[00:00:04]
[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]
IS SIX SO EIGHT.AND, UM, I AM BRINGING THIS, UH, MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, JANUARY 25TH, 2022 TO ORDER WE HAVE A CORUM.
YEAH, FEBRUARY 8TH MAN HELPED ME.
AND, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO ROLL CALL.
UM, WE ARE STARTING WELL, WE'RE KINDA GETTING THE HANG OF THIS HYBRID, UM, MEETING, UH, THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR A WHILE, BUT, UH, I THINK, UM, WE'RE KIND OF GOT THE HANG OF IT, BUT WE HAVE, UH, WE HAVE MEMBERS OF BOTH, UM, VIRTUAL AND UP HERE ON THE DIOCESE, SO IT'S A LITTLE MORE CHALLENGING, UH, THAN USUAL.
I'M GOING TO JUST GO DOWN THE LIST HERE THAT I HAVE, UH, JUST RAISE YOUR HAND, SAY HERE OR PRESENT.
LET'S START WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER.
IS, ARE YOU OKAY? UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY, I THINK WAS RUNNING A LITTLE LATE, UH, WILL PROBABLY JOIN US SHORTLY.
UH, COMMISSIONER FLORES, COMMISSIONER FLORES.
HEMPEL UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, UH, COMMISSIONER MOOSH TODDLER HERE.
UH, COMMISSIONER PRAXIS, I THINK IS, I'M NOT GOING TO JOIN THIS THIS EVENING.
UH, YOUR CHAIR, TODD SHAW HERE.
UH, COMMISSIONER SHEA HERE AND, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON HERE.
UH, WE ALSO HAVE EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS, UM, ON THE DAYAS.
UH, WE HAVE, UH, CHAIR COHEN FROM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
AND I'M LOOKING AT THE SCREEN HERE.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY OTHER EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS JOINING US, UH, THIS EVENING.
UM, SO, UM, JUST A QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT HYBRID MEETING.
I SEE A LOT OF FOLKS BACK THERE.
UM, WHEN YOU DO, IF YOU DO COME TO THE FRONT AND, UM, AND SPEAK AT THE PODIUM HERE, UH, IT, IF WE'RE HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU, YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE OKAY TO TAKE UP THE MASK, BUT IN GENERAL, UH, LET'S KEEP MASS ON AND SPREAD OUT AS MUCH AS YOU CAN.
UH, I KNOW WE'RE NUMBERS ARE, ARE DOING A LITTLE BETTER, BUT LET'S STILL TRY TO KEEP EACH OTHER SAFE.
AND, UM, ALSO WE HAVE, UM, WE'RE DOWN TO TWO DISCUSSION ITEMS THIS EVENING, IF I CAN COUNT.
AND SO IT, IT WOULD BE GOOD IF, UM, YOUR ITEM IS NOT UP.
IF YOU CAN WAIT OUT IN THE ATRIUM AND THEN MR. RIVERA WILL SEND OUT SOME NOTICES AND ALSO, UH, GO, UH, LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT THE NEXT ITEM IS COMING UP FOR DISCUSSION, BUT JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A VOTE TO CHANGE UP THE ORDER.
SOME, UH, LET'S SEE, THREE, FOUR, YES.
AND SO WE'LL, WE'LL GET TO THAT AS SOON AS WE PASS THE CONSENT AGENDA.
SO, UH, JUST REAL QUICK COMMISSIONERS, UH, THAT ARE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY, UM, HAVE YOUR GREEN, RED, YELLOW CARDS FOR VOTING.
AND, UH, PLEASE, I'VE GOT TO KIND OF BALANCE WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE DIETS OUT THERE IN THE AUDIENCE AND WITH YOU GUYS.
SO SPEAK UP IF I'M NOT RECOGNIZING YOU, WHEN YOU RAISE YOUR HAND AND I'LL TRY AND GET HELP FROM THE VICE CHAIR TO HELP ME MAKE SURE I'M RECOGNIZING PEOPLE IN THE ORDER, UH, THAT THEY, UH, RAISED THEIR HAND.
UM, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK HERE AND MAKE A COUPLE OF ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO COMMISSIONER SHEA.
TRICIA HALL, UH, COMMISSIONERS IN THE PUBLIC AND EVERYONE HERE.
UM, I WANTED TO TAKE THIS TIME TO RECOGNIZE SOMEBODY THAT WE ARE ALL DEALY, MISS.
HE WAS A TRUE PASSIONATE AUSTINITE THAT HAS DONE SO MUCH FOR OUR CITY.
AND I WOULD SAY AT THE LAST MEETING, WE DIDN'T GET TO SEE HIM.
AND THEN, UM, UH, AND I SAW THIS MESSAGE ON FACEBOOK AND I WANTED TO SHARE THIS WITH EVERYONE.
UM, SO STEVE SEDOWSKY DIED JANUARY 12TH, 2022.
HE LOVES SERVING AS THE CITY OF AUSTIN, HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER.
HIS CAREER BEGAN BEGINNING IN JULY, 2000 STEVE'S GREATEST PLEASURES.
HOWEVER, WERE HIS FAMILY AND HIS FRIENDS ENJOYING ALL THAT AUSTIN HAS TO OFFER IN LIVE MUSIC, NATURAL
[00:05:01]
BEAUTY, AND GOOD COMRADERY.HE WAS WANTING TO DO GOOD FOR HIS COMMUNITY, DO RIGHT BY HIS FRIENDS AND WAS TRULY GRATEFUL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE THE CITY.
YOU COULD FIND THEM REGULARLY AT THE CONTINENTAL CLUB AND TONES AND THE SKYLIGHT, LAURENS AND ELECTRIC LOUNGE AND LIBERTY LUNCH, AND MANY OTHER VENUES WHERE AUSTIN'S LIVE MUSIC THRIVED.
STEVE NEVER TURNED DOWN AN INVITATION TO SPEND TIME WITH THE PEOPLE HE ENJOYED AND MAINTAIN LONG LASTING FRIENDSHIP WITH SO MANY PEOPLE IN THE LIVES, IN THE PLACES HE LIVED, INCLUDING WICHITA, KANSAS, NASHVILLE, MOST FOR A BURROW TENNESSEE, DO NOT BE SAD IN HIS PASSING.
HE LIVED A WONDERFUL RICH LIFE FULL OF LOVE AND JOY FOR THE PEOPLE WITH WHOM HE SURROUNDED HIMSELF WITH.
AND FOR WHOM HE WOULD DO ANYTHING.
NO FUNERAL SERVICES ARE PLANNED AS HE BELIEVED STRONGLY THAT WE NEVER SAY GOODBYE.
WE SAY OF LAW UNTIL WE SEE EACH OTHER AGAIN, IF NOT IN PERSON THEN IN OUR HEARTS.
BUT IF YOU DON'T KNOW STEVE, HE HAS BEEN THE PERSON WHO REALLY HELP PRESERVE SO MUCH OF AUSTIN AND BROUGHT SO MANY STORIES TO LIFE OF WHAT AUSTIN IS TODAY.
SO I JUST WANTED TO TAKE THIS TIME TO, TO RECOGNIZE HIM.
AND YES, WE WILL TRULY MISS HIM.
UM, THE OTHER ANNOUNCEMENT I WANTED TO MAKE IS WE'VE GOT, UM, UM, A NEW COUNCIL MEMBER FOR DISTRICT, UH, FOR, UH, CHEETO VIA VILLA.
UM, AND, UH, HE, UH, WAS, UH, UH, PAST PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
SO WE WELCOME, UH, TO THE RANKS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THEM.
SO WE'RE ADULATION, UH, CO COUNCIL MEMBER VELA.
ALRIGHT, SO, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD.
AND, UH, I'VE BEEN TOLD WE HAVE NO, UM, CITIZENS COMMUNICATION TODAY.
UM, UH, THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM, UH, WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AND I'LL JUST REAL QUICKLY ASK.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THE MINUTES? UM, THEY WERE, AS THEY WERE POSTED ONLINE.
[Reading of Agenda]
OKAY.SO WE'RE GOING TO GO AND MOVE THIS TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
THE MINUTES FROM JANUARY, UH, THIS PAST MEETING WE HAD IN JANUARY.
SO, UH, WE'RE GOING TO START, I'M GOING TO GET HELP FROM COMMISSIONER FLORES, UM, IS GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE FIRST READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
WE HAVE A B ONE PUBLIC HEARINGS, UH, OR B PUBLIC HEARINGS, B ONE REZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 66 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE, RESIDENCES.
THIS ITEM AS AT PER CONSENT, BE TO REZONING C4 ROUTINE 20 21 0 1 7 4 8 15 WEST 11TH STREET.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION AND HAS A SPEAKER REGISTERED IN OPPOSITION, B3 CLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 21 0 0 0 9 0.01 1612 EAST SEVENTH STREET.
ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT AND THE CHAIR IS TO READ AN AGREED STATEMENT BY THE APPLICANT, UH, BEFORE C 14, 20 21 0 1 3 TO 16, 12 EAST SEVENTH STREET WAS ITEMS UP FOR CONSENT BEING FIVE NPA 20 19 0 0 2, 2 0.0 TO 3 0 5 SOUTH CONGRESS PUD.
SO ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION B SIX, REZONING C 8 14 8 9 0 0 0 3 0.02305 SOUTH CONGRESS, HUD.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
UM, AND WE HAVE A NOTE THAT WE, UH, TO REVIEW THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS, UM, AMENDMENTS, NOT CONTESTED WILL BE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION BY CONSENT.
UH, B SEVEN RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TERMINATION RCT.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION, UH, C 14 78, 180 9, RCT 3 0 5 SOUTH CONGRESS B A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 19 0 0 1 3 0.0101.
SELL THIS ITEM IS AN APPLICANT.
INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT BENIGN PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 21 0 0 0 5 0.02.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD CLOSE TO FEBRUARY 22ND, B 10 PLAN AMENDMENT AND PA 20 18 0 0 0 5 0.02 S H MARY VICES STATES
[00:10:01]
FID, LOT 27 AMENDMENT.NUMBER ONE, THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH EIGHT, B 11, REZONING C A 14 97 0 0 0 2 0.01.
MARY VICES STATES PUD LOT 27 AMENDMENT.
ONE ITEM IS UP HERSELF WAS PHONE, WENT TO MARCH EIGHT, B12 PLAN AMENDMENT AND PA 20 21 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.01 MOD 53.5.
THIS ITEM IS AT FOUR CONSENT PAPERWORK, 13 REZONING C 14 20 21 0 0 34, MOD 53.5 ITEMS UP FOR CONSENT.
B 14 RESTRICTIVE KEVYN AMENDMENT C 14 0 2 0 1 8 3 RCA ONE, UH, 1118 TILLERY STREET.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION, UH, FOR PC POST-MOMENT TO FEBRUARY 22ND, UH, B 15 PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 21 0 0 0 2 0.01 1400 EAST FOURTH STREET ITEM IS AT FOUR CONSENT B 16, REZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 3 8 OR 1,000 EAST FOURTH STREET.
THIS ITEM IS AT FOUR CONSENT B 17 PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 21 0 0 0 5 0.01 ALPHA POINT 95.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR A DISCUSSION AND POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 22ND, B 18 REZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 2 8 ALPHA POINT 95.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION OR POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 22ND BEING 19 PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 21 0 1 0 1 5 0.01 AUSTIN SPORTS FACILITY.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION FOR POSTPONEMENT TWO, FEBRUARY 22ND.
UH, 20 21 0 1 2 5 AUSTIN SPORTS FACILITY.
THIS ITEM IS A DISCUSSION CASE FOR PC POSTPONEMENT, TWO FEBRUARY 22ND, B 21, REZONING C 14 9 9 0 0 0 6 9 0.01 200 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE, DISCUSSION CASE FOR PC POSTPONEMENT, TWO FEBRUARY 22ND, B 22, REZONING C 14 H 20 21 0 1 8 0 PASA MCCAB MCMATH.
UH, THIS ITEM IS DISCUSSION CASE OR A PC POSTPONEMENT.
YOU HAVE FEBRUARY 22ND, B 23 SITE PLAN SPC 20 21 1 0 0 4 3.
B 24 SITE PLAN S P 20 14 0 0 7 1 C X T THREE.
ALL SAINTS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH WAS ITEMS UP FOR CONSENT.
THE B 25 SITE PLAN SPC 20 19 0 4 0 0 D WATERLOO GREENWAY CREEK DELTA.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT AND B 26 SITE PLAN SPC 20 21 0 1 2 9 SCENE RAINY TOWER.
THIS IS AN APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 22ND.
UH, VARIANCES POSTPONED TO FEBRUARY 22ND AND THE CUP IS POSTPONED INDEFINITELY.
UM, SO, UH, BEFORE I READ A REVIEW THAT ONE MORE TIME, UH, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS NEED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM ANY ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING? I NEED TO ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS B 15 AND BE 16.
UM, I'M ON THE RED LINE PARKWAY INITIATIVE BOARD, AND THERE'S SOME BACKUP INFORMATION FROM THAT ORGANIZATION FOR THE CASE.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? UH, CHERISH, RUPTURE SNYDER.
UH, ON I THINK WE GOT A LETTER FROM THE CONTACT TEAM THAT THERE WERE A QUESTION POSTPONEMENT.
DID THAT GET A GRADE, TWO RESOLVED? UM, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKERS TO SUPPORT THE POSTPONEMENT, SO WE'VE MOVED IT TO CONSENT.
IS THAT CORRECT? MR. RIVERA CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LIAISON AT VIRTA CORRECT.
SO WE WERE, UH, WE MOVED IT TO CONSENT, UM, AND, UH, WE, UM, I'LL OPEN IT
[00:15:01]
UP FOR, UM, COMMISSIONERS TO, YOU KNOW, THEY WANT TO ENTERTAIN PUTTING ITEMS UP FOR DISCUSSION.UH, WE CAN DISCUSS THAT, BUT I THINK FOR THAT PARTICULAR ITEM, WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY HERE.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS AT ALL? WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS, UH, FOR THAT ITEM HERE THIS EVENING.
UH, THE APPLICANTS HERE, BUT THAT'S IT.
UM, SO ANYWAY, UH LET'S UM, LET'S SEE, UH, I'M READING THROUGH MY LIST HERE.
SO DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS WISH TO, UH, PULL ANY OF THE ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION THAT ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? WE HAVE HAD A FEW FALL OFF.
UH, WE'VE GOT, UM, CORSI 3 0 5 SOUTH CONGRESS, PUD AND ITEM B TWO RIGHT NOW.
UH, AND I GUESS WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY OTHER, UH, MR. RIVERA, ANY OTHER SPEAKERS WISHING TO PULL ANY OF THE ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION.
I WOULD LIKE TO PULL, UH, WELL, I, I DID NOTICE THAT, UM, I BELIEVE B ONE WAS THE CASE THAT MARIO KENTU HAD WRITTEN THE COMMISSION ABOUT, UM, WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING, BUT WAS REQUESTING POSTPONEMENT.
YOU WANT TO PULL THAT FOR DISCUSSION PLEASE? OKAY.
DO WE NEED A SECOND FOR THAT? SURE.
COMMISSIONER LIAISON, VERA, DO YOU WISH TO HAVE A DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT? OH YES.
THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO GO FORWARD WITH THE DISCUSSION POST FOUND THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING THIS ITEM.
UH, SO YOU WANT TO PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION, I GUESS, WHAT DO WE NEED TO KNOW? I THINK WE'RE GOING TO, SHE WANTS TO PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION, RIGHT? SO I LOOK FOR ALL THE POSTPONEMENT AND THEN HA UH, HAVE THE HEARING THIS EVENING.
I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT, ANDREW? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER LYONS ON EVERY OTHER SIDE OF THE POSTPONEMENT REQUESTS WOULD BE WITHDRAWN AND YOU WOULD HAVE THE HEARING THIS EVENING.
SO THAT'S I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
SO WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THAT ON CONSENT, BUT I'M SORRY.
I MEAN, BUT, BUT WE COULD STILL DISCUSS WHETHER TO POSTPONE THAT'S.
I DON'T SUPPORT THAT AND I'M NOT GOING TO SECOND IT, BUT IF I, IF SOMEONE SECONDS IT, I THINK WE SHOULD DISCUSS IT.
SO YOU WANT TO MOVE THAT TO DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT THAT WAS INITIALLY PLANNED.
UH, WE JUST DON'T HAVE ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF FOR SUPPORTING THE POSTPONEMENT.
SO WE WILL JUST HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
UH, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? I KNOW PROVIDED THAT THE COMMISSION NOTE THAT WE HAVE WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, I THINK WE DO NEED A SECOND TO MOVE THIS OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
SO WE'RE GOING TO GO ON AND MOVE THAT.
THAT'LL BE THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS.
ONCE I READ THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, UH, TAKE, UM, ITEM D ONE.
I LIVE DISCUSSION THAT'S FOMENT ON THAT CASE.
ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA? OKAY.
UM, SO I'M GOING TO KEEP THIS BRIEF, I'M JUST GOING TO READ THE NUMBER AND THE ACTION, UH, TO GET US THROUGH THIS.
UM, AND I'LL REMIND ME ON B3 B OF B3.
AND BEFORE I NEED TO READ A STATEMENT IN HERE, WHEN I GET TO THAT POINT, SURE I GOT IT HERE.
SO ITEM B ONE, UH, WE'LL BE DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT, UM, ITEM B TO REZONING.
YOU HAVE SPEAKERS REGISTERED IN OPPOSITION ITEM B3, UH, PLAN AMENDMENT IS ON CONSENT ITEM BEFORE REZONE.
I'M GOING TO READ, UH, SOMETHING ON THE RECORD WITH REGARD TO ITEM TO BE THREE.
AND BEFORE, UM, THIS IS FROM THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT WOULD REQUEST ANY PLANNING, COMMISSION APPROVAL, BE INCLUSIVE OF A REQUEST THAT STAFF ALLOW US TO RESOLVE ANY OUTSTANDING ISSUES AND EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT BEFORE SCHEDULING THE ITEM FOR CITY COUNCIL.
UM, SO THAT IS READ INTO THE RECORD.
ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO, UH, ITEMS B FIVE, UM, THAT'S A DISCUSSION ITEM.
B SIX IS DISCUSSION, UH, B SEVEN RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TERMINATION DISCUSSION
[00:20:01]
WILL TAKE UP FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN TOGETHER.UM, THOSE ARE ALL THE 3 0 5 SOUTH CONGRESS PUD RELATED TO THAT CASE.
UH, ITEM B EIGHT PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICANT, INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT, AND BENIGN, UH, PLAN AMENDMENT IS A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 22ND.
PLAN AMENDMENT IS A STAFF PLUS PERMIT TO MARCH EIGHT, B 11 STAFF PLUS FOMENT TWO MARCH EIGHT, B 12 A IS A CONSENT ITEM.
B 14 RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT IS A DIS DISCUSSION CASE, BUT A PEACE C TO FEBRUARY 22ND.
UM, THE 15 PLAN AMENDMENT IS ON CONSENT.
B 16 REZONING IS ON CONSENT B 17 PLAN AMENDMENT DISCUSSION CASE.
AND THIS IS A PC POSTPONEMENT TWO FEBRUARY 22ND, A B 18 REZONING DISCUSSION CASE P C PLUS PERMIT TWO, FEBRUARY 22ND BE 19 PLAN AMENDMENT DISCUSSION CASE PC POSTPONEMENT TWO FEBRUARY 22ND, B 20 REZONING DISCUSSION CASE PC POSTPONEMENT TWO FEBRUARY 22ND, 21 REZONING DISCUSSION CASE PC POSTPONEMENT, FEBRUARY 22ND, THE 22 REZONING DISCUSSION CASE PC POSTPONEMENT ON FEBRUARY 22ND.
AND B 23 SITE PLAN IS ON CONSENT.
IT'S ON CONSENT, B 25 SITE PLAN ON CONSENT, B 26 SITE PLAN APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TWO FEBRUARY, FEBRUARY 22ND.
I'VE GOT A NOTE HERE, VARIANCES POSTPONED TO FEBRUARY 22ND.
SEE IF HE POSTPONED INDEFINITELY.
AND I THINK THAT CAPTURES IT ALL.
[Consent Agenda]
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING, UH, IN A CLOSE, CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND, UH, APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.UM, HOLD ON, LET ME GET BACK HERE.
IF HE WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION, MR. CHE, I GUESS, OH, GO AHEAD.
I'M JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THE PROCESS.
DO WE DO THE DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT FIRST? BECAUSE IF, IF, IF NOBODY IS HERE TO SPEAK ON IT, DO WE CONTINUE TO HEAR THE ISSUE IF WE DON'T POSTPONE IT OR DOES IT GO BACK ON THE CONSENT ITEM? IF WE DON'T POSTPONE IT, THERE WAS SOMEONE THAT I'LL BE PART OF WHAT, WHAT COMMISSIONER YONIS WANTS TO DO.
COMMISSIONER LAYS ON ANDROID, UH, DISPOSE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
YOU COULD JUST HEAR THE MATTER AFTER THE CONSENT AGENDA.
NOW WE WERE GOING TO TAKE UP THE DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT RIGHT AFTER WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UH, BUT I'M JUST, I'M STILL AT THE, IF THERE'S NOBODY TO SPEAK AGAINST IT, ARE WE STILL GOING TO DISCUSS THE CASE? I MEAN, NOT, NOT, I MEAN, I CAN UNDERSTAND POSTPONING IT BECAUSE WE'VE HAD SOME, SOME COMMENTS ON IT, BUT WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS TO SPEAK.
YOU GOT MS. YOUNG IS COMMISSIONER PALITO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON IT.
SO YEAH, THE APPLICANT IS, DID SHE WANT TO SPEAK ON THE, ON THE ISSUE OR DOES SHE WANT TO SPEAK ON THE, THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION? I APPRECIATE WHERE COMMISSIONER THOMPSON IS GOING WITH THIS BECAUSE, UM, I AM HAPPY TO READ THE LETTER THAT'S BEEN SENT BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I, IT'S NOT MY INTENTION TO PUSH THEM INTO DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT WHEN THEY'RE NOT HERE AND ABLE ACTUALLY BE PRESENT TO DISCUSS THE CASE.
SO IN THAT SENSE, IF THERE IS A WAY TO PUT IT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AGENDA, AFTER VOTING ON THE POSTPONEMENT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S FEASIBLE AT THIS MOMENT.
IT EITHER GETS PUT ON CONSENT NOW, UH, WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT AND WE'LL EITHER POSTPONE IT.
UH, WE'LL VOTE TO POSTPONE OR WE'LL VOTE TO HEAR THE CASE, UH, THIS EVENING OTHERS, THOSE ARE THE OPTIONS.
SO WE'RE MOVING FORWARD AND I WILL ALLOW, I MEAN, IF WE HAVE INFORMATION FROM THE ONES THAT WE WANT TO READ INTO THE RECORD, UH, WE CAN PERMIT THAT IF WE DO HEAR THE CASE THIS EVENING.
I'VE UH, WE, I THINK I HAD A, UM, A MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES, UH, CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING PROVED MINUTES.
I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
LET ME GO AND SEE OUR GREEN CARDS.
FOR THOSE OF YOU VIRTUALLY ARE GREEN ITEMS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7.
[00:25:02]
AND WE'RE, DON'T SEE, MR. HOWARD PRESENTLY AND ON THE DAYAS.UM, WE'VE GOT THREE CHAIR, COMMISSIONER HOWARD.
I FEEL LIKE I'M MISSING SOMEBODY.
I COUNTED HIM, BUT HE'S NOT HERE YET.
[B1. Rezoning: C14-2021-0166 - South Congress Avenue Residences; District 2 (Part 1 of 2)]
11.SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO THE ITEM B ONE DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT.
AND WELL, I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK TO THEM.
UH, THE MERITS OF THE POSTPONEMENT ONLY.
SO I GUESS WE'RE GOING TO MOVE DIRECTLY TO THE APPLICANT, UH, IN THIS CASE.
DAVE THEN COMMISSION MEMBERS, I'M ALICE GLASGOW REPRESENTING GCI, RESIDENTIAL, THEIR PROSPECTIVE DEVELOPER, AND A PROSPECTIVE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY, UH, UNDER ITEM B ONE.
SO THIS CASE WAS FILED ON OCTOBER 8TH, 2021.
THE CASE WAS FIRST ON YOUR AGENDA ON DECEMBER 14TH, AT WHICH, UH, HEARING THE MR. CANTU REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT.
AND, UH, AT THAT HEARING THE PLANNING COMMISSION, GRANTED A POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 11TH ON JANUARY 11TH, UH, AT LEAST AT THAT TIME THAT MR REQUESTS WAS TO ALLOW US TIME TO MEET BECAUSE OF THE HOLIDAYS WAS ENOUGH TIME TO HAVE A MEETING DURING THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS.
SO WE MET ON JANUARY 6TH AND WE JUST MET WITH MR. CANTU AND ANOTHER TEAM MEMBER, GWEN JEWISH.
AND WE, UH, THAT MY CLIENT WAS PRESENT.
UH, WE, UM, BEN, WE SHOWED UP AT YOUR AGENDA AGAIN ON JANUARY 11TH AND MR. CONTOUR REQUESTED ANOTHER POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 8TH.
I THINK THAT POSTPONEMENT COINCIDED WITH THE, UH, WITH THE NEW CHANGES OF YOUR AGENDA.
AND THEN WE'RE HERE TODAY AND WE HAVE ANOTHER REQUEST FOR A THIRD POSTPONEMENT.
AND SO I WOULD JUST ASK THAT WE HEAR THE CASE.
I WE'VE HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, ADDRESS, UM, MR. CANTU'S QUESTIONS IN YOUR BACKUP.
THERE'S A LIST OF QUESTIONS THAT MR. CANTU SENT TO US EARLIER, AND THE RESPONSES ARE 26 QUESTIONS WITH THE RESPONSES TO 26 QUESTIONS THAT WE ADDRESSED TO MR. CANTU ON NOVEMBER OF 20 20 21.
SO WE BELIEVE WE'VE BEEN IN THE PROCESS LONG ENOUGH.
AND I BELIEVE IN, UM, IN THE SPIRIT OF THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION THAT WAS ADOPTED ON DECEMBER 9TH REGARDING, UM, ADDRESSING THE HOUSING CRISIS AND ASKED THE DIRECTING STAFF TO INVESTIGATE, UH, REASONS AS TO WHY THE, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, INCLUDING ZONING, UM, HOW THOSE CONTRIBUTE TO THE DELAY IN, UH, UH, PROVIDING THE NEED OF HOUSING IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
SO I WOULD ASK THAT YOU PLEASE HEAR THE CASE TONIGHT.
THE CASE IS ON THE CASE IS ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ON FOUR FEBRUARY 17TH.
UH, I GUESS THAT'S ALL THE SPEAKERS WE HAVE.
UM, SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO OUR QUESTIONS, UH, Q AND A, AND REMEMBER, UM, THIS NOT SUPPOSED TO DELVE INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, JUST, UH, THE MERITS OF POSTPONING IT, THIS CASE OR NOT.
SO, UH, THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION.
ANY QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER TOPS.
THIS IS REALLY TO, I GUESS, ANYONE, BUT D DO WE HAVE THE REQUEST SPECIFICALLY WAS BECAUSE COMMISSIONER PRAXIS IS NOT, UH, IN ATTENDANCE TONIGHT.
UM, HAS ANYONE ACTUALLY, PER, IS THIS REQUEST COMING FROM COMMISSIONER PRAXIS? AND DO WE KNOW IF SHE'S GOING TO BE IN ATTENDANCE IN THE DATE THAT, UH, MARIO CANTU HAS REQUESTED? DOES, DOES ANYONE KNOW THAT? DO NOT KNOW, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
UH, ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, UH, COMMISSIONER MITCHELL TELLER, I GUESS.
UH, I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT WOULD BE AWARE IF THERE, OR, OR CITY STAFF, MAYBE THIS IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR CITY STAFF, IF WE ARE AWARE OF WHAT THE ISSUES ARE THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE POSTPONEMENT WITH THE CONCERNS WERE, UM, I THINK, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANY INFORMATION FROM THE COMMUNICATION, UH, PERHAPS, UH, COMMISSIONER YANEZ, PALITO MIGHT HAVE SOME INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT
[00:30:01]
AS TO, UH, THE JUSTIFICATION FOR POSTPONEMENT.UM, YEAH, I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE.
AND JUST, JUST SO I MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT THE RIGHT CASE.
THIS IS THE ITEM B ONE, THAT'S JUST CHANGING TO THE SLIGHTLY, THAT DESIGNATION WHILE MAINTAINING THE NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY.
IT IS THAT'S THE CORRECT CASE.
SO, ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE QUESTIONS RELATED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, KIND OF RELATED TO WHETHER OR NOT WE HEAR THIS CASE, UH, THIS EVENING, UH, OR POSTPONEMENT.
UM, WELL WITH THAT, UM, I THINK WE SHOULD GO AHEAD.
ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION AND A MOTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING.
WE DON'T HAVE TO CLOSE THE HEARING.
UH, SO, WELL, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE POSTPONEMENT.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THE MOTION COMMISSIONER? UH, VICE-CHAIR HEMPEL SECOND SET MOTION.
DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? UM, THERE, THIS IS THE THIRD POSTPONEMENT THAT THIS HAS GONE THROUGH AND WE CAN'T KEEP DOING THIS, YOU KNOW, FIRST ONE IS USUALLY COURTESY AND THEN THERE'S A SECOND.
THIS IS GOING TO BE THE THIRD REQUEST.
AND, UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF THE, YOU KNOW, MOST OF THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED AND THE ONLY WAY WE CAN FIND OUT IF THEY HAVEN'T BEEN IS TO ACTUALLY HEAR THE CASE.
AND THEN FROM THAT POINT, WE CAN DECIDE IF WE COULD CONTINUE, YOU KNOW, LIKE, UH, UH, POSTPONE IT AGAIN BASED UPON WHAT WE HEAR.
SO WE DON'T KNOW UNLESS WE CRACK UP IN THE CASE.
UH, ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK AGAINST HEARING THIS CASE THIS EVENING? ALRIGHT.
UH, WELL, I THINK YOU MEAN COURT FOR HEARING THE CASE THIS EVENING, OREGON.
HE IS DENYING THE POSTPONE FOR A MOMENT.
SO WE'RE DENYING THE POSTPONEMENT.
THAT MEANS IF THE MOTION, UH, GETS THE VOTES, WE WILL HEAR THE CASE AND LOSING CONNECTIVITY.
UH, SO ANY OF ANY SPEAKERS, UH, WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? I'M GOING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR.
A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE IS, AS I RECALL, THE ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP ARE KIND OF OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THIS PLANNING COMMISSION.
I THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT REALLY WERE OUTSIDE OF OUR CONTROL, UH, UM, OUR SCOPE.
SO THAT'S WHAT I RECALL FROM SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP.
SECONDLY, AS MUCH AS I WOULD LOVE TO ENTERTAIN, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT ALL OF US ARE HERE ON THE EVENINGS, THAT CASES IN THEIR DISTRICT ARE BROUGHT BEFORE US.
I'M AFRAID IF I HONOR THAT IF I STARTED THAT PRECEDENT, WE WOULD BE ON A SLIPPERY SLOPE AND HAVE A LOT MORE, UH, POSTPONEMENT.
SO I REALLY DON'T WANT TO START THAT.
AND SO I APOLOGIZE, COMMISSIONER PRACTICES FOR NOT HONORING HER WISH, UH, OR, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST, UH, WITH THIS MOTION.
BUT, UM, I THINK THAT, AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE, UH, A PROBLEM IF, IS THE CHAIR, IF I LET THAT, UH, IF WE MOVED FORWARD, HONORING THAT REQUEST, ANY OTHER FOREIGN AGAINST FOR OREGON'S.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
AND I'M GOING TO LOOK AT THE SCREEN FIRST, AS IN, IT'S JUST, I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT IMAGINARY, HONEST PLAY-DOH HAS LIMITED CONNECTIVITY AND MAYBE WOULD WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
KNOW IF SHE WANTED, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THIS MOTION? THANK YOU.
I LOST POWER FOR A SECOND THERE, BUT I'M BACK.
IT WAS BAD TIMING, BUT I SHOULD BE ALL RIGHT HERE.
UM, I REALLY JUST WANTED TO REITERATE THAT FOR THE CONTACT TEAM.
THIS IS, YOU KNOW, A MAJOR ISSUE IN DISTRICT TWO.
IT'S NOT JUST COMMISSIONER PRAXIS, BUT ALSO THE CONTACT TEAM, NOT BEING ABLE TO BE HERE, UM, TO DISCUSS IT.
AND I DO UNDERSTAND IT'S AN ADDITIONAL POSTPONEMENT REQUEST, BUT YOU ALL MAY RECALL THAT THE CONTACT TEAM WAS REQUESTING ADDITIONAL TIME.
AND, UM, AND I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS AROUND DELAYING THIS FURTHER, BUT I ALSO THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE TALKING ABOUT, UM, SOME OF THESE CRITICAL VALUE CAPTURE INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING ISSUES, ESPECIALLY IN A PART OF AUSTIN WHERE THE VALUE IS APPRECIATING SO RAPIDLY.
AND THERE'S SO MUCH, UH, DEVELOPMENT AND PROFIT BEING GENERATED IN THIS PART OF TOWN THAT QUITE FRANKLY HAS BEEN NEGLECTED SOUTH OF THE RIVER AND SOUTH HAD BEEN WHITE FOR A REALLY LONG TIME.
SO THAT'S WHY I WAS SUPPORTING MORE ROBUST DISCUSSION
[00:35:01]
THAT INCLUDES THE CONTACT TEAM.AND I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF POSTPONEMENT.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
SO THIS IS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SHAY SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HEMPHILL TO DENY THE REQUEST BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO POSTPONE THIS CASE.
SO LET ME GO AND, UH, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
LET ME LOOK FIRST AT THE SCREEN, UM, GET YOUR ACCOUNT ONE.
THIS IS IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TOO, THAT WILL RESULT IN US HEARING THE CASE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, OKAY.
I KNOW THIS IS VERY CONFUSING.
SO LET ME GET A COUNT ONE, TWO.
SO, UM, I'M TELLING UP SIX THERE AND ON THE DIOCESE, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, THAT'S THREE.
SO THOSE AGAINST THE MOTION ON THE SCREEN, UH, I'VE GOT ONE AND THOSE THAT ARE, UH, ABSTAINING ONE AND OKAY.
I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, THAT MOTION PASSES 9 1 1.
SO WE ARE GOING TO HEAR THAT CASE.
UM, SO BEFORE WE DO SO, UH, I NEED TO, I WOULD LIKE TO THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER CHANGING THE ORDER OF OUR CASES.
WE HERE, WE HAVE HAD A FEW DROP OFF, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HEAR ITEMS. UH, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF SOMEBODY WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO HERE ITEMS B FIVE, B SIX AND B SEVEN FIRST ON THE AGENDA.
SO THAT WILL TAKE A, I BELIEVE A SUPER MAJORITY.
SO, UH, WE NEED NINE OF US TO VOTE IN FAVOR TO MOVE THAT TO THE FRONT, AND THEN WE'LL PROCEED IN ORDER AFTER THAT.
SO DO I HAVE A MOTION? UH, OKAY.
I'M MOTIONED BY COMMISSIONER COX, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MOOSE, TODDLER TO MOVE ITEMS B FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN TO HEAR THOSE FIRST.
UH, THOSE, UM, LET ME GO AND LOOK AT THE VIRTUAL SCREEN HERE, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION.
THAT'S EIGHT AND THEN I'M THE DYESS THREE.
SO WE'RE GOING TO HERE, UH, THE FIRST ITEMS THIS EVENING.
SO I GUESS, DO WE NEED, IS EVERYBODY PRESENT OR DO WE NEED TO GIVE A FEW MINUTES FOR PEOPLE TO COME IN FROM THE ATRIUM? I'M NOT SURE IF EVERYBODY'S HERE YET.
SO COMMISSIONER, I BELIEVE WE'RE READY TO PROCEED.
SO CAN I ASK A QUESTION ON ITEM B ONE, WHICH I KNOW WE CANNOT, AND WE HAVE ALREADY GONE PAST THIS, BUT I, IT, SINCE NOBODY HAD AN ISSUE WITH THE MATERIALITY OF THE GUESTS, IS THERE A WAY FOR US TO GO BACK AND CONSIDER IN SOME WAY IN A CONSENT FORM WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE FULL DISCUSSION OF THE CASE? I'M NOT SURE IF WE HAVE ANY MECHANISMS TO DO THAT.
I BELIEVE WE COULD SKIP A LOT OF OUR NORMAL STEPS ONCE WE BRING IT UP, MAYBE, UH, CHANGED THE RULES ON Q AND A AND SOME OTHER THINGS JUST TO GET THROUGH IT FASTER.
WE COULD, UH, MAYBE I'LL PROPOSE SOMETHING AT THAT TIME.
[Items B5 - B7 (Part 1 of 2)]
SO, UH, STARTING OUT, UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM STAFF AND ON, UM, ITEMS I CAN MEASURE A JERRY RESTAURANT IN THE HOUSING PLANE DEPARTMENT, UM, TO RECAP THESE THREE ITEMS ARE THE STATESMAN POT.UM, WE HAVE ONE IS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT.
ONE IS A HYBRID PLAN AMENDMENT.
THE OTHER ONES IS THE ACTUAL PUTT ITSELF.
UH, WE DID HAVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT PRESENTATION AND QUESTIONS.
UM, A WHILE BACK, UM, SINCE THEN WE'VE HAD SEVERAL WORKING GROUP MEETINGS AND THE WORKING GROUP HAS PREPARED A DOCUMENT, A SPREADSHEET THAT SET THE VERY END OF YOUR BACKUP OF ALL THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT THE WORKING GROUP, UM, PROPOSES TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
HOWEVER, THE, UM, COMMISSION WOULD LIKE IF YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE ANOTHER PRESENTATION OR JUST HEAR QUESTIONS OR GO STRAIGHT TO THE AMENDMENTS WERE AVAILABLE.
I HAVE STAFF HERE FROM SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS, BOTH ONLINE AND IN-PERSON AND, UM, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD.
UH, THE QUICK POINT OF ORDER HERE, UH, MR. RIVERA, SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU.
UH, WE DO NEED TO REVIEW THE DEBATE RULES THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING FOR.
THIS IS, UM, I THINK I SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT BEFORE WE GOT STARTED, BUT SHOULD WE GO, CAN WE DO THAT BEFORE WE GET INTO, UH, THE DEBATE OR SHOULD WE DO THAT NOW? CHECK COMMISSION LISTENER FEEL FREE TO DO SO I'LL APPROACH IT TO PETE.
SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME PRIOR TO DEBATE.
[00:40:01]
THE QUESTION ON WHAT COMMISSIONERS WANT TO HEAR FROM STAFF AT THIS POINT, UM, ON THESE ITEMS, WE DID GO THROUGH THIS PREVIOUSLY.I'VE OUR MISSION TODDLER, GO AHEAD.
I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST THAT, UM, WHEREVER WE FEEL IT'S APPROPRIATE, THERE'S AN UPDATE TO PC ON KIND OF WHAT MIGHT'VE CHANGED BETWEEN THE TIME THE SMALL WORKING GROUP WAS FORMED AND WHAT, WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY.
SO, UM, ANY COMMENTARY ON CHANGES FROM, UH, THINGS THAT WERE RESOLVED WITH STAFF VERSUS WHAT, WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE REMAINING UNRESOLVED AND WHAT THE WORKING GROUP, UM, DID TO TRY AND PLUG SOME OF THOSE HOLES.
I KNOW, UM, COMMISSIONER COX WAS GONNA SPEAK A BIT TO THAT.
OKAY, WELL, LET'S LOOK AT THIS.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MAKE A QUICK LIST OF WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR FROM STAFF, AND THEN TRY TO GET THEM BACK UP HERE.
SO WE'RE NOT USING ALL THEIR TIME.
YEAH, I THINK COMMISSIONER WAS TODDLER, UM, IS CORRECT.
AND, AND THE MAIN THING THAT I UNDERSTAND HAS CHANGED SINCE WE LAST TOOK THIS UP, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT WORKING GRIPS DONE ITS THING IS THAT WE NOW HAVE A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT, UH, BOTH THE APPLICANT AND STAFF ARE ASKING US TO VACATE.
SO I THINK IT'D BE HELPFUL FOR THE STAFF AND OR APPLICANT TO, TO EXPLAIN THAT, JUST SO THAT, UM, THAT DOESN'T OCCUPY Q AND A, UH, TOO MUCH.
SO ARE WE AGREEING RIGHT NOW TO HAVE STAFF DISCUSS KIND OF BE WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE THE LAST TIME WE HEARD THIS CASE AND, UM, AND THIS POINT WE'RE AT NOW, UM, AND THEN ALSO DISCUSS ITEM B, UH, SEVEN.
IS THAT THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE WANT STAFF TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? IS THAT GOOD? ALL RIGHT.
UH, NOT HEARING ANY ADDITIONS TO THAT.
UH, MR. AND IF WE CAN, UM, GO AHEAD.
AND IF, IF YOU'RE PREPARED IS TRIED TO GIVE US KIND OF, IF THERE HAS BEEN ADDITIONAL NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN STAFF AND THE APPLICANT ON SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE UNRESOLVED.
UH, I GUESS FROM THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE, WE HAD AN EXTENSIVE COMMUNICATION FROM, UM, STAFF AT THAT POINT, BUT IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO KNOW IF ANYTHING'S CHANGED FROM THAT TIME, UH, CHERISH, UM, NOT TOO MUCH HAS CHANGED, JUST CONTINUING ONGOING DISCUSSIONS.
UM, WE STILL HAVE A COUPLE ISSUES THAT WE'RE WORKING ON WITH THE, UH, WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, I BELIEVE.
UH, WE'RE STILL WORKING WITH ATD ON THE ANGLE OF THE INTERSECTION OF BARTON SPRINGS ROAD AND, UM, SOUTH CONGRESS.
UM, WE'RE STILL DISCUSSING WITH THE, UM, PARKS DEPARTMENTS AND PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS.
I BELIEVE THEY'RE HAVING ON THE, UM, UM, THE, WHAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE FUTURE DISCUSSIONS ON THE PARKLAND, DEDICATION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATIONS AGREEMENT.
I HAVE ALL THE RIGHT, UM, VERY LONG TITLE FOR A DOCUMENT.
UM, AND SO I CAN'T THINK OF ANY MAJOR ISSUES THAT HAVE, UM, CHANGED OR BEEN RESOLVED SINCE WE LAST HAD, UM, DISCUSSIONS.
BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT SPECIFICS, LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE MULTIPLE PEOPLE FROM MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS HERE.
WE CAN MAYBE ADDRESS THOSE INDIVIDUALLY.
AND WE DID WANT TO HEAR, IF YOU COULD GIVE US A QUICK, UH, OR YOU OR SOMEBODY IN YOUR STAFF ON SINCE WE DID, UM, I DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFICS RIGHT NOW.
I'D HAVE TO PULL BACK UP MY PC HERE, BUT IT'S, IT'S AN OLD COVENANT, I BELIEVE FROM THE SEVENTIES THAT, UM, UM, SPEAKS IN TERMS OF, UM, THINGS THAT YOU WOULD TYPICALLY FIND IN A ZONING CASE THAT WOULD BE, UM, TOTALLY, UM, IRRELEVANT IF WE APPROVE THE POD.
UM, SO STEPH IS RECOMMENDING, UM, TERMINATION OF THAT AGREEMENT.
I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OPPOSITION TO THE TERMINATION OF THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, BUT IF YOU WANT SPECIFICS ON WHAT IT IS, I'D HAVE TO GO PULL BACK.
IF WE COULD JUST, UM, I'M PULLING UP THE BACKUP HERE, BUT I THINK THERE ARE JUST, IF WE COULD JUST, UM, GO OVER THAT QUICKLY, I THINK THERE WERE THREE THINGS THAT IT KIND OF WERE ROLLED INTO THAT RC.
I KNOW SOMETHING HAD TO DO WITH THE TRAIL WITH AS WELL.
SO THAT ONE INTERESTED ME IF WE COULD JUST QUICKLY ADDRESS THAT REAL QUICK.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT DENIED.
THIS WAS A COVENANT THAT WE FOUND IN THE, IN THE TITLE POLICY IT'S IT WAS DONE.
IT PUT IN PLACE BACK IN 1978 ON A PREVIOUS ZONING CASE BEFORE THIS TRACK WAS EVEN ZONED BUD.
SO WHAT THEY DID WAS THEY SAID IN THIS COVENANT YOU'RE ALLOWED THE USES ALLOWED IN THE L ZONING, WHICH IS WHAT IT WAS PLUS A NEWSPAPER USE.
PLUS YOU HAD TO DEDICATE A TRAIL.
IT, IT OBLIGATED THE PEOPLE THAT DEDICATED TRAIL EASEMENT, THE TRAIL HAS BEEN, HAS BEEN DEDICATED, AND THE LAND USES ARE NO LONGER RELEVANT BECAUSE SUBSEQUENT TO THIS COVENANT, THEY ZONED IT
[00:45:01]
PUD AND DETERMINED THE LAND USE IS THERE.SO THE COVENANT IS KIND OF JUST A FLOATING TITLE PROBLEM.
AND ALL OF THE, THE ITEMS THAT THE CITY WAS WORRIED ABOUT MAINLY GETTING THAT TRAIL EASEMENT HAVE ALREADY BEEN RECORDED AND ALL THE USE RESTRICTIONS WENT AWAY WHEN THE CITY LATER ZONED IT PUD.
SO WE'RE JUST ASKING THAT THE COVENANT BE TAKEN OFF.
SO WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO, UM, THE APPLICANTS, UM, PRESENTATION, UH, FOR THESE ITEMS. I THINK YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MORE STAFF PRESENTATIONS, SO LET'S GO MOVE TO THAT PART OF THE DISCUSSION.
AND I WILL, UM, I GUESS, UH, PLEASE, UH, MR. RIVERA, I THINK YOU WERE GOING TO HELP WITH THE M SEEING AS WE KIND OF BRING SPEAKERS UP.
SO I'LL TURN THAT OVER TO YOU.
SO WE'LL HEAR FROM MR. RICHARD SUTTLE FOR FIVE MINUTES AND WE'LL HAVE HIS PRESENTATION UP SHORTLY CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, MY NAME'S RICHARD SUBTLER.
AND I HOPE YOU WON'T HEAR FROM ME FOR FIVE MINUTES WITH YOUR INDULGENCE.
I WOULD LIKE TO BASICALLY PUT IT BACK TO YOU ON HOW YOU'D LIKE TO HANDLE IT.
WE HAVE OUR ENTIRE, UH, CONSULTANT TEAM ON THE LINE READY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK DONE BY THE, UM, SMALL WORKING GROUP OR THE WORKING GROUP, LOTS OF DISCUSSIONS.
THIS, UH, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF INFORMATION TRADED.
UM, WE CAN GO THROUGH TONIGHT AND MAKE ANOTHER PRESENTATION.
WE CAN DO ALL THAT AND, AND FILL UP A LOT OF TIME.
OR I WOULD BE FINE WITH YOU GUYS ENGAGING WITH US AND THE STAFF AND OTHER CITIZENS THAT HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN A CONVERSATION WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE CLOSE AND REBUT AT THE END, IF, IF THERE ARE ANY ROUGH SPOTS, BUT IF, UH, OBVIOUSLY I'M NOT, IT'S NOT MY DECISION TO MAKE, BUT UNLESS YOU JUST WANT US TO PRESENT AGAIN, WE'RE HERE FOR QUESTIONS AND, AND HOPEFULLY HAVE A CONVERSATION.
WELL, UM, IT'S KIND OF HOW YOU WANT TO USE THIS TIME TO, UM, I CAN PUT IT, UM, LET ME GO BACK THE PRESENTATIONS UP.
UM, ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT WISH TO HEAR NOW? CAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A WHOLE LOT TIME.
LIKE WE DID LAST TIME TO REALLY VET THIS AWAY.
WE DID A, I'LL GO OVER THE RULES FOR THE DEBATE, UH, AND WE'LL HAVE OUR NORMAL Q AND A, UH, WHICH, UH, WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO STICK TO THIS EVENING.
SO, UH, COMMISSIONER, DO YOU WANT TO HEAR ANY PARTICULAR DETAILS ON THIS CASE? UH, FROM THE APPLICANT, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, I'LL JUST SAY THAT I THINK, I THINK THE MOST VALUABLE TIME TO SPEND ON THIS WOULD BE Q AND A.
SO, UM, I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO REVIEW THE RULES AND MAYBE TRIM OUR Q AND A, A LITTLE BIT, UH, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME.
BUT IF WE END UP HAVING MORE TIME, UH, WITH THE APPLICANT AND STAFF TO ASK QUESTIONS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE MOST VALUABLE IN MY, OKAY.
SO IF, UH, THERE'S NO OTHER INPUT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TRY TO SAVE TIME HERE AND MOVE ON TO THE SPEAKERS THAT ARE SPEAKING FORWARD AGAINST, UM, UM, QUICK RECOMMENDATION.
AND MAYBE THE OTHER, UH, COMMISSIONERS ON THE WORKING GROUP, UH, MIGHT BE ABLE TO, UH, YOU KNOW, PUTS A LITTLE INSIGHT IN THIS, BUT, UM, WHAT IF WE WENT AHEAD AND ASK QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF THAT WASN'T COVERED.
LIKE FOR INSTANCE, THE WHOLE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT STUFF IS, IS PRETTY NEW.
