[00:00:07]
[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]
UM, SO HAVING A QUORUM, UM, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET THIS, UH, MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION STARTED.UH, THE DATE IS, UH, THE TIME IS 6 0 7 AND IT'S MARCH 22ND, 2022.
UM, WE'LL DO A QUICK ROLL CALL.
I'LL START WITH THE FOLKS HERE, UH, IN CHAMBERS AND, UM, START WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
I'M GOING TO WRITE, UM, COMMISSIONER CZAR HERE.
UH, YOUR CHAIR, TODD SHAW'S HERE.
AND, UM, JUST WANT TO, I'LL BRING THIS UP LATER, BUT WE HAVE THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS OVER HERE TO MY LEFT, UH, CHAIR COHEN.
AND THEN, UH, VIRTUALLY I'VE GOT A, JUST THE WAY I SEE YOU GUYS.
I'LL GO IN ORDER FROM TOP TO BOTTOM.
UH, COMMISSIONER YANNIS, PALITO HERE.
COMMISSIONER COX HERE, COMMISSIONER SHEA HERE, COMMISSIONER HOWARD HERE, COMMISSIONER FLORES.
AND I GOT COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER HERE.
UH, THERE MAY BE SOME OTHERS JOINTNESS LATER.
UM, BUT, UH, WE'RE GOOD FOR NOW.
SO, UH, JUST WANT TO START THINGS OFF.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY, WELL, LET ME DO A FEW HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS, APOLOGIZE.
UM, UH, NEVER THE PUBLIC, UH, THIS TO HYBRID MEETINGS.
SO WE'RE ALLOWING FOR, UM, A VIRTUAL CORUM.
HAVE YOU NOTICED, UM, AND, UM, AS LONG AS I'M HERE AS YOUR CHAIR, UH, IN, BUT WE DO HAVE SOME COMPANY TODAY APPRECIATE, UH, COMMISSIONERS BEING HERE TO JOIN ME.
UM, SO, UH, WE'LL HAVE SPEAKERS, UM, BOTH A LITTLE OUT THERE AND COMING TO THE PODIUM AS WELL AS, UH, SPEAKING, UH, VIRTUALLY.
SO WE ACCOMMODATE BOTH THOSE WITH THIS HYBRID MEETINGS, UM, MASK ARE REQUIRED, BUT IF YOU ARE HAVING DIFFICULTIES SPEAKING AT THE PODIUM, YOU CAN REMOVE IT FOR THAT BRIEF TIME.
UM, ALSO WE'D LIKE AS MUCH AS WE CAN PRACTICE SOCIAL DISTANCING, I THINK WE'RE PRETTY SPREAD OUT HERE.
I DON'T THINK, UH, PREVIOUSLY WHEN WE HAD VERY POPULAR CASES, WE WOULD ASK PEOPLE TO GO OUT IN THE ATRIUM UNTIL THEIR CASE WAS HEARD.
UM, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT, BUT IF YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE, IF YOU WANT TO GO OUT TO THE ATRIUM AND, UH, WAIT THERE, UH, WE'LL NOTIFY YOU.
WE ONLY HAVE, I THINK TWO CASES THUS FAR, SO IT'S NOT A HEAVY CASE LOAD TODAY.
UM, ANYWAY, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU'LL GET AN EMAIL IF YOU WERE SIGNED UP AS A SPEAKER, UH, THAT WE'RE ABOUT 15 MINUTES OUT.
SO WITH THAT, UM, I'VE GOT SOME HELP TODAY, MR. RIVERA, THE ANNOUNCING THE SPEAKERS COMMISSIONER FLORES.
WE'LL KIND OF GO THROUGH THE INITIAL RUN AT THE AGENDA AND, UM, UH, BOTH SHARON, I THINK, ARE YOU GOING TO HELP ME TODAY? JUST TRACK, UH, THE QUESTIONS OKAY.
AND JUST COMMISSIONERS, UH, THAT ARE VIRTUAL, JUST HAVE YOUR RED, GREEN, AND YELLOW CARDS FOR VOTING.
UM, AND I THINK WE DID A GOOD JOB AT THIS LAST TIME, BUT IT CAME TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE WAY I WAS KIND OF, UH, UM, ANNOUNCING, UH, THE OUTCOME OF THE BOATS, UH, THE PUBLIC HAD A HARD TIME KNOWING, UM, WHO VOTED FOR WHAT? SO, AND PLEASE KEEP ME ON TRACK HERE BECAUSE I MIGHT FORGET, BUT WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL GO AHEAD AND COUNT THE TOTAL VOTES, AND THEN I WILL ANNOUNCE THOSE, UH, IN, UH, THE NAMES OF THOSE THAT VOTED AGAINST, AND THAT WE'RE ABSTAINING THAT WAY.
IT'S KINDA CLEAR, UM, WHO VOTED WHICH WAY.
UM, AND JUST REMINDER THOSE ONLINE REMAINED MUTED AND RAISE THEIR HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED.
AND YEAH, GO AHEAD AND SPEAK UP IF I MISS YOU.
AND WITH THAT, I THINK, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZENS COMMUNICATION TODAY? NONE.
AND SO I'LL JUST, UH, REAL QUICKLY ASK IF THERE'S ANY CHANGES TO, UM, OUR MINUTES FROM MARCH 8, 20, 20 TO ALL RIGHT.
SO, UH, COMMISSIONER FLORES, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND INCLUDE THAT INTO THE CONSENT AGENDA THEN, UH, FOR APPROVAL.
AND WITH THAT, I'M GONNA LET, UH, COMMISSIONER
[Reading of Agenda]
FLORES HAVE THE FLOOR HERE AND GO THROUGH OUR AGENDA FOR TODAY.UM, WE HAVE FOR OUR AGENDA TODAY, A ONE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 8TH, 2020 TO BE ONE, UH, PUBLIC HEARINGS.
[00:05:01]
NPA 20 21 0 0 0 5 0.02 MONTOPOLIS MULTI-FAMILY.THAT IS A POOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 26, B TWO PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 21 0 0 1 6 0.05 POINT S H LIVE MAKE APARTMENTS.
THAT IS A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 12, B THREE, REZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 7 TO LIVE, MAKE APARTMENTS, UH, STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 12TH BEFORE PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 20 0 0 1 5 0.02 POINT S H 2011 AND 2015 E E M.
THAT IS APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 12, B FIVE, REZONING C 14 20 22 0 0 0 8 POINT S H 2011 AND 2015, IAN FRANKLIN.
THAT IS ALSO APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT, APRIL 12TH, V6 REZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 9 0 3000 EAST.
CESAR CHAVEZ IS APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 26, B SEVEN, REZONING C 14 20 22 0 0 1 0 34 0 2 KIRBY LANE.
THAT ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION B EIGHT, REZONING C 14 20 22 0 0 1 3 54, 10 TO 55 0 4 VIEWPOINT DRIVE.
THAT ITEM IS UP FOUR CONSENT BENIGN SITE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WAIVER REQUEST 0 1 6 TO SEE EAST 51ST STREET MULTIFAMILY MULTIFAMILY PLAN.
THAT ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT BEATEN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SPC 20 21 0 2 4 7 C EARL J POMERLEAU POCKET PARK.
THAT ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT DAY 11 PRELIMINARY PLAN C 8 20 20 0 1 1 2 BREAKER VALLEY SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAN.
THAT ITEM IS A FOUR DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS PER EXHIBIT C B12 FINAL PLAT C 8 20 20 0 1 8 8 0.08 1940 WEBER GO ROAD SUBDIVISION.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS PER EXHIBIT C AND B 13 CODE AMENDMENT C 20 20 21 0 0 6 VERTICAL MIXED USE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION, DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT, AND WILL BE HEARD AFTER THE CONSENT AGENDA.
THOSE ARE ALL THE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, I'LL JUST, UH, MENTION THIS ONE THAT DOES AFFECT YOU.
COMMISSIONER FLORES, UH, TALKED TO, UH, MR. RIVERA AND WE'RE GOING TO, UH, SEE, UM, I'M GOING TO ASK THE COMMISSIONER IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS, UH, IF WE CAN MOVE ITEM , WHICH IS, UM, TO NOMINEE NATE, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND NOMINATE TO COMMISSIONER FLORES.
YOU'VE ALREADY SERVED ON BEEN SERVING ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE, AND, UH, WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND REAPPLY, UM, REQUESTS THAT YOU GET REAPPOINTED TO THAT, UH, POSITION.
UH, ARE THERE ANY, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THAT NOMINATION AND MOVING THAT TO CONSENT? OKAY.
DO WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT? NOPE, IT WILL BE VOTED IN CONSENT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THAT, UH, JOINT COMMITTEE, UH, COMMISSIONER FLORES, AND, UM, LET'S SEE.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, MISSIONERS THAT NEED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FOR ANY OF THE ITEMS TODAY? OKAY.
I DON'T SEE ANY, UM, ONE MOMENT.
SO WITH THAT, UM, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA AGAIN AND, AND, OH, WELL, LET'S MAKE A PAUSE.
I HAVE, YES, I HAVE, UM, SOMEBODY THAT WANTED TO SPEAK ON B EIGHT, IS THAT CORRECT? MR. RIVERA? LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, HAVE THAT SPEAKER COME ON NOW.
THEY WERE IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM.
YES, CHAIR, UH, COMMISSIONER HE'S ON ANDOVER.
SO, UM, MS. LAUREL FRIEND CELL HAS ALL ON, ON OUR TELECONFERENCE.
UH, YOU WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ITEM B EIGHT.
WE'LL TAKE YOUR REMARKS AT THIS TIME.
IF YOU'LL SELECT STAR SIX TO PROVIDE YOUR REMARKS.
[00:10:01]
GRANTS.I REPRESENT BLAS ARTLESS HOA, UH, SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH 313 HOMES.
AND THE NORTH BORDER IS I'M ALSO A VOTING MEMBER OF THE SOUTHEAST COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONTEXTS.
AND I'M ASKED WHERE I SHOULD SPEAK WITH THEM.
UM, SO, UH, LOTS OF OUR BLOWERS HAS HAD A FEW CONCERNS, UH, PARTICULARLY PUTTING DRIVEWAYS ON VIEWPOINTS.
THE DEVELOPERS HAVE ADDRESSED OUR CONCERNS AND ARE WORKING WITH US.
THEY'VE DONE PRESENTATIONS, UM, ASSET CONTACTING MEETINGS, AND BOTH ORGANIZATIONS DO SUPPORT THIS REZONING FROM SF TO, TO S S S S THREE.
WE FEEL IT IS, UM, THE DUPLEX IS, WOULD BE THE MOST COMPATIBLE, UH, DENSE HOUSING THAT COULD BE PUT IN THAT LOCATION.
LET ME GO AND READ THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[Consent Agenda]
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 8TH, 2020 TO ITEM B ONE, UH, PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT, APRIL 26, AND A B2 PLAN AMENDMENT STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 12TH, V3 REZONING STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 12TH BEFORE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICANT, PRESS PERMIT TILL APRIL 12TH AND A B FIVE OR ZONING APPLICANT POSTPONED THAT TO APRIL 12TH, REZONING APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 26.THIS IS A DISCUSSION ITEM THIS EVENING, B EIGHT REZONING SIGNED CONSENT B NINE SITE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WAIVER REQUEST IS ON CONSENT.
AND A B 10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS ON CONSENT.
UH, B 11 PRIMARY PLAN IS A DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS.
UH, THESE REASONS ARE IN EXHIBIT C AT THE BACKUP ITEM B 12 FINAL PLAT DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS, UH, REASONS ARE IN EXHIBIT C AND THE BACKUP AND ITEM B 13, WHICH WILL TAKE UP IS A DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT RIGHT AFTER WE VOTE ON CLOUDS FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND THE CONSENT AGENDA.
SO DO I HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT, UH, WISH TO PULL ANYTHING OFF THIS, UH, CONSENT AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION? OKAY.
UH, DO I HAVE ANY, UM, EMOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING CLEANING, UH, AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AND THE MINUTES FROM MARCH EIGHT? I GOT A, WE SURE DID WE, UH, INCLUDE ON THAT? I'M SORRY.
THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT.
THAT WAS, I BROUGHT THAT UP AND FAILED TO INCLUDE THAT.
UH, SO LET'S GO BACK, UH, READ THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WE WANT TO INCLUDE IN THE CONSENT AGENDA, UH, NOMINATING COMMISSIONER FLORES TO THE COMPENSATION PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.
UH, AND SO LET'S ROLL THAT INTO CONSENT AGENDA.
SO WITH THAT, UM, CAN I GET A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND PASS CONSENT AGENDA? C COMMISSIONER IS OUR SECOND BY VICE CHAIR.
HEMPEL, UH, LET'S GO AND VOTE.
AND RAISE YOUR HANDS ON THE DYESS AND OKAY.
UH, WITH THAT, WE HAVE OUR FIRST CASE
[B.13. Code Amendment: C20-2021-006 - Vertical Mixed Use Affordability Requirements (Part 1 of 2)]
AND THERE'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT, THIS IS A, UH, ITEM B, UM, UH, B 13 IS A CODE AMENDMENT, BUT WE HAVE HAD, UH, NUMEROUS, UM, REQUESTS FROM THE, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS PREDOMINANTLY TO ALLOW MORE TIME FOR THEM TO LOOK AT THIS.UM, I WILL JUST SAY THAT, UM, WE ARE, UH, A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, SVEN ALREADY POSTPONED.
I THINK WE KNOW, UH, FROM THE TIME WE WERE TRYING TO GET THIS TO OUR WORK TO COUNSEL, UH, THERE WERE SOME, SOME ISSUES THAT, UH, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO DO THAT IN A TIMELY MANNER, BUT NOW, UM, APRIL 7TH IS THE DATE WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT, UH, UH, COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT THIS.
SO, UH, BUT IN ALL OF THAT, WE HAVE THE REQUEST.
WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND START WITH ANDREW.
I THINK SPEAKERS THAT ARE REQUESTING THE POSTPONEMENT.
CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LADIES ON.
I WROTE, YES, WE'LL BEGIN, UH, WITH, UH, MS. ANA GHETTO, WHO'S ON THE TELECONFERENCE AND MISS HONOR GHETTO, IF YOU ALL SELECT STAR SIX AND PROVIDE
[00:15:01]
YOUR REMARKS TO THE FIRST REQUEST, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES.YOU ARE UN-MUTED UH, JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE, UN-MUTED ON YOUR PHONE AS WELL.
UH, MORGAN, TO HAVE MS. GARY CALL BACK IN.
I MISS I GETTING, IF YOU COULD CALL BACK IN AND, UH, WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM, UH, A DOCTOR, FRIENDS, LEE, THIS RUNS ALL, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES AND MISSY GALA, IF YOU COULD CALL BACK IN, HELLO, EVERYONE I'M NATALEE FRENSLEY.
I'M THE CHAIR OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE.
AND TONIGHT I'M HERE TO RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THE COMMISSION POSTS ELM VMU AMENDMENT ITEM, SO THAT AUSTIN NEIGHBORS AND NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE TIME TO UNDERSTAND THIS VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE LISTENING SESSION.
LAST WEEK, I ATTENDED IT ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHER NEIGHBORS.
SO THE BRIEFING MATERIALS WERE SHARED WITH US BEFORE LAST WEEK'S LISTENING SESSION, WE LOCKED THE CONTEXT.
WE LEFT THE IN-DEPTH DETAILS BECAUSE WE WEREN'T PRIVY TO THE DAY-TO-DAY ENCOUNTERS WITH CITY STAFF TO UNDERSTAND THIS VERY, VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE.
AND WITH THAT, WE FEEL HAMPERED.
WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE NUANCES.
WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DETAILS, BUT WE KNOW THAT THIS IS A VERY CRUCIAL ISSUE.
THE LISTENING SESSION WAS USEFUL, BUT FOR NEIGHBORS TO BE ABLE TO DELIBERATE AND TO UNDERSTAND THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITY INTERESTS, WE MUST HAVE ACCESS TO DEEP AND DETAILED EXPLANATIONS FROM APPOINTED AND ELECTED OFFICIALS AND THEIR STAFF ABOUT THESE VERY COMPLICATED ISSUES.
A POSTPONEMENT BY THE COMMISSION TONIGHT SIGNALS THAT COMMUNITY AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IS VALUED.
IT WAS ONLY ON FRIDAY, LESS THAN FIVE DAYS AGO, A DAY AND A HALF OF WEEKDAY TIME FOR US TO BE ABLE TO EVALUATE THE FINAL DRAFT RESOLUTION.
I WANT TO COMPARE THIS WITH THE ASM P THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN AMENDMENTS, BOTH THE BU BUILT THE VMU AND THE SNP AMENDMENTS ARE GOING TO PROFOUNDLY AFFECT OUR CITY, THE ASM P AMENDMENT PROCESS INVOLVED TWO EXTENSIONS.
ALL RIGHT, THAT'S A SCARY NOISE INVOLVED.
I GUESS, IF YOU COULD FOCUS YOUR I'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE MORE TIME, BUT IT'S FOCUSED ON KIND OF THE POSTPONEMENT ITSELF AND NOT THE MERITS OF THE BMU ITSELF.
SO IF WE COULD, WHY DO, WHY DO WE NEED A POSTPONEMENT? SO IF YOU COULD BRIEFLY VERY, VERY GOOD.
WE NEED A POSTPONEMENT SO THAT WE CAN DELIBERATE ON THIS.
THERE IS A LOT TO THIS WE'RE ASKING FOR SIX WEEKS, WE'RE ASKING FOR A POSTPONEMENT UNTIL MAY 10TH.
THE REASON FOR THAT DATE, THAT DATA'S NOT ARBITRARY.
THE AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOODS COUNCIL IS MEETING TOMORROW.
THAT'S CERTAINLY NOT ENOUGH TIME.
WE'RE NOT RE UNREASONABLE PEOPLE, BUT IF WE COULD, IF WE COULD HAVE THAT MAY 10TH EXTENSION PEOPLE FROM THE CITY WOULD BE ABLE TO, TO REACH US, TO REACH MULTIPLE NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGH THE FORUM OF THE AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOODS COUNCIL, AND BE ABLE TO ALLOW US TO END UP ENGAGE, ASK QUESTIONS, DELIBERATE.
OBVIOUSLY THE CITY IS CHANGING, BUT WHAT WE'RE SEEING WITH THIS VMU IS WE'RE SEEING COMPARISONS BETWEEN 2008 ORIGINAL VM YIELD AND THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE INTRODUCED IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR VERSUS THE MUCH MORE RECENT AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED IN THIS YEAR.
[00:20:01]
MORE TIME TO UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE MOVING PIECES OF THIS VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE.THANK YOU, MR. GARRETT, YOU COULD SELECT STAR SIX.
I'M ON A, BOTH CHEER SHOT AND COMMISSIONERS.
UM, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE YOU.
MY NAME IS DONNA ACCURATE ENOUGH.
IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIR OF THE STAFF IS COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACTING.
I WON'T TAKE TOO MUCH OF YOUR TIME.
I SAID, ACCEPT THE COMMISSIONERS EMAIL LATE.
CONTACTING THAT BEING TO MEET YESTERDAY BECAUSE OF THE SEVERE WEATHER AT THE IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIR, I HAVE AN AND WE HOPE CAMP YET FOR TEACHERS TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK REGARDING THE PROPOSED VERTICAL MAKES THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE NEED THE CONSTANT REVIEW AND DELIBERATE WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED.
THANK YOU FOR ITERATION AND SERVICE DIRECT COMMUNITY.
COULDN'T CLOSE THE SPEAKERS WHERE THE POSTPONEMENT.
AND WE ARE, UH, NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY, UM, SPEAKERS IN FAVOR.
UH, WE'RE GOING TO GO RIGHT TO Q AND A.
AND, UM, SO, UH, COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE QUESTIONS EITHER OF OUR SPEAKERS OR IN THIS CASE, I GUESS STAFF ALSO, UM, GO TO THE, UH, GIVE ME ONE SEC REQUESTS BIG ONLINE WITH THAT OPPORTUNITY.
IF WE ACTUALLY TAKE UP THE CASE THIS EVENING, YOU WILL GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK.
THIS IS ONLY ABOUT WHETHER WE HERE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING, OR IF, UH, WE'RE GOING TO PLUS PONANT TILL A DATE, UH, THAT WE VOTE ON.
PLEASE STAY HERE BECAUSE YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK MAY COME LATER DEPENDING ON HOW WE VOTE HERE ON THIS ITEM.
SO, UM, LET'S QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONERS, UH, TO STAFF OR OUR SPEAKERS, UM, COMMISSIONER COX, THE STAFF GIVE US A BIT OF A RECAP ON NOTIFICATION, UH, THAT THEY SEND OUT REGARDING THIS ORDINANCE CHANGE.
AND THEN ALSO WHEN THE FINAL, UH, DRAFT ORDINANCE WAS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW FOR THE PUBLIC, AND JUST A REAL QUICK POINT OF ORDER, UM, IS A GREAT QUESTION.
AND THAT FITS WHAT WE'RE HERE.
QUESTIONS SHOULD, UH, REVOLVE AROUND THE MERITS OF POSTPONEMENT OR THE POSTPONEMENT ITSELF, NOT THE MERITS OF THE CASE.
COMMISSIONER COX UM, HELLO, MY NAME IS SAM TEDFORD.
I'M A PRINCIPAL PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF BOSTON'S HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
AND I CAN SPEAK TO BOTH THOSE QUESTIONS, I BELIEVE SO TO THE FIRST ONE ABOUT NOTICE, UM, HER, OUR CODE, THE NOTICE WAS PROVIDED AT LEAST 11 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF A PUBLIC HEARING, UM, FOR A CODE AMENDMENT AT A COMMISSION.
SO THIS COMMISSION, UM, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK UP MY NOTES ON EXACTLY WHICH DATE THE NOTICE WAS PROVIDED, BUT IT WENT OUT TO ALL REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS IN THE CITY.
UM, BEFORE THIS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
UM, AS I MENTIONED IN THE BRIEFING LAST, UH, LAST MEETING, THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR CASE HAS BEEN NOTICED SEVERAL TIMES, STARTING BACK WHEN WE WERE INTENDING TO JUST TAKE UP THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S JULY AMENDMENTS.
SO LATE LAST YEAR, THERE WAS A NOTICE OF CHANGES THAT NEVER IN, IN THOSE, UM, THAT PUBLIC HEARING NEVER TOOK PLACE BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE WAYS THAT THIS PARTICULAR CODE AMENDMENT HAS CHANGED OVER TIME AS WE GOT ADDITIONAL DIRECTION.
UM, AND TO THE SECOND QUESTION ABOUT THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, THE DRAFT ORDINANCE WAS PROVIDED AS BACKUP.
UM, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS UPDATED, UM, ON THE CITY WEBSITE LAST THURSDAY, THAT WOULD BE THE 17TH OF MARCH.
WELL, SINCE THE NOTICE WAS SENT OUT, I THINK HE SAID IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY 11 DAYS AGO, UM, HAVE, HAS THERE BEEN ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC INPUT AND PUBLIC FEEDBACK BEYOND THE PUBLIC HEARING WE'RE HAVING TONIGHT? THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY FORMAL, UM, ENGAGEMENT BEYOND THE PUBLIC HEARINGS? NO.
IS IT CITY STAFF RECEIVING AND, OR RESPONDING TO ANY SORT OF FEEDBACK? HAS CITY STAFF MADE THEMSELVES AVAILABLE AND WHATEVER FORM OF CONTACT FOR FEEDBACK? YES.
[00:25:01]
SO I WAS LISTED, UM, ON THE NOTICE, UM, MY CONTACT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED AND I'M FIELDING LOTS OF INQUIRIES.UM, EVERY TIME WE'VE SENT OUT A PUBLIC NOTICE.
SO I WOULD SAY FOR FOLKS WHO HAVE REACHED OUT, THEY HAVE GOTTEN INFORMATION, BUT THERE'S NOT BEEN ADDITIONAL ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BEYOND THE, THE, THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WENT OUT.
AND MY LAST QUESTION, IF I'VE GOT TIME, IS COULD YOU HELP EXPLAIN WHAT OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT THERE ARE IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECIDES TO TAKE UP THIS ITEM TONIGHT? UH, I BELIEVE THE ONLY FORMAL REQUIREMENT IS THE PUBLIC HEARING AT CITY COUNCIL, IN ADDITION TO THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS COMMISSION.
SO THIS PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN ONE OTHER PUBLIC HEARING AT COUNCIL.
AND UNLESS, UH, COUNCIL ALWAYS HAS, OR WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO TAKE UP THE ISSUE IN MULTIPLE READINGS, I BELIEVE.
AND SO, UM, THERE COULD BE MULTIPLE PUBLIC HEARINGS, UM, IF THEY SPLIT IT INTO MORE THAN ONE READING.
THE OTHER QUESTION FOR THOSE THAT ARE REQUESTING THE, UM, POSTPONEMENT, I WAS WONDERING IF, UM, FROM THE, YOU KNOW, HAS THERE BEEN ANY ORGANIZATIONAL DISCUSSION, UM, ABOUT THE BMU? HOW HAVE YOU GUYS HAD THE CHANCE TO GET TOGETHER, UM, AS A GROUP TO DISCUSS THIS, OR IS IT PRETTY MUCH JUST PIECEMEAL INDIVIDUALS? AND, UM, AND IF YOU HADN'T GOTTEN THAT, WHAT IS THE SCHEDULE A TIMING TO GET THAT DONE? YOU'RE SAYING THAT ENCS MEETING, I GUESS TOMORROW IT HAS THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS PLANNING TO MEET TOGETHER SPECIFICALLY FORMALLY TO DISCUSS THAT.
HAS ANY OF THAT HAPPENED YET, OR IS IT, UM, OR IS THAT WHAT'S HAPPENING? YOU'RE TRYING TO GET DONE.
SO THIS IS AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION COMMISSIONER AND WHAT I HAVE DONE TODAY.
OF COURSE, WE HAD CANCELED YESTERDAY.
WHAT I HAVE DONE TO DATE IS CHECK TO SEE IF WE CAN RESCHEDULE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE I'M MEETING, INSTEAD OF WAITING UNTIL THE FULL MEETING NEXT MONTH, I HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THESE POLICIES AT ALL WITH THE GROUP.
SO YOU HAVEN'T HAD ANY, YOU HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT TOGETHER A GROUP DISCUSSION THEN, IS THAT AS AN ORGANIZATION APPROACH, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WHAT WE, WHAT I SAW WAS THIS SOUND GUY, YOU KNOW, AND I'VE GOT SOME OF THE INFORMATION FROM COMMISSIONER OZAR FROM LAST WEEK WHEN THE WORK GROUP WAS MEETING.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS ALL I HAVE TO PRESENT TO THE GROUP AT THIS POINT.
UH, AND OF COURSE ADDING, BUT WITH POSTED IN THE AGENDA FOR TODAY.
AND WHEN, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO BE MEETING ABOUT IT? YOU SAID IT WAS CANCELED, BUT WHEN WHEN'S THE NEXT MEETING, THAT'S WHAT I'M WAITING TO HEAR FROM OUR MEMBERSHIP TIER TO SEE HOW SOON WE CAN SCHEDULE OUR NEXT MEETING.
WE WILL HAVE TO SYNC UP A QUICK EMAIL TO ALL THE MEMBERS TO SEE HOW QUICKLY THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO MEET AGAIN.
UM, AND THEN A QUESTION TO STAFF, I GUESS, IN THE PAST, UM, THERE WAS WAYS THAT THE PUBLIC CAN INPUT, CAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THE INPUT IS JUST SPECIFICALLY JUST YOUR EMAIL, IS THAT CORRECT? OR IS THERE SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE COULD, UM, TYPE IN RESPONSES LIKE AS THEY'RE REVIEWING IT, THEY COULD JUST TYPE IN QUICK THINGS ON A WEBSITE THAT GOES BACK TO STAFF OR SUGGEST THERE'S YOUR EMAIL AND YOUR PHONE NUMBER AND THAT'S IT.
UM, SO AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND THE EMAIL AND THE PHONE NUMBER ARE THE FORMAL REQUIREMENT BY CODE, WHAT NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED AND GENERALLY ANY ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE COULD CREATE FOR ENGAGEMENT WOULD BE UP TO STAFF, TO KIND OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT, AND THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR IT.
AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN UP TO US.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED PER CODE, BUT NOT TO THE POINT OF, FOR INSTANCE, THE OTHER ENGAGEMENTS YOU HAVE.
UM, THAT'S IT OF MY QUESTIONS.
UM, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? HE STILL HAS A COUPLE MINUTES.
UM, MR. REYNOLDS, UH, WELL, JUST THE POINT OF ORDER, UH, ON, IN THIS TENT, WE'RE JUST DISCUSSING POSTPONE AND WE HAD TWO SPEAKERS.
ARE WE ONLY ABLE TO HEAR FROM THOSE TWO SPEAKERS OR I WAS, I WAS, OH, OKAY.
I WAS GOING TO RESPOND TO THE COMMISSIONER ON THE OTHER MEETINGS.
THAT'S PART OF HIS DISCUSSION AND THAT IS GO AHEAD.
[00:30:01]
AND THE LAST NIGHT THERE WAS, UH, A ZOOM MEETING WITH ABOUT 20 OR SO NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS TRYING TO GET TOGETHER.THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT ANY OF THAT WORK HAD BEEN DONE WITH THE NEIGHBORS WAS LAST NIGHT, FIRST TIME WE GOT A CHANCE TO DO THAT.
AND, UH, THE, THE PLAN PLANET THAT SET FORWARD THEM WAS THAT TOMORROW NIGHT IS TOO QUICK TO GET SOMETHING DONE, BUT WE COULD DO SOMETHING IN THE NEXT MONTH.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO WAS TO GET THAT DONE AND, AND SPEND TIME WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT ARE PROPOSING THIS, THE SPONSOR AND THE, AND THE SUPPORTING COUNCIL MEMBERS, SO THAT WE COULD WORK OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON.
THAT WAS THE PLAN FOR, FOR THE, THE DELAY UNTIL, UH, Y'ALL'S FIRST MEETING IN MAY.
AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE THINGS ARE, BUT NONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS THAT I KNOW OF HAD NONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS THAT I KNOW OF HAVE HAD ANY OF THE DISCUSSION OF THIS STUFF, WE REALLY GOT, THE STUFF MAY HAVE BEEN ON THE WEBSITE FLOATING AROUND, BUT WHEN THE THING CAME OUT WITH THE AGENDA THAT WAS POSTED, THAT'S THE FIRST TIME WE GOT OUR HANDS ON IT.
SO THAT THAT'S THE REASON FOR THIS ALRIGHT.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS.
UH, UH, LET'S SAY YOU MENTIONED THE HONEST PLATO.
UM, APOLOGIES FOR MY ACTIVITY IS EARLIER.
SO THIS MAY BE A LITTLE BIT REDUNDANT, BUT I JUST WANT TO ASK STAFF TO, TO GO OVER AGAIN, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CODE CHANGE NOTICES NOTIFICATIONS THAT WOULD GO TO COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL AND OTHERS ON THE COMMUNITY REGISTRY COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, VERSUS THOSE THAT GO TO PEOPLE WHO ARE OWNING PROPERTY OR LIVING ON A UTILITY BILL WITHIN A PARTICULAR RADIUS OF THE CHANGE AND HOW THAT NOTICE IS ARTICULATED.
COULD YOU SAY, COULD YOU, COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT DISTINCTION AS WELL AS WHAT'S GONE OUT SO FAR? SURE.
TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITIES, I AM.
I'M NOT THE EXPERT ON STUFF ON NOTIFICATION, BUT SINCE THIS IS NOT A CHANGING A SPECIFIC, YOU KNOW, UM, PROPERTY IS NOT BEING REZONED.
THERE'S DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS WHEN YOU'RE REZONING AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY, VERSUS WHEN YOU'RE AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE CODE.
AND SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS THE LADDER, UH, MEANING THE TEXT OF THE CODE, WHICH MEANS THAT OUR NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT IS TO, UM, SEND THE NOTICE TO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS, UM, WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN, AT LEAST 11 DAYS BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT A PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND THEN I REMEMBER CORRECTLY FOR COUNCIL IT'S 16 DAYS BEFORE A PUBLIC HEARING AT COUNCIL, AND THEN THERE NEEDS TO BE KNOWN AS PROVIDED IN THE STATESMAN NEWSPAPER.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION COMMISSIONER? IT DOES, BUT IT KIND OF GIVES ME ANOTHER ONE.
SO I WANT TO UNDERSTAND IF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING MEANS THAT TO CHANGE THE TEXT OF AN EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATION IS NOT THE SAME TO CHANGE AS CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION ITSELF.
THIS IS NOT CONSIDERED A REZONING IT'S AS WE'RE CHANGING THE REQUIREMENTS OF A PARTICULAR ZONE OF VERTICAL MIXED USE ZONE ENTITLEMENTS, TECHNICALLY NOT HOW THESE CHICKEN SAID, GO AHEAD.
UH, IT IS A CHANGE IN BONUS ENTITLEMENTS THROUGH A VOLUNTARY DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE PATHWAY BY WHICH THIS WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A ZONING CHANGE.
I'M JUST REALLY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE PATH WE'RE DOING THIS, ESPECIALLY TEXT AND CODE, UM, VERSUS CONCEPT.
SO, UM, YEAH, I'M GOING TO STOP MY QUESTIONS THERE.
I MAY HAVE MORE, BUT I'M YEAH, I'M STUCK THERE THINKING.
UH, COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS.
UM, I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT OR A RESPONSE TO SOMETHING COMMISSIONER COX HAD MENTIONED EARLIER.
SO I KNOW STAFF HAS ITS OWN PROCESSES, BUT THE WORKING GROUP DID HAVE A LISTENING SESSION ON THE 16TH.
I WANT TO SAY, UM, WHERE WE SHARED SORT OF STAFF WAS PROPOSING AND WE GOT A LOT OF FEEDBACK AND THAT'S SHAPED SOME OF OUR AMENDMENTS.
SO, UH, WE HAD THAT LISTENING SESSION.
I KNOW I'VE BEEN IN CONTACT VIA EMAIL WITH MULTIPLE SORT OF STAKEHOLDERS ON THIS AS WELL, I THINK, AS HAS AS HAVE OTHER, UH, FOLKS IN THE WORKING GROUP.
BUT I DID JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT I'M GOING TO GO ON THIS QUESTION BEFORE WE, UH, DID SOME REPEATS HERE,
[00:35:01]
UH, FOR STAFF AND I DON'T KNOW WHO THE RIGHT STAFF MEMBER TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION, BUT CAN YOU GIVE SOME OTHER EXAMPLES OF CODE AMENDMENTS, UH, THAT, UH, MAY HAVE BEEN, UM, PASSED THIS WAY, GO, YOU KNOW, COME THROUGH PC AND THEN THE COUNCIL AND, UM, I JUST, I'M TRYING TO GET SOME OTHER EXAMPLES OF SOME THINGS WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST THAT, UH, MIGHT RISE TO THE SAME LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE, UM, AND WERE THEN, UH, APPROVED BY COUNCIL.SO JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE FOR WHAT OTHER EXAMPLES WE HAVE OUT THERE BESIDES IT'S BMU, IS THERE ANY, AND, UH, FOR SURE IF ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE EXAMPLES TOO, THAT THEY MIGHT WANT TO POINT OUT, I JUST, AND YOU STAFF MEMBERS AVAILABLE DANCE, UH, TO GIVE SOME EXAMPLES SURE.
AND I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY TAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO CONVEY.
I HAVE, I HAVE ONE EXAMPLE OF, SORRY, THIS IS SAM TEDFORD, UH, CITY OF AUSTIN HOUSING AND PLANNING.
UM, THE, ONE OF THE MORE RECENT, AND IT WASN'T TERRIBLY RECENT EXAMPLES WAS WHEN THE UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY WAS AMENDED IN, I WANT TO SAY 2019, PERHAPS 2018, UM, WHICH IS AGAIN, ALL IT'S, UH, IT'S A SORT OF DIFFERENT STRUCTURED THAN THE VERTICAL MIXED USE, BUT IT WAS A CODE CHANGE, UM, THAT ALLOWED A DIFFERENT HEIGHT WITHIN THE UNO AREA.
UM, AND THAT WAS, UH, CONSIDERED A CODE AMENDMENT AT THAT TIME.
DID WE JUST FOLLOW THE KIND OF MINIMUM NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OR DID WE DO ADDITIONAL OUTREACH, UM, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE SURE IT, YOU KNOW, COMMUNICATION, UM, LIKE WE DO ON SOME OF THE OTHER LARGE, YOU KNOW, LARGER, MORE IMPACTFUL CHANGES LIKE ASAP.
I MEAN, WAS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL OUTREACH DONE ABOVE THE MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENTS? I WOULDN'T, I DON'T FULLY KNOW WHAT WAS DONE AT THE TIME.
UM, THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW.
UH, I GUESS COMMISSIONER COX, WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE TIME.
DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? WELL, I JUST THOUGHT, UH, COMMISSIONERS ARE MADE A GOOD POINT AND I WAS HOPING THAT MAYBE HE COULD JUST TAKE A MINUTE TO, UM, TELL US THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THE WORKING GROUP PROCESS.
AND THEN CLARIFY, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER, I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE LAST MEETING A LITTLE BIT, BUT CLARIFY IF THOSE WORKING GROUP MEETINGS WERE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC OR ADVERTISED IN, IN ANY WAY, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS TO KNOW, UM, A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT PROCESS.
AND THEN BEFORE I FORGET, UM, CHAIR, YOU HAD SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE COUNCIL INTENDING TO TAKE THIS UP ON A CERTAIN DATE.
AND SO I WAS ALSO HOPING TO UNDERSTAND BETTER WHAT YOU MEANT BY THAT OR WHAT INFORMATION YOU MAY HAVE ON THAT.
UM, YEAH, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO, WELL, THAT'S YOUR COST? LET ME, HOPEFULLY I CAPTURED WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.
I FEEL LIKE IT WAS BROKEN UP INTO TWO PARTS.
UM, WE HAD A MIX OF FOLKS BOTH FROM, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVES AND WE HAVE, I THINK A FEW FOLKS WHO WERE WORKING IN INDUSTRY.
WE HAD FOLKS COMING FROM INFILL DEVELOPERS, BUT I THINK THE MAJORITY OF THE FOLKS THAT WE HEARD FROM WERE NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVES AT THAT MEETING.
UM, AND I KNOW A BUNCH OF FOLKS WHO WERE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK TO WERE THERE AND THEN TO ANSWER THE SECOND PART, I THINK THIS IS ONE THAT STAFF CAN HELP ME WITH BECAUSE IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THERE WERE SOME ISSUES WITH THE NOTICE.
THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ON AN EARLIER COUNCIL AGENDA.
IT HAD TO BE POSTPONED, BUT CAN STAFF KIND OF RUN ME THROUGH KIND OF WHAT HAPPENED THERE AND THE INITIAL INTENT AND HOW WE LANDED ON APRIL 7TH? I CAN GIVE A QUICK RECAP.
UM, SO THE COUNCIL APPROVED DIRECTION INCLUDED, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY WANTED US TO COME BACK TO THEM BY THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY OF 2022, UH, WITH THIS CODE AMENDMENT.
AND SO THAT HAD BEEN THE INITIAL TRACK WE WERE ON, UM, WHEN WE HAD AN ISSUE WITH THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS, GETTING THOSE COMPLETED IN TIME, AND THEN WITH THE CHANGES DUE TO, UM, HYBRID MEETINGS WHERE YOU COULD HAVE IN-PERSON AND, UM, REMOTE PARTICIPATION, WE HAD TO SEND A RE NOTICE THAT PROVIDED INFORMATION ABOUT THE ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY.
UM, AND SO FOR THOSE REASONS, WE'VE KIND OF MISSED A COUPLE DIFFERENT COUNCIL DATES AT THIS POINT.
UM, AND WE NEEDED TO TAKE THIS ITEM THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL, WHICH HAS NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
AND SO APRIL 7TH HAS BEEN THE ABSOLUTE FASTEST STATE.
WE COULD GET THIS BACK TO COUNCIL.
UM, EVEN THOUGH IT IS PAST THE JANUARY REQUESTED DATE IN THE INITIAL COUNCIL RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER COX.
DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? I THINK SO, BUT, BUT JUST TO CLARIFY, COUNSEL,
[00:40:01]
HASN'T INDICATED TO Y'ALL THAT THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS UP ON THAT DATE.YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO GET IT TO COUNCIL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
IS THAT MY, IS THAT A CORRECT UNDERSTANDING? UM, ERICA LEAK IS ALSO ON THE LINE WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND MAYBE SHE BETTER UNDERSTANDS THAT QUESTION.
SO THE, AS SAM MENTIONED, THE, UH, COUNCIL RESOLUTION CALLED FOR ACT CALLED FOR THIS ITEM TO BE READY FOR COUNCIL ACTION BY THE END OF JANUARY.
UM, AND SO BECAUSE OF PICKUPS IN THE, UM, IN THE NOTIFICATIONS, UM, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING TO GET AS CLOSE TO THAT DEADLINE AS POSSIBLE.
UM, SO STAFF DOESN'T HAVE ANY OPINION ON, YOU KNOW, ON, ON WHETHER PC SHOULD POSTPONE OR NOT.
WE'RE JUST LETTING YOU KNOW OF, UH, COUNCIL'S DIRECTION IN TERMS OF TIMELINE.
I THINK WHAT I'M KIND OF SUMMARIZING HERE, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, THIS IS AS SOON AS THEY COULD GET IT TO COUNCIL GIVEN THAT WE'RE WAY PAST WHEN THEY WANTED IT.
SO THAT'S, UM, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, UH, AS I UNDERSTAND, UM, IF WE DO POSTPONE THIS COUNT, IT WILL POST CONE, UM, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER DATE WE PICK COUNCIL CAN ONLY TAKE THIS ITEM UP AFTER WE HAVE OUR PUBLIC HEARING, UH, ON THE SIDE.
SO IT'LL THINGS WILL SLIDE, UH, DEPENDING ON WHEN WE WANT TO TAKE THIS UP.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER SHAY GO.
WE ARE JUST A QUICK POINT OF ORDER REAL QUICK.
WHAT, HOW MANY, WHERE ARE WE AT ON OUR THREE MORE SPOTS? OKAY.
UH, JUST HIS ANTIBODY THAT HAS NOT ASKED A QUESTION.
WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION BEFORE WE MAKE ANOTHER ROUND? UH, OH, SAY MR. DID YOU JUST ANSWER A QUESTION OR DID YOU ALREADY HAVE ONE? NO.
SO I WANT TO RECOGNIZE, I THINK COMMISSIONER AZHAR AND THEN COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE ONE MORE SPOT AFTER THAT.
YEAH, ACTUALLY I WAS JUST GOING TO CLARIFY SOMETHING.
SO BASICALLY WHEN I'M COMMISSIONER CONTEST ABOUT THE NOTIFICATION BASED OFF OF THE WORKING GROUPS, WORKING GROUP NOTIFICATION IS NOT THE SAME AS NOTIFICATION OF LIKE A MEETING.
SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, AND IF STAFF WANTS TO EXPAND ON THAT, I THINK THAT WILL BE GOOD BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE THE WHOLE PUBLIC KNEW ABOUT, OH, HEY, THERE'S A WORKING GROUP.
THAT'S GOING TO BE ON THIS THING.
IT DOESN'T GO THROUGH THE SAME NOTIFICATION PROCESS AS LIKE, WHEN IT GOES IN FRONT OF US.
SO I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
UH, COMMISSIONER ZAHRA, DO YOU HAVE YOUR QUESTION? SURE.
SO I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS.
SO THE AUTHORS OF THE, OF THE, UH, GOODNESS CREATION AND THIS WAS CO-SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOVER, COUNCIL MEMBER, ALTAR COUNCIL MEMBER, KITCHEN, AND COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, POOL.
AND IN THE IMMENSE, IN THE COORDINATION LANGUAGE ITSELF, IT CLEARLY SAYS THE CITY MANAGER SHALL BRING THESE GOOD AMENDMENTS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION BY JANUARY 31ST, 2022.
SO I KNOW FOR THE WORKING GROUP THAT HAS BEEN SORT OF PART OF THE URGENCY WHERE WE'VE BEEN GETTING THESE TWO WEEK INCREMENTS, BECAUSE WHEN IT WAS INITIATED BY COUNCIL, THEY ASKED FOR THIS TO GO BACK TO THEM BY THAT JANUARY 31ST DATE.
AND I WAS WONDERING IF COMMISSIONER GAWKS OR COMMISSIONER YANNIS BELIEVE IT WAS APPOINTEES WORKED ON THIS RESOLUTION HAVE SORT OF, OR OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE AN IDEA ON WHY THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GETTING DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND FROM OTHER FOLKS IF THEY KNOW WHY THAT DIRECTION WAS GIVEN BY THEIR APPOINTEES.
IS THIS UP FOR DISCUSSION? SHOULD I, CAN I RESPOND? UM, IS THIS, WHO DID YOU DIRECT THE QUESTION TO COMMISSIONER ZONER? OH, YES, YOU DID.
UH, PLEASE COMMISSIONER ON IS POLINA.
SO I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS ORIGINALLY CAME FROM A COMMITMENT FROM THOSE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT YOU MENTIONED COMMISSIONERS ARE, OR THE COMMISSIONERS HAD MENTIONED, UH, THAT, UM, WAS INTENDED TO LOOK AT WAYS TO EXPLORE EXPANSION OF THE DENSITY BONUS, UM, PRIOR TO THE LAWSUIT, THE, THE SOIL FOR RULING ON LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND SO NOW COMING BACK AT THIS TIME IN CONJUNCTION WITH SOME OF THESE OTHER PROPOSALS THAT WE'RE SEEING FLOATING AROUND COUNCIL, UH, THAT HAVE TO DO WITH VMU AND GRANTING ENTITLEMENTS, IT'S VERY CONTROVERSIAL.
[00:45:01]
A COMMISSIONER FOR DISTRICT NINE AND ALSO JUST A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY.MOST OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF THOSE COUNCIL MEMBERS MENTIONED THAT I'VE HEARD FROM ARE NOT HAPPY ABOUT THIS AT ALL.
UM, ESPECIALLY THE CONFLATION OF SOME OF THE, THE NOTIFICATION, UM, ERRONEOUS COMMENTS MADE ABOUT 11 DAYS REQUIRED WHEN IT'S REALLY 14 FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE CONFLATION OF NOTIFICATION OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS LIKE UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY.
FOR EXAMPLE, I WAS HERE FOR THAT BOAT AND, UH, THAT, THAT REFERRED TO A SPECIFIC PLANNING AREA AND THAT PLANNING AREA WAS NOTIFIED THAT CONTACT TEAM WAS NOTIFIED.
UM, WHEREAS THIS WOULD CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION VIA TEXTS FOR PEOPLE ALL OVER THE CITY AND THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS HASN'T BEEN TAKEN OUT IN THAT WAY.
SO ALL THAT TO SAY, THE INITIAL INTENTION FOR THIS CAME BEFORE THAT LAWSUIT AND THAT RULING, AND MANY OTHER PROPOSED PIECES OF POLICY.
UM, AND THERE'S BEEN ENORMOUS CONCERN THAT I'VE HEARD, NOT ONLY ABOUT THE IMPLICATION OF THIS, BUT ESPECIALLY THE CONFLATION OF NOTIFICATION, THE INABILITY OF COMMISSIONERS, INCLUDING ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO GET ANY RE VIRTUAL MEETINGS WITH THE WORKING GROUP OR TO GET INVITED, UM, OR TO, UH, PROPER ABOUT THAT.
THAT'S THE CONTEXT THAT I WOULD PROVIDE AND CHAIRED.
CAN I RESPOND SINCE I THINK COMMISSIONERS ARE MENTIONED DISTRICT 10 AS WELL.
I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT, UM, THE REASON WHY THIS IS DELAYED AS FAR AS MY UNDERSTANDING IS BECAUSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ISSUES.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT POSTPONING THIS BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY HELD TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THEY WENT LATE OR WHATEVER.
UH, IT'S PRETTY CUSTOMARY IN, IN THIS PARTICULAR BODY, AS FAR AS I'VE BEEN INVOLVED HERE THAT IF, IF, IF A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY OR A COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION REQUESTS A PLUS BOWMAN ON AN ITEM, BECAUSE THEY NEED ADDITIONAL TIME TO CONSIDER IT AND PROVIDE THAT SORT OF FEEDBACK THAT WE WANT FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WE TYPICALLY GRANT THAT AT LEAST ON AN INITIAL BASIS.
AND SO WHAT I WOULD JUST SAY IS THAT EVEN THOUGH COUNCIL MEMBERS DID INDICATE A DATE, THE REASON WE DIDN'T MEET THAT DATE, IT'S NOT BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY HAS ASKED US TO POSTPONE IT.
THE REASON WE'RE NOT MEETING THAT DATE IS BECAUSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURAL ISSUES.
AND SO I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT, UM, THAT THAT'S WHY WE'RE FACING THIS, THIS, THIS ISSUE RIGHT NOW WITH, WITH THE DATE AND JERRY, NO, I DON'T HAVE DINE, BUT COMMISSIONER YONIS BELIEVE THAT WE DID GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO ALL ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO PROVIDE US COMMENTS.
THIS WAS SHARED WITH CODES AND ORDINANCES, AND THEY DID ACTUALLY SHARE COMMENTS THAT WERE PART OF OUR DISCUSSION.
WE ARE, LET ME KEEP TRACK HERE.
SO, UH, COMMISSIONER, DID YOU RAISE YOUR HAND? I JUST WANT TO RECOGNIZE YOU THAT I, I, I HAVE AN ORDER OF QUESTIONS HERE.
DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT OR JUST IN RESPONSE TO, UH, COMMISSIONER AZHAR? UM, UH, SO I'M IN DISTRICT FIVE AND, UH, UH, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN WAS ONE OF THE COSPONSORS OF THIS.
UM, I REALLY VIEW THIS, UH, DIFFERENT AS A DIFFERENT APPROACH THAN WHAT WE TYPICALLY TAKE UP.
UM, I THINK MANY OF YOU WERE AROUND, OR AT LEAST SOME OF YOU WHEN WE REZONED, UH, MANUFACTURED HOUSING, UM, PLOTS ALL OVER THE CITY.
AND THE COUNCIL SAID TO US REZONE THESE AND TURN THEM INTO MANUFACTURED HOUSING PLOTS SO THAT THE ZONING IS SECURE.
SO PEOPLE WHO ARE IN MANUFACTURED HOUSING, WON'T GET BOOTED OUT BY, UH, AND REDEVELOPMENT AND IN A SIMILAR WAY, THE CO-SPONSORS OF THIS AMENDMENT, THEY ACTUALLY DRAFTED THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE AND LEFT A BLANK FOR THE PERCENTAGE TO FILL IN THE COUNCIL WAS CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THEY WANTED US TO DO.
IT'S NOT EXACTLY A MINISTERIAL FUNCTION FOR US, BUT WE WERE SORT OF LET, TO WORK OUT THE DETAILS.
AND I THINK THERE, OBVIOUSLY THIS ISSUE CAN BE A LOT BIGGER THAN WHAT, UH, IS GOING TO BE DISCUSSED LATER ON, BUT THE WORKING GROUP REALLY STUCK WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION THE COUNCIL GAVE US.
AND I KNOW A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE AROUND THIS ISSUE HAVE BEEN RAISED BY, UM, BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND OTHERS, BUT THEY'RE REALLY NOT WHAT IS, UH, COMING UP AS PART OF THE CODE AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE MAKING.
SO I JUST WANTED TO OFFER THAT CONTEXT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IS, AND DISTRICT THOUGHT.
AND NEXT WE HAVE, UM, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER PRAXIS, AND THEN WE ARE OUT OF QUESTIONS, UM, UH, FOR COMMISSIONERS AT THAT POINT.
UH, I GUESS I HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF AND THAT'S JUST TO UNDERSTAND IF, IF WE POSTPONE IT FOR SIX
[00:50:01]
WEEKS OR, OR SOME OTHER PERIOD, WILL THERE BE A, A DIFFERENT TYPE OF NOTIFICATION THAT GOES OUT OR WILL IT, I MEAN, WE'VE IDENTIFIED, WE POSTPONE AND THERE WON'T BE ANOTHER NOTIFICATION.UM, THERE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE ANOTHER TYPE OF NOTIFICATION.
UM, SO NOTIFICATIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SENT FOR THE APRIL 7TH COUNCIL MEETING.
UM, AND SO IF IT WERE POSTPONED BY PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL WOULD LIKELY HAVE TO NOTE THAT POSTPONEMENT TO A COUNCIL MEETING AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
UM, AND, AND THERE WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED NOTIFICATION.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE COULDN'T BE OTHER, OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISCUSSION, BUT THERE WOULD BE NO, NO REQUIREMENT OR EVEN INITIATIVE TO HAVE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF NOTICE THAN WAS ALREADY GIVEN, WHICH WAS, I THINK YOU SAID TO ALL THE REGISTERED ORGANIZATIONS W WITH THE CITY, IS THAT CORRECT? WE COULD, WE COULD LOOK INTO IT.
UM, BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY SPECIFICS AT THIS POINT.
AND THEN I GUESS MY SECOND QUESTION IS, UM, THE, JUST GIVE ME SOME TIMELINE ON THIS WHEN THE, THE INITIAL REQUEST FROM COUNCIL, IT, IT INCLUDED, I THINK ALL OF THE MAJOR COMPONENTS THAT ARE IN THE DRAFT ORGANIZATION AS IT'S OR DRAFT ORDINANCE, AS IT SITS BEFORE US TONIGHT, INCLUDING THE, THE ADDITIONAL 30 FEET AND, UM, HAVING A VMU ON AND A VM U2.
UM, AND ALL OF THAT WAS ALREADY PART OF THE, THAT THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT WORKING GROUP OF COUNCIL THAT WAS PROPERLY NOTICED IN THE TENDED AND ON TV.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, IT WAS, IT WAS, UH, ADOPTED THE RESOLUTION THAT INCLUDED ALL OF THAT WAS INCLUDED THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT A, AT A COUNCIL MEETING.
SO OTHER THAN JUST SORT OF FORMALIZING THE LEGAL LANGUAGE OF IT, THAT IT'S BASICALLY WHAT COUNSEL TOLD YOU TO DO THEN AT THAT TIME.
I THINK YOU COULD CHARACTERIZE IT AS THAT.
UM, MY QUESTION FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS REQUESTING POSTPONEMENT IS, UM, WITH THE POSTPONEMENT, WHAT KIND OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE? AND THEN THE QUESTION FOR STAFF WILL BE, DO YOU SEE THAT AS FEASIBLE OR WHAT KIND OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENGAGEMENT WOULD YOU ALL, YOU KNOW, CREATE OR CONSIDER CREATING, UH, COMMISSIONER PRAXIS? DO YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM BOTH MS. MS. ? YES.
SO, WHATEVER ORDER YOU HAVE, ANDREW, DO WE HAVE, IF YOU ALSO LIKE STAR SIX PROCEDURE MARKS, WHAT WE WOULD DO IS LOOK AT THE INFORMATION THAT WAS, WE GOT TO, UM, MR. SAW COMMISSIONER OZAR, UH, ON, BECAUSE ON THAT MEETING, I GOT THE NOTICE OF THAT MEETING ON THAT DAY FOR THE WORK GROUP.
UM, SO I HAVE THAT INFORMATION AND THEN WHAT IS ON THE POST-ITS, BUT FLIP IT FOR TODAY'S MEETING THAT WOULD BE SHARED WITH THE, WITH THE RESIDENTS, WHAT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP, AND THEN WE WOULD LOOK AND PROCESS AND IMMEDIATELY START ASKING QUESTIONS.
I THINK WE'VE ALREADY PROBABLY COME UP WITH A LIST OF QUESTIONS.
I'D PROBABLY REACH OUT TO STAFF, UM, ON SOME FEEDBACK THAT WE MAY NEED OR EXPLANATIONS THAT WE MAY NEED.
WOULD YOU ALSO WANT TO HAVE A MEETING WITH STAFF TO PRESENT YOUR QUESTIONS AND WORKSHOP SOLUTIONS OR IDEAS? WE WOULD LOVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO GET OKAY, SO THAT'S, I GUESS I'LL PASS IT OVER.
UM, THERE WAS ANOTHER SPEAKER, RIGHT FROM THE COMMUNITY WHO MIGHT COMMENT ON THIS.
SHE'S AT THE PODIUM NOW, AND YES, THANK YOU ON, UH, ON, UH, THANK YOU SO MUCH AND, YOU KNOW, COMPLETELY SECONDING WHAT YOU BROUGHT UP.
OTHER THINGS THAT WE WOULD LIKE AS WITH THE ASM P COMING TO NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS GENERALLY
[00:55:01]
MEET ONCE A MONTH.AND IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO HEAR WHAT THE ASM P HAD TO SAY AND TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS AND TO HELP US CLARIFY WHAT WE KNEW AND, AND TO UNDERSTAND THE, THE KNOWN UNKNOWNS AND THE UNKNOWN UNKNOWN, AND TO REALLY BE ABLE TO WRAP AROUND THAT.
IN ADDITION, IN ADDITION, THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT INVOLVES THE ENTIRE CITY AS A PERSON FROM ALLENDALE.
I DON'T WANT TO, I WANT TO COORDINATE WITH ANA.
I WANT TO COORDINATE WITH, WITH DANIEL, I WANT TO COORDINATE WITH EVERYONE IN THE CITY SO THAT WE CAN COME UP WITH EQUITABLE SOLUTIONS.
AND SO IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF FINDING OUT INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT IS INTENDED, BUT IT'S ALSO ABOUT FINDING OUT INFORMATION FROM FELLOW NEIGHBORHOODS ABOUT WHAT THE ISSUES ARE AND WHAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE.
SO, SO YES, WE'RE ASKING FOR SIX WEEKS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO BE VERY, VERY BUSY.
AND IN TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT FROM THE CITY, WE NEED, WE NEED PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK WITH US.
UH, NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORS CANNOT TAKE TIME OFF OF WORK AND KNOW, AND WE HAVE STANDING OPPORTUNITIES TO MEET.
AND THOSE ARE USUALLY, YOU KNOW, MONTHLY AT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND, AND, YOU KNOW, FOR SOME NEIGHBORHOODS, THEIR COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
AND WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ENGAGE WITH STAFF.
WE WOULD HOPE TO HEAR WILLINGNESS ABOUT THAT, BUT ALSO IT'S NOT JUST STUFF IT'S ELECTED OFFICIALS AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS.
SO, SO I'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GIVE YOU A YES OR NO ANSWER, BUT I HOPE I'VE BEEN ABLE TO GIVE YOU A PICTURE OF THE SCOPE AND SPREAD IN DEPTH OF WHAT WE FEEL WE WOULD NEED TO DO.
AND THAT'S WHY IT REQUIRES MORE TIME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER YOU.
YOU ALSO HAD A FOLLOWUP FOR STAFF.
I THINK OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY'D BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THESE REQUESTS.
AND I CAN SPEAK TO WHAT I WAS JUST HEARING NOW IS WE COULD LIKELY IN A SIX WEEK TIMEFRAME RESPOND TO QUESTIONS.
I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY CHALLENGING TO DO, UM, WIDESPREAD ENGAGEMENT ON A CITYWIDE ISSUE LIKE THIS AND ACCOMMODATE TIME TO ACTUALLY TAKE THOSE, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER WE HEAR AND, AND DRAFT THAT INTO SOMETHING THAT COMES BACK TO EITHER THE COMMISSIONER COUNCIL ON A SIX WEEK TIMELINE.
SO IN MY MIND, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT MIGHT BE, WE MIGHT HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO, UM, EDUCATE AND DISCUSS WHAT THE ISSUE IS, BUT IT MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY BE ABLE TO BE REFLECTED IN, UH, IN A RECOMMENDATION TO THIS BODY, UM, ON THAT QUICK OF A TIMELINE CONSIDERING THIS IS A REALLY, YEAH, IT'S A CITYWIDE ISSUE AND WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO HEAR IT FROM NOT JUST THE, YOU KNOW, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, OTHER FOLKS IN THE CITY AS WELL.
UM, SO, UH, ON THIS DISCUSSION POSTPONE, UH, YOU HAVE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, POINT OF ORDER COMMISSIONER COX.
I'LL JUST MAKE A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO THE MAY 10TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
SO I JUST WANNA, UH, NEED A POINT OF, UH, JUST ON WHAT THAT DOES, UH, MR. RIVERA, WHAT, WHEN WOULD WE HAVE TO READ, NOTIFY, UM, WHAT DATE WOULD TRIGGER, READ NOTIFICATION? I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW WHAT PROCESSES ARE INVOLVED HERE.
SO CHAR COMMISSION LAYS ON ANDOVER, NIGERIA.
SO, UM, YOUR RE NOTIFICATION, IF YOU GO BEYOND 60 DAYS, THAT WOULD CAUSE A RE NOTIFICATION.
UM, SO WITHIN 60 DAYS, THAT WOULD BE YOUR MAY 10TH MEETING.
OH, THAT WOULD BE WITHIN 60 DAYS.
SO THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE, READ NOTICE, CORRECT.
JUST ONE, EVERYBODY WOULD KNOW THAT.
SO GO AHEAD AND REPEAT YOUR MOTION ONE MORE TIME TO SEE IF WE HAVE A SECOND COMMISSIONER.
UH, YOU'RE ON MUTE, HOPEFULLY JUST ON MUTE.
UH, POSTPONE THIS ITEM INTO THE MAY 10TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? UH, LET'S SEE, UH, COMMISSIONER SHEA, UH, SECOND SET, UH, WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR ITEM? THAT'S TRUE.
SO, UM, THOSE WHO WERE ATTENDING THE LAST MEETING MIGHT REMEMBER THAT ONE OF MY VERY FEW CONTRIBUTIONS TO THIS ITEM WAS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO, UH, INCREASE ENGAGEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
AND IT WAS A BIT EMBARRASSING BECAUSE
[01:00:02]
THAT WAS SHOT DOWN BECAUSE OF LEGAL REASONS, BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE AND THE AGENDA WASN'T EXACTLY CORRECT.SO BASICALLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURAL ISSUE THAT PREVENTED THIS COMMISSION WHOSE PROBABLY GREATEST FEEDBACK BY VOLUME IS JUST FROM THE PUBLIC CHALLENGES, ACTUALLY ENGAGING WITH THIS COMMISSION, PREVENTING THIS COMMISSION FROM TRYING TO IMPROVE ENGAGEMENT.
UM, THAT WAS A REALLY ROUNDABOUT WAY OF BASICALLY SAYING THAT THIS IS KIND OF MESSED UP IN MY VIEW.
UM, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHALLENGES OF THE PUBLIC BEING ABLE TO ENGAGE, AND WE COULDN'T EVEN AT THE LAST MEETING, TELL STAFF TO FIND WAYS TO INCREASE ENGAGEMENT.
UM, SO IT, TO ME, IT JUST MAKES SENSE THIS, THIS MAY BE MORE OF LIKE COMMISSIONER SHIER SAID MORE OF A PROCEDURAL ISSUE, BUT, UM, PERCEPTION IS REALITY.
AND SO I DON'T THINK NOW THAT THE NOTICES HAVE GONE OUT NOW THAT THE FINAL DRAFT HAS BEEN POSTED, IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY GROUPS, NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS, ORGANIZATIONAL GROUPS THAT WOULD BE INTERESTED IN REVIEWING THIS AND COMMENTING ON IT ARE NOW AWARE OF IT.
THEY JUST HAVE ONLY HAD A FEW DAYS OR LESS THAN A WEEK OR WHATEVER, TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THEIR SCHEDULE AND, AND TRY TO RESPOND.
SO I THINK THIS COMMISSION SHOULD MAKE AN EFFORT ANYTIME WE CAN TO INCREASE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN THIS PROCESS.
AND SO POSTPONING THIS ITEM I THINK WOULD, WOULD HELP HER.
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS IS SPEAKING AGAINST OKAY.
UH, I I'M A GENERALLY I REALIZED THAT GET FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
UH, I FEEL LIKE ON THIS ISSUE, THE, THE, THE DIRECTION THAT WE GOT FROM COUNCIL WAS FAIRLY SPECIFIC AND WE PRETTY MUCH STAYED WITHIN THE LINES OF WHAT COUNCIL DIRECTED US TO DO.
SO I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT I SAW IN SOME OF THE LETTERS THAT WE RECEIVED, THAT THERE ARE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED THAT ARE NOT IN THIS.
WE IDENTIFIED, WE IDENTIFIED, UH, THE CHANGES THAT COUNCIL DIRECTED US TO MAKE.
UM, WE IDENTIFIED THE SPECIFIC, UM, CHANGE TO THE, UM, RENTAL AND PURCHASE THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING SINCE LAST JULY AND A HANDFUL OF OTHER ITEMS THAT I BELIEVE ARE NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
WE IDENTIFIED A LIST OF QUESTIONS IN GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE COUNCIL OUGHT TO LOOK AT IT AND GIVE US DIRECTION ON, BUT THE ISSUES AROUND, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ISSUES AROUND VMU SORT OF PLUG INTO THE CONTROVERSY AND THE CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAVE, AND I SHARE THOSE CONCERNS.
UM, BUT WE'RE NOT W W WE'RE NOT WHAT'S BEFORE IT IS NOT VERY CONTROVERSIAL IN MY MIND.
I THINK THERE IS BROAD CONSENSUS ABOUT IT.
AND WE HAVE ASKED COUNCIL TO, TO DIRECT US FURTHER IN OUR GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS, IN THE QUESTIONS THAT WE PRESENTED IN GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT WHETHER THEY WANTED US TO GO BEYOND THAT.
SO ANY, IF THERE'S, IF THERE'S A PHILOSOPHICAL CONCERN ABOUT DOING THIS AT ALL, I THINK THAT THAT DISCUSSION IS REALLY AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL, NOT WITH US BECAUSE WE'VE GOT OUR DIRECTIONS FOR THE COUNCIL.
SO I FEEL LIKE WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS TONIGHT.
THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ALREADY, BUT WE SHOULD SIMPLY MOVE FORWARD.
UH, THOSE SPEAKING, UH, FOR THIS MOTION, I'VE COMMITTED PIANIST, POLLUTER.
I HAVE A COUPLE OF POINTS TO MAKE HERE, AND WE'LL TRY NOT TO GET INTO THE MERITS OF THIS BECAUSE, UH, I HAVE MORE CO MORE ANSWERS TO COMMISSIONER AS FAR AS REALLY A QUESTION AS TO WHY THERE ARE OTHER OPINIONS ABOUT THIS, THAT PUTTING AMONG THE NINE FOR ONE THING, COMPATIBILITY GOT THROWN INTO THIS.
AND I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE NOT EVEN PREPARED FOR THAT.
THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER DISCUSSION, UH, THAT CERTAIN SUPPORTIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS DEFINITELY WOULD NOT HAVE SUPPORTED INITIALLY.
UM, BUT THE BIG THING I HAVE IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST ISSUE.
I THINK THERE'S A DESIRE, A SENSE OF DESIRE AMONGST THEM TO FRAME THIS AS MORE BENIGN, BECAUSE IT'S MORE CONCEPTUAL AND IT'S MORE VAGUE.
[01:05:01]
THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT I DON'T, I DON'T FEEL THAT I CAN MAKE AMENDMENTS TO A CONCEPT.UM, AND ESPECIALLY WHEN SOME NEW CONCEPTS HAVE BEEN THROWN IN HERE, UM, WHEN WE TALK, WHEN WE SPEAK VAGUELY ABOUT AND LEAVE BLANKS TO FILL IN, EVEN IF WE FEEL THAT THIS IS A HIGH-LEVEL CONVERSATION THAT WILL TAKE PLACE AT COUNCIL, IT WILL, BUT WE ARE ALSO A CRITICAL PIECE OF THAT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PEOPLE RELY ON THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE NOTIFIED AND TO GET IN AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL.
UM, AND I THINK THAT TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS NOW CIRCUM EVENTS, THAT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, UM, AND THE LAST THING I'LL JUST SAY, BESIDES THE FACT THAT I HAVEN'T GOTTEN REAL ANSWERS TO A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD PREVIOUSLY IN THE WORKING GROUP ABOUT YOUR HOUSING ACT.
I, I'M NOT SATISFIED AT ALL WITH WHAT I'VE HEARD, BUT THE BIGGEST THING IS I JUST WANT TO REMIND FOLKS TO READ THE HOUSTON APPEALS COURT RULING, IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY, BECAUSE THE CITY OF AUSTIN GOT CLOBBERED ON THIS CLOBBERED FOR MISUNDERSTANDING OUR RIGHTS TO NOTIFICATION IN PROTEST, WE NEED TO PAY ATTENTION.
WE NEED TO DO BETTER AND THEN SUPPORT.
DOES, UH, SPEAKING AGAINST THIS ITEM.
UM, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE A, I'M GOING TO GO AND VOTE AGAINST, AND, UH, THIS ONE, I AM, I, I GOT HERE, I'VE LISTENED TO EVERYBODY AND IT'S REALLY TOUGH BECAUSE LIKE COMMISSIONER SNYDER, YOU WANT TO ENGAGE THE PUBLIC.
WE, WE, YOU KNOW, MY NEIGHBORHOOD HAS ASKED FOR THAT TIME.
I, I THINK THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS, UH, PER COMMISSIONER SNYDER IS WE ARE GIVING A PRETTY SPECIFIC DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL.
IT IS A REQUIREMENT OF THESE CODE AMENDMENTS TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
BUT UNLIKE OTHER COMMITMENTS THAT ARE, THAT WE INITIATE THAT WE BRING TO THE TABLE AND THEN GET TO COUNCIL.
THIS ONE, WE PRETTY MUCH HAD A PLAYBOOK AND, AND WE WERE ASKED TO LOOK AT IT AND WE DID.
AND I THINK WE'VE MADE SOME, UH, SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, WHICH IF WE DO, UH, HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT, UH, WE WILL CONSIDER THOSE.
UM, SO I AM, I REALLY WANT THIS TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE I DO THINK WE WILL HAVE DISCUSSION LATER AND WE'LL DISCUSS THE MERITS OF WHAT THE HARD WORK WE PUT IN HERE.
AND I WILL JUST SAY THIS AT MY PERIL.
AND I THINK COMMISSIONER'S CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, WE WILL KEEP PEOPLE HERE, BUT THERE WILL BE ANOTHER CHANCE AFTER WE TALK ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE HARD WORK AND THE CASE ITSELF, WE COULD ACTUALLY VOTE TO POSTPONE AT THAT TIME.
AM I CORRECT? SO WE HAVE ANOTHER CHANCE AT POSTPONING THIS, WHEN WE GO THROUGH AND HEAR THE MERITS OF THE CASE ITSELF, AS OPPOSED TO JUST THE MARISA POSTPONING.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM, UM, STAFF ABOUT THE, THIS, UH, THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AND, UH, ALSO THE WORKING GROUP OF AMENDMENTS, AND THE ONLY WAY WE DO THAT AND KIND OF, UH, SERVE AT THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL.
UH, THERE, THEY, THEY WANTED THIS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
AND I THINK, UH, WE'RE OVER A MONTH BEHIND AND WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND GET IT TO THEM WHERE, AND I WOULD SAY PUBLIC SHOULD REALLY PUSH FOR THREE SEPARATE TIMES FOR THIS TO BE CONSIDERED, UH, IN FRONT OF THEM.
SO IT CAN BE VETTED DURING THAT TIME.
THANK YOU, UH, VOTING FOR THIS AMENDMENT.
ANY MORE REPORTING AGAINST, IF NOT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE.
UH, LET ME START WITH THOSE, UM, ON THE DIOCESE, UH, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOMENT MOTION, UH, FROM COMMISSIONER, COXTON SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SHAY TO POSTPONE THE PUB, UM, THIS CASE, A PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL MAY 10TH, 20, 22.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND SET ON THE DIOCESE THAT IS IN FAVOR OF THE POSTPONEMENT ONE AND, UH, QUICKLY THOSE AGAINST ON THE DIOCESE, WHICH IS WE'LL BE WORKING.
AND THEN THOSE ON THE SCREEN, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
[01:10:03]
AND THOSE AGAINST, OKAY.I GOT A, LEAVE IT UP IF YOU DO, PLEASE.
ALL RIGHT, SO I'VE GOT THREE, UH, THAT'S UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, MR. FLORES, SNYDER.
AND THEN, UM, THOSE, ANY, UH, ABSTENTIONS.
SO I THINK ONE, TWO, LET ME MAKE SURE I CAN'T EVERYBODY.
SO WHAT DO WE HAVE? 5, 5, 4, 5 AGAINST ONE EXTENSION.
UM, SO I GUESS WE'RE MOVING ON TO THE, UH, WE'LL TAKE THIS UP IN THE PUBLIC HEARING THIS ITEM B 13.
WE'LL TAKE THAT VIEW SEVEN FIRST AND FOLLOWED BY B 13.
SO, UH, YOU DON'T HAVE LONG, UH, HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS NEXT ITEM.
UM, IN FACT, UM, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD.
[B.7. Rezoning: C14-2022-0010 - 3402 Kerbey Lane; District 10]
CASE, UH, ITEM B SEVEN, UH, WE'LL GET STAFF REPORT.GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN COMMISSION MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS WENDY ROSE WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UH, THIS IS ITEM B SEVEN, LOCATED AT 34 0 2 KIRBY LANE.
IT CONTAINS A 1,252 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE THAT HAS BEEN CONVERTED PREVIOUSLY.
IT WAS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
IT IS SERVED BY A 95 FOOT DRIVEWAY THAT EXTENDS ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO A CAR TO A TWO CAR COVERED GARAGE.
THIS PROPERTY WAS ZONED N O AND P WITH THE WINDSOR ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
REZONINGS IN SEPTEMBER OF 20 10, 20 10.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REZONE TO THE GENERAL OFFICE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN DISTRICT IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE NUMBER OF USES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE SITE.
AND PARTICULARLY THERE IN, UH, INTERESTED IN A PERSONAL IMPROVEMENT, A PERSONAL SERVICES USE, WHICH INCLUDES BEAUTY SALONS, BARBERSHOPS, AND XI REPAIR SHOPS.
UM, PERSONAL SERVICES USES FIRST ALLOWED IN THE ELO DISTRICT AS A CONDITIONAL USE.
UH, IT IS LIMITED TO 1000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA.
AND, UH, JUST AS A REMINDER, A CONDITIONAL USE WOULD REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHICH IS A TYPE OF SITE PLAN.
THE STAFF IS SUPPORTING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO THE GEO, UH, NP DISTRICT WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT LIMITS HEIGHT TO 40 FEET.
UH, WE, IN OUR RECOMMENDATION, WE OBSERVED THAT THIS PROPERTY IS IN PROXIMITY TO WEST 35TH STREET.
IT IS WITHIN AN ESTABLISHED OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL AREA.
THE APPLICANT IS INTENDING TO RETAIN THIS EXISTING STRUCTURE, AND IT IS SEPARATED FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, WHICH ARE TO THE SOUTH.
AND, UH, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I THINK JENNA, WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT MR. DAVID HARTMAN.
GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS FIRST.
UH, FIRST A SECOND SLIDE PLEASE.
UH, CHAIRING COMMISSIONERS, DAVID HARTMAN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, THIS IS A FAIRLY SMALL SCALE REZONING, A 10TH OF AN ACRE OF 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT LOCATED AT 34 2 KIRBY LANE, SMALL OFFICE BUILDING TWO-CAR COVERED GARAGE, A DRIVEWAY TO THAT GARAGE.
UM, IT WAS, UM, FROM SF THREE TO NON P AND APPROVED OFFICE FLOWMETER IN 2010, ADJACENT USES INCLUDED A DRIVE-THROUGH BANK OFFICE RESTAURANT RETAIL, ADJACENT RE REDEVELOPMENT INCLUDES A FORMER RANDAL'S NEXT, NEXT DOOR, FORMER BURGER KING THAT THIS BODY HEARD RECENTLY.
THAT'S AT THIRD READING AT COUNCIL THIS WEEK FOR 36,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE.
WE SUBMITTED SPECIFICALLY TO AUTHORIZE, UM, PERSONAL SERVICES AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE GEOS ZONING CATEGORY TO PROVIDE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING BUSINESSES AND EXISTING IN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND PROVIDING FOR KIND OF A WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF CEO.
THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT REQUIRED.
UM, THE, THE GOC CO IS ENCOMPASSED BY THE OFFICE.
THIS JUST SHOWS THE ADJACENT ZONING OR IT'S BOUNDED BY ELLO THERE'S LR AROUND THERE.
GR QUITE A BIT OF GR YOU CAN SEE JUST THE, THE, TO THE UPPER LEFT IS DESCRIBING WHERE THE BURGER KING IS AND THE RANDALL'S GRV LMU JUST KIND OF POINTING OUT THAT EVERYTHING THERE IS WALKABLE.
NEXT SLIDE SHOWS AGAIN, THAT IT'S IN PINK, WHICH IS OFFICE FOR THIS TRACK.
