Recording in progress. And now declare that the Plano City Council joint session with the Planning and Zoning Commission is convened in open session, that all council members are present. I now declare that the Planning Commission joint session of Plano City Council is convened in open session and that all Commission members, with the exception of Commissioner Tong, are present. The Council and Planning and Zoning Commission will now recess into executive session to hold a closed executive meeting pursuant to the provisions of Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated Government Code, chapter 551, the Open Meetings Act, in accordance with the authority contained in section 551 071, to consult with the attorney to receive legal advice and discuss litigation. Section 551 0712. To consult with the attorney, receive legal advice and I'm repeating myself. That's okay. And respond to questions and receive legal advice on agenda items. Oh, so I'm done. Okay. We don't do this very often. Okay. Thank you very much. I now declare that the Plano City Council joint session with the Planning and Zoning Commission is reconvened in open session. That all council members are present. And I now declare that the Planning and Zoning Commission joint session with the Plano City Council is reconvened in open session, and that all commission members are present. All right. We'll move on to item one. This is regarding discussion and direction on changes to zoning, subdivision fees, building codes, and related proposed regulatory changes. All right. Good afternoon. Council and commissioners. Mr. Do you have something else that you need to say on this? I do, all right. I do. I, I have one speaker on this particular preliminary meeting. And if I could go ahead and get that speaker up done, then we can we can go in the presentation. Okay. Okay. All right. Our speaker this afternoon is Bill Lyle. Y'all go ahead. Go ahead. Thank you. Okay. So I think I need to read item A two. Right. So the presentation discussion regarding Senate Bill 840 and Senate Bill 15 and Senate Bill 2477, including the new Texas statutory limitation on city regulation of multifamily and single family development. Welcome. All right. With that, I will get started on my presentation. I'm Christina Day, the director of planning, here to introduce you to this topic. I'll spend a little bit of time just introducing what it is we're going to talk about, covering the high points for anyone that might be new to this discussion. Then I'll review the questions that were in the packet. Go through that, after which then I've teed up the questions again for ease of discussion. So know that even though I'll be going through them, we will revisit each question to facilitate the discussion. So first of all, today we're really addressing three very significant bills that have impacted land use for the city of Plano. They're all effective on September 1st. Initially, Senate Bill 15 relates to small lot single family development. It does allow that in certain areas that are fairly limited. There's a map that was provided in the backup materials that shows you it has to be five acres or more. Unplatted so again, doesn't apply to a large percentage of the city, but it will be impactful to those places that it does apply. Senate Bill 840 allows multifamily also mixed use development in all the nonresidential zoning districts in the city. By right. So this is a big change to our land use pattern. That is something we need to adapt to. And therefore we're providing some options to the group today to discuss. It also discusses conversion of nonresidential buildings to multifamily or mixed use. There was a companion Senate bill, 2477, that adds some restrictions, but because those aren't really related to some of the discussion today, you won't hear more about that. But we just wanted to announce that we did read through that, and we'll adapt it in the ordinance as needed. When that's presented to the commission on August 6th. So a couple of things to note about these bills. They do allow more litigants to sue cities, and a successful litigant is entitled to attorney's fees. So that is something that's a little unusual about this legislation. They're also bracketed. So they only apply to cities over 100,000 population in counties with 300,000. So we've mapped that for you. So you can see a real cluster of communities that are impacted by this in the North Texas area. With some neighboring communities here being Frisco, McKinney, Garland that are in proximity to Plano. So what's the timeline on this? The commission held a work session on the 21st. You have the results of that in your packet. We're holding this joint work session today to get additional feedback so that we can turn around pretty quickly this week and prepare ordinances for the consideration. At a special called meeting on August 6th. The Commission will be discussing the CIP program at their August 4th meeting, so we thought we would have this special meeting. So we give due time to both these pretty heavy topics. Then that will be scheduled if it moves out of commission on August 6th to the council meeting on August 25th, in advance of the September 1st bill. Effective dates. So I know that I get a lot of interest from the council traditionally on outreach, so we wanted to make sure we pointed out the type of outreach we're doing because these are such significant changes to the community. So we've sent email websites, social media. We've been working with the communications team to make sure that we are really working to get the word out, so people have an opportunity to participate in this process. All right. So what are our goals? We kind of early on in this process, established some goals that we hope align with the values of these bodies. First, to preserve our economic development ability, particularly in legacy and our research technology crossroads areas. Secondly, to preserve our neighborhood compatibility integrity. Third, to ensure adequate infrastructure with the intensity of new development that's allowed, and finally, to continue to require well built development in the community. Those are in no particular order, but we're we were thinking through this, these goals, as we came up with options. So initially Senate Bill 15. These are the parcels impacted. I mentioned this map earlier. You can see the ones in yellow or kind of gold color are the areas that could actually develop under the bill. The gray parcels are owned by the city. So while the city could potentially sell some of those for development, we feel like it. Most of those are parks, and they're unlikely to be developed at any point in time. So our responses are, of course, to bring the regulations that we have today into compliance with the law. We are planning to create a use specific standard for small lot single family that would align with the bill and that would allow properties that meet that threshold to develop under this option that's been authorized by the legislature at the time of platting. We would require open space based on the number of lots and update the subdivision ordinance standards in relationship to this. So we've looked at alleys requiring alleys for lots that are 50ft wide or less, aligning our plat vacation standards with the legislation. So we don't have kind of gaming of vacating plots in order to comply with the bill, and then requiring notation on the plat that notes they're developing under these standards, since the zoning wouldn't change because we have to have an administrative approval process, we can't do anything legislative. So moving on to Senate Bill 840. These are the areas of the city that are impacted. This is 30% of the city's land area. So that's why we believe this has a significant long term impact on the community's development. You see, we've added 1000 foot buffer area around those parcels that comply with the definition of heavy industrial use that was established under the bill. Also, there is a 3000 foot buffer around Air Park Dallas that we have incorporated. But other areas we've separated here into a 45 foot height limit. That's the minimum allowed under the bill. And then those that would have a higher height limit based on the existing zoning. So what can we regulate or what can't we regulate? The bill impacts the way we look at density. We some of these things are citywide, and some of these things are on the individual site. So that's why I love this table as a reference, because it's kind of hard to keep straight. So density is about the city. So we're looking citywide. Whatever the highest density is anywhere in Plano is what's allowed. Or 36 dwelling units per acre. We know that we have things well in excess of 36 Dewar dwelling units per acre in the city. So in our downtown area, in the legacy mixed use area. So we've really looked at highest density, as in those locations as being what would meet the requirements of this bill. Maximum height is the highest height that would apply to any building on that site. So that's why you have to look at the site specific regulations or 45ft, and you'll see there's some adjustments to certain zoning districts based on this standard. The setback again, the same setback that would apply to other uses on the site, or 25ft, which again, we have some landscape edges that are districts that are in our overlays that are 30ft. So this will be again a meaningful change to many locations. Standard commercial setback is 50ft in the city parking. We can't require more than one space per dwelling unit, and we can't require multi-level parking structures. Again, for multifamily, this isn't that big of a change for the one space per dwelling unit, but again, still overall, a meaningful change. Lot coverage. This is another thing where we can't restrict the building floor area in relationship to the lot. So our significant interest in this one is how do we meet the open space standards that people need for a good quality of life, consistent with the way the community has developed and our community standards, then nonresidential uses? We can't require multifamily to contain nonresidential uses when they're in an area not zoned for mixed use residential. And finally, again, we have to approve everything administratively. So in response again, first priority bring things into compliance with the law. We're looking at regulating density through minimum heights, maximum heights and minimum dwelling unit sizes, rather than establishing a citywide density because we didn't think that would work. There's just too much variety in our land use pattern. We want to adopt new design standards for building and site design, for landscaping, building quality and resilience. Typically, we have built this into development plans or we've built this into planned development districts since that will no longer be an opportunity for the community. We think it's important to adopt these citywide and then update subdivision standards that ensure that we have adequate infrastructure and street design to meet the intensity of this development. And then a final note is looking at requiring, noticing and signage for development under the bill. We know the community has expressed interest to both of the boards or the board and the and the council when there is unexpected development that occurs in their area, and so just communicating that upfront so they know that the city cannot change or meet their needs if they're concerned and directing them to the correct individuals. So with that. I have three sort of buckets of changes based on the feedback we got from the Planning and Zoning Commission. First, this these are the changes that the Commission found acceptable and recommended establishing new height maximums and minimums, enhanced landscaping removing multifamilies and allowed use in the residential community desig, zoning district, ensuring adequate infrastructure capacity and enhancing our ability to control funding, as well as establishing the minimum unit sizes. Then we have this more detailed map. We've been able to spend more time in our analysis of height impacts, so we wanted to provide this to these bodies and to the community. So the impact is getting more refined, and people can see a little bit more about how this might the changes that might happen under the law. And as proposed with our ordinance amendments. Then we have one item that was not recommended that was using carports to cover parking. So unless there's a change tonight, we will not be including that in the ordinance moving forward. Then there were six items, I believe, that had a number of changes or needed more discussion. So I'll run through those as just briefly to kind of lay out some of the decision points. So the when we adopt zoning, we require notice when we adopt new adopt new codes. There's also a 30 day delay in their effectiveness under the law. So we knew we couldn't get any kind of code adoption done in the timeline that we had before September 1st. So while the international codes, green building provisions are a possibility, those won't be adopted by September 1st. So an option we thought was to use Leed certification, which is the baseline. They have four levels of silver, gold and platinum above the certification level. So that would be the minimum standard for Leed. So we could either adopt that permanently. We could adopt it until such time as the green code can be adopted and implemented into our building codes. We could adopt a Leed certification and then wait until further recommendations come out of the rewrite advisory Committee and go through both of these bodies to refine our future plans. We could adopt no changes, neither lead nor the green code. And then another decision that we need to make tonight is really does this apply to all buildings or only the buildings that are allowed under SB 840? So the second item on design standards, the building official is here to talk a little bit more about Leed. And then I'll come back and discuss more about the height variations for developments. So with that, I will turn it over to the chief building official, Celso Mata. Good afternoon. Council and commission. Celso Mata, building official I was asked to look at the advantages and limitations for Leed and the International Green Construction Code. So a lot of that was research on my part. As you know, Plano enforces neither one. So looking at some of the pros and cons, of course, Leed has an established brand marketability. It's globally recognized, and it's been in place for over 25 years. There's flexible credit system that allows developers to tailor lead towards their building goals, incentives. Well, there are tax benefits there can be for applying lead to your building and the life cycle scope. Well, it follows you and covers any design and construction of your building as you have ongoing building operations. Maintenance is still included in Leed. There are also certification levels. Several certification levels in Leed there is certified silver, gold and platinum in each level, rising higher as you develop your certification levels and enhance your building. Supported by the comprehensive plan that was added as as a professional, certainly a limitation of the costs. Leed is expensive, as I understand it's a voluntary process, but if we adopted it, it would no longer be voluntary. It doesn't align with the codes every time. So there are certain items in the code that are not in the scope of Leed. There is some certification requirements that is evaluating the ongoing performance of the building. And so that can or cannot be done. And the documentation, there's a lot of documentation required for Leed as I understand it. The green construction code. Well, if adopted, legally enforceable. And it is a member of the International Code Council family. So everything would be integrated with the codes baseline sustainability. Well, we would know where the floor is with the green building code compared with all our codes. Certainly public health focus as it does align with looking at the review of the health and water quality aspects and environmental requirements for building it is prescriptive and performance. So it is it uses both requirements, prescriptive. As you know, the code, you could look at it as a as a recipe book. Basically you do what the code does and then performance would be you would still do certain parts of what the code said, and then you would exceed them and model what you have as a building on a computer based program, which would evaluate your building for compliance. Supported by a comprehensive plan. Again, limitations on the green code is limited awareness, especially in our area. In the DFW area, there are no incentives. Staff inexperience. Obviously we are we are not experienced with the green construction code. Jurisdictional variability, meaning that we don't have any cities in the area except for Dallas, which I learned has had it in place since 2012. And we do view our codes through Cog. It is not reviewed through Cog, so it's not at this time Cog recommended. And so those are the advantages and limitations that I have. I don't know if there's any questions but all right. I think the building official will still be here as we get into the discussion session. If you have more questions for him. So the second item on design standards that we wanted to work through is related to height variation. So the commission asked us to look at how we could mitigate in any way the kind of impact for residential adjacency. Essentially because these height standards are are so different than what we have today. And so we do have a height related restriction, maybe ironically, in our yard regulations, everyone's looking for it under our height standards in 600, but it's living in 500. And so we thought, hey, this is a rational thing to move into the height standards. It's formulated right now. It's the formula talks toward yards. But if we rework it to adapt it to height and speak to height, which it is effectively regulating, we could utilize this standard that we feel like and comply with the law. So we gave you a couple of kind of examples here of what that impact might be. And we chose the standards of those minimum heights that we've proposed. Of the 45ft being consistent with the law, 75ft as a standard for certain zoning districts and 120 for others to show you the impact it would have in those areas. So where there is a zero, the on the my left, I guess your left as well. There is a 25 foot where there's a 25 foot setback which is the maximum allowed. You can see that would be 45ft high. And then as you get get back to 85ft, you can build a 75 foot building and 175, you can go up to the one 20 foot building. Then where there's a zero setback, you can see that it's less impactful. 