AS WE FOUND OUT WAS WE TALKED WITH THE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER COMMISSIONER FROM THE, UM, OTHER, FROM THE, WHICH ONE WAS IT FROM NASH SWAB.
AND SO WHAT IF WE ASK THEM QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT, JUST TO HELP THE COMMISSIONERS LEARN A LITTLE BIT MORE STUFF THAT WE FOUND OUT, UM, BECAUSE THERE'S THIS, SO THERE'S SO MUCH TO IT.
AND I AGREE, MAYBE WE CAN JUST HONE IN ON THE NEW INFORMATION THAT WE FEEL IS RELEVANT TO THE COMMISSION TO HEAR.
SO LET ME MAKE THIS SUGGESTION IS I'D LIKE TO GET THROUGH THE SPEAKERS, UM, THAT ARE FOREIGN AGAINST, BECAUSE THEY MAY INFORM SOME OF OUR Q AND A.
SO I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THOSE THAT HAVE SIGNED UP, UH, AND THEN MOVE INTO OUR Q AND A, AND THEN AT THAT TIME, IF WE NEED TO SUSPEND RULES FOR ADDITIONAL Q AND A, UM, CAUSE WE, WE CAN, UM, SO I'LL LEAVE THAT KIND OF, YOU KNOW, THERE'S JUST A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND WE CAN'T GET IT DONE IN EIGHT.
UH, WE'LL WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR MORE.
SO LET'S, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET THROUGH THE SPEAKERS RIGHT NOW.
AND LET ME JUST THANK THE COMMISSION FOR DOING THE SMALL WORKING GROUP.
WE GOT A LOT OF GOOD WORK DONE.
A LOT OF THINGS AIRED OUT A LOT OF GOOD, UH, CONVERSATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME OUT OF THAT.
[00:50:01]
I THINK THE SMALL GROUP LEARNING AND IT WAS VERY, VERY PRODUCTIVE.AND THANK YOU FOR TAKING US UP TONIGHT.
AS YOU SAID YOU WOULD, WHEN WE, WHEN WE ORIGINALLY POSTPONED, THERE ARE A LOT OF SPEAKERS SIGNED UP IN FAVOR TONIGHT THAT ARE PART OF OUR CONSULTANT TEAM.
THEY ARE GOING TO STAY ON THE PHONE FOR US FOR QUESTION AND ANSWERS, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S THERE.
THERE'S NO NEED TO MAKE A PRESENTATION TONIGHT UNLESS YOU'RE ASKED A QUESTION.
CAUSE, UH, GRAYSON, UH, D JUST TO, JUST TO CLARIFY THE ORDER IN WHICH WE WERE GOING TO DO, THIS WAS SPEAKERS AND THEN THE WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATION PRESENTATION, AND THEN WE'LL GO INTO Q AND A, IS THAT CORRECT? UM, WE, WE CAN DO THAT ORDER.
I HAD JUST SLIGHTLY FLIPPED IT Q AND A, AND THEN THE PRESENTATION FROM THE WORKING GROUP.
BUT IF YOU THINK THAT THAT ORDER, UH, WOULD HELP INFORM THE Q AND A, THEN, UH, WE CAN, I'M HEARING IT.
I THINK IT'D BE REALLY ADVANTAGEOUS FOR OTHER COMMISSIONERS TO BE ABLE TO ASK NOT ONLY STAFF AND THE APPLICANT AND THE PUBLIC QUESTIONS, BUT ALSO ASK THE WORKING GROUP QUESTIONS ABOUT, SO I WAS GOING TO TAKE A VOTE ON CHANGING OUR RULES A LITTLE LATER ON THE DEBATE AND ROLE OF THAT IN, YOU KNOW, YOUR, YOUR, UM, OVERVIEW INTO THAT.
BUT IT, I GUESS MR. RIVERA, DO WE NEED TO TAKE ANY VOTES HERE TO ALLOW THEM TO SPEAK BEFORE THE Q AND A SURE.
AND YOU MENTIONED LIAISON AND ROSIO WANT TO, UM, PROCEED WITH YOUR PUBLIC HEARING, CLOSES THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN DECIDE HOW US TO GO FORWARD OR WHAT THE DISCUSSION THIS EVENING.
SO LET'S GO AND GET THROUGH THE, UH, THE SPEAKERS AND THEN WE'LL TAKE IT FROM THERE.
SO NOW WE'LL HEAR HER FROM, UH, THE OPPOSITION MS. RACHEL, AND MELINDA'S MS. MELINDA HI, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
UH, RACHEL MELINDA IS WITH UNITE HERE.
UM, I HAVE MY NOTES ON MY PHONE.
UM, WE ASKED THAT THE HOTEL USE CONTINUE TO BE PROHIBITED IN THE AREA COVERED BY THE PUD WHILE THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION FRAMEWORK ENCOURAGES MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY THAT VISION CAN BE ACHIEVED WITH MIXED RETAIL OFFICE AND HOUSING, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ADDITIONAL HOTEL USE IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
BUILDING HOTELS MAKES THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS WORSE, ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION'S 2021 ANNUAL REPORT.
THE HOURLY WAGE NECESSARY TO AFFORD A TWO BEDROOM AT FAIR MARKET RENT.
AND THE AUSTIN ROUND ROCK METROHEALTH METROPOLITAN AREA IS 27, 58, MORE THAN TWICE THE MEDIAN HOURLY WAGE FOR THE LOCAL HOTEL INDUSTRY AT THIS RATE, A HOUSEKEEPER WOULD NEED TO WORK TWO AND A HALF JOBS AT $11 AND 4 CENTS AN HOUR IN ORDER TO AFFORD FAIR MARKET RENT FOR TWO BEDROOM APARTMENT IN AUSTIN, EVEN AT THE CITY'S MINIMUM WAGE OF $15 AN HOUR, WORKERS WOULD STILL NEED TO WORK TWO JOBS TO AFFORD FAIR MARKET RATE RENT.
UM, HOTEL WORKERS CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE THERE IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE 55 UNITS IN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, SLATE IT AS AFFORDABLE ARE SET AT 80% MFI, ACCORDING TO THE INCOME LIMIT SET BY HUD AND USED BY THE USED BY THE CITY.
UH, THIS TRANSLATES TO A $55,400 ANNUAL SALARY FOR A ONE PERSON HOUSEHOLD.
THE ANNUAL MEAN SALARY OF A HOTEL HOUSEKEEPER, SORRY, CAN'T BREATHE.
UM, AND THE LOCAL HOTEL INDUSTRY IS $23,000 AND FALLS BETWEEN 30 AND 40% MEDIAN INCOME LIMITS AT THESE RATES, A HOUSEKEEPER WOULD NEED TO WORK TWO FULL-TIME HOUSEKEEPING JOBS TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THIS DEVELOPMENT OF THERE'S AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE FOR CONVENTIONS, EVENTS AND TOURISM.
THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY, AS WE ALL KNOW, HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY, SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED BY THE ONGOING PANDEMIC.
UM, AND ADDITIONALLY, THE AUSTIN HOTEL MARKET WAS ALREADY CONTRACTING BEFORE THE PANDEMIC.
THERE ARE CURRENTLY 28 PROJECTS, ABOUT 3,500 HOTEL ROOMS IN THE PIPELINE FOR AUSTIN AND WITH THE ONGOING PANDEMIC AND THE CONTRACTING OF THE INDUSTRY.
IT'S CLEAR, WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER HOTEL.
THE PROPOSAL, IT IS NOT IN LINE WITH THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION FRAMEWORK PLAN AND CREATES LESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAN THE GOAL SET BY CITY COUNCIL IN 2016, UH, IN 2016, THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDED THE FRAMEWORK PLAN, AS WELL AS THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO SET THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOAL AT 20%, FIVE TIMES HIGHER THAN THIS PLAN IS PROPOSING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REVIEW AND THE ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET STAFF CLAIMS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE FRAMEWORK VISION PLAN AND THAT IT DOESN'T SPECIFY THAT EVERY TRACK SHOULD PROVIDE 20% OF UNITS AS AFFORDABLE, BUT INSTEAD THAT DIFFERENT TRACKS WILL PROVIDE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS.
HOWEVER, IF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS TO PROCEED AT
[00:55:01]
ONE FIFTH OF THE GOALS SET BY COUNCIL, EVERY OTHER DEVELOPER IS GOING TO ALSO ASK FOR THAT, UH, HOLD THIS UP AS AN EXAMPLE AND ASK WHY THEY DON'T HAVE TO ALSO MEET THE GOAL.SO INSTEAD OF A 275 ROOM HOTEL, WE THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE MORE HOUSING IN ITS PLACE AND MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MISS AUDREY FERGUSON.
MS. FERGUSON YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UM, MY NAME'S AUDREY FERGUSON AND AUSTIN'S MY HOME.
I HAVE SPENT MORE TIME HERE THAN ANYWHERE ELSE I'VE LIVED.
AND ONE OF THE CONSISTENT ISSUES I'VE SEEN IS JUST AFFORDABILITY AND IT GETTING WORSE AND WORSE.
PRESENTLY, I WORK 60 PLUS HOURS BETWEEN WHOLE FOODS AND VIA THREE ON THREE, A LOCAL RESTAURANT CHAIN, AS WELL AS ACTIVE PRIMARY CARE TAKER FOR MY GRANDMOTHER.
I STAY WITH THE FAMILY PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE CARETAKER ROLE, BUT PRIMARILY BECAUSE I CANNOT AFFORD RENT.
THE AVERAGE COST OF A ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT IS MORE THAN TWO THIRDS.
MY TAKE HOME PAY DESPITE HOW MUCH I WORK.
WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER HOTEL PROVIDING MEDIOCRE PAY.
WHAT WE NEED IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE CITY.
WHEN I'LL HEAR FROM MS. YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
MY NAME IS GINA DIVORCE SHACK.
I'M BORN AND RAISED TEXAN AND I'VE LIVED IN AUSTIN, TEXAS FOR OVER 20 YEARS.
I CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THIS CITY AND THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE AND WORK HERE.
AS SOMEONE WHO'S WORKED IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY, SINCE I WAS 16, I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH HOW PRECARIOUS THE INDUSTRY IS.
MANY PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THESE LUXURY.
HOTELS, BARS AND RESTAURANTS ARE BARELY MAKING A LIVABLE WAGE.
AND IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, THE AUSTIN HOUSING MARKET HAS MADE IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR MANY AUSTINITES TO LIVE IN THE CITY WHERE THEY WORK, MY PARTNER AND I PURCHASED A HOME IN 2018, BUT THE WAY THE HOUSING MARKET IS NOW, THERE IS NO WAY THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO BUY A HOME IN THE CITY TODAY, WE STRUGGLED TO PAY OUR MORTGAGE AND THE RISING PROPERTY TAXES.
WHEN THE INDUSTRY I WORKED IN WAS ONE OF THE HARDEST HIT BY THE PANDEMIC.
AUSTIN HAS BECOME SO EXPENSIVE AND MANY OF MY FRIENDS AND COWORKERS, LOTS OF THEM, MUSICIANS AND ARTISTS WHO KEEP THE VIBRANCY OF THE MUSIC CAPITAL OF THE WORLD ALIVE.
I'VE HAD TO MOVE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T KEEP UP WITH THE RISING RENT AND THE COST OF LIVING.
SO NOW WE ARE ALL COMMUTING MUCH LONGER TO GET TO AND FROM WORK AT JOBS THAT BARELY PAY A LIVABLE WAGE.
I DON'T SEE A NEED FOR ANOTHER LUXURY HOTEL IN AUSTIN.
WHAT WE DESPERATELY NEED IS MORE AFFORDABLE.
PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THE CITY SHOULD BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO LIVE HERE.
WE MUST HAVE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS.
IF WE WANT TO SUSTAIN THE CULTURAL DIVERSITY, ARTISTIC VIBRANCY AND MUSICAL CAPITAL THAT SO MANY PEOPLE FALL IN LOVE WITH AND MOVE TO EVERY DAY.
YOU NOW HEAR FROM MISS OFELIA MEDRANO.
I MADRANO YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
OH, LA I'LL BE TRANSLATING FOR HER.
SHE SAID, HI, MY NAME IS AND I'VE BEEN WORKING AT THE AIRPORT OF ASTON, LIKE A COOK FOR 19 YEARS.
THERE'S THE MEXICO I BEEN LIVING IN ASKING FOR 36 YEARS.
EVER SINCE I CAME FROM MEXICO, I HAVE TWO KIDS.
WISH THEY WERE BORN AND RAISED HERE.
DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN JUST HOLD A MINUTE.
UM, AS IT'S A TRANSLATION SPEAKER, WE'LL DOUBLE THE TIME.
SO, UH, MS. MADRANO YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES.
I WILL SAY, HAVE TO WORK VERY HARD TO BUY A HOUSE WHERE I RAISED MY FAMILY.
SO MY DAUGHTER COULD DO THE SAME AS I DID MIKA
[01:00:03]
SO YET, BUT I WILL THROW ARE NOT YOU GUYS .MY DAUGHTER HAS, UH, IS RENTING AN APARTMENT HERE IN AUSTIN.
AND RECENTLY THE RENT WENT UP $300 FROM ONE DAY TO ANOTHER.
SHE HAS, UH, SHE HAS TRIED TO BUY A HOUSE, BUT SHE WASN'T ABLE TO BECAUSE PRICES ARE SO HIGH.
SHE LIVES IN A SMALL APARTMENT AND SHE WASTED HALF OF HER INCOME, UH, MUDDLY.
VBN THIS AS A SEAMLESS THESE MOMENTS ARE GETTING VERY HARD AND WE NEED, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO, UH, GO AHEAD, LIKE KEEP GOING, SUCCEED.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. BILL BUNCH AND MR. BUNCH.
EVEN BILL BOND AND SAVE OUR SPRINGS ALLIANCE FOR SAY ONE MINUTES.
UM, YOU DON'T HAVE A PUD ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF YOU.
YOU SHOULDN'T BE VOTING ON IT AND IT'S NOT READY.
YOU NEED TO DRAFT PUDDLE ORDINANCE AND YOU NEED TO POSTPONE.
I'VE HEARD P YOU DON'T THINK PEOPLE CARE ABOUT THIS.
YOU'VE GOT DOZENS OF PEOPLE, UH, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, OPPOSED TO THIS.
NOBODY KNOWS THIS IS HAPPENING.
NOTICE WE HAVE CONFUSION WITH THE TERRORS.
I TRIED TO ATTEND THE WORKING GROUP MEETING.
I WAS HERE TWO WEEKS AGO FOR IT.
I WAS HERE FOR THE PARKS BOARD MEETING AS WELL.
UH, MY GUESS IS THE WA WORKING GROUP, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT IF, UH, RICHARD SUTTLE WAS NOT THE ONLY ONE ATTENDING THAT MEETING FROM THE OUTSIDE.
THERE'S NO WAY IT CAN BE SUPERIOR.
THE PARKS THAT LAND DEDICATION IS ABOUT SIX ACRES WHEN IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE NINE UNDER THIS UNDER CODE AND UNDER THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN.
UM, AND THERE, THE STAFF IS TRYING TO TIE THIS INTO THE TERS AND BACK DOOR THAT WE'RE PAYING FOR.
WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THEY GET CREDIT FOR, TO MAKE IT SUPERIOR.
PLEASE POSTPONE THIS, KEEP THE HEARING OPEN AND DEMAND THAT STEPH PROVIDE YOU A DRAFT PUDDLE ORDINANCE SO THAT YOU CAN AMEND IT PROPERLY AND HAVE A REAL PROCESS.
UM, AND JUST BRIEFLY, MY NAME'S ROY WHALEY, I'M WITH THE AUSTIN ROOD DRUM GROUP OF THE SIERRA CLUB.
AND I'D LIKE TO ECHO MR. BUNCH OF STATEMENT.
IF THE APPLICANT WISHES TO PROVIDE THE REBUTTAL AT THIS TIME, JEREMY WAS THE COMMISSION.
I'LL JUST REBUT THE TWO POINTS THAT WERE MADE ON THE HOTEL USE.
UM, I STILL CAN'T GET MY HEAD AROUND THE REASON FOR NOT ALLOWING A HOTEL USE HOTELS, GENERATE, UH, VARIOUS FORMS OF REVENUE FOR THE CITY.
UM, UNDER THE THEORY THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE A HOTEL HERE, I THINK IT'S A CITY POLICY.
SHOULD WE HAVE A MORATORIUM ON HOTELS JUST IN THE CITY? THIS IS THE PERFECT PLACE FOR HOTEL.
IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE AN ARBITRARY RESTRICTION NOT TO HAVE A HOTEL ON THIS SIDE WHEN YOU'VE GOT THEM ALL THE WAY AROUND ON MR. BUNCHES POINT ABOUT THE PUDDLE ORDINANCE IT'S BEEN STANDARD PRACTICE FOR AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN DOING THIS, THE PUD ORDINANCE DOESN'T GET DRAFTED UNTIL THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND SOMETIMES UNTIL THE CITY COUNCIL DOES FIRST READING, BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD BE IN IT.
THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN ON FILE FOR YEARS FOR REVIEW, THERE'S BEEN MULTIPLE HEARINGS AT VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
THERE'S BEEN MULTIPLE HEARINGS ON THE SOUTH CENTRAL PLAN, AND WE WOULD MAINTAIN THAT THERE'S NO NEED TO POSTPONE AT ALL ANYMORE BECAUSE THIS THING HAS BEEN AIRED OUT A LOT.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, CHAIR COMMISSIONER LANE THAT CONCLUDES YOUR, UH, PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO, UH, COATS, PUBLIC HEARING, UH, SCHNEIDER, YOU HAVE A SECOND COMMISSIONER COX, LET'S GO.
AND, UM, UH, TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS, THESE ITEMS, UH, AND BY THE WAY, WE ARE TAKING OUT FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN TOGETHER, SO IT'LL OKAY.
[01:05:01]
UH, EIGHT ON THE SCREEN AND ON THE DIOCESE IS IN FAVOR OF CLOSE AND PUBLIC HEARING, YOU GOT THREE.NOW, UM, I WANT TO, AT THIS MOMENT, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GO AND VOTE ON THE RULES FOR HOW WE DEBATE THIS ITEM.
UH, THIS IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, AND IF YOU GUYS CAN, UH, BEAR WITH ME BECAUSE, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO READ THIS.
IT'S NOT, UM, I KNOW IT'S TWO PAGES, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO READ EVERYTHING.
UH, IT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE DONE BEFORE.
GENERALLY, THE IDEA IS WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO WITH THESE RULES, UM, IS TRY TO MOVE AS MUCH AS WE CAN, UH, YOU KNOW, GET A BASE MOTION AND THEN MOVE AS MUCH AS WE CAN FROM THE WORKING GROUP ON CONSENT, WITHOUT DISCUSSION AND MOVE AS MANY OF THE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS, UM, THAT WERE POSTED, UH, ON CONSENT WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
BUT IF ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO DISCUSS A MOTION, WE MOVE IT INTO DISCUSSION.
IT'S JUST TRYING TO GET AS MUCH, UH, PASSED UP FRONT AND CLEAR IT OUT.
SO WE HAVE MORE TIME TO WORK ON THE ONES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, DESERVE MORE, UM, UH, COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF.
SO, UM, THE FIRST STEP WILL BE TO WORK THROUGH THE, TO DECIDE, WHICH ARE THE WORKING GROUP.
THE FIRST THING WE'RE GOING TO DO IS HEAR FROM THE WORKING GROUP, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SIX MINUTES, UH, THE CHAIR OR, UH, CHAIRS DESIGNEES HAVE THAT TIME TO DISCUSS THE WORKING GROUP, GIVE US A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THEIR AMENDMENTS, AND THEN WE WILL MOVE INTO, UM, UH, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS AT THAT POINT.
UH, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND STICK WITH OUR EIGHT AT FIVE.
UM, BUT WE DON'T NEED TO USE ALL THE FIVE IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
UM, AND I, WE MAY, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS LATER ON, WE MAY ALLOW YOU TO COME BACK LATER TO FILL UP THOSE LATER SPOTS.
BUT, AND AGAIN, AS I SAID, IF WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, WE CAN SUSPEND THESE RULES AND ADD MORE QUESTIONS.
SO, BUT WE'RE GOING TO START WITH OUR EIGHT AND FIVE ON THE Q AND A AFTER THAT, UM, WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
AND SO, UM, WHAT WE DO IS I'LL REQUEST A MOTION TO, UH, TO PASS THEM ON CONSENT AND THEN COMMISSIONERS WILL IDENTIFY THOSE ITEMS ON THAT, UH, ON THE, YOU KNOW, THE LIST OF AMENDMENTS THAT THE WORKING GROUP HAD, THAT THEY WANT TO PULL FOR DISCUSSION.
UM, DURING THAT TIME, UH, TO DECIDE WHAT WE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION, I'M GOING TO ALLOW TWO COMMISSIONERS, THREE MINUTES EACH TO ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON, ON EACH ITEM.
UM, I NEED TO BE THE WORKING GROUP, UH, AMENDMENTS, SHOULD THEY NEED TO ASK QUESTIONS, UM, TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY PULL THEM OFF OR NOT? UH, IF ANY OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, UH, WE ARE GOING TO ENTERTAIN OTHER INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS AS WELL TONIGHT.
SO IF YOU HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT THAT YOU DIDN'T POST THAT YOU HAVE WITH YOU, OR THAT YOU COME UP WITH, UM, WHEN WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION, PLEASE, UH, DISCUSS THAT BECAUSE IF WE HAVE KIND OF TWO AMENDMENTS THAT ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT OR OPPOSING, WE NEED TO DISCUSS THAT.
SO GO AHEAD AND REQUEST THAT WE PULL THAT WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT THAT IS RELATED TO YOUR AMENDMENT SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A, YOU KNOW, KIND OF COMPARE AND CONTRAST LATER ON.
SO ONCE THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE CONSENT OF THE, UH, WE'RE HERE, IF AMENDMENTS, UM, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND VOTE AND THEN WE'LL CLEAR THOSE OFF.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE WON'T NEED TO DISCUSS THOSE THAT ARE ON CONSENT.
WE'LL DO THE SAME FOR THE POSTED INDIVIDUAL, UM, AMENDMENTS THAT WERE SAID TO ANDREW BEFORE THE DEADLINE.
UH, THAT WAS YESTERDAY AT NOON, CORRECT.
SO WE'LL MOVE THAT SAME PROCESS FOR THOSE, UH, WE'LL, YOU KNOW, MAYBE ALL THIS NEED TO BE DISCUSSED, BUT IF WE HAVE ANY THAT ARE, THAT WE CAN MOVE ON CONSENT, WE'LL DO THAT.
AND THEN WE'LL MOVE INTO DISCUSSING THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
UH, WE'LL GO FROM THE TOP OF LIST TO THE BOTTOM OF THE ONES THAT ARE LEFT AND, UM, I'M GOING TO ALLOW, AND THIS IS, THIS IS OUTSIDE OF THE Q AND A THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, UH, THIS IS WITHIN THE DISCUSSION FOR THOSE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
UM, THREE COMMISSIONERS WILL BE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES FOR QUESTIONS TO STAFF OR OTHER COMMISSIONERS RELATED TO THAT AMENDMENT.
[01:10:01]
GOING TO HAVE TIME TO ASK THE WORKING GROUP, WHAT DID THEY MEAN? OR WE CAN CLARIFY THINGS WITH STAFF.SO FOR EACH AMENDMENT, THIS BROUGHT UP FOR DISCUSSION THREE COMMISSIONERS, THREE MINUTES, EACH EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS SO FAR KIND OF WHERE WE'RE GOING.
UM, SO AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT, UH, THAT YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT THAT'S RELATED TO THAT WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT, UM, I THINK WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND MAYBE BRING THAT FORWARD AT THAT TIME, UM, JUST TO CALL IT OUT.
AND, UH, SO, UM, WE KNOW THAT IT'S OUT THERE AND WE CAN TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN WE'RE MAKING THE MOTION.
SO NEXT, UH, WE'LL HAVE A MOTION, UH, IN A SECOND ON THE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT, AND THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH OUR NORMAL, UM, DEBATE RULES, UH, ONCE THERE IS A MOTION.
UM, THE ONE THING, TWO THINGS I AM CHANGING, UH, UM, WELL ACTUALLY IT'S ONE THING, UH, IS WE DON'T USE IT VERY OFTEN, BUT IN DEBATE, UM, ROBERT'S RULE IS ALLOWS FOR WHAT WE CALL A TO QUESTION.
AND THAT IS, UH, SIMPLY WHERE YOU FEEL LIKE WE'VE CARRIED ON DEBATE LONG ENOUGH.
YOU CAN ACTUALLY SAY, CALL THE QUESTION.
IF YOU HAVE A SECOND, UH, WE END DEBATE AND WE VOTE ON THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE.
WHAT COULD LIKELY HAPPEN HERE IS WE COULD GET AMENDMENTS TO AMENDMENTS SUBSTITUTIONS, AND, AND WE MAY START SPENDING A LOT OF TIME AND IT IS ANY COMMISSIONERS, UH, CAN CALL THE QUESTION AND BRING THE MOTION ON THE TABLE TO A VOTE.
WHAT I WANT TO DO IS MAKE THAT EASIER TO DO.
AND INSTEAD OF HAVING TO, UH, A TWO THIRDS VOTE TO END DEBATE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT A MAJORITY VOTE TO END DEBATE.
I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.
ARE WE CLEAR ON CALL THE QUESTION AND WHAT THAT IS? THAT'S KIND OF A WAY TO KEEP THINGS MOVING THIS EVENING AND KIND OF TERMINATE DEBATE ON AN ITEM THAT, BUT THERE ARE TWO VOTES, RIGHT? THERE'S A CALL TO QUESTION THERE'S A, THERE'S A, A VOTE AND DEBATE.
AND THEN WE VOTE ON THE ITEM, NOT JUST VOTE ON THE ITEM WITHOUT DISCUSSING WHETHER WE CAN STILL HAVE MORE DEBATE ABOUT IT, CORRECT? YES.
IT STARTS WITH, WE HAVE TO AGREE TO IN DEBATE AND I'M JUST OFFERING UP THAT.
WE'VE JUST MADE THAT A MAJORITY INSTEAD OF A, A SUPER MAJORITY, TWO THIRDS OF NINE, IT'LL JUST BE SEVEN.
UH, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND, UH, END DEBATE AND, AND VOTE ON THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, EVERYBODY OKAY.
UH, INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS, UH, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO THERE IS, UM, UH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER MOOSE, TODDLER, I'M SORRY.
AND I APOLOGIZE PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT OF A CHALLENGE WITH, WITH TRYING TO DO THIS VIRTUALLY YOU'VE PRESENTED A LOT OF FORMATTING AND I'M VERY LOST.
DO WE, DID YOU, IF THERE WAS SOMETHING SENT OUT IN WRITING ON THIS, UM, CAN SOMEBODY DIRECT US TO, AND I'LL PULL THAT UP, BUT I HAVE NO, I'M SORRY.
I FEEL LIKE I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING ON.
IN WHAT WAY, ANDREW, IS THERE ANY WAY, CAN WE DISPLAY THIS? UM, I DIDN'T, I'M AFRAID THIS WE'RE GETTING .
UM, THAT WAS DISSEMINATED, UH, THIS AFTERNOON AROUND 3:20 PM.
UM, IT'S INCLUDED IN THAT EMAIL.
I'LL ALSO EMAIL IT TO EVERYBODY AT THIS TIME AND WE'LL ALSO DISPLAY IT.
UH, WHO'S SPEAKING, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.
OH, WHAT DOES IT COMMISSIONER SNYDER? I SAW YOUR HAND.
YEAH, I THINK IT WAS COMMISSIONER TRUCKS.
I HAVE A, SORT OF A PERIPHERAL QUESTION.
LET'S START WITH COMMISSIONER COST, COMMISSIONER CZAR.
AND THEN, UH, IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION COMMISSIONER SNYDER TO ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD.
MR. SARNA WAS ACTUALLY BEING PROPER AND RAISING HIS HAND.
UH, BUT IT, WHAT I SUGGEST IS BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY COMPLICATED.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT EITHER, BUT I'M WILLING TO VOTE FOR IT JUST SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF WE RUN UP AGAINST ISSUES THAT WE THINK DESERVE MORE TIME TO DISCUSS, WE CAN ALWAYS VOTE AT THAT TIME TO ADD MORE SLOTS, FORCE QUESTIONS AND THAT SORT OF STUFF.
AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT, THAT WE CAN ALWAYS MODIFY THESE RULES AS WE GO.
IF WE FEEL LIKE SOMETHING DESERVES MORE TIME, IS THAT CORRECT? SO I THINK WE CAN SUSPEND OUR RULES AND IF A COMMISSIONER WISHES TO THAT, WE CAN TAKE A VOTE.
AND, UH, IF WE HAVE TWO THIRDS, MAJORITY, THEN WE CAN CHANGE THE RULES AT THAT TIME.
[01:15:01]
SO THE GENERAL CONCEPT, JUST FOR YOUR BENEFIT.WELL, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER IS, ARE YOU AT A QUESTION AND KEY CHAIR AND I WANTED TO MAKE A REQUEST, WHICH IF OTHER FOLKS HAVE AN ISSUE, WE CAN THINK ABOUT IT, BUT CAN WE ADD TWO MINUTES AFTER THE WORKING GROUP WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS? AND HONESTLY, AFTER ALL THE COMMISSION NURSES HAVE PRESENTED, THEIR AMENDMENTS CAN BE, GIVE TWO MINUTES TO STAFF AND THREE MINUTES TO APPLICANT TO TELL US WHICH ONES THEY'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH AND WHICH ONE YOU'RE NODDING.
I THINK THAT WOULD JUST HELP UNDERSTANDING WHAT DO WE NEED TO FALL IN? WHAT, OKAY.
SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS AS PART OF THIS, UH, THIS DEBATE, UH, THIS TIME PERIOD AFTER WE HEAR THE PRESENTATION FROM THE WORKING GROUP, WE MOVE INTO A SIMPLE, UH, WE ASKED FOR STAFF AND THE APPLICANT TO TELL US, GO DOWN AND TELL US WHICH ONES THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF, OR, AND, OR MAYBE WE COULD JUST KEEP IT, UH, WHICH ONES THEY OPPOSE.
I'M TRYING TO THINK OF HOW TO MAKE IT EASY.
WAIT, IT COULD, COULD WE JUST SAY, WHEN WE COME UP WITH OUR CONSENT AGENDA, COULD WE JUST ASK FOR TWO MINUTES FOR STAFF AND AT THAT POINT FOR STAFF AND APPLICANT TO RESPOND TO THAT CONSENT AGENDA, AND THEN IF WE WANT TO PULL SOME OTHER PARTS OFF OF IT AND WE COULD DO THAT, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE RATHER THAN HAVE THEM? CAUSE I KNOW THERE'S SOME OF THEM THAT THEY'RE GOING TO OPPOSE THAT PROBABLY AREN'T GOING TO MAKE IT TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
SO, UH, WHEN WE'RE WORKING, SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS ON THE WORKING GROUP CONSENT AMENDMENT DISCUSSION, WE'RE GOING TO, ONCE WE'VE PULLED TOGETHER OUR CONSENT AGENDA OR CONSENT AMENDMENTS, WE'RE GOING TO ASK FOR INPUT FROM STAFF AND THE APPLICANT.
IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? DOES THAT MEET YOUR, UH, AGREEABLE? OKAY.
AND, UH, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO ADD? UH, I WAS JUST CHECKING THE, UH, THE PROPOSALS THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US ARE THE WORKING GROUP PROPOSALS.
AND THEN THE ONES THAT YOU SUBMITTED CHAIR SHAW, OR WERE THERE OTHER ONES THAT WE RECEIVED OR IS THAT THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW, EXCEPT FOR ANYBODY WHO'S GOING TO BE BRINGING UP AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT NOW? CORRECT.
UM, AND I THINK YOU SAID THIS, UH, ARE, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE SOME LIKE CONTEXT LAYING BY THE WORKING GROUP BEFORE THEY LAY OUT THE INDIVIDUAL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS? YES.
UM, AFTER, AFTER A Q AND A WE'LL ACTUALLY, UM, BEFORE Q AND A, UH, THEY'RE GOING TO KICK IT OFF WITH THE SIX MINUTE OVERVIEW AND THEN WE'LL MOVE INTO OUR NORMAL Q AND A EIGHT, EIGHT COMMISSIONERS, FIVE MINUTES EACH.
AND THEN WE'LL ENTERTAIN, UH, KIND OF ESTABLISHING, UH, KIND OF THE, UH, A BASELINE FOR WHERE WE'RE STARTING WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, BASELINE MOTION, AND THEN WE'LL WORK THROUGH THE CONSENT WORKING GROUP, CONSENT AMENDMENTS.
SO, UH, CONTACTS AND LAYING OUT OF THE AMENDMENTS THEN Q AND A ABOUT THAT.
AND THEN WE DISCUSS WHERE THERE'S CONSENSUS TO QUIT THOSE AMENDMENTS ON A CONSENT AGENDA SAID, YES, I GET THAT RIGHT.
SO THE THING WE'LL START WITH RIGHT BEFORE, CORRECT.
BUT WHAT I WANT TO INTERJECT IS WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE IS KIND OF A STARTING POINT.
UH, THE EXAMPLE WOULD BE, UH, IS WE START WITH THE BASELINE OF, UH, YOU KNOW, STAFF, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS.
I'M NOT, I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT AS AN EXAMPLE, BUT THEN WE WOULD, UM, WE WOULD GO FROM THERE, YOU KNOW, WORKING THROUGH THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, THE AMENDMENTS AT THAT POINT, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE BASE MOTION.
THEN WE WOULD HAVE AMENDMENTS TO THAT BASE MOTION.
AND I CALL IT A QUESTION ONE MOMENT.
I'M HAVING TECHNICAL ISSUES UP HERE.
UH, YOU WANT TO CALL THE QUESTION? IS THAT WHAT I HEARD? I JUST WANT TO VOTE TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE'RE GOING TO SPEND MORE TIME TALKING ABOUT HOW TO SAVE TIME, BUT ACTUALLY SAVING TIME.
SO THE ONLY, UH, I WILL JUST ADD THIS ON THE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO GO ALPHABETICAL ORDER.
EACH COMMISSIONER WILL GET A CHANCE TO PRESENT AN AMENDMENT, UH,
[01:20:01]
AND THEN WE'LL HAVE KIND OF SIMILAR DISCUSSION ON THAT AMENDMENT AND THEN WE'LL VOTE ON THOSE INDIVIDUALLY.SO AGAIN, IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT POSTED, BUT YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE IF WE COME UP TO YOU AND AFTER ALL OF THIS DEBATE OR DIALOGUE AND Q AND A, YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT US TO SUGGEST INDIVIDUALLY, YOU'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.
AND SO I'LL REVIEW THOSE WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT.
IF WE, UH, WE'LL GO INTO MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE PROCESS FOR, UH, THE INDIVIDUAL MOTIONS, IF WE GET THAT FAR, IT MAY BE, WE MAY BE ABLE TO WHILE, AND, YOU KNOW, WE MAY DECIDE WE DON'T, WE JUST DON'T WANT TO PURSUE IT.
SO, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
SO THE FIRST THING WE NEED TO DO IS, UH, FOR THE RULES THAT I'VE POSTED, UM, WE WILL SLIGHTLY AMEND THOSE RULES, UH, CAUSE WE'RE GOING TO, UH, START WITH A PRESENTATION FROM THE WORKING GROUP.
WE'LL THEN HAVE OUR, UH, NORMALLY STRUCTURED Q AND A, AND THEN WE'LL ENTERTAIN A BASE MOTION FROM, FROM A COMMISSIONER.
IF WE GET A SECOND, UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND WORK WITH THAT AS KIND OF OUR BASELINE.
AND THEN WE'LL MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THAT BASE MOTION.
AND WE'LL WORK THROUGH THE RULES THAT I'VE ESTABLISHED HERE.
WE'RE ADDING AT THE END OF THE WORKING GROUP CONSENT AMENDED AMENDMENT.
UH, WE'RE GOING TO ADD A STEP THAT BEFORE WE VOTE ON THOSE, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM STAFF AND THE APPLICANT ON, YOU KNOW, ON THAT, ON THOSE ITEMS AND WHICH ONES THEY SUPPORT AND OPPOSE.
WE'LL ADD THE OPPORTUNITY FOR STAFF AND THE APPLICANT TO GIVE US FEEDBACK, UH, WHEN WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE INDIVIDUAL CONSENT AMENDMENTS.
UM, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND START THERE.
SO WHAT I NEED IS A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE RE THESE RULES.
AND I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER.
AZHAR A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND SEE THOSE ON THE SCREEN.
UH, BITTER IN FAVOR, I'M LOOKING HERE THAT'S EIGHT AND THEN THOSE ON THE DIETS IN FAVOR EIGHT, THREE THAT'S 11.
SO THOSE, UH, AGAINST AND THOSE ABSTAIN, WE HAVE ONE.
THESE ARE SIMILAR RULES WE'VE USED BEFORE, BUT I JUST ENCOURAGE YOU GUYS.
IT'S HARD BECAUSE WE'RE THROWING SO MUCH AT YOU BEFORE THESE MEETINGS.
WE'VE ALL GOT, YOU KNOW, OTHER THINGS WE HAVE TO DO.
SO I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE AND WE JUST CALL A POINT OF ORDER IF YOU'RE NOT CLEAR ON ANYTHING AND WE'LL GO THROUGH IT AGAIN.
I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO FEEL LOST DURING THIS PROCESS BECAUSE IT'S, WE'LL BE DOING THIS AGAIN SOON ENOUGH.
SO, UH, WE'VE GOT TO GET USED TO THESE MORE ELABORATE DEBATE RULES.
SO NOW WE GET TO KICK IN, DO, UM, IF, UM, A PRESENTATION FROM THE WORKING GROUP, UM, YOU'VE GOT SIX MINUTES TO KIND OF GIVE US AN OVERVIEW CHAIR.
YOU CAN, YOU CAN TAKE IT ALL OR YOU CAN CALL OUT INDIVIDUALS ON YOUR TEAM, UH, AS NEEDED.
AND THEN HOPEFULLY, UM, IF THERE'S QUESTIONS TO WORK IN GROUP MEMBERS, THEN, THEN WE CAN ALL CHIME IN.
UH, I'LL SPEND ONE MINUTE JUST TALKING ABOUT, UH, THE WORKING GROUP PROCESS REAL QUICK.
UH, JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.
SO THE WORKING GROUP MET, UH, FORMALLY, I THINK, FIVE TIMES, UM, WHICH PROBABLY TOLD US UP TO OVER 10 HOURS, UH, OF WORKING GROUP TIME SPENT ON THIS.
WE HAD UP TO LIKE 20 TO 30 PEOPLE TUNE IN TO WORKING GROUP MEETINGS.
UM, SO THAT WAS, WERE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS.
WE HAD A FULL SLATE OF STAFF, VERY RUSS TOBIN, BEAUTIFULLY ATTENDED EVERY SINGLE MEETING, UH, AND WAS EXTREMELY HELPFUL.
UH, THE APPLICANT, UH, TEAM WAS, WAS TUNING IN EVERY SINGLE TIME WE HAD A FORMAL MEETING.
WE HAD THE PUBLIC TUNE IN, WE HAD GOOD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE UNITE HERE.
THEY HAD GOOD CONVERSATIONS WITH EVERYONE.
I JUST WANTED TO THANK EVERYONE WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS, UH, FOR, FOR THE TIME THAT THEY DEDICATED TO, TO AT LEAST GET US TO THIS POINT.
UM, I'LL PREFACE THIS REAL QUICK.
UM, BEFORE I GET INTO THE 18 AMENDMENTS AND FOUR RECOMMENDATION STATEMENTS, UM, I DO THINK, UH, THAT, THAT THE WORKING GROUP FELT LIKE, UH, WE DID STRUGGLE A BIT ON A LOT OF THESE ITEMS. UM, WE FELT LIKE THERE WAS A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS, A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED, UH, THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF IN CONSIDERING THIS ONE IS THE PORT ORDINANCE, THE DRAFT PORT ORDINANCE THAT Y'ALL HEARD ABOUT.
UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO PARKS, UPROOT GROUP IMPROVEMENT PLAN THAT'S BEEN NEGOTIATED YET.
THERE'S A LOT OF PIECES THAT WE FELT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE IT CAME TO US.
[01:25:01]
A LITTLE BIT HANDICAPPED IN THAT REGARD.WE ALSO AGREED GENERALLY THAT THAT, UH, CART WAS A BIT BEFORE THE HORSE AND IN THIS, UM, MEANING WE'VE GOT A REGULATING PLAN FLOATING OUT THERE.
THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DONE THIS SUMMER BY STAFF FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION FRAMEWORK.
WE'VE GOT A TERM THAT IS GOING THROUGH COUNCIL AND GETTING CHOPPED UP INTO PIECES AND MAYBE STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT TO, TO, TO REALIZE ITSELF.
UM, WE'VE GOT JUST A BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS THAT, UM, WE, WE REALLY, REALLY WISHED CAME BEFORE US CONSIDERING THIS POD, BUT WE'RE HERE NOW.
UH, WE PLAY WITH THE CARDS WE'RE DEALT, AND THIS IS WHAT WE CAME UP WITH.
I'M GONNA BLAST THROUGH ALL OF THESE ELIMINATES SUPER QUICK.
HOPEFULLY I CAN SHARE MY SCREEN.
CAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE EASIER TO DO THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S POSSIBLE SHARE A SCREEN.
I AM JUST MY SHARE THAT, THAT WORK AND YOU ALL SEE MY SCREEN? I CAN SEE IT.
POINT OF ORDER, TOP TO BE SHOWN FOR HYBRID MEETINGS OR THE VIRTUAL NUMBERS.
SO JUST GIVE US ONE MORE MINUTE.
I THINK THAT THE POINT OF ORDER, UH, IS WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE COMMISSIONERS ALSO, IS THAT CORRECT? OH, I SHOULD'VE MENTIONED HER SPEAKING.
ARE WE ABLE TO DO THAT OR SO THAT STOPS YOU CAN CITY STAFF TO SHARE THE SAME INTEREST THE SAME.
SO WE'RE, WE, WE HAD COMMISSIONER COX ON THE SCREEN, UH, THAT HE DISAPPEARED.
SO EVERYONE ELSE ON VIRTUAL MUTE AT THIS TIME NOW, COX, IF YOU'LL PROCEED, COMMISSIONER COX.
UM, AND THE LAST THING THAT I WANTED TO THROW OUT THERE WAS WE THAT I THINK THE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS THAT VOTED FOR THESE AMENDMENTS ALL AGREE THAT THIS IS GENERALLY A BASELINE.
UH, WE HOPE THAT THIS IS AN ACCEPTABLE BASELINE TO THE COMMISSION AND WE'LL BUILD OFF OF THAT IN, IN THE PROCESS THAT WE'LL FOLLOW.
UM, AND THEN THE LAST THING I'LL ADD BEFORE GETTING THE AMENDMENTS IS THAT THERE ARE SPECIFIC THINGS.
THIS IS A WAR, THIS WAS A WORKING DOCUMENT FOR THE PAST MONTH AND IT WENT THROUGH MULTIPLE ITERATIONS.
AND, UH, THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE NOT ON THIS LIST FOR SPECIFIC REASONS.
NOT BECAUSE WE DID NOT CONSIDER THEM, BUT BECAUSE WE GOT MORE INFORMATION FROM STAFF FROM THE APPLICANT AND DECIDED NOT TO, NOT TO INCLUDE THAT AS AN AMENDMENT.
SO I HOPE THAT YOU'LL UNDERSTAND NOT ONLY WHAT WE'VE INCLUDED, BUT ALSO BE COGNIZANT OF THE FACT THAT MAYBE WE DID NOT INCLUDE SPECIFIC ITEMS. AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, FEEL FREE TO ASK WITHIN THE Q AND A.
SO THE FIRST SECTION IS AFFORDABILITY.
WE HAVE SIX AMENDMENTS RELATED TO AFFORDABILITY.
THE FIRST ONE IS PURELY RELATED TO ON-SITE AFFORDABILITY HAS THE PUDDLE ORDINANCES WRITTEN.
NOW THEY, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS TO DO 4% OF, UH, AFFORDABLE FOR SALE CONDO UNITS AND 4% OF RENTAL UNITS.
THE CONDO UNITS ARE FEE IN LIEU.
UH, AND THE RENTAL UNITS ARE ONSITE.
WE WANT ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THE WORKING GROUP WANTS ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO OUR AMENDMENT BASICALLY CHANGES.
IT'S 4% OF THE TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS PROVIDED HAVE TO BE AFFORDABLE ONSITE RENTAL UNITS.
THE REASON WE CHOSE RENTAL UNITS, NOT CONDO UNITS IS BECAUSE THE CITY AND OTHERS RECOGNIZE THAT AFFORDABLE CONDO UNITS HAVE OTHER EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH IT THAT CAN ACTUALLY MAKE THEM PUN AFFORDABLE THAT YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE WITH RENTAL UNITS.
SO IF THE APPLICANT BUILDS, SO THEY'RE FULL RESIDENTIAL ENTITLEMENT IN THE POD, AND WE WILL HAVE 55 ONSITE AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY.
IF THIS AMENDMENT IS PASSED, THE ITEMS NUMBER AMENDMENTS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR WERE ACTUALLY PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER ZAR.
I REALLY APPRECIATE HIS EMAIL TO, TO ANDREW, WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO THE WORKING GROUP.
UM, THESE ARE ALL RELATED TO MAKING SURE THAT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDED IS EQUITABLE.
SO A AMENDMENT TO RELATE TO, UH, ON-SITE AFFORDABLE UNITS SHALL BE EQUITABLE TO THE MARKET RATE UNITS IN THE MIX OF BEDROOMS THAT ARE PROVIDED PER UNIT EQUAL ACCESS TO AMENITIES, EQUALLY FUNCTIONAL INTERIOR COMPONENTS ACCESSIBLE VIA THE SAME ROUTES AND PHYSICALLY DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
THAT'S ALL JUST RELATES TO, UH, MAKING SURE THAT THE AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE EQUITABLE TO THE MARKET RATE UNITS.
THE NEXT ONE IS THAT THE LANDOWNER SHALL PREPARE AND UTILIZE
[01:30:01]
AN AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING AND OUTREACH PLAN APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AND PLANNING DEVELOPMENT, CONSISTENT WITH THE US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.THAT'S TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE WHO NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT THESE AFFORDABLE UNITS, UH, GETS OUTREACH AND IS, AND IS, UM, IS INCLUDED IN THAT PROCESS.
THE NEXT ONE, NUMBER FOUR LANDOWNERS SHALL BE PROHIBITED FROM DENYING A PROSPECTIVE TENANT HOUSING BASED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE TENANT SOURCE OF INCOME.
SO IF THEY'RE RELYING ON THINGS LIKE CHILD SUPPORT AND THAT SORT OF THING, UH, THE DEVELOPER CANNOT DIVIDE, UH, DENY THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THE NEXT ITEM RELATES TO AFFORDABLE COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE.
WE'RE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT, UH, WE ARE ALSO HAVING ISSUES, FINDING AFFORDABLE COMMERCIAL SPACE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.
AND SO THIS AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE THAT 4% OF THE COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED AT AN AFFORDABLE RATES, INCLUSIVE OF THE SPACE DEDICATED TO BACK EDUCATION, WHICH IS A SEPARATE.
ALRIGHT, HEY, COMMISSIONER COX, HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO SUSPEND OUR RULE AND GIVE, UH, COMMISSIONER COX AND ADDITIONAL FOUR MINUTES? UM, SO I MADE THAT MOTION.
I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHEA.
UM, UH, SORRY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE HERE TO GIVE THEM MORE TIME.
SO WE'D NEED TO HAVE AT LEAST NINE, I THINK, TO SPEND THE RULES.
SO GIVE US ONE MINUTE TO BRING BACK THE SCREEN.
SPENDING THE RULES TO GET FOUR MORE MINUTES FOR THE WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION.
WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
SO WE HAVE EIGHT AND, UH, THOSE ON THE DIAS THREE.
MY COMPUTER FREAKED OUT WHEN THEY TOOK AWAY THE SHARING.
SO I'M TRYING TO GET ALL THAT BACK.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THERE.
THIS IS GOING TO BE AN INTERESTING DANCE WE DO HERE TODAY.
CAN Y'ALL SEE MY SCREEN? YES, PLEASE CONTINUE.
WE HAD QUITE A GOOD, UH, AND LENGTHY DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT MFI THE AFFORDABLE ON-SITE UNITS TO BE OFFERED AT.
AND WE CAME TO A COMPROMISE THAT THE ONSITE AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNIT SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH AN ARRANGE OF 50 TO 80% MFI, SUCH THAT ALL ONSITE AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE PROVIDED ON AVERAGE AT 65% AND THE FIVE, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY MUCH LOWER THAN THE 80% MFI THAT'S IN THE PREP PROPOSAL, AS IT IS NOW, THE NEXT ITEMS ARE RELATED TO ENVIRONMENT AND PARKLAND.
YOU'RE GOING TO NOTICE THAT A LOT OF THESE ARE RELATED TO BAT CONSERVATION, BUT ALSO, UM, SPECIFICALLY THE LACK OF A PARKS, MAINTENANCE OR PROGRAMMING PLAN.
