[00:00:07]
22 MEETING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ARE YOU GOING TO GO AHEAD AND BRING THIS
[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]
MEETING TO ORDER AT 6 0 5? UH, WE'LL START WITH A ROLL CALL AND I'LL JUST START WITH THE FOLKS HERE IN THE ROOM.UH, COMMISSIONER SHEA PRESENT.
UH, THAT'S HER CHAIR, TODD SHAW, AND MY CHAIR, UH, COMMISSIONER CZAR HERE, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON HERE.
AND THEN, UM, LOOKING OVER TO OUR, IN THE VIRTUAL WE'VE GOT COMMISSIONER COX.
CAN YOU GO SEE ME? COMMISSIONER COOKS.
CAN YOU, UH, I CAN HEAR, OH, OH, THERE WE GO.
ALRIGHT, SO CONDUCTOR COMMISSIONER TALKS.
CAN YOU HEAR ME CHAIR? YES, I CAN.
IT'S A LITTLE, UH, A LITTLE QUIETER THAN COMMISSIONER FLORES, BUT I'VE GOT YOU BOTH ON THE ROLL CALL IS HERE, PRESENT.
AND THEN, UM, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, ARE YOU AVAILABLE YET? WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD.
AND, UM, UH, I GUESS THE FIRST ITEM, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATION TODAY? NO.
UM, SEE IF ANYBODY ELSE IS SHOWING UP.
SO, UH, HYBRID MEETING, UH, JUST FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE, WE HAVE, UM, PARTICIPANTS HERE, COMMISSIONERS HERE IN, UM, UH, ON THE DIAS AND THEN WE'VE ALSO GOT COMMISSIONERS, UH, PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY AND THEN AS WELL.
UM, LET'S SEE, WE MAY HAVE SOME SPEAKERS, BUT SPEAKERS ALSO HAVE THE OPTION TO SPEAK HERE IN KIRSTEN OR ALSO, UM, VIRTUALLY.
UM, AND WE ARE GOING TO, UM, I'D LIKE TO DO REAL QUICKLY IS, UM, CHECK WITH COMMISSIONER FLORES.
[Reading of the Agenda]
READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA THIS EVENING? YES.UM, WELL, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND I'M GOING TO GO AND ASK, DO WE HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING? ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL GO AND ROLL THOSE OVER INTO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UH, IF YOU COULD PLEASE GO AHEAD AND GIVE US A FIRST READING.
UM, WE'VE GOT, UH, APPROVAL MINUTES FROM JULY 27TH, 2020 TO, UM, PUBLIC HEARINGS BE TO PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 22 0 0 0 7 0.0 ONE TEN EIGHT TEN NEWMONT ROAD.
THAT IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 27TH, THREE PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 22 0 0 1 7 0.01 S U VILLAGE DISTRICT.
UH, AND THAT IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 27TH, UH, BEFORE NPA 20 22 0 0 2 0 0.01 INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD AND TERRIO LANE.
STOP POSTPONEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 27TH PLANNING, UH, FIVE PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 22 0 0 2 6 0.0 1 8 2 2 6 2 82 40 GEORGIAN DRIVE STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 27TH, B SEVEN, HISTORIC ZONING C 14 H 2020 TO 0 0 7 8 MILLER LONG HOUSE.
THAT ITEMS UP FOR CONSENT BASED SEVEN HISTORIC ZONING, C 14 H 20 22 0 0 7 3 WESTGATE TOWER.
THAT ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT B EIGHT, HISTORIC ZONING C 14 H 20 22 0 0 9 9 DELISLE HOUSE.
THAT ITEM IS UP FOR PC POSTPONEMENT TO AUGUST 23RD BENIGN PRELIMINARY PLAN C H J 20 22 0 1 7 7 EASTERN PARK, SECTION FOUR B PRELIMINARY PLAN.
THAT ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT B 10 CODE AMENDMENT, COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION.
AND THAT ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION WITH A NOTE THAT POSTPONEMENT
[00:05:01]
OF THIS ITEM MAY RESULT IN THE LOSS OF PRIVILEGED TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS MATTER.AND IT IS SCHEDULED FOR COUNSEL ON AUGUST 11TH, AND THAT IS THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS, UM, HAVING TO RECUSE ON ANY OF THE ITEMS TO SEE ANYTHING OKAY.
UH, AND FOR THOSE, UH, ATTENDING VIRTUALLY, IF YOU CAN HAVE YOUR, YOUR GREEN, YELLOW, RED, IT'S GOING TO BE EVEN MORE CHALLENGING TO TAKE BOATS, BUT I HAVE HELPED HERE IT'S BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE A LITTLE FARTHER AWAY.
UM, BUT YEAH, PLEASE HAVE YOUR CARDS READY SO WE CAN COUNT VOTES WITH THE COLOR OF YOUR HEARTS.
SO I'M GOING TO, UH, IT'S, IT'S YOU, UM, JUST A FEW NOTES.
SO COMMISSIONERS, IF WE END UP WANTING TO DISCUSS ANY OF THESE THAT ARE ON CONSENT, UH, THAT WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING.
UM, THE, WE WILL TAKE OUT THE DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT ON ITEM SEVEN.
UM, BUT THAT ITEM I NEED TO CHECK.
SO IF WE DECIDE TO THE CHOICES, ARE WE EITHER, UH, PASSING ON CONSENT? UM, OKAY.
CAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THIS THIS EVENING.
ARE WE SURE COMMISSIONER WISE ON ANDREW RIVERA AS YOU HAVE INDIVIDUAL IN OPPOSITION TO THE MATTER, AND YOU'RE NOT ENTERTAINING DISCUSSION CASES, YOU WOULD AUTOMATICALLY POSTPONE TO YOUR NEXT MEETING OTHERWISE, UM, YOUR OTHER OPTIONS ARE TO POSTPONE TO A DATE AND FUTURE OR, UM, UH, YEAH, BASICALLY, UH, HERE, THE HERE, HERE ARE THE DISCUSSION POSTS AND PRESS PUN TO A FUTURE DATA.
CAUSE WE'RE SO THAT IS OUR ONLY CHOICE IS JUST TO POSTPONE.
AND IT'LL BE POSTPONED EITHER TWO WEEKS FROM NOW OR WITHIN 60 DAYS, OR WE CAN DISCUSS AN INDEFINITE PROPOSAL OR POSTPONEMENT.
SO THAT IS, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT AND THE SPEAKER, UH, THAT IS, THOSE ARE THE CHOICES THAT THEY WANT.
WE WANT THEM TO SPEAK TO THOSE, UM, JUST ON THE MERITS OF THE POSTPONEMENT.
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND READ THROUGH THESE AND, UH, ONE MORE TIME.
[Consent Agenda]
THE CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF THE JULY 27TH MINUTES, WE HAVE ITEM A B YES, UH, B TWO, WHICH IS, UH, PLAN AMENDMENT STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 27TH, ITEM B THREE, UH, PLAN AMENDMENT STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 27TH.WE HAVE ITEM BEFORE A PLAN AMENDMENT STEP POST FROM AT TO SEPTEMBER 27TH AND A B FIVE PLAN AMENDMENT STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 27TH, B SIX, HISTORIC ZONING IS ON A CONSENT ITEM, B SEVEN, AS WE SPOKE, THIS WILL BE ON DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT.
IT'S A HISTORIC ZONING CASE, ITEM B EIGHT, HISTORIC SEWN, A HISTORIC ZONING CASE, PC POSTPONEMENT TO AUGUST 23RD V NINE PRELIMINARY PLAN IT'S ON CONSENT.
AND B 10 IS OUR, UM, ONE, UH, DISCUSSION CASE.
AND AS COMMISSIONER FORD POINTED OUT, UM, IF WE DO POSTPONE THIS ANY FURTHER, COUNSEL MAY TAKE THIS UP IN, UM, WE LOSE KIND OF THE PRIVILEGE TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS, ON THIS CASE.
UM, SO ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS ON THE AGENDA BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD? ALL RIGHT.
UH, DO I HAVE MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, UM, AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? ALL RIGHT.
UH, COMMISSIONER IS OUR SECOND ADVISOR.
VICE-CHAIR HEMPEL, UH, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE DIOCESE.
IT'S EVERYONE FIVE AND THEN THOSE THAT ARE ON VIRTUALLY.
SO I SEE THAT'S EIGHT TO ZERO AND WE HAVE A FEW FOLKS THAT ARE, WE STILL CAN'T SEE YOU.
[00:10:01]
ALL RIGHT.ALL RIGHT, SO THAT MOVES FORWARD AND WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO HERE, OUR DISCUSSION POST PERMIT CASE, AND IT'D BE SEVEN.
[B7. Historic zoning: C14H-2022-0073 - Westgate Tower; District 9]
SO ON THIS ONE WE'RE SO IS THIS, ONE'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, I GUESS WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FIRST, IS THAT CORRECT? SURE.COMMISSION LEAVES ON A NIGHTMARE.
YOU'LL HEAR FROM THE REQUEST OR THE POSTPONEMENT FIRST OR THREE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR. HARDEN, IF YOU COULD PROVIDE YOUR MARKS YEAH.
AND JUST BEFORE WE START, SO I THINK WE HAD TO CLARIFY, SO THE OPTIONS HERE AND WHAT YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO IS THE MERITS OF DISCUSSED POSTPONING THIS FOR TWO WEEKS, OUR NEXT MEETING FOR DISCUSSION VERSUS I GUESS WE WOULD HEAR IT WITHIN 60 DAYS, UH, WHICH, UM, IS OUR PREFERENCE.
UH, THEN I GUESS THERE WAS ALSO TALK OF AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT, SO, UH, SPEAK TO THE MERITS OR, UH, OF THOSE OPTIONS.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK I'M RICHARD HARDEN.
I'M ONE OF, ONE OF, ABOUT 12 OF US, I SUPPOSE.
UM, WENT TO SCHOOL HERE, GRADUATED EMOTIONAL HIGH AND WENT TO UT, UH, I'M IN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE AND I'VE, I'VE DONE AT LEAST A HALF DOZEN HISTORIC ZONINGS AND RESTORATIONS IN THE CITY, INCLUDING THE TMI AT 1111 WEST 11TH.
UM, A BUILDING THAT'S NOW NEXT TO THE, WHAT WILL BE THE TALLEST BUILDING IN TOWN.
IT'S THE OLDEST BUILDING IN THE VERMONT DISTRICT, 1846 B A SMITH HOUSE.
I'M NOT GOING TO LIST ALL OF THEM, UH, OR MY HISTORIC RESTORATIONS IN SANTA FE OR ON PASSES.
UM, BUT I'M REASON I'M BRINGING IT UP IS THAT I SUPPORT HISTORIC PRESERVATION STRONGLY.
AND I HAVE IN THE PAST BEEN VERY MUCH IN OPPOSITION TO SOME OF THE LANDMARKING THAT HAPPENED, WHICH WAS OCCURRING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, OLD WEST AUSTIN.
UM, AND ALSO THE HISTORIC TAX ABATEMENT, UH, TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM, WHICH I THINK IS BROKEN AND NEEDS TO BE FIXED ON THIS CASE.
UM, THERE'S AS FAR AS POSTPONE, BUT THERE'S REALLY NO RUSH.
THIS APPLICANT ORIGINALLY ASKED FOR HISTORIC ZONING BACK IN 20 12, 10 YEARS AGO, AND WITHDREW THE CASE BECAUSE IT WAS CONTROVERSIAL.
UM, THE BUILDING IS A HIGH RISE THAT IS IN THE CAPITAL DOMINANT ZONE.
IT'S IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT.
IT HAS DOZENS OF CONDOMINIUM OWNERS.
SO A DELAY IS CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO INCONVENIENCE OR COULD AN IMPOSITION ON THE APPLICANT.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STRIKES ME ON THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION IS THAT STAFF THERE THERE'S 124 PAGES IN THIS APPLICATION, AND THERE'S NO ECONOMIC STUDY OF WHAT THE TAX EXEMPTIONS WILL COST.
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WILL COST.
THE COUNTY WILL COST THE HEALTH DISTRICT, UH, NEVERMIND.
WHAT'S THE HEALTH DISTRICT DOING AND GIVING TAX ABATEMENTS.
UH, BUT, UM, I DON'T WANT TO STRAY OFF TOPIC.
UM, IN THE APPLICATION, IT ACTUALLY SAYS THAT THE AMOUNT OF TAX ABATEMENT WILL BE DETERMINED PER OWNER, DEPENDING ON THE PROPORTION OF AREA, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, EACH CONDOMINIUM IN THE BUILDING IS INDIVIDUALLY APPRAISED AND VALUED BY TEEKAT.
IT'S REALLY NOT A BIG DEAL TO GO TO TK HEAD, AND I'VE DONE IT AND SAY, PRINT ME OUT ALL THESE OWNERS, WHAT THE APPRAISED VALUATION IS AND WHAT THE TAX EXEMPTIONS WOULD BE FOR EACH OF THESE TAXING ENTITIES, IF THEY ALL ELECT TO, UH, COME INTO THE PROGRAM.
AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TAKING A HIGH-RISE CONDOMINIUM PROGRAM PROJECT AND BESTOWING THE ABILITY TO GET TAX EXEMPTIONS ON EVERY CONDOMINIUM IT'S UNPRECEDENTED, IT'S NEVER HAPPENED IN THIS CITY.
UM, THIS IS REALLY THE POSTER CHILD FOR WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM.
AND I THINK WE NEED TO KNOW THE COST.
WE ACTUALLY NEED TO HAVE SOMEBODY DO THAT ESTIMATE.
AND IF, IF, IF THE APPLICANT SAYS, WELL NOT, EVERYBODY'S GOING TO APPLY FOR THAT.
UM, PERHAPS THERE'S SOME SMALL PERCENTAGE THAT DOESN'T
[00:15:01]
WANT TO HAVE LESS TAX.I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A VERY BIG PERCENTAGE, BUT THAT'S MY, THAT'S MY, MY GRIPE.
UM, NOW I WOULD LIKE A LONGER POSTPONE AND THEN JUST THE NEXT SESSION I'M GOING TO BE OUT OF TOWN, AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER.
UH, SO I'M RESPECTFULLY WOULD ASK THAT YOU LOOK AT OCTOBER, UH, WHICH I THINK YOU HAVE A MEETING ON OCTOBER 11TH.
AGAIN, IT'S NOT AN INCONVENIENCE FOR THIS APPLICANT.
THE BILLING'S NOT UNDER ANY KIND OF THREAT AND WILL NOT BE.
AND WE'LL HEAR FROM MR. EVANS WITH THREE MINUTES, SO REAL QUICKLY.
UM, SO COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, ARE YOU, UM, GOOD NOW WITH YOUR CONNECTION? ALL RIGHT.
UNFORTUNATELY, I BELIEVE THE POINT OF THIS WAS TO DISCUSS THE DELAY OR POTENTIAL DELAY OF WHICH THE WESTGATE IS NOT IN FAVOR.
I'M ALSO A NATIVE AUSTINITE, SO THERE'S ONE OF 13 OF US.
I WENT TO ANDERSON HIGH SCHOOL AND I ALSO WENT TO SCHOOL HERE AND I'M INVOLVED WITH HISTORIC PROJECT.
CURRENTLY WEST GATE IS NOT IN FAVOR OF A DELAY.
WE'VE PAID OUR FEES, FOLLOWED ALL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, RULES, LAWS FOR THE PROGRAM.
THIS INCLUDES PUBLIC NOTICE AND NOTICE OF NEIGHBORS IN A CITY OF ALMOST A MILLION PEOPLE.
I ASK THAT YOU NOT LET ONE SINGLE ONE SINGLE DISSENTING VOTE, DELAY THE PROCESS, ESPECIALLY AFTER RECEIVING UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FROM THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION.
I ALSO ASK THAT YOU FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND PROCEED WITH THE ZONING APPLICATION AND, AND MOVE FOR A VOTE TO CONSENT.
MY OPPOSITION CANNOT CONTEST THE VALUE AND MERITS OF OUR CASE.
RATHER HE CAN ONLY ATTACK THE PROGRAM WHICH HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR MORE THAN A DECADE.
AGAIN, I'M ASKING YOU TO CONTINUE WITH A REGULARLY SCHEDULED CONSENT VOTE AND NOT ALLOW A ONE IN A MILLION DISSENT TO DELAY OUR EFFORTS AND HARD WORK.
SO WE GO AHEAD AND, UH, I GUESS WE HAVE, UH, WE HAVE OUR REGULAR ROUND ROBIN QUESTIONS WHO WOULD LIKE TO START WITH ANY QUESTIONS WHO, UH, WHO DO WE HAVE FROM STATS HERE JUST REAL QUICK? SURE.
ANDREW THERE, WE HAVEN'T MISSED A CALLIN.
CONCERO PARTICIPATE IN ABLE VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE.
I HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF, WHICH IS, CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK TO AN ASSESSMENT OF THE TAX IMPLICATION? HAS, IS THAT SOMETHING STAFF HAS, IS WORKING ON, DO YOU THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE WITHIN TWO WEEKS? DO WE HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THAT? UM, YES.
COMMISSIONER STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
UM, WE HAVE REQUESTED THIS INFORMATION FROM T CAD AND NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS, AND WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS.
UM, AND WE HAVE ALSO ASKED THAT THE APPLICANT, UM, ALSO REACH OUT TO T CAD FOR THIS INFORMATION.
UM, HE MAY GET SOME MORE HEADWAY AS THE, UH, THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING OR BEING THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BUILDING OWNERSHIP.
UM, SO YES, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, THAT WE ARE TRYING, UM, AND HOPEFULLY, UH, WE WILL HEAR BACK SOON.
I APPRECIATE THAT ENERGY JUST TO UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT WE MIGHT HAVE THIS INFORMATION WITHIN THE TWO WEEKS FOR OUR NEXT MEETING.
UM, THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN ATTEMPTING TO GET FOR SOME TIME NOW.
UM, I THINK THAT WITH MANAGEMENT SUPPORT AND WITH A LITTLE MORE PUSHING, UM, IT'S, IT'S POSSIBLE.
UM, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY.
KNOW THAT, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.
UM, QUESTIONS, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? UH, COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH.
UM, DOES THE AMOUNT OF TAX ABATEMENT EVER FACTOR INTO STAFF'S DECISION ON WHETHER A PROPERTY SHOULD BE HISTORICALLY ZONED OR NOT? THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.
UM, STAFF HAS TO APPLY THE CODE, UH, CRITERIA ONLY TO THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, THIS PROPERTY MEETS THE CODE CRITERIA FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION, AS WELL AS THE NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING, UH, SORT OF BARRIER FOR ENTRY.
SO A STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS BASED SOLELY ON THAT, BUT, BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS, IS IT
[00:20:01]
NORMAL PROCESS FOR YOU TO TRY TO DETERMINE WHAT THE VALUE OF THE TAX ABATEMENT WOULD BE IF THE HISTORIC ZONING WERE TO PASS? IS THAT A NORMAL THING THAT Y'ALL DO FOR A SINGLE PROPERTIES? WE OFFER AN ESTIMATE, UM, BASED ON A BASIC CALCULATOR, UM, BUT NOT FOR ANYTHING OF THIS MAGNITUDE.UM, THIS ITEM ALSO CAME IN 2012, UM, AND THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT, THAT THEY PROVIDED IN THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT.
I JUST WANT TO SAY DUKE COMMISSIONER COX, YOUR QUESTION.
SO STAFF HAS BEEN NODDING THAT IN OUR BACKUPS IN THE BEST CASES.
AND I DO JUST WANT TO SAY MISS CONTRAREZ.
I KNOW THAT'S VERY HELPFUL INFORMATION, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT EFFORT.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, ANYONE.
UM, I JUST LIKE APPLICANT, UH, HAD YOUR HAND UP.
I WOULD LIKE TO, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO INFORM US RELATIVE TO THE A PLUS POSTPONEMENT? SHE COULD COMPLETE SPEAKERS.
THE TAX, THE TAX IMPLICATIONS ARE A PERCENTAGE OF VALUE AND THEY HAVE A CAP.
SO THE CAP PER UNIT WOULD BE $8,500.
THAT'D BE THE MAXIMUM IF SOMEBODY CHOSE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROGRAM, WHICH IS OPTIONAL AND HAS TO BE RENEWED EVERY YEAR.
SO, JARED, JUST TO EXTRAPOLATE WHAT WE JUST HEARD, I BELIEVE THERE'S 93 CONDO UNITS IN THE BUILDING.
SO 93 TIMES 8,500, THAT'S THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TAX ABATEMENT.
CAUSE THAT IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING.
UM, I'LL GIVE YOU A COLD TIME.
I'M STILL A QUESTIONS, UH, FOR THE, UM, SPEAKER, SORRY TO DRAG THIS OUT.
I BELIEVE THAT YOU'LL FIND IN THE CODE.
THERE'S A DIFFERENT ABATEMENT FOR COMMERCIAL AS THERE IS FROM RESIDENTIAL.
SO YOU HAVE BOTH IN THIS BUILDING.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THAT SIMPLE OF X AMOUNT PER UNIT.
WELL, UH, HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE SOME MORE INFORMATION FROM STAFF, UH, OR AT LEAST AN ESTIMATE WOULD BE GOOD.
UM, DENNIS SKIN QUESTIONS, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, EMOTION, COMMISSIONER COX.
UM, THE MOTION WOULD JUST BE TO DELAY OR NOT DELAY, CORRECT? UH, WELL, IF WE DON'T DELAY, WE KNOW IT'S DELAY.
WE HAVE TO DELAY IT EITHER TWO WEEKS OR HERE WITHIN 60 DAYS.
UH, OR I GUESS THE SPEAKER WAS ASKING FOR INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WANTED TO DO, BUT THAT IS WHAT THE REQUEST WAS.
SO I CANNOT MAKE A MOTION JUST TO KEEP IT ON CONSENT.
UH, NO, WE, WE HAD, WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE IT UP FOR DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE HAVE SOMEBODY SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION AND WE ARE NOT TAKING UP DISCUSSION CASES THIS EVENING, EXCEPT FOR THE ONE PARKLAND, UH, THAT WAS KIND OF THE RULES GOING INTO THE MEETING.
WELL THEN I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE THIS ITEM FOR TWO WEEKS.
A DATE WOULD BE NEXT MEETING DATE.
I DON'T HAVE IT FOR ME AUGUST 23RD AND HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER.
ARE, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? NO.
ANY SPEAKERS FOR AGAINST THE MOTION GO INTO COMMISSIONERS ARE I'LL JUST QUICKLY SPEAK FOR, IN SAYING THAT I, I DO THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND A GOOD QUESTION TO RAISE AND FOR US TO UNDERSTAND.
UM, BUT I THINK WE ALSO HEARD CLEARLY FROM STAFF THAT THERE IS INDEED A POSSIBILITY THAT WE MIGHT HAVE THIS INFORMATION IN TWO WEEKS.
SO I'M COMFORTABLE AT THIS POINT POSTPONING TO THAT DATE.
AND IF OTHER DISCUSSIONS ARE NEEDED AT THE TIME, WE CAN CONSIDER THAT.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
UH, THERE'S ON THE DIETS IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO POSTPONE TILL AUGUST 23RD.
UH, IT'S EVERYONE ON THE DIOCESE AND THOSE VIRTUALLY, UH, PLEASE SHOW ME YOUR CARDS.
THAT'S FIVE AND 2, 3, 4, 5 10 0.
[B10. Code Amendment: Commercial Parkland Dedication]
MOVE TO OUR ONE DISCUSSION CASE AND I'M GO INTO REVIEW KIND OF THE ORDER AND WE'RE GOING TO DO, UM, AS YOU'VE DONE IN THE PAST AND ITEMS LIKE THIS, UM, WE HAVE LIKE US TO SPEND OUR RULES JUST SO WE HAVE MORE Q AND A THAT WE CAN ASK AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.SO I'LL PROPOSE, UH, THOSE CHANGES
[00:25:01]
TO OUR RULES THAT I JUST WANT TO GO THROUGH KIND OF THE ORDER OF HOW WE'LL TAKE UP ITEM A B 10.THIS IS THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION.
UH, I WANT TO SAY, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR THE WORKING GROUP.
UH, ESPECIALLY THE TWO LEADERS OF THAT GROUP DID A GREAT JOB PULLING TOGETHER A LOT OF FOLKS IN VERY SHORT TIMEFRAME AND GETTING A LOT OF VALUABLE INPUT.
SO I APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK IN COORDINATING ALL OF THAT, THAT A COMMISSIONER COX AND COMMISSIONER CZAR.
SO, UM, SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS, UH, I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH KIND OF THE RULES THAT I'M PROPOSING, AND THIS IS IT'S USEFUL.
THIS IS IF YOU CAN BEAR WITH ME, THIS COULD BE A LITTLE COMPLICATED, BUT AS IT ALWAYS IS, BUT I'LL TRY TO GO SLOW.
UH, BUT WE'RE GOING TO, UM, WE'LL START WITH PART, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE, UH, SIX MINUTES TO GO OVER PRIMARILY, UH, CHANGES FROM THE LAST TIME WE HEARD THEIR PRESENTATION, UH, BUT THEY'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES FOR THEIR PRESENTATION OR THEN, UH, IF WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS, WHICH I DON'T THINK WE WE'VE HAD NONE SIGNUP CON UH, MR. RIVERA, SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS.
SO THEN, UH, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING CAUSE WE ALREADY HAD IT IN CLOSED AT THE LAST TIME.
SO AFTER WE GO OVER THE RULES, WE'LL KIND OF ENTERTAIN A BASE MOTION.
UM, TYPICALLY WE, UH, KIND OF BASED IT ON, UH, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT WE CAN ENTERTAIN OTHER OPTIONS.
UH, THEN WE GET INTO DISCUSSION OF THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS AND KIND OF WHICH ONES WE ARE OKAY WITH AS A BODY PASSING ON.
AND, UM, I'LL GO A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON THE Q AND A ON THAT, UH, IN A SECOND.
UH, AND THEN WE'LL DECIDE WHAT TO THOSE WHO WANT TO PULL FOR DISCUSSION.
SO, UM, AS WE'RE DISCUSSING THE ITEMS TO PULL OR NOT FOR DISCUSSION, UH, WHAT I'M PROPOSING IS IN OUR SUSPENSION OF THE RULES IS THE FOLLOWING.
UM, ALRIGHT, SO WE'RE GOING TO, AS I SAID, WE'RE GOING TO REQUEST A MOTION TO APPROVE THE WORKING GROUP ON CONSENT WITH CON COMMISSIONER, IT'S BEING ABLE TO REQUEST SPECIFIC WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS TO BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION FOR EACH WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT.
WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW, UH, TWO, UH, TWO COMMISSIONERS WILL BE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES EACH, UH, TO ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON A PARTICULAR AMENDMENT.
UM, SO WE'VE GOT QUITE A FEW HERE, BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS ALLOW COMMISSIONERS TO GET CLARIFICATION, UH, AS ON THESE AMENDMENTS TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO PULL THEM FOR DISCUSSION OR NOT.
SO, UM, ONCE WE GET THROUGH THAT, UM, WE'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR THE BASE MOTION AND THE CONSENT, UH, WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THAT.
AND THEN WE'LL GO INTO DISCUSSION OF THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION, AND WE'LL TAKE THEM IN ORDER THAT THEY SHOW UP ON THE, UH, THE HANDOUT THAT WAS SENT IN THE EMAIL.
AND SO FOR EACH ONE OF THESE AMENDMENTS, UH, WE'RE ALLOWING THREE COMMISSIONERS, THREE MINUTES, UH, FOR QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR OTHER COMMISSIONERS RELATED TO THAT AMENDMENT.
AND AT THE END OF THE Q AND A PERIOD, ANY COMMISSIONER CAN MAKE THE MOTION RELATED TO THAT AMENDMENT UNDER DISCUSSION.
UM, IF THE MOTION GAUGES, THE SECOND COMMISSIONERS WILL BEGIN DEBATE USING OUR NORMAL PROCEDURES FOR DEBATING MAIN MOTIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND SUBSTITUTE MOTIONS.
UH, WE CAN SPLIT THE MOTIONS INTO SMALLER PARTS, UH, WITH A MAJORITY VOTE THAT WOULD BE SEVEN COMMISSIONERS.
UM, AND THEN WE CAN ALSO END DEBATE IF ANY COMMISSIONER WANTS TO, UH, JUST BY CALLING THE QUESTION AND, UH, AGAIN, I'M SAYING HERE JUST A MAJORITY VOTE OF SEVEN COMMISSIONERS WILL ALLOW US TO END DEBATE ON ANY ONE ITEM.
AND THEN, UM, WE WILL THEN MOVE INTO SIMILARLY INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS IF THERE ARE, IF WE HAVE TIME AND THERE ARE ANY, AND WE'LL KIND OF FOLLOW THE SAME QUESTION FOR, UH, WE'LL GO IN ORDER ALPHABETICAL ORDER COMMISSIONERS CAN FOR THOSE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS AND WE'LL FOLLOW THE SAME Q AND A ROW RULES FOR THOSE AS WELL.
SO TO START THIS OUT, THOUGH, WE'RE GOING TO GET A PRESENTATION.
UH, COMMISSIONER IS OUR COMMISSIONER COX PREPARED TO DISCUSS WORKING WITH AMENDMENTS.
SO THAT WILL COME AFTER WE HEAR FROM PARD STAFF.
UH, SO REAL QUICK, ANY QUESTIONS WE'VE USED THESE RULES BEFORE, BUT I
[00:30:01]
KNOW THEY CAN BE VERY CONFUSING.ANY QUESTIONS ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO APPROACH THE, UH, Q AND A AND THE DEBATE THIS EVENING ON THIS ITEM.
UH, SO LET'S, UM, IF WE CAN, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE RULES I'VE PROPOSED HERE.
UM, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO PASS, UM, TO SPEND THE RULES BY SHEER HEMPEL TO HAVE A SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, LET'S GO AND VOTE ON THESE RULES THIS EVENING FOR ITEM 10, THOSE ON THE DIAS.
THAT'S EVERYONE IN THOSE ON THE SCREEN.
SO MOVING TO THAT, UM, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GIVE SIX MINUTES TO STAFF TO BRIEF US, KIND OF GIVE US ANY CHANGES FROM THE LAST PRESENTATION, UH, STATUS SCHEDULE, ANYTHING YOU WISH TO UPDATE US HERE THIS EVENING, EVENING CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
I'M TOM ROWLANDSON AND I'M JOINED BY MY COLLEAGUES, PAUL BOOKS, AND ROBIN HAYMANS.
AND THANKS AGAIN FOR ALL YOUR DEDICATION TO THIS ITEM.
UH, WE CAN GO AHEAD TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
SO, UH, JUST TO RECAP, THIS IS TO EXPAND THE EXISTING PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS TO INCLUDE, UH, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS RIGHT NOW.
IT ONLY REALLY APPLIES TO RESIDENTIAL USES AND HOTELS.
SO WE'VE WORKED TO CREATE AN ACCESS STUDY TO REALLY ACCOUNT FOR THE IMPACT OF JOB GROWTH TO OUR PARK SYSTEM, SO THAT WE'RE KEEPING UP PROPORTIONALLY WITH NEW PARKLAND AND NEW PARK AMENITIES.
I CAN PROCEED TO THE NEXT LINE.
UM, REALLY THE BIG CHANGE HERE IS IN, UH, CALCULATING THE IMPACT THE WORKFORCE HAS ON OUR PARK SYSTEM.
UH, SINCE THE LAST TIME WE WERE BEFORE YOU.
AND I KNOW WE GOT INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT WITH THE WORKING GROUP, BUT WE, UM, CHANGED ONE OF THE DATA SOURCES.
WELL, UH, ONE OF THE IT'S STILL FROM THE US CENSUS, BUT WE'RE NOW USING THE, UM, COMMUTER RATE.
WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE COMMUTER RATE TO BE THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA.
A FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE WOULD SHOW IS THAT THERE'S A 35.8% OF AUSTIN'S WORKFORCE THAT RESIDE OUT OF AUSTIN, BUT WORK IN THE CITY.
SO THIS IS THE WORKFORCE THAT'S COMING TO AUSTIN, POTENTIALLY HAVING AN IMPACT ON THE CITY'S PARK SYSTEM, FOR WHICH WE'RE NOT CURRENTLY ACCOUNTING FOR, UH, IN THE EXISTING REQUIREMENTS.
SO WE WERE USING, UM, THE, UH, EMPLOYER DATA THAT'S, UH, THE US CENSUS COLLECTS.
NOW WE'VE SWITCHED THAT TO THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY AFTER STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK AND WORKING WITH OUR CITY DEMOGRAPHER.
SO, UH, AGAIN, THIS IS THE FORMULA THAT WE HAD BEFORE.
Y'ALL WHEN WE WERE TOGETHER, BACK IN JULY, IT'S STILL THE SAME FORMULA, WHICH IS ABOUT MAINTAINING THE CONSISTENT LEVEL OF PARK SERVICE.
UH, BUT YOU KNOW, THE DISCOUNTS NOW INCLUDE THIS, UH, PERCENT COMMUTER FROM THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY.
SO THAT'S ACTUALLY DECREASED FROM WHAT IT WAS PER THE EMPLOYER DATA FROM ABOUT 58% TO 35.8%.
AND PART OF THAT IS REALLY TO REFLECT THAT THIS DATA SOURCE BETTER CAPTURES, UM, REMOTE WORK AND TELEWORK, UH, CAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT IS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE SURVEY RESULTS.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS HOW THE FEES WOULD ULTIMATELY WORK OUT UNDER THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND THE PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE, UH, FOR THE FOUR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES THAT WE DISCUSSED LAST TIME.
UM, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THEY HAVE DECREASED BECAUSE THE OVERALL DISCOUNTS ARE GREATER WITH THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA.
SO THEY'VE GONE FROM, I BELIEVE A $1 AND 52 CENTS FOR OFFICE TO A DOLLAR AND 8 CENTS A SQUARE FOOT FOR AN, A NEW OFFICE DEVELOPMENT.
AND THIS IS JUST A RECAP OF OUR COMMUNITY INPUT.
UH, WE DID HAVE A SURVEY AND SPEAK OF AUSTIN FORUM.
UM, OVERALL THE, UH, FEEDBACK WAS GENERALLY POSITIVE THAT, UH, PART COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION WOULD IMPROVE, UH, COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OPERATIONS.
AND NEXT LINE, WE ALSO HAD, UH, STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT.
WE HOSTED SIX STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS, UH, WITH OVER 40 GROUPS, INVITED TO PARTICIPATE, AND WE WERE ABLE TO USE THAT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT TO PRODUCE THE ORDINANCE THAT'S BEFORE YOU AND MAKE THE CHANGES THAT WE DISCUSSED SINCE THE LAST TIME WE CAME, UH, BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UH, FINALLY, THE, THIS CAPTURES SOME OF THE RED LINES BETWEEN VERSIONS ONE AND TWO OF THE ORDINANCE AND BACKUP.
UH, MANY OF THE CHANGES WERE TO BETTER CLARIFY TERMS AND, UH, REDUCE REDUNDANCY.
FOR EXAMPLE, REFUNDS WERE INCLUDED IN BOTH VERSIONS, BUT VERSION TWO, SPECIFIES THE WORDING SLIGHTLY BETTER TO CONVEY THE NET SQUARE FOOTAGE IS WHAT WOULD BE AFFORDED A REFUND.
UM, WE ALSO UPDATED THE DEFINITIONS, UH, TO BETTER MATCH THE
[00:35:01]
DATA SOURCES LIKE WHAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING IN THIS PRESENTATION.UM, NOTABLY CIVIC USES WERE REMOVED FROM BEING AN EXPLICIT EXEMPTION FROM THE VERSION ONE, AS IT IS A, IT IS DE FACTO EXEMPT, UH, BY NOT BEING A DEFINED APPLICABLE USE IN THE ORDINANCE.
SO CIVIC USES ARE STILL EXEMPT.
THAT WAS A QUESTION THAT CAME UP, BUT INSTEAD OF HAVING IT BE DEFINED EXPLICITLY, IT'S SIMPLY NOT A USE THAT IS, UH, AT THIS COMMERCIAL ORDINANCE WOULD APPLY TO, UH, THAT'S THE PRESENTATION.
UM, SO THIS, SO WHAT I PROPOSED, AND I DON'T KNOW IF PEOPLE CAUGHT IT, UH, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE INTO THE WORKING GROUP NOW, AND THEN WE WILL FOLLOW WITH Q AND A I'M SO COMMITTED TO RESOLVE MR. COX.
JUST BE, STAY CLOSE TO YOUR SPEAKER THERE.
IT HELPS TRY TO SPEAK INTO A MICROPHONE.
UH, WE'VE WE, WE CREATED, UH, 15 RECOMMENDED, UM, AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE.
JUST AS A QUICK LITTLE RECAP, WE HELD TWO LISTENING SESSIONS.
UH, WE HAD SURPRISINGLY GOOD ATTENDANCE ON THE FIRST ONE, MEDIOCRE ATTENDANCE ON THE SECOND ONE, WHICH IS PROBABLY EXPECTED.
AND THEN WE HAD MANY DISCUSSIONS, UH, AND PRESENTATIONS WITH STAFF, AND THEN INTERNALLY, AND ENDED UP COMING UP WITH 15 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ALMOST ALL OF THEM GOT A UNANIMOUS, UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE FOUR WORKING GROUP MEMBERS.
I'M JUST GOING TO BLOW THROUGH ALL 15 REALLY QUICK.
AND THEN WE CAN GET INTO QUESTIONS.
THE FIRST ONE HAS TO DO WITH GRAYDON EXEMPTION FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE SMALLER THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET IN AREA, UH, FOR SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD PROBABLY CONSIDER A SMALL BUSINESS.
UH, THE SECOND ONE IS CREATING ANOTHER EXEMPTION FOR ARTS AND LIVE MUSIC VENUES PENDING A RESOLUTION THAT'S GOING THROUGH COUNCIL.
UM, THE IDEA THERE IS THAT WE JUST DON'T WANT TO CREATE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT BURDENS FOR, FOR THOSE SPECIFIC CULTURE TYPE USES THAT WE VALUE IN AUSTIN.