45ft at the property line, 60ft back, you can go up to 75ft and 150ft back you can go up to 120. And these would just be adapted to I would say are kind of more suburban style development. Things like urban mixed use districts, downtown development would not have these setbacks. They're exempt because of the nature of the development there. So second item, expressway corridor overlay. We've summarized for you what we think. There was a lot of discussion with the commission on this item. And so we hope we got it right. But so we're looking for feedback as to removing the standards that can no longer be required, prohibiting balconies facing expressways, requiring 15 foot landscaped edge on property lines closest to expressways within the overlay district, and then maintaining these standards for institutional, multifamily and mixed use dwellings for filtration, air quality and noise. So the third topic is about single family uses in nonresidential districts. Again, a lot of discussion on this topic and we came away with there is interest in looking at our tier two, which is the more intense housing in our residential community design district, and how that might be applied to as a as an alternative to multifamily in the commercial areas. Signage. We had some good discussion about sign. We took that feedback and have tried to make these signs look more different. These are still just drafts, so we wanted to run these by the groups and see a couple of options we're presenting. If it's just the signs, just address 840. We have multifamily comment staff actually prefers the broader notice addressing both SB 840 and SB 15 because of the impact to the community and the change that again, they're not anticipating. So that more broad housing constructed on this site is authorized under the laws of the state of Texas. Then the fifth item is similarly about transparency sending notices. The idea is within 500ft. That's already a developed process we've got for zoning. So it's kind of plug and play for us. We also send to registered neighborhood groups within 1500 feet. So that's again a process that we don't have to develop. The idea here is that we would send these for the foreseeable future until the community adapted to understanding, and then we would sunset this process when it was no longer necessary. Then finally we have street and off street parking standards. This is more related to the small lot single family development requiring the mixed use and corner context type standards. So we've given you a clip here to show you there is designated on street parking, street trees, wider sidewalks. Because of the intensity of the development. It's got that more urban street section that provides on street parking and more walkability. So that, we hope, addresses the concerns that the Commission expressed. As well as off street parking on site, which we will look at adding dimensions, setback and surface to make sure those are all met. If they're not clear in the current ordinance, we're going to double check and make sure those are are required. So again, we will be preparing an ordinance based on your feedback today to bring back to the Planning and Zoning Commission on Wednesday, August 6th. We've already had our public comments. And so now we're I will turn it back to the mayor for discussion of these items. Okay. So. Planning and Zoning Commission and city council, these are recommendations that the Planning and Zoning Commission has, as worked through last week. This is probably the first time council has seen these recommendations in person. So if there's any questions regarding the recommendations, this is your time. I've teed them up to where we have each of the slides that I presented to you, if that's helpful to you, put them in digestible pieces okay. There you go. Councilmember Horn. Thank you very much. Really I got two points I want to address. One has to deal with the Leed certification on the buildings. Thank you, Mr. Motta, for the presentation on that. The whole purpose of the Leed really was to improve the sustainability of buildings, you know, and make sure that they manage waste when they do the construction. But also looking at energy, weather and water conservation of those the lowest level that I think you can achieve is Leed certified. Correct. And the hardest part of that outside of the design element, as you said earlier, is the documentation tracking. It takes a lot of paperwork, and the typical commercial contractor, he doesn't have that person on site to record that. You'll see it in a lot of the municipal construction. You'll see it a lot in federal construction. But on the commercial side, unless they really are trying to get that Leed certification and fully understand the requirement for that, I think that it's something that's a doable. And the certification part Leed certified, I would I would almost say there is some cost to it, but it's not as costly as silver or gold or platinum. Again, I it's in my opinion, and I think we need to still look at our new construction and or conversion and maintain the fact that we, you know, we're going to get 320,000 people in Plano fairly quickly. Collin County is growing by what, one person every three seconds. We need to be more conscious of energy efficiency, water efficiency and sustainability. So my position is, is that we need to look at what we can to make sure that we on new construction, also redevelopment, that we keep those in mind because those are limited resources. The second point I want to bring up is the balcony on expressway corridor. Of course, you know, from from a long time we didn't want to have any construction on in the expressway overlay district for residential property, but I don't think it's up to us to tell a developer on how to design and construct this building. If he wants to put a building and have a balcony that's overlooking North Dallas Tollway or 75, who are we to present to tell him not to do that? Granted, on the buildings themselves, where a person will spend a significant amount of time indoors. Yes, on a public health perspective, we can do that. But you will see that most people do not spend an extraordinary amount of time on their balconies. They may sit out there and have a morning cup of coffee, or they may go out there and see a setting sun. They won't be out there facing west at 1:00 in the afternoon. That's just too hot for them. But I think that for us to be arbitrary and telling a designer how he can design his building, I don't think that's part of what a city should be able to do. But again, from the internal perspective, with the proper Merv, the STC ratings for noise abatement, I think yes, indeed, those are the things that we should be concerned about. Mr. Mayor, those were my opinions. Thank you. Chair, did you have just had just had one comment, if you wouldn't mind. Just a second. First of all, thanks to the staff. Very great notes. Looks like you've incorporated all but one item I think we're missing. So the type I'm going to I'm going to tell you from a personal perspective, the type G adoption for the small residential. That's the perfect solution. We talked about that the other night. So thank you. The one I think we missed was we talked about, given that we only have a one parking space requirement now for multifamily, that that could not be compact. It had to be full size parking space. If they want to provide additional spaces, those could be compact, but the minimum one space was required to be a full size parking space. You're correct. We will note that. Thank you. That was my commissioners may have some other ones, but those were the only ones I noticed. But thank you. The very thorough job, Mr. Lingenfelter. Sorry. Yes. One of the things I wanted to ask staff was. I. I agree that the higher density of residential type units do effectively look similar to multifamily and stuff. My concern still goes to if we open it to a single family type zoning. What does that do to us with as far as compounding now SB 15 into the mix, would that open doors to SB 15 now regulating that same tract? If we if we open that up once it's developed, it's platted, SB 15 would not apply. So I don't think we're at risk of that happening. Yes, Miss Tong, thank you. Mayor, I have a question for staff or maybe for the building official about the lead. So the one of the cons is talking about the lead. Some of the requirements actually is in violation of the code or not meeting our code or building code. So my question is, if we have to meet the code, would it violate or would it negate or void the certification. If we if we want to put lead into our processing, adopt the lead certification that once we adopt that in one building, meet, get the lead certification but doesn't meet the code, what's going to happen? Lead is a series of points. So this certification, the kind of minimum certification would be something where if it doesn't meet the code, they would have to just choose something else on the list is the bottom line where they have to get those 40 points. They clearly couldn't do something that meets that violates our building code, but I believe we know we have certified buildings in the community, so it is possible to meet the minimum standards and meet our building codes. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Council member Quintanilla thank you, mayor. Kind of adding on to that question, slide 21 mentioned something about codes, but what are we go to slide 21 real quick, Christina. Sure, absolutely I didn't write that part. Slide 21 I just got the slide number okay. This is not always aligned with codes. Do we happen to know some examples of that. Like what specifically code is like safety. Under the cons I think that the comment on the cons of not aligned with codes is that lead isn't always as we adopt codes every three years they change. And I think lead is every 5 to 6 years. So that would be part of that not aligned with codes okay. So it's not it's not in tune with everything that's written every three years okay. There's nothing regarding safety. Oh no not safety. And the green and lead codes are nothing about safety really. It's not a thank you for confirming that. Thank you. Council member care. Yes. Thank you. I'm just I'm thinking about the minimum height requirements. One of the reasons that our citizens have looked to the comprehensive plan is less apartments. If we put a minimum standard in, does that automatically mean that the density is going to be higher than perhaps our citizens are expecting? It could drive a more, absolutely more intensive product, but not necessarily. I think if you look at our our height and density examples, we like to look at level 29 and legacy. That's right next to the Windrose tower. Very different densities, same height building. So it's because one is a condominium product. The floor plates are the floor, the footprints of the units are just much larger. And so I don't think it's necessarily a conclusion, but it's a likely it's likely that if you're having to build 120 foot building, that you are going to have a higher density. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Bronsky. Yeah, I have a couple questions for the building official as it relates to the relationship between leads and the green code. So understanding that the leads offers us a great deal more flexibility. But the green codes are more prescriptive. Do we feel like the usage of the point system versus the minimum requirements. How would that which one would be a better from a city perspective, as well as a developmental perspective of going down one road as opposed to the other? Okay, I'm probably going to send everything in a tailspin because I thought about that question. But we would like your recommendations. Also, it's a blend, okay. And we've just been talking. Let's go this way and or either or. So a blend would be taking some of the best concepts that we can enforce from the green construction code, right in our own code. Because if you take the international green construction code, it applies to everything. So if you are just going to apply it to multifamily, you're going to take that book and amend it, edit the heck out of it so that you get it back down to multifamily. Well, if you're going to do that, why don't you just write your own green code? And then along with that, if you want to say options, you can have Leed as an option, okay. And you can have the green construction code, which we could create as an option. Which one are you going to do? That's up to you. I called Dallas, asked him how that was going. Since it's been since 2010, 2012, they're under the 2015 Green Construction code. I think they're moving to the 2018. We're under the 2024. That told me a lot about the green construction code. I'm not going to say any more about that. I'm just going to say that. So I think a blend is a is an idea that, you know, if you were asking me what I would do, that's what I would do because it would help us with the understanding of which way to incorporate the best concepts and have the best of all worlds. So with the idea that that direction will we will we have enough time to get that done before September 1st? No, sir. So what would be your advice for us as we move this forward prior to September 1st? I think what the planning department proposes would be the way to move forward would lead. And then after September 1st, and we'd be working on it to get that blend. There's also because the House bill 738 we have to stay 30 days after we adopt it for its effective date. So we still have to wait some time. We're just. The timetable just doesn't work to get it in time before September 1st. Sure. I'd just like to say thank you to you and Miss Day, your staff, for all the time and effort you guys have put into this, especially in the rushed and condensed time periods we have. So thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Broomhall, thank you mayor. Miss day, in early in your presentation, you listed the four objectives or goals of the ordinance drafting process. And of course I agree with every one of those. There's, you know, they're they're certainly appropriate. I would suggest a fifth goal okay. The fifth goal is to preserve the desirability and attractiveness of Plano as a place where people can live and work. Plano did not get to be one of the most livable cities in the United States by being ugly. Okay, I understand the standpoint of a developer who wants to build a project that is economically successful and viable and that's well and good, and that's certainly understandable. Our perspective is the city as a whole. And therefore I think there is a place. For design standards as a way of preserving the attractiveness and desirability of the city as a whole. You can certainly go too far with that, but not doing any, I think, would be a mistake. There is, for example, there is a certain apartment complex in this city which I will not specifically identify. I'll just say there is one out there that I have in mind. When I first looked at it, my first thought was, and I said to my wife, this looks like a military barracks. Okay, we don't want a lot of that, okay. Design standards can go, you know, to a certain point to try to make these developments attractive and still be viable for, you know, the developers that build them. So I would recommend, you know, keeping some reasonable design standards, for example, facade articulation would be one mix. I don't know how how detailed we want to get in specifying what mix, but a mix of textures and treatments porches overhangs. That sort of thing. We already we've been regulating this for some time. I mean, we have limits on, you know, we have to have a break in the building after so many feet before they start building another one. So you don't just have an endless, you know, box of a building. So that's my comment. I think we need to pay some attention to attractiveness and desirability. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let's close off. I'll turn mine on. Commissioner, just to echo Commissioner Bruno, one of the leading questions to the design standards was, to, quote, ensure that new multifamily development fits the community. And the reason why we proposed the lead. Essentially, if I'm not, if my memory serves me right, was so that we are not left hanging with nothing in place. From a guidance perspective, I do appreciate the blend recommendation, but I still think that we need something to guide anyone who comes in in the next 30, 60, 90 days until we get our own properly developed code. Along the same lines and correct me if I'm wrong, one of the reasons why for the districts, why we prohibited balconies facing the tollway partly was a living standards. You know, the particulate matter and what have you. But there was also a design element to it that when you're driving past Plano, you did not want to see balconies that could essentially have things hanging off of them. As one of the criteria when we put that standard in. So along the same those same lines, I think it. We don't do ourselves a disservice if we reverse that, especially if those were things that we would not have reversed if not for this legislation. And the legislation still permits us to keep those certain elements that fits the overall character and building of the community. Council member care. Since we're looking at goals, I think one of the goals that I have is to have more diverse housing stock. Maybe that doesn't apply to our discussion here, but I think when we're looking at overall plans, that's something we absolutely should look at. I have another question in Commissioner Ali. Maybe you could address it. Is there urgency in us defining whether it's leads or gold or any of those sorts of things? Do we need to define that right now, or can we do we have some time because it takes time for these plans to get to us, or to be administratively applied. I control that. Here we go. Technically, I don't think there is urgency unless somebody has already picked out a site and is going to submit a plan in the next 30 to 60 days. I doubt developers move that fast, but in general, in planning, I'm always especially if it doesn't cost us anything. Quite frankly, I will always bias to giving people the rules of the of the of the road so that with an indication that we intend to write our own rules of the road in compliance with the legislation, so that it's not a, you know, you're not developing and planning into a vacuum. It's just, I think, fair to the development community to know what they are playing by. And my response to that would be that there is such a thing as vesting in the development world, where once you bring in a development plan, you are vested under the codes at the time that plan is adopted. So we're looking at September 1st when things change, if we don't have the lead standards or something else, if that's desirable, if it's not adopted, the individuals who come and meet with us will vest under the under the old standards or the standards of the time. So we're looking to make sure that if they want, once people cross that line of September 1st and have the right to build that, we have adequate standards in place to meet the community's interest. Okay, Doug. Thank you. Mayor. I just wanted to emphasize, I agree with the building official about kind of over the course of time, drafting our own regulations. But I think, you know, initially we'd is used right now in a, in a large way in the commercial space. And developers view that as very desirable because everyone, whether it's multifamily or commercial office space, they're all part of a REIT. And so they're all eventually resold. And that adds value to the asset because it defines the quality of the asset. So I think in the short term or near term adopt we'd and then I think over the course of time when the building official has a chance to develop our own standards, as is the way to go. Okay. Deputy Mayor Pro Tem, I don't know if this is the right time to bring this up, but as the commissioner stated earlier about giving a roadmap and letting developers know what to expect, I mean, historically, our comprehensive plan, our zoning, everything has been a way for us to really respond to what our community wants and how we want to develop our community, that a lot of that's been taken out of our hands now. And so with that in mind, give credit to Commissioner Bender for bringing up the idea of being proactive and making sure that we are are trying to entice those that are building in our community to create something that our that that we want, that our community wants. While I know there aren't things that we can necessarily have in place by September 1st and whatever is in place, if someone wanted to start the process, they'll be vested then I think it might be useful for people to know that maybe we are looking at opportunities and ways to incentivize developers to create things in the community that that we do want, and I don't know exactly how we incentivize. Of course, we want to follow, follow the rules and not do anything out of compliance. But I would be looking to our economic development department for some direction on on things that that we would like to make available as an incentive to encourage businesses to come in and create jobs and, and housing that that caters to them and creates that, maybe that live, work, feel walkability, things like that. So while I know that's a longer discussion to be had and not things that we can necessarily put in place, and I understand it's important to go ahead and protect those things that we do want to have in place and make those decisions today. I certainly would hate for someone, a business developer, to miss out on an opportunity to work with the city, to together, to partner and create something really fantastic, not knowing that this is something that's important to all of us and that we would be willing to do. So. I just wanted to put that out there as well. Thank you. Commissioner Tong. