towards Vision zero Transportation plan and as all of the project Scopes were reviewed and updated in this CIP cycle revisions were made consistently to reflect what is uh what is noted as needed in the transportation plan so if it's a street that's noted as an all ages and abilities network if it's a tier one or tier two safety corridor if it was a priority intersection or a focus intersection

080all of that is reflected in the scope so that doesn't necessarily answer your question about how it will be funded but the need the the opening the conversation to note that when you go and do this road resurfacing let's not just put down smooth pavement but let's do what's needed for people walking people biking people using other modes of transportation that is a conscious effort at least was made to reflect that in these scopes with Transportation staff alongside engineering staff contributing to that thank you thank you I have one other question and this is a little bit sort of big picture and maybe not right now but I'm just wondering as remote work has become more and more of a kind of standard with the city if there's been any reevaluation of the use of

081city-owned property for offices that don't have a lot of people in them anymore in terms of I mean this building it seems to me is mostly empty a lot of the time now and I'm just wondering if that conversation has started and it wouldn't be something that you know is necessarily reflected in what's coming in the next year or two but 2029 I don't know maybe we should be thinking about you know what and it's hard to know kind of how those patterns may stick or not but it's just something that we're heating these spaces we're have lights on the new spaces where you know we have a lot of resources that we've invested in that have been consistently filled with people for a long time but life has really changed too so I'm just

082curious if that conversation has begun yeah I'll start I don't know if if this has been part of the CIP but I can just share um what I've heard um on over the past segment there's been quite a bit of um flexibility provided to managers to make that decision about what's the best arrangement for the type of service that they're providing with an emphasis on that service so in the case of planning we are largely fully remote I was really happy with how we transitioned to keep our services when covet hit and so we have maintained that recently the city administrator and sort of sharing with on all employees overview as he frequently does is that his intention is to continue providing that flexibility ability to City staff indefinitely again that could change but that

083he he has shared that he sees the benefit of that and I take that as a bit of a next step towards having that discussion because I do think that that was probably a bit of a barrier from me making any sort of permanent decisions about my space without the assurance that as an organization it's going to be welcome so I I don't think that those decisions have been made but I would anticipate now with that directive I could see that coming so I and then I don't know if it was addressed more specifically in your in your word it did not come up in the CIP discussions about city-owned buildings so it could be something for the next CIP cycle something yet to come okay thanks any other discussion I think then we are

084ready for a vote all right um with the saving of commissioner Clark joining us we do have six Commissioners to be able to take action commissioner Mills yes commissioner Gabe Randall yes commissioner sovay yes commissioner Lee Yes commissioner Clark yes Mr White yes the CIP is approved Michaela yeah thank you thank you all okay we are on to item 8B which is the adoption of the 2023 through 2028 Parks and Recreation open space plan or the prose plan do we have a just give me one moment to uh yeah yeah got to hold yourself back for a little bit you'll come first though when I okay I am promoting uh three representatives from City Parks and Recreation staff one of which you already had the pleasure from hearing from the parks manager Josh landefeld I

085think he'll be kicking off the discussion and then we have two Park planners um who we have a special affinity for on the planning team because they have planner in their title uh Hillary Hansel and Adam firchow I think uh as um as you'll as has been summarized already this is a proposed amendment to the city's comprehensive plan updating the pros the Parks and Recreation and open space plan that is adopted for a defined period um you are going to hear an overview of that plan the significant Community engagement that went into its creation and you're also going to hear some modifications to the plan um that were made by the uh Parks and Recreation uh advisor the parks advisory commission uh yesterday um I um asked for the planning commission's patients as those changes

086are described I think they're they're pretty moderate but the proposed motion that you'll be considering this evening would be incorporating those changes the reason for some of these rapid fire changes is that we are trying to meet a state designated deadline to get this plan adopted and submitted um speaking of our last item that will open up the opportunity for some other potential Financial Resources to advance some of our goals so with that uh Josh take it away uh good to talk to you again after just a couple minutes but I think want to thank you for having us here again um we'll be providing some updates uh on the plan that have taken place since completed Adam spoke about the plan in late late October uh just to get kind of an overcast the

087last 10 months uh Park staff have been focusing on and working on updating the previous prose plan um that that ended in 2020 um based on the current environment the plans and the needs of the parks department we have seen a great uh Community engagement this this time around we actually saw a doubling of our survey results over prior prose plan um development um in addition we saw much more engaged Community during the public comment section so during throughout this process Adam Hillary myself received a lot of feedback a lot of thoughts throughout the process um as Kayla mentioned it's kind of interesting to come in on the tail end of the CIP program uh the newest CIP CIP program has tried to show a more realistic view of the projects and that may be

088started in the next few years um and with that Parks has a budget of even notice of over 42 million dollars of projects um with that total that doesn't touch on all of the wants and needs and and unknowns that Parks may have so we have really have a horizon issue coming with a large number of infrastructure facilities programming opportunities that we need to be aware of um and so as we look through this prose plan and we receive the feedback from the community from from staff from Planning Commission when we're here back in the summer Parks advisory commission you know we realized that the current plan had a large number of projects and details and information that that needed to be evaluated regarding their potential actual completion in the next five years and so

089we really took a hard look at what the last plan was to ensure that what we had going forward made sense for what we were looking to do um the parks advisor commission is probably a little tired of seeing Hillary and Adam in front of them talking about the pros plan I think we've given an update almost monthly on what we're doing um the impact that we've had the ways that we've reached out and they have supported the process throughout and last night the discussion that we had with him was wonderful but fully they supported the new resolution with some updated language but they have been very engaged in direct and supported our direction that we move forward um you know as Brett mentioned our goal is to get this approved this month um because

090in order to be eligible for this year's grants we need to submit the the pros plan by February 1st to be eligible to um to apply for Grants on April 1st um and it's it's also important to remember parks department has over 160 Parks um that serve millions of visitors each year um and and this is from the pools to the to the border to border to the farmers market um in each of those parks and Facilities have extreme needs that they're going to be coming to fruition in these next few years um in fact in park staff work really hard to prioritize what those needs are and what support those parks received in this document um some some parks have have very active adopters Park stewards um have coalitions or or commissions that really

091advocate for them but it's our job throughout throughout the pros plan to look at the department as a whole and identify what is needed to ensure that each of those Parks can can Thrive and survive in the next five years so um I I was asked to make a brief introduction that I'm probably longer than I should have been um but I'm going to turn it over down to Hillary um to talk a little bit further about what we what changes have taken place and what we're kind of doing at this point so thank you all right hi everyone hopefully you can see my screen and hear me okay um so we're back here today um to talk about the pros plan kind of um I'm going to start out here just a brief overview

092I know a lot of you have seen us already but for anyone who might be joining us um for the first time you know what is the role of the pros plan so this is a part of the city's comprehensive plan but it's our plan for the park system you know as Josh mentioned it kind of has this focus on five years as well as Beyond uh you know a big part of this is the opportunity for this public forum to discuss um you know what is important to the community make sure that we're reflecting the values and desires of the community responding to current trends and then outlining these needs and desires for both existing facilities as well as proposed future facilities it's actually alluded to it is something that we aim to update

093every five years to maintain Grant eligibility through the DNR specifically and so you know again just a similar snapshot at the community engagement that has taken place over this past year so in addition to this we had a prose plan task force made up of Pac member City Council Members City staff as well as a member from the Equitable engagement committee and this task force you know guided this entire effort so everything from the development of the online survey which had nearly 2 400 respondents and it was open this past spring to crafting questions and participating in focus groups with various um you know commissions as well as focus groups on specific issues including Planning Commission and then we held two separate public meetings um one virtual one in person as well as received many

094email comments mostly during this kind of um you know public comment period um which was a 42-day review and so um you know this public comment period uh began you know November 11th and city council gave approval um to distribute the plan it was passed along to other municipalities for coordination collaboration um you know at this point you know our vision you know what we're envisioning for this public comment period is that we've had a lot of opportunities for Community engagement you know this is kind of seen as this last call to kind of put the finishing touches on the plan make sure nothing was overlooked we read and review all the comments take them into consideration we're not anticipating you know substantial content changes um uh you know unfortunately with the timing of the