SO THE FIRST ONE IS, AND I'LL JUST READ IT CARD SHALL PREPARE AN ANNUAL PARKS PROGRAMMING PLAN IN AP THREE FOR THE DEDICATED PARKLAND AND SOLICIT AND CONSIDER COMMENTS FROM THE WATERSHED DEPARTMENT BAT CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL, AND THE LANDEM, THE AP THREE SHALL BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS TO THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION IN THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION AP THREE WILL TAKE EFFECT UPON APPROVAL BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD AND AMENDMENTS, STATE B3 SHALL FOLLOW THE SAME PROCEDURE.
THIS IS SIMPLY A WAY TO MAKE THIS A STAKEHOLDER DRIVEN PROCESS TO DETERMINE WHAT SORT OF PROGRAMMING IS GOING TO HAVE HAPPEN IN THE PARTS SPACE WITHIN THE PUTT, AND SPECIFICALLY MAKE SURE THAT THE BACK CONSTANT BACK CONSERVANCY AND THOSE FOLKS ARE INCLUDED IN THAT STAKEHOLDER PROCESS.
THE NEXT ITEM IS, UH, RELATED TO PROVIDING A MINIMUM OF 10 FOOT WIDE NATURAL, BUT IT'S THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER ALONG THE DEDICATED PARKLAND, ADJACENT TO CONGRESS AVENUE BRIDGE EXCLUSIVE EXCLUSIVE OF THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL.
THIS IS SIMPLY, I THINK YOU, IF ANYONE READ THE, THE LETTER FROM BAT, UH, CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL, THIS IS TO HELP KIND OF PROVIDE A BUFFER SPACE BETWEEN THE HUMAN ACTIVITY AREA AND THE BAT HABITAT UNDERNEATH THE BRIDGE.
THE NEXT ITEM IS ABOUT PARKLAND DEDICATION AND THE TIMING OF THAT.
UM, CURRENTLY THE PARKLAND DEDICATION AND THE PUT IS REQUIRED TO HAPPEN PRIOR TO SIX CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE NORTHERN MOST BUILDING PER PHASE.
THERE'S THREE PHASES, PARKLAND DEDICATION WITH THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS SHALL OCCUR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE NORTHERN MOST BUILDING IN EACH PHASE OR BEFORE THE NINTH YEAR AFTER THE FIRST SITE PLAN APPROVAL, WHICHEVER DATA RIGHTS ARE ARRIVES FIRST.
THIS IS SIMPLY BASICALLY A DEADLINE, A TIME DEADLINE THAT PARKLAND HAS TO BE DEDICATED SO THAT IF THE DEVELOPER GOES BANKRUPT OR DRAGS US OUT FOR RIDICULOUS AMOUNT OF TIME, THE CITY IS STILL GETS THE DEDICATED PARKLAND.
AND THAT SIDE OF IT IS RELATED TO THE FUNDING OF PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS.
UM, YOU'VE PROBABLY HEARD A LOT OF PUBLIC FEEDBACK ABOUT HOW THE APPLICANT IS RELYING ON THE TERS TO FUND A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING SUPERIOR ITEMS. THIS PARTICULAR ITEM TAKES QUITE A FEW OF
[01:35:01]
THE PARKLAND ELEMENTS AND, UH, HAS THE DEVELOPER PAY FOR THAT, UM, BEYOND ANY SORT OF PAY FOR IT? WELL PAID TO BUILD IT THEMSELVES, UM, UH, EXCLUSIVE OF ANY PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES OR IMPROVEMENT FEES THAT THEY PAY.SO THIS AMENDMENT IS THE GREAT STEPS, THE GREAT LAWN, THE PIER, THE AMENITIZE MARK QUALITY PONDS, THE WATER STEPS AND 1700 LINEAR FEET OF RECONSTRUCTIVE HIKING BIKE TRAIL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE DEVELOPER CONTINGENT ON PART DESIGN APPROVAL, IRRESPECTIVE OF PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE CONTRIBUTION DEVELOPER SHOP PROVIDE FISCAL SURETY FOR THE VALUE OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS.
SO THEY'RE GOING TO PAY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY GET, UH, THEY GET BUILT.
THE NEXT ONE IS RELATED TO PARKLAND MAINTENANCE.
AND THIS WAS LANGUAGE THAT WE SPECIFICALLY TOOK OUT OF THE PARKLAND IMPROVEMENT, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR THE GROVE POD.
THERE CURRENTLY IS NOT A PARKLAND IMPROVEMENT OPERATION OR MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DRAFT, OR ANYTHING THAT STAFF HAS WORKED OUT WITH THE DEVELOPER YET.
SO WE STARTED INSERTING OUR OWN LANGUAGE CAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS INCLUDED.
THE AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THE LANDOWNER SHOP PEOPLE MAINTAIN A CITY PARKLAND WITHIN THE POD BOUNDARIES, A GOOD STATE OF APPEARANCE OF REPAIR, AND TO AT LEAST A LEVEL ONE STANDARD BASED ON CURRENT CITY PARK MAINTENANCE STANDARDS AT THE SOUL EXPENSE OF THE LANDOWNER AND SUCCESSOR AND ASSIGNS LEVEL ONE INCLUDES SPECIFIC MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS BY PARTS OF TURF CARE, FERTILIZER, IRRIGATION, LYRIC CONTROL, GRAFFITI PRUNING DISEASE, AND PEST MANAGEMENT TREE AND PLANT CARE, SECURITY LIGHTS, ET CETERA.
THE LAST PARK AND ENVIRONMENTAL ITEM IS THE REFLECTIVITY OF THE GLASS.
YOU MAY HAVE REMEMBERED THAT THAT WAS AN ISSUE OF DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN STAFF AND DEVELOPER THROUGH THE WORKING GROUP MEETINGS.
WE WERE ABLE TO FIND A COMPROMISE THAT WAS AGREEABLE TO BOTH STAFF AND THE DEVELOPER AND THAT THE REFLECTIVITY OF THE GLASS IS NO MORE THAN 15% WITHIN THE BOTTOM 40 FEET OF THE STRUCTURES AS MEASURED FROM THE PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR OF EACH STRUCTURE.
AND THEN A MAXIMUM 35% GLASS REFLECTIVITY FOR ALL OTHER GLASS.
AND SPECIFICALLY STAFF NOTED THAT BIRD STRIKES LARGELY OCCUR WITHIN THE TREE LINE.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE THAT 40 FOOT NUMBER CAME.
OKAY, I'M SORRY TO DO THIS, BUT WE, UH, DO WE JUST WANT TO LET THIS A WORKING GROUP FINISH? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NEED TO CAP THEIR TIME.
I MEAN, THEY'RE MOVING QUICKLY AS THEY CAN, BUT, UH, I DON'T KNOW.
I THINK WE'LL GET THROUGH THIS.
I JUST DON'T, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO KEEP COMING BACK TO YOU GUYS AND ASK FOR MORE TIME.
SO LET'S JUST, UH, WE JUST HAVE A VOTE.
UM, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND JUST LET THEM COMPLETE, UH, THEIR REVIEW WITH NO CAP ON TIME IF YOU, BUT IF YOU WILL MOVE THROUGH IT QUICKLY, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
DO I HAVE A SECOND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHEA? UH, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON SPENDING OUR RULES TO JUST GO AND GET THROUGH THIS WITHOUT A TIME LIMIT.
UH, I'VE GOT EVERYBODY ON THE SCREENS.
THAT'S A NINE AND THEN THERE'S SOME THAT DICE THAT'S THREE.
UH, BUT PLEASE LET'S TRY TO KEEP THIS MOVING AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.
I WILL TRY TO TALK EVEN FASTER.
SO WE HAVE, UM, THREE ITEMS THAT ARE RELATED TO THE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
ONE IS THAT A MINIMUM OF 1000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL GROUND FLOOR SPACE ADJACENT TO THE PARKLAND OR PRADA SHALL BE PROVIDED AT NO COST FOR BAD EDUCATION AND COORDINATION WITH BAT CONSERVATION, INTERNATIONAL AUSTIN BAT REFUGE AND MERLIN TUNNELS BACK CONSERVATION.
THAT'S BE FAIRLY SELF-EXPLANATORY.
WE NEED A SPACE FOR BAD EDUCATION HERE.
THIS IS THE PERFECT SITE FOR IT.
SO WE SHOULD FORCE THE DEVELOPER TO PROVIDE THAT.
THE NEXT ITEM IS RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL USE CLOSE TO THE BAT HABITAT.
SO THE AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THE RESIDENTIAL USE IS PROHIBITED WITH A FORK WITHIN A 400 FOOT RADIUS OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER, BUT PROPERTY BELOW 20 FEET ABOVE THE ELEVATION OF THE CONGRESS AVENUE BRIDGE PAVEMENT.
IF YOU LOOK IN YOUR BACKUP, WE DID PROVIDE A CLARIFICATION ON THIS ITEM TO SHARE SHAW'S QUESTION ABOUT IT.
IT'S WORDED A BIT CONFUSING, BUT ESSENTIALLY IT'S PROVIDING A ZONE NEAREST THE BAT HABITAT, WHERE YOU CANNOT HAVE RESIDENTS WITH USE, WHICH IS CONSIDERED KIND OF THE MOST MAYBE, UH, OBTRUSIVE USE TO, TO THE BACK HOME.
UM, WE'VE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC AND UNITED HERE ABOUT HOTEL USE.
WE CAN NOT GET SUPPORT WITHIN THE WORKING GROUP TO JUST PROHIBIT OUTRIGHT HOTEL USE, BUT WE DID REACH A COMPROMISE THAT HOTEL USE, UH, SHALL BE A CONDITIONAL USE.
AND THAT JUST PROVIDES, UH, A BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY TO THE COMMISSION AND HOW THAT HOTEL USE IS DEPLOYED ON THE SITE.
AND MAYBE GIVE THE UNION A BIT MORE BREATHING ROOM TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE DEVELOPER.
THE NEXT THREE ITEMS ARE TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC RELATED.
UM, FIRST ONE IS, IS ONE THAT I THINK COMMISSIONER TOM THOMPSON HAD HAD, UH, MENTIONED.
UM, WE WOULD MODIFY STREET SECTION BB, WHICH IS THE STREET SECTION FOR THE BARTON SPRINGS AVENUE EXTENSION WITHIN THE SITE.
WE'D MODIFY, MODIFY THAT TO A THREE LANE SECTION SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE A SIDEWALK
[01:40:01]
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET VERSUS THE FOUR LANE SECTION WHERE WE ONLY HAVE SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET.THE APPLICANT TEAM WAS OPPOSED TO THIS FOR VARIOUS REASONS, INCLUDING PICK-UP DROP-OFF AND WORRIED ABOUT QUEUING LENGTHS OUTSIDE OF GARAGES.
I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT THAT THAT CAN BE WORKED AROUND THROUGH SMART DESIGN IN TERMS OF THE ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDINGS AND THAT SORT OF THING.
SO WE PROPOSED A THREE-LANE SECTION ON THE TIA MEMO.
SO FOR ITEM 17, IT DID NOT INCLUDE ANY SORT OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE INTERSECTION OF, UH, RIVERSIDE AND CONGRESS, WHICH ANYONE WHO KNOWS KNOWS THAT THAT INTERSECTION IS QUITE DANGEROUS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS.
SO WE PUT IN THERE AN AMENDMENT LANDOWNER SHALL FUND UP TO $200,000 OF IMPROVEMENTS TO CONGRESS AVENUE AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE INTERSECTION AT IDENTIFIED AND APPROVED BY ATD FOR BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY UPGRADES AND OR MAINTENANCE BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE LANDOWNER CONCURRENT WITH THE NEW PROTECTED BIKE LANE BETWEEN THE CONGRESS AVENUE BRIDGE AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE.
THE LAST ITEM RELATES TO THE TDM, THE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
THAT'S PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT AND APPROVED BY STAFF TO GIVE THEM A 35% REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF TRIPS ORIGINATING FROM THE SITE.
THIS AMENDMENT BASICALLY JUST, UH, ADD SOME TEETH TO THE TDM PROGRAM AND MAKE SURE THAT THE TDM PROGRAM IS ACTUALLY ACHIEVING WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROMISED.
IT WOULD ACHIEVE THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT, UH, CALLS FOR THE LANDOWNER TO REPORT FIGURES.
UH, BASICALLY THE VEHICLE TRIP FIGURES TO THE DIRECTOR OF ATD ON A BI-ANNUAL BASIS FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS, ONCE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE QUAD REACHES 7,700 CALCULATED UNADJUSTED TRIPS PER DAY, IT MEANS A METHODOLOGY FOR CONDUCTING TRAFFIC COUNTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY LANDOWNER APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF ATD.
IF THE LANDOWNER FAILS TO MEET TRIP REDUCTIONS IN THE TDM PROGRAM FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE BY ANNUAL PERIODS, THE LANDOWNER SHALL MAKE A BI-ANNUAL MITIGATION PAYMENT TO THE CITY, EACH BITE ANNUAL PERIOD UNTIL THE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PUT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TDM PROGRAM TRIP REDUCTIONS MITIGATION PAYMENTS SHALL NOT EXCEED $40,000 PER BIANNUAL PERIOD, UP TO A MAXIMUM OF $200,000 TOTAL AND SHALL BE USED TO OFFSET THE COST TO IMPLEMENT ADDITIONAL ONSITE AND ADJACENT TDM MEASURES AT THE DIRECTION OF ATD.
THE CITY SHALL PLACE MITIGATION PAYMENTS IN A FUND ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY.
AND I WILL JUST NOTE THAT THAT LANGUAGE WAS LARGELY TAKEN OUT OF THE GROWTH, PUT IT WELL AS WELL, WHICH THE GROWTH MOTOR ORDINANCE HAD SOME TEETH TO THE TDM PROGRAM.
THE LAST FOUR ARE RECOMMENDATION STATEMENTS.
THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE SPECIFIC LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN THIS PUTT ORDINANCE, BUT OUR RECOMMENDATION STATEMENTS THAT THE WORKING GROUP FELT WERE IMPORTANT TO PUT IN FRONT OF COUNCIL.
AND SO THAT INCLUDES THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD TO REDEFINE ITS FUNCTIONS AND HAD EXPERTISE.
LADY BIRD LAKE HAS EVOLVED TO BECOME A HUGE MIX OF USES FOR CITY IDENTITY, TRANSPORTATION, PEOPLE, ANIMALS ECOSYSTEM.
IT NEEDS A BOARD COMMITTED TO THE STEWARDSHIP OF ITS HEALTH AND BEAUTY, AND IT'S BALANCED WITHIN THE CITY'S NEEDS.
IT NEEDS TO BE VIEWED HOLISTICALLY AND NOT PER PARCEL OF DISTRICT, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY IS WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW.
IT ALL INTERACTS WITH EACH OTHER DEDICATED POSITION WITHIN THE BOARD STRUCTURE FOR BAT PROTECTION CONSERVANCY.
NEXT ITEM IS AFFORDABILITY SHOULD BE ASSESSED FOR THE DISTRICT AND EVALUATED AS A TRANSIT ORIENTED DISTRICT, INCORPORATING EQUITABLE TIA, THE STANDARDS.
WE STRUGGLED A LOT WITH THIS BECAUSE THE POSITION OF THE BLUE LINE IS NOT YET SET, BUT ONCE THAT IS SET UP, ONCE THE STATION IS THERE, THIS PLACE IS GOING TO CHANGE RAPIDLY.
AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT BEFORE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PUTT AND THEN AFFORDABLE COMMERCIALS SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE REQUIREMENTS IN GENERAL, AND THEN DUE TO THE DYNAMIC NATURE OF THE DISTRICT IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT TIME.
AND WHEN, IF RAIL DOES COME DEVELOP A METHOD OF USING THE FUNDS RECEIVED FROM TIFF TERS TO SUPPLEMENT, LEASE RENTS, TO ATTAIN AFFORDABILITY GOALS, I THINK I'M DONE.
I WILL HAPPILY ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK THAT WE, UH, UH, NEXT STEP IS TURN ON MY MICROPHONE.
UM, SO WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH OUR ORDINARY QUESTION AND ANSWER, UH, TIMEFRAME AND JUST REMEMBER, WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT SOMEWHAT WHEN, UH, THE LAST, UH, LAP TIME THREE COMMISSIONERS CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF THE WORKING GROUP AND STAFF AND TRYING TO VET WHICH, WHICH, UH, ITEMS WE WANT TO PULL OUT, KEEP ON CONSENT AND WHICH ONES WE WANT TO DISCUSS, BUT THIS, THIS IS OUR TIME EIGHT, EIGHT COMMISSIONERS, FIVE MINUTES TO GET MORE DETAILED FROM STAFF, UM, OR THE APPLICANT.
WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER COTTONWOOD.
I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE WORKING GROUP, BUT FIRST I HAVE TO, UH, MAKE AN APOLOGY, UM, WHICH IS THAT I WASN'T ABLE TO ATTEND THE LAST MEETING, UM, OR FOLLOW UP ON SOME OF THESE AMENDMENTS BECAUSE OF, UH, THE FREEZE THAT WE'RE ALL AWARE OF.
AND I WAS PART OF, KIND OF AN EMERGENCY COMMUNITY EFFORT TO RESPOND
[01:45:01]
TO THAT FREEZE.SO I WAS, YOU KNOW, I'VE ALL UP UNTIL TODAY, OUT IN THE COMMUNITY, SORT OF HELPING SOME OF OUR ON HOUSE NEIGHBORS.
UM, SO ON THAT NOTE, FIRST OF ALL, MY APOLOGIES, SECOND OF ALL, THANK YOU TO THE WORKING GROUP FOR CARRYING THIS THROUGH AND COMMISSIONER COX FOR DOING AN EXCELLENT JOB.
AND MY QUESTION IS REALLY QUITE SIMPLE.
IT'S JUST, THERE WAS ONE AMENDMENT THAT I HAD ADDED AS A TENTATIVE AMENDMENT THAT I NEVER FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH, AND IT DIDN'T MAKE IT ONTO THE LIST.
AND I WAS CURIOUS IF IT DIDN'T MAKE IT ONTO THE LIST BECAUSE I WASN'T ABLE TO FOLLOW UP ON IT.
OR IF, BECAUSE WE RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM STAFF OR THE APPLICANT THAT CHANGED OUR OPINION ABOUT IT, AND IT WAS AN AMENDMENT ABOUT, UM, REMOVING, UH, REQUIRED PARKING ON SITE.
AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS, UM, WHAT, WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT ONE? YEAH, SO I CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
UH, UNFORTUNATELY MR. CONNELLY, UM, NONE OF THE OTHER MEMBERS THAT WERE IN ATTENDANCE, UH, CARRY THAT FORWARD.
AND SO THAT'S WHY, UM, THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT, UH, I KNOW WE HAD A LENGTHY CONVERSATION WITH, UH, THE STAFF AND AN APPLICANT ABOUT PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THAT CONVERSATION WAS THAT THE PARKING THAT IS BEING PROVIDED ON SITE IS LESS THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED, BUT ESSENTIALLY THE NUMBERS ARE PER MARKET DEMAND, NOT PER CITY REGULATION, HOPEFULLY I'M CORRECT ON THAT.
UM, AND SO, UH, I DON'T THINK ANY OF THE OTHER WORKING GROUP MEMBERS CARRIED THAT FORWARD AND THAT'S WHY, UM, WAS NOT ON THE POST.
UH, LET ME JUST POINT OF, UH, ORDER HERE DURING THIS TIME.
UH, LET'S TRY TO FOCUS OUR Q AND A DIRECTED TO STAFF AND THE APPLICANT.
I THINK, UH, IN MY, IN THE WAY I ENVISIONED THIS COMMISSIONER CONLEY IS WHAT YOU JUST BROUGHT UP WOULD BE A GOOD ITEM IS WE'RE KIND OF VETTING THE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
YOU COULD ENTERTAIN, YOU COULD ASK THAT KIND OF QUESTION, GET CLARIFICATION AND ACTUALLY QUEUE UP AN INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT OF YOUR OWN.
SO LET'S FOCUS THESE EIGHT QUESTIONS.
IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR THE APPLICANT LET'S USE, LIKE WE ORDINARILY DO, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, AND THEY CAN BE RELATED TO THE, UH, THESE AMENDMENTS.
YOU CAN ASK THEM DIRECTLY, YOU KNOW, HOW THIS MIGHT AFFECT THEIR PROJECT OR WHAT STAFF THINKS ABOUT IT.
SO, BUT LET'S DIRECT THE QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW TO, TO THOSE TWO ENTITIES, UM, OR, OR MEMBERS OF THE, I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE ANY FOLKS LEFT, BUT, UH, IF THERE ARE ANY SPEAKERS THAT, UH, WERE HERE, I SEE THEM IN THE BACK.
YOU CAN DIRECT QUESTIONS TO THEM OF COURSE, AS WELL.
UH, ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO ON PROCEED.
SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD.
AND I THINK THAT WAS MORE A CLARIFYING QUESTION IS TO THE PRESENTATION, BUT LET'S START OVER.
UH, I'M GOING TO COUNT THAT AS NOT A REAL QUESTION.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND START OVER.
UH, WHO'S GOT THE FIRST ONE, ANYONE COMMISSIONED SNYDER.
UH, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF AND I THINK PARTICULARLY PARK STACK, UH, I NOTICED IN, UH, THE AMENDMENTS THAT THE WORKING GROUP TRACK DID THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT SEEM TO GO TO THE ONGOING COSTS THAT THE CITY WAS UNDERTAKING, UH, IN, UH, IN MAINTENANCE.
AND IT'S A REALLY MY QUESTION.
SO IT, IT SEEMS LIKE, UH, UH, PROPOSAL NUMBER 11 IS, UM, A MAINTENANCE, ONGOING MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEVELOPER AND MAYBE, UH, NUMBER SEVEN IS ALSO IN THE NATURE OF, UH, MAINTENANCE.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS I HAD SOME CONCERNS AND I THINK OTHERS DID AS WELL THAT THE PARKLAND WOULD BE DEDICATED THAT SOME INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD BE BUILT, BUT THE ONGOING COST OF MAINTAINING THE PARK AND MAYBE PROGRAMMING WOULD BE A COST THAT WENT TO THE ENTIRE CITY.
SO FOR STAFF, HOW MUCH OF THAT IS IF WE ADOPTED THE, UM, PROPOSED CHANGES, UH, RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL AND PARKLAND, HOW MUCH OF THAT GETS ADDRESSED, UM, WITH THESE AMENDMENTS, UM, GOOD EVENING, UH, SCOTT GRANTHAM FROM PARKS AND RECREATION.
UH, IT'S, IT'S DIFFICULT TO, TO ANSWER, I THINK THE, UH, IN TERMS OF THE MAINTENANCE, UH, THERE, THE, THE DEFAULT IS ALWAYS THAT PART MAINTAINS IT.
AND SO, UM, I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO THE COST OF WHAT THAT WOULD BE FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE.
UM, HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE THESE AGREEMENTS IN VARIOUS PLACES THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT PROVIDE FOR MAINTENANCE BY A PRIVATE ENTITY, LIKE AN HOA.
[01:50:01]
AND SO IT DOES QUITE A BIT TO DEFRAY COSTS FOR PART.SO, SO YES, IT, IT, IT CERTAINLY HELPS DID THAT.
AND THERE WAS A SECOND PART TO YOUR QUESTION.
YEAH, YEAH, THERE, THERE'S AN, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
AND, UH, I DIDN'T KNOW IF, UH, PARK PROGRAMMING IT'S ALSO CONSIDERED AN ONGOING COST.
AND IS THAT DEFRAYED, UH, BY THE PROPOSAL? I THINK THE ANSWER IS THAT IT'S, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT REALLY A COST ISSUE AT THAT POINT.
IT'S KIND OF MORE OF A, AN AGREEMENT UPON, UH, THE PROGRAMMING.
UM, THE, UH, I THINK THAT THE, THE WORKING GROUP WA HAS CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD AS THE RIGHT PLACE TO HEAR AND HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS TO TALK ABOUT THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
UM, I THINK I DID JOT DOWN ONE NOTE, WHICH IS THAT IF, IF PART IS COMING EVERY YEAR TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT WITH, UM, WITH A PROGRAMMING PLAN, THAT IT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'D SPOKEN ABOUT LESS IS MORE AND, UM, PART HAS NO INTENTION OF DOING HEAVY PROGRAMMING THROUGHOUT THIS AREA.
AND THE IDEA IS THAT THERE MAY BE SOME YEARS WHERE THERE'S SIMPLY NOTHING.
AND SO, UM, I THINK IT'D BE THE IDEA THAT IF, IF THERE IS NO PRO THERE MAY BE NO PROGRAMMING PLAN FOR THAT PARTICULAR YEAR.
UH, SO TO YOUR, TO THE PREVIOUS CONVERSATION, IS THERE A TWEAK OR A BETTER WAY TO ENSURE THAT THE LION'S SHARE MAINTENANCE CAN GET PAID FOR BY THE DEVELOPER? ABSOLUTELY.
UM, OR IS THIS, UH, OR IS THIS LIKE THE BEST WE CAN DO THE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE MIGHT HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AS WELL, BUT I THINK THAT IT UP TO A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE MAINTENANCE CAN BE COVERED BY THE DEVELOPER IT'S, UM, IT'S FULLY POSSIBLE.
IT HAPPENS THROUGHOUT THE CITY IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.
AND IS THERE A LANGUAGE THAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND IF WE WERE TO GO THAT ROUTE? UM, YES, IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE, THE, UM, PARKLAND IMPROVEMENT, MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT.
UM, AND IT WOULD BASICALLY, I, I CAN'T REALLY, I COULD PARAPHRASE AND SAY AND SAY THAT IT, THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE IS, IS THE, UM, FALSE TO THE, UH, THE OWNER OR THE DEFINED, UH, PARTY.
I JUST TURNED THE WING THAT, THANK YOU.
UM, COMMISSIONERS WITH, UH, FOR THE SECOND QUESTION, CAN WE START, UH, THANK YOU.
I THINK THIS WOULD BE FOR THE APPLICANT, UM, ABOUT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, NUMBER 14, ABOUT THE LIMITATION OR THE PROHIBITION OF RESIDENTIAL USE WITHIN A 400 FOOT RADIUS OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER.
WHAT, WHAT WOULD THAT DO TO THE PLAN? UM, AND THEN, UH, UH, A QUESTION FOR SOMEONE WHO KNOWS ABOUT THAT RELATED TO THAT IS THERE'S A LOT OF GRADE CHANGE THERE.
SO IT DOES THE 400 FEET TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT.
SO MR. SETTLE, I HAD TO BRING MY CHEAT SHEET UP HERE.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT RECOMMENDATION CAME FROM COMMISSIONER MUST HOLLER AFTER A CONVERSATION WITH THAT FOLKS WE'VE, WE'VE SINCE TALKED TO BAT FOLKS AND WE CAN'T FIND OUT EXACTLY HOW THAT WOULD WORK OR, OR IF IT'S ACTUALLY NEEDED WHILE WE WERE GOING TO TAKE A POSITION AS IS, UM, WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE BAT FOLKS, IF THAT BECOMES PART OF THE BASE MOTION, WHICH IT SOUNDED LIKE IT CAME OUT OF WORKING GROUP, THAT WE WOULD TRY TO WORK WITHIN THAT IN CONNECTION WITH THE BAT FOLKS TO SEE, BY THE TIME WE GET THE GRADES SET AND THE BUILDINGS ACTUALLY SITE PLAN, IF, IF WE COULD ACCOMMODATE THAT, THAT'S A LOT OF WORDS TO SAY WITHOUT A SITE PLAN, IT'S HARD TO KNOW IF, IF WE CAN ACTUALLY ACCOMMODATE THAT
[01:55:01]
OR NOT.BUT I TRIED TO GET A VISUAL IF YOU DREW A 400 FOOT RADIUS ON THAT PLAN NOW, IS THAT, IS THAT A TINY PORTION? IS IT ONLY AFFECTING CLICK? I MEAN, YOU'VE DONE A PLAN.
IS IT ONLY AFFECTING PARKLAND OR IS THAT GOING TO EAT UP A LOT OF THE DEVELOPABLE LAND? WELL, IT'S, IT'S ESSENTIALLY A RADIUS.
I THINK I DON'T DO MATH VERY WELL, BUT I THINK IT'S ESSENTIALLY RADIUS SOMETHING LARGER THAN A FOOTBALL FIELD LENGTH AND TAKEN FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER.
AND THAT'S WHY WE JUST, WE DON'T HAVE A WAY OF KNOWING UNTIL WE GET OUR GRADES SET AND OUR SITE PLAN DONE, BECAUSE WHAT YOU SEE IN THE, IN THE PLANS THAT WE'VE SHOWED YOU, THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE CONCEPTUALS AND ENVELOPES.
BUT, UM, AGAIN, WE'VE BEEN WORKING PRETTY CLOSELY WITH THE BAT PEOPLE, AND WE'RE TRYING TO S IF, IF WE CAN'T DO THAT, WE WOULD COME UP WITH, WITH THE OBJECTIVE THAT THE BAT FOLKS ARE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE.
AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY ONLY RESIDENTIAL USE WOULD BE PROHIBITED.
SO MAYBE SOMEONE COULD ANSWER THAT.
DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING? I, I, I THINK I WOULD HAVE THE, THE WORKING GROUPS SPEAK TO THIS BECAUSE IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE DIDN'T PROPOSE.
AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO WORK IN, WE JUST PART OF WHAT'S GOING TO, WHAT'S YOUR HEAR A COMMON THEME TONIGHT FROM THE APPLICANT IS, IS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ALL IS GOING TO END UP IN YOUR MOTION AND WHAT'S NOT.
AND WE DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL THINGS, BUT IF YOU WERE TO JUST THROW EVERYTHING IN, I CAN TELL YOU THAT NOT EVERYTHING WOULD WORK BECAUSE THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF EVERYTHING IS THE PROJECT DOESN'T WORK, BUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO PUSH AND PULL ON VARIOUS THINGS AND TRY TO ACCOMMODATE EVERYTHING, BECAUSE I MEAN, LET'S FACE IT, THE WORKING GROUP SPENT, I WOULD ESTIMATE MORE LIKE 15 HOURS GOING THROUGH THIS AND WE KNOW WHAT'S IMPORTANT AND WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE SURE.
UM, ONE QUESTION, I ONLY HAVE A MINUTE LEFT, BUT, UM, I, I SEE YOU'VE GOT YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERT FROM YOUR TEAM HERE.
AND I WAS WONDERING IF HE COULD TALK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT SUPERIORITY OF THE POD AS CAN I TAKE OFF MY MASK AS I SPEAK? HELLO, MY NAME IS JONATHAN AND I'M WITH SIGLO GROUP.
UM, AND WE WORKED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL SUPERIORITY.
WE ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES WHO DID IT.
UM, CHRIS RENDAZO IS HERE AS WELL FROM GARZA, AS WELL AS CHRIS JACKSON.
UM, AND SO SOME OF THE ELEMENTS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH IT, UM, THAT WE WORKED ON WERE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE RESTORATION PLAN.
AND SO IF YOU LOOK IN EXHIBIT SEVEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE PUD, WE LOOKED AT FLOODPLAIN FOREST RESTORATION.
UM, WE LOOKED AT POLLINATOR PLANTINGS THROUGHOUT THE SITE.
UM, WE LOOKED AT THINKING ABOUT BARRIERS BETWEEN HUMAN INTERACTION AND SOME OF THOSE NATURAL AREAS.
SO, UM, A AT LEAST A MINIMUM OF 800 FEET OF SPLIT RAIL FENCE, CABLE FENCING, OR OTHER ELEMENTS TO SPLIT THE, UM, THE HUMAN USE FROM THOSE NATURAL AREAS.
AND AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS CREATING PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO ENJOY NATURE.
SO ABOUT THAT PIER AND THE BOARDWALK, THEY'RE NOT ENVIRONMENTAL SUPERIOR ELEMENTS.
THEY CREATE THOSE PLACES FOR RECREATION TO HAPPEN THAT ALLOWS THOSE NATURAL AREAS TO THRIVE.
UM, DO YOU, DO YOU NEED MORE TIME AT ALL ON THAT ITEM? ARE YOU GOOD? UM, WELL, I COULD SPEAK FOR A LONG TIME.
LET'S GO SEE IF OTHER COMMISSIONERS WANT MORE INFORMATION WITH REGARDS TO THAT.
UH, YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMISSIONER WITH QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER MUSHA TODDLER.
UM, I I'M FINDING THIS PROCESS VERY FRUSTRATING BECAUSE IT WAS MORE THAN 10 HOURS OF WORK THAT WENT INTO THIS.
UM, MANY OF US POURED HOURS AND HOURS OF WORK INTO THIS, AND WE'RE NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN MISUNDERSTANDINGS HERE AND WHAT WENT INTO THIS.
UM, AND SO I CAN ASK IF OUR RULES ARE THAT I HAVE TO ASK STAFF AND THE APPLICANT QUESTIONS, AND I'M GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS IN A WAY THAT WILL ANSWER THINGS THAT I HEAR COMING UP, BUT I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THESE THINGS.
SO YOU WILL, UH, THAT'LL COME WHEN WE'RE ACTUALLY OUTSIDE OF THE Q AND A, UH, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ON EACH ITEM FOR THE THREE COMMISSIONERS TO ASK YOU A QUESTION OR THE WORKING GROUP.
SO WE WILL HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.
UM, IF THEY DON'T ASK THE QUESTION,
[02:00:01]
CAN WE GIVE AN ANSWER BECAUSE THERE'S MISUNDERSTANDINGS GOING ON HERE? SURE.YES, WE CAN, UH, PROVIDE, I CAN, UH OPEN-ENDED YEAH, YES.
I CAN JUST ASK FOR OPEN-ENDED IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADDITIONALLY WANT TO PROVIDE.
I THINK THAT IS A QUESTION AND YOU CAN ANSWER IT WITH WHATEVER, HOWEVER YOU WANT.
SO YES, WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL GET TO THAT.
I THINK I TRIED TO BUILD THAT IN, SO, UH, SORRY.
IT WASN'T, UH, IT, IT WASN'T READILY APPARENT FROM THE WAY I STRUCTURED IT, BUT YES, WE WILL GET TO THAT.
AND, AND I DO WANT TO POINT OUT JUST REAL QUICK, UH, MR. RIVERA.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THE ABILITY.
UM, WE DO YOU, I HAD SOME VERY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS AND, UH, WE CAN PULL UP LIKE THIS COMEDIC THAT YOU GUYS KIND OF TRIED TO SHOW THE, THE 20 FOOT BELOW THE BRIDGE.
AND, UH, SO WE DO HAVE THAT AS A BACKUP, UM, THAT WE CAN PULL UP IF NEEDED, JUST LET YOU KNOW THAT HIS STAFF IS ABLE TO DO THAT.
UM, SO WHERE WERE WE? I HAVE, UM, WE'RE WE HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.
OH, DID YOU WANT TO ASK QUESTION? UM, COMMISSIONER, WHICH TODDLER I'M GONNA HOLD FOR THAT.
UH, OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS, IF NOT, I'M GOING TO DIVE IN HERE, BUT I'M LOOKING AROUND.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE, UH, COMMISSIONER AZHAR IT'S A SHORT QUESTION.
THIS IS WHERE THE APPLICANT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY THERE'S CONVERSATIONS THAT Y'ALL ARE HAVING REGARDING THE BETTER BUILDERS STANDARDS AND ADOPTING THEM.
AND YOU PLEASE SPEAK TO THAT CONVERSATION, UM, ON ADOPTING THE BETTER, THE STANDARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION ON THIS.
I'M GOING TO APOLOGIZE RIGHT UP FRONT, SITTING IN THAT CORNER.
COULD YOU, COULD YOU ASK ME THE QUESTION AGAIN? SURE.
UM, I THINK I'VE HEARD FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS INDICATING THAT THEY WOULD ONE, LIKE TO SEE THE USE OF THE BETTER BUILDERS STANDARDS ON THIS SITE AND THAT YOU MIGHT BE HAVING OR PLANNING TO HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS AROUND THE BETTER BUILDERS CENTERS.
CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK TO THAT? I THINK THAT IN ANYTHING THAT IS BUILT TODAY IN AUSTIN, YOU, YOU GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE BETTER BUILDER PROGRAM.
AND I THINK THAT WE W WE WERE WILLING TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS FOR SURE.
SO I GUESS I'LL FOLLOW UP WITH, I WAS JUST ASKING, ARE YOU IN CONVERSATION RIGHT NOW OR PLANNING TO BE IN CONVERSATION? NO, WE'RE NOT.
WE'RE NOT IN CONVERSATION CURRENTLY BECAUSE, UM, AGAIN, WE'RE AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT.
UM, AND AS WE DESIGN, AS WE GET IT DESIGNED, I THINK THAT'S WHEN WE'LL HAVE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE BETTER BUILDER PROGRAM I'VE BEEN, I'VE PERSONALLY BEEN INVOLVED IN SEVERAL PROJECTS OR DONE THE BETTER BUILDER PROGRAM AND IT'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL.
AND MY READ IS ANYTHING OF ANY SIZE, IT'S THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.
GERRIT, THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS.
UH, ONE MOMENT, COMMISSIONER COX, AND THEN COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
HEY, YOU CAN LET MR. THOMPSON GO.
I WANTED TO TAKE ONE OF THE LAST SPOTS WE FAILED A COMMITTED THOMPSON.
I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE TO THE APPLICANT, UM, AND IT WOULD BE ABOUT LOADING.
I THINK THERE'S, UH, AN AN AND TRASH RECEPTACLES.
I THINK THERE'S A VARIANCE REQUESTED FROM CITY CODE.
UM, AND COULD YOU JUST SORT OF TALK THROUGH THE VARIANCE THAT'S BEING REQUESTED AND, YOU KNOW, AND, AND ALSO WOULD YOU, YOU KNOW, SORT OF STICK TO THE GENERAL LOADING PRINCIPLES THAT ARE IN THE DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN AREAS OF, YOU KNOW, TRUCKS CAN'T BACK IN AND BACK OUT AND TRASH RECEPTACLES DUMPSTERS HAVE TO BE OUT OF SIGHT, BUT YOU TALKED TO THAT.
WHY THE NEED FOR THE VARIANT, THE, THE MANEUVERING AND THE RIGHT AWAY AND THE TRASH, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A GRID, WE DON'T HAVE A GRID PATTERN PER SE, ON THIS.
AND, UM, WE HAD, WE HAD ASKED FOR THE FLEXIBILITY JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE OUR SITE PLAN DESIGNED.
THERE MAY BE AN INSTANCE WHERE, BECAUSE OF A SIDEWALK OR A BIKE LANE OR A, A SMALLER ROAD THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO DO THE LOADING POSSIBLY IN THE STREET, POSSIBLY IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR, OR NOT.
IT, IT, IT WAS MEANT, IT WAS MEANT PURELY JUST TO HAVE FLEXIBILITY ON DESIGN AND A POSITIVE DESIGN, NOT A
[02:05:01]
NEGATIVE DESIGN, BUT W WITH THE LOADING BE UNDERGROUND, AS IT ARE, PARTS OF IT COULD BE UNDERGROUND.SO, SO YOU WOULD JUST WANT THE FLEXIBILITY AND YOU WOULDN'T NORMALLY, MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF, BUT MAYBE YOU COULD RESPOND.
I MEAN, THERE IS SOME SORT OF DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN AREA THAT HAS SORT OF AN ENHANCED LOADING REQUIREMENTS.
IS THAT CORRECT? OH, I'M GOING TO LET STAFF TAKE THAT ONE.
I'M CURTIS BANEY WITH AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION.
EACH SITE CAN MAKE WAIVER REQUEST FOR, UH, TO OPERATE, TO MANEUVERING THE WAY.
UM, WE WOULD NOT ALLOW THE RECEPTACLES IN THE STREET.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE ON THE CURVES.
THERE ARE AREAS DOWNTOWN WHERE WE HAVE WHAT'S CALLED BLUE, GREAT STREETS, CONCEPTS.
THEY HAVE A LITTLE WIDER SIDEWALKS AND SOME INSET PARKING ALLOWED THAT HAS BEEN ACCOMMODATED IN SOME ROADS DOWNTOWN THAT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED WITH THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.
I THINK THERE'S ALSO RULES THAT SAY, THERE'S NO BACKING OUT FOR LOADING AND THINGS LIKE THAT AS WELL.
AND IF THEY WANT TO, OR A WAIVER, THEN THAT IS, HAS TO BE REVIEWED BY ATD TO GET PERMISSION TO DO SO.
BUT WOULD THEY BE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT DOWNTOWN, WOULD THEY BE UNDER THAT SAME SORT OF MORE STRICT LOADING? WELL, THE TCM DOES HAVE REQUIREMENTS AND SUCH AS BACKING OUT WOULD BE REVIEWED AND IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER REQUEST.
I'VE GOT A LITTLE CLARITY TOO.
I'VE GOT BACK WITH MY TEAM UNDER CURRENT RULES, EACH BUILDING, OR EACH EAST WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ITS OWN LOADING REQUIREMENTS, DOCS, AND ALL WHAT WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY IS, IS THAT MAYBE HAVE A CENTRAL LOADING OR A CENTRAL DOCK OR CENTRAL DUMPSTER AREA TO BE SHARED BY VARIOUS BUILDINGS SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ONE PER BUILDING.
AND THAT'S THAT, THAT WAS THE RATIONALE FOR ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE.
I GUESS THE ONE OTHER QUESTION, AND MAYBE IT WAS MORE FOR STAFF, BUT MAYBE BE FOR YOU TOO.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE INVOLVED AT ALL IN THE FRAMEWORK, VISION PLAN, UM, OR IF YOU PARTICIPATED IN THAT.
UM, BUT IN THAT ONE, WHEN THEY CAME UP WITH THE ORIGINAL 4% AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND 20% AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE ENTIRE DISTRICT, I THINK IT IT'S CLEAR THAT IT'S NOT ACTUALLY THE DISTRICT, ALL THE HOUSING IN THE DISTRICT, IT'S ALL THE NEW HOUSING IN THE DISTRICT OF WHICH THAT THE SCENARIO EVALUATION SAYS, THERE'LL BE 3080 NEW NEW HOUSING UNITS.
AND THE GOAL IS FOR 20% OF THAT TO BE AFFORDABLE.
AND THAT NUMBER WOULD BE 5 27, BUT AT THAT MATH IS, IT'S NOT RIGHT.
I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE MAP IS NOT CORRECT IN THE FRAMEWORK PLAN.
I GUESS I JUST HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CHALLENGE THEN.
I MEAN, THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS ABOUT THIS, THAT IF, IF THE MATH IS NOT RIGHT AND THAT DOESN'T GET US TO 20%, THEN YOU KNOW, WE ACTUALLY NEED MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO GET TO THAT 20%.
AND THEN ALSO THAT IF, IF, IF YOU WERE PROVIDING 4% OF HOUSING AND I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER SOMEWHERE, BUT AT SOME LEVEL, THE STATESMEN TRACK WAS PROVIDING 4% OF HOUSING.
AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE IN A DISH THAT WOULD MAKE UP 20% OF HOUSING, BUT YOU WERE PROVIDING A THIRD OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, BUT NOW YOU'LL BE PROVIDING SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN A THIRD OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
UM, WOULDN'T YOUR 4% HAVE TO INCREASE TO, TO REMAIN AT THE 20% OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND LESS WE WERE TO, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY GIVE EVERYBODY ELSE TO SAY INCREASE IN ENTITLEMENTS THAT WE'RE PROVIDING YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
LET'S WRAP THIS UP IF YOU DON'T MIND.
SO I HAVE TO ADMIT, I TOOK EVERY MATH CLASS TWICE AND NOT VOLUNTARILY.
SO I'M NOT THE GUY THAT CAN DO THE MATH UP HERE.
THE MATH OF THE 4% CAME STRAIGHT OUT OF THE PLAN.
AND, AND, AND THAT 4% IS BASED ON THE EQUITY, UH, THAT THE WORKING GROUP CAME OUT OF.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT YOU CAN BUMP THAT
[02:10:01]
PERCENTAGE UP IF YOU DO A LESS, UH, IF YOU MIX THE BEDROOMS DIFFERENTLY.IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN DO FAR MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
NUMBER WISE, IF YOU GO STUDIO, THEN IF YOU GO TWO AND THREE BEDROOM, BUT I THINK WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE WORKING GROUP AND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVOCATES IS THEY WANTED A MIX AND THEY WANTED THE SAME MIX AS WHAT WE'RE BUILDING OUT THERE.
WHAT I'M, I GUESS WHAT I'M ALSO TELLING YOU IS, IS UNDER THE TERRORS.
IF, IF THERE IT'S FACTORED INTO THE TOURIST TO BUY DOWN SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND IF, IF THE CITY DETERMINED THEY WANTED MORE ON THIS SITE, THEY COULD ALLOCATE MORE OF THE TERS MONEY AND BUY IT ABOVE THE 4%.
BUT THE 4% IS WHAT THEY PUT US UNDER THE PLAN.
AND I CAN TELL THE CHAIR, WANT ME TO SIT DOWN, THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, MOVE TO THE NEXT COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER COX.
YEAH, I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS THAT WILL HELP ELIMINATE THINGS.
SOME ISSUES THAT I, THAT WE HAVEN'T TALKED TO YET, BUT I KNOW ARE GONNA COME UP, UM, TO A, TO ATD.
I THINK CURTIS, IF YOU'RE STILL ON THE LINE WITH US, UM, I JUST WANTED TO ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION REGARDING THE MEMO, THE TIA MEMO THAT'S IN OUR BACKUP.
AND IT LARGELY JUST RELATES TO ALL OF THE ASTERISKS THAT ARE ON TABLE TWO FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS.
AND THE FIRST ASTERIX TALKS ABOUT HOW THE RIGHT OF WAY LAND VALUE TO THE BARTON SPRINGS EXTENSION, UH, WILL BE CREDITED TOWARDS THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS CONTRIBUTION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TO MAKE.
IS IT, IS IT STAFF'S UNDERSTANDING AT THIS POINT IN TIME THAT THAT RIGHT AWAY LAND VALUE IS GOING TO EXCEED ANY SIF, UH, CONTRIBUTION.
AND THAT MEANS THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACTUALLY PAY FOR THE FOUR ITEMS THAT WERE ENABLED TO YES.
UH, BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF THIS OUT OF THE TIA, WE DID DO INTERNALLY A ROUGH CALCULATION OF WHAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE PAYING IN THE STREET IMPACT FEE, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PULL ANY BUILDING PERMITS BEFORE JUNE OF THIS YEAR, WHICH IS WHEN THE FULL SALE GOES INTO EFFECT.
UH, THE RIGHT OF AWAY ALONE IS VERY EXPENSIVE LAND, BUT THE DEDICATION OF THAT IS NOT GOING TO SEE THEIR OBLIGATION.
SO THE DEDICATION, WHAT WE'RE SHOWING IS THAT THE DEDICATION OF THE RIDE AWAY, UM, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS CREDITS TOWARDS THEIR SIFT PAYMENT, THAT IS ALL POSSIBLE WITHIN THE MAXIMUM SIF AMOUNT.
SO HELP ME, LET ME UNDERSTAND.
CAUSE THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I HAD ORIGINALLY THOUGHT.
YOU, YOU ARE EXPECTING THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE SOME FUNDS FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, BUT PROBABLY NOT ENOUGH TO COVER THOSE FOUR ITEMS BECAUSE OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE RIGHT WAY, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ANSWER THAT REAL QUICK.
IF YOU, THEY HAVE A, THE CALCULATION AND SAY OF HORNETS SHOWS WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY INTO THE STEP FUND.
PLUS THERE'S A ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY CHECK BUILT INTO THE SAFE ORDINANCE OF THE SIFT MAX, THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT POSSIBLE, THE DEDICATION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND THEIR PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS WILL FALL UNDER WHAT WE HAVE INITIALLY PRELIMINARY, LIKE CALCULATED AS THAT SIF MAX, WE HAVE NOT.
UM, AGAIN, AS THE APPLICANT HAS SAID THAT WE DON'T, WE'RE NOT AT THE SITE PLAN STAGE.
UH, SO TRYING TO FIND OUT EXACTLY THE QUANTITY OF RIGHT AWAY THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE, THE EXACT AMOUNT OF COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION COST, HASN'T BEEN DETERMINED, BUT FOR LEMON NARROWLY, WE BELIEVE THAT WOULD ALL FIT UNDER THE MAX.
I WILL SAY THOUGH, IF TERS FUNDING IS BROUGHT INTO THIS CONVERSATION AND IS USED TO PAY FOR SOME OF THOSE CONSTRUCTION ELEMENTS, THAT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A CREDIT TOWARDS THEIR SIF, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE THE EXPENDITURES OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR, UM, FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS OUT OF A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND, AND I GUESS NEXT QUESTION TO, TO RICHARD, UH, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU, RICHARD, AND, AND YOUR, I THINK YOUR 800 CONSULTANT TEAMS FOR SPENDING SO MUCH TIME WITH US, UH, IN THE WORKING GROUP.
UM, I GUESS FOLLOWING ONTO THAT, DO YOU ANTICIPATE, UH, THAT THE, THE DEVELOPER BUILDING ANY OF THOSE FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS BEYOND THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE RIGHT-AWAY LAND VALUE? I THINK THAT AS WE GET SITE PLANS COMING IN, CURTIS IS GOING TO MAKE SURE
[02:15:01]
THAT HE GETS, EXCUSE ME, THE, THE CITY'S FAIR SHARE PLUS SOME, UM, I SAY THAT ONLY BECAUSE IN EXPERIENCE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THE TRAFFIC WORK, OR WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET A SITE PLAN APPROVED.SO LET ME, LET ME ASK, LET ME SWITCH GEARS A LITTLE QUICK BEFORE I RUN OUT OF TIME.
