* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [00:00:03]
          ALRIGHT EVERYBODY. 
          IT IS, UH, 1237. 
          WE'LL CALL OUR MEETING TO ORDER. 
          WOULD STAFF PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL? MR. GARCIA? HERE. 
          MR. SIPES. 
          MR. TEAL. 
          MS. COEN, IT'S PRETTY LIGHT TODAY. 
          WAS IT THIS LIGHT LAST WEEK? MR. FERNANDEZ? HERE. 
          MR. LIMAN? MR. BLA? HERE. 
          MR. BROWN. 
          MR. HENLEY? HERE. 
          MR. FULLERTON? HERE. 
          MR. TAPIA? PRESENT. 
          MR. ESTRADA? PRESENT. 
          MR. MANNA? PRESENT. 
          MS. REED? HERE. 
          MR. RAMIREZ? HERE. 
          MR. VASQUEZ? HERE. 
          MS. MALDONADO? HERE. 
          MR. NICKS HERE. 
          MR. MOORE. 
          A QUORUM IS PRESENT. 
          AND I'M HERE TOO. 
          I DIDN'T HEAR MY NAME. 
          SORRY. 
          CHAIR PACK. 
          AND, UH, AND MS. GUILLO HAYS PRESENT. 
          AND FOR THE RECORD, MR. LEASEMAN IS HERE ALSO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEP. 
          ALL RIGHTY. 
          WE'RE GOING MOVE RIGHT TO THE MINUTES. 
          DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, OR MOTION ON THE MINUTES? ROBERT MAY MOVE APPROVAL. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. HANLEY. 
          A SECOND BY WASN'T MR. MANNA? AYE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? AND I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN 'CAUSE I WASN'T HERE. 
          SO MOTION CARRIES. 
          I I DO WANNA MENTION REAL QUICK, I KNOW THERE WAS A DISCUSSION AT THE END OF LAST MEETING ON THE MINUTES ABOUT MAKING, UH, THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT THE TAC HAS RECEIVED AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. 
          UH, IF WE CAN GO AHEAD AND PULL UP WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO POST, UH, RATHER THAN TRYING TO DO FOR WORD OR TRANSCRIPTION OF THOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS INTO THE MINUTES THEMSELVES, WE'VE CREATED A LINK, UH, ON OUR WEBSITE WHERE YOU CAN TRACK ALL OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED TO DATE. 
          AND YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THAT FROM THE SAME LOCATION WHERE YOU ACCESSED THE SUMMARY OF THE AMENDMENTS THEMSELVES. 
          BUT YOU CAN CLICK ON EACH MEETING AND YOU CAN SEE THE DATE THAT WE RECEIVED THE COMMENTS, UH, FOR WHAT AMENDMENT NUMBERS THEY APPLY TO, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE IN SUPPORT, UH, OPPOSITION, OR WERE NEUTRAL. 
          UH, THE NAME OF WHO WE RECEIVED THE COMMENTS FROM AND THE COMMENTS THEMSELVES. 
          SO I JUST WANT TO, UH, SAY THAT WE WERE ABLE TO GET THAT INFORMATION LOADED ONLINE AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO UPDATE THAT, UH, AFTER EACH TAC MEETING AS THOSE, UH, STATEMENTS COME IN. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU, LOGAN. 
          ANY QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS ON THAT? I JUST WANTED TO THANK, THANK STAFF FOR, UM, DOING, GOING THROUGH THAT EFFORT. 
          UH, I DO APPRECIATE THAT. 
          I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT THE END OF THE LAST MEETING, SO, UM, THANK YOU FOR, FOR PUTTING THAT FORWARD. 
          I REALLY, AGAIN, APPRECIATE STAFF'S EFFORTS AND, AND THE TRANSPARENCY THAT PROVIDES. 
          OKAY. 
          BIANCA, I JUST HAD ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. 
          UM, 'CAUSE THE WHOLE POINT IS THAT WHEN WE GET THE MINUTES, IT SAYS, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION AND THIS HELPS YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION IS TO CERTAIN U D C AMENDMENTS WITHOUT HAVING TO DO AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST TO GET THESE WRITTEN COMMENTS THAT ARE SUBMITTED THAT WE RECEIVE BEFORE EACH MEETING. 
          JUST LIKE WE RECEIVED SOME TODAY. 
          AND SO I JUST WANTED TO THANK STAFF AND THEN KIND OF POINT OF ORDER THE MINUTES. 
          WE USUALLY DO 'EM AT THE END. 
          SO I WAS A LITTLE CAUGHT OFF GUARD. 
          I WANTED TO SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT, UM, SO I GUESS WE'RE GOING A LITTLE OUTTA ORDER. 
          I DO 'EM IN THE BEGINNING TO GET 'EM OUT OF THE WAY, SO THANK YOU. 
          ARE ALL RIGHT FOR THE RECORD, ARE WE APPROVING THE MINUTES? NOT LAST WEEKS, BUT THE PRECEDING WEEK. 
          WE DIDN'T APPROVE THOSE AT LAST WEEK. 
          I BELIEVE BOTH OF THEM WERE IN THE MEETING MINUTES ON THIS AGENDA. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          AND FOR THE RECORD, MR. S SIPES HAS JOINED THE MEETING ? YEAH. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WE'LL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          YEAH. 
          IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ANY PARTICULAR ITEM WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK NOW? I THINK WE DO HAVE SOME COMMENTS. 
          UM, ONE VOICEMAIL. 
          ONE VOICEMAIL THAT WE CAN PLAY EITHER NOW OR DURING THAT ITEM. 
          OKAY. 
          WE CAN PLAY IT DURING, DURING THE ITEM. 
          I THINK THAT WAY WE SAY CONSISTENT. 
          SO WHICH ITEM IS THE VOICEMAIL FOR? SO THE FIRST ONE. 
          THE FIRST ONE. 
          FIRST ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE'LL PLAY, WE'LL PLAY IT. 
          AND NOBODY HAS SIGNED IN TO SPEAK ON THE SIGNAGE SHEET. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WELL, WITH THAT WE'LL MOVE INTO THE FIRST ONE. 
          SO, 
          [New Business
 ]
DISCUSSION IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C M M. 
          ITEM SIX DASH ONE, AFFECTING DIVISION FIVE, NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION. 
          YEAH, LET'S START WITH THE VOICEMAIL THAT  FOR THAT ONE STREET. 
          [00:05:01]
I'M CALLING, UH, ABOUT THE, HI, MY NAME IS STEVE VERTI, 1 0 5 RENO STREET. 
          I'M CALLING, UH, ABOUT THE, UM, AMENDMENTS GOING TO PTECH. 
          I'M IN FAVOR OF SIX DASH ONE AND SIX DASH SIX FOR URBAN FARMS AS PART OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND TO ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE OF TOOLS. 
          UH, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF 23 DASH FIVE, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE RIGHT OF WAYS AND EASEMENTS FOR THE TREE CAN, UH, FOR THE TREE CANOPY ON A LOT. 
          UH, I THINK THIS IS GONNA TAKE AWAY FROM, UM, PROPER USE OF BUFFERS. 
          I THINK, UH, THIS IS GONNA CAUSE PEOPLE TO GO TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND REMOVE THEIR BUFFER, UH, BECAUSE THEY PUT THE TREES IN THE STREET. 
          UH, I THINK THIS IS WRONG. 
          THE, THE STREET IS NOT PART OF THE LOT, SO THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S ALL THE VOICEMAILS WE HAD. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          SO IS THERE A PRESENTATION ON SIX DASH ONE? UM, I'M LESLIE PROVINCE, UH, 1315 SLY AVENUE. 
          7 8 2 1 0. 
          I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT AND TREASURER OF THE FOOD POLICY COUNCIL AND THE AUTHOR OF THE AMENDMENT. 
          UM, I CAN'T SAY THAT I REALLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS MEANT IN THE VOICEMAIL BECAUSE WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING WITH TREES THAT THE CITY DOESN'T ALREADY DO. 
          UM, WE'VE, WE'VE WORKED WITH, UM, WITH THAT OFFICE IN CRAFTING THESE AMENDMENTS AND WE'RE, WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING THAT THEY DON'T ALREADY HAVE IN CODE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO DO YOU WANT ME TO SPEAK FURTHER ON THE AMENDMENT? IF YOU HAVE A, IF YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, YOU'D LIKE TO DISCUSS IT, THEN THAT'S FINE. 
          I DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION. 
          UM, ALL OF OUR AMENDMENTS ARE AIMED AT, UM, HELPING TO FULFILL THE, SAY TOMORROW SUSTAINABILITY GOALS AND THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, UH, FOOD SYSTEM GOALS TO MAKE, UH, FOOD HEALTHY FOOD MORE ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYONE IN SAN ANTONIO. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UM, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? IT'S BIANCA. 
          I JUST HAD A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. 
          THE GENTLEMAN WHO LEFT THE VOICEMAIL WAS COMMENTING ON MULTIPLE AMENDMENTS. 
          SO IT WAS, THOSE, NOT THOSE COMMENTS WERE NOT PERTAINED TO YOUR, YOUR AMENDMENT. 
          BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. 
          MR. HANLEY, WERE YOU? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION FROM BIANCA AND A SECOND BY MR. MANNA. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ITEM NUMBER TWO, UH, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDMENT ITEM 18 DASH FOUR, SECTION 35 DASH 5 23. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          DOUG MELMAN, CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER. 
          UM, SIMILAR TO PREVIOUS AMENDMENTS THAT WE BROUGHT FORTH, THIS IS A, UH, PROPOSED, UH, INCLUSION IN THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE, UH, FOR SECTION 35 5 23, UH, FOR TREE PRESERVATION. 
          AGAIN, TRYING TO FIND THOSE OPPORTUNITIES TO, UH, LINK TO OUR ESSAY CLIMATE READY PLAN. 
          UM, AND THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE. 
          JUST LOOKING TO PROPOSE, UM, LANGUAGE THAT REALLY, UH, YOU KNOW, MEMORIALIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF TREE CON CANOPY, UH, UH, IN TERMS OF ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE IN TERMS OF, UH, SEQUESTERING CARBON MITIGATING EXTREME HEAT AND IMPROVING AIR QUALITY. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, AS, AS WE HAD MENTIONED LAST TIME, THE IDEA OF JUST STARTING TO THINK ABOUT LONGER TERM, UM, THE SPECIES THAT WE'RE SELECTING NOW, UM, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S AN EMERGING FIELD AND IT'S NOT A EASY ANSWER ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT, UM, SPECIES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE INVASIVE. 
          IT'S A BIGGER CONVERSATION. 
          BUT WE DEFINITELY WANTED TO, TO TRY TO GET LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT JUST AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGES THE ROLE THAT, UM, TREES PLAY IN, IN THIS BIG CHALLENGE. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, DOUG. 
          ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          MICHAEL, WHAT, WHAT DOES, THIS IS MICHAEL MOORE. 
          WHAT DOES MAXIMIZES MEAN? IS THERE A LIMITATION MAXIMIZES TREE KIND OF CHANGE? NO, THERE'S NO, THERE WAS NO, UM, MAYBE THAT'S NOT THE, THE RIGHT TERM. 
          I THINK THE THOUGHT WAS JUST TRYING TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE, UM, YEAH, MAKING SURE THAT THE TREE CANOPY IS AS 
          [00:10:01]
ROBUST AS CAN BE, BUT MAYBE THERE'S A DIFFERENT TERM, UM, THAT THE GROUP MIGHT BE COMFORTABLE WITH. 
          CAN I SUGGEST OPTIMIZES? OPTIMIZES IS FINE. 
          WELL, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST, I'M LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT IS A BOUNDARY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, AND NOT AN OPEN, AN OPEN OPPORTUNITY, UH, TO DEMAND MORE THAN MAYBE IS PRACTICAL. 
          THIS IS STEVEN STINGER. 
          WE AS STAFF HAD GONE OVER THIS WITH THEM. 
          UM, BECAUSE IT'S IN THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HAS NO, UH, ACTUAL CODIFIED LANGUAGE. 
          IT'S MORE OF A, A BRINGING IT TO LIGHT AND MAKING SURE IT'S IN THE CODE SOMEWHERE, BUT THERE'S NO ACTUAL CODE PIECES THAT WERE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW WITH THIS, UH, AMENDMENT. 
          AND IT WOULDN'T SUPERSEDE ANY OTHER LANGUAGE IN THE, UM, U D C REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION. 
          YES. 
          BUT IT ESTABLISHES POSSIBLE INTENT TO, TO MAXIMIZE YOU COULD, YOU COULD MAKE INSTEAD OF 38%, IT COULD BE 70%. 
          I MEAN, AND THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE POLICY DISCUSSION WITH THE WORD ENCOURAGE OR ENCOURAGES. 
          I LIKE THAT. 
          ENCOURAGES IS FINE. 
          YEAH, I LIKE THAT. 
          WELL, I THINK WELL OPTIMIZE IS, IS A STRANGE WORD TOO. 
          'CAUSE I THINK IT KIND OF CAN GO BOTH WAYS. 
          AND SO, SO THAT ONE IS, IS STARTING TO PUT SOME FACTORS IN THERE WHERE I THINK ENCOURAGE IS KIND OF, IS MORE TO THE INTENT, I THINK, OF WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR. 
          I AGREE WITH THAT ONE. 
          ENCOURAGES IS, IS ACCEPTABLE ALSO. 
          UH, THIS IS MICHAEL MOORE. 
          I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? UM, I JUST HAVE A GENERAL QUESTION. 
          UH, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO EQUITY ATLAS, IS THAT AN ACTUAL DOCUMENT? WHAT YES. 
          YES IT IS. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THIS IS ROBERT HANLEY. 
          I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE DOCUMENT AS AMENDED OR THE AMENDMENT AS AMENDED. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MR. HANLEY, A SECOND BY MS. REED. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ARE THEY UPDATE THE TEXT THERE? I'M JUST GONNA ASK THAT QUESTION. 
          ARE WE UPDATING THE TEXT? WE'RE HAVING SOME ISSUES WITH UPDATING THE TEXT. 
          WE'RE GONNA GO GET ANDREW RIGHT NOW SO THAT WE CAN DO THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          MY, MY MOTION WAS AS OF AMENDMENT AS AMENDED BY THE WORD ENCOURAGED. 
          AND WHAT WAS THE SITUATION WITH THE CHANGING IT IS THE, WE'RE HAVING COMPUTER PROBLEMS OR WE'RE YEAH, WE'RE HAVING COMPUTER PROBLEMS. SO WE'RE GONNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, TRACKING THIS VERBALLY. 
          AND THEN ALSO WE'RE MAKING NOTES BACK HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          I HOPE TO GET THIS FIXED WITH BEFORE THE NEXT MAJOR CHANGES BECAUSE WE NEED TO HAVE IT DONE YEAH. 
          HERE IN THE MEETING. 
          SO WE CAN CONTINUE ON. 
          WE DON'T NEED TO WAIT ON THAT. 
          YES, WE CAN CONTINUE ON. 
          WE'VE MADE NOTE TO CHANGE. 
          MAXIMIZES TO, NOT OPTIMIZES. 
          ENCOURAGES. 
          ENCOURAGES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE, DISCUSSION IN ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT. 
          ITEM 15 DASH FOUR AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 5 23 A ONE F, AND 35 DASH 5 23 B FOUR. 
          WE HAVE A C P S ENERGY HERE. 
          UH, YEAH, I'M, I'M HERE. 
          TING. 
          C P S ENERGY. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU WANT TO COME UP AND INTRODUCE THE AMENDMENT? I DIDN'T SIGN UP, BUT JUST TO INTRODUCE MYSELF. 
          MY NAME IS, UH, BRIAN LONGWORTH. 
          I'M A CIVIL ENGINEER WITHIN THE, UH, TRANSMISSION AND ENGINEERING GROUP AT C P S ENERGY. 
          AND PRIMARILY WHAT I, WHAT WE DO IS A SUBSTATION AND TRANSMISSION PROJECTS. 
          AND, UM, JUST TO START OFF SAYING THAT THE, THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF OUR OUTAGES WITHIN OUR SYSTEM IS, IS CAUSED BY DOWN TREES OR, OR CONTACTS WITH TREES WITH OUR POWER LINES. 
          UM, AND OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, WE'VE PAID, UH, ROUGHLY A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IN TREE MITIGATION FEES ON OUR, UH, SUBSTATION AND TRANSMISSION PROJECTS. 
          AND ALL OF THOSE COSTS KNOW WE'RE, WE'RE OWNED BY THE CITY AND ALL OF THOSE COSTS ULTIMATELY GET PASSED DOWN TO OUR CUSTOMERS WHO ARE THE RIGHT PAYERS. 
          AND SO ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR IS THAT WHERE WE CAN'T, WE PHYSICALLY CAN'T LEAVE TREES IF THE, IF THE MITIGATION COULD BE, UH, WAIVED, THE, THE TREE MITIGATION FEES COULD BE WAIVED AND THE, THE TREE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS. 
          ALL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY DISCUSSION? 
          [00:15:01]
THIS ITEM JUST HAD ONE, UM, EDIT. 
          I THINK THAT NUMBER ONE TREE EXEMPT SHOULD BE FOUR. 
          YES, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          I, I SPOKE TO THE, THE AUTHOR OF THIS LAST WEEK AND HE SAID THAT WAS A, UM, IT WAS FINE, OBVIOUSLY. 
          SO IT SHOULD, NON INCIDENT NUMBER ONE, TREES EXEMPT SHOULD BE FOUR TREES EXEMPT. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          DEBBIE, UM, JUST FROM WHAT I HEARD, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT EXEMPTION FROM THE FEES VERSUS BEING EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS. 
          IS THAT, I DON'T REALLY READ THAT. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, I GUESS WE'RE JUST RE REQUESTING THAT WE'RE EXEMPT FROM THE MITIGATION ALTOGETHER WITHIN THE, THE FOOTPRINT OF OUR SUBSTATIONS AND UNDERNEATH ANY OVERHEAD LINES. 
          JUST FOR YOUR SUBSTATIONS, NOT THERAN, ALL OVERHEAD DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSMISSION LINES. 
          WELL, TRANSMISSION AND OVERHEAD AS WELL. 
          THAT'S HUGE. 
          YEAH. 
          IF, IF YOU'RE MITIGATING THAT MEANS, 'CAUSE YOU'RE TRYING TO RE GET EXEMPT FROM PUTTING IN THE TREES OR SAVING THE TREES AND THEN YOU PAY MITIGATION. 
          SO IF YOU'RE ASKING TO BE EXEMPT FROM MITIGATION, YOU'RE BASICALLY EXEMPTING FROM EVERYTHING FOR EVERYTHING. 
          SO THERE'S NOT REALLY, YEAH, IT'S PRETTY HUGE WITHOUT THAT DEFINITION OF JUST SUBSTATIONS. 
          YEAH. 
          WOULD THIS APPLY TO, UH, UNDERGROUND AS WELL? UH, NO, IT WOULDN'T APPLY TO UNDERGROUND NOTHING. 
          AND I JUST WANNA ADD OUR, OUR TYPICAL PRACTICE, LIKE ON OUR TRANSMISSION LINES IS TO CLEAR AROUND THE TOWER, ABOUT 50 FEET AROUND THE TOWER. 
          AND THEN BETWEEN THE TOWERS, WE, WE WILL LEAVE TREES. 
          I MEAN, AS LONG AS, AS LONG AS THE OVERHEAD LINE'S NOT GONNA BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE TREES, WE WILL HAVE TREES BETWEEN THE TOWERS. 
          WE'RE NOT GONNA CLEAR CUT OUR ENTIRE RIGHT OF WAY. 
          THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT OUR, WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. 
          YES. 
          BUT TYPICALLY WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS, THEN THAT'S WHERE THE HUGE IMPACT IS. 
          AND WHAT YOU DID ALONG TWO, UM, TWO 11 WAS INCREDIBLE WHERE YOU HAD A MUCH SMALLER CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AND YOU WERE ACTUALLY ABLE TO STRING THE LINE OVERHEAD VERSUS, UM, CLEARING THOSE EASEMENTS. 
          AND I DON'T SEE ANY PROTECTION FROM THAT IN THIS, UM, RECOMMENDATION. 
          OKAY. 
          THIS IS BIANCA. 
          I ALSO FEEL THAT TO HER POINT, THE LANGUAGE IS VERY BROAD, RIGHT? IT IS TOO BROAD. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING YOU WANNA BE EXEMPTED FROM HAVING TO PLANT STREET TREES IF THIS IS 'CAUSE SOME OF YOUR DISTRIBUTION LINES ARE IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS. 
          AND IT CONFLICTS WITH SEVERAL DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE U D C. 
          AND I THINK THIS ONE SENTENCE IS TOO WIDE SWEEPING FOR YOUR INTENT. 
          AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE, IF WE WANNA SIT HERE AND START EXEMPTING ALL THESE AREAS AND WHAT THE SCOPE OF THIS COULD TRULY BE, I THINK YOU COULD COME BACK TO THE CITY ON A POLICY ABOUT IT FOR LIFE SAFETY REASONS AND FOR SUSTAINABILITY OF YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE AS OPPOSED TO THIS ONE SENTENCE AS A U D C AMENDMENT. 
          THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION BECAUSE I THINK IT'S TOO BROAD AND IT SEEKS TO UNDERMINE ALL THE COMMITMENT THAT WE ALREADY HAVE FOR THE TREE CANOPY. 
          ALL THE THINGS THAT WE JUST SPOKE ABOUT, ABOUT THE URBAN HEAT ISLAND, ALL THE THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FROM BICYCLE AND THE SECTION PLANS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, TREES AND BUFFERING THAT HAVE TO BE PLACED. 
          AND LET'S BE HONEST, WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF BURIED UTILITIES IN THE CITY. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND SO GIVING YOU THIS TYPE OF WIDE BREADTH AND EXEMPTION IS, IS TOO FAR IN MY OPINION. 
          SO, I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE Y'ALL ARE HUNG UP ON THE OVER, MY REAL CONCERN IS THE SUBSTATIONS NOT AS MUCH AS THE OVERHEAD LINES. 
          IF WE TOOK OUT THE, THE PART ABOUT THE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UTILITIES AND JUST LEFT IT AS ELECTRICAL SUBSTATIONS, WOULD THAT, WOULD Y'ALL FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? IT'S MORE DEFINED. 
          IT'S MORE HOW MANY SUBSTATIONS DO YOU HAVE AND WHERE ARE THEY LOCATED? SO THAT WOULD BE MY NEXT QUESTION. 
          AND THEN HOW MANY DO YOU PROJECT BASED ON YOUR, UH, EXPANSION OF YOUR NETWORK? I DON'T, I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE A NUMBER OF EXACTLY. 
          WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF SUBSTATIONS. 
          I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY OFFHAND, BUT WE BUILD, UH, TWO TO THREE SUBSTATIONS A YEAR. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND, AND WE DO, LIKE, I JUST DID A PROJECT AT OUR WESTOVER HILLS SUBSTATION WHERE WE EXPANDED THE SUBSTATION AND THERE WAS A TREE THAT, THAT, UM, FOR GRADING PURPOSES, IT WAS A HERITAGE TREE. 
          IT NEEDED TO BE REMOVED FOR GRADING PURPOSES. 
          AND I SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? LET'S BUILD A WALL AROUND IT. 
          LET'S KEEP THE TREE. 
          AND IT WASN'T IN THE, IN CONFLICT WITH ANY OVERHEAD LINES. 
          IT WAS FINE WHERE IT WAS AT. 
          IT'S JUST FOR GRADING. 
          SO WE, WE DO TRY TO KEEP TREES 'CAUSE IT COSTS US MONEY, WHETHER WE'RE PAYING MITIGATION FEES OR PAYING A CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE THESE TREES, IT COSTS US MONEY. 
          SO I'D RATHER SAVE 'EM IF, IF I CAN. 
          I UNDERSTAND. 
          AND, AND I THINK THAT THAT COULD HAVE BE ACHIEVED WITH MORE DETAILED LANGUAGE THAT TALKS ABOUT BUFFERING AROUND THESE AREAS, BECAUSE AS IT'S WRITTEN, IT'S TOO BROAD. 
          OKAY. 
          WAY TOO BROAD. 
          AND THEN UNDERSTANDING WHERE YOUR EXISTING SUBSTATIONS ARE. 
          I MEAN, I HAVE ONE RIGHT ACROSS ON MY WAY 
          [00:20:01]
INTO MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE'S TREES ALL AROUND ALL THOSE DISTRIBUTION LINES. 
          AND SO THAT HAPPENED IN AN INFILL DEVELOPMENT ABOUT 15 YEARS AGO. 
          AND SO I, I SIT, I TAKE A STEP BACK AND I'M LIKE, WELL, SO DOES THAT MEAN YOU'RE GONNA START CLEAR CUTTING THOSE TREES TOO? SO THERE'S JUST A LOT THAT'S JUST LEFT UN UNDISCUSSED, I THINK AND UNADDRESSED IN THIS ONE SENTENCE. 
          AND THAT ONE SENTENCE IS A LITTLE TOO BROAD. 
          AND SO, UM, I UNDERSTAND THE SUSTAINABILITY OF OUR OVERHEAD INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENSURING THAT IT'S NOT OBSTRUCTED BY TREES. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT I THINK THIS DOESN'T NECESSARILY ADDRESS THAT. 
          IT'S A LITTLE TOO, I MEAN THERE'S THE, THERE'S ALSO THE SECONDARY ISSUE OF JUST THAT WE'RE PAYING HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND DOLLARS IN TREE FEES AND ALL THAT. 
          LIKE I SAID BEFORE, ALL THAT MONEY JUST GETS PASSED, PASSED DOWN TO OUR RATE CUSTOMER OR, OR YOU KNOW, OUR RATE PAYERS. 
          AND WE COULD USE THAT MONEY TO DO OTHER PROJECTS TO IMPROVE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          AND THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD BE HUGE FOR US IF WE HAD AN EXTRA EXTRA MONEY ON EVERY PROJECT TO, TO DO OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON OTHER PROJECTS. 
          SO, AND WE'RE OWNED BY THE CITY. 
          SO IT JUST SEEMS KIND OF SILLY THAT WE'RE SOMETIMES PAYING THESE, THESE, THESE FEES. 
          SO JULIE, UM, SPEAKING AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER, NOT C P S HAT ON, UM, PLANNING COMMISSION RECEIVES, UH, TREE VARIANCES, TREE PRECISION VARIANCES FROM SAWS. 
          I HAVEN'T SEEN ONE IN MY TIME FROM C P SS, BUT DEFINITELY FROM SAWS REGULARLY. 
          SO THIS IS A, A, AN ISSUE FOR BOTH OF OUR CITY OWNED UTILITIES THAT THEY HAVE TO COME BECAUSE OF THEIR PROJECTS WITH, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, IT'S FLOOD PRO DRAINAGE PROJECTS. 
          AND IN THIS CASE WITH THE SUBSTATIONS, UM, OUR MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITIES, BASICALLY WHAT OUR RATE PAYER DOLLARS GO TO PAY INTO THE MITIGATION FUND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. 
          SO AS A PLANNING COMMISSION PERSON, I WOULD LIKE TO NOT HAVE TO HAVE THESE ON OUR DOCKET AND RATHER HAVE OTHER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT WE'RE REVIEWING. 
          AND I CAN, I CAN TOUCH ON TO THAT, WHY THEY COME TO PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW A NEW C P S LINE, UM, THE EASEMENTS, THE PROPOSED EASEMENTS ARE EXEMPT IF THEY'RE DOING THE SURVEY METHOD AND THE TIME THEY COME IN, WHERE WE'RE SEEING THESE SAUCE PROJECTS ARE, UH, REDESIGNS, REESTABLISHMENT WHERE THEY HAVE NOT MAINTAINED THESE AREAS. 
          AND SO ONCE THOSE TREES HAVE GROWN IN AN EASEMENT THAT IS EXEMPT, THEY'RE NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM. 
          UM, WHICH IS THE PRACTICE WE'VE BEEN DOING. 
          AND THE REASON YOU SEE 'EM AT PLANNING COMMISSION IS BECAUSE IT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND NOTHING'S EXEMPT IN THE FLOODPLAIN. 
          ALL EASEMENTS ARE RIGHT AWAYS ARE STILL COUNTED. 
          SO, UM, THAT WOULDN'T CHANGE THIS. 
          YOU DON'T SEE C P S 'CAUSE MOST OF THEIRS ARE ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY CHAIR. 
          YES. 
          AND ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT, DIDN'T WE ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES WITH THE SUBSTATION EXEMPTION FROM, I THINK YOU WERE GONE, JULIA, THAT WAS A VEGETATION BUFFERING THAT HAD, THAT DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE, JUST THE, JUST FOR THE BUFFERING. 
          YEAH. 
          THAT WASN'T, UM, TO BE REMOVED FROM THE TREE VARIANCE MANNA. 
          SO I HAD A QUESTION. 
          UM, 'CAUSE YOU MENTIONED TOWERS VERSUS POLES, AND SO IS THERE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE FROM A C P S PERSPECTIVE? UM, YOU KNOW, AS, AS YOU GO THROUGH AN AREA OR ARE YOU CONSIDERED THEM THE SAME AS FAR AS OUR CLEARING, THEY'RE CONSIDERED THE SAME. 
          IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME? YES. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          'CAUSE POLES WOULD BE IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD AND SO IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE. 
          AND SO, SO WHERE TOWER FEEDING INTO OUR AREA WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. 
          RIGHT. 
          YEAH. 
          I'M, I'M MORE TALKING ABOUT, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE WOOD DISTRIBUTION POLES, I'M MORE TALKING ABOUT THE TRANSMISSION, YOU KNOW, THE LARGER TYPE TOWERS. 
          YEAH. 
          MR. FULLER, CHRISTOPHER FULLERTON. 
          UH, SO I, I I APPRECIATE YOUR PERSPECTIVE BOTH AS A MATTER OF POLICY AND AS A CUSTOMER. 
          UH, IT, IT DOESN'T TAKE MORE THAN A FEW RAINDROPS, UH, IN THE LAST FEW YEARS FOR US TO LOSE POWER IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, USUALLY 'CAUSE OF THE TRAIL TREE LIMBS. 
          BUT I'VE GOT TO SAY THAT, UH, WHEN YOU PUT A DOLLAR FIGURE ON, UH, A MITIGATION ISSUE, IT GETS PEOPLE'S ATTENTION AND IT CAUSES PLANNING AND ACTION. 
          AND WHEN WE WAIVE THAT, UH, MITIGATION, UH, IT'S EASY FOR IT TO GET SWEPT UNDER THE, THE RUG. 
          AND CLEARLY YOU'RE VERY COMMITTED TO THIS AND CONSCIENTIOUS. 
          AND I HOPE THAT THAT REMAINS, UH, AN ETHOS. 
          UH, BUT, YOU KNOW, UH, TURNOVER HAPPENS AND, AND YOU NEVER KNOW HOW THINGS ARE GONNA CHANGE, RIGHT. 
          SO IN THE MEANTIME, THAT THAT DOLLAR FIGURE IS A REALLY POWERFUL PLACE MARKER. 
          AND IF WE TAKE IT AWAY, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT LOSING TREE COVER. 
          IT'S JUST THAT WE'RE NOT RECOGNIZING IT, UH, IN AN IMPORTANT AND A MEANINGFUL WAY. 
          AND IT SORT OF BECOMES A ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL. 
          SO I APPRECIATE THE THOUGHTS, ESPECIALLY SINCE, UH, THIS CAN BE AN ISSUE WITH OUR OTHER, UH, PUBLIC UTILITY THAT MAYBE, UH, A MORE, UH, CONCERTED EFFORT, UH, BETWEEN C P S AND SAS COULD DISCUSS SOME OF THESE ISSUES AND COME BACK WITH MORE TAILORED LANGUAGE. 
          UH, BUT RIGHT NOW, UH, AS BROAD AS THIS ONE IS, I THINK I'M GONNA 
          [00:25:01]
BE AGAINST AGAINST IT. 
          OKAY. 
          DID YOU SAY THAT YOU WEREN'T REALLY INTENDING FOR IT TO BE ALL OVERHEAD ELECTRIC JUST TRANSMISSION LINES? OR IS THAT, THAT'S YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S MY PRIMARY CONCERN IS TRANSMISSION. 
          YEAH, THAT'S, I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S THE, THE INTENT WITH THIS IS 'CAUSE I WORK IN SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION. 
          IS, IS, IS IS THOSE TWO AREAS, AND WOULD THAT, BY CHANGING THE LANGUAGE TO JUST SAY TRANSMISSION, I MEAN, HOW DO YOU GUYS FEEL ABOUT THAT? I THINK IT'S STILL TOO BROAD TRANSMISSION. 
          DEFINE HEIGHT, DEFINE BUFFER. 
          UM, AND THEN YOU COULD SAY, WELL, IT'S INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT AND IT MAY NOT MAKE THE SAME HEIGHT THAT WE MIGHT CALL OUT OR, YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE SUPPORT STRUCTURE. 
          I JUST THINK THERE, THERE'S MORE DETAIL THAT NEEDS TO GO INTO THIS. 
          AND, AND BY NO MEANS DO I NOT SUPPORT YOU TRYING TO SAVE THE RATE PAYERS A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. 
          WE COULD GO THROUGH CPSS BOOKS AND FIND A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ELSEWHERE TO SAVE TOO. 
          SO I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, BUT I WANNA ENSURE THAT WE DON'T LOSE SOMETHING IN THE PROCESS AND THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, WE'RE GONNA LOSE A LOT OF TREES. 
          AND SO I THINK, LIKE I SAID, IT'S JUST TOO BROAD AT THIS POINT. 
          AND SO, MICHAEL, YEAH, MY QUESTION WOULD BE ON THE PROPOSED OVERHEAD, WOULD THERE BE ANY WAY THAT YOU COULD, INSTEAD OF PAYING INTO THE MITIGATION FUND, UH, DO TRIMMING AND, AND, AND TREATMENTS TO THE TREES THAT WOULD, UH, ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE TO STAND? I'M SORRY, WHAT, WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION? WITH, WITH REGARD TO THE PROPOSED OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UTILITIES, IS THERE A METHOD THAT, A PRESERVATION METHOD THAT YOU USE FOR TRIMMING OR DESIGNING THE OVERHEAD WHERE YOU COULD NOT PAY INTO THE MITIGATION FUND AND USE THOSE FUNDS TO PRESERVE THE TREES? WELL, WE DO HAVE, I MEAN, WE HAVE A RIGHT OF WAY MAINTENANCE GROUP THAT ALREADY YES, THEY DO, THEY DO MAINTAIN OUR TRANSMISSION RIGHT OF WAYS. 
          AND WE, YES, WE COULD. 
          WE, WE DO TRIM TREES BACK. 
          SO IT, WELL, I I'M I'M TALKING ABOUT PROPOSED OVERHEAD. 
          OH, PROPOSED OVERHEAD. 
          YES. 
          SO WITH THE, UH, WHEN WE GET NEW PLANS, AS LONG AS 25% OR LESS OF THE CANOPY IS IMPACTED, WE'LL COUNT THAT AS A PRESERVED TREE. 
          BUT IF YOU'RE IMPACTING MORE THAN THAN A QUARTER OF THE CANOPY, WHEN THEY COME IN FOR THE PLAN, UH, WE, WE LOOK AT THAT TREE AS EITHER HAVING TO HAVE A WARRANTY ON IT OR, UM, NO LONGER VIABLE. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          BIANCA, MOTION FOR DENIAL SECOND. 
          ROBERT LEY, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR DENIAL FROM MS. MALDONADO. 
          A SECOND FROM MR. HANLEY. 
          IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? OKAY. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? THIS IS JULIA ABSTAIN. 
          UNDERSTAND, UNDERSTAND. 
          OKAY. 
          MOTION CARRIES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ITEM NUMBER FOUR, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT. 
          ITEM FIVE DASH 12, EXCUSE ME, AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 5 23 E. 
          SO THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS JUST A CLARIFICATION RIGHT NOW. 
          IT REFERENCES THE TREE MITIGATION FUND. 
          THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE FUNDS. 
          THERE'S THE TREE CANOPY FUND AND THE TREE MITIGATION FUND. 
          THIS IS JUST A CLARIFICATION WITHIN THE CODE TO ENSURE THAT THE FUNDS ARE GOING TO THE CORRECT PLACE AND, AND WE CAN DO THE AUDIT AND ACCOUNTING AS APPROPRIATE. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY DISCUSSION? ENTERTAIN A MOTION. 
          DEBBIE REED, MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM DEBBIE REED AND A SECOND FROM MR. MICHAEL GARCIA. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. 
          OKAY. 
          ITEM FIVE, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM 23 DASH FIVE AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 5 23 F SEVEN FOR, UM, AMENDMENT NUMBER 23 DASH FIVE. 
          WE DO HAVE ONE WRITTEN COMMENT IN SUPPORT. 
          ARE WE GONNA HEAR THAT? IT'S A, IT'S JUST A WRITTEN COMMENT AND IT WAS PROVIDED THIS MORNING TO THE PTAC. 
          IT WAS EMAILED TO Y'ALL THIS MORNING. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S NOT A VOICEMAIL. 
          OKAY. 
          GO AHEAD RACHEL. 
          SO IT WILL BE PART OF THE, THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT, YEAH. 
          IT'LL BE POSTED ONLINE AFTER THE MEETING IS DONE. 
          IT'LL BE UPDATED, SO IT'LL BE UP RE BE REFLECTED THERE BY TOMORROW MORNING. 
          OKAY. 
          RACHEL SMITH WITH NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES, UM, THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT CAME FROM OUR REMOVING BARRIERS SUBCOMMITTEE. 
          UM, IT IS AN 
          [00:30:01]
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY ALLOW, UH, TREES WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT IMMEDIATELY ABUT A LOT TO BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE TREE, UH, TREE SURVEY METHOD. 
          UM, THE PROPOSED CHANGE WILL ENCOURAGE THE SHADING OF TREES AND SIDEWALKS BY GIVING CREDIT TO THE TREES PLANTED IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, IMMEDIATELY ABUTTING THE LOT. 
          UM, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH POLICIES IN THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND ADAPTATION STRATEGIES AND SA TOMORROW'S GUIDANCE ON STREET CHEESE AND COMPLETE STREETS. 
          UH, THIS IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE URBAN, UM, I'M SORRY, TREES, TREE PRESERVATION CODES IN, UH, OTHER CITIES IN TEXAS LIKE HOUSTON, AUSTIN, DALLAS, AND FORT WORTH. 
          UM, AND I DO WANNA MAKE A CLARIFICATION THAT IN TABLE 5 23 1 A, UM, IT'S INTENDED THAT THIS BE FOR SINGLE AND MULTIFAMILY AND THAT THIS BE APPLIED, UM, INSTEAD OF CITYWIDE JUST FOR AFFORDABLE PROJECTS. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          CAN YOU RESTATE THAT LAST PART? YOU SAID IT WAS INTENDED FOR WHAT? SO IF YOU LOOK AT TABLE 5 23 1 A, CURRENTLY WE ONLY HAVE STRICKEN, UH, SINGLE FAMILY. 
          YEAH. 
          IT'S INTENDED ALSO FOR MULTIFAMILY. 
          AND THEN UNDER SITE DESIGN, UH, THE INTENTION IS THAT THIS BE FOR, UH, AFFORDABLE PROJECTS. 
          SO NUMBER SEVEN, FURTHER DOWN. 
          AND SO WE'RE FIGHTING CHAIRMAN, I DON'T KNOW, THIS IS ROBERT HENLEY. 
          ARE WE, IS THE INTENT TO CHANGE THE, THE HEADING FROM MULTI-FAMILY AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES TO JUST MULTI-FAMILY? IT CHANGES THE WHOLE CHARACTER OF THE TABLE? NO. 
          SO IN THE SECOND COLUMN, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO STRIKE OUT IS, OR THE THIRD COLUMN, IT'S, SORRY, MULTI-FAMILY AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES THAT IT WOULD BE, UM, STRIKE OUT EXCLUDING THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY. 
          I, I THINK, UH, MISS, I THINK MR. HANLEY'S POINT THAT OF THAT OR COLUMN IS MULTIFAMILY AND NON-RESIDENTIAL. 
          ARE YOU TRYING TO STRIKE THAT FOR COMMERCIAL AS WELL? NO, ONLY MULTI-FAMILY. 
          ONLY MULTI-FAMILY. 
          SO THEN THE TABLE WOULD HAVE TO GET MODIFIED TO ADD ANOTHER COLUMN. 
          YEP. 
          AND CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE OTHER PART YOU SAID WHERE IT COMES TO SITE DESIGN? THERE WAS ANOTHER EDIT. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T SEE WHERE THAT IS. 
          IT'S AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THIS AMENDMENT. 
          OH, THERE, THE SITE IS ON. 
          I GOT YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          AND FOR THE RECORD, UH, MR. BROWN HAS ENTERED THE MEETING AND IS ONE 10, ACTUALLY IT WAS FIVE MINUTES AGO. 
          OKAY. 
          IT WAS 1 0 5  CHAIR. 
          UM, A QUESTION. 
          YEP. 
          UM, JUST WANTED TO, AS YOU'RE WORKING OUT ON THE THIRD COLUMN, WAS THIS PROPOSAL COORDINATED WITH, UM, THE CITY ARBORIST OFFICE? UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE LOOKED AT THIS, NO. 
          SO ALL THE SUBMITTALS C S D HAS? YES. 
          IF, IF I MAY, RACHEL, ALL THE SUBMITTALS THAT, UH, WERE PROVIDED, UH, WERE REVIEWED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INCLUDING, UH, OUR TREE TEAM, UM, WE ARE NOT MAKING POTENTIAL, UH, WE'RE NOT GOING AND, AND TAKING A POSITION ON THESE. 
          UM, THIS IS WHAT THE FORUM IS HERE FOR P T A C IS TO CONSIDER AND MAKE SOME POTENTIAL CHANGES IF YOU FEEL IT'S NECESSARY WHILE TRYING TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMISSION. 
          UM, BUT YOU KNOW, WHERE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF IS AVAILABLE HERE TO HELP ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. 
