Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So, I am going to call to order the uh City of Dallas Planning Commission tonight on Thursday, December the 11th, and we will uh have the roll call, please. Commissioner Swanson here. Commissioner Gro here. Commissioner Kash let staff know she wouldn't be present tonight. Commissioner Banford is absent. Commissioner Schulty, Commissioner Newell, and welcoming Commissioner White.

So, before we even Well, we'll do the approval of the minutes because Scott wasn't here yet for that and neither was I. But, we're going to take a look at the minutes from the meeting that I missed on November the 13th. Uh, I have one correction in that it says that I was present when I was not. So before before anyone picks up on that, I'll I'll point that out. No big deal. But other than that one correction, I've read through them and I wasn't here so I can't comment. It looks like you had a lively discussion. Oh, it was a about the uh the gas station sign. Um

so does anyone would like to make a motion to approve the minutes with the correction making me absent from the meeting? I'm happy to get credit to be here, but I don't think it's the right thing to do. amendments as stated with the correction. Second. Okay, we got a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I

oppose the same. Okay, minutes are approved. So now we will swear in our new planning commissioner. So Scott, thank you very much for applying and we're very happy to have you here. I'll ask you to stand and you will uh please repeat after me. I, Scott White I, Scott White, do solemnly affirm that I will support the Constitution and laws of the United States of the United States and the state of Oregon and state of Oregon and the charter and ordinances of the city of Dallas

andes of the city of Dallas and that I will to the best of my ability and my ability faithfully discharge my duties basically discharge my duties as a planning commission member commission member during my membership thereon membership there. Thank you very much. Welcome. Thank you for for dicing that up a little bit. Appreciate Oh yeah. Well, I had given you one if you had to do the whole thing yourself. So, all right. Well, we we're really really glad you're on board. I've known Scott for several years. He's a been a planner around the valley. You work for the COG now. Is that

Yeah. Midwell Amit Valley Council of Governments. It's kind of a mouthful. So I just COG is the Yeah. But yeah. Yeah. I'm I uh work for small uh jurisdictions. Uh I'm the contract city planner for Fall City over here. So I I work with HA over there and uh uh some other small cities I' I've kind of jumped around with and done some things. Also, uh City of Carlton is is one that keeps me busy quite a bit. I go up there. That's great. That's cool. Well, we're very happy to have your expertise and there's no probation period. You know, no thanking being serious. You know, as we as we do our business, don't hesitate to feel like the new guy and you can't speak up.

You guys were very good to to work with uh for for many years for with Andy and John and I have Carol and Tori. I don't know where they are, but they were very I mean good a good team you have here. You know, you know the folks and you know the routine. So, we're very glad to have you on board. Thank you to be here. There he is. Tori, we swore in our new planning commissioner. That's all you've missed so far. And we approved a minute. So, if you didn't like them,

so we're going to go to uh agenda item number four, which is public hearings. We have one this evening and it is a legislative amend amendment uh 255 to amend the Dallas development code article 2 land use districts to create a new mixeduse zoning district classification approval criteria are in Dallas development code chapter 4.7 and we will have the staff report please I should read in the uh uh the official language. This is uh

I mean I think the audience here would probably want to hear that. Shh.

Well, just just to make it official, this is a public hearing. This is a public re hearing regarding a legislative amendment to the Dallas Development Code. As previously read, this is an official public hearing before the Dallas Planning Commission. and I now declare the public hearing open at 6:10 p.m. As this application is subject to land use proceedings recognized by state law, I read the following statement. Failure to raise an issue with sufficient detail to afford the planning commission and the parties affiliated and adequate opportunity to respond to each issue precludes appeal to the state l land use board of appeals based upon that issue. So, please direct all testimony to the record and the applicable criteria you believe applies to the decision. Applicable approver criteria are found in the staff report. Um, there's no opportunity for exparte contact. So, the hearing will be conducted in the following manner. We'll have the staff report. Uh, anyone that is uh present that would like to testify uh uh on the legislative amendment uh can do so. And then there will be an opportunity for the applicant, which is the city of Dallas, to rebut. After we've heard all testimony, I'll close the hearing and ask the commission to deliberate. And then if there is a motion for recommendation to this response, I will note that this is a type four public hearing. And our uh approval is uh a recommendation to the city of council to the city council for final approval at a future date. So at this time, we'll start with the staff report. Chase.

Uh yes. So uh as you may recall uh we've been working on updating the Lreal master plan uh Lreal node master plan. Uh the plan uh that was uh uh finalized was adopted by city council earlier this year upon recommendation by the planning commission. Um, one of the things that the master plan called for in the lockall node uh was a mixeduse zoning classification. So in addition to the residential and commercial and open space areas identified uh it also identified as a zoning classification for mixed use um which we do not have in our development code. There is no zone called mixed use. Um and so this process uh is to create that zoning district classification uh titled mixed use. And so um the proposed uh language uh for this uh was prepared by our uh consultant as part of that master planning process for the updated LEAL mode. You'll have that uh here is uh exhibit A um in in your uh your packet. Um the uh areas highlighted in blue are proposed for change. Um mostly the the meat of that is the creating of a new chapter, chapter uh 2.11 um which would be the new mixeduse zoning district. Um but there are also some changes to uh chapter 2.6. six as it relates to um master plan districts generally um as well as to the general applicability section at the beginning

of uh article 2 um to incorporate the existence of this new chapter. Um and so you can see that chapter 2.11 is quite a bit shorter than um both our residential and our commercial chapters. um in part that's because it calls to the standards of those other chapters um as applicable. So um rather than repeat all of the language on say you know architectural design standards um it simply points back to the other chapters that have those standards in them um as an example. Um so you can you can look through that you can see kind of what the parameters that we're looking to set around this uh are um kind of the key takeaway from this new section um is the limitations um under section A. So any of the uh uses in the table of allowed uses listed with an L um would be subject to the limitations of section A. Um and that specifies that um residential uses that are part of a mixeduse development in which nonresidential uses occupy at least the floor area equivalent to the entire ground floor area of the development are permitted. Um, residential uses that are part of mixeduse developments in which non-residential uses occupy less than the floor area equivalent of the ground floor are conditional. And then residential uses that are not part of mixeduse development are prohibited in this zone. So it requires every development in this new mixeduse zone to have some level of residential component.

no to have some level of commercial component. Um the reverse however is not true. So there's no requirement for um uses to have residential components. Uh but if there are uh residential, it has to be in conjunction with commercial. So that's kind of the key differentiation between uh this mixed use zone and just our general commercial neighborhood commercial zones where um residential is optional but not required. Um so yeah. Okay.

That's kind of what I got for you. Okay. Um, are there any details that uh, well, first of all, where is this applicable? Is it only in the lock rail node or do we see this as being a an emerging zoning district that we'll see in future in in in future areas?

Um, and so that is a question that I'm not necessarily in a position to answer. So, um, one of the bits of wasn't really public testimony, but an attempt at public testimony, um, from the Fair Housing Council of Oregon. They reached out kind of wanting to know, um, the numbers behind how this ties into our housing needs analysis and all of that blah blah blah. Um, and part of the challenge of that is I don't know specifically what areas this will apply to. Yes, we have the comprehensive plan that calls for a certain number of acres in a certain area to be uh this mixeduse zone, but that's a separate land use process. So, until that takes place, it applies nowhere. Um, but we can't do the reszoning until we've defined what the zone is. So, the idea is that yes, it would be in the LEAL node in the area south of Ellenale. Um, but it could also be applied to other zones. It could be applied to or other locations. Could be applied to, for example, the mill site redevelopment area. Um, could be applied other parts of town as well. So, um, those are separate land use processes and it's it's hard to speculate on that. Um, I would like to see it in other places. I think there are some advantages to that but that's a political decision above my pay grade. So

specifically about the mill site future development where this might be applicable

right and again that's until we get to that juncture it's so the idea is that this this chapter is trying to be written in a way that is generally applicable um to any place that may then have that mixeduse designation. Um so the idea is currently it's lock node but could also be future places. Um and since we haven't had really the experience of dealing with this code section yet um I'm sure there are issues with it that will reveal themselves in time and we will fix them as we go. But

another question. So is until now when until our consideration to adopt this mixed use zoning classification were we deficient in not having this or are we just sort of evolving into a bigger more diverse uh diverse land use type community? I mean, how how I know we need it for this lock realel node, but where does this put us in regards to, you know, other communities of our size that are that are growing? You see what I'm getting at, right? Okay.

Yeah. And so, I haven't necessarily done a comparison with other cities as to what they offer for a mixeduse zoning type. Um, in many ways our existing uh commercial zone is like a pseudo mixed use because it does allow residential um either above commercial um or just on its own subject to certain parameters. So, um the commercial is certainly flexible in that regard and we are um in the process of um updating the code with regards to uh uh indoor recreation. Um and so that does crack the door a little bit for commercial uses and residential zones um with specific regards to that use type. So, um, but as far as how that compares with other communities, I have not really done that examination.

Thank you. So, is that your staff report then?

That was that was what I've got for you. It's not the most uh thorough uh thing I've ever put together. Um, if you want more uh discussion as relates to uh like approval criteria, the um tying it back to the the statewide planning goals to the uh consistency with the Dallas comprehensive plan policies, um there is a written uh write up of the policies and comp plan there in the staff report, but I don't know that I want to bore you with those nuts and bolts. So the the the important part is what it does, not necessarily how it complies with those policies, how it reads. Yes.

Commissioners, do you have any questions of Chase and his staff report at this time? Are we familiar and comfortable with this? Go ahead, John.