NEXT SLIDE SHOWS AN AERIAL OF THIS TRACT.
[01:15:01]
LANE TO THE EAST 34TH STREET STREET TO THE SOUTH.NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THE TWO-CAR COVERED GARAGE A HUNDRED FEET OR SO PARKING, UH, PERSONAL SERVICES, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD REQUIRE FOUR PARKING SPACES SO WE CAN EASILY PARK EVERYTHING ONSITE.
THIS IS THE STREET VIEW OF THE SUBJECT TRACK.
NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THE, THE STRUCTURES THAT NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT TRACK PRETTY TYPICAL.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH IDENTICAL OF ARE TRACKED.
UM, NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THE ZONING COMPARISON IN OLLO AND GEO WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF 40 MAXIMUM FOOT, UH, SQUARE FOOT OF HEIGHT.
AND WHEN YOU SEE OBVIOUSLY A 10TH OF AN ACRE, A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, YOU KNOW, THAT THE ZONING REGS ARE BASICALLY DIMINIMOUS, THEY'RE BASICALLY IDENTICAL.
THE NEXT SLIDE BASICALLY SHOWS THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, UH, EMPHASIZES IN THAT UNDERLINING GREEN, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING BUSINESSES, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROMOTE HERE.
AND THEN THE SH THE NEXT SLIDE JUST EMPHASIZES AGAIN, WHAT I'VE ALREADY SAID, THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THAT PINK OFFICE FLUM CATEGORY, IT CONTEMPLATES IN OGIO AND ELLA, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO BE GROSS ZONED.
AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE JUST SHOWS ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS THAT, UM, IS INTERESTED IN EXCITED FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO WALK THROUGH THIS AREA.
AND THEN THE FINAL SLIDE IS JUST SUMMARIZES WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.
AGAIN, LOOKING FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR PROVIDING NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING BUSINESSES.
PERSONAL SERVICES IS A PERMITTED USE IN GEO IT'S, NOT IN ANY OF THE OTHER OFFICE CATEGORIES.
AND AGAIN, ADJACENT, UH, REDEVELOPMENT WOULD PROVIDE FOR WALKABILITY TO, UH, FROM THOSE ADJACENT, UH, UH, USES.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE FLEXIBLE IF, IF IT'S THE, THE, THE BODIES, UH, DESIRE TO GO WITH GEO SO WE CAN GET TO THE PERMITTED USE OF THE, OF THE PERSONAL SERVICES, BUT RATHER AGREE TO SOMETHING LIKE ELLO, UM, USES AND ELLS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
WE WANT TO BE ACCOMMODATIVE AND FLEXIBLE AND RESPOND RESPONSIVE TO THE NEAR BRIDGES OF WISHES.
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
NOW I'LL HEAR FROM MR. MICHAEL CLAWSON.
SURE I DON'T HAVE THEM ON THE TELECONFERENCE GO ONTO THE NEXT SPEAKER, MR. STEVEN STRAUSS, MS. STRAUSS YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
YEAH, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.
UH, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU TONIGHT.
SOMETHING I'VE NEVER DONE BEFORE.
UM, AS I SAID, I'M STEVEN STRAUSS.
MY WIFE AND I ARE THE OWNERS OF 34 0 2 KIRBY LANE.
IT'S THE ONLY REAL ESTATE OTHER THAN OUR HOME WE OWN, OR EVEN ASPIRE TO OWN.
UH, I'M A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER.
HE STARTED A SMALL BUSINESS OUT OF THIS PROPERTY, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT DIDN'T WORK OUT.
UM, BUT WE LOVE THE COTTAGE AND DIDN'T WANT TO SELL IT.
SO WE HAVE LEASED IT TO TWO DIFFERENT SMALL BUSINESSES.
UM, SINCE, UH, SHE MOVED OUT OF THE, UH, THE SPACE WE LOVE, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOVED BEING A PART OF IT.
UH, WE ALWAYS TRY TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF THE PROPERTY AND BE THOUGHTFUL OF HOW IT GETS USED.
WE KNOW THE PROPERTY IS CLOSE TO AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
I KNOW THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT IMPLIES.
WE SENT ALL FOUR OF OUR KIDS WHO ARE NOW GROWN TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
WE'RE ASKING FOR THE ZONING CHANGE BECAUSE WE CAN'T AFFORD TO HAVE THE PROPERTY BE VACANT FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME TO GIVE ALL THE PROP GIVEN ALL THE PROPERTY TAX INCREASES WE'VE EXPERIENCED.
AND THIS ISN'T A HYPOTHETICAL.
WE HAD TO TURN AWAY A BUNCH OF INTERESTED BUSINESSES WHEN TRYING TO LEASE IT.
THE LAST TIME IT CAME OPEN, UH, WHICH WAS JUST BEFORE THE PANDEMIC, BECAUSE THE YEAR BEFORE THE PANDEMIC, BECAUSE OF OUR ZONING RESTRICTIONS ENDED UP TAKING ALMOST A YEAR TO FIND OUR CURRENT TENANT.
AND I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, BECAUSE THIS IS AN ADORABLE COTTAGE.
WE HAD SEVERAL, UH, SMALL SALONS INTERESTED IN RENTING.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD USE FOR THE PROPERTY BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE SERVED THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WE COULDN'T LEASE IT TO THEM BECAUSE OF THE ZONING AND OTHERS WHO LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY, UH, WHO WERE MOSTLY SMALL BUSINESSES WHO NEEDED IT FOR A FEW OFFICES, COULDN'T AFFORD IT BECAUSE OF THE PROPERTY TAXES.
AND THAT'S JUST FOR US TO BASICALLY BREAK EVEN.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, TO BE ABLE TO, UM, KEEP OWNING IT AND NOT, UH, OWN AT A LOSS.
SO JUST TO END, AS I SAID, WE LOVE THE PROPERTY.
WE WANT TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF THE PROPERTY AND BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT HOW IT GETS USED.
WE JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO FIND TENANTS WHO CAN AFFORD THE PROPERTY THAT FIT WELL INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE ABLE TO HOLD ON TO THE PROPERTY.
THE REAL CHALLENGE IS THE PROPERTY TAXES, A CHALLENGE.
EVERYONE IN THE CITY IS FACING
[01:20:01]
A PROBLEM THAT IS EVER INCREASING, UM, OR A CHALLENGE THAT'S EVER INCREASING.AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS COMMISSION.
WE WILL NOT HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION, MR. JOYCE, ON THE TELECONFERENCE, MS. SPAS, SIANO YOU'LL SELECT STAR SIX, PROVIDE REMARKS.
YANNO, I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE BRCA WEST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THIS CASE INVOLVES A CONVERTED SINGLE FAMILY HOME ZONE.
OH, AND USED AS A NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE.
IT'S ABOUT A HUNDRED FEET FROM THE BRACA WOODS.
UM, SHE SCHOOL, IT WAS THESE ZONES FROM SSB TO O AS PART OF THE CITY ADOPTED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IN 2010, THE PLAN EXPRESSLY INTENDED THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY TO BE N O AS PART OF ITS BROADER INTENT THAT THE 3,400 BLOCKS OF KIRBY LANE IN GLENVIEW AVENUE REMAINED FOR THE FULLEST EXTENT POSSIBLE QUOTE SMALL-SCALE NEIGHBORHOOD, OFFICE, AND RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE HARMONIOUS WITH THE BRACKET WAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD RETAINING THE CONVERTED SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS DESIRABLE UNQUOTE.
AND TO QUOTE THE APPLICANT'S STEAKS, THE ZONING CHANGE THE GENERAL OFFICE QUOTE, TO ALLOW US TO FLEX THE FLEXIBILITY, TO ATTRACT A BROADER RANGE OF TENANTS, INCLUDING SALONS AND PERSONAL SERVICES BUSINESSES, BECAUSE WE HAVE MISSED OUT ON OPPORTUNITIES TO RENT THESE TYPES OF BUSINESSES IN THE PAST AT HIGHER LEASE RATE.
AND THE QUOTE AT THE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, THE BOARD OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS BLOATED TO OPPOSE THE REZONING APPLICATION FOR GEO ZONING.
A MONARCH CONSIDERATIONS, R G O ZONING IS BY DEFINITION, INAPPROPRIATE, UNLIKE ANODE ZONING, AND EVEN ELO LIMITED OFFICE ZONING.
IT IS INTENDED NOT FOR NEIGHBORHOOD USE OR AN ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS BEDDING, BUT FOR OFFICES AND SELECTED COMMERCIAL USES PREDOMINANTLY SERVING COMMUNITY FOR CITYWIDE NEED.
THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT OFFICE ZONING CATEGORY FOR A REASON.
GEO IS THE HIGHEST OFFICE USE AND WILDLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING.
THERE IS NO G O ON THAT BLOCK DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET TO THE EAST IS ELO THE SUBJECT TRACK.
THIS IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDED NORTH, SOUTH AND WEST BY ELLOS ZONING.
GEO IS OUT OF CONTEXT AND IT'S SPOT ZONING.
THERE IS NO OTHER ZONING ON KIRBY LANE.
I MEAN, THERE'S OTHER ZONING, UM, KIRBY LANE AND THE BLOCKS OF THE WEST HAD ALL THAT LL PROPERTY.
BEN JONES, SINGLE FAMILY AT THE TIME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S PLAN, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATELY REZONED AND OH, GEO ON THE SUBJECT TRACK.
THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY GEO USES IN A STRUCTURE ALLOWED BY A GEO SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THE BUILDING COVERAGE, THE FAR IMPERVIOUS COVER THE HEIGHT WOULD BE HIGHLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE AREA AND UNSAFE FOR THE RESIDENTS AND THE SCHOOL CHILDREN WHO LIVE IN THE AREA AND CROSS BOTH KIRBY LANE AND WEST 34TH STREET.
THE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC ON THESE NARROW STREETS AND ON THE ON STREET PARKING ALREADY CREATE HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS ON THOSE STREETS.
AND AT THAT INTERSECTION, THESE CONDITIONS ARE PRECISELY WHY THE PROPERTY WAS AN O TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL VIEWS, BUT THE LOWEST COMMERCIAL USE AVAILABLE THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN IDENTIFIES KIRBY LANE.
AS A LEVEL ONE RESIDENTIAL STREET, A QUIET STREET GRANTING THE APPLICATION WILL HARM THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
THE APPLICANT BROUGHT THE PROPERTY ZONED AS N O AND WILL NOT BE HARMED IF THE CURRENT ZONING IS MAINTAINED BECAUSE HE HAS EXACTLY WHAT HE PURCHASED.
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENY THE APPLICATION FOR GEO ZONING, NOT WITHSTANDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS.
WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A SOLUTION TO THIS MATTER THAT WILL SATISFY THE APPLICANT'S GOAL OF ATTRACTING A BROADER RANGE OF TENANTS AND HIGHER LEASE RATES AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS, THE SUSPICION WE MITIGATE THE RISKS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS, SCHOOL, CHILDREN, TEACHERS, AND PARENTS, THE BRAGGER WOODS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WOULD NOT OPPOSE A ZONING CHANGE
[01:25:01]
TO ALL OH, THAT'S LIMITED OFFICE ZONING, WHERE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT IMPOSES AN AU SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD, THIS APPROACH WOULD BROADEN THE USES BY IMMEDIATELY ALLOWING A MEDICAL OFFICE USE AND PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EARN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PERSONAL SERVICES WHILE THOSE ARE HIGHER SOCRATIC GAS GENERATING USES AND OF CONCERN, THE SITE LIMITATIONS SIZE LIMITATION OF N O SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WOULD BE CALCULATED TO REDUCE THE IMPACT.THE APPLICANT GETS PERSONAL SERVICES USES, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAINTAINS A SAFE WALKABLE SMALL-SCALE NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
AND FOR THE RECORD WE HAD SCOTT TO PORTICO AND GREG UNDERWOOD REGISTERED IN OPPOSITION, BUT NOT ON THE TELECONFERENCE.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL AND AGAIN, UM, JUST A COUPLE OF ABOUT THREE OR FOUR BRIEF POINTS.
AGAIN, JUST REITERATE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PROMOTES NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING BUSINESSES, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE PROVIDING.
THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT REQUIRED.
GEO IS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE OFFICE.
FLUM UM, AGAIN, LOOKING AT THE COMPARISON OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE NEGLIGIBLE AS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS ZONING, UM, UH, CATEGORIES.
AGAIN, WE WOULD ALSO REITERATE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO PARK EVERYTHING ON SITE.
AND JUST IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS APPROVED IN 2010, YOU KNOW, THERE'S CERTAINLY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE 2010 AS EVIDENCED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT WILL, THIS WILL PROVIDE, UH, A WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, I WOULD KIND OF POINT OUT ALSO THAT THE NEIGHBORS LETTER, AN OPPOSITION DOES KIND OF PROMOTE THIS MEDICAL OFFICE IDEA THAT'S AVAILABLE IN ELO.
UM, MEDICAL OFFICE IN FACT, WOULD, WOULD REQUIRE THROW OFF THE DEGENERATE ABOUT A LITTLE MORE THAN TWICE THE NUMBER OF TRIPS PER DAY.
SO THEN WE WOULD AN UNDER PERSONAL SERVICES.
SO I THINK THE PERSONAL SERVICES USES IS FRANKLY, FAIRLY SUBLIME.
AND AGAIN, WE'RE FLEXIBLE WOULD BE AMENABLE OF THIS BODY.
WE NEED THE GEO BECAUSE HAVING THE PERSONAL SERVICES AS A CONDITIONAL USE WOULD TAKE ANOTHER PERMIT.
THAT'S, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, NEVER ANOTHER SEVERAL MONTHS, AND IT'S JUST NOT WORKABLE IF YOU'VE GOT A TENANT THAT WALKS IN THE DOOR READY TO SIGN A LEASE TODAY.
SO THAT'S WHY WE NEEDED THE PER THE PERMITTED USE UNDER GEO FOR PERSONAL SERVICES.
YOU, THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
SHARE THAT COMPLACENT SPEAKERS ON THE SONNET.
I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSIONER COX, UH, SECOND ADVISER COMMISSIONED VICE-CHAIR HEMPEL, UH, LET'S GO AND PUT TO CLIPS, HEARING, UM, SEE EVERYBODY ON THE SCREEN.
IT'S UNANIMOUS ON THE SCREEN ON THE DYESS, EVERYBODY.
A QUESTIONS FOR, UH, COMMISSIONER COPPS QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, CAN THIS COMMISSION RECOMMEND A CEO THAT MAKES A CONDITIONAL USE OF PRIMITIVE YOUTH, UH, COMMISSIONER COX? THE ANSWER IS NO, THAT THERE, THERE'S NOT A VERY, THERE'S NOT A WAY TO VARY FROM THE PROCESSES THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.
UH, SO IF IT IS, IF THE ZONING ENDS UP BEING, OR IF THE PERMIT PER, PER PERSONAL SERVICES ENDS UP BEING A CONDITIONAL USE, THAT DOES REQUIRE WHETHER UNDER ELO AS A CONDITIONAL USE, THAT REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHICH IS A TYPE OF SITE PLAN AND IS REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND SO MY NEXT QUESTION IS, DOES, DOES A PROPERTY OWNER IN ORDER TO GET A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, HAVE TO HAVE A TENANT FOR AN INTERESTED TENANT IN PLACE IN ORDER TO FILL OUT THE INFORMATION OR PROVIDE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED FOR A CEO, OR COULD THEY JUST REQUEST THE CEO TOMORROW WITHOUT, WITHOUT AN INTERESTED PARTY, UH, THE LADDER, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE'S, THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY, THERE'S NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR A SPECIFIC TENANT.
IT WAS, YOU'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE USE ITSELF, THE PERSONAL SERVICES USE.
AND, AND I GUESS A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, UM, WHAT, WHAT YOU'VE BEEN SAYING, UM, REALLY GENERALLY LINES UP WITH WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD
[01:30:01]
HAS BEEN SAYING AND THEIR CONCERNS, BUT THE ISSUE IS JUST WHETHER IT'S AN L OR A G, UM, AND YOUR, YOUR PROBLEM IS THAT, UM, YOU DON'T WANT TO GO GET A CONDITIONAL PERMIT BECAUSE THAT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG WHEN YOU HAVE A TENANT READY TO GO.I MEAN, W WHAT, WHAT'S THE ISSUE WITH ACCEPTING KIND OF THE COMPROMISE, WHICH SEEMS TO WORK FOR BOTH OF Y'ALL BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE APPLICANT, BUT THEN JUST FILE FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MAKE THAT PERSONAL SERVICES ALLOWED.
UM, IT'S, IT'S NOT ONLY JUST THE DELAY OR THE, THE, THE, WHETHER OR NOT A TENANT IS GOING TO WALK AWAY AND WAIT AROUND FOR US TO PROCESS THAT IT'S JUST THE ADDED EXPENSE THAT'S INVOLVED WITH FALLING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
SO AS, AS, AS MR. RHODES INDICATED, IT'S A SITE PLAN APPLICATION THAT GETS REVIEWED BY STAFF AND B SEVERAL MONTHS, AND WE'LL HAVE TO GET A CIVIL ENGINEER INVOLVED TO PREPARE THAT.
UM, AND I WOULD JUST SAY THAT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE PERSONAL SERVICES, YOU KNOW, HAIR SALON IS JUST REALLY NOT IN MY VIEW, IT'S FRANKLY, KIND OF AN ANACHRONISM LEFTOVER FROM AN OLD CODE.
I'VE LOOKED AT SEVERAL OTHER, UM, ORDINANCE, UH, CITY ORDINANCES FROM SURROUNDING CITIES, AS WELL AS LIKE THE NORTH BURNETT GATEWAY, TOD, JUSTIN LANE, TOD, UM, GLEN DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISION TO ALL HAD PERSONAL SERVICES.
I'M NOT REAL SURE WHY IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE, BUT IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE EXPENSE TO GO, UH, AS WELL.
SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOUR ONLY OBJECTION TO ELO IS HAVING TO GET THE CEO THERE'S, THERE'S NO OTHER THERE'S, THERE'S NO OTHER NEED THAT YOU'VE IDENTIFIED TO HAVE THE GEO.
YEAH, I THINK IT'S ACCURATE STATEMENT.
I WOULD SAY ALSO, I MEAN, JUST THE IDEA OF THAT WE WOULD FILE FOR A CUP WITHOUT HAVING A TENANT IN HAND JUST DOESN'T MAKE LOGICAL SENSE TO ME.
SO I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL WE GET A TENANT LIKE THAT IN HAND, AND THEN FILE THE C, C U P, WHICH AGAIN, WE'VE GOT THE DELAY PROBLEM, AND THAT'S ONLY FOR PERSONAL SERVICES.
YOU COULD HAVE TENANTS THAT WANT TO OPERATE A BUSINESS THAT FALLS WITHIN ELA.
CORRECT? SAY THAT AGAIN RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S NOT A QUESTION, BUT YEAH.
SO I WANT TO UNDERSTAND IF BEYOND JUST THE WHOLE PERSONAL SERVICES, I MEAN, THE WHOLE ASPECT OF THE GEO, I MEAN, THE, THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF GEO IS VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED, UM, YOU KNOW, WANTING TO KEEP THE HOUSE AT A STORABLE HOUSE, KEEP THE PARKING, KEEP THE GARAGE AND ALL THAT STUFF.
I MEAN, SO IN THE GEO, DO YOU EVEN NEED THE, TO GEO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OR IS THE INTENT REALLY THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO GET, TO BE ABLE TO YOU TO A SALON INTO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND SITE, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT YOU DON'T NEED THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF GEO THE APPLICANT AGAIN? I MEAN, WE CAN LOOK PULL UP THE SLIDE THAT HAS THE COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THE DIFFERENCES, PARTICULARLY BETWEEN THE ELO AND GEO ARE JUST, YOU KNOW, ABSOLUTELY NEGLIGIBLE.
AND SO WHEN I LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, THIS TRACK, YOU KNOW, THAT'S SURROUNDED BY ELLO THEN TO ME, IT'S, YOU KNOW, WHILE WE'RE REASONING, IT JUST MAKES SENSE TO BRING IT INTO HARMONY AND, AND COMBINE IT WITH WHAT'S GOING ON AROUND IT, RATHER THAN LEAVE IT IN A, AND I GUESS THAT'S KINDA MY POINT BECAUSE YOU SIT IN HARMONY WITH WHAT'S AROUND IT, YOU KNOW, AND SO W WHICH IS AC ELLO AND NANOS, YOU KNOW, AND, AND THAT'S KIND OF IT.
AND THE OTHER THING IS, UM, HAVE YOU, HAVE YOU HAD THE CHANCE TO DESIGN OR WORK THROUGH WHAT POTENTIALLY PERSONAL SERVICES COULD BE? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, LIKE, ESPECIALLY HOW IT FITS IN TO A SCHOOL IN THE AREA OR REAL LIFE SAFETY STANDARDS, ANYTHING, HAVE YOU, HAVE YOU HAD THE CHANCE TO DO ANY OF THAT? UM, I GUESS MY RESPONSE IS I HAVEN'T HAD ANYBODY ARTICULATE TO ME WHAT THE PROBLEM OF HAVING A SALON IN THIS AREA IS, WELL, TO ME, IT'S, TO ME, IT'S, TO ME IT PROVIDES A NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE THAT'S ABSOLUTELY.
AND I GUESS TO ME, IT'S, IT'S MORE ABOUT, UM, WITH THE THREE SALONS.
I MEAN, WHEN I'VE DESIGNED THEM, I'VE HAD TO SUBMIT DIFFERENT THINGS TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WHEN IT COMES TO THE CHEMICALS I'M GOING TO HAVE, I HAD TO STATE ALL THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF CHEMISTS KIND OF HAVE AS WELL AS WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE PLACED.
I MEAN, SO THERE ARE CONSIDERATIONS FOR THAT.
IT'S NOT JUST, HEY, IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST THAT, BECAUSE PERSONAL SERVICES ALSO ENCOMPASSES QUITE A, QUITE A FEW
[01:35:01]
THINGS THAT JUST HAVE TO GET REVIEWED BY LIFE SAFETY.AND SO HANDS, YOU KNOW, I SEE IS THAT OVERSIGHT IS GOING TO STILL HAVE TO BE THERE.
UM, AND THE OTHER THING IS, UM, HAVE YOU DONE SITE PLAN EXEMPTIONS? YOU KNOW, UH, IF YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP THE SITE, BECAUSE THERE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE MAINTAINING WHAT YOU HAVE, THERE, THERE IS A SHORTCUT WAY TO GET THROUGH IT.
YOU KNOW, YOU HEARD, I HEARD HAVING TO HIRE A CIVIL ENGINEER.
IT'S LIKE, AH, I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO GO THAT FAR, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE TRYING TO KEEP FROM, UH, IF IT'S MORE OF AN ADAPTIVE REUSE TYPE PROJECT.
UM, SO ANYWAY, SO I DON'T THINK, I KNOW YOU'RE CONCERNED THAT IT'S A BIG ISSUE, BUT BEING THAT IT'S MORE OF AN ADAPTIVE, REUSE TYPE PROJECT.
UM, AND YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE YOU.
IT'S NOT, WHEN YOU HEAR A CUP CONDITIONERS PERMIT, THIS ONE IS NOT ONE OF THOSE THAT'S HUGE AND, UM, YOU KNOW, REAL DIFFICULT TO, TO GET THROUGH AND REAL EXPENSIVE.
UM, SO BECAUSE OF THAT, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT'S, YOU KNOW, TH THOSE ARE THINGS TO THINK ABOUT, UM, BECAUSE IT'S NOT AS, UH, AS LARGE OF A CHANGE, UH, THAT YOU'RE DESIRING FOR YOUR CLIENT.
SO, UM, IF I MAY, I THINK ONE RESPONSE TO YOUR COMMENT OR YOUR POINTS THAT YOU'RE MAKING IS THAT IF WE GET GEO FOR THE PERMITTED USE OF SALON SERVICES, THEN WE WOULD FOLLOW A SITE PLAN, CHANGE OF USE, AND STAFF CAN SPEAK TO THAT, AND THAT WOULD GET REVIEWED FOR PARKING OR FOR OTHER REASONS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN COMPLY WITH THAT.
SO I THINK, I THINK THE LIFE HEALTH SAFETY ASPECTS OF IT WILL GET ADDRESSED.
TH THAT'S CORRECT, BUT, AND THAT'S WHY HAVING TO GO THROUGH A CONDITIONING USE PROCESS.
I MEAN, IT'S KIND OF SIMILAR, YOU STILL HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF DEAL.
SO IT, EVEN IF YOU THINK YOU GOT A FREE TICKET, IT'S NOT A FREE TICKET WITH THE GEO.
SO A CONDITIONING USE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO STILL GO THROUGH IT ANYWAY.
UH, WE HAVE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS.
I DO HAVE A FEW, UM, FIRST STAFF COULD, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SEEING THE SLIDE COMPARING THE DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BETWEEN ELLA AND GEO.
I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, CAN WE SHOW THAT SLIDE AND THEN, UM, I THINK THOSE ARE IMPORTANT.
SO I DID SEE AN INCREASE IN PERVIOUS COVER.
STAFF, YOU JUST WANT TO RUN THROUGH THESE REAL QUICK, JUST TO COMPARE ELO VERSUS GEO, UH, THE DIFFERENCES BESIDES HYPE THAT WE'RE, WE ARE BECAUSE OF THE CEO DRAWN TO DRAWING ATTENTION TO, SO THE MAXIMUM PERVIOUS COVER UNDER GEO IS 80 IN THERE.
IT'S UNDER N O IT'S RE IT'S 20% LESS AT 60, 60, UM, FAR IS, UH, INSTEAD OF ONE-TO-ONE IT'S 0.3 TO FIVE TO ONE, UH, AND SETBACKS UNDER N O IT'S, BOTH ENO AND ELO.
IT'S 25, UM, YEAH, FRONT YARD SETBACKS, AND ALL THE OTHERS, THE STREET YARD, ALL THE OTHER YARDS ARE THE, ARE THE SAME.
SO, UH, SO A QUESTION, UH, I KNOW WE WEREN'T ABLE TO DO THE, UH, UH, REMOVE THE CP, UH, AS A CEO, BUT CAN WE, I KNOW HEIGHT IS ONE THING, UH, ISN'T IT IN OUR, CAN WE THEN DESIGNATE GEO WITH ELO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS? WHEN ARE, CAN WE DO THAT FIRST? OKAY.
AND THEN FOR THEN, UH, WHAT ARE, OH, I HAVE YOU HERE, WHAT ARE SOME OTHER EXAMPLES OF PERSONAL SERVICES BESIDES A HAIR SALON? UH, BARBERSHOPS, TAILORS TAILORING SERVICES AND SHOE REPAIRS.
AND THEN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION, MS. JOYCE IT'S CHOICE THREE.
DO WE STILL HAVE YOU TELL ME WHEN YOU CAN, UH, WHEN YOU'RE OKAY.
SO I'VE JUST KINDA GONE, UH, EDUCATED MYSELF, STAFFED.
IT, EDUCATED ME ON, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THE USES THAT, UH, ARE, UH, THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO, UH, WHICH ONES MOST CONCERNED YOU.
CAUSE, UH, IS IT THE, YOU KNOW, REALISTICALLY THIS ZONING WILL ALLOW FOR THE REMOVAL OF THAT HOUSE AND REBUILDING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT IS MORE DENSE UNDER GEO IF WE, IF WE PROVIDE FOR THAT.
[01:40:01]
UH, SO I UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, THERE ARE OTHER MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND OTHER THINGS, SO THERE'LL BE A DENSER DEVELOPMENT IF THAT HAPPENS, BUT IN THE USES, WHAT, WHAT ARE, DO YOU HAVE SPECIFIC CONCERNS ON ANY OF THE USES THAT WERE THAT GO ALONG WITH THE GEO UNDER PERSONAL SERVICES OR ANY OTHER USES THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER THAT NATION? NO.WHAT WERE THE PERSONAL SERVICES USES AGAIN? IT'S FOR GEO OKAY.
A STAFF THAT WAS A HAIR SALON, A BARBERSHOP SHOE REPAIR IT'S LIKE SEAMSTRESSES OR TAILORING, TAILORING.
UM, SO THOSE ARE THE USES ARE, UM, STAFF TO HELP AID THIS DISCUSSION.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER DIFFERENT USE? I KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT FROM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER USE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO BESIDES PERSONAL SERVICES THAT YOU RE THAT YOU KNOW OF? UH, NO, NOT, I I'D HAVE TO GET OUT THE CODE.
ANYWAY, MY QUESTION TO MS. JOYCE, JUST IF ANY OF THOSE ARE PARTICULAR OF CONCERN TO YOU? UM, NO.
UH, THE REAL CONCERN IS THAT, UM, GEO IS REALLY VERY, WOULD BE VERY DENSE.
AND WHILE THIS CURRENT OWNER WANTS THE, KEEP THE ORIGINAL HOUSE THERE AND THE GARAGE AND APPLAUD HIM FOR THAT, UH, THE NEXT OWNER WILL, WILL NOT WANT TO DO THAT PROBABLY.
SO, UM, IT'S DIO IS, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, IS SETTING A BAD PRECEDENT IN THIS AREA BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE GEO WE'RE ON A LEVEL ONE RESIDENTIAL STREET, ACCORDING TO THE ASM EMPTY AND 35TH STREET IS A LONG WAY OFF.
I I'VE, YOU'VE ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHERS? SO TO YOUR LEFT.
DO WE HAVE A, UM, EMOTION OF MANY OF THE, UH, COMMISSIONERS COMING TO SHARE CUPS? UM, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE A NEW ZONING DEBT DESIGNATION OF L O N APPROVED BELLO.
IS THAT WHAT I HEARD? COMMISSIONER COX? YES.
UM, AS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SHEA, I'LL GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION, MR. COX.
I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT GEO GEO IS NOT INTENDED FOR THIS LOCATION.
IT'S NOT INTENDED FOR, FOR THIS.
UH, IF YOU JUST READ THE PLAIN LANGUAGE DEFINITIONS OF GEO L O N N O, IT'S OBVIOUS THAT L O N N O BELONG ON KIRBY LANE, UH, IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION, GEO DOES NOT.
I'M LOOKING AT A MAP OF THIS SITE.
IT IS CATTY-CORNER TO A SCHOOL.
IF WE DID APPROVE GEO, I WOULD HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT SOME OTHER USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN GEO AS IT RELATES TO THE SCHOOL.
AND I THINK COMMISSIONER SHAPE POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS A BIT OF AN EFFORT.
THERE IS A BIT OF AN EFFORT IN GETTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PERSONAL SERVICES, BUT IF THEIR INTENT IS TO KEEP EVERYTHING AS IT IS, AND JUST MAKE A FEW MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE INTERNAL BUILDING TO MAKE A SALON POSSIBLE, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY HAVE TO DO THAT ANYWAYS DURING CYCLING.
SO, UM, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S A GOOD REASON TO ALLOW A GENERAL OFFICE, WHICH IS CONSIDERED CITYWIDE, UM, VERSUS VERSUS A LIMITED OFFICE, WHICH IS CONSIDERED NEIGHBORHOOD A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT TYPE USES.
SO I THINK LLNP IS VERY APPROPRIATE FOR THIS LOCATION.
UH, SPEAKING AGAINST THIS MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONERS ARE THANK YOU CHAIR.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE GO AHEAD WITH THE GEO CATEGORY WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT LIMITS ALL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO ELO STANDARDS AND LIMITS ALL USES TO ELO STANDARDS EXCEPT FOR THE PERSONAL SERVICES USE.
ALL RIGHT, LET ME, UM, DIGEST THAT FOR A SECOND, SIR, CHEAT, UM, GEO WITH, WITH CTO THAT LIMITS THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO ELO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THE SECOND PART ON THE USES, WHICH IS WHERE I GOT LIKE, AND ALL PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL
[01:45:01]
USES TO THE ELO STANDARDS AS WELL, EXCEPT FOR PERSONAL SERVICES.I HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, UH, GOING TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION FOR HIS ARM.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE POINTED OUT, THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST PLACE FOR THE GEO USE GENERAL OFFICE USE.
AND I THINK WHAT WE HAVE CLEARLY FROM THE APPLICANT IS A NEED TO USE THIS ONE PERSONAL SERVICES REQUIREMENT WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND COST ASSOCIATED WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
WE JUST HEARD FROM THE OWNER, WHO'S A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER.
THIS IS LIKE A MOM AND POP SHOP HERE.
I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THEM GO THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE FLEXIBILITY WITHIN OUR CODE.
SO THIS ALLOWS US TO HAVE THE GENERAL OFFICE, BUT ALL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDS.
SO EVERYTHING ASSOCIATE WITH HIGH DENSITY, AS WE HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE DENSITY MIGHT BE THE CONCERN HERE.
IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO EXACTLY THE MOTION THAT COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER SHEA JUST MADE AND ALL OTHER USES WOULD ALSO BE LIMITED TO ELLOS.
SO YOU COULDN'T GO AND DO OTHER USES REALLY AT THAT BIND ROVER ALLOWING IS ELO, BUT WITH THEIR ALLOWANCE OF DOING PERSONAL SERVICES WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REAL QUICK POINT OF CLARIFICATION STAFF, IS THAT, UM, I KNOW WE CAN'T REMOVE CONDITIONAL USE, BUT, UH, IS THIS OKAY WITH REGARDS TO, UM, HAVING ALL THE OTHER USES ELLO? YES.
YOU, YOU SAY YOU'RE ALLOWING FOR PERSONAL SERVICES UNDER THE GEO CATEGORY UNDER THAT, UM, OPTION OR THIS PROPOSED MOTION.
UM, IF THE SALON WANTING TO BE IMPLEMENTED ON THE SIDE, THE APPLICANT WOULD, WOULD DO A TYPE OF PROBABLY A SITE PLAN EXEMPTION RATHER THAN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS.
THAT'S, UH, THAT WOULD BE UNDER THE ELO CANADA.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING, RUNNING A FOUL OF WHAT WE CAN DO.
UM, SO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS, UH, ANY COMMISSIONERS AGAINST THIS MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER COX.
I APPRECIATE, UM, WHAT COMMISSIONERS ARE, IS TRYING TO DO BECAUSE THAT'S KIND OF, WHAT'S MY FIRST QUESTION TO STAFF WAS TRYING TO DO WHAT, WHAT HE'S ATTEMPTING TO DO AS WELL.
BUT I, I I'M, I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE LIKE CREATING ZONING DESIGNATIONS THAT ARE NOT ZONING DESIGNATIONS, UM, JUST IN ORDER TO SAVE AN APPLICANT FOR PAYING A FEE.
UM, IT JUST SEEMS, IT JUST SEEMS WRONG IN SOME WAY.
UM, AND SO JUST CREATING A GEO THAT'S ACTUALLY AN ELO JUST TO AVOID A FEE JUST DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT.
AND THE OTHER REASON WHY I I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS IS BECAUSE OFTENTIMES PART OF THE BASIS OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS IS THE ADJACENT ZONING.
AND WE DON'T ACTUALLY GET ALL OF THE FINE DETAIL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE WHEN STAFF SAYS, WELL, THIS NEXT PROPERTY, THAT PROPERTY ADJACENT PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED GEO JUST THREE MONTHS AGO.
SO WHY NOT APPROVE MORE GEO? WE DON'T REALIZE THAT THAT GEO IS ACTUALLY NOT GEO IT'S AN ELO WITH AN ALLOWABLE USE FOR A SALON, BECAUSE WE WANTED TO AVOID THE APPLICANT, PAYING A FEE FOR A SINGLE PAYMENT.
SO I JUST, I JUST AM UNCOMFORTABLE WITH, WITH HOW, HOW THAT'S, HOW THAT'S BEING DONE.
UM, THOSE, ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION? OKAY, MR. THOMPSON.
I MEAN, IF WE LOOK AT, IF WE DRIVE BY THIS SITE FOUR YEARS FROM NOW, IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME THING, RIGHT.
EITHER IT'S GOING TO BE A HAIR SALON AND, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT HAS HAD TO PAY 10,000 PLUS EXTRA DOLLARS, UM, OR IT'S GOING TO BE A HAIR SALON AND THEY GOT IT THROUGH QUICKER AND EASIER.
AND ALL THAT FEEDS INTO THE, YOU KNOW, THE RENT THAT HE HAS TO CHARGE AND WHAT WE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR OUR HAIRCUTS.
UH, THOSE SPEAKING, UM, AGAINST THIS MOTION COMMISSIONER SHEA.
SO I'M GOING TO, I MEAN, I HAVE TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER COX.
I MEAN, IT'S, I MEAN, WE'RE NOT IN AN AREA.
I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S A VERY, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS KIND OF THE WEST AUSTIN AREA.
I MEAN, NOT SEEING THIS AS AN AREA THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE, LIKE IS A CONCERN AFFORDABILITY OR NOT.
I MEAN, THIS IS REALLY, WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT IT AS PLANNING IS IT IS A LEVEL ONE STREET.
AND WHEN WE, YOU KNOW, UNTIL WE HAVE A BETTER CODE,
[01:50:01]
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO ASSESS HOW WE PLAN THE AREA.IF WE LOOK AT ZONING PATTERNS, WE LOOK AT THE ZONING CATEGORIES AND NOW WE HAVE A GEO THAT'S GOING TO SIT THERE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S COMPLETELY CUT DOWN, BUT HOW ARE WE GOING TO PLAN FOR THE AREA? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WITH GEO COMES ALONG WITH DIFFERENT, IN OUR MINDS, DIFFERENT TYPES OF TRAFFIC THAT'S ALLOWED ON THAT.
SO IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO SUPPORT THIS, UH, GEO PATTERN STUCK IN THE, IN THE SEA OF THIS, BECAUSE THE PRECEDENCE IS GOING TO CONTINUE, UM, POTENTIALLY, UH, PEOPLE TRANSFORMING THE AREA ON A LEVEL AND STREET WHEN THAT WASN'T THE INTENT AND NOR CAN IT TAKE IT AND IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO A SCHOOL.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS WHY I CAN'T SUPPORT IT, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE INTENT AND I WISH WE HAD A BETTER CODE THAT COULD ALLOW THIS TO WORK BETTER, YOU KNOW, AND IF IT IS TO AVOID THE FEE, I MEAN, THAT'S THE PRICE OF DOING BUSINESS AND THAT'S WHAT WE ALL DO.
AND WHETHER IT'D BE A SITE PLAN EXEMPTION TO GO IN, YOU KNOW, OR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, OR JUST THE PERMIT TO WE'RE GOING TO A SALON.
