Feb 12, 2026 Planning and Zoning

[I. CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]

[00:00:08]

OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ORDER. IT IS 4:02 P.M. AND WE HAVE WITH US JEFF HEALEY, MYSELF, LINDA AIRD, GENE HARRIS AND ENRIQUE LOPEZ. WE ALSO HAVE PAUL PRINCE, WHO IS OUR CITY COUNCIL LIAISON AND OUR STAFF LIAISON, JORDAN STROHMEYER. AND DO WE HAVE

[II. CITIZEN COMMENTS]

[III.1. Routine Reports from City staff.]

[III.2. Routine Reports from City Council Liaison.]

[IV. CONSENT AGENDA]

[00:05:01]

AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEM BOTH REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. AND THE. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ADDED IN TO THE JANUARY 8TH PNC MINUTES. THE FOLLOWING. NELSON MINYARD MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE 2520 905 ENRIQUE LOPEZ SECONDED. PRETTY SURE IT WAS. YOU COULDN'T TELL IF IT WAS YOU WERE OKAY. ENRIQUE LOPEZ SECONDED. JEAN HARRIS, ENRIQUE LOPEZ, NELSON MINYARD AND LINDA AIRED VOTED IN FAVOR. JEFF HUGHLEY AND ANNE CLEATOR VOTED AGAINST. DAVE STEWART SAID HE WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED IT IF HE HAD BEEN ABLE TO VOTE. HE HAD NOT YET BEEN SWORN IN AS A COMMISSIONER AND COULD NOT VOTE AT THAT MEETING. AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE ADDED TO THE RECORD MINUTES FOR THE JANUARY 22ND, 2020 SIX MINUTES IS UNDER SECTION FIVE ACTION ITEMS. IT WAS NOTED THAT THERE WAS AN ADDITION OF A SECOND PUBLIC PARK TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PDD, AND THAT THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE WIDTH OF THE DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION NOT BEING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THE MOTION WAS MADE BY ANN CLEATOR TO APPROVE THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE FINAL PLAT HAS THE ORDINANCE TO THE DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION ADDED TO IT.

DAVE STEWART, JEFF NELSON, MINYARD, ENRIQUE LOPEZ AND ANN CLEATOR VOTED IN FAVOR. LINDA AIRD OPPOSED FOR THE GIVEN REASON THAT IT WAS NOT CLEAR THAT THE DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION MEETS THE TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THOSE ARE THE ADDITIONS THAT I WOULD LIKE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 8TH, 2020 SIX MINUTES, AS AMENDED? I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 22ND. WHAT? OH, JANUARY 8TH? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE THE MINUTES. WE HAVE A SECOND, SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SO JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU PROPOSE SOME AMENDMENTS TO THE MINUTES. YES. MR. LOPEZ, YOU JUST MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.

YOU DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ACCEPTING HER AMENDMENTS. SO? SO THEN, MR. CHAIR, YOU WOULD NEED TO ASK HIM IF HE ACCEPTS YOUR AMENDMENTS. OH, YES. AND I ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS. AND THEN THE PERSON WHO SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS, TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES, YOU KNOW, CLICK BACK ON. I WAS NOT HERE FOR ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS, SO I PROBABLY SHOULD NOT BE THE SECOND. THIS ONE, JANUARY 8TH, THAT WE'RE DOING. YOU WERE HERE BECAUSE YOU VOTED IN FAVOR AND WE'RE WE'RE APPROVING THE JANUARY 8TH MINUTES RIGHT NOW. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH, I'LL SECOND THAT ONE AND ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS THAT SHE HAS PROPOSED. ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS AS PROPOSED. THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. DAVE, DID YOU VOTE IN FAVOR? OKAY. SO THAT WAS UNANIMOUS. OKAY. AND THEN WE NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDED MINUTES TO THE JANUARY 22ND, 2020 SIX MINUTES. I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE AMENDED MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 22ND. MINUTES. SHE WASN'T HERE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND ANY DISCUSSION. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW. DOES HE FORMALLY ABSTAIN? YEAH. I THINK THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO TO ABSTAIN BECAUSE I WAS NOT PRESENT AT THAT MEETING. OKAY. SO I HAVE A QUESTION.

PAUL, IS IS NORMAL PROTOCOL JUST TO SAY FOR OR AGAINST AND ABSTAINED OR ARE REASONS THROWN IN THERE? IT WASN'T THAT WASN'T EXACTLY MY QUESTION. MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT SHOULD IT

[00:10:24]

AND AGAIN, I JUST THIS IS A PROCEDURAL QUESTION. I THINK THAT THE MINUTES DO NOT. IN MY UNDERSTANDING, THE MINUTES DO NOT HAVE TO CAPTURE ALL THE REASONS. BUT IF YOU ALL CHOOSE TO AMEND THE MINUTES TO CAPTURE SOMEONE'S REASONING FOR VOTING AGAINST, YOU HAD THE ABILITY TO TO MAKE THAT THAT REQUIREMENT IN MINUTES. OKAY, THEN THE COMMENT SHOULD BE MOVED UP.

DURING DISCUSSION. THIS WAS SAID, BUT THE VOTE SHOULD BE STRAIGHTFORWARD. YES, NO AND ABSTAIN. I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT WHERE IT GETS WRITTEN IN, BUT SEEMS FINE WHAT YOU SAID. I'M OKAY WITH IT GOING IN, I JUST. I THINK IT SHOULD BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION, NOT OF THE PART OF THE RECORD OF THE VOTE. I MADE IT PART OF THE RECORD. I VOTE, AND I VOTED AND SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT. SO YOU CAN VOTE AGAINST THE AMENDMENT TO THE MINUTES. SO THERE WAS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDED MINUTES, AND THERE WAS A SECOND TO THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDED MINUTES. ALL IN FAVOR? I. ALL OPPOSED. AND I'M ABSTAINING, AS I WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THAT MEETING, AND I DO. SO WE HAVE FOUR IN FAVOR AND ONE ABSTENTION. MISS ERIC, CAN STAFF RECEIVE A COPY OF THAT WORD FOR WORD? I WANT TO MAKE

[V.1. Discussion on a referral from the City Council to review and make recommendations regarding Parkland Dedication and Fee-in-Lieu ordinance requirements.]

EITHER ONE WORKS. WHILE WE WAIT. ARE WE BACK? EXCUSE ME. YEAH. I'M FINE. OKAY, HERE WE ARE.

ALL RIGHT. NOW LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE. HERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT, SO WE'LL BEGIN FIRST BY

[00:15:03]

NEXT, PLEASE. SO IT'S WHAT IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE NOLAN AND THE DOLAN RULE. SO NOLAN HAS TO DO WITH NEXUS AND DOLAN HAS TO DO WITH ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY. SO NEXUS SIMPLY INDICATES THAT WHENEVER THERE IS AN EXACTION BY A LOCAL BODY, THAT IT HAS TO BEAR SOME CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST AND THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING ON, WHERE THE IMPACTS ARE, OUR INTEREST IS IN MITIGATING THOSE IMPACTS SPECIFICALLY. THAT'S THE NEXT ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY MEANS THAT WHATEVER THAT IMPACT IS GOING TO BE, THAT WHAT IS REQUIRED OF THE DEVELOPER IS CONSISTENT WITH A LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT ALREADY EXISTS WITHIN A JURISDICTION. NEXT SLIDE. SO NEXUS AGAIN, AS I INDICATED, IS A RESULT OF A SUPREME COURT DECISION DATING ALL THE WAY BACK TO 1987. AND IT BASICALLY SAYS THAT PERMIT CONDITIONS IMPOSED UPON LAND DEVELOPMENT MUST BE RELATED TO ACTUAL HARMS CAUSED BY THAT DEVELOPMENT. SO AGAIN, THE CONNECTION, GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST, THE IMPACTS AND HOW ONE MITIGATES THE OTHER. NEXT SLIDE ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY IS DOLAN 1994 US SUPREME COURT. BUT THAT'S ALSO BEEN CODIFIED HERE IN TEXAS. THERE IT IS IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 212 .904. SO THE BENCHMARK IS A CITY'S LEVEL OF SERVICE. SO WHAT WE PROVIDE NOW TO THE GENERAL COMMUNITY, THE EXPECTATION OUGHT TO BE THAT WE PROVIDE SIMILAR TO FOLKS AS WE EXPAND. AND SO AGAIN, LOOKING AT THE ITALICIZED, THE DEVELOPER'S PORTION OF THE COSTS MAY NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE ROUGHLY PROPORTIONATE TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT IS APPROVED BY AN ACTUAL PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. ALL RIGHT. SO THERE ARE THREE COMPONENTS TO PARK DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. AND YES, SIR. GENE. YES. BY ALL MEANS. GOOD QUESTION. WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ROUGHLY PROPORTIONATE TO THE DEVELOPMENT, IS THAT THE COST OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE SIZE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. NO. SO ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY. REMEMBER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IMPACTS. SO YOU GO BACK TO THE IDEA OF NEXUS. IT'S WHATEVER THE IMPACTS ARE WE LOOK TO MITIGATE THOSE. SO ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY IS BASICALLY ENSURING THAT WE

[00:20:02]

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. SO AGAIN THREE COMPONENTS. ONE IS A LAND REQUIREMENT. CURRENTLY, AS I INDICATED, THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA IS ORDINANCE HAS A LAND REQUIREMENT. WE SAY ONE ACRE OF PARKLAND FOR EVERY NEW 30 DWELLING UNITS. WE ALSO HAVE A FEE IN LIEU. IF A DEVELOPER DOESN'T PROVIDE THE NECESSARY LAND, THEN WE WOULD ASK $1,050 PER DWELLING UNIT IN LIEU OF THAT LAND DEVELOPMENT. THE THIRD COMPONENT THAT THE CITY CURRENTLY DOES NOT EXERCISE IS THAT OF A PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE. AND THAT HAS TO DO MORE SPECIFICALLY WITH WHAT YOU DO WITH PARKLAND THAT'S BEEN GIVEN TO YOU OR THAT'S THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED VIA DEVELOPER. NEXT SLIDE. SO LET'S LOOK AT THOSE MORE SPECIFICALLY. SO LAND REQUIREMENT CONSIDERATIONS IN MOST INSTANCES THAT'S WHAT DEVELOPERS GIVE US. OFTENTIMES THERE'S AN INCLINATION TO SORT OF GIVE WHAT'S LEFT OVER. CITIES SHOULDN'T JUST ACCEPT THAT. SO SO SOME CONSIDERATIONS THAT OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED ARE ONE IS THE SPACE THAT'S BEING PROVIDED SUITABLE FOR A PARK? NOT EVERY SPACE IS. I JOKINGLY COMMENTED AS WE TALKED TO PRAC, THAT THERE WAS A CONVERSATION MONTHS AGO WHEN MR. PRINCE WAS INVOLVED AS LIAISON TO PRAC. THE CITY OWNS A PLOT OF LAND, A PARCEL OF LAND DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE THE JUMPING OFF POINT FOR TURNBACK CANYON TRAIL, AND THE COMMENT WAS, OH, THAT'D BE A PERFECT LOCATION FOR PARKING LOT UNTIL WE WENT OUT AND SAW YOU COULDN'T BUILD A PARKING LOT THERE IF YOU WANTED TO, BECAUSE NOT EVERY PARCEL OF LAND IS SUITABLE FOR EVERY PURPOSE. SO IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, IF A IF A PIECE OF LAND IS NOT SUITABLE FOR A PARK DEVELOPMENT THAT IS BASED UPON THE STANDARDS THAT YOU WANT, SOME YOU MAY WANT TO MAINTAIN IN WILDERNESS CONDITION, SOME YOU MAY USE JUST FOR TRAILS, WHATEVER THE CASE, BUT JUST MAKE SURE IT'S SUITABLE FOR WHATEVER YOUR INTENTION IS. YES, SIR. OKAY, SO IF YOU GO THROUGH THE TRACK RECORD FOR THE CITY, I CAN THINK OF THE PARK OVER OFF OF SHORELINE RANCH ROAD AND AUSTIN BOULEVARD IS PROBABLY A SUITABLE PARK. IT'S SMALL AND IT'S GOING TO BE A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK, BUT THE LAND THAT WE GOT INTO ZARA IS EXTREMELY QUESTIONABLE. AND THERE'S PEOPLE WHO QUESTION WHAT WE GOT OUT OF TURN BACK. SO WHO IS RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE THE DECISION THAT IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY TO MAKE THIS LAND IN LIEU OF MONEY DECISION, SO THAT THAT CONVERSATION SHOULD BE COMING BACK? WELL, ONE, THE PROPOSAL OBVIOUSLY WOULD GO TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, AND PARKS AND RECREATION SHOULD ALWAYS BE ALLOWED TO REVIEW THAT. AND HOPEFULLY THERE IS SOME SENSE OF PRIORITIES AS ESTABLISHED THROUGH PRAC, THROUGH COUNCIL, ETC. TO MAKE SURE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'RE INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING OVER TIME. SO IF IT DOESN'T MEET THE STANDARDS THAT WE'VE SET FORWARD, THEN WE SHOULDN'T BE MOVING FORWARD IN TERMS OF LAND THAT WE DON'T THINK IS SUITABLE FOR USE AS A PARK. OKAY. SECOND QUESTION. SO I'VE GOT THIS PRIMO PROPERTY AND I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND I'M GOING, I DON'T WANT TO GET OFF MY LAND. AND THERE'S A CHEAPER WAY THAN PAYING THE. HOW MUCH WAS THAT, $1,000 FOR $1,050 PER DWELLING UNIT. OKAY. CAN THE DEVELOPER BUY AND DONATE TO THE CITY A DIFFERENT PIECE OF LAND IN A DIFFERENT PART OF THE CITY, AND MEET THAT OBLIGATION? THE. TYPICALLY, THE LAND IS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THAT ISN'T TO SAY THAT THERE CAN'T BE A CONVERSATION ABOUT AN ALTERNATIVE. THERE CERTAINLY COULD BE IF IF THERE IS IN FACT A MORE SUITABLE PIECE OF PROPERTY. I IMAGINE THAT WE COULD HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. OKAY. IF THE CITY HAD A CURRENT PARK THAT IT WOULD LIKE TO EXPAND, AND THE DEVELOPER WOULD OFFER TO BUY THE LAND NEXT TO THE PARK SO THAT THE CURRENT PARK COULD BE EXPANDED, IS THAT OPTION IN THIS PLAN? WELL, ONE, THIS IS NOT A PLAN. TWO THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION OF OF WHAT OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE PERMITS.

THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY, HOW MUCH FLEXIBILITY WE'D HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT. BUT AGAIN, IF A DEVELOPER COMES IN WITH A PROPOSAL, WE'LL SIT DOWN AND WE'LL HAVE THE CONVERSATION IF IT MEETS ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL, BECAUSE THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE A MINIMUM LAND REQUIREMENT OR A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, AND THOSE HAVE TO BE MET. AND IF THEY'RE NOT MET, THEN IT THUS ENDS THE CONVERSATION. BUT I THINK THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF WHERE THAT LAND CAN BE GAINED FROM. YEAH, I JUST WANT TO PUT THE CONCEPT OUT

[00:25:05]

AGAIN, THAT'S THAT'S IMPORTANT. SO GOING BACK TO THE CONSIDERATIONS, IN ADDITION TO MAKING SURE THAT THE PARCEL IS JUST SUITABLE TO DEVELOP AS A LAND, YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THE SIZE IS APPROPRIATE. YOU KNOW, YOU HEAR CATEGORIZATIONS FOR PARKS, IT CAN BE ANYTHING FROM ANY PARKS TO POCKET PARKS, NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, COMMUNITY PARKS. THOSE ARE ALL CATEGORIZED BY SIZE, AGAIN, DEPENDING UPON WHAT THE NEEDS ARE AT THE TIME, WHAT THE PRIORITIES ARE, YOU'D WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT DEVELOPER IS GIVING YOU A SIZE OF LAND THAT IS SUITABLE FOR WHAT YOUR INTERESTS ARE. WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE NO LIENS OR ENCUMBRANCES AGAINST THE LAND, THAT THERE ARE NO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ON THE LAND. IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR DEVELOPERS AS THEY'RE GOING THROUGH, THEY DISCOVER BROWNFIELD. AND YEAH, YOU HAVE THAT. NOT WITHOUT YOU CLEANING IT UP. SO THE PROBLEM HAS GOT TO BE MITIGATED BEFORE WE EVEN CONSIDER THAT IT SHOULD BE CLEARED AND GRADED. THEY'RE CLEARING THE REST OF THEIR LAND IN PREPARATION FOR BUILDING. WE SHOULD GET A PARCEL THAT'S THAT'S MOSTLY READY FOR DEVELOPMENT. THERE SHOULD BE UTILITY ACCESS THERE. SO WATER LINES SHOULD BE COMING IN.

SEWER LINE SHOULD BE COMING IN AGAIN WITHIN REASON. AND DEPENDING UPON WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO DO WITH THE PARCEL. THEN FINALLY PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY IS IMPORTANT. AND IN LAGOS SPECIFICALLY, IT'D BE NICE IF THERE WERE SOME SIDEWALKS. SO AGAIN, THOSE ARE DISCUSSIONS THAT YOU CAN HAVE AS YOU'RE HAVING AS YOU'RE TALKING TO A DEVELOPER ABOUT LAND CONSIDERATIONS IN TERMS OF A FEE IN LIEU, WHY WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT ON? JEFF? ONE QUESTION DOES IT HAS TO BE CLEARED AND GRADED. DOES THAT MEAN THAT THAT LAND PRETTY MUCH COULD NOT BE USED FOR A NATURE PARK? NO NO, NO. SO AGAIN, THAT'S WHY I SAID IT WILL DEPEND UPON WHAT YOU'RE INTERESTED. SO IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN A WILDERNESS PARK OR YOU'RE INTERESTED IN A SERIES OF TRAILS, AND YOU ACCEPT THAT FROM THE DEVELOPER BECAUSE THAT'S YOUR THAT'S OKAY. AND THAT'S WHY I SAID THOSE ARE JUST CONSIDERATIONS. NOTHING IS SET IN STONE. IT'S JUST WHAT IT'S WHAT MAKES SENSE FOR WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO DEVELOP TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY AT THE TIME. YOU'RE WELCOME. ALL RIGHT. SO A FEE IN LIEU IS IMPORTANT FOR TWO REASONS. ONE, DEVELOPERS DON'T ALWAYS HAVE SUITABLE LAND. AS YOU KNOW, ONCE THEY'VE PARCELED IT ALL UP, THEY PLATTED AND THEY DISCOVER THERE'S JUST NOTHING THAT REALLY WORKS TO GIVE THE THE CITY. WELL, THEN WE'D WANT SOMETHING FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT.

AND SO WE'D TAKE AN IN LIEU FEE, OBVIOUSLY IN LIEU OF. SECONDLY, THERE ARE MANY INSTANCES IN WHICH A COMMUNITY HAS MORE LAND THAN IT HAS MONEY TO DEVELOP THOSE PARKS. SO WHILE PARKLAND IS TERRIFIC, THEY'RE NOT REALLY PARKS UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU DO SOMETHING WITH THEM, UNLESS YOU'RE INTENTION WAS SIMPLY TO LEAVE IT A WILD AND NATURAL SPACE. NEXT, THE THIRD ELEMENT PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES. WHY ARE THESE SIGNIFICANT AGAIN? BECAUSE A PARK IS MORE THAN JUST THE LAND. IF YOU'VE GOT YOUNG FAMILIES, THEN YOU WANT TO HAVE PLAYGROUNDS. IF IF YOU'VE GOT AN ACTIVE COMMUNITY, YOU WANT TO HAVE PLACES WHERE THEY CAN EXERCISE, WHERE THEY CAN WALK, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. SO AMENITIES AND THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE THEREOF REALLY SHOULD BE PART OF THE PARKLAND DEDICATION CONVERSATION. THE OTHER IS THAT CITIES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE PARKLAND DEDICATION IN ADDITION TO, I'M SORRY, A PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE IN ADDITION TO A PARKLAND DEDICATION. SO WE SORT OF LEAVE MONEY ON THE TABLE WHEN WE DON'T REQUEST A PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE. SO. SO HOW DO YOU CALCULATE PARKLAND DEDICATION? SO THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT PROVIDE A SPECIFIC MATHEMATIC CALCULATION.

SO THE CONSENSUS VIEW OVER TIME HAS BECOME THAT THE DEMANDS MADE BY NEW RESIDENTS SHOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO WHAT YOU CURRENTLY PROVIDE TO THOSE WHO LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY ALREADY.

SO THE STANDARD IS WHAT WE'RE GIVEN TO FOLKS WHO LIVE HERE. AND WE WANT TO INSIST THAT NEW RESIDENTS COMING IN GET THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE. AND THE TYPICAL WAY TO MEASURE THAT IS BY DEVELOPMENT UNITS PER ACRE OF PARKLAND. CALCULATING A FEE IN LIEU. SO COST OF LAND. AND THAT SHOULD BE THE LAND VALUE BASED AT THE TIME THAT YOU PLAT THAT CONSISTENT WITH LAND VALUES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. AND THAT'S A COST OF LAND PER ACRE IN THE CITY, DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER PAKHTAKOR. CALCULATING A PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS IS STILL RELEVANT THERE, BUT YOU'RE LOOKING NOW AT THE COST OF PARK CONSTRUCTION PER ACRE. NOW THAT SHOULD BE BASED ON YOUR MOST RECENT PARK CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. THAT'S HOW YOU DETERMINE THAT VALUE AND IT SHOULD BE A PER ACRE COST.

[00:30:03]

THAT'S ALL THAT'S OWNED BY THE CITY. IF 25 ACRES OUT AT SUNSET PARK, YOU'VE GOT A LITTLE OVER EIGHT AND A HALF AT THE SPORTS COMPLEX, YOU HAVE TOO MANY PARKS RIGHT HERE. YOU'VE GOT BODEN POINT. ALTOGETHER, WE HAVE 36 ACRES OF PARK. YES, SIR. NOW, IS THAT A YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DEDICATED PARKS THAT ALREADY EXIST, RIGHT? RIGHT NOW THE CITY HAS SOME MORE REAL ESTATE THAT'S JUST IN THE DUNES. SO THAT'S. BUT THAT'S NOT CONSIDERED YET DEVELOPED. OH, CORRECT. YEAH. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EXISTING PARKLAND. RIGHT THEN THE. YES, MA'AM. IS THIS ALL. DO WE HAVE 36 ACRES OF ZONED PARKLAND OR DO WE HAVE MORE ZONED AS PARK THAN WE'RE ACTUALLY SERVICING AS PARK? SO I BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME PARCELS THAT ARE STILL ZONED PARKS, BUT THEY ARE NOT, IN FACT, ACTIVELY USED AS PARKS. SO I THINK, FOR EXAMPLE, THE END OF DAWN DRIVE I BELIEVE IS ZONED PARKLAND, BUT IT IS NOT IN USE AS A PARK CURRENTLY. SO THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE 30. IT IS NOT. IT IS NOT BECAUSE YEAH, IT'S WE'VE DONE NOTHING WITH IT. SO IT IS IT IS ZONED PARKLAND BUT CURRENTLY NOT IN USE. OKAY. SO WE STILL CONSIDER IT PARK. WELL AGAIN DISTINGUISHING FROM WHAT IS MERELY ZONED AS PARKLAND BECAUSE UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU DO SOMETHING WITH IT, YOU CAN COME BACK AND REZONE THAT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO THE MERE FACT THAT IT'S SIMPLY ZONED AS PARK, IT'S NOT CURRENTLY USED AS PARK.