I need to say that a consultant prepared this. So this was uh prepared by the consultant that did the lock uh mixeduse node uh master planning for us. Um as part of their contracted work, they did a uh code audit um for both our uh development code which is what's in front of us now um as well as our comprehensive plan looking at which segments of the comprehensive plan would need to be amended um to enact the new lock node master plan. Um and so as part of the process that we did back in April, um the comp plan was updated uh based on that analysis. Um and so now we're taking the next step and adopting the uh uh development code language. Um and the the followon step after that is to actually amend the zoning map. So it's kind of a three-step implementation process.

It's extraordinary stuff to an outsider. It's is so detailed and so complex and so legalistic. I don't know how you get your minds around this. Well, I I spent many years in school getting a master's degree and then I've spent many years uh working here and so it's extraordinary. It's a lot. Yes. Extraordinary work.

Questions or one you might ask the same question. Um well, all right. So uh the the consultant did a lot of this and did an audit of it and said hey the MU zone um one I'll just make a quick observation that there uh our MU zones both in most close example is uh city of Salem and city of Kaiser have them and they've sort of created them along transit corridors. is is typically where that is. And sometimes there's interest in an MU zone and they emulate some cities that they have and they they get that code together uh in that way. And I'm kind of wondering I guess my first question before we will eventually go into deliberations and things like that. But as we're in questions of staff, um mine would be what what did the consultant use as an example? Did they crib from another city? Um do you know have some insight on that? What

so that uh unfortunately I don't have necessarily insight on. Uh the uh lock node update project uh was overseen by Charlie Mitchell. So I was only tangentially involved. Um so I don't really know what uh the consultant was necessarily using as a comparison as they were assembling this. Um I I wish I could point and say, "Oh, they did, you know, City of McMinnville or whatever it was." Um I just I don't have that uh that level of insight, unfortunately. Um and and to be clear, you don't necessarily have to adopt it um the way that it's written. If there are sections that uh the planning commission does not like, um we can certainly look at at revising those. Like you're you're not a rubber stamp committee.

Is there a follow? I mean I I guess one there wasn't a a work session before this you got looking at it for the first we did look at it uh last session um uh last so November gosh is it December wow okay yeah so we did look at it in in November um I don't know that we really went through it page by page but uh it was definitely as part of your packet uh last last month so um but again that doesn't mean that we can't in response to public testimony I guess. Yeah. Um I I I don't know that we need to take what the consultant did as gospel. Um

there timing element on this any grant. Okay. All right. Good. The the grant uh was uh contingent on them providing um essentially hearings ready documents. Um and so they did that. It is ready for hearing. We are having a hearing now. So grant is uh finalized and closed out. Um what we choose to do with it at this point is kind of up to the city. So uh yeah, I'd like that it has the so on the table um 2110308 the zero lock configuration as far as setback

uh page 2-142. It's the table exhibit A18 Um just a point of clarification for the setback. It says a 10-foot for residential district. So I know the building orientation is preferred to be um facing the street. So if there's a street, you know, this is directly abuing, right? If the residential use is directly abuing that. Okay. And then parking is there a minimum or I'm not sure. I probably missed it. Um curious that was one of my questions too.

Yes. So parking uh the required amount of parking the dimensions of parking areas those standards um they're in a separate chapter and they are not zone specific. They are use specific. So doesn't matter which zone your coffee shop is in. It's all the same standard there. Yep. Okay. So thanks. And where's the connection though? Just to follow up on on Mr. Banford's question there, Chase. I didn't see the the link in this in this new chapter to that specific chapter. I was kind of wondering about that because

uh so there's nothing here necessarily that points to that section. Uh but that section has its own independent applicability section which says that any project that is subject to site design review um the parking standards apply to that application. Um and so the community design standards that we have under article 3 um they have their own uh applicability section. So um you won't see those kinds of links from article 2 pointing at article 3. Usually it goes the other way around. Um and then the uh process and administration under article 4 um when it talks about approval criteria for the different application types um it will say you know must comply with the underlying land use standards of article 2 must comply with the community design standards of article 3. So um as you're actually processing an application that's what points to um the different chapters. So

sorry, one more question. Height is there.

Um, yes, that one was specified, I believe. Um, yes. So, primary uh buildings would be eight stories or 100 ft. Um, accessory buildings. Yeah. So, it's on uh page uh 26 of your packet, exhibit A18, about halfway down. Um, yep. And, uh, that is, um, sort of the largest, the tallest by right that we have here in Dallas. Um, our our downtown uh, does have an allowance for height. Uh, if you have a mixeduse building, um, but for single-use buildings, it's a lesser standard. So, um, this district would have kind of the highest base height of all of our zones.

Yes. Out in that same um chap or that same table um the fourth from the bottom it says font instead of front. I believe that's a spelling error. That would indeed appear to be a spelling error. Yes, we will get that fixed. will pick that up because it's a real word. Because it's a real word. Yes. But I will Thank you. Okay. Any other questions from staff on this?

I I have a quick um there it refers to both the barberry mixeduse nodes and then the and then then it goes in depth into the lock node, but those are nodes, not zones. Is that why? So those were designated as mixeduse nodes and they have each of the different types in them. But this is an actual zoning that would allow for these specific requirements and allowances.

Correct. Yes. So when you look at 2 chapter 2.6 six, the mixeduse master plan districts. Um, there's the general applicability of that section and then the different nodes, the Barbar node, the Lacrial node, Wyatt node, they all have their own section under uh chapter 2.6. And so this um in addition to creating the new um the the new zoning district um this proposal does also update those tables and those descriptions for the lock mixeduse node to be consistent with the new master plan because some of the some of the acreages in the comp plan changed when they did it. They expanded the overall boundary. Um and so this is updating the language and development code to reflect that that change. So that's that's really more of a procedural kind of uh housekeeping cleanup, but it is something that's also in this packet. So I suppose I probably shouldn't gloss over that. It is important to

Scott. Uh, so we have the consultant that initially prepared it and I'm just kind of wondering subsequently your review and maybe the city attorney's review to certain words and I'm always kind of on the lookout for clear and objective criteria and terminology and making sure that the words you introduce here are consistent with the last chapter of the development code for for definitions. And so uh and I mean like one of these I see under lock uh here talks auto oriented uses located direct to higher order high capacity roads. I'm just kind of why not connect it to arterial class roads or something that's more defined? I'm just kind of is there your thoughts on that and things that you guys did to screen it for consistency with L.

So that's a that's a good uh question. I I can't say that we really screened it for consistency with the definition section. That is a that is a good catch. Um as far as the higher order streets specifically, um we are in the process of updating our TSP. So um things that are collectors and arterials are kind of up for grabs, but yeah, we didn't really uh uh look at it from a standpoint of language consistency with the definitions chapter. So, um, that can certainly be something that we, uh, we do before we adopt that. That's probably a good idea.

Sense to pick what you want to be higher than. So, like higher than a local street classification or higher than a collector and pick one so that you're actually being specific about what you're talking about. That's the traffic engineer in me. Well, that's yeah, that's what I'm I'm thinking here is I'm I'm sorry to kind of hit you with the question, how much did you review this, but you know, we are um Yep.

we you know, we it's the future application that we'll have uh from somebody, a quasi judicial one instead of the legislative one we have right now. That uh is my concern where all of a sudden somebody is saying, "Oh, it's a higher class." And we don't define it. And so we're kind of at a loss there. I'm just using that one example there. Um so there I mean yeah there are some things I'm just kind of wondering if we can refine to so when and especially if we're looking at a future reszoning of a property that it meets certain criteria. Hey, it's supposed to be along an arterial class street or a collector's class or something like that.

We don't define it. Somebody could come say, "Well, I want to build it to local street standards because that's higher order than an alley." Yeah. Or higher than a trail. It It's got a lot of trips on it. Yeah. Yeah. You know, sorry, one more thing. Um, since we're in design standard, what's common with mixed use, uh, depending on the type and like the type of review, so like an administrative review, for example, if they meet u minimum requirements for design. And so I'm just curious if there was I didn't see it and maybe I'm missing it. Uh like building articulation, materials, glazing.

Yes. Um and so that is called uh for when you get to the very last page um uh the very last section building design standards. So that talks about the like architectural design standards. Um and so rather than have its own uh language here, it points to the uh commercial architectural design standards uh or the residential architectural design standards um as applicable.

Is in this case where you're combining so like a mixed use. So you're combining the commercial and the residential. I mean is there like a downtown style reference that could be made or something? So yes, the uh the commercial section um specifically has applicability language when you have a mixeduse building with both. Yep. Um and then uh it also has language as we saw with Carson Commons where um if you have a residential building in a commercial zone, um the commercial standards don't apply, the residential standards do. So, um, that was one that tripped me up with the the Carson Commons project cuz I initially overlooked that applicability language. It's like, oh, yep. Any other questions of staff before we move on and we can deliberate if we want to uh uh make any changes before we pass this on to city council. Any other questions, commissioners? Okay. Well, to stick to the uh the the the hearing uh uh pro process, uh I assume your staff report suffices as the applicant's presentation.

Sure. Okay. So, I mean that's up to you. Does it s I don't unless there is another representative of the city of Dallas that's here to present as the applicant. I I'm going to I don't know. Do we have Charlie or Brian on the phone? We do not. We have no callers in the queue. Sorry, I didn't ask that before. Oh, it's fine. All right. So, let's do this. Let's uh Are there any final comments from council? Not for me. I think it's probably worth coming coming back after the nomenclature is reviewed, but um other than that, no. Thank you. Okay.

