Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript


WILL TAKE US NOW.

[00:00:01]

I WILL.

IT, IT IS 9 0 4.

9 0 4.

ON MAY 14TH, I WILL CALL TO ORDER THE WORK SESSION OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL FOR A REGULAR SCHEDULED WORK SESSION.

UM, MEMBERS I PUT UP ON THE MESSAGE BOARD THE ORDER THAT WE GO IN, BUT BEFORE WE START THAT THIS MORNING, I WANT TO CALL ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT, UM, SOME PEOPLE MAY NOT RECOGNIZE THE FELLOW SITTING TO MY RIGHT.

UM, BUT WE ARE JOINED TODAY AT OUR VERY FIRST MEETING BY OUR NEW, UH, PERMANENT CITY MANAGER, TC BROAD ACTS.

AND, UM, WE COULDN'T BE HAPPIER THAT, THAT, THAT YOU'RE HERE AND, UH, VERY EXCITED, UH, ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN WITH YOU BEING HERE.

WELL, THANK YOU MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

UH, I'M JUST GLAD TO BE HERE AND LOOKING FORWARD, UH, TO OUR WONDERFUL DAY TODAY.

AND SO WE'VE GOT A LOT OF INTERESTING, UH, THINGS TO DISCUSS TODAY.

SO I'M EXCITED ABOUT IT.

AND THANK YOU FOR THE WARM WELCOME, MAN.

WE APPRECIATE THAT ENTHUSIASM.

LET US PRAY THAT, UH, LET US JUST PRAY.

YES.

UM, , THANK YOU, SIR.

WE APPRECIATE YOU MEMBERS.

THE WAY, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO TODAY

[D1. Discuss proposed amendments to City Code Title 25 (Land Development).]

IS, UM, WE WILL TAKE UP ITEMS RELATED TO D ONE FIRST, WHICH IS A DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CODE CITY CODE TITLE 25 RELATED TO LAND DEVELOPMENT.

THE ORDER THAT, THAT I THOUGHT WE WOULD GO IN.

AND I PUT THIS UP ON THE MESSAGE BOARD, AND IT'S BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS THAT I THINK ARE FLOATING OUT THERE AND THAT KIND OF THING.

AND JUST TO, UH, TRYING TO, TO ADD SOME ORDER WILL BE SIX, UH, WHICH IS RELATED TO THE HOME, UH, PROVISION THREE AND FIVE, WHICH IS RELATED TO E TODD.

FOUR IS COMPATIBILITY, ONE IS FOUR 18, AND SEVEN IS, UH, ELECTRIC VEHICLE.

THEN WHAT WE WOULD DO IS GO TO BRIEFING ON LAW ENFORCEMENT MUTUAL AID, AND THEN BE ONE UPDATE ON THE STATUS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY'S BOND DEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY PLAN.

WITH THAT, LET ME ASK FIRST, IF THERE'S ANY PRESENTATION THAT STAFF IS PLANNING OR INTENDING TO MAKE.

WHAT WE WOULD DO IS HAVE THAT PRESENTATION AND THEN I WILL, UM, OPEN UP THE WORK SESSION FOR NOT JUST QUESTIONS OF STAFF, BUT WE WILL ALSO GO TO POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS THAT PEOPLE MAY BE OFFERING ON THURSDAY WHEN THIS ITEM COMES UP, UM, ON THE AGENDA.

AND SINCE I SEE NO MOVEMENT, I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT HE WANTS JUST TO GO STRAIGHT TO THE, WELL, SOME, SOMEBODY TELL ME.

MAYOR, YES.

I BELIEVE WE WANT TO DO A PRESENTATION ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT.

THAT'S GOOD.

GOOD.

AND SO, IS THAT ALL RIGHT? YEAH, THAT'S GREAT.

NO, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS HOPING.

WELL, THANK YOU.

AND SO, UH, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, GOOD MORNING AGAIN, UH, MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL MEMBERS PLEASED TO BE HERE.

TODAY'S WORK SESSION SESSION.

UH, WE'LL FOCUS PRIMARILY ON YOUR DISCUSSION REGARDING AMENDMENTS, UH, TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN ANTICIPATION OF THURSDAY'S MEETING.

UH, BUT WE DO HAVE OTHER BRIEFINGS AS YOU MENTIONED BEFORE.

BUT TODAY'S THE FIRST ITEM, UH, IS YOUR DISCUSSION ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

STAFF IS GOING TO BRIEF AND HAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION THAT WILL MAKE CLARIFYING POINTS AND REVIEW THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND THEN WE WILL STAND FOR DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS.

I'M GONNA ASK, UH, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, VERONICA SENIO, UH, TO INTRODUCE THIS ITEM.

MS. SENIO, YOU CAN PROCEED.

GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

VERONICA SENIO, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER.

WE ARE HERE TODAY WITH YOUR NEXT, UH, UH, CONSIDERATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS.

WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THESE FOR SEVERAL MONTHS, AS YOU ARE AWARE, AND WE'RE THANKFUL TO BE HERE TODAY AND FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ON THURSDAY.

LAUREN MIDDLETON PRATT, OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR, WILL WALK THROUGH, UH, THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE THE LAST TIME YOU CONSIDERED THESE, AS WELL AS MC, THE TEAM OF PLANNERS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EACH OF THE, UH, SET OF AMENDMENTS.

SHE'LL ALSO GO INTO GREATER DETAIL, THE AMOUNT OF OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT THEY'VE DONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

SO WITH THAT, I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO LAUREN AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO GIVE A HUGE THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR THE HEAVY LIFT THAT THEY'VE MADE.

SO WE'RE HAPPY TO BE HERE TODAY.

THANK YOU, LORD.

THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNSEL.

I AM LAUREN MIDDLETON PRATT, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, AND TODAY I'M JOINED BY FOUR OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO WILL WALK YOU THROUGH WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING OVER THE PAST, UH, SEVERAL MONTHS IN TERMS OF OUR SPRING CODE AMENDMENTS.

UM, AS, UM, CITY MANAGER BROAD NEXT LAID OUT, THEY WILL BE HERE TO PROVIDE UPDATES AND ANSWER ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION.

I'M JOINED BY ERIC THOMAS, DIVISION MANAGER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, LAURA HEATING ASSOCIATE PROJECT MANAGER WITH THE PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE.

[00:05:01]

JONATHAN LEE, SENIOR PLANNER AND WARNER COOK, PRINCIPAL PLANNER, BOTH WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AS YOU RECALL, ON APRIL 11TH CITY COUNCIL.

AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WHERE STAFF INTRODUCED FOUR CODE AMENDMENTS, WHICH HAVE PROGRESSED THROUGH THE ENGAGEMENT AND DELIBERATION PROCESS.

THOSE AMENDMENTS ARE THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING USE HOME PHASE TWO CITYWIDE COMPATIBILITY CHANGES, AS WELL AS THE EQUITABLE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, ALSO KNOWN AS THE ETOD OVERLAY.

AND THE GOALS OF THESE AMENDMENTS ARE TO ONE, UNLOCK OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE HOUSING, AS WELL AS MAKE AUSTIN A MORE WALKABLE TRANSIT, SUPPORTIVE AND AND ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY CITY.

SINCE APRIL 11TH, STAFF HAS HOSTED FOUR PUBLIC, PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ALSO HELD A SEPARATE MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THEY DEVELOPED RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND TO AFTER TODAY'S WORK SESSION.

IT IS OUR ANTICIPATION THAT COUNCIL WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH DELIBERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION OF THESE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS ON THURSDAY, MAY 16TH.

IN ADDITION TO THOSE OPEN HOUSES, STAFF HAS ENGAGED THE PUBLIC THROUGH AN ALTERNATIVE NOTIFICATION PROCESS THAT INCLUDED THE MAIL OUT OF THE PURPLE.

SOME SAY LILAC, SOME SAY LAVENDER MAIL OUT, WHICH WENT TO UTILITY ACCOUNT HOLDERS, PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, AND A SEPARATE PROPERTY SPECIFIC NOTIFICATION WAS SENT TO PROPERTY OWNERS, UTILITY ACCOUNT HOLDERS, AS WELL AS OCCUPANTS WITHIN 500 FEET OF WHERE THE ETOD OVERLAY IS PROPOSED TO, TO BE APPLIED.

ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE PUBLISHED NOTICE WITHIN THE STATESMEN RAN ADS IN VARIOUS SOCIAL MEDIA CHANNELS ISSUED PRESS RELEASES, AND WE ALSO HELD A MEDIA INFORMATION SESSION, WHICH GARNERED MORE OUTREACH AND ADDITIONAL COVERAGE IN OUR LOCAL NEWS OUTLETS.

IN ORDER TO TRACK OUR PROGRESS, WE HAVE CAPTURED DATA TO ILLUSTRATE OUR ENGAGEMENT, AND AS OF MAY 9TH, STAFF HAS SENT OUT OVER 700,000 NOTICES BY MAIL RECEIVED AND RESPONDED TO OVER 200 PHONE CALLS AND EMAILS ADDRESSED APPROXIMATELY 200 COMMENTS SUBMITTED THROUGH OUR SPEAK UP AUSTIN WEBSITE AND HOSTED ALMOST 300 ATTENDEES DURING OUR IN-PERSON AND VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSES.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR YOUR HARD WORK, YOUR DEDICATION, SUPPORT, AND COLLABORATION WITH STAFF AS WE HAVE PROGRESSED THROUGH THIS ENGAGEMENT PROCESS.

AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO WELCOME ERIC TO THE DEUS TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE PROPOSED EV CHARGING USE PROPOSALS.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, SIR.

GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I'M ERIC THOMAS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND I'M CASE MANAGING THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT.

UM, ON THE SLIDE IN FRONT OF YOU ARE THE THREE AMENDMENTS THAT PLANNING COMMISSION OFFERED FOR THE EV CHARGING LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT, UM, WITH SOME MINOR TEXT MODIFICATIONS.

WE WILL BE, UM, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ALL THREE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.

THANKS.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

GOOD MORNING COUNSEL.

I'M LAURA KEATING, CASE MANAGER OF HOME PHASE TWO.

UM, WE JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON STAFF'S RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT TO EXCLUDE THE FLAGPOLE OF A FLAG LOT, UM, FROM THE LOT AREA.

THIS WOULD ALLOW SITES TO EXCEED 45%.

WE HAVE POSTED SOME EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE RESULTS OF THIS AMENDMENT, UM, ON THE COUNCIL Q AND A IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS.

UM, WITH THE 45 IMPERVIOUS, 45% IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT AND EXISTING LOT SIZE STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE, THE ORIGINALLY RECOMMENDED 2000 SQUARE FOOT LOT MINIMUM IS, IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO MADE A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS RELATED TO SETBACKS, INCLUDING REDUCING SETBACKS ALONG INTERNAL LOT LINES, MEANING THAT NEW LOT LINES CREATED BY A SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION WOULD HAVE, UM, LESS THAN A FIVE FOOT SETBACK STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION INCLUDES A REDUCTION IN SETBACKS FOR INTERNAL LOT LINES ONLY.

IN SOME CASES, WE WANNA KEEP THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SETBACK FOR ANY INSTANCE THAT COULD OCCUR

[00:10:01]

BETWEEN A NEW HOUSE AND AN EXISTING HOUSE.

AND ONE REASON FOR THIS IS, UH, FIRE SAFETY ISSUES.

UM, THERE ARE ALSO TWO AMENDMENTS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION VERSION OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, AND WE JUST WANTED TO POINT THOSE OUT.

FIRST IS THE DEFINITION OF REPL FROM STATE LAW THAT TRIGGERS SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS GENERALLY NOT JUST RE SUBDIVISIONS.

UM, AND THE SECOND IS THE CREATION OF BACK LOTS, WHICH WOULD MEAN A LANDLOCKED PARCEL.

THIS WOULD CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISION IN THE CURRENT SUBDIVISION CODE THAT RE REQUIRES ALL LOTS TO ABUT A DEDICATED PUBLIC STREET.

UM, A CHANGE LIKE THIS WOULD REQUIRE, UM, CHANGES TO THE SUBDIVISION CHAPTER AND ADDITIONAL INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION, INCLUDING WITH THE UTILITY PROVIDERS.

WE HAVE, I'M SORRY.

I'M SORRY.

CAN YOU GO BACK TO YOUR FIRST SLIDE? MM-HMM, .

AND I APOLOGIZE IF I, OKAY.

IT WENT AWAY HERE.

UM, THANK YOU.

THAT'S ALL I NEED.

WE ALSO WANTED TO ADDRESS, UM, SOME CONCERNS.

WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THE WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE KNOWN AS THE WWE CODE.

UM, THIS REQUIRES ANY NEW OCCUPIED STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED IN A WWE ZONE TO BE BUILT WITH FIRE RESISTANT MATERIAL TO REDUCE THE RISK OF IGNITION FROM WILDFIRE EVENTS AND MINIMIZE THE RISK OF STRUCTURE TO STRUCTURE FIRES.

AND SO THAT IS REVIEWED AT THE TIME OF NEW CONSTRUCTION AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE REVIEWED.

STAFF WILL ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD EVACUATION ISSUES REGARDING NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE W IN WWE AREAS THROUGH AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OR TO THE 2024 INTERNATIONAL WWE CODE.

UM, THESE AMENDMENTS WILL ENSURE THAT NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE WWE AREAS ONLY HAVE ONE WAY IN OR OUT, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE ABLE TO, WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ADD UNITS UNLESS A SECOND EGRESS ROUTE IS ADDED FOR SOME NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER UNLESS THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR RYAN ALTER.

SO THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD YOU SAY THAT ABOUT THE WOOEY AND HOW IT RELATES TO THE SUBDIVISION.

CAN YOU ELABORATE AT ALL ON WHAT THE PLAN IS THERE AND, AND JUST HOW Y'ALL ARE PLANNING ON ADDRESSING THAT? YES.

THAT STAFF IS STILL WORKING ON THAT.

INTERNALLY FOR HOME PHASE TWO SPECIFICALLY, UM, THERE IS AN INFILL PLAT AMENDMENT THAT'S COMING.

AND SO IN ORDER TO GET THE SUBDIVISION TO SMALL LOTS, YOU DO HAVE TO RE SUBDIVIDE.

UM, AND SO WE'RE HOPING TO ADDRESS IT IN THE, IN THE COMING INFILL PLAT PROCESS.

AND WILL THAT LOOK LIKE SOMETHING SOMEONE WILL GO TO SUBDIVISION AND ONE OF THE REVIEWS WILL BE, THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY IN AND OUTTA THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND SO YOU CAN'T SUBDIVIDE.

WILL IT BE LIKE A PRELIMINARY REVIEW? HOW I'M, I'M JUST CURIOUS WHERE YOU ARE IN THINKING THROUGH THAT AND WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE.

YEAH.

UM, I MIGHT REFER TO A COLLEAGUE, BUT THAT IS GENERALLY THE INTENT OF, OF LOOKING AT, UM, THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON A NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL.

YEAH.

OKAY.

OH, I SEE.

OH, NO, THAT'S ALL I GOT.

GREAT.

COUNCILMAN ALLISON CHER? SO I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS HERE AND I'D LIKE TO INVITE UP THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

UM, GOOD MORNING, CHIEF BAKER.

GOOD MORNING.

GOOD MORNING.

CITY MANAGER, MR. MAYOR.

MAYOR, MAYOR, PORT TEMP, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.

GOOD MORNING.

GOOD MORNING.

SO I'D LIKE TO REMIND COUNCIL THAT THIS IS WILDFIRE AWARENESS MONTH.

AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE, THIS IS THE AREA IN OUR COMMUNITY WHERE THE WILDLANDS COME TOGETHER WITH THE URBAN STRUCTURES.

AUSTIN IS THE CITY OR PART OF THE COUNTRY THAT IS AT FIFTH MOST RISK WITH RESPECT TO STRUCTURES.

WE'RE TALKING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, UM, OF POTENTIAL, UM, DAMAGE.

WE HAVE A, THIS IS NOT JUST A PROBLEM AS SOME PEOPLE THINK.

ON THE WEST SIDE.

THERE IS A RING AROUND THE CITY, UM, THAT WE CALL THE .

THIS IS THE AREA WHERE THE WILDLANDS COME TOGETHER WITH, UM, THE STRUCTURES.

UM, AND SO THERE'S A CIRCLE AROUND THE CITY.

UM, ALL OF THOSE AREAS ARE AT RISK AND MANY OF THOSE AREAS ARE THE PLACES PRECISELY WHERE WE HAVE ONE PLACE IN, IN ONE PLACE OUT.

UM, SOME OF YOU WERE NOT HERE WHEN WE ADOPTED THE OUI CODE.

AND, AND I THINK THERE'S SOME REAL SERIOUS ISSUES BETWEEN HOW HOME INTERACTS WITH, UM, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IN THE WILDLAND TO PROTECT OUR IN THE HUI, UM, TO PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY.

SO FIRST CHIEF, I WANNA ASK YOU IF THERE ARE CURRENTLY PROVISION AND THERE, AND THERE ARE TWO PARTS TO THIS AND

[00:15:01]

THERE'S SOME NUANCE, SO PLEASE BEAR WITH ME.

UM, SO CHIEF, ARE THERE CURRENTLY PROVISIONS IN THE HUI THAT WILL ALLOW A LEVEL OF PROTECTION UNDER HOME, UNDER THE HOME TWO ORDINANCE? I'M GONNA CALL UP BEN FLICK, WHO'S OUR ENGINEER MANAGER, WHO'S BEEN WORKING VERY CLOSELY TO TRY TO FIND A WIN-WIN SOLUTION FOR EVERYONE WITH THIS.

THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING, MAYOR.

COUNSEL.

MY NAME'S BEN FLICK WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE.

UNDER CURRENT PROVISIONS, A NEW SUBDIVISION OR SITE PLAN, THERE IS A PROCESS BUILT WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE WWE TO REVIEW THOSE FOR THE NUMBER OF PROPOSED PROPERTIES AND MAKE SURE THERE'S ADEQUATE NEIGHBORHOOD EGRESS PROVIDED.

SO IF YOU ARE CREATING A NEW SUBDIVISION, YOU KNOW, A GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT, THEN WE HAVE RULES THAT MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT INGRESS AND EGRESS AND WE CAN WORK WITH THE DEVELOPERS WITH OUR EY CODE TO CREATE A SPACE THAT IS REASONABLY SAFE, ALBEIT STILL IN THEI AREA.

THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY.

