1
00:01:07,840 --> 00:01:13,119
Recording in progress.

2
00:01:10,320 --> 00:01:15,280
» Welcome to the city council meeting of

3
00:01:13,119 --> 00:01:18,240
the city of Lewisville,

4
00:01:15,280 --> 00:01:20,400
July [clears throat] 28th, 2026.

5
00:01:18,240 --> 00:01:24,799
Would you please take a roll call vote

6
00:01:20,400 --> 00:01:26,400
or roll call uh not a vote

7
00:01:24,799 --> 00:01:27,840
yet?

8
00:01:26,400 --> 00:01:31,360
» Council member Hefner.

9
00:01:27,840 --> 00:01:32,880
» Yes. Council member Kurt present.

10
00:01:31,360 --> 00:01:34,079
» Council member Fehey

11
00:01:32,880 --> 00:01:35,920
» Here.

12
00:01:34,079 --> 00:01:36,400
» Mayor Prom Hamington

13
00:01:35,920 --> 00:01:37,840
» Yes.

14
00:01:36,400 --> 00:01:38,799
» Council member Cooperman

15
00:01:37,840 --> 00:01:40,320
» Here.

16
00:01:38,799 --> 00:01:40,799
» Council member Dickinson

17
00:01:40,320 --> 00:01:43,520
» Yes.

18
00:01:40,799 --> 00:01:44,000
» Mayor Lee

19
00:01:43,520 --> 00:01:46,159
» Here.

20
00:01:44,000 --> 00:01:48,320
» Oh, it did not pass. [laughter]

21
00:01:46,159 --> 00:01:51,360
» I know you wanted me to say yours.

22
00:01:48,320 --> 00:01:52,799
» Yes or no. All right. [clears throat] Uh

23
00:01:51,360 --> 00:01:55,799
please join with me in the pledge of

24
00:01:52,799 --> 00:01:55,799
allegiance.

25
00:01:56,159 --> 00:02:01,360
» Aliance to the flag. of the United

26
00:01:58,719 --> 00:02:04,320
States of America and to the republic

27
00:02:01,360 --> 00:02:07,040
for which it stands. One nation under

28
00:02:04,320 --> 00:02:10,600
God, indivisible, with liberty and

29
00:02:07,040 --> 00:02:10,600
justice for all.

30
00:02:11,120 --> 00:02:14,879
» We get a motion for approval of

31
00:02:13,280 --> 00:02:16,560
tonight's agenda.

32
00:02:14,879 --> 00:02:18,480
» So moved.

33
00:02:16,560 --> 00:02:20,560
» Second.

34
00:02:18,480 --> 00:02:22,640
» Any discussion?

35
00:02:20,560 --> 00:02:24,959
All in favor?

36
00:02:22,640 --> 00:02:29,920
» Any opposed?

37
00:02:24,959 --> 00:02:33,920
Right. Um, do we have any public comment

38
00:02:29,920 --> 00:02:36,000
tonight on items not on the agenda?

39
00:02:33,920 --> 00:02:38,879
We're on the consent agenda, right?

40
00:02:36,000 --> 00:02:40,640
Seeing none, can we get a motion to

41
00:02:38,879 --> 00:02:41,760
approve the consent agenda?

42
00:02:40,640 --> 00:02:43,040
» So moved.

43
00:02:41,760 --> 00:02:44,239
» Second.

44
00:02:43,040 --> 00:02:48,000
» All in favor?

45
00:02:44,239 --> 00:02:49,680
» I. Any opposed? All right. Do we have

46
00:02:48,000 --> 00:02:53,200
any

47
00:02:49,680 --> 00:02:54,959
um council members withformational

48
00:02:53,200 --> 00:02:59,160
items

49
00:02:54,959 --> 00:02:59,160
to report tonight?

50
00:03:00,239 --> 00:03:05,440
Okay, seeing none,

51
00:03:02,800 --> 00:03:08,319
what's uh city manager reports next?

52
00:03:05,440 --> 00:03:11,040
» Uh nothing to report tonight. Thank you.

53
00:03:08,319 --> 00:03:14,080
» Right. First item of regular business is

54
00:03:11,040 --> 00:03:17,680
ordinance number 1936

55
00:03:14,080 --> 00:03:21,120
series 2026 an ordinance amending title

56
00:03:17,680 --> 00:03:23,280
17 of the Lewisville Municipal Code

57
00:03:21,120 --> 00:03:25,760
regarding

58
00:03:23,280 --> 00:03:29,200
um inclusionary housing [snorts]

59
00:03:25,760 --> 00:03:31,120
first reading to set the public hearing.

60
00:03:29,200 --> 00:03:33,519
Um tonight we're [clears throat] going

61
00:03:31,120 --> 00:03:36,000
to be hearing the staff report on the

62
00:03:33,519 --> 00:03:38,640
ordinance. We will not

63
00:03:36,000 --> 00:03:40,879
be opening the public hearing or taking

64
00:03:38,640 --> 00:03:43,519
public comment. Council may ask

65
00:03:40,879 --> 00:03:48,400
questions. Uh we're not going to discuss

66
00:03:43,519 --> 00:03:51,519
the matter. Um we can suggest briefly

67
00:03:48,400 --> 00:03:53,519
amendments for second reading or we can

68
00:03:51,519 --> 00:03:55,840
discuss staff's returning with

69
00:03:53,519 --> 00:03:57,840
additional information. Can we get the

70
00:03:55,840 --> 00:03:59,519
staff report? Mr. Hurt?

71
00:03:57,840 --> 00:04:01,760
» Yes. Thank you. So Jeff Hurt with

72
00:03:59,519 --> 00:04:03,840
community development. I'm here to

73
00:04:01,760 --> 00:04:05,760
present the first reading for targeted

74
00:04:03,840 --> 00:04:08,400
updates to the inclusionary housing

75
00:04:05,760 --> 00:04:11,920
ordinance. The overarching purpose being

76
00:04:08,400 --> 00:04:13,360
sort of near-term improvements to better

77
00:04:11,920 --> 00:04:15,280
ensure that we actually get affordable

78
00:04:13,360 --> 00:04:16,880
units built as part of the ordinance.

79
00:04:15,280 --> 00:04:18,479
Um, and as a reminder, this is in

80
00:04:16,880 --> 00:04:21,199
advance of the broader development code

81
00:04:18,479 --> 00:04:22,639
update that is going to begin very soon

82
00:04:21,199 --> 00:04:24,479
where we'll actually have a housing

83
00:04:22,639 --> 00:04:26,560
policy expert on our consulting team

84
00:04:24,479 --> 00:04:28,639
that will be fully dissecting the

85
00:04:26,560 --> 00:04:30,560
ordinance and making um additional

86
00:04:28,639 --> 00:04:32,320
improvements as well.

87
00:04:30,560 --> 00:04:34,000
So, bit of context. I don't need to get

88
00:04:32,320 --> 00:04:37,199
into the affordability issue as much.

89
00:04:34,000 --> 00:04:38,800
That's been um discussed a lot, but

90
00:04:37,199 --> 00:04:40,479
certainly continues to be an issue in

91
00:04:38,800 --> 00:04:42,080
terms of the lack of affordability in

92
00:04:40,479 --> 00:04:45,199
the community. Happy to dive more into

93
00:04:42,080 --> 00:04:47,040
that as a reminder of what our existing

94
00:04:45,199 --> 00:04:48,720
inclusionary housing ordinance framework

95
00:04:47,040 --> 00:04:50,479
says. So it essentially says that any

96
00:04:48,720 --> 00:04:53,840
new residential development has to set

97
00:04:50,479 --> 00:04:56,639
aside 12% of its units for deed

98
00:04:53,840 --> 00:04:58,639
restricted permanently affordable um on

99
00:04:56,639 --> 00:05:00,720
site with the option of fee and loo or

100
00:04:58,639 --> 00:05:02,960
other alternative compliance options.

101
00:05:00,720 --> 00:05:04,479
And of those 12% of the units the

102
00:05:02,960 --> 00:05:05,919
current ordinance says that half of them

103
00:05:04,479 --> 00:05:08,560
need to be affordable to households

104
00:05:05,919 --> 00:05:11,120
earning less than 60% of area median

105
00:05:08,560 --> 00:05:12,720
income and the other half less than 80%

106
00:05:11,120 --> 00:05:14,479
of area median income. That's one of the

107
00:05:12,720 --> 00:05:17,520
adjustments we're looking at for tonight

108
00:05:14,479 --> 00:05:19,039
related to AMI. a lot of policy context

109
00:05:17,520 --> 00:05:20,720
and a lot of policy foundation

110
00:05:19,039 --> 00:05:22,240
supporting these changes and the

111
00:05:20,720 --> 00:05:24,560
specific changes in front of you. Happy

112
00:05:22,240 --> 00:05:26,639
to get into that more if you would like.

113
00:05:24,560 --> 00:05:28,240
In terms of why update now versus wait

114
00:05:26,639 --> 00:05:30,800
for the broader code update, I think

115
00:05:28,240 --> 00:05:33,440
there's a few big reasons. One, first of

116
00:05:30,800 --> 00:05:35,039
all, there's been zero units produced in

117
00:05:33,440 --> 00:05:37,039
about the 5-year history of this

118
00:05:35,039 --> 00:05:39,520
ordinance. So, obviously something is

119
00:05:37,039 --> 00:05:41,440
not working. Um the other big sort of

120
00:05:39,520 --> 00:05:43,199
catalyst is as you all know the recently

121
00:05:41,440 --> 00:05:45,680
adopted comp plan sort of shifts the

122
00:05:43,199 --> 00:05:47,919
land use focus toward supporting more

123
00:05:45,680 --> 00:05:50,400
residential and so we expect to see and

124
00:05:47,919 --> 00:05:52,720
we are already are seeing uh interest

125
00:05:50,400 --> 00:05:54,240
and applications for more residential.

126
00:05:52,720 --> 00:05:56,000
So, um, we are bringing something

127
00:05:54,240 --> 00:05:57,919
forward in advance of the development

128
00:05:56,000 --> 00:06:01,039
code update, which is a year or two out

129
00:05:57,919 --> 00:06:02,720
from seeing an actual ordinance, um, to,

130
00:06:01,039 --> 00:06:05,440
uh, sort of get ahead of some of that in

131
00:06:02,720 --> 00:06:08,479
terms of maximizing our ability to, uh,

132
00:06:05,440 --> 00:06:09,840
get affordable housing units built.

133
00:06:08,479 --> 00:06:11,680
So, I'm going to walk through the

134
00:06:09,840 --> 00:06:13,520
elements of the proposal here. I know

135
00:06:11,680 --> 00:06:14,960
there's other elements that um, council

136
00:06:13,520 --> 00:06:16,800
would like to discuss, and we're we're

137
00:06:14,960 --> 00:06:18,720
certainly happy to do that. Um, the

138
00:06:16,800 --> 00:06:20,240
first being changes to the area median

139
00:06:18,720 --> 00:06:22,400
income ranges. So, I'll walk through

140
00:06:20,240 --> 00:06:23,840
that. some of the incentives that are in

141
00:06:22,400 --> 00:06:25,759
the proposed ordinance related to

142
00:06:23,840 --> 00:06:27,520
density and building heights, uh

143
00:06:25,759 --> 00:06:28,880
reductions in parking requirements,

144
00:06:27,520 --> 00:06:30,639
development fee waiverss, and then

145
00:06:28,880 --> 00:06:32,479
certainly updating the fee and L amounts

146
00:06:30,639 --> 00:06:34,720
to reflect current market data. So, I'll

147
00:06:32,479 --> 00:06:36,639
walk through all of that. In terms of

148
00:06:34,720 --> 00:06:39,280
the proposed ordinance related to area

149
00:06:36,639 --> 00:06:40,880
immediate income, again, the current

150
00:06:39,280 --> 00:06:43,199
ordinance says half of the half of the

151
00:06:40,880 --> 00:06:45,360
units have to be less than 60% AMI, the

152
00:06:43,199 --> 00:06:47,039
other half less than 80% AMI. This

153
00:06:45,360 --> 00:06:48,720
proposal would broaden that and better

154
00:06:47,039 --> 00:06:50,160
reflect current market conditions and

155
00:06:48,720 --> 00:06:52,479
sort of our peer communities best

156
00:06:50,160 --> 00:06:54,160
practices. Um, you may not all know, for

157
00:06:52,479 --> 00:06:57,199
example, that in order to afford a home

158
00:06:54,160 --> 00:06:59,039
in Lewisville, you need about 140 to

159
00:06:57,199 --> 00:07:01,199
150% area immediate income just to

160
00:06:59,039 --> 00:07:02,960
afford a single family home. So, these

161
00:07:01,199 --> 00:07:06,479
ranges better reflect sort of current

162
00:07:02,960 --> 00:07:09,599
market conditions. The proposal is for

163
00:07:06,479 --> 00:07:11,680
um 12% of all the rental units to be set

164
00:07:09,599 --> 00:07:13,840
aside for households earning 80% or less

165
00:07:11,680 --> 00:07:16,319
of AMI. So instead of divvying it up

166
00:07:13,840 --> 00:07:18,720
half and half by AMI, this proposal will

167
00:07:16,319 --> 00:07:21,680
divvy it up by tenure. So rental versus

168
00:07:18,720 --> 00:07:24,000
owner. Um and the other component

169
00:07:21,680 --> 00:07:26,160
related to ownership units. So 12% of

170
00:07:24,000 --> 00:07:28,400
those units would need to be set aside

171
00:07:26,160 --> 00:07:30,639
to households earning less than 120%

172
00:07:28,400 --> 00:07:32,000
area immediate income. That was a tweak

173
00:07:30,639 --> 00:07:34,639
that was made to the ordinance actually

174
00:07:32,000 --> 00:07:37,039
today. It previously said between 80 and

175
00:07:34,639 --> 00:07:38,800
120. The modification, which we think

176
00:07:37,039 --> 00:07:41,039
was a good suggestion, was just to say

177
00:07:38,800 --> 00:07:43,199
simply up to 120%. So, we wouldn't

178
00:07:41,039 --> 00:07:44,720
preclude someone from coming in at 60%

179
00:07:43,199 --> 00:07:47,520
AMI, which would be unlikely, but we

180
00:07:44,720 --> 00:07:48,880
didn't want to preclude that. Um, the we

181
00:07:47,520 --> 00:07:50,400
could get into the analysis, but

182
00:07:48,880 --> 00:07:52,960
essentially the overarching goal of this

183
00:07:50,400 --> 00:07:55,199
whole ordinance is to help close the gap

184
00:07:52,960 --> 00:07:56,879
of feasibility. So, this graphic up

185
00:07:55,199 --> 00:07:58,960
here, which I know is hard to read,

186
00:07:56,879 --> 00:08:00,879
basically says that, you know, the

187
00:07:58,960 --> 00:08:03,039
market rate that that a developer could

188
00:08:00,879 --> 00:08:06,080
get for a unit, whether to rent it or

189
00:08:03,039 --> 00:08:08,240
sell it relative to the the affordable

190
00:08:06,080 --> 00:08:10,560
rate. That's the gap between those two

191
00:08:08,240 --> 00:08:12,160
that this ordinance is is trying to

192
00:08:10,560 --> 00:08:14,720
close that gap in terms of making some

193
00:08:12,160 --> 00:08:16,000
of these projects more feasible. And AMI

194
00:08:14,720 --> 00:08:18,160
is a big part of that. So these

195
00:08:16,000 --> 00:08:21,360
incentives

196
00:08:18,160 --> 00:08:23,520
related to density the proposal um and I

197
00:08:21,360 --> 00:08:25,840
should say this tracks with council

198
00:08:23,520 --> 00:08:28,400
direction it's been over a year now but

199
00:08:25,840 --> 00:08:31,440
council did provide uh direction about a

200
00:08:28,400 --> 00:08:33,519
year ago over a year ago now um that is

201
00:08:31,440 --> 00:08:36,479
reflected in this ordinance but the

202
00:08:33,519 --> 00:08:38,560
ordinance would allow and it's a may may

203
00:08:36,479 --> 00:08:41,680
allow explicitly at city council's

204
00:08:38,560 --> 00:08:43,599
discretion a 20% density bonus for

205
00:08:41,680 --> 00:08:45,120
projects that provide on-site affordable

206
00:08:43,599 --> 00:08:47,680
housing in compliance with the

207
00:08:45,120 --> 00:08:50,320
inclusionary housing ordinance, a 20%

208
00:08:47,680 --> 00:08:52,399
increase in lot coverage um for those

209
00:08:50,320 --> 00:08:54,480
same types of projects. The ordinance

210
00:08:52,399 --> 00:08:57,200
also has an enhanced density bonus. So,

211
00:08:54,480 --> 00:08:59,279
if you do 100% on-site affordable at a

212
00:08:57,200 --> 00:09:01,279
deeper affordability level, then you get

213
00:08:59,279 --> 00:09:04,320
a 30% density bonus, and I'll walk

214
00:09:01,279 --> 00:09:06,000
through how that might play out here.