So, what I'm going to do then is we're going to declare the public hearing portion of this closed at 6:37 p.m. And it's time to deliberate. And I think we might want to have a discussion about having some of the the definitions of the the street standards cleaned up uh and brought back before we uh recommend this on to the city council. And I god damn I that's what I heard you say and I think that I think a good idea. Yeah. And and it's tough to some degree because it you have the a draft TS I don't even probably have the draft TSB yet. is still going through the

we have a very preliminary draft that I would not hold anything to. Okay. Yeah. I mean that Yeah, that that's really what we for at least for for street classifications, but I'm I mean it's going to be local uh collector and artial. I can't imagine that. And and this is intended for arterial, right? Uh pretty much Ellenale. Yeah, Ellenale is going to be an arterial no matter how you cut it.

It it it is. So, I mean, that's what I'm just sort of thinking is for a better connect connection of of what that is. Um, it's easy to see that that the consultant who is specifically working for us on the on the one node, we need to be thinking about the next node. We need to think about future, you know, annexation and growth of the city where uh a mixeduse zoning uh uh classification might be applied to property that's not already existing. Uh so I think it is important to clean up the language to make sure that there's no opportunities to uh you know to to find discrepancies or opportunities for someone to you know not meet the intended standards that are here.

So is this zoning intended only for arterial level streets and does it only follow along the street or how deep in does it go? Is that specified? So the comprehensive plan, the lockal node master plan does specify a geographic boundary for the proposed mixeduse node. Um, again, other applications of this zoning type may be different. Um, but there is a geographic boundary and if you'd like I can pull up the uh

remember seeing it from the lock rail. I'm just wondering if this definition for mixeduse nodes since we're talking about if it's only adjacent to arterial level streets is that is that the intention of this zoning classification? I I think that there was an intention that it would be adjacent to at the very least uh you know Ellenale as a as a a major uh major street as an arterial. Um, Lacrial of course is a collector's street under our current language, but um, to the extent that Allenale is an arterial, it's one of the most significant streets in our city, um, I think the intention was that it be directly kind of serving sort of that.

Are we making this only to work for the Lreal node? Because if this is a general zoning, then I would think we would need to understand all the places we might want to use it. Otherwise, we've got to amend this thing in order to do it on a minor arterial or but if it's not intended to ever be there, I'm not sure we have that many major arterials in Dallas. So

well and and I I can't guarantee that Ellen is going to be classified as a major arterial in the future. Uh major arterial has some parameters around it that may not be practical. Yeah. Let's imagine a future area that's uh undeveloped completely and we want to apply or an applicant wants to apply the mixeduse zone to it. we want to be able to make sure that they're building the streets to the appropriate standard. It's like, well, I don't there's nothing in the in the mixeduse zone uh classification that says it's got to be an arterial. I want to make something smaller than that.

But it does talk about the fact that it's transportation linked to an automobile use, you know, accessing it via automobile. So, so figuring out what kind of streets I mean, we've got a lot of undeveloped land along Kings Valley Highway going out north. I would imagine something like that would be appropriate for this once that area is annexed. Um, but do we want to I mean, is and I'm asking the question, I don't know what this is for. Is this intended to also be used on a say a collector or a major collector or or or what's the what's is there a is there a background behind this particular node or zone other than the fact that we want to use it for lock?

Yeah. So it was uh created specifically with the intention of lock at this time. Um, the locker note is called for a mixeduse classification since it was created in '98. Um, it was obviously remaster planned uh last year. Um, so now we're finally get around to creating what a mixeduse district is. Um, but that doesn't mean like I said that it couldn't be applied by city council elsewhere in the future. So, um, again, I think to the extent that, uh, this is a brand new process for us, we're probably going to have to amend it in some ways in the future regardless. Um, I think getting the the broad brush strokes correct and, um, worrying about the fine details if and when it becomes a problem, um, could be the the better way to go on that. But um

it would be my opinion at the very least that I agree with Scott that we need to tie down higher level what minimum higher level street this is going to apply to and just we need to just pick one. We can amend it later but I think we I would think we would need to pick one before we send this to council. Chase, I'm just kind of thinking looking at that table there. We got this is a uh page nine of uh exhibit A1. And you know, this table is basically the the implementing zones of the comprehensive plan land map designations there. And I kind of see, you know, I don't know if it's a danger zone, but uh the mixeduse uh comp plan designation being in itself um a can be utilized maybe anywhere. I like the idea of of maybe moving the mixeduse MU zone uh down to the last row there uh under master plan overlay zone. Um and we've got you know comp plan map designation of mixeduse node for Barbberry Lriel Wyatt and any future nodes so conceivably the mill property could is there I mean is there thoughts of that being a node in itself in the future and you know it comes in as a node and I'm just kind of that's where we're also thinking the mixeduse would would go. I'd rather zero in it. And and that would be consistent with what Salem and Kaiser do pretty much all of their MU zones and they're labeled like that MU zone. And Tori is very familiar with with one that he that's tied also to an urban renewal uh area. Uh but yeah, it's pretty much a planned area and MU zones

are very intensive. uh they have a very high transit oriented uh you know quarterh hour uh chariot service is pretty much where the MU zones are uh in in comparatively in uh Kaiser and Salem and I don't know what the consultant used and if they did uh if they patterned in off of uh Kaiser and Salem then yeah we've got some intensive areas that should that that I'd be concerned if there all of a sudden somebody wants to apply the MU zone in some areas that that don't have um access or or close I should just say close proximity to an arterial or collector class street

I could see where because of the height so if someone just came in like I want to play a mu zone here comp plan zone change then you have a 100 foot kind of random not on a major collector location but at the same time um as the city grows um of course it follows the frontage of a a major roadway but then having the flexibility to you know expand so the streets north south whatever direction don't wouldn't necessarily have to be the same classification you know then I would hopefully we'd have some flexibility to have it local you know so you can have closer grid and have it

yeah I mean that's that's the same kind of uh adjacency question that we've had with uh other reszoning types to medium or highdensity residential for example. Um the comprehensive plan uh specifies that those uses are adjacent to major roadways. Um and so the question of what does adjacent to mean? Does that mean only the specific property that's adjacent to the road? Does it mean the broader zone as a whole? no matter how many properties the zone has to be adjacent but can include properties that are themselves not adjacent what is the exact parameter around that there's no definition and so it does leave that open to interpretation um and that's that's kind of what planning commission and city council's role is is to you know figure that that policy uh question uh part of the challenge of nailing it down uh you know too specific specifically is that maybe we interpret it wrong and then we have to fix it later. So, um, that would be my one thing is we're nailing down this frontage classification that there's some flexibility for because it would be, I think, problematic and I deterrent to the feel of what it could be if it expanded beyond that major area into

other. So, the uh the section that we're talking about specifically um so that's in the master plan uh districts section. So let me pull up the existing language for that. So we and I guess where I'm coming from there is I do see it as a flexible zone that could be applied hopefully and you know as the city develops and doesn't necessarily have a node. So you know as you have higher concentrations along a major roadway um having that applied there in the future with anyway

my thinking is this. It's like we already have nodes that have design specific standards for those nodes. If we're creating a new zoning district classification, it ought to be broad enough to not simply apply to the Lacrial node. We got to think more uh more to the future that this is going to be applied to areas that aren't under consideration for development right now. So I I think we need to make sure that this stands alone as its own zoning district for the future and not just apply to Lockall and then fix it later. How we go about that or how we make a recommendation to staff to fix that, I'm not sure. Maybe Scott you could

I'm just kind of I'll ask another question of Chase here. Sort of put him on the spot here, but um why we're here. Yeah. Would you how about the down right looking outside the window here? Would you see this uh MU zone applied to the downtown?

Um I would not expect the MU zone itself would be applied to the downtown because the uh central business district zone is already more uh both restrictive and in some ways more permissive um than the the mixeduse zone uh would be. Um, so I think it'd be unlikely that we would undo some of those protections that we have for the downtown protections which aren't necessarily reflected in the uh the mixed use uh zone for example. Um but yeah, to the extent that downtown is an example of a place that is mixed use, we do have residential uses above commercial. Um that is a thing that exists here. So, um, it could, but I I think replacing the central business district zone would be unlikely, but again, that's

and there wasn't any any thoughts for where this might go, that the consultant uh gave us an idea.

So, I I think there was always uh the the thought in the back of the mind that this might also be something that ultimately goes out at the mill site. Um I don't know that they were really looking beyond Lreal node and mil site. Um certainly I never really heard any discussion of like the downtown or the north Dallas intersection. Um so but again that that's not to say that city council couldn't down the road to decide to do that. So I can't I can't promise that. Make sure I understand as a zoning district it could be placed over any area in Dallas. So you could act council could decide to zone a part of the downtown business district as mixed use. Is that correct?

Yeah. If if they wanted to and they could demonstrate that it was consistent with the statewide planning goals and the Dallas comprehensive plan. Um that's that's what the council can do. not intended to put anywhere in here a limit over anything other any other zoning classification would would have on it. Is that correct?

I I don't believe there was that intention. Um the the comprehensive plan uh is usually what governs which zones go where. Um, and so I know with the um like the residential zoning for example, there are locationational policies um that specify which parts of town um are appropriate for which types of zoning. Um and so I I don't know off the top of my head what the parameters around the mixeduse zone were. Um but obviously that would be a different land use process if we were examining that. And so we could dig into that further at that time. But more about planning than I do. I'm so sorry.

I know that's my deepest condolences. But this is what you signed up for. Yeah, I know. My thinking is more along the lines of is like, well, how would this apply to reszoning existing areas of the city like the downtown? a central business district or downtown is a mixeduse zone that predates zoning zoning.