095public comment period closed just before the holidays so December 23rd um and there was as there always is a large push kind of quite just at the end here um and so you know we met with Pat yesterday you had a held a special meeting they recommended their approval with these content changes that I'll show you shortly we're here with you today um our plan would be if we were um to be recommended for approval to then go to city council um on the 9th on Monday to meet this goal of submitting to the DNR by the end of the month and so um you know I know you have copies of all the public comments that we received during that public comment period um as well as uh basically an Excel spreadsheet that tracked

096um kind of a summary of each comment and whether changes were made to the plan there are also changes that were made to the plan um you know for other reasons and so um that was all included um and some of the themes of the public comments that we got you know there was a lot of discussion around the center of the city um we did receive a statement from the Council of the commons as well as individual comments from members of the council and members of the community at large uh the mostly focused um I wanted to see Census Data breakdown by different planning areas within the city um which we did ultimately include they wanted to see some stronger support clarifying some language about funding responsibilities there are also a couple of comments

097we received that were not really in support of that project and then we received comments about um including language for Dark Skies compliant lighting practices within Park Properties um you know several requests for new amenities and improvements usually for specific amenities or improvements that specific Parks from things such as neighborhood associations or other groups and then other miscellaneous items uh you know comments related to the Huron River Greenway plans that had been developed previously how it's relating to rare railroad barriers and safety issues sustainability so um you know a broad swath and then you know of course just comments related to formatting suggestions kind of minor clarifications with spelling and grammar so so that's kind of just an overview and then um at the park advisory commission meeting yesterday Pac recommended approval of the plan

098but was the following language adjustments um these are all related to the center of the city so the first adjustment was um there were two paragraphs that that discussed the center of the city and they um were previously included on both page 20 and Page 52. um the thinking was that it was duplicative and that it made more sense to include on page 52 so we removed it from page 20. um we also added specific Charter language um you know from the charter uh to that page 52 language and then we also adjusted um you know one of the sentences there to basically state that the Council of the commons is responsible for recommendations on design usage and funding for the library land previously had said you know just funding and there are some other

099language changes that were recommended so so these are the the main changes that that pack um wanted to see and that were changed from the version that was in your packet so the most current version is up on the park planning website with these changes and that's what we'd be asking um for you to review today so with that um happy to take any questions here for reminding me of this twice commissioner white we will move into the public hearing portion of this this is an opportunity for persons to speak up to three minutes about the um the Parks and Recreation open space plan for 23 uh 2023 through 2028. we'll first call on individuals present um to address the commission then remote participants to speak during the public hearing remotely press star nine if

100listening by phone or used to raise hand feature if viewing to the web link for phone access call 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-6634-1226 City staff will select callers that will raise their hand using the last three digits of your phone number or by name if available for those accessing through the web link when you hear an automated announcement that the host is allowing you to speak when speaking please move to a quiet area mute any television or background sound so that we may hear you clearly for either method please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments is there anybody present that would like to comment [Music] thank you for an opportunity to speak I've read the prose plan I read the capital Improvement plan more than once and I want

101to use this as a quick chance to bring you up to speed on what we've been trying to do for the last two years with our non-profit we created in 2019 called Equitable Ann Arbor Land Trust I'm a developer I taught development for 40 years at U of M I had a number of you as students including Lisa and Juan Wu and Kyla's fiance and Hilary Hansel I love Ann Arbor I know it well I see enormous problems with our sustainability and our housing agenda it's well verbalized by everyone saying these are problems that we have to address you look at the 30 projects that were identified in the paper today by Ryan the only ones that begin to talk to this problem are the ones being done by the city with the great talents

102of Jennifer Hall on the former y site and the site at the Catherine forth Equitable Land Trust Equitable Ann Arbor Land Trust has been very busy for the last two and a half years talking to hundreds of stakeholders most of you we are finally ready to release our 2030 draft development plan to create 25 000 housing units on publicly owned surface parking lots now owned by the city the county Washington Community College Ann Arbor Public Schools and the University these are surface parking lots for the most part they clearly have a higher and better use than parking for commuters the best immediately feasible sites in our mind are the eight service parking lots near the river from Argo Pond to the Arboretum these eight service parking lots half of which are along Fuller Road the

103Fuller pool a lot owned by you the hospital out across the street a lot of people talk about is the train station site and the two university-owned sites on either side of Fuller Road at the Mitchell Fields we see these as ideal mixed use Transit oriented affordable Workforce and Market great housing sites rental and for sale wherever possible these eight sites offer 10 to 20 minute walkable distances to jobs that are near the river they're near downtown they're near campus Kayla's 430 million dollars in affordable housing is one of the many tools that we can use to bring the prices down for this housing publicly owned land with a Community Land Trust long-term 99-year leases from the current owners so they still control the land and they create the strengths attached to the type of

104housing to be built on them are another very important tool the rest of the city and the university would be zero as an RFP process would leverage the private sector to TurnKey development these sites subject to the underneath land remaining and the public venue public ownership receiving a negotiated land rent I sent a copy of this to you all as the many of you that I've got addresses I look forward to getting back to you this will be an article on Ryan Stanton uh his meeting with us tomorrow to talk about all the details of this flesh out more details and that'll be available publicly next week thank you very much thank you hi my name is Larry deck I live at 3050 Lorraine Street I'm speaking on behalf of walk bike Washington called Washington

105basically in the walking Coalition but we want to make it a little easier to say this ties in actually to what Mr Allen was talking about in The River Valley area the previous prose plan had four maps of what was called the Huron River Greenway the connected parks and trails in the river valley um showing the border border Trail and also showing the gaps in the trails this proposed plan took those Maps out it was in the 2016 plan it was in previous Parks plans it needs to be put back in these are long-standing plans that many people have worked on over the over the decades really and some text has been put into the parks draft to try to address some of these concerns it helps but it doesn't deal with all the issues

106and in a case like this one picture is really worth a thousand words uh to show what's needed in terms of Trail connectivity having it the maps in the plan would help with funding applications help attract funders who are attracted to these major projects like the border border Trail and connections to it the border border trail that being also part of the Statewide iron bell trail system to take one example of what's missing currently in the plan that was in there previously is the area around the Fuller Maiden Lane intersection down the hill from the hospital and in the area of the parking lots that Mr Allen was talking about most of you are probably all of you are too young to remember back in the 1980s when the roads and bridges in that area

107were rebuilt the roads were rebuilt and widened Four Bridges were built two over the river two over the railroad and pads were built underneath each Bridge each of the four Bridges concrete pads for trail connections that were anticipated to be put in they'll spend about 40 years in those Trail connections still haven't been made that needs to be in the plan having those connections both the B2B connection through there and the loop trail under the bridges would be important for Mobility for Walkers and bikers in that whole area of lower Town University Hospital between north campus and central campus the uh these projects have been they were in the transportation plan the non-motorous transportation plan in 2016. I mean 2006 and they were as well as in the Parks plan in 2016. and also they

108were re-affirmed by the city council resolution in 2015. that Greenway the river Greenway the connected trails and parks and their Valley Corridor are really the jewel of Ann Arbor's Park system and they need to be treated as such a lot of work a lot of minds and effort have gone into these over many years to help create this Vision we need to perpetuate that Vision in the plan as far as what you should can do I don't know whether it's best to defer action on this or to act on it with a Proviso that these Maps be put back in the plan within say the next two months I guess that's up to you how best to deal with it but those Maps need to be in there for a lot of reasons thank you

109thank you is there anybody else present here that would like to speak to the commission on the prose plan anybody in the queue virtually we do caller with the phone number ending with three four five you can press Start you have three minutes to address the Planning Commission hi I'm Kitty Khan and I live at 515 Pro Street in the Fifth Ward um I have a few things to say but first of all I'm assuming that the presentation that we saw on the screen um for page 52 was did include revisions that were made in pack yesterday um if so I have a comment about the change to the language on page 52 regarding center of the city um there was an I'm a fan of the Oxford comma but in the sentence that talks