          IN THAT CASE, COULD I GET A COMMENT FROM THE, THE CITY ARBORIST OFFICE ON WHETHER THIS WOULD HELP OR HURT THE POSSIBILITY SINCE SO MANY TREES HAVE TO BE CLEARED OUT OF THE EASEMENTS AND THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY FUTURE PROTECTION FOR THOSE TREES? YEAH, WE'LL GET UH, STEVEN OVER HERE TO HELP ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. 
          MARK IS NOT HERE AT THE MOMENT, BUT UH, STEVEN OVERSEES THE TREE TEAM. 
          STEVEN SOER WILL BE RIGHT THERE. 
          MANNA. 
          YES SIR. 
          SO I, I HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH THIS WHOLE SECTION. 
          UM, AND THE REASON WHY IS, UM, YOU KNOW, SO, SO ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, WE SEE VARIANCES ALL THE TIME. 
          AND WE HAD A PROPERTY COME THROUGH LAST WEEK WHERE BASICALLY THEY WERE CREDITING THE PROPERTY NEXT TO THEM AS HOUSING TREES AND WHY IT 
          [00:35:01]
WAS THAT THEY COULD CLEAR CUT THEIR PROPERTY. 
          AND SO, UM, SO, SO I UNDERSTAND, UM, YOU KNOW, THE GOAL HERE, AND TO ME IT'S A WHOLE NOTHER TABLE AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DO ANYTHING AS SINGLE FAMILY OR MULTIFAMILY AND PROVIDE ONE FOR, UM, WE'LL SAY SO FOR THE HOUSING, UH, THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. 
          'CAUSE I THINK IF WE CHANGE THIS TABLE, BASICALLY WE'RE APPLYING IT TO EVERY OTHER ONE. 
          UM, AND I, I HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH THAT. 
          SO, UM, YEAH, I I I THINK WE CAN GO DOWN ANOTHER PATH FOR WHAT IS THAT YOU'RE DESIRING, BUT I DON'T THINK THIS TABLE IS THE RIGHT TABLE TO BE DOING THAT IN. 
          I GUESS THE WHOLE THING IS CONFUSING TO ME TOO. 
          SO WHAT IS THE INTENT HERE? I MEAN, WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? SAY LET'S JUST TAKE THE SINGLE FAMILY COLUMN FOR EXAMPLE, BY EXCLUDING STREET AND RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS BY CROSSING THAT OUT. 
          WHAT IS YOUR INTENT? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DO? SO THE INTENT IS ACTUALLY IN NUMBER SEVEN. 
          SO I'M FINE WITH, WITH LEAVING THE TABLE AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T CAUSE CONFUSION WITH THE SITE. 
          DENY, UH, EDITS IN NUMBER SEVEN AND WHAT THE INTENT THERE IS TO GIVE CREDIT FOR TREES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS. 
          SO RIGHT NOW IT'S, OH, THEY'RE WORKING ON THAT, THE EDIT THAT WE'VE REQUESTED. 
          BUT SO YOU'RE TRYING TO REMOVE THE CREDIT FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY TREES? WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE CREDIT. 
          YOU'RE TRYING TO GIVE CREDIT. 
          YES. 
          AND REALLY THE GOAL IS TO ENCOURAGE THE PLANTING WITH TREES ALL ACROSS THE PROPERTY. 
          'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL KNOW, UM, IT IS VERY COSTLY FOR PROPERTIES TO REMOVE TREES IN THE WELL AS PREVIOUS . 
          IT IS VERY COSTLY TO MOVE TREES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. 
          UM, AND THE GOAL WITH THESE PROJECTS, AFFORDABLE PROJECTS, IS NOT TO CRAM THEM ON THE LOT, BUT TO ALLOW FOR MORE SPACING, MORE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY SPACES. 
          SO GIVING THEM CREDIT FOR PLANTING TREES OF APPROPRIATE SIZE IN THAT RIGHT AWAY. 
          UM, MS. MALDONADO, SO I HAVE STRONG CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED AND AMENDED TODAY. 
          THERE'S NO LANGUAGE HERE THAT SPECIFICALLY STATES AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          NUMBER TWO, WHEN YOU LOOK AT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ESPECIALLY A LOT OF THE MULTI-FAMILY SITUATIONS, THEY'RE ALREADY PROPERTY TAX EXEMPT. 
          THEY'RE GETTING BONDS FROM THE STATE. 
          THEY ARE GETTING SO MANY OTHER RESOURCES. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR INTENT. 
          YOUR INTENT IS THAT YOU WOULD HOPE THEY WOULD OFFER DEEPER AFFORDABILITY TO ADDRESS THE TRUE NEED, WHICH IS THE 30 50% A M I AND NOT JUST THE 60% A M I, WHICH ARE A LOT OF THE TAX CREDITS AND TRUST PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS. 
          SO I UNDERSTAND THE CAVEAT, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GONNA GET THE CARROT WITH WHAT YOU'RE GIVING UP HERE. 
          AND I THINK THE LANGUAGE HERE IS TOO BROAD TO SAY, USE THE RIGHT OF WAY TREES OR JUSTIFYING, USE THE RIGHT OF WAY TREES THAT ARE ALREADY THERE TOWARDS THE COUNT. 
          I THINK YOU COULD DO MORE BY WORKING WITH THE CITY ON A POLICY, POTENTIALLY USING TREE MITIGATION FUNDS TO LOOK AT THE, I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S SO MANY OTHER OPTIONS IN CHANGING THE LANGUAGE AS SUBMITTED, IN MY OPINION, THAT WOULD BE SPECIFIC FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE THE CITY IS ALREADY ENGAGED WITH THEM ON A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DOCUMENTATION, AS YOU KNOW, FOR TAX CREDITS. 
          THEY'RE GIVING LETTERS OF SUPPORT, THERE'S A PROCESS FOR THE LITECH. 
          ALL THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED IN THERE WITHOUT CHANGING THE CODE IN THIS WAY, WHICH WOULD HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT, I BELIEVE IN, IN SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ELSEWHERE. 
          THERE'S A DOMINO EFFECT. 
          UM, SO I DON'T THINK IT REALLY TRULY MEETS THE INTENT OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET. 
          UM, SO FOR THAT REASON, I MOTION FOR DENIAL. 
          IF WE CAN MAKE I DID WANNA CLARIFY. 
          I'M SORRY, CAN I ADMIT, THIS IS MELISSA RAMIREZ. 
          I JUST WANNA, BEFORE WE GO THROUGH THAT THERE'S A POTENTIAL RECOMMENDED CHANGE, UM, THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THE SCREEN. 
          SO IF WE CAN JUST ENTERTAIN THAT CONVERSATION BEFORE AND THAT'S, YEAH, THAT'S WHERE I WAS, WAS GOING. 
          SO, UH, WHAT I WAS SAYING EARLIER WAS THAT WE WEREN'T GOING WITH THE WHAT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IS IN YOUR PACKET. 
          WHAT WE WERE GOING WITH IS FOR NUMBER SEVEN, IF YOU SCROLL THAT ON THE SCREEN. 
          SO INSTEAD OF STRIKING THAT WHOLE SENTENCE, WE WOULD JUST STRIKE THE WORD NOT. 
          AND THEN WE WOULD ADD FOUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS. 
          TO CLARIFY, RACHEL, YOU'RE SAYING NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE TABLE THAT IS CORRECT TO SINGLE FAMILY OR MULTI-FAMILY OR NON RESIDENTIAL. 
          CORRECT. 
          WE WOULD LEAVE THE TABLE ALONE AND THEN WE WOULD JUST ADD THIS LANGUAGE HERE. 
          MY MOTION IS STILL FOR DENIAL BASED ON THE RESUBMITTED AMENDED LANGUAGE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SECOND, THIS, THIS ROBERT HANLEY. 
          IS THERE NOT A MORE APPROPRIATE, IF THIS IS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, SECTION OF THE U D C WHERE THIS LANGUAGE COULD GO IN BECAUSE THE RIPPLE EFFECT, POTENTIAL RIPPLE EFFECT BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S WORDED HAS A GREAT AMOUNT OF RISK FOR THE CITY. 
          I THINK I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S ANOTHER SECTION IN THE U D C WHERE THAT 
          [00:40:01]
HER INTENT, UH, COULD BE PLACED. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING IS WITH THE WAY THE INTENT IS, IS THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO PRESERVE SOME TREES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY TO COUNT FOR THEIR CANOPY AND FOR THEIR PRESERVATION. 
          CURRENTLY THEY ARE EXEMPT AND THAT IS BECAUSE PUBLIC WORKS CAN COME IN AT ANY POINT IN TIME OR SOMEBODY ELSE CAN AND CLEAR THE RIGHT OF WAY AFTER THE FACT. 
          UM, AT THAT POINT THERE WOULD BE SOME MITIGATION FOR STREET TREES AND OTHER THINGS. 
          IT'S JUST HOW TO STATE IT THAT ONLY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUT SOME LIMITATIONS, IF ANY, ON WHERE IT CAN BE LOCATED WITHIN THAT RIGHT OF WAY AND BE ELIGIBLE FOR PRESERVATION. 
          UM, AS FAR AS PLANTING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, WE ALLOW STREETS, SCAPE TREES AND OTHER THINGS TO GET PLANTED THERE. 
          SO THERE IS A WAY TO THERE, THERE'S CURRENTLY A METHOD THAT WE DO ALLOW SOME PRESERVATION IN THAT FORM THROUGH AN A V R, BUT IT'S NOT STATED. 
          UM, IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE HARDER TO GET TO AND, AND TAKES A LITTLE CREATIVITY. 
          I THINK THEY'RE TRYING TO STREAMLINE IT JUST FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          THIS IS ALLISON. 
          UM, FOR, FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE U D C, I MEAN, DO WE HAVE LIKE AN ACTUAL DEFINITION PROVIDED FOR IT? 'CAUSE IF, IF YOU JUST PUT LOWERCASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING HERE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? I THINK THAT WAS JUST ADDED IN AT THE, WASN'T HERE LAST WEEK. 
          YEAH, THAT WAS A BIG DISCUSSION. 
          , WE DON'T, THAT WAS, WE UH, WE DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN THAT PATH AGAIN. 
           MINUTES. 
          SO, SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. 
          SO IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE MAKING THEM COUNT THE TREES THAT ARE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY TOWARDS MITIGATION, IF, IF THERE'S AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT AND THEY'RE PUTTING A ROADWAY IN AND SAY THAT RIGHT AWAY IS FULL OF TREES, RIGHT? SO THEN THE OVERALL NUMBER OF TREES, THE OVERALL TREE CANOPY IS NOW GREATER THAN IF THEY DIDN'T COUNT FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY. 
          SO THEN THE MITIGATION BECOMES, THE PERCENTAGE SAVED, BECOMES GREATER AND ANY MITIGATION BECOMES GREATER. 
          SO HOW IS THIS SAVING ANYBODY ANY MONEY? AND THEN A FOLLOW UP TO THAT QUESTION IS IN YOUR, IN YOUR IN COST IMPACT NARRATIVE AND BACKUP INFORMATION, YOU SAY IT DECREASES THE INITIAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION BY $600 PER LOT. 
          I FAILED TO SEE HOW THAT'S WHERE THAT NUMBER COMES FROM. 
          THAT CAME FROM, UH, OUR HABITAT FOR HUMANITY. 
          I DON'T, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE DOES THAT NUMBER COME FROM AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN? LIKE, LIKE HOW IS THIS DECREASING ANY COST BY $600 A LOT WHEN IF YOU'RE HAVING TO ACCOUNT FOR MORE TREES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, YOU'RE HAVING TO EITHER MITIGATE MORE OR SAVE MORE. 
          SO WHERE'S THE COST SAVINGS THERE OR THIS IS ROBERT HANLEY AGAIN. 
          IT IT, WHEN YOU SEE THIS THAT IT'S GONNA DECREASE THE COST. 
          WHAT'S THE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY? WHAT ARE THE METRICS THAT YOU'RE USING TO COME, BECAUSE WE AS A COMMITTEE ARE GONNA MAKE A DECISION BASED ON INFORMATION THAT'S SUBMITTED ON THESE APPLICATIONS. 
          AND WITHOUT VALIDATION OR VERIFICATION HOW THAT $600 PER LOT REDUCTION IS GONNA BE ACHIEVED. 
          IT'S VERY HARD FOR US TO MAKE A AN IMPORTANT, UH, DECISION. 
          BIANCA AND ONE LAST COMMENT, STICKING ON THE, THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, THAT'S A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. 
          A LOT OF TIMES WHEN YOU GET INTO THE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS TO YOUR WHOLE POINT FOR ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES, THEY'RE HAVING TO CLEAR CUT A LOT OF THOSE TREES, RIGHT? AND SO THAT STILL IS ANOTHER CONCERN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I THINK ARMANDO HAD A QUESTION. 
          DOES THIS CONFLICT AT ALL WITH THE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE? I SEEM TO RECALL WHERE IT REQUIRED YOU TO EXCLUDE RIGHT OF WAYS ALREADY ANYWAY. 
          RIGHT? SO YOU'D NOW BE ADDING IT. 
          CAN YOU NOT HEAR ME? DOES THIS AT ALL CONFLICT WITH THE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE? THE CURRENT 2010? SO WITH SINGLE FAMILY, UH, OTHER THAN ON COLLECTORS OR, UH, LOCAL BEES AND COLLECTORS AND ABOVE, THERE ARE NO LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS EXCEPT FOR THE TWO, ONE AND A HALF INCH TREES PLANTED AND THEN STREETSCAPE TREES PLANTED ON THOSE WITHOUT HOUSES FRONTING. 
          SO, UM, IT, IT MIGHT IMPACT THE MULTI-FAMILY, BUT I THINK THE INTENT OF WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO WAS BE ABLE TO USE SOME TREES THAT WERE WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT CURRENTLY WERE COUNTED AS EXEMPT AND NOT BEING ALLOWED TO COUNT, TO COUNT TOWARDS THEIR CANOPY AND THEIR MITIGATION IF THEY CHOSE TO SAVE THEM. 
          BUT IT WOULD NOT HARM THEM IF THEY REMOVED THEM. 
          I JUST THINK IT, IT, THE, THE, THAT WAS THE INTENT I UNDERSTOOD WITH DISCUSSING, UH, WITH, WITH THE TEAM. 
          HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. 
          JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WHAT'S THE CURRENT, UH, PROCESS LIKE AND THE FEES AND COSTS INVOLVED? IF A DEVELOPER WANTS TO PLANT TREES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY WITH THE CITY, WHAT PERMITS ARE REQUIRED? HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE? AND ARE THERE FEED ASSOCIATED WITH THAT? SO IF YOUR STREETS SCAPE IS THE STANDARD ONE THAT WE SEE, AND THOSE ARE THE TREES THAT GET PLANTED ALONG YOUR, YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS AND OR, UH, OTHER COMMERCIAL STREETS. 
          AND WITH THAT, THEY MUST BE PLANTED AND ESTABLISHED WITH IRRIGATION FOR UP TO, UH, MINIMUM OF THREE YEARS BEFORE IRRIGATION COULD BE REMOVED. 
          UM, AND WE DO GO BACK AND DO 
          [00:45:01]
FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION. 
          SO IF ANY ARE RE UH, DEAD OR HAVEN'T MADE IT, WE MAKE THEM, UH, BE REPLACED AND THE IRRIGATION CONTINUE. 
          DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. BROWN? DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? GOT IT. 
          NO. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? DISCUSSION? I KNOW WE HAD A MOTION. 
          WAS IT BY BIANCA FOR DENIAL AND A SECOND BY MR. BROWN? I BELIEVE IT WAS. 
          MM-HMM. 
          ? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. 
          ITEM SIX, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT. 
          ITEM EIGHT DASH ONE, AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 5 23 G. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          I'M JUSTIN REBO. 
          I'M A BOARD CERTIFIED MASTER ARBORIST. 
          I, UH, RESIDE IN OUN COUNTY AND DO BUSINESS HERE IN SAN ANTONIO AND OTHER MUNICIPALITIES, UM, SOUTH OF SOUTH TEXAS. 
          UM, SO I'VE GOT A PROPOSED U D C AMENDMENT TODAY. 
          UM, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          UH, I CAN GO OVER KIND OF THE INTENT, THE BACKGROUND AND HISTORY AND THEN, UH, KIND OF RUN THROUGH IT AND I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE SOME HOPEFULLY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO, UH, TO GO THROUGH THAT IF YOU'D LIKE. 
          UM, SO ULTIMATELY THE, UH, THE GOAL WE GET TO WORK IN, I'M VERY FORTUNATE TO BE ABLE TO WORK IN DIFFERENT, UH, MUNICIPALITIES ALL THROUGHOUT TEXAS AND, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU KIND OF HAVE A VAST RANGE FROM SAY, YOU KNOW, OTHER MAJOR CITIES WHERE LIKE HOUSTON BASICALLY HAS VERY LITTLE TO NO TREE PROTECTIONS OR AUSTIN, WHERE YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, VERY ROBUST TREE PROTECTIONS. 
          AND I THINK SAN ANTONIO HAS STRUCK A GREAT BALANCE HERE AND, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT KIND OF SOME OF THESE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AND SAY, HEY, WHAT WORKS? WHAT ULTIMATELY IS HELPING TO INCENTIVIZE TREE PROTECTION AND, UH, SOME OF THE OTHER CITIES, UM, DON'T HAVE THE SAME PRIORITY AND DON'T HAVE THE SAME, UM, YOU KNOW, I'D SAY DETERMINATION, I GUESS AS SAN ANTONIO AND, AND AREN'T AS EFFECTIVE. 
          UM, I THINK HAVE A GOOD BALANCE. 
          SO, UH, AT LEAST HERE IN IN SAN ANTONIO, I THINK THAT THERE'S A, UH, UH, AT LEAST IN A, A SIMILAR CAPABILITY OF CITY OF AUSTIN, THEY HAVE A TREE CARE. 
          IT'S WHAT'S CALLED A REMEDIAL TREE CARE PLAN. 
          UM, AND SO, UH, IT'S CODIFIED IN THEIR, WHAT THEY CALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL. 
          AND, UH, I THOUGHT THAT WAS A REALLY GREAT APPLICATION. 
          WHAT IT DOES, IT HELPS TO INCENTIVIZE, UM, TREE PRESERVATION, UM, HERE AT, AT THEIR CITY, UM, BY REALLY, UM, ALLOWING FOR THE CARE, UM, INCENTIVIZING THE GREATER CARE OF THE TREES THAT ARE PRESERVED ON SITE. 
          SO ULTIMATELY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ALLOWS THAT MITIGATION REDUCTION FOR DOLLARS SPENT ON SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH RETAINED TREES ON SITE. 
          UM, AND SO WE'VE KIND OF WROTE A A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT AN EXAMPLE WOULD LOOK, LOOK LIKE, UM, BUT ULTIMATELY ARBORIST MONITORING, ROOT PRUNING, COMPOSTING ROOT AERATION, UM, ANYTHING LIKE AN OAK WILT INJECTION, UM, THINGS LIKE THAT THAT, THAT YOU SPEND, UM, MONEY TO PRESERVE THE TREES ON SITE. 
          THOSE DOLLARS BASICALLY IS AN ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION METHOD. 
          UM, JUST TO KIND OF UPDATING OUR, OUR TABLE, UM, TO DO THAT. 
          SO ULTIMATELY THE, UH, AN APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT TREE CARE PLAN THAT'S PROPOSED AND APPROVED THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS AS SAME AS YOU WOULD, UM, REVIEW, UM, A TREE SURVEY, TREE, TREE TREE PLAN, UM, AS YOU WOULD, WOULD FOR ANYTHING ELSE, UH, A MITIGATION RELATED TO DETERMINE THAT. 
          AND THEN THOSE, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT AT THE, AT THE PROJECT CLOSE, ALL THOSE, UH, PLANS THAT ARE APPROVED IN THE TREE CARE PLAN, UM, THOSE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S RECEIPTS, UH, SUBMITTED, UM, TOTALED AND THEN THAT'S REVIEWED BY THE CITY, UM, AND FINAL OUT, UH, AS PART OF THAT, UM, TOTAL MITIGATION. 
          SO I THINK ULTIMATELY HAS GREAT IMPLICATIONS TO IMPROVE SUCCESS OF TREE PRESERVATION FOR OUR COMMUNITY. 
          REALLY INCENTIVIZE, RETAIN TREES THROUGH CONSTRUCTION. 
          'CAUSE ULTIMATELY YOU'VE GOTTA HAVE TREES THAT YOU'RE SAVING IN ORDER TO, UM, GAIN THIS CREDIT, UM, AND AND BEYOND. 
          AND THEN INCREASE, UH, OPPORTUNITIES TO PRESERVE TREES IN LIEU OF MITIGATING. 
          SO ULTIMATELY SAYING, HEY, THESE MAKES THESE TREES ON SITE, UM, GREATER VALUE BECAUSE WE'RE PUTTING, UH, MORE, UM, EFFORT INTO RESERVING THEM AND MORE ATTENTION TO THEM, UM, AS WELL. 
          UM, IT'S, IT'S ALLOWING THAT EARLY BUDGETING FOR CONSULTING AND REGULAR INSPECTIONS BY CERTIFIED ARBORIST TO MONITOR FOR DECLINE HAZARDS. 