It predates land use planning because that's how downtowns are. I'm thinking more as the city expands particularly to the east on Kings Valley Highway towards where the armory is and out Ellenale towards Rickel. How would uh a property owner, a developer uh uh apply this mixeduse zone to areas that currently aren't in the city and don't have a zoning district yet? And I think that that is what we need to drill down on and make sure that the that the standards are not something we need to fix at the time when that development is approposed that we need to have something in place,

right? And so again, it's it's the comprehensive plan when you're looking at doing a resoning. It's the comprehensive plan policies that specify what resonings you do, where um what's the justification for it in terms of your housing needs analysis, your economic opportunities analysis. Um so what what's your land need? Where do you do it? That's all under uh comprehensive plan. So development code wouldn't have language of that sort in it. Um certainly the other zoning types, the residential, the industrial, the open space, they don't have language to that uh effect because that's language that's found in the comprehensive plan.

Right. So if this is done like you said where it's um yes, it addresses the nodes but also is flexible for future use when there's a comprehensive plan update. um you know, if the city's grown to and there's new street connectivity, um there could be opportunities to expand that mixed use at those intersections or Yeah.

Well, I think that we're in agreement that we're not in a position right now or prepared to pass this on as written to the city council. So, how what do we want to propose to staff to bring back to us? And I look to you, Scott, because you've got a lot of knowledge in this area. Well, first of all, I I I would recommend bringing I guess going the first table here uh on a page I'm sorry, page nine, table 2.120, we've got a separate creation of a separate

comprehensive plan land use designation which we don't really I mean we kind of got lock node and possibly the u uh the the mill site. And I'm just kind of wondering, do we really need to create that comprehensive plan land use uh designation as we've got the mixeduse node as as a designation to to itself. Uh we're really not tonight. We're looking at the language of that. Uh and I was kind of wondering moving the you know, I guess eliminating the the row to to itself, the mixeduse zone. you put that under uh corresponding to mixeduse node uh and that would localize it. That that means as far as eligibility, the mixeduse MU zone uh is an implementing zone of only mixeduse nodes where they're recognized in the city. So, and that doesn't say because it says any future nodes that would allow the city to look at the the mill site as a node and look at it um a little more comprehensive. So, I see that you know that this is more so a a component a zone component of a mixuse uh use node.

I can support that change. I can make that

you can that's then that will also help your answer to the housing coalition guys as well. uh it can also correspond to housing needs analysis and the EOAS and every work that's been done in the past there. I think you'll be able to make some good links understanding what we're talking about here because I had a note written down where I said now are we going to take the the the standards of the Wyatt and the Barbar node and change them to mixed use. And I I I like the I I I like what Scott is saying. What I'm hearing is any future mixeduse proposed development would become a node that these standards would apply to. So we're not going to abandon the node system. We're going to just uh better define the standards within it. Is that what I'm hearing?

We're going to use the mixeduse zone to identify those areas in the node that have these specific requirements. Is that what we're saying? Any future proposals? Yeah. And any future proposals that that that uh uh incorporate mixed use, mixed land use, would become a node. I have to be a node first. They have to be a node first. Yeah. So that somebody can't come to the city and say, I want to turn my residential lot into a mixeduse zone. I want to come in for a zone change. And if we haven't fixed it, then they can come in. We can deny it, but we can be messy. It'd be messy.

But I I really like your idea, Scott. So, Chase, you think that's something that you could I can absolutely make that happen. Yep. I can bring that back to you. Not a problem. Is there anything else uh that we would like to direct staff since we're not going to we're not in a pos I I'm hearing that we're not in a position to to make a recommendation to city council tonight. Is there anything else that we'd like staff to address? I looked over this with a broad brush and my first thought was, okay, we're going to just change all of our nodes to mixed use zone, but I'm hearing that that's not the case. That was not the intention. Well, and and I'm being this is a specific

I'm being a little because I just want to make sure that we're clear on that because, you know, down the road when we're not here and they're going to wonder what the heck we did in 2025 when we did this, I want to make sure that we're we're doing things the right way. And we're not just thinking about Lockel. We're thinking about the future of the city of Dallas. Exactly. The city develops.

Sure. Uh I Yeah. I I I also uh as far as giving staff direction here, uh I I see some screening more knowing that there's a consultant that did this. I think that certain words I think we've brought it up here. High capacity. I mean connecting as much as we can to our definitions uh some refinement of that uh is um is is good. I there are some we're introducing some things here that I'm kind of a little bit concerned about. But I didn't find uh for transient you know like a hotel in mixuse zone permitted outright and I didn't see I did go to that chapter um it was what is it 3.33 that's the that's where the parking is and so I do know how that chase is correct it is sort of you go back to there but it's best to have an actual connection you know we have the opportunity we're creating a new zone so I uh you know I I think it's a it's best to I'm going to just kind of point out one area I saw. Um, this would be actually the last page, page 28 under parking orientation. I would I would change G or just add some text to G to say off- streetet parking number, dimensions, and orientation. And so you could have that there, but also making a reference to that section 3.330. So that would tell applicants, oh, there is parking. It's not left as a mystery like uh Commissioner Banford had uh I asked questions about. Um one of the things too I I I think that's important because in places like Kaiser and and Salem where they have the MU zones,

they're under a state mandate. uh it's called the climate friendly areas and a lot of the language of MU is uh dictated by state law. Um uh and so uh one of the things that's made a lot of people angry in those respective cities is uh that the state law says um no, you can't regulate parking. And so, uh, and the I, yeah, that's been the one kicker that a lot of people have been reluctant to, um, uh, you know, to to to pass, but I that's I think I just want we're not we are not under that mandate. uh the um climate friendly uh provisions of state law only apply to metropolitan planning organizations to which Dallas is not or outside of it. Uh but you never know there could be um state law that says all your MU districts um are now climate friendly zone that could expand in the future. And so I I would just at this time make sure we let people know that yes in in Dallas we don't have um we have connection to off- streetet parking uh it is different than that which is in uh applicable in Kaiser and uh and Salem and I think Tori knows that as as well as far as uh things that um that Salem's been been hit with as far as the provisions Yeah, from the metropolitan areas we have parking structures. So it has been successful to drive them to the parking structures and it has spurred development. So

feedback. Yeah, you get feedback from people who you know that the development is not as constrained. they have a little bit more flexibility and we haven't you know there'll be a tipping point where we'll be in a you have it to create like build a new parking structure at some point but we're not there. Okay. How do we want to proceed? Go ahead. One more quick thing

on exhibit A14 page 22 under the purpose of purpose and applicability. Um the second sentence says the mixeduse district support service and there's no comma comma. Is it service commercial or is it supposed to be service comma commercial employment etc? Is there supposed to be a comma there or is service commercial a designation of a type? I believe there is supposed to be a comma there.

Okay. Thank you. That's the last thing I'm going to say. Well, within reason, right? So, let's craft uh some direction to staff so that we can entertain a motion to do that. How do we do that? Tori, you want to take a crack at it?

Well, I think maybe get a recap of what changes have been suggested so far. I know that we have the classifications. We're trying to align where possible the code um meets the new MU designation. Um but then as far as the um applicability for the table like I don't know how to frame it as far as like where specifically or as discussed I just want to make sure it captures everyone's

just make bullet points. So, one of the things is the the the the street standards, right? Because we we we can we can say we we can decide to send this back to staff to address certain things. We don't need we don't need to word smith it. That's that's that's staff's position. Yeah. I don't want to word smith. I just want to make sure that it reflects every all the things that we've brought up. So I know that the table we're scratching the mixed use to and adding future nodes to the mixed use node to the table. I know the street classification um and I don't know what else there was if there's other

sections. I guess last sorry if we put the mixeduse zone only inside nodes the street classifications are already going to be created inside that node. Is that correct? Yes. So I'm not sure that's such a critical thing anymore. I I do agree that we need to tie it to a minimum street classification so that it does serve the transportation function it's supposed to, but I think it's less critical now that we've identified it as only used in a pre, you know, designated node. I agree with that.

It's a smaller area now to work with. Yeah. And it's also confined to a certain place, so somebody can't pull it out and stick it next to anywhere. It would be a simple enough change as well to instead of saying higher order streets to specify collector and arterial streets like that's not a huge change. Yeah, it's only something that Chase gets to explain to developers in the future. Yes. I I don't have to.

Let's make it as simple as possible. Yeah. So, we're talking about uh applying the mixeduse zoning district specifically to nodes, tying those together, making sure that street classifications are uh addressed appropriately and making sure that our definitions line up so that there is consistency to uh our definition section to the standards of this new mixeduse zoning district that we are considering. So, those are the three main points then.

Yes. Um and with dealing with parking, I I sort of mentioned that uh make making that uh some changes there that would would just clarification that

these uses do uh incur park off- streetet parking requirements uh that there's that connection to our code. Okay. So four points then mixed use uh zoning designation applicable to nodes street classifications uh better articulated uh definitions consistency and parking standards and we'd like to see uh staff to come back to planning commission with uh with changes to that effect. Um, would anyone like to see uh the language around new residential uses cleaned up to be more succinct?

