Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]

[00:00:11]

BRINGING THIS MEETING. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON JULY 12TH 2022 TO ORDER AH, THE TIME IS. LUCKRITZ. 608. THANK YOU. MY PETER WENT UP. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT LET'S DO A QUICK ROLL CALL, AND, WE'LL GET STARTED. SO START WITH FOCUS HERE ON THE DAIS. AND GO AHEAD AND I'LL START YOUR CHAIR. SHOTS HERE AND MR SHANE PRESENT. MR THOMPSON, PRESIDENT. AND JUST WANT TO POINT OUT ALSO IN THE DIOCESE. WE HAVE THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF INVESTMENTS. TERRI CULLEN. RISING AND GOING TO THE SCREEN.

NOW I'M GONNA GO KIND OF THE WAY. I SEE YOU GUYS.

COMMISSIONER, ANDERSON. HERE COMMISSIONER IS, AZHAR. HERE.

VICE CHAIR, HEMPEL. HERE. COMMISSIONER COX. HERE, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER. HERE, COMMISSIONER HOWARD HERE. OKAY.

I THINK THAT IS ALL WE HAVE AT THIS POINT, BUT WE DO HAVE FORUM. MANY PEOPLE GET SOME OTHERS JOINING US LATER IN THE MEETING. SO TO START OUT HERE. YOU HAVE PRETTY LIGHT AGENDA SO FAR, BUT JUST WHEN I'M RIGHT MIND PEOPLE IF YOU ARE HERE FOR A PARTICULAR ITEM WILL GO IN THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA RIGHT NOW, BUT IF YOU'RE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK , YOU WILL GET A NOTICE ABOUT 15 MINUTES OUT FROM YOUR ITEM IF YOU WANT TO WAIT IN THE ATRIUM, BUT, YOU CAN ALSO WAIT HERE IN CHAMBERS. THIS IS A HYBRID MEETING. WE ALL HAVE SPEAKERS BOTH IN PERSON AND PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY IS WELL AS COMMISSIONERS THAT YOU CAN SEE HERE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY AS WELL AS SO IT'S ON THE DAIS. ANS ON THE SCREEN. IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE YOUR VOTING CARDS READY, THE GREEN, RED AND YELLOW. AND WE WILL START WITH, THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING. TWO COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THE MINUTES FROM OUR JUNE 28TH MEETING. OKAY WE WILL MOVE

[Reading of the Agenda]

THAT TO THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL. AND WITH THAT, VICE CHAIR, HEMPEL. I BELIEVE YOU'RE GOING TO HELP ME WITH THE FIRST READING OF THE AGENDA THIS EVENING. THAT'S RIGHT. ALRIGHT, WE HAVE B 01. N P A 2021. OH 5.2. METABOLISM, MULTI FAMILY.

APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO AUGUST 23RD. ITEM B TWO M P A 2021 00 TO 1.2. 14 06 TO 15 OH, SIX PARKER LANE. THAT STAFF POSTPONEMENT. AUGUST 23RD. HAVE I DONE? B OH, THREE. WHICH IS C 14 2021 0139. 14 06 TO 15 OH, SIX PARKER LANE. HEADS UP FIRST STEP POST STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO AUGUST 23RD WE HAVE ITEM B FOUR.

N P A 2022. 00 TO THREE POINT OH ONE POINT S H. 51 OH, 7 TO 51 15 LANCASTER. THAT'S UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JULY 26. ITEM. H 51 OH, 7 TO 51 15 LANCASTER. THAT'S ALSO AT FIRST HALF POSTPONEMENT TO JULY 26TH. WE HAVE ITEM B SIX N B A 2022 16.1 . 8 30 AIRPORT. STAFF POSTPONEMENT FOR JULY 26. I DIDN'T B SEVEN C 14 2022 0054. HAD 8 30 AIRPORT. THAT'S UP FOR

[00:05:08]

STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JULY 26TH. ITEM B EIGHT C 14 2022 0055.

ADDRESS IS 83 80 3.5 WEST AVENUE. THAT IS THAT FOR CONSENT. AND THEN BE NINE. SEE 14 2022-0. 24 OH NINE TOWN LAKE CIRCLE IS UP FOR CONSENT. ITEM B 10 C 14 2022-0. 701 AND 703 HIGHLAND AVENUE REZONING THAT'S UP FOR APPLICANTS POSTPONEMENT TO AUGUST 23RD. ITEM B 11 SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT REGULATING PLAN IS UP FOR CONSENT. ISLAND B 12 BLOOD REGULATIONS. IS UP FOR DISCUSSION. I DIDN'T BE 13 COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION.

WILL BE ON FOR DISCUSSION. ADAM BEAST 14. SP 29 21-1 C 2021.

15337 L M HIS UPPER CONSENT. IF THE 15 SPC DASH 2021-129 C RAINY TOWER. HAS BEEN POSTPONED BY STAFF UNTIL JULY. 26 BE 16. SP DASH 2021-79 C SKY MOUNTAIN IS AFRICAN SENT AND B 17 C H. J 2000 AND 8-0168 20000.1 DOT 68. IN TORONTO FACE TO A SMALL LOT.

SUBDIVISION IS UP FOR CONSENT. IN THIS CONCLUDES THE CONSENT OR THE READING OF THE ENGINE. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS IN NEED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM ANY OF THE ITEMS THIS EVENING? OKAY, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND I'LL DO

[Consent Agenda]

ANOTHER READING OF THE WELL JUST BEFORE WE START. MR RIVERA DO SINCE THE TIME DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO PULL? BASED ON SPEAKER. SIGN UP OR WE STILL GOOD CHAIR COMMISSION LIAISON, ENVER. THE CONSONANT AGENDA IS READY, GUYS PROVIDED ALRIGHT. I'M GOING TO READ THAT ONE MORE TIME. ALL RIGHT. YEAH FIRST TIME AND WE HAVE IS UNDER CONSENTED GENDERS.

THE MINUTES FROM OUR JUNE 20TH MEETING. WE HAVE ITEM B ONE.

APPLICANT. POSTPONEMENT TILL AUGUST 23RD. AH THE TWO PLAN AMENDMENT STEP POSTPONEMENT TO AUGUST 23RD. THE THREE REZONING.

STEP POSTPONEMENT TO AUGUST 23RD. BEFORE. PLAN AMENDMENTS STEP POSTPONEMENT TO JULY 26 PENDING APPLICANTS OF MIDDLE OF DOCUMENTATION FOR STAFF REVIEW. B FIVE REZONING STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JULY 26TH PENDING APPLICANTS MIDDLE OF DOCUMENTATION FOR STAFF REVIEW. ITEM B SIX IS. SORRY IS THAT POSTPONED? DID LIVE 26. IS THAT A STEPHENS PARLIAMENT? JUST TO CLARIFY. CHAIR COMMISSION LIAISON AND ROBY 67, OR BOTH STAFF HOST MOST JULY 27. OUR STAFF HAS PERMANENT TO JULY 26TH. V EIGHT REZONING IS ON CONSENT. 89 ZONING AS ON CONSENT . THE 10 REZONING AFRICAN POSTPONEMENT TO AUGUST 23RD. THE 11 CONSENT. JUST THIS FOR INITIATION ONLY AND WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE. 12.

DISCUSSION ITEM ON CODE AMENDMENT FOR THE FLOOD REGULATIONS. B 13. OTHER CODE AMENDMENT RELATED TO COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION DISCUSSION ITEM. THE 14. THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT IS ON CONSENT. BE 15 SITE PLAN. THIS ONE IS STEP POSTPONEMENT. JULY 27TH. P 16. IRON MENTAL VARIANTS IS ON

[00:10:02]

CONSENT. AND B 17 FINAL PLATFORM APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN. IS ON CONSENT. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONER'S ON THESE ITEMS. ALL RIGHT. CAN I HAVE A MISSION? JUST CLARIFICATION. BE 15 STEP POSTPONEMENT TO JULY 26TH. THE 15. CORRECT. JULY, 26TH. OKAY? THANK YOU. RIGHT. SO WITH THAT CORRECTION, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. AND APPROVED THE CONSENT AGENDA, INCLUDING THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. LET'S SEE MR. SHEA SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. LET'S GO, AND THOSE PROVED MOTION. AND THAT'S ON THE SCREEN. ALRIGHT, ARE. THERE. I SEE THE GREEN. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ANDERSEN. ALRIGHT LET'S UNANIMOUS CHEER CHEROKEE. CAN I CAN I ABSTAIN ON AN ITEM? YOU KNOW THE CONSENTS. I WOULD LIKE TO STAND FROM ITEM B NINE, BUT I'M GONNA YES, EVERYTHING. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO, ON THE NINN THE RECORD IS ABSTAINING FROM THAT ITEM. THAT WAS GREAT. THANK

[B12. Code Amendment: Flood Regulations]

YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT . SO THE FIRST ITEM TODAY IS FOR DISCUSSION OF B 12. SO WE'LL HAVE A LET'S SEE. LET'S JUST GET THIS STRAIGHT. WE'RE GONNA HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM STAFF. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? CHAIR COMMISSION WAS AN END.

VERY YES. YOU DO HAVE A SPEAKER AND YOU ALSO HAVE A REQUEST FOR A POST MOMENT. SO YOU CAN HEAR FROM THE REQUESTER. THE POSTMAN.

OR YOU CAN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS. OKAY BUT WE'RE NOT HAVING A DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT. AT THIS POINT, RIGHT? THIS IS JUST. CORRECT.

IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION. ALL RIGHT, BUT WE'LL START WITH STAFF PRESENTATION. OKAY, THANK YOU.

HOW'S THAT? GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JAMISON. COURTNEY I'M WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT OFFICE. WE ARE HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY WITH A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO CREATE A COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION. IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT RULES. AH! THIS THE NEXT SLIDE.

SO THIS IS A FOLLOW UP ON A REQUEST FROM CITY COUNCIL IN 2019. WE PASSED A COMPREHENSIVE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE IN THIS CITY. THAT UPDATED OUR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT RULES IN RESPONSE TO THE ATLAS 14 REPORT FROM NOAH. AND AS PART OF THAT PROCESS COUNCIL REQUESTED STAFF. TO PREPARE LANGUAGE FOR A DRAFT COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION AND BRING THAT BACK FOR CONSIDERATION, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY IS DISCUSSING AS PART OF THE PRESENTATION. I'M GONNA DO A QUICK OVERVIEW OF WHAT WAS DONE IN 2019 FOR ANYBODY THAT MAYBE WASN'T ON THE COMMISSION AT THAT TIME, AND THEN AFTER THAT TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TODAY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

ALRIGHT SO, LIKE I SAID THE PREVIOUS ATLAS 14 ORDINANCE WAS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT UPDATE TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT RULES AND ARE 36 IN THE 36 YEAR. HISTORY OF THOSE REGULATIONS. IN THE GOAL WAS TO PROTECT RESIDENTS FROM FLOODING BASED ON A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF FLOOD RISK. ATLAS 14 WAS A REPORT FROM THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION THAT REVISED RAINFALL STATISTICS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS. IN THE AUSTIN AREA. THOSE CHANGES MEANT THAT WHAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED TO BE A 500 YEAR STORM RAINFALL EVENT WAS, IN ACTUALITY OCCURRING WITH THE FREQUENCY OF 100 YEAR STORM EVENT. AND SO WE KNEW WE NEEDED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES TO OUR FLOODPLAIN DEFINITIONS IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT WE WEREN'T ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR IN AREAS THAT WOULD BE MAPPED AS FLOODPLAIN. ONCE THE FLOOD PLAIN MAPS COULD CATCH UP WITH THE ATLAS 14 REPORT. AND WE ALSO WANTED TO REVISE SOME RULES BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT BEEN CHANGED SINCE THEY WERE CREATED IN DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS OCCURRED DIFFERENTLY, SO THE GOAL WAS TO SIMPLIFY THEM ALSO IMPROVE THEM TO BETTER MATCH THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT WE SEE IN THIS CITY TODAY. SO THAT SAID, WE UPDATED OUR FLOODPLAIN DEFINITIONS TO ADDRESS ATLAS 14. WE CREATED A RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, WHICH REPLACED AN EXISTING PREVIOUS EXCEPTION IN THE CODE FOR RESIDENTIAL HOMES.

I'LL GO MORE INTO THAT ONE ON THE NEXT SLIDE. WE EXPANDED AND EXISTING SECRETARY EXCEPTION FOR THE COLORADO RIVER. HAVE THAT

[00:15:03]

EXCEPTION WAS DONE ON THE BASIS THAT THE COLORADO RIVER HAS DIFFERENT TIME OF CONCENTRATION WERE BETTER ABLE TO WARN PEOPLE AND ALSO HAS THE LCR I CONTROL OPERATIONS. AND SO WE'RE ABLE TO GIVE PEOPLE A WARNING OF DAYS AS OPPOSED TO MINUTES AND SO, AS WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST ON, LIKE AUSTIN, AND LIKE TRAVIS, WHEN THERE IS A FLOOD COMING, PEOPLE ARE SUCCESSFULLY ABLE TO EVACUATE. THOSE HOMES. ALL OF THE OTHER FLOODPLAIN CRITERIA STILL APPLY TO THE DESIGN OF THOSE BUILDINGS. THEY HAVE TO BE PROPERLY ELEVATED AND EVERYTHING AND, YOU KNOW, DEMONSTRATE NO ADVERSE IMPACT, JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE BUILT IN THE FLOODPLAIN. AND WE ALSO INCREASED THE CITY'S FREE BOARD REQUIREMENT TO TWO FT IN THE ENTIRE CITY. IT DID PREVIOUSLY BEEN ONE FT. IN SOME PLACES, TWO FT. ANOTHER WE RAISED IT TO TWO FT. EVERYWHERE IT'S A HIGHER FACTOR OF SAFETY REDUCES FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS. AND IT JUST MAKES THE RULES EASIER TO UNDERSTAND. FREE BOARD, BY THE WAY, IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ELEVATION OF THE FLOOR OF YOUR HOME AND THE ELEVATION OF THE FLOODPLAIN EVERYWHERE. NOW NEW BUILDINGS HAVE TO BE AT LEAST TWO FT. ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN IF THEY'RE IN THE FLOODPLAIN. SO. A LITTLE MORE DETAIL IN THE RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION. THIS THIS EXCEPTION ALLOWS STAFF TO APPROVE A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. FOR A NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IN THE FLOODPLAIN PROVIDED THAT THE BUILDING IS REPLACING AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.

YOU'RE NOT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY. THE FINISHED FLOOR IS AT LEAST TWO FT. ABOVE THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN AND YOU DEMONSTRATE THROUGH AN ENGINEER'S REPORT THAT THE NEW HOME DOES NOT CAUSE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE FLOODPLAIN, MEANING IT'S NOT OBSTRUCTING THE FLOW OF WATER IN A WAY THAT INCREASES FLOOD HEIGHTS ON ANY OTHER PROPERTY. IF ALL FOUR OF THOSE CONDITIONS ARE MET, STAFF IS ABLE TO APPROVE THIS AND THE REASONING BEHIND THAT IS WHILE WE STILL HAVE OUR BASIC LANGUAGE IN THE CODE THAT STARTS OUT WITH NO NEW BUILDINGS IN THE FLOODPLAIN WE WANTED TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW EXISTING HOUSING STOCK IN THE FLOODPLAIN THAT WASN'T PROPERLY DESIGNED TO THE FLOOD RISK TO BE REPLACED WITH SOMETHING THAT WAS SAFER. WATERSHED PROTECTION STILL COMMITTED TO ALL OF OUR MITIGATION EFFORTS, BUYOUTS BUILT PROJECTS THINGS TO REMOVE BUILDINGS FROM THE FLOODPLAIN THAT WE STILL WORK TOWARDS THAT. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE WANT PROPERTY. WE WANTED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO HAVE OPTIONS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM FLOODING AND ALSO TO LET NATURAL MARKET FORCES REPLACE THIS SUB. THIS HOUSING STOCK WAS SOMETHING BETTER DESIGNED FOR FLOOD RISK. SO THAT WAS PASSED IN 2019 BY CITY COUNCIL THE NEXT SLIDE. AS PART OF THAT ORDINANCE, WE HAD OVER 100 DIFFERENT PUBLIC MEETINGS CONTACTED MORE THAN 2700 PEOPLE WITH OUTREACH ON THESE CHANGES. CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE NEW RULES IN NOVEMBER. 14 2019 AND AT THAT MEETING COUNCIL LAST STAFF TO DRAFT SOME RULES REGARDING COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT. EXCELLENT. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THIS ORDINANCE TONIGHT IS THE COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION. AND SO THE GOAL WAS THE SAME GOAL THAT WE HAD FOR THE RESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION. WE WANTED TO CREATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS. FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW BUILDINGS PROVIDED THAT THEY WERE DECREASING FLOOD RISK. AND SO THERE ARE A LOT OF CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE LOOKED AT AND TRYING TO DRAFT THIS LANGUAGE. BUILDING YOU SQUARE FOOTAGE, OCCUPANT LOAD. FLOOD RISK IN THE PARKING LOT. WHETHER OR NOT BUILDING HEIGHTS NEEDED TO BE ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE FREE BOARD. SO WE NETWORKED CLOSELY WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE. ELOPEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT STAFF WORKED THROUGH THESE CONSIDERATIONS LOOKED AT WHAT THE SUBMITTAL PROCESS WITH WORDS. AND SO THIS IS THE PROPONENTS. COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION. IT'S AN ADMITTED LIKE THE RESIDENTIAL ONE. IT ALLOWS A NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE FLOODPLAIN PROVIDING IT'S REPLACING AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING. FINISHED FLOOR MEETS FREE BOARD REQUIREMENTS. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO INCREASE THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY, SO THAT'S NOT FOOTPRINT, BUT TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE CANNOT INCREASE. WE PROHIBIT FOR USES SPECIFIC USES. IT CANNOT BE EDUCATIONAL FACTORY, HIGH HAZARD OR INSTITUTIONAL YOU'RE NOT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IN THE FLOODPLAIN OR INCREASING THE DEPTH OF PARKING IN THE FLOODPLAIN, AND YOU DEMONSTRATE THROUGH ENGINEERING THAT YOU'RE NOT CAUSING AN ADVERSE FLOODING IMPACT. JUST JUST ONE MOMENT. THIS FROM COMMISSIONER. I DON'T HEAR ANY OBJECTIONS. I'D LIKE TO GIVE STAFF ANOTHER JUST ANOTHER SIX MINUTES TO FINISH. YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT ALL. ANY OBJECTIONS TO GIVING STAFF MORE TIME. OKAY ALRIGHT, SIX MINUTES , BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT ALL IF YOU DON'T NEED COMMISSION LIAISON EN ROUTE EIGHT MEMBERS.

I BELIEVE. I'M SORRY. EIGHT MEMBERS, NINE THAT WOULD BE NINE. THAT'S AWKWARD. I BELIEVE ALL THAT WAS LEFT WAS JUST SOME

[00:20:06]

EXAMPLES OF HOW IT WOULD PLAY OUT. AND SO I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO THAT. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL MEMBERS NOW. OKAY I SEE. YES. WE'RE AT THE RIGHT NUMBER. OKAY.

SO ANY OBJECTIONS TO GIVING STEP A LITTLE, EXTRA TIME. OKAY, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. YEAH, SO THAT'S JUST SOME EXAMPLES LEFT. SO THIS IS THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE FLOODPLAIN. WE HAVE 14 PARKING SPACES IN THE FLOODPLAIN . IT'S A 5000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ASSEMBLY USE. YOU CAN GET THE NEXT SLIDE, SO YOU CAN COME BACK AND YOU COULD PROPOSED DEMO THAT BUILDING GO BACK ONE THE THERE WE GO. SO THIS THIS WOULD BE ONE OPTION IS TO ESSENTIALLY DO WHAT'S THERE NOW YOU KEEP THE SAME FOOTPRINT, YOU KNOW, DEMO THE EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW ONE. IT WOULD NEED TO BE PROPERLY ELEVATED, DEMONSTRATING NO ADVERSE IMPACT WOULD BE QUITE SIMPLE IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE THERE REALLY ISN'T A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FROM WHAT WAS THERE. IT'S NOT ONE OF THOSE FOUR PROHIBITED USES. AND SO IN THIS SCENARIO, THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING STAFF COULD APPROVE. I THINK THIS IS A COMMON USE FOR THIS TYPE OF THING MIGHT BE A BUILDING IN THE FLOODPLAIN THAT WERE DAMAGED BY FIRE OR FLOODING OR IN SOME OTHER WAY OF IN A STATE OF DISREPAIR WHERE IT NEEDED TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REPLACED. AT THE NEXT SLIDE. THANK YOU. THIS WOULD BE ANOTHER EXAMPLE. IT'S NOT. IT'S STILL A 5000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. IT'S STILL NOT A PROHIBITED USE. PRESUMABLY IT'S ELEVATED. THEY'VE RECONFIGURED THE PARKING, BUT THE NUMBER OF SPACES IN THE FLOODPLAIN IS NOT INCREASED IN THE DEPTH OF PARKING IN THE FLOODPLAIN IS NOT INCREASED. AND SO THIS WOULD ALSO BE SOMETHING STAFF COULD APPROVE IF IT CHECKED ALL THOSE BOXES BY WHAT THEY SUBMIT. SO ARE. PROCESS TO APPROVAL. WE WENT TO SEE O. J C. WE'VE GONE TOO. PLANNING COMMISSION ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, WENT TO SEE O. J C AGAIN THE OTHER WAY. WE WENT TO ZAP LAST WEEK. WE'RE GOING BACK TO ZAP NEXT WEEK, AND NOW WE'RE ALSO BEFORE Y'ALL ASKING FOR A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING COUNCIL. TAKE ACTION ON THIS. NEXT TIME. AND I WOULD MENTION WERE SCHEDULED FOR CITY COUNCIL. SEPTEMBER 1ST. AND SO WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU CHAIR. NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM OUR SPEAKER. MS DOCTOR FRIENDLY IF YOU'LL SELECT STAR SIX WILL HAVE SIX MINUTES STARTS SIX. PROCEED WITH YOUR MARKS.

FRIENDS AND I FEEL PLEASE HOLD FOR A MINUTE.

THAT FEDERAL AND STATE REVIEW PROCEDURES DR PRINCELING PRINCELING. MY APOLOGIES. WE HAD SOME TECHNICAL ISSUES. MY APOLOGIES IF YOU CAN BEGIN AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR STATEMENT WILL BE PROVIDED SIX MINUTES. THEY'RE VERY KIND. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. HELLO EVERYONE. MY NAME IS NATALIE. PRINCELY I'M HERE TO RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU TAKE ALL THE TIME THAT'S NECESSARY. TO ENSURE THAT YOU CAREFULLY DELIBERATE ON THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGE. IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT AND COMPLICATED , IN FACT, A WICKED POLICY PROBLEM, PRIMARILY BECAUSE IT'S AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL POLICY PROBLEM. SPECIFICALLY WHAT IS CONCERNING ABOUT THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGE ITS SECTIONS. A ONE AND TWO, WHICH ALLOWS COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN THE FLOODPLAIN. TO ENCROACH UP TO 5000 SQUARE FEET IN PAID PARKING AND UP TO 1000 SQUARE FEET OF UNINHABITED BUILDINGS. IT ALSO

[00:25:04]

SEEMS TO BE WRITTEN TO GRANT EXCLUSIVE DECISION POWERS TO THE DIRECTOR AS A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL FOR DETERMINING IF THOSE ENCROACHING WITH FLOOD ISSUES. IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. HOWEVER I ASK THAT BEFORE YOU CONSIDER THIS ORDINANCE CHANGE, TAKE ALL THE TIME YOU NEED TO ENSURE THAT ALL FEDERAL AND STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT STANDARDS ARE MET.

ALL FEDERAL AND STATE REVIEW PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE FOLLOWED. PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE CITY WILL BE FULLY COMPLIANT WITH ALL FEMA REQUIREMENT. SO CITIZENS CAN OBTAIN FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE. AND THAT YOU INSTITUTIONALLY DESIGNED GOVERNANCE CHECKS AND BALANCES. SO BAD. DIRECTOR DETERMINATION DOES NOT RISK ESTABLISHING FACTO POLICY MAKING PROCESS WITH A SINGLE POINT OF INFLUENCE. CHANGING THE LDCS THAT APPEARS ON PLANES IS THE WICKED INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROBLEMS WITH STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, TRAVIS COUNTY. AND MANY OTHER ENTITIES. FROM WHAT WAS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN BACKUP. IT IS UNCLEAR THAT THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL ASPECTS HAVE BEEN FULLY CONSIDERED. THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF NICE TO HAVE FAMOUS STANDING. IT'S NOT JUST STATUTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE BUT ALSO BY PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDER. IT WAS ONLY LAST WEEK THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISION BECAME AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. ALL THAT HAS BEEN POSTED IN BACKUP IS LAST WEEK'S ORDINANCE DRAFT AND A SLIDE DECK. IN THIS SLIDE DECK. THERE IS NO MENTION OF CARRYING OUT POLICY ANALYSIS. TO ENSURE THAT CONCERNS HAVE BEEN MET. THE INTERNET FOR MENTAL CONCERNS HAVE BEEN MET. THE SLIDE BACK DOES NOT MENTIONED WHEN FEDERAL OR STATE REVIEW WILL OCCUR OR EVEN RECOGNITION THAT THERE ARE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PARTIES INVOLVED. THERE IS NO MENTION OF SWAT ANALYSIS. HAVING BEEN DONE, MUCH LESS PROVIDING THE RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS. IF ON THE CHANCE THAT THIS ANALYSIS HAS BEEN PERFORMED, AND WHY HASN'T IT BEEN SHARED WITH THE PUBLIC? WHICH HAS THE MOST TO LOSE IN THIS MATTER. IT IS AN ALL INTERESTS TO POSTPONE SO THAT PROPER DELIBERATION CAN BE TAKEN THIS ORDINANCE CHANGE AND ENSURING GAUGE MINT WITH ALL STAKEHOLDERS AND COMPLIANCE. WITH ALL FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS, STATUTES AND LAWS. FURTHERMORE ONCE FINALIZED, OUTREACH MUST BE CARRIED OUT TO ENSURE THAT AUSTINITES KNOW THE LAND CODE CHANGES WILL NOT PUT THEM IN FLOODING DANGER OR PREVENT THEM FROM BUYING AFFORDABLE FLOOD INSURANCE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU WILL NOT HEAR FROM STEP 43 MINUTE REBUTTAL. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY AND STATE AGAIN BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN CONFUSION AT PAST MEETINGS. THE ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE HERE DISCUSSING TONIGHT IS JUST ADDING THE COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION TO CODE.

IT'S NOT CHANGING ANY OTHER FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS. IT'S ALSO NOT CHANGING ANY ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS OR ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. THE BACKUP PACKET INCLUDES A LARGE SECTION OF CODE. IT IS JUST THE BLACK UNDERLINED ITEMS THAT WOULD BE ADDED THEY'RE ALSO NOT REPLACING ANYTHING. WITH THAT, SAID 2019 ORDINANCE THAT WAS APPROVED.

FEMA WAS PART OF THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR THAT, DAVID ACCEPTED THAT WE'VE BEEN REVIEWING UNDER IT. AND THIS NEW ORDINANCE IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH CHANGE TO REQUIRE THEIR REVIEW THAT SAID ALL OF THESE REQUIREMENTS THE TWO FT OF FREE BOARD NO ADVERSE IMPACT. EVEN THE IDEA OF PROHIBITING BUILDINGS OR PARKING FROM THE FLOOD POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE ALL EXCEEDED MINIMUM FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT. SO THANK YOU. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS WILL. BECAUSE WE NEED WE NEED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ONE. CHAIR PLEASE. ALRIGHT MOST ACTORS, SCHNEIDER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SHAY ON THE DOSE.