110about I don't have the exact sentence in front of me but there was an expert comma in front of and funding it was the part about what the Council of the commons would be responsible for I think it was directing design and and then at the end it said and funding and there was an Oxford comma in front of and funding and this changes the meeting this makes it mean that the Council of the commons is responsible for funding and that is not true responsible for maybe directing I don't have the exact sentence but anyway I want to make it clear Council of the commons is not responsible for providing the funding so I want you to make the change on page 52 please to reflect it also I'm very happy that pack has added

111the charter language for centers of the city in the prose plan that was very good because it should be there and since it is now a part of the city Charter as an urban Central Park the library lot should join Liberty Plaza and tempos as being designated apart and it should be rezoned to public lands such a designation would make it easier to apply for grant money for the center of the city there's been a lot of talk about the need for funding and this would enable more funding so I would like to see that done another source of financial support for the center of the city should be the DEA after all it is in the DDA area this should also be added to the pros plan uh one thing that other Michigan cities

112with thriving public squares such as Detroit Plymouth and Royal Oak have in common is that their ddas and their Mayors are strong supporters that should be the case in Ann Arbor as well why isn't it uh so I would like that to be added to the prose plan too before it is approved thank you very much thank you the phone number ending with four six four you have three minutes to address the Planning Commission hello can you hear me we can hello oh thanks thank you um Linda Brower um about the pros plan I want to support what Larry deck said I I don't know him personally but I was at the park advisory commission listening in yesterday um when they discussed the Pro Plan and I heard him make the same comments and I'm

113very much in support of that because the approach plan does discuss opportunities for open space and Recreation outside of the city boundary so I would love to see those maps in there and I know that Hillary the wonderful part planner who put so much of her heart and soul in the prose plan and I'm so grateful to her for doing that she did she did explain why it wasn't in there but it wasn't I didn't quite understand why something about them being updated but I wondered if a above them being out of date but I wonder if an updated version could be put in anyway because you know the board report a trail and getting it finished it's really important so I can only support that um and maybe maybe Hillary can clarify what I

114didn't understand last night for all of you as well as for me and my other point about the Pro's plan you know the center of the city is mentioned in it and I'm glad the chair to remember isn't it and since you are the Planning Commission and you're in charge of making recommendations about zoning I was very surprised when really relatively recently I thought that all City owned land is joined is is zoned PL public land whether it's used for parks or for other silly City facilities like city hall or the yard or whatever for you of Emily and whatever you know but I thought it was all Zone PL and I was very surprised when somebody told me that the library lab was actually zoned D1 and since the city Charter says it shall

115be public land and Parkland in perpetuity I think it is really incumbent upon you to as soon as possible recommend to city council that the official zoning be changed from D1 to PL because as we know the L and pl V1 and pl have a very very different um you know very different consequences so please consider that and I'm bringing it up during this public hearing because maybe you can even suggest a change in the prose plan to say um you know the city should consider rezoning the library that the city should consider rezoning the library lab into public land since my Charter Amendment it is public land in perpetuity so let's have our zoning reflect our city Charter thank you thank you Daniel Adams you can unmute and address the Planning Commission for three

116minutes yeah uh Daniel Adams uh 1016 Daniel Street um you know and one of the things about the the plan that I think is um really commendable and fully support you know the change to page 105 recommending that the center of the city is a poor candidate for resource Investments um you know until we have an established Park Plaza on the site you know one of the things about that that I think uh it it it um it flows naturally from the you know the statement and earlier on page 90 I think it's 92 but it might have been repaginated in this draft uh relating to the earlier Park survey that was taken last year that I think accurately measured local sentiment regarding the appetite to invest City money into the site uh quote there

117was low support for developing a new downtown park at the center of the city site which includes Liberty Plaza the parking lot known as the library lot I think it's a real mistake to allow a very small minority of City residents who uh for whatever reason are you know invested in the idea that this is a viable project at the site um it's a mistake to allow them to you know shape something that becomes part of the comprehensive plan in a way that advances an agenda that really doesn't seem to be supported by City residents as reflected on the most recent survey which as compared to the 2018 ballot initiative was a much better task for a public sentiment in terms of of whether or not to invest resources into the site the ballot initiative

118set aside the property in perpetuity um there was a lot of opposition at the time to the development that was going to go in there the ballot initiative itself the language wasn't intended to measure public support for making City investments into the site so I appreciate the fact that the plan is the draft that I'm looking at the draft attached to the agenda you know indicates that we really need to wait for Library green the private organization that committed to raising money to establishing a viable Park Plaza at the site we need to wait for them to do the fundraising work that they committed to do which they haven't done today they've broken their promises I think to the community 30 more seconds we need to wait for that and really put the onus back

119on them to do what they promise to do before we um we invest City resources into that site so I the version of this that I'd really like to see codified into the master plan as a version that makes that very very clear it lays down a marker such that um it's it's abundantly clear to the folks that made those commitments that they need to follow through thank you very much thank you no other speakers have indicated okay I will read the motion but it sounds like there's some things that this motion needs to cover that are amended no um the motion as it stands is adequate so long as the Planning Commission is clear that you are adopting the version as Modified by the parks advisory commission so if you have any questions about

120the impact of those changes from the version that was in your packet I would just ask for you to have the park staff clarify that with you it is just those three changes that were I that were identified and summarized in that but the motion as it stands with your acquiescence of that those changes to to the plan are fine okay and that's included on the paper sheet correct that we got at our CTS okay so there's two motions uh the first is the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission adopts the 2023-2028 Parks and Recreation open spent open space plan as a city-wide element of the anniversary comprehensive plan and repeals the 2016 through 2020 Parks and Recreation opens it open space plan and the second one is the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission recommends that

121the Marin city council approved the 20 through 2023 through 2028 Parks and Recreation open space plan as an element of the anniversity comprehensive plan moved by commissioner white seconded by commissioner Mills we are in discussion go ahead all right so I think this my first question or my clarification is to you Hillary um you're on two screens so if I'm looking back and forth It's because one is flickering um I think I've read the exchange between you and Mr deck I think I understand what I've read I wonder um if there is um a compromise that could be considered so am I correct that all of this is covered under potential new recreational facilities and park amenities starting on page 131 and subsection F border to border Trail point four Fuller Road and 0.3 Trail

122yes yeah so um just to clarify um the maps that Mr duck was referencing um you know those were included in the last prose plan um however when we looked at them as part of updating this plan we noticed that the alignment of some of the trails didn't reflect current thinking both by City staff and Washington County Parks as far as like big proposed alignment for the border to border Trail um and the match just hadn't been updated to kind of reflect current conditions um so while we're not saying that everything in those Maps isn't current there were elements that hadn't been updated to reflect current changes um I would fully admit I don't know who had specifically put those Maps together originally or how old they were um and talking to my colleagues at

123the county parks they thought the maps were probably close to 10 to 15 years old and met um you know the Huron River Greenway was this visioning effort that the border to border Trail um that kind of eventually turned into the Border Corridor Trail in some regards um you know there are also lots of connections that were proposed in addition to the border to border Trail alignment as well um you know this plan the prose plan is our Parks plan and so um you know the fact that they were older they hadn't been updated it wasn't something that we um were challenged specifically with updating um and the fact that it proposed um trails and non-motorized connections on land that was not Park land you know land even that one by the city um or

124you know such as private nine and University land um you know we couldn't say that this reflected you know the current thinking of um the community um so essentially we removed those we inserted current ordered border Trail um plans showing those proposed alignments that we did know to be current and reflective of current plans um you know I understand um Mr deck's points that those plans aren't um you know don't totally replace what was included in the Huron River Greenway Maps um but you know without having something that was current I it didn't feel um right to include those and that's why they weren't part of this plan thanks for that um so my question that I I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page and I was referring to the