I might, but you're the ones who have the decision-making authority. So, where are you referring? On page 25, uh, section A limitations. It's just it's a whole lot of text for for a simple idea. For a relatively simple idea. Yes. Well, I recommend that you clean that up. Okay. Graph the hammer that you need. Okay. So, five points then. And that's great. I mean, we're we're trying to hammer the thing out. We owe we, you know,

let's let the professionals do their job. Uh so would anyone like to make a motion to remand to staff this draft for a future meeting? And we're not saying it's going to come back next month because I don't think we're any under any time of kind of a time crunch unless I will say that it is a priority for city council to do the resoning and the reasonzoning is contingent upon adoption of the new zoning class. So sooner would be better than later, but

I just wasn't trying to make any demands for a month. So, you know, as as needed, as as priorities dictate, we'll look forward to this at a future time, but I think we need to to make make a motion and vote on it so that we can Well, I have to say all that stuff you said. Wait, we just may, Mr. Chair, may I uh we we are here with a hearing tonight. So we have to continue the hearing to the date certain to which uh it should be enough time that accommodates staff's ability. So we can say before a certain date

well so we the next hearing date is I see on the agenda is um the 8th is January 8th and I would just ask for a question of staff. Does that provide enough time? I know you've got another I know you've got some other things on your your plate there. So, uh, um, on the plus side, it is a slightly slower time of year. So, um, should be able to do January without too much difficulty. Um, yeah, if that works for you. Certainly. Certainly. I just I didn't want to apply any time pressure if that unnecessary time pressure based on staff load. So, stood. Oh, we continue the

I will just caution that um we do have some other items on the agenda for January. So, um I don't know how much stamina you all have. That could be an argument for pushing it to February. Do you want do you want February? I'm good either way. Are you guys up for a late night on the 8th to January? You put it that way. We could move it on again, right? True. Yes, you can always continue it to a subsequent hearing. is it it could be a long night on January 8th.

I've got two items on the agenda already. One of which uh is a a development code update for uh recreational uses uh indoors and another of which is a conditional use permit. So, um that could go quickly or it could slog on. It's hard to predict sometimes, but there's two items on the agenda already, so this would make three. I'm comfortable with it because I'm not sure u and I don't have the dates in front of me. I'm not sure of my availability on in February, but I don't I'm just thinking myself. So, I would prefer to see it in January, I think. So,

and and as the year progresses, the workload generally seems to increase. So, this is true. Yeah. February scares me not so much but a little bit more than January does. Well, if you want to tell our audience that it's it's going to be January. I'm fine with that. So, please Scott, I I invite you to commission.

Mr. Chair, I move uh to continue the public hearing to the date certain of January 8th, 2026. Hey, hey. uh uh with the understanding that staff is to return uh with uh the respective changes that we've identified one through five that uh Chase can uh can can figure out there. Um and that that yeah that's my motion. Second motion second. All those in favor say I.

I oppose the same sign. Okay. We have uh decided to continue the hearing till January the 8th. Um as a side I'm sorry. Since council was expecting a new zoning district, we make sure they know sooner than later that we're attempting to fold it into the mixeduse node as opposed to an independent zoning so that they don't get surprised. stood. Um I will also note that uh Charlie will be available for the January meeting. So if we have other questions on the process that led us here, he may be able to answer those in person.

Is the consultant on? They're done. They are not. They have wrapped up their work. Okay. Um yeah. Yeah. Honestly, I uh we had intended that this piece would have been done uh over the summer, but it it got kicked for various reasons. So, we're here now. Okay. Well, that concludes our only public hearing of the evening. We're going to now move on to agenda item number five, which is other business, which is two items for discussion only. And the first one is our annual conversation on rent burdened communities. And I think we're all familiar with that. Mhm.

Oh, is this the part where I speak? this. Okay. Please lead us in the discussion that we are before we are are are we getting any closer? Um, as of today, no. As of this time next year, possibly.

Um, we have a lot, and I mean a lot of apartments in the pipeline. So, um, you folks, you approved, um, the, uh, the the former Dallas Food and Fuel site, what we've been what we've been affectionately referring to as the sevenstar apartments, uh, the apartment/ gas station um, building codes division is still scratching their heads over that one. Um, but we've also had two other major projects uh, that have gotten approval. um the Tocola properties for 204 apartments and the Prism uh development for 66 apartments and I just got a conditional use application for another 44 another 48 apartments um just north of Taco Bell. Um so that is a pretty substantial number of apartments that I have on my desk already. Um, I also expect that we're going to get another 68 apartments out of Fowler. They have a apartment development on Barberry and in the Fowler lands um that they're going to uh look at submitting next year. So, I expect we'll have that at some point as well. So, uh we also just approved the quarter deck apartments which are uh income restricted. Um and uh Pulk CDC is actively working on grant applications for the Mill station apartments which would be another 50ome I think. So um to date we've only opened a small number of apartments. We had the ribbon cutting over the summer for Carson Commons which was 20 affordable units um targeted towards folks transitioning out of uh foster care. Um, but with all of the

stuff that's working its way through the pipeline, um, if even a fraction of it gets built, that is a a sea change in what we've been seeing in the rental housing market. So, um, it's quite possible that we will see a different ranking on the um, affordability standpoint. Now, um, one of the exciting things, uh, for this year, uh, we now have this housing production dashboard. Um, so every year we've been reporting to, uh, the state how many housing units we have developed in the last year and they have a whole bunch of metrics that we, you know, report to them on. Um, with regards to that, they now have a public dashboard where anyone can select a city from the drop- down menu and you can see how many units they have built in the previous planning period um, and how close they are to what the state believes their housing production target is. So, um, Dallas is doing really well compared to, um, our peers and compared to the the the the region, the Wamut Valley region. Um, the state saying that we've built 70% of our housing target, which is granted not 100%. So, we have, uh, you know, some additional work to do. Um but that's quite good good compared to our pier cities um which were only at 46% and to the Wamut region which was only 27%. So compared to that Dallas ranks quite favorably. Um even on the subject of affordable housing um we are easily double um what the other uh what our

peer cities are and what the the region is. um we are only at 2% of our target. So um of the uh what was it 734 uh affordable housing units that we were supposed to have been building over the last planning period um we have only built uh 2% of that but again that's better than the you know 1% of our pier cities or the Wamut Valley. So, um, big shout out to, uh, Rita Grady over at Pulk CDC. She's been really good at getting the grant money to build affordable housing here in Dallas. Um, unfortunately, she was not able to to make it here to to speak to us tonight, but um, appreciate what you guys have done to facilitate those developments. Appreciate her for having made those developments happen. And hopefully um in the next year or two we will see this 70% number bump up. Maybe even see this 2% number bump up. Maybe it'll be 3%. Who knows? Um but yes, so exciting if you're a planning nerd and um

which we all are. Yes, you're getting there. You're getting there. But but I I have I've had so many um like realtors and other folks ask you know the kind of statistics that I've been giving to the state and so now having something that I can point them to and say actually you know the state's been taking all that now you can see it yourself um that's really exciting. I think we're trending in the right direction and if you wanted to spy on other cities how they're doing you can do that. So, um, yes.

Thank you. I'll just remind the commissioners, you know, when when these, uh, high density housing res, you know, apartment developments come before us and folks will turn out because, you know, folks that are are in a small town that is growing, you know, have opposition to this sort of thing because it's it's not what they're used to. And so when those come up and we have a room full of people, we will remind ourselves of this discussion as we always do that while we are trending in the right direction, we are still classified as a red burden community and we need to make every effort to address that.

Yes. And um one of the things I was doing earlier today, the state was doing a survey of planners and other professionals um as to what are some barriers that we've encountered to housing. And so I provided some feedback um with regards to you know barriers for wetland development uh barriers in the building code relating to you know elevators, fire protection systems, what have you. Um, so there are, I think, other aspects at the state level that might be addressable to facilitate housing as well. So hopefully we'll start to see some movement on that side. Um, it'd be nice if it wasn't just the cities having to bend over to make housing more affordable if the state carried some of that weight too. But

okay, so does that conclude our annual discussion, required discussion on rent burden communities? I mean, we've talked about uh the causes and burdens and barriers to housing affordability. So, I think that I think that covers it. And uh if if we've left something out, there's no penalty. So, our requirement is that we have a meeting and discuss it. We don't have to decide anything. I think it was I think it's positive and I think it's necessary and I'm glad that we're required to do it because it's something easy to sweep under the rug because it's not for the general public. It can be unpopular or uncomfortable, shall we say?

Sure. To to even, you know, make it a little more neutral. So So I appreciate and I I appreciate this discussion that we have and I and we'll remind ourselves in the future when we have a hard decision to make. We got to make decisions that are right for the community and not just for, you know, folks that might be neighbors to a property that's proposed for development. So, any other comments or questions on the status of our our rental housing situation? I'm glad we get reminded at least once. I said, I think it's a good thing. It seems kind of see it seems kind of goofy, but I I I think it's I think it's important.

I'm serious. I'm not being Yeah, I know. I know. And I I agree. I really am glad that I agree with you. This comes up at least once a year.

I agree. Okay. So, now we will move on to our other other business item and uh this is our initiative that we are working on for the committee for citizen involvement. Uh, Commissioner John Schulty has taken on the initiative to reinvent and reinvigorate a CCI for the city of Dallas. Um, I know that you folks discussed it at the last meeting and I wasn't here. So, I did want this to be back on our agenda and uh so that we can talk about it one more time because what I want to talk about is next steps. So, John, let me sort of like give you my take on where we're at in this thing and then we'll and then I'll kick it to you. Uh we have a memo that's drafted that's technically from me as the president which means that it's on behalf of the planning commission uh informing uh the mayor and the council president and the city council and the city manager's office that we intend to form a community uh for citizen involvement as required by state land use planning goals. John has taken some direction from staff at DLCD. So this memo uh we are going to we would like to forward to the city council. And I think that the thing that the memo is lacking is I think the memo needs to ask the city council for an invitation to be an agenda item at a future city council meeting so that we can introduce the concept to them. And I think that's the one thing that we need to include in that memo because I don't want to say you need we need to get on your agenda right away. We need to ask them, tell them that we have this initiative underway and we would uh like them to include us on a future agenda at

their decision and then we can go and uh make the presentation on reinstituting the uh I keep calling it the CCI, but I want to use the proper words, the committee for citizen involvement. So, if I may, I think that if you're saying that you're including something and we're advancing this to city council, there should be the formality of us taking action rather than just you saying speaking forward.