215
00:09:04,320 --> 00:09:07,120
The analysis on that front is

216
00:09:06,000 --> 00:09:09,680
essentially related to project

217
00:09:07,120 --> 00:09:12,399
feasibility. Again, there's specific

218
00:09:09,680 --> 00:09:14,800
policies calling for this change. uh the

219
00:09:12,399 --> 00:09:16,800
enhanced bonus structure actually aligns

220
00:09:14,800 --> 00:09:18,160
with current what's called income

221
00:09:16,800 --> 00:09:20,720
averaging approaches for like

222
00:09:18,160 --> 00:09:24,959
low-inccome housing tax credit. So um

223
00:09:20,720 --> 00:09:27,360
the 80% or less average of 60% AMI is

224
00:09:24,959 --> 00:09:29,120
aligned with what how chaffa and

225
00:09:27,360 --> 00:09:30,800
low-inccome housing tax credits

226
00:09:29,120 --> 00:09:33,360
currently work. So that's the deeper

227
00:09:30,800 --> 00:09:36,720
affordability bonus. Um, also important

228
00:09:33,360 --> 00:09:37,760
to note that this these density bonuses,

229
00:09:36,720 --> 00:09:39,839
we'll talk about potential height

230
00:09:37,760 --> 00:09:41,839
bonuses, they certainly don't trump the

231
00:09:39,839 --> 00:09:43,040
other requirements in the code. So, all

232
00:09:41,839 --> 00:09:44,560
things related to neighborhood

233
00:09:43,040 --> 00:09:46,720
compatibility,

234
00:09:44,560 --> 00:09:48,399
um, traffic analysis, utilities, those

235
00:09:46,720 --> 00:09:50,080
would all still apply and this would be

236
00:09:48,399 --> 00:09:52,640
sort of considered on the same

237
00:09:50,080 --> 00:09:54,959
wavelength as those

238
00:09:52,640 --> 00:09:56,959
in terms of how the density bonus could

239
00:09:54,959 --> 00:09:59,920
apply in an example. So, if you look at

240
00:09:56,959 --> 00:10:03,200
a project that currently has 100 units

241
00:09:59,920 --> 00:10:05,839
entitled by zoning, if they were to prov

242
00:10:03,200 --> 00:10:07,760
provide on-site affordable housing, the

243
00:10:05,839 --> 00:10:09,519
unit cap would go up to 120. So, you'd

244
00:10:07,760 --> 00:10:11,519
be allowed 120 units under this

245
00:10:09,519 --> 00:10:13,360
scenario. And so, you take that amount,

246
00:10:11,519 --> 00:10:15,600
and this is where the feasibility comes

247
00:10:13,360 --> 00:10:18,079
into play. So, if you do the math on a

248
00:10:15,600 --> 00:10:20,480
100 unit project, for example, with that

249
00:10:18,079 --> 00:10:23,279
bonus, the city would see three

250
00:10:20,480 --> 00:10:25,200
additional affordable housing units. the

251
00:10:23,279 --> 00:10:26,959
developer would also see about 17

252
00:10:25,200 --> 00:10:28,399
additional market rate units. So that's

253
00:10:26,959 --> 00:10:30,399
where it really helps sort of their

254
00:10:28,399 --> 00:10:31,519
bottom line and their feasibility and

255
00:10:30,399 --> 00:10:33,680
that's one of the intents of this

256
00:10:31,519 --> 00:10:35,760
ordinance obviously. So in terms of

257
00:10:33,680 --> 00:10:37,839
other incentives, so there are parking

258
00:10:35,760 --> 00:10:40,240
reductions built into the ordinance as

259
00:10:37,839 --> 00:10:43,440
well that go beyond sort of the current

260
00:10:40,240 --> 00:10:44,880
and most recent parking um minimum uh

261
00:10:43,440 --> 00:10:46,800
sort of waiverss that we have in our

262
00:10:44,880 --> 00:10:48,640
ordinance where there's essentially no

263
00:10:46,800 --> 00:10:51,200
minimum parking required for projects

264
00:10:48,640 --> 00:10:53,920
that have on-site affordable housing. Um

265
00:10:51,200 --> 00:10:56,160
the ordinance also calls for identifies

266
00:10:53,920 --> 00:10:57,839
u uh waving zoning related development

267
00:10:56,160 --> 00:11:01,519
review fees. So that's the fee you pay

268
00:10:57,839 --> 00:11:03,360
for like a PUD subdivision reszoning. Um

269
00:11:01,519 --> 00:11:05,760
and again this is all about trying to

270
00:11:03,360 --> 00:11:08,000
improve the feasibility of um of these

271
00:11:05,760 --> 00:11:10,240
projects.

272
00:11:08,000 --> 00:11:11,440
In terms of the fee and loo uh this is

273
00:11:10,240 --> 00:11:12,959
something that will get a deeper dive

274
00:11:11,440 --> 00:11:15,360
with the broader development code update

275
00:11:12,959 --> 00:11:17,200
but what we did as staff was just use

276
00:11:15,360 --> 00:11:19,040
the exact same methodology that we've

277
00:11:17,200 --> 00:11:21,680
used in the past and update the inputs

278
00:11:19,040 --> 00:11:23,600
that go into the fee calculation. So

279
00:11:21,680 --> 00:11:26,079
updated market data. We have the most

280
00:11:23,600 --> 00:11:28,320
recent HUD household income data from

281
00:11:26,079 --> 00:11:30,160
this year that was put into the model as

282
00:11:28,320 --> 00:11:32,880
were current market sale prices and

283
00:11:30,160 --> 00:11:35,760
rental prices. Um, and so the fee

284
00:11:32,880 --> 00:11:38,320
actually strangely about stays the same

285
00:11:35,760 --> 00:11:40,000
with the rental, which we reran the

286
00:11:38,320 --> 00:11:42,160
number several times to confirm that was

287
00:11:40,000 --> 00:11:44,079
the case, but the fee stays pretty flat

288
00:11:42,160 --> 00:11:45,760
with rental, but it does jump quite a

289
00:11:44,079 --> 00:11:47,200
bit with the owner units. It goes more

290
00:11:45,760 --> 00:11:50,399
than double, and we'll sort of walk

291
00:11:47,200 --> 00:11:52,640
through the analysis around that. So,

292
00:11:50,399 --> 00:11:54,880
one of the key uh discussion points from

293
00:11:52,640 --> 00:11:56,640
council last year was getting a better

294
00:11:54,880 --> 00:11:59,200
understanding of how that fee and loo

295
00:11:56,640 --> 00:12:00,640
increase impacts overall feasibility in

296
00:11:59,200 --> 00:12:03,040
terms of both the affordable units and

297
00:12:00,640 --> 00:12:05,120
the market rate units. And so what our

298
00:12:03,040 --> 00:12:06,880
analysis has shown and and we'll have

299
00:12:05,120 --> 00:12:09,760
housing policy experts with our code

300
00:12:06,880 --> 00:12:12,320
update do a deeper dive on this, but um

301
00:12:09,760 --> 00:12:14,000
essentially I think that the there's an

302
00:12:12,320 --> 00:12:15,440
inclination to think that that fee is

303
00:12:14,000 --> 00:12:18,560
just going to automatically be passed

304
00:12:15,440 --> 00:12:21,040
down sort of directly 100% to the tenant

305
00:12:18,560 --> 00:12:22,639
or on the sale price. That's not the

306
00:12:21,040 --> 00:12:26,000
case from our perspective and our

307
00:12:22,639 --> 00:12:27,279
analysis. There is some of that but you

308
00:12:26,000 --> 00:12:29,040
know we could get into this further if

309
00:12:27,279 --> 00:12:31,839
you'd like but the market will only

310
00:12:29,040 --> 00:12:34,160
support a certain rent level or housing

311
00:12:31,839 --> 00:12:35,680
price level. So as a result of that

312
00:12:34,160 --> 00:12:38,079
things adjust around that. So the

313
00:12:35,680 --> 00:12:39,920
developer would look at value sort of

314
00:12:38,079 --> 00:12:42,800
adjustments around design things like

315
00:12:39,920 --> 00:12:44,560
that. Um the land value we found tends

316
00:12:42,800 --> 00:12:46,800
to adjust over time to account for these

317
00:12:44,560 --> 00:12:48,880
fee changes. There is potential for

318
00:12:46,800 --> 00:12:50,639
reduced profits from the developer. So

319
00:12:48,880 --> 00:12:53,040
there is a partial pass through but the

320
00:12:50,639 --> 00:12:56,240
impact isn't sort of like one for one as

321
00:12:53,040 --> 00:12:58,880
um a lot of folks might think

322
00:12:56,240 --> 00:13:01,519
regarding building height. So, uh, staff

323
00:12:58,880 --> 00:13:03,200
is proposing for council consideration

324
00:13:01,519 --> 00:13:05,920
sort of based on recent council

325
00:13:03,200 --> 00:13:07,839
discussions around this very issue. Um,

326
00:13:05,920 --> 00:13:10,160
the potential at city council's

327
00:13:07,839 --> 00:13:12,639
discretion, again, this is a may, that

328
00:13:10,160 --> 00:13:14,000
if a project provides on-site affordable

329
00:13:12,639 --> 00:13:16,320
housing in compliance with this

330
00:13:14,000 --> 00:13:18,959
ordinance, they could get up to a

331
00:13:16,320 --> 00:13:21,040
one-story or 15 foot height increase as

332
00:13:18,959 --> 00:13:22,480
part of that development proposal. And

333
00:13:21,040 --> 00:13:23,839
so again, it would need to be consistent

334
00:13:22,480 --> 00:13:25,839
with all the other requirements and

335
00:13:23,839 --> 00:13:27,760
policies that we have, but this is one

336
00:13:25,839 --> 00:13:30,240
tool in sort of the toolkit that we're

337
00:13:27,760 --> 00:13:32,320
putting on the table for consideration

338
00:13:30,240 --> 00:13:35,040
um and for discussion. And so

339
00:13:32,320 --> 00:13:36,880
importantly um it does not as written

340
00:13:35,040 --> 00:13:38,639
apply in the I'll have a map up here,

341
00:13:36,880 --> 00:13:40,160
but it does not apply in the Oldtown

342
00:13:38,639 --> 00:13:43,360
overlay for example. So in the

343
00:13:40,160 --> 00:13:45,519
residential area in around downtown, no

344
00:13:43,360 --> 00:13:47,760
height increases would be allowed. Um

345
00:13:45,519 --> 00:13:49,519
same thing for the downtown core. Um and

346
00:13:47,760 --> 00:13:50,959
I'll show a map here in a second of what

347
00:13:49,519 --> 00:13:52,560
that means.

348
00:13:50,959 --> 00:13:53,920
But again, this is about trying to

349
00:13:52,560 --> 00:13:55,200
improve the feasibility of these

350
00:13:53,920 --> 00:13:57,680
projects, allowing more design

351
00:13:55,200 --> 00:13:59,360
flexibility. If a developer can go up,

352
00:13:57,680 --> 00:14:01,440
they may be able to get more units, but

353
00:13:59,360 --> 00:14:03,600
it's more about being able to address

354
00:14:01,440 --> 00:14:05,279
utilities, traffic, access, circulation,

355
00:14:03,600 --> 00:14:07,519
things of like like that for more

356
00:14:05,279 --> 00:14:09,680
flexibility. And again, this is would be

357
00:14:07,519 --> 00:14:12,959
at council's discretion on sort of a

358
00:14:09,680 --> 00:14:15,279
case-byase uh basis. And so this map

359
00:14:12,959 --> 00:14:16,880
here shows just zooming in on downtown

360
00:14:15,279 --> 00:14:19,760
how the building height incentives are

361
00:14:16,880 --> 00:14:21,920
written. So essentially the as written

362
00:14:19,760 --> 00:14:24,160
the areas in cross-hatched red those are

363
00:14:21,920 --> 00:14:25,760
called the transition areas of downtown

364
00:14:24,160 --> 00:14:28,320
those are the areas that would be

365
00:14:25,760 --> 00:14:30,800
eligible for a onetory or 15t height

366
00:14:28,320 --> 00:14:33,040
increase. So the base height there is

367
00:14:30,800 --> 00:14:35,600
two stories and so this ordinance would

368
00:14:33,040 --> 00:14:38,399
enable at council's discretion still to

369
00:14:35,600 --> 00:14:40,720
go up to three stories for affordable

370
00:14:38,399 --> 00:14:43,120
housing projects. And then the area in

371
00:14:40,720 --> 00:14:44,959
the middle is where there are no height

372
00:14:43,120 --> 00:14:47,040
allowances as part of this ordinance in

373
00:14:44,959 --> 00:14:50,320
the core area.

374
00:14:47,040 --> 00:14:51,920
or height incentive allowances.

375
00:14:50,320 --> 00:14:54,320
So again, very consistent with our

376
00:14:51,920 --> 00:14:56,480
adopted plans in terms of the ordinance

377
00:14:54,320 --> 00:14:59,040
before you tonight. Planning commission

378
00:14:56,480 --> 00:15:01,920
did vote uh unanimously to recommend

379
00:14:59,040 --> 00:15:04,320
approval of the ordinance back in May.

380
00:15:01,920 --> 00:15:05,839
Um one of their comments was that um we

381
00:15:04,320 --> 00:15:08,240
would like they would like to see more

382
00:15:05,839 --> 00:15:10,240
flexibility in the ordinance for us to

383
00:15:08,240 --> 00:15:11,600
administratively update the fee in lie

384
00:15:10,240 --> 00:15:13,839
without having to change the ordinance

385
00:15:11,600 --> 00:15:15,920
each time. So, the fee being baked into

386
00:15:13,839 --> 00:15:18,639
the ordinance has created a challenge

387
00:15:15,920 --> 00:15:20,959
for us. Um, and so the way it's written

388
00:15:18,639 --> 00:15:22,399
on the proposed ordinance, um, we would

389
00:15:20,959 --> 00:15:25,120
or the city manager would have the

390
00:15:22,399 --> 00:15:26,880
ability to, um, update the fee using the

391
00:15:25,120 --> 00:15:28,959
exact same methodology and just with new

392
00:15:26,880 --> 00:15:32,720
market inputs. And so that would be a

393
00:15:28,959 --> 00:15:34,639
possibility under the ordinance.

394
00:15:32,720 --> 00:15:36,480
And again, just wanted to reiterate,

395
00:15:34,639 --> 00:15:38,240
planning commission did not consider the

396
00:15:36,480 --> 00:15:40,320
building height incentive as part of

397
00:15:38,240 --> 00:15:42,639
their package. And so that's something

398
00:15:40,320 --> 00:15:44,560
that we as staff opted to put on the

399
00:15:42,639 --> 00:15:47,199
table for consideration by council just

400
00:15:44,560 --> 00:15:51,360
given the recent discussions around this

401
00:15:47,199 --> 00:15:52,800
specific issue. Um recently

402
00:15:51,360 --> 00:15:54,959
there were a few refinements made

403
00:15:52,800 --> 00:15:56,480
actually today um based on some good um

404
00:15:54,959 --> 00:15:59,839
input from council member some

405
00:15:56,480 --> 00:16:02,320
clarification. So I mentioned that um

406
00:15:59,839 --> 00:16:05,680
previously said that the owner units had

407
00:16:02,320 --> 00:16:08,399
to be between 80 and 120% AMI. We opted

408
00:16:05,680 --> 00:16:10,079
to go just up to 120% AMI. staff agreed

409
00:16:08,399 --> 00:16:13,519
with that. Um and there's some other

410
00:16:10,079 --> 00:16:14,959
clarifications just um to state that um

411
00:16:13,519 --> 00:16:17,680
for example the way the ordinance was

412
00:16:14,959 --> 00:16:19,360
written. One could sort of extrapolate

413
00:16:17,680 --> 00:16:20,959
that if you put one affordable housing

414
00:16:19,360 --> 00:16:22,959
unit on the site then you get all these

415
00:16:20,959 --> 00:16:24,639
bonuses. So there's some sort of

416
00:16:22,959 --> 00:16:26,639
tightening up of the language to ensure

417
00:16:24,639 --> 00:16:28,880
that any of those incentives would only

418
00:16:26,639 --> 00:16:30,639
be available if the project fully

419
00:16:28,880 --> 00:16:33,600
complied with the on-site affordable

420
00:16:30,639 --> 00:16:35,680
requirement.