PUBLIC HEARING AS IN VIRTUAL AND MR ANDERSON. HOW DO YOU WANT TO VOTE ON THIS ONE GONNA CLOSE IT. ALRIGHT UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS. WANTS TO START US OUT. MR SCHNEIDER. HI I THINK THIS QUESTION FOR STAFF. SO I WAS LOOKING THROUGH THE BACKUP AND THERE'S A PIECE THAT'S

[00:30:01]

CALLED OPTIONS FOR MINOR IMPROVEMENTS TO RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. IT SOUNDS LIKE. CAN YOU JUST DESCRIBE? DOES THAT MEAN IF THOSE IF THOSE ITEMS ARE MET, THEN STAFF WILL SIMPLY APPROVE IT. IS THAT THE WAY THAT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK? YES FORGIVE ME. I BELIEVE I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING. I THINK THERE I HAD SOME ADDITIONAL SLIDES IN THE PRESENTATION THAT WENT INTO MORE DETAIL ON SOME OF THE CHANGES FROM THE 2019 ORDINANCE, AND I SIMPLIFIED THAT FOR THE PRESENTATION TO TRY AND KEEP IT DOWN TO THE SIX MINUTES I MOVED THOSE TO THE BACK IN CASE THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT IT SO IF WE WANT TO PULL THAT UP, I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS IT. THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS ORDINANCE AT THAT. YOU KNOW THAT THAT WAS PART OF THE 2019 ORDINANCE. BUT I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS THAT IF YOU WISH. SORRY DID YOU SAY THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS ORDINANCE? THAT'S CORRECT.

CORRECT THAT WAS OKAY. THAT WAS GOING INTO MORE DETAIL ABOUT 20 MONTHS. COMMERCIAL. I'M SORRY. WHAT WAS THAT? SO, SO WE'RE WITH THIS ORDINANCE. WE'RE ONLY FOCUSED ON COMMERCIAL. YES WE'RE THIS IS ONLY ADDING THE COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION. TO THE EXISTING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS. SO JUST A QUESTION , THEN ON COMMERCIAL, SO, WILL YOU REVIEWED THE QUALIFICATIONS? TO BE ABLE TO REDEVELOP. THANKS FOR THAT. THIS AH! VERY MUCH SO ON. YEAH I'M SORRY I HAD I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ASKED AT THE IN THERE. WE CAN HEAR YOU. I GOT A LITTLE I GOT A WEIRD MESSAGE. SO, IF THE IF THE, IF THE. PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT UNDER COMMERCIAL.

MEETS THOSE STANDARDS THAT YOU DISCUSSED BEFORE. IS THAT ALSO SIMPLY A STAFF? APPROVAL OR IS THERE SOME OTHER PROCESS? CORRECT IF ALL FOUR OF THOSE CRITERIA OF ALL OF THOSE CRITERIA ARE MET STAFF HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE NEW BUILDING IN THE FLOODPLAIN. IF NOT ALL OF THE CRITERIA MET, THEY WOULD STILL NEED TO SEEK A VARIANCE, WHICH WOULD COME FROM CITY COUNCIL. OKAY THANK YOU. SO SORRY. I'VE GOT A FEW RANDOM QUESTIONS. SO I REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION ABOUT, WHEN WE WERE ADOPTING THE NEW FEMA MAPS. MHM SORRY. THE NEW FLOOD PLAIN MAPS.

AND I RECALL THAT IT WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT WEIRD REVIEWED OR FEMA HAD REVIEWED AH, SOME HISTORICAL DATA ON RAINFALL AND FLOODING TRENDS SOMETHING LIKE MORE OR LESS SOMETHING LIKE THAT . BUT IT DID NOT INCLUDE ANY PROJECTIONS BASED ON CLIMATE SHIFT. AND. I THINK THAT WAS THAT ALL HAPPENED AFTER HURRICANE HARVEY. BUT I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT HURRICANE HARVEY AND YOU KNOW, BUT THE CHANCE THAT A STORM LIKE THAT MY HEAD OF THE COLORADO RIVER AND SIT OVER AUSTIN. IT JUST MADE ME WORRY ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE AND. PROSPECT OF FLOODING THAT GOES BEYOND WHAT WE'VE SEEN. HISTORICALLY, THAT MAKES THE 500 YEAR FLOODS AND THE 100 YEAR FLOODS. AH! SEEM RELATIVELY MINOR. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS I'M ASSUMING WE HAVE NOT YET.

BUT ARE THERE PLANS TO IMPROVE THE PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE FLOODING. BASED ON SOME INFORMATION ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE IS ALREADY PLANNING FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO DO THAT, OR FEMALE TO DO THAT. IN THE NEAR FUTURE. AND SO THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

AND LIKE YOU SAID, AT LAST, 14 WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE PAST.

THOSE STATISTICS HAD NOT BEEN UPDATED SINCE THE MID NINETIES.

SO WHAT THE ATLAS 14 REPORT DID WAS TAKE ALL OF THE RAIN GAUGE DATA COLLECTED IN THE STATE SINCE THEN, UP TO WHAT WAS THE PRESIDENT AT THAT TIME, AND THEY DIDN'T DELAY IT TO INCLUDE HURRICANE HARVEY LIKE YOU SAID, AND ADDED THAT MATH ADDED THAT GAUGE DATA TO THE MATH AND WE RAN THE NUMBERS SO IT'S NOT A PROJECTION FORWARD OF CLIMATE CHANGE. IT MAY BE SOMEWHAT REFLECTIVE OF ANY CLIMATE CHANGE THAT HAS OCCURRED AS WE LOOK BACK AND ADD THE MORE RECENT PAST TWO DECADES TO THAT PERIOD OF RECORD. BUT IT'S NOT A PROJECTION FORWARD. WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE ANY PLANS AT THIS TIME TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT HOW

[00:35:01]

TO PREDICT WHAT A FLOODPLAIN MAY LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE LOOKING AT THAT THAT'S HARD TO PIN DOWN. BUT. BUT THAT SAID, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE TWO FT FREE BOARD REQUIREMENT. THAT IS WHY WHEN WE DO OUR NEW FLOODPLAIN STUDIES, WHICH ARE IN PROCESS, WE DO THOSE TWO FULLY DEVELOPED CONDITIONS. WHICH DO LOOK AT PROJECTIONS FOR FUTURE LAND USE AND HOW THAT MAY AFFECT THE FLOODPLAIN. BUT THERE'S NOT A CLEAR PLAN THAT I'M AWARE OF IT THIS TIME FOR HOW WE MIGHT BEST GO ABOUT MAPPING FLOODPLAINS BASED ON PROJECTIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE. THANK YOU. OKAY, EMITTERS WITH QUESTIONS WORTH COMMISSIONER COX. YEAH I GOT A FEW QUESTIONS. SO APOLOGIES IF I RUSH YOU, THIS IS FOR STAFF. SO AN EXISTING OWNER OF A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT'S WITHIN THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN.

IF THIS IF THIS DOES NOT PASS, WHAT OPTIONS DO THEY WITH THEIR PROPERTY. RIGHT NOW. PROBABLY VERY LIMITED OPTIONS. THERE'S A COUPLE EXISTING EXCEPTIONS IN THE CODE THAT, DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES MAY BE OF USE. SO LIKE I SAID, OUR OUR CODE THAT SAID LINDA BOWMAN, CODE STARTS FROM A POSITION OF NO, IT SAYS NO NEW BUILDINGS ARE PARKING IN THE FLOODPLAIN, AND THEN IT PROVIDES SOME EXCEPTIONS. AND SO THIS WOULD BE ADDING AN EXCEPTION. YEAH. NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. THANK YOU, SO.

FIT ANOTHER KIND OF MORE TECHNICAL QUESTION BEFORE I GET TO THE FISTS, PHILOSOPHICAL ONE IS I'M USED TO SEEING A ONE FT KIND OF FREE BOARD ABOVE 100 YEAR, FOUR FLOODPLAINS WHEN IT COMES TO DRAINAGE DESIGN, STORMWATER DESIGN REGULATIONS.

WHERE DID THE TWO FT COME? OF IT WAS A COMBINATION. WE'VE ALWAYS WE'VE ALWAYS HAD TWO FT IN THE CITY CODE FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS AREA, BUT NOT OUTSIDE OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS AREA. IT WAS A COMBINATION OF ONE WANTING TO PROVIDE FURTHER PROTECTION AGAINST FURTHER INCREASES IN THE FLOODPLAIN. IT ALSO REDUCES FLOOD INSURANCE RATES. THERE'S ABOUT 140 COMMUNITIES IN TEXAS CURRENTLY THAT HAVE TWO FT OF FREE BOARD AND WE EVEN HAVE SEVERAL ALONG THE COAST THAT HAVE INSTITUTED THREE FT OF FREEPORT. OKAY, COMING MORE COMMON. AND I'M GLAD YOU MENTIONED FLOOD INSURANCE. WE DID READ RECEIVE SOME PUBLIC.

FEEDBACK THAT WERE PEOPLE. PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED THAT THIS COULD JEOPARDIZE THEIR ABILITY OR OTHER AUSTINITES ABILITIES TO GET FLOOD INSURANCE. DOES THIS DO THAT IN ANY WAY? NO WE ARE IN GOOD STANDING WITH THE PIPE. ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS EXCEPTION RN EXCEED ANY STATE OR FEDERAL MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT SO THAT THERE WOULD BE NO ISSUES WITH OUR STANDING IN THE N F I P IF THIS IS PASSED OKAY. AND MY LAST QUESTION, WHICH IS A BIT OF A PHILOSOPHICAL ONE IS WE ALL KNOW THAT LAWS AND REGULATIONS ARE VERY IMPACTFUL IN THE DECISIONS WE MAKE THROUGHOUT OUR LIVES, INCLUDING THE WAY WE DEVELOP OUR CITIES. THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON WHY WE'RE ON THIS COMMISSION AND I STRUGGLE WITH THIS EXCEPTION BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF TRYING TO REDEVELOP PROPERTIES THAT ARE ALREADY AT A HIGH RISK OF FLOODING. TO MAKE THEM LESS DANGEROUS FOR THE INHABITANTS.

EVEN IF THEY STILL EXIST, AND THEY DON'T THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY GOOD IN TERMS OF THEIR LOCATION WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN. BUT THIS TO ME, KIND OF ENCOURAGES THAT REDEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN RATHER THAN IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THIS EXCEPTION. YOU JUST TOLD ME THAT THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD HAVE VERY LITTLE OPTIONS TO DO MUCH AT ALL WITH THEIR PROPERTY. AND IT WOULD END UP DISCOURAGING FUTURE USE OF THAT PROPERTY AS AS AWFUL AS THAT SOUNDS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT HAVE THESE PROPERTIES, ESPECIALLY THE ONES THAT WE'RE WITHIN 100 OR WERE OUTSIDE OF THE 100 YEAR YEARS AGO BUT ARE NOW WITHIN THE 100 YEAR. BECAUSE THESE FLOODPLAINS GREW, IT'S A THAT IS INCREDIBLY UNFORTUNATE FOR THEM, BUT BUT IT DOESN'T ESCAPE THE FACT THAT WITH THIS CARVE OUT WE'RE ACTUALLY ENCOURAGING THE REDEVELOPMENT AND CONTINUED USE OF PROPERTIES WITHIN A FLOODPLAIN, WHERE WE WOULD PREFER THOSE PROPERTIES NOT EXIST, AND I'M JUST CURIOUS. WHAT'S WHAT YOU THINK OF THAT AND WHY YOU THINK WE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING REDEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN? YEAH SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD POINT, AND THAT THAT IS OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING THAT WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME THINKING ABOUT. THIS. THIS EXCEPTION DOESN'T REMOVE ANY OF OUR DEPARTMENT'S COMMITMENT TO FLOOD MITIGATION. IN THE SAME WAY THE RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION DID NOT. YOU KNOW, WE THERE ARE PLACES. THERE ARE BUILDINGS IN THE FLOODPLAIN THAT EVEN IF THEY WERE PROPERLY ELEVATED IT WOULD STILL BE A SITUATION THAT WE FELT IT WAS TOO DANGEROUS AND WOULD LOOK AT OPTIONS TO REDUCE THAT RISK, WHETHER THROUGH BY ON OR SOMETHING ELSE, AND THAT'S TRUE FOR COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL I

[00:40:04]

THINK I DON'T HAVE STRONG CONCERNS ABOUT THIS ENCOURAGING LOTS OF INVESTMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN. AND AS MUCH AS IT IS FAIRLY RESTRICTIVE. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO INCREASE PARKING.

YOU'RE CHANGING SOME CERTAIN USES. AND SO I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO FIND TOO MANY PROPERTY OWNERS INTERESTED IN DEMOLISHING AN EXISTING BUILDING AND REPLACING IT WITH SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE ANY LARGER. EXCEPT IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THEY MAY HAVE TO REPLACE THAT BUILDING. SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT NOT TO PICK ON ANYBODY. BUT JUST SHOW CREEK SALOON COMES TO MIND BECAUSE IT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN THERE. OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A HIGH FLOOD RISK. OUR DEPARTMENT CONTINUES TO LOOK AT. OPTIONS TO REDUCE FLOODING ON THAT WHOLE STRETCH. BUT. IF THEY WERE TO SUFFER. A FIRE IN THAT BUILDING WERE SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED UNDER CURRENT CODE. THERE WOULD NOT, THERE WOULD NOT BE A SINGLE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT. THE OWNER COULD DO THAT STAFF WOULD BE ABLE TO APPROVE THEY COULD COME TO STAFF AND THEY COULD SAY WE'RE GOING TO ELEVATE IT. TWO FT. ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN. WE'VE GOT OUR ENGINEER PROVING THIS ISN'T MAKING FLOODING WORSE FOR ANYBODY ELSE. WE HAVE NOT INCREASED THE OCCUPANCY. AND STEP STILL WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO APPROVE IT. THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL AND SEEK THE VARIANTS. STAT IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE STAFF MAY RECOMMEND THE VARIANCE TO COUNSEL, BUT THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT SEVERAL MONTH PROCESS OF GETTING ON THE AGENDA. INVESTING THE MONEY AND PLANS AND APPLICATIONS WITHOUT ANY CERTAINTY. THAT THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY BE APPROVED. AND SO THIS PROVIDES AN OPTION FOR DAMAGED BUILDINGS OR BUILDINGS THAT MAYBE NEED TO BE REPLACED FOR SOME OTHER REASON, BECAUSE THEY'RE INTO THAT. THANK YOU. WE'RE OUT OF TIME ON THAT QUESTION. LET'S GO AND MOVE TO ANOTHER COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER MUSHTALER YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. SORRY I'M SORRY I WAS LATE. I HAD SENTENCE STAFF QUESTIONS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY GOT ANSWERED DURING THE PRESENTATION, SO I APOLOGIZE IF THEY ALREADY GOT ANSWERED, AND IF NOT, OR EITHER WAY, WE COULD GO QUICKLY OR WE COULD ADDRESS THEM IF THEY DIDN'T MAKE IT TO YOU GUYS AND I THINK THEY WERE ANSWERED. I ALSO PROVIDED ANDREW WITH SOME WRITTEN RESPONSES. OKAY, YOU SHOULD HAVE IN YOUR EMAIL, OKAY? SORRY I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK IN IT. I WAS CURIOUS. WHAT THE, IN THE PROPOSAL. IT SAID, IF THESE CRITERIA WERE FIT, AND WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO A SAFE ACCESS, AND I JUST DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THAT WAS, I APOLOGIZE. SAFE ACCESS IS THE REQUIREMENT IN THE CODE THAT YOU HAVE A DIRECT CONNECTION FROM A BUILDING. TO A POINT OF RIGHT OF WAY WHERE YOU'RE AT LEAST ONE FT. ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN FOR THE DURATION OF THAT CONNECTION.

SOME MEANING. YOU'RE IN A BUILDING THE BUILDINGS PROPERLY ELEVATED BY THE FLOODPLAIN. CAN YOU EVACUATE THAT BUILDING? TO A POINT OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WHERE YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO INTER FLOODWATER, AND THAT INCLUDES THE POINT OF RIGHT OF WHAT YOU'RE GETTING, TOO. SO IF THE STREET NEXT TO YOUR PROPERTY IS ALSO IN THE FLOODPLAIN IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO SATISFY THAT REQUIREMENT. THAT WOULD BE THE REASON WHY, LIKE IN THE SHELTER, EXPLAINED EXAMPLE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO COUNCIL NO MATTER WHAT, SO WHAT THIS EXCEPTION WOULD DO IS SAYS IF YOU CAN MEET ALL THESE OTHER CRITERIA DEMONSTRATING YOU'RE MAKING THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS SAFER THAN WHAT WAS THERE PREVIOUSLY. WE'RE GOING TO WAIVE THE SAFE ACCESS REQUIREMENT THAT YOU OTHERWISE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PERIOD IS THAT TYPICAL FOR PLANNING THAT SEEMS BOTHERSOME TO ME. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OTHER COMMUNITY THAT HAS A SAFE ACCESS REQUIREMENT IN THEIR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORNAMENTS. TO BE HONEST, AND IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE BELIEVE IN AND HOLD NEW DEVELOPMENT, TOO. SO GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT ABSOLUTELY. IT'S THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT THAT GETS CAUGHT OUT WITH NO OPTIONS. OKAY? AND THEN, I'M NOT SURE THIS MADE IT IN MY QUESTIONS, BUT I WANTED TO ASK THIS IS BEING EXTENDED. NOW I'M KIND OF TAGGING ON COMMISSIONER COXES, LINE OF QUESTION BECAUSE THIS IS BEING EXTENDED. INTO LIKE AUSTIN. FLOODPLAIN AND. LIKE TRAVIS. SEE TJ JURISDICTION THAT WOULD BE NEW FOR THIS CORRECT THAT CHANGE WAS PART OF THE 2019 OF ORDER ATLAS 14 ORDINANCE. IT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. THIS ORDINANCE IS JUST ADDING THE COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION. BUT THAT COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION WOULD ALSO BE EXTENDING INTO THOSE AREAS. IT WOULD APPLY TO THE ENTIRETY OF AUSTIN ZONING JURISDICTION. OKAY LIKE TRAVIS FLOODPLAIN, JUST TO LIKE PORTION. THAT'S THAT'S UNDER YOUR JURISDICTION. UNDERSTAND? AND JUST TO RECAP ONE MORE TIME. THE WHAT WE'RE DOING, YOU SAID EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR INSURANCE FOR HOMEOWNERS. FOR THOSE CONCERNS THAT COMMISSIONER COX BROUGHT UP I WANT TO MAKE

[00:45:01]

SURE THAT THAT'S VERY CLEAR. UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECT ALL OF THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE FOR THIS REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION EXCEED THE MINIMUM FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. JUST REAL QUICK.

APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY VARIANCES GO TO CITY COUNCIL A YEAR. YEAH, SIX. LESS THAN 10. AND DO YOU HAVE ANY SORT OF FEELING FOR HOW MANY NEVER MAKE IT TO COUNSEL BECAUSE IT'S JUST TOO BURDENSOME. AND HOW MANY DO YOU THINK YOU WILL? SEE IN A YEAR ADMINISTRATIVELY. FOR THIS PARTICULAR EXCEPTION, I FRANKLY DON'T EXPECT WE'LL SEE VERY MANY AT ALL. I MEAN, SIX OR FEWER WOULD BE MY GUESS. I THINK IT'S A PRETTY LIMITED. I THINK THE REQUIREMENTS LIMITED SUFFICIENTLY. I MEAN, THIS ISN'T AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO GO TEAR DOWN A GAS STATION AND BUILD A HIGH RISE OFFICE BUILDING. IT'S A I THINK THERE'D BE A LIMITED NUMBER OF PEOPLE INTERESTED IN USING THIS AND WHAT ABOUT CHANGE OF USES? CHANGE OF USE? HAVE ANYTHING? AT ALL RELATED TO THIS OR CHANGE OF USE EITHER RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL OR OR EITHER WAY, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE CHANGE OF USE PROCESS. WE DO HAVE LANGUAGE IN OUR CODE THAT SPEAKS TO EXISTING NON CONFORMING USES. SURF A BUILDING DOESN'T MEET CURRENT FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS. YOU'RE PROHIBITED FROM CHANGING THE USE TO A USE THAT INCREASES THE NONCONFORMITY. AND SO THAT WOULD BE. THAT WOULD BE LIKE, SAY, YOU HAD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND YOU WANTED TO MAKE TURN IT INTO A DUPLEX THAT YOU'RE ADDING A DWELLING UNIT. THAT CHANGE OF USE INCREASES THE NONCONFORMITY. BECAUSE OF THE BUILDING DOESN'T MEAN CURRENTLY HOME TO A LAW OFFICE. YOU COULD MEET PARKING OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN IS FINE. YEAH, I THINK IN THAT INSTANCE WE WOULD SAY THAT CHANGE OF USE DID NOT INCREASE THE NONCONFORMITY. IT WOULD HONESTLY BE A BIT PREFERRED BECAUSE WE'RE TAKING A DWELLING AND TURN IT INTO SOMETHING THAT WILL STILL OCCUPIED IS NOT SOMETHING PEOPLE ARE RELYING ON FOR HOUSING OR NOT OCCUPIED 24 7. BUT DOES THAT EVEN GO THROUGH THE FLOODPLAIN EXEMPTION THEN OR IS THAT JUST IT'S IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT EXACTLY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS WERE TRIGGERED. I THINK, IN THE SCENARIO OF A RESIDENTIAL HOME TO COMMERCIAL WE DO SEE THOSE BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO COME THROUGH AS OTHER A SITE PLAN OR A SITE PLAN EXEMPTION. ALRIGHT THAT WAS FOUR. WE HAVE FOUR MORE SPOTS IF WE NEED THEM ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS ASYLUM? I DO JUST A FEW POINTS OR QUESTIONS, THE FIRST BEING, DO YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF FEEL FOR A NUMBER OF STRUCTURES THAT MAYBE IN THIS AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THROUGHOUT THE CITY? COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THAT WOULD QUALIFY FOR THIS POTENTIALLY NUMBER AND THAT NUMBER AND I THINK WE CAME UP WITH WITH SOMETHING UNDER 200, OKAY? OKAY IN THE HUNDREDS SOUNDS PROBLEM. AND THEN COULD YOU JUST GO BACK OVER? I HEARD. THE SPEAKER. JUST TALK ABOUT THE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PROCESS. COULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT ONE MORE TIME? BECAUSE I HEARD THAT THERE WAS PRETTY ROBUST COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS AND THEN ALSO CONFIRMED DID THIS KIND. ALSO WAS THIS A COUNCIL DIRECTIVE? TWO OKAY, SO THERE'S TWO THINGS YOU COULD ANSWER. SO YES, WITH THE ORIGINAL ATLAS 14 ORDINANCE , THERE WAS A HUGE AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT. OVER 100 PUBLIC MEETINGS OF OVER 2700 RESIDENTS, PROPERTY OWNERS MAILED INFORMATIONAL POSTCARDS ABOUT IT. MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF OUTREACH TO ALL OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS. FOR THIS AND I ANTICIPATING YOUR QUESTIONS, SO I'VE MADE NOTES TO MYSELF BUT FOR THIS SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION ORDINANCE. THIS WAS THAT THE DIRECTIVE OF COUNCIL IT WAS SOMETHING THAT RICA THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF AUSTIN HAD BROUGHT UP WITH COUNSEL AT THAT PUBLIC HEARING. AND COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO COME UP WITH IT. WE'VE HAD STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS WITH THOSE RELATIVE GROUPS. RICA A C E, A. A DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE SOCIETY OF HISPANIC PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, GABA. WE HAD MEETINGS WITH ALL OF THEM TO PRESENT THIS AND GET THEIR FEEDBACK ON IT.

OKAY? SO DID YOU HAVE ANY JUST GENERAL. PUBLIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR INPUT. WHAT WOULD THAT HAVE CONSISTED OF? THAT? SOUNDS LIKE MORE PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. YEAH, IT WAS WE DID NOT DO ANY MAIL OUTS DIRECTLY TO LIKE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES THEMSELVES . IT WAS IT WAS STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT WITH THE PROFESSIONAL GROUPS, OKAY? ALRIGHT, THERE'S THAT'S ALL THE

[00:50:03]

QUESTIONS I HAVE. MR COX ONE SAY , LET'S MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE NOT ASKED QUESTIONS. SO BEFORE WE CIRCLE BACK AROUND, I'LL GIVE YOU ONE MORE. ANOTHER CHANCE HERE. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVEN'T ASKED QUESTION YET. COMMISSIONER AZHA. JUST WAIT HERE FOR A SECOND BECAUSE OF EMERGENCY. I'M NOT SURE IF SOME OF THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, BUT I WAS HOPING CAN STAFF THERE WAS HOW HOW THIS INTERSECTS WITH THEIR FINAL REPORT FROM THE FLOOD MITIGATION TASK FORCE. AND HAVE SOME OF THAT WORK WAS INCLUDED IN THIS WORK. I'M SORRY. COULD YOU REPEAT THAT ONE MORE TIME? SURE CAN YOU PLEASE HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW Y'ALL LOOKED AT THE WORK OF THE FLOOD MITIGATION PASSPORTS THAT HAD MADE THE FINAL REPORT IF YOU CAN TELL US HOW SOME OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE WORK THAT THEY DID INTERSECTS WITH THIS OR IF YOU LOOKED AT THAT RELATION TO THIS ONE. YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY, A LOT OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO OUR MITIGATION PROGRAMS AND HOW WE LOOK AT PRIORITIZING AND WHAT TYPES OF MITIGATION WE DO TO TRY AND REDUCE FLOOD RISK. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN POINT TO A DIRECT CORRELATION BETWEEN THE FLOODPLAIN MITIGATION TASK FORCE REPORT AND THE SPECIFICS OF THE COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION. THAT WAS LARGELY SOMETHING THAT CAME FROM THE COUNCIL DIRECTIVE AND THE REQUEST FROM RICA, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY INFORMS OUR THINKING WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE CRITERIA THAT WE NEEDED TO INCLUDE IN THIS THINGS LIKE NOT INCREASING SQUARE FOOTAGE OR NOT INCREASING PARKING IN THE FLOODPLAIN. I APPRECIATE THAT ANOTHER FOLLOW UP HAD WAS THE GOODS AND THE JOINT COMMITTEE. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN PRESENT THIS. I THINK WE ALL HAD A REALLY ROBUST CONVERSATION. ONE THING THAT WE HAD HOPED THAT THE DIAMOND I WAS WONDERING IF, YOUR CAN SORT OF LET US KNOW. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT BACK BUT HAVING SORT OF A BIOTIC ASSESSMENT ON HOW TO REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION IS BEING USED. YOU COULD COME BACK IN A YEAR SOMETHING GOES HOW IT HAS BEEN USED WATER. SO WE CAN CRACE BIT OF WHERE WE ARE TO COURSE, CORRECT. I THINK FOLKS UNDERSTOOD THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS WORK. BUT THERE WAS SOME CONCERN. IF THERE WERE SOME UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT WE WILL NOT LOOKING. I WAS WONDERING IF THERE IS A PROCESS WHERE YOU DO. CIRCLE BACK IN A YEAR OR AT A TIME WHEN THERE IS A WAY FOR YOU TO REPORT BACK.

HOW THE ORDINANCES I THOUGHT SOME, CERTAINLY, YOU CUT DOWN A COUPLE OF TIMES THERE. I UNDERSTAND. I FOLLOWED THE QUESTION BECAUSE I REMEMBER DISCUSSING IT AT C O. J C. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A DESIRE TO HAVE YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION OR IF YOU JUST WANT ME TO ANSWER IT, OKAY? BUT, YEAH, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO COME BACK IN A YEAR OR WHATEVER TIMELINE SEEMS APPROPRIATE. OBVIOUSLY COLLECTING STATS ON HOW THIS IS BEING USED IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO THROUGH THE PERMITTING DATABASES THAT THE CITY HAS, WE MAY NEED TO IMPLEMENT A FEW CHANGES FROM AN IT PERSPECTIVE TO MAKE IT EASIER TO CAPTURE THAT DATA, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE ARE CAPABLE OF, AND WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO. AND WE HAVE BEEN DOING WITH THE RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION IS TRACKING HOW THAT IS GETTING USED AND WHAT EFFECT WE'RE SEEING FROM IT ALREADY. I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK JUST HAVING THAT INFORMATION IN THE FUTURE WILL HELP DISPEL SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT FOLKS SANDWICH, I THINK ARE REAL CONCERNS. BUT JUST HAVING THAT DATA AND INFORMATION IN THE FUTURE, IT CAN HELP US REALLY UNDERSTAND HOW THE ORDINANCES WORKING WHETHER WE NEED TO MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS AS WE GO ALONG. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU, JERRY. JUST A COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL. WE HAVE COMMISSIONER SHANE HERE AS A QUESTION CIVIL AND PROCEED WITH THAT FIRST ONWARD. JUST KIND OF CLARIFY, SO THIS THIS COULD PROBABLY PROVISIONS. IS PRETTY MUCH JUST DEALING WITH LANDLOCKED. I MEAN, LORD PROPERTIES ARE LOCKED, SURROUNDED BY FLOOD PLAIN. IS THAT RIGHT? YES CORRECT. IT WOULD ONLY BE APPLICABLE TO PRETTY MUCH AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE FLOODPLAIN THAT'S SURROUNDED BY FLOOD PLAIN, SO IF THEY WERE ABLE TO RECONFIGURE THE SITE, LET'S SAY A JUSTICE SIDEWALK AND GET SOME TYPE OF SAFE ACCESS.