I'm I'm saying my intent. So, I I I of course that that that's why I wanted to be back on the agenda so that we could have a discussion about it one more time. Uh so, John has prepared a draft. Uh I think there's 10 slides, 10 or 11 slides that we would like to present to the city council. Uh and then we can make a decision as a group to advance this on. Uh I think there's arguments to be made that that we should have this in place in one form or another. Uh it's something that we're lacking. No one's holding our feet to the fire and making us do it. We're not deficient being told we're deficient in any way, but uh that's where we're at. I I I personally support it and uh I think that we but I we need the endorsement of the elected officials to actually light the fuse and get the things started. So, my take on the memo is I'm happy with it, but I think the memo should also respectfully ask the city council to be included on a future uh council agenda. to have a discussion. And the discussion that we would have with the council is a the draft that John's going to present for us right now. And if we can just flick through those slides, John, and if you want to correct me on any of it, I would appreciate it. So, this is the thing. And I want to make sure and I know that, you know, not everybody's 100% on Tori. I know you're not 100% on board.

I haven't I want to see what the committee is. I'm curious. So, yeah. So in I think there are areas where I think it's a good idea for us to have a couple members if I'm assuming like a committee would be framed. We have two maybe we have two counselors we have people from the community. I think that kind of framework would be awesome but not take it on as no as a group because every meeting would be public like that's too much. So yeah. So why don't you go ahead and make the presentation that you're proposing that we make to city council and uh you let's go from there.

Okay. I I'll make it really quick, but um this has been informational to me tonight. Talk about planning nerds. Like, holy macro. That is the most detail I've ever been exposed to here. And it shows me how much depth there is to this whole process. And to me, it's very impressive. It's the closest look I've ever seen at how pull the drapes back of what what really happened. It's it's just incredible. One of the questions it raises for me, we'll get to it in a minute. Is this commission the right place for that kind of initiative because it is a profoundly different animal. It is so conceptual. It's so strategic in what I'm going to show you here. It has nothing to do with any codes or any of that. Sorry. It's not that it has nothing to do with it. It requires a different mindset and a different way of thinking. And I don't know if this is the place for that to be or not. We we'll address it here in a moment, but this really impressed me tonight of how profoundly different our backgrounds really are in a positive way. It's helpful for me to understand the world you folks live in. I don't live in that world. So, it's really useful for me tonight. So, real quick, why um why why would we be showing you this presentation? our last meeting what we said was DCLD is trying to equip me to understand what I'm talking about in this world doing that so far has produced about 900 pages of material for me okay it's like drinking from a fire hose and at the what I what we said in our last meeting is we really need a separate meeting to figure out what to do with this in the light of all that stuff that That's the way we left it. We need a full meeting

for this subject. Not to putting it in as a third item. It's getting late. Everybody gets tired. That's the way we left it. Let's have a full meeting. What happened between now then and now is I remember something, John, that you and I were in a meeting with our city manager. And I just want to go back to that for a minute. And what he said to us was that the idea of doing this was his idea. What we went to him with was the idea to do the idea to do a best uh practices committee. And he said, "That's great, but I got a better idea. Why don't you pick something that you can go and get a result and and make it happen as opposed to studying stuff for years?" Remember that? So his charge was to us, see if you can do it. see if you can actually take this in the midst of this fog and the 800 pages and all this stuff and make it happen. And that inspired me, okay, to say I'm going to see if I can do that. And that's what this presentation is. It skips many meetings and all the rest of this stuff. It says, "Let me put on the table what we would actually do." And to me, what we're talking about here is the missing piece in land use policy. This is what I'm talking about for two and a half years. It's the policy part of it with respect to getting outside this building and and interacting with the people in this city as we have been instructed to do. That's the missing piece. And how do we fill this without taking nine years to do it? The way we left it was maybe we'll get back to this in February. And I'm saying I'm I'm going to do what the city manager said. I'm just going to s see if we can just do it. Just do it. This is a preamble. I'm not going to take you through all this. This would be an introduction to the city council of who I who I am and what this is about. John, maybe you're the one who should be

making this presentation. Either with you, John, but I really want you to be the lead on it because you've taken this on. I'm feel strongly about that. Okay. And I you know you you've done the work and I want

you to be the lead. What this says without reading all the words is I am not a code nerd. I'm just some guy from the community. That's all. I don't speak government speak. And if you're looking for government speak in this, you got the wrong guy here. And I just want to set that stage of where I'm coming from. I do want to make the point though, I've done a I've done a lot of homework on this. I really have. And I haven't bored you with any of that. And many much of that has come from oversight and guidance from DLCD. So in other words, nothing that I'm going to present here to me is is an outlier. DLCD has really guided me through much of this even though I don't know much of the detail myself. So what follows here is the suggestion and what we're saying to the city council is in essence is let's double team this. Tori, to your point a few minutes ago about making a team so we're taking down some of the silos between these different city departments and going at this a separate way is exactly what we're going to be recommending here. So I don't have to take you through this. You know what a CCI is. Um it it exists in the comprehensive plan as you said. We just haven't been doing it for years. I don't know why that is. Basically what we're talking about to the city council is this group being your inhouse land use policy consulting and advisory group where advisory is underlined. It's not legislative. It's not quas legislative. It is an advisory group just like an outside consulting group would be. And the point on the bottom there is in that case we would see the city council as a client. And if we're going to if we're going to um if we're going to do all of this out outreach, it has to be teaming up with the with the city council where they see

us as a provider of a service. So the entire and only point in this would be to better connect the city council with the needs of our citizens and other stakeholders. That's the whole point of it that we're providing the service to the city council of enabling them to have that. I'm going as fast as I can here. We're saying that it's required. Well, we said we know why it's required. It's every city in Oregon is required to do this. I don't know why we haven't been doing it. So, it's an excellent opportunity for your planning commission to provide a much higher value added service to the city council from the transactional background that we operate in. Everything we did here tonight to me is very very transactional to a very different thing which is a more strategic look or not or maybe this uh group here should be part of the city council or maybe it should be a standalone committee. I have a lot of

a new group. Yes. Yeah. Right. Yes. I'm sorry.

When you say this group I I want I want to make sure that we're not differentiating from this group as the planning commission. a lot of detail on this from DLCD that shows us 180 cities in the state and how they do it. Some of them do it appended to this group, many appended to the city council and a surprising number. It's just an independent body within the city. And so those so we can do whatever we want. That's the point I'm trying to make there. I'm not going to take you through this because it's boring. But if I ask DLCD to define what do CCIs do, this is their answer. And I again, I'm not going to take you through the whole thing. Look down the bottom. And really what I'm suggesting that we do is something way way more focused than all this general. This is where a lot of the 700 pages came from. Really general kinds of stuff. You know, for example, there's 200 pages. Look at the yellow one and on the top there. ensure effective two-way communication. There's probably 300 pages that define what that means. And we're just not going there. Leg none of us are going there. I'm saying I'll show you in the next overhead. What we're looking for is a rifle shot, not six years of all that stuff. So, how is a CCI structured? And this is from DLCD here. To my surprise, there is no CCI handbook. In other words, it's almost total local control essentially with no state requirements. Basically, what they're saying is do what's right for Dallas. So, it's like it was explained to me this way. It's like the state is saying you have to have a book. It has to be hard copy book and it has to say CCI on the cover. What's in it is up to you. So that's the

degree of flexibility that we have here to to do this. It is sometimes part of the planning commission as I just said, but it certainly doesn't have to be. And to my point earlier about where you folks live and and where you are and and how compatible this is with that, I I have a real question about that. So down the bottom, my recommendation is that we form a sixmember committee. Three from the planning commission, one from city council, one from economic development, and one city planner or the whole city planning department, I guess, right? Uh and city attorney as required, which probably wouldn't be very often. So that's the specific requirement that I would make. on that slide.

I think it's a good idea to maybe have it as a two commission and two council. I the fear that I have is we're already codeheavy. Um we're just such a separate um it's my perception anyway. I don't know how the community feels about it, but um I would hope that this would be a means to connect council more. So I think where it's commission and planning heavy, it might not feel that way. So if we could split it, that would be a suggestion that I have is just to help, you know, bring them in so we're the we're closer and it's even and we can hear what their concerns are. Um I don't know, you said you have three and then I would like to see community, too. It looks like economic development, this seems like it might be city staff people. I'd like to see, you know, real estate community members represented somehow.

Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of downtown. No, I agree with the first part of your point about city council. If I go back to this and look at what the state recommends as a team to take this on, it's like 20ome people. It gets wacko. And I'm saying we're not going there. That that's just I'm saying like seven where you have two two. Yeah, that maybe two from the community and then I don't know planner. So maybe you're eight something like that. I'm not trying to make it too big. I'm just trying to get representation. Yeah,

generally speaking that that makes sense to me and not the wildness that we we see from the state. So here specifically, and I'll wrap this up, but specifically what is the rifle shot that we would want this group to do? We want to exert the least amount of effort to get the greatest value. And let's have a laser-like focus on one specific goal. Going back to what our city manager said to us, do something and get it done. actually execute something specific. That one goal would be determine what stakeholders want their city to look like and feel like 20 to 30 years from now. That just go do that. And the way we do that, it's hard for hard to read that one is to use a spe point number two there is to use a specialized consulting firm to do the vast majority of that work. We know who they are. We know how to write an RFP. We We know all the specifics. We've done it before. We've called it something else, but we So anyway, what we're saying is let's if you want to go do something, let's go hire that consulting firm to give us an update on what it is the people in this or the stakeholders in this community want the city to look like in 20 years and deliver that to the city council. That's something specific that we can do. But in addition to that, once we get those results to then synthesize a vision statement saying we want our city to look like this in 20 years. We have something called the Dallas 2030 vision. If we know what that is, if you go down the hall here in the mayor's office, it's on the wall. We're talking about a deliverable that's very much like that or something we

would put up in the wall in here that says the people in this community through bullet points want a community that looks like this in 20 years and that's the guidance for us as we as we make policy. The difference is the placard down the wall. Nobody pays attention to it. And what we're saying here, I'll show you on the next slide here, is that there's some pol policy gravitas this time around when we do this. Bear with me for a moment. So that it's more than just vision. We produce a strategic plan and how to get from where we are to where the people of this community say we should be if there are gaps. Maybe there aren't. I don't know. But we'll do that work. And that becomes the cornerstone of all planning. So this is a wacky looking chart here. I think it's the the last one. So we're almost there. So what I envision is getting a consulting firm and doing this. So we hire the consultant again. We know who they are. The mission is over some period of comp time to come back with all the 200 pages of their study. summarize into a into a bullet list of what do the people in this city want their city to look like in 25 years. Um, pardon me and the consultant consolidates those findings as as I said into those bullet points that we then based on that do a SWAT analysis. And I asked DLCD how often that happens in in city government and the answer is very often. Most cities will do a SWAT analysis. I'm not sure that we It shows us where the gaps are between what ideally we want to be and where we're at today. Basically, it it identifies the gaps. The next point down the lower right there is a very high level strategic plan. I'm

talking about two pages that says this is what we would have to do to fill those gaps. We pres present those findings to the city council and it is up to them from a policy point of view really whether we go in that direction or not and then we repeat this process every 3 years. So I'm throwing all that at you quickly because it's late at night but basically that's the idea of something that we can go do and make it happen. The city manager has agreed to most of this already to provide the budget. We know who the consultants are. let's go do this.

So my question is the consulting obviously it costs money. Uh are there is DLCD identified through them or through another source like perhaps grants that are available to help fund uh the consulting expertise that this would require or you know the city manager had said you know I'll apply some budget to this but I he hasn't we don't know what that cost is yet. So, is there any way we can soften the when we keep saying we're going to hire a consultant? I I know that that that raises eyebrows because money's tight.

Staff to manage that consultant, too. But also on the DLCD side, I mean, the vision if it were tied to like an economic opportunity analysis update or uh I don't know, comp plan, I know that we're doing what the next in line is what the TSP chase. Is that what's being worked on now? Yep. So, you know what I mean? Aligning it with something that meets like you tie a vision to actually something that has to be done within a time frame to help. That's my thought too. Is it this seems to be a visioning exercise? Is that is how's this different than visioning? Uh it is short.

It's a strategic plan vision. So, well, okay. I'm I'm just yeah I'm I'm you know kind of intrigued about it but I'm I'm also kind of wondering yeah does it clash with the 2030 is 2035 is our last div the vision I guess is that and we're not quite the 2030 okay all right well hey we're not we're not too far away from that I'm just kind of wondering do

to to answer your question uh yes we know where there's uh grant money and DCL has provided that to us. Yes, this is in the city budget. There's a placeholder amounted there. Yes, the city manager has said we can make the money available to do this. Yes, we know who the consultants are. Yes, we know what the probable cost is about $75,000. And there's more detail. So, so we know all of that. The bottom line is it's doable and the city manager from a tactical point of view is going to have to do a lot of that kind of nuts and I don't know how to write an RFP but um uh AI has done it for us. I have the RFP.

That's the consultant. He he would have or his department would have to say yes, that's right or no. So maybe illegal. So I have many of the pieces to do this. Yes, we have them. The reason I said that is like I don't want to propose spending money if there's not a plan for where that money is going to come from, but it sounds like that's covered. So how do you propose what do you propose to us tonight? What do we propose to go forward? Do we ask city council for a spot on a future agenda to present this concept to them? Are we comfortable doing that? Well, I think we have to nail down details.

Like I would want to know what the committee size is, what it consists of. Um I mean I don't even know how if it has to get to the level of like frequency like I mean the visioning side of it is good. I agree it has to align with current policy somehow and it would be nice if it fit what the next priority long-term planning efforts are. So making sure that everything aligns with a visioning effort. That was definitely

to your point. I have lots of detail on everything you mentioned and that's why what I've been saying is we need a separate hour and a half session to stop picking at this and go through all the de I have all that. I don't know. I mean, I'm just want to see the memo. I guess if we're going to make a recommendation that um something go to council, it'd be nice to just have the memo that says, "Okay, what do you think about this breakdown?" I don't know that we have to have like an hour and a half or a meeting designated to it. I just want to see it like a framework that we could advance.

I I've got 800 pages of it. What What So here, let me answer part of your question. The most important conversation to me in this room tonight is item number two. Shall this be part of the CL planning commission, the city council or a freestanding committee? And my recommendation is that this should be appended to the city council. It takes your points about bringing together, breaking down the silos, bringing these together. It is so far dis different from what we did earlier tonight. It's an abstraction to me of of how how how we would bridge that gap here where I think I I don't know the city council that well, but I I think that's more conceptual. It's less detailoriented, perhaps a better fit. That's just my recommendation. But you need to make that decision. I I don't

we all Okay. Yeah.

But we we're not going to do that in the next few minutes looking at our watches here. And that's I keep saying we really need a work session here because there are many other unanswered la last month when we talked about this you probably asked 20 questions in rapid fire and they're good questions all of them we should go through them. So my question is where do we go from here where this cake is not baked. We don't have enough to put in front of the city council as a specific recommendation. That's my bottom line to it is that we need we need another work session. My opinion is this and I know that we haven't hash an unbaked cake is a good way to put it. We don't have all the details. What I am enthusiastic about is I believe that since I've been on the planning commission and going back to when I was on the planning staff here at the city of Dallas many years ago was that there is a gap between the work of the planning commission and the city council. That's where I see an opportunity with this too. We can bridge that

and and and bridging that gap and seeing better collaboration between the planning commission, city council, the public is is my goal. I think in the my time on the planning commission, we've had one joint meeting of the planning commission and the city council. And that was only because of a technicality of state law that required it. And it was sort of a 15minute eye roll just to get it over with and I was pretty disappointed with it. So, you know, the the the devil is in the details. I get that. But I'm willing to set the to set the details aside with the ultimate goal of seeing better collaboration between this group that hashes out the nuts and bolts of the code stuff like we did earlier this evening and the elected officials that represent the the the members of the community that that elected them. So I see that I see that as the primary opportunity.

What better opportunity to do what you just said than right there. I also think it's I mean it's your brainchild that should be a commission like a a planning commission committee subcommittee or whatever it's would be whatever the designation would be that those are the details we got to work out. You start making set of council I don't I mean it's not a priority for them. It's not something that's been raised to them where it's been something details figured out to present it to them. I mean, can it be drafted, so to speak, to be a, you know, don't they need to know that we're that this is presented as a concept, right? I mean,

so the city manager said, "Do it." Do do we need their approval?

So, that's a very good point. By the way, we don't need the city council's approval for anything. This is the law. It's the law that just like we have a planning commission, we have a city council, we have a CCI, it exists. There's nothing we're talking about doing that's outside the bounds of what a CCI is. DCLD has confirmed that to us. So we don't really what we want to do is to invite to is to engage the city council to be part of it with us. Well, we don't need any approvals other than budget. We have we have to figure out the the budget thing. It exists. We just we're talking about introducing the idea of bringing it out of sort of the dormant state that it's in now.

Okay. And defining what it what its present state is going to be. to that point. If I were on the city council and somebody presents this to me and says this is a requirement that's been state law forever, I'd want and one of the discussions we had was this existed at some point and we all think it went somewhere. Do we know where it cost something? It takes time because I think we're going to need to answer the question. We do. Where did this go? And is it okay? Where did it go? I don't remember the specifics, but it's Brian knows where it went and he knows why it isn't functioning now.

Or is it functioning now? It's just not doing anything. Is not functioning now. Okay. Legally it is in this commission. It legally today it exists in the planning. Although the letter from the state that I got showing city by city where it's called it's an independent agency. I don't know why that is. The state thinks it's it's not appended here. As long as us as long as we can answer that to the city council because I would think if I were on council I would have egg on my face if this is something that's required and nobody knows where it is. So show us the historic data. good hand typed and we don't have to pull it back from wherever it went in order to do this.

Correct. Certainly not our intent to, you know, embarrass anybody and and point out deficiencies in the in our governance. Well, and and clearly there's such punishment for failing to comply, right? So,

John, if I can I don't want to keep us here all night, but here's a suggestion. That memo to me is step number one with the correction that you said go ahead and that says hey there's something coming from your planning commission basically that's what it says and ask for the audience that audience is a conceptual overview a distillation of what we're seeing right here of what we propose to do and that here's who we propose to be on this committee. Okay, that's the approval that we're asking for so that those people can fill in all the blanks. So we do this in steps. Okay, so step number one is the memo. Step number two is a conceptual overview and step number three is a confirmation that here's here are the people are going to be involved and what their schedule is going to be. All the questions about do these have to be public meetings, does an attorney have to blah blah blah blah blah, they've all been answered. I have all those. I have the answers to all those questions, but we need to get a team together to record all that

and we like the the city council's involvement in some form

being part of the solution. Absolutely. Yeah. And and one other thing I would would say there's so much concern on so many people people's parts that we have busy lives already. How in the world are we going to take on any more of this? My view is after we get through the administrative startup and again I already have so much of that information when we get past that it's the consultant that does 98% of this so it's not the kind of huge burden that we think it is how do we feel and this is discussion we're not making a vote voting on anything how do we feel about asking the city council to hear us out

there a memo I don't know if I've seen memo. I haven't seen the memo either. Okay. Is there a memo? You said there there there's a draft memo. I've got one in front of me. I thought everyone I thought you guys had gone over it last month. No.