421
00:16:33,600 --> 00:16:38,240
So staff is recommending approval of the

422
00:16:35,680 --> 00:16:40,000
ordinance um based on the consistency

423
00:16:38,240 --> 00:16:41,759
with adopted plans and from our

424
00:16:40,000 --> 00:16:44,079
perspective improvements related to

425
00:16:41,759 --> 00:16:46,720
feasibility. Um and happy to answer any

426
00:16:44,079 --> 00:16:49,040
questions that council has.

427
00:16:46,720 --> 00:16:50,720
» Okay. Um we're going to take questions.

428
00:16:49,040 --> 00:16:52,480
I want to just [clears throat] in light

429
00:16:50,720 --> 00:16:54,560
of some

430
00:16:52,480 --> 00:16:57,759
um

431
00:16:54,560 --> 00:17:01,839
information that's been um

432
00:16:57,759 --> 00:17:03,920
exchanged uh this week around the first

433
00:17:01,839 --> 00:17:07,600
or

434
00:17:03,920 --> 00:17:10,400
first reading. I'm gonna bear down on

435
00:17:07,600 --> 00:17:13,520
not talking about the substance

436
00:17:10,400 --> 00:17:15,280
um because we really can't do that

437
00:17:13,520 --> 00:17:17,919
without a public hearing and I want to

438
00:17:15,280 --> 00:17:20,000
be real careful of not doing that um

439
00:17:17,919 --> 00:17:22,160
especially tonight. There are ways that

440
00:17:20,000 --> 00:17:23,760
we can adjust that but not tonight

441
00:17:22,160 --> 00:17:28,000
because it's on the agenda that there

442
00:17:23,760 --> 00:17:30,480
will be no public comment. So um

443
00:17:28,000 --> 00:17:34,440
with that in mind, what questions do

444
00:17:30,480 --> 00:17:34,440
council members have to ask?

445
00:17:35,600 --> 00:17:39,200
None.

446
00:17:36,400 --> 00:17:42,720
» There's one here. Oh, [laughter]

447
00:17:39,200 --> 00:17:45,840
» Council Member Cooperman.

448
00:17:42,720 --> 00:17:47,440
» Uh, thank you for the presentation. Um,

449
00:17:45,840 --> 00:17:49,120
could you remind us? So, there's the

450
00:17:47,440 --> 00:17:52,480
downtown core, but then there's also the

451
00:17:49,120 --> 00:17:54,320
Oldtown Overlay. So, what exactly I'm

452
00:17:52,480 --> 00:17:56,320
just not remembering exactly where the

453
00:17:54,320 --> 00:17:58,080
Oldtown Overlay covers?

454
00:17:56,320 --> 00:18:00,080
» Yeah. And apologies, I don't have a map

455
00:17:58,080 --> 00:18:02,400
teed up here, but the Oldtown overlay

456
00:18:00,080 --> 00:18:04,160
covers um basically all the residential

457
00:18:02,400 --> 00:18:04,640
areas surrounding the core commercial

458
00:18:04,160 --> 00:18:06,960
area.

459
00:18:04,640 --> 00:18:10,080
» Okay, that was my what I thought. Okay.

460
00:18:06,960 --> 00:18:12,960
And then one little clarification. So on

461
00:18:10,080 --> 00:18:15,039
the the dots on the east side of the

462
00:18:12,960 --> 00:18:19,120
railroad tracks,

463
00:18:15,039 --> 00:18:21,120
um is that sort of slanting line like a

464
00:18:19,120 --> 00:18:23,919
a well- definfined or is it is it sort

465
00:18:21,120 --> 00:18:25,280
of just meant to capture the break

466
00:18:23,919 --> 00:18:26,559
between where there are houses and where

467
00:18:25,280 --> 00:18:28,320
they're not?

468
00:18:26,559 --> 00:18:30,320
I believe and I to confirm I believe

469
00:18:28,320 --> 00:18:34,080
that's the boundary of downtown

470
00:18:30,320 --> 00:18:36,080
Lewisville cottified and so um it would

471
00:18:34,080 --> 00:18:37,520
be part of the core area quote unquote

472
00:18:36,080 --> 00:18:40,880
what you're referring to. Yeah.

473
00:18:37,520 --> 00:18:44,320
» Okay. Um

474
00:18:40,880 --> 00:18:48,320
let's see. Um one other clarification.

475
00:18:44,320 --> 00:18:50,880
So right now our parking requirements

476
00:18:48,320 --> 00:18:53,440
um could you just remind us I so I

477
00:18:50,880 --> 00:18:56,480
thought for multif family we do not have

478
00:18:53,440 --> 00:18:58,720
any requirements currently but for other

479
00:18:56,480 --> 00:19:00,240
types of housing we do still have some.

480
00:18:58,720 --> 00:19:02,240
Is that correct?

481
00:19:00,240 --> 00:19:04,000
» Yeah I believe and I'd have to confirm

482
00:19:02,240 --> 00:19:06,080
this to you but I believe the recent

483
00:19:04,000 --> 00:19:07,840
ordinance it was a state law compliance

484
00:19:06,080 --> 00:19:09,520
thing that we kind of went went further

485
00:19:07,840 --> 00:19:12,640
on it. Um, I believe it was four

486
00:19:09,520 --> 00:19:15,600
projects with more than half affordable

487
00:19:12,640 --> 00:19:17,120
are are exempt from requiring parking.

488
00:19:15,600 --> 00:19:19,600
The state law said it had to be within

489
00:19:17,120 --> 00:19:21,840
transit areas and I believe uh council

490
00:19:19,600 --> 00:19:24,000
decided to expand it citywide. This

491
00:19:21,840 --> 00:19:25,440
would this would go further than that in

492
00:19:24,000 --> 00:19:27,679
that it would be for anything that

493
00:19:25,440 --> 00:19:28,640
requires on-site units. It could be 12%.

494
00:19:27,679 --> 00:19:32,919
Yeah. Yeah.

495
00:19:28,640 --> 00:19:32,919
» Okay. Thank you. Um,

496
00:19:34,320 --> 00:19:40,799
and so another question. So, our a

497
00:19:36,960 --> 00:19:42,880
current ordinance um it has

498
00:19:40,799 --> 00:19:46,240
um

499
00:19:42,880 --> 00:19:48,240
well, I I guess it just has AMI uh sort

500
00:19:46,240 --> 00:19:52,720
of maximum, right? It says you have to

501
00:19:48,240 --> 00:19:57,600
build 6% of the units for 60% or below

502
00:19:52,720 --> 00:19:59,120
um and 6% for 80% or below. Um

503
00:19:57,600 --> 00:20:01,919
so, we yeah, so we're not trying to do

504
00:19:59,120 --> 00:20:03,840
any averaging sort of within a range.

505
00:20:01,919 --> 00:20:06,160
Um, and I guess with the changes that

506
00:20:03,840 --> 00:20:09,120
we've made for tonight, we're not trying

507
00:20:06,160 --> 00:20:11,200
to do any averaging in a range of AMIs.

508
00:20:09,120 --> 00:20:14,240
Is that correct? Or enforce some kind of

509
00:20:11,200 --> 00:20:16,000
averaging for what gets built.

510
00:20:14,240 --> 00:20:17,919
» Yeah. I don't know if we ever sort of

511
00:20:16,000 --> 00:20:19,760
administered as averaging the current.

512
00:20:17,919 --> 00:20:21,039
It's just sort of half and half. um

513
00:20:19,760 --> 00:20:23,520
which I guess you could get to an

514
00:20:21,039 --> 00:20:25,760
average from that of course, but um the

515
00:20:23,520 --> 00:20:28,000
proposed ordinance would not have

516
00:20:25,760 --> 00:20:30,240
averaging as far as the baseline

517
00:20:28,000 --> 00:20:32,320
compliance, but there would be if you

518
00:20:30,240 --> 00:20:34,159
wanted to do the enhanced density bonus,

519
00:20:32,320 --> 00:20:36,480
there would be an averaging with that.

520
00:20:34,159 --> 00:20:40,919
Um that's actually what Yeah. Yeah.

521
00:20:36,480 --> 00:20:40,919
» Okay. No, that's fine. Um

522
00:20:41,200 --> 00:20:47,120
Okay. Couple other questions. Um,

523
00:20:44,799 --> 00:20:49,280
so right now I guess the ordinance says

524
00:20:47,120 --> 00:20:52,720
we could either grant an extra story or

525
00:20:49,280 --> 00:20:56,000
15 feet extra height. Do you think there

526
00:20:52,720 --> 00:20:58,000
is room in that 15 ft to sort of abuse

527
00:20:56,000 --> 00:21:00,559
the idea of adding one more story? You

528
00:20:58,000 --> 00:21:03,440
know, could you get that extra 15 ft and

529
00:21:00,559 --> 00:21:05,200
then shrink the other ones and get more

530
00:21:03,440 --> 00:21:05,520
or I I don't know. Just kind of curious

531
00:21:05,200 --> 00:21:07,760
about that.

532
00:21:05,520 --> 00:21:10,880
» It's it's it's fair for sure. I believe

533
00:21:07,760 --> 00:21:12,960
it's written whichever is less. So we

534
00:21:10,880 --> 00:21:14,640
would have the ability to look at, you

535
00:21:12,960 --> 00:21:16,799
know, how we define a story versus the

536
00:21:14,640 --> 00:21:19,120
15 ft. And if it if someone was trying

537
00:21:16,799 --> 00:21:20,320
to squeeze in two stories, I think there

538
00:21:19,120 --> 00:21:21,760
would be a conflict with the way the

539
00:21:20,320 --> 00:21:23,360
ordinance is written. Yeah. That we

540
00:21:21,760 --> 00:21:24,720
could clearly point to. Yeah. Okay.

541
00:21:23,360 --> 00:21:26,320
» But we could check on that. Yeah. Make

542
00:21:24,720 --> 00:21:29,200
sure cleaned up.

543
00:21:26,320 --> 00:21:31,840
» Okay. Um and then maybe one more for

544
00:21:29,200 --> 00:21:34,320
now. I forget if did we talk at all

545
00:21:31,840 --> 00:21:37,520
about sort of codifying an accelerated

546
00:21:34,320 --> 00:21:40,640
timeline for review if they're going to

547
00:21:37,520 --> 00:21:43,280
include on-site affordable housing?

548
00:21:40,640 --> 00:21:44,640
Yeah. So, um we didn't propose that as

549
00:21:43,280 --> 00:21:47,760
part of this, but that is something

550
00:21:44,640 --> 00:21:50,000
we're working um as part of a

551
00:21:47,760 --> 00:21:51,520
proposition 123 actually compliance

552
00:21:50,000 --> 00:21:53,120
thing. We have the fasttrack compliance

553
00:21:51,520 --> 00:21:54,960
thing. So, that's on a separate track.

554
00:21:53,120 --> 00:21:55,360
Um but it would align with this. Yeah.

555
00:21:54,960 --> 00:21:55,840
» Okay.

556
00:21:55,360 --> 00:21:58,480
» Yeah.

557
00:21:55,840 --> 00:22:00,720
» Thank you very much.

558
00:21:58,480 --> 00:22:01,440
» Other questions? Yes. Council member

559
00:22:00,720 --> 00:22:02,960
Hefner.

560
00:22:01,440 --> 00:22:05,120
» Yeah. First of all, thanks for all the

561
00:22:02,960 --> 00:22:07,600
edits um in the draft. I think they're

562
00:22:05,120 --> 00:22:11,679
really good. Um

563
00:22:07,600 --> 00:22:14,320
the the question I have is about the fee

564
00:22:11,679 --> 00:22:15,520
calculation on the rental units and 60

565
00:22:14,320 --> 00:22:16,320
verse 80.

566
00:22:15,520 --> 00:22:19,919
» Yes.

567
00:22:16,320 --> 00:22:22,480
» And so I was looking at the table in the

568
00:22:19,919 --> 00:22:24,799
fee calculation

569
00:22:22,480 --> 00:22:27,200
and it it looks like and you tell me if

570
00:22:24,799 --> 00:22:30,480
this is wrong. We calculated the fee in

571
00:22:27,200 --> 00:22:34,559
L based on production of a 60% AMI

572
00:22:30,480 --> 00:22:36,880
rental unit and that's how we got $4.73.

573
00:22:34,559 --> 00:22:40,000
But if we calculate the fee based on an

574
00:22:36,880 --> 00:22:42,159
80% AMI unit, which is what we're

575
00:22:40,000 --> 00:22:45,679
actually requiring, the fee flips

576
00:22:42,159 --> 00:22:49,120
negative and theoretically only we would

577
00:22:45,679 --> 00:22:51,039
owe them $9 per square foot.

578
00:22:49,120 --> 00:22:52,400
» Yeah, that's right. So, and something I

579
00:22:51,039 --> 00:22:55,360
should have called more attention to in

580
00:22:52,400 --> 00:22:57,280
the presentation. So, that's a couple

581
00:22:55,360 --> 00:22:59,280
things there. one that's what the model

582
00:22:57,280 --> 00:23:01,600
says and we sort of confirm that and it

583
00:22:59,280 --> 00:23:04,720
it basically says the market has changed

584
00:23:01,600 --> 00:23:06,400
to where 80% AMI and market rate are are

585
00:23:04,720 --> 00:23:08,559
getting close more closely aligned in

586
00:23:06,400 --> 00:23:12,480
terms of the rental rates currently and

587
00:23:08,559 --> 00:23:16,240
so um our proposal is to keep it tied to

588
00:23:12,480 --> 00:23:17,679
60% um because that's well one that's

589
00:23:16,240 --> 00:23:19,840
the only way there would be an actual

590
00:23:17,679 --> 00:23:21,919
fee but also it addresses that deeper

591
00:23:19,840 --> 00:23:24,000
affordability metric. So from a sort of

592
00:23:21,919 --> 00:23:26,720
a policy perspective, staff's

593
00:23:24,000 --> 00:23:29,760
recommendation is to keep it tied to 60

594
00:23:26,720 --> 00:23:31,280
um even though the model um you know and

595
00:23:29,760 --> 00:23:33,919
we need to look at that model as part of

596
00:23:31,280 --> 00:23:35,919
the broader code update to refine it but

597
00:23:33,919 --> 00:23:39,679
using the existing methodology it

598
00:23:35,919 --> 00:23:42,640
illuminates that 80% and market rate are

599
00:23:39,679 --> 00:23:45,200
um fairly aligned right now. Um which is

600
00:23:42,640 --> 00:23:48,159
interesting. Yeah. So, and I'm not

601
00:23:45,200 --> 00:23:51,440
suggesting this, but would would it be

602
00:23:48,159 --> 00:23:54,000
one possible reasonable conclusion that

603
00:23:51,440 --> 00:23:56,000
the market is producing affordable

604
00:23:54,000 --> 00:23:59,280
housing at least at the 80% level for

605
00:23:56,000 --> 00:24:01,520
rentals and maybe we don't necessarily

606
00:23:59,280 --> 00:24:02,960
need this program for rentals if 80% is

607
00:24:01,520 --> 00:24:05,760
our goal?