I MEAN, YOU GOT, YOU GOT TO PLUMBERS, THE PLUMBERS GOT OUT PERMITS TO COME IN VERSUS AN OFFICE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ANY OF THAT.
SO IT JUST DEPENDS ON YOUR CHOICE OF BUSINESS.
WHAT'S A DIFFERENCE, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS AND WE ALL, ALL OF US HAVE TO DO THIS ANYWAY.
HOW MANY ARE WE AT? OH, TWO MORE.
UH, ANYONE SPEAKING IN FAVOR, THIS MOTION, THAT'S YOUR HUMBLE, I'LL BE BRIEF.
I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE EXISTING ZONING AND I'M SEEING TWO GEO C O N IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SCHOOL.
SO I DON'T SEE THAT THIS BEING THAT DIFFERENT.
AND IF WE GO THIS ROUTE, UM, ALSO I'M THINKING ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WHICH IS, UM, INDICATED OFFICE AS A USE, WHICH INCLUDED N O L O N G O.
SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS.
ANY MORE COMMISSIONER? WE HAVE ONE MORE SPOT SPEAKERS SPEAKING AGAINST ANY COMMISSIONERS.
COMMISSIONER HAS PALITO SPEED.
I PROPOSE ACTUALLY, UM, IT'S A BOAT.
UM, COMMISSIONER, YOU HONESTLY THOUGH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN HEAR ME.
WE'RE HAVING A REALLY HARD TIME ACTUALLY.
YOU'RE NOT ON YOUR SCREEN ANYMORE, SO WE NEED TO STOP AND WE CAN'T HEAR YOU CLEARLY, BUT, UM, DO YOU WANT TRY ONE MORE TIME? YEAH.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YEAH, IT'S A LITTLE BETTER.
THIS IS PART OF A TROUBLE WITH WEBEX BECAUSE WHEN MY VIDEO GOES OUT, I, I CAN'T TELL, BUT THAT UPPER WAS SO THE TYPICAL SITE PLAN PERSPECTIVE, UM, AND I DON'T BELIEVE GEO IS, OR B AARON, UM, SOME, UH, A STIPULATIONS THAT WERE BRAND, UH, PRO COMMISSIONER.
CAN YOU HEAR ME COMMISSIONER? UH, JUST YOU'RE CUTTING OUT REALLY BADLY.
I THINK I THOUGHT I'M GOING TO SAY, OKAY.
WE'RE TRYING TO PICK UP WHAT WE COULD AND IT JUST GOT WORSE AS WE WENT ALONG.
WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CZAR.
SO GOING ABOUT CHEMISTRY, THOMPSON, UH, IT'S FOR, UM, GEO WITH, UM, THE, UH, UH, CEO THAT LIMITS SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO L O ZONING.
AND SECONDLY, IT, UH, ALLOWS ALL THE PERMIT PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES OF ELO WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PERSONAL SERVICES USE.
UH, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE AND LET ME START WITH, UM, UH, THOSE ON THE DIETS THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
UH, THAT'S THREE, UH, THOSE, AND LET'S KEEP IT ALL IN FAVOR.
I'M GOING TO TRY THIS, SEE IF I CAN KEEP MY HEAD CLEAR HERE.
SO THOSE IN FAVOR ON THE SCREEN IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, UM, I SEE COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.
[01:55:01]
OKAY.THOSE AGAINST ON, ON THE DYES AND THOSE AGAINST THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION ON THE SCREEN.
SO THAT'S HOLDING THEM UP BECAUSE I GOT TO RECORD THIS.
AND FLORES AND ANNIE, I THINK THAT'S EVERYONE.
WE HAVE COMMITTED PIANOS POLLITO.
SO THAT WAS VOTING, UH, THAT MOTION FAILS.
AND I CAN SEE MYSELF ON THE SCREEN.
UH, YOU CUT YOUR, UH, SO JUST TO BE THAT MOTION FAILS WITH, UH, SHAW COMMISSIONERS, SHEA SHAW, COX PRACTICES, FLORES AND YOUNGEST PALITO VOTING AGAINST IF I GOT THAT.
SO LET'S MOVE ON TO WHERE WE WERE.
AND I DON'T THINK WE FINISHED DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM.
IT WAS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COX, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SHEA FOR ELO ZONING FOR THIS TRACT.
AND DO WE, DO WE HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION? I DON'T THINK WE'RE DONE.
CAN WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON IT OR DOES ANY COMMISSIONER WANT TO SPEAK? LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE.
FOR SOME, THE DIOCESE THAT ARE FOR THIS MOTION, YOU HAVE ONE.
TWO, AND THEN I'M SORRY, VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE ELO.
THAT'S FOR NOW THOSE ON THE, UH, VIRTUALLY VOTING FOR THIS MOTION.
AND, UH, THOSE ON THE SCREEN VOTING AGAINST THIS MOTION IS, AND THEN THOSE, UH, ABSTAINING.
SO THAT MOTION PASSES, UH, WITH, UM, COMMISSIONER YANAS POLITO, UH, ABSTAINING.
DID I COUNT EVERYBODY? I THINK WE'RE GOOD THERE.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH COMMISSIONERS.
UM, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND JUST A QUICK, UM, LET'S JUST GIVE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS, UH, CAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING, UM, AT THIS FOR A LONG TIME AND I, I'VE GOT A PRETTY LONG LIST OF SPEAKERS, SO WE NEED TO TALK HOW WE'RE GONNA APPROACH, UM, THIS NEXT PUBLIC HEARING.
SO LET'S RETURN AT, UH, EIGHT 10 PLEASE.
UM, LET'S SEE, JUST COUNTING HERE.
WE'VE GOT THREE COMMISSIONS ON THE DIETS AND WE'VE GOT FOUR OR FIVE.
UM, GO AHEAD AND BRING THIS MEETING BACK TO ORDER AT EIGHT 15.
UM, SO, UH, LET'S SEE, BEFORE WE GET STARTED ON THIS CASE, UH, THIS IS B 13.
UM, I HAD, UH, THERE WERE SOME AMENDED RULES
[B.13. Code Amendment: C20-2021-006 - Vertical Mixed Use Affordability Requirements (Part 2 of 2)]
POSTED, UM, KIND OF LIKE KIND OF SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID ON SOME OTHER PUD CASES LIKE THE STATESMAN, UH, AND OTHER, UH, CODE AMENDMENTS.BUT I WANT TO RUN THROUGH THIS REAL QUICK BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE VOTING ON SOME CHANGES IN TIMEFRAMES.
AND, UM, SO LET ME RUN THROUGH THIS AND PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS.
BUT, UH, SO I'M PROPOSING THAT WE SUSPEND OUR RULES, UM, FOR THE FOLLOWING.
AND LET ME BACK UP A LITTLE BIT.
SO THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION OF SIX MINUTES, THEN WE'LL GO RIGHT INTO SPEAKERS FOR AND AGAINST IN THE ORDER THAT THEY SIGNED IN.
SO IT COULD BE, IT WON'T BE ALL FOUR AND THEN ALL, AGAIN, IT IT'LL BE MIXED DEPENDING ON WHEN THEY SIGNED IN.
SO THE, THE ISSUE I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER OR THE CHANGE IS TYPICALLY WE HAVE, UH, THREE SPEAKERS AT THREE MINUTES AND WE DON'T DONATE TIME AT THESE HYBRID MEETINGS.
AND THEN WE GO TO AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF SPEAKERS AT ONE MINUTE.
UH, THAT ONE MINUTE GOES REALLY FAST.
SO I'M, I'M PROPOSING, ALTHOUGH IT'S GOING TO KEEP US HERE LONGER.
UH, BUT WE ONLY HAD ONE OTHER ZONING CASE WE HAD TO DISCUSS TODAY
[02:00:01]
OR THIS EVENING, UH, THAT WE GO WITH TWO MINUTES FOR, UM, THREE AT THREE MINUTES, AND THEN THE REMAINDER AT TWO MINUTES INSTEAD OF ONE MINUTE.UM, SO JUST WANT TO HEAR ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS ON TIME, ANY CONCERNS WITH THAT FOUR, I RUN THROUGH THE RULES FOR OUR DEBATE DISCUSSION.
WE WOULD THEN CLOSE THE HEARING AFTER THE SPEAKERS, THEN WE'LL MOVE INTO A PRESENTATION FROM THE WORKING GROUP.
THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW CHANGES FROM WHEN WE LAST HEARD THEM, UH, TILL NOW.
SO THEY WE'D GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO REVIEW THAT, GIVE THEM SIX MINUTES.
AND THEN WE WOULD GO INTO OUR Q AND A, UH, THE TYPICAL EIGHT COMMISSIONERS.
YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF.
YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF THE WORKING GROUP, UH, OR OF SPEAKERS, UM, AND IF NEEDED, WE WILL SUSPEND THE RULES TO ALLOW FOR MORE QUESTIONS.
UM, IF I SEE THAT THERE'S A DESIRE TO CONTINUE QUESTIONS, OTHER WORKING GROUP OF STAFF FOR THE PUBLIC, ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH CONSENT AMENDMENTS.
UH, WE'VE DONE THIS BEFORE, UM, WHERE WE ALL ESTABLISH A BASE MOTION MOTION, WHICH I PROPOSE WOULD BE THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT IS IN THE BACKUP, AND THAT WOULD BE THE BASE.
AND THEN, UH, CONSENT AMENDMENTS.
WE WOULD THEN GO AND DO A DISCUSSION OF WHICH OF THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
UH, WE WOULD, UM, WE WANT TO DISCUSS IN WHICH WE'LL PASS ON THIS, UM, ON CONSENT WITH THE BASE MOTION.
SO, UM, COMMISSIONERS, UH, DURING THAT TIME, I WILL ALLOW FOR CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE WORKING GROUP.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY INDEED.
LET ME CHECK, UH, MR. RIVERA, DID WE HAVE ANY POSTED INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS, UH, FROM INDIVID COMMISSIONERS? NO, I DID NOT RECEIVE THAT.
SO WE'RE ONLY GOING TO BE, UH, REVIEWING THE, UM, THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS, UH, FOR CONSIDERATION THAT WOULD GET PUT ON CONSENT.
AND THEN, UH, WE WILL MAKE A, UM, WELL, ANY COMMISSIONER CAN PULL ANY OF THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS FOR DISCUSSION, UH, JUST TAKES ONE.
SO ONCE WE ESTABLISH THE CONSENT AMENDMENTS, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE CONSENT, UH, ITEM, THEN WE'LL ADDRESS EACH OF THE AMENDMENTS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
UM, AND SO THAT WILL BE DONE AS WE TYPICALLY DO.
UH, THE ONE DIFFERENCE, ACTUALLY, THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENCES.
UH, THE COMMISSIONER, UH, SHE'LL MAKE A MOTION RELATED TO THE AMENDMENT UNDER DISCUSSION.
UH, IF HE GETS A SECOND, WE'LL BEGIN OUR DEBATE UNDER THE NORMAL PROCEDURES.
UM, EXCEPT, UM, WE'RE GOING TO TREAT THIS AS A, THERE'S A MAIN MOTION.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW FOR THE TIME ALLOCATIONS AND THE NUMBER OF THOSE SPEAKING FOREIGN AGAINST AS IF IT WAS A MAIN MOTION.
SO, UH, HELP ME OUT THERE, ANDREW.
UH, THAT WOULD BE FOR EACH OF THE AMENDMENTS.
WE HAVE THREE MINUTES, UH, FOR AND AGAINST FOR THE MAIN MOTION SEEKING FAVOR AND MAIN MOTIONS, UH, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST, AND THEN WE GO THROUGH TWO MINUTES EACH AND THERE'S THREE EACH FOR AND AGAINST.
AND THEN, UH, THAT'S ALSO FOR SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
SO WE'LL, UH, MADE TO THE AMENDMENTS.
ANY QUESTIONS THUS FAR? I KNOW, UM, THIS IS A WHOLE LOT TO ABSORB.
UH, IT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID FOR THE STATESMAN HUD.
UH, AND AFTER THAT, IF WE HAVE INTO INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS, WE WILL GO ROUND ROBIN AND WE'LL GIVE, UH, COMMISSIONERS A CHANCE TO MAKE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS AFTERWARDS.
WE DISPOSE OF THE, UH, POST-IT OF WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU WISH TO POST, I WILL SAY THOUGH, IF THERE'S ANYTHING RELATED IN SCOPE TO ANY OF THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS, BRING IT UP AT THAT TIME, EITHER AS AN AMENDMENT OR A SUBSTITUTE, BECAUSE IF WE'VE ALREADY COVERED THAT ITEM IN ITS SCOPE AND VOTED ON IT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO REVISIT IT AGAIN.
SO IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE, IT'S AN AMENDMENT.
UH, PLEASE BRING IT UP AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME WHEN WE'RE COVERING THAT SCOPE WITHIN THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
SO, UM, THESE ARE THE, UH, THE CHANGES I'D LIKE TO
[02:05:01]
MAKE TO OUR RULES.UH, SO THE, UM, JUST REVIEWING REAL QUICK, UH, ANY CONCERNS, AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE A LITTLE LONGER, CAUSE WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW SPEAKERS FOR AND AGAINST THE FIRST, UM, ACTUALLY LET ME, THAT SEEMS, OKAY.
LET ME ASK THE QUESTION THAT DOESN'T, IF IT'S AN ODD NUMBER AND WE DON'T KNOW, UH, IS THERE A PROBLEM WE MIGHT GIVE, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE ALL GIVING MORE TIME TO THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST OR FOR, UH, MR. RIVERA.
I FEEL LIKE THAT COULD PRESENT SOME UNFAIRNESS CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LAYS ON ANDREA'S CURRENTLY THE ORDER, THE FIRST TWO SPEAKERS ARE IN OPPOSITION.
THE NEXT WITH THE FOLLOWING SPEAKER BEING IN FAVOR.
UM, IF YOU WAS HER, IS THE COMMISSION'S DESIRE I CAN, UH, SELECT, UM, THE NEXT PERSON BE IN FAVOR AS WELL.
UH, CIVIL HAVE FOUR AT THREE MINUTES, UH, TO, I END UP, UH, TWO IN OPPOSITION TO IN FAVOR AND THEN WE'LL MOVE TO THE REMAINDER AT TWO MINUTES.
DOES THAT SOUND, ANYBODY HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THIS TIME? OKAY.
UH, DO WE NEED, UM, I'M A SUPER MAJORITY, MR. RIVERA.
IS IT NINE? OKAY, SO WE NEED NINE FOLKS, UM, TO SPEND THE ROADS.
UM, DO I HAVE A MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER AZHAR UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THESE SUSPENDED RULES.
THOSE ON THE DIOCESE, WE HAVE FOUR.
LET ME GO AND SEE THOSE ON, UM, ON THE SCREEN WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH ME ON THAT.
AND WITH THAT, WE ARE GOING TO GET STARTED WITH STAFF PRESENTATION FOR SIX MINUTES.
AGAIN, MY NAME IS SAM TEDFORD.
I'M A PLANNER IN THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
AND THE CASE BEFORE YOU TODAY IS, UM, RESPONSIVE TO CODE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE INITIATED BOTH BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACT IN JULY OF 2021 AS, AS CITY COUNCIL IN 2022, AND THEN ADDITIONAL CODE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE INITIATED.
I, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, THIS MARCH, WHAT IS BEFORE YOU IS TO CREATE A NEW TIER IN THE VOLUNTARY DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM KNOWN AS VERTICAL MIXED USE OR THE IMMUNE THAT WOULD GRANT A 30 FOOT HEIGHT BONUS IN EXCHANGE FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
UH, WE WILL ALSO BE LOOKING AT AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD REFINE REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT PARTICIPATE IN THE VMU PROGRAM, INCLUDING AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS TO AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING.
THESE CHANGES, UH, SUPPORT ADOPTED POLICY DIRECTION IN THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT, AS WELL AS THE DISPLACEMENT MITIGATION STRATEGY AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN.
UM, IN TIER ONE OF THE VERTICAL MIXED USE PROGRAM, THIS IS THE VMU THAT EXISTS TODAY PER OUR CODE.
UH, THE CHANGES ARE RESPONSIVE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DIRECTION TO INCREASE THE DEPTH OF AFFORDABILITY AND STANDARDIZE THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS ACROSS ALL NEW VMU DEVELOPMENTS TO AN AFFORDABILITY LEVEL OF 60% OF THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME OR MFI FOR RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS AND 80% OF MFI FOR CONDOMINIUM OR OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENTS.
THE PERCENT OF TOTAL UNITS THAT WOULD BE SET ASIDE AS INCOME RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED LEVELS WOULD REMAIN THE SAME AT 10%.
STAFF ARE ALSO PROPOSING THE ADDITION OF A FEE IN LIEU OF ON-SITE INCOME, RESTRICTED HOUSING OPTIONS FOR COMMUNITY, FOR CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENTS.
AND I WILL COVER WHY STAFF IS PROPOSING THAT HERE IN A MOMENT.
UM, BUT AS FOR THE SECOND TIER IN THIS PROGRAM, THE NEWLY PROPOSED VMU TO, UH, THAT WAS INITIATED BY COUNCIL NEAR THE END OF 2021 STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A 10% SET ASIDE RATE.
SO 10% OF TOTAL UNITS WILL BE SET ASIDE AS INCOME RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE AT A RATE AFFORDABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS WHOSE INCOME IS LESS THAN 50% OF THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME, OR GIVE THE OPTION TO PROVIDE 12% SET ASIDE RATE AT A RATE AFFORDABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS MAKING 60% OF THE MFI FOR RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS.
AND FOR OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND A 12% SET ASIDE RATE TO 80% OF THE NFI
[02:10:01]
OR A FEE-ONLY EQUIVALENT TO 12% OF THE TOTAL UNITS.STAFF WERE NOT ABLE TO CONDUCT A MARKET-BASED FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS TO CALIBRATE THESE PROVISIONS ON THE COUNCIL DIRECTED TIMELINE.
UH, BUT STAFF BELIEVED THAT THIS IS A GOOD FIRST STEP TO ESTABLISH THE BMU TO WITHIN THE CODE, BUT THAT THESE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE REVIEWED ON A REGULAR BASIS AND UPDATED IN THE FUTURE.
SO WHEN I'M ADDRESSED SOME OF THE REASONING THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A FAMILY OF FOUR, A PROGRAM THAT DOES NOT HAVE THIS OPTION TODAY, WE ARE ONLY RECOMMENDING, UH, THE OPTION FOR FEET AND LU IN OWNERSHIP, UH, DEVELOPMENTS OR CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENTS.
AND I UNDERSTAND IT CAN BE HARD TO, UM, SEE WHY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A FEE IN LIEU HERE.
UM, BUT IN DISCUSSIONS WITH CITY STAFF WHO IMPLEMENT OUR LONG-TERM AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS IN, UM, YOU KNOW, PREDOMINANTLY MARKET RATE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENTS, WE'VE HEARD THAT THERE ARE TWO PRIMARY OBSTACLES THAT ARE BEYOND THE CITY'S CONTROL THAT PREVENT THOSE LOW OR MODERATE INCOME PEOPLE FROM EXPERIENCING THE HOUSEHOLD AFFORDABILITY AND STABILITY IN THESE PRIMARY PRIMARILY MARKET RATE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENTS.
AND THOSE ARE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION FEES, AS WELL AS PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS.
UH, THE PROPOSED CHANGES ALSO INCLUDE A SET OF GENERAL REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE INTENDED TO AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING, AND TO PROMOTE MORE EQUITABLE AND INCLUSIVE OUTCOMES FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
THESE WERE ALSO INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT YOUR MARCH 8TH MEETING.
UM, AND I WON'T LIST THOSE OFF INDIVIDUALLY, BUT THEY'RE PROVIDED IN, UH, THE BACKUP IN MORE PLAIN LANGUAGE.
AND THEN THEY'RE REFLECTED IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU, UM, IN YOUR BACKUP, IN ADDITION TO THE DRAFT ORDINANCE IS A FULL STAFF REPORT THAT COVERS MOST OF WHAT I'VE DISCUSSED TODAY.
UM, AND STAFF HAS ALSO COMPILED SOME RESEARCH RELATED TO COMPLETED VERTICAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS, THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE PIPELINE, AS WELL AS THE DISPERSION OF VMU ZONING ACROSS THE CITY.
UM, AS WELL AS IN RELATIONSHIP TO A FEW SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHIC AREAS, UH, AS WELL AS IDENTIFIED OTHER POLICIES THAT MAY IMPACT THE FEASIBILITY OF BMU TOO.
AND THAT, UH, CONSTITUTES THE ENTIRETY OF THE AMENDMENTS TO, UM, THE VMU PROGRAM RIGHT NOW.
UH, I WILL SAY THAT THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF CONFUSION, UM, AND QUESTIONS IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT WHAT CHANGES ARE BEING PROPOSED TO COMPATIBILITY.
AND I WILL SAY THAT THERE ARE NO CHANGES DRAFTED AT THIS POINT TO COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS.
THESE CHANGES BEFORE YOU ARE NOT AMENDING COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS, UH, IN ANY WAY.
AND SO THESE CHANGES, UM, WOULD SOLELY AFFECT BMU PROJECTS, BUT COMPATIBILITY WOULD STILL SUPERSEDE IF THAT WERE THE CASE BY CODE.
AND THAT SHOULD CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION.
SO NOW I GUESS WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SPEAKERS.
UH, WELL FIRST HEAR FROM MR. DAVID GARINO, UM, FOLLOWED BY SUSAN SPATARO OKAY.
I'LL RESERVE THOSE TWO SPOTS, UH, TO FOUR MINUTES, THREE MINUTES SPOTS FOR TWO ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUALS IN OPPOSITION.
ONE OUT HERE FROM MR. MICHAEL WHALEN FOR THREE MINUTES.
UH, STATE NEXT, DO WE HAVE THE FLIPPER? WE SHALL STATE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
UM, MICHAEL WHALEN AT THIS TIME, I'M ONLY HERE ON BEHALF OF MYSELF BECAUSE I BELIEVE GETTING THE MUTU RIGHT IS CRITICAL FOR HOUSING POLICY IN AUSTIN, AND WE CANNOT GET VMU TO RIGHT, UNLESS WE RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT COMPATIBILITY COMPATIBILITY MAKES VMU TWO COMPLETELY UNACHIEVABLE IN MANY CASES, NEXT SLIDE.
SO FIRST YOU ZONE FOR OUTCOMES YOU WANT, AND HERE'S WHAT WE'VE ZONED FOR.
IT NEARLY 40% OF ZONE PROPERTY IN AUSTIN TRIGGERS COMPATIBILITY.
NEXT SLIDE, WHILE OUR DENSITY PROGRAMS, WHICH WE RELY ON TO MEET OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS CONSTITUTES ONLY ABOUT 3% OF ZONE LAND IN THE CITY.
NEXT SLIDE WITH VMU ONE OF THE MOST WIDELY USED PROGRAMS, CONSTITUTING ONLY 1% NEXT SLIDE.
MOST OF WHICH COULD NOT ACTUALLY ACHIEVE DUE TO COMPATIBILITY.
IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE ASKING A RELATIVELY SMALL PORTION OF LAND IN OUR CITY TO DO A LOT OF HEAVY LIFTING.
NOW, MOST PEOPLE AGREE IN THEORY THAT THIS IS APPROPRIATE ALONG OUR CORRIDORS.
THIS CHART SHOWS PERCENTAGE OF LAND WITHIN A QUARTER MILE RADIUS OF BURNET IN BLUE AND SOUTH LAMAR AND ORANGE.
BUT EVEN HERE, YOU CAN SEE THAT A LARGE CHUNK
[02:15:01]
OF THESE CORRIDOR AREAS TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY.WELL, BMU GENERALLY IS MUCH SMALLER.
AND THE AREA OF VMU THAT COULD ACTUALLY ACHIEVE HEIGHTS IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH COMPATIBILITY IS EVEN SMALLER THAN THAT.
AS A RESULT, WE ARE FALLING BEHIND ON OUR HOUSING GOALS.
FOR CONTEXT VMU IS ONE OF THE CITY'S MOST SUCCESSFUL DENSITY, BONUSES, STAFF REPORTS.
IT HAS CREATED ABOUT 550 AFFORDABLE UNITS TODAY.
NEXT SLIDE WITH ANOTHER 900 IN THE PIPELINE.
BUT EVEN IF THAT, BUT EVEN THIS FALLS SIGNIFICANTLY SHORT OF THE ANNUAL NEED, THE RED IS WHAT WE'LL NEED EVERY YEAR TO HIT OUR 60% AND 80% MFI GOALS IN THIS CITY.
IF WE SAY WE WANT TO LEVERAGE OUR CORRIDORS, WE NEED TO BE WILLING TO LOOK AT THE POLICY DECISIONS THAT WOULD ACTUALLY ALLOW THAT AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, IF WE LOOK AT OUR TOTAL VMU CAPACITY, NEXT SLIDE, WE FIND THE COMPATIBILITY COMPLETELY RULES OUT VMU BASE HEIGHT AND VMU TO BONUS HEIGHT.
IN MANY CASES, SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERMINING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON OUR CORRIDORS.
THIS, BY THE WAY, IS THE OPTIMISTIC SCENARIO BECAUSE IN REALITY, MANY OF THESE SITES HAVE ALREADY REDEVELOPED.
SO YOU ACTUALLY, YOUR ACTUAL CAPACITY IS LOWER.
FINALLY, HERE, YOU CAN SEE HOW THIS PLAYS OUT IN PRACTICE.
THE FIRST THING YOU'LL NOTICE IS THAT MUCH OF THE CORRIDOR IN GRAY, IN GRAY IS ZONED FOR VMU AT ALL.
AND THUS HAS NO DENSITY BONUS CAPACITY PERIOD.
THE SECOND THING YOU'LL NOTICE IS THAT BME PROPERTIES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED BY COMPATIBILITY AND COULD NOT ACTUALLY ACHIEVE THE 90 FEET BONUS HEIGHT THAT'S SHOWN IN RED.
THE MAJOR EXCEPTION IS NORTH CROSS MALL GIVEN ITS SIZE, WHICH IS THE LARGE GREEN AREA.
AND HERE IS SOUTH LAMAR SHOWING MUCH THE SAME THING, SIGNIFICANT COMPATIBILITY IMPACTS WITH THE MAJOR EXCEPTION BEFORE BEING THE SHOPPING CENTER AT SOUTH LAMAR IN TWO 90.
MY LAST SLIDE, IF I MAY QUICKLY TO SUM UP YOUR LAND USE POLICY DICTATE THE OUTCOMES THAT YOU GET.
WE SAY, WE WANT TO LEVERAGE OUR CORRIDORS FOR GROWTH AND AFFORDABILITY, BUT WE'RE, BUT WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY DESIGNING LAND USE POLICIES THAT ALLOW THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET IT.
SO WITH THAT, I WOULD SIMPLY ASK YOU TO CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO SUPPORT VM U2 WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT COMPATIBILITY BE MODIFIED TO A HUNDRED FEET OF DISTANCE FOR THOSE WHO UTILIZE VM U2, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO WHAT IS DONE UNDER THE COMPATIBILITY PROVISIONS OF THE CODE FOR A RESIDENTIAL OR CIVIC USE.
WELL, NOW I HEAR FROM MR. JOHN TURNER, MS. TIRE.
SUN-LIKE STAR SIX AND PROCEEDING WITH YOUR REMARKS.
OH, WELL, I WORK WITH MR. TENORS TO SEE IF WE CAN GET HIM BACK ON THE LINE.
UM, WELL NOW, UH, MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SPEAKER, MR. RO ALVAREZ.
MY NAME'S SANDRA AND I'M REPRESENTING THE NEIGHBOR.
I WILL SAY THAT I'M A FORMER CITY COUNCIL MEMBER.
AND WHAT I EXPECTED FROM MY 40 COMMISSION MEMBERS WAS ON ITS BACK ON ANY ITEMS APPEARING BEFORE THEM.
AND I ALSO CONSIDERED WATSON TO CONSIDER ALL RELEVANT ISSUES AND A RECENT LEGAL RULING OR A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGE THAT THAT APPEARS TO BE VERY SIMILAR TO THIS ONE.
IT'S KIND OF A RELEVANT ISSUE.
SO I WOULD NOT BE WHERE THAT EITHER BEYOND PROVIDING MUCH BETTER ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE, THAT YOU CURRENTLY ARE.
I'M WRITING THESE COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, CONTACT TEAM.
AND WE WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR OPPOSITES PROPOSAL YET ACTUALLY WOULD INCREASE ZONING INTENSITY ON SPECIFIC TRACK WITHOUT DUE PROCESS FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
THERE HAS NOT BEEN PROPER NOTIFICATION OF IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS.
SO HOW'S IT THEY KNOW TO SUBMIT THE PETITION IN OPPOSITION, FOLLOW THE DUE PROCESS FOR MAKING
[02:20:01]
DON'T NEED PAGES.THE CITY HAS ALREADY WENT THROUGH A LOT OF TIME MONEY BY TRYING TO MAKE BLANKET ZONING CHANGES WITHOUT ALLOWING COMMUNITY VOICE VIA CODE NECK.
THIS IS THE SAME FAILED PRO PLAN WITH THE COMMUNITY AND NOT IN SPITE OF THE WISHES THAT THE COMMUNITY, THE ISSUES RELATING TO THIS ACCIDENT HAVE NOT BEEN THOROUGHLY VETTED WITH EFFECTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHAT ARE THE NEIGHBORHOODS MOST EFFECTED BY THIS AND HAVE THOSE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND CONTACT NEEDS ADEQUATELY ENGAGED? THE NOTICE I RECEIVED THIS, ALL IT SAYS IS CONSIDERING OUR ADMIN AMENDING TITLE FIVE OF THE CITY CODE RELATED TO VERDICT WILL MAKE YOU THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT ASKS.
IF YOU HAVE NOTIFIED, THERE'S A LOT MORE GOING ON HERE THAT PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT, BUT NOTICE, JUST PICK THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS WILL BE AFFECTED FOR INSTANCE, HOW MANY ND TRACKS WILL BE AFFECTED WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES.
AND THAT JUST MENTIONED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCILS ARE CONSIDERING SOME UNSPECIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT.
SO CHANGE THE IMPACT OF THE CITY'S USE OF BME.
TONY ON AFFORDABILITY HAS NOT BEEN TRADITIONALLY STUDIED.
THE COUNCIL CLAIMS THAT THE BMC OPTION WOULD ADVANCE AFFORDABILITY, BUT HAS THE CURRENT VMU DESIGNATION REALLY IMPROVE THE AFFORDABILITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE IT HAS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE PRONOUNCEMENTS ABOUT HOW THIS ACTUALLY GOING TO INCREASE THE PORTABILITY, THEN BACK IT UP WITH DATA.
THE PROPOSAL IGNORES THE IMPACT OF THIS VACCINE ON NEIGHBORHOODS, MOST VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT.
WHAT HAS THE IMPACT THAT THE CURRENT USE OF BME HAD ON AFFORDABILITY IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS? WE DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO BE IN, IN OUR, IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOU ALL IMPOSED IT ON US.
NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT IN THOSE DMU CATEGORIES OR PROPERTIES, THE 90 FEET, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT RIGHT.
YOU NEED TO DO THIS RIGHT OR ELSE YOU CAN END UP WITH THE SAME OUTCOME AS BOTNET.
I'M NOW RETURNED TO MR. JOHN TINNER, MR. JOHN TINNER, SELECT STAR SIX, PROCEEDED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
YOU JUST MUTED YOURSELF AS YOU, IF YOU'LL SELECT STAR SIX, AGAIN, PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, SIR.
SO MY, UM, IS IT DEEMED, UM, INAPPROPRIATE TO BE PUT UP REBOOT COMPATIBILITY? AND I KNOW THAT NOT TRYING TO REMOVE COMPATIBILITY, I THINK I HEARD TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY TO BE TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE TO BE DOING.
WHAT DID YOU EFFECT AND EVEN HAD IT.
UM, AND I HEARD B WHO WOULD COMPLETELY AWAY WITH IT OPTION.
THAT'S JUST, THAT IS NOT, UM, I THINK THAT'S WHAT, UM, NEIGHBORHOODS NEED.
AND THAT BEING SAID, I'D LIKE TO I'M TO, UM, MARIE METAWARE WHO'S THERE.
WELL NOW I HEAR FROM MS. CHERYL THOMPSON, MS. THOMPSON, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES.
MS. THOMPSON, IF YOU'LL SELECT STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
WELL, I WORK WITH MS. THOMPSON.
SEE IF WE CAN GET HER BACK ON THE LINE.
UM, WELL NOW HERE FOR MS. MEGAN, , YOU'LL HAVE 10 MINUTES.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS FOR YOUR SERVICE TO AUSTIN, BY BEING AT THESE MEETINGS, THERE'S SO MUCH TO SAY AND NOT ENOUGH TIME TO SAY
[02:25:01]
IT, BUT PLEASE CONSIDER THE WIDER EFFECTS OF VMU ON AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN FOUND THAT VERY FEW CHILDREN ARE LIVING IN THESE NEW UNITS THAT ARE BEING BUILT.AND SO THE AISD IS HAVING TROUBLE WITH ITS NUMBERS AND CLOSING SCHOOLS.
AND IF VMU IS BUILT, FOR EXAMPLE, IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK THE PEOPLE WITH CHILDREN ARE NOT GOING TO FEEL COMFORTABLE HAVING A 90 FOOT TALL BUILDING.
WE HAVE TWO VMS IN A VERY SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD AND, UM, IT HAS 23 CITY LANDMARKS AND TWO NATIONAL LANDMARKS AND 10 STATE LANDMARKS.
UM, IT'S THE OLDEST, CONTINUOUSLY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IN DOWNTOWN AUSTIN AND SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESERVE.
AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THE PROPERTY TAX CONSIDERATION FOR THE OWNERS OF PRESENT.
VMU IF THEY'RE SUDDENLY ALLOWED TO HAVE 90 FEET, THEIR PROPERTY TAXES REALLY GOING TO GO UP QUITE A BIT.
BUT I WOULD JUST ALSO LIKE TO GO BACK TO THE POSTPONE CONSIDERATION.
I REALLY THINK THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO DIGEST ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE AVAILABLE AND WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE WORKING GROUP IS GOING TO SUGGEST.
COMPATIBILITY IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO LIKE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T USUALLY DO IT, I HEARD SO, UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
WELL, NOW HERE FOR MS. ROSEBURY MIRIAM FOLLOWED BY PAULA KAUFMANN.
MY NAME IS ROSEMARY MARIAM AND I'M CHAIR FOR THE OLD WEST AUSTIN ZONING COMMITTEE.
NEEDLESS TO SAY, WE THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE, UM, A VERY BAD, UM, THING TO COME ABOUT, UM, IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'RE NOT A HUGE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WE'RE PRETTY CONDENSED.
AND, UM, I DON'T SEE WHERE THIS COULD HAPPEN.
UM, ALSO, UM, THE FACT THAT NOW I KNOW Y A S M P IS OUT THERE BECAUSE THIS, I KEPT WONDERING HOW THE DEVELOPERS WERE GOING TO GET ENOUGH LAND TO ALLOW FOR THE WIDENING OF THE STREETS.
WELL, OBVIOUSLY THESE, UM, HUGE VIEWS WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT.
UM, I ALSO WANT TO COMMENT THAT WE ALL SUPPORT LOW-INCOME HOUSING.
HOWEVER, IF THIS AMENDMENT PASSES WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PERCENTAGE OF LOW-INCOME HOUSING THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE, AS IT HAS DONE IN THE PAST, WE'LL STEP RIGHT IN AND CREATE LEGISLATION THAT WILL DISALLOW ANY CITIES TO REQUIRE DEVELOPERS IN ORDER TO GET GREATER DENSITY OR HEIGHT IN EXCHANGE FOR LOW-INCOME APARTMENTS, THE LEGISLATURE WOULD ALSO POSSIBLY REMOVE THE FEES IN NEAR THAT WE USE NOW, UM, TO BUILD LOW-INCOME HOUSING, WE KNOW THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS DO NOT SHARE A VALUES OF BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT THE COST OF ANY DEVELOPER'S RIGHTS.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM PAULA KAUFMANN WAS KAUFMAN.
SHE ALSO LIKES STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH THE REMARKS THAT STAR SIX GOOD EVENING.
I'D LIKE TO QUOTE THE SOUTH RIVER CITY CITIZENS REPRESENTING APPROXIMATELY 5,000 HOUSEHOLDS REGARDING AFFORDABILITY.
WE AGREE THAT OFTEN NEEDS MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
HOWEVER, WE DISAGREE WITH THE AND LOO ALTERNATIVE FOR DEVELOPERS.
WE RECEIVE GREATER ENTITLEMENT AND EXCHANGE FOR COMMUNITY BENEFIT.
20% OF THE UNIT SHOULD BE ON PLIGHT, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, NOT THE QUOTE.
UM, AND THESE ARE MY PERSONAL REMARKS.
THE DEVELOPERS ARE GETTING THE BENEFIT, BUT YOU'RE ASKING PAIRS TO PAY FOR THE BENEFITS THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE BECAUSE OF THE EXTREME, EXTRA PROCEEDS OF THE PROJECT WITH MORE UNIT.
THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T WANT TO BUILD THE AFFORDABLE UNIT TO BE PURCHASED ON SPITE.
I HAVE HEARD THE STAFF SAY, OH MY GOODNESS, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE HIGH AND HIGH PROPERTY TAXES.
WHEN YOU HAVE A TAXPAYERS SUBSIDIZING THESE DEVELOPMENT
[02:30:01]
EVERYBODY'S PROPERTY TAXES, RIGHT? FIGURE OUT A WAY TO COVER OUT THE HOA AND THE PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SPEAKING THESE, THESE, UM, EXTRA ENTITLEMENTS.SO, AND YOU'RE ALSO PROPOSING PAYMENT FOR YOUR FREE AND LU ARE COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE.
YOU CAN NOT BUILD A THREE BEDROOM PROPERTY FOR $440,000 UNLESS THE TAXPAYER SITS IN THE BILL AND PAYS FOR THE PROPERTY, GET THE DEVELOPER TO BUILD ON SITE AND ASK THEM TO PAY THE $440,000 AS A, AN ENDOWMENT TO PAY FOR THOSE HOA FEES AND PROPERTY TAXES LATER.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR, FOR YOUR INTEREST.
WE'RE HOLDING NOW A RETURN BACK TO MS. CHERYL THOMPSON, MS. THOMPSON SELECT STAR SIX.
YOU'LL BE FOLLOWED BY RUSSELL FRASER.
WE'LL COME BACK TO MS. THOMPSON.
UH, WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. FRASER RUSSELL FRASER.