THE THIRD ONE IS, UH, PROVIDES FOR A DISCOUNT IN PARKLAND OWED OR FEES OWED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT AGREE TO, UH, EXECUTE A PARKLAND IMPROVEMENT AND OPERATIONS AGREEMENT WITH PART SO THAT, UH, THAT PROPERTY OWNER IS ACTUALLY PUBLICLY MAINTAINING THE PARK SPACE.
UM, UH, RATHER THAN PUTTING THAT BURDEN ON THE CITY.
UH, THE FOURTH ONE IS, UH, RELATED TO WHEN A PARKLAND DEDICATION AND FEE IN LIEU ASSESSMENTS ARE MADE AND LOCKING THAT IN AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE IN THE SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, UM, IS A PROVISION THAT PARDES SHALL ASSESS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, THE EFFICACY OF THE ORDINANCE, AND PERFORM AN EVALUATION AND UPDATE OF THE COMMERCIAL OCCUPANCY RATE AND THE COMMUTER POPULATION PRESENT OUR PERCENTAGE AND PRESENT THOSE FINDINGS TO THE PARKS BOARD AND PLANNING COMMISSION BEFORE BUDGET HAPPENS EVERY YEAR.
UM, OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT PART INTENDS TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS ANYWAYS.
UM, AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE AND CAPTURE, UH, WHATEVER CHANGES ARE HAPPENING IN THE WORKFORCE, UH, BECAUSE OF COVID OR OTHER REASONS.
AND IF, IF WE'VE GOT LESS PEOPLE COMMUTING TO WORK, THEN WE MIGHT THINK WE WOULD, UH, AMENDMENT SIX IS ALLOWING FOR, UH, LAND WITHIN THE 25 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN TO RECEIVE PARTIAL CREDIT FOR THE PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT.
IF THAT LAND CAN BE SAFELY ACTIVATED.
UH, RIGHT NOW THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR PARTIAL CREDIT FOR LAND WITHIN THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, BUT NOT WITHIN THE 25 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, THIS, THIS AMENDMENT BASICALLY EXTENDS THAT PARTIAL CREDIT PROVISION TO THE 25 YEAR FLOOD, PLAIN, IF IT CAN BE SAFELY ACTIVATED, NUMBER SEVEN IS A GENERAL STATEMENT RECOMMENDATION, UH, TO EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES TO INTEGRATE PARKLAND WITHIN BUTTS AND RAIL TRANSIT STOPS ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS.
I THINK THERE'S A RECOGNITION THAT THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND THAT MAY COME FROM THIS ORDINANCE, UH, IS GOING TO BE LOCATED ALONG CORRIDORS.
AND SO WE WANT TO ACHIEVE WHATEVER'S APPROPRIATE IN TERMS OF PARKLAND RELATED TO OUR CORRIDORS.
A NUMBER EIGHT IS RELATED TO WHEN FEES ARE COLLECTED FOR THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND ORDINANCE.
[00:40:01]
UH, THIS AMENDMENT STATES THAT ALL FEES SHOULD BE COLLECTED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL.AND BEFORE THE PERMIT IS ISSUED, UM, THE PROCESS FOR ACTUALLY DEDICATING THE LAND IS UNCHANGED THAT HAPPENS TYPICALLY EARLIER IN THE DEVELOPMENT PERMITTING PROCESS.
NUMBER NINE IS ABOUT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS.
CURRENTLY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN SO THAT THE PARKLAND THAT WOULD BE OWED FOR DEDICATION OR THE FEE IS CALCULATED BASED ON BOTH THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ASPECTS OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
THIS AMENDMENT, UM, ALLOWS AN APPLICANT TO CALCULATE THOSE REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL THE USES, BUT ONLY BE REQUIRED TO DEDICATE OR PAY FEE FOR THE, THE, THE GREATEST USE, UH, WHICHEVER USE WHETHER RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL PRODUCES THE MOST AMOUNT OF PARKLAND OR, UM, FEE RATHER THAN, UH, CHARGING THEM FOR BOTH AMENDMENT 10, UM, IS HOW THE FORMULA IS CALCULATED FOR THE COST OF ACQUIRING AN ACRE OF PARKLAND, WHICH FACTORS INTO THE FEE AND LEWIN'S LEWIS ASSESSMENT.
UH, THIS AMENDMENT CHANGES THAT CALCULATION TO AVERAGE IT ACROSS 10 YEARS.
I BELIEVE WHAT STAFF IS DOING RIGHT NOW IS USING A FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE.
SO THIS EXTENDS IT OUT TO A 10 YEAR AVERAGE TO TRY TO MODERATE ANY, ANY YEARS THAT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT PURCHASE WITH THE YEARS THAT DON'T HAVE A SIGNIFICANT PURCHASE TO TRY TO FIND POSSIBLY A MORE SMOOTH AVERAGE, UH, NUMBER 11, UM, HAS TO DO WITH, UH, THE URBAN CORE RIGHT NOW.
THERE'S A PROVISION IN THERE THAT LIMITS, UH, THE PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIRED FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE URBAN CORE.
AND THIS AMENDMENT WOULD JUST EXTRAPOLATE THAT TO ALSO INCLUDE A REDUCTION IN THE FAN LOO IF, IF A FAMILY WHO APPLIES TO DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE URBAN CORE, NUMBER 12, UH, RELATES TO, UH, PUBLIC EXTERIOR ACTIVITY AMENITIES THAT ARE PROVIDED ON A COMMERCIAL PROJECT AND ALLOWING THOSE PUBLIC EXTERIOR ACTIVITY AMENITIES TO COUNT TOWARDS THE AREA REQUIRED FOR PARKLAND DEDICATION.
UH, THERE'S QUITE A LIST THAT COMMISSIONERS ARE HAD PUT IN THERE OF EXAMPLES OF WHAT THESE PUBLIC EXTERIOR ACTIVITY AMENITIES COULD BE.
AND A LOT OF IT RELATES TO, UH, GREAT STREET STREETSCAPES, UM, AND OTHER COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
NUMBER 13, UM, IS SOMETHING THAT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTED.
UM, AND IT'S AN EXEMPTION FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE A MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY, UH, AS OF AUGUST 1ST, 2022, THAT'S SOMETHING LIKE MAYBE MUELLER AND AS MUELLER DEVELOPS OUT, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE RULES OF THE GAME AS, AS THESE DEVELOPMENTS DEVELOP OVER TIME BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE THE RULES THAT THEY OPERATE UNDER WITHIN THEIR MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
NUMBER 14 IS, UM, IT IS, IS A GENERAL KIND OF A GENERAL STATEMENT TO CONSIDER ADJUSTING THE, UH, FORMULA THAT WE USE FOR HOTELS.
UM, OUR UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT HOTEL USE, UM, IS COUNTED IN MULTIPLE WAYS RELATED TO THE HOTEL ROOMS, BUT ALSO AS A COMMERCIAL USE.
AND SO IT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT UNFAIR.
THE WORKING GROUP FELT IT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT UNFAIR BY COUNTING THOSE USES SIMILARLY, UM, AND ADDING IT ON TOP OF EACH OTHER.
SO THERE MAY BE A UNIQUE FORMULA THAT MIGHT BE MORE FAIR FOR HOTEL USES.
THE LAST ONE IS ALSO A GENERAL STATEMENT, UM, THAT, UH, DESIRES TO EXEMPT ALL INCOME RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE UNITS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE, UH, THAT WAS, UH, SLIGHTLY OUT OF OUR COMMERCIAL PARKLAND PURVIEW.
BUT, UM, BUT WE DID HEAR FROM, I THINK, UH, THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT JUST 30 MINUTES OR SO BEFORE THIS MEETING, UM, THAT, THAT THEY DO ANTICIPATE THE COMMERCIAL ASPECT, HAVING AN IMPACT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS.
UM, AND SO AN EXEMPTION MAY, MAY RESOLVE THAT.
SO THOSE ARE 15, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE.
UM, UH, STAFF ONLY HAD SIX MINUTES.
UM, SO THEY DIDN'T SPEAK TO ANY OF THIS, BUT THEY DID PROVIDE RESPONSES.
UM, AND IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN READING THOSE RESPONSES TO THE 15 AMENDMENTS, UH, IT'S LOCATED IN OUR BACKUP.
UM, I GUESS THERE'S NO OPPOSITION, UH, COMMISSIONERS.
ARE, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ONE ADD OR, OKAY.
[00:45:01]
RIGHT.SO, UM, WITH THAT, UH, VERY, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER COX.
THAT WAS A VERY GOOD DESCRIPTION.
UH, LOOKING THROUGH THE LIST OF, UM, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, LET'S BACK UP, LET'S, UH, TALK ABOUT A BASE MOTION.
UM, DOES ANYBODY HAVING A GOOD IDEA FOR A BASE MOTION THAT WILL BUILD THESE KIND OF BUILD THESE, UH, ATTACH THESE AMENDMENTS TO TYPICALLY WE GO WITH THE, UH, THE DRAFT, YOU KNOW, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? SURE, SURE.
IT'S OUR, I MOVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH ALL THE AMENDMENTS OF THE WORKING GROUP INCLUDED.
UM, AND IF I GET A SECOND, THEN WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION AND FOLKS CAN PULL AMENDMENTS, UM, TO AN AMENDMENT OF MY MOTION.
DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? OH, THE COMFORTABLE SECOND SET.
UM, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, TAKE A VOTE ON THAT.
JEREMY WILLING TO GO INTO DISCUSSION AND ENSURE THAT IF ANYBODY WANTS TO PULL AN AMENDMENT FROM THE LIST OF 15, THIS IS THE DIME TO MAKE THAT AMENDMENT TO MY MOTION.
SO, UH, WE'LL GO INTO THE Q AND A AT THIS POINT, UM, ON THESE EACH ONE, UH, AS I'VE SAID, WE'VE GOT A LITTLE LOUD, TWO COMMISSIONERS AT THREE MINUTES EACH TO ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS TO KIND OF GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE DECIDE WHAT WE WANT TO PULL OR NOT, UH, WHO WANTS TO START, UH, WE'LL START WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
UH, ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS ON AMENDMENT ONE, AND THIS WOULD BE OF STAFF OR THE WORKING GROUP.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO AMENDMENT TWO.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OH, SORRY.
I JUST WAS WONDERING IF, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER COX OR ANYONE IN THE WORKING GROUP WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON, UM, THIS PARTICULAR CONVERSATION ABOUT SQUARE FOOTAGE VERSUS OTHER DEFINITIONS OF SMALL BUSINESS AND STAFF FEEDBACK AROUND THAT.
UM, DID YOU ALL COME CLOSER TO A DEFINITION, COMMISSIONER COX, IF YOU WANT, I CAN RESPOND TO THAT AS WELL.
UM, MR. YANNIS, WILL YOU THOUGH WE DID HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND I THINK OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS SUGGESTED, DO DIFFERENT PIECES.
ONE WAS THIS, AND ALSO AN EXEMPTION BASED ON SITE PLAN EXEMPTION.
WE WERE A LITTLE CONFUSED IF THESE WERE BOTH THE SAME THING OR NOT, WE DID SEND THEM A QUESTION AND THEY RESPONDED TODAY.
AND ESSENTIALLY THAT SHOULD BE IN THE BACKUP AS WELL.
AND THE SAID THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT BOTH.
SO I'M HOPING DO RESPOND TO THEIR OTHER RECOMMENDATION LEADER AS WELL.
BUT IN OUR WORKING GROUP, WE WERE A LITTLE CONFUSED IF THIS WOULD COVER EVERYTHING OR NOT.
AND SO WE LANDED ON WHAT WAS ALREADY RECOMMENDED.
I DON'T KNOW, COMMISSIONER COX, IF YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING.
I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD, UM, THAT THE 5,000 NUMBER DID COME FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
UM, AND I'LL BE HONEST, COMMISSIONERS ARE, I THOUGHT WE, I THOUGHT WE HAD A PROVISION IN THERE FOR EXEMPTING, THOSE THAT HAVE SITE PLAN EXEMPTIONS.
UM, AND NOW I CAN'T REMEMBER HOW WE WORKED THROUGH IT SINCE WE WERE GONE SO FAST.
AND NOW IT, JUST TO CLARIFY, WE DID THE HIT OUT BECAUSE WE WERE ALL CRUNCHED IN TIME.
SO YES, WE TOOK THAT OUT BECAUSE WE, WE THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE ESSENTIALLY THAT IT WAS A DUPLICATION, BUT WE REALIZED TODAY FROM EDD STAFF THAT IT WAS INDEED NOT A DUPLICATION WELL IN THAT.
AND I THINK IF I CAN, UH, MAYBE STEEL COMMISSIONER, UH, LENNOX PLUTO'S QUESTION AND DIRECT THAT TO STAFF.
IF, IF, UH, IF A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF A SITE PLAN EXEMPTION, THEY THERE'S NO COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION PROCESS FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE EXEMPT FROM A SITE PLAN, CORRECT.
THIS IS ROBIN HAMES FROM THE PARKS DEPARTMENT.
THAT IS CORRECT SITE PLAN EXEMPTIONS IN SITE PLAN CORRECTIONS ARE NOT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THIS ORDINANCE, SO THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ANY REQUIREMENTS.
AND THAT, THAT, THAT MAKES ME REMEMBER THAT THAT'S THAT, I THINK THAT WAS THE LINE OF THINKING WHEN WE TOOK IT OUT WAS THE FACT THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE SUBJECT TO THIS ORDINANCE ANYWAYS.
SO THERE'S NO REASON TO EXPLICITLY PUT THAT IN THE ORDINANCE.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT? OKAY.
[00:50:01]
SO, UH, SO THIS ITEM, I DON'T SEE ANY MOVE TO, UH, PULL THIS FORWARD DISCUSSION.UH, ITEM B TO, UH, ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON I'M SORRY.
AND, UH, RIGHT NOW PROPOSE WE LEAVE THAT ON CONSENT.
I PROMISED THAT TO DO THIS TO EVERY SINGLE ONE.
DO YOU WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS OR YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND JUST PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION? WE CAN JUST PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION.
THEN ITEM TWO IS PULLED, UH, ITEM THREE, CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS, RIGHT.
DO YOU WANT, UH, COMMISSIONER SHEA? I MEAN, I KIND OF WANT TO HEAR FROM STAFF ABOUT THIS AND MAYBE, I MEAN, MAYBE IF COX OR AZHAR COULD EXPLAIN BECAUSE, UM, I MEAN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY DO OFFER, YOU KNOW, LIKE IF A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE MAINTAINING IT, WE DO GET SOME CREDITS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND FROM STAFF THEN WHY ARE THEY OPPOSED? BECAUSE WE KIND OF ALREADY DO THIS, BUT THEY HAVE THE LITTLE EXPLANATION HERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY COULD COMMENT ABOUT IT.
UM, SO CURRENTLY PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED, BUT PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PARKS.
SO THOSE ARE PARKS DEDICATED WITHIN AN EASEMENT, UM, CAN RECEIVE UP TO A HUNDRED PERCENT CREDIT THAT HAS LESS TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL MAINTENANCE ASPECT AND MORE TO DO WITH THE CONVENIENCE OF THE LAND, THE MAINTENANCE, UM, WE CANNOT EXPEND FEES OR GIVE CREDIT FOR MAINTENANCE BECAUSE IT'S BEYOND THE ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY AND THE ESSENTIAL NEXUS, UM, FOUNDATIONS THAT THE ORDINANCE THAT PARKLAND DEDICATION IS BASED ON.
UM, SO WE'RE LIMITED IN OUR ABILITY TO ACTUALLY CREDIT FOR PRIVATE MAINTENANCE OF PARKLAND.
AND THAT THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S AN ONGOING THING WHERE THE DEDICATION PART IS, UH, IS A SINGLE MOMENT IN TIME, RIGHT? IT ACCOUNTS FOR THE NEW IMPACT TO THE OVERALL LEVEL OF SERVICE, AS OPPOSED TO THE ONGOING USE, WHICH FALLS TO LIKE SORT OF THE GENERAL FUND.
AND I MEAN, WE'RE DOING A PROJECT SIMILAR TO THIS AND WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE MAINTENANCE COSTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
AND WE'RE BASICALLY GOING TO JUST MAINTAIN IT OURSELVES.
I MEAN, AND THAT'S KIND OF HOW WE'RE MOVING.
LIKE WE CAN MAYBE GET, IF I CAN GET SOME CLARIFICATION FROM, FROM COMMISSIONER COX OR ZARI, IS, IS THE INTENT TO BRING ABOUT A WAY TO MAINTAIN A PRIVATELY OWNED, PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE.
SO FIRST OF ALL, THE WORKING GROUP, WHEN WE WERE CRAFTING THIS, WE WERE EXPECTING THAT IT MAY, THIS MAY BE A CHALLENGE WITH LEGAL, UM, WITH, WITH HOW THESE ORDINANCES ARE CRAFTED AND, AND, AND THE CASE LAW ON THIS.
THAT PART IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE LEGAL NATURE OF THIS.
I, I THINK PERSONALLY, I WAS HOPING WE PASS IT THROUGH AND JUST LET LEGAL DO ITS THING AND MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION.
BUT, BUT THE IDEAS THAT HEARD WE HEARD FROM STAKEHOLDERS, UM, FROM MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS THAT THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IN THE FUTURE, AS WE EXECUTE THESE THINGS, WE MAY BE LAND RICH WHEN IT COMES TO PARKS BECAUSE WE'RE MAINTAINING OUR LEVEL OF SURFACE CERT SERVICE ON A, ON AN ACREAGE BASIS.
UM, BUT WE MAY NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO ACTUALLY DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN THOSE PARKS.
SO THE PARKS, THE LAND MAY BE THERE, BUT WE'RE STRUGGLING POTENTIALLY TO, TO KEEP UP WITH MAINTAINING THEM AND PROVIDING A LEVEL OF SERVICE ON THAT LAND THAT WE, WE HOPE TO ACHIEVE.
AND SO THIS IS A WAY TO ENCOURAGE ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN PUBLIC PARK SPACE.
UM, BUT TO INCENTIVIZE THAT YOU HAVE TO, YOU HAVE TO GIVE THE DEVELOPER SOMETHING.
AND SO THE CREDIT WAS WHAT WE HAD COME UP WITH, UH, TO TRY TO TRY TO INCENTIVIZE PRIVATE INVESTMENT OF OPERATION OF MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC PARKLAND.
SO I I'M GONNA LEAVE IT ON CONSENT, SO I'M NOT GOING TO PULL IT.
UM, I'VE, UH, I THINK THAT WAS JUST ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION.
SO FOR THE PART FEES, THERE'S THE DEDICATION FEE, BUT THEN IT'S, THERE'S, THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT FEE AS WELL, IS THAT CORRECT? SO, ARE YOU, DOES YOUR COMMENT, OR, UM, IN THE TABLE SPEAK TO THAT, I MEAN, IS THAT AN OPTION TO OFFER ANY KIND OF AMENDMENTS TO THAT DEVELOPMENT FEE THAT MIGHT BE AGAINST THE MAINTENANCE YEAH.
[00:55:01]
THINK IT STILL WOULD FALL BACK ON, UM, US WORKING WITH CITY LEGAL TO DISCOVER SORT OF THE BOUNDARIES OF, OF HOW WE CAN WORK FOR THAT.SO RIGHT NOW, UM, UH, COMMISSIONERS ARE JUST TO CLARIFY THIS, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THIS.
CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK TO WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT FEES ARE USED TO USE FOR TODAY? UH, YES.
THE DEVELOPMENT FEES ARE USED TO EXPAND RECREATIONAL ACCESS TO THE PARK SYSTEM.
SO, UM, RANDY SCOTT EARLIER WAS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL GIVEN A QUICK EXAMPLE OF WHEN WE EXPEND DEVELOPMENT FEES, WE HAVE A BUNCH OF TENNIS COURTS THAT ARE, THAT NEED REPAVING, AND WE CANNOT USE THE FEES TO REPAVE BECAUSE THAT'S A ONGOING MAINTENANCE ISSUE.
BUT IF WE ADD RECREATIONAL VALUE BY ADDING PICKLEBALL TO THOSE SAME COURTS, WE CAN USE THOSE FUNDS TO THEN ADD PICKLEBALL AND EXPAND THE ACCESS, THE RECREATIONAL VALUE TO THOSE COURTS.
SO I THINK THAT'S JUST A QUICK EXAMPLE OF HOW SO WHEN DEVELOPERS DEDICATE, THEY ARE BUILDING NEW PARK IMPROVEMENTS, SO NEW BALL COURTS AND PLAYGROUNDS AND CHANGE STRUCTURES IN THE LAND.
THEY DEDICATED APPRECIATE THAT.
SO CURRENTLY WE S WE HAVE THIS ONE, THIS ONE REMAINING ON CONSENT.
SO, UH, BEFORE OUR ITEM FOUR, UM, ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE? OKAY.
SO, UM, QUESTION ON THE LAST PART OF THE PHRASE, UH, ON THE LAST SENTENCE, I GUESS IT'S ALL ONE SENTENCE, BUT IT SAYS THE ASSESSMENT DOES NOT CHANGE THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS UNLESS THE PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGES IN NATURE.
AND HAS THAT BEEN DEFINED BY THE WORKING GROUP? NO, THAT THAT'S CLASSICALLY SQUISHY LANGUAGE.
I THINK, UH, SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGES IN NATURE WOULD BE IF THE PROJECT CHANGES IN A WAY THAT, THAT THE ASSESSMENT WOULD CHANGE THE IDEA HERE IS THAT, IS THAT THE FORMULAS OR THE FEES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE ON A PROJECT AS THE PROJECT MOVES THROUGH POTENTIALLY A MULTI-YEAR DEVELOPMENT PERMITTING PROCESS.
UM, BUT IF THE PROJECT CHANGES IN TERMS OF UNITS OR A BAD, A BUNCH OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OR WHATEVER, THEN OBVIOUSLY THE ASSESSMENT WOULD, WOULD INDEED CHANGE.
UM, SO YEAH, MAYBE THIS IS, WE PASS IT ON AND, AND THE DETAILS ARE WORKED OUT LATER, BUT I WOULD, I WOULD JUST BE WORRIED ABOUT IF THEY FOUND TWO UNITS OR IS THAT A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OR IS IT THEY FOUND MONEY TO DO A WHOLE OTHER PHASE WITH THE SAME ONE THAT WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.
SO, UM, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE.
I JUST THINK WE NEED TO DEFINE MAYBE SUBSTANTIAL, UM, A LITTLE BIT MORE, WHAT IF WE AMENDED THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SAY, UNLESS, UNLESS THE PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGES IN A WAY THAT SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGES WELL, YEAH, UNLESS THE PROJECT CHANGES AT SQUARE FOOTAGE OR NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS, HI, I, IF I MIGHT RECOMMEND, I THINK THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS WOULD BE I'LL PULL THIS FOR DISCUSSION AND THAT I THINK AT THE TIME OF DISCUSSION, WE CAN AMEND THAT COMMISSIONER COX.
IF YOU CAN REMEMBER THAT LANGUAGE, PLEASE NOTE IT DOWN.
ANY QUESTIONS ON NUMBER FIVE? ALRIGHT.
I DON'T SEE ANY, WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THAT ONE ON CONSENT NUMBER SIX.
SO YEAH, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SO I SEE YOUR, UM, COMMENT HERE CODE ALREADY ALLOWS FOR 50% CREDIT TOWARD LAND THAT IS OTHERWISE DEEMED UNSUITABLE FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT AT THE DIRECTOR'S DISCRETION.
DOES THAT INCLUDE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE, UM, 25 A YEAR FLOOD PLAIN? YES, IT DOES.
SO THE DIRECTOR CAN MAKE THAT CALL IF THEY'RE
[01:00:01]
OKAY.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT ITEM? ALL RIGHT.
WELL QUESTION, IF, IF THE DIRECTOR CAN ALREADY ADMINISTER OR DETERMINE THAT IS THIS AMENDMENT NEEDED, IF THAT CAN ALREADY HAPPEN.
SO IF I CAN MAKE A SUGGESTION, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE THAT WE'RE GOING TO PROBABLY RUN INTO IN MORE THAN ONE PLACE.
I WOULD SAY, I THINK WE SHOULD JUST GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON REDUNDANT AMENDMENTS AND STAFF CAN ESSENTIALLY BRING IT TOGETHER WHEN THE DATE TO COUNCIL TO SAY THAT ESSENTIALLY THIS IS A MOOD AMENDMENT.
SO I PULLED UP, UM, THE REFERENCE IN THE, IN THE STAFF RESPONSE.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE NEXT LINE BELOW THE LINE THAT, THAT OUR AMENDMENT INTENDS TO REVISE.
AND THAT, THAT PARTICULAR SECTION, YOU KNOW, SAID IT'S 50% OF ACREAGE ON HOW YOUR FLOOD PLAIN THAT IS DEDICATED AS PARKLAND MAY BE CREDITED.
UM, IF IT, IF IT'S JOINING LAND WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE YEAR ALSO DOES PARKLAND LAND WITHIN THE 25 YEAR FLOOD CLAIM MAY NOT BE CREDITED TOWARDS FULFILLING THESE REQUIREMENTS.
SO, UM, TO ME, THE NEXT PROVISION IS A LITTLE, IS IT A LITTLE CONFUSING? SO I THINK OUR AMENDMENTS STILL ADDS A BIT OF CLARITY IN TERMS OF WHAT CAN BE ALLOWED IN TERMS OF DEDICATION FOR 25 YEAR.
SO ANY OPPOSITION TO LEAVING THAT ON CONSENT? ALRIGHT.
UH, NUMBER SEVEN, IT'S KIND OF A BROAD STATEMENT.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, GO AHEAD AND LEAVE THAT ONE ON CONSENT.
I'VE UH, MAYBE IF I'M CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OR I DON'T KNOW, I'D LIKE TO PULL IT.
I MEAN, JUST KIND OF WANT TO HEAR IT, HEAR MORE.
IF YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF QUESTIONS, WE SHOULD JUST PULL IT.
UM, MOVING ON TO ITEM NINE, ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, UH, AND THAT ITEM.
SO IS THIS BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL? SO IS THIS CALCULATED BASED UPON YOU SEE THE COMMERCIAL ASPECT THAN RESIDENTIAL PART, OR IS IT IS A COMBINATION OF THE BOAT? BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE IN THE EXPLANATION, IT WASN'T, HE WAS LIKE, YOU JUST PICK THE HIGHER ONE OR, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? CAUSE WHAT IF, IF, IF IT'S A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT YOU CAN CALCULATE BASED ON RESIDENTIAL OR ARE YOU BASED ON COMMERCIAL, BUT THEN IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU GUYS WERE GOING TO PICK THE HIGHEST ONE OR SOMETHING, BUT WAS THE ORIGINAL, WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL? IS IT BAY? WAS IT THE COLLECTIVE OF BOTH? YES.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS IN STAFF CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG CURRENTLY, THE WAY IT IS, YOU WILL BE ASSESSED FOR BOTH THE COMMERCIAL FEE AND THE RESIDENTIAL FEE.
AND THEN YOU WOULD BE BOTH OF THEM SIMULTANEOUSLY, BUT YOUR PROPOSAL THEN IS JUST TO PAY ONE OF THEM.
AND WHICHEVER ONE IS THE HIGHER ONE.
I'M GOING TO SELECT THAT SUMMER.
SO THE INTENT IS THAT IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE A SMALL RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT TO A LARGER COMMERCIAL PROJECT, YOU DON'T DO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEDICATE PARKLAND OR PAY THE FEE FOR THE SMALLER COMPONENT IN A MIXED USE PROJECT.
AND THE WHOLE REASON WE AGREED ON THIS WITHIN THE WORKING GROUP IS, IS WE GENERALLY WANT TO PROMOTE MIXED USE.
AND SO THIS, THIS SEEMS LIKE A MECHANISM TO DO AS AN INCENTIVE.
UH, NUMBER 10, THIS IS THE 10 YEAR AVERAGING.
ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND JUST KEEP THAT ONE ON CONSENT.
SO THIS IS A LOWER FEE IN URBAN CORE.
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ITEM? DID YOU GUYS TALK ANY BIT ABOUT WHAT THAT FEE MIGHT BE? YOU KNOW, LIKE, LIKE AN EXAMPLE CONCEPT OF, I MEAN, CAUSE WE HAVE URBAN CORE, YOU KNOW, LIKE REDUCTIONS AND SO IT'D BE SIMILAR OR,
[01:05:01]
UH, SO I'LL BE HONEST.I THINK WE DID NOT DISCUSS THAT PARTIALLY BECAUSE I THINK WE DIDN'T HAVE THE SPACE OR TIME TO DO THAT.
WE DID HAVE A DISCUSSION ON WHETHER IT MADE SENSE TO DO IT MORE ON A REGIONAL BASIS, SIMILAR TO THE STREET AND BACK FEE, THE WORK THAT STAFF DID THERE.
UM, MY HOPE WOULD BE THAT WITHIN THE NEXUS, WE WOULD FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S A WAY TO REDUCE IT.
BUT NO, WE DID NOT THINK OF A PARTICULAR, I WOULD SAY THAT IS THE WILL OF YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE.
I THINK WE'RE CERTAINLY OPEN TO THAT, DEFINING IT FURTHER.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, WHAT'S IN THERE NOW, THERE IS A 15% CAP ON THE PARKLAND ACREAGE, DEDICATION THAT'S REQUIRED.
SO THIS, I WOULD ASSUME WOULD EXTEND THAT CAP IN SOME WAY IN A SIMILAR FASHION TO THE FEE AND LIEU FOR, FOR PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIRED.
KIND OF LEAVING IT, YOU KNOW, AS THIS THING MOVES ALONG, THEN WE CAN DEFINE IT AS WE GET MORE STAKEHOLDER INPUTS.
SO, UM, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ASK STAFF JUST TO COME IN ON THIS AND HOW IT AFFECTS KIND OF, YOU KNOW, YOUR, YOUR PROGRAM, UH, JUST TO EXPLAIN HOW THE 15% PERCENT CAP WORKS IN THE URBAN CORE IS THAT IT IS THE LAND REQUIREMENT IS CAPPED AT 15%.
THE REMAINDER IS PAID IN FEE IN LIEU OF, UH, SO IF THEY OWE AN ACRE, UH, WE COULD ONLY TAKE 15% OF THAT GROSS SITE AREA.
IF THE SITE WAS A 10 ACRE SITE, UH, WE WOULD BE KEPT ON THE LAND REQUIRED THAT WE COULD REQUIRE TO BE DEDICATED AT 1.5 ACRES.
UH, THEY WOULD PAY THE REMAINDER IN FEE IN LIEU OF, FOR THE REMAINDER THAT THEY OWED.
UM, SO THERE IS NO CAP ON THE REQUIREMENTS OTHER THAN THE AMOUNT OF LAND THAT WE CAN REQUIRE THAT THEY DEDICATE.
I'M A LITTLE UNCLEAR, I GUESS, UH, OWN, I GUESS THE PURPOSE OR, OR WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE BY TRYING TO CAP A FEE IN THE URBAN CORE, UM, OUTSIDE OF THE LAND REQUIREMENT BEING AT THE CAP.
SO I GUESS A LITTLE MORE CLARITY ON THAT WOULD HELP EXPLAIN WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE.
I THINK PART OF THEIR CONVERSATION WAS SO I HAVE TO HONESTLY GO BACK TO STREET AND BACK THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DID A REALLY GOOD JOB.
THEIR NEXUS STUDY REALLY BROKE DOWN BY GEOGRAPHY, SPOKE TO THE ACTUAL VALUE NEXUS OFF PROVIDING THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IN A PARTICULAR PART OF TOWN BASED ON NEED MILES TRAVELED.
WE DID NOT SEE THAT KIND OF ANALYSIS IN THE PARKLAND ORDINANCE.
WHAT WE SEE IS LIKE A FLAT FEE ACROSS THE CITY.
DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE IN A PART OF TOWN THAT HAS MORE PARKLAND OR LESS PARKLAND HAS HIGHER LAND COSTS, LESS COSTS.
SO IT'S SORT OF LIKE A FLAT FEE ACROSS THE CITY GIVING THAT DIFFERENTIAL MEANT THAT IN THE CORE WHERE WE HAVE A LOT MORE PARKLAND ACCESS, YOU WILL BE BEING A LOWER FEE AS OPPOSED TO BEING OUTSIDE OF THE CORE WHERE WE'RE MORE PARKLAND DEFICIENT, PARTICULARLY AS WE GO OUT AND DO D ONE D THREE D D SIX, WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT PARKLAND IN THOSE AREAS.
SO THE IDEA WAS DO LESSEN THE LOAD WITHIN THE CORE, KNOWING THAT THERE ACTUALLY IS MORE PARKLAND ACCESSIBILITY WITHIN THE GORE AND LESS SO OUTSIDE.
SO STAFF, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT? AND THEN IF WE HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE CAN PULL THIS ITEM IF OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS.
UM, I WOULD JUST OFFER SOMETHING FOR CONSIDERATION, IS THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE, DO YOU GRAPHICAL RESTRICTIONS ON WHERE THE FEES CAN BE SPENT? IT WOULD BASICALLY MEAN THE URBAN CORE HAD LESS PARK AVAILABLE, PARKLAND DEDICATION FUNDING FOR US TO ACQUIRE LAND DESPITE HAVING TYPICALLY HIGHER LAND COSTS.
SO IT MAY RESULT IN LESS PARKLAND OVER TIME IN THE URBAN CORE.
I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, WOULD YOU SAY THAT CURRENTLY WE HAVE MORE PARKLAND NEED IN THE URBAN GORE THAN OUTSIDE THE URBAN GORE? UM, I THINK OUR, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY ON THE PERCENTAGE OF DEFICIENCY IN AND OUT OF THE URBAN CORE.
I KNOW THAT PARKLAND DEFICIENCY IS SOMETHING THAT OCCURS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
UM, BUT WE COULD LOOK INTO WHAT THE, KIND OF THE IMPACT OF WHAT THAT WOULD BE OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS ARE, I'M GOING TO GO NUTS.
AND WE PULL THIS ONE FOR DISCUSSION.
UH, B UH, ITEM 12 VIDEO OF QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE.
SO, UM, I THINK MORE ON HOW THIS CAN, MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW, IN WORK WITH ITEM 11, BUT I MEAN, A LOT OF WHAT I'M THINKING IS LIKE, YOU KNOW, GIVING CREDIT FOR AMENITIES AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, A LOT OF THIS HAPPENS MORE IN THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT, YOU KNOW, AND HOW
[01:10:01]
DO WE COME UP WITH A WAY TO CREDIT THAT TO NOT JUST, I MEAN, HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE AFFECT THAT NUMBER THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT? LIKE IF THE URBAN CORE ENDS UP HAVING A LESS PARKLAND PER PERSON NUMBER, BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL THESE REDUCTIONS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, LIKE, UM, REDUCE THIS, REDUCE THIS EXEMPT, EXEMPT THAT, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO URBAN AREA, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, W W HOW DO WE BALANCE THAT IF WE ARE EFFECTIVELY DECREASING IT, AND THIS IS WHERE I SEE WE ARE BALANCING IT BY HAVING THE QUALITY OF THE SPACES THAT ARE PROVIDED BY IT.SO I APPRECIATE, I REALLY APPRECIATE NUMBER 12, BUT, YOU KNOW, MY QUESTION IS GOING TO BE IS LIKE, HOW DO WE HAVE YOU GUYS THOUGHT ABOUT HOW TO DOCUMENT WHAT IT IS AND HOW TO CREDIT, LIKE, HOW MUCH CREDIT THAT PROVIDES, BECAUSE THAT CAN HELP AFFECT THE NUMBER THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN NUMBER 11, YOU GUYS KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SURE.
SO I'LL SAY, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE HEARD FROM STAKEHOLDERS WHERE IT'S A ONE TO ONE CREDIT REQUEST.
SO ESSENTIALLY WHATEVER DOLLARS ARE SPENT IN THIS INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD BE CREDITED.
WE DID NOT SPECIFY THAT HERE, ALLOWING SOME FLEXIBILITY TO PLAY AROUND WITH THAT.
AND THEN IN TERMS OF WHAT THAT INFRASTRUCTURE, I DID BULL FROM THE REQUIREMENTS IN UNO, IN DOWNTOWN GREAT STREETS, UM, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO ESSENTIALLY IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY WANTS, FOR EXAMPLE, THESE THINGS ARE ALL DEFINED THE PLAZA, THE GROUP, LIKE ALL OF IT IS ALREADY DESIGNED GREAT STREETS, SAME WAY IT'S DEFINED IN UNO.
WHAT FURNITURE, WHAT IS THE WIDTH OF YOUR PLANTERS? TREES, IT'S ALL DEFINED.
SO IN SOME WAYS, HOPEFULLY WE CAN REFER TO OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE WHERE SUCH SORT OF SIMILAR AND YOU MIGHT KNOW BETTER.
SO I MEAN, WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS EFFECTIVELY THE STREETSCAPE OR WHATEVER THAT SPACE AROUND IT BECOMES THE, THE PARKLAND SPACE.
AND IS THERE A WAY TO CAPTURE WHAT THAT IS IN THE OVERALL? OTHERWISE THE CITY WILL CONTINUE TO GRAB, WE NEED MORE PARKLAND.
WE'RE MORE PARKLAND WHEN PEOPLE ARE PROVIDING THOSE SPACES.
AND WE ARE EVEN TURNING OUR STREETSCAPE INTO BASICALLY OPEN PARKLAND SPACE, YOU KNOW? AND I'VE TALKED WITH PEOPLE BEFORE THAT.
THEY'RE LIKE, OH YEAH, WE LIVE CLOSE TO PARTS.
WE'LL HAVE YOU BEEN THERE? NO, NOT REALLY.
WELL, WHERE DO YOU GO? WELL, I GO DOWN TO THE COFFEE SHOP.
THEY NEVER GO TO THE PARK, BUT PART OF IT IS THE WALKABILITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT THAT WAS CREATED THE PUBLIC ENVIRONMENT OF THE STREETSCAPE.
SO I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS TURN INTO SOME WAY TO VALUE THIS INTO, TO EFFECT THAT NUMBER IN, ESPECIALLY THAT URBAN AREA.
SO, I MEAN, MR. SHAW THAT'S, UM, I'LL ADMIT THAT THIS, THIS PARTICULAR ITEM WAS PROBABLY MOST DISCUSSED WITHIN THE WORKING GROUP.