608
00:24:02,960 --> 00:24:08,000
Yeah, I mean that's it's it's a big

609
00:24:05,760 --> 00:24:09,760
statement and a fair statement that you

610
00:24:08,000 --> 00:24:11,679
know the market is changing the rental

611
00:24:09,760 --> 00:24:14,320
market in particular and I think doing

612
00:24:11,679 --> 00:24:16,320
this analysis has highlighted that but

613
00:24:14,320 --> 00:24:19,200
um I mean the fact remains that at 60%

614
00:24:16,320 --> 00:24:21,840
AMI there's still a significant gap and

615
00:24:19,200 --> 00:24:23,440
the fee reflects that um but from our

616
00:24:21,840 --> 00:24:24,480
perspective you know there's a lot of

617
00:24:23,440 --> 00:24:26,000
work that could be done to this

618
00:24:24,480 --> 00:24:28,159
ordinance to better calibrate it to the

619
00:24:26,000 --> 00:24:31,279
market but the 80%

620
00:24:28,159 --> 00:24:34,960
um you know having that as the rental

621
00:24:31,279 --> 00:24:37,360
max AMI high um and having the market

622
00:24:34,960 --> 00:24:39,039
getting closer to alignment is would

623
00:24:37,360 --> 00:24:41,039
help make projects a lot more feasible

624
00:24:39,039 --> 00:24:43,120
for a developer if they can say that

625
00:24:41,039 --> 00:24:45,360
they can deed restrict that at a rate

626
00:24:43,120 --> 00:24:47,200
that is pretty closely aligned to the

627
00:24:45,360 --> 00:24:50,440
market so that gap is smaller if that

628
00:24:47,200 --> 00:24:50,440
makes sense.

629
00:24:51,440 --> 00:24:55,279
» Yeah. So, let me just put that a

630
00:24:53,200 --> 00:24:57,760
different way, which is we would expect

631
00:24:55,279 --> 00:24:59,520
based on market conditions

632
00:24:57,760 --> 00:25:01,279
pretty much any project to come in and

633
00:24:59,520 --> 00:25:03,120
do on site because they're bas they're

634
00:25:01,279 --> 00:25:05,039
going to at 80% they're already meeting

635
00:25:03,120 --> 00:25:07,840
on site. All they have to do is add the

636
00:25:05,039 --> 00:25:09,120
deed restriction and they get all these

637
00:25:07,840 --> 00:25:10,559
additional benefits.

638
00:25:09,120 --> 00:25:12,640
» It's a big hypothetical. I mean, it

639
00:25:10,559 --> 00:25:15,760
completely depends on the unit types and

640
00:25:12,640 --> 00:25:18,480
what you know um as a speaking in

641
00:25:15,760 --> 00:25:20,000
generalities 80% is getting pretty

642
00:25:18,480 --> 00:25:23,120
closely aligned. we learned through this

643
00:25:20,000 --> 00:25:25,200
analysis. But um as we all know there's

644
00:25:23,120 --> 00:25:27,120
a huge range of unit types of all kinds

645
00:25:25,200 --> 00:25:29,039
of price points. So um it's a big

646
00:25:27,120 --> 00:25:31,520
hypothetical and an unknown.

647
00:25:29,039 --> 00:25:34,000
» But assuming somebody came in with units

648
00:25:31,520 --> 00:25:36,480
that sort of match the assumptions in

649
00:25:34,000 --> 00:25:38,960
the chart,

650
00:25:36,480 --> 00:25:40,559
it would be a benefit to them to get the

651
00:25:38,960 --> 00:25:43,120
additional density and height and what

652
00:25:40,559 --> 00:25:45,520
have you. And all they would have to do

653
00:25:43,120 --> 00:25:46,799
is deed restrict something that it

654
00:25:45,520 --> 00:25:48,480
wouldn't change your economics that much

655
00:25:46,799 --> 00:25:49,279
to deed restrict it. I think it's

656
00:25:48,480 --> 00:25:51,200
important to know that we're talking

657
00:25:49,279 --> 00:25:54,080
about a point in time too. So did

658
00:25:51,200 --> 00:25:55,600
restrict something at 80% AMI. We don't

659
00:25:54,080 --> 00:25:57,279
know if a year from now or five years

660
00:25:55,600 --> 00:25:58,720
from now the market could change and

661
00:25:57,279 --> 00:26:00,640
there could be more of a disparity. So

662
00:25:58,720 --> 00:26:01,440
that's a point in time analysis too to

663
00:26:00,640 --> 00:26:05,240
keep

664
00:26:01,440 --> 00:26:05,240
» Okay, that's really helpful.

665
00:26:05,760 --> 00:26:11,679
Others questions

666
00:26:08,240 --> 00:26:14,880
yes m thanks. Um, so one of the things

667
00:26:11,679 --> 00:26:17,279
that I did not see brought up in this

668
00:26:14,880 --> 00:26:19,360
um, and I was curious if you had um,

669
00:26:17,279 --> 00:26:22,640
given any thought or work into it at all

670
00:26:19,360 --> 00:26:25,120
and just didn't include it is about

671
00:26:22,640 --> 00:26:26,559
changing the like forlike requirements

672
00:26:25,120 --> 00:26:29,279
that are part of our inclusionary

673
00:26:26,559 --> 00:26:31,279
housing which um, seems like a pretty

674
00:26:29,279 --> 00:26:32,799
substantial reason based on what

675
00:26:31,279 --> 00:26:34,880
projects that have come before us in the

676
00:26:32,799 --> 00:26:37,279
past is the reason for something not

677
00:26:34,880 --> 00:26:39,360
being feasible. It's not around height

678
00:26:37,279 --> 00:26:40,960
or other things. And I was curious if

679
00:26:39,360 --> 00:26:42,799
that was something that we had looked

680
00:26:40,960 --> 00:26:45,360
into because I think that might make a

681
00:26:42,799 --> 00:26:47,120
sooner or more immediate change.

682
00:26:45,360 --> 00:26:49,279
» Yeah. And and you know, we're open to

683
00:26:47,120 --> 00:26:50,960
council direction on this. I think first

684
00:26:49,279 --> 00:26:52,400
and foremost, just to reiterate, this is

685
00:26:50,960 --> 00:26:54,799
intended to be really targeted just

686
00:26:52,400 --> 00:26:58,000
about, you know, just about seeing if we

687
00:26:54,799 --> 00:27:00,000
could facilitate more units. Um that was

688
00:26:58,000 --> 00:27:01,760
not a deliberate omission. That wasn't

689
00:27:00,000 --> 00:27:04,159
something we looked at and said, we

690
00:27:01,760 --> 00:27:07,760
analyzed this. We as staff decided it's

691
00:27:04,159 --> 00:27:09,440
not a good idea. So, um, and it and also

692
00:27:07,760 --> 00:27:10,720
a reminder that the broader code update

693
00:27:09,440 --> 00:27:13,919
is coming. There'll be an opportunity to

694
00:27:10,720 --> 00:27:15,520
revisit this. Um, you know, I think

695
00:27:13,919 --> 00:27:18,159
there's a few things in there that are

696
00:27:15,520 --> 00:27:20,240
valuable. So, if you're talking about um

697
00:27:18,159 --> 00:27:22,000
amenities and access to amenities, like

698
00:27:20,240 --> 00:27:24,559
those provisions, we're talking about

699
00:27:22,000 --> 00:27:26,000
design and materials specifically. So, I

700
00:27:24,559 --> 00:27:28,240
think from staff's perspective, we're

701
00:27:26,000 --> 00:27:30,159
open to alternate ways to get to the

702
00:27:28,240 --> 00:27:31,919
same sort of objective um if we wanted

703
00:27:30,159 --> 00:27:33,760
to look at that language. But, it wasn't

704
00:27:31,919 --> 00:27:35,039
a deliberate omission. Certainly, we we

705
00:27:33,760 --> 00:27:36,159
know it's an issue and know there's a

706
00:27:35,039 --> 00:27:38,880
lot of things that could be fixed with

707
00:27:36,159 --> 00:27:40,400
this. U and the last thing I'll say is,

708
00:27:38,880 --> 00:27:42,320
you know, we look back pretty closely on

709
00:27:40,400 --> 00:27:44,640
the council feedback provided. It was

710
00:27:42,320 --> 00:27:47,440
over a year ago now, but in terms of the

711
00:27:44,640 --> 00:27:50,240
decision point of what the framework uh

712
00:27:47,440 --> 00:27:52,080
direction was from council um and it may

713
00:27:50,240 --> 00:27:54,480
be something I missed personally, but

714
00:27:52,080 --> 00:27:55,919
that was not that as part of that

715
00:27:54,480 --> 00:27:57,760
specific framework, although I know it's

716
00:27:55,919 --> 00:28:01,600
been discussed since then. And the other

717
00:27:57,760 --> 00:28:04,159
question is um the height allowance is

718
00:28:01,600 --> 00:28:06,240
that something that is already it's

719
00:28:04,159 --> 00:28:08,080
rhetorical in a way but that is already

720
00:28:06,240 --> 00:28:10,320
an option for council if if we're saying

721
00:28:08,080 --> 00:28:12,559
that this is not going to be a guarantee

722
00:28:10,320 --> 00:28:14,480
portion of the policy like you meet them

723
00:28:12,559 --> 00:28:16,640
the low-inccome housing requirements

724
00:28:14,480 --> 00:28:18,320
you're guaranteed to get more height

725
00:28:16,640 --> 00:28:20,559
more density but instead it's just an

726
00:28:18,320 --> 00:28:21,840
option that is is that currently an

727
00:28:20,559 --> 00:28:23,039
option that can come to the council

728
00:28:21,840 --> 00:28:25,919
anyway they can ask for

729
00:28:23,039 --> 00:28:27,600
» Yeah I mean the there are you as we know

730
00:28:25,919 --> 00:28:29,679
there's waiverss to a lot of our

731
00:28:27,600 --> 00:28:30,960
standards. So building heights, density,

732
00:28:29,679 --> 00:28:32,559
those are all waiverss that can be

733
00:28:30,960 --> 00:28:34,559
requested. This is more about being more

734
00:28:32,559 --> 00:28:36,399
explicit about what the toolkit is and

735
00:28:34,559 --> 00:28:39,120
calling attention to it that that is an

736
00:28:36,399 --> 00:28:40,720
op like an explicit tool. So technically

737
00:28:39,120 --> 00:28:42,159
I believe you're correct that option

738
00:28:40,720 --> 00:28:43,520
already exists, but it's about being

739
00:28:42,159 --> 00:28:47,039
more direct about it. I think with the

740
00:28:43,520 --> 00:28:50,080
ordinance sort of signaling that these

741
00:28:47,039 --> 00:28:52,399
are the tools available. And how would

742
00:28:50,080 --> 00:28:53,919
that relate to areas where we have zoned

743
00:28:52,399 --> 00:28:56,000
where we're we're very carefully

744
00:28:53,919 --> 00:28:59,600
limiting this to two h to two stories

745
00:28:56,000 --> 00:29:01,200
other than the downtown Lewisville?

746
00:28:59,600 --> 00:29:04,480
» Yeah, I mean I think a lot of it comes

747
00:29:01,200 --> 00:29:06,159
back to um the comp plan for example and

748
00:29:04,480 --> 00:29:07,360
so that's where we really had a lot of

749
00:29:06,159 --> 00:29:09,279
community discussion and a lot of

750
00:29:07,360 --> 00:29:10,880
focused analysis and discussion around

751
00:29:09,279 --> 00:29:12,480
what specific heights are appropriate

752
00:29:10,880 --> 00:29:13,840
for what areas of the community. We

753
00:29:12,480 --> 00:29:15,760
wanted to make sure that was explicit in

754
00:29:13,840 --> 00:29:17,200
the comp plan. That's our touchstone and

755
00:29:15,760 --> 00:29:20,320
what everything would sort of pivot back

756
00:29:17,200 --> 00:29:21,360
to. So if something is if if someone has

757
00:29:20,320 --> 00:29:22,640
on-site affordable and they're

758
00:29:21,360 --> 00:29:24,399
requesting a building height increase

759
00:29:22,640 --> 00:29:27,120
and it's inconsistent with the comp

760
00:29:24,399 --> 00:29:29,200
plan, then that is the foundational sort

761
00:29:27,120 --> 00:29:30,080
of way for us to say no, this is not

762
00:29:29,200 --> 00:29:31,679
appropriate. Yeah.

763
00:29:30,080 --> 00:29:33,520
» Okay. And is that sort of how the

764
00:29:31,679 --> 00:29:35,520
density works as well? Because we've

765
00:29:33,520 --> 00:29:37,919
sort of laid out in the comp plan ideas

766
00:29:35,520 --> 00:29:39,679
for um density in specific areas. So

767
00:29:37,919 --> 00:29:42,240
let's say that the maximum density is

768
00:29:39,679 --> 00:29:44,480
100 uh you actually what would it be

769
00:29:42,240 --> 00:29:45,039
like 30 units an acre or something? Oh

770
00:29:44,480 --> 00:29:46,640
my god.

771
00:29:45,039 --> 00:29:49,440
» So if we allowed for the greater

772
00:29:46,640 --> 00:29:50,960
density, [clears throat] is there So

773
00:29:49,440 --> 00:29:54,480
there's two ways for them to get greater

774
00:29:50,960 --> 00:29:56,559
density. Um allowing more lot coverage

775
00:29:54,480 --> 00:29:58,640
or allowing more height. Those would be

776
00:29:56,559 --> 00:30:01,360
the only two ways to allow for more

777
00:29:58,640 --> 00:30:04,320
density or are there other options that

778
00:30:01,360 --> 00:30:06,559
» You could get. So the um 20% would be

779
00:30:04,320 --> 00:30:08,159
additional units. So you So lot coverage

780
00:30:06,559 --> 00:30:10,000
is like how big your building footprint

781
00:30:08,159 --> 00:30:11,919
could be. You can go up by 20%. Building

782
00:30:10,000 --> 00:30:13,600
height obviously you can go up. And then

783
00:30:11,919 --> 00:30:15,919
there's the density bonus for the units

784
00:30:13,600 --> 00:30:18,640
themselves. You can get 20% more units

785
00:30:15,919 --> 00:30:20,720
than like your base zoning would allow.

786
00:30:18,640 --> 00:30:22,480
» Is so is the thought that the third way

787
00:30:20,720 --> 00:30:24,720
is just encouraging them to make smaller

788
00:30:22,480 --> 00:30:26,480
units to make more of them and smaller

789
00:30:24,720 --> 00:30:27,760
within the same square footage because

790
00:30:26,480 --> 00:30:29,200
I'm thinking the only two ways to get

791
00:30:27,760 --> 00:30:32,240
more square footage is to either have

792
00:30:29,200 --> 00:30:33,919
more ground taken up or go higher unless

793
00:30:32,240 --> 00:30:35,360
you make each unit smaller. That's the

794
00:30:33,919 --> 00:30:37,600
only third way that I can think of that

795
00:30:35,360 --> 00:30:40,240
you can add more units and greater

796
00:30:37,600 --> 00:30:41,760
density. Yeah, it's it's sort of like

797
00:30:40,240 --> 00:30:44,240
all the tools that we can think of from

798
00:30:41,760 --> 00:30:47,039
a zoning perspective that would have

799
00:30:44,240 --> 00:30:49,360
that flexibility. So, yeah,

800
00:30:47,039 --> 00:30:51,200
unit size, all of that is case by case

801
00:30:49,360 --> 00:30:51,360
and variable, but you're right. Yeah.

802
00:30:51,200 --> 00:30:53,039
Yeah.

803
00:30:51,360 --> 00:30:55,279
» I was just the reason I'm asking is we

804
00:30:53,039 --> 00:30:58,559
specifically call out the density and

805
00:30:55,279 --> 00:31:01,039
the height and the lot coverage implying

806
00:30:58,559 --> 00:31:05,919
those are different things. So, I mean,

807
00:31:01,039 --> 00:31:07,919
and I'm thinking they they could I mean,

808
00:31:05,919 --> 00:31:10,480
I guess I'm just thinking that just the

809
00:31:07,919 --> 00:31:12,640
density itself would allow for height

810
00:31:10,480 --> 00:31:14,559
and and lot coverage because And you're

811
00:31:12,640 --> 00:31:16,480
saying you can get more lot coverage and

812
00:31:14,559 --> 00:31:17,360
more height even if you don't increase

813
00:31:16,480 --> 00:31:19,600
density.