TRUE, SAFE ACCESS, RIGHT? THEN. TECHNICALLY NONE OF THIS I MEAN, IT WOULD IT WOULD IT WOULD BE OUT OF THIS EXCEPTION RULE AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THEN THEY CAN AND PARKING. THEY COULD GET MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE. IS THAT CORRECT? SO BASICALLY, IT'S ALL ABOUT THAT SAFE ONCE YOU GET SAFE ACCESS IT. IT OPENS UP THE OPPORTUNITY. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT I MEAN, SO CERTAINLY THERE'S NOT THE WAY THE CODE IS STRUCTURED. THERE'S NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT IF THEY COULD RELOCATE OUTSIDE THE FLOODPLAIN THAT THEY WOULD BE COMPELLED TO BUT THE OPTIONS THAT WOULD OPEN UP IF YOU COULD GET SAFE ACCESS. THERE'S PERHAPS SOME OTHER AVENUES THAT ARE EXISTING IN CODE. I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT

[00:55:03]

VARIANCES IN THE CONTEXT OF COUNCIL. THERE IS A DIRECTOR APPROVED VARIANTS IN THE CODE THAT EXISTS ALREADY TODAY ONE OF THE SEVEN CRITERIA FOR IT. IS SAFE ACCESS AND SO THAT IF YOU COULD ACHIEVE SAFE ACCESS, OR IF YOU COULD LOCATE THE BUILDING OUTSIDE THE FLOOD POINT, IT DOES OPEN UP. YOU KNOW OPPORTUNITIES FOR A LARGER BUILDING OR ADDITIONAL PARKING AND ALL OF THAT STUFF, SO I THINK IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WE WOULD SEE THAT PATH FOLLOWED. GOD JUST REALLY WOULD JUST BE USED BY THE PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE. NO OTHER CHOICES.

GOTCHA. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S MY QUESTION. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO, I AM GOING TO GIVE THE LAST QUESTION TO COMMISSIONER COX UNLESS SOMEONE THAT HASN'T ASKED QUESTION NEEDS TO ALRIGHT. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER HAND. SO, MR COX, YOU GOT THE LAST SPOT. OH, BOY UNDER PRESSURE. IT BETTER BE A GOOD QUESTION. SOME OF THE LINE OF QUESTIONING HAS GOT ME THINKING. SO IF STAFF CAN JUST CONFIRM THAT THIS CAN'T THIS PROVISION CAN'T BE USED OR PROPERTY THAT HAS FLOODPLAIN AND DOESN'T HAVE FLOOD PLAIN IF THEY JUST WANT TO BUILD. IF THEY WANT TO REDEVELOP IT TO ENCROACH INTO THE FLOODPLAIN. JUST USING THAT EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT EXISTS WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN HAS MORE FLEXIBILITY TO REDEVELOP AND ENCROACH PART OF THEIR NEW BUILDING INTO THE FLOODPLAIN. IS THAT A FIRST OF ALL, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? AND SECOND? IS THAT AN OPTION UNDER THIS CAR BACK? I THINK I FOLLOWED THE QUESTION OF SO IN THEORY, YES, IF YOU IT, YEAH. SO FOR REAL QUICK, SO WHAT I THINK I HEARD IS THE DEVELOPER IF THEY HAVE A CERTAIN YOU HAVE A CERTAIN FOOTPRINT COULD YOU BUILD MORE FOOTPRINT INTO THE FLOODPLAIN? IS PART OF THIS. UNDER THIS EXEMPTION. NO NO, NO.

LET ME LET ME LET ME CLARIFY THE QUESTION. SO IF THERE'S IF THERE'S A PROPERTY THAT HALF THE PROPERTY IS COVERED BY FLOOD PLAIN AND THERE'S AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE IN THE FLOODPLAIN ON THIS PROPERTY. THEY WANT TO DEMOLISH THAT PROPERTY THAT'S WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN. OUR STRUCTURE WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN BUILD A MUCH LARGER STRUCTURE. AND HAVE THAT LARGER STRUCTURE ENCROACHED WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN, BUT NOT EXCEED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT ALREADY EXISTED IN THE FLOODPLAIN. THE REQUIREMENT IS NOT INCREASED TOTAL. SQUIRT THE NEW BUILDING CANNOT HAVE MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN THE EXISTING BUILDING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SQUARE FOOTAGE WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN.

IT'S ABOUT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING ITSELF. SO OKAY, GOOD.

YEAH THAT'S NOT CLEAR IN THE CODE PROVISIONS, SO HOPEFULLY THAT'S THE WAY IT'S INTERPRETED. AND THEN MY SECOND LAST QUESTION IS, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY SITUATION WHERE IT THE CODE, THE CODE LANGUAGE SAYS LEGALLY CONSTRUCTED BUT IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY SAY ANYTHING ABOUT OCCUPIED. AND SO I'M CURIOUS IF THERE ARE ANY UNOCCUPIED, POSSIBLY DERELICT STRUCTURES THAT ARE WITHIN EXISTING FLOODPLAIN. THAT ARE NOW OPEN TO REDEVELOPMENT AND OCCUPANCY USING THIS CAR ABOUT YEAH, SO AGAIN ELSEWHERE IN THE CODE. WE HAVE LANGUAGE ABOUT EXISTING NON CONFORMING BUILDINGS, AND THAT THAT AREN'T THAT SPEAKS TO CHANGE OF USE THING THAT WE DISCUSSED EARLIER. SO IF IT'S UNOCCUPIED GOING TO OCCUPIED USE WOULD POTENTIALLY BE AN INCREASE IN NONCONFORMITY. ALSO THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THE CODE FOR USE IS DISCONTINUED FOR A BELIEVE IT'S MORE THAN 90 DAYS. I'D HAVE TO CHECK BUT IF THEY USE HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED FOR MORE THAN 90 DAYS THAT USES NO LONGER ESTABLISHED IN REGARDS TO EXISTING NON CONFORMING BUILDINGS IN THE FLOODPLAIN, SO AN ABANDONED BUILDING WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE. OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. SO THAT FINISHES UP THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE. NOTION FROM COMMISSIONER. OKAY. COME MISSIONER SHAPE. MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, SECOND SET. YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? MR SENT ? SURE. I'LL JUST SAY IT REAL QUICK. BUT I MEAN THIS. THIS IS JUST A SMALL PIECE OF FOLLOW UP FROM BEFORE I THOUGHT IT HAD INCLUDED ALL THE RESIDENTIAL ALL THAT STUFF BEFORE, AS WELL. BUT IT'S ACTUALLY JUST A SMALL PIECE SMALL TWEAK. AND I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW ALL THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE. I MEAN, WE'RE ACTUALLY MAKING IT. WE'RE NOT MAKING IT. WORSE THAN WHAT IT IS, BUT IT ACTUALLY GIVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE IT SAFER FOR REDEVELOPMENT. SO ANY NEW ROUTE OF REDEVELOPMENT GOING TO BE TWO FT. ABOVE THE FREE BOARD? SO IT'S GOING TO BE BETTER THAN WHAT IT IS, AND IT WILL ALLOW PRESERVATION OF LIKE USES LIKE TO SHOW CREEK SALOON. I MEAN, AT LEAST THEY STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE THERE. TWO FT . ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN, THOUGH, YOU KNOW, AND THEN THAT WE CAN STILL MAINTAIN, YOU KNOW, COMMUNITIES AND STUFF LIKE THAT. BUT ANYWAY, SO I'M GONNA SUPPORY MEMBERS SPEAKING AGAINST THIS MOTION THIS EVENING?

[01:00:02]

COMMISSIONER MUSHTALER. AM I. I'M STILL CONCERNED THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT EXISTING STRUCTURES NEED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS. IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, IF THERE IS SUCH A STRUCTURE THAT NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, THEN THEY COULD GO BEFORE COUNCIL. TO GET A VARIANCE AND GO THROUGH A LITTLE BIT MORE EXTENSIVE PROCESS TO DO THAT, IF WE DON'T HAVE THIS PIECE AND PLACE SO SOMEBODY ELSE WILL HAVE TO CORRECT ME IF THAT UNDERSTANDING WAS WAS NOT CORRECT IF THEY'RE JUST SUNK, AND THEY DON'T HAVE A MECHANISM TO MAKE. SITE IMPROVEMENTS JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. STAFF PLEASE CLARIFY JUST SUPER CLEAR YOU CAN IT WOULD GO TO COUNCIL FOR A VARIANCE AS OPPOSED TO STAFF APPROVAL. CORRECT. THIS SCENARIO THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING. IF THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT PASSED, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL OF ULTIMATELY, THAT MAY BE SUCCESSFUL. IT MAY BE SOMETHING STAFF WOULD SUPPORT.

BUT IT DOES ADD SEVERAL MONTHS TO THE PERMITTING PROCESS, AND IT ADDS A FINANCIAL UNCERTAINTY AND THAT YOU ARE INVESTING MONEY AND POTENTIALLY HAVING TO GET BANKS TO INVEST MONEY. IN SOMETHING THAT IS NOT A GUARANTEED OUTCOME, AND WE HAVE SEEN BUILDINGS NOT GET REPAIRED AS A RESULT OF THAT. THANK YOU.

I THINK THE COMMISSIONER JUST WANTED TO KNOW THERE IS AN OUTLET. THERE IS A MEANS TO GET THERE. IT JUST IT TAKES LONGER AND MORE MONEY. OKAY, THANK YOU. I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL. OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF ENTICING DEVELOPMENT AND BUSINESS IN THESE AREAS WHERE POTENTIALLY DOESN'T BELONG. AND I'D RATHER LET THESE COME AND COME BEFORE COUNCIL AND GO THROUGH A PROCESS BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY, WE'RE KIND OF CREATING A SHORTCUT IF YOU MEET THESE CRITERIA. THEN. YOU GET A PASS AND YOU GO THROUGH AND THE ONLY PERSON THAT WOULD BE LOOKING OVER THAT IS WHOEVER IS SERVING AS THE DIRECTOR AT THE TIME. AND SO I DON'T FEEL LIKE THAT'S SAFE ENOUGH OR HAS ENOUGH OVERSIGHT FOR AREAS THAT ARE STILL IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND PUT I WANT TO BE CAREFUL TO SAY APPRECIATE. THE LENGTH SAID THAT STAFF HAS GONE THROUGH TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT THEY'RE DEVISING IS EXCEEDING. THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT, BUT I THINK WITHOUT HAVING THE FEMA MAPS IN PLACE AND THESE CURRENT STUDIES, I THINK WE'VE KIND OF GOT THIS PROCESS BACKWARDS. SO UNTIL WE HAVE THAT STUFF IN PLACE I WOULD RATHER HAVE THEM COME THROUGH AND HAVE MORE PEOPLE LOOKING AT IT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS FOR SAFETY.

COMMISSIONERS SPEAK IN FAVOR. I'LL SAY A FEW WORDS. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION FOR A FEW REASONS THAT COUNCIL ASKED FOR US. YOU KNOW AS FOR THIS TO HAPPEN, AND I THINK STAFF HAVE PUT ENOUGH BELT AND SUSPENDERS ON THIS I THINK TOO.

COMMISSIONER MUSHTALER IS COMMENT ABOUT THE STUDIES. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, TALKING ABOUT KIND OF THAT FUTURE LOOK MM BOY , THAT IS, I THINK ALL AREAS OF KIND OF IN THE ENERGY INDUSTRY THAT KIND OF CRYSTAL BALL OF WHAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS GOING TO PRESENT IN THE FUTURE. IT'S A REALLY TOUGH ONE TO FIGURE OUT AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU MODEL THAT IT'S LIKE THAT YOU CAN'T DEPEND ON THE PAST TO MODEL THE FUTURE. THAT'S WHAT I'VE HEARD.

SO I THINK IT WOULD BE PRETTY DIFFICULT TO COME UP WITH A RELIABLE MODEL ON WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE IN OUR FUTURE. BUT WITH THAT, I THINK I APPRECIATE THE WORK STAFF. THE OUTREACH. I WISH IT WOULD HAVE INCLUDED A LITTLE MORE OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR. THAT I THINK COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER. BUT I THINK WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A GOOD PRODUCT AND I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT. WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST THIS ITEM? ALRIGHT ANY LESS. ANYBODY WANTS ANYTHING IN FAVOR? BUSTER HEMPEL. YES I DIDN'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE WE I ASKED A LOT DURING CODES AND ORDINANCES. BUT I'M A, A LIGHT SUPPORTER OF THIS, I'M SUPPORTING IT BECAUSE STAFF DID A GREAT JOB IN FOLLOWING COUNCILS DIRECTION BASED ON WHAT THEY WANTED TO SEE HAPPEN. BUT I JUST WANT TO HAVE THIS SAID, BECAUSE IT DIDN'T COME RIGHT THROUGH WHEN IT LOOKED, IT SAID SEE YOU KNOW HOW TO CONSENT VOTE ON THIS. IT WAS A CONSENT, BUT I JUST WORRY THAT WE'RE WE'RE REPLACING. BUILDING STRUCTURES IN THE FLOODPLAIN, WHICH I UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE DOING THAT. BUT WE'RE JUST CONTINUING TO AGGREGATE. THE FLOODING ISSUES DOWN THE STREAM BY DOING SO, INSTEAD OF REMOVING THOSE STRUCTURES AND LETTING THE

[01:05:05]

FLOODING DO WHAT IS GOING TO DO WITH THE INCREASED GOING FROM 105 100. YOU'RE A FLOODPLAIN, ST WANTED TO SAY THAT THIS PRACTICE OF CONTINUING TO BUILD IN THE FLOODPLAIN. AGENCIES CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY ACROSS THE WORLD ARE REMOVING STRUCTURES, SO WE JUST WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING IN THE FLOODPLAIN AS FAR AS DEVELOPMENTALLY. THANK YOU.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE. LET'S START WITH THE FOCUS ON THE DIETS THOSE IN FAVOR. AND. THERE'S A AGAINST ON THE DIET WHEN WE GO AND TAKE CARE OF THIS UP HERE, SO WE HAVE ALRIGHT, AND THERE'S ON THE SCREEN IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION. AND THEN THOSE AGAINST THE MOTION. OKAY? AND I THINK THAT'S IT. THAT'S A TOTAL OF 10. CORRECT OKAY, SO JUST THROUGH THAT MOTION PASSES 8 TO 2 WITH COMMISSIONERS, MOOSE CHILD ER AND COMMISSIONERS AND COMMISSIONER COX VOTING AGAINST THE ITEM. OKAY? ALL RIGHT, SO

[B13. Code Amendment: Commercial Parkland Dedication]

OUR NEXT ISLAND BACK TO AGENDA HERE. M B 13. IT IS THE CUT AMENDMENT ON COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATIONS, SO THE SAME FORMAT WILL START WITH STAFF. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ONE? COMMISSION LIAISON AND RIVERA. NO, WE DO NOT. SO WE'LL GO STRAIGHT INTO THE Q AND A, I GUESS WE NEED A CLOUDS OF PUBLIC AREA. WE DON'T HAVE SPEAKERS. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, SO LET'S START WITH STAFF PRESENTATION. AND. IT'S SIX MINUTES. BUT PLEASE DO YOU THINK WE CAN DO IT AND THEN OR WE NEED A LITTLE MORE TIME. OKAY? GOOD EVENING. COMMISSIONERS BELIEVE WE CAN DO IT. SIX MINUTES. THEY GAVE ME 30 SECONDS, SO THEY HAVE THE REMAINDER. AND RANDY SCOTT WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE ROBIN HAYMAN. PAUL BOOKS AND TOM RAWLINSON, MY TEAM. THEY WILL WALK YOU THROUGH THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE TONIGHT.

AND FIRST I'D LIKE TO GO OVER THE ACTIONS TAKEN TO DATE THAT BROUGHT US HERE TONIGHT. THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. ON FEBRUARY 25TH 2020 PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD. DIRECT STAFF TO PRODUCE A COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE AND THEN ON MARCH 28TH 2022. THEY REAFFIRMED THAT DIRECTION, GIVING PARKS.

RECREATION DEPARTMENT. THE RECOMMENDATION TO DEVELOP COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE AND THEN ON APRIL 7TH 2022 COUNCIL PASSED A RESOLUTION THAT DIRECTED CITY STAFF TO REQUIRE PARKLAND DEDICATION FOR OUR OFFICE, INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. NOW I'D LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO ROBIN HEYMAN'S SHE'LL WALK YOU THROUGH AN OVERVIEW. THE POSED ORDINANCE. THANK YOU. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE, OR PLD, HAS DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS HUNDREDS OF ACRES OF NEW PARKLAND, SUBSTANTIALLY ADVANCING THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN PROMOTING HEALTH SAFETY AND WELL GENERAL WELFARE TO AUSTENITE. THE NEED FOR CRITICAL PARK INFRASTRUCTURE IS WELL ESTABLISHED IN NUMERAL, NUMEROUS CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS AND COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS, INCLUDING ONE ESTABLISHING THAT ALL AUSTINITES BE WITHIN FIVE OR 10 MINUTE WALK OF A PARK. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE MUST BE LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE. AND WITH AN ESTABLISHED ESSENTIAL NEXUS, WHICH IS IN WHICH IS THE DIRECT IMPACT OF A POPULATION ON CITY SERVICES. IN ACCORDANCE WITH US CASE LAW, A CITY MAIN ACT REASONABLE REGULATIONS TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE GENERAL WELFARE OF ITS PEOPLE AND PROVIDING ESSENTIAL PARK SERVICES HAS LONG BEEN CONSIDERED TO ACHIEVE THOSE GOALS. AN ESSENTIAL NEXUS BETWEEN COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS AND PARK USE IS ESTABLISHED, IN PART BY RECOGNIZING THE MEASURABLE SPIKE IN PARK USAGE BEFORE AND AFTER WORK. AS WOULD BE SHOWN ON THE GRAPH THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THIS PRESENTATION, BUT IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE IT'S LOADING. IT SHOWS THE RONIN BUTLER TRAIL USER COUNT GRAPH. AND IT SHOWS A SPIKE IN INCREASED RAIL USE

[01:10:03]

BETWEEN SEVEN AM AND EIGHT AM AND FIVE PM AND SEVEN PM ON WEEKDAYS, WHICH IS DIRECTLY CORRELATED TO THE WORKDAY.

INDICATING AN ESSENTIAL NEXUS BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. THE EMPLOYEES COMING OUT AFTER BEFORE AND AFTER WORK AND PARK USE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. ANOTHER PART OF ESTABLISHING A LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE ORDINANCE AS ACCOUNTING FOR ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY. THIS TIES THE LAND AND THE REQUIREMENTS DIRECTLY TO THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS ANTICIPATED IMPACT ON THE PARK SYSTEM. FOR THE LATEST CENSUS INFORMATION 58% OF THE CITY'S WORKFORCE COMMUTES INTO AUSTIN, ADDING PARK USERS THAT DO NOT CURRENTLY FACTOR INTO TODAY'S PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS. THE NEW COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE ACCOUNT FOR THE DIRECT IMPACT OF THE COMMUTING WORKFORCE AND ESTABLISH A TRULY PROPORTIONAL PARKER CHOIR MINT BY CONSIDERING A NUMBER OF FACTORS IN THE FORMULA AND FEE FOR LANCE. FORMULA FOR FREE AND LAND REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WE'LL COVER LATER IN THIS PRESENTATION.

CREATING A NEW PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD BETTER REFLECT THE IMPACT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT TO THE CITY'S PARKS SYSTEM. NOT HANDED OVER TO TOM.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THE PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS WOULD HAVE APPLIED TO FOUR DEFINED YOUTH CATEGORIES. THOSE ARE OFFICE RETAIL, INDUSTRIAL AND HOTEL. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL ARE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET PER EMPLOYEE. EACH USE CATEGORY WOULD HAVE THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS BASED ON THE RELATIVE IMPACT OF THE COMMERCIAL USE ON THE PARK SYSTEM. THESE CATEGORIES ARE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER MUNICIPALITIES. THAT ACCOUNT FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS TO THE PARKS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THE FORMULA HERE IS AN EXPRESSION OF THE DEMANDS ON OUR PARK SYSTEM. GENERATED BY NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. IT USES THE SAME LEVEL OF PARK SERVICE THAT WAS ESTABLISHED WITH THE RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS UPDATE FROM 2016. THAT LEVEL OF PARK SERVICE EQUALS TO 9.4 ACRES PER 1000 INDIVIDUALS. THE TERM FUNCTIONAL POPULATION IN THE EQUATION MEANS NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FOR A COMMERCIAL USE, DISCOUNTED BY OCCUPANCY RATES THE AMOUNT OF TIME THEY MAY BE AT A PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT. AND THE PERCENT OF THOSE WHO COMMUTE FROM THIRD JURISDICTIONS TO WORK IN AUSTIN , REPRESENTING THE FULL TIME EQUIVALENT POPULATION FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE PERCENT OF EMPLOYEES WHO COMMUTED TO AUSTIN IS FACTORED IN TO ENSURE THAT, WE AREN'T ACCOUNTING FOR USERS OF OUR PARK SYSTEM THAT MAY HAVE ALREADY BEEN CAPTURED WITH THE RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS. AND YOU CAN SEE FROM THE CHART ON THE SLIDE THAT IT BREAKS OUT THE FOUR DIFFERENT USES, AND CATEGORIZES THEM ACCORDING TO THEIR EMPLOYEE DENSITY AND THE OTHER DISCOUNTS THAT I MENTIONED. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO USING THE FORMULA AND METHODOLOGY, WE DO HAVE A PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE. ON THE TOP. WE HAVE THE REQUIREMENTS EXPRESSED AS A NUMBER AS PER EMPLOYEE. AFTER THE DISCOUNTS THAT FUNCTIONAL POPULATION I HAD MENTIONED AND THEN ALSO, WE HAVE IT BROKEN DOWN BY THE COST PER SQUARE FOOT, AND THAT RANGES FROM A DOLLAR 75 PER SQUARE FOOT FOR AN OFFICE USE. TO 64 CENTS FOR INDUSTRIAL AND THEN IS ANTICIPATED TO BE UPDATED ANNUALLY. QUICKTIME CHECK WILL.

LET ME JUST GET PERMISSION FROM THE REST OF THE COMMISSION. SO WE GRANTED THE LAST GROUP AND DOUBLE TIME. SIX MINUTES.

HOPEFULLY THEY WON'T NEED IT ALL BUT ANY OBJECTIONS STILL ALLOWING SIX MORE MINUTES FOR THIS PRESENTATION? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. GOING TO PROCEED. ALRIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO ADVANCE TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. PART AND SO WE HAVE PROVIDED A AN ESTIMATE OF THE FISCAL IMPACT OF A COMMERCIAL PARK LAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE BASED ON ANNUAL REPORTING A PERMANENT SQUARE FOOTAGE WE ANTICIPATED COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE. WOULD GENERATE ROUGHLY 4.3 MILLION AND AN ANNUAL REVENUE. AND FOR REFERENCE FOR FISCAL YEAR, 23 PART WILL BE APPROPRIATING 26 MILLION FROM RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE TODAY.

ADDITIONALLY PART WILL BE APPROPRIATING APPROXIMATELY 30 MILLION ANNUALLY FOR PARKING AND AGGREGATE ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FROM THE MOST RECENT BOND PACKAGE. AND WE CAN ADVANCE TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND FINALLY WE HAVE BEEN CONDUCTING STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT FOR THE LAST FEW COUPLE OF MONTHS, INCLUDING SIX STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS. THE FINAL SURVEY RESULTS, ADDITIONALLY HAD A PUBLIC SURVEY AVAILABLE TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC QUESTION ON OUR WEBSITE. AND THE FINAL SURVEY RESULTS HAD 328 RESPONSES , AND THEY SHOWED THAT 68% OF RESPONSES. USED PARTS BEFORE, DURING OR AFTER WORK, SOMETIMES OR OFTEN. ADDITIONALLY WHEN ASKED, HOW DO YOU THINK OF

[01:15:01]

COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE MIGHT IMPACT OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS? 74% OF RESPONDENTS INDICATED THAT OPERATIONS WOULD IMPROVE AND ONLY 12% INDICATED. THAT BUSINESS OPERATIONS WOULD DETERIORATE. AND THE FULL SURVEY RESULTS WILL BE UPLOADED TO OUR PROJECT WEB PAGE. AND THEN THAT'S OUR THAT'S OUR LAST SLIDE . WE DO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL SLIDES IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THEM. OKAY, ALRIGHT, SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS, GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. OF EMOTION. MR. SAY. SECONDED BY MR SCHNEIDER. LET'S GO AND VOTE ON CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING. IS IN THE DAIS. AH! ALRIGHT THAT LOOKS ALL GREAT FELLOW GREEN ON THE SCREEN. THANK YOU. THAT'S UNANIMOUS. OKAY COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS. LET'S START US OFF. ALL RIGHT, COMMIT, ER AZHAR. THANK YOU CHAIR AND HOPEFULLY YOU CAN HEAR ME CLEARLY. IF YOU PLEASE JUST LET ME KNOW. SO MY FIRST QUESTION FOR STAFF WAS. CAN YOU TELL US THE DYING LINE DURING WHICH THE DATA WAS COLLECTED FOR THE NEXT STEP, THE WRONG WHAT TIME? WHEN WAS THAT? HE DIDN'T LIKE HOW WE SENT AS IT WHAT MINDS? WELL COUNCIL REQUEST OR AH! MANDATED THAT WE PUT TOGETHER THIS COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE. ON APRIL. 20 APRIL 7TH AND BY APRIL 26. I BELIEVE WE HAD PUBLISHED THE NEXUS STUDY ON FLYING. IS THAT CORRECT? AH AND IN POINT OF FACT, THE PARKS, PARKS NOR CREATION BOARD DID PASS. RECOMMENDATION BACK IN 2020 TO BEGIN EXPLORING THIS TOPIC. SO WE HAVE BEEN RESEARCHING IT AND PUTTING TOGETHER NEXUS RESEARCH THAT'S COMPILED IN THE STUDY ROBIN MENTIONED DATING BACK TO 2020. THAT'S HELPFUL. I GUESS MY ONLY REAL CONCERN THERE IS WE ARE TRYING TO ASSESS HOW MANY WORKERS ARE YOU WOULD LIKE TO. SO WE'RE SEEING THAT THE UTILIZATION OF OUR DREAM DOWNTOWN AND WE'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S A NEXUS WITH WORKERS AT THE SAME TIME DURING THE PANDEMIC. WE'VE HAD A LARGE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NO LONGER WORKING THAT SPACE. SO HOW DO WE ACCOMMODATE THE FACT ARGUE RESIDENTS WERE LIVING DOWNTOWN AND DOING IT USING IT AROUND THOSE TIMES AS THEY'RE GETTING FREE FROM? WORKING ON LIVING THERE. I JUST HATE TO SAY IT. I FEEL LIKE DOING THE NEXT STUDY. WE HAVE THE SAME CONVERSATION EARLIER ON TRANSPORTATION STUDIES. DOING THESE DURING THE PANDEMIC CREATES A REALLY BIG CHALLENGE. WE WORKERS ARE NOT WORKING IN THEIR OFFICES IN THE SAME WAY THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY CHANGING WORK ENVIRONMENT WITHIN THAT NATIONALLY, LEAVE IT AT THAT AND REALLY JUST JUMPED TO MY NEXT QUESTION. WE ALL HELP ME UNDERSTAND? WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT YOU ENGAGED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, SO THE STAKEHOLDERS WE ENGAGED WITH WERE, THE PARK'S ADVOCATES, AS WELL AS MEMBERS OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, SO WE HAD I THINK SIX MEETINGS IN ALL COVERED AUSTIN PARKS FOUNDATION TRAIL FOUNDATION, SEVERAL OF THE CONSERVANCY'S AS WELL AS RICA.

