* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [00:00:07]
          THIS IS SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2023. 
          [Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]
AND, UH, WE'RE GONNA BRING THIS MEETING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER. 
          UM, LET'S GO AND DO A, UH, LET'S SEE, THE TIME IS SIX 15. 
          RUN A LITTLE BEHIND. 
          TRY TO MAKE UP SOME TIME. 
          UH, LET'S GO AND DO A ROLL CALL HERE. 
          I THINK WE HAVE, YES, WE HAVE QUORUM. 
          UH, SO I'M GONNA START ON THE DAIS AND START ON MY LEFT. 
          MOVE TO RIGHT. 
          AND LET'S SEE, WE HAVE, UH, FAR LEFT HERE. 
          WE HAVE COMMISSIONER CONLEY, AND THEN COMMISSIONER WOODS HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER AZAR HERE. 
          UH, THEN I'M THE CHAIR, CHAIR SHAW VICE CHAIR, UH, NEXT TO ME, UM, UH, HERE. 
          AND THEN, UH, LET'S SEE WHO'S NEXT. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON HERE. 
          AND THEN COMMISSIONER HAYNES HERE. 
          CAN WE GET A VOICE? VOTE GO. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          VOICE VOTE. 
          ALL RIGHT HERE? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          VERY GOOD. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THAT'S EVERYONE ON THE DA. 
          SO I'M GONNA MOVE TO VIRTUAL WORLD HERE, AND WE'LL START WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER, UM, HOWARD HERE. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER BETA RAMIREZ HERE. 
          AND, UH, COMMISSIONER COPPS HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER MOTALA HERE. 
          AND, UH, WE HAVE EX OFFICIOS HERE THIS EVENING. 
          UH, THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, COMM, UH, CHAIR COHEN. 
          AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE, UH, CANDACE HUNTER, THE A I C BOARD OF TRUSTEES REPRESENTATIVE. 
          UH, I WAS HERE JUST BRIEFLY, MAYBE COME BACK. 
          THERE YOU ARE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, ALL RIGHT, SO WITH THAT COMMISSIONERS IN THE VIRTUAL SPACE, UH, PLEASE HAVE YOUR GREEN, RED, YELLOW CARDS TO HELP ME TAKE VOTES. 
          AND, UM, REAL QUICKLY, WE'RE GOING TO, WELL, WE'LL MOVE INTO OUR, UM, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I DID NOT HEAR, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? NO, WE DO NOT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO CHECK THAT ONE OFF. 
          UH, MOVING ON TO 
          [APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING. 
          UH, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? UH, QUESTION FROM COMMISSIONERS ON THE AUGUST 22ND, 2023, UH, MINUTES. 
          OH. 
          AND ESPECIALLY CALLED AUGUST 29TH, 2023. 
          CHAIR COMMISSIONER LEE ON. 
          THOSE WILL BE POSTPONED TO YOUR NEXT MEETING. 
          UH, BOTH OF THOSE, OR JUST THE 29TH? BOTH, UH, BOTH OF 'EM. 
          OKAY. 
          NO, I ACTUALLY NEEDED ON THOSE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO WE'LL SKIP THAT FOR NOW. 
          YOU'RE LUCKY. 
          ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO, I HAVE HELP HERE, UH, BY, 
          [Consent Agenda]
UH, VICE CHAIR HEMPHILL. 
          SHE'S GONNA DO THE FIRST READING, WELL, THE ONLY READING, TRYING TO, UH, SAVE TIME, UH, THE READING OF THE, UH, CONSENT AGENDA. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WE HAVE NUMBER TWO, PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 2023 DASH ZERO ZERO 1-803-ROOSEVELT AVENUE MULTIFAMILY. 
          THAT'S POSTED FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 10TH. 
          NUMBER THREE, REZONING C 14 20 23 DASH 0 6 5 ROOSEVELT AVENUE MULTIFAMILY. 
          THAT IS THAT FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 10TH. 
          NUMBER FOUR, PLAN AMENDMENT N P A DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 2 3 0 1 SHERIDAN. 
          THAT IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 10TH. 
          NUMBER FIVE, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 3 5 SHERIDAN. 
          THAT IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 10TH. 
          NUMBER SIX, PLAN AMENDMENT N P A DASH 22 DASH 0 0 1 7 0 1 CRESTVIEW VILLAGE. 
          THAT IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 10TH. 
          NUMBER SEVEN, REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 3 5 CRESTVIEW VILLAGE. 
          THAT IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 10TH. 
          NUMBER EIGHT, PLAN AMENDMENT N P A DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 1 16 0 1 SH LIFE WORKS THREE ARTILLERY THAT IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          NUMBER NINE, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 1 8 SH LIFEWORK THREE AT TILLERY. 
          THAT IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 10TH, NUMBER 10, PLAN AMENDMENT N P A. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? I'M SORRY, MS. RIVERA, IT'S, IT'S A CONSENT. 
          IT'S UP FOR CONSENT. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          CORRECTION NUMBER NINE IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          NUMBER 10, PLAN AMENDMENT N P A DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 3 0 0 2 7 14. 
          TURTLE CREEK MULTIFAMILY UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 10TH. 
          NUMBER 11, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 5 1 7 9 3 8. 
          GREAT NORTHERN REZONING IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT NUMBER 12, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 
          [00:05:01]
0 3 4 5 5 4 0 2 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE IS OFFERED FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 10TH, NUMBER 13, REZONING C EIGHT 14 DASH ZERO SIX DASH 1 0 6 3 HYATT WEST HUD AMENDMENT IS OFFERED FOR DISCUSSION NUMBER 14, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 MORELOS WEBER CSS ONE IS OFFERED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 26, NUMBER 15, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 4 5 24 4. 
          RUTLAND DRIVE IS OFFERED FOR DISCUSSION 16 REZONING C 14, 20 23, 3 8, 4, 1 0 6 AND A HALF 4 1 2 0 4 1 2, 2, 4, 1 2, 2, AND HALF. 
          EAST 12TH STREET IS OFFERED FOR, OH, THAT'S, I'M SORRY. 
          THAT'S FOR DISCUSSION. 
          POSTPONEMENT, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WISHES FOR OCTOBER 10TH AND THE APPLICANT IS AMENABLE TO SEPTEMBER 26TH. 
          NUMBER 17, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 3 5 0 1 PETAL. 
          THAT IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT. 
          NUMBER 18, HISTORIC ZONING, C ONE FOUR H 20 23 0 7 9. 
          GRIFF GRIFFIN HOUSE 25 0 2 JARRET AVENUE IS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION NUMBER 19, CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLAN S PC DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 5 1 C. 
          SCENIC BROOK POCKET PARK IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT NUMBER 20, CODE AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2022 DASH 0 1 2 AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATING PLAN FOR THE NORTH BURNETT GATEWAY ZONING DISTRICT IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT AS AMENDED BY THE CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE AND COMMISSIONER ANDERSON WILL BE READING IN AN AMENDMENT NUMBER 21. 
          IMAGINE AUSTIN, THE IMAGINE AUSTIN YEAR 10 REPORT IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT. 
          AND THAT CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR CLARIFICATION. 
          UM, JUST TO UNDERSTAND THAT, IMAGINE AUSTIN, YOUR 10 REPORT, IS IT UP FOR CONSENT OR IS IT UP FOR POSTPONEMENT? CHAIR COMMISSIONER, LAY LIAISON, ANDREW RIVERA. 
          UH, CURRENTLY IT'S OFFERED FOR CONSENT. 
          UM, CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO POSTPONE THAT TO THE NEXT MEETING. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          FOR DISCUSSION, UM, SANCHI, IF WE CAN JUST POSTPONE IT AND THEN FIGURE OUT, I THINK THERE'S SOME LOOSE ENDS THAT NEED TO BE TIED TOGETHER. 
          IF WE CAN JUST POSTPONE IT FOR THE ALRIGHT. 
          UH, ANY, ANY OPPOSITION TO POSTPONING THAT TO THE NEXT MEETING. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, SO A FEW THINGS, UH, BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS. 
          LET'S SEE. 
          I THINK, UH, MR. CONLEY, DID YOU WANNA MAKE A COMMENT ON AN ITEM? YES. 
          YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE ONE COMMENT ON THE ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          SHOULD I GO AHEAD. 
          OKAY. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          UM, I JUST WANTED TO, UM, I KNOW THAT IT, THAT THE, UH, LIFEWORKS ITEM IS PASSING ON CONSENT AND I'M VERY HAPPY ABOUT THAT. 
          AND I JUST WANTED TO EMPHASIZE HOW IMPORTANT THIS PROJECT IS FOR OUR SYSTEM AND, AND TO IT CLEARING THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS A VERY, UM, IMPORTANT STEP IN THIS VITAL PROJECT MOVING FORWARD TO, UM, AND HOMELESSNESS PARTICULARLY AND YOUTH HOMELESSNESS IN AUSTIN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND, UH, LET'S SEE. 
          DO WE HAVE, I THINK WE, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, DID YOU WANNA GO AND READ IN YOUR AMENDMENT ON ITEM 20 FOR THE RECORD? YES, I'LL START WITH THAT. 
          AND THEN I'D LOVE TO CALL THE APPLICANT OR ITEM 17 DOWN. 
          UM, SO FOR 20, I'D LIKE TO LEAVE THIS ON CONSENT, BUT ADD OUTDOOR SPORTS AND RECREATION AS A PERMANENT USE IN ALL SUB DISTRICTS EXISTING AND SOON TO BE CREATED. 
          AND I, I'VE CHECKED IN WITH STAFF AND STAFF'S OKAY. 
          WITH THAT. 
          AND WE'RE GETTING THE NODS, SO. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UH, ANY OPPOSITION TO THAT AMENDMENT? MR. CHAIRMAN? I DON'T HAVE AN OPPOSITION. 
          I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. 
          IS IT, UH, OUTDOOR SPORTS IN THE NORTH BRUNET GATEWAY OR OUTDOOR SPORTS ACROSS THE ENTIRETY OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN IN ALL THE SUB-DISTRICTS OF THIS ITEM? ITEM 20. 
          OKAY. 
          AS LONG AS IT'S THE SUB-DISTRICTS OF THIS ITEM, ITEM 20, I'M OKAY WITH THAT, BUT OKAY. 
          THANKS. 
          YES, THAT IS THE LIMIT OF THAT AMENDMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY, UH, AND YOU HAD ONE MORE ITEM YOU WANNA SPEAK TO MR. ANDERSON? YEAH, I SEE THE APPLICANT FOR, UM, ITEM 17. 
          DO YOU MIND COMING UP, MS. HOUSEMAN STAFF'S PUTTING AN IMAGE 
          [00:10:01]
UP ON THE TV RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, SO THIS IS AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THIS VERY LARGE PROPERTY, AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK YOU IF, UH, KIND OF WHAT THE PLANS ARE ON, ON HOPING TO PRESERVE THIS AS BEST WE CAN NOT, AND NOT RESTRICTING YOU ALL FROM MAKING IT KIND OF USABLE IN THE FUTURE. 
          MAYBE YOU HAVE TO DO THINGS TO THE CEILING, UNDERSTANDING ALL THOSE THINGS, BUT JUST HOPING TO, TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS ON WHAT THE FUTURE OF THIS BUILDING IS. 
          SURE. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS CHAIR. 
          I'M MICHELLE HOUSEMAN REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT AND COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          THANK YOU FOR ASKING. 
          WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR, UM, QUITE SOME TIME AND THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS A PREPARED STATEMENT TO READ AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS THE APPLICANT. 
          I WILL MAKE MY BEST EFFORT TO PRESERVE THE FACADE OF THE BUILDING. 
          AND THIS BUILDING HAS BEEN ON THE SITE FOR QUITE SOME TIME FROM BASICALLY BACK IN THE FIFTIES AND SIXTIES. 
          AND, UM, THE, THE MURAL THAT YOU SEE, THE HOLLOWAY BUILDING, THE WORDS THEY HAD BEEN, UM, THAT IT WAS RECONSTRUCTED AND PAINTED BACK IN THE FIFTIES AND SIXTIES. 
          IT WAS NOT THERE FOR A LONG TIME AND HE REDID IT AND THE FAINT OUTLINES AND HE FILLED IN THE GAPS. 
          SO BASICALLY WHAT YOU SEE, THE HOLLOWAY AND ALL THE INTERESTING, UM, WORDING THAT'S ON THERE, HE RECREATED IT RECENTLY TO MATCH KIND OF WHAT IT WAS IN THE PAST. 
          SO, SO IT IS, IT IS HIS INTENT TO MAKE BEST EFFORTS TO PRESERVE THIS BUILDING EXACTLY WHERE IT'S LOCATED, BUT MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO IT TO WHERE HE CAN RAISE THE CEILING SO IT'S USABLE AND THAT SORT OF THING IN THE FUTURE. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOU'RE WELCOME. 
          ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, UH, ANYONE WANNA SPEAK TO ANY OTHER ITEMS BEFORE YOU VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? MR. CHAIRMAN, I JUST WANT TO THANK CITY STAFF FOR WALKING ME THROUGH ITEM NUMBER 20. 
          UH, MR. ROSALYN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UM, I, I HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT IT, BUT, UH, EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCES FROM WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON TONIGHT, SO I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT HE EXPLAINED IT LIKE A FIFTH GRADER TO ME, AND THEN I ASKED HIM TO EXPLAIN IT LIKE A THIRD GRADER AND I FINALLY GOT IT. 
          SO I APPRECIATE CITY STAFF FOR DOING THAT. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, RECUSALS ON ANY ITEMS THIS EVENING? UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, I'M RECUSING MYSELF ON ITEMS EIGHT AND NINE. 
          UM, AUSTIN HABITAT FOR HUMANITY HAS BEEN APPROACHED TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS VERY NICE PROPERTY, AND I RECEIVED THE MAJORITY OF MY INCOME FROM AUSTIN HABITAT FOR HUMANITY. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OTHERS? ALL RIGHT. 
          DON'T SEE ANYTHING. 
          UH, LAST CHANCE FOR QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I HAVE A MOTION TO, UM, PASS THAT DON'T HAVE OUR AMEN'S TIME. 
          JUST PASS THE CONSENT AGENDA, UH, POST A PUBLIC HEARING, AND, UH, PASS THE CONSENT AGENDA, VICE CHAIR SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAZAR. 
          UH, ANY OPPOSITION TO CONSENT AGENDA? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, THAT ONE PASSES. 
          AND LET'S SEE. 
          NOW LET'S GO TO OUR FIRST, OH, WE HAVE A DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT. 
          THAT ITEM IS 16. 
          UH OH. 
          UH, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, UM, UH, WOULD THE COMMISSIONERS BE TO START WITH FIVE AT THREE? WE HAVE A PRETTY, UH, BIG EVENING TONIGHT, A LOT OF DISCUSSION CASES. 
          SO THE Q AND A, IF WE COULD START AT FIVE, AT THREE, UH, IF WE JUST NEED MORE QUESTIONS ON ANY ITEM, JUST LET ME KNOW. 
          UH, THAT'LL MOVE THINGS ALONG. 
          ALSO, UH, TO TRY TO AVOID SOME OF THE DEBATE TIME, I WILL ATTEMPT TO DO AN UP AND DOWN VOTE, UH, AFTER WE HAVE A MOTION. 
          BUT IF COMMISSIONERS FEEL LIKE THEY NEED TO SPEAK TO AN ITEM, UH, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND WE'LL GO AND OPEN IT UP FOR, UH, COMMENTS, UH, FOR AND AGAINST. 
          BUT WE'LL TRY TO KEEP THINGS MOVING THAT WAY IF WE CAN. 
          AND, UH, HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET A LOT DONE TO TONIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OPPOSITION TO THOSE? OKAY. 
          RULE CHANGES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          APPRECIATE IT. 
          UM, LET'S GO ON ITEM 16. 
          [16. Rezoning: C14-2023-0038.SH - 4106 1/2, 4120, 4122, 4122 1/2 E. 12th St; District 1]
UM, AND WE'LL START, THIS IS START WITH THE, WHO'S GONNA START US OUT HERE? YES, CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO WE WILL HEAR FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 26TH, AND THIS WILL JUST BE THE MATTER OF THE POSTMAN, NOT THE MERITS OF THE CASE AT THIS TIME. 
          RIGHT. 
          I WILL BEGIN WITH MS. SIMKINS. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I JUST, UM, REMIND FOLKS, YOU HEARD MR. RIVERA, THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CASE ITSELF, JUST THE POSTPONEMENT AND THE NEED TO HEAR IT NOW OR LATER OR SOONER OR LATER. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          DID YOU ALREADY SAY 13 AND 15? WHAT ARE WE TAKING 16 OUTTA ORDER OR NO? 16 IS A DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT, UH, UH, THERE'S THAT FIRST TWO DIFFERENT DATES. 
          UH, THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, ARE JUST GRIEVANCE. 
          SO WE'RE GONNA DECIDE WHEN WE'RE GONNA HEAR THIS. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          HELLO. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          UM, MY NAME IS BELINDA SIMPKINS. 
          UM, IT WAS JUST RECENTLY BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION, UM, REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, JUST FROM DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS FROM PEOPLE AND ME BEING TAGGED ON SOCIAL MEDIA. 
          [00:15:02]
UM, I HAVE THREE GREAT GRANDPARENTS WHO ARE BURIED AT BETHANY'S CEMETERY, AS WELL AS 10 OTHER RELATIVES THAT ARE SIMPKINS AS WELL. 
          UM, I JUST WANTED MORE TIME TO GET MORE INFORMATION ON WHAT EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING ON. 
          IT'S A LOT OF HEARSAY AS FAR AS, UM, IF THEY'RE GOING TO EXHUME THE GRAVES, MOVE THE GRAVES, NOT DO ANYTHING WITH THE GRAVES, AND THEN IT'S KEEP, YOU KNOW, BEING TOLD TO ME THAT IT'S CONSIDERED AN ABANDONED CEMETERY. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THE PEOPLE THERE ARE NOT ABANDONED. 
          MY GRANDPARENTS, WE DID NOT ABANDON THEM. 
          MY RELATIVES ARE NOT ABANDONED. 
          UM, IT'S VERY HEARTBREAKING JUST TO EVEN SEE THIS BEING DONE OR EVEN SOMEONE TELLING ME THAT IT COULD BE DONE WHEN THOSE ARE OUR LOVED ONES. 
          THEY'RE NOT MUSEUM EXHIBITS. 
          THEY ARE NOT FOSSILS, THEY'RE NOT, UM, PEOPLE TO, YOU KNOW, PUT ON DISPLAY FOR FIELD TRIPS. 
          I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THE OTHER ASSOCIATIONS HAVE DONE TO KEEP UP WITH THE PROPERTY AND TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT IT IS IN THE STANDING THAT IT'S IN RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, I JUST WANTED MORE TIME TO BE BROUGHT UP TO SPEED, UM, AS TO WHAT CAN HAPPEN. 
          I MEAN, I COULD LISTEN TO PEOPLE THAT SAY THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE, UM, EXHUMING THE GRAVES, BUT SOMETIMES PEOPLE ARE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH. 
          SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF OUR LEGAL RIGHTS AS FAMILY MEMBERS ARE BEING TAKEN CARE OF, BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF PEOPLE THAT THESE WERE JUST ABANDONED PEOPLE AND THEY DID NOT HAVE FAMILY MEMBERS. 
          AND I'M THEIR GRANDDAUGHTER, THEIR NIECE, AND THEIR COUSIN. 
          THAT'S ALL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. 
          WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          HELLO COMMISSIONERS. 
          I'M LEAH BOJO ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. 
          UM, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT WE HAVE A TWO WEEK, UH, POSTPONEMENT AT THIS POINT. 
          UM, WE HAVE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS. 
          I HAVE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH MS. SIMKINS AND WITH A, WITH A LOT OF OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, UM, PARTICULARLY MS. SUE SPEARS, THE, UH, CARETAKER OF THE CEMETERY RIGHT NOW THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE, TO THE, UM, TO THE CEMETERY THAT WE'RE HERE TALKING ABOUT. 
          JUST TO BE CLEAR, UM, AS I'VE ASSURED OTHERS, I WANNA ASSURE YOU THAT, UM, NO GRAVES ARE, ARE GOING TO BE, UM, DAMAGED, MOVED, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          WE'RE, WE'RE GOING TO GREAT EFFORTS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE POSSIBILITY OF AN OF MORE POSTPONEMENTS WHEN WE GET TO THE COUNCIL LEVEL, WE WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO MOVE FORWARD IN TWO WEEKS. 
          UM, CERTAINLY IF WE'RE NOT READY ON THE 26TH OF SEPTEMBER, WE COULD, WE COULD CERTAINLY WORK ON ANOTHER POSTPONEMENT, BUT, UM, WE ARE MAKING A LOT OF PROGRESS. 
          I'M HAPPY TO SHARE SOME OF THOSE DETAILS IF YOU'D LIKE. 
          IT SEEMS LIKE THIS ISN'T QUITE THE TIME FOR THAT. 
          UM, WE'RE WORKING DILIGENTLY, UM, AND I THINK THAT WE ARE, UM, MAKING SOME VERY PROMISING PROGRESS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS, CHAIR, COMMISSION, LADIES, AND IF IT'D BE THE, UH, PRIVILEGE OF THE COMMISSION TO HEAR FROM ONE MORE SPEAKER FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD? SURE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS AND CHAIR. 
          MY NAME IS ALEXANDRIA ANDERSON. 
          I'M HERE REPRESENTING, UM, THE M L K NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. 
          THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ONE THAT'S BEEN IN THE WORKS SINCE 2000. 
          UM, WE'RE ASKING FOR A POSTPONEMENT. 
          UM, WE MET WITH TAMIRA LAST NIGHT AT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEETING AND WAS ABLE TO SHARE MORE INFORMATION WITH THEM. 
          HOWEVER, WE ARE CURRENTLY DRAFTING, UM, A PROPOSAL TO THE DEVELOPER, UM, BEING THAT IN THE PAST, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN BURNED. 
          WHEN IT'S COME TO THIS DEVELOPMENT, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TAKING THE LEGAL STEPS AS WELL AS MAKING SURE WE'RE COVERING ALL OUR TRACKS TO THE ITEMS THAT WOULD BE COMMUNITY BENEFITS SEWN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BE WRITTEN OUT, SIGNED AND DOCUMENTED FOR UM, PURPOSES. 
          AND SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M DOING MY DUE DILIGENCE AS THE CHAIR TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS COVERED AS WELL AS THE CEMETERY AND ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS, UM, AS WELL. 
          SO, THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UM, UH, START OUR Q AND A ON THIS ONE. 
          UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COX? UH, COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH. 
          QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, I'M NOT TRYING TO GET INTO THE MERITS, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS AND HASN'T HAPPENED. 
          YES. 
          THE LETTER IN THE BACKUP FROM THE, UH, TEXAS HISTORIC COMMISSION SAYS ATLAS BOUNDARIES FOR THIS CEMETERY HAVE BEEN ALTERED BOUNDARIES OF THE H C C AND THE CAD PARTS OF BOUNDARIES APPEAR CONSISTENT. 
          CORRECT. 
          THIS 
          [00:20:01]
NEVER PRECLUDES THE POSSIBILITY THAT GRAVES MAY EXIST OUTSIDE OF THE CURRENT FENCED AREA. 
          WE LOOK FORWARD TO FURTHER CONSULTATION WITH YOUR OFFICE. 
          HAS FURTHER CONSULTATION WITH T H C HAPPENED? IT HAS, UM, AND, UH, YOU CAN STOP ME IF I'M GETTING INTO THE MERITS TOO MUCH, BUT, UM, WELL, AND SO, BUT YES, IT HAS  THE FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS, DID, DID THEY, DID THEY AGREE TO THE, THAT THE LIMITS OF YOUR GROUND PENETRATING RADAR WAS SUFFICIENT? THEY DID. 
          THEY ALSO SAID THAT IF WE REALLY WANTED TO ENSURE THAT WE WERE DOING ALL POSSIBLE, UM, METHODS, WE WOULD COMBINE A SPATIAL METHOD, WHICH IS WHAT THE GROUND PENETRATING RADAR IS WITH A PHYSICAL METHOD, WHICH IS CALLED, WHICH IS ONE VERSION IS SCRAPING, IS THE, THE CADILLAC VERSION OF THAT. 
          AND SO WE HAVE, HAVE AGREED TO THAT, AND IT IS CURRENTLY IN THE DRAFT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT WE ARE, THAT WE ARE WORKING THROUGH THE DETAILS OF RIGHT NOW. 
          SO THAT SECOND PART IS NOT PLANNED TO HAPPEN AT ALL PRIOR TO THE ZONING CASE BEING APPROVED. 
          IT, THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WOULD HAVE TO BE RECORDED BEFORE THE ZONING CASE IS APPROVED, AND THEN THAT SURVEY WORK WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO YOUR QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER COX? OKAY. 
          UH, ANY OTHERS, OTHER HAND UP COMMISSIONER CONLEY? I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVE. 
          UM, IF YOU DON'T MIND, UM, MS. ALEXANDRIA, UM, MY QUESTION IS JUST I, THE SPECI THE SPECIFIC DATE YOU'RE REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT UNTIL IS OCTOBER 10TH? YES. 
          AND IS THERE A SPECIFIC REASON FOR THAT? I MEAN, FOR THAT SPECIFIC DATE, WE JUST MET WITH THE YESTERDAY AS FAR AS BRINGING, UM, CERTAIN ITEMS TO THEM, HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY, WHICH THAT IS, THE 26TH IS 12 DAYS FROM NOW. 
          THAT'S TWO WEEKS. 
          I MEAN, NOT TWO WEEKS, 14 DAYS FROM NOW, TWO WEEKS IS NOT GONNA ALLOW US AMPLE TIME TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE, UM, INFORMATION LOOKED OVER, DRAFT UP, SENT IT TO THE, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I WAS JUST TALKING WITH MS. SIMKINS AND KNOWING THAT SHE LIVES ACROSS SPRINGDALE AND DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO MAKE SURE WE'RE HAVING ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS. 
          IT WAS SUGGESTED BY ONE OF OUR CO-CHAIRS OF THE CONTACT TEAM LAST NIGHT AND AGREED UPON THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A SIT DOWN WITH NOT, AND, UH, SIT DOWN WITH ALL THE STAKEHOLDER HOLDERS. 
          THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS, BUT THERE'S NOT BEEN ONE COLLECTIVE MEETING OF EVERYONE. 
          AND SO, LIKE SHE WAS SAYING, IT'S A BUNCH OF HEARSAY OR TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT TRULY IS GOING ON AND WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THAT AREA. 
          AND SO FOR ME, I, I, LIKE I SAID, THIS HAS NOT BEEN SOMETHING THAT'S JUST COME UP. 
          THIS PROJECT WE THOUGHT WERE DONE WAS GONNA BE DONE TWO YEARS AGO, AND HERE WE ARE IN 2023. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANKS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONERS,  HAS A QUESTION. 
          COMMISSIONER ZA. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. BOJO. 
          SO I, I GUESS IF WE'RE POSTPONING, UH, FOR A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME BASED ON YOUR REQUEST, WOULD YOU, ARE YOU AGREEING TO SORT OF MAKING A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN THAT TIME AND RESOLVING SOME OF THEIR SORT OF OUTSTANDING CONCERNS? ABSOLUTELY. 
          AND THEN, UH, SORT OF MY SECOND QUESTION TO THAT WOULD BE, WELL, I SUPPOSE IT'S, I GUESS IT'S MORE OF A COMMON AND WE CAN GET TO IT, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT IF WE GET TO THE TWO WEEKS AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S OUTSTANDING ISSUES, OF COURSE WE WILL HAVE THE ABILITY AS A COMMISSION TO EXTEND FURTHER FOR A POSTPONEMENT IF WE FEEL LIKE SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED THAT I THINK ARE BEING RAISED TODAY. 
          I, I AGREE. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          TRUE. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT, I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. 
          UM, WHAT WAS THE, WE HEARD THIS, WHAT WAS, WHO WAS GRANTED THE LAST POSTPONEMENT? WAS THAT A NO, I REMEMBER THIS CASE. 
          NO, IT'S A, A DIFFERENT PROPERTY. 
          IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO IT. 
          OH, IT'S THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT'S WHY WE, I RECOGNIZE THIS ONE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO THIS IS NOT BEEN GRANTED IN ANY POSTPONEMENTS THIS MR. CHAIRMAN? I DO, I'VE GOT ONE QUESTION. 
          OKAY, GO AHEAD. 
          MS. SIMKINS, CAN YOU, FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? OKAY. 
          I'M, I'M SORRY. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, I HAD, I HAD THE PLEASURE. 
          I PUT THAT IN HER COURTS OF SERVING ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, MY NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, WE HAD A, WE HAD A REQUIREMENT IN OUR BYLAWS THAT THERE WAS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME BEFORE WE COULD HAVE EVEN A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING. 
          IS THERE A SIMILAR ONE FOR YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? UM, I BELIEVE SO. 
          I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK OUR BYLAWS AND CHECK THAT OUT. 
          BUT DO YOU, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT TIMEFRAME IS? OR OBVIOUSLY YOU GOTTA CHECK I, OUR HOURS WERE SEVEN DAYS. 
          [00:25:01]
OKAY. 
          NO, I CAN ACTUALLY CHECK AND SEE WHAT THAT SAYS AND THEN GET BACK TO YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          PERFECT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I THINK FOR ME IT'S JUST LIKE, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M DOING MY DUE DILIGENCE. 
          NO, I, I APPRECIATE THAT AND I, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT NOTIFY YOUR NEIGHBORS AND YEAH. 
          ALL THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          WELL, THE THING IS THAT WE'VE ALREADY CREATED, CREATED THOSE DOCUMENTS WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW TO HEAR ABOUT THE, THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE INDIVIDUALS THAT LIVE ACROSS SPRINGDALE AND BEING ABLE TO REACH OUT TO THEM. 
          OUR BOUNDARIES ARE AIRPORT 12, BLESS YOU. 
          AIRPORT 12TH AND, UM, 12TH AIRPORT, M L K IN SPRINGDALE. 
          AND SO YOU STILL HAVE SO MANY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA THAT HAVE NOT BEEN NOTIFIED. 
          SURE. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          YEAH. 
          I THINK, UH, MS. BOJO, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO ADD? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, SO I THINK WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS I, I WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO, AND WE, WE HAD A QUICK CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS, SO, BUT NOW WE'RE ALL GONNA HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT, . 
          UM, I WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO POSTPONING TO OCTOBER 10TH IF WE KNEW THAT WE WOULD HAVE SORT OF TIMELY PROGRESS FROM THAT POINT ON. 
          UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN NEVER BAR ANYTHING FROM COMING UP. 
          IT'S ALWAYS POSSIBLE THAT SOMETHING COMES UP AND YOU HAVE TO POSTPONE. 
          BUT THE, THE PROBLEM IS THAT IF WE HAVE A MONTH POSTPONEMENT HERE, AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER MONTH POSTPONEMENT AT COUNCIL, NOW WE'RE PUSHING UP TO THE END OF THE YEAR, AS Y'ALL KNOW, THE COUNCIL SCHEDULE IS EARLY DECEMBER, AND NOW WE'RE IN FEBRUARY. 
          AND THAT'S WHERE IT REALLY BECOMES A PROBLEM. 
          SO, SO I, I, WHAT I LET THE NEIGHBORHOOD KNOW, AND I'LL LET Y'ALL KNOW, IS I WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO OCTOBER 10TH IF, IF WE COULD ALL KIND OF AGREE IN GOOD FAITH THAT IF WE CAN GET EVERYTHING REALLY TIED UP BY OCTOBER 10TH, THAT THEN COUNCIL WOULD PROCEED, UM, ON, ON THE SCHEDULE THAT WE GET FROM THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S NOT THIS ONE TWO WEEK INCREMENT. 
          IT'S THE, IT'S THE WHOLE THING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK WE'RE OUTTA QUESTIONS UNLESS SOMEBODY'S REALLY HAS TO ASK ANOTHER ONE. 
          WE COULD. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? UH, COMMISSIONER ZA COX HAS A MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER COX. 
          I WAS GONNA MOTION, UH, TO POSTPONE TO OCTOBER 10TH. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND? UH, SECOND. 
          I SEE COMMISSIONER HAYNES HAND GO UP FIRST. 
          UH,  POINT AT ME. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WELL, UM, ALL RIGHT, LET'S STICK WITH THAT FOR NOW. 
          UH, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK, UM, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND, UH, ON THIS ONE. 
          DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION JUST SO WE CAN SEE WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM ON THIS ONE? COMMISSIONER CO. 
          YEAH. 
          SO I, I DON'T THINK OCTOBER 10TH, I DON'T THINK A MONTH IS UNREASONABLE, UH, CONSIDERING WHAT WE HEARD THAT MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT HAVE HISTORIC ASSOCIATIONS WITH THE CEMETERY ARE JUST HEARING ABOUT THIS CASE AND, AND MAY HAVE QUITE INTERESTING AND USEFUL INFORMATION FOR THE DEVELOPER TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T GET IN ANY TROUBLE WHEN THEY'RE, WHEN THEY'RE BUILDING THIS, UH, OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T CONTROL WHAT COUNCIL DOES, BUT I THINK THE MORE WE UNDERSTAND THAT DUE DILIGENCE WAS DONE, THE MORE WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE COMMUNITY FEELS LIKE DUE DILIGENCE WAS DONE, THE MORE COMFORTABLE WE WILL FEEL AND THE MORE COMFORTABLE COUNSEL WILL FEEL. 
          SO I THINK OCTOBER 10TH IS A REASONABLE REQUEST. 
          ALL, UH, I'D LIKE TO MOVE THIS TO A VOTE UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE HAS SAY ANYTHING. 
          COMMISSIONER ZA GO AHEAD. 
          CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SUBSTITUTE MOTION. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          I'M GONNA RECOMMEND THAT WE POSTPONE TO SEPTEMBER 26TH. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SEE A SECOND FOR SEPTEMBER 26TH. 
          I DON'T SEE ANY. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT MOTION SUBSTITUTE. 
          MOTION FAILS. 
          BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION AGAIN. 
          UM, ANY OTHERS WANNA SPEAK TO THIS? I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE REAL QUICK. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, I'D LOVE TO, UM, IF IN THE NEXT MONTH, UM, IF, IF ALL SIDES KIND OF FEEL LIKE THERE'S A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF NOW WHERE THE BOUNDARIES ARE AND EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, THEN, THEN GREAT. 
          I'D LOVE TO HEAR THAT. 
          AND IF THERE'S NOT THAT AGREEMENT, I'D LOVE TO VISIT THE SITE WITH THE FOLKS WHO ARE AFFECTED BY THIS AND, AND MOST INTERESTED. 
          THANKS GREG ANDERSON. 
          EASY TO FIND. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, LET'S SEE. 
          WE MAKE THIS, ANYBODY ELSE FOR, OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER CONY, YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING? UM, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL SAY SOMETHING VERY BRIEFLY. 
          I JUST, I, I, YOU KNOW, I, I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARDS TO THE CEMETERY, A GOOD FAITH EFFORT ON THE DEVELOPER'S PART TO AT LEAST TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AT THE SITE. 
          AND THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE ONGOING. 
          THEY'RE CURRENTLY TAKING PLACE. 
          I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHERE THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE AT, BUT I JUST WANT TO NOTE TO THE COMMISSION THAT THAT WORK IS TAKING PLACE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          LET'S GO AND, UH, VOTE ON THIS ONE. 
          I'LL MAKE IT EASY, I THINK. 
          ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS OCTOBER 10TH. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I DON'T SEE ANY, SO THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONERS. 
          QUEUE UP MY AGENDA HERE. 
          UM, SO NOW WE'RE GONNA MOVE TO OUR DISCUSSION CASES 
          [00:30:02]
AND NUMBER 13. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          UH, NUMBER 13, STAFF. 
          [13. Rezoning: C814-06-0106.03 - Hyatt West PUD Amendment]
YOU WANNA START US OFF PLEASE? AND THIS IS THE HYATT WEST POD AMENDMENT? YES. 
          NANCY ESTRADA WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 13 ON YOUR AGENDA, CASE NUMBER C 8 14 0 6 0 106 0 3. 
          THE HYATT WEST PUD AMENDMENT, WHICH IS LOCATED AT 1 51 SOUTH FIRST STREET. 
          THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE FAIRFIELD HYATT P TO REMOVE THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THE WEST PARCEL. 
          THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS AMENDMENT WITH CONDITIONS THAT ARE LISTED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, AND I'M GONNA LET AUSTIN WATER SPEAK TO THESE CONDITIONS. 
          SO, GOOD AFTERNOON, MISSION, AND GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSION MEMBERS. 
          I'M KEVIN CRIT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR WITH AUSTIN WATER. 
          I, WE, THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO YOU THIS AFTERNOON AND CERTAINLY, UH, APPRECIATE OUR WORK WITH STAFF. 
          UM, I'LL JUST BE SHORT HERE. 
          UH, WE, WE CERTAINLY SUPPORT THIS, UH, PROPOSED STAFF AMENDMENT THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT CONNECT TO A NEARBY RECLAIMED WATER USE AND THAT WOULD ALLOW, UH, THE OFFSET OF, UM, WATER THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE POTABLE WATER, SO THEY CAN BE USED FOR NON-POTABLE PURPOSES. 
          UM, THIS INITIATIVE IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH OUR WATER 4 20 18 PLAN, WHICH IS OUR INTEGRATED LONG-TERM WATER RESOURCE PLAN. 
          UM, IN ADDITION, THIS IS ALSO IN CONFORMANCE WITH, UH, 2021 CODE AMENDMENTS TO REQUIRE SUCH CONNECTIONS. 
          UM, AND, UH, OBVIOUSLY AS YOU CAN, UH, CERTAINLY EXPERIENCE, WE'RE IN A SERIOUS, SERIOUS DROUGHT. 
          UM, THIS IS JUST ONE OF THE EFFORTS THAT WE'LL BE LOOKING FOR NOW IN LONG TERM TO TRY TO PROVIDE A SUSTAINABLE WATER FUTURE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. 
          SO WITH THAT, I HAVE OTHER STAFF MEMBERS WITH US TO SPEAK TO ANY DETAIL OR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          UH, DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT PRESENT? HI COMMISSIONERS. 
          I'M SO SORRY. 
          . 
          UM, I'M LEAH BOJO HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. 
          UM, I HAVE A PRESENTATION THAT I WILL RUN THROUGH. 
          I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT SHORT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO JUST SO EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME PAGE, THIS IS THE SITE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST ACROSS FROM, UH, ACROSS THE RIVER FROM DOWNTOWN. 
          OBVIOUSLY ONE OF IT WAS ONE LARGER PARCEL AS THE, OF A PUD THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2007. 
          WE ARE NOW JUST ASKING TO AMEND THIS ONE PARCEL, WHICH MY CLIENT NOW OWNS. 
          UM, HERE YOU, WE A LITTLE BIT ZOOMED IN. 
          YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S A, UM, IT'S A SERVICE PARKING LOT TODAY. 
          IT'S ABOUT 3.32 ACRES. 
          THE ENTIRE PUD IS JUST UNDER 10. 
          UM, AND WE'RE PROPOSING A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT IS IN SITE PLAN RIGHT NOW. 
          THAT SITE PLAN APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED LAST FALL. 
          UM, AS I THINK YOU ALL KNOW, THIS IS AN EXCELLENT TRANSIT AND MULTIMODAL LOCATION. 
          IT'S BETWEEN TWO CORE TRANSIT CORRIDORS. 