          AND IF YOU'RE A TREE ON CONSTRUCTION SITE, THERE'S LIKE A, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A TARGET ON YOUR BACK. 
          SOMETIMES IT'S A, IT'S HARD TO BE A TREE AND ON A CONSTRUCTION SITE. 
          SO, UM, HELPING, HELPING THOSE, UH, YOU KNOW, KEEP THE FOCUS ON THOSE, UM, AND HELP, UH, YOU KNOW, HAVE, HAVE A, UH, A DEVELOPER OR LAND, UM, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCTION TEAM, UH, YOU KNOW, HAVE SOMEBODY AS A RESOURCE, UH, IN ADDITION TO THE CITY STAFF WHO ARE, YOU KNOW, AVAILABLE BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONLY SOME, SO MANY LIMITED, UH, AVAIL AVAILABILITY FOR THEM, 
          [00:50:01]
UH, AND ARE PULLED, UM, A LOT OF DIRECTIONS SO WE UNDERSTAND, UH, TRYING TO HELP SUPPLEMENT THAT. 
          AND THEN, UH, ULTIMATELY IMPROVING URBAN FOREST HEALTH, UH, WITH NECESSARY TREE CARE. 
          THAT WOULDN'T BE A PRIORITY IF THERE'S NO INCENTIVE TO DO THIS. 
          SO, UM, IN THE ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF LOOSELY WORDED IS TREES MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A HEALTHY CONDITION. 
          WELL, WHAT IS HEALTHY? UM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE CUTTING HALF THE ROOTS AND YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DO ANYTHING ELSE, THESE ARE THINGS ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT. 
          UH, YOU ULTIMATELY END UP WITH HEALTHIER TREES AND MORE SUCCESSFUL TREE PRESERVATION, UH, FROM OUR EXPERIENCE. 
          SO, UH, YOU KNOW, KIND OF BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS, HAVE A COUPLE OF SUPPLEMENTAL THINGS THAT WE BROUGHT WITH US AND, UH, APPRECIATE IT. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS IN THIS ITEM? UH, ROBERT HERE HAN ROBERT HANLEY. 
          ROBERT HANLEY HERE. 
          UH, THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE ON HERE, CHAIRMAN, UM, IS THE PART WHERE IT SAYS IMPLEMENTATION OF AN APPROVED TREE CARE PLAN. 
          THERE'S NO TIME LIMIT ON THAT. 
          SO IS THAT A ONE YEAR PLAN, A TWO YEAR THREE 10? AND I THINK THAT IF YOU'RE GONNA PUT SOMETHING LIKE THIS FOR CLARITY OF THE PERSON WHO ARE GONNA BE IMPACTED BY THAT, WE OUGHT TO HAVE SOME SORT OF, UH, TIMEFRAME ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PLAN. 
          YEAH, I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH THAT. 
          I THINK THE WHOLE THING IS LACKING MECHANICS OF HOW THAT PROGRAM WOULD WORK, IN MY OPINION. 
          AND I THINK IT MAYBE NEEDS A LITTLE MORE DETAIL IN MY OPINION. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT IS JUST VERY BROAD AND I DON'T, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T DEFINE WHAT THE, WHAT THE TREE CARE PLAN WOULD, WOULD ACTUALLY CONTAIN WHAT IT, YOU KNOW, WHAT ITS POINT WOULD BE, WHAT IT WOULD, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT WOULD REALLY DO. 
          LIKE MR. HANLEY SAID WHAT THE TIMEFRAME IS, UH, VERY FEW MECHANICS ON, ON CONTROL OVER THE DOLLAR SPENT, HONESTLY, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, KIND OF LIKE ARMANDO, WE WERE JUST TALKING AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY HAS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE COSTS IN THIS BASE. 
          I MEAN, YOU COULD JUST SAY, OH, IT'S 20 GRAND AND THERE YOU GO. 
          SO I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW. 
          THERE'S, TO ME IT'S VERY LOOSE ON THE MECHANICS, CHRISTOPHER FULLERTON, UH, ALONG THOSE LINES, ESPECIALLY IF THIS GOES BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD, I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY PERSUASIVE, UH, TO HEAR SOME LESSONS LEARNED FROM OTHER CITIES SUCH AS AUSTIN, UH, WHAT'S WORKED FOR THEM, HOW LONG THEY'VE BEEN DOING IT, AND WHAT MODIFICATIONS THEY'VE MADE. 
          UH, HOW DO THEY GIVE THE FLEXIBILITY, UH, FOR THE TREE PRESERVATION WHILE PREVENTING BASICALLY UNRELATED THINGS FROM BEING, UH, COUNTED TOWARD, UH, THE VALUE. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE USEFUL. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN, MS. BOB LEEMAN, UH, JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE BOTTOM THERE, THE PAGE. 
          UH, I THINK THIS MAKES SENSE TO ME THAT INSTEAD OF SPENDING ON MEDIC MITIGATION AND DEVELOP, COULD SPEND THE MONEY BY DOING A BETTER JOB AND A LONGER JOB, MORE THOROUGH JOB ABOUT TAKING CARE OF THE TREES THAT HE IS SAVING. 
          I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF LOGIC TO THAT AND I'D PROBABLY BE INCLINED TO VOTE FOR THIS. 
          I, I WOULD HAVE TO WONDER OUT LOUD THAT I THINK THIS THING, WHAT IT WOULD ALSO DO WOULD BE TO MITIGATION THAT MIGHT BE USED TO PLANT TREES. 
          SO I GUESS I WOULDN'T BE MY FEELING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, BUT LIKE DEBBIE MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT LOOK. 
          . 
          YES. 
          WELL, I'M JUST SAYING TOLD BY LOOK AT THAT FACE. 
          WELL, I'M JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, HEY, HE'S GONNA MAINTAIN THE TREES ANYWAY FOR A PERIOD OF TIME THAT'S IN THE, THE SPECIFICATIONS. 
          LET'S JUST GO WITH THAT AND LET'S NOT TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM PLANTING NEW TREES. 
          THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY MY OPINION, BUT I WOULD ASK THAT QUESTION. 
          THIS IS ARMANDO. 
          I WOULD AGREE WITH ALL THAT SENTIMENT. 
          I THINK THE DOLLAR SPENT, IF, IF IT'S NOT DEFINED AND CONTROLLED AS, AS, AS THEY SAID IT COULD BE ONE COMPANY COULD PRICE IT DIFFERENT. 
          AND THEN I THINK THERE'S A FOLLOW UP TO THIS IS IS THEN DOES THAT PUT ONUS ON THE DEVELOPER OR THE CITY IN FACT TO THEN GO AND CONFIRM THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT IS BEING DONE. 
          UH, IF YOU GOT THE CREDIT FOR IT NOW, IT PUTS IT ON THE BACK END FOR SOMEBODY TO MONITOR. 
          I AGREE WITH BOB THAT I THINK IT HAS MERIT IN ALLOWING SOMEONE TO ACTUALLY TAKE CARE OF THE TREES THEY HAVE. 
          BUT AGAIN, IT GOES DOWN TO THE MECHANICS OF HOW DOES IT WORK. 
          AND I, I, I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE TAC TODAY IS TO CONSIDER POLICY, YOU KNOW, THE IDEA HAVE MERIT, YOU KNOW, STAFF WOULD CERTAINLY NEED TIME TO WORK OUT THE MECHANICS OF HOW WE WOULD GO ABOUT PROCESS. 
          WHAT WOULD THE APPLICATION, WOULD THERE BE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH IT? WHAT WOULD WE, WOULD WE NOT ACCEPT? WE'D PROBABLY HAVE TO PUT OUT INFORMATION BULLETIN. 
          UH, SO I THINK THAT THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT HERE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOME ONGOING DISCUSSIONS ON TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS A CONSENSUS ON HOW TO IMPLEMENT THIS. 
          SO IF THE TAC WERE TO APPROVE THIS TODAY, RIGHT IN ITS CURRENT FORM, THEN COME BACK OR I GUESS JANUARY 
          [00:55:01]
ONE OR WHENEVER, YOU KNOW, THESE TAKE EFFECT, UH, UH, IS THAT WORK GONNA BE DONE BY THEN? OR, BECAUSE IF THIS ISN'T A CODE, THEN I COULD COME IN ON JANUARY 2ND AND SUBMIT A TREE MITIGATION OR WHATEVER THIS IS CALLED. 
          YEAH, SO CURRENT CITY COUNCIL, IF, IF THIS WERE TO GO ALL THE WAY TO CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT IT AND COUNCIL WERE ULTIMATELY TO ADOPT IT. 
          I KNOW WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS GROUP BEFORE. 
          WE'RE LOOK LAYING THE EFFECT CHANGES UNTIL JANUARY, THAT WOULD GIVE US A TWO MONTH WINDOW OUT AND INFORMATION BULLET AND COME UP WITH THAT MATERIAL SO THAT WE WERE PREPARED TO JANUARY ONE SO WE COULD ACTUALLY MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO THAT WORK BEING COMPLETED. 
          YEAH, IT WOULD, IT WOULD, THE, THE APPROVAL FROM COUNSEL WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE A MANDATE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE 60 DAYS TO FIGURE IT OUT AND GET IT IMPLEMENTED. 
          AND THE ONLY THING I'LL ADD TO THAT, GEORGE, IS UM, WE, THIS IS THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT ASPECT. 
          THE INFORMATION BULLETIN WOULD JUST TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS. 
          IT WOULD NOT CREATE CODE, MR. BROWN. 
          YEAH, I, I'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE WHERE I THOUGHT I HAD A PRETTY GOOD IDEA AND EVERYONE THOUGHT I DID TOO, BUT MAYBE THE DETAILS WEREN'T WORKED OUT AND THEN YOU HAVE TO WAIT FIVE YEARS TO COME BACK AND IT DOES SOUND LIKE IT HAS A LOT OF MERIT. 
          UH, AND SO I, I WOULD, I WOULD BE INCLINED TO SUPPORT IT AND, YOU KNOW, TRUST STAFF TO, TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING, UH, THAT WOULD WORK. 
          AND SO THIS IS STEVEN STOGER WOULD BE MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WITH THE, THE LANGUAGE AS IT STANDS, THAT IT WOULD BE UP TO STAFF TO SET THE TIME LIMITS, SET A PROCESS, SET A DOLLAR AMOUNT AND, AND CAP IT IF NECESSARY ON THE MAXIMUM DOLLARS AND, AND OTHER THINGS IF YOU GUYS APPROVED IT THAT AND MOVED IN THAT DIRECTION. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT MAKES IT A LITTLE MORE PALATABLE TO ME BECAUSE I THINK THE IDEA IS GREAT, BUT THERE WAS JUST NO, THERE'S NO PROCESS IN THIS CODE AMENDMENT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, HERE'S HOW IT WORKS, HERE'S WHAT'S REQUIRED, HERE'S THE TIMEFRAME, HERE'S THE, HERE'S THE MECHANICS. 
          BUT WITH LOGAN'S EXPLANATION AND YOUR EXPLANATION STEVEN, I THINK THAT HELPS ME UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BETTER AND I CAN UH, CHAIRMAN, THIS IS ROBERT HENLEY. 
          YES SIR. 
          I GUESS THE ONE CONCERN I HAVE IS HOW DO WE INCENTIVIZE TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS FOLLOWED UP AND IT'S DONE IF WE VOTE FOR APPROVAL. 
          AND I THINK AS BOB LEMAN SAID, THAT THERE ARE SOME GOOD MARRIAGE TO THAT AS FAR AS A PLAN. 
          UH, IF IT'S NOT DONE BY X PERIOD OF TIME, THEN THIS AMENDMENT BECOMES AN NULL. 
          YES, I THINK ANY, OKAY. 
          JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, UH, BASED ON THE ONGOING CONVERSATION, UH, LET'S SAY THIS GETS APPROVED BY COUNCIL IN OCTOBER AND THEN SOME UNEXPECTED EVENT HAPPENS IN NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER, WHICH SEEMS TO BE FAIRLY COMMON THESE YEARS. 
          UH, AND UH, STAFF GETS PREOCCUPIED, UH, PUTTING OUT FIRES ELSEWHERE. 
          WHAT PRACTICAL EFFECT DOES THIS HAVE ON THE PROCESS STARTING JANUARY 2ND, IF ANY, IF, IF NOTHING ELSE IS DONE? I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED IS IF A PROJECT WANTS TO UTILIZE THIS TOOL. 
          UM, THE PROCESS WOULD HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED VERY QUICKLY AND THAT PROJECT MOST LIKELY COULD BE DELAYED. 
          BUT IF WE'RE TAKING THAT PROACTIVE APPROACH, UM, WHICH BY THE WAY, WE ALSO HAVE TO TRAIN EVERYONE AFTER THE U D C AMENDMENTS ARE DONE. 
          SO WE'RE TRAINING RESIDENTS, STAKEHOLDERS, CUSTOMERS, OUR STAFF, UM, ALL OF THAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF UM, ONCE CODE IS UPDATED OR CHANGED, ALL OF THAT WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE DONE. 
          SO I DON'T HAVE ANY REAL CONCERNS WITH MAKING THIS CHANGE AND PROVIDING IT AS AN OPTION WITHIN OUR CODE. 
          UM, WE CREATE PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES ALL THE TIME. 
          SO CREATING AN INFORMATION BULLETIN FROM NOW UNTIL OCTOBER, UH, I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH. 
          I WOULD ANTICIPATE, UH, JUSTIN UH, WOULD BE WORKING WITH OUR CITY ARBORIST, MARK BYRD AND STEVEN STINGER TO WORK OUT THOSE DETAILS. 
          DEBBIE REED COMMENT? YES MA'AM. 
          JUST UM, I GUESS I WOULD BE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT PASSING IT AS IT IS WITHOUT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFICATION AND I APPRECIATED THE SPECIFICATION 'CAUSE THAT WAS DEFINITELY, IT DOES SAY ALL TREES ON THE SITE AND LOOKING AT THAT, IS THAT INDIVIDUAL TREES THAT ARE BEING PRESERVED, IS THAT TREE CANOPY? WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF TREES? WHAT'S THE SIZE OF THE TREES? SINCE ALL OF THOSE UM, TREATMENTS WOULD BE BASED ON D B H. 
          SO THEN UM, LOOKING AT HOW YOU WOULD ACTUALLY INSPECT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS DONE, WOULD THAT BE A CERTIFIED LETTER, LIKE AN ENGINEER LETTER SUBMITTED THAT HAD BEEN COMPLETED AS STATED? UM, AND THEN AGAIN THE MAXIMUM, UM, IMPACT OF THE TREE MITIGATION FUND. 
          WE REALLY HAVEN'T HEARD ANY COMMENTS FROM TREES ON THAT ISSUE. 
          [01:00:01]
AND THINGS LIKE WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO INCLUDE TREES THAT ARE UNDER A WARRANTY WHERE YOU'RE REDUCING YOUR ROOT PROTECTION ZONE? AND I DID WANT TO SAY THAT I WOULD APPLAUD ANYTHING THAT ASSISTS IN BETTER PRESERVING THE TREES THAT ARE BEING PRESERVED. 
          BUT I FEEL LIKE THIS IS REALLY LOOSE STILL AND WE'D BE GLAD TO ASSIST IN ANY WAY I CAN. 
          SURE. 
          MANNA. 
          SO YES. 
          SIR. 
          SO THE QUESTION I HAVE WAS, UH, IN THIS MIDDLE COLUMN THERE, THE LAST CREDITED TOWARDS OUTSTANDING MITIGATION. 
          I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT'S, UM, REFERENCING OR APPLYING TO. 
          SO, SO, SO IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT THERE, PLEASE. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          SO, UH, ANY, ANY OF THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS OUT HERE ON THE TABLE? SO IF YOU HAVE 40% MINIMUM PRESERVATION FOR COMMERCIALS, SIGNIFICANT SPECIES ON A LOT, UM, IF YOU GO BELOW 40% MEASURE MINIMUM PRESERVATION, YOU CAN MITIGATE BACK UP. 
          SAY YOU, YOU GO TO 35% OF THAT, SAY THERE'S A HUNDRED INCHES OUT THERE. 
          YOU GOT PRES, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO PRESERVE 40 INCHES. 
          UM, YOU GO DOWN TO 35 INCHES PRESERVATION, YOU HAVE TO MITIGATE FIVE INCHES, WELL, FIVE INCH, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, A, A TREE PLANTING MINIMUM, ONE AND A HALF INCH. 
          YOU COULD PLANT FOUR TREES OR YOU COULD PAY INTO THE MITIGATION FUND JUST BASED ON ALL THESE OPTIONS. 
          $200 AN INCH, THERE'S A THOUSAND DOLLARS. 
          OR YOU CAN MAINTAIN SMALLER TREES OUT ON SITE. 
          SO A BUNCH OF TWO INCH TREE OR THREE INCH TREES, MAINTAIN THOSE, UM, OR NATURAL AREAS WITHIN THE SURVEY AREA. 
          SO SAY YOU MAYBE HAVE A REALLY NICE PRAIRIE AREA OR, YOU KNOW, A, A NATIVE ECOSYSTEM OR HABITAT, UM, CITY ARBORS CAN WAIT AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS REALLY VALUABLE. 
          UM, LET'S, YOU KNOW, WE, WE CAN ASSIGN KIND OF A TYPICAL MITIGATION CREDIT TO THAT. 
          THIS WOULD BE SAME, SAME THING. 
          IT'S LIKE, HEY, WE'RE SPENDING THIS ABOVE AND BEYOND. 
          COULD WE USE THAT, UM, FOR, UH, HERE'S OUR TREE CARE PLAN. 
          UM, SO I HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF THAT IF YOU GUYS WANT TO PULL THAT UP. 
          JUST KIND OF WHAT WE USE IN, IN AUSTIN AND WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE IN SAN ANTONIO. 
          BUT HERE'S ALL OF OUR TREE CARE PLAN, UM, THAT'S REVIEWED AS PART OF THE TREE MITIGATION. 
          SO IT IS, AS ANY OF THOSE OTHER OPTIONS ARE CURRENTLY REVIEWED BY THE CITY THAT WOULD BE REVIEWED, IMPLEMENTED AND, AND, AND CHECKED AND UH, UH, SUITABLE WAY. 
          SO THE OUTSTANDING MITIGATION IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PLANNED AREA FOR WHICH THIS, THIS WHOLE, UM, PREMISE APPLIES THEN. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR, IS REALLY THE DEFINITION OF THAT. 
          SO YES, BIANCA, THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO I HAVE AN EDIT THAT I WOULD PROPOSE IN THE SECOND CALL AND WHERE IT SAYS QUALIFIED ARBORIST, HOW ABOUT A CERTIFIED ARBORIST? UM, WITH I S A, YOU'RE SAYING DEBBIE A CERTIFIED I S A ARBORIST, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? DEBBIE? I, SAM ABORIGINAL SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURE AND THEN PRE MAINTENANCE LICENSE. 
          SO WHAT, THAT'D BE GOOD THAT WOULD NEED TO BE DEFINED. 
          SURE. 
          DO YOU HAVE SOME SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, MS. DEBBIE, THAT YOU WANT US TO ADD IN THERE? DO WE  THE CAN  CAN, CAN I, CAN I WRITE OR CAN I SAY WHY I, I GAVE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT FEEDBACK BECAUSE I, I HEARD, YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD THIS KIND OF BEFORE IS, YOU KNOW, BEING QUALIFIED, UM, AND, AND, AND HAVING CONCERNS. 
          THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES IS IN SAN ANTONIO, WE'VE, WE'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO FIND, YOU KNOW, OPEN UP TO, TO FOLKS THAT, THAT HAVE THIS TREE MAINTENANCE LICENSE. 
          AND, BUT BEING QUAL, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS QUALIFIED? WELL THAT'S, THAT'S A CHALLENGE IS DO THEY HAVE THE CERTIFICATION? THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS TO OBTAIN THAT CERTIFICATION. 
          IS THAT PERSON QUALIFIED IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO WRITE THESE PLANS AND IMPLEMENT THOSE? UM, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE HAVING THAT CERTIFICATION REQUIRES, YOU KNOW, DEGREE, CERTAIN LEVEL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND ALL THESE THINGS. 
          UM, NOT SAYING THAT THAT ISN'T, YOU KNOW, I'M A BOARD CERTIFIED MASTER AIST AND, YOU KNOW, HAVE, HAVE, HAVE DONE ALL THAT, BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE, THERE ARE PEOPLE WITHIN OUR INDUSTRY THAT COULD, THAT COULD DO THIS EFFECTIVELY AND BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT THAT, THAT CERTIFICATION. 
          UM, BUT YOU KNOW, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH, WITH REQUIRING THAT CERTIFICATION. 
          I THINK THAT THERE'S, BUT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, IT DOES KIND OF LESSEN THE, THE PE THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT COULD SUBMIT THOSE. 
          I HEAR YOU JUSTIN. 
          I GUESS, UM, FOR THE EXACT, NOT KNOWING ALL THE DEFINITIONS AND TREE ORDINANCE, UM, PROVISIONS AS TODAY, HOW STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND TO ENSURE THAT IT'S ONE OF THESE, OR BOTH OF THESE METHODS, BECAUSE A PART OF THAT IS CONTINUING EDUCATION AND STAYING UP TO DATE WITH THE TECHNOLOGY. 