AI A, WE INVITED MEMBERS OF THE HOTEL. ASSOCIATIONS. THE DEBT.

THANK YOU. DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE. WE CAN I BELIEVE WE HAVE A LIST OF EVERYONE WHO WAS INVITED AS PART OF THOSE STAKEHOLDER SESSIONS, AND WE DID PUT TOGETHER A SERIES OF RESPONSES TO ALL THEIR QUESTIONS THAT WAS POSTED IN BACKUP, AND WE ACTUALLY HAD ONE OTHER SESSION TWO MORE SESSIONS JUST LAST WEEK, AND WE'VE PUT TOGETHER, I THINK, MAYBE UP TO OVER. 50 MAY BE NEARING 100 QUESTIONS THAT THEY'VE ASKED THAT WE WERE ABLE TO RESPOND TO REALLY APPRECIATE THAT ANSWER.

CAN YOU ALSO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THE FEEDBACK RECEIVED FROM THAT CHANGED THE DRAFT ORDINANCE OR WHAT YOU'RE WORKING ON. SO WHAT CHANGES DID YOU MAKE IN RESPONSE TO THE FEEDBACK THAT YOU RECEIVE? I THINK WE MADE SOME CHANGES TO THE FORMULA COMBINED WITH SOME OF THE LEGAL COUNSEL WE RECEIVED. MOST NOTABLY, ARE THE PARK LEVEL OF SERVICE WAS ONE THING THAT THE STAKEHOLDERS HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT. SO WE HAD IT BETTER REFLECT. THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE 9.4 PER 1000 INDIVIDUALS. AND THE OTHER THING THAT WE DISCUSSED QUITE A BIT WAS SOME OF THE DISCOUNTS. THAT ARE FEATURED IN THE FORMULA, SO WE DID TAKE SOME OF THEIR FEEDBACK IN SHAPING THAT AND ALSO MAKING SURE THAT IT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR NEXUS STUDY.

I APPRECIATE THAT. I'LL JUST SKIP RIGHT TO THE NEXT QUESTION, WHICH IS MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE FUNDING WILL NOT BE

[01:20:01]

GEOGRAPHICALLY CONSTRAINED. I E . IT IS NOT TO SAY THAT FUNDING COLLECTED FROM COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN WILL BE USED DOWNTOWN.

CAN BE USED TO OTHER CITY IN MY BREAD. SO THE SPENDING CRITERIA WOULD BE THE SAME AS IT IS WITH THE RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION, SO THERE'S GEOGRAPHIC COMPONENTS TO THAT.

SO TYPICALLY A NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT PAYS INTO PARKLAND DEDICATION THROUGH FEES AND LOU WE'RE OBLIGATED TO SPEND THEM WITHIN A HALF MILE UP TO TWO MILES OR IF THERE ISN'T ANYTHING AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE UP TO THE PARK PLANNING AREA. BUT TYPICALLY THERE'S TIME CONSTRAINTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AS WELL. BUT THAT IS WHAT'S IT ESTABLISHED IN OUR CRITERIA MANUAL RIGHT NOW? SPECIAL THAN LAST. I'LL MAKE THIS QUICK. I MIGHT BE RUNNING OUT OF TIME HERE. BUT CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT DUDE, EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF WHERE WE PURCHASED PARKLAND? WE'VE HEARD A LOT. WE'VE BOUGHT A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, NATURAL PRESERVES. AND, YOU KNOW, WEST PART OF BOSTON. THAT'S CRITICAL FROM A YOU KNOW, ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE. FROM AN EQUITY PERSPECTIVE. HOW ARE WE ENSURING THAT PARKLAND GOES TO AREAS THAT ARE PART AND EFFICIENT FOR EAST AUSTIN, AND THEY WERE NOT JUST UTILIZING ANOTHER PARTS? I WOULD JUST LIKE TO UNDERSTAND. WHERE HAVE WE MOST RECENTLY PURCHASED? FROM OUR BONDS AND OTHER. SO WE ACTUALLY DID SOME RESEARCH RECENTLY GOING BACK TO THE PASSAGE OF THE 1998 PARKS PONDS ON WHERE WE'VE BEEN PURCHASING PARKLAND AND THE LAST 25 HARD YEARS. AND WE'RE HAPPY TO SAY THAT SOMETHING LIKE 80% OF THE ACREAGE THAT WE'VE PURCHASED.

GOING BACK TO THAT 1998 BOND HAS BEEN IN THE EASTERN CRISIS USED AUSTIN SOUTHEAST AUSTIN REGION. SO WE HAVE BEEN WORKING REALLY HARD. IS THE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE WRITING THOSE KIND OF HISTORIC INEQUALITY IS WHEN IT COMES TO OUR PARKS DISTRIBUTION . OF COURSE, THERE IS THAT GEOGRAPHIC AND STRENGTH THAT COMMISSIONER YOU MENTIONED EARLIER WHERE WE REALLY ARE OBLIGATED TO SPEND CLOSE TO WHERE THOSE NEW DEVELOPMENTS OCCUR. SO I THINK THERE'S PERHAPS A LARGER EQUITY ISSUE WITH WHERE NEW DEVELOPMENT IS HAPPENING IN AUSTIN, BUT TYPICALLY WE ARE MAKING ADVANCES IN PURCHASING THAT THOSE KIND OF PRESERVED BLACK LAND PRAIRIE AH! TYPE LANDSCAPES. AND THAT'S TRUE OF OUR BOND SPENDING. WE DO HAVE A VIDEO THAT WE CAN SEND THE COMMISSION THAT SHOWCASES WHERE WE'VE BEEN SPENDING BOTH THE 2018 PARKS BOND AS WELL AS PARKLAND, DEDICATION FUNDS THAT REALLY EXPLAINS WHERE OUR MAJOR INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN RECENTLY WITH PARK ACQUISITIONS. OKAY THANK YOU. AT A TIME THERE, SO LET'S MOVE. THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS. WITH QUESTIONS.

AROUND THE ROOM. BY SARAH HEMPEL. YES. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT, DOES THE MONEY FROM THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE ? IS IT JUST GOING TOWARDS BUYING NEW LAND OR OR IS IT FOR HELPING TO IMPROVE EXISTING PARKS MAY BE CONTRIBUTING TO THE MASTER PLANS OF VISION PLANS THAT ARE BEING DONE AROUND THE CITY FOR THEM. YES THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. WE HAVE THERE'S A TWO PARTS TO THE FEE THAT WE COLLECT. THE FIRST PART IS FOR A LAND FEE OR FEE IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION. AND THAT IS, CAN BE CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS LAND ACQUISITION AND THEN THE OTHER PORTION OF THE FEE IS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT FEES SO THAT GOES TOWARDS IMPROVING PARKLAND. SO IN IT IS TIED TO THE NEW DEMAND GENERATED ON PARKLAND, SO IT HAS TO GO TOWARD NEW INFRASTRUCTURE.

NEW PARK INFRASTRUCTURE THAT EITHER EXPANDS ACCESS INTO PARKLAND OR, GREAT NEW INFRASTRUCTURE IN BUT INTO YOUR QUESTION. THANK YOU. ANOTHER QUESTION IS, IF A LOT OF THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS HAPPENING IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.

WE KNOW THE PRICE PER FOOT IN THAT RADIUS THAT YOU DESCRIBED IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SPENT IN IS JUST EXORBITANT. PAL. HOW WILL THIS BE HELPED TO BUILD? SCARCE SCARCE PARKLAND ON AND. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF LAND AVAILABLE IS AGAINST WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IN THAT AREA, AND IT'S EARLY, EXPENSIVE. I JUST WORRY ABOUT THE GEOGRAPHICAL REACH, MAYBE NOT BEING A MATCH FOR WHAT'S ACTUALLY NEEDED. SO THE LAND. THE FEE IN LIEU OF LAND CAN BE USED TO WAR AFTER A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME CAN BE USED TOWARDS PARK IMPROVEMENTS. AND SO THOSE PARK IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE THINGS LIKE IMPROVING INFRASTRUCTURE AND PARKS AND TOWN LIKE REPUBLIC SQUARE OR LONG WALLER CREEK OR ALONG THE

[01:25:02]

HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL. SO, IF THERE IS A SCARCITY OF LAND OR NOT IN NEED TO EXPAND PARKLAND DOWNTOWN, WE CAN STILL EXTEND THE FEES WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINTS BY TRANSFERRING THE LAND FEED INTO DEVELOPMENT DOLLARS. AFTER ONE YEAR. WHY THE AFTER ONE YEAR. THAT'S HOW THE CODE IS WRITTEN NOW, AND IT'S JUST A PERIOD OF TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU CAN ACQUIRE YOU KNOW YOU EXPLORE THE OPTIONS OF ACQUIRING LAND, AND IF THERE ARE NO OPTIONS WITHIN ONE YEAR, IT CAN BE THEN BETTER USED AS PARK DEVELOP. OKAY? MM. AND THEN THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE IS ABOUT THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A MEETING JUST A FEW DAYS AGO. EVEN THAT HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS. THAT HAVE THOSE ALL BEEN ANSWERED AND DISPENSE TO THE STAKEHOLDERS. I JUST I'M A LITTLE CAUTIOUS ABOUT IT FEELS LIKE IT'S MOVING SOMEWHAT QUICKLY. AND THAT THE STAKEHOLDERS MAY NOT HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO THEN MEET WITH THEIR OWN NETWORKS. AND YOU KNOW THAT AND TALK THROUGH SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED YEAH. SO WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THE RESPONSES TO THAT FINAL STAKEHOLDER MEETING, BUT WE DID ANSWER A LOT OF THEM IN THE ACTUAL MEETING. SO WE HAD A LONG DISCUSSION DURING THE MEETING TO ADDRESS CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS AND THEN I BELIEVE WE'LL HAVE THE QUESTIONS FINISHED BEFORE THE END OF THE WEEK AND PUBLISHED ON THE PROJECT WEB PAGE SO THAT THEY HAVE TIME TO KIND OF REVIEW THOSE RESPONSES.

AND SORRY JUST TO ADD TO THAT THE FIRST ROUND OF RESPONSES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SENT TO THOSE STAKEHOLDERS AND POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE. SO, THE YOU KNOW FROM THE FIRST FEW STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS, SO IT'S QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED AND RESPONDED.

OKAY AND I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE TIME LEFT. BUT LAST QUESTION IS ABOUT WHEN YOU'RE BRINGING THIS TO COUNCIL AND WHAT THE IMPETUS FOR THE TIMELINE IS. I BELIEVE COUNSELORS DIRECTION WAS TO BRING THIS ITEM FORWARD ALONGSIDE OR BEFORE THE CITY BUDGET. SO THAT'S WHY WE ARE PROPOSING TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH CITY COUNCIL SCHEDULED FOR JULY, 28TH, WHICH I THINK COUNCIL APPROVED. OKAY? AND HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE LEFT? SORRY. FIVE SECONDS. OKAY? NEVER MIND. OKAY? LET'S SEE.

I'VE GOT TO START WITH COMMISSIONER COXON COMMISSIONER SHEA AND THEN COMMISSIONER MUSHTALER. AND THEN DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION TO AND THEN COMMISSIONER THOMPSON AND WE CAN ALWAYS IF FOLKS WANT WE CAN OPEN IT UP TO MORE, BUT OKAY, COMMISSIONER COX GO AHEAD. YEAH. JUST JUST ONE QUESTION TO STAFF KIND OF GOING OFF OF COMMISSIONERS. OURS. COMMENTS ABOUT EQUITABLE EQUITABLE USE OF THESE PARKLAND DEDICATION FUNDS.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN? I UNDERSTAND THE GENERAL CONCEPT OF WANTING DEVELOPMENTS TO IMPROVE THE AREA THAT THEY'RE GEOGRAPHICALLY LOCATED NEAR, BUT IS THERE. ANY OTHER REASON WHY THERE'S A GEOGRAPHIC RESTRICTION ON THE USE OF THESE FUNDS. ANY LAW OR SOMETHING THAT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH. GENERALLY IT HAS TO DO WITH THE CASE LAW AND ESSENTIAL NEXUS OF THE REQUIREMENTS BEING SPENT, WHERE THE RESIDENTS OF A NEW DEVELOPMENT ARE ABLE TO EASILY. ACCESS TO FACILITIES THAT THEY'RE CONTRIBUTING TO SO I BELIEVE THERE HAS BEEN LAWSUITS IN TEXAS ON THIS POINT SPECIFICALLY WHERE FUNDS WERE BEING SPENT ALL OVER THE CITY AND THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT RULED THAT, IT WASN'T IT WASN'T CONNECTED TO A NEW DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THE RESIDENTS OF THAT NEW PROJECT OR GOING TO BE ABLE TO EASILY ACCESS THE FACILITIES ARE CONTRIBUTING. INTO THE PARK SYSTEM. SO THAT IS THAT, BUT ALL THAT CASE LAW IS RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL USE, OR HAS THERE BEEN CASE LAW ON BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AND THE REASON THE REASON I'M ASKING THIS IS BECAUSE KIND OF LIKE HOW VICE CHAIR HEMPEL SAID. IF WE'RE GETTING A BUNCH OF BEING LOOF FUNDS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA FROM COMMERCIAL HIGH RISES OR WHATEVER. BUT WE HAVE DEFICIENT. AREAS IN EAST AUSTIN. MAYBE

[01:30:01]

EMPLOYEES OF THOSE BUILDINGS ARE COMING FROM EAST AUSTIN. AND SO THE CITY POTENTIALLY MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT SPENDING THOSE FUNDS IN THE SAUCE AND ACTUALLY DOES BENEFIT THE USERS. OF THAT COMMERCIAL SPACE IS THAT AM I JUST MAKING STUFF UP HERE. THAT IS NOT VALID OR OR IS THAT KIND OF A REASONABLE RATIONALE FOR USING THOSE FUNDS ELSEWHERE. THAT IS A RATIONALE, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WOULD ALSO FREE UP BOND FUNDING. THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE SPENT OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY. SO WE OFTEN USE BOND MONEY TO MATCH PARK DEVELOPMENT OR IN WITH PLD, OR PLD, WITH PART DEVELOPMENT, BOND DOLLARS. TO MAKE PARK IMPROVEMENTS OR FEEL THE DOLLARS WITH BOND DOLLARS FOR PARKLAND ACQUISITION. SO AH! HAVING THOSE FUNDS AVAILABLE ANYWHERE IN THE CITY FREES UP BOND DOLLARS TO BE SPENT ELSEWHERE. THAT MAKES SENSE. I APPRECIATE THAT IF I'VE GOT ANY REMAINING TIME, I'M HAPPY TO DONATE IT TO BASTER HEMPEL INITIATE ADDITIONAL QUESTION. WE'VE GOT QUITE A LIST . LET'S GO AND MOVE. THANK YOU FOR THAT OFFER, BUT WE'VE GOT LET'S GO AND MOVE THROUGH OUR SLATE HERE, MR SHEA. SO I GOT A QUESTION SO STARTING WITH FROM THE BEGINNING PARTS DEVELOPMENT, SO IS THERE SOME MECHANISM THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE FOR THE DEVELOPERS AS FAR AS FOR THE AMOUNT THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE TO COMMIT, WHETHER IT BE THE AND THE U VERSUS AN ACQUISITION. AND IF IT IS AN ACQUISITION, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE LAND YOU GUYS MIGHT NEED? YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IF IT'S TOO MUCH, IT COULD KILL A PROJECT. IF YOU KNOW, THE OTHER THING IS ALSO DETERMINATION. IF IT IS A FEE, AND LOU OF POTENTIAL ESTIMATE OF WHAT THOSE COSTS WOULD BE. YOU KNOW, THIS WAY, AT LEAST WHEN THEY'RE DOING FEASIBILITY, THEY'RE FIGURING.

OH, MY GOSH, THEY'RE THEY'RE GONNA WANT THIS MUCH LAND. I CAN'T DO FEE AND LEO OR MAYBE I'LL DO FEE AND LEO INSTEAD OF NO DEDICATION INSTEAD OF, BUT WHAT? WHAT IS WHAT MECHANISM IS THERE TO IN THE BEGINNING PROCESSES? SO THE REQUIREMENTS AS LAID OUT WOULD BE PRETTY SIMILAR TO THE RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS. SO IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHETHER FEE AND LUV LAND WOULD BE ALLOWED, WE REALLY BE LOOKING AT THE CRITERIA. WHICH IS WHETHER IT BE PARKED EFFICIENT. WHETHER PARKLAND IS NEEDED FOR AN ESSENTIAL CONNECTION TO PROPOSED OR EXISTING PARK FACILITIES. WHETHER ESSENTIAL NEED OR CRITICAL NEED FOR PARKLAND IN THAT AREA. AND THE BIG THING IS WHETHER THE SITE MEETS THE STANDARDS FOR PARKLAND, AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE A SOME HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLES THAT ARE EITHER SLIDE SHOW THAT WE COULD MAYBE RUN THROUGH QUICKLY THAT I THINK WOULD HELP KIND OF SHOWCASE HOW THE REQUIREMENT MAY WORK ON SOME HYPOTHETICAL PROJECTS. IF THAT'S ALLOWED, YOU CAN BRING THAT UP WHILE I'M ASKING SOME OTHER QUESTIONS. I MEAN, I'D LOVE TO SEE THAT, OH, YOU ALREADY GOT IT UP. YEAH, THANK YOU, ADVANCE A COUPLE OF SLIDES. KEEP GOING, PLEASE.

OKAY, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT THERE ARE ILLUSTRATIONS THAT GO ALONG WITH THIS, BUT, I THINK THE BACKUP DID NOT INCLUDE THEM FOR SOME REASON, BUT WE DO HAVE SAY LIKE A TYPICAL OFFICE IN THESE ARE SOME OF THE NUMBERS OF WHAT WE CAN EXPECT FOR AN OFFICE TYPE DEVELOPMENT. PAUL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? YEAH, SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A 325,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE SPACE BASED ON OUR EMPLOYED ENTITIES THAT HARM SHOWED EARLIER. WE ESTIMATE THAT THERE WOULD BE OVERLOOKED. 1000 EMPLOYEES AT THIS PARTICULAR OFFICE SPACE. AND THEN WHEN YOU DISCOUNT THAT BY THE OCCUPANCY THE OPERATION HOURS IN THE PERCENT OF THOSE WHO WOULD BE COMMUTING FROM OUTSIDE JURISDICTIONS. YOU GET A FUNCTIONAL POPULATION OF 137.58 AND SO ESSENTIALLY, ONLY 137.58 EMPLOYEES ARE SUBJECT TO THESE NEW PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS. AND THE STEP THREE WOULD BE TO CALCULATE THOSE REQUIREMENTS. AND SO FOR THIS 325,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE SPACE WOULD OWE ABOUT 1.29 ACRES OF PARKLAND. OR $520,000 IN FEE AND LOU OR A COMBINATION OF THOSE TWO. TYPICALLY YOU DON'T SEE INSTANCES WHERE 100% OF THE REQUIREMENT IS SATISFIED THROUGH LAND DEDICATION. IN MOST CASES, IT WOULD BE A COMBINATION OF THE TWO OKAY? AND THEN. IN YOU KNOW , UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A PROCESS ALSO LIKE IS IT A IF IT IS IT A LAND WHEN YOU ACT ACQUIRE LAND IS ATLANTA ACQUISITION OR LANDED OCCASSION OR CAN BE A MIX OF THE POTENTIALLY ONE OR THE OTHER AND THEN? FOR INSTANCE, IF I'M A BIG CORPORATION COMING IN, I'M LIKE, HEY, I'M GONNA OFFER THIS AS PARKLAND AND I'M ALSO GOING TO MANAGE IT. I'M GONNA PUT YOU KNOW THE AMENITIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, MY CONCERN IS DO THEY

[01:35:04]

LOSE SCORE FOOTAGE OUT OF THEIR LAND? BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DID IN PREVIOUS COVER. YOU DO F A R ALL THAT'S I MEAN. DOES THAT GET CONSIDERED IN IT, OR DO YOU PULL THAT OUT, AND ALL OF SUDDEN THEY HAVE LESS TO MANAGE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT BALANCES. OF THE SITE SITE. YOU KNOW THE SITE PROPORTIONS SO I CAN SPEAK TO HOW WE ADMINISTER THE RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS AND AGAIN THE WAY WE WOULD ADMINISTER. THIS IS VERY SIMILAR . AND YOU CAN SEE THAT FROM THE WAY THE ORDINANCES WRITTEN. SO TYPICALLY F A R. YOU KNOW, THE PARKLAND WOULD NOT TAKE AWAY FROM F A. R IT WOULD NOT TAKE AWAY FROM PERVIOUS COVER. ALL THOSE THINGS ARE SHARED ON A NEW DEVELOPMENT. SO WE DO TRY TO MAKE IT. YOU KNOW. NOT NECESSARILY A BONUS OR AN INCENTIVE IN ANYWAY, BUT THE PARKLAND WOULD NOT NECESSARILY TAKE AWAY ANYTHING FROM THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF A PROJECT.

SO THAT'S ONE THING TO CONSIDER . AND THEN THE OTHER IS WE DO OFTEN TRY TO WORK WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SAY OPEN SPACE IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE PUBLIC BENEFIT. EIGHT SECONDS.

WHAT WHAT'S WHAT'S THE BIGGEST AMOUNT OF LAND YOU CAN TAKE? IS IT STILL CATHOLIC, IS AT 15. IT IS CAPPED AT 15% IN THE URBAN CORE, AND THAT WOULD BE TRUE WITH THE COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS AS WELL OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN CORE. THERE ISN'T A CAP, BUT IT'S RARE THAT WE EXCEED, THAT AMOUNT UNLESS THERE'S SOME OTHER CONSTRAINTS ON THE SITE, LIKE, SAY FLOODPLAIN, AND WE'RE TAKING A CREEK. FLOODPLAIN AREA OR CREEK BUFFER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. OKAY, THANK YOU. MR MUSHTALER. AND THEN JUST WE HAVE COMMISSIONER THOMPSON AND THEN I HAD A NOTE FROM COMMISSIONER ANDERSON WANTED TO ASK QUESTIONS THAT I I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.

I'M EXCITED TO SEE THIS. I THINK THIS IS OVERDUE. I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE CALCULATIONS. AND I THINK YOU HAD A SLIDE THAT THAT WAS GOING TO SHOW SOME OF THAT. I'M ALSO KIND OF CURIOUS ABOUT WHY WE'RE ONLY INCLUDING EMPLOYEES AND NOT THE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE COMING. I UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY MAY BE RESIDENTS WITHIN THE CITY BOUNDARIES. BUT IF WE'RE TALKING HOTELS, THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT. SO I GUESS I'M CONCERNED THAT WE'RE DISCOUNTING TOO MUCH. SO I'M CURIOUS HOW WE DID THE CALCULATIONS HOW THAT COMPARES TO OTHER AREAS AND I WANT TO GIVE YOU GUYS SOME TIME TO GO THROUGH THAT AND MAYBE EXPLAIN SOME OF THAT SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND. YEAH, WE COULD GO BACK TO MAYBE SOME OF THE CALCULATION SLIDES. IF GO BACK TO MOVIE SLIDE. TOVO FLY. FOUR OR SLOT. I'M SORRY. SLIDES SEVEN PERFECT. YEAH SO HOTEL IS A GOOD ONE. WE ACTUALLY RECENTLY ADDED HOTEL BECAUSE HOTELS ALREADY CAPTURED IN OUR RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND REQUIREMENTS FROM 2016 . BUT THAT ACCOUNT SPECIFICALLY FOR VISITORS ONLY. SO WE INCLUDED HOTEL TO MAKE SURE THAT EMPLOYEES WERE SO IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE TREATED MORE AS LIKE A MIXED USE PROJECT IN THAT SENSE. SO I THINK THAT ANSWERS THAT QUESTION SPECIFICALLY, I THINK FROM THAT MY UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR QUESTION THE PERCENT COMMUTER THAT THAT WAS ADDED SPECIFICALLY, SO WE WERE ACCOUNTING TO YOU KNOW, COMMUTERS WHO ARE COMING TO USE THE PARKLAND, YOU KNOW, AFTER WORK OR DURING LUNCH HOURS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND WE DID ADD THAT SPECIFICALLY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WEREN'T DOUBLE COUNTING RESIDENTS WHO MAY HAVE ALREADY PARTICIPATED IN THE PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS, BUT I APPRECIATE THE POINT THAT WE DID ADD YOU KNOW THESE DIFFERENT DISCOUNTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GOT A FUNCTIONAL POPULATION THAT WE FELT WAS, YOU KNOW AS PROPORTIONAL AS POSSIBLE TO THE IMPACT ON OUR PARK SYSTEM IN TERMS OF COMING UP WITH THIS FORMULA FORMULA AND HOW WE DO IT LIKE WE'RE DOING IT BASED ON PEOPLE VERSUS SQUARE FOOTAGE VERSUS HOW MUCH PER ALLOTMENT. LIKE WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM? SORRY I DON'T KNOW WHERE ANY OF THAT COMES FROM. IF THEY'RE STANDARD CALCULATIONS OR OTHER CITIES DO THIS OR STANDARD MUNICIPAL PLANNING. WE DID LOOK AT OTHER CITIES, SO THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES ARE VERY SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE OTHER CITIES. WE STUDIED. AND THEN A NUMBER OF THE DISCOUNTS AND HOW WE IT'S BROKEN UP BY EMPLOYEE DENSITY IS CONSISTENT WITH SOME OF THE OTHER CASES THAT WE SAW. AH THE EMPLOYEE DENSITY, FOR EXAMPLE, IS FROM THE U. S. GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL. AH! PREP. DO YOU ALL WANT TO SPEAK TO? MAYBE SOMETHING? SURE I MEAN, WE LOOKED AT SOME COMPARISON CITIES , FOR INSTANCE, BELMONT, CALIFORNIA, WHICH IS IN THE BAY AREA, AND THEY USE LIKE TOM WAS SAYING SOMEONE THE SAME FACTORS AND CALCULATING THEIR FUNCTIONAL POPULATION. WELL AS ATLANTA. GEORGIA WAS ANOTHER GOOD EXAMPLE THAT WE LOOKED AT AS WELL, SO WE DID LOOK AT PRESIDENTS AND IN OTHER STATES, AND THEN IS THERE ANY CALCULATION FOR LIKE COST OF LIVING ESCALATORS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. ARE WE DOING LIKE A

[01:40:02]

SENSE PER THING OR DOLLAR PER THING? ARE WE DOING A PERCENTAGE ON THE COST? IT'S CALCULATED THE SAME WAY WHERE OUR CURRENT RESIDENTIAL ORDINANCES CALCULATED, AND THAT'S BASED ON THE COST OF LAND FOR PART TO PURCHASE THE COST OF LAND IN THE COST. FOR PART TO DEVELOP PINEGAR OF LAND, SO THE COST IN JUST A FEW. PREVIOUS LIFE. AH! IS SHOW ONE MORE DOWN. PENCE ONCE LIKE. RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE. THERE THERE YOU GO. OH SORRY. IT WAS THE NEXT ONE. SO THE FEET AND LOU IS BASED ON THE COST OF TO PURCHASE PARKLAND TO PURCHASE ONE ACRE PARKLAND IS AN AVERAGE OF THE LAST FIVE YEARS. SO IT'S DIRECTLY TIED TO THE COST OF LAND IN AUSTIN, BUT MORE SPECIFICALLY THE COST OF PARKLAND IN AUSTIN AND THEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS BASED ON HOW MUCH IT COST TO DEVELOP AN ACRE PARKLAND. BASED ON THE ACTUAL NUMBERS OVER THE LAST FIVE YEAR AVERAGE. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES. SO IT'S NOT BASED ON THE COST OF LIVING IS BASED ON OKAY? THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. WERE YOU ABLE TO DO ANY SORT OF PRO FORM A AND IN TERMS OF YOU KNOW WHAT WHAT PERCENTAGE OF PROJECTS, YOU KNOW, WILL WELL, ACTUALLY. BE DEVELOPED AND WHAT. PERCENTAGE OF THEM MIGHT NOT BE DEVELOPED BECAUSE YOU KNOW THE EXTRA COSTS, THERE WOULD JUST BE TOO MUCH AND MAKE THE PROJECT UNFEASIBLE AND DID YOU LIKE, COMPARE LIKE A LOSS OF TAX REVENUE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET FROM JUST THE PROPERTY TAX IMPROVEMENT FROM THAT? DEVELOPMENT IF IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. SO WHAT WE DID LOOK AT WAS THE COST OF THE HARD COSTS OF BUILDING OF ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTING EITHER AN OFFICE, INDUSTRIAL RETAIL AND THE COST OF THE DEEP OF THE TOTAL COST OF THE FEE FOR THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND WE FOUND IT TO BE LESS THAN 1% OF THE OVERALL TOTAL. HARD COSTS OF DEVELOPING SO THAT DIDN'T INCLUDE PLANE ACQUISITION OR. DEVELOPER OVERHEAD OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

IT WAS JUST A HARD COST OF LIKE THE BILL, ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTING THE BUILDING. OUR FEES ARE LESS THAN 1% OF THE TOTAL PROJECT COSTS. IT WAS SOMETHING BETWEEN 0.42% IT WAS ABOUT 0.42% YOU KNOW, FROM THE BROAD RANGE OF COMMERCIAL, CONSTRUCTION TYPES.