125correct content so I I wondered um if there were a way so so two things then uh first the city has discussed the bikeways under the bridge because of the widening of that bridge do you all where do those maps and Designs sit within your purview do you have access to those are those maps and designs that you comment on or are they outside of the parks because they're in an infrastructure project even though they're going to connect to the trail yes we've been we've been in regular conversation with with Fran and Nick in regards to that that project um there was initially going to be a meeting where they will be coming to pack to talk about the impact that that and how those can be played into into those Trails because you're right

126they do connect well it may end at a point that is outside of parks uh they do play into a connection within there um all of the all of these points that are in this this plan and the other conversations associated with bike Recreation and bike and bike Transit I mean those are all conversations that we are a part of um you know we have not had that meeting at packed yet because engineering is working through figuring out exactly when to come at the right moment but we have started those conversations that are engaged with them um and anything that moves forward with that plan is something that we that Park staff pack will have um interaction with and say as a part of so I think my question is is there a mechanism that's

127available to you and therefore us to addend uh make an addendum to the plan that references this Horizon so that you wouldn't that the concern that I'm hearing is the the maps that you have are out of date you don't know the origin of them they don't reflect the current um sort of reality on the ground what I'm hearing from Mr deck and his comments both in the email and his presentation here is it's important to have those Maps there because they help with you know other activities that are happening inside the city whether it's for funding or for Grants to sort of fulfill those types of things and I'm I'm trying to see is there a way that the plan can be the plan that Parks has but has an addendum that acknowledges that

128this is still happening that you know the city is working on this um and or a process where we would be able to amend the plan uh in the future so I think that that's the set of my questions I'm just trying to understand uh if there is a bridge to what I'm hearing Mr deck ask for and what I see in these comments yeah I mean this plan I mean one of the things that we've worked really hard on in putting this plan together is you know as I mentioned at the start of this I mean right now we have 42 million dollars a project set aside for within the CIP there's a large number of things that we are completely unaware of what's going to be taking place when when the the pros

129plan was created six years ago um in 2016. we did not know that the the West Park band show was going to the foundation was going to fall apart during this period and the two million dollar project set there it is not a situation where this plan identifies the only things that we do in the next five years um the goal of having this gives us the flexibility to identify things that we are aware of and want to focus on but also the flexibility in regards to what we need to do moving forward the inclusion of a picture into the prose plan is not going to determine one way or another whether or not we have the ability to do that plan that project moving forward our job as the as a staff and as

130the planners is to be to ensure ourselves that we're in the conversation and having these things in writing in regards to the Fuller Road Maiden Lane interchange the polar Road rerouting the Trailway using Fuller Park those are all things that are in there that are identified as ways that we're going to continue to talk about when opportunities come about we completely understand the need to move forward with the to improve the The Interchange of the bordered border at that section and it's in there as a way for us to support it when it comes about I mean as as number two on that part is the band of Mirror part of the band America tunnel that has been sitting in that that that that that map for the last 10 to 15 years and we're

131still working on that in the likelihood of us completing that in time for this this within this cycle is pretty good um assuming that everything comes together so you know I I'm not sure I mean I could I can come one way and say I'm not sure why having the plan that the map in will hurt us in this plan outside of the fact that there is a hard sense of it being out outlined And in regards to moving us forward with those to include it I think that with this with center of the city with a number of other initiatives we have we have left the door open for us to be able to to negotiate and to to do the projects that come about when they come about versus being tied to something

132that we can't that that's in this plan that that we can't get out of um and I know that Matt last part probably didn't make enough sense but you know we really just tried to keep this vague enough to support any initiatives that come forward can I ask Mr Deco question sure okay Mr deck can you come back to the mic um so can you help me understand like I've read everything I'm looking at everything what just give me another snapshot of what I'm missing for why it's important that these maps from 2016 to 2020 show up in this plan it shows a whole picture I think when you have some text you know it's really hard to see what the whole picture looks like so uh I think it was Frederick Law Olmstead said

133that you know it's important to have a visual design you can see to make people understand things and motivate people and I think that's the case here some some text doesn't really do justice to the seeing what the whole picture looks like so would the inclusion of The Proposal that the city is considering because they're gonna they're designing the widening of the Maiden Lane bridge and as a part of that they're also looking at the connections under the bridge the East medical Bridge yes yes sorry the East medical Bridge not Maiden Lane I don't even know which is part of this whole system yes with the inclusion of that proposed work accomplish what you want or is that still not enough that's one part of it but uh but it's not the whole thing if

134you look at the so that's one component that's one of the four bridges that has a pad underneath for trail connection so that would be one-fourth of the the plan of what's been planned for a long time um but it wouldn't be the whole thing and the you know there's a question by Hillary was saying that the the border to border current alignment is is not the same as what's been planned for a long time by the city and that's true they there's this temporary I mean I look at his temporary alignment now that goes up to busy intersection at at Fuller and Maiden Lane people have to cross traffic and deal with turning cars it's not what was envisioned uh you know decades ago in in terms of a trail system so what we

135have there now is a is not the the the the defining thing what we have planned for a long time is what we should do and the what we have currently is just an interim um adaptation to make it so people can get through but but not efficiently or comfortably or safely so uh maybe my last question to you then uh for clarity is is it your belief that by having that map that detail map in there that that directs the park to realize that vision and that's why you are advocating for that map to be there and not just the text um describing the connection well I think ultimately a lot of things on there would be implemented now there are probably things that aren't practical in the foreseeable future but things that definitely

136are like competing I mean the border border Trail complete complete and loop under the bridges there so those things could be done there are a number of other proposals on those maps that are are maybe a longer term vision for example a connection between the the Arab and the in Gallup Park and other trails along the Huron River there are possibilities and other Bridges and so on um so I guess it depends how the plan is seen I see that as a Visionary document and maybe these some of these things will be put in as as longer term goals and some could be for a sooner implementation and I imagine that the parks department doesn't expect everything in that document to be implemented in the next six years anyway so it's a matter of prioritizing

137what should be done what shouldn't okay thank you Mr deck all right so back to park staff your contention is you don't want to put them in because you don't have it's just it's something you want to see happen but you don't have a Clear Vision for making it happen and putting it in obligates you in some way that makes the plan not accurate and therefore you want to you want to make sure that what you're presenting is the most accurate representation of what you're planning I mean I I don't believe that the the maps add the value of these projects make them any more feasible or less feasible by including that the maps that outdated or even if they're updated with with singular projects make it any more or less feasible that they're going

138to take place in the future um the reason that they're there is that there's a there's a large number of proposed trails and things that go outside of city park land and then in the City properties that that that were included on there and what we did with the text is focus on the the intersections the the key components of that document that speak to the par the parks and recreations Focus for those that's that project that vision in the the short and medium term future um as opposed to having a 12 mile long map that shows multiple proposed trails and interchanges we focused on these one two three four five five areas of of issues that that we have identified as the key ones over the last number of years in the feedback that

139we have received okay anything you want to add Hillary to that um yeah I would say I don't want Mr deck to think that by not including this you know those plans that people worked on for a long period of time completely go away or won't be used going forward um you know again it's not that they're obligating us to do those specific things I mean really to us those plans were developed a while ago and um I guess you know as Park staff we hadn't updated them and it's not something that that shows kind of current thinking and that was really the main impetus um for not having them included um I feel like I'm repeating myself a little bit but um that's kind of the response here and I would also say um

140Mr deck you know when I'm talking about not current alignments necessarily you know the East Medical Center Drive Bridge or something you know I'm thinking even more um you know some of the areas that um boarded for a trail that hasn't been added um yet Westward beyond the city you know the area near the tunnel that we're working on currently um and so for us to just show something that's a historical document um that's a bit older just didn't make as much sense um in a plan update that we're going through right now about this um if the city does put in the connections when that bridge East Medical Drive bridge is widened uh would that impact your document so do you amend it or do you wait till the next revision cycle and then

141you would include that in I I think there's like a little confusion just that like the prose plan is typically not a physical master plan like it you know our prose plan doesn't typically include like a a map or plan of the city with you know all of the projects to drawn on it you know that was something that was drawn as part of the strong River Greenway um plan when that happened um but we don't all you know it's not typical that the pros plan has you know physical Master plans as part of it this was kind of a unique piece that was referenced in past prose plans um but it wasn't something that was created by the first time to my knowledge at least and and to the point I mean as we

