City Council Meeting   7/16/2007

and John F. Kennedy.

and John F. Kennedy.

Music playing...

John F. Kennedy

P.S.

We're getting new materials done too.

Yeah, let me see, I hope they work.

I'd say we're going to the eye doctor.

That's too strong for me.

I was very unquestioned with it.

As long as you just tell me ahead of time, it's going to be pretty much...

I got you, I got you.

Do you want to allow me?

I'm not sure.

Yeah, I can see Mike White, though.

You know, I don't have any trouble with the bones.

The problem is that they end up re-creating this crack that they're doing.

I don't exactly know what they're doing.

Right.

Two or three years, they come through.

I'm serious.

I've been through this.

Ms. Cox?

Here.

There's an item I'd like to discuss in other business.

There was an AP news story that was in the newspaper last week discussing Charlottesville's lending to African Americans, that we had one of the highest subprime lending rates in the country along with Durham, North Carolina.

Okay.

Any other items?

I would like to bring up under other business a task force on affordable housing.

They're proposing to bring up what Albemarle County came about from a meeting we had last week, sort of in response to the proposals by the impact group.

present what I would call a very special recognition and in fact I'd like to ask Mr. Jerry Tomlin to come forward.

Mr. Tomlin is our property maintenance official.

He oversees

about 10,000 inspections each year and he's been doing this for over 30 years.

Next on the agenda is matters by the public.

People can come speak on any topic they would like so long as we haven't had a public hearing or we don't have a public hearing scheduled on the subject.

I do ask people to be respectful of a three-minute time limit and I will let people know as they approach three minutes.

If you could give us your name and address for the record, please, sir.

As most of you know, my wife and I live two blocks from the mall.

Until the recent spate of violent attacks, we used to enjoy walking to many activities in the downtown area.

Now we fear to go out at night.

No more movies, no more Paramount Theater, no more dinners,

and for me, no more city council hearings.

I will have to leave right after these remarks so I can get home before dark.

If cameras were installed, especially if they were monitored in real time, my wife and I would feel safe to resume evening activities.

Until then, our freedom has been severely limited.

There are those who feel that cameras would somehow limit their freedom.

I cannot understand that concern.

If people are out in public, where every passerby can see what they're doing, why are they concerned if a camera sees them?

Is it that everyone has read Orwell's 1984?

But if people had read 1984, they would realize that there was a totalitarian regime in Oceania, and it used cameras.

Totalitarianism resulted in cameras, not the other way around.

Does anyone really think the cameras will result in totalitarianism in Charlottesville?

The people of Charlottesville watch their government pretty closely and they would never permit a big brother type of official to be hired.

There are those who say the problem can be resolved by hiring more policemen.

Even if we could fill current vacancies and add police, these new police would not be as effective

as cameras since they cannot be as many places at once.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is M. Rick Turner.

I am the president of the Albemarle, Charlottesville branch of the NAACP.

I live at 1663 Brandywine Drive in the city.

I'm here this evening to bring two issues to your attention.

The first issue is the recent no parking sign put up around Friendship Court and public housing complexes on South Street, reading no parking from 9pm to 5am.

Regardless of the reason for preventing residents from parking in front of their homes, this is the violation of the city code, which states that input from the public must take place before a parking decision is made.

The NAACP is requesting that the city manager call a public meeting to further discuss this issue with the residents of these two African-American neighborhoods.

My second issue is the fact that a recent study has been published showing that Charlottesville has the largest racial disparity in mortgage lending in the nation, not in the Commonwealth, but in the nation.

Like many Charlottesville residents, I am appalled, saddened, angry, and very concerned to learn that the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, NCRC, in its recent national survey finds that blacks in Charlottesville, regardless of income, regardless of income, are 3.4 times more likely than the whites to receive high-cost mortgage loans

As president of the Albemarle Charlottesville branch of the NAACP, I feel particularly compelled to speak out on this alarming report.

This historic practice of systemic and institutionalized racism and self-prime home mortgage lending, polishes our city's sterling reputation as the number one city in America four times.

Now we have the inglorious and disgraceful distinction of being the worst city in America for African-Americans seeking home ownership.

This dubious distinction should serve as a startling wake-up call to all in our community and particularly to moderate and up-income African-Americans who might have naively thought

that poor blacks were the only ones being victimized in the Albemarle, Charlottesville housing market.

The challenge for all of us as a community is to work together, not only to identify and assist those who have been steered into high-cost loans when they qualify for low-cost loans, but also to identify the lending companies that are discriminated against African Americans so that we can begin to address this blatant bigotry.

For those who think that they have been discriminated against by a home mortgage lender, please call the NAACP at 434-220-1493.

You know, I'm looking at this sign here that says, Charlottesville, Virginia, a great place to live for all of our residents.

We might have to change that.

It's a great place to live for some residents.

Next is Steven Bach.

Although, Mr. Bach, I noticed that you're here to comment on the Valley Road ordinance, and I believe that that's already been the subject of a public hearing.

Am I correct on that?

Can I give you just a few more?

Please, why don't you hand the memo to Ms. Cox and she'll just... That'd be great.

Thanks.

Sorry about that.

My name is Louis Schultz.

I live at 1809 East Market Street.

For several years now, I've been attempting to resolve the legal issues surrounding Steep Hill Street and the Woolen Mills.

The city variously and simultaneously claims that Steep Hill is private, that the city owns a portion, that the city may own all, and that the city both does and does not maintain the street.

The city has illegally seized private property, had me arrested for, quote, blocking the free passage of others, end quote, even as it protected blockage of not only the exact same piece of ground, but also access to my own driveway by another citizen for three days.

The city's claims to rights on Steep Hill Street have been made without regard to existing documentation or the law.

The city's seizure of private property on Steep Hill is not only constitutionally prohibited, but it was done with no input from council, the planning commission, and with no notice to the affected parties.

In the process, the city has spent what I estimate to be between $15,000 to $20,000 for the sole purpose of providing a driveway to a single private residence that already had another means of access.

I've raised these issues privately to the entire council and spoken here November 20th of last year and March 5th of this year.

The sole response that I've received is a feeble call by Councilor Lynch for the city to adopt the street for maintenance.

I want the city off of my property, not taking more of it.

On March 5th, I reminded council of their oaths to support the Constitution, the wording of the Constitution, and the history of what happened on Steep Hill Street.

The response to my appeal for justice was for the mayor to note that the local girls' basketball team was having a good year.

Mr. Mayor, the key part of being mayor is certainly important, but you have serious responsibilities too.

You have failed to attend them.

Mr. Lynch never responded to the documents I sent him on March 12th following a phone call, but he did copy me on an email that he sent to someone else on April 23rd.

That email in part said that the mayor had asked the city attorney not to spend any time on the issues that I have raised.

You have failed at your duty to the public.

Fortunately, the law offers a solution to this problem.

I'm here to announce that I am seeking signatures to petition the court to remove the current counsel from office as allowed by section 22.2-233 of the Virginia Code for Neglective Duty, Misuse of Office, or Incompetence in the Performance of Duty.

I can be reached at recallcouncil, r-e-c-a-l-l-c-o-u-n-c-i-l, at gmail.com.

I welcome signatures, assistance, and comments.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, Members of Council.

Thank you, Gary, for coming to our retirement association meeting.

Naomi Roberts, 1140 St. Clair Avenue, extended.

I'm here tonight about a problem, a traffic problem, that is at Free Bridge.

Since, I don't know whose idea it was to change the traffic pattern, but it is very hazardous.

I have almost gotten hit three times.

I shot a food line.

and trying to make a left turn off of River Road when the light changes and gives me the hour and vehicles coming onto the free bridge I have almost gotten hit three times and Sunday was just the last fall because I really had to speed to get out of the way of an oncoming vehicle

and I think that it should be changed back to the way it was because it was less hazardous for drivers trying to get over in that lane and drivers trying to get over in the through lane.

So I would appreciate anything that you all could do to change that back to the original pattern.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to offer a comment this evening?

My understanding is that we'll be taking up the issue of the cameras at the end of this meeting which sort of gets to a point maybe at some point we ought to discuss not just what counselors want to talk about at the end of the meeting but what the city manager wants to talk about at the end of the meeting as well.

As far as Lewis Schultz and his Steve Hill, I continue to think that we should simply accept that street and go from there.

and I believe we will be discussing the issue of the mortgage loans as Counselor Hamilton had requested at the end.

As far as the parking signs go that Mr. Turner had brought up, the ones on Friendship Court, there was a discussion on that.

I was present at the discussion with the Neighborhood Association, or if you're speaking of the ones on Garrett Street.

I agree with you the ones on First Street should have had discussion and did not.

I think that First Street is of course the South First Street Housing Authority property and that was the result of a miscommunication with the Housing Authority Director.

But in both cases, it's not parking by the residents that has been affected from what I understand.

but parking on the street because both of these properties are plagued by people who are coming onto the properties to party, bringing liquor, drugs, and causing disturbances to residents.

The reasons that we acted in these parking matters is because of complaints from residents who said, you know, do something to give us relief from what's going on.

Other comments?

I'd like to thank Mr. Turner for bringing really to the public's attention this issue of

on the mortgage lending.

I personally thought it was a great embarrassment to the city to be listed as number one, and I certainly would like to, perhaps, Mr. Turner, if we could sit down and meet and find out in what ways the city can assist the NCAAAP and AACP.

and I think that's just, you know, the tip of the iceberg in some ways.

I mean, that article, I think there's other ways.

I know, you know, there's payday loans.

There's a number of other areas in which, you know, the cost of being poor are very high and I think I'd like to see the city do anything we can to address this.

And the final thing that I would encourage everyone to take a look at is, you know, we recently, the planning commission recently heard the comprehensive plan

for the city.

And one of the things in the comprehensive plan is sort of an initial chapter of facts and figures.

And one of the other very disturbing facts and figures that I found related to this has to do with the percentage of African Americans who don't finish high school, who don't get college degrees compared to non-African Americans.

One other quick thing.

Ms. Roberts, I think we need to get a little bit more information on the change in that traffic pattern because it was hard for your remarks to tell if it was a problem with the light or the problem with the way the lanes have been striped.

So if you could just talk to us so that we can find out.

That's what I thought you were talking about.

Any other comments from council?

If not, the next item on the agenda is the consent agenda.

Tonight the consent agenda consists of item A, an appropriation, which is the Community Development Block Grant Reprogramming.

It's a first reading.

Item B, an appropriation of $2,750 Urban Tree Canopy Grant.

It's a first reading.

Item C, an appropriation of $50,255, a grant for the Department of Social Services, it's the first reading.

Item D, an appropriation of $250,000, which is funding from Albemarle County for transit service, it's the first reading.

And item E, which is an appropriation of $439,000, a transfer from the Housing Initiatives Fund to Piedmont Housing Alliance and Habitat for Humanity, it's the first reading.

OK, thank you.

It's been corrected that the first three appropriations are second readings.

Is there any discussion of the consent agenda?

Is there any items to be removed, be considered at the end of the regular agenda?

If not, is there a motion?

I move the consent agenda.

Second.

Okay.

I move you second it.

Any further discussion?

Okay.

I'll call for the vote.

Okay.

Mr. Mayor, members of council, I've got the pleasure to introduce this item and then we'll go into a little more detail about the specifics.