YOU KNOW, INDUSTRIAL IS ABOUT $147 PER SQUARE FOOT IN TERMS OF HARD COSTS, WHEREAS OFFICE HIGH RISES OR IN THE $650,000 OR 650.

DOLLARS PER SQUARE FOOT. OKAY, BUT BUT THE PROFIT LEVEL ON THAT ISN'T ISN'T NECESSARILY THAT IN 1% OFF OF THE TOTAL PROFIT.

MIGHT BE QUITE IMPACTFUL. BUT OKAY, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

MY WIFE. WE LIVE IN EAST AUSTIN . BUT MY WIFE COMMUTES TO BASTROP AND TEACHES INVESTOR IF I S D, AND SHE TOLD ME THE OTHER DAY THAT ACTUALLY OVER 50% OF THE STAFF AT BASTARD BIAS D LIVE IN AUSTIN AND COMMUTE FROM AUSTIN. AND YOUR CALCULATION WAS THE FACT THAT SOME PEOPLE LIVE IN AUSTIN, BUT COMMUTE TO TELL OR OR SOME OTHER WORK CENTER THAT'S OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN. DID THAT GET SORT OF SUBTRACTED FROM THAT 58% THAT COMMUTE TO AUSTIN.

SO IN THE CALCULATION, WE WERE LOOKING AT THE IMPACT TO THE PARK SYSTEM OF THE ADDITION OF THE INFLUX OF EMPLOYEES FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THAT WE'RE COMING INTO AUSTIN TO IMPACT PARKS IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTS, WHO ALREADY PAY IF HE AT THE TIME OF NEW DEVELOPMENT, BUT I'M SAYING IF MY WIFE IS GOING TO RUN AT HER WORKPLACE BEFORE OR AFTER WORK OR GO TO THE PARKING LUNCH, SHE'S GOING TO DO THAT IN BASTROP. SO SHE'S NOT SO SHE SHE WOULD BE IF THE OTHER AUSTIN RESIDENTS WHO ARE PAYING A RESIDENTIAL FEE, AND YET THEY'RE GOING TO THE PARK OVER BY DELL COMPUTER. THAT'S NOT BEING ENCOURAGED FOR DURING THE WORKDAY. YOU MEAN LIKE DURING THAT TIME? I MEAN, DURING THE TIME THAT THE PERSON FROM ROUND ROCK IS RUNNING AROUND TOWN LAKE SHE IS SHE'S PARKS ARE AVAILABLE TO YOUR WIFE. ON THE WEEKENDS AND WHEN SHE'S AT HOME AND THAT'S THE LEVEL OF SERVICE WHERE SHE LIVES. BUT BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS, YOU'RE NOT ACCOUNTING FOR THE RESTAURANT, AUSTIN WHO HAVE LAUGHED WHO HAVE LEFT DURING THAT TIME, BUT YOUR

[01:45:03]

ACCOUNTING FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING IN DURING THE WORK DAY. I DON'T UNDERSTAND. YOU DIDN'T MAKE THAT CALCULATION. NO THAT IS NOT THE CALCULATION OF YOU DIDN'T YOU DIDN'T TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY PEOPLE WORK OUTSIDE , DID NOT TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVE IN AUSTIN, BUT WORK OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN. OKAY GO TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS, RIGHT? WE TRIED TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY PEOPLE ADD TO OUR EXISTING TAKEAWAY, NOT HOW MANY WOULD TAKE AWAY. THEY LIVE HERE. AZHAR PARKS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE WEEKENDS BEFORE WORK AFTER WORK. OKAY? AND THEN THE EVENINGS.

MORE QUESTIONS. OKAY NEXT WE HAVE COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.

THANKS, JER. HEY EVERYBODY CAN YOU SHARE WITH ME? YOU REMIND ME WHEN THESE FEES ARE COLLECTED. THAT IS AT THE TIME OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, EITHER A SITE PLAN SUBDIVISION OR BUILDING PERMIT. AND THEN THAT WOULDN'T BE AT COMPLETION. AT THE AT THE. PRIOR TO ACTUALLY ISSUING THAT PERMIT. THOSE FEES ARE COLLECTED. FOR THE NUMBER OF UNITS PROPOSAL. THE NUMBER OF SQUARE FOOTAGE PROPOSED. SO I GUESS WHERE THIS WHERE THIS QUESTION IS COMING FROM IS JUST NOW IN THE PRESENTATION. I HEARD THIS IS BASED ON DEMAND ON OUR PARK SYSTEM, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY HAVE OFFICE USERS, YOU KNOW, SO ONCE WE BREAK GROUND ON A BUILDING THERE WAS OFFICE USERS ARE STILL A YEAR AND A HALF AWAY , SO IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU'RE YOU'RE NOW TRYING TO COLLECT THE MOST EXPENSIVE PART OF THE DEBT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT , WHICH IS THAT EQUITY SO YOU YOU REQUIRE THEM TO PUT IN THE MOST EXPENSIVE EQUITY PIECE, FIRST FOR THEM TO ARRIVED TWO YEARS INSTEAD OF BEING MORE EFFICIENT TO THEM, AND THE WHOLE PROCESS AND ALLOWING THAT TO COME AT THE END. CURIOUS WHY THAT CAN'T BE AT THE END AND BE MORE EFFICIENT FOR EVERYBODY. I GUESS WOULD WOULD THAT THEN BE AT THE TIME OF PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. MAYBE. LOT LESS EXPENSIVE DEBT.

YEAH I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING TO THE TUNE OF MAYBE 20% DIFFERENCE OF THE OVERALL COST OF THAT DEBT OR THAT MONEY? YES. I GUESS I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. I KNOW THAT THERE COULD POTENTIALLY BE DELAYS IN THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. AND I WOULDN'T. I WOULDN'T IMAGINE THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT JUST LIKE ADMINISTRATIVE DELAYS TO THAT. I THINK THAT COULD BE A POTENTIAL. NEGATIVE OF THAT, PAYMENT STRUCTURE. BUT TYPICALLY , MOST FEES ARE COLLECTED AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN OR SCP ISSUANCE AND THEN CAN BE REFUNDED IF THOSE UNITS ARE NOT BUILT. OKAY WE CAN THINK MORE ON THAT. SO IT SEEMS THAT THE COMMERCIAL FORMULA IS BORROWING A LOT FROM THE VERY BROKEN RESIDENTIAL FORMULA. IS THAT RIGHT? OR WERE WE ABLE TO FIX THE COMMERCIAL FORMULA? I GUESS IT'S STRUCTURED SIMMER SIMILARLY , BUT I GUESS I WOULD WANNA CLARIFICATION ON WHICH PORTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL FORMULA SPECIFICALLY. WE WANTED TO SEE ADDRESS, BROKEN OR EXTREMELY BROKEN, SURE DOUBLED LAST YEAR.

IT'S DOUBLING AGAIN THIS YEAR. THIS STUDY JUST CAME OUT SHOWING THAT AUSTIN HAS THE HIGHEST FEES IN THE STATE BY FAR WHEN IT COMES TO RESIDENTIAL PRODUCTION AND OUTLETS LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO DO THE SAME TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE WITH THE SAME BROKEN FORMULA.

I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE IF WE FIX THE FORMULA. ARE WE USING THE SAME BROKEN FORMULA? COMMISSION I DON'T BELIEVE THE FORMULA IS BROKEN. I BELIEVE THE FORMULA IS NOW STARTING TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST THAT COST THE PARKS AND RECREATION APARTMENT.

PROVIDE LAND AND PARK FACILITIES FOR NEW RESIDENTS THAT ARE COMING TO AUSTIN. THAT WE CAN EITHER SUBSIDIZE THAT THROUGH BOND FUNDING WITH EXISTING TAXPAYER DOLLARS OR WE CAN MAKE DEVELOPMENT PAY FOR ITSELF OR A PORTION OF ITSELF RIGHT NOW.

WITH THE PASSAGE OF A COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE, THERE'S A PIE CHART IN THE PRESENTATION THAT SHOWED A 50 50 BREAKDOWN. WHERE GROWTH IS BEING SUBSIDIZED 50% BY EXISTING RESIDENTS AND 50 IN AREAS WHERE DEMOLITION EXCUSE ME, IT'S MY TIME. GIVE ME A SECOND, IF YOU AND SO WE SEE THESE DEMOLITIONS HAPPENING, WE SEE $3 MILLION SINGLE FAMILY HOMES GOING UP.

ARE THEY PAYING INTO PARLIAMENT? DEDICATION? $3 MILLION. FAMILY HOMES, PAYING PARKLAND DEDICATION. YES IF THEY CAME THROUGH A SUBDIVISION. THEY WOULD BE PAYING PARKLAND EDUCATION. SO THE ANSWER IS NO. THEN IT'S A ONE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT. IT'S NOT OKAY. GOTCHA SO WHAT KIND OF PARKS ARE WE LEAVING OUT OF FORMULA? SO THE FORMULA RIGHT NOW HAS A

[01:50:03]

LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT 9.4 ACRES . AND THAT INCLUDES ALL OF OUR PARK TYPES, EXCEPT FOR METRO AND DISTRICT PARKS. THE TRUE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT WE WERE TRYING TO ASPIRE TO HIS 24 ACRES PER 1000 RESIDENTS. BUT THE FORMULA EXCLUSIVES LARGER PARKS BECAUSE THEY'RE SORT OF A LARGER REGIONAL SERVICE AREA, AS OPPOSED TO THE SMALLER SERVICE AREA OF THE POCKET PARKS, NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, BUTTON PARKS, ETCETERA, SO THAT EQUALS ABOUT 9.4. ACRES PER 1000 PEOPLE , WHICH MEANS WE'RE SORT OF CONSTANTLY BEHIND AND KEEPING OUR LEVEL OF SERVICE. I LOVE ALL THAT AUSTIN THAT PEOPLE THAT ENCOURAGES GROWTH THAT ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO MOVE TO THE CITY FOR THE PARK INFRASTRUCTURE. WE'RE LEAVING OUT ZILKER AND WATERY LONG PARK IN THIS FORMULA AS WELL, ONCE AGAIN. AS WELL AS OTHERS. THAT'S CORRECT. IF WE ACTUALLY INCREASE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE, THE PARK FEES WOULD ACTUALLY BE HIGHER BECAUSE YOU'D BE REQUIRING A MORE LAND BECAUSE YOU RE ACQUIRING NEW DEVELOPMENTS TO KEEP UP WITH OUR HIGHER OUR CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE, AS OPPOSED TO THE LEVEL OF SERVICE JUST FOR THEIR SERVICE AREA. I GUESS THAT JUST SEEMS TO ADD INTO IT BEING BROKEN SO IT TO RESIDENTIAL FEE'S DOUBLED YET AGAIN THIS YEAR, AND THAT'S OKAY. I WAS, RANDY SCOTT WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER. IT'S KEEPING UP WITH THE ACTUAL COST OF PURCHASING AN ACRE PARKLAND.

SO THIS YEAR, THE PROJECTED COSTS THE AVERAGE COST OF PURCHASING PARKLAND OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS WAS $365,000.

PER ACRE. I THINK YOU WOULD BE HARD PRESSED IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO PURCHASE AN ACRE OF LAND FOR $365,000.

IT'S JUST GONNA BE A HARD CONVERSATION LOOK LIKE IT'S GONNA BE A HARD CONVERSATION TO TELL PEOPLE YOU'RE WELCOME TO USE OUR PARKS. BUT BY THE WAY, YOU CAN NEVER AFFORD TO LIVE HERE, SO I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. BUT THIS SEEMS REALLY BROKEN IN RUSH TO ME. GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE HAVE. A LOT OF INTEREST IN THIS CHANGE. OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE ONE MORE SPOT, I WOULD BE OPEN TO HAVE A WHOLE LIST OF QUESTIONS AND I DON'T THINK I'LL GET TO BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY GETS A CHANCE. SO HE COULD SUSPEND OUR ROLES IF NEEDED. LET'S SEE. GOING TO WHO HAS NOT ASKED QUESTIONS YET I WOULD MAKE A MOTION. THIS IS IMPORTANT, AND I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO ALLOW THE COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE QUESTIONS TO ASK THEIR QUESTIONS , BECAUSE PROBABLY IF YOU HAVE THE QUESTION, A FEW OTHER PEOPLE DO, TOO. OF ANY OF OUR COMMISSIONERS. OKAY LET'S GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. APPRECIATE STAFF. THANK YOU. SO I LET'S JUST DO A QUICK CHECK. WE HAVE ONE MORE SPOT. I CAN ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. DO WE HAVE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HOWARD, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? YEAH, I CAN HEAR YOU. I'M SORRY. I KNOW I DO. OKAY SO WE DO SO REAL QUICK. LET'S SUSPEND OUR RULES. JUST DO I HAVE A PROPOSAL FOR EVERYBODY? OKAY FOR AT LEAST ALLOWING EVERY COMMISSIONER TO SPEAK. OKAY ONCE, AND THAT WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUSHTALER. LET'S REAL QUICK, THOSE ON THE DAIS THAT WOULD ALLOW THIS MOTION AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. LET ME SEE YOUR VOTE ON THIS. WE NEED A SUPERMAJORITY WRITES, SPEND RULES. OKAY THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

OKAY. I'M GONNA COMMISSIONER HOWARD. GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH YOUR QUESTIONS IF YOU'RE READY. MAYBE IT'S THE COMMENT QUESTION. I AM HAVE A CHILD WITH SPECIAL NEEDS, AND I'M JUST WONDERING ABOUT HOW WE ACCOUNT FOR THE ADDITIONAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT OF PARKS THAT INCLUDING INCLUDING ENCOURAGED SENSORY. THEY MOTOR SKILLS TO BE, YOU KNOW, LIKE DEVELOPED I MEAN, TYPICALLY, THOSE COSTS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CONSIDER IN THE DEDICATION AND HOW THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT'S FACTORED IN AND ONE IN 88 CHILDREN OR ARTISTIC ME AND I THINK MAYBE SOMETHING TOO WOULD BE SOMETHING TO BE CONSIDERED, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ACCOUNTING FOR IN TERMS OF ADDITIONAL COST OR HOW WE FACTOR THAT IN OR LOCATION AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. SO I MEAN, IF SOMEONE COULD JUST SPEAK TO THAT GENERALLY. I'LL BE GREAT.

COMMISSIONER THE SURROUNDING ESCOTT AGAIN. I DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION FOR YOU. I KNOW IT IS EXPENSIVE FOR US TO DEVELOP NEW PARKS. OUR PARKS. FACILITIES ARE FULLY ADA ACCESSIBLE. AND I BELIEVE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AH, ABOVE AND BEYOND JUST A D, A COMPLIANT MARKS. AND I CAN GET YOU THAT

[01:55:02]

INFORMATION. BUT I DON'T HAVE IT HANDY. NOT APOLOGIZE. OKAY? THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION. ALL RIGHT, EMITTERS THAT I'M GOING TO GO. IF UNLESS I'M GONNA LAST . IF THERE'S ANY OTHER FOLKS THAT HAVE NOT ASKED QUESTIONS, I THINK MITCH SNIDER. DID YOU HAVE ANY. OKAY LET ME GO AND GO DOWN. I'M GONNA GO AND START TO SEE IF I CAN GET THROUGH THIS. SO WHAT HAS THERE BEEN ANY OPPOSITION TO THESE RULES FROM DURING YOUR COMMUNITY? BE IT ENGAGEMENT. OR WHERE IS IT COME FROM? IF THERE IS A. SO I GUESS. ONE SIMPLE WAY TO ANSWER THAT IS JUST IN OUR SURVEY RESULTS. WE ASKED IF, THAT'S WHAT HOW THIS WOULD IMPACT A BUSINESS'S OPERATIONS.

WOULD IT IMPROVE WHAT IT SAY THE SAME WAY TO DETERIORATE? ONLY 12% OF RESPONDENTS RESPONDED THAT THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS WOULD DETERIORATE. THERE WERE SEVERAL COMMENTS RELATED TO, PARKLAND REGULATIONS BEING ARE LIKE JUST ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BEING ADDED. SO I THINK IN ANYTHING, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE OPPOSITION AND SUPPORT, BUT PRETTY OVERWHELMINGLY, THE SURVEY RESULTS HAVE SHOWN SUPPORT. OKAY STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS. WE'VE HAD SEVERAL QUESTIONS, BUT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO LIKE ANSWER AND ADDRESS. ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP. OKAY LET ME CONTINUE JUST TO SEE IF I GET THROUGH. SO THE PROCESS I THOUGHT I THINK SOME OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WE KIND OF HAVE LIKE THINGS TO KIND OF COME TO US THROUGH OUR CODES AND TRYING COACH LAWRENCE, THE JOINT COMMITTEE. LET'S ZAP ALSO HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH HIM. SO ANY REASON WHY WE DIDN'T KIND OF GO THROUGH THAT NORMAL PROCESS FOR US, IT'S NORMAL. AND I THINK WE DON'T HAVE THE PART RIGHT? YOU HAVEN'T PRESENTED THIS TWO PART YET. I KNOW IT ORIGINATED FROM THEM, BUT IT HASN'T GONE TO THEM. WE HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PARK. WE'VE BEEN UPDATING PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD FOR THE LAST THREE MONTHS, WE WILL BE BACK IN FRONT OF THEM AND ACTION. THE REASON WE'RE HERE TONIGHT. WAS TO GET ON YOUR FIRST AVAILABLE AGENDA. OKAY, IF YOU HAD QUESTIONS WE'D LIKE TO BE PREPARED TO ANSWER THEM FOR THE NEXT MEETING. THAT'S THE REASON WE'RE HERE TONIGHT. OKAY YES. SORRY I MEANT THE PARKS BOARD. OKAY, SO LET'S LET'S SEE . SO WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT IF WE DID RECOMMEND THAT THIS GO BE DELAYED AND GO THROUGH OUR CODES, LAWRENCE'S AND THEN COME BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION. THAT WOULD BE A COUPLE OF MONTHS. HOW IT WOULD BE A COUPLE OF MONTHS DELAY. MR RIVERA, GET GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. WHAT WOULD BE THE DELAY? CHURCH COMMISSION. ELISA MENTOR NEXT PARK SPORT MEETING IS THE 27TH.

YEAH YEAH. SO YOUR NEXT MEETING AFTER THAT? WOULD BE. AND GET THEM BACK CALENDAR. OKAY BUT WE COULD GET IT TO COACHES AND JOINT CODAS AND ORANGES JOINT COMMITTEE BEFORE NEXT HAVE THAT AS JULY 20TH. IS THAT AN OP? COMMISSION HOUSES AND THEN NOT HAVE TO CHECK WITH THE LADIES UNDER THAT, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE A POSSIBILITY. I HAVE, YOURS. NEXT MEETING IS JULY, 26. YES. I HOPE PARK SPORTS. NEXT MEETING IS JULY 25TH AT NIGHT BEFORE, OKAY? SO WE CAN WE CAN STILL MAKE COUNCILS DEADLINE. WITH A JULY 20TH CODES AND ORDINANCES SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING. PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD ON JULY 25TH.

BACK HERE ON THE 26TH AND NOW COUNCIL ON THE 28TH. ALL RIGHT.

DO WE HAVE TO BE A FUN WEEK? OKAY. YEAH, DO WE DO WE HAVE TIME, MR RIVERA TO GET IT ON. CODES AND ORDINANCES AT THIS POINT JUERGEN. THAT MEETING WOULD BE JULY, 20TH CONFERRED WITH THE LIAISON AND I BELIEVE AS WE HAVE MEMBERS WHO CAN CO SPONSOR THAT AS WELL. OKAY? ALRIGHT. LET ME GO TO SO, OLDEST DO ANYTHING TO OFFSET SOME OF THE PRESSURE ON THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO CONTRIBUTE PARKLAND, WILL IT WELL THAT SHIFT SOME OF THAT AND HELP OUT WITH MAYBE SOME OF THE YOU KNOW THE DEVELOPERS IN ALLOWING THEM TO DO MORE FEEL BLUE UNLESS CONTRIBUTION. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT THAT GOES INTO THAT. BUT WILL IT HAVE SOME IMPACT THERE. IT. IT WOULD INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF FEE AND LOU OF IF WE WERE TO ACQUIRE LAND BECAUSE IT WOULD BE

[02:00:02]

LESS PART DEFICIENT AREAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. NOW THE ADJUSTING THE FEE FOR PARKLAND DEDICATION. RESIDENTIAL THAT'S A COUNCIL POLICY DECISIONS. THE FEAR MEANT WOULD THERE BE LESS OF A NEED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO ACTUALLY DONATE LAND IS OPPOSED TO DUFY AND LOU DOES IT? THAT IS A FAIR ASSUMPTION. YES. AND THEN, HOW LONG SHOULD WE HOLD ON TO THE FEES WE GET? ISN'T THERE A LIMIT ? IF YOU DON'T SPEND THEM BY A CERTAIN TIME WE TRY TO EXPAND THEM WITHIN FIVE YEARS. AND THEN THEY WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT? WITH THE PROJECTS NOT BUILT. THE DEVELOPER HAS 180 DAYS TO REQUEST A REFUND. OR FOR A PORTION OF WHAT HAS NOT BEEN BUILT. REBUILD THE PROJECT, AND WE DON'T SPEND THE MONEY HE HAD LOU AND DEVELOPMENT FEES. IS THERE ANY CLOCK THAT WE HAVE TO SPEND THOSE BY? NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR GETTING ME THROUGH THE THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? I GUESS WE OPENED IT UP. WE DON'T GOT MOST EVERYONE, WITH THAT. DO WE HAVE A. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. WE HAVE COMMISSIONER COMICS. YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THE MOTION. I WAS GOING TO MAKE A COMMOTION BASED ON WHAT YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT, OKAY? PLACE PROCEED.

MAKING MOTION TO POSTPONED THIS ITEM. TO OUR NEXT MEETING ON THE 26 AFTER IT'S HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO THE PARKS BOARD AND THE CODE AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE. OKAY, DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? LOOK FOR A SECOND COMMISSIONER HOWARD ALL RIGHT.

YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE FURTHER MISSION RECOVER.

YEAH I'LL JUST SAY THAT I'M I'M I'M VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT OF THIS . I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT AFFORDABILITY IN AUSTIN, BUT I THINK THE QUICKEST WAY TO MAKE AUSTIN CHEAPER TO LIVE IS BY DRAMATICALLY. REDUCING OUR QUALITY OF LIFE SO THAT NO ONE WANTS TO LIVE HERE AND SO I THINK IT'S SIMILAR TO OUR STREET NETWORKS ARE TRANSIT NETWORKS EVERYTHING ELSE. EVERYTHING ELSE IS STRUGGLING TO CATCH UP. WITH THE GROWTH THAT WE'VE SEEN, PARTICULARLY THROUGH THIS CRAZY COVID PERIOD AND OUR PARKS ARE NO DIFFERENT AND ACTUALLY PARKS , MAYBE EVEN MORE IMPACTED BY THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE SEEING.

PULSE COVID IN THE WAY PEOPLE LIVE THEIR LIVES. WE KEEP SEEING EVERY YEAR THE AUSTIN PARKS RATING DROPPED NATIONALLY HAS COMPARED TO OUR PEERS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. AND SO I'M REALLY, REALLY CONCERNED THAT WE'RE UNDERFUNDING OUR PARKS, AND I THINK THIS IS A VERY FAIR WAY. TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ACQUIRING PARKS OR FUNDING PARK IMPROVEMENTS, TO KEEP UP WITH THE DEMAND FROM ALL THIS GROWTH THAT DOES INCLUDE COMMERCIAL GROWTH, SO I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. BUT I ALSO DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT DIDN'T REALLY GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. I DO THINK I'M VERY INTERESTED IN HEARING THE PARKS BOARD.

RECOMMENDATION OR NOT RECOMMENDATION ON THIS BEFORE WE MAKE A FINAL VOTE AND RECOMMENDATION ACCOUNT. OKAY ANY COMMISSIONERS OPPOSED TO THIS DELAY? EMITTERS ARE. CHAIR I WOULD LIKE HIM TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE THIS ITEM BY A MONTH. SO WE WOULD BRING IT BACK INSTEAD OF TWO WEEKS WILL BE COMING BACK. COMING BACK ON LIKE THIS THIS CORRECTLY IT WOULD BE AUGUST 9TH. SOMEONE COULD GRAB ME IF I'M WRONG. THAT IS THEY HAVE. THAT IS CORRECT. DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION. IT IS NOT CLEAR. IS IT STILL GOING BACK TO PARKS AND ORDINANCES ARE JUST COMING BACK HERE IN A MONTH. MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE THE COMMISSIONER THAT IT WOULD COME BACK TO US AND IN A MONTH, BUT THEY WOULD ALSO STILL GO TO PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD, GOLDEN ORDINANCES, JOINT COMMITTEE AND ANY OTHER BODY VENICE TO REVIEW THIS BUT A MONTH WOULD GIVE US A CALL. I CAN SPEAK TO MY EMOTIONAL, BUT THAT'S THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

SO WE NEED A SECOND. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHAVED SO YOU CAN SPEAK TO YOUR EMOTIONS. THANK YOU, DEAR. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF PICKLE QUESTIONS THAT STILL REMAIN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHERS BUT I'VE HAD STAKEHOLDERS REACH OUT TO ME RIGHT LEFT AND CENTER WITH A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS, AND I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ADDRESS THOSE IN A REASONABLE WAY. MONTH I WOULD ALSO HOPE WOULD GIVE US HIS COMMISSIONERS TO GO BACK TO SOME HOMEWORK AND BRING FORTH AND MAKE SURE THAT SOME OF THOSE HOLDERS ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED IN A MEANINGFUL WAY. I'LL BE HONEST AND IDEAL WORLD I WOULD HAVE

[02:05:01]

LOVED TO FORM A WORKING GROUP. AND PUT MORE DIME INTO THIS AT LEAST NEED A MONTH AND I SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HEARING FROM STAFF, RIGHT? CLEARLY THEY JUST DID A MEETING OF FEW DAYS AGO LAST MEETING. HOW DO WE BUILD TRUST IN THE PROCESS THAT WE DO AS PUBLIC ENTITY. IF WE'RE SAYING WE DID A MEETING WHERE BEFORE WE CAN EVEN ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS, WE'RE GOING AHEAD AND PRESENTING AN ITEM WELL WITH ANY FEEDBACK FROM THAT MEETING, ACTUALLY INPUT INTO AN ORDINANCE LIKE THIS IS JUST NOT THE WAY THAT WE CAN PUSH THIS, TOO. AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ACRIMONIOUS CONVERSATIONS AROUND RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND IN THE PREVIOUS PROCESS, I WISH WE WOULD JUST TAKE SOME PARTS DO THIS RIGHT. I WOULD RATHER GET THIS RIGHT. HAVE OUR STAKEHOLDERS WITH US. RATHER THAN DO THIS QUICKLY AND REALLY HURT. YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE WHO TRUST US TO DO THIS RIGHT? SO THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S CRITICAL PROSTITUTE. OKAY DO YOU HAVE ANY SPEAKERS AGAINST THIS MOTION? FOR THIS MOTION. YOU. OKAY DON'T SEEING IT. GO AHEAD, AND I'M GOING TO GO FOR IT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OR EITHER, BUT I MEAN, I'M JUST LOOKING ONLINE JUST REAL QUICK AND I'M SEEING IN IN AS COMMUTERS IN THE METRO AREA. 257,000 PEOPLE COMMUTE THAT'S THE METRO AREA, NOT THE CITY INTO THE CITY OF AUSTIN, BUT ALSO 220,000 PEOPLE COMMUTE OUT OF THE METRO AREA EVERY DAY. SO I'M JUST THINKING THAT THAT FORMULA REALLY NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW, WORK COUNTING. FOR ALL THE MOVEMENT OF THE PEOPLE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S YOU KNOW IF WE CAN ASK CODES AND ORDINANCES TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT FORMULA AS WE DO THIS TWO. IS THAT JUST A RECOMMENDED? DO YOU WANT US TO INCORPORATE ANYTHING IN THE SUBSTITUTE WOULD LIKE STAFF TO RESPOND TO THAT. I MEAN WITH WITH RESEARCH AND WHAT THE COMEDIAN PATTERNS ON, OKAY. WE CAN DEVELOP THE RESPONSE FOR.