142as we look to move forward I mean the parks department prose plan has a commitment to to to continuing to find ways to connect the the border to border the you know these these interchanges I mean Park staff the planners that's all our goals is to find better ways to make these work you know and a lot of a lot of this comes to this idea of if it's in this prose plan it makes for it makes for other agencies easier for them to fundraise you know center of the city has talked about that and and then this is talked about and that and that's important and these projects are in our prose plan and they are mentioned in there as ways for us to be a part of the park system and that is

143our end goal is to provide as many different ways in as many different amenities to be there in to support not only the city's desire to go after grants and fundraise and put these together but when there's collaborations outside of the city it's nice to have that as well um again I think that what we have provided gives that opportunity for both City staff and other agencies to provide a a a a an opportunity to to say these are part of what we're looking to do moving forward and the commitment to the border the border to the bike path within our system is something that we we fully supportive of and believe in and regularly done and we just we I mean almost every couple years we have additional increases to the board to the

144border border Trail where we are we're improving it widening it we're doing the tunnel at Barton the Bandimere there's no disconnect between Park staff this plan and the vision of making the border to border connect all the way through town um at no point is there anything within this plan that suggests otherwise thank you I have a question that perhaps Mr Lee might be able to respond to or Mr Leonard on this one is part of this really belong in the transportation plan I mean because these are taking part of what is being brought up are these things within rights of way and our connections to parks and I'm just wondering if that was at all part of the discussion with the the transportation plan that just came out last fall with some of these

145things I'll let you go first yeah so border supporter has I think it does serve as a transportation mode but it also has long had a lot of origin in the Parks and Recreation system and I think as it becomes more complete I think it's Vision as a Transportation Route becomes more viable um and and that has happened over time but I I think that both our Parks and Recreation Department the County Parks and Recreation Department deserve a lot of credit for the vision over time to start piecing that together so I think that's why and to go further out on an assumption um I think that probably a lot of the state the viable State funding sources for bicycle trails are recreational not Transportation maybe that's changing maybe that has changed but um per

146the discussion with Capital Improvements plans um the ship moves very slowly and making that change on the Statewide level about how to fund those so I think that's probably another reason that it's that the border to border has traditionally resided in Parks and Recreation spaces okay that's that's helpful and commissioner Lee was the border border Trail like within the transportation report too I just can't remember I don't know if you recall that as being part of that whole discussion that you all had in putting this together sure are you referring to Vision zero yeah oh sure I would say that there's definitely overlap right Recreation um and strengthening non-motorized uh Transportation has been kind of a core Focus I'd have to look back at the report it's been a little yeah I don't mean to

147put you in the spot don't you remember page 52 you know right right I'd have to probably look back at it um based on that overlap but I do have to give credit for again how much um connectivity and porosity we've talked a lot about this about connection on the last um development proposal that came forth on uh duvarn and Pontiac Trail and the porosity of Namor or as a Transit that it provides so I would say um as far as yes there's overlap between Transportation Planning and obviously recreational paths and they can act actually as you know again modes of transportation um this again I have also read this as well it's unfortunate this came to us at like what four 440 or something like that so I'm trying to really get inclusivity is

148obviously very very important um I want to make sure that we don't discard um again historical elements and really re enumerate that I am I've been carefully looking at the the maps but again there is also that concern of we don't have the I don't want to say that we don't have time to verify so I am looking for some way I'm kind of getting I'm not answering your question directly but I'm now pivoting to commissioner weish's comment that Mr deck's uh comments as well try to figure out a way is there a way that we can still recognize kind of the vision that was shown in those Maps I'm looking at it it is what we're talking about um safety porosity strengthening non-motorized Transit so is there a way that we can kind of

149preserve that while not again slowing down again procedurally because obviously that is important that this is straight up due by the state by February 1. I don't I don't have an answer yet so I'm not I'm just I'm literally just speaking out loud at this point because this was given to us kind of at the 11th hour so no further comments and hopefully that answers your question so the moving together transition zero does reference the border to border both existing segments of the border to border and anticipated segments are identified as those are examples of Trail Bike networks as part of a larger framework of um local minor Major Street oriented bicycle networks all part of that is Kalin we talked about in all ages and abilities Network so but this in that Transportation plan

150it is border to border routed it is not specific as to this is how we are going to solve the problem so as Mr landfill was talking it is about that same level of identifying it as an import as a goal for the city not identifying the solution whether that's whether a solution was crafted some time ago in a previous document or not but rather talking about the overall Vision to achieve the connectivity frankly without the specific knowledge of what the right method is right now it's to me that part of the issue here is yeah the part of the issue is um kind of in a I guess an awareness and acknowledgment of of um of citizen-led work in the past and how that gets Incorporated and picked up into City plans um and

151that you know there probably are things about the whole plan that don't make as much sense now but there may be other parts of it that that do make sense and are kind of more you know um referred to just in the in the the overall goals but it does seem that it seems strange to me that that there's plans that nobody knows about currently on staff in terms of big efforts that were made in the past so [Music] um that that's like a larger kind of administrative issue in a way that it seems it seems like there should be some way to if people have spent a lot of time on these things and there are these pads underneath these Bridges you know that there's some way to be able to lift up the

152things that still make sense to be able to incorporate them into current plan thinking it seems like we're kind of getting it this at a time what makes it really difficult to be able to make any changes based on what we have in front of us and so I guess what I would say is it seems like based on what I'm hearing from Park staff that we're not really losing the spirit of what was being talked about and so that feels um that feels okay to me I I guess what doesn't feel is okay to me is how do we make sure that previous visions that still seem worth preserving and and have good ideas as part of them are are able to be able to find New Life in in continuing plans as they

153go so that's I guess what I would just say is I don't want to stop the train because it feels like the train really needs to leave the station if if this has to be approved on February 1st but um I guess I would ask about some sort of way to be able to make sure that we can honor good work that was done that we continue to want to be able to draw from for future planning too so that it just makes sure that we get those things Incorporated um into our current thinking and and future plans that would be Mr Leonard so this is a bit of a tangent but I think this conversation is very relevant to our upcoming upcoming comprehensive plan we have issued a request for a proposal for a

154new comprehensive plan a lot of work has been done in the past by citizens and volunteers and your predecessors and some of you and this conversation that we're talking about here I don't think Parks and Recreation is by any means trying to they they were aware of this plan that was included in the previous version of the prose document by no stretch of the imagination are we trying they trying to say that that wasn't a heroic effort I think that what they're trying to say is that for some very specific reasons they we're now recommending to you at this point not to include that document in this plan not because we don't agree with a lot of the vision side that were that came out of that but because that document includes some aspects it

155has some age to it that we didn't think it was still necessary to include that we are going to face this conversation in a lot of Realms as we look at updating the comprehensive plan and so it's not to it's not to say that all decisions are going to be the same and that we're going to apply the same filter but this is this is a challenge of planning and communities evolving we are planning on the backs of our predecessors that put hard work into things that the next conversation in our community might come to a very different conclusion or a different approach to the same problem and so I I guess I just you know I don't I don't hear Parks saying that they weren't aware of this that they don't respect that work

156we they have presented us a plan at this point that articulates the prioritization and the focus of that work without the same level of detail um and that is that is going to be a decision that we are going to be facing a wide range of issues once we're talking about the comprehensive plan that's really helpful context because yeah we're probably it's going to be hundreds of decisions probably with the comprehensive plan around things like that so any other comments on the pros plan commissioner Mills I I think just to put a finer point on that particularly sometimes our planning efforts are about very specific things and drawing the lines in a particular neighborhood and sometimes they are bigger picture I would say just like um staff and answering before noted that sometimes it's a