Many people in our community, and I see we've got a number of people in the audience that are here for this, might have been waiting for tonight, I think is another key step to the historic development of Jefferson School.

Over the years, there have been a number of proposals for Jefferson, and it's included $5.9 million that's now in the city budget towards the rehabilitation of Jefferson School.

In 2002, the council adopted some guiding principles, and from that was created a task force.

This community task force reviewed in detail the possible uses for this school with recommendations that celebrate its history and convert a historic African American school into present day uses.

I thought I might read a couple of the recommendations from the task force report that I think point very clearly to where we are tonight.

This is from the task force recommendations.

Task Force is in strong agreement that Jefferson School is an important historic and cultural resource worthy of preservation.

Future uses should honor and interpret the history of Jefferson School students and African Americans.

In a couple of the summary recommendations, Jefferson School Carver Recreation Center Building should be nominated for listing on the National Register and the Virginia Landmarks Register.

Another recommendation was that Jefferson School should be redeveloped as a civic purpose project, that the rehabilitation plans for Jefferson School should include a modernized Carver Recreation Center, which should continue to serve as a city recreational facility, and space should be included for the interpretation of the history of Jefferson School and African American history from a local, regional, and national perspective.

and finally that the rehabilitation of the Jefferson School building, interior and exterior should be done in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's standards for rehabilitation.

The task force recommendations did recommend preserving the historic building, historic designation and included in some of the next steps a discussion about use of historic tax credits.

This past year did the dedication of the Jefferson alumni

and citizens interested in historic preservation in the community.

Jefferson received a historic designation on the National Register of Historic Places.

In order to utilize historic tax credits, councils approved the creation of the Jefferson Partners, a community-based group serving many of the multiple interests of the community in Jefferson.

I thought I might introduce a couple of the partners that are here as well as read the names of the

12 community members that are involved with the Jefferson School partnership.

Craig Barton, who was also on the task force, who's here I believe, Steve Blaine, Martin Burks, Ray Carey, Allison Dickey, Ernest Edwards, City Councilor Kendra Hamilton, Gina V. Keller, Frank Stoner, City Councilor Julian Taliaferro, Joseph Turner, I'm sorry, Joseph Toomer,

Bitzy Waters, and our historic tax credit expert, Dan Gecker.

In order to move the project forward to take advantage of the tax credits, the city is proposing to convey with conditions for performance.

Our city attorney, Craig Brown, I'm going to ask to go through the details of the contract and the requested council action tonight.

Mr. Dan Gecker, who's an attorney and tax credit development expert.

He's been advising the council and has been here a number of different times.

He's now advising the partnership.

He's here tonight to discuss the partnership role and the use of tax credits for the project and any other questions that council might have.

As you note on the agenda, this is scheduled for a public hearing.

Mr. Brown?

Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, in your notebook tonight you'll find both an option and purchase agreement between the City of Charlottesville as the owner of the Jefferson School property and the proposed purchaser of Jefferson School Rehabilitation Associates, a limited partnership, as well as an ordinance which is offered tonight on first reading, which would authorize the execution of that contract.

I kind of outlined in your agenda memo the basic terms and conditions of the agreement and I will recite those briefly.

This is an option agreement.

It gives the partnership 12 months in which to decide whether to purchase the property.

Upon execution of this agreement, the purchaser has the discretion to buy it.

The city is obligated to sell it.

Paragraph 5 obligates the purchaser to develop, construct and maintain the property in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations.

Paragraph 5 also allows the purchaser to seek any necessary rezonings or special permits for the property if the proposed uses require them.

It does not obligate the city to grant any specific land use application.

There is a revertor clause, and by revertor clause I mean conditions about which title would come back to the city if certain conditions are not met.

Those conditions are one,

Construction is not commenced within 12 months of closing.

As I said earlier, closing will take place if the purchaser decides to close within the next 12 months.

They then, from the date of closing, have 12 months to commence construction.

The second reversion condition is if the property is not placed in service within 30 months after the start of construction, meaning that they have

approximately two and a half years to get someone in the building and get certificates of occupancy.

If either of those conditions are not met, then title reverts to the city.

The agreement does not obligate the purchaser to place any particular use on the property.

We have recited

what the city would like to see in the building, but those are not in the nature of restrictive covenants or conditions for a reversion of title.

As I say, there's a 12-month feasibility period during which the purchaser will determine whether to go through with the closing.

This agreement does require a vote of three-fourths of the members of city council.

Three-fourths in our case, meaning four affirmative votes in order to authorize the sale.

Any questions for clarification from Mr. Brown?

I'd be happy to.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Members of Council, Mr. City Manager, Mr. Brown, good evening.

I've been coming to Charlottesville now for quite a number of years it seems.

I've actually seen some counselors come and go and from what I hear tonight I guess I need to worry a little bit that I'm dealing with the right group.

But a number of years ago, we embarked upon a path that the goal of which was to take Jefferson School, which currently sits underutilized, and convert it back into a vibrant community-based structure.

You know, with the help of council, we formed a group of general partners who are going to handle this partnership.

We have been meeting steadily.

The partnership, I can tell you, is committed to the goals that the Jefferson Task Force set forward.

That is, we are committed to making this a community oriented group.

Excuse me, the end use is being community oriented.

We have already had some discussions with prospective tenants.

Not that we have site control yet, but frankly one of the things we wanted to do was to just test the market.

and see if there was in fact room in this marketplace for a facility like ours.

We've been very pleased, we've only had some preliminary discussions, but very pleased that the quality of the proposed tenants, or at least people who have shown an interest, and the amount of space, frankly, that they'd like to take in the facility.

Obviously, nothing close to a deal yet, but that's what comes next.

We had laid out once before sort of a timeline for how this would happen, and frankly, the next logical step is why we're here tonight, which is site control.

It is difficult for us to negotiate with anybody about moving into this facility without site control.

What we're looking for today and what's been proposed is an option contract that goes, as Mr. Brown said, for 12 months.

looking to buy the facility hopefully within that 12 months for a price of $100,000.

And we've reaffirmed in that contract our commitment to negotiating both with the city for Carver Rec and for a place for the Heritage Center that's been talked about since the beginning of this.

I understand that some concerns have been raised about city controls.

We've had these discussions before.

Frankly, part of the plan of financing for this project, the part that makes this doable, is the private sector based tax credits, both federal and state.

And so we've talked before about the need for council at some point to relinquish control over this project to a certain extent.

and to allow the private side to take it over.

We believe we've built in, based upon the identity and quality of the individuals who now comprise this group, sufficient safeguards for the city that we're not going to go run amok.

We've got a plan, we've got a framework and we're marching to that plan and I hope everybody here can see that.

With that, I certainly hope that y'all will look favorably upon this.

I realize this is the first of two readings, but we are very much interested in moving forward.

As I said, we've had some good, high-quality meetings with the group, and it's time to push this thing to the next step.

Is that correct?

It would be correct to say that there are circulated drafts.

We're actually meeting Thursday morning.

I said we have the draft circulated.

I think sitting here tonight, no, but frankly, as I said, this is the first reading.

Well, Mr. Taliaferro, we're going to have a public hearing before we speak to the issue, so if you have any questions of Mr. Geckerd, this would be a great time.

I've got a response to Mr. Lynch.

Other questions?

I do have a further question.

Sure.

In the agreement, there are stipulations that

the project will be, the construction will start within a year.

But there's nothing that I can see that says exactly what that construction entails.

For example, that it be done in, that it be historically approved by the Department of...

It would be approved both by the Department of Historic Resources and the National Park Service.

Right.

But that's not in this agreement.

It is not in this agreement.

So what assurances do we have that the construction

is actually going to be anything other than the good will of the people that we've appointed.

That would be great.

The project is not feasible financially without the credits.

You can't get the credits without doing the work in accordance with the Secretary of Interior standards, which are what trigger both the federal and state credits.

And so, again, I frankly don't mind covenanting.

It'll be done in accordance with the standards because it will have to be done in accordance with the standards.

That one's a little bit more difficult because, again, you've got this dividing line between where council's control ceases and where the...

I'm not talking about council control.

I'm talking about response to the public.

Let me just finish it, if that's okay.

Council controls the use of the property through its zoning.

And as Mr. Brown pointed out, although Council agrees to allow us to apply for rezoning for whatever eventual use we're looking to have here, it does not bind the Council to approve that rezoning.

And so the end use of the property is in part controlled by your zoning.

We have committed to, as I said in the document, negotiating with the City for Carver, which is one of the intended uses, and for the Heritage Center.

The reason, you know, frankly that I don't want to be bound, have the private entity bound to, but let's, you know, I'll say something that I probably shouldn't, but let's say the Heritage Center as an example is that right now there is no Heritage Center and I've got construction time frames here that need to be met

We will reserve a place for it, but I can't be bound to a use for an entity that doesn't yet exist.

Now we are moving down the path of getting the Heritage Center formed, board formed, etc.

And so we are not, right now, I believe, able to tell you that what the end of the day uses will be.

I can tell you it is certainly our expectation and commitment that it will be consistent with the task force guidelines.

that has been the heart of every discussion the group has had and in fact there have been some users who have been, I wouldn't say, and again we're not going to discuss who, sort of rejected as not consistent with the task force guidelines of being genuine community oriented users.

Other questions?

Okay, I'll now open the public hearing and the first person signed up is Lelia Brown.

I'm Lelia Edna Brown.

I live at 316 8th Street, Northwest.

Mr. Mayor, members of council, I attended Jefferson Elementary School.

before most of you or some of you were born.

I graduated from Jefferson High School in 1951, the last class at Jefferson High School.

I came back to Jefferson and I taught at Jefferson Elementary School.

Mr. Reeves was my principal and then he was my coworker.

I was chair of the Jefferson Task Force.

I'm the secretary of the Jefferson High School Reunion Committee and I'm elated to stand here today and I am concerned.

I believe it's been four to five years since Jefferson has been basically underutilized and I hope that this city council

will complete the conveyance so that one day my great granddaughter can see where her great grandmother was educated.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Blair Hawkins.

I live at 614 Rock Creek Road.

I'm here to talk about some of the history of Jefferson School since that's the important vote on that subject tonight.

We should know what we're trying to preserve.

I'd like to read a letter I've written to the Daily Progress.

The editor Anita Shelburne has not decided whether to print the letter because it's fact-based.

That's how much power this history has.

The power to cause a newspaper to consider a new policy to allow only opinion-based letters.

Dear editor,

The legacy of Jefferson School is every public school in Virginia today.

Your article in the Daily Progress, City Mindful of Preserving Legacy by Seth Rosen on July 6th, the article traces the history to 1894 and says the Jefferson Alumni Association wants to preserve the legacy of the all-black school as a social hub of Vinegar Hill in the 1950s.

The Albemarle, Charlottesville Historical Society has published a more complete history at least twice in the last 30 years.

In 1976, in the book by John Hammond Moore, Albemarle, Jefferson's County, 1727 to 1976, and most recently in the 2006 volume of the magazine of Albemarle County History,

The article is entitled, Learning in the Charlottesville Friedman School, the First Jefferson School, by Gail M. Schulman.

Both accounts agree on the main facts.

Jefferson School opened in the fall of 1865 and was indeed the model for white public schools when the General Assembly approved public education in 1869.

Charlottesville's first public school opened in 1870 on Garrett Street.