Okay. Well, let me just go through it real quick. The Dallas Planning Commission is pleased to announce that we are in the process of seeking ways that we provide greater value to the city council and the city at large. Specifically, we're in the process of creating a CCI most likely is an adjunct of the planning commission as required by state planning goal number one, Dallas municipal code. Da da da comp plan. Dallas, like all other cities, is required to have a CCI. The overall purpose of the CCI is to be the eyes and ears of the city council on all things land use, your in-house land consulting advisory group. We are in the process of talking with DCLD to formulate a plan by which we can fill our required role. Uh while a CCI is required by state law, the function has been dormant in Dallas. Uh while more work needs to be done in conjunction with DLCD to ensure that all the details of this opportunity are fully compliant with laws and best practices, we want you to know to the city council that this effort is underway. We would like to have we would have we hope to have more to report over the next two or three months and we'd be pleased to give an overview to the city council and I think that needs to be changed to say we respectfully ask for an audience uh at a city council meeting to discuss that.

We hear a lot of things in there. So like the requirement I mean if we're required legally we'd have one. There's just some other things in there that I don't know I would change. And hey, I agree. Instead of being creating, I would say restructuring because supposedly this thing exists or existed. We don't want to say we're going to create it now. This is why we need a work session. This is why we can't we can't do this pecking away at this and little te tag on. There's so these are all wonderful questions. They're very good and I have all the answers but we you know we're not going to get through it this way. Everybody I don't know if you're tired but I

I was drinking really so we can get to other I I think of talking about this or moving it forward and out. Don I understand that you've got all this information and I'm confident that you've taken what you have and put it into this and that's fine with me. I don't need to see the 800 pages myself to then beat this to death. I think moving forward feels fine with me.

I would uh chime in that as part of the transportation system plan update. Um we are looking to have a joint planning commission city council uh meeting as part of that. Um so it is entirely plausible that there will be some additional time on that agenda which could be dedicated to other topics. So we're still working to figure out when. Um at this point we're tentatively figuring February. Um but I don't have a specific date yet. We need to confirm the availability of counsel.

That's where I see something like this being helpful. like you're trying to cuz you're that's a heavy lift. A transportation transportation system plan update involves engineering planning like it's heavy council. They're going to have to approve it. So then they get bogged down like oh what are those details real estate community other people are saying certain things I don't understand it. That's where this could be like a transition area like if we had it framed where you know that's why I brought up like these um long-term planning efforts because then they are granted and we can do things to help facilitate citizen involvement to help them understand like this is required by state law. This is what's involved so that um they're not too surprised by it when it's like oh this is influence a code change or this has to be adopted. there's already a conversation probably even like open houses or some kind of public involvement and then it goes to plan commission, city council and there's awareness already and we've had those pieces connected as far as plan commission, city council staff and then members of the community so it's not as foreign when it is dropped.

I've seen CCIs more with larger communities. My concern is our capacity. small communities just don't have them and we don't get penalized by DLCD. We've passed a lot of ordinances and through those ordinances uh we always explain how there's opportunity for the public a public hearing like we just had today. It's it's been put I would imagine Chase put a a newspaper posting in the IO. I would imagine it's posted downstairs uh for uh people in the general public, maybe in the uh library and things like that. Um these are all of the traditional required ways to notify the public and try to engage the public. Sometimes with the CCI, I mean, that's kind of where we try to to do a little bit more than than just the what we're required to the minimum to do as far as state law. I've seen it used more so in the context of how do we uh reach out to those uh who are hard to reach the the people who don't attend. I don't have anybody here to attend but um it's usually more the stakeholder the property owner somebody who's looking at at future development of their property uh somebody who's actively involved in the community and has served on various committees and things already. Uh that's the repeat um audience that the council gets and that planning convention gets as well. And only when you have a hot agenda item that everybody hates is when you get the audience. And so uh you know it's just kind of one of those difficult things is to put together a package like this. I've I have put, you know, I've uh put together committees uh and one of the things I I do is make sure that they know what their mission is. What are you

here for? Are you going to sunset? Is it going to I mean, because you're going to be asked all of these questions by council members. How long is it going to occur? Is it what's the staffing level for it? Does you know, who's going to because you have to take the minutes that's required, you know, who's going to take the minutes? Um there there's a lot of uh what what's to be produced a document? Is there an example of the document? When I uh was the staff liaison to the to the committee that was created for housing needs analysis and economic opportunity analysis, those things are codified and you get it and you show everybody what the document is and it and where it it's specifically stated in rule and statute. And so people kind of understand, okay, I got what exactly what we're going to do because staff has pretty much laid it out exactly where it is and the time frame of what's to be produced and all that kind of thing. Um, it seems pretty nebulous. I'm just sorry to that that but that's that's what you face as a challenge before the council. They'll ask specific questions of of what it is and and how much by law are we truly are we going to get ourselves in trouble? And the answer is no. We're not going to get ourselves in trouble.

So, so the challenge is I have the answers to all your questions. We take the LPD. Mhm. Yeah.

How do we not ask the city council to drink from a fire hose with this much stuff? And what this is trying to do is to go at it from the conceptual point of view as step one that just says conceptually this is where we're headed. Can we do this together? Can we create a team? That's and it stops there and it says the team that we put together then we'll write all that detail that you're talking about and and we'll touch base as we go step by step. What we don't want to do is spend two manurs doing all this detail and have somebody say, "I don't want to do that."

There's no there's no point in that. And and I would also say, remember, this is the city manager's idea. Okay. Yeah. So, talk about breaking down barriers. There is no barriers. He said, "Go do it." Okay. So, well, well, and that that's how you you deal with the the city council not drinking from a fire hose is city manager does the fire hose and tells the city council, "Okay, here's what you're going to do." And the city council either does it or doesn't. Yeah.

Maybe, and I'm just trying to come up with a a next step for us, maybe consult with Brian again as to how to bring this concept to the city council. Think you would have changes to the memo? Well, I I I I already want to soften the memo. Yeah. I think it's got to be more of an ask. I don't think we need to be telling anybody that we're deficient. Uh I think we need to be saying this is an opportunity. I would present it as an opportunity, not as a not as a a requirement or something that that

and I don't think drilling down on where it went and what happened to it and whose fault it is, that's water that's well under the bridge. I think that if we want to move forward with this concept, I think John, maybe you and I need to have another consultation with Brian and bring what we have on the table today back to him and then take his advice on how to proceed cuz he he does he he did express his desire to do this, but he said, "Go for it. See what you guys can come up with." So, this is what we've come up with so far. Here's the first olive out of the jar. help us directionally or we go in the right direction. That's exactly what I was going So, let's do that.

Yeah. And understanding that we haven't answered the 200 questions that this is step by step, right? And that to me would be the next step. So, I what I'm hearing is and what I think is we're not ready to ask city council for an audience yet. I think we need to Yeah. Well, I I think we need to consult with the city manager first before we even do that. Okay. Okay. Sure.

And I'm and I and this is Commissioner Schulty's initiative. I'm giving him my support as the as you know as your chair to continue to explore the concept. We had one really productive meeting with Brian. I say you've done a lot of work since then since he's kind of greenlighted us to keep going. If he'd just said, "Forget about this idea. You guys got enough on your plate. Do your minimum legal requirements as a planning commission and and that's all I want from you." Well, I think we would have stopped that if he did. But he didn't. He said, "This is a great idea." And uh he says, "Figure it out and and let us know uh how you want to proceed." So, I think we need to take what we have distilled down to this and take it back to him and see what he says. We agree with that.

Yes. Okay. Well, I've got water right here. What am I choking for? Uh, good discussion. Thank you. It is getting late and I think we're about ready to to wrap it up. Are there any other commissioners comments before we adjourn for the evening? Thank you, John, very much. and you know and you know allow us to uh poke holes in the concept because when it goes to city council they'll that's what they do. So uh any any spitballing we can do amongst ourselves will benefit us when we have to take it. That's friendly fire. Yeah.

Exactly. That's not a really good concept right there. So yeah, right. So does anybody else have any comments before we adjourn this evening? Rich, I have not. And but you want to know what I I know where I can I I know who to ask. So I'll I'll let you know. I I'll let you know. I I'm I'm I'm not sure. I'm not sure.

I'm comfortable about making that context. Well, like I said, he he was an employee of Benton County where I work, and I am his former the he was in the public works department uh before he retired prematurely because of his illness. So, I can easily ask the public works director, who I'm very friendly with, uh how Rich is doing. Okay. And I I'll I'll find that out and let you know. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah, you bet. Uh staff comments. Um, so one of the questions that was asked, uh, Tori, you were asking what the next planning process is after the TSP, um, the ma next mandatory update will be the housing needs analysis. So 2027 is kind of the target on that. So we'll probably get started on that late 2026. So just FYI on that. Okay. Well, thank you very much everybody. We stand adjourned.