TRYING TO TRACK RECORD THEY HAVE ANY FOLKS WHO WANT TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS MOTION COMMISSIONER COX. I JUST WANT TO SAY I OFTEN HEAR THE TERM HOUSING DELAYED IS HOUSING DENIED. AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND MUTILATE THAT TO SAY PARK DEDICATION DELAYED AS PARK DEDICATION DENIED. I UNDERSTAND. I'M SUPER AH! ADVOCATE OF GETTING PUBLIC INPUT, STAKEHOLDER INPUT. I THINK WE DO THAT THROUGH PUSHING THIS BACK THROUGH PARTS. AND THEY COULDN'T CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE. I'M A LITTLE CURIOUS, AND IT'S NOT REALLY CLEAR WHAT OTHER STAKEHOLDER IMPACT WERE EXPECTED TO GET WITH THE EXTRA TWO WEEKS. UNLESS UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING HAPPENING IN THOSE TWO WEEKS THAT I'M NOT AWARE OF. BUT I JUST HOPE THAT THIS ISN'T THIS ISN'T A MECHANISM TO TRY TO TORPEDO THIS THING, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF OPPOSITION AND THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, TO THIS AND I JUST HOPE THAT WE'RE GIVING IT A FAIR SHOT. TO SUCCEED. CAN I, JUST ASK STAFF WHAT THE IMPACT IS GOING TO BE? I HEARD THAT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS FOR CERTAIN THAT THIS WAS A COUNCIL DATE, HAVE THIS BACK. OR IF IT WOULD JUST SCHEDULE THAT WAY DOES WAS THAT A COUNCIL DIRECTIVE TO HAVE THIS? THIS WAS A COUNCIL DIRECTIVE HAD THIS BACK AT COUNCIL BEFORE BUDGET. AND SO BUDGET ARE WE? JULY 28TH. OKAY? SO THE DELAY TO THE NIGHT IS WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT OF THAT AS FAR AS. DOES THAT MEAN WE'RE GOING TO MISS THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THIS ADDITIONAL? FUNDING I'M TRYING TO SEE WHAT THE REAL REALITY IS FOR YOU IF THIS DOESN'T GET APPROVED ON THIS DATE. THE BUDGET. I'M JUST TRYING TO. DOESN'T MATTER. AS FAR AS KIMBERLY MCNEELY. I SERVE AS THE PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR. SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE WERE DIRECTED TO DO WAS BRING THIS BACK SO THAT IT COULD BE CONSIDERED BY COUNSEL DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS, THE BUDGET PROCESS. THOSE HEARINGS HAPPEN, BELIEVE, PLEASE, I HAVE. I'M DOING THIS FROM MEMORY. BUT I KNOW THAT THERE'S SOMETHING ON AUGUST 2ND. AND THEN I BELIEVE THERE'S SOMETHING ON AUGUST 9TH AND AUGUST 11TH. AND THEN THERE'S SOMETHING THE ACTUAL BUDGET HERE, THE ACTUAL BUDGET, DISCUSSION WHERE THEY'LL VOTE ON DIFFERENT THINGS HAPPENS TO 17TH 18TH AND MAYBE THE 19TH AND SO

[02:10:02]

BY DELAYING THIS UNTIL AUGUST, WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO FULFILL THE REQUEST TO BRING IT BACK FOR CONSIDERATION DURING THE BUDGET.

BECAUSE WE WON'T HAVE THE ORDINANCE COMPLETED THAT WE WON'T HAVE THEM. WE WON'T HAVE IT AVAILABLE TO COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION DURING THAT DISCUSSION PROCESS. OKAY THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU. YES I JUST WANTED TO HEAR WHAT THE IMPACT TO THE END COMMISSIONER DESIRE. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR WHAT. SO I HAVE. I DO HAVE A QUESTION. I UNDERSTAND WHERE STAFF IS GOING. BUT COUNCILORS DOING THE ADOPTION AS MISS MAKE NEARLY HERSELF, SAID DIRECTOR RELEASED ON AUGUST 17TH AND 19TH. COUNCIL COULD STILL ADOPT THE FEAST FEDERAL AS PART OF THE BUDGET ADOPTION AS IT HAPPENS EVERY YEAR AT THAT TIME COUNCIL SAID THAT THE PUBLIC THAT WE NEED TO SEE THE ORDINANCE AT THE TIME OF PUBLIC HEARINGS. OR DID THEY SAY THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS BECAUSE OF THE BUDGET PROCESS IS ENDING ON AUGUST 18TH AND 19TH. I SEE THAT AS THE FINAL DATES FOR THIS, I HATE TO SAY IT. I'M SORRY, BUT STAFF IS CONFUSING US HERE WHETHER STAFF COUNCIL REQUESTED THAT THIS COMES AT THE TIME OF THE BUDGET HEARING WHEN COMMUNITY MEMBERS ARE PROVIDING FEEDBACK ON THE BUDGET, OR DOES IT COME AT A TIME FOR ADOPTION WITH THE FEE SCHEDULE IN THE ACTUAL PARKLAND? DEDICATION FEES WITH THIS? I GUESS I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ON STAFF. ARE WE MESSING UP THE TIMELINE HERE OR AM I JUST COMPLETELY OFFICE? SO THAT WAS DIRECTED TO STAFF, I GUESS. YES IT WAS THE TIMELINE RIGHT NOW, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AH! IF WE WERE POSTPONED TONIGHT, WE NEEDED TO BE ON THE NEXT JULY, 26. HEARING. AND THAT AUDIENCES ON THE 20TH, BUT BUT I COULD BE WRONG. I MEAN, YOU'RE SAYING THAT COUNSEL IS NOT GOING TO ADOPT THE BUDGET UNTIL MUCH LIGHTER THAN WHAT I WAS UNDERSTANDING. SO I HAVE THE DUMB QUESTION OF THE DAY. I'M SORRY. I JUST SO IF IT'S FOR CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF. I WAS TRYING TO ASSESS THE IMPACT SO YES, AND IT'S RELATED BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IMPACTS THE BUDGET. DON'T WORRY. N. IT SHOULDN'T. BECAUSE IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PUBLIC BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE THEN THAT SHOULDN'T BE IN THE BUDGET THAT EXISTS. LIKE I SAID, THIS MAY BE THE DUMB QUESTION OF THE DAY. SORRY I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN ASKED TO DO. I RESPECT THAT. BUT THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND THIS IS IMPACT THE BUDGET. SO I THINK, WE FOUND THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE SHIP JUST COULDN'T READ IT. YEAH, WE'RE NOT STRONG ENOUGH. SAY, LET ME JUST SCROLL TO IT. OKAY, SO IT SAYS, THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTS THE CITY MANAGER TO ENGAGE WITH STAKEHOLDERS AS PART OF DEVELOPING THIS CODE AMENDMENT AND TO PLACE THE CODE AMENDMENT ON AN UPCOMING COUNCIL AGENDA THAT PROVIDES COUNCIL WAS SUFFICIENT TIME TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AND PLACE THE FEET INTO THE FISCAL YEAR 2023 BUDGEE READINGS, OKAY? OKAY? SO OKAY, SO WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. LET'S GO AHEAD. WE HAVE CLARIFICATION ON KIND OF HOW THIS AFFECTS THE BUDGET PROCESS AND WHAT COUNSEL ASKED FOR. THAT'S WHAT I WAS SEEKING. SO WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO DELAY. AH! DELAY CONSIDERATION OF THIS UNTIL OUR AUGUST 9TH MEETING IS BY COMMISSIONER AZHAR SEGMENT BY COMMISSIONER SHIEH. LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ITEM. YES. I'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR. I DO HAVE ONE MORE SPOT. RIGHT, GO AHEAD. SO I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF STAFF HAVING MORE TIME WE'VE SEEN INCOMPLETE SIDES WHERE THEY TELL US PLACES WHERE THEY'D LIKE TO HAVE THINGS, BUT THINGS DIDN'T MAKE IT INTO SLIDES. THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS TO STANDING. I'M HEARING FROM A TON OF PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST SAYING, THIS IS REALLY, REALLY BAD, AND WE NEED A LOT MORE TIME TO UNDERSTAND THIS.

AND YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT STATE STATUE THIS IS UNDER IT'S NOT CLEAR AND WE ARE PLOWING NEW GROUND HERE. SO YOU KNOW THE STATE GIVES THE CITY'S A LITTLE BIT OF BANDWIDTH TO WORK IN. AND THEN WHEN WE GET REALLY UNREASONABLE WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE THE HIGHEST FEES IN THE STATE BY FAR AND THEY DOUBLE EVERY YEAR AND ONE FEE CATEGORY , AND WE SAY, HEY, THAT'S OKAY.

THAT'S OKAY BECAUSE WE HAVE GOOD REASONS WHY, THAT'S OKAY. PARKS ARE AMAZING. BUT WHEN YOU ALREADY HAVE THESE OUT OF STEP BEES THAT JUST DOUBLING YEAR AFTER YEAR AND THEN WE'RE USING THE SAME FORMULA TO GO OVER HERE . THE STATES JUST GONNA TAKE THIS POWER AWAY FROM US, BUT WE KNOW THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN IF WE GO DOWN THIS ROUTE. I'M NOT THINKING THIS THROUGH WELL

[02:15:01]

ENOUGH. AND COMING UP WITH THIS HALF BAKED FORMULA THAT'S ALREADY BROKEN ON ONE SIDE AND THEN REJIGGERING IT AND DOING SOMETHING ELSE ON THE OTHER SIDE WITH IT JUST TO GET MORE FEES, AND WE'RE SO GOOD AT ADDING FEES WERE STILL REALLY BAD AT MAKING YOU KNOW, RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT EASY TO ACHIEVE IN THIS CITY, BUT WE NEED MORE TIME TO THINK THIS THROUGH IN THE WORK ON IT TO LET THESE OTHER FOLKS LOOK AT IT AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE ONE MORE SPOT FOR THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION. IF YOU WANT TO TAKE IT, OR WE GO AND PROCEED TO VOTE. DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK OF COMMISSIONER MITCH TYLER? ONLY REASON I CAN THINK THAT I WOULD BE AGAINST DELAYING IS IF THE IDEA IS TO IMPLEMENT THE FEES AT A TIME ON THE BUDGET CYCLE TO NOTIFY DEVELOPERS. SO AGAIN, IT COMES BACK TO KIND OF A STAFF QUESTION. BUT. YEAH, I KNOW. WE WANT IT TO BE THOUGHT OUT. I JUST DON'T. I DON'T. I DON'T. I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND ENOUGH ABOUT THE COUNCIL PROCESS THAT IF THEY'RE ADDING THIS I DON'T UNDERSTAND IF WE TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO WORK IT OUT. AND UNDERSTAND IT BETTER. IS THERE SOME KIND OF LEGAL THING THAT'S PREVENTING US FROM IMPLEMENTING IT. ONCE IT'S APPROVED, WOULD COUNSEL HAVE THE DIRECTION TO BE ABLE TO SAY WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT IT AND NOTIFY IT DOESN'T THERE'S NO STATUTE THAT SAYS IT HAS TO GO WITH THE 2023. BUDGET. IT COULD GO AT ANY TIME.

RIGHT? SORRY SORRY. NO, NOT PROCESS ORDER. LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS SIDE. SUBSTITUTE MOTION AGAIN. THIS IS DELAYED TO, HEARING THIS TILL AUGUST 9TH AND THAT WAS MOST OF MY COMMISSIONERS ARE SAYING BY COMMISSIONER SHANE. LET'S START THOSE ON THE DIETS, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. AND THOSE ON THE DIETS THAT ARE AGAINST OKAY? AND WE HAVE COMMISSIONED MUSHTALER STAINING AND THEN LET ME LOOK AT THE SCREEN HERE.

THOSE AND FAVOR OF THIS MOTION. 12. LET ME SEE. I'M COUNTING FOR A GREEN COMMISSIONER. CONGRESS ARE YOU IS THAT YELLOW OR GREEN? YELLOW. OK, LET ME HOLD ON ONE SECOND. ALRIGHT SO THAT'S AH AND THEN THOSE AGAINST THE MOTION THAT ARE VIRTUALLY PARTICIPATING. OKAY? AND THEN THOSE ABSTAINING. LB COMMISSIONER KHANNA. OKAY, THAT MOTION. TESTS IS 7123. SO WE WILL HEAR THAT ON AUGUST 9TH. AND REAL QUICK. LET'S HAVE A I'M SORRY. 7127 AND LET ME IT WAS SEVEN IN FAVOR. WE HAD, THE. ONE LET'S SEE. COMMISSIONER SNYDER WAS AGAINST AND OF STANDING WAS COMMISSIONER MOOSE TOLERANT COMMISSIONER COX IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT CORRECTION. ALRIGHT FOLKS, WE'VE CLEARED THAT ITEM. LET'S GO AND TAKE A CAN I GIVE YOU A QUICK UPDATE ON THE QUESTION I HAD EARLIER AND I JUST WANTED TO LET THE COMMISSIONER KNOW THAT WE ARE DEVELOPING SEVERAL INCLUSIVE PLAYGROUNDS AND SEVERAL PARKS AROUND THE CITY.

AH KINGSBURY COMMON WALNUT CREEK METRO AND SEVERAL OTHERS.

THERE'S ALSO ONE THAT WILL BE UNDERWAY IN A COUPLE OF YEARS THAT SOUTH AUSTIN'S OKAY LET YOU NO, THANK YOU. I THOUGHT THAT WAS A VERY GOOD QUESTION BY COMMISSIONER HOWARD. AND SO, YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT INPUT BECAUSE I THINK IT IS SOMETHING.

I JUST NEVER THOUGHT OF AND THAT WE NEED TO GIVE MORE CONSIDERATION OF AND I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M GONNA TAKE MY PREROGATIVE. HERE IS A CHAIR. I AM A BIG PARKS ADVOCATE. BUT I HAVE SEEN WHAT'S HAPPENED AND I'VE BEEN WITH YOU GUYS WHEN WE YOU KNOW, HAD THE WAS 2013. PARKS ORDINANCE REVISITED AND YOU KNOW JUST SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH TOGETHER, AND I THINK THIS DOES NEED MORE THOUGHTFUL APPLICATION. SO I THINK THAT THE TIME WILL BE A GOOD THING FOR ALL OF US. SO I DIDN'T FEEL GOOD ABOUT DELAYING IT, BUT I THINK IT IT WILL BE A GOOD THING FOR US TO HEAR MORE PASSES THROUGH CODES AND JOINT ORIGINS AND GIVE US A LITTLE MORE TIME TO BREATHE AND THINK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING AND NOT RUSH IT SO THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT, LET'S TAKE A LET'S TAKE A QUICK BREAK FIVE MINUTES IF WE CAN AND RETURN BACK HERE, SO IT IS. 8 28. SO LET'S TRY TO GET BACK HERE BY ABOUT 8 35. T COME BACK. WE HAVE JUST CHECK.

[02:20:02]

ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK WE DISPOSE WITH ALL OF OUR AGENDA.

BE ITEMS. SO RECON. OKAY. SORRY. OKAY. ASSIGN YOU TO SOMETHING.

YOUR ROOM. ALRIGHT. BRING. LET'S GO AND BRING THIS MEETING BACK TO ORDER. 8 38, AND WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO OUR NEXT

[C1. Discussion and possible action establishing one or more working groups related to incentivizing and increasing housing. (Co-Sponsors Commissioner Shieh and Anderson)]

AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS C ONE. AND SO THE PROCESS FOR THIS IS WE'VE GOT, WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS TWICE IN POSTPONED IT. NOW WE'VE GOT T THAT HOPEFULLY FOLKS HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO READ TO ADD A LITTLE MORE DETAIL, BUT WE'LL START WITH FROM THE SPONSORS. SOME INTRODUCTION AND DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.

AND THEN WE'LL GO INTO SOME Q AND A I WAS GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS HERE WE NOW HAVE AND THIS COULD BE AN ISSUE. SO WE HAVE FIVE. WE HAVE EIGHT. WE MAY HAVE TROUBLE ASSIGNING ROLE , KIND OF ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE WORKING GROUPS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET A PRESENTATION FROM THE SPONSORS. WE'LL START WITH THE COMMISSIONER SHEA AND THEN COMMISSIONER ANDERSON CAN FOLLOW MORE COMMENTS. BUT LET'S AND JUST KNOW THAT THIS IS JUST A WORKING DOCUMENT. KINDA FRAME THE IDEA. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE WELCOME INPUT AND DISCUSSION FROM THOSE OF US THAT ARE HERE TO KIND OF GET THIS RIGHT? SO GO AHEAD AND, MR SHEA. YOU WANT TO START US OUT ON THIS ITEM? SURE.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND START. SO, WE WERE TASKED WITH COMING UP WITH A MORE FOCUSED APPROACH TO WHAT OUR GROUP WAS TRYING TO DO. AND SO, A FEW OF THE COMMISSIONERS WE WENT THROUGH. WE KIND OF DISCUSSED THROUGH WHAT THIS MIGHT LOOK LIKE IN THE WATER TO KEEP STAY ON TASK, I GUESS. AND SO I PUT TOGETHER THIS DOCUMENT WE WENT THROUGH IT. WE HAD A COUPLE VERSIONS OF IT. AND WE ALSO TALKED WITH, YOU KNOW SOME SOME OTHERS AS WELL AND CAME UP WITH THIS. THIS CONCEPT TO KEEP IT MORE FOCUSED SO THIS, IN ESSENCE IS MORE ABOUT, I'D SAY ABOUT DATA GATHERING GOING THROUGH TO THE PUBLIC TO DIFFERENT PROFESSIONALS TO STAFF , AND HEARING FROM THEM AND BRINGING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. AND ONCE IT COMES HERE BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUE DISPOSE OF EACH OF THESE CONCEPTS. YOU KNOW, AS WE SEE FIT AS A GROUP SO THE FIRST THE FIRST THING IS, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THE BIG CONCEPT IS TO EXAMINE EXISTING CODE AND PROCESSES TO DEVELOP STRATEGIES TO INCREASE THE HOUSING YIELD THROUGH THE REDUCTION OF INEFFICIENCIES INSTRUCTION IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR.

SO THIS KIND OF ESTABLISHED THAT WE'RE WE'RE AND AGAIN. THIS IS A WORKING DOCUMENT. WE'RE GOING TO START WITH LOOKING AT HOW EVERYTHING IS RIGHT NOW AND LISTENING TO THE PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY BASED UPON THAT AREAS OF REGULATION TO FOCUS ON SLASH PROFESSIONALS WHO NAVIGATE THE CODE TO CREATE HOUSING. SO THIS ESTABLISHES THAT THE GROUP'S FOCUS IS GOING TO BE IN KIND OF THE THREE DIFFERENT PARTS OF DEVELOPMENT. THERE'S TYPICALLY ENTITLEMENTS SITE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS THE HORIZONTAL AND THE VERTICAL DEVELOPMENT. SO WE THOUGHT ONE WAY TO ESTABLISH IT WAS TO JUST WHAT IF WE HAD THREE GROUPS AND WE GO TO DIFFERENT CONSTITUENTS BASED UPON THAT THE NEXT IS JUST EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE WHO ARE WHO NAVIGATE AND USE THIS ON DAILY BASIS, WHICH ENTITLEMENTS OR CITY STAFF COMMISSIONER'S LAND ATTORNEYS DEVELOPERS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT. CITY STAFF. WE THERE'S LANDSCAPE . ARCHITECTS, PLANNERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, DEVELOPERS FOR VERTICAL DEVELOPMENT. THEIR CITY STAFF, ARCHITECTS, DESIGNERS, BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS. AND NOW THIS IS YOU KNOW, THIS IS JUST TALKING ABOUT THE PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE WORKING IN THIS. IT DOESN'T YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT SPEAKING ON THE COMMUNITY DEFINITELY WANT COMMUNITY INPUT SO EACH GROUP CAN THEN REACH OUT. TO THOSE GROUPS. THE CITY PROFESSIONALS, CITY PROFESSIONALS AND THE COMMUNITY TO GATHER DATA AND USE THE BELOW AS A GUIDE NOW. WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS YOU KNOW PEOPLE. OKAY, SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO SO ONCE YOU GET THEM TOGETHER, AND THIS IS KIND OF BRINGING YOU THROUGH THAT JOURNEY, SO LISTEN TO LEARN FROM THOSE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR REVIEW PROJECTS USING CITY OF ARSON PROCESSES IDENTIFY THE PROCESS, YOU KNOW,

[02:25:01]

AND WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM STAFF BEFORE. IT'S LIKE THERE'S PROCESS WITH A DIFFICULT TO TRAIN. THERE'S ONES THAT TAKE THINGS THAT TAKE LEAVE BEING REVIEWED TIMES, PROCESS WHICH IS OWNERS COMPARED TO OTHER MUNICIPALITIES. PROJECT REQUESTS , WHICH REQUIRED COMMISSION COUNCIL OVERSIGHT, WHICH IS WHICH ARE TYPICALLY APPROVED REGULATIONS THAT ARE LABORIOUS REVIEW YET LACK OF ALIGNMENT WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER CITY VISIONS AND ALSO BRING UP POTENTIAL UPDATES TO CODE. SO THAT'S IF WE WHEN WE GO APPROACH STAFF AND AGAIN STAFF COULD BE IN THE MEETING WITH PROFESSIONALS AS WELL. SO NEXT IS LIKE IN THE PRIVATE AND NONPROFIT SECTOR. YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO WORK WITHIN THIS IN CREATING HOUSING AND TASKED WITH NAVIGATING USING CRAFTING REGULATIONS IDENTIFY PROCESSES AGAIN, WHICH ARE ONEROUS COMPARED TO OTHER MUNICIPALITIES . AND KEEP IN MIND. THIS IS THE OTHER SIDE, NOT ON THE REVIEW SIDE, BUT THIS IS NOW FOR THOSE WHO ARE PREPARING THE DRAWING.

PREPARING THE CONCEPTS AND SUCH , RECENT PROCESSES PAST FEW YEARS, WHICH HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED, WHICH INCREASED THE COST OF CREATING HOUSING WHETHER THEY EITHER LIMIT WHERE HOUSING CAN BE BUILT OR INCREASED THE WORK HENCE TIME AND COSTS NEEDED TO PREPARE THE DESIGNS OF MIDDLES. AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, AS COMMISSIONER ARONSON SHOWED ON THAT GRAPH LIKE, FOR INSTANCE. ON ONE SIDE , THE CITY INCREASES, LOT OF COMPLEXITIES, WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE COST ON THEIR SIDE , WHICH WERE ALSO INCREASED COSTS ON THE DESIGN SIDE AS WELL, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE PROVIDE THOSE PREPARED TO SUBMIT ALS. NEXT REGULATIONS , WHICH LIKE PREDICTABILITY DURING FEASIBILITY STUDIES, REGULATIONS THAT ARE LABORIOUS TO ADHERE TO YOU AND DOCUMENT YET LACK OF ALIGNMENT WITH OUR COPYRIGHTS AND PLAN AND OTHER CITY VISIONS AND THEN ALSO BRING UP POTENTIAL UPDATES TO CODE. ACTIVE WITH THE COMMUNITY THERE , WE CAN LISTEN, LEARN FROM THE GENERAL COMMUNITY ABOUT IDEAS FOR CREATING MORE HOUSING LIKE WE COULD BE TALKING ABOUT A U. S SECONDARY APARTMENT AT A CONVERGENCE DUPLEXES, ETCETERA IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES THEY MAY HAVE HAD IN REMODELING AND ADDITIONS AND WE HEAR THAT QUITE A BIT THAT THEY WANT TO DO THIS.

FIND OUT THEY CAN'T OR THIS REGULATION COMES UP SO THEY CAN'T LIKE AUSTIN ENERGY HAD THE THING WITH, YOU KNOW, POWER POLES, WHICH KILLED A LOT OF 80 US. COSTS FOR THE PROCESSES EASE OF NAVIGATION OF THE PROCESS. COMMUNITY HURDLES SLASH OPPORTUNITIES AND ALSO BRING UP POTENTIAL UPDATES TO COACH SO, WORKING GROUP WOULD GO THROUGH AND THEY WOULD LISTEN TO HIM GATHER THEIR DATA ANALYZE THE FINDINGS ORGANIZED. THE FINDINGS DEVELOPED THE RECOMMENDATIONS. PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON READINESS FOR ACTION. AND THEN THE GROUPS WILL PRESENT THEIR FINDINGS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO ONCE YOU PRESENT THE FINDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ALL THAT INFORMATION IS NOW THE NOW OWNED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS NOW ON THE TABLE TO THE BODY PLANNING COMMISSION, THEN CAN DISPOSE OF IT BY IDENTIFYING WHICH RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONSIDER FOR FURTHER STUDY. IDENTIFY WHICH RECOMMENDATIONS TO SEND TO COUNSEL AS RECOMMENDATIONS TO INITIATE CODE AMENDMENT IDENTIFY WHICH RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSIONS WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND TUNISIA CODE. WELL TO INITIATE THE CODE OF MAN.

BECAUSE AS CHAIR SHAUL HAD MENTIONED LAST TIME WAS LIKE WE ARE A BODY THAT CAN DO THAT AS WELL. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE RUNDOWN. AH! WORK. WORK PROCESS. CAROLINA GIVE COMMISSIONER.

ANDERSON A CHANCE TO SPEAK ON IF YOU NEED TIME. CAN F SIX MINUTES IF YOU WANT. SURE I'LL TAKE LESS THAN 10% OF THAT. SO IN A NUTSHELL. CHAIR YOU PUT IT BEST . LIKE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A BODY THAT NOT TOO LONG AGO. YOU USED TO MAKE A LOT OF CODE. CHANGES AND START A LOT OF INITIATE A LOT OF CO CHANGES. AND FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK ON A NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PASSED. IMAGINE AUSTIN IN JUNE OF 2012. AND HE CALLED FOR A NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND SINCE THEN WE HAVE FIGURED OUT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER TO FAIL AT DOING SO.

EVER SINCE, AND IN RETURN. WE'VE ALSO HAD 10 YEARS OF DEFERRED MAINTENANCE ON THIS REALLY BAD CODE. IT WAS BAD 10 YEARS AGO, AND NOW IT'S JUST REALLY, REALLY BAD. SO WHAT CAN WE DO TO MAKE IT A WHOLE LOT LESS BAD? WE'LL SEE. OKAY? SO LET'S GO AHEAD.

AND JUST AGAIN. WE ARE KIND OF LOW ON NUMBERS, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD USE THIS TIME TO KIND OF BET WHAT THEY COME UP WITH.