OKAY, WELL NOW HEAR FROM CHRIS F BENITO, MR. .
I RESIDE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT BORDERS CONGRESS AVENUE, CONGRESS AVENUE FROM THE LAKE DOWN TO, UH, BEN WHITE ON THE, UH, EAST SIDE OF COMMERCE.
UH, AND I HAVE BEEN THAT I'M A MEMBER OF THE NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION, THEY'RE SELF RIVER CITY CITIZENS.
I'M ALSO CHAIR OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN FOR QUITE A FEW YEARS.
AND LET ME JUST TELL YOU MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ON BOTH SIDES OF CONGRESS AND ANC DURING CODE NEXT IS THAT THE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND TRUST IS GOING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT FOR THIS.
WE NEED TO MEET WITH THE CITY.
WE'D LIKE TO SPIT IN OFF THE MORE, UM, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS.
AND WE'D DEFINITELY LIKE TO HAVE THREE HEARINGS THAT SHITTY COUNCIL, A COUPLE OF THINGS COME TO MIND FROM CODE.
NEXT ONE IS THE COMPATIBILITY ISSUE.
THOSE ARE MAIN ONE OF THE MAIN PROBLEMS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS, PARTICULARLY LONG CONGRESS, WHICH IS OF COURSE, UH, THE ORANGE LINE CORRIDOR PROPOSED AND WANTING TO BE A MAJOR PRESENCE NOW IN AN ATTRACTION OF MAGNET FORM, UH, THE AMU, FOR EXAMPLE.
UM, THE OTHER THING, THE ONLY PROBLEM I HAVE IS IF READING THROUGH THE ORDINANCE, THERE'S A REFERENCE TO OPT IN AND OPT OUT, UH, CONDUCT CONTINUAL CITATIONS IN THE, EVEN IN LANGUAGE.
THIS IS ANOTHER, ANOTHER ISSUE, A TREMENDOUS ISSUE THAT WE HAD IN CODE NEXT, WHENEVER THE NEIGHBORHOODS, THE SF THREE ON HIS PROPERTY OWNERS NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO VOTE, WHICH, WHICH RESULTED IN THE WALSH, UH, LET'S BOARD THAT LET'S, LET'S EXPLAIN WHAT OPT IN AND OPT OUT OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE, IF ANY, UM, AND EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT THE COMPATIBILITY RULES ARE GOING TO BE THROUGH WORK SESSIONS AND, UH, SCHEMATICS AND SO FORTH.
UM, PARTICULARLY SOMETHING THAT'S PERTINENT TO OUR NEIGHBOR BY PROPERTY, BY PROPERTY OR BLOCK BY BLOCK, PERHAPS THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO INPUT.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM CHRIS F ANITA OKAY, WELL NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM MR. DANIEL, YANAS FOLLOWED BY EUGENE SUTTON.
MR. YAN IS SELECT STAR SIX UH, THIS HAS DONE NEAR JOHN LEWIS AND I CHAIRED THE GO VALLEY, JUSTIN CHAIRS, NUMBER, THE CONTACT TEAM.
AND, UH, IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WE HAVE TWO CORRIDORS, SEVENTH STREET AND AIRPORT.
WE FOUGHT REALLY HARD TO KEEP A DESERT CHAVEZ FROM BECOMING A BMU.
WE ARE NOT HAPPY AT ALL FOR THE PROPOSAL TO PUT VMU SOMEWHERE OUTSIDE OF THE DEBT, THE CORRIDORS THAT ARE DESIGNATED BY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WHICH IS THE VISION FOR,
[02:35:01]
UH, FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WOULD, UH, BE AT THE SAME LEVEL AS ANY OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN AUSTIN.AND WE ARE CATEGORICALLY OPPOSED TO A 90 FEET, UH, GOING UP 90 FEET THAT IS CHANGING THE CULTURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS GOING FROM, FROM HUMAN SCALE TO SKYSCRAPER.
UM, UH, AND, AND ALSO THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS ARE WHAT KEEPS AUSTIN FROM BEING HOUSTON.
AND, UH, I CATEGORICALLY DISAGREE WITH MR. WHALEN ABOUT THOSE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS.
UM, AND I AGREE WITH THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER ABOUT THE NO FEE AND LOOP.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT, I HEAR THE CITY COUNCIL SAID THAT THEY WANT TO SPREAD AFFORDABLE HOUSING AROUND, AROUND THE CITY.
WELL, THEN QUIT DOING THE FEE.
AND LOU HAD EVERY DEVELOPMENT HAVE A CERTAIN DEGREE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
LASTLY, I WILL SAY THAT THAT THE 80%, 10% AT 80% MFI, UH, MAY WORK IN OTHER PARTS OF TOWN, BUT IN EAST AUSTIN AND LOW-INCOME AREAS AND IN, UH, BLACK AND BROWN AREAS, THIS IS A TOOL OF GENTRIFICATION.
THIS IS A TOOL OF DISPLACEMENT.
WE FOUGHT REALLY HARD ON OUR B CORRIDORS TO CREATE A 50% MFI.
AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE DMU, YOU SHOULD CHANGE IT TO 20%, UH, AT 60% MFI ON THOSE CORRIDORS AND LEAD THOSE POOR DOORS WHERE MY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN DESIGNATED THEM.
THE LAST THING THAT I WILL SAY HERE IS THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP ON THE MAJORITY OF THE SIDES ARE ON THE EAST SIDE, TOTAL IGNORING, YOU HAVE IGNORED TOTALLY THE EQUITY ISSUE AND EQUITY IS A PALATABLE WAY OF SAYING SYSTEMIC RACISM.
ONE MORE TIME ON THE EAST SIDE.
YOU WILL NOT HEAR FOR MR. EUGENE SUTTON FOLLOWED BY NATALIE GATES.
I'M MR. SUTTON FROM THE MATTHEW'S LANE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
WE'VE BEEN PARTICIPATING IN MULTIPLE REZONING DURING THE PAST YEAR, AND I WANT TO SUMMARIZE 3 16 0 9 MATTHEWS LANE WAS SIX TENTHS OF AN ACRE IT'S BY A CHURCH DUPLEXES AND A STORAGE OF BUSINESS.
WE WERE UNABLE TO OBTAIN A VALID PETITION.
THE RESULT WAS 10 UNITS COUNCIL IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL OF OUR GOAL.
WAS IT 12? THESE ARE GOING TO BE THREE STORIES.
THE VIEW IS NEXT TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS.
THE ARCHITECT OWNER IS NOW SELLING THIS PROPERTY FOR 1.1 MILLION PLANS AVAILABLE.
THE NEXT PROPERTY IS 1902 KEEL BAR, AND WE'RE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THIS AND THERE'S TWO PROPERTIES ON MINDJACK AS WELL.
WE DID OBTAIN A VALID PETITION AND WE'RE IN NEGOTIATION WITH THE DEVELOPER.
THE MOST RECENT, UH, SUBMISSION FROM THE DEVELOPER WAS THAT THEY WANTED TO PUT IN A THREE-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING WITH 26 UNITS, 34 PARKING SPOTS.
KEEL BAR IS A VERY NARROW, UH, ROADWAY.
AND THERE'S ALSO A CONDOMINIUM PLANNED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY.
THE FINAL, UH, PROPERTY THAT WE LOOKED AT WAS 1.48 ACRES AT 19 11, 19 15 DITMAR THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD RECORD ASSOCIATION.
THERE WAS NONE ON KEEL BAR AS WELL.
THIS WAS, UH, INITIALLY SUBMITTED AS 34 UNITS, THREE STORIES.
ONCE WE HAD THE VALID PETITION, WE OBTAINED 20 UNITS, TWO STORIES, AND, UM, IN DUPLEXES JUST HEARD 50 FEET AT THE LAST, UH, CITY ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND THAT WAS 50 FEET THEY WANT TO BUILD AT 33 0 1 WEST WILLIAM CANNON, 294 UNITS TURTLE CREEK.
I LOOKED AT ON THE WAY UP TO THE MEETING.
TONIGHT IS FIVE STORIES IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
SOUTH FIRST SOUTH OF DITMAR, THEY'RE PLANNING FOUR STORIES AND 290 UNITS.
THIS BECOMES AN ADDITIONAL TOOL FOR DEVELOPERS TO MOVE INTO NON-REPRESENTED AREAS.
AND IF NO VALID PETITION, WE WILL BE INCREASING DENSITY EXPONENTIALLY.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. NATALIE GATES FOLLOWED BY CATHERINE TO CHECK MS. YATES SELECT STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
UM, I AM THE CHAIR OF THE SOUTH NEW CONTACT TEAM.
UM, AND I DO NEED TO SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY NOTICE ABOUT THIS, UM, TOO.
AND I CHECKED WITH SOME OF THE PASTURES AS WELL.
UM, SO I'M A LITTLE, UH, DISAPPOINTED WITH THAT.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE VMU IN OUR AREA IS THAT WE'RE, WE'RE ALREADY DEALING WITH A LOT RIGHT NOW.
[02:40:01]
DAVID'S WANTING TO, UM, INCREASE THE SIZE OF THEIR SOUTH AUSTIN HOSPITAL, WHERE I'M ON THE WORKING GROUP FOR THE PROTEOME, THE BRODY OAK HUD THAT'S COMING UP.UM, AND I THINK THAT THE, THE MAJOR THREAD THAT GOES THROUGH ALL OF THESE PROJECTS IS THAT THE DEVELOPERS AREN'T TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE BANDWIDTH THAT EXISTS FOR THESE EXTRA, EXTRA PEOPLE, THE EXTRA TRAFFIC, THE EXTRA, ALL OF THAT STUFF THAT COMES IN.
UM, AND, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HEAR A LOT ABOUT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH PROJECT CONNECT AND WITH INCREASED CA METRO RIDERSHIP AND ALL KINDS OF STUFF, THAT IN THE FUTURE, WE WILL HAVE THE BANDWIDTH FOR, YOU KNOW, THESE MASSIVE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND BUSINESSES AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT NO ONE HAS A CRYSTAL BALL, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE PAST WITH PERFECT CLARITY.
AND WHAT WE SEE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CITY AND DEVELOPERS, THEY PROMISE THAT ONCE WE, WE BUILD THESE MASSIVE DEVELOPMENTS, THAT WE WILL HAVE THE BANDWIDTH THERE ONCE THEY'RE COMPLETED AND ALL THAT STUFF GOES DOWN, THE PROBLEM IS, I MEAN, ANY DRIVE UP AND DOWN THE MARK AND TELL YOU THAT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN AND IT'S UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.
UM, SO MY, MY MAIN ISSUE IS THAT WE SHOULD BUILD THE INFRASTRUCTURE FIRST AND THEN BUILD REPAIR CAPACITY EXISTS, NOT BUILD IN PLACES WHERE WE EXPECT CAPACITY TO EXIST LATER.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. KATHERINE TO TICKET FIELDS, SELECT STAR SIX, FOLLOWED BY JOSEPH RENOUNCE.
AM I NEEDED AGAIN, IS THIS PAYCHECK.
AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR SPENDING YOUR TIME SERVING IN THIS WAY.
I LIVE IN THE BLACKLINE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS BOUNDED BY MLK AND MAINTENANCE, WHICH MAKES US FOUR BLOCKS WIDE.
AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN TESTS, DESIGNATED DC STREETS AS AREAS FOR DEVELOPMENT, RATHER THAN THE FREE INTERIOR STREETS.
THEN WE DO HAVE SOME PMU ON THOSE CORRIDORS.
MY CONCERN IS THAT THIS INFORMATION WAS RELEASED LESS THAN A WEEK AGO, AND MY NEIGHBORHOOD HASN'T EVEN HAD THE CHANCE TO DECIDE WHAT WE THINK OR FIGURE OUT THAT COMPATIBILITY WITH OUR THREE STORY MIGHT EVEN BE AFFECTED.
THIS IS A WIDE CHANGE AND NOT REAL PROPERTY CHANGE.
THIS IS DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO THE PATIENTS WE'VE HAD WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SINCE 2017, OVER THE GRADUATE STUDENT, HAVING THAT WILL GET US 800 MORE STUDENTS LIVING ON OUR WEST BORDER WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE DO HAVE THE BLACK LAND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WHICH PROVIDES 50 PLUS AFFORDABLE HOME, MANY SIDES FOR FAMILIES AND AVAILABLE WITH PEOPLE BELOW EMS. I, AND WE LIKE AFFORDABILITY PAIRED WITH COMPATIBILITY.
I PERSONALLY WANT TO SEE THAT THE ONSITE AFFORDABILITY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE REMOVED BY DEVELOPERS, PAYING A FEE IN BLUE.
AND I WANT TO CONTINUE TO SEE ECONOMIC DIVERSITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I'M ASKING YOU TO PLEASE THE VOTE ON THIS UNTIL OUR NEIGHBORHOODS THAT OTHERS HAVE TESTED AND ACTUALLY DETERMINED WHAT WE SAY.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. JOSEPH REYNOLDS FOLLOWED BY JOYCE BASCIANO COMMISSIONERS.
I LIVE ON 49TH STREET AND I POSED THE BMU REF A REVISION.
I HAVE THREE AREAS OF CONCERN, WHICH I'LL ADDRESS FIRST.
THE VMU WORKING GROUP IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE ELA REQUIREMENTS FOR ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL HOUSING COMPATIBILITY WAS AN ORIGINAL REQUIREMENT OF EMU, AND IT MUST REMAIN GOING FORWARD.
THIS TOPIC ALONE IS JUSTIFICATION FOR POSTPONEMENT OF THIS HEARING.
SECOND, THE VME WORKING GROUP PROPOSES PUTTING NEW VMU ON NON-PRINCIPAL STREETS IN THE WALK SHED.
THE ORIGINAL BMU WAS AN OPT IN PROCESS THAT NEEDS TO CONTINUE BESIDES THE NON-PRINCIPAL STREETS ARE A BAD IDEA IN BUSINESS.
AND IN CIVIC OFF OF PRINCIPLE STREETS, THE NECESSARY RESOURCES ARE NOT IN PLACE TO HANDLE EVEN SIMPLE BUSINESS PROCESSES LIKE DUMPSTERS DELIVERIES AND THE LOADING ON THE STREETS FROM TRUCKS AND UTILITY LINES ARE OFTEN HANG TOO LOW.
THIRD REMOVAL OF ONSITE PARKING IN THE VMU IS A BAD IDEA.
IT DOESN'T LEAD TO FEWER RESIDENTIAL CARS.
IT LEADS TO RESIDENTIAL CARS PARKED ON THE STREETS ON STREET.
CARS ARE ALREADY AT RISK IN AUSTIN, BURGLARY OR A VEHICLE IS NOW VERY COMMON WITH BROKEN WINDOWS AND CAR STRIPPED.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. JOYCE.
[02:45:02]
ALL UP BY KAREN FERNANDEZ, MS. BASCIANO JUST TO LIKE STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.THIS IS JOYCE BEST NANO BIG GANG FOR MYSELF AND NOT THAT MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS SUPPOSED TO LEARN ABOUT THE, AND TO, UH, I HAPPENED TO FIND OUT ABOUT LAST OF THE WORK GROUP, UH, THIRD HAND, AND I WAS REALLY UPSET.
THIS WAS, UM, WE HAVE VMU IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING WARRIOR.
WE WERE VERY CAREFUL TO PLACE THE UNUSED, UH, ALONG STREETS THAT WE THOUGHT WOULD HANDLE THAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT.
THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO SEE THE, WHAT DATA THE STAFF IS USING TO BASE THIS ANALYSIS ON.
I WENT THROUGH A LOT OF THESE DIFFERENT ORDINANCES, AND SOMETIMES YOU, UM, WONDER WHERE THE DATA WOULD.
NOW I'VE HEARD OTHERS SAY COMPATIBILITY IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
IT NEEDS TO SAY, UH, I AGREE WITH SAY STAY.
UM, WHAT WE REALLY NEED IN THIS TOWN IS HOUSING FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING LESS THAN 50% OF, UM, AND FINALLY, UH, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE NEW FLAP, NAMELESS, TRIUMPH, PARENTS, AND LEGAL.
UH, I'M SURE THAT YOU'RE, I MEAN THE WORKING GROUP, BUT HURRY PROCESS IS CREATING CONTROVERSY.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM KAREN FERNANDEZ FOLLOWED BY MS. ON A GET HIM THIS IS KEVIN FERNANDEZ.
I'M THE SECRETARY OF THE MATTHEWS LANE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
FIRST ON THE TOPIC OF POSTPONEMENT.
I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE DID NOT BECOME AWARE OF THIS PROPOSAL UNTIL LAST WEEK THURSDAY, TO BE EXACT.
AND THE NOTIFICATION DID NOT COME FROM THE CITY.
I THINK WE NEED MORE TIME TO DISCUSS AND GET CLARIFICATION FROM CITY STAFF, ESPECIALLY ON THE ISSUE OF CHANGING THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, CHANGING THE DISTANCE OF WHO WOULD BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT.
WE ARE ALL AGAINST BEING INCLUDED OUTSIDE OF THE MAJOR CORRIDORS.
AND WE DO NOT SUPPORT ANY IN LIEU OF FEE STRUCTURES BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT IT REALLY COSTS TO LIVE AROUND HERE.
AND FOR INSTANCE, THE $139,000 IN LUA FOR A STUDIO APARTMENT IS A LOT LESS THAN WHAT ANY DEVELOPER'S GOING TO MAKE OFF OF THAT STUDIO APARTMENT.
WE WOULD LIKE ANY ADDITIONAL TYPE THAT IS ADDED TO BE ALL AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THAT THE UNITS WOULD GO TO THE FAMILIES.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, AND I PLEASE HOPE THAT YOU WILL POSTPONE THIS AND GIVE ALL OF OUR COMMUNITIES TIME TO REALLY ENGAGE WITH THE CITY AND PLAN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS TOGETHER.
YOU WILL NOT HERE FOR A MASONIC YET.
I FOLLOWED BY FRED LEWIS, MR. STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
DID HE, SEAN AND COMMISSIONER, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE YOU.
MY NAME IS COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, CONTACT TEAM, AS PREVIOUSLY STATED THE CONTACTING HAS NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DELIBERATE WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IN FOR THE RECORD.
THE ONLY REASON I WOULD PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE WORK GROUP MEETINGS BECAUSE ANOTHER, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD PERSON CONTACTED ME.
EMMA ALERTED ME TO THE MEETING ON THE DATE OF THE MEETING.
WE NEED MORE TIME TO REVIEW AND DELIBERATE.
WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED ARE CONTACTS.
IF THE FURTHEST ONE IN SOUTHEAST AUSTIN, WE ARE PART OF THE EASTERN CRESCENT AND HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN MARGINALIZED.
WE ARE VERY CONCERNED, EFFECTIVE PLACEMENT IN OUR AREAS, VERY VULNERABLE TO THE GENTRIFICATION WE'RE ALREADY, UM, EXPERIENCING GENTRIFICATION IN OUR AREA.
HOW WILL YOUR DECISION IMPACT COMMUNITIES OF COLOR? HOW WILL IT IMPACT THE WORKING CLASS? HAS THE EQUITY OFFICE BEING CONSULTED ON WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION? HOW CAN YOU,
[02:50:02]
HOW CAN THE PEN AREAS OPT-IN OR OPT-OUT OF WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED, WHO IS WATCHING THE IMPACT THAT THIS WILL HAVE ON OUR OVERALL INFRASTRUCTURE, FOR EXAMPLE, UTILITY BRAIN SIDEWALKS, ET CETERA.AGAIN, HAS THE EQUITY OFFICE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANALYZE THE IMPACT.
THIS PROPOSAL WILL HAVE IN THE EASTERN CRESCENT WITH DECEPTIVE STUFF IS COMBINED THE BLUEPRINT, CONTACTING MY, HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE WITH THE COMMUNITY.
I AM HAVING TO GO ON THE RECORD AS HAVING TO BE IN OPPOSITION TO WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED.
AS WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO LEARN TO PROCESS AND ANALYZE THE IMPACT THAT HE WILL HAVE TO RECORD IN OUR COMMUNITY.
I HOPE WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ENGAGED IN THE TEACHER.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. FRED LEWIS FOLLOWED BY NATALIE DR.
FRANKLIN, NATALIE FRIENDS LANE.
FRENSLEY FOLLOWED BY HIM, MIGUEL RIVERA.
YOU'RE PROBABLY GETTING TIRED OF ME.
MY COMMENTS ARE GOING TO BE SHORT AND SWEET.
UH, I, UH, I PLED MY CASE REGARDING POSTPONEMENT, BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO WITH THIS TIME ALLOTTED IS TO REFLECT ON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID.
I'VE BEEN TRACKING ON WHAT MY FELLOW NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN SAYING, AND THESE ARE THESE AMOUNTS TO CONCERNS ABOUT UNKNOWNS.
AND IN MY BACKGROUND, WHEN I DO SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND COMPLEX SYSTEMS, I LAVISH A LOT OF TIME DEALING WITH EXTERNALITIES AND IN REFLECTING ON WHAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID, THEY'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT NOT JUST KNOWN UNKNOWNS THINGS LIKE DATA.
AND DO WE EVEN HAVE AN ACCURATE COUNT ABOUT VMU PROJECTS THAT THE CITY IS USING IN ITS PLANNING DURING THE LISTENING SESSION, A NEIGHBOR BROUGHT UP THAT IT APPEARED THAT FROM THE CITY'S MAPS OF THE USE PROJECTS ON SOUTH CONGRESS WERE UNDER COUNTED.
THEY WERE ABSENT FROM THOSE MAPS.
WE NEED TIME TO VALIDATE THE ESSENTIALS, LIKE THE DATA ON WHICH WE'RE EVALUATING, YOU KNOW, VMU AMENDMENTS AND WAYS FORWARD.
WE'VE ALSO HEARD ABOUT PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT EXTERNALITIES EXTERNALITIES LIKE IMPACTS TO EDUCATION SYSTEMS, EXTERNALITIES THAT INVOLVE OTHER THIRD ORDER EFFECTS.
ARE WE GOING TO END UP WITH PERVERSE OUTCOMES WHEN IT COMES TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE OF AN EXTRA 30 FEET BEING ADDED AND INCREASING THE VALUE THAT WILL ULTIMATELY MAKE IT UNAFFORDABLE FOR OWNERS OF CONDO PROJECTS AND RENTS PASS DOWN TO RENTERS TO BE ABLE TO LIVE IN THESE BUILDINGS.
FOR THIS REASON, I RETURNED TO MY ORIGINAL THREE, PLEASE CONSIDER POSTPONING THIS SO THAT WE CAN DO INSIGHTFUL ACUTE AND WHITE GRAIN ANALYSIS OF THE KNOWN UNKNOWNS AND THE UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS AND DO, AND TREAT THIS PROJECT, WHICH IS A COMPLEX PROJECT PROPERLY.
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR CONSIDERING MY SECOND GO ROUND PLEA FOR A POSTPONEMENT.
WILL NOT HEAR FROM MIGUEL RIVERA FOLLOWED BY ALLEN ALAN CHRISTENSEN.
MR. ALLEN CHRISTENSEN FOLLOWED BY KATHLEEN DEVER.
THIS, UH, ORDINANCE IS A CITYWIDE.
IT AFFECTS EVERYTHING, BUT ACTUALLY IT'S A LOT OF LITTLE EFFECTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
NON-DOCTOR TALK JUST ABOUT ONE NEAR MY HOUSE ON AVENUE H UH, IT'S A CORRIDOR.
AND ACCORDING TO THE BAT, I, IT LOOKS LIKE A BOMB.
THERE'S A TINY LITTLE CORRIDOR THAT TRIGGERS VMU AROUND IT.
AND THIS TINY CORRIDOR APPEARS TO BE THE PARKING LOT OF THE CONVENIENCE STORE LOCALLY KNOWN AS THE FLAG STORE, BECAUSE DECORATED WITH FLAGS.
NOW, IT HAS SOME REALLY NICE SELECTION
[02:55:01]
OF GESTURE KING REAR, BUT IT'S NOWHERE NEAR A MAJOR TRANSIT CORRIDOR.SO WHY THAT, SO OBVIOUSLY SOMEBODY MAKES A LOT OF MONEY OFF THAT.
AND WHO IS THAT? WELL, UM, I ONLY HAD A DAY LOOK ROUND, BUT, UH, THAT'S OWNED BY SOMEBODY CALLED SEVEN 20 LAMAR PLACE, LLC.
UH, TOOK ME AWHILE TO FIGURE OUT WHO OWNS THAT LLC.
AND IT'S, UH, IT'S A FAMILY IN B CAVE.
I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO GIVE THEIR FAMILY NAMED PUBLICLY.
UH, AND SO THEY'RE GONNA MAKE A LOT OF MONEY BY HAVING THIS ONE QUARTER AND THEY DON'T EVEN LIVE IN AUSTIN.
SO WHY ARE THEY DEFINING THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR NCCD? THEN YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THIS EXPANDS BEYOND THAT THERE'S THIS WMU ZONE AROUND IT.
THE FIRST THING IN THAT ZONE IS THE JUICE LAND IN THE AREA, WHICH IS ANOTHER ABANDONED GAS STATION.
AND IT IS THE OWNED BY THE, UH, 8 8700 LAMAR PLACE, LLC, WHICH, UH, IS CONTROLLED BY VNB ENTERPRISES, WHICH TURNS OUT TO BE FROM THE SAME LOCATION IN PK.
AND THEN FINALLY, WHEN YOU GET TO WHO OWNS THE, THE ONLY DEVELOPER LAND, IF YOU LOOK AT THE CIRCLE AROUND THAT BOMB, THERE IS A ALREADY EXISTING APARTMENTS.
THERE'S SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING, WHICH THE OWNER LIVES AT IT.
SO IT'S OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING, AND ONE HOUSE THAT'S NOT BEEN MAINTAINED FOR YEARS, WHICH IS OWNED BY SERON HILL ANGLEY, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE AMERICAN STATESMAN DIED YEARS AGO.
AND, AND THAT'S NOT A COMMON NAME, SO IT'S NOT LIKE, LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF THEM RUNNING AROUND.
AND SO SOMEBODY IS NOT REPORTING THE DEATH TO THE TAX OFFICE TO HIDE THE TRUE OWNERSHIP OF THESE LANDS.
CAN WE GO AHEAD AND WRAP UP YOUR COMMENTS? I THINK WE'RE AT THE END OF THE DAY.
WELL, LET ME SAY THAT IN ORDER FOR SOMEBODY TO MAKE A LOT OF MONEY OFF OF WHAT WOULD TURN OUT TO BE 45 0 9 AVENUE, H THEY WANT TO PUT A 90 FOOT FEATURELESS BOX THAT WOULD BLOCK THE SOLAR PANELS NEXT DOOR, UH, KILLED THE GARDEN NEXT DOOR.
UM, PRETTY MUCH THE STORE AND THAT FAME BY THEIR WENT DOWN AVENUE AGE.
IT'S A ONE LANE STREET WITH CARS ON BOTH SIDES.
SO HAVING EXTRA CARS DRIVING IS GOING TO BE A NIGHTMARE.
WHEN I HEAR FROM KATHLEEN DEVER FOLLOWED BY NICK DEVER.
WE'LL HEAR FROM MICHAEL NEHAMAS FOLLOWED BY MS. CHERYL THOMPSON.
MS. THOMPSON, IF YOU ALL SELECT STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH ARAMARK'S GOOD EVENING, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS FOR YOUR SERVICE AND THE SPECIAL APPRECIATION FOR THE TIME AND OPPORTUNITY OF THE BMU WORKING GROUPS THAT, UH, PROVIDED, UH, OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE VOICES OF CONCERNED CITIZENS LAST WEEK.
MY CONCERNS ARE FOR DUE PROCESS IN THE FACT THAT, UM, NOTIFICATION WAS SO RAPID AND SOMEWHAT BOTCHED.
I'M TRYING TO BE NICE ABOUT IT, UH, THAT THE DEVELOPERS ARE BEING ABLE TO PAY THEIR WAY.
AND WHO VERIFY THE DATA THAT HE ASKED? IS IT CONSIDERATION IF IT'S AN ERROR, UM, WHO ACTUALLY DOES THAT VERIFICATION AND LASTLY SAFETY CONCERNS.
I AM REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT, UH, OUT OF RESPECT FOR ALL STAKEHOLDERS INTERESTS IN DUE PROCESS AND TRUE AFFORDABILITY, HOUSING SOLUTIONS, SPECIFICALLY IT POSTPONE, IT WILL ALLOW TIME FOR THE HARDWORKING TAXI AND SYSTEMS TO MEET WITH CITY OFFICIALS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS MATTER.
THE ONGOING CONFUSION SURROUNDING THIS MATTER HAS BEEN EXACERBATED BY THE MULTIPLE PUBLIC NOTICES WITH DIFFERENT INFORMATION.
AND THE LAST NOTICE ARRIVED LESS THAN THREE BUSINESS DAYS AGO.
UM, WHAT IS THE HEIGHTENED URGENCY? THERE SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING I MISSED.
I, I'M NOT NECESSARILY ACCUSING, BUT I'M BECOMING VERY SUSPICIOUS AND, UM,
[03:00:01]
WHAT'S WRONG WITH SLOWING DOWN TO GET IT RIGHT.AUSTIN LADY IN THE NATIONAL NEWS REGARDING THE MANNER IN WHICH IT DOES BUSINESS ETHICS, SENSITIVE CITIZENS.
AND CAN WE JUST WORK TOGETHER TO EVOKE AVERT NEEDLESS LITIGATION IN THE FUTURE? FURTHERMORE, IT'S DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW SO MANY EXTREMELY KNOWLEDGEABLE AND WELL-INTENDED VIDEO OFFICIALS KEEP GETTING IT WRONG, COSTING HARD, WORKING TAXPAYERS, MORE AND MORE MONEY AT THIS RATE.
WE'RE BECOMING A MICROCOSM OF A DISASTER CITY GOVERNMENT.
THAT MEANS, WELL, IT MEANS, WELL, I DIDN'T SAY IT DOESN'T MEAN WELL, BUT TAXPAYERS ARE GETTING TIRED OF SAYING BLESS THEIR HEART WITH OUR POCKETS.
SO TEAMS SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PERPETUAL LEARNING CURVE OF A BELLA'S GOVERNMENT.
I SUPPORT REAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THERE'VE BEEN MANY OTHERS THAT HAVE PASSED ABOUT THAT.
UH, BUT WE MUST REMEMBER THE OLD ADAGE HASTE MAKES WASTE OUR HOUSING CRISIS DIDN'T OCCUR OVERNIGHT, AND WE SHOULD BE PROVEN NOT TO TRY TO RESOLVE IT OVERNIGHT.
LASTLY, WHO WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY, IF ALL OF THESE BUILDINGS HAVE THIS MULTIPLE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE, IF WE NEEDED TO EVACUATE, HEY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE DON'T NEED TO GO THE TWO MINUTES.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HEARD THE BUZZER.
THIS CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
ALL THAT STAYED WITH US THIS EVENING.
UH, BOTH IN PERSON AND VIRTUALLY.
UM, NOW DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING? A COMMISSIONER IS OUR SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OF VICE-CHAIR HEMPEL UH, LET'S GO DOWN THE DIOCESE AND FAVOR CLOSING THE HEARING.
THAT'S UH, FOR THOSE, UM, VIRTUALLY, OKAY.
IS THAT YELLOW COMMISSIONER COX? YES.
SO, UH, ALL ON TABOR EXCEPT FOR COMMISSIONER COX ABSTAINING.
AND, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE COMMISSIONER PRACTICES, OFFSPRING.
LET'S UM, NOW LET ME GET MY INSTRUCTIONS HERE.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO A PRESENTATION FROM THE WORKING GROUP TO, UH, TALK ABOUT THEIR WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
AND YOU'LL HAVE, ONCE WE GET IT UP, WE'LL GIVE YOU SIX MINUTES.
DO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION OR HINT? AND IF STAFF WANTS TO, CAN PULL UP THE BACKUP.
AND THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO ALL COMMISSIONERS AS WELL.
UM, SO WHILE WE'RE DOING THAT, I'LL JUST SPEAK BROADLY FIRST TO THE PROCESS.
SO I REALLY WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.
UM, GOSHA HOWARD, MR. HEMPHILL FOR THEIR HELP WITH THIS WORKING GROUP.
UM, AND I ALSO WANT TO THANK ALL THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO CAME AND TALKED TO US AND SENT US EMAILS.
I THINK THAT'S BEEN REALLY HELPFUL, INCLUDING OUR ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE SENT IN INFORMATION.
UM, SO BEFORE I GET STARTED, I SHOULD JUST SAY THAT WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING ANY CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.
SO I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR.
WE HAVE NOT SUGGESTING ANY CHANGES TO COMPATIBILITY.
WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING ANY CHANGES TO PARKING.
WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING ANY CHANGES TO APPLICABILITY.
WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANY, WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING ANY CHANGES TO WHAT NEW SITES MIGHT BE APPLICABLE UNDER THIS.
NONE OF THOSE ARE INCLUDED IN THESE AMENDMENTS.
SO I HOPE THAT FOLKS HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM.
I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ON THAT UPFRONT.
UM, THE OTHER THING I WANT TO SAY IS THAT IN TERMS OF INDICTMENTS, WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING ANY CHANGE IN INDICTMENTS FROM WHAT COUNCIL SUGGESTED.
SO THE HEIGHT GOING TO 90 FEET WAS AGAIN BY THE AUTHORS OF THE INTERNATIONAL RESOLUTION AT COUNCIL IN NOVEMBER.
UH, WE HAVE NOT SUGGESTED THAT.
SO WHAT WE HAVE SUGGESTED ARE GENERAL AMENDMENTS.
IF FOLKS REMEMBER A SIMILAR PROCESS THAT WE DID UNDER THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, WHERE WE'RE SENDING SORT OF GENERAL QUESTIONS AND ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP IN DIFFERENT WAYS, AND WE WANTED TO SORT OF SIGNAL TO COUNCIL THAT HERE'S THINGS THAT WE WANT THEM TO THINK ABOUT CONSIDER OR GIVE US FURTHER GUIDANCE ON.
AND THAT'S WHAT THESE GENERAL AMENDMENTS ARE.
SO AGAIN, JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR, WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.
WE'RE SENDING SOME QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, BONDING THOUGHTS AND OTHER THINGS THAT WE THINK CONSTANTLY USED TO ADDRESS.
SOME OF THESE YOU'LL SEE THAT WE CHANGED, UH, BASED ON, UH, COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD FROM COMMISSIONERS THAT OUR LAST MEETING AND ALSO WHAT WE HEARD IN OUR WORKING GROUP OF LISTING SESSIONS.
SO WE ADDED SOME THINGS FROM THAT.
UM, THE FIRST ONE IS AGAIN, IS THAT I'M READING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
THIS IS AGAIN, NOT RELATED TO THE ORDINANCE ITSELF, ASSESS THE IMPACT OF COMPATIBILITY ON THE VMU PROGRAM AND OTHER DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS
[03:05:01]
AND CONSIDER ADDRESSING ANY IMPACTS ON HOUSING CAPACITY.THE SECOND ONE IS ASSESS THE NEED TO EXPAND THE VMU PROGRAM.
SO IT IS APPLICABLE BEYOND THE PRINCIPAL'S STREETS, IDENTIFYING THE LDC TO INCLUDE AREAS WITHIN THE WATERSHED OF THOSE PRINCIPLED STREETS.
THE THIRD ONE IS ASSESSED THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BMU PROGRAM TO EXAMINE THE EXPANSION OF OPPORTUNITIES TO ADD MORE HOUSING, ESPECIALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREAS AND ENSURE AN EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF SITES ACROSS THE CITY.
THE FOURTH ONE IS ASSESSED THE APPLICABILITY OF THE VMU PROGRAM AND VULNERABLE DISPLACEMENT RISK AREAS AS IDENTIFIED BY THE STAFF RESEARCH AND EVALUATE ADDITIONAL ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGIES.
THE FIFTH ONE IS ASSESSED THE NEED TO ELIMINATE OR FURTHER REDUCE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE VMU PROGRAM WHILE MAINTAINING ACCESSIBLE PARKING STANDARDS AND CONSIDER ADDRESSING ANY IMPACTS ON HOUSING CAPACITY AND PROGRAM PARTICIPATION.
AND THE SIXTH ONE WAS THAT UPON ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE CONDUCT A MARKET FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS.
SO THE GENIUS PROPOSED TO THE BMU PROGRAM AND MAKE ANY NECESSARY REVISIONS ABOUT PROVIDING A PERIODIC PROGRAM BOARD IN THE FUTURE.
SO THIS ARE WRAPS UP THE SIX GENERAL AMENDMENTS.
WE HAVE NONE OF THESE IMPACT, THE ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE VOTING ON TODAY.
SO YOU'LL NOTICE RIGHT IN THE COLUMN AFTER THAT, WE CLEARLY SAYING THERE'S NO PROPOSED TO EXCHANGE.
WE'RE ALSO CLEARLY SEEING THAT THE EXCHANGE IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE AMENDMENT.
THESE ARE GENERAL AMENDMENTS SENT TO COUNCIL WITH THE HOPE THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE US WITH SOME MORE GUIDANCE, BECAUSE THESE ARE ALL QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP AT MULTIPLE POINTS AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
SO BEFORE I SORT OF END HERE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS ON THE WORKING GROUP HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADD ANYTHING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO ADD AT THIS TIME.
UM, WELL, LET ME, IS THIS THE RIGHT TIME TO ADD, UM, I THINK, ARE YOU UP, ARE YOU OFFERING A DISCUSSION ABOUT POTENTIAL CHANGES? CAUSE I THINK OUR AMENDMENTS TO YOUR, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ESSENTIALLY IN THE WORKING GROUP REPORT, IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO ADD SOMETHING WITHIN MY AD HERE, YOU'D BE NO, I MEANT IF THEY WANTED TO ADD ANYTHING TO MY REPORT, IF ANYTHING I MISSED OR WOULD LIKE TO ADD, I SEEK DEMONSTRATION DO WANTS TO, I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT, UM, WE WERE THINKING, OR AT LEAST MYSELF, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR OTHERS.
WE'RE REFLECTING ON SOME OF THE CASES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PAST YEAR OR TWO.
AND, UM, THAT'S REFLECTED IN THE NOTES.
UM, I'M SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT, UH, THE GENERAL AMENDMENT ABOUT YUP.
NUMBER TWO GENERAL APPLICABILITY WHERE, UM, AND WHAT I HAD IN MIND WAS THAT THE CASE WHERE THERE WAS, UH, A SITE THAT WAS A STONE'S THROW FROM A CORRIDOR WHERE IT WAS JUST DISCONNECTED OR MAYBE THE MAIN ENTRY WASN'T OFF OF THE CORRIDOR, BUT IT STILL MADE SENSE AS A VMU DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO, UM, THIS WAS, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT MAKING, UM, ANY TEXT CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE, BUT SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY THINK THAT CITY COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER AND LOOK AT WITH STAFF, UH, COMMISSIONER SNYDER.
