Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[00:00:05]

PAIGE, UH, I THINK I SAW HER A SECOND AGO.

KATHY, ARE YOU WITH US? YES, I SURE AM THERE.

GREAT, THANK YOU.

AND I'M MAYOR PRO TE.

I THINK YOU JUST SAID THAT SHE WAS WITH US, BUT, UH, UH, HEADED IN, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CONVENE TODAY'S, UH, CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION.

IT IS, UH, NINE 11.

UH, TODAY IS SEPTEMBER 26TH.

UM, 2022.

I'M SORRY.

SO 27TH, 2022.

UM, WE ARE IN THE BOARDS AND COMMISSION ROOM HERE FOR THE, UH, WORK SESSION COLLEAGUES.

I WAS, UH, ASKED TO, TO PAY A LITTLE BIT MORE ATTENTION TO HOW WE STRUCTURE THESE WORK SESSIONS TO TRY AND GET THINGS UP THAT WERE MOST, UH, LIKELY TO HELP US WITH THE MEETING ON THURSDAY AND OF GREATEST WIDESPREAD INTEREST.

THIS IS THE SCHEDULE I INTEND TO ORDER, INTEND TO FOLLOW HERE, UNLESS, UH, THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL IS DIFFERENT.

WE'RE GONNA DO THE COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE, PULLED BY THE MAYOR PRO TA.

WE'RE GONNA DO THE STATESMAN POD, UH, WHICH, UH, I PULLED, I DON'T, DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WILL TAKE TOO LONG.

IT'S MORE, UH, KIND OF A SURFACING OR AIRING OF, UH, ISSUES OR AMENDMENTS.

UH, SO PEOPLE CAN BETTER PLAN FOR THURSDAY.

UH, AND THEN, UH, UH, I'M ON A CALL UP, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER OF TOPOS ITEM 92, WHICH IS THE, UH, CITY OWNED REAL ESTATE ITEM.

NOT SO MUCH TO DISCUSS IT, BUT TO GIVE KATHY THE CHANCE TO KINDA LAY OUT WHAT THAT IS, CUZ IT'S, IT'S BIG AND HAS A LOT OF ISSUES.

WE CAN RETURN TO THAT LATER TODAY TO DISCUSS IT.

UH, BUT THEN TO, UH, GET, UH, AND THEN AFTER WE HAVE THAT, TO HAVE, UH, THE BRIEFING ON HEALTH SOUTH, FOLLOWED BY THE BRIEFING ON AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, HAVING GOTTEN THROUGH THOSE THINGS.

WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT, UH, UH, AGENDA MANAGEMENT FOR THURSDAY'S MEETINGS, CUZ WE WILL HAVE HIT THE BIG THINGS AT THAT POINT.

UH, AND AFTER WE'RE THROUGH WITH THAT, THEN WE'LL RETURN TO THE OTHER POLL ITEMS, UH, THAT WE DIDN'T, UH, COVER, UH, WHICH I THINK ARE THE ILA UH, ITEMS. AND THEN WE'LL DO THE BRIEFING ON, UH, THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN, THE BRIEFING ON TRASH AND CREEKS.

UH, AND THEN THE DISCUSSION OF ITEM 92, WHICH IS THE, UH, CITY OWNED REAL ESTATE, UH, ITEM.

SO THAT'S GENERALLY THE, THE PROCESS, THE ORDER I'M GONNA FOLLOW, WHICH I THINK HES US UP EARLY FOR THINGS THAT'LL BEST IMPACT THE WORK WE HAVE TO DO THIS WEEK.

UM, SO IF, IF, YES, UH, YES.

UH, KATHY, AND THEN ANNE, JUST A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE TAKING UP AND PRIORITIZING SOME OF THOSE, SOME OF THE COUNCIL PULLED ITEMS BECAUSE I THINK THAT REALLY DOES HELP US WITH OUR MEETING MANAGEMENT ON THURSDAY.

UM, THE ILAS, IF WE COULD, I KNOW I HAD PULLED THEM AT THE COUNCIL MEETING AND WE DIDN'T TAKE THEM UP, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T, IT DIDN'T BECOME CLEAR THAT WE WEREN'T GONNA GET TO THEM UNTIL QUITE LATE IN THE DAY.

AND SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IF WE'RE, SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE NOT GONNA GET TO THEM UNTIL QUITE LATE IN THE DAY TODAY TOO.

AND SINCE THAT INVOLVES CITY STAFF, I JUST WANNA BE, I JUST WANNA BE, UM, CONTENT OF THAT.

SO IF WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT UP HERE THIS MORNING, COULD WE ARRIVE AT A TIME WHERE WE WILL TAKE IT UP SO THAT OUR STAFF AREN'T WAITING AROUND ALL DAY? YEAH, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW.

WE'RE GONNA, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THE INITIAL PULLED ITEMS ARE GONNA BE.

I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GONNA TAKE VERY LONG.

SO I THINK WE'RE IN THE TWO BRIEFINGS THAT WE NEED TO REALLY DO THURSDAY, AND THEN I HAVE IT RIGHT AFTER THAT.

UH, SO, SO MANAGER, UH, YOU MIGHT LET THE I ILA STAFF KNOW I, WE NEED TO HIT IT BECAUSE IT WAS POSTPONED FOR LAST WEEK, BUT WE'LL HIT IT RIGHT AFTER THOSE FIRST TWO BRIEFINGS BEFORE WE DO OTHER STUFF.

YEAH.

ALTERNATIVELY, I COULD JUST LAY OUT MY, MY QUESTIONS AND WE COULD DISCUSS AS A COUNCIL AND THIS STAFF COULD ADDRESS IT ON THURSDAY.

I'D LIKE TO, UH, DO THE SAME WITH THE RENAISSANCE MARKET, WHICH I DID NOT PULL FOR TODAY, BUT I DO WANNA MAKE A FEW COMMENTS ABOUT IT.

BUT I DIDN'T WANNA HAVE TO HAVE STAFF WAIT AROUND ALL DAY WHEN I SAW THAT THERE WERE SO MANY BRIEFINGS.

SO I INTENDED TO JUST TALK ABOUT THAT WITHOUT STAFF AND THEN ASK STAFF TO WAIT IN ON THURSDAY.

THAT WOULD BE FINE TOO.

UH, UNLESS STAFF COULD, I MEAN, TO THE DEGREE WE CAN GET STUFF DONE HERE AS OPPOSED TO THURSDAY, I'D LOVE TO BE ABLE TO, TO DO THAT.

SO LET'S, LET'S SEE.

KATHY, IF THEY'RE ABLE TO, IF ACCEPT AND THEY CAN'T, AND IF THEY CAN, I DO THINK WE NEED STAFF INPUT ON THE ILA.

SO IF, BUT IF WE COULD, AGAIN, JUST FIGURE OUT A, A MORE PRECISE TIME, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

TOUGH TO DO.

AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU DID AROUND, AROUND TIME, RIGHT? AF RIGHT AFTER THOSE FIRST TWO BRIEFINGS.

UM, AND JUST QUICK QUESTION.

DO I, I CAN'T REMEMBER.

DO WE HAVE EXECUTIVE SESSION TODAY? WE

[00:05:01]

DO NOT.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

OKAY, SO

[A. Pre-Selected Agenda Items (Part 1 of 2)]

LET'S GO AHEAD AND START.

UH, UH, ALLISON, UH, YOU PULLED THE, UH, COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE.

DID YOU WANNA ADDRESS THAT? UM, YES.

I, UM, AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE SCHEDULE FOR JULY AND AUGUST.

WE SEEM TO HAVE AN EXTRA COUNCIL MEETING, UM, IN THAT PERIOD BEFORE BUDGET THEN WE HAD THIS YEAR OR LAST YEAR.

I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE TIMING, UM, FOR WHEN WE'RE HAVING BUDGET HEARINGS, UM, OR, YOU KNOW, THE BUDGET SESSIONS.

I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE HAVE THE BUDGET HEARING THAT IT'S JUST A WORK SESSION THAT WE ARE ABLE AND PLANNING TO TALK THAT DAY.

UM, AND I THINK THAT WE NEED OTHER TIME WITH A COUNCIL THAT'LL HAVE SO MANY NEW MEMBERS TO BE TALKING ABOUT BUDGET.

AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE, WE'RE, UM, WORKING THAT IN.

DID YOU HAVE, UM, HOW, HOW, HOW WOULD YOU PROPOSE TO RESPOND TO THOSE QUESTIONS WITH THIS ITEM COMING UP ON, ON THURSDAY? WOULD YOU WANT STAFF TO PROPOSE SOMETHING DIFFERENT OR A BETTER ARTICULATION OR DEFINITION OF WHAT'S HAPPENING ON PARTICULAR DAYS? OR DID YOU HAVE A PROPOSAL? WELL, I, I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE, UM, NOT HAVE, UM, ONE OF THOSE COUNCIL MEETINGS, UM, SCHEDULED AND THAT WE MAY BE PLANNED THAT WE COULD GO TO THE SECOND DAY IF WE NEED TO.

UM, SO THAT, UM, WE ARE ABLE TO, UM, SO THAT IF WE HAVE TO GO OVER, WE HAVE A BIG MEETING, WE HAVE THE SPACE TO DO THAT.