UM, THEY Y'ALL HAD SENT ME THE EXHIBIT, WHICH I THINK IS IN OUR BACKUP ABOUT COMPARING THE PUBLIC REALM SPACE BETWEEN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN AND THE CURRENT PROPERTY AS IT IS PROPOSED.
I KNOW AT ONE STAGE I WAS PROPOSING A WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT THAT ADDED MORE DEDICATED PARKLAND, BUT, BUT YOU HAD SHARED SOME INFORMATION THAT SHOWED THAT THE NUMBERS IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION PLAN ACTUALLY DIDN'T MATCH UP WITH THE ACTUAL SITE AREA.
AND SO WHAT YOU'RE CONTRIBUTING NOW IN PARKLAND IS ACTUALLY A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF YOUR, YOUR OVERALL SITE THAN WHAT THE VISION PLAN HAD.
CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT AT ALL? I KNOW, YOU KNOW, YOU LOVE TALKING ABOUT SURE.
SO THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN WHILE, BUT GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION, PLEASE.
YEAH, WELL, THE SOUTH CENTRAL PLAN WAS A GOOD PLAN.
IT HAD SOME INACCURACIES AND ONE OF THE INACCURACIES IS IT ACTUALLY HAD PART OF OUR LAND, UH, OR ACTUALLY PART OF OUR BUILDINGS ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S LAND.
AND IT HAD OUR SITE TO BE BIGGER.
AND IT WANTED A BIGGER PORTION OF PARKLAND FROM US BECAUSE UNDER THE PLAN THEY THOUGHT WE WERE BIGGER WHEN YOU ACTUALLY DRAW THE BOUNDARIES INTO OUR ACTUAL LANDHOLDINGS.
IT SHRUNK OUR SITE, WHICH MEANT IF THEY GOT ALL THE PARKLAND FROM US, THEN IMAGINE WE'D GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE MORE THAN A THIRD OF A WAY TO PARKLAND MORE THAN THIRD WAY TO ROAD, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
PRETTY SOON WE ENDED UP WITH VERY LITTLE TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP.
SO IT WAS JUST, THAT WAS AGAIN, A MATH EQUATION THAT WE JUST, WE JUST DID ROUGH JUSTICE ON THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PLAN AND IN REALITY.
UH, NEXT COMMISSIONER WITH QUESTIONS, WE'RE UP TO NUMBER FIVE RIGHT NOW, UH, OVER TO SIX ONE MIS LET'S SEE.
UM, SO I'M GOING TO GO AND ASK A FEW QUESTIONS.
I'M NOT SEEING ANYBODY JUMPING UP HERE.
UH, SO, UH, FOR THE PARKS PART STAFF, UM, QUICK QUESTION, UH, AS I'VE BEEN, UM, KIND OF, UM, EDUCATED ON THE RULES, UH, THERE ARE WITHIN THE PARKLAND DEDICATION OPERATING PROCEDURE RULES, THERE'S PRETTY CLEAR REQUIREMENTS FOR, UH, DEVELOPMENT TO MEET SUPERIORITY.
AND THOSE ARE, UH, YOU KNOW, WHERE THEY ARE, BUT I'M JUST GOING TO READ THEM 1.4 0.3 0.4 D AND ONE, UM, UH, IN 14 DOT THREE NINE TH UH, IS DETERMINED SUPERIORITY.
UH, SO IS THAT 1.4 OR 14? JUST CORRECT.
SO IT'S 14 DOT THREE DOT FOUR D AND 14 DOT THREE DOT NINE.
DID THE APPLIQUE APPLICANT MEET THESE SUPERIORITY REQUIREMENTS? UH, JUST AS SIMPLE YES OR NO.
AND DO HAS PART IN THE PAST, GRANTED A SUPERIOR FOR PARKLAND DESIGNATION FOR DEVELOPMENT TYPE DOESN'T MEAN THEY DON'T PASS.
THEY DON'T GO FORWARD, BUT IS PARD GIVEN A SUPERIOR RATING TO PUD DEVELOPMENTS WHEN THEY DON'T MEET THESE CRITERIA? NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE THAT WE'D NEVER HAVE.
SO THIS, THIS MAY BE A RARE OCCASION.
I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THE BIT PART HITS ADVANCES AS A SUPERIOR, UM, UH, PROJECT ON THE BASIS OF PARKLAND.
AND JUST IN A FEW, MAYBE JUST QUICKLY DO YOU, COULD YOU, I KNOW THERE'S A LONG LETTER ABOUT THE THINGS THAT YOU VALUE IN THEIR PROPOSAL, BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK THE HIGHLIGHTS WOULD BE IF YOU COULD JUST NAME ONE OR TWO THINGS THAT STAND OUT FOR THIS PROJECT? UH, DEDICATION BY DEED OF 6.5, THREE ACRES OF LAND FRONTING ON LADY BIRD LAKE AS A MINIMUM DEDICATION BY EASEMENT OF 1.5, NINE ACRES OF PARK EASEMENTS AS A MINIMUM COMMITMENT TO INVEST IN THE PARK, A HUNDRED DOLLARS PER UNIT OVER CURRENT CODE AS A FLOATING FIGURE AS PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE POTENTIAL.
AND I HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT PART WOULD, WOULD EVER GO AGAINST THIS AND WE WOULD SUPPORT THIS, UM, THAT THAT IS PART WOULD SUPPORT THIS POTENTIAL TO INVEST REMAINDER PARKLAND FEES AND LOO IN THE PARK BASED ON PART APPROVAL OF THE INVESTMENT PHASING APART.
PARKLAND DEDICATION AGREED TO IN THREE PHASES ADDED CIRCULATION AND ADA CONNECTIONS
[02:20:01]
PROVIDED VIA THE GREAT STEPS IN VIA NEW STREET CONNECTIONS TO PARK.OKAY, I'M GOING TO, I'M GOING TO STOP YOU THERE.
UM, CAUSE I THINK THAT KIND OF GIVES IT A BRIEF, SO ONE THING THAT, UH, IN COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PART STAFF THAT EARLIER, UM, WAS VERY IMPORTANT WAS THAT AND OTHER, UM, OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WAS THAT ROUTING FROM THE CONGRESS AVENUE BRIDGE, KINDA, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT AND I'LL SHOW IT LATER, BUT THERE'S A VERY GOOD VISUAL IN THE, UH, FRAMEWORK PLAN OF AN OBSERVATION DECK THAT KIND OF LEADS OFF OF CONGRESS AVENUE AND GOATS DOWN THE GREAT STEPS TO THE, UH, AMPHITHEATER.
SO WHAT IS PARKS POSITION CURRENTLY ON, ON THE NEED FOR THAT? UH, ACCESS OFF OF THE BRIDGE PART HAS AGREED THAT THE CURRENT, UM, THE CURRENT CIRCULATION PLAN IS ACCEPTABLE AND IS SUPERIOR.
THAT WAS, I THINK THAT'S A BIT OF A CHANGE FROM WHERE WE LAST LEFT OFF.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION.
UM, AND, UM, SO THE, THE CLAIRE, WE HEARD QUESTIONS EARLIER ABOUT, UH, WHAT I THINK ARE TWO ELEMENTS, UH, WHEREAS A PROGRAMMING ELEMENT AND THEN A MAINTENANCE PLAN.
DO THOSE THINGS TYPICALLY GET APPROVED BEFORE COUNCIL APPROVES THE PLED, UH, OR, YOU KNOW, THE KIND OF FRAMEWORK FOR THOSE? OR DID THEY, OR DID THEY COME AFTER? IT CAN BE EITHER.
UM, I'VE I HAVEN'T, UM, IT'S, I'VE SEEN MANY OF THEM HAPPEN AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN, BUT THERE'S NO REASON TO SAY THAT IT COULDN'T BE BEFORE SITE PLAN, UH, PARTICULARLY FOR AN AREA OF INTEREST.
AND, AND I GUESS JUST TO CLARIFY, IT IT'S REALLY, IT CAN BE THE SAME DOCUMENT.
IT'S A PARKLAND IMPROVEMENT, MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH PROGRAMMING.
AND, UM, I THINK WHAT I RECALL AND COMMISSIONER COX, AS WELL AS I BELIEVE WE HAD KIND OF THE, UH, MAINTENANCE PLAN AND THE AGREEMENT THAT THE DEVELOPER DO, THE MAINTENANCE KIND OF AHEAD OF, UH, COUNCIL APPROVAL, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
SO THAT SEEMED TO BE SOMETHING VERY VALUABLE TO THE COMMUNITY.
UH, SO I THINK VICE-CHAIR, THAT MEANS WE HAVE ONE MORE, TWO MORE SLOTS.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS BEFORE WE DIVE INTO THE NEXT SEGMENT OF OUR, OF OUR, OKAY.
UH, COMMISSIONER MOOSE, STELLAR, SORRY, SCOTT.
UP BEFORE YOU WALKED DOWN, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU AND TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR FOR EVERYONE ON WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE PARKSIDE.
SO, UM, IF YOU COULD, AGAIN, CONFIRM THAT PARKS HAS SATISFIED WITH THE PLAN THAT INCLUDES THE AMENDMENTS NOW, UM, PARTICULARLY THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE GREAT STEPS AND HOW THE PUBLIC WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCESS INTO THE PARK SPACE AND THAT CONTINUED TO COME UP AS PART OF OUR WORKING GROUP.
SO, UM, IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT TO THAT AND KIND OF HOW WE HANDLED THAT AND WHERE PARKS ENDED UP ON THAT AND THEIR THOUGHTS ON THAT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE COMMISSION.
I CAN SPEAK TO THAT AND THEN I CAN SPEAK TO THE AMENDMENTS, I SUPPOSE, THAT, UM, REGARDING THE, THE, UM, THE ACCESS VIA CONGRESS, THAT WE CERTAINLY HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS.
UM, WE, UM, YOU KNOW, I PERSONALLY FAVORED A POTENTIAL ACCESS VIA THIS WAY.
WE, WE LOOKED AT MANY DIFFERENT, UH, OPTIONS.
WE LOOKED AT ADA ACCESSIBILITY WAS A REALLY BIG PART OF THIS.
AND, UM, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE, WE REACHED AN AGREEMENT OF, FOR SUPERIORITY THAT INCLUDED ALL OF THE ACCESS POINTS THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY SHOWING.
IT DID NOT INCLUDE THAT, THAT CONGRESS ACCESS.
SO, I MEAN, JUST WANTING TO BE FRANK, THAT WE, WE AGREED TO THAT.
UM, IS IT SOMETHING THAT IS, UM, A HUNDRED PERCENT IDEAL, MAYBE NOT, BUT WE ARE SAYING THAT IT IS SUPERIOR.
AND THEN FOR THE APPLICANT ON THAT ASPECT, UM, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE HELPFUL TO GIVE SOME INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT WE LEARNED ON THE GRADING AND WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ON THE FACING SIDE TO SOUTH CONGRESS AND HOW THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE ADA AND PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY INTO THAT SPACE, BECAUSE WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME STUDYING THE GRADE LEVELS AND WHAT THE PLANS WERE AND HOW THAT TRANSLATED TO WHY THE ENTRY TO THE PUBLIC, UH, MADE SENSE THAT IT WOULD SATISFY WHAT PARK'S INTENT
[02:25:01]
WAS AND GETTING THE PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY THERE.I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE GROUP TO UNDERSTAND AS WELL.
I WANT TO SAVE A FEW MINUTES JUST TO BRING LIZ IN BEFORE I RUN OUT OF TIME, TOO.
SO YOU WANT STAFF TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION? UH, APPLICANTS, UM, UH, THERE, THERE, UM, EXPERTS WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SLOPE AND GRADING, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE'S A BIG FALL OFF FROM SOUTH SEA OF A VERY NARROW SIDEWALK AND A FALL OFF WHERE THE STEPS GO DOWN.
AND THERE'S A LOT OF INTENDED CHANGES THERE THAT ARE GOING TO BRING BIG PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.
AND THAT'S WHY WE ALL ENDED UP THINKING THIS MADE A VERY GOOD COMPROMISE AND IMPROVED PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY, PARTICULARLY FOR ADA ACCESSIBILITY DOWN TO THE PARK AREA AND WATCHING, YEAH, YOU SAID JUST ABOUT ALL OF IT.
WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE BRINGING THE GRADE UP.
THERE'S A BIG FALL OFF FROM THE BRIDGE DOWN.
WE'RE GOING TO BRING THE GRADE UP.
AND THAT GRADE THAT'S BROUGHT UP ACTUALLY DOES AWAY WITH THE TRAIL THAT SCOTT LIKES.
BUT WHAT WE DID IS WE JUST ESSENTIALLY MOVED THAT TRAIL AROUND, GAVE A BIGGER AND AN ADA COMPLIANT, UH, ROUTE DOWN TO THE TRAIL, ALMOST IN THE SAME SPOT, JUST A LITTLE BIT FARTHER TO THE EAST.
AND SO RICHARD, WE TALKED A LOT WITH YOUR PLANNERS ABOUT WHAT THAT ENTRY INTO THE POTENTIAL BUILDING AT THAT SITE WOULD LOOK LIKE BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO MAKE OUR UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THAT WAS GOING TO MAKE FOR A MUCH WIDER PUBLIC SIDEWALK THAN WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS AND THAT THERE WOULD ALSO BE ELEVATOR ACCESS AS WELL.
SO WHAT YOU GOT RIGHT NOW IS BASICALLY A GRAVEL STEPPED DOWN AND FOUR OR FIVE FEET WIDE, UM, ON ANY GIVEN RAINY DAY IS, IS NOT VERY GOOD ACCESS.
WHAT YOU'LL END UP WITH IS A MUCH WIDER PASEO, UM, AND PEDESTRIAN ONLY ACCESS DOWN TO THE STEPS TO AN ELEVATOR FOR THE ADI ACCESS, ADA ACCESS.
I HOPE WE'LL GET SOME MORE QUESTIONS ON THAT BECAUSE THAT MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE ON TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND PEDESTRIAN STUFF.
AND SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT EVERYBODY'S THINKING OF.
UM, I WANTED TO GIVE LIZ A CHANCE IF SHE WANTS TO, TO SPEAK TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND SUPERIORITY OF THE PROJECT AND WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ON SOME OF THAT, BECAUSE THEY WERE VERY INVOLVED IN OUR WORKING GROUP MEETINGS AS WELL.
YEAH, LIZ JOHNSTON WITH A WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT.
UM, UH, SO I THINK WE HAD ENDED UP ON, UM, MEETING MANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, FROM ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AND STAFF, UM, SOME WERE COMPROMISES.
UM, AND SO WHERE WE ENDED OFF ON THE, THE OUTSTANDING ITEMS WERE RELATED TO THE BIRD STRIKE, UH, PROVISION.
AND WE HAD ASKED FOR THE ENTIRE BUILDINGS TO MEET, UH, UH, A REFLECTIVITY AMOUNT.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS, UH, AGREED TO, UM, MEET THAT WITHIN THE FIRST 40 FEET OF, OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IS, UM, FOR LOCAL BIRDS THAT AREN'T MIGRATING THROUGH.
THAT'S THE MORE IMPORTANT AREA, UM, THE, THE LOWER, LOWER ZONE.
AND SO WE WILL ACCEPT THAT AS A COMPANY RISE.
UM, THE OTHER ONE WAS RELATED TO JUST THE, UH, INCLUSION OF THE BOARDWALK WITHIN THE PUD.
IT IS, UH, SOMETHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE, UH, COUNCIL APPROVED FLOODPLAIN VARIANTS IN THE FUTURE.
UM, AND IT DOES TRIGGER ONE OF THE, UM, VARIANCES TO EXCEED SHORELINE FRONTAGE AND, UM, WITH THE PIER AND THE STEPS, UM, AND POTENTIAL ABILITY TO ADD OTHER SHORELINE ACCESS POINTS, UM, TO BRING PEOPLE TO THE WATER ALONG WITH THE SPLIT RAIL FENCE THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ACT, UM, CONSULTANT IS PROPOSING OR TO PROTECT THE RESTORATION ALONG THE SHORELINE THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.
WE BELIEVE THAT, UM, THE BOARDWALK SHOULD MAYBE BE, UM, REMOVED FROM THE PUTT AND ADDED LATER WITH A SITE PLAN.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS IN HERE, THE BUZZER DID GO UP, BUT I WENT AHEAD AND, UH, WE ALLOWED YOU TO FINISH THAT.
UH, SO I THINK OUR, WE, I KEEP MISSING COUNT IF WE HAVE ONE MORE.
SO WE DON'T HAVE TO USE IT ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
SO BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PHASE, WE HAVE ONE MORE SLOT.
I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT IN THE WORKING GROUP, WE DISCUSSED YOU POSSIBLY RUNNING THE NUMBERS WITH YOUR TEAM AND DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT 4% WAS AN ACTUAL BASELINE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND ALSO WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD GO LOWER ON THE MFI, BUT WE DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER.
SO I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT AGAIN AND SEE IF THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE.
[02:30:03]
YES, WHAT WE DID IS, AS I'VE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, IF YOU PLAY WITH THE MIX OF BEDROOMS, YOU CAN INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS.IF YOU INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ONE BEDROOMS OR STUDIO HOUSING, THE, THE, THE, THE RAW NUMBER OF UNITS CAN GO UP.
SO YOU GET HIGHER THAN THE 4%.
UM, UH, WE, WE, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE LOWER MFI NUMBERS WORK WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF HAVING THE CONVERSATION WITHIN THE TERRORS, BECAUSE THE THERE'S, THE MATH GUYS CAN ACTUALLY PUT A PRICE ON LOWERING THE MFI.
AND IF, IF THE TERS STEPPED IN, THEY CAN BOTH LOWER THE MFI AND THEY CAN INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS.
WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO PUT A NUMBER ON HOW HIGH A PERCENTAGE YOU'D BE WILLING TO GO ON THOSE AFFORDABLE UNITS? UM, IF I'M ABLE TO HAVE THE SLIDING SCALE OF THE MIX, BUT AGAIN, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OUT OF THE WORKING GROUP THAT THEY WANT, THE SAME MIX OF BEDROOMS THAT WE HAVE IN THE PROJECT WITH THAT CONSTRAINT.
I'M UNABLE TO GO UP OVER THE 4%.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE ARE OUT OF THAT CONCLUDES OUR Q AND A, UH, SO I'M GOING TO KEEP REVISITING MY T SHEET HERE TO KIND OF HELP GUIDE US TO THE NEXT PHASE.
UM, SO WHAT I HAVE HERE IS WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN WORKING THROUGH, YOU'VE HAD A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION FROM THE WORKING GROUPS AND Q AND A ABOUT THE AMENDMENTS.
AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO WORK THROUGH THESE DECIDE WHICH ONES WE CAN PULL, UH, KEEP ON, UH, CONSENT AND WHICH ONES WILL PULL FOR DISCUSSION.
WE DEFINITELY WANT TO, YOU KNOW, THIS EVENING, IF WE DO ANYTHING WE WANT TO GET THROUGH THESE AMENDMENTS THAT THE WORKING GROUP WORKED SO HARD ON, AND THAT IS A PRIORITY, UH, RIGHT NOW.
SO, UH, THE FIRST STEP IS TO KIND OF IDENTIFY THOSE THAT WILL BE ON CONSENT, BUT WHAT WE NEED TO DO BEFORE THAT, AND I NEED STAFF TO HELP ME HERE IS WE NEED TO KIND OF CREATE THE BASE MOTION THAT WE'RE GOING TO KIND OF BE AMENDING THESE TWO.
SO THAT IS, WE NEED TO BEGIN THAT.
AND SO I NEED STAFF, I GUESS, OUR OPTIONS FOR THE PC TONIGHT.
YOU KNOW, I'M JUST GONNA THROW OUT, UH, ONE SCENARIO, ONE IDEA IS YOU CAN SET A BASE MOTION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THESE THREE ITEMS WITH, AND THEN WE CAN ADD AMENDMENTS TO THAT BASE MOTION, UH, BOTH THE WORKING GROUP AND INDIVIDUAL.
AND, UM, AND SO AT THE END OF THAT, IT WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE, UM, WORKING, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THIS WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF MOTION PLANNING, COMMISSION SUPPORTS, UH, THIS PUD, UM, AND AS SUPERIOR WITH, AS STAFF RECOMMENDS WITH THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENTS.
SO THAT WOULD BE KIND OF A BASELINE TO START WITH, BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S OTHER EMOTIONS SICKO TO BE MADE THAT, UH, FOLKS THAT MAY NOT FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT THIS PUD.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE CAN GO, THAT COULD BE A MOTION AS WELL, WE COULD VOTE ON.
BUT, UM, ANYWAY, IF, UH, YOU COULD JUST LET US KNOW KIND OF WHERE, WHAT ARE KIND OF WHAT WE'RE DECIDING HERE TONIGHT AND WHAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE FORWARDING TO COUNCIL AND HOW THAT SHOULD BE STRUCTURED.
UM, YES, I THINK THAT WE DO NEED, YOU KNOW, A PLACE TO WORK FROM, AND WE HAVE THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WE'VE JUST BEEN DISCUSSING.
UM, WE WOULD, OF COURSE BE AGREEABLE TO STARTING WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
AND WHEN, TYPICALLY WHEN WE'RE AT CITY COUNCIL, THAT THAT'S HOW IT WOULD WORK IS, YOU KNOW, WE LAY OUT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, THEY MAKE AMENDMENTS TO IT, YOU KNOW, IT TAKES THEM OUT OF IT, ADD SOME TO IT.
UM, BUT WE ALWAYS NEED KIND OF A PLACE TO START FROM WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AMENDMENTS.
SO I THINK THE IDEA THAT YOU JUST HAD IS A GOOD ONE.
UM, YOU'RE AND I'LL JUST SAY, THE REASON IS, UH, THE LITTLE, YOUR NAME POPS UP IN FRONT OF YOUR MOUTH, IF YOU KNOW, AND I CAN'T TELL WHO'S TALKING, SO YEAH.
TRY TO BE, RAISE YOUR HEAD, ALL OF YOU SO I CAN SEE YOUR MOUSE.
SINCE, SINCE, UH, JERRY IS UP THERE TALKING ABOUT PROCESS, UM, I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TO UNDERSTAND.
AND IF JERRY CAN EXPLAIN, UH, OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE AN OPTION TO APPROVE, TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, BUT JERRY CAN EXPLAIN TO THE COMMISSION, SINCE THIS IS SOMEWHAT UNIQUE IN TERMS OF A PUD, WHAT HAPPENS IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, VOTES TO NOT RECOMMEND THE PUD? AND WHAT HAPPENS IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTES TO POSTPONE THIS? IF HE COULD EXPLAIN THAT, THAT'D BE GREAT.
[02:35:01]
THE, UM, THE CODE STIPULATES FOR PUDS AND PEDS ONLY, UM, THAT IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE POD, IT WOULD REQUIRE A SUPER MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE IT.IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE PUD WITH CONDITIONS, YOU KNOW, BE THEY STAFF RECOMMENDATION OR, YOU KNOW, WITH THEIR AMENDMENTS AS PROPOSED BY THE WORKING GROUP OR ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS, WE WOULD STILL TAKE IT FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT WOULD REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY.
SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO EXACTLY MATCH EITHER THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OR THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
IT JUST WOULD HAVE TO BE RECOMMENDED AND MOVED ON WORD WITH, YOU KNOW, AMENDMENTS ARE FINE.
UM, IT'S THE ONLY, THE FLAT OUT DENIAL THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD RESULT IN AT, UM, UM, MOVING FORWARD.
THE QUESTION ABOUT, UM, WHAT HAPPENS IF IT MOVES FORWARD WITH NO RECOMMENDATION, UH, AS WE DISCUSSED LAST TIME, THE APPLICANT DID FILE A LETTER UNDER 25 TO 2 82, UM, REQUIRING US TO MOVE FORWARD.
UM, PORTIONS OF THAT, UM, WERE NOT FOLLOWED BECAUSE WE ALL WANTED TO DO A WORKING GROUP, THE APPLICANT, THE STAFF, THE COMMISSION.
SO WE HAVEN'T STUCK TO THAT REQUIREMENT THAT IMMEDIATELY BE PUT ON THE, THE NEXT BLANK WISH AGENDA.
AND IF AT THE END, UH, COULD CANNOT BE POSTPONED AS MOVED COUNCIL, BUT IF IT IS FORWARDED WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION, THAT I WOULD NOT SAY THAT THAT IS THE SAME AS THE DENIAL.
UM, THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER, UM, YOU POSTPONE OR NOT IS SOMETHING THAT, UM, I THINK THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO, UM, ASK THE APPLICANT WHAT HIS OPINION I POSE PROBLEM WOULD BE, UM, GIVEN THE 2 82 LETTER, BUT, UM, I DON'T THINK THAT AFFECTS THE SUPERMAJORITY, UM, SECTION OF THE CO OKAY.
ANY OTHER PROCESS QUESTIONS, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO BE ENTERTAINING THE BASE MOTION HERE FROM A COMMISSIONER, UM, AND JUST, UH, MR. RIVERA FOR CLARIFICATION, THAT BASE MOTION, DO WE NEED TO HAVE A, IS THAT JUST NEED A SECOND OR A FULL VOTE TO, TO ESTABLISH THE BASE CHAIR COMMISSIONER LAYS ON DIVERSITY, WE'LL HAVE A MOTION OR IN A SECOND AND THEN YOU'LL MOVE ON TO A MINUTES.
SO DOES ANY COMMISSIONERS HERE WANT TO KIND OF, UH, PROPOSE A BASE MOTION, UH, FOR THIS CASE, YOUR COMMISSIONER LIES ON DENVER AND JUST A REMINDER ARE TAKING UP ALL THREE ITEMS YES.
OR ALL THREE ITEMS. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION COMMISSIONER CZAR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH WHATEVER AMENDMENTS MONEY COMMISSION MAY HAVE, UH, CONSIDERED.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? A VICE-CHAIR HEMPEL SECONDS THAT MOTION.
SO NOW WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON INTO THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
UH, SO, UH, WHICH I'VE DOES ANY COMMISSIONERS? NO, RIGHT NOW, WITHOUT ANY QUESTIONS THAT THEY WANT TO MOVE ANY OF THESE OFF, I MEAN, WE CAN MAKE IT THAT SIMPLE IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS IT.
UM, AND DON'T NEED ANY CLARIFICATION.
WE CAN JUST MOVE IT ONTO THE DISCUSSION PLATE.
I GUESS I WAS TALKING ABOUT FORMING A BOARD OR HAVE THAT ON THE SORT OF NON HUD RELATED I SORT OF, FOR ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WEREN'T ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PUB, I'M SORRY, TWO THINGS, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
AND, AND SECONDLY, UM, YOU HAVE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION IN YOUR QUESTION, ASK IT AGAIN.
IT'S JUST, I THINK THEY BE, THE WORKING GROUP CAME UP WITH, AT THE END OF THEIR, THEIR AMENDMENTS WERE SORT OF FOR ONES THAT WEREN'T NECESSARILY SPECIFIC TO THIS HUD AND THEY WEREN'T NECESSARILY ABOUT SITE STANDARDS, BUT WERE JUST RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL AS A WHOLE.
AND I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF, IF THOSE, COULD WE GET, UH, A COMMENT FROM STAFF ON WHETHER THOSE ARE APPROPRIATE.
I MENTIONED MY STAFF CAN REFLECT THOSE IN THE STAFF REPORT.
OKAY, MR. UM, I THINK THAT AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE WORKING GROUP DISCUSSIONS, UH, THERE WAS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT THERE WERE SOME ISSUES THAT THE WORKING GROUP WANTED THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE AWARE OF CONCERNS THAT THEY HAD.
UM, BUT THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT THESE WERE NOT THINGS THAT WE PUT IN A ZONING ORDINANCE.
SO WHAT WE WOULD DO IS I THINK IF THE, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD NOT, THEY WOULD NOT BE A PART OF THE, THE, UM, ZONING ORDINANCE, BUT WE COULD CARRY THOSE FORWARD, UM, IN THE FORM OF A MEMO, UM, TO THE CITY CONSOLE WHEN WE DO THE BACKUP FOR THE CASE AND LET THEM KNOW THAT THESE WERE SOME OTHER IDEAS THAT THE WORKING GROUP HAD THAT THEY'D LIKE TO COUNCIL TO CONSIDER OUTSIDE THE REALM OF SONY ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
NEITHER RUBBISH, UH, UH, POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
[02:40:02]
IF, IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WORKING GROUP'S RECOMMENDATIONS, LIKE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IS THE ONLY WAY TO GET, UH, SOME DISCUSSION CLARIFICATION BY MOVING THEM OFF OF THAT CONSENT AGENDA OR, NO, NOT AT ALL.I WANTED TO JUST, IF, UH, WE'RE GOING TO START, THEN IT SOUNDS LIKE, UM, WELL, COMMISSIONERS, ARE YOU HAVE A CLERK CLARIFICATION? SURE.
I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, TAKE THE RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 14 FROM THE WORKING GROUP OFF OF, ALRIGHT, SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME.
UM, CAN WE MOVE YOUR, THE WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 14 OFF OF CONSENT AND AS A DISCUSSION ITEM, WHICH SET BACKS IN LAND USE MAP? YES.
WELL, WE'LL MOVE THAT DISCUSSION.
I AM GOING TO ACTUALLY, I DON'T NEED ANY CLARIFICATION ON THIS BECAUSE I WANT TO ACTUALLY OFFER SOME AMENDMENTS TO THE SIDE ITEM, UH, NUMBER 81.
UH, I HAVE, UH, LIKE TO, WELL, LET ME DO THIS, LET ME ASK, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND WE'RE GOING TO DO A PRACTICE ROUND HERE.
THIS IS THE FIRST ONE WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THEM IN ORDER.
SO THE FIRST ITEM HERE IS, UM, WE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT OUR BASE MOTION AND FOR EACH AMENDMENT, UH, TWO COMMISSIONERS WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES, UH, TO ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS TO THE WORK GROUP IN THE PROCESS OF DETERMINING WHETHER TO PULL IT OFF FOR DISCUSSION.
SO ON AWAN, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND BE ONE OF THOSE COMMISSIONERS AND WITH THE CLARIFYING QUESTION.
SO, UH, ON A ONE, THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD THE WAY I READ, UH, WHAT WAS IN THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION IS THE APPLICANT, UM, IS SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE RENTAL UNITS AT 4% AND ALSO, UH, FOUR OWNERSHIP UNITS.
BUT INSTEAD OF THE OWNERSHIP UNITS ARE PROVIDING A CERTAIN, UH, NUMBER OF, UH, I GUESS, CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY PER UNIT UP TO 4% ON THE OWNERSHIP.
SO I READ YOUR AMENDMENT SAYING THEY COULD THAT IT RED LIGHT, THEY COULD DO, UH, THE RENTAL OR THE OWNERSHIP, BUT AREN'T, THEY OBLIGATED TO DO MEET BOTH THOSE REQUIREMENTS OR AREN'T THEY OFFERING TO MEET BOTH THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
AND I CAN, I CAN ANSWER THIS CHAIR SHAW.
UM, THIS IS COMMISSIONER COX FOR ANYONE WHO CAN'T SEE MY MOUTH.
UM, WE, WE, WE HAD LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS.
UM, AND SO OUR UNDERSTANDING AND STAFF CAN PROVIDE CLARIFICATION IF, IF, IF THEY NEED TO, IS THAT THERE'S A TOTAL RESIDENTIAL ENTITLEMENT IN THIS PUTT.
AND THAT RESIDENTIAL ENTITLEMENT IS ESSENTIALLY 1,378 DWELLING UNITS THAT RESIDENTIAL ENTITLEMENT DOES NOT SPECIFY HOW MUCH OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ARE GOING TO BE FOR SALE OR FOR RENT.
AND SO WITHIN THE POT ORDINANCE, AS PROPOSED BY STAFF, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, IT GIVES THE APPLICANT TWO OPTIONS THAT THEY CAN, UH, DO 4% OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT THEY'VE BUILT IN CONDOS AND PAY A FEE IN LIEU, OR 4% OF THE, OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS BUILT IS RENTAL, AND THOSE HAVE TO BE ONSITE.
AND SO THE WAY THAT IT'S SET UP IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, I BELIEVE, I THINK THE WORKING GROUP BELIEVES THAT IT'S VERY POSSIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO SAY, WELL, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON SITE.
SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO BUILD ALL CONDOS, NOT HAVE ANY RENTAL UNITS.
AND THEN OF THAT 4% OF THE CONDOS WAS BUILT.
THE AMOUNT THE WORKING GROUP HAD LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE VALUE OF HAVING THEME LOO THE VALUE OF HAVING ONSITE AFFORDABLE, ALL THE VALUE OF HAVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHIN THIS GEOGRAPHIC AREA, RATHER THAN AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE CITY.
AND WE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WE WANT TO FORCE THE DEVELOPER IN THIS CASE TO BUILD ON-SITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT ARE RENTAL UNITS.
SO THAT 4% IS BASED OFF OF THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS.
THEY BUILT NO MATTER IF THEY'RE FOR SALE OR FOR RENT.
SO, SO THAT HOPE, HOPEFULLY CLARIFIES YOUR QUESTION, BUT WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY LESSENING THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO.
WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT OF ALL THE UNITS THAT HAVE TO BE AFFORDABLE, YOU'RE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO DO A FAM LOO AND THEY HAVE TO BE RENTAL ONSITE.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? WE HAVE ONE MORE SPOT FOR ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT WANT TO ASK ANOTHER QUESTION ON A ONE, UH, CAUSE THERE ARE TWO SPOTS AND WHAT ELSE I FINISHED OUR CONLEY.
I DON'T HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
[02:45:01]
WANTED TO MAKE A QUICK COMMENT.IN ADDITION TO THE EXPLANATION THAT COMMISSIONER COX GAVE, UM, WHICH IS THAT WE DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT, THE POSSIBILITY OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT WERE THE OPTIONS FOR INCREASINGLY AFFORDABILITY NUMBERS.
AND I DON'T THINK WE EVER TOOK OFF THE TABLE, THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE COULD BE A FIELD LIEU OPTION FOR AFFORDABILITY ABOVE THAT 4%.
SO THERE COULD BE THAT 4% AND STILL A FEE IN LIEU FOR ANY EXTRA AFFORDABILITY ADDED TO THE PUD.
ASIDE FROM THAT, I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT AS A CLARIFYING COMMENT.
CAN I JUST, UH, JUST REAL QUICK CHAIR ON, ON THAT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CONLEY FOR SAYING THAT WE DID REQUEST, WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT ALL SORTS OF CRAZY OPTIONS TO TRY TO GET MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE SAID, WHAT IF WE HAD A TIERED SCENARIO WHERE THE MORE RESIDENT JOEL, THEY BUILD THE HIGHER, THE PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THEN LIKE COMMISSIONER KELLY SAID ESSENTIALLY ADDING LIKE, UH, ICING ON THE CAKE IN TERMS OF A THEME LOO ON TOP OF THE PERCENTAGE.
AND, AND SO I THINK THE WORKING GROUP VERY MUCH UNDERSTANDS THAT WHAT WE'VE PRESENTED HERE, WE BELIEVE AS A BASELINE CONSIDERATION.
AND I THINK THAT STATED I'M AT A TIME AND I THINK I'M, UH, LET'S GO.
SO THAT SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE EXHAUSTED THAT ONE, UNLESS SOMEBODY DOES HAVE ANOTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION.
UM, UH, BUT I AM GOING TO GO AND ASK AND THE RE I WANT TO GO AND PULL THIS.
UH, I DON'T REALLY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT.
I THINK IT WARRANTS SOME MORE MAYBE FINE TUNING.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO PULL THAT ITEM FOR DISCUSSION A ONE AND PULL IT OUT THE CONSENT.
UM, SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A ONE AND A 14, UH, MOVE INTO 82.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY, ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, UH, ON A, TO A NUMBER TWO FROM THE WORKING GROUP? UH, OKAY.
I'M, I'M JUST LOOKING AROUND, OH, COMMISSIONER IS OUR THANK YOU AND KEY CHAIR.
UM, I DO WANT TO WANT TO APPRECIATE THE WORKING GROUP FOR REALLY TAKING ALL OF MY AMENDMENTS.
AND CONSIDERING THEM AN ADEQUATE BASE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE WORKING GROUP, I DO WANT TO SAY LOOKING AT THIS RECOMMENDATION, AND I DO THINK IT'S STILL AN IMPORTANT THAT YOU TALK ABOUT THE EQUAL MIX OF BEDROOMS, BUT SINCE THAT SEEMS TO BE COMING UP AGAIN AND AGAIN, MR. SUTTON'S COMMENTS ABOUT THAT IS THE THING THAT'S STOPPING US FROM HAVING MORE AFFORDABLE PERCENTAGE OR UNITS.
I WOULD, I WOULD HONESTLY LOOK AT MR. GOFF SINCE I THINK Y'ALL HAVE MORE OR THE WORKING GROUP, CAUSE Y'ALL HAVE MORE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT.
IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD ALL TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH AN INCREASED AFFORDABILITY AMOUNT? OR DO WE THINK THAT THIS IS FINE TO STAY AS IS? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW I SHORT CHANGE OURSELVES FROM NOT HAVING MORE UNITS.
I DON'T WANT TO READ, THERE WAS A THIRD PART THAT WE, AND JUST STARTED TO TALK ON THAT A LITTLE BIT WAS THAT IF THAT 4% WAS OUR BASE, COULD WE GET OTHER AFFORDABILITY WITHIN THE DISTRICT, BUT MAYBE NOT NECESSARILY ON THAT SITE USING FEE AND LOO THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO, UM, WE ARE OPEN TO ADDING OTHER THINGS AND THEN THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPER OR THE APPLICANT AT ONE POINT HAD SAID, WELL, IF WE CAN GO OFF SITE, WE CAN GO HIGHER.
AND WE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO HAVE ONSITE IN PARTICULAR, BUT WE WONDERED IN THE BACK OF OUR MINDS, COULD WE POTENTIALLY ASK FOR SOME KIND OF ADDITIONAL FEE IN LIEU THAT WOULD GET US ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING, MAYBE OFFSITE IN SOME AREA OF THE DISTRICT AS WELL SINCE THE DISCUSSION WAS GETTING THAT 20% FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL.
AND, AND TO COMMISSIONER SPECIFICALLY TO COMMISSIONERS OURS QUESTION, UM, HONESTLY THERE ARE PEOPLE INCLUDING YOU ON THIS COMMISSION THAT ARE PROBABLY WAY MORE WELL-VERSED IN OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING CHALLENGES THAN I AM.
BUT ONE THING I DO KNOW IN MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE GROWTH, BUT IN SOME OTHER CASES IS THAT, UM, WE, WE, WE STRUGGLE TO GET MORE BEDROOMS WHEN IT COMES TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
LIKE, LIKE RICHARD SAID, WE CAN ALWAYS INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE IF WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE A 10 BY 10 BOX FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE IN AN AFFORDABLE RATE, BUT THAT'S NOT SUFFICIENT FOR FAMILIES.
AND SO, UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I THINK THERE'S A TENDENCY OF DEFAULT TENDENCY TO MAKE SURE THAT AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT ARE BUILT ON SITE, UM, HAVE, HAVE THE SAME MIXTURE AND SAN CHARACTERISTICS EQUITABLE STANDARDS AS THE MARKET RATE UNITS.
THAT WAS YOUR, YOUR AMENDMENT VIA EMAIL.
AND WORKING GROUP AGREED WITH, OKAY, SO ARE WE, ARE, ARE WE PULLING IT OR KEEPING IT ON CONSENT? UNLESS SOMEONE VERY STRONGLY FEELS LIKE THIS WILL STOP ONE OF THEIR AMENDMENTS FROM
[02:50:01]
EXPANDING THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS.I'M, I'M NOT THINKING IT OFF, BUT IF SOMEBODY'S VERY SINCERE AND FEELS LIKE THERE'S ANOTHER CONVERSATION TO BE HAPPENING.
SO I'M GOING TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION ON THIS PIECE JUST BECAUSE MAYBE IT WOULD, BUT, UM, THE INTENT OF IT WAS IF WE CAN ESTABLISH A BASELINE, RIGHT.
SO WE CREATED A BASELINE SITUATION THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT CAN HAVE BECAUSE WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE DIFFERENT HEIGHTS, RIGHT, THE DIFFERENT HEIGHTS OF THE BUILDINGS, WHEN, UH, LOOKED LIKE THERE WAS STILL OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MORE DENSITY POTENTIALLY.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, IF WE SET A BASELINE, ANYTHING ABOVE THAT, IF THEY GET MORE UNITS, THEY GET MORE COMMERCIAL.
IF THEY GET ANYTHING ABOVE WHAT THEY'RE SHOWING, THEN WE COULD START GETTING THAT AFFORDABILITY ABOVE THE BASELINE.
SO MAYBE WE THINK IN TERMS OF THAT, ON HOW WE MANAGE WHAT OUR AMENDMENTS ARE, THEN THAT'LL ESTABLISH, UM, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE CAN SPRING UP FROM NO, BECAUSE THERE IS ROOM FOR MORE HEIGHT AND WE COULD DO SOME TYPE OF DENSITY BONUS STUFF.
OH, IN WHAT, IN WHAT COMMISSIONER SHEA IS IT JUST TO, JUST TO HELP ELABORATE ON THAT.
IF THAT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT THE APPLICANT PRESENTED TO US A DIAGRAM OF THE PROPOSED HEIGHTS OF THE BUILDING, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE AN EXHIBIT WITHIN THE PUTT.
THAT'S LIKELY GOING TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PUTT ORDINANCE THAT HAS A MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN THREE DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE PUTT.
THOSE, THOSE MAXIMUM HEIGHTS IN THE THREE AREAS OF THE PUTT ARE HIGHER THAN WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN US IN THEIR SCHEMATIC FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS.
AND SO A COMMISSIONER SHAY IS SAYING IS THAT IF WE WANTED TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS, RESIDENTIAL OR OTHERWISE, THAT THEN TRIGGERS ADDITIONAL AFFORDABILITY, THEY DO HAVE SOME WIGGLE ROOM IN THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AS IT IS IN THE RECOMMENDED IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO, TO, TO INCORPORATE THOSE ADDITIONAL IT'S BACK KIND OF IN ORDER HERE.
CAUSE I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING INTO THE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS KIND OF.
SO IT'S UM, MR. RIVERA, ARE YOU GUYS GOING TO HELP ME, HELP ME JUST THE TIME I KNOW I KIND OF WENT OVER AND THAT KIND OF SET A BAD PRECEDENT, BUT AS FAR AS THE TIME WE'RE ALLOTTING FOR EACH CLARIFYING QUESTION, ARE YOU, ARE YOU ABLE TO TRACK THAT COMMISSION LIST? SO THAT WILL BE TWO SPEAKERS HAD THREE MINUTES EACH.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO SEE IF THERE'S ENOUGH TO KEEP IT ON AND KEEP IT OFF.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS A LOT ON THE ITEM ITSELF.
IT'S JUST ON, DO WE KEEP IT ON CONSENT OR NOT? UM, IF THERE'S, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE MIGHT WANT TO PULL THIS ONE.
I, I, I CAN THINK OF SOMETHING WE CAN ADD TO, TO TURN IT INTO THE BASELINE TO BE OKAY.
SO WE'RE GOING TO PULL A TWO AND MOVING TO, UH, EIGHT, THREE, UM, ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR THE WORK GROUP ON THIS ONE.
AND, UH, AGAIN, ASK THE QUESTION AND WE'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES FOR THE Q AND A ON THAT LOOKING AROUND.
SO WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THIS ONE ON CONSENT IS AND OKAY.
DO YOU WANT ME TO LEAVE THAT ONE ON CONSENT? ANY QUESTIONS CLARIFYING QUESTIONS TO THE WORK GROUP? UH, HOW ABOUT A FIVE, ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? SO THE WORK GROUP, UM, THIS IS THE ONE ON COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE.
UH, I'LL GO AND ASK FOR CLARIFYING QUESTION.
I DID GET AN ANSWER FROM THE WORK GROUP, BUT I JUST WANT, COULD, UH, I THINK COMMISSIONER SHAY, CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT IS MEANT BY, UH, INCLUSIVE SPACE TO DEDICATE A DEDICATED TO BET EDUCATION? I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT MEANT ALL OF THE COMMERCIAL SPACE OR JUST ANY SPACE FOR THAT EDUCATION GETS THAT BENEFIT.
SO THIS ACTUALLY IS IN REFERENCE TO ANOTHER SECTION WHERE WE HAVE ASKED THE, UH, THE DEVELOPER TO COMMIT A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET FOR BAT EDUCATION.
AND WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY GET CREDITED FOR THAT, BECAUSE THAT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, THAT COULD EASILY BE PROVIDED AS, UM, THE AFFORDABLE PART BECAUSE IT'S FOR EDUCATION.
WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY GET CREDIT.
SO YOU'RE JUST SAYING TO INCLUDE THAT, THAT AMOUNT ADDED TO THE CORRECT PERCENT.
SO THAT CLARIFIES THAT I HAVE THAT QUESTION.
ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON ITEM D FIVE? UH, I WILL, UH, CHAIR SAY THAT THIS ITEM IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE ONES THAT THE APPLICANT REFERRED TO, THAT THEY ARE NOT IN AN AGREEMENT WITH.
UM, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT IMPACTS THE DISCUSSION OF THIS PARTICULAR ITEM OR NOT.
IF THE APPLICANT INDICATES LATER ON THAT THEY'RE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS ONE.
UM, THERE, THERE MAY BE A FEW THINGS THEY DON'T AGREE WITH, BUT WE WILL, WE'LL ASK THEM AT THE END OF THIS.
[02:55:01]
UM, YOU KNOW, WE'LL GET HIM, IF YOU RECALL, WE INTEGRATED THAT INTO THIS ITEM, THAT AT THE END WE'LL GET THEIR FEEDBACK.SO, UH, WE'LL ASK, UH, ITEM B SIX OR GO AHEAD.
IS THERE ONE MORE SPACE FOR CLARIFYING QUESTION? SO ON THAT ONE, UM, THE BAD EDUCATION WOULD THAT WITH SQUARE FOOTAGE DEDICATED TO THAT OUTSIDE WHERE I THINK IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE MAYBE COUNT TOWARDS THAT.
NO, I THINK THIS IS, THIS IS SPECIFICALLY BASED UPON THE COMMERCIAL SCORE FOR, LET'S SAY THEY HAVE 500,000 AND THEN THAT 4% IS BASED UPON THAT OF THAT A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET IS DEDICATED TO THAT THEY COULD ADD STUFF OUTSIDE, BUT A LOT OF IT IS IF IT'S AN INDOOR CLASSROOM.
I MEAN, SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE'VE ASKED IN THAT OTHER SECTION WAS THAT IT IS, IT IS IN, IT IS PART OF THE COMMERCIAL SPACE.
THERE'S SOME, THERE'S A HISTORY THERE THAT DATES BACK THROUGH OTHER DOCUMENTS IN WHICH AN EDUCATION CENTER WAS SUPPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON PARKLAND FOR BAD EDUCATION.
AND IT HAS BEEN OVERLOOKED AND WASHED OVER BY MANY AGENCIES.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT IS NECESSARILY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE 4% COMMERCIAL, BUT I THINK YOU'LL FIND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SPENT A LOT OF TIME WORKING WITH BAT CONSERVATION AND THEY WERE IN AGREEMENT WITH DEDICATING SOME OF THEIR FLOOR SPACE FOR INDOOR THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR, UM, A PUBLIC EDUCATION CENTER AND FOR SET UP THERE FOR STUDY AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THAT WAS PART OF THEIR MISSION AS WELL.
AND JUST TO KIND OF CLARIFICATION OF WHERE ALL THIS CAME ABOUT WAS BECAUSE THIS IS A DOD, I MEAN, WE KEPT ASKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE RAIL STATION COMING, IT'S GOING TO BECOME A GAME CHANGER FOR THE WHOLE AREA AND HAVING SOME TYPE OF AFFORDABLE COMMERCIAL FOR THAT DISTRICT IS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT FOR, TO CREATE AN EQUITABLE TOD.
THIS IS MOSTLY WELL, I'M JUST NEVERMIND.
I WANT TO ASK, UH, THAT'S YOUR QUESTION? THAT'S FAIR.
SO THIS IS MORE ABOUT THIS NUMBER FIVE IS MORE ABOUT AFFORDABLE COMMERCIAL AND NOT BAD EDUCATION.
BUT IT WELL, BUT IT INCLUDES IT BECAUSE THAT SAME SPACE THAT IS PUT TOWARD BAD EDUCATION WOULD BE KIND OF TOWARD THIS 4%.
BUT, BUT, BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT THOUSAND SQUARE FEET DEDICATED ABOUT EDUCATION, I THINK IS ABOUT 0.6%.
IF I CALCULATED THAT OUT OF THEIR TOTAL RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE.
SO THEY WOULD STILL NEED TO MAKE UP ABOUT THREE AND A HALF PERCENT.
SO, UM, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY COMMISSIONERS SAYING TO PULL THIS ONE OFF CONSENT, KEEPING IT ON.
UM, B SEVEN, UM, YEAH, NUMBER.
ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THE AMOUNT OF ON-SITE AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS? SIX IS ABOUT MFI.
ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? CAN WE GIVE, UH, I GUESS IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS, THERE'S NO POINT GIVING ANY BACKGROUND.