In its first year, Jefferson School held classes at the colored First Baptist Church, organized 1863, at 632 West Main Street in the 1820's Delavan Hotel Civil War Hospital, eventually torn down for the existing 1883 church building.

Classes moved to a series of one room barracks just west at Union Depot when federal troops left in 1866.

A new school was built on this site in 1869.

Jefferson School was funded by the New England Freedmen's Aid Society until 1875 when it became a public school.

Benjamin Tonsler was already an alumnus and the fourth principal when the 1894 school house opened.

The first two principals, who also taught full time, were white women, Anna Gardner, 1865 to 1871, and Felina Karkan, 1871 to 1875.

Both were from Massachusetts.

The 1926 building and later additions survive.

The school has been closed since 2002.

I want to preserve the 1950s history as well as the 1860s history.

Thank you.

Those are the only two people signed up, but if someone else would like to speak, they may.

OK, no takers.

Mr. Mayor and Mayor of Council, I want to respond to Mr. Lynch and I understand his concern about giving up control but I think you have to trust in us and I can tell you that the people that are members of this Jefferson partnership are committed to the project.

I don't think there's any doubt in that.

I have no doubt

This project has been discussed for quite a few years.

It's gone on and on and on in the Jefferson School Alumni Association.

They've done a lot of work on it.

They're trying to raise money, and I think a lot of them would like to see it completed before they pass on.

I mean, this has been going on forever.

and I think everybody that's a partner understands the importance of this project to the African American community.

It's a part of the history and the culture of Vinegar Hill.

When I came here in 62, that was the center.

There were a lot of black owned businesses on Vinegar Hill and this is kind of a real, it's a prominent landmark that means a lot to a lot of people.

And I just think that it's time that we just move forward with it.

And I can tell you one thing, I just want to close when I say this.

I see all these ladies sitting back here on the back row, and I don't plan to get in trouble with those ladies, so we're not going to do anything we shouldn't do.

Other comments?

Well, I appreciate your response.

I want to make clear that as much as anybody else on this council, I'd like to see this project move forward.

I've been pushing this project to move forward for a long time now.

I'm also very concerned that we have the right entity in place before we transfer control of a very valuable asset.

And my concern here is not at all with the 12 people who are members of the Jefferson Partners.

I think we've got great basis for the Jefferson Partners becoming really an institution of this city.

And while

Counselors have said it's a question of control.

I don't see it so much as a question of control.

I see it as a question of making sure that the entity that we're about to give control to is, in fact, a viable entity.

And frankly, I think from what we've heard tonight, it's not ready yet.

If the bylaws are not in place and the articles of organization are not in place, we are in effect giving this building to 12 individuals.

I don't think that's a particularly good idea, even if those 12 individuals have the best of intentions, because we've been down this road before.

Decades ago, before I came to Charlottesville and

Certainly before I got on council, we had the Charlottesville Parking Corporation, which was formed by downtown merchants to provide parking for downtown as a quasi-public good.

the people on that board has changed and the mission of the board has gone from providing parking to now they want to sell that asset.

I want to see assurances and I'm sure that those assurances will eventually be put together that the people that we're giving this valuable asset to are going to hold it in some public trust in perpetuity for the benefit of Charlottesville residents even though

There's going to be turnover on that board, and it's a self-appointing board, so it's very likely that the people who are responsible for Jefferson in 20 years are not the people that we've appointed recently.

So given that it's a self-appointing board, that there's going to be turnover, I think we have a

We have a fiduciary responsibility to the city and we have a moral responsibility to the citizens of Charlottesville to make sure that we are giving this to an organization that has established bylaws.

We have some assurance that this is always going to be governed, not for the benefit of 12 individuals, and I don't think any of those 12 individuals have

Hamilton.

Well, I'll say on the issue of the bylaws, articles of incorporation, et cetera, part of the development conditions that are in this contract, Article 5B, Certificate of Limited Partnership of LP, Certified True Copy of the

of the partnership agreement of LP, limited partnership that is.

Copies of all partnership agreements and consents of limited partnership consenting to this agreement and the purchase of the property as contemplated herein must be in place at the time of execution of this agreement.

So that is built in.

We cannot close until those things are in place.

So that, I think, is something that you don't have to worry about.

This is the issue of what happens now.

That's right.

Kevin, you had a response.

Well, I had a question.

There's an issue of what happens in 20 years, and so I think the issue of succession is important.

But I think it's also important that the goal of this board, we're, again, we're turning this piece of property, supposedly, over to a board that hasn't written its bylaws or its articles of incorporation yet, or I guess articles of organization for an LLP.

Other than the integrity of the 12 individuals who are on this board, there's nothing to prevent them from drawing up articles of incorporation after we do this deal saying, we're just going to slap some paint on it and sell it and split the difference.

There's nothing to prevent them from doing that other than the fact that we trust them.

I want to see in writing the fact that this is going to be

Can I just put it in a slightly different way?

We've been noodling over this thing back and forth, back and forth, back and forth for four years.

It took us 12 months to appoint managing partners and the list that we finally approved was the exact same list that we were presented with at the beginning of the 12 months.

I want to confer with the comments made by Mr. Taliaferro.

I think it's time to move forward with this project.

We've spent a lot of time and appreciate the work that Mr. Gecker and others have done in putting together this agreement.

I'm confident in the process and I'm confident in the partnership and I believe they'll do the right thing.

and I agree with Mr. Norris.

So any other comments?

Is there a motion?

Okay.

I would love to find out if in the period between the first and second reading there are any things

Well, articles of organization for the group that we're giving the property to would be nice.

Okay.

I don't think it would be either.

I'll make a final comment.

I'm really pleased to see this finally move forward.

I think it's been way too long, as Ms. Hamilton pointed out, and I'm looking forward to hopefully this just sailing through with four votes or five votes, hopefully the next time.

But we were told when we started this process

that giving up control wasn't going to be easy.

It's not what Congress tends to do.

I think that's what we said.

You have to find some good people in the community and then you give them the project and let them go with it.

That's the way the tax credit games work.

I feel like we've done our part.

We've found some good people.

I feel like we've got a great group of people working on this project and I'm excited about it.

So I love being mayor, I can get the last word.

Next on the agenda, so that's been moved and seconded and it'll come back to us at the next meeting for a vote.

The next item on the agenda was a public hearing and a report on the McIntire Road extended project on one, the conveyance of temporary construction easement and number two, an approval of storm water management best management practices concept.

I want to take a minute as we talk about this although there are two issues on the agenda tonight really for your action or considered not for action tonight but down the road that need to be acted on but really do a little just kind of where we are up to date status report on the project.

Council may recall that in January of 2006 you sent a letter to the state and to the county with a status report.

12 point or 11 point letter that's been circulating now for about eight years being updated every couple of years.

Within that letter there's several things discussed.

The first is design speed of the project.

Council asks that there be a limit on design speed of no more than 60 kilometers.

That's been done.

That's in the project and the approved plans.

The laneage you asked would be no more than two lanes.

That's the way the road's designed.

The right-of-way that would be acquired would be no more than what was necessary for a two-lane project.

That's the way it's designed.

That there be a grade separated interchange at the 250 bypass and of course you know as we talked

the last meeting that that project is underway and in design.

That there be a bike pedestrian lane or not lane but path adjacent to the parkway that would be five feet wide at least.

That has now been upgraded to a ten foot path which will be adjacent to the road through its entire length.

Item six dealt with a recreational pond that was designed as a

recreational pond in the stormwater feature, and I'll come back to that in a minute because that's one of the issues for consideration.

That there be an amount of parkland that would be purchased in the county to replace the right-of-way taken for the McIntyre Road extended or Medicare Creek Parkway in the city portion.

You attached a map exhibit A to that and said, and that's the top map here,

on the wall and said that if that's the land that's to be acquired, you were okay with that.

You felt like that satisfied the condition that had been put in previous letters.

The status of that is, at this time, if you look at the map, the large map below you, VDOT has actually acquired the yellow parcel.

It is actually now owned in fee simple.

The green and the purple are being acquired through easement.

If you remember those are part of a tract that the owner did not want to sell in fee simple at this point because he wanted credit for the acreage when they developed the land and if they sold it off they would lose that acreage to count in their density and it would be later after development proffered for right away but it would be easement until then.

There are three tracks that are in the orange color on the upper map.

One to the left, one to the far right that are currently public land and one on the lower end.

You can see those parcels still show up.

The one to the left is the current public land that is the city recreational areas around the high school, the football field and other fields there.

The one to the far north, to the far right on the lower drawing or on the upper drawing is CATEC and those facilities of course that is public land and then the other one there is public land to the lower end The only two parcels that are not identified here on the VDOT map that were shown on the upper left are first the one that's if you go all the way to the north which is to the right I have striped it here, I hash marked it in the lower drawing where the mayor's pointing

That is a parcel that's between roadway sections and would actually be part of the right-of-way acquisition for the road but is a part that was shown on here for public land but is surrounded by various pieces of the roadway.

And then there's one right adjacent to the road.

There's a blank area in the lower map that you can see right in the middle that's also hashmarked.

That's a piece of property that's owned actually by the railroad.

and in talking to VDOT today, their intent, even though it shows on the map to be acquired on the upper map, would not be to acquire but to enter into a use agreement with the railroad for the uses proposed for that property.

This was explained to me that that's typically what they do.

They don't acquire right away from the railroad.

I think we need clarification on that because this is a parcel that

Right.

It is railroad property, but other than that, this map and the ownership conforms to what we agreed to, you agreed to in January of last year.

Again, they're in the acquisition stages for the green and purple, have not acquired it, but they are in the process on that.

Number 8 on the letter was a restriction we placed on cell tower construction and VDOT has supplied us with their cell tower agreement process which basically says that without the local government's concurrence they will not put cell towers, are not allowed to put cell towers

on any of their right-of-way.

You asked it be restricted to limited access, which it is.

You asked that there be significant progress made or stated there be significant progress would be made on both the eastern connector, a regional transportation plan and a southern connector.

The regional transportation plan, you agreed in that letter of January that the chart plan

and have been done satisfied that.

The Southern Connector, you said that there would be progress and funding provided by 2008.

It is in the six year plan of the county but there is no funding yet on that.

And then you also said some progress on the Eastern Connector and as you know both City and County put up $250,000 and we're working on location study for those.

And then the final

So there's one issue with the letter that has changed and then the issue of a temporary construction easement.

It's been determined that this project can be built in the city because the city owns all the park land by virtue of a temporary construction easement

That documentation or that easement is in your packet and prepared by the city attorney but it does show and convey the right of way.

It actually is the drawing right behind the mayor that shows what would be the temporary construction easement there that we would be granting to VDOT for the duration of the construction of the project.

It does run

as shown there essentially from Melbourne to 250 Bypass.

The second issue deals with pond design.

In your letter, January, which continued on the previous letters from previous councils, you indicated that you wanted VDOT to proceed with the recreational pond design as shown in the Riley Report.

That was a pond that was intended to do

provide recreation amenities and act as a stormwater retention pond.

In doing an interagency review with all the agencies involved, water conservation, fisheries, Corps of Engineers, all those folks, it was pointed out by the Corps that rules have changed, federal laws have changed, and an in-stream detention pond was no longer allowed, meaning building a pond that was in the

that the stream ran through, that we had to do water quality treatment and do best practices for stormwater management.