UM, BUT I THINK IT'S UNREALISTIC TO HAVE TWO, IT'S UNREALISTIC TO HAVE TWO COUNCIL MEETINGS BEFORE BUDGET, UM, AND ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO FOCUS ON BUDGET.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ONE OF THOSE COUNCIL MEETINGS REMOVED, MAYBE THE SECOND ONE.

AND THEN FOR THE FIRST ONE WE BLOCK OFF EITHER THE FRIDAY OR, OR, YOU KNOW, NOTE THAT ON WEDNESDAY WE MIGHT TAKE UP THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR THAT.

UM, AND THEN I THINK WE NEED ANOTHER, WE NEED ANOTHER WORK SESSION DAY ONE OF THOSE WEEKS BEFORE BUDGET, AT LEAST WE COULD ALWAYS CANCEL THEM, BUT I, I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

CERTAINLY COMES MEMBER, WE CAN WORK WITH YOUR OFFICE TO, UH, HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT YOU COULD PROPOSE ON THURSDAY.

BUT I THINK ONE, ONE THING JUST FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, JUST TO HAVE THIS OUT THERE AND THEN OBVIOUSLY WITH A, A NEW COUNCIL NEXT TERM, UH, THERE WE CAN SCHEDULE A TIME AT A WORK SESSION EARLY ON IN THE YEAR TO TALK THROUGH THE ENTIRE, UH, CALENDAR.

UM, BECAUSE THERE WILL BE, UH, NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT WOULD BE WANTING TO ENGAGE IN THAT CONVERSATION AS WELL.

UM, BUT FOR THE TIME BEING, UH, I HEAR YOU ON NOT HAVING TWO MEETINGS IN THE SUMMER, AND CERTAINLY, UH, WE CAN GIVE YOU LANGUAGE THAT WOULD HAVE THAT ALTERNATIVE FOR THURSDAY IS CONSIDERATION.

BUT IT'S NOT THAT I'M NOT WANT TO HAVE THE MEETINGS, I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S REALISTIC IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WE NEED TO DO TO FOCUS ON THE BUDGET.

UM, I THINK WE ALREADY, WE ALREADY, UM, HAVE SOME CHALLENGES WITH THE BUDGET PROCESS.

THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO RAISE IS THAT THERE IS THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES MEETING IN NOVEMBER, UM, RIGHT BEFORE THANKSGIVING.

IT'S IN ATLANTA NEXT YEAR.

UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE TO RESOLVE THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT WE MAY, UM, WE MAY FIND THAT WE HAVE SEVERAL COUNCIL METER MEMBERS WHO WANT TO GO TO THAT.

UM, I DIDN'T HAVE A SOLUTION GIVEN THE TIMING OF HOW WE WOULD HANDLE THAT, UM, OTHER THAN, UM, POTENTIALLY CANCELING THE MEETING OR MOVING IT EARLIER IN THE WEEK.

UM, BUT I WANTED TO RAISE THAT AND, UM, I NEED TO CHECK IN WITH SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES, BUT THAT MAY ALSO BE AN ISSUE FOR THIS YEAR.

OKAY.

IF YOU COULD WORK WITH A MANAGER, COME UP WITH AN AMENDMENT, THE ALLISON, IF YOU COULD POST THAT MAYBE TOMORROW SO THAT PEOPLE CAN COMPARE IT TO THEIR CALENDARS RATHER THAN GETTING SOMETHING NEW ON THE DICE.

THAT WOULD BE, UH, BEST.

UH, I'LL ALSO TAKE A LOOK, EVEN THOUGH I WON'T BE HERE IN TERMS OF THE US CONFERENCE OF MAYOR DATES TO SEE, MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE CLEARED AS WELL TO THE NLC MEETING THIS YEAR.

I WILL BE OUT OF TOWN AND, AND I THINK THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO, MAYBE MORE COUNCIL MEMBERS PLANNING TO ATTEND.

SO WE SHOULD PROBABLY JUST SURFACE THAT IN A, AND POSSIBLY ADDRESS THAT.

OKAY.

AND THAT'S NOVEMBER 17TH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT THE DATE IS.

IT'S THE WEEK BEFORE THANKSGIVING.

I, I THINK OKAY.

CHECK.

SAME KIND OF THING.

YOU MEAN IT'S GONNA BE HARD TO MAKE CHANGES ON THE, ON THE DAIS, UH, AND IN HOPES THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY GET PAST THAT AND RESOLVE THAT RATHER THAN HAVING THAT COME BACK TO NEXT WEEK.

IF ANYBODY HAS CONCERNS OR THOUGHTS, FIRST ONE UP, START A STRING ON

[00:10:01]

THAT ON THE MESSAGE BOARD, OTHER PEOPLE COULD THEN ADD TO IT.

AND THAT'S YOUR, YOUR BEST SHOT AT GETTING YOUR SCHEDULE, RECOGNIZING THAT YOU'LL THE COUNCIL REVISIT IT EARLY IN THE YEAR WHEN YOU HAVE NEW PEOPLE.

WELL, JUST TO SHAPE THAT.

UM, AND IT IS, UH, THURSDAY, THE 17TH OF NOVEMBER, THAT IS THE MEETING TO SHAPE THAT.

I WAS JUST GOING TO SUGGEST THAT IF THERE ARE ITEMS THAT ARE, THAT NEED A FULL DI THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO EITHER PUSH THEM LATER OR BRING THEM SOONER.

I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE NOT HAVE THE MEETING AND I'LL TRY TO DIAL IN FOR PORTIONS AS I CAN AND I'M, I'M PRETTY SURE EVERYBODY ELSE FEELS THAT WAY, UH, SO I DON'T WANNA BE DISRUPTIVE.

GOT IT.

BUT WE MAY BE ABLE TO DO SOME AGENDA PLANNING, UH, IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THAT, OF THAT TRIP.

GOT IT.

MAYOR AND MY OFFICE TELLS ME THAT, UH, THE DATES FOR THE US CONFERENCE OF MAYORS WAS IN FACT TURNED OVER TO KATIE, SO I THINK IT'S ALREADY IN THERE.

I'M ALSO GONNA BE GONE THAT WEEK TO THE NATIONAL ON NOVEMBER 17TH.

YEAH, THANK YOU.

ME AND THERE, I DUNNO IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE, BUT I KNOW OF US.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS NOVEMBER 17TH.

THIS HERE.

IT'S THE ONLY ONE I'M TALKING ABOUT.

OKAY.

SO I'M OUT, I'M ALSO OUTTA THE COUNTRY.

I'M AT COP 27.

YEAH, ON NOVEMBER 17TH.

IF WE HAVE A, WHO ELSE IS? SO, LOOKS LIKE WE MIGHT HAVE LOTS OF PEOPLE ON THE GUYS WHO ARE NOT HERE, AT LEAST FOR MAYBE MORE IT TO THE PRESENT BOARD AND, OKAY.

SO LET'S, LET'S START ON THAT.

MAYOR, I WAS MAYOR.

I WAS, UM, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER, WHETHER TO ATTEND THE CONFERENCE OR NOT, DEPENDING ON WHETHER WE WERE HAVING A COUNCIL MEETING.

UM, BUT I HAVE NOT MADE PLANS YET.

OKAY.

WE'LL POST SOMETHING TO THE MESSAGE BOARD TO TRY AND GET PEOPLE'S FEEL FOR THE 17TH, BUT IF EVERYBODY'S NOT HERE ON THE 17TH, LET'S FIND AN ALTERNATIVE FOR THAT.

OR MANAGER, IF YOU COULD TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT'S ANTICIPATED TO SEE.

WE ONLY HAVE TWO MEETINGS IN THE YEAR AFTER THE 17TH, SO I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS ABOUT JUST PULLING IT OFF.

UH, BUT LET'S TAKE A LOOK.

MAYBE THE LAST WEEK IN NOVEMBER, MAYBE WE HAVE JUST THREE MEETINGS IN A ROW SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE A 160 ITEM, UM, AGENDA.

BUT WE'LL POST SOMETHING ON THE MESSAGE BOARD TO START THAT CONVERSATION.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

UM, FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE SCHEDULE.

OKAY, SO LET'S MOVE OFF.

YEAH, JUST, I'M SORRY, MARY, I DID HAVE ONE MORE THING TO SAY.

GO AHEAD, KEN.

UM, COUNCIL MEMBER, MAYOR, PRETEND MAYBE FIXING THIS, BUT, YOU KNOW, DURING OUR BUDGET CONVERSATIONS, WE HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS, SOMETIMES ON THE DIAS, SOMETIMES OFF THE DIAS, ABOUT REALLY THE NEED FOR MORE, FOR MORE WORK SESSIONS LEADING UP TO THAT.

AND I, I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAYOR PARTEM IS ADDRESSING.

BUT YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL OF US ARE LEAVING, SO THIS ISN'T REALLY OUR, OUR, UM, CONVERSATION TO HAVE PERHAPS.

BUT I, I REALLY THINK THAT SOME OF THE WAYS WE'VE DONE IT IN PAST YEARS JUST WORKED BETTER WHEN WE HAD KIND OF A HALF DAY OR A FULL DAY WHERE WE COULD ASK QUESTIONS OF DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS KIND OF EARLIER IN THE PROCESS.

I THINK THAT REALLY HELPS.