814
00:31:17,360 --> 00:31:21,120
» Yes. Yeah. Yeah. It's like if you look

815
00:31:19,600 --> 00:31:24,480
at it as three tools, you can use all

816
00:31:21,120 --> 00:31:26,320
three. You can use one, two, as a may of

817
00:31:24,480 --> 00:31:27,919
course. And this was specifically to

818
00:31:26,320 --> 00:31:30,720
help because a lot of it reads like it's

819
00:31:27,919 --> 00:31:32,480
helping with the 100% affordable units,

820
00:31:30,720 --> 00:31:35,039
but this was specifically this program

821
00:31:32,480 --> 00:31:38,799
to be targeted around encouraging the

822
00:31:35,039 --> 00:31:40,159
12% minimum inclusionary affordable into

823
00:31:38,799 --> 00:31:41,840
the properties and neighborhoods. Is

824
00:31:40,159 --> 00:31:43,360
that correct?

825
00:31:41,840 --> 00:31:44,480
» In terms of the incentives and the

826
00:31:43,360 --> 00:31:46,320
framework and Yeah.

827
00:31:44,480 --> 00:31:47,840
» Yeah. The whole the entire inclusionary

828
00:31:46,320 --> 00:31:49,760
housing program. I mean is it was it

829
00:31:47,840 --> 00:31:52,080
more targeted toward getting what we

830
00:31:49,760 --> 00:31:53,039
haven't been able to which is the 12% or

831
00:31:52,080 --> 00:31:55,600
more

832
00:31:53,039 --> 00:31:57,600
» In in a development that's market rate.

833
00:31:55,600 --> 00:31:59,360
» Yeah, that that's my understanding is a

834
00:31:57,600 --> 00:32:01,440
the policy decision that we want to

835
00:31:59,360 --> 00:32:04,399
encourage unit production with the fee

836
00:32:01,440 --> 00:32:06,320
and Lou as a as an option only at city

837
00:32:04,399 --> 00:32:08,159
council's discretion but on-site

838
00:32:06,320 --> 00:32:09,760
affordable units being built. Yes, the

839
00:32:08,159 --> 00:32:12,919
preference of course. Yeah.

840
00:32:09,760 --> 00:32:12,919
» Thank you.

841
00:32:14,080 --> 00:32:18,559
» Go ahead. Council member Dickson. Yeah,

842
00:32:15,919 --> 00:32:20,787
I appreciate those um questions, Council

843
00:32:18,559 --> 00:32:22,799
Member Kern, I think that clarifies

844
00:32:20,787 --> 00:32:27,679
[clears throat] it most for me. Um, you

845
00:32:22,799 --> 00:32:30,320
know, keeping it in in question form,

846
00:32:27,679 --> 00:32:32,000
you know, I think, right? So, what I'm

847
00:32:30,320 --> 00:32:36,240
understanding is because we haven't had

848
00:32:32,000 --> 00:32:37,919
units built on site. We're not changing,

849
00:32:36,240 --> 00:32:41,120
we're just trying to incentivize the

850
00:32:37,919 --> 00:32:44,640
on-site instead of fe. So the fee loo

851
00:32:41,120 --> 00:32:47,200
for purchase is going up and the

852
00:32:44,640 --> 00:32:49,919
incentives for building on site are

853
00:32:47,200 --> 00:32:51,519
going up and one of them being density.

854
00:32:49,919 --> 00:32:53,600
So you could just build more units,

855
00:32:51,519 --> 00:32:56,159
smaller units on the same footprint,

856
00:32:53,600 --> 00:32:58,240
same height, but you might want to go up

857
00:32:56,159 --> 00:33:01,120
» Or you might want to go out in order to

858
00:32:58,240 --> 00:33:04,159
accomplish more density. Um and as as

859
00:33:01,120 --> 00:33:08,080
you said, potentially all three. Um, and

860
00:33:04,159 --> 00:33:10,880
then you only get 30% density if the

861
00:33:08,080 --> 00:33:13,600
entire project is affordable, but not

862
00:33:10,880 --> 00:33:17,039
not 100% AMI. It's 100% affordable

863
00:33:13,600 --> 00:33:19,519
units. You can get a 30%.

864
00:33:17,039 --> 00:33:21,919
But they have to be

865
00:33:19,519 --> 00:33:24,559
So I'm reading all units are 80% or

866
00:33:21,919 --> 00:33:27,039
lower and the average is less than 60

867
00:33:24,559 --> 00:33:28,640
and that's the only way you get a 30%.

868
00:33:27,039 --> 00:33:31,679
» Yeah. Yeah. So, um

869
00:33:28,640 --> 00:33:34,799
» Really be looking at like 30 40 50% AMI

870
00:33:31,679 --> 00:33:35,279
units, maybe some up to 80.

871
00:33:34,799 --> 00:33:39,200
» Yeah.

872
00:33:35,279 --> 00:33:41,760
» Um curious if we why why do they all

873
00:33:39,200 --> 00:33:44,159
have to be under 80 if the average is

874
00:33:41,760 --> 00:33:45,919
under 60? Certainly

875
00:33:44,159 --> 00:33:47,919
many of them will be very very

876
00:33:45,919 --> 00:33:50,720
affordable. Why are we limiting? Like

877
00:33:47,919 --> 00:33:52,480
why can't it be 30 to 120

878
00:33:50,720 --> 00:33:53,679
as long as the average is I feel like it

879
00:33:52,480 --> 00:33:56,080
should be one or the other? Either all

880
00:33:53,679 --> 00:33:57,919
under 80 or the average is 60. But I

881
00:33:56,080 --> 00:34:00,000
don't know that I see what's the purpose

882
00:33:57,919 --> 00:34:03,600
of both of those.

883
00:34:00,000 --> 00:34:06,159
» Yeah, it's fair. And and uh to be clear,

884
00:34:03,600 --> 00:34:09,280
the the the purpose is to align again

885
00:34:06,159 --> 00:34:10,879
with the um the sort of the funding

886
00:34:09,280 --> 00:34:12,800
criteria and structures for low-inccome

887
00:34:10,879 --> 00:34:16,399
housing tax credits, which is exactly

888
00:34:12,800 --> 00:34:18,320
what's in there. So, so the um you know,

889
00:34:16,399 --> 00:34:20,079
if if we look to sort of the housing

890
00:34:18,320 --> 00:34:22,079
experts being Chaffa and all that,

891
00:34:20,079 --> 00:34:23,599
they've decided that that's a good

892
00:34:22,079 --> 00:34:25,359
enhanced sort of deep affordability

893
00:34:23,599 --> 00:34:26,879
metric. And so that was the alignment

894
00:34:25,359 --> 00:34:28,159
with that. In terms of your question

895
00:34:26,879 --> 00:34:30,480
about whether or not it could go above

896
00:34:28,159 --> 00:34:32,079
80, like a project could go above 80. It

897
00:34:30,480 --> 00:34:33,760
just wouldn't qualify for those types of

898
00:34:32,079 --> 00:34:34,399
funding mechanisms, but I mean it's

899
00:34:33,760 --> 00:34:36,480
something we would be

900
00:34:34,399 --> 00:34:38,159
» Well, ours wouldn't qualify for the 30%

901
00:34:36,480 --> 00:34:38,879
density because they had some that went

902
00:34:38,159 --> 00:34:40,879
over 80.

903
00:34:38,879 --> 00:34:42,480
» Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

904
00:34:40,879 --> 00:34:43,440
» Okay. Um

905
00:34:42,480 --> 00:34:44,720
» Changed. Yeah.

906
00:34:43,440 --> 00:34:46,960
» Yeah. Yeah, I mean I'd be interested

907
00:34:44,720 --> 00:34:49,440
maybe in

908
00:34:46,960 --> 00:34:51,200
in coming back with one that strikes the

909
00:34:49,440 --> 00:34:53,040
all units unless they I get that they

910
00:34:51,200 --> 00:34:55,440
might have to do that for other reasons,

911
00:34:53,040 --> 00:34:58,960
but I don't know if we might have an

912
00:34:55,440 --> 00:35:00,640
appetite for, you know, having average

913
00:34:58,960 --> 00:35:02,160
Well, I'm asking for something to

914
00:35:00,640 --> 00:35:03,040
potentially come back.

915
00:35:02,160 --> 00:35:06,800
» Okay.

916
00:35:03,040 --> 00:35:09,200
» Right. Um, so I'm asking for an option

917
00:35:06,800 --> 00:35:12,320
potentially to strike the all units less

918
00:35:09,200 --> 00:35:14,640
than 80 because I feel like all an

919
00:35:12,320 --> 00:35:16,400
average less than 60 would potentially

920
00:35:14,640 --> 00:35:17,920
be enough. But that'd be a pretty simple

921
00:35:16,400 --> 00:35:21,040
edit when it comes back to us.

922
00:35:17,920 --> 00:35:23,920
» Is that a question?

923
00:35:21,040 --> 00:35:25,359
» Just are you asking a question?

924
00:35:23,920 --> 00:35:28,760
» I was asking if that could come back

925
00:35:25,359 --> 00:35:28,760
that way. Yes.

926
00:35:29,040 --> 00:35:33,240
» All right.

927
00:35:30,240 --> 00:35:33,240
» Direction.

928
00:35:34,669 --> 00:35:38,480
» [clears throat]

929
00:35:34,880 --> 00:35:40,480
» Um, other questions.

930
00:35:38,480 --> 00:35:42,480
» Yep.

931
00:35:40,480 --> 00:35:44,400
» I'll just say I'm I'm interested in the

932
00:35:42,480 --> 00:35:46,800
same thing. I I had posed it in my

933
00:35:44,400 --> 00:35:49,440
written comments as doing the opposite

934
00:35:46,800 --> 00:35:51,440
of making it all under 80 and getting

935
00:35:49,440 --> 00:35:53,760
rid of the 60 average. But I don't know

936
00:35:51,440 --> 00:35:55,280
that I have a I I think your argument is

937
00:35:53,760 --> 00:35:58,960
equally valid and they probably get to a

938
00:35:55,280 --> 00:36:03,040
similar place. But both both does feel

939
00:35:58,960 --> 00:36:03,680
um maybe like overkill. Council

940
00:36:03,040 --> 00:36:06,320
member Kern.

941
00:36:03,680 --> 00:36:07,920
» Thanks. So, um, what I what I'm trying

942
00:36:06,320 --> 00:36:09,200
to understand then since this is opposed

943
00:36:07,920 --> 00:36:11,440
to the intention of the inclusionary

944
00:36:09,200 --> 00:36:14,480
housing policy is to assist with the

945
00:36:11,440 --> 00:36:17,680
inclusion in market rate housing of of

946
00:36:14,480 --> 00:36:21,119
non-market rate, right? So, if a if a

947
00:36:17,680 --> 00:36:22,880
building is 100% affordable, there's no

948
00:36:21,119 --> 00:36:24,880
inclusionary because there's no market

949
00:36:22,880 --> 00:36:27,839
rate. It's just affordable. So is it

950
00:36:24,880 --> 00:36:31,200
meant to be that it would be like that

951
00:36:27,839 --> 00:36:33,680
building would need to meet the needs of

952
00:36:31,200 --> 00:36:35,280
a 12% inclusionary for a different

953
00:36:33,680 --> 00:36:38,240
project affiliated with that same

954
00:36:35,280 --> 00:36:41,119
builder so that it is part of that

955
00:36:38,240 --> 00:36:44,480
like what's already being proposed for

956
00:36:41,119 --> 00:36:45,280
us. I'm not sure I 100% understand the

957
00:36:44,480 --> 00:36:46,720
qu the

958
00:36:45,280 --> 00:36:48,880
» So like the way that I look at it is

959
00:36:46,720 --> 00:36:51,760
normally we have you have you have 100

960
00:36:48,880 --> 00:36:54,560
units 12% of them need to be affordable

961
00:36:51,760 --> 00:36:55,920
need to be less than 80% for rental or

962
00:36:54,560 --> 00:36:58,320
less than 120 if it's going to be

963
00:36:55,920 --> 00:37:00,400
ownership and so that would be

964
00:36:58,320 --> 00:37:03,119
inclusionary we're including market rate

965
00:37:00,400 --> 00:37:08,320
and below market rate housing and we're

966
00:37:03,119 --> 00:37:13,040
asking them to do this um if it's 100%

967
00:37:08,320 --> 00:37:14,720
below 80% AMI for rental And it's 100%

968
00:37:13,040 --> 00:37:16,000
affordable. There's no market rate. So,

969
00:37:14,720 --> 00:37:18,720
it's not it's not it's not an

970
00:37:16,000 --> 00:37:22,240
inclusionary. It's it's its own separate

971
00:37:18,720 --> 00:37:25,280
lowincome affordable like housing uh

972
00:37:22,240 --> 00:37:28,800
complex or unit. It's not like part of

973
00:37:25,280 --> 00:37:33,119
our 12% unless that separate unit that's

974
00:37:28,800 --> 00:37:34,800
at 100% is part of counting as the 12%

975
00:37:33,119 --> 00:37:36,640
inclusionary for a different project.

976
00:37:34,800 --> 00:37:42,079
Does that make sense?

977
00:37:36,640 --> 00:37:44,240
» Yeah. I uh um I think the

978
00:37:42,079 --> 00:37:45,680
First thought is that like that's where

979
00:37:44,240 --> 00:37:47,920
that provision lives is when our

980
00:37:45,680 --> 00:37:50,160
inclusionary housing ordinance. It it

981
00:37:47,920 --> 00:37:52,000
you know ultimately it exceeds it

982
00:37:50,160 --> 00:37:53,359
exceeds the requirement. It just cuz

983
00:37:52,000 --> 00:37:56,000
it's parked in there. Maybe there's some

984
00:37:53,359 --> 00:37:58,880
confusion, but it probably still is the

985
00:37:56,000 --> 00:38:00,480
best place to park it because um as

986
00:37:58,880 --> 00:38:01,839
we've seen, there is the opportunity

987
00:38:00,480 --> 00:38:04,000
through alternative agreements and

988
00:38:01,839 --> 00:38:06,320
off-site agreements where you could find

989
00:38:04,000 --> 00:38:08,560
a way to have those units count toward.

990
00:38:06,320 --> 00:38:10,960
So, it's probably in the right home for

991
00:38:08,560 --> 00:38:13,839
that purpose. But to your question,

992
00:38:10,960 --> 00:38:16,880
yeah, it's goes beyond including uh

993
00:38:13,839 --> 00:38:18,960
being inclusionary. It fully exceeds the

994
00:38:16,880 --> 00:38:20,079
requirement. Um so it's it's a little

995
00:38:18,960 --> 00:38:22,000
confusing. Yeah. Yeah.

996
00:38:20,079 --> 00:38:25,599
» That was a clarifying. And then is there

997
00:38:22,000 --> 00:38:27,920
an option similar if it's not for rent,

998
00:38:25,599 --> 00:38:29,920
it's for purchase and all of them would

999
00:38:27,920 --> 00:38:33,359
be affordable. So for for people earning

1000
00:38:29,920 --> 00:38:34,400
below 120% AMI indeed restricted.

1001
00:38:33,359 --> 00:38:36,720
» Sorry, say that again.

1002
00:38:34,400 --> 00:38:38,240
» So this would apply the the scale of the

1003
00:38:36,720 --> 00:38:39,839
rental, right? And that's usually like a

1004
00:38:38,240 --> 00:38:41,520
lot of the LITC funding works for that.

1005
00:38:39,839 --> 00:38:42,960
That's I understand the 80 and the 60

1006
00:38:41,520 --> 00:38:45,200
because that's the exact language that's

1007
00:38:42,960 --> 00:38:48,079
in a lot of the federal funding. What if

1008
00:38:45,200 --> 00:38:49,680
this was not a rental 100% affordable?