So VDOT has indicated that they, because it was a condition of your letter, they would like Council's approval to proceed with an alternative design for the stormwater portion of this project.

We have put together a committee that has staff and has

VDOT personnel and has a couple of citizens that have backgrounds in stormwater and landscape architecture to work on this project.

We believe, our engineering staff, environmental and park staff, that this is really a better alternative, that we will end up with a better

from an environmental standpoint, a better design by going this route.

You have a couple of pictures here on the wall, a couple renderings of what type design we're talking about, but essentially it hadn't been final design yet because VDOT does not want to proceed with all the final engineering until you indicate that this is an acceptable alternative, but this gives you an idea of the work that's been done so far.

One of the ponds, there would be two ponds in the city and four in the county.

section are two features.

They would be bile retention.

They would be cleansing the water in addition to retaining the water, which is something that the previous design did not do.

So this would end up being a more environmentally friendly design than we had previously.

As you can see from the rendering here, it gives us a real opportunity with the trail going near to have an amenity for the park as well as a storm water feature.

Again, VDOT does not want to proceed because of the letter.

They want to honor your letter and your letter indicated a recreational pond was the preference.

So they would like your concurrence to move in this direction and then the other matter that needs a decision is the easement.

At one point we had talked about, you may have seen correspondence, that the project was not fully funded and that there was a shortfall in the six-year plan.

The CTB has fully funded the project and so all the dollars are there to move it forward without any commitment of other dollars.

Mr. Tolbert, one of the conditions for proceeding with the parkways that we see progress on construction or planning at least of the Eastern Connector and yet I've heard in public forums that the county doesn't envision securing funding, sufficient funding to build the Eastern Connector at any point in the indefinite future.

And then in terms of the traffic impacts, you know, one of the concerns that I've raised about this project is that my fear is that it's going to significantly increase through traffic in our residential neighborhoods going from growth area A in the county to growth area B in the county, so this isn't

These aren't necessarily people stopping in the city but driving through the city and making our city roads more congested and making it more difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists, etc.

And I'm wondering, on the traffic studies that were done early on in preparing for this project, was there any consideration given to the fact that the county's, the largest development project in the history of Albemarle County

was about to be built at the southern terminus of this through road, i.e.

Well, of course, I'm not sure at what stage early on in the parkway, early on was, I'm not sure they even did traffic projections, but at some point recently or in the last 10 years there were traffic projections done that were done as part of the

the chart planning process and those various plans have gone on.

When those types of models are run, they anticipate development in the growth area based on the land use plan, not necessarily, and existing zoning or proposed zoning, not necessarily what's there or known about.

So they may not have known about that significant development per se, but it would have anticipated a development

at a certain level in the urban ring both north and southeast and west of the city as well as development in the city.

That's the way that the models that are used are based and set.

Any other questions for Mr. Tolbert?

Colette Hall, 101 Robertson Lane.

Good evening Mr. Mayor and Councillors.

The first part of my talk was about the pond and I was going to say it was the alternative and now Mr. Talbert just talked about possible alternatives in the sketches or drawings behind you so we have yet to see how that will unfold.

So I will go on to say that the North Downtown Neighborhood and the Learning Education Center are concerned about Skanks Branch Creek and have asked Dr. Brent from the DEQ, Department of Environmental Quality,

to hold a public hearing on Skanks Branch Creek which flows into Meadow Creek and both these creeks may very severely be affected by the building of Meadow Creek Parkway which also would possibly involve what is going to happen to storm water and how storm water is going to be collected and what eventually will be provided for it, what will be done with it.

and so Dr. Brent has scheduled a public hearing in Charlottesville in October regarding the health of Skanks Branch Creek so I think it's important for the citizens of Charlottesville to know that the state

is still very concerned about this, and sort of like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand's doing, DEQ and VDOT sounds like they're not talking to each other, which really concerns me.

The other thing I want to mention really, really quickly is I went to the Eastern Connector public input meeting, there were two of them, and everyone from the community was asked, so there were county residents there and city residents there and so forth,

and several people at that meeting, most of them being county residents, asked about the Southern Connector and I will not mention a name.

However, an official from the Board of Supervisors said there is no such thing as a Southern Connector.

A Southern Connector will not be built.

It is not being planned.

There's no plans for it.

and Mr. Talbert mentioned it from your letter of January 06, so as Councilor Norris questioned about the eastern connector, as of right now, the Board of Supervisors aren't even thinking about a southern connector, so I'm very concerned that we'll at least get an eastern connector and that the traffic control will not just end with the Meadow Creek Parkway.

Good evening, I'm Peter Klinkman.

I live at 407 Hedge Street in the city.

I'm actually surprised that council is being asked to consider granting an easement at this time or even considering granting an easement at this time on a project that city councils or city staff's own consultants have shown to be totally inadequate for meeting the transportation flows through to the Route 250 bypass.

This project, as I hope you are aware, is independent of the interchange project.

It's been requested by Councilor Lynch and others that these be combined into one project.

So they could be coupled and looked at in some logical fashion, but that has not happened.

So as an independent project, I'm concerned that the steering committee of the Parkway or the McIntyre Road extended is now supplanted by the interchange steering committee.

and that the project is, which requires an interchange be built, yet if you look at the map behind you, the easement is to build a roadway that has no interchange.

And in fact, the demonstration by the city's consultants was Fitzgerald and Halladay several years ago, or many months ago anyway, showed that on opening day, the traffic flows through that intersection would be at the worst level of service possible in every through and turning direction.

So the concern that I have is that this project which has been demonstrated as an independent project, as being totally infeasible to meet any needs in the city, yet we are preparing

apparently to provide VDOT with the right-of-way to do exactly that project.

I'm also concerned that the stormwater management plan is really a preliminary plan.

The engineering, to my knowledge, has not been done on this.

There's been no preliminary engineering.

Mr. Tolbert mentioned there wouldn't be any final engineering, but I would expect there would be preliminary engineering prior to doing any right-of-way transfers to build a roadway.

One would have to actually demonstrate

that there is a potentially good solution at some level.

So I'm concerned that the

also that the materials that are being brought before you provide no measure of any benefit to the community that this project will achieve.

Generally when making decisions of large amounts of capital we would expect to see some kind of a cost benefit demonstration that if we spend many millions of dollars on a project we would expect to get many millions of dollars of benefits out of it.

I would hope that before you make any consideration of granting any right of way or moving this project forward that you request that whoever is promoting this project in its form that's being presented to you could identify what those benefits are and to whom they may accrue.

So on that note, I hope that you will take the leadership necessary to hold back this train that seems to be pushing this project where the pieces are not in place

Not only is stormwater an issue, but Mr. Tolbert mentioned many other problems that have been addressed and they are being considered, but they have not reached the level of maturity to let any kind of contract for right-of-way.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Ernie Reed, 610 Ferish in the City.

I'm the director of the Living Education Center and as you know we've been involved with, we initiated the city's Adopt a Stream program with Shanks Branch and we're very grateful that we now have Shanks Greenway which brings a level of visibility and community concern to the quality and the habitat of Shanks Branch.

One thing you might not know is that our school has taken on this Shanks Branch, what we call a restoration project, for kind of a long term and a more grander

project that maybe the city might take in terms of the short term projects including the Meadow Creek Parkway.

So anything that would come forth that would have the possibility of impacting or degrading the habitat or the quality of the water or anything that would come up that might enhance it like the Shanks Greenway, we want to be really involved.

in that process and have the school take that on as part of our educational project which we have.

So we wanted to weigh in on this and of course it's summertime so you get me instead of students.

But reading Mr. Tobrit's report, which was included as an addendum, there's a few points here I just wanted to address directly.

The first mentions that the majority of the stormwater runoff from the roadway project would not be captured through these stormwater plant facilities.

which makes me wonder what percentage of the water treatment these actually will address.

Are they just pretty ponds that are part of the plan or do they actually have a function?

And what types of storm water management are the main portion of the parkway if the pond retention is not?

Another point has to do with the alternative analysis, saying from the report that there exists no other design, they want to make sure there doesn't exist any other designs that minimize impacts to the waterways or wetlands and preferably does not impact the waterways or wetlands at all.

And so, as we've said in the past, we're always looking that the no-build alternative be looked at in terms of the best way to preserve the water quality in the habitat of Shanks Branch.

and the design details that would go into this would be really important for us to see especially in lieu of a statement farther down on page two where it says that both stormwater management facilities will accomplish water quality and water quality goals to successfully treat this project's stormwater runoff thereby enhancing the health of our stream network.

and it's pretty inconceivable that the level of grading and construction and destruction of habitat that would entail with the Meadow Creek Parkway would under any scenario be able to enhance the quality of Shanks Branch and the water that goes from there into Meadow Creek and into the Rivanna River.

Can I ask you a clarifying question?

Your first comment on the majority of stormwater runoff not being captured, is that from the last sentence in the paragraph at the very top of the page two?

Very top of page two, yeah.

I believe, and I'll ask for clarification, but I believe that might refer to the recreational pond that was previously designed rather than referring to the current designs.

Which we're not going to do.

Okay.

But we'll get clarification on that.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Okay, thank you.

Those were the three people who had signed up, but if someone else would like to speak, they can.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council.

My name is Timothy Halbert.

I live at 2246 Brandywine in the City of Charlottesville.

I'm one of those people who

drives the work by going from the city through the county back into the city.

I work for the Chamber of Commerce.

Our chamber is 93 years old.

We represent 1200 member enterprises and as you know, I know you know, our chamber supports the expeditious after 40 years construction of Meadow Creek Parkway.

I suppose in our advocacy for the medically parkway in this room so many times, our advocacy for other important roads has been lost.

I sent you something earlier this afternoon, you may not have had a chance to see it, but there's a list of priority projects that our chamber has supported.

The Eastern Connector, the Southern Connector, the Biscuit Run Connector, which is a relatively new phenomenon which will be built essentially by private dollars.

The North Browns connector now, the Leonard Sanders Roach, Hillsdale connector, City Priority Project, US 250 McIntyre Interchange, which we were slow to support.

We believe that this road actually does improve traffic and has been demonstrated at certain times of the year, certain times of the day, absent an interchange, although an interchange is preferred, but it's preferred at $32 million.

We now support that.

So I'm here to A, applaud the city staff.

They've done an enormous amount of work and also applaud the efforts of David Toscano who has worked diligently while he was on council, while he was a delegate, while he was a candidate to be a delegate, and now to move this important project forward.

It offers a tremendous benefit in terms of access

to a vibrant downtown which absent that access will have its competitive positioned road as Albemarle County develops further, not only as a place for retail, niche and important retail, family owned businesses, not chained businesses,

but also residents, we've seen that occur, that that's a positive thing over the last several years but perhaps most importantly and often overlooked as an employment center.

You have to be able to get your employees to work and with the Meadow Creek Parkway and with enhanced public transit option, another element that our chamber supports and a comprehensive plan, downtown can remain the vibrant economic engine that it is for the city

as well as for the region as an employment center, as a retail center, and as a business center, as well as residential center.

So I could go on as you probably know for much more than another nine seconds, but I'll end here.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to offer comment?

Okay, no takers?

Okay, then I'll close the public hearing.

Just on this issue.

We'll have another section for just general public comment at the end of the regular agenda.