UM, AND THEN ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HEARD FROM MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS, THE CHECKOUT I'LL COMING INTO A CAUTIOUS SECOND.
AND I'M ASKING THE QUESTION AND ASKING COMMISSIONER COX TO RESPOND, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
UM, IT, IT IS, IS THAT NOTHING IN THIS ORDINANCE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE LEVEL OF SERVICE OF PARKLAND TALKS ABOUT ACCESSIBILITY OF THE PARKLAND.
AND WHEN I, WHEN I THINK OF A SEX OF ACCESSIBILITY, I'M NOT NECESSARILY THINKING ABOUT WHAT'S THE DISTANCE TO WALK THERE, BUT WHAT DOES THAT WALK LOOK LIKE? DO WE HAVE STREET TREES? DO WE HAVE LIGHTING? IS IT, IS IT AN ATTRACTIVE PLACE TO ACTUALLY WALK TO YOUR LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD PARK OR WALK TO YOUR LOCAL URBAN PARK? AND SO WHAT SOLD ME ON THIS AMENDMENT FROM COMMISSIONERS ARE, WAS, WAS THAT EXACT UNO STANDARDS FOR STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS, PEDESTRIAN SCALE STREET, LIGHTING, STREET FURNISHINGS, ALL THAT SORT OF STUFF, BECAUSE THAT'S LARGELY DONE BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OR BY ATD.
AND, AND WE SEEM TO HAVE A DISCONNECT IN, IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THAT ENVIRONMENT WHERE PEOPLE DEFINITELY ARE VERSUS THE PARKLAND AND ENVIRONMENT WHERE WE MAY BE EXCLUDING PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE DESIRABLE ACCESS TO THESE PARKS.
AND SO I WAS VERY COGNIZANT OF FACT THAT I DIDN'T WANT THIS TO EXTEND TO WHAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE PRIVATE AMENITIES THAT COULD BE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE.
UM, I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T WANT TO PROVIDE JUST CARTE BLANCHE BENEFIT TO THE GOOGLES OF THE ORACLES OF THE WORLD THAT CAN BUILD, YOU KNOW, MASSIVE ATRIUMS IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR MASSIVE OFFICE SPACES THAT MAY BE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, BUT ARE REALLY ONLY USED BY THE PEOPLE THAT WORK THERE.
AND SO I LIKED THE WAY THAT COMMISSIONERS ARE IN THE WORKING GROUP KIND OF LEFT THIS, WHICH WAS MAKING SURE THAT WHATEVER IT IS, IT'S TRULY A COMMUNITY BENEFIT AND IT HAS A RELATION TO UTILIZATION AND ACCESS OF OUR PARKS PAID.
YOU WANT TO LEAVE THIS ONE ON CONSENT AS IS, OR DO WE NEED TO PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION?
[01:15:01]
I MEAN, I'M MORE INTRIGUED WITH IT, BUT I MEAN, I WANT IT TO GO FORWARD SO WE CAN KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT, BUT WELL, SOME OF THESE ARE PRETTY OPEN AND NEED TO BE, OBVIOUSLY NEED TO BE FLUSHED OUT AND MORE DETAIL.WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE TIME REALLY.
UM, SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA, UH, BUT IT DEFINITELY NEEDS SOME MORE WORK.
SO WE'LL LEAVE THAT ONE ON CONSENT.
SO I WOULD GO AHEAD, HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, POSTERS, WILL THERE BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS IF WE'RE THINKING OF AN AMENDMENT THAT'S NOT LISTED HERE? YES.
UM, WE CAN, AS WE WORK INTO THE ITEMS FOR AS FEET, WE'LL HAVE THREE QUESTIONS, THREE MINUTES EACH FOR THREE COMMISSIONERS, AS WE, AFTER WE PULL, WHEN WE'RE IN DISCUSSION OF EACH ITEM.
BUT IF IT'S NOT REAL, IF THERE, THIS WOULD BE A NEW AMENDMENT THAT'S YES.
IF YOU WANT TO PROPOSE AN INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT THAT WE'LL DO THOSE AT THE END AND ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT IT THOUGH, TO HELP SHAPE IT.
AND DEFINITELY IF YOURS IS TIED TO ONE OF THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS, YOU CAN AMEND OR SUBSTITUTE TO KIND OF, YOU KNOW, BUILD MAYBE A SINGLE, UH, AMENDMENT THAT IF IT'S RELATED TO ANY OF THESE DEFINITELY IS THAT OPPORTUNITY.
SO, UM, THIS IS ON THE MDA IS, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK STAFF, UM, JUST HOW THE MDA HAS WORKED AND HOW THIS, HOW THIS, UH, THIS, UH, WE WERE PUSHING THIS FORWARD FROM THE ECONOMIC TEAM TO JUST WANT TO KNOW YOUR, GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND.
UM, SO WE WERE ABLE TO, UM, CONSULT WITH LAW AND BETTER UNDERSTAND, UH, WHERE THE BEST PLACE TO KIND OF PUT AN AMENDMENT LIKE THIS WOULD BE ONE WOULD BE THAT THE EXISTING MTAS COULD EFFECTIVELY WRITE IN AN EXEMPTION IN THE EXISTING MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
SO THEY COULD AMEND THE AGREEMENT ITSELF TO SORT OF VEST THEM TO NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS.
UH, OUR STAFF'S UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S ONLY REALLY IMPACTS THIS HANDFUL OF DEVELOPMENTS, UM, THAT'S LISTED HERE.
SO IT'D BE A PRETTY LIMITED SCOPE.
UM, AND THEN THE SECOND WAY IS FOR EDD TO PROPOSE AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD EXEMPT ALL OF THESE FROM THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS, BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED SCOPE, BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A LIMITED NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE PROBABLY THE PREFERRED WAY TO ADDRESS EXEMPTING THEM FROM COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THEM ISSUING SITE PLANS, ET CETERA, BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE, RATHER THAN, UM, FOLDING IT INTO AN ORDINANCE AND LIMITING WITH SUCH A LIMITED SCOPE.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE SIDE OF, I HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, SO MY QUESTION IS IF WE DID DO IT THAT WAY, AND I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE.
SO WE ROLL IT INTO THE INDIVIDUAL MBAS.
WHAT HAPPENS DO WE DEVELOP ONE THAT'S GOING INTO MUELLER? WHO'S MDA DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS PROVISION.
WHAT HAPPENS TO PASS MDS? UH, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.
I NEVER HAVE THESE MBAS ARE ALSO, UH, PUDS, SO THEIR REQUIREMENTS ARE ALREADY SET BY THE ORDINANCES OF THOSE PUDS.
SO THE ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU ALL THIS EVENING WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE REQUIREMENTS.
SO THERE'S UNDEVELOPED LAND IN MUELLER TODAY, THEY HAD AN MDA THAT HAD A PARKLAND DEDICATION OF A CERTAIN AMOUNT SET ASIDE.
IF SOMEBODY DEVELOPS A OFFICE BUILDING ON ONE OF THOSE EMPTY LOTS, WILL THEY HAVE TO PAY THE SPEED? NO, SIR.
HOW COME? UH, THE PORT ORDINANCE SPECIFIES THAT THE PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE ALREADY MET? OKAY.
SO THE, SO IF WE'RE EXISTING MDS AND IF YOU'RE NOT ABIDE, WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT CASE? I GUESS.
SO THAT'S WHEN THE, IF THE, IF ONE OF THESE MTAS MENTIONED DOES NOT ALREADY HAVE A PUT IN PLACE, THEY COULD EITHER BE PRESENTED.
THEY COULD EITHER, UM, AMEND THE MDA ITSELF TO VEST THEM TO NOT BE SUBJECT TO THIS ORDINANCE, OR, UH, EDD COULD PROPOSE AN ORDINANCE THAT KIND OF CAPTURES ALL OF THESE.
SO IF YOU'RE AN E M D THAT'S ALREADY BEEN SIGNED, IT'S NOT A FUTURE ONE.
WE CANNOT ADD ANYTHING TO IT UNTIL WE GO AND BACK AND AMEND IT.
AND YOU'RE NOT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS THEN, UM, IF NO ACTION IS TAKEN, UM, I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK MORE INTO HOW THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD APPLY AND UNDERSTAND IT BETTER.
BUT OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, UM, EDD IN PART, WE'LL BE WORKING PROACTIVELY TO MAKE SURE THAT ACTION IS TAKEN.
ONE I'LL ASK SIMPLY, ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT ALL BUDS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE OR, UH, NO, IT'S GOT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE USUALLY SPECIFIED
[01:20:01]
WITHIN THE PUD ORDINANCE.SO IF THERE WAS NO COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AT THE TIME OF THE CREATION OF THAT, PAJ LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MUELLER DEVELOPMENT OR THE COLONY PARK DEVELOPMENT, THEN THERE'S NO, UNLESS IT'S SPECIFIED IN THE POD THAT CURRENT CODE WILL APPLY FOR PARKLAND DEDICATION, THEN IT'S SUBJECT TO WHATEVER REQUIREMENTS WERE SPECIFIED WITHIN THAT.
AND THIS WOULD INCLUDE FUTURE BUDS AS WELL.
SO IF WE DO A FUTURE BUTTON AND THEY OF COURSE HAVE TO PARKLAND DEDICATION BECAUSE IT'S REQUIRED AS PART OF THE FIGHT ORDINANCE, UM, THEY WOULD NOT BE IN THE FUTURE REQUIRED TO BE A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT APPLICATION FEE.
THEY MAY, DEPENDING ON WHETHER THEY'RE GOING FOR SUPERIORITY OR WHAT KIND OF LAND OR DEDICATING, BUT WE WOULD PROBABLY ASSESS A FUTURE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITH THIS ORDINANCE IN EFFECT, ESSENTIALLY PUD SUPERSEDE THE CODE, THE EXISTING CODE, SO PUDS AND RENEGOTIATE THE CODE TO APPLY TO THE SPECIFIC.
SO ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT EVERYBODY WILL HAVE TO FIGHT TO BE EXEMPT FROM THIS ORDINANCE AS THEY GO TO THE BOARD PROCESS? LIKE EVERY TIME A PART IS APPROVED? IS THAT THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE THINKING OF, UH, PUDS TYPICALLY GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO LOOK THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CODE REQUIREMENTS AND DETERMINE IF SUPERIORITY IS ACHIEVED OR NOT.
SO HOW DO WE WANT TO PROCEED WITH THIS ITEM? I MEAN, IF WE LEAVE IT ON CONSENT AND IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL CAN DO WITH ADVICE, YOU KNOW, TAKE IT.
I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT ON THERE.
AND I THINK IF IT IS RESOLVED AND IT'S A MOOD ISSUE THAT OUR STAFF CAN HOPEFULLY WORK WITH LINE EDD TO RESOLVE THAT.
EVERYBODY GOOD WITH LEAVING THIS ON CONSENT? ALL RIGHT.
NUMBER 14, IS THE HOTEL ITEM ANY CLARIFICATION'S I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM COMMERCIAL COX OR COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE UNIQUE, UM, USAGE AND THE CREDIT.
SO IF I MIGHT ASK COMMISSIONER COHEN WHO WAS NOT A VOTING MEMBER OF OUR WORKING GROUP AND COULD NOT PLACE AN AMENDMENT ON IT WAS HER IDEA.
SO WE WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU, THERE WAS SOME, UH, CONCERN MENTIONED BY SOME OF THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT THE HOTELS WOULD END UP GETTING TAXED AT A HIGHER WEIGHT ON TOP OF WHAT THEY'RE BEING TAXED ALREADY.
UM, ON TOP OF THAT, FROM MY OWN PERSPECTIVE, I KNOW THERE ARE FOLKS WHO OFTEN USE HOTELS AS THEIR PRIMARY RESIDENCES.
SO I WAS CONCERNED THAT THE INCREASE IN COST FROM THIS WOULD BE PASSED ON TO, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE WHO WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE CONSIDERED A TENANT ANYWHERE ELSE.
AND IT'S JUST, IT'S UNFAIR THAT IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE MIXED USE PART OF IT, WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO END UP GETTING CHARGED TWICE.
A STAFF SAID THEY HAVE A FORMULA, A LITTLE COMPLEX, BUT IT DIDN'T SEEM TO QUITE MEET THE MARK THAT I WAS HOPING.
SO, I MEAN, IF STAFF WANTED TO ELABORATE ON THERE ON THE FORMULA PART THAT MIGHT HELP EXPLAIN IT A LITTLE BETTER.
SO ESSENTIALLY RIGHT NOW, THERE'S, UH, UH, PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT FOR HOTELS AND IT'S BY THE, UH, THE HOTEL KEY BY THE ROOM AND IT'S TO ACCOUNT FOR VISITORS THAT ARE COMING INTO THE CITY.
AND, UH, WE DO HAVE A DISCOUNT THAT APPLIES TO THAT FOR EACH ROOM BASED ON THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY THAT'S UPDATED ANNUALLY.
SO, UH, THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE, UH, 2016 ORDINANCE IN EFFECT.
WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS THAT, UH, BECAUSE THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS DON'T ADDRESS EMPLOYEES, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE HOPING TO CAPTURE WITH THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, THAT THAT WOULD ALSO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS.
SO THERE'D BE ALSO A, UH, NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES PER SQUARE FOOT.
AND WE CAN ACTUALLY GO BACK TO THE PRESENTATION TO, UH, LOOK AT THAT TOO, UM, BELIEVE IT'S ON THE THIRD OR FOURTH SLIDE.
SO HOTEL, THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, ACCORDING TO THE U S GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL, WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE USED TO BUILD IN THESE DENSITIES, UH, HAS 1500 SQUARE FEET PER EMPLOYEE.
AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE THE OTHER DISCOUNTS THAT WE TYPICALLY APPLY TO THAT.
SO THAT WOULD, IT'S TRUE THAT IT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT TO THE NUMBER OF UNITS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT TODAY, BUT IT'S BECAUSE, UH, THE REQUIREMENT AS IT'S CURRENTLY FORMULATED DOESN'T NECESSARILY ADDRESS THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES THAT ARE ALSO, UH, WORKING AND USING THE SPACE.
THAT WOULD BE, UH, I DIDN'T DO HOTEL DEVELOPMENT.
LEAVING IT THERE, JUST BECAUSE I THINK IT DESERVES SOME EXPLORATION, YOU KNOW, SO SLEEP.
[01:25:05]
OKAY.UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE HOTEL ITEM? SO THE, THIS ONE, I DID THIS ONE ON CONSENT.
LAST ONE, UM, OF BE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS, UH, THIS IS ON THE INCOME RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE UNIT EXEMPTION.
UH, ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, PLEASE.
I'LL JUST MAKE A NOTE THAT I THINK THE ORDINANCE IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN LOOKS ONLY AT SMART HOUSING PROGRAM.
NOT ALL OF OUR PROGRAMS FALL WITHIN SMART HOUSING.
THERE'S ACTUALLY A LOT OF NOT OVERLAP WITHIN SMART HOUSING, PARTICULARLY IN RECENT YEARS AS WE'VE CHANGED THE RULE RULES OF THE PROGRAM.
UM, AND SO THERE'S A BUNCH OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT ACTUALLY WILL FALL OUT OF IT.
AND I THINK THAT'S, IN SOME WAYS MISUNDERSTANDING FOR HOUSING PROGRAMS AND SORT OF IN, WE KIND OF OVERLOOKED IT AS OPPOSED TO, I THINK INTENTIONAL, THE IDEA WAS THAT IF YOU WERE IN INCOME RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT, YOU WOULD BE EXEMPT.
UM, BUT THAT DID NOT MAKE ITS WAY FULLY INTO THE ORDINANCE.
SO UNDER THE CURRENT SMART HOUSING REQUIREMENT, A BUNCH OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS WITH INGRAM STRUCTURED UNITS ACTUALLY ARE AND WOULD BE BEING THE FEES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON 15? OKAY.
SO WE'VE WORKED THROUGH THEM ALL.
SO I'M GOING TO SEE IF I GOT THIS CORRECT.
AND PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I DID NOT.
SO ITEM ONE, I HAD ON CONSENT 2, 3, 4, OR DISCUSSION 5, 6, 7 ARE CONSENT.
EIGHT IS DISCUSSION NINE IS CONSENT.
11 IS FOR DISCUSSION AND THEN 12 THROUGH 15 ARE ON CONSENT.
SO, UM, LET'S SEE, UH, UH, ON, SO WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND AT THIS POINT, UM, HELP ME OUT HERE, COMMISSIONERS, WE'VE GOT OUR BASE MOTION AND THESE CONSENT ITEMS THAT WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND, UM, GO AND VOTE ON JERRY.
IF I'M REMEMBERING THE RULES OF ORDER, WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THE AMENDMENTS BEFORE WE CLOSE THE BASE MOTION.
SO YEAH, WE CANNOT TAKE A VOTE UNTIL WE'RE DONE WITH ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS.
YOU JUST KIND OF LEAVE IT FLOATING.
I WOULD TRIED TO GET A VOTE AT THE END OF THE OTHER EVENING AND WE DID VOTE.
SO NOW LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO, UM, INTO THE SECTION WHERE WE TAKE EACH ITEM UP AND WE DO HAVE MORE QUESTIONS IF WE NEED THEM, BUT IF WE DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, BUT IT DOES SOUND, WE PULL THEM FOR DISCUSSION.
SO LET'S, UH, TRY TO KEEP IT BRIEF, BUT WE DO HAVE FOR THIS ROUND THREE COMMISSIONERS, THREE MINUTES EACH, UH, ON THE Q AND A, SO THAT'S BEFORE WE ACTUALLY MAKE, MAKE THE MOTION, ARE WE CLEAR? SO IT GIVES US A LITTLE MORE TIME TO DELVE INTO THE MERITS OF EACH ITEM.
SO, UH, THE FIRST ITEM HERE IS ITEM TWO, AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ IT AT PARKLAND DEDICATION TO THE EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN ARTS AND CULTURAL USES NEED.
AND WE NEED TO DEFINE USES MUSIC VENUES AND MUSEUMS SUGGESTED VIA STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK.
SO, UH, THAT WAS, UH, THAT ITEM.
UH, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE, UH, FIRST FOR THE COMMISSIONER THAT, UM, ASKED FOR IT TO BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION, MR. YANNIS, POLITO, YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE.
THIS IS THE QUESTION FOR ANYONE ON A WORKING GROUP.
IF THERE HAVE BEEN ANY CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT, UM, GIVEN THESE USE, UH, THESE SPECIFIC USES, IF THEY USE WERE TO CHANGE IN THE FUTURE AND, UH, PROPERTY WAS NO LONGER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS, NO LONGER USE.
IS THERE A CONTINGENCY PLAN THERE, OR IS THERE A WAY THAT WE COULD, UM, SOMEHOW CHANGE THE LANGUAGE HERE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE OR, OR NOT, UH, FACE THAT SAME LOSS IF WE'RE LOSING THAT, THAT PARTICULAR USE AND POTENTIALLY INTRODUCING A NEW USE THAT COULD BRING MORE DEMAND ON PARKLAND COMMISSIONING? HONESTLY, IF I CAN GO TO YOUR CLASS, JUST JUMP IN AND SAY THAT WAS DISCUSSED.
I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE STAFF DELIS THAT HOW, LIKE A CONVERSION
[01:30:01]
POST-CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION WOULD BE HANDLED.WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION, BUT WE DID NOT COME TO A RESOLUTION IN THE WORKING GROUP.
AND I'LL, AND I'LL JUST ADD BEFORE STAFF ANSWERS THE QUESTION THAT, THAT THIS ISN'T JUST AN ISSUE FOR ART GALLERIES, ART WORKSHOPS, THEATERS, LIVE MUSIC.
WE COULD SEE A CHANGE IN USE OF A PARKING GARAGE BEING CONVERTED INTO APARTMENTS OR WHATEVER.
AND SO WE ARE CURIOUS ABOUT HOW, HOW THAT'S MANAGED.
UM, SO IN TERMS OF A PARKING GARAGE BEING CONVERTED INTO APARTMENTS, THAT WOULD GO THROUGH A WHOLE NEW SITE PLAN, RIGHT? I DON'T, LIKE I THOUGHT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO, I MEAN, MAYBE YOU COULD CONVERT IT WITH IT, JUST A INTERIOR REVIEW, BUT I THINK WE WOULD SEE IT AT, UM, SITE PLAN FOR A CHANGE OF USE FOR, FROM LIKE AN ART GALLERY TO LIKE A DENTIST OFFICE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT WOULDN'T NEED TO GO THROUGH A SITE PLAN, UH, RIGHT NOW FOR THE SMART HOUSING, WE DO HAVE A NOTE ON THAT SAYS LIKE SO LONG AS THE SMART HOUSING, UM, IS SATISFIED OR, YOU KNOW, IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH SMART HOUSING.
THERE IS NO FEE IF IS NO LONGER COMPLIANT WITH THIS SMART HOUSING, UM, PROGRAM, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS TO COME BACK AND KIND OF STATE THAT TWO PART AND THEN PAY THE FEE, GET ASSESSED FOR THE FEE FOR THE UNITS THAT THEY DID NOT PAY.
SO I ASSUME THE SAME TYPE OF NOTE COULD BE APPLIED, BUT I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO EXPLORE WITH OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
I'LL JUST ADD TO THAT, THAT QUESTION.
WELL GO, SHE ASKED ME THE HALFTIME.
I'VE W I'VE TRIED TO RESOLVE THAT IN OUR HOUSING PROGRAMS CURRENTLY THERE'S DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS FOR OWNERSHIP, DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS FOR A RENTAL, FOR THE AFFORDABLE PROGRAMS. AND AS FAR AS I KNOW, ACTUALLY WE TRIED TO PUT IT IN VMU AND I DON'T THINK IT WENT THROUGH BECAUSE LAW WAS STILL CONSIDERING IT, BUT THERE'S NO POST OCCUPANCY CONVERSION REQUIREMENTS.
WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU GO FROM RENTAL, WHICH IS AT 60% OF, IF I DO OWNERSHIP AT 80% OF
SO I THINK, DO WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION OVER GROUP? THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS INTERESTINGLY, I WOULD LIKE FOR STAFF TO CONSIDER ACROSS MULTIPLE TYPES OF PROGRAMS AND REQUIREMENTS.
UM, I'M NOT SURE IT'S EMBEDDED EVERYWHERE.
NOT SURE THEY SET THE FIRST ONE OR, UH, SO WE HAVE, I THINK ROOM FOR ONE OR TWO MORE QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
IT GETS, IT'S JUST MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT CHANGE ABUSE.
SO IF, IF I, AND SO I GUESS THIS, THIS ACTUALLY APPLIES TO MULTIPLE THINGS WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, WHETHER IT'S HOTELS OR, UM, IF I TEAR DOWN AN OFFICE BUILDING TURN DOWN A FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING TO BUILD AN EIGHT STORY OFFICE BUILDING, IS THERE ANY KIND OF CREDIT THAT I GET FOR THE, THE OFFICE SPACE THAT I'M DESTROYING THAT, THAT ALREADY EXISTED AND HAS PARKED? YEAH.
SO IF, UH, A NEW DEVELOPMENT HAD ALREADY SATISFIED FOR, YOU KNOW, THE PREVIOUS YOUTH, LIKE THE FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING, THEN IT WOULD OWN, THE REQUIREMENTS WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THE DIFFERENCE OF THAT REQUIREMENT.
SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WENT FROM A FOUR STORY OFFICE TO AN EIGHT STORY, RESIDENTIAL, WHATEVER THE DIFFERENCE AND THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE AS WHAT WOULD APPLY TO THE HIGHER USE PROJECT.
AND IF I, IF I SWITCHED, LIKE I SEE WALMART'S BEING TURNED INTO OFFICE PARKS WHERE THEY'RE, THEY'RE SPLITTING THEM UP INTO OFFICE PARKS OR, OR SCHOOLS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHAT, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN THEN IF I ACTUALLY HAD PAID MORE PARKLAND DEDICATION FROM MY PREVIOUS USE THAN I'M REQUIRED NOW, DO I GET A REFUND FROM THE CITY? THERE IS A REFUND, UH, CLAUSE WITHIN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR IT'S REALLY ADDRESSES THE NET DIFFERENCE IN ACREAGE OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY BUILT ON THE GROUND.
SO I I'D HAVE TO LOOK BACK AND SEE IF THAT WOULD APPLY TO THIS SPECIFIC, UM, EXAMPLE WHERE THE USE CHANGED TO SOMETHING OF A LOWER INTENSITY.
THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHAT THE PROJECT ENDED UP BEING.
UM, BUT RIGHT NOW IT WOULD ONLY APPLY IF THERE WAS A NET DIFFERENCE IN THE ACRES OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY BUILT.
AND WE DO TYPICALLY HAVE A WINDOW FOR REFUNDS.
SO IF ULTIMATELY THE USE CHANGED AFTER THAT WINDOW FOR A REFUND REQUESTS, IT WOULD NOT, YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY QUALIFY FOR A REFUND UNDER THE ORDINANCE.
CAN I KIND OF MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION? I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION.
SO IF A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT MULTI-FAMILY PAID PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES, AND IT WAS IN TORN DOWN AND A NEW DEVELOPMENT CAME IN THAT HAD A LOWER PARKLAND REQUIREMENT WAS DEVELOPED, WOULD PART
[01:35:01]
THEN REFUND THE W OFFICE BUILDING IN PLACE OF THAT, UH, RESIDENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, PARKLAND DEDICATION PIECE.IS THAT, IS THAT HOW SOMETHING LIKE THAT? YEAH, YEAH.
NOW THERE WOULD, THE, UH, THE EXISTING REFUND, UH, POLICY WOULD NOT APPLY SINCE THE UNITS, THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WAS BUILT AND PEOPLE LIVE THERE AND UTILIZE THAT.
AND MOST LIKELY THOSE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES WOULD HAVE BEEN SPENT BY THEN.
SO THERE WOULD BE NO MECHANISM, BUT THAT LOT, THAT WHATEVER PARCEL THAT WAS BUILT ON WOULD ALWAYS HAVE THAT CREDIT, UH, OF WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PAID.
SO IF THEY WENT BACK IN WITH A DENSER MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, UH, THEY WOULD GET CREDIT FOR THAT ORIGINAL PORTION AND ONLY, OH, WHAT WAS IN ADDITION TO, OKAY, THANK YOU.
WE HAVE ROOM FOR ONE MORE QUESTION.
THAT'S FINALLY, I WANTED TO, I DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE ANYONE'S SPOT.
IF ANYONE HAS A QUESTION, I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER HANDS, SO PLEASE PROCEED.
I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT, THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME WHAT, WHAT RANDY SAID.
I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO INCENTIVIZE EQUAL DEMOLISHING BUILDINGS AND NOT BUILDING SOMETHING BACK OR BUILDING SOMETHING BETTER WITH MAKING A POLITICAL STATEMENT HERE.
BUT, UM, BUT YEAH, SO, SO IT, IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE THAT WE WOULD CREDIT THAT TOWARDS A BIGGER OR BETTER DEVELOPMENT, BUT NOT JUST START HANDING OUT REFUND CHECKS FOR DEVELOPERS TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING APARTMENTS OR WHATEVER.
UH, COMMISSIONERS WERE AT THAT POINT.
DO WE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? MR. DOES OUR, SO ACTUALLY I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE WITH AMENDMENT.
NUMBER ONE, IF FOLKS WANT ME TO READ IT FOR THE RECORD, I CAN DO THAT AS WELL, PLEASE.
UM, SO WE WOULD MAKE A MOTION, UM, BUT WE HAVE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT WITH SUGGESTED, UM, UM, TEXT, WHICH WOULD ADD PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE EXEMPTION FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, BUT SMALL BUSINESSES DEFINED AS 5,000 SQUARE FOOT, UH, WITHIN GOLD SECTION 25 DASH ONE DASH 6 0 1 C COULD YOU RE WE'RE WORKING ON UNLIMITED? GOSH, I'M JUST READING THE WRONG THING AND CONFUSING EVERYBODY.
SO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WITH THE INCLUDED TEXT CHANGE, SAME SECTION 25 DASH ONE DASH 6 0 1 C UH, WE WOULD ADD PARKLAND DEDICATION SLASH FEED.
SO FOR CERTAIN ARTS AND CULTURE USES NEED TO DEFINE, USES AS MUSIC VENUES AND MUSEUMS SUGGESTED VIA OUR STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK.
CAN I, UM, CAN I AMEND THAT MOTION? IT CAN, I DO NOT HAVE A SECOND ACTUALLY AT THIS MOMENT.
SO IF YOU JUST TELL ME, I CAN AMEND MY MOTION BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON THE DIOCESE YET.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SECONDS.
SO NOW I HAVE A SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER GLOSSY.
WE'LL HAVE TO DO AN AMENDMENT.
WELL, I, I PROPOSE AN, UH, AN AMENDED MOTION TO THE MOTION.
UM, AND, AND WHAT I'M DOING HERE IS I'M ACTUALLY READING THE PROPOSED TEXT PAINS THAT THE BRIEF THAT SORRY, THAT WE'VE WRITTEN IN OUR SPREADSHEET, BUT I THINK THERE'S TWO VERSIONS OF THE SPREADSHEET.
ONE HAS THE PROPOSED TEXT CHANGE AND ONE DOESN'T.
SO I JUST WANT TO LET Y'ALL KNOW THAT, UM, THAT IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A SPREADSHEET THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE PROPOSED TEXT CHANGE, IF YOU GO ON THE BACKUP AND PULL UP THE OTHER SPREADSHEET, IT WILL ACTUALLY HAVE SPECIFIC CODE LANGUAGE THAT WE'VE VERY AMATEURISH, FULLY DEVELOPED.
AND SO MY, MY AMENDED MOTION IS TO CREATE AN ADDITIONAL EXEMPTION UNDER 25, 1 6 0 1 C FOR ART GALLERIES, ART WORKSHOPS, THEATERS, AND LIVE MUSIC VENUES PENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 2 0 2 2 0 2 8 DASH 0 9 4 AS DEFINED IN SECTION 25 DASH TWO DASH FOUR.
SO THAT'S UM, SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO DO A SUBSTITUTION.
SO THAT IS THE SUBSTITUTION IT'S BEEN SECONDED.
UH, ANY, UH, WANT TO SPEAK, YOU WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF YOUR MOTION? COMMISSIONER COX? NO, I, I THINK WE'VE TALKED
[01:40:01]
ABOUT, OKAY.ANY OTHER, UH, FOR AGAINST DISCUSSION ON THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
ALRIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
DID WE NEED TO READ THIS AGAIN? ANY, OR ARE WE GOOD? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD.
UH, THIS IS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER COX, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CZAR.
AND THIS IS ON THE DYESS AND FAVOR.
AND THOSE VIRTUALLY 1, 2, 3, 4.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO OUR NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS, UM, THREE.
AND THIS ONE WAS ALSO, UH, PULLED, UM, OR BY MICHIGAN'S PULLING IT OUT.
SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND LET YOU ASK ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE.
YOU WANT TO TAKE THE FIRST SPOT? YES.
UM, I'M TRYING TO FORMULATE MY QUESTION IN A WAY THAT IS PRODUCTIVE, I SUPPOSE.
I GUESS I'LL JUST STATE MY CONCERN HERE BECAUSE I, I LIVE AND, UH, RELY ON ONE OF THESE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, PRIVATELY OWNED, UM, HARD SPACES.
UM, AND THERE IS, UH, THE MAINTENANCE ISSUE IS JUST ONGOING AND NEVER, IT, IT REQUIRES CONSTANT VIGILANCE TO ENSURE THAT MAINTENANCE IS HAPPENING IN A WAY THAT IS COORDINATED AND PEOPLE ARE COMMUNICATING TO THE RIGHT ENTITY BECAUSE NOT EVERY, LIKE PEOPLE COME IN, THEY DON'T KNOW IT'S PRIVATELY OWNED, BUT THEY CONTACT PART, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
AND SO I GUESS WHAT I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THAT SEEMS TO ME, IT'S PARALLEL AND SEPARATE, BUT RELATED TO THE ISSUE THAT MAINTENANCE IS DIFFERENT FROM AMENITIES AND ACTUAL LAND.
AND SO I'M NOT TRYING TO, I DON'T WANT TO ADD REDUNDANT CONVERSATION HERE, BUT I GUESS IF STAFF COULD ARTICULATE A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE CONCERN HERE, UM, AND WHAT MIGHT ADD CLARITY TO KEEP US FROM CONFLATING, BASICALLY THE INPUTS AND COSTS OF MAINTENANCE VERSUS THE ACTUAL DEDICATION OF LAND AND AMENITIES.
UH, THE JUSTIFICATION, PARKLAND, DEDICATION, UH CITY-WIDE AND ALL CASE LAW AND US SUPREME COURT IS, IS JUST FIGHTING THAT THERE'S AN IMPACT TO NEW RESIDENTS MOVING TO A CITY AND THAT THEY HAVE ON YOUR PARK SYSTEM.
AND IT ALLOWS YOU TO, UH, REQUIRE A LAND REQUIREMENT FROM THEM.
AND IT ALSO ALLOWS YOU TO REQUIRE PARK DEVELOPMENT FROM THEM TO KEEP YOU AT A CERTAIN LEVEL OF SERVICE.
THOSE FEES, UH, MAY BE USED TO DEVELOP PARKS WITH NEW AMENITIES BY NEW PARKLAND, BUT THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE USED ON MAINTENANCE.
UH, SO JUST A CLARIFICATION AS PLAIN SIMPLE AS LIKE, MIKE, I APPRECIATE THAT.
AND THAT, AND Y'ALL DID STATE THAT PREVIOUSLY.
SO W BY THAT RATIONALE, UM, IT, I GUESS I'M A, AND MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION BACK FOR THE WORKING GROUP.
I'M JUST, I'M WORRIED ABOUT THIS CONFLATION AND HOW THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ENFORCED AND IMPLEMENTED OVER TIME GIVEN.
UM, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT MAKES THINGS MESSY, PUT THIS INTO TEXT AND THEN ACTUALLY GOING BY THE BOOK AND HOW THINGS PLAY OUT, UH, REALISTICALLY, UM, WHERE DO WE SEE THIS CLARIFYING OUR ACTUAL COSTS OF INPUTS AROUND PARKLAND AND AMENITIES VERSUS MAINTENANCE? I'M JUST, I'M, I'M, I'M A LITTLE STUCK ON THIS ONE.
I'M, UH, I'M WORRIED, THIS GIVES US POTENTIALLY CALCULATE SOMETHING UPFRONT THAT TAKES AWAY FROM CERTAIN REVENUE THAT WE MAY NEED FOR A PROMISE OF MAINTENANCE THAT IS GOING TO BE ONGOING AND POTENTIALLY DYNAMIC AND FLUCTUATING OVER TIME.
SO WHAT I'VE HEARD STAFF SAY IS THAT THE PARKLAND, UH, UH, ORDINANCE DEDICATION ORDINANCE REALLY IS ABOUT PURCHASING, YOU KNOW, NEW PARKLAND AND THE, THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THAT, THE NEW DEVELOPMENT, OR, UM, CREATING THE AMENITIES FOR THAT PARKLAND.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONGOING MAINTENANCE, WHICH THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT, IT'S NOT DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT.
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION FOR STAFF IS IF WE WANTED TO CREATE SOME VEHICLES BY WHICH WHEN PRIVATE DEVELOPERS ARE MAINTAINING PARKLAND, HOW WOULD WE DO THAT? WHAT IS THE WAY TO DO THAT OUTSIDE OF THIS
[01:45:01]
ORDINANCE? UM, SO I CAN JUST SPEAK TO WHAT'S IN PLACE NOW AS A PARK IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT.IT'S A TERM AGREEMENT THAT WE GO INTO WITH THE DEVELOPER OR THE APPLICANT, THE, THE LANDOWNER, UM, AND IT HAS A, IT'S SORT OF SEVERAL BY NO MEANS THEY JUST HAVE TO GIVE US NOTICE IT IS ACCOUNT.
IT CLEARLY LAYS OUT THEIR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
AND IT ALSO ALLOWS PART TO TAKE OVER THE MAINTENANCE, IF THERE ARE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE BEAR CONCERNS.
THE OTHER MECHANISM WE HAVE IS PARK SIGNAGE THAT ACTUALLY HAS LIKE FOR MAINTENANCE CALL X NUMBER.
SO THAT IT'S EITHER 3, 1, 1 FOR PARK, FOR PARKLAND OR THE ACTUAL, UM, BUILDING MAINTENANCE PEOPLE, UM, IF THE DEVELOPER'S TAKING OVER THE MAINTENANCE.
SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE IF THOSE ISSUES ARE BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION, WE CAN ADDRESS WITH SOME SIGNAGE TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR, BUT CURRENTLY THE VEHICLES, THIS PARK MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT.
AND IS THAT BUILT INTO THIS, THIS, UH, EITHER THE COMMERCIAL OR THE RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND, UM, DEDICATION ORDINANCE? IS THAT PART OF IT IN ANY WAY, OR IS IT A SEPARATE IT'S IT'S NOT REFERENCED DIRECTLY, BUT IT IS A VEHICLE FOR ANY PRIVATE ENTITY TO TAKE ON MAINTENANCE OF, UM, OF PUBLIC PARKLAND.
SO IT'S TYPICAL FOR A DEVELOPER THROUGH PARKLAND DEDICATION TO GO THROUGH THIS VEHICLE.
MANY TIMES RE MULTIFAMILY OR SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UH, WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN THEIR PARKS AT A HIGHER LEVEL OF SERVICE AND WHAT WE ARE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THEM.
SO INSTEAD OF MOWING THEM, YOU KNOW, 20 TIMES A YEAR, THEY WANT THEM HOME 40 TIMES A YEAR, OR IRRIGATE THEM ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO.
SO, UH, THEY TAKE, THEY'RE WILLING TO TAKE ON THAT MAINTENANCE.
UH, IT HELPS, UH, PROMOTE THEIR OKAY.
D BUT DID ANY OF THOSE AGREEMENTS PROVIDE FOR ANY CREDITING OR ANY REIMBURSEMENT OR ANY KIND OF, AND YEAH, JUST, I GUESS THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AT HERE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT DOESN'T HAVE IT.