          THANKS. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          ALRIGHT, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? MORE DISCUSSION? A MOTION, MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED. 
          BIANCA, BEFORE WE DO THAT, I DO HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION. 
          ACTUALLY, I JUST SAW THAT  SURPRISE, SURPRISE. 
          UH, AND THIS ISN'T PART OF THE AMENDMENT, BUT IF YOU GO UP TO THE, WHERE IT SAYS, I GUESS THE WHOOP, GO BACK DOWN A LITTLE BIT UNDER A METHOD, THE SECOND BOX, IT SAYS TREE MITIGATION FUND. 
          IS THERE, SHOULD THAT BE CANOPY FUND NOW OR IS THERE ANOTHER AMENDMENT THAT CHANGES THAT? OR IS THAT, THAT STAYS MITIGATED? NO, THE, THE MITIGATION FUND IS STILL ACTIVE. 
          IT'S JUST WE HADN'T, WE HADN'T DIFFERENTIATED BETWEEN CANOPY AND MITIGATION. 
          [01:05:01]
'CAUSE THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE FEES THAT CAN BE APPLIED. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANKS. 
          ALRIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY, WAS IT BIANCA? OKAY. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. 
          SECOND BY MR. MANNA. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? AYE. 
          UH, ONE OPPOSITION. 
          MOTION CARRIES. 
          DID WE HAVE A DENIAL? YES, MR. LEMAN. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          BUT WE APPROVE TO CONTINUE TO, WE APPROVE TO CONTINUE PRESENTER. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO CAN WE CLARIFY THE APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON CITY STAFF COMING UP WITH THE MECHANICS? YES. 
          YES, THAT'S FINE. 
          UH, WE, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS ONE WHEN IT WAS SUBMITTED AND WE, WE, THERE'S A LOT OF, LOT OF SPACE HERE THAT NEEDS TO BE FILLED IN REGARDING THE PROCESS. 
          SO WE'RE, WE'RE AWARE OF THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND MAKING NOTE HERE IS FINE. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDMENT ITEM FIVE DASH 13 AFFECTING TABLE 35 DASH 5 23 AND TABLE 35 DASH 5 23 DASH TWO MITIGATION TREE PRESERVATION. 
          OKAY, SO THIS IS JUST ANOTHER CLARIFICATION WITHIN THE CODE, ADDING THE CANOPY FUND IN THERE WITH THE MITIGATION FUND, UM, AS THOSE FUNDS WERE ESTABLISHED FOR TWO SEPARATE ITEMS AND DO CARRY THEIR OWN ACCOUNTING AND, UH, AND ACCOUNTS WITH THEM. 
          MOTION FOR APPROVAL. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY JULIA. 
          SECOND. 
          SECOND. 
          WHOA. 
          SECOND BY SOMEBODY. 
          ARMANDO WAS THERE? ARMANDO? YEAH, I'LL SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. 
          ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, DISCUSSION. 
          A POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM 22 DASH 24 AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 5 23 I SIX D. 
          HELLO, I'M MICAH DIAZ FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          UM, LIKE MANY OF OUR OTHER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, UH, THIS ONE IS JUST UPDATING THE, UH, TYPES OF PLANS THAT, THAT APPLY TO THIS, UH, SECTION. 
          UM, INCLUDING COMMUNITY PLANS, SUB AREA PLANS, SECTOR PLANS, INSTEAD OF JUST THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY LISTED. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY DISCUSSION? MOTION. 
          MOTION FOR APPROVAL. 
          BIANCA. 
          MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY BIANCA. 
          SECOND BY MR. GARCIA. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. 
          ITEM NINE, DISCUSSION AND ACTION. 
          ON U D C AMENDMENT 18 DASH FIVE AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 5 23 M SEVEN. 
          YES. 
          UM, HELLO, MY NAME IS JOSEPHINE VALENCIA WITH SALT. 
          HELLO, MY NAME IS JOSEPHINE VALENCIA WITH THE SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT. 
          THIS AMENDMENT HERE IS A ATTEMPT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE STUFF THAT IS BEING PLANTING LASTS. 
          SO IT IS BASICALLY, IT'S NOT CHANGING THE AMOUNT OF TREES OR GRASS OR ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE PLANTED. 
          IT IS JUST REQUIRING AN EITHER A SOIL SUIT, SOIL SUITABILITY ANALYSIS, OR AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE SOIL ANALYSIS, THE ADDITION OF COMPOST. 
          SO EITHER ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? I HAD ONE MINOR EDIT, UM, IN THE ONE, TWO, OOPS. 
          1, 2, 3, 4. 
          FIFTH LINE DOWN TOWARDS THE END IS THE WORD SOILS SHOULD BE SOIL OR SOILS ARE, YOU COULD DO THAT TOO. 
          WHICHEVER FLOATS EVERYBODY'S BOAT. 
          I DON'T REALLY DON'T CARE. 
          I MISSED YOU. 
          GEORGE . 
          I KNOW YOU DID THAT. 
          I SAVED THAT ONE. 
          JUST FOR YOU, MAN. 
          THIS IS BIANCA MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS A MINUTE AMEND QUESTION. 
          DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? JULIE? I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          UM, WAS THIS, UM, I GUESS WAS THIS DISCUSSED WITH THE LANDSCAPE COMMUNITY AND I'M, I'M ASSUMING THAT THIS WILL BE PAID FOR BY THE DEVELOPER OR WHO WHO PAYS FOR THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO DO THEIR SOIL SUITABILITY TEST? DOUG, DID YOU TALK TO THEM? SO YES, I, IT WOULD BE, UH, PAID FOR BY THE DEVELOPER. 
          WE, WE PUT IN THE LANGUAGE ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO MIMIC THE, 
          [01:10:01]
THE ALTERNATIVE, UH, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IS ALREADY MEN, UH, REFERRED TO AND OTHER OPTIONS AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS AN ALTERNATIVE. 
          IT'S NOT IN THERE NOW, BUT WE COULD PUT IN THERE THAT THEY COULD DO THE SOIL SUITABILITY TEST THEMSELVES. 
          UH, ANY, ANY CITIZEN CAN CONTRACT WITH TEXAS A AND M TO DO THE SOIL TESTING THEMSELVES. 
          IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 
          SO IF YOU, IF YOU WOULD PREFER WE COULD AMEND THAT TO SAY, UH, SOIL SUITABILITY TEST BY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR BY A LACE OR BY A LICENSED TEXAS FIRM. 
          SURE. 
          I JUST WAS, I JUST FELT LIKE THIS WAS A LITTLE OVER, UM, I DON'T KNOW, LIKE OVERBEARING ON THE LANDSCAPE COMMUNITY. 
          UM, I DIDN'T KNOW. 
          I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THE NEED AROSE AND WHY. 
          WHAT, WHAT PROMULGATED THIS AMENDMENT? I THINK IT'S A COMBINATION OF, UH, MAKING SURE THAT THE INVESTMENT THAT FOLKS ARE MAKING INTO THE TREES AND GRASS LIVE A LONG TIME. 
          AND ALSO IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE, UH, THE CLIMATE ACTION INITIATIVE. 
          THE ADDITION OF COMPOST INTO THE SOIL REALLY HELPS TO RETAIN WATER AND INCRE AND IMPROVES THE SUSTAINABILITY. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          UM, THE TERM SUITABLE, IS THAT DEFINED SOMEWHERE THAT MAYBE 'CAUSE A MIXTURE OF PLANTS ARE PROPOSED AND IS THERE A, IT'S NOT DEFINED. 
          THAT'S WHY WE KIND OF REFER TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THEIR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, WHAT WOULD BE A SUITABLE, WHAT WOULD BE SUITABLE. 
          SO JULIE, DO YOU WANNA CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO SAY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR LICENSED FIRM? LICENSED FIRM OR QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL, OR HOWEVER YOU WANNA SAY IT? SURE. 
          IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 
          UM, I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE. 
          YEAH, THAT'S FINE. 
          THAT'LL BE GOOD IF THERE'S, UM, SO I WOULD SUGGEST IF WE'RE, UH, THAT YOU ADD IN THE LANGUAGE OF A, UH, LICENSED, A TEXAS LICENSED OIL TESTING FIRM, LICENSED, THERE IS A SPECIFIC TEST KNOWN AS ORGANIC MATTER ANALYSIS THAT THAT'S THE ONE THAT TELLS YOU WHETHER OR NOT THE SOIL IS SUITABLE FOR PLANTING AND WHAT TYPE OF MATERIALS AND ARE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS NORMALLY LICENSED TO ADMINISTER THAT? YES, BUT YOU DON'T. 
          THEY ARE, BUT IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT YOU ARE LICENSED TO DO THAT TESTING. 
          IF YOU WANTED TO DO THAT TESTING FOR YOUR HOME GARDEN, YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, SCOOP IT UP YOURSELF AND SEND IT OFF. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THAT, I MEAN, I'M FINE, I'M FINE WITH THAT. 
          I JUST, I, I STILL FEEL LIKE IT'S OVERLY ONEROUS ON THE DEVELOPER FOR SOIL SUITABILITY. 
          I MEAN, I, I GET THE INTENT. 
          I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S ENTIRELY NECESSARY, THE WHOLE AMENDMENT, BUT THAT'S JUST ME. 
          YEAH, I, I TEND TO AGREE WITH THAT. 
          I JUST AUTOMATICALLY, I MEAN, WE'VE GOT THE SERVICE AND AUTOMATICALLY EVERYTHING'S JUST GONNA COST THAT MUCH MORE TO DO, UM, WHICH IS GREAT. 
          BUT IT, I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE ISSUE IS COMING UP, I GUESS IS, UH, CHAIRMAN, THIS IS ROBERT HANLEY. 
          UM, I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S A PRO. 
          YOU ALWAYS DO THAT. 
           WHAT?  A THIRD TIME WITNESS. 
          WHAT I TRIED TO SPEAK AND YOU OH, GO AHEAD. 
          . 
          UM, I JUST HAVING HAD TO DO A LID PROJECT AND HAVING TO HAVE THE CERTIFIED, UM, MATERIALS THAT ARE RECOMMENDED, THERE IS THE POSITION OF WHEN YOU BUY FROM, UM, CERTAIN VENDORS, THEN THEY ALREADY HAVE THE ANALYSIS AND THEY HAVE THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHERE IT'S BEEN TESTED AND THAT SORT OF THING. 
          AND SO IT BECOMES MORE OF A VENDOR'S ISSUE. 
          DOES THAT, YEAH, I, I AGREE. 
          AND TO CLARIFY ON THE AMENDMENT, ON THE EDIT WHERE IT CURRENTLY SAYS, UH, CONFIRMED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, I WOULD SAY, OR A TEXAS, A TEXAS LICENSED SOIL FIRM. 
          SO THE COMPANY SELLING IT, SORRY, THIS IS STEVEN DOSER. 
          SO THE VENDORS SELLING IT WOULD HAVE A, A INDEPENDENT TESTING KIND OF LIKE THEY DO WITH BASE AND ASPHALT FOR ROAD WORK? EXACTLY. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID WHEN WE HAD TO DO A LID WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS. 
          SO YOU WOULDN'T BE TESTING IT SO THAT THAT CERTIFICATION WOULD COME WITH WHATEVER SOIL YOU'RE PURCHASING WITH THE TREE OR PLANTS OR WHATEVER. 
          YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          YOU WOULD JUST HAVE TO SPECIFY IT. 
          IT WOULD BE BASICALLY LIKE IN A CERTIFIED ENGINEER LETTER, BUT IT WOULD BE FROM THE VENDOR YEAH. 
          SAYING THAT THIS IS WHAT THEIR PRODUCT IS. 
          AND THE, THE INTENT WITH BETWEEN THE, THE INTENT WITH THE AMENDMENT WAS TO OFFER TWO OPTIONS IF YOU ARE BUYING SOMETHING NEW, YOU KNOW, AS SAID, THE, THE VENDOR WILL PROBABLY ALREADY HAVE THIS STUFF CERTIFIED AND HAVE RESULTS. 
          [01:15:01]
BUT IF YOU'RE NOT BUYING NEW SOIL THAT YOU COULD EITHER HAVE IT TESTED OR INSTEAD OF HAVING IT TESTED, YOU CAN JUST ADD SOME COMPOST TO IT. 
          SO ANY OF THOSE THREE ITEMS WOULD, WOULD SATISFY THIS REQUIREMENT MR. THIS TIME ? UM, I WAS JUST GONNA MAKE THE, THE COMMENT THAT A REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL STANDARD OF CARE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS IS IF YOU'RE HIRING A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, HE'S GONNA SPECIFY ALL OF THAT STUFF. 
          AND SO ON THE SUBMITTAL PROCESS, WHEN YOU'RE SUBMITTING PLANTS VEGETATION, MAKE SURE THAT THAT THE, THE RIGHT SIZE, GALLON WISE, HEIGHT WISE AND ALL OF THAT, IT'S ALL PART OF THE PROCESS. 
          SO THOUGH I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE LANGUAGE, I, I THINK THE CURRENT PROCESSES THAT WE HAVE, UNLESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CAN EXPLAIN TO ME SOME EXAMPLES OF WHERE THIS IS AN ISSUE. 
          IT'S USUALLY COVERED IF YOU'RE HIRING A REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THAT'S, UH, THAT'S LICENSED IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. 
          OKAY, MICHAEL? YEAH, I'D LIKE TO, UH, MAKE EVERYONE, UM, BE AWARE THAT ON PART FIVE COST IMPACT STATEMENT, IT SAYS THAT IT WILL NOT IMPACT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND OR DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND IF SO, BY HOW MUCH? AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S BEEN ADDRESSED. 
          IS THERE ANY I WOULD SAY THAT IF THEY ARE MOST LI THE REASON THAT WAS, UH, SELECTED, BECAUSE IT WAS MOST LIKELY THAT THE DEVELOPER IS ALREADY BUYING SOMETHING TO, TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT. 
          SO WE'RE NOT ASKING THEM TO BUY ANYTHING NEW. 
          IF THEY'RE BUYING SOIL TO, FOR THEIR PLANTING, THEY'LL MEAN, YOU KNOW, THEY'LL CONTINUE TO BUY SOIL. 
          WHAT THIS WOULD ADD WOULD BE AN ALTERNATIVE. 
          SO INSTEAD IF THEY ARE, LET'S SAY THEY'RE NOT BUYING BRAND NEW SOIL FOR THIS TREE PLANTING, THEY ARE JUST, UH, THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY DUG UP THE GROUND AND THEY'RE GONNA USE THE FIELD DIRT, THEN IT WOULD, THEN IT WOULD ADD A COST OF EITHER THE SOIL TEST OR ADDING COMPOST. 
          SO IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL COST. 
          THERE IS, UH, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL COST TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE. 
          IF YOU ARE ADDING COMPOST, I THINK IT SAYS THREE, IT SAYS THREE INCHES IN HERE. 
          IF YOU ARE ADDING THREE INCHES OF COMPOST TO A 10, UH, TO A 10 BY 10 LOT TO A 10 BY 10 SQUARE OF LIKE LANDSCAPING, THAT WOULD BE ADDING YOU A COST OF ABOUT $25. 
          AND IF YOU ARE ADDING, IF YOU ARE ADDING COMPOST TO LET'S SAY ABOUT, ABOUT, UH, A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, THEN YOU WOULD BE ADDING A COST OF ABOUT $200. 
          SO IF WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE, LIKE ONE AREA WHERE THE TREE WOULD BE, YOU WOULD BE LOOKING AT AN ADDITIONAL COST OF MAYBE $25. 
          IF, IF YOU ARE PURCHASING COMPOST, IF YOU ALREADY HIRED A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, AND AS SOME OTHERS FOLKS HAVE SAID, YOU ARE GOING TO BE PLANNING YOUR TREE AND SOIL IS ALREADY SUITABLE AND PART OF YOUR PLAN, THEN THERE WOULD NO NOT BE ANY ADDITIONAL COSTS. 
          THIS IS ARMANDO. 
          SO AS MR. HENLEY SAID IT, IT IS A SPEC THAT'S IN OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S DRAWING. 
          SO, SO NOW HOW DO THEY, HOW DO THEY PROCEED WITH PERMITS? THEY NOW HAVE TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE TESTING AFTER THE FACT, UM, BECAUSE THAT ISN'T DEFINED UNTIL THERE'S A CONTRACTOR, ET CETERA. 
          SO I MEAN, IT, I GUESS I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S, WHAT'S BEING INTENDED, BUT HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE IMPLEMENT IT? I WILL LET SOMEONE FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WHO HANDLES THAT ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 
          MARK OR STEVEN? MICROPHONE. 
          MARK, THIS IS MARK. 
          UH, WOULD YOU PLEASE REPEAT THE QUESTION? THE, THE FIRST PART IS A STATEMENT THAT IT, IT'S A SPEC THAT'S IN THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS. 
          SO NOW THIS WOULD MAKE IT A REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE, RIGHT? A TESTING STUDY OR IF NOT COPY OF THE VENDORS', SOIL SUITABILITY, ET CETERA. 
          SO I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE, HOW YOU PROCEED ONCE THIS IS ADDED. 
          THE, THE WAY WE WOULD LOOK AT IT, IT WAS, IT WOULD BE INCLUDED AS A NOTE ON THE PLANS. 
          SO IT, WHENEVER WE GET, UH, UH, THE, THE PLANTING STANDARDS AS DESCRIBED, AND I'M SORRY, ARE, ARE YOU A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT? NO. 
          NO. 
          OKAY. 
          SO AS, AS MR. HANLEY WAS EXPLAINING, THOSE ARE TYPICALLY SPECKED OUT AND THOSE ARE, UM, APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 
          SO THAT'S HOW WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR THAT ON THE PLANS. 
          I HAD A QUESTION AGAIN. 
          UM, SO WHAT IS, IS DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS DEFINED WHERE IT SAYS ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, WHAT DOES THAT CONSTITUTE? SORRY FOR NOT LOOKING IT UP PRIOR TO THIS MEETING, 
          [01:20:01]
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S DEFINED. 
          SO HOW, HOW BROAD IS THIS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS? COULD STAFF COMMENT ON WHAT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS MEANS? I, I, SO I GUESS FOR THE, FOR THE AUTHOR OF THE AMENDMENT, WAS THIS INTENDED ONLY FOR, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT ON A, OR, UH, THIS, IF YOU WERE TO SAY ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, WOULD THAT ENCOMPASS IN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME? UH, THE INTENT OF THIS SECTION WAS TO SUPPLEMENT THE TREE PLANTING GUIDELINES. 
          UH, SECTION M THAT'S ALREADY IN THE CODE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL. 
          YEAH, THIS IS MICHAEL, BUT THAT ALSO SAYS IN THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT, GRASS TURF AS WELL, NOT JUST TREES. 
          THEN I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE EDIT THAT TO JUST THE TREES. 
          THEN. 
          WELL, YOU KNOW, IT SAYS GRASS TURF PLANTINGS OF TREES, SHRUBS, FLOWERS FOR LANDSCAPING. 
          SO I GUESS IF YOU, IF YOU'RE JUST TAKING OUT TREES, DOES THAT IN, DOES THAT STILL INCLUDE GRASS AND LANDSCAPING? I MEAN, FLOWERS, SHRUBS, I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE THAT, UH, SECTION M UH, GENERAL PLANNING STANDARDS, WHICH, WHICH REFERS TO REALLY JUST REFERS TO TREES. 
          SO FOR, FOR THE TREE ORDINANCE FOR 35, 5 23, IT WOULD JUST BE TREES BECAUSE WE DON'T REGULATE TURF AND LANDSCAPE WOULD BE COVERED UNDER THE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. 
          UH, ADDITIONALLY GOING BACK TO THE ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, L IF I 5 23 A ONE, WHICH IS, UH, APPLICABILITY OF THE AIR, LAYS OUT THE CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE MET FOR THE REGULATIONS IN THAT CHAPTER TO TAKE ACT. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, FOR INSTANCE, INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL OFFICE, MULTIFAMILY, UH, DEVELOPMENT OR ADDITIONS GREATER THAN 2,500 SQUARE FEET, OBSTRUCTION OF NEW PARKING LOTS GREATER THAN 2,500 SQUARE. 
          SO THERE'S A LOT OF VERY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AS TO WHEN THOSE APPLY. 
          SPECIFICALLY, THERE ARE SIX SCENARIOS THAT WOULD TRIGGER, UH, ANYTHING IN 5 23 TAKING EFFECT. 
          SO IS THIS NOT MEANT TO INCLUDE ANY, SAY, PUBLIC PROJECTS THAT REQUIRE TREE PLANTING? YES. 
          I WOULD SUGGEST WE AMEND THE BEGINNING OF THIS SENTENCE TO SAY ALL TREE PLANNING SUBJECT TO, TO SECTION M SHALL BE REQUIRED, ET CETERA. 
          SUBJECT TO, UH, SECTION M OR SECTION 30. 
          SECTION SECTION M OF THIS, OF THIS SECTION SHOULD BE ALL 35. 
          YEAH, ALL THREE. 
          PLANNING SUBJECT TO SECTION 5 23 M SHALL BE REQUIRED TO BE PLANTED IN SOILS. 