ARE THERE CONCERNS OF WE COMPLIANCE IN EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS OR NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WOULD LOOK TO DEVELOP UNDER HOME TWO, UNDER THE HOME TWO ORDINANCE, WHICH POTENTIALLY ITS WHOLE POINT IS TO MULTIPLY THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING ON THOSE LOTS.

THERE ARE CONCERNS WITH THAT.

UH, IF THERE IS A, A DIVISION OR REDEVELOPMENT, THEN UNDER THE CURRENT PROCESS THERE IS A A OPPORTUNITY TO CAPTURE THAT.

BUT IF IT'S UNDER HOME TWO AND WE START LOOKING AT INDIVIDUAL LOTS THAT ARE, ARE SUBDIVIDING, THAT'S WHERE IT GETS TO BE OF CONCERN THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT OVERALL PICTURE OF THE IMPACT THAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.

WHAT, CAN YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT THE CONCERNS? 'CAUSE WE'RE BEING ASKED HERE, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE THESE CHANGES AND THEY HAVE POTENTIALLY VERY BIG SAFETY IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR COMMUNITY THAT LIVES IN ALREADY EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS.

SO WE NEED YOU TO BE MORE SPECIFIC.

AND I'VE HEARD THE FIRE DEPARTMENT EXPRESS THESE CONCERNS.

UM, AND I THINK YOU NEED TO BE REALLY REAL ABOUT IT BECAUSE WE'RE ABOUT TO ADOPT THESE REGULATIONS THAT ARE GONNA PUT OUR COMMUNITY AT RISK AS YOU ADD ADDITIONAL UNITS IN THOSE AREAS ACCORDING TO WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT HOW WILDFIRE SPREADS AND WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT HOW WE SHOULD BE PLANNING THESE AREAS.

SO I NEED YOU TO BE MORE SPECIFIC.

OKAY.

SO THE, THE OVERALL MAJOR CONCERN IS WHEN DEVELOPMENT IS OCCURRING OR REDEVELOPMENT IS OCCURRING IN AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ONLY HAS ONE STREET IN AND OUT THAT ONLY PROVIDES ONE MEANS OF NEIGHBORHOOD EGRESS OR FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS, WE ARE NOW INCREASING THE DENSITY OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE WITHIN THAT DEVELOPMENT.

SO THE EXPOSURE RISK GOES UP AND WHAT THE CONCERN IS IN THE EVENT OF A WILDFIRE, THERE'S GOING TO BE A BOTTLENECK OF OCCUPANTS TRYING TO GET OUT OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND FIRE DEPARTMENT TRYING TO INGRESS.

AND IT'S GOING TO CREATE A SITUATION TO WHERE PEOPLE ARE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO GET OUT AND FIRE DEPARTMENT'S NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO GET IN AND THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO CONTROL OR DO ANYTHING.

SO EVACUATION IS ONE ISSUE.

WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU NOW HAVE ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES CLOSER TO YOUR STRUCTURE WHEN THE WHOLE POINT OF THE EE IS TO, UM, MINIMIZE THE STRUCTURE TO STRUCTURE CONFIGURATIONS THAT WE SEE THE EXPOSURE CONCERN IS WE ARE ADDING THE NEW, NEW STRUCTURES, WHICH WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE WWE.

BUT THE CONCERN IS IF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ARE NOT GOING THROUGH REDEVELOPMENT, THEY ARE UNPROTECTED.

SO THE CONCERN, THE, THE INTENT OF THE WWE CODE IS TO HELP HARDENED STRUCTURES, BUT IT DOESN'T PREVENT A WILDFIRE.

SO IN THE EVENT OF A WILDFIRE, THOSE NEW STRUCTURES ARE POTENTIALLY CREATING AN ADDITIONAL HAZARD THAT INCREASES THE CONCERN OF FIRE SPREADING FROM STRUCTURE TO STRUCTURE.

SO TO PUT IT PLAINLY, IF I OWN A HOME AND I AM NOT REDEVELOPING MY PROPERTY, BUT MY NEIGHBOR DECIDES TO ACCESS HOME TWO, I WILL BE AT MORE RISK OF FIRE THAN I WAS BEFORE THEY DID THAT.

THAT'S CORRECT.

HOWEVER, IF, AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A WIN-WIN AND WORKABLE SOLUTION FOR THIS HERE.

SO BEFORE A, IN A HOME TWO AREA, BEFORE THEY, YOUR NEIGHBOR BUILD A NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION, GIVING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE PLANS ALONG WITH OUR OTHER PARTNERS, WE CAN MAKE THAT DETERMINATION HOW TO SAVE WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD BE BUILT OR NOT SHOULD BE BUILT.

SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK THERE'S A MATTER OF FACT, I KNOW THAT'S A WIN-WIN SOLUTION TO MAKE THIS WORK, BUT WE NEED TO BE ON THE FRONT END OF IT AND LOOK AT THOSE PLANS, LOOK AT THOSE REVIEW PLANS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING WITHIN CODE FIRST.

SO I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT, UH, USING YOUR EXAMPLE, UH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND OUR PART, WE GONNA ALLOW YOUR NEIGHBOR TO BUILD SOMETHING SO

[00:20:01]

DANGEROUS TO YOUR CRUES.

WE WOULD BE INVOLVED AND ENGAGED TO MAKE SURE IT'S WORKING SOLUTION.

HOWEVER, IF IT'S NOT WORKABLE, THEN WE'LL JUST, WE'LL JUST TELL 'EM THAT THERE'S NO WAY THAT YOU CAN BUILD ANOTHER SCRU NEAR YOUR, UH, HOME.

I, I APPRECIATE, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M TRYING TO GET US TO LAND, BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN WHAT WE'RE WOULD BE ADOPTING THIS WEEK THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO HAVE THAT REVIEW.

UH, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE.

I THINK WE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT REVIEW.

YOU, YOU CAN'T BUILD SOME WITHOUT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BEING ENGAGED IN PUTTING OUT STAMPS ON IT ALONG WITH DSD AND OTHER, UH, PARTNERS CHIEF.

I MEAN, THEY JUST SAID THAT WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE WUI CODE SO THAT YOU DO THIS.

AND SO YOU CAN'T, IT CAN'T WORK BOTH WAYS THAT WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE WUI CODE IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO MAKE IT SAFE.

WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE WWE CODE TODAY.

WE COULD PUT SOMETHING IN MOTION AND, AND I'M NOT SURE BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY THINGS FLYING AROUND, YOU COULD PUT SOMETHING INTO THE HOME TO ADOPTION THAT SAYS THIS DOESN'T APPLY IN THE WWE.

IF YOU'RE DOING AN INFILL DEVELOPMENT, WE COULD DO THAT THIS WEEK.

WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL YOU EDIT THE WWE CODE SIX MONTHS FROM NOW.

UM, TO DO THAT, THE WWE AREA IS DEFINED IN CODE, UM, AND IT'S LESS ENTITLEMENTS.

SO WE CAN GO, WE CAN DO THAT TRISH LINK WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT, UH, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I DO NOT RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE WEI MAP WITHIN THE ZONING CODE.

THAT CREATES SOME CHALLENGES FOR STAFF, UM, FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, FOR THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE THE AREA FOR THE MAP, WHILE MOSTLY STATIONARY ISN'T A HUNDRED PERCENT STATIONARY, IT'S ALSO NOT PART OF OUR ZONING DISTRICTS.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED IS FOR HOME TO HAVE A DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION DATE, UM, THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE CHANGES TO THE WWE CODE TO GET CLOSER TO FRUITION, BUT ALSO OTHER CHANGES WE MAY NEED TO MAKE WITHIN THE LDC, UM, TO HELP ADDRESS THIS ISSUE KIND OF GLOBALLY AS OPPOSED TO JUST IN THE WWE COOP.

OKAY.

SO THAT'S THE FIRST, I MAY HAVE MISSED THAT.

SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT THIS DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION AND WHERE THAT HAS BEEN AND SHARED WITH US? 'CAUSE I MISSED, SO IT IS ACTUALLY IN THE STAFF VERSION FOR HOME TWO.

OKAY.

UM, THERE WAS A, IT WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT RECOMMEND IT.

HOWEVER, IT REMAINS IN STAFF'S, UM, UH, ORDINANCE.

WHAT IT WOULD HAVE IS IT WOULD APPLY TO AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED ON OR AFTER A CERTAIN DATE.

SO IT'S LIKE WHAT WE DID IN HOME PHASE ONE WHERE WE HAD THAT DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION THAT IS ACTUALLY IN THE STAFF VERSION, AND THEN BELIEVE IT IS A 90 DAY IMPLEMENTATION, WHICH WOULD PUT US INTO THE MIDDLE OF AUGUST.

UM, WHICH WE WOULD GIVE US, WOULD GIVE US TIME TO MAKE, BRING FORWARD THE CHANGES THAT WE NEED TO MAKE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES.

OKAY.

I'M, I'M GONNA NEED TO, YOU KNOW, LOOK THROUGH THAT AND WANNA HAVE SOME FURTHER, FURTHER CONVERSATIONS.

UM, I THINK WE HAVE A, WHEN I SAID THAT IT WAS IN CODE FOR EY, IT WAS THAT THERE'S A DEFINITION OF WHAT THE WOO WE IS.

UM, IT'S IN OUR WEI CODE WHERE THAT IS.