          UM, IT'S A 0.2 MILE WALK TO THE CAP METRO VIC MATTHIAS AUDITORIUM SHORE STATION, WHERE METRO RAPID COMES THROUGH, AS WELL AS LOCAL ROUTES ONE AND 30 AND HIGH FREQUENCY ROUTES SEVEN, 10, AND 20. 
          UM, IT'S ALSO ADJACENT TO THE ANNEN ROY BUTLER HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL OR PROTECTED BIKE LANES ON CONGRESS, UM, AND A VARIETY OF OTHER WAYS TO BIKE, PET AND, AND MOVE AROUND THE SITE. 
          UM, THE AMENDMENT THAT WE ARE REQUESTING IS ONLY TO REMOVE PARKING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. 
          UM, THERE IS A, IT IS A LONG PUT, I THINK IT'S IN YOUR BACKUP IN THE STAFF REPORT. 
          UM, IT CURRENTLY ALLOWS AN 80% PARKING REDUCTION, WHICH I THINK WAS PROBABLY CONSIDERED SUPERIOR IN 2007 . 
          UM, BUT FORTUNATELY FOR ALL OF US, OUR CITY HAS CHANGED QUITE A BIT. 
          AND AN 80% PARKING REDUCTION IS ACTUALLY LESS OF A PARKING REDUCTION THAN IS AVAILABLE IN MOST OF THE CITY. 
          UM, NOT MORE. 
          UM, THIS IS ALSO, OBVIOUSLY THIS REQUEST IS IN LINE WITH THE COUNCIL'S. 
          UM, OVERALL GOALS. 
          WE ALL, I THINK, KNOW THAT THEY INITIATED AN AMENDMENT CITYWIDE ON MAY 4TH TO ELIMINATE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 
          UM, IT'S EXPECTED TO COME BACK IN NOVEMBER. 
          I WOULD POINT OUT THOUGH THAT EVEN IF THAT HAD ALREADY PASSED, UM, THERE MAY BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY IN IT, I DON'T KNOW, BUT, UM, WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO AMEND THIS POD ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. 
          UM, SO JUST A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT DETAILS. 
          UM, IT'S A MIX OF FOUR RENT AND, AND FOUR OWNERSHIP, UM, RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED USES. 
          AND THEN HERE'S THE PARKING BREAKDOWN. 
          UM, APPENDIX A WOULD REQUIRE 670 SPACES, SO THE 80% WOULD BE 536. 
          UM, AND THEN WE ARE LOOKING TO PROVIDE ONLY 327 OF THOSE SPACES, UM, WITH THIS PROJECT IN, IN STRUCTURE PARKING UNDERGROUND. 
          UM, SO LIKE I SAID, THIS PUD WAS APPROVED ORIGINALLY IN 2007. 
          UM, AND I THINK, UM, AGAIN, AT THE TIME I THINK 
          [00:35:01]
THAT WAS SORT OF CONSIDERED PROGRESSIVE. 
          UM, WE'VE COME A LONG WAY ON THAT. 
          IT WAS APPROVED WITH A, A LIST OF SUPERIORITY ITEMS P WIDE AND SPECIFIC TO THIS TRACK THAT ARE STILL INTACT AND I WOULD SAY EVEN ARE SUPPORTED, UM, BY THIS DEVELOPMENT AS OPPOSED TO THE SURFACE PARKING LOT THAT'S THERE TODAY. 
          UM, AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, WITH THE SITE PLAN THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED, WE HAVE ALSO AGREED TO DO RECLAIMED WATER, UM, ON SITE RECLAIMED WATER, UM, FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND STORY COMMERCIAL USES, AS WELL AS FOR THE IRRIGATION OF THE GREEN SPACE, WHICH IS AN EXCEPTIONAL AMOUNT GIVEN WHERE THE SITE IS LOCATED. 
          THIS IS NOT A REGULAR DOWNTOWN HIGH RISE WITH ZERO LOT LINES. 
          UM, IT HAS QUITE A BIT OF GREEN SPACE ON THE TRAIL SIDE. 
          UM, SO HERE ARE A COUPLE RENDERINGS, UM, JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT THE RETAIL LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT THE PROJECT IS INTENDED TO LOOK LIKE. 
          YOU CAN SEE THIS, THE GREEN SPACE, UM, THAT WOULD BE WATERED WITH RECLAIM USE, RECLAIMED WATER. 
          UM, AND WITH THAT, I WOULD, I WOULD CLOSE AND JUST, UM, JUST SORT OF TO SUMMARIZE HERE, I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING TO PROVIDE RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE, THE MOST WALKABLE AND TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LOCATION IN THE CITY. 
          IF IT WERE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE RIVER, THERE WOULD BE NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS SOON. 
          THERE WILL HOPEFULLY NOT BE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN MOST OF THE CITY. 
          UM, IT MEETS THE CITY'S, UH, WATERFRONT OVERLAY GOALS. 
          UM, IT MEETS COUNCIL PRIORITIES AND IT PROVIDES ONSITE WATER REUSE IN EXCESS OF WHAT IS REQUIRED BY CODE TODAY. 
          AND WHAT THE SITE PLAN THAT'S BEEN IN REVIEW SINCE LAST FALL IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE PITTING ENVIRONMENTAL, UH, BENEFITS AGAINST EACH OTHER. 
          I THINK , I THINK NOT PROVIDING AS MUCH PARKING IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT OF ITS IN AND OF ITSELF. 
          UM, AND THEN IN ADDITION, IT COMES WITH SOME WATER, UM, ADDITIONAL WATER BENEFITS AS WELL. 
          AND SO WITH THAT, I HOPE TO HAVE YOUR SUPPORT, UM, IN REMOVING THIS REQUIREMENT. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ALRIGHT. 
          UM, JUST, UM, QUESTION FROM ME. 
          DID WE, DID WE PULL THIS OR HOW DID THIS END UP FOR DISCUSSION? APPLICANT'S NOT REQUEST DIFFERENT FROM STAFF. 
          IT'S DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE CAN'T AGREE WITH THE WATER UTILITIES CONDITION. 
          AH, OKAY. 
          I WAS, THAT WAS GONNA BE ONE OF MY QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY, THERE WE GO. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO LET'S, UH, DO A MOTION TO MR. ANDERSON, CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          UH, ANY OBJECTIONS? CLOSING THE HEARING, SAYING NONE. 
          GO MOVE UNDER OUR Q AND A SECOND. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SORRY, I'M TRYING TO KEEP THIS THING. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND? UH, OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE CLOSING? THE HEARING? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND START THE Q AND A. 
          HE WANTS TO START US OFF. 
          HAPPY TO, UH, YES. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR COMMISSIONER. 
          UM, CAN I ASK THE APPLICANT, CAN WE PUT UP THAT SLIDE THAT SHOWED THE PARKING, UM, PARKING REQUIRED BY THE PUTT AGREEMENT AND WHAT THE APPLICANT IS HOPING TO BUILD OTHER WAY? YOU CAN LOOK AT PRETTY PICTURES THOUGH, IF YOU'D LIKE ON THOSE PICTURES. 
          HEARING IT'S FORWARD, IT'S HEARING NONE. 
          MOVE OUR Q AND EIGHT. 
          OH, SORRY. 
          IT'S NUMBER FIVE. 
          AND CAN YOU REMIND US THE NUMBERS THAT YOU JUST SHARED? SO THE PUD REQUIRES, IT SHOULD BE SLIDE NUMBER FIVE, I THINK. 
          UM, YES. 
          UM, THE APPENDIX A, UM, THE CITY'S PARKING TABLE REQUIRES 670 SPACES. 
          UM, THERE WE GO. 
          UM, AND, AND THEN THE 80 WITH THE 80% REDUCTION, WHICH IS WHAT THE PILOT WOULD ALLOW, THERE'S THIS THAT COMES TO THE 536, YOU SEE RIGHT THERE. 
          413 FOR RESIDENTIAL, 1 23 FOR COMMERCIAL. 
          UM, WE ARE CURRENTLY HOPING TO PROVIDE ONLY 327. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          AND IS THAT THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR POSITION AND, AND WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING? STAFF IS NOT DISAGREEING WITH THE PARKING COMPONENT. 
          IT'S ONLY THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE ADDITIONAL WATER. 
          I'M SORRY, I ASKED THAT INCORRECTLY. 
          IS THAT THE MAIN THING YOU'RE TRYING TO CHANGE WITH YOUR PUT THAT'S THE ONLY THING WE'RE CHANGING. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, IS, IS SOMEBODY FROM WATERSHED ON OR, OR WATER WAS ABLE TO, HEY, UM, JUST, JUST CURIOUS, UM, DO YOU ALL PAY ATTENTION TO CODE CHANGES HAPPENING AT CITY COUNCIL LEVEL? COULD YOU REPHRASE THAT? I'M SORRY. 
          SURE. 
          COUNCIL RECENTLY INITIATED SOMETHING TO ELIMINATE ALL PARKING MANDATES FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? YEAH, CERTAINLY. 
          GREAT. 
          AND SO THIS APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO BUILD OVER 200 FEWER SPACES ON THIS DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE WITH AMAZING TRANSIT. 
          AND YOUR DEPARTMENT WANTED TO BLOCK THAT TO GET MORE OUT OF THE DEAL? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS. 
          NO, I, AND, AND, AND FIRST LEMME SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD CERTAINLY AGREE WITH MS. BOJO THAT IT'S, WE'RE WE'RE NOT ARGUING OVER, UM, YOU KNOW, ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS. 
          I THINK OUR REAL CHALLENGE 
          [00:40:01]
IS THAT EVEN WITH THE ONSITE REUSE THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING OR PROPOSING, IT'S STILL LEAVES A LOT OF WATER FOR TOILET URINAL FLUSHING. 
          THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE POTABLE WATER. 
          SO WE'RE CERTAINLY, UH, NOT TRYING TO BE ADVERSE TO ANY PARKING, UM, CHANGES. 
          UH, THAT'S CERTAINLY NOT WHAT WE'RE ABOUT. 
          WE'RE TRYING TO, WE'RE WORKING HARMONY TO FIND THE SUSTAINABLE WATER SOLUTIONS ACROSS OUR COMMUNITY. 
          UM, AND THESE ARE CODE, UM, PROVISIONS THAT, UM, WILL BE, UM, HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED BY COUNCIL AND WILL BE REAFFIRMED IN, UM, UPCOMING COUNCIL BETWEEN NOW AND THE YEAR. 
          SO YOU UNDERSTAND THE APPLICANT COULD GO AND BUILD THEIR, THEIR ENTIRE PROJECT THAT COULD JUST BUILD 200 MORE PARKING SPOTS AND THEY DON'T NEED ANYTHING FROM THE CITY. 
          THEY CAN JUST GO AND BUILD THAT. 
          I AM NOT AN EXPERT ON PARKING, BUT I'LL LEAVE THAT TO YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, I KNOW WE HAD A PARKING PRESENTATION HERE RECENTLY AND IT WAS, IT WAS GOOD TO HEAR FROM STAFF THAT THEY ARE WORKING ON MECHANISMS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GO AHEAD AND REVISE ALL OF OUR CCDS, PUDS, PDAS, ALL THOSE THINGS TO NOT REQUIRE PARKING. 
          SO KIND OF, SORRY, THIS HAS TO BE A DISCUSSION ITEM TONIGHT, POWELL. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER M TYLER, I HOPE I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO'S A LITTLE CONFUSED. 
          I I AM CONFUSED AT WHAT WE ARE BEING ASKED TO DECIDE. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE THESE PARKING SPACES ARE A COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUE FROM THE RECLAIMED WATER ISSUE. 
          CAN I HAVE AN UNDER CLEARER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DECIDE TONIGHT, PLEASE? YEAH. 
          DO YOU WANNA HEAR FROM THE STAFF TO YOUR QUESTION? OKAY. 
          SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FOR REMOVING MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 
          UM, I GUESS INITIALLY, UH, WHEN THE CASE CAME TO US, WE, YOU KNOW, EXAMINED THE, THE CASE AND BASICALLY AUSTIN WATER IS ASKING FOR CERTAIN CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO APPROVE, UM, REMOVING THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 
          SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING IT, BUT AUSTIN WATER IS PRESENTING SOME CONDITIONS AND WE RECOMMENDED IT WITH CONDI, WITH AUSTIN WATERS CONDITIONS. 
          IS THERE A PARTICULAR, I MEAN THESE REALLY SEEM LIKE BOTH VERY IMPORTANT BUT DISTINCTLY SEPARATE ISSUES. 
          UM, WHY ISN'T THE IDEA OF THE RECLAIMED WATER COMING IN AT A DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITY IN THIS PROCESS? IS THERE NOT ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THAT? WELL, WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE CASE, UM, WE WERE USING THIS ALSO AS A MECHANISM OR USED AS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT. 
          AND SO WHEN THE APPLICANT CAME BACK AND SAID, THESE ARE THE ITEMS THAT WE ARE, WHICH IS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE ITEMS THAT ARE LISTED, UM, THAT THEY WOULD BASICALLY OFFER AS WITH THIS CASE AND WITH THIS PROJECT, THEN THAT IS WHEN STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND. 
          AND WE JUST KNEW THAT WE HAD TO, UM, WORK WITH AUSTIN WATER UTILITY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I'M STILL NOT SURE I'M HEARING AN ANSWER. 
          IS THERE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER SEPARATELY ON THE RECLAIMED WATER ISSUE? IT, IT'S JUST NOT RELATED TO THE, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO ELIMINATE THE MINIMUM, TO CHANGE THE MINIMUM PARKING. 
          SO THE, THE, THE IDEA THAT THESE ARE TIED TOGETHER IS, IS REALLY, I THINK, PROBLEMATIC FOR US AS A COMMISSION. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, UM, I DON'T KNOW, QUESTION. 
          IS THERE ANOTHER, IS THERE ANOTHER PIECE OF THE SITE PLAN, THE REVIEW PROCESS? I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE, WHERE IN THE SEQUENCING WE ARE WITH THE PROJECT OR IS IT THE ONLY WAY TO BRING THIS BACK IN BECAUSE THIS WAS ALREADY APPROVED? THAT'S RIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONER, THESE CHANGES. 
          SO COMMISSIONER SHERRY SOWAS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE IDEA IS THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR SOMETHING AND ALSO WATER IS ALSO ASKING FOR SOMETHING THROUGH THIS P U D AMENDMENT. 
          AND IN ORDER TO GET THAT RECLAIMED WATER, THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO IT NOW WITH THE AUSTIN FORD PLAN. 
          AND SO THIS IS THEIR OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE THIS IS A P U D AMENDMENT THAT'S IN BEFORE YOU WHERE THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR SOMETHING AND THEN THE STAFF IS SAYING, OKAY, WELL THEN WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE RECLAIMED WATER AND THIS IS THE PROCESS TO GET THAT. 
          SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE CONDITIONS ON THIS CASE. 
          OKAY. 
          I SEE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH HANDS UP. 
          I I THINK I HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          OKAY, LET ME JUST, UH, WE'LL DO IT IN THIS ORDER. 
          UH, VICE CHAIR HEMPEL AND THEN COMMISSIONER HER RAMIREZ AND THEN COMMISSIONER COX. 
          UH, OKAY, GO AHEAD AND START. 
          STAFF VICE CHAIR. 
          SORRY, STAFF. 
          I THINK I MIGHT, THIS QUESTION MIGHT BE FOR 
          [00:45:01]
YOU. 
          UM, WHEN A, A PUD, UM, IS BEING AMENDED AND IT'S A A, A MINIMAL AMENDMENT IS JUST DEALING WITH, IN THIS CASE IT'S DEALING ONLY WITH PARKING. 
          IS IT THE REGULAR PRACTICE THAT ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS AGAIN, REVIEW THIS PUD EVEN THOUGH IT'S JUST THE ONE ISSUE THAT IS IN A QUESTION? YES. 
          WHEN P U D AMENDMENTS COME IN, THEY'RE DISTRIBUTED TO ALL OF THE STAFF FOR REVIEW. 
          SOMETIMES STAFF HAS NO COMMENT. 
          SOMETIMES STAFF IS SAY, OKAY, THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS PROGRAM GOING ON THAT'S GOING INTO EFFECT IN 2024 FOR AUSTIN FORD. 
          THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO, UM, GET THOSE REQUIREMENTS MET WITH THIS P U D THROUGH THIS P U D AMENDMENT. 
          SO. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THEN THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          CAN YOU REMIND ME THE POTENTIAL COST OF BRINGING IN THE RECLAIMED LINE THAT I BELIEVE THAT AUSTIN WATERS ASKING FOR? YES, I BELIEVE IT IS A, A COUPLE OF MILLION DOLLARS. 
          TWO, I THINK IT'S AROUND TWO, $2 MILLION. 
          THANK YOU, . 
          OKAY. 
          AND WHAT WOULD THAT DO FOR THE, THE PLAN IF THAT WERE TO BE PART OF IT? WELL, I THINK PART OF THE ISSUE IS BRINGING THE LINE FROM THE CORNER OF, I BELIEVE RIVERSIDE AND BARTON SPRINGS. 
          UM, I THINK PART OF THE ISSUE IS, UM, THAT THAT IS AN OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT. 
          SO IT IS A, A MORE COMPLICATED IMPROVEMENT THAN THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO ONSITE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          UM, AND THEN THE OTHER, UM, COMPONENT IS THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE A REDESIGN OF THE BUILDING AND THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE PLUM, UM, THE ENTIRE BUILDING TO HAVE THE NON-POTABLE WATER THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING. 
          UM, ADDITION. 
          SO THE 2 MILLION IS JUST FOR THE LINE, BUT THEN THERE'S THE REDESIGN, THE DELAY AND THE COST, AND THEN THE, AND THEN THE SORT OF THE RISK OF AN OFFSITE, A COMPONENT TO THE PROJECT. 
          AND DO YOU HAVE A NUMBER FOR THAT? I DON'T, I DON'T, BUT I CAN TRY TO GET ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE  AND NON-POTABLE AND THAT'S STILL A SIGNIFICANT COST. 
          YES. 
          THE BUILDING ITSELF WOULD BE $1 MILLION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO TOTAL ABOUT 3 MILLION. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, RAMIREZ. 
          YEAH, MY QUESTION IS ABOUT THE WATER FORWARD, UM, PLAN. 
          SO I, THIS IS KIND OF THE FIRST I'M LEARNING ABOUT IT. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA TO CONSERVE WATER. 
          UM, BUT IT SOUND I'M GETTING AN UNCLEAR, UH, TIMEFRAME FOR WHEN IT'S ACTUALLY REQUIRED. 
          SO CAN SOMEBODY TELL ME WHEN DEVELOPERS ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THE WATER FORWARD, UH, PLAN? SO I'LL, I'LL ASK CATHERINE JASINSKI, SHE'S ON THE LINE TO KINDA GIVE YOU A BETTER FRAMEWORK OF THE DETAILS. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, THE OVERVIEW IS THAT COUNCIL HAS PASSED ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES CONNECTION TO THE RECLAIMED SYSTEM. 
          IF THEY'RE WITHIN 500 FEET. 
          THIS SITE IS, I THINK AROUND 400 FEET. 
          SO IT IS REQUIRED. 
          UM, I THINK THERE IS ADMITTEDLY A COMPLICATION. 
          I THINK THE SITE PLAN ORIGINALLY CAME IN AS AN OFFICE BUILDING, WHICH WOULD HAVE IN FACT REQUIRED IT BY CODE. 
          WE WOULDN'T BE HERE. 
          UM, BUT I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LATER CHANGE TO THE MULTIFAMILY APPROACH, WHICH ADDS A WRINKLE TO IT. 
          AND I'LL LET, I'LL LET CATHERINE EXPLAIN THE WRINKLE. 
          YES, GOOD EVENING ERS. 
          UM, SINCE DECEMBER 1ST, 2021, LARGE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT HAVE MORE THAN 250,000 SQUARE FEET OR MORE HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO THE RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM AND USE RECLAIMED WATER, UH, FOR ALL OF THE NON-POTABLE NEEDS IN THE BUILDING. 
          THE ONE THAT THAT REFERENCES THAT IF MULTI-FAMILY COMPONENT, YOU CAN GET A  THAT REQUIREMENT UNTIL DECEMBER 1ST, 2023. 
          SO, UM, AS KEVIN MENTIONED, THE INITIAL SITE PLAN WAS FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING. 
          WE MADE THE COMMENT TO THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU HAD TO CONNECT AND USE TO RECLAIM AND THE APPLICANT HAS SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGED, REDESIGNED THEIR BUILDING TO BE A MULTI-FAMILY OR MIXED USE, EXCUSE ME. 
          SO THEY'RE SEEKING THE VARIANCE TO BE ABLE TO, TO NOT HAVE TO BE REQUIRED. 
          IS THAT, IS THAT KIND OF WHAT, OR HAVE THEY SOUGHT THE VARIANCE TO BE ABLE TO, BECAUSE IT, THEY DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY UNTIL THE END OF THIS YEAR. 
          CORRECT. 
          THAT'S OUR, THAT THEY WANT THE VARIANCE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO HAS THAT PROCESS BEEN INITIATED OR, 'CAUSE THIS ISN'T, THIS DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THEY'RE, THAT THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS. 
          WELL, IT'S, IT'S COMPLICATED BUT THERE'S, UP UNTIL VERY RECENTLY JUST SHOWN AN OFFICE BUILDING AND SO, UM, WHILE FOR THE PLAN SET TO COME IN AND SHOW THE MULTI-FAMILY COMPONENT AND THEN THAT AT THAT POINT, THAT'S WHEN THEY CAN APPLY FOR THE VARIANCE. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S HELPFUL. 
          [00:50:01]
THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER COX, AND THEN, UM, I HAD A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. 
          I HAVE SOME TWO, SO WE'RE GONNA GO AND KEEP TO OUR, WE MAY ACTUALLY HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, SO WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GO TO EIGHT AND IF WE NEED MORE, WE'LL USE THEM. 
          UH, THIS IS A PRETTY IMPORTANT TOPIC. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH. 
          UM, SO THAT WAS NEW INFORMATION, UM, THAT WE JUST HEARD. 
          SO WHEN, WHEN WAS STAFF SOMEONE FROM STAFF, UH, WHEN WERE THEY MADE AWARE THAT THE BUILDING CHANGED TO A RESIDENTIAL USE? AND THEN FOLLOW ON QUESTION TO THAT, SINCE IT'S MIXED USE, DO THE RULES, WOULD THE RULES STILL REQUIRE THAT THE COMMERCIAL PART OF IT BE CONNECTED TO REUSE? SURE, I CAN ANSWER THAT. 
          UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS  WITH THE APPLICANT WHO, UH, AND THEY HAD UPDATED US PLANNING ON REVISING THEIR SITE PLAN APPLICANT TO BE A MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT. 
          I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THE DATE. 
          I GLITCHED ASK . 
          SURE. 
          UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS MARCH, SOMETIME IN THE SPRING OF THIS YEAR IS WHEN WE MET WITH THE APPLICANT AND JULIE. 
          UM, AND THEY NOTIFIED US THAT THEY WERE 20. 
          THEIR  MULTIFAMILY MIXED USE MULTIFAMILY MAJORITY MULTI, UM, EXCUSE ME. 
          WE'RE HAVING A REAL HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING YOU. 
          SO LET'S GO AND SHIFT TO THE OTHER US AND WATER FOLKS, UH, AND STAFF IF YOU, IF YOU HAD THE DATES. 
          WELL, I THINK YOU CAN JUMP IN. 
          SORRY. 
          I THINK WE HEARD MARCH OF THIS YEAR AND, AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S COMPLICATED PROCESS. 
          UM, BUT THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION WAS FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, WOULD THE COMMERCIAL FLOORS STILL BE REQUIRED TO BE CONNECTED TO REUSE? SO ANY RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT WOULD, IT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO APPLY FOR THE VARIANCE. 
          FOR RE OKAY. 
          AND THEN I GUESS, I GUESS MY OTHER QUESTION RELATED TO THIS FOR AUSTIN WATER WOULD BE, UM, THEY ARE COMMITTING TO REUSE FOR IRRIGATION. 
          UM, I, I MEAN IT UNDER CURRENT CODE. 
          WOULD THAT, WOULD THAT STILL BE CONSIDERED KIND OF A STEP UP FROM BASELINE, WOULD YOU THINK? GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, I CAN JUMP IN AS CATHERINE IS, UM, GLITCHING AND CATHERINE, IF YOU ARE ABLE TO CONNECT BACK, UM, JOIN AND CORRECT ME. 
          UM, GOOD EVENING. 
          I'M SHWETA PANDER AND THE BUSINESS STRATEGY MANAGER AND AUSTIN WATER. 
          UM, SO YES. 
          UM, SO THE, THE IRRIGATION CONNECTION IS SOMETHING THAT WE DEFINITELY APPRECIATE, BUT IT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING. 
          THERE IS STILL ROUGHLY ABOUT 1.9 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER PER YEAR THAT WILL BE PORTABLE WATER THAT, THAT WILL BE USED IN TOILET FLUSHING. 
          SO WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE, SO THE APPLICANT IS AT THIS TIME PROPOSING TO USE AN ONSITE WATER REUSE SYSTEM, UH, TO CAPTURE, TO USE FOR IRRIGATION AND CAPTURE THE FIRST AND THE SECOND FLOORS ONLY, BUT IT'S A 14 STORY BUILDING. 
          SO THE REMAINING FLOORS ARE STILL GOING TO BE USING DRINKING WATER. 
          SO THE ONE POINT, UH, ONE POINT PLUS MILLION GALLONS OF WATER THAT WILL BE USED IS PART OF THE WATER. 
          SO USING THE RECLAIM SYSTEM FOR THIS IS WHERE WE THINK THERE IS A GREATER WATER SUSTAINABILITY OPTION. 
          SO, SO IF, IF I STILL HAVE SOME TIME, UM, UH, YOU DON'T, HEY, UH, YEAH, SORRY, THE BUZZER DID RING. 
          UH, LET'S GO AND, UM, WE'RE GONNA, SAME QUESTIONS. 
          I'M OKAY. 
          HOPEFULLY IT'LL BE CAPTURED BY ONE OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS. 
          LET'S GO. 
          AND, UH, COMMISSIONER ZARI, YOU WERE NEXT AND DID WE HAVE SOMEBODY UP? COMMISSIONER GOMLEY? COMMISSIONER. 
          COMMISSIONER. 
          COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          OKAY. 
          WOODS. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          MS. BOER, CAN YOU COME UP HERE FOR A SECOND JUST SO WE CAN SORT OF FULLY UNDERSTAND. 
          WHAT I'M HEARING IS, I THINK STAFF CLARIFIED THAT ESSENTIALLY THIS IS A MIXED USE, MULTI-STORY BUILDING AND Y'ALL WOULD BE PROVIDING THE PORTABLE RE OR THE REUSE FOR THOSE FIRST TWO FLOORS AND FOR LANDSCAPING AND OTHER THINGS ON THE PROPERTY. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          AND WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 2 MILLION, ARE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 2 MILLION AT INCLUSIVE OF THIS, OR WOULD THAT BE THE 2 MILLION IN ADDITION TO THE WHATEVER YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO FOR THESE TWO FLOORS AND THE PROPERTY ITSELF, THAT WOULD BE IN ADDITION. 
          SO DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA ON HOW MUCH OF THE INVESTMENT WILL BE FOR THE, WHAT YOU ARE PROVIDING? I DON'T, AND I DON'T THINK I CAN GET THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT I, IF I COULD CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT. 
          UM, THERE'S JUST A COUPLE THINGS. 
          UM, ONE OF THEM IS THAT THE, THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED IN 2021 WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECEMBER 1ST. 
          SO IT'S THE, THE TERM SEEKING A VARIANCE IS A LITTLE MISLEADING, I THINK. 
          NOT MISLEADING, BUT JUST UNCLEAR BECAUSE, UM, THE DIRECTOR SHALL NOT, UH, SHALL GRANT THE VARIANCE. 
          SO IT'S AUTOMATIC. 
          SO THERE WAS A QUESTION SOMEWHERE ABOUT ARE WE SEEKING A 
          [00:55:01]
VARIANCE? AND IT, IT'S LIKE WE'RE, WE'RE SEEKING IT BY JUST SUBMITTING A SITE PLAN UNDER THOSE OLD RULES. 
          AND I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. 
          UM, UNDER THE RULES THAT ARE IN EFFECT RIGHT NOW, WE DID CHANGE THE USE ON THE SITE PLAN. 
          THAT IS TRUE, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT CHANGES. 
          I MEAN, WE CHANGED THE USE EARLIER THIS YEAR AND THAT REQUIREMENT STILL DOESN'T GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL DECEMBER 1ST. 
          SO EVEN IF IT WAS A NEW SITE PLAN THAT HAD GONE IN ON THE DATE THAT THE CHANGE OF USE HAPPENED, WE STILL WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THESE WATER USE RULES. 
          UM, AND I SAY THIS BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, THERE'S A DOLLARS COMPONENT TO IT OF COURSE 'CAUSE THERE ALWAYS IS, BUT THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER COMPONENT TO IT, WHICH IS WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS, WHAT THE RULES ARE TODAY, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. 
          AND I JUST WANNA KIND OF RAISE THAT AS WELL, THAT IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT DOLLARS, IT'S ABOUT, IT'S ABOUT INTRODUCING A NEW COMPONENT TO THE PROJECT AT THIS POINT, OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS, ALL OF THAT. 
          AND THE FACT THAT WE ARE EXCEEDING WHAT THE WATER ORDINANCE, UH, REQUIRES. 
          UM, SO, YOU KNOW, IF THIS WERE, IF THIS CASE IS DENIED, THEN WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THE CITY WOULD RATHER SEE A BUNCH OF EXTRA PARKING AND NO WATER REUSE INSTEAD OF, UM, LESS PARKING AND SOME WATER REUSE. 
          AND, AND I'M SORRY, JUST TO FOLLOW UP IN MY TIME JUST TO UNDERSTAND CLEARLY, BUT WHAT I'M HEARING IS THIS NOT A VARIANCE? YES, CORRECT. 
          I MEAN I THINK THE WORD TO THE VARIANCE IS IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT IT'S LIKE AUTOMATIC . 
          GOT IT. 
          AND ESSENTIALLY THE WAY IT WOULD BE, WE, THERE'S A RULE THAT HAS NOT GOTTEN INTO EFFECT. 
          SO IN SOME WAYS YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR VARIANCE BECAUSE THERE IS NO RULE THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FROM. 
          EXACTLY, YES, CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO THEN AS WE'RE UNDERSTANDING IT, WHAT I'M ALSO HEARING IS THAT BASED ON THE RULES THAT ARE IN EFFECT TODAY, YOU ARE ACTUALLY PROVIDING MORE ADVANCED WATER YES. 
          STANDARDS IN ADDITION TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENT. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          SO IN THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU HAVE FILED, INCLUDING THE CHANGE OF USE, YOU ARE NOW GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED BY CODE TODAY, BOTH FOR WATER REUSE ON SITE AND FOR PARKING. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          MY TIME IS UP. 
          ALRIGHT, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS, I THINK MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED MR. CONNOLLY. 
          UM, YEAH, I JUST, I I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT'S CLARIFICATION AND COMMENTS ON THIS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO GET CLARITY FROM STAFF, FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SPECIFICALLY. 
          IS, I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR IN ANY CASE, WE ARE TODAY MAKING NO DECISIONS RELATED TO ANY VARIANCE OF ANY KIND. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THAT OUTTA THE WAY. 
          YES. 
          AND IS THERE GOING TO BE SOME FUTURE DATE IN WHICH THERE WILL BE ANY KIND OF DISCUSSION ABOUT A POSSIBLE VARIANCE OR IS THAT GRANTED AUTOMATICALLY? UM, NOT, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY FUTURE DATE THAT THERE WOULD BE ANY KIND OF VARIANCE THAT DISCUSSED. 
          OKAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO COMMISSIONER CONNOLLY, THAT WOULD BE TO SUE THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, NOT THROUGH THE P U D REZONING PROCESS. 
          SO BASICALLY AUSTIN WATER IS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY GET THAT REQUIREMENT AT THIS TIME INSTEAD OF DURING THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, BUT THEY STILL COULD DURING THE SITE PLAN PROCESS ATTEMPT TO GET THAT REQUIREMENT? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          AND THAT WAS REALLY THE, THE MAIN QUESTION I HAD. 
          I JUST HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          IF YOU WERE TO MOVE FORWARD BUILDING THE REQUIRED PARKING, THAT WOULD BE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THAT WOULD HAVE, UH, AN IMPACT AS WELL ON THE WATERSHED, DON'T YOU AGREE? YES. 
          YES. 
          AND DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF HOW MUCH SPACE WOULD BE TAKEN UP BY THOSE PARKING UNITS REQUIRED? UM, WELL WE WOULD HAVE TO GO DOWN, UM, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR DOWN WE CAN GO BECAUSE WE'RE RIGHT ON THE LAKE, SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THE WATER TABLE IS. 
          UM, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE A COMBINATION OF MORE LEVELS OF PARKING, UM, IN THIS AREA OF THE, OF THE, OF THE WATERSHED AND ALSO, UM, A SERIES OF, THERE'S A TON OF PARKING THERE RIGHT NOW. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , SO I MEAN, SO IT WOULD MAYBE BE A BUNCH OF OFFSITE AGREEMENTS. 
          I DON'T KNOW, WE'D PROBABLY JUST KIND OF WEAVE TOGETHER A BUNCH OF THINGS TO TRY TO MEET THIS CODE, THIS OLD CODE REQUIREMENT. 
          OH, THANK YOU. 
          SO FOR, FOR SOMEONE FROM THE WATER DEPARTMENT, FROM AUSTIN WATER, UM, JUST TO BETTER UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, BY MAKING THIS REDUCTION IN PARKING CONDITIONAL TO, UM, THE CONNECTION TO THE MAIN, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. 
          SO LET'S SAY, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T ACCEPT THE CONDITION, UM, THEREFORE THEY WERE THEY WERE FORCED TO, UM, BUILD OUT ALL OF THE PARKING THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO BUILD THAT WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO GO DEEPER TO EXPAND THE AREA COVERED BY PARKING. 
          HAS ANYONE ATTEMPTED TO QUANTIFY THE IMPACT THAT THAT ADDED PARKING WOULD HAVE ON THE WATERSHED? HAS THERE BEEN, I BELIEVE THAT'S PROBABLY A QUESTION MORE APPROPRIATE FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION. 
          SO WE ARE THE WATER WASTEWATER UTILITY, SO WE PROVIDE OKAY, UNDERSTOOD. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          UM, POTABLE WATER AND SANITARY WASTEWATER. 
          SO, BUT THERE WOULD STILL, RIGHT. 
          DON'T HAVE A DIRECT ANSWER, BUT THERE WOULD STILL ULTIMATELY BE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY IN THE CITY. 
          A AGAIN, I I ASSUME THAT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED BY CODE TO ADDRESS ANY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S KIND OF A HARD QUESTION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND CERTAINLY NOT WITHIN MY EXPERTISE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND COULD YOU JUST CLARIFY FOR ME, UM, WE HEARD THAT THERE'S STILL OPPORTUNITY DURING SITE PLAN PROCESS TO, OH, NEVERMIND. 
          MY TIME IS UP. 
          SORRY. 
          ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS. 
          [01:00:01]
UM, I HAVE QUESTIONS. 
          SO ARE YOU ANY OBJECTIONS? ADDING A FEW MORE? UM, I THINK I A LOT OF GOOD QUESTIONS HERE AND I THINK WE'LL COME TO A VOTE HERE SOON. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER CONLEY, YOU WANNA FINISH? THANK YOU. 
          YEAH, I WAS JUST TRYING TO BETTER UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WE HEARD HERE THAT THERE'S STILL AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET, TO GET THE CONNECTION TO THE MAIN THROUGH SITE PLAN, AND I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, UM, FROM THE FOLKS AT AUSTIN WATER, UM, WHY COMING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, SPECIFICALLY OVER THIS PARKING PUTT AMENDMENT, WAS PREFERABLE TO WAITING AND ATTEMPTING TO DO SOMETHING THROUGH SITE PLAN. 
          SO I'LL HAVE TO RELY ON STAFF. 
          I MEAN, I'M NOT AWARE OF A, A LATER STAGE THAT GIVES US THIS SAME OPPORTUNITY. 
          SO I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT PARTICULAR FACT. 
          I, I I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE. 
          I WAS GONNA ASK THAT SAME QUESTION. 
          I MEAN, WHY, UM, UH, PLANNING, WHY COULD, COULD, AND AND I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT PLANNING, ARE YOU, YOU ARE PLANNING, SO YOU WOULD, CAN WILL, UM, I, I, MY QUESTION IS, WILL, WILL AUSTIN WATER HAVE A CHANCE TO DO SOME QUESTIONS THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, SOME OF THE ADDRESS, SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS THROUGH SITE PLAN PROCESS? WELL, RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, WHAT WE'RE ADDRESSING OR WHAT THEY'RE ADDRESSING IS NOT IN CODE YET. 
          SO, FAIR POINT, , FAIR POINT. 
          THAT'S ALL. 
          I, THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO I'VE GOT, I'M GONNA RIFLE THROUGH THESE, SO I'M GONNA BE VERY QUICK, BUT, UM, WHY IS, WHY I DIDN'T THINK OF THE, CAN YOU EXPLAIN APPLICANT WHY THE PARKING, UM, IF YOU HAVE TO DO THIS, YOU CAN'T DO THE PARKING REDUCTION? WOULDN'T BE BOTH. 
          I MEAN, WOULDN'T THE PARKING BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO YOU FOR ELIMINATE PARKING? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IF YOU, THIS HAPPENS, YOU CAN'T DO THE PARKING REDUCTION. 
          OUR, BECAUSE THE PUD SPECIFIES ONLY AN 80% REDUCTION BECAUSE THE PUD WAS WRITTEN IN 2007. 
          NO, NO. 
          IF WE GIVE YOU THE 60% OR WHATEVER RIGHT, THE REDUCTION YES. 
          AND REQUIRE US AND WATER. 
          WHY CAN'T YOU DO BOTH? BECAUSE WE HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT'S ABOUT TO BE APPROVED THAT HAS BEEN IN, IN PROCESS SINCE LAST FALL, AND WE HAVE NOT PLANNED FOR A CODE AMENDMENT THAT'S NOT YET IN EFFECT. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, SO, ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, SO ON THE PUD, SO WHAT I, FROM WHAT I KNOW, PUDS ARE A BALANCE OF ENTITLEMENTS, WHICH I THINK PROBABLY NUMEROUS ENTITLEMENTS WERE GRANTED THIS PUD YES, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S BEEN SOME CHANGES TO THE PUD AND IT'S A BALANCE. 
          SO THE, IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY ON THE GAINS THAT THE APPLICANT GOT AND WHAT THE CITY GETS IN RETURN, UH, AS BENEFITS. 
          SO IT'S NOT, WE THIS, AND I'VE SEEN THIS ON A NUMBER OF HUDS WHERE THERE'S THINGS WE ASK FOR THAT AREN'T IN CODE, BUT THEY'RE GOOD IDEAS. 
          DO WE WANNA CONTINUE FLUSHING GOOD WATER IN A DROUGHT DOWN THE TOILET? IS THAT REALLY WHAT WE WANNA DO? I MEAN, THIS IS WATER SHORTAGE. 
          YOU ALL EXPERIENCED THIS DROUGHT. 
          THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS ON ENERGY AND WATER ARE REAL. 
          OKAY? THEY'RE REAL PEOPLE. 