I MEAN, YOU CAN, WE CAN ASK, UH, YOU CAN ASK, UH, YOU CAN USE THIS TIME TO ASK, UH, THE WORKING GROUP OR, OH, THAT'D BE ASKING MYSELF, BUT NO, NO, I ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWERS, BUT NO, IF HE WANTED CLARIFICATION, PROVIDE ANY BACKGROUND ON.
WELL, WE'LL LET YOU PRESENT HIM SINCE IT WAS SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE BACKGROUND ON ITEM SIX, PLEASE.
UM, ITEM SIX, ED STARTED OUT AT, UM, I THINK IT WAS A 72, IT WAS 80%.
AND THEN WE, UH, STARTED THINKING ABOUT A RANGE BECAUSE AS SOME WERE MORE AFFORDABLE, LESS AFFORDABLE.
SO WE GAVE KIND OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE AN AVERAGE.
AND WHAT WE ENDED UP COMING UP WITH WAS RATHER THAN INCREASING THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS, WE WANTED MORE AFFORDABILITY.
UM, AND AGAIN, THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE MASSIVE AMOUNT OF, WE FEEL THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS A LOT OF COMMISSIONS SHIELDS DID A LOT OF ENTITLEMENTS AND AS WELL AS, UM, LISTING BECOMING A TOD THAT WE NEED TO GET SOME EXTRA LEVEL AFFORDABILITY HERE.
SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE SHIFTED THE LOWER RANGE TO 50%.
SO 50 TO 80%, WHICH GIVES US AN AVERAGE OF 65.
AT ONE POINT WE HAD A, I THINK IT WAS AT 80.
AT FIRST, IT WAS, IT WAS 60 TO 80 WITH AN AVERAGE OF 70.
AND THEN, AND THEN WE BUMPED IT DOWN TO 50 AND THIS IS TO ADDRESS TO GET MORE AFFORDABILITY INSIDE THIS POD.
AND THERE'S A RECOGNITION THAT, THAT 80%
[03:00:01]
MFI NUMBER WAS, WAS DETERMINED QUITE A WHILE AGO.AND YOU HEARD FROM PEOPLE FROM THE PUBLIC EXPLAIN HOW THEY CAN'T AFFORD RENTAL AND THEN EVEN 80% MFI AS HARD TO ACHIEVE FOR MANY PEOPLE.
SO BY HAVING THAT MIXTURE, WE'RE TRYING TO REACH A WIDER DAMMIT OF, OF INDIVIDUALS FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
COULD I ASK A QUESTION TO FOLLOW ONCE? CLARIFY THE ANSWER GETS PREVIOUS PERSONS QUESTIONING IS ANSWERED.
DID YOU WANT TO ASK, ARE YOU YES, I DO.
ONCE THEY, ONCE, ONCE, YES, I DID.
SO THERE'S A TOOL CALLED INCOME AVERAGING WITH THE LOW INCOME TAX CREDIT PROGRAM, WHICH TYPICALLY REQUIRES THERE, WHICH TYPICALLY, UH, REQUIRES THERE TO BE AN ACHIEVEMENT OF 60% AMI AVERAGE.
SO I WAS WONDERING IF ANYBODY CONSIDERED THE AVERAGE BEING 60, WHICH WOULD BE IN LINE WITH INCOME AVERAGING, WHICH IS A TOOL THAT'S USED COMMONLY IN THE TAX CREDIT PROGRAM, OR IF IT WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU ALL JUST SUGGESTED IN TERMS OF HOW YOU CAME ABOUT WITH 65.
SO THIS IS THE POINT AT WHICH I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, UH, WE MAY WANT TO PULL THIS ONE, IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER, UH, IF YOU MIGHT WANT TO AMEND THIS, IT WOULD BE EASY TO PULL THIS AND, AND HAVE THAT FURTHER DISCUSSION FOR AN AMENDMENT.
I'M GOING TO SAY WE PULL IT BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MORE, BUT I THINK THAT'S BETTER DONE IN A DISCUSSION ENVIRONMENT IF YOU DON'T MIND.
SO WE'RE GOING TO PULL THAT ONE FOR DISCUSSION.
UH, ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THIS? I KNOW WE HAD, THERE WERE SOME EARLIER, UH, QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ONE, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS AP THREE, UH, I'M GOING TO GIVE THE SPACE TO OTHERS AND ONLY ASK MY QUESTION IF, IF NOBODY ELSE DOES.
SO PLEASE ANYBODY HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH, COMMISSIONER'S SCHNEIDER.
UH, SO, UM, FIRST OF ALL, LET ME SAY, UH, I'M VERY HAPPY THAT THE WORKING GROUP, UH, TOOK SOME PAINS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE CONCERNS THAT GOT UP, UH, THAT GOT, THAT GOT RAISED BEFORE.
AND, UH, I, I HAVE, I, I WOULD SORT OF LIKE A LITTLE MORE, UM, EXPLANATION OF WHY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ENDED UP LIKE IT DID AND WHETHER THE WORKING GROUP THOUGHT THAT THERE MIGHT BE ADDITIONAL STEPS TO TAKE, OR THIS IS, THIS IS IDEAL OR THE BEST THAT WE CAN DO.
AND IT SORT OF HAD, IT SEEMS LIKE SEVEN 11 AND SORT OF 10 TO SOME DEGREE ARE OF A PIECE.
SO, UM, MAYBE WE JUST NEED TO ADDRESS ONE AT A TIME, BUT I'D JUST LEAVE THE QUESTION THERE.
I'LL UM, I'LL START THAT IN AND CHAIR COMING OFF.
IF I GO TOO LONG, CAUSE I CAN TALK FOR A LONG TIME ABOUT THIS.
I AM VERY FLUENT IN THE GROVE PUD AND IN THE GULF GROWTH POD PROCESS.
AND JERRY KEEPS REMINDING ME THAT THIS ISN'T THE GROWTH PLAN, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S MY EXPERIENCE.
UM, WE HAD A VERY LONG WHATEVER THE TITLE OF THAT DOCUMENT IS PARKS, OPERATION IMPROVEMENT, DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS ACTUALLY DRAFTED UP AND NEGOTIATED BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND PARD.
AND THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE PUT ORDINANCE FOR THE GROWTH PLAN.
WE UNFORTUNATELY, AS A PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THAT DOCUMENT IN THIS PROCESS.
I DON'T KNOW WHY, BUT PARD AND THE DEVELOPER HAVE NOT ACTUALLY EVEN REALLY GOTTEN INTO THOSE NEGOTIATIONS YET.
AND STAFF HAS TOLD US, OH, DON'T WORRY.
WE'LL JUST, WE'LL JUST USE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
WE'LL THREATEN NOT TO GIVE THEM THEIR CEO'S UNTIL WE GET A PARKLAND IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT THAT WE LIKE.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S A REALISTIC PROSPECT, UM, DEVELOPER WILL JUST THREATEN TO SUE AND THEN CITY LEGAL BACK DOWN.
SO, SO WE WANTED TO PUT A FEW FRAMEWORK PIECES IN HERE IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT DRAFT CONTRACT BETWEEN PART AND THE DEVELOPER.
THE FIRST ONE WAS THE ANNUAL PARK PROGRAMMING PLAN.
AND WE DEVELOPED A MECHANISM IN WHICH, AND BY PROGRAMMING, WHAT WE SEE AS PROGRAMMING IS THINGS LIKE CONCESSIONS, THINGS LIKE EVENTS, THINGS LIKE, UH, YOU KNOW, PERMITS FOR CERTAIN THINGS LIKE WAS GOING TO STAND THERE.
UH, SO WE, UH, THREE MINUTES, UH, IS IT MOVES PRETTY FAST.
[03:05:01]
UH, IF YOU HAVE JUST SOME, A FINAL THOUGHT ON THIS JUST TO HELP AND WE CAN FOLLOW UP WITH ANOTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION.SO THE FINAL THOUGHT IS THAT WE WANT A STAKEHOLDER DRIVEN PROCESS.
AND SO WE WANT THE FOLKS TO BE INVOLVED AND WE WANT OTHER STAKEHOLDERS TO BE INVOLVED IN BY PUSHING THE PROGRAMMING PLAN FOR APPROVAL BY THE PARK, BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD.
THAT IS THE PROCESS THAT WE THINK WOULD BE GREAT.
SO DO WE HAVE ANOTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR THE TEAM? UH, COMMISSIONER MITCH TODDLER, IT'S MORE JUST A COMMENT, BUT TO NET NET IT OUT, WE ASKED MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE TIMES TO SEE CLEARLY WHAT WAS ALREADY AGREED TO.
THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT IN PLACE AND WE WERE NOT SATISFIED WITH NO AGREEMENT.
AND WE MADE MULTIPLE REQUESTS TO ALL PARTIES TO HAVE THAT.
AND THE PARTIES MAY NOT NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THE WORKING GROUP, BUT THE WORKING GROUP WAS UNANIMOUS.
WE WANTED A BASELINE SET IN THERE THAT WOULD PROTECT THE PUBLIC GREEN SPACE.
AND SO THE ORDINANCES YOU HAVE, THERE ARE THE BASELINE THAT SET OUT TO PROTECT THE, MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC GETS THE PUBLIC GREEN SPACE, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS.
AND THAT THE PUBLIC GREEN SPACE WILL BE MAINTAINED IN A WAY OF PRIDE FOR THE CITY.
AND THAT CERTAIN ELEMENTS WILL BE INCLUDED THERE.
WHAT IS WITH TOURS OR ANYTHING ELSE OR ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT PLANS OR ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS AFTER IT LEAVES US.
SO I, I HAVE A QUESTION THOUGH, IS THIS, IS THERE ANYTHING, AND THIS IS MAYBE A DISCUSSION ITEM IF I DON'T, UH, IF IT'S NOT CLARIFY CLEAR IN HERE, BUT DOES THIS HAVE TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO COUNCIL? NO, NO, NO.
IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST A, IT'S JUST A PROCEDURE SET UP SO THAT, UM, THE ANNUAL IS, IS APPROVED BY BEFORE.
DO WE WANT TO LEAVE THIS ON CONSENT? WE'RE KIND OF OUT OF TIME ON CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
ARE WE LEAVING ON CONSENT? I DON'T.
UM, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO PULL 11 JUST TO HAVE MORE CONVERSATION ABOUT IT.
IT JUST, I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN SOLVE IT.
BUT DID YOU WANT TO PULL SEVEN TOO? OR DO YOU THINK WE'RE JUST AT SEVEN.
NOBODY'S ASKING TO PULL SEVEN.
SO WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE SEVEN ON CONSENT.
ANYBODY HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? I THINK WE'LL LEAVE IT ON CONSENT THEN.
UH, AND THEN B NINE IS ABOUT THE PHASING.
UM, ALRIGHT, LEAVE IT ON CONSENT.
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL LEAVE IT ON CONSENT.
UH, ANY CLAIRE, UH, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.
YOU HAVE THE FIRST CLARIFYING QUESTION.
I JUST WANT TO PULL UP 10 AND 11, 10, 11.
THEY'RE PULLED, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THIS THING ALONG.
SO WE'RE GOING TO PULL A 10 AND 11, UH, AND 12.
UH, THIS IS KIND OF SOMETHING KIND OF NEGOTIATED.
I KIND OF LIKE WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, BUT LET'S SEE ANYBODY HAVE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE.
IS IT CLEAR WHAT THEIR, WHAT THE WORKING GROUP IS RECOMMENDING? OKAY.
UM, MOVING ON TO B 13, UH, ANY COMMISSIONERS WITH CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON LAND USE SUMMARY.
THIS IS THE, UH, THE, THE AMOUNT THAT'S, UH, PUT TOWARD THAT CONSERVATION, RIGHT.
UH, SO ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? WE DID TALK ABOUT THIS SOME EARLIER.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THAT ON CONSENT UNLESS I SEE ANY HANDS GO UP.
A, B 14 HAS ALREADY PULLED A, B 15.
DO WE NEED TO HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THIS? THIS IS HOTEL.
YOU SHALL BE A CONDITIONAL USE AND YOUR QUESTIONS.
UH, VICE CHAIR, APPLE IN THE, IN THE WRITEUP.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THE WORKING GROUP PROPOSED THE AMENDMENT AND THEN AN ALTERNATE.
AND SO I THINK WE SHOULD CALL IT JUST TO DISCUSS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE, THE TWO.
I CAN CLARIFY WHAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS.
IT'D BE GOOD TO PULL IT, SPLIT IT.
[03:10:01]
THIS IS GETTING INTO SOME OF THE TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC, UH, AND, UM, SOME OF THIS IS A LITTLE OUTSIDE OF MY AREA OF EXPERTISE.SO, BUT, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM FOLKS ON ANY OF THESE TRAFFIC ITEMS? UH, IN PARTICULAR, B 16, I'M NOT HEARING ANY, SO KEEP THESE 60 NON-CONSENT.
HOW ABOUT B 17? ANY QUESTIONS, UH, COMMISSIONER OR B 17? DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR IF YOU GROUP A, IS THERE ANY, ANY ISSUE ABOUT A ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY WITH NAMING A SPECIFIC AMOUNT? UM, ARE THERE ANY ISSUES RELATED LIKE IT, YEAH.
YOU CAN ASK STAFF A CLARIFYING QUESTION HERE AS WELL.
DO YOU WANT TO DIRECT THAT TO STAFF OR WE HAVE AN EXPERT HERE.
WHO WANTS TO TAKE THAT QUESTION STEP? YEAH.
THIS IS CURTIS BEATTY WITH THE AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, UH, PUTTING THIS DOLLAR AMOUNT.
IT COULD, WELL, YES, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS ART OF REP PROPORTIONALITY.
UM, BUT I DON'T THINK THIS AMOUNT THAT'S BEING PRESENTED IS GOING TO CAUSE A PROBLEM WITH EXCEEDING THE CURRENT REF PROPORTIONALITY CALCULATION, WHICH IS ALSO THE, THE STATE IMPACT FEE MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE ASSESSABLE FOR EIGHT.
SO WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THAT ON CONSENT.
ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS BEFORE WE, UH, OKAY.
B 17, I'VE SAID THE 18, THIS IS ON THE TDM PROGRAM.
ANY QUESTIONS? IT'S PRETTY LONG ONE.
WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THAT NON-CONSENT UH, NOW WE HAVE THESE OTHER, UH, KIND OF, KIND OF HIGHER LEVEL GENERAL ITEMS. UH, WE'RE CALLING THEM OUR ONE THROUGH OUR FOUR.
UM, DID SOMEBODY HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR THESE EARLIER? I'M TRYING TO THINK.
UM, LET'S GO AND GO TO OUR ONE CONSENT OR ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
HOW ABOUT R TWO R THREE R FOUR, ONE MORE CHANCE.
ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THESE? ALL RIGHT.
THESE ARE ALL GONNA MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, SO WHAT WE WANT TO DO NOW IS, AS WE SAID, IS, UH, WE I'LL, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND READ ITEMS FOR CONSENT.
CATCH ME IF I HAVEN'T MISSED, UH, LET ME KNOW IF I MADE A MISTAKE AND THEN WE WILL DIRECT, UH, HAVE A MOMENT FOR THE APPLICANT AND STAFF TO KIND OF GIVE US SOME FEEDBACK ON THESE ITEMS, UH, WHERE THEY MAY, UH, I'D SAY WHERE YOU DIS OR YOU'RE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH, UH, SOME OF THESE CONSENT ITEMS, LET US KNOW BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE OTHER ONES.
UM, SO WE HAVE ITEM V1 IS A DISCUSSION BE TODAY'S DISCUSSION.
V3 IS CONSENT BEFORE IT'S CONSENT.
THE SIX IS DISCUSSION 7, 8, 9 ARE ALL CONSENT.
10 11 ARE DISCUSSION 12 IS CONSENT 13.
SO BACKING UP 13 IS CONSENT 14, 15 OR DISCUSSION.
UH, 17 AND 18 ARE CONSENT AND THEN ALL THE REMAINDER ARE ONE THROUGH OUR FOUR, OUR CONSENT.
SO I GUESS LET'S HEAR FROM THE APP, UH, STAFF FIRST, UH, JUST ON THE ITEMS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'VE KIND OF, WE'RE PUSHING FORWARD ON THE CONSENT, UM, RANDOM ORDER OF POINT OF ORDER.
UM, DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION ON ACCEPTING THE CONSENT ITEMS AND SECONDARY SO WE CAN START THE DISCUSSION? UH, WE COULD, I WOULD JUST, WE DIDN'T REALLY GET INTO THE ORDER OF WHERE WE GOING TO LET STAFF AND THE APPLICANT WEIGH IN.
UH, I THINK WE SHOULD LET THEM JUST SPEAK TO THEIR, UH, HOW THEY, HOW THEY PERCEIVE THESE TO THEN, UH, AND THEN MAKE THE MOTION IF YOU DON'T MIND.
UM, WE, UH, SEPARATE DISSIPATED IN THE WORKING GROUP PROCESS, UM, ALL THE WAY ALONG.
SO I GUESS I WOULD JUST SAY THAT WE LET OUR OPINIONS
[03:15:01]
BE KNOWN AS WE DISCUSS THOSE THINGS THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS, UM, AS POSED, I THINK THAT WE, ANYTHING THAT WE WOULD NEED TO ADD TO WHAT WE'VE ALREADY SAID.
SO DON'T FEEL A NEED RIGHT NOW TO DISCUSS OKAY.
UH, DO YOU WANT TO PROVIDE ANY FEEDBACK ON, AND I CAN READ THESE AGAIN IF YOU NEED TO, BUT, UH, THE ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE CONSENT, UH, RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE EMOTION, BUT WE WILL SOON THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING, UM, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ADDRESS THIS.
I CAN'T STAND UP ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AND AGREED TO PIECEMEAL THINGS, NOT KNOWING HOW THE OTHER THINGS ARE GOING TO GO.
AND, AND WE DON'T PRETEND TO HAVE THE, THE, THE KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU GUYS HAVE.
I THINK WHAT WE'D LIKE TO HAVE IS IS YOU THINK, WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO GET YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS PUD? AND THEN LET US GO OFF AND TRY TO MAKE IT WORK, BECAUSE THERE ARE THINGS LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, I'LL JUST PICK THE EASY ONE.
CAUSE IT'S EASY TO TALK ABOUT.
THEY GO ON FROM FOUR LANES TO THREE LANES, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEERS ARE SCRATCHING THEIR HEADS GOING.
WE DON'T KNOW HOW WE TAKE A 36.
THE ANALOGY IS A 36 INCH WATER PIPE THAT COMES ALL THE WAY FROM MOPAC ALL THE WAY ACROSS TOWN HITS CONGRESS AND CINCHES DOWN TO THREE LANES.
WE HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT HOW TO MAKE THAT WORK YET, BUT WE KNOW THAT THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO MANY OF YOU.
AND IF THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION THAT GOES ONTO STAYS ON THIS AGENDA OR THIS MOTION AND GOES ON TO COUNCIL, THEN IT'S UP TO US TO FIGURE IT OUT.
AND THAT'S HOW I PREFER TO LEAVE ALL THESE, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE COULD DO WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS OR NOT, BUT EVERYTHING'S RELATED.
SO WE'D DEFER TO Y'ALL'S Y'ALL'S JUDGMENT AND THEN WE'LL TRY TO MAKE IT WORK.
AND SO NOW, UM, THESE ARE THE FIRST, YES, MR. UH, SCOTT GRANTHAM, PARKS AND RECREATION DID WANT TO MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION ON THE, UH, I THINK IT WAS NUMBER SEVEN, THAT WAS BASICALLY GOING TO PARKS BOARD WITH AN ANNUAL PARK PROGRAMMING PLAN.
I THINK THAT SORT OF, SOME OF THE ROLES MAY BE FLIPPED THERE.
AND THE IDEA IS THAT IF THE APPLICANT WISHES TO PROGRAM THE PARK, THE ONUS BE ON, ON THEM TO PROPOSE, UM, SOME TYPE OF ANNUAL PLAN PART HAS NO INTENTION OF DOING REGULAR PROGRAMMING IN THIS AREA AT THIS TIME.
SO WITH THAT, UH, DO WE NEED TO PULL THAT JUST TO MAKE A SLIGHT AMENDMENT WORKING GROUP, UH, JUST TO REFLECT THAT COMMENT OR IS, OR DO YOU THINK IT'S ALREADY CLEAR WE COULD PUT IT IF PART WOULD NO, NO, NO.
SO, SO I ACTUALLY, I UNDERSTAND WHAT SCOTT'S SAYING AND I THAT'S MUSIC TO MY EARS, THE WORKING GROUP WANTED TO HAVE THE LEAST PROGRAMMING AS POSSIBLE IN THIS PART.
BUT, BUT THE, BUT THE THING IS THAT IF THERE'S NO PROGRAMMING, THEN THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE A PROGRAMMING.
AND YEAH, I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS WE'RE PART DOESN'T WANT THAT TO FALL ON THEM.
THEY WANT THE APPLICANT, I GUESS YOU'RE SAYING THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE STEER HEADING THAT PROGRAMMING PROCESS.
THAT WOULD BE TYPICAL IF THEY WERE AT THE PROGRAMMING WERE SORT OF THERE, THEY WERE TAKING THAT ON.
SO, AND SO I THINK WE PROBABLY NEED TO JUST PULL THIS TO MAYBE TWEAK IT A LITTLE BIT.
UH, IF I MAKE IT, IF I MIGHT MAKE A SUGGESTION, I THINK WHEN WE STATE THE MOTION, WE CAN AMEND THE LANGUAGE AND WE DO NOT NEED TO MEET YOU TO DISCUSSION.
ITEM CAN BE PART OF CONSENT WITH THE AMENDED LANGUAGE FROM WHOEVER MAKES THAT MOTION.
SO DO WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS ITEM TO KEEP IT ON CONSENT AS AMENDED, BUT WE NEED A NEED A SUGGESTED AMENDMENT.
I THINK RATHER THAN SAYING THAT IT WOULD BE THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, WE'RE SEEING THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APP.
WELL, IF IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE, WE NEED TO PULL IT OFF.
SO WHERE ARE WE ON NUMBER FIVE? FIVE IS A CONSENT ITEM.
SO I'M GOING TO READ IT ONE MORE TIME.
I'M GOING TO READ THROUGH IT AND THEN I'LL ASK FOR A MOTION AND A SECOND.
SO AGAIN, UH, WE HAVE FOR THE CONSENT WORKING GROUP
[03:20:01]
AMENDMENTS, I'M JUST GOING TO READ THE CONSENT ITEMS. WE HAVE NUMBER THREE, NUMBER FOUR, NUMBER FIVE, NUMBER SEVEN, NUMBER EIGHT.SO LET ME RUN THAT BACK AGAIN, BOY.
UH, SO IT'S 3, 4, 5, AND THEN 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18.
AND THEN OUR ONE THROUGH OUR FOUR, EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THAT.
10 IS YES, 10 AND 11, OUR DISCUSSION.
SO DO I HAVE A MOTION, UM, FOR THOSE CONSENT WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
I HEAR A MOTION FROM, UM, COMMISSIONER SHEA.
DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR THOSE COMMISSIONER AS ARE, AS THE SECOND? DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION? NOPE.
SO LET'S GO AND VOTE ON, THESE ARE, AGAIN, THESE ARE TO VOTE ON JUST THE CONSENT AMENDMENTS.
SO I'M LOOKING AT THE, UH, FOLKS VIRTUALLY GO AHEAD AND GIVE ME YOUR VOTE.
SO THAT'S NINE AND THEN ON THE DAYAS, UM, WE HAVE THREE, SO THAT'S UNANIMOUS.
SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO, UM, I AM GOING TO MAKE SESSION THAT I'M GOING TO AMEND THE RULES OR ASK FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE THE RULES, BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO JUMP RIGHT INTO DISCUSSION ON THESE ITEMS. AND, AND I THINK THAT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAN DISCUSSION THE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
SO I HAVE A, THAT'S MY EMOTION.
I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX TO SUSPEND THE RULES, TO MOVE INTO THE DISCUSSION ITEMS IN FRONT OF THE WORKING GROUP.
AND LET'S GO AND VOTE ON THAT.
UM, LET'S SEE, FROM ON THE VIRTUALLY AND THAT'S, UH, COMMISSIONER MITCHELL TODDLER, UH, WHAT'S YOUR VOTE? I MISSED THE QUESTION.
WE ARE GOING TO MOVE RIGHT INTO IF, IF, UH, THIS IS A MOTION TO MOVE RIGHT INTO THE DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR THE WORKING GROUP AND SKIP OVER FOR NOW POSTPONE THE, UH, CONSENT INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
SO WE'RE SWITCHING IT UP SO WE CAN START DISCUSSION ON THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
HOW DID YOU VOTE ON THAT ONE? ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE GOOD THERE ON THE DYESS.
SO WE'RE GONNA START DISCUSSION ON THE, UH, WE'LL START AT THE TOP WITH, UM, A ONE.
SO THIS ONE, UH, AGAIN, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS.
SHOULD WE NEED IT? SO, UM, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THESE IN ORDER.
SO THE FIRST THING IN, IN THE RULES IS WE HAVE THREE COMMISSIONERS WILL BE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES FOR QUESTIONS OF STAFF AND OTHER COMMISSIONERS RELATED TO THIS AMENDMENT.
AND IT ALSO ENCOURAGES FOLKS TO BRING UP OTHER AMENDMENTS THEY HAVE, THAT ARE RELATED SO THAT THEY CAN BE CONSIDERED IN THE MOTION.
SO WE'LL START OUT WITH, DO WE NEED, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS AMENDMENT, UH, OF EITHER THE STAFF OR THE WORKING GROUP, UH, COMMISSIONER COX? UM, JUST TO CLARIFY THE QUESTION YOU HAD CHERISH, AWE, I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF COULD JUST CONFIRM FOR US THAT, THAT THE WORKING GROUPS UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT, THAT, THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS THE OPTION OR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO DO ALL FEE IN LIEU OR 4% OF THE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
AND THAT THE WAY THE WORKING GROUPS AMENDMENT IS WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY LOSING OUT ON ANY POTENTIAL ONSITE, AFFORDABLE UNITS.
I COMMISSIONERS THIS IS ALEX RADKE WITH THE PLANNING, HOUSING AND PLANNING OR THE JV OR MARRIAGE OR FOX.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE HAVING DIFFICULTY HEARING YOU MISS MRS. RADKE, THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD WITH THE, THE, UH, APPLICANT WE'RE ACTUALLY,
[03:25:02]
UH, HOLD ON.LET'S DO, IS THERE ANY WAY TO MAKE THAT BETTER IF FOR ME, UH, A LITTLE BETTER, BUT NOT MUCH A CONTINUUM, IT SOUNDS OKAY.
CAN WE CONTINUE WITHOUT VISUAL? NO, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE YOU FOR THE, TO HAVE YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
I DON'T, WE MIGHT NEED SOMEBODY ELSE TO JUMP ON HERE.
TO EXTEND TIME, WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO TWO.
NOW LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THAT.
DO I HAVE MOTION TO EXTEND TILL 11? YEAH, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO NEED IT.
UH, SO, UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COPPS, LET'S GO AND VOTE ON THE MOTION TO EXTEND 11 O'CLOCK.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? UH, I GUESS THE, THE ONE THAT I HAVE, AND I JUST WANT TO, AND SO IN THE RULES IT'S ASKED FOR ME TO BRING UP ONE OF MY AMENDMENTS IS WHAT IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY FUNDING MECHANISM, IF WE DON'T GET APPROVAL FOR THE REGULATING PLAN OR THE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS, PUDS ARE REQUIRED TO MEET A MINIMUM STANDARD FOR, UH, RENTAL AND, UM, AND OWNERSHIP UNITS TO BE SUPERIOR.
AND SO MY AMENDMENT WAS LIKE, IF THE REGULATING PLAN AND THE FINANCIAL PLANS DO NOT, UH, MOOT, UM, COME ABOUT, IF THEY'RE NOT APPROVED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT HAS TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFORDABILITY, UH, FOR SUPERIOR AFFORDABILITY IN THE PLED REGULATIONS.
SO THOSE, UH, LET ME PULL THAT UP.
SO WHY I'M LOOKING THROUGH MY PAPERWORK, UH, THAT, THAT IS WHAT I WOULD, UH, PROPOSE IS A, AN AMENDMENT OR A, OR IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE A SUBSTITUTION, NOT SURE TO WHAT THE WORKING GROUP HAS.
I JUST SOME OF THE RECENT DISCUSSIONS, I'M NOT SURE, SO SURE ABOUT, UH, THIS WATERFRONT REGULATING PLAN AND THE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS, WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE REALLY GONNA BE APPROVED OR NOT, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, UH, KIND OF FOLLOWING ON THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING AND THINKING, I'M WONDERING IF I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED THIS.
IF WE PUSH THE AFFORDABILITY PERCENTAGES UP, THERE'S GOTTA BE A BREAKING POINT IN WHICH THE APPLICANT JUST NO LONGER WANTS TO BUILD THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT.
UM, AND THIS IS, THIS PROJECT IS LARGE ENOUGH THAT THEY COULD PROBABLY DO THAT AND STILL MAKE A PRETTY PENNY.
UM, AND SO I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S SOME SORT OF AMENDED LANGUAGE OR, OR ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THAT WOULD REQUIRE SOME SORT OF BASELINE OF RESIDENTIAL AND THEREBY AFFORDABLE UNITS BASED ON TRIGGERING POINTS IN THE BUILD-OUT OF THE OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL COMPONENTS OF THIS.
THIS IS KIND OF A QUESTION TO THE GROUP AND APOLOGIES FOR MAKING IT LIKE, WELL, I'M, UH, UM, I, I JUST, DO WE HAVE OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR MANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS, WHY WE'RE ON THIS ITEM? SO, I MEAN, I, WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT THAT.
WE'RE TRYING TO ESTABLISH A BASELINE YET OUR STATEMENT, THE PROPOSED THAT WE HAVE, DOESN'T ESTABLISH IT AS A BASELINE AND THAT'S FOR ONE AND TWO.
SO IF THERE'S VERBIAGE IN THERE THAT IF WE'RE THINKING AT THE MINIMUM, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE 4% THAT'S RENTAL, THEN IN THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT, WE NEED TO SET THAT 4% OF THE AFFORDABLE UNIT SHOULD BE RENTAL UNITS AND BUILT ONSITE BY APPLICANT.
AND THEN ON NEXT ONE, 4% OF THE AFFORDABLE USING.
SO ANYTHING ABOVE THAT, THEY COULD DO WHATEVER, LIKE EVEN THE MIX OF THE HOUSING UNITS COULD BE ALL ONE PARTICULAR ONE, BUT WE ESTABLISH THE BASELINE.
THE BASELINE IS 4% SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT MIX AND HAS TO BE RENTAL UNITS BUILT ONSITE, YOU KNOW, WITH WHATEVER, BUT WE NEED TO RE-ESTABLISH THE PUD AMENDMENT THAT SPECIFIES.
AND SO PEOPLE KNOW THAT THAT'S THE BASELINE.
WOULD THAT, WOULD THAT DO THAT?
[03:30:03]
SO I'M TRYING TO THINK WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS.SO I, I, I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT.
I'VE JUST, I WILL, ONCE WE GET INTO MOTION MAKING, IF I FEEL LIKE THE MOTION ADDRESSES MY CONCERN, I'LL, I'LL BE FINE.
CAN YOU SPECIFY BECAUSE YOUR, YOUR COMMENT WAS ON A ONE, BUT YOU WERE TALKING, I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S A DIFFERENT STATEMENT.
CAN YOU RE RESTATE ALL IT IS HERE? IT IS.
UH, THE, THE ITEM IS IF THE, UM, IF THE REGULATING PLAN AND A FINANCIAL PLAN ARE NOT APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL VOTING ON THIS, UH, APPLICANT WILL, UH, FOR SUPERIORITY APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE PUD AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF 10% RENTAL UNITS AT 60% NFI AND 5% OF OWNERSHIP UNITS AT 80% MFI.
THAT IS A CURRENT IN THE PUDS.
THAT IS A CURRENT REQUIREMENT FOR TOADS.
SO THEY ARE NOT THE, THIS, UM, THIS, THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT FRAMEWORK HAS A DIFFERENT VISION, UH, THAN THE PUD REGULATIONS.
BUT WE DO NOT HAVE A REGULATING PLAN AT THIS POINT.
WE ONLY HAVE A, A VISION PLAN.
SO YOU'RE CONCERNED THAT IF IT ALL FALLS APART, I MEAN, WHAT IS THE APPLICANT WOULD BE HELD TO? AND I THINK THE MINIMUM SHOULD BE THE MINIMUM FOR ANY PUD.
SO YOU WOULD HAVE, IF WE CAN ESTABLISH THIS, WHAT WE HAVE, BUT THEN WE HAVE THE, IF BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
IT'S ONLY IF, UH, THE, THE REGULATING PLAN AND THE FINANCIAL PLAN ARE NOT TASK AND DON'T, DON'T, DON'T GET APPROVED IS THEY'VE GOT TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS IN ADDITION TO WHAT THIS IS, IS SOMETHING HAPPENS.
UH I'VE SO THESE ARE, I GUESS, ARE THESE, ARE THESE QUESTIONS FOR THE WORKING GROUP COMMISSIONER COX? I WAS JUST GOING TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THE REGULATING PLAN IS NOT GOING TO BE PRESENTED BY STAFF UNTIL LATER THIS SUMMER.
AND SO I THINK THAT AMENDMENT TO A ONE THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING WOULD AFFECTIVELY POSTPONE THE APPROVAL OF THIS PUTT UNTIL LATER, POTENTIALLY.
ARE, DID YOU HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION AND MORE OF A COMMENT? CAN I MAKE IT, I'M SORRY, I'M LOST WHAT, YEAH.
AND I'M GOING TO GO AND SAY, WE'RE IT ARE WE'RE AT THREE, THEN GO AHEAD AND MAKE A COMMENT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD.
YEAH, GO AND MOVE TO A MOTION.
MY COMMON WAS, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, I'VE LOOKED AT BOTH OF THOSE MOTIONS AND I THINK THEY BOTH HAVE THEIR OWN MERITS.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT I THINK WHAT THE WORKING GROUP HAS COME UP WITH DOES NOT NECESSARILY PRECLUDE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
I CAN GIVE WE'VE CHANGED THAT MOTION TO THE WORKING GROUP HAS TO SAY AT LEAST 4% OF AFFORDABLE GIFTS SHALL BE RENTAL UNITS AND BUILT ONSITE BY THE APPLICANT, OR I'M SORRY, I'M GOING TO REPHRASE THIS JUST TO MAKE THE SPEC, AT LEAST 4% OF AFFORDABLE UNITS SHOWN ON THE, OFF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS SHALL BE RENTAL UNITS BUILT ONSITE BY THE APPLICANT.
AND THAT WOULD STILL NOT PRECLUDE THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE, WHICH IS TO SAY, IF WE GO ABOVE THE 4%, THERE WOULD STILL BE LIKE MORE ONSITE UNITS.
I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE, I DON'T WANT TO GET LOST BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT AMENDMENT FROM THE WORKING GROUP, BUT I THINK WE CAN KEEP BOTH IN.
SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY, THANK YOU.
AND, UM, CAN WE GET A, UH, I THINK WE'RE OUT OF KIND OF CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
CAN WE GET A MOTION ON A ONE AND, AND IT CAN INCLUDE ANY MODS TO THE ORIGINAL WORK GROUP, AMENDMENT TWEAKING, WHATEVER, BUT LET'S GO AHEAD.
AND, UH, WHAT IS THE, UH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER IS OUR, AND MY SECOND CAN, ANYONE CAN CORRECT ME ANYWHERE.
THEY WANT, AT LEAST 4% OF ALL UNITS ON SITE SHOULD BE AFFORDABLE AND SHALL BE RENTAL UNITS AND BUILD ONSITE BY THE APPLE.
UH, WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY.
UH, DO WE NEED ANY MORE DISCUSSION? UH, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR, UM, AMENDMENT AND FURTHER, I'LL JUST MAKE THIS VERY QUICK.
SO ORIGINALLY THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IS THAT IF YOU'RE DOING RENTAL GUARANTEE, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE THEM ONSITE.
IF YOU'RE DOING OWNERSHIP UNITS, YOU CAN EITHER PROVIDE THEM ONSITE, OR YOU CAN BE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY DUE FOR THOSE UNITS TO BE BUILT OFFSITE VIRUS BY OUR CITY ITSELF.
AND WHAT THAT DOES IS SOMEBODY COULD TECHNICALLY GO IN AND BUILD ALL SAY FOR SALE UNITS AND DO 0% UNITS ON SITE.
SO WHAT THIS AMENDMENT IS DOING IS CORRECTING THAT TO SAY, REGARDLESS OF THE MIX OR PERCENT OF ALL UNITS ON SITE SHALL BE AFFORDABLE AND SHELBY WITH.
[03:35:01]
ALL RIGHT.UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, SPEAKERS AGAINST THIS MOTION OR WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF, UM, THEN LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, GO AHEAD AND RESTATE THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER COX.
OH, ARE YOU GUYS ALREADY VOTING? OKAY, HOLD ON.
THIS IS A, UH, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER IS OUR SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY.
AND GO AHEAD AND RESTATE IT ONE MORE TIME.
JUST SO WE'RE VERY CLEAR FOR THE RECORD.
AT LEAST 4% OF ALL THE UNITS ON SITE SHALL BE AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS AND BUILT ONSITE BY THE APP.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE, UH, THOSE, UH, SCREEN AND LET ME SEE YOUR COLOR ITEMS. UH, WE'RE VOTING ON THE MOTION.
AND THEN, UH, THOSE ON THE DIOCESE, WE HAVE THREE, SO THAT'S UNANIMOUS.
SO WE'VE GOT ONE, ONE DISCUSSION ITEM CLEARED.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO, UH, D TWO.
UM, SO AGAIN, WE HAVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THREE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
SO THE WORKING GROUP, ONLY IF WE NEED THEM, UH, WE'VE PULLED THIS ONE.
SO WHAT DO WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT HERE? DO WE WANT TO, UH, KEEP THIS ONE? UM, WE TALKED ABOUT KIND OF, THIS IS A MIX THAT IS KIND OF MATCHING WHAT THE DEVELOPER IS DOING THROUGHOUT THE, THROUGHOUT THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
SO THE REASON THIS ONE WAS PULLED WAS THAT, UM, I WANTED TO ESTABLISH THAT THIS HAD TO DO WITH THE BASELINE UNITS.
SO THEY START BUILDING ABOVE THAT.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO START REGULATING ALL THAT.
LIKE THEY COULD HAVE THE BASELINE MIX OF THAT 4%.
IF THEY WANT TO JUST GET US AS MONEY AS THEY CAN BUY THROUGH SOME DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, THEN, YOU KNOW, W WE'RE WE'RE NOT GOING TO HOLD THEM UP TO THAT.
SO MY CLARIFYING QUESTION IS, WOULD WE, SO IT WOULD BE FOR THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS OR, OR SQUARE FOOTAGE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL.
IT WOULD BE REFERENCING DIRECTLY THE ONE RIGHT ABOVE IT, OF THE 4% AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT ARE RENTAL UNITS AND BUILT ONSITE, RIGHT THEN BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
I DON'T WANT TO, IT'S NOT TIED INTO ANYTHING ABOVE WHAT IS ESTABLISHED IN THE AMENDMENT RIGHT ABOUT IT.
SO, UM, THAT WOULD BE, UH, I GUESS LET'S GO, THAT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE A MOTION.
LET'S PULL IT BACK TO ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR THE WORKING GROUP BEFORE WE, I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
SO WHAT IF, WHAT IF THEY BUILD ONE CONDO TOWER AND ONE APARTMENT TOWER, AND YOU SAY THAT THAT THE RENTAL UNITS NEED TO BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
DOES THAT MEAN LIKE YOU NEED TO HAVE RENTAL UNITS IN THE COMBO TOWER? HOW DOES THAT WORK? I THINK THE INTENT IS, WELL, AS DO YOU WANT TO, THAT'S HOW YOU RAISE YOUR HAND.
YOU'RE PROBABLY MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THIS.
SO WHAT A DIVORCE DO IS ESSENTIALLY WE'VE SEEN THIS IN OTHER COMMUNITIES, NOT IN OURS BECAUSE OUR OTHER WOOD AMENDMENTS HAVE KEPT, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THAT YOU CAN HAVE A SEPARATE ENTRANCE IS SEPARATE BUILDINGS.
I GET THAT, BUT I MEAN, HOW, HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THE CONDOS ARE ONE UNIT IN ONE TOWER AND THE APARTMENTS AND ANOTHER TOWER, WHICH WOULD BE VERY LIKELY, I WOULD THINK IT'S LIKE AMONG THE RENTAL UNITS THEY'RE DISTRIBUTED, OR I THINK, I THINK COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, UH, KNOWING THESE REQUIREMENTS WHILE THEY'RE DESIGNING THEIR SITE IS GOING TO FACTOR INTO THOSE DECISIONS.
UM, SINCE WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW FROM THE APPLICANT, WHAT TOWER IS GOING TO HAVE, WHAT, AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO MAKE A BLANKET STATEMENT AND THEN THEY'LL, THEY'LL PROBABLY END UP WITH, WELL, THAT'S HARD TO SORT OF GET, COULD WE MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO SAY THAT IT'S THE, THE DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE RENTAL UNITS? WELL, WE COULD SAY WE COULD AMEND IT TO SAY AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS PROVIDED ONSITE SHALL BE EQUITABLE TO THE MARKET RATE RENTAL UNITS, AND THEN ALL OF THOSE LAUNDRY LIST OF THINGS TO THE MARKET RATE RENTAL UNITS.
SO I'M HEARING A FEW SLIGHT CHANGES THAT MAY COME OUT IN A MOTION.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS BEFORE WE, UH, HAVE SOMEBODY MAKE A MOTION? ALL RIGHT.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER CZAR, I'M SORRY, I'M GOING TO SPLIT THIS.
SO I'M GOING TO AT LEAST GO WITH THE FIRST ONE FIRST AND FOLKS CAN GO WITH IT, WHICH IS ALL AFFORDABLE UNITS, REGARDLESS OF THE 4% OR MORE, WE WILL REQUIRE AN EQUAL ACCESS TO AMENITIES, UM, EQUALLY FUNCTIONING TO YOUR COMPETENCE ACCESSIBLE BY THE SAME ROUTES AND PHYSICALLY DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
IF THESE SPEAKS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THAT AS YOUR TOP CENTER.
[03:40:01]
MR. COX.SO YOU'RE KIND OF DIVIDING THIS INTO TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS.
SO THE FIRST MOTION, UH, SAY IT ONE MORE TIME.
SO WE'RE ACTUALLY HAVING A MOTION THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A SECOND STATE AT ONE MORE TIME, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
ALL AFFORDABLE UNITS, UM, SHALL HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO AMENITIES PROVIDED TO MARKET UNITS EQUALLY FUNCTIONAL ENGINEER COMPETENCE IS MARKET RETURN IS ACCESSIBLE BY THE SAME ROUTES AS MARKET PICK UNITS AND PHYSICALLY DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO YOU HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT? UM, I HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MITCH TELLER, GO AND SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER AS OUR ALL I'M SAYING IS I THINK THERE'S A REAL CONCERN ABOUT THE MIX OF BEDROOMS QUESTION, AS CONSORTIA WAS SAYING, I'M JUST SEPARATING THAT OUT.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT'S IMPORTANT, BUT REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY AFFORDABLE UNITS YOU DO, YOU SHOULD HAVE THEM DISPERSE.
THEY SHOULD HAVE EQUAL AMENITIES.
THEY SHOULD BE QUALITY PRODUCTS.
SO THIS WOULD ENSURE REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE AFFORDABLE, THESE SORT OF BASELINE THINGS REMAIN, UH, WITHOUT INCLUDING THE LIKE BEDROOM BEFORE.
UH, SO NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, I'M SORRY, UH, SPEAKERS AGAINST COMMISSIONER COX.
CAN YOU, CAN I MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO COMMISSIONER ZUORA'S MOTION? YES, YOU CAN.
UH, I JUST WANT TO AMEND THAT IN FRONT OF THE TERM MARKET RATE, WE ADD RENTAL UNITS.
SO THE SAME MOTION THAT HE HAS, BUT, BUT WHEN HE SAYS MARKET RATE UNITS, LET'S SAY, LET'S SAY MARKET RATE RENTAL UNITS.
SO TO ADDRESS COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
SO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT AMENDMENT.
UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CHAISE.
YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT MOTION COMMISSIONER COTTAGE, OR WE GET ANY DISCUSSION FOR AGAINST.
SO, UM, SO WE HAVE THAT AMENDMENT, UH, ANY OTHER, SO ANY OTHER ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK FOR AGAINST THE, UH, THE MOTION WITH, SO ACTUALLY WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT DON'T WE, THAT WE JUST MADE TERMS ADOPTED BY CONSENT.
UH, SO ANY MORE DISCUSSION, OR CAN WE TAKE A VOTE ON THIS, THIS, UH, AMENDMENT? SO AGAIN, UM, THIS IS AMENDMENT OF AN, SO THIS IS GOING TO BE A COMMON THEME.
I'M GOING TO ASK THE MOTION MAKER TO DOCUMENT THAT EMOTION AND, AND ACTUALLY STAYED AT FOUR BEFORE THE VOTE.
SO COMMISSIONERS ARE, CAN YOU PLEASE, UH, DO US THE HONOR AND WITH THE, UH, THE AMENDED AMENDMENT.
SO ALL AFFORDABLE UNITS SHALL HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO AMENITIES PROVIDED TO RENTAL MARKET RATE UNITS, EQUALLY FUNCTIONAL ENGINEERING COMPETENCE AS WENT TO MARKET IS ACCESSIBLE BY THE SAME ROUTES IS RENTAL MARKET WITH MINUTES AND PHYSICALLY DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE, OKAY, SO THIS IS A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER.
THAT'S EVERYBODY AND THAT'S ON THE DYESS.
SO DO YOU HAVE A, DID YOU HAVE A SECOND MOTION TO GO ALONG WITH THIS FIRST ONE? OR DO YOU JUST WANTED TO BREAK THAT PORTION OUT COMMISSIONERS? ARE I JUST WANTED YOU TO BREAK THAT OUT? I THINK COMMISSIONER, SHE HAD SOMETHING IN MIND, UH, COMMISSIONER SHADE.
DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A, A STAB AT THE TOP OF YOUR MIND? WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF WE REALLY NEEDED AT THIS POINT.
I DON'T THINK, I DON'T THINK WE NEED IT CAUSE WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING THE NUMBER OF UNITS.
WE'RE JUST SAYING ALL THE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
I, I HEAR A LOT ABOUT THE STRUGGLE OF FAMILIES WHO NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UH, COMMISSIONER COX, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET A MOTION ON THE TABLE AND THEN WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION.
A COMMISSIONER IS OUR COMMISSIONER COX.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS PROVIDED ONSITE SHALL HAVE AN EQUAL MIX OF BEDROOMS OR A UNIT AS THE MARKET RATE RENTAL UNITS.
I THOUGHT WE WERE HOLINESS THIS AWKWARD, NOT RENTAL.
SO, UH, CAN I MAKE A, LIKE, THAT'S NOT AN AMENDMENT.
IT'S A, BECAUSE NOBODY'S SECOND IT YET.
THE SECOND, UH, PLEASE, PLEASE RESTATE YOUR MOTION.
ONE MORE TIME OF COMMISSIONER COX.
THE MOTION IS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS PROVIDED ONSITE SHALL BE A SUBBIE
[03:45:02]
TOM INCLUDE AN EQUAL MIX OF BEDROOMS OR UNIT AS THE MARKET RATE RENTAL UNIT.SO CAN I MAKE AN M SINCE NOBODY SECOND, I COULD MAKE A FRIENDLY, WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND SEE IF WE GOT A SECOND FOR THIS ONE AND THEN YOU CAN AMEND IT.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THIS MOTION? I I'M NOT SEEING A SECOND.
WE CAN JUST HAVE GOOD NUTRITION STATUS, MOTION.
WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL TALLER.
DO YOU WANT TO MAKE, SO THE AMENDMENT IS GOING TO BE, UM, OF THE 4% AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS PROVIDED ONSITE SHALL HAVE EQUAL MIX OF BEDROOMS BRINGING IS MARKET RATE UNITS.
SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS LIMIT IT TO THE 4% THAT WE REFERENCED IN NUMBER ONE, RATHER THAN MAKING A BLANKET STATEMENT, BECAUSE HERE'S THE THING LIKE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.
THEY COULD GET US MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS BY GOING CHANGING AND VARYING THE TOPOLOGY.
AND THAT GIVES AN ABILITY TO CREATE FOR WHAT THE MARKET REALLY NEEDS AT SOME POINTS.
SO IF THEY NEED MORE SMALLER STUDIOS, BUT THEY STILL HAVE THE 4%, THE 4% WERE THE ONES THAT WE REGULATED, ANYTHING ABOUT 4% THEY COULD, THEY COULD PLAY AS THEY WOULD LIKE.
AND WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SQUEEZE OUT MORE UNITS.
SO I HAVE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION HERE BECAUSE I'M GETTING A LITTLE CONFUSED.
DID WE PASS THE ONE YOU'RE REFERENCING? IF WE PASS A 4%, A ONE WE DID.
AND THEN WE JUST PASS THIS NEW ONE THAT YOU WANTED TO SPLIT.
SO NOW WE'RE HAVING AN AMENDED, DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR COMMISSIONER SHAY'S AMENDMENT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY.