AND ESPECIALLY WITH, WITH A VERY NEW DIAS, I THINK IT'S GONNA BE REALLY CRITICAL.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE QUESTIONS, I MEAN, WE HAD MANY, MANY, MANY QUESTIONS IN THE BUDGET Q AND A, AND A LOT OF THOSE I THINK WOULD HAVE ARISEN NATURALLY IF WE HAD HAD THOSE PRESENTATIONS FROM DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, OR AT LEAST OPPORTUNITIES, PRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED IN ADVANCE AND OPPORTUNITIES TO ASK QUESTIONS, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WE'VE DONE IT DIFFERENT WAYS IN THE PAST.

BUT, BUT IN ALL OF THOSE OPTIONS THAT AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO JUST FOCUS DEPARTMENT BY DEPARTMENT BY DEPARTMENT IN THOSE EARLY CONVERSATIONS AND THE BUDGET PROCESS.

AND I THINK THAT'S VERY HELPFUL.

AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, JUST HAVING, HAVING THOSE WORK SESSIONS WHERE WE'RE NOT ATTEMPTING TO MAKE DECISIONS BUT ARE LAYING OUT DIFFERENT IDEAS AND ACTUALLY DISCUSSING REALLY HELPS IN THE BUDGET PROCESS BECAUSE MANY OF THOSE IDEAS WE WOULD HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED, WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN REALLY TALKING ABOUT THEM FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE BUDGET ITSELF, ON THE BUDGET DAYS ITSELF.

SOUNDS GOOD.

WE'VE ASKED, UH, UH, ALLISON TO GO AHEAD AND, AND POST RO WITH STAFF, COME UP WITH HER THOUGHTS ON AMENDMENT, HOPEFULLY POST THEM TOMORROW.

SO THERE'LL BE AN OPPORTUNITY IF THAT'S NOT ADDRESSED IN THAT KATHY, FOR, FOR YOU AND OTHERS TO COMMENT ON TOP OF THAT, LET'S SEE HOW MUCH OF THAT WE CAN DAYLIGHT TOMORROW SO THAT ON THURSDAY WE MIGHT ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO MOVE IT FORWARD RATHER THAN POSTPONING IT.

ALL

[82. NPA-2019-0022.02- 305 S. Congress PUD - Approve second reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 20050929-Z001 the Greater South River City Combined Neighborhood Plan, an element of the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan, to change the land use designation on the future land use map (FLUM) on property locally known as 305 South Congress Avenue (Lady Bird Lake Watershed) from Industry to Mixed Use land use. First Reading approved Mixed Use land use on April 7, 2022. Vote: 10-0, Council Member Harper-Madison was off the dais. Owner/Applicant: Richard T. Suttle, Jr., Trustee. Agent: Armbrust & Brown, PLLC (Richard T. Suttle, Jr.). City Staff: ]

RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON THEN TO THE, TO THE NEXT POLL ITEM.

I PULLED THE, UH, STATESMAN PUT, UH, ITEM, UH, I APPRECIATE, UH, THE WORK, UM, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER THAT, THAT YOU HAD.

UH, OBVIOUSLY, UM, THE, THE, THE LAST THING OF RECORD IS WHAT WE APPROVED ON FIRST READING.

UM, UH, WE HAVE IN NOW BACKUP, UM, A, A ITERATION OF, OF THAT.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO REAL QUICKLY, COUNCIL

[00:15:01]

MAVE EXPLAIN WHAT WHAT THAT IS AND MY PURPOSE IN PULLING THIS ITEM WAS TO SEE IF OTHER PEOPLE WOULD BE BRINGING OTHER AMENDMENTS ON THURSDAY THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT, SO THAT WE COULD GET A FEEL FOR WHAT MIGHT BE HAPPENING ON, ON THURSDAY.

MR. VELA? YES, MAYOR.

WHAT WHAT WE HAD ASKED STAFF TO DO IS TO ESSENTIALLY DRAFT, UM, A RESOLUTION, UH, AN ORDINANCE THAT HAS THE CONSENSUS ITEMS, UH, WITH REGARD TO THE, UH, STATEMENT PUT THOSE THAT, THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS AGREED TO, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED, OR THAT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO, UH, UH, I BELIEVE HAS ASKED FOR, AND THAT THE DEVELOPER, UH, HAS, UH, AGREED TO THAT WAY WE HAVE KIND OF A, A CLEAN VERSION OR ONE A VERSION WHERE ALL THAT IS IN THAT VERSION.

THERE IS NO OPPOSITION TO THOSE AND THAT WAY WE CAN THEN AMEND IT AS NEEDED AND THEN DEBATE THOSE AMENDMENTS.

UM, AGAIN, IT'S JUST KIND OF A PATH FORWARD, UH, TO, UH, TO, TO HIGHLIGHT THE ISSUES THAT ARE IN CONFLICT OR THAT HAVE SOME CONCERNS AROUND THEM.

AND MY INTENTION WAS TO OFFER THAT AS FOR SECOND READING, AND THEN WE CAN TAKE AMENDMENTS FROM THAT POINT.

OKAY.

I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL.

THANK YOU.

COLLEAGUES DID, BY WAY OF DISCLOSURE, I, UM, UM, AM TRYING TO TALK TO THE, TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT TWO THINGS.

YOU ALL MAY BE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING.

IF THERE'S A WAY FOR US TO GET A GREATER NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, UH, IN ADJACENT OR NEARLY ADJACENT PROPERTY, NEARBY PROPERTY AS PART OF THIS AND INCREASE THE NUMBER, THAT'S SOMETHING I WANT US TO EXPLORE AND, AND CONSIDER ASSOCIATED WITH THE, THE PUT APPROVAL.

SO TO INCREASE THE NUMBER.

UM, AND, UM, UM, I'VE ALSO, UM, UH, ASKED THE APPLICANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE PUT APPLICATION AND SEE IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR AN ADDITIONAL PAD SITE OR SOMETHING ON THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD OPEN UP THE OPPORTUNITY FOR, UH, ADDITIONAL, UH, BUILDING THAT WITH A DENSITY BONUS, UH, COULD DRIVE, UH, ADDITIONAL, UM, HOUSING, UH, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, EITHER ON A SITE OR ADJACENT TO THE SITE.

SO I'VE ASKED HIM TO THE APPLICANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE, THOSE TWO THINGS.

IF I GET ANYTHING BACK ON THOSE, I'LL POST THOSE TO THE, TO THE MESSAGE BOARD.

CATHERINE PAUL.

THANKS MAYOR.

AND YOU PROBABLY ALL KNOW THAT I'VE BEEN WORKING ON A MOTION REGARDING THE PARK DESIGN PROCESS AND A LIST OF AMENITIES THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE FUNDING AT A HUNDRED PERCENT.

I'VE BEEN WORKING, MY TEAM'S BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT AND WITH STAFF AND, UM, WITH A SUB TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COVER THIS TERRITORY COMPLETELY.

SO WE'LL BE PUTTING THAT UP ON THE MESSAGE BOARD PRETTY SOON.

UH, BUT THE MOTION SHEET IS A PUBLIC PARK DESIGN PROCESS, UM, AND, AND, AND THEN IT JUST DESCRIBES WHAT THAT IS.

SO WE'LL BE PUTTING THAT UP ONTO THE MESSAGE BOARD SO Y'ALL CAN HAVE A LOOK, SEE AT IT.

AND, UM, I DON'T THINK I NEED TO READ IT RIGHT NOW HERE, BUT GREAT.

UM, COUNCIL MEMBER VELA, I'D BE LOOKING FOR THAT TO BE INCLUDED AS A FRIENDLY AND THE BASE MOTION AT SOME, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE GET TO THAT.

THANKS.

AND, UM, I'VE ALSO BEEN, UH, LOOKING AT SOME OF THIS MAY END UP BEING PART OF COUNCIL MEMBER POOLS, BUT I'VE LOOKED AT TWO THINGS.

ONE OF 'EM IS THE, UM, OUR, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO.

I DON'T KNOW IF SHE'S ON THE LINE RIGHT NOW, BUT I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THE ISSUE RELATED TO THE ACCESS YEAH.

UH, ON THE LINE.

OKAY.

I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THE ISSUE RELATED TO THE ACCESS FROM CONGRESS AVENUE BRIDGE DOWN TO THE TRAIL, AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE MAY HAVE SOME OPTIONS FOR THAT.

SO, UM, WHICH IS ONE OF THE AREAS OF CONCERN FOR FOLKS, UH, AN OPTION FOR ACCESS THAT IN ADDITION TO GOING THROUGH THE CENTER OF ANY DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE RIGHT THERE, UH, NEXT TO CONGRESS AVENUE.

SO WE'LL SEE IF THERE, IF THAT, UM, MATERIALIZES.

AND THEN THE SECOND THING IS I MAY, I MAY HAVE SOME SUGGESTED LANGUAGE AROUND THE PARAMETERS ON THE MOVING THE TRAIL TO PUT SOME MORE, UM, CLARITY AROUND UNDERSTANDING WHAT, UH, THE PARAMETERS ARE.

THERE AGAIN, THAT THE CONCERN HAS BEEN THAT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE SUCH A, UM, WE HAVE SUCH A BEAUTIFUL AREA FOR THE TRAIL WHERE IT GOES BECAUSE IT GOES DOWN THERE THROUGH THE, UM, THROUGH THE TREES AND IT'S A VERY, UM, YOU

[00:20:01]

KNOW, IT'S A VERY PLEASING AREA IN THE SENSE THAT YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU'RE, YOU FEEL LIKE YOU'RE IN MORE IN NATURE.