NOW, IT DOESN'T MEAN WE COULDN'T DECLARE THAT PARK. THROW BENCHES ON IT TOMORROW AND IT BECOMES PART OF OUR PARKLAND. BUT CURRENTLY THAT IS NOT THE CASE. SO THE EXISTING PARKS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY ARE THOSE THAT I MENTIONED. OKAY, SO. SO THIS LOT ON ON DAWN DRIVE, YOU KNOW WHAT'S LIKE FIVE ACRES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I'M NOT SURE. AT THE END OF THE. YEAH. ACRE AND A HALF. OH OKAY. THAT'S IT'S ZONED IT'S A PARK BUT IT'S NOT BEING USED AS A PARK. RIGHT. SO IT'S NOT PART OF THOSE 36 ACRES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THE ESTIMATED COST OF LAND PER ACRE IN LAGOS IS ABOUT $100,000 PER ACRE. NOW, OBVIOUSLY, THAT FIGURE WILL CHANGE GIVEN ANY POINT IN TIME. ALSO GIVEN WHERE A DEVELOPMENT MIGHT BE LOCATED, BUT A GENERAL ESTIMATE 100 AND $100,000, THEN THE COST OF PARK CONSTRUCTION PER ACRE $83,603. NOW THAT'S BASED ON. SO WE HAVE TWO PARKS THAT HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT AMENITIES. THAT'S THE SPORTS COMPLEX AND SUNSET PARK. YOU'VE GOT A RESTROOM OUT THERE, YOU'VE GOT A PARKING LOT OUT THERE, YOU'VE GOT A PLAYGROUND OUT THERE, YOU'VE GOT PICNIC FACILITIES OUT THERE. SO THOSE COMBINED, WHAT HAS BECOME THE STANDARD OF SERVICE. SO WE'VE EXCLUDED FROM CONSTRUCTION COSTS THE MINI PARKS AND BOWDEN POINT BECAUSE THERE ARE NO AMENITIES ON THOSE. AND THAT THAT'S EVALUATED BASED ON A RECENT CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US BY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. AND SO THAT'S HOW WE'VE DEVISED THAT $83,603 PER ACRE CONSTRUCTION PARK FOR AMENITIES THAT WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO WHAT I'VE JUST SORT OF OUTLINED. SO A BATHROOM, SOME CONCRETE WALKWAYS, A PARKING LOT, A PLAYGROUND, MULCH BENEATH THAT, THOSE BASIC AMENITIES, AND THEN A GENERAL ATHLETIC AMENITY LIKE A HALF BASKETBALL COURT OR A SAND VOLLEYBALL COURT OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. YES. THE PARKLAND THAT WE OWN IT TO, SARAH, IS THAT INCLUDED IN THE 36 ACRES? SO THE YOU KNOW WHAT, IT IS NOT LISTED THERE BUT THE THE THAT'S YOU KNOW, I'LL HAVE TO GO AND TAKE A LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO PLUG THAT IN BECAUSE THE ACTUAL PARK ITSELF IS. I LIVE THERE. SO IT'S THAT BIG. SO IT ISN'T MUCH SPACE. SO BUT IF IT, IT IS DEDICATED CITY PARKLAND. THAT'S CORRECT. SO I'LL LOOK AT THAT

[00:35:08]

[00:40:06]

THEY'RE GREEN SPACES. SO TRAILS ARE NOT INCLUDED. THIS IS JUST PARKLAND. YEAH. SO THAT'S OUR CURRENT REALITY. SO THE THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTION WAS TO DO A NEXUS STUDY. THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE. SO WHAT THE NEXUS STUDY INDICATES IS THAT WE ARE SKEWED DRAMATICALLY IN TERMS OF WHAT WE ARE CURRENTLY CHARGING DEVELOPERS AS COMPARED TO WHAT WE OUGHT TO BE CHARGING THEM BASED ON THE STANDARD OF ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY. IS THERE, CHAIRWOMAN, MAY I ASK? SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, FOR THE COMMISSION'S PURPOSES, YOU MADE A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS IN YOUR CALCULATIONS HERE, WHICH I'VE HEARD SOME QUESTIONS. AND IF YOU COME IN FRONT OF COUNCIL WITH THIS, I'M SURE THERE WILL BE A LOT OF QUESTIONS TOO. SO HOW ACCURATE THIS IS, IS STILL TO BE DETERMINED. BUT IT'S A IT'S AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE AT LEAST. I'M NOT ORDER OF MAGNITUDE, BUT IT'S A STARTING POINT FOR THE ANALYSIS. YES FOR UNDERSTANDING IT. YEAH. THE THE AGAIN SO THE 17,000 POPULATION THOSE ARE THE LATEST FIGURES THAT FOR EXAMPLE THAT WE CAN DERIVE FROM COUNTY FROM TRAVIS COUNTY. SO YOU KNOW, SO THE, THE YOU KNOW IN TERMS OF THE MATHEMATICAL EQUATION THAT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE. SO THE FACTS AND FIGURES WERE PULLED FROM THE CENSUS, FROM ESRI AND FROM TRAVIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT. THOSE NUMBERS ARE SOLID. THE POPULATION, THE AMOUNT OF HOUSEHOLDS WE HAVE IN THE AREA, ALL OF THAT WAS PULLED FROM TAX ROLLS. THAT'S THAT'S PRETTY SPOT ON. THE VALUATION IS WHERE THINGS START TO GET, BECAUSE EVERY VALUATION PERSON IS GOING TO GIVE YOU A DIFFERENT NUMBER. AND THAT'S WHERE THINGS GET A LITTLE A LITTLE WONKY. BUT THE THE REQUIREMENT, THE HOUSEHOLDS, THE POPULATION, THOSE ARE FAIRLY SOLID. THEY CAME STRAIGHT FROM THE CENSUS AND ARENAC COUNTY. IT'S A22 QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION'S BENEFIT. ONE IS I THINK MR. LOPEZ IS A IS A REALTOR. RIGHT. SO IF YOU TAKE 100,000 AND DIVIDE IT BY OUR TYPICAL PLATTED LOT SIZE IN LAGO VISTA, THAT'S WHICH IS ABOUT A FIFTH OF AN ACRE IS TYPICAL. THE I DON'T THINK YOU CAN BUY LOTS IN A LOT OF VISTA FOR $20,000. SO THAT'S JUST I SERIOUSLY QUESTION THE $100,000 NUMBER. BUT THEN I ALSO CAN YOU TELL US DAVID OR JORDAN HAS A DEVELOPER IN THE ETJ EVER PAID OR DEDICATED PARKLAND OR PAID A FEE IN LIEU OF PARKLAND TO THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA? I CANNOT TELL YOU THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE. PREVIOUSLY, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A REQUIREMENT. SO OUR 1445, WHICH IS THE DOCUMENT WITH THE COUNTY THAT GIVES US AUTHORITY TO CONTROL PLAN IN OUR ETJ. DEPENDING ON WHAT THAT 1440 IS. AND I KNOW WE GO FOR FLATS IN OUR ETJ, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ASSESSED BY THE AUTHORITY OF OUR CODE. AT THE TIME OF WRITING THROUGH THE 1445, I DON'T KNOW HISTORICALLY IF STAFF HAS, THAT WOULD BE ACTUALLY PAUL. THEY DID IN THE PAST AROUND 2000, 2005, $300 A LOT AND OH, NOT ETJ IN THE WELL, WE HAD DEVELOPERS WHO WERE JUST PAYING THE $300 A LOT. THE HOLLOWS MAY HAVE BEEN ONE, AND I HAD A BUNCH OF MONEY IN THE BANK, AND THEN WE TRADED IT TO THE SCHOOL FOR A 20 YEAR CONTRACT TO HAS HAS A DEVELOPER THAT WAS DEVELOPING PROPERTY NOT IN THE CITY IN THE ETJ EVER PAID. THAT WAS MY QUESTION. OKAY, THAT'S SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE HOLLOWS WORKED THIS OUT BEFORE THEY ANNEXED. QUESTION. HOW MUCH LAND DOES THE CITY OWN THAT COULD BE POTENTIAL TO HAVE A BE USED AS A PARK, BE ZONED AS A PARK? BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S YOU KNOW,

[00:45:01]

SO BUT WE DO NEED TO DO SOMETHING PRETTY RAPIDLY. AND IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF THE ELBOW. AND AND THAT'S FAIRLY COMMON. AND SO THE FIRST QUESTION IS HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE SERVED BY THE ELBOW? I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY HAS A REAL ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. I'VE LITERALLY HEARD ANYTHING FROM 60 TO 90% OF LAGO VISTA RESIDENTS. WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT THE SEGMENT OF LAGOS POPULATION THAT IS GROWING MOST RAPIDLY ARE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE NOT IN THE ELBOW. SO THAT'S THE SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION THAT IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO GROW. AND THOSE ARE THE FOLKS THAT DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE 350 ACRES OF PARKLAND AT ALL. BUT EVEN SO, ELBOW LAND DOES NOT COUNT IN THIS EQUATION. SO IT'S I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT'S A MOOT POINT, BUT IF IF YOU'RE ONE OF THE FOLKS THAT LIVE IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE COMMUNITY NOW THAT DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT, YOU'RE KIND OF FRUSTRATED WITH THE LIMITATIONS THAT YOU HAVE. HAVING SAID THAT, THOUGH, THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT OUR FEW PARKS HAVE THAT NONE OF THE PARKS HAVE. BALL FIELDS ARE A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT SOCCER FIELD. PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT. ELBOW PARKS DON'T HAVE THOSE THINGS, BUT THOSE RESIDENTS IN THE ELBOW HAVE TOTAL ACCESS TO THOSE SAME PARKS THAT THE HANDFUL OF FOLKS WHO ARE NOT IN THE VPOA HAVE. SO THERE'S NOT REALLY A BALANCE IN TERMS OF ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITY. AND SO THAT'S ONE OF THE MAJOR THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO OVERCOME. AND HAS THIS WHEN YOU'RE WHEN YOU'RE PUTTING ALL THIS TOGETHER, ARE YOU AT ARE YOU DOING ANOTHER CALCULATION WITH THINGS THAT WE KNOW THAT ARE ALREADY PLANNED, THAT ARE BY ORDINANCE, GOING TO BECOME PARKS? THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE COMING SOON. FOR EXAMPLE, IN TURN BACK, THERE'S 34 ACRES OF PARK THAT WILL BE PER THE ORDINANCE WILL BE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE EXPECTED TO COME TO US PER THE FIREFLY COVE PD. WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE A DESIGNATED AMOUNT OF PARKLAND, BUT THEY WOULD EITHER, OH, ABOUT 11 ACRES OR THE THE FEE IN LIEU OF. SO IF YOU TAKE THOSE 11 ACRES AND 34 ACRES THAT WE KNOW THAT ARE COMING, HOW DOES THAT IMPACT. OH, DRAMATICALLY, YOU WOULD LITERALLY TRIPLE THE NUMBER THAT YOU'VE GOT ON THE BOARD CURRENTLY ALMOST TRIPLE IT. AND THAT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT. BUT AGAIN THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF SERVICE TODAY. SO ONCE THOSE DEVELOPMENTS COME THROUGH AND WE HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL PARKLAND. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN THIS IS THE SORT OF THING THAT YOU REASSESS CONSTANTLY NOW. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE THE DEDICATION FOR TURNBACK WOULDN'T HAVE AN IMPACT ON IS THE THE PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE,

[00:50:05]

JUST AS A POINT OF REFERENCE, I JUST LOOKED AT AT MY PLAT AND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 1431, THERE'S ABOUT 35 ACRES OF RAW LAND THAT'S OWNED BY THE CITY THAT COULD HAVE THE POTENTIAL JUST, YOU KNOW, TO BE A PARK. WHY? BECAUSE IT'S OWNED BY THE CITY. AND I CAN'T THINK OF ANY ANY OTHER USE FOR IT. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD A GOLF COURSE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

SO JUST FYI, THERE'S 35 ACRES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 1430. YEAH, I THINK THE CITY HAS SOMETHING IN THE RANGE OF 181 PARCELS CITYWIDE. YOU KNOW, SOME OF THEM ARE VERY SMALL. SOME OF THEM ARE SIGNIFICANT. SO YEAH, THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES OUT THERE, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF WORK TO DO WITH THOSE. ABSOLUTELY. AND EVEN WHEN YOU, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THE PARCEL THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT PARCEL LOOKS LIKE. YEAH. IT'S YEAH. SO IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT EVEN IF YOU HAVE 35 ACRES, IS THAT THE MOST SENSIBLE LOCATION TO DEVELOP A PARK? DOES IT MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY? YOU KNOW, WHERE THAT NEED IS GREATEST. YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE COST TO DEVELOP THAT THING? YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE CRITICISMS OF SUNSET PARK IS THAT YOU'RE KIND OF SITTING ON A LIMESTONE ROCK BED, AND THE COST TO DEVELOP OUT THERE WAS PHENOMENAL. AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, WHAT COULD YOU HAVE DONE ELSEWHERE, HAVE GREATER IMPACT WITH THE DOLLARS? DON'T KNOW, DON'T KNOW. BUT THOSE ARE THINGS WE HAVE TO HAVE. YEAH. WHICH SUNSET PARK, HE SAID YES. SUNSET PARK IS THE CITY'S LARGEST PARK. IT'S 25 ACRES. IT'S OFF OF 1431 IN NOT FAR FROM THE LUTHERAN CHURCH. YEAH. TOWARDS TESSERA. YEAH.

AND THAT'S JUST DEVELOPED FIVE YEARS AGO. BUT THAT ADDED 25 ACRES TO THE CITY'S INVENTORY.

SO SIGNIFICANT. OH, YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THERE. OH, PLEASE. NEW ENTRY. ME EITHER. SO, SO SO AGAIN, THE POINT HERE WAS TO HAVE TO BRING BACK TO YOU AN INITIAL NEXUS STUDY SO THAT YOU KNOW WHAT OUR CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE AND HOW THAT IMPACTS OUR ABILITY FOR PARKLAND DEDICATION FOR PARK IN LIEU FEES AND FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES. AND YOU CAN WE'RE ON THE VERY, VERY LOW SIDE. SO WE NEED TO RADICALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. IF IN FACT THAT IS THE COUNCIL'S WILL TO DO THAT. AND I THINK IT IS. AND SO THE COUNCIL IS ASKING YOU NOW TO MAKE SOME REVIEW RECOMMENDATION, WHETHER THAT'S BACK TO STAFF TO GO AND DO ADDITIONAL HOMEWORK.

HAPPY TO DO THAT, WHATEVER YOU RECOMMEND. WELL, I THINK TO MR. PRINCE'S POINT, THE $100,000 AN ACRE CALCULATION THAT WE'RE USING, I THINK IT WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE PARK SYSTEM IF WE COULD HAVE THAT REVIEWED, REEVALUATED, AND POSSIBLY JUSTIFIABLY INCREASED. AND IT'S POSSIBLE. IT'S POSSIBLE. SO I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE GO ABOUT THAT OR IF WE CAN MAKE THAT AS A WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT AS A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION. BUT IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE TO OUR ADVANTAGE, TO OUR BENEFIT IF $100,000 PROVED TO BE UNDERVALUED. OH, AGREED. AGREED.

BUT NO, WE CAN ABSOLUTELY DO A FORMAL LAND VALUE STUDY, AND I THINK WE HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BY DOING IT. WELL, I'M A I'M A REAL ESTATE AGENT AND I TRIED DOING THAT. AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT BECAUSE YOU GET SO MANY VARIABLES. IT'S A VERY UNIQUE TOWN. CITY. YOU'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, BUILDABLE UNBUILDABLE LOTS, NOT BECAUSE THE UTILITIES, BUT BECAUSE OF THE TERRAIN, THE O EVERYTHING. SO IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT. OBVIOUSLY, WE'LL HAVE A BETTER IDEA ONCE WE START GROWING AS A CITY. NOW WE CAN, BUT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE SO MANY VACANT SPACES THAT ARE VERY HARD TO VALUE. YOU KNOW, YOU'LL HAVE A LOT THAT'S $15,000 AND THE NEXT DOOR WILL BE ON SALE FOR 20 OR $50,000. AND THAT'S THE SCOPE OF LAGO VISTA. SO YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, THAT $100,000 MEANS NOTHING TO ME RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT'S IT'S IT'S A STARTING POINT. BUT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS GOING TO BE AWFULLY DIFFICULT TO GAUGE. THE PRICE PER GALLON, PER ACRE. AND EVEN SHOULD YOU DO THAT, THAT'S GOING TO BE A MOMENT IN TIME VALUE. SO ARE YOU SAYING THEN, BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE, THAT YOU DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE WORTH TRYING TO REEVALUATE? BECAUSE OF COURSE IT WOULD. IT WOULD BE AN

[00:55:08]

ONLY AN APPRAISER CAN GIVE YOU THAT. THAT VALUE. AND I'VE BEEN IN LAGO VISTA SINCE 2000, 2001, I THINK. SO I'VE SEEN LAGO VISTA. LIKE THIS BLOSSOM AND YOU KNOW. BUT YEAH, THAT'S I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, BECAUSE THERE'S TOO MANY VARIABLES AND IN $100,000 SEEMS. BUT I THINK WE COULD BE PLUS OR -$100,000. WELL, I WAS JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE A VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE PROPOSITION TO DO.

YOU KNOW, ANOTHER FORMAL APPRAISAL, BUT. YEAH. SO. I'M NOT MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION.

TOTALLY GET IT. YEAH. OH, NO. AND THAT WAS THE CHALLENGE WE RAN TO JUST AS WE DID THIS ROUGH ESTIMATION, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE YEAH, WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT WE DON'T DO VALUATIONS EITHER. IT'S A TOUGH BUSINESS. AND LAGO IS VERY, VERY UNUSUAL. SO YEAH IT'S TOUGH. SO YEAH IT WAS IT WAS JUST LIKE I SAID BASICALLY LOOKING AT A HANDFUL OF SIMILAR PROPERTIES SORT OF SCATTERED ABOUT THE CITY AND COMING UP WITH SORT OF A MEDIAN VALUATION. SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP NOW THAT WE PUT ALL THESE NUMBERS TOGETHER? AND WHAT IS OUR NEXT STEP? WELL, SO THE FIRST ISSUE IS. THE ORDINANCE PROBABLY SHOULD REFLECT REALITY.

SO IF WE'RE INTERESTED IN DOING THAT AND THERE ARE IN FACT LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ABOUT ESTIMATED PROPERTY VALUES, THEN A NEXT STEP MAY BE TO DO A PROPER VALUATION BECAUSE, AS JORDAN INDICATED, THE POPULATION FIGURES ARE ACCURATE. SO THE REALLY THE ONLY QUESTIONABLE ELEMENT IN THE EQUATION IS ACTUAL PROPERTY VALUES. SO WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD REFER TO COUNCIL TO SEE IF THEY WANTED TO REEVALUATE, HAVE THEM TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE IF THEY WANTED A REEVALUATION OR IF THEY WANTED TO PROCEED BASED ON THE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ESTIMATE. AND THE THE NORMAL PROCEDURE WOULD BE THIS. THIS IS IS CONTAINED IN ORDINANCES. RIGHT. AND SO PLANNING AND ZONING COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, WE HAD A PRESENTATION FROM STAFF. AND WHAT WE HAVE IN THE ORDINANCE TODAY SEEMS FINE TO US OR IT SEEMS COMPLETELY WRONG. AND WE THINK IT SHOULD CHANGE EITHER WAY. ULTIMATELY, YOU ALL WOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR ANY POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE, WHICH WOULD THEN GO TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW YOU, YOU COULD TAKE THE TO ME, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A WEAK POSITION TO SAY, WE HAVE NO IDEA IF THESE NUMBERS ARE RIGHT. JUST KICK IT OVER TO COUNCIL. I THINK REALLY YOUR JOB AS COMMISSIONERS ON PLANNING AND ZONING IS TO MAKE AN ANALYSIS AND COME UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION, BUT IF YOU ABSOLUTELY CANNOT COME UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION, THEN SO BE IT. I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT. JORDAN. YOU YEAH, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY, YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT CORRECTLY BASED ON THIS THAT AND YOU SAID IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT WE'RE GETTING NOW IS TREMENDOUSLY LOW.

SO THE RECOMMENDATION I'M NOT MAKING IT FORMALLY. THAT'S NOT MY JOB. BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IF WE'RE GOING TO GO ANYWHERE, THERE NEEDS TO BE A LAND VALUATION SO THAT THIS CAN REALLY COME UP WITH A BETTER END NUMBER. SO DO YOU WANT TO AGAIN, THAT'S WE CAN CERTAINLY TAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION MORE FORMALLY BECAUSE, YEAH, ULTIMATELY THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GOING TO LAND ON AN ACCURATE NUMBER IS TO START WITH ACCURATE NUMBERS. SO HALF OF THE NUMBERS WE HAVE ARE ACCURATE. THE ONE THAT'S NOT BECAUSE IT'S MERELY AN ESTIMATION WHICH WAS INDICATED IN THE SLIDE IS THE LAND VALUATION. BUT AS THOSE WHO WORK IN THE FIELD UNDERSTAND, IT'S GOING TO BE A COSTLY AND COMPLICATED PROCESS. BUT IT'S REALLY THE ONLY WAY THAT WE CAN FORMALIZE THIS. WELL, IT SEEMS LIKE THE ONLY OTHER OPTION IS

[01:00:04]

THAT'S WHAT WE LIKE OR DON'T. WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW THAT IS WAITING FOR A FINAL PLAT SIGNATURE, PENDING ONLY THE RECEIPT OF THE FEE IN LIEU. YES. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A FINAL PLAT SITUATION THAT IS READY TO BE SIGNED OFF ON, EXCEPT FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE IN LIEU.

SO IT'S KIND OF CRITICAL ISN'T IT, THAT WE KNOW. SO THE STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO ANYTHING IS THE TIME AT WHICH IT'S SUBMITTED. SO EVEN IF WE CHANGE THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T MATTER. IT'S WHEN THEY SUBMITTED THEIR PLAT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. OKAY. SO THEN THAT IT WOULD THAT ONE WOULD BE STAYING AT THE 1030 PER RESIDENT. PRESENT, 1050 PER RESIDENT. BECAUSE OKAY. SO WE DON'T SO WE DON'T HAVE AN URGENT NEED TO MAKE A READJUSTMENT IN OUR FIGURES RIGHT NOW. QUESTION BECOMES ONE OF EXPOSURE. YEAH. SO BECAUSE CAT'S OUT OF THE BAG AS IT WERE. YEAH. SO BECAUSE IT'S IT'S HIGHER THAN OUR ACTUAL LEVEL OF SERVICE, THAT THIN LINE THAT WE'RE STILL ON. BUT WE'RE TECHNICALLY OVERCHARGING BASED OFF OF THE FACTS AND FIGURES THAT WE HAVE TODAY. THAT'S WHY I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT ONE, BECAUSE IT'S TO BE PAID. AND. YEAH. SO DO WE HAVE ANYTHING COMING DOWN THE LINE IN WHICH EVALUATION WILL BE COMING FORWARD ANYTIME SOON? WE HAVE NOTHING THAT WOULD FALL IT. A LOT OF THEM WERE SUBMITTED EVEN BEFORE I STARTED HERE, AND THEY'RE GRANDFATHERED IN TO WHATEVER THE RATES WERE WHEN THEY SUBMITTED. A LOT OF THEM ARE CONTROLLED BY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, A LOT OF THEM. AND SO IT'S NOT IT'S NOT AS FLEXIBLE BECAUSE SOME OF THOSE THINGS WERE IDENTIFIED IN ADVANCE AND LOCKED IN AT THE TIME THAT THEY DID CERTAIN THINGS. YOUR PRELIMINARY PLAT CAN LOCK YOU IN YOUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IF IT SPECIFICALLY OUTLINES THAT LOCKS YOU IN. AND SO THERE'S NOTHING NEW COMING, AT LEAST TODAY, THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. AND DEVELOPMENT FEES. NOT NOT NOT THE FEES, BUT THE YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT PUDS THAT WERE INITIATED AND NEVER, NEVER MOUNTED UP, MOUNTED OUT TO ANYTHING. IS THERE AN EXPIRATION FOR SOME SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES THAT DEVELOPMENTS THAT YOU HAVE TO DO AT SOMETHING EVEN MOVE SOME

[01:05:01]

THEN SOME DO AND SOME DON'T. WE HAVE BEEN REFERRING TO THEM AS DORMANT ENTITLEMENTS. BASICALLY THEY WERE GIVEN WATER, WASTEWATER THAT A LOT OF THOSE DON'T EXPIRE. SOME OF THOSE AGREEMENTS DON'T SPEAK TOWARDS THINGS LIKE PARKLAND. AND SO IT WOULD BE WHATEVER THE RATE IS AT THE TIME THAT THEY DO THEIR PRELIMINARY PLAT, THAT'S THAT'S REALLY THE TRIGGER. UNLESS THERE IS A PREVIOUS AGREEMENT THAT LOCKS SOMETHING, SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN. BUT THE IT'S IT'S SEPARATE THINGS. THE WATER WASTEWATER IS ONE THING. YOU KNOW, THE ZONING THE AMOUNT OF DWELLING UNITS IS ANOTHER. AND THEN THE PARKLAND FEES THAT THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT WE'D HAVE TO DISCUSS AND LOOK AT AGREEMENTS FOR. WELL, I THINK THAT WHEN THIS STUDY WAS REQUESTED, THIS OUTCOME WAS NOT EXPECTED. I AGREE, I AGREE. YEAH. SORRY. MY STAFF, THE.

YEAH. SO AGAIN, THE DIFFICULT PLACE THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN IS THAT AS, AS AS WE LOOK AT THE FIGURES TODAY. YES. THE OUTCOME IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN WE ANTICIPATED. AND THE ONLY WAY TO ADJUST THAT, PRESUMABLY IN A BETTER DIRECTION, WOULD BE TO DO A FORMAL VALUATION OF LAND. SO AGAIN, AT THE VERY LEAST, WE CAN AT LEAST HAVE CONVERSATIONS TO FIND OUT WHAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD COST AND WHAT IT WOULD INVOLVE, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE NEXT STEP TO THEN REALLY FORMALIZE THE STUDY THAT WE'VE DONE HERE. AND SINCE THIS IS A WORKSHOP, IT'S IT'S AGENDIZED AS A WORKSHOP AND NOT AN ACTION ITEM. I CAN'T EVEN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OR A VOTE OR ANYTHING ON THIS TODAY. THIS IS JUST AN INFORMATIONAL SESSION. YEAH. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU? NO YOU DON'T. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU'RE WELCOME MA'AM. WE CAN MOVE ON TO OUR ACTION ITEM NUMBER ONE, ACTION ITEM,

[Items VI.1 & VI.2]

RIGHT. DO YOU NEED TO TAKE A DRINK OF WATER OR A BREAK OR ANYTHING FIRST? OKAY. DO WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT ON THAT? MUCH LIKE THE LAST ITEM, MR. MONTGOMERY SCOTT WILL BE HANDLING THE PRESENTATION FOR THIS. OKAY. SO AGAIN, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT COMES BEFORE US AS A RESULT OF OF COUNCIL'S DESIRE TO SEE THIS REVIEWED AND TO MAKE SOME CHANGES. BUT IN FACT, THAT WAS I UNDERSTAND IT INITIATED AT PRAC. SO SO NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO THE BACKGROUND HERE IS THAT PRAC HAD MADE A PROPOSAL THAT PNC REVIEW THE CITY'S CURRENT TREE ORDINANCE WITH FOR THREE PURPOSES. THE FIRST IS POTENTIALLY TO POTENTIALLY REDUCE THE DIAMETER OF PROTECTED TREES. SECONDLY, TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE ALL PARK DEVELOPMENT. CURRENTLY IT JUST INDICATES A POCKET PARKS IN USE OF THOSE TREE FUNDS. AND THEN FINALLY TO FORWARD THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL AS QUICKLY AS YOU COULD NEXT. SO THE FIRST PROPOSED CHANGE IS SO THE CURRENT LANGUAGE IS THAT PROTECTED TREE MEANS ANY TREE EXCEPT AN ASH JUNIPER WITH A MAIN TRUNK DIAMETER OF TEN INCHES OR LARGER, MEASURED AT 40IN ABOVE THE GROUND. YES, SIR. DOES THAT APPLY TO SUNSET PARK TO IN TERMS OF PROTECTED TREES? OKAY. IS THIS FOR DEVELOPER PARKS? THE ORDINANCE APPLIES TO ALL LAND IN THE CITY. OKAY. SO ACCORDING TO THE TC. 305 PERMIT, THE JUNIPER IS A PROTECTED PROTECTED TREE AT SUNSET PARK. BECAUSE IT'S A CROP, AN OAK TREE IS CONSIDERED TO BE A WEED.