AND S SOME GOOD QUESTIONS, AND WE CAN SUSPEND OUR RULES IF WE NEED TO THINK WE'RE ABOUT IT. THE YEAH, WE'VE GOT, EIGHT FOLKS HERE SO AND TWO OF THEM ACTUALLY CAME UP WITH IT SO LET'S GO AND START WHO WHO ASKED QUESTIONS, STARTED SAW JUST TO GET SOME EXCHANGE GOING. COMMISSIONER SNYDER. FIRST OF ALL, A LOT OF THANKS TO, THAT CO SPONSORS OF THIS. I KNOW THAT AS WE STRUGGLED OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL MEETINGS AND TRYING TO

[02:30:05]

MAKE THE SCOPE BOTH REALISTIC AND SOMETHING THAT'S ACTUALLY PRODUCTIVE AND ULTIMATELY ACTIONABLE, SO I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT'S GOING TO DO THAT. I WONDER IF, FIRST YOU COULD JUST. GIVE ME SOME EXAMPLES OF THE THREE GROUPS THAT YOU'RE SAYING, LIKE. UNDER ENTITLEMENTS UNDER SITE DEVELOPMENT UNDER VERTICAL DEVELOPMENT, SORT OF THINGS UNDER EACH. THAT THE GROUP WOULD BE LOOKING AT. SO ON ENTITLEMENTS. I MEAN TO ME, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ALL DEAL IN. YOU KNOW, AS COMMISSIONERS, SO I'LL SKIP THAT AND KIND OF JUMPED TO THE OTHER STUFF BECAUSE THE ENTITLEMENTS LIKE I SAID, IS AS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS THAT THAT THAT'S IN IN THE WORLD THAT WE EXIST QUITE A BIT INSIDE DEVELOPMENT.

IT COULD BE ANYTHING FROM FOR INSTANCE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT OFTEN COME UP IS WE HAVE A COMPATIBILITY SETBACK, AND SOMEBODY WANTS TO PUT A, LIKE THEIR WATER QUALITY DETENTION POND IN THAT SETBACK, OR EVEN EVEN A PARKING SPACE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BECAUSE COMPATIBILITY IT REQUIRES THEM TO COME IN FRONT OF US. AND THIS IS SOMETHING YOU KNOW, COMPELLING WAS DESIGNED AS WE ALWAYS GO THROUGH THIS CONVERSATION. IT WAS DESIGNED SO PEOPLE CAN'T SEE IT. IT'S BELOW THE FENCE LINE. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT REALLY AFFECTS THOSE WHO ARE NEXT TO YOU. AND SO IT OFTEN JUST GETS APPROVED.

WE'VE APPROVED WATER QUALITY OF THE PARKING APPROVED. DETENTION WE'VE APPROVED DECKS THAT ARE IN THE COMPATIBILITY SETBACK. AND IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE OFTEN DO, BECAUSE IT IS BELOW THE FENCE LINE, YOU KNOW, IT'S AT THAT GROUND LEVEL THEN. WHY DO WE KEEP HAVING THEM COME IN FRONT OF US, AND GO THROUGH THE FISCAL ASPECT OF THAT AND HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT. AND DOCUMENT THAT AND PAY, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING FOR INSTANCE, IN THE HORIZONTAL IN THE VERTICAL. THERE'S DIFFERENT THINGS, THAT WE'VE RUN THROUGH. I MEAN, CHACON PROBABLY SPEAK ABOUT THIS ABOUT ARE THE ATTIC EXEMPTIONS ON RESIDENTIAL HOW THAT'S GONE THROUGH LIKE, OH, IT'S THIS WAY. THEN THEY CHANGE IT TO ANOTHER WAY. THEN THEY CHANGED IT AGAIN. I MEAN, NOW I THINK IT CHANGED AGAIN. SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CLEANED UP. I MEAN, I COULD GO ON AND ON. BUT THOSE ARE JUST A FEW EXAMPLES. SO JUST JUST CLARIFIED. THE IDEA IS, TO FIND EXAMPLES OF THINGS THAT WE ROUTINELY APPROVE OR THAT, LIKE WOULD BE LIKE, WHY ARE YOU DOING THAT? AND THEN TEACH THEM UP FOR THE BEING CHARGED PLANNING COMMISSION. SO THE ANSWER IS. YES AND ALSO MORE BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK IN THE LOWER PART, YOU KNOW, I TALK ABOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION GOING THROUGH IN PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON READINESS FOR ACTION. SO THERE ARE GOING TO BE TO ME. THERE'S GONNA BE STUFF THAT ARE REALLY SIMPLE STUFF LIKE WELL, OBVIOUSLY, WHY DON'T WE LET THIS HAPPEN? I MEAN, THIS IS SOMETHING WE ALWAYS DO. THEN THERE ARE OTHER THINGS MIGHT TAKE. MAYBE A LITTLE MORE THOUGHT, BUT PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA. BUT THEN THERE'S GONNA BE OTHER STUFF THAT MIGHT BE MORE CONTENTIOUS. BUT TO ME, IT'S LIKE WE DON'T TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE. WE LEAVE IT ON THE TABLE PLANNING COMMISSION DECIDES HOW TO DISPOSE OF THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE THERE MIGHT BE SPECIFIC ONES WE SEND TO A WORKING GROUP TO STUDY MORE.

RIGHT THAT ARE MORE CONTENTIOUS. AND THERE ARE OTHER ONES WHO WERE LIKE GUYS. THIS WHOLE, YOU KNOW THIS WHOLE GROUP OF STUFF IN THIS BUCKET. THESE ARE PRETTY MUCH NO BRAINERS, SO THERE ARE NO BAD IDEAS. WHEN IT COMES TO THIS. THIS IS SOMETHING WE'RE GONNA BE DATA GATHERING AND THEN PRESENTING AND HAVE DIFFERENT BUCKETS, DEPENDING ON COMPLEXITY. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE WAY. I OKAY, SO, SO I THINK THAT THESE ARE SORT OF SEPARATE PROCESSES. BUT UNDER THE GROUP ONE GROUP TWO GROUP THREE AT THE TOP. WE LAUNDRY LIST OF PEOPLE ARE THE TYPES OF PEOPLE WHO TYPICALLY DO THIS AS PART OF THEIR JOB. CITY CITY STAFF COMMISSIONER'S LAND ATTORNEYS BUT THEN BELOW THAT, WE IDENTIFY SORT OF AN OVERLAPPING BUT ALSO SEPARATE GROUPS. SO THE ONLY LIKE HOW THERE'S TWO PROCESSES RELATE TO ONE ANOTHER. SO THE WAY IT WORKS LIKE, LET'S SAY GROUP ONE WOULD GO THROUGH. SAYS LISTEN AND LEARN, LISTEN, LEARN AND LISTEN AND LEARN. RIGHT GROUP TWO WOULD GO THROUGH THE THREE DIFFERENT, LISTENS AND LEARNS, YOU KNOW GROUP. TO YOU KNOW, LIKE EVERYBODY GOES THROUGH THAT THE ONLY THE REASON THAT THE STUFF ON TOP IS JUST SO WHOEVER'S IN GROUP ONE WOULD BE THINKING. OH ENTITLEMENTS. WELL, LET'S SAY THE PEOPLE I SHOULD TALK TO HER. OKAY? THESE PEOPLE WORK IN IT EVERY DAY. SOME CITY STAFF COMMISSIONER'S LAND, YOU KNOW, LIKE IT'S JUST IT'S I MEAN, WE CAN ADD MORE AND MORE TO THAT LIST. THESE ARE JUST RIGHT AFTER MY HEAD. YOU KNOW, I

[02:35:05]

WAS THINKING OF PROFESSIONALS WHO WORK WITHIN THAT, BUT THE COMMUNITY IS COMPLETELY CRITICAL IN THIS. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM THEM AS WELL. AND THAT'S WHY YOU KNOW IT'S IN THE PROCESS IS ON THE BOTTOM. GOTCHA YEAH. SO I MEAN, IMMEDIATELY HAD POPPED UP TO ME LIKE THIS EXAMPLE ABOUT WATER QUALITY DETENTION POND. AH . BUT CERTAINLY THERE'S GOING TO BE FOR EXAMPLE, ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS THAT ARE REGULARLY INVOLVED, I JUST I JUST WANTED IT TO BE CLEAR THAT. GROUPS THAT WE LISTENED THAT WE LIST THERE OR NOT, YOU KNOW THE BE ALL AND END ALL AND YOU KNOW, SORT OF DOING IT WAS SORT OF ARE LIKE THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WE'RE GOING TO LISTEN TO, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN. THIS AGAIN. THIS IS JUST A WORKING SHEET JUST SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE AND THEY CAN ADD MORE TO WHOEVER IS IN CHARGE OF GROUP TWO MIGHT SAY, HEY, I'M GONNA MAKE SURE I GET YOU KNOW SO AND SO AND SO AND SO, BUT WHOEVER IS IN CHARGE OF GROUP TWO IS GOING TO ADD MORE TO IT. YOU KNOW THIS THIS IS YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I HOPE YOU GUYS DON'T THINK LIKE, OH, MY GOSH, THIS IS IT. IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT. THIS IS MY JUST MY SITTING DOWN, THROWING THIS TO SEE HOW I CAN TURN IT INTO SOME FRAMEWORK. AND THEN. THE KEY THING IS THIS IS NOT, YOU KNOW, IN OUR MOTION. THIS IS NOT IN OUR MOTION. WHOEVER IS IN CHARGE OF GROUP ONE IS GOING TO ADJUST AS NEEDED. WHOEVER'S IN GROUP THREE IS GOING TO JUST AS NEEDED. GREAT. THANK YOU. THANKS A LOT. APPRECIATE THE WORK YOU'VE DONE ON THIS. ALL RIGHT, QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE ANYMORE. MR CARTER. YEAH I THINK I'M JUST GONNA REINFORCE WHAT.

WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY SAID FROM COMMISSIONER SNYDER. YOU KNOW THAT IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS FOCUS ON SLASH PROFESSIONALS WHO NAVIGATE THE CODE TO CREATE HOUSING. YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER SHEA IS ONE OF THOSE PROFESSIONALS. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON IS ONE OF PROFESSIONALS . I AM ONE OF THOSE PROFESSIONALS. I JUST WENT THROUGH AN ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANTS PROCESS THROUGH THAT, SO I KNOW THIS PROCESS WELL. BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT DEPENDING ON WHO YOU TALK TO THAT THERE'S DIFFERENT INCENTIVES INVOLVED IN THIS, AND I FEEL LIKE THE BIG THE BIG CHUNK OF THE PILOTS. MISSING IS MAYBE THE NON PROFESSIONALS OR OR AT LEAST THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T GET PAID. TO DO THIS, AND THAT WOULD BE A WHOLE BROAD SPECTRUM OF SHAREHOLDERS THAT NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN THE SITE DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, CONVERSATION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I KNOW. YOU KNOW, I COULD GO AND SAY, WELL, THE ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANTS PROCESSES SO ONEROUS.

WE NEED TO GET RID OF THAT. BUT THERE'S GOOD REASONS WHY THERE IS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS THAT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH, BECAUSE I'M NOT SOMEONE YOU KNOW WHO IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS OR SCIENTISTS OR WHATEVER. SO I JUST HOPE THAT WE'RE NOT ZEROING IN ON THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PAID. TO GET PERMITS, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE THE MOST FAMILIAR AND NAVIGATING THIS THEY HAVE. THEY HAVE INCENTIVES TO DO CERTAIN THINGS.

SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE. WE'RE MAKING AN EFFORT TO INCORPORATE THE VOICES OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT PAID TO GET PERMITS WHO HAVE A VERY STRONG INTEREST IN PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT OR YOU KNOW, PROTECTING HER PARKS OR YOU KNOW SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND THIS DOCUMENT IS REALLY GOOD. BUT I JUST SEE IT REALLY FOCUSED ON THE PROFESSIONALS THAT ARE ACTUALLY PAID TO GET PERMITS. SO AND THEN. OH, SORRY. YEAH, GO AHEAD. AND I GUESS OKAY? AND THAT'S WHERE I HAD LISTENED.

LEARNED FROM THE GENERAL COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT'S IN HERE. I AGAIN I APOLOGIZE. EVERYBODY IS FOCUSING ON THAT FIRST PART. IF YOU WANT. I WILL ADD COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY AND I MEAN, THE INTENT WAS JUST TO LIST SO PEOPLE KNOW WHO WORK IN IT THAT THAT IS IT. THAT IS IT, AND IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYBODY'S FOCUSING ON THAT. IN THE REST OF THE DOCUMENT. IT CONTINUES TALKING ABOUT WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY AND AGAIN, YOU GUYS, I HOPE YOU GUYS DON'T THINK THIS IS THE END ALL DOCUMENT. IT IS A WORKING DOCUMENT. WE ARE JUST AS WE NEED. YOU KNOW, AND I FEEL LIKE EVERYBODY'S FOCUSING ON THESE LITTLE TINY THINGS. IT'S LIKE, NO. I MEAN THERE'S THREE GROUPS . I HOPE I SHOULD HOPE THAT WE ARE REACHING OUT TO THE COMMUNITY. I HOPE YOU DO. YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER COCKSUCKING MAYBE YOU'RE GONNA BE THE CHAIR OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT. YOU KNOW, THE HORIZONTAL DEVELOPMENT GUY RIGHT ? AND SO BE SURE TO REACH OUT TO THE COMMUNITY. ABSOLUTELY. I HOPE YOU DO THAT. YOU KNOW IF YOU ARE THE CHAIRMAN WELL, 11 LITTLE TECHNICAL TWEET THAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST IS THERE

[02:40:04]

DOES SEEM TO BE AND YOU MENTIONED THIS COMMISSIONER SHADE. THERE IS A LOT OF OVERLAP BETWEEN THE GROUPS. I DON'T KNOW. AH IF THERE'S STILL AS MUCH INTEREST IN JOINING ONE OF THESE GROUPS, AS THERE WAS IN THE INITIAL, YOU KNOW, JOINING THE CATCH ALL SINGLE GROUP BY IF WE DO THINK THAT THERE'S EFFICIENCY GAIN BY MAKING IT TWO INSTEAD OF THREE, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT SITE DEVELOPMENT VERTICAL DEVELOPMENT B.

POTENTIALLY IF WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE CRITICAL MASS IN EACH OF THESE WORKING GROUPS, I FEEL LIKE THAT WOULD BE AN EASY THING TO COMBINE. BECAUSE THE EXAMPLE YOU SAID COMMISSIONER SHEA WAS COMPATIBILITY AND FIRST THING I THINK ABOUT COMPATIBILITY ITS HEIGHT AND SO YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS A LOT OF OVERLAP THERE THAT MAYBE WE CAN GAIN SOME EFFICIENCIES. OKAY, ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS. I AM. I'M A LITTLE AND TRYING TO HAVE QUESTIONS BECAUSE I WANT TO COMMISSIONERS ARE DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP? THE CHAIR. YOU'RE WELCOME TO GO AHEAD WAS I WAS KINDA TRYING TO WRAP IT UP IN A LITTLE BOW AT SOME POINT AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT IS. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE A MOTION ON BUT GO AHEAD AND START BECAUSE THAT MAY HELP ME. APPRECIATE THAT. I JUST WANTED TO MR SHAPE. YOU CAN PLEASE WALK US AGAIN TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDICTMENT SITE DEVELOPMENT IN BROOKLYN VERTICAL DEVELOPMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL FULLY UNDERSTANDING. I KNOW YOU'RE THINKING. I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THOSE THREE GROUP DIFFERENT DIFFERENCES AGAIN. SO ONLY ENTITLEMENTS. A LOT OF THAT IS YOU KNOW WHEN WE SEE, WE HAVE CASES THAT COME IN FRONT OF US, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH A LOT OF THE ZONING ASPECT OF IT AND HOW YOU KNOW ONE IT WOULD BE LISTEN.

BASICALLY IT WOULD GO THROUGH THE STUFF THAT THE KNOBS TURNED WHEN IT COMES TO ZONING. AND IT COULD ALSO BE. I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, THERE'S EVEN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT WE DO INDEED RESTRICTIONSHAT'S NOT A JURISDICTION, BUT THAT MIGHT COME UP. BUT HAS TO DO WITH USE COMPATIBLE? USES ONE TO THE OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT, AND TO ME. I PUT THAT AS A GROUP.

BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO, EVEN CREATE PART OF IT IS BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY WE ALREADY EXIST IN THAT WORLD ON A DATE ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS ON AS A COMMISSIONER, BUT THERE'S A GROUP THAT WOULD LIKE TO TAKE LOOKING ENTITLEMENTS, THEN THAT WOULD BE IT. NOW. SIDE DEVELOPMENTS. THINK OF ANYTHING HORIZONTAL, ANYTHING FROM WATER QUALITY. IT COULD BE DETENTION. IT COULD BE ENVIRONMENTAL. IT COULD BE, I GUESS IT COULD BE PARKLAND. BUT I MEAN THAT YOU KNOW IT COULD BE IT COULD BE ANYTHING FROM, CRITERIA OF SIZE OF REQUIREMENTS OF PARKING SIZES TO DRIVEWAY SIZES ON A YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE'VE SEEN THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MAN THAT'S USUALLY FOR PUBLIC. BUT NOW THIS IS FOR MORE FOR PRIVATE EQUITY. BACKUP SPACE. IT COULD BE. IT COULD BE THINGS LIKE THAT. ANYTHING HORIZONTAL. AND THEN FOR VERTICAL. IT COULD BE.

I MEAN, A LOT OF IT. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE EVERYTHING FROM MCMANSION STANDARDS. WE HAVE HEIGHTS. DIFFERENT ARTICULATIONS . I MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT. SO I WOULD SAY. I DON'T KNOW. IF WE END UP WITH THREE GROUPS OR TWO GROUPS, OR IS IT JUST GONNA BE ONE? I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT BANDWIDTH WE HAVE. BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO HERE IS CREATE. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, LAST TIME WE HAD A FULL HOUSE, BUT NOW WE DON'T SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING TO GO. BUT IT HAD TO BE BROKEN DOWN INTO SOME ORGANIZED APPROACH. AND THAT'S THAT. THAT'S WHERE THESE THREE PARTS CAME. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SHANE. I JUST WANTED TO MENTION I DON'T HAVE A CONCERN WITH THE THREE GROUPS. I THINK THAT'S THE WAY TO GET OUR CONVERSATION STARTED HERE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WALK US THROUGH THAT AGAIN. SO WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE AS WE'RE CONSIDERING. THANK YOU. REALLY. AND APPRECIATE ANY INPUT FROM ANYBODY ELSE ON YOU KNOW WHAT? WHAT THESE WOULD DO AS WELL.

MINISTER COUNSELOR OF ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. YES SOMETHING CAME UP WITH WHILE AND I APPRECIATE IT. COMMISSIONERS ARE GIVING COMMISSION SAY THAT OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE IT BROUGHT UP IT SO WHEN IT COMES TO MORE PLANNING LEVEL STUFF LIKE YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT T O D S OR, YOU KNOW STUFF LIKE THAT. WHERE WOULD WHERE WOULD THAT IS THAT EVEN IN HERE OR YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IN THE DATA

[02:45:02]

GATHERING SOMEONE LIKE TO ME. IF IT'S A GOOD IF IT'S AN IDEA, THEN WE SHOULD JUST IF SOMEBODY TALKS ABOUT IT, OF COURSE, AS COMMISSIONERS LISTENING, WE SHOULD WRITE IT DOWN. BUT IN THE END IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE PUT AS YOU KNOW, IT'S UNLIKE DIFFICULT RATING IS WHATEVER FIVE STAR DIFFICULT RATING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS TO GO WITH PLANNING. THERE'S A WHOLE PROCESS THAT GOES THROUGH. IT'S NOT TWEAKING. EXISTING CODE. YOU KNOW, AND THAT GOES BACK TO MY FIRST STATEMENT, EXAMINE EXISTING CODE AND PROCESSES, RIGHT SO YOU KNOW, PART OF IT IS TO CLEAN UP WHAT THE CURRENT CODE IS RIGHT. WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT HEY, LET'S TURN THIS INTO A T O D AND PLAN THIS BUT THAT THAT'S NOT THAT PART OF THIS. THAT'S A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION. I THINK IT'S VERY VALID, BUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. IS. WHAT CAN WE DO? I MEAN, WHAT KIND OF CONSENSUS THINGS WE CAN GET APPROVED SOONER THAN LATER. IN ORDER TO MAKE INTO ORDER SYMPTOMS AND MORE FOR THE SIMPLIFICATION OF THE PROCESSES AND SIMPLIFICATION OF THE CODE ON THINGS THAT ARE THAT THAT PEOPLE MIGHT COME TO THE POINT. IT'S LIKE THIS IS A NO BRAINER, YOU KNOW? THIS SHOULDN'T BE HERE. THIS ADDS TO THE COMPLEXITY ADDS TO THE COST . YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AGAIN, YOU KNOW, LIKE TALKING ABOUT THE COST OF REVIEWS, RIGHT? SO IF SOMETHING THAT IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IT'S GOING TO GET APPROVED AND IT ALWAYS GETS APPROVED. WHY DO WE KEEP JUMPING THROUGH HOOPS TO DO THAT, YOU KNOW, AND THEN WE HAVE ISSUES WITH STAFF TURNOVER OF STAFF AND THEN TRAINING NEW STAFF ON SAYING REVIEWING, YOU KNOW, A PROJECT AND THEN YOU FIND OUT. IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU KNOW WHAT IF THIS HOUSE IF THIS HOUSE IS EIGHT FT. AWAY OF THE PROPERTY LINE HAS CEILING HEIGHTS OF THIS HEIGHT. AND IT HAS A ROOF. WHATEVER SLOPE OF SOMETHING, I MEAN, IT'S OBVIOUS IT'S YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO FIT WITHIN THE ENVELOPE. SO WHY DO WE GO THROUGH ALL THE CRAP? OF WORK? TO DOCUMENT THAT? THEN THE STAFF GO THROUGH? TO DO THAT? SO THIS THIS WILL BRING THIS BACK UP.

AND THEN MAYBE IF COUNSEL DOESN'T IMPLEMENT SOMETHING, THEN THIS BECOMES SOMETHING THAT PLANNING COMMISSION CAN IMPLEMENT. BUT AGAIN, IT'S THINGS THAT YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S GOOD CONSENSUS ABOUT. OKAY I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS. AND THEN WE'VE STILL GOT SOME MORE SPOTS. SO, MY FIRST ONE IS KIND. OF THE WHAT DO WE ACTUALLY NEED IN THE MOTION? WHAT WOULD BE IS TRYING TO DECIDE ON THE NUMBER OF GROUPS THE FOCUS OF THOSE GROUPS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WAS ASKED FOR RIGHT PREVIOUSLY. GIVE US A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON WHAT THEY'LL BE WORKING FOR US. SO WE CHECKED THAT BOX. THE OTHER PART WAS THE NEED. I THINK I HEARD FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. BUT HOW DOES THAT HOW WOULD THAT MAKE ITS WAY INTO A MOTION? I'M JUST WOULD WE JUST SAY THAT ALL OF THESE GROUPS NEED TO DECIDE ON A PUBLIC YOU KNOW, PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. AS PART OF THAT WORKING GROUP. IS THAT GOING TO BE REQUIRED? I THINK IT I THINK WE SHOULD INCLUDE THAT INTO IT. SO IF HE SAID PUBLIC, THE PUBLIC AND THE PRIVATE AND I MEAN PUBLIC. PROBABLY DON'T KNOW WHAT WHAT? WHAT WHAT WOULD BE THE WORDS WOULD BE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, AND THAT'S IT BECAUSE PUBLIC WOULD BE THE CITY BUT THEN THE PUBLIC PRIVATE COMMUNITY I DON'T KNOW, LIKE DEFINITELY GENERAL COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS. OKAY SO PUBLIC PRIVATE AND STAKEHOLDERS. YEAH YEAH, AND I THINK JUST WANNA KINDA LEAD US DOWN. IF WE START CRAFTING MOTIONS, YOU KNOW, JUST WANT TO KIND OF MAKE SURE. YEAH IT'S NOT ALL THIS. IT'S WE WANT SOMETHING SIMPLER. THAT KIND OF SPEAKS TO GIVE THE DETAIL ENCOURAGES PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT OR REQUIRES THAT IT'S PART OF THAT WORKING GROUP PROCESS. AND SO ARE WE. SO COUNCILORS. TAKING ON SOME VERY AMBITIOUS THINGS VERTICAL MIXES, EITHER. IT'S ACTUALLY AN A D YOU WE DON'T HAVE STEP HERE. THEY ACTUALLY HAVE SOME THINGS ARE DISCUSSING ON A D S. AH COMPATIBILITY, SO THEY'VE GOT A NUMBER OF REALLY, YOU KNOW, PRETTY BEEFY CODE CHANGES ARE LOOKING AT. ARE WE GOING TO KIND OF STAY AWAY FROM THOSE AND LET THOSE BE VETTED BY COUNSEL OR IF WE HAVE SOME GOOD IDEAS, IT'S KIND OF BUILD ON, WOULD WE? I THINK IT'S GONNA THERE'S A POINT WHERE SOME THINGS ARE GOING TO OVERLAP.

OKAY WE MIGHT EVEN END UP CATEGORIZING THEM AS LEVEL DIFFICULTY OF LIKE, THREE RIGHT BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THERE'S NOT CONSENSUS YET, SO WE'LL THROW WHATEVER LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY THREE. SO WE MIGHT NOT FOCUS ON THAT YET UNTIL WE DISPOSE OF FIGURE OUT A DIFFERENT WAY TO DISPOSE OF THAT, OKAY, SO WE CAN WHEN IT COMES BACK, WE CAN YOU GUYS THERE WILL BE A PRIORITY

[02:50:01]

AND THEY MAY BE LOWER BECAUSE COUNCILS ALREADY OKAY? ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO LIMIT THE KIND OF THE IDEAS AND, TIMEFRAME. THAT'S A LITTLE INTERESTING TO ME BECAUSE WE'VE GOT THIS LOOKS MUCH MORE AMBITIOUS, AND I THINK IT'S REALLY GOT A PRETTY GOOD PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS. BUT WHAT DO WE HAVE ANY BOUNDARIES? AS FAR AS TIMEFRAMES? WE WANT TO PUT ON THIS. I. I DON'T KNOW WHAT EVERYBODY'S BAND WITH THIS. I MEAN, WOULDN'T I MEAN THERE WAS ANOTHER DOCUMENT THAT WAS EVEN MORE AMBITIOUS BEFORE THIS, AND WE HAD CLEAN THIS UP JUST TO HAVE THIS AND EVEN THIS IF YOU THINK IT'S AMBITIOUS, AND THAT'S WHY I'M HOPING THAT WITH THREE GROUPS GOING IT BECOMES MORE MANAGEABLE. FOR BUT IF THIS ENDS UP BEING THAT THE INTEREST IS WE ONLY HAVE ONE GROUP. THEN IT'S GOING TO BE AMBITIOUS FOR THAT ONE GROUP. AND THAT'S CONCERNING, SO I WOULD JUST RECOMMENDATION THAT I'LL LET SOMEBODY ELSE ASK QUESTIONS IS, MIGHT WANT TO PUT SOME TIMETABLES ON. IT JUST IS GOALS . THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE ABSOLUTE, BUT JUST KIND OF TO STEER THE SCHEDULE. OTHERWISE, I'M WORRIED. YOU KNOW, WE'RE IT'S YOU KNOW, IF YOU LITTLE LAG AND SO MAYBE TRYING IN THE MOTION, MAYBE CONSIDER SOMETIMES GOALS FOR TIME FRAMES. OKAY, I'M DONE. ANY MORE QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS. CHAIR.

COMMISSIONER COPS. I WAS JUST GONNA SUGGEST LANGUAGE RELATED TO PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT. YOU COULD JUST USE THE TERM GOOD FAITH. SO EACH WORKING GROUP YOU KNOW? IS EXPECTED TO MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO SOLICIT INCORPORATE THE ENGAGEMENT OF RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS AND THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. OKAY? AND I JUST WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I. I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER SHAY'S RESPONSE MINE. MY QUESTION IS RELATED THAT MY STATEMENTS REALLY, THAT WERE VERY MUCH PERCEPTION ORIENTED, BECAUSE I THINK THE PERCEPTION OUT THERE WITH A LARGE SEGMENT OF THE PUBLIC IS THAT YOU KNOW DEVELOPERS, ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS, THEY'RE JUST, YOU KNOW, PROFIT DRIVEN. AND SO BY INCORPORATING A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO SOLICIT THAT BE BACK FROM FROM STAKEHOLDERS WHO DON'T HAVE A PROFIT MOTIVE. I THINK THAT HELPS THE PERCEPTION OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. ALL RIGHT . SO WHAT I HEARD I JUST HEARD THE COMMENT AND I'M GOING TO MAKE BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GOOD.