SO, UM, SO I, I THINK THIS IS AN AREA THAT THE STAFF OF COURSE HAS EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT, UM, UH, BEING TOO CLOSE TO THE LAKE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE, UM, JUST VARIOUS IMPACTS ON THE LAKE.

SO THAT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO ADDRESS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SET SOME PARAMETERS AROUND WHAT THAT MOVING THAT TRAIL COULD LOOK LIKE.

THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR THE DEVELOPER, IT'S SOMETHING TO BE WORKED OUT WITH OUR STAFF.

AND SO, UM, AND I THINK IT'D BE IMPORTANT FOR THE, THE, UH, PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE PARAMETERS ARE INSTEAD OF JUST LEAVING IT, UH, UNSPECIFIED.

SO THAT'S THE THE OTHER THING THAT I'M, UH, THINKING OF BRINGING AN AMENDMENT ON.

OKAY, BILL.

THANK YOU MARY.

I ALSO BEEN IN CONVERSATION AND, AND LOOKING AT THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDING MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS THERE AT THE, AND ALSO JUST RIGHT NEXT TO IT, I'M KIND OF EXCITED ABOUT IT CUZ WE'D BE ABLE TO HAVE THESE, UH, 44 UNITS IMMEDIATELY AND NOT WAITING, AND I'D HAVE TO WAIT TILL THE END OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO I'M ALSO ON BOARD ON THAT WITH HUMIRA AND I, I'M LOOKING AT THAT POSSIBILITY AND YEAH, THAT, THAT TRAIL THERE IS A, HAS A LOT OF POSSIBILITY AND POTENTIALLY MAKE IT IN IF WE GET IT DONE THE RIGHT WAY.

UH, AS A, AS A BIKER MYSELF THAT I LOVE TO DRIVE MY BIKE AROUND THERE, UH, IT IS KIND OF DANGEROUS BECAUSE, UH, LOOSE GRA THAT'S ON THERE AND, UH, THE WAY THEY, UH, THE TRAIL DOES NARROW UP THERE IN THAT LOCATION AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR WALKERS AND BIKERS TO GET THROUGH THERE.

WE ALWAYS HAPPEN TO BE LOOK LOOKING BACK TO SEE IF SOMEONE IS GONNA COME BY AND ON THEIR BIKE.

SO, UH, I AGREE THAT WE, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY OF MAKE THIS INTO A WORLD CLASS TYPE PARK THERE, SO I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT IT.

OKAY.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT THEY THOUGHT MIGHT BE, UH, PEOPLE THOUGHT THEY MIGHT BE BRING? YES, KATHY? YEAH.

UM, I HAVE A, A FEW THINGS I WANTED TO DISCUSS.

I THINK MY FIRST IS A QUESTION FOR COUNCIL MEMBER BELLA.

SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE DEVELOPER HAS PROVIDED ALL OF US PROBABLY WITH A MATRIX SHOWING WHAT, WHAT, UM, OF, OF WHAT PASSED ON.

WELL, JUST TO BACK, I THINK I'LL JUST BACKTRACK.

YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE SOME AMENDMENT, I MEAN THE DEVELOPER BROUGHT FORWARD THE PROPOSAL, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE SOME AMENDMENTS THAT ALSO EMBRACED SOME OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD AMENDMENTS, AND THEN WE MADE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS AND PASSED IT ON FIRST READING.

SO YOU'VE BROUGHT FORWARD, UH, SUBSEQUENT SUBSEQUENTLY, THE DEVELOPER PROVIDED I THINK MOST OF OUR OFFICES WITH A LIST OF WHAT THEY WOULD AND WOULD NOT AGREE TO BASED ON WHAT WE PASSED AS A COUNCIL ON FIRST READING.

AND NOW YOU'VE ASKED OUR STAFF TO PRODUCE AN ORDINANCE BASED ON WHAT THEY'VE AGREED TO.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BEST WAY IS TO, TO TACKLE THAT.

UM, BECAUSE THERE ARE GOING TO BE POINTS THROUGHOUT, THROUGHOUT THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT I THINK YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE PRESENTED AS A SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE.

I THINK THERE ARE GONNA BE POINTS THROUGHOUT THAT, THAT WE NEED TO NOW DISCUSS BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT SOMETIMES SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE PASSED ON FIRST READING.

AND I WONDERED IF YOU HAD A LIST OF WHAT, WHAT YOU ARE BRINGING FORWARD, HOW THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THEIR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE ONE, THE ISSUE THAT I'M MOST CONCERNED ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WE PASSED ON FIRST OR ON FIRST READING THAT IT BE 10% ON SITE BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT, UH, IN, YOU KNOW, FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, INCLUDING THAT THAT IS WHAT A PLANNED UNIT ORDINANCE, WHAT WHAT THE PUT ORDINANCE REQUIRES 10% ON SITE.

AND SO I BELIEVE THE, THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU'RE BRINGING FORWARD ON THURSDAY SHIFTS THAT BACK TO 4%.

SO THOSE ARE, YOU KNOW, SOME SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT, THOSE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE PASSED ON FIRST READING AND WE'LL ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE A CONVERSATION.

THEY'RE ALSO REALLY WHAT, WHAT THE APPLICANT BROUGHT FORWARD INITIALLY.

SO, YOU KNOW, I, ONE OF THE THINGS I'M GONNA TRY TO ASSESS IS WHAT, UH, WHAT OF WHAT YOU'RE BRINGING FORWARD IS REALLY JUST A SHIFT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, BUT, SO THAT'S A QUESTION FOR YOU, BUT I'D ALSO LIKE TO JUST TALK ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS OUR COUNCIL HERE FOR A FEW MINUTES.

MAYOR, UM, THE APPLICANT I THINK IN OUR LAST PUBLIC CONVERSATION TALKED ABOUT THAT, THAT NEARBY SITE.

UM, I KNOW WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT ALONG WITH SOME OF OUR HOUSING ADVOCATES AND SOME OF OUR HOUSING DEVELOPERS IN TOWN.

AND

[00:25:01]

I THINK THERE, YOU KNOW, IF I COULD SUMMARIZE THOSE, I THINK THERE'S A WILLINGNESS TO, TO LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING THOSE UNITS BE OFFSITE.

BUT, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHAT I CERTAINLY HEAR AND CERTAINLY BELIEVE IS THAT 4% IS STILL FAR LOWER THAN, THAN THE NUMBER THAT SHOULD BE REQUIRED.

AGAIN, THE POD REQUIRES 10%.

AND SO IF THOSE ARE SHIFTING, ESPECIALLY IF THOSE ARE SHIFTING OFF SITE, WE REALLY NEED TO GET UP TO THAT 10% NUMBER.

AND I'D REALLY LIKE TO HEAR FROM MY COLLEAGUES, INCLUDING COUNCIL MEMBER BELLA, SINCE YOU'RE BRINGING FORWARD A VERY DIFFERENT PROPOSAL, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU AND FROM OTHERS, YOU KNOW, WHERE, WHERE WE STAND, UM, IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS AND THE LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY, WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER TO, I ORIGINALLY HAD A PROPOSAL TO USE THE, UH, MONEY THAT IN LIEU OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON SITE, I HAD A PROPOSAL, AGAIN, THIS IS GOING BACK MONTHS AT THIS POINT, BUT TO USE THAT, TO TAKE THE CASH VALUE OF THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND USE IT, UH, FOR TO HOUSE, UH, THE HOMELESS.

UM, SO I'M OPEN TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE, WHERE THE HOUSING SHOULD BE AND ALL THAT.

HONESTLY, I DON'T HAVE REALLY STRONG VIEWS ABOUT, UH, THAT RIGHT NOW.

I WILL SAY THAT WHAT WE PASSED ON FIRST READING WAS REALLY JUST A PLACEHOLDER.

I MEAN, WE DID NOT DEBATE ANYTHING.

WE DID NOT REALLY VET ANY OF THE AMENDMENTS.

YOU KNOW, WE, WE HEARD THE PRESENTATION, YOU KNOW, WE WENT AHEAD AND, AND MOVED IT, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, PASSED IT ON FIRST READING WITH, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENTS AND I BELIEVE WAS A, A HANDFUL OF YOUR AMENDMENTS.

BUT AGAIN, I, I DIDN'T, THERE WAS REALLY NO DISCUSSION OR DEBATE ON THAT.

AND, UH, I WOULD THINK OF IT AS A PLACEHOLDER.

AGAIN, NOT SO DIFFERENT THAN, THAN WHAT I'M OFFERING FOR, FOR SECOND READING.

THAT SAID, THE SECOND READING, THE, THE, THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE IT'S REALLY JUST ADMINISTRATIVE.

IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, POLICY ORIENTED.

I JUST WANT A CLEAN VERSION WHERE, LOOK, THIS VERSION, EVERYBODY CAN AGREE ON WHAT'S IN THIS VERSION AND THEN WE CAN TAKE AMENDMENTS FROM THERE, YOU KNOW, SHIFTING THIS UP OR SHIFTING THAT DOWN OR ADDING THIS REQUIREMENT OR TAKING OUT THAT REQUIREMENT.