DOESN'T GIVE THEM ANYTHING FOR TAKING ON THAT MAINTENANCE.
NO, NOT UNDER THE CURRENT, UH, ORDINANCE OR THE AGREEMENTS THEMSELVES THAT SAID THERE ARE CERTAIN, UH, REGULATING PLANS AND DENSITY BONUSES THROUGH TOWN WHERE THE MAINTENANCE IS REQUIRED.
IF THE BONUS IS ALSO ASSOCIATED WITH DEDICATING SOME PARKLAND.
SO THAT'S CURRENTLY HOW IT WORKS IN THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR.
TYPICALLY THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS, UH, VOLUNTEERED IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE SUPERIORITY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? UH, CHAIR AND MAYBE I WASN'T LISTENING.
I THINK A COMMISSIONER LANA'S PLUTO ASKED A QUESTION TO THE WORKING GROUP WAS THAT YEAH.
AND I WAS TRYING TO GET, I WAS TRYING TO ASK A QUESTION TO STAFF TO GET AT HER QUESTION.
MAY I MAY HAVE MISSED A MARK, BUT YEAH, IT'S PLEASED IF WE DID NOT ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN, PLEASE LET US KNOW COMMISSIONER, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST PULLING UP.
UM, TRICIA AND COMMISSIONER COX I'VE ACTUALLY, THE CONVERSATION IS, HAS MOSTLY ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS HERE BASICALLY GOT AT THE CORE OF IT, WHICH IS THAT WE CAN'T USE OUR PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE FOR MAINTENANCE, BUT THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES THAT MAINTENANCE BE CREDITED IN LIEU OF PARKLAND INDICATION IS WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING.
AND JUST, I GUESS, TO RESPOND FROM THE WORKING GROUP PERSPECTIVE, UM, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT CONCERN CAUSE I HAD THE SAME CONCERN.
WHAT YOU HEARD FROM SOME STAKEHOLDERS THAT WERE BASICALLY IN THE BUILDING PARKS BUSINESS WAS GENERALLY THEY TELL A DEVELOPER OR WHATEVER THAT THEY SHOULD BUDGET, ABOUT 10% OF IT, CAPITAL COST.
IT, IT, IT, IT TAKES TO BUILD THE PARK FOR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE.
SO IF A PARK COSTS A MILLION DOLLARS TO BUILD, THEN THEY SHOULD PROBABLY BUDGET SOMEWHERE AROUND A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS PER YEAR TO MAINTAIN THAT MILLION DOLLAR PARK.
UM, I, I, I WROTE THIS FROM MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE GROVE PUD.
UM, I UNFORTUNATELY SPENT MANY YEARS OF MY LIFE DEALING WITH THAT.
THE ZONING PROCESS ON THAT AND, AND PART OF THE PUD WAS, WAS THAT THE GROVE WAS GOING TO MAINTAIN THE PARKLAND, THE PUBLIC PARKLAND IN, IN, IN THAT PROPERTY, WHICH IS, WHICH IS A PRETTY SIZABLE AMOUNT OF A PARK.
[01:50:01]
I JUST, I LIVE RIGHT NEXT TO IT AND I JUST SEE ALL THE MAINTENANCE THAT GOES INTO IT.IT'S AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF WORK.
AND SO I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIND A MECHANISM TO HELP RELIEVE SOME OF THAT PRESSURE FROM PARD.
AND OBVIOUSLY TO DO THAT, YOU HAVE TO FIND SOME SORT OF INCENTIVE TO ENCOURAGE THESE DEVELOPERS.
NOW, WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT MANY TIMES DEVELOPERS LIKE, LIKE RANDY SAID ONE TO MAINTAIN PRIVATELY, EVEN IF IT IS PUBLIC PARKLAND, BECAUSE THEY, THEY KIND OF VIEW IT AS AN AMENITY OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO THAT'S WHY THIS REALLY IS JUST A MINIMUM OF 10% CREDIT, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BE PUTTING IN A LOT MORE DOLLAR VALUE THAN THAT, THAN THE EQUIVALENT VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY.
I WAS TRYING TO FIND AT LEAST SOME CARROT THAT MAY NOT BE AN EQUIVALENT TO THE VALUE OF THE MAINTENANCE OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.
BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL ISSUES, UM, RELATED TO THIS THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY EQUIPPED TO SOLVE ON THIS COMMISSION, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT TRADING LAND WITH LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE, BUT, UH, IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE GOING TO BE ACQUIRING ALL OF THIS PARKLAND THROUGH GATHERING UP, UM, COMMERCIAL FEES AND THAT SORT OF STUFF WE DO NEED TO ADDRESS AS A CITY, HOW WE'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN THE LEVEL OF SERVICE IN THAT PARKLAND.
COMMISSIONERS WE'RE OUT OF QUESTIONS.
UH, DO YOU HAVE EMOTION? UH, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A, UM, A MOTION THAT WE HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THIS ITEM AS AN AMENDMENT.
JERRY, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, SINCE THIS IS AN AMENDMENT, WE BOLD, IF WE JUST DON'T TAKE ANY MOTION THAT IT DOESN'T GET CONSIDERED IN THAT.
SO YEAH, WE CAN JUST MOVE ON IF EVERYBODY'S FINE WITH IT.
I CHAIR I'LL GO AHEAD JUST TO SEE IF THERE'S THE VOTES.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND IN MOTION THAT WE, UM, THAT WE ADD AN AMENDMENT 2 25, 1 6 0 2, THAT PROVIDES FOR IF THE APPLICANT AGREES TO A PRIVATE PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS AND OPERATIONS AGREEMENT APPROVED BY PARK, THE AMOUNT OF PARKLAND MAY BE REDUCED BY A MINIMUM OF 10% AND UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 25% AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DIRECTOR, BASED ON THE ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE APPROVED AGREEMENT.
SECOND CHAIR AT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CZAR.
UH, I SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION, MR. COX.
I THINK I ALREADY DID THAT PREVIOUSLY.
AND COMMISSIONERS ARE, YEAH, I'M GOING TO SPEAK AGAINST, I JUST THINK IT'S CLEAR THIS ONE IS, IS DOOMED THE, NOT THE RIGHT VEHICLE, UH, TO KIND OF MIX AS PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE, WHICH IS ABOUT WHAT WE HEARD CLEARLY AS FAR AS NEW PARKS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE PARKS AND NOT FOR THE ONGOING MAINTENANCE.
SO I THINK THIS IS ONE IS GONNA, IS NOT GONNA PASS THE LEGAL NECESSAR, UH, THAT I DO APPRECIATE IS TRYING TO FIND A WAYS TO INCENTIVIZE THE MAINTENANCE.
I, I JUST THINK IT'S, UM, IT'S JUST NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT AND THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO GET AT THIS.
YOU WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? SURE.
I THINK MOST COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD KNOW, I REALLY FOUGHT PRIVATE PARKLAND DEDICATION IN THE PAST, AND I STILL TRULY BELIEVE WE SHOULD HAVE PUBLIC PARKS, BUT I THINK I'M SURE COX MADE A REALLY COMPELLING ARGUMENT, BOTH IN THE WORK GROUP GROUP.
AND HERE, AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EXPANDING OUR PARKLAND BY HUNDREDS OF ACRES, BASED ON WHAT THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEDICATIONS, WE WILL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT, HOW DO WE SUSTAINABLY MUNDANE THOSE BARKS OVER DIAMOND ONE, I GUESS, WAY TO ACHIEVE THAT IS TO INCENTIVIZE PRIVATE MAINTENANCE BECAUSE FOR A LOT OF PARKLAND, THAT MIGHT BE THE ONLY WAY FORWARD, RATHER THAN JUST LEAVING UNPROGRAMMED, UNUTILIZED, PARKLAND, UM, THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE AMENITIES NOR THE MAINTENANCE THAT WE NEED.
SO AGAIN, I REALLY STRUGGLED WITH THIS ONE, LIKE A LOT OF FOLKS AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S OF LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT DEFINITELY NEED TO BE RESOLVED, BUT HOPEFULLY THIS GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE SUSTAINABLY FUND MAINTENANCE IN THE COMING YEARS? OKAY.
UH, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST IN FAVOR.
I'M SORT OF NEUTRAL AGAINST, UM, AND I DON'T WANT TO TAKE TOO MUCH TIME BECAUSE I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION, ESPECIALLY, UM, MR. COX'S COMMENTS.
UM, I HAVE THAT GROWING CONCERN AS WELL, BUT I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTINUE TO, THAT WE CONTINUE TO, THERE'S JUST, THERE WILL
[01:55:01]
BE MANY WAYS THAT THIS IS CHIPPED AWAY FROM, AND, UH, THERE ARE GOING TO BE MANY ATTEMPTS TO GET LESS AND LESS PARKLAND DEDICATION AS WE INCREASE DENSITY IN PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO NEED IT MORE AND MAINTENANCE WILL NEED TO BE PART OF THAT CALCULATED COST.AND, UM, I JUST DON'T WANT TO, I DON'T WANT TO CREATE AN ADDITIONAL PLACE OF POTENTIAL CONFUSION FOR STAFF AND IMPLEMENTATION, BUT ALSO ADVOCATING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAINTENANCE ON THAT PUBLIC, ON THAT PRIVATELY OWNED LAND.
SO, UM, YEAH, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD CONVERSATION THOUGH.
UM, SO I'M KIND OF NEUTRAL AGAINST THINKING.
ALRIGHT, THOSE SPEAK IN FAVOR.
I'LL SPEAK IN FAVOR, MR. SHEA.
SO DURING, DURING DEVELOPMENT, I MEAN, THIS IS A BIG QUESTION THAT ALWAYS COMES UP.
WE GO THROUGH WHAT'S PARKLAND DEDICATION.
WE GO THROUGH THAT AND THEN WE START LOOKING AT THE AMOUNT OF SPACE AND WHAT WE HAVE TO COMMIT.
AND THEN WE THINK ABOUT HOW IT WORKS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT.
THEN WE STARTED THINKING, WELL, HOW ARE WE GOING TO MAINTAIN IT? IT ALWAYS COMES UP, YOU KNOW, AND IF I'M AFRAID, IF WE ELIMINATE, YOU KNOW, THIS THING FROM IT, WE SAID, OH, THIS ISN'T THE RIGHT VEHICLE.
BUT AT LEAST IT BECOMES A POINT OF CONVERSATION AND IT'S, AND IT'S SET IN HERE THAT IT CONTINUES IN THE CONVERSATION UNLESS WE ARE WILLING TO PICK IT UP AS ANOTHER FUTURE, UH, YOU KNOW, FUTURE ITEM THAT WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS AS A PLACE TO SEND A MESSAGE OUT THERE THAT WE NEED SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
SO THAT'S SOUNDS IT'S LIKE MIGHT NOT BE RIGHT PLACE, BUT THAT'S A GOOD PLACE TO SET A STATEMENT AND GET THINGS IN MOTION.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD LEAVE IT.
UM, ONE MORE SPOT FOR THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
I THINK WE JUST STEP BACK AND THINK ABOUT THE WHOLE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND A PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE.
I MEAN, TO ME, IT'S, UH, WE HAVE A CITY THINGS SEEM TO BE WORKING, YOU KNOW, PRETTY WELL.
NEW DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO COME TO THE CITY.
NEW PEOPLE ARE GONNA COME TO THE CITY.
SO IF WE HAVE A PARK AND IT HAS SWING SETS, WE'RE GOING TO NEED MORE SWING SETS BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE ENJOYING THE PARK.
SO EITHER NEED MORE PARKS OR MORE SWING SETS.
AND THAT'S KIND OF, BECAUSE THOSE EXTRA PEOPLE MOVED, WE NOW HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, PAY FOR MORE SWING SETS, SWING, SWEATS, WEAR OUT OVER TIME.
THEY WERE OUT, WHETHER THAT BUILDING GETS BUILT OR NOT.
IF WE BUILD THE BUILDING, WE NOW HAVE MORE PEOPLE PAYING THE, THE GENERAL FUND TAXES TO PAY FOR THOSE SWING SETS WEARING OUT.
SO WE DON'T NEED TO FIGURE OUT A MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR THEM.
THE WHOLE IDEA OF PARKLAND DEDICATION IS TO KEEP, YOU KNOW, ACRES PER RESIDENT, THE SAME AS THE CITY GROWS.
AND WE DON'T NEED FIGURING OUT EXTRA MAINTENANCE.
IF WE CAN'T DO THE MAINTENANCE TODAY, THAT'S A CHALLENGE AND WE SHOULD FIGURE THAT OUT.
BUT, YOU KNOW, PUTTING THAT EXTRA MAINTENANCE BURDEN ON THE NEW RESIDENTS OR THE NEW WORKERS, DOESN'T, DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
IT DOESN'T ABIDE BY THE GENERAL PHILOSOPHY AND, AND IT'S NOT LEGAL.
SO WE'RE JUST KIND OF WASTING OUR TIME TALKING ABOUT IT.
I THINK WE'RE READY TO CALL IT AND VOTE ON THIS.
SO, UM, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND START WITH THOSE ON THE DIETS THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
UM, THOSE, UH, LET'S GO AND COUNT THOSE IN FAVOR ON THE VIRTUAL SCREEN, SOME COUNTING.
UH, 1, 2, 3, 4, AND THEN THOSE AGAINST THE MOTION, UH, ON THE DIAS.
AND THOSE AGAINST THIS MOTION ON THE SCREEN.
SO WE'VE GOT THREE I'M COUNTING, RIGHT? UM, THAT'S ONE SHORT IS THAT SIX TO 3 7, 3.
SO THAT MOTION PASSES WITH, AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, THAT'S, UH, COMMISSIONERS, UH, SHERIFF SHAW, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON AND YONIS PALITO VOTING AGAINST.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO, UH, THE NEXT ONE, WHICH IS I'M LOSING TRACK HERE ITEM AS THAT NUMBER FOUR.
AND THIS ONE WAS, I PULLED THIS ONE.
VICE-CHAIR YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND NET AS FIRST QUESTION? YES.
SO WE STARTED TO TALK ABOUT THIS WHEN WE WERE ORIGINALLY GOING THROUGH THEM.
UM, THE QUESTION WOULD BE ABOUT IF THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE AND LU ASSESSMENT IS SET AT THE TIME OF THE SITE PLAN AND SUBMISSION, AND THE ASSESSMENT DOES NOT CHANGE THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, UNLESS THE PROJECT
SO I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE SOME INDICATION OF WHAT THOSE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES ARE.
UM, SOME WE DON'T HAVE TO GET INTO THE, THE NATS DETAIL HERE,
[02:00:01]
BUT, UM, I THINK THAT WOULD HELP WHEN THIS MOVES FORWARD AND, AND AS WE'RE VOTING ON IT.SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT, IS IT ONE UNIT, UM, BEING ADDED AS THE SITE PLAN PROGRESSES, OR IS IT 10% CHANGE? UM, I DON'T KNOW THE STAFF ANY HAVE ANY IDEAS ABOUT THAT OR THE WORKING GROUPS.
I HAVE A RECOMMENDATION, I DON'T KNOW, AND HAPPY TO HEAR FROM STAFF AND OTHER COMMISSIONERS AS WELL, BUT I WONDER IF WE CAN SET A PERCENTAGE OF THE ASSESSED FEE AS AN INCREASE.
SO IF MORE THAN 10% OF YOUR ASSESSED FEES INCREASING, THEN YOU HAVE TO PAY THE NEW FEE OR WHATEVER.
I DON'T KNOW AGAIN, WHAT THE CUTOFF IS.
WE'RE MAKING THINGS UP ON THE SPOT.
UH, OTHER FOLKS MIGHT HAVE BETTER THOUGHTS ON THIS.
UH, I'LL JUST MENTION AS, AS THE PERSON WHO WROTE THIS RECOMMENDATION FOR THE WORK IN GROUPS CONSIDERATION, THE, MY INTENT BEHIND THIS WAS TO JUST ESTABLISH WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE GOING TO BE FOR A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT AS EARLY IN THE PROCESS AS POSSIBLE.
SO THAT THE DEVELOPER KNOWS WHAT HE OWES OR HOW MUCH LAND HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO DEDICATE THE IDEA WASN'T TO ALLOW MY, MY OPINION ABOUT THIS WAS THAT WE SHOULDN'T ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO PLAY SOME SORT OF GAME BY CHANGING UNIT COUNTS AND STUFF TO, TO REDUCE THEIR FEE OR LAND ON THE FRONT END.
UM, IT WAS JUST TO A LEVEL OF CERTAINTY FOR SOMEONE SUBMITTING A PROJECT AS EARLY IN THAT SUBMITTAL PROCESS AS POSSIBLE.
SO I, IF, IF WE NEEDED TO FIND SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGES IN NATURE, WHICH I AGREE WE NEEDED TO, TO DEFINE THAT I WOULD DEFINE IT PERSONALLY.
I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE DEFINE IT AS ANY CHANGES IN UNIT COUNT OUR SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT THAT WOULD IMPACT THE AMOUNT OF ACRES OR FEE OWED UNDER THE ORDINANCE.
AND, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO READ THE STAFF COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, UM, BECAUSE THEY DO SEE AN ADVANTAGE TO, TO PROVIDING MORE CERTAINTY IN THE BEGINNING OF THAT PROCESS.
UM, SO THAT'S, THAT WAS MY TERMINATION.
AND TO BE CLEAR, I'M I THINK PROVIDING CERTAINTY IS REALLY A GREAT THING.
UM, AND I, I'M SORRY, I CAN'T FIND ANYTHING IN A BACKUP OR WHAT WAS SENT AN EMAIL THAT HAS STAFF COMMENT ON IT.
CAN I, UM, I'M SORRY, I'M JUST GOING TO POINT, CAUSE I HAVE TO TAKE UP THE QUESTION.
SO I'M GOING TO TAKE UP THE QUESTION CAUSE WE RAN OUT OF TIME.
UM, MR. SCOTT, DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD RESPOND? YES.
I JUST WANTED TO GIVE IT MAYBE ENOUGH AN, AN OPTION HERE, UH, TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND THAT IS WE PROVIDE EARLY DETERMINATIONS, UH, CURRENTLY TO DEVELOPERS.
AND WE SAY THAT THAT EARLY DETERMINATION IS GOOD FOR UP TO ONE YEAR, UH, PENDING THAT THE UNIT COUNT DOESN'T CHANGE BY MORE THAN 10%.
SO THAT GIVES, UH, A GOOD RANGE OF INCREASED DECREASE IN UNIT COUNTS FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY.
UM, BUT IF MORE THAN THAT, IT COULD BE A DRASTIC CHANGE.
SO TH THAT'S JUST CURRENT POLICY.
WHAT WE DO ON OUR EARLIEST DETERMINATIONS MIGHT BE SOMETHING WORTH CONSIDERING, UH, YOU ARE CORRECT IN THAT WE ARE IN FAVOR OF, UH, LOCKING IN THE FEES THAT SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL OR SUBDIVISION SUBMITTAL, UH, MAINLY SITE PLANS, METAL.
UH, WE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE STAFF WOULD BE VERY THANKFUL THAT THEY STAYED UP, UH, FOR KNOW, MONTH TO SEPTEMBER LAST YEAR, TRYING TO PROCESS FEES BEFORE THEY CHANGED, UH, FOR THE, FOR THE COMMUNITY SO MUCH IN FEBRUARY.
AND RANDY, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, THE, WHAT YOU DESCRIBED AS THE CURRENT ORDINANCE OR THE CURRENT PRACTICE IS THAT FOR RESIDENTIAL YES.
FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WE PROVIDE EARLY DETERMINATIONS AND THOSE ARE W WE DETERMINED, UH, BEFORE A DEVELOPER HAS SUBMITS A PLAN.
THEY CAN COME AND ASK US AT NO CHARGE AND SAY, HEY, W WE HAVE, UH, UH, PLANNING A MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT AT THIS LOCATION, UH, WILL Y'ALL REQUIRE US TO DEDICATE LAND OR PAY A FEE, ALLOW US TO PAY A FEE IN LIEU OF, AND, UH, WE WILL GIVE THEM THAT DETERMINATION AND A LETTER, AND IT'S GOOD FOR ONE YEAR.
AND THAT IT'S 10, WHAT, YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT 10%, IT'S IN THE, I THINK IT'S THE LAST SENTENCE IN THERE.
WE MIGHT HAVE IT EXACT WORDING, BUT IT SAYS AS LONG AS, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT OR NUMBER OF UNITS, DIDN'T CHANGE BY MORE THAN 10%
[02:05:01]
HERE, I CAN, PAUL CAN READ IT FOR US HERE LESS.UM, SO IT'S A VALID FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR, PROVIDED THAT THE NUMBER OF UNITS DOES NOT CHANGE BY MORE THAN 10% IS THE EXACT LANGUAGE.
AND IF I CAN FOLLOW UP, I GUESS, IN THIS CASE, SINCE THERE'S NO UNITS, WOULD IT BE OKAY TO SAY 10% OF SQUARE FOOTAGE? TH THAT WOULD BE FINE.
IT'S JUST A GUIDELINE THAT WE WERE SUGGESTING.
THAT'S THE END OF MY QUESTION.
UM, OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS ON THIS FINISHED ATTEMPTED IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS, JUST BECAUSE THE FEES ARE DUE AT SITE PLANS SUBMITTED TIME, AND, AND WOULD THIS STILL BE REQUIRED IF THEY WERE DO A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TIME EMINENT IN THE SENSE OF, IS IT THAT YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, OR THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR THINGS AND THEN GET WELL INTO SITE PLAN AND REALIZE YOU HAVE TO PAY MORE AND CYCLE HEAD KOSHER COX? NO, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, WE HAVE ANOTHER AMENDMENT RELATED TO WHEN THE ACTUAL FEES ARE DUE.
UM, THIS IS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPER, KNOWING HOW MUCH PARKLAND PART IS GOING TO REQUIRE FOR DEDICATION AND OR WHAT THE FEE IN LIEU OF THAT IS ON THE FRONT END.
AND THE IDEA, THE IDEA HERE IS THAT THIS IS JUST MAKING SURE THAT, THAT THE, THE FORMULAS OR THE CALCULATIONS OR WHATEVER, THE 10 YEAR AVERAGE FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE.
WELL, ANY ALL OF THAT STUFF CAN CHANGE OVER TIME, BUT, BUT AS LONG AS YOU'VE GOT YOUR SITE PLAN SUBMITTED AND PART HAS DONE THEIR ASSESSMENT, THEN THAT'S, THAT'S LOCKED IN, WHICH HONESTLY SOUNDS LIKE THEY ALREADY DO THAT FOR RESIDENTIAL.
SO, UM, I, I, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ACTUALLY WRITTEN INTO THE ORDINANCE OR IF THAT'S JUST KIND OF A COMMON PRACTICE THEY DO AS A COURTESY, BUT, BUT HOPEFULLY WE CAN EXTEND THAT TO COMMERCIAL AS WELL.
CAN I JUST COMMENT A LITTLE BIT? SO I'M LIKE, SO I'M DOING A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS RIGHT NOW, BUT WE DID EARLY DETERMINATION AND THEY TOLD US A CERTAIN AMOUNT THAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE IN THE FIA AND LIU.
AND THAT WAS EARLY ENOUGH ON, SO WE CAN START PLANNING THIS THING, PUTTING THIS THING HERE, YOU KNOW, SETTING THIS, YOU KNOW, SETTING THEM OUT ON LAND, OUT AROUND IT.
AND AT THAT POINT, YOU KNOW, WE COULD AT LEAST START FIGURING OUT THE PROJECT, HOW MANY UNITS WE'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, CAN WE ATTAIN THAT TRUE AMOUNT OF UNITS ONCE WE GET TO THAT, WE MIGHT EVEN GO BACK TO THEM TO RE TWEAK IT BASED UPON WHAT OUR LAYOUT IS, BUT WE'VE GOT TO HAVE A STARTING POINT BEFORE, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE BEGIN, AND THEN WE CAN START HAVING A PERFORMER GOING ON WITH NUMBER OF UNITS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND THEY WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT EARLY DETERMINATION ENOUGH FOR US TO START AT LEAST FIGURING OUT WHAT THE PROJECT MIGHT BE, THE FEASIBILITY OF IT.
SO I'M HOPING THAT'S THE SAME PROCESS FOR THE COMMERCIAL.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT, IS THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN ACTUAL DEDICATED ACREAGE VERSUS FEE AND LU, I MIGHT BE A COMBINATION.
I MEAN, IT SEEMS TO ME THE FORMULA IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND SIMPLE, AND IT'S LIKE, WHY DO YOU NEED THEM TO CALCULATE THAT WHEN YOU SUBMIT YOUR SITE PLAN? SO WHEN THEY W WHEN WE SUBMIT THE SITE PLAN, WE WOULD HAVE ALREADY KNOWN BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY WORKING WITH US AHEAD OF TIME.
UM, YOU KNOW, SO WE, WE KIND OF HAVE AN IDEA IN THE BEGINNING.
WE LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, AM I GOING TO HAVE 45 MINUTES START GOING, OH MY GOSH, AM I GOING TO ACTUALLY LIKE 49 UNITS, GO BACK TO THEM IN A LITTLE RE TWEAK AND BALANCE, BUT THAT'S, BEFORE I EVEN SUBMIT, I'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH THAT.
I'VE WORKED WITH THEM STARTING WITH THE PREDETERMINATION EARLY DETERMINATION.
DO YOU HAVE, UM, ADDITIONAL QUESTION? SO I'M JUST, IT SEEMED LIKE STAFF HAD GOTTEN THE LAST STAFF TO RESPOND TO YOUR CLAIM.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION.
SO I, OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TO LOCK IN THE FEE RATE AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN, SUBMISSION, SUBMITTAL, AS OPPOSED TO A SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
CURRENTLY WE ASSESS IT AT CYCLING APPROVAL.
SO IF SOMETHING COMES IN ON, UH, IN APRIL, THE FEE RATE WILL CHANGE IN OCTOBER.
AND WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS LOCK IT IN TO THE APRIL RATE, BUT THAT WOULD BE A PER UNIT OR PER SQUARE FOOT RATE.
SO THE NUMBER OF UNITS OF THE NUMBER OF SQUARE FOOTAGE CAN CHANGE, BUT THE RATE WILL STAY THE SAME.
IF THERE'S A REALLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE PROJECT, IT WOULD REQUIRE A SITE PLAN REVISION, WHICH WOULD SET THE NEW RATE, THE NEW SITE PLAN REVISION.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IS THAT CAPTURED? YES, THAT MAKES SENSE.
SO, UH, YOU CAN, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR YOU JUST WANT SURE, I HAVE, I
[02:10:01]
JUST WANTED TO ADD REAL QUICK.THIS WAS ACTUALLY BASED ON STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK WHERE THEY WERE SAYING THAT THEY WOULD GET A CERTAIN ASSESSMENT IN APRIL, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY ACTUALLY START GETTING THINGS, SMITH'S PLOT SIDE PLAN WITH YOU IN OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER, THE FEE WOULD BE STAGGERINGLY DIFFERENT, UH, BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES IN THE BUDGET FOR THAT YEAR.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY, ANY MORE QUESTIONS WE HAVE ONE MORE SPOT.
DO WE HAVE AN ADMIN, UH, LOOKING AROUND THE ROOM, UH, PRES UH, COMMISSIONER COTS, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE, UH, PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE, SUCH THAT A PARKLAND DEDICATION AND FIELD ASSESSMENT IS SET AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN SUBMISSION.
THE ASSESSMENT DOES NOT CHANGE THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS UNLESS THE PROJECT CHANGES MORE THAN 10% IN UNIT COUNT OR SQUARE FOOTAGE JAM.
COMMISSIONER COX, DO YOU THINK YOU ALL RIGHT.
ANY OTHER ELSE FOR AGAINST? ALRIGHT.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, GO AHEAD.
YOU KNOW, WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO REDUCE UNCERTAINTY AND CARRYING COSTS.
SO I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ONE THAT GOES WITH, I BELIEVE IT WAS NUMBER EIGHT THAT WAS PULLED BY COMMISSIONER SHAY.
SO, YOU KNOW, THIS REDUCES THE UNCERTAINTY.
AND THEN LATER ON, WE CAN LOOK AT REDUCING THE CARRYING COSTS AND THE OTHER ONE, BUT THESE GO HAND IN HAND.
UM, ANY OTHER FAR AGAINST, OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE.
DO WE NEED TO READ THIS AGAIN, OR IS EVERYONE CLEAR ON THE EMOTION? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
THAT WAS ON THE DICE IN FAVOR.
THAT'S EVERYONE FIVE AND THOSE ON THE VIRTUAL.
UH, GOING ON TO, LET'S SEE, SOMEBODY HELPED ME OUT HERE.
THE NEXT ONE WE HAVE, I BELIEVE IT'S NUMBER EIGHT.
SO WHO HAS THE FIRST, LET'S SEE WHO I PULLED UP.
SO I PULLED THIS CAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS BEFOREHAND AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT, UM, MR. ANDERSON, I'VE ALSO BROUGHT UP MULTIPLE TIMES ABOUT THE WHOLE CARRY COST DURING A DEVELOPMENT.
AND ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE HAVING TO PAY AT THE SIGN OF THE, AT, AT THE TIME OF PERMIT WHEN, ESPECIALLY IN SOMETHING LIKE THIS, I MEAN, THIS IS FOR, FOR PARKLAND AND THERE'S NOBODY LIVING THERE YET.
I MEAN, THERE'S NO RESIDENCE, RIGHT.
AND IF WE HAVE TO GO, IF THE DEVELOPER HAS TO GO AND TAKE OUT, CONTINUING TO TAKE OUT A LOAN JUST TO PAY THIS THING WHEN IT'S NOT EVEN ACTUALLY BEING USED, AND THERE'S NOT EVEN A SHOVEL IN THE GROUND YET, IT SEEMS KIND OF, YOU KNOW, OVER, I MEAN, JUST, IT'S JUST ADDING TO THE COST AND IT'S, AND IT'S, IT'S KIND OF UNNECESSARY.
I MEAN, IN MY MIND, IT SHOULD BE AT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AT THAT POINT.
IT'S, IT'S REALLY A FULL PROJECT AT THAT POINT.
IT'S MOVED ALONG TO THE POINT WHERE IT'S READY TO, UM, YOU KNOW, GO, GO IN SERVICE.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I PULLED IT.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF MAYBE, UM, YOU GUYS CAN COMMENT.
I THINK IN TERMS OF, UM, LOOKING AT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE OPEN TO.
WE SORT OF JUST SETTLED ON BUILDING BERMAN BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING WE HEARD FROM SOME OF THE STAKEHOLDERS.
UM, I'M OPEN TO ANY SUGGESTION OR, AND BETWEEN THE TIME OF PERMIT, ESPECIALLY ON THESE COMMERCIAL PROJECTS.
I MEAN, THIS COULD BE TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS.
I MEAN, IT COULD BE CONSIDERABLY LONG.
WE HAVE PROJECTS THAT WE SEE THAT WE'RE EXTENDING THEIR PERMITS BECAUSE YOU KNOW, LIKE A YEAR, TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS.
AND IMAGINE IF THEY'RE HOLDING THE COST OF, YOU KNOW, THE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY.
SO ANYWAY, THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I SUPPOSE.
UH, OTHER COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONER CUTS.
I WAS HOPING TO UNDERSTAND BETTER FROM STAFF, THEIR OPPOSITION TO THIS.
THEY SPECIFICALLY RESPONDED AND SAID, IT'S NOT FEASIBLE TO ASSESS FEES, A BUILDING PERMIT IF THEY COULD HELP.
AND WE'RE NOT ASSESSING, IT'S NOT ASSESSING FEES.
WE'RE WE'RE TALKING THIS, ONE'S TALKING ABOUT THE COLLECTION OF THE COLLECTION.
UM, SO CURRENTLY WE DON'T REVIEW BUILDING PERMITS.
[02:15:01]
SO, UM, WELL FIRST OF ALL, THE CODE DOESN'T ALLOW FOR, UM, COLLECTING FEES AT A DIFFERENT PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS THAN THEY WERE ASSESSED.SO IF THEY'RE ASSESSED AT SUBDIVISION, WE CAN'T UNDER CURRENT CODE IS COLLECT THEM AT SITE PLAN.
SO THE CODE WOULD NEED TO BE AMENDED TO ALLOW FOR THAT TO BE SPLIT UP.
UM, WE DO CONSIDER BETWEEN THE SITE PLAN PROCESS AND THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS, OR MAYBE DIFFERENT OWNERS.
SO WE WOULD HAVE TO KEEP TRACK OF THE OWNERSHIP AND THAT FEE WOULD HAVE TO TRAVEL WITH THE NEW OWNER.
UM, AND FINALLY PART DOESN'T ASSESS OR DOESN'T REVIEW BUILDING PERMITS.
SO IT WOULD BE UP TO ANOTHER DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT FEE IS ACTUALLY COLLECTED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL.
UM, OTHERWISE WE WOULD NEED ADDITIONAL KIND OF FULL-TIME REVIEW STAFF TO START TAKING ON THE REVIEW OF THAT FEE APPROVAL AT THE BUILDING PERMIT PERMIT.
AND IF I HAVE ANY MORE TIME, IS IT THE SAME CONCERN IF WE MODIFIED THIS TO BE FEES COLLECTED AT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, IS, IS THAT MAKE IT ANY MORE USABLE? IT'D BE LESS FEASIBLE, UH, HOLDING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR A FEE, UH, THE OPTICS ON THE CITY HERE THAT WOULD NOT LOOK SO GOOD.
UM, I WOULD SAY BUILDING PERMIT, I THINK EXPLORING THAT OPTION A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, IS, IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE INTERESTED IN.
UH, WE'VE HEARD THIS, UH, THIS OUTSIDE OF THIS GROUP AS WELL.
UM, THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, A SITE PLAN COULD BE APPROVED AND HAVE A LIFE EXPECTANCY OR, UH, THINK IT'S GOOD FOR THREE YEARS.
UM, SO I MEAN, IT COULD BE LIKE A FOUR YEAR PROCESS FOR YOUR YOU'RE PULLING THAT BUILDING PERMIT.
UM, SO IF WE LOCKED IN THE FEES THREE YEARS AGO FROM THE, I BELIEVE THE MOTION BEFORE THIS, UH, WHAT NUMBER WAS THAT? UM, NUMBER FOUR, WE LOCKED IN THE FEES, UH, IN 2022.
AND YOU MIGHT NOT BE PULLING A BILL BILLING PERMIT UNTIL 2026 COULD BE.
UH, ANYWAY, I, I THINK IT'S HARD.
I THINK IT IT'D BE HARD FOR US TO FOLLOW.
UH, WE'RE WE'RE WILLING TO EXPLORE, EXPLORE THAT AS AN OPTION.
UM, WE HAVE TALKED TO LAW ABOUT IT AND I BELIEVE ROBIN, UH, EXPLAINED THAT, UH, CON THEIR CONCERN IS THAT TIME FOR ME.
UH, COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE.
I, UM, I DO, SO I GUESS WITH THAT KIND OF DELAY, UM, I GUESS WHAT YOU'RE POINTING OUT IS THAT THERE COULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL TIME PERIOD WHEN THERE WERE FEES SET AND THEN WHEN YOU'RE ACTUALLY COLLECTING THEM AND THE FEES COULD HAVE CHANGED QUITE A BIT BETWEEN THOSE TWO TIMES.
SO, UH, WE WOULD MAYBE WANT TO CONSIDER SOME KIND OF LIMIT ON TIMEFRAME THEN BETWEEN SITE PLAN AND BUILDING PERMIT WHEN THE FEES WERE ASSESSED.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE WAY TO ADDRESS A CONCERN.
YEAH, I JUST, THIS IS, WE HAVE TWO OTHER STAFF MEMBERS HERE, SO I MEAN, YOU'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW WE FOLLOW THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS, THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, ASKING US TO GO INTO THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, BUT I'M JUST AFRAID OF WHAT, I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD REQUIRE A STAFF.
SO GENERALLY JUST MAYBE I NEED SOME HELP WITH OTHER COMMISSIONERS OR PART, ARE THERE ANY OTHER FEEDS THAT ARE COLLECTED AT BUILDING PERMIT? UM, I DO WANT TO SAY I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE, BUT I THINK SOME OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEES ACTUALLY ARE COLLECTED BEFORE THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
OTHER FOLKS MIGHT BE ABLE TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING FOR SOME OF THE FEES I SAW COMMISSIONER GOING.
BUT SO IT'S SORT OF THAT, AND THAT THIS WAS TO ADDRESS THE, UH, SOMETHING THAT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE WHERE BEEN TRIPLED AND THEN DOUBLED OVER A THREE-YEAR PERIOD, UH, WHICH KIND OF SHOCKED THE FUNDING FOR A LOT OF THESE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS.
SO IT WAS TRYING TO KIND OF SLOW THAT DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
I THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT OF IT.
UH, THAT'S TWO, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? OKAY.
I'LL JUST MAKE A QUESTION BECAUSE I THINK THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS MENTIONED.
I THINK BARDA FAR DIAMOND GRUNCH HERE IS THAT YOU WILL BE ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF TO CONSIDER THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION.
[02:20:01]
IS THAT TRUE? YES.THERE IS A REQUEST FOR, UM, ADDITIONAL STAFF TO ADMINISTER THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION WITH.
SO THE HOPE WOULD BE, I COMPLETELY HEAR YOUR THING, RIGHT.
WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE SOMETHING.
THAT'S VERY HARD TO FIGURE OUT COMPLIANCE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU MIGHT HAVE ADDITIONAL STAFF AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THIS BUDGET PROCESS, THIS CYCLE DO HELP AND ASSIST WITH THAT.
THAT'S CORRECT IT FOR COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE.
SO ALL FEES SHOULD BE COLLECTED AT THE TIME OF, OR LET ME REPHRASE THAT ALL T ALL FEES SHOULD BE COLLECTED BEFORE, UM, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
SO, UM, I'LL FEED SHOULD BE COLLECTED AT THE TIME CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS ISSUED.
INSTEAD OF AT THE TIME, I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO SAY BEFORE, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO PAY A MONTH AGO BEFORE, BEFORE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS ISSUED.
SO THAT WAS A COMMISSIONER WHO SECONDED THAT MUCH.