157physical plan and thinking about like what it the thing looks like and sometimes it's more what are the I use way better language than I'm going to use here but like kind of what are the overall needs what are the kind of goals of what our infrastructure is maybe that I mean it it may not necessarily be a physical map that were that is part of our plan and I think that I can absolutely see how this is going to come to be our current Tome of documents includes very deep Dives on specific areas that may were really important in thinking about a corridor but 15 years have passed we're not going to do that same deep dive and when there's there there will be conflict things have changed in that situation and I think

158that we need to be okay saying that served its purpose during the time we may need to move on to to what this is and I just want to commend the park staff here as we did the last time that you came before us for all of the engagement efforts that were put into this documenting kind of how you responded to comments the feedback that we gave you the last time that we saw you and the changes now that we see as a response I really appreciate the clarification and the getting to the bottom of the like 10 minute versus 20 minute neighborhood um walk so thank you for that um I just wanna I I think that different planning efforts are really going to focus on kind of a different granularity and you can

159I think we can't just keep on adding and adding and adding because then resolving the conflicts I think really becomes problematic and it doesn't necessarily move us forward so I'm I'm comfortable with where this is um and also hear feedback certainly um but I I I feel like where the where the document arrives right now kind of balances what makes sense within a Parks plan and to this point I actually pulled up the non we used to have a non-motorized transportation plan that we actually repealed when Vision zero plan came out because it's not that we don't care about non-motorize but we had a different approach now to the way that we're thinking of our transportation planning system and and so I just think I'm comfortable with kind of where we are commissionally uh yeah

160thank you uh and to build off of that and I think I've kind of gotten a better sense of specificity versus generalities right we've kind of captured the intent of really again connectivity porosity as well as systems connectivity reading your uh specific words uh Mr deck um I do feel really comfortable that 20 over 2300 individuals have given feedback the process by which this has been devised and revised looking at all these changes tracker does make me feel that a lot of the community has given input and you are right that we are going to have to work to resolve certain conflicts that exist between existing conditions updated conditions and what the visions of the past were so um the other thing that actually gives me a lot of relief is the fact that um

161thank you for double checking Vision zero creating consistencies within documents and references between is also very important that's going to be one of the core points of this master or this comprehensive plan so um I also feel comfortable in saying the general intent of this has been I think upheld as far as systems connectivity and that a reference to another planning document visit Vision zero and the B2B on a larger Regional uh basis to me again I feel comfortable with this and again I also commend the parks department here for getting the level of feedback and inclusivity and you know getting really addressing at the granular level of all of these different public comments so so thank you for synthesizing 2300 plus people's comments and really making the updates necessary so all right thank you

162commissioner Soviet um I I believe the intent is carried through with sort of the bullet points that the map um may be outdated in its specificity of implementation of intent and that uh the intent is still uh carry forward um just through different metrics um speaking of intent though I want to go to some of the changes that were made as of yesterday and maybe discuss a little bit of the intent of the language specifically around the on design usage and funding for the Library Lane lot and the removal of the paragraph on page 20 which seems to actually repeat in that same paragraph on page 52. and what I'm referring to is maybe the specific sentence of therefore the city of Ann Arbor Parks and Recreation and the parks advisory commission are not currently

163responsible for the maintenance planning and programming of the library lot space um and so I like to kind of like do a matching game and so when I see funding design and usage maintenance planning and programming I see center of the city as responsible for recommending design and the the parks department not responsible for planning so design and planning being the correlation usage and programming being the correlation and then maintenance and funding maybe being the correlation but there's no kind of correlation in terms of creation here so one I want to like see if there was actually intent to correlate those two things that what uh the center of the city is responsible to recommend um is trying to match in any way what the parks department is declaring not currently their responsibility it's kind

164of maybe I'll pause there for you guys to respond to that piece uh yeah I I can I can um I can I can do my best to respond um obviously this this piece of property following proposal a in 2018 created a unique situation in the the the for the parks department for the city in general um you know the the proposal a um had the support showed it as all public properties on that air on that block being identified as parks um since 2018 the parks department has taken its lead from city council an Administration on how that is handled city council created the center of the city task force following proposal a it was never the the center of the city and the library lot in the Library Lane were not given to

165the parks advisory commission to to to plan develop program um it was a task force was created in a from that task force a Commission for those properties was um was created which is the Council of the commons with the I with the with the direct initiative to provide recommendations to Council on that space um Liberty Plaza in the Kemp house have historically and are currently parked properties that have been managed maintained developed um improved funded program by Park staff um while Council that comes have that ability to make recommendations on that any recommendations from Council of the commons should come to pack for their approval recommendations or feedback um because of the the structure that is created for the library lot Lane and the Library Lane um that does not need to take place

166Parks pack has no responsibility and park staff have no responsibility over that property there the initial statements that were put forth um in the prose plan kind of made that statement because it is by Charter um the language is there the language was updated um but Parks currently is not does not have anything to do based on the administrative structure created by Council for the Library Lane the language that was adopted yesterday changed the original Pros plan from and and because the two paragraphs were exactly the same we're page 20 on page 52. the being duplicate was not was not desired um which is why they're removed from about 20 and from page 20 and put into 52. um the the original language of the first paragraph did not completely um create did not use

167the exact language within from the charter although the language was summarizing the charter language regarding the establishment of the um spinner of the city it didn't have perpetuity but for the most part it was reworded in another way the second paragraph was originally Council of the commons is responsible for recommendations and funding of the Library Lane Lot the reason that that was included originally is that currently there there is a desire to have an RFP for the design of that Council of the commons has been charged with fundraising finding funding for that RFP before it moves forward with the support of city councils um money that they set aside for counsel of the comments has felt um and it has reiterated that they are not responsible for the funding of that space which speaks to

168the Oxford comma comment earlier however there is a desire to include the the language in the prose plan so that the Council of the commons can work with their funding groups to to find an additional grant funding um so how they how they work together um the pack did not identify the connection between the first pair part of the that's that paragraph and the second part of that paragraph um they focused on what the concern was raised Yesterday by individuals speaking about counsel to comments in regards to um the that one paragraph that put counsel of the commons responsible for um funding that was the the primary thing that was mentioned yesterday um this iteration seemed to speak about the three areas that needed to be done for um Council of the comments to move

169forward Senator the city of that Library Lane Lot the creation is is that follows the RFP process which is on hold until until money is raised um and so I know that that's a long-winded answer that probably did not answer it but I have been struggling to figure out how to to convey this in a good way yesterday and today um because it is a unique situation it is unlike any of the 160 plus parks that we have in our system um where we have a space that is identified as a park in the charter that the park advisory commission does not have responsibility of so just to kind of the intent of including this is to provide Clarity around exactly that uniqueness yeah at this moment in time this is a document that is

170as of January 4th 2023 is is the reality that we live in yep and so yeah that's I just want to kind of like everything else that we're talking about here we're talking about ways that the uh that pack and the planning department can work towards improvements in projects and there's kind of language specifically in here to recognize the uniqueness and uh clarify it in a transparent way that this is a thing but this is actually not a Parks thing this is my understanding then it is it is the way that it is it is the way that the structure is today Parks is working with Council of the commons to help as they they look at how to activate Park staff um Hillary and Adam will be will be supporting with the RFP process

171because you know our job as Parks staff is to ensure that the spaces that could utilized by our residents are a follow-up process and a procedure um that is consistent because it when it is if it does move forward with an RFP we want to be a part of it because we want to support that because we want to provide recreational opportunities for people in those spaces so it is included in the pros plan because of what it may be in the future in the way that it is written in the charter as a part but it is identified uniquely that way because it is a unique situation at this moment so would it actually be appropriate uh where it currently says that the parks advisory commission and the Parks and Recreation Department are not

172currently responsible for maintenance planning and programming to also include that they're not responsible for funding um yes I mean Parks has not provided any funding to the library Lane lot um in any direct form when asked and when when things are brought forward there's occasionally staff time associated with it but there's no direct funding at this moment set aside for the Library Lane lot from Parks okay um I guess in terms of you know what's been surveyed uh the understanding that this isn't part of Park's like I I'm just gonna say maybe an offer up for a discussion before I put a proposal but that uh that their funding is added to this list of things that the that pack is not responsible for relative to center of the city to make it very clear