AND THERE'S, YOU KNOW, A REFERENCE OF HOW YOU DETERMINE WHAT THAT IS.

NOT THAT YOU HAVE TO PUT THE WIE MAP, UM, WITHIN THE ZONING CODE BECAUSE THE WIE'S GONNA CHANGE AS SOON AS YOU BUILD A DIVISION SUBDIVISION, THEN YOU HAVE MORE STRUCTURES CLOSER TO THE WILD LAND AND IT CHANGES.

UM, SO, SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ON THAT.

UM, I'M GONNA HAVE TO DIGEST THIS.

I WAS NOT AWARE THAT YOU WERE THINKING ABOUT THAT OR THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THE WWE CHANGES BACK IN TIME.

UM, BECAUSE THE FACT REMAINS THAT IF WE DON'T HAVE THOSE SIGN-OFFS, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE RIGHT NOW, WE ARE GOING TO BE PUTTING, UM, FOLKS IN DANGER IN THOSE AREAS.

UM, AND, AND WE NEED TO BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT THAT.

UM, AND IF YOU ADOPT THIS AND YOU DON'T ADOPT THOSE OTHER PIECES, YOU STILL WILL END UP IN THAT, IN THAT SITUATION.

SO I THINK WE HAVE TO BE REALLY CAREFUL ABOUT THIS.

I MAY HAVE SOME FURTHER AMENDMENTS, UM, RELATED TO THIS.

I THINK IT'S A VERY, VERY SERIOUS ISSUE OF HOW WE IMPLEMENT IT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER.

COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY? YES.

UM, THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER FOR BRINGING UP THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE.

I HAVE A QUESTION CHIEF.

UM, DOES THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REGULARLY REVIEW PLANS FOR HOMES OR NEW HOMES THAT ARE BUILT? YES.

THAT'S CURRENTLY PART OF THE REVIEW PROCESS THAT OKAY.

AFDS INVOLVED WITH.

SO YOU, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IF A NEW BUILD WOULD BRING A HIGHER RISK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, BASED ON ITS PROXIMITY TO A WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE UNDER WHAT'S ADOPTED TODAY.

YES.

OKAY.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU.

GREAT.

THANK YOU.

COUNCILOR KELLY.

MAYOR PRO KIM.

THANKS.

UM, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM WHAT I'M HEARING.

IT SEEMS LIKE A PROCESS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS

[00:25:01]

AND, UM, AND SUBDIVISION AND A WWE CODE FIX.

IT SOUNDS LIKE STAFF IS AWARE OF THAT AND PLANS TO WORK ON THIS.

'CAUSE UM, WE ALREADY HAVE PROCESSES IN PLACE.

I THINK CHIEF BAKERY, WERE SPEAKING TO THIS, UM, ABOUT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BEING PART OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW, AND YOU HAVE TO SIGN OFF ON THESE PLANS EVEN TODAY.

AND THAT WOULD NOT CHANGE.

WE'RE NOT A ADJUST, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THAT PROCESS.

UH, TO MY KNOWLEDGE THAT'S CORRECT.

BUT LET ME JUST ADD THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WE ARE COMMITTED TO KEEPING THIS CITY SAFE AND KEEPING OUR STAKEHOLDERS SAFE.

AND IT'S NOT OUR GOAL TO DO IT, PUT ANYTHING IN, IN PLACE TO JEOPARDIZE THE SAFETY OF THIS COMMUNITY.

AND THE COUNCIL IS THE SAME.

WE ARE COMMITTED TO KEEPING OUR, OUR COMMUNITY SAFE AS WELL.

UM, I THINK THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT HERE.

UM, IF STAFF IS ASKING FOR A 90 DAY DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION FOR HOME TWO, LIKE WE DID WITH THE FIRST PHASE OF HOME IN ORDER TO WORK THROUGH ALL OF THE IMPLICATIONS AND THE SPECIFICS, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'LL HAVE TIME TO DO THIS WORK.

DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT TO YOU, CHIEF? I'M CONFIDENT WITH THE 90 DAY DELAY.

WE CAN WORK TOGETHER STAFF AND COUNCIL AND ANOTHER STAKEHOLDER TO FIND A WINNABLE SOLUTION.

AND WE WOULD WANT TO DO THAT ANYWAY, WHETHER THERE WAS A DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION OR NOT.

BUT WE CAN LOOK AT INCLUDING THAT, PARTICULARLY IF STAFF HAD RECOMMENDED IT.

UM, AND MAYOR, THERE MAY BE SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, UM, AS AN AMENDMENT BEING OFFERED LATER TODAY, BEING LAID OUT TODAY.

GREAT.

THANK YOU.

MAYOR PRO TIM.

COUNCIL MEMBER VELA.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

UM, IN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, UH, CHIEF BAKER, MY MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, UH, WOULD BE MUCH MORE, UH, FIRE RESISTANT IN OTHER, MUCH MORE SAFE THAN LET'S SAY A HOME BUILT IN THE, YOU KNOW, SEVENTIES OR, OR OR EIGHTIES.

IS THAT THE CASE? THAT IS THE CASE.

UH, BUT I DON'T WANT TO WALK AWAY.

THERE'S, I WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR THAT THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FIRE PROOF.

MM-HMM.

.

UM, BUT IT WILL BE SOME FIRE RESISTANCE.

YEAH, AND, AND MY, UH, THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF MY OWN EXPERIENCE, MY FAMILY EXPERIENCE, I REMEMBER, UH, AT ONE POINT WE HAD TO REPLACE OUR, A ROOF BECAUSE IT WAS A, I THINK IT WAS A CEDAR SHAKE, UH, ROOF THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, HIGHLY FLAMMABLE.

AND THEY SAID THEY WOULDN'T INSURE US BASICALLY IF WE CONTINUE TO, UH, HAVE THAT ROOF.

AND THEN AGAIN, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT A LOT OF THE NEWER SIDINGS, UH, ARE ALSO, UH, MUCH MORE, UH, FIRE RESISTANT AND MUCH MORE, YOU KNOW, HARDY UH, UH, AGAINST, UH, POTENTIAL, UH, UH, DANGERS.

UH, AND I I JUST WANTED TO, TO TO CLARIFY THAT.

UH, 'CAUSE AGAIN, WE WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT POTENTIALLY NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THESE AREAS, UH, AND THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION, AGAIN, NOTHING IS FIREPROOF, BUT YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE, UH, NEWLY BUILT HOMES, UH, MAY BE MUCH MORE FIRE, UH, RESISTANT THAN SOME OF THE OLDER HOMES BUILT UNDER PREVIOUS STANDARDS THAT WERE NOT AS STRICT ABOUT SOME OF THE, UH, THE, THE, THE FIRE PROTECTIONS THAT WE NOW HAVE IN, IN CODE.

YES.

THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER ALLISON ALTER.

SO, SO I WANNA JUST BE REALLY CLEAR, YOU KNOW, WITH HOME TWO, YOU'RE CHANGING THE SETBACKS, WHICH MEANS YOU'RE PUTTING THE HOUSES CLOSER TOGETHER, WHICH IS NOT IN THE DIRECTION THAT WE WANTED THEM TO BE IN THE WOOEY.

AND WHEN YOU PUT YOUR HOME NEXT TO ME, CLOSER TO MY HOME, I AM MORE AT RISK AND MY HOUSE IS NOT FIREPROOF, OR NOTHING'S FIREPROOF, BUT IS NOT HARDENED.

UM, SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT THAT.

UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, IF YOU DON'T HAVE A RULE IN THE WOOEY CODE OR SOMEWHERE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO STOP THIS BASED ON SOME, UM, YOU KNOW, RULING, LIKE YOU NEED SOMETHING IN THE LAW THAT IS GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO NOT ALLOW THIS TO MOVE FORWARD.

UM, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT IS IN THE WIE CODE AT THIS POINT, OR YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THE WE CODE.

UM, SO MAYBE SOMEBODY CAN SPEAK TO WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF CHANGES WE NEED TO SEE IN THE WE CODE, UM, SO THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS WITH VERY OPEN EYES AND WE'RE MAKING SURE, UM, THAT WE UNDERSTAND IF THAT IF YOU'RE GONNA MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE CHANGES, THAT, THAT, THAT WE HAVE AN OPEN IDEA OF WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE.

SO PART OF WHAT WE WOULD LOOK AT TO DETERMINE THE CHANGE, UM, UPFRONT WOULD TO ANALYZE THE WWE AREA AND UNDERSTAND THE NUMBER OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND NUMBER OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE POTENTIALLY WITHIN THERE THAT COULD BE REDEVELOPED.

FROM THERE, WE WOULD BREAK DOWN AND LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT PROXIMITY ZONES AND THEN LOOK

[00:30:01]

AT THE PROXIMITY ZONES VERSUS THE NUMBER OF STRUCTURES VERSUS WHAT THEIR CURRENT MEANS OF NEIGHBORHOOD EGRESS ARE.

AND THEN MAKE RULES BASED ON THAT TO, ONCE WE HAVE THE DATA IN FRONT OF US TO SAY, IN THIS PILE HERE IS TOO SEVERE OF A HAZARD, THIS IS NOT ALLOWED.

AND LOOK AT MAYBE SOME ADDITIONAL HARDENING REQUIREMENTS IN SOME OF THE LESSER PROXIMITY ZONES THAT WOULD MITIGATE THE CONCERN IS UPFRONT.