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I, I want to go back to that lead versus green code issue, because I know the staff is looking for, I guess, answers from the commission and the council about whether we would do like the options. Right, whether we adopt a green code, adopt the lead or do you know, this temporary and do the other later? My question is I, I agree with Commissioner Ali that we don't want to create a vacuum that the when the developer companies don't know what to do. Right. But on the other side I also want the staffs maybe help us evaluate if we adopted the lead certification right now and change it to the green code, maybe three months, six months down the road. Would that create a lot of, I guess. Cost related changes to the developers? I mean, we're city are friendly to the developers, to the communities, and we don't want to say, hey, we want you to do all these documentation to meet the Leed certification right now. But six months later, you have to all do all different processes for another set of things. So I'm not familiar with the differences between these two. So maybe the staff can help us evaluate that. Sure. The information I was able to find online indicated that it was less than 1% impact to the project to do the Leed certification. So if that gives you a little understanding just at the base level, which is what we were recommending, I also think that Mr. Motta's recommendation was to give people flexibility. So I don't know that it would be, in my opinion, too much disruption to allow lead now and then give the option of Leed or green code in the future, because the green code, they would still have the option to stay with Leed. So it just essentially gives people more options in the future when we can are prepared to go down that path. Okay. Thank you chairman. Thank you, mayor, just to kind of try to get some conclusion for the staff, I think at least what I'm thinking and what I believe I'm hearing from the commission is that we would like the commission would like to see a standard put in place before September 1st, and obviously the only standard that really can be implemented that quickly would be Leed. I presume that would apply to all multifamily development, not just the ones that are subject to Senate Bill 840, but that would be across the board standard for any new multifamily development coming into Plano. While we study an additional option to follow through with that, a little pride of authorship, I believe the rewrite committee is already in place to review these kind of technical issues that we have coming in front of us to rewrite the zoning ordinance. And I guess my recommendation to the council would be to if we could put that on the agenda or on the additional charge for the rewrite committee and see if my co-chair down at the end of the dais agrees with me, because it will be more work for us, but I think that's the appropriate forum for that, if that's agreeable. Thank you. Appreciate it, Commissioner Bronsky. I'll let you go. So yes, I do. I completely agree with that. I definitely think that that should move forward. One thing I'd like us, I'd like us to think about as we're looking at leads is I have a small concern as it relates to the gathering. The data for multifamily. In possibly hindering some of the accuracy of the assessments for real world performance in multifamily versus what we would normally see a lead standard being applied in in other areas. And one of the things that so I'm in favor of moving forward with leads as we have it here, but I want us to keep in mind as we look at bringing this full leads and green together, that from a little bit of research, I was doing the lead sometimes doesn't prioritize building resiliency. And in areas like we live in, I don't want them to possibly undermine any sustainability for the multifamily housing as a whole. And so I want to make sure that we look at some of those studies as we incorporate that across the multifamily developments. That's all, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, thank you, Commissioner Lolly. I think there is a code, but I'm sorry I didn't have the time to research it. It's the Greenbelt Greenbelt Texas and it is geared for multifamily. It's like it talks about like the energy and also the construction. Mr. Lally, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm so sorry about that. Yeah. So. So I think it's the green build Texas. And it is geared for specifically multifamily. So we can look at that. And I maybe I can do a research and like send it over to you to look at it because it's, you know, like you like it tackle the construction of multifamily because, you know, like especially like the wood. I know that there are different system like construction systems, but basically like how to conserve and the wood and like energy, water and all these. So maybe I can like research it a little bit more and I can send you and I apologize. I didn't have the time to research it. Thank you. Okay. Any other any other questions or comments? On can you go back to that chart that showed the step backs? I might be reading this wrong, but given 840 removes our ability to require a setback and we automatically if we're going to look at step backs and we automatically kind of handcuff to the zero 6150, it does allow up to a 25 foot setback. That's the minimum setback you can have under 40. Gotcha okay. Thank you. Council member care I just want to drive home the comments that were made earlier by Commissioner Bender and Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Holmer. I think we can turn this into an opportunity, and this is a great way for us to get out in front of it and have the kind of developers and developments come into the city. I think this may be opening some doors for us, and I just want to drive that home that this is this could be an opportunity for us. I appreciate it. All right. We appreciate all the comments. I know Christina and Celso Will will work on that and we'll see it at our our next meeting with that. No further business. Planning and zoning and the city Council are adjourned. Thank you very. Okay. And now declare. The Plano City Council is convened into open session and that all council members are present. The council will now recess into Executive Session and Training Room A to hold a closed executive meeting pursuant to the provisions of Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated Government Code, chapter 551. The Open Meetings Act, in accordance with the authority contained in section five, 50, 171, to consult with the attorney to receive legal advice and discuss litigation. And section 551 087 to discuss economic development matters. Thank you. I now declare that the Plano City Council is reconvened in open session, that all members are present. We'll begin tonight's regular meeting with the invocation led by Minister A pledge led by Girl Scout Troop 5916 with Shepard Elementary School. Would you please rise? Thank you. Are you stand behind? Heavenly father, I come to you in the Most high and blessed name of the Lord Jesus Christ, your son, whom you gave to us for the forgiveness of our transgressions. I pray on behalf of all these city officials whom you have seen fit to install in public office. Grant them wisdom to govern safety as they serve and prosperity in their respective roles that you have entrusted to them. I offer this petition to you for your servants. I pray that you would give them the wisdom of King Solomon, the courage of King David, and the love of the Lord Jesus Christ as they serve the citizens of the great city of Plano. I pray likewise for those who serve along each of these council members. I also pray for other public servants here in the city of Plano, like the police chief and the fire chief. Finally, I pray for all those who are in attendance here at this meeting this evening. Grant them all lives that align with the dictates of your Holy Word in all ways. Cause their aspirations agendas and actions as public servants and citizens of Plano to bring glory to your great and holy name. In Proverbs 14 and verse 34, you tell us, righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. Cause your servants here in Plano to pursue righteousness in all of their political endeavors. Give them minds and hearts to practice civility and how they communicate and interact with each other and their constituents. Grant that their meeting. Be productive, respectful, and solution oriented. I offer this prayer to you on behalf of your servants, in the blessed name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen. Okay, girls, come on up. There you. Go. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee. Texas. One state under God, one and indivisible. Be seated. You remember. I do remember you. You go to Shepherd. Yeah, I do too. Do you know Miss Diamond? Yeah. Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Okay. Can I take two? Well, then what happens if I run out? Oh. You got. Okay. You did get two. Okay. Would you guys take a picture with me? Yeah. Okay. Okay, here we go. Turn around. Perfect. You can. Perfect. Okay. Hey. We're going to. We're going to return back to cover a couple of items in the preliminary open meeting. First item is the on the preliminary agenda is consideration action resulting from the executive session. The next item is personnel. Reappointments. The first one is the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee. I'm looking for my. So that's deputy Mayor pro tem and council member Lavon. Do you. Okay. Go ahead. My wording is here, but we have two vacancies, including a veterinarian. So if there's any veterinarians out there that would like to serve on the animal advisory, we'd like to announce that there's two vacancies. Okay. Ready to make a motion? Sure. Are you going to reappoint Mr. Sullivan? Oh, I'm so sorry. Yeah. Yes. Of course, of course. We want to reappoint Mr. John Sullivan. Yes. Okay. You good? Okay. Julie. Is that a motion? That is a motion. Okay. Okay. So I have a motion and a second to. To reappoint John Sullivan. And they will have. How many and two openings when we reappoint our commission. I have a motion and a second. Are we going to do a hand? Okay. All in favor, raise your hand. Motion passes 8 to 0. Thank you. The next item is the Plano Improvement Corporation board. Reappointments. So we have. City Manager Mark Israelson and standing director Denise Tacky. And this will be to appoint Jack Carr as a appointed director. So I'll make a motion to appoint Jack Carr to the Plano Improvement Corporation board. I'll second. Thank you. So I have a motion and a second to appoint Jack Carr to the Plano Improvement Corporation board. All in favor? Raise your hand. Motion passes 8 to 0. Thank you. Next item is the consent and regular agendas. Does any council member like to remove an item? Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Council member downs. Go ahead. It's there it is. Item number L from the consent agenda. Okay. And mayor staff will also be pulling item I off of the agenda tonight. Okay. So we're pulling item L and item I. Okay. Let's move on back to the regular agenda to comments of public interest. Council comments of public interest. This portion of the meeting is to allow up to three minutes per speaker, with 30 total minutes on items of interest or concern, and not on items that are on the agenda. The council may not discuss these items, but may respond with factual or policy information. The council may choose to place the item on a future agenda, and we do have nine speakers this evening. So the first one is for Rita Quadri. For Rita Quadri. The second one is John Florio. I'm at the age where I hate to admit that I need these, but I do. I wanted to start off with thanking the council for the action they took a few months ago regarding banning short term rentals in single family neighborhoods. What I want to talk about today is not that, but a zoning law that we have on the books regarding boarding and rooming houses in single family neighborhoods. I live next to one of those, so it's basically turned our formerly our formerly quiet cul de sac. Into what's basically become a glorified apartment complex. It to me, that's exactly what it is. Here's an ad. They're they're not hiding the fact that they are using this property to rent out nine rooms. In violation of this code. So some of the issues with these type of establishments, and we've seen some with the with the STR drugs and other illegal activity, and in some cases unfortunately that's involved or involved shootings or other violence. A lot of comings and goings and disturbances, especially at night. And I have witnessed that in our neighborhood, excessive trash, which seems petty. However, I have found trash from that house in our trash bin. And the reason this is a big deal is if there's a crime committed. The authorities are known for looking in the trash to find evidence. They will stop at nothing. And if they find something like that in my trash, I'm going to have some explaining to do. And I had nothing to do with it. I'm just minding my own business, really. One of the big things that gets overlooked is parking violations. The street looks like a used car lot blocking fire hydrants, sidewalks, mailboxes. But the bigger issue is emergency vehicles. If an emergency vehicle needs to respond to any of the houses on our side of the street, they're going to have a harder time getting in there. I live with my mom, lives with us, and every day I wonder, is this the day I have to call emergency services? And you know, I just hope that there's not an issue with them trying to reach our house. So I have reported this to the property standards several times, along with my other neighbors, which several of them are here today, and we have not gotten any action at all, which is one of the reasons I'm here. Escalating this to the city Council. So the answers I've received is, well, you know, property rights. Well, what about the property rights? It seems like we're more concerned about the property rights of this owner. But what about the other 15 people that live on the street? Our property values are diminished because of that. So basically that's one of the roles of government is and why zoning laws are created is to manage rights. So we have commercial and multifamily zoning. People that want to buy or build an establishment like this can apply for a permit and a commercial or multifamily zoned Mister. Do this. I appreciate that your time is up. Thank you, thank you. Jessica Saxton. Good evening. My name is Jessica Saxton. I'm a civil rights advocate and litigator from Washington, DC. I'm here to provide public notice to you. This is in accordance with USC's Rules of civil Procedure, as well as rule 17 and rule 20 of the United States Supreme Court. The Constitution of the United States of America is the overarching requirements that every state must follow. I don't think anyone here will disagree with that. States cannot enact their own alternative legislation is substituted for the guarantees of the Constitution. That would mean that your state laws are, in fact more powerful than the Constitution, and that is unconstitutional. Clause one of amendment five states that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment, by indictment, or grand jury. However, the State of Texas, unfortunately, has enacted its own alternative legislation that permits prosecuting attorney and police officers to charge by way of information as opposed to indictment that is unconstitutional. And emolument violation is when you pay a public official to commit a crime. There are two areas of the Constitution that enforces this. The first is article one, section ten, where it states that no state shall create any law that shall impair the obligation of contract. So police officers, your prosecutors, your judges, they're all under a contract, a contract to perform based on the oath or affirmation that they took. The contract perimeters are, in fact, defined within the Constitution of the United States. So when an act, a state enacts its own law and directs their agents to disobey that law, that is unconstitutional. The 14th amendment is the other area where you find the reinforcement of this, and that states that no state shall create or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of United States citizens, privileges and immunities of United States citizens are, at a minimum, those that are enumerated in the Bill of rights and the first ten amendments. The State of Texas, again unfortunately has enacted a law that is in its inferior constitution that is permitting public officials and law enforcement whom you all pay to violate the Constitution of the United States. As a result, there's an inordinate amount of people in prison unconstitutionally and illegally here in the state of Texas. Mr. Tanner is preparing to litigate this at the United States Supreme Court on behalf of more than 700,000 people currently in prison here in America, unconstitutionally and unlawfully. I'm here today to notify you that if you continue to pay public officials to break the law, that criminal sanctions can come from, that. We don't want that. We