No other comments?

Mr. Mayor, I think in light of the comments that were made a bit earlier, it might be important to reiterate for the public

Thank you for that.

I'll also add that the Army Corps of Engineers took issue with impounding the stream, so even if we had wanted to do it, which originally we did, that would have caused problems for us.

I personally don't have too much of an issue with us not putting

the pond there and going to the water remediation project that has been shown.

There are a few additional things that I would like to see happen as part of that.

I looked at that piece of area about a year ago with the Nature Conservancy and I think there's plenty of opportunity for stream bank restoration along Shanks Branch cutting the bank back so that as the stream, when it fills up during a storm event, it can swell instead of cutting into the bank, which is what it does right now.

So I think that would also help the

that waterway.

Keeping some sort of, there was acknowledgement of having some kind of grass in that area between the path and Shanks Branch that would catch some of the runoff and provide a water quality aspect to this.

It's important to remember that there's a big Rivanna utility easement that goes through there.

And in fact, in the past, they've been some of the worst offenders of

scraping that land right down to the dirt keeping their utility access open.

And so I think we're going to need to talk to them and make sure that if we're going to do something like plant cattails or something that will have some water quality effect that it doesn't end up getting mowed down to the dirt every time Rivanna bush-hogs the side of the bank there.

It is being used as a golf course right now which means there isn't a whole lot of water quality that happens but from the time that the water falls and it rolls into the creek.

So I think there is some potential to mitigate even with a road going through.

However, of all of the

I think it was 11 criteria that we counsel outlined several times.

There's three that are still of considerable concern to me.

The pond is not really one of them, but the three are, one, that we have a functioning interchange, and I think we're getting there.

I think of the three, that's the one that we're the closest on.

Number two, that we have replacement parkland and we laid out a map saying this is what we expect to get for the easement that we're giving up.

And three, that we have a commitment by the county to the regional network.

As I said, I think we're making progress on the interchange.

It's not quite there yet, but I think of all the three

criteria that I consider to be the important outstanding ones, we're closest to getting there.

I think by September we ought to have the design for the interchange that we can truly say, yes, this will meet the requirement.

And I think we should say, I think we should have an interchange design that we say, yes, this meets the requirement before we turn this easement over.

We should make sure that all of these

That one I think we can get there in a few months.

Now the replacement parkland is one that we're just clearly not there yet.

The VDOT has acquired one of several parcels that they said that they would supply us in exchange for the season.

But they haven't acquired all of them.

As we heard from Mr. Tolbert, some of them, the county is saying, well, we don't want to give those up right yet because the developer, the owner doesn't want to give up his development interest in it.

Well, I can understand that.

That's their problem.

That's not our problem.

And there's several parcels that are still in, as is shown there, to be acquired that are still in the acquisition process.

and there's this issue with the one that's owned by the railroad, some questions as to whether that's going to be acquired or not, as well as this one down at the end, the other hatched one.

My response to this is that when VDOT has acquired all these parcels, or when we have assurances from the county that all these parcels have been acquired, that's when we should say, okay, you've acquired the parcels, we will now trade you the easement for them.

to say, all right, well, you've done some of it.

Here's the easement, and we hope you'll do the rest of it.

Because my sense from what I've seen from VDOT in the county is once they have that parkway easement, we're not going to get any more work out of them after that.

So I think it's imperative that we get all of the land that we originally negotiated for and not an acre less.

And we're just simply not there yet.

On the issue of the regional network,

I don't see that we're there yet either.

I'm on the Eastern Connector Steering Committee and I have not been impressed by the county's commitment to this project, to the Eastern Connector.

My sense from serving on that committee is that it exists mostly to figure out reasons not to build the Eastern Connector than it does to find a suitable alignment for the Eastern Connector.

The Southern Parkway may be on the list of the county's secondary road projects, but it was on that list before I got on council and it hasn't budged, hasn't got a bit of funding, and it doesn't surprise me to hear that there's Board of Supervisors members that say it's not going to happen.

There is no commitment by the county to a regional transportation network, or certainly none that I've seen.

Could I ask a question, just since you serve on that committee?

What's the timeline for actions on the Eastern

on the alignment study for the Eastern Connector.

That's a good question.

Off the top of my head, I think we're end of the year maybe, but I'd have to pull up my notes to look at that.

Pantops' master plan is showing two potential connections running more connections in through the city.

That's what the county is really big on, putting a connection either going through Woollen Mills or connecting to High Street at Stewart Street.

I'm just not interested in building more roads for the county.

The county is the growing entity here.

I wanted to be clear to the public that we're not being asked to take any action tonight, that this is in the nature of a report and that we're discussing this matter, I'm assuming, so that we can plan, you know, so that as we move forward with these projects, you know, we make sure that everything is on schedule.

But one thing that I think, I'm not as concerned about the parkland as you are, Kevin, because

I do see that there's movement on that and that does appear to be well in hand.

This issue of the regional road networks, though, is one that's troubling and that needs to be resolved.

And one of the things that we were provided in our packet was a resolution that the county voted on in 2004, endorsing these particular details of the Meadow Creek Parkway.

And I think I would be satisfied if they were to pass a similar resolution on the regional road network.

I mean, we may not be able to get alignment and all of these other things in place, but a resolution has the force of law saying that they are going to be looking at taking these actions.

It's not necessarily dictating the timeline,

Has there been any such resolution by the County?

Yeah, just a couple comments.

The intersection design, I think that's better than what I initially, I really didn't like a lot of the intersection designs.

I thought some of them, the footprints were really too large, they were too big.

I am concerned about the county's commitment to a regional road network.

That does cause me some concern and bothers me.

And also the comments made by Councilor Lynch in regards to the Eastern Connector is also not very encouraging to me.

The parkland additional land acquisition

I think that needs to be cleaned up and that needs to be done.

I think a bigger commitment made to it.

And finally, I still have some concerns at Melbourne Road where there is another ability to exit there off the parkway, which is in very close proximity to the Park Street intersection.

And I guess

The issue that I have with that question, you know, what is the point of doing that there, I guess.

I don't know, is it an issue of cost or what?

I'd kind of like an answer to that, I think.

Mr. Norris?

I appreciate Councillor Taliaferro bringing up Melbourne Road.

I was going to bring that up as well.

I think we need to be doing better analysis on that intersection.

I know I've personally gotten calls and been stopped on the street by a number of residents in the vicinity of that intersection who are very concerned about the impacts in their neighborhood and I'd like to see us do a better job of fleshing that whole piece of this project out.

I'm not sure it's entirely fair to say that the county hasn't

committed to a regional road network.

I think the whole chart process was a way of the county committing to a vision for the regional road network.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that was the intent with that project.

But what we want to see is follow through.

and particularly on some of these roads that are going to take traffic around the city rather than through the city like the Eastern Connector and like the Fontaine Connector.

That's, you know, the proof's in the pudding.

I would like to see that sort of commitment extended not only to actually building some of the Connector roads but

Just as importantly in beefing up our regional transit system, which the county and the city both committed to in principle, but again, the proof's in the pudding, and I'm encouraged by some of the early steps the county's taken in that regard, but

we have the potential to have just a tremendous world-class public transportation system here with a relatively modest additional investment particularly when compared to the amount of money we're about to spend on this road and paving over our main park.

And then lastly on the issue of the water management, I wonder if it's too late if Living Education Center is amenable to offering representation on the

Stormwater Management Advisory Committee and the advisory group to LAC, given the fact that they're so invested in the future of the creeks in that area.

And I'd also like to make sure that Mr. Tolbert or Angela Tucker, if there's some

I think that's something that's gotten overlooked.

It was overlooked in the original 11 points and it's something that we need to take a look at because that could be a problem.

I do think it's necessary to get more than just a resolution of support out of the county.

Because I think, for example, the Southern Parkway is something that's actually got an alignment.

It's been on the books for almost as long as the Medicaree Parkway.

It's simply, all it's missing is the will and the money to build it.

The reason the county doesn't want to build it is really twofold.

Number one, the developments already happen there, so they don't get any new development dollars out of it.

And number two, now that the developments already happened there, there's neighbors that don't want to see traffic or hear traffic or know about traffic anywhere close to them, as most people in the city feel the same way.

However, we're about to build a road that's going to put thousands more cars on Ridge Street, on McIntyre,

and other major arteries of the city, I don't think that this is a burden that only the city should bear.

So I think it's more than just saying resolution of support.

We need to see movement and we need to see construction plans and we need to see these projects going forward.

The same thing with the Eastern Connector.

We don't need a resolution of support.

We need to see an alignment.

When we started the chart project, we actually started with proposed potential alignments and we've been working backwards ever since.

The county said, no, no lines on the map.

We don't want to see lines.

They'll just get people upset.

So we took the lines away and they made it just sort of this amorphous blob and they said, well,

If we're going to have this amorphous blob here, let's tie that in with another amorphous blob which will be extending Meadow Creek Parkway phase two, take it over the river, which would be even a bigger mess at that interchange if they ever did that.

Well, I'll offer a couple comments.

I actually disagree.

I think a clear statement of intent from the county by virtue of a resolution would be very helpful.

I think that, you know, I think

Mr. Tolbert answered a question very accurately, which he said, you know, a big issue here is money.

You know, a big issue here is just statewide funding for road projects, that that's going to be a challenge.

But I think we can look to see a strongly worded commitment from the county that recognizes, in particular for me, the importance of the Eastern Connector.

And

Secondly, on parkland, I would like to suggest that we look at the pieces that were identified by Mr. Tolbert and we get a report back on anticipated timelines or what the problems are.

For example, I listened carefully to your presentation,

The issue on the railroads and their property and what's going to happen next with that, I'd like to maybe hear and see a little more of what are the opportunities, what are the problems, what would it mean if we didn't acquire it, that kind of an analysis.

I also understand and I think we shouldn't discount the fact that the county has obtained agreement with the property owner to

for his donation of land for replacement park land.

But for other purposes, he would rather get credit for that donation down the road.

And I think that there must be some way, some legally binding way that allows that.

And if the city attorney, the county attorney, Mr. Tolbert can discuss, is there some way of ensuring that that happens as we move forward, that would be a good idea.

And the same kind of analysis, so we can really be clear on

Are there any particular scenarios in which that parkland transfer would not come through after we've signed on the dotted line, because I'd like to be assured it would.

I think that people have raised good issues on Melbourne Road, although I think that

with an effective interchange at 250, I don't think there'll be much incentive to cut through.

I personally don't see that.

I think that without an effective interchange at Melbourne Road, the original ideas of just having a regular intersection there, I think people would be cutting through regularly because it would be a backed up intersection.

They'd be looking for some recourse.

And finally, I agree with Mr. Hulbert in that we do need to ensure that people can always get that done.

And I worry, I worry a lot about what 29 that hydraulic is going to look like in 3 years or 5 years or 10 years.

as it becomes more congested as the Albemarle place is developed.

And I'd hate to see an environment where it's so hard to get into the city because of congestion in terms of the major arteries that people decide to eat or see movies or

and other recreational opportunities at Albemarle Place because it's easier to get to and they just stop there instead of continue to fight traffic to get further into the city and I think the Medigreed Parkway, there's a real value for us in terms of access downtown.