DO YOU NEED TO SPEAK ANY FURTHER ON YOUR AMENDMENT? ANY, UH, THOSE VOTED, UH, AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL, COMMISSIONER COX.
HI, I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND.
UM, SO, SO IS THE POINT THAT IF THE T DETERS FUNDS MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON SITE, YOU, YOU WANT TO EXCLUDE THE EQUITABLE BEDROOMS PER UNIT FROM THOSE TERS FUNDED.
SO, SO THE INTENT OF THAT, AND THE APPLICANT HAS BROUGHT THIS UP WAS THAT IF THEY HAVE TO KEEP MAKING THE EQUAL MIX, WE END UP HAVING LESS NUMBER OF UNITS.
BUT IF WE FIND OUT THAT WE CAN GET A LOT MORE UNITS VERSUS, YOU KNOW, AND GIVE THEM THE FLEXIBILITY TO LIKE, YOU KNOW, THIS MIGHT BE TWO BEDROOM, THESE MIGHT BE STUDIOS.
I MEAN, ONE BEDROOM, THE BASE LINE, OR THE 4% IS REGULATED.
ANYTHING ABOUT THAT 4%, YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SQUEEZE MORE NUMBER OF UNITS RATHER THAN LET'S SAY NUMBER OF BED, YOU KNOW, TWO, THREE BEDROOM UNITS.
UH, NOT REALLY SURE IF THE LANGUAGE DOES THAT.
SO WE'RE JUST, WE'RE DEBATING, UM, THE EMOTION.
SO DO WE HAVE SPEAKERS FOR THIS MOTION COMMISSIONER CONLEY? YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO IT? UM, YEAH, I JUST A FEW THOUGHTS.
THE ONLY REASON I SUPPORT THIS, ALTHOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN EQUAL MIX OF BEDROOMS THROUGHOUT IS BECAUSE I DO AGREE WITH CHRISTIAN OR SHAY THAT IF WE ESTABLISH THE 4% AS THE BASE AND WE CAN MANAGE TO GET SOMETHING ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT, THEN IN THAT ABOVE AND BEYOND TERRITORY, I BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE WIGGLE ROOM.
NOW WITH REGARDS TO THE TOURISTS, I THINK THAT'S A COMPLETELY SEPARATE CONVERSATION.
IF THE TOUR IS, IS FUNDING UNITS, WHAT KINDS OF UNITS THOSE SHOULD BE? THAT HAS TO BE A SEPARATE CONVERSATION BECAUSE WE'RE NOT EVEN LOOKING AT THE TOURS RIGHT NOW.
WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT, I, I WOULDN'T SUPPORT SUBSIDIZING UNITS THAT DON'T HAVE AN EQUAL MIX, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT, WHAT WE CAN REGULATE RIGHT NOW.
SO RIGHT NOW, FOR ME, ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE WIGGLE ROOM ABOVE THE 4% GUARANTEED.
SO IF THEY CAN GET US AN EXTRA, IF THEY CAN GET US TO 6% AND THE EXTRA 2% HAS SOME FLEXIBILITY, THEN THAT'S OKAY.
UM, AND THAT WILL, THAT'S LIKE A WORLD WE'RE WILLING TO LIVE WITH FOR NOW.
AND I'M NOT EVEN GOT TO KEEP TRACK OF TIME HERE ON THESE, UH, BACK AND FORTH CAUSE WE'RE IN THE AMENDMENTS.
SO ANY OTHER SPEAKERS, UH, AGAINST THIS WILL DO ANY MORE AGAINST ANY FOR COMMISSIONER HOWARD YOU WANT TO SPEAK FOR ACTUALLY NEUTRAL.
AND I MIGHT NOT ARTICULATE THAT APPROPRIATELY, BUT I GUESS, UH, I KNOW THAT THE GOAL WOULD BE AS OBVIOUSLY IN CASES WHERE YOU WOULD REQUIRE A NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS.
OFTENTIMES IF YOU DON'T SET THE BEDROOM SIZE, THERE TENDS TO BE A LOT OF ONE VETERAN UNITS BECAUSE ACTUALLY THEY'RE CHEAPER TO BUILD.
[03:50:01]
THAT'S, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID IS THAT THE BEDROOM SIZES ARE COMMENSURATE.I GUESS THE CONCERN I HAD WOULD BE THAT IN MOST CASES, YOU KNOW, TO HOUSE MORE FAMILIES, OTHER THAN SINGLE THING UP, YOU KNOW, SINGLE MEMBER, ONE, ONE FAMILY, ONE PERSON HOUSEHOLDS, YOU KNOW, WE PROBABLY, I GUESS THERE'S, THERE MAY BE ANOTHER, NO OTHER WAY TO DO IT, BUT I GUESS TRULY, I MEAN, THE NEED FOR THE BEDROOM SIZES IS PROBABLY NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU FIND THEY'RE LIKELY TO BUILD IN THAT AREA.
SO I GUESS THAT'S THE STRUGGLE I'M HAVING IS BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF ONE AND TWO BEDROOMS AND YOU PROBABLY NEED TWO AND THREE BEDROOMS AS IT RELATES TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
BUT I MEAN, I SUPPOSE, UH, IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT, IT WOULDN'T BE A, THAT'S NOT THE WORST THING TO HAVE HONESTLY THE SAME NUMBER AND THEY'RE SPEAKING SMALLER, BUT I GUESS IF WE'RE TRYING TO MEET A, AN UNMET NEED IS PROBABLY LIKELY TO BEDROOM SIZES WOULD ONE OF YOU WANT THEM TO HAVE LARGER VERSUS SMALLER, BUT SORRY, I DIDN'T BRING THIS NUMBER.
SO, UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER FOUR AGAINST CAUSE UH, OKAY.
COMMISSIONER COX SPEAKING AGAINST, YOU KNOW, UH, IS IT POSSIBLE TO MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? SO THE LANGUAGE, UM, I'M TRYING TO THINK AT THIS POINT, UH, I'D SAY LET'S SEE WHERE THIS ONE GOES AND THEN IF IT DOESN'T GET VOTED ON, YOU CAN PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE.
SO, CAUSE WE'RE JUST TO CLARIFY, WE'RE HOW MANY DEEP WE'VE GOT.
WELL, THIS CAME UP BEFORE, SO WE NEED TO CLARIFY, UM, MR. RIVERA, WHERE WE'RE DOING AMENDMENTS, BUT WHEN WE START TRYING TO CHANGE SOME OF THEM, I THINK WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE WHETHER OR NOT WE COULD DO AN AMENDMENT MEANT TO AN AMENDMENT FOR THE WORK GROUP AMENDMENT.
SO THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE DRILLING DOWN THREE AMENDMENTS DEEP.
UH, I THINK WE COULD, WE SAID WE COULD DO THAT, BUT SURE.
IT'S THE COMMISSION'S PREROGATIVE.
UM, BUT HE, IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
IT WOULD JUST BE AN AMENDMENT.
SO, UH, THE, UM, MOTION OR, AND THEN THE SECOND AND THEN, UH, YEAH, AND THEN, OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW IT IT'S UH, GO AHEAD, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, GO AHEAD AND MAKE YOUR AMENDMENT.
AND SO THROUGHOUT THIS, WE'RE GOING TO, YOU CAN DO THAT.
SO TO THESE AMENDMENTS, YOU CAN MAKE AMENDMENTS AND THEN YOU CAN OFFER AMENDMENTS TO THOSE AMENDMENTS.
I KNOW THAT GETS MY GOAL IS, IS TO DO WHAT COMMISSIONER SAY IS TRYING TO DO.
I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THE LANGUAGE IS CORRECT.
SO MY, MY, MY AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO STATE THAT OF THE INITIAL 55 UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDED ONSITE.
THEY SHALL HAVE AN EQUAL MIX OF BEDROOMS PER UNIT AS THE MARKET RATE RENTAL AGAIN, WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING, EXCEPT INSTEAD OF SAYING 4%, YOU'RE SAYING 55 UNITS, BUT, BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BECAUSE THEY CAN ALWAYS BUILD MORE HOUSING AT 4% AND THEN THIS WOULD STILL APPLY.
BUT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET MORE HOUSING ABOVE THE 55 UNITS.
WELL, I'M, I'M HOPING TO, OKAY.
WE'RE GETTING OFF FROM DISCUSSION.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THE, IT'S ACTUALLY A CENTRAL, LIKE A SUBSTITUTION TO ME, EH, UM, WELL, LET'S LET'S CAUSE IT'S GONNA CHANGE SOMETHING LIKE IT CHANGES, COULD CHANGE.
IT'S REALLY CHANGING THE AMENDMENT.
SO LET'S TREAT THAT AS A SUBSTITUTION.
SO IT WOULD BE THE 55 UNITS INSTEAD OF THE 4%.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR MAKING THAT AMENDMENT TO COMMISSIONER SHAY'S MOTION.
SO A COMMISSIONER IS, ARE, GO AHEAD.
I HAVE A WET, IF YOU MAY ALLOW ME A COMMISSIONER, COSTCO, WE SAY 55 UNITS OR 4% OR WHICHEVER, WHICHEVER ONE IS GREATER.
EVENTUALLY THE 4% IS MORE THAN 55 UNITS.
THE ONLY THING MAYBE I'M OVERTHINKING.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? LET'S STICK WITH, UH, WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT.
UH, THE FIRST ONE DID NOT GET A SECOND.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR COMMISSIONER? CZAR'S MOTION.
I'M NOT SEEING A SECOND, SO OKAY.
SO, UM, DO WE NEED ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS PROPOSED CHANGE? DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO YOUR, UM, YOUR AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT? YEAH, ESSENTIALLY IT IS EXACTLY.
I THINK WHAT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE BASE THAT THOSE UNITS THAT WE ARE ASKING BEYOND SIGHT, YOU HAVE THIS REQUIREMENT, WHATEVER HAPPENS BEFORE, BEYOND
[03:55:01]
THE 4% IS SOMETHING ELSE.THE ONLY REASON I BROUGHT UP MY, UH, SUGGESTION WAS THAT WE DON'T KNOW IF THE 4% MIGHT ACTUALLY BE MORE THAN 50 SITES.
IF THERE'S MORE THAN THAT UNITS, WE MIGHT END UP WITH MORE THAN 55.
I'M JUST SAYING WHICHEVER ONE IS GREATER, THIS APPLIES TO THAT SORT OF BASE ALWAYS REMAINS WHATEVER THE 4% OR 55 UNITS IS AS HAVING A LIKE PROPORTIONAL BEDROOM.
DO WE HAVE ANY, UM, AGAINST, SO I'M GOING TO SPEAK AGAINST IT, JUST, JUST TO SEE WHERE IT'S GOING TO GO.
BUT THE CONCERN I HAVE IS BECAUSE ON NUMBER ONE, WE TALK ABOUT 4%, APPROXIMATELY 55 UNITS.
THE WHOLE POINT IS CONTINUING THE CONTINUITY OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR AS A BASELINE.
AND WHEN YOU NOW PRESCRIPTIVELY SAYS, SAY THAT 55 UNITS, WHEN WE NEVER ESTABLISHED THAT TO BEGIN WITH, I THINK IT'S DRAWING THINGS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF APART.
SO I, I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT JUST BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T BEEN DOING THAT FROM THE BEGINNING.
NOW, IF WE WANT TO GO BACK AND CHANGE THINGS, THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY, BUT THERE'S AN INCONSISTENCY HERE OF, YOU KNOW.
SO SPEAKING FOR THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.
ANY AGAINST, UH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER COX.
THE MORE I THINK ABOUT THIS, THE MORE, I THINK IT'S JUST A BAD IDEA ALL AROUND, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE'RE ACTUALLY ENCOURAGING THE DEVELOPER TO BUILD LESS RESIDENTIAL ON SITE SO THAT THEY CAN INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE OF THE AFFORDABLE UNITS AND THEN JUST FILL THEM ALL WITH STUDIO APARTMENTS TO MAKE IT SOUND GOOD.
I'M NOT COMPREHENDING IT AND I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
UM, SO WE, WE NEED, THIS IS, UH, I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY SPOKEN TO YOUR AMENDMENT, RIGHT? COMMISSIONER.
I THINK I WAS TRYING TO ADDRESS VISIER GOD'S IS CONCERNED.
AND SINCE HE'S SEEING HIS A LARGER CONSENT, I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION AND WITHDRAW MY NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE AMENDMENT OF COMMISSIONER'S SHAY SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MOOSE TODDLER, I BELIEVE.
AND SO, UM, I'D SAY, DO WE HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION? CAN YOU RESTATE YOUR, UH, YOUR MOTION ONE MORE TIME? YOUR AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION? OKAY.
THE, I GUESS OF THE 4% AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS PROVIDED ONSITE, UM, SHALL BE EQUITABLE TO THE MARK.
NO, IT SHOULD BE EQUAL MIX OF BEDROOM FOR UNITS MARKET RATE UNITS.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY MORE, UH, ANY MORE FOR AGAINST DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE, IT'S CALLED THE QUESTION.
UH, LET'S GO AND VOTE, UH, THOSE ON THE DYESS.
UM, LET GET YOUR COLOR DYED 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8.
NOW THREE RENEE COMMISSIONER COX ARE STILL WAITING ON YOU.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? WHAT COLOR IS THAT? THE ONLY YELLOW THING I HAVE WITH OH, YELLOW.
IT DOES NOT LOOK YELLOW TO ME, BUT OKAY.
SO NOW, UH, WE'VE, WE'VE MADE THAT AMENDMENT NOW WE GOT TO VOTE ON THE MOTION.
AND SO I'M GOING TO ASK ACTUALLY YOU READ THE ENTIRE THING.
UH, IT WAS COMMISSIONER, UH, WHO HAD THE ORIGINAL MOTION.
WAS IT, UM, COMMISSIONER COX LATE? WASN'T IT.
THEN WE STARTED WITH COMMISSIONER MOOSE DOLLAR IS THE SECOND.
IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT WHAT YOU HAVE VICE CHAIR WHO MADE THE ORIGINAL MOTION? OH, I DID THAT.
AND THEN, UM, COMMISSIONERS ARE SPLIT IT AND THEN NOW WE'RE PUTTING IT BACK TOGETHER, I GUESS.
BUT I GUESS AS LONG AS EVERYBODY IS, YOU KNOW, LET'S GO UNDERSTANDING OF THAT.
SO IS EVERYBODY CLEAR? CAUSE COMMISSIONER SHAY'S AMENDED MOTION IS REALLY WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON, BUT WE WERE VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE PREVIOUS MOTION.
SO WE'RE GOING TO GO AND VOTE ONE MORE TIME ON, SO GO AND RESTATE IT ONE LAST TIME.
I THINK WE SPLIT IT AND WE DID VOTE ON THE OTHER ONE AND I THINK NOBODY ASKS AND AFTER THIS ADMINISTRATION MADE A PRIMARY MOTION THAT WAS USABLE AND COMMISSIONER COX SUBSEQUENTLY BY ME, I WOULD DO.
AND COMMISSION COST TO NOT HAVE THE SUBSTITUTE, THE COMMISSIONER CHAISE.
ONE THAT WE VOTED ON, I THINK WAS THE YEAH.
CAUSE WE SPLIT IT SO IT DOESN'T COME BACK TOGETHER AND WE VOTED.
SO IT'S, I THINK WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE IT.
ANY CLARIFICATION THERE? SO WE VOTED ON IT.
[04:00:01]
HELPED ME OUT HERE, WHICH ITEMS WE HAVE CLEARED, UH, B NUMBER SIX.IS THAT THE NEXT ONE? CAUSE WE CLEARED ONE AND TWO.
UH, ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON AMENDMENT SIX? WE PULLED THIS ONE.
THIS IS THE ON-SITE AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE RANGE OF 50 TO 80 MFI.
ALL I RECALL, I THINK COMMISSIONER COW, HOWARD, THIS WOULD GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR THE WORKING GROUP, UH, BECAUSE YOU HAD SOME KNOWLEDGE OF A 60% BEING MORE OF THE STANDARD INSTEAD OF 65, AS I RECALL.
I MEAN, MOST OF, FOR RENTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ARE BUILT USING LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS.
AND TYPICALLY, UM, IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE MIX OF INCOME TIERS, THEY USE SOMETHING CALLED AN AVERAGE INCOME TEST OR INCOME AVERAGING.
AND TYPICALLY THAT MEANS THAT THE AVERAGE OF THE UNITS WILL BE, CAN GO OBVIOUSLY UP TO 80%, BUT THEN THE AVERAGE WOULD BE 60.
SO I WAS SAYING, AS OPPOSED TO MAYBE AN ARBITRARY 65, MAYBE YOU WOULD SAY 60 UTILIZING SUCH TOOLS AS THE AVERAGE INCOME TECHNIQUES AS THE AVERAGE INCOME TEST, BECAUSE I'M NOT ASSUMPTION IS THAT THEY WOULD HIRE SOMEONE TO DO AFFORDABLE UNITS SPECIFICALLY PROBABLY, OR AT LEAST UTILIZE THAT TOOL IN ORDER TO BUILD THEM.
SO I'M JUST SAYING THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY OUT THERE AS OPPOSED TO, IT'D BE SOME SOMEWHAT ARBITRARY, BUT I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE.
SO I'M GOING TO COUNT THAT AS ONE KIND OF CLARIFYING COMMENT QUESTION, DO WE LET'S KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WE MOVE TOWARD THE MOTION OF WHAT WE JUST HEARD FROM COMMISSIONER HOWARD, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE WORKING GROUP STAFF? UM, UH, COMMISSIONER MR. TELLER.
AND WE TAKE THAT QUESTION TO STAFF BECAUSE THAT'S KIND OF COMMISSIONER HOWARD'S CORRECT.
AND WHAT WE WERE SEARCHING FOR WAS A STANDARDIZED TOOL, UH, TO CRAFT THAT.
AND SO YES, WE TOOK AN EDUCATED GUESS, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE THE TOOLS.
SO IF THERE'S SOMEBODY FROM STAFF THAT CAN CLARIFY IF THERE'S A STANDARDIZED TOOL, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE VERY USEFUL.
SO WHAT I THINK, I HEAR YOU ASKING A STAFF TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT WE JUST HEARD FROM COMMISSIONER HOWARD ON, ON THIS, ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD SUPPORT GOING WITH THE STANDARD PERCENTAGE AND AVERAGING TECHNIQUE THAT HE SPOKE OF, OR IF THEY'RE AWARE, BASED OR AWARE OF A STANDARD THAT WE CAN SNAG WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THAT WAS SO DO WE, AS A STAFF, LET'S GIVE IT A SHOT.
DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION OR PROVIDE MORE CONTEXT? I, THIS IS ALEX TRI JACOB CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME YES.
I'M CALLING Y'ALL FROM MY PHONE.
IT SEEMED TO BE HAVING TROUBLES TONIGHT WITH MY, UH, CITY LAPTOP.
UM, I, I JUST WANT TO SPEAK UP AND SAY, UM, WHAT PAT WITH COMMISSIONER HOWARD IS BRINGING FORWARD IS THE STANDARD.
UM, AND TYPICALLY WHAT YOU'LL SEE WITH, UM, FOR EXAMPLE, THE, UH, CITY'S PUBLISHED INCOME CHARTS AND RENT RATE CHARTS.
UM, WE DO IT AT 50, 60, 70, AND 80% MFI.
UH, AND SO IT WOULD BE QUITE UNUSUAL TO CHECK TO USE A 65% STANDARD.
YEAH, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE INTENT WAS NOT TO HAVE THE ON-SITE AFFORDABLE UNITS PROVIDED AT 65% IN THE FI IT WAS TO PROVIDE THEM FROM 50 TO 80%, BUT FORCE THE DEVELOPER TO HAVE A MIXTURE THAT AVERAGES OUT TO AT LEAST 65.
AND SO MY QUESTION, I GUESS, TO STAFF IS, IS THAT FROM, FROM A PUD ORDINANCE LANGUAGE PERSPECTIVE, DOES THAT WORK WITH HOW Y'ALL TYPICALLY DO THIS OR, OR IS THE AVERAGE BEING 65 AND IS A, IS THAT A PROBLEM WITH HOW YOU CALCULATE THINGS? OKAY.
IT WOULDN'T BE NECESSARILY A PROBLEM, BUT, UM, AGAIN, TO COMMISSIONER HOWARD'S COMMENT, UM, WITH THE END, IT WORKS THE SAME WAY WITH LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROJECTS, WHERE THEY'RE ALWAYS AIMING FOR THAT AVERAGE OF 60% MFI, KNOWING THAT THEY'LL HAVE, YOU KNOW, 50, 70, 80% UNITS AS WELL.
UM, BUT IT DOES TEND TO BE A LITTLE BIT EASIER MATH, UM, OR SOMETIMES YOU'LL HAVE PROJECTS THAT JUST DECIDED TO GO FOR ALL 60% MFI UNITS, UM, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY, IT'S JUST REALLY EASY TO SHOW COMPLIANCE, UM, WHEN YOU GO WITH THAT TYPE OF STANDARD.
[04:05:01]
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? OH, YES.SO IF WE WERE TO LOWER THE BOTTOM LINE TO 40%, WOULD THAT GET US TO THAT 60% AVERAGE? THAT STUFF SEEMS TO FAVOR.
SO AS FIGHTING SKILL FROM 40% IN THE FIVE TO 80% WITH AN AVERAGE OF 60%, YEAH.
I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UH, DO WE NEED TO, WHAT I'M HEARING IS WE, UH, WE START AT 50.
DO WE NEED TO CHANGE THE RANGE FROM 40 TO 80? UH, SO WHAT IS THE STANDARD ON THAT RANGE? UH, TH THE, THE AMENDMENT HERE IS, UH, 50 TO 80.
IS THERE A STANDARD RANGE, UH, TO GO ALONG WITH THAT 60% OR IS 50 TO 80? I'M SORRY, I'M TAKING YOUR QUESTION.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY 60 TO 80, BUT I TALKED HIM DOWN TO 50.
SO, UM, ACTUALLY FOR EXAMPLE, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH OUR AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED PROGRAM, WE HAVE THE REQUIREMENT ON THE RENTAL FOR RENTAL PROJECT THAT THE UNITS ON AVERAGE SERVED A 60% MFI LEVEL.
UM, AND WHEN YOU HAVE THAT AVERAGE REQUIREMENT, THEN THERE'S NOT REALLY A NEED TO SET THE RANGE NECESSARILY.
UM, BUT AS LONG AS THEY'RE HITTING THAT, UM, THAT RANGE IT'S CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE AND WITH 80% MFI BEING THE, UM, KIND OF LIMITATION AT WHICH POINT YOU WOULD THINK, UH, WHAT YOU WOULD ACCEPT A RENTAL UNIT AS BEING AFFORDABLE.
UH, CAUSE I THINK I UNDERSTAND NOW, SO WHAT IF WE, WHAT IF THE MOTION IS ON-SITE AFFORDABLE, RENTAL UNITS SHALL BE PROVIDED, UM, UP TO 80% MFI SUCH THAT ALL ONSITE AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE PROVIDED ON AVERAGE AT 60% IN REFINED, UH, SECTORS.
WE HAVE A SECOND, UH, WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHAY, GO AND SPEAK TO YOUR EMOTION.
UM, AND THEN SAY, LET'S JUST GET RID OF THE BOTTOM PERCENTAGE ALTOGETHER, NOT WORRY ABOUT IT.
AND THEN WE'LL SET THE WE'LL SET THE AVERAGE AT 60%.
COMMISSIONER IS, ARE, DID YOU HAVE A, UH, CLEAR, OKAY.
UH, ANY, ANY FOLKS SPEAKING AGAINST THIS? IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS, CAN WE GO AND TAKE A BOAT IF YOU WANT TO, UH, LET'S SAY RESTATE THE, UH, THIS ITEM COMMISSIONER COX.
COMMISSIONER COX SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SHEA.
UM, THE MOTION IS ON-SITE AFFORDABLE.
RENTAL UNITS SHALL BE PROVIDED UP TO 80% MFI SUCH THAT ALL ONSITE AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE PROVIDED ON AVERAGE AT 60%.
LET'S SEE THE VOTE ON, ON THE SCREEN.
SO WE'VE, UH, CLEAR THAT ONE AND LET'S SEE VICE-CHAIR WHICH ONE'S THAT NEXT? UH, SEVEN.
WE WANTED TO MAKE A SLIGHT CHANGE TO THIS IF YOU, UH, SO IT IS A RECALL, I THINK WE WERE TRYING TO CHANGE KIND OF WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS.
SO DO WE HAVE ANY CLARIFYING, CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, UH, WORKING GROUP OR STAFF? OR CAN WE GET A MOTION ON THIS? GO AHEAD.
COMMISSIONER COMPS, YOU HAVE MOTION.
I DON'T THINK IT'S EXACTLY WHAT STAFF WANTS, BUT I'M GOING TO ATTEMPT TO TRY TO FIND A MIDDLE GROUND.
MY MOTION IS THIS SAME EXACT TEXT THAT IS IN THE WORKING GROUP TABLE, EXCEPT AT THE BEGINNING, WE CAN ADD THE LANDOWNER MAY SUGGEST AND THEN THE REST OF IT PART SHALL PREPARE AN ANNUAL PARTS PROGRAM.
DO I, DO I NEED TO READ THE WHOLE THING? NO.
NO, BUT I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED.
SO LAND OWNER MAY SUGGEST PARD.
NO, THE LANDOWNER MAY SUGGEST AND PART SHALL PREPARE AN ANNUAL PARKS PROGRAMMING PLAN FOR BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
UM, I DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'M NOT SURE.
DO WE WANT TO PULL BACK THAT'S EMOTION? WELL, I NEED TO GET, UH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT OR DISCUSSION OR DEBATE A SECOND COMMISSIONER TOLEDO.
UH, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR EMOTION? CONVINCED YOUR COPS.
I UNDERSTAND WHERE PART'S COMING FROM, BUT UH, TO ME, THAT'S MY NIGHTMARE SCENARIO IS TO BASICALLY
[04:10:01]
HAVE A DEVELOPER BE THE ONE TO PUT TOGETHER THE PROGRAMMING PLAN FOR PUBLIC PARKS.IT'S LIKE SAYING, OKAY, C3, YOU JUST DECIDE TO PUT TOGETHER A PARKS PROGRAM AND PLAN FOR ZILKER OVER THE NEXT YEAR.
I WANT ART TO BE THE PERSON TO BE THE ENTITY THAT MAKES THAT PLAN, UM, AND THEN FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE THAT WE'VE OUTLINED, WHICH, WHICH REQUIRES THEM TO EVOLVE STAKEHOLDER INPUT, LIFELIKE THAT CONSERVATION, UM, AND THEN RUN IT THROUGH THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD.
AND THEN FINAL APPROVAL GOES TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD.
THEY CAN ENCOMPASS THE FEEDBACK OF THE LAND OWNER, BUT I REALLY DO NOT WANT THE DEVELOPER OR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY DOING THE PARTS PROGRAMMING FOR THAT.
SO I'M GOING TO TAKE THIS ON A TWIST AND I'M GOING TO GO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE.
OH, WELL YOU GOT A SECOND, CORRECT? UM, YES, HE DID SIGN AND MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION AND, UH, SEE IF I CAN GET A SECOND FOR, UM, THAT THE, UH, LANDOWNER SHALL PREPARE THE ANNUAL PARK PROGRAMMING PLAN WITH ALL THE SAME LANGUAGE.
SO DO I HAVE A SECOND TO TWIST THIS RESPONSIBILITY ON THE, UH, LANDOWNER INSTEAD OF HARD? I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER.
AZHAR, I'LL GO AND SPEAK TO MY MOTION.
I THINK WHAT, UH, WHAT THE WORKING GROUP HAS DONE HERE IS YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THESE REVIEW ENTITIES THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS.
I THINK YOU'VE GOT WHAT YOU NEED TO ASSURE.
YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE OUTCOMES YOU WANT.
AND AS I RECALL PARD SAYING IS IT TYPICALLY DOES FALL ON THE DEVELOPER AND THEY WORK THROUGH THIS PROCESS, YOU KNOW, TO GET THE OUTCOMES THAT THE PUBLIC WANTS.
YOU HAVE ALL THE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT, ALL THESE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ADVISORY GROUPS.
I'M NOT TOO WORRIED THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET A GOOD PRODUCT.
SO THAT'S WHY, UM, THAT'S, UH, THAT'S MY, UH, SPEAKING FAVOR OF MY MOTION.
UH, WHO'S SPEAKING AGAINST, MAKE A QUESTION.
CAN WE, CAN WE SAY THE APPLICANT WITH INPUT FROM BARD STAFF AND THEN THE REST OF IT'S PLEASE? UM, I WILL TREAT THAT AS, UM, YEAH, WE, UH, THAT WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO MY MOTION.
UH, SO LET'S, I'M GOING TO GO, GO AHEAD AND RESEND MY INITIAL MOTION AND I'M GOING, UH, SO, UM, I'M GOING TO RE DO, UH, WE GOT TO TAKE A VOTE BECAUSE IT BELONGS TO THE BODY.
SO WE HAVE A VOTE TO RESCIND MY MOTION, UH, GOES, UH, THOSE ON THE SCREEN.
WE'RE GOING TO GO AND PULL BACK ON IT, BUT IT BELONGS TO THE BODY.
SO THOSE TWO, UH, THIS VOTE TO RE TO RESCIND MY MOTION.
SO COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, I'M NOT SURE.
AND SO I'M ON A RESTATE, UM, EMOTION IS, UH, COMMISSIONERS, ARE, YOU SAID THE APPLICANT WITH INPUT FROM PARD, UM, SHALL PREPARE AN ANNUAL PARKS PROGRAM PLAN AND ALL THE REMAINING LANGUAGE STAYS THE SAME.
SO DO I HAVE A SECOND WITH THAT? COMMISSIONER IS OUR SECOND SET.
I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK ON, ON MY MOTION.
ANY SPEAKERS AGAINST COMMISSIONER COX? I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT, THAT ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE WANTED TO DO THIS WAS FOR THE STAKEHOLDER INPUT PROCESS.
WE WANTED THE STAKEHOLDERS TO BE ENGAGED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN PRIOR TO IT GOING TO THE ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE WATERFRONT AND THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD.
IF ENDEAVOR REAL ESTATE IS MANAGING THIS PROPERTY AND TRIES TO DO STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE MUCH LESS SUCCESSFUL THAN IF IT'S ACTUALLY COMING FROM PARD.
AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD LEAVE OUR PARKS PROGRAMMING TO PRIVATE ENTITIES.
THE OTHER, THE LAST THING I'LL SAY ON THIS IS THAT IN THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THIS IS EVEN THOUGH THE WORKING GROUPS AMENDMENT PUTS THE RESPONSIBILITY ON PART, IF THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO HAVE PROGRAMMING, THEY'RE GOING TO SEND THAT INFORMATION TO PART, TO INCLUDE IT IN THE PARKS PROGRAMMING PLAN.
AND IF PART HAS NO OTHER PROGRAMMING THEY WANT TO DO, THEN THE DEVELOPER HAS ESSENTIALLY CREATED THE PARKS PROGRAMMING PLAN FOR PART.
SO I JUST, I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
ANY, UH, COMMISSIONERS WANT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST, UH, GO AHEAD.
COMMISSIONER MITCHELL TODDLER.
UH, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK FOR, OR AGAINST? IT'S GOING TO SPEAK AGAIN.
I WANT TO ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER COX SAID.
[04:15:01]
AN OPTIMAL SITUATION, THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE DOING THINGS FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THE PUBLIC AND THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, BUT I THINK THERE'S TOO MUCH AT STAKE HERE.AND, AND WHILE I'D LIKE TO TRUST THE PRIVATE ENTITY TO DO THINGS REALLY WELL, THIS IS WATERFRONT.
UM, THIS IS PUBLIC SPACE AND THIS IS, UM, CONSERVATION AREA.
AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT PROGRAMMING SHOULD, SHOULD BE DONE BY A FOR-PROFIT ENTITY.
I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S THE WRONG WAY TO GO.
UM, I'D LIKE FOR THEM TO HAVE INPUT AS A STAKEHOLDER, I THINK THEY DESERVE THAT, UM, FOR THEIR PROPERTY.
AND IF, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY FROM PARKS THAT THEY TYPICALLY DON'T DO THIS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, I WOULD BE WILLING TO CHANGE THE MOTION TO SOMETHING THAT'S MORE COMPARABLE.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY LAY OUT A THREE-YEAR PLAN OR A FIVE-YEAR PLAN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BUT I THINK THAT THIS NEEDS TO STAY IN THE PUBLIC REALM.
I WAS SPEAKING FOR, UM, PART HAS A LOT ON THEIR PLATE A LOT.
I'M SPEAKING FROM EXPERIENCE, WORKING ON SEVERAL OF THEIR PROJECTS.
REPUBLIC SQUARE IS VERY SUCCESSFUL.
IT'S RUN BY AN ENTITY OTHER THAN, UM, PARD.
IT'S PROGRAMMED BY DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE.
SO I THINK IT CAN BE SUCCESSFUL.
AND THERE'S SO MANY EYES ON THIS PROJECT.
ANYTHING WOULD BE GOING BEFORE PARP, THE, THE PARKS BOARD.
SO I, I THINK IT'S A GOOD AMENDMENT.
ANY OTHER SPEAKER? A COMMISSIONER AZHAR AND THEN A COMMISSION.
WELL, ARE YOU SPEAKING FOR, OR AGAINST COMMISSIONER? BIZARRE.
I WAS GOING TO SPEAK FOR, BUT I THINK COMING TO THE THOMPSON, ARE YOU FOR AGAINST, I MEAN, OKAY.
I'M NOT REALLY SURE THAT THE OUTCOME IS GOING TO BE MUCH DIFFERENT.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THE PARKS, WHAT WE HEARD FROM PART THAT MAYBE THEY DIDN'T WANT ANY PROGRAMMING HERE, REALLY.
UM, AND SO I THINK IF, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, WELL, IF, IF PART DOESN'T WANT ANYTHING AND, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE SHOWS UP WITH A LIST OF THINGS, IF THE DEVELOPER SHOWS UP WITH THE LIST OF THINGS THAT THEY WANT, THEN PART WILL EITHER DO IT OR THEY WON'T.
UM, OR IF THE DEVELOPER HAS THE LIST AND THEN PART HAS TO APPROVE, THEY'LL DO IT.
I THINK THE, THE OPTICS OF, OH, WE'RE LETTING THE DEVELOPER PROGRAM, THIS NEW PARK IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN SAYING IT'S THE PARK.
AND IF THERE WERE ANOTHER ORGANIZATION THAT CAME ALONG TO DO IT IN THE FUTURE, YOU KNOW, IF THERE WERE A, IF DANNA WANTED TO DO THIS, OR IF SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR SOMETHING THAT WAS CREATED FROM THAT, THE ENTITIES THAT SURVIVE THERE ARE LIFT THERE.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD, BUT THE OPTICS DON'T SEEM GOOD TO ME.
UH, COMMISSIONER IS OUR, I THINK WE'RE DOWN TO ONE LAST ROUND.
SO COMMISSIONERS ARE, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? JUST MAKE THIS CAKE.
I THINK THE IDEA HERE REALLY IS, DO NOT HAVE THE ONUS ON OUR ARTS DEPARTMENT.
YOU GO AHEAD AND CREATE AN ENTIRE PLAN, SPEND A LOT OF DIAMOND EFFORT AND RESOURCES, A DEGRADING PLAN FOR A PRIVATE FACE.
EVEN HERE THAT I HAVE IN MY MIND IS A PRIVATE ENTITY CAN BRING IT TO BARD.
ART CAN WORK WITH THEM AND IT STILL GOES TO OUR BARKS BOARD FOR FINDING ALL RIGHT.
UM, IF THERE'S NO OPPOSITION, CAN WE GO IN AND VOTE ON THIS MOTION? UH, BY SHAW SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CZAR, IT'S, UH, BASICALLY ARE CHANGING JUST THE BEGINNING OF THIS AMENDMENT TO READ APPLICANT WITH INPUT FROM PARD SHALL PREPARE AN ANNUAL PART PROGRAMMING PLAN AND THE REMAINDER OF THE AMENDMENT STAYS THE SAME.
SO LET'S GO AND COUNT THOSE ON THE SCREEN ONE.
KEEP THEM UP BECAUSE I GOT A CAKE COUNT HERE FOR THREE, NO, 4, 4, 1.
AND THEN THOSE ON THE, UH, THE DIOCESE.
SO ANY, UH, WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT, ANOTHER MOTION.
I THINK, I THINK WE GO BACK TO MY ORIGINAL MOTION, RIGHT? CAUSE YOU AMENDED.
SO WE'RE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL NOTION OR WHATEVER.
WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE OR, UH, OH, I MADE A SUBSTITUTION.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER, UH, DO YOU WANNA, IS IT THE, AS THE AMENDMENT READS, ARE YOU, DID YOU, I JUST ADDED IT IN FRONT OF THE AMENDMENT AS IT READS IN THE TABLE.
I JUST ADDED THAT, UH, THE LANDOWNER MAY SUGGEST AND ART SHALL PREPARE AN ANNUAL PROGRAMMING PLAN FOR THE DEDICATED PARKLAND, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
UH, SO I MADE A SUBSTITUTION RIGHT AT THE BAT.
WE HAD A SECOND FOR YEARS WHO DID THAT
[04:20:01]
COME FROM? YANEZ PALITO.WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON IT.
UM, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, COMMISSIONER SNYDER THAT MOTION.
SO, UM, I'M JUST DOING THIS FROM MEMORY, UH, APPLICANT MAY SUGGEST.
AND DO WE WANT TO SAY, UH, PART MAY INSTEAD OF PART SHALL, SO WE'RE NOT, THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT WANT PROGRAMMING.
THIS DOESN'T REQUIRE THEM TO COME UP WITH SOME PROGRAM, SO, OH, OKAY.
DO WE HAVE A S UH, CLEARLY RESTATE THAT ONE MORE TIME? MAY SAY IT ONE MORE TIME.
APPLICANT MAY SUGGEST AND PARD, WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE WAS PART MAY INSTEAD OF SHELL.
PARDON? MAY YOU MAY IMPLEMENT? I, SORRY, I CAN'T.
SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT? UH, AMENDMENT I'LL SECOND.
WE HAVE A SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER SAY, WE NEED ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS OR CAN WE GO MOVE TO A VOTE COMMISSIONER COX, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS AMENDMENT JUST REAL QUICK? SO WHEN, WHEN, WHEN A THING SAYS, SHALL PREPARE, IF THERE'S NO PROGRAMMING THAT BARD, ONCE THEIR ANNUAL PROGRAMMING PLAN IS NO PROGRAM.
SO, SO I DON'T THINK THAT THE REQUIREMENT TO PREPARE AN ANNUAL PROGRAM PLAN, FORCES THEM TO HAVE PROGRAMMING.
IT'S JUST A PLAN THAT SAYS, WHAT IS YOUR PROGRAMMING IF WE HAVE IT? AND SO THAT'S A COMMON MISCONCEPTION AND REGULATIONS AND STUFF.
SO I JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT, THAT IT IT'S KIND OF UNNECESSARY.
ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS AMENDMENT BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT FOR AGAINST, ARE WE ALLOWING ADDITIONAL SUBSTITUTIONS? WE HAVE, YOU CAN, YOU CAN AMEND THIS AMENDMENT.
YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OR A SUBSTITUTION IF YOU WISH.
SO I, I WILL AMEND IT, UM, UH, TO SAY, UH, I, WE DIDN'T GET SPECIFICS FROM STAFF, SO PERHAPS WE COULD GET CLARIFICATION AND DO THAT, BUT I WILL AMEND IT TO SAY A BIANNUAL SO THAT IT'S ON A MORE, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR TYPICAL PLANNING CYCLES ARE.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD GO FOR.
I UNDERSTOOD THEIR TYPICAL BUDGETING CYCLE PLANS SO THAT THEY'RE NOT HAVING TO DO IT EVERY YEAR, PER SE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE PUTTING THIS BI-ANNUAL INSTEAD OF ANNUAL.
SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO MAKE THIS A BIANNUAL REQUIREMENT INSTEAD OF ANNUAL? DOES IT STILL SAY SHELL? ARE WE STILL STICKING WITH THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE? WE'RE COX'S BUT, OKAY.
I WILL GO WITH THE SHALL LANGUAGE.
THERE SHOULD EVEN IF THE PLAN SAYS THERE ARE NO PROGRAMMING FEATURES LAST 24.
WE WERE STILL ON COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER'S AMENDMENT.
SO THE WAY THIS IS GOING TO WORK IS YOU WERE AMENDING THE AMENDMENT OF COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, WHICH WAS MAY AND MAY.
SO WE NEED TO GO, UM, WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THAT FIRST, AND THEN YOU CAN BRING IN YOUR BI-ANNUAL IF YOU, OR WE COULD DO IT NOW, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON SCHNEIDER'S AMENDMENT AFTER WE GET DONE VOTING ON THE BIANNUAL.
SO I'D SAY WE CAN GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE BIENNIAL IF WE WANT IT'S IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
LET'S SAY WE GO AHEAD AND PUT IT TO A VOTE TO, UM, SO DID WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THIS BIANNUAL ENVIRONMENT? YES.
BIANNUAL MEANS TWICE A YEAR, YOU KNOW, WITH AN E WHAT IS EVERY TWO YEARS IS EVERY TWICE A YEAR AS BIANNUAL, SO, OKAY.
SO IS THAT WHAT YOU INTENDED COMMISSIONER MOTION EVERY TWO YEARS, UNLESS WE CAN TAKE A QUICK BREAK FOR STAFF INPUT AND SEE HOW THEY TYPICALLY, OR SOMEBODY KNOWS HOW THEY TYPICALLY RUN THEIR PARKS PROGRAMMING.
WE ARE GOING TO KEEP BLAZING ALONG.
UM, SO LET'S GO AND DO WE, DID WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THE BIENNIAL? EVERY TWO YEAR REQUIREMENT? WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY OPPOSITION GOING AND TAKING A VOTE? NO DISCUSSION, NO OPPOSITION.
WE'RE TAKING A VOTE ON THE BI-ANNUAL MAY MARY? NO, NO, NO.
WE'RE ONLY VOTING ON THE BIENNIAL REQUIREMENT EVERY TWO YEARS.
IT'S THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.
THAT'S ALL OF OUR VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT TO MY AMENDMENT.
YES, BUT WE'RE NOT VOTING ON YOUR
[04:25:01]
AMENDMENT YET? ONLY THE BIANNUAL REQUIREMENT.SO LET'S GO AND SEE THE VOTES.
UH, WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 1 1, AND THEN IT DOES ON THE DIOCESE.
WELL YOU CAN JUST SAY, ALL RIGHT, SO THOSE, SO YOU'RE STANDING HERE.
SO THAT ONE IT'S AT PAST EIGHT, UH, 8 1 3, RIGHT? I GET THAT RIGHT? YES.
SO WE MADE THIS A BI-ANNUAL EVERY TWO YEAR REQUIREMENT.
NOW WE GO BACK TO THE AMENDMENT, UH, WITH COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SHEA.
AND THIS WAS TO APPLICANT MAY SUGGEST AND PARD MAY PREPARE, AND THEN WE KEEP THE REST OF THE LANGUAGE AS IT IS.
UH, SO GO AHEAD AND YOU WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT, MR. COX, JUST WANT TO THROW A SHOT ACROSS THE BOW WHEN YOU SAY MAY AND A REGULATION OR AN ORDINANCE IT'S OPTIONAL.
SO BY APPROVING MAY, WE MAY HAVE PROGRAMMING IN THE PARK WITHOUT AN APPROVED PROGRAMMING PLAN.
SO I JUST WANT TO THROW THAT OUT THERE.
SO YOU'RE SPEAKING AGAINST SOUNDS LIKE, UM, SO, ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S ANY SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT.
ANY OPPOSITION, GO AHEAD AND TAKING A VOTE ON THIS IS A COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER'S AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN AMENDMENT.
AND THIS IS TO APPLICANT, MAY SUGGEST IN PART MAY PREPARE, UH, THE, WHAT WE MODIFIED AS THE BIENNIAL PLAN.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND SEE THOSE ON THE, UH, AND THE SCREEN GO AND GIVE ME YOUR VOTES.
I'M STILL COUNTING COMMISSIONER HOWARD.
DO YOU WANT TO GO AND RAISE YOUR COLOR? OKAY.
AND THOSE, THE DIOCESE, UM, IN FAVOR, I'LL KEEP IT, UH, UH, AGAINST.
SO THAT ONE FAILS SORT OF BACK TO THE ORIGINAL COMMISSIONER IS, ARE YES.
IF MY UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT SINCE MR. MICHEL, HIS AMENDMENT WAS AN AMENDMENT TO, UH, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER'S AND CHRISTIAN SHIERS FIELD, THAT ONE IS GONE.
SO I'M GOING TO REMAKE A MOTION TO ADD THE TWO YEARS LANGUAGE EVERY TWO YEARS.
LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THAT, UH, ON, ON THE DAYAS YES.
SO IS THAT AN AMENDMENT TO MY THAT'S AN AMENDMENT TO YOUR INITIAL ORIGINAL NOTION? YES.
LEARN A LOT OF STRATEGY HERE THIS EVENING.
SO THIS IS THE VOTE FOR THE, AND REQUIREMENT ONE TO GO AHEAD AND RAISE YOUR COLORS ON COUNTING ALL AT ONCE NOW.
AND THEN, UH, THAT WAS ON THE DAYAS, UH, THOSE IN FAVOR, THOSE AGAINST THOSE NEUTRAL YOU'RE IN FAVOR.
ALL RIGHT, SO THAT MOTION PASSES AGAIN.
NOW LET'S GO BACK TO GO AND FOR ALL OF US HERE, COMMISSIONER COX, WE'RE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT.
UH, CAN YOU GO AND RESTATE THAT ONE MORE TIME AND WE'LL TAKE A VOTE ON IT.
SO WITH MOOSE SELLERS AMENDMENT, UM, IT IS THE LANDOWNER MAY SUGGEST IN PART, SHALL PREPARE A BIENNIAL PARK PROGRAMMING PLAN WHERE THE DEDICATED PARKLAND, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
SO, UM, DO I HEAR ANY OPPOSITIONS TO MOVING FORWARD WITH THE VOTE? NO OPPOSITION.
LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT.
SHOW ME, OR SHOW ME YOUR COLORS.
SO WE, UH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.
AZHAR VERY QUICK QUESTION FOR ALL OF US.
I'M LOOKING AT THE TIME HERE WHERE WE SEVEN, WE STILL HAVE A BUNCH OF AMENDMENTS TO GO, AND WE HAVE DO A DISCUSSION PIECES AFTER THIS.
DO WE WANT TO TAKE THOSE TWO DISCUSSION CASES TODAY? AND IF WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE OUR MIND AT MIDNIGHT, BUT MAKE SOMEONE SIT THERE FOR WHATEVER NUMBER OF HOURS IT'S NOT.
SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO THOSE AS DISCUSSION WE SHIPPED OUT.
UM, SO WE ARE, IT WILL TAKE TILL MIDNIGHT TO GET THROUGH ALL OF THESE REMAINING DISCUSSION CASES AT THE RATE WE'RE GOING.
UH, WE WILL NOT PROBABLY GET TO ANY INDIVIDUAL, UM, UH, AMENDMENTS THIS EVENING.
WE'LL BE LUCKY IF WE GET THROUGH THE WORKING GROUP.
SO, UH, BUT WE DO HAVE TWO OTHER CASES THEY'VE BEEN WAITING HERE PATIENTLY.
SO, UH, I'D ENTERTAIN MOTIONS TO, UH, FROM THE COMMISSIONERS ON, UH,
[04:30:01]
YOU KNOW, CHANGING THE ORDER AT THIS POINT, ANDREW, UH, MR. RIVERA, ANY, ANY COMMENTS AS TO WHAT WE'RE ABOUT TO DO OR ANY INPUT CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, MESON, HENDRICK, OR AT THIS POINT IT'S TOTALLY WITHIN THE PRODUCTION COMMISSION.SO WHO WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION? I THINK I'M FINE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WILL A HUNDRED PERCENT TECH TO THEM.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE THAT IS EVERYONE'S INTENTION.
LET'S JUST CONTINUE TO GET THIS DONE AND GET THROUGH THEM.
AND I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE EXTEND OUR MEETING TO, TO MIDNIGHT.
I'VE GOT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX.
UH, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON EXTENDING TILL MIDNIGHT.
UH, LET'S SEE THOSE ON THE DAYAS, UH, GLENN, SHOW ME YOUR COLORS.
SHOULD YOU KEEP IT? UH, YEAH, KEEP THEM UP.
I'M COUNTING 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1 2.
AND THEN, UH, THAT IS ON THE DICE IN FAVOR.
I'M GOING TO MIDNIGHT THAT FAILS.
SO WE NEED TO PICK ANOTHER TIME.
UM, WE ARE AT, UH, 10 40, UH, ANYONE WE'VE GOT 20 MINUTES LEFT ON THE 21 MINUTES LEFT ON THE CLOCK.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND OUR TIME TO 1130.
SO I'M GOING TO GET YOU ALL SPOKE AT THE SAME TIME.
I'M GOING TO GO INTO RIGHT FROM THAT COMMISSION, UH, VICE CHAIR, UH, 1130, HAVE A SECOND FOR 1130, UH, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.
AND THEN, UH, ON THE DAYAS, UH, THOSE IN FAVOR THREE.