1009
00:38:48,079 --> 00:38:52,160
What if it was ownership? So let's say

1010
00:38:49,680 --> 00:38:55,760
it was all like small homes or town

1011
00:38:52,160 --> 00:38:58,800
houses or maybe we can fix the the condo

1012
00:38:55,760 --> 00:39:00,560
issues with uh and um we can get some

1013
00:38:58,800 --> 00:39:02,320
ownership instead of just rental. So, if

1014
00:39:00,560 --> 00:39:04,720
it was an ownership and we're changing

1015
00:39:02,320 --> 00:39:08,240
our internal policies to allow for

1016
00:39:04,720 --> 00:39:10,880
ownership of below 120 versus just 80%.

1017
00:39:08,240 --> 00:39:12,480
Is it would it be possible or have we

1018
00:39:10,880 --> 00:39:14,800
thought about adding something that

1019
00:39:12,480 --> 00:39:16,960
would be available for 100% affordable

1020
00:39:14,800 --> 00:39:18,880
ownership and therefore it goes up to

1021
00:39:16,960 --> 00:39:22,000
120 AMI and maybe it's just changing the

1022
00:39:18,880 --> 00:39:24,000
language to rental at 80 and below as

1023
00:39:22,000 --> 00:39:25,440
already recommended and then 120 and

1024
00:39:24,000 --> 00:39:26,640
below if it's ownership at 100%

1025
00:39:25,440 --> 00:39:28,560
affordable

1026
00:39:26,640 --> 00:39:31,599
» In terms of getting that like enhanced

1027
00:39:28,560 --> 00:39:33,040
density bonus. Yeah, I mean that that um

1028
00:39:31,599 --> 00:39:34,480
it's not in there currently. It's only

1029
00:39:33,040 --> 00:39:37,040
for rental. I mean, that's something

1030
00:39:34,480 --> 00:39:38,640
that we would be open to evaluating um

1031
00:39:37,040 --> 00:39:40,640
and looking at any potential changes,

1032
00:39:38,640 --> 00:39:42,000
but um yeah, the short answer is it's

1033
00:39:40,640 --> 00:39:43,520
not in there. I mean, it would comply

1034
00:39:42,000 --> 00:39:45,280
with the inclusionary housing ordinance

1035
00:39:43,520 --> 00:39:46,960
and you could look at ways for that

1036
00:39:45,280 --> 00:39:48,720
again for that to count offsite if you

1037
00:39:46,960 --> 00:39:51,280
wanted to, but it it it's not eligible

1038
00:39:48,720 --> 00:39:52,960
currently for the 30% bonus. Um I think

1039
00:39:51,280 --> 00:39:55,200
we were more targeting rental units just

1040
00:39:52,960 --> 00:39:58,000
because of the deeper affordability

1041
00:39:55,200 --> 00:39:59,760
um considerations there, but um yeah,

1042
00:39:58,000 --> 00:40:00,960
we're we're open to that certainly.

1043
00:39:59,760 --> 00:40:04,480
That's what I was wondering too, like if

1044
00:40:00,960 --> 00:40:07,680
if you guys had looked into um finding

1045
00:40:04,480 --> 00:40:10,400
ways to make ownership more affordable

1046
00:40:07,680 --> 00:40:12,640
versus just a lot of this focus seems to

1047
00:40:10,400 --> 00:40:16,160
be around the the the rental units

1048
00:40:12,640 --> 00:40:17,680
versus the afford the the ownership and

1049
00:40:16,160 --> 00:40:19,040
uh I just wasn't sure if that was

1050
00:40:17,680 --> 00:40:20,240
something that could come back to us too

1051
00:40:19,040 --> 00:40:22,400
is some a little bit more thought in how

1052
00:40:20,240 --> 00:40:24,960
we incentivize the the building of the

1053
00:40:22,400 --> 00:40:27,119
less expensive owned properties. I think

1054
00:40:24,960 --> 00:40:30,079
the the biggest sort of lever in here

1055
00:40:27,119 --> 00:40:32,560
related to owner uh units is the

1056
00:40:30,079 --> 00:40:35,280
broadening of the AMI. Um so that is

1057
00:40:32,560 --> 00:40:37,280
where um there is a big gap currently.

1058
00:40:35,280 --> 00:40:40,000
So if you're a household earning 100% of

1059
00:40:37,280 --> 00:40:42,720
AMI, 120% of AMI, you're currently not

1060
00:40:40,000 --> 00:40:44,640
in this ordinance or as part of this and

1061
00:40:42,720 --> 00:40:47,359
so yet you cannot afford a house in

1062
00:40:44,640 --> 00:40:49,119
Lewisville. Um that's the lever to

1063
00:40:47,359 --> 00:40:50,720
address owner affordability and the

1064
00:40:49,119 --> 00:40:52,880
density bonus and all that, but we

1065
00:40:50,720 --> 00:40:55,119
didn't target the enhanced. Um, we just

1066
00:40:52,880 --> 00:40:56,160
focus more on rental. Um, but um, I

1067
00:40:55,119 --> 00:40:57,760
think there's always room for

1068
00:40:56,160 --> 00:40:58,240
improvement in the ordinance. Certainly.

1069
00:40:57,760 --> 00:40:59,839
» Thank you.

1070
00:40:58,240 --> 00:41:02,319
» Yeah,

1071
00:40:59,839 --> 00:41:05,920
» Council Member Hefner.

1072
00:41:02,319 --> 00:41:08,400
» Just I just wanted to um briefly on your

1073
00:41:05,920 --> 00:41:11,119
point about inclusionary I I've always

1074
00:41:08,400 --> 00:41:13,680
understood it to be in contrast to

1075
00:41:11,119 --> 00:41:16,400
exclusionary zoning like the zoning we

1076
00:41:13,680 --> 00:41:19,839
have that makes it hard for low-income

1077
00:41:16,400 --> 00:41:21,280
and minority residents to live here. And

1078
00:41:19,839 --> 00:41:23,440
I've always understood the idea of

1079
00:41:21,280 --> 00:41:25,440
inclusionary is like inclusionary to the

1080
00:41:23,440 --> 00:41:28,000
community. Like we're not willing to fix

1081
00:41:25,440 --> 00:41:30,160
our zoning, but we will give you this

1082
00:41:28,000 --> 00:41:31,119
sort of program to let you live here

1083
00:41:30,160 --> 00:41:34,680
even though we want to keep our

1084
00:41:31,119 --> 00:41:34,680
exclusionary zoning.

1085
00:41:37,839 --> 00:41:42,319
» Other questions? Yes, Council Member

1086
00:41:39,520 --> 00:41:45,040
Cooperman.

1087
00:41:42,319 --> 00:41:48,560
Um, so I'm wondering, do you think that

1088
00:41:45,040 --> 00:41:50,720
the 30% density bonus is a sufficient

1089
00:41:48,560 --> 00:41:54,920
incentive to actually get people to do

1090
00:41:50,720 --> 00:41:54,920
100% affordable projects?

1091
00:41:54,960 --> 00:42:00,880
» I I don't know. I mean, I think um it's

1092
00:41:58,000 --> 00:42:04,240
always about striking a balance between

1093
00:42:00,880 --> 00:42:07,040
um you know, what what isn't a level

1094
00:42:04,240 --> 00:42:09,040
that is not so high that it could

1095
00:42:07,040 --> 00:42:10,880
potentially be inconsistent with

1096
00:42:09,040 --> 00:42:12,800
neighborhood character. you know, we

1097
00:42:10,880 --> 00:42:15,040
have all these density metrics within

1098
00:42:12,800 --> 00:42:17,280
our zoning code and our comp plan fairly

1099
00:42:15,040 --> 00:42:18,800
closely calibrated. And so, I don't

1100
00:42:17,280 --> 00:42:21,200
think there's a magic number. I think

1101
00:42:18,800 --> 00:42:23,359
it's just um providing a little bit more

1102
00:42:21,200 --> 00:42:25,440
opportunity, but not going so far. And

1103
00:42:23,359 --> 00:42:27,599
again, this is a policy decision from

1104
00:42:25,440 --> 00:42:30,000
council, but um staff's recommendation

1105
00:42:27,599 --> 00:42:31,599
was and then looking at other ordinances

1106
00:42:30,000 --> 00:42:34,960
and sort of common practice, not that

1107
00:42:31,599 --> 00:42:36,800
that makes it right, but um 20 to 30% is

1108
00:42:34,960 --> 00:42:39,680
a pretty typical metric. Once you get

1109
00:42:36,800 --> 00:42:41,359
into 40 50% I think that's just a you

1110
00:42:39,680 --> 00:42:42,720
know a doubling of the density in a

1111
00:42:41,359 --> 00:42:43,760
neighborhood is substantial enough to

1112
00:42:42,720 --> 00:42:45,760
where that would be a concern

1113
00:42:43,760 --> 00:42:46,800
potentially but again council decision

1114
00:42:45,760 --> 00:42:51,359
obviously.

1115
00:42:46,800 --> 00:42:53,359
» Okay. Um and then you know the city is

1116
00:42:51,359 --> 00:42:55,680
party to this lofty goal of trying to

1117
00:42:53,359 --> 00:42:58,160
get 12% of units across the county to be

1118
00:42:55,680 --> 00:43:00,800
affordable by 2035.

1119
00:42:58,160 --> 00:43:03,520
Um you know given that we only have like

1120
00:43:00,800 --> 00:43:05,680
3% of our units currently affordable. a

1121
00:43:03,520 --> 00:43:07,920
12% requirement is not going to get us

1122
00:43:05,680 --> 00:43:11,119
there. And so the only thing that would

1123
00:43:07,920 --> 00:43:13,839
help at least in this ordinance um is

1124
00:43:11,119 --> 00:43:18,240
this right 30% bonus to try to

1125
00:43:13,839 --> 00:43:19,839
incentivize 100% affordable. Um so I was

1126
00:43:18,240 --> 00:43:22,160
wondering

1127
00:43:19,839 --> 00:43:23,760
I think last time we discussed this I

1128
00:43:22,160 --> 00:43:26,000
made a suggestion about having sort of

1129
00:43:23,760 --> 00:43:28,480
tiers where you get a little bit more

1130
00:43:26,000 --> 00:43:30,240
incentive if you go beyond the 12% and

1131
00:43:28,480 --> 00:43:32,000
I'm wondering if staff discussed that

1132
00:43:30,240 --> 00:43:33,839
option or not.

1133
00:43:32,000 --> 00:43:36,000
» We did. Yeah. And I think, you know, for

1134
00:43:33,839 --> 00:43:37,680
the purposes of of moving this forward

1135
00:43:36,000 --> 00:43:40,079
and keeping it targeted, that's probably

1136
00:43:37,680 --> 00:43:42,400
one example of something that, you know,

1137
00:43:40,079 --> 00:43:43,839
um, you know, we would recommend looking

1138
00:43:42,400 --> 00:43:47,119
at more broadly as part of the broader

1139
00:43:43,839 --> 00:43:48,800
code update. But, um, and to try to keep

1140
00:43:47,119 --> 00:43:51,280
it as simple as possible for this

1141
00:43:48,800 --> 00:43:53,119
near-term purpose, but, um, so we looked

1142
00:43:51,280 --> 00:43:55,440
at it, but did not propose it. No. Yeah.

1143
00:43:53,119 --> 00:43:59,280
» Okay. Uh, so then I think one more

1144
00:43:55,440 --> 00:44:04,880
question. Um,

1145
00:43:59,280 --> 00:44:06,640
we reviewed the Dr. COG housing study um

1146
00:44:04,880 --> 00:44:08,720
in order to come into compliance for

1147
00:44:06,640 --> 00:44:12,400
some state requirement.

1148
00:44:08,720 --> 00:44:15,839
Um and one thing that stood out in that

1149
00:44:12,400 --> 00:44:18,960
um report was that the most need is for

1150
00:44:15,839 --> 00:44:23,839
people who make less than 50% of AMI.

1151
00:44:18,960 --> 00:44:27,119
And um our

1152
00:44:23,839 --> 00:44:29,520
again as sort of aside from the uh 30%

1153
00:44:27,119 --> 00:44:32,000
density bonus for an average of 60, we

1154
00:44:29,520 --> 00:44:34,960
don't really try to address that where

1155
00:44:32,000 --> 00:44:37,440
the most need is. Um I'm just wondering

1156
00:44:34,960 --> 00:44:40,240
if staff had any thoughts on that

1157
00:44:37,440 --> 00:44:43,839
particular point. Yeah, the enhanced

1158
00:44:40,240 --> 00:44:45,680
density bonus was the one sort of lever

1159
00:44:43,839 --> 00:44:46,960
to get at that specific issue.

1160
00:44:45,680 --> 00:44:49,040
Recognizing that if you're doing an

1161
00:44:46,960 --> 00:44:50,560
averaging at 60, for example, then

1162
00:44:49,040 --> 00:44:52,240
you're going to have to go into that

1163
00:44:50,560 --> 00:44:54,079
deeper affordability level, but not

1164
00:44:52,240 --> 00:44:55,920
getting to the point of certainly not

1165
00:44:54,079 --> 00:44:58,880
requiring it just because of the

1166
00:44:55,920 --> 00:45:01,119
feasibility gap becomes so great. Um,

1167
00:44:58,880 --> 00:45:02,720
but um there certainly could be other

1168
00:45:01,119 --> 00:45:04,319
opportunities to further incentivize the

1169
00:45:02,720 --> 00:45:07,599
deeper affordability. Yeah.

1170
00:45:04,319 --> 00:45:10,920
» Okay. Thank you. Any

1171
00:45:07,599 --> 00:45:10,920
other questions?

1172
00:45:11,680 --> 00:45:20,000
I've I've got some uh is the bottom line

1173
00:45:15,680 --> 00:45:22,560
with these changes that

1174
00:45:20,000 --> 00:45:26,400
we're really

1175
00:45:22,560 --> 00:45:28,880
to test them against

1176
00:45:26,400 --> 00:45:30,800
um

1177
00:45:28,880 --> 00:45:32,480
this

1178
00:45:30,800 --> 00:45:35,839
sort of standard which is does it make

1179
00:45:32,480 --> 00:45:38,586
it more likely the developer builds

1180
00:45:35,839 --> 00:45:41,520
affordable units on the site rather than

1181
00:45:38,586 --> 00:45:41,520
[clears throat] doing fee and loo.

1182
00:45:41,680 --> 00:45:46,720
Yeah. Put even more simply is to try to

1183
00:45:44,079 --> 00:45:47,760
make it make it better. Not we we're not

1184
00:45:46,720 --> 00:45:48,800
trying, you know, we're not going to

1185
00:45:47,760 --> 00:45:49,680
make it perfect. We're just trying to

1186
00:45:48,800 --> 00:45:52,240
make it better, right?

1187
00:45:49,680 --> 00:45:55,359
» Yeah. Um,

1188
00:45:52,240 --> 00:45:58,000
do you think that

1189
00:45:55,359 --> 00:46:00,880
increasing the speed which was asked

1190
00:45:58,000 --> 00:46:02,880
about in the in a previous question

1191
00:46:00,880 --> 00:46:08,319
would

1192
00:46:02,880 --> 00:46:12,800
make a material difference in how

1193
00:46:08,319 --> 00:46:16,400
much affordable housing gets built or

1194
00:46:12,800 --> 00:46:18,319
you know whether that would um whether

1195
00:46:16,400 --> 00:46:19,760
that would make it more likely that a

1196
00:46:18,319 --> 00:46:21,599
developer builds. Sorry, I may have

1197
00:46:19,760 --> 00:46:23,520
missed that. The speed of the approval.

1198
00:46:21,599 --> 00:46:27,440
» Speed of the the approvals. Yeah.