BUT I KIND OF WANTED TO START WITH A, A CLEAN VERSION SO WE KNOW WHERE ALL THE PARTIES, UH, WHERE THE CONSENSUS AREA AMONG ALL THE PARTIES IS AT.

THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION.

I THINK FOR ME, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T REPRESENT KIND OF THE CONSENSUS FOR WHERE I AM AND WHERE I THINK A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY IS WITH REGARD TO HOUSING.

SO I APPRECIATE YOUR EXPLANATION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S STILL A CONSIDERATION FOR YOU, EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE BRINGING FORWARD THE 4%.

I DO THINK THAT THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S PROBABLY THE BIGGEST CONVERSATION THAT WE HAVE, UM, TO HAVE HERE WITH REGARD TO THE STATESMEN IS WHAT, WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, EITHER ON THIS TRACK OR IN TERMS OF THE VALUE OF THOSE UNITS ON, ON THIS TRACK, IF THEY ARE TO SHIFT TO THAT NEARBY LOCATION, 4 22 ON THE LAKE OR, OR I THINK IS THE NAME OF IT.

UM, AND THAT TO ME, THAT REALLY GETS TO A COUPLE, A COUPLE THINGS.

ONE IS, YOU KNOW, HOW STRONGLY WE'RE GOING TO STAND BY THE PUT ORDINANCE AND TWO, UM, I'VE ASKED A QUESTION, I THINK IT'S ALREADY ANSWERED IN THE STAFF REPORT ABOUT, ABOUT WHAT THE STAFF ARE USING AS THE BASELINE FOR THE PUT ORDINANCE.

YOU KNOW, THE, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS CALCULATED BASED, BASED ON ENTITLEMENTS OVER THE BASELINE.

I REALIZED RATHER RECENTLY THAT THE BASELINE FOR THIS ISN'T THEIR ACTUAL BASELINE.

I BELIEVE THE STAFF, AND MAYBE THEY CAN CONFIRM THIS, I THINK THE STAFF IS USING AS A BASELINE, THE VISION PLAN, NOT THE ACTUAL ENTITLEMENTS, UM, THAT THIS PROPERTY CURRENTLY CURRENTLY ENJOYS.

UM, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE NEED TO CLARIFY WITH OUR STAFF.

AND I, I'M SORRY BECAUSE I'M NOT YET IN THE ROOM THOUGH.

I WILL BE HERE IN A MINUTE.

I CAN'T SEE WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE, UH, MR. RUSSEN HERE.

WE DO.

MR. RESTO, CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT QUESTION ABOUT THE BASELINE? SURE.

COUNCIL MEMBER JERRY RUSSO, THE HOUSING PLAN DEPARTMENT, UM, THE, THE BASELINE IS A PART OF WHAT WE CALL TIER THREE FOR THE POD ORDINANCE, WHICH REQUIRES THE, UH, 10% OF THE BONUS AREA TO BE PROVIDED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

UM, WE, UM, DID NOT USE THAT IN DETERMINING THE, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE POD.

INSTEAD, WE USED THE, UH, SOUTH CENTRAL VISION PLAN, WHICH IS CALLED FOR, UH, 4% ON THIS SITE.

SO JERRY, SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THERE WAS NO CONSIDERATION OF WHERE THE BASELINE SHOULD BE.

YOU JUST WENT TO THE, TO THE PERCENTAGE SPECIFIED IN THE VISION PLAN, EVEN THOUGH THE VISION PLAN IS, IS FRANKLY DIFFERENT FROM THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING, THEY RE

[00:30:02]

CAN YOU, COULD YOU FACTOR FOR US BY THURSDAY WHAT, WHAT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISIONS WOULD LOOK LIKE IF YOU USE THEIR EXISTING ZONING AS THEIR BASELINE AND CALCULATED, CALCULATED, UM, BASED UPON THE, UM, THE PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE IS THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING RIGHT NOW? MAYOR, WE, WE'LL, UH, WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AND TRY AND DETERMINE THAT NUMBER.

OKAY, GREAT.

THANK YOU.

THANKS VERY MUCH.

SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, MAYOR AGAIN, I THINK, UH, PROBABLY JERRY COULD YOU STATE THAT FOR ONE SECOND? CAUSE I HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION.

OH, GO AHEAD KATHY.

BECAUSE IT'S THE AREA WHERE, WHERE THERE IS THE MOST DISCREPANCY BETWEEN, BETWEEN WHAT THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL IS AND YOU KNOW, WHAT THE, WHAT THE ORDINANCE WE PASSED ON FIRST READING WOULD REQUIRE IN TERMS OF THAT 10%.

SO I'D BE INTERESTED IF, IF ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES WANNA CHIME IN ON, ON THE AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I THINK THAT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL FOR ME ON THIS.

I THINK I NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE DIRECTION AND UNDERSTANDING, AND I THINK THAT IT TAKES ME BACK TO, TO, TO STAFF.

I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE GET AS MUCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS WE CAN, AS WE CAN GET, AND THAT WE'RE USING KIND OF THE, THE TOOLS AND LEVERS AVAILABLE TO US.

UM, BUT MAKING SURE THAT, THAT WE'RE USING THEM A WAY THAT ACTUALLY DRIVES WHAT WE, WHAT WE WANT TO ACHIEVE.

I WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR SO MUCH THAT WE JUST DON'T GET ANYTHING.

AND I THINK THAT THE, THE LESSON TO BE LEARNED FROM, FROM RAINY STREET IS INSTRUCTIVE FOR THE CITY.

SO A COUPLE REALLY QUICK QUESTIONS.

UH, JERRY, THE, THE, THE 10%, WAS THAT IN THE PUT, IS THAT A REQUIREMENT FOR EACH TRACK OR WAS THAT 10% ACROSS THE, THE SOUTH CENTER WATERFRONT? IT, WELL, THE, UH, THE 10% COMES FROM THE EXISTING PUT ORDINANCE, WHICH REQUIRES YOU ESTABLISH A BASELINE, WHICH IS THE EXISTING ZONING GIVES YOU A CERTAIN AR IN A CERTAIN HEIGHT.

IT SAYS 10% OF THE BONUS AREA ABOVE THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

UM, INSTEAD WHAT WE USED WAS A SOUTH CENTRAL PLAN.

AND, UH, TO, TO KIND OF GO BACK FOR A MOMENT, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, UPS REPORT, THE REPORT THAT WAS DONE BY DARREN SMITH, IT COMPARES WHAT, UM, THE AMENDMENT, THE PASS ON FIRST READING AND THE COST OF THAT IS, UM, VERSUS WHAT'S PROPOSED WITH THE, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION, THE APPLICANTS REQUEST.

OKAY.

IS IT, I, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER TODAY IS APPROPRIATE OR THURSDAY IS APPROPRIATE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HAVE A PRESENTATION SO WE CAN DISCUSS THAT REPORT.

SO THAT WAS THE REPORT THAT LOOKED AT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE OF COURSE THE DEVELOPER SAYING WHAT, WHAT THE PROJECT WILL THROW OFF OR NOT THROW OFF OR ENABLE THEM TO DO.

OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE AN INTERESTED PARTICIPANT IN THIS PROCESS.

SO WE COME TO STAFF TO SAY, TELL US FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE OR A THIRD PARTY OR INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS, WHAT CAN WE ASK FOR THAT IS ACTUALLY, UH, ACHIEVABLE.

UH, AND MY RECOLLECTION IS, IS THAT THAT REPORT THAT CAME BACK INDICATED THAT IF WE GOT, IF WE ASKED FOR EVERYTHING THAT WE WANTED, UH, THE PROJECT WASN'T FEASIBLE AND COULDN'T BE BUILT.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THE, THE, UH, MAYOR, THE, THE FIRST PART OF THE REPORT, WHICH, UH, UM, WE HAD A BRIEFING ON LIKE, I THINK IT'S BEEN SEVERAL MONTHS NOW, UM, PRICED OUT THE COST OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT, UM, THE PAST AND FIRST READING THAT THE APPLICANT WAS NOT AGREEABLE TO.

SO COMPARED WHAT THE, THE, UM, ADDITIONAL DOLLAR VALUE OF THOSE WOULD BE.

UM, WE TALKED ABOUT A SECOND PHASE BEING COMPLETED IN SEPTEMBER.

UM, THAT WORK HAS BEEN COMPLETED RIGHT NOW, ACTUALLY IT'S BEING REFINED AS OF THIS MORNING SOMEWHAT.

AND, UM, OUR PLAN RIGHT NOW IS TO, UM, UPLOAD THAT TO THE BACKUP FOR THURSDAY.

UM, SO YOU'LL HAVE THE, THE PHASE TWO, A POWERPOINT OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN CALLING THE PHASE TWO OF THE STUDY, WHICH IS LOOK AT NOT JUST THE INDIVIDUAL COST OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT, THAT THEY DON'T AGREE TO.

SO YOU CAN KNOW, WELL, IF WE KEEP THAT AMENDMENT, THIS IS HOW MUCH THAT THE, UM, COST WOULD BE TO THE APPLICANT.

UM, BUT WE'VE NOW COMPLETED THE, OR EPS HAS COMPLETED THE OVERALL ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

AND SO THAT WILL BE UPLOADED THE BACKUP AS SOON AS IT'S DONE PROBABLY TOMORROW, I IMAGINE, UM, OR LATER TODAY.