          SO DELETE EVERYTHING UNTIL WE GET TO SHALL YES. 
          OH,  WAS ALREADY THERE. 
          YES. 
          AND I THINK IT'S, IT'S SUPPOSED TO SAY ALT TREE PLANT PLANTING, NOT PLANNING, RIGHT? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          END TO, CAN IT SAY A LICENSE FIRM? YES. 
          ALSO, THERE'S ANOTHER INSTANCE OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE THAT ALSO SAY, OR LICENSE. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S, AND I THINK THAT SHOULD BE LICENSED. 
          UH, SOIL TESTING FIRM. 
          [01:25:07]
ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, IS THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT LATEST EDITS? I KNOW, I KNOW WE HAD A MOTION FOR APPROVAL ON THE ORIGINAL WORDING. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD A SECOND. 
          I SECOND IT. 
          MOTION. 
          OH, YOU SECOND IT? YES, SIR. 
          MR. VAZ. 
          MR. VASQUEZ. 
          SECOND IT. 
          WOULD YOU LIKE TO AMEND YOUR MOTION? I'LL AMEND MY MOTION TO INCLUDE THE AMENDED LANGUAGE THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND ON THE SCREEN CURRENTLY. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE AMENDED LANGUAGE. 
          DO WE HAVE SECOND? I. 
          SECOND. 
          SECOND. 
          BY MR. VA VASQUEZ. 
          ANY MORE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS? OKAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? JUST ONE? NO. 
          IS JULIA? NO, JULIA. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ITEM 10, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM SEVEN DASH TWO AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 5 23 OH AND Q SANDY JENKINS PARKS AND RECREATION. 
          UM, WE ARE, UH, AS A RESULT OF OUR 2019 PARKS SYSTEM PLAN, UH, PART OF THE COMMUNITY INPUT WAS THAT WE NEEDED MORE PARK SPACE. 
          AND I THINK THROUGH THE PANDEMIC, I THINK, UH, A LOT OF PEOPLE ENJOY THE GREENWAYS. 
          THEY ENJOY A LOT OF OUR PARKS. 
          UM, HOWEVER, UNLESS GIVEN A SPECIFIC BUDGET INITIATIVE OR SPECIFIC BOND PROJECT, WE HAVE NO ABILITY TO ACTUALLY PURCHASE PROPERTY. 
          THE PROCESS FOR PURCHASING PROPERTY OR GETTING PROPERTY DONATED GOES THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN ULTIMATELY TO CITY COUNCIL. 
          AND WHAT WE ARE ASKING IS TO UTILIZE TREE MITIGATION FUNDS IN THE PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL PARK LAND. 
          AND JUST, UH, AN ASIDE, UM, THE STATE OF TEXAS DOES HAVE PARKLAND AS A PROTECTED TYPE OF, UM, UM, SECTION OF, OF, YOU KNOW, ONCE YOU BUY A PARK, YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT TO ANYTHING. 
          YOU CAN'T UTILIZE IT FOR ANYTHING. 
          ONCE IT'S A PARK, IT'S ALWAYS A PARK. 
          AND, UM, SO THAT'S ONE THING. 
          AND THEN SECONDLY, THERE WAS KIND OF A LITTLE QUESTION ABOUT HOW DOES THE CITY CURRENTLY ACQUIRE PARKLAND? AND WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT WAYS. 
          ONE IS, UM, AND THEY GO HAND IN HAND. 
          ONE OF THEM IS TO UTILIZE THE TRUST REPUBLIC LAND, 10 MINUTE WALK. 
          AND WE, UH, ACTUALLY LOOK AT AREAS THAT ARE DEFICIENT WITH THAT 10 MINUTE WALK. 
          AND THEN WE HAVE SOMETHING CALLED A PARKLAND ACQUISITION CHECKLIST. 
          AND WHAT THAT DOES IS IT MAKES SURE THAT WE'RE NOT ACCEPTING OR GETTING PROPERTY THAT PERHAPS HAS SOME LANDFILL ISSUES. 
          UH, ANY TYPE OF REAL, UM, OBNOXIOUS ODORS, ANYTHING THAT SOMETHING COULD NOT BE DEVELOPED OR PERHAPS MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED. 
          BUT WE WANT SOMETHING THAT, UM, TREES ARE GONNA BE ABLE TO GROW IN AND THAT PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY USE AS A PARK. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHAT, UH, WE ARE ASKING FOR TO BE ABLE TO, UH, UTILIZE TREE MITIGATION FUNDS TO BUY ADDITIONAL PARKLAND AND THEN PLANT TREES AND MAKE THEM INTO PARK SPACES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU MR. BROWN. 
          COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. 
          YEP. 
          SO LIKE, HOW MUCH MONEY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT AND DO WE NOT HAVE ENOUGH TO USE THAT MONEY FOR WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR NOW? I MEAN, IS THERE AN EXCESS AND THAT'S WHY LET'S USE IT FOR SOMETHING ELSE? NO, UH, BACK IN WHEN THE SYSTEM PLAN WAS BEING DEVELOPED AND, UM, THAT WAS A HUGE COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS AT THAT TIME WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL, THE SYSTEM PLAN RECOMMENDED THAT WE HAVE SOME KIND OF ALTERNATE WAY TO BE ABLE TO BUY PARKLAND. 
          CURRENTLY, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ABILITY TO BUY PARKLAND. 
          AND SO IT WAS LOOKED AT IN THE SYSTEM PLAN TO BE ABLE TO SAY, WELL, HERE'S SOME AVAILABLE FUNDING. 
          AND I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW MUCH IS IN THE MITIGATION FUND NOW, BUT, UM, SINCE THE MITIGATION FUND CAME ABOUT, WE, UM, HAVE BEEN PLANTING TREES AND PARKS. 
          AND I THINK THAT WE'RE KIND OF AT A POINT NOW WE CONTINUE TO PLANT TREES AND PARKS, BUT WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE IT'S LIKE, WELL, WE'VE KIND OF ALL PLANTED OUT. 
          OKAY, SO WE WOULD LIKE TO BUY, BUY LAND SO THAT WE CAN HAVE OTHER ADDITIONAL PLACES TO PLANT MALDONADO. 
          I HAD A COMMENT. 
          UM, I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT, BUT THE EXECUTION OF THE TREE MITIGATION FUND AND THE TREE CANOPY FUND TODAY HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN EQUITABLE IN THIS CITY. 
          IT HAS SUPPLEMENTED BOND PROJECTS FOR NEW PARKS, AND SOME OF THE OLD HERITAGE PARKS 
          [01:30:01]
DON'T GET THOSE SAME ROBUST CALIBER TREES OR SIGNIFICANT PLANTINGS. 
          SO AS WE TAKE MONEY AND ALLOW THE FUND THE USE OF THE THAT MONEY TO BROADEN, WHAT ARE YOU, WHAT CAN BE DONE TO ENSURE THAT IT'S DONE IN AN EQUITABLE MANNER? BECAUSE TO YOUR POINT, YOU MAY LOOK AND SAY, WELL, WITHIN THE 10 MINUTE WALK, BUT THE NEED MAY BE GREATER IN CERTAIN AREAS. 
          AND I THINK, UH, THE PARK AMENITIES THAT WE HAVE AREN'T NECESSARILY EQUITABLE, BUT WE CAN DO A BETTER JOB WITH THE TREE MITIGATION AND TREE CANOPY FUNDS WHERE WE PUT PLANT TREES BECAUSE WE KNOW ABOUT THE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , WE KNOW ABOUT ALL THESE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'RE MENTION MENTIONING IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. 
          SO IF YOU CAN RESPOND TO THAT, I WOULD, UH, GREATLY APPRECIATE IT BECAUSE AS THE WORDING STANDS RIGHT NOW, IT'S VERY BROAD. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          UM, AND ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE GONNA GO ACQUIRE LAND, HOW DO WE KNOW ALL THAT MONEY'S NOT GOING IN ONE REGIONAL AREA OF THE CITY WHERE THE NEED MAY BE ELSEWHERE? THANK YOU, AB ABSOLUTELY. 
          I, I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH YOUR SUGGESTION. 
          UM, I'M COMPLETELY OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS. 
          YOU KNOW, WE DO UTILIZE THE CITY'S EQUITY, UM, ATLAS TO BE ABLE TO TRY TO COME UP WITH WAYS OF WHERE WE PUT AMENITIES IN PARKS. 
          UH, SO WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS THAT EQUIT EQUITABILITY THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          UM, I DO AGREE 'CAUSE I HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE THAT, UM, EQUITY'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE PAST. 
          AND I THINK OVER THE LAST TWO TO THREE YEARS, I THINK WE'VE REALLY DONE BETTER TO TRY TO, TO INCREASE THAT. 
          BUT YES, WE DO NEED TO, UH, VERY MUCH DO THAT. 
          AND, UM, IF YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR HOW WE COULD CREATE THAT EQUITY IN HERE, I, I DEFINITELY, I, I RECOGNIZE THAT, AND I AGREE, UM, WITH YOU, UM, DEBBIE REED WITH A COMMENT ON HOW TO INCLUDE, AND I KNOW THAT THIS MAY BE UPDATED, BUT THE, UM, WITH THE CONSIDERATION OF PRIORITY SITES AS IDENTIFIED AS LOW CANOPY AREAS WITHIN THE MOST RECENT URBAN FOREST AND INVENTORY ANALYSIS OR SUBSEQUENT SUCH PLANS MAY BE A WAY TO ADDRESS THAT IN A MORE EQUITABLE WAY AND TARGETING BOTH THE EQUITABILITY AND LOW CANOPY AREAS ARE SIGNIFICANT HEAT INDEX HIGHER AREAS. 
          I THINK THAT'S GREAT. 
          I I LIKE THAT. 
          AND MR. BROWN, JUST TO, I, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IS IN THE TREE MITIGATION FUND NOW. 
          I, I KNOW IT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF A MILLION DOLLARS. 
          UH, SO I DO KNOW THAT WE HAVE FUNDS TO BE ABLE TO PURCHASE PROPERTY, UM, IF IT WAS AVAILABLE. 
          I ASSUME THAT'S WHY YOU'RE HERE. 
          IF, I MEAN, IF YOU DIDN'T, IF YOU HAD ZERO IN THE ACCOUNT. 
          I I, YEAH. 
          IF WE HAD ZERO BE HERE, IF WE IN THE ACCOUNT, I DON'T THINK IT'D BE AN ISSUE. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT WE, BUT WE'VE CONTINUED TO GET MONEY AND IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT, LIKE I WAS SHARING WITH BIANCA BEFORE THE MEETING, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES THERE'S SMALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT PERHAPS WOULD ADD THAT GREEN SPACE TO A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WOULD CREATE, YOU KNOW, LIKE A RESPITE AREA AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE RELATIVELY INEXPENSIVE, 10, $15,000. 
          BUT RIGHT NOW, I HAVE TO SAY NO, UH, OFF THE BAT BECAUSE WE, WE DON'T HAVE FUNDS AND I'M NOT ALLOWED, LIKE BIANCA SAID, WELL, YOU COULD JUST TALK TO THE CITY COUNCILMAN. 
          I'M NOT ALLOWED TO SAY GO TALK TO YOUR CITY COUNCILMAN, UM, BECAUSE THAT IS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE WAY THAT CITY FUNDS ARE ALLOCATED. 
          WE DON'T HAVE FUND FUNDS TO BE ABLE TO BUY PARKS. 
          NO. 
          BUY THEM IN, IN BONDS. 
          SO THIS WAS SEVERAL, UH, I WOULD SAY BACK IN JANUARY. 
          THIS IS STEVEN STOGER. 
          SORRY, AS FAR AS THE CANOPY MITIGATION OR THE MITIGATION FUND AND THE CANOPY FUND COMBINED WITH THE TOTALS THAT THEY HAD ALREADY SPOKEN FOR WITH THE REST OF THE, UH, BUDGET YEAR, IT WAS AROUND, UH, $5.3 MILLION IS WHAT WAS THE NET IN THOSE TWO FUNDS AT THIS MOMENT? UH, THAT WAS SEVERAL MONTHS AGO. 
          SO, MR. HAN. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, SANDY, UH, CORRECT ME IF, AND I MIGHT MISUNDERSTAND HOW YOU ACQUIRE PARKLAND. 
          UH, SO BOND ISSUES WHERE THE MONEY IS EARMARKED FOR PARKS AND RECREATION DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO BUY PARKLAND WITH BOND ISSUES. 
          IT DOES, UH, BUT IT'S FEW AND FAR BETWEEN. 
          OKAY. 
          SECOND, NEW DEVELOPMENT GOES OUT ON THE SUBURB OF THE CITY. 
          UH, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO DEDICATE PARKLANDS AND OPEN SPACE AND MEET A CERTAIN CRITERIA FOR TREE CANOPY. 
          SO YOUR PRESENTATION MADE IT SOUND LIKE WE'RE DON'T HAVE TOO MANY METHODS TO ACQUIRE PARK LAND. 
          UM, AND THAT'S WHY YOU WANNA USE MITIGATION FUNDS. 
          I DON'T THINK I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH USING SOME OF THAT MONEY, BUT I WOULDN'T LIKE TO OPEN THE 
          [01:35:01]
WALLET AND SAY, TAKE AS MUCH AS YOU WANT. 
          SURE. 
          I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A CAP ON IT ON HOW MUCH OF THAT MONEY, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF PLACES THAT STILL COULD USE TREES. 
          THE IMPLANTED OUT OF THE MITIGATION OF THE CANOPY, UH, FUND. 
          WELL TAKE IT. 
          I GO AHEAD. 
          UM, I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT, UM, STAFF EDUCATION. 
          WHAT IS THAT GONNA BE USED FOR ? AMEN. 
          SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT OUR FORESTER HAS BROUGHT IS THAT, UM, AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE ARE COMPLETELY OPEN HOW YOU WANNA DO THAT, BUT THE FORESTER HAS ACTUALLY ASKED IF THERE WAS A WAY THAT WE COULD HAVE TREE MITIGATION FUNDS BE ABLE TO SEND STAFF TO STAFF TRAINING. 
          THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. 
          THAT'S WHAT THAT PURPOSE OF THAT STAFF EDUCATION IS. 
          SO THAT TREE EDUCATION, I MEAN, MITIGATION FUNDS WOULD BE UTILIZED TO SEND STAFF TO TRAININGS. 
          I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE IN THIS AMENDMENT, EXCEPT FOR THAT, I THINK THIS STAFF CITY CAN, UM, I IMAGINE THEY ALREADY HAVE A TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET, AND THAT SHOULD BE USED FOR STAFF EDUCATION. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE MY ONE EDIT TO THIS. 
          UM, CAN YOU EDUCATE ME ON THE CURRENT PROCESS? I GUESS THERE IS NO CURRENT PROCESS ESTABLISHED FOR ACQUIRING LAND. 
          SO WOULD UM, WOULD THAT HAVE TO BE DEVELOPED OUTSIDE OF THIS? ACTUALLY, THE CURRENT PROCESS IS IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO DONATE A PIECE OF PROPERTY MM-HMM. 
          , I GO THROUGH A, A CHECKLIST. 
          IT'S A PARKLAND ACQUISITION CHECKLIST. 
          UH, BECAUSE WE DON'T ACCEPT ANY PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT COMES TO US. 
          WE ONLY ACCEPT IT IF IT'S DESIRABLE, IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP BENEFIT A PARK, AND IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY, UH, TAKE AWAY FROM OTHER PARKS AND MAINTENANCE AND THINGS. 
          UH, WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO TAKE ON PROPERTIES THAT HAD SOME DUMPING AND WE'VE DENIED IT, UH, FOR THAT REASON. 
          AND SO THERE'S A PARKLAND ACQUISITION CHECKLIST THAT'S UTILIZED FOR DONATIONS NOW. 
          SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE UTILIZE THAT SAME CHECKLIST FOR THE PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL PROPERTY. 
          AND WOULD IT ULTIMATELY MAKE ITS WAY UP FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL? ABSOLUTELY. 
          OKAY. 
          PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN CITY COUNCIL. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL THEN, UH, OTHER THAN I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE TAKE OUT STAFF EDUCATION, BUT I'M OPEN TO OTHER, UM, MEMBERS' COMMENTS ON THAT. 
          THIS IS BIANCA. 
          DEBBIE REED IS SUBMITTING SOME LANGUAGE EDITS THAT THEY'RE WORKING TO PUT ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW BASED ON HER COMMENTS THAT THEY WERE TYPING WHILE YOU WERE SPEAKING. 
          JULIA GEORGE. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I JUST, UM, AND A KIND OF A SIDEBAR CONVERSATION ABOUT PUTTING A CAP, UM, BECAUSE IF YOU START THINKING ABOUT WHAT THE UPCOMING BOND IS PROPOSING, THERE'S A LOT OF LINEAR TRAILWAYS, WHICH ARE ALSO GONNA ADD PARKLAND. 
          MM-HMM. 
           SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT, PLUS NEW PARKS. 
          I THINK IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO PUT A CAP OF 25% OF THE MONIES FROM EITHER FUND BE UTILIZED FOR PARK ACQUISITION IN A FISCAL YEAR FOR THE CITY. 
          AND THAT WAY WE ENSURE THAT THERE'S MONEY STILL USED FOR, YOU KNOW, UM, FOR THE OTHER NEEDS WITHIN EACH CATEGORY. 
          IS THAT CUMULATIVE BETWEEN THE TWO FUNDS OR 25? WELL, THEY SEPARATED OUT IN EACH ONE, SO I PUT 25% IN EACH FUND FOR EACH ONE. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THIS IS STEVEN STOGER. 
          I DID WANT TO CLARIFY WHERE THEY BRING UP STAFF EDUCATION. 
          THAT IS A CURRENT PRACTICE. 
          THEY WERE JUST ADDING THE LANGUAGE IN THERE AS CLARIFICATION. 
          THEY CURRENTLY USE THOSE FUNDS FOR STAFF EDUCATION AS WELL AS PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH. 
          WHILE YOU'RE TYPING THAT UP, I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. 
          UM, IT TALKS ABOUT IN BOTH OF 'EM, I THINK IT DOES, UH, THE FUNDS COLLECTED FROM CIVIL PENALTIES AND MITIGATION FEES IN THE FUND SHALL BE UTILIZED TO PAY FOR THE PLANTING OF TREES AND MAINTENANCE PERIOD. 
          BUT IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT THAT IS. 
          IS THERE A, SHOULD THERE BE A, IS THERE A TIME PERIOD ON THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD? WELL, THEY CROSSED OUT THREE YEARS. 
          I, I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD CROSS THAT OUT. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'RE, WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT. 
          UM, THE FORESTER SAID THAT THREE YEARS WAS ARBITRARY, SO THAT'S WHY HE WANTED TO STRIKE IT. 
          BUT I, I'M, I'M, YEAH, I THINK THERE SHOULD BE, SO I'M PERFECTLY HAPPY LEAVING IT BACK IN. 
          YES. 
          YEAH. 
          CHRISTOPHER FULLERTON, UH, IN TERMS OF PUTTING A, A CAP ON, UH, HOW MUCH CAN BE ALLOCATED FOR PARK ACQUISITION? I, I CERTAINLY LIKE THE IDEA, UH, SO THAT IT, WE DON'T INADVERTENTLY CREATE A RUNAWAY PROCESS HERE. 
          UH, AT A PRACTICAL, UH, LEVEL, IF WE'RE ONLY ONLY TALKING ABOUT A, SAY A MILLION OR 2 MILLION THAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE, UH, WHAT DOES A CAP DO IN TERMS OF ACTUALLY BEING ABLE TO APPLY THOSE FUNDS? I MEAN, CAN, CAN, CAN THE CITY ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE LANDS OVER A MULTI-YEAR PROCESS AND DEDICATE FUNDING FORWARD? OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE WITHIN A SINGLE FISCAL YEAR? OR ARE 
          [01:40:01]
THERE OTHER RESTRICTIONS THAT WE MIGHT INADVERTENTLY TRIGGER HERE? IT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. 
          UM, I, IN ALL OF THE LAND PURCHASES THAT HAVE HAPPENED THAT I'M AWARE OF, IT'S ALL HAPPENED IN A PARTICULAR PURCHASE. 
          SO EVEN WHEN HARDBERGER PARK WAS PURCHASED IN 2007, IT WAS WITH ONE BOND FUNDING. 
          UM, OUR LATEST, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF LATEST PARKS. 
          THEY WERE PURCHASED WITH BOND FUNDING IN ONE ABILITY. 
          BASICALLY, WE WERE GIVEN X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS, 500,000 WAS WHAT WE WERE GIVEN OVER OFF OF RIGSBY TO FIND SOME PROPERTY. 
          AND SO WE HAD TO FIND SOMETHING THAT WOULD MEET THAT. 
          SO WE HAD TO LOOK AND SEE WHAT WE COULD FIND, AND WE WERE ABLE TO FIND, UM, ABOUT THREE ACRES, UM, THREE AND A HALF ACRES FOR THE AMOUNT OF MONEY, AND THEN IT GET, IT, GET ENOUGH MONEY TO DEVELOP IT. 
          SO I, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT BY HAVING THAT CAP THAT YOU RECOMMENDED, THAT THEN SAYS THAT'S WHAT WE ARE ABLE TO USE IN A YEAR, AND THAT YOU CAN'T MULTI-YEAR. 