One thing that I realize is not clear as we've laid out these conditions is the actual dispensation of this land and how

The transfer occurs and I think we ought to be clear about that.

expectation has always been that when BDOT acquired this land and has 50 acres that we would trade them that for our easement and I think that that is how we should do this so that that essentially becomes an extension of McIntire Park.

I think that was always in, we've certainly discussed that but I think that's another aspect of this as to how exactly

We take possession of that replacement park land in exchange for the land that we have.

I will again remind you that when we started out with this issue of replacement park land, we said 50 acres.

The county came back with VDOT and said, well, okay, how about this map?

This map shows actually that map.

This was like 49 and a half.

And we said, okay, well, it's not quite what we asked for, but it was close enough.

Now what we've got is 36.

I could let a half acre slide, but not 14 acres.

And I think we've just got to be insistent about it.

The 49 and a half, including the section that was under discussion that they want to delay so that they can get credit on.

And if they have a way that they can guarantee that we get that when the property gets developed, I'm okay with that.

One of the points that I think were two, one was to talk about what would it take for us to be comfortable in granting the construction easements.

The second thing is were we comfortable with the idea of changing from the single-pond design to a

sustainable but somewhat traditional stormwater management approaches.

I wouldn't mind having a couple comments on that, make sure everyone's, because I think that if we can all agree that we're comfortable, it will allow, I think, more detailed engineering to be done so it can come back to us more specifically.

I know for me, what I don't want is just the standard VDOT

Stormwater Park.

And I think we can have something that we can feel like, you know, that we can insist on having something done well.

And I think we can get it done well.

And, you know, I think the, you know, getting more input from the school would be, living at education center would be a great idea.

I mean, that's the point of appointing Peggy Manierez and Dave Hirschman to this was to get their professional input.

I think the school has a very strong interest to be a great opportunity for them.

I don't have any hesitation, but I think if we're going to do that, we need to look at stream bank restoration, and I also think that all the bioremediation in the world isn't going to help if Rivanna bush hogs are down in the dirt every year.

I think that really helps move it on, it helps me to move on and we'll get the information that you requested on the parcels and the parkland and the status of those.

Any final comments about the county?

I think it would be to our benefit to pursue a resolution.

Well, you know, that's a good point because when we started this project is, where's our historian, Mr. Halbert has left the building, but this was originally a part of a, the Meadow Creek Parkway was part of a three-party agreement that said we will, number one, put interchanges on 29

at Hydraulic, Rio and Greenbrier.

Then we will number two, build the Meadow Creek Parkway.

Then we will number three, build the 29 Bypass.

Okay, is that enough on that?

Good evening members of council, Mayor Brown.

What you have before you is an amended lease of Darden Towel Park in 2003.

City Council, with the county, approved a lease to lease the northern portion of Darden Towel Park.

At this point, we need to revise that lease.

We need to do an amended lease.

The relevant point to City Council needs to know this lease is still for 36 years, so it requires you to do an opening bid process

and to receive bids, select a bidder, commence a public hearing, and then move an ordinance forward to effect this lease.

The Board of Supervisors has already approved this amended lease.

That occurred on July 11th of this year.

And it would be the recommendation of the city staff that you approve this amended lease.

The memorandum that you have summarizes the amendments, but essentially what council needs to know is that

These amendments will help clarify some of the roles and responsibilities of the Lewis and Clark Center.

In addition to that, it will allow the construction process to start.

And I believe we do have Ms. Hemingway here from the Lewis and Clark Center, the Vice President, who can also provide council with more information.

I don't have any questions, but I will note that one of the concerns that I had in this...

It's a public hearing, so just before we get too far on comments.

Thank you.

We can open the public hearing or we can just have Ms. Hemingway come speak since she's the first person signed up.

Okay, I'll ask the attorney to do that.

Hello, my name is Ann Hemmenway.

I live at 800 Park Street in the city and I'm currently serving as the Vice President of the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center of Virginia.

What you have before you is our bid to amend the current lease which was signed in 2003.

There's really two substantive amendments.

The first one is the lease

It changes the access to the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center in Dardantow.

So now we've agreed with the Dardantow Park Committee and the county to access

through the existing road system in the park.

The other amendment to the lease is to include, as part of the lease, the barn area that's currently on Darden Tow.

The Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center, with the county's permission, has been using the barn for actually many years.

We built the keel boat, which is part of our project, which is a 52-foot

exact replica of the keel boat that Lewis and Clark used which exists by the barn right now and we're undergoing projects to build other boats and to use the barn as a resource for educating the public about the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center.

The mission of the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center is to create an education and hands-on center on the Rivanna River which uses the Lewis and Clark Expedition as a gateway for teaching area students and children and visitors about exploration, about journal writing, about

Natural Resources, Native Cultures, and really the rich history of our area.

We've already had many educational programs

including every summer for the past three years we've had a program with the city parks and recs kids that come out and we do boat building and we teach them about the area in terms of the Lewis and Clark expedition and the history and the Rivanna River and those programs have been extremely successful and enjoyed by the kids in the city so I highly recommend that you approve this amendment to the lease

and then we will proceed with the center.

Any questions for the center?

Thank you.

Thank you.

So before opening a public hearing, I should state that the bid is for an annual rent of $10 per year.

Does that satisfy your requirement?

Okay.

I'll now open the public hearing.

Would anyone like to come speak about this lease?

Seeing no takers, I'll close the public hearing and open it to council comment.

Actually, I'll start off by saying I think the center's done a great job of involving city kids in boat building.

It's been happening for several years.

I went participating in that for the first time in some of the activities last week.

It was a lot of fun.

I think the kids get a lot out of it, and it's been a good partnership between the center and our city.

I think it's

I agree, I saw the boat races last year and I thought that was a neat thing.

I also appreciate the fact that number one in the lease is a stipulation that says if the Eastern Connector is sited or any roadway is sited in this area that the localities have a right to site the road if needed.

I guess I just want to caution the committee that I think if the county does come through on its commitment to site in Eastern Connector, I think the most viable site does come through this location.

I think that the site plan that you have drawn is drawn in a way that it's most likely to miss that, but there's really no guarantees and so I would just hope that you will also push them to come to some conclusion as to where

this thing is going to be so that if it turns out that it is on I guess the southern piece of this property you'll have some opportunity to move your building and we don't get into a costly condemnation or I guess it wouldn't even be a condemnation at that point.

Other comments?

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded.

Since it's an ordinance, we'll come back next time for the second reading.

Thank you.

Next on the agenda,

is an appeal of a denial by the Board of Architectural Review of an amended comprehensive signage plan for 501 East Water Street.

Thank you.

This is an appeal of a Board of Architectural Review decision regarding a comprehensive signage plan amendment for the Holsinger Building.

It's a mixed-use building located on Water Street at the intersection of Fifth Street southwest.

The BAR approves all signage for new construction in a historic district as opposed to existing building signage which is approved administratively.

The BAR has the ability to approve a comprehensive signage plan.

negotiated plan, the applicant submits it, and the BAR decides if it's appropriate.

It allows them to waive or modify the existing regulations for signage.

And there's two reasons why a comprehensive signage plan is useful.

The first is if a building has multiple tenants, there's usually a need for more signage than the ordinance normally permits.

and the second reason is consistency.

If a tenant comes in now and applies for a plan for signage and then in six months another tenant comes in, the plan is already in place and so it's easy to make the signage more consistent on the building.

So a comprehensive signage plan was approved for the Holsinger building in April of 06.

It allowed three wall signs and three projecting signs along the Water Street frontage and then one more wall sign and two projecting signs on the Fifth Street frontage.

This was in addition to a hard canopy with a sign that says Holsinger.

It's over the lobby that serves the residential units in that building.

Melting Pot currently has one halo lit sign.

It's a nice looking aluminum sign with amber LED lighting.

That was approved on appeal and they also have multiple window signage which we don't require permits for.

The salad creations, the other property in this building obtained a sign permit for a also channel letter sign similar to the melting pot with LED lettering.

and that was approved but then they didn't put that up.

And then the next thing that happened was without approval four awnings with signage appeared for the melting pot and one awning with signage for salad creations.

And they were inconsistent with the comprehensive signage plan.

They also didn't meet the zoning ordinance requirements for signing on awnings.

The zoning ordinance requires that on an awning

that it can only be on the front flap, the vertical flap that's parallel to the building, does not allow it on the ends and does not allow it on the sloping part.

It also prohibits hanging a sign from a nonning.

the purpose of these regulations is to promote fairness and consistency among all the businesses and an example of this downtown is common for a building which is allowed two signs normally to have for instance a projecting sign so people walking up and down the street can see it and then one either a wall sign or an awning sign on the front flap that allows you to see it when you look straight at the building so that's a normal solution to the signage so

Tonight you have a couple of alternatives.

You can support the BAR's decision and not approve this amendment to the Conference of Signage Plan to allow these awnings.

The BAR's decision was unanimous, 8 to 0.

The applicant could then submit an alternate plan to amend the

current comprehensive signage plan.

That's one possibility.

The other is you could approve the applicant's request as submitted or with modifications.

Normally when we, and staff of course recommends the first that you support the BAR's decision.

Normally when you hear an appeal after my report you hear from the applicant and then the chairman of the BAR, Fred Wolf, is also here to present the BAR's reasoning.

There was some question about whether or not the applicant was aware of these regulations.

I think the applicant was aware.

There was a lot of discussion about signage when we did the first go around, the first appeal.

The applicant was at that meeting

Good evening Mr. Mayor and members of the council.

My name is Alan Tweit with Holiday Sign 11930 Old Stage Road, Chester, Virginia.

And Mr. Hornick has contracted with me on a number of his restaurant locations, Tidewater area, Richmond area and Charlottesville.

I was up here about this time last year and after two BAR meetings that went on until about 1130 to midnight and then appealing

their decision to the city council which was another late nighter, I still managed to mess this thing up.

I think basically what it comes down to is not understanding the

on

responsibility and I subcontracted the awning part of it to another company out of Richmond who does a lot of work in this area or so he tells me and he did not get, he put them up and did not get the permits but it's my mistake, it's my responsibility so what I want to do tonight is try and come to some kind of agreement to maybe salvage this so I don't cost Mr. Hornick a whole lot more money because he's already made a substantial investment in his business.

The first page shows the melting pot awnings and Mary Joy has already read what the violations are.

When we design these awnings, basically your city ordinance simply reads

that all lettering and images comprising any portion of an awning or canopy sign shall be located on the face of the awning or canopy parallel to the building and may not project above or below the face.

We would make the argument that we have lettering on the face of the awning that's parallel with the building.

The ordinance does not state anything about the slope of the awning.

In the BAR it's pointed out that staff recommends that the awnings be permitted in lieu of projecting signs that all signs be removed from the awnings except on the single vertical face parallel to the building and that the hanging sign may be removed from the awning.

In another email it states that

I believe the BAR would approve all black awnings of the same style either with no signage or with just a single sign on the front flap that hangs parallel to the building.

So, just a matter of getting down to definition, I would contend that we have placed signage on the face that's parallel to the building.

However, we also put signage on the side of the awning, which is clearly not prohibited.

We did that

to not have to put up the projecting signs that are allowed.

So I think what I would like to do is take down the temporary gift certificate sign which is an attachment to the awning and perhaps in lieu of putting up the projecting signs allow us to keep the awnings as they are.