EACH WORKING GROUP WOULD MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO IDENTIFY AND SOLICIT INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. SO LET'S JUST REMEMBER KIND OF THAT FRAMEWORK FOR MAYBE WHEN WE'RE CRAFTING A MOTION GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER THOMPSON ONE COMMENT IN TERMS OF TIME FRAME, I THINK YOU KNOW, WE STILL KNOW WHO'S GOING TO BE ON THE WORKING GROUPS AND WHAT YOU KNOW. WHAT SORT OF FEEL OF THE DIFFERENT TEAMS IS AND WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO BE HIGH ENERGY OR OR WANTING TO TAKE TIME. CAN I SUGGEST THAT WE DON'T ACTUALLY PUT TIMEFRAMES ON THEM NOW, BUT ASKED EACH WORKING GROUP TO COME BACK WITH THEIR OWN TIMEFRAME AND SORT OF REPORT BACK TO US. AS THAT'S WHERE THEIR FIRST TASS TO LET THEM COME UP WITH THEIR OWN TIMETABLE. AND REPORT BACK.

YES, THEY'RE CALLING THIS. THIS IS WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. BUT OKAY? ALL RIGHT. SO, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. OF THE SPONSORS. SO I JUST WANT TO QUICKLY SAY I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN HERE THAT WERE, I LIKED THE BREAKOUTS. BUT WE'VE ONLY GOT, WE'VE GOT EIGHT OF US HERE TONIGHT. I MEAN, CAN WE REALLY FORM. THE WORKING GROUPS. I HATE TO PUT HIMSELF AGAIN, BUT I THINK YOU CAN APPOINT PEOPLE TO A WORKING GROUP. THAT WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON IT. SO I THINK THAT IF WE HAVE A WORKING GROUP AND SOMEONE WHO IS NOT HERE TONIGHT WANTED TO BE ON A WORKING GROUP. THINK AS LONG AS THAT WORKING GROUP ISN'T CLOSE TO QUORUM. THEY CAN JUST WE CAN WE CAN PUT A CONTACT FOR EACH WORKING GROUP. AND MAYBE THEY TALK TO ANDREW FIRST, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT BUT BUT I DON'T. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT. I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE BYLAWS THAT SAYS WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE NUMBER OF THE OF THE WORKING GROUP. BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO VOTE ON WHO IS IN THE WORKING GROUP.

CHAIR COMMISSION LAYS ON ANDREW. YES YOU WOULD HAVE TO APPOINT

[02:55:01]

MEMBERS AND THEN THOSE MEMBERS HOW TO REMAIN IN THAT WORKING GROUP. AND SO YOU'RE BASICALLY NOT GOING INTO ANOTHER WORKING GROUP MEMBERS WOULD BE ISOLATED. TO THAT WORKING GROUP.

UNDERSTOOD BUT BUT DO WE HAVE TO APPOINT IT BE AN ACTION OF THE COMMITTEE OR THE CHAIR CAN JUST APPOINT THEM. LIKE IN BETWEEN MEETINGS. THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE POSTED. WE WOULD POST BUT YOU DO HAVE TO THE CHAIR HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPOINT MEMBERS.

BUT HAD SPENT THE PROCESS OF WHAT THE COMMISSION SO JUST FOR CLAIRE, THAT CLARIFICATION. EVEN IF WE CAME UP WITH THE MEMBERSHIP. TONIGHT. AND VOTED, IT WAS WOULD IT STILL HAVE TO BE POSTED? WELL WHEN WOULD WE VOTE ON THE ACTUAL MEMBERS? WOULD THAT BE THIS EVENING OR NEXT TIME? YOU CAN APPOINT MEMBERS THIS EVENING TO APPOINT ADDITIONAL MEMBERS. WE WOULD JUST PLACE THE ITEM ON THE FUTURE AGENDA. YEAH, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T BE. THEY DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T PARTAKE IN IT. RIGHT. THEY COULD STILL BE. ATTENDING IT AND GET APPOINTED OFFICIALLY, WHATEVER THE NEXT MEETING WELL, BUT BUT WHY CAN'T THEY? BECAUSE AS LONG AS WE DON'T HAVE QUORUM? YEAH I JUST THINK THERE MIGHT BE A CROSSOVER THAT IF THEY WOULD KNOW BECAUSE YOU THEY WOULD KNOW WHAT GROUP THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE IT. THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DABBLING INTO GROUPS. WELL TONIGHT, I GUESS DO WE JUST WANT TO CHECK WITH THE GROUP? DO WE CAN MAKE SOME ASSIGNMENTS? AND VOTE ON IT. WE CAN DO THAT. I MEAN, WE CAN APPOINT PEOPLE THAT AREN'T HERE. IS THAT SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO THIS EVENING? IN ADDITION, MY SUGGESTION IS WE BECAUSE ONCE SOMEONE GOES ON A WORKING GROUP, I THINK IT'S HARD FOR THEM TO COME OFF. AND GO ON TO A DIFFERENT ONE, BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO GET INTO BUT BUT I WOULD THINK THAT FOR PEOPLE WHO AREN'T HERE. WE WON'T MAKE THOSE ASSIGNMENTS, BUT THEN THEY CAN SEND AN EMAIL AND SAY WHATEVER AND THEN THE NEXT TIME THEY'LL GET A POINTED AT THEM ON THE NEXT, OKAY. SO I'M THINKING IF. WHAT IF WE JUST DID TWO GROUPS? AND A LOT OF IT IS BECAUSE I'M JUST THINKING IT'S LIKE THE ENTITLEMENT PART IF IT HASN'T IF IT TURNS INTO A LOT OF PLANNING DISCUSSIONS, AND IT BECOMES SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE. PIECES THAT ARE GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, REQUIRE MORE WORK. THE PLACES THAT WE HAVE THE LOW HANGING FRUIT IS GOING TO BE IN GROUP TWO AND THREE. SO WE COULD JUST DO TWO GROUPS, THE HORIZONTAL GROUP AND THEN THE VERTICAL GROUP. AND THEN THE OTHER ONE. I MEAN, I'M SURE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET STUFF THAT THAT MIGHT BE IN THAT GROUP ONE BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE BANDWIDTH. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY THINK THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE BEGINNING OF AN IDEA IF WE DO IT, A LOW HANGING FRUIT OF GROUPS TWO AND THREE, AND THEN WE THINK ABOUT WHAT WOULD GO INTO A GROUP ONE. IN THAT LOW HANGING FOR BOTH TEAMS, AND THEN EVERYTHING THAT ISN'T LOW HANGING GETS LEFT OVER. AND CAN GO INTO A GROUP ONE THAT GETS ESTABLISHED IN THE FUTURE.

EXACTLY AND THAT'S EVEN. YEAH, LIKE IN THE WORKING GROUP TASKED LIKE WE THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW , ONES THAT WOULD BE, DID HAVE FELT I WHICH RECOMMENDATIONS YOU CONSIDER FOR FURTHER STUDY, AND THEN HENCE, THAT MIGHT BE WHAT IS THAT PLANNING GROUP, AND THAT WOULD BE GROUP ONE AND WE CAN EVEN DISSOLVE TWO AND THREE AT THAT POINT. AND WE CAN HAVE A GROUP ONE OR WHATEVER WORK ON SPECIFIC ONES INSTEAD OF JUST GENERAL. SO WE'RE MAKING A I THINK WHAT WOULD BE GOOD IS IF AT THIS POINT GOING ENTERTAIN A MOTION AND DISCUSS AROUND EMOTION. GET SOME MORE SPECIFIC . SO DO ONE OF THE SPONSORS WANT TO QUEUE UP EMOTION OR ANYONE FOR THAT MATTER, BUT I WOULD WANT TO GIVE YOU GUYS UP. I MEAN, WE COULD MAKE HIM I MEAN, MAKE A MOTION TO CREATE TWO WORKING GROUPS. TO EXAMINE EXAMINE THE CREATION OF HOUSING.

I MEAN, I GUESS I'M STILL KIND OF KEEPING IT. BROAD RIGHT, AND THEN AND TO ENGAGE THE COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS. IS THAT WHAT THE I MEAN, DO WE HAVE TO SAY A SITE HORIZONTAL AND A VERTICAL ONE OR CAN WE JUST SAY WE'RE CREATING TWO GROUPS? I THINK SCOPES NEED TO BE DEFINED BECAUSE THEY CAN'T REALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THEM CROSSING OVER. YOU WANT TO MINIMIZE THAT SO LET'S NAME THE WORKING GROUPS WHAT THEIR FOCUS IS. AND BULLET POINT MEMBERS, AND I THINK WE CAN LEAVE IT AT THAT. BUT LET'S BUILD THE DETAILS IN THE ACTUAL WORKING GROUP DESCRIPTION. SO DO YOU WANT TO START WITH WORKING GROUP ONE? CAN WE? MAYBE WE CAN PIECE

[03:00:01]

THIS OUT SEPARATELY. START WITH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, OKAY? AND, SITE DEVELOPMENT GROUPS. THERE. THERE THERE.

FUNCTION. IF WE WANT TO. JUST LAY IT OUT. CANON CUT, PULL EVERYTHING IN SO WE COULD USE AND AGAIN. THIS IS JUST A PLACE WE COULD START EXAMINING EXISTING CODE IN PROCESS DEVELOPED STRATEGIES TO INCREASE THE HOUSING YIELD THROUGH THE REDUCTION OF INEFFICIENCIES AND OBSTRUCTIONS IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR. SO I WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE OUT. THE INEFFICIENCIES IN OBSTRUCTIONS PART IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. I JUST THINK IT WILL KEEP IT CLEAN. WHAT THAT MEANS. TAKE THAT OUT. THE STRATEGIES INCREASED HOUSING YIELD. DONE, YEAH. I THINK THAT'S THE GOAL. YES AND SO IT'S LOOKING AT SITE DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES TO ACCOMPLISH THAT, YES. SO IS THAT CLINTON AND THEN I WANT TO ADD WELL, GO AHEAD. IT'S YOUR EMOTION. WELL, NO, NO, NO.

I MEAN, I WOULD OKAY AND THEN ADD THE LANGUAGE OF ENGAGING WHAT ARE THE GOOD FAITH? FROM COMMISSIONER TALKS. YEAH IT SO THAT I WILL I HAVE RECORDED WAS THIS WOULD JUST SAY THIS WORKING GROUP WILL MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT. TO SOLICIT INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE PART OF THE IS PART OF THE MOTION. FOR THE FORMATION OF THE WORK. SO TO CREATE A WORKING GROUP TO EXAMINE AH SITE DEVELOPMENT. AH! CODE AND PROCESSES TO DEVELOP STRATEGIES TO INCREASE THE HOUSING. WITH THE WITH THE AND THEN ADD THAT AS PART TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE ADDITION, COMMENT, ARE WE? I'M LOOKING AROUND THE ROOM HERE. VIRTUAL SPACE TRYING TO ARE YOU GUYS I FEEL LIKE WE'RE A LITTLE MORE COMMUNICATING A LITTLE BETTER HERE. DO YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND THE MOTION ANY QUESTIONS ON IT? OKAY? NO, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, DO YOU WANT TO YOU TO CLARIFY ANYTHING? NO OKAY. YES, OKAY.

ALRIGHT, SO. LET'S GO. THAT'S THE MOTION. THAT'S CUTE. OH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THIS FIRST WORKING GROUP? AH, FORMATION. WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX DO WE NEED TO SPEAK? ANY MORE ABOUT THAT'S WORKING GROUP. FLOOR AGAINST. MR HOWARD YOU ON, I THINK. ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY SOMETHING? OR JUST OKAY? NO SORRY. I WAS LIKE, THROUGH MY GREEN BOTTLE AWAY. JUST OKAY.

WELL, LOOKS LIKE YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN TRYING TO SAY SOMETHING, SO OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S GO. WE HAVE 123. OKAY? ALRIGHT. WE DO HAVE GOT NINE FOLKS, HERE'S. SIX. OKAY LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS MOTION, AND I'M GONNA SAY THE BEST. I CAN, EXAM. THIS IS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MCCAIN COMMISSIONER SHIEH. HE WAS THE SECOND ON THIS. IT'S GETTING LATE ALREADY.

MHM. COMMISSIONER COX. THANK YOU SO IT WAS A MOTION TO EXAMINE EXISTING SITE. DEVELOPMENT CODE AND PROCESSES TO DEVELOP STRATEGIES TO INCREASE THE HOUSING YIELD. WITH THE. AND DISTILL INSTRUCTIONS TO THE WORKING GROUP TO MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT. TO SOLICIT INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.

THAT'S THE MOTION. I HAVE. LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS FIRST PART. LOOKING TO THE YES. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT WE TOOK AWAY INEFFICIENCY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THE WORD EFFICIENCY, YOU KNOW. THINK THAT'S A PART OF THIS GROUP ALSO TO SEEK OUT EFFICIENCY. OKAY. WHERE DO WE WANT TO PUT THAT IN THAT? OKAY SO THAT WOULD BE A I THINK AN AMENDMENT TO THE WORD. WHERE DO YOU WANT TO STICK THAT? I DON'T CARE, OKAY? PEACE. TO VISUALLY.

INCREASING. INCREASE THE HOUSE. REMEMBER WHAT SURE I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT WHAT THE MOTION WAS, BUT I'M JUST READING THE FIRST LINE OF SO YOU COULD JUST SAY DEVELOP STRATEGIES TO INCREASE THE HOUSING YIELD TO INCREASE THE HOUSING YIELD AND CREATE EFFICIENCY. SURE. OKAY? SO WE'RE JUST GONNA ADD AND

[03:05:03]

CREATE EFFICIENCIES TO THE END OF THAT AFTER HOUSING YIELD. YES OKAY, SO THAT'S A, LET'S HAVE THAT IS AN AMENDMENT. LET'S HAVE A QUICK VOTE ON THAT AMENDMENT. SO THOSE ON THE DAIS THOSE VIRTUALLY. OKAY THAT'S UNANIMOUS ON THAT AMENDMENT. NOW THAT'S VOTE ON THE MOTION. IT'S IN ITS ENTIRETY. AGAIN THOSE ON THE DIET. LET'S SEE THOSE ON THE VIRTUAL WORLD THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION. SO THAT'S OH, THAT'S VERY SATISFYING. WE GOT EVERYBODY VOTING FOR THAT ONE. VERY GOOD. SO THAT UNANIMOUS.

1234567890. SO THE SECOND PART OF THIS PLACE IS JUST MAKING IT SIMPLE. IT'S JUST REPLACING SITE DEVELOPMENT WITH VERTICAL DEVELOPMENT. BUT DOES ANYBODY NEED SOMEBODY GO AND MAKE THIS MOTION? OKAY GO AHEAD AND READ IT THROUGH. I'M SORRY TO MAKE YOU DO IT. BUT LET'S SEE EXACTLY EXAMINE. EXISTING CODE AND PROCESSES. GOVERNING VERTICAL DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP STRATEGIES TO INCREASE THE HOUSING YIELD. WHAT'S THE EFFICIENCIES AND CREATE EFFICIENCY AND CREATE EFFICIENCIES? AND THEN WE ADD PART OF, SENTENCED TO ABOUT THE ENGAGEMENT. GOOD FAITH OF THE STAKEHOLDERS. SAME THING. OKAY, SO DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR THIS? SECOND WORKING GROUP FORMATION.

COMMISSIONER IS OUR SECOND SET. LET'S WHICH IS BUILT. GOING TO GO AND VOTE LIST. THERE'S ANY FURTHER AMENDMENTS OR OKAY, LET'S GO AND VOTE OUT THIS ON THE DAIS. AND THOSE ON THE VIRTUAL OKAY, THAT'S UNANIMOUS. 90. IS THAT ALL WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO ACCOMPLISH THIS EVENING WITH THE SUN? YES. WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT. I FORGOT. OKAY SO WE HAVE THE TWO WORKING GROUPS. LET'S GO AHEAD. AND SO WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT PARTICIPATION. LET'S JUSTS TO BE ON THE SIDE DEVELOPMENT GROUP? ALRIGHT, I'VE GOT THOMPSON COX. SCHNEIDER. AND. COHEN WELL, YOU'LL BE ON BOTH OF THEM. OKAY? CAN THEY BE ON BILL? SO, YES, THANK. BOTH ALRIGHT THOMPSON, COX SCHNEIDER ON SITE DEVELOPMENT ANY OTHERS? I KNOW WE HAD A LOT OF INTEREST. SO LET'S HOPE WE GOTTA SPLIT IT UP, THOUGH, SO THAT'S GOOD. WE GOT THREE. GOOD. WE JUST NEED TO START. YES SO DO YOU GUYS WANT TO TALK ABOUT YOUR LEADER? WE'VE GOT TO HAVE A LEADER ON BOTH THESE, SO WE NEED SOMEBODY TO KIND OF COORDINATE AND ORCHESTRATE AND YOU KNOW, KIND OF AH! HELP THE GROUPS. ACCOMPLISHED THEIR MISSION. SO DO WE HAVE ANY VOLUNTEERS IN THAT FIRST SITE DEVELOPMENT GROUP? THE VOLUNTEER COMMISSIONER COX I. AH I SPEAK TO THEM, PLEASE. ALRIGHT. I WANTED TO SAY THAT I AM INTERESTED IN BEING IN THIS WORKING GROUP. BUT FIRST NAME PROFESSIONALLY VERY OVER EXTENDED RIGHT NOW. SO IF IT'S RELYING ON ME TO MOVE AND DO THINGS. I FEAR THE WORKING GROUP OF SUFFERS. I'M REALLY HOPING THAT SOMEONE ELSE WILL TAKE THAT BATON AND RUN WITH IT FOR ME. LET'S DO THIS. I THINK I WOULD WHEN THE WORKING GROUP WILL VOTE ON IT, BUT AMONGST THEMSELVES, I WOULD LIKE TO THEM TO COME BACK WITH THE TIMETABLE AND A LEADER WITHIN THEIR GROUPS SO THEY CAN THEY CAN VOTE ON THAT THEMSELVES. AND WORK IT OUT. OKAY SO THAT SECOND GROUP THIS WOULD BE THE. VERTICAL GOVERNING VERTICAL DEVELOPMENT. HERE WE GOT ON THAT ONE. NO, YOU. GONNA COMMISSIONER SHIEH COMMISSIONER.

ANDERSON. AZHAR. YEAH MR. HOWARD WE WANT TO GET YOU ON ONE OF THESE. WHICH ONE? I HAD MY HAND UP, OKAY? COULDN'T SEE IT. ALL RIGHT. I GUESS, YES. WILL BE ABOUT THEM. OKAY. ANY OTHERS ONL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL WE CAN DO. COMMISSIONER. OKAY, SO COMMISSIONERS ARE YES. AND I AM SO SORRY. JARED COULD YOU PLEASE POINT OUT HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU POINT TO THE FIRST GROUP AND HOW

[03:10:03]

MANY PEOPLE DO YOU BORN? HERE? WE HAVE. THE FIRST GROUP IS COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. MR. COST, COMMISSIONER SNYDER. AH AND EX OFFICIO CHAIR COHEN. AND THAT'S THE FIRST GROUP AND SO WE HAVE OTHERS THAT WE'RE GOING TO KRYPTON ENTICED TO BRING ON SO THAT AREN'T HERE THIS EVENING, SO HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET SOME OTHER MEMBERS. OKAY? ALRIGHT SO NOW I GUESS WE HAVE TO FOLD IN A VOTE TO APPOINT THESE BOCCIE TO THE WORKING ROUTES. SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION. TO A POINT IN THE SITE DEVELOPMENT WORKING GROUP. COMMISSIONERS THOMPSON CARDS AND SCHNEIDER AND EX OFFICIO THERE, COLIN AND ON THE VERTICAL AH! VERTICAL DEVELOPMENT. WORKING GROUP. WE HAVE COMMISSIONER SAY.

MR ANDERSON. COMMIT ER AZHAR, MR HOWARD AND ALSO EXHIBITION CHAIR COHEN. SO THAT'S THE MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND TO THIS MOTION? MINISTER THOMPSON. LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE THOSE ON THE DIET.

AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE. THINK WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE NEED TO DO AT THIS POINT HERE, OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. LET'S GO AND GET THROUGH OUR AGENDA. D DO WE HAVE ANY

[D. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? COMMISSIONER AZHAR. I'M SURE WE CAN. WE WOULD APPOINTMENTS TO THESE TWO WORKING GROUPS IN OUR NEXT AGENDA. WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE NOT WOULD LIKE WOULD LIKE TO BE. AND I THINK SOME FOLKS MIGHT JUST PLEASE PUT THAT ON THE NEXT. YES. GREAT IDEAS, SO THAT WILL BE ON THE NEXT AGENDA. APPOINTMENTS FOR THESE TWO WORKING GROUPS THAT HAVE BEEN FORMED THIS EVENING. ANY OTHERS? HAVE COMMITTED CHACON. IF THERE'S TIME FOR IT, MAYBE A LITTLE BILAWAL CLEANUP. ONE SPECIFICALLY, SO I THINK GOOGLE REAL QUICK BECAUSE OF HIS QUESTION, TECHNICALLY UNDER STATE LAW, WORKING GROUPS ARE CONSIDERED AD HOC COMMITTEES AS LONG BUT HAVE TO BE LESS THAN A QUORUM. AND UNDER ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDERS AND HOW COMMITTEES ARE , NORMALLY APPOINTED BY THE CHAIR. SO LIKE THE BOARD OR THE COMMISSION WOULD VOTE TO CREATE SEE SPECIAL AT HOC SPECIAL COMPANY OR AD HOC COMMITTEE. AND THEN THE CHAIR WOULD DO THE APPOINTMENTS. THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DEFINED IN THE BYLAWS. LOVE THE COMMISSION OR THE BOARD, ACCORDING TO ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER. MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD LOOK AT. LOOK QUICK TO JUST KIND OF CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE AND SET OF RELYING ON PRECEDENTS OR. CHECK COMMISSION LOSER. NEVER SO THAT IS IN YOUR BYLAWS, BUT CUSTOMARILY, IT HAS BEEN THE PROCEDURE FOR THE COMMISSION TO APPOINT MEMBERS.

WHERE SO, WHY DON'T WE, SHARE COHEN? YOU AND I SHOULD MAYBE HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE NEED TO DO. OKAY? AH! DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER HEARING THAT NO OTHER I D

[E. BOARDS, COMMITTEES & WORKING GROUPS UPDATES]

AGENDA ITEMS WE CAN MOVE ON TO UPDATES ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER. I THOUGHT WHEN, WHEN WE WERE HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE. WE'RE DISCUSSING THAT COMMISSIONERS ARE HAD A GOOD POINT THAT WE. WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY THAT TO PROCESS THIS THROUGH, LIKE A WORKING GROUP OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, AND THEN IN A SEPARATE DISCUSSION SHARE YOU YOU MENTIONED THAT THE COUNCIL'S WORKING ON A LOT OF STUFF RIGHT NOW. A LOT OF IMPORTANT STUFF. COMPLEX STUFF. AND SO I JUST AND THROWING OUT THERE MAY BE SO THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT DOESN'T SNEAK UP ON US AGAIN. DO WE WANT TO TRY TO REVIEW EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE WORKS, MAYBE WITH STAFF OR SOME SORT OF COUNCIL LIAISON AND THEN DECIDE IN ADVANCE IF WE THINK WE NEED TO BE GETTING AHEAD OF THAT. I'M TRYING TO THINK HOW THAT WOULD THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE COMMISSION AZHAR AND RESPOND. AND I HAVE AN IDEA. COMMISSIONER COX STAFF HAS BEEN PRESENTING THIS STABLE AT THE BOARDS AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE WITH HIS SHOW US ALL THE ITEMS THAT ARE IN THE WORKS AND SOME IDEA OF THE PROGRESS. I THINK IT SHOULD BE IN OUR BACKUP. HOPEFULLY, THAT CAN INFORM YOU BUT I THINK I THINK WE'RE FOR THEIR ON THEIR ACTUALLY. YES SO WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOU ABOUT THOSE ITEMS. MAYBE SOME OF US CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH YOU WOULD OF COURSE, STOP WOULD BE WILLING TO DO THAT. BUT THERE IS A THAT THEY'VE BEEN SHRINKING US AND UPDATING WITH US AS WE GO

[03:15:01]

ALONG, AND THAT'S BEEN REALLY HELPFUL, AND I THINK SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD REALLY THAT'S RIGHT. AND IT COULD BE AS SIMPLE AS AS, MAYBE ANDREW, IF YOU COULD JUST SEND THAT SPREADSHEET TO THE FULL COMMISSION, AND THEN THAT JUST GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT AND SEE IF ANYONE'S INTERESTED IN DIVING DEEPER IN ANY OF THOSE ISSUES OUTSIDE OF THE CONTEXT OF THE ROADS AND ORDINANCES. JUST AN IDEA. SO WE CAN GET THAT OUT TO EVERYONE. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? SO WE'LL ACTION ITEM THERE IS TO SHARE THE LIST OF CODES CHANGES IT STAFFS WORKING. OKAY. COMMISSIONER DESIRE. THIS IS A VERY NON WORKABLE IDEA, DUMMY. I'M BEING SILLY. ESSENTIALLY, WE CANNOT FORM A WORKING GROUP ON PARKLAND DEDICATION TODAY, WHICH WOULD HAVE GIVEN THAT ONE MONTH WE WOULD HAVE TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT TIME BEFORE THE GROUP. DO FOLKS SEE ANY VALUE OF FORMING GROUP THAT WORKS FOR TWO WEEKS WITH STUFF? I THINK THAT GIVES SOME OPPORTUNITY. I KNOW IT'S VERY HARD TO SCHEDULE WITHIN A TWO WEEK TIMELINE. I DO THINK YOU KNOW WE HAD SOME GOOD COMMENTS TODAY, AND I WONDER IF HE'S PUTTING THAT ON THE AGENDA.

AND MAYBE THEY JUST PUT IT ON THE AGENDA. WE DON'T WANT TO FORM A GROUP. YOU DON'T. YEAH I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'LL MISS OUR OPPORTUNITY. WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND SO WE HAVE TO DO WE HAVE ANOTHER MEMBER THAT WANTS TO PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT NEXT TIME. YOU HAVE SUPPORT SO FOR THE AGENDA NEXT TIME, WE'LL ADD CONSIDERATION OF THE WORKING GROUP FOR THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION. TRAT ORGANS. OKAY VERY MUCH, OKAY, AND THAT WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. ALRIGHT, LET'S. IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS GOING TO MOVE ON ITEM E. BOARD COMMITTEES. WORKING GROUP UPDATES THE FIRST ONE, VICE CHAIR. CAN YOU GIVE US AN UPDATE ON THE CODES? LAWRENCE'S YEP, I BELIEVE WE MEET NEXT WEDNESDAY. THAT. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE. DO WE HAVE ANY? LET'S SEE, MR COX. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SHARE OR SCHNEIDER? I WAS ACTUALLY LOOKING AT MY CALENDAR TO SEE WHEN OUR NEXT MEETING IS AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. SO I'LL PUT THAT DIDN'T MISS ANYTHING. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE IT SCHEDULED YET, OKAY? AH! JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE.

ANYTHING. I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING. AH LET'S SEE SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE REPORT. OKAY, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT. THE MILLION MONDAY. WHAT CAN I JUST ASK? WHAT WHAT IS THAT GROUP DOING RIGHT NOW? WHETHER THEY CONSIDERING, NOT NOT. A LOT RECENTLY, SO THEY ARE TRYING TO COME UP WITH THE REGULATING PLAN. I THINK THAT WAS ON OUR INITIATE TRYING TO GET THE FINAL. NO REGULATING PLAN OUT THERE. SO WE GET AN UPDATE FROM THAT REGULARLY, OKAY, WE DON'T REALLY DO MUCH. ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER. DISCUSSION ON THIS BEFORE WE ADJOURN. OKAY HEARING THE OBJECTIONS. GOING TO GO AHEAD AND TURN THIS MEETING AT 9 36. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DID IT GOOD JOB.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.