          I, I, I, I DEFINITELY THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT TO MAKE, UM, BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO ENTER INTO SOME KIND OF PERHAPS A MD M D P UH, SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE A REALLY BIG PIECE OF PROPERTY AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE PAYING A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR FOR, I, I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE INTENT, BUT I, I, I SEE YOUR POINT. 
          THIS IS ROBERT HANLEY. 
          UH, SO SANDY, IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, LET'S JUST SAY THAT, UH, BIANCA HAS MADE A RECOMMENDATION OF A 25% CAP. 
          SO IF YOU HAVE A MILLION DOLLARS, THAT'S $250,000. 
          YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO SPEND THAT 250 EVERY YEAR, OR YOU CAN'T, YOU KNOW, CARRY IT OVER IN SOME KIND OF ESCROW AND LET IT BUILD UP THAT IT'S THREE YEARS LATER, IT'S NOW, YOU KNOW, $750,000 I, THAT, THAT CONCEPT OF SAYING YOU GOT TWO 50, YOU BETTER SPEND IT THIS YEAR, YOU CAN'T CARRY IT OVER. 
          RIGHT. 
          YEAH, THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. 
          I THINK PERSONALLY, I THINK WE SHOULD CLARIFY THAT. 
          I I THINK WE SHOULD EITHER SAY YOU CAN CARRY IT OVER OR YOU CAN'T. 
          UH, I, I THINK THAT'S A OF A GOOD DISCUSSION TO HAVE MANNA. 
          SO THIS QUESTION I HAVE, SO, SO THIS IS IN LIEU TO BONDS, RIGHT? SO BOND BOND PURCHASES ARE COMPLETELY SEPARATE. 
          AND SO THIS IS DISCRETIONARY FUNDS FOR, FOR ADDING ADDITIONAL PARKS, CORRECT? YES. 
          YES. 
          THIS BIANCA, I, WHERE THERE'S A WILL, THERE'S A WAY. 
          IT'S NEVER BEEN A MATTER OF RESOURCES, IT'S A MATTER OF PRIORITIES. 
          IN MY OPINION. 
          IF COUNCIL WANTS TO GET A PARK IN A CERTAIN LOCATION, THEY WILL ALLOCATE MONEY OUTTA THE BUDGET TO DO IT. 
          THEY FIND MONEY, AND IT'S NOT LIKE THEY FIND MONEY IN 10 YEARS, THEY'LL FIND IT WITHIN USUALLY 24 MONTHS. 
          IT, IT'S USUALLY COULD BE A QUICK PROCESS. 
          I THINK THIS IS RELEVANT BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT SIZE. 
          YOU'RE NOT GONNA GO IN AND ACQUIRE A LARGE PARCEL OF LAND THAT'S PROBABLY GONNA BE DONE THROUGH THE BOND CYCLE. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO THIS IS REALLY TARGETING, I THINK, REAL SMALL POCKET PARKS TO REALLY ADDRESS THE NEED IN, IN INFILL AREAS. 
          YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT UP WHERE YOU'RE DOING NEW DEVELOPMENT WHERE THEY'RE REQUIRED TO DO IT ALREADY. 
          SO I THINK PUTTING THE MILLION DOLLARS, A MILLION DOLLARS IS A LOT OF MONEY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SMALL LOTS. 
          YOU KNOW, YOU COULD GET, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING WHERE YOU'RE PURCHASING, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD GET ACRE LOTS FOR MULTIPLE LOCATIONS. 
          SO I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, JUST, I WOULD JUST SAY UP TO A MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR FOR BOTH FUNDS SO THAT IT LIMIT, WELL, IT'S NOT A MILLION DOLLARS. 
          I WOULD SAY 25%, AND IT'S ROUGHLY ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS. 
          BUT THE OTHER POINT IS THAT THESE FUNDS ARE AT RECORD LEVELS RIGHT NOW TOO. 
          THAT WAS THE REPORT THAT WAS GIVEN AT COUNCIL IS THESE, BOTH THESE FUNDS HAVE SEEN A HUGE INCREASE BECAUSE WE'RE SEEING A HUGE INCREASE. 
          SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 5 MILLION RIGHT NOW. 
          FIVE, FIVE OR 6 MILLION. 
          IT COULD BE SEVEN OR 8 MILLION. 
          AND IF YOU'RE TALKING 25%, THAT STILL CARRIES FORWARD TOO. 
          I MEAN, WE KNOW LAND PRICES ARE GOING UP, BUT THAT WAS MY INTENT WITH THE 25%, IS THAT IT'S NOT THE ONLY PLACE, BUT IT IS A PLACE THAT THEY CAN GO TO, TO BE ABLE TO EXECUTE THEIR PLAN WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH A BUDGET CYCLE AND BATTLE FOR ONE, A LINE ITEM IN A BUDGET. 
          SO THAT'S ALL I HAD TO SAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, MICHAEL. 
          THANK YOU MICHAEL MOORE. 
          I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND A QUESTION. 
          UH, WHEN IN, WHEN THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE WAS FIRST PASSED IN 1996, UH, TREE MITIGATION WAS, TREE MITIGATION FUND WAS PART OF THAT ORDINANCE. 
          AND, UH, IT EXISTS TODAY FOR TREE PRE IT SHOULD BE FOR, FOR, UH, MITIGATION AND, AND PRESERVATION AND INSTALLATION OF NEW TREES. 
          UH, IT'S INCUMBENT ON, I THINK ON THE, UH, THE, UH, UH, CITIZENS BOARD. 
          UH, I, I FORGET AGAIN WHAT THE, WHAT THEY'RE CALLED. 
          BUT ANYWAY, THE, THE, UH, PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD, YEAH, IT'S INCUMBENT ON THEM TO WORK WITH CITY COUNCIL TO BUY NEW, NEW LAND FOR NEW 
          [01:45:01]
PARKS. 
          UH, I DON'T BELIEVE THE TREE MITIGATION FUND SHOULD, SHOULD GO TO, TO BUYING A PARK BECAUSE YOU'RE TAKEN AWAY FROM ACTUAL MITIGATION. 
          SO THE UM, UH, WAY I THINK THAT THIS SHOULD BE HANDLED IS, IS THE MITIGATION FUND SHOULD BE STRICTLY FOR MITIGATION. 
          IT SHOULD NOT INCLUDE STAFF, UH, EDUCATION BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF THE DEPARTMENT, UH, PARKS AND RECREATION'S BUDGET. 
          UM, AND I ALSO HAVE HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING, UH, THE STRIKING OF THE FUNDING OF TREE PRESERVATION, INCLUDING YEARLY DIGITAL IMAGERY AND PLANTING PROGRAMS, UH, ADMINISTERED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT. 
          IF YOU HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR 38%, UH, CANOPY, UH, ONGOING, HOW ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO, TO VERIFY THAT IF YOU DON'T USE THE DI DIGITAL IMAGERY? THE REASON THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS TO ELIMINATE THE DIGITAL IMAGERY, UH, ITEM IS BECAUSE, UM, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT TECHNOLOGY DIDN'T REALLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO SUPPORT THAT. 
          SO WE ACTUALLY HAD TO GO AND PURCHASE THAT DIGITAL IMAGERY. 
          NOW WITH GOOGLE EARTH AND THE OTHER TYPES OF DIGITAL IMAGERY THAT'S AVAILABLE, THAT'S AVAILABLE AT NO CHARGE. 
          SO TO HAVE TO GO AND PURCHASE A YEARLY DIGITAL IMAGERY, UM, IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE FEEL THAT WE NEED. 
          AND THIS ALSO GOES IN WITH THE URBAN FORESTRY, UH, INDEX THAT THEY, WHEN THEY'VE DONE AND AND SURVEYED, THAT, THAT EVENTUALLY WILL REPLACE THE CANOPY AND THE IMAGERY, UM, COUNTING THE CANOPY THROUGHOUT THE CITY. 
          THAT'S THE, THE INTENT GOAL OF THAT, UH, THROUGHOUT THE, IN, UH, THE LIFE OF THAT PROJECT, WHICH WILL BE ONGOING AND CONTINUING. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IS THERE LANGUAGE REVISED LANGUAGE UP ON THE SCREEN? IS THAT CORRECT? NOW, O ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE 10% FUNDS FOR LITIGATION. 
          UH, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, HAS, HAS THERE BEEN MUCH LITIGATION AND, UH, WHETHER OR WHETHER OR NOT DOES THIS, DOES THE REMOVAL OF THIS CREATE ANY DISINCENTIVE TO AN, UH, HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. 
          I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH ANY, UM, UH, TO DATE THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY, UH, USE OF FUNDS FOR LITIGATION, BUT THEY SHOULD ALWAYS BE AVAILABLE. 
          SO IF WE REMOVE THIS SECTION, UH, HOW DOES THAT AFFECT YOUR CALCULUS ON THE GROUND, ON WHETHER OR NOT TO FOLLOW UP? DO YOU JUST GO TO, UH, OFFICE OF COUNSEL AND, AND WORK WITH THEM OR? I, I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO, UH,  MY FRIEND FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO MAYBE ANSWER SOME OF THAT. 
          I, I THINK PART OF THE REASON WHY THERE HAS BEEN NO LITIGATION IS BECAUSE WE HOLD THE PERMITS UNTIL THESE FUNDS AND EVERYTHING IS ESTABLISHED, THERE'S NO CONDITIONAL PAYMENT, THERE'S NO, UH, PAYMENT DOWN THE ROAD. 
          WE, THE, THE PERMITS ARE HELD UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT PAYMENT IS RECEIVED OR, OR THEY'VE PLANTED OR, OR HAVE A MITIGATION PLAN. 
          SO, UM, WE STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO HOLD CFOS AND OTHER THINGS, UM, AT THE, THE FINAL STAGE TO ENSURE THAT, THAT WE GET THE MITIGATION TAKEN CARE OF AS IT'S, IT'S STATED. 
          SO IS THAT THE, DR, JUST FOR QUICK CLARIFICATION, IS THAT THE DRIVER FOR WHY TO REMOVE THE LANGUAGE? 'CAUSE IT JUST HASN'T BEEN NECESSARY. 
          THAT MAY BE THE, THIS IS PARK'S AMENDMENT. 
          SO WE WERE JUST COMMENTING ON, UM, THAT IF THAT'S THE REASON THEY WERE, THEY WERE PULLING IT TO MAKE THE FUNDS AVAILABLE, THEN THAT, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE WHY. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, WE HAVEN'T UTILIZED THAT 10%. 
          SO WE SUGGESTED LET'S REMOVE IT AND IT, IT WOULD NOT PRECLUDE THE ABILITY TO USE FUNDS FOR LITIGATION. 
          IT WOULD JUST NOT MANDATE THAT 10% BE SET ASIDE. 
          THIS IS BIANCA, SO THAT THEY EDIT ON THE LANGUAGE. 
          SO, UM, AT THE LAST SENTENCE WHERE YOU'RE CURRENTLY AT, HIGHLIGHTED THE ONE THAT DEBBIE ADDED AT THE VERY END OF THREE, IF YOU COULD ADD THE CITY'S EQUITY ATLAS ALSO, SO IT SHOULD READ AND THE CITY'S, OR IF YOU WANT THE CITY'S EQUITY ATLAS. 
          AND WOULDN'T YOU CA CAPITALIZE EQUITY IN ATLAS? YES. 
          NO, IT'S NOT. 
          IT SHOULD, IT SHOULD GO TOGETHER. 
          YEAH. 
          THERE YOU GO. 
          AND THEN ADD THAT IN BOTH SECTIONS. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          AND THEN ONE OTHER EDIT IS THE CAP. 
          SO I'LL JUST LET HER CATCH UP, 
          [01:50:08]
UM, TO BOTH THE CANOPY AND THE MITIGATION. 
          SO, 'CAUSE THERE'S TWO SEPARATE SECTIONS. 
          SO IN Q O N Q, IT WOULD NEED TO BE ADDED. 
          UH, NUMBER THREE. 
          NUMBER THREE, RIGHT, DEBBIE? YES. 
          NUMBER THREE. 
          YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. 
          PERFECT. 
          AND THEN ADDING THE CAP. 
          LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU'RE READY. 
          SO ADD THE CAP AT THE TOP WHERE IT SAYS USE OF FUNDS AT THREE, OH, SORRY. 
          UM, FUNDS COLLECTED , UM, SENTENCE ADDED AT THE END. 
          MM-HMM. 
           OF THE FIRST SENTENCE. 
          FIVE TO BE CAPPED AT 25% PER FISCAL YEAR. 
          OH, I THINK RIGHT AFTER NEW TREES. 
          RIGHT? NEW TREES. 
          IS THAT WORK? I'M SORRY, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME READING THAT. 
          PROPERTIES TO PLANT NEW TREES AND THEN IT'LL WORK THERE. 
          YES. 
          AFTER THE WORD TREES. 
          YEAH. 
          NEW TREE. 
          I SEE IT THERE. 
          AND THEN TO BE CAPPED AT 25, 20 5% PER FISCAL YEAR, PER FISCAL YEAR. 
          AND THEN AT THE, AND THEN COPIED INTO THE NEXT FUND AT THE BOTTOM. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          PERCENT. 
          THERE YOU, THERE YOU GO. 
          SPELLED OUT. 
          NO, RIGHT THERE. 
          YEAH. 
          SPELL IT OUT. 
          YEAH, THAT'S PERFECT. 
          LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT. 
          YES, I HAD A QUESTION. 
          THE OLD LANGUAGE WAS THE 10%. 
          THIS ROBERT HENLEY APOLOGIZE. 
          10% WAS TO BE USED FOR LITIGATION. 
          UH, IF THERE WAS NO LITIGATION AS STATED BY CITY STAFF, WHERE IS THAT MONEY NOW? AND WHAT HAPPENED TO IT? IT'S STATED IN THE MITIGATION FUND. 
          IN THE WHAT FUND? WELL, THE MITIGATION OR THE . 
          OH, IT'S OKAY. 
          SO THE, SO IF YOU DIDN'T USE IT, STAYED THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, ON THE EDITS THAT, UM, MS. MALDONADO DID, DID WE NOT STRIKE THE, UH, PART TO USE SOME OF THE MITIGATION FUNDS FOR STAFF EDUCATION? UH, YEAH. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT WAS, UH, BIANCA'S. 
          I DIDN'T MENTION THAT ONE. 
          BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, 'CAUSE I THINK JULIA HAD MENTIONED IT. 
          SORRY. 
          AND, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, I THINK THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR THAT. 
          SO WE WERE JUST MAKING THIS SECTION OF THE CODE CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          ARE YOU WANTING THAT STRUCK JULIE, OR YEAH, HE SAID STRIKE DID. 
          OKAY. 
          SO MR. HANLEY, IS THE STAFF EDUCATION REMOVED IN BOTH SECTIONS? YEAH. 
          FROM THE MITIGATION, FROM THE MITIGATION FUND AND FROM THE TREE CANOPY, CORRECT. 
          BOTH. 
          YEAH. 
          OH, IT WASN'T THERE. 
          YEAH. 
          THAT SHOULD BE ABOUT YOUR DOCUMENT. 
          AND ALSO ON THREE, YOU NEED TO UNCROSS OUT THE NOT TO EXCEED THREE YEARS ON THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD. 
          CORRECT. 
          SHOULD THAT TO INCLUDE, DO YOU NEED TO UNS STRIKE OUT TO INCLUDE A MAINTENANCE PERIOD? ALSO, DO YOU GUYS NEED TO, ON THE ON THREE ALSO UP AT THE TOP, YOU HAD, UH, YOU HAVE, UH, THE WORDS TO INCLUDE, UH, ARE STRUCK OUT. 
          DO YOU NEED TO UNCROSS THOSE OUT ALSO? GUYS, 
          [01:55:01]
THERE'S ANY MORE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? IS THE HORSE DEAD? ? THANK YOU. 
          CAN I MOTION FOR APPROVAL? LET'S SEE. 
          YEAH. 
          YOU READY FOR MOTION? CAN I MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS, AS AMENDED? WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY BIANCA AND A SECOND BY MR. VASQUEZ. 
          ANY LAST COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ITEM 11, DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON AMENDMENT SIX DASH SIX AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 35 DASH 5 25, A LESLIE PROVINCE, AGAIN WITH THE FOOD POLICY COUNCIL. 
          UM, THIS AMENDMENT, UH, WHICH WE WORKED ON WITH STAFF, UM, HELPS CLARIFY WHAT AN URBAN FARM CAN STORE OUTDOORS OR INDOORS. 
          UM, WE FOUND THAT THE EXISTING, UM, OUTDOOR STORAGE DIDN'T QUITE ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE NEEDED, UH, TO RUN AN URBAN FARM, UH, SUCH AS, UH, COMPOST OR, UH, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          AND WE HAVE, UM, A COUPLE OF INSTANCES OF PEOPLE GETTING CITED FOR OUTDOOR PLACEMENT FOR THINGS THAT WERE NORMAL OPERATIONS FOR A FARM. 
          SO IN A, IN AN EARLIER AMENDMENT FROM A COUPLE MEETINGS AGO, WE HAD DISCUSSED THAT WE WERE ABLE TO HAVE, UH, SEVERAL, UH, DISCUSSIONS, UH, WITH THE FOOD POLICY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. 
          AND WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN IS IN LARGE PART THE PRODUCT OF WHAT THOSE MEETINGS LED TO. 
          THE U D C IN 35 5 25 ESTABLISHES FIVE DIFFERENT TYPES OF STORAGE. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, CLASS A STORAGE IS RELATED TO RETAIL SALES, ET CETERA. 
          CLASS FIVE STORAGE, UH, IS WHAT WE'RE SEEKING TO ADD THIS URBAN FARM RELATED, UH, STORAGE TO, AGAIN, FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS, FUEL FOR VEHICLES, AND COME UP WITH A SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT IS AND IS NOT APPROPRIATE. 
          WHAT SHOULD BE SCREENED, WHAT ABSOLUTELY HAS TO BE STORED INDOORS. 
          UH, THAT'S, THAT'S EFFECTIVELY THE AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU IS JUST ADDING THE LANGUAGE, UH, SO THAT IT IS CLEAR AS WE MOVE FORWARD, UH, WITH THIS URBAN FARM, USE WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE STORED OUTSIDE AND IN WHAT FASHION. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I JUST HAD A QUESTION ON, UM, LIMITS. 
          IS THERE AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED OF ALL THE FERTILIZER, OR IS THAT WHAT'S MET WITHIN THE FIRE CODE? I'M SORRY, I COULDN'T HEAR. 
          JUST, I WAS CURIOUS IF, IF THERE ARE, ARE LIMITS ESTABLISHED OR NECESSARY TO BE ESTABLISHED, OR IS THAT ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN THE FIRE CODE? OH, WE'RE, WE'RE FOLLOWING THE FIRE CODE, SO WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT ESTABLISHING ANY DIFFERENT LIMITS. 
          OKAY. 
          IN FACT, THE, THE FARMERS THAT WE TALK TO, UM, MOSTLY DON'T USE CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS OR PESTICIDES. 
          AND WHAT THEY DO USE IN TERMS OF GASOLINE IS FAR UNDER THE LIMITS. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY QUESTIONS? UM, JUST A QUICK QUESTION. 
          SO IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S NO OUTDOOR, UM, STORAGE FOR FUELS. 
          WOULD THAT ELIMINATE THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE, THE TANKS ABOVE GROUND? THAT THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          YEAH. 
          THERE WOULD NOT BE LARGE GASOLINE OR DIESEL TANKS STORED ON AN URBAN FARM PROPERTY. 
          SO THE REFUELING OF THE EQUIPMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE BY CANISTERS, MINI, MINI CANISTER. 
          OKAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          BECAUSE THE, THESE URBAN FARMS ARE, UH, BY THEIR NATURE MEANT TO BE SMALL. 
          UM, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT IN INDUSTRIAL THOUSANDS OF ACRES, YOU KNOW, WHERE SOMETHING OF THAT SIZE WOULD BE NECESSARY. 
          ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FURTHER? THERE'S ONE MINOR EDIT ON THE, UH, MR THIS IS FOR MR. HANLEY ON THE SECOND SENTENCE. 
          THE LAST WORD SHOULD BE FARMS, NOT FARM. 
          THANK YOU ENGLISH TEACHER . 
          MY GRANDMOTHER WAS AN ENGLISH TEACHER. 
          WHAT 
          [02:00:01]
DO YOU EXPECT, ? MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          SECOND. 
          NO, IT'S, UH, I ACCEPT THAT CHAIR. 
          THIS IS AS DEFINED IN THIS CHAPTER. 
          SHALL BE ALLOWED TO ON ALL OPERATING URBAN BAR. 
          YEAH, THERE YOU GO. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, MR. BROWN. 
          SECOND BY MR. GARCIA. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, ITEM 12, DISCUSSION ON AMENDMENT ITEM FIVE DASH 37 AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 5 25 C. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON, LEMME TURN. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          THIS IS CHRISTINA DE LA CRUZ OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. 
          I'M THE STREETS TRAFFIC AND T I A MANAGER. 
          THIS PRETTY MUCH IS, UH, TAKEN INTO EFFECT R 2018 DASH ZERO SIX, WHICH WAS, UH, ADOPTED ON FEBRUARY 8TH, 2018. 