PART OF THE ANALYSIS WE NEED TO DO IS JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE FULL NUMBER OF STRUCTURES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

OKAY.

UM, GO AHEAD.

GOOD MORNING, MAYOR COUNCIL, JOSE ROIC, DIRECTOR FOR DSD.

IN ADDITION TO THE W CODE FOR THOSE AREAS, THE BUILDING CODE HAS WHAT WE CALL BUILDING SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS.

SO YOU'RE RIGHT, DEPENDING ON THE DISTANCE BETWEEN SETBACKS AND THE HOUSES, THERE MAY BE REQUIREMENT BY THE CODE ITSELF TO ACTUALLY FIRE RATE THOSE WALLS AND MAKE CONSTRUCTION MORE, YOU KNOW, FIRE, YOU KNOW, UH, RATED.

UH, IT IS NOT IF, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT DISTANCE, YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO USE THOSE MATERIALS.

THEY ARE AVAILABLE, BUT YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO USE THEM UNLESS YOU ARE CLOSER TO THE BUILDINGS AND THE SETBACKS.

SO I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT IN ADDITION TO THE WE CODE THAT'S ON THE BUILDING CODE AND THE RESIDENTIAL CODE, BUT THAT DOESN'T HELP ME IF I ALREADY HAVE A HOUSE NEXT TO THE HOUSE THAT'S RENOVATING.

CORRECT.

IF YOU, IF YOU ARE ALREADY THERE, YOU, YOU ARE, YOU BUILT IN THAT WAY, THE NEW HOUSE THAT IS BUILT THERE HAS TO THEN PROTECT IT.

THAT WALL THAT IS ACTUALLY CLOSER TO THE HOUSE OR THE SETBACK WILL HAVE TO BE RAIDED.

RIGHT.

BUT MY HOUSE WILL NOT CHANGE UNLESS I CHANGE MY HOUSE.

CORRECT.

AND SO I AM LESS SAFE UNDER THESE RULES.

THE HOUSE THAT IS THERE AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN, NOTHING YOU CAN CHANGE AS LONG AS YOU ALLOW THAT, THAT WON'T MAKE ME LESS SAFE UNDER THAT SCENARIO.

THAT IS CORRECT.

UNLESS YOU MAKE THEM HARDEN MY HOUSE, WHICH IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

SO, SO, SO NO MATTER WHAT YOU PUT ON THIS, YOU'RE STILL LESS SAFE.

IF YOU'RE NEXT TO THIS HOME AND YOU'RE IN THAT AREA, THERE'S A STRUCTURE CLOSER TO YOU.

THAT STRUCTURE MIGHT BE HARDENED, BUT YOU ARE LESS SAFE AND YOU ARE IN THE EY.

UM, AND THERE'S NOTHING IN YOUR REVIEW THAT CAN CHANGE THAT EXCEPT FOR YOU NOT ALLOWING THEM TO HAVE THE SETBACK.

AND, AND, AND SO I JUST THINK THAT THERE'S, THAT'S A WHOLE PANDORA'S BOX THAT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE FULLY OPENED HERE THAT HAPPENS IN THE .

UM, I'M NOT SURE YOU'RE GONNA RESOLVE IT IN 90 DAYS, HAVING HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH FOLKS, UM, AND THE LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS OR THERE ISN'T ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING.

UM, THERE ARE FIXES, YES, BUT IT IS NOT THAT EASY WHEN YOU DO IT IN THE INFILL AREA.

IT IS MUCH SIMPLER IN THE GREENFIELD AREA.

UM, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU ALREADY HAVE THESE NEIGHBORHOODS AT MAX CAPACITY FOR EVACUATION.

AND SO YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T, IF, IF I HAVE A SUBDIVISION AND I PLANNED IT, SO IT'D BE 29 HOMES SO THAT I COULD GET IN THERE WITHOUT HAVING ANOTHER EGRESS, AS SOON AS THEY START ADDING MORE, THEN YOU'RE OVER IT.

IT'D BE MUCH SIMPLER TO JUST SAY YOU CAN'T DO IT, UM, THAN IT WOULD TO BE HAVING ALL OF THESE REVIEW.

I THINK IT'S, UH, I THINK IT'S DANGEROUS AND I THINK IT IS, UM, PROBLEMATIC ON MANY LEVELS.

UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US, YOU KNOW, BY THURSDAY HAVE SOME GREATER CLARITY ON WHAT THIS PROCESS IS AND HOW THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WILL BE IN A POSITION TO SAY NO.

UM, BECAUSE THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THINKS SOMETHING IS LESS SAFE, BUT IT STILL HAPPENS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO DO IT.

UM, SO I, I WOULD LIKE US TO SEE WE GET MORE CLARITY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU MAYOR PRO TIM.

AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.

UM, I, I WAS JUST GONNA CLOSE ON THAT CONVERSATION AND, AND THANK THE FIRE CHIEF FOR POINTING OUT THAT THESE ARE PROCESSES THAT WOULD BE UPDATED AND INCLUDED AND ACKNOWLEDGED.

AND WE CURRENTLY CAN, ARE CONCERNED WITH THE SAFETY OF EVERYONE ON ALL SIDES CURRENTLY AND, UH, THAT WE HAVE WORK TO DO.

AND, AND WE WILL DO THAT WORK.

GREAT.

THANK YOU MAYOR.

JIM CAN, YES, I JUST WANNA CLOSE, YOU KNOW, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SAYING NO WHEN WE NEED TO SAY NO.

UH, BUT WE SHOULDN'T ALWAYS END ON A NO.

WE SHOULD TRY TO FIND A WAY TO TURN THOSE NOS INTO YES.

WHENEVER WE POSSIBLY CAN TURN THOSE INTO YES.

FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STAKEHOLDERS.

BUT I, I DON'T WANNA LEAVE HERE THINKING THAT, UM, I, I WANT EVERYONE UNDERSTAND WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM SAYING NO, BUT WE ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF TURNING THOSE INTO YES, WHENEVER WE CAN WITHOUT JEOPARDIZING SAFETY.

WE APPRECIATE YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I AM JONATHAN LEE, CASE MANAGER FOR COMPATIBILITY.

UM, I'M GOING TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN OUR RATIONALE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENTS.

WE RECOMMENDED THE CHANGES OR

[00:35:01]

DO NOT RECOMMEND, UH, FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT, REMOVE THE 40 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT NEEDED TO GET AN EXEMPTION FROM THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER IN LOWER INTENSITY OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL ZONES.

STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THIS AMENDMENT, UM, INCLUDING THE 40 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT HERE IS NECESSARY TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS THAT GRANT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IN THESE ZONES WOULD NOT BE GRANTED AN EXEMPTION FROM THE BUFFER.

UM, THE SECOND AMENDMENT, UM, ALLOW A 15 FOOT WIDE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER INSTEAD OF THE 25 FOOT BUFFER THAT NORMALLY APPLIES ON LOTS 75 FEET OR LESS IN WIDTH.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS AMENDMENT WITH CHANGES AS PART OF THIS AMENDMENT.

PLANNING COMMISSION INTRODUCED A NEW 35 FOOT BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT FOR THE AREA BETWEEN 15 AND 25 FEET IN DISTANCE FROM A TRIGGERING PROPERTY.

STAFF SAYS INSTEAD, RECOMMENDS MAINTAINING A 40 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT IN THIS AREA TO AVOID ADDITIONAL COMPLEXITY AND MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER EXEMPTIONS AND BUFFER REDUCTIONS.

STAFF ALSO RECOMMENDS INCORPORATING PLANTING REQUIREMENTS FOR SITES WITH A 15 FOOT WIDE BUFFER AND A SEPARATE ORDINANCE THAT WILL COME BEFORE COUNCIL ON MAY 30TH FOR THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, ALLOW A 15 FOOT WIDE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER FOR A STRUCTURE THAT IS 40 FEET TALL OR LESS AND CONTAINS A RESIDENTIAL USE.

STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THIS AMENDMENT DUE TO ITS LIMITED IMPACT AND ADDITIONAL COMPLEXITY.

THIS REDUCTION IN BUFFER WIDTH WOULD ONLY BE POSSIBLE IN HIGHER INTENSITY ZONES.

SINCE LOWER INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONES ARE PROPOSED TO BE EXEMPT FROM COMPATIBILITY BECAUSE HIGHER INTENSITY ZONES HAVE HEIGHT LIMITS OF AT LEAST 60 FEET.

BUILDINGS WILL LIKELY BE TALLER THAN 40 FEET AND WILL NOT QUALIFY FOR THIS REDUCED BUFFER WIDTH.

IF COUNSEL WERE TO INCORPORATE THIS AMENDMENT, HOWEVER, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE TO AVOID UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

AND THEN FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN, RECOMMEND NOISE REQUIREMENTS FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.

THIS IS RECOMMENDED WITH CHANGES.

STAFF RECOMMENDS ADDITIONAL SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO ATTENUATE NOISE.

THIS INCLUDES REQUIRING SCREENING ADJACENT TO THE EQUIPMENT AND NO LONGER ALLOWING ROOF LINES TO FUNCTION AS SCREENING STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUGGESTION TO REDUCE THE NOISE LIMIT TO 45 DECIBELS FROM THE CURRENT 70 DECIBELS.