          WE GOT NOT ONLY TRAFFIC, WE GOTTA START FOCUSING ON OUR WATER CONSUMPTION AND OUR ENERGY USE. 
          THEY'RE IMPORTANT, AND THIS IS JUST ONE SMALL STEP, BUT WE GOTTA START DOING IT. 
          WE GOTTA START MAKING THESE CHANGES. 
          SO YEAH, THE CODE IS IN EFFECT, THIS IS A PUD WE CAN ASK FOR ANYTHING, WE CAN DO THAT. 
          SO I RECOMMEND THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE AWESOME WATER RECOMMENDATION, AND I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY THE APPLICANT CAN'T ASK FOR A, A REDUCTION IN PARKING AND GET THAT AS WELL. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, SORRY. 
          SURE. 
          THIS IS MORE JUST A PROCEDURAL QUESTION BECAUSE I'M, YOU KNOW, BASED ON YOUR LAST COMMENT, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT DECISIONS WE'RE MAKING HERE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GET SOME CLARITY FROM STAFF BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR AND THE IDEA OF ADDING FURTHER REQUIREMENTS TO THE PUTT AMENDMENT. 
          SO WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE CASE AND THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE NEXT IF WE, UM, ARE ADDING REQUIREMENTS? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. 
          SEEMS WELL, I THINK THE APPLICANT IS ADDING A REQUEST, WHICH IS A GOOD ONE. 
          UH, BUT IT'S THE AUSTIN WATER IS AT MAIN, YOU KNOW, LONG TERM. 
          IT'S A GOOD ONE FOR THE CITY AS WELL. 
          SO I THINK IT'S THE, UH, ENTITLEMENTS VERSUS, YOU KNOW, SO ARE WE PROPOSING TO SORT OF VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT AND THEN VOTE ON AN AMENDMENT TO ADD A REQUIREMENT AS TWO SEPARATE THINGS? OR ARE WE VOTING TOGETHER? THEY'RE BOTH, I THINK, AMENDMENTS TO THE PUT, THEY'RE JUST BOTH. 
          AND WE CAN VOTE ON ONE OR BOTH RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          [01:05:02]
SO BASICALLY THIS STAS RECOMMENDATION IS TO RECOMMEND THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR THE REDUCTION IN PARKING WITH THE AUSTIN WATER CONDITIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO YOU CAN GO WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. 
          YOU COULD GO WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMISSION. 
          IT IS UP TO YOU AS TO WHAT YOU PRESENT, UH, FOR A VOTE ON THIS P U. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CAN WE ASK FOR NO PARKING MINIMUMS? CAN I, CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? I'M SERIOUS. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD ADD REQUEST IF YOU WANTED TO REMOVE THE PARKING CONDITION IN THE P U. 
          YES. 
          YES. 
          THAT COULD BE A MOTION THAT YOU WOULD MAKE. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER COX. 
          CLARIFY QUESTION. 
          COMMISSIONER COX, YOU HAVE A, AND WE'RE GO AHEAD. 
          IF, IF, AND IT'S RELATED TO WHAT SOMETHING, WHAT THE APPLICANT SAID, IF, IF WE APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND, AND WE ADD THE CONDITION THAT THERE'S NO PARKING REQUIREMENT AND THEN THAT GETS APPROVED BY COUNSEL, THEN ESSENTIALLY THE PUT HAS CHANGED. 
          AND THE APPLICANT, THE DEVELOPER HAS ZERO PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THIS PARCEL, BUT THEY HAVE TO DO THE WATER REUSE PER AUSTIN WATER UTILITY. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, CORRECT? WELL, THAT, THAT'S THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO REMOVE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FROM THE P U D. 
          THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING. 
          BUT WE'RE ALSO HAVE CONDITIONS FROM AUSTIN WATER. 
          NO, NO. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THE REASON I'M ASKING IS 'CAUSE THE APPLICANT TOLD THIS COMMISSION THAT IF WE APPROVE THIS, THAT THEY'RE JUST GONNA BUILD A BUNCH OF PARKING. 
          I THINK THE APPLICANT IS SAYING IS IF THEY DO NOT GET THE P U D AMENDMENT REQUEST APPROVED, THAT THEY WILL CONTINUE WITH THE CURRENT P U D CONDITIONS. 
          BUT WE'RE, WE'RE POTENTIALLY CHANGING THOSE CONDITIONS RIGHT NOW. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS WHETHER YOU WANT TO CHANGE THOSE CONDITIONS. 
          AND THE STAFFS RECOMMENDATION IS TO DO THAT WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS FROM AUSTIN WATER. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT IT'S UP TO YOU AN EFFORT MOVE TO YOUR RECOMMENDATION. 
          CHAIRMAN, I GOT, CAN, CAN I CLARIFY A STATEMENT I MADE EARLIER, SO THAT REQUEST YOU WANNA READ, READ IT VICE CHAIR, THIS ISN'T, AND IT, I THOUGHT THERE WAS A REDUCTION REQUESTED, UH, BASED ON THE NUMBERS WE WERE SEEING. 
          UH, SO IT IS ACTUALLY, AS IT SAYS TO REMOVE, UH, THE FIRST, RIGHT, IT'S PAGE 38 OF 51 IN THE BACKUP IN THE RED LINE MARKUP OF THE P NUMBER THREE A CROSSES OUT THE EXISTING A AND B AND SUBSTITUTES NO MINIMUM PARKING SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PARCEL. 
          THAT'S THE ASK. 
          SO THE NUMBERS WERE WHAT YOU PLANNED, BUT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR NO. 
          OKAY, I UNDERSTAND NOW. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND, AND LET'S CLARIFY THAT, THAT MEANS FOR THIS PARCEL WITHIN THE P U D, NOT THE ENTIRE P U D. 
          OKAY. 
          'CAUSE WE'RE ONLY ADDRESSING THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL WITHIN THE P U D OVERALL. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          SORRY, I, I HATE, YEAH, THIS, THIS IS GONNA BE A FUN ONE, . 
          UM, SO I'M JUST, I I NEED SOME CLARITY HERE BECAUSE ONCE THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT ORIGINALLY AGREED TO THE TERMS FOR A P D AND A P D WAS APPROVED, RIGHT? SO IF WE CHANGE THOSE TERMS TO TERMS, THE APPLICANT NO LONGER AGREES TO, THEY STILL LEGALLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFAULT TO THE ORIGINAL P U D AGREEMENT. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? SO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND NOT THE RESIDENTIAL, THE ENTIRE THING THAT THEY HAVE HAVE ALREADY APPROVED ANYWAY. 
          BUT, BUT IF, IF, IF, IF, IF WE, HEY, LET'S GO AND DIRECT IT TO STAFF. 
          IF YOU COULD, IF, IF WE ADD NEW CHANGES AND REQUIREMENTS TO THE PUD RIGHT? THAT THE APPLICANT DOES NOT AGREE TO, WHAT HAPPENS, DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE THE RIGHT TO REVERT TO THE ORIGINAL PUD THAT THEY HAD? NO, IT WOULD BE UP TO CITY COUNCIL. 
          IF THE CITY COUNCIL, IF YOU AS A COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WHICH ALSO INCLUDES THE WATER CONDITIONS FROM AUSTIN WATER, THEN THAT GOES BEFORE CITY COUNCIL. 
          IF CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THAT, THAT CHANGES THE P U D ORDINANCE. 
          AND IT WOULD REQUIRE, IT WOULD GIVE THE REDUCTION IN PARKING, BUT REQUIRE THE AUSTIN WATER CONDITIONS AND THEREFORE THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE P U D ORDINANCE. 
          OKAY. 
          SORRY. 
          IS, IS THERE SOMETHING HERE THAT CAN CLARIFY ANY OF THIS ? IF, IF THE, IF, IF YOU ALL RECOMMEND IT AND THE COUNCIL IS NOT WILLING TO GO BACK TO OUR REQUEST, WE CAN WITHDRAW OUR APPLICATION AT ANY TIME AND THEN JUST BUILD WHAT THE PUD REQUIRES TODAY. 
          SO YOU CAN WITHDRAW EVEN AFTER WE, LET'S SAY ASSUMING WE VOTED TO REQUIRE THIS CONNECTION TO THE MAIN, YOU JUST WITHDRAW YOUR REQUEST AND YOU GO BACK TO THAT. 
          EXACTLY. 
          IS THAT OKAY? SO THAT'S THE THING THAT I'M STRUGGLING THAT I WANT MAKE SURE THAT WE ALL CLEARLY UNDERSTAND, COMMISSIONER. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO JUST TO BE REALLY, REALLY CLEAR ABOUT THIS, IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH STAFFS RECOMMENDATION AND THE REQUEST FROM AUSTIN WATER, YOU'LL AND COUNCIL AGREED YOU ALL COULD THEN GO BACK AND ACTUALLY REVERT AND INCLUDE THE EXTRAORDINARY EXTRA AMOUNTS OF PARKING AS WELL AS REVISE SOME OF THE OTHER TERMS TO WHERE WE WOULD END UP WITH BASICALLY NEAR ZERO E ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT WOULD BE IF THEY WOULD DRAW THE P D REQUEST. 
          I'M JUST, I'M ASKING, I'M ASKING THE APPLICANT. 
          [01:10:01]
YES. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE THE SORT OF NO OFFENSE HERE. 
          THE NUCLEAR OPTION IS THAT WE BASICALLY END UP WITH A LOT MORE PARKING, NO WATER RECLAMATION, NO UPGRADES. 
          ALL OF THOSE BENEFITS ARE LOST BECAUSE WE INCLUDED SOMETHING FROM AUSTIN WATER. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          A MOTION. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          LET'S DO A MOTION. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON CHAIR. 
          I'D LIKE TO MOVE APPLICANT REQUEST. 
          AND SO THAT, UM, WHO IS THE SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS? OKAY. 
          UH, SO, UM, GIVEN ALL THE CONVERSATION, I THINK COMMISSIONER COX, COMMISSIONER COX, I'M SORRY, I'M THE SECOND. 
          I LIKE, I LIKE TO DO A SUBSTITUTE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I HOLD ON. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          OKAY. 
          DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? UH, COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, GO. 
          LET'S DO, WE NEED TO SPEAK TO THIS SUBSTITUTE. 
          IS EVERYBODY CLEAR ON WHAT'S BEING ASKED? THERE'S A LOT OF Q AND A, MR. CHAIRMAN, I TOOK A NAP. 
          WAS IT COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S RECOMMENDATION? COMMISSIONER WOODS SECOND? YES, SIR. 
          NOW WE'RE DEALING WITH COMMISSIONER COX. 
          OKAY, PERFECT. 
          YES, WE'RE ON. 
          WE'LL MOTION TO GO WITH A STAFF RECOMMENDATION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETO RAMIREZ. 
          I'M TRYING TO MOVE THIS ALONG. 
          I GOT, I GOT DEBATE. 
          SO, UH, HEY, CAN I, CAN I SAY ONE THING REAL QUICK? SURE, GO AHEAD. 
          I THINK, I THINK YOU, YOU, EVERYONE HERE HAS TO UNDERSTAND HOW PUDS WORK, AND I THINK CHAIR SHAW DID A REALLY GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING THE TRADE-OFFS OF DOING PUDS. 
          AND I, AND I, THE ONLY REASON WHY I'M SUPPORTING STAFF RECOMMENDATION IN THIS REGARD IS BECAUSE THE, THE APPLICANT IS COMING TO US SAYING, WELL, THIS PUD WAS APPROVED IN 2007. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY SAT ON IT FOR 15 YEARS, BUT NOW THEY WANT TO BUILD AND THEY WANNA BUILD TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCES THAT FAVOR THEM, BUT THEY'D LIKE TO NOT BUILD TO SOME OF THE ORDINANCES THAT ARE COMING UP THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE SUBJECT TO, BECAUSE THIS ISN'T GONNA HAPPEN BEFORE DECEMBER. 
          UM, THEY, THEY WANNA, THEY WANNA BASICALLY PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH CURRENT STANDARDS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MEET HERE. 
          AND SO I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY FAIR. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHY SUPPORT WHAT AUSTIN WATER'S TRYING TO DO HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND LET'S GO. 
          YES. 
          UH, BUT I'M GONNA GIVE A CHANCE, WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO OUR DEBATE RULES SINCE WE DO, WE HAVE, WE'RE GONNA GO AND ALLOW THAT. 
          SINCE COMMISSIONER COX WANTED TO SPEAK, DOES ANYONE SPEAK AGAINST THIS MOTION, MR. WOODS? YEAH. 
          I'M GONNA TRY TO KIND OF KEEP THIS STRAIGHT, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO AMEND THIS PUD TO REMOVE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT ORDINANCE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN INITIATED BY COUNSEL HAD PASSED. 
          AND THE WATER FORWARD REQUIREMENTS THAT ALSO DON'T APPLY TO THE PUD CURRENTLY ARE NOT IN PLACE REGARD AT, AT THE MOMENT. 
          UM, SO THAT'S SORT OF MY UNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHEN WE'RE SAYING THEY'RE PICKING AND CHOOSING, WHICH APPLY TO THEM, IS HOW I AM, HOW I'M THINKING ABOUT THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, NOW, UH, COMM THE SECOND ON THIS, COMMISSIONER, BETO RAMIREZ. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO, SO PUTTS, I HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE SUPERIORITY. 
          SO THIS, AS, UM, THE CHAIR MENTIONED, LIKE THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO BE SUPERIOR. 
          I ALSO WANNA POINT OUT THAT 200 EXTRA SPACES IN A PARKING GARAGE COST APPROXIMATELY $50,000 EACH, WHICH AT $10 MILLION, IT IS WAY MORE EXPENSIVE TO BUILD ALL THAT PARKING THAN IT IS FOR A SIMPLE $3 MILLION PIPE AND REDESIGN. 
          SO $3 MILLION IS NOTHING. 
          IF THEY HAVE 14 STORIES OF OF APARTMENTS, THEY'RE GONNA GONNA MAKE THEIR $3 MILLION BACK. 
          SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WATER VERSUS $3 MILLION. 
          IT DOESN'T, LIKE THIS IS NOT DRIVING FOR ME AT ALL. 
          SO I JUST, I THINK IT'S A REALLY SIMPLE THING. 
          THE WATER DEPARTMENT KNOWS. 
          I MEAN, ANYBODY THAT WALKS OUTSIDE CAN SEE THAT WE'RE HAVING A WATER PROBLEM. 
          THIS IS, THIS IS A SIMPLE DECISION. 
          ALRIGHT, THOUGH, SPEAKING, UH, SO SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION COMMISSIONER CONLEY. 
          UM, SO FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO SAY IS THAT WHAT'S AT STAKE HERE IS NOT AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW PUDS WORK. 
          WHAT IS AT STAKE HERE IS AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW AMENDMENTS TO ALREADY DECIDED PS WORK. 
          AND SO WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING IS AN AMENDMENT, AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD PUT THIS PUD IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE CITY'S OVERALL GOALS THROUGH ITS REDUCTION, ELIMINATION OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 
          AND A REDUCTION OF 200 PARKING SPACES IS 200 FOLKS 
          [01:15:01]
LESS THAT CHOOSE TO DRIVE TO THIS SITE THAT REQUIRE THE DEPEND ON CARS IF THEY LIVE ON THIS SITE THAT HAS MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT AREN'T BEING QUANTIFIED IN ANY WAY IN THIS CONVERSATION. 
          AND SO TO, YOU KNOW, USE PARKING, YOU KNOW, I, I DO WANT TO SEE THE WATER FORWARD REQUIREMENTS MET AS WELL, BUT TO USE PARKING, UM, TO GET THAT SEEMS SO PERVERSE. 
          AND THE LAST THING I'LL, I'LL, I I I DO WANNA ALSO, UM, NOTE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE ACTUAL COST OF THE PARKING SPACES IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE ARE IN A POSITION TO ESTIMATE AT THIS POINT. 
          GIVEN THE FACT THAT THERE MIGHT NEED TO BE DIGGING THESE MIGHT BE, AND THIS MIGHT REQUIRE GOING DEEPER. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS AROUND THE ACTUAL COST OF PARKING THAT WE ARE IN NO POSITION RIGHT NOW AS A COMMISSION TO KNOW. 
          UM, AND WE HAVEN'T SEEN THOSE NUMBERS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO I'VE TRIED TO, THIS IS THE GRAND LAST TWO SPOTS, I THINK. 
          COMMISSIONER MTEL, ARE YOU FOUR OR AGAINST? I'M FOUR. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN THE LAST SPOT IS COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          THEN WE'LL WRAP THIS UP AND VOTE. 
          OKAY, GO AHEAD. 
          SO, UH, THERE'S A SITE PLAN CHANGE AND THAT SITE PLAN CHANGE INVOLVES BRINGING IN HOUSING. 
          AND SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, WE'RE BRINGING A LOT MORE DENSITY AND A LOT MORE USERS OF WATER ON A VERY REGULAR BASIS TO THIS SITE. 
          SO AS WE DO THAT AND WE ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN, THEN WE HAVE TO OFFSET THAT WITH WATER CONSERVATION. 
          IT'S SEPARATE. 
          IT'S TOTALLY SEPARATE FROM THEIR ASK ON, ON THE PARKING AND THE PARKING'S REALLY, IN MY MIND, IRRELEVANT. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON GOING WRAP IT UP. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          I WISH, AND I'D LOVE TO SEE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US DOING BACK FLIPS TO SEE THIS PROPERTY REDEVELOPED. 
          AND THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT REDEVELOPING THE ENTIRE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL BETWEEN SOUTH FIRST AND CONGRESS. 
          AND THAT'S ALL PART OF THIS PARCEL. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, WE, IT'S LIKE THEY, THEY COME FORWARD AND THEY SAY, HEY, WE WANNA BUILD MORE SUS A MORE SUSTAINABLE PROJECT IN LINE WITH THE CITY'S GOALS. 
          AND HERE IMAGINE, OR HERE AUSTIN WATER IS SAYING NOT SO FAST. 
          SO I MEAN, WE'RE GOING AFTER THE MOST EFFICIENT FORM OF HOUSING THAT'S ALREADY GONNA USE LESS WATER THAN MOST OTHER FORMS OF HOUSING IN THE CITY. 
          AND WE'RE SAYING, HEY, YOU ACTUALLY NEED TO BE MORE SUSTAINABLE. 
          YOU'RE ALREADY GONNA BE PROBABLY THE TOP FIVE TO 10% OF SUSTAINABLE HOMES IN THIS CITY WHEN BUILT. 
          WE WANT YOU TO BE MORE SUSTAINABLE AT A COST OF $3 MILLION WHEN CAPITAL MARKETS ARE TOTALLY OUTTA WHACK AND HARDLY ANY HOUSING IS BREAKING GROUND WHATSOEVER. 
          BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? LET US DIG OUR HANDS A LITTLE BIT DEEPER IN YOUR POCKET AND SEE WHAT WE CAN GET OUT. 
          THIS IS NOT WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING HERE. 
          WE SHOULD BE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO SEE THIS PROJECT UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 
          SO DEFINITELY VOTING NO ON THIS. 
          AND THEN HOPE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH APPLICANT PROPOSAL NEXT. 
          OKAY, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE. 
          UH, THOSE, LET'S GO AND START WITH THE DAAS AND I'M GONNA GET HELP THE VICE CHAIR HERE TO KEEP COUNT. 
          UH, OKAY. 
          THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION ON, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          SO LET'S START THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          ON THE DIOCESE, WE GOT, UH, COMMISSIONERS, UH, CHAIR SHAW AND COMMISSIONER HAYNES AND THOSE, I'M LOOKING AT THE SCREEN HERE. 
          WE GOT COMMISSIONER BETA RAMIREZ, COMMISSIONER COX, COMMISSIONER MOALA AND COMMISSIONER, UH, HOWARD AND I GOT SOME REFLECTION HERE. 
          SO THAT'S FOUR, THAT'S SIX TOTAL. 
          ALL RIGHT, SO THAT MOTION FAILS. 
          ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE, UH, INITIAL MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          AND THAT WAS THE APPLICANT'S MR. CHAIRMAN QUESTION. 
          UM, I'M NOT REAL GOOD AT MATH. 
          MY SON IS, BUT I'M NOT. 
          UM, IF YOU'VE GOT SIX, YOU DIDN'T CALL FOR THE YAYS. 
          THE NUMBER IS ALWAYS SEVEN, EVEN IF THE BANK SEAT IS VACANT. 
          SEE, THAT'S WHY I ASKED QUESTIONS. 
          YEAH. 
          AND WE CAN, I'M STILL, DO WE NEED, WE NEED TO GET A, A VOTE ON THE NAYS? YES, YOU DO. 
          YES, WE DO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          LET'S GO AND DO THAT. 
          THOSE ON THE DIOCESE VOTING AGAINST THE SUB. 
          BACK TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION. 
          LET'S GO AND SEE YOUR HANDS 'CAUSE WE NEED TO RECORD THAT FOR THE RECORD. 
          AND THAT IS, UH, I'M GONNA GO TO READ THAT. 
          COMMISSIONER CONLEY, COMMISSIONER WOODS, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, COMMISSIONER ZA, VICE HEMPEL, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN VOTING AGAINST THIS MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, SO THOSE ARE THE NAYS AND WE HAVE ANY THAT'S ALL RIGHT. 
          THERE'S NO ABSTENTION. 
          YEP. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO, UM, LET'S GO BACK TO THE, UH, THE ORIGINAL MOTION COMMISSIONER ZA. 
          JERRY, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT, BUT WITH A CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          . 
          OKAY. 
          DOES THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST INCLUDE REUSE FOR THE FIRST TWO FLOORS? YES. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, WE HAVE AGREED TO THAT CONDITION. 
          BUT IT'S NOT IN YOUR REQUEST, CORRECT? RIGHT. 
          BUT WE CAN ADD IT. 
          SO I'M MAKING AN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE REUSE FOR THE FIRST TWO FLOORS. 
          [01:20:01]
ALRIGHT, ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE AMENDMENT? SECOND. 
          SECOND. 
          UH, THANK YOU. 
          SECOND. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND? DID THE CHAIR, CHAIR, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, GO AHEAD. 
          I'M ASSUMING WE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT, THAT THE REUSE IS FROM ONSITE RECLAIM WATER, NOT FROM AUSTIN WATER UTILITY. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THAT, YES. 
          A CLARIFICATION. 
          SO IT'S ON ONSITE, NOT FROM AUSTIN WATER RECLAIM. 
          IS THAT RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT. 
          AND A CLARIFYING QUESTION, MS. BOJE, I CAN SEE, YES, THAT IS CORRECT. 
          AND FOR THE IRRIGATION ON THE, THE, THE AGREEMENT, THE, THE CONDITION WE'VE AGREED TO WOULD BE ON ONSITE REUSE FOR BOTH THE FIRST TWO COMMERCIAL STORIES AND ALL THE IRRIGATION. 
          SO JUST TO CLARIFY, COMMISSIONER COX, MY AMENDMENT ESSENTIALLY, UM, TAKES ALL OF THAT INTO ACCOUNT. 
          AND, AND, SORRY, ANOTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION. 
          SO THE CONDITIONS ON PAGE THREE AT THE TOP OF PAGE THREE, THAT'S ALL WRITTEN INTO THIS PUTT AMENDMENT AT THIS POINT, OR IS COMMERS AREN'T MAKING THAT MOTION BECAUSE IT'S NOT WRITTEN INTO THE PUT AMENDMENT? THE MOTION WAS, UM, APPLICANT REQUEST. 
          AND MY UNDERSTANDING AT THIS MOMENT IS WHAT IS WRITTEN THERE. 
          COMMISSIONER COX IS NOT PART OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. 
          SO I'M SAYING THAT THERE'S AN AMENDMENT TO APPLY ALL OF THAT TO THOSE FIRST TWO FLOORS AS THE APPLICANT IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT. 
          SO, SO COMMISSIONER ZA, COULD YOU CLARIFY YOUR AMENDMENT THAT IT INCLUDES ALL THREE BULLETS AT THE TOP OF PAGE THREE? THREE BECAUSE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE IN THERE. 
          I'M LOOKING ESSENTIALLY COMMISSIONER , TO CLARIFY, I'M LOOKING AT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          SO I'M LOOKING AT PAGE ONE. 
          SO IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE ONE, THE TOP OF THAT IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS REQUIRED. 
          SO I'M ESSENTIALLY SAYING, SINCE WE'RE NOT DOING THAT, WE WOULD BE SAYING THAT WE ARE GOING AHEAD WITH THE APPLICANT REQUEST WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR REUSE FOR THOSE FIRST TWO COMMERCIAL, UH, STORIES. 
          YEAH, SORRY. 
          AND, AND WHAT I'M SAYING IS, COULD YOU, COULD YOU POSSIBLY AMEND YOUR AMENDMENT TO JUST SAY THAT INCLUDES THE THREE BULLET POINTS ON PAGE THREE, WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS OFFERED FOR REUSE FOR ONSITE REUSE? 'CAUSE IT INCLUDES A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION THAN JUST THE FIRST TWO FLOORS. 
          UM, SO I SUBSEQUENTLY DO NOT HAVE AN ISSUE. 
          I'M THINKING MY PARLIAMENTARY BRAIN IS, YES, I'M GONNA SAY THAT THAT IS INDEED MY MOTION. 
          ALTHOUGH THE MOTION RIGHT NOW BELONGS TO THE BODY. 
          IT BELONGS TO THE BODY. 
          SO WHO SECONDED THIS IS THAT COMMISSIONER WOODS MAXWELL, UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL MAXWELL. 
          SO YES, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND PUT THOSE THREE REQUIREMENTS FROM PAGE THREE AS WELL. 
          SO THIS A SECOND. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE HAVE THE AGREEMENT, UH, FROM THE COMMISSIONER THAT SECONDED THAT, UH, SO WE CLEAR ON THE AMENDMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND SEE. 
          I'VE GOTTA BE CLEAR ON WHERE WE ARE. 
          WE'RE VOTING ON WITH THE, THE, UH, APPLICANT'S REQUEST WITH THE AMENDMENT FROM COMMISSIONER ZA, IT PARLIAMENTARY MR. CHAIR. 
          WE'RE CURRENTLY, WE'RE ONLY VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT THAT I HAVE MADE AS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          THEN WE WILL GO TO THE, UH, BASE MOTION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          LET'S VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FIRST. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT THOUGH. 
          OKAY. 
          POINT OF CLARIFICATION TO THE MOTION MAKER. 
          UH, NO. 
          PROBABLY POINT OF INFORMATION AND QUESTION FOR CITY OF AUSTIN STAFF. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, GO AHEAD AND CLOSE YOUR QUESTION. 
          LET'S SEE IF WE CAN, UH, SINCE, AND, AND I HATE TO DO THIS TO Y'ALL, BUT, UH, 'CAUSE NOW I CAN'T READ 'CAUSE MY DAMN DANG GLASSES WORK OUT. 
          UH, ON THE THIRD BULLET, UH, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM, UH, WITH THE, WITH THE WELLS BELOW THE THIRD PARKING GRADE, AUSTIN, PROBABLY AUSTIN WATER, UM, UH, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THOSE, UH, THAT SYSTEM? AND ARE THOSE WELLS UNDER CHAPTER 36 GONNA BE CONSIDERED ELLUCIAN WELLS GIVEN THE PROXIMITY TO LAKE AUSTIN OR WHATEVER WE CALL IT NOW? UH, BUT I CALL IT LAKE AUSTIN OR LADY BIRD LAKE. 
          SORRY, IS THIS, I'M, UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, UM, MAYBE I'M A LITTLE SLOW. 
          HOW'S THIS RELATED TO THE AMENDMENT? UM, WE ARE, WE ARE ACTUALLY, WE'RE GONNA PUT THOSE THREE BULLETS. 
          I MEAN, RIGHT AS OF JUST A SECOND AGO. 
          THOSE WERE JUST BULLETS FOR INFORMATION. 
          NOW THEY'RE GONNA GO INTO THE RECOMMENDATION AND THE, UH, SPECIFICALLY THE GROUNDWATER COLLECTED THROUGH THE SUBSOIL DRAINAGE SYSTEM LOCATED BELOW THE THIRD LEVEL OF THE GRADE OF THE PARKING GARAGE IS GONNA GO INTO THE, UM, REQUIREMENT. 
          IS THAT YES OR NO? THAT'S A YES OR NO QUESTION. 
          IF THAT, IF THAT IS A YES, WELL, S WHO DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER IT? I DON'T CARE. 
          WHOEVER WANTS TO ANSWER IT, I THINK I CAN TRY TO ANSWER THAT, WHICH IS THAT IT'S NOT A, WELL, IT'S, UM, IT'S A GROUNDWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM BECAUSE WE'RE SO CLOSE TO THE LAKE, WE HAVE TO COLLECT GROUNDWATER, BUT THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO REUSE IT. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD BE AGREEING TO IN THOSE BULLET POINTS IS TO REUSE IT. 
          AND, OKAY. 
          UH, I I UNDERSTAND 
          [01:25:02]
THAT. 
          THAT'S OKAY. 
          UH, AUSTIN WATER, WOULD YOU CONSIDER THE GROUNDWATER COLLECTION A WELL, OR WOULD YOU CONSIDER THE GROUNDWATER COLLECTION A COLLECTION SYSTEM REGARDLESS OF WHICH WAY YOU CONSIDER IT? IS THAT A LUAN WATER FOR UNDER CHAPTER 36 FOR, UH, LADY BIRD LAKE, LAKE AUSTIN, WHOEVER, WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL THAT STRETCH OF THE COLORADO RIVER? I, I'LL TRY TO ASK, ANSWER THE QUESTION. 
          I, I MEAN, I THINK THE SHORT ANSWER IS WE DON'T HAVE THE TECHNICAL INFORMATION PROVIDED TO US TO REALLY WEIGH INTO THAT PARTICULAR INFORMATION. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED OR ASKED IN KIND OF WHERE WE ARE IN THE STAGE OF THE, THE, THE PLANNING PROCESS. 
          BUT I OPEN IT TO MY STAFF IF THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION THERE. 
          UH, UM, I WOULD AGREE WITH, UM, KEVIN, THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD ALSO IS I DON'T BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS DONE ANY ANALYSIS TO PROVE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER THAT IT IS IN FACT LAKE AUSTIN OR NOT. 
          SO THAT IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE WILL NEED TO FIGURE OUT WITH THE APPLICANT IF THE MOTION PASSES THE WAY IT'S BEING PRODUCED. 
          DO YOU WANT I, OKAY. 
          AND WOULD WE ADDRESS THAT THROUGH SITE? UH, I MEAN, THAT, IT'S, IT'S A CENTRAL QUESTION TO ME IN THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE ADJACENT TO THE RUN OF THE RIVER AND YOU'RE WITHDRAWING GROUNDWATER, WE HAVE CONJUNCTIVE RIGHTS USES IN CHAPTER 36 OF THE WATER CODE. 
          AND THOSE ARE, ARE CENTRAL TO NOT ONLY THE RIGHTS OF THE RIVER, BUT THE RIGHTS OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT OWN THE RIVER. 
          AND THAT'S EVERY CITIZEN IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          AND SO WE ARE GETTING INTO A LOT OF REALLY GOOD QUESTIONS THAT KIND OF GO, I KNOW WE'RE LOOKING FOR CLARIFICATION ON WHETHER OR NOT WE WANNA INCLUDE THIS AMENDMENT WHICH WE'RE VOTING ON, BUT DO DOES STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANSWERS OR IS THIS BEYOND, I MEAN, IT MAY BE A LAW QUESTION. 
          I IT IS A LAW QUESTION. 
          IF WE DON'T KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW. 
          I DON'T HAVE ANY ANSWERS TO THAT QUESTION. 
           CHAIR, SORRY TO BRING UP QUESTION. 
          MR. COX, DO YOU HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION, UH, FOR THIS AMENDMENT? WELL, I, I THINK, I THINK A CLARIFYING STATEMENT MAYBE, AND HOPEFULLY THE APPLICANT CAN CONFIRM, BUT I THINK WHEN THEY SAY GROUNDWATER COLLECTED, THAT'S WATER COLLECTED JUST TO KEEP THEIR PARKING GARAGE DRY. 
          THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY COLLECTING IT FOR ANY PARTICULAR USE. 
          THEY'RE, THEY'RE COLLECTING IT TO KEEP THE UNDERGROUND STORIES OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT DRY. 
          AND SO THE QUESTION IS, WHAT DO THEY DO WITH THAT WATER THEY COLLECTED? AND, AND THAT BULLET SAYS THAT THAT'S PART OF THE WATER THEY'RE GOING TO USE FOR REUSE FOR IRRIGATION. 
          AND, AND THE, THE TWO FLOORS OF COMMERCIAL COMMISSIONER COX, I, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU. 
          THAT'S, I YOU WILL ASK THE APPLICANT. 
          I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE APPLICANT IS DOING. 
          BUT UNDER CHAPTER 36, BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY TO THE RIVER, THAT WATER IS THE STATE OF TEXAS'S WATER THAT IS OWNED BY THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. 
          AND IF THE, IF THE APPLICANT THEN STARTS TO COLLECT THAT WATER TO USE FOR IRRIGATION AND, AND FLUSHING TOILETS, THEN THEY ARE NOW GETTING INTO A PERMITTING ISSUE FOR E EVEN THOUGH THEY, THEY SAY IT'S GROUNDWATER, IT IS, IT IS SURFACE WATER, AND THAT'S OWNED BY THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. 
          SO I, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS A COMMON PRACTICE, UH, OF PARKING GARAGES THAT ARE THIS CLOSE, BUT I THINK THIS IS A GOOD QUESTION. 
          UH, YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THIS CODE AREA IS VERY IMPRESSIVE, BUT I THINK WE'D PROBABLY NEED SOMEONE IN THE RIGHT LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO HELP, UH, HAVE THAT THIS DISCUSSION AND GIVE US MORE CLARITY. 
          UM, I WOULD SAY WE CAN, THIS CAN WORK ITS WAY THROUGH COUNSEL. 
          UH, AND THEN ALSO, UH, SITE PLAN. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          COMMISSIONER ZA CHAIR, IF I MIGHT RESTATE MY MOTION AND HOPEFULLY THIS SHOULD BE GERMINE WITHIN DEPARTMENT DURING RULES. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          DO WE NEED TO PULL THE LAST ONE BACK OR ARE WE JUST LOOKING? I'M, I'M ESSENTIALLY STATING THAT WE WOULD BE, UH, MOVING AHEAD WITH, WELL, MY AMENDMENT IS ESSENTIALLY BASED ON THE MOTION OF THE APPLICANT REQUEST TO HAVE THOSE THREE BULLET POINTS FROM PAGE THREE ADDED ON WITHIN LEGAL BOUNDS. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, AND DOES THE, UH, THE SEC UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, YOU'RE THE SECOND ON THAT. 
          YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT? SO LET'S, UM, I WANNA MOVE THIS FORWARD IF WE CAN. 
          UH, I THINK GIVEN THE DEBATE WE'VE HAD, WE MIGHT WANT SOME, DO ANYONE SPEAK? DOES THE MOTION MAKER WANNA SPEAK TO THIS MOTION? THAT'S OKAY. 
          IF WE COULD JUST MOVE ON THE AMENDMENT FIRST. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THE AMENDMENT. 
          IT'S JUST YOU GUYS WANNA SAY ANYTHING? NOPE. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT. 
          UH, THOSE ON THE S IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I'M SEEING, UM, AND, UH, LET'S SEE THOSE 
          [01:30:02]
ON THE SCREEN IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          THOSE ON THE DAAS THAT ARE OPPOSED TO THE AMENDMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE ONES THAT AMENDMENT PASSES. 
          SO LET'S GO AND MOVE, MOVE TO THE MAIN MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          AND THAT'S APPLICANT REC, UH, REQUEST. 
          UH, LET'S GO AND TAKE THOSE ON THE DAIS IN FAVOR. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          AND LET'S GO. 
          AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN THAT ARE IN FAVOR, LET'S GO IN FAVOR FIRST. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THOSE, UM, SO WHAT ARE WE AT THE COUNT? EIGHT. 
          EIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO LET'S GO AND TAKE THOSE THAT ARE OPPOSED, UH, ON THE DI. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN THAT ARE OPPOSED. 
          WE HAVE COMMISSIONER BEN RAMIREZ, UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD. 
          WHAT WAS, AND OKAY. 
          THOSE THAT ARE ABSTAINING. 
          OH, YOU'RE GREEN. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER HOWARD WAS GREEN. 
          SO YOU'RE ABSTAINING. 
          COMMISSIONER MUTO, IS THAT YELLOW? YES. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO THAT PASSES EIGHT THREE TO ONE. 
          YES. 
          AS AMENDED. 
          ALRIGHT, AS AS AMENDED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME EXTRA TIME WITH THE Q AND A AND DEBATE. 
          UM, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD DISCUSSION TO HAVE. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO THE 
          [15. Rezoning: C14-2023-0045 - 2404 Rutland Drive; District 7]
NEXT ONE. 
          UM, THANK YOU ALL, WHICH I DUNNO, 15. 
          OKAY. 
          15 STAFF. 
          YOU WANNA GET US STARTED? AND LET'S SEE, DO WE HAVE A, IT'S REZONING. 
          OH, THIS HAS, OKAY. 
          IT'S JUST REZONING CASE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YES, GOOD EVENING AGAIN. 
          COMMISSIONER SHERRY SWEISS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 15, WHICH IS CASE C 14 20 23 4 5, WHICH IS LOCATED AT 24 0 4 WETLAND DRIVE. 
          THE REQUEST IS FOR MB FROM M B G W M U M P TO M B G C M U GATEWAY ZONE MP. 
          THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS FOR M B G C M U M P, WHICH IS NORTH BENET GATEWAY COMMERCIAL MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. 
          COMBINING DISTRICT ZONE. 
          THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS A 1.1 ACRE LOT THAT IS DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE STORY MULTI-TENANT OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RUTLAND DRIVE AND MCAL PLACE. 
          IT IS ONE BLOCK TO THE EAST OF RUTLAND DRIVE AND BURNETT ROAD INTERSECTION WITHIN THE WALKING DISTANCE OF THE AUSTIN FC Q TWO STADIUM. 
          THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE NORTH BURN GATEWAY NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA AND IS ZONED M B G W M U. 
          THE LOTS TO THE NORTH ARE CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH ONE STORY INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSES AND ARE ALSO ZONED M B G W M U TO THE SOUTHEAST AND WEST OF THIS SITE. 
          THERE ARE OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS WITH MULTIPLE TENANTS THAT ARE ALSO ZONED M B G W M U M P. 
          THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO THE M B G C M U GATEWAY ZONE SUBDISTRICT TO REDEVELOP THE SITE WITH ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. 
          THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN DEVELOPMENT OR WITHIN DISTANCE OF THE Q TWO STADIUM, WHICH THERE WILL BE A NEW, LET'S SEE, I CAN'T EVEN READ THIS NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          THE STAFF NOTES THAT WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE Q TWO STADIUM AT THE, ON THE FORMER MACAL TRACK TO THE NORTH, THERE HAS BEEN A TRANSITION IN THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES TO THE, UH, M B G C M U GATEWAY ZONE SUBDISTRICT ALONG BURNETT ROAD GATEWAY ZONES ARE CONNECTED TO THE TRANSIT CORRIDORS AND ALLOW FOR A GREATER HEIGHT AND DENSITY AND CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE EXISTING RAIL STATIONS SUCH AS THE KRAMER METRO STATION, WHICH IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF KRAMER LANE. 
          AND BROCKTON LANE. 
          BURNETT ROAD IS CLASSIFIED AS AN M B G COURT TRANSIT CORRIDOR. 