WE CAN'T HEAR YOU UNMUTE ABOUT NOW AND THAT'S FINE.
AND I WANT TO THANK THE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS AND PARTICULARLY, UH, CHERICE ARE, UM, W I THINK THE MAKEUP OF THE WORKING GROUP REALLY REFLECTS PRETTY DIFFERENT APPROACHES IN LAND USE AND OUR POSITIONS ON LAND USE.
AND, UM, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AT ONE POINT ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD INCLUDE CHANGES TO COMPATIBILITY, WHETHER WE SHOULD INCLUDE CHANGES TO APPLICABILITY.
AND I THINK MY TAKE WAS, WE ALL RECOGNIZED THAT THOSE ARE MAJOR CHANGES.
THEY ARE, THEY'RE VERY COMPLICATED CHANGES THAT IMPACT A LOT OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE, AND THEY GO BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT COUNCIL DIRECTED US TO DO.
SO WE, WE STILL BELIEVE THAT THOSE ARE ISSUES.
AND, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW I'LL END UP PERSONALLY ON CHANGES TO COMPATIBILITY OR APPLICABILITY, BUT I AGREE THAT THOSE ARE ISSUES THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO LOOK AT.
AND SO IN THESE GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE GOING IN ADDITION TO THE ORDINANCE, WE'RE ASKING COUNCIL TO GIVE US SOME GUIDANCE, WHETHER THEY WANT US TO DIVE INTO THOSE, WHETHER THEY WANT TO DIRECT US TO DO THOSE THINGS, BUT IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF, WE REALLY HUED TO WHAT COUNCIL DIRECTED US TO DO.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHY WE REACHED, UM, ACROSS THE FOUR MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP.
AND JERRY, AS WE WRAP UP OUR REPORT, I'LL JUST
[03:10:01]
SAY, I SHOULD'VE MENTIONED THIS.SO ONE, ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS COME UNANIMOUSLY FROM THE WORKING GROUPS.
UM, AND THE JUSTIFICATION IN NOTES, I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO THEM IN DETAIL BECAUSE I WANT TO RESPECT EVERYONE'S DYING.
BUT THERE, THERE THAT YOU CAN SEE.
AND A LOT OF THE JUSTIFICATION AS GOSHEN CAMPBELL MENTIONED, CAME FROM EITHER PAST CASES ARE THE DATA THAT STAFF IS PRESENTED TO US OR SOMETHING WE HEARD FROM THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, OR WE HEARD IN THE LISTENING SESSION.
SO THAT'S ALL WRAPPED UP IN HERE.
UM, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COMPLETES THE PRESENTATION FROM THE WORKING GROUP.
SO NOW WE HAVE Q AND A, UH, AND THIS AGAIN, CAN BE DIRECTED TO THE WORKING GROUP STAFF OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, UM, WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST.
WE HAVE, UH, EIGHT, UH, COMMISSIONER THAT'S FIVE MINUTES EACH.
UM, AND I THINK WE, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ALL THAT TIME.
WE CAN, UM, WE CAN COME BACK AROUND TO SUSPEND OUR RULES IF, UH, WE NEED MORE QUESTIONS, BUT LET'S, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET THOSE QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
UM, CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND TIME WHERE AT NINE 30, JUST ABOUT EXTEND TIME TO 11.
IF, UH, NO OPPOSITION, UH, GONNA MOVE TO 11, ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD.
WHERE ARE WE? UH, THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION.
ANY QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER? I CAN'T TELL COMMISSIONER.
I CAN'T BELIEVE I DO HAVE A FEW, BUT I USED THAT.
SORRY, I DIDN'T WANT TO, UM, I DIDN'T WANT TO TICK A SPOT, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S SPOTS TO TICK.
SO, UM, I HAD A QUESTION FOR A CITY STAFF, UH, MS. TEDFORD.
UM, I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT, UM, OWNERSHIP VERSUS RENTAL AND WHY YOU'RE MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION, UM, TO ALLOW FEE AND LOU FOR OWNERSHIP, AND SPECIFICALLY, IF YOU COULD DISCUSS, UH, UM, SORT OF THE, THE BREAKDOWN THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE ON BUILDINGS IN UNITS THAT ARE RENT VERSUS OWNERSHIP, SHOULD WE THINK, UM, SAM TEDFORD HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE NUMBERS OF VERTICAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS BROKEN OUT BY TENURE, WE FOUND THAT LESS THAN 2% OF MOST OF THOSE HOUSING UNITS WERE IN OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENTS.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS ARE RENTAL.
UM, AND SO THAT WAS PART OF WHAT WE WERE CONSIDERING.
BUT AS I MENTIONED IN THE PRESENTATION, WHEN WE SPOKE WITH STAFF WHO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT THESE PROGRAMS, THE LONG-TERM AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS, AND ACTUALLY WORK WITH THE HOMEOWNERS IN THESE INCOME RESTRICTED CONDOMINIUM, OR IN THESE MARKET RATE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENTS, WHO ARE THE INCOME ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD.
UM, THOSE TWO ITEMS THAT I MENTIONED, OWNER'S ASSOCIATION FEES AND PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS ARE THINGS THAT WE HEAR FROM THOSE HOMEOWNERS AS PRESENTING CHALLENGES FOR THEM TO STATE IN THOSE UNITS ONCE THEY'RE CREATED.
UM, AND I ALSO DIDN'T MENTION IN THE PRESENTATION, BUT I DID DRAFT IN THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL, BUT I MEAN, THE CITY OF AUSTIN ALSO SUPPORTS AND WANTS TO FIND WAYS TO CREATE, UM, LONG-TERM OR LONG-TERM AFFORDABILITY FOR HOMEOWNERS AS WELL.
AND, UH, WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DIRECT THE FEES GENERATED FROM THIS TORT BACK TOWARDS LONG-TERM AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP PROJECTS.
AND IN THIS INSTANCE, WE THINK IT WOULD BE A GREAT FIT TO DIRECT THE FEES BACK TO COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTS, WHICH JUST PROVIDE A MUCH MORE STABLE AND SAFE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTION FOR FOLKS WHO ARE INCOME ELIGIBLE.
SO, UH, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF YOU COULD EXPAND A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THAT.
UM, I, I, I BELIEVE WE HAVE IDENTIFIED, UH, AN AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT A DEVELOPER WOULD NEED TO PAY FOR THE VMU BONUS BME TWO BONUS.
UM, HOW DOES THAT MONEY THEN TURN INTO ACTUAL HOUSES, OWNERSHIP, HOUSES FOR PEOPLE? SO I WILL SAY WE HAVE NOT DETERMINED THIS, THE, UH, AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE THAT FIEND LIEU RATE.
SO THAT IS NOT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TODAY, AS STAFF IS PROPOSING IT.
IF THE FEE-ONLY OPTION WERE APPROVED BY COUNCIL, WE WOULD COME BACK IN THE FEE SCHEDULE, UM, WHICH IS LIKE IN, AS PART OF THE CITY'S BUDGET PROCESS WITH A PROPOSAL.
AND SO THAT NUMBER COULD SHIFT.
[03:15:01]
AN EXAMPLE OF HOW WE WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH THAT, UM, GOING FORWARD BASED ON SOME PAST WORK, UM, BUT IN TERMS OF HOW IT GETS APPLIED, UH, IN THIS INSTANCE, IT COULD GO TOWARDS THE HOUSING TRUST FUNDS.SO A DEVELOPER WOULD PAY THE FEE AND IT GOES TOWARDS THE HOUSING TRUST FUND, WHICH COULD IF UNSPECIFIED BE APPLIED WHEN A PROJECT COMES THROUGH UNDER OWNERSHIP, HOUSING, DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE.
SO, UH, HOUSING DEVELOPERS COME IN AND REQUEST GAP FINANCING, AND THEY GO THROUGH A PROCESS TO RECEIVE THOSE FUNDS THROUGH THE HOUSING TRUST FUND.
UM, AND IT COULD ALSO POTENTIALLY BE DIRECTED DIRECTLY TOWARDS COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTS, WHICH COULD BE USED IN A NUMBER OF WAYS.
I IMAGINE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF SITES OR FOR THE REPAIR OR CONSTRUCTION OF THAT COULD BE ENTERED INTO A LAND TRUST.
UH, I SEE COMMISSIONER COX, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH.
UM, I GUESS, QUESTIONS OF THE WORKING GROUP ABOUT THE SIX, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE, EVERYONE GENERALLY KNOWS THAT YOU CAN SKEW, YOU KNOW, SURVEY RESPONSES, BY THE WAY YOU ASK A QUESTION, I THINK THE SAME APPLIES TO THE WAY YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
UM, SO EVEN THOUGH ALL OF THESE START WITH ASSESS, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY SEEM TO HAVE A CLEAR INDICATION TO ME ON WHAT THE GOAL IS.
UH, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST ONE IS ASSESSED THE IMPACT OF COMPATIBILITY AND CONSIDER ADDRESSING IT, UM, YOU KNOW, ASSESS THE NEED TO EXPAND THE BMU OFF OF CORRIDORS, ASSESS, YOU KNOW, UH, THE NEED TO ELIMINATE OR FURTHER REDUCE PARKING PRIMATES, ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
UM, I THINK COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER SAID, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF, A LOT OF COMMISSIONERS MAY NOT KNOW WHERE THEY STAND, DEPENDING ON THE SPECIFICS OF THAT, BUT I'M A LITTLE CURIOUS FROM THE WORKING GROUP, WHAT THE INTENT IS BEHIND THESE RECOMMENDATIONS IS THE INTENT TO HAVE COUNCIL MAKE CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE THAT ASSESSES THESE THINGS AND THEN APPROVES IT, OR IS THIS JUST, I END UP A SIGNAL OF WHERE THEY THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD GO WITH FUTURE ORDINANCE CHANGES.
I'M JUST A LITTLE CURIOUS ABOUT THESE KIND OF WHAT THE INTENT OF THESE SIX RECOMMENDATIONS ON.
AND OTHER COMMISSIONERS CAN DEFINITELY JUMP IN.
I THINK THE INTENT BEHIND THESE WERE ESSENTIALLY THE SIGNALING.
HERE'S SOME QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL.
I THINK WE NEED GUIDANCE FROM CONSOLE ON THESE.
I, I THINK WHAT WE DISCUSSED IN OUR WORKING GROUP WAS WE WERE NOT SURE THAT IT MAKES SENSE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THIS POINT, IN RELATION TO THE ORDINANCE WE MAKING AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE BAT ABILITY IN SAYING IT SHOULD BE THIS OR THIS OR THAT.
WE'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING, NO, THIS IS NOT OUR ROLE.
YOU'RE SIGNALING SOME QUESTIONS AND THOUGHTS THAT ARE COMING UP AGAIN AND AGAIN, TO COUNSEL AND HOPING THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE US WITH GUIDANCE ON THESE.
IF THESE INDEED NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, THEN COUNCIL CAN GIVE US THAT GUIDANCE IN THE FUTURE JUST AS THEY DID WITH THE VMU DO PROGRAM COORDINATOR STATION.
SO THAT'S SORT OF THE INTENT BEHIND THESE.
AND I GUESS I SHOULD MENTION THAT THESE HAVE COME UP IN VARIOUS WAYS.
YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD COMMUNITY MEMBERS EMAILING US ONE WAY ABOUT COMPATIBLY.
WE HAVE COMMUNITY MEMBERS EMAILING US IN OTHER WAY ABOUT COMPATIBILITY.
SO THE QUESTION IS, I THINK WHERE WE MOVE AS A POLICY DIRECTION SHOULD COME FROM OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES WHO ARE HERE TO MAKE THOSE BALLSY DECISIONS.
AND I THINK WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE SIGNALING HERE'S THE THINGS THAT WE THINK ARE WORTHY OF FUTURE DISCUSSION AND THAT OKAY.
IF I COULD CHIME IN AS WELL AS, UM, SO I WANT TO ECHO THOSE SENTIMENTS.
I DON'T THINK THE INFO OF US WAS IN ANY WAY, THE SUGGESTING THAT THOSE THINGS SHOULD BE MODIFIED OR CHANGED.
I THINK THAT WE HOPE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO LAY IN ON THOSE, BUT OBVIOUSLY THAT WASN'T THE FRAMEWORK IN WHICH WE WERE WORKING UNDER.
SO UNDERSTANDING THE COMMUNITY'S INTEREST IN THOSE THINGS, IT WOULD BEHOOVE US TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.
SO WHY DON'T WE WANT IT TO OBVIOUSLY, UH, WERE THOSE ALL SIMILARLY, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, IN TERMS OF THE RECOMMENDATION? SO OBVIOUSLY THEY ALL SOUND SIMILAR WITH OBVIOUSLY STARTING WITH THE SAME WORDING, BUT I THINK THE THOUGHT WAS IS THAT HOPEFULLY COUNSEL WILL SEE THE, THE VALUE OF HAVING US BE ABLE TO EXPLORE THOSE BECAUSE THOSE THINGS WEREN'T REALLY CONSIDERED AND WE BELIEVED THAT THEY SHOULD BE.
AND ONE LAST THING I WOULD ADD IS THAT I THINK WE WERE TAKING RQ PARTIALLY THE WAY THE SOUTH CONGRESS.
BUT SO IF YOU REMEMBER, WE DID AMENDMENTS FROM YOUR WORKING GROUP, I'M LOOKING AT, FOR EXAMPLE, EXTENDING OR CREATING THE REGULATING PLAN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, OR EXTENDING THE LIFETIME OF THE
[03:20:01]
SOUTH CENTER, WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD, THINGS THAT WERE NOT DYED TO THE ORDINANCE OR DECISION AT HAD, BUT WE TAUGHT AS COMMISSIONERS WORK CRITICAL FOR CONSOLE TO BE LOOKING INTO.SO IT IS THAT SORT OF SAME SIGNAL OF SAYING, HERE'S SOME THINGS WE NEED YOU TO LOOK INTO, PROVIDE US GUIDANCE OR TAKE ACTION OR WHATEVER YOU FEEL IS APPROPRIATE TO DO, BUT HERE'S SOME THINGS THAT WE'RE LISTENING AND WE'RE SENDING THEM TO YOU AS, UM, SORT OF QUESTIONS AND A NEED FOR FURTHER ASSESSMENT.
UM, YEAH, IT LIKE TO DISCUSS THAT IN MORE DETAIL WHEN, WHEN WE START MAKING MOTIONS BE I APPRECIATE THE RESPONSE AND THANK YOU.
UM, I GUESS IT'S ABOUT THE FEE AND LOU AND I MEAN, I SEE THAT 98% APARTMENTS VERSUS 2% OWNERSHIP UNITS.
WAS THERE ANY ANALYSIS OF DONE OF DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT OF UNITS ON VMU ZONED PROPERTIES THAT DID NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE VMU? AND I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO IS ARE THERE OWNERSHIP PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING CREATED THAT AREN'T TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE BMU BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE AND THEREFORE WE'RE LEAVING AFFORDABLE DOLLARS ON THE TABLE, OR IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THEY'RE MAKING THE DECISION TO GO RENTAL AS OPPOSED TO OWNERSHIP? AND SO WE ACTUALLY GET THE UNITS ON THE GROUND, BUT IF WE GIVE THEM, UH, AN OPTION TO GO OWNERSHIP, THEN MAYBE WE'LL JUST GET THE FEE AND LIEU AND NOT, AND NOT DO WITH THE UNITS.
SO WAS THERE ANY ANALYSIS OF, OF PEOPLE WHO WERE BASICALLY NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF BMU AND WHETHER THOSE WERE RENTAL OR OWNERSHIP PROJECTS? OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.
AND SO I WILL SAY THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANALYSIS THAT WOULD SPECIFICALLY BE RESPONSIVE TO THAT, BUT THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS I WOULD ADD.
ONE IS THAT VMU IS APPLIED TO SITES THAT HAVE COMMERCIAL ZONING TODAY.
SO TYPICALLY BY THEIR BASE STONING, THEY WOULDN'T BE BUILDING A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN LESS IT'S BY A VERTICAL MIXED USE, WHICH GRANTS THAT RESIDENTIAL USE ENTITLEMENT.
HOWEVER, THERE IS SOME NUANCE BECAUSE THERE ARE SITES THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT MAY HAVE THE IMMU COMBINING DISTRICT WITHOUT THE VI, UM, WHICH ALLOWS FOR VERTICAL MIXED USE.
UM, AND SO IT IS POSSIBLE UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES THEY MAY HAVE DEVELOPED WITH THE DASH IMMU THAT IS THE MIXED USE, UH, COMBINING DISTRICT WITHOUT THE V, WHICH WOULDN'T REQUIRE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY DATA TO SUPPORT HOW FREQUENTLY THAT'S HAPPENED AND DEFINITELY NOT IF THEY HAVE BEEN FOR RENT OR FOR OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENTS.
BUT SO DID YOU CONSIDER THAT MAYBE, MAYBE PEOPLE ARE MAKING MORE RENTAL UNITS, BUT IF THAT'S BASICALLY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT ACTUALLY WORKS FOR FAMILIES THAT BY GIVING THE FEE IN LIEU, WE JUST, WE WON'T HAVE THOSE UNITS OR WOULD YOU JUST RATHER HAVE THE CASH TO DO WITH IT ON YOUR OWN? I AM NOT TOTALLY SURE.
I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT AS YOU KNOW, IS IT OUR POLICY THAT IS DRIVING DEVELOPMENTS TO EITHER DEVELOP AS RENTAL OR OWNERSHIP? AND TYPICALLY WHAT I HEAR IS THAT THOSE DEVELOPMENTS ARE PRETTY DIFFERENT AND YOU HAVE DEVELOPERS WHO WILL FOCUS ON RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS OR OWNERSHIP.
AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD BE, UM, YOU KNOW, PICKING ONE OR THE OTHER MIDWAY THROUGH A PROCESS.
I DON'T, IF I'M NOT FOLLOWING WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
I GUESS MAYBE, MAYBE, UM, MR. RAELYNN COULD COME UP AND MAYBE HE COULD RESPOND TO THAT.
WELL, HE'S COMING UP MR. THOMPSON, IF I COULD JUST COME STRAIGHT JOHNSON, IF I CAN ADD, UM, THAT IS THE SORT OF FEES AND MARKET FEASIBILITY AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE.
I THINK WE HEARD THAT WE DO NOT HAVE FULL ASSESSMENT.
UM, AND WE WANT TO GIVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT WITHOUT SLOWING DOWN THE BASE.
MICHAEL WHAM I'M BEHALF OF MYSELF.
UH, ONE THING THAT I DO SEE IS TEXAS LAW HAS A TAIL ASSOCIATED WITH LIABILITY WHEN IT'S A CONDOMINIUM, UH, THAT'S 10 YEARS AND, UH, MANY ARCHITECTS, CONTRACTORS, ET CETERA, WILL NOT BUILD A CONDO UNLESS, UH, THERE'S AN EXTRAORDINARY, ADDITIONAL EXPENSE ASSOCIATED WITH INSURANCE THAT HAS TO COVER THAT TAIL.
SO A LOT OF IT'S AN EXTERNALITY THAT HAS, UH, NOT AS MUCH
[03:25:01]
TO DO WITH POLICY NECESSARILY AS IT DOES WITH JUST TEXAS LIABILITY LAW.BUT I GUESS, ARE THERE PEOPLE MAKING THE DECISION TO DO APARTMENTS INSTEAD OF OWNERSHIP UNITS, BASED ON W IF I DO BMU, I CAN GET THE BONUS.
IF I DO OWNERSHIP, I CAN'T GET THE BONUS AND THEREFORE I'LL DO A APARTMENTS.
UM, I PERSONALLY HAVE NOT ENCOUNTERED THAT PARTICULAR, UH, ISSUE, BUT IT MAY, MAY BE SOMETHING, BUT I PERSONALLY HAVEN'T ENCOUNTERED IT.
IT'S BEEN MORE THE TEXAS LIABILITY ISSUE.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS? I'M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING.
UM, I GUESS, UM, I'M, I'M KINDA SPUN AROUND A LITTLE BIT HERE BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE, UM, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND PERSON FORMS, I GUESS, FROM OUR WORKING GROUP, IT SEEMS LIKE WE DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DIDN'T ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC POINTS OF IT, BUT IT WAS MORE ON THE DIRECTIVE, YOU KNOW? AND, AND, AND I GUESS MY CONCERN IS I FEEL LIKE THE PUBLIC WAS WANTING TO KIND OF ENGAGE WITH, WITH, WITH A LOT OF THOSE SPECIFIC NUTS AND BOLTS PIECES, BUT WE DIDN'T QUITE ADDRESS IT AND UNDERSTAND WHY, BUT I FEEL LIKE, UM, WE KIND OF HAD LOST AN OPPORTUNITY OR, OR, OR MAYBE IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY WAITING FOR US.
AND SO I FEEL LIKE MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE JUMPED IN, UM, OR AT LEAST HAD THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT DISCUSSION.
AND THE OTHER THING IS THEN I HAVE QUESTIONS.
THEN I WAS WANTING TO ADDRESS OUR WORKING GROUP.
MAYBE I SHOULD JUST GO TO STAFF, UH, THIS WHOLE THING ON THE, UH, THE, ON THE, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, ON THE BALANCING BETWEEN THE, THE NUMBERS OF THE, THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE AND THE, AND THE, THE DEPTH OF IT AND THE CREATION OF THE ADDITIONAL DENSITY, UH, HOW IS THAT CALIBRATED TO THAT? YOU FEEL CONFIDENT ENOUGH THAT DEVELOPERS WILL TAKE IT VERSUS, I MEAN, WE COULD WRITE WHATEVER ORDINANCE WE WANT WITH SOME INCREDIBLE DEPTH OF COMPASSION OF AFFORDABILITY, BUT NO ONE'S GOING TO TAKE, AND THEN WHAT'S THE POINT.
SO HOW DID YOU ARRIVE AT THESE NUMBERS TO FEEL LIKE THIS IS IT THAT WE WILL GET THE YIELD THAT WE NEED, I BELIEVE THAT WAS DIRECTED AT STAFF, CORRECT? YES.
SO, AS I MENTIONED IN THE, IN THE REPORT, AND AT THE BEGINNING, THIS IS NOT A MARKET CALIBRATED PROGRAM, AS YOU KNOW, STAFF WOULD HAVE LIKED TO DO, BUT IT WAS NOT FEASIBLE TO DO THAT TYPE OF ANALYSIS ON THIS TIMELINE.
AND SO WHAT WE DID DO IS LOOK AT PAST WORK, UM, WHICH IN THIS CASE WAS LOOKING AT CALIBRATED, UM, DENSITY, BONUSES THAT WERE PROPOSED UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE RE REVISION PROCESS THAT HAD SOMEWHAT COMPARABLE BONUSES AS TO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT UNDER THE MUTU.
AND, UM, THINGS WERE PRETTY DIFFERENT UNDER THAT SETUP, BUT LOOKING AT WHAT WAS MOST COMPARABLE, WE SAW THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, MOST OF THOSE SET ASIDE RATES THAT WERE CALIBRATED WERE BETWEEN FIVE AND 7% AND SOME PARTS OF TOWN HAD A CALIBRATED SET ASIDE RATE OF ABOUT 12%.
AND SO ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S NO DESIRE TO GO BELOW THE 10% SET ASIDE RATE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS EXISTING TODAY IN VMU WE ELECTED THE 12% SET ASIDE GREAT FOR NOW.
AND AS I MENTIONED, STAFF ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THESE PROGRAMS NOT BMU ONLY, BUT ALL OF OUR DENSITY BONUSES WOULD BENEFIT FROM A MORE REGULAR REVIEW AND UPDATE.
AND THIS PROGRAM IS ONE OF THOSE THAT, YOU KNOW, OVER TIME, WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO REVISIT THOSE AND DO MORE MARKET-BASED ANALYSIS TO SEE WHAT IF WE'RE YIELDING ANY UNITS.
IF PARTICIPATION IS A RESULT OF SOMETHING ELSE, SUCH AS ANOTHER POLICY IN OUR CODE, THAT'S ACTUALLY PREVENTING IT.
OR IF IT'S OUR HOUSING POLICIES, THERE'S A LOT OF POLICIES AT PLAY.
AND THEN, AND THEN AS FAR AS FOR YIELD, CAUSE I MEAN, NOW IT'S THE WHOLE ASPECT OF CONCEPTUAL OF ENTERING INTO THE PROGRAM.
BUT NOW I GO BACK TO, OKAY, HOW DO WE GET THE YIELD? AND THEN THE WHOLE ISSUE AS, UH, MR. WAYLAND HAD BROUGHT UP, YOU KNOW, THE, THE AMOUNT OF COMPATIBILITY ISSUES ARE GONNA COULD MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, IF WE KEPT COMPATIBILITY TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, OR IF WE KEPT COMPILING THAT COMPATIBILITY ON SOME OF, YOU KNOW, ALONG THESE QUARTERS, THEN WE WOULDN'T GET MUCH OF ANY YIELD, YOU KNOW? AND SO, SO, AND THEN I GO BACK, I'M HEARING IS YOUR COMPATIBLY IS OR NOT.
WHAT'S THE CURRENT EXTENT OF IT IS A MODIFIED COMPATIBILITY.
YOU KNOW, WHERE IS IT WITH THIS VMU TO NOW THAT YOU THINK, YOU KNOW, IT CAN GIVE US SOME OF THIS YIELD, YOU KNOW? CAUSE IF THERE'S NO A COMPATIBILITY STILL RESPECTED, WE MIGHT NOT GET ANY YIELD.
BUT THEN WE SAID, OKAY, REMOVE
[03:30:01]
COMPATIBILITY.THEN YOU GET THE SECTION AT 30 FEET.
THE ONLY WAY TO GET TO 30 FEET IS TO PULL OUT THE COMPATIBILITY.
SO WHAT IS THE STORY RIGHT NOW? I MEAN, CAUSE I'M KIND OF HEARING A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
COULD YOU MAYBE REPHRASE THE QUESTION? I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE.
DMU TO WHAT IS THE CURRENT SITU STATUS WITH THE, THE COMPATIBILITY AND THE DIRECTION OF THAT TO STILL, YOU KNOW, CAUSE I'M HEARING THAT MAYBE THERE'S NOT COMPATIBILITY, BUT THEN WE DECREASE YIELD IF THERE, SO IF IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH DECREASE YIELD, BUT IF WE, UM, HAVE COMPATIBILITY, WE DON'T HAVE ABOUT, WE CAN INCREASE THE YIELD.
SO W WHAT IS THE STORY NOW WITH BM U2? WELL, TODAY THAT WERE NUNS IN FRONT OF YOU RIGHT NOW, COMPATIBILITY WOULD STILL APPLY EVERY SINGLE TIME.
AND SO IT DOES TRUMP, YOU KNOW, IT SUPERSEDES THIS HEIGHT BONUS.
AND SO EVEN THOUGH YOU MIGHT THEORETICALLY HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 30 FEET OF BONUS HEIGHT AVAILABLE, IF COMPATIBILITY WOULD RESTRICT THAT HEIGHT, THEN, THEN YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE IT.
SO, AND SO IT'S, AND I GUESS THIS BRINGS ME BACK TO WHAT MR. WAYLAND WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT IF SO MUCH OF IT IS HIT BY COMPATIBLY, THEN WE GET OUR YIELD GETS KNOCKED DOWN ALL OVER AGAIN.
SO HAS THAT BEEN LOOKED AT, YOU KNOW, CAUSE IT MAY BE ALL THIS WORK FOR NOT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET THE YIELD BECAUSE THE COMPETITIVE, DO YOU HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION, MR. SHEA? THAT YOU'RE IN THERE SOMEWHERE? NO, I DUNNO.
I MEAN, I, I KEEP, I KEEP GOING BACK TO THE POINT, I'M THINKING I NEED, I NEED MORE TIME TO ASK THEM MORE QUESTIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND THINK THROUGH A COUPLE OF THINGS, SO.
UM, I FEEL LIKE I'M KINDA MORE LIKE PUBLIC RIGHT NOW.
WHERE ARE WE AT ON OUR NUMBERS LAST YEAR? WE HAVE FOUR MORE, UH, JUST ALL QUESTIONS.
UH, I DO HAVE ONE FOR STAFF, UH, RELATED TO THE VMU, UH, ORDINANCE.
AND WHOEVER'S BEST TO ANSWER NOT I'M SORRY, THE ONE WE HAVE CURRENTLY AND HOW THE OPT-IN OPT-OUT PROGRAM AND SOMEBODY SPEAK TO THAT.
UH, LET ME GO AHEAD AND STATE MY QUESTION.
SO IN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE, UH, THE, HAD THE PROVISION FOR OPT IN AND OPT OUT.
SO ARE THE VMU UNITS WE SEE ALONG THE CORRIDOR TODAY, ARE THOSE THE UNITS THAT OPTED IN, IS IT PRETTY MUCH EXCLUSIVELY THOSE THE OPT-IN UNITS THAT MAKE UP THOSE VMU DESIGNATIONS WHERE WE SEE ON THE MAP THAT YOU'VE PROVIDED? IS THAT A TRUE STATEMENT? I APOLOGIZE.
THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YES, THE SITES THAT HAVE BEEN NEW ZONING TO DATE WERE EITHER PART OF THAT INITIAL APPLICATION OF VMU ZONING AND WERE OPTED INTO THAT VMU ZONING BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS WHO ARE ENGAGED, OR IT COULD BE THE RESULT OF A REZONING SINCE THAT DATE, WHICH WOULD HAVE COME THROUGH THIS COMMISSION.
SO THAT OFTEN PROCESS SOUNDS WAS, UH, AND I DON'T REMEMBER, I REMEMBER HEARING ABOUT IT.
HOW DID IT COMPARE TO WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW? UH, THE COMMUNICATION IN THE JIM CROW PROCESS, IT SOUNDS A LITTLE MORE RIGOROUS BECAUSE THE NEIGHBOR OF THE ASSOCIATION HAD TO ACTUALLY OPT IN.
RIGHT? SO THERE, UM, I WOULD SAY THE PROCESS, THERE WAS DEFINITELY MORE INVOLVED IN WHAT WE'RE SEEING CURRENTLY.
UM, SECONDLY, ON THE OWNERSHIP UNITS, WHEN WE GET THE FUNDING YOU SPOKE ABOUT, AND I THINK THERE ARE SOME LAND TRUST AND HOW DO WE ASSURE THAT WHEN WE GET THAT, THOSE FUNDS, THAT THE GOAL TO DISTRIBUTE THOSE KIND OF EQUITABLY AND IN PARTICULAR, IN HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREAS, IS THAT BEING MANAGED CURRENTLY WITH THOSE FUNDS? ARE WE ABLE TO PLACE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREAS WITH WHEN WE GET IN LIEU OF FUNDS, IS THAT BEING ACHIEVED? THERE'S A, THERE'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT PROCESS THAT PROJECTS WHO RECEIVED THAT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FUNDING THAT I MENTIONED GO THROUGH.
SO THROUGH THEIR APPLICATION, THEY WILL, YOU KNOW, DENOTE HOW THEY ARE SUPPORTING ADOPTED POLICY GOALS IN THE STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT.
ONE OF THOSE IS, UH, RELATED TO HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREAS, BUT THERE ARE OTHER GOALS.
UM, AND SO I WOULDN'T SAY, OH, SORRY.
SO THERE'S THE APPLICATION PROCESS.
THEY SPEAK TO HOW THEY'RE SUPPORTING ADOPTED POLICY GOALS.
THEY GO THROUGH AN INTERNAL PANEL WHERE STAFF REVIEW, UM, THE PROPOSALS AND THE AMOUNTS REQUESTED.
THEY ALSO GO THROUGH A COMMUNITY PANEL CALLED THE HOUSING
[03:35:01]
INVESTMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND THEN THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL ALSO MAKE THEIR WAY TO THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION BOARD, WHICH IS THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL, UM, MEMBERSHIP.AND SO THAT IS SORT OF THE PROCESS.
AND THERE ARE, THERE ARE SEVERAL POINTS ALONG THE WAY THAT HAS COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT.
UM, AND SO I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THE FUNDS ARE DIRECTED EXCLUSIVELY TOWARDS HIGHER OPPORTUNITY AREAS, BUT WHEN THERE ARE PROJECTS WITHIN HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREAS THAT APPLY FOR FUNDING, UH, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE REFLECTED IN THEIR PROJECT.
AND IT'S DEFINITELY AN ALIGNMENT WITH THE GOALS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SUPPORT.
UM, AND LASTLY, I GUESS, UM, IF WE WERE TO POSTPONE THIS AND, UH, ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, I KNOW THERE WERE SOME LIMITATIONS ON WHAT COULD, AND COULDN'T BE INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE, UH, WITHOUT KIND OF GOING THROUGH, YOU KNOW, MORE RIGOROUS, UM, PLANNING, COMMISSION CODES.
, YOU KNOW, UH, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF WE GET SOME REALLY GOOD IDEAS FROM THE PUBLIC THAT, UH, THEY WANT TO SEE REPRESENTED IN THIS ORDINANCE, WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS FOR MAKING THOSE CHANGES? UM, I'M TRYING TO THINK, UH, IT'S JUST, UH, IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY SHORT TIMELINE.
I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO ACCOMMODATE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WHEN COUNCIL IS PRETTY CLEAR ON WHAT THEY WANTED.
ARE THEY ABLE TO JUST KIND OF NIBBLE AROUND THE EDGES WITH A FEW DETAILS OR CAN THEY MAKE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES, UH, TO WHAT COUNSEL PROPOSE? IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT? UH, JUST TRYING TO ASK HOW MUCH CAN THEY REALLY AFFECT THE CH ANY CHANGES IN THE STRAPPED, ANYBODY KNOW, UH, STAFF, ANY, I MEAN, I'M JUST A WORKING GROUP.
ANY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE LIMITS OF HOW MUCH WE CAN ACTUALLY MODIFY.
WHAT'S BEEN IN THE DRAFT CHUCK AND TRY TO ATTEMPT TO, UM, RESPOND TO THAT AND HOPEFULLY STAFFING CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
BUT IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY AS, UM, STAFF WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO WORK ON ANY ITEMS, SO WE COULD, WE WOULD HAVE TO INITIATE ANY CHANGES ON THE DICE AS WE WILL BE DOING TODAY, EITHER AS BARDA FOR WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS ARE INDIVIDUAL, UH, COMMISSIONERS AMENDMENTS.
ONCE THOSE CHANGES HAVE BEEN PROPOSED AND VOTED ON, AND IF THEY MAKE IT INTO OUR BASE MOTION, THEN STAFF WILL BE WORKING ON THOSE OR RESPONDING TO THOSE IN PREPARATION FOR COUNCIL'S MEETING.
SO, UM, COULD THAT BE DONE? YES, IT GOOD.
IT WOULD SLOW DOWN THE OVERALL PROCESS, PARTICULARLY IF STAFF DOES NOT HAVE THE DIME TO RESPOND TO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES BETWEEN A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND A COUNCIL MEETING.
UM, I'M AT, UH, WELL, LET'S GO AND SEE IF THERE'S OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS.
I MAY TAKE ANOTHER SPOT IF WE DON'T FILL THEM.
UM, WHO ELSE DO WE HAVE THAT ONCE AS QUESTIONS? UM, CAN WE SURE ANYBODY RAISED THEIR HAND? NOPE.
OH, COMMISSIONER COX KEEP MISSING.
I TURNED MY HEAD AND YOU RAISED YOUR HAND.
I'VE, I'VE GOT KIND OF A COUPLE OF NUMBERS, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
UM, SO THE THEY'VE, WE'VE ADDED THIS PENALTY CLAUSE IN HERE THAT BASICALLY IS FINDING SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THIS $500 A DAY.
UM, IS THERE, DID, IS THERE A BASIS OF THAT $500 NUMBER BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SAY PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT, AND YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THREE UNITS, THAT CAN BE A LOT OF MONEY, BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 30 UNITS, IT MIGHT ACTUALLY MAKE SENSE FOR SOMEONE TO JUST PAY A PENALTY AND HABIT AS MARKET RATE VERSUS AFFORDABLE.
SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE, THE $500 PER DAY FINE FOR STAFF? I, UH, ERIC LEEK HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UM, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE WORKED ON THIS RELATED TO OTHER ORDINANCES, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THE BASELESS ON A $500 PER POST FINE.
AND IN MY READING THE LANGUAGE CORRECTLY, THAT THAT'S JUST $500 OR OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, OR COULD THAT BE INTERPRETED AS $500 PER AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNIT THAT IS NOT AFFORDABLE? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT WOULD BE PER AFFORDABLE UNIT THAT ISN'T AFFORDABLE, BUT, UM, BUT WE MIGHT NEED TO CHECK ON THAT.
AND THEN MY SECOND KIND OF NUMBERS QUESTION IS, UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS MR. WHALEN,
[03:40:01]
UH, SHOW THAT BMU CONTRIBUTION TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING VERSUS WHAT WE NEED.I'M CURIOUS, UH, NOT IN TERMS OF NUMBERS OF UNITS, BUT IN TERMS OF DOLLARS, DOES THE VMU PROGRAM CONTRIBUTES A LOT OF DOLLARS TO OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS? DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY STATISTICS ON THAT? SO THE VERTICAL MIXED USE PROGRAM, AS IT EXISTS TODAY, DOES NOT HAVE A FEE-ONLY OPTION WHATSOEVER.
DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY MECHANISM AT ALL ON, I HIGHLY DOUBT IT, BUT ANY MECHANISM AT ALL, TO KNOW WHAT THIS CHANGE MIGHT END UP CONTRIBUTING IN TERMS OF DOLLARS? NO, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY WAY OF KNOWING THAT, ESPECIALLY CAUSE THE FEE RATE HAS NOT BEEN SET AT ALL.
AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION, UM, TO THE WORKING GROUP, BACK TO THE WORKING GROUP, KIND OF HINTS AT SOME OF WHAT COMMISSIONER SHADE AND CHAIR SHAW WAS, WAS MENTIONING, AND WHAT COMMISSIONERS ARE MENTIONED, UM, JUST A LITTLE BIT AGO, I'M CURIOUS IF, IF WE WANT TO ACTUALLY GET INTO COMPATIBILITY PARKING ANTI-DISPLACEMENT OPPORTUNITY AREAS, CORRIDORS, THAT SORT OF THING, IS IT, WOULD IT BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR US TO ACTUALLY GO INTO THE DETAILS OF THAT AS AN INITIATIVE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION VERSUS ATTACHING RECOMMENDATIONS TO WHAT I'M BEING TOLD WAS A RELATIVELY NARROW FOCUS INSTRUCTION BY, BY COUNCIL.