173if the intent of including this in the pros plan is for clarification to the community about what it is and what it isn't it would be really helpful in terms of planning and prioritization of projects and funding and effort to really articulate that so as I read it and as I understand the intent behind it I would want to make it really clear that there's no responsibility for funding from the pack as well doesn't matter those are thanks for all the kind of clarification on that um you know this is just one that's been put to us in a very unique way um and where the language was uh leading uh in the proposition in terms of assumptions and the voter understanding of the intent behind it I want to make language here very clear

174relative to our city hall and exactly what we do and do not intend to do relative to this project um I'm pausing just for a second as I think on this and so um if anyone else would like to speak I can kind of come back with a thought on that oh Josh if I could ask a good question on that yeah is there what I'm I'm thinking that if it were very explicit in that regard would that foreclose any funding stream possibilities I you know I think what you're talking about is sort of the responsibility to identify and seek I don't know if there was something in this plan that said the city shall not shall not participate in finance financial support of it because every day is currently not responsible for maintenance plan

175planning programming and then adding and funding so the language is still currently not responsible for but really clearly articulates that as part of the list of non-responsibilities at this time and I guess the question Josh is there any reason in which the city would participate in funding at well following the work of others on the other aspects I mean I yes I mean I mean again and I think I clearly what I tried to convey what we try to convey is that that this is at this moment um on Monday council could make a choice and explain um could could make a a statement that changes some of this and the city and not Parks the city has provided funding for Library Lane RFP there's been money set aside for them at different points for

176that so to to say the city um is not there I I am more comfortable and I and I I know that this is a fine line and I understand I appreciate the question very much so um and I and I understand that the the dichotomy of the groups that are there um I I think that that including funding at that point because the reality is that one of the biggest things that this document does is it provides our staff with the language to move forward with mdnr grants um and and so any if there is not a connection to this unique one um the um I think that potentially in the five years by by by including funding into this statement that parks and that may change in the five years and I think

177that including it today um Hood impact our our ability to secure funds as the city parks in the future so I came in and Hillary and Adam I'm asking I'm looking at you to to kind of I mean I know that's the bigger question about the process but in regards to the grant funding with the mdnr that language May preclude us if things changed in our community yeah that may think about myself I agree Josh I think that if we included language that we weren't responsible funding in the future four years down the road if something changes that that could hurt us without it Amendment to the prose plan itself um it seems like it could be something to come back in the future but I guess that's what I want to be really clear

178about like why it's in here and what it's saying because it doesn't say in in perpetuity it's not going to support these things it's saying at this current moment these are the things it's not responsible for um to kind of put a Line in the Sand of like where this thing stands right now um and who's responsible and should be working on this and who shouldn't so we can prioritize the other projects um that we spent a lot of the other time discussing this evening in terms of bikes and connectivity and transportation and things like that so I mean I'll take I'll take your recommendations you know if you don't want to include it but um I just I I see a lot of Muddy Waters around this project and I want to make it

179very very clear exactly the intent and all the kind of avenues of this language I I do appreciate that and I I sorry I'm I'm rereading it and pausing um I mean I I I will say at the moment um I think for the uncertainty of what the future may bring with with this space because of the uniqueness of it because of of the language of the charter I think to to to include funding when that was not was not part of the conversation with the parks advisory commission I would struggle to include it at this point um you know I I I if this commission is encouraging of that I think that I think that it would be a conversation that I would have to um to follow up with um I think at

180this point I I struggled to include it because I think that um that Line in the Sand is there um and I am not sure what the city's goals will be for it um and I think that there's an opportunity that while it is today um it is a focus of it right now um the maintenance of planning and the programming are key components that I think speak to it um and because there has been funding by the city um I think that including funding while it's not cars is is something that could be looked at differently so um I I would probably lean towards I mean I appreciate your statement um but I would lean towards not including it at this point of that if that's acceptable by this Commission appreciate that thank you

181I'll leave it anybody else yeah commissioner Lee uh we're having discussion at this point so unless one of the Commissioners wants to sure um well actually I wanted to switch gears because I know we've focused predominantly on these two the the only question I actually had um and I'll make this pretty brief I've been looking at the planning process for the prose plan I'm specifically looking at page 99 um and it has to do with the respondents demographic as far as rent or own and I'm contrasting that with our Census Data of a total number of housing units 53 000 owner occupies 22 and renters 26 000. so you got kind of a roughly split and so I just wanted to kind of mention hey it does look like obviously renters are a little more

182transient but that in the next iteration cycle of Outreach I would love to see a little more even if it's transient we do want to get the opinions of folks that may be renting as well as kind of looking at the I don't have an exact household income breakdown but just trying to make sure that and recognize that the there may be biases as to the representation of people that we get kind of looking through this but again it's not to say that we've obviously gone through you guys have gone through rigorous things but as I look at these kind of results relative to kind of the Census Data just want to make sure that we have as Equitable of a representation of you know folks voices in this plan and just just again there's

183nothing that I'm saying who just wanted to switch gears and just kind of point that out as I think if we have a roughly 60 40 ish split between renters and homes then the respondents being 86 to four you know 13 to me was like interesting I mean it makes sense because again owners have a little more kind of like vested interest in the per you know based on their permanence but um to make kind of a conscientious effort to say hey could we have a representative sample that is more proportional to what we see kind of in the census just again kind of uh you know I know we've spent a lot of time on these other two items but just wanted to switch gears make that kind of comment not to say that

184the the results or outcomes of this is by no means I mean we've gone through procedural outcomes it's more of a comment on the systemic biases that may inherently exist in kind of the Dynamics of you know public reporting and as well as public kind of like engagement with these processes and an intentional effort to try and bring the voices of the not necessarily herb so just quick comment on that demographic thank you anybody else are we ready for both then I think at this point that that ship has sailed so alrighty all right so uh this is approval of the the Motions as presented to adopt this as a component of the city's comprehensive plan as amended by the parks advisory commission and has summarized um this would also repeal the previous version of

185the document sure Mills yes sure I give Randall yeah yeah commissioner sovay yes yes sure Lee Yes commissioner Clark yes commissioner white yes motion carries okay we are on to item number nine which is another opportunity for public comment um persons who speak up to three minutes about any issue um that is on the agenda we'll first call an individuals present to address the commission and then remote participants to speak during this public hearing remotely press star nine of listing by phone we used to raise the hand feature of viewing through the web link for phone access call 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-6634-1226 to unmute press star six City staff will select callers that have raised their hand using the last three digits of your phone number or by name if available for those

186accessing through the web link you'll hear an automated announcement that the host is allowing you to speak when speaking please move to a quiet area and mute any television sounds or background sounds so that we may hear you clearly for either method please state your name and address at the beginning of their comments is there anyone present that would like to speak at this time foreign just wanted to ask a question I thought that Mr White had a good question that I didn't understand the answer if the plan has apparently has been approved in its current form is it possible to amend it say within the next two months I think that was a good question to ask and I didn't understand the answer did anybody have the answer to that I think at this

187point where we were not in discussion mode anymore but my understanding is that it's due on February 1st so I think that's we we have approved it as as um as uh as proposed so you're saying it cannot be amended is that what you're saying my we have we have approved it as proposed and it moves on to other people from us so the next steps for the plan will be it can be either approved or rejected by the city council right if uh it is rejected the city council can forward it back to the Planning Commission for how they'd like to see it modified and the Planning Commission can then consider that make considerate modifications and then re-forward it or the city council can adopt it after the city council adopts it the full

188um process would undertake again which is um multiple months for a plan Amendment it would not be able to be done in two months uh it has to be noticed gone through public comment and then repeat the process with public hearings so um so in short the next steps for this is It's either adopted in its current form as as approved this evening or it's referred back to the Planning Commission for for modifications okay thank you hello my name is John Wagner um I'm an architect uh recently arrived to Ann Arbor address 111 North Ashley Street I wanted to make a comment based on the exchange uh and I want to preface that actually with uh the enormous uh advantage that I am finding that Ann Arbor has such a qualified uh Council of planners