          HOWEVER, RUTLAND DRIVE WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IS NOT, THEREFORE THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING NORTH BURN GATEWAY C M U SUBDISTRICT ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY. 
          BECAUSE THE PROPOSED ZONING IS COMPATIBLE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING DENSITIES AND USES, THE STAFF CANNOT SUPPORT THE C M U GATEWAY ZONE SUBDISTRICT AT THIS LOCATION AT THIS TIME BECAUSE THE C CITY COUNCIL RECENTLY PASSED A RESOLUTION IN MAY TO DIRECT THE STAFF THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS COMMUNITY BENEFITS FOR ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS, SUCH AS THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT AND F A O R IN THE GATEWAY ZONE, WHICH IS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING. 
          AS YOU SAW IN OUR ITEM NUMBER 20 TONIGHT, THERE WAS ON YOUR AGENDA THERE WAS A MENTION ABOUT THESE GATEWAY ZONES. 
          AND THE URBAN DESIGN DIVISION IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON CREATING THESE TIER TWO CONDITIONS IN THE NORTH BURN GATEWAY REGULATING PLAN THAT WILL PERMIT THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT F A R ADMINISTRATIVELY WITH THE PARTICIPATION IN A FUTURE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM. 
          THESE CHA THESE AMENDMENTS TO THE M B G UH, SUBDISTRICT REGULATING PLAN WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE SPRING OF 2024. 
          THE M B G C M U SUBDISTRICT ZONING IS APPROPRIATED AT THIS LOCATION BECAUSE THE CAP METRO SITE IS CURRENTLY BEING CONSTRUCTED. 
          A NEW RAIL STATION SITE IS CURRENTLY BEING CONSTRUCTED, 
          [01:35:01]
UH, NEAR THE MCAL STATION ADJACENT TO THE Q TWO STADIUM TO THE NORTH. 
          THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WILL PERMIT USES AND SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AT THIS LOCATION AT THE CORNER OF THE MINOR ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROADWAY. 
          THOUGH IT'LL ALLOW FOR REDEVELOPMENT TO PERMIT NEW RESIDENTIAL USES, THE NEW MACAL STATION IS SLATED TO OPEN IN 2024. 
          THAT IS WHEN THE URBAN DESIGN STAFF WILL PRESENT THE NEW TIER TWO CONDITIONS FOR THE NORTH BURNETT GATEWAY REGULATING PLAN IN THE SPRING OF 2024. 
          AND THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THAT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT AND F A R ADMINISTRATIVELY WITH THE PARTICIPATION IN THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          SO THERE'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING AS IN MAINTAINING THE, UH, C M U SUBDISTRICT VERSUS C M U GATEWAY WHERE YOU WOULD ALREADY GET THOSE ENTITLEMENTS. 
          AT THIS TIME. 
          DURING C M U GATEWAY, WE HAVE ONLY RECOMMENDED THOSE CURRENT CONDITIONS ALONG BURNETT ROAD, WHICH IS A CORE TRANSIT CORRIDOR. 
          THIS PROPERTY IS ON RUTLAND, WHICH IS NOT WITHIN THAT CORE TRANSIT CORRIDOR. 
          SO, AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. 
          SORRY, . 
          I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING . 
          SO Y'ALL HAVE A REAL FUN AGENDA TONIGHT. 
          , UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME'S AMANDA SWORE WITH JOINER GROUP. 
          I DO HAVE A PRESENTATION. 
          AWESOME. 
          OH, THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          UH, SO THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT IS 2 4 0 4 RUTLAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RUTLAND AND MCAL PLACE. 
          THIS IS A 1.1 ACRE, 1.18 ACRE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS, AS STAFF SAID, IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED TODAY WITH A ONE STORY MULTI-TENANT WAREHOUSE BUILDING AND SURFACE PARKING. 
          UH, THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ONE OF THE FEW AREAS OF THE CITY THAT HAS A MULTIMODAL TRANSIT. 
          WE ARE LOCATED WITHIN HALF A MILE OF A RAIL STATION THAT WILL BE OPENING UP AT THE BEGINNING OF 2024. 
          WE ARE ALSO LOCATED A QUARTER MILE WALK TO BOTH NORTHBOUND AND SOUTHBOUND METRO RAPID, UH, RAPID TRANSIT BUS. 
          WE ARE ALSO LOCATED, UM, NEARLY ADJACENT TO WHAT IS GONNA BE THE RED LINE TRAIL THAT WE'LL PROVIDE FOR BIKES AND PEDESTRIANS. 
          SO ALL MODE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION WITHIN VERY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THIS SITE. 
          UH, THE BASE ENTITLEMENT IN ALL PROPERTIES IN NORTH BRENT GATE, WE HAVE A BASE ENTITLEMENT. 
          OURS IN THIS SITE IS ONE-TO-ONE WITH 60 FEET. 
          UH, THIS REQUEST IS NOT CHANGING ANYTHING. 
          SO TODAY WE CAN BUILD ANYTHING WE WANT TO AT A ONE-TO-ONE F A R AND 60 FEET WITHOUT ANY DENSITY BONUSES. 
          UM, WITH THE WAREHOUSE MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT THAT WE HAVE TODAY, WE COULD BONUS UP TO A THREE TO ONE F A R OR 120 FEET. 
          WE ALL KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T GET TO 120 FEET WITH A THREE TO ONE F A R, BUT, UM, SO WE COULD GET UP TO A THREE TO ONE F A R, UH, WITH U WITH THE U UTILIZATION OF THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THAT EXISTS TODAY, WHICH IS PROVIDING 10% OF THE BONUS AREA AT 60% OF THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME THAT WOULD RESULT IN, YOU KNOW, FIVE TO EIGHT ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. 
          WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IN REQUESTING IS AN F A R OF UP TO 12 TO ONE WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF UP TO 420 FEET. 
          UH, THAT WOULD PROVIDE FOR 21,230 SQUARE FEET OF ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          SO WHILE THE STAFF IS IN THE PROCESS OF DOING AN UPDATE TO THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, THERE IS A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THAT EXISTS TODAY. 
          AND WE ARE PROPOSING AND REQUESTING TO MOVE FORWARD, UH, WITH THAT PROGRAM. 
          UH, I WILL POINT OUT THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS JUST FOR STRAIGHT C M U AND I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THAT C M U HAS THE SAME BONUS ENTITLEMENTS THAT EXIST TODAY, WHICH IS UP TO THREE TO ONE F A R AND UP TO 120 FEET. 
          UH, TIMELINESS ALSO REALLY IMPORTANT PIECE, UH, TO ANY PROJECT. 
          SO IN, UH, JUNE OF 2022 IS WHEN COUNCIL INITIALLY PROPOSED A RESOLUTION THAT WAS AMENDING THE NORTH RENT GATEWAY REGULATING PLAN TO LOOK AT MODIFICATIONS TO THE DOWNTOWN OR TO THIS DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM TO MAKE THEM MORE LIKE THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY PRO BONUS PROGRAM AND PROVIDE A MENU APPROACH. 
          UH, SEVEN MONTHS LATER, WE SUBMITTED THE, I THINK IT MIGHT BE EIGHT MONTHS LATER, , WE SUBMITTED OUR ZONING CASE IN FEBRUARY OF 2023. 
          UH, IN MAY OF 2023, A NEW RESOLUTION WAS BROUGHT FORWARD TO BRING IN SOME LOW HANGING FRUIT, BUT IT WAS REITERATED TO LOOK AT THE AMENDMENTS TO THIS DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM. 
          UM, TODAY YOU PASSED THE FIRST PHASE OF THAT. 
          IT WAS SPLIT IN, IN THE SUMMER TO BE A PHASE ONE, WHICH IS, WAS REALLY CREATING THE NEW PROGRAM THAT Y'ALL DID AND CLEANING UP SOME ITEMS. BUT THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM WAS STILL PUSHED FURTHER INTO NEXT YEAR. 
          WE HAVE SEEN THESE, UH, IN AN INTEREST OF TIME, I'M GONNA FLIP THROUGH THE PIECE THAT YOU ALREADY APPROVED. 
          UM, WE'VE SEEN THESE PLANS TAKE YEARS TO GET APPROVED. 
          WE'VE SEEN SOME OF 'EM GO VERY QUICKLY. 
          WHAT WE DON'T KNOW IS WE'RE 15 MONTHS FROM WHEN IT STARTED. 
          WE KNOW THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHEN IT'S GONNA ACTUALLY GET THROUGH. 
          WE KNOW THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY OF THE CALIBRATIONS ON WHAT THE DENSITY BONUS CHANGES COULD POTENTIALLY BE. 
          UM, WE KNOW THAT LIMITING DENSITY WHEN THERE'S ONGOING AMENDMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSING TO INCREASE DENSITY, UM, GOES AGAINST MANY BEST PRACTICES. 
          UM, THE, THE NORTH RENT GATEWAY REGULATING PLAN, YOU 
          [01:40:01]
KNOW, HAS MANY GOALS, AND I WON'T READ THESE VERBATIM, BUT IT, IT ENCOURAGES THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE WAREHOUSE. 
          UH, IT ENCOURAGES PUTTING TRANSIT. 
          UH, IT ENCOURAGES PUTTING PEDESTRIANS AND BIKES AND CARS AND TRAINS WHERE PEOPLE LIVE. 
          AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS BUILD MORE PLACES WHERE PEOPLE CAN LIVE WHILE PROVIDING, UM, ADDITIONAL ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          SO WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE PLAN AND COMMISSION SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR THE REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY TO THE GATEWAY DISTRICT. 
          WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS THAT AT A MINIMUM, WE WOULD UTILIZE THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THAT EXISTS TODAY. 
          THAT IS 10% OF ANYTHING OVER A ONE-TO-ONE F A R WOULD BE RESERVED FOR HOUSEHOLDS EARNING UP TO 60% OF THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME. 
          AND, UM, YEAH, WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO PAUSE AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND, UH, GREATLY APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S TIME TO BE HERE THIS EVENING. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS, MR. RIVERA? OKAY. 
          UH, WE HAVE MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER ZAS, TAKEN BY BY CHAIR HEMPEL. 
          UH, ANY OPPOSITION TO CLOSE THE HEARING? SEEING NONE, LET'S GO AND MOVE IN OUR Q AND A. 
          WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST? UH, SEE COMMISSIONER COX AND THEN FOLLOWED BY WHO WANTS TO GO NEXT? NOBODY YET. 
          OKAY. 
          GO AHEAD AND START US OFF. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER COX, I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM STAFF. 
          UM, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING YOU SAID, JERRY, SO I'M VERY SORRY ABOUT THAT. 
          BUT I DID UNDERSTAND, UH, YOUR REFERENCE TO COUNCIL'S RESOLUTION, RIGHT. 
          WANTING, YOU KNOW, COMMUNITY BENEFITS FOR INCREASED ENTITLEMENTS. 
          YES. 
          AND I'M VERY MUCH SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. 
          I'M CURIOUS, SINCE YOU'RE MUCH MORE FAMILIAR WITH THIS THAN I AM, WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF SOME OF THOSE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT THIS APPLICANT COULD PROVIDE TO JUSTIFY THAT, THAT SORT OF ZONING REQUEST AFFORDABILITY? RIGHT NOW, WE CAN'T REQUIRE THAT BECAUSE THE DOWNTOWN SENSITIVE BONUS PER DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS AREA. 
          THAT IS WHY THE COUNCIL INITIATED A RESOLUTION TO SAY, OKAY, IF YOU WANT MORE HEIGHT AND YOU WANT MORE F A R, WE WANT TO GET SOME BENEFITS OUT OF IT. 
          AND ONE OF THOSE WOULD BE AFFORDABILITY. 
          SO, SO WHAT, WHAT ARE THEY OFFERING? UH, I, THE APPLICANT HAD A CHART, BUT WHAT, WHAT PERCENT ARE THEY OFFERING? UH, I UNDERSTOOD SHE SAID 10% AT 60. 
          SO THE CODE REQUIRES US TO DO 10% AT 60 FOR ANYTHING ABOVE THE, OKAY, WELL THAT'S NOT MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          SO, SO THE, THE WAY THAT THE NOR NORTHMORE GATEWAY REGULATING PLAN HAS A BASE ENTITLEMENT AND IT, WAIT, WHO'S, WHO'S SPEAKING? AMANDA? I CAN'T SEE THE PODIUM. 
          AMANDA, AMANDA SWORE, UM, WITH, UH, MR. REES, THE APPLICANT. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, SO THE BASE DISTRICT IN NORTH RENT GATEWAY, EVERY PROPERTY HAS A BASE AND THEY ARE, IN THIS INSTANCE, IT'S A ONE-TO-ONE AND A 60 FEET IN HEIGHT. 
          WHAT THE EXISTING ZONING WOULD ALLOW US TO BONUS UP TO A THREE TO ONE. 
          WE ARE ASKING FOR THE ABILITY TO BONUS UP TO THE 12 TO ONE OR THE 420 FEET. 
          BUT WE HAVE TO NO, I ASSUME THAT, BUT WHAT, WHAT I'M HEARING FROM CITY STAFF IS THAT COUNCIL DIRECTED THEM TO GRANT ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS WITH ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFIT. 
          AND THE OBVIOUS COMMUNITY BENEFIT IS MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          SO WHAT WOULD, WOULD, WOULD THE APPLICANT BE WILLING TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT THEY PROVIDE ON THIS DEVELOPMENT TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS? WHAT WE ARE COMMITTING TO IS WHAT THE PLAN HAS DATE, WHICH IS 10% OF THE BONUS UNITS AT 60% OF THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME. 
          THIS HAS BEEN STUDIED FOR 15 MONTHS AND NO RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE COME OUT YET. 
          AND SO WE CAN'T BE IN A POSITION WHERE WE'RE COMMITTING TO ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION WHEN THEY'VE BEEN STUDIED. 
          IF THIS WAS AN EASY THING TO SAY THAT A PROJECT COULD EASILY ABSORB ADDITIONAL AFFORDABILITY, I THINK THOSE COMMUNITY BENEFITS WOULD'VE MOVED FORWARD IN THE 15 MONTHS THAT THEY'VE BEEN SITTING STILL. 
          WELL, YOU'RE ASKING US TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION IN YOUR FAVOR FOR ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS. 
          AND SO I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMISSION TO, TO REQUEST THAT THERE'S A COMMUNITY BENEFIT TO THAT. 
          SO I DON'T THINK THAT YOU CAN'T, SO WOULD THE APPLICANT WOULD WILLING LINK TO BE SUPPORTABLE HOUSING TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS? YEAH, UNFORTUNATELY WE CAN'T REQUIRE THAT AT THIS TIME. 
          'CAUSE THERE'S NOT A BONUS PROGRAM, IT'S BEEN APPROVED YET. 
          IT'S JUST A RESOLUTION TO INITIATE THAT BONUS PROGRAM. 
          BUT WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE AN APPROVED BONUS PROGRAM THAT WHERE THEY COULD DO THOSE ADDITIONAL TITLES IN NORTH BURN GATEWAY. 
          SO, SO THEY'RE, SO THEY'RE KIND OF SLIPPING IN BEFORE THAT REQUIREMENT COMES IN, THAT THAT IS WHAT THE URBAN DESIGN STAFF IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON, IS THAT DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM. 
          IT WAS IN NOR HIS INFORMATION THAT HE PROVIDED ON ITEM NUMBER 20 TONIGHT. 
          BUT THERE'S NOTHING PREVENTING THE APPLICANT FROM OFFERING UP ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGH A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. 
          THAT IS TRUE. 
          [01:45:03]
UM, I'M SORRY, SHERRY, UM, JOY HARDEN ZONING OFFICER PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          HEY, OH, PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          UM, JUST FOR CLARITY, THE NORTH BERN GATEWAY HAS A DENSITY BONUS CURRENTLY, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING INCREASE ENTITLEMENTS, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO BILL TO THE CURRENT DENSITY BONUS IF THEY ARE GRANTED THEIR REQUEST. 
          WHAT STAFF IS DOING PER THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION THAT WAS APPROVED IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR PRIOR TO THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATION, IS TO CREATE DEEPER LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY DEPENDING ON WHAT THE CONSULTANT SAYS AND ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS, MAYBE LANDSCAPING, MAYBE I WE'RE OUTLINED IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS, SOMETHING SIMILAR. 
          SO THERE IS CURRENTLY A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, WHICH THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO BILL TO, BUT THE COUNCIL IS ASKING FOR MORE ENTITLEMENTS, MORE COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE EXACTLY. 
          I KNOW JORGE HAS PRESENTED TO YOU, BUT THERE IS CURRENTLY A DENSITY BONUS AND THE APPLICANT CANNOT GO DEEPER. 
          WE HAVE THE BAXTER LAW. 
          WE HAVE, WE CANNOT GO DEEPER THAN WHAT THE DEN CITY BONUS STATES TODAY, BUT I WANNA MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT THERE IS A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM STAFF PER THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION IS STATING ADMINISTRATIVELY THE APPLICANT COULD GET THIS. 
          WE CAN DISCUSS THE AMOUNT OF MONTHS. 
          I DO NOT KNOW THAT. 
          I KNOW MRS. SO STATED THAT IT HAS TAKEN SOME TIME, BUT BOTTOM LINE IS THERE IS A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THEY'RE ASKING TO BUILD TO THAT DENSITY BONUS. 
          OH, I TOOK SOMEBODY'S TIME. 
          I'M SO SORRY, . 
          I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY  BECAUSE I THINK THERE WAS A, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY BECAUSE THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING. 
          DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THANK YOU. 
          THAT WAS HELPFUL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO I'M SORRY I TOOK SOMEONE'S TIME. 
          SO, UM, LET'S SEE. 
          COMMISSIONER WOODS, I THINK YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP. 
          YES. 
          YEAH, I WOULD LOVE TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION FROM THE APPLICANT. 
          SO UNDER THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, 10% OF BONUS UNITS MUST BE AFFORDABLE AT OR BELOW TO HOUSEHOLDS MAKING ADDED BELOW 60% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. 
          IT'S 10% OF THE BONUS AREA, NOT BONUS UNITS. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          SO THE BONUS AREA IS INCREASING IF WE GRANT THIS FROM, FROM THREE TO ONE TO 12 TO ONE FOR A RATIO, DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY AFFORDABLE UNITS WOULD BE BUILT IF WE DIDN'T GRANT THIS INCREASE? SO IF WE ONLY BONUS TO THREE TO ONE, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THE PRO THE PROJECT IS NOT COMPLETELY DESIGNED. 
          SO, UM, THE, BASED ON THE UNIT MIX, IT COULD BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN FIVE TO EIGHT AFFORDABLE UNITS. 
          IF IT WENT TO 12 TO ONE, IT COULD BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 27 AND 43, DEPENDING IF THE PROJECT STAYED SMALLER OR LARGER IN AVERAGE UNIT SIZE. 
          SO THERE IS A, A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS? YES, MA'AM. 
          THAT WE'LL SEE IF WE GRANT THIS BONUS. 
          YES, MA'AM. 
          THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WHO ELSE? UH, I'VE GOT JUST A FEW. 
          UM, SO I'M, I'M STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED. 
          IT'S NOT HARD TO DO . 
          SO I HEARD STAFF SAY SOMETHING THAT, UH, IT, UH, WAS A BIT ALARMING. 
          IS THERE, IF WE PROVIDE AND, AND COUNSEL AGREES TO, UH, APPROVE OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, ARE THEY REQUIRED TO THEN BUILD, UH, TO THOSE, THOSE AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT ARE, 'CAUSE I I MADE IT SOUND LIKE WE COULD GRANT THE INCREASE IN FAR AND HEIGHT AND THEN THEY'RE NOT HELD TO THOSE, THOSE REQUIREMENTS CURRENTLY. 
          AND THAT'S WHERE I'M A LITTLE, WHAT, HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE HOLD THEM TO THESE REQUIREMENTS? DOES IT SOUND LIKE THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS WITH STAFF? THERE'S STUFF CHANGING FROM WHAT STAFF EXPLAINED? YEAH. 
          SEE, IF YOU LOOK UNDER EXHIBIT D IN YOUR BACKUP, WHICH I INCLUDED, IT SHOWS YOU THE COMMERCIAL MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE BONUS AREAS. 
          IF YOU DO THE BONUSES, YOU GET THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, YOU GET THE ADDITIONAL F A R. 
          SO, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO THE BONUS AREA SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO OPT IN TO USE THOSE BENEFITS. 
          SO THAT'S IF THEY WANT TO GET THAT ADDITIONAL F A R HEIGHT. 
          SO THERE'S NOTHING TO REQUIRE THEM TO DO THAT. 
          IT'S, IT'S THEIR OPTION. 
          THEY, THERE'S NOTHING WE DO, WE APPROVE TONIGHT. 
          IT'S NOT REQUIRED. 
          THERE'S, I'M SORRY, THERE'S NOTHING THAT REQUIRES US TO BUILD OVER THE ONE-TO-ONE, BUT IF WE BUILD ANY SQUARE FOOT, WE BUILD OVER, THE ONE-TO-ONE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE ON ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          SO IF WE BUILD A TWO TO ONE, IT'S REQUIRED TO HAVE THE HOUSING. 
          IF WE DIDN'T WANT TO 
          [01:50:01]
DO IT ONSITE, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO COUNCIL FOR PERMISSION TO PAY A FEE IN LIEBE. 
          BUT THERE IS NO BONUS AREA GRANTED FOR FREE. 
          EVERY BONUS AREA ABOVE THE ONE-TO-ONE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITHOUT A MINIMUM. 
          THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THAT EXISTS TODAY, WHICH IS 10% OF THAT BONUS AREA AT 60% OF THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME. 
          DOES STAFF AGREE WITH THAT? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          DO YOU, WELL, LIKE, I GUESS YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME JUST TO CLARIFY. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY THERE'S A, THERE EVERYONE HAS A BASE, IF YOU GO ABOVE THAT BASE, YOU'RE REQUIRED UNDERCURRENT, UH, THE N B G REGULATING PLAN TO PROVIDE 10% AFFORDABLE FOR THE BONUS AREA AT 60%. 
          M F I COUNSEL RECOMMENDED THAT WE GO TO INCREASE ENTITLEMENTS, WHATEVER THOSE MIGHT BE. 
          IN ADDITION FOR OTHER THINGS LIKE PLAZAS, AFFORDABLE CHILDCARE, AFFORDABLE COMMERCIAL, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, WE DO NOT KNOW. 
          AND SO I GUESS WHAT STAFF IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING IS WHATEVER WE, UH, PROVIDE THEM IN THE BONUS AREA, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON TODAY, THEY WILL BE REQUIRED THROUGH THAT 10% AFFORDABLE OF THAT BONUS AREA AS IS REQUIRED TODAY. 
          UM, THEY WOULD OF COURSE NOT BE PART OF ANY ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED IN THE FUTURE, BUT WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THIS MIGHT LOOK LIKE. 
          SORRY. 
          I WOULD SAY EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS CORRECT, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE LOOKING AT THE CALIBRATION. 
          SO THERE COULD BE DEEPER LEVELS. 
          YOU DIDN'T SAY, OKAY, I'M JUST LOOKING. 
          RIGHT. 
          WE, IT COULD BE ANYTHING UHHUH TO THAT POINT. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT IT COULD BE ANYTHING. 
          YES. 
          APPRECIATE IT. 
          EVERYTHING ELSE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, GO AHEAD. 
          I'M, UH, I'M DONE. 
          SO LET'S SEE, UH, WE HAD COMMISSIONER AL DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP OR WOULD YOU JUST NO, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT POINT WAS UNDERSTOOD BY THE COMMISSION THAT THERE CURRENTLY IS A DENSITY PROGRAM FOR THIS AREA. 
          THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ASKING TO PARTICIPATE IN. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, GET THAT INCREASED STUFF AND THEN WHAT'S COMING AND WHAT'S CHANGING BASED ON COUNCIL'S DIRECTION IS THE BURNETT REGULATORY PLAN THAT WE HEARD ABOUT LAST WEEK. 
          SO WE DO KNOW SOME OF THE, THE PLANNING AND THINKING THAT'S GOING INTO THIS AND WHAT THIS MIGHT MEAN FOR THE AREA. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, LET ME, UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY I THINK HAD A QUESTION. 
          UM, YEAH, I JUST WAS COUNCIL IN ANY WAY MORE EXPLICIT IN IT'S, I'M JUST CURIOUS AND IT'S KIND OF GUIDANCE AROUND WHAT THOSE COMMUNITY BENEFITS WOULD BE. 
          WAS THERE ANY MORE DETAIL PROVIDED? IT JUST SEEMS VERY BROAD AND VAGUE RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, SO VERY HARD TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN IT'S SO EXPANSIVE. 
          I MEAN, CAN ANYTHING BE CONSIDERED A COMMUNITY BENEFIT? UM, JUST CURIOUS IF, DID COUNCIL PROVIDE SOME MORE DETAILED DIRECTION IN THAT REGARD? UM, SORRY, THIS IS A QUESTION TO STAFF. 
          UM, , , MY APOLOGIES. 
          I'M, WE'RE ALL LOOKING TO MY COMMISSIONERS HERE, BUT I, I SHOULD BE, I SHOULD KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THAT, BUT I REALLY CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. 
          I KNOW JORGE IN URBAN DESIGN IS WORKING ON THE, UM, AMENDMENTS. 
          I KNOW HE PRESENTED TO YOU ON THE 29TH, THE FIFTH TUESDAY. 
          UM, SO OUR LAST MEETING, YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THE, WELL, IT WAS THE FIFTH TUESDAY. 
          I KNOW HE DID PRESENT MM-HMM. 
          , UM, THOSE COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          UM, I CANNOT REALLY SPEAK TO WHAT THOSE ARE. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I THINK, UH, DID COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD TO? YEAH, I JUST WAS CURIOUS BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE REVIEWED THESE THAT SOME OF THE WERE RELATED TO ACTUALLY SORT OF WALKABILITY AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WAS HIGHLIGHTED OF WHAT THIS DISTRICT IS GOING TO END UP BEING LIKE. 
          AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF THE APPLICANT, SORRY, THIS WAS MY ACTUAL QUESTION WAS, WAS CONSIDERING THAT AS PART OF THAT, BECAUSE THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT, BUT SINCE THE BUILDING HASN'T BEEN DESIGNED, WE DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW WHAT THAT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? OR YOU DID EMPHASIZE THE WALKABILITY OF THE AREA. 
          SO IS THAT GOING TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN OBVIOUSLY? ABSOLUTELY. 
          I MEAN, THIS IS A LOCATION THAT WE WILL FOCUS ON PEDESTRIANS AND ON BICYCLES. 
          IT'S A LOCATION THAT SOMEONE COULD REALLY LIVE CAR FREE. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THEN I GUESS RELATED TO THAT, ONE OF THE THINGS WE ALSO HEARD WAS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING STEP BACKS AT, AT A CERTAIN LEVEL. 
          IS THAT ALSO BEING CONSIDERED? I MEAN, I GUESS THAT'S THE QUESTION. 
          YOU JUST, YOU JUST APPROVED THAT AMENDMENT TONIGHT AND WE'RE REAL EXCITED ABOUT THAT . 
          SO I GUESS THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. 
          AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, YOU WILL BE INCORPORATING WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN, UM, UPDATED BY THE PLAN. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. 
          OKAY. 
          AND WOULD WE EXPECT THAT SOME, MAYBE SOME ADDITIONAL ISSUES COULD BE ADDRESSED IN SITE PLANS? SO SAY INCLUDING BIKE PARKING, THINGS LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, LOWERING PARKING REQUIREMENTS, ALL OF THAT? ABSOLUTELY. 
          WE DO NOT HAVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AT THIS TIME. 
          SO SOME OF THESE OTHER ADDITIONAL THINGS COULD COMMUNITY, ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS COULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN OVER TIME? YES, MA'AM. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          AND I JUST WANNA RECOGNIZE WE KIND OF ATE INTO COMMISSIONER CONLEY'S TIME, SO I JUST WANNA, I, I THOUGHT YOU WERE GONNA HELP ANSWER HIS QUESTION. 
          YOU HAD BETTER QUESTIONS, SO YOU DID GREAT. 
          ALRIGHT, ALL. 
          SO JUST, JUST HOPE, UH, WE'LL GET TO OTHER FOLKS. 
          BUT I THINK COMMISSIONER ZA ACTUALLY WAS GONNA HELP ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT WAS POSED BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY. 
          SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND THERE'S NO OBJECTION ADAM, GO AHEAD AND ANSWER, HELP, ANSWER HIS QUESTION. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          SO WHEN THE NORTH PRINTED GATEWAY AMENDMENTS WERE INITIATED, COMMISSIONER CONLEY COUNCIL 
          [01:55:01]
ESSENTIALLY SAID THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          THEY DID NOT SPECIFY WHAT THEY DID. 
          THEY DID SORT OF SPECIFY AND SAY SIMILAR TO WHAT IS THERE FOR THE DOWNTOWN BONUS TODAY. 
          THE DOWNTOWN BONUS TODAY HAS AN AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT, BUT HAS ESSENTIALLY SORT OF A MENU OPTION. 
          IT INCLUDES THINGS LIKE CHILDCARE PLAZA, IMPROVED LANDSCAPING ON STREETSCAPE. 
          THERE'S AGAIN, A MENU OPTION THAT EXISTS. 
          AND SO IF WE WERE TO FOLLOW THAT ROUTE, IT WOULD BE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT. 
          BUT COUNCIL DID NOT SAY ESSENTIALLY WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE. 
          AND AGAIN, UM, BUT NO SUCH MENU YET HAS BEEN PRODUCED. 
          NO, THAT'S COMING. 
          EXACTLY. 
          SO THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE. 
          WHAT WE APPROVED TODAY WAS WHAT PRESENTED BY MR. ROSLYN, WHAT IS COMING FORWARD. 
          MR. ROSLYN ESSENTIALLY EXPLAINED WE'LL BE COMING BACK NEXT YEAR WITH THAT. 
          PART OF THAT CONVERSATION HAS TO BE CALIBRATING THAT BONUS TO WHETHER WE CAN ACHIEVE DEEPER AFFORDABILITY OR FRANKLY, CAN WE MIX AND MATCH AND CALIBRATE ACCORDINGLY AS WELL. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          SO IT'S A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED TO BE DECIDED. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND WHO HAD THE NEXT QUESTION? COMMISSIONER HAYNES? I DON'T KNOW IF I WAS NEXT, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION, UH, QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, MS. MOORE, AND PUTTING ALL CARDS ON THE TABLE, YOU AND I HAD A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT THIS. 
          YES, SIR. 
          I APPRECIATE YOUR, UH, RESPONSIVENESS AND APPRECIATE YOUR ANSWERS. 
          UM, COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, UH, AS, AS WE WERE DISCUSSING IT, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS I ASK YOU IS ABOUT, UM, I APPRECIATE WHERE STAFF IS. 
          STAFF IS BASICALLY COMING TO US AND SAY, AND LOOK, THE COUNCIL HAS DIRECTED US TO DO X. 
          WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO X RIGHT NOW, AND X BEING ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          UH, WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO X RIGHT NOW, BUT WE ARE VERY HESITANT TO GO CONTRARY TO WHAT COUNSEL HAS DIRECTED. 
          AND SO HAVE YOU, WHEN YOU AND I DISCUSSED, UH, MY OPINION WAS YOU MADE IT CLEAR TO ME THAT, THAT YOU, Y'ALL WEREN'T IN A POSITION RIGHT NOW TO, TO DISCUSS ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          HAVE YOU HAD A, AND AND ADMITTEDLY WE ONLY TALKED ON SUNDAY OR MONDAY, I FORGET. 
          UH, BUT, UH, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO, TO TALK ABOUT THAT, ASK YOUR CLIENTS? WE ARE STILL COMMITTED TO THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT EXIST IN THE NORTH BURNETT GATEWAY BONUS PROGRAM THAT EXISTS TODAY. 
          UM, AS EVERYONE HAS MENTIONED, STAFF HA COUNCIL HAS DIRECTED TO LOOK AT THOSE BONUSES, BUT WE DON'T KNOW ANY OF WHAT COULD BE IN THAT MENU AT THIS POINT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE'RE COMMITTED TO WHAT IS IN THE PLAN TODAY. 
          SO IF, UM, IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO, AND I, LIKE, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS AN IDEA BY COMMISSIONER AZAR, HE'S, HE'S MUCH MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE THAN I AM. 
          BUT IF WE WERE TO, TO ADD CONDITIONS, GIVE YOU A MENU, O MENU OPTION, LIKE IS AVAILABLE DOWNTOWN, WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING YOU WOULD CONSIDER? OBVIOUSLY YOU'D HAVE TO TAKE THAT BACK TO YOUR CLIENT, BUT IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD CONSIDER, OR UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S NOT SOMETHING AS STAFF MENTIONED THAT I THINK I CAN ANSWER ON THE DAIS GIVEN THE DO YOU WANNA AN DO? YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          WE CANNOT, UM, SORRY, COMMISSIONER, WE CANNOT ADD CONDITIONS TO A SUBDISTRICT. 
          THE SUBDISTRICT REQUIREMENTS ARE WHAT THEY ARE. 
          SO WE CAN, COULD WE DO IT AS A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY? NO, BECAUSE IT'S A SUBDISTRICT, IT'S NOT YOUR STANDARD ZONING. 
          SO YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO, AND, AND A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY IS MORE RESTRICTIVE. 
          IT'S NOT MORE PERMISSIVE. 
          SO IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE EITHER YOU AGREE WITH THE SUBDISTRICTS, YOU KNOW WHICH ONE THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU, JUST THE BASIC C M E OR THE C M U GATE. 
          SO YOU'VE GOTTA EXPLAIN IT TO ME LIKE I'M A FI FIFTH GRADER. 
          SO YOU'RE TELLING US THAT BECAUSE OF THE TIMING OF THIS APPLICATION, YOU KNOW, I, I AND I APPRECIATE WHERE YOU'RE COMING. 
          YOUR HANDS ARE TIED BECAUSE OF WHAT COUNSEL HAS DIRECTED, BUT IT AIN'T YET READY? YES, SIR. 
          ARE YOU TELLING ME THE SAME WE ARE KIND OF IN THE SAME POSITION? NO, I'M TELLING YOU THAT BASICALLY YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO APPROVE WHAT'S ALREADY IN NORTH VERNON GATEWAY TO A CHANGE TO EITHER THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS THE C M U SUBDISTRICT OR THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, WHICH IS C M U GATEWAY, WHICH GIVES THEM MORE HEIGHT AND F A R THAN THE BASE C M U SUBDISTRICT. 
          OKAY. 
          I GOTCHA YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, UH, WE ARE OUT OF THEIR QUESTIONS. 
          LET'S, UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, COMMISSIONER ZA GONNA BE OUR HERO AND CHAIR MOVE APPLICANT REQUEST. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND? UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, I SAW YOUR HAND. 
          FIRST ONE. 
          SO DO WE NEED TO ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION OR CAN WE GO? WE HAVE A COMMISSIONER COX, DO YOU HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION OR SUBSTITUTE MOTION? I, I'M JUST GONNA TRY IT. 
          UM, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THINKING ABOUT COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          WE KNOW COMMUNITY BENEFIT REQUIREMENTS ARE COMING DOWN THE LINE. 
          SO, UH, I'D LIKE TO SEE IF THERE'S A SECOND FOR POSTPONING THIS ITEM ONE MONTH TO, UH, OUR OCTOBER 10TH MEETING. 
          [02:00:02]
UM, CAN I ASK STAFF, UM, OCTOBER 10TH, WHAT ARE WE, WHAT ARE WE GONNA GAIN? WELL, LET ME ASK THE MOTION MAKER. 
          WHAT ARE WE GONNA GAIN BY THAT POSTPONEMENT? UH, I WANT THE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT COMMUNITY BENEFITS TO CONTINUE AND, AND, AND THIS IS, THIS IS AN ACTIVELY DEVELOPING THING. 
          UM, SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS, UH, ON THE DAAS TONIGHT HAVE GOTTEN PRESENTATIONS ABOUT WHAT MIGHT WE EXPECT. 
          SOME HAVEN'T, UH, INCLUDING ME. 
          AND SO, UH, I THINK, I JUST THINK WE SHOULD CONTINUE THAT CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT COMMUNITY BENEFITS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT THIS APPLICANT IS REQUESTING. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK, IS THAT CLEAR SAID, WE HAVE A SECOND TO THIS, TO POSTPONE. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER MOTALA, UM, LET'S, I THINK YOU SPOKE TO YOUR MOTION. 
          CAN WE GO AND TAKE A MOTION ON THIS POSTPONEMENT? I MEAN, A, A VOTE? UM, LEMME GET MY NOTES RIGHT HERE. 
          HELP ME TRACK THESE, IF YOU DON'T MIND. 
          VICE CHAIR. 
          UH, SO ON THIS POSTPONEMENT, UH, THOSE ON THE DIOCESE, UH, IN SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION. 
          YOU OKAY? GO AHEAD. 
          COMMISSIONER ZA, I, SORRY, IT'S JUST, I, I WAS JUST GONNA SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION TO SAY THAT WHAT COMMISSIONER COX IS SAYING, I THINK IS A GOOD IDEA, BUT THERE IS SORT OF MULTIPLE STUMBLING BLOCKS FOR WHICH I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO AGREE TO THIS. 
          PART OF IT IS COMMISSIONER COX, THAT THE AMENDMENTS WOULD COME BACK SOMETIME NEXT YEAR. 
          SO FRANKLY, IF WE HAVE TO POSTPONE IT TO ADOPT THOSE AMENDMENTS FIRST, LIKELY WE NEED TO POSTPONE TO SIX MONTHS AT THIS POINT RATHER THAN A MONTH. 
          IT WOULD JUST WILL NOT ACCOMPLISH THAT BECAUSE THOSE AMENDMENTS HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN DRAFTED OR ARE GOING THROUGH REVIEW. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE PROCESS IS, BUT MR. ROSLYN HAS BEEN CLEAR THAT THEY WILL BE COMING, UM, NEXT YEAR. 
          SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT HAS BEEN SORT OF SHARED WITH US, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THAT SOMETHING HAS BEEN SHARED WITH US, BUT JUST THE FACT THAT THOSE ARE COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE. 
          AND I GUESS WHAT I WAS SAYING, JUST TO CLARIFY, WAS I WAS LOOKING AT WHAT IS IN OUR DOWNTOWN BONUS. 
          SO IF WE WENT BY COUNSEL SAYING WHAT IS SIMILAR TO THE DOWNTOWN BONUS WITH THE CLARIFICATION, THE DOWNTOWN BONUS IS PRETTY COMPLEX. 
          IT HAS THESE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS, AND IT HAS THESE OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND MENU OPTIONS THAT YOU CAN SELECT FOR. 
          IT'S A LOT MORE COMPLICATED. 
          AND TO THAT POINT, IT'S NOT LIKE WE WOULD BE ABLE TO BRING IN THOSE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY WE WOULD BE ASKING ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE CAN DO. 
          SO THAT IS SOMETHING WE SIMPLY CANNOT DO AS A REQUIREMENT FOR ZONING. 
          SO WHILE I APPRECIATE SORT OF THE INTENT BEHIND IT, I JUST DON'T THINK WE WOULD GET THE FRUITFULNESS OUT OF IT. 
          SO I'D RATHER JUST DISPOSE OFF THE CASE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER TODAY. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, CAN WE GO AND TAKE A VOTE? UH, THOSE ON THE DAAS, UM, IN FAVOR OF THE POSTPONEMENT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SEE, NONE THERE. 