I'M JUST CURIOUS TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT.
SO I'M NOT, I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE I GOT YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY, BUT I'LL TRY TO ANSWER IT AND LET ME KNOW IF I'M GETTING IT WRONG.
UM, WE, WE HAVE NO ABILITY TO SEND COUNSEL DIRECTION COUNSEL SENDS US DIRECTION.
THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DO SOMETHING IS TO INITIATE AN ACTUAL GOLD CHANGE.
SO YES, WE COULD A HUNDRED PERCENT DO THAT.
WE COULD BRING IT TO OUR NEXT MEETING AND INITIATE A GOAL CHANGE TO COMPATIBILITY.
THAT WOULD BE AN ACTUAL GOAL JUDGE.
AT THAT POINT, THE PROCESS HAS STARTED WHEREBY OUR STAFF HAS TO TAKE THAT GOAL CHANGE INTO, INTO, YOU KNOW, ADVISORY.
THEY WILL GO WORK ON IT, BRING IT BACK AS AN ORDINANCE US TO ADOPTION.
SO THAT IS THE ONE WAY THAT PLANNING COMMISSION DOES IMPACT THE OVERALL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS TO COORDINATE VARIATIONS AND ORDINANCE CHANGES.
THAT'S A FULL PROCESS AND THESE DO ACTUAL ADOPTION.
THIS IS OUR WAY OF GIVING COUNCIL, SOME THOUGHTS AND IDEAS AND SEEING IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO INITIATE SOMETHING AND SEND IT TO US.
THEY CAN ALSO DO A RESOLUTION ASKING STAFF TO GO IN, ASSESS SOMETHING.
WE CANNOT, WE CANNOT ASK STAFF TO DO STUDIES OR WORK ON SOMETHING.
COUNCIL CAN DO THAT THROUGH RESOLUTIONS, IF THAT IS THEIR WILL.
UM, AND I GUESS THE LAST THING I WOULD SAY IS DO YOUR POINT OF, COULD WE DO THAT? YES, WE CAN.
A HUNDRED PERCENT INITIATE THOSE CHANGES WHETHER AS PART OF THIS PROCESS, OR IS IT, OR AS A SEPARATE PROCESS, UH, BOTH OF COURSE WOULD TAKE THEIR OWN DUE TIME TO ACCOMPLISH.
I THINK THAT WAS THE BUZZER RIGHT.
WHAT, UH, WHAT'S OUR COUNT? YOU HAVE TWO MORE, TWO MORE SLOTS, UH, LOOKING AROUND TO SEE WHO ELSE HAS QUESTIONS, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER PRAXIS.
SO I'VE TRIED TO GET CLARITY ON THIS, UM, MULTIPLE TIMES WHEN WE'RE CONSIDERING VMU CASES.
UM, BUT APPLICANTS BASICALLY NEVER REALLY PROVIDE SPECIFIC MEN.
UM, MY QUESTION IS WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT UNITS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE AFFORDABLE FOR FOLKS AT 50% MFI, I'M LOOKING AT THE INCOME FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR.
UM, AND WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN, UM, MONTHLY WOULD BE AROUND 4,100 A MONTH.
AND A THIRD OF THAT IS, UM, ABOUT LIKE 1374 MONTHLY RENT.
SO IF THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE KIND OF WHAT THE MAXIMUM WOULD BE AT THAT 50% LEVEL, DO YOU KNOW, IS THERE ANY KIND OF REQUIREMENT, UM, FOR WHEN IT COMES TO THAT INCOME RANGE OF WHAT THE MINIMUM INCOME CAN BE OR AN APPLICANT? UM, AND PART OF THE REASON I'M ASKING THAT IS THAT I KNOW THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE FOR THE WORKING GROUP ABOUT SECTION EIGHT VOUCHERS AND FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR WITH A HAKA VOUCHER, THE MAXIMUM INCOME
[03:45:01]
IS 43,000, WHICH IS BELOW, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT RANGE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE 49,000.SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WOULD BE THE MINIMUM.
DO YOU, IS THERE ANY KIND OF STANDARD FOR THE MINIMUM INCOME REQUIREMENTS WHEN YOU WORK WITH A DEVELOPER, THAT'S GOING TO HAVE THIS, THIS PROGRAM? UM, I THINK I'M FOLLOWING YOUR QUESTION, BUT LET ME KNOW IF I'M NOT, IF I'M NOT.
SO AS STATED WE KEEP IT INTENTIONALLY, YOU KNOW, THE MAXIMUM INCOME IS 80% OF THE MFI AND DON'T BUY CODE SET UP LOWER LIMIT.
UM, AND SO I THINK THAT RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION, YOU KNOW, BY CODE, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING PREVENTING, UH, UN UM, A HOUSEHOLD MAKING LESS THAN 50% OF THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME FROM RENTING OUT THAT UNIT.
AND THEY WOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED INCOME ELIGIBLE.
AND THEN TO YOUR POINT, ESPECIALLY WITH THE HOUSING VOUCHER AND THE REQUIREMENT TO NOT DISCRIMINATE BASED ON HOUSING VOUCHERS, YOU COULD POSSIBLY SEE HOUSEHOLDS WAS EVEN LOWER INCOMES IN THOSE UNITS, THEORETICALLY.
UM, I DON'T HAVE AS MUCH INFORMATION ABOUT HOW OFTEN WHEN WE'VE SEEN THAT IN REALITY, YOU KNOW, AS THOSE UNITS ARE AVAILABLE.
I, I DON'T HAVE DATA RIGHT NOW ABOUT HOW OFTEN WE GET HOUSEHOLDS AT THAT LEVEL.
CAUSE YOU'RE SAYING IN THEORY COAT, OF COURSE, OF COURSE WOULDN'T PREVENT A LOWER LIMIT, BUT WHEN PEOPLE ARE APPLYING IN PRACTICE THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, USUALLY IT'S VERY RARE TO FIND A PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT MINIMUM INCOME REQUIREMENT.
AND SO WE, IT'S, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO TELL HOW MUCH, YOU KNOW, AT WHAT LEVEL WE'RE ACTUALLY CREATING AFFORDABILITY AND WHO'S EXCLUDED FROM THE AFFORDABLE UNITS WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE.
UM, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT, UM, THERE'S SO MANY QUESTIONS, BOTH FROM US AND FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS ABOUT WHAT ARE THE TRUE IMPACTS OF THIS, OF THESE, THIS PROGRAM.
AND SINCE WE HAVE, UM, EXISTING, UM, YOU KNOW, EXISTING VMU TO LOOK AT AND REALLY DO THAT ANALYSIS, UM, I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULDN'T DO MORE ABOUT ANALYSIS, UM, BEFORE TRYING TO CREATE A WHOLE NEW LEVEL AND REWORK THE SYSTEM.
UM, I'M TRYING TO SEE, LET'S SEE IF I HAVE ANY OTHER, UM, I REMEMBER LAST MEETING I ASKED IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY RESEARCH ON, UM, WHETHER THERE WERE ANY IMPACTS OF DISPLACEMENT IN NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THERE WERE BMES AND I THINK YOU SAID THAT NO, NO SUCH RESEARCH HAS BEEN DONE.
UM, I, YEAH, RIGHT NOW I CAN'T THINK OF ANY OTHER PARTICULAR QUESTION COMMISSIONER PRAXIS WHILE WE HAVE TIME, I JUST WANT TO RESPOND TO THE SOURCE OF INCOME DISCRIMINATION PROTECTION.
SO THERE'S A FEW REASONS WHY THAT IS BEING ADDED HERE.
I THINK ONE, AS YOU WILL, VERY WELL KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE, THE CITY FOSTER AND TRIED TO MAKE THAT AN ACROSS THE BOARD REQUIREMENT FOR ALL UNITS IN THE CITY THAT WAS INVALIDATED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS.
SO NOW WE CAN ONLY ADD SOURCE OF INCOME PROTECTIONS AS A VOLUNTARY REQUIREMENT IN A VOLUNTARY BONUS PROGRAM, SUCH AS THIS THAT'S ONE REASON.
THE OTHER REASON IS THAT THIS WAS ACTUALLY INITIATED BY COUNSELING RESOLUTION 2018 ZERO FIVE AND ZERO 50.
SO IN 2018, COUNCIL INITIATED A REQUEST TO ADD SOURCE OF INCOME DISCRIMINATION, DO OUR PROGRAMS. AND THE THIRD IS THERE IS ACTUALLY A, UH, AN OPTION FOR THE CITY TO BUY DOWN UNITS THAT IT HAS NEVER UTILIZED, BUT THAT OPTION REMAINS.
SO IT BIDEN PROGRAM PROGRAM COMBINED WITH A, UH, HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER COULD ACTUALLY MAKE THESE UNITS FEASIBLE FOR THOSE FAMILIES.
YEAH, I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LOT MORE TO BE SAID ABOUT THAT.
AND I DO STILL WANT TO SEE SPECIFICS BECAUSE I WORK WITH FOLKS WHO HAVE SECTION EIGHT VOUCHERS AND GO WITH THEM TO APPLY FOR HOUSING.
AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT EVEN WITH THE SECTION EIGHT VOUCHER, UM, WAS SO I'M GLAD I'M HAPPY ABOUT THAT HOUSING DISCRIMINATION THERE, INCOME DISCRIMINATION PROTECTION.
I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT.
I'M JUST WONDERING, DO PEOPLE ACTUALLY STILL WALL, IF I, BASED ON INCOME FOR THESE UNITS, UM, EVEN WITH, WITH ABOUT CER AND I THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE MORE RESEARCH DONE TO DETERMINE IF THAT'S THE CASE, UH, COMMISSIONER PRAXIS.
I WOULD, UH, SINCE YOU HAVE BROUGHT THIS UP TWICE TO GO AHEAD AND SEND IN THAT QUESTION, UH, TO MR. RIVERA, AND WE CAN, UM, WE CAN ASK FOR A PRESENTATION AT SOME POINT FROM STAFF ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE AFTER THEY COMPLETE THEIR RESEARCH.
[03:50:01]
YOUR, THE RESEARCH, YOU WOULD LIKE, UM, IT, YEAH, WE CAN'T, YOU KNOW, IT, UM, IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN ASK.WE CAN DEFINITELY ASK AND ASK FOR A PRESENTATION.
WE'VE DONE THAT ON OTHER ITEMS. SO, UH, IF WE COULD START WITH THAT, I THINK THAT'LL MAYBE, MAYBE WE CAN GET SOME INFORMATION TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN.
UH, I, I JUST WANT TO, I WANT TO THROW SOME, UH, OR WE, WE HAVE ONE MORE, UH, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE ANOTHER ONE.
UH, SO WERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.
SO NOW WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE AT THE END OF OUR QA, WE NEED TO, UH, ESTABLISH A BASE EMOTION AND THEN, UH, DECIDE ON WIDTH OF THE, UM, WHICH OF THE, UH, WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS, UH, WOULD BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THAT BASE MOTION.
UM, BUT, UH, THAT MOTION, DO WE HAVE ANY MOTIONS TO START US OFF? COMMISSIONERS ARE CHAIR, JUST TO SORT OF EASE THE CONVERSATION AND GET US STARTED.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING, UM, INCLUDING ALL OF THE GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE WORKING GROUP.
I SEE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER.
UM, I DON'T KNOW WHO WAS FIRST, BUT NEIDER OKAY.
WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? UH, I WON'T SPEAK MUCH EXCEPT TO SAY, I THINK WE CAN START THE CONVERSATION HERE AND THE FOLKS WANT TO PULL OUT ITEMS ARE DISCUSSED.
AND I GUESS THE WAY I HAVE THIS FRAME IS, UM, UH, THE COMMISSIONER IS, CAN ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
UH, SO IS EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THIS? CAUSE WE CAN KIND OF WORK THROUGH THIS, UH, OF THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
DO WE WANT TO PULL ANY OUT FOR DISCUSSION? UH, IF THERE'S ANY WE NEED DISCUSS, LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND, UM, JUST RAISE YOUR HAND, TELL US WHICH ONE, AND WE'LL PULL THAT OUT.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK GENERALLY ON IT, BUT, BUT JUST TO JUST, JUST TO MAKE THAT PROCEDURALLY POSSIBLE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND INDICATE A NUMBER NUMBER 1, 2, 3, AND FIVE, AS I THINK, UH, DESERVING A BIT MORE CONVERSATION.
SO WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THOSE FOUR.
UH, ANY OTHERS THAT COMMISSIONER JUST WANT TO PULL FOR DISCUSSION? I THINK THE FASTER WE KIND OF GET THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WE CAN GET INTO THE DISCUSSION.
WE DON'T HAVE TO USE ALL THE Q AND A ON EACH ONE OF THESE.
WE CAN DEFINITELY MOVE THROUGH THEM QUICKER.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHERS THAT WE NEED DISCUSS A COMMISSIONER PRAXIS? UM, I'M NOT SURE IF I MISHEARD DID COMMISSIONER COX BRING IT UP FOR NUMBER FOUR? YES.
I WOULD LIKE NOT TO BE DISCUSSING.
ANYBODY WANT THAT? ANYWAY? SO WE GOT 1, 2, 5, UH, WITH SIX STOLEN CONSENT.
ANYBODY WANT TO PULL FOR DISCUSSION? AND AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE DISCUSSION PROCESS, BUT YOU HAVE POINTS TO MAKE.
SO I'M NOT SEEING ANY INDICATIONS THAT COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL SIX.
SO RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD BE A MOTION.
UH, IF WE MOVED TO EMOTION BY COMMISSIONER, AZHAR SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SNYDER FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING RIGHT NOW THAT'D BE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX.
UH, SO ARE WE CLEAR ON THAT MOTION? AND I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ASK FOR A SECOND.
WELL, WE ADD A SECOND COMMITTEE.
WELL, UH, NOW WITH THE WE'VE DEVELOPED ITEM SIX.
SO I THINK YOU NEED A SECOND ON THAT.
UM, LET'S GO AND HAVE A MOTION.
YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT MOTION AGAIN WITH THE WORK GROUP AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX.
SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE AHEAD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH, UH, UH, GENERAL AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX FROM THE WORD.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SNYDER? OKAY.
UH, DO YOU WANT ME TO SPEAK TO THAT? I DON'T KNOW.
SO WE CAN, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO THE DISCUSSION ITEMS IF THERE'S NO OPPOSITION ON THE ONES WE PULLED SO WE CAN GET TO THAT BUSINESS, ANY OPPOSITION TO MOVING FORWARD WITH, UH, IN THE ORDER THAT THEY'RE PRESENTED HERE, ONE THROUGH FIVE.
[03:55:01]
GO AHEAD AND, UH, TAKE UP THE FIRST ITEM.UM, SO THIS ITEM WE'VE, WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS ON THIS THAT WAS THE Q AND A.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION FOR THIS ITEM.
UH, AND WE CAN, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THIS.
DO YOU HAVE, UH, QUESTIONS OF THE MOTION MAKER? I THINK COMMISSIONER COX, YOU EXPRESS, UM, DID YOU HAVE SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? BECAUSE I DIDN'T REALLY ALLOCATE A Q AND A HERE OR DO, CAN WE JUST GET INTO THE DEBATE? CAUSE WE'LL HAVE, WE'LL HAVE TO AMEND BECAUSE YOU'RE THE CHERRY YOU TELL ME WHAT I'M ALLOWED TO DO.
WELL, I'M GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY.
I WAS TRYING TO BREATHE V8, THIS PROCESS AND FRONT LOAD, ALL THE Q AND A, BUT I SEE THAT THERE'S, THERE WAS SOME HESITANCY, SO, UH, WE CAN AMEND OUR RULES TO ALLOW SUB QUESTIONS.
IS THAT, IS THAT WHY THESE WERE PULLED? LET ME JUST FOR COMMISSIONER, COPSEY PULLED MOST OF THESE ARE THESE BECAUSE YOU HAVE QUESTIONS TO THE WORKING GROUP OR DO YOU WANT TO AMEND THEM OR SUBS MAKE SUBSTITUTIONS? JUST TRYING TO THINK.
I HAVE, I HAVE TWO PRIMARY THINGS THAT I WAS HOPING WE COULD DISCUSS, OR IF IT'S JUST BASICALLY MAKING SPEECHES, THAT'S FINE.
BUT THE TWO PR THE FIRST ONE WAS OVERARCHING THIS PARTICULAR PROCESS IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ROLE.
AND I WANTED TO GET INTO THAT BECAUSE I, I, UM, I DON'T, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH HOW WE'RE DOING THIS.
AND THEN THE SECOND THING WAS TRYING TO BETTER UNDERSTAND FOR THESE FIVE SPECIFIC ITEMS, THE INTENT OF THE WORKING GROUP AND WHAT THEY ACTUALLY WANT EITHER STAFF OR COUNCIL TO DO WITH, WITH THESE ITEMS. SO, SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT.
AND IF, IF THERE'S NO MORE ROOM FOR Q AND A, THEN I'M HAPPY TO JUST, YEAH, I THINK A COUPLE OF THINGS I HEARD ARE YOU CONCERNED WITH THE, THIS DEBATE PROCESS OR THE WORKING GROUP PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING THEIR AMENDMENTS? I GUESS I'M TRYING TO GET CLEAR ON WHAT YOUR CONCERN WAS, WHAT MY CONCERN IS IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE, THE PLANNING IS INTENDED TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL AND, AND I DON'T ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING IF, IF WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT WE NEED TO ASSESS COMPATIBILITY AND BARKING.
AND ANTI-DISPLACEMENT, THEN WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT THERE'S A MECHANISM FOR US TO ACTUALLY DO THAT.
AND AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION, RATHER THAN JUST TELL COUNCIL, THEY SHOULD DO IT.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN I SEE WHEN, WHEN I VOTE ON RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE GOING TO GO TO COUNCIL, I WANT THEM TO BE CLEAR AND PROVIDE THE CONSENSUS OPINION OF WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION THINKS COUNSELORS SHOULD DO.
AND I DON'T SEE THAT IN THESE PARTICULAR.
SO WHAT I HEAR IS THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THESE PROPOSED WORKING WITH AMENDMENTS.
UH, THAT IS, TO ME, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IF YOU'RE NOT SEEING WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE IN THEM, UH, THEN WE CAN MAKE SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE LANGUAGE TO GET US THERE AND WE CAN VOTE ON IT.
SO I THINK WE'RE IN THE POINT WHERE WE NEED TO JUST DIVE INTO DISCUSSION ON THESE AND START WITH EMOTIONS.
UM, SO WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE IS, UH, WE STARTED OUT AND COMMISSIONERS ARE, IF YOU WANT TO TAKE NUMBER ONE, I MEAN, LET'S JUST START WITH MAKING THIS MOTION, THE WORKING GROUP NUMBER ONE, AND, UH, PLEASE, UH, COMMISSIONERS WHERE YOU SEE WORD CHANGES THAT CAN, WHAT YOU FEEL BETTER DIRECT COUNSEL OR GIVE THEM SPECIFICS.
UH, LET'S MAKE SUGGEST THOSE IS EITHER AMENDMENTS OR SUBSTITUTE MOTIONS.
THAT'S THE PROCESS WE'RE GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW.
THANK YOU, GERALD, AND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADD AN ELEMENT, UH, GENERAL AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL THAT SAYS ASSESS THE IMPACT OF COMPATIBILITY IN THE VMU PROGRAM AND THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS AND CONSIDER ADDRESSING ANY IMPACTS ON HOUSING CAPACITY.
DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR THIS WORKING GROUP? I SEE COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SEXIST.
IT LET'S GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION, MR. SURE.
I'M JUST GOING TO CHECK A BOX.
WHAT YOU WERE SAYING WAS, AGAIN, I JUST, I HOPE THAT FOLKS CAN UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENT BETWEEN INITIATING A GO CHANGE AND ASKING STAFF TO ASSESS SOMETHING.
WE DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO DIRECT STAFF TO ASSESS ANYTHING AND BRING BACK RECOMMENDATIONS OR DATA OR RESEARCH.
UM, WE CAN INITIATE A GOLD CHANGE EDWARD POINT.
IT'S A CHANGE TO THE ACTUAL GOLD.
SO AS PART OF THAT PROCESS OF DIFFERENT CONVERSATION.
[04:00:01]
IS THAT WE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GIVING COUNSEL THE OPTION TO ASSESS THE IMPACT OF COMPATIBILITY, PARTIALLY BECAUSE IT HAS COME UP SO MANY TIMES IN OUR WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION AND IN THE LISTENING SESSION AND IN THE EMAILS THAT WE RECEIVE, THAT WE DO NOT THINK THAT WE CAN IGNORE IT AS A DISCUSSION ITEM AT THIS POINT, BUT RATHER SAYING THAT WE NEED FURTHER ON THIS.DO WE HAVE, UH, SOMEONE OPPOSED, UH, ANYONE OPPOSE TO THIS WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT, UH, COMMISSIONER SHEA.
SO, UM, I GUESS I'M KIND OF WITH COMMISSIONER COX.
I MEAN, I WANT TO SEE SOMETHING THAT SAYS WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THE PERFORMANCE, YOU KNOW, I KEEP PICKING, MAYBE IT SHOULD SAY LIKE CALIBRATE COMPATIBILITY OF THE VO NEW PROGRAM AND OTHER TO PROGRAMS, UH, TO, TO MAKE A DESIRED IMPACT ON OUR HOUSING CAPACITY.
YOU KNOW, LIKE IF YOU WANTED TO TWEAK IT TO BE PERFORMANCE OR IN WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO VERSUS JUST ASSESS IT, WE JUST LOOK AT IT AND I FEEL LIKE MAYBE WE COULD AT LEAST TAKE A LITTLE, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER STEP FURTHER.
I THINK IT'S JUST TOO VAGUE JUST TO SAY ASSESS, RIGHT.
THOSE IN FAVOR, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
UH, I THINK THAT THE IMPORTANT POINT IS, IS THAT WE CAN'T DIRECT STAFF AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF US KNOW WHAT NUMBER COMPATIBILITY WE WOULD WANT TO SEE.
YOU KNOW, I THINK MR. WAYLON RECOMMENDED SOMETHING, BUT WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT ACTUALLY MEANS.
AND, YOU KNOW, ARE WE GIVING UP A LOT TO GET A VERY FEW HOUSES OR IT WOULD BE, HAVE TO GIVE UP VERY LITTLE TO GET A LOT OF HOUSES.
AND SO I GUESS WITH, WITHOUT HAVING ANY SORT OF ASSESSMENT, WE CAN'T MAKE THAT DECISION UP HERE ON THE DIOCESE AND WE CAN'T MAKE STAFF DO THAT ASSESSMENT OURSELVES.
SO ALL WE CAN DO IS ASK COUNCIL TO DO THAT.
UH, THE SPEAKING AGAINST, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, I KEEP GETTING MORE AND MORE CONFUSED.
IF, IF, IF UNDER THIS PARTICULAR REMIT THAT WE HAVE ON THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE CHANGE, IF WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET THE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS, TO EVALUATE WHAT WE WANT TO EVALUATE, THEN I FEEL LIKE WE'RE GOING BEYOND OUR REMIT AND WE SHOULDN'T, WE SHOULDN'T BE BRINGING UP COMPATIBILITY AND ALL THIS OTHER STUFF, IF WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE ACTUAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON THAT.
AND THAT'S WHY I WAS QUESTIONING THE PROCESS OF, YOU KNOW, SHOULD, SHOULD WE BE APPROACHING THE ISSUE OF COMPATIBILITY AND, AND ALL THESE OTHER ITEMS THROUGH A DIFFERENT MECHANISM THAT ACTUALLY ALLOWS US TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIVE CONVERSATION WITH STAFF, WITH EACH OTHER, WITH NEIGHBORHOOD AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THESE ITEMS. UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M JUST MAYBE, MAYBE I'M JUST REALLY STUPID AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IF WE CAN'T ACTUALLY MAKE AN ACTUAL RECOMMENDATION ON THESE ITEMS, THEN THERE'S NO REAL POINT TO HAVING THESE THEMES, THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT THESE, ABOUT THESE GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
I APOLOGIZE IF I'M NOT, IF I'M REALLY MISSING SOMETHING OBVIOUS HERE.
THOSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.
SO, UM, THESE GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ARE SORT OF SEPARATE FROM THE CORE OF THE PROPOSAL, WHICH IS THE AMENDED ORDINANCE, WHICH STAFF WROTE UP.
AND I THINK, UH, WE'VE GOT A PROGRAM THAT IS EFFECTIVE, THAT IS PRODUCED AFFORDABLE HOUSING ONSITE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THE ORDINANCE CHANGE, UH, ACTIVATES GROUND LEVEL INCREASES.
THE PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDES NEW PROTECTIONS FOR TENANTS, BUT IN THE PROCESS OF THAT, AND I THINK Y'ALL HAVE HEARD JUST AS WE DID IN THE WORKING GROUP, THAT COMPATIBILITY, FOR EXAMPLE, WILL LIMIT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS PROGRAM.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE LIKE ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DEVELOP ALL OF THIS GRAVE, AMANDA OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT THAT'S ABOUT AS FAR AS WE WENT AND ASSESSING IT, IT'S, IT'S AN ISSUE.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE I'M GOING TO END UP ON THIS ISSUE.
I MEAN, I MAY BE LIKE, COMPATIBILITY IS FINE.
CLEARLY COMPATIBILITY AFFORDABILITY PARKING, ALL OF THESE LAUNDRY LIST OF ISSUES ARE CONTROVERSIAL, RIGHT? WHAT ARE WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON COUNCIL IS AROUND THIS MORE LIMITED THING THAT'S IN THE REVISED ORDINANCE ITSELF.
[04:05:01]
TRYING TO DO HERE IS TEE UP ISSUES FOR THE COUNCIL TO OPINE, TO DIRECT US, TO HAVE A DISCUSSION, TO DO WHAT THEY DO.AND IF THEY BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD DIVE DEEP INTO THIS, THEN THEY NEED DIRECT STAFF TO GIVE US THE RESOURCES THAT WE NEED SO THAT WE CAN MAKE A MORE DETAILED DESCRIPTION, WHICH IS A MORE DETAILED PROPOSAL, WHICH IS WHY I SUPPORTED THIS LAUNDRY LIST.
UM, SO WE HAVE ONE MORE SPOT BEFORE WE DO THAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO, I KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO THROW US OFF A LITTLE, HOPEFULLY THIS ISN'T CONTROVERSIAL.
UM, I WOULD LIKE JUST TO, UM, AN AMENDMENT, UH, I THINK IT'S VERY SIMPLE, BUT AS PART OF THAT ASSESSMENT INCLUDE BENCHMARKING COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AMONGST CITIES, SIMILAR TO AUSTIN.
UM, I THINK, UH, THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR US TO REALLY BE GROUNDED IN WHAT IS GOING ON ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
UM, SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT AMENDMENT, UH, IS THAT A SECOND COVENTRY ON ITS PALITO? NOPE.
I HAVE, SO I HAVE TO GET A SECOND FOR, UH, COMMISSIONER YANNIS.
UH, MR. SCHNEIDER, YOU HAVE A SECOND.
IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE THIS AMENDMENT.
IT JUST GETS MORE SPECIFICS AND ADD STAFF TO INCLUDE THAT IN THEIR ASSESSMENT.
UM, THAT'S, THAT'S IT, UH, ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST, UH, COMMISSIONER ON PLAY-DOH THERE'S MY MEAL.
UM, SO ONCE AGAIN, I'M REALLY CONCERNED THAT THIS IS TOO VAGUE.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS IS PROPER PUBLIC POLICY FOR THIS SOVEREIGN COMMISSION WHEN WE TALK SO VAGUELY ABOUT AN ISSUE OR A CONCEPT.
UM, AND WE DON'T DIRECT STAFF OR CITY COUNCIL TO LOOK AT THAT CONCEPT BROADLY, BUT INSTEAD PACKAGE IT INTO THE VMU TUBE PROPOSAL.
WHAT WE'RE DOING IS CREATING A SITUATION IN WHICH, UM, SOMEONE CAN WRITE IT FAVORABLY THE WAY THAT THEY WOULD LIKE IT CAN BE INFLUENCED BEHIND THE SCENES.
IF WE DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC TEXTS.
AND WE'RE THERE FOR CIRCUMVENTING THE PUBLIC PROCESS HERE ON THIS COMMISSION, THAT THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T GET TO LOOK AT IT.
THAT'S WHY SO MANY PEOPLE WERE SO UPSET THIS EVENING.
WHY WE HEARD SO MANY PEOPLE WITH CONCERNS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ADDRESS COMPATIBILITIES CITYWIDE.
IN ONE PIECE OF PROPOSAL, THIS IS, HAS TREMENDOUS COMMUNITY PLANNING IMPLICATIONS.
WE SHOULD ALWAYS WRITE THE FIRST DRAFT WE BEATING THE PUBLIC CO-CREATING THIS.
IF COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN STAFF HAS BEEN LOOKING AT TEXTS FOR THREE MONTHS, THEN LET'S SEE SOME TEXTS BECAUSE I CAN'T MAKE AMENDMENTS TO A CONCEPT.
AND I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT HOW THIS WILL SPECIFICALLY AFFECT CODE AND NEITHER HAS THE PUBLIC.
SO IF WE'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, I WAS IN FAVOR OF POSTPONEMENT.
I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT POSTPONEMENT.
ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY HERE, HERE WE ARE.
AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THE WAY WE COME TO CONSENSUS ON VMU IS WE DO SOMETHING IN THE PUBLIC.
UH, AND WE HAVE DEVELOPERS COME TO THE TABLE WITH US, WITH THE PUBLIC AND WE CRAFTED IN THE OPEN TOGETHER, AND THEN WE SEND IT TO COUNCIL.
AND I, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT EVERY TIME WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, WE ARE DIRECTING STAFF TO DO THINGS.
EVEN IF WE DON'T, WE CAN'T DIRECT THEM IN THE SAME WAY THAT A RESOLUTION DOES.
WE DON'T BOSS AROUND CITY MANAGER, BUT WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE STAFF RESPONDING TO US, THEIR SCRIBES WHO WORK ON OUR BEHALF, BUT WE ARE NOT PRACTICING GOOD POLICY.
IN MY OPINION, WHEN WE SEND THINGS TO BE DRAFTED OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC HIES TO COME BACK WHEN THEY'RE ABSTRACT CONCEPTS, I WOULD MUCH RATHER WE, UH, WE, UM, YOU KNOW, SUBMIT FOR OURSELVES A REQUEST TO LOOK AT THESE ISSUES THAT WE WANT TO DO, UH, THAT WE WANT TO LOOK AT, THAT WE WANT TO ADDRESS, BUT NOT TIE THEM TO A PROPOSAL THAT WE'RE REALLY, WE DON'T HAVE A CLEAR PATH ON.
UM, AND IF IT'S NOT TOO LATE, I WOULD PROPOSE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO POSTPONE YOU.
SO LET'S, WE, I'M TRYING TO GET THERE.
WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT ON THE TABLE THAT WE SHOULD DISPOSE OF.
SO I DON'T, I THINK THE TIMING, YES, YOU, YOU SHOULD DO THAT, BUT IF YOU DON'T MIND, LET'S DISPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT FIRST, IF YOU DON'T MIND, IS THAT THE EMOTION ON THE CURRENT AMENDMENT IS THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO ADD AN AMENDMENT TO THE WORKING GROUP OF AMENDMENT.
UH, WE HAVE A FEW FOLKS WITH, WE HAVE TWO SPOKEN FAVOR, ONE THAT SPOKE AGAINST THAT BEING YOU JUST NOW.
SO, UH, YOUR SUBSTITUTE MOTION WOULD BE L WOULD BE I THINK, TO THIS SPECIFIC
[04:10:01]
AMENDMENT.SO I'M JUST TRYING TO THE TIMING.
I THINK IT'S JUST A LITTLE OFF, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WE BEGAN SPEAKING FOR AND AGAINST, AND THEN THE NEXT AMENDMENT CAME OR DID I MIX UP THE NO, NO, NO, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE WORKING AMENDMENT ONE.
I'VE MADE AN AMENDMENT TO THAT AMENDMENT.
SO I'M SORRY TO CONFUSE THINGS, BUT I'M TRYING TO JUST ADD A LITTLE MORE SPECIFICITY AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE ASSESSMENT STAFF PERFORMS. BUT I WOULD SAY, GO AHEAD, SORRY.
IF IT'S APPROPRIATE THEN, UM, IF WE WANT TO SETTLE THE MOST RECENT AMENDMENT, THEN I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE A SUBSTITUTE.
I THINK OF THE ENTIRE BASE MOTION IS WHAT YOU'RE WANTING.
SO LET'S, LET'S JUST IT TO THIS ONE.
UH, THIS IS JUST A SIMPLE CHANGE TO WORK WITH AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE.
UH, DO WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS? DO WE HAVE ANY MORE SPEAKERS OR SHOULD WE GO AHEAD AND TAKE A, UH, CHICKEN, PLEASE REPEAT THE TEXT AGAIN.
IT'S UH, ADDING TO WORKING RE AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE.
UM, ADD THE FOLLOWING AND MAKE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS.
UH, THE AMENDMENT, UM, UH, THE ASSESSMENT SHALL INCLUDE BENCHMARKING COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AMONG CITIES SIMILAR TO ASTIN.
SO IT'S JUST KIND OF ADDING SOME, HEY, WHEN YOU'RE DOING THIS ASSESSMENT, YOU KNOW, ANYWAY, I W UH, WAS MY MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.
IT'S GOING TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT, ON THE DYESS.
UM, THAT'S FOUR ON THE SCREEN.
I'M SEEING KEEP THEM UP THERE THREE, AND I SEE A LOT OF YELLOW HOLD THOSE YELLOWS.
UH, WE'VE GOT SHEA COX, UH, PRACTICES THAT YELLOW, UH, ABSTAINING AND LIKEWISE, NOT AS PALITO, I THINK THAT'S YELLOW, CORRECT.
SO THAT AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT PASSES, UH, WITH CHE COX.
UM, OH GOSH, I CAN'T REMIND HIM RIGHT NOW.
I'LL JUST PULL IT OUT AND, UH, PRACTICES, UH, ABSTAINING.
SO THAT, SO NOW, UM, I'M GOING TO GIVE THE, UH, YIELD TO, UM, COMMISSIONER YANEZ, PLATO.
YOU SAID YOU WANT TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UH, PLEASE PUT IT IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT YOU'RE SUBSTITUTING IN RELATION TO WHAT WE'VE DONE SO FAR, CHAIR COMMISSION LIAISON, AND FOR, I BELIEVE YOU VOTED ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT JUST NOW AND NOT THE ACTUAL MOMENT.
WE NEED, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DISPOSE OF THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE CARE OF WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE, AND THEN I'LL COME BACK TO YOU.
SO NOW WE HAVE THE, WE VOTED ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.
LET'S GO AND VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT WORKER AMENDMENT.
NUMBER ONE FROM COMMISSIONER AZHAR SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.
DO WE HAVE THAT ON THE ORIGINAL? IS THAT WHAT YOU HAVE RECORDED? THOMPSON.
THAT'S JUST SO, UM, LET'S GO AND VOTE ON THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT, NUMBER ONE WITH THE, UH, WITH THE AMENDMENT.
ARE WE NOT HAVING MORE DISCUSSION OR MORE DEBATE ON THIS? UH, WE WERE AT THREE, TWO.
WE COULD THERE'S ONE SPOT FOR THOSE AGAINST IF YOU WANT TO.
THERE WAS ONE REMAINING SPOT FOR, UH, SOMEBODY TO SPEAK AGAINST WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT.
NUMBER ONE THAT HAS NOW BEEN AMENDED, UH, WITH THAT LAST AMENDMENT.
DO YOU WANT TO GO ON THE STREET? EXCUSE ME, GO AHEAD.
UM, SO I GUESS I'LL ECHO, UM, COMMISSIONER YANNIS PULIDO IN, UM, WE SHOULDN'T BE LOOKING AT COMPATIBILITY WITHIN THIS NARROW LENS WHEN IT HAS MUCH BROADER IMPLICATIONS.
UM, AND I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT WE'VE RECEIVED A LOT OF EMAILS WITH CONCERNS ABOUT COMPATIBILITY, BUT I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF EMAILS WITH CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THE BMU PROGRAM, UM, AND THE DENSITY AND THE HIGHER PROPERTY TAXES THAT, YOU KNOW, IT CAUSES MAYBE CONTRIBUTING TO GENTRIFICATION AND HARM IN WORKING CLASS BY NEIGHBORHOODS AND, UM, AND COMPATIBILITY IN, IN THAT CONTEXT IS ACTUALLY MITIGATING THOSE HARMS. SO I DO FEEL THAT THE WAY THAT THIS IS FRAMED REALLY, UM,
[04:15:02]
UH, TAKES AWAY THAT WHOLE DIMENSION OF THE CONVERSATION AND THE ASSESSMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.SO I CAN'T, I CAN'T SUPPORT IT.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
WHERE WERE WE? UH, THOSE ON THE DIOCESE.
UH, LET'S GO AND GET A VOTE ON AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE, UH, WITH THE AMENDMENT, UH, ON THE DATASETS FOR, UH, THOSE IN FAVOR REAL QUICK.
THOSE IN FAVOR 1, 2, 3, 4, AND NOW THOSE AGAINST, UH, ON THE VIRTUAL AND THE SCREEN, I'D SAY, OKAY.
YES, LET ME JUST GET THE NAMES HERE, WHY I GOT THE, UH, UM, AND THERE WAS ONE MORE, UH, WE HAD YOU THIS POLITO COX PRAXIS, I THINK THERE WAS A FOURTH.
SO, UM, EIGHT, THREE, IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? OKAY.
SO NOW I THINK WE'RE BACK TO COMMISSIONING ON HIS PLAY-DOH.
I APOLOGIZE FOR MS. STARTS THERE.
UM, THINKING OF, UH, UH, LIKE A SUBSTITUTE LOTION IT'S LIKE SUBSTITUTE MOVE TO POSTPONE TO MAY 10TH.
THAT WOULD BE THE, UH, THE ENTIRETY OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, CORRECT.
EVERYBODY CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
SO I SEE A SECOND, I THINK COMMISSIONER CHEZ SECOND AND FIRST WITH HIS GREEN, ARE YOU JUMPING INTO THE BOAT? OKAY.
I'M GOING TO GET SECOND VICE MINISTER SHADE.
YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR EMOTION? A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONING.
I THINK I'VE SAID PLENTY ABOUT IT.