SO WE, WE'VE HEARD FROM STAFF A COUPLE OF TIMES, UM, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS AND PARKS ADVOCATES ABOUT THE IDEA BEHIND, YOU KNOW, THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND, DEDICATION FEE, BEING THAT, YOU KNOW, OFFICE USERS WILL FILL BUILDINGS AND THEY USE THE PARKS, BUT IF YOU TAKE PARKING LOT, BUT IT'S GETTING REDEVELOPED TO A 500,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING.
AND WHEN THEY A BUILDING PERMIT, IT'S STILL A PARKING LOT.
YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY STILL HAVEN'T EVEN SCRAPED THAT PARKING LOT FOR THEM TO GO AHEAD AND, YOU KNOW, PAY AT THAT POINT, YOU KNOW, YEARS BEFORE THAT BUILDING'S FINISHED, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TALKING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
THAT IS THE MOST EXPENSIVE PART OF THAT ENTIRE CAPITAL STACK THAT THEY HAVE TO RATE.
SO THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THEIR EQUITY, THEY HAVE THEIR DEBT AND THEY'RE SPENDING EQUITY ON THIS.
THERE, THEY THEN HAVE TO CARRY FOR THE NEXT X AMOUNT OF YEARS.
AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE INTENT, WHICH IS THE INTENT IS THESE OFFICE USERS ARE USING OUR PARKS.
THERE'S NO OFFICE USERS, THIS STILL A PARKING LOT.
AND SO THIS IS WHERE WE'RE LOOKING TO REDUCE THE UNCERTAINTY, WHICH IS WHERE YOU SET THE FEES AND REDUCE THE CARRYING COSTS, WHICH IS WHERE WE ARE WITH THIS AMENDMENT RIGHT HERE.
AND IT, THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT HELPED WITH PREDICTABILITY.
SO YOU HAVE THIS, YOU KNOW, THREE-YEAR DEVELOPMENT AND, YOU KNOW, YOU WANT THOSE FEES LOCKED IN BECAUSE YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND ALL THE COSTS OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT TO ASK FOLKS TO BUILD SOMETHING IN YOUR CITY AND TO INVEST IN YOUR CITY AND SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'D TOTALLY MIGHT ANSWER THIS.
AND IT MIGHT DO, LIKE RESIDENTIAL IS DONE OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS WHERE IT DOUBLED AND DOUBLED AGAIN.
AND IT'S DOUBLED TWICE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS.
AND WE JUST CAN'T DO THAT TO FOLKS.
I MEAN, THAT'S JUST A GREAT WAY TO DISCOURAGE REINVESTMENT IN INVESTMENT IN OUR CITY.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S OUR GOAL.
UH, ANY COMMISSIONERS SPEAKING AGAINST THIS MOTION FISHER COX, HOW MANY GOOD SUBSTITUTE MOTION YOU CAN? UM, I MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE BACK TO BUILDING PERMIT.
UH, SO ALL FEES SHOULD BE COLLECTED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
SO YOU WANT TO JUST KEEP IT ABBREVIATED, NOT THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.
YOU KNOW, WE CAN SAY THAT ALL FEEDS SHOULD BE COLLECTED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL AND BEFORE THE PERMIT IS ISSUED, I THINK THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE.
IS IT, UH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THIS? UM, I'M GOING TO SECOND THIS, OH, COMMISSIONER, YOU NOTICED PALITO, UH, GET YOUR HAND SECOND TO THE, SEE YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR EMOTION COMMISSIONER COX.
I REALLY DO UNDERSTAND THE INTENT HERE, ESPECIALLY WITH DOING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
I JUST THINK THAT THAT'S AN INCREDIBLY MESSY BECAUSE CONSTRUCTION IS, THERE'S SO MANY UNCERTAINTIES INHERENT IN CONSTRUCTION AND YOU KNOW, IT, IT, IT, TO ME, IT MAKES SENSE FOR THE CITY TO BE WHOLE PRIOR TO ALLOWING A DEVELOPMENT TO BE BUILT.
UM, NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT TO BE BUILT, BECAUSE YOU COULD HAVE A CONTRACTOR GO BANKRUPT.
IT TAKES ANOTHER YEAR TO FIND ANOTHER CONTRACT A BIT.
THERE THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT ARE NOT EVEN ASSOCIATED AT ALL WITH THE CITY THAT CAN HAPPEN DURING CONSTRUCTION BEFORE A CEO
[02:25:01]
IS ISSUED.AND I, AND I'M LOOKING AT THIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE, WHAT OTHER FEES ARE ISSUED WHEN, WHEN ARE THE IMPACT FEES FOR WATER AND SEWER ISSUE, YOU KNOW, W WHEN OUR STREET IMPACT FEES ISSUED.
AND, AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD NECESSARILY TREAT THIS ONE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT.
I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT, BUT I THINK BUILDING PERMITS PROBABLY THE FURTHEST BACK THAT WE CAN EASILY PUSH THAT FEE COLLECTION.
UH, THOSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR, FAVOR THE MOTION.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAD AN INTEL BUILDING SIT FOR 10 YEARS OR SO WITH JUST A SHELL OF SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE RIDICULOUS IF THAT INTEL BUILDING HAD TO PAY FOR EXTRA SWING SETS ON THE PARK BECAUSE NO ONE WAS SWINGING ON THE PARK.
UH, THOSE SPEAKERS IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, UH, I'M JUST GOING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR.
I THINK BUILDING PERMIT IS A GOOD COMPROMISE.
UM, I WAS HAVING A LITTLE HEARTBURN WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT OPTION, BUT I GUESS, UH, LOOKING AT THE SPECTRUM OF WHEN THEY CAN PAY FEES, IT DOESN'T SEEM SO BAD NOW.
HOPEFULLY, UH, STAFFING CAN FIND A WAY TO IMPLEMENT THAT, BUT, UH, SOME SUPPORTING THE SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT, UH, SPEAKING AGAINST, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS ISN'T REALLY A COMPROMISE.
UM, IF THERE'S A, IF THE BUILDING IS GOING TO TAKE THREE YEARS TO BUILD AND HANG IT IN THE VERY BEGINNING OF THAT, THAT'S THREE YEARS OF CARRYING COSTS.
SO WE'VE JUST GROWN, NOT ONLY ANOTHER FEE ON THEM WITH PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE, BUT ALSO THE CARRYING COSTS FOR THOSE THREE YEARS.
AND SO THEREFORE YOU'RE ADDING TREMENDOUSLY TO THE COSTS OF THIS SPEED.
AND THAT JUST SEEMS LIKE REALLY, REALLY A BAD IDEA.
UH, THOSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE TO THE LAST SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER SHANE.
SO I, IT IS NOT REALLY EVEN A COMPROMISE.
I MEAN, WHEN, WHEN YOU START OUT AND YOU OWE NOTHING, BUT YOU HAVE A LINE OF CREDIT TO START THE CONSTRUCTION, ALL OF A SUDDEN FIRST THING IS, OH, I GOT TO WRITE THIS.
WHAT ARE, LET'S SAY, A MILLION DOLLAR CHECK OUT AND YOU START PAYING INTEREST ON THAT IMMEDIATELY WHEN THERE'S NOT EVEN A SHOVEL IN THE GROUND.
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE'RE TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO MAKE HOUSING OR EVEN DEVELOPMENT, MORE AFFORDABLE.
I MEAN, PART OF IT IS TO FIND CREATIVE WAYS TO BE ABLE TO ELIMINATE THOSE, THESE UNNECESSARY COSTS.
I MEAN, THIS JUST GOES TO THE BANK, THEY'RE COLLECTING INTEREST ON THIS AND NOBODY'S USING SWING SET.
THE ONLY PERSON BENEFITING IS THE BANK, YOU KNOW, SO I MEAN, I, I CAN'T SUPPORT IT.
AND, AND THE PREVIOUS MOTION DIDN'T SAY AT, YOU KNOW, IT, IT ALLOWED A CREATIVE PROCESS.
IT SAYS BEFORE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
SO IT ALLOWED US TO CRAFT POTENTIALLY SOME WAY TO, TO WORK AND CRAFT THIS THING.
NOT AT TIME OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IT'S IS BEFORE.
UH, SO LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, WHICH IS, UM, I GUESS IT JUST ABBREVIATE AND ALL FEES SHOULD BE COLLECTED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL.
AND BEFORE THE PERMIT IS ISSUED, IS THAT CORRECT? COMMISSIONER COX.
UH, AND THAT WAS SECONDED BY, ON SPOLETO.
THAT'S GOT THOSE ON THE DIETS IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
THAT'S A, AND THEN LET'S GO AND DO THOSE ON THE DYESS, UH, AGAINST THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
AND THEN THOSE ON THE SCREEN AND ANDERSON HOWARD AND FLORES.
SO THAT MOTION FAILS WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, COMMISSIONER ZAR, VICE CHAIR, HEMPEL, UH, COMMISSIONER SHEA, UH, COMMISSIONERS, UM, HOWARD, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON FLORES VOTING AGAINST.
SO WE MOVED BACK TO THE ORIGINAL EMOTION, WHICH IS, UH, LET ME READ IT ONE MORE.
THIS IS A COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER.
SHAY, ALL FEES SHOULD BE COLLECTED BEFORE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS ISSUED.
IS THAT CORRECT? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS SIDE ITEM.
THERE'S ON, UH, VIRTUAL, UH, IN FAVOR FIRST.
[02:30:02]
OKAY.AND, UH, THOSE ON THE DIOCESE AGAINST, AND LET'S SEE THOSE AGAINST.
COX AND YOU KNOW, THIS PLACE, SO THAT ONE PASSES YELLOW.
SO THAT MOTION PASSES WITH, UM, COMMISSIONERS SHAW AND COMMISSIONER COX VOTING AGAINST AND COMMISSIONER YANAS PALITO.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE, WHICH I BELIEVE IS NUMBER 11.
UM, AND LET'S SEE WHO PULLED THIS ONE? LET'S SEE.
I'M NOT PLUGGED IN COMING TO SHOW YOU.
YOU WANT TO GO AND SPEAK? YOU HAVE THE RECORD, MR. RIVERA.
I JUST THINK IT WAS SORT OF PULLING A, I WANTED TO HEAR MORE FROM STAFF BECAUSE I THINK THE COSTS WOULD, LET ME GO AND ASK MY QUESTION.
SO, UM, WE DID GET A LITTLE INPUT FROM STAFF, BUT I THINK WHAT STRUCK ME IS THIS IS SPEAKING TO THE FEE, UH, AND NOT THE DEDICATION AMOUNT.
SO IT WOULD BE IN THE URBAN CORE.
IT'S NOT AFFECTING YOUR ABILITY.
AS I UNDERSTAND, TO ASK FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY UP TO THE AMOUNTS UP TO THAT 15%, BUT THEN THE REMAINING FEE, THERE'S SOME REDUCTION IN THE FEE AMOUNT, WITHIN THE URBAN CORE.
SO I HAVE A CONCERN THAT STAFF AND I THINK, UM, AND I GUESS I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR CONCERN AND IF YOU CAN, IS THIS IS ACTUALLY WITHIN THE URBAN CORE.
SO IT'S GONNA KEEP US FROM BEING ABLE TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY WITHIN THE URBAN CORE.
UH, PLEASE, IF YOU COULD JUST, UH, EXPRESS YOUR, GOING TO COMMUNICATE YOUR CONCERNS ON THIS ONE, I GUESS IN THE URBAN CORE OF THE FEES, WOULD, YOU KNOW, IF THE ORIGINAL PARKLAND DEDICATION, RATHER THAN HAVING A PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE, THAT WAS ACTUALLY BASED ON IN A LOT OF ORDINANCES CROSS-COUNTRY ARE BASED ON THE ACTUAL APPRAISED VALUE OF THE LAND, UH, WHERE THE PROJECTS TAKING PLACE, UH, URBAN CORE WOULD ACTUALLY BE A LOT FEE IN LIEU WOULD BE A LOT HIGHER IF IT WAS ROUGHLY PROPORTIONATE.
UM, SO I HAD TROUBLE FINDING THE, THE REASONING.
I THINK THE, WHAT THE WAS QUOTED WAS ABOUT THE STREET IMPACT FEE.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HAS TO DO, BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY NEW STREETS BEING BUILT DOWNTOWN.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT, WHY THAT FEE IS LOWER.
UM, UH, I DON'T KNOW THE REASONING BEHIND THAT, BUT, UH, I I'M CONFUSED ON WHY THIS WOULD BE A PROPOSAL, UH, IN THE URBAN CORE TO HAVE A LOWER FEE THAN OUTSIDE THE URBAN CORE.
THE URBAN CORE FOR PARKLAND DEDICATION IS BASED BY 180 3 ON THE, ON THE EAST, BEEN WIDE ON THE SOUTH MOPAC UP TO LAKE AUSTIN LAKE AUSTIN, AFTER 360 360 UP TO 22, 22, 22 TO BACK TO MOPAC UP TO 180 3, THAT'S CONSIDERED THE URBAN CORE FOR PARKLAND DEDICATION.
THAT'S A LARGE AREA OF THE CITY, UH, THAT I THINK YOU'RE PROPOSING TO, UH, I GUESS, REDUCE THE, THE FEES JUST BY SOME ARBITRARY.
DO WE HAVE A DEFICIENT PARKLAND WITHIN THE URBAN CORE? I MEAN, CAUSE I THINK THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT WE HAVE, THERE ARE MORE PARKS IN THE URBAN CORE.
TH THERE ARE DEFICIENT PARK AREAS WITHIN THE URBAN CORE.
WE, WE ALSO HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A QUARTER MILE WALKING DISTANCE TO A PARK WITHIN THE URBAN CORE.
SO THERE'S A HIGHER FREQUENCY OF PARKS, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE, UH, PER COUNCIL RESOLUTION WE'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PARKS WITHIN A QUARTER MILE AS OPPOSED TO WITHIN A HALF MILE IN THAT, UM, OUTSIDE THE THANK YOU, THAT'S MY TIME.
UH, OTHER COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
CAN I JUST HAVE A COMMENT ON, UH, I THINK ON WHY SOME OF THIS IS AS USEFUL AND I THINK IT'S THAT THAT LAND WITHIN THE URBAN CORE IS ALSO MORE ACCESSIBLE AND MORE SUSTAINABLE AND MORE SUPPORTABLE.
SO THERE'S, THERE'S MORE TRANSIT OPTIONS TO THAT LAND WITHIN THE URBAN CORE.
SO EVEN IF YOU CAN'T BUY AS BIG
[02:35:01]
OF A PARK, IF MORE PEOPLE CAN USE IT BECAUSE YOU CAN TAKE A BUS THERE.THEN THE W I THINK THE IDEA IS AS WITH SOME OF THOSE OTHER FEES, IT'S TOO INCENT TO INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPERS TO TRY TO BUILD WITHIN THAT URBAN CORE RATHER THAN JUST SAY, OH, WELL, I COULD BUILD, YOU KNOW, A PROJECT OUTSIDE THE URBAN CORE OR INSIDE THE URBAN CORE OUTSIDE THE URBAN CORE, YOU KNOW, LAND IS CHEAPER.
DEVELOPMENT FEES MIGHT BE CHEAPER, ET CETERA.
UM, SO IT'S TO TRY TO GIVE THAT ENCOURAGEMENT.
UH, WE HAVE OTHER WAIT, DID SHE SAY IN THE URBAN CORE, IT WAS A QUARTER MILE, SO YOU WANT IN THE URBAN CORE, YOU WANT IT TO BE CLOSER TOGETHER.
IT'S A FIVE MINUTE WALK WITHIN THE URBAN CORE.
BUT I GUESS WHAT YOU WERE SAYING IS THAT THERE'S MORE ACCESS TO, TO GET AROUND.
SO I'D RATHER TAKE A 10 MINUTE WALK, YOU KNOW, UH, ALONG SOUTH CONGRESS THAN A, THAN A FIVE MINUTE WALK ALONG PALMER.
AND I'M THINKING MESSED UP, BUT IT FLIPPED THEN BECAUSE THEN AN URBAN CORE WALKING TO A PARK OF HALF MILE, YOU'RE WILLING TO WALK THAT 10 MINUTES VERSUS, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, IT'S, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S KIND OF ESSENTIALLY TO JUST GET AT THE EYE AND IT JUST DOCK WITH THE ITEM AND I'M NOT GOING TO THE VILLAGE TO, DO YOU HAVE THE IDEA? I THINK THE IDEA WAS THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENTIALS IN TERMS OF NEED FOR PARKLAND AND FOR THE COST OF PROVIDING THAT PARKLAND IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CITY.
AND THAT NUANCE DOES NOT EXIST IN THIS ORDINANCE OR FORMULA CURRENTLY, CURRENTLY YOU COULD BE BUILDING AN OFFICE IN MONTOPOLIS AND THE AVERAGE WOULD INCLUDE THE COST OF BUYING IN BULK SONYA'S GAGNON LAND OR IN DOWNTOWN.
AND THOSE SAME COSTS ARE BEING APPLIED TO YOU, JUST IT LACKS NUANCE BECAUSE WE HAVE A FLAT FEE ACROSS THE CITY AND ALLOWING A DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN GORE VERSUS OUTSIDE.
THE CORE WAS ESSENTIALLY IN SEEING THAT THE CORE, EVEN, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR A QUARTER MILE ACTUALLY HAS FEWER PARKLAND DEFICIENT AREAS THAN OUTSIDE OF THE CORE.
THERE'S A TRUE NEED FOR NEWER BARK LAND OUTSIDE OF THE CORE TO MEET OUR DEFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS.
OF COURSE, THAT NEED EXISTS IN THE CORE, BUT IT'S NOT AT THE SAME LEVEL.
SO REQUIRING A FEE THAT ESSENTIALLY RELATES TO THAT NEED CARE.
COMMISSIONER COX HAS BEEN TRYING TO GET YOUR COMMISSIONER COPS.
I I'VE, UH, UNCONFLICTED ON THIS AND I'M HOPING WE CAN EXPLORE SOME UNINTENDED POTENTIAL UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES BECAUSE I ORIGINALLY, I INITIALLY THOUGHT, I MEAN, THIS MAKES SENSE, BUT, UH, THEN I'VE HAD OTHER PEOPLE TELL ME, WELL, WE'LL BE CAREFUL.
AND, AND I'M CURIOUS, I'M INTERESTED TO HEAR FROM STAFF IF, IF STAFF'S POSITION IS, YOU KNOW, TO GET PARKLAND AND DEFICIENT AREAS, UM, INCLUDING THE URBAN CORE AND HAVE WHATEVER QUARTER MILE, WHATEVER THAT THAT GOAL IS.
UM, IF, IF WE END UP REDUCING THE FEE OR DEVELOPMENTS THE FEE IN LIEU PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENTS IN THE URBAN CORE, DOES PARP SEE THE POTENTIAL OF THEM REQUIRING MORE OFTEN DEDICATED PARKLAND FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT SHOW UP IN FRONT OF THEM FOR REVIEW BETTER IN THE URBAN CORE? IS, IS THERE A POTENTIAL UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE HERE THAT REDUCING THE FEE THEN MAKES PARD MORE INCLINED TO ACTUALLY ASK FOR DEDICATED PARKLAND FOR PROJECTS IN THE URBAN CORE? THAT COULD BE A POSSIBILITY.
I THINK THEY'RE JUST, THERE ARE SOME LARGE, VERY LARGE TRACKS IN THE URBAN CORE.
AND I'M LOOKING AT A MAP HERE OF THE PARK DEFICIENCY WITHIN THE URBAN CORE.
UM, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE THE BRACKENRIDGE TRACK MUNI, UM, JUST RIGHT ALONG TOWN LAKE.
THAT KIND OF STRUCK ME RIGHT OFF THE BAT WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THIS MAP.
AND THEN, UM, THERE, THERE ARE AREAS IN THE SOUTHEAST ALONG EAST RIVERSIDE, OR THAT ARE EXTREMELY PARKED DEFICIENT, UH, THAT Y'ALL ARE INCLUDING IN THIS PROPOSAL.
SO IT'S A LITTLE CONCERNING, UH, TO ME, UH, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S ACHIEVING, UH, THE DESIRED OUTCOME.
UM, THERE, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MONTOPOLIS EAST RIVERSIDE AREA, THAT'S PARKED DEFICIENT,
[02:40:01]
UM, AND OLD TOUR FERIA, THAT'S PARKED DEFICIENT.WE WOULD BE REDUCING THOSE FEE IN LIEU OF THERE, UH, WHERE THERE'S LOTS OF OPPORTUNITIES TO ACQUIRE PARKLAND.
UM, AND WE'RE ACTIVELY PURSUING THIS.
SO, UH, ANYWAY, UH, WE'LL LET Y'ALL KNOW.
OBVIOUSLY THE QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONERS ARE WITH ONE OF HIS COMMENTS CAUSE, CAUSE WHAT, WHAT YOU DESCRIBED IS COMING UP WITH A WAY TO CRAFT IT MORE.
AND THE ISSUE WITH THIS ONE IS THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE URBAN CORE, AND AS WE'VE JUST SEEN IS THAT THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF URBAN CORE.
SO MAYBE THE IDEA IS TO REPHRASE IT BECAUSE I SEE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS FINDING WAY TO TAILOR IT.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? AND THIS LEADS UP TO THE WHOLE DISCUSSION.
WELL, I GUESS WE APPROVED IT, BUT THE WHOLE IDEA OF FOR INSTANCE, GREAT STREETS, YOU KNOW, TO ME THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A FACTOR INTO HOW WE ADJUST THE, YOU KNOW, RETWEAK WHAT THE, UM, ANCHORAGE PER PERSON IS.
UM, BUT THOSE ARE THE NUANCES THAT WE WANT TO PROVIDE FOR.
SO MAYBE IT'S MORE ABOUT TWEAKING THIS INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING URBAN CORE, BUT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY JUST QUICKLY, CAUSE I KNOW WE'RE OUT OF TIME, CERTAINLY.
I THINK THAT'S THE INTENTION AND I DON'T WANT US TO GET LOST IN THE GORE VERSUS OUTER GORE.
I WOULD RATHER JUST GO BROAD IF THAT IS THE WIDTH OF THE BODY.
I THINK WE'RE OUT OF QUESTIONS ON THAT.
SO, OR ENTERTAINING MOTIONS AT THIS POINT.
UM, I HAVE A NEW PROPOSALS, MR. THOMPSON, I'LL MOVE THE WORKING GROUPS AMENDMENT.
SO WE HAVE A SECOND VICE CHAIR.
YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION, WHICH FROM THOMPSON? UM, I THINK IT'S JUST, LIKE I SAID, I WANT TO ENCOURAGE AND THE, THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL SPACES AND OFFICE SPACES IN THE URBAN CORE AND NOT ON, ON THE EXTERNAL SIDE, UM, MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE MORE DEFINITIONS OF LIKE A CORE, CORE URBAN CORE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT, BUT THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE THOSE.
AND SO LET'S JUST WORK WITH WHAT THE CITY HAS AND IF THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO COME UP WITH, YOU KNOW, MORE IN THE FUTURE, WE COME BACK AND REVISIT IT OR OKAY.
THIS SPEAKING AGAINST, UH, COMMISSIONER YANS, PALITO.
I APPRECIATE THE INTENTIONS BEHIND THIS AMENDMENT.
UM, I, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE IDEA THAT THERE'S LESS OF A NEED FOR PARKLAND DEDICATION WITHIN THE URBAN CORE.
FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S HUGE DISCREPANCIES WITHIN WHAT WE CONSIDER THE URBAN CORE, WHICH HAS REALLY BEEN ALL LUMPED TOGETHER AS AUSTIN'S BROKEN, BROKEN DRAMATICALLY.
SO, UM, TO THE POINT MADE BY STAFF ABOUT EAST RIVERSIDE, THERE'S HUGE DISCREPANCIES THERE.
AND THE BIGGEST REASON I THINK, UM, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS IS SIMPLY BECAUSE DENSITY IS GREATER IN THE URBAN CORE AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE GREATER IN THE URBAN CORE, WHICH MEANS THAT THERE IS A GREATER NEED FOR GREEN SPACE BECAUSE THE MORE PEOPLE WE HAVE, THE MORE PUBLIC GREEN SPACE, WE WILL NEED TO OFFSET AND MITIGATE SOME OF THE EFFECTS OF THAT INCREASED DENSITY.
AND SO I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE, UM, KEEPING THAT PRIORITY, UH, EQUALLY HIGH IN THE URBAN CORE WHERE LAND IS MORE EXPENSIVE.
UH, THOSE SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION CHAIR.
CHAIR, CAN I MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION? YES, YOU CAN.
THAT'S WHAT I SEEM TO BE DOING ONLY.
UM, I MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, UM, THAT WE RECOMMEND INSTITUTING A LOWER FEE FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN AN AREA WITHIN THE AREA BOUND BY 45TH IN THE NORTH 45TH STREET IN THE NORTH OLD FOURTH IN THE SOUTH MOPAC IN THE WEST AND
SO, UM, DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THIS SECOND? IT, OKAY.
COMMISSIONER IS OUR SECRETARY GO AND SPEAK TO HER EMOTION COMMISSIONER COX.
SO I'M LOOKING AT THE PARKLAND DEFICIENCY MAP.
AND MY, MY CONCERN, UM, IS TWOFOLD.
WE DO HAVE A LOT OF PRETTY LARGE SWATHS OF DEFICIENT AREAS, UH, PARTICULARLY IN THE NORTHERN PART
[02:45:01]
OF THE CORE AND THE EASTERN PART OF THE CORE, UM, THAT WE DEFINE AS THE CORE.UM, BUT ALSO I'M CONCERNED THAT IF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THIS COULD BE THAT WE ENDED UP ACQUIRING PARKLAND THROUGH THE DEDICATION ORDINANCE WITHIN THE CORE, THAT MAY NOT BE THE BEST AREA FOR A PARK, BUT PARK FEELS LIKE THEY NEED TO EMPLOY THEIR ABILITY TO GET DEDICATED LAND THROUGH THIS PROCESS BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET ENOUGH FEE TO ACQUIRE ARSAL WITHIN THE CORE THAT THEY TRULY WANT.
UM, I JUST, I JUST AM, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND THE AREA THAT I'VE DEFINED.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PARKLAND EFFICIENCY MAP, THAT AREA IS VERY WELL SERVED BY EXISTING PARKS.
UM, AND THAT'S WHERE PROBABLY WE'LL WANT TO ENCOURAGE THE HIGHEST DENSITY DEVELOPMENT.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I'M PROPOSING THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UH, CAN WE BE SURE TO SPEAK AGAINST, UH, I MEAN, SO BY HAVING THE URBAN CORE, RATHER THAN TRYING TO DEVELOP SOME AD HOC NEW DEFINITION OF URBANITY ON THE, UH, ON THE DYESS, W YOU KNOW, YOU'LL BE LEAVING OUT LARGE SECTIONS OF LAND NEXT TO THE NEW, YOU KNOW, PROJECT CONNECT LINES, UM, YOU KNOW, ALONG RIVERSIDE, ALONG NORTH, YOU KNOW, THE NORTH, THE ORANGE LINE.
AND IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE, YOU KNOW, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S THE POINT OF THE URBAN CORE, TRY TO ENCOURAGE THIS DEVELOPMENT WHERE WE, WE ARE, WE, WE CAN LEVERAGE THAT THE MOST WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE'RE DOING OTHER INVESTMENTS WE'RE MAKING IN TERMS OF TRANSPORTATION, IN TERMS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WE'RE ENCOURAGING AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO BE ALONG OUR CORRIDORS.
IF WE SAY THAT THE PARKS, YOU KNOW, IF WE ENCOURAGE OFFICE BUILDINGS TO BUILD ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE PERIMETER, WE'RE JUST GOING TO BE IN A REAL MESS.
UH, SPEAK IN FAVOR, SPEAK AGAINST, UM, OKAY.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS SIDE.
I'M SO THIS IS GOING, UM, COMMISSIONER COX, CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND READ THIS ONE MORE TIME FOR THE BODY? YEAH, YEAH.
UM, INSTITUTE OR LOW FEE FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN AN AREA BOUND BY 45TH STREET IN THE NORTH FULL TOUR IN THE SOUTH LOW PACK IN THE WEST AND 35 IN THE EAST.
AND THOSE ON THE DICE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION? UM, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER SHEA, UH, THERE'S ON THE SCREEN.
AND THAT VOTING AGAINST THIS MOTION ON THE DICE.
AND THAT'S VERY AGAINST IT, UH, PERSONALLY.
SO THAT ONE FAILS, UM, AND, UH, VOTING AGAINST THE SIDE ITEM WAS SWISHER SAMPLE THOMPSON, SHAW ANDERSON FLORES, AND HOWARD.
UH, WE WENT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL EMOTION, WHICH WAS A WORKING GROUP OR POSED, UM, AS, YEAH, AS PROPOSED BY THE WORKING GROUP NUMBER 11.
AND I'M JUST GOING TO GO TO REED INSTITUTE, A LOWER FEE FOR CONSTRUCTION WITH THE URBAN CORE PARALLEL TO PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS WITHIN SECTION 25 DASH ONE DASH 6 0 2.
AND THAT WAS A COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR.
HEMPEL UH, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS SIDE.
AND THOSE ON THE DIAS GOT, UH, THOMPSON SHIT IN THAT'S CHAIR.
THAT WAS ON THE SCREEN AND UNDERSTAND FLORES.
[02:50:01]
THOSE AGAINST THIS MOTION YOU'RE VOTING IN FAVOR.THAT IS AGAINST THE DYESS SHAW AND THOSE AGAINST YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT.
WHAT ARE YOU VOTING? COMMISSIONER CUTS, RIGHT? OKAY.
SO ITEM 11 PASSES SEVEN TO THREE, WHICH, UH, COMMISSIONER SHAW, UH, COX.
AND YOU GOT A SPLIT OF VOTING AGAINST THAT ITEM.
ARE WE DONE? OH, SO HOW DO WE WRAP THIS UP? AND THEN I WAS CONFUSED.
SO NOW WE'RE ENTERTAINING INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
SO, UM, WE'LL GO, WELL, LET ME ASK THIS, WHO HAS AN INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT? OKAY.
SO, SO WE'RE GOING TO GO IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER.
AND, UH, SO ORDER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT IN THE WORKING GROUP.
SO I'LL GO THE VICE CHAIR AND HEMPEL, AND THEN WE'LL GO WITH MR. THOMPSON DID ON THE VIRTUALLY ATTENDEES.
DID ANYONE HAVE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS? NONE.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE THREE, BUT YES, YOU, YOU CAN COME IF YOU DO, YOU WILL GET BACK TO YOU.
UH, JUST SEEING KIND OF WHAT TIME DO WE HAVE? IT'S 8 56.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO ONE, AND THEN WE'LL TAKE A BREAK AFTER, UH, WE, UM, THE VICE CHAIR PRESENTS HER INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT.
SO JUST TO REMIND YOU, WE, SAME THING, UH, GO AHEAD AND PROPOSE HER AMENDMENT AND WE CAN ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, AND THEN YOU CAN FINALIZE THAT AMENDMENT AND WE'LL, WE'LL DEBATE IT AT THAT POINT.
UM, WELL, I'LL PROPOSE IT, BUT I'M GOING TO HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S REALISTIC.
UM, SO A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THIS IDEA HERE IS THE CITY HAS DONE AND, AND PUT FORTH A LOT OF EFFORT ON MULTIPLE MASTER PLANS NOW CALLED VISION PLANS IN THE CITY.
UM, THERE'S UM, WALL, TREE LONG THERE'S TREVIÑO THERE'S, UM, LAMAR BEACH NOW OF VELMA OR OVERTON SENIOR ZILKER PARK IS ONGOING RIGHT NOW.
THERE'S BEEN, UM, COST ESTIMATES AND PHASING STRATEGIES PUT FORTH IN ALL OF THOSE MASTER PLANS, A LOT OF REALLY WONDERFUL IDEAS.
AND THAT'S FOR ALL OVER THE CITY, THERE'S EVEN TRAIL MASTER PLANS, LIKE THE WILLIAMSON CREEK MASTER PLAN THAT WAS DONE.
THAT'S REALLY EXCITING TO SEE IF THESE ARE GOING TO GET IMPLEMENTED, BUT THAT IS THE QUESTION IS HOW ARE THEY GOING TO GET IMPLEMENTED? EACH ONE OF THOSE PLANS HAS AN EXTRAVAGANT COST ESTIMATE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
AND THAT'S JUST WHAT IT TAKES TO BUILD A PARK, NOT TO MENTION MAINTAINING IT.
SO THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION TONIGHT ABOUT MAINTENANCE OF PARKS.
IF WE'RE ACQUIRING NEW LAND, HOW ARE WE THEN MAINTAINING THE PARKS THAT WE DO HAVE, AND THEN THE PARTS THAT WILL WE'RE BUILDING AND THEN MAINTAINING FOR THE FUTURE, ALL GREAT QUESTIONS.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S STATE LIMITATIONS TO WHAT WE CAN DO, BUT MY, UM, AMENDMENT IS, UM, TO DO WITH HOW WE CAN MOVE FORWARD, THESE VISION PLANS THAT WERE DONE.
AND SO I'M HOPING THAT THE WORDING HERE OR THE TERMINOLOGY WORKS OUT.
SO MY AMENDMENT WOULD BE THAT PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE OR DEVELOPMENT FEE, PARKLAND, DEDICATION FEE, MAYBE DEDICATED TOWARDS IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW PROJECTS WITHIN EXISTING PARKS THAT HAVE AN ADOPTED VISION PLAN IN PLACE.
CAN YOU REPEAT THAT ONE MORE TIME? JUST THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE MAY BE DEDICATED TOWARDS IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW PROJECTS WITHIN EXISTING PARKS THAT HAVE AN ADOPTED VISION PLAN IN PLACE.
DOES THAT MEAN LIKE WITHOUT OUTSIDE THE GENERAL DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS? AND THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS.
UM, I THINK THERE, YOU COULD, YOU COULD DO IT GEOGRAPHICALLY TO WHERE IT WOULD HAVE TO AFFECT A MASTER PLAN OR A VISION PLAN THAT WAS WITHIN A SET DISTANCE.
UM, BUT MY HOPE WOULD BE THAT THE FEE WOULD BE ABLE TO GO TOWARDS HELPING TO MOVE FORWARD.
SOME OF THESE FOR SO LONG, BECAUSE THERE JUST HASN'T BEEN ANY FUNDING.
[02:55:01]
THREE LONG, FOR INSTANCE, I DON'T KNOW, INSTANCE, I DON'T SEE A LOT OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING AROUND THERE FOR A WHILE NOW.UM, AND THERE ARE PROBABLY OLDER VISION PLANS THAN THAT, BUT THAT'S A START.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S GOING TO BE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS WITH THAT, BUT OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND, AND THOUGHTS FEEDBACK.
SO I GUESS THE QUESTION TO STAFF YES.
THAT I WOULD THINK WE WOULD WANT TO DIRECT STAFF OF IT AS STAFF TO COME IN ON THAT PROPOSAL.
AND THEN, BUT I THINK I NEED A SECOND FOR THAT TO EVEN, WELL, WE ARE.
JUST, I THINK WE'RE KIND OF LIKE WE DID BEFORE WE HAD A WORKING GROUP, IT'S A FRAMEWORK.
SO I THINK WE'RE IN STILL, YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS THAT WE WANT CAN GET ANSWERED BEFORE WE SECOND IT, IF IN CASE YOU WANT TO TWEAK.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE, THIS IS KIND OF LIKE MOVIE DID BEFORE WE HAD A WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT.
THIS IS YOUR AMENDMENT, BUT WE'RE ALLOWING FOR THREE COMMISSIONERS STATUS QUESTIONS OF STAFF, OR GET MORE INPUT BEFORE WE PUT THE FINAL TOUCHES ON IT.
I'M CURIOUS IN HOW WE, I LIKE THIS IDEA HOW WE WOULD ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT IT AND DIRECT FUNDING TO THESE VISION PLANS.
ARE YOU READY FOR STAFF CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? I UNDERSTAND THAT THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT, MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR HERE IS THAT, UH, YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO USE THE, UH, COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE IN LIEU OF, TOWARDS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PARKS THAT HAVE VISION PLANS AND YES, WITH THIS, WITH THE SPECIFICS, BECAUSE I KNOW WE CAN'T DIRECT THAT MONEY TOWARDS MAINTENANCE, LIKE THE TENNIS COURT EXAMPLE, BUT A LOT OF THESE VISION PLANS HAVE NEW PROJECTS.
SO TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW FACILITIES IN VISION PLANTS, UM, WE, WE CURRENTLY DO THAT WITH RESIDENTIAL.
UH, IF A PARK HAS A VISION PLAN, WE START, YOU KNOW, ASSIGNING MONEY TOWARDS THAT PARK.
UM, WHAT WE, WE DO IT WITH THE, WITH THE SPENDING CRITERIA INVOLVED AS WELL.
SO IS THE SUGGESTION TO MODIFY WHAT WE HAVE FOR RESIDENTIAL EXPENDITURE, I GUESS, UH, FOR LIKE A METRO PARK, YOU MENTIONED A METRO PARK, WALTER, HE LOG THAT HAS A VISION PLAN.
SO ANY FEES COLLECTED WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA PARK PLANNING AREA OF WALTER ELONG WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THAT PARK CURRENTLY, AS FAR AS RESIDENTIAL IS CONCERNED AND WHERE YOU WANT TO MODIFY THAT TO INCLUDE MAYBE THE ENTIRE CITY OR RIGHT.
SO, UM, MY THINKING IS THAT BECAUSE, UM, COMMERCIAL MAY NOT BE AS PREVALENT THROUGHOUT THE CITY AS RESIDENTIAL MAYBE, UM, THAT THE COMMERCIAL FEES THAT ARE PAID IN WOULDN'T BE GEOGRAPHICALLY BOUND NECESSARILY, BUT THEN HELP TO, UM, BUILD OUT SOME OF THE, THE IDEAS AND THE VISION PLAN, UH, BASED ON HOW LONG THOSE PLANS HAVE BEEN IN PLACE.
UM, JUST TO TRY TO GET THEM MOVING.
AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT GEOGRAPHICALLY BOUND, UM, PART OF THE CODE WAS, WAS PER STATE REGULATIONS OR, YOU KNOW, THE GETTING INTO THE NEXUS, BUT, UM, IT'S, IT'S UNDER THE, UH, BEST PRACTICES IN, IN, UH, SOME SUGGESTION, UH, FROM DR.
CROMPTON THAT ALL PARKLAND DEDICATION, ORDINANCES INCLUDE US EXTENDING CRITERIA.
UM, MY RECENT VISIT WITH HIM, UH, PROBABLY THREE MONTHS AGO, UM, HE HAD HAD SOME DIFFERENT THOUGHTS, UH, WITH SOME ORDINANCES THAT HE'S WORKING ON FOR OTHER MUNICIPALITIES, AS FAR AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE ORDINANCES.
AND HAVING THAT SUGGESTING THAT, UH, TRANSPORTATION, YOU KNOW, PARKS PARK IN THOSE FEES CAN BE EXPENDED AND ABROAD, LARGER AREA RATHER THAN MORE BUT SUCH A REFINED AREA THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY.
UH, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO EXPLORE THAT, THAT LANGUAGE.
[03:00:01]
WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WITH RESIDENTIAL, THAT IS CURRENT PRACTICE THAT WE DO.UH, IF WE HAVE A PARK THAT HAS A VISION PLAN THAT WE'VE WORKED WITH THE COMMUNITY OWN, WE, WE TRY TO ASSIGN FUNDING THAT'S AVAILABLE IN THAT AREA TOWARDS THOSE PARKS.
BRIDGET, APPRECIATE THE THOUGHTS.
SO, UH, JUST QUESTION WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE, I GUESS THE COMMERCIAL MONIES THAT YOU HAVE, I MEAN, IT WOULD BE APPLIED IN THE SAME WAY, IS THAT THE, THE IDEA AND THEN W WE HAD PROPOSED, UH, WITH THE EXISTING ORDINANCE AND THE LANGUAGE TO THE EXTENDING CRITERIA TO BE THE EXACT SAME AS RESIDENTIAL.
I BELIEVE THAT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED CURRENTLY IS THAT WE EXPAND THAT EXPENDITURE CRITERIA TO BE A LITTLE BIT BROADER THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY.
SO IF THERE IS A VISION PLAN, UH, WITHIN THE CITY THAT, UH, COMMERCIAL FEES WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THAT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VISION.
SO I'M ON A BEAT BECAUSE I ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT THAT, THAT USE OF THE FUNDS IN THE AREA THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, IN THE, OF THE DEVELOPMENT WAS, THAT'S NOT STATE LAW.
THERE'S THERE'S NOT A PARTICULAR STATE LAW.
IT'S A LOT OF CASE LAW THAT'S INVOLVED AROUND IT.
UH, BUT THERE HAS TO BE A CLEAR BENEFIT TO THE RESIDENTS IN, IN THE RESIDENTIAL ORDINANCE.
THERE HAS TO BE A CLEAR BENEFIT TO THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE GENERATING THE FEE.
SO, SO THE ARGUMENT IS, IS YOU DON'T, IF YOU, IF THE RESIDENTS LIVE IN NORTH AUSTIN AND YOU DEVELOP A PARK OR BUY LAND IN SOUTH AUSTIN, HOW LIKELY ARE THEY GOING TO GO TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD PARK IN SOUTH AUSTIN G LEFT? SO YOU BUY IT WITHIN THAT GENERAL AREA.
UM, UH, COMMERCIAL WOULD, WOULD BE THE SAME WAY, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE LANGUAGE IN THERE RIGHT NOW FOR METRO PARKS THAT ARE INSIDE A PLANNING AREA, PARK PLANNING AREA, UH, UH, I BELIEVE WE CALL IT SERVICE AREA.
UM, AND ANY FEES WITHIN THAT CAN BE SPENT AT THE METRO PARK.
SO YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING SIMILAR TO ANY FEES THAT ARE COLLECTED IN THAT CAN BE SPENT AT A PARK THAT HAS A VISION PLAN, UH, ASSOCIATED WITH IT, THAT SOMETHING YOU WANT US TO LOOK FURTHER INTO.
CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION THAT WE COULD ALSO LOOK AT PARKS THAT ARE URBAN TRAILS, BECAUSE I THINK MAYBE THAT WOULD SORT OF FIT WITHIN THAT, THAT TRANSPORTATION, ESPECIALLY IF THIS IS FOR COMMUTERS OR PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO GET FROM OUTSIDE OF THE CITY.
UM, SO LIKE THE, UM, THE BURKE STRUMMING SPURRED AND THINGS LIKE THAT IN YES, WE'RE ACTIVELY PURSUING THE ACQUISITION OF THE BERTRAM SPUR AND, AND, UH, HAVE PLD PLAY, UH, ASSIGNED TO THAT.
BUT YES, I THINK THAT WOULD BE, UH, CONSIDERED, UH, WE CAN LOOK AT THAT.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A, UH, UH, A VISION, NOT JUST A VISION PLAN, BUT MAYBE A, UH, OKAY.
UH, I DON'T KNOW, UH, URBAN TRAIL PLAN, LONG RANGE PLAN, VISION PLAN FOR THAT.
SO WE HAVE, UH, JUST ONE MORE SPOT.
SO I HAVE A CONCERN CAUSE MY, MY, MY BIG CONCERN IS LIKE, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME DOUBLE DIPPING HERE, RIGHT? BECAUSE IF LET'S SAY I COMMIT MY, YOU KNOW, FEES AND I ALSO COMMIT THE LAND, AND THEN THIS FUNDS ENDS UP GOING TO SOME OTHER PARK IN METRO THAT IN AN AREA THAT IS NOT GEOGRAPHICALLY BOUND, WHICH CAUSES THE AREA TO SOMEHOW CONTINUE TO BE A LITTLE MORE, YOU KNOW, NOT HIT THE, YOU KNOW, THE WELL CONTINUE TO BE IN THAT PARK DEFICIENCY ROUND.
THEN THEY GO, OKAY, WELL NOW WE'RE GOING TO KEEP CHARGING THE NEXT DEVELOPER NEXT MONTH BECAUSE THERE'S, IT'S BASICALLY, THERE'S A LEAK IN THIS, YOU KNOW, IN THIS BUCKET, THAT'S GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE.
SO EVERYBODY COMES IN TO KEEP PAYING INTO THIS.
I MEAN, I APPRECIATE THE CONCEPT, BUT IS THIS GOING TO CAUSE THAT, I GUESS THE DOUBLE-DIPPING, I DON'T KNOW IF DOUBLE-DIPPING IS CORRECT.
WELL, I GUESS DOUBLE CH I'M NOT CHARGING HIM, YOU KNOW, DUE TO THE, FUND'S GOING TO ANOTHER PARK, THE, THE GETTING CLOSER TO, UM, DECREASING THE PART DEFICIENCY.
IT TAKES LONGER BECAUSE THE FUND'S NOT STAYING IN THAT AREA.
SO EVERYBODY ELSE KEEPS COMING AND KEEPS
[03:05:01]
PAYING MORE TO, TO CATCH UP ME, I GUESS, EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT, A LITTLE BIT FURTHER ABOUT THE PLANNING AREAS THAT I WAS SUGGESTING, UH, THERE, UH, 26 THAT ARE WITHIN THE FULL PURPOSE.UH, SO IT'S NOT AS MUCH AS GOING FROM ONE GENERAL AREA OF THE CITY TO ANOTHER.
IT WOULD STILL BE WITHIN THAT 26, 1 OF THOSE 26 PLANNING AREAS, SERVICE AREAS.
SO THERE ARE A LOT SMALLER THAN, I GUESS IT WOULD NOT LEAVE THE GENERAL AREA AND THOSE FUNDS WOULD NOT LEAVE THEM.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT IS NOW, BUT MY CONCERN IS WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS, IS TO GO BEYOND THAT.
IS THAT, I MEAN, I, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE COMMUNICATION HERE AND OKAY.
AND LET ME GO BACK TO THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT.
AND THE WAY I WAS SUGGESTING IS THAT, UM, AND I, AND IT'S PROBABLY MY, UH, MY FAULT.
I APOLOGIZE FOR RELAYING, UH, THE PROPOSAL, BUT THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT IS THAT, UH, LOOKING FOR A BROADER WAYS TO, UH, EXPEND THESE FEES ON VISION PLANTS, AND CURRENTLY IN THE RESIDENTIAL, WE ALLOW FEES THAT ARE COLLECTED IN A PLANNING AREA, A SERVICE AREA, ONE OF 26 THROUGHOUT THE CITY, UH, TO BE SPENT AT A METRO PARK IF THEY WERE COLLECTED IN THAT WAY IN THEIR HAND.
AND I THINK EXPANDING THAT TO A PARK THAT HAS A VISION PLAN, THAT SAME CRITERIA, THE PARK THAT HAS A VISION PLAN WITHIN THAT POINT IN THE AREA, UH, IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD LOOK AT.
AND THAT IS WITHIN THAT GEOGRAPHIC WOULD BE WITHIN THAT SMALLER GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, UH, OF WHERE THEY ARE THEY'RE COLLECTED.
IS THAT WHAT IT IS? CAUSE THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE WHAT YOU WERE PROPOSING? WELL, THE QUESTION WAS THERE AREN'T THAT I KNOW OF 26 VISION PLANS HAVE A VISION PLAN HAPPENING AND EACH OF THOSE PLANNING AREAS.
SO IF WE WERE TO HAVE IT WHERE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN ONLY GO WITHIN THAT, A VISION PLAN WITHIN THAT PLANNING AREA, IT'S, IT'S NOT ACHIEVING WHAT I HAD ENVISIONED OF ACTUALLY TACKLING THESE VISION PLANS WITH HUGE PRICE TAGS, THAT IF THIS IS A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, I GET THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE OF IT.
LIKE YOU WANT TO BE PUTTING MONEY TOWARDS A PARK THAT YOU WILL VISIT WHEN YOU LIVE THERE, BUT ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE OF IT, THESE ARE PEOPLE COMING IN FROM WHO KNOWS WHERE TO, I THINK IT'S JUST IMPROVED IN, IN MY MIND, IT'S IMPROVING THE PARK SYSTEM AS A WHOLE, BUT I GUESS TO ME, THE PRESENTATION OF THIS WHOLE ASPECT OF PARKLAND DEDICATION FOR COMMERCIAL WAS THAT P EMPLOYEES WOULD BE USING IT, WHICH IS COUNTER TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING IT'S FOR THE RESIDENTIAL, BUT THE IDEA WAS THE COMMERCIAL PART NEEDS THAT AS WELL.
SO IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY TO STAY WITHIN THAT, THAT AREAS PLAN.
I ALSO THOUGHT THAT THE COMMERCIAL FEE WAS HELPING TO OFFSET SOME OF THE RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE REQUIREMENT.
I THINK I ASKED THAT I'LL JUST INTERJECT.
I THINK THE ANSWER WAS THAT NO, IT DOESN'T REALLY DO THAT, THAT IT DOESN'T OFFSET RESIDENTIAL FEES.
IT WON'T NO, IT JUST ACCOUNTS FOR THE IMPACT OF THE USERS.
SO THE COMMERCIAL FEE ACCOUNTS FOR THE IMPACT OF THE COMMERCIAL USERS, IT'S SEPARATE FROM THE IMPACT OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT USERS.
SIS QUESTION DURING THE WORKDAY.
SO, WELL, I STARTED WITH THE AMENDMENT WHERE IDEALLY, I THINK IT WOULD LIKE IT TO GO, BUT YOU KNOW, WE'LL COME TO WHERE IT NEEDS TO GO BASED ON COMMENTS.
SO JUST HELP WITH THE CRAFTING.
I LIKE THE IDEA OF PRIORITIZING DIRECTING FUN, YOU KNOW, MAYBE PRIORITIZING TOWARD THOSE VISION PLANS.
I ALSO LIKED THE IDEA OF MAYBE BROADENING THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, BUT STILL KEEP IT IN THE REGION.
UH, MAYBE NOT AS TIGHT AS RESIDENTIAL, I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK OF A WAY TO KIND OF RECOMMEND.
LET'S LOOK AT A LITTLE BROADER AREA.
LET'S PRIORITIZE FUNDING TO THESE VISION PLANS.
MAYBE WITH THOSE TWO ELEMENTS, WE KIND OF GET TO WHERE YOU WANT TO GO WITH THIS.
SO, UM, JUST THAT'S WHAT I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR.
I JUST THINK NEW, WE NEED TO TIGHTEN IT UP A LITTLE BIT.
I THINK, I THINK FOR ME IT'S MORE ABOUT THAT GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY.
CAUSE I, IF, BECAUSE OF LIKE THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED ABOUT FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THAT AREA, IF THE FUNDS ARE GOING WAY OUT TO AN AREA THAT THEY'RE NOT VENTURING, THEN I'M LIKE, WELL, THEN THAT BREAKS DOWN THE WHOLE PURPOSE, YOU KNOW, OF WHAT
[03:10:01]
THEY WERE SHOWING.AND I, I KNOW WE'RE PROBABLY VIOLATING THE RULES, BUT AN EXAMPLE, UM, ZILKER PARK, AND I KNOW THAT'S THE CENTRAL PARK FOR ALL OF AUSTIN.
SO AS AN EMPLOYEE, NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE IN AUSTIN, YOU'RE GOING TO BE GOING TO THAT PART LIKELY.
AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF IMPACT TO THAT PARK THAT DOESN'T SEE THE FUNDING AND THE RESIDENTIAL.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL HAPPENING TO THEN PAY TOWARDS THOSE VISION PLANS THAT ARE HAPPENING.
UM, EACH, EACH VISION PLAN IS GOING TO HAVE A DIFFERENT KIND OF RECIPE THERE OF, OF THAT.
SO THAT, THAT WAS WHY I THOUGHT.
AND MAYBE IT'S INSTEAD OF GOING, CITY-WIDE, IT'S TWO TIERS OF, OF THE GEOGRAPHIC READING OR WHATEVER.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE I THINK THE CRAFTING, I APPRECIATE THE CRAFTING TO INCORPORATE THE LANGUAGE FOR THE CONSIDERATION DURING, YOU KNOW, LIKE TO SEE WHAT THAT MEANS, BUT VERSUS JUST LEAVING IT JUST COMPLETELY OPEN, UM, SOMETHING THAT DOES SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST AS A START AND WHO KNOWS THAT MIGHT BE THREE TIERS OUT.
WE DON'T KNOW WHERE IT WOULD END UP, BUT I THINK WE COULD START SOMEWHERE WITH SOME TYPE OF, YOU KNOW, RELATIVE BOUNDARY.
IT COULD BE LARGER, YOU KNOW? SO I, WHAT WERE YOU CALLING THESE, UH, WHAT KIND OF VISION PLANS JUST ARE THEY PARKS? WHAT ARE THEY ADOPTED? PARK VISION PLAN.
SO I HAVE A, UH, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE PARK OR TRAIL.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND SEE IF THIS, UM, IF YOU'RE OPEN TO IT, UH, UH, IT SAYS PARD, UH, PRIORITIZE COMMERCIAL, UH, I'M SORRY.
PARD PRIORITIZE, USE OF COMMERCIAL PARKLAND, DEDICATION FUNDS TO ADOPTED PARK OR TRAIL VISION PLANS AND ALLOW USE OF THE FUNDS IN BROADER GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS THAN THE RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE.
SO THAT WAS KIND OF THAT SEEKS TO FOCUSING THAT MONEY TO THESE VISION PLANS FROM THE COMMERCIAL, AS WELL AS ALLOWING FOR MORE, A BROADER AREA THAN THEY DO UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL AND LEAVE IT VAGUE ENOUGH THAT LAST CRAFTING.
UH, SO I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT AS A MOTION IF I CAN GET A SECOND.
UM, SO, UH, I'M NOT GONNA, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO TALK ABOUT THIS NOW, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, MEMBERS AGAINST THIS MOTION FOR, AND I'M NOT GOING TO WASTE TOO MUCH TIME? I THINK THIS IS A GOOD DISCUSSION.
I, YOU KNOW, I WORKED ON THE COLONY PARK, SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY INITIATIVE IN 2014 AND THE FOLKS THERE REALLY SAT DOWN AND TALKED ABOUT WHAT AMENITIES THEY WANTED.
AND I WANT TO SAY HERE WE ARE EIGHT YEARS LATER AND WE'VE BEEN NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE THOSE.
SO I THINK I HEAR THE CONCERN THAT PATRICIA WAS RAISING, BUT I HOPE THAT THIS CAN BE A PATHWAY TO REALLY PROVIDING THOSE OPPORTUNITIES TO FOLKS WHO MIGHT NOT OTHERWISE HAVE THEM, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT IS THERE STILL TO FUND WITHIN THAT GEOGRAPHIC BONE.
ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK FOR, OR AGAINST THIS MOTION? KEEP HER PHONE.
UH, COULD YOU REPEAT THE MOTION? YES.
SO WE'LL UM, SO THE MOTION IS FOR PIRATE TO PRIORITIZE USE OF COMMERCIAL PARKLAND, DEDICATED DEDICATION FUNDS TO ADOPTED PARK OR TRAIL VISION PLANS AND ALLOW USE OF THE FUNDS IN A BROADER GEOGRAPHICAL AREA THAN DOES THE RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION.
OREGON'S EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THAT? OKAY.
SO THAT'S A MOTION BY YOUR CHAIR, SECRETARY BY THE VICE CHAIR.
AND, UH, THOSE ON THE DAYAS IN FAVOR.
UH THAT'S EVERYONE, THOSE ON THE VIRTUAL, I SEE 1, 2, 3, 4.
SO WE HAVE EVERYBODY IN FAVOR WITH THE HONEST FLEET OF VOTED ABSTAINING FROM THAT MOTION.
UH, SO THE SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, YOU HAD THE, WELL, LET'S TAKE A, WE TAKE A QUICK BREAK, UH, FIVE MINUTES RECONVENE AT 9 25, AND THEN HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET DONE WITH THE NEXT TWO AND DONE BY THEN.
I NEED TO GO TO THE VENDING MACHINE.
A HUNDRED PERCENT NEED A SNACK
[03:15:05]
OKAY.UM, THIS MEETING BACK TO ORDER AT 9 29, UM, WE WERE CONSIDERING INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS TO THE, UH, PROPOSED COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION, UH, ORDINANCE.
AND, UM, LET ME JUST MAKE A COUNT HERE.
UH, SO, UH, NEXT WAS, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
I THINK YOU HAD AN INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT THAT YOU WANTED TO BRING UP FOR DISCUSSION.
AND I THINK I TALKED IN OUR LAST SESSION ABOUT PARKLAND, UM, ABOUT THE, UM, FEELING LIKE WE WEREN'T ACCOUNTING FOR THE RESIDENTS OF AUSTIN WHO COMMUTE TO OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN IN OUR FORMULA.
AND JUST SORT OF GET BACK TO THE SWING SET ANALOGY.
I UNDERSTAND THE, THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION.
IF PEOPLE COME IN TO WORK IN AUSTIN AND THEY'RE LUNCHTIME, THEY GO OUT AND SIT ON A SWING SET.
IF WE'VE GOT A LOT OF MORE PEOPLE, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH SWING SETS.
SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUILD SOME EXTRA ONES FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMMUTERS, BUT THAT DOESN'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT SOME PEOPLE LIVE IN AUSTIN, THEY PAID A PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE WHEN THEIR CONDO WAS BUILT, BUT THEY'RE ACTUALLY COMMUTING, YOU KNOW, UP TO ROUND ROCK OR, OR, UM, OUT TO WESTLAKE.
AND AT LUNCHTIME, THEY'RE NOT IN AUSTIN AND THEY'RE NOT SITTING ON THE SWING SETS THAT THEY PAID FOR.
UM, SO THE FORMULA WOULD JUST BE RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A PERCENTAGE THAT, THAT COMMUTE TO AUSTIN AND I, AND I, I APPRECIATE THAT THE 38% IS SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED IN 58%.
AND I THINK THAT'S A, PROBABLY A MORE ACCURATE NUMBER, BUT WE'D ALSO LIKE TO SORT OF REDUCE THAT FURTHER WITH THE NUMBER THAT LIVE IN AUSTIN AND COMMUTE ELSEWHERE.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS.
I I'VE BEEN SORT OF LOOKING ONLINE AND SEE A NUMBER IN BETWEEN 30 AND 10%.
UM, SO I'LL, I'LL S I'LL PROPOSE MY AMENDMENT WITH THE 10%.
I THINK I DID ASK STAFF IF THEY COULD COME UP WITH THAT NUMBER.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF HAVE A BETTER NUMBER THAT THEY COULD USE TO FOR THAT SITUATION.
UH, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
SO WE DID PROVIDE A RESPONSE THAT WAS INCLUDED IN BACKUP AS WELL.
SO THE SURVEY THAT WE'RE USING THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY, THERE ARE, UH, 74,000 ROUGHLY WORKERS LIVING IN AUSTIN WORKING OUTSIDE OF A HOSTON.
AND SO WHAT WOULD THAT BE A PERCENTAGE OF AUSTIN WORKERS OR SO I BELIEVE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, UM, THOSE RESIDING IN THE CITY AND OUTSIDE, ACCORDING TO SAN SURVEYS, 747,000.
SO THAT, THAT NUMBER THOUGH DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR EMPLOYEES THAT ARE EMPLOYED OUTSIDE OF THE JURISDICTION.
SO THE 700,000 JOBS IN AUSTIN DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR JOBS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS.
SO OUR DATASET DOES NOT INCLUDE JOBS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS.
IT ONLY INCLUDES JOBS IN AUSTIN BECAUSE THAT'S THE IMPACT THAT TRYING TO CAPTURE, RIGHT? BUT I GUESS WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THERE ARE 74,000 SWING SETS AVAILABLE THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE USED IF THOSE PEOPLE WORKED IN AUSTIN.
AND SO LET'S REDUCE THE 74,000 SWING SETS FROM, FROM THE NUMBER THAT YOU HAVE.
SO THEIR RESIDENTS ARE, ARE CAPTURED UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL ORDINANCE AND THEY SORT OF HAVE, ARE CAPTURED, IS HAVING A FULL TIME FEE.
AND IT'S, UM, TOM HAS A GOOD ANALOGY WHERE IT'S SORT OF THE EQUIVALENT TO OWNING SOMETHING AS OPPOSED TO SUBSCRIBING TO SOMETHING.
SO WHEN YOU OWN SOMETHING, YOU HAVE SORT OF RESIDUAL BENEFITS THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO SORT OF AT ANY TIME.
SO SICK DAYS, THEY'RE HOME IN AUSTIN POTENTIALLY, OR VACATION DAYS, HOME IN AUSTIN, POTENTIALLY IMPACTING THE PARKLAND, WHEREAS, UM, A SUBSCRIPTION TO SOMETHING YOU SORT OF BETTER ANALOGY FOR WORKFORCE.
YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND I GET YOUR PHILOSOPHY.
I GUESS MY PHILOSOPHY WAS WE'RE BUYING SOME EXTRA SWING SETS.
CAUSE SOME PEOPLE COME IN AND THEY'D LIKE TO, OR PARK BENCHES.
CAUSE THEY LIKE TO SIT ON A PARK BENCH AND EAT THEIR SANDWICH AT LUNCHTIME.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE THE PARK BENCHES FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BASTROP AND EATING THEIR
[03:20:01]
LUNCH ON A BASTROP PARK BENCH.SO WE DON'T HAVE TO BUY QUITE AS MANY PARK BENCHES FOR EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE IN AUSTIN.
WE ONLY HAVE TO BUY THEM FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY WORK IN AUSTIN.
SO WE SHOULD BE REDUCED THAT FOUR MINUTES SHOULD BE REDUCING IT BY THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T WORK HERE.
SO I'M PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TWO TO REDUCE THAT 38% MINUS 10% FOR THE PEOPLE WHO REVERSE COMMUTE.
MR. KOTZ, YOU HAVE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR THE MOTION MAKER.
YEAH, I'VE GOT A QUESTION PROBABLY FOR BOTH.
UM, I KIND OF FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A CLASSIC GRAPH THAT, YOU KNOW, SHOWS LIKE THE FURTHER YOU GO DOWN A RABBIT HOLE, THE LESS RETURN YOU GET HIT.
AND I KIND OF FEEL LIKE THIS IS HEADING IN THAT DIRECTION BECAUSE WHAT I WOULD ASK IS WHAT ABOUT ALL THE UPS, WAREHOUSES AND AMAZON WAREHOUSES THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS.
AND, BUT THEY'VE GOT EMPLOYEES THAT MAYBE DON'T EVEN LIVE IN THE CITY LIMITS, BUT THEY'RE HERE AND ON THEIR LUNCH BREAK, THEY TAKE THEIR AMAZON VAN TO A PARK AND EAT LUNCH THERE OR SWINGING IN ONE OF COMMISSIONER THOMPSON'S SWING SETS.
SO IT, I FEEL LIKE WE COULD, WE COULD GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO LIKE AN INFANT FISMA LEZ LEVEL IF WE WANTED TO, AND PROBABLY CHIP AWAY AT THE 10% OR MAYBE A LITTLE BIT ADDS PERCENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO, TO STAFF IS WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT COMMISSIONER THOMPSON HAS, IS SUGGESTING, UM, DO YOU THINK THAT THERE'S OTHER KIND OF GRANULARITIES THAT ARE NOT BEING ACCOUNTED FOR SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE'S PROBABLY AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF GRANULARITIES THAT COULD POTENTIALLY ADD TO WHAT HE'S SAYING OR SUBTRACT TO WOULDN'T YOU SAY, UH, COMMISSIONER, ARE YOU REFERRING TO ADDITIONAL DISCOUNTS POTENTIALLY THAT COULD BE ENCLOSED.
IS THERE ANYWHERE IN THE FORMULAS THAT WE'RE TAKING THAT ACCOUNT FOR PEOPLE WHO WORK PHYSICALLY IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, BUT MAYBE THEIR EMPLOYMENT ADDRESS IS NOT IN THE CITY OF BOSTON AND MAYBE THEY DON'T EVEN LIVE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
SO THAT IT, THAT IS THE DATA THAT WE ARE USING.
THE ACS DATA HAS A SURVEY QUESTION TO THE EMPLOYEE, TO THE WORKER THAT STATES, WHERE DID YOU PHYSICALLY WORK LAST WEEK? AND THAT'S THE ADDRESS WHERE THEY ARE PHYSICALLY LOCATED.
SO A CONSTRUCTION WORKER THAT WORKS AT MULTIPLE DIFFERENT JOBS SITES IN AND OUT OF THE CITY WOULD HAVE IN A GIVEN WEEK THAT CA WOULD BE CAPTURED INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF THE CITY.
AND THOSE LISTING AN ADDRESS WITHIN THE CITY WOULD BE CAPTURED IN THIS ORDINANCE.
SO THOSE WORKING, I DON'T KNOW HOW A DELIVERY DRIVER WOULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT I ASSUME IF THEIR WAREHOUSE IS OUTSIDE, THAT THEY'RE DELIVERING IN SIDE, THEY, THEY MAY USE THEIR DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHICH ADDRESS DO YOU USE.
SO, SO THERE'S, I GUESS YOU'RE GETTING AT MY POINT WHERE WE, THERE'S A, THERE'S A LEVEL OF DETAIL THERE THAT THAT'S A LITTLE BIT GRAY IN TERMS OF HOW MANY EMPLOYEES WOULD ACTUALLY BE COUNTED THAT ARE SUPPOSEDLY USING ALL THESE SWINGS.
AND I THINK THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF FACTORS WE COULD BE LOOKING AT.
AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS, IS PUSH FORWARD A ORDINANCE THAT WILL HELP US KEEP PACE WITH GROWTH TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY WITH, WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE ESSENTIAL NEXUS IN ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY.
AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, I DON'T THINK Y'ALL KNOW THIS, BUT, BUT WITH THE DATASET YOU HAVE, DO WE KNOW HOW MANY UPS, FEDEX, AMAZON, UBER DELIVERY, WHATEVER DRIVERS ARE IN THE CITY AT ANY GIVEN TIME, NOT OFF THE TOP OF OUR HEAD, WE CAN MAYBE LOOK INTO THE METAL, GIVE YOU ANY NUMBER.
I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIND A ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY.
YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU MENTIONED 70,000 TO COMMISSIONER THOMPSON'S POINT.
SO I'M JUST CURIOUS IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE CLOSE TO THAT, OR NO, THERE'S NOT 70,000, BUT IF THERE'S 7,000 OR 700 OR I DON'T KNOW.
SO I WAS JUST, I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE GETTING INTO LEVEL GRADES MAY NOT BE
[03:25:01]
OFFICIAL AT THE CHAIR.COLIN HAD A COMMENT, I THINK, SORRY, COMMISSIONER COX.
I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, I HAVE A FRIEND WHO OWNS A DSP IN CEDAR CREEK, WHICH IS IN BASTROP COUNTY, UH, EMPLOYS 1500 PEOPLE OF WHICH ALMOST A THOUSAND ARE DRIVERS THAT DO DRIVE INTO AUSTIN.
I KNOW AMAZON'S USING, YOU KNOW, OVER A HUNDRED OF THEM IN OUR AREA.
SO IT COULD, IT COULD BE A REALLY BIG NUMBER.
I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, THIS IS SUCH A DATA WONKY QUESTION.
I CANNOT BELIEVE WE WERE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION, PLANNING COMMISSION, HOW EXCITING.
UM, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THERE IS A DATASET CALLED, UM, THERE'S A DUAL CALLED ON THE MAP THAT DOES EXIST FROM THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS.
THAT LOADS LOOKS AT LONGITUDINAL EMPLOYMENT, HOUSEHOLD DYNAMICS, DATA, AND ACTUALLY HAS INFLOW OUTFLOW.
SO IT ACTUALLY TELLS YOU HOW MANY FOLKS WORK LIVE IN THE CITY, WORK IN THE CITY.
HOW MANY FOLKS LIVE OUT TO THE CITY, WORK IN THE CITY? HOW MANY FOLKS LIVE IN THE CITY AND WORK OUTSIDE THE CITY? AND THAT IS AVAILABLE.
JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE FOR ONCE MY PHD COMES IN HANDY.
SO CAN I JUST RESPOND TO IT? THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL SOURCE OF THE DATA WAS THE LHD LOADS DATA, WHICH WAS 58%.
AND WE REFINED THAT TO THE ACS DATA TO BE MORE ACCURATE OF THE PHYSICAL LOCATION OF WORKERS.
UM, SO WE LOOKED FOR, YOU KNOW, THE CITY DEMOGRAPHERS RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO WE DID LOOK AT THAT DATA, UM, AND THEN WE'LL FIND IT FURTHER TO USE THE ACS DATA.
DO WE HAVE, UM, EMOTION, UH, MR. THOMPSON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS? UM, IT WAS TO ADJUST THE FORMULA, UM, BY SUBTRACTING 10%, UH, FOR REVERSE COMMUTERS, IF THEY CAN COME UP WITH A BETTER NUMBER THAN THAT 10% BETWEEN NOW AND COUNCIL, THEN THEY CAN SUGGEST THAT TO COUNSEL.
UH, I WOULD, WOULD BE HAPPY TO LOOK AT THAT NUMBER.
I JUST TO GO BACK AND TRY TO EXPLAIN WHAT OR EXPAND ON WHAT ROBIN HAS EXPLAINED EARLIER.
AND THAT WAS THAT, UH, THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE IS TRYING TO CAPTURE THE WORKERS THAT ARE COMING INTO AUSTIN AND HAVE SEEN WHAT THEIR IMPACT IS ON, UM, OUR PARK SYSTEM.
AND I THINK WE'VE DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF DOING THAT.
UH, WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO CAPTURE HERE IS, IS OUR RESIDENTS THAT PAY UP, UH, PARKLAND, DEDICATION ORDINANCE, UH, FEE FOR, YOU KNOW, ASSUMING THEIR DEVELOPER WHEN THEY DEVELOP THEIR MULTIFAMILY OR CONDO OR WHATEVER, PAYDAY, UH, PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE.
SO YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR A REDUCTION IN, IN THE, IN THE, THE, UH, RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE FOR PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE, BUT WORK ELSEWHERE.
CAUSE THEY'RE NOT HERE ALL THE TIME RATHER THAN WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO CAPTURE HERE.
I GUESS WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT IT'S NOT THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE IMPACT ON THE PARK AND THE SWING SETS AREN'T TAKEN UP.
I THINK, YEAH, LET ME, LET ME EXPLAIN.
IT IS NOT JUST THE, THE SWING SETS TAKEN UP, BUT IT'S ALSO THE NUMBER OF SWINGS.
SO IF THERE'S A, IF, IF SOMEBODY SWINGS AN EXTRA SWING, THAT'S THE WEAR AND TEAR ON THE EXISTING SWING.
SO IF, UH, A TURF FIELD ONLY HAS SO MANY HOURS THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY PLAY AN ACTIVE GAME ON IT BEFORE THAT TURF DIES.
SO I MEAN THEIR, THEIR EQUIPMENT PLAY EQUIPMENT IS DESIGNED, BUT IT WILL WEAR OUT AFTER A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SLIDES, A SLIDE IS GOING TO WEAR OUT.
SO THOSE WORKERS, WHETHER THEY USE THAT SLIDE OR THEY USE THAT SWING AND SWING ON AT ONE TIME, THAT'S AN IMPACT TO THE PARK SYSTEM.
SO I MIGHT BE MISSING THE POINT, BUT I BELIEVE WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DESCRIBE IS THAT THE, UH, PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE WHERE THEY, THEY PAID A PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE, BUT THEY GO ELSEWHERE.
SO THEY'RE MISSING DURING THE DAY AT SOME POINT IN TIME, UH, THAT, THAT THEIR RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES SHOULD BE REDUCED BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN WORK IN ANOTHER CITY, I THINK.
DOES THAT MAKE, MAKE SENSE TO WHAT, HOW I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN IT? OR AM I MISSING YOUR POINT? I APOLOGIZE, COMMISSIONER.
NO, WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF BEYOND OUR Q AND A, SO WE'RE IN THE MOTION MAKING.
SO, UM, UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE GONNA DELIBERATE ON THIS MOTION HERE, WHICH I'M GOING TO READ IT AGAIN.
UH, TELL ME IF THIS IS CORRECT.
[03:30:01]
BY 10% TO ACCOUNT FOR THE, UH, FOR THE, UM, I'M MISSING A WORD HERE WITH THE REVERSE COMMUTERS OF REVERSE COMMUTERS, UH, OR, OR A MORE ACCURATE, WELL, THIS IS UP TO YOU COMMISSIONER OR A MORE ACCURATE NUMBER OF PRIOR TO ADOPTION BY COUNCIL.SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THIS MOTION? UH, COMMISSIONER SHADE WENT, TALKED TO HIM A BIT.
DO YOU WANT TO ADD MORE TO YOUR MOTION? OKAY.
UH, THOSE WANT TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER COX.
I'M REALLY STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND, HEY, WE CHARGE BASED ON RESIDENT AND THEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHARGING BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE.
SO I'M NOT, I DON'T, I CANNOT GET THROUGH MY HEAD WHY WE WOULD DISCOUNT THE AMOUNT OF PARKLAND OR FEE AND LU FOR COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT IS BEING BUILT IN AUSTIN FOR PEOPLE WHO WORK IN AUSTIN, BECAUSE SOME RESIDENTS DRIVE OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN TO WORK.
WE'RE NOT, WE DIDN'T CHARGE WHEREVER THE RESIDENT IN AUSTIN THAT DRIVES TO BUDA TO WORK.
WE DIDN'T CHARGE IS BUDA OFFICE DEVELOPMENT, A PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE.
WE'RE ONLY APPLYING THE ACREAGE AND THE FEE IN LIEU AMOUNTS TO OFFICE SPACE, COMMERCIAL SPACE IN AUSTIN FOR AUSTIN WORKERS.
SO I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD DISCOUNT THAT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT APPLYING THIS FEE TO THE OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL SPACES FOR THOSE REVERSE COMMUTERS.
SO IT JUST, TO ME, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
AND THAT'S WHILE I'LL BE VOTING, NO.
ANY OTHERS VOTE IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD.
AND, UM, THERE'S NO OPPOSITION.
THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A VOTE ON THIS, UM, UH, MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SECONDED BY, UH, SHAY.
AND ARE WE CLEAR ON IT? DO I NEED TO READ IT ONE MORE TIME? OKAY.
THOSE VOTING IN FAVOR ON THE DYESS, THE MOTION.
AND THOSE ON THIS VIRTUAL VOTING AND PAPER OKAY.
THOSE VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION.
ANDERSON, DO YOU VOTE IN FAVOR? OKAY.
AND THEN THOSE FIGHTING AGAINST ON THE DYESS.
UM, AND THOSE, SHE DOES READ ZIP BECAUSE I GOTTA LOG THESE IN HOWARD.
SO THAT MOTION FAILS ONE, TWO, YES.
WITH, UM, VICE-CHAIR, HEMPEL JEFF SHAW, FISHERS, COX JADA'S PLUTO, AND, UM, HOWARD VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION.
SO, UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE, UH, JUST, UH, A MOTION RELATED.
UM, LET ME SEE WHERE I WROTE THIS DOWN AND IT'S JUST, WE HAVE A MOTION THAT PASSED JUST FOR STAFF TO, UH, LOOK AT THE NUMBERS ANNUALLY.
AND SO CAN I JUST MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10 30? OH, THANK YOU.
HOPEFULLY WE WON'T NEED IT ALL.
UM, SO MY PROPOSAL JUST TO IS IN THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT, UM, RECOMMENDED BY PC, UM, CON UH, CONSIDER MODIFYING THE FORMULA TO ACCOUNT FOR THOSE THAT LIVE IN AUSTIN AND WORK OUTSIDE THE PARK SERVICE AREA.
SO THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS JUST ASK STAFF TO LOOK AT THIS, UM, WHEN THEY DO THEIR ANNUAL REVIEW THAT WE'VE RECOMMENDED AND SEEING IF THEY CAN GET A BETTER NUMBERS, UM, AND COME BACK TO US AT THAT TIME, SINCE WE ARE, IF COUNCIL DOES AGREE WITH US WITH THIS KIND OF ANNUAL REVIEW, UH, WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THE WE'RE IN KIND OF THIS VERY DYNAMIC TIME PERIOD WITH COVID.