AND WE'LL ALSO HAVE DARREN SMITH, UM, HERE ON THURSDAY, OR I'M SORRY, AND VIRTUALLY ON THURSDAY TO WALK THROUGH THAT POWERPOINT.

IF THE COUNCIL DESIRES, THAT'D BE HELPFUL.

AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I THINK I'LL CALL UP PRETTY EARLY IN THE CONVERSATION JUST SO THAT WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US AND SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN, CAN SEE IT.

UM, UH, YOU KNOW, AS AN ASIDE, I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE WERE TAKING A LOOK AT THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATER FUND PLAN KIND OF GLOBALLY IN TERMS OF WHAT WE SHOULD BE ALLOWING IN TERMS OF DENSITY, BONUSES AND THE LIKE, WAS IN PART TO HELP US DRIVE THROUGH THE WHOLE DISTRICT, UM, CHANGE THE ECONOMICS SUCH THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY ACHIEVE MORE BECAUSE

[00:35:01]

WE'RE PUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS IN A POSITION WHERE THEY CAN DO MORE AND THEREFORE SUBSIDIZE MORE.

SO THAT WILL BE HELPFUL, UH, IN ANALYZING.

SO KATHY, TO YOUR QUESTION AS YOU ASK, I WANT TO GET AS MUCH AS WE CAN GET.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER 10% OR 20% OR 4% IS THE RIGHT NUMBER.

UM, UH, THE INDICATIONS FROM STAFF AND THE INITIAL WORK WAS THAT 10%, UM, UH, MADE THE PROJECT, UH, INFEASIBLE, UH, IN WHICH CASE IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I WOULD SUPPORT.

UH, BUT I THINK, UH, HAVING THAT CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT WE CAN, NOT WHAT WE WANT, NOT WHAT WE WOULD DESIRE, NOT WHAT WE WOULD, WE COULD ASK FOR, BUT, BUT WHAT IN FACT IS SOMETHING THAT IS, UH, ACHIEVABLE USING THE TOOLS AVAILABLE TO US SO THAT THE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT PERCENT IS GROUNDED IN SOMETHING, UM, OTHER THAN JUST WHAT WE'D LIKE TO, TO SEE.

AND, UM, JUST A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS ON THIS.

UM, I KNOW THAT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PIECE IS IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US, AND SO IT'S GONNA TAKE A A LOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S GONNA TAKE A LONGER CONVERSATION.

UM, SO, UH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER OCCURS TO ME THAT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WORKING OFF ON A BASE THAT'S AGREED TO, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NOT AGREED TO.

SO I I'M VERY RELUCTANT TO, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR ME TO VOTE FOR SOMETHING THAT HAD 4% IN IT SEEMS TO ME IT'D BE BETTER TO CREATE A PLACEHOLDER FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IF, IF IT'S, IF IT'S SOMETHING WE DON'T FIGURE OUT BY THURSDAY OR PUT THE RANGE IN THERE.

BUT I THINK IF, IF YOU'RE, I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD SOMETHING THAT WE'VE AGREED TO, I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL FOR ALL OF US, BUT ONLY IF IT'S SOMETHING WE'VE AGREED TO.

OTHERWISE, YOU'RE JUST, YOU'RE JUST BRINGING FORWARD SOMETHING THAT IS DECIDING AN IMPORTANT ISSUE, WHICH, UM, YOU KNOW, I I, I CANNOT GO FORWARD WITH 4% AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

YOU KNOW, I'M O OPEN TO LISTENING TO WHAT ALL OF THE POSSIBILITIES ARE, BUT SO I WOULD ASK YOU WITH SOMETHING YOU'RE ASKING US TO BRING FORWARD ON SECOND READING TO JUST FLAG THOSE THINGS THAT AREN'T AGREED TO, OR EITHER WITH A PLACEHOLDER OR WITH A BLANK OR WHATEVER.

BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.

AND I I I APPRECIATE THAT.

UH, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN AND, AND I MISSPOKE EARLIER.

SO THIS IS STAFF RECOMMENDATION PLUS PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE AGREED TO BY THE DEVELOPER PLUS COUNCIL MEMBER TO VOTE'S RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE AGREED TO BY THE DEVELOPER.

THAT IS THE, THE SKELETON, UH, ON THERE.

AND, AND I FULLY, I WILL, I WILL GO THROUGH AND, AND AND UH, TRY TO FLAG ALL OF THOSE ISSUES WHERE WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION WHEN THERE, WHERE THERE IS DISAGREEMENT TO, TO MAKE SURE AND, AND ALERT FOLKS TO IT.

BUT I, FOR EXAMPLE, I FULLY EXPECT THERE TO BE A ROBUST DEBATE WITH REGARD TO THE AFFORDABILITY LEVELS.

I KNOW NOT HERE TODAY, BUT I KNOW SHE HAS AN AMENDMENT WITH REGARD TO THE HOTEL.

UH, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME, UH, PROVISIONS WITH REGARD TO THE, UH, ONSITE MONITORING ALSO THAT UNDER THE DEVELOPERS IN DISCUSSION, UH, WITH, SO I, I, THERE'S A BUNCH OF INFLUX AND I, MY NO MEANS WHATSOEVER WOULD EXPECT THIS TO BE A FINAL VERSION.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET KIND OF AS CLEAN OF A VERSION AS POSSIBLE, UH, AND, AND USE THAT AS, AS A, A BASELINE.

I THINK I APPRECIATE, COULD I RESPOND PLEASE? I WANTED TO EXPLAIN PROCEDURALLY YOU'LL NEVER BE ASKED TO MAKE A VOTE ON 4%.

UH, IF IT, IF THAT'S HOW IT'S THE BASE MOTION.

I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT.

OKAY.

CUZ BECAUSE WHAT I, WHAT HE'S GOT IS A 4% AND IF WE'RE BEING ASKED TO VOTE ON THAT, BUT YOU'RE NOT BEING ASKED AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS OFFERING A BASE MOTION THAT HAS, THAT IS JUST ARBITRARILY DEFINED AS BEING THOSE THINGS THAT THE APPLICANT AGREES TO THAT WERE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS AND WERE THINGS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO HAD.

THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER PROVISIONS IN THERE THAT ARE THINGS THAT I DON'T BELIEVE HAVE, YOU KNOW, MAJORITY SUPPORT OR POTENTIALLY DON'T HAVE MAJORITY SUPPORT ON THE COUNCIL.

I THINK THE FIRST THING WE DISCUSS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT KATHY SAID IS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ELEMENT.

CAUSE I THINK THAT TURNS THINGS, BUT THERE BE NO VOTE ON THAT.

THE FIRST VOTE WILL PROBABLY BE ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SECTION.

OKAY.

AND IT'LL BE TO SAY, OKAY, WHAT IS IT THAT WE WANT TO PUT IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SECTION? WE HAVE TO PUT THAT INTO SOMETHING.

AND, AND THE SUGGESTION THAT IF WE USE THAT BASE MOTION, THERE MIGHT BE 20 THINGS THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO DEBATE BECAUSE THEY WERE IN FACT PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION OR PROPOSED BY KATHY AND WERE AGREED TO.

IT'S JUST A WAY TO GET US PAST THE

[00:40:01]

THINGS WE DON'T HAVE TO TALK ABOUT WITHOUT LIMITATION AT ALL ON THE THINGS WE DO NEED TO TALK ABOUT.

SO IF IT WOULD BE MY INTENT FROM, BASED ON WHAT I'VE HEARD, CAUSE THAT HAS VALUE TO ME TO TO, TO HAVE THAT BE A BASE MOTION CUZ THAT OBVIS US HAVING TO TALK ABOUT SOME THINGS.

BUT I AM REAL COMFORTABLE THAT IMMEDIATELY GOING TO KATHY AND, AND HAVING KATHY BEING ABLE TO MAKE, UH, AN AMENDMENT FOR DISCUSSION ON, ON, ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

SO THAT THAT'S THE FIRST CONVERSATION WE HAVE.

AND THERE'LL BE A VOTE THEN ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING AMENDMENT.

AND THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST DISCUSSION AND VOTE WE WOULD HAVE ABOUT, UH, SUBJECT MATTER, UM, MAYOR.

BUT TO BE CLEAR, I MEAN, WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE IN OUR BACKUP THAT REFLECTS WHAT WE VOTED ON ON FIRST READING THAT WERE IMPORTANT ELEMENTS EITHER TO COUNCIL MEMBERS OR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR TO THE PARK SPORT.

SO, I MEAN, WE, WE HAVE, I THINK WE SHOULDN'T OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT WE HAVE TWO VERY DIFFERENT ORDINANCES IN THE BACKUP.

ONE REFLECTS KIND OF MORE ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT THE DEVELOPER BROUGHT FORWARD INITIALLY.

THAT'S THE ONE THAT YOU'RE BRINGING FORWARD, COUNCIL MEMBER OF LA I THINK THERE MAY BE SOME VARIANCES FROM WHAT THEY BROUGHT FORWARD ORIGINALLY BECAUSE THEY'VE NOW AGREED TO A COUPLE ELEMENTS.

I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW MANY FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.