SO WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL WHEN WE'RE WRITING THIS THAT THE LARGE JUNIPERS AT SUNSET PARK ARE PROTECTED, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE PUT OUR EFFLUENT ON. OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. SO THAT'S

[01:10:03]

OKAY. ONE WAS SHOULD SMALLER DIAMETER BE CONSIDERED FOR PROTECTION? TWO WAS THE USE OF FUNDS. YOU'VE LISTED THOSE TWO. THE THIRD WAS LOOK AT THE FEE IN LIEU OF LEVEL FOR TREES AS OPPOSED TO REPLACEMENT. AND ENSURE THAT THE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WE HAVE IN LIEU OF IS APPROPRIATE. GOT IT. I WAS AFTER READING MY PACKET AND I CAN'T CAN'T REMEMBER. I CAN'T FIND IT ANYMORE. BUT I THOUGHT THAT THE THE ASH TREE, THE JUNIPER WAS LISTED AS A PROTECTED. DID I MISREAD THAT OR. NO. IT CURRENTLY IN THE ORDINANCE. IT IS NOT A PROTECTED TREE. THAT LITERALLY IS THE LANGUAGE FROM THE ORDINANCE WHICH MAKES THE SINGULAR EXCEPTION OF THE ASH JUNIOR. OKAY. YEAH, BUT THE THE JUNIPER IS PROTECTED OUT THERE AT THE CEDAR BREAKS BECAUSE IT IS THE CROP. AND IF YOU CUT THE CROP DOWN, THEN YOU'RE VIOLATING YOUR TC-EC DISCHARGE PERMIT. SO THAT PARK NEEDS TO BE BROKE OUT TO BE SEPARATE.

WHAT IT WOULD MEAN IS THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO WELL, IF WE GO TO TYPE ONE, WE'LL BE ABLE TO IRRIGATE MORE THAN WE'RE IRRIGATING NOW. BUT YOU CAN PUT 8.65IN OF WATER ON A CEDAR TREE, AND YOU CAN ONLY PUT 4.65 ON AN OAK TREE. AND IF YOU TAKE OUT THE CEDAR TREES, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUY MORE LAND TO DISCHARGE YOUR EFFLUENT EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY THAT DOESN'T APPLY, BUT THAT ONE AREA NEEDS TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE 305 PERMIT. SURE, YOU RAISE A GREAT POINT, BUT I THINK IT'S KIND OF INDEPENDENT OF THIS TOPIC. SO THIS TOPIC IS REALLY ABOUT PROTECTION OF TREES ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY AND AND REPLACEMENT OF TREES THAT ARE CUT DOWN OR FEE IN LIEU OF REPLACEMENT OF TREES THAT ARE CUT DOWN. THIS ORDINANCE SAYING THE ASH JUNIPER IS NOT PROTECTED ACTUALLY HAS NO BEARING ON INDEPENDENT REQUIREMENTS FROM FOR PROTECTING ASH JUNIPER WHERE WE ARE, WE'RE IRRIGATING. BUT I THINK IT'S A GOOD CLARIFICATION. AND YOU ALL COULD POTENTIALLY CHOOSE TO ADD SOME LANGUAGE INTO THIS ORDINANCE TO CALL OUT THAT FACT.

IF YOU THINK THAT'S THAT'S IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO TO BRING IT IN. MR. PRINCE, I JUST WANTED TO GET IT ON THE RECORD BEFORE I'M I'M IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT EVERY PLACE ELSE. BUT WE'VE THAT PARK DID A MAJOR HICKEY ON OUR DISCHARGE ZONE ALREADY, AND WE NEED TO LIMIT THE BALL FIELDS TO WHERE THEY'RE AT AND ANY HIKING TRAILS OR PICNIC AREAS NEED TO BE BUILT INTO THE JUNIPER. THANK YOU, AND I APPRECIATE YOU PUTTING IT ON THE RECORD. YEAH. AND AGAIN, AS MR. PRINCE INDICATED, THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T IMPACT THE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN REMOVING THOSE TREES FOR THE VARIOUS REASONS THAT YOU'VE JUST ACKNOWLEDGED. SO COMPLETELY AGREE. YEAH. SO THE PROPOSAL THEN IS TO REDUCE THE DIAMETER FROM 10IN TO 8IN.

HOWEVER, PROTECTS PROTECTS THIS GOVERNMENT CODE. THERE IS ONE EXCEPTION THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE BECAUSE IT SAYS IN 1 OR 2 FAMILY DWELLINGS IN WHICH THE OWNER LIVES, THEY WE CANNOT CHARGE THEM FOR THE REMOVAL OF ANY TREE THAT'S LESS THAN TEN INCHES. SO THAT SINGLE CAVEAT WOULD HAVE TO EXIST. IF WE REDUCE THAT LEVEL, THE OWNER HAS TO LIVE THERE, CORRECT? PER OWNER DOESN'T LIVE THERE. THAT'S CORRECT. ACCORDING TO THE TEXAS CODE, IT SAYS, YEAH, IT'S GOT TO BE OWNER OCCUPIED. SO THAT'S THE FIRST PROPOSED CHANGE. NEXT PROPOSED CHANGE IS REGARDING FEE USE. AND THIS IS FAIRLY SIMPLE. YOU CAN SEE THE TEXT THERE IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THE HIGHLIGHTED SECTION HALFWAY. ALL THAT LITERALLY IS BEING ASKED IS THAT THE WORD POCKET BE STRUCK FROM THAT LANGUAGE SO THAT IT SIMPLY INDICATE THAT IT COULD BE USED FOR DEVELOPMENT OR IMPROVEMENT OF PARKS, AS DETERMINED BY CITY COUNCIL. SO FAIRLY SIMPLE ONE. THEN NEXT SLIDE. ANOTHER CONSIDERATION. SO THIS IS THE CURRENT FEE $250 PER INCH WITH A MAXIMUM OF $10,000 FOR 1 OR 2 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. SO THE CONSIDERATION HERE IS RAISING THE MINIMUM FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS OF ONE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, AGAIN, ONLY FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS. WE'LL WE'LL GO FURTHER THAN THAT. SO THE THE

[01:15:02]

NOW, THAT'S THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE FROM THE ONE RAISED BY MR. PRINCE. AND THAT IS IS THE $250 PER INCH APPROPRIATE. ACTUALLY, WE WILL HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT IN JUST A MOMENT. SO FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION, ONE, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ORDINANCE IS CONSISTENT WITH TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 212 .905. AS I POINTED OUT, THE EXCEPTION FOR SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTS WHERE THE OWNER LIVES THERE. ANOTHER. AND THIS WAS AN ISSUE THAT'S BEEN RAISED BY SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND THAT IS TO ENSURE, AS WE REVIEW THE TREE ORDINANCE, THAT THERE'S LOTS ABOUT REPLACEMENT, ETC. BUT THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE ABOUT CREDITS AND LITTLE IN THERE ABOUT EXCEPTIONS FOR TREE REMOVALS WHERE PROPERTIES MAY STILL MEET TREE CANOPY MANDATES. HOWEVER, THAT LANGUAGE IS REALLY BEING INCLUDED IN THE FORTHCOMING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WILL SORT OF DICTATE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. THE THE. IN ADDITION TO THAT, ANOTHER DOCUMENT THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED ARE DESIGN GUIDELINES. AND IN FACT, IN THERE WE CREATE CATEGORIES OF TREES. AND FOR EACH OF THOSE CATEGORIES A FEE IN LIEU WOULD BE DIFFERENT. SO THE SMALLER THE TREE, THE LESS THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE PAID FOR IT. THE LARGER THE TREE, THAT AMOUNT GOES UP. BUT AGAIN, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ARE FORTHCOMING IN DESIGN GUIDELINES. AND SO THE CHALLENGE HERE IS YOU'VE GOT ALL OF THESE HORSES IN THE RACE RUNNING SIMULTANEOUSLY. WE SORT OF NEED TO GET A HANDLE ON WHAT THE PRIORITIES ARE IN TERMS OF GETTING SOMETHING ACROSS THE FINISH LINE AND THEN MAKE EVERYTHING A COOPERATE TOGETHER, MAKE IT ALL COINCIDE BECAUSE IT CURRENTLY DOESN'T. SO YOU'VE GOT CODE REVIEW IS UNDERWAY. YOU'VE GOT DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT ARE IN DRAFT FORM. YOU WERE WORKING IN DRAFT FORM WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING AN ORDINANCE. OH, AND WE'VE ALSO GOT THE ORDINANCE REVIEW GOING UNDERWAY. SO YOU'VE GOT ALL OF THIS STUFF GOING ON SIMULTANEOUSLY. AND THERE'S A NEXUS FOR ALL OF THOSE THINGS.

SO THE QUESTION BECOMES ONE OF WHAT DO YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD ON TODAY? AND I THINK MR. HUGHLEY HAS SOME ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT HE'D LIKE FOR CONSIDERATION. DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR DAVID BEFORE I START? AND BEFORE YOU GO IN, I'LL JUST LET YOU KNOW THAT THE ITEMS THAT DAVID MENTIONED, I ALSO HAVE ON A LIST I'M ABOUT TO GIVE YOU. SO WE'LL SEE THESE AGAIN IN ADDITION TO A FEW MORE ITEMS. MY QUESTION IS A LITTLE MORE BROAD, MORE GENERAL. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS TREE ORDINANCE TO ADD REVENUE TO THE CITY? OR IS IT TO BEAUTIFY LAGO VISTA? BECAUSE I DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW, ONE IT'S IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER. WELL, AS FAR AS I READ THIS, IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER. WHAT'S THE THE FINAL OUTCOME? SURE. SO I THINK THE FIRST REALITY IS BECAUSE IT LITERALLY IT'S IN THE DEFINITION. AND THAT IS THERE ARE TREES IN THE COMMUNITY THAT OUGHT TO BE PROTECTED. SOME IN TERMS OF SPECIES. SO THERE ARE A VARIETY OF NATIVE TREES THAT ARE LITERALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE CODE, A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF THEM, TWO SIDES IN TERMS OF THE TREES, BECAUSE THE LARGER THE TREE, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE MORE CANOPY YOU GET. AND OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE SORTS OF ALL SORTS OF BIODIVERSITY BENEFITS THAT WE DERIVE FROM TREES. SO I THINK THAT'S THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS. BUT I THINK SECONDARILY, RECOGNIZING THAT DEVELOPMENTS OCCUR AND BECAUSE IN MANY INSTANCES TREES HAVE TO BE REMOVED, THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME BENEFIT THAT'S DERIVED BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC. FOR THAT. THE ORDINANCE FIRST ALLOWS THE DEVELOPER TO REPLACE TREES, BUT WHERE HE CAN'T, THERE OUGHT TO BE A COST FOR THE DEVELOPER, AND THAT COST SHOULD COME TO THE CITY. AND THAT'S THE SECONDARY PURPOSE, I THINK, OF THE ORDINANCE. IS THERE ANYTHING TO PREVENT CLEARCUTTING, CREATING MOONSCAPES? WELL, CLEAR CUTTING AGAIN. SO ANYTIME A DEVELOPER IS INTERESTED IN. SO WE'RE TALKING HERE ABOUT DEVELOPERS. IF A DEVELOPER COMES IN AND AND THEY'RE GOING TO DO SOME DEVELOPMENT, PART OF THEIR INITIAL PLAN NEEDS TO BE A SURVEY OF THE TREES, WHAT STAYS,

[01:20:03]

THEY JUST DO IT. AND, YOU KNOW, THEY PAY THEIR FEE AND IT IS WHAT IT IS. AND THAT'S THAT'S IT. AND THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT SHOULD BE. I THINK ONE THING THAT WILL HELP WITH THIS IS IF WE ADD CANOPY PROTECTIONS INTO THE ORDINANCES, NOT JUST IN THE COMP PLAN. THAT'LL REQUEST UP THERE. AND PROBABLY MY LAST QUESTION, A DEVELOPER, LET'S SAY HE BUILDS A SUBDIVISION.

AND IF WE'VE SEEN THAT THEY PLANT TWO TREES ON EVERY LOT, YOU KNOW, SAME TREE, SAME EVERYTHING. AND I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH CITY CODE, BUT IS THERE A CODE THAT SAYS THAT EITHER THE DEVELOPER OR THE HOMEOWNER HAS TO MAINTAIN THE TREES, YOU KNOW, 3 OR 5 YEARS UNTIL, IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE TREE DIES WITHIN TWO YEARS AND EITHER THE HOMEOWNER OR THE DEVELOPER HAS TO REPLACE THAT TREE, IS THAT IN THE CITY ORDINANCE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? THERE IS THERE'S ABSOLUTELY REFERENCE TO THE REPLACEMENT OF TREES IN THE EVENT THAT THEY DIE. YEAH. THERE'S STILL WELL, ONE, THE CODE DICTATES HOW MANY TREES NEED TO BE ON A ON A PARCEL OF LAND, DEPENDING UPON ITS SIZE TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, ETC. AND THEN IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOMEOWNER TO ENSURE THAT THOSE ARE MAINTAINED. AND IF IT'S REPORTED THAT IF ONE DIES, IS IS IT DISEASE OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, IT'S YEAH, THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE ON THE HOOK. DO WELL. AND THE REASON I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, USUALLY ONCE YOU GET YOUR CO, BASICALLY THE CITY DISAPPEARS, YOU KNOW, SO WE'D HAVE TO HAVE SOMEBODY GOING FROM NEIGHBORHOOD TO NEIGHBORHOOD SAYING, HEY LISTEN. BUT AGAIN THAT'S YOU KNOW, ONCE YOU GET YOUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, I'VE SEEN WHICH IS RIGHT, YOU KNOW, THE CITY JUST OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO STAND BACK. BUT IS THERE SOME KIND OF ENFORCEMENT MEASURE THAT I DON'T KNOW. WE MAKE SURE THAT THE TREES STAY ALIVE FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS OR WHATEVER. YEAH, THAT'S A CAPACITY ISSUE. AND WE HAVE CURRENTLY WE HAVE ONE CODE PERSON, BUT TYPICALLY WE ONLY HAVE TWO. SO THAT BECOMES A CHALLENGE. I THINK WHAT HAPPENS MORE OFTEN THAN NOT IS SOMEBODY ELSE, SOMEBODY IN A NEIGHBORHOOD REPORTS SOME SORT OF A DEFICIENCY, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY NOT KEEPING UP THEIR THEIR LAND, ETCETERA. THAT HAPPENS FAIRLY FREQUENTLY, FREQUENTLY. BUT THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS US TO, TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES. OKAY. SO THIS THING IS BEING PRESENTED AS A TREE AND LANDSCAPING. AND I'M NOT REALLY SEEING LAWNS ADDRESSED IN THIS. AND IN THE WCP, WE PUT AS ONE OF OUR GOALS TO REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF SIX INCHES OF SOIL BEFORE THE SOD IS LAID AND THE SOD IS LAID WITH AN INCH. SO WE WOULD HAVE SEVEN INCHES OF SOIL. AND I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IN IN THESE REVISIONS, SINCE YOU'RE CALLING IT TREE AND LANDSCAPING, BECAUSE TO ME THIS IS JUST A TREE THING. SO SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO TO LOOK AT THE BROADER ORDINANCE, WHICH IS NINE PAGES LONG AND IT DOESN'T SEVERAL MEASURES REGARDING LANDSCAPE DOESN'T MEAN THAT ALL THE DETAILS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE AREN'T INCLUDED THERE. THAT'S WHY THIS LAST POINT IS COMMISSION MEMBER RECOMMENDATIONS. SO IF SOMETHING IS NOT THERE THAT YOU THINK NEEDS TO BE IN THERE, THEN WE NEED TO CONSIDER THAT MOVING FORWARD. THANK YOU. SO A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. I WAS SURPRISED BY YOUR ANSWER ON MAINTENANCE AND REQUIREMENTS. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY PLACE IN OUR ORDINANCES. TO MR. LOPEZ'S QUESTION THAT TREES HAVE TO BE REPLACED, BUT I DON'T KNOW. JORDAN. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY PLACE IN OUR ORDINANCES WHERE WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS AROUND MAINTAINING AND KEEPING THOSE TREES ALIVE, SO THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO TO UNDERSTAND. I'M NOT AWARE IN OUR CURRENT CODE. THAT'S NOT TO SAY IT DOESN'T EXIST OR THAT IT HASN'T BEEN UPDATED IN MUNI CODE, BUT I'M I'M ALSO NOT AWARE I DON'T I DON'T THINK IT EXISTS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME,

[01:25:02]

AND BASICALLY THE CITY GETS THE BOND OR THE THE MAINTENANCE BOND, WHICH IS INSURANCE. IT'S FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT, TYPICALLY 10 TO 20% OF THE COST OF THE ITEM, EITHER THE INFRASTRUCTURE OR THE LANDSCAPE. AND THEN IF SOMETHING DIES, THE CITY HAS THE ABILITY TO USE THAT BOND TO GO BUY A TREE TO REPLACE THE ONE THAT DIED. AND WE CAN STIPULATE HOW HOW HIGH THAT PERCENTAGE IS, HOW LONG WE HOLD THAT BOND FOR. AND IT'S OUR GUARANTEE WITHIN THE FIRST, HOWEVER MANY YEARS AFTER A CONSTRUCTION, THAT STUFF IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE AND THAT IT'S ABLE TO THRIVE. IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE WITHIN OUR ORDINANCES AND WITHIN OUR PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT. I'M IT'S IT'S BEEN DONE. SO FOR THE RECORD, MR. MONTGOMERY SCOTT JUST DID SHOW ME A SECTION OF ORDINANCE THAT THAT HAS. SO THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THERE I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT REQUIRES MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT. IF A TREE DIES DURING THAT. TWO MORE THINGS I WANT TO POINT OUT IS THAT RIGHT NOW OUR FOR YOU ALL TO CONSIDER RIGHT NOW, OUR ORDINANCE COVERS BOTH NEW DEVELOPMENTS, AND IT'S VERY EASY FOR THIS CONVERSATION TO FOCUS ON NEW DEVELOPMENTS. BUT OUR ORDINANCE ALSO APPLIES TO EXISTING SINGLE PLATTED LOT OWNERS. SO, YOU KNOW, MR. LOPEZ, YOU HAVE A PLOT OF LAND IN THE CITY AND YOU DECIDE YOU WANT TO BUILD A HOME ON IT OR HAVE A HOME BUILT. THIS TREE PROTECTION OR FEE IN LIEU OF APPLIES TO YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL OWNER OF A PLOT OF LAND. AND AND THIS THE EXTENSION OF THAT BRINGS ME INTO A THING THAT YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A CITIZEN STANDING BACK HERE WHO'S BROUGHT TO COUNCIL'S ATTENTION, AND I FAILED TO DO MY DUTY OF A CONVERSATION TELLING YOU, ADVISING YOU OF A CONVERSATION THAT HAPPENED IN CITY COUNCIL THIS LAST WEEK REGARDING HIS PROPERTY, THE CONDITION THAT HE BROUGHT FORWARD WAS HE HAS A PIECE OF LAND HE WANTS TO BUILD ON, AND HE'S GOT SOME AMAZING NUMBER OF OAK TREES ON THAT PIECE OF LAND, 50 OR 80 OR 100 OAK TREES. WHATEVER IT IS, HE'S GOING TO NEED TO CUT DOWN A COUPLE OF OAK TREES OR OAK TREES. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS, BUT HE'S GOING TO NEED TO CUT DOWN SOME NUMBER OF OAK TREES IN ORDER TO BUILD ON HIS LAND, AND HE FEELS HE REPRESENTED THAT. CURRENTLY, OUR ORDINANCE DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT HE HAS MANY, MANY OAK TREES ON HIS PIECE OF PROPERTY AND HE FEELS LIKE HE SHOULD BE GETTING SOME CREDIT. AND MR. MONTGOMERY SCOTT DID KIND OF BRING THAT UP. BUT THIS SECOND BULLET CREDITS EXEMPTIONS FOR TREE REMOVALS WERE PROPERTY STILL MEET TREE CANOPY MANDATES. THAT WAS A DISCUSSION COUNCIL HAD. AND WE WE RECEIVED THE INSTRUCTIONS AS LIAISON TO KIND OF BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WHAT CONSIDERATIONS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR A SITUATION LIKE THIS. SO IT CAN BE A VERY COMPLICATED SCENARIO. RIGHT NOW OUR ORDINANCE IS VERY SIMPLISTIC. YOU CUT DOWN A TREE, YOU PAY FOR IT, YOU REPLACE IT, OR YOU PAY FOR IT. AND SO ARE THERE OTHER, MORE COMPLEX CONSIDERATIONS THAT SHOULD BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN OUR ORDINANCE. AND THAT MAY BE A LEADING TO WHAT MR. HUGLIN WANTS TO PRESENT. TO THIS EXAMPLE. YOU KNOW, SO HE'S GOT SEVERAL OAK TREES IN HIS PROPERTIES, BUT HOW MANY IS HE WANTING TO CUT? HALF OF THEM. ALL OF THEM EXCEPT FOR ONE OR. YEAH. OKAY. I HAVE NOW, MR. LOPEZ. THE ANSWER, THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. WOULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF, MA'AM? I'M KENNETH BELLAIRE. THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS, WHY DO WE HAVE A TREE POLICY? IT'S A MONEY GRAB. LIKE SO MANY THINGS IN THIS CITY. TURN AROUND $250. I WANT TO CHANGE THIS $250. I HAD TO GET AN EXTENSION ON MY APPLICATION. $465.75. ANYWAY, MY STORY IS I BUILT A 26 BY 36 GARAGE MAN CAVE THING, ADDED $50,000 OF VALUE TO MY PROPERTY. I HAD TO CUT DOWN THREE TREES TO DO THAT. PAY ATTENTION TO. I

[01:30:03]

BUT THESE ORDINANCES THAT WE'RE ASKING THAT WE STARTED, WHEN WAS IT? BACK IN SUMMER, WHEN WE MADE A PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL TO ASK, HEY, THESE ARE VERY OUTDATED FEES, VERY OUTDATED REQUIREMENTS FOR TREE PRESERVATION, AND THERE'S NO PARK DEDICATION FEES. IF YOU LOOK AT MANY OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES WHERE ONCE AGAIN, YOU SEE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES, YOU SEE STRICTER REQUIREMENTS ON TREE REMOVAL AND AND A LOT OF FORETHOUGHT INTO ACQUIRING LAND FOR PARKS. IT CANNOT BE THE LAST THING YOU THINK ABOUT AS YOU'RE ABOUT TO STAMP APPROVAL. IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN AT THE BEGINNING AND IT NEEDS TO BE CONTINUOUS AND

[01:35:05]

THE ONE THING WE DON'T WANT TO DO, AT LEAST FOR ME MY CURRENT INVOLVEMENT HERE IS TO SEE THE CITY. SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN. MORE SURVEYS, MORE SURVEYS, MORE SURVEYS. TAKE IT BACK TO COMMISSION. WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON THIS. SO WE'D LIKE TO SEE SOME MOVEMENT ON THIS. SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. I HAD A COMMENT. I MEAN, WE CAN WE CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH FROM PNC, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, TO DO THE RATES, BUT WHERE THE COLLECTED MONIES GO IS UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL. NAME IS DAVID VAUGHN. I DO NOT REPRESENT I'M NOT EVEN ACQUAINTED WITH THE OTHER FELLOW WHO SPOKE. BUT AS SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN APPROACHED BY MULTIPLE MEMBERS OF THE TOWN, I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT HE WAS ANTI TREE. I HAVE BEEN LABELED A TREE, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES WHEN YOU HAVE THESE SMALLER RESIDENTIAL LOTS. HIS ISN'T EVEN SMALL. I MEAN THAT THAT'S PRETTY CUT AND DRY TO ME. AND I'VE SPOKEN TO HIM BEFORE IN PASSING. HE LOVES TREES AND WANTS TO PROTECT THEM.

THIS IS JUST YOU END UP IN SITUATIONS WHEN THE ORDINANCES ARE TOO BROAD OR VAGUE, WHERE PEOPLE'S AUTONOMY OR PERSONAL RIGHTS GET TRAMPLED ON ACCIDENTALLY. THE INTENTION IS GOOD. BUT FOR INSTANCE, JUST TODAY, ANOTHER PERSON I'VE WORKED WITH IN TOWN BROUGHT UP TO THE FACT THAT THEY STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN THEIR REFUND FROM LAST YEAR WHEN THE CITY CHARGED THEM $15,000 FOR TREE MITIGATION WAY ABOVE TEN ON A LOT WHERE WE ALREADY HAD THE TREE SURVEY, THERE IS ONE PROTECTED TREE REMOVED, AND THEY SAID AHEAD OF TIME THAT THEY WOULD PAY THE IN LIEU OF FEE, WHICH IS NOT 15,000. THEY DID NOT GET THE REFUND. AND THIS WAS PART OF THIS ISSUE IS REMOVED. THE PERSON INVOLVED IN THAT DOESN'T WORK HERE ANYMORE.

BUT THERE IF YOU HAVE A LOT AND IT'S THIN AND NARROW AND YOU CAN'T BUILD IN THE FRONT 25 FOOT, YOU CAN'T BUILD IN THE BACK 15 AND YOU HAVE TO AND THIS CHANGES SOON TO BUT YOU HAVE A CERTAIN MINIMUM OF HOUSE SIZE YOU HAVE TO BUILD. THERE'S A CERTAIN FOOTPRINT YOU HAVE TO TAKE UP, AND THERE'S FOUR TREES EQUALLY SPACED ON THE LOT. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO BUILD ON THE LOT, AND THEN YOU START RUNNING INTO ISSUES OF LIKE FOURTH AMENDMENT TAKING CLAUSE CLAUSES. AND IT'S I'M SAYING NONE OF THIS TO ADVOCATE FOR CLEARCUTTING OR REMOVING TREES.

AND I'M NOT SAYING TO ADVOCATE FOR DON'T LET ANYONE CUT ANY TREES. WE HAVE TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR ON EXEMPTIONS. AND IN CASES OF SINGLE. SINGLE OWNER LOTS, NOT EVEN IF IT'S MY RESIDENCE, BUT IF I'M GOING TO BUILD ANOTHER HOUSE, YOU HAVE TO BE A LITTLE MORE AWARE OF.

THERE'S OTHER TREES THAT REALLY SHOULDN'T BE PROTECTED, LIKE HACKBERRY. THERE'S OTHER INVASIVE TREES THAT SHOULD PROBABLY NOT BE PROTECTED EIGHT INCHES, TEN INCHES. YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF UP TO THE REST OF THE TOWN TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT IS. BUT CURRENTLY WE JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH IN THERE FOR IT TO BE ENFORCEABLE IN EVERY SITUATION. AND THEN YOU GET PEOPLE WHO ARE DISGRUNTLED AND MISREPRESENTATIONS. I'M RAMBLING. THANK YOU. OKAY.