STAFF RECOMMENDS KEEPING THE 70 DECIBEL LIMIT FOR NOW AND WOULD SUPPORT ANY ADDITIONAL DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL TO STUDY AND RECOMMEND CHANGES TO OUR NOISE REGULATIONS THAT WOULD APPLY TO ALL RESIDENTIAL USES, NOT JUST THOSE WITH COMPATIBILITY PROTECTIONS.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, SIR.

THANK YOU.

I'M SORRY.

COUNCILMAN ALLISON ALTER DOES.

THANK YOU.

UM, CAN YOU PLEASE CLARIFY, UM, WHETHER A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A LOT ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL TRIGGER, WHETHER THAT TRIGGERS COMPATIBILITY? UM, YES.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

UM, SO PAGE THREE OF TALKS ABOUT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT PROVISIONS FOR LOTS LESS THAN 75 FEET.

WHY CAN YOU SAY MORE ABOUT THE RATIONALE FOR THAT PROVISION? SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED FOR LOTS LESS THAN 75 FEET IN WIDTH TO HAVE A 30 FOOT, 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT BETWEEN 15 FEET AND 25 FEET IN DISTANCE FROM RICHARD GREEN PROPERTY.

THAT'S KIND OF THE AREA OF THE BUFFER THAT IS NOW NOT PART OF THE BUFFER AND COULD BE BUILT.

UM, WE ARE INSTEAD RECOMMENDING A 40 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT THERE, SO IT'S JUST FIVE FEET TALLER.

UM, ONE TO AVOID KIND OF THIS A BIT AWKWARD KIND OF STEP BACK, UM, THAT'S 10 FEET WIDE AND FIVE FEET TALL.

UM, AND ALSO WE'RE ALREADY GRANTING EXEMPTIONS FROM COMPATIBILITY FOR MF THREE AND MORE RESTRICTIVE.

MF THREE HAS A 40 FOOT TALL HEIGHT LIMIT.

SO IT'S ALSO TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY ACROSS OUR EXEMPTIONS AND BUFFER REDUCTIONS.

THANK YOU.

AND CAN YOU SAY MORE ABOUT WHY THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER IS NOT REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN USES OR ZONES SUCH AS LR OR NO OR LO WHAT WAS THE RATIONALE FOR STRUCTURING THE CODE THAT WAY? SURE.

THAT'S, THAT'S MAINLY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY FOR SMALL SCALE COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE USES.

UM, THESE ARE GOING TO BE 40 FEET TALL OR LESS, SO IT'S IN LINE WITH THE OTHER EXEMPTIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES IN TERMS OF, OF SCALE AND AND HEIGHT.

UM, AND THESE ARE ARE OFTEN SMALLER, UM, BUSINESSES ON SMALLER SITES.

SO WE FELT THAT, UM, REQUIRING THIS ADDITIONAL 25 FOOT SETBACK, UM, WITH SCREENING COULD BE BURDENSOME.

THANK YOU.

UM, ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAD TRIED TO FIX IN OUR EARLIER VERSION OF COMPATIBILITY ON THE CORRIDORS WAS PROPERTIES THAT WERE TRIGGERING IT FROM ACROSS A LARGE ROADWAY.

UM, SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW ROADWAYS ARE TREATED WITH RESPECT TO COMPATIBILITY AND WHETHER A STRUCTURE CAN OR A LOT CAN TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY ACROSS THE STREET IF THE STREET IS NARROW AND THEY'RE WITHIN SAY, 45 FEET OF PROPOSED HALL DEVELOPMENT, OR WHETHER, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME WIDTH OF STREET THAT'S REQUIRED FOR COMPATIBILITY TO NOT BE TRIGGERED, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

SURE.

SO THE HEIGHT LIMITS WOULD STILL APPLY, UM, IF IT'S WITHIN 75 FEET.

UM, THE OTHER PROVISIONS, UM, INCLUDING ADDITIONAL

[00:40:01]

SCREENING FOR THINGS LIKE VEHICLE LIGHTS AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WOULD NOT APPLY ACROSS THE STREET.

UM, THEY WOULD JUST APPLY IF IT'S ALONG A SHARED PROPERTY LINE.

OKAY.

UM, SO IT'S, IT'S REALLY THE HEIGHT LIMITS, UM, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD APPLY ACROSS RIGHT OF WAYS IF IT'S LESS THAN 75 FEET WIDE.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCIL MEMBER VELA, JUST A, A QUICK COMMENT THAT, THAT I, I THINK THAT THE STAFF HAS DONE A GREAT JOB WITH COMPATIBILITY, UH, AND WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH ALL OF THE DETAILS, BUT, UH, I I, I THINK THAT SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY MADE TO THE PC CHANGES ARE, ARE, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY EVEN BETTER, LIKE SOME CLARIFICATIONS AND, UH, THAT THEY HAVE, UH, WORKED IN, UH, INCLUDING AS, UH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER ALLISON ALTER MENTIONED THAT 35 TO 40 FOOT, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD CHANGE, A SIMPLIFYING CHANGE.

AND I JUST WANTED TO AGAIN, SAY, SAY THANKS AND, AND, UH, FOR ALL THE, THE, THE GOOD WORK.

THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER.

THANK YOU, SIR.

HI, GOOD MORNING.

I'M WARNER COOK, THE CASE MANAGER FOR THE ETOD, EQUITABLE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY CODE AMENDMENT AND REZONING.

AND CAN WE GET THE SLIDES BACK UP? THANK YOU.

SO ON APRIL 30TH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, JUST REAL QUICK AND I APOLOGIZE.

NO PROBLEM.

I DON'T KNOW WHO THOMAS SIMPSON IS.

HE'S WITH, UH, OUR CONSULTING TEAM.

THAT'S, THAT, THAT, THAT'S A GOOD ANSWER.

THANK YOU.

SO ON APRIL 30TH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED TO RECOMMEND THE ETOD OVERLAY WITH 26 AMENDMENTS THAT THEY MADE TO STAFF'S PROPOSAL.

SEVEN OF THOSE AMENDMENTS, WHICH I'LL GO THROUGH TODAY, WERE TO THE CODE LANGUAGE ITSELF AND THEY MADE 19 OTHER BROADER RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION ABOUT IN THE E EAD OVERLAY STAFF RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MATRIX THAT'S POSTED IN BACKUP.

THE TEXT AMENDMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS, THAT PLANNING COMMISSION OFFERED, THEY RECOMMENDED MAKING SEVERAL USES CONDITIONAL RATHER THAN PROHIBITED WITHIN THE EAD.

COMBINING DISTRICT STAFF ALSO RECOMMENDS MAKING SOME OF THOSE USES CONDITIONAL, BUT DOES NOT RECOMMEND MOVING THE THREE AUTO ORIENTED USES FROM THE PROHIBITED LIST TO THE CONDITIONAL LIST PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THE NON-RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FROM THE STAFF PROPOSAL BE REMOVED AND INSTEAD REPLACE THEM WITH A DIFFERENT VERSION.

AND I'LL GO INTO MUCH MORE DETAIL ON THAT IN A MOMENT.

BUT STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THIS AMENDMENT, UM, FOR MULTIPLE REASONS.

INCREASING THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR OWNERSHIP.

ETOD DENSITY BONUS PROJECTS WAS ANOTHER AMENDMENT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THEY RECOMMENDED THAT, UM, IF A FEE IN LIE OPTION FOR AN OWNERSHIP PROJECT WAS USED, IT WOULD BE HELD TO A HIGHER BAR AND 125% OF THEIR STANDARD REQUIREMENT WOULD BE THE FEE THAT THEY WOULD BE PAY PAYING BASED ON.

AND STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT AMENDMENT AND INCLUDED IT IN OUR VERSION OF THE ORDINANCE.

AND THEN AS JONATHAN JUST MENTIONED, THEY RECOMMENDED SIMILAR NOISE AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND STAFF HAS INCORPORATED A MODIFIED VERSION OF THAT INTO THE STAFF ORDINANCE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND RE REPLACING THE NON-RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS, UM, TO INSTEAD REQUIRE NOTICE AND THE OPTION TO LEASE A MARKET RATE NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE.

AND AGAIN, I'LL GO INTO THIS IN A MOMENT.

UM, AND STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THIS.

THEY ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT PERFORMANCE VENUES OR COCKTAIL LOUNGE USES WITHIN A MIXED USE BUILDING NOT BE ALLOWED ABOVE THE SECOND FLOOR OR ABOVE A RESIDENTIAL USE.

AND STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THAT WITH SLIGHT LANGUAGE CHANGES IN OUR ORDINANCE.

AND THEN FINALLY, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT THE FEE IN LIEU THAT IS COLLECTED WITHIN THE EAD DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM WOULD BE UTILIZED WITHIN THE DEFINED HALF MILE BOUNDARY OF THE BONUS PROGRAM.

AND STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THAT AND INCLUDED IT IN THE ORDINANCE.

SO TO GO A LITTLE BIT MORE INTO DETAIL ON THE VARIOUS REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS, UM, THIS IS A LITTLE COMPLEX, SO BEAR WITH ME HERE BECAUSE SEVERAL OF THE COMMISSION'S AMENDMENTS BOTH TEXT AND GENERAL CENTERED ON HOW REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FROM FOUR EIGHT FROM CHAPTER FOUR 18 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD APPLY TO A DENSITY BONUS EAD PROJECT.

I'M GONNA PRESENT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHICH IS THE SECOND COLUMN AND THE STAFF PROPOSAL, WHICH IS THE FINAL COLUMN.