AND THEN WE HAVE THE ORDINANCE THAT REFLECTS WHAT WE VOTED ON, WHICH WE MAY NOT HAVE HAD MUCH DISCUSSION ABOUT AT THE DIAS, BUT WE CERTAINLY HAVE HAD LOTS OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT EITHER IN THE COMMUNITY OR IN OUR SUBRU, INCLUDING WITH THE DEVELOPERS.

SO I MEAN, WE, THERE ARE TWO VERY DISTINCT PATHS.

I'M NOT, THERE'S, THERE'S NO, I JUST WANNA BE REALLY CLEAR, WE HAVE TWO VERY DIFFERENT ORDINANCES.

UM, AND WE COULD PROCEED WITH EITHER ONE.

IT, IT SEEMS TO BE, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT MATTERS TOO MUCH WHICH ONE WE START WITH BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA BE THE SAME ELEMENTS OF CONVERSATION.

I JUST DON'T WANNA TALK ABOUT IT IN A WAY THAT SUGGESTS THE STAFF DIDN'T, DIDN'T DO WHAT WE HAD ASKED THEM TO DO, WHICH WAS TO CREATE AN ORDINANCE REFLECTIVE OF OUR VOTE.

NO, NO.

AND, AND I AGREE WITH THAT.

IF WE TOOK WHAT WAS ON FIRST READING, WE COULD GO THROUGH 20 QUICK OR 20 OR 25 QUICK AMENDMENTS, UH, THAT ARE IN AGREEMENT, THAT WERE THINGS THAT WERE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED ON, THAT WE ALL APPROVE THINGS THAT YOU PROPOSED, THAT WE ALL APPROVE.

WE COULD DO THOSE 20 BEFORE WE GOT TO ANYTHING CONTROVERSIAL, AT WHICH POINT WE WOULD HAVE SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR IN FRONT OF US TO WHAT IT IS THAT, UM, UM, UH, GTO HAS PROPOSED.

SO IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T OBVIATE OUR ABILITY.

IT JUST A TIME SAVING MEASURE TO, TO NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THOSE 20, 25 VOTES FIRST, UH, IN A WAY THAT I THINK COULD ONE, TAKE TIME AND BE CONFUSING.

UH, BUT I THINK YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, AT THE END OF THE DAY WILL BE AN EXACTLY THE SAME PLACE, UH, BECAUSE THERE'LL BE NOTHING THAT WE PUT IN THERE THAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE IN THERE.

AND THERE WILL BE A VOTE ON EVERYTHING THAT ANYBODY WANTS TO VOTE ON, UH, ESPECIALLY INCLUDING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THING, WHICH IS I THINK WHERE WE SHOULD BEGIN.

UH, ALLISON, SO A COUPLE THINGS HERE.

UM, SO I'M STILL TRYING TO GET MY HEAD AROUND THIS PROCEDURE WHEN WE HAVE A NINE PERSON BIAS.

UM, SO I'M NOT SURE ANYTHING GETS PASSED ON THURSDAY IF, IF SOMEBODY'S UNCOMFORTABLE.

AND SO I JUST, AGAIN, I WILL GO BACK TO WHAT I SAID LAST COUNCIL MEETING IS I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE TAKING UP SOMETHING OF THIS MAGNITUDE WITHOUT A FULL DI UM, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS AND, AND SEE WHERE WE GET.

UM, I AM UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE NOTION THAT WE ARE TAKING WHAT THE DEVELOPER IS SAYING AS THE BASE, UM, ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THIS.

UM, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WITHOUT A FULL DI IT BECOMES EVEN THAT MUCH HARDER TO, TO PASS SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

AND, AND SO THIS IS REALLY STACKING THE DECK IN FAVOR OF WHAT THE DEVELOPER HAS AGREED TO IN WAYS THAT MAKE ME REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE ON A PROJECT THAT I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM ANYBODY IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT.

I'VE ONLY HEARD FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE, ARE AGAINST THE CONTOURS AND WANT CHANGES.

SO, UM, I DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION, BUT I, I JUST WANNA THROW OUT THE REALITY OF WHAT, WHAT WE HAVE ON THURSDAY, UM, BECAUSE OF THE CHOICES THAT WERE MADE ON HOW TO, HOW TO PROCEED.

SO I WANTED TO FLAG THAT.

UM, I WANTED TO ASK STAFF IF WE COULD MAKE SURE THAT THE Q AND A FROM THE LAST FEW MEETINGS THAT RELATE TO THIS PROJECT GET CARRIED OVER INTO THIS Q AND A.

I KNOW THERE WERE SOME REALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION IN THERE, INCLUDING A CHART THAT COMPARED THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BEING OFFERED IN THIS PROJECT VERSUS OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE'VE HAD THAT I THOUGHT WAS FAIRLY REVEALING, UM, IN THAT, AND, AND IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL IF WE HAD THAT ALL TOGETHER.

AND THEN SOMETHING THAT I WANTED TO, TO FLAG, AND THIS MAY BE INCLUDED IN COUNCIL MEMBER POOL'S MOTION, CUZ I KNOW THAT I RAISED IT WITH HER.

UM, WHEN WE MADE THE CHANGES TO PARKLAND DEDICATION AND

[00:45:01]

ONLY WENT UP 10%, WE CUT WHAT WE EXPECT IN TERMS OF PL D FROM THE STATESMEN BY ALMOST A HALF.

UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEIR $9 MILLION, UM, WAS CALCULATED BASED ON THE 20 PROPOSED 23, UM, PARKLAND DEDICATION.

AND SO NOW FOR, FOR THE SIGNATURE PARKS AND THE PARKS THAT WE ARE ANTICIPATING, UM, WANTING TO DO, WHICH HAS BEEN FOR, FOR MANY, INCLUDING MYSELF, REALLY CRITICAL FOR THIS PROJECT.

UM, IF WE ONLY GO BY THE CALCULATIONS, UM, WE WILL NOT, WE'LL BE GETTING ABOUT 5 MILLION INSTEAD OF THE THE 9 MILLION.

AND SO I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, UM, THAT WE HOLD THEM TO THE PRIOR CALCULATION IN THAT REGARD.

AND I HAVE NOT HAD OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH THEM.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE OBJECTING TO THAT PER SE.

UM, BUT I DO WANNA FLAG FOLKS THAT THERE WERE REALLY VERY REAL CONSEQUENCES FOR THAT FOR, FOR THIS BIG PROJECT.

UM, AND THEY WERE WILLING TO PAY THE 9,000,002 WEEKS AGO.

AND SO, UM, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS IN THERE.

UM, AND THEN, UM, I REMAIN CONFUSED ON HOW WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS WITHOUT A REGULATING PLAN AND WITHOUT A JUROR, UM, TO HAVE THAT AS THE CONTEXT.

AND I, I DON'T HAVE A, I DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION FOR THAT.

UM, BUT IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT THEY CAN DO EVEN WHAT THEY'VE SAID WITHOUT SOME KIND OF JURORS.

IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME WHETHER WE WANNA HAVE A JUROR.

UM, AND THE CALCULATIONS, ALL SORTS OF CALCULATIONS ARE ALL INTERTWINED WITH THAT.

AND SO TO ME IT IS SOMEWHAT CONFUSING AS TO HOW WE, HOW WE ARE ANTICIPATING PROCEEDING.

EVEN IF WE AGREE THAT WE WANNA HAVE MORE DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA.

UM, THOSE THINGS REMAIN, REMAIN OF CONCERN TO ME.

THANK YOU.

SO LET ME PROPOSE THIS, UH, BY PROCEDURE PICKING UP.

I END ON SOMETHING THAT YOU SAID BECAUSE IT'S PURELY PROCEDURAL, IT DOESN'T HAVE A SUBSTANTIVE IMPACT.

UH, UH, CHEETO, UH, I THINK THE THING TO DO, AND MY RECOMMENDATION TO YOU WOULD BE THAT IF YOU MAKE THAT MOTION SO THAT WE GET PAST THE 25 THINGS THAT NO ONE NEEDS TO DEBATE WITH HAVING, WITHOUT HAVING TO HAVE A VOTE ON EACH OF THOSE, PUT IN A BLANK WITH RESPECT TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SECTION.

SO EVEN ON WHAT IS BEFORE US, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON THAT SECTION, IT HAS A BLANK.

UH, SO THAT IT THAT SO THAT IT HAS OR PUT IN 10% FOR ALL I CARE, UH, THE, THE EFFECT WILL BE EXACTLY THE SAME CUZ WE'LL CALL UP THAT SECTION FIRST AND EVERYBODY CAN MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THAT SECTION AND WE'LL VOTE ON THE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THAT SECTION.

BUT THAT CREATES, MAYBE IT WILL HELP WITH THE PERCEPTION THAT WE'RE DECIDING SOMETHING THAT WE HAVEN'T DECIDED YET.

IS IT? I'M, I'M FINE WITH THAT.

I, I THINK, I MEAN, JUST, I DON'T WANNA REPEAT MYSELF, BUT I THINK THE THINGS THAT EVERYBODY AGREES WITH ALREADY IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVEN'T BACK UP AND IF WE STARTED WITH THAT VERSION, THAT LIKELY, UH, ACCOMPLISHES THE SAME THINGS.