THANK YOU. I HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF. SO WHEN YOU'RE DOING A CALCULATION FOR TREE REMOVAL, IS LOT SIZE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO I MEAN, BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, IT'S IT'S A LOTTERY. I COULD UNDERSTAND IT ON BIGGER LOTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT HOW DO YOU BUILD ON A LOT WITHOUT TAKING A TREE DOWN IF IT'S SMALL? YEAH. SO THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT LOOK AT LOT SIZE. AND AGAIN THAT'S WHY THE

[01:40:09]

BUT I'M LIKE, YOU KNOW, I'LL JUST TELL YOU MY NAME WHEN I GET UP HERE. SO I'M JARED PHILLIPS, SO OBVIOUSLY I LIVE HERE. I'M ALSO A CUSTOM HOME BUILDER. AND SO I JUST WANT TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO GIVE. I'M PROBABLY JUST GONNA MAKE IT MORE COMPLICATED FOR YOU ALL TO TO CONSIDER WHAT YOU'RE DOING, OBVIOUSLY. BUT JUST SO YOU ALL CAN HAVE A LOT MORE CONTEXT FROM A BUILDER SIDE OF IT. ALSO JUST BUILDING DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS LIKE AUSTIN AND CEDAR PARK IN THOSE AREAS, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT LIKE THE SIZE AND WHAT'S REMOVAL AND SOME OF LIKE THE LOT SIZES, RIGHT. LIKE OUR SETBACKS HERE ARE 25 ON THE FRONT, 25 IN THE BACK. THAT'S ANOTHER BIG ISSUE THAT WE HAVE BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LOT SIZES RIGHT. WELL YOU JUST TOOK OUT 50FT RIGHT THERE IN THERE WHEN A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS ARE TYPICALLY LIKE 15 FOOT SETBACKS ON THE REAR, YOUR SIDE SETBACKS ARE TYPICALLY ARE NORMAL. THEY'RE FIVE FIVE AND THE FRONT'S ARE TYPICALLY AROUND 20. IT'S IT'S I'VE NEVER I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE REALLY SEEN ONE THAT'S 25 AND 25 ON FRONT AND BACK, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. SO YOU'RE CONDENSING ALREADY RIGHT THERE. AND THEN ALSO LIKE YOU'RE SAYING, HOW DO YOU BUILD ON THE LOT WITHOUT REMOVING A TREE, RIGHT? SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SHRINKING THE DIAMETER AND SUCH, NOW SAY A HOMEOWNER HAS A HERITAGE OAK, RIGHT? IT'S JUST MASSIVE. LIKE OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T WANT THAT REMOVED. THAT'S THE WAY CITY OF AUSTIN OPERATES TOO. IF THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AND A BUILDER IS GOING TO DO IT, THEN THEY REQUIRE UPFRONT. THEY REQUIRE HIGHER FEES AND SUCH. BUT IF YOU'RE IF SOMEBODY DELIVERS YOU A SITE PLAN, RIGHT, SAY IT'S THE EIGHT INCHES. BUT IN THEIR PROPERTY I'M TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE JUST A STANDARD LOT IN THEIR PROPERTY. THEY HAVE TEN INCH TREES AND SUCH. RIGHT. MAYBE YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF REMOVAL WHENEVER YOU HAVE A BUILDING AREA VERSUS NOT A BUILDING AREA. SO FOR EXAMPLE, WITHIN THAT ACTUAL BUILDING LAYOUT, WHAT'S NOT IN THE SETBACK. RIGHT. REQUIRE THAT THE LEAVE THE WHOLE TEN INCH A LITTLE BIT. BUT IN THOSE SETBACK AREAS YOU FORCE THEM WHERE THEY CAN'T REMOVE THAT WITHOUT A HIGH FEE. RIGHT. LIKE YOU, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO REMOVE THE TREES IN THE SETBACKS BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD THOSE SETBACKS ANYWAY. SO DON'T ALLOW THEM TO DO IT IN THOSE AREAS. BUT YES, HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF LENIENCY WITHIN THE CONDENSED SECTIONS THAT THEY'RE BUILDING. RIGHT? THAT'S JUST THE IDEA.

YEAH. BECAUSE I MEAN, IT JUST IT DOES ALLEVIATE A LITTLE BIT. AND THEN ALSO ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE INCREASING BECAUSE I AGREE WITH AS FAR AS THE SIZES OF LOTS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, BECAUSE ALSO WE'RE ALREADY DEALING WITH HOUSING, HOUSING ISSUES. RIGHT. AND THAT'S THE BIG THING WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HBAS THAT ARE TRYING TO FIGHT THIS WITH GOVERNMENT AND THIS AND THAT, WE'RE DEALING WITH HOUSING CRISIS AND AFFORDABILITY AND GETTING PEOPLE IN HOUSES. IF YOU START RAISING THAT FEE ON A SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND TRYING TO BUILD THAT, YOU'RE PRICING PEOPLE OUT OF THE MARKET RIGHT THEN AND THERE. ALSO, IF YOU START ADDING A $40,000 FEE ON TOP OF IT, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, 10,000 TY ALSO, BUT HONESTLY, SOMETIMES YOU CAN MITIGATE THAT A LITTLE BIT. 10,000 IS AGAIN, IT'S HIGH AND TRYING TO MEDIATE FOR THAT MUCH. BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING $40,000 ON TOP, THAT'S A BIG FEE FOR A LOT OF BUYERS RIGHT NOW. I MEAN, YOU'RE AGAIN, YOU'RE MAKING YOU'RE CAUSING IT, MAKING IT WORSE, NOT BETTER. SO ANYWAYS, I JUST WANTED YOU ALL TO KNOW BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY AUSTIN WHEN I BUILT IN AUSTIN, THAT'S THE WAY THEY OPERATE. IF IF WE WERE GOING TO BUILD A HOME ON ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT, BUT IT'S WITHIN THE BUILDING AREA, THEY DIDN'T THEY DIDN'T PENALIZE YOU FOR THAT. THEY WERE LIKE, OKAY, YOU CAN REMOVE THOSE, BUT YOU'RE NOT TOUCHING THE STUFF OUTSIDE YOUR BUILDING AREA. RIGHT? AND THEY ALSO TRIED TO WORK WITH THEY TRIED TO WORK WITH IT A LITTLE BIT, WHICH PRODUCTION BUILDERS A LITTLE BIT MORE WHERE THEY CAN FLIP A PLAN AND, AND BUILD IT AND SAVE A TREE. IF IT'S A HERITAGE OAK, I THINK YOU NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING IN THERE THAT PROTECTS, LIKE A HERITAGE OAK TREE A LITTLE BIT MORE, MAYBE, DEPENDING ON THE LOT. SO ANYWAYS, I JUST WANT TO LAY THAT OUT A LITTLE BIT, HOW SOME OTHER JURISDICTIONS HANDLE IT AND KIND OF MORE CONDENSED ISSUES THAT WE MAY HAVE, AND THEN MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A HIGHER FEE. IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT HIGHER FEE, STICK IT ON THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE, STICK IT ON THE MOLD LIKE A LARGE COMMERCIAL SIDE OF IT AND STUFF LIKE THAT. THERE'S MORE. THERE'S MORE PLAY ROOM IN THAT. AND IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN, OKAY, FINALIZE THOSE GUYS BECAUSE THERE'S THEY'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM THERE IN MY OPINION. SO YOU CAN YOU CAN PENALIZE THAT HIGHER IF YOU WANT. IT'S LIKE A BIG DEVELOPMENT OR SOMETHING MORE PARKS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. YEAH. THEY NEED THE MONEY FOR THE PARKS. AND SOMEBODY PUT DOWN A BUNCH OF TREES. WELL, OKAY, YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO RIP OUT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TREES WITHOUT PAYING A FINE AND STUFF LIKE THAT, BUT GET IT WHERE YOU CAN. I THINK THAT'S WHY IT'S FEELING A LITTLE BIT, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN GET YOURSELF PRICED OUT REAL QUICK WHEN IT COMES TO SINGLE FAMILY LOT. SO ANYWAYS, SORRY YOU SAID

[01:45:02]

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO DIDN'T SIGN UP TO SPEAK WITH WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS PUBLIC? BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I ACTUALLY OFFICIALLY OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO. I'M CLOSING IT NOW. IF IT 548 AND WE HAVE A TREE, A PLANNING AND ZONING TREE SUBCOMMITTEE, THAT WAS A THREE PERSON SUBCOMMITTEE. AND AS TIME HAS GONE ON, WE HAVE IT'S A ONE PERSON SUBCOMMITTEE NOW. BUT HE'S A VERY, VERY DEDICATED ONE PERSON. AND SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE JEFF HEALEY NOW DO THE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT. MAY I HAVE MY FINGER ON THIS BUTTON FOR A WHILE HERE? WOULD IT BE WOULD YOU RATHER GO UP THERE? WOULD IT BE EASIER THAN HOLDING YOUR FINGER ON THAT? WELL, IT'LL BE EASIER FOR ME TO HAVE THIS STUFF HERE. OKAY. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I JUST WANT TO ADD ON TO WHAT YOU MENTIONED. SO WE HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE RIGHT NOW DOWN TO ONE BECAUSE WE HAD THREE LAST YEAR. TWO PEOPLE HAVE ROLLED OFF THE COMMISSION AND WE HAVEN'T ADDED ANYONE ELSE ON TO THE TO THE COMMITTEE. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ACTUALLY BEGAN THE YEAR BEFORE THAT. SO IT BEGAN. ADAM BENEFIELD, CITY COUNCILMAN, WAS ON IT WHEN HE WAS BACK THEN ON THE PNC COMMISSION, AND WE HAD RACHEL RICH AND KATHY COZART. SO WHEN ADAM WENT TO COUNCIL THE NEXT YEAR, I JOINED PNC AND I JOINED THE SUBCOMMITTEE. SO THAT'S HOW THIS HAS EVOLVED. AND DURING THAT TIME, THERE HAVE BEEN A COLLECTION OF NOTES AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN COLLECTED. LAST YEAR, SOME DRAFTING ON A NEW ORDINANCE WAS STARTED, BUT IT WAS NEVER IN A REALLY PRESENTABLE FORMAT. IT WAS. JUST INCOMPLETE, NEVER AT A POINT WHERE YOU COULD STOP AND SAY, YEAH, OKAY, WE CAN LOOK AT THIS AND IT MAKES SENSE AND WE CAN TRY TO MOVE FORWARD.

SO RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE A DRAFT PROPOSAL, BUT WE DO HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS. THIS IS OUR OUR MASTER LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS. I POSTED THAT ON THE PNC DISCUSSION BOARD EARLIER THIS WEEK. AND EACH OF YOU COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE A COPY OF IT SAYS 2025 TREE AND LANDSCAPING SUBCOMMITTEE. AND THEN ALSO, I JUST HANDED OUT FOR COMMISSION MEMBERS THIS OTHER ONE THAT BEGINS WITH COMMISSIONERS. AND I'LL REFER TO THAT IN A MOMENT. I GUESS, WHAT I WANT TO. THE ITEMS THAT DAVID TALKED ABOUT, THE THREE ITEMS I ALSO HAVE ON A HIGH LEVEL PRIORITY LIST THAT I THAT IS ACTUALLY THIS ONE THAT WAS ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSIONERS.

SO WE'LL COME BACK TO THOSE THINGS AGAIN. I THINK THE THING WE NEED TO FIRST FIGURE OUT IS ON THIS ONE, THERE ARE. 39 POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS. SOME OF THESE MAY BE ACTIONABLE NOW AND OTHERS ARE NOT. SOME OF THESE ARE STILL A LAUNDRY LIST TO KEEP WORKING ON AND TRY TO GET PUT INTO DRAFT, BUT I BELIEVE THE THE GOAL IS TO COME UP WITH A LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS. AND THEN MY THOUGHT OR OUR THOUGHT WHEN WE HAD A LARGER SUBCOMMITTEE, WAS THAT WE WOULD ASK STAFF TO DRAFT A NEW ORDINANCE USING THOSE PROPOSALS, BRING THAT

[01:50:03]

AND I THINK THAT PROBABLY STILL A GOOD PLAN. OF COURSE, WE CAN ALL TOGETHER DECIDE IF THAT'S THE WAY WE WANT TO GO. RIGHT NOW. YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PROBABLY A LOT MORE APPLICATIONS COMING IN, A LOT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT. AND I THINK THERE'S SOME URGENCY FELT ABOUT TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE ENACT SOME ADDITIONAL TREE PROTECTIONS TO TO GET IN FRONT OF SOME OF THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT. SO I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT GOING THROUGH ALL 39 OF THESE AND THINKING WE COULD ACT ON THEM ALL TODAY. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WE WANT TO GO THROUGH ALL 39. IF YOU WANT TO IN A WORKSHOP STYLE, WE COULD GO THROUGH AND I COULD TALK YOU THROUGH IT ALL. BUT ANOTHER IDEA AND WE COULD DO BOTH IS ON THIS SECOND HANDOUT, THE ONE THAT STARTS WITH COMMISSIONERS. THIS, YOU KNOW, WAS SOMETHING I PUT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD TODAY. AND ON IT THERE ARE SOME BULLET POINTS. YOU CAN JUST SKIP DOWN TO THE BULLET POINTS. THERE ARE NINE, EXCUSE ME, SEVEN OF THEM. AND SO WHAT I DID IS I WENT THROUGH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND I PICKED OUT WHAT I THOUGHT MIGHT BE THE TOP SEVEN THINGS THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO GO AHEAD AND TRY TO MOVE FORWARD ON AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. NOW, YOU'D HAVE TO TRUST ME TO SAY THAT THOSE ARE INDEED THE RIGHT ONES. UNLESS YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STUDY THE PROPOSAL, THE FULL PROPOSAL LIST IN ADVANCE. SO OKAY. SO I REALLY KIND OF WANT TO KNOW FROM THE COMMISSIONERS HOW YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED. NOW, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE FULL LIST OF OUR PROPOSALS TO DATE? I THINK THAT SINCE IT'S IT'S ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND IT'S BEEN ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, THAT WE SHOULD ASSUME THAT PEOPLE HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY AND HAVE LOOKED THROUGH IT AND AND HAVE COME HERE WITH THEIR QUESTIONS, IF THEY HAVE ANY, OR COMMENTS. OKAY. AND THAT WE SHOULD GO WITH THE THE TOP SEVEN THAT YOU WANT TO IDENTIFY. WELL, LET ME REAL QUICK, LET ME JUST MENTION WHAT THOSE TOP SEVEN ARE. AND THEN I'D LIKE IF ANY OF YOU THINK THAT SOMETHING ELSE SHOULD BE ADDED TO THAT LIST, WE CAN ADD IT. BUT AGAIN, THE THOUGHT WAS WE CAN TALK ABOUT OUR TOP ITEMS AND TRY TO TAKE ACTION ON THEM AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK IN WAVES. IF WE WANTED TO, WE COULD ADDRESS OTHER THINGS, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, WE'VE TALKED TONIGHT ALREADY ABOUT THE IDEA OF CANOPY PROTECTION, OR YOU MIGHT SAY A PARTICULAR CLASS OF ZONING OR MAYBE EVEN PARTICULAR ZONING CATEGORY WOULD HAVE A STIPULATION OF CERTAIN PERCENT OF TREE CANOPY. MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW, A NUMBER OF OTHER 65% RESIDENTIAL. THAT IS NOT IN THIS TOP LIST BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLICATED THAN AN ACT. SO THE THINGS THAT I CHOSE. ARE THE ONES THAT I SAW WERE THE MOST IMPORTANT, THE MOST IMPACTFUL AND THE LEAST COMPLEX FOR US TO IMPLEMENT FIRST. SO THAT'S KIND OF HOW I CHOSE THESE. BUT IF SOMETHING REALLY COMPLEX, I DIDN'T WANT TO BRING IT UP NOW BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO TAKE US A LONG TIME TO WORK THROUGH THIS, OR IT MIGHT BE JUST DIFFICULT FOR CITY STAFF TO DRAFT THE ORDINANCE. IF YOU LOOK, IF YOU READ THAT ORDINANCE. IT'S A TANGLED WEB. SO SOME OF THESE CHANGES WILL TAKE SOME REAL WORK. IN FACT, IT MIGHT BE BEST JUST TO WAIT UNTIL WE REALLY HAVE TIME TO DO A BETTER KIND OF REWRITE OF THAT, YOU KNOW? SO THAT'S THOSE ARE THE FACTORS THAT CAME INTO PLAY. SO THE THINGS THAT I HAVE ON THE LIST, THE FIRST IS THE ALLOWED USE OF FUNDS FROM THE FEE IN LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT. AND THAT'S ONE THAT DAVID HAD. THE ACTUAL FEES. WE DISCUSSED THAT DAVID DISCUSSED THAT THE FEES IN LIEU OF MITIGATION. I HAVE ONE HERE ADDING A REQUIREMENT FOR POSTING SIGNAGE BEFORE REMOVING TREES. AND ACTUALLY WITH THAT ONE WE NEED A DOUBLE CHECK THAT MAY ALREADY BE IN THERE. OKAY. THE NEXT ONE IS REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR REMOVAL OF ANY TREES AT ANY TIME. AND I'LL COME BACK TO THE REASONING FOR THAT. THE NEXT ONE IS CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF PROTECTED TREE. NEXT ONE IS INCREASING THE MINIMUM SIZE OF REPLACEMENT TREES. DAVID MENTIONED THAT ONE. AND THEN POTENTIALLY ADDING AN EXEMPTION FOR 1 OR 2 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FROM THE THE TREE. THE TREE PROTECTIONS.

ALL THESE ARE SUBJECT TO DISCUSSION. OF COURSE I DO HAVE SOME PROPOSALS, BUT THEY'RE

[01:55:03]

OVER ON COYOTE. THEY'RE 40 FOOT WIDE LOTS. AND IF THEY DON'T TAKE THE TREE DOWN, THEY CAN'T MOVE THEIR HOUSE ON. SO HOW CAN YOU PENALIZE THEM FOR TAKING A TREE DOWN THAT'S GOING TO COST AS MUCH AS THE MOBILE HOME THEY'RE PUTTING ON IT, IF IT'S A 20 INCH TREE. SO LOT SIZE IS ONCE AGAIN LOOMING UP TO BE A VERY IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION TO THE APPLICATION OF A TREE ORDINANCE. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU ON THAT. DO YOU THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO ADD TO OUR TOP LIST, OR JUST ADD IT INTO A NUMBER 40 ON OUR CONSIDERATIONS? WELL, THEY MOVE MOBILE HOME MOBILE HOMES IN AT WILL, AND I WOULD HAVE TO DRIVE THROUGH THERE. I THINK THE TREE MITIGATION WOULD NOT BE THAT BAD, BUT IT'S IT'S VERY OBVIOUS THAT ON A 40 FOOT WIDE LOT THAT'S 60, 70 FOOT DEEP THAT YOU'RE GOING TO CLEAR CUT IT. JORDAN, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? YES. SO TYPICALLY LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AND TREE THINGS ARE TIED DIRECTLY TO ZONING DISTRICTS. THAT'S PRETTY STANDARD. OUR CURRENT CODE IS NOT STRUCTURED THAT WAY, WHICH IS PART OF THIS REORGANIZATION EFFORT THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. AND SO LOT SIZES SHOULD BE A FACTOR OF CONSIDERATION WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS TODAY.

THAT'S NOT HOW IT IS IN OUR CODE. SO AS PART OF THE REORGANIZATION, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS STAFF HAS BEEN TO MOVE THE TREES INTO THE ZONING WITH LANDSCAPING WHERE THEY BELONG. AND THEN THAT KIND OF MITIGATES THAT ISSUE, BECAUSE EACH DISTRICT WILL HAVE ITS OWN STANDARDS BASED OFF THE LOT SIZES THAT OUR ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWS TODAY, THOUGH OBVIOUSLY THAT'S NOT THE CASE. THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT'S STRUCTURED. AND SO TO WHAT EXTENT? JUST LIKE DAVID MENTIONED, WE HAVE A LOT OF IRONS IN THE FIRE. AND IT'S THEY ALL WILL COME TOGETHER AT SOME POINT. BUT IT'S WHEN DOES IT COME TOGETHER AND HOW DO WE FIGURE THAT OUT. BUT IT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. LOT SIZE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. WHICH IS WHY TYPICALLY TREES AND LANDSCAPING IS IN YOUR ZONING CODE AS FAR AS PRIORITIES, BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO EVERYTHING AT ONCE. I DO THINK THAT PRIORITY SHOULD BE THOSE ITEMS THAT WERE REFERRED TO US BY COUNCIL, BECAUSE COUNCIL HAS IDENTIFIED THEM AS PRIORITIES ALMOST A YEAR AGO, AND I THINK THAT COUNCIL'S PRIORITY, SHOULD THEY HAVE ASKED US TO MAKE THEM PRIORITY. SO. DAVID, WAS IT YOUR IDEA THAT ONCE WE WE MET AND WE HAD A DISCUSSION TODAY THAT YOU, YOU AND YOUR DEPARTMENT WOULD TAKE THE FEEDBACK AND COME BACK WITH, SO THIS IS ACTUALLY AN ACTION ITEM. SO THE REQUEST, THE IMMEDIATE REQUEST FROM PRAC, YOU KNOW, THROUGH COUNCIL WAS TO ADDRESS THE LANGUAGE TO MAKE SURE THE POCKET GOES AWAY. AND IT'S ALL PARKS CAN, CAN BENEFIT FROM THE TREE MITIGATION FEES. THE SECOND WAS TO EVALUATE TO REDUCE THE TREE CALIPER THAT FAIRLY EASY TO DO. THEN THE THE THIRD WAS THE QUESTION OF THE ACTUAL IN-LIEU FEE. AND SO ACTUALLY WHAT MR. YOU UGLY HAS INDICATED IN HERE IS THAT THERE'S A GRADUATED FEE BASED UPON THE SIZE OF THE TREE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES. SO AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE ADJUSTED HERE. AND AGAIN THIS IS BACK TO THE ALL OF THE HORSES IN THE RACE SIMULTANEOUSLY. YOU KNOW HOW IS THIS THING GOING TO FINISH. SO THE QUESTION IS WHAT DO YOU WANT US THE DIRECTION.

[02:00:04]

AND WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO THEN CONTINUE TO DO? THESE OTHER THINGS ARE CONTINUING TO GO ON. LET ME ASK YOU. I WAS GOING TO SAY, CAN WE DO A HYBRID? LIKE CAN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH MR. HUGHLEY'S SUGGESTIONS AS AND HAVE YOU COME BACK WITH THE SINGLE FOR THE 1 OR 2 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND MOBILE HOME PROPERTIES, WHICH WOULD BE EXEMPTIONS. SO SO YOU'VE KIND OF GOT THREE LISTS IN FRONT OF YOU. YOU'VE GOT THE IMMEDIATE THREE THAT WERE REFERRED BY PRAC. YOU HAVE THE EXPANDED LIST TO SEVEN THAT MR. HUGHLEY HAS IDENTIFIED AS SORT OF PRIORITIES. AND THEN THE 39, THE BROADER LIST THAT HAVE COME OUT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE WITH A POTENTIAL OF A 40TH ITEM AS PRESENTED BY MR. STEWART. SO THE QUESTION IS, HOW DO YOU WANT US TO MOVE FORWARD IN ADVANCING AN ORDINANCE THAT CAN GO BEFORE COUNCIL? YEAH, I THINK WE CAN DO THAT. NOW WHEN YOU SO HOW DOES THAT SECOND QUESTION DIFFER FROM THE FIRST? YEAH. THAT MEANING FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION I SEE. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU COULDN'T RECOMMEND IMMEDIATE CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A BROADER REVIEW OF THAT ORDINANCE WITH THE 39 OR 40 ITEMS THAT YOU THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAS DEVELOPED, BECAUSE WE'RE STILL WE ARE STILL UNDER ORDINANCE REVIEW. NO, ACTUALLY. SO LET ME CLARIFY. SO SO WE I THINK WE CAN MOVE FORWARD TO TRY AND MAKE SOME MODEST ADJUSTMENTS. SO AGAIN, THIS PRESENTATION WAS ADDRESS THESE THREE ISSUES. SO YOU CAN CERTAINLY DIRECT US TO MOVE FORWARD ADJUSTING THE ORDINANCE WITH THOSE THREE ITEMS OR UP TO THE SEVEN ITEMS OF DISCUSSION. WHATEVER. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. FOR IMMEDIATE FORWARD ACTION. YES, THAT'S DOABLE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S WORK WAS NOT FINISHED. YOU HAVE A TOTAL OF 39 OR 40 ITEMS THAT YOU WANT TO BE FLESHED OUT, WHICH AGAIN, THAT'S AN ORDINANCE REVIEW. DO YOU SEE ANY REASON YOU CAN'T MOVE LIKE THAT? NOT A REASON THAT WE CAN'T MOVE LIKE THAT. I WOULD CAUTION AND MR. ONLY CARES FOR US IF WE HAVE THAT THAT. YEAH I THINK THAT'S GOOD GUIDANCE JORDAN. AND WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT TYPICALLY IT YOU KNOW, WHEN COUNCIL IS MAKING CHANGES OR WHEN A COMMISSION IS MAKING CHANGES AND FORWARDING IT TO COUNCIL, IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE VERY CLEAR AS TO WHAT THAT IS. AND SO IF, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU SAID, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY THING WE WANT TO CHANGE IS REMOVE THE WORD POCKET FROM THAT, THEN I WOULD SAY YOU COULD MAKE THAT MOTION TODAY. YOU COULD PASS IT ON STAFF COULD BRING IT INTO COUNCIL. THAT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR.

THE MORE COMPLICATED YOUR MOTION YOUR. SO IF YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION THAT IS VERY SPECIFIC,

[02:05:04]

AND WHAT COUNCIL OFTEN DOES IS THEY'LL SAY THIS IS WHAT WE WANT. IT'S GOTTEN A LITTLE BIT TOO COMPLICATED, SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO JUST DO IT WITH EMOTION. WE'VE GIVEN STAFF DIRECTION, STAFF'S GOING TO BRING BACK THE DOCUMENT WITH THESE CHANGES ON CONSENT AGENDA.