STARTING FIRST WITH THE RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS.

RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS DETERMINE WHAT STEPS A DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE TO TAKE TO REDEVELOP CERTAIN EXISTING MULTIFAMILY COMPLEXES UNDER THE BONUS PROGRAM.

THESE REQUIREMENTS HELP ADD PROTECTIONS AND SUPPORT FOR EXISTING TENANTS AND ENSURE WE'RE NOT LOSING UNITS THAT ARE MARKET RATE AFFORDABLE TODAY THROUGH THE REDEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

THE FIRST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO VERSIONS IS THAT STAFF'S PROPOSAL INCLUDES AN ELIGIBILITY OR GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS IN STAFF'S VERSION EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY

[00:45:01]

COMPLEXES THAT RENT UNITS AT AFFORDABLE RATES TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING 60% MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME OR MFI AND BELOW WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO REDEVELOP UNDER THE BONUS PROGRAM WITHOUT FIRST DEMONSTRATING TWO THINGS.

THOSE THINGS ARE THAT THE SITE WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT REPAIRS NEEDED TO THE BUILDING WOULD COST MORE THAN 50% OF THE VALUE, WHICH HELPS ENSURE THAT NEWER CONSTRUCTION OR APARTMENTS IN DECENT SHAPE ARE NOT BEING DEMOLISHED UNNECESSARILY.

THE OTHER GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENT WOULD BE THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD NEED TO SHOW THAT RENTS HAVE NOT BEEN RAISED BY MORE THAN 10% WITHIN THE PAST TWO YEARS, WHICH HELPS ENSURE THAT DEVELOPERS AREN'T RAISING RENTS TO TRY TO GET AROUND THE REQUIREMENTS.

PLANNING COMMISSION'S VERSION DID NOT INCLUDE THESE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT ALL EXISTING MULTIFAMILY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO REDEVELOP UNDER THE BONUS PROGRAM.

STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION HAD SIMILAR LANGUAGE RELATING TO THE UNITS.

A DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE BOTH OF THE PROPOSALS, REQUIRE UNITS AFFORDABLE TO A HOUSEHOLD AT 60% MFI AND BELOW TO BE REPLACED ON A ONE FOR ONE BASIS.

COMM.

THE COMMISSION STIPULATED THAT THE UNITS RENTED AT THESE RATES IN THE LAST TWO YEARS BE REPLACED WHILE STAFF HAD ONE YEAR STAFF'S VERSION EXPLICITLY STATED THAT THESE REPLACED UNITS WOULD BECOME INCOME RESTRICTED FOR A PERIOD OF 40 YEARS IN LINE WITH OUR OTHER DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS. WHILE PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT ADDRESS THE LENGTH OF AFFORDABILITY, BOTH PROPOSALS INCLUDED SIMILAR NOTICE PROVISIONS TO MAKE SURE TENANTS ARE AWARE OF UPCOMING REDEVELOPMENT.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT TENANTS WHO CHOOSE TO END THEIR LEASES AFTER RECEIVING THIS NOTICE OF REDEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SO WITHOUT PENALTY.

STAFF IS EXPLORING THE FEASIBILITY OF SUCH A PROVISION TO BE INCLUDED IN A BONUS PROGRAM.

THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENCES IN HOW THE VERSIONS ADDRESS PROVIDING RELOCATION BENEFITS TO TENANTS WHO WOULD HAVE TO MOVE OUT DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.

IN STAFF'S PROPOSAL, TENANTS WOULD BE PROVIDED WITH RELOCATION BENEFITS THAT ARE IN LINE WITH THE UNIFORM RELOCATION ACT, WHICH IS A FEDERAL ACT.

IN STAFF'S PROPOSAL, THOSE BENEFITS WOULD BE PAID BY THE DEVELOPER DIRECTLY TO THE IMPACTED TENANT.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S VERSION INSTEAD RECOMMENDED THE DEVELOPER WOULD PAY A NEW SEPARATE FEE BY OR SET BY ORDINANCE.

THAT FEE WOULD BE PAID TO THE CITY AND THEN THE CITY WOULD DISPERSE THE BENEFIT TO IMPACTED TENANTS.

THE CITY IS EXPLORING THE POSSIBILITY OF SOMETHING LIKE THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LEGAL RISKS AND STAFF CAPACITY REQUIRED TO ADMINISTER RELOCATION BENEFITS IN THIS WAY.

WITH THE CITY ACTING AS A MEDIARY AFTER DEVELOPMENT IS COMPLETED, PREVIOUS TENANTS OF THE PROPERTY WOULD BE OFFERED THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL TO LEASE A NEW UNIT AT THE NEW COMPLEX.

THE TWO VERSIONS DIFFER SLIGHTLY ON HOW THEY APPROACH THIS OFFER.

THE COMMISSION'S PROPOSAL WOULD ENSURE TENANTS COULD LEASE A UNIT OF COMPARABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND COST TO THE ONE THEY PREVIOUSLY RENTED.

IN STAFF VERSION, WE ADD THAT THE UNIT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF BEDROOMS IN ORDER TO PREVENT SOMEONE WHO'S RENTED A TWO OR THREE BEDROOM UNIT FOR YEARS BEFORE BEING OFFERED A NEW UNIT WITH FEWER BEDROOMS UPON RETURNING THAT MIGHT NOT FIT THEIR FAMILY NEEDS.

STAFF'S VERSION ALSO EXPLICITLY ADDS THAT EVEN HIGH INCOME TENANTS WHO DON'T MEET THE 60% INCOME REQUIREMENT WOULD BE OFFERED A MINIMUM LEASE LENGTH OF ONE YEAR AT THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.

AND AS A REMINDER, THE UH, INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE AFFORDABLE FOR 40 YEARS.

LASTLY, STAFF'S VERSION EXPLICITLY STATES THAT ANY 60% MFI AND BELOW UNIT REPLACED WOULD COUNT TOWARDS THE UNITS REQUIRED UNDER THE BONUS PROGRAM.

THIS HOPES ENSURE THAT AFTER THE ONE-TO-ONE THE REPLACEMENT, THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T HAVE TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL 12 OR 15% OF TOTAL UNITS ON TOP OF THAT ONE-TO-ONE REPLACEMENT.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION DIDN'T ADDRESS THIS.

SO OVERALL PLANNING COMMISSION'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS WOULD RESULT IN LESS PROTECTION FOR EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAN THE STAFF PROPOSAL.

AND THEREFORE WE DON'T RECOMMEND PASSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENTS ON THIS TOPIC AS WRITTEN.

AND I COULD PAUSE THERE 'CAUSE I'M GONNA GO TO NON-RESIDENTIAL.

WHY DON'T YOU YEAH.

TAKE YOU TAKE A BREATH.

LET ME ASK , IS THERE ANYBODY THAT HAS A QUESTION? YEAH, COUNCIL MEMBER VELA WITH REGARD TO THE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS SAYING THAT THE A A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CAN ONLY DEVELOP IF REPAIRS EXCEED 50% OF THE VALUE.

UH, I'M ASSUMING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE, THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY, AND NOT INCLUDING THE ACTUAL REAL ESTATE LIKE THE, THE REAL, THIS IS A PROVISION THAT'S IN THE AFFORDABILITY AND LOCK PROGRAM TODAY.

SO I'D HAVE TO ASK SOMEONE FROM THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT TO CONFIRM HOW THAT CALCULATION IS.

OKAY.

INTERPRETED TODAY TRISH LINK WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT? YES, IT WOULD BE THE STRUCTURAL REPAIRS AND IT'S A DETERMINATION

[00:50:01]

MADE BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.

UH, AND I I'LL TELL YOU MY CONCERN WITH THAT IS THAT THERE IS THEN THE INCENTIVE OF THE LANDLORD WHO WANTS TO REDEVELOP THAT PROPERTY TO ESSENTIALLY LET IT DETERIORATE TO THE POINT WHERE IT HAS BECOME YOU.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? LIKE THE, TO, TO BASICALLY NOT MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY SUCH THAT IT, IT, IT CONTINUES TO DETERIORATE IN VALUE AND THUS IT'S ELIGIBLE.

I'M, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT KIND OF PERVERSE, UH, UH, COUNTER INCENTIVE THERE.

UH, IF WE WERE TO, UH, PUT THAT, UH, GATEKEEPER, UH, REQUIREMENT, UH, OUT THERE, UH, AND, AND, AND I KNOW THERE'S, THERE'S MORE IN, IN TERMS OF THE RESIDENTIAL, THE RIGHTS AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT I'D, I'D MUCH RATHER KIND OF PUT IT ON THE, THE OTHER END.

LIKE, IF YOU ARE GOING TO REPLACE A MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY, THEN I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A, A ROBUST SET OF PROTECTIONS AND INCENTIVES AND, YOU KNOW, AND, AND, AND AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF LIKE THAT.

BUT I WOULD HATE TO DO IT TO WHERE WE MIGHT BE INCENTIVIZING SOMEBODY TO LET THEIR PROPERTY TO DE DETERIORATE TO THE POINT WHERE IT MIGHT, UH, THEN BE, UH, ABLE TO, TO, TO BE TORN DOWN.

UH, I'M JUST CONCERNED HONESTLY FOR THE FOLKS LIVING IN THE PROPERTY AS THAT PROCESS IS HAPPENING AND AS THERE'S JUST A LACK OF MAINTENANCE.