SO WE'VE DECIDED TO PROCEED ON WITH THIS CASE.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST WHERE WE CAN, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND SEE IF WE CAN PICK UP THE PACE SO WE CAN GET THOSE OTHER CASES IN THIS EVENING.
UH, WHICH ITEM ARE WE ON LAST YEAR ON 10.
OH, YOU KNOW WHAT, UM, I HATE TO DO THIS, BUT DOES ANYBODY NEED A BREAK HERE ON THE DIOCESE? UM, WE'VE BEEN GOING AT IT FOR AWHILE.
UH LET'S I KNOW WE'RE AT A TIME PINCH, BUT I THINK SOME OF US UP HERE NEED A BREAK, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, LET'S GO AND, UM, TAKE A RECESS UNTIL 10 46.
IT IS 10 47 AND WE GOT A LOT OF WORK TO DO.
WE CAN, UH, BRING FOLKS BACK, TRY TO GET QUORUM, SEE WHAT THE CONSULTANTS ARE.
UM, SO IF WE COULD HAVE, FOR THOSE IN THE VIRTUAL REALM, UM, YOU CAN COME ON BACK, UH, OR, OKAY.
SO, UM, REAL QUICK, UH, WE'VE HAD A REQUEST TO SEE IF WE COULD, UH, BY THE APPLICANT.
DO WE, UM, CAN WE, UH, GO AHEAD AND SEND, UH, MR. RICHARD SETTLED, WE'LL BE HERE, BUT DO WE, CAN WE SEND A CONSULTANT TEAM HOME OR ARE THERE PARTICULAR AREAS THAT WE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS, UH, CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? UM, WE ALREADY CLEARED ALL OF THE, UH, TRAFFIC ITEMS, ANY OTHER AREAS THAT WE MIGHT NEED SOME EXPERTISE OR, UM, CAN WE GO AHEAD AND LET THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE CONSULTANT TEAM GO AGAIN? UH, MR. SETTLE WILL STILL BE HERE, ANY OPPOSITION TO THAT.
SO I THINK, UH, WITH THAT, UH, WELL, WE'LL, YOUR TEAM IS FREE TO GO HOME.
WELL, LET'S, UH, WE HAVE A QUORUM.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET BACK AT IT.
I THINK WE WERE AT, UH, UH, ITEM 10 AND WE PULLED THIS FOR DISCUSSION AND, UM, AND I'M NOT QUITE, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF WHY, BUT THIS IS, UH, LET'S GO IN THAT CHAIR.
GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.
I, I PULLED THIS, UM, I'VE LOOKED AT IT AGAIN, UH, RE RE-READ IT A FEW TIMES.
[04:35:01]
UH, AND UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE HAS AN OBJECTION, I WOULD JUST MOVE THAT WE ADOPTED AS PROPOSED BY THE WORKING GROUP.LET'S JUST TAKE A, WE GOT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CZAR.
UM, IF WE WANT TO DOT THAT AND BEAT A NUMBER 10, UH, AS WRITTEN BY THE WORKING GROUP.
SO WE'VE GOT NINE AND WE'VE GOT TWO.
DID YOU HAVE A POINT OF, OKAY.
YEAH, SO WE HAVE 11, THE VICE-CHAIR IS UP THE DICE.
SO THAT MOVES WE'VE, UH, DISPOSED OF THAT ITEM.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO ITEM B 11.
UM, OH, THIS IS THE MAINTENANCE PLAN.
GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER SHINER.
I ASKED THAT THIS GET PULLED TO, AND ON THIS ONE, I GUESS I WOULD JUST LIKE SOME MORE DISCUSSION OR CLARIFICATION FROM THE WORKING GROUP ABOUT WHETHER IT'S AND I SEE IN THE NOTES THAT IT MATCHES THE GROWTH HUD AGREEMENT.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE A BETTER, UH, RECOMMENDATION IF THERE WERE SOME SORT OF LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT WE, UH, ASKED THE, UH, THE OWNER AND THE CITY TO GET INTO, IF LEVEL ONE, IF THE LEVEL ONE STANDARD IS SUFFICIENT.
I JUST SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.
SO, REAL QUICK, YOU HAVE A, WE CAN ASK STAFF OR THE WORKING GROUP.
DO YOU WANT TO ATTEND POINT YOUR CLARIFYING QUESTION TO ANY PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL? I THINK TO THE WORKING GROUP.
AND IT MAY BE THAT THAT RAGE IS A POINT WE WANT TO PUNT IT TO STAFF, BUT THIS MAY BE WORKING GROUP.
DO YOU WANT TO HAVE AN ANSWER FOR COMMISSIONER CIDER? I THINK IT'S A GOOD CLARIFYING QUESTION.
AND CERTAINLY PART CAN CHIME IN HERE TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT LEVEL ONE IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE.
THAT PART HAS FOUR CITY PARKS.
SO BY MAKING THE DEVELOPER RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING AND FUNDING LEVEL ONE MAINTENANCE THAT SHOULD ENCOMPASS ESSENTIALLY ALL OF THE NECESSARY, REQUIRED PARK MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES, THAT PART TYPICALLY DOES IN THEIR HIGHEST MAINTAINED PARKS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
BUT BART CAN CERTAINLY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG THOUGH.
SO KIND OF SCHNEIDER, DO YOU WANT TO HEAR? YEAH, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM PARDON AND ALSO ON THE PART ABOUT WHETHER IT WOULD BE WHETHER THIS IS SUFFICIENT OR DO WE NEED SOME SORT OF A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT THAT BINDS THE OWNERS AND SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNEES? UH, I APOLOGIZE, COMMISSIONERS.
I W I DIDN'T HEAR THE FIRST PART OF THE QUESTION.
UM, THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION ON THE LEVEL LEVELS LEVEL ONE THROUGH LEVEL FOUR, I BELIEVE IT IS THAT THAT IS CORRECT.
AND I GUESS, UH, WHAT I HEARD COMMUNITY SCHNEIDER WAS ADDING, IS THERE ANY OTHER LEGAL LANGUAGE THAT YOU WOULD ADD TO THIS TO MAKE IT MORE BINDING IT'S OR IS THE AMENDMENT WRITTEN WELL ENOUGH? OKAY.
COULD YOU PLEASE READ THE AMENDMENT? I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
LANDOWNER SHALL KEEP AND MAINTAIN THE CITY PARKLAND WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES IN A GOOD STATE OF APPEARANCE AND REPAIR, AND TO AT LEAST A LEVEL ONE STANDARD BASED ON CURRENT CITY PARK MAINTENANCE STANDARDS AT THE SOLE EXPENSE OF THE LANDOWNER, ITS SUCCESSOR AND ASSIGNS LEVEL ONE INCLUDES SPECIFIC MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS BY PARK FOR TURF CARE, FERTILIZER, IRRIGATION, LITTER CONTROL, GRAFFITI PRUNING DISEASE, AND PEST MANAGEMENT TREE AND PLANT CARE, SECURITY LIGHTS, FLAG VOLTS, PARKED SIGNAGE TRAILS, AND SUSTAINABILITY.
AND, UM, I TH I THINK, UM, WE'D PROBABLY WANT TO LOOK AT IT BEFORE, UM, FINALLY SIGNING OFF, BUT IT SOUNDS GREAT AND DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE LAND OWNER, UH, EVENTUALLY WILL BE PARRED FOR THE WATERFRONT PORTION.
UM, LANDOWNER OF THE REMAINDER WOULD BE DIFFERENT ENTITY.
SO COULD WE MAKE A MOTION AND WE NEED TO CLARIFY OUR LANGUAGE? YUP.
I WAS GOING TO DO THAT ON MY MOTION.
AND THE THING I WAS THINKING OF COMMISSIONER IS THAT BECAUSE THE PROPERTY LINE, AS THE APPLICANT HAS DESCRIBED, IT EXTENDS UNDER THE WATER LINE AS PART OF THEIR CREDIT WITH THE BOARDWALK THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR ON THAT, THAT IT INCLUDES THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY, THAT IT CONTINUE INTO THE WATER SO THAT THE WATER LINE IS BEING CLIPPED UP.
YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT'S THEIR INTENT ANYWAY, BUT WITH OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL GUY, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD CLARIFY.
SO, SO MY MOTION WOULD BE, UM, REPLACING
[04:40:01]
THE WORD LANDOWNER WITH THE WORD APPLICANT, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE IS SPECIFICALLY DEFINED.THE LANDOWNER MAY CHANGE WHEN THE, WHEN THE PARKS GETS DEDICATED.
SO IT WOULD SAY APPLICANT SHALL KEEP AND MAINTAIN THE CITY PARKLAND WITHIN THE POD BOUNDARIES IN A GOOD STATE OF APPEARANCE AND REPAIR INTO AT LEAST A LEVEL ONE STANDARD BASED ON CURRENT CITY PARK MAINTENANCE STANDARDS AT THE SOLE EXPENSE OF THE APPLICANT, ITS SUCCESSOR AND ASSIGNS.
CAN I JUST SUGGEST THAT? I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT LAWYERS, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE, WE'RE SORT OF PARSING THIS AND THAT.
OUR PURPOSE IS TO GIVE THE INTENT TO, TO THE LAWYERS WHO WILL ACTUALLY WRITE THE CODES ORDINANCE.
AND I THINK AS LONG AS CITY STAFF UNDERSTAND THE INTENT AND CITY COUNCIL UNDERSTAND THE INTENT, I THINK WE'RE OKAY.
WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT, AND THAT'S, AND THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.
I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS GOING TO GO INTO LIKE A 50 PAGE CONTRACT.
SO THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY THE CONTRACT BETWEEN ARMORED AND THE APPLICANT THAT THIS IS GOING TO GO INTO A MUCH LONGER LEGALLY STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT THAT THIS USES FOR THESE TYPES.
UH, SO DO WE HAVE ANY MORE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS BEFORE WE, UH, REESE, I WANT TO GET, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COB, UH, ANY ADDITIONS TO THIS? WE HAVEN'T MADE THE MOTION GOT A SECOND.
ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS ON THE LANGUAGE BEFORE WE GO AHEAD AND RESTATE THE MOTION AND GET A SECOND? JUST TRYING TO AVOID ANY AMENDMENTS, IF WE CAN KINDA WORK TOGETHER TO COBBLE SOMETHING TOGETHER.
SO ARE WE GOOD WITH WEST BEING PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER COX? ALL RIGHT.
UH, WANT TO GO AND STAY AT ONE MORE? SO YOU'RE GOING TO CHANGE, UH, APPLICANT, UH, REPLACE LANDOWNER WITH APPLICANT, AND THEN IN THE FIRST CASE, AND THEN ON THE SECOND TIME, APPLICANTS MENTIONED HAVE APPLICANT OR SUCCESSORS IN FACT, YEAH, THE SAME EXACT LANGUAGE.
JUST REPLACE THE WORD LANDOWNER WITH APPLICANT.
SO WE'RE JUST REPLACING LANDOWNER WITH APPLICANT.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER? AND, UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO, UH, MOVING FORWARD WITH THE VOTE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THAT MOTION.
UH, SO GO, UH, LOOKING AT THE SCREEN AND SHOW ME CUT.
THAT'S NINE AND ON THE DIOCESE IN FAVOR.
LET'S MOVE TO WHICH ONE'S NEXT TO YOU TO KEEP ME STRAIGHT.
DOES THAT BE 14? DID WE DO 10? WE DID.
WE, UH, UH, WE DIDN'T NEED, UH, WE KEPT IT AS IT WAS.
YEAH, WE, THAT ONE MOVED VERY FAST.
SO NOW WE'RE INTO THE SETBACKS.
THIS ONE, WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ON.
DO WE HAVE ANY MORE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, SIR? CHAIR, A PROCESS QUESTION, OR POINT OF BOARD? UM, DO WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO VOTE ON NUMBER 10 SINCE IT WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE CONSENT WE VOTED, WE VOTED ON IT.
YOU KEEP SAYING, BE NUMBER 14, STUCK ON THE AGENDA.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? THERE WAS A SCHEMATIC THAT WAS PROVIDED THAT KIND OF SHOWED THE HEIGHT IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE BRIDGE.
UM, I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH IT'LL HELP.
IT HELPED ME A LITTLE, UH, WE COULD PULL THAT UP, BUT THAT'LL TAKE A LITTLE TIME.
DO WE HAVE, LET'S GO AND START.
WE HAVE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THIS, UH, VICE CHAIR.
UM, IF THE, THE WORKING GROUP COULD JUST EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT THIS ONE, LIKE THE 400 FEET AND THE, THE 20 FOOT HEIGHT DIFFERENCE AND THE RESIDENTIAL AS A PER PROHIBITED USE, I CAN SPEAK TO THE NUMBERS AND THEN HOPEFULLY, MAYBE COMMISSIONER MOOSE TODDLER WILL SPEAK TO OUR CONVERSATIONS ABOUT RESIDENTIAL USE.
BUT, UM, SO THERE WAS CONCERN EXPRESSED BEFORE ABOUT THE 400 FOOT RADIUS.
AND, AND RICHARD HAD SAID, IT'S BIGGER THAN A FOOTBALL FIELD.
IF YOU ACTUALLY TAKE THE 400 FOOT RADIUS FROM THE NORTHERN MOST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED VARIOUS SCHEMATICS SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF BUILDINGS ON THE SITE.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS THAT IN FRONT OF THEM, BUT THE 400 FOOT RADIUS ESSENTIALLY WOULD IMPACT THE BUILDING THAT IS CLOSEST TO THE BRIDGE.
THE NORTHERN HALF OF THAT BUILDING WOULD BE WITHIN THE 400 FOOT RADIUS THAT FACES
[04:45:01]
TO CONGRESS BRIDGE.AND THEN THERE'S A SECOND BUILDING JUST TO THE EAST OF THAT.
AND I CAN SHARE MY SCREEN IF IT HELPS WITH THIS CONVERSATION.
AND IT JUST CLIPS THE VERY, VERY NORTHERN CORNER OF THAT BUILDING FACING CONGRESS BRIDGE.
SO THE IDEA IS THAT BALCONIES WINDOWS THAT MAY BE OPEN, WHATEVER THAT ARE ACTUALLY FACING CONGRESS AVENUE BRIDGE, WHERE THE BAT HABITAT IS YOU WOULD NOT HAVE RESIDENTIAL VIEWS AND, AND COMMISSIONER MOOSE SAW, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THE ISSUE WITH RESIDENTS.
SO I, IN RESEARCHING THIS, I REACHED OUT TO CONSERVANCY AUSTIN, BATT REFUGE, AND MERLIN TUTTLE CONSERVANCY.
THERE IS NOT EXACTLY A CONSENSUS AMONG THE EXPERTS REGARDING THIS.
AND THE BIG CONCERN IS THAT THERE'S BEEN NO STUDY CONDUCTED.
AND SO THEY, WE KNOW THAT AT CERTAIN TIMES WHEN THE COLONY THERE AND IT'S MATING SEASON THAT CERTAIN NOISES, LIGHTS, ET CETERA, ARE BIG DISTURBANCES, THE WORST OF WHICH IS GETTING LIGHTS OR NOISES SHINED INTO THE CREVICES UNDERNEATH THE BRIDGE.
AND SO MOST OF WHAT WE TRY TO DO IS DISCOURAGE USE THAT WOULD DRAW HUMAN ACTIVITY INTO THAT AREA.
SO THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER WOULD HELP REDIRECT PEOPLE KIND OF AWAY FROM THAT, BUT STILL BE ABLE TO VIEW IT, THAT KIND OF THING.
SO THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ALL OF THIS PROJECT'S IMPACT WILL BE.
THE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN TERRIFIC AND THEY'RE, UM, ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSERVATION CONSULTANT HAS BEEN TERRIFIC AND THEY ARE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION BUILDING DESIGN AND THINGS LIKE THAT IN TERMS OF WIND DRAFTS AND HOW THAT MIGHT CLIMATE EFFECT AND CHANGE THINGS.
UM, BUT THIS WAS ONE MORE LITTLE MEASURE.
THE OTHER THING IS THAT MOSTLY WE'RE EX WE'RE EXPECTING, AND OBVIOUSLY THIS COULD CHANGE FOR THE DEVELOPER IT'S SITE PLAN, BUT THAT A LOT OF THE GROUND FLOOR SPACE ON THE PROJECT WOULD END UP BEING COMMERCIAL MOSTLY ANYWAY.
AND SO GRAYSON THE ENGINEER GUY KIND OF DRAFTED UP THE NUMBERS TO CAPTURE THE INTENT, WHICH IS THAT WE JUST DON'T WANT THOSE RESIDENTIAL LIVABLE SPACES BEING UNDERNEATH THE BRIDGE.
WE WANT TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BUFFER THERE.
UM, AND THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD OFFER A LITTLE BIT MORE PROTECTION, BUT STILL GIVE THE DEVELOPER SOME ALLOWANCE AND PRESUMING THAT THERE MAY BE A LITTLE BIT OF DISAGREEMENT AMONG THE EXPERTS AS TO WHAT'S BEST, UM, FOR THE BAT COLONY, BECAUSE THEY DON'T REALLY KNOW, BUT WE KNOW THAT THE BACK COLONY HAS A LOT OF ADVANTAGES FOR HUMANS.
AND JUST ONE LITTLE TIDBIT TO ADD TO THAT, TO THE DEVELOPER'S CREDIT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE RAISING ALL OF THE STRUCTURES ON THIS SITE.
AND SO I THINK THAT THIS AMENDMENT MAY END UP BEING MOOT FROM, FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, ONCE THEY GET INTO SITE PLANNING, BUT AT LEAST THE INTENT WAS TO HAVE IT IN THERE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THAT BAD HABIT.
UH, SO I THINK I FINALLY GET WHAT'S GOING ON HERE THAT, UH, WE JUST DON'T LIVE AT THE RESIDENTIAL USES IN THAT LOWER AREA, UM, IN THAT 400 FEET.
UM, DID WE WANT TO MAKE ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, VICE CHAIR? DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL, I GUESS I'M STILL QUESTIONING THE PROHIBITION OF RESIDENTIAL USES BECAUSE IF IT'S CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE AT NIGHT TIME, THERE WOULD BE BARS AND RESTAURANTS AND THERE ALREADY ARE.
SO I, I JUST, I'M, I'M WORRIED ABOUT LIMITING, UH, USE WHEN WE'RE ALREADY ASKING THE DEVELOPER TO PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT WE'RE REDUCING THE AREA IN WHICH THAT COULD HAPPEN.
AND THIS WOULD NOT JUST AFFECT THIS SITE, BUT ALSO IN THE SOUTH, THE, THE OTHER SIDE OF CONGRESS, IF YOU DRAW THAT 400 FOOT RADIUS, THERE'S A PORTION OF THE AREA THERE TOO.
THAT WOULD, IF THIS PAST WOULD POTENTIALLY BE PROHIBITED FROM RESIDENTIAL USES.
CAN I COMMENT ON THAT? YEAH, GO AHEAD.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO RESPOND TO THE COMMENT.
UM, AND AS WE POINTED OUT, THERE'S ALSO A HEIGHT LIMITATION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
SO IT'S NOT COMPLETELY PROHIBITIVE.
IT'S JUST THAT LOWER AIR, WHICH WOULD, IS GOING TO BE USED MOSTLY FOR COMMERCIAL TYPE STUFF.
SO IF THE BUILDING'S THIS TALL, THE PART THAT'S BEING LIMITED IS NOT THIS WHOLE AREA IN THE 400, IT'S ONLY THIS LOWER AREA HERE AND YOU'RE RIGHT.
IT'LL BE COMMERCIALLY BARS AND STUFF, BUT, UM, THAT LOWER AREA FOR RESIDENTIAL IS ALSO BECAUSE WE CAN'T CONTROL THAT.
AT LEAST THERE'S SOME SORT OF CONTROL WHEN IT COMES TO BARS AND STUFF LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN HAVE, UM, WHAT, UH, RULES, REGULATIONS, EVERYTHING FOR THE, FOR THE COMMERCIAL TENANTS.
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO RESIDENTIAL, YOU HAVE BALCONIES, YOU HAVE LIGHTS COME ON AND OFF, AND YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THAT.
[04:50:01]
THAT HEIGHT, THEN YOU'RE FREE TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT.I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MOTION AND MOVE THIS TO, UH, MOVE THIS FORWARD.
I'LL JUST MAKE A MOTION, UH, FOR THE AMENDMENT CAUSE IT'S WRITTEN.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, MICHELLE, OUR SECOND, THIS MOTION, UH, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK OR ANY OPPOSITION TO MOVE? UH, LET'S UH, COMMISSIONER, IT'S OUR SPEAKING IN FAVOR OR AGAINST I'M FEELING THE SAME NEUTRAL AGAINST, AND I CAN GO AHEAD OR SOMEBODY IN FAVOR GOING TO SPEAK.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VOTE, BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY WORDS TO SHARE, YOU CAN DO IT NOW.
I JUST WANT TO QUICK WE SAY, I, I DON'T THINK WE FULLY HAVE THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT THIS DOES TO THE OVERALL RESIDENTIAL COORDINATOR OF THE PROJECT.
IT LEAVES THAT BUILDING WEST OF THE GRADE STEPS, IT'S COMPLETELY WITHIN THAT RADIUS.
I WAS LOOKING AT GOOGLE MAPS WITHOUT HONESTLY, KNOWING HOW THE GRADE FITS IN WHAT THIS DOES TO THE ACTUAL, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WAITING FOR THIS JUST BECAUSE I DO NOT THINK I HAVE THE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION FOR THIS.
I ACTUALLY DO THINK WE HAVE A DECENT IDEA OF WHAT THE IMPACT OF THIS IS BECAUSE IN THE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE REFLECTIVITY OF THE GLASS, THE REASON THE DEVELOPER WAS AGREEABLE TO 40 FEET ABOVE THE STRUCTURE HEIGHT IS BECAUSE THEY WANTED THE REFLECTIVITY CHANGE IN THE GLANCE TO TAKE PLACE BETWEEN KIND OF THE BASE OF THE TOWERS WHERE MOST OF THOSE RETAIL AND KIND OF LOBBY AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES AND SPACES ARE.
AND THEN THE HIGHER REFLECTIVITY GLASS WOULD BE ABOVE THAT 40 FOOT LIMIT, WHICH WOULD BE OFFICE RESIDENTIAL, THAT SORT OF THING.
SO IN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A SEPARATE ITEM, WE ALREADY KIND OF GENERALLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE DESIGN PRINCIPLES HERE ARE GOING TO HAVE A MORE OF THOSE RETAIL USES WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE FIRST 40 FEET AND THEN THE OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL POTENTIALLY HOTEL, IT'S GOING TO BE ABOVE THAT.
AND SO I THINK THE IMPACT, I THINK, I THINK THE WORKING GROUP BELIEVES THAT THE IMPACT OF THIS AMENDMENT IS REALLY JUST AN EXTRA LAYER OF PROTECTION, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE WHAT THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO DO.
CAN WE GO AND MOVE THIS TO A VOTE? ANY OPPOSITION HEARING NONE.
LET'S GO OUT AND SEE THOSE ON THE DAYAS, UH, VOTING ON THIS AMENDMENT FROM THE WORKING GROUP.
UH, DOESN'T JUST SHOW ME YOUR COLOR.
I'LL COUNT THEM A FINISHED PRODUCT.
ONE THAT'S THE OTHER 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, IS THAT YELLOW OR, OR GREEN? ACTUALLY YELLOW.
SO DO I HAVE THIS RIGHT? SOMEBODY HELPED ME OUT HERE.
SIX TWO, AND THEN 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, NO, WE'RE MISSING ONE.
IS THAT CORRECT? SOMEBODY CHECKED ME.
SO THE ABSTAINING SHOW ONE MORE TIME.
IF YOU'RE ABSTAINING IS THE YELLOW AND GREEN IS HARD.
SO IF YOU'RE A YELLOW, PLEASE SHOW.
AND THEN ON THE DIAS, UH, THOSE IN FAVOR, UH, TWO.
SO THAT'S, AND THAT IS AGAINST ONE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE ONTO THE NEXT ONE.
THIS IS THIS, OUR LAST ONE, RIGHT? OKAY.
SO, UH, THIS IS ON THE HOTEL AS A CONDITIONAL USE.
UH, ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS TRYING TO REMEMBER WHY WE PULLED THIS ONE? UH, YES.
I WAS JUST READING IN THE COMMENTS THAT THERE WAS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND THEN THE ALTERNATE.
AND SO IF THE WORKING GROUP COULD EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE.
UM, SO, UH, COMMISSIONER, WHICH HAD, HAD PROPOSED FOR, TO PROHIBIT HOTEL USE, AND WE WENT THROUGH A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.
WE ALSO HAD, UH, THE FOLKS FROM UNITED COME AND SPEAK WITH US, AND WE WENT BACK AND FORTH ON ALL THE REASONS TO COMPLETELY PROHIBIT IT.
AND WE CAME UP WITH REASONS WHY WE ENDED UP THINKING THAT WE SHOULD ACTUALLY THINK ABOUT LARGER REPERCUSSIONS FOR POTENTIAL ISSUES THAT COME COULD COME UP AS A HOTEL BEYOND JUST WHAT ONE PARTY THOUGHT WE THOUGHT THAT IT COULD BE.
[04:55:01]
FROM LIGHTING, FROM LIKE YOU TALKED ABOUT, BAR USE ALL THAT STUFF.AND WE CAME UP WITH THE POINT AND CONCERN THAT MAYBE IT SHOULD BE A CONDITIONAL USE, JUST SO WE HAVE AN OVERSIGHT OF HOW THAT HOTEL, UM, INTERACTS WITH FROM ON THE WATERFRONT, AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE THAT'S A PLACE, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE PEOPLE WHO, FROM KIDS, FAMILIES DURING THE DAYTIME, ALL THROUGH THE EVENING, UM, AND THE TRAFFIC THAT GENERATES AS A HOTEL USE AS A CONDITIONING USE WOULD ACTUALLY BRING IT BACK TO US FOR SOME DISCUSSION OVERSIGHT AND OTHER PARTIES WOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO CHIME IN VERSUS IF WE COMPLETELY HAD IT AS A PERMITTED USE, THEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE THAT OVERSIGHT.
UH, COULD I JUST CLARIFY WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ALTERNATE AND THE AMENDMENT NOW I'M READING I'M, I'M NOT SURE IF I'M GETTING THE DIFFERENCE.
I'LL CLARIFY THAT THAT WAS JUST ME NOT UPDATING THE COMMENT SECTION.
THE AMENDMENT WAS ORIGINALLY CONNOLLY'S AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS TO PROHIBIT HOTEL USE.
AND THEN WHEN WE DISCUSSED IT, I ENDED UP VOTING.
AND SO THE OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION I HAVE WAS THE, THE, UM, THE ISSUES WITH THE HOTEL THAT WE HEARD EARLIER FROM THE, FROM, DURING THE SPEAKERS.
I DON'T THINK IT WAS SO MUCH ABOUT WHAT COMMISSIONER SHEA WAS DESCRIBING.
WHAT WERE THE, WHAT WERE, I MEAN, CAN SOME INPUT FROM THE COMMISSIONERS ABOUT THE CONCERNS ON HOTEL? I SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH MY COUNCIL OFFICE, UM, AND IT KIND OF ILLUMINATED A FEW THINGS FOR ME.
UM, TH THE, THE LABOR UNIONS CONCERNS WERE, WERE, WERE VERY WELL-RECEIVED AND WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERNS.
UH, I THINK THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT LABOR UNIONS WILL WANT, UH, FROM, FROM DEVELOPERS.
AND WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY AS A LAND USE COMMISSION TO DICTATE ANY OF THOSE ITEMS. SO WHILE WHAT COMMISSIONERS SAY SHAY IS CORRECT, AND THIS ALLOWS A BIT GREATER, MORE CONTROL FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DETERMINE THE FINER ITEMS ABOUT HOTEL USE THE AUXILIARY BENEFIT OF MAKING IT A CONDITIONAL USE IS ALSO TO GIVE, UH, OTHER STAKEHOLDERS A BIT OF BREATHING ROOM TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE DEVELOPER, TO SEE IF THERE'S WAYS THEY COULD MAKE THAT HOTEL USE MORE PALATABLE TO, TO THEIR CONSTITUENCIES.
AND SO, UM, THERE'S A LAND USE PART OF THIS, BUT THEN THERE'S KIND OF AN AUXILIARY BENEFIT.
THAT'S EXTERNAL TO THE COMMISSION, UH, FOR, FOR MAKING IT A CONDITION.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS BEFORE WE, UH, TAKEN A MOTION ON THIS? I'D SEEN NONE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? LET'S, UH, COMMISSIONER AZHAR I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION THE WEEK YOU PUT THAT WAS A CONDITIONAL USE.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND COMMISSIONER COX? UM, UH, I'M GOING TO GO W UM, SUGGEST WE WOULD HAVE DISCUSSION ANY OPPOSITION.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE FROM THOSE ON THE SCREEN.
HELP ME OUT WITH THE COUNTY FOLKS HERE, THIS, UH, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
THAT LOOKS LIKE EVERYONE TO ME.
SO WE HAVE NINE, UH, AND THEN THAT WAS ON THE DICE IN FAVOR.
SO WE NEED TO WRAP THIS IN A BOW.
I THINK THE FINAL MOTION AND HELP STEER ME THROUGH THIS.
UH, UM, MR. RIVERA IS WE HAVE THE BASE MOTION, UM, AND WE HAVE OUR CONSENT, UH, WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS, AND WE HAVE THESE AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAVE JUST PASSED, UH, FROM THE WORKING GROUP, UM, AFTER DISCUSSION.
SO, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND TO COMPLETE THE EVENING.
I WOULD LIKE TO THIS, UH, UH, GO AHEAD AND SUSPEND ANY FURTHER, UH, MOTIONS.
UH, DO I HAVE A, UM, YES, I'M SORRY.
CAN I JUST MAKE A POINT? YOU KNOW, WE DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO GO TO ALL OF HER AMENDMENTS AND I, I DO APPRECIATE THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WENT INTO THEM.
AFFORDABILITY WANT, AT LEAST WE DISCUSSED, IF YOU WANT TO BRING IT UP, I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES CAN SUPPORT ME AT LEAST DOING THAT ONE, BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE MERITS OF IT.
OH, DO YOU HAVE, I'M SORRY, IS THERE ONE WE'VE LEFT OFF? I'M I'M CONFUSED.
AND, UH, SO LET'S, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO THE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS, AND WE'RE GOING TO MODIFY, I GUESS, THE RULES, CAUSE WE'RE JUST, UH, UM, WE NEED, I NEED A VOTE TO ONLY TAKE UP THAT ONE ITEM AND, AND, AND NOT, UH, DEAL WITH ALL THE OTHER, UH, INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
SO, UH, WELL, JUST TAKE UPSHAW AMENDMENT, UH, INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE, AND, UH, FOREGO ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS? DO I HAVE A SECOND? OKAY.
[05:00:01]
OR PRIMER.WOULD THIS BE TO WAIVE ALL OTHER INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS ARE, OR ONLY THE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED? YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT.
DO WE HAVE, LET ME ASK, DO WE HAVE OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT WISH TO MAKE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS? I SHOULD ASK THAT QUESTION.
ONE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE.
WE SAID 1130 AND WE STILL HAVE TWO CASES.
SO I TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WOULD BE NICE TO DO AT THIS POINT.
I, UM, I'M GOING TO GO, UH, UH, THIS IS TOUGH, BUT I THINK WE NEED, WE NEED TO GO AHEAD.
I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE, UM, STOP FOR THE EVENING AND GO AHEAD AND TAKE A, TAKE A VOTE ON OUR BASE WITH THE WORKING GROUP OF AMENDMENTS AND, AND, AND STOP FURTHER DISCUSSION.
I'LL SAY THIS AND I HAVE A SECOND FIRM.
I'LL SECOND THAT, AND I HATE TO DO THAT, BUT I THINK WE'VE GOT, UH, WE WE'VE DONE A GOOD JOB AND WE'VE ADDRESSED A WORK GROUP AMENDMENTS.
SO, UM, IF WE WANT TO KEEP GOING, WE CAN, WE JUST NEED TO EXTEND, BUT I'M GOING TO JUST PUT A MOTION OUT TO GIVE FOLKS THE OPTION TO VOTE ON.
UH, JUST GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON WHAT WE'VE DONE THIS FAR.
SO EVERYBODY CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU WOULD COME BACK AT OUR NEXT COMMISSION MEETINGS? NO, WE'RE, WE'LL BE DONE.
WE'RE JUST GONNA, WE'RE GONNA WRAP THIS UP, VOTE ON THE BASE WITH THE, THE AMENDMENTS THAT THE WORKING GROUP, UH, IT'S GONNA BE TO RESTATE THE BASE WITH THE OVERHEAR GROUP AMENDMENTS THAT WERE APPROVED AND WE'LL BE DONE FOR THE EVENING ON THIS ITEM.
SO PERSONAL AMENDMENTS WOULD, UM, I'M MAKING AN OFFER TO STOP ANY MORE DISCUSSION, NO INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO GO AND WRAP THIS THING UP AND MOVE TO THE OTHER CASES.
THAT'S WHAT I'M, IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN PUT A PAUSE ON THIS? HERE ARE THE OTHER CASES, AND THEN COME BACK.
IT'S JUST OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE PUBLIC CHECK CHAIR.
CAN I JUST MAKE A MORE THE RULES HERE? JUST DO SORT OF SPEED, ASSESS ALONG ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO WANT TO MAKE ONE ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL MOTION CAN GO AHEAD AND DO SO AT THIS TIME I'M MAKING THAT MOTION.
WE'RE GOING TO GO AND SUSPEND THE RULES.
I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND JUST, I'M GOING TO RESTATE WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD IS WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW ONE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT PER COMMISSIONER, UM, AND, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING.
AND SO I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MOOSE TALLER.
AND SO, UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THAT OPTION TO INCLUDE ONE PER COMMISSIONER.
UH, GO AHEAD AND SHOW ME YOUR COLORS.
UM, SEEING EVERYBODY'S UNANIMOUS, UH, WELL, ON THE SCREEN THAT WAS ON THE DIOCESE TO ALLOW ONE IT'S, UH, IT'S UNANIMOUS.
SO WHAT GOES ALONG WITH THAT IS, DO WE WANT FOR COMMISSIONER SHAY'S SUGGESTION AND OUR TIME YET WE HAVE TWO THINGS TO DO EXTEND TIME, AND WE WANT TO CONSIDER AGAIN, TAKING OUT THE OTHER CASES BEFORE WE FINISH.
UH, SO LET'S FIRST LET'S LET'S FIRST CONSIDER.
ARE WE GOING TO READ IT MAY TIE IN TO HOW MUCH TIME WE GIVE OURSELVES.
YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION, THE MOTION TO, UH, PUT A PAUSE ON THIS AND TAKE THE OTHER CASES.
I GUESS WE'LL TAKE IT OUT OF ORDER FROM WHAT WE ORIGINALLY DESIGNATED AND COME BACK TO WHERE WE LEFT OFF AND EXTEND TIME.
AND, WELL, THAT COULD BE A SEPARATE, I THINK WE'LL DO THAT AS A SEPARATE ONE.
WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SUSPEND ANY DISCUSSION ON THE ITEMS. B FIVE B THREE SEVEN, AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP ITEMS B ONE AND B TWO.
AND THAT ORDER IS THAT, IS THAT I THINK THAT'S FINE.
SO, UH, LET ME GO AHEAD AND SEE THE, DID WE GET A SECOND ON THAT? DID SOMEBODY SET THEIR AS COMMISSIONER CONNOR? OKAY.
LET'S GO ON VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR AND WE'RE NOT ABLE TO DISCUSS IT.
YES, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND VOTE.
I MEAN, GO AND DISCUSS TO GO AND DISCUSS THE ITEM.
I'D LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST, AND THAT'S WHY, BECAUSE WE'VE WORKED HARD THIS EVENING.
WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS AND WE CAN WRAP THIS UP AND WE'RE GOING TO JUMP TO OTHER CASES AND FORGET EVERYTHING WE JUST ACCOMPLISHED BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S TIRED.
I THINK WE OUGHT TO WRAP IT UP AND GET HER DONE, UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TO POSTPONE IT TO ANOTHER MEETING WHEN EVERYBODY'S FRESH.
ANY OTHERS WANT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST?
[05:05:03]
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE MOTION TO, UH, SWITCH THE ORDER HERE AND TAKE UP ITEMS ONE AND TWO.UH, SO I'M TAKING THE ACCOUNT AND HELP ME OUT HERE.
AND ON THE DIOCESE, UM, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WE HAVE TO THOSE AGAINST.
IF I COUNTED YOUR MOTION, THAT WE EXTEND OUR TIME TO MIDNIGHT.
UH, ANY, I HAVE A SECOND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT EXTENSION HEARING NONE.
LET ME SEE YOUR, WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 8, AND THE FIRST MR. HOWARD, 7 1 1, AND OKAY.
THOSE ON THE DIETS THAT WANT TO EXTEND A MIDNIGHT OR WILLING TO LISTEN, WE HAVE TWO IN FAVOR AND ONE AGAINST.
SO WE'RE GOING UNTIL MIDNIGHT.
AND WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND HERE WE DID PASS THAT.
WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THE OTHER YES.
[B1. Rezoning: C14-2021-0166 - South Congress Avenue Residences; District 2 (Part 2 of 2)]
WE GOT TO TAKE UP ITEMS TO BE WANTING TO BE TOO.AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND FINISH OUR WORK, UH, WITH THE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS ON THE FIVE THROUGH SEVEN.
AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL JUST HAVE MAYBE TWO OR THREE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS THAT DON'T TAKE THEIR ALONE, HOPEFULLY.
UH, SO WE HAVE STAFF, I GUESS WE GOT TO LINE THIS UP WHERE THIS ONE WE'RE STARTING WITH STAFF PRESENTATION.
IS THAT CORRECT? YOU HAVE SOMEBODY HERE.
ARE WE, UH, MR. RIVERA, NORMAL ORDER HERE, WE'RE STARTING WITH THE STAFF PRESENTATION ON V1 SHARE COMMISSION, THE HEAD, REMEMBER CONTACTING THE STAFF ON.
I KNOW WE MIGHT'VE CUT SOME FOLKS OFF GUARD.
CAN I JUST SAY WHILE WE'RE WAITING HERE, IF, IF THE APPLICANT IS INTERESTED, UM, YOU KNOW, I WOULD BE, AND DOESN'T WANT TO DISCUSS IT.
I WOULD WANT TO CALL THE QUESTION SINCE WE WERE MICHELLE, I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THOSE CASES RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF.
THE STAFF FEELS NO NEED TO DO A PRESENTATION.
SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO JUST HAVE THE APPLICANT AND THE ONE PERSON TO POSTED YOUR, WE CAN GET TO THAT QUICKLY.
UM, LET ME ASK BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD, UH, DO WE WANT TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT WE'VE ALREADY HEARD THIS PRESENTATION.
DID WE WANT TO GO AND HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY, UH, ON THE OPPOSITION TO SPEAK.
UNFORTUNATELY, DO WE NEED THAT? WE NEED MORE INFORMATION ON THIS CASE OR ARE WE GOOD? SO I'M HEARING, WE'RE GOING TO GO AND WAVE, UH, MR. RIVERA.
AND, UM, SO LET ME GO, DO I NEED, DO WE NEED TO SPEND THE RULES IF WE WANT TO GO AND JUMP TO, I CALL THE QUESTION.
SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO CALL THE QUESTION? WELL, WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE DEWEY BEFORE THIS YEAR.
WOULD WE STILL REGARDLESS WOULD BE SO CLOSE TO PUBLIC HEARING.
WE HAVE A, OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ANY DISCUSSION ON CLOSING THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, IS THAT YELLOW OR READ? COMMISSIONER COX? IT'S YELLOW.
SO WE HAVE EIGHT ONE AND THOSE ON THE DICE FAVOR.
UH, WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT UP.
DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? I MOVE, WE CALL THE QUESTION.
UH, DO YOU HAVE A SECOND TO CALL THE QUESTION? YEAH.
UM, AGAIN, WE JUST NEED A MAJORITY, UH, THOSE ON THE SCREEN THAT WANT TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THE QUESTION.
THOSE IN FAVOR OF CALLING THE QUESTION.
[05:10:01]
AND VOTE ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION.LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, PUT THIS TO A, VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR, OR JUST SHOW ME YOUR VOTE AND I'LL COUNT.
UH, COMMISSIONER JADA'S PLATO, GO SHOW WE'RE AT EVERYBODY.
IS THAT CORRECT? AND THEN ON THE DAYAS THOSE IN FAVOR.
[B2. Rezoning: C14-2021-0174 - 815 W. 11th Street; District 9]
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT VITAMIN B2, THE COMMISSIONERS.I THINK WE CAN DO THE SAME THING WITH B2.
WE HAVE, WE DON'T HAVE A NEED FOR A STAFF APPLICATION.
THE CASES RECOMMENDED WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT, LEAH BOGGIO HERE AND DONNA CARTER HERE AND OPPOSITE.
UM, HAVE WE HEARD THIS ONE BEFORE? UH, NO.
AND, UH, YES, LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
HI, I'M LEAH MOJO WITH JENNER GROUP HERE, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
WE DO HAVE, UM, A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
WHO'S WAITED ALL THIS TIME TO SPEAK IN FAVOR.
I DON'T KNOW WHEN, WHEN THE RIGHT TIME IS.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT Y'ALL KNOW THAT.
WE'LL WE'LL, UH, KEEP WITH THE NORMAL RULES.
WE'LL HAVE SPEAKERS FOR IT AGAINST THAT SOUNDS GREAT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, COMMISSIONERS.
I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE REZONING OF EIGHT 15 WEST 11TH STREET.
THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHERE THE SITE IS LOCATED.
IT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 11TH, JUST WEST OF WEST AVENUE.
UM, THE SITE HAS EXCELLENT ACCESS TO TRANSIT AND BIKE PED FACILITIES BEING SO CLOSE TO LAMAR AND ALSO SO CLOSE TO THE GUADALUPE LAVACA CORRIDOR AND THE SHOAL CREEK TRAIL, WHICH YOU CAN GET PRETTY, PRETTY MUCH ANYWHERE DOWNTOWN ON FOOT OR BIKE.
UM, THE SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED ELO, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'RE REQUESTING DMU CO WITH THE CEO LIMITING THE HEIGHT TO 60 FEET.
UM, YOU CAN ALSO SEE FROM THIS SLIDE THAT THE SITE IS SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY 60 FOOT HEIGHT ENTITLEMENTS, UM, AND AS CATTY CORNER FROM A SITE RECENTLY ENTITLED FOR 90 FEET.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS A SMALL OFFICE BUILDING WITH SOME RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
UM, THE ORIGINAL PLAN FOR THE SITE WAS STRAIGHT OFFICE, UH, BUT IN WORKING THROUGH, THROUGH THE DESIGN, UH, IT BECAME CLEAR THAT ADDING A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THE PROJECT AND TO THE AREA.
AND IT IS IN KEEPING WITH THE VISION FOR DOWNTOWN, UM, WHICH I'LL SPEAK TO MORE IN A MINUTE.
YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN PLAN MAP LOOKS LIKE SHOWING THE SITE IS DESIGNATED FOR 40 FEET AND ALSO SHOWING THE 60 FEET FOOT HEIGHT ON THREE SIDES.
UM, THESE HEIGHTS WERE MAPPED TO MATCH PREVIOUS ZONING HEIGHTS.
IN THIS CASE THAT 40 FOOT HEIGHT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN, UM, DETERMINED BY THE ZONING THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE IN 1978.
UM, THESE ARE ROUGH RENDERINGS, BUT I WANTED TO USE THEM CAUSE I WANTED YOU ALL TO SEE, UM, THAT THE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL ABOVE 40 FEET HAS A PRETTY MINIMAL EFFECT ON THE BULK OF THE BUILDING AND THE WAY THAT THE BUILDING MEETS THE STREET.
UM, THE FIRST THREE STORIES WOULD REMAIN THE SAME IN EITHER SCENARIO THE 40 OR THE 60 FOOT.
UM, BUT THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WOULD BE, UM, AT THE TOP SETBACK FROM THE FACADE ON THE BUILDING WOULD STILL HAVE THE HILLER ACCESS AND UNDERGROUND PARKING FROM THE REAR ALLEY, UM, TUCKED UNDER THE BUILDING.
AND, UM, THE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS DOES NOT INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED OR STARTING PROVIDED.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, HERE ARE A COUPLE OF POINTS FROM THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN PLAN THAT I THINK DO A MUCH BETTER JOB THAN THE HEIGHT MAP.
AS FAR AS DESCRIBING THE VISION FOR DOWNTOWN, THE GOALS HERE ARE TO INCREASE THE MIX OF USES AND INCREASE THE RESIDENTS DOWNTOWN, SPECIFICALLY BRINGING RESIDENTS BACK TO THE NORTHWEST DISTRICT.
UM, THIS REQUEST IS ENTIRELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE GOALS.
AND THE SPECIFIC REASON THAT WE'RE REQUESTING DMU 60, UM, IS BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THE APPLICANT, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF OFFICE THAT THEY NEED ON THIS VERY SMALL SITE, BUT THEN ALSO ALLOWS THEM TO ADD THE ADDITIONAL STORY OF RESIDENTIAL TO THE BUILDING.
IF WE REZONE TO DMU 40, THIS PROJECT WILL BE AN ENTIRELY OFFICE USE IF WE'RE PERMITTED DMU 60.
UM, WE ARE PROPOSING THAT THAT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT BE USED ONLY TO ADD A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, UM, OR SET ANOTHER WAY.
WE WOULD ONLY EXCEED THAT 40 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT TO INCORPORATE AN ADDITIONAL, UM, RESIDENTIAL STORY.
I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WHILE THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN PLAN IS OBVIOUSLY AN IMPORTANT DOCUMENT.
IT'S NOT THE ONLY PERTINENT PLANNING DOCUMENT, UM, IN THE DECADES SINCE ITS APPROVAL, MULTIPLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN ADOPTED, INCLUDING, UM, THE IMAGINE AUSTIN PLAN, THE STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT, THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN AND PROJECT CONNECT, ALL OF WHICH ARE SUPPORTIVE OF, YOU KNOW, COMPACT DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY CENTER, UM, FOR TRANSIT AND WALKABILITY.
[05:15:01]
EXCITED TO HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.UM, AND THE REASON WE HAVE THEIR SUPPORT IS BECAUSE WE'RE INCORPORATING THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT.
UM, IT'S BEEN A LONG STANDING GOAL FOR DOWNTOWN AND SPECIFICALLY FOR THE NORTHWEST DISTRICT TO ADD RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
UM, THIS AREA HAS FOR DECADES BEEN ALMOST ENTIRELY COMMERCIAL, MEANING THAT AT FIVE O'CLOCK AND ON WEEKENDS, IT CLEARS OUT AND BECOMES KIND OF A GHOST TOWN, ADDING RESIDENTIAL UNITS, EVEN IN SMALL NUMBERS, INCREMENTALLY COUNTERS, THAT CONDITION MAKING FOR A SAFER AND MORE VIBRANT NEIGHBORHOOD.
EVERY UNIT THAT'S BUILT IN AN AREA WITH THIS LEVEL OF LIKE PEG AND, UH, TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE IS PROGRESS TOWARDS THE CITY'S TRANSPORTATION AND SUSTAINABILITY GOALS.
UM, SO WE DO HAVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WE ARE VERY, VERY PLEASED TO HAVE.
UM, WE ALSO HAVE THE SUPPORT OF SEVERAL DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS, A COUPLE OF WHOM ARE HERE TO SPEAK.
UM, AND WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE AND REQUEST YOUR RECOMMENDATION IN FAVOR OF DMU ZONING, UM, AT A HEIGHT OF 60 FEET.
AND OF COURSE I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
WELL, I KNOW HEAR FROM CHRIS ROGERS, WE'RE THREE MINUTES.
I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT THREE IN AUSTIN AND A BOARD MEMBER OF THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I WANTED TO BE HERE TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT, NOT ONLY FOR ALL ASPECTS, BUT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE RESIDENTIAL ASPECT, ADDING RESIDENCES HERE IS KIND OF EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN A PLACE LIKE AUSTIN.
I DON'T HAVE TO TELL ANYONE HERE THAT WE NEED AS MANY MORE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AS WE CAN, BUT SPECIFICALLY WE HOPE THAT WE CAN ADD MORE AND MORE RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN PLACES WHERE WALKING AND BIKING IS MORE ACCESSIBLE.
THIS AREA HAS A 93 WALKS COORDINATED 92 BIKE SCORE.
IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO ADD SOME HOUSING.
IT MIGHT NOT FIX OUR HOUSING SITUATION, BUT EVERY SINGLE ADDITIONAL UNIT WE CAN MAKE WILL HELP SUPPORT THAT GOAL.
THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN AREA IS ADDING A LOT MORE HOUSING.
WE WELCOME MORE NEIGHBORS AND WE HOPE THAT WE CAN ADD MORE AND MORE HOUSING IN CASES LIKE THIS, WHERE WE CAN ADD IT GENTLY ADD TWO UNITS.
SO WE SUPPORT THE IDEA OF RAISING THE HEIGHT TO 60 SO THAT WE CAN ADD THESE RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN DOWNTOWN.
I KNOW EVERYONE'S HERE LATE, AND I REALLY HOPE THAT YOU WILL SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.
THANK YOU, CHEERING WHAT THE EXPEDIENCE OF THIS I'M MEETING COMING ON BY THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ON HIS HAWAII.