189on the commission but also um really echoing the compliments he had made to the parks department and press of the with the extent of that presentation and documentation um now uh with regards to this to this gentleman's concern about the alignment for the rail path I think there's actually a really important observation to be made here that uh refers back to something that councilor survey had said earlier in this about different sources of funding through millage and the kind of disjointed nature in which funding is being categorically applied to specific scope in the city but not thought of as comprehensive now speaking anecdotally as somebody who just arrived to Ann Arbor it was extremely jarring to take the B2B Trail to discover it sort of kind of ends at the hospital and I was like

190thinking okay this is a huge missed opportunity because it's clearly seeing that that trail as a recreational asset to the community of Ann Arbor and and more broadly to the community of uh of um of Ypsilanti but not understood as a Mobility and so Consular wish your conversation about bike paths and integration of if we're going to tear up the streets and we want to coordinate the bike path and the funding to me it seems like such an important realization that thinking atomizing these different topics is is a very um inadequate approach to these comprehensive issues of mobility and open a public space but also how does how do citizens navigate throughout the city and not to think of parks as open space solely but also as Mobility infrastructure and you know I think that

191there's a lot of incredible uh capability on the from the conversation that I've heard and especially within your staff which is really incredible for a city of Ann Arbor size to have such qualified staff I wonder how councilor Leonard in your comment that there would be a comprehensive plan upcoming how could that vision of of the interconnectedness of these assets whether it's Liberty Park Plaza or whether it's the uh the B2B Trail how can the vision think more holistically about uh about all of these really great ideas that I'm hearing in this conversation but it seems like they're completely atomized and how they're being implemented on a policy and on funding scale so that is my only comment it's not really exactly a question but uh really great to be here tonight and learn so

192much about Ann Arbor in a very few short hours it's been really incredible thank you thank you any remote participants we do Adam Goodman you have three minutes to address the Planning Commission hi there uh Adam Goodman 400 Virginia Avenue um I just kind of wanted to add a bit to uh Larry Ducks comments at the beginning of the meeting and kind of explain to you you know why this is you know while you're hearing about this why this is why this is an issue that that you know that kind of is seen as a problem by by some in the community and that is simply that you know I and I understand these the the sort of Huron River Greenway diagrams are pretty comprehensive and covered a large area but speaking about specifically these

193you know underpasses around Maiden Lane and Fuller um these these have a habit of disappearing from City plans and so you know I don't know I what you know the explanation from staff may be you know totally on point and maybe that you know this is not the right place to include you know diagrams like that and if If This Were A one-off this is if this is it then you know I think you know lots of the folks in the community would say all right fine and move on but the problem is that that we we sort of find ourselves with a little bit of a lack of trust here because you know Larry mentioned that in 2015 the goal to build these passes reaffirmed by a city council resolution well as I recall

194the reason that that resolution happened is that the city had had basically just proposed to to drop these projects entirely off of the CIP HEPA have them just disappeared right and and so like it what you need to understand is that it feels like this is happening again um maybe that's not true but it feels like that okay and it feels like the city has this sort of you know shiny object syndrome you know we spent all this time and money building a whole you know like on the scale of 100 million dollar plan for a whole other Trail when we haven't gotten around to finishing the one that you know we have we already have most of but you know there's a couple there's a couple places where it's really not what it should

195be and this intersection is one of them it's it's it's really dangerous it's the place in Ann Arbor I have most often almost been hit by cars while riding my bike 30 more seconds and it there's there's emergency around this right now because there's this proposal to widen the East Medical Center Bridge she'll actually make this intersection even less safe than it was before so you know I just wanted to add that context for you so that you understand why people are are looking asking at this particular change in the plan uh thank you thank you [Music] any other colors we do call her with the phone number ending with three four five press star six and address the Planning Commission kind again um I wasn't going to speak again but I have to correct

196something that was said by one of the other public commenters who called in Dan Adams he persists in spreading this falsehood that money has not been raised for the center of the city this is not true he is spreading this falsehood all over social media as our other people who want center of the city to fail money has indeed been raised by the library green Conservancy the last I heard it was more than seventy thousand dollars with more money committed I was really hoping someone from Council of the commons would call in to correct that falsehood but nobody did so I felt I had to do that facts do matter money has been raised money is continuing to be raised the center of the city can succeed it would really help if that land on

197the library lot was rezoned public land because then we could get grant money from outside sources the city would not have to give that money there are other grants available but they cannot be applied for unless the area is zoned public land or Parkland so I once again encourage you to do whatever you can to rezone the library lot so that would help with fundraising and it would be so great if the mayor and the DDA would support this effort as other cities with thriving public squares have done we need to ask ourselves why doesn't our mayor and our DDA do that okay thank you thank you call her with the phone number ending with 644 press star 6 to unmute your phone and address the Planning Commission my name is Alton I'm tired of

198the wealthy getting special treatment so I have two requests regarding the Airport runway extension contained in the Capital Improvements plan that was approved by the Planning Commission earlier tonight my first request please Missy Stoltz explain how the Airport runway extension will help Ann Arbor meet its 820 sustainability goals there is a climate emergency it was 60 degrees today emergency all hands on deck including the wealthy my second request I wonder whether commissioner weish who often raises issues of equity during CPC meetings has any thoughts about how this Airport runway extension which would benefit only those who own private jets will affect Ann Arbor's Equity goals does it send the wrong message I think maybe it does so in summary please miss Stoltz and please commissioner weish consider commenting public publicly on the Airport runway extension

199that benefits only those who travel by by private jet thanks so much thank you any other colors yes call her with a phone number ending with four six four hi um can you hear me this is Linda barauer again am I Audible you are okay thanks I wasn't going to call in again but what what one previous speaker said during the CIP public hearing about the airport and then what I just heard now from the previous speaker just made me feel like I have to call in that is so true and I don't know if you can before you adjourn if you can go back and we visit your vote on the CIP and recommend that they just take away that funding for extending the airport it is just completely in contravention to all what

200we taught is our values in terms of you know dealing with the climate crisis it makes no sense and what the previous speaker said is exactly right it's catering to the wealthy it's the wealthy who are coming in going to come in on private jets for the games we want to profit from that we we prefer corporate profits you know when it's a chance when it's a choice between climate change and profits we choose prophets if it's so if it's a choice between equity and profits we choose profits it's a choice between you know pollution and toxics and profits we choose profits I am tired of the hypocrisy and I know that you guys care about climate and Equity you talk about it all the time please please think about this seriously and considering going

201going back on your vote and and just recommending to council hey here is a chance to live up to our values there has been much data I've looked into it that Airport runway does not for safety reasons does not need to be extended that's an excuse that's an excuse to make money off of more corporate clients and the Jet setting people they can take commercial Jets to the Detroit airport it's half an hour away I used to fly for my job twice a week it's half an hour away we don't need it please do the right thing this time and I'm sorry for getting emotional but um I'm just tired of this hypocrisy and you've got a chance to to stick by your values and I'm begging you to do it thank you any other

202colors nope okay we are on commission proposed business item number 10 any commissioner Lee I'll make this really brief I talked about this at Transportation Commission as well but it's about accessibility as an evaluative criteria I think we were talking about Mobility as anomalized Transit being considered Mobility I really like the fact that the Strategic value scorecard that they added includes user experience equity and access and Mobility so this concept of creating some level of a metric or it's the Jonathan Levine and Joe Greene talked about this a lot at the planning school but really looking at accessibility in the evaluation of how many people can actually get to where they're trying to get to by non-morise transit and using that kind of as a metric and or a what would you call it like

203an index of an Essence um to really say how how are we doing so from a policy evaluation standpoint just wanted to say hey um from the Transportation Commission side it is something that we're looking at and we're trying to figure out how do we develop something and it's good to see that at least the CIP and the Strategic value score card is actually already considering it so just want to bring it to your attention that that's been something that we're discussing over there thanks thanks anybody else all right we are on to adjournment motion to adjourn commissioner sovay second and by commissioner Lee all those in favor say aye aye we are adjourned