It's not like these are the only awnings that have this type of application.

Chad Hornick, owner of the Melting Pot Restaurant.

Good to see you back again.

I didn't know I'd be back and you guys about signage issues again.

As I mentioned the first time around when I was here, I am the owner of my space, so I am what I consider a resident of the downtown mall.

and with Allen we have made a great effort to make our space look as great as possible both on the inside and the outside.

I thought it was very important for us to have the adequate amount of signage so that we can captivate the audience that we have walking by on the downtown mall area.

We're not right on Main Street, we're on water, but it still helps us.

It was a significant difference from the day that the awnings went up to when we didn't have them, as far as people standing outside in front of our restaurant not even knowing they're out front of our restaurant.

And we sometimes even had to go run out the door and chase people down to let them know, are you looking for the melting pot?

As far as the awnings being put up without a permit, Mr. Tweed is exactly right the way that went down.

I tried to explain that in a BAR meeting.

They didn't really want to hear much about it.

It was a mistake.

As far as how the awnings got selected, when we were early on in the process, when we were designing the original

The surface mount sign, the lit sign that's on the building, we got information at that time that there was a comprehensive sign package.

The way we interpreted it is that the owner was part of that.

Bill Mitchman, the architect, not the architect, the developer for that building, was the one that had the information.

that we needed to put up our awnings.

So I went to him, as I did almost every day for about six months, and talked to him about, well, what is the signage package?

He said, well, follow me.

So we went walking around the downtown mall looking at different signs, and he said, I like this, and I like that, and I like this.

And from my understanding,

I was able to put together something I submitted to him in which he said, yeah, everything looks great.

I think it'll go real well with our building.

He was the builder.

I figured, hey, if he's going to look at it that way, I guess it's going to go with the quote unquote comprehensive sign package.

Again, maybe that would be construed as a mistake on my part.

I was just trying to follow directions that I was given.

And maybe I was misled a little bit.

I'm not going to debate that with anybody on the BOR.

I was just trying to do the right thing.

I was trying to get up something again that was going to be aesthetically pleasing to the downtown mall area and the building from which I purchased.

And again, I just purchased that space.

I don't own a whole building.

So that is kind of how that all happened and again my points are is that we really are trying to do what's best for that building in the downtown mall area and most of all let people know where we are.

We didn't want a bunch of blade signs and things projecting off of the building.

We needed the, and the BAR actually was receptive to the reason why I wanted awnings in the first place.

We're an all non-smoking restaurant

As you know the majority of the state is going to that.

Eventually I think the whole state will go to that, I hope.

And we have had to have it so that some people, our guests can go outside and smoke.

We've even installed a permanent urn that they can put their cigarette butts.

So what I'm getting at is that the reason for that is that we want people to have a place to go.

That's one of the reasons why we put the awnings up over all the windows versus just maybe over the front entrance.

Secondly, it also protects the interior from the sun.

It does help that.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council.

My name is Fred Wolfe.

And the chair of the board of architectural review, Mary Jo, did a wonderful job summarizing.

And I would say that I think that the BAR

actually, although they didn't necessarily support the way the awnings arrived, I think could find a way to support the awnings in and of themselves and all of the other things that they serve as a function for the melting pot.

I think that some of the things that were confusing to us, one is that Mr. Tweet was actually present with Mr. Nitchman at the very first meeting in April of 06 when the comprehensive sign package was approved, and as the representative of melting pot then presented the sign that then was later appealed to you.

was fairly aware of what was involved with the comprehensive sign package and the zoning ordinance and the relationship between the planning department and sign review and BAR and so forth.

I would also say that Mr. Hornick was also present and participated in the meeting.

in 07 when they appealed it to you and so understanding that your approval of the sign that was the metal letters that were attached to the building with some backlighting were approved within the context of the comprehensive sign package I think should have had a fairly good understanding of what the constraints and what the issues and what the other things surrounding

review and approval of signage and awnings in the city would be.

The location of the text and the logos I think really end up being the crux of the issue here.

The purpose in our mind, it appears to us that the

Awnings with the logos and the text as it is are basically a repackaging and re-presentation of those same items that we debated in the prior appeal and which were intentionally precluded from the signage at that time as a condition of the approval that City Council made.

and it seems that the purpose of subjecting signage to review is to ensure, as Mary Joyce said, a level of coherence and consistency with respect to the architecture and the urban fabric in a medium being signage where it's inherently about trying to draw the most attention to yourself and I think that the concern that the BAR and that the zoning ordinance has about plastering text and images and graphic logos all over every surface that an awning may have

is that once they become covered like that they become more like an urban billboard, screaming for attention and we see it as our job to actually try and use the board and its review process as an opportunity to control that kind of visual noise.

I respect that as a business they need to draw attention to themselves.

I think that the comprehensive signage package was developed in such a way that it could have done that.

I think Mr. Hornick just stated that actually what it came down to was that he did not prefer to have what the comprehensive signage package had allowed and so that they investigated going in a different direction which also would have been fine I think had they gone through the proper steps and come back to the BAR and said this is what we're thinking about doing but to come retroactively and suggest that they should be allowed to keep it because it's already done and that they weren't aware of the process when they had actually just gone through the whole process

seemed far-fetched and difficult to actually understand how that could actually come to pass.

And so in terms of setting a precedent for other buildings around town, the

Thank you.

Well, I think that in terms of a preference for consistency, the board would, if there was going to be an awning in lieu of the other type of signage, if there was going to be an amendment to the package,

that the awnings would conform with the requirements and guidelines for awnings in terms of text and graphics being understated and on the plane parallel to the building not on the sides or on the sloped portion and that there would be consistency among the awnings so there were differences in color in terms of the choices made by each different group and I understand how they might have served each tenant differently and there were differences in the installation in terms of the relationship of the awning to the window and so there wasn't even a consistency about the

It may have been the fabrication, it might have been the installation, but the way the awning met the window frame, the masonry opening, differed from one business to another.

It was hard to look at them and see how there was a kind of consistency, the same thing that we're shooting for, that coherence that you would find in a sign package.

So what ended up, I guess another way to ask, what ended up happening with their sign, the salad creations?

I think both came simultaneously to request an amendment to the comprehensive sign package.

Well, maybe Ms. Galla could address that.

You don't own Salad Creations or have any.

Other questions or comments, discussion?

It seems to me that, I mean, that there's two issues.

One issue is of

having, doing something that wasn't included in the comprehensive sign package, and then secondly, doing something that was also not allowed by the zoning ordinance.

That's a fair way of looking at it.

And I think that for me, I think this is pretty simple, which is we have a review process, we have a

and we have an ordinance and they're there for a reason.

I agree but it's a little unclear to me on exactly what the next step would be.

At our last meeting we did discuss alternatives which involved whether or not there were ways to eliminate the portions of the tax store logos from the sides and the sloping front and I think a number of people had all expressed and there was agreement that the color of the awnings

and the general shape, although they differ slightly because some have sides and some do not, but the shape, the slope and the color were actually acceptable and I think that there could be a dialogue about an amendment to what the comprehensive sign package is, understanding that one tenant is, I guess that's between the building and the owner and the other tenants, but one tenant is sort of driving what will be

the guiding sign package then for everyone else by being the first in line but I think from a design standpoint that the board was willing to talk about modifications to the awnings but we were told that that was not, that that could not happen.

Well, my preference would be to uphold the BAR decision and if the applicant can work something out with the BAR, that's fine.

It seems like this appeal is based on a similar premise to the last appeal, which is, hey, we already have this thing in motion, we've already started on it, I think it was the first time.

Personally, I feel like you get to use that excuse once.

Okay, any further discussion?

I'll call for the vote.

Okay, thank you.

Good evening Mr. Mayor and members of city council.

This is a request by the University of Virginia to close a portion of 438 foot portion of Valley Road.

This closure was requested by the city in response to neighborhood concerns regarding cut through traffic in the initial stages of development of the South Lawn project.

In order to mitigate traffic in this area, there will be construction of a cul-de-sac in this area.

I've had a number of, I think about 14 letters from neighbors in support of this particular road closure.

The Planning Commission supported this road closure.

Their main issue and discussion was

that acts as emergency vehicle access.

This road will cause emergency access to increase for about three or four minutes.

So that was a major point of discussion.

The traffic engineer for the city, however, has presented a number of alternatives, and the NDS staff supports the installation of a traffic signal at Valley Road portion of Jefferson Park Avenue that would allow an emergency access vehicle

to go southbound on the northbound lane, basically go down the wrong side of the street in order to access Valley Road.

This signal would be initiated by the fire department and basically would stop traffic at Valley Road so the fire department can cross at the medium about 200 feet before Valley Road and make access to Valley Road.

So that was the, that's the resolution that's recommended by our particular department.

Maybe a question for Chief Taliaferro.

Is this a common arrangement?

Well, I guess what you're using is employing is the 3M system.

Right.

So that's currently in use at the city.

It should also be noted that this is temporary and be waiting on the construction

or the extension of the Fryer House down on Fontaine that would basically come northbound and turn Valley Road.

And then Mr. Stephen Bach brought forward a written proposal.

I don't know if you had a chance to see this.

Well, I would have to defer I think a representative from the universities here how that may, because their project is designed, how that may affect their particular project.

I do have one question.

It does seem that what you propose would work, but it seems a little expensive because you have to put essentially a signal there and

Could be a little confusing.

If I could get up and help too.

That was explored, but at the stage that they are with the planning and because that had never been raised as an issue, there's also a grade separation there that would require significant regrading and changing them.

We're talking about a major design change to the university plan to have that connection.

That's why we were looking for alternatives.

And again, knowing this was going to be a temporary concern with the new station being built, Chief Grimm and

The grade is too difficult.

At the Planning Commission meeting,

There were a couple other things that kind of came up which had to do with sidewalk easement and the stormwater easements.

Stormwater easement is a non-issue.

Right.

All the utilities are okay.

That's taken care of.

The pedestrian easement on the sidewalk is one that they would have to go

Mr. Newman indicated they would go back to the board and ask for them to add that as a pedestrian easement.

But they already have a pedestrian way as part of their plan.

The Planning Commission was just concerned that there would be some guarantee that it would always be there.

And I think it would be very easy.

How long is the area that was in this letter, how long a stretch is that?

What are we talking about?

From the valley end to Brandon.

It may not even be that far.

Well the whole closure is 438 feet to about 500 Brandon Avenue.

One of the issues that I felt like coming out of the Planning Commission meeting was that the university is

is and has created a cul-de-sac here pretty much at the city's request and I think at considerable expense to respond to neighborhood issues.

And I think that we need to be careful not to, since they're well aware along in their designing, not to put conditions that would cause them

I also think given the nature of the university's planning, I think bicycling and pedestrian issues are sort of the forefront of their planning these days.

I just want to publicly commend the University.

The only thing I would add to that is if we do look at widening that pedestrian area, there's a way to revisit perhaps having it wide enough to get emergency access vehicle.

Hopefully, we'll never have to have a fire truck down the sidewalk.

Is there a second?

Second.

OK, it's an ordinance, so that's the first reading, and come back to us next time.

Next on the agenda is Matters by the Public, another chance for people to come tell us what they think.

I'm really somewhat surprised.

that the council has not called an emergency meeting over this grave issue that has tarnished the image of the city to be labeled the worst city in America for home owner's lender.

is a major issue.