BUT AGAIN, COUNCIL MEMBER, VE MAYBE YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF HIGHLIGHT WHAT, WHAT YOU ARE, WHAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE ORDINANCE THAT'S ALREADY, UM, THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, BUT I I I WOULD PREFER THAT WE STICK WITH THE ORDINANCE THAT WE PASSED THAT REFLECTS WHAT WE PASSED AND THEN GO THROUGH POINT BY POINT AND TALK ABOUT ANY CHANGES.

I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF, A LOT OF ATTENTION ON THIS.

PEOPLE CARE ABOUT THE PARKS, THEY CARE ABOUT THE, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

THOSE ARE THE POINTS OF CONVERSATION ANYWAY, REGARDLESS OF WHICH ORDINANCE.

I, I JUST, OKAY, I'M GONNA, I THINK, I THINK OUR FOCUS SHOULD BE ON TRANSPARENCY AND, UM, I'M NOT SURE, I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS DIFFERENT PATH, UM, GETS US THERE.

OKAY.

TRANSPARENCY IS REAL IMPORTANT TO ME.

IT DOES GET US TO EXACTLY THE SAME PLACE EITHER WAY.

SAVE TIME, BUT LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY TO, TO HELP PRESENT THAT FOR THURSDAY'S MEETINGS SO THAT THAT IS SELF-EVIDENT AND, AND VERY CLEAR.

UM, BUT I'LL, I'LL WORK ON THAT.

ALLISON.

THANK YOU MAYOR.

I, I, I APPRECIATE, UM, THE INTENTION.

I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WITH A DI OF NINE, WHEREVER YOU START, THERE'S A BIAS TOWARDS THAT BECAUSE IT WILL BE REALLY DIFFICULT TO GET SIX VOTES TO MOVE IT.

AND SO IT'S JUST, I UNDERSTAND YOUR INTENTION AND I UNDERSTAND COUNCIL MEMBER VELAS INTENTION AND APPRECIATE, UM, THE WORK THAT'S INVOLVED IN THAT.

UM, BUT IT, BUT I, IN PRACTICE, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE THAT IT WORKS THE WAY THAT THAT IS INTENDED.

OKAY.

UM, AND, AND, AND TO YOUR OTHER POINT,

[00:50:01]

UM, MAYOR PROAM, I'M NOT SURE WE CAN ACTUALLY TAKE A VOTE ON IT ON THAT DAY EITHER.

UM, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE GONE, COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON IS GONE, BUT HAS ASKED US TO SET A TIME CERTAIN WHEN THIS IS GOING TO COME UP SO THAT SHE CAN PARTICIPATE, UH, IN IT, UH, WHICH, UH, UH, IT'S MY INTENT TO ACCOMMODATE.

UM, BUT, BUT, WE'LL, BUT WE'LL SEE.

UH, THAT'LL BE THE, THE, THAT'LL BE THE, THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING ON THE POD THAT WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT, UH, TO HELP US ON THURSDAY? STAFF? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING, UH, FOR US ON THE POD THAT YOU THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO HEAR OR KNOW? UM, NO, JUST, UH, IF YOU KNOW WHAT TIME YOU WANT TO SET FOR TIME CERTAIN, PLEASE LET US KNOW AND WE'LL LET, UH, THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE KNOW.

OKAY.

WE'LL GET TO, UH, THE, THE MANAGEMENT OF THE DAY IN THE MOMENT AFTER WE'VE GONE THROUGH A COUPLE OF THESE BRIEFINGS THAT MIGHT ALSO TELL US, GIVE US INFORMATION ABOUT THE DAY.

ALL RIGHT.

WE OKAY WITH, UH, MOVING FORWARD?

[92. Approve a resolution relating to Council policies and directives to the City Manager for City-owned real estate, including requirements for construction projects, living wage, minority and women-owned business requirements and other Council priorities related to City-owned real estate and City-owned parking facilities; and recommendations for future use of same. (Part 1 of 2)]

KATHY, DO YOU WANT TAKE FIVE MINUTES HERE AND JUST EXPLAIN, UH, ITEM NUMBER 92, NOT TO DISCUSS IT YET.

WE'LL DISCUSS IT AT THE END OF BRIEFINGS, BUT I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO INTRODUCE IT.

UM, THANK YOU, MAYOR.

YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I PUT IT ON THIS AGENDA IS THAT I HOPE WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT IT IN THE WORK SESSION TODAY AND OVER THE NEXT COUPLE WEEKS.

AND OBVIOUSLY MOST OF YOU ARE NOT IN MY SUB QUORUM ON IT.

UM, THIS IS AN ITEM THAT REALLY RESPONDS TO PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF REAL ESTATE DEALS THAT I'VE SEEN IN MY TIME ON COUNCIL.

AND IT'S ATTEMPTING TO CARVE A PATH FORWARD THAT I THINK WILL, WILL HELP RESULT IN A REALLY CONSISTENT PROCESS.

ONE THAT PROVIDES PREDICTABILITY FOR OUR PARTNERS, BUT ALSO PROVIDES PREDICTABILITY FOR THE COUNCIL.

YOU KNOW, WE, AND I, I'LL, I'LL STOP IT THERE.

UM, FOR THE MOST PART, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT FOR, FOR MOST OF THESE POINTS, I HAVE A RELEVANT EXAMPLE WHERE WE'VE STRUGGLED.

UM, AND I THINK THAT, UH, AGAIN, I THINK WE'VE TALKED FOR A LONG WHILE ABOUT REAL ESTATE AND HOW WE WANTED TO HANDLE IT.

AND SO I'M HOPING THAT THIS, THAT THIS IFFC IS REFLECTIVE OF THAT.

WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE REALLY GENERAL RESOLUTIONS, SOME OF WHICH I'VE BROUGHT FORWARD IN THE PAST ABOUT HOW TO, HOW TO MANAGE OUR REAL ESTATE, HOW TO MAKE SURE IT'S AN INTERDEPARTMENT APPROACH, HOW TO MANAGE OUR, OUR REAL ESTATE IN A PORTFOLIO WAY, HOW TO WORK WITH PARTNERS, THE COUNTY, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND I, I, I, I NOW SEE THAT WE JUST NEED REALLY A MORE DIRECTIVE APPROACH.

I ALSO WANNA BE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT A VERY CLEAR PATH FORWARD IN TERMS OF WORKING WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COR CORPORATION, AND THIS IS ATTEMPTING TO DO THAT AS WELL.

SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE FRAMEWORK.

UM, AND AGAIN, WHEN WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS IT, UM, I'D LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT A FEW OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE MADE DECISIONS ABOUT TOGETHER AND HOW IT RELATES TO SOME OF THE POINTS IN THE RESOLUTION.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

WITHOUT THE, ANY, ANYTHING ELSE? I THINK WE SHOULD GO TO THE FIRST BRIEFING, UH, WHICH WILL BE THE BRIEFING ON, UM, HEALTH SOUTH MEWELL STAFF ARE COMING UP.

CAN I JUST MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT THE RENAISSANCE MARKET? SO THIS IS ON OUR AGENDA FOR THURSDAY AS WELL.

IT'S TO, TO WAVE ALL THE VENDOR FEES FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT YEAR.

BUT I, I WOULD LIKE THE STAFF ON THURSDAY JUST TO AFFIRM WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE TRUE, WHICH IS THAT THIS IS GONNA BE ACCOMPANIED BY A RANGE OF OTHER PROVISIONS.

I KNOW MY OFFICE, UM, FOR SEVERAL YEARS HAS IN, IN MULTIPLE PHASES, HAS, UH, TALKED WITH THE ARTISTS AT THE RENAISSANCE MARKET ON ABOUT THE NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS.

A LOT OF THAT HAPPENED, THE PANDEMIC HIT AND THE SITUATION HAS GOTTEN, UH, REALLY TO THE POINT WHERE THAT MARKET IS NOT VERY WELL UTILIZED AT ALL.

UH, THE PROVISIONS THAT WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD, BOTH THE VENDOR FEE WAIVERS, BUT ALSO COUPLED IT'S REALLY GONNA BE COUPLED NEED TO BE COUPLED WITH AN AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING PLAN, MARKETING PLAN, AS WELL AS SOME OTHER, SOME OTHER COMMITMENTS THAT THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, I BELIEVE HAS, HAS A WILLINGNESS TO DO.

BUT THE MANAGER, THAT IS SOMETHING I'D LIKE THEM TO JUST CONFIRM ON THURSDAY IF THEY COULD SPEND A FEW MINUTES AT THE DIAS, HOPEFULLY ON CONSENT, JUST LAYING OUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEIR PLAN IS FOR, FOR SUPPORTING THAT MARKET.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE, I MEAN, IT HAS BEEN A 50 YEAR OLD MARKET.

IT HAS SERVED A REALLY AMAZING PURPOSE FOR THE YEARS IT'S BEEN ACTIVE.

UH, THOSE ARTISANS LIKELY HAVE A LOT OF OTHER OPPORTUNITIES THESE DAYS WITH FARMER'S MARKETS AND OTHER THINGS.

SO IT MAY BE THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER OTHER NEW USES THERE, UH, ALONGSIDE THE UNIVERSITY.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, MY HOPE IS, IS THAT AFTER THIS PUSH, UM, TO REALLY SUPPORT THE MARKET AND SEE IF IT CAN BE A VIBRANT, ACTIVE FORCE IN THAT SPACE, THAT IF THAT IS NOT SUCCESSFUL, THAT THE CITY WILL TURN TO UT AND