          UH, THOSE IN FAVOR ON THE SCREEN, UH, I SEE IN FAVOR IS, UH, COMMISSIONER COX AND VOTING WELL, YOU HAVE A MIX OF GREEN AND RED THERE. 
          COMMISSIONER MOTALA. 
          THAT IS NOT HELPING ME. 
          OKAY, . 
          ALL RIGHT, NOW IT'S ALL GREEN. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO YOU'RE IN, UH, SO THAT'S TWO IN FAVOR. 
          AND, UH, THOSE AGAINST, UH, THIS MOTION ON THE SCREEN OH, ON THE DIOCESE FIRST. 
          SO THAT'S, I'M GONNA GO AND, UH, READ OUT THE COMMISSIONER CONLEY. 
          COMMISSIONER WOODS, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, COMMISSIONER ZA, COMMISSIONER SHAW, VICE HEMPEL, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          AND THEN THOSE ON THE SCREEN, UH, NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS POSTPONEMENT, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, COMMISSIONER VEDO RAMIREZ. 
          ALL. 
          SO THAT PALES, UH, AND THAT TOTAL COUNT, WHAT, TWO TO 10? OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          ALL, UH, LET'S GO AND GO BACK TO, THERE'S COMMISSIONER ZA SECOND INVITE, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          THIS IS THE APPLICANT REQUEST. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, LET'S GO. 
          AND, UH, THOSE ON THE DS IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, RAISE YOUR HANDS FOR WE CAN, WE, IT'S A SEPARATE MOTION. 
          . 
          UH, I AM AT THE BEGINNING, I SAID I WAS GONNA TRY TO PUSH PAST ANY DEBATE. 
          UH, WE CAN OPEN IT UP IF YOU NEED TO SPEAK. 
          I WILL LET YOU, 'CAUSE OTHERS HAVE, UH, DO YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING, COMMISSIONER A FOUR AGAINST? I WILL, I WILL TAKE, UM, I WILL TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO, TO BEG, PLEAD, AND GROW. 
          I, I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE ANDREW HAS GIVEN ME THE EVIL EYE THAT I CAN'T TALK ABOUT INCREASED BONUSES, INCREASED, UH, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          AND, AND I GET IT. 
          THIS IS A ZONING CASE. 
          I WILL IMPLORE THE APPLICANT TO LOOK AT OPTIONS. 
          UM, I WILL BE CONTACTING MY, UH, MY APPOINTER, UH, TO THAT WHEN THIS GOES TO COUNCIL. 
          I, I GET IT. 
          WE'RE IN A DEAD SPACE HERE, AND I, I CERTAINLY WOULD'VE VOTED WITH COMMISSIONER COX AND, AND, AND COMMISSIONER AL. 
          UH, BUT I DON'T THINK THE THE MONTH GETS US ANYWHERE. 
          I, I DON'T THINK THERE'S, WE'RE JUST STUCK. 
          AND, AND I UNDERSTAND Y'ALL ARE SMART FOLKS, AND I COMMEND YOU FOR THAT. 
          ALWAYS. 
          UH, BUT COME UP WITH ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS, AND I'M 
          [02:05:01]
GONNA MAKE SURE COUNCIL, MY MY PERSONAL COUNCIL KNOWS THAT, THAT Y'ALL NEED TO DO THAT. 
          UH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE GETTING A SIX MONTH HEAD START HERE AND, AND COMMEND YOU FOR DOING THAT GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE. 
          UH, BUT, UH, TO GET THAT SIX MONTH HEAD START, YOU SHOULD, YOU SHOULD, YOU SHOULD COME UP WITH SOME ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          OKAY? SO THAT WAS, UH, ARE YOU IN VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS? OKAY. 
          SO THAT'S IN FAVOR. 
          I SEE COMMISSIONER M TOLER, YOU WANT A CHANCE TO SPEAK? ARE YOU VOTING AGAINST OR FOR SPEAKING? AGAINST. 
          AGAINST. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          AND IN THE, IN THE SAME LIGHT AS, AS COMMISSIONER HAYNES THERE, I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS GONNA GO TO COUNCIL NO MATTER WHAT WE VOTE, IT'S JUST GOING WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION. 
          SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE BODY TO VOTE AGAINST AND SEND A NO RECOMMENDATION, BECAUSE THEN THAT FORCES THE APPLICANT TO HAVE THOSE HARD DISCUSSIONS WITH COUNSEL AND LET COUNSEL SET THE EXPECTATIONS AS TO YOU'RE ASKING FOR INCREASED STUFF, THIS IS WHAT WE EXPECT OUT OF YOU IN RETURN. 
          AND THEN WE GET SOME ADDITIONAL WEIGH IN ON WHETHER WE REALLY ARE TOO FAR OUT. 
          IF THEY THINK WE'RE REALLY TOO FAR OUT FROM THIS PLAN THAT'S COMING FORWARD, THEN THEY CAN MAKE THAT DECISION. 
          IF THEY THINK THAT WE'RE CLOSE ENOUGH AND THE APPLICANT REALLY OUGHT TO BE CLOSER TO COMPLYING WITH THAT, THEN THEY CAN ALSO MAKE THAT DECISION. 
          BUT I, I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS ON ITS FACE KNOWING THAT THESE IMPORTANT THINGS ARE COMING. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER CONLEY OR FOR AGAINST. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, UH, I'LL JUST KEEP IT VERY BRIEF. 
          I, I, I THINK ANYTHING THAT WE WANT TO SIGNAL TO COUNCIL WE CAN AND SHOULD EXPRESS TO COUNSEL AS COMMISSION AND AS WE ARE POSITIONED TO DO SO, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO USE A NO VOTE IN ORDER TO CONVEY A MESSAGE TO COUNCIL. 
          SO I JUST, YOU KNOW, I HOPE THAT, YOU KNOW, IF, IF WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE, YOU KNOW, ADDED CONVERSATION ABOUT COMMUNITY BENEFITS, THEN LET'S INCLUDE THAT WITH OUR YES VOTE. 
          BUT I DON'T SEE WHY WE SHOULD HAVE A NO. 
          UM, AS, AS A SORT OF A, A, A WAY OF NUDGING COUNSEL I, WHEN WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE EXPLICITLY. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, TO BE FAIR. 
          ANYONE ELSE WANNA SPEAK AGAINST THIS MOTION? COMMISSIONER COX? COMMISSIONER COX, GO AHEAD. 
          JUST REAL QUICK, UH, UH, I'M GONNA VOTE SIMILAR TO COMMISSIONER MU SOLER IN THE SAME VEIN. 
          UH, AND JUST BECAUSE WE CAN'T REQUIRE SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN THE APPLICANT CAN'T VOLUNTEER SOMETHING TO HELP GET IT THROUGH THE COMMISSION AND COUNCIL. 
          SO MY HOPE IS THAT WHATEVER HAPPENS HERE, THE APPLICANT HAS HEARD THAT WE'RE ALL VERY, VERY INTERESTED IN COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          THAT COUNCIL IS INTERESTED IN ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS, AND WHEN THEY GET TO COUNCIL, THEY'VE GOT SOMETHING MORE TO SHOW FOR IT THAN WHAT THEY'VE PRESENTED TO US. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND WE'RE GONNA GO TO THE END HERE. 
          WE GOT COMMISSIONER ZARE WANTS TO SPEAK. 
          I'LL, I'LL MAKE THIS QUICK AND JUST EXPLAIN MY REASONING FOR THIS MOTION. 
          IT ACTUALLY APPLIES TO MY PREVIOUS VOTE AS WELL. 
          UH, I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING REALLY USEFUL AND IMPORTANT HERE, WHICH IS TRYING TO SEE IN THE OVERALL SORT OF PLANNING TRAJECTORY WHERE WE ARE IN THE CODE AMENDMENTS, HOW DO WE SORT OF ABSORB THEM? BUT REALLY I THINK WE'RE RUNNING OURSELVES INTO A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE HERE, BUT WE WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS WE'RE TRYING TO THINK ABOUT WHAT'S COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE, SEE HOW WE CAN INCORPORATE IN THINGS THAT ARE BEFORE US TODAY UNDER A DIFFERENT REGULATORY SORT OF FRAMEWORK. 
          AND SO I'M, AT THIS POINT, FAVORABLE TO JUST MOVING AHEAD WITH WHAT WE HAVE TODAY AND KNOWING THAT THOSE THINGS WILL COME IN THE FUTURE. 
          AND APPLICANTS AT THOSE TIMES WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH WHATEVER RULES COME IN THE FUTURE. 
          I AGREE. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE COMMUNITY BENEFITS IN, UH, A LOT OF THOSE THINGS. 
          BUT ESSENTIALLY JUST BEING FAIR TO THE APPLICANTS THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US. 
          WE HAVE REGULATIONS AVAILABLE TODAY, AND I'M TRYING TO WORK WITHIN THOSE FRAMEWORKS FOR THIS AND THE PREVIOUS ITEM AS WELL. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          AGAIN, IN FAIRNESS, ANYONE WANNA SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? TREMENDOUS OUT. 
          OKAY. 
          SCENE THEN LET'S GO AND VOTE ON THE, UH, THE MOTION HERE, UH, ON THE ES. 
          THOSE IN FAVOR? UM, GO AHEAD AND RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          UH, THAT'S EVERYONE. 
          THOSE ON THE SCREEN IN FAVOR. 
          SHAMIR GREEN, UH, COMMISSIONER VADO RAMIREZ, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, AND THEN VOTING, UH, AGAINST COMMISSIONER MOOCH TAYLOR AND COMMISSIONER COX. 
          THAT'S YELLOW, UH, VOTING INTENTION. 
          SO THAT'S, UM, TEN ONE ONE, TEN ONE ONE. 
          IT PASSES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YES. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          GOOD WORK. 
          UM, AND I APPRECIATE, UH, THOSE USING THE DEBATE TIME TO REALLY FRAME UP AN ARGUMENT. 
          I THOUGHT IT WAS GOOD. 
          YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO KEEP THIS MOVING, BUT THOSE WERE SOME COMPELLING POINTS THAT WERE MADE. 
          UM, AND PEOPLE ARE REALLY TRYING TO MAKE ARGUMENTS AND, AND THAT'S GOOD. 
          IT DEFINITELY, UH, WAS TIME WORTH SPENDING. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S GO AND MOVE TO THE 
          [18. Historic Zoning: C14H-2023-0079 - Griffin House, 2502 Jarratt Avenue; District 10]
NEXT ITEM. 
          NUMBER 18. 
          NUMBER 18. 
          THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. 
          UH, STAFF. 
          WANNA KICK US OFF? WHO DO WE HAVE? MS. OKAY. 
          UH, CHAIR, I'M SORRY. 
          BEFORE WE TAKE UP THIS ITEM, I HAVE TWO SPEAKERS WHO ARE CURRENTLY 
          [02:10:01]
NOT ON THE LINE, UH, FOR THIS ITEM. 
          UM, I'VE REACHED OUT TO THEM. 
          UM, SHOULD WE RECESS FOR A QUICK? I THINK WE'VE BEEN, WE COULD USE A BREAK UP HERE IF WE CAN PLEASE. 
          . 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, HOW ABOUT IT'S 8 25. 
          IT'S FIVE MINUTES ENOUGH, MR. RIVERA. 
          OKAY. 
          SO LET'S TRY TO GET BACK HERE AT EIGHT 30. 
          THANKS. 
          UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE QUORUM BACK. 
          LET'S, ALL RIGHT, UH, WE'RE ON NUMBER 18. 
          LET GO AHEAD AND GET MY CHIN TO BACK UP. 
          OH, YES. 
          AND WE HAVE STAFF HERE. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. 
          UH, THANKS FOR HANGING IN THERE. 
          I WILL BE BRIEF. 
          UM, CALL CONTRERAS PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          UH, ITEM 18 C 14 H 20 23 0 0 79. 
          UM, IS A HISTORIC ZONING REQUEST FOR THE MEET AND DOROTHY GRIFFIN HOUSE AT 25 0 2 JARRETT AVENUE. 
          UM, THIS BUILDING WAS DETERMINED ELIGIBLE, UH, AS A, UH, HISTORIC LANDMARK BACK IN 2016, UH, BY THEN PRESERVATION OFFICER STEVE SADOWSKI. 
          UM, SO STAFF CAN CONTINUE TO RECOMMEND THIS APPLICATION ON THE BASIS OF SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURE AND HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS. 
          UM, THE APPLICATION DESCRIBES THE BUILDING'S ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
          UM, THIS HOUSE STANDS AS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF THE COLONIAL REVIVAL STYLE FROM THE 1930S AND THE THIRTIES AND FORTIES. 
          A SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF THIS CLASS'S STYLE GREW DOMINANT CHANGES IN FLUCTUATIONS IN THE ECONOMY CAUSED BY THE GREAT DEPRESSION. 
          AND THE LEAD UP TO WORLD WAR II CONTRIBUTED TO THESE CHANGES AS CONSTRUCTION BECAME MORE AUSTERE. 
          THE RESTRAINED COLONIAL REVIVAL STYLE OF 25 0 2 JARED AVENUE IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF THIS TREND. 
          UH, THE APPLICATION ALSO IDENTIFIES THE HOUSE'S ASSOCIATION WITH JUDGE MEAD F AND DOROTHY GRIFFIN. 
          MEAD GRIFFIN WAS A SIGNIFICANT FIGURE IN THE TEXAS JUDICIAL LANDSCAPE IN THE MID 20TH CENTURY, SERVING ON BOTH THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT AND THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS. 
          UH, HE ALSO SERVED AS THE TEXAS ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OVER HIS LONG TENURE AT TEXAS'S HIGHEST JUDICIAL LEVEL. 
          GRIFFIN NOT ONLY INFLUENCED CONSIDERABLE LEGISLATION, BUT ALSO, UH, FREQUENTLY INFLUENCED LAW SCHOOLS AROUND THE STATE. 
          BORN IN AUSTIN, DOROTHY GRIFFIN, UH, WAS A SIGNIFICANT FIGURE IN THE CHILD WELFARE MOVEMENT, UM, AS SHE WAS ACTIVE IN THE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION, SAVED THE CHILDREN. 
          AND BY 1947, SHE WAS THE STATE DIRECTOR OF THE ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS RELOCATION FROM DALLAS TO AUSTIN. 
          UH, DESPITE SEVERAL ALTERATIONS, THE HOUSE CONTINUES TO CONVEY THE COLONIAL REVIVAL STYLE OF THE THIRTIES. 
          UM, HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER STEVE SADOWSKI APPROVED THE WORK FROM 2010 TO 2016, UH, CLARIFYING TO THE APPLICANT THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGES WERE SOLELY TO THE REAR OR SEPARATE FROM THE HOUSE AND WOULD NOT AFFECT ITS OVERALL FEELING IN ESSENTIAL FORM. 
          UM, THEREFORE, OVERALL THE HOUSE RETAINS ITS COLONIAL REVIVAL STYLE CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES. 
          UH, THIS CONCLUDES THE STAFF PRESENTATION. 
          THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE ON THE LINE, UH, TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS WELL. 
          THANK Y'ALL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CHAIR. 
          YES. 
          SO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT, UH, MS, UH, CHRISTINA SMIDT. 
          UH, IF YOU'LL SELECT STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH THE EAR REMARKS, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. 
          HI, I'M CHRISTINA COOPERMAN. 
          I'M AN ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN HERE IN AUSTIN, AND I PREPARED THE HISTORIC HISTORIC ZONING APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. 
          UM, AND I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE DESIGNATION AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT I'M ABLE TO. 
          UM, I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS THE INTEGRITY ISSUES AND STATE THAT, UM, WE DISCUSSED THEM WITH THE CLIENT IN THE CITY BEFORE SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION. 
          AND WE ULTIMATELY FELT THAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S 2016 OPINION THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ELIGIBLE AT, AT THAT TIME, EVEN WITH THE REPLACE WINDOW INCITING, UM, AND WOULD BE WITH THE REAR ADDITION, SERVED AS A DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY, MEANING THAT IT WAS ELIGIBLE, UM, FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION. 
          SO BASED ON THE, UM, HBO'S OPINION THAT TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THESE ALTERATIONS AND STILL BELIEVED IT WAS ELIGIBLE, WE FELT CONFIDENT PURSUING LANDMARK DESIGNATION, UM, PARTICULARLY AFTER LEARNING OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OCCUPANTS. 
          UM, AND TO ADDRESS INTEGRITY ISSUES, I JUST WANNA SAY THAT THE HOUSE RETAINS, UM, SEVERAL VERY IMPORTANT CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES. 
          UM, FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY, THE HOUSE'S PLAN FORM AND MASSING ALL REMAIN THE SAME, UM, AS FROM THE HISTORIC PERIOD. 
          BESIDE ADDITION IS HISTORIC IN ITS OWN RIGHT, BEING 50 YEARS OLD AND CONSTRUCTED BY THE GRIFFINS. 
          UM, THE BAY WINDOW AND FENESTRATION PATTERN ARE ALSO INTACT, AND THOUGH THE WINDOWS ARE REPLACED, THEIR SIZE, UM, AND SASH CONFIGURATION HAVE BEEN RETAINED. 
          UM, AND THE SIDING IS COMPATIBLE IN PROFILE WITH HISTORIC WOOD SIDING. 
          OVERALL, THE HOUSE STILL READS AS A LATE 1930S COLONIAL REVIVAL HOUSE. 
          UM, AND I JUST WANTED TO, UM, CONVEY ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO, UM, I DON'T THINK SHE WAS ABLE TO CALL IN, THAT SHE DECIDED TO 
          [02:15:01]
PURSUE THIS DESIGNATION AFTER LEARNING OF HER HOUSES, HISTORIC OCCUPANTS AND OUT OF, OUT OF A DESIRE TO NOT ONLY PRESERVE THE HOUSE, BUT UM, PLAY A PART IN PRESERVING OLD WEST AUSTIN AS WELL. 
          UM, SHE'S SEEN A NUMBER OF OLD HOUSES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT DEMOLISHED AND REPLACED WITH NEW HOUSES, UM, ON HER STREET. 
          SOMETHING LIKE CAN HISTORIC HOUSES HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED AND REPLACED THE NEW HOUSES SINCE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT WAS DESIGNATED IN 2003. 
          UM, AND THAT'S IT. 
          UM, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UM, HOPEFULLY I CAN ANSWER THEM FOR YOU. 
          SURE. 
          I HAVE NO ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER AZAR, SECONDED BY COMM, BY SIR HEMPHILL. 
          UM, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? UH, COMMISSIONER ZA VOTE. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER ZA HAD A QUESTION. 
          OH, VOTE, VOTE. 
          CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          UM, YES. 
          UH, ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING? SAY NONE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU MS. CONTRERAS FOR BEING HERE. 
          I, I DUNNO IF THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU OR THE APPLICANT, BUT, UM, SO I, I THINK ONE, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE BACKUP AND I THINK WHAT WE'VE LEARNED BY JUDGE GRIFFIN IS PRETTY REMARKABLE. 
          AND I THINK THE BACKUP SORT OF SPEAKS TO THAT AND THE WORK THAT, UH, GRIFFIN'S DID. 
          I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS, AND I DON'T KNOW WHO CAN SPEAK TO THIS, BUT FOR THE 70 EDITION, I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE FRENCH DOORS AND THE WINDOWS AROUND THAT. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN THOSE WERE ADDED IN, OR ARE THOSE FROM THE ORIGINAL 1973 EDITION? I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SORT OF THE PART THAT'S, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE FACADE, IT'S TO THE LEFT TO THE BACK WITH A PORCH. 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, I WILL LET, UH, CHRISTINA ANSWER THAT, BUT I AM PRETTY SURE THEY WERE, UM, CONTEMPORARY, LIKE PRETTY CLOSE TOGETHER. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THANKS. 
          UM, THE, CAN THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THAT? CHRISTINA? I'M SORRY, I DO NOT KNOW YOUR LAST NAME. 
          UH, AND I, I THINK I HEARD YOUR, YOUR QUESTION, UM, THE ADDITION, DOES IT LOOK HOW IT WAS BUILT IN 1973? YES. 
          AND, AND I GUESS PARTICULARLY I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE, THE WINDOWS AND THE FRENCH DOORS THAT WE HAVE THERE TODAY ARE FRENCH WINDOWS THAT WE HAVE THERE TODAY. 
          ARE, ARE THOSE SORT OF ORIGINAL TO THAT, OR WERE THOSE FRENCH WINDOWS ADDED LATER? AND DO WE KNOW IF THEY WERE ADDED LATER OR WHAT? UH, BASED ON, BASED ON WHAT THE CURRENT OWNER KNOWS FROM PREVIOUS, UM, OWNERS, YES. 
          THAT IS WHAT THEY LOOKED LIKE IN 1973 WHEN THAT ADDITION WAS BUILT. 
          AND ARE THOSE FRENCH WINDOWS ESSENTIALLY STILL WITHIN, IN ALIGNMENT WITH THEIR REVIVAL STYLE, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT REFLECT THAT PERIOD? NO, I MEAN, THAT'S DEFINITELY, UM, A MORE 1970S. 
          I THINK IT WAS A 19, IT'S A 1970S WAY OF TRYING TO BE HISTORICAL, BUT, UM, NO, YOU WOULDN'T SEE THAT ON A, A, A COLONIAL REVIVAL HOUSE FROM THE 1930S MOST LIKELY. 
          I, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND I GUESS SAME GOES FOR SORT OF THE, THE CHIMNEY STACK, WHICH I KNOW HAS BEEN PAINTED, OR LIKE, DOES A CHIMNEY STACK LOOK LIKE IT WOULD HAVE ORIGINALLY IN THE, IN THE STYLE, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN ALTERED SINCE THE CHIMNEY HAS NOT BEEN, UH, THE CHIMNEY HAS BEEN PAINTED, BUT THE CHIMNEY IS STILL BRICK. 
          AND THAT'S ORIGINAL, BUT, BUT ORIGINALLY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRAY MATCHING THE SIDING OF THE HOUSE, CORRECT? NO, IT, IT WAS, UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS RED. 
          IT WAS, UM, EXPOSED RED BRICK. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND THEN I, SAME, YOU KNOW, FOR THE COLONIAL REVIVAL, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SORT OF ALWAYS STANDS OUT IS THAT THE PORCHES OFTEN HAVE BAST TRADES OR OTHER KINDS OF RAILINGS AND, AND IT, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THAT WAS REMOVED. 
          SO I FEEL LIKE IN SOME WAYS THAT ASPECT OF THE COLONIAL REVIVAL STYLE, EVEN FOR THAT 1973 EDITION, SEEMS TO BE MISSING. 
          I DUNNO, CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THAT, UH, THE REMOVAL OF THE RAILING FROM THE PORCH? YEP. 
          MM-HMM. 
          ? YEAH. 
          NO, UM, I, I AGREE, BUT I DO THINK THAT WAS MORE A 1970S, UM, FEATURE, UM, THAN A 1930S COLONIAL REVIVAL FEATURE. 
          UM, AND WHILE IT, I AGREE, IT DEFINITELY IMPACTS THE INTEGRITY, I STILL THINK, UM, OVERALL THE HOUSE CONVEYS ITS ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE, UM, AND STILL SEEMS PERIOD APPROPRIATE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT IS ALL MY TIME. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER, WHO ELSE HAS QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. 
          DO WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND? I, I, I DON'T, I'LL GIVE OKAY. 
          PLEASE. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL YIELDS TO YES. 
          I'M GONNA GIVE SOME OF MY TIME TO SURE. 
          OFF, DO YOU WANNA START OFF WITH YOUR QUESTION? GO AHEAD. 
          UM, YEAH, I WAS JUST ACTUALLY CURIOUS OF, UM, IN TERMS OF THE STYLE AND THE NUMBER OF HOUSES IN AUSTIN THAT MIGHT HAVE THE STYLE. 
          LIKE, IS IT VERY UNUSUAL TO FIND IT NOW? IS IT REALLY, UM, A CASE WHERE WE'RE SEEING A, A LOT OF DEMOLITION 
          [02:20:01]
OF THIS STYLE? LIKE, I'M, I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT SORT OF HOW THIS FITS IN WITH THE LARGER PATTERN OF BUILDING IN THAT TIME IN AUSTIN AND WHAT OF, HOW MANY OF THESE TYPES OF BUILDINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN PRESERVED? SURE. 
          UM, IT, THAT'S ACTUALLY A VERY COMMON HOUSE TYPE. 
          UM, A LOT OF OLD WEST AUSTIN WAS BUILT IN COLONIAL REVIVAL HOUSES. 
          DRA AVENUE ITSELF, UM, HA WAS LINED WITH, UM, SIMILAR TYPES OF HOUSES. 
          AND, UM, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE STATUS OF THE PRESERVATION OF ALL THOSE HOUSES. 
          UM, I CAN SAY THAT OLD WEST AUSTIN IS A HISTORIC DISTRICT LISTED AS THE NATIONAL REGISTER. 
          UM, AND AREAS WHERE THESE HOUSES WERE BUILT ARE SEEING A LOT OF DEMOLITION. 
          SO, WELL, I, I DON'T THINK THIS IS AN EXTREMELY RARE TYPE OF HOUSE IN AUSTIN, BUT I DO THINK THESE TYPES OF HOUSES ARE, UM, GETTING DEMOLISHED, UM, ESPECIALLY IN OLD WEST AUSTIN. 
          SO JUST STEPAN, YES. 
          UM, COLONIAL REVIVAL IN GENERAL IS PRETTY COMMON IN AUSTIN. 
          UM, I THINK THIS PAIRED DOWN VERSION IS A LITTLE BIT LESS COMMON, AT LEAST, UH, TO SEE INTACT VERSIONS, UM, JUST BECAUSE OVER THE YEARS, UH, PEOPLE HAVE MODIFIED THEM, UM, BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THAT REAL, YOU KNOW, HIGH STYLE DETAIL. 
          PEOPLE HAVE ADDED THINGS, UM, AND, AND KIND OF AFFECTED THE OVERALL INTEGRITY. 
          SO I THINK THESE ARE A LITTLE BIT, UH, MORE RARE THAN KIND OF THE CLASSIC COLONIAL REVIVAL, UM, THAT WE SEE ELSEWHERE. 
          CONTRERA, IF YOU CAN BE THERE. 
          I I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. 
          SURE THING. 
          UM, HOPEFULLY THIS SHOULD BE QUICK. 
          DO WE KNOW WHERE OUR EQUITY-BASED HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN IS IN SORT OF THE PROCESS OF WHEN IT'S COMING BACK TO US? UM, HOPEFULLY SOON. 
          UH, KARA BERTRAM, THE PROGRAM MANAGER, IS ON VACATION RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, SO I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT DATE FOR YOU, BUT I DO KNOW, UM, I BELIEVE 2024, EARLY 2024 IS KIND OF THE, THE ESTIMATED RELEASE DATE. 
          UM, BUT, UH, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF HIRING AN ENGAGEMENT CONSULTANT AND GETTING TOGETHER OUR, UH, COMMUNITY ADVISORY GROUP. 
          SO, UH, IT'S MOVING AND, AND IT'S BACK ON TRACK, AND I'M EXCITED ABOUT IT. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THANK VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS, CHAIR. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, COMMERS, UH, COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH. 
          QUESTION FOR STAFF. 
          I, I ASSUMED YOU MADE A PRESENTATION TO THE HISTORIC COMMISSION, AND I NOTICED IN THE BACKUP THAT THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS UNANIMOUS. 
          UM, THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT AT THEIR DECISION, BUT DID THEY, DID THEY INDICATE, INDICATE ANYTHING, ANY SORT OF CONCERNS OR, OR ANYTHING IN SUPPORT OF THIS OTHER THAN THEIR UNANIMOUS VOTE? UM, I BELIEVE WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION. 
          UM, I THINK CHAIR SETH, UM, EXPRESSED CONCERNS, BUT, UM, EVERYBODY ELSE SEEMED TO, UH, TO AGREE THAT, UM, THE HOUSE'S SIGNIFICANCE SORT OF OVERRODE THE, UH, POTENTIAL INTEGRITY ISSUES. 
          AND CAN YOU, CAN YOU REMIND US KIND OF THE, THE, THE BENEFITS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH HAVING, UH, HISTORIC ZONING ABSOLUTELY. 
          ON YOUR PROPERTY? SO, HISTORIC ZONING IS, UH, IT'S KIND OF A, A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR SOME, UM, IT REQUIRES A HIGHER LEVEL OF REVIEW. 
          UH, IF YOU HAVE A HISTORICALLY ZONED HOUSE, YOU, UH, CANNOT DO AS MANY THINGS AS IF YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, A REGULAR HOUSE. 
          UM, THERE ARE, UH, REQUIREMENTS ABOVE AND BEYOND CODE, UH, FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ALTERATION. 
          UM, ALSO THERE ARE, UH, ANNUAL INSPECTIONS THAT HOUSES HAVE TO MEET IF THEY WANT TO APPLY FOR, UH, THE ANNUAL TAX EXEMPTION OFFERED BY TCAD, WHICH IS THE PRIMARY BENEFIT OTHER THAN PROTECTION OF THE HOUSE. 
          UM, SO YOU HAVE TO MEET, UM, A HIGHER STANDARD OF MAINTENANCE AND CARE. 
          UM, YOU HAVE TO HAVE MORE REVIEW, UM, AND MORE INTENSIVE REVIEW OF, UH, CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, BUT IN RETURN, YOU'LL RECEIVE A TAX EXEMPTION IF YOU APPLY AND IF YOU MEET THE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANKS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER COX? COMMISSIONER COX, UH, OR WAS IT COMMISSIONER M I THINK COMMISSIONER MUELLER HAD HER. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER AL, GO AHEAD. 
          IT'S FINE. 
          I WAS GOING TO MOTION TO GO WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR, ALL RIGHT. 
          FOR THE DIS DESIGNATION. 
          OKAY. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX. 
          UM, CAN WE GO AND MOVE TO A VOTE ON THIS, OR DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO A MOTION COMMISSIONER, MR. DONNER? UH, I'M OKAY UNLESS OTHER COMMISSIONERS FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO DISCUSS IT. 
          I, I WOULD LIKE YOU DO. 
          OKAY. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO, COMMISSIONER AZAR HAS SOME WORDS, SO, UH, DO YOU MIND STARTING WITH HIM AS THE MOTION MAKER? WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER AZAR. 
          OH, NO. 
          COMMISSIONER MUTAL IS THE MOTION MAKER. 
          YOU WANNA SPEAK? YEAH, I MEAN, SORRY. 
          AS COMMISSIONER 
          [02:25:01]
MUTAL, DO YOU WANNA GO AND SPEAK OR DO I GO AND GET, TURN IT OVER TO COMMISSIONER ZA? NO, THEN I'LL, I I'LL GO AHEAD AND USE THE TIME OF SPEAK IN FAVOR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I, OUR, OUR HISTORIC COMMISSION DOES A, A TREMENDOUS JOB. 
          AND THEY, THEY DEBATE HEAVILY  THE MERITS AND THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR A PROPERTY TO BE A HISTORIC DESIGNATION. 
          UM, THEY'VE REVIEWED SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT HAPPENED TO THE PROPERTY AND FEEL THAT THE FRONT PART IS STILL MAINTAINING WITH THAT INTEGRITY. 
          AND I THINK THEY'RE, THEY'RE RIGHT THAT, THAT THERE IS SO MUCH TURNOVER OF THE PROPERTIES, UM, IN, IN WHAT IS, UH, IT, IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE SOME REMNANT OF THAT HISTORY THERE BECAUSE THE OTHER PROPERTIES ARE TURNING OVER. 
          I'M, ALTHOUGH THAT AREA MAY HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED AS A HISTORIC AREA, I'M NOT AWARE OF A LOT OF PROPERTIES IN THERE THAT ACTUALLY ARE, HAVE APPLIED FOR THIS AND WILL MAINTAINING THAT LOOK. 
          SO IT'D BE A NICE PIECE OF HISTORY TO CAPTURE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST THIS ITEM CHAIR? WOULD LIKE TO GET SUBSTITUTE MOTION? OKAY. 
          WE HAVE COM UH, WE HAVE A GO AHEAD. 
          COMMISSIONER ZA THE CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, WHICH IS DENY THE REQUEST. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          UH, SO LET'S GO, UH, GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO THAT MOTION. 
          I THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. 
          I NEED A SECOND. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OH, SECOND TO TONIGHT, UH, THE REQUEST WALL COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU HAVE A SECOND. 
          YOU WANNA SPEAK FOR A MOTION? I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          I, I THINK REALLY FOR ME, WHAT IT CAME DOWN TO WAS THE CONVERSATION AROUND THE INTEGRITY AND THE ALTERATIONS FOR THE BUILDING. 
          SO I WOULD, IF FOLKS HAVE NOT ALREADY LOOKED AT THE PICTURES IN THE BACKUP, I WOULD HIGHLY ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO LOOK AT IT EVEN AFTER, UH, WHAT MR. SADOWSKI HAD APPROVED. 
          YOU KNOW, THIS IS IN THE BACKUP. 
          IN 2016, THE CURRENT OWNERS BUILT A TWO STORY GARAGE APARTMENT. 
          UM, OTHER ALTERATIONS TO THE HOUSE INCLUDE SIDING AND WINDOW REPLACEMENT, CIRCA 2010, REMOVAL FROM THE ONE STORY FRONT EDITION 2015 CHIMNEY PAINTING 2020, FRONT DOOR REPLACEMENT 2022. 
          AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE NINE SEVENTIES EDITION AND THE FRENCH WINDOWS THAT ARE THERE, AND THE KIND OF WINDOWS THAT ARE THERE WITH THE WIDTH THAT THEY HAVE, THEY REALLY DO NOT MATCH THE COLONIAL REVIVAL STYLE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. 
          I GENERALLY, I THINK MY CONCERN HERE IS IT HAS BEEN ALTERED SO RADICALLY OVER THE YEARS THAT FOR ME, I'M CONCERNED, YES, IT MEETS SURF. 
          THE, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS AN IMPORTANT HISTORIC PERSONAGE HERE, BUT REALLY BECAUSE OF THE ALTERATIONS, IT DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME DEGREE OF INTEGRITY AS A LOT OF THE OTHER STRUCTURES THAT WE OFTEN SEE. 
          SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THOSE FRENCH WINDOWS, THE ATTACHMENT OF THAT SECTION TO THE BUILDING ITSELF, IT MOVES AGAINST THE COLONIAL REVIVAL PAINTING OF THE CHIMNEY, MOVING OF THE BALL STRAIT. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT ELEMENTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED OVER THE YEAR. 
          IT'S SORT OF CHIPPING AWAY SLOWLY. 
          AND THAT'S SORT OF, SORT OF, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE WITH A LOT OF THIS IS, OF COURSE, WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THEIR HOUSE. 
          BUT IN DOING SO, THAT ORIGINAL COLONIAL REVIVAL STYLE HAS KIND OF BEEN LOST, IT LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF OTHER HOMES IN AUSTIN TODAY BECAUSE OF THE ALTERATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. 
          AND THAT'S WHY I AM, UM, MAKING THE REQUEST THAT WE DENY THIS. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER COX, YOU SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION? YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          I, I APPRECIATE WHAT COMMISSIONERS ARE, HAS SAID, BUT I MEAN, TO BE HONEST, I DO HOPE PEOPLE LOOK AT THE PICTURE. 
          WE'VE GOT A PICTURE SHOWING THE RAILING ON THE PORCH AND THE RED BRICK CHIMNEY. 
          AND WHEN I'M LOOKING AT STREET VIEW, WHICH IS DATED JANUARY, 2023, THE HOUSE LOOKS ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME. 
          , I MEAN, FROM SOMEONE ON THE STREET LOOKING AT THE HOUSE IN ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION VERSUS LOOKING AT IT NOW, I DON'T THINK THAT THEY WOULD REALLY NOTICE A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT. 
          AND I FEEL LIKE US MAKING A JUDGMENT AS TO WHICH AESTHETIC COMPONENTS SOMEHOW DISQUALIFY THE HOUSE AGAINST ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY EXPERTS IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND, AND ARE SERVE ON OUR HISTORIC COMMISSION. 
          IT JUST, IT JUST SEEMS KIND OF ODD TO ME. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHY I THINK THIS IS, THIS PROPERTY IS DESERVING OF THAT DESIGNATION, AND I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, ANY, UH, OTHERS WANNA SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT I WAS GLAD THAT COMMISSIONER AZAR MENTIONED THE EQUITY COMPONENT OF THIS. 
          UM, OBVIOUSLY AUSTIN HAS A LOT OF HISTORY. 
          WE HAVE MANAGED TO PRESERVE SOME PARTS OF IT MUCH BETTER THAN OTHERS. 
          AND WHILE I APPRECIATE THAT THE OWNERS HAVE THOUGHTFULLY BROUGHT THIS FORWARD, I DO REALLY JUST WANNA RAISE THE FACT THAT IF THIS WAS IN A DIFFERENT PLACE OR OF A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT STYLE, THIS MIGHT NOT BE SOMETHING WE WOULD CONSIDER NECESSARILY, UM, PERTAINING IN TERMS OR GIVING THIS HISTORIC DESIGNATION. 
          AND I WILL ALSO SAY THAT I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT AN ONGOING TAX BREAK, YOU KNOW, IN 10 YEARS, THAT'S A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS THAT WILL NOT BE GIVEN TO 
          [02:30:01]
THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT HOW AND WHEN WE GIVE THESE TYPES OF CONSIDERATIONS AND THE BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY, WHICH TO ME ARE NOT NECESSARILY CLEAR ON THIS SITUATION. 
          OKAY. 
          MANY COMMISSIONERS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          NOT SEEING ANY OTHER HANDS AS THERE'S A SUBSTITUTE. 
          MOTION TO DENY REQUEST APPLICANT REQUEST, UH, BY COMMISSIONER CZAR, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UH, THOSE ON THE DS IN FAVOR OF THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          GIVE ME ONE SECOND. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          AND, UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY, YOU WERE, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP IN FAVOR OF THE, OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UH, NOW LET'S GO TO THE SCREEN. 
          THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          SHOW ME YOUR, THOSE IN FAVOR FIRST. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          NOW LET'S, UH, WE'RE GONNA JUMP BACK TO THOSE, UH, ON THE DICE HERE. 
          THOSE ARE, UH, OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION. 
          UH, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS. 
          UH, IT'S THREE. 
          WE'VE GOT COMMISSIONER HAYNES COMM, VICE HEMPEL, COMMISSIONER SHAW, AND NOW LET'S GO SEE THOSE ON THE SCREEN. 
          WE GOT COMMISSIONER COX, COMMISSIONER STELLER, AND COMMISSIONER HOWARD. 
          AND ABSTAINING IS BETA RAMIREZ. 
          SO WHAT DO WE GOT THERE? 3, 3, 5, 6, 1. 
          OKAY, SO THAT MOTION FAILS. 
          SO WE'RE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, UH, TO, UM, APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          AND THAT WAS, UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? YES. 
          I MEAN, I'M COMMISSIONER MOOCH TOLER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COX. 
          UM, DO WE NEED ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WE'RE GONNA START, LET'S, OKAY, LET'S START OUT WITH THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          ANYBODY WANNA SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION? COMMISSIONER MO IS ALREADY SPOKEN. 
          I THINK MS. UH, COMMISSIONER AL, YOU ALREADY SPOKE. 
          SO I THINK WE GOT AT THAT POINT WE LEFT OFF. 
          SO THEN WE ARE TO, COMMISSIONER, YOU WANNA SPEAK AGAINST THIS MOTION COMMISSIONER, GO SET HIS HAND UP. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD. 