1199
00:46:23,520 --> 00:46:28,800
» Of the process. Um,

1200
00:46:27,440 --> 00:46:30,160
» Yeah, I mean it definitely would. I

1201
00:46:28,800 --> 00:46:32,160
mean, that's that's obviously a big

1202
00:46:30,160 --> 00:46:34,640
hurdle toward feasibility. Time is

1203
00:46:32,160 --> 00:46:37,119
money. Um, but you know, I think

1204
00:46:34,640 --> 00:46:40,079
through, you know, we recently have

1205
00:46:37,119 --> 00:46:42,240
adopted some, um,

1206
00:46:40,079 --> 00:46:44,560
new codes that allow more expedited

1207
00:46:42,240 --> 00:46:47,119
review. We have an expedited PUD review

1208
00:46:44,560 --> 00:46:48,640
process now, for example, that allows,

1209
00:46:47,119 --> 00:46:52,560
you know, cuts down from four public

1210
00:46:48,640 --> 00:46:54,640
hearings to two. Um, and so we've tried

1211
00:46:52,560 --> 00:46:56,800
to do that a little bit. Um, but I think

1212
00:46:54,640 --> 00:46:59,040
from our perspective, the the bones

1213
00:46:56,800 --> 00:47:02,000
might be there currently in our

1214
00:46:59,040 --> 00:47:04,392
procedures to move things through pretty

1215
00:47:02,000 --> 00:47:07,040
quickly. Um it's just a matter of

1216
00:47:04,392 --> 00:47:08,160
[snorts] um you know there's so many

1217
00:47:07,040 --> 00:47:09,440
things that happen in the development

1218
00:47:08,160 --> 00:47:10,960
review process, the quality of the

1219
00:47:09,440 --> 00:47:13,680
submitt, the responsiveness of the

1220
00:47:10,960 --> 00:47:18,079
applicant, but um and again with Prop

1221
00:47:13,680 --> 00:47:20,000
123 um we'll be bringing you information

1222
00:47:18,079 --> 00:47:21,520
to you soon about that in terms of how

1223
00:47:20,000 --> 00:47:23,040
what we need to do for fasttrack

1224
00:47:21,520 --> 00:47:25,359
compliance so that you you'll be seeing

1225
00:47:23,040 --> 00:47:26,800
additional through a proposed resolution

1226
00:47:25,359 --> 00:47:29,040
and potentially some targeted code

1227
00:47:26,800 --> 00:47:31,920
amendments to further

1228
00:47:29,040 --> 00:47:32,400
» Um fasttrack quote unquote projects like

1229
00:47:31,920 --> 00:47:34,960
Yes. Yeah.

1230
00:47:32,400 --> 00:47:38,400
» And I appreciate that. I That's a a good

1231
00:47:34,960 --> 00:47:41,440
reminder. Um

1232
00:47:38,400 --> 00:47:44,440
couple of other thoughts.

1233
00:47:41,440 --> 00:47:44,440
Um,

1234
00:47:45,040 --> 00:47:51,839
one of the things that I didn't see in

1235
00:47:47,359 --> 00:47:53,760
that peer community review, which was

1236
00:47:51,839 --> 00:47:55,440
pretty comprehensive, and I I do

1237
00:47:53,760 --> 00:47:58,319
appreciate all the effort that went into

1238
00:47:55,440 --> 00:47:59,920
that, is how successful those

1239
00:47:58,319 --> 00:48:02,319
communities have been

1240
00:47:59,920 --> 00:48:06,319
» In getting affordable housing actually

1241
00:48:02,319 --> 00:48:09,760
built. Um, how hard is that? Is that

1242
00:48:06,319 --> 00:48:12,800
very hard to come up with? Is that a you

1243
00:48:09,760 --> 00:48:16,480
know it'd be nice to know the effect of

1244
00:48:12,800 --> 00:48:18,720
each one of these various uh tools which

1245
00:48:16,480 --> 00:48:22,640
is you know that's everybody's guess

1246
00:48:18,720 --> 00:48:23,839
right but do you have a sense of uh how

1247
00:48:22,640 --> 00:48:25,040
hard it would be to get that

1248
00:48:23,839 --> 00:48:28,000
information?

1249
00:48:25,040 --> 00:48:29,440
» It it would be we we have a really good

1250
00:48:28,000 --> 00:48:31,200
partnership with our peer communities in

1251
00:48:29,440 --> 00:48:33,680
Boulder County and we've actually got

1252
00:48:31,200 --> 00:48:35,599
some pretty good um data sources that we

1253
00:48:33,680 --> 00:48:38,640
share in terms of all of our

1254
00:48:35,599 --> 00:48:40,640
percentages. So I think we could um we

1255
00:48:38,640 --> 00:48:42,240
could get the numbers by community of

1256
00:48:40,640 --> 00:48:44,800
afford how many affordable units

1257
00:48:42,240 --> 00:48:48,000
percentage-wise. The challenge would be

1258
00:48:44,800 --> 00:48:49,680
like can you tie that directly to the

1259
00:48:48,000 --> 00:48:51,119
inclusionary ordinance certainly versus

1260
00:48:49,680 --> 00:48:52,559
other factors but you could certainly

1261
00:48:51,119 --> 00:48:53,599
look into getting that data and how we

1262
00:48:52,559 --> 00:48:55,280
compare

1263
00:48:53,599 --> 00:48:57,280
» Percentage wise. I do know that there's

1264
00:48:55,280 --> 00:48:59,599
there's apples to apples problems all

1265
00:48:57,280 --> 00:49:02,559
over the place and because other

1266
00:48:59,599 --> 00:49:04,720
communities have approved a whole bunch

1267
00:49:02,559 --> 00:49:07,760
of affordable units and they're not

1268
00:49:04,720 --> 00:49:10,800
getting built. I know that that's u true

1269
00:49:07,760 --> 00:49:12,960
of of Broomfield. It's just financing.

1270
00:49:10,800 --> 00:49:15,680
They're waiting for

1271
00:49:12,960 --> 00:49:18,160
that kind of stuff. So I Yeah, I I'd be

1272
00:49:15,680 --> 00:49:20,319
interested though just to see because it

1273
00:49:18,160 --> 00:49:22,000
it would be I mean maybe independent of

1274
00:49:20,319 --> 00:49:24,880
all that, it would be nice to see which

1275
00:49:22,000 --> 00:49:26,640
communities are actually making the

1276
00:49:24,880 --> 00:49:29,520
biggest strides and then to work

1277
00:49:26,640 --> 00:49:31,440
backwards and maybe ask why they why we

1278
00:49:29,520 --> 00:49:35,400
think that's happening. [snorts]

1279
00:49:31,440 --> 00:49:35,400
But um

1280
00:49:37,599 --> 00:49:42,960
one of the things that occurred to me

1281
00:49:38,880 --> 00:49:46,079
too is just ask uh that you maybe

1282
00:49:42,960 --> 00:49:50,079
provide a kind of visual

1283
00:49:46,079 --> 00:49:52,000
um a map or a table on the on the height

1284
00:49:50,079 --> 00:49:55,359
piece.

1285
00:49:52,000 --> 00:49:58,720
um about how that looks in, you know,

1286
00:49:55,359 --> 00:50:04,240
how that would look based on

1287
00:49:58,720 --> 00:50:07,599
the um the part of the um you know, the

1288
00:50:04,240 --> 00:50:11,040
parcels and zones that we're looking at.

1289
00:50:07,599 --> 00:50:13,119
» Yeah, we have a it's it's

1290
00:50:11,040 --> 00:50:14,880
so rudimentary. I I have it as a hidden

1291
00:50:13,119 --> 00:50:18,319
slide here. It's almost not helpful

1292
00:50:14,880 --> 00:50:20,319
because the it's easy to map where like

1293
00:50:18,319 --> 00:50:21,920
the residential medium zone districts

1294
00:50:20,319 --> 00:50:23,440
are. That's straightforward. But the

1295
00:50:21,920 --> 00:50:24,800
challenge is with general development

1296
00:50:23,440 --> 00:50:26,640
plans. So the way the ordinance is

1297
00:50:24,800 --> 00:50:29,359
written, if a general development plan

1298
00:50:26,640 --> 00:50:31,280
allows residential, then it could be

1299
00:50:29,359 --> 00:50:33,280
eligible for the height increase. So we

1300
00:50:31,280 --> 00:50:35,200
can do a map of all the general

1301
00:50:33,280 --> 00:50:36,720
development plan areas, but to figure

1302
00:50:35,200 --> 00:50:38,559
out which ones specifically allow

1303
00:50:36,720 --> 00:50:40,240
residential gets kind of messy and

1304
00:50:38,559 --> 00:50:42,319
that's why that map didn't make it into

1305
00:50:40,240 --> 00:50:44,319
your packet. But so a lot of the areas

1306
00:50:42,319 --> 00:50:45,760
around Centennial Valley, for example,

1307
00:50:44,319 --> 00:50:47,200
are a general development plan, but

1308
00:50:45,760 --> 00:50:49,280
there's really only pockets that

1309
00:50:47,200 --> 00:50:51,040
actually allow residential currently.

1310
00:50:49,280 --> 00:50:52,240
And so, um, it needs to be, it's just a

1311
00:50:51,040 --> 00:50:54,240
map we haven't prepared yet. I

1312
00:50:52,240 --> 00:50:56,720
apologize.

1313
00:50:54,240 --> 00:51:00,119
» Um, okay,

1314
00:50:56,720 --> 00:51:00,119
other questions.

1315
00:51:00,559 --> 00:51:02,480
» Yes, council member.

1316
00:51:01,520 --> 00:51:04,160
» Actually, just think you brought up a

1317
00:51:02,480 --> 00:51:06,079
good point, Mayor. And that would be a

1318
00:51:04,160 --> 00:51:07,440
helpful tool, Jeff, is to have that come

1319
00:51:06,079 --> 00:51:09,200
to us and I think it would be helpful to

1320
00:51:07,440 --> 00:51:11,280
the public to see something like that

1321
00:51:09,200 --> 00:51:13,359
where those where those where that is in

1322
00:51:11,280 --> 00:51:14,800
in comparison to the comprehensive plan

1323
00:51:13,359 --> 00:51:16,559
and and what we're thinking like where

1324
00:51:14,800 --> 00:51:17,839
it is residential. I think you make a

1325
00:51:16,559 --> 00:51:18,720
good point. That would be great. Thank

1326
00:51:17,839 --> 00:51:21,599
you.

1327
00:51:18,720 --> 00:51:24,079
Yeah, I mean I could I could show you

1328
00:51:21,599 --> 00:51:26,559
just just so you can see. Um I think I

1329
00:51:24,079 --> 00:51:28,640
have it as a hidden slide here.

1330
00:51:26,559 --> 00:51:30,319
» It's it's you could see that I was

1331
00:51:28,640 --> 00:51:32,559
physically going in and trying to X out

1332
00:51:30,319 --> 00:51:35,520
the areas that don't allow residential

1333
00:51:32,559 --> 00:51:38,079
currently. So with a grain of salt, if

1334
00:51:35,520 --> 00:51:41,440
you look at this map, the RM areas in

1335
00:51:38,079 --> 00:51:43,920
the orange are easy to map. That's areas

1336
00:51:41,440 --> 00:51:45,680
that would be eligible. The the green

1337
00:51:43,920 --> 00:51:47,440
cross-hatched area, that's the Oldtown

1338
00:51:45,680 --> 00:51:48,720
overlay.

1339
00:51:47,440 --> 00:51:50,319
And then this is the downtown area

1340
00:51:48,720 --> 00:51:52,000
obviously, but all these other areas and

1341
00:51:50,319 --> 00:51:53,599
sort of the teal color are general

1342
00:51:52,000 --> 00:51:55,040
development plan areas. And so we need

1343
00:51:53,599 --> 00:51:57,119
to sift through and figure out which

1344
00:51:55,040 --> 00:51:59,359
ones currently allow residential. The

1345
00:51:57,119 --> 00:52:01,520
red X is the areas that definitely don't

1346
00:51:59,359 --> 00:52:04,079
allow residential, but it's reluctant to

1347
00:52:01,520 --> 00:52:06,559
even share this, but is something we are

1348
00:52:04,079 --> 00:52:08,000
working on. It's um it's fair that we

1349
00:52:06,559 --> 00:52:12,040
need that information to evaluate the

1350
00:52:08,000 --> 00:52:12,040
decision. Oops.

1351
00:52:12,559 --> 00:52:21,520
» Thank you. That's that's helpful. Um do

1352
00:52:16,800 --> 00:52:24,880
we um have a motion

1353
00:52:21,520 --> 00:52:28,000
that perhaps incorporates

1354
00:52:24,880 --> 00:52:30,160
any any s suggestions that have been

1355
00:52:28,000 --> 00:52:30,800
kind of made through the question

1356
00:52:30,160 --> 00:52:31,839
period?

1357
00:52:30,800 --> 00:52:34,319
» Yes. Go ahead.

1358
00:52:31,839 --> 00:52:39,040
» Yeah. I'd uh move that ordinance number

1359
00:52:34,319 --> 00:52:41,040
1936 series 2026 pass on first reading

1360
00:52:39,040 --> 00:52:46,640
and the public hearing be set for

1361
00:52:41,040 --> 00:52:48,400
Tuesday August 18, 2026 at 6:00 pm.

1362
00:52:46,640 --> 00:52:49,680
» Second.

1363
00:52:48,400 --> 00:52:52,640
» Any discussion?

1364
00:52:49,680 --> 00:52:54,880
» Mayor, may I clarify? Um, council member

1365
00:52:52,640 --> 00:52:56,880
Hefner, is your motion to approve the

1366
00:52:54,880 --> 00:52:59,119
version that was revised?

1367
00:52:56,880 --> 00:52:59,599
» The revised version that we have printed

1368
00:52:59,119 --> 00:53:00,800
out.

1369
00:52:59,599 --> 00:53:03,359
» Great. Thank you.

1370
00:53:00,800 --> 00:53:03,359
» Thank you.

1371
00:53:03,440 --> 00:53:07,760
Okay. Uh, all in favor?

1372
00:53:06,800 --> 00:53:08,720
» I I

1373
00:53:07,760 --> 00:53:10,400
» Any opposed?

1374
00:53:08,720 --> 00:53:12,240
» Opposed? No.

1375
00:53:10,400 --> 00:53:14,960
» All right.

1376
00:53:12,240 --> 00:53:17,746
Um,

1377
00:53:14,960 --> 00:53:18,319
so motion carries.

1378
00:53:17,746 --> 00:53:22,960
[clears throat]

1379
00:53:18,319 --> 00:53:25,599
Um, our next um item is an executive

1380
00:53:22,960 --> 00:53:27,359
session on personnel matter. This is

1381
00:53:25,599 --> 00:53:28,800
performance review of officials

1382
00:53:27,359 --> 00:53:33,119
appointed by the city council.

1383
00:53:28,800 --> 00:53:36,480
Lewisville charter section 52B and CRS

1384
00:53:33,119 --> 00:53:40,400
section 246424F.

1385
00:53:36,480 --> 00:53:41,920
Um the mayor is requesting city council

1386
00:53:40,400 --> 00:53:43,280
convene an executive session for the

1387
00:53:41,920 --> 00:53:45,440
purpose of discussion of the annual

1388
00:53:43,280 --> 00:53:49,240
performance evaluations of the city

1389
00:53:45,440 --> 00:53:49,240
manager and the city attorney.

1390
00:53:54,559 --> 00:53:58,319
And mayor, prior to entertaining any

1391
00:53:56,720 --> 00:54:01,119
motion, the city clerk will read a

1392
00:53:58,319 --> 00:54:03,520
statement required by the city code.