I JUST ALL ADD BRIEFLY THAT I DON'T THINK WE'VE SEEN ANY DATA TO SUPPORT THAT TYING THE CONCEPTS THAT WE WANT TO SEE INTO BM U2.
I DON'T THINK WE'VE LOOKED AT YIELD.
I THINK WE COULD USE A LOT MORE ANALYSIS AROUND UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY SINCE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP TONIGHT.
I THINK THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF NUANCE THERE TO LEARN ABOUT, AND THERE'S A LOT MORE PUBLIC PROCESS THAT, UM, THAT PEOPLE WANT AROUND THIS.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I ALSO HAVE SOME REALLY TOUGH QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED ABOUT HER FAIR HOUSING ACT.
I DON'T THINK ACTUALLY THINK THEY'RE THAT TOUGH.
I THINK IT, I THINK THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THIS CORRECTLY.
WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE PUBLIC PROCESS AND THERE'S A LAWSUIT AND A FAILED APPEAL BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN THAT SHOWS THAT WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE BOOK WITH NOTIFICATION AND PROTEST RIGHTS.
UH, THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST THIS MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, UH, AGAIN, AS WE SPOKE EARLIER TONIGHT, POSTPONING TWO WEEKS, SIX WEEKS, EIGHT WEEKS DOESN'T, DOESN'T TELL STAFF TO NOTIFY ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF ADJACENT PROPERTY.
SO, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THAT HAPPENS, THAT'S GREAT.
THAT'S NOT WHAT'S UP DISCUSSION FOR TONIGHT.
WHAT'S THAT DISCUSSION FOR TONIGHT? IS, ARE WE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CHARGE THAT CITY COUNCIL GAVE US? IF THE LEGAL TEAM DECIDES THEY NEED TO NOTIFY MORE PEOPLE THAN THEY CAN DO THAT.
THOSE SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, UM, I'LL JUST ADD AN AND I THINK COMMISSIONER WANTS PLUTO SAID IT BETTER THAN, THAN I CAN.
I, I DON'T MEAN ANY ILL INTENT BEHIND THE STATEMENT, BUT I FEEL LIKE THIS COULD BE PERCEIVED AS LIKE STEALTH POLICYMAKING.
UM, AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS, IS THE I, THE WAY I READ SOME OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL IS TO REDUCE COMPATIBILITY, ELIMINATE PARKING BROMIUM, YOU'D BE ON CORRIDORS.
THAT IS THE WAY I READ SOME OF THESE THINGS, WHICH COULD, COULD BE THE WAY THAT THIS COMMISSION VOTES EVENTUALLY, BUT IT SHOULD BE PART OF A PROPER PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND PUBLIC POLICYMAKING PROCESS.
AND I FEEL LIKE, UM, SENDING SIGNALS TO COUNCIL TO DO THOSE THINGS WHILE NOT HAVING THAT PARTICULAR CONVERSATION HERE AND ENGAGING WITH THE PUBLIC IS NOT, NOT THE PROPER AND GOOD WAY TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I THINK, UH, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE MORE TIME TO THINK ABOUT THESE ITEMS AND FIGURE OUT IF THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE MECHANISM IN WHICH WE WANT TO SEND SIGNALS TO COUNCIL WITH SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND I THINK HAVING MORE TIME TO DO THAT AMONGST OURSELVES AND AMONGST THE PUBLIC WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL.
[04:20:01]
THOSE, UH, SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION, I NEED MORE IN FAVOR, UH, COMMISSIONER SHEA.SO, I MEAN, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT THE, THAT THE WORKING GROUP DID AND THEY THOUGHT THROUGH IT AND THEY, THEY BALANCED THROUGH WHAT THE CHARGE OF THE, YOU KNOW, WHAT COUNCIL TOLD US, AND THEY ARRIVED AT SOME, YOU KNOW, AND AN APPROACH AND IT DOESN'T POSTPONING.
IT DOESN'T NEGATE THAT, BUT I FEEL THAT WE'VE HEARD ENOUGH FROM, FROM THE PUBLIC AND EVEN FROM OURSELVES THAT WE NEED SOME MORE THOUGHT INTO IT.
AND MAYBE THAT THERE IS ANOTHER DIRECTION THAT WE CAN TAKE AND STILL EVEN MAINTAINING THE GOALS THAT THE WORKING GROUP CAME UP WITH.
AND I FEEL LIKE BY POSTPONING, WE GIVE THAT, THAT CHANCE AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC.
UM, AND THIS IS A CITY-WIDE THING.
I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO RUSH INTO IT AND NOT KNOWING WHERE WHAT'S GOING TO ON THE NEXT STEPS.
SO THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S LIKE, IF WE CAN POSTPONE THIS, I THINK IT'D BE A GOOD THING FOR US AS WELL AS FOR THE PUBLIC GET ENGAGED.
AND AGAIN, WE STILL HAVE ANOTHER SHOT TO COME EXACTLY BACK TO THIS POSITION WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW, GOING THROUGH THE WORKING GROUPS, IF WE FEEL LIKE THAT IS THE RIGHT STRATEGY.
UM, BUT ANYWAY, SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING IT.
ONE MORE SPOT FOR THIS SPEAKING AGAINST.
SO WE HAVE A, UM, MOTION TO POSTPONE UNTIL, UH, MAY 10TH.
UH, AND I GUESS JUST PROCEDURALLY REAL QUICK, UH, JUST BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL CLEAR ON AND HELP ME OUT HERE, MR. RIVERA, YOU SAID, UM, BECAUSE OF THE FIFTH WEEK OF THE MONTH, ANY POSTPONEMENT WILL REQUIRE A RECONSIDERATION OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND POSTPONING THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A CERTAIN DATE.
SO DO WE, SHOULD WE MAKE, SHOULD WE MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS TO ADD THAT IN? WOULD THAT BE RECOMMENDED BECAUSE I MEANT THAT WE REOPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AS PART OF THE POSTPONEMENT.
DO I EVER, YOU MAY WANT TO SEE HOW THE VOTE GOES FIRST AND THEN, UM, RECONSIDER.
UH, LET'S DO THIS INCREMENTALLY.
THERE'S THERE'S UH, WE WANT TO POSTPONE IT FIRST.
SO THOSE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE, UH, MOST OF THE POSTS POSTS, AND SECOND AD BY WAS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHEA.
THAT'S GOING ON THE DAYAS THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE POSTPONEMENT.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND RAISE MY HAND THERE.
SO THAT'S ONE ON THE DIAS, UH, TWO.
AND THEN THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE POSTPONEMENT ON THE SCREEN FOR, UH, UM, KEN 1, 2, 3, 4.
NOW THOSE ON THE DIOCESE AGAINST THIS MOTION ONE.
THOSE ON THE SCREEN AGAINST THE MOTION, PLEASE SHOW ME A RED AND HOLD IT UP.
I HAVE TO TAKE NAMES, UH, OUTWARD.
AND THEN THOSE ABSTAINING, UH, IS THAT COMMISSIONER FLORES AND COMMISSIONER SAR.
SO THAT MOTION, IF I, IF I'M COUNTING RIGHT.
SO COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, YES.
UM, WOULD IT BE, UH, WITHIN THE RULES TO MAKE, UH, A MOTION TO SPLIT THE QUESTIONS, TO HAVE A VOTE ON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, THE AMENDED ORDINANCE, AND THEN, UH, JUST TO SORT OF GET THAT OUT OF THE WAY? UH, YES.
I THINK, UH, WE CAN SPLIT THE VOTE THAT WAY, SO WE NEED TO VOTE ON, WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
SO I'D MOVED TO WITH THE QUESTION.
AND THEN WE'LL, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE UP THE, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF THE AMENDED ORDINANCE AND I MOVE ADOPTION OF THAT.
WITHOUT ANY, WITHOUT ANY WORK ROOF AMENDMENTS,
[04:25:02]
IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? W W WAIT.BUT WHAT WE CAN GET TO THOSE NEXT FRIDAY, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW WE JUST WANT TO VOTE ON.
SO WE'RE GONNA, WE NEED TO VOTE ON SPLITTING IT.
SO THAT WOULD TAKE A MAJORITY OR SUPER MAJORITY CHURN COMMISSIONER LIES ON INVERSE, A DIVIDED QUESTION.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON SPLITTING THE VOTE HERE.
LET'S UM, LET ME GO AND TAKE, UH, FROM THE DYESS WHO'S IN FAVOR OF SPLITTING IT THAT'S FOUR.
THOSE, UM, THOSE ON THE, UH, VIRTUAL WORLD, THOSE IN FAVOR OF SPLITTING THE QUESTION 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, AND THEN DOES AGAINST THE MOTION TO SPLIT, UH, THOSE WHO ARE ABSTAINING ONE, TWO.
SO AM I CORRECT? DO I GET NINE TWO? IS THAT RIGHT? OKAY.
SO THAT MOTION, THAT, THAT PASSES.
SO YOU WANT TO TAKE UP THIS, SO THEN WE ARE SPLITTING, THE SPLIT WOULD BE, WE WOULD TAKE OUT THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS NEXT THEN.
IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE PROPOSING? COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.
SO YOU WERE SPLITTING IT, SO, CORRECT ME.
SO IF WE SPLIT IT, CAN WE NOW VOTE ON WHETHER TO ADOPT THE, UH, THE SAF RECOMMENDATION AND THE REDRAFTED OREGON ORDINANCE? YES, YES.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THAT.
UM, WELL, DO YOU WANT TO, YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT, I THINK WE'RE SPLITTING NOW MAKE A MOTION.
WE ADOPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE, UH, ON THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.
DO WE HAVE ANY, UM, DO YOU HAVE A SECOND, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR? HEMPEL ALL RIGHT.
YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR EMOTION? SO, UM, UH, TO BE BRIEF, UM, SO, UH, I THINK RECENT HISTORY OF, UH, CASES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WERE A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ME IN PARTICULAR, THE, UH, THE CASE THAT WAS AT SOUTH LAMAR AND MEN CHAKA, WHERE WE VOTED AGAINST A 90 FOOT BUILDING, BECAUSE IN PART IT DIDN'T HAVE ANY, ANY ACTIVATION AT THE GROUND LEVEL.
IT HAD SOME CONTRIBUTION TO AFFORDABILITY, BUT WHAT I THOUGHT WAS INADEQUATE AND COUNCIL ADOPTED IT.
SO IT DEMONSTRATED TO ME THAT WE DON'T HAVE A TOOL TO ADDRESS THESE PROPOSALS THAT ARE GOING TO BE COMING ALONG FOR TALLER BUILDINGS IN ORDER TO GET GROUND LEVEL ACTIVATION AND ADDITIONAL AFFORDABILITY CONSIDERATIONS.
AND SO WHAT IS IN THE PROPOSED, UH, RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF DOES A LOT OF GOOD THINGS.
IT GIVES US A VMU TO, WITH 20% MORE AFFORDABILITY THAN BMU ONE.
IT GIVES US NEW PROTECTIONS FOR TENANTS.
UM, AND, UH, I BELIEVE THERE'S CONSENSUS ON THE PART OF COUNCIL.
I'M HOPING THERE'S CONSENSUS ON THE PART OF THE COUNCIL TO ADOPT SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
I AGREE THAT DISCUSSIONS ABOUT COMPATIBILITY, ABOUT, UH, EXTENDING VMU ABOUT PARKING THEY'RE CONTROVERSIAL.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE I'M GOING TO END UP, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO AGREE ON THE CORE OF WHAT THE WORKING GROUP DID.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M PROPOSING THIS.
SO DO YOU HAVE ANY MEMBERS SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION? CAN I MAKE A, AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION YOU CAN? UM, I WOULD AMEND, UH, COMMITS, UH, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER'S MOTION TO ALSO INCLUDE A REVISION TO ART, TO SECTION F SIX E.
CLARIFY THAT THE FINE IS PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT.
SHOULD I REPEAT THAT? YEAH, I'M TRYING TO FIND IT IN THE ORDINANCE.
SO YOU'RE, UM, PART TWO SECTION F SIX E YEAH.
AND THAT COULD BE AN ACTUAL LANGUAGE
[04:30:02]
REVISION TO THIS RECOMMENDATION OF THE ORDINANCE.EACH OFFENSE, EACH OFFENSE IT'S PUNISHABLE BY A FINE, NOT TO EXCEED $500 PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER IS OUR, UH, UM, CAN I MOVE THAT? WE TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
UM, DO I HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO VOTING ON THIS MEASURE? OKAY, LOOK, CAN I JUST ASK ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION? CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT THE NUMBER OF VOTES NEEDED TO PASS EMOTIONS NIGHT? UH, THE NUMBER OF VOTES A MAJORITY, IT WOULD BE SEVEN A NINE FOR A SUPER MAJORITY.
IS THAT CORRECT? MR. RIVERA CHURCH.
A PASSIVE MOTION AT SEVEN, SEVEN, YES.
YES, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE LESS, IT'S STILL, UH, BASED ON 13.
SO DID I HAVE A SECOND? I'M SORRY, I'M LOSING COMMISSIONER CZAR.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS.
SO IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO, UH, THE, UH, THE MOTION, UH, THAT EACH TO CHANGE SIX E ON PAGE SEVEN TO SEVEN TO READ EACH OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY A FINE, NOT TO EXCEED $500, UH, PER, UH, RESIDENTIAL UNIT.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THAT.
THOSE ON COMMISSIONER LAYS ON ADVAIR.
I APOLOGIZE TO INTERRUPT ON, BUT WE MAY HAVE TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE IF, UM, IF APPROVED BY LEGAL.
ARE THE MOTION MAKERS OKAY WITH THAT, SIR? I ASSUME LEGAL APPROVES EVERYTHING THAT WE DO.
OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS.
THAT WAS ON THE DICE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT, IF, FOR, AS ON THE SPRAIN IN FAVOR SIX, AND THEN THOSE, UH, VOTING AGAINST THOSE ABSTAINING.
SO WE HAVE, UH, 10 VOTING FOR ONE ABSTAINING, UM, EXTENSION WITH VALUE ON HIS PALITO.
I'M GOING TO BE ON HIS PLAY-DOH.
SO WE HAD THAT AMENDMENT, WE VOTED ON BACK TO THE BASE MOTION.
AND, UH, ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO GO AHEAD AND VOTING ON THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER? SECOND ADVICE MR. ZAR TO IMPROVE STAFFS, UH, THE SNYDER VICE CHAIR.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CORRECTION.
ANYWAY, IT'S APPROVED, STAFF'S, UH, RECOMMENDED, UH, DRAFT ORDINANCE WITH THE AMENDMENT, UH, ADDED BY THAT WE JUST VOTED ON.
I JUST WANT TO SAY IT SO I WILL BE VOTING ON THIS ITEM BECAUSE I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO SEND THIS TO COUNCIL, AS WE'VE SAID QUITE A FEW TIMES, I THINK THERE'S TIME SENSITIVITY HAVING SAID THAT, I WANT TO SAY I AM DROOLY DEMORALIZED RIGHT NOW, NEVER BEFORE HAVE I SEEN THE ENTIRE RECOMMENDATIONS OF A WORKING GROUP TONE OUT? SO UNCEREMONIOUSLY, FRANKLY, THIS KIND OF INSULTING TO ME THE MONTHS OF WORK THAT ME AND OTHERS HAVE PUT INTO THIS TO JUST BE TOLD BY SOME SAYING THAT THESE ARE TOO BROAD, SOMETHING, THESE ARE TOO SPECIFIC, SOMETHING THAT IN MORE DETAIL, AND YET WE CANNOT AGREE TO EVEN DAYLIGHT ISSUES.
WHAT I'M HEARING FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS IS WE ARE NOT EVEN GOING TO TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS.
AND SO THAT'S FINE IF THAT'S WHERE THIS COMMISSION WANTS TO GO, THAT IS FINE.
WE WILL NOT EVEN DAYLIGHT ISSUES AND MOVE FORWARD WITH AN ORDINANCE.
BUT I DO WANT TO SAY FAST COMMISSIONERS.
WE CARE ABOUT OUR HOUSING CAPACITY.
WE CARE ABOUT OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING CAPACITY.
WE CARE ABOUT LINKING HOUSING TO TRANSIT OR ALL OF THE OTHER GOALS THAT ARE IN IMAGINE AUSTIN THAT ARE IN SMP THAT ARE IN A HOUSING BLUEPRINT.
I HOPE THAT WE, AS COMMISSIONERS CAN DO BETTER, BUT AGAIN, I WILL VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT.
HAVING SAID THAT IT I'VE NEVER SEEN WITHOUT ANY EVEN CONVERSATION ON THE MERIT OF EACH ITEM, DO ESSENTIALLY COMPLETELY SHOOT THEM DOWN, BUT I'LL TAKE IT.
SO, UH, WELL WITH THAT SPEAKERS AGAINST THIS MOTION, JUST BECAUSE WE HAD ALLOWED COMMISSIONER DESIRE TO SPEAK COX, YOU WANT TO SPEAK AGAINST NO, I WANT TO SPEAK FOR, OKAY.
ANY OF THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST LET'S JUST KEEP IN OUR CORRECT ORDER SPEAKING, UH, AGAINST THIS YANNIS.
[04:35:04]
I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT IS VERY DEMORALIZING TO HAVE LOTS AND LOTS OF VOLUNTEER HOURS TOWARD POLICY FEEL LIKE THEY'RE THROWN ASIDE UNCEREMONIOUSLY.AND I THINK THAT'S HOW A LOT OF CITIZENS WHO HAVE POURED THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF HOURS INTO NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING FEEL WHEN THE PUBLIC PROCESS IS DISREGARDED.
UM, I DON'T THINK ANYONE HERE HAS DISAGREED TO DISCUSSING THE ISSUES AT HAND, AND I AM VERY MUCH, UH, DEDICATED TO CONTINUING TO WORK ON THIS ISSUE AS I HAVE, UM, CAUSE IT'S VERY NEAR AND DEAR TO ME, BUT I DO THINK THAT WHAT WE DISAGREED ON HERE WAS PROCESS.
AND AGAIN, HOW PROCESS MOVES FORWARD AND TYING THE SPECIFICALLY TO THE PMU TWO PROPOSAL.
SO I WOULD JUST, UM, LIKE TO ENCOURAGE ALL OF US TO CARRY THAT EMPATHY.
AND I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE FELT THAT THEIR TIME AND ENERGY, THEIR EXPERTISE AND THEIR DEDICATION TO IMPROVING COMMUNITY PLANNING OFTEN GETS TOSSED ASIDE WHEN DECISIONS DON'T INCLUDE THE PUBLIC THE WAY THEY NEED TO, AND THAT'S WHY I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST, OKAY, LET ME JUST MAKE CLARIFICATION.
AND I, I THOUGHT OF THIS, BUT I THOUGHT THIS WOULD RUN THIS COURSE IS WE DIVIDED THE QUESTION.
SO WE PRETTY MUCH SPLIT THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS FROM THE BASE ORDINANCE.
IT DOES NOT MEAN WE CAN'T TAKE UP THOSE ITEMS. I WANT, SO WE STILL CAN DO THAT.
WE HAVE NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, TRYING TO FIGURE THE RIGHT WORD FOR THIS CASE.
WE HAVEN'T, UH, UH, WE'RE NOT DISREGARDING THAT.
SO WE WILL HAVE A FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITH THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS, UH, AFTER WE DISPOSED OF THIS ITEM.
COMMISSIONER COX, ARE YOU VOTING IN FAVOR? UH, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR.
UM, AND, AND PART OF THE REASON I'M IN FAVOR AND IT BREAKS MY HEART TO HEAR WHAT COMMISSIONER HAS ALREADY SAID, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN IN THAT EXACT SAME POSITION THAT HE FEELS LIKE HE'S IN RIGHT NOW.
UM, AND, AND WHAT, WHAT I WANTED TO TO SAY IS I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, NOT BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH WHAT THE WORKING GROUP HAS DONE AND WHAT THEY'VE COME UP WITH, WHAT, WHAT I ACTUALLY HOPE WE CAN DO.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS PART MAYBE CONFUSION ON MY PART, OR MAYBE JUST STUBBORNNESS, BUT I'M WONDERING IF, IF A RESOLUTION FROM THIS BODY THAT, THAT DISCUSSES THE IMPACT OF IMPACTABILITY OR, OR DISPLACEMENT, UH, EQUAL, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THAT SORT OF STUFF IS A BETTER VEHICLE FOR THIS, AND THEN ATTACHING IT THAN ATTACHING THOSE KINDS OF GENERAL STATEMENTS TO THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE CHANGE.
AND THEN WE CAN ACTUALLY CRAFT THE LANGUAGE A BIT BETTER, THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE TO, THAT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY, UM, CAUSE ISSUES WITH, WITH KIND OF THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS.
SO, SO I, I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT I'M SUPPORTING THIS, UM, PRIMARILY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS, BUT NOT BECAUSE I NECESSARILY DISAGREE.
I JUST THINK THAT THERE MIGHT BE A BETTER VEHICLE FOR THAT DISCUSSION.
UH, FOLKS WE'RE GOING FURTHER AND WE NEED TO EXTEND TIME.
DO I HAVE MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER COX? UH, YOU WANT TO MAKE HER EMOTION? YEAH.
DO I HAVE A SECOND, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER CZAR.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE DIOCESE IN FAVOR OF IT'S 11, 15.
THOSE IN FAVOR OF EXTENDING THE TIME.
UH, WHERE WERE WE? WE WERE, UH, FOREIGN AGAINST ON THE, UH, THE MOTION AS WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS AGAINST.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE ARE COMMISSIONER PRACTICE.
UM, I WANT A HUNDRED PERCENT SUPPORT AFFORDABILITY.
I WORK WITH FOLKS WHO ARE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS BECAUSE OF HOW UNAFFORDABLE OUR CITY IS, WHO RIGHT NOW HAVE EVICTIONS FILED AGAINST THEM.
MY OWN FAMILY HAS BEEN DISPLACED MULTIPLE TIMES AS THE RENT RISE IN AUSTIN.
SO I AM NOT OPPOSED TO AFFORDABILITY IN ANY WAY.
I WANT TO SEE US HAVING REALLY ROBUST AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS THAT TRULY KEEP PEOPLE HOUSED AND KEEP PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR BASIC NEEDS.
UM, BUT I DON'T FEEL THAT, UM, THERE'S ENOUGH RESEARCH TO SHOW THAT THIS PROGRAM HAS TRULY
[04:40:01]
PREVENTED DISPLACEMENT OR, AND SERVED FAMILIES WHO ARE AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT.AND IT ALSO DOESN'T SEEM THERE'S ANY RESEARCH ON THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS THAT THIS DENSITY IS CAUSING TO AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT EXIST IN THE AREAS WHERE WE ARE, UM, PUTTING IN VIEW.
SO I THINK ALL OF THAT, UM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE AND THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A WHOLE PUBLIC PROCESS TO INVESTIGATE THAT AND REALLY GO DEEP, UM, WITH THAT BEFORE MAKING, YOU KNOW, ANY OTHER PROGRAMS, JUST BECAUSE WE KNOW WE NEED TO ACT NOW, AND THIS PROGRAM SEEMS, YOU KNOW, TWO SEEMS TO BE GOOD, BUT WE NEED THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS, YOU KNOW, WITH DISPLACEMENT AND AFFORDABILITY.
AND RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE THOSE DETAILS.
UM, SO THAT'S WHY I HAVE TO, UM, VOTE AGAINST, OKAY.
I THINK WE HAVE, UH, TWO MORE SPOTS, RIGHT.
DOES ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK AGAINST FOUR? WE TAKE A VOTE.
SO LET ME, UH, JUST TO BE CLEAR, UH, JUST, UH, THIS IS THE VOTING ON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION DRAFT, UH, BMU TO, UH, VMU ORDINANCE CHANGES WITH THE CHANGE TO SECTION PAID SEVEN TO SEVEN ITEMS, SIX E TO ADD, UM, AT THE END, UM, PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT, UH, WITH APPROVAL FROM CITY LEGAL STAFF.
AND, UH, LET'S ONE VOTE ON THIS THOUGH.
THOSE IN FAVOR ON THE SCREEN, SHOW ME YOUR GREEN CARDS.
1, 2, 3, 4, AND THEN THOSE AGAINST THE MOTION.
SO YOUR READ COMMISSIONER PRAXIS, AND THEN THOSE THAT ARE ABSTAINING, WE HAVE TO, UM, SHAY.
SO THAT MOTION PASSES EIGHT ONE TO TWO WITH COMMISSIONER PRACTICES, VOTING NAY AND COMMISSIONERS SHAY, AND THE, ON THIS PALITO ABSTAINING.
SO, UH, I DO, UH, WHILE YOU WERE GONE AND WE DON'T HAVE MUCH TIME, BUT WE CAN EXTEND IF NEEDED.
UM, HOW DID THE HELP ME OUT HERE? THE VOTE ON THE WORKING GROUP, AMENDMENT NUMBER, NUMBER ONE.
SO WE'VE GOT THE OTHER FIVE AMENDMENTS.
WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH, DO I HAVE A MOTION ON, WE SPLIT THE QUESTION.
THESE WERE COMBINED WITH THE INITIAL BASE MOTION.
SO I NEED A MOTION ON HOW TO HANDLE THE OTHER FIVE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.
SO, UM, I, UH, JUST WANT, WOULDN'T SAY I SHARE, UH, COMMISSIONER I'VE AS IS, UH, UM, FEELINGS TO SOME DEGREE, BUT I HEAR THAT WE DON'T HAVE CONSENSUS, LIKE, AND THERE MAY BE ANOTHER APPROACH THAT WILL ALLOW US TO CONTINUE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS AND WHAT MY GOAL IS TO SURFACE THESE ISSUES FOR COUNCIL AND ASK THEM TO OPINE DIRECT, GIVE US SOME GUIDANCE TO TAKE NEXT STEPS ON.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS IS GOING TO GO DOWN.
UM, SO, UH, I MOVED THAT WE DIRECT THE WORKING GROUP TO DEVELOP A RESOLUTION THAT WILL IDENTIFY ISSUES WHERE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ASKS FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION IN THE AREAS OF COMPATIBILITY APPLICABILITY, EQUITABLE DISPERSION, ANTI-DISPLACEMENT PARKING AND FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS AND PERIODIC REVIEW.
I HOPE YOU MEMORIZE THAT BECAUSE I COULDN'T WRITE FAST ENOUGH.
SO I MAY ASK YOU TO REPEAT THAT.
UM, DO WE HAVE A SECOND, UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX? UH, SURE.
FROM STAFF, UM, DOES THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE RESOLUTIONS FOR STAFF WORK WORKING GROUP GROUP CAN BRING FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLAN COMMISSION FOR ADOPTION TO BE FORWARDED TO COUNCIL.
[04:45:01]
CHANGING CODE.WE CAN SEND YOU A RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT ACTUALLY INITIATING A GO CHANGE.
SO THAT JUST TO BE CLEAR, THAT WOULD BE THE WORKING GROUP MAKING RESOLUTION GOES TO THE OVERALL PLANNING COMMISSION.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WE GO AHEAD AND APPROVE ALL SIX GENERAL AMENDMENTS FROM THE WORKING GROUP.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER VICE-CHAIR HEMPHILL? UH, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR EMOTION? I THINK I HEARD CLEARLY WHEN WE SPLIT THE VOTE AND MY COMMISSION FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TOLD ME THAT THE ISSUE WAS NOT THAT THEY DID NOT WANT THESE ISSUES TO BE DAYLIGHTED.
SO HERE WE ARE, HERE'S OUR OPTION.
WE CAN FORWARD THESE ISSUES AS CONSIDERATION FOR COUNCIL AND ISSUES TO BE DAYLIGHTED, LET'S JUST TAKE A VOTE ON IT AND SEE IF YOU APPROVE OF US EVEN RAISING ISSUES OR NOT.
SO WE GOT A SECOND, I MAKE AN AMENDMENT.
UH, WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO PASS ALL SIX OF THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS, AND YOU'RE GOING TO AMEND YES.
I WOULD LIKE TO TRY THE SECOND ONE AND I ONLY DO THIS BECAUSE I JUST RE-READ THE ORDINANCE TONIGHT.
IT'S THE SECTION THAT, THAT SAYS WHERE IT'S APPLICABLE IS NOT PART OF THE ONE THAT'S CHANGED.
IT'S ACTUALLY IN 4, 3, 2, AND IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT IT'S APPLICABLE IN OTHER PLACES, NOT JUST ON, ON THE CORRIDORS.
AND I JUST WOULD LIKE TO STRIKE THAT BECAUSE I HAVE GOTTEN A LOT OF, OF EMAIL ABOUT THAT.
AND I THINK IT STRIKES A LOT OF FEAR INTO PEOPLE'S HEARTS THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY ZONING AREAS THAT AREN'T THERE.
AND SO I THINK WE NEED SORT OF A SEPARATE, YOU KNOW, REQUEST FROM STAFF TO, YOU KNOW, W WE'VE WE'VE MADE THIS BEFORE AND THEY'VE COME OUT AND SAID, YES, IT IS APPLICABLE ELSEWHERE.
UM, BUT THEN THEY START TO FORGET THAT.
DID YOU HAVE A SECOND TIER, UH, AMENDMENT? OKAY, I'M SORRY.
YOU, SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO STRIKE THE SECOND ONE TO REDUCE THE FEAR IN THE COMMUNITY, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S REALLY NOT NEEDED.
SO YOU, SECOND THAT MOTION COMMISSIONER IS, ARE, DO WE NEED TO HAVE ANY DISCUSSION AGAINST THAT AT THIS POINT, UH, AGAINST WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP THE BROADER MOTION, BUT WE'RE JUST ELIMINATING NUMBER TWO.
IS THERE ANY, UH, CAN WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THAT AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTION, UM, ANY OPPOSITION TO TAKING A VOTE HEARING? NONE.
LET'S GO ON THE DYESS SUBSTITUTE TO ELIMINATE NUMBER TWO FROM THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER IS, ARE ONE HAS TO APPROVE EVERYTHING.
SO, UH, THOSE I'M COUNTING ONE ON THE, LET ME START WITH, UH, THOSE ON THE DIOCESE THREE, UH, IN FAVOR.
LET ME COUNT THOSE IN FAVOR ON THE SCREEN.
THAT'S FIVE, THOSE AGAINST REMOVING NUMBER TWO ON THE DICE.
THOSE AGAINST REMOVING NUMBER TWO ON VIRTUALLY.
ALL RIGHT, LET ME GET YOUR NAMES.
AND SO THAT'S A, THAT PASSES EIGHT, UH, WITH VICE CHAIR, AMPLE VOTING, NAY AND YONIS POLITO AND COMMISSIONER COX COMMISSIONERS, YOUNGEST FLEET ON COMMISSIONER COX VOTING, UH, ABSTAINING.
SO LET'S MOVE ON TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
THIS INCLUDES THIS AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD NOW IT'S PASSING ALL THE WORK GROUP AMENDMENTS EXCEPT NUMBER TWO.
SO DO WE NEED ANY, UH, DO I HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO TAKING A VOTE ON THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION? ANY SPEAKERS? I DON'T SEE NO OPPOSITION.
UH, THOSE ON LET'S START WITH THOSE ON THE DICE IN FAVOR.
THAT'S FOR THOSE ON THE SCREEN VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS WITHOUT NUMBER TWO, THAT'S FOUR.
AND ANY EXTENSIONS? UH, THAT IS EIGHT.
SO THAT'S, UH, EIGHT TO THREE THAT PASSES, UH, WITH COMMISSIONERS COPS.
YOU HONESTLY, DON'T IN PRACTICES VOTING DAY.
SO HAVE WE DISPOSED OF ALL OF THESE
[04:50:01]
ITEMS THIS EVENING? I THINK WE HAVE ON THIS PARTICULAR BEAT 13, IS THERE ANY UNFINISHED BUSINESS MR. RIVERA RIVER? I'LL GO AHEAD COMMISSION.SINCE WE HAD THE MOVE NUMBER DUKE, CAN WE TAKE A VOTE ON THAT AS WELL? SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADD IN AN AMENDMENT THAT SAYS, ASSESS THE NEED TO EXPAND THE VMU PROGRAM.
SO IT IS APPLICABLE BEYOND THE PRINCIPAL STREETS IDENTIFIED IN THE LDC TO INCLUDE AREAS WITHIN THE WATERSHED OF THOSE PRINCIPALS STREETS.
SO IS THAT PRETTY MUCH, WHAT IS IT READS HERE? OKAY.
SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A VOTE ON THIS C.
CAN WE, CAN WE NOT VOTE ON THIS ALREADY? WE REMOVED IT FROM THE MOTION, BUT WE DIDN'T DISPOSE OF IT.
SO, UH, WE, THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S OFFICIALLY GOING TO BE REMOVED FROM THE OVERALL RECOMMENDATION.
SO WE'RE VOTING ON WORKING RIP AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO AS IT AS IT'S WRITTEN.
SO DO I HEAR ANY OPPOSITION TO, FOR GOING, UH, ANY DISCUSSION, JUST TAKING A VOTE? OH, YOU DON'T HAVE A SECOND.
WE HAVE A SECOND BY VICE CHAIR.
DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO HIM? I'M GOING TO SPEAK TOO MUCH ALONG ON THIS, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT IF WE'RE CONSIDERING ALL THE OTHER WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS, I WANT TO GIVE THE SAME COURTESY TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER WHO INITIATED THIS AMENDMENT.
UH, ANY BUDDY WANTED TO SPEAK AGAINST, OR CAN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE BOAT OR WE KNOW OPPOSITION.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ONE.
THOSE, UH, THIS IS ON WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT, NUMBER TWO.
UH, LET ME START WITH THOSE ON THE DYES.
UH, THOSE, UH, IN FAVOR OF WORKING THROUGH AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO, UH, SHALL BE YOUR GREEN.
LET'S SEE, UH, THOSE AGAINST WORKING GROUP NUMBER TWO, UM, TWO ON THE DIAS AND HOLD ON.
SO WE, UH, AND THEN ANY ABSTAINING.
SO THAT A MOTION DOES NOT PASS, UH, WITH COMMISSIONERS, UM, UH, THOMPSON SHAW, SHAY COX, YOUNGS, POLITO, AND COMMISSIONER PRACTICES VOTING NAY.
MR. HOLLAND, COMMISSIONER HOWARD.
UH, WHAT WAS YOUR VOTE ON THAT ONE? I'M SORRY.
SO, UH, AND COMMISSIONER, UM, SCHNEIDER, UH, ABSTAINING AND FLORES.
SO THAT'S 2, 2, 5, 1, NO, 3, 5 1, CORRECT? YES.
I THINK THAT WAS THE LAST ITEM FOR US THIS EVENING.
I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME ON THIS, UH, ON THIS, SORRY.
WHAT TIME IS IT? WE GOT FIVE MINUTES.
UM, WE ARE, WE HAVE ANY ITEMS,
[C.1. Discussion and possible action to adopt 2022-23 Budget recommendations. (Sponsors Chair Shaw and Commissioner Azhar)]
UH, ITEMS SEE DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTIONS TO ADOPT BUDGET REV, UH, OF 20 23, 20 20 TO 2023 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS HELPED ME WITH THE RIGHT WORDING FOR THIS, BUT DUE TO MY, UH, JUST THE TIMEFRAME AND MY BEING ABSENT, NOT AVAILABLE, NOT ABLE TO PULL TOGETHER A WORKING GROUP, I'D SAY WE'D DISSOLVE THIS COMMITTEE AND WE, WITHOUT ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE WORKING GROUP.UM, DO I, DO I NEED A VOTE ON THAT COMMISSIONER? UH, MR. RIVERA, ANY OPPOSITION? OKAY.
WE'RE GOING TO DISPOSE OF THAT.
UH, THE WORKING GROUP IT'S DONE AND WE HAVE NO RECOMMENDATIONS.
[D. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY FOR CONSIDERATION LOOKING AROUND, UH, COMMISSIONER? I JUST WANT TO QUICKLY SAY, I THINK WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT WHAT WE CAN OR CANNOT DO.WHAT IS LEGAL OR NOT? WHAT THE NEW LAWSUIT IS.
I DEPEND ON, I'M NOT A LAWYER, I'M NOT LEGAL STAFF.
I DEPEND ON OUR LEGAL STAFF TO PROVIDE US THAT GUIDANCE.
CAN WE HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION WITH LEGAL STAFF NEXT TIME TO DISCUSS THAT SO
[04:55:01]
THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE ON THE SAME PAGE? WHAT IS, OR IS NOT THAT WE'RE DOING AND WHETHER IT IS ILLEGAL OR NOT.UH, DO YOU HAVE A SECOND LAST YEAR? HEMPHILL? OKAY.
SO, UH, NOTED, UH, ITEM E NOMINATIONS WE T WE DISPOSED OF.
[Additional Item]
DO OUR UPDATES MOVE THROUGH THIS QUICKLY CODE IS AN ORANGE THAT JOINT COMMITTEE CODES AND ORDINANCES HAD A MEETING.WE WENT OVER THE VMU AMENDMENTS AND WE PASSED THEM TO THIS COUNCIL.
SO, ALRIGHT, CON COMPREHENSIVE
[E.1. Comprehensive Plan Joint Committee - Nominate a member for Council consideration for the purpose of serving on the Comprehensive Plan Joint Committee.]
PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.UH, WE HAD A MEETING ON MARCH 10TH, TALKED ABOUT OUR GOALS SETTING FOR THE YEAR, UM, APPROVED THE OFF CYCLE MEMO, UH, WHICH WILL BE COMING TO PC.
AND THEN WE HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING ON APRIL 28TH FOR THE ASM P UM, BRIEFING.
ANYTHING TO NOTE THERE? COMMISSIONER PRAXIS? NOT AT THE MOMENT.
SMALL AREA PLANNING, JOINT COMMITTEE.
UH, WE'RE NOT MEETING UNTIL NEXT MONTH.
I'M JUST TRYING TO BEAT THE CLOCK UP HERE.
UM, AND, UH, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD, ANYTHING LAST NIGHT'S MEETING WAS CANCELED DUE TO WEATHER.
AND, UH, MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP ANYTHING.
UH, ALL RIGHT, WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH, UH, COMMISSIONERS, I THINK WE DID A LOT OF HEAVY LIFTING THIS EVENING.
UH, JAY IT'S 11, 13 AND OF ADJOURNING THIS, UM, MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THAT'S THE CITY TO THE COUNTRYSIDE, HOLDING HANDS AND TALKING ABOUT LOVE.
WE'RE FROM MOTHERS PUSH AND SHUT UP.
TAKE SOME TIME TO LOOK INTO YOUR EYES, RECONNECT A DISCONNECTED LAW.
IT USED TO BE WITH ALL THE MATTERED.
IT'S EASIER TO GET CAUGHT IN THIS REA.