          YES, BUT I THINK HE WANTS TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          YEAH, I JUST WANNA ADDRESS, UM, A COMMENT THAT I THINK WAS, WAS SOMETHING IMPORTANT IS THE EQUITY ISSUE. 
          I JUST WANNA POINT OUT, I'VE BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION LONG ENOUGH TO SEE, UH, HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASES COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION THAT ARE IN DISADVANTAGED AREAS OF THIS CITY AND HAVE BEEN UNFORTUNATELY VOTED DOWN. 
          SO I THINK IF WE DO TALK ABOUT EQUITY, UH, WE NEED TO LOOK BACK AT THE HISTORY AND, AND ACTUALLY DIVE INTO THAT BECAUSE I THINK THIS COMMISSION, AS FAR AS I'VE BEEN ON IT, HAS VOTED TOO MANY OF THESE, UH, OF CASES DOWN RATHER THAN UP. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, THOSE THAT WANNA SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION COMMISSIONER CZAR. 
          AND THEN, UM, WE'LL START THERE AND THEN WE'LL SEE IF ANYONE WANTS TO SPEAK IN FAVOR. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          AGAIN, I'LL JUST STRESS THE FACT AND TALK TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. 
          THE ITEMS THAT COMMISSIONER COX WAS TALKING ABOUT, THE, YOU KNOW, THE RED BRICK CHIMNEY, THE RAILING, ALL OF THOSE ARE GONE. 
          LOOK AT THE PICTURES. 
          THAT RAILING DOES NOT EXIST TODAY. 
          THE RED BRICK CHIMNEY DOES NOT EXIST AS A GRAY PAINTED CHIMNEY. 
          THE ALTERATIONS ARE SO SEVERE. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE FRENCH WINDOWS, NOBODY CAN LOOK AT THOSE FRENCH WINDOWS AND SAY THAT THEY'RE PART OF THE COLONIAL REVIVAL STYLE. 
          THIS IS A MASSIVELY ALTERED STRUCTURE, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS IMPORTANT PERSONAGES ASSOCIATED WITH IT. 
          I TRULY BELIEVE IF WE'RE GOING AHEAD AND DOING THIS, WE'RE OPENING A DOOR. 
          WHILE I AGREE THAT I WANNA HAVE DEFERENCE TO OUR LANDMARK COMMISSION, THERE'S A REASON THIS COMES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          WE ALSO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO LOOK AT THIS AND SEE DOES THIS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE? AND THE ALTERATIONS HERE REALLY DO TAKE AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL COLONIAL REVIVAL STYLE SO THAT THE ALTERATIONS NO LONGER ALLOW US TO APPRECIATE THE BUILDING, EVEN FROM THE FACADE, LET ALONE THE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF STRUCTURAL CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MA MADE THAT ARE NOT EVEN VISIBLE. 
          SO REALLY IT'S THE INTEGRITY OF THE STRUCTURE THAT I QUESTION. 
          AND AGAIN, I ASK FOLKS THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS AT THIS TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, SO I'M JUST KEEPING THIS IN ORDER. 
          WE HAD, UH, 2 4 1 AGAINST. 
          SO NOW, UH, DO WE HAVE ANOTHER, UH, SPEAKER AGAINST, DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP? OKAY. 
          YOU WANNA SPEAK? SURE. 
          AND I'LL, I'LL TRY TO KEEP THIS VERY BRIEF. 
          I JUST, UM, WANNA FLAG THAT YOU, THE PART OF THE QUESTION AROUND HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS ALSO THE QUESTION AROUND WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THAT HISTORY THAT WE'RE PRESERVING AND FROM THE STORY THAT WE ARE TRYING TO TELL. 
          AND THIS IS A EXPENSIVE PLOT OF LAND. 
          IT, IT BELONGS TO AFFLUENT FOLKS IN A VERY AFFLUENT AND HISTORICALLY EXCLUSIONARY PART OF THE CITY WHERE, YOU KNOW, I THINK NOT MANY FOLKS OF COLOR COULD WALK AROUND AND, AND, AND, AND LOOK AT THE PROPERTY WITHOUT RISK OF BEING PROFILED IN SOME WAY. 
          UM, SO THERE IS THAT QUESTION ABOUT WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS DECISION. 
          THE OTHER PIECE THAT I WANNA FLAG IS, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I 
          [02:35:01]
WOULD LIKE TO, UM, INVITE ANY COMMISSIONER WHO BELIEVES THAT IN, YOU KNOW, RECENT MEMORY, WE HAVE VOTED DOWN A HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE IN A, UM, UNDERSERVED PART OF AUSTIN. 
          'CAUSE I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO BE REMINDED OF SUCH A CASE IF SUCH A CASE, UM, IN FACT, IF WE, IF WE DID IN FACT VOTE DOWN SUCH A CASE. 
          UM, SO I, I, I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A REAL SERIOUS EQUITY CONCERN. 
          YOU KNOW, POINTS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT THE PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS THAT WE WILL BE GIVING AWAY PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS THAT COULD BE USED TO BENEFIT AND IMPROVE PEOPLE'S LIVES IN OTHER PARTS OF TOWN. 
          AND SO MY QUESTION IS, HOW MUCH PUBLIC BENEFIT COMES FROM THESE TAX DOLLARS THAT WE'LL BE GIVING AWAY? ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, UH, WE HAVE ONE SPOT SPEAK IN FAVOR AGAINST. 
          DO WE NEED IT OR CAN WE TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ITEM? UH, COMM WELL, COMMISSIONER ISH, TAYLOR, YOU ALREADY SPOKE IN FAVOR. 
          SO, UM, WE'RE GONNA ONLY THOSE THAT HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK FLOOR. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, GO AHEAD. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, YOU HAD THE LAST SPEAKING OPPOSITION. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          UM, I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT ONE DAY REVISITING HOW WE DO HISTORICAL ZONINGS IN THIS CITY, BUT JUST FEELS WRONG. 
          THROWING A HISTORICAL DESIGNATION ON A TWO AND A HALF MILLION DOLLAR HOME, GIVING 'EM A TAX BREAK. 
          AND FOR ALL THE REASONS COMMISSIONERS ARE POINTED OUT IS ISN'T THE HOME THAT WAS ONCE THERE. 
          AND SO IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A A GREAT, HEY, GUYS, HOOK ME UP AND I WILL BE VOTING THOUGH ON THIS. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          LET'S GO AND, UH, TAKE A VOTE. 
          UH, THIS'S ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION,  AND COX. 
          UM, THOSE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND ON THE DIOCESE, UH, COMMISSIONERS SHAW, VICE HEMPEL, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, THOSE IN FAVOR ON THE SCREEN? UH, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER COX, COMMISSIONER MOTO, AND STILL ABSTAINING. 
          IT'S COMMISSIONER BARRETT RAMIREZ. 
          . 
          I WENT TO BANANAS. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          LET'S, UH, THOSE. 
          OH, COMMISSIONER. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S, UH, DO THE DS VERSUS VOTING OPPOSING THIS MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL GOTTA, THESE ARE THE NAMES I GOTTA READ OUT. 
          COMMISSIONER WOOD. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY. 
          COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          WE GOT, UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          COMMISSIONER CZAR. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          SO THAT'S, ARE WE AT FIVE THERE? YEAH. 
          AND THEN ON THE SCREEN WE HAVE COMMISSIONER HOWARD, AND THAT BRINGS US TO SIX. 
          SO OUR NUMBER IS 5 6 1 5 6 1. 
          SO THAT MOTION ALSO FAILS. 
          SO WE'RE, LOOKS LIKE WE'RE NOT ADVANCING OUR RECOMMENDATION. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          ALL. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WE'RE DONE WITH THAT ITEM. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, ALL RIGHT. 
          WHAT'S OUR NEXT ON THE AGENDA? UH, BRIEFING NUMBER 22. 
          OH, WE ARE MOVING ON TO THE BRIEFING. 
          OH, REALLY GOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, THOSE ARE ALL OUR DISCUSSION CASES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONERS. 
          IS STAFF READY FOR OH, ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND SO HOW MUCH TIME? UH, WE TYPICALLY GIVE SIX MINUTES, BUT OUR CHAIR COMMISSIONER, LA LIAISON ANDREW, SO THIS IS ACTUALLY A BRIEFING. 
          UH, SO, UM, THEY'LL BE ENTITLED TO 15 MINUTES. 
          15 MINUTES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ARE YOU ALL READY? YES. 
          YES. 
          PLEASE START. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S ABOUT A 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION, JUST SO YOU KNOW. 
          OH, THANK YOU. 
          . 
          OKAY, WELL, I PROBABLY HAVE PLENTY OF QUESTIONS. 
          SO, , GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          I'M JORDAN FELDMAN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER, AND WITH ME IS PAUL BOOK SENIOR PLANNER, AND WE'RE BOTH REPRESENTING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          TODAY WE'RE HERE TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON C 20 20 23 0 0 1 CHILDCARE SERVICES CODE AMENDMENT. 
          THE CODE AMENDMENT PROPOSAL IS SCHEDULED FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 26. 
          OUR PRESENTATION WILL COVER THE PROPOSED CODE CHANGES ALIGNING WITH THE COUNCIL'S RESOLUTION AND ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONERS DURING THE CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE ON AUGUST 16TH. 
          IN RESPONSE TO A RESOLUTION PASSED IN OCTOBER, 2018, 
          [02:40:02]
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED THE CITY MANAGER TO EVALUATE FEE AND ZONING REGULATIONS FOR CHILDCARE CENTERS. 
          THE GOAL WAS TO ENHANCE AFFORDABLE AND HIGH QUALITY CHILDCARE OPTIONS WITHIN THE CITY. 
          SUBSEQUENTLY, THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IN AUSTIN, PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENTS COLLABORATED ON A REPORT CONTAINING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. 
          IN JANUARY, 2023, COUNCIL APPROVED A RESOLUTION FOCUSED ON EXPANDING CITYWIDE CHILDCARE SERVICES. 
          THE RESOLUTION INVOLVES AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO FACILITATE THE EXPANSION OF CHILDCARE SERVICES THROUGHOUT THE CITY. 
          KEY POINTS IN THE RESOLUTION, WHICH ARE LISTED HERE ON THE SLIDE, INCLUDE INTRODUCING A ZONING USE, CLASSIFICATION AND DEFINITION FOR CHILDCARE SERVICES, REMOVING NON-ACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AND ENABLING CHILDCARE SERVICES AS AN ACCESSORY USE. 
          IN RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED CHANGES ALSO INVOLVE RAISING MAXIMUM ENROLLEES, ENHANCING ACCESSIBILITY THROUGH ZONING, DISTRICT MODIFICATIONS, ALLOWING SERVICES AND CHILDCARE, UNDERSERVED ZONES OR CHILDCARE DESERTS, AND REFINING THE SUITABILITY OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. 
          THE RESOLUTION ALSO DIRECTS PROHIBITING CHILDCARE SERVICES IN UNSUITABLE ZONING DISTRICTS. 
          THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WERE INCLUDED BY COMMISSIONERS OF THE CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE ON AUGUST 16TH. 
          THEY'RE LISTED ON THIS SLIDE. 
          THE FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION INCORPORATES THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS IN THIS LIST. 
          NUMBER ONE, PERMITTING ADULT CARE SERVICES IN ALL ZONES WHERE CHILDCARE SERVICES ARE PROPOSED TO BE PERMITTED. 
          NUMBER TWO, REQUIRING A C U P OR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CHILDCARE SERVICES IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. 
          NUMBER FOUR, ADDING CHILDCARE AND ADULT CARE SERVICES AS A PERMITTABLE GROUND FLOOR USE IN V M U DEVELOPMENTS. 
          NUMBER SIX, REPLACING DAYTIME WITH LESS THAN 24 HOURS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF CHILDCARE SERVICES. 
          AND NUMBER EIGHT, ENSURING THE USE DOES NOT TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY. 
          THE FOLLOWING CODE AMENDMENTS WERE EITHER MODIFIED OR PROPOSED TO NOT BE INCLUDED WITH THE STAFF. 
          RECOMMENDATIONS NUMBER THREE ON THIS LIST. 
          AFTER THOROUGH CONSIDERATION, IT WAS DECIDED NOT TO INCLUDE SPECIFIC DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS IN THE STAFF. 
          RECOMMENDATION NUMBER FIVE, TO ELIMINATE OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR ADULT CARE SERVICES WILL BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE CODE AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS CITYWIDE THAT WILL BE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN OCTOBER. 
          AND NUMBER SEVEN WAS MODIFIED TO INCLUDE CHILDREN 18 AND BELOW INSTEAD OF 13 AND BELOW WITH STATE AND FEDERAL EXEMPTIONS. 
          UH OH AND OH, THERE IT GOES. 
          OKAY. 
          PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE DEFINITION AND ENROLLEE LIMITS INCLUDE REDEFINING DAYCARE SERVICES AS CHILDCARE SERVICES, AND IN INCREASING THE ENROLLEE LIMITS FOR LIMITED CHILDCARE SERVICES TO 12 CHILDREN OR LESS GENERAL CHILDCARE SERVICES TO MORE THAN 12, BUT NOT MORE THAN 24 CHILDREN AND COMMERCIAL CHILDCARE SERVICES TO MORE THAN 24 CHILDREN. 
          THESE CHANGES MET THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION AND ALIGNED LIMITED CHILDCARE SERVICES WITH STATE LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR AT-HOME PROVIDERS. 
          THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAND USE CHART THAT WILL EXPAND THE ALLOWANCE OF CHILDCARE SERVICES. 
          IN MOST OF THE CITY'S ZONING DISTRICTS, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR COMMERCIAL AND GENERAL CHILDCARE SERVICES. 
          IN THE DEVELOPMENT RESERVE, AGRICULTURAL, INDUSTRIAL PARK, MAJOR INDUSTRY, AND LIMITED INDUSTRIAL SERVICES ZONING DISTRICTS, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR LIMITED DAYCARE SERVICES AND THE COMMERCIAL RECREATION DEVELOPMENT RESERVE AGRICULTURAL AND MAJOR INDUSTRY ZONING DISTRICTS. 
          IN ADDITION, A NEW ADULT CARE SERVICES USE AND DEFINITION WILL BE MODELED ON THE EXISTING DAYCARE SERVICES DEFINITION AND ENROLLING CAPS FOR PERSONS 18 YEARS AND OLDER. 
          SOME ADDITIONAL PROPOSED CHANGES ARE TO UPDATE ALL REGULATING PLANS TO MATCH THE CODE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED. 
          THE CITY HAS SEVERAL THAT WILL NEED TO BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE CHANGES PROPOSED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. 
          STAFF IS ALSO PROPOSING CHILDCARE SERVICES LIMITED TO BE ADDED AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A PRINCIPAL RESIDENTIAL USE AND TO A PRINCIPAL COMMERCIAL OR CIVIC USE. 
          SORRY, THAT SLIDE GOT CUT OFF. 
          OKAY. 
          STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND A ADDITIONAL MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL USES. 
          THE RATIONALE BEHIND THIS DECISION WAS TO ALLEVIATE THE BURDEN ON BOTH STAFF AND APPLICANTS AS IDENTIFYING AND ADHERING TO DISTANCE LIMITATIONS FOR INCOMPATIBLE USES POSES CHALLENGES, MINIMUM STANDARDS TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELLBEING OF CHILDREN AND CARE ARE MAINTAINED BY THE 
          [02:45:01]
TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION. 
          THESE MINIMUM STANDARDS INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS TO ADDRESS HAZARDS ON SITE. 
          PAUL BOOK, SENIOR PLANNER WILL TAKE OVER NOW TO EXPLAIN THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CHILDCARE SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY CITYWIDE AND CONCLUDE THE PRESENTATION. 
          IS THIS WORKING? YES, IT'S WORKING. 
          COOL. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANKS JORDAN. 
          UM, IN THE JANUARY RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO MAKE CHILDCARE SERVICES PERMITTED IN DISTRICTS WHERE DAYCARE CURRENTLY REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL WHERE DAYCARE WAS NOT PERMITTED, AS WELL AS RESTRICT CHILDCARE SERVICES WITHIN INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. 
          THE MAPS ON THE NEXT THREE SLIDES SHOW THE PROPOSED AREAS WHERE CHILDCARE SERVICES IS PERMITTED IN GREEN, CONDITIONAL IN YELLOW, AND THEN NOT PERMITTED IN RED. 
          UM, BASED IN PART ON CODES AND ORDINANCES. 
          JOINT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION, CHILDCARE SERVICES LIMITED, WHICH IS UP TO 20, OR EXCUSE ME, 12 CHILDREN OR LESS, IS NOW PROPOSED TO ONLY REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN MAJOR INDUSTRY, UM, AND WILL NOT AND WILL BE PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL PARK AND LIMITED IN INDUSTRIAL, UM, CHILDCARE SERVICES GENERAL IS NOW PROPOSED TO BE CONDITIONAL IN ALL ZONING IN ALL INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE. 
          OVERALL, THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE DISTRICTS WHERE THIS USE IS NOW PERMITTED AND THE DECREASE IN THE NEED FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 
          THERE WAS AN OVER 150% INCREASE IN THE AREA WHERE CHILDCARE SERVICES GENERAL IS PERMITTED AND ABOUT A 70% DECREASE IN THE NEED FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 
          UM, SIMILAR TO CHILDCARE SERVICES. 
          GENERAL CHILDCARE SERVICES COMMERCIAL WILL BE, WILL BE CONDITIONAL IN ALL INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND ALSO SAW A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE DISTRICTS WHERE IT WILL BE A PERMITTED USE. 
          UM, AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH THE TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE MOST EFFICIENT AND CONSISTENT WAY TO REMOVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH CHILDCARE AND ADULT CARE SERVICES WAS THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE ELIMINATION OF A MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL USES. 
          UM, WITHIN THAT AMENDMENT, PROVISIONS RELATED TO REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSIBLE SPACES WILL BE INCLUDED AS WAS DESCRIBED IN THE BRIEFING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON AUGUST 29TH. 
          THE ELIMINATION OF MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS AMENDMENT WILL BE UP FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AND COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ON NOVEMBER 2ND. 
          UM, PLANNING STAFF RECOMMEND THE DESCRIBED MODIFICATIONS TO LAND USE DEFINITIONS AND ZONING DISTRICT PERMITTED USES IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE AVAILABILITY OF C CHILDCARE SERVICES THROUGHOUT THE CITY. 
          UM, AND ON THE TIMELINE, WE HAVE PRESENTED THIS PROPOSAL TO THE EARLY CHILDHOOD COUNCIL AND CODES NO'S JOINT COMMITTEE. 
          UM, WE WILL BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 26TH, AS JORDAN MENTIONED, AND THEN TO CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 19TH. 
          UM, AND IN THE BACKUP FOR THE SEPTEMBER 26TH MEETING, WE WILL BE INCLUDING THE STAFF REPORT AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT, AND RED LINE CHANGES. 
          UM, AND THAT WILL INCORPORATE ALL THESE CHANGES MADE SINCE THE CODES ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE MEETING. 
          UM, AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          SO WE HAVE TIME FOR Q AND A. 
          UM, AND WHO WANTS TO GET US STARTED? I, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. 
          I'LL GO AND KICK THINGS OFF AND THEN, UM, GO FROM THERE. 
          SO THE, YOU TALKED INITIALLY ABOUT UNSUITABLE DISTRICTS, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY RED, UH, WITH THE PROPOSED. 
          ARE THERE NO LONGER ANY UNSUITABLE DISTRICTS OR ARE THEY STILL OUT THERE THAT THEY WERE JUST NOT SHOWN ON THE MAPS? SO THAT'S GONNA BE ADDRESSED BY MAKING INDUSTRIAL ZONINGS CONDITIONAL. 
          UM, SO THAT IS HOW WE WERE ADDRESSING THAT. 
          AT FIRST, WHEN WE BROUGHT THIS RECOMMENDATION TO CODES AND JOINT COMMITTEE, WE HAD INDUSTRIAL AS, UM, NOT PERMITTED. 
          UM, AND BASED OFF OF CODES ANNOYANCE AS JOINT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION, IT IS NOW A CONDITIONAL USE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN I WAS A LITTLE CON THE ADULT, UH, WHAT'S THE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE ADULT DAYCARE? IT'S, SO IT'S TAKING THE CURRENT DAYCARE SERVICES USE AND TURNING IT INTO ADULT CARE SERVICES, AND IT'S TO SEPARATE CHILDCARE AND ADULT CARE AND ADULT CARE WILL HAVE, AND THAT'S PART OF THIS EFFORT HERE? YES. 
          UH, OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          YES, IT WAS PART OF THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION. 
          AND DOES IT, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY ANY CHANGE IN THE CONDITIONS OR ARE THEY PART OF THE, THE SAME AS THE CURRENT CODE, THEY'RE GOING TO REFLECT THE EXISTING DAYCARE ENROLLING CAPS, BUT AFTER A C O J C RECOMMENDATION, THEY'RE GOING TO, THAT USE WILL BE PERMITTED EVERYWHERE THAT CHILDCARE IS PERMITTED. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN, UM, 
          [02:50:01]
THE, WHEN YOU COMMENT ABOUT ADDITIONAL MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS, SO TO ME THAT READS THAT THERE IS A CURRENT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT, SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO ADD TO THAT, OR ARE WE ELIMINATING DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS ALTOGETHER? SO, UM, THERE ARE CURRENT DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE HOLD PERMIT HOLDERS AS WELL AS ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES. 
          UM, THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION BY THE CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE TO REVIEW OTHER COMMERCIAL USES AND THEN CREATE NEW MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE COM COMMERCIAL USES. 
          UM, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH. 
          BUT THE EXISTING ONES ON, UH, T A B C PERMIT HOLDERS AND ALCOHOLIC, OR EXCUSE ME, ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES WILL REMAIN, ARE THOSE CITY OR STATE REQUIREMENTS? UM, THOSE ARE CITY. 
          CITY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, OKAY, I GET IT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UM, FIRST I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR REALLY WORKING THROUGH THESE. 
          UM, I THINK WE HAD QUITE A DETAILED DISCUSSION AT JOINT CODES AND ORDINANCES, AND IT'S REALLY GREAT TO SEE THOSE MAPS. 
          AND I WAS ACTUALLY ASKING, WONDERING IF WE COULD BRING THEM BACK UP BECAUSE, UM, I FIRST OF ALL WANT TO REALLY THANK COMMISSIONER FUENTES OR COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCILWOMAN, UH, FUENTES FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. 
          UM, FOR THOSE OF WHO MAY NOT BE AWARE OR DON'T HAVE KIDS, CHILDCARE IS A CRUSHING COST FOR A LOT OF FAMILIES IN, IN THE CITY AND ACROSS THE STATE. 
          UH, IT'S PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES. 
          SO I JUST AM OVERJOYED HONESTLY, TO SEE THESE MAPS AND SEE HOW MUCH EASIER IT WILL BE TO CREATE NEW DAYCARE SPACES IN THE CITY, WHICH HOPEFULLY WILL ALLOW US TO LOWER COSTS AND MAKE CHILD CHILDCARE MORE ACCESSIBLE IN GENERAL. 
          UM, I ALSO REALLY DO WANNA THANK THE, UH, STAFF FOR WORKING THROUGH SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS. 
          ONE OF THE THINGS WE ADDRESSED WAS DATE, DAYTIME VERSUS NIGHTTIME. 
          WE KNOW THAT IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS, DAYCARE IS REQUIRED FOR, UM, DURING OFF HOURS, ESPECIALLY FOR NURSES OR FOLKS WHO WORK IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY, OTHER SITUATIONS. 
          SO HAVING MORE 24 HOUR DAYCARES IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT'S PROBABLY MORE PERMISSIBLE NOW. 
          SO THAT'S ANOTHER GREAT IMPROVEMENT. 
          SO JUST WONDERFUL TO SEE THIS AND EXCITED TO BRING IT FORWARD TO COUNCIL AND EXCITED TO SEE WHAT IMPACT THIS HAS GOING FORWARD. 
          SO THANKS A LOT. 
          WE APPRECIATE IT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, ANYONE ELSE? MR. COX? I'M JUST CURIOUS. 
          UM, I, I CERTAINLY HAVE NO ISSUES WITH WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED. 
          IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. 
          BUT, UH, I'M CURIOUS IF STAFF ENGAGED ANY STAKEHOLDERS IN, IN THE CHILDCARE INDUSTRY AND, AND TRIED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT BARRIERS TO HAVING CHILDCARE BUSINESSES. 
          'CAUSE I'M KIND OF CURIOUS IF THIS IS REALLY ONE OF THEM OR IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THE CITY SHOULD BE LOOKING AT TO HELP PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE, UH, CHILDCARE BUSINESSES IN THE CITY. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER COX. 
          AND WE DID TAKE THIS PRESENTATION TO THE EARLY CHILDHOOD COUNCIL AND PRESENT AND, UM, WERE ASKED QUESTIONS, BUT NOT VERY MANY AT THAT MEETING. 
          BUT THAT IS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THAT WE HAVE DONE FOR THIS ITEM, EXCEPT FOR ALSO A PUBLIC INPUT PAGE WHERE PEOPLE CAN SUBMIT QUESTIONS IF THEY HAVE THEM. 
          AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY QUESTIONS FROM THAT PAGE. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, THAT'S A GOOD SIGN THAT IT'S AN UNCONTROVERSIAL THING TO DO. 
          SO KEEP GOING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANYONE ELSE? MR. HAYES? MR. CHAIRMAN, THE ONLY PLUG I'LL PUT IN IS, UH, I HOPE STAFF, I HOPE Y'ALL GET THIS TO COUNCIL, UH, BEFORE NOVEMBER THE SEVENTH. 
          UH, AND, AND MY PLUG IS ON NOVEMBER THE SEVENTH. 
          UH, PROPOSITION TWO ON THE BALLOT IS TO, UH, OFFER A PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR ALL CHILDCARE SERVICES ACROSS THE STATE. 
          EARLY POLLING HAS IT UP 72%. 
          UM, IT IS, WE ARE FACING A, I AM, I'M SO GLAD. 
          MINE ARE 24 AND 21. 
          WE ARE FACING A CHILDCARE CRISIS AND WE'RE ABOUT TO USE, WE'RE ABOUT TO LOSE, UH, FEDERAL DOLLARS AND IT'S GONNA EXACERBATE IT. 
          AND THE CITY AND THE STATE AND THE COUNTY AND EVERYBODY ELSE NEEDS TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO ADDRESS THE CRISIS. 
          THAT'S ABOUT TO HIT FOLKS THAT HAVE KIDS. 
          AND, UM, PLEASE VOTE, PLEASE VOTE. 
          I'LL STOP THERE BEFORE I GET IN TROUBLE. 
          . 
          ALL RIGHT, MR. ARD, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? UM, CHAIR, IT'S MORE FOR COMMENT. 
          I JUST WANNA DO SPECIFY. 
          SO, UH, ONE, I REALLY DO WANNA THANK STAFF FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS. 
          I THINK THIS IS A GREAT ITEM AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE THOUGHTFULNESS THAT THEY'VE PUT IN RESPONSE TO, UM, THE AMENDMENTS THAT C O 
          [02:55:01]
J C HAD RECOMMENDED. 
          AND REALLY WHAT WE SAW AT C O J C WAS THAT BASED ON SORT OF THE WAY COUNCIL HAD INITIATED THIS, WE WERE ENDING UP WITH SORT OF A VERY DIFFERENT REGIME FOR CHILDCARE SERVICES VERSUS ADULT CARE SERVICES. 
          AND WE HAD A PRETTY ROBUST CONVERSATION AT THE COMMITTEE TALKING ABOUT HOW ADULT CARE SERVICES IS GOING TO BECOME A BIGGER AND BIGGER NEED AS WE HAVE AN AGING POPULATION IN THIS CITY AND NATION. 
          AND SO WITHIN THAT, IT MADE SENSE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME OF THOSE CHANGES. 
          AND NOW WE SEE A LOT MORE ALIGNMENT AND AGAIN, USING CONDITIONAL USES, UH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO ENSURE THAT WHILE WE'RE PROTECTING CERTAIN KINDS OF SPACES AND USES, WE'RE ALSO ALLOWING FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO, UH, DO THAT KIND OF WORK FROM A PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO CONTEXTUALIZE SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HAPPENED AT C O J C, UM, BECAUSE WE REALLY DID SPEND QUITE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME ON THIS, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE STAFF'S WORK IN RESPONSE TO THAT. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          OKAY, ANY QUESTIONS? STAFF HERE TODAY? ALRIGHT, ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, AND WHEN DOES THIS COME BACK TO US? UM, FOR A VOTE? NEXT MEETING NEXT WEEK, THE, THE 26TH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT'LL BE AT THE NEXT MEETING. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WELL, I SO APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY. 
          THANK YOU MUCH. 
          UH, IT WAS A VERY GOOD PRESENTATION. 
          I APPRECIATE IT. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UM, WE ARE NOW ON ITEMS FROM THE 
          [ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION]
COMMISSION. 
          WE HAVE, THIS IS ITEM 23 THROUGH 26. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO WE HAVE A COUPLE ITEMS HERE. 
          LET'S SEE, UH, 2 23 AND 24 RELATED TO TELEWORK. 
          UM, DO WE WANNA TALK ABOUT THESE TOGETHER, UH, INITIALLY JUST, UH, 'CAUSE THEY SEEM TO BE RELATED. 
          SO MR. ARD, YOU, YOU LOOK LIKE, UH, UH, YOU'RE THIS MONTH OR ONE OF 'EM ON THE SECOND ONE. 
          DO YOU WANNA KIND OF, UM, TALK ABOUT THESE TWO OR, SURE. 
          AND I CAN ALLOW, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON OR ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK. 
          I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I'M FINE WITH HAVING A DISCUSSION ON BOTH OF THEM TOGETHER, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SPLIT THE MOTION ON THOSE TWO. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          SO LET'S, UH, LET'S GO TO THE FIRST ONE. 
          DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ESTABLISHING A TELEWORK POLICY WORKING GROUP TASK WITH PROVIDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND CODE AMENDMENTS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION. 
          OKAY. 
          I HAVE A, UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TALK ABOUT THAT. 
          WHO WANTS TO QUEUE THAT UP? KIND OF WHAT'S THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS WORKING GROUP? COMMISSIONER CONLEY? YES. 
          UH, WE HEARD IN THE PREVIOUS SPECIAL CALLED MEETING PRESENTATION FROM THE COUNTY ON THEIR TELEWORK POLICY, AND THERE WERE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT WE WERE NOT, THAT WE STILL HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO HAVE ANSWERED, UM, HOWEVER, UM, BY OUR, UM, STAFF AROUND SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WE ASKED. 
          HOWEVER, ONE THING IS CLEAR. 
          UM, WE HAVE VERY SPECIFIC GOALS AS A COMMUNITY IN OUR STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN AND IN OUR OTHER PLANS THAT SPEAK TO THE REDUCTION OF, UH, COMMUTES WITH SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLES IN AUSTIN. 
          AND SO, UM, IF THE CITY EMPLOYS 17,000 PEOPLE AND, YOU KNOW, OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE HAVING MEETINGS AND DOING OTHER THINGS, THE IMPACTS OF A TELEWORK POLICY, UM, WILL SPEAK DIRECTLY TO OUR STRATEGIC MOBILITY GOALS, OUR CLIMATE EQUITY GOALS, AND OTHER CITY POLICIES. 
          UM, SO I THINK AS A PLANNING COMMISSION AND AS THE STEWARD OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UM, THAT'S PART OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY. 
          WE SHOULD BE REVIEWING THOSE GOALS AND FORWARDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, ANY OTHERS WANNA SPEAK TO THIS? UM, WORKING GROUP PROPOSAL, COMMISSIONER COX. 
          AND THEN DO WE HAVE SOMEONE, IT LOOKS SOMEBODY FROM STAFF HERE. 
          UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO RECOGNIZE. 
          NO. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, ALL RIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONER COX. 
          I THINK COX, I THINK WE DO HAVE SOMEONE FROM STAFF. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF. 
          YOU'RE ON THE SCREEN. 
          I'M JUST, HI, THIS IS APRIL JSO. 
          I'M A DIVISION MANAGER WITH THE LONG RANGE PLANNING DIVISION. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I OVERSEE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TEAMS, INCLUDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TEAM, UM, AND IMAGINE AUSTIN. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, THANK YOU. 
          WE MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. 
          APPRECIATE IT. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER COX, GO AHEAD. 
          YEAH, I, I JUST WANTED TO SAY I AM A HUGE FAN OF FLEXIBLE WORKPLACE POLICIES, UM, AND I VERY MUCH TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT, UH, IN MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE. 
          UM, BUT I, I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THOSE WHO, WHO KIND OF SPEARHEADING THIS IS, IS HAVING THAT SORT OF POLICY IN THE CODE WHERE IT TYPICALLY IS? UM, I'M, I'M JUST CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, I, I WANT TO ADVOCATE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND DEVELOP REALLY GOOD PLAN FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS IF, IF, UH, CODE AMENDMENTS ARE 
          [03:00:01]
SOMETHING THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR LIKE HR POLICY TYPE THINGS, AND ALSO I WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO ADAPT, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, THEY'RE HUMAN RESOURCE POLICIES FOR A CHANGING INDUSTRY, A CHANGING WORKFORCE. 
          AND SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WHATEVER WE DO DECIDE TO DO, WE'RE MINDFUL OF, OF THAT AND MAKING SURE WE, WE HAVE FLEXIBILITY FOR THE CITY BE TO BE ABLE TO MOVE QUICKLY ON THOSE THINGS. 
          MAY I PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION? YEAH. 
          SO I, I'M GONNA, UM, I THINK THIS WOULD BE A GOOD QUESTION FOR THE STAFF WE HAVE HERE, BUT ALSO WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER. 
          UM, CONNOLLY, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS TO CREATE A WORK GROUP WHICH WOULD EVALUATE THE, THE GOALS, UM, THAT THE CITY ALREADY HAS IN ITS PLANS, AND TO EVALUATE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE TELEWORK POLICY AND TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          SO THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, IS TO CREATE A WORK GROUP THAT WOULD DO THAT WORK. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HERE IS PROPOSING ANY KIND OF CODE CHANGES AT THIS POINT IN TIME. 
          AND SO I JUST WANT US TO BE GROUNDED IN EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DOING HERE. 
          YEAH. 
          I THINK IT'S, IT'S IN, IT'S AN OPTION, BUT IT'S NOT, NOBODY'S, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S PART OF THE WORKING GROUP. 
          THEY WILL DECIDE. 
          WE CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, . 
          OKAY. 
          SO ANYTHING, I MEAN, AS FAR AS, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, JUST FOR STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY CURRENT GOALS AROUND TELEWORK CURRENTLY? ANY TARGETS, ANYTHING THAT SPEAKS TO TELEWORK, UM, ALREADY IN OUR CONFERENCE PLAN, UH, DIRECTLY IN IMAGINE AUSTIN? THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS NO, BUT, UH, THE A S M P, THE, UM, STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN IS AN AMENDMENT TO IMAGINE AUSTIN. 
          SO INDIRECTLY THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS YES. 
          UM, A S M P DOES, UM, MENTION TELEWORK SPECIFICALLY AS A AND TARGET. 
          SO DOES IT HAVE A NUMERICAL TARGET MM-HMM. 
           A NUMBER, UM, THAT I AM NOT CERTAIN ABOUT, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY GET BACK. 
          ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER ZA. 
          SURE. 
          IF I MIGHT SPEAK TO THAT. 
          SO YES, THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN, WHICH OF COURSE IS AN AMENDMENT TO IMAGINE AUSTIN VERY CLEARLY STATES THAT WE HAVE A MODE SHARE OF 50%, UM, OF PEOPLE WALKING BICYCLE, CELTIC TRANSIT, OR ANY OTHER NON DRIVE ALONE. 
          PART OF THAT GOAL WAS ACTUALLY TO MOVE FROM 8% OF TELEWORK EMPLOYEES TO 14%. 
          SO WE HAVE A GOAL OF REACHING 14% OF ALL, UM, SORT OF FOLKS IN AUSTIN, UH, YOU KNOW, EMPLOYING TELEWORK POLICY. 
          SO WE HAVE THAT GOAL, AND THE IDEA IS HOW DO WE SORT OF ALIGN US AS CARETAKERS OR FROM IMAGINE AUSTIN AND THE AMENDMENTS TO IT, HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT WE'RE ALIGNED WITH THOSE POLICY GOALS THAT ARE ALREADY HIGHLIGHTED IN A S M P IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT TELEWORK IS BROUGHT UP AS A GOAL AS IT RELATES TO THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN AND OUR C O TWO MISSIONS AS A CITY. 
          UM, AND THEN ACTUALLY TELEWORK ITSELF IS EVEN MENTIONED WITHIN IMAGINE AUSTIN AS SORT OF A TOOL TO EXPLORE WITH, AGAIN, THE CLARITY THAT I THINK A LOT OF THESE PLANS WERE ADOPTED PRE PANDEMIC. 
          AND I THINK OUR ENTIRE NOTION AS A, AS A WORLD HAVE CHANGED AROUND TELEWORK. 
          SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN ALIGN SOME OF THOSE THINGS WITH OUR EXISTING PLANS. 
          AND THE IDEA IS FOR, UM, US AS PLANNING COMMISSION TO UTILIZE ALL THE TOOLS THAT ARE AVAILABILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS THOSE GOALS. 
          SO I'M READING TELE POLICY. 
          SO THIS IS TELEWORK POLICY WORKING GROUP ONLY GOING TO FOCUS ON THE CITY STAFF'S POLICY. 
          'CAUSE I THINK YOU, WHAT YOU WERE SPEAKING TO IS A BROAD KINDA CITYWIDE, BUT THIS IS TARGETED TOWARD THE CITY TELEWORK POLICY, MUCH LIKE THE COUNTY HAD THEIRS. 
          IT'S HELPING CRAFT OUR, I I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT, UM, ANY GOALS THAT THE CITY HAS FOR THIS COMMUNITY AT LARGE, THE CITY ALSO TAKES STEPS INTERNALLY TO ALIGN ITS OWN POLICIES TO REFLECT AND ALIGN WITH ITS OWN GOALS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          YES. 
          AND I'M LETTING THIS THING REALLY GET FREE FORM. 
          GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER ZA, IF I CAN RESPOND TO THAT THING. 
          ALSO, JUST VERY QUICKLY, I THINK ONE THING THAT'S WORTH MENTIONING IS, YOU KNOW, AS MUCH AS WE WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT HOW PRIVATE EMPLOYERS MIGHT, YOU KNOW, THINK ABOUT THESE POLICIES, WE CAN WORK TOWARDS THOSE TWO INCENTIVES OR OTHER MEANS, BUT WE CERTAINLY CANNOT, UM, SHAPE THAT VERSUS THE CITY ITSELF. 
          OF COURSE, WE HAVE A LOT MORE ABILITY TO SHAPE THE POLICIES OF THE CITY SIMILAR TO THE WAY THE COUNTY HAS DONE. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY, IF WE CAN WORK AS A CITY, BUT EVEN IN PARTNERSHIP WITH OTHER PUBLIC SECTOR PARTNERS TO SEE HOW DO WE ACHIEVE THIS 14% GOAL AND HOW DO WE MOVE TOWARDS THIS? AND I SEE COMMISSIONER HAYNES HAS HIS HAND UP TOO. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          YEAH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M GONNA GO DIRECTLY TO COMMISSIONER CONNOLLY'S MOTION, WHICH IS TO FOCUS ON THE WORK GROUP, NOT THE SPECIFICS OF THE POLICY. 