SO I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT I UNDERSTAND, COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHERE STUFF IS, IS, IS COMING FROM.

YOU KNOW, WE, WE DON'T WANT TO INCENTIVIZE OUR, OUR, UM, AFFORDABLE OR NATURALLY OCCURRING, UH, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT I WOULD JUST, I THINK WE CAN PROTECT IT IN BETTER WAYS THAN PUTTING THAT GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENT.

COUNCILOR RYAN ALTER, UH, WE WILL GET TO THIS IN A MOMENT, BUT I THINK IT'S JUST PERFECT TIME TO JUMP IN THAT TYPE OF CONCERN AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF HAVING A LARGE COMPLEX THAT IS, UM, NOT ABLE TO BE REDEVELOPED BECAUSE THAT HIGH NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS AND THEN JUST LANGUISHING IS WHY WE'RE GONNA BRING AN AMENDMENT TO HAVE A WAIVER PROCESS, RIGHT? IT KIND OF STRIKES THAT BALANCE WHERE IF THERE ISN'T UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE, WE CAN ADDRESS IT.

UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, I DO THINK STAFF PUT THE RIGHT DIRECTION IN PLACE OF WHERE WE WANNA STEER THESE THINGS, BUT THERE'S ALWAYS THAT ONE OR TWO THAT JUST FALLS OUTSIDE THE NORM.

THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER.

COUNCIL MEMBER CADRE.

YEAH.

UH, COUNCIL MEMBER RYAN ALTER ALREADY BEAT ME TO THIS.

UH, AND, UM, IN OUR, UH, IN ONE OF OUR AMENDMENTS, WE'VE ALSO ADDED A WAIVER PROCESS AND WE'VE INCORPORATED INTO OUR MOTION SHEET.

SO I APPRECIATE COUNCIL MARVELLA FOR BRINGING IT UP AND COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER FOR ALSO DOING THE WORK.

THANK YOU.

YES.

ALL RIGHT.

READY TO GO? YES.

READY TO GO? GOOD.

SO, THERE'S ALSO NON-RES RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON THESE NON-RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS TO DETERMINE WHAT A DEVELOPER HAS TO DO BEFORE REDEVELOPING CERTAIN QUALIFYING EXISTING COMMERCIAL SITES.

UM, THESE REQUIREMENTS ADD PROTECTIONS AND SUPPORT FOR EXISTING BUSINESSES AND ENSURE THAT WE RETAIN TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE PRIORITY BUSINESSES LIKE CHILDCARE, GROCERY STORES, CREATIVE SPACES, AND LEGACY BUSINESSES, WHICH IS ALL IN LINE WITH THE EQUITABLE TOD POLICY PLAN GOALS.

SO, F FIRST IN STAFF'S PROPOSAL, A DEVELOPER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REPLACE ALL QUALIFYING NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACES WITH A QUALIFYING NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE OF A SIMILAR SIZE IN THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.

THIS HELPS ENSURE THAT WE'RE NOT LOSING SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THINGS LIKE SMALL FORMAT RETAIL AND CHILDCARE CENTERS.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION DOES NOT HAVE, UH, THIS SPECIFIC PHYSICAL SPACE KIND OF REQUIREMENT.

THE TWO PROPOSALS ARE IDENTICAL IN THEIR NOTICE REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED TO EXISTING BUSINESSES THAT LEASE SPACES ON SITE.

CURRENTLY, THE STAFF PROPOSAL INCLUDES RELOCATION BENEFITS TO SUPPORT THE BUSINESSES THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.

SMALL MS. SMALL BUSINESS FAILURE RATES INCREASE SUBSTANTIALLY AFTER RELOCATIONS AND PRESERVATION OF CREATIVE SPACES.

CHILDCARE AND ESTABLISHED SMALL PUBLIC FACING BUSINESSES IN THESE SUCCESSFUL ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL DISTRICTS IS A PRIORITY FOR THE CITY.

AND MAINTAINING AND PRESERVING OUR UNIQUE CHARACTER, CULTURE AND HERITAGE BENEFIT LEVELS IN STAS PROPOSAL WOULD BE PROVIDED DIRECTLY TO BUSINESSES BY THE DEVELOPER AND CONSISTENT WITH THOSE IN THE UNIFORM RELOCATION ACT, EXCEPT THEY WOULD BE CALCULATED TO BE EQUIVALENT OF SIX MONTHS OF THE COMMERCIAL RENT AT THEIR CURRENT RATE.

THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS CLARIFIED IN STAFF'S PROPOSAL THAT THEY WOULD COMPARE NEARBY COMMERCIAL RENTS FOR SIMILAR USES WITHIN A MILE TO HELP DETERMINE WHAT THOSE RATES WOULD BE.

AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PROPOSAL DOES NOT OFFER ANY RELOCATION ASSISTANCE TO BUSINESSES FACING DISPLACEMENT THROUGH THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.

LASTLY, THE TWO PROPOSALS DIFFER ON HOW THEY OFFER THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL FOR PREVIOUS TENANTS WHEN THEY RETURN TO THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.

THE COMMISSION'S VERSION WOULD REQUIRE THAT A BUSINESS BE OFFERED A LEASE FOR A NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE.

STAFF'S

[00:55:01]

PROPOSAL WOULD ENSURE THE BUSINESS COULD LEASE A SPACE OF SIMILAR SIZE TO THE ONE AT LEFT, THAT THE NEW SPACE WOULD BE AFFORDABLE, AND THAT THE MINIMUM LEASE LENGTH FOR THAT WOULD BE 10 YEARS.

AND OVERALL, THE VERSION OF NON-RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT REQUIRED OFFERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION SIGNIFICANTLY WEAKENS THE PROTECTIONS IN FROM THE STAFF PROPOSAL, AND THEREFORE, STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THOSE AMENDMENTS QUESTIONS.

COUNCILOR VELA, UM, A LOT COMMERCIAL LEASES, AND I I'VE BEEN IN A NUMBER OF 'EM AT, AT THIS POINT, UH, ARE TYPICALLY MULTI-YEAR LEASES.

UH, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME LOCATIONS THAT WILL DO A 12 MONTH LEASE, BUT I MEAN, TYPICALLY A COMMERCIAL LEASE IS GONNA BE A FIVE YEAR, 10 YEAR, 20 YEAR TYPE OF, UH, OF, OF COMMERCIAL LEASE.

UH, AND I, I GUESS MY, MY, MY SENSE WOULD BE ON THE, ON THE COMMERCIAL RELOCATION, THERE ARE CERTAIN ICONIC BUSINESSES THAT HAVE REALLY, I THINK, TOUCHED THE, THE HEARTSTRINGS.

YOU CAN THINK OF THE LAS MANITA SITUATION WAY BACK WHEN THE MARRIOTT WAS, UH, PROPOSED ON CONGRESS.

UH, I REMEMBER WHEN TOJO HAD TO, TO, TO MOVE AND TO RELOCATE.

UH, BUT I MEAN, THAT SAID, THERE'S A LOT, A WHOLE OTHER RANGE OF BUSINESSES THAT ARE NOT AS LOCATION DEPENDENT.

I MEAN, I WOULD PUT MY, A LAW FIRM, FOR EXAMPLE, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHERE I AM.

I CAN WORK FROM ANYWHERE, AN INSURANCE COMPANY, KIND OF LIKE THOSE BACKEND KIND OF BUSINESS SERVICE PLACES, ACCOUNTING, THOSE KINDS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.

YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE TO BE HERE OR THERE.

UH, AND, UH, SO I I I DEFINITELY WANT TO PROTECT TENANTS AND ESPECIALLY LOW INCOME TENANTS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

I'M NOT, AND I HAVEN'T HEARD THIS FROM THE COMMUNITY, THAT THERE'S THIS KIND OF DRIVING NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LAW FIRM OR THE INSURANCE COMPANY GETS TO COME BACK TO ITS LOCATION ON, YOU KNOW, THIS PARTICULAR, WHERE, WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM IN THE SENSE OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A CHAMBER, UH, YOU KNOW, SMALL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION.

LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT ARE THE INSTITUTIONAL KIND OF DESIRES OR INSTITUTIONAL REQUESTS THAT ARE OUT THERE WITH REGARD TO THIS, UH, COMMERCIAL TENANT, UH, UH, RELOCATION AND SPACE ISSUE? SO I HAVE, UM, NOT HEARD ANYTHING FROM ANY SPECIFIC ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS AROUND THESE KIND OF PROVISIONS.

MM-HMM, .

UM, WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT THE STAFF PROPOSAL NEVER, UH, FORESAW AN INSURANCE AGENT OR A LAWYER BEING OFFERED THIS BENEFIT BACK.

IT'S TAILORED WITHIN THE DENSITY PROGRAM TO ONLY BE APPLICABLE FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF BUSINESSES.

SO, UM, THAT INCLUDES SMALL, LIKE UNDER A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE, RETAIL AND RESTAURANT, WHICH IS A LOT OF OUR LOCAL BUSINESSES AND, AND KIND OF ENTREPRENEURIAL BUSINESSES.

UM, CHILDCARE, GROCERY STORES UNDER A CERTAIN FEE, FOOD SALES UNDER A CERTAIN FEE, RIGHT? SO, MM-HMM, , DOES THAT HELP ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? IT'S NOT