IF WE CAN NOW HEAR FROM METADATA CARTER, UH, UH, THE COMMISSION WILL ALLOW THANK YOU, MS. CARTER.
YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES AS THE OPPOSITION.
UM, I HOPE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND ME.
UM, AND UH, I APPRECIATE YOUR STAYING THIS LATE.
I'M NOT THE LITTLE OLD LADY THAT SAYS NOT IN MY BACKYARD.
I KNOW THIS AREA WILL BE MIXED USE AND WILL BE MORE DENSE.
AND, UM, IF I, IF YOU COULD JUST SHOW THE SLIDES, UM, UH, BUT THE CURRENT OWNERS TOLD THE HLC THEY NEEDED TO TEAR DOWN THE HOUSE THAT WAS THERE THAT WAS CONTRIBUTING TO THE HISTORIC AREA, UM, TO GET 6,600 SQUARE FEET THAT THEY NEEDED FOR THEIR OWN OFFICE.
THIS IS AN AREA THAT HAS SMALL BUSINESSES IN IT.
THE, UM, THEY USED CODE NEXT AS THEIR REFERENCE AND THEY SAID 40 FOOT WOULD DO.
AND, UM, AT THIS TERM, THE STAFF SAID, WELL, THERE'S GEO 60 ALL AROUND.
WELL, UM, GEO WAS REALLY FROM 1980 AND WHEN I BOUGHT MY LITTLE VICTORIAN POTTAGE, UM, NEXT SLIDE, YOU'LL SEE THE HISTORIC AREA THAT WE'RE IN.
WHEN I BOUGHT MY HISTORIC, UH, BUILDING, THEY TOLD ME TO GO TO L O BECAUSE G O WAS INAPPROPRIATE THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A TRANSITIONAL ZONE BETWEEN OUR URBAN CORE AND THE AREAS ON 12TH STREET THAT MIGHT BE DEVELOPED AS WELL AS THEN ON 15TH AND MLK, AND THAT WE NEEDED TO HAVE THE HISTORIC AREAS AS WELL.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, THAT THINGS WILL CHANGE, BUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THE ZONING THAT IS BEING DONE BIT BY BIT CUTS, YOU KNOW, DEATH BY A THOUSAND PUTTS IN INDIVIDUAL, LOTS ARE NOW BEING USED AGAINST US TO GET THE HIGHER ZONING.
SO STROLL CYCLE, WHICH IS 90 FEET ON THIS SMALL ROAD.
THAT'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE LEFT.
[05:20:01]
THAT SIDE THAT ARE USED AS OFFICES, NEXT SLIDE.BUT THEY HAVE USED THOSE NEWS ZONING.
IN FACT, TO WORK AGAINST US, WE TALK ABOUT AFFORDABILITY, BUT ACTUALLY ADDING VALUE TO THIS LAND IN THIS AREA AND PUTTING TWO UNITS ON IT WITHOUT ANY POLICY OR WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE OR HOW MANY UNITS AND WHAT THAT DOES TO US IS REALLY NOT GOOD POLICY.
THERE IS A VISION IN PLACE THAT EMBRACES A DENSE, URBAN CORE, A TRANSITIONAL URBAN ROADWAY ON 12 AND HISTORIC POCKETS IN BETWEEN.
IF WE CONTINUE TO TEAR THESE PLACES DOWN, WE WON'T HAVE THE CONTEXT TO THINK ABOUT OUR RICH URBAN CORE.
THAT IS THE BUILDING ON 12TH STREET BEHIND.
AND WE KNOW THAT MORE BUILDINGS WITH ACC WITH, UH, THE NEW BUILDING AT GAMMA THAT THAT'S ALL GOING TO INCREASE.
THAT'S A GOOD PLACE FOR NEXT SLIDE.
THIS IS WHERE SHOAL CYCLE, WHICH WILL ACTUALLY BE 90 FEET ON THAT BIN ON THAT CORNER AT THAT TOP OF THE HILL, NEXT SLIDE.
BUT WHAT WE REALLY HAVE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEMS. NEXT SLIDE.
WE HAVE AN ALLEY WITH ONLY ONE LEGAL WAY OUT AND IT'S ONLY 15 FEET WIDE.
THERE'S A HILL AND YOU CAN START TO SEE THE CHANGE IN GRADE, BUT IT'S ABOUT SIX FEET IN ABOUT 20, ABOUT 30 FEET OF WIDTH, BUT THAT GOES DOWN NEXT SLIDE.
AND THIS HAPPENED TWO WEEKS AGO WHEN IT RAINS IN THAT ALLEY.
AND WHAT WE HAVE IS URBAN RUNOFF.
THAT'S MEETING SHOAL CREEK FLOOD, AND THIS IS HAPPENING AROUND THAT BIN.
I AM ABOUT FOUR FEET OFF THE GROUND.
I'M SORRY, TWO FEET OFF THE GROUND.
AND I HAD WATER WITHIN SIX FEET OF MY FRONT DOOR AND IT DID NOT FLOOD IN THE 1981 FLOOD.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE INDIVIDUAL UPS ZONING CASES, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT OUR CITY WILL ULTIMATELY BE RICHER.
AND I WANT THE RESIDENT I LIVE THERE.
I LIVE, YOU KNOW, LESS THAN A HALF MILE FROM HERE.
I WANT ALL OF THAT, BUT WE'RE NOT GETTING ANYTHING IN RETURN.
I HAVE TO GIVE BACK MY SOLAR CREDITS.
I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO USE THOSE, MAKE THEM SAVE THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING SO THAT AT LEAST WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONTEXT OF OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD IS.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. MARSHALL GUYER FOR THREE MINUTES.
HEY, UH, MY NAME IS MARSHALL GUYER AND I'VE LIVED IN AUSTIN FOR 16 YEARS NOW.
UM, SO AS I GREW UP IN AUSTIN, UM, ALL THE WAY FROM DAVIS ELEMENTARY THROUGH GRADUATING FROM UT ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO, I'VE GROWN MORE AND MORE INTIMATE WITH THE URBAN CORE AND THE FASCINATING HISTORY OF EVERYTHING AROUND ME IN AUSTIN.
UM, MY FIANCE AND I ARE ACTUALLY HOMEOWNERS AT THE TERRORIST AT SHOAL CREEK.
MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING A FEW DOORS DOWN FROM THIS LOT AT EIGHT 15 WEST 11TH STREET.
AND YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THIS LOT FROM OUR BEDROOM WINDOWS.
UM, AFTER SELLING MY CAR A FEW YEARS AGO, I'VE BECOME A MUCH MORE ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, GETTING AROUND BY FOOT BUS OR OTHER MULTIMODAL TRANSIT OPTIONS.
UM, AND SO AFTER LEARNING MORE ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL HISTORY OF THIS AREA, I'VE JUST BEEN REALLY EXCITED TO SEE THE GRADUAL RESTORATION OF WHAT USED TO BE A STRONG RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY IN NORTHWEST DOWNTOWN.
AND I WAS ESPECIALLY EXCITED TO LEARN ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE NEIGHBORS ON OUR OWN STREET, UM, AND ITS CURRENT STATE 11TH STREET AND ITS SURROUNDING DOWNTOWN AREA CAN OFTEN FEEL LIKE A HISTORIC GHOST TOWN.
UM, AFTER THE MINIMAL OFFICE ACTIVITY DIES DOWN EACH DAY, YOU'LL BARELY EVER SEE ANYBODY WALKING OUTSIDE.
UM, AND THIS AREA IS ACTUALLY SO DESERTED THAT MY FIANCE DOESN'T EVEN REALLY FEEL SAFE WALKING OUR DOG ON OUR BLOCK AT NIGHT.
UM, SO THE ADDITION OF SOME RESIDENCES ALONG WITH THE MORE ACTIVE OFFICE SIDE OF THIS LOT WOULD I THINK REALLY CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS MAKING NORTHWEST DOWNTOWN FEEL MORE LIKE A SAFE COMMUNITY AGAIN, INSTEAD OF SORT OF AN EMPTY MUSEUM.
UM, SO I WOULD, I WOULD ALSO REALLY JUST JUMP AT THE CHANCE TO SHARE THE PRIVILEGE OF EXPERIENCING DOWNTOWN LIVING WITH MORE FUTURE NEIGHBORS.
[05:25:01]
THE APPLICANT FOR A BOTTLE FOR THREE MINUTES.UM, I JUST, I THINK THE SUMMARY I WOULD PROVIDE IS JUST THAT, UM, THE DECISION THAT'S BEFORE US TODAY IS BETWEEN A DMU 40 OFFICE ONLY BUILDING AND A DMU 60 OFFICE PLUS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.
I UNDERSTAND MS. CARTER'S CONCERNS ABOUT HISTORIC.
UM, BUT THAT PROCESS TOOK PLACE IN 2020.
THIS, UM, DEMOLITION PERMIT DID GO THROUGH HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVAL.
UM, AND THAT WAS A PUBLIC PROCESS.
AND NOW WHERE WE ARE NOW IS WITH THE ZONING BETWEEN DMU 40 AND DMU 16.
UM, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING COMMUNITY? SHEA IS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SNYDER.
UM, EVERYBODY ON THE DIOCESE LET'S GO AND SEE YOUR COLOR IS ON.
UM, SO I'M GOING TO REAL QUICK.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES, UH, THIS EVENING.
CAN WE, CAN WE, INSTEAD OF EIGHT OF FIVE, DO FIVE OF THREE JUST TO GET THROUGH THIS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY QUESTIONS WE HAVE, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO GET, YOU KNOW, MAYBE SHORTEN SOME OF THE QUESTIONS.
UH, IF WE HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS, WE CAN GIVE IT THE SAME.
WE HAVE A SECOND FOR CHANGING SUSPENDING OUR RULES TO GO WITH FIVE QUESTIONS, THREE MINUTES EACH I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CZAR.
UM, AND I'M SEEING, UH, EIGHT ONE OR 8 0 1 AND THEN ON THE DIOCESE.
SO LET'S GO AND START QUESTIONS.
UH, WE HAVE FIVE COMMISSIONERS WITH THREE MINUTES EACH WHO WANTS TO KICK US OFF, UM, LOOKING, UH, OKAY.
THAT'S YOUR INFLUENCE QUESTION? UH, FOR CITY STAFF, I THINK, UM, GIVEN THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE URBAN STORM WATER RUNOFF, UM, WHAT CAN BE DONE TO HELP IMPROVE THAT SITUATION? GOOD EVENING, HEATHER CHAFFIN WITH HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THESE ARE NOT ISSUES TYPICALLY ADDRESSED AT TIME OF ZONING AT TIME OF SITE PLAN.
THE PROPERTY WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT CODE AND NOT INCREASE ANY OFFSITE, UH, DRAINAGE ISSUES.
UM, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE IDEAL.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS? THAT'S ONE, WE HAVE FOUR MORE.
CAN I MAKE A MOTION? I'M GOING TO GO, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY HAND RAISE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO.
UH, COMMISSIONER SHAY HAS A MOTION YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE DMU CEO OF 60.
UH, IS THAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION? YES, IT IS.
SO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR SEF RECOMMENDATION.
UH, SECOND BY, WELL LOOKING AT COMMISSIONER AZHAR RIGHT NOW.
UM, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? UH, ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST, UH, YOU WANT TO SPEAK FOR AGAINST COMMISSIONER COX? UH, MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UH, YOU CAN MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UM, I MOTION THAT WE APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE SITE PLAN, UH, GO BEFORE THE HISTORIC LAND COMMISSION LANDMARK COMMISSION TO ISSUE ADVISORY COMMENTS.
UM, UH, DO WE HAVE SOME REASON SEVEN? I THINK, DID WE JUST HEAR THIS ALREADY GO 20, 20? IT'S ALREADY GONE THROUGH, IT'S ALREADY GONE THROUGH A DEMOLITION PERMIT ON IT.
BEN WAS THAT? YEAH, THAT WAS JUST THE DEMOLITION PERMIT.
I WOULD LIKE THEM TO ACTUALLY REVIEW THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, WHICH THEY HAVEN'T DONE BECAUSE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION IS NOT DESIGNED.
UM, WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, I GUESS MR. RIVERA, IT'S A, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE WE HAVE LEGAL OR SOMEBODY TO HELP US WEIGH IN.
WE'RE HEARING SOME COMMISSIONERS DOUBTS THAT WE CAN DO THIS.
I HAVE SOME INFORMATION FROM OUR HISTORIC GROUP AND, UH, THIS IS NOT AN, IT LITERALLY DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICT, UM, OR NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN THROUGH THE PROCESS FOR A DEMOLITION PERMIT.
I, I AM NOT AWARE IF THERE'S ANY OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL REVIEW AT TIME SITE PLAN SINCE IT'S ALREADY BEEN READ MULTIPLE STAGES.
COMMISSIONER, I WOULD JUST ADD THAT, UH, WE CAN'T REQUIRE THAT AS PART OF THE, UH, CEO OF HIS OWN CASE.
YOU CAN ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEY'D BE WILLING TO,
[05:30:01]
YOU KNOW, TO DO THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD REQUIRE THAT AS PRIVACY OR IT DOESN'T ADJUST TO EXISTING CO.SO WE HAD SOME, UH, ADDITIONAL QNA HERE.
UH, SO WITH THAT, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE WITH THAT INPUT COMMISSIONER CUFFS? NO.
I MEAN, THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THIS ZONING CASE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED MY SUPPORT.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UM, LET'S GO AND VOTE ON THE MOTION AT THE TABLE, WHICH STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND SEE IF WE CAN SEE WHERE WE LAND WITH THAT.
SO, UH, I'M LOOKING AT THE, UM, THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW.
ONE, UH, IF EVERYBODY GIVES ME THEIR COLORS, UH, COMMISSIONER MITCH TOLERANT, YOU GOT VOTE ON THIS ONE.
UH, DOES ON THE DYESS IN, UH, IN FAVOR THAT'S EVERYONE THAT PASSES 9 2, 1.
SO WE'VE CLEARED THOSE TWO ITEMS. NOW WE RETURN
[Items B5 - B7 (Part 2 of 2)]
THAT TO ITEM B FIVE THROUGH SEVEN.I THINK WHERE WE LEFT OFF IS WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW ONE, UH, INDIVIDUAL, UH, AMENDMENT PER COMMISSIONER.
AND THEN, UH, WE'RE GOING TO CALL IT QUITS AFTER THAT.
UM, CAN I GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS CASE TO MARCH 8TH? SEE IF I GET A SECOND, UH, THE HE'S MAKING A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS CASE.
UH, AND SO I SAID, OKAY, UH, WHAT'S THE DATE? GO AHEAD.
WHAT'S THE DATE YOU'RE PROPOSING? UH, THE NEXT MEETING.
SO THE NEXT MEETING FEBRUARY 22ND.
SO, UH, DO WE, UM, UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT, UM, THE APPLICANT DO YOU HAVE BEFORE WE, I WOULD BEG YOU NOT TO DO THIS.
WE'VE BEEN, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE BEEN BEFORE YOU, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE ACT? WE ASKED TO POSTPONE, YOU JUST HEARD TWO CASES THAT HAD 2021 DATES ON THEM.
CAN WE JUST FINISH IT OFF TONIGHT, PLEASE? OKAY, THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND, UH, FOR COMMISSIONER COX'S, UM, DIFFERENT POSES, I GUESS.
ANY SECONDS I'M NOT GOING AROUND.
SO WE'RE GONNA MOVING FORWARD.
UH, WE'VE GOT 13 MINUTES TO GET THROUGH THIS, SO WE MAY BE HAVING ANOTHER EXTENSION.
UH, THE RULES SET ALPHABETICAL ORDER.
SO, UH, WE'RE GONNA STICK WITH THAT.
UH, SO THAT WOULD BE, THESE ARE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS AND BY THE WAY, IF YOU WANT TO BRING UP SOMEBODY ELSE'S AMENDMENT AND PROPOSE IT, YOU CAN.
SO JUST WHATEVER YOU, UH, WE CAN DO THAT.
SO, UH, THE FIRST ONE I HAVE IS, UH, COMMISSIONER ZAR.
DO YOU HAVE ANY INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS? OKAY.
I'M GOING TO GO DOWN THE LIST.
DO YOU HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT? YES, YOU DO.
GO AHEAD AND, UH, UH, TELL US YOUR PROPOSED AMENDMENT DO HAVE ONE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, WHICH I HAD INITIALLY, UM, ADDED, UM, TO THE WORKING GROUP, UM, SPREADSHEET, BUT I WASN'T ABLE TO DEVELOP IT VERY WELL, BUT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS QUITE SIMPLE.
IT IS, UH, THAT WE DO NOT REQUIRE ANY PARKING ON THE PUD.
UM, AND I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO IT.
UH, WE CAN HAVE SOME SO ON THE WAY THIS WORK IS, UH, WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW FOR SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE RIGHT IN.
DO WE HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THIS PROPOSED MOTION OR DO WE WANT TO MOVE INTO A DISCUSSION? YEAH.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU.
WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER AZHAR SO, UM, WELL, OKAY.
I DO HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION TO DO WE HAVE TO PROVIDE FOR, UH, ADA PARKING.
UM, I'M, I'M WILLING TO ACCEPT AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR ADA PARKING.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THE CURRENT SITE OF THE, THE CURRENT STATEMENT SITE HAS 500 PARKING UNITS.
THE PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE IS GOING TO HAVE OVER 4,000 UNITS OF PARKING.
IT'S A RADICAL INCREASE IN CARS IN THAT AREA.
UM, AND IN TALKING TO CITY STAFF AND TALKING TO THE APPLICANT, IT SEEMS LIKE, WELL, OVER 80% OF THOSE 4,000 NEW UNITS WOULD BE BUILT ANYWAY BECAUSE OF THE MARKET DEMAND AND
[05:35:01]
THEIR MODELS AND THEIR ESTIMATES.SO MY GOAL IS TO REDUCE THE PARKING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, AND IF THEY ALREADY WANT TO BUILD PARKING AND ARE PLANNING TO BUILD PARKING AND ARE TRYING TO BUILD PARKING, WHY RAY, WHY OR SOMETHING ON TOP OF THAT, UM, WHEN WE'RE ALREADY GOING, SEEING SUCH AN EXPONENTIAL INCREASE IN PARKING, UM, SUPPLIED ON THAT SITE.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M, I'M FINE WITH HAVING ADA PARKING REQUIREMENTS, BUT ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT SEEMS RIDICULOUS AND WE'RE ALREADY SEEING SUCH A HUGE INCREASE.
SO THAT'S, UM, W WE NEED TO REEL THIS BACK.
WE ARE IN DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM.
COMMISSIONER IS R YES, I'M GOING TO MAKE THEM, UH, AN AMENDMENT TO THIS MOTION, WHICH ESSENTIALLY, WHICH ESSENTIALLY SAYS WHILE PROVIDING ALL, UM, EDF BARKING, WHILE MEETING ALL IDIOPATHIC.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THIS AMENDMENT? UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY AT SECOND.
DO WE NEED ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT.
SO WE'RE JUST GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER, UH, YOU SPEAKING FOR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT, UH, AGAINST, OKAY.
I, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO REDUCING PARKING REQUIREMENTS, BUT I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT WE DO HAVE PUBLIC PARKLAND.
WE'VE GOT BAD EDUCATION CENTER.
WE'RE POTENTIALLY GOING TO HAVE A RAIL STATION CLOSE BY AND HAVING SOME LEVEL OF PARKING FOR THOSE ITEMS MAY ACTUALLY BE VERY USEFUL AND HOW THEY'RE USED IN THE FUTURE.
UM, SO I I'M A LITTLE HESITANT TO, TO REMOVING ALL PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
UM, BUT I DO GENERALLY AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT, BUT JUST NOT THIS PARTICULAR.
WE'RE, WE'RE HAVING DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT TO, UH, ADD THE ADA PARKING, UH, TO THIS, UH, AMENDMENT.
SO ANY, ANY FURTHER, CAN WE GO AND, UH, CALL THE VOTE ON THE, IN THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER CZARS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY, LET'S GO AND VOTE ON THE ADA AMENDMENT PORTION.
SO IT'S ON THE SCREEN GOING TO GIVE ME YOUR COLORS.
WE'RE JUST VOTING ON THE, UH, UH, CON UH, THE AMENDMENT FROM COMMISSIONERS ARE, UH, THAT'S FOUR OR 5, 6, 7 7 1 1.
AND, UH, THOSE ON THE DIASEND CAVER, UH, TWO ZERO.
SO NOW BACK TO THE, UH, BASE MOTION, DO WE NEED ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON, UH, THE MOTION AS, UH, THAT CAME FROM THE COMMISSIONERS ARE YES.
IF WE COULD GET US SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE POINT OF CONTENTION IN THE WORKING GROUP THAT PREVENTED THIS FROM BEING AN AMENDMENT THAT WAS ON CONSENT AGENDA.
WE ARE KIND OF DEBATING THE, UM, BUT I THINK THAT IS A WORTHY POINT TO BRING UP, UH, BEFORE WE, UM, GO AHEAD AND CALL THE QUESTION HERE CAN, ANYWHERE AS A WORKING GROUP MEMBERS ADD SOME CONTEXT TO THIS.
WELL, I CAN JUST, IT, I DON'T THINK THERE ACTUALLY WAS A POINT OF CONTENTION.
WE JUST DIDN'T REALLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DIG INTO IT TOO DEEP.
UM, JUST BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, ATTENDANCE AT CERTAIN MEETINGS AND THAT SORT OF THING.
SO I WOULD VERY SAFELY SAY THAT THE WORKING GROUP REALLY DID NOT CONSIDER VERY SERIOUSLY.
SO GLAD WE'RE DOING YOU AND OWN IT.
UH, THAT, UM, IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT UP BY THE APPLICANT THAT THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, WHETHER WE SAY THERE'S ONE PARKING SPACE OR 20 OR PARK SPACE OR WHATEVER, IT'S STILL BASED UPON THE MARKET DEMAND.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER, UM, UH, FOUR AGAINST DISCUSSION ON THIS AMENDMENT? UH, DID YOU, YOU DID NOT, YOU DIDN'T SPEAK TO YOUR AMENDMENT YET.
I ANSWERED A QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED, BUT I DO WANT TO SPEAK TO IT.
UM, IF, IF, IF THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO BUILD IS GOING TO BE BASED ON DEMAND AND APPLICANT'S MODEL IS TELLING THEM THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD, YOU KNOW, SO MUCH PARKING ALREADY, THEN WHY REQUIRE ANY PARKING ON TOP OF THAT? THAT'S BASICALLY MY QUESTION.
IF REMOVING REQUIREMENTS ONLY REDUCES THE PARKING IN THIS PROJECT BY A FEW PERCENTAGE POINTS, THEN THAT'S ALL I'LL GET, BUT WHY REQUIRE IT? WE'RE GOING TO GET PARKING ACROSS THE, JUST ACROSS THE WATER DOWNTOWN.
THERE ARE NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND ALL OF OUR NEW DEVELOPMENTS ARE DELIVERING MASSIVE QUANTITIES OF PARKING.
THE DEVELOPERS WANT TO MAKE PARKING.
SO WHY ON TOP OF THAT REQUIRE THEM TO DO MORE, UM, ESPECIALLY IN AN AREA THAT'S SO HEAVILY SERVED BY FUTURE TRANSIT PLANS, EXISTING TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE, BIKE LANES, AND SO FORTH.
WE SHOULD BE REDUCING CAR TRIPS IN THIS AREA,
[05:40:01]
NOT INCREASING IT BY REQUIRING MORE, MORE CURRENT.SO ANY OTHER, UM, FOR AGAINST DISCUSSION, I WOULD LIKE TO GET, I'M GOING TO SPEAK RIGHT NOW, MISSPEAK NEUTRAL.
I'M NOT SURE WHICH I'M GONNA VOTE, BUT I'M SEEING NEUTRAL BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT TDM, TRANSPORTATION, DEMAND MANAGEMENT, AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH FIGURING OUT THE BALANCE OF ALL THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF TRANSPORTATION COMING AND GOING AND COMING UP WITH AN IDEA OF HOW MUCH PARKING OF ONE THING TO ANOTHER, TO ANOTHER TO ANOTHER, THERE SHOULD BE.
AND I JUST DON'T WANT TO GIVE THE MESSAGE THAT WE DON'T CARE THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT BY SAYING NO PARKING.
SO I THINK I MIGHT JUST BE NEUTRAL ON IT OR OPPOSE JUST BECAUSE I WANT TDM TRANSPORTATION, DEMAND MANAGEMENT TO HAVE A SAY IN THIS.
SO, SO, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'VE ALREADY HAD A TURN, I'M NOT, UH, BUT GO AHEAD.
I WAS PAID TO DO THIS, EVERYONE.
I WAS GOING TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UH, MY SUBSTITUTE MOTION WOULD BE TO REMOVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL USES ONSITE EXCEPT FOR CIVIL USES OR SORRY, CIVIC USES, UM, AND STILL REQUIRE ADA PARKING FOR ALL USES.
UH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THE SUBSEQUENT COMMISSIONER'S SCHNEIDER SECOND SET.
DO WE NEED, DO YOU NEED TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER COX? NO, I THINK, I THINK I JUST, I JUST THOUGHT OF THAT AND THAT'S THE WAY IT WOULD ADDRESS MY CONCERNS RELATED TO LIKE AGITATION, PARKLAND, THE TRAIN STOP, THAT SORT OF THING.
SO IF WE STILL PROVIDE PARKING MINIMUMS FOR THOSE CIVIC USES, THEN THE DEVELOPER CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS FOR RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL.
DO YOU HAVE ANY SPEAKERS AGAINST THIS MOTION? UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
ARE YOU ADMITTED? I THINK YOU'RE ADMITTED OR I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
OH, THAT'S OH, IT'S GETTING LATE.
ANY, UH, ANY OTHER AS FAR AGAINST BEFORE WE GOT TO EXTEND TIME? OH, YES.
WE, UH, I WAS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER IS OUR, UH, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON EXTENDED TILL 12, 15.
EVERYBODY ON THE SCREEN ON THE DIOCESE OTHER THAN FAVOR.
IT'S UNANIMOUS, UH, FROM MY ACCOUNT.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND KEEP GOING.
SO WE HAD A, UM, WE HAD A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COX, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER.
AZHAR I'M TRYING TO GET, DO WE HAVE A SECOND YET? AZHAR OKAY.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER, UH, MORE LET'S CAN WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS OR ANY, I DON'T SEE ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST.
ARE WE DONE? THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A VOTE ON THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER COX FOR THE RECORD, UH, REMOVE PARKING MINIMUMS ON THE SITE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CIVIC USES AND ADA SPACES REQUIRED FOR ALL RIGHT.
LET'S VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UH, THOSE ON THE SCREEN AND SHOW ME YOUR, I SEE ONE COUNTING FILLERS ARE HARD TO HEAR.
HELP ME OUT HERE, TEAM 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4 1.
I THINK THERE'S 3, 3, 4, 2 NEUTRAL 3 42.
THAT WAS ON THE DIOCESE, UH, IN FAVOR.
ONE NEUTRAL AND AGAINST ALL RIGHT.
UH, SO WE'RE BACK TO THE MOTION.
IF YOU SEE, UH, FROM COMMISSIONER CONLEY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DESIRE, I BELIEVE.
AND THEN IF WE WANT IT, CAN YOU GO AND RESTATE THAT? UH, SO I CAN GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THEIR MOTION.
SO THE MOTION IS TO REMOVE ALL PARKING REQUIREMENTS FROM THE PUD EXCEPT FOR ADA REQUIREMENTS.
UM, OKAY, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON, UH, DO WE NEED ANY DISCUSSION? CAUSE I THINK WE HAD AN AMENDMENT THAT KIND OF TIPPED US OFF.
DO WE NEED ANY MORE DISCUSSION FOR AGAINST THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AND MOVE IT TO A VOTE.
UH, THOSE IN ON SHOW ME YOUR COLORS ON THE SCREEN.
UH, THOSE ON THE DICE IN FAVOR OF ONE,
[05:45:01]
UH, AGAINST TWO.WE NEED TO MOVE ON, UH, TO THE NEXT, UH, ITEM HERE.
UH, SO WE HAVE COMMISSIONER COX.
DO YOU HAVE ANY INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS? YEAH, I'VE GOT ONE CURIOUS TO SEE IF IT WILL GET SUPPORT.
UH, SINCE RICHARD'S MAGNETS STAY UP LATE, I'LL HAVE HIM THROW IN A FEW EXTRA BUCKS.
UM, I, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REQUIRE, UM, THE DEVELOPER TO PAY A HUNDRED PERCENT LISTED IN THE TABLE TO RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE APPROVED TIA MEMO, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY LAND VALUE FOR THE BARTON SPRINGS EXTENSION.
UM, I NEED, UH, SO WE HAVE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS HERE, OBVIOUSLY.
UH, WHERE, WHERE ARE YOU DIRECTING US TO TABLE TWO? YEAH, SORRY.
IT'S PAGE 63 OF THE B OH SIX PDF BACKUP.
AND IT'S THE TABLE TWO RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS BY THE ATV T I A.
THESE ARE, THESE ARE COMING FROM STAFF.
THESE ARE MY CLARIFYING QUESTION.
YEAH, IT'S AN, IT'S AN APPROVED MEMO FROM STAFF.
UM, SO DO WE HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? WE HAVE TWO MORE SLOTS FOR COMMISSIONER COX.
I MEAN, FOR CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS HEARING NONE.
CAN YOU RESTATE THE MOTION? I'M SORRY, JUST SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME.
THE MOTION IS, UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO PAY A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE ITEMS LISTED IN TABLE TO RECOMMEND AN IMPROVEMENTS OF THE APPROVED TA MEMO, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY LAND VALUE FOR THE BARTON SPRINGS EXTENSION.
SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND COMMISSIONER, MR. TODDLER? IS THAT A SECOND OR A CLARIFYING QUESTION? OKAY.
UM, DO WE NEED ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? DO WE HAVE ANY, YOU WANTED TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION, COMMISSIONER COX.
I'LL JUST, I SAY REAL QUICK, MOST OF THE PUBLIC FEEDBACK I'VE RECEIVED IS CONCERNED ABOUT TAXPAYER MONEY GOING TO PAY FOR IMPROVEMENTS, UH, THAT LARGELY BENEFIT DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND I THINK THIS IS AN EXAMPLE WHERE THE RIGHT OF WAY LAND VALUE IS BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE IMPROVEMENTS FUND THAT WOULD OTHERWISE FUND THESE IMPROVEMENTS.
AND IT'S STILL UNCLEAR AT THIS EARLY STAGE, WHETHER THEY WOULD CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING OR IF THE RIGHT OF WAY LAND VALUE WOULD EXCEED THE SIF MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT.
SO THIS BASICALLY JUST ENSURES THAT NO TIF FUNDING, TOURIST FUNDING OR OTHER TAXPAYER FUNDING IS NEEDED TO ACTUALLY BUILD THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE RECOMMENDED BY ATD TO SUPPORT THIS.
ANY FOLKS WANT TO SPEAK, UH, FOR AGAINST, OR CAN WE GO AHEAD AND PUT THIS FORWARD FOR A VOTE, UH, COMMISSIONER MITCH TODDLER? I JUST NEEDED CLARIFICATION.
I HADN'T GOTTEN TO THAT PART OF THE DOCUMENTS.
SO I'M CURIOUS, UM, THE GENERAL SCOPE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THIS IS COVERING AND DO WE EVEN HAVE ANY IDEA OF THE DOLLAR VALUE THAT THIS MIGHT BE WORTH? OKAY, SO THOSE ARE QUESTIONS.
BECAUSE I'M KIND OF LETTING THIS THING GETTING CONFUSED BETWEEN THE TIME PERIOD FOR CLARIFYING QUESTIONS VERSUS TIME FOR DEBATE.
SO, UH, WHO IS BEST TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION? UM, IS THAT COMMISSIONER COX OR DO WE HAVE STAFF? I CAN ANSWER IT IF CURTIS ISN'T ON THE LINE.
AGAIN, I'M CURTIS BEATTY WITH AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION RIGHT NOW.
WE DO NOT HAVE ESTIMATED COSTS FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS, MOSTLY BECAUSE A LOT OF INFORMATION HAS DONE AT TIME OF SITE PLAN, UH, THE EXACT ALIGNMENT OR THE BARTON SPRINGS EXTENSION HASN'T BEEN FINALIZED JUST YET.
ALSO, UH, WE JUST LAST WEEK WE WERE TOLD THAT WE PROBABLY NEED TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY WHAT HAPPENS IF BUSES ARE REQUIRED TO USE THE BLUE LINE BRIDGE ACROSS THE RIVER.
SO THERE'S A LOT THAT STILL IN FLUX THAT WE CAN'T CURLY ESTIMATE WITHOUT HAVING TO PUT SIGNIFICANT CONTINGENCIES ON.
SO ARE WE TALKING ABOUT STUFF ON BARTON SPRINGS OR I'M SORRY, I JUST DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
BARTON SPRINGS EXTENSION IS THEIR PRIMARY, UH, MEDICATION THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO CONSTRUCT.
SO INITIALLY THEY WERE JUST DONATING THE LAND.
[05:50:02]
WELL, NO, INITIALLY THEY ARE GOING TO DONATE THE LAND AND CONSTRUCT THE, UM, THE ROADWAY BECAUSE THAT'S THEIR PRIMARY ACCESS TO THEIR SITE, THEIR, THEIR DEVELOPMENT.UH, BUT I WOULD LET YOU, YOU DEFER IF YOU WANT TO, TO MR. SUTTLE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY HAVE AS ALREADY ASSUMED THAT THAT CONSTRUCTION COSTS WILL BE PAID FROM, BY THE TARS.
DOES THAT GIVE SOME MORE CLARITY TO, CAN I, CAN I JUST STATE THE FOUR ITEMS THAT ARE IN THE TABLE FOR PEOPLE THAT HAVE THAT MOVE ON, PLEASE? BEFORE ITEMS ARE CONSTRUCTED BARTON SPRINGS EXTENSION, UH, CONSTRUCT A WESTBOUND RECEIVING LANE AT BARTON SPRINGS AVENUE IN SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE, UH, CONSTRUCT A SIX FOOT PROTECTED BIKE LANE WITH TWO FOOT CURB AND GUTTER FROM BASICALLY THE SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE BRIDGE DOWN TO RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND THEN CONSTRUCT A BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITY AT THE RIVERSIDE DRIVE ACCESS POINT.
EVERYBODY CLEAR ON WHAT'S IN THE MEMO.
UH, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, OR CAN WE TAKE THIS TO A VOTE? I I'D LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT OKAY.
TO REMOVE THE, UH, WESTBOUND STEVEN LANE.
I DON'T WANT TO TIE US INTO THE PUD INTO, UM, HAVING TO PAY FOR, UH, ROADWAY WIDENINGS AT A TIME WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO REDUCE THE MODE, SHARE OF CARS.
OH, WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY.
UH, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS MOTION? UM, ANY FURTHER, MR. NO, I MEAN THE OTHER ONES, THE BICYCLE STUFF I SUPPORT, I SUPPORT CONNECTING THE GRID AND THE EXTENSION OF THE BARTON SPRINGS, BUT JUST WIDENING ROADS, YOU KNOW, IN THIS PART OF THE CITY, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
UH, ANY MORE SPEAKERS FOR, OR AGAINST? UM, THEY WANT TO COMMENT ARE RIGHT.
UH, I DIDN'T HAVE A QUESTIONS.
UM, THIS IS COMMISSIONER HOWARD.
UM, IS THAT OKAY? YEAH, GO AHEAD.
WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE OFF TANGENT HERE, BUT NO, I WAS WANTING, I WAS WANTING TO UNDERSTAND LIKE HOW ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
AND IS THAT NOT STILL APPLICABLE? I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WE WANT TO GET IMPROVEMENTS DONE.
I JUST THOUGHT THAT MAYBE THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT OR SUCH UNDER ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY THAT WOULD REQUIRE SOME LEVEL OF IMPROVEMENTS ALREADY.
UH, THIS DEVELOPMENT, UM, AS FAR AS EXTRACTIONS FROM THEM WILL BE CONSIDERED AGAINST THE REP PROPORTIONALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
THAT REP PROPORTIONALITY VALUE IS NOW WHAT'S REFERRED TO AS THE STREET M STREET IMPACT FEES, MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE VALUE.
SO WE HAVE DONE A GUESS OF WHAT THAT IS, UH, BASED ON THE INFORMATION OF TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING AND THE DENSITY OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS.
UH, BUT WE HAVEN'T COME UP WITH THE EXACT NUMBER AT THIS TIME.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UM, MOVE TO, LET'S GO AND CALL THE QUESTION HERE, UNLESS WE HAVE ANY MORE FOLKS THAT WANT TO SPEAK FOR, OR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE JESSE AMENDMENT LET'S GO AND VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.
UH, THOSE ON THE SCREEN COMMISSIONER ARE ANY, I'M SORRY, CAN WE JUST RESTATE THE AMENDMENT IS TO EXCLUDE FROM THE INITIAL, AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
COMMISSIONER CONLEY IS TO, UH, IS TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR THE WESTBOUND, UH, RECEIVING LANE, UH, IN THE, IN THE ITEMS, UH, THAT HAD TO BE PAID FOR BY THE DEVELOPER.
SO IT'S TAKING EXCEPTION TO THAT ONE ITEM.
SO THAT'S THE AMENDMENT LET'S GO ON TO GET A VOTE.
I'VE GOT 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, UH, 5, 3, 1.
AND, UH, THOSE ON THE DIOCESE, UH, IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT, UH, WE HAVE TWO AGAINST ONE YOU'RE AGAINST.
SO THAT PASSES SEVEN, UH, FOUR TO ONE.
SO LET'S GO BACK TO THE MAIN AMENDMENT.
UH, SO DO WE NEED ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THE MAIN AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER COX, GO AHEAD.
AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT, WHAT CURTIS IS SAYING FROM ATD IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, BUT YOU HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE ASTERIX IN THE MEMO.
AND SO WHATEVER FEES ARE ASSESSED FOR THE STREET
[05:55:01]
IMPACT FEE OR THE RUSH ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY, UM, THE RIGHT AWAY LAND VALUE FOR THE BARTON SPRINGS EXTENSION IS GOING TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THAT.SO IT'S VERY POSSIBLE THAT THE FEE THAT THEY HAVE LEFT TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS.
SO WE, WE LET'S GET TO THE, UM, THIS IS OREGON'S DISCUSSION.
DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE BEFORE? TAKE A VOTE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE AMEND, UH, THE AMENDMENT WITH THE MEN AMENDED AMENDMENT, UH, WHICH IS, WHICH IS, UH, COMMISSIONER COX.
AND IT WAS SECONDED BY HELP ME OUT HERE.
IT, THIS ONE COMMISSIONER MITCH TELLER.
EVERYBODY CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
I THINK THAT'S EVERYONE GREEN.
THAT WAS ON THE DYESS AND FAVOR.
UH, WE HAVE TO, UH, AGAINST, SO THAT'S FOUR AGAINST FOUR.
SO THAT PASSES, UM, LET'S SEE.
UH, LET'S DO WE NEED TO EXTEND TO 1230? OKAY.
DO I HAVE A SECOND TO 1230? HOPEFULLY YOU CAN GET THROUGH THIS OBVIOUS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MITCH TELLER.
UH, LET ME SEE THE, UH, ON THE SCREEN.
UH, MR. CONLEY, WHAT'S YOUR, OKAY.
UH, SO THAT'S EIGHT ONE AND WE HAVE ON THE DAYAS, UH, IN FAVOR AGAINST.
WE'RE WE'RE MOVING ON THAT ONE PASSED.
NEXT WE HAVE COMMISSIONER FLORES.
DO YOU HAVE ANY INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS? ALL RIGHT.
MOVING ON TO, UH, VICE CHAIR, HEMPHILL.
UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, UH, HOPING I'M GOING TO ORDER, UH, COMMISSIONER MITCH TODDLER.
UH, COMMISSIONER YANNIS, POLITO, UH, COMMISSIONER SNYDER.
UH, AND YOUR CHAIR HERE HAS ONE, UH, THAT WAS ASKING ME, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND, UH, READ MY PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
UH, WE DID DISCUSS THIS BASICALLY.
IT SAYS IF, UH, IF THE, UH, STCW REGULATING PLAN AND FINANCIAL PLAN ARE NOT APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL VOTING ON THE PUD APPLICANT, SHE'LL MEET THE CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR PUDS, WHICH, UH, BASED ON MY READING OF THE CODE IS 10% RENTAL UNITS AT 60% MFI AND 5% OF OWNERSHIP UNITS AT 80% MFI.
AND I DID HAVE UNITS, UH, SHALL BE PROVIDED ON, UM, ON SITE.
THIS IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, UH, BEFORE I ACTUALLY MAKE THE MOTION.
DO WE HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS TO, UH, MAKE THAT IMPROVE THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER ZAR, ANY IMPROVEMENTS? I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR YOU WHEN YOU SAY 10%, ARE YOU SAYING 10% OF ALL UNITS OR 10% OF BONUS WORK WITH, OKAY.
SO THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING TO NEED SOME STAFF.
I THINK IT'S JUST THE BONUS, RIGHT? THE PLED REQUIREMENTS.
COULD YOU CLARIFY THE PLED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS? JUST SO WE ALL UNDERSTAND KIND OF BONUS SQUARE FOOTAGE, IN WHICH CASE I'M JUST NOT GOING TO KNOW WHAT, WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
I FEEL LIKE THIS RECIPE, IT'S A 10% OF THE, UH, THE BONUS AREA WITH REGARD TO HIGH DOOR FOR.
SO THAT MAY, SO THAT'S THE, UM, WHATEVER'S IN THE CODE.
SO DO YOU, UH, ANY CHANGES TO THAT? I, I'M NOT ASKING FOR A SECOND YET.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THIS RIGHT.
ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO MODIFY COMMISSIONERS? ARE I, I, CAN WE, AGAIN, I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE MOTION, WHICH I KNOW IS CHANGING THE LANGUAGE, BUT I WOULD SAY 10% OF ONE, A SQUARE FOOTAGE OR 4% OF ALL UNITS, COMMA, WHICHEVER IS GREATER COMMA, AND THEN WE'LL CONTINUE WITH WHAT YOU OKAY.
COMMISSIONER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER COX, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.
I DID EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST.
I'M GOING TO SAY, SO THIS, DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND, UH, READ THE MOTION AS YOU, UM, COMMISSIONER AZHAR JUST HELP ME OUT HERE WITH YOUR SURE.
UM, SO LET'S SAY IF THE SOUTH CENTER WATERFORD REGULATING PLAN AND FINANCIAL PLAN ARE NOT APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL BY THE CITY COUNCIL VOTING ON THIS, BUT APPLICANT SHALL MEET CURRENT CODE
[06:00:01]
REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHIN BUDS, COLON 10% OFF BONUS SQUARE FOOTAGE OR RENTAL UNITS IN 60% MFI AND 5% OF OWNERSHIP UNITS.5% OF BONUS SQUARE FOOTAGE AT 80% MFI FOR OWNERSHIP, UNITS, BAMA, OR 4% OF ALL AFFORDABLE UNITS, COMMA, WHICHEVER ONE IS GREATER.
SORRY, I JUST DID THAT ON THE FLY.
AND I THINK I CAPTURED IT ALL.
I THINK YOU ADDED SOME GOOD TOUCHES TO IT.
SO, UM, DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? UH, WELL, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S MY MOTION.
IT, SO COMMISSIONER IS OUR, UH, OKAY, LET'S GO.
AND, UH, I'LL JUST SPEAK TO IT.
UM, THE POINT HERE IS I JUST, I HEARD A LOT OF DISCUSSION AMONG COUNCIL, UM, RECENTLY JUST ABOUT THE FINANCING MECHANISMS FOR THIS AREA.
UH, IT SEEMED LIKE SOME OF THAT MAY BE IN DOUBT AND TAKE, UH, EXTERNALLY LONG TIME.
I DON'T KNOW HOW FAST THIS, UH, PLED IS GOING TO PROCEED THE COUNCIL THAT IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S MOVING PRETTY QUICKLY.
I JUST DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A REGULATING PLAN AND A FINANCE.
THE FINANCE WILL PLAN TOGETHER BEFORE THIS MOVES FORWARD.
THERE ARE ALREADY ESTABLISHED CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUDS.
ALL I'M SAYING IS IT SHOULD MEET THOSE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR P UDS WITH THE AMENDMENTS FROM COMMISSIONER CZAR.
I THINK IT GIVES IT SOME MORE CONTEXT RELATED TO WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE THIS EVENING.
UH, SO THAT'S, UM, THAT'S WHY I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT.
UH, ANY MEMBERS VOTING AGAINST I'M GOING TO SPEAK NEUTRAL ON IT.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE HUD STANDARDS, OFTENTIMES THIS IS JUST A STANDARD PUD, IT'S A LAND THAT IS TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT TYPE, BUT THIS ONE ALREADY HAS TO GIVE UP QUITE A BIT OF PARKLAND, AS WELL AS DEDICATE FOUR STREETS AND STUFF.
AND ALL THOSE THINGS SHOULD BE TAKEN CONSIDERATION.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE PERCENTAGE WE'RE SETTING IS THE PROPER AMOUNT, CONSIDERING ALL THE OTHER BENEFITS THAT THEY'RE ALREADY GIVING.
SO I'M, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS IF IT DOESN'T GO THROUGH.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M GOING TO BE NEUTRAL.
UH, SPEAKERS FOR AGAINST EVERY COMMISSIONER IS OUR THERE.
I'LL JUST SAY, I REALLY DO WANT TO HONOR AND AGREE WITH WHAT I THINK ADMINISTRATION IS HERE.
I MYSELF, I'M A LITTLE, I DON'T THINK I FULLY UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS AMENDMENT, BUT ALSO I THINK WE'VE HEARD REALLY IN FOLKS WANTING MORE AFFORDABILITY.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO SEND THIS TO COUNCIL.
I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER AND HOPEFULLY BY THEN STAFF MAY HELP THEM HAVE MORE.
ANY MORE SPEAKERS AGAINST? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD.
UM, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO ON THE DIOCESE AND FAVOR TWO IN FAVOR, UH, ZERO ONE.
SO THAT PASSES 10 TO, TO, UH, 10 0 2, RIGHT.
SO LET'S GO AND KEEP MOVING THROUGH OUR LIST.
SO, UH, WE ARE THROUGH WITH THE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
AND SO, UH, WITH THAT, I NEED JERRY, YOU'RE GOING TO RESTATE THE MOTION WITH ALL AMENDMENTS.
AND VICE CHAIR IS GOING TO GO AHEAD AND READ, UH, THE EMOTIONS WITH ALL THE WORK WE'VE DONE.
SO I'LL, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO, UM, MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONERS ARE SECONDED BY MYSELF FOR ITEMS B FIVE B6 AND B SEVEN GRANT APPROVAL OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH CONDITIONS AS AMENDED.
SO I'M, UH, I'M GETTING THE NOD FROM COMMISSIONER RIVERA THAT, THAT COVERS IT.
SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND? DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THIS MOTION? I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
UH, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION? I'M STARTING TO JUST BY THE FODDER.
I THINK THE MOTION HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE IN SECOND AND I THINK IT WAS A RECENTLY RESTATING, BUT WE NEEDED TO ROLL THE AMENDMENTS.
WE VOTED ON ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS.
[06:05:01]
AMENDED.COMMISSIONER IS OUR, I DIDN'T GET YOUR POINT OF ORDER THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE OUR BASE MOTION WAS ESSENTIALLY DO FAST STAFF GROUP WOULD BE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE TO FOLLOW.
WE HAVE TO SET THE BASE AND THEN WE DID ALL THE AMENDMENTS.
SO REALLY, I THINK MY UNDERSTANDING IS WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON IS THE MOTION THAT WE NEED, WHATEVER NUMBER OF HOURS, SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME ON THIS THE END.
SO WHY SHOULD YOU COULD HELP ME AS WELL? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS MOTION WAS MADE BY ME SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR EARLY ON IN THE EVENING.
AND THAT IS THE MOTION THAT WE'RE VOTING ON WITH ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT FOLLOWED, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE, OKAY.
AND WE'VE ALREADY PROVED ALL THE AMENDMENTS.
SO YOU DON'T NEED ANOTHER VOTE IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
UH, WE, WE DO NEED ANOTHER VOTE AFTER AN AMENDED.
SO IT'S BASICALLY, WE'VE JUST RESTATED THE MOTION AND WE NEED TO JUST VOTE, DO THE FINAL VOTE.
UM, CAN WE JUST GET CONFIRMATION FROM STAFF THAT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE THE LANGUAGE OF EVERYTHING THAT WAS SPOKEN SINCE WE'RE NOT GOING TO READ? HE DID CONFIRM.
SO WE'RE, WE NEED TO GO AND VOTE.
NOW, UH, IF NO OBJECTIONS TO FOREGOING DISCUSSION, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE.
WELL, I WANT TO CONGRATULATE YOU ALL A GREAT WORK WORKING GROUP.
AND THANK YOU ALL TO THE TEAM.
DO WE HAVE MORE AGENDA? LET'S SEE HOW MANY MINUTES WE GOT YOU JUST DISPOSE OF THE AGENDA.
SO I'M GOING TO GO AND DISPOSE OF THE AGENDA.
I THINK I NEED TO GET A VOTE FOR THAT, RIGHT? YEAH.
SO SECOND, LET'S DO IT AND TAKE A VOTE TO DISPOSE OF THE AGENDA AND ADJOURN.