WE'LL LOOK AT IT AND SAY, YEP, THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO CHECK, MARK. WE'RE DONE. SO YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT IF IT GETS IF IT GETS VERY COMPLICATED AT ALL, I THINK YOU PROBABLY OUGHT TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT IT WITH THE FINAL WRITING. SO WHAT WHAT I WOULD MY THINKING ON IT IS, IS THAT WE GO AHEAD AND ADOPT ALL MR. HUGHLEY'S POINTS AND IT'S FINISHED, AND THEN THOSE POINTS ARE REMOVED FROM THESE 39 AND THEN COME BACK WITH SOME TYPE OF A THE SMALL LOT AND THE MOBILE HOME LOT LANGUAGE. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS I SEE IN HERE PROHIBITS NUMBER 18, PROHIBIT SPRINKLERS THAT CAUSE FLOWS OVER SIDEWALKS. WHY DO WE EVEN NEED THAT? IT'S IN THE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN AND BALCONIES. CANYON LANDS ALREADY HAS A PAYMENT PROGRAM. I MEAN, HOLLOWS TO EVERYBODY PAID BALCONIES THEIR MONEY ARE THEY GAVE THEM LAND. SO WE'RE WE'RE THERE'S A DUPLICATE. IT'S ACTING LIKE WE DON'T EVEN HAVE ANYTHING GOING ON THERE THAT SORT OF NEEDS TO BE RESEARCHED A LITTLE MORE. SO I THINK THIS THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD STUFF IN THIS. USE. WILDFIRE RESISTANT INSTEAD OF FIREWISE. YOU KNOW, WE GOT A FIREWISE GRANT. I'D BE RUNNING THAT BY THE FIREWISE PEOPLE NOT MAKING A DECISION TO CHANGE THEIR SIGNS. BUT SO THE REST OF THIS STUFF COULD GO. IF YOU THIN THE LIST DOWN, THEN WE CAN ADDRESS A PORTION OF THAT. AND IT MAY TAKE A COUPLE MORE MEETINGS. AND THEN WHEN EVERYTHING'S PUT TOGETHER, WE COULD SEND IT OVER AS A PACKAGE. BUT I MEAN, I THINK WHAT MR. HUGHLEY'S PUT OUT IS GOOD TO GO, BUT I ALSO SEE SOME OTHER STUFF THAT NEEDS TO GO WITH IT. AND I AGREE, I THINK THE, THE LONG LIST WE, WE NEED TO GO THROUGH AND IT'S, IT'S THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THERE. WE STILL ALL HAVE TO AGREE ON WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO DO THOSE ITEMS. AND I DO THINK MAYBE A PHASED APPROACH MIGHT BE GOOD. YOU KNOW, THERE'S OTHER THINGS IN THERE ABOUT WILDFIRE, WHICH WE COULD JUST ADDRESS THE BLOCK TO DO THAT ONE TIME. THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT ARE MORE LANDSCAPING ORIENTED VERSUS ONES THAT ARE TREE ORIENTED, YOU KNOW, SO WE COULD TAKE THESE IN CHUNKS AND WORK THROUGH THEM SO WE WON'T HAVE SO MUCH TO THE POINT. I THEN I WOULD RECOMMEND LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH THESE SEVEN AND HAVE DISCUSSION ON EACH ONE. ITEM BY ITEM DOES SOUND GOOD. SO ON THE FIRST ONE. SO WE'VE ALREADY HAD SOME DISCUSSION SOME ON THIS. REFINE THE DEFINITION OF ALLOWED USES OF FUNDS FROM FEES IN LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT, WHICH I THINK WE HAD DISCUSSION ON THIS. AND THE CURRENT ORDINANCE SAYS ANY SUCH FEES COLLECTED BY THE CITY SHALL BE PLACED IN A SPECIAL FUND, AND THE USE OF THESE FUNDS SHALL BE RESTRICTED FOR THE PLANNING OF TREES OR OTHER GREENERY, FOR DEVELOPMENT OR IMPROVEMENT OF TRAILS, OR FOR DEVELOPMENT OF IMPROVEMENT OF POCKET PARKS AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. SO I THINK THE. THIS HAS BEEN ADDED TODAY BECAUSE IT'S IT'S PRETTY EXCLUSIVE. AND I THINK THAT MONEY WOULD LIKE TO BE USED FOR MORE FOR PARKS. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENT? JANE OR ENRIQUE, DO YOU HAVE ANY. FIRST ITEM. YEAH, I DON'T HAVE. I DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION TO REMOVING POCKET FROM THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE PARKS, ESPECIALLY IF POCKET PARK IS CONSIDERED KIND OF LIKE A

[02:10:02]

[02:15:05]

IF THEY COULDN'T SAVE THE TREE, THEN PLANT A REPLACEMENT. AND WE SPECIFICALLY AT THAT TIME SAID, LET'S SET THE FEE SO HIGH THAT THE CITY DOESN'T GET INTO THE TREE PLANTING BUSINESS.

BECAUSE TO MR. STEWART'S POINT, THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE THAT MUCH LAND TO PLANT TREES ON. BUT WE SAID, LET'S SET THE FEE SO HIGH THAT IT ENCOURAGES BUILDERS TO ACTUALLY PLANT REPLACEMENT TREES THEMSELVES. BUT WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING IS OVER TIME, IT GOT SO EXPENSIVE TO PLANT TREES AND THE COST OF LABOR OR WHATEVER, THEY JUST SAID, WELL, JUST PAY YOU THE MONEY. AND SO THE CITY STARTED ACCUMULATING A LOT OF FUNDS. THE CITY THEN SAID, WELL, WE DON'T HAVE THE LAND TO PLANT $1 MILLION WORTH OF TREES ON, WHICH IS ORDER OF MAGNITUDE OF WHAT OUR FUND IS.

AND SO WHAT OTHER GOOD THINGS TO CITIZEN BENEFIT CAN WE USE IT FOR? WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT USING IT FOR PARKS, AND THE LANGUAGE GOT UPDATED TO ACCOUNT FOR OTHER USES. AND AND THE LANGUAGE OF POCKET PARKS GOT PUT IN THERE. AND CITY COUNCIL HAS OVER TIME SAID, OKAY, IF IN FACT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS MONEY, LET'S PUT IT TO GOOD CITIZEN USE AND PARKS IS THE LOGICAL PLACE TO PUT IT. NOW, I THINK, MR. HUGHLEY, YOU RAISED A GREAT POINT THAT THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS TRYING TO PROTECT TREES AND CANOPY AND THE NATURE OF OF WILDLIFE OUT HERE. YOU KNOW, PROBABLY YOU AS A COMMISSION NEED TO BALANCE HOW MUCH OF THAT SHOULD GO TOWARDS PARKS AND HOW MUCH OF THAT SHOULD GO TOWARDS PLANTING TREES. AND WHAT'S THE REALISTIC, YOU KNOW, PLACE? WHERE CAN THE CITY ACTUALLY PLANT TREES AND HOW MUCH MONEY COULD THE CITY? SO THAT'S KIND OF THE HISTORY. AND AND THEN TO ANSWER ONE MORE QUESTION, MR. STEWART, THAT YOU HAD SAID AT THIS POINT, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE CITY HAS NOT SPENT ANY MONEY OUT OF THE TREE MITIGATION FUNDS OVER THE 4 OR 5 YEARS THAT THAT THAT FUNDS HAVE BEEN ACCUMULATED IN THERE.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN USE IT IN A WAY THAT'S THAT'S WISE AND APPROPRIATE. AND THE PARKS AND REC COMMITTEE HAS SAID, WE NEED TO DO ALL THIS STUFF, AND THERE'S THIS MONEY SITTING THERE. LET'S MAKE GOOD USE OF IT. SO HERE YOU ARE, THE COMMISSION THAT HAS ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT FACTORS TO CONSIDER AS YOU COME UP WITH PROPOSED LANGUAGE, TO TRY TO TO NAVIGATE BETWEEN ALL OF THESE, THIS COMPLEX SITUATION, HOPEFULLY THAT'S HELPFUL. SO ONE OF THE WHERE THE PARK. SORRY. LET ME FINISH. AND THEN YOU COULD SEE THE POCKET PARKS CAME ABOUT. OH I WANT TO SAY OVER 12 YEARS AGO. AND THE CITY OWNED BOTH THE HIGHLAND LAKES GOLF COURSE AND THE LAGO VISTA GOLF COURSE. AND THERE IS AN EXTREME CONCERN WHAT HAPPENS IF THESE GOLF COURSES GO BELLY UP. SO THEY CAME UP WITH A PROGRAM OF TURNING THE GOLF COURSES INTO, LIKE A POCKET PARK IN THE MIDDLE AND A POCKET PARK AT THE

[02:20:03]

OKAY, IF WE'RE JUST IF THE FIRST QUESTION WE'RE ON IS STRIKING POCKET PARKS, GET IT OUT OF THERE BECAUSE THE WORDING SAYS OR IMPROVEMENT OF PARKS AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. I THINK OUR CITY COUNCIL IS SMART ENOUGH TO FIGURE THAT OUT. STRIKE POCKET.

LET'S MOVE ON. I AGREE CONSENSUS ON THAT. THE NEXT ONE IS THE IS CHANGING THE FEES IN LIEU OF MITIGATION BASED ON. WELL LET'S SEE. LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. SO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. CHARGES $250 PER INCH FOR TREES THAT ARE REMOVED AND CANNOT BE REPLACED WITH A MAXIMUM OF $10,000 FOR 1 OR 2 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. I JUST PUT IT HERE FOR REFERENCE. CEDAR PARK CHARGES $450 PER INCH FOR PROTECTED TREES THAT ARE 26IN OR MORE IN DIAMETER, AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEY MEASURE THAT ONE FOOT ABOVE THE GROUND.

I DON'T I'M NOT SURE WHY. MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE THEY CAN MEASURE IT THERE IF THE TREE HAS ALREADY BEEN CUT DOWN. THEN THEY CHARGE, BUT THEY STEP IT DOWN $300 PER INCH FOR 19 INCH TO TWO 25.9IN TREES. STEP IT DOWN AGAIN, $150 PER INCH FOR EIGHT INCH TO 18.9IN TREES. SO THEY'RE THEY'RE. PROTECTED. LIMIT IS EIGHT INCHES ON THEIR TREES. SO IF WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE THIS TO RAISE THESE FEES IN LIEU OF MITIGATION, WE WOULD NEED TO DETERMINE WHAT WE WANT THOSE TO BE. AND WE HAVE TO DECIDE IF WE CAN DO THAT TONIGHT OR NOT. WE THE PROPOSED HERE, I JUST BASICALLY DID A COPY AND PASTE OF CEDAR PARK AND ADDED IN OR CHANGED THE MAXIMUM TO $50,000. BUT I'D JUST LIKE TO SEE WHAT YOU GUYS THINK OF THAT. SEE IF YOU THINK WE CAN ACTUALLY MAKE A DECISION ON THAT AND INCLUDE IT IN OUR LIST OF PRIORITIES TONIGHT.

WELL, I. RIGHT OFF THE BAT, I STRONGLY DISAGREE. OKAY. IT'S HARD ENOUGH GETTING ANYTHING DEVELOPED HERE IN LAGO VISTA WITHOUT SCARING DEVELOPERS TO DEATH, SAYING, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST THING THEY'RE GOING TO THINK OF IS $50,000. OKAY. YEAH. I'M. NOW, IF YOU'RE PUTTING CEDAR PARK AS AN EXAMPLE, WELL, CEDAR PARK, IT COULD BE AUSTIN. IT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, THESE COMMUNITIES ARE ALREADY. DEVELOPED. YOU KNOW, LAGO VISTA IS STILL IS STILL IN ITS INFANCY. AND YEAH, I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CUT TREES. AND THE WAY I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THIS RIGHT NOW AND I JUST SEE THIS AS A MONEY GRAB. OKAY. WHY? BECAUSE I YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I LIKE TO SEE IS HAVE THE ENVELOPE OF THE BUILDING CUT DOWN AS MANY TREES AS THEY WANT WITHOUT PAYING A FEE. THE OTHER THING IS, YOU KNOW, AROUND THE ENVELOPE OF THE BUILDING, YOU KNOW, MAYBE MAKE IT 5 OR 10FT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE AGAIN, IF YOU PUT A HAVE AN OAK TREE RIGHT NEXT TO YOUR SLAB, WELL, GUESS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. OKAY.

SO YEAH, I THINK WE NEED TO BE REAL CAREFUL WITH WHAT THIS IS GOING TO BE. PERCEIVED BY DEVELOPERS. AND YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT FORGET DEVELOPERS, YOU KNOW, MOM AND POPS WHO JUST WANT TO HAVE THE LOT FIVE YEARS AGO AND NOW WANT TO BUILD NOW IT'S GOING TO COST THEM, YOU KNOW, UP TO $50,000 PER TREE, NOT PER TREE. OH, I THOUGHT YOU HAD PER TREE HERE. OH, TOTAL. OKAY.

WELL, STILL, 50,000 IS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, ALMOST 10% OF THE BUILDING COST OF THE MARKETING COST OF THE SALES PRICE OF THE HOUSE. IF IT'S A 50, YOU KNOW,

[02:25:05]

THERE'S TOO MANY. WE GOT TONS OF TREES. LET'S I MEAN, LET'S BE REALISTIC. YOU GO TO LAGO VISTA RIGHT NOW AND EVERY VACANT LOT IS 20, 30, 50 TREES. YOU KNOW, WHETHER THEY'RE SEED TREES, OAK TREES, WHAT HAVE YOU. THAT WOULD SCARE THE HECK OUT OF ME AS A BUILDER. AND OH MY GOSH, YOU KNOW. AND THEN WE'RE ALSO WANTING TO DECREASE THE SIZE OF THE DIAMETER FROM 10IN TO 8IN, TEN INCHES. THAT'S EVEN SCARIER BECAUSE THEN, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THAT GOING TO DO TO THE PRICE OF THE HOME. SO WHAT WHAT IS YOUR SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THIS CERTAIN RIGHT NOW? LIKE I SAID, WHAT MY RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE ENVELOPE OF THE OF THE HOME, THE BUILDING, THERE'S NO FEES ASSOCIATED WITH CUTTING TREES. NUMBER TWO IS. I MEAN KEEP THE THE FEES AT AT THE CURRENT LEVEL RIGHT NOW. AT $250 PER INCH OR. THAT SOUNDS PRETTY SIMILAR TO WHAT MR. PHILLIPS SAID, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS PRETTY COOL IDEA. THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH SPACE ON A LOT WHERE YOU CAN BUILD BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY, TERRAIN, WHATEVER THAT AREA. THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE THEY CAN BUILD. WE GET SO MANY CONFLICTING THINGS. I WANT LAGO VISTA TO GROW. I DON'T WANT LAGO VISTA ROAD. WELL, IT'S GOING TO GROW. SO IF IT'S AN AREA THAT THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE SOMEONE CAN BUILD, LET THEM DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO BUILD IN YOUR SETBACKS IN THOSE OTHER AREAS, AND THEY START CUTTING TREES IN THERE, THEN MAKE THEM PAY FOR IT. SO MAYBE RAISE RAISE IT IN THOSE AREAS. BUT IN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE AREA, NO, DON'T MESS WITH THAT AREA. WELL, ALONG THE SAME LINE, IF SOMEBODY'S GOING TO PUT IN A SWIMMING POOL AND THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE DOWN A MAJOR TREE, THEN THEY OUGHT TO BE WICKED AND YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD A GAZEBO OR SOME TYPE OF A WOODWORKING SHOP IN THE BACK, AND YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE TREES DOWN. BUT BACK TO THE THE SLAB PROPER. THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY. AND WE HAD SAID SOMETHING ABOUT MAKING EXEMPTIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND DUAL FAMILY LOTS.

AND THIS IS SORT OF CONFLICTING WITH IT. MAYBE THIS ONE OUGHT TO COME BACK NEXT MEETING. AS A STAFF PERSON WHO'S GOING TO BE COORDINATING ALL OF THIS, DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO APPROACH THESE SEVEN ITEMS? MAYBE NOT THE SEVEN. THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY. I ABSOLUTELY THINK WE NEED TO BRING IT BACK. WE'RE GETTING INTO THAT AREA WHERE NOW IT'S SO CONVOLUTED AND THERE'S SO MANY CAVEATS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND PROVISIONS THAT I DON'T THINK IT CAN BE JUST A SIMPLE MOTION AT THIS POINT FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE AND PROCESSING APPLICATIONS. I DON'T LIKE TO, AS A GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY, HAVE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE. AND SO WHEN WE CREATE THESE STIPULATIONS AND THESE CLAUSES AND THESE THIS PROCESS, IT NEEDS TO BE VERY BLACK AND WHITE, BECAUSE IF I, YOU KNOW, GET HIT BY A BUS TOMORROW, THE NEW DIRECTOR MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF HOW THIS WORKS. AND THAT'S NOT FAIR TO ANYBODY IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, FROM RESIDENTS THAT ARE THE NEIGHBORS TO THE BUILDER AND THE DEVELOPER, TO EVEN BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COUNCIL. BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU WOULD BE DEALING WITH THE FALLOUT OF DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS. AND SO I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE THIS ONE IS WE NEED TO COME BACK AND REALLY HONE IN ON THOSE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME PROTECTION FOR LARGER TREES, EVEN WITHIN THE CONCRETE SLAB AREA. AND MAYBE THERE'S A PROCESS FOR WHEN IF SETBACKS ARE HORRIBLE, IF TOPOGRAPHY IS HORRIBLE, THERE'S AN OPTION AROUND THAT OR SOME TYPE OF WAIVER. BUT ON SOME LOTS, ESPECIALLY LARGER LOTS, THERE'S AN ABILITY TO SHIFT A BUILDING AROUND. AND IF SOMEBODY JUST WANTS TO PLOP IN RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE, TAKE OUT A TREE, THEIR SLAB, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT AND CONSIDER, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT FAIR TO PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSTRAINED AND CAN'T SHIFT THEIR HOUSE AROUND THEIR PROPERTY WHEREVER THEY WANT TO DO IT. BECAUSE FROM A PRIVATE STANDPOINT, YOU'RE BASICALLY TELLING ME, I'M GOING TO FIND THE BIGGEST TREE ON THAT LOT. THAT'S THE BIGGEST INCONVENIENCE, AND I'M GOING TO

[02:30:01]

AND AND NOT EVEN HAVE STAFF MAKE ON A REVISION OF THAT ONE. I MEAN, WE HAVE A POTENTIAL LIST OF MANY OTHERS THAT AT SOME POINT WE'LL GET TO. SO I DON'T KNOW, WE WE COULD ASK STAFF TO DO THAT IF WE THINK WE CAN STILL TAKE ACTION ON IT. AND STAFF RECEIVED ENOUGH INFORMATION TO DO SOMETHING. I ABSOLUTELY THINK WE HAVE. I ALSO THINK THERE'S A BROADER CONVERSATION THAT COMES TO PLAY WITH THE CODE REORGANIZATION, BECAUSE AT THAT POINT, IT'S BY ZONING DISTRICT, AND WE CAN BE A LITTLE BIT MORE PARTICULAR ABOUT SOME OF THESE THINGS. SO I THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION NOW. IT'S A MATTER OF TIMING AND WHERE WE PUT IT IN THE CODE AND HOW WE STRUCTURE THAT. AND I THINK THAT SINCE THIS IS ONE OF THE PRIORITY ITEMS FROM COUNCIL THAT WE SHOULD TABLE IT, WE SHOULD LET STAMP ON IT SO THAT WE CAN KIND OF BE MOVING ON IT. SO THERE WILL BE MOVING, MOVING MOVING AHEAD ON IT. OKAY. WELL CONSIDER A TWO TIER FOR. I WOULD CHARGE A HIGHER RATE FOR OUTSIDE THE SLAB THAN I WOULD FOR THE INSIDE SLAB. AND. BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING A LITTLE OUT OF THE ORDINARY AND, YOU KNOW, THE. MAXIMUM, THE MAXIMUM SHOULD ALSO BE BASED UPON LOCATION OF THE TREE.

I THINK IF YOU START GETTING TO THE LOCATIONS, IT GETS TO BE VERY CONVOLUTED. I MEAN, MY GOAL IS TO STREAMLINE IT, MAKE IT EASY. SO. THAT. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO REMOVE THE THE TREES FOR FREE. IF YOU HAVE AN ACCESSORY BUILDING, WHETHER IT'S A GARAGE, A STORAGE SHED, WHAT HAVE YOU, THEN YES, INCORPORATE SOME SOME OF THESE FEES. WHY? BECAUSE THEN WE CAN MAYBE CONVINCE THEM TO PUT THE SHED ON THIS SIDE INSTEAD OF THIS SIDE, WHERE THEY CAN SAVE THE TREE. RIGHT. THE. YEAH. I THINK, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS IS THE MORE COMPLICATED WE MAKE THIS, THE MORE OPEN TO INTERPRETATION THIS IS GOING TO BE. WHICH LEADS ME TO, YOU KNOW, NUMBER, YOU KNOW, ADDING REQUIREMENT FOR SIGNING A PAINT FOR A SIGN ON YOUR PROPERTY ABOUT THE TREE THAT'S GOING TO BE CUT OR WHATEVER. BOY, CAN YOU IMAGINE IF WE DON'T STREAMLINE THE OPERATIONS AND MAKE IT SIMPLIFIED, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A WAR. EVERY NEIGHBOR IS GOING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT A TREE BEING CUT DOWN ON YOUR NEXT. AND GUESS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE? YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO CREATE AN ENEMY WITH YOUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR BECAUSE HE DIDN'T LET YOU OR HE CUT THAT TREE, SO YOU HAD TO BUILD YOUR HOUSE. ALL RIGHT, WHATEVER.

YOU KNOW, LET'S, LET'S LET'S FOCUS HERE ON, ON ON THE ITEM RAISED TREES IN LIEU OF FEES, IN LIEU OF MITIGATION. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE AGREE WE'RE GOING TO TURN OVER TO CITY STAFF AND THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO US WITH A I DO NOTE TAKING OUR INPUT, TAKING THE INPUT OF THE CITIZENS WOULD MAKE COMMENT AND COME BACK TO US. SO NOW NOW YOU WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDING A REQUIREMENT FOR POSTING SIGNAGE, NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT. ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF IT? NO, I GUESS NOT. I DON'T I DON'T SEE THE NECESSITY, ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S A PROCESS THAT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO REMOVE THE TREE IN THE FIRST PLACE. NOW YOU GOT TO PUT A SIGN UP AND SAY, I'M GOING TO REMOVE A TREE. THAT'S KIND OF REDUNDANT, LET ME TELL YOU THAT. SO I THINK THE THINKING BEHIND THIS IS THAT YES, THERE'S A PROCESS, BUT IT HAPPENS WHERE PEOPLE GO IN AND CUT TREES ON THE WEEKEND WITHOUT GETTING A

[02:35:01]

HOW ABOUT AT THIS POINT WE JUST ADD A REQUIREMENT FOR POSTING SIGNAGE ON THE PART OF DEVELOPERS FROM THEIR CLEARING LAND FOR MORE THAN MORE THAN TEN LOTS SO THAT IT WILL APPLY TO THE THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THE INTERIM GROWTH POLICY. MORE THAN TEN LOTS OF TEN ACRES. IF WE JUST MADE THIS POSTING OF SIGNAGE FOR RETREAT, APPLY TO THOSE PROPERTIES, THAT IT WOULD BE KIND OF AN EASY, CLEAR THING TO DO RIGHT NOW. BUT BEGINNING.

WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, WITH VIOLATIONS THAT WE HAVE IN. AND I KNOW OF SOME THAT HAVE BEEN NEAR MY HOME WHERE, YOU KNOW, A STOP WORK ORDER AND THERE'S AN INVESTIGATION HAPPENS LIKE THAT AND FOUND OUT THAT WE'RE CUTTING TREES. THEY HAVEN'T GOTTEN THEIR PERMITS. THAT'S KIND OF THE IDEA, I THINK, BEHIND THESE SIGNS. AND THAT WAS JUST AN INDIVIDUAL LOT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD JUST DO THAT. MAYBE WE SHOULD ASK HOW WE COULD WE COULD PASS THIS ON TO STAFF BECAUSE HOW MUCH ARE WE ACTUALLY GOING TO PRESERVE BY PUTTING THE SIGNAGE REQUIREMENT UP AND HOW MUCH INCONVENIENCE TO A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE WOULD WE BE IMPOSING? I THINK WE KIND OF HAVE TO WEIGH AN IMPOSITION ON A LOT OF WELL-MEANING, LAW ABIDING PEOPLE COMPARED TO THE FEW NE'ER DO WELLS WHO MIGHT BE CUTTING THEM DOWN ON THE WEEKEND. AND AND THAT SIGN WOULD BE THE THING THAT DETERS THEM. SO, IF I MAY, TO BE FRANK, IF SOMEBODY IS GOING TO CUT DOWN A TREE, THEY'RE GOING TO CUT DOWN THE TREE. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT SIGNS YOU POST, IT DOESN'T MATTER, YOU KNOW, AND A LOT OF THE TIMES THEY'LL TAKE THE HIT, THEY'LL PAY THE FEE, THEY'LL PAY THE FINE, THEY'RE GOING TO CUT IT DOWN. AND IT JUST IS WHAT IT IS. WE SEE IT JUST ABOUT EVERY DAY. I DON'T THINK A SIGN HAS ANY BEARING ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE JUST GOING TO. YEAH. ESPECIALLY JUST TO HELP CATCH THEM ON TO. OKAY. WELL I'M JUST GOING TO SAY I AGREE WITH THAT 100%. AND I'M GOING TO USE AN EXAMPLE HERE. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU GO TO WHEREVER. AND THERE'S A SIGN ON THE FRONT DOOR OF A BUSINESS OR PROPERTY, NO FIREARMS ALLOWED.