          IT'S JUST PUTTING IT INTO THE AMENDMENTS NOW. 
          SO PRETTY MUCH AS THE PURPOSE OF THIS PARTICULAR R WAS FOR, UH, CONTROL, UH, R ELIMINATE DUST CONTROL. 
          SO PRETTY MUCH IT IS IN A NEW LETTER. 
          WE DON'T HAVE A CN OUTDOOR STORAGE, SO IT WOULD BE ADDING THIS IN THERE. 
          AND PRETTY MUCH WHAT IT'S DOING IS SAYING THAT ANY DRY VIALS OR PATHWAYS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE AN OUTDOOR STORAGE. 
          AND THAT WOULD BE, IT DEFINES CLASS THREE, CLASS FOUR AND CLASS FIVE AS, UH, AREAS THAT COULD BE STORAGE OF AUTOMOBILE. 
          SO YOU'RE LOOKING, LOOKING AT EITHER STORAGE OF AUTOMOBILES, NON-COMMERCIAL TRUCKS, MOTORCYCLES, MOTOR HOMES WERE, THE WHOLE IDEA OF THE GRID WAS BECAUSE IN THOSE TYPE OF USES, THEY WERE CREATING A LOT OF DUST THAT WERE EITHER GOING TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS OR THEY WERE TRACKING OUT DUST INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS INTO OUR PUBLIC STREETS. 
          SO THE INTENT HERE IS THAT ANY DRY VIAL THAT'S EITHER USED TO DRIVE THROUGH OR TO MOVE PRODUCTS, EITHER THE MOVEMENT OR MATERIALS, WE WANTED THAT AREA TO BE ALL WEATHER PAID, THEREFORE, TO ELIMINATE ANY TYPE OF DUST THAT MAY GO ADJACENT TO ANY PROPERTIES. 
          SO THAT'S IN IN'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT. 
          ALL. 
          THANK YOU, CHRISTINA. 
          ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? MOTION. 
          MOTION BY MR. BROWN. 
          SECOND BY MR. QUEZ. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? MOTION. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU, CHRISTINA. 
          UH, ANYBODY WANT TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK? I FEEL A LITTLE RESTLESSNESS IN THE ROOM. 
          FIVE MINUTES. 
          13. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ITEM 13, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT. 
          ITEM 18 DASH THREE, SECTION 35 DASH 5 26 F. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON, DOUG MELNICK, CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. 
          UH, THIS, UH, IS LANGUAGE THAT WE ARE PROPOSING THAT'S SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN, UM, THE PREVIOUS STREET DESIGN, UM, SECTION THAT WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT. 
          UM, THIS IS RELATED TO, TO NEW PARKING AREAS. 
          UM, BASICALLY LOOKING TO, UH, ENCOURAGE THE USE OF, UH, PERMEABLE MATERIALS, GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, UM, COOL PAVEMENT, ASPHALT TREATMENTS, AND, UM, UH, MATERIALS WITH A, A HIGH SOLAR REFLECTIVITY. 
          AGAIN, NOT REQUIRING IT, UM, BUT, BUT ENCOURAGING IT. 
          UM, SAME THING WITH LOW CARBON MATERIALS. 
          UM, UH, AND, AND, UH, ALSO ENCOURAGING FOLKS TO CONSIDER USING, UH, A TOOL CALLED ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT, UH, DECLARATIONS TO HELP CHOOSE, UM, MATERIALS WHEN, UH, DEVELOPING PARKING LOTS. 
          BUT AGAIN, NONE OF THAT IS A REQUIREMENT. 
          WE JUST WANNA HIGHLIGHT IT AS A, A KEY SYNERGY WITH SOME, SOME OF OUR CLIMATE OBJECTIVES. 
          UH, THE ONE NEW REQUIREMENT THAT WE WERE PROPOSING IS, UH, AGAIN, SIMILAR TO, UH, NEW STREETS THAT WE DISCUSSED LAST TIME, UM, IS, UH, DARK SKY COMPLIANT LIGHTING. 
          AND WE REFERENCE, UM, THE SECTION IN THE MILITARY LIGHTING OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT OUTLINES, UH, WHAT THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE. 
          UM, FOR PARKING LOTS, BASICALLY IT'S, IT'S FULL CUTOFFS AND THEN, UH, IDENTIFYING APPROPRIATE COLOR TEMPERATURE. 
          BUT IT DOES REFERENCE THAT EXISTING SECTION IN, IN THE PLAN. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU, DOUG. 
          ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS TO APPROVE? SO, UH, DARK SKY IS, IS HYPHENATED, NOT SKY COMPLIANT. 
          SO IT'S DARK DASH SKY COMPLIANT. 
          THAT WAS A NUMBER FOUR. 
          UH, YEAH, THERE WE GO. 
          THANK YOU, GEORGE. 
          . 
          WELL, I LIKE DARK SKIES, SO, YES. 
          MOTION. 
          WHO DO WE APPROVE AS AS AMENDED? SECOND. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION F BY, WELL, KEN BROWN MADE THE ORIGINAL MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION BY PHILIP MANNA 
          [02:05:01]
TO APPROVE AS AMENDED. 
          A SECOND BY BIANCA. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          ONE COMMENT. 
          ONE COMMENT. 
          AYE. 
          COMMENT, COMMENT. 
          ALRIGHT, , UH, WELL AT THIS POINT, I GUESS WE CAN LEAVE IT IN THERE. 
          DO, DO YOU SEE ANY POTENTIAL PROBLEM, UH, IN POINT 10, UH, WHERE IT SAYS TRADITIONAL MATERIALS? SINCE WE CHANGED THAT TO CONVENTIONAL MATERIALS LAST TIME, I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE THAT. 
          I, I AGREE. 
          I THINK THAT WAS THE SAME. 
          AND, UM, WHAT DID WE CHANGE IT AGAIN LAST TIME? CONVENTIONAL, I THINK CONVENTIONAL. 
          YEAH. 
          SO INSTEAD OF TRADITIONAL MO MOTION TO RECONSIDER. 
          SECOND. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. 
          SECOND. 
          AYE. 
          MOTION TO ADD THE NEW LANGUAGE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MOTION TO APPROVE IS AMENDED. 
          YEAH. 
          I HAVE A COMMENT ON ITEM ONE WHERE IT'S IN THE, IN THE BLUE EDITION. 
          I THINK WE SHOULD ADD AND MAY UTILIZE PERMEABLE MATERIALS SO THAT IT, IT DOESN'T REFLECT BACK TO THE OPENING SENTENCE, UH, AREA SHALL BE PROPERLY GRADED. 
          YEAH. 
          AND ACTUALLY AGREE IN CHANGING THE, IF APPROPRIATE TO, I MEAN I THINK YOU DID IT WITH THE MAY BUT ENCOURAGED LIKE YOU DID ON THE LOW CARBON SECTION, I THINK 'CAUSE THERE'S NO REALLY DEFINITION OF WHO DEFINES IT'S APPROPRIATE OR NOT. 
          THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID. 
          YOU WANNA SAY WHO DEFINES WHAT'S APPROPRIATE? UTILIZE PERMITABLE MATERIALS AND, OR WELL AT LEAST IT'S NOT SHALL YEAH. 
          THE INTENT WAS JUST NOT TO REQUIRE IT. 
          'CAUSE THERE'S SO MANY OTHER FACTORS. 
          YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. 
          MOTION TO APPROVE WITH ALL EDITS. 
          ALRIGHT, SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. UH, FULLERTON TO APPROVE AS AMENDED AGAIN. 
          AND SECOND BY MR. MAD. 
          ALL FAIR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. 
          THANKS DOUG. 
          CHAIRMAN, THE NEXT 11 AMENDMENTS ARE ALL RELATED TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND I'M JUST WONDERING, SOME OF IT IS JUST ARE REALLY CLARIFICATIONS THAT DON'T REQUIRE, IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T WANT HISTORIC PRESERVATION SPEAK, BUT UNLESS SOMEBODY HAS AN INDIVIDUAL ITEM THEY'D LIKE TO PULL, I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE WHOLE BODY OF THEM. 
          THERE'S 11 'EM UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING THAT HISTORIC PRESERVATION WANTS TO BRING TO OUR ATTENTION. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M TRYING TO GET YOU OUTTA HERE ON TIME. 
          WELL, WE WERE ACTUALLY GONNA REQUEST POSTPONEMENT IN A COUPLE OF THEM. 
          OKAY. 
          IF THAT'S OKAY. 
          WITHDRAW MY MOTION. 
          WE COULD AMEND YOUR MOTION AND JUST EXCLUDE THOSE TWO ITEMS THAT O H P WANTS TO TABLE. 
          YEAH, I HAVE A SLIDE THAT JUST SHOWS THEM ALL. 
          IF YOU WANNA PUT THEM ON THE SCREEN, YOU GONNA CRAFT A MOTION HERE FOR YOU. 
          SO BE MOTION OF FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22. 
          ONE AND 22, 23 AND 24. 
          UH, WELL THOSE ARE THE TWO HE WANTS TO TABLE. 
          OH, THOSE ARE THE TWO YOU WANT TO TABLE? YEAH. 
          THE TWO GREEN ONES. 
          23 AND 24. 
          TWO GREEN ONES. 
          THERE'S YES. 
          H YELLOW, YELLOW. 
          AND I JUST WANTED TO ADD SOME COMMENTS HERE AS I'VE MADE THAT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ALL THOSE EXCEPT FOR THOSE LAST TWO. 
          AS I REALLY WANNA THANK Y'ALL BECAUSE YOU'VE HAD A REALLY, UH, ROBUST PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT THROUGH YOUR AMENDMENT PROCESS GOING BACK TO 2019 AND HAVING ALL YOUR INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE AS YOU DEVELOP THIS AND YOUR, UM, COORDINATION WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COALITION, ALSO WITH MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS. 
          AND THAT'S REALLY WHY THOSE LAST TWO ITEMS THAT THEY'RE ASKING TO BE TABLED BECAUSE THEY'RE STILL WORKING WITH, UH, A GROUP OF STAKEHOLDERS ON SOME OF THOSE ISSUES. 
          SO, AS I SAID, MOTION FOR APPROVAL ON ALL THOSE AMENDMENTS THAT I'M MENTIONED AND THANK YOU. 
          SECOND. 
          SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO APPROVE ITEMS, UH, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, AND 22. 
          IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THOSE ITEMS? OKAY, HEARING NONE. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND? ALLISON? OH, SECOND BY ALLISON. 
          YEP. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NOW WE'RE ALL GONNA HAVE TO GO BACK TO WORK. 
          AND THEN THE LAST TWO ITEMS, I GUESS OFFICIALLY DO WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 23 AND 24 TO TABLE IT FOR A CERTAIN DATE. 
          SO LET'S, YEAH, LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT. 
          WHAT IS THE SCHEDULE? SO WHEN IS THAT GONNA COME BACK? HOW DOES THAT FIT INTO THE REST OF THE SCHEDULE HERE? SO WE CAN DO A CERTAIN, OR I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ONGOING DISCUSSIONS ARE NEEDED. 
          WE COULD HAVE A 
          [02:10:01]
MOTION FROM THE TAC JUST TO HAVE THAT ADDED TO THE LAST MEETING THAT WE HAVE ITEMS TO DISCUSS. 
          AND JUST TO GIVE Y'ALL A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION, THESE WERE ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR NEXT MONTH AND THEY WERE MOVED FORWARD THROUGH THE RESHUFFLING OF THE AGENDA. 
          SO IT'S NOT LIKE THEY CAME AND WERE NOT PREPARED. 
          THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD MORE TIME. 
          SO, WELL, YEAH, WITH THE ISSUE WITH THESE TWO IS WE ACTUALLY HAD A MEETING WITH SOME STAKEHOLDERS JUST LAST WEEK AND WE SAID, HEY, THERE'S TIME TO TALK ABOUT THIS BEFORE WE GO TO PTECH. 
          AND THEN THERE WASN'T. 
          SO WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE MORE MEETING WITH THEM BEFORE COMING HERE. 
          IS THERE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT ARE ON A FUTURE AGENDA BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN THESE WILL BE PLACED ON THEIR AGENDA THAT ARE GONNA CONFLICT CONNECT IN ANY WAY? THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE ADDITIONAL, UH, PTECH AGENDAS THAT INCLUDE ADDITIONAL O H P AMENDMENTS. 
          HOWEVER, IF WE ADD THEM TO THAT, THE PTAC, UM, THE PTAC TENTATIVE AGENDA IS GONNA HAVE TO BE ALTERED BECAUSE, UH, THAT'S ALREADY BEEN SET THROUGH MAY THROUGH THE END OF MAY, IF YOU WILL. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, VERSUS ADDING IT TO THE MAY 9TH AGENDA. 
          I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. 
          THAT'S THE LAST MEETING. 
          SO WE CAN WI WIGGLE IT THEM INTO THE OTHER, UH, AGENDA MEETINGS. 
          UM, WE MAY HAVE TO SHIFT A COUPLE MORE OF THE P TAC TENTATIVE AGENDAS, WHICH BY THE WAY, WE'VE UPDATED AND SENT THAT OUT TO EVERYBODY. 
          YEAH, WE'RE FLEXIBLE. 
          WHATEVER'S EASIEST. 
          SO THIS ISN'T, THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO CAUSE UNDUE BURDEN BECAUSE OF NO, I DON'T THINK SO. 
          I DON'T THINK SO AT ALL. 
          WE CAN JUST MAKE A MOTION TO PUT ON ONE OF THE FUTURE P-TECH AGENDAS AND THEN WE CAN WORK THAT OUT WITH COREY AND US TO DETERMINE, UH, WHERE IT'S BEST TO PLACE THAT. 
          'CAUSE MAYBE IT, IT MAY PERTAIN TO SOME OF THE OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT HE HAS FORTHCOMING. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I GUESS REGARDING ITEMS 23 AND 24, WE'LL NEED A MOTION TO PLACE THOSE ON A DIFFERENT AGENDA. 
          FUTURE AGENDA. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. HANLEY TO PLACE ITEMS 23 AND 24 ON A FUTURE AGENDA, I GUESS TO BE DETERMINED. 
          SECOND BIANCA. 
          SECOND BY BIANCA. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? CARRIE? ITEM 25, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT. 
          ITEM FIVE DASH 50 AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 6 45 F THREE F. 
          UM, THIS IS THE RID, RIGHT? YES. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, UM, THIS IS A QUESTION THAT COMES UP QUITE A BIT. 
          UM, SIGNAGE IS REGULATED IN A FEW PLACES, UM, OBVIOUSLY IN THE SIGN CODE, BUT THEN ALSO IN THE U D C AS IT PERTAINS TO HISTORIC LANDMARKS, DISTRICTS AND RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICTS. 
          AND SO IN THOSE SECTIONS THERE IS LANGUAGE THAT PERTAINS TO RESTRICTIONS ON DIGITAL DISPLAYS. 
          UM, AND UH, WE'VE HAD A FEW REQUESTS FROM UH, C P S ENERGY, BUT THEN ALSO, UM, EVERY NOW AND THEN, LIKE, UH, UNIVERSITY, UH, HEALTH CLINICS, THOSE ARE RUN BY BEXAR COUNTY, UM, FOR DIGITAL SCIENCE. 
          AND SO IN LOOKING THOSE REQUESTS, UM, IT REALLY MAKES SENSE THAT, AND ALSO WITH A CONSIDERING EXISTING LANGUAGE IN THE SIGN CODE THAT, UM, DOES NOT REQUIRE A SIGNED PERMIT FOR GOVERNMENT SIGNS. 
          WE DECIDED TO IDENTIFY THIS HERE, UM, IN THOSE SECTIONS OF THE U D C AND ADD A NEW DEFINITION FOR GOVERNMENT SIGNS. 
          UM, AND SO IF SOMETHING IS TRULY A GOVERNMENT SIGN AND MEETS THAT DEFINITION, THEN THE RESTRICTION ON DIGITAL DISPLAYS WOULD NOT BE APPLIED. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. 
          ENTERTAIN A MOTION. 
          MOTION FOR APPROVAL. 
          BIANCA? MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY BIANCA. 
          SECOND BY MS. REED. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. 
          WE ALREADY DID THE MINUTES. 
          IS THERE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT? UH, YEAH. 
          JUST WANTED TO SHARE REAL QUICK. 
          I KIND JUST DISCUSSING IT. 
          UH, WE'VE GONE AHEAD AND, UH, UPDATED THE TENTATIVE AGENDAS. 
          UH, OF COURSE DOING 25 ITEMS PER AGENDA RATHER THAN 20. 
          UH, WE ACTUALLY WERE ABLE TO ELIMINATE THE MEETING IN MAY, PROVIDED WE CAN CONTINUE AT THAT, UH, THAT PACE. 
          UH, WE DID SHOUT, UH, AN UPDATE TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH OUR SOCIAL MEDIA, THROUGH SA, SPEAKUP, ET CETERA, TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE WAS AWARE OF THOSE  AGENDAS CHANGING. 
          UH, WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE TO TAKE, UH, A STAB AT ANOTHER MINOR UPDATE AND SOME CONTINUANCES TODAY. 
          INFORMATION BY AND LARGE IS UPDATED. 
          WE'LL CONTINUE TO UPDATE IT AS WE WORK OUR WAY THROUGH THIS PROCESS. 
          THAT WAS IT FOR US. 
          APPRECIATE ALL THAT, LOGAN AND MELISSA AND STAFF FOR KEEPING THAT ALL SQUARED AWAY FOR US. 
          AND, UH, MANNA. 
          SO, SO WITH REGARDS TO THE, THE, THE AGENDAS, YOU KNOW, I THINK, YOU KNOW, A PARENT BEHIND IT SAYING UPDATED WITH A DATE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL. 
          SO THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, WHEN I GO OUT AND LOOK, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR YOU TO MAKE UPDATES, BUT STILL ALLOW EVERYBODY TO KIND OF LOOK PUBLICLY TO SEE, YOU KNOW, HAVE THESE BEEN AMENDED, YOU KNOW, AND WHAT DATE THEY WERE AMENDED. 
          SO THAT 
          [02:15:01]
WAY I WOULD KNOW IF I WENT OUT ON A MONTHLY BASIS AND TOOK A LOOK, OH, HERE'S ONE THAT WAS AMENDED. 
          AND SO, SO THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD KIND OF BE MANAGED WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE AGENDA ITSELF OR WITHIN YOUR, UH, UPDATE ITSELF. 
          I, I WOULD THINK WOULD BE BENEFICIAL. 
          I THINK WE CAN PUT A DATE ON THE ACTUAL P D F SOMEWHERE ON THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS ON THE SCREEN, UM, ON THE FRONT. 
          UM, SOMEWHERE ON HERE. 
          WE CAN PUT A DATE ON HERE SO, YOU KNOW. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, WE CAN PUT IT AT THE TOP. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT WAS LAST UPDATED, UM, THE LINK ON THE FRONT PAGE ALSO IDENTIFIES THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE, RIGHT? SO MAKE SURE, SO WE, OUR GOAL IS TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT IT'S FLUID. 
          WELL, ONE OF THE CHALLENGES I'VE HAD IN THE PAST IS, YOU KNOW, DO I HAVE TO OPEN UP EVERY ONE OF 'EM TO FIND WHICH ONES HAVE CHANGED VERSUS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF CALLING OUT SPECIFIC, SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS THAT WERE CHANGED, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE I THINK IT WOULD ALLOW FOR SOME FLUIDITY ON YOUR PERSPECTIVE. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          YOU'RE SAYING MAYBE PUT AN UPDATE ON THESE INDIVIDUAL AGENDAS? YES. 
          SO TO DATE, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAS CHANGED EXCEPT FOR THE ONES THAT, FOR THE MEETINGS THAT WE'VE ALREADY HELD. 
          BUT, BUT ALSO, BUT IF YOU PROVIDE THAT DATE, YOU KNOW, SOMEWHERE ALONG THAT LINE, JUST TO KNOW THAT WHEN I GO BACK AND LOOK, I CAN SAY, OKAY, THESE HAVE CHANGED AND SO ROLL. 
          YEAH. 
          GOT YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YES, SIR. 
          MR. HANLEY? YEAH. 
          MELISSA, OR, UH, LOGAN, DO YOU WANT TO GIVE AN UPDATE FOR THE, TO THIS SOLE COMMITTEE ABOUT THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING THAT WE HOPED WAS GONNA BE A ONE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING? THAT IT'S NOT. 
          I, I, I THINK THE, UH, THE QUICK UPDATE THERE IS NOT A ONE MEETING UPDATE. 
          , WE, WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING, UH, THIS WEEK TO SEE IF WE CAN TACKLE THE REST OF IT AND HOPEFULLY BRING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS BACK, UH, AT THE EARLIEST AVAILABLE MEETING. 
          BUT IT IS A LENGTHY DISCUSSION. 
          THERE'S A LOT TO UNPACK, UH, BUT I THINK THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN BENEFICIAL THUS FAR. 
          UM, BUT WE WILL GET THAT BACK TO Y'ALL, UH, AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ANYTHING ELSE FROM STAFF? NOPE. 
          IT IS 3 0 3 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. 
          GOOD WORK, GUYS. 
          THANK YOU.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.