          AND, AND MY QUESTION WOULD BE, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, YOU AND I AND COMMISSIONER COX AND QUASI COMMISSIONER AZAR AND WHEN HE'S THERE, AND, AND HE MIGHT BE, BUT ANYWAY, WE'RE, WE'RE ON THE C 
          [03:05:01]
P J C, THANK YOU APRIL FOR BEING HERE. 
          UM, WHY, WHY THE WORK GROUP? WHY WOULDN'T WE JUST HANDLE THIS IN THE CCP SINCE IT'S IMAGINE AUSTIN AND A S M P, THOSE THINGS THAT COME THROUGH OUR, OUR COMMITTEE. 
          I'M NOT OPPOSED TO TAKING IT UP IN THAT SPACE. 
          I JUST THINK I, I, MY MAIN CONCERN IS TIMELINE. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE MAKE FOR THEM TO BE RELEVANT TO DISCUSSIONS THE CITY IS HAVING, HAVE TO ALIGN WITH THE TIMELINE AROUND THESE DISCUSSIONS TAKING PLACE AT THE CITY. 
          SO I WOULDN'T WANT IT TO GET FOLDED INTO A LENGTHIER DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ENTIRETY OF THE CITY'S LONG RANGE PLANNING. 
          IF IT CAN BE FOCUSED AND IF WE CAN ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, ADVANCE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE CAN BRING FORWARD TO COUNCIL RELATIVELY QUICKLY, UM, THEN I WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO THAT. 
          BUT I WOULD PREFER JUST FOR A MATTER OF SIMPLICITY TO JUST BE ABLE TO HAVE A MEETING WHERE WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THAT. 
          SO THE ADVANTAGE I THINK, UH, JUST IS THEY CAN MOVE, UH, SUB QUORUM PRETTY QUICKLY, HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO KIND OF BUILD, AND HOPEFULLY THEY COULD BRING THAT TO THE, UM, JOINT COMMITTEE, UH, THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE IT COMES TO PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          THAT WOULD BE IDEAL. 
          BUT WE ARE, SO WHAT, UH, ANY, SO I I, I'VE HEARD THAT, UM, CITY MANAGER AND IF, IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS PLANNING ON HAVING THEIR TELEWORK POLICY, WHICH AGAIN, THIS IS AT, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, UNLESS COUNCIL DECIDES THAT THEY WANNA SET A TARGET, UM, FOR CITY STAFF OR A TELEWORK POLICY TARGET FOR CITY STAFF, THAT THAT'S REALLY WITHIN THE CITY MANAGERS, KIND OF, THAT'S WHERE THEY KIND OF MADE THAT DECISION, UM, AT THAT LEVEL. 
          UH, SO, AND THERE, THE GOAL, I THINK WHAT I HEARD IS BY THE END, THE END OF THE YEAR. 
          SO, UM, KIND OF LOOKING AT, UH, DO YOU THINK THIS WORKING GROUP COULD GET THEIR WORK DONE? AND I DON'T KNOW WHO WANTS TO BE ON THIS MIGHT BE SOME OF THE FOLKS IN ITEM 24. 
          UM, IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN DO IN OCTOBER? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          YES, COMMISSIONER ZA AND, AND CHAIR CAN, IF I MIGHT SPEAK TO THAT. 
          I THINK ONE OF THE SORT OF GOOD THINGS ABOUT A WORKING GROUP IS THAT WE CAN THEN ACTUALLY HAVE CONVERSATION WITH STAFF TEAMS WHO MIGHT, WE'RE WORKING ON THIS IN A RELEVANT FASHION. 
          SO I THINK HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS IS REALLY IMPORTANT. 
          AGAIN, I THINK OUR PURVIEW IS VERY SPECIFIC TO LOOKING AT IMAGINE AUSTIN AND THE AMENDMENTS TO IT, UM, AND HOW IT RELATES TO SORT OF OUR PLANNING INITIATIVES AS A CITY. 
          I KNOW THERE'S GONNA BE A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION, LIKE YOU WERE SAYING AROUND HR AND OTHER THINGS, AND I'M SURE THERE'S OTHER BODIES AND OTHER FOLKS WHO ARE LOOKING AT ALL OF THOSE IMPORTANT POINTS AS WELL. 
          UM, BUT THIS ALLOWS US TO BE PART OF THAT CONVERSATION. 
          AND I WANNA SAY, REALLY WHAT SPURRED THIS A REMINDER IS THAT WE GOT SOME REALLY CRITICAL FEEDBACK FROM COMMUNITY. 
          WE'VE HAD TESTIMONY ON THIS, WE'VE HAD COMMUNICATION ON THIS. 
          AND SO IN SOME WAYS, WE'RE RESPONDING TO WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM THE COMMUNITY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UH, TRYING TO PUT UP 23, WRAP THIS ONE UP. 
          DO WE NEED TO, CAN WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS ONE BEFORE WE GO TO 24? DO WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT 24? WE CAN TALK ABOUT 24 LATER. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO, UM, HE WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION ON ITEM 23 TO FORM THE WORKING GROUP. 
          AND LET'S, UM, GO AHEAD AND LET'S GO AHEAD AND IDENTIFY THE MEMBERS AND LET'S, UH, IF THERE'S ANY DIFFERENCE FROM WHAT SCOPED HERE IN 23, IF WE WANNA BROADEN IT OR CHANGE IT. 
          LET'S NOTE THAT. 
          SO, UH, LET'S JUST QUICKLY, WHO WANTS TO BE ON THIS WORKING GROUP? COMMISSIONER, CZAR, COMMISSIONER WOODS HAYNES, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, UM, COMMISSIONER COX. 
          ANY OTHERS? COMMISSIONER CONLEY. 
          THAT'S, IS THAT FIVE? THAT'S FIVE. 
          AND THAT'S, THAT'S . 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S A GOOD NUMBER. 
          I'LL TRY MAX. 
          ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          SO, UH, A MOTION ON THIS, UH, INCLUDING THOSE MEMBERS. 
          SOMEBODY WANNA MAKE THAT MOTION? MR. WOODS, DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP? SURE. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN I MAKE ONE QUICK COMMENT BEFORE WE SURE. 
          UM, JUST, AND I'M SAYING THIS AS MUCH TO MYSELF AS TO ANYONE ELSE, BECAUSE WE'VE NOTED THE TIMELINESS OF THE NEED TO DO THIS. 
          ANYONE COMMITTING TO BE ON THIS, PLEASE MAKE IT EASY FOR US TO FIND THE TIME AND SCHEDULE THIS AND GET THIS DONE. 
          BECAUSE SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, MYSELF INCLUDED, WE VOLUNTEER TO BE ON WORK GROUPS AND THEN IT'S VERY HARD TO ACTUALLY SCHEDULE THINGS. 
          SO, AND I WOULD SAY GET AS MANY AS YOU CAN AND KEEP GOING. 
           UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? I'M GONNA BE, I'M GONNA BE WONKY WITH YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A MAJORITY OF THE, UH, CP P J C ON THIS WORK. 
          IT DOES. 
          I I THINK THIS BELONGS IN CCP, THAT ONE. 
          UM, I, I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR LET'S GET THIS DONE. 
          UM, BUT THIS IS, THIS IS CERTAINLY TERRITORY OF THE 
          [03:10:01]
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE AND WE GOT 'EM. 
          I, I'M OKAY WITH IT, BUT I'M JUST POINTING THAT OUT. 
          MR. RIVERA HAS SOMETHING TO SAY. 
          CHAIR COMMISSION LEES ON AND RIVERA SO I CAN CONFER WITH LEGAL, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IN THE PAST IT'S BEEN ADVISED THAT IF IT'S TO A SPECIFIC ITEM, UM, THAT THAT'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACO A C P T C AND THE WORKING GROUP WORKS FOR ME. 
          AND, AND WITH THE, WITH THE CAVEAT THAT HOPEFULLY BY NEXT MEETING I WILL BE OFF CCPC . 
          UH, WE'LL KEEP WAITING FOR A NEW COMMISSIONER. 
          WE, WE ARE, YES. 
          YES. 
          BUT, UH, THE BIG POSSIBILITY THAT I MIGHT NOT BE THERE, UM, AND I'LL SAY JUST HISTORICALLY, YOU KNOW, WE TAKE UP ITEMS WITH WORKING GROUPS THAT ARE CAPTURED MORE BROADLY BY THESE JOINT COMMISSIONS AND, UH, AND THEY WORK TOGETHER AS THEY SHOULD. 
          SO HOPEFULLY THAT'LL HAPPEN HERE. 
          YEAH. 
          I'M NOT CONCERNED. 
          I'M JUST DISAPPOINTED OUT THE, YEAH. 
          UH, NOTED. 
          UH, SHE CHAIR COHEN. 
          OH, CHAIR COHEN WANTS TO JOIN AND SHE DOESN'T COUNT TOWARD, SHE DOESN'T, YES. 
          WELL, YOU COUNT, BUT NOT TOWARD THE COURT. 
          YEAH. 
          NOT TOWARDS THE COURT. 
          UH, CHAIR, COMMISSION LAY LIAISON, AND ANDREW RIVER. 
          WHILE WE ARE ON THAT TOPIC, UH, JUST A FRIENDLY REMINDER TO THE COMMISSION THAT OFFIC DO HAVE FULL PRIVILEGES DURING THE WORKING GROUP. 
          HEY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          YOU CAN VOTE ALL. 
          SO, UH, LET'S GO. 
          AND, UH, WE NEED A SECOND. 
          DO YEAH. 
          MAKE THE MOTION. 
          LET'S GET A SECOND. 
          UH, AND LET'S, IF, IF YOU WANT ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S ON? YEAH, I MIGHT. 
          AND 23, I BROADEN IT A LITTLE BIT, BUT MY MOTION WOULD BE TO ESTABLISH A WORKING GROUP CONSISTING OF COMMISSIONERS, A CZAR WOODS, HANES COX, CONNOLLY, MAXWELL, AND EX OFFICIO MEMBER COHEN, TO PROVIDE TELEWORK POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION. 
          BY WHICH DATE? BY OCTOBER 31ST. 
          THAT'S NOT A MEETING DATE, I PRAY. 
          OKAY. 
          DOES THAT, ARE WE, IF THAT'S A GOAL, BUT DO WE, IF WE SAY IT, DO WE HAVE TO MEET THAT DATE? OR IS THAT JUST, IS THERE A FLEXIBILITY JUST TO BE ON THE SAY SIDE? WE MIGHT WANT TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE VAGUE ON THAT. 
          SO JUST SAY WITH THE GOAL OF THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION AS WELL, THAT WE DON'T PUT A DATE ON IT. 
          AND THEN HOPEFULLY WE CAN TRY TO ACHIEVE THAT AND COME BACK IF WE NEED MORE TIME. 
          ALL DELIBERATE, ALL DELIBERATE SPEED. 
          THERE YOU GO. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          IT'S ALL DELIBERATE SPEED. 
          OKAY. 
          THE OFF THE RECORD GOAL BEING OCTOBER. 
          SO WE HAVE A SECOND. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UH, ANY, UH, OPPOSITION TO THIS WORKING GROUP BEING FORMED? UH, I DON'T SEE ANY, UH, ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, SO WE, 24. 
          UH, THIS ONE I NEED A LITTLE HELP WITH. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER AZAR, DO YOU WANNA GO FIRST CHAIR? HONESTLY, IF WE CAN TABLE THE DISCUSSION JUST TO MOVE ALONG THINGS FAST. 
          I KNOW WE'RE GETTING LATE HERE. 
          I, I WAS GONNA MAKE A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE THAT ITEM AND CONSIDER THAT, PARTICULARLY LET THE WORKING GROUP AT LEAST MEET ONCE AND THEN CONSIDER THAT AND COME BACK, UM, BECAUSE IT IS TRULY AN ACTION AND NOT SORT OF CONSIDERATION. 
          SO IF FOLKS DO NOT, IF FOLKS ARE FINE WITH THAT, THEN WE DO NOT NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THE ITEM AND WE CAN SIMPLY POSTPONE IT TO OUR NEXT MEETING AND CONSIDER IT. 
          THEN I WOULD LOVE FOR THE WORKING GROUP TO DIVE INTO THAT TOPIC AND BRING IT BACK. 
          SO, ARE WE OKAY WITH PASSING ON THAT ONE? OKAY. 
          NO OBJECTIONS. 
          UH, 25, UH, 25 AND 26. 
          DOES SOMEBODY WANT A, UM, VICE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER ZA, YOU TWO? DO YOU WANNA DESCRIBE THESE TWO? I CAN, YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          VICE CHAIR, UM, HERE I'M GONNA PULL UP AN EMAIL FROM, UM, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG WHO SERVES ON ZAP THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          UM, THIS CAME UP DURING OUR CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE MEETING. 
          UM, AND IT'S REALLY JUST HOUSEKEEPING ON CODE LANGUAGE. 
          UM, HOPEFULLY I'LL, WHEN I READ THIS, IT'LL MAKE MORE SENSE. 
          BUT THIS IS FOR ITEMS, UH, THE NEXT TWO ITEMS, THE 20. 
          OKAY. 
          24, 25. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE CITY COUNCIL PASSED A RESOLUTION, WHICH BOTH CODES AND ORDINANCES, JOINT COMMITTEE, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORTED TO ALLOW AMENDMENTS TO A FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO BE FILED AT ANY TIME. 
          STAFF HAS ALSO INFORMED C N O J C, THAT PHASE TWO OF THE N P A FILING DEADLINES CODE AMENDMENT WILL BE REMOVING THE SIMILAR FEBRUARY SLASH JULY DEADLINES FOR REQUESTING 25 DASH TWO DASH 7 66 0.23 AMENDMENTS TO STATION AREA PLANS. 
          SO ITEMS NUMBER 25 AND 26 PROPOSE THE REMOVAL OF FILING DEADLINES FOR 12 DASH FIVE DASH 29, FRONT OR SIDE YARD PARKING RESTRICTIONS, AND 25 DASH TWO DASH EIGHT 12 MOBILE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS. 
          ADDITIONAL DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS, C AND O J C VOTED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATE THESE CODE AMENDMENTS. 
          AND I DO 
          [03:15:01]
WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS A LOT OF WORK THAT STAFF IS WORKING ON NOW, A LONG LAUNDRY LIST OF VERY IMPORTANT CODE AMENDMENTS. 
          AND I KNOW WE DID TALK WITH STAFF ABOUT WHAT THIS WOULD MEAN TO THEIR WORKLOAD IN CLEANING UP THE REMOVAL OF THESE, UM, AMBIGUOUS, UH, FILING DEADLINES FOR THESE ITEMS. AND THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO FIT IT IN. 
          SO THAT'S WHY AT C AND O JC WHERE WE RECOMMENDED THE INITIATION, THE INITIATION HAS TO COME TO THIS BODY AND THEN IT STARTS MOVING THROUGH THE PROCESS. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE TONIGHT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY QUESTIONS ON, LET'S GO AND SEE IF WE CAN TAKE THESE TWO ITEMS UP TOGETHER, UH, TO SPEED THINGS ALONG. 
          ANY QUESTIONS ON THESE OR WE CAN, CAN WE MOVE TO A VOTE? ALL RIGHT. 
          AND THIS IS JUST THE INITIATE CODE NORTH LIGHT. 
          LET'S GO AND TAKE, WELL, LET'S JUST SAY THIS, UH, UM, DO YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND STATE A MOTION COMMISSION BY CHAIR HEMPEL? YEAH. 
          THE MOTION ON THE TABLE WOULD BE, UM, TO, UH, INITIATE CODE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE FEBRUARY DEADLINE FOR REQUESTING PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN 12 DASH FIVE DASH 29, FRONT OR SIDE YARD PARKING, AND INITIATE A CODE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE FEBRUARY DEADLINE FOR REQUESTING ADDITIONAL DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS IN 25 DASH TWO DASH EIGHT 12 MOBILE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS. 
          OKAY. 
          DO YOU WANNA BE THE MOTION MAKER ON THAT ONE? OKAY. 
          DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER AZAR, ANY OBJECTIONS? UH, FROM COUNCIL MEMBER? UH, SORRY, UH, COMMISSIONERS ON THIS ITEM, THESE TWO? I'M NOT SEEING ANY. 
          OKAY. 
          THOSE TWO PASS. 
          UM, MOVING ALONG, WE HAVE 27 THROUGH 28. 
          UH, THE NEXT ONE. 
          SO THIS ONE HELP ME OUT. 
          UM, MR. RIVERA, WE HAVE, THERE MAY BE SOME SPECIAL MEETINGS COMING UP. 
          UH, I'VE HEARD OF, UM, TALK ABOUT A JOINT MEETING WITH COUNCIL ON SOME CODE AMENDMENTS. 
          THAT'S ALL I KNOW. 
          SO WE NEED TO LOOK AT OUR OCTOBER, UM, CALENDAR. 
          I JUST, UH, OUR IN, I, I NEED TO APOLOGIZE TO STAFF. 
          'CAUSE TODAY I COULDN'T GET BACK TO THEM. 
          WE WERE TALKING ABOUT KIND OF THIS ITEM AND HOW TO, UH, WHAT DATES AND MAYBE WHAT ITEMS WE WANT TO HEAR ABOUT. 
          SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE TIME TO DO THIS THIS EVENING. 
          UM, BUT, UH, WE COULD MAYBE JUST GENERALLY TALK ABOUT SOME OCTOBER DATES THAT WE MIGHT WANNA SET ASIDE FOR SOME SPECIAL MEETINGS. 
          MR. RIVERA, IS THAT IN LINE WITH THIS ITEM? CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LADIES AND ANDREW RIVERA? SO WE, THERE ARE OPTIONS THAT CAN, UM, BE, UM, AS, UM, THAT BE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION SHOULD YOU DESIRE TO HAVE A, UH, SPECIAL CALLED, UM, YEAH. 
          SO, UM, I, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I THINK MORE ARE THERE ANY, UM, OF THE, ON THE STAFF TIMELINE, ANY, WE HAD A GREAT, I THINK, REALLY GOOD EXTRA MEETING AND WE GOT SOME REALLY GOOD INFORMATION ON, UH, QUITE A FEW TOPICS ARE, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT FOLKS HERE WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THAT'S KIND OF IN THE QUEUE, UH, THAT WE NEED MORE INFORMATION ON BEFORE IT COMES TO US? UH, COMMISSIONER ZA. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          THE, THE BIG ONE, SORT OF BEFORE DECEMBER, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT INDEED WILL BE COMING TO US BY DECEMBER OR NOT, IS REALLY THE SOUTH CENTER WATERFRONT REG REGULATING PLAN. 
          I THINK IT'S, IT'S A REGULATING PLAN. 
          REGULATING PLANES ARE USUALLY REALLY COMPLEX AND LARGE, SO WE SHOULD GIVE IT THE TIME THAT IT DESERVES. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, IS THAT ONE, UH, DO WE HAVE MR. RIVERA, IS THAT ANY, WE TARGET ANY TIMELINE FOR THAT TO COME TO US? I'M SORRY, WHICH SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT REGULATING PLAN. 
          SHERRY, IT IS IN THE TIMELINE TO COME AND I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE, UM, JORDAN COMING UP. 
          PLEASE COME UP AND SAY, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WAS SUPPOSED TO COME BY THIS DECEMBER, BUT I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE MORE COMPLEX. 
          OKAY. 
          I SEE A NOT GO AHEAD. 
          IT WILL NOT BE COMING BY DECEMBER. 
          WE'RE NOW TRYING TO SCHEDULE COUNSEL HEARING BY FEBRUARY. 
          JUST NEEDS A LITTLE BIT MORE WORK. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          WHAT'S ONE THING OFF OUR PLATE? . 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE REALLY, SO, UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER CODE THINGS THAT ARE IN THE STAFF QUEUE THAT, UH, FOLKS WOULD LIKE A PRESENTATION ON? SORRY, JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. 
          UM, WE GOT AN EMAIL EARLIER FROM OUR STAFF LIAISON, AND I ASSUME THAT THE, WHAT YOU SHARED WITH US, THAT'S WHAT WE EXPECT TO SEE BETWEEN NOW AND THE END OF THE YEAR. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? CHAIR COMMISSION LIAISON, ANDREW? 
          [03:20:01]
YEAH. 
          SO AT THE TOP OF YOUR EMAILS, UH, THIS EVENING, YOU SHOULD HAVE A, UH, A DOCUMENT THAT, UH, LAYS OUT THE CODE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE TO BE, UH, CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION FROM NOW TO THE END OF THE YEAR. 
          WHAT, UM, WHAT ABOUT THE NOTIFICATION MODIFICATION ITEM? IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE HERE, UH, NOVEMBER 28TH. 
          THE DESCRIPTION IS AMEND TITLE 25 TO MODIFY PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES. 
          OKAY. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST TO THE BROADER PUBLIC. 
          IS THAT SOMETHING UH, WELL, TRYING, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE OUR REGULAR MEETINGS, OF COURSE, I'M LOOKING AT, UH, IN OCTOBER. 
          YEAH, WE ONLY HAVE TWO MEETINGS, RIGHT. 
          10TH AND THE 24TH. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , IS THERE ANY INTEREST IN A SPECIALLY CALLED MEETING, UH, TO GET UPDATES CHAIR? IF I MAY, AND I'M SORRY, I'M COMPLICATING THIS A LITTLE BIT. 
          I THINK WHY CHAIR BRINGS UP A GOOD ONE. 
          THAT IS A GOOD ITEM TO BRING FORTH, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IT IS SORT OF A MINOR ISH AMENDMENT, OR AT LEAST IT'S A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD AMENDMENT, LET ME PUT IT THAT WAY. 
          UM, SO IT'S REALLY THE OUT OF CYCLE FILING CONVERSATION THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING AT COUNCIL. 
          SO I, I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ABSORB IT INTO OUR REGULAR MEETINGS SIMILAR TO THE WAY WE DID THE BRIEFING TODAY, HOPEFULLY. 
          OKAY. 
          IF NOT, THEN I, I THINK I WOULD CERTAINLY SUPPORT GOING TO AN EXTRA MEETING IF NECESSARY. 
          CAN WE, WE'LL JUST KEEP THIS ON THE AGENDA TO LOOK AT OPPORTUNITY OR THE NEED TO SCHEDULE ADDITIONAL MEETINGS ON CODE, PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS. 
          WE'LL KEEP THAT ON OUR AGENDA. 
          OKAY. 
          MR. MATTHEW? UM, YEAH, JUST AN, AND ALSO, MAYBE AN ADDITIONAL REQUEST IS AS WE COME CLOSER TO THE END OF THE YEAR, IF WE COULD THINK ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE COMING IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY SO THAT WE CAN DO THOSE BRIEFINGS THEORETICALLY BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR AND ARE READY FOR OUR 2024 CALENDAR. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ALRIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, WE'LL JUST KEEP THAT ONE ON THE AGENDA AND WE'LL, WE CAN MAYBE SEE WHAT, UH, COMES OUTTA COUNCIL, UH, AS THEY LOOK AT THEIR CODE SCHEDULE FOR CODE AMENDMENTS. 
          ALRIGHT, 28, THIS ONE, MS. SCH, UH, COMMISSIONER MS. MS. SCH COX, YOU WANNA GIVE US A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THIS ONE?  THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          AND TO CONFIRM WITH, UM, MR. RIVERA, WE HAVE SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM AS WELL. 
          CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LA LIAISON, AND RIVERA? YES. 
          SO, UM, WE'LL HAVE, UH, THE, UH, UH, PRESENTER, COMMISSIONER WEST TYLER, PRESENT THE ITEM, UH, FOR SIX MINUTES. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER COX, UH, BY THREE MINUTES, AND THEN WE WILL HEAR FROM THE, UH, SPEAKERS AT THREE MINUTES EACH. 
          OKAY. 
          CHAIR, WE'RE GONNA NEED TO EXTEND TIME. 
          YES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, OPPOSED WHAT YOUR MOTION IS. 
          UM, I'LL TAKE A, I MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND TO 10 30. 
          10 32ND BY COMMISSIONER ZA. 
          ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE. 
          ALL RIGHT, LET'S CONTINUE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, GREAT DISCUSSIONS TONIGHT. 
          THANK YOU TO THE COMMISSION. 
          I ALSO OWE A THANK YOU THAT I FORGOT TO STAFF FOR THE PRESENTATIONS THEY'VE BEEN GIVING US ON UPCOMING THINGS WE HEARD FROM LAST TIME. 
          WE'RE HEARING FROM TONIGHT. 
          THOSE ARE EXTREMELY HELPFUL AND WE APPRECIATE, UM, ALL THE WORK THAT'S BEING DONE. 
          UM, THIS IS A, A MOTION FOR, AND, AND I DON'T WANNA, UH, FRAME THIS, THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION. 
          THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION, UH, THAT COUNSEL CAN CHOOSE TO TAKE UP OR CHOOSE NOT TO, BUT I AT LEAST WANNA PUT IT OUT THERE FOR A REGULATORY PLAN. 
          THE, THE AREA IS GENERALLY BOUNDED BY HIGHWAY 360 ON THE EAST SIDE, UH, GENERALLY HIGHWAY SIX 20 ON THE WEST SIDE, THE, UM, LAKE AUSTIN SHORELINE, AND UP TO THE BULL CREEK AREA. 
          AND I'M, I'M TARGETING THIS AREA FOR SOME VERY, VERY, VERY IMPORTANT REASONS. 
          UM, THEY'RE NOT REALLY FLASHY OR SEXY UNTIL THE PLACE CATCHES FIRE, AND THEN IT'S GONNA BE REALLY FLASHY. 
          UM, , I, I JOKED WITH, UH, OUR, OUR LIAISON THAT SINCE IT WASN'T FLASHY, I WAS GONNA WEAR SOMETHING FLASHY, BUT HE, HE THOUGHT, HE ADVISED ME AGAINST THAT. 
          SO THANK YOU, ANDREW. 
          UM, LET ME ALSO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. 
          AUSTIN HAS GROWN TREMENDOUSLY AND THESE AREAS, A LOT OF THESE AREAS ARE ANNEXED AREAS. 
          UM, WE HEARD A LITTLE BIT FROM, UM, FROM BRIDGED SHEA THAT PART OF THE PROBLEM WE'RE SEEING IS THAT THE COUNTIES HAVE VERY LITTLE REGULATORY POWER OVER DEVELOPMENT, UH, IN THEIR MUNICIPALITIES. 
          AND SO, AS AUSTIN HAS GROWN AND ANNEXED AREAS, THEY'VE ANNEXED AREAS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY COUNTY. 
          AND SO THOSE AREAS ARE, THIS IS, THIS IS BEYOND 
          [03:25:01]
WEST AUSTIN. 
          THIS IS WHAT WE LOVINGLY REFER TO AS THE WILD WILD WEST. 
          IT'S KIND OF A FREE FOR ALL OUT THERE, UM, IN TERMS OF HOW THINGS HAVE GROWN AND DEVELOPED, BECAUSE THERE'S REALLY A LACK OF A PLAN THERE. 
          AND NOW WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS, UM, I, I WANNA BREAK IT DOWN SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN UNDERSTAND. 
          THERE ARE CONCERNS AT A NATIONAL LEVEL. 
          THERE ARE CONCERNS AT A LOCAL LEVEL, AND THEN THERE ARE CONCERNS FOR US AS A PLANNING COMMISSION AND HOW WE'RE GROWING OUR CITY AND WHAT GOALS, YOU KNOW, I THINK IN GENERAL, WE ALL AGREE ON OUR GOALS. 
          SOMETIMES WE JUST DISAGREE ON HOW TO GET THERE. 
          UM, SO AT A NATIONAL LEVEL, I WANNA REMIND PEOPLE THAT THIS AREA OF AUSTIN IS ON THE NATIONAL RADAR FOR THE HIGHEST WILDFIRE RISK IN THE NATION. 
          I BELIEVE WE'RE AT NUMBER FIVE OR NUMBER SIX. 
          I WISH THERE, RANDALL JAMESON WAS AVAILABLE TONIGHT TO ALSO SPEAK. 
          UM, YOU WOULD BE BLOWN AWAY BY HIS, BY HIS PRESENTATION AND WHAT A F D HAS DONE OUT HERE. 
          UM, THIS IS THERE. 
          I, WE DID PROVIDE SOME BACKUP, UH, IN YOUR MATERIAL. 
          AND IF YOU PULL UP SOME OF THE SYS MAP AND YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE FIRE MAP, I'LL MAKE IT REAL EASY FOR YOU. 
          JUST LOOK FOR THE RED OUT ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF AUSTIN. 
          AND SOME THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO NOTE ABOUT THAT. 
          AND THE DATA THAT A F D HAS AND THE CITY HAS ON THIS AREA IS THAT THE CONDITIONS IN THIS AREA PROMOTE THE FASTEST RATE OF LATERAL FIRE SPREAD IN THE CITY, AND THE HIGHEST FLAME HEIGHTS, UM, AND CANOPY LEVEL FOR A WILDFIRE IN THE CITY. 
          THIS IS NOT, THIS IS NOT DISPUTABLE. 
          THE DATA'S THERE. 
          IT'S KNOWN NATIONALLY, IT'S KNOWN LOCALLY, AND IT'S, IT'S OF EXTREME CONCERN. 
          IT'S SO WELL KNOWN THAT THE NATIONAL IN INSURANCE INDUSTRY BEGINNING TO DECLARE AREAS OF THESE UNINSURABLE. 
          AND SO THERE ARE PROPERTIES THAT STRUGGLE TO GAIN PROPERTY INSURANCE BECAUSE OF THEIR FIRE RISKS. 
          AND MANY, MANY PROPERTY OWNERS ARE FINDING THAT OVER BETWEEN LAST YEAR, THIS YEAR, THEY EITHER THEY CANNOT GET UNDERWRITING FOR NEW IN, UM, UH, PROPERTY INSURANCE, OR THEIR RATES ARE GOING UP, DOUBLING, DOUBLING, DOUBLING, DOUBLING WITH REQUIREMENTS. 
          AND WHEN WE LOOK AT HOW DO WE BRING IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOW DO WE DO THIS, HERE'S ANOTHER PIECE OF THE PUZZLE THAT'S ESCALATING OUT OF OUR CONTROL AT A NATIONAL LEVEL, BECAUSE NATIONALLY EYES ARE ON THIS AND WE'RE NOT ACTING SO LOCALLY. 
          WHAT WE'RE ALSO SEEING IN THIS AREA, AND AGAIN, THESE ARE ON THE MAPS THAT ARE IN THE BACKUP, IS THIS IS ONE OF THE HIGHEST RATES OF POPULATION GROWTH FOR THE CITY METROPLEX. 
          AND IN FACT, WHEN WE DID OUR REDISTRICTING FOR OUR COUNCIL, THAT WHOLE AREA GOT REDISTRICTED BECAUSE OF SUCH HIGH POPULATION GROWTH THAT SOME OF THE SWATHS WERE TAKEN OUT OF ONE DISTRICT AND HAD TO BE MOVED INTO ANOTHER DISTRICT WHERE THE RATES WERE GOING DOWN. 
          'CAUSE RATES WERE GOING UP SO MUCH. 
          SO THIS KIND OF OVERLIES THE DISTRICT AREAS. 
          UM, AND WE JUST SAW, ACTUALLY, KIND OF FUNNY ON THE DAYCARE PRESENTATION, THERE'S A THERE THAT, THAT AREA WAS MARKED IN RED FOR, UM, DAYCARE NEEDS. 
          AND ALSO YELLOW. 
          I, I SAW THAT ON THE MAP. 
          SO LIKE THAT AS PART OF THIS, THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO BRING UP IS THAT SINCE THIS IS OUTSIDE, SINCE THESE AREAS WERE SEQUENTIALLY ANNEXED, THEY ALSO AREN'T REALLY IN OUR IMAGINE AUSTIN PLANS AND CORRIDORS. 
          AND SO WHILE WE'RE NOT SEEING A LOT OF ZONING CASES AND THINGS COME THROUGH, THAT'S AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT CURRENTLY EXISTS, A LOT OF IT'S WILD WEST. 
          AND, AND, AND SO YOU DON'T HAVE THIS GOOD PLANNING. 
          THE OTHER THING YOU DON'T HAVE IS YOU DON'T HAVE GOOD INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          WHAT EXISTS OUT THERE IS INFRASTRUCTURE FROM PROBABLY THE LATE EIGHT, EARLY EIGHTIES, LATE SEVENTIES, EARLY EIGHTIES. 
          UH, AND IT'S, AND IT'S LACKING. 
          AND THAT INCLUDES ANYTHING FROM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, WHAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO TRANSPORTATION. 
          AND THE ONLY THING THAT'S COMING IN, IN TRANSPORTATION, 'CAUSE THERE'S NO CITY SERVICES OUT THERE, IS TXDOT. 
          AND, AND WHILE WE WANNA BRING THOSE DOLLARS HOME AND GRAB THOSE DOLLARS FOR OUR AREA, WHAT TXDOT TENDS TO BRING IS VERY CAR-CENTRIC AND NOT MULTIMODAL. 
          AGAIN, IT DOESN'T ALIGN WITH OUR GOALS AS A PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          UM, THE, THE PROPOSAL I WANT US TO CONSIDER IS, IS FAIRLY LARGE BASED. 
          SOME OF THE REGULATORY PLANS WE'RE SEEING AND STAFF IS WORKING ON ARE EXTREMELY DETAILED PLANS. 
          I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE, THAT IT'S A RECOMMENDATION. 
          WE DON'T NEED TO GO TO THAT LEVEL. 
          WE JUST NEED SOME HIGH LEVEL ARCHITECTURE TO LOOK AT OUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS OUT THERE, OUR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS OUT THERE, AND A LOOK AT THE CAPACITY 
          [03:30:01]
SO WE CAN BEGIN TO SET A FRAMEWORK OF HOW THESE AREAS CAN GROW AND DEVELOP AND INFILL. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER MO TOLER, UH, GO AND MAKE YOUR CLOSING STATEMENTS. 
          YEAH, THE BUZZER RING. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S SPEAKERS WHO WILL FLUSH IN THE DETAILS AND THEN I'M, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR TAKE THINGS UP IN DEBATE OR HOWEVER WE FORMAT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          COMMISSIONER COX. 
          I HONESTLY DON'T HAVE MUCH TO ADD. 
          UM, I, I, I'LL JUST, I'LL JUST SAY A QUICK LITTLE ANECDOTE. 
          UM, IN MY PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, UH, I DID ASSIST A FIRE STATION OUT THERE IN WEST AUSTIN THAT WOULD BE WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THIS PROPOSED REGULATING PLAN. 
          AND, AND WHILE IT WAS A RELATIVELY SIMPLE PROJECT, IT WAS EXTREMELY EYE-OPENING. 
          UM, I GOT TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME WITH OUR, OUR FIREFIGHTING PROFESSIONALS IN AUSTIN AND THE AUSTIN METRO AREA. 
          AND THE THING THAT SURPRISED ME THE MOST WAS THE AMOUNT OF PUBLIC FEEDBACK, PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND WHAT WAS A VERY, VERY MUNDANE SIMPLE PROJECT. 
          BUT EVERYONE OUT THERE, EVERYONE WHO SPENDS TIME OUT THERE, UNDERSTANDS ALL OF THE ISSUES VERY, VERY WELL. 
          THAT COMMISSIONER MOL, UM, JUST, JUST LAID OUT VERY ELOQUENTLY. 
          AND SO I THINK, UH, LIKE, LIKE COMMISSIONER MAUER SAID, IT'S WILD, WILD WEST. 
          AND I THINK, I THINK THIS COMMISSION COULD DO A LOT OF GOOD IN TRYING TO INITIATE, UH, A REGULATING PLAN THAT THAT HELPS GUIDE, UM, SMART DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT THAT MATCHES OUR GOALS, BUT DEVELOPMENT THAT ALSO, UM, PROTECTS LIFE AND SAFETY. 
          UM, SO I HOPE EVERYONE CAN SUPPORT THIS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, AND DO YOU WANNA INTRODUCE OUR SPEAKERS? CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LADIES, ANDRA? SO FIRST WE'LL HEAR FROM MS. DENISE HOGAN. 
          MS. HOGAN, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES AND WE'LL PRO WE'LL, UM, WORK IT IN YOUR, UH, SLIDE DECK. 
          READY? JUST STATE NEXT SLIDE. 
          AND, UM, I WILL, UM, PROGRESS THROUGH YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          DENISE HOGAN, UH, HERE TOGETHER WITH MY COLLEAGUE LINDA BAILEY, WHO WILL BE SPEAKING AFTER ME, UM, IN SUPPORT OF ITEM 28. 
          UM, LET'S SEE. 
          UH, I'M DOING THIS LINE, SO I'M HOPING THAT MY SLIDES ARE UP. 
          UM, ON THE FIRST SLIDE, UH, WE DESCRIBED WHO WE ARE, AND YOU CAN SEE WE ARE REPRESENTING, UM, NOT ONLY OUR INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WE ARE HERE WITH, BUT ALSO COLLECTIVELY IN MEMBER NEIGHBORHOODS OF, OF KONA. 
          UM, WITH AN AGGREGATE OF NEARLY 5,000 HOUSEHOLDS REPRESENTING FIVE MEMBER NEIGHBORHOODS OF THE LAKE AUSTIN COLLECTIVE, AND JUST IN GENERAL, UM, OUR, OUR COLLEAGUES AND OUR, OUR, OUR NEIGHBORS UP AND DOWN THIS, UH, CORRIDOR. 
          UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          SO, AS, AS COMMISSIONER MS. TOLER VERY ELOQUENTLY DESCRIBED, UM, WE, YOU CAN SEE THE MAP HERE THAT I HAVE, UM, KIND OF A PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF HER, HER DESCRIPTION OF THE TARGET AREA. 
          NOW, THIS, THIS MAP IS A LITTLE OFF BECAUSE IT, IT, IT APPEARS TO INCLUDE STEINER RANCH, WHICH OF COURSE IS NOT IN OUR, OUR, UM, OUR AREA. 
          UM, THAT'S STINTS COUNTY AND E TJ. 
          UH, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          SO WHY DO WE NEED A PLAN? WELL, AS MS, UH, COMMISSIONER LER DESCRIBED, WE, WE HAVE, I'VE LISTED SIX DIFFERENT, UH, BULLET POINTS ON THE NEXT TWO SLIDES. 
          UM, I'LL JUST QUICKLY GO OVER THEM. 
          LET'S SEE HERE. 
          IT, IT'S, I THINK A HIGHLIGHT IS THAT IT'S, I IMPORTANT TO THINK ABOUT WHY REZONING ALONE CAN'T ACCOMPLISH WHAT, WHAT WE NEED. 
          AND WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE MULTIMODAL TRANSIT, WE DON'T HAVE PUBLIC TRANSIT, WE DON'T HAVE SAFE EVACUATION ROUTES IN THE MAZE OF THE WWE REGIONS OUT HERE ALONG THE QUARTER. 
          UM, AND WITHOUT THESE THINGS, IT'S DIFFICULT TO FOLD IN THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE REALLY NEED FOR MISSING MIDDLE AND GENERAL HOUSING. 
          UM, IT, IT, IT JUST DOESN'T WORK TO CREATE THE HOUSING FIRST AND THEN TRY TO GET THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE SECOND, BECAUSE BY THEN IT'S TOO LATE. 
          AUSTIN IS ALREADY EXPERIENCING THIS REALITY. 
          UM, WE, WE HAVE NO PUBLIC LIBRARIES. 
          WE HAVE NO PUBLIC CIVIC MEETING SPACES. 
          WE HAVE NO PUBLIC VENUES FOR ART, FOR RECREATION. 