THE PERSON WHO'S GOING TO GO THERE TO KILL PEOPLE IS GOING TO TAKE THEIR GUN. THAT SIGN MEANS DIDDLY. IT'S THE SAME THING WITH THESE TREES. WE DON'T NEED A SIGN THING. YEAH, ESPECIALLY THE $200. A CONSENSUS THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO. I'M SORT OF WONDERING IF THOSE SIGNS HAVE BEEN PUT UP WHEN THEY WENT TO CLEAR THAT AREA AROUND THE TO ZERO ELEVATED STORAGE TANK, IF THAT WOULD HAVE STOPPED, BECAUSE IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT PROPERTY WAS CLEAR CUT BEFORE IT WAS PLATTED. AND IF THOSE SIGNS HAVE BEEN PUT UP, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN AN OUTROAR AND THOSE TREES WOULD STILL BE STANDING NOT ON THE ORIGINAL MOONSCAPE, BECAUSE THAT ONE WAS PLATTED, BUT ON THE ONE THAT NEVER REALLY GOT FINISHED. I WOULDN'T I MEAN, MR. PRINCE MIGHT KNOW WHAT THE STAGE OF THE PLAT ON IT WAS, BUT THEY CLEAR CUT, AND THEN THEY PULLED OUT OF TOWN, AND WE'RE LEFT WITH THE MESS. A SIGN THERE MIGHT HAVE DONE SOMETHING. SO IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, ARE WE GOING TO IMPOSE A SIGN REQUIREMENT ON EVERY TREE THAT'S GOING TO COME DOWN IN THE CITY OF VISTA BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT INSTANCE? WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED IN THAT ONE INSTANCE? I SAID, DEVELOPERS. YOU KNOW, EVEN WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH DEVELOPERS, LIKE YOU SAID, HE ABANDONED THE IF THIS DEVELOPER ABANDONED THE PROJECT, THE NEW BUYER, WELL, HE'S GOING TO BE AWARE THAT,

[02:40:02]

LET'S SEE WHAT OUR CONSENSUS IS ON THERE. I MOVE TO REMOVE THE THE SIGN FACE AND THE SIGN ON PROPERTIES. OKAY. NOR DO I. LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE. WELL, WE'VE ACTUALLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. COME UP AND ASK YOUR QUESTION OR MAKE YOUR COMMENT. BUT IT'S IT'S A. AND IT'S SLIGHTLY PAST NOW, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THEY COULDN'T SPEAK ON THE OTHER ITEMS AS WELL ON THIS ITEM, ON THESE AGENDA ITEMS. AND THEN WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO OKAY. YEAH, I DIDN'T KNOW IT WASN'T PER ITEM. I WAS JUST GOING TO MENTION I'LL JUST I'LL JUST, YOU KNOW, NOW THAT YOU'RE UP HERE, GO AHEAD AND MAKE A COMMENT. I WAS GOING TO CAUTION THAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXACTIONS ARE THE FINE LINE THAT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT HERE, SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO FEES OR, YOU KNOW, TRIPLING FINES. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S A WRONG ANSWER, BUT THERE HAS TO BE PROPORTIONAL DAMAGES. THE FEES HAVE TO BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE DAMAGES.

AND THOSE FEES COLLECTED ALSO HAVE TO PROPORTIONATELY REPAIR THE DAMAGES. SO IF YOU CHARGE PHIL FOR REMOVING FIVE TREES AND THE CITY, THE CITY CAN'T SIT ON THAT FOR FIVE YEARS.

THAT'S A LAWSUIT ASKING TO HAPPEN. BEYOND THAT, YOU CAN'T SAY, DANG, FIVE TREES. I'M GOING TO SET UP A BASKETBALL COURT NOW, UNLESS YOU'VE SOMEHOW ARTICULATED AHEAD OF TIME THAT THEM REMOVING THE TREES MADE THE CITY LESS ENJOYABLE, AND YOU'RE ABLE TO REALLY ARTICULATE THAT THE FEES COLLECTED HAVE TO PROPORTIONATELY BE APPLIED TO THE DAMAGES, AND THE DAMAGES HAVE TO BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE FEES. SO WE CAN'T JUST AS MUCH AS I ALSO THINK WE NEED EXTRA FUNDING FOR PARKS AND STUFF, WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE IF WE SCREW IT UP BY JUST HAVING VAGUE OR NON-ENFORCEABLE RULES, WE LOSE ALL OF IT AND THEN SOME.

THANK YOU. GOOD QUESTION. OKAY, SO WE'RE MOVING ON TO REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR REMOVAL OF ANY TREES AT ANY TIME. YEAH. THE IDEA BEHIND THIS ONE IS TO PREVENT THE CUTTING OF TREES BEFORE DEVELOPMENT. SO THE EXAMPLE WOULD BE SOMEONE OWNS A PROPERTY, THEY KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO SELL IT SOMETIME IN THE NEXT YEAR OR SO. THEY GO THROUGH AND THEY CUT A BUNCH OF TREES. I DON'T THINK RIGHT NOW THERE'S ANY REQUIREMENT FOR A PERMIT FOR TREE REMOVAL.

USUALLY THE PERMITS COME INTO PLAY WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT TRACK STARTS. IS THAT TRUE? NO. SO OUR ORDINANCE BASICALLY SAYS YOU CAN CUT DOWN CEDAR AT ANY POINT IN TIME TO THE STUMP. YOU CANNOT TOUCH PROTECTED TREES WITHOUT A PERMIT, AND YOU CAN'T REMOVE STUMPS WITHOUT A NON-POINT PERMIT, CAN'T REMOVE STUMPS. YEAH. ANYTIME YOU DISTURB THE SOIL, YOU HAVE TO DO AN NPP PERMIT AND IT'S A WHOLE ORDEAL. BUT YOU CAN CHOP TO THE STUMP IF IT'S CEDAR, NO PERMIT REQUIRED, YOU'RE FREE TO GO. IF IT'S A PROTECTED TREE, YOU HAVE TO PULL A PERMIT AND WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. THERE'S AN ESTABLISHED. SYSTEM ALREADY. OKAY, OKAY.

[02:45:18]

THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE A PROTECTED TREE SHALL MEAN ANY NATIVE TREE WITH A MAIN TRUNK DIAMETER. AND WE'RE PROPOSING GOING DOWN TO SIX INCHES. DAVID MENTIONED EIGHT, AND WE'VE HAD OTHER DISCUSSION FROM I'VE SEEN ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD SAYING SIX. SO WE DECIDED TO PUT THAT ONE IN HERE. BUT WE CAN DECIDE WHAT WE WANT. AND AND STILL KEEPING IT MEASURED AT 40IN ABOVE THE GROUND. I THINK THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION ALSO OF CHANGING WHERE THAT SHOULD BE THE 40IN. BUT THAT'S NOT AN EASY CHANGE, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF PLACES IN THE ORDINANCE THAT MENTIONS 40IN. SO THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO DO. IF THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO CHANGE THAT NUMBER. ESSENTIALLY, THE ORDINANCE WILL HAVE A RED LINE VERSION THAT SHOWS THOSE CHANGES, AND IT'LL ALSO NOTE THE CHANGE FROM X TO Y ANYWHERE X IS MENTIONED. IT'S TRUE, BUT COULD THERE BE A DIFFERENT LOGIC FOR WHY IT'S MENTIONED IN DIFFERENT PLACES? THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT PLACES WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT 40IN. I WOULD THINK THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN A DEFINITION SOMEWHERE, AND THEN REFERRED TO THAT, AND THAT CAN BE DONE AS WELL. PART OF THE REORGANIZATION PROCESS IS, IS DEALING WITH SITUATIONS LIKE THAT. AND SO IT IT CAN BE REFERENCED, HOWEVER WE NEED TO AND WE'LL, WE'LL NOTE THAT AS WE'RE DRAFTING AN ORDINANCE, I WAS GOING TO RECOMMEND LEAVING IT FOR NOW. WHEN WE DO A MAJOR REWRITE OF THE ORDINANCE, MAYBE ADDRESS IT THEN. BUT THE SO THE REASON FOR TAKING ASH JUNIPER OUT IS TO MAINTAIN OUR CANOPY.

NOW, WE MAY HAVE OTHER WAYS TO DO THAT. YOU KNOW, THE SCENIC BEAUTY IS WHAT WE SEE WHEN WE LOOK OUT OVER OUR TOWN. AND WHEN YOU TAKE WE HAVE A LOT OF SIERRA AND A LOT OF MOUNTAIN SCENERY. SEBASTIAN FIRST EASTERN PLACE NOT PROTECTED. EASTERN JUNIPER STILL PROTECTED AGAINST PREGNANCY. BUT WHEN YOU TAKE OUT ALL OF THE ASH JUNIPER ON A LARGE PIECE OF LAND, IT DRAMATICALLY CHANGES THE LOOK OF THE LAND. AND THAT CHANGES OUR SCENIC BEAUTY. THE CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITY. SO THIS IS A PROTECTIVE MEASURE IN THAT REGARD. ALSO, THERE ARE MANY BENEFITS THAT CEDAR BRING. THERE'S SOME NEGATIVE THINGS, BUT THIS IS TRUE OF OTHER TREES.

SO WE WANT TO JUST MAKE ALL. WELL. OKAY. ANOTHER IMPORTANT THING HERE IS THE INCLUSION OF NATIVE TREES. SO PROTECTED THE PROPOSED IS PROTECTED TREE SHALL MEAN ANY NATIVE TREE WITH

[02:50:02]

CURRENTLY WE'RE PROTECTING ANY TREE NO MATTER IF IT'S NATIVE OR NOT. ANY TREE. THIS WOULD MAKE IT ONLY NATIVE TREES AND IT WOULD INCLUDE ANY NATIVE TREE. SO. WILL THE ASH. JUNIPER IS NOT A NATIVE TREE. SO HOW DOES THAT FIGURE INTO THE PICTURE? WELL, ASH JUNIPER IS A NATIVE TREE. THEY'VE BEEN HERE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. PART OF OUR ECOLOGY RIGHT NOW. WELL, THE THE, THE THE JUNIPER TREE HAS BEEN IN A IT WAS IMPORTED. IT'S BEEN AN INVASIVE TREE FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. IT'S ACTUALLY WIPING OUT SOME OF OUR, SOME OF OUR NATIVE TREES. YOU KNOW, THE OAK TREES ETC. ARE BEING TAKEN OVER. LOOK AT LOOK OUTSIDE THE WINDOW. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE TOO MANY OAK TREES ANYMORE. YOU SEE NOTHING BUT CEDAR TREES. WHY? BECAUSE THEY'RE AN INVASIVE SPECIES. OKAY, NOW. SO YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE IT'S BEEN HERE NOW, I THINK IT'S ONLY BEEN HERE FOR, YOU KNOW, A LONG TIME, MAYBE 100, 200 YEARS, I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, SINCE COLUMBUS, I GUESS 150, THOUSANDS OF YEARS. I CAN GET THE REFERENCES VERY WELL, BUT MAYBE NOT IN TEXAS. MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. YOU'RE PROBABLY RIGHT. BUT IN TEXAS, I KNOW IT'S BEEN JUST A COUPLE HUNDRED YEARS. MAYBE THE BALANCE OF CEDAR IS OVERDONE, OR WE HAVE MORE CEDAR THAN A HEALTHY ECOLOGY ONE. AND SO PROTECTING THIS DOESN'T KEEP US FROM CUTTING DOWN ALL CEDAR TREES. A LOT OF CEDAR TREES HAVE SMALLER DIAMETER. WE HAVE TONS OF CEDAR TREES THAT HAVE MUCH SMALLER DIAMETER TRUNKS THAN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. SO IT STILL ALLOWS A LOT OF THINNING. IT JUST KEEPS PEOPLE FROM REMOVING EVERY CEDAR TREE. HOW WOULD YOU WORK TO MAINTAIN THE. IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT FOR OTHER REASONS. SO, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT A MONOCULTURE OF TREES. WE WANT MANY DIFFERENT VARIETIES AND SPECIES AND TREES FOR THE OVERALL FOREST HEALTH. IF WE HAD A IF, YOU KNOW, WE HAD A LARGE SCALE INVASION OF OAK WILT, WE MIGHT BE WISHING WE STILL HAD SOME CEDAR TREES AROUND. SO, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER THING TO LOOK AT IS SOME OF THEM AREN'T REALLY BEAUTIFUL OR BEAUTY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER. BUT IF YOU'VE EVER LOOKED AT THE AREA AROUND THE PARKING LOT BY THE EOA CLUBHOUSE, THERE ARE INCREDIBLE EXAMPLES OF BEAUTIFUL HUGE CEDAR TREES OVER THERE. YOU KNOW, 20IN OR MORE IN DIAMETER. THAT WE'RE FORTUNATE THAT WHOEVER DEVELOPED THAT DECIDED TO KEEP IT. I'M FORTUNATE THAT MY DEVELOPER DECIDED TO KEEP THE TREES NICE BIG CEDAR TREES IN MY YARD, BUT THOSE WERE NOT PROTECTED. SO KIND OF WHERE WE.

YOU KNOW, CONCERNING CEDAR TREES, I DON'T KNOW, IT'S PROBABLY THE WAY I'M QUESTIONING AND MAKING COMMENTS. I'M ACTUALLY A TREE LOVER MYSELF. I MEAN, MY PROPERTY HAS MORE OAK TREES THAN TREES THAN YOU CAN SHAKE IT, SHAKE A STICK AT. I DO HAVE A OAK CEDAR TREE THAT THE DIAMETER MUST BE LIKE EIGHT FEET. IT'S HUGE. IT'S A PAIN IN THE BUTT BECAUSE EVERY TIME I JUST HATE IT. BECAUSE ESPECIALLY DURING THE SEASON CEDAR SEASON. BUT I KEEP IT BECAUSE IT'S A BEAUTIFUL TREE. BUT I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO START LIMITING, YOU KNOW, EIGHT INCHES, I'D SAY A GOOD OAK TREE SHOULDN'T BE EIGHT INCHES IN DIAMETER. I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO SALVAGE AN OAK TREE OR CEDAR TREE, IT'S GOT TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S, YOU KNOW, OUT OF THE, OUT OF THE NORM. BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU KNOW, NOW IF WE HAVE TO GET A PERMIT TO CUT ALL THESE LITTLE CEDAR TREES, I MEAN, CAN YOU IMAGINE? I MEAN, I'M, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT ONE OF THE THINGS I KEEP GOING BACK TO. WHAT'S THE MAIN PURPOSE TO REVENUES, MONEY FOR THE CITY OR TO, YOU KNOW, STREAMLINE THE BUILDING OPERATIONS? BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO START GETTING PERMITS FOR EVERY TREE OVER EIGHT INCHES, OH MY GOSH, YOU KNOW, SIX INCHES, SIX INCHES IS THIS. YEAH. SO ANYWAYS, YOU KNOW THERE'S WAYS AROUND THIS. BUT

[02:55:03]

MINIMUM TWO TREES. AN ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT WE LOSE A LOT OF CANOPY AND THAT CANOPY THAT WE LOOK OUT AND SEE AS WE LOOK OUT ACROSS THE CITY IS A HUGE PART OF OUR BEAUTY. SO THAT'S KIND OF, AGAIN, THE MORE OF THE MOTIVATION DO WE ARE WE WORRIED ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW? DO WE WANT TO TRY TO GET IN FRONT OF THESE NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND KEEP THEM FROM CUTTING DOWN TREES? IF THE MOTIVATION IS IS WHAT MAY BE COMING, WHAT NEW DEVELOPMENTS MAY BE COMING IN IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS THAT MIGHT BE CUTTING DOWN A LOT OF TREES, THEN I THINK THAT WE DON'T REALLY HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS ISSUE, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS. SO IF THAT'S THE MOTIVATION, THEN MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST LEAVE OUR DEFINITION OF PROTECTED TREES. I DISAGREE, I THINK ASH JUNIPER OUGHT TO BE REMOVED. BETWEEN 2009 AND 2015, WE HAD AN ARSONIST WHO WAS SETTING FIRES UP BY THE AIRPORT. WE HAD PC, PC LINES SPARKING AND WINDS AND DROPPING FIRES OUT, AND IT WAS EVERY HAND ON DECK FROM THE CITY AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BRINGING IN CEDAR PARK, MARBLE FALLS AND EVERYBODY ELSE. AND WE WEREN'T FIGHTING FIRES WITH OAK TREES. WE WERE TRYING TO PUT THE CEDAR TREES OUT. IN FACT, THE THE TOPOGRAPHY HERE IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE ZONES THAT JUST BURNED IN CALIFORNIA. WE ACTUALLY HAD A FIRE THAT STARTED AT THE BASE OF A HILL OVER BY THE AIRPORT, AND WE JUST LET IT BURN. AND WHEN IT GOT UP TO THE ROAD, WE PUT IT OUT. BUT WE BURNED OUT PROBABLY ABOUT SIX ACRES OF THAT. THAT WHOLE HILLSIDE WENT BLACK. AND THAT WASN'T THE ONLY FIRE WE FOUGHT OUT THERE. SO IF YOU'RE TELLING ME AT MY HOUSE THAT I CAN'T CUT DOWN A CEDAR TREE WHICH CAN TURN INTO A ROMAN CANDLE, WHEREAS AN OAK TREE, THE BARK WILL GET BURNT, MAYBE THE LOWER BRANCHES. YOU'RE PUTTING MY HOUSE AT RISK, SO I.

I CANNOT JUSTIFY PROTECTING A CEDAR TREE EXCEPT AT THE CEDAR BREAKS, WHERE IT'S A CROP FOR OUR EFFLUENT. WELL, AND CAN YOU IMAGINE TRYING TO PROTECT YOUR HOUSE AND HAVING TO PAY A PERMIT TO CUT DOWN THE TREE TO PROTECT YOUR HOUSE? YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE SO I. YEAH, THE YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, THESE FIRES DIDN'T JUST BURN THE CEDAR TREES. THEY BURNED EVERYTHING.

EVERY CONCEIVABLE VEGETATION WAS BURNED BECAUSE, AGAIN, THE CEDAR TREES, BURNETT'S AT A HIGH TEMPERATURE. THEY DON'T LEAVE ANYTHING BEHIND. WILDLIFE. YOU KNOW, WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE GOLDEN CHEEKED WARBLER. HOW MANY BUNNIES AND RABBITS? AND WHO KNOWS WHAT ELSE DIED DURING THESE FIRES. SO AND THAT'S ONE THING WE WE DIDN'T HAVE, BUT WE HAVE ON OUR LIST IS GOLDEN CHEEKED WARBLER PROTECTION. WHETHER OR NOT TO ADD THAT INTO THE ORDINANCE OR NOT. BUT A BIG PART OF THAT IS RESTRICTS THE CUTTING OF CEDAR, BECAUSE CEDAR MIXED WITH OAK IS THEIR NESTING

[03:00:01]

WHAT ABOUT YOU, JIM? OKAY, I AM TOO. SO LET'S LOOK AT. NEXT ONE IS INCREASING THE MINIMUM SIZE OF REPLACEMENT TREES. THIS IS SIMPLY THE CURRENT ONE IS WE REQUIRE WHEN A TREE IS REPLACED IT HAS TO BE A MINIMUM OF TWO INCHES CALIPER MEASURED 40IN FROM THE GROUND, AND THE TREE MUST BE SIX FEET IN HEIGHT. WHEN PLANTING, THE PROPOSAL IS SIMPLY TO INCREASE IT TO THREE AND MAKE IT A MINIMUM OF EIGHT. IT'S JUST TO MAKE THE REPLACEMENT TREE A LITTLE BIT BEEFIER THAN WHAT WE'RE REQUIRING RIGHT NOW, BUT IT MAKES IT CONSIDERABLY MORE EXPENSIVE, DOES IT? DOESN'T IT? AND IF IF PART OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS TRYING TO NOT.

PRICE PEOPLE OUT OF THIS AREA. THIS IS JUST MORE MONEY OUT OF THEIR POCKET. SURE. IS THAT IF THAT'S OUR GOAL, MAYBE INTO SOME PEOPLE'S GOAL, IT'S NOT MY GOAL. YOU KNOW, I GO MORE IS PROTECTING. NATURE, BUT. AM I UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY THAT WE WANT TO THE MINIMIZE THE TRUNK FROM 10IN TO 6IN. IS THAT BASICALLY WHAT THE GOAL IS ON NUMBER 15? YES. YES. AND NOW WE'RE WE'RE INCREASING I MEAN THIS ONE I'M SORRY. YEAH. YEAH. WE'RE WE'RE ON THE ONE THAT STARTS WITH 15. THAT'S OKAY. ACTUALLY I'M SORT OF I SORT OF LIKE THIS BECAUSE THE THREE INCHES IS GOING TO COME WITH A BIGGER ROOT BALL. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING ADDRESSED ABOUT HOW BIG A HOLE THEY HAVE TO PUT INTO THE ROCK TO GET THE TREE TO PLANT. BUT IF IT'S GOT A BIGGER ROOT BALL, IT'S GOT A BIGGER HOLE IT'S GOING TO HAVE. IT'S GOING TO RETAIN MORE MOISTURE. AND TO ME, THAT GIVES THE TREE A BETTER CHANCE OF SURVIVAL. I'D BE I SEE A LOT OF DEAD TWO INCH TREES OUT THERE THAT I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED IF THEY'D GONE WITH A THREE INCH TREE, IF THEY HAD A HIGHER SURVIVAL RATE. I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THREE IS NOT ENOUGH. MAYBE MAKE IT A FOUR INCH. GOOD LUCK ON FINDING THOSE. A LOT OF IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON WHAT WHAT TYPE OF TREE THEY PLANT. YOU KNOW, IF IT'S AN OAK TREE OR IF IT'S AN ARIZONA ASH, YOU KNOW THAT'S GOING TO BE. BUT KEEP IN MIND ALSO, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CEDAR TREES ARE FAST GROWING TREES ANYWAYS. SO I MEAN, MY PROPERTY, THEY'RE GROWING CONSTANTLY AND I ALMOST I MOURN WITH THEM WITH THE LAWN MOWER. THAT'S HOW FAST THEY GROW. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A BIG LOSS. IT'S JUST A TEMPORARY LOSS. IF PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE THOSE TREES AT THE YOU KNOW. BUT AGAIN, I THINK, SEE, THAT'S WHERE THE TREE LOVER IN ME COMES IN. I LIKE TO SEE BIGGER TREES BEING, YOU KNOW, REPLACING FALLEN TREES WITH BIGGER TREES. I'M, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED INCREASE. I MADE MY COMMENT. I'M NOT AS.

YOU KNOW, THIS ONE IS NOT AS MAYBE NOT AS BIG A DEAL AS SOME OF THE OTHER ONES. I'M KIND OF

[03:05:05]

AND THE TWO SHOULD BE THREE. ANY OTHER ANY OTHER THINGS THAT YOU WANT TO BRING UP AS PART OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION TONIGHT. ONE MORE. BUT LET'S SEE IF IT'S TOO COMPLICATED.

AND THAT WAS TO ADD AN EXEMPTION FOR 1 OR 2 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. THERE IS A LIST OF EXEMPTIONS IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. AND. ENTITIES ARE EXEMPT FROM RESTRICTIONS. THE ORDINANCE. THE THOUGHT WAS TO ADD THE EXEMPTION THAT FOR ANY 1 OR 2 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THAT THEY WOULD BE EXEMPTED FROM ALL TREE RELATED RESTRICTIONS. WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN? WELL, SOME OF WHAT IT WOULD MEAN WOULD BE IF YOU WANT TO GO OUT AND CHOP DOWN THE TREE IN YOUR FRONT YARD, YOU CAN AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY A FEE AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET A PERMIT, AND IT PROTECTS, TO A DEGREE, YOUR PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE THE ONE THAT ENJOYS THAT PROPERTY. WHY CAN'T I MAKE MY DECISION ABOUT MY MY OWN PROPERTY I LIVE ON? I WANT TO BUILD A SWIMMING POOL IN MY BACKYARD. I'M THE END USER. THE END ENJOYER OF MY PROPERTY. WHY CAN'T I MAKE THAT DECISION? WHY SHOULD I BE PENALIZED IF I WANT TO DO THAT? THAT'S THE THE THOUGHT BEHIND THIS. SO NOW WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN DO IT SIMPLY AND GET THAT IN NOW OR NOT. QUESTION IS DECIDED. THINK ABOUT THIS. I'M IN FAVOR OF IT. SO IF WE'RE GOING BACK, THIS IS GOING TO BE HOME IMPROVEMENT BASED. WHEREAS IF WE HAD A NEW CONSTRUCT AND WE WERE DOING A TREE ASSESSMENT AND THEY DECIDED TO BUILD A SWIMMING POOL, THEN THEY WOULD PAY TO TAKE THE TREE DOWN. IS THERE GOING TO BE A CONFLICT THERE? WELL, THAT'S AFTER THE HOME IS, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW IF YOU WANT TO PUT A WELL, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO BUILD A POOL WHILE YOU'RE BUILDING THE HOUSE, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY TO CUT THAT TREE. BUT ONCE YOU HAVE A CEO, IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, THEN YOU CAN CUT THE TREE AT YOUR LEISURE, RIGHT? IF IT'S THAT SIMPLE. BUT YEAH, I MEAN, AS LONG AS THERE'S A DELINEATION, THEY CAN'T SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, OKAY, AS LONG AS THERE'S A DELINEATION, I CAN LIVE WITH IT.

MISS ERIC, IF I MAY, FROM A ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE. SO THEY THEY BUILD THE HOUSE, THEY GET THE CL, THEY WANT TO PUT IN A POOL. DO WE CARE IF THEY'RE CUTTING DOWN TREES? NO, NO, NOT AT ALL. SO IF THEY CLEAR THEIR ENTIRE LOT POSCO WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT. I ACTUALLY WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT BECAUSE I KNOW VERY FEW PEOPLE IN TOWN. ARE THERE A LOT OF ALL THE TREES WHERE THEY LIVE? OKAY. THAT'S THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE WAY THE WAY IT'S BEING PROPOSED, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN. NOW, AS SOON AS THEY HAVE THAT CL WHAT THEY CHOOSE TO DO ON THEIR PROPERTY, NONE OF OUR BUSINESS WITH REGARDS TO TREES, OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE MOSTLY CONCERNED WITH WHAT DEVELOPERS ARE DOING BECAUSE THE DEVELOPERS DON'T HAVE THE SAME MOTIVATION.

SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN THEIR HOME, THEY ARE THERE FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF THAT HOME AND ENJOYMENT OF THE TREES, OR THE LACK OF TREES. THEY GET TO MAKE THE DECISION. IF THEY CAN MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION, YOU KNOW? SO IT'S ENJOYMENT. THEY SHOULD, BUT DEVELOPERS HAVE NO IDEA IF THE PEOPLE WHO EVENTUALLY BUY THE HOUSE WANT TONS OF TREES OR NOT. SO SPECIFICALLY FOR OWNER OCCUPIED. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK. OKAY. YEAH. SO OKAY, SO OWNER OCCUPIED SINGLE

[03:10:04]

I DON'T CARE IF IT'S OWNER OCCUPIED OR NOT. IF IT'S GOT A CEO, THAT'S IT. I'M NOT GOING TO CHECK AND SEE IF THE OWNER LIVES THERE. IF IT'S GOT A CEO, THAT'S IT. PROBABLY IN REALITY AREN'T THAT MANY NON OWNER OCCUPIED SINGLE FAMILY OR DOUBLE OR DUPLEXES THAT ARE GOING TO BE CLEARING THEIR LOT. IT'S PROBABLY A PRETTY SMALL PERCENTAGE. WHAT, WHAT. WHAT WHAT IS YOUR OBJECTION TO YOU REALLY OBJECTING TO THIS. WHAT WHAT. CONCERNS. YES. YES. SO I THINK THE CONCERN IS THAT THERE'S STILL PLENTY OF BUILDABLE LOTS OUT THERE THAT INDIVIDUAL BUILDERS OR PEOPLE BUYING A LOT COULD PURCHASE. AND IF YOU JUST ALLOW SOMEONE TO COME IN AND CLEARCUT, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. AND AS COUNCILOR PRINCE POINTED OUT, THAT WAS A BIG ISSUE WHEN BRAUN HOMES WAS BUYING UP A LOT OF LOTS. THEY WERE JUST GOING IN AND CLEAR CUTTING, AND THAT CREATED AN ISSUE. AND WE'VE HAD OTHER LOTS CLOSE BY MORE RECENTLY. FIREFLY IS AN EXAMPLE WITHIN MY NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THEY JUST WENT IN CLEAR CUT A LOT, AND THEN IT SAT FOR LIKE THREE YEARS. THEY DIDN'T HAVE A BUYER, THEY WERE JUST TRYING TO DO A SPEC HOME ON IT. BUT IT TOOK FOREVER TO BUILD THE HOUSE AND DID MANY IMPROPER THINGS.