AND I THINK COMMISSIONER COX EXPLAINED IT, BUT, UH, THAT WE WANT TO LOOK AT THE NUMBERS PROBABLY OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS AND SEE HOW THEY'VE CHANGED IN SOME, MAYBE MORE ANALYSIS TO, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON'S POINT COULD BE DONE DURING THAT TIME TO SEE IF THERE
[03:35:01]
IS, THIS IS SOMETHING WE WANT TO CONSIDER IN THE FORMULA.SO THAT'S KIND OF THE REASON, UM, WE NEED ANY, ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS.
SO, AND I'LL, IF I NEED HELP, IF ANYBODY HAS BETTER WORDING, BUT IT'S JUST IN THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDER MODIFYING THE FORMULA TO ACCOUNT FOR THOSE THAT LIVE IN AUSTIN AND WORK OUTSIDE THE PARK SERVICE AREA.
SO IT'S JUST ASKING TO CONSIDER THIS NEXT, WHEN WE DO OUR ANNUAL ASSESSMENT, DO I HAVE A SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER ARE OKAY.
I DON'T HAVE ANY, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY FORESTS OR AGAINST ON THIS ITEM, CHAIR, CHAIR, YES.
I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST DIFFERENT LANGUAGE, BUT I GUESS THE SECOND I'D HAVE TO DO SUBSTITUTE AND YOU CAN DO AN AMENDMENT OR A SUBSTITUTE IF IT'S A MINOR CHANGE, BUT IF IT'S SIGNIFICANT TO A SUBSTITUTION, WELL, YOU TELL ME IF IT'S A MINOR CHANGE.
I WAS JUST GOING TO SUGGEST THAT YOU ADD AND OTHER POSSIBLE PARK USERS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR SO THAT WE, WE BROADEN THE SCOPE OF THAT ANALYSIS, NOT JUST TO REVERSE COMMUTERS, BUT ANY GROUP OF ANY POPULATION GROUP THAT WE MAY NOT BE ACCOUNTING FOR, THAT THAT ACTUALLY DO USE OUR PARKS.
DO YOU HAVE A I'LL SECOND THAT, UM, I JUST CALL IT AN AMENDMENT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S IT'S AMENDMENT.
AND QUESTION, THE QUESTION IS, SO IF, IF, IF WE FIND THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, SOCCER TEAM FROM, UM, ROLLING WOOD COMES IN AND PLAYS ON A SOCCER FIELD, UH, EVERY, EVERY WEEK, THREE TIMES A WEEK, WHAT HAPPENS? REACH THAT, SOCK IT TO WALMART.
I, I, I THINK THE IDEA IS JUST TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.
ARE WE DEALING WITH A LOT OF REVERSE COMMUTERS? ARE WE DEALING WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T INDICATE IN THOSE SURVEYS THAT THEY WORK IN AUSTIN, BUT MAYBE THEY STILL USE OUR PARKS? JUST, JUST TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE MAGNITUDE OF POTENTIAL POPULATION GROUPS THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THESE FORMULAS.
UH, THIS TIME, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS IS AN AMENDMENT YOU CAN ASK STAFF OR ASK MOTION MAKER OR OTHER WHATEVER.
SO, UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT AND THEN WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION.
SO THE AMENDMENT IS JUST TO ADD LANGUAGE, UH, TO ADD AND OTHER PARK USERS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR.
SO, UH, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THAT AMENDMENT ON THE DYESS, UH, THIS IN FAVOR, UH, DOES AGAINST, OKAY.
AND THOSE, UH, IN FAVOR ON THE SCREEN GOING AGAINST, UH, LET'S SEE, 1, 2, 3, 4, AND THAT'S AGAINST ANDERSON.
SO THAT AMENDMENT PASSES, UH, WITH VICE CHAIR.
WELL, DOES IT BY SIR? HEMPEL, UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND VICE THOMPSON, YOU VOTED AGAINST FOR AGAINST, AGAINST.
SO THAT PASSES SEVEN TO THREE.
SO BACK TO THE, UH, THE MAIN, UH, MOTION WITH, WITH THE AMENDMENT, UM, I'LL READ IT ONE MORE TIME IN THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT CONSIDER MODIFYING FORMULAS TO ACCOUNT FOR THOSE THAT, UH, LIVE IN AUSTIN AND WORK OUTSIDE THE PARK SERVICE AREA.
BUT, UH, AND THE AMENDMENT IS TO ALISON LOOK AT, UH, IN OTHER PARK USERS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS ONE.
UH, THOSE ON THE DYES FOR AND AGAINST YES, PLEASE.
OH, I'M AGAINST SPEAK AGAINST, I GUESS I'M JUST, I UNDERSTAND THE ORIGINAL GET BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE PARKLAND DEDICATION.
WE HAD, YOU KNOW, NINE SOMETHING ACRES OF PARK FOR EVERY RESIDENT.
WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE THAT SORT OF RATIO AS WE GROW.
AND NOW I'M JUST KIND OF GETTING TO, IS THAT REALLY
[03:40:01]
OUR GOAL HERE STILL IS WE'RE TRYING TO FIND OUT ON ACCOUNTED USERS BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE UNACCOUNTED USERS WERE IN 1972.WE KNOW HOW MANY RESIDENTS WE HAD IN 1972 AND HOW MANY PARKLAND ACRES WE HAD.
AND WE CAN SEE IF WE'RE GROWING OR WE'RE LOSING.
AND WE SAW THAT WE WERE LOSING, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY KIDS FROM ROLLINGWOOD CAME IN AND PLAYED SOCCER ON THE, UH, ON OUR FIELDS AND, AND 72, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY DO IT TODAY.
AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND IF THAT'S A PROBLEM OR, AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S GONE FROM, LET'S TRY TO CORRECT A NEGATIVE TRAJECTORY WE'RE ON TO, CAN WE STICK IT TO SOMEBODY FOR SOME MONEY, FOR SOME MORE PARKS, AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, A WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT W YOU KNOW, WE'RE DEVELOPING IN THE DIRECTION THAT WE WANT TO DIRECT.
AND SO JUST TRYING TO FIND WHO'S USING THE PARKS AND WHAT'S HAPPENING, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S NOT, WE WERE, WE WERE HERE FIRST AND WE BUILT A WALL AND NO ONE ELSE CAN COME IN AND USE OUR PARKS UNLESS THEY, THEY PAY US THAT, THAT SHOULDN'T BE THE PHILOSOPHY THAT, THAT AUSTIN HAS.
AND I DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN THAT DIRECTION.
UH, THOSE SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST.
OKAY, WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
UM, SO, UH, THOSE ON THE DICE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AMENDMENT GOT TO THREE, AND, UM, THOSE ON THE DYESS, I MEAN, THOSE ON THE VIRTUAL.
DOES AGAINST SOME, THE DYESS, UM, LET'S SEE, THOMPSON AND SHEA AND THOSE AGAINST, ON THIS FRAME.
SO THAT, UM, IF I'M GOT MY NUMBERS, RIGHT.
THAT MOTION PASSED THE SEVEN TO THREE.
UH, NOW WE'RE TO, I THINK COMMISSIONER AZHAR YOU HAD AN INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT.
SO, UM, MY AMENDMENT RELATES TO A LOT OF THE CONVERSATION WE'RE TAUGHT WHEN TALKING ABOUT, UM, ABOUT SPACES THAT I FEEL IN MANY PEOPLE FEEL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED INTO THE PARKLAND CALCULATION.
UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, I'LL READ THE REAL QUICK, IF ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS THEY CAN ASK, BUT CREATE A PARKLAND CREDIT, UH, TOWARD AREA TARGET RATIOS BASED UPON PUBLIC REALM AMENITIES AND PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, PRIVATELY OWNED, OPEN SPACE.
AND SO WHAT THIS IS WANTING TO TAKE IN CONSIDERATION IS, UH, FOR INSTANCE, THE GREAT STREETS, UM, ASPECTS OF UNO, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT EVEN, UM, AREAS LIKE AROUND, UM, THE SOUTH SHORE AREAS, TRYING TO CREATE, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH WIDER SIDEWALKS, I MEAN, A DIFFERENT CROSS SECTION OF THE DIFFERENT TREES.
I MEAN, WE ARE EFFECTIVELY CREATING, UM, PARK LEN TYPE USABLE SPACE IN OUR, IN OUR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS.
YOU KNOW, IT CAN BE CONSIDERED EVEN WHETHER THERE BE, UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE WIDE BIKE ROUTES OR JOGGING TRAILS, DIFFERENT THINGS.
AND THIS ISN'T SPECIFICALLY LIKE, HEY, THIS IS A LOT 12 OF THIS, AND THIS IS A PARK.
THIS IS LITERALLY, YOU KNOW, OUR PUBLIC REALM THAT WE ARE NOW USING AS A PARK SPACE.
AND IF WE CONSIDER THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, CAUSE IT, IT WOULD, IT WOULD TWEAK THE, UM, THE NUMBERS, YOU KNOW, WHETHER SOMETHING IS, UM, YOU KNOW, TRULY DEFICIENT OR NOT BASED UPON TRUE USE BY INDIVIDUALS VERSUS JUST LIKE, HEY, THIS IS A PARK AND THAT'S NOT.
SO THOSE AMENITIES COULD BE, LIKE I SAID, I MEAN, LIKE WHEN WE SAT, WHEN I SAT ON DESIGN COMMISSION, WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE QUALITY OF OPEN SPACE.
AND WE EVEN DOWNTOWN, WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE CARVE OUT AREAS OR PULL A BUILDING BACK AND HAVE A PLAZA IN FRONT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THE, I MEAN, THAT'S BASICALLY KIND OF A PARK, BUT WAS IT CONSIDERED? NO, BECAUSE IT'S NOT A LOT THAT HAS A PARK AND WHAT'S LABELED AS A PARK.
SO, UM, I FEEL THAT THERE SHOULD BE A PROCESS TO CREATE SOME CREDIT TO PUT TOWARD THAT RATIO.
WOULD THAT TAKING OVER A QUESTION TIME? CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT YOUR MOTION? OKAY.
SO CREATE A PA PARKLAND CREDIT, UH, UH, OKAY.
CREATE A PARKLAND CREDIT PROCESS TOWARD AREA TARGET RATIOS BASED UPON PUBLIC
[03:45:01]
REALM.AND THEN IT CITIES AND PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, PRIVATELY OWNED, OPEN SPACE.
IT'S A PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, PRIVATELY OWNED OPEN SPACE.
AND THIS SI, I MEAN, WE'VE EVEN TALKED ABOUT THIS WHERE, YOU KNOW, WHAT, IF SOMEBODY DEDICATED SOME SPACE AND THEY WERE GOING TO MAINTAIN IT AS PART OF THE PARKLAND DEDICATION, BUT WHAT IF THEY DIDN'T DO IT AS PARKLAND DEDICATION, BUT THEY JUST DID IT ANYWAY.
I MEAN, HOW, HOW IS THAT NOT CONSIDERED ONE WAS CONSIDERED ONE WASN'T.
SO NOW THIS IS A WAY TO TAKE IN CONSIDERATION.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MIGHT HAVE TO GET RECALCULATE ALONG THE WAY AS DEVELOPMENT FOR SOME OF THOSE THAT MIGHT CHANGE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REASSESSING THINGS, YOU KNOW, ANYWAY ON A YEARLY BASIS OR WHATEVER BASIS.
SO WHO HAS QUESTIONS ON THIS PROPOSED MOTION? UH, COMMISSIONER COX, UM, COMMISSIONER SHAY, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING AND THE, UH, AZAR, UH, COMMISSIONERS, OURS WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT THAT I THINK, I THINK WE PASSED.
SO THIS SPECIFICALLY PUTS THIS SPECIFICALLY ADJUSTS.
THIS IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THAT RATIO OF, UH, PEOPLE PER ACREAGE, YOU KNOW, LIKE AT FIRST IS, OH, OKAY.
WE'RE CONSIDERING, BUT THIS, THIS ACTUALLY GIVES AN ACTUAL SCHEDULE.
THAT'S THE, THE CONCEPT BEHIND IT ACTUALLY FINDS A WAY TO, UM, AS A DATA POINT AS, AS A DATA SET.
SO, SO YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CALCULATION OF REQUIRED PARKLAND FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CALCULATION OF THE 9.4 ACRES FOR A THOUSAND PEOPLE.
IT COULD BE FOR EITHER, I THINK IT COULD BE ANY, UH, YOU KNOW, EITHER OF THOSE, BUT RIGHT NOW, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A SPECIFIC, YOU KNOW, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, I MEAN, IF WE CAN, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC, UM, POINT OR SCHEDULE BASED UPON THAT.
IT'S KIND OF, I MEAN, AND WHAT COMMISSIONERS ARE TALKED ABOUT.
I MEAN, I THINK IT STARTS IT, BUT IT, THIS THING COMPLETES IT, WHETHER IT'D BE, UM, WELL, I DUNNO, I MEAN, BASED UPON THE AMENITIES OR EVENLY, EVEN THE PRIVATE, THE, WELL, EVEN THE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, PRIVATELY OWNED OPEN SPACE, I DON'T KNOW.
COMMISSIONER HAS R D DID, I MEAN, IS YEARS EFFECTIVELY DOING EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.
SO I WOULD ACTUALLY SAY, I THINK I LIKE THIS AMENDMENT AND THINK IT KIND OF OPERATIONALIZES WHAT I HAD RECOMMENDED, CORRECT.
BECAUSE I HAD JUST SAID CREDITED DID NOT HAVE THAT ABILITY TO CRAFT THE DETAIL.
I THINK WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE IS REALLY GIVING IT ACTUAL LEGS TO DO THE WORK THAT IT NEEDS TO DO.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING I'VE, I'VE ALWAYS HAD AN ISSUE WITH.
WAS PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE SPACE AND EVEN IN DESIGN COMMISSION, WE TALK ABOUT IT, BUT THERE WAS NO WAY TO ACTUALLY GIVE IT A VALUE THAT TWEAKS THINGS, SORRY, I MAY BE OUT OF ORDER.
COULD POTENTIALLY SAY, COULD YOU GIVE US A FEW EXAMPLES, JUST SO I'M MAKING SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO W SO FIRST OF ALL, SO SOME, SO AN EXAMPLE IS WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT LIKE THE GREAT STREETS AND, UH, WHETHER IT BE, BE, UM, IN THE DOWNTOWN AERO REUVEN, UDO STANDARDS.
I'LL TAKE OVER I'LL CLAIM A QUESTION SLOT AND TAKEOVER COMMISSIONER COX'S QUESTION, PLEASE.
SO, AND IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT, IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE CERTAIN LEVEL OF WIDER STREETS, UM, THE TREES ALONG THE STREETSCAPE, THE PARK BENCHES, UM, THERE'S EVEN MANY TIMES THERE'S ART IN PUBLIC PLACES.
THAT'S WITHIN THE SPACE, AND THIS IS IN OUR RIGHT OF WAY SPACE, RIGHT.
UM, AND THEN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE PRIVATELY OWNED, PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC ACCESSIBLE, THERE ARE PLAZAS THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, LIKE DOWNTOWN THAT WE HAVE, OR EVEN OTHER PLACES CREATE COURTYARDS SPACE, AND THAT'S NOT ACCOUNTED FOR, I MEAN, WE W W WE HAVE A PROJECT OVER THERE WHERE THE OLD SCHLOTZSKY'S IS, AND IT HAS A WHOLE NICE BIG PLAZA.
I MEAN, THAT'S LIKE, THAT'S LIKE PARK SPACE THAT THEY'RE CREATING THIS SPECIFICALLY WANTING TO CREATE THAT YET.
NOBODY'S LOOKING AT IT AND SAY, HEY, THAT'S LIKE A PARK, BUT TO ME, THESE ARE MODIFIERS THAT SHOULD BE ATTRIBUTED TRIBUTED TO ONES THE, LET'S SAY A CERTAIN AREAS DEFICIENCY OR NOT.
CAUSE IF EVERYBODY HAD THESE TYPES OF THINGS AND YET IT COULD STILL BE LABELED AS A PARK DEFICIENT AREA.
SO, UH, WE'RE, THAT'S THE SECOND KIND OF COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS WE HAVE ONE MORE SPOT, UM, ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION FROM THE PROPOSED MOTION MAKER OR STAFF.
[03:50:02]
I'LL GO.I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WHAT I'M HEARING IS I THINK BETWEEN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE PASSED ALREADY, IT SPEAKS TO THE COST OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC EXTERIOR ACTIVITY AMENITIES PROVIDED IN COMMERCIAL PROJECT SHALL BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE OVERALL PARKLAND EDIFICATION FEE, WHERE YOURS IS TALKING ABOUT COMING UP WITH A, SOME KIND OF NUMBER DECIDES ON 0.4, SOMETHING THAT COMES TO SOME KIND OF REDUCED COST TO MAKE UP FOR THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE CALLING A WHAT WE SHOULD.
I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF IT.
IF YOU CAN HELP ME, I MEAN, HELP TWEAK THIS INTO WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
WELL, I THINK, I THINK WHAT WE HAD WAS WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING TO, BUT YOU'RE JUST SPEAKING TO ADJUSTING THE FORMULA AS OPPOSED TO JUST MAKING IT A DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR KIND OF ADJUSTMENT.
SO THAT ONE IS SIMPLY JUST SAYING, GIVE CREDIT IN THE FEE TOWARDS A CERTAIN AMENITY.
THIS IS REALLY ABOUT SETTING THOSE TARGET RATIOS, LOOKING FOR IT, AND REALLY FROM A DATA ASSESSMENT PERSPECTIVE, LOOKING AT THE LARGER PLANNING EFFORT AROUND EXACTLY THAT YES.
SO THAT, AND THAT'S THE THING BECAUSE OF THE, THE TARGETS FOR, FOR THAT AREA, WHEREAS YOURS OR GIVING MORE ON A PROJECT BASIS.
MINE'S MORE OF A PLANNING BASIS.
AND SO WHAT I RECOMMENDED IS REALLY JUST A FEE THAT SOMEBODY CAN PAY, BUT DOESN'T HELP US IN OVERALL PLANNING FOR URBAN RAIL AND FACILITIES.
AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND WE HEAR FROM STAFF, I REALLY WANT TO HEAR STAFF INDIANA, WHAT THE EFFECTS OF THAT MIGHT BE.
I WOULD JUST, WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW, I'M ASSUMING THAT THE, UH, THE PROPOSAL IS TO ALLOW THAT, UH, THE PARK DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENT TO BE MET BY GREAT STREETS OR A SIDEWALK DEVELOPMENT IN FRONT OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT, AND ALSO, SO A TYPICAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT IS 29, THE WOOD, OH, 29,879 AND PARK DEVELOPMENT PIECE.
THAT'S A, THIS ONE IS A ONE IN, UH, THE DOMAIN AREA 300 AND TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.
SO THEIR DEVELOPMENT FEE PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE WOULD BE $29,879.
SO I BELIEVE PART WITHIN, BE OWING THIS DEVELOPER MONEY, THE WAY IT'S BEING SET UP AT THE END OF THE DAY, BECAUSE THERE ARE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY ARE GOING TO BE EXCEED THAT AMOUNT.
SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL.
SO THAT WAS, BUT, BUT I GUESS THAT'S, IF IT WAS, IF IT WAS TAKEN, IF YOU WERE GIVEN THAT FULL CREDIT, RIGHT.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU SAYING USING A FULL CREDIT.
I BLEW THE PROS WAS ONE FOR ONE.
WELL, THAT WAS OVER HERE ON EARLY.
SO, SO IF Y'ALL LOOKED AT THE PROPOSALS THAT WE HAD, OR THE EXAMPLES THAT WE HAD, THERE'S WE HEADED HYPOTHETIC OR ONE THAT'S 325,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED IN THE DOMAIN AREA AND THE DEVELOPMENT FEE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PART GO IF HE WAS 20, ALMOST $30,000, BUT BY THE TIME YOU BUILD A SIDEWALK, PUT A PARK BENCH IN YOUR YOU'RE WAY, WAY OVER THAT REQUIREMENT.
SO, UM, I WOULD ADD THE, THE PROPOSAL ALREADY, THE COMMERCIAL PROPOSAL ALREADY CONTEMPLATES, INCLUDING OPEN SPACE THAT FUNCTIONS FOR RECREATIONAL VALUE, SUCH AS PLAZAS AND GATHERING SPACES AT A POTENTIAL HUNDRED PERCENT ONE-TO-ONE CREDIT.
SO EVEN SPACES LIKE FIRE LANES THAT HAVE BEEN AMENITIZED FOR A COMMUNITY BENEFIT CAN BE CREDITED UP TO 50% TOWARD SATISFYING THIS REQUIREMENT.
I THINK A SIDEWALK WITHOUT ANY BENCHES OR, UM, RECREATIONAL VALUE IS A TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENT.
MAYBE THAT IS NOT A RECREATIONAL, UM, REQUIREMENT.
AND THEY MAY, THAT MAY BE OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT, UM, CURRENTLY THE, UM, PARKS SERVICE RATIO THAT WE USE TODAY DOES INCLUDE, UM, PRIVATE, PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE.
UH, PARKLAND SAYS PARKLAND THAT MAYBE WE TOOK THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW THAT PROVIDED AN EASEMENT, SAY IT DOESN'T CONSIDER RIGHT OF WAY, BUT ANY EASEMENTS THAT WERE DEDICATED FOR TRAIL AND RECREATION AND PARK USE DO FACTOR INTO THE EQUATION PRESENTLY.
AND HOW DOES THAT, HOW DOES THAT FACTOR INTO THE PLANNING OF THAT AREA? LIKE IF WE, IF THERE, IF A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS HAVE THESE TYPE OF THINGS, THEN WOULD THE AREA CONTINUE TO BE DEFICIENT IF
[03:55:01]
IT WASN'T LIKE INCORPORATED OR RIGHT.AT SITE PLAN, LIKE IF SOMEBODY WAS, IF IT WAS ALREADY NATURALLY OCCURRING AND LIKE, AND THAT'S KINDA WHAT I'M GETTING AT, IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT IS A CREDIT, IT IS CREDITED, BUT NOT, I DON'T KNOW.
I GUESS YOU'RE SAYING IT'S ALREADY INCORPORATED INTO, INTO ALL OF THIS.
SO WHEN WE LOOK AT A SITE PLAN, WE LOOK AT IT IN THE CONTEXT, WE DON'T JUST LOOK AT THE SITE.
AND SO WE ARE ALWAYS TAKING THE EXISTING, THE PLD DEDICATIONS THAT ARE IN THE QUEUE THAT ARE NOT YET DEDICATED.
THOSE ARE ALWAYS FACTORED INTO WHETHER OR NOT A PARK IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED.
IF THERE WAS A DEDICATION RIGHT NEXT DOOR THAT HADN'T YET GONE THROUGH, BUT WE ANTICIPATED, THERE WOULD NOT REALLY BE A COMPELLING REASON TO REQUIRE LAND AGAIN ON AN ADJACENT PROPERTY.
THEN, THEN THE ONES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DEDICATED, THE ONES THAT ARE LIKE SET OF DEVELOPERS, WHO'VE ALREADY INCORPORATED INTO THEIR PROJECT AND IT WASN'T THROUGH PLD.
UH, SO YOU REFERENCED THE SCHLOTZSKY'S PUD, THE PLAZA THERE.
SO THAT PLAZA WOULD NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT OVER IT THAT PROVIDED SOME RECREATIONAL VALUE.
I'M NOT SURE IF THAT ONE PARTICULARLY DOES HAVE A PUBLIC, IT DOES, IT WILL.
SO THAT ONE COULD THEN BE FACTORED INTO EFFECTING THE DEFICIENCY IN THAT AREA.
BUT, BUT THAT'S, IF IT WAS PART OF THE DEDICATION, RIGHT.
BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT'S UNACCOUNTED FOR IT'S PRIVATELY OWNED, PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE.
CAN YOU GET ONE GUYS GIVE CREDIT FOR PRIVATE? IT DID GIVE THEM CREDIT, GAVE THEM SUPERIORITY FOR THE PUD AND GAVE THEM.
BUT FOR, BUT IT'S SPECIFICALLY FOR, LET'S SAY AN ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT OR DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO THAT, DOES IT COUNT TOWARD THE DEFICIENCY OF THE AREA, EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T CONSIDERED IN A PLD THAT THAT'S THE PART IT'S THE OVERALL PLANNING BALANCED THAN IT IS THAT ONE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND SO LIKE HIGHLAND, FOR EXAMPLE, THE HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT, THERE'S A VERY LARGE PARK THAT WAS NOT DEDICATED TO THE CITY, BUT IT WILL ABSOLUTELY COUNT AGAINST OUR DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT'S PARKLAND AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS KIND OF A THING.
AND THAT'S, UH IT'S BUT IT'S OWNED AND OPERATED BY ACC.
SO THAT ST JOHN'S AND KIDMAN PARK THAT'S GOING IN THERE WILL ABSOLUTELY BE INCORPORATED INTO OUR DEFICIENCY AND AFFECT HOW WE DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT OTHER DEVELOPMENTS WILL NEED A DEDICATED, IT WOULD BE THE SAME AS CONSIDERING LIKE A TRAVIS COUNTY PARK.
SO I GUESS, I'M SORRY, JUST TO, I KNOW WE'RE TOTALLY OFF THE RULES AT THIS MOMENT, BUT JUST QUICKLY, LIKE, HOW IS THE UDS GREEN? SO UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, HOW IS IT'S GREEN SPACE UTILIZE? BECAUSE IF I, IT'S FUNNY, WHEN I SEE THE, SO ALL OF UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS IS ACTUALLY BAR GLEN DEFICIENT, BUT WE HAVE WEST MALL, EAST MALL, SOUTH MALL IN THE NORTH MALL.
AND I LIKE HOW, SOMETHING LIKE THAT ACCOMMODATED.
I THINK, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK INTO PER THIS, THIS RECOMMENDATION.
I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO JUST EXPRESS IS THAT, THAT THERE ARE AVENUES FOR US TO CONSIDER MOVING FORWARD WITH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS, THINGS LIKE CLAUSES, THINGS LIKE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, PRIVATE OPEN SPACE THAT PROVIDES RECREATIONAL VALUE.
I THINK IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY PART OF THE WAY THAT WE OPERATE.
UM, BUT TO TURN IT INTO MORE CONCRETE STUFF, THEN JUST LOGISTICS CONSIDERATIONS, WHICH SEEMS LIKE THAT'S IT.
BUT YEAH, TO TURN IT INTO SOMETHING MORE SOLID, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF, LET'S GO AHEAD.
UH, WANT TO TRY TO GET DONE BY 10 30.
AND I KNOW WE, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, I THINK SAID HE IS, UH, AN AMENDMENT HE WANTS TO PROPOSE.
SO, UH, DO WE HAVE SOME LANGUAGE HERE, UM, THAT WE CAN WORK WITH? SO JUST LISTENING TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, I'M GOING TO, I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND A RECOMMENDATION COMES, SHARE YOU, TELL ME IF THIS MAKES SENSE.
CREATE A PARKLAND CREDIT PROCESS TOWARDS A TARGET RATIOS BASED ON PUBLIC REALM AMENITIES AND PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, PRIVATELY OWNED, OPEN SPACE.
EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAD GAMA WOULD THE CREDIT GAP AT THE CALCULATED PARKLAND DEDICATION, OR
REPEAT THAT WITH, WHAT WOULD THE CREDIT GAP AT THE CALCULATED PARKLAND DEDICATION OR FEEL YOU I'M TRYING TO AVOID WHAT MR. SCOTT RAISED AS A VERY REAL ISSUE OR THAT YOU ONLY GET CREDIT TOWARDS WHAT WAS DUE? NOT BEYOND THAT.
WITH THE CREDIT KEPT AT THE CALCULATED PARKLAND DEDICATION OR FEE IN YOU BECAUSE WE CAN'T PAY THEM MONEY, RIGHT? YEAH.
WE DON'T KNOW ANYONE MONEY ONLY CREDIT UP TO WHAT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
SO W DID WE HAVE A SECOND ON THE MOTION MAKER ON THIS COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE? YEAH.
AND HE MADE A TWEAK AND THEN, SO YOU'RE THE SECOND
[04:00:01]
THEN.AND THEN YOU, YOU, BEFORE WE SEND IT SECOND.
UH, I MEAN, THEY SPEAK ANY MORE IN FAVOR.
I MEAN, I, I THINK I'VE ALREADY SAID A LOT, BUT AT LEAST IT SETS THE PROCESS FOR, TO, YOU KNOW, TO SET STAFF, TO CONSIDER, UM, YOU KNOW, THESE OTHER FACTORS.
AND IT ALSO ALLOWS, UM, THE APPLICANT TO ALSO, YOU KNOW, BRING THINGS TO THEIR ATTENTION THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, OR, YOU KNOW, CAN BE CONSIDERED POTENTIALLY OKAY.
UH, SPEAK AGAINST, I'M GOING TO SPEAK AGAINST, I JUST THINK FROM WHAT I HEARD FROM STAFF AND JUST WORKING WITH THEM ON A NUMBER OF CASES, I THINK THEY BEND OVER BACKWARDS ALREADY TRIED TO PULL IN AS MUCH AS THEY CAN AND COUNT, UM, GIVE CREDIT TO DEVELOPERS, UH, FOR A LOT OF THESE ITEMS. SO I THINK THEY'RE ALREADY DOING IT.
UM, SO I JUST THINK THIS IS GOING TO MAKE IT MORE COMPLICATED.
SO I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT.
UH, ANY OTHER SPEAKING OF FAVOR, UH, SPEAKING AGAINST, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, I THOUGHT THIS WAS STARTING OUT AS KIND OF LIKE A PLANNING LEVEL TYPE OF GOAL HERE, WHICH I PROBABLY COULD HAVE SUPPORTED, BUT THEN, THEN I THINK IT MORPHED INTO SOMETHING WHERE STAFF BASICALLY TOLD US MOST TYPICAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENTS WILL NOW HAVE THEIR FEE OWED, WIPED, CLEAN, BECAUSE THEY'RE ALWAYS GOING TO END UP SPENDING MORE ON SIDEWALKS AND, AND STUFF LIKE THAT AROUND THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS AROUND THEIR OFFICE PARK THAN THEY WOULD EVER.
AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I CAN SUPPORT.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD SUPPORT BECAUSE TO ME, THIS SOUNDS LIKE AN AVENUE TO BASICALLY EXEMPT A HUGE NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS FROM EVER ONLY A PARKLAND FEE.
UM, SO IF IT WAS MORE PLANNING ORIENTED, I WOULD'VE SUPPORTED, BUT NOW THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NO FEES FOR A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS, I I'M, I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST.
UM, TERRY, I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT.
I, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE INTENTION, RIGHT.
AT LEAST THAT'S NOT MY INTENTION.
SO IF THAT IS INDEED WHAT IS BEING SAID HERE, THEN LET'S CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK A REGULAR SIDEWALK FOR ME, GUTS THE MUSTER.
IF YOU'RE PROVIDING FREE CANOPY, IMPROVING SO MUCH, THAT'S A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION ALTOGETHER.
SO WHAT I'M RECOMMENDING WILL BE CREATED APARTMENT CREDIT PROCESS TOWARDS A TARGET RATIOS BASED ON PUBLIC REALM AMENITIES IN PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, PRIVATELY OWNED, OPEN SPACE, GAMA COMPARABLE TO PARKLAND AND RELATED AMENITIES GAMMA WITH THE CREDIT GAP AS A CALCULATED PARKLAND, DEDICATION OR FINLEY.
SO S UM, SECOND BY, DO YOU HAVE A SECOND TO THIS AMENDMENT? IS THIS A, WOULD THIS JUST BE A SUBSTITUTION? I'M JUST ADDING IN A PHRASE IN THE MIDDLE OF, IF YOU WANT TO BE SUBSIDY WOULD BE LESS VOTES.
I'M MAKING A MOTION FOR A SUBSTITUTE GREATER PARKLAND CREDIT PROCESS TOWARDS A TARGET RATIOS BASED ON PUBLIC REALM AMENITIES IN PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, PRIVATELY OWNED, OPEN SPACE, COMPARABLE TO PARKLAND, ALL RELATED AMENITIES, KARMA WITH THE CREDIT GAP, TO THE CALCULATED PARKLAND DEDICATION OR FIELD VIEW.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND, SECOND? HEMPEL ALRIGHT.
WE DISCUSSION FAVOR, MR. ZAR, I THINK JUST TO SAY THAT THE REASON I'M PUTTING IN THE COMPARABLE TO PARKLAND MENTEES IS THAT REALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS PLAZA WITH SPECIFIC G DYE PLANTATIONS, OR STREET FURNITURE OR LIGHTING SPECIFIC AMENITIES THAT WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO ESSENTIALLY BEING ABLE TO ENJOY THE OUTDOORS, NOT SIMPLY PROVIDING A BASEMENT OR SIDEWALK, WHICH IS ALREADY REQUIRED IN DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE CODE.
SO QUESTION, I THINK, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF I, I GUESS, I GUESS THE CONCERN IS, I'M JUST WONDERING IF, IF, IF WE SHOULD EVEN SET THAT, WHAT THAT, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH THAT CAP, BUT I GUESS IN MY MIND, IT WASN'T EVER, WE WOULDN'T EVEN GET CLOSE TO THAT.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MODIFIER BASED UPON IT.
UM, SO WE COULD SAY UP TO, OR, UM, I DON'T KNOW.
I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO, LIKE, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT, BUT THE MESSAGE WAS THAT, OH MAN, YOU COULD PRETTY MUCH GET ALL OUT.
I MEAN, BECAUSE PART OF IT IS, IS TO, I GUESS, RECAPTURE SOMETHING.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE METRO PARKS AND STUFF.
[04:05:02]
THAT'S THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE ON IT.I WILL JUST SAY I'M DEFINITELY OPEN TO CHANGING THE FREEZING DUDE.
LIMITED UP TO I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
COMMISSIONER COX, BUT ALSO A CHALLENGE BEING, SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.
IF YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT, I'LL MAKE AN AMENDMENT THAT I THINK I CAN SUPPORT.
UM, WHATEVER COMMISSIONERS ARE SAID, JUST SAY, UH, AT A CREDITS AT A CREDIT, UH, PERCENTAGE DETERMINED BY OUR, YOU KNOW, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MAKING IT EXPLICIT.
THE PARD CAN EVALUATE THIS AND THEN DETERMINE WHAT THEY THINK THAT CREDIT SHOULD BE APPLIED TOWARDS THESE IMPROVEMENTS.
TELL US KIND OF, DO I NEED, I DON'T NEED A SECOND THAT DO I, I MEAN, YES, BECAUSE IT IS AN AMENDMENT, SO I'LL SECOND IT DO MY OWN AMENDMENT.
AND I'M JUST GOING TO READ IT AGAIN.
SO THE ENTIRE SUBSTITUTE WOULD NOW BE, IF WE ADDED THIS AMENDMENT, CREATE A PARKLAND CREDIT PROCESS TOWARDS YOUR TARGET RATIO IS BASED ON PUBLIC REALM AMENITIES IN PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, PRIVATELY OWNED OPEN-SPACE COMMA COMPARABLE DEPARTMENT, OR RELATED AMENITIES, COMMA AT A CREDIT PERSON STAGE DETERMINED BY BART BARDSTOWN.
SO THAT WAS AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE, WHICH WE NEED TO VOTE ON.
SO LET'S GO AND VOTE ANY MORE DISCUSSION OR ON THAT, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THAT AMENDMENT.
UH, THAT'S EVERYONE, THOSE ON THE SCREEN.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UH, DO WE NEED TO READ IT AGAIN OR ARE WE GOOD? EVERYBODY CLEAR ON IT? LET'S GO AND VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE AMENDMENT DOES AND THE DYESS AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN AND I'M COUNTING.
WOW, THAT WAS, THAT WAS A GOOD ONE.
WELL, I'VE, I'VE BEEN, WE'VE GOT 10 MINUTES, BUT COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TOLD ME HE HAS ONE.
UH, SO WE CAN GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE.
I THOUGHT WE JUMPED OVER TO SHEA.
WE NEED TO EXTEND A MOTION TO EXTEND TO 11:00 PM.
WHO'S SECOND COMMISSIONER COX, AND LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THAT EXTENSION.
AND THOSE, EVERYBODY THAT PASSES WITH THE HONEST, PALITO AND FLORES VOTING AGAINST.
UH, YOU WERE NEXT COMMISSIONER CZAR AND THEN COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
I WILL TRY TO MAKE THIS VERY QUICK.
UM, MY MOTION WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE PROVIDE UP TO A 50% REDUCTION ON THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ASSESSMENT FOR THOSE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ENTER INTO A LONG-TERM AFFORDABILITY AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND MY REASONING FOR THIS AS WE RECEIVED A AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT FROM HOUSING AND PLANNING STAFF TODAY, AND I'M GOING TO READ VERBATIM THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
UM, THE OVERALL ORDINANCE HAS A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS.
THE AMENDMENT IS SPECIFIC TO COMMERCIAL USES ONLY A NEGATIVE IMPACT OF A COST INCREASE OF A FIELD VIEW OR LAND DEDICATION WOULD BE INCURRED FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS USING DENSITY WELLNESS PROGRAMS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT, MAKING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING LESS FEASIBLE.
THIS INCLUDES VMU DOD BEAUTIES.
THE IMPACT TO HOUSING AFFORDABILITY COULD BE MITIGATED BY A GRADUATED OR FLAT FOR YOUR DEDUCTION ON THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ASSESSMENT.
FOR THOSE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ENTER INTO A LONG-TERM AFFORDABILITY AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
AND THAT'S, MY EMOTION IS PROVIDE UP TO A 50% REDUCTION ON THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ASSESSMENT FOR THOSE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ENTER INTO A LONG-TERM AFFORDABILITY AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN, BASED ON OUR HOUSING STAFFS, UM, ASSESSMENT BEFORE THERE'S A SECOND.
IS THERE ANY WAY YOU CAN GET RID OF THE WORDS UP TO? YEAH, SO I'M, I'M DEFINITELY OPEN TO THAT 50% REDUCTION MAKES SENSE TO ME IF WE ARE TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO LET'S JUST, UM, TRY ON A SECOND YET.
UH, JUST, WE HOPE WE WILL GET THERE SOON.