don't believe that that, that that's the path that anyone wants to go. Nonetheless, officials must be made aware that paying people to disobey the law is an emolument violation. It is illegal, it is unconstitutional, and it is a crime. I'm asking you honorable individuals today, please take a look at clause one, amendment five, confirm what I'm saying to be true, and direct your public officials to act in a lawful constitutional manner, consistent with the obligations that are codified in the Constitution of the United States. I do have a notice that I would like to put on the record. Thank you so much. The next speaker is Tanya Downing. Good evening. My name is Tanya Downing. I'm the civil rights litigator that Miss Saxon was just talking about. I want to provide just a little bit of clarification so that we can understand what it is that just happened. So if the public officials, your law enforcement, if they're going out and they're relying upon an inferior state statute, state of Texas statute that permits them to charge by way of information, not indictment, that is illegal, that is unconstitutional because the Constitution requires the indictment by a grand jury. So now there's a crime called deprivation of rights under color of law, title 18, subsection 2.2. What that states is that any person who, under the color of any state statute, ordinance or regulation, deprive any person of any right secured by the Constitution commits that crime. So this is a per se crime, which means that we don't have to prove that they intended to breach their obligations simply by virtue of the breach. All elements of crime have been met because their willfulness and knowledge derives from the promise they make. When you make a promise that you will fulfill a future outcome, you must fulfill that. And if you don't, then you've already implicitly invited punishment in the form of perjury should you fail to fulfill the promise. We're not here to get anybody into trouble. That's not what this is about. This is about bringing awareness to an issue that really needs to be changed. But when that law enforcement officer then arrests, the individual unconstitutionally takes it to a judicial officer and ask that judge to hold the person over for that offense. That judge also has a duty and responsibility to make sure the power that he exercises is consistent with his constitutional obligations. So when he chooses to conspire by him between the officer, now you have another crime. It's called conspiracy to deprive of rights. That's title 18, subsection two. For one, these two crimes composed results in a, in a, in a judgment or an outcome that is wholly and factually unconstitutional because it derives from that unconstitutional arrest. Now, I know that you guys are going to go to your city attorney after this. You're going to ask them, is this true? Is what he's saying real? And that city attorney is going to say to you, well, no, not really. And they're going to point to a case from 1884 called Hurtado versus California, from the United States Supreme Court. And before you guys choose to rely upon that as the foundation, I want to remind you that the Constitution of the United States of America is the foundation, not a judge made ruling. The Supreme Court of the United States has no constituted authority to be able to alter, amend, or destroy any of the provisions or guarantees Constitution, because it must be done by an authentic act of people, in accordance with the special amending procedure of article five. Any other way would be an unconstitutional act. Furthermore, judges have no authority to be able to legislate. We all know that, right? That's because the separation of powers defined within the Constitution. United States Clause one, article one says all legislative power is vested in a Congress of the United States, consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives. So let me be clear. I'm not trying to change the laws. Rather, I'm pointing out what the law state and that the ways in which they're being enforced directly contradict with what is specified. Therefore, I'm not trying to change the laws. Rather, I'm asking that we uphold them. If the laws state that something will be done in a certain way, we must follow that way. Laws do not change arbitrarily. That is tyranny. Constitutionalism demands that the laws evolve only through suffrage. Therefore, it's up to the people to decide whether or not the Constitution applies to them and not a judge or a state. Thank you guys so much. God bless. Thank you. Gregory Knapp. The next speaker. Mr. Knapp, we'll move on to the next one, who will be joining us via zoom. Others go ahead, Miss Harter. Good evening. Council members and attendees, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Heather Harter, and I'm a resident of Plano. I'm a graduate social work student who's doing my internship at Plano ISD. And during my time there this past year, I noticed a growing need among the students for sufficient nutrition. While Plano is often seen as a prosperous city, the reality is that over 130,000 people in Collin County are food insecure, including thousands of families right here in Plano at Elm Meadows Elementary, a school in Plano ISD. Staff have shared that during school breaks like summer and spring break, they've gone from feeding 10 or 15 families a day to over 100 families daily. This highlights one of the most urgent gaps in service in Plano, which is children who depend on school meals often go hungry during weekends, holidays and summer summer months. Programs like Lovepacs do important work to fill those gaps, but they simply can't keep up with the need. The. We also see geographic disparities across the city. East Plano and older neighborhoods often have fewer food pantries, and public transportation remains a major barrier for residents to access basic groceries. The North Texas Food Bank and its partners are doing all they can, but they need stronger support. I urge the city to increase funding and support for the North Texas Food Bank, especially in areas with the highest need. Create or expand mobile food pantries in underserved neighborhoods and help raise awareness of families know where they can turn to when they need help. Let's ensure no child in Plano goes hungry because school is closed and that every neighborhood has access to fresh, healthy food. Thank you for your time. Thank you. The next speaker is Angel Riboli. Hello, my name is Angel Ribo. I'm a student at Plano West Senior High School. I would like to preface this. Preface this by saying that I know this is very far from the usual budgets or legal technicalities that are discussed here, but in front of me I see 11 people, and all of those people have the power to do something about this and help fix an issue that has been plaguing our community. In November of 2023, Plano ISD school Board and Superintendent Teresa Williams overturned 98% of the internal reviews done by Pisd librarians, English teachers and other educators to ban books from Pisd libraries. This decision was a response to cries to ban literature with mature themes, initiated by a group of Plano residents from the organization Citizens Defending Freedom. Despite having zero reason to meddle in the affairs of a school system that their children do not attend in a city that they do not live in. A group with clear, arbitrary religious motivations, which is dedicated to educating the American citizen on the value of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Influenced Pisd to make a decision that continues to impact students in Plano today. Since then, novels like The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison, a narrative on the toxicity of social societal beauty standards and anti-Black racism have been taken off of the shelves with no input from the community. While I do agree with the effort to restrict access to pornographic material, considering the legislature that is already in place to protect children from that, these novels are far from gratuitous. Instead, alleged sexual themes have been utilized as a tool to systematically dispose of texts that cover the uncomfortable topic of confronting the violence that has been perpetrated against black indigenous queer Asian and Latin communities, not only in Plano but throughout the world. The truth is that discomfort should never become a reason to run from these truths. Our schools should be spaces where students are trusted with the complexity of issues in the world, arbitrarily shielding them from stories that confront systemic injustice does not protect them. It disarms them. When students engage with literature that reflects real world pain, stories like the ones that Toni Morrison shares, they are able to become not only more informed advocates, but also proper citizens of the world around them, citizens that understand how the world works, what goes into it, and what we should do to make it a better place for everybody. This is not a cause for the defense of one specific novel, but against the decisions that were made in November of 2023 that were ignored. We should not let one arbitrary decision made in the face of pressure from a group who does not represent the feelings of students and educators in our city, to continue to erase texts that are central in educating students to be better people in the future. Do not overlook this arbitrary incident that led to the banning of over 50 books. We should take them back to the board, revise this, and reevaluate whether or not these books should even have been banned in the first place. Thank you so much. Thank you. The next speaker is Risha Vemireddy. Hello city council. My name is Rishabh Amoretti and I am a rising senior at Plano West Senior High School. I've lived in Plano my entire life, have gone to Plano schools for 12 years. I'm an avid member of the community, holding leadership roles in many nonprofits. And as a Plano citizen, I have to say that I'm deeply concerned about what is happening in Plano school system. Let me preface by saying that reading is a foundational skill critical to learning future, to learning future things and exercising our democratic freedoms. Democracy is not a static institution. It is a living system that requires constant nourishment from its citizens. Education is critical. Unfortunately, Plano ISD recently banned over 60 books because they clashed with the evangelical values of a group of Plano residents titled Citizens Defending Freedom. These concessions proved to be detrimental, as students across Plano ISD are witnessing the deconstruction and oversimplification of real world issues, from race based issues to discussion about gender expression. These groups have single handedly decked the inclusivity of classrooms within Plano. What community leaders continue to overlook are that books are a tool for understanding complex issues. Over 48% of Plano is made up of minorities from Asian, Latino, African American and other backgrounds. Over 28% of Plano houses foreign born residents. When books like Homegoing by Yagazie, one of the 72 books banned without a debate by Plano ISD, disappear from classrooms, it invalidates the lived experiences of many minorities whose identities have been deemed too inappropriate to be allowed in their own classrooms. When in my American Studies class, certain topics were censored by people who had no way to relate to the struggles of me and my peers, I began to realize that this issue has complex implications beyond the classroom. Young people deserve to see themselves reflected in their community library. It's not just about protecting books. It's a question of protecting culture and identity. Keeping the rich history of Plano alive. Without adequate representation in the classroom, we lose connection with the very people who make up the city in which this very body is built to represent, because the district has proven that they do not regard our concerns. We come to you. So today we ask that you consider all of the impacts these bans have, have and approach literary restrictions with more concrete and widely accepted procedures. The district should allow educational professionals to determine which books should appear in schools, and for parents to limit their own children's intake with their own discretion. The impacts of these book bans are far reaching and need to be urgently addressed. There is a saying that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Protecting the rights of students and teachers to read books that they love not only protects our ideals of democracy, community, connection, and education, but it also ensures that we expand our viewpoints. Please put pressure on Plano ISD to reverse this ban and take a less restrictive approach. We urge not just the City council, but parents, teachers and community leaders to rise up and protect the future of your children. Thank you so much. Thank you for your time. The next speaker is Advaita. Sorry. Are you Laurie? Okay if I put something to display? Yes. Okay. Okay, okay. My name is Advaita and I'm a rising senior at Plano West High School. I've attended Pisd schools for the past 12 years and have lived in Plano my entire life. Throughout that time I remained. I've remained actively involved in the community, serving as Boy Scouts, troop leader, and organizing volunteer events. Because of this deep connection, I feel like I am deeply qualified to talk about the blatant abuses and censorship we see in Plano School District. Book bans violate critical rights outlined in our Constitution, specifically the First and 14th Amendments. The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech and the freedom to receive information when school officials remove books based on disagreement with their content, particularly those addressing race, gender identity, or sexuality, they engage in viewpoint discrimination, which the Supreme Court has explicitly forbidden. In Rosenberger v University of Virginia in 1995. In the Board of Education versus Pico in 1982, the court affirmed that students have a constitutional right to access ideas in school libraries, and that books cannot be removed simply because officials dislike their message. Book bans also raise serious 14th Amendment concerns, particularly under the Equal Rights Protection Clause, when they disproportionately target books about historically marginalized groups such as LGBTQ plus individuals or people of color. Such selective censorship can constitute discrimination and violence of constitutional guarantees of equal treatment under the law. In some book, bans not only suppress ideas but also undermine core constitutional protections threatening students rights to think freely and learn broadly. Moreover, the implementation of these bans was not a democratic or popular decision. My friends have already talked about how these citizens defending Freedom, whose members do not even attend Plano schools or live in the area, bombarded the Plano ISD school board. They persuaded the board to blindly ban 72 books without any formal review process, community input, or external consideration of any sort. This is not about whether you support Christian values or not. This is about whether we are willing to protect our public education system from interference by bad faith political groups. If we make it this easy to infringe upon our First and 14th amendment rights, we set a dangerous precedent for broader government overreach in our daily lives. This is not a hypothetical. This is not a hypothetical. This is a reality. There was a recent push to pass House Bill 1375, a bill that would censor content sold in bookstores not just for schools, but for any citizen. This is clearly not about protecting children or upholding values. It is about whether those in power should be allowed to control what you can and can't see. 20s we should reevaluate the sweeping bans with the help of city council, and put more pressure on Plano school districts to take more action against censorship in these schools. Thank you so much for hearing me out today. Thank you. Okay, moving on to consent agenda. Lisa, I see one speaker here. It's for number three that. Oh, okay. Gotcha. I just want to make sure we did. We didn't miss that okay. The consent agenda, the consent agenda will be acted upon in one motion and contains items which are routine and typically noncontroversial. Items may be removed from this agenda for individual discussion by a council member, the city manager, or any citizen. The presiding officer will establish time limits based upon the number of speaker requests. Mr. Mayor, I move. We approve the consent agenda. With the exception of items I and L to be pulled for individual consideration. I second. Okay. Thank you. I have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda. With the exception of item L and I which have been pulled. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. Item I. Just one second. Okay. Mayor and Council, we're withdrawing. Item I, the property acquisition that we had, the partner rescinded their offer to us. So at this point we do not have an item to consider. So we're just withdrawing item I okay. You're free to the mics on but I just need somebody to. Oh motion to approve. Motion to approve. Item I. Motion to approve item I. No. No withdraw withdraw. Item I, I second the motion to withdraw item I okay. So I have a motion. And second to withdraw item I. Just one second okay. Up there. My bad. Just if you would just raise your hand on that one. All in favor. Okay. Motion passes 8 to 0. The other item is item L. To approve the naming of a park located at the northwest intersection of Alma Drive and Park Boulevard to Ravenglass Park Council member downs. Oh, gotcha. Thank you, mayor and city Council. Thank you for indulging me by asking that this be removed from the agenda for individual consideration. So having served on the park naming subcommittee for this, I'm very committed to the name that we picked. We did a great job with Mister Smith helping us with that, but I wanted to make sure that we understood the importance of one of the names that was on that list, and that was a name to honor the mayor's father and mother for their service to Plano over all of the decades. And so I just wanted to make sure that we kept that in mind as council, that if future naming opportunities were to arise for another building or facility, that we don't forget to maybe consider that name in the future. Thank you. That was a motion to approve item L. I'll second. So I have a motion and a second to approve item L. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. Thank you. Next item is items for individual consideration. Items for individual consideration. Public hearing items. Applicants are limited to 15 minutes presentation time with a five minute rebuttal if needed. Remaining speakers are limited to 30 total minutes of testimony time, with three minutes assigned per speaker. The presiding officer may amend these times as deemed necessary. Non public hearing items. The Presiding Officer will permit public comment for items on the agenda not posted for a public hearing. The Presiding Officer will establish time limits based upon the number of speaker requests, length of the agenda and to ensure meeting efficiency, and may include a cumulative time limit. Speakers will be called in the order the requests are received until the cumulative time is exhausted. Item number one public hearing and consideration of an ordinance as requested in Zoning Case 2020 5-005 to amend article six specific use Permits and Certificates of Occupancy and article eight definitions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City Ordinance Number 2015. Dash 5-2, as heretofore amended, to provide procedural procedures for the denial and revocation of certificates of occupancy by the city's building official. Providing a penalty clause, a repealer clause, a savings clause, a severability clause, a publication clause, and an effective date. Good evening, mayor, council and executives. I am presenting briefly Christina Day, the director of Planning, here to talk about zoning case 2025 005. This is a text amendment related to certificates of occupancy. So the City Council directed staff to make some amendments to the zoning ordinance regarding certificates of occupancy. Those changes were drafted, and the Planning and Zoning Commission called a public hearing to initiate these amendments to the zoning ordinance. So what happens today with regard to certificate of occupancy, which also known as Co revocation, that is allowed under the building code. However, the building code dictates standards related to the building code. As you might expect, it does allow revocation for other codes, but those procedures are not outlined. So to clarify the process for this and be compliant with state law, we're looking at adding language to the city's zoning ordinance that details how a Co revocation process would work related to a zoning use. So with that, the comprehensive plan does support this through both the guiding principles and the land use policy action one. We didn't receive any public feedback on this zoning case, and the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval by a vote of 7 to 0. The ordinance proposed is in your packet, and I'm available for questions you might have on this item. Thank you. Do you have any questions for staff on this? I'll open the public hearing. Do we have any speakers on this? There are no speakers on this item. I'll close the public hearing. Confine the comments to the council. Mr. Mayor, I move. We approve. Item one. I second have a motion and a second to approve agenda item number one. Please vote. Everybody vote. Oh, okay. My apologies. Okay. Motion passes 7 to 0. Thank you. Next item. Item number two. Public hearing and consideration of an Ordinance to amend City of Plano. Ordinance number 25, dash 614, codified as article two, building Code of chapter six of the Code of Ordinances. Revising the procedures for Issuance and Revocation of Certificates of Occupancy. Providing a repealer clause, a severability clause, a savings clause, a penalty clause, a publication clause, and an effective date. Good evening Council. My name is salsa Mata. I'm building official item number two is a companion item to agenda item number one. The purpose of this agenda item is to amend the building code to align with the zoning ordinance regarding procedures for the denial and revocation of certificates of occupancy by the city's building official. This went to the Building Standards Commission at the public hearing during their meeting on July 15th, 2025. It was unanimously approved and they recommend this for approval to City Council. And I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you. So any questions for Celso? Thank you sir. I'll open the public hearing. Any speakers? There are no speakers on this item. I'll close the public hearing and confine the comments to the council. Mister mayor, I move that we accept item number two. Motion to approve. Please. I'll second the motion. Thank you. I have a motion and a second to approve. Item number two. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. Thank you very much. Next item. Item number three. Public hearing and consideration of a resolution to adopt the 2025 2026 Action Plan, including the Summary of Community Development Block Grant and Home Investment Partnership programs, activities and proposed use of funds for the program year 2025 2026 and providing an effective date. Good evening, mayor Council Curtis Howard, Director of Neighborhood Services. And we are here to talk about HUD funding. I've talked to you a little bit about this process before, but back in April, one of the things that I did, I presented to council our five year consolidated plan. One of the things that HUD requires is that that those entities receiving federal funding through HUD, that that we come up with a consolidated plan, kind of gives what we want to use that money for over the next five years. And then every year we do an action plan. And so what this is, is this is our action plan. So just a little bit of history. We've had CDBG block grant funds, community Development Block Grant funding since 1985 and also home funding since 2003. And those are the two funds that we're going to be talking about. Just for refresher, CDBG funding gives us a kind of a more wide ability to use that for various things here in the community than home funding does, but we are limited. We've got three buckets for each one of these funds. So 65% can be used for various eligible activities, including housing rehabilitation various public facility construction, site improvements, infrastructure improvements and that sort of thing. And then 15% can be used for social services, kind of that that kind of what you think that it's going to be used for to help people individually that are, that are experiencing homelessness and that sort of thing. And then 20% can be used for administrative purposes. And we'll talk about that in just a moment. Home, kind of same sort of thing. We've got three buckets. 75% can be used for eligible activities. And this is going to be for putting people into homes. And so that's going to be the construction aspect of that. 15% can be used for chodos community housing development organizations, and then 10% of that can be used for the administrative purposes for home funding. And just a little bit about administrative purposes, of course, that has to do with the business as aspect of fund disbursement. How are we going to use those, the personnel needed to use it audits, that sort of thing. So that's kind of the overall process here. As I said, we've this has to do with our consolidated plan. One of the things that that we have to do is, is do a our action plan, and that is what we are here to do today. Part of that is going to be to discuss the results of the CRC committee. The Community Resource Committee, which went, went ahead and went through a process. And that process is that we have nonprofits that apply to the city of Plano for these this funding. Those nonprofits submit an application that's vetted through staff that goes to the CRC. April is a big month for CRC, where two nights a week they go through. They have the nonprofits come in, give a presentation as to what they want and what they're going to use that money for. The CRC then meets and then comes up with a distribution allocation of that money. And that's one of the things that we are presenting here today. So the funding that we got this year, if you look CDBG was about 1.6 million, a little bit more than that, a little bit more than we got last year. Home funding was 558,000. And again, we got a little bit more home funding this year and CDBG funding this year than we had in previous years. And so the recommendations that that came out of all the work, all that hard work the CRC did has basically two buckets. There's going to be nonpublic service recommendation program recommendations. So agape, an example of what agape is doing is they're taking one of their offices and they are making those office suites into, into kind of townhomes for women who need shelter. Catholic Charities, City of Plano, they're going to be providing our tenant based rental assistance program, housing channel. They do they they build homes then for folks. And then we have our own program. The own program is one of the things that we do is we do rehabilitation through the city of Plano. And that's going to be for usually larger projects. When you talk about that kind of foundation work, roof work, sewer lines or cast iron pipes that need to be replaced, that's going to be the kind of those large projects. But we also have an emergency repair program for kind of smaller projects, and that's going to be for, you know, the elderly lady whose air conditioning goes out in the middle of summer. So we have funding to help those residents here in Plano. And then the public service programs. Again, this is going to be more of the social services type program that we have. You know, city House is for young adults, 18 to 21 who need transitional housing, case management, those sorts of that sort of support to try and get them back on their feet. Assistance Center of Collin County to provide support to people who are homeless. The Samaritan, and provides support to families and individuals who, again, who are homeless and looking for kind of that case management, that social service aspect. And then we have a Texas Muslim Women's Foundation, and they are a domestic violence shelter that helps women and children who are trying to get away from abusers and need a safe place to stay. And so that provides communities kind of a community safety aspect. And so those are the, the, the various nonprofits that are that the CRC has recommended that we fund and what the allocations are set out in, in the memo there. And so one of the things that just to let you know is, is, you know, these these organizations have been vetted when they get this funding from us, it's a reimbursement process. So they have to send in the receipts. So we get a chance to look and make sure that they are doing what they say they are doing, and that it meets the requirements of our action plan and our consolidated plan. And so I think the last thing I have, I think in the resolution itself, one of the things that we did, we have a typo in there. We have Texas Muslim Women's Foundation listed twice. It should only be listed once. And so I would ask, when you approve this, that you amend it to reflect that change. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. All right. Thank you. Any questions for mayor, mayor and council, you have an amended resolution in front of yourself at the desk. That is a clean version of that resolution. Okay. Thank you. All right. Oh. Mr. Levine. Question the all of the services that you've outlined from each of these various different. Offers are available to all residents of the Plano who need those services. Yes, those that qualify for those services. Yes, sir. So that residents, they're not restricted by race, religion or any other aspect? That is correct. They are not. All right. I'll open the public hearing. Do we have any speakers? We do. We have ten total. The first one is Muhammad Saeed. Muhammad Saeed. We'll move to David Kelly. David Kelly. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. My name is David Kelly and I'm a board member of the Texas Muslim Women's Foundation. I just want to make it clear what that organization does and who it serves. So to your point, Councilman, the Texas Muslim Women's Foundation is a domestic violence charity that houses women of all faiths, all creeds, all colors, all nations. And we do not discriminate. In fact, the majority of the people that we serve are not Muslim. This is a domestic violence charity that provides shelters almost exclusively in the city of Plano. These are emergency shelters for women fleeing abuse. They also provide rental assistance. They also provide senior and elderly care. There have been some statements made online that are bigoted, and I'm here to stand up against those bigoted, hateful statements and to encourage you to look at what the organization does and not what it does not do. What it does is serve women who are escaping violence. What it does not do is anything else. Thank you very much. Thank you. Amy Beecham. Good evening, Mayor Muns and city council members. I stand before you today. My name is Amy Beecham, by the way. I've been a Plano resident for 28 years and a true Texan 59 years. And I stand before you today to oppose the proposed $37,000 to the Texas Muslim Women's Foundation. This is not merely a financial transaction. It's a profound betrayal of our community's trust and values. Information indicates that Texas Muslim Women's Foundation has alleged ties to the Hamas sympathizers, anti-Semites, and radical Islam. This is unacceptable. We've already seen $1.2 million of taxpayer money funneled to groups like epic and IMC, also described as having terror ties. This pattern must end. Your responsibility is to Plano, not to organizations with such disturbing affiliations. We need you to listen. We need accountability. Not one penny to extremist, not one inch to Sharia supremist not one compromise on Texas values. Please reject this motion. Protect our city and protect our future. Thank you. Pamela Sato. Honorable Mayor and City Council members, thank you for your dedication to the community as you consider the important issues before you today, I respectfully urge caution and adherence to your legal duties regarding the allocation of Municipal Taxpayer Funds. This is a serious Texas constitutional issue confirmed by guidance from attorneys including Texas Municipal League Ethics Division. Are you aware that you can contact TML at any time? I urge you to do so. No offense to the attorney, of course. Please delay or decline any decision on the funds in table seven on page 376 of the PDF, which makes donations of public funds as described in the action plan between pages 331 and 338 and 376 forward. It describes, under project heading a P 35, project 91.2 20D of the PDF in the agenda. Please adhere to the Texas Constitution and case law. Judicial precedents affecting this item. First, the Texas Constitution, article 16, section 50, strictly prohibits lending the credit of the state. This applies to the city. Second, article three, section 52 forbids the legislature, and by extension, city councils, from authorizing the lending of credit or granting public money to individuals, associations, or groups without clear, enforceable at large public use. Third, please note the presenter speaker before me mentioned must be qualified. I repeat, must be qualified. That is not an at large public benefit. Public money from the taxpayers, comprised of all races, creeds and religions or even atheists, must serve an at large public purpose benefiting the entire community like a park, not a particular group. And one of the items in table seven. Did you see the report indicating the request for almost $37,000? And the data in the table indicates a benefit to 32 people. Do the math. That's $1,125 per person. Is that the best use of taxpayer funds? Fourth, you all are responsible for safeguarding taxpayer funds at all costs, all the time. There's no discretion to use the funds as charitable donations to entities without a broad public purpose. Case law in Brazoria County versus Perry. Edgewood ISD versus Mena and Byrd versus City of Dallas, Texas court struck down the expenditures. I do want you to thank you for that. 13 seconds left. Okay. You have a clear and enforceable. Do you have a clear and enforceable process to retrieve the funds if the recipients fail to carry out large public, at large services? Are you aware the law requires the cities to oversee and have controls regarding any such disbursement? You're supposed to supervise those funds and you're supposed to get them back if they don't go where they belong. So also your decisions are subject to judicial review. Thank you for your time and attention. I appreciate everything you do. This is a difficult decision. I hope you make the right one and delay it. The next speaker is Farrell Burke. Good evening, mayor. Distinguished council members, thank you for letting me speak today. My name is Farrell Burke, and while I serve on the senior advisory board for the city of Plano, I'm speaking here today in my personal capacity, I've been a proud resident of the city of Plano. My daughter attended Plano schools, and I tried to volunteer my time to the city as much as I can because this is my home. I also serve on the board of directors of Texas Muslim Women's Foundation. I'd like to make clear today that TMF serves the entire community. It is well respected across the metroplex for its work, and it is committed to serving people, mostly women and children, who need help. It is subject to federal and other audits, and has always had a clean audit for the many years of its. For the last 20 years of its existence. I would also like to thank the city for the support you give us. It saddens me to think that a clarion call from outside, outside our city that is steeped in misinformation can motivate my fellow citizens to express some of the anger I have seen today. I truly hope that sanity will prevail, and that we can come together to see that there is more in common amongst our various communities, and that we can make Plano a much better place if we come together. Rather than allow misinformation. Misinformation to drive us apart. Thank you again for giving me this time. Gregory Knapp. Still not here Elizabeth Nangle. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Elizabeth Nangle and I am a Plano resident here to speak on agenda item three, the proposed resolution to amend the home ARP Allocation Plan. I want to focus specifically on the proposed allocation of public funds. $36,983 to the Texas Muslim Women's Foundation. While I support a broader goal of aiding the vulnerable populations, I strongly urge the council to reconsider awarding federal dollars to an organization with deeply divisive cultural and ideological affiliations that may not represent the shared values of the broader Plano community. My concern that this is my concern is not that this is a religious nonprofit. Faith based groups have long provided meaningful support to our community, but in this case, there are credible concerns about a lack of transparency, ideological programing, and a narrow cultural lens that may not serve all of our residents equally. Plano's limited Arpa funds should be directed toward organizations with a track record of broad, inclusive, nonsectarian service delivery, especially when dealing with domestic violence and transitional housing. Furthermore, in a time of rising antisemitism and growing polarization, public trust depends on the city remaining completely neutral in religious or political matters. Using federal dollars to support any group that appears politically or religiously aligned, even indirectly, risks damaging that neutrality. There are other well established, effective local organizations already in place, such as Turning Point or City House, that serve all the women and families in crisis with transparency and inclusivity. I respectfully urge you to strike the Texas Muslim Women's Foundation from tonight's resolution and allocate those funds to agencies with a more unifying and clearly neutral footprint. Thank you for your time. Morgan Collier. Morgan Collier. Good evening. Sorry I'm short. The United States Constitution secures each of us the individual right to exercise freedom of religion. That is the freedom to practice or not practice. To believe or not believe how we see fit. As long as our behaviors do not impact others, secured rights to the same. However, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Any theological or philosophical system that levies a death penalty upon those who abandon it, refuse to adhere to it, or speak out against it, is inherently incompatible with everything it means to be an American. Explicitly and implicitly. This death penalty has been unanimously agreed upon by all the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence. What does that mean for a woman who is seeking protection and shelter from a domestically violent man who justifies his violence against his wife or daughters as, quote, religious freedom? When she goes to an organization that is founded and adheres to those same purported freedoms. I can tell you what it means because one of our association's cases is one of those women, a woman who has been abused in every imaginable way, whose ex-husband has manipulated the Texas court system, has custody of their two teenage daughters and routinely abuses them and threatens to kill them if they leave his so-called religion. The last place these poor women should be seeking protection is an organization founded on Saudi Arabian penal code, otherwise known as foreign law. An unjust act is a behavior that is not justified, such as spreading lies about your neighbor, slander, having an affair with someone else's spouse, cheating, or spending other people's money in a way that isn't yours to authorize theft. And for all unjust acts, there are consequences. Maybe not realized today, but there will be justice spending taxpayer dollars in a way that both contradicts and undermines the Texas Constitution and the U.S. Constitution would not would not only be unjust, it would be a violation of your oath of office to uphold those contracts, because that's what a Constitution is between yourselves and the people you were elected to serve. I ask that you amend the resolution to exclude the Texas Muslim Women's Foundation. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I hope that you act to uphold your oaths. I pray that you put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil, for we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Thank you. For. Mr. Sheffield. Shield of faith. Amen. Jesus Christ. Good evening, Mayor Muns and council members. I'm here to speak against the proposed $37,000 grant to the Texas Muslim Women's Foundation. This group has serious red flags. Its CEO, Monica Field, served on the mayor's advisory board for four years. That relationship alone creates a conflict of interest that was never publicly disclosed. How is this ethical? How is this transparent? Worse, this foundation has a documented history of extremist affiliations. They co-hosted events with Hamas aligned activists. They platformed Omar Suleiman, a radical cleric who was praised convicted terrorists and worked alongside the Muslim American Society, which the U.S. Department of Justice has called the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America. They already received over $11 million in public funds. Has the city of Plano audited that money that was spent? Has anyone here reviewed their counseling programs or public events to ensure they're not promoting ideology, Sharia based norms, or political agendas? Why is this city proposing to fund a religiously affiliated group when ideologically neutral, nonsectarian women's shelters already exist in Collin County? And are all women truly being served by this organization? I am all for protection of women and children and fight for it. Our Texas State Capitol. But regardless of faith? Or is this an implicit preference for Muslims or women ever pressured to conform to religious practices while receiving aid? You're being asked to fund a group with deep ideological entanglements without demanding any transparency in return. Have you reviewed their internal documents like board meeting minutes or speaker lists? Will you require them to disavow radical figures like Suleiman and Samir Abedrabbo? If this funding moves forward, will there be strict legal safeguards prohibiting funds from being used for religious or political programing? And will the city require quarterly reports? Plano deserves accountability and transparency, not quiet grants from groups tied to hate, extremism and religious indoctrination reject this funding, or at the very least, delay the vote and demand a full audit. Thank you. The last speaker is Lee Moore. Thank you. I'm here today not to oppose any particular faith or community organization, but to speak about using taxpayer dollars to fund an organization with religious ties, specifically the 37,000 for the Texas Muslim Women's Foundation. The respectful and valuable work that many faith based groups do in our community is commendable. But using public taxpayer money to support them crosses a constitutional line that we must not and cannot breach. The First Amendment Establishment Clause clause exists for good reason. It protects both religious freedom and the rights of all citizens by ensuring government remains neutral in matters of any faith. When we use taxpayer dollars to fund religious organizations, regardless of their denomination or the secular nature of their services, you force every citizen to financially support religious institutions that may conflict with their own religious beliefs or conscience. This isn't about constitutional theory. This isn't just about constitutional theory. It's about fairness and consistency. If you fund one religious organization today, you must be prepared to fund all religious organizations that provide similar services tomorrow. This creates an impossible situation where government becomes the arbiter of which faiths deserve support, a role it must never play. Moreover. Moreover, religious organizations often claim exemptions from employment practices and reporting requirements that secular nonprofits must follow. This creates unequal standards for public funding recipients, recipients, and undermines accountability to taxpayers. The solution isn't to abandon the communities these organizations serve. Instead, you should fund secular nonprofits that provide identical services or, better yet, provide these services directly through government agencies that answer fully to the public. You can also support religious charitable work through tax incentives for private donations, allowing citizens to choose which organizations to support with their own money. Our Founding Fathers understood the best way to protect religious liberty is to keep government out of religion. Let's honor that wisdom today by finding constitutional ways to service our community needs without using taxpayer dollars. Please delay this vote to ensure thoughtful consideration of taxpayer dollars for these religious charitable organizations, or remove the Texas Muslim Women's Foundation from the list altogether. Thank you. There are no other speakers. I'll close the public hearing and confine the comments to the council. Curtis, would you come back up here and repeat the process in qualifying for these funds? Sure. So thank you. One of the things that the process that we go through is the council appoints a community relations commission, and that commission goes through and takes applications. Those applications are vetted through our department. Those are then provided to the CRC. And then they go through them during the month of April, we schedule all the non-profits who are requesting funding through this process to come in and give a presentation, and they give a presentation and then all that, those applications are scored, and then funding is allocated based upon those, those scoring process, that scoring model. So and then, you know, on the back end, one of the things that we do is we do not fund them first. Right. They they will provide. Receipts for reimbursement based upon their activities. So that's the way that's the process that we engage in. And just kind of on a side note, one of the things I spent many years as a prosecutor involving and involved with crimes against women and children and Texas Muslim Women's Foundation, as has always been there, providing those services to women and children who need it, regardless of race and ethnicity. And so one of the things that we do not have, we do not have capacity in the city of Plano to deal with all the victims of family violence. And so we do have, you know, several organizations and we utilize those. And sometimes victims go to other cities because of the fact that we just don't have capacity. So, okay. Thank you very much. Council Member Levine. Thank you. Curtis, you mentioned, I believe that there is a. Process that goes on, sorry, through the CRC or for reimbursement. Well. Once, once these services are in place. Yes. They're you're you're reviewing what they're doing. Yeah. And we want to make sure for, for HUD purposes that we are that, that those funding agencies, those funded agencies are doing what they're required to do. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mayor pro tem. Yes. Curtis, I just sort of go through this a little bit in a more easily digestible for me type of deal. I remember we've done Texas, Texas Muslim Women's Foundation has come up multiple times throughout the years when we were dealing with funding with regard to the HUD funding, am I am I? That's correct. And I don't know how long, if I may maybe I mean, if I can since I've been on since I've been on council, this has always been one of the, one of the agencies. And my understanding is because in Plano, we really don't have that many agencies that deal with abuse women and children. We don't have that many beds. Correct. I think Hope store is the one that serves the entire Collin County. But Plano itself doesn't really have one that's dedicated to abuse women and women, I mean children. Am I right about that? And that's correct. This is and Hope store serves both Collin County and Dallas County because they do have a Garland. They do have a Garland shelter. And so throughout the years that we've been dealing with this specific agencies, similar type concerns have been raised. And we vetted them multiple times throughout the years. And, and we've looked through them and we audited them. And we actually monitor how they how the receipts are coming through. Am I clear, am I correct about all this? So and throughout those times, we have not had any indication that these funds were used for any other purpose other than to help those women who are pretty much cannot go home. That is correct. So the services that they offer, whether it's shelter of women who are suffering from interpersonal violence or tenant based rental assistance, we've used them. So we've used them for those sorts of programs to really provide assistance within the community, within within the city of Plano, to whomever qualifies for that assistance. And this is funds from the feds. I mean, this is not some this is CDBG and grant funding, and home grant funding is what we're talking about tonight. That is correct. And so this is something that we have to vet for the feds. I mean, this is not something that we could just sort of make up our own rules and policies and decide who we want to give money to, am I, I don't appreciate that they want their own policies and rules. That's correct. We're our hands are pretty tied as to what are eligible and what are qualifiable. In order to get these funding, there's rules in place. We make sure that those rules are followed. And most of these nonprofit organizations, they're they're religiously based. I mean, most of them am I well, so, you know, whether it's Catholic Charities, you know, whether there's a religious component to them, but the services they provide are non-denominational and they provide it to everyone and they provide it to everyone. That is correct. And I just want to make sure that it's clear. And we've never had any issue with regard to these specific ones that's been vetted. And I've seen these names multiple times throughout the years. And so I don't really have a problem with it. And with that said, I, I move to approve it. Council Member Quintanilla thank you, Mayor Curtis. Refresh my memory. But some of these organizations, in order to be eligible to apply for a grant, do have to have historical establishment. I believe it was two years before they can apply for the grant. Yes. They've got they've got to have some history, right, of doing what they need to do. And then they do have to be funds reinvested into Plano and stay in Plano. Impact Plano residents. Correct. Okay. And then the other one is the Community Relations Commission. They review the bed. They they go through all the applications and they also do an interview as well to each organization. And yes, yes they do. They bring they bring them in. So they invite they invite each organization to come in and give that presentation as to what they're going to, what they need, what the needs are and how they're going to use that funding. Right. And then because I served Community Relations Commission, so I know there's no secret to that. But then there's also an administrative process. So say even though an organization was granted $20,000, if they don't go to the actual administrative process through the city of Plano, technically, if they don't reimburse for 20,000, they don't get that full 20,000. If they only spend up to 10,000. Yeah. So if for some reason they don't have capacity to fulfill the mission, the obligations required by the grant, then that money would not be allocated to them. And then for any organization that wants to apply for this grant is able to apply and is easily accessible for them to apply to go through the process for such funding, that grant process is open up to all eligible organizations in in in Plano that serve Plano residents. Absolutely. So no other questions, but I'm in agreement with this as well too. Do you do you have a second or I second that. Yes okay. All right. Any other questions. Thank you Curtis. So I have a motion and a second to approve item number three. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. Thank you. Next item. Item number four. Public hearing and comment. Presentation of the analysis of impediments to fair Housing Choice. This report highlights potential impediments to fair housing choice and provides recommendations to reduce impediments over the next five year Consolidated Plan period, the public will be given an opportunity to speak on the report during the public hearing. All right. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Janet Eden, the housing community services manager. Tonight, I have the pleasure of bringing up Rcg associates. They are our consultant that you will hear from twice tonight. They have conducted the analysis of impediments to fair housing choice. We'll let them go through their slides and I'll come back on the end. I'm going to bring up some open right now. Thank you. Hello. Good evening, mayor and Council member, thank you so much for this opportunity for us to present this analysis of impediments to fair housing choice to you all tonight. My name is Summer Pam, project manager and urban planner from Rcg Associates, which is the firm contracted by the City of Plano to conduct this study. So for today's agenda, there are five components. We are going to look at the purpose of this analysis. Components of this analysis. Data sources that we used, key data findings that we have identified, and also the impediments to fair housing choice that we have identified through this study. So first of all, what is the purpose of this study? This study is encouraged by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development for all municipalities receiving federal funding to take action to affirmatively further fair housing, and in this case, the City of Plano voluntarily chose to conduct this study. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 mandates that is unlawful to discriminate in the sale or rental financing of house or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with the sale or rental of housing, based on the following criterias. Categories or quote unquote, protective sex protective categories. The components for this analysis includes five major chapters. We looked at demographic and housing conditions, records of housing discrimination complaints filed in the city of Plano, mostly to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, reviewed public policies of the city, reviewed private sector practices, mostly private mortgage lending institutions, and finally identified impediments to fair housing choice in the city. Data sources we use mostly come from publicly available data sources, and most of them sourced from US Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as US Census Bureau. Here are the key data findings from this analysis. First of all, West and North Plano, which tend to have higher housing income, have the best fair housing opportunities. In comparison, East Plano, which is traditionally more affordable, tend to be Hispanic concentrated neighborhoods, faces more fair housing challenges. For example, there tend to be more housing condition issues, lower incomes, lower market labor market engagement and school performances. Third, housing discrimination complaints originated in the city of Plano received by HUD between 2019 and 2024, showed that there is an increase in housing discrimination complaints in 2024 compared to 2019, 22 and 23. Most complaints were associated with issues based on disability, race, color and national origin. Those are the top three issues associated with fair housing discrimination complaints. Nonwhite applicants usually face limited and less successful access to homeownership and home improvement loans, and refinancing in the private mortgage market, especially those identifying as two or more races of some other race. Hispanic, Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander and Black African Americans. Black and Hispanic population in southeast Plano tend to face more high cost lending, which is mortgages in the private lending institution that originated that tend to have higher interest rates. Median gross rent and home value outpaced the growth of median household between 2013 and 23, and that's based on the data from US Census Bureau. So what are the impediments to fair housing choice in Plano that we have identified? First of all, cluster of public supported housing and minority and Hispanic concentrated areas with lower incomes and limited access to resources and opportunities, coupled with risk of gentrification limited attainable housing options throughout the city, coupled with strict zoning and community resistance, risk of reduced public transit options, and decline in access to fair housing choices for lowest income residents. Limited dedicated local funding, and insufficient loss of funding for attainable housing development and homeownership assistance. Loss of the Fair Housing Center, coupled with a lack of funding for fair housing and finally racial ethnic disparity in homeownership access, mostly in the private lending sector. And that concludes my part of the presentation. Thank you so much for your time. All right. So we've got a five year plan that's already it'll start October 1st. And you've just heard summer speak about a lot of impediments. So what we want to do and what we looked at when we're looking at their report is let's think about what can Plano actually do. We have a certified a HUD certified housing counselor in staff. They've passed that certification. So going forward over the next five years, we want to do more housing counseling. When I say housing counseling that speaks to you all know that we have first, first time homebuyer education that occurs the third Saturday of every month. We still will do that. But we also talk to our residents about just rental opportunities that are that fit their income. So we'll continue to do that, but we will make sure that we do it in more in additional languages. There are a lot of different languages spoken here in Plano, so we are looking to fill that gap and to meet it over the next five years. We'll also continue to work with our faith based partners as well as non faith based partners, so that those are the ones that have the connections to our community. We want to get and make sure there's education not only about fair housing and what that means. For instance, we've done fair housing summits before here in Plano. We want to go back to doing things like that and engage our residents, but also just some things that are mentioned in the report, like helping them know how to use public transportation. What we're realizing is there's an education gap going on in our community that was highlighted in that report, that we feel like a staff. We could definitely assist with that and continue to ensure that that the resources that are here are utilized by all of our residents. We'll continue on. You've heard from Christina, you've heard from PNC. I have nothing else to say. You know, we're reviewing the zoning and there's a lot of things that you've already heard about that. So I'm not going to speak to that. This is a public hearing. I'm available to answer questions, specific questions. I also have Summer who I'll bring up. And that's it. Mayor and council, you just got done with the work session with planning and zoning on SB 840, which is going to be a game changer in this particular area. So I would just advise that this time next year, this may be a very different environment and very different report based upon the state preemption that we have in that. So we're watching that closely. But again, this was started well before we had the legislation. And so just keep that in mind. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll open the public hearing. There are no speakers on this item. I'll close the public hearing. Confine the comments to the council. Mr. Mayor, sounds like this is really about educating the residents about what is available, whether it's transportation or services, so they can be educated and take the right steps to get to where they need to be. You said it. That is exactly what we will be focusing on going forward. It's needed. You can never over educate anyone and we are in the business of educating and improving on it. And it sounds like these are regular education events as well. Yes, yes they are. I spoke to the first time home buyer program. We've had fair housing symposiums. We will be having them in the future. We work with other cities, the cities of Allen, Frisco and McKinney, because we realize that it's a regional issue too. And so we work with those cities, Collin County, and get all of our residents informed together. Okay. Yeah. Hold on, hold on. Goodall, did you have something? Oh, yes. Thank you. Mayor, I just wanted to add as well some of the educational material that it's translated in different languages, and it's also communicated in available online for every resident that doesn't speak English as well. Yes. Thank you. That's a great idea. Yeah. Go ahead. Rick. Sorry, Mr. Mayor, I make a motion or I move that we approve. Agenda item will accept the report. We'll accept the report. Yeah. Okay, I second that, please. Thank you. So I have a motion and a second to accept the report regarding the Fair Housing Study. All in favor, please vote. Okay. That's good. Motion passes seven, 7 to 0. It's really 8 to 0. I, I know Steve too well, but he didn't he didn't get a chance to vote. So next item, item five. Item item five. Discussion and feedback on the City of Plano housing study. All right. And so one of the things back in in 2023, we hired to consult on housing issues, just kind of what we want to do is kind of get a really broad overview of the issues that we have here in Plano with regards to housing, as you all are aware of some of the problems we have with housing. And so we've been on this journey for about a year and a half. We got this all set up. We were going to bring him here and then SB 840 hit. And so that certainly changes the landscape of the housing issues here in Plano. But at this point what I'd like to do is I'd like to introduce Kyle Talenti, who is with Rcg. He is the one that did the housing study. He's going to talk to you about it. We have certainly briefed him on on SB 840, and you've certainly got a lot of information today on that also. So Kyle, thank you, Curtis. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you so much for the opportunity. I am Kyle Zelanti. I'm the president of Rcg. Colleagues with Summer Pan and Jahangir Akbar worked with me on this process. As you can see the agenda here just kind of want to, on a similar approach, kind of talk you through what we did, what we learned and kind of lay out the foundations of the analysis. The housing study actually was a good component and partner piece to the analysis of impediments that we did for the city as a follow up to it. So I don't want to belabor some of the points that some are kind of already talked to you about, so I'll move through those fairly quickly. The goal of this study, as Curtis mentioned, is to try and identify current and projected housing needs in the for rent and for sale market. So trying to understand where we are today, how are things changing and how those changes could possibly affect the future of the opportunity for residents that already live here, workers that already work here, and jobs and folks that may want to come here at some time into the into the future on the back end of it. Then we provided some, I would like to call it a menu of options of regulatory policy, financial strategies that are available to the city to consider as they move forward to try and address some of these issues. And I'll call them challenges, maybe not issues per se, but it's important to note in these first couple of slides is that we are not starting from a blank slate here. There's already processes. There's already efforts going on here within the city of Plano to try and address housing need at a myriad of different income levels and different housing typologies. You're looking at major pending projects, and I'm not going to bore you to tears by reading all of them. You're more than welcome to have this. And it's a detailed in the report that we created. But looking at those that are approved and yet to be built or pending approval, there's also a substantial number of existing communities here within the city of Plano that offer income controlled housing for folks that want to live or currently live within the city. The other thing is, we also know we're building upon existing programs. So a lot of the recommendations that we have are not necessarily, well, you need to start doing this because you're already doing things. But maybe here's a different way to look at that, or here's how to augment that as you move forward in your journey of how you prioritize and decide what you want to address from a housing perspective, these are just some of the programs that already exist. So we're kind of at the goal line for this study. As Curtis mentioned, we started this a bit ago. We were very near the end. And then we added on a jobs housing balance analysis. And I'll talk about that in just a moment in a further slide. But we're kind of here to present to you the CliffsNotes version. I think the report is somewhere near 200 pages, and I figured I'd save you all reading it to you directly and let you read it at your own leisure. So the process really was was fairly comprehensive. We looked at a myriad of data sources, actually interviewed a number of you. Hopefully you remember those conversations that we had as we went through this process. We engaged with housing advocates, for profit developers, nonprofit developers, community leaders, organizations that are engaged in different housing issues from housing development to special needs housing. And so we gathered a substantial amount of quantitative and qualitative data to try and understand where this all sits within the community. I just wanted to point out, and a lot of times people have get hung up on the term affordable housing. And I like to present to our clients that affordability is relative. Everybody in this room has a house or apartment that they can afford and one that they cannot. And so the term affordability is truly about your ability to pay. And you're going to hear me use the term cost burdened. That is a HUD defined term of spending no less than 30% of your gross income on housing. And that has been determined by people much smarter than me for a very much longer time than I've been doing this. That is what you determine whether it is a healthy balance of, across all the different expenditures you have in your life, that to be allocated towards your housing needs. And so I just wanted to show you some graphic, and I'm just going to point out that looking at 120% of the area median income, household earning about $105,000 can afford about $2,900 a month in rent, or about a $305,000 home using an FHA mortgage. I think that's important point to remember, especially as we start talking about the homeownership numbers as we move forward through this. This graphic is showing you how rent, which is the bars, have changed within the city of Plano over the past 7 or 8 years. And the and the ability to pay a number of the different occupations that are here in the city. And as you can see, there are some where the median household rent in the city. The city is very affordable, but there's a substantial number that are not. And without reading it off, particularly in your service based sectors and even many of those in the health based industries cannot afford to live here without paying more than 30% of their gross income. And so housing is not just an issue of just folks who already live here, but folks who want to work here or already do work here as well. And you can see here that the cost of housing has changed and increased a little bit disproportional to how incomes have changed in a number of those occupations. What you're looking at here is a graphic of the change in in homeownership prices. The median homeownership price, the orange bars or maybe the less dark color are existing houses. So houses that have been built prior 1980s 1990s Plano has a rich history of housing development across the decades. And in the red, the darker red is new construction. And what you can see here is two things. Number one, the cost of housing has continually increased. It has outpaced incomes in the region. Some are kind of already mentioned that. And you're seeing it has reached price points well above a half $1 million. If you remember, when I pointed back the 120% of Ami can afford about a 300 or $350,000 house, and the median house price in the city is 500,000. That's not a good or bad thing. As a standalone issue, however, it points to the fact that for households that are here that may want to go from renting to ownership or may want to buy a larger home because they're starting a family, or may they on a downsize because their kids have gone off to school and they're looking for something else to afford? There is challenges in the ability to try and find that here within the community. For those except at the highest income points. As I mentioned earlier, we added on a jobs housing balance because there was a lot of conversation going on about, well, what about all the housing development that's occurring around Plano and not necessarily in Plano? And so the bulk of this, this study was to try and understand jobs that are being created regionally by municipality. And you can see here the list of communities that we studied, the projection of the number of households to be moving those communities, and the projection of the number of housing units that are going to be developed in those communities. We are the ones with double stars up there. And like I said, you don't need to see it, but you can see later are the only communities that did not actively share their information with us. We reached out to every one of the municipalities and asked them all to share information. The big takeaway here is over the next 5 to 10 years, the amount of demand for new housing, not just in Plano but in the region, is going to substantially outpace the development of housing here in Plano and in the region. Yes, there's a lot of development activity going on, and I'm not here to cast judgment on. It's a good or a bad thing. But the reality is, is that as demand continues to exceed supply here in the city and in the greater metroplex region, you're going to see housing prices continue to escalate faster than people's ability to pay, particularly those that many of those that work here in the community. So what are some of the key findings? Well, as I mentioned, there's widespread cost burdening, particularly those households that are earning less than $75,000 a year, 70% of renters and over half of homeowners in that income bracket are paying more than 30% of their gross income. That is a that is a challenge from the ability to pay for other services and needs health care, food, clothing and those sorts of things. There's a mismatch between housing and workforce needs. Like I mentioned, the our study showed that over 40% of the jobs that we created in this community pay less than $80,000 a year that are projected to be created here. However, very little if any housing is being developed for that price point of individual there's a limited. It's even more challenging for larger households. Affordability is generally in smaller studios or one bedroom apartments or two bedroom apartments, households that require three more bedrooms, there's even less choice, and there's even less opportunity here in the community. The aging population is constraining supply. I apologize after I looked at this study before. They're not constraining supply per se, but folks are aging in place and they're staying in the community. A lot of times they don't have that alternative to downsize, if you will. And so they're staying in their larger homes. But also, when we looked at your population trends over the past five or so years, even though the population has been fairly stable here in the city, it has been steadily shifting from a more broad range into households headed by people of 55 and older. And so you have people in nearing or at retirement, oftentimes probably empty nesters, that are moving in and consuming the housing that you have, making it challenging both for existing households and families that are looking to buy or move up, and households that are coming here to take jobs in the community that want to live in the community in which they work. There's also and the market's not going to solve the problem. Supply and demand for any of you who ever developed a real estate asset or bought a home or rent an apartment, know that the market is going to build to where they're able to make the greatest returns, and they're able to make the greatest returns at the highest level or the highest price points in the community. And you can see that in much of the stuff that has been developed here in the community has been built at those highest price point levels, as you saw, for example, on that ownership page, or the disparity between homes that have existed here for a while and stuff that have been put on the market, the regional housing development is not keeping pace. We've talked about this already. Unfortunately, we can't look to our neighbors to solve the housing issues and needs. They're struggling with it themselves. And so we're going to have to make some decisions if we want to try and address some of the issues and needs that we have here and the need for strategic additional intervention. And as I said, if you look at the report, the last whole section of that document is a series of strategies and recommendation. I just would like to say, Curtis, HB 840, a number of the strategies that we had identified were identified in that policy. I know you've talked about that to death, and I definitely don't want to drive that, to beat that dead horse, if you will. But the reality is, is that some of those things are, from a regulatory perspective, help create new opportunities for different typologies of housing and different price points. So with that, I want to thank you and turn it back over to Curtis. All right. All right. So with that just questions for Kyle I think. All right Chris that's all right. We got that Rick. Kyle go ahead Kyle great report. Thank you. Very thorough I just really have a question I mean I think we all on this dais recognize where our issues are with regards to housing, particularly for the workforce and the price of housing throughout the North Texas region. Again, I like your report, and it was a thorough analysis, but I'm sure you've done several of these reports from multiple municipalities. How does how does the city of Plano compare to other cities of similar size or close to our size? With regards to us meeting our housing needs? And from your experience, what should we prioritize to improve on what we need to provide for our citizens? I appreciate that question. Thank you. To be blunt, City of Plano is at or a little bit below halfway. I think the amount of investment for a city of this size is just a little bit less than average. In our experience, I haven't worked in every community. Okay, so I want to qualify that. I can't say that from our experience, you're doing a okay job, there's room for improvement, and we identified a number of those opportunities to do that. I would say probably the biggest area is the total dollar amount invested in trying to do housing initiatives is something that you're probably at or below, just a little bit below average. But like I said, it's not that there's nothing going on and there's not not interest and effort. It's just a matter of maybe a greater commitment to that is something that should be considered in terms of where you should focus. I think there's a number. One is diversity of housing options for seniors or for more mature households, particularly those here in the community that would like to downsize but don't have options. And so that could free up some of the existing single family home ownership opportunities. Housing rehabilitation is another one. And I know once again, this is we're not saying that it's not happening. There's opportunities to do more of it is another area that I