AND AS PART OF THE BUILDING THAT WASN'T ENFORCED. BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY'LL DO. THEY'LL COME AND CLEAR CUT TO MAKE THE LOT MAYBE LOOK BETTER OR MORE BUILDABLE WHEN THEY EVEN WHEN THEY JUST WANT TO FLIP THE LOT AND NOT EVEN BUILD ON IT. SO I THINK THERE'S STILL A LOT OF PROTECTIVE MEASURES THAT ARE IMPORTANT FOR THESE INDIVIDUAL LOTS, NOT JUST THINKING ONLY OF THE BIG DEVELOPERS. NOW, I AGREE WITH SOME OF THE DISCUSSION AROUND NOT OVERLY PENALIZING SOMEONE WHO'S COMING IN TO BUILD A HOME. SO I HEAR ALL THAT, BUT I WOULDN'T GET RID OF ANY OF THESE OTHER PROTECTIONS THAT WE HAVE. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT JORDAN WAS TRYING TO GET AT. ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THIS ON THAT ONE ITEM? RIGHT. BECAUSE I THINK ONCE IT'S A CARTE BLANCHE, DO WHAT YOU WANT. I THINK WE RUN INTO SOME REAL DIFFICULTY THERE. BUT YOU'RE YOU'RE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HOMES THAT HAVE NOT HAD THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED. LIKE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT FIREFLY CLEAR CUTTING THE LOT AND AND THOSE THINGS WE'RE TALKING IN HERE ABOUT ONLY THE EXEMPTIONS ONLY APPLIED AFTER A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUES THAT AFTER THE HOUSE HAS BEEN BUILT. CORRECT.

I KNOW THAT. BUT THEN YOU'RE SAYING, OKAY, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND CUT TREES AS, AS, AS YOU WANT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH SIZE OF TREES. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE, YOU KNOW, SETTING PARAMETERS AROUND ORDINANCES TO PROTECT TREES OF A CERTAIN SIZE OR LARGER OR CERTAIN TYPES. BUT THEN WE'RE GOING TO SAY, OKAY, CARTE BLANCHE AFTER THE CEO. TO ME, THERE'S SOME KIND CONFLICTING. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE A REALLY INFINITESIMALLY SMALL NUMBER OF OWNER OCCUPANTS WHO WANT TO JUST CLEAR CUT THEIR OWN LOT AFTER THEY MOVE IN. I

[03:15:05]

THAT'S HAPPENED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, TOO. SO IT'S YEAH, I DON'T KNOW. I JUST THAT'S JUST MY SENSE OF IT IS I THINK YOU SHOULD STILL HAVE SOME KIND OF BACKSTOP THERE. SO. WELL, YES. YOU THOUGH THE QUESTION IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD A BOTULINUM, OKAY. AND YOU'RE GOING LIKE, WELL, LET'S SEE, SHOULD I CUT THE TREE OR SHOULD I NOT BUILD MY MY MAN CAVE? OKAY. WELL GUESS WHO'S GOING TO WIN THE MAN CAVE? I CAN TELL YOU THIS RIGHT NOW. THE MAN CAVE IS GOING TO WIN AND THAT TREE IS GOING TO COME DOWN. OKAY, THE QUESTION IS. IS THAT REASON ENOUGH TO PAY THE CITY A FEE TO CUT YOUR OWN TREE? YOU KNOW, THAT'S I GUESS I GO BACK TO LAND RIGHTS, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE WE MAKE A LOT A LOT OF OUR CODES AND LAWS ARE A SIGNIFICANT MINIMUM NUMBERS OF VIOLATORS. AND UNFORTUNATELY, ALL OF US PAY THE PRICE. SO WHAT MY JOB IS, IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S A COMMON SENSE KIND OF GUY AND MAY NOT BE TOO POPULAR WITH MANY. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, ONCE IT'S YOUR HOUSE, I MEAN, IT'S NO, IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN ME TELLING YOU YOU CAN'T PAINT YOUR HOUSE PINK. HOT PINK, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT'S AFTER EVERYTHING IS DONE. IT'S ESTHETICS. THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE THAT I'M A LIKE A REAL ESTATE AGENT AND ACTUALLY TREES ADD VALUE TO THE PROPERTY. A HOUSE THAT'S GOT A 100 YEAR OLD OAK TREE IS GOING TO BE WORTH A LOT MORE THAN THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY TREES. SO TREES HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED. THEY THEY ACTUALLY DO ADD VALUE. YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE GOING TO CUT THE TREES, GUESS WHAT? BE PREPARED TO DEVALUE YOUR PROPERTY. SO AND THAT'S THE ECONOMIC. NO I SEE THE POINT. I THINK ANYTHING YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE ANYTHING WE DO IS LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE. RIGHT. IT'S COMPLIANT WITH STATE LAW AND PROPERTY RIGHTS AND SO FORTH. SO BUT YEAH, JUST WE WERE JUST CONCERNED BECAUSE AS ANDREW SAID, I DON'T LIKE RAKING LEAVES. I'M GOING TO CUT DOWN MY TREES. RIGHT. SO, SO ANYWAY.

ANDREW, IF YOU'RE GOING TO TALK, YOU'VE GOT TO BE AT THE MICROPHONE. BUT FIRST BUT FIRST YOU HAVE TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR TO COME UP AND SPEAK. OKAY. COME ON UP. ANDREW. GAIL.

ASHLEY. SO ANDREW, GAIL. OKAY. SO OBVIOUSLY THE ISSUE IS PEOPLE WILL CUT TO THEIR LINES IF THEY'VE GOT TREES EITHER SIDE BECAUSE THEY'VE STILL GOT THE FOREST AROUND THEM, BUT THEN THE NEXT PERSON MOVES IN, IT CUTS AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'VE CLEAR CUT THE WHOLE STREET AND IT HAPPENS AROUND ME ALL THE TIME. TWO OF MY NEIGHBORS HAVE DONE IT. THEY TOOK OUT HUGE TREES TO PUT A PLAYSCAPE IN. I GET IT, I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY DID IT. BUT WE'VE GOT TO PROTECT TO STOP THIS HAPPENING. WE DO, BUT WE WE ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER LANDOWNERS RIGHTS. YOU WILL BUY A HOME AND THEY'RE LIVING IN THE HOME. AND THEY THEY WANT TO MAKE LIKE YOU SAY, THEY CUT TREES DOWN TO PUT UP A PLAYSCAPE. BUT THEY'RE THEY BOUGHT THAT HOME FOR THEIR FAMILY AND THEY'RE TRYING TO DO THE BEST FOR THEIR FAMILY, WHICH TAKES PRIORITY IN THEIR MIND OVER TREES THAT THAT THE NEIGHBORS MAY PREFER. RIGHT.

AND THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, YOU FOREFOOT, YOU KNOW, TREES AT THIS HEIGHT THERE'S HARDLY ANY CEDARS. ON THE END. YOU WERE EXPLAINING WHY ASKING WHY CEDAR PARK AND TRYING TO CATCH ALL THIS BIG CEDARS. YOU CAN HAVE A MASSIVE CEDAR UP HERE. IT'S NOT THAT BIG. OKAY. THANK YOU. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I AM ALL FOR PROPERTY OWNER RIGHTS.

I JUST AM A LITTLE CONFUSED. I DON'T FORGIVE ME. I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT WORDING THAT WAS SAID AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS TOPIC, BUT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW WE WERE GOING TO ENFORCE HOMEOWNERS THAT AREN'T TAKING CARE OF THEIR NEWLY PLANTED TREES, AND HOW THOSE NEWLY PLANTED TREES VERSUS THE CLEAR CUTTING SITUATION IS HAPPENING HERE, BECAUSE IT JUST FEELS LIKE THAT PARTICULAR PART IS BUTTING HEADS A LITTLE BIT. EXACTLY. AND I THINK WE'RE IT'S

[03:20:01]

OKAY. THERE'S AS FAR AS PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY INTERESTED IN PRESERVING PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR PARTICULARLY FOR ONE AND TWO FAMILY HOMES. OWNER OCCUPIED. AND YOU'VE HEARD A LOT OF INPUT FROM. CITIZENS AND US, I THINK AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE IT IS SO. CONVOLUTED THAT IT WE'D LIKE TO SEE MAYBE HAVE THE STAFF DRAW UP SOMETHING AND BRING IT BACK TO US. THAT MAY ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE ALL RAISED, WHERE WE WANT TO PRESERVE TREES IN THE COMMUNITY, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO PRESERVE OWNERS RIGHTS AND SEE IF YOU CAN COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF A MIDDLE GROUND THAT MAY APPEAL TO PEOPLE. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT, VERY DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, I THINK. WELL, LIKE I SAID, I STILL WELL, YOU KNOW, GO TO ALL THESE NEW SUBDIVISIONS. CEDAR PARK NOT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE ONE PERSON IN THESE BRAND NEW SUBDIVISIONS THAT HAD THAT CUT ANY, ANY OTHER TREES DOWN. THE CHANCES OF A PROPERTY OWNER

[03:25:07]

BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, AND SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE OAKS. I, WE HEARD ABOUT, YOU KNOW, LEAVES FALLING AND IT'S A NUISANCE. AND SOME PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY HAS THEIR OWN PERCEPTION AND IT'S THAT THAT BLANKET WAIVER THAT JUST CAUSES SOME CONCERN. SO YOU ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ASKING STAFF TO COME UP WITH A LIKE I SAID, I'M IN FAVOR OF. THE MORE WE TALK ABOUT THIS, THE MORE CONVOLUTED IT GETS. WE STARTED OUT WITH A VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT. NOW WE'RE LIKE SURGEONS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TAKING A INSTEAD OF TAKING A CHOPPING BLOCK. NOW WE'RE USING NO, I THINK MY LIKE I SAID, MY EXPERIENCE AND I GO THROUGH ALL THESE NEIGHBORHOODS NEW, OLD, YOU KNOW, AND THEY'RE ALL FULL TREES. OKAY. NOW MY EXPERIENCE, AT LEAST IN THE AUSTIN AREA, PEOPLE ARE TREE LOVERS. GO TO ANY SUBDIVISION, GO TO TESSERA, TREVISO, AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE ONE PERSON THAT CUT ALL THESE TREES DOWN. IT'S JUST NOT COMMON. SO BECAUSE OF THE TEXAS HEAT AND PEOPLE WANT TO SHADE. SO. STATE WOULD YOU THINK WE SHOULD HAVE AS GETTING HERE.

AND THEN WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN GET A CONSENSUS ON ANY. I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT IF YOU'VE GOT YOUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT IF YOU WANT, IF YOU LIKE THE SHADE.

AND THIS IS TEXAS, PEOPLE FIGHT FOR SHADE. IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A POOL, YOU'RE TRYING YOU'RE GOING TO TRY TO SAVE THAT TREE SO YOU CAN SAVE. OKAY JEFF, WHAT IS YOUR POSITION? I, I AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK IN GENERAL IT. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DEFEND IS WHAT THE DEVELOPERS WILL DO AND NOT WHAT THE INDIVIDUAL OWNERS ARE GOING TO DO. DAVE, WHAT'S YOUR POSITION? SIR? I THINK WE OUGHT TO HYBRID IT. I THINK THAT PROBABLY. THEY OUGHT TO GO THROUGH THE FORMALITY OF FILING FOR A PERMIT TO CUT THE TREE DOWN, AND THEN NO MITIGATION FEE BE BE CHARGED. AND THAT SORT OF BRINGS EVERYTHING SORT OF BACK UP AND CLOSER ALIGNMENT.

YOU KNOW. SO JEFF AND. I AGREE TO DISAGREE BECAUSE AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE PERMITTING FOR A TREE, NOW YOU'RE VIOLATING SOMEBODY'S RIGHTS, OWNERSHIP RIGHTS, AND THE MERE FACT THAT YOU HAVE TO ASK PERMISSION TO THE CITY AND PAY THE CITY, THEY MIGHT IT MIGHT BE AN AUTOMATIC APPROVAL. BUT THE MERE FACT THAT YOU HAVE TO ASK PERMISSION AND PAY A FEE, THAT'S INSULT TO INJURY. I SAID EXEMPT THE FEE. YEAH, COMMISSIONERS, I FEEL I FEEL LIKE Y'ALL ARE RESTATING YOUR POSITIONS AND WHERE I THINK MISS ERRED WAS STARTED AND MR. HUGHLEY STARTED WAS HERE'S SEVEN IDEAS. ARE THERE LOW HANGING FRUIT THAT WE CAN AGREE ON ANY OF THESE? AT SOME POINT YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO MOVE ON TO THIS, BECAUSE WE'RE THREE, 3.5 HOURS INTO THIS MEETING AND YOU EITHER HAVE CONSENSUS FOR STAFF TO MOVE ON THIS ONE OR IT PROBABLY YOU NEED TO MOVE ON. RIGHT. BECAUSE I WAS ASKING WHO IS AGREEING WITH HENRIQUES POSITION? ENRIQUE. GENE DOES, JEFF DOES AND I DO. SO THEN WE HAVE CONSENSUS AND WE CAN SAY THAT WE ARE IN FAVOR OF ADDING AN EXEMPTION FOR 1 OR 2 FAMILY OWNER OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL

[03:30:02]

YEAH NOT OWNER OCCUPIED. I'M GOING TO BE AS LONG AS THEY HAVE THEIR CEO. THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. WE DID WE DID SAY THAT AT ONE POINT. I THOUGHT WE SIMPLIFIED IT BACK THOUGH. WE TOOK OUT THE OWNER OCCUPIED. OKAY. SO IT'S GOING TO BE AN EXEMPTION FOR 1 OR 2 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WHICH HAVE BEEN ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. OKAY. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THE CONSENSUS IS. GREAT. SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO ANOTHER ACTION ITEM. OUR NEXT

[VI.4. Discussion, consideration, and possible action on the Special Height Exception process.]

YOU DO HAVE A STAFF REPORT BEFORE YOU. WE HAVE A PROPERTY OWNER HERE WHO HAS BEEN TRYING TO FIND SOME SORT OF RESOLUTION FOR AN ISSUE. THERE HAS BEEN SOME BACK AND FORTH REGARDING THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCESS OVER IT PREDATES MY TIME. AND SO COMING INTO IT, TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT, WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS THAT OUR CODE LISTED AS TWO SEPARATE PROCESSES. I THINK A LOT OF THE CONFLICTION ONE COMES FROM LACK OF TRAINING. AND SO I KNOW MR. WEST, OUR CITY MANAGER, IS WORKING ON FIGURING OUT THE TRAINING SCHEDULE FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. THE OTHER THING THAT I HAVE NOTED ESPECIALLY IS THIS IS IN THREE SEPARATE SECTIONS OF OUR CODE, IN THREE SEPARATE CHAPTERS, ALL UNDER ZONING. AND I THINK PART OF THE ISSUE IS THAT STRUCTURE AND HAVING TO CROSS-REFERENCE ACROSS CHAPTERS, AND I THINK A CLEANER WAY TO GO ABOUT IT WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION TO, DURING THE ORGANIZATION PROCESS THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO GO THROUGH, WRAP IT ALL UP IN A NICE ONE PACKAGE IN ONE SECTION OF THE CODE TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT IT'S TWO SEPARATE PROCESSES, AS DEFINED BY STATE LAW AND BY OUR CODE. BUT I KNOW THAT THERE IS A PROPERTY OWNER HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS IN THE ZONING CHAPTER, WHICH IS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY. BUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HAS APPROVAL AUTHORITY. AND SO THERE'S MORE INFORMATION IN THE STAFF REPORT. I WON'T BORE YOU WITH THE DETAILS. IT'S A LOT OF REFERENCES TO STATE LAW, BUT I DO THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT. THERE'S A LOT OF CITIZEN INPUT. MISS LINDA, YOU HAVE SOME COMMENT CARDS AS WELL. AND IT'S JUST IT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED IN A GENERAL SENSE. IT'S NO ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC APPLICATION OR ANY SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE OR AFTER. BUT I TO ME, IT'S A STRUCTURAL ISSUE, ESPECIALLY FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE STANDPOINT. AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THE CONFLICTING INFORMATION HAS COME OUT. THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 736. AND, MR. KING, DID YOU WANT TO MAKE COMMENTS ON THIS? THANKS. OKAY.

MR. PHILLIPS. I DON'T KNOW HOW Y'ALL STAND UP THAT LONG. I AIN'T GOT A P, BUT I'LL TRY TO TALK QUICK SO YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO, BUT. OH, WELL, I YOU KIND OF DISAPPEARED. I WAS LIKE, WE LOST ONE. HE JUST GAVE UP. SO I APPRECIATE Y'ALL HEARING ME. YES. I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS SINCE THEORETICALLY APRIL, THE ISSUE DIDN'T REALLY ARISE UNTIL PROBABLY JULY. AND I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO FOCUS ON THAT TOPIC. NOT REALLY HOW I GOT HERE, BUT MAINLY WHAT STARTED THIS, IN MY OPINION AND AND EVERYTHING I UNDERSTAND AND ALL ALL THE, ALL THE RIFF RAFF ABOUT IT. SO IN JULY, THERE WAS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING, AND A COUPLE OF Y'ALL WERE THERE WAS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY GAVE AN EDUCATION CLASS ON VARIANCE AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, AND WHAT YOU HAD TO MEET IN ORDER TO BE GRANTED A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND A VARIANCE. I WILL SAY THAT THE ATTORNEY WAS WRONG IN HIS EDUCATION COURSE AT THAT POINT, BECAUSE I'VE SAID IT BEFORE AND HE WAS IN MY THAT'S MY OPINION AND I THINK IT'S FACT. WHEN HE GAVE THAT, HE WAS SAYING THAT VARIANCES AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ARE THE SAME THING.

WHEN THEY ARE DRASTICALLY NOT. THEY'RE FOR VERY SIMPLE CONTEXT IS THERE IS APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION. THERE'S AN APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE AND ORDINANCES. THERE ARE TWO

[03:35:01]

OKAY, SO THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL ISSUE. SO NOW ALSO IN THE CODE THERE'S ALSO SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND VARIANCE WHERE IT LISTS THOSE. AND THEY'RE COMPLETELY TWO DIFFERENT SEPARATE ORDINANCES. AND YOU PROBABLY HAVE THE PACKET AND IT'S A LONGER PACKET. BUT AGAIN SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ARE IN 1160. AND THEN. THANK THANK YOU THANK YOU. SO THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE ORDINANCES. AND THEN AGAIN IN THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE ATTORNEY ACTUALLY POINTED OUT WHEN HE WAS GIVING HIS EDUCATION IS HE'S TALKING ABOUT TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 211 .009 A2 AND A3 AGAIN IN TEXAS LOCAL CODE. IT ALSO SEPARATES THEM SEPARATELY.

SPECIAL EXCEPTION VARIANCE. SO AGAIN, ON TEXAS STATE LEVEL AND ON AN ORDINANCE. AND THAT'S HOW THAT OPERATES. RIGHT? SO IN ALL OF THAT IT GIVES THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO HEAR BOTH CASES AND GIVES THEM THE LENIENCY TO MAKE THAT DECISION. IT'S THE WHOLE REASON FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO BE ABLE TO HEAR THAT WHEN YOU START BLENDING THOSE TWO, YOU OBVIOUSLY PUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY CAN'T GRANT ONE OR THE OTHER, AND YOU'RE PUTTING THEM IN A BIND. NOW, MY OPINION, WHAT WE'VE RUN INTO IS THE AGAIN, THE ATTORNEY MADE A MISTAKE. THAT'S FINE. IT HAPPENS. BUT YOU NEED TO COME FORWARD AND SAY, HEY, I MADE A MISTAKE. THIS IS WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS. LET'S CORRECT THE ISSUE GOING FORWARD AND SAID, WE'RE STILL JUST TRYING TO STILL TRYING TO BLUR THE LINES AT THAT POINT IS WHAT I BELIEVE IS HAPPENING. AND I DO MY I DON'T KNOW WHY, BUT THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING. THERE'S ALSO BEEN THERE'S THERE'S BEEN OTHER ACTUALLY LET ME GO INTO. SO THE REASON WHY THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION EXISTS RATHER THAN JUST A VARIANCE AND WHY THEY HAVE TO BE DIFFERENT OKAY. SAME THING IS LIKE AGAIN LOGOS ARE VERY DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT CITY.

WE DO DIFFERENT THINGS WITH DIFFERENT SETBACKS. WE HAVE ALL THIS DIFFERENT THINGS, RIGHT? LOGOS HEIGHT IS GENERALLY IN MOST AREAS IS 15FT MAXIMUM BUILD HEIGHT WHICH IS EXTREMELY LOW. BUT IT MAKES SENSE FOR THE AREA BECAUSE OF HOW WE WRITE THAT IN THE ORDINANCE BASED ON TOPOGRAPHY. OKAY, SO AND Y'ALL MAY KNOW THIS, I'M JUST LAYING IT ALL OUT SO EVERYBODY HEARS IT AND KNOWS IT. IF I BUY A LOT AND MY BUILD IS DOWN HERE AND MY LOT COMES UP HERE AND I SAY, I GOT FIVE EXTRA FEET UP HERE, WE'RE MEASURING FROM THAT 15FT OF WHERE I CAN BUILD FROM THE TOP OF HERE. OKAY. SO IF I GET EXTRA FIVE I CAN BUILD 20 FOOT HIGH HOUSE. OKAY. PERFECTLY FINE. MAKES SENSE. IF I BUY A FLAT LOT, THAT'S WHEN WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE I'M. I'M STUCK AT A 15 FOOT BUILD HEIGHT. THEN YES, I WOULD PROBABLY GO AND ASK FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IF I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO IMPEDE A VIEW EXAMPLE I AM DOING, I'M GOING TO DO A CURRENT HOUSE LOGO AND AGAIN, I HAVE AN EXTRA THREE FEET ON THAT HOME I CAN BUILD UP TO 18FT. I WILL TELL YOU, MY ARCHITECT STRAIGHT UP DREW THAT WRONG AND I HAD EXTRA TWO FEET ON THAT HOUSE. I HAD HIM DROP IT. I DID NOT SUBMIT FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION BECAUSE IT'S NOT NECESSARY. I GOT MY GAIN. THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE BEHIND IT. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THAT 15 FOOT BUILD HEIGHT. THAT MAKES SENSE FOR LOGO, BECAUSE YOU CAN PLAY WITH IT DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU BUY. BUT THAT'S ALSO WHY WE HAVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, BECAUSE IN SOME CASES, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NEEDS TO MAKE THAT DECISION FOR US AND HELP US OUT, GET THAT EXTRA BUILD HEIGHT SO WE CAN BUILD WHAT WE WHAT THE CUSTOMER OR ANYBODY ELSE LIKES AND KEEP THE LOGO BEING DIFFERENT IN SOME DEGREE, RATHER THAN BUILDING, HONESTLY, A BUNCH OF HOMES ACROSS. AND THEN WE JUST BECOME ANOTHER SUBDIVISION AND WE HAVE TO BUILD THOSE COOKIE CUTTER ONES. THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT HOW LOGO IS. IT'S NOT HOW A LOT OF HOUSES ARE AROUND HERE. BECAUSE AGAIN, LIKE AUSTIN, CEDAR PARK, LEANDER, GEORGETOWN, ALL THOSE BUILDING HEIGHTS ARE 35FT, A LOT OF THEM. AND SO THAT'S THE WHOLE THING IS YES. LOGO IS DIFFERENT. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THESE ORDINANCES SEPARATED LIKE THAT. SO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CAN MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS WITHOUT FORCING THAT VARIANCE. I FEEL THAT IF YOU DECIDE TO REMOVE ONE LIKE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, PUT EVERYTHING INTO A VARIANCE, YOU'RE GOING TO HOG TIE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AT THAT POINT. THAT'S GOING TO PUT THEM A VERY, VERY STRUGGLE ON OKAY. DO WE APPROVE THIS ONE? DO WE NOT APPROVE THIS ONE. AND TRYING TO YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THEM IN AN EVEN TOUGHER SPOT THAN THE WAY IT SIMPLY IS LAID OUT RIGHT NOW. THERE WAS I MEAN THERE'S BEEN MULTIPLE MULTIPLE. THERE WAS ALSO THERE WAS ONE THE LET'S SEE, THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL AT ONE POINT THERE WAS I FOUND ONLINE THAT THIS HAS COME UP IN OTHER CITIES BEFORE, WHERE THEY WROTE A LETTER TO SOMEBODY ELSE THAT WAS ASKING ABOUT THIS. AND THERE'S MULTIPLE REFERENCES OF HOW THIS IS LAID OUT IN DIFFERENT ARTICLES AND EVERYTHING ELSE. AND I CAN I CAN SEND THIS BACK OVER TO YOU ALL AGAIN. I FOUND THIS AND I PROBABLY NEED TO SEND IT OVER. BUT AGAIN, IT'S IT'S A WHOLE NOTHER THING COMING FROM TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL AT THE TIME THAT DICTATES THESE BEING A SEPARATION AS WELL. THIS ISN'T

[03:40:01]

SO ADJUSTMENTS ALREADY HEARD MY CASE ON THAT. THAT'S WHY THIS IS JUST ABOUT THE PROCESS AND ORDINANCES THAT'S ALL. SO LET ME ASK YOU A COUPLE QUESTIONS. SO ACROSS THE STREET THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BUILD TWO STORY HOUSES. AND THIS IS A IS DOES THAT CONCERN THIS. IS THAT PART OF THIS PROCESS DISCUSSION. SO MR. PHILLIPS MADE ONE MISSTATEMENT. HE SAID THAT IF IT DOESN'T BLOCK SOMEONE'S VIEW ACTUALLY WHAT OUR SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCESS SAYS, THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT MUST BE MET. AND THIS IS WHAT PRESUMABLY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT WAS, IS THIS REQUEST GOING TO BLOCK ANYBODY'S VIEW? AND IS IT CONSISTENT WITH THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO CONSIDERATIONS THAT OUR ORDINANCE CURRENTLY SAYS SHOULD BE EVALUATED FOR SPECIAL HEIGHT EXCEPTION. AND SO I THINK A REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION FOR YOU ALL TO HAVE, WHICH IS ON THE AGENDA, IS THAT THE RIGHT SET OF RULES? IS THERE OTHER THINGS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED? SHOULD IT BE DIFFERENT THAN THAT? OR YOU COULD EVEN GO TO THE EXTREME IN YOUR DISCUSSION AND SAY, SHOULD THIS BE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, OR SHOULD IT JUST BE A VARIANCE LIKE ANY OTHER VARIANCE, AND FALL UNDER THE VARIANCE PROCESS? THAT'S ALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS AGENDA ITEM. IN THIS TROUBLING.