SO DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OF CHEMISTRY COX? OKAY.
SO IS THERE, IS THERE A THRESHOLD? I MEAN, SO WE SEE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT COME IN AND HAVE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, THREE AFFORDABLE UNITS OUT OF 30 OR WHATEVER 10% SEEMS TO BE KIND OF A STANDARD IS ARE WE CAN USE THIS AS A MECHANISM
[04:10:01]
TO INCREASE THE TYPICAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE SEE, OR IS THIS JUST BASICALLY KEEPING THE STATUS QUO FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PERCENTAGES THAT WE TYPICALLY SEE COME BEFORE US? SO THEY ESSENTIALLY, OKAY.LET ME THINK THROUGH IF YOU'D LIKE YOUR QUESTION HAD TWO PARTS, THE SECOND PART.
SO I THINK THE IDEA WOULD BE TO REALLY INCENTIVIZE THOSE MIXED USE PROJECTS WITH THE AFFORDABLE REQUIREMENTS.
SO REALLY THE 10% WOULD BE IT.
SO I DON'T WANT TO JUDGE OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS SET ASIDES, WHICH VARY ACROSS DIFFERENT PROGRAMS, THERE'S 13 PROGRAMS. UM, AND SO THIS WOULD ESSENTIALLY JUST BE SAYING WHATEVER THAT COMMITMENT IS, WHICH IS USUALLY 10% AT THIS POINT, THAT STANDARD AMONGST ALMOST ALL OUR DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS, EXCEPT SOME SPLIT THAT 5%, 5%, UM, DIFFERENT CONVERSATION, BUT ESSENTIALLY ALL THAT TO SAY THAT THIS WOULD BE NOT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT THOSE REQUIREMENTS, BUT IF YOU ENTER INTO A LONG-TERM AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY ON AN AFFORDABLE REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS USUALLY THROUGH A LAND USE RESTRICTION AGREEMENT, LAURA, YOU WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE GETTING A FEE REDUCTION, THE IDEA BEING WE'RE INCENTIVIZED PEOPLE INTO ENTERING INTO THOSE PROGRAMS. SO AN EXAMPLE, SO WHAT ELSE, WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY, COMMISSIONER IS GOING NO, NO, NO.
I, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, WHAT, WHAT I WAS THINKING WAS THAT THERE'S ALREADY A, QUITE A FEW INCENTIVES FOR DOING THAT.
AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU WOULD BE OPEN TO USING THIS AS AN INCENTIVE IN SOME WAY, EITHER LIKE A GRADUATED CREDIT OR SOMETHING THAT INCENTIVIZES DEVELOPERS TO ACTUALLY DO MORE THAN WHAT WE TYPICALLY SEE OR WHAT THE MINIMUM IS FOR, FOR THE PROGRAMS THAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT.
SO I WOULD SAY, I THINK AN INCENTIVE JUST TO GO WITH SOME OF THOSE PROGRAMS WOULD BE USEFUL.
SO WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF CASES, FOR EXAMPLE, COME FORWARD AND ASK FOR MF SIX AND SKIP VMU ALTOGETHER.
THEIR BIGGEST REASON HAS BEEN THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO PROVIDE THE COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT OF VMU ACTUALLY, EVEN THOUGH THAT IS AN EXPLICIT COMMUNITY NEED THAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED.
SO MY HOPE WOULD BE FOR THOSE KINDS OF DEVELOPMENTS, WE WOULD BE INCENTIVIZING THEM TO GO WITH VMU INSTEAD OF MF SIX, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS.
SO DOES THIS ONLY, I GUESS I'M TRYING TO SEND, SO IS THIS SPECIFIC SPECIFICALLY FOR THE MIXED USE? YES, BECAUSE I GUESS WE WERE ONLY IMPACTING THE COMMERCIAL, UM, FEE AT THE MOMENT, NOT THE RESIDENTIAL.
SO RESIDENTIAL, WE ALREADY HAD A RECOMMENDATION SAYING ALL AFFORDABLE UNITS HAVE INCLUDED, YOU KNOW, THINK ABOUT THAT IT'S SMART HOUSING CURRENTLY.
UM, AND THIS WOULD BE IMPACTING THE COMMERCIAL PART OF THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, IF YOU HAVE INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS ONSITE.
SO IF THEY DO COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL, W THE, THE CALCULATION WAS AT FIRST WEEK, IT WAS THE HIGHER UP, RIGHT? SO THEN THEY PICK THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION AND THEN IF THEY DO AFFORDABILITY, THEN THEY'LL GET 50% RIGHT AWAY.
SO IT'S NOT UP TO YOU CHANGE IT TO 50%.
SO THEY DID 10% AFFORDABLE, BOOM.
IS THAT THE PROPOSAL? SO I GUESS THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE, LET'S DO WHAT IS GOING, RIGHT? SO IF YOUR RESIDENTIAL FEE WAS HIGHER, YOU WOULD GO THE CREDIT THAT WAS IN THE RESIDENTIAL PART OF THE PARKLAND DEDICATION, WHICH IS CURRENTLY AGAIN, TIED TO SMART HOUSING, WE WANT IT TO BE EXPANDED.
UM, AND THEN WE WOULD, IF THE GIRL COMMERCIAL FEE IS HIGHER, YOU ACTUALLY GET A REDUCTION WITHIN YOUR COMMERCIAL FEE.
SO WHETHER YOU PAY, WHETHER YOU'RE PAYING THE COMMERCIAL FEE, WHETHER YOU'RE BEING RESIDENTIAL FEE, IF YOU HAVE AFFORDABLE UNITS ONSITE, YOU GET A CERTAIN EXTRA INCENTIVE.
SO THERE'S A REDUCTION HERE, REDUCTION HERE, AND YOU GET TO PICK WHICH ONE YOU'RE GOING TO PAY FROM WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
SO STAFF WOULD BE PICKING WHICHEVER ONE IS THE HIGHEST, SO, OKAY.
I BUILD A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S MIXED USE HAS IT HAS NO AFFORDABLE UNITS.
WE WILL HAVE A RESIDENTIAL FEE ASSESSMENT OR COMMERCIAL C ASSESSMENT.
IF YOU HAVE AFFORDABLE UNITS ONSITE, I'M SAYING, IF YOU GET ASSESSED RESIDENTIAL FEE HIGHER, YOU GET A CREDIT THERE.
IF YOU GET ASSESSED COMMERCIAL FEE HIGHER, YOU GET A REDUCTION WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL FEE.
BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE RESIDENTIAL, WHAT IF YOU HAVE AFFORDABLE COMMERCIAL? BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEW WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
SO BELIEVE ME, I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT THAT'S ITS OWN AMENDMENT AND I THINK IS WORTHY OF IT BECAUSE WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE A CITY PROGRAM ON THAT, BUT WE ARE BEGINNING TO SEE THAT COME UP IN BUDS.
WELL, YEAH, CAUSE I FEEL LIKE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE, WE REALLY NEED IS AFFORDABLE COMMERCIAL COMING UP, BUT OKAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR WE GO AHEAD AND COMMISSIONING ON THIS PLATO.
OH, YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY SAID THIS COMMISSIONER.
SORRY, BUT WHAT IS A LONG-TERM AFFORDABILITY AGREEMENT? HOW DOES THAT DEFINE, UM, SO ESSENTIALLY BE ANYTHING
[04:15:01]
THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN AN EXISTING PROGRAM.I HATE TO SAY IT DOES VARY ACROSS DIFFERENT PROGRAMS. THE GENERAL ASSESSMENT RIGHT NOW IS 40 YEARS FOR RENTAL 99 YEARS FOR OWNERSHIP.
BUT I DO WANT TO SAY ACROSS OUR DIFFERENT PROGRAMS, IT DOES VARY DEPENDING ON WHEN WE ADOPTED ORDINANCES.
SO I DON'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT SOME HAVE 30 OR 40.
I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER CROSSED 40.
UM, BUT THERE IS A, THERE'S AN INCENTIVE MATRIX THAT SHOWS THAT.
BUT YOU DON'T THINK IT GOES BELOW 30, LIKE 15, 15 WOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED.
SO INTERESTINGLY ONLY FOR SMART HOUSING, WHICH HAS ALREADY EXEMPT FOR RESIDENTIAL SMART IS THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS SHORTER AFFORDABILITY BEARDS.
PART OF THE REASON WE'VE NEVER NOW ADDRESSED IS BECAUSE NOBODY USES SMART UNLESS THEY'RE USING CITY FUNDING.
AND IN THAT CASE, THE CITY FUNDING TRUMPS EVERYTHING ELSE.
ARE YOU READY TO GO AND MAKE AN AMEND AND SEE IF WE GET A SECOND ON THIS LANGUAGE? I I'LL GO AHEAD AND STATE IT PROVIDE A 50% REDUCTION ON THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ASSESSMENT FOR THOSE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ENTER INTO A LONG-TERM AFFORDABILITY AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
YOU HAVE A SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER, MR. ANDERSON.
I WANT TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION OR I THINK, I THINK I'VE ADDED ENOUGH.
I DO HOPE THIS CLARIFIES AND I WILL, UH, YEAH, THANK YOU.
I NEED TO SPEAK, UH, BUT DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS MOTION, MR. CLARK'S I'M MORE NEUTRAL.
I'M I'M, I'M LIKE FLIPPING AROUND IN MY HEAD BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE GOAL.
UM, BUT I FEEL LIKE ONE, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT WE'RE LIKE CUTTING THE THING UP TO DEATH.
AND I, I REALLY LIKE SOME SORT OF ANALYSIS SHOWING IF WE'RE EVER GOING TO GET DEDICATED PARKLAND EVER AGAIN FROM COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS AFTER ALL OF OUR AMENDMENTS.
BUT, BUT, BUT IN REALITY, WE ALREADY SAID THAT FOR MIXED USE, YOU, YOU GET CHARGED THE ONE THAT'S THE HIGHEST.
AND THEN WE ALSO EXEMPTED ALL INCOME RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE UNITS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE.
SO, SO IF THEY PICK MOST OF THESE VMU DEVELOPMENTS, AT LEAST THE ONES THAT I'M THINKING ABOUT, IT'S MAJORITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH HAS COMMERCIAL ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
SO THE FEE IS LIKELY GOING TO BE DICTATED BY RESIDENTIAL.
WE'RE ALREADY EXEMPTING THOSE INCOME RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE UNITS, BUT ALSO WE INTRODUCED A MIXED USE COMPONENT THAT SAYS YOU'RE GOING TO USE THE FEE FOR THE, FOR THE MOST INTENSIVE USE, WHICH WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL.
SO I, WHEN YOU KIND OF SMASH ALL THAT TOGETHER, I DON'T KNOW WHAT A PRACTICAL IMPACT OF THIS IS, WHETHER IT ACTUALLY HAS AN IMPACT OR, OR IF WE'VE MADE IT MOOT BY EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE'VE DONE.
I DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT, I DON'T KNOW.
UM, SO ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WANT TO SPEAK FOR, OR AGAINST THE MOTION COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND THEN FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER YONIS PALITO? UM, I'D LIKE TO THANK COMMISSIONER IS R FOR, THIS IS VERY CREATIVE, A WAY TO ADDRESS THE NEGATIVE IMPACT STATEMENT THAT STAFF PUT OUT FOR THIS.
SO IT'S A WAY THAT WE'RE STILL GOING TO GET A FEE OUT OF IT.
AND THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE A NEGATIVE IMPACT FEE TO DEVELOPMENT COSTS BEFORE DOUBLE HOUSING UNITS, EVEN WITH THIS AMENDMENT, BUT IT'S JUST BEEN CUT IN HALF.
AND I THINK THAT'S A VERY CREATIVE SOLUTION TO THIS, AND I'M GLAD YOU'RE ADDRESSING THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT.
UM, SO FIRST I WANT TO SAY THAT IT'S LATE AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I GOT A HUNDRED PERCENT OF ALL OF THIS.
SO IF I AM, IF I'M OPPOSED, BECAUSE I'M CONFUSED, THEN I'M HAPPY TO BE CORRECTED, BUT I'M CONCERNED BECAUSE OF WHERE OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS HAVE US RIGHT NOW, LIKE WHO THEY'RE ACTUALLY SERVING, HOW MANY UNITS WE'RE GETTING, ET CETERA.
AND I DO THINK, I THINK WE HAVE, WE'RE FINDING A LOT OF CREATIVE WAYS TO INCENTIVIZE MAKE IT LESS COSTLY TO BUILD MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS, NOT AS QUICKLY AS WE WOULD LIKE.
UM, BUT I D I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US GETTING MORE FOR WHAT WE'RE GIVING HERE.
AND I KNOW WE'RE, WE'RE PROPOSING GETTING, THIS IS A NEW FEE.
UM, I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE ANALYSIS THAT PARKLAND DEDICATION IS, UM, UH, DRIVING NEGATIVE IMPACT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING, OR THAT IT'S A BARRIER TO CREATION
[04:20:01]
BECAUSE I DON'T, FOR ONE THING, I THINK THAT PARKLAND DEDICATION IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS AND EVEN MORE IMPORTANT FOR DENSITY THAT INCORPORATES MORE UNITS AND AFFORDABLE UNITS, UM, AS AN EQUITY ISSUE.BUT I ALSO AM, UH, I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW MUCH MORE HOUSING WE REALLY GET FROM REDUCING THESE COSTS, AS OPPOSED TO, UM, JUST COST SAVINGS FOR DEVELOPERS THAT WE DON'T NECESSARILY SEE TRANSLATED TO ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, SO THAT'S, I I'M JUST BECAUSE OF WHERE WE ARE IN OUR CURRENT MIXES INCOME RESTRICTED LEVELS RATIOS, AND THE IMPACT OF DENSITY AND WHERE, WHERE BME WAS INCENTIVIZED, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH IS WHERE LAND HAS BEEN CHEAPER AND PEOPLE ARE BEING DRIVEN OUT MORE QUICKLY.
I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS THE TRADE-OFF THAT NECESSARILY GETS US WHERE WE WANT TO GO.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS, UH, AMENDMENT, UH, BY COMMISSIONER IS SECOND INVITE COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
UH, THOSE ON THE DAYAS IN FAVOR.
SEE THAT'S EVERYONE DOES ON, UH, THE SCREEN HAVE, UM, OKAY.
AND THOSE AGAINST ON THE SCREEN OR, UH, YOU THIS PALITO AND I GUESS COMMISSIONER COX YOU'RE ABSTAINING.
SO THAT MOTION PASSES WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER YONIS, POLITO VOTING, NO, AND COMMISSIONER COX AND STAINING.
UM, LET'S SEE, MAKING SURE WE GET EVERYBODY A TURN.
WE'RE GOING TO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AROUND AND SEE WHO ELSE HAS AMENDMENTS.
SO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, IT'S YOUR TIME.
SO, UH, I KNOW WE RECEIVED, UH, STAFF.
THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING THERE SO LATE, SORRY.
THAT'S OUR ABBREVIATED MEETING.
SO, UH, WE, WE RECEIVED A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM FOLKS ASKING TO, UH, AMEND THIS TO SAY NO PARKLAND FEE IS REQUIRED FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT.
THAT IS IN A PARKLAND SUFFICIENT AREA.
I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT ONE LONG AND HARD, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH DISCUSSION WE GAVE TO THAT IN THE COMMITTEE, UM, IN THE WORKING GROUP.
BUT I'D LIKE TO MAYBE NARROW THAT A LITTLE BIT IN, IF SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO OPEN THAT UP, WELCOME TO IT.
I THINK I'D LIKE TO NARROW IT TO HERE'S THE AMENDMENT EXEMPT CBP ZONING CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONING FROM PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES, UH, WRITING IT DOWN.
SO, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS OF STAFF OR THE MOTION MAKER? UH, COMMISSIONER CUPS.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, LIKE WHAT, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE BENEFIT OF THAT IS? SURE.
UM, I LIVED DOWNTOWN, LIVED DOWNTOWN FOR A LONG TIME, AND I'VE BEEN A PART OF DEVELOPMENTS DOWNTOWN.
UM, IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE COST OF LAND DOWNTOWN, IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE, NOT LACK OF DEFICIENCY OF DEFICIENCY OF PARKING DOWN, UH, PARKS RATHER DOWNTOWN, UM, JUST IS SUCH AN ABUNDANCE OF PARKS IF YOU WOULD.
SO WE HAVE THE WATERLOO GREENWAY.
WE HAVE DUNCAN PARK, WE HAVE REPUBLIC SQUARE.
WE HAVE AUDITORIUM SHORES, BIKE TRAIL, JUST, JUST PLETHORA PARKS.
BUT THEN WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT TRYING TO PURCHASE LAND DOWN HERE, WHICH MAY IN A BLUE MOON TRY AND HAPPEN, IT'S JUST REALLY, REALLY EXPENSIVE.
AND IT'S A VERY BAD USE, MOST WOULD SAY OF CBD LAND.
AND, UM, A LOT OF THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT DO HAPPEN, THEY TRIED TO GET CREATIVE, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO.
SO FOR INSTANCE, WHEN THE 360 CONDO TOWER WAS BUILT 15 YEARS AGO, IT FUNDED THE DESIGN OF REPUBLIC SQUARE PARK, WHICH WAS A VERY ODDLY SHAPED PARK WITH GIANT BUNKERS THAT NOBODY WANTED TO GO INTO BECAUSE IT WAS A VERY UNSAFE FEELING PARK ONCE YOU WERE IN IT, CAUSE YOU COULDN'T EVEN SEE THE STREETS.
IT WAS VERY ISOLATED IN BED AND DEVELOPMENT THAT OCCURRED AROUND THEIR FUNDED, THE REDESIGN, AND THEN EVENTUALLY THE REDEVELOPMENT IN A LOT OF WAYS, YEAH.
BUT THEN YOU LOOK AT EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENING ON WATERLOO ANYWAY.
AND THERE'S JUST A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE HAPPENING THAT FOR VOLUNTARILY DOING REALLY BIG THINGS AND THEY ALREADY HAVE THE ZONING, BUT THEY NEED, AND THEY'RE JUST DOING IT.
AND SO JUST THINGS TO MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO BE AND NOT THROW ANOTHER FEE ON WHAT IS IN LARGE PART.
I THINK THE MAYOR CALLS IT THE BANK OF AUSTIN, TEXAS.
IF, IF I HAVE TIME, I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM STAFF IT, WHAT WOULD THE PRACTICAL IMPACT OF THIS BE IF ALL OF CBD DEVELOPMENT WAS EXEMPT FROM, FROM CONTRIBUTING ANY FEES TO THE PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE? WELL, UM, WOOLRIDGE
[04:25:01]
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REDEVELOPED.COM PARK WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REDEVELOPED.A WATERLOO WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.
UH, ALL THOSE UTILIZED PARKLAND DEDICATION FUNDS TO BE REDEVELOPED.
SO, UH, WE USE IT FOR KIND OF LAKE TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS.
UM, SO I, YOU KNOW, ALL THOSE PARKS THAT WERE MENTIONED, UH, AND PROJECTS EVER MENTIONED UTILIZED PARKLAND, DEDICATION FUNDS FOR THOSE PARKS TO BE REALIZED, I THINK IN TERMS OF BREATH, PROPORTIONALITY AND THE NEXUS, WE WOULD HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO JUSTIFY WHY THAT POPULATION IS NOT IMPACTING THE PARK SYSTEM.
SO WHY A NEW DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN DOESN'T IMPACT THE PARK SYSTEM DESPITE ADDING USERS TO IT? UM, JUST FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S WHEN WE HAVE A SECOND, SHARON, SORRY.
I WAS JUST AT A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.
DO WE HAVE ANY ASSESSMENT OR IDEA OF HOW MUCH ACREAGE PER THOUSAND PERSONS DO WE HAVE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA? WE CAN GET THAT NUMBER FOR YOU.
WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU DEFINING AS DOWNTOWN? AND YOU ALSO INCLUDE AN AREA SOUTH OF THE RIVER NOW OR NOT? NO, I TH I DON'T KNOW WHAT KOSHER ANDERSON IS THINKING, BUT I'M TAKING CBD, SO THAT WILL BE WHATEVER'S WITHIN OUR DOWNTOWN DISTRICT.
SO IT WOULD NOT GO BELOW THE RIVER WOULD NOT CROSS THE STREET AND WOULD NOT CROSS 35 OR LAMAR.
UH, SO WANT TO GO IN FROM, AT THIS MOTION? I DON'T, UH, ANY I'M TO GO AHEAD AND LEAVE IT AS IS, OR DO WE HAVE ANY SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS? JUST DO WE HAVE A SECOND? NOT YET.
SO, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND RESTATE IT REAL QUICK.
UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON LOOKS LIKE YOU PROBABLY HAVE A SECOND HERE.
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE AND RESTATE THE MOTION.
EXEMPT EXEMPT CBD ZONING FROM PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES.
SO IS THIS OKAY, SO NOW I'M CLEAR, IS THIS COMMERCIAL, OR ARE YOU JUST TRYING TO CONFIRM ONLY DEALING WITH THE COMMERCIAL TALK ABOUT COMMERCIAL? YES.
WE'VE GOT S UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
SO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION, MR. ANDERSON.
YOU WANT TO SPEAK AGAINST COMMISSIONING AND IS PLATO? I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S A WISE AS A MUNICIPALITY TO, UM, EXEMPT THE AREA WHERE WE ARGUABLY HAVE SOME OF THE MOST VALUABLE LAND, POST JET REVENUE BEING GENERATED IN NEW DEVELOPMENT, UM, AND PASS UP AN OPPORTUNITY TO CAPTURE SOME OF THAT VALUE TO COVER THE COST BECAUSE THESE AREAS AREN'T PARKED DEFICIENT NOW.
BUT IF THERE IS THIS HUGE MOVE TO INCREASE DENSITY IN THE URBAN CORE, TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM COMMUTING, FROM LIVING IN AUSTIN AND COMMUTING ELSEWHERE TO LIVE, WORK, AND PLAY IN THE SAME PLACE.
AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ADDING A WHOLE LOT MORE USED TO THESE CENTRAL AREAS AND MAKING THESE CENTRAL PARK AREAS WHERE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN SURROUNDING AREAS ARE SUPPOSED TO COME IN USING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND BENEFIT FROM.
UM, AND SO I THINK BASICALLY WE, WE GOT A HUGE POTENTIAL FOR VALUE CAPTURE IF WE DO THIS, SO I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST, OKAY, WHERE'S YOUR THOMPSON? UM, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE I, I'M NOT SURE IF WE GET BACK TO, YOU KNOW, THE ORIGINAL PHILOSOPHY.
I'M NOT SURE THAT WE'VE BEEN ACTUALLY GIVEN NOTICE THAT ALL OF THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS DOWNTOWN HAVE CREATED MORE USE ON OUR PARKS THAN THE ABILITY OF THE CITY TO GROW AND SUPPORT THEM NATURALLY HAVE.
IN OTHER WORDS, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS DOWNTOWN, BUT WE HAD NEW COMMERCIAL AND WE HAD COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN 1957 AND WE HAD SOME RESIDENCES IN 1957.
WE'VE GOT A LOT MORE RESIDENCES DOWNTOWN COMPARED TO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS DOWNTOWN THAN WE DID.
SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE A LOT MORE PEOPLE AND THOSE RESIDENCES ARE PAYING THAT PARKLAND DENTIFICATION FEE.
SO ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT YOU SAID WOULDN'T BE BUILT, THEY WERE BUILT AND THEY WERE BUILT WITH THE, WITH THE RESIDENT, DEDICATION, FEED
[04:30:01]
IT.WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT TAKING AWAY.
SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO BUILD THOSE THINGS LIKE WATERLOO AND ALL OF THOSE PARKS.
AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO BUILD THOSE.
AND IT'S JUST NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT WE'RE HAVING UNDUE PRESSURE BECAUSE OF THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, BUT CONTINUING TO LOCATE OUR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS DOWNTOWN DOES ADD VALUE TO THE CITY.
IT DOES HELP US LEVERAGE THE INVESTMENTS WE'RE MAKING IN A SUBWAY, AND IT DOES HELP, YOU KNOW, LEVERAGE THE INVESTMENTS WE'RE MAKING IN, IN, UH, A COMMERCIAL CENTER.
AND SO I, I THINK WE SHOULDN'T DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD, DISINCENTIVIZING US BUILDING NEW OFFICE BUILDINGS ALONG OUR TRANSIT LINES AND WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO INSTEAD BUILD THEM ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE CITY.
ANY, UH, MORE SPEAKERS, FOUR AGAINST FOUR, WE GO AND TAKE A BOAT.
UH, THOSE, UH, THOSE ON THE DIETS AND FAVOR.
THOSE, UH, ON THE SCREEN IN FAVOR.
UM, I'M SORRY, WHO DO WE HAVE IN FAVOR HERE AT THOMPSON SR.
THOSE, UM, ON THE DYESS VOTING AGAINST.
AND THEN THOSE, UH, ON THE SCREEN VOTING AGAINST THIS ITEM.
UM, I'M LOOKING AROUND, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT, UM, COMMISSIONERS WANT TO MAKE IN TRYING TO GET DONE BEFORE 11? WE HAVE 14 MINUTES.
DID YOU HAVE A SECOND ONE? OKAY.
UH, COMMISSIONER COX I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE THINK STAFF FOR SITTING HERE THROUGH ALL OF OUR SHENANIGANS.
UM, I'VE LEARNED A WHOLE LOT THIS EVENING, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR STAYING HERE WITH US.
AND WITH THAT, I THINK SO WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO WRAP THIS IN A BOW? HELP ME OUT HERE.
SO, UM, SO WE NEED TO GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE BASE MOTION WITH ALL OF THE CONSENT ITEMS AND ALL THE, UH, DISCUSSION MOTIONS THAT WE PASSED.
MOTION BY AZHAR SECOND BY HEMPEL TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS IS AMENDED.
SO YES, TO REITERATE THE BASE MOTION, THAT WAS AS TRUE.
UH, SO THAT WAS OUR SECOND TO BY HEMPEL, UM, FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT IS BASED.
SO THEN RATTY THAT ALL OUR CONSENT AMENDMENTS, BUT COMMISSIONER SURE.
COMMISSIONER LAYS ON HAND FOR THIS CORRECT YELLIN WHERE SHE NOW HAS A FINAL MOTION.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED DIDN'T TAKE A VOTE.
CAN I JUST SPEAK IN FOR, FOR ONE MINUTE? I'LL JUST MAKE THIS VERY QUICK.
I JUST WANT TO THANK MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR GIVING US THIS OPPORTUNITY OF WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO DO TODAY IN THE WORKING GROUP.
I THINK AS A DELIBERATIVE BODY, WE'RE BETTER FOR IT.
I THINK THE ORDINANCE IS BETTER FOR IT.
I JUST APPRECIATE GIVING US THAT SPACE.
AND I REALLY WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR GIVING US THAT SPACE AS WELL.
UH, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE COMMISSIONERS AND ESPECIALLY THE WORKING GROUP FOR Y'ALL'S TIME THAT Y'ALL PUT IN ON THE WEEKEND AND, AND, AND TRYING TO GET THIS DONE ON THE QUICK TIMELINES THAT WE HAD AND, UH, UH, APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S COMMENTS AND THOUGHTS TOWARDS MAKING THIS A BETTER ORDINANCE, LIKE, OKAY.
SO, UM, IT'S GOING TO TAKE A VOTE, GOATS, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, UH, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST, AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT EVERYBODY HAS DONE, BOTH STAFF AND, AND THE WORKING GROUP AND, AND THE REST OF THE COMMISSION.
UM, I'M JUST SEEING THAT THIS IS GONE MORE FROM, LIKE I SAID, I, I SEE IT MORE AND MORE, LESS OF A, WE UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT THAT THESE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ARE HAVING ON OUR PARKS.
[04:35:01]
AND SEE THAT THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE IN THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WHO DON'T LIVE HERE AND, YOU KNOW, DON'T PAY TAXES AND ARE CONTRIBUTING.UM, BUT THERE ARE LOTS OF PEOPLE, AS YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER COX HAS POINTED OUT WHO, WHO MIGHT USE OUR PARKS AND, AND DON'T CONTRIBUTE.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE, YOU KNOW, AS AGAINST NOT LIKE THE RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION, WHERE, AS I SAID, WE SAW THIS METRIC THAT WAS MOVING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.
WE'D BEEN TRACKING THAT METRIC FOR, YOU KNOW, DECADES.
AND WE SAW MOVING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.
WE WANTED TO CORRECT THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT METRIC.
MAYBE MORE AND MORE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ARE, ARE CAUSING, YOU KNOW, LOAD ON OUR PARKS THAT WE, WE CAN'T SUPPORT, BUT MAYBE ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT, ALL THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, ALL THOSE TAXES, ALL THOSE SALES TAXES THAT SUPPORT OUR GENERAL FUND.
MAYBE THOSE ARE HELPING US BUILD OUR PARKS.
MAYBE THE MORE RETAIL BUILDINGS WE GET HERE.
IT'S NOT THAT THE PEOPLE ARE DRIVING IN TO WORK AT WALMART AND GOING SWIMMING IN OUR SWIMMING POOLS FOR FREE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE DRIVING IN FROM ACROSS THE CITY TO BUILD, YOU KNOW, TO SHOP AT WALL OR FROM ACROSS THE METRO AREA TO SHOP AT WALMART AND PAY TAXES THAT FUND OUR PARKS.
AND, AND I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT WITHOUT CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT HAVING RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE IN AUSTIN IS BAD FOR PARKS, THAT WE'RE PUTTING A FEE TO DRIVE THE, THOSE RETAIL CENTERS OUTSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
AND NOW THAT TAX MONEY IS GOING TO GO TO, YOU KNOW, SUNSET VALLEY AND TO ROUNDROCK AND TO OTHER PLACES.
AND WITHOUT CLEAR EVIDENCE, I JUST CAN'T SUPPORT THIS WHEN IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE JUST TRYING TO STICK IT TO SOMEBODY WHO MIGHT PAY A FEE AND NOT THINK ABOUT WHAT THE IMPACT ON HAVING THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT GO, YOU KNOW, FAR FROM OUR CITY.
OTHER COMMISSIONERS WANT TO SPEAK FOR AGAINST EMOTION, I GUESS.
UM, IT'S MORE OF KIND OF A NEUTRAL, I MEAN, I'M GOING TO TAKE A STANCE ON IT, BUT, UM, I MEAN, I, I FEEL LIKE THIS WHOLE IDEA THAT, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO INCREASE THESE, YOU KNOW, ADD ANOTHER FEE, ADD ANOTHER FEVER.
I MEAN, WE, WE'RE ALREADY TO THE POINT WHERE STATE OF AUSTIN HAS SOME OF THE HIGHEST FEES IN THE STATE AND HERE WE ARE ADDING ANOTHER ONE.
IF THIS WAS GOING TO HELP ADJUST, YOU KNOW, THE RESIDENTIAL, UM, IMPACT FEES, YOU KNOW, UH, THE PARKLAND DEDICATION BETWEEN ALL OF THAT.
BUT INSTEAD IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A SEPARATE ONE AND WE DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE DYNAMICS OF HOW THESE TWO THINGS INTERTWINED YET.
I MEAN, LIKE TO ME, IT'S LIKE, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT ON IT, BUT AS WE TWEAK IT OVER HERE, THEN, YOU KNOW, W W WITH THIS NEW FEE, THEN, I MEAN, IN MY MIND, YOU KNOW, THE RESIDENTIAL IMPACT, I MEAN, THAT COULD BE TWEAKED TO BE READJUSTED POTENTIALLY LOWER BECAUSE WE JUST INCREASED IT AGAIN, YOU KNOW, ON ANOTHER SIDE, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT BALANCE IS.
SO I'M, I'M TO THE POINT TO, TO CONSIDER GIVING IT A GO, BECAUSE WE ARE GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT REAL ASSESSMENT.
IF WE FIND OUT THAT WE ARE COLLECTING MORE FUNDS THAN WE REALLY NEED, THEN WE REALLY NEED TO RE-EXAMINE THIS AND HOW IT BALANCES WITH THE RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION.
SO I THINK I'M GOING TO BE LEANING TOWARD SUPPORTING IT IN HOPES THAT IT'LL REBALANCE AND MAYBE THE NET WILL NOT BE A NECESSARILY HUGE INCREASE IN FEES OF THE OVERALL, YOU KNOW, ASPECT OF THIS.
ANY MORE COMMISSIONERS FOR A TICKET VOTE FOR SURE.
ANDERSON AND THEN COMMISSIONER COX.
UM, IF I HAD TO BE THE SEVENTH BOAT, I WOULD PROBABLY SUPPORT THIS JUST BECAUSE I REALLY FEEL THAT THE GOOD WORK THAT THIS BODY HAS DONE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS HAS REALLY IMPROVED THIS ORDINANCE.
AND I REALLY HOPE THAT COUNCIL ACCESS EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE DONE HERE TONIGHT.
UM, THE FACT THAT WE, WE ALMOST STARTED WITH A BROKEN PROCESS THOUGH, RIGHT? SO I KNOW COUNCIL DIRECTED THE COMMUNITY INPUT TO COME IN.
AND THEN IT SEEMS THAT TWO WEEKS LATER THERE WAS A PROPOSAL THAT KIND OF USE THE BROKEN RESIDENTIAL FORMULA AS THE BASE.
AND THIS IS A FORMULA THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT WAS IT 10, EIGHT YEARS AGO? I THINK WE WERE CHARGING $750 PER HOME.
AND TODAY THAT NUMBER'S ROUGHLY 7,500 IS WHAT'S PROPOSED IN THE NEW BUDGET.
SO IT'S A THOUSAND PERCENT INCREASE IN EIGHT YEARS.
IT DOUBLED LAST YEAR, IT'S DOUBLING THIS YEAR.
WE ARE DOING EVERY POSSIBLE THING WE CAN TO MAKE POSITIVELY SURE.
THE STATE TAKES THIS POWER AWAY FROM US.
WE'RE ALMOST EXCITED TO DO SO WE'RE ON THIS CRASH COURSE INSTEAD OF,
[04:40:01]
YOU KNOW, GETTING THE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND PARKS ADVOCATES TO GO WORK TOGETHER AND CREATE A SUSTAINABLE FORMULA THAT WORKS.AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT DOING NEARLY ENOUGH OF WHAT WE COULD WITH INCENTIVES.
IF WE ALLOWED DOWN OUR CORRIDORS 120 FEET OF HEIGHT AND SAID, 15% OF THESE HOMES ARE AFFORDABLE, AND 15% OF THE SPACE IS GOING TO BE PARKED.
PLAN BOOKS WOULD JUMP AT THAT.
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAPPEN, BUT WE'RE NOT QUITE DOING THAT.
AND, AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST FEEL THAT THE PENALIZE REDEVELOPMENT, INSTEAD OF PROPERLY FUNDING PART IN A VIA GENERAL FUND OR BOND MONEY, OR HOWEVER WE WANT TO DO IT VIA A SUPER RUSS PROCESS, I JUST REALLY FEEL THIS IS GOING TO COME BACK TO BUY THIS.
AND SO I CAN'T SUPPORT ALL THAT.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO SAY, I REALLY WISH EVERYONE WAS ABLE TO JOIN OUR LISTENING SESSIONS BECAUSE I THOUGHT THEY WERE INCREDIBLY VALUABLE.
WE HAD, WE HAD PEOPLE, WE HAD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, WE HAD SPOKESMAN FROM RICA AND WE HAD ANY AUSTIN ADVOCACY PERSON WHO WAS JOINING JUST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A TREE CANOPY IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WE ALL HAD A VERY RESPECTFUL CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS TO DISCUSS THE CONCERNS.
AND I, AND I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO DO THIS NOW BECAUSE WE'RE IN A PERIOD OF RAPID GROWTH.
UM, OUR PARKS SCORE HAS BEEN WAVERING.
WHO DID THAT GET, UH, GO AHEAD.
IT CAN BE COMMISSIONED LADIES ON AND BY WE'RE EXPERIENCING SOME DIFFICULTIES, IF WE COULD TAKE A RECESS FOR OKAY.
SO WE NEED TO EXTEND TIME, THEN WE NEED TO EXTEND TIME TO 1115.
SO WE DUE TO THAT, WE TO DO A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 1115.
UH, WE HAVE A SECOND, LET'S VOTE REAL QUICK.
THOSE ON THE DIAS AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN AND FAVOR ANY AGAINST.
I'LL BE BACK IN FIVE, 10 MINUTES.
SO WE'RE GOING TO TURN 10 MINUTES 13.
WE ARE, UM, RECONVENE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 1113, AND WE NEED TO EXTEND ONE MORE TIME.
UH, SO I HAVE A MOTION TO EXTEND.
SO WE HAVE 11, 22 QUICK VOTE TO EXTEND.
SO THE VOTE IS FOR THE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND ORDINANCE IT'S TO, UH, WE'RE VOTING ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED.
AND THAT WAS A MOTION BY AZHAR SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR, APPLE.
AND SO WE'RE GOING TO DO A ROLL CALL VOTE.
UM, SO WE'LL JUST, I'M GOING TO GO.
UH, LET'S START WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, UH, VOTING AGAINST, OKAY.
HE WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING I'M SORRY.
I JUST, I KNOW WE STOPPED IN THE MIDDLE OF COMMISSIONER COX'S COMMENTS, AND I JUST WONDERED IF YOU WERE GOING TO ALLOW HIM TO FINISH HER.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO GO STRAIGHT TO THE BOAT.
I CAN ALLOW COMMISSIONER COX CUT.
WELL WE'RE NO, WE WE'RE HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.
WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND GET THROUGH THE VOTE.
SO, UM, COMMISSIONER IS OUR, UH, YES.
UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD COMMISSIONER HOWARD.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? UH, YOU MIGHT BE ON MUTE.
YOU VOTED IN FAVOR OR AGAINST.
UH, COMMISSIONER HONEST, PALITO, UH, UH, CHERISH, OURS AND FAVOR, UH, COMMISSIONER SHEA AND COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
SO IF I GOT MY NUMBERS THAT'S IT SAID EIGHT TO TWO.
AND IF HEARING NO OBJECTIONS, I'M GOING TO DISPOSE OF THE REMAINDER OF THE AGENDA.
[04:45:01]
AND WE'RE GOING TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 11 16, 11 16.