On July 11th, at the National Association of Colored People Convention in Detroit, this issue was brought up.

I didn't know until I got home that my city, Charlottesville, was given this label.

But the National Association, the NAACP, has filed a lawsuit against lenders such as Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Washington Mutual, and some other unknown to me lenders.

And this is a very serious issue and I hope that the city looks at this issue

and Mayor Brown, you mentioned that we'll have some further discussions.

I think the folks that should be involved in this discussion should be the University of Virginia, which will have a major impact on their recruitment and retention

of scholars and staff and others.

I think the Chamber of Commerce should be involved in these discussions.

I think Piedmont Housing Alliance and other folks that can make a difference in this whole issue.

But this is a major issue and I hope that the members here will take heed of this issue, that it has a devastating effect on

the current structure of our city.

We are not talking about any more just poor people being victimized.

We are talking about moderate and upper income African American who themselves, as I mentioned, must wake up, must come to the table with everyone to talk about what's happening.

I have to even look.

Ms. Hamilton has to look.

Everybody has to look.

Every African American has to look and see what their home on the policy says.

43% versus 11% being affected.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Turner.

Okay, if not, next is Other Business, and I'd like to start off- Actually, before Dr. Turner leaves, I wanted to just mention that I actually have been in communication with Piedmont Housing Alliance.

They are planning a community meeting to address this very grave issue, and in fact, they are working to invite a representative from the Community Reinvestment Coalition who authored this report to come to Charlottesville

and talk to us about how grave and how sad the situation is and what concrete steps our community can take to climb that ladder.

Kendra had asked that we discuss this in other business and I wonder if we might just lead off with that.

Actually, Mr. Turner, your figures are incorrect.

It's 43% of loans to blacks in Charlottesville are subprime.

compared to 11% for whites.

And for low to moderate income blacks, it's 48% versus 15%.

So it's a lot more severe than 23 to 11.

But I'll also say, the story was in the paper on severe than 23 to 11%.

I didn't say 23.

I said 43.

I will also add that the story was in the paper on Friday and we are discussing it on Monday.

I guess my question about this was that this is an issue of banks and of banks who are calling people.

I mean, I get phone calls all the time.

You get phone calls from Castle Point, from Chase, from whoever, these people who are trying to get you to refinance your home.

And if people need money or they don't understand the issues involved,

I'd just like to mention that Dr. Turner, he mentioned some of the institutions that were cited in

I think it would be good if we, you know, I'd like to see a list of those institutions.

I'll make a comment that a couple weeks ago I participated in a meeting organized by Delegate David Toscano

which was brought together people from City Social Services and County Social Services from PHA, there was someone there from BB&T Bank.

The core issue was to make sure people who are eligible for the earned income tax credit, which benefits low-wage workers, get it, because there's a lot of that left on the table.

But the issue immediately expanded to a discussion of predatory lending,

of people being sort of somehow getting themselves into getting instant tax returns, which basically mean they give up a lot of what probably would be theirs, and of people of low income, which in Charlottesville often means African American, not having access to banking.

And I think that there's a whole bunch of issues that are coming together at the same time as this issue is maybe really going to push us into doing something good.

And I think there's going to be an ongoing set of meetings that I'm hopeful can come out that

I'm glad you mentioned the issue about the banks because when I was searching this national community reinvestment coalition website, that was one thing that they identified was the lack of access to banking for minority communities in another one of their studies.

These are all good points.

I think another thing I'd like to find out about this is the geographical extent.

When they say city of Charlottesville, typically they're talking about Charlottesville,

Sort of related, not that long ago we had a lot of public comment from the impact group and as a council we agreed that we supported the idea of having a joint affordable housing committee and so recently I met with

with Ken Boyd and with a member of their housing committee and our housing committee and staff from Amy Kilroy and Ron White.

And we came up with the recommendation that we create a sort of a task force with the idea that the task force

I have a member of City Council, a member of the Board of Supervisors, someone from each of the Planning Commissions, at least a couple people from each of the Housing Committees, someone from UVA, someone from the Planning District Commission, because the Planning District Commission recently sort of was a conduit for a great report on regional affordable housing, in that we also, as necessary, make sure that we have representation from the non-profits, AHIP,

Habitat, PHA, that aren't represented when we looked at the list of other people who we've had here.

And I said I would bring this to Council, and Ken's going to bring this to the Board of Supervisors to see if we can't get this type of committee going.

The discussion on what this group would do focused on, in a general way, identifying gaps in housing needs, but specifically we talked about low-income affordable rental housing and special needs housing being the two needs that I think have been in particular already identified by the regional task force housing as well as by, certainly by our

by committee and by impact.

Anyway, so I bring this up for your, hopefully your approval or for your input.

Just a point of clarity.

No.

The idea, I think the thought was that both of those groups are working.

The city committee, I think, actually has a very busy agenda and that to merge the two groups might really detract from those groups actually getting their own work done.

But what we could do would be to get this sort of hybrid group

together to really focus on what issues regionally are not being met and what can we task the existing committees, city council and the board of supervisors with in order to start meeting those needs.

Sounds good?

Okay.

So while the consensus is that we're moving ahead with this as listed and I'll certainly welcome suggestions on

people who might be well-suited to be a facilitator or a chair of the group.

I was thinking of perhaps a former planning commissioner or a former city councilor or board of supervisor would be the type of person who might bring some skills to help push this forward.

I just want to mention this bonus thing one minute.

I understand the reason for it.

I support the reason for having the hiring bonus.

My major source of concern is when you start increasing salary steps, and I'm not sure if that's what this does or not.

I haven't had a chance to read your memo.

What happens when that occurs is that you end up people that come into the organization, although some might have more time in another organization, we get into the situation where we have people that just come on the job and making more than people have been there for a while and it creates a morale issue.

And that was my concern, that's why I mentioned that.

I have a similar I guess related issue that I know as long as I've been on city council we have almost every year supported public safety to a greater extent than our other departments either with pay adjustments or with

greater support for their retirement packages.

I think in all cases those were eventually supported even though they were controversial and I am a little concerned about getting something new that we haven't approved.

Now I'm told that this is actually something that we approved two years ago and just hasn't been implemented yet so I'd like to get some more information on that if that's true but if that's not true then I would like to find out.

I think my sense is that we have been

A bonus package with, and I think you've got the information that Gabby and I was approved about two years ago,

both for comprehensively across the city but specifically it was coming forward because of this particular issue and there's a copy of the memorandum that came from the chief of police.

My understanding is we've used this one time in two years period.

We've been including it with recruiting ads.

I think every, I know the ones I've seen in that two year period.

Part of the reason that it came to light I think with the news media is we're trying to put an increasing emphasis on recruitment

Expanding that not just in Charlottesville area but across the valley where we're hopeful that we might be able to attract some people.

We've tried to be careful so we're not getting into compression issues.

I think it's affordable within the budget.

So from our perspective, it was approved.

We have been implementing it.

We're going to continue to implement it.

It's probably gotten more visibility out of the story that was in the newspaper.

than we've had before, but that's probably good.

That probably would get the attention of people.

I think we're carrying eight vacancies chief, is that right?

And I think, you know, that's an ongoing pattern that we're trying to break.

So hopefully do that in a way that doesn't create any kind of issues or problems within the pay plan.

Well, I'll make a comment just for the public that we approved

in 2005, a program that allowed bonuses and the memo we got for this specifically said from the city staff said we would like to start looking at using a bonus program for recruitment, especially in the police department.

So I think this is certainly something that came before us and we gave our okay to.

So I don't think there's any doubt about that.

The second thing is, I think this is a great idea.

I think it's, you know, this is,

I don't think there's really a bigger problem than what we can do to make sure that our police department is fully staffed or very close to it.

This is a useful tool to get experienced quality officers from another jurisdiction to come here.

I'm going to take an issue with the city manager because he said this hadn't happened.

It did happen in the past.

Then what happens in a couple of years, everybody will be coming forward and say we've got an issue with compression and we've got to correct it.

I understand.

We just put a lot of money in to correct that issue with supervisors, I think, didn't we?

I think.

That's just my concern.

That's what we have to manage, but I think we're talking about a very small number of people.

Not about this issue but this is because I sense that we're about to move on and maybe start talking about cameras.

I just wanted to thank the Chief for the increased police presence that we have seen on the roads.

and especially over the holiday weekend there was a real presence of squad cars and people slowed down and it was a really good thing so thank you.

Before we move into cameras, I'd like to move the nomination of several individuals to local boards and commissions to the Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority.

Second.

Okay, so any discussion on these nominees?

We sent you out an updated memorandum on Friday where we were trying to get a little more information about the camera issue, both in terms of how we might pay for this

A little more information about our general recommendations as to locations in the downtown.

I sent this to you as I think there's a continuing discussion in the community.

The chief is here to talk to this more if you want to get into some specifics.

Our idea in coming forward tonight was to try to take this another step forward to be able to give you even more specific information.

Our request is that we

Get authorization to put this package together, to put it to bid so we can get details on specific locations, detail cost, and the exact number of cameras that we've proposed.

We've showed you in here, I think, some estimates, but there's a lot more work to do, and our main message to you is before we go forward and put that kind of time and energy into it, we wanted to get general consensus from the council that you'd be okay with us exploring this.

Once we would get that detailed level of information back, we'd bring it back to council.

We've identified money for it so there's not a budgetary issue as much as your concurrence that we go forward with this.

I think we showed you in the memorandum some discussion about the number of locations within the community where there are already security cameras.

you probably more times than you realize are on a camera in somebody's place of business or outside of somebody's place of business and parking lots in the community that you're just not aware of by including a number of businesses on the downtown mall.

So we're here tonight I guess to see if we've given you enough information to try to take a next step.

I did invite the Chief to stay over to

There was a, I think, pretty creative suggestion offered up on one of the local blogs, which is to have anybody be allowed to view the images from the cameras, basically put them up on the internet.

Well actually there's a local developer and I met about three or almost four years ago about that very concept and what a great way it would be to market the downtown area to log onto the internet and see what was going on in the mall on a Friday or Saturday night.

That's your decision.

That's going to impact and help us from a policy standpoint address issues such as who's going to have access to these images.

How will they be used?

How long will they be retained?

But that's something that once we move forward that we could talk more about.

The other side of it is to keep a much more tighter rein on them and use them strictly for law enforcement purposes, purge them after a certain period of time, really limit who would have access to the information.

All those things would be open for discussion, but I think most people would feel comfortable with the fact that if we move forward, we do have

some strong policy in place to make sure that these images are used properly and not abused.

But your idea is one that's been talked about in several forums and discussions that I've been part of.

I would add to Mr. O'Connell's comments, Mr. Repass was here earlier and I met with him and his wife about two weeks ago and there are just about two of a dozen or so people that I've met with, mostly elderly, that really

have a tremendous concern for their safety downtown.

And whether that's real or perceived, I think we have a responsibility to try to address it in as many ways as we possibly can.

Well, I'll certainly say that the community has been speaking to me on this issue.

I don't know if what they had in mind was turning us into the real world Charlottesville.

I think the key is we've got to have policies in place for how this information is used and I'm a little concerned about, I can see the attraction if it's going to be wider, if it's going to be monitored, have it be publicly monitored, although even that I'm not sure is a great, you know it sounds good in theory or