1393
00:54:01,119 --> 00:54:05,440
» It is the policy of the city to conduct

1394
00:54:03,520 --> 00:54:08,079
public business and meetings open to the

1395
00:54:05,440 --> 00:54:10,160
public. While in executive session, it

1396
00:54:08,079 --> 00:54:11,920
is inappropriate to take straw votes,

1397
00:54:10,160 --> 00:54:14,480
keep minutes, or to make any final

1398
00:54:11,920 --> 00:54:16,559
decisions. It is the duty of each member

1399
00:54:14,480 --> 00:54:18,960
to ensure that executive sessions are

1400
00:54:16,559 --> 00:54:21,359
conducted in strict compliance with this

1401
00:54:18,960 --> 00:54:23,280
ordinance, state and federal law and any

1402
00:54:21,359 --> 00:54:26,079
applicable provisions of the state and

1403
00:54:23,280 --> 00:54:28,319
federal constitutions. If at any time

1404
00:54:26,079 --> 00:54:30,480
the scope, nature or parameter of this

1405
00:54:28,319 --> 00:54:32,480
executive session goes beyond the

1406
00:54:30,480 --> 00:54:34,160
publicly stated topic, it is the

1407
00:54:32,480 --> 00:54:36,319
responsibility of the council to

1408
00:54:34,160 --> 00:54:38,000
terminate and cease any further

1409
00:54:36,319 --> 00:54:40,000
deliberation within the executive

1410
00:54:38,000 --> 00:54:42,559
session and return to the public

1411
00:54:40,000 --> 00:54:44,720
meeting. Only those topics described in

1412
00:54:42,559 --> 00:54:47,119
city ordinances may be discussed in an

1413
00:54:44,720 --> 00:54:49,520
executive session. Those topics are

1414
00:54:47,119 --> 00:54:51,520
summarized as follows. One, where

1415
00:54:49,520 --> 00:54:53,280
federal or state law requires that the

1416
00:54:51,520 --> 00:54:55,760
information being discussed remain

1417
00:54:53,280 --> 00:54:57,520
confidential. Two, certain personnel

1418
00:54:55,760 --> 00:55:00,079
matters involving only employees

1419
00:54:57,520 --> 00:55:02,559
directly appointed by the council and

1420
00:55:00,079 --> 00:55:05,119
other personnel matters upon request of

1421
00:55:02,559 --> 00:55:07,280
the city manager or mayor. Three,

1422
00:55:05,119 --> 00:55:09,920
consideration of water rates and real

1423
00:55:07,280 --> 00:55:11,920
property acquisitions and dispositions,

1424
00:55:09,920 --> 00:55:14,880
but only as to appraisals, value

1425
00:55:11,920 --> 00:55:16,400
estimates, and strategy. Four, legal

1426
00:55:14,880 --> 00:55:18,240
consultation with an attorney

1427
00:55:16,400 --> 00:55:20,319
representing the city with respect to

1428
00:55:18,240 --> 00:55:22,160
pending litigation. Regarding the

1429
00:55:20,319 --> 00:55:25,359
authority for the executive session,

1430
00:55:22,160 --> 00:55:27,359
section 5-2B of the home rule charter

1431
00:55:25,359 --> 00:55:29,119
authorizes an executive session for the

1432
00:55:27,359 --> 00:55:31,040
purpose of reviewing the performance of

1433
00:55:29,119 --> 00:55:33,359
employees directly appointed by the city

1434
00:55:31,040 --> 00:55:35,359
council. An executive session for this

1435
00:55:33,359 --> 00:55:38,800
purpose is also authorized by the open

1436
00:55:35,359 --> 00:55:41,359
meetings law section 2464024F

1437
00:55:38,800 --> 00:55:43,920
of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The

1438
00:55:41,359 --> 00:55:46,559
request involves evaluations for the

1439
00:55:43,920 --> 00:55:48,240
city manager and city attorney um both

1440
00:55:46,559 --> 00:55:50,319
of whom were directly appointed by the

1441
00:55:48,240 --> 00:55:52,319
city council. With that, mayor, you may

1442
00:55:50,319 --> 00:55:54,480
entertain a motion to go into executive

1443
00:55:52,319 --> 00:55:57,119
session for consideration of performance

1444
00:55:54,480 --> 00:55:59,440
reviews and evaluations.

1445
00:55:57,119 --> 00:56:01,119
» Thank you. I move to go into executive

1446
00:55:59,440 --> 00:56:03,839
session for the purpose of consideration

1447
00:56:01,119 --> 00:56:05,680
performance review of employees directly

1448
00:56:03,839 --> 00:56:08,880
appointed by the city council and that

1449
00:56:05,680 --> 00:56:11,520
the executive session include Heidi

1450
00:56:08,880 --> 00:56:13,359
Brinkman with Brinkman Consulting and

1451
00:56:11,520 --> 00:56:15,680
City attorney Kathleen Kelly except for

1452
00:56:13,359 --> 00:56:18,079
the portion regarding the performance

1453
00:56:15,680 --> 00:56:19,680
review of the city attorney. Can we get

1454
00:56:18,079 --> 00:56:23,440
» Second?

1455
00:56:19,680 --> 00:56:25,040
» Any discussion? Can we get a roll call?

1456
00:56:23,440 --> 00:56:25,599
» Council member Cooperman.

1457
00:56:25,040 --> 00:56:28,079
» Yes.

1458
00:56:25,599 --> 00:56:29,119
» Council member Fehee. Yes. Council

1459
00:56:28,079 --> 00:56:29,680
member Hefner.

1460
00:56:29,119 --> 00:56:31,280
» Yes.

1461
00:56:29,680 --> 00:56:31,680
» Council member Dickinson.

1462
00:56:31,280 --> 00:56:32,960
» Yes.

1463
00:56:31,680 --> 00:56:33,440
» Council member Kern.

1464
00:56:32,960 --> 00:56:34,880
» Yes.

1465
00:56:33,440 --> 00:56:35,440
» Mayor Lei.

1466
00:56:34,880 --> 00:56:37,040
» Yes.

1467
00:56:35,440 --> 00:56:37,760
» Mayor Prom Hamington.

1468
00:56:37,040 --> 00:56:40,640
» Yes.

1469
00:56:37,760 --> 00:56:44,079
» Okay. Council will adjourn to executive

1470
00:56:40,640 --> 00:56:46,720
session. There'll be a post on the

1471
00:56:44,079 --> 00:56:51,200
screen during that time and we will

1472
00:56:46,720 --> 00:56:54,799
return at the end for report by the um

1473
00:56:51,200 --> 00:56:58,480
city attorney and close to the to our

1474
00:56:54,799 --> 00:56:58,480
meeting. So, thank you very much.

1475
02:37:33,840 --> 02:37:43,200
We are back on and I think um maybe I

1476
02:37:40,720 --> 02:37:45,760
need to give the report or do you you

1477
02:37:43,200 --> 02:37:47,520
can give the report that you know of

1478
02:37:45,760 --> 02:37:49,280
what you know of it

1479
02:37:47,520 --> 02:37:50,640
» Sorry about the executive session.

1480
02:37:49,280 --> 02:37:51,600
» Yeah if you want to start with your

1481
02:37:50,640 --> 02:37:57,120
statement.

1482
02:37:51,600 --> 02:38:02,479
» Yeah. Uh the council met to discuss

1483
02:37:57,120 --> 02:38:04,479
personnel evaluations of two folks who

1484
02:38:02,479 --> 02:38:07,040
are directly appointed by council. That

1485
02:38:04,479 --> 02:38:12,479
is the city manager and the city

1486
02:38:07,040 --> 02:38:15,600
attorney and the evaluations were very

1487
02:38:12,479 --> 02:38:19,120
very very positive um all the way

1488
02:38:15,600 --> 02:38:21,760
around. uh staff and um and council

1489
02:38:19,120 --> 02:38:24,880
members pretty much in agreement

1490
02:38:21,760 --> 02:38:26,960
generally speaking and we're just

1491
02:38:24,880 --> 02:38:32,160
delighted and wanted to share that with

1492
02:38:26,960 --> 02:38:35,399
you right away in no uncertain terms and

1493
02:38:32,160 --> 02:38:35,399
the unvarnished

1494
02:38:36,560 --> 02:38:40,240
truth.

1495
02:38:38,080 --> 02:38:41,840
If any other council members has

1496
02:38:40,240 --> 02:38:44,479
anything to add apolog Isn't there a

1497
02:38:41,840 --> 02:38:45,760
script we need to

1498
02:38:44,479 --> 02:38:46,640
» She

1499
02:38:45,760 --> 02:38:48,399
» Well she

1500
02:38:46,640 --> 02:38:49,120
» Or I'm just confused on the order of

1501
02:38:48,399 --> 02:38:51,600
things but

1502
02:38:49,120 --> 02:38:54,160
» Well I'm giving a report on part of it

1503
02:38:51,600 --> 02:38:55,439
and then Kathleen can do whatever

1504
02:38:54,160 --> 02:38:56,800
» Yeah I think it's awkward because I

1505
02:38:55,439 --> 02:38:58,560
usually give the report from the

1506
02:38:56,800 --> 02:39:01,120
executive session but since I wasn't

1507
02:38:58,560 --> 02:39:03,680
present during most of it um you know

1508
02:39:01,120 --> 02:39:06,000
I'll I'll just say that the sess

1509
02:39:03,680 --> 02:39:07,520
executive session was for the evaluation

1510
02:39:06,000 --> 02:39:08,960
and performance review of the city

1511
02:39:07,520 --> 02:39:10,560
manager manager and city attorney who

1512
02:39:08,960 --> 02:39:12,960
are officials appointed by the city

1513
02:39:10,560 --> 02:39:15,040
council and the council did discuss

1514
02:39:12,960 --> 02:39:16,880
these annual performance reviews and

1515
02:39:15,040 --> 02:39:19,040
that's the city attorney's report from

1516
02:39:16,880 --> 02:39:20,399
the executive session that she did not

1517
02:39:19,040 --> 02:39:22,080
attend most of

1518
02:39:20,399 --> 02:39:25,520
» One final thing from council's

1519
02:39:22,080 --> 02:39:30,240
perspective is that uh Heidi Brinkman is

1520
02:39:25,520 --> 02:39:33,920
going to Heidi Brinkman yes going to uh

1521
02:39:30,240 --> 02:39:36,560
contact each of you the city manager and

1522
02:39:33,920 --> 02:39:40,479
city attorney to provide additional

1523
02:39:36,560 --> 02:39:42,880
information. Um, and I I guess we

1524
02:39:40,479 --> 02:39:46,690
probably ought to have a vote on that.

1525
02:39:42,880 --> 02:39:49,120
I'm going to move that we um do

1526
02:39:46,690 --> 02:39:52,080
[clears throat] that that we have Heidi

1527
02:39:49,120 --> 02:39:53,359
be the person who's delivering that.

1528
02:39:52,080 --> 02:39:55,680
» Second.

1529
02:39:53,359 --> 02:39:56,640
» Uh, any discussion?

1530
02:39:55,680 --> 02:39:58,800
All in favor?

1531
02:39:56,640 --> 02:40:02,800
» I I Any opposed?

1532
02:39:58,800 --> 02:40:05,280
» All right. Good. Um, upcoming agenda

1533
02:40:02,800 --> 02:40:09,359
items and identification of future

1534
02:40:05,280 --> 02:40:12,160
agenda items. Does anyone want to

1535
02:40:09,359 --> 02:40:13,760
» I I just want to um briefly note so we

1536
02:40:12,160 --> 02:40:16,640
all remember that we're we're going to

1537
02:40:13,760 --> 02:40:19,200
follow up on the city manager's contract

1538
02:40:16,640 --> 02:40:21,280
um subsequent to this discussion and

1539
02:40:19,200 --> 02:40:23,200
delivery of the performance review and

1540
02:40:21,280 --> 02:40:25,120
that should be a future agenda item for

1541
02:40:23,200 --> 02:40:25,520
us.

1542
02:40:25,120 --> 02:40:28,640
» Um

1543
02:40:25,520 --> 02:40:32,080
» I agree. Also,

1544
02:40:28,640 --> 02:40:35,359
um there were some there was some

1545
02:40:32,080 --> 02:40:39,600
discussion tonight about items that may

1546
02:40:35,359 --> 02:40:43,680
not be coming back to us specifically

1547
02:40:39,600 --> 02:40:47,520
about the um um

1548
02:40:43,680 --> 02:40:52,240
inclusive uh housing ordinance. And I

1549
02:40:47,520 --> 02:40:56,160
don't know whether uh uh I'm thinking in

1550
02:40:52,240 --> 02:40:59,680
in part about the um

1551
02:40:56,160 --> 02:41:02,640
portion of uh the ordinance that talks

1552
02:40:59,680 --> 02:41:04,160
about the quality relative quality of

1553
02:41:02,640 --> 02:41:04,640
the

1554
02:41:04,160 --> 02:41:06,399
um

1555
02:41:04,640 --> 02:41:10,319
» The like forlike standards. Yeah, the

1556
02:41:06,399 --> 02:41:12,800
like forl like standards and um I don't

1557
02:41:10,319 --> 02:41:16,800
know and certainly we don't have to deal

1558
02:41:12,800 --> 02:41:19,840
with that in the context of this next uh

1559
02:41:16,800 --> 02:41:23,200
iteration of the ordinance but it I I

1560
02:41:19,840 --> 02:41:27,439
would be interested in at some point in

1561
02:41:23,200 --> 02:41:29,439
the future discussing that as an issue

1562
02:41:27,439 --> 02:41:30,319
and there may be other issues relating

1563
02:41:29,439 --> 02:41:31,920
to that as well.

1564
02:41:30,319 --> 02:41:34,319
» I would actually agree but I think it

1565
02:41:31,920 --> 02:41:38,439
should come next week. I think there

1566
02:41:34,319 --> 02:41:38,439
should be more conversation about that.

1567
02:41:40,479 --> 02:41:45,920
» I think we sent on for first. Well, I

1568
02:41:42,960 --> 02:41:48,000
I'll leave it to staff to they cover

1569
02:41:45,920 --> 02:41:49,920
what they want to on the

1570
02:41:48,000 --> 02:41:52,720
» Yeah. With Director Zukaro not being

1571
02:41:49,920 --> 02:41:55,600
here tonight, um we would like to talk

1572
02:41:52,720 --> 02:41:57,200
to him and discuss the comments that

1573
02:41:55,600 --> 02:41:59,520
were and feedback that was provided

1574
02:41:57,200 --> 02:42:01,439
tonight by council and see the direction

1575
02:41:59,520 --> 02:42:04,319
that he would recommend that we move

1576
02:42:01,439 --> 02:42:06,800
forward with this ordinance. And so, um,

1577
02:42:04,319 --> 02:42:09,439
we would like to talk to he and Jeff and

1578
02:42:06,800 --> 02:42:12,080
then make a recommendation to council.

1579
02:42:09,439 --> 02:42:17,359
» That's fair. I think another part of

1580
02:42:12,080 --> 02:42:21,520
that was sort of the question of speed

1581
02:42:17,359 --> 02:42:23,520
of of uh permitting and so forth. Um,

1582
02:42:21,520 --> 02:42:25,359
that's something that we didn't

1583
02:42:23,520 --> 02:42:28,080
necessarily

1584
02:42:25,359 --> 02:42:30,640
u site as a an amendment. You can deal

1585
02:42:28,080 --> 02:42:33,359
with it in the same way if you like. to

1586
02:42:30,640 --> 02:42:35,920
have a discussion with Rob. But that's

1587
02:42:33,359 --> 02:42:38,880
something for a future meeting

1588
02:42:35,920 --> 02:42:42,319
regardless of whether it's the the

1589
02:42:38,880 --> 02:42:44,560
second reading or otherwise that I'd

1590
02:42:42,319 --> 02:42:45,600
like to put on the table for

1591
02:42:44,560 --> 02:42:47,040
consideration.

1592
02:42:45,600 --> 02:42:50,319
» Yeah. My understanding that's going to

1593
02:42:47,040 --> 02:42:52,479
come to you as part of the Prop 123 um

1594
02:42:50,319 --> 02:42:54,000
process and so that is being covered

1595
02:42:52,479 --> 02:42:55,520
under an item. I don't know the time

1596
02:42:54,000 --> 02:42:56,640
frame for that.

1597
02:42:55,520 --> 02:42:57,120
» Can you let us know?

1598
02:42:56,640 --> 02:42:59,760
» Yes.

1599
02:42:57,120 --> 02:43:01,840
» Okay. Right. Um, do we have anything

1600
02:42:59,760 --> 02:43:04,240
else?

1601
02:43:01,840 --> 02:43:06,880
» Yeah. Oh,

1602
02:43:04,240 --> 02:43:07,600
I guess we Yeah. Do we have any C

1603
02:43:06,880 --> 02:43:09,120
attorney's report?

1604
02:43:07,600 --> 02:43:10,960
» I have no report, but thank you.

1605
02:43:09,120 --> 02:43:14,399
» Sorry, we just flipped those. Thank you,

1606
02:43:10,960 --> 02:43:14,960
Deb. Um, do we have a motion to adjurnn?

1607
02:43:14,399 --> 02:43:15,760
» So moved.

1608
02:43:14,960 --> 02:43:16,960
» Second.

1609
02:43:15,760 --> 02:43:18,399
» All in favor? I.

1610
02:43:16,960 --> 02:43:22,439
» Any opposed?

1611
02:43:18,399 --> 02:43:22,439
» Thank you and good night.