ADD TO THAT THE GREAT THING ABOUT PLANNING ISSUES IS THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE 12 DIFFERENT WAYS TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. IT'S ABOUT WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS MOVING FORWARD. AND SO WE DO HAVE A VERY LOW HEIGHT BUILDING STANDARDS WISE, AS I'M SURE PEOPLE KNOW, THE HIGH VAULTED CEILINGS ARE IN DEMAND. THEY'RE IN MARKET. AND THAT'S NOT REALLY FEASIBLE WITH A 15 FOOT HEIGHT RESTRICTION. SO THERE'S OUR ZONING CODE. THERE'S THE PROCESS ITSELF FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. THERE'S A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IF WE CHOOSE TO EVEN ADDRESS IT AT ALL, OR IF IT'S THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE SIMPLY GET BETTER TRAINING AND, AND GO FORWARD AS IT'S WRITTEN IN OUR CODE. TODAY, MY MY CONCERN IS THE STRUCTURAL POINT AND HOW IT'S ACROSS THREE DIFFERENT CHAPTERS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT CLEANED UP IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, BUT THAT'S JUST A PREFERENCE. AND IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT DURING THE THE ORGANIZATION PROCESS. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE NOW, BUT THAT'S THAT'S THE POINT OF THE ORGANIZATION IS TO, YOU KNOW, DEAL WITH SOME OF THE ISSUES LIKE THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. PHILLIPS, FOR BRINGING TO OUR ATTENTION. OKAY. CAN I TELL YOU ONE MORE THING? JUST SO YOU ALL UNDERSTAND JUST A LITTLE BIT AS FAR AS THE FLOOD ELEVATIONS, LIKE YOU'RE SEEING, LIKE THE BIG TWO STORY WITH GARAGES UNDERNEATH AS FAR AS NEAR THE LAKE, JUST SO YOU ALL UNDERSTAND. ALSO ANOTHER REASON THAT THE REASON WITH BEING A LOW AND TRYING TO BLOCK THE VIEWS AND STUFF IS YOU HAVE TO

[03:45:05]

I SECOND THE MOTION ANY. ALL IN FAVOR? I. YOU GOOD? OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I KNOW, SO OUR OUR. OUR FINAL ACTION ITEM FOR TONIGHT IS DISCUSSION,

[VI.3. Discussion, consideration and possible action regarding the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan.]

[03:50:04]

WE'RE ADOPTING EVERYTHING ALL IN ONE COMPREHENSIVE PACKAGE. AND SO SOME OF THE BIG THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS THIS A GOOD FORMAT? IS THIS A GOOD FLOW? IS THIS THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT WAS EXPECTED OR I GUESS REDUCED TO SOME EXTENT ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAPS? THERE WAS A REQUEST MADE LAST MONTH TO MERGE WHAT STAFF HAD PROPOSED WITH WHAT CITIZEN COMMENT HAD BEEN. WE DID THAT TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES. AND THEN WITH THAT BEING SAID, I DID LEAVE A MAP ON THE DAIS FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU. STAFF'S REQUEST IS THAT YOU TAKE THIS MAP HOME. THERE'S SOME INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT HOW TO COLOR AND THE COLOR SCHEME.

WHAT WE INTEND TO DO IS SCAN THE RESPONSES IN, DROP THE OPACITY ON THEM, AND OVERLAY THEM TO CREATE A HEAT MAP THAT SHOWS US WHERE WE WANT THESE LAND USES TO BE. IF THERE'S AREAS OF CONFLICTION, WE'LL HAVE THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. BUT THAT GRAPHIC, THAT HEAT MAP WILL BE WHAT WE USE TO CREATE THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT WE BRING BEFORE YOU. AND SO ALL THE SUPPLIES ARE THERE. IF THERE'S QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HELP. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, OUR INTENT IS NEXT MONTH TO HAVE THE CATEGORIES GOOD AND ROCK SOLID AND AT LEAST A FIRST DRAFT OF THE MAP AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AND DISCUSSION. AND THEN WE'LL WORK ON CHAPTERS FOUR AND FIVE THE NEXT MONTH, AND THEN SIX AND SEVEN AFTER THAT, WHICH PUTS US IN LINE WITH PARKS. THANK YOU. WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP, SO I WILL JUST SPEAK. SO I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 P.M. AND WE HAVE MISTER MARK BROWN, AND WE HAVE JOEL SCOTT BOTH SIGNED UP TO SAY I WASN'T EXACTLY SURE WHAT WAS GOING TO BE DISCUSSED. I KNOW THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS MOVING AT THE SAME TIME.

OBVIOUSLY THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR US.

THAT'S OUR ROAD MAP. AND SO I CAME HERE TONIGHT TO LISTEN, REALLY, AND I SIGNED UP BECAUSE I THOUGHT MAYBE I MIGHT NEED TO COMMENT, BUT I REALLY WOULD RATHER WAIT AND HEAR WHAT THE DISCUSSION IS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND I WILL I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 755 AND OPEN THE DISCUSSION FOR. DAVID. DID YOU? YEAH. I CAN'T WORK OFF THIS MAP. I MEAN, IT'S TOO SMALL. I'D HAVE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, ONE TO 1 TO 600 MAP, YOU KNOW, WITH ENOUGH DETAIL. I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE COLOR MARKS ON THIS. YEAH. GOOD LUCK. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO HAVE A COPY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP BLOWN UP, AND BE ABLE TO MARK UP THAT AND LOOK AT IT WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE. CHANGES LIKE ON SANTA CARLO, WE GO STRAIGHT FROM DUPLEXES TO SINGLE FAMILY UNITS WITH NO BUFFER ZONE. AND IN THAT ONE WHERE WE COMBINED THE THREE TOGETHER, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT CHART MODIFIED TO A, B, AND C, WHERE A, B, AND C EACH HAVE THEIR OWN COLOR, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE ALL IN THE SAME 1 TO 4 CATEGORY, EACH ONE NEEDS TO BE COLOR CODED. I'D LIKE TO SEE WHERE WE STARTED, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GO.

BUT I MEAN, I CAN'T WORK WITH THIS MAP. DAVE, ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THE THE FUTURE'S FUTURE ZONING MAP? THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S IN THE OFFICE RIGHT NOW, HANGING IN THE AT CITY OFFICE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S WE GOT THE CURRENT CITY MAP, THEN YOU GOT THE FUTURE ZONING MAP, AND NOW WE'RE WORKING ON ANOTHER FUTURE ZONING MAP. RIGHT? SO I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF LIKE, DO WE COMPARE TO THE CURRENT ONE OR THE FUTURE LAND USE THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE RIGHT NOW? SO IF I MAY AND THERE'S SOME SOME CAVEATS TO THIS THAT I THINK

[03:55:05]

WHERE ARE WE OKAY WITH INTENSITY? HOW DO WE BUFFER OUT. AND THAT SETS OUR OUR FUTURE GROWTH PATTERNS AND OUR UTILITY PATTERNS AND OUR THOROUGHFARE. AND THERE'S THINGS THAT ROLL INTO THAT. DO WE OR DO WE NOT HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE MAP? RIGHT NOW WE HAVE ONE THAT WAS ADOPTED IN 20. 17, 2017. AND 20. I THINK IT'S I THINK IT'S YEAH. SO IDEALLY WE SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE WE SHOULDN'T EVEN LOOK AT THE FUTURE OR CURRENT ZONING MAP. WE'RE GOING TO START. SO WITH A CLEAN SLATE, MR. LOPEZ AND I WANT TO HELP JORDAN HERE. AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO START SEPARATING IN YOUR MIND AS A COMMISSIONER. ZONING FROM FUTURE LAND USE. RIGHT. SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT AND TO USE THE PHRASE FUTURE LAND USE ZONING MAP IS AN INCORRECT PHRASE BECAUSE IT'S NOT ZONING. IT'S A BIG PICTURE OF HOW LAND SHOULD BE USED. AND SO I THINK REALLY, WHAT WHAT MR. MEYER IS TRYING TO DO IS SAY, YOU KNOW, IT KIND OF WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HER AS STAFF FOR YOU ALL TO KIND OF TAKE A CLEAN SLATE VIEW AND SAY, OKAY, THIS IS THE MAP OF THE CITY. WHERE SHOULD THESE BIG BLOCKS, YOU KNOW, WHICH? AND SHE DID THE COLOR CODING IN HER INSTRUCTIONS. PURPLE VERSUS YELLOW. I TOTALLY GET MR. STEWART SAYING IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR HIM IN HIS PROCESS TO HAVE A A THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE MAP, WHICH IS NOW, YOU KNOW, OVER TEN YEARS OLD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, ABOUT TEN YEARS OLD AS A REFERENCE POINT.

RIGHT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NEED TO MEET IN THE MIDDLE HERE, WHERE SOME OF YOU MAY, MAY BE ABLE TO DO IT FROM A CLEAN SHEET PERSPECTIVE, AS SHE DID HERE.

AND MAYBE INSTEAD OF A 11 BY WHATEVER THIS IS 11 BY 36 OR SOMETHING. IF YOU DO IT, IF YOU NEED IT TWICE AS BIG OR THREE TIMES AS BIG, IT MAY BE THAT SOME OF YOU, LIKE MR. STEWART, WANT TO HAVE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SITTING ON THE LEFT SIDE OF HIS DESK, AND THIS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HIS DESK, SO THAT AS HE'S THINKING THROUGH WHAT TO DO AND YOU AS COMMISSIONERS HAVE THE PREROGATIVE TO ASK FOR WHAT DATA YOU WANT, MR. MEYER HAS SUGGESTED SHE THINKS IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO STAFF IF YOU STARTED FROM A CLEAN SLATE AND DID THIS EXERCISE, SO HOPEFULLY THAT'S THAT'S HELPFUL. BUT AGAIN, YOU CAN ASK FOR WHATEVER YOU WANT. AND WE DO. MR. STEWART. WE DO HAVE AN EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THE INTERIM OF WHAT HAVE JUST RECENTLY PROPOSED. I THINK MR. MEYER IS EXACTLY RIGHT. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY, INCLUDING COUNCIL HAS HAS ENDORSED THAT. SO I WOULDN'T I WOULDN'T USE THAT AS A REFERENCE. I WOULD USE THE ONE WE'VE HAD FOR TEN YEARS AS A POTENTIAL AS A REFERENCE. AND HOPEFULLY THAT'S HELPFUL. OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO AGREE THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM TEN YEARS AGO NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED, BUT A LOT OF IT IS NOT GOING TO BE MODIFIED. SO WHY ARE WE REINVENTING THE WHEEL? I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO ADD HOURS OF REVIEW AND THEN

[04:00:04]

AND, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO TAKE THAT SAME ATTITUDE. YOU GIVE ME THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND I WILL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES, AND I'LL DO IT A WHOLE LOT FASTER AND A WHOLE LOT MORE ACCURATE, BECAUSE IF I DON'T SEE WHAT'S ON THE IF I DON'T WORK OFF THE CURRENT LAND USE MAP, I'M GOING TO MISS SOMETHING. OKAY. YEAH, YOU CAN ALWAYS REFERENCE THE CURRENT ONE. IT'S AVAILABLE ONLINE. THE OTHER THING I'M GOING TO SAY IS THAT IN MR. PRINCE, YOU OUGHT TO KNOW THIS. THE WATER MASTER PLAN AND THE WATER WASTEWATER PLANS ARE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW EVERY FIVE YEARS. AND BASICALLY ON MY WATCH FOR 33 YEARS, WE ONLY PAID ATTENTION TO THE FIRST TWO YEARS, AND WE THREW THE LAST THREE YEARS AWAY. WE MADE THEM BECAUSE WE WERE REQUIRED TO, BY LAW. EVERY PROJECTION I'VE SEEN ON CITY GROWTH, 100% HAS BEEN OFF BASE BY AT LEAST 70%. THEY MISSED EVERY GROWTH PROJECTION, EVERY SINGLE ONE. AND TO PUT ANY EFFORT INTO 20 YEARS FROM NOW, I'M GOING TO SAY IT AIN'T HAPPENING. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET IT RIGHT FIVE YEARS FROM NOW. AND YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP NEED RIGHT NOW? WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO TWEAK IT, TO MAKE IT GET US THROUGH THE NEXT FIVE YEARS? BUT IT'S OBVIOUS WE WANT THE COMMERCIAL ON 1431. THAT'S EASY.

WELL, THAT'S ALSO WHAT WE SAID IN THE LAST TIME WE LOOKED AT THIS. OKAY. WELL. USE YOUR.

YEAH. LIKE I SAID, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE NOTICED THAT LOOKING AT FUTURE LAND MAPS.

THEY, YOU KNOW, I'M LIKE, WELL, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN YEARS. WHY HASN'T THIS BEEN DONE? YOU KNOW, THAT'S AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING THAT I'M AN EXPERT AT THIS, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE CURRENT ZONING MAP, THE PLAN, THE FUTURE ZONING MAP AT THE CITY RIGHT NOW, IT'S NOTHING'S CHANGED. I MEAN. LAND USE, LAND USE. I MEAN, I USE IT SYNONYMOUSLY, BUT ZONING AND IN MY INTERPRETATION, ZONING IS LAND USE. BUT YEAH, LIKE I SAID, I'VE, I'VE LOOKED AT THE LAND USE MAP AND I'M LIKE, WELL WHAT'S CHANGED? OKAY. WELL THIS THE CITY COUNCIL HAS DETERMINED THAT WE ARE TO PRODUCE CITY WILL PRODUCE ANOTHER FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AND THAT IS SUPPOSED TO REFLECT WHAT WE THINK THE FUTURE LAND USE SHOULD LOOK LIKE. SO ALTHOUGH SOME OF US MAY THINK THAT THE CITY SHOULDN'T DO THIS OR THAT, IT'S A WASTE OF TIME. THE CITY HAS ASKED US TO DO IT. AND SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT YOU HAVE INPUT, WE REALLY WOULD APPRECIATE THE INPUT. BUT WE MUST COME UP WITH THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO DO.

GENE. YEAH. I CAN'T USE THIS MAP EITHER BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE ROADS ARE. SO THIS MAP IS TOTALLY WORTHLESS TO ME. I HAVEN'T BEEN HERE AS LONG AS A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE, AND I SEE BELLMAN-FORD AND I SEE FM 31, THE TEXT, AND THEN NOTHING ELSE. WE CAN DO BIGGER MAPS. THAT'S

[04:05:05]

WE CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE ROADS, BUT ELSEWHERE THERE'S THE CONTRAST DOESN'T SHOW THE ROADS.

GIVEN THAT YOU'VE GOT A NEW GIS PERSON STARTING, WILL YOU BE ABLE TO PRODUCE A LARGER, MORE SPECIFIC MAP THAT WE CAN WORK ON IN THE BEGINNING OF NEXT WEEK? SO LET ME ASK A QUESTION.

SO THERE'S THERE'S TWO THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS WE CAN DO. LARGER PRINT. WHEN WE DO MAPS FROM GIS, WE HAVE TO GO OFF OF A SCALED SYSTEM. AND SO THE BIGGER PIECE OF PAPER YOU GET, THE BIGGER YOUR MAP CAN BE. BECAUSE OUR CITY LIMITS ARE. NORTH TO SOUTH AND NOT EAST TO WEST, WE CAN BREAK IT UP INTO CHUNKS IF THAT'S THE PREFERENCE. SO YOU HAVE THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THE CITY ON ONE MAP, THE NORTHERN ON THE OTHER HALF, OR WE CAN DO A LARGER PRINT THERE.

THERE'S DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF A LARGER MAP. I THINK THE ISSUE IS THE SPECIFICITY AND A LARGER MAP. SO IF IT WAS A NORTH AND ANOTHER MAP ON THE SOUTH, BUT IT WAS ALSO REAL SPECIFIC WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO STREETS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A SOLUTION. JEAN, I DON'T NEED BIGGER TEXT. I NEED A LINE ON THIS PIECE OF PAPER SO I CAN SEE WHERE THE ROAD ACTUALLY IS. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. SO WHEN WE GO TO A IF WE, FOR INSTANCE, GO TO A 24 BY 36 PRINT, OUR SCALE INCREASES BECAUSE THE SIZE OF THE PAPER INCREASES. SO YOUR DETAILS ARE GOING TO GET BIGGER AND MORE CLEARER. ALL OF OUR LARGE SCALE MAPS THAT HAVE BEEN PRINTED ARE 24 BY 36. AND I THINK YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THAT DETAIL MORE CLEARLY. WE HAVE SOME IN OUR LOBBY THAT I CAN SHOW YOU, BUT IF THE INTENT IS TO GET VERY DETAILED AREAS, WE CAN DO THAT ON AN 11 BY 17 BY GRIDDING OUT THE CITY. BASICALLY, I ONCE AGAIN, I COULD I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A MAP THAT HAS THE STREETS CLEARLY SHOWN ON IT, BUT IF I COULD CLEARLY SEE FM 1431 AND LOWMAN FORD AND WERE THESE, THEN THAT GIVES ME AN IDEA OF ONE WHERE SOME OF THE EXISTING STUFF IS BECAUSE I'M KIND OF LIKE DAVE IN THAT REGARD, BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU IF I WOULD LIKE COMMERCIAL ON ARAPAHO TRAIL, BECAUSE I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE ARAPAHO TRAIL IS IN CONJUNCTION TO 1431. LET'S SAY WE'LL ADJUST IT. IF YOU INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE THE MAP, IT'S GOING TO BRING MORE STREETS. IT'LL BE MORE STREETS WILL BECOME VISIBLE, I'M ASSUMING. RIGHT. CAN WE TAKE A FIELD TRIP OR IS THAT OKAY? SO IF WE GO TO THE LOBBY WE HAVE 224 BY 36 MAPS. AND YOU CAN SEE THE DETAIL IN THE SCALE. IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE, WE'LL DO 24 BY 36. IF IT'S NOT, WE'LL QUADRANT IT OUT IN 11 BY 17.

OKAY. YOU CAN'T PUT A LINE PIECE OF PAPER. IN AND THE SCALE IF IT'S OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. THAT'S. IT'S ALL THE SAME. SO THE COMMISSION IS TAKING A BREAK TO GO LOOK AT I'E MICROPHONE HERE AND I'M GOING TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO RECAP WHAT WE DID OUT THERE. SO THE COMMISSION WENT OUT AND LOOKED AT THE MAPS HANGING IN THE LOBBY OF THE CITY, SPECIFICALLY AT THE AT THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AND THEN WE HAD A DISCUSSION OF WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THEM TO FINISH THIS PROJECT. AND SO CITY STAFF WILL DELIVER BOTH A FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT WE HAVE TODAY, WHICH IS TEN YEARS OLD OR SO TO EACH OF THE COMMISSIONERS IN A LARGE SIZE, SO THEY CAN SEE ALL THE ROADS AND NAMES, AND THEN SECONDLY, DELIVER THE SAME SIZE MAP WITH ALL, WITHOUT ALL OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP COLORING ON IT SO THAT THEY CAN COMMISSIONERS CAN PUT THEIR PROPOSAL FOR WHERE THE NEW CATEGORIES, INCLUDING THE TRANSITION ZONES, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD, WOULD, SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE NEW FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

AND I'LL STROHMAIER. DID I MISS ANYTHING THERE? IS THAT ACCURATE? NOPE. WE WILL HAVE

[04:10:01]

THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. SO IS EVERYBODY OPEN TO A SPECIAL CALL MEETING TO DISCUSS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP? WELL, WE COULD IF WE PICK THESE UP ON THE 17TH, WE COULD SCHEDULE A MEETING FOR MONDAY THE 23RD, TUESDAY THE 24TH. MONDAY THE 23RD. YES. YES. GREAT. WHAT DO YOU THINK? JUST. CAN I ASK AS WELL TO GIVE A DUE DATE FOR STAFF TO GET THE MAPS BACK? JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE TO SCAN THEM IN AND GET THEM. SO YOU WANT THE MAPS BACK? OKAY.

BEFORE WE WOULD IDEA. YEAH. SO THAT WE CAN BRING A FINAL PRESENTED DOCUMENT TO DISCUSS.

OKAY. THEN I THINK THAT IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE SHOULD SAY THE DUE DATE TO GET THEM BACK WOULD BE THE 20TH MONDAY THE 23RD. AND LET'S SCHEDULE A SPECIAL CALL MEETING ON THE 26TH, WHICH WOULD BE THURSDAY TWO WEEKS FROM NOW. HOW DOES THAT SOUND? IF WE PICK UP THE MAPS NEXT TUESDAY TO FILL THEM OUT AND GET THEM BACK TO THE CITY NO LATER THAN MONDAY THE 23RD, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE A SPECIAL CALL MEETING ON ON THE 26TH AT 4 P.M. TO DISCUSS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THANK YOU VERY. AT THIS POINT OF IF SOMETHING COMES UP BEFORE WE DO THE AGENDA, WE CAN ADD SOMETHING TO IT. THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING. RIGHT NOW, I DON'T ANTICIPATE ANYTHING ELSE. OKAY. OKAY, OKAY. DID YOU WANT TO GIVEN THAT NOW WE'RE READY TO CLOSE UP, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS THAT YOU WANTED TO MAKE? OKAY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. JORDAN. THE PURPLE AND GREEN ON HERE. WHAT IS THE PURPLE SOMETHING. SO THE PURPLE IS OUR AIRPORT AREA. IN OUR CURRENT MAP WE HAVE IT LISTED AS AIRPORT AS A SEPARATE CATEGORY. WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THESE PLACE TYPES, WE DID NOT BRING UP OR MENTION AIRPORT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S NECESSARILY A SOLID VISION FOR THE AIRPORT ITSELF AS A SEPARATE DISTRICT JUST YET. I KNOW WE HAVE A MASTER PLAN. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S UP TO DATE, IF IT'S REFLECTIVE OF WHAT WE ACTUALLY WANT. AND SO THERE'S TWO WAYS WE CAN HANDLE IT. WE CAN MAKE A DISTRICT AND TRY TO DO SOMETHING VISIONARY FOR IT. OR WE BASICALLY MAKE THE MAKE IT A COLOR AND JUST SAY, THIS IS THE AIRPORT, NOT A PLACE TYPE, JUST THE AIRPORT, AND GO FROM THERE. WE HAVE AN OVERLAY FOR THE AIRPORT, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S CONSIDERED A SPECIAL DISTRICT. IT'S NOT NOT NOT IN TERMS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT'S A ZONING. AND SO AGAIN SEPARATING OUT ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP OKAY. SO SPECIAL OVERLAYS OR ZONING. AND SO IT'S OKAY. THE. WE HAVE AN OVERLAY FOR SCENIC WHAT IT'S CALLED. BUT THAT WE'RE NOT DOING IN THIS EXERCISE. RIGHT. SO THERE IS AN OPTION TO DO IT. I'VE REQUESTED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS TO DO HATCH MARKS OVER IT, BECAUSE THE INTENT OF THAT OVERLAY AS A PLACE TYPE IS TO BE IN ADDITION TO THE BASE PLACE TYPE IN WHICH IT FALLS. AND SO IT'S NOT A DIFFERENT DISTRICT. IT'S YOU NEED TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND IN THIS AREA TO PRESERVE SCENIC CORRIDORS. SO MY COMMENTS ABOUT THE AIRPORT IS PROBABLY THAT. IT BE LEFT ALONE FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S NO UTILITIES THERE, AND IT'S HARD TO SAY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN. THE SECOND THING IS, IS THAT THE FAA HAS HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS COVERING THE FLIGHT PATHS, AND THERE ARE CERTAIN LOTS THAT CANNOT BE BUILT ON. AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW

[04:15:07]

YOU KNOW, A CATEGORY FOR AREA AROUND THE AIRPORT. BUT THEN YOU, WITH YOUR EXPERTISE, COULD GO IN AND DO SOME HASH MARKING FOR KIND OF THE KEEP OUT ZONES TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. AND. I MEAN, I DON'T, I THINK CAN YOU DO THAT, DAVE? BECAUSE KNOWING FHA, FHA OR FHA GUIDELINES AND STUFF LIKE THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF, OKAY, I CAN ATTEMPT IT, BUT ANYBODY WHO'S BEEN UP TO TALON CIRCLE, THE HEIGHT OF THE GROUND STORAGE TANK PLUS TWO FEET IS THE MAXIMUM BUILD HEIGHT AT THAT LOCATION. AND LOOK HOW FAR AWAY IT IS FROM THE AIRPORT. THAT'S WHY WHEN THEY RECOMMENDED THAT WE BUILD AN ELEVATED STORAGE TANK 120 FOOT TALL, I TOLD THEM, I ASKED JAMES PECK, I SAID, DO YOU WANT US TO PAINT A BULL'S EYE ON IT OR MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A FLY SWATTER? ANY OTHER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE ADJOURN? DID YOU WANT FEEDBACK AND QUESTIONS ON YOUR DRAFT OR NOT? I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO KEEP PEOPLE HERE ANY LONGER THAN NECESSARY. THAT'S WHAT WE'LL BE DOING AT THE SPECIAL CALL MEETING IN TWO WEEKS. YEP. I WOULD SAY EITHER THE DISCUSSION BOARD OR WE CAN DISCUSS IT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE MAP AT THE SAME MEETING. BOARD IS A GREAT IDEA TO. OKAY, I ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.