think I would focus on, because a lot of the quote unquote, more affordable housing here often in comes with housing condition issues. I want to go buy a house. I can afford a certain amount, but the houses that I can buy at that amount may need another five figure, six figure amount of investment to bring them up to a more. Demands level. Helping and then diversity of housing typology I think is the other one is just creating a greater range of housing options. Both ownership cottage style housing is an option additional like stack townhomes as an option. And also on the rental side, I think there's just not. Unfortunately Plano. Well, I shouldn't say. Unfortunately. The reality is Plano and North Texas in an extremely high demand marketplace. And so you just need more because there's so many people that want to be here, not just in Plano, but in this entire region. And without everybody kind of pitching in and trying to address that issue, the continued outpacing of price compared to the ability to pay is going to be an issue. I will I will say, and I want to make sure this is very, very clear. I have not worked with any community that has been able to solve their housing issues, the cost, the unmet demand, not just here in Plano, but everywhere I worked, including some of the most progressive communities in the country Montgomery County, Maryland, who pioneered inclusionary zoning, for example, in the United States back in the 70s. The reality is, is that the sheer demand always has outpaced the ability for the community to do it on their own. And so this is not a call for the city you need to solve your problems is how do we create opportunities to partner and leverage and let the private sector be implement, and we create the opportunity for them to do that? I would I just want to make it very clear this is not a condemnation. You asked me a question. I wanted to give you an honest answer. But the reality is, is that every community of this size much larger, much smaller that I have ever worked with, runs into some of these very same issues. This is you are not unique in that regard in terms of having this challenge of being a place that people want to be and not having enough housing to accommodate that. All right. I do I do think we have a speaker. We do. Oh. Our speaker is Corey Riniker. Good evening, mayor and council and city manager. I promise I don't think I have anything to say about Dart this evening. I want to commend staff and the consultant team for all their hard work on this report. I only became aware of it this morning, so I've been kind of plowing through it, trying to digest what all is in it. And I also want to throw in this commendation that the work of planning staff in evaluating the effects of the recent legislation and all that means, I look at this report and what I see are the key takeaways. Housing is unaffordable for most people living and looking to move to Plano. Only affluent households can realistically afford to buy a house in Plano. I think that's a real problem that we need to be looking at. Nearly 40% of renter households, 18% of owner occupied households are housing cost burden. That's more than 30% of your income going to your housing, like you said. And that's a problem. I mean, all of this housing cost is a problem because that's less money that people have to spend in our city, at our local businesses. Another number that stuck out to me is there's 208,000 jobs in Plano, and we always talk about adding jobs to the city and bringing more employers, bringing corporate headquarter relocations, 180,000 people commute into Plano to work here. Only 27,000 people who live in Plano actually work in Plano. That is that's in this report. And it is a shocking statistic to me. It really cuts against the entire notion of live, work, play. You can live here and own your house, but only if you're affluent. You can work here and you can live here if you're a renter, but you're probably not going to have much money left to play. Scroll down here. Sorry. The analysis, as was just mentioned, offers a bunch of strategies on how to address these things. And here's the good news. The state has stepped in and intervened and done some of the hard work for us here. And what I'd really just ask of you all this evening is that, you know, probably this briefing should have been before the work session so that you guys could be, you know, have all that in mind before you talk about things that realistically are going to drive up the cost of housing, all of these standards, Leed accreditation for all new multifamily projects, that only adds cost. Let's not kid ourselves about that. So what I'm hoping for and just wanted to chime in on this is I'm hoping for some some real leadership, some visionary leadership. And I know that's what I can expect from all y'all of doing what's best for the city. So thank you. Thanks. Are there any more questions? Curtis. What's our next step. So basically there's nothing that you need to do. This is just kind of an informational presentation. Some of the things that we're looking at is we're going to bring to you the tax credit application process, probably sometime in September. And that is kind of one of the things that is that comes out of this report. We're going to continue with everything that's going on legislatively to work with with planning, and the city is going to deal with those issues, as you guys have been talking about, and we'll continue working and seeing what we can do in the city of Plano to, to, to deal with some of these issues. Let me let me ask you a quick question. So the, the, the property at Avenue K and Park that we, we were partnering with on the tax credit. How is that performing. So the apartment complex there, you know overall overall I think that it seems to be working pretty well. You know not not not a not a ton of complaints that I've heard coming from from that. So just off the top of my head that's okay. It's good. Well, I mean, those those are the, you know, the few projects that we have that we've, we've, you know, gotten involved in. So I'm, I'm always curious to know how those are responding and how those are being accepted by our community. Yeah. Good. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you Council appreciate it. Item six item number six consideration of an ordinance to amend article 12 Park and recreation fee. Chapter 16 Planning and Development of the code. Code of ordinances of the City of Plano, Texas, by amending section 16 dash 266, updating the park and recreation fees collected for the acquisition and development of parkland and facilities, and providing a penalty clause, a repealer clause, a severability clause, a publication clause, and an effective date. Good evening Council and Mayor Muns, I do have a presentation if there are questions. We did provide quality information in our agenda item. I do have a quick presentation to walk through to cover any questions that you might have. The park fee, by ordinance, established in 1993, is a one time fee that is assessed at the time of building permit is granted by the city. It is based on single family and multifamily homes, provide supplemental funding to purchase or develop certain categories of parkland. We've heard tonight the importance of quality of life. We know that Plano stands for that, and that Parks and Recreation is a part of that quality of life. The city is broken up into 14 zones, and when a fee is collected in one of those zones, it must be used in that zone for a particular purpose, either the purchase of parkland for a neighborhood park or a linear park, or the development or improvement of a neighborhood park or a linear park. That's it. It stays in the zone where it was collected for those particular purposes, to provide a direct benefit to those that live within that zone and paid that fee. In 2019, it was updated to the current rates that we have today, the methodology that we use to determine what the park fee should be. We review it every five years. It's time for us to come to council with that review. We've used the same methodology that we used in 2019, which is based on the cost to purchase land and the cost to develop a park. And with that methodology in place, the proposed rate for single family homes would go from 2065 to 5691, and for multifamily from 1400 to 4359. We did present this to the park board. They approved it unanimously, recommending that it come to City Council for your consideration and approval. This slide right here just shows the cost and how things have increased since 2019. Be happy to answer any questions. Rick. Yes, thank you, Doctor Smith. The question I have really is about the cost of that increase in fee. That's just a straight fee for a single family home, regardless if it's a 1800 square foot house or a 5600 square foot house. Is that correct? That is correct. The part of the methodology looks at the total population in Plano, and also the estimated residency per unit. So that's part of the calculation as well. But yes, it is a one time fee assessed per domicile. Did we consider I mean, I know when we look at new development it's going to be say a 3000 square foot lot, you know, which is half the lot of a standard SF seven lot. You know, did we consider having some type of prorated fee just on lot size or. I mean, it seems to be somewhat unfair that if we're trying to. Bring in more affordable housing, new development with a smaller hous, that we're having them pay a significant amount of money compared to someone that says building an estate in West Plano, I think that that's grossly unfair to the, the burden of the person trying to buy their first home. So I think just a flat fee is just somewhat. I just see that there. I see why you did it and it was done in 2019. But you know, the cost of housing now is outrageous anyway. And then to add another 5000, regardless of the size of the house, you know, like I said, if it's a 4000 square foot house, $5,000 is nothing. But if it's an 1800 square foot house, that's significant. So did you all consider some type of prorated fee? Well, no, we didn't consider a prorated fee. Let me. We do have members of the park planning staff here that can speak to the methodology. I don't believe that square footage was part of the it was not part of the calculation at all. And Ron, this was for new houses only. Correct? That's correct. Anyone that lives here has already paid the fee. They're not going to be assessed that it's only for new construction. Okay. Anything you want to add, Renee? Sure. The way the fee is calculated is established in the ordinance. So the ordinance states that the fee is calculated based on actual construction costs, appraised land values and population. So there's no provision in the ordinance to make a change for a fee based on the size of a home. It is per domicile. So that would require an ordinance change to go to a new fee structure. Let me, if I could also just add this that the purpose of the park fee is to make accommodations for residents. So the size of the construction or the square footage really doesn't matter as far as it's based on the estimated population within that housing development or within that neighborhood that's being constructed. So whether four people live in an 1800 square foot house or 2500 square foot house, the impact in that neighborhood and on the park system is the same. Bob. Yeah, my thoughts are sort of related to what you were just talking about, Mr. Smith. I mean, how did this calculation come about? As we're adding people we know we need more park space? I'm just trying to understand how much space you're talking about, what kind of construction you're talking about, so that you can allocate that to the number of people you're expecting to move into. That's a good question. So the model that we use, a lot of this research is done through a professor who's at Texas A&M who is really the leader in this type of research when it comes to park assessment. So what we look at is again, the impact and the cost of constructing certain types of park linear parks and neighborhood park only and the purchase of that land. So we're very narrow in how we work the calculation. And what we have seen is that not only the cost of housing has gone up, but the cost of the land to purchase it and the cost to construct even those simple basic amenities continue to increase. And so what this proposed ordinance revision does is it tries to just catch us up to where we should be right now from 2019. Do you feel you actually will be able to purchase land? Well, so the park fee, as we stated in the agenda item, is to supplement the bond funds. That's the major mechanism that we use to purchase and develop parkland. But the park fee is a specific secondary way to capture additional funding per unit when it gets a building permit. Thank you mayor. I kind of see Council Member Horn's point of view and perspective of what he's thinking about. Are we able to run calculations based on square footage just to test it out and see what it looks like? Or are we not able to do that? We certainly could, if that's Council's direction, with the understanding that would not change how an individual impacts the park system, whether they live in a larger house or a smaller house or an apartment complex. Right. But out of curiosity, it's kind of good to see what the data will look like or what the numbers overall would be versus square footage versus would you look at square footage or the size of the lot, maybe the size of the lot? I mean, I don't know what what are you all thinking? I at least want to see another set of numbers and just compare the two. Well, that's actually brings up a question. I mean, if you're if you're allocating cost per household, if you will, how many households are you looking at there. Yeah. So Katie, you might be able to address the question was the when it comes to the calculation as far as the average residence per unit, you've got some information on that. Yeah. So in your packet and in the memo we mentioned that the fee per single family dwelling unit is for 2.58 for two and a half people per unit. So that's information that we got from the planning team that in our community, the average single family home has about two, 2.5 people. And generally that is regardless of the size of the unit when it comes to single family homes, as you know, as they were speaking about earlier, as people age in place, they tend to also age in the homes that they're in. So we have larger homes that have smaller families, smaller homes that have larger families. But the average in the city is that 2.2.5, 2.6 for single family homes and 1.9 for multi-family homes. So that's where it comes into that calculation. And that's why we use those calculations as opposed to size of lot or square footage of property. How far, how far out in time are you looking in terms of planning? How much cost goes into that? In other words, how many people are coming in? So the ordinance dictates how you calculate it. And so it's just this point in time. So you're looking at actual construction costs that since your last update, which was five years ago. And then when you get a land appraisal, that land appraisal is based on costs today and can't predict costs. So these are costs as of today. But the number of units, if you will, that you're calculating to be able to supplement is a number you've come up with from somewhere. So the number of housing units that we're projecting. So it's not based off a projection of housing units. It's based on a projection of population. And then divided by and then divided by those, those units in that population over the next five years. Or it's actually based on our population that we have right now. We noticed that the projection that we used five years ago did not, did not track with where we are. So to be a somewhat more conservative, we just use today's population as what you actually said you're catching up to now, correct? Maria. Yes. So before we keep going down this road of don't go too far, please. Yeah. Well, Doctor Smith, I'm not going to I just I seem to remember that we went down this rabbit trail a few times with Anthony when he was on council, am I correct? Or so 2019 was when it was updated and the. That was the first time it was updated since 1993. I remember something about the really big jump, and there was a lot of concern that it would impact homeownership and things like that. So yeah, we did have this conversation. I just seem to remember it was so deja vu. What we did was we actually we incorporated the entire city, so we adjusted the map as far as who we were collecting from. So the that itself did not change, but we actually expanded it to include the entire city. That's right. That's when we updated the map to cover all portions of the city. I seem to remember that originally it was specifically areas where there are new parks being developed, and that was the areas that we were having issues. But now we're sort of spread the cost throughout the entire city. Is that what we've done is we've made sure that any housing development that occurs in the Plano city limit will be assessed a park fee. Okay. So I, I just want to make sure that before we start going down and trying to calculate how this is going to this is for each individual development. This is really about impacting the park. Yes, specifically the park system. And when new residents move in and move into new units, apartment complex or a single family home development, they have an impact on the park system as it exists, and these funds help mitigate that impact or make the improvements. Buy the property. Make the park system larger to accommodate. And the reason why it keeps going up is because everything else keeps going up. That's correct. And we need to maintain what we have. And we do have a lot of parks in the city of Plano. So instead of laying all this costs on the existing. Home developments, what we're trying to recuperate, some of it is from the new developments that are coming in since the new developments, when they come in, they know that all the costs have gone up and that would not shock the system. I think that was the I remember that was one of the things that we talked about. Is that right? Yeah. And those are the same conversations that we have with the Park board earlier this month. Some of the exact sentiment that's being expressed tonight and the ultimately it came down to the cost of acquiring property and the cost of building a park in those specific zones where the fee is collected, those costs are going up. And if we are striving to maintain the same quality park experience that previous residents have enjoyed and that the future will enjoy, this is something that we bring to the Council every five years for their consideration, and I. I appreciate the explanation. Thank you. Okay, so this is considering to amend this ordinance, correct? Correct. All right. I think our park systems are really critical to our city. And I moved to approve this amendment. I'll second. All right. I have a motion a second to. Amend the ordinance in item six. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. There being no further business meetings adjourned. And the House, if your accessory building is over 120ft■!S, you'l also need a building permit. Bring two copies of your site and b