          WE DON'T EVEN HAVE HOSPITALS OUT IN THIS REGION. 
          THERE ARE SIMPLY CRITICAL PIECES OF PLANNING THAT WE NEED. 
          UM, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          SO WHAT, WHAT WE WANT, AND I HOPE WE'RE ON THE, THE SLIDE FOR WHAT WE WANT, AND JUST, AGAIN, I'M BLIND HERE. 
          UM, WHAT WE WANT IS A TOOL TO HELP SHAPE THE DEVELOPMENT IN OUR AREA TO SUPPLY WHAT IS NEEDED. 
          [03:35:01]
AND WE WANNA BE INVOLVED AND WE WANNA PARTNER WITH THE CITY TO PLAN FOR WHAT WE NEED. 
          WE WANT OUR COMMUNITIES TO BECOME RESILIENT TO THE REALITIES OF WHAT'S FACING US WITH THE CLIMATE WILDFIRE RISK TRAFFIC, AND FOR AFFORDABILITY ISSUES. 
          AND THESE THINGS ARE NOT AFFECTING US JUST NOW, BUT THEY WILL AFFECT ALL OF US IN THE FUTURE. 
          UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          SO JUST QUICKLY, IF, UH, IF YOU HAVE SEVERAL SLIDES, THE BUDS ARE RAN. 
          SO GO AHEAD AND IF YOU COULD KIND OF WRAP IT UP IN THE NEXT MINUTE, THAT WOULD BE GOOD. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UHHUH, . 
          UM, LET'S SEE. 
          NOW, LET'S SEE, WHERE ARE WE? UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE ON THE SLIDE THAT SAYS DESIRED COMPONENTS. 
          YES, YOU'RE ON THAT SLIDE. 
          PERFECT. 
          WELL, I MEAN, IT, IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. 
          UH, IT'S, IT, THESE ARE THE, THE THINGS THAT WE DO WANT OUT IN THIS REGION. 
          YOU CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE. 
          UM, AND I CAN CONCLUDE, UH, BEFORE HANDING OVER TO LINDA, WHO'S GONNA GIVE US SOME MORE DETAIL. 
          UM, WHAT I WANNA EMPHASIZE IS THAT WE REALLY HOPE TO CAPITALIZE ON OPPORTUNITY TO SHAPE WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW AND TO BALANCE THE THINGS THAT WE NEED WITH THE REALITIES OF THE PARTICULAR CONSTRAINTS OF THE RMM 2222 WEST CORRIDOR. 
          AND WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR APPROVAL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A FRAMEWORK FOR A REGULATORY PLAN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM MS. LINDA BAILEY. 
          MS. BAILEY, SELECT STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS. 
          YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          MY NAME IS LINDA BAILEY, AND, UM, I'D LIKE TO SUPPORT WHAT DENISE SAID IN THE REGULATORY PLAN. 
          WE HAVE A LOT OF COMPONENTS THAT SHE ADDRESSED ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PUBLIC TRANSIT, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY, CIVIC USES, CLIMATE RESILIENCY AND MITIGATION FOR A WILDFIRE RISK. 
          I'M GOING TO, UH, GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THOSE COMPONENTS. 
          WE HAVE A SEVERE LACK OF, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN OUR AREA. 
          THERE'S ONLY 1,259 AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THE TOTAL OF DISTRICT 10. 
          OUR TAR TARGET AREA HAS AN EASY POTENTIAL FOR OVER 2000 MORE, UM, MULTIFAMILY UNITS TO BE BUILT. 
          AND WE'D LIKE TO SEE SOME OF THOSE CLASSIFIED AS AFFORDABLE. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          PUBLIC TRANSIT. 
          I HAVE SEARCHED AND SEARCHED THROUGH ALL THE APPS. 
          WE HAVE ZERO PUBLIC TRANSIT IN OUR TARGET IN, IN OUR TARGET AREA, AND WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO DRIVE. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. 
          UM, YOU ALL WERE TALKING ABOUT THE A S M P. 
          THE A S M P HAS DESIGNATED A LARGE PORTION OF F M 2222, WHICH IS IN THAT AREA AS A HIGH INJURY NETWORK FOR BOTH PEDESTRIANS AND CARS. 
          WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFICULT PROBLEM GETTING OUR, UH, MIDDLE SCHOOL AND HIGH SCHOOL CHILDREN TO SCHOOL BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY IN AND OUT, AND IT'S EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. 
          AND THE MOMS OUT HERE ARE VERY ORGANIZED, AND WE'RE TRYING TO FIND A TRAFFIC PLAN THAT WORKS FOR US. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          ON CIVIC VENUES, WHEN WE SEARCH, WE HAVE NO PUBLIC OR CIVIC MEETING SPACES. 
          WE HAVE NO LIBRARIES. 
          WE HAVE NO PLACES FOR ARTISTS, UH, TO COME AND PRESENT. 
          UM, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OUT THERE. 
          , UH, FOR PUBLIC USE, WE'D LIKE TO SEE WHERE WE GET. 
          WE'RE ALL ORGANIZED OUT HERE. 
          I ROUTINELY COMMUNICATE WITH OVER 13 NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          UM, 1500 PEOPLE READ MY NEWSLETTER, AND WE WANT A PLAN OUT HERE. 
          UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          ON CLIMATE RESILIENCY, OH, THERE'S A LACK OF DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE OUT HERE. 
          BULL CREEK AND LAKE AUSTIN WATERSHEDS ARE OUT HERE, AND IT'S ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY NEED IMPROVEMENT TO REDUCE THE POTENTIAL FLOODING. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          ON CLIMATE RESILIENCY, WE NEED A PLAN TO HELP US WITH CLIMATE RESILIENCE TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM THE EFFECTS OF EXTREME CLIMATE EVENTS, WILDFIRES, HILL COUNTRY EROSION. 
          WE LIVE OUT HERE ON THE HILL, AND AS YOU KNOW, THE EXTREME HEAT THAT CAN DAMAGE THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT UNDERPIN US. 
          NEXT SLIDE, WILDFIRE RISK. 
          MANY OF US, INCLUDING DENISE, WE'VE BEEN ON THE WILDFIRE ALLIANCE. 
          UM, I JUST, UH, ATTENDED A JOINT E S D A S D MEETING TODAY. 
          UM, THERE'S A, UH, WE'RE ROUTINELY RATED AS HIGH OR EXTREMELY HIGH FOR WILDFIRE RISK. 
          ONE OF THE HIGHEST BUILDING RATES IS IN THE WOOEY. 
          AND, UM, WE'VE BEEN SCARED ALL SUMMER , UH, WE, WE HOPE WE DODGE THE BULLET, UH, FOR A 
          [03:40:01]
WILDFIRE. 
          SO, IN CONCLUSION, WITH THE REGULATORY PLAN, THE TARGET AREA CAN BE DEVELOPED WITH HIGH QUALITY MIXED USE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH WE WANT, AND THAT CAN STILL PRESERVE THE HILL COUNTRY BEAUTY AND PROTECT US. 
          WE'LL HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO ADVOCATE FOR T D M AND PUBLIC TRANSIT. 
          WE'LL HAVE, AND PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE SAFETY AND CIVIC USES, AS WELL AS FOR THE COMMUNITY AND ARTISTS, DRAINAGE AND FLOOD PREVENTION INFRASTRUCTURE AND CLIMATE RESILIENCY. 
          WE'RE ORGANIZED OUT HERE. 
          WE KNOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE A ACTIVITY CENTER IN A SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENT AREA, AND WE WANT A PLAN AND SOME HELP. 
          PLEASE SUPPORT AND HELP APPROVE AT LEAST THE FIRST STEP OF A REGULATORY PLAN. 
          WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT ENDS MY . 
          SO, UM, I GUESS, UH, APRIL SAU, UM, IS THIS, ARE YOU, IS THERE, IS THIS WITHIN YOUR AREA? THESE PLANNING PLANS, UM, IS SO WE CAN TARGET SOME QUESTIONS TO YOU IF WE HAVE THEM. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          IT IS, YES. 
          IN ADDITION TO OVERSEEING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TEAM, I ALSO OVERSEE, UH, SMALL AREA PLANS AND DISTRICT PLANNING TEAMS FOR THE LONG RANGE. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, PLANNING DIVISION. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, JUST WANT, SO A RESOURCE HERE, UH, FOLKS, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, KIND OF WORK OUR WAY THROUGH EIGHT FOLKS. 
          AND IF WE NEED MORE, UH, MR. ANDERSON, YOU GOT THE FIRST ONE. 
          QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          THANKS FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT, LATE WITH US. 
          APRIL. 
          UM, I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THERE'S VALUE IN, IN HAVING A PLAN LIKE THIS, BUT I'M PRETTY AWARE THAT WE HAVE LIMITED STAFF RESOURCES. 
          SO, SO I'M CURIOUS, APRIL, IF YOU CAN HELP ME FIGURE THIS OUT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE SIDEWALKS PLAN THAT DOES A REALLY GOOD JOB OF RANKING NEEDS, NOT BASED ON WHO IS HEARD AND WHO CAN MOBILIZE A FEW PEOPLE TO COME OUT AND SAY, DO OUR SIDEWALK, BUT RATHER WHERE THE NEED IS. 
          AND SO, DO WE HAVE SOMETHING SIMILAR FOR PLANS AND ARE THERE OTHER PLANS THAT ARE AHEAD OF THIS, OR JUST HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE WORK THROUGH THIS AS, AS LIMITED STAFF? YEAH. 
          THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. 
          AND YOU ARE RIGHT. 
          WE ARE LIMITED IN OUR CAPACITY AND, UM, VERY BOOKED IN IN THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WE HAVE GOING ON FROM E T O D AND CODE AMENDMENTS CASE MANAGEMENT, UH, THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN AND THE IMAGINE TRUST AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE ARE ALL WITHIN THAT PURVIEW. 
          UM, BUT, UM, WE HAVE ALSO BEEN ASKED BY COUNCIL TO, UH, RESPOND AND DEVELOP AN APPROACH FOR HOW AND WHERE, UH, TO, UM, CONDUCT DISTRICT PLANNING AND STAFF IS IN PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THAT HERE. 
          YET NOW IT'S IN DRAFT FORM, UH, INTERNALLY IT HAS NOT YET BEEN FINALIZED. 
          AND SO I THINK THAT, UM, ONCE THAT'S FINALIZED, IT WILL HELP TO SORT OF FORMULATE, UM, WHERE WE, UM, CAN EXPECT TO PLAN NEXT, UM, GIVEN STAFF RESOURCES, CAPACITY AND, UM, AND VARIOUS CRITERIA ON HOW TO PRIORITIZE PROJECTS NEXT IN BOTH SMALL AREA PLANS AND DISTRICT PLANNING. 
          EXCELLENT. 
          AND I GUESS MAYBE STRAYING YOUR HAIR AWAY FROM THIS ITEM, BUT STILL IN THE VEIN OF WHAT YOU'RE BRINGING UP, WOULD THAT INCLUDE PLANS THAT ARE JUST COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT AT THIS POINT BECAUSE OF HOW OUTDATED THEY ARE? YES. 
          UM, WE WOULD LOOK TO UNDERSTAND, UH, PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR A LONG TIME AND, UM, AND TALK THROUGH AND, AND TAKE NEXT STEPS, UH, TO WORK WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO IDENTIFY WHAT TO DO NEXT. 
          AND, AND, UM, THOSE PLANS, UM, SHOULD BE, UM, UPDATED OR IF THERE ARE OTHER, UM, ACTIVITIES THAT SHOULD OCCUR INSTEAD, UM, TO SORT OF CONCLUDE THAT PLAN'S LIFECYCLE. 
          THAT'S TERRIFIC, THANK YOU. 
          WHO'S NEXT? COMMISSIONERS. 
          I'LL, UM, GO AHEAD AND FILL THE, THE SILENCE HERE. 
          UM, SO WHEN, UH, IN THIS DRAFT, YOU SAID YOU'RE, UH, THERE IS A DRAFT BEING CONSIDERED OF KIND OF WHERE AND WHAT AND PRIORITIES, UM, IS THIS AREA FROM WHAT, YOU KNOW, BEING LOOKED AT, IS THIS KIND OF IN THE MIX, UH, IS AN AREA TO CONSIDER FOR FUTURE PLANNING? UH, DO YOU KNOW, IS, UM, ARE WE DUPLICATING YOUR EFFORT BY, YOU KNOW, DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE? THANKS. 
          I, I THINK THAT WHAT WE WOULD DO IS, UM, WE ARE NOT IDENTIFYING, 
          [03:45:01]
UH, THE NEXT AREAS WE'RE IDENTIFYING FOR CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING THE NEXT AREAS. 
          AND SO WHAT WE WOULD BE PUTTING FORWARD IS A RECOMMENDATION FOR HOW TO PRIORITIZE AND IDENTIFY AREAS. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, NEXT DISTRICT PLANS. 
          SO THAT CLARIFIES THAT. 
          THANK YOU, ADAM. 
          I'M JUST TRYING TO USE MY TIME FOR THE BUDGET GOES OFF. 
          SO, UM, WITH THAT, UH, WOULD THERE BE BENEFIT THEN IN THIS GROUP PASSING THIS SO THAT WE KIND OF, UH, SEND THE MESSAGE, UH, TO STAFF AND COUNCIL THAT THIS IS A NEED SO THAT WHEN WE DO KIND OF LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT AREAS THAT IT KIND OF BE, MAKE SURE THAT IT'S IN THE QUEUE, SO TO SPEAK, UH, FOR CONSIDERATION, WOULD THERE BE SOME BENE I'M TRYING TO SEE IF WE, IF YOU HAVE SUPPORT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE THIS EVENING AND WHAT THE BENEFIT MIGHT BE? THIS IS A QUESTION TO ME. 
          YES. 
          UH, YES. 
          UH, CERTAINLY WE WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THE, THE BOUNDARY AREAS AND, UM, AND SORT OF PAIR THEM UP WITH THE CRITERIA THAT WE ARE ESTABLISHING AND, UM, AND, AND THEN, UH, LIKELY TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS IN FUTURE WITH, UM, UH, VARIOUS DIFFERENT BODIES, UM, POTENTIALLY INCLUDING THIS ONE. 
          IN TERMS OF OUR NEXT PLANNING AREAS. 
          AND WITHIN WHAT YOU'VE SEEN, WHAT'S TYPICALLY COVERED IN AN, IN A DISTRICT PLAN OR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ARE THE KIND OF CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED. 
          ARE THOSE KIND OF TYPICAL THINGS THAT ARE INCORPORATED INTO A PLAN, OR ARE THERE OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT BE, UH, DEALT WITH IN SEPARATE, KIND OF A SEPARATE MANNER OR THE, ARE THOSE TYPICAL THINGS THAT ARE INCORPORATED INTO A DISTRICT PLAN? WE ARE LAUNCHING OUR FIRST PILOT DISTRICT PLAN NOW IN NORTHEAST, UM, IN THE NORTHEAST DISTRICT OF, OF  COUNTY. 
          AND SO IT'S A LITTLE TOO EARLY TO SAY WHAT'S TYPICAL. 
          UM, BUT I WILL SAY THAT THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP, UM, RESILIENCE, SUSTAINABILITY, AFFORDABILITY, ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY ARE IN ALIGN WITH GOALS WE HAVE FOR THE UPDATE TO IMAGINE AUSTIN. 
          UM, UH, AS WELL AS GOALS FOR FUTURE PLANNING EFFORTS, UM, IN GENERAL. 
          UM, SO THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY OUT OF LINE. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF, UM, THE PLANS THAT WE WOULD DEVELOP WOULD COVER EVERY SINGLE THING THAT WAS, UM, MENTIONED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND BY THE SPEAKERS. 
          UM, BUT WE WOULD KEEP THE CONSIDERATIONS OF RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY, UH, IN MIND. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'M OUTTA TIME, UH, COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER COX, I GUESS I, I DON'T REALLY KNOW IF THIS IS A QUESTION YOU CAN ANSWER OR NOT, BUT I'M, I'M WONDERING DOES, I'M LOOKING AT A COUNCIL DISTRICT MAP THAT'S IN FRONT OF ME AND, AND A LOT OF THE AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, IT'S IS IN DISTRICT 10, UH, WHICH JUST HAPPENS TO BE MY DISTRICT. 
          UM, AND, AND I JUST LOOK AT THAT DISTRICT COMPARED TO ALL THE OTHER DISTRICTS IN AUSTIN. 
          AND, AND A LOT OF WHAT WE SPOKE ABOUT ARE, ARE THINGS OUR NEEDS IN ALL THE OTHER DISTRICTS, BUT I WOULD SAY ABOUT HALF OF WHAT WE SPOKE ABOUT, IT'S REALLY, REALLY VERY UNIQUE TO THAT PARTICULAR AREA, THAT PARTICULAR GEOGRAPHY, THAT PARTICULAR TRANSPORTATION NETWORK THAT EXISTS. 
          AND SO I'M CURIOUS APRIL, UM, IF THERE'S A MECHANISM THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING FOR THAT PARTICULAR UNIQUENESS THAT EXISTS NOT JUST IN DISTRICT 10, BUT MAYBE DISTRICT TWO, YOU KNOW, HAS A PARTICULAR UNIQUENESS BEING WHERE TESLA AND THE AIRPORT ARE LOCATED THAT NONE OF THE OTHER DISTRICTS HAVE. 
          AND AND I'M JUST WONDERING, LIKE, IS THAT EVEN SOMETHING THAT'S QUANTIFIABLE IN TERMS OF LIKE THE RANKING PROCESS, UM, THAT, THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING? THANKS. 
          UM, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK BACK INTO THE CRITERIA TO BE ABLE TO SPECIFICALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION, BUT CERTAINLY, UM, EACH PART OF THE COMMUNITY, AND PARTICULARLY THE PARTS THAT HAVE YET TO BE PLANNED FOR, UM, HAVE SORT OF UNIQUE CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE WORTHY OF EXPLORING. 
          UM, AND, YOU KNOW, IN THIS AREA WE WOULD WANNA MAKE SURE TO INCORPORATE, UM, WITH, WITH ALL PLANNING, BUT IN THIS AREA AS WELL, UM,  RESILIENCE, UM, OF SUSTAINABILITY AND E OF EQUITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PLANNING EFFORTS ARE, UM, BEING TAILORED AND IN LINE WITH, UM, THEIR KEY GOALS AS WELL AS OURS. 
          AND FOLLOWING, FOLLOWING ON TO THAT, YOU, YOU MENTIONED RESILIENCE, AND I'M WONDERING IF THAT ENCAPSULATES, UM, THE RISK TO LIFE AND SAFETY RELATED TO NATURAL DISASTERS, UM, AND THAT, YOU KNOW, DISTRICT, THE, THE, THE AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS PARTICULARLY 
          [03:50:01]
PRONE TO BOTH FIRE AND FLOODING DISASTERS. 
          I I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE DEATHS RELATED TO FLOODS, I THINK YOU WOULD SEE QUITE A FEW OF THEM IN THIS AREA BECAUSE OF THE LOW WATER CROSSINGS, UM, BUT THEN ALSO THE FIRE RISK. 
          SO I'M CURIOUS IF RESILIENCE AND ENCAP ENCAPSULATES THAT, OR IS THAT KIND OF ANOTHER CATEGORY THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT? SO, UH, RESILIENCE WOULD CAPTURE SOME OF THAT. 
          THEY ARE THINKING ABOUT, UM, RESILIENCE TO EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS. 
          UM, RIGHT NOW THEY'RE WORKING ON, AND I WON'T SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICE OF RESILIENCE, BUT THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A, A HEAT PLAYBOOK FOR THE CITY. 
          UM, ANOTHER EXTREME, UH, UM, WEATHER, UH, EVENT THAT WE'VE ALL BEEN EXPERIENCING FOR THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. 
          UM, BUT, UM, IN ADDITION TO RESILIENCE WATER, THE WATERSHED DEPARTMENT, UM, WHO WOULD BE KEY IN ANY PLANNING PROCESS AND IN THIS ONE, UM, A A KEY PARTNER FOR THE PLANNING PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE, UM, CONSIDERING THE, THE, THE FLOOD CONSIDERATIONS AND ANY WORK THAT THAT, THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FROM ANY OF THE DEPARTMENTS WOULD BE INCORPORAT INTO AND VALIDATED IN THE PLANNING PROCESS. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER COX, UH, BUZZER RANG. 
          SO WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO NEXT COMMISSIONER WHO HAS QUESTIONS? ANYONE? ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THIS? UH, COMMISSIONER AL COMM. 
          OH, COMMISSIONER ZA, YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? IF I MIGHT ASK A QUESTION. 
          UM, I, I GUESS I'LL START WITH ASKING A QUESTION OF, UM, COMMISSIONER AL, I GUESS AS I'M HEARING FROM STAFF, SOME OF THEIR CONCERN AROUND THE CAPACITY ISSUE. 
          DO YOU THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO PERHAPS HAVE SOMETHING LIKE A WORKING GROUP WHERE WE CAN MAYBE HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS PULL IN SOME OF THESE COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO ARE REALLY LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE IDEAS AND ALSO AT THE SAME TIME MAYBE TRY TO SEE HOW WE CAN COORDINATE WITH STAFF'S ONGOING EFFORTS? OR DO YOU FEEL LIKE IT IS STILL, THIS IS STILL WORTHY IN ITS OWN RIGHT FOR US TO SORT OF PUSH FORWARD? OR DO YOU THINK WE CAN SORT OF CIRCLE THROUGH A WORKING GROUP AND THEN SEE WHAT MAKES SENSE? THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. 
          I, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO PUSH FORWARD, YOU KNOW, IN, UM, IN MEDICINE, I, SO IN MY TRAINING AND IN SOME OF THE WORK I DO NOW REVIEWING, UH, BAD OUTCOMES AND LOOKING AT CASE REVIEW, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF WE LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED IN MAUI RECENTLY, IT'S, IT'S NOT ONE MISTAKE THAT COSTS THOUSANDS OF LIVES. 
          IT'S THE SERIES OF MISTAKES IN CATASTROPHIC MISTAKE. 
          IT'S A SERIES OF SMALL MISTAKES THAT LEAD TO CATASTROPHE AND, AND THE, WE'RE SEEING AN ALIGNMENT OF ALL THOSE THINGS HAPPENING IN THIS AREA. 
          AND REALLY, I, I DON'T WANNA BE EMOTIONAL ON THE COMMISSION, BUT WE'VE GOT SIX SCHOOLS TRAPPED. 
          SO WE'VE GOT OVER 5,007,000 CHILDREN, TEACHERS, AND FACULTY TRAPPED IN SCHOOLS THAT ARE BEHIND ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT AREAS IN THE . 
          THEY DO NOT HAVE SAFE SIDEWALKS, THEY DO NOT HAVE SAFE BIKE PATHS. 
          AT THIS POINT. 
          WE'VE HAD TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH OUR CHILDREN THAT IF A WILDFIRE BREAKS OUT, THEY'VE GOTTA GET TO THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD BECAUSE THE ROAD, THE ONLY ROADS IN AND OUT ARE SO CONGESTED THAT WE'RE WORRIED THAT THE FIRE FOLKS WON'T BE ABLE TO GET IN THERE AND GET THESE KIDS AND TEACHERS AND FACULTY EVACUATED. 
          THE DISTRICTS ARE LOOKING AT IT. 
          THIS GOES INTO LEANDER I S D AND NOT A I S D. 
          AND I, I JUST, MY VOICE SHAKES WHEN I THINK ABOUT EVERY TIME WE'VE DODGED A BULLET AND GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT. 
          AND LIKE I SAID, YOU KNOW, THE NATIONAL, THE NATIONAL NEWS KNOWS THIS, THE NATIONAL INSURERS KNOWS THIS, AND I FEEL LIKE IT'S, UM, A DERELICTION OF DUTY NOT TO BRING THIS UP AS A SAFETY CONCERN. 
          THE POSITIVES ARE THAT THERE'S GREAT OPPORTUNITY OUT HERE TO DO THE THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IN SOME OF OUR OTHER CORRIDORS IF WE DO IT RIGHT, BUT THOSE OPPORTUNITIES WILL BE LOST. 
          HOW DO WE GO BACK AND BACKFILL MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION WHEN PDOT HAS BULLDOZED CAR-CENTRIC TRAVEL? YOU KNOW, IT GETS VERY DIFFICULT. 
          AND SO I, I DO THINK WE NEED TO KICK IT UP. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT COUNCIL WILL DO WITH IT. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND STAFF IS SPREAD THIN, AND IT MAY NOT BE THE THING THEY GET TO THIS OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO AT LEAST SEND THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION. 
          THAT'S ALL. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. 
          LET'S JUST SEND THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THE DISCUSSION. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER AL. 
          THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. 
          THANK YOU, JUDE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ALL RIGHT. 
          ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, DO YOU WANNA A MOTION 
          [03:55:01]
ON THIS ITEM, THE CHAIR, BEFORE WE DO THAT, CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10 45? 10 45? I'VE GOT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX IN THE OPPOSITION TO 10 45. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          TRY TO, HOPEFULLY THAT'LL BE THE LAST EXTENSION. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, SO DO YOU WANNA GO AND MAKE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER MOTALA, COMMISSIONER COX, AND WE CAN KINDA SEE HOW WE MIGHT WANNA MOLD IT? SURE. 
          IF WE NEED TO. 
          AND, AND AGAIN, THIS IS, THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION ONLY, SO THERE'S REALLY NOT ANY ACTION TO TAKE AND, AND COUNSEL WILL HAVE TO CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANNA TAKE IT UP OR NOT. 
          UM, SO IT IS A, THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION FOR A REGULATORY PLAN IN LARGE GENERAL TERMS FOR THE AREAS BOUNDED BY, UH, 360 TO SIX 20. 
          AND AGAIN, THESE ARE GENERAL AREAS AND TO THE SOUTH, THE LAKE AUSTIN SHORELINE AND UP TO BULL CREEK CREEP. 
          HAVE A SECOND COMMISSIONER. 
          OKAY. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX. 
          UM, UH, SO DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THIS? WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION. 
          WE NEED ANY MORE TALK ABOUT THIS MOTION? NO, I MEAN, I THINK, I THINK WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON, RIGHT? AGAIN, I WANNA HIGHLIGHT THAT A LOT OF THE IMPORTANT PROJECTS WE'RE BRINGING UP ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND MULTIMODAL AND ALL OF THAT, THERE'S OPPORTUNITY HERE FOR THAT. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, JUST TO HIGHLIGHT THAT, PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE THESE WERE MUNICIPAL COUNTY AREAS THAT DID NOT HAVE THIS WHEN THEY GOT ANNEXED INTO AUSTIN. 
          AND SO IT'S KIND OF A GREAT OPPORTUNITY, BUT ALSO IT COULD BE THE PERFECT STORM IF WE LET IT PASS. 
          THAT'S WHY. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, MR. CONLEY, YOU WANNA SPEAK FOR AGAINST OR I WANT OFFER AN AMENDMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO, UH, MY AMENDMENT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER IS THAT WE ADVANCE THE RECOMMENDATION WITH THE ADDITION, UH, UM, A, A, A CLEAR LANGUAGE SPECIFY STATING THAT, UM, UH, THAT THIS, THIS, UH, RECOMMENDATION IS NOT IN ANY WAY TO CONFLICT WITH THE QUEUE OF, UH, CHANGES, CODE CHANGES AND OTHER WORK THAT, THAT, UM, STAFF IS ALREADY ENGAGED IN. 
          AND THAT THIS IS NOT IN ANY WAY TO SORT OF, UM, INTERFERE WITH THAT WORK. 
          SO WE ADVANCE THE RECOMMENDATION, BUT ALSO RECOMMEND THAT IT NOT IN ANY WAY, UM, UH, TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER OTHER THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY IN STAFF QUEUE. 
          DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I CAN TRY TO REWORD THAT IF YOU, SO ARE YOU WORRIED MORE ABOUT, UH, IT TAKING PRECEDENT OR THAT IT BEING EXEMPT OR FROM THOSE REQUIREMENTS I HEARD BOTH THOSE THINGS. 
          I'M, I'M WORRIED ABOUT IT. 
          UM, WE'VE HEARD VERY CLEARLY FROM STAFF A REQUEST NOT TO CONTINUE BRINGING MORE STUFF BECAUSE THEIR QUEUE IS SO TIGHT AND THERE'S SOME VERY PRESSING CODE CHANGES, UM, THAT WILL HAVE MAJOR IMPACTS IN THE FUTURE OF AUSTIN. 
          AND, AND WE NEED TO GET THOSE CODE CHANGES DONE. 
          AND SO MY REQUEST IS THAT WE CAN ADVANCE THIS RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL WITH LANGUAGE CLEARLY STATING THAT THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN NO WAY TO TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER OTHER THINGS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON STAFF'S WORK QUEUE RIGHT NOW. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THAT'S AMENDMENT. 
          I SEE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX. 
          UM, EVERYBODY, WE ARE ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT AMENDMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S TAKE, UH, WE HAVE A SECOND. 
          UH, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THAT AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION? UH, DON'T SEE ANY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, GOING BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION WITH THE AMENDMENT, UH, THAT WE APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY, UH, ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THAT OR CAN WE MOVE TO VOTE? UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD? YEAH, SO AT OUR LAST SMALL AREA PLANNING, UH, MEETING, AND WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY IN A WHILE AND JUST CANCELED OUR SPECIAL MEETING, WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS, UM, BECAUSE THERE WAS THE DESIRE ON THE PART OF THE FOLKS THAT WERE THERE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT PLANS WERE UNDERWAY AND SORT OF, SORT OF THE SCOPE OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. 
          AND AS ALLUDED TO EARLIER, THE NORTHEAST DISTRICT PLAN IS SORT OF A EXPERIMENT AS WE SPEAK. 
          SO I'M NOT SURE IF I'M SPEAKING NEUTRALLY OR JUST STATING THAT THERE IS SOME WORK UNDERWAY ALREADY TO SORT OF ASSESS WHERE WE ARE AS FAR AS PLANS GO. 
          SO I'M JUST NOT SURE HOW TO HANDLE THIS REQUEST, GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE ARE DOING SOME THERE, STAFF IS DOING SOME ANALYSIS OF SUCH. 
          UM, BUT I THINK, I THINK IF IN FACT THERE IS TRULY A NEED, MAYBE THAT MEANS THAT THERE'S EXTRA RESOURCES PUT TOWARD THIS END. 
          SO I'M GONNA SUPPORT IT GIVEN THAT FACT THAT, I MEAN, WE CAN FIGURE THAT OUT IF THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE PRESSING PRIORITIES, SO I'M GONNA SUPPORT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WANNA SPEAK BEFORE YOU TAKE A VOTE? ALL RIGHT. 
          SO DO, ARE WE CLEAR ON THE AMENDMENT AND THE MAIN MOTION? 
          [04:00:01]
OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, TAKE A VOTE. 
          UM, THOSE ON THE DS IN FAVOR. 
          WELL, LET ME JUST SEE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS. 
          DO THE WAY, SEEING NONE ON THE DIOCESE. 
          ANY ABSTENTION. 
          ABSTENTION. 
          WE HAVE ABSTENTION. 
          UH, NOTE THE ABSTENTION BY COMMISSIONER CZAR. 
          UH, ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS MOTION FOR THOSE VIRTUALLY ALL IN FAVOR? OKAY. 
          SO THAT WE HAVE, UM, WELL, COMMISSIONER, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON ANDERSON. 
          OKAY, SO IT'S 10 0 1 10 0 1. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, WE HAVE A FEW MINUTES LEFT. 
          LET'S SEE IF I CAN GET US OUTTA HERE. 
          UH, WE ARE ON ITEM 29 29. 
          UH, I, UM, I THINK I'M GONNA RECOMMEND WE POSTPONE THAT, ANDREW, AND I'LL COME TALK TO YOU. 
          I HAD A FEW CONVERSATIONS. 
          I THINK WE CAN, UH, UH, POSTPONE THAT AND HAVE SOME FURTHER DISCUSSIONS, UM, ON THAT ITEM. 
          AND THEN, UH, ANY OPPOSITION POSTPONING THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, COMMITTEE 
          [COMMITTEE MEMBER RECOMMENDATIONS]
RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          THIS ONE WILL TAKE UP AT OUR NEXT MEETING. 
          WE, WE'LL ADD THAT ONTO THE NEXT AGENDA AS WELL. 
          HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE OUR 13TH COMMISSIONER. 
          UH, ALL RIGHT. 
          FUTURE AGENDA 
          [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
ITEMS. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING? UM, I'D LIKE TO OFFER ONE. 
          UM, LET'S SEE. 
          THIS WOULD BE A FUTURE BRIEFING FROM LEGAL AND THE CLERK'S OFFICE ON THE PROCEDURE FOR AGENDA CREATION AND FORMATTING. 
          UM, IT KIND OF GETS TO WHAT ITEM NUMBER 29 WAS ABOUT. 
          UM, AND I, I KNOW THAT THIS INFLUENCES MANY OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, BUT, UM, IF WE WANT TO TWEAK OR CHANGE OR FORMAT OUR AGENDA, UM, OUR, MY, OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR TO DO SO. 
          UM, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SOME CHALLENGES WITH THAT. 
          AND SO I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND, UM, IT COULD BE A QUICK BRIEFING. 
          UM, BUT ANYWAY, I WOULD NEED A SECOND FOR THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THE WAY THIS IS TIED IS THERE WERE SOME PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO OUR BYLAWS, UH, THAT WERE INCLUDED IN 29. 
          UM, SORRY. 
          UH, YEAH, 29. 
          AND I THINK THE BRIEFING IS, WOULD BE NEEDED REALLY TO HAVE THAT, UM, MAKE A EDUCATED KIND OF VOTE ON THAT ITEM. 
          SO I, I AM, I WILL SECOND THAT AND, UM, SEE IF WE CAN GET AND CHAIR COHEN. 
          I WOULD REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY LIKE TO SEE THAT BRIEFING  HAVING EXPERIENCED SIMILAR ISSUES. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, I HAVE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH, UM, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO JUST, UH, FOR EVERYONE TO KIND OF HEAR FROM THEM AND ALSO JUST BE EDUCATED ON THE PROCESS. 
          I THINK THERE'S A LOT WE DON'T KNOW THE HARD WORK THAT, UH, MR. RIVERA DOES AND THE CLERK'S OFFICE. 
          IT'S, UH, WITH ALL THESE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF EFFORT AND LEGAL'S INVOLVED. 
          I HEARD IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S, UH, THE SOFTWARE THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT UPGRADING, IT'S ANTIQUATED. 
          IT'S NOT A SIMPLE EXERCISE. 
          SO I WOULD LOVE FOR THEM TO COME AND EXPLAIN KIND OF THE, HOW IT GETS DONE SO WE CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND THIS, THAT, 'CAUSE IT'S A BLACK BOX TO ME. 
          I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT HAPPENS. 
          AND I KNOW IT'S PRETTY COMPLICATED, SO, UM, I WILL SUPPORT THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE THROUGH ANY OTHERS FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. SURE. 
          SO I KNOW COUNCIL IS, HAS, THEY'RE INITIATING THE IDEA OF GETTING RID OF BURIED BEDS, WHICH ARE THE BEDROOMS WITHOUT WINDOWS, PRIMARILY IN WEST CAMPUS. 
          THIS BODY IN 2019 RAISED THE HEIGHT LIMITS OF WEST CAMPUS TO 300 FEET. 
          AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ALSO WANTED A BALANCING. 
          SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING THAT INCREASES COST, YOU BALANCE IT WITH SOMETHING, I WONDER IF IT'S TIME TO JUST FINALLY ELIMINATE HEIGHT LIMITS. 
          IN WEST CAMPUS, THERE'S A LOT OF 300 FOOT TALL BUILDINGS GOING UP. 
          THEY'LL HAVE 20% ON ONSITE AFFORDABILITY. 
          WHY 300? NOT 300. 
          AND THERE'S LIKE THIS NEW PLATEAU OF WEST CAMPUS AND THEY'RE ALL AT THE SAME HEIGHT. 
          AND SO THERE'S JUST, IT MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO SEE THAT REGULATION GOING, THAT IT'S VERY GOOD. 
          I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WOULD BE AGAINST THAT. 
          AND THEN COUNTER THAT WITH THE BALANCE OF JUST ALLOWING MORE HOUSING IN TIGHTER TOWERS, THAT COULD BE TALLER. 
          SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. 
          SO THIS WOULD BE, UH, 
          [04:05:01]
INITIATION OF A CODE AMENDMENT. 
          EITHER THAT, OR I GUESS WE COULD ALSO TALK TO STAFF AND NO COUNCIL ALSO INITIATE AN ITEM LOOKING AT STUDENT HOUSING, MAKING STUDENT HOUSING EASIER. 
          MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING THEY'RE ALREADY LOOKING AT, BUT IF NOT, THEN YES. 
          DO WE HAVE SUPPORT FOR THAT ITEM TO ADD TO OUR AGENDA? FUTURE AGENDA ITEM? YES. 
          MM-HMM. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I JUST NEED A HAND COMMISSIONER. 
          OKAY. 
          NEXT WILL. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, ALL RIGHT. 
          SO, UH, ANY OTHERS LOOKING AROUND? OKAY, LET'S GO. 
          AND, UH, I THINK WE CAN WRAP THIS THING UP WITH THE, 
          [BOARDS, COMMITTEES & WORKING GROUPS UPDATES]
UH, BOARD'S, COMMISSION, WORKING GROUP UPDATES. 
          GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE, UH, CODES. 
          NORM TO JOINT COMMITTEE WE'RE MEETING NEXT WEDNESDAY. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          . 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, CONFERENCE PLAN, JOINT COMMITTEE CHAIR. 
          WE HAVE ALSO NOT MET SINCE. 
          GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER COX. 
          NO, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT THERE, THERE REALLY IS AN UPDATE. 
          WE, WE'VE GOT A, I'VE GOT A CALL WITH ACTUALLY APRIL, UM, I KNOW THIS FRIDAY TO DISCUSS THE NEXT AGENDA, BUT THAT'S ABOUT IT. 
          I DIDN'T KNOW COMMISSIONERS ARE, IF YOU WANTED TO ADD ANYTHING. 
          NO, THAT WAS IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMM, UH, COMMITTEE, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          NO UPDATES. 
          WERE MEETING IN TWO WEEKS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE. 
          COMMISSIONER HOWARD, OCTOBER 4TH. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, OUR MEETING WAS CANCELED, LIKE YOU NOTED. 
          UH, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD. 
          UH, WE HAVE A MEETING THIS COMING MONDAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          OUR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND DUPLEXES WORKING GROUP. 
          IS THAT ONE STILL? YES. 
          CHAIR. 
          I THINK IN RESPONSE TO THE, UH, THE PRESENTATION THAT WE GOT FROM STAFF, I THINK WE'RE GONNA BE SCHEDULING A MEETING SOON TO FIGURE OUT NEXT STEPS FOR THAT WORKING GROUP. 
          AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE. 
          OH, NO, WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE. 
          THE DESIGN GUIDELINE UPDATE, WORKING GROUP. 
          ANYTHING TO REPORT DONE. 
          DONE. 
          I GUESS, IS THAT ONE STILL ACTIVE? DO WE KEEP IT ON THE AGENDA? STILL THERE? UH, OUR RECOMMENDATIONS WERE SUBMIT. 
          WELL, OURS, . 
          YEAH. 
          I HAVEN'T MET WITH MY GROUP IN PROBABLY A COUPLE MONTHS. 
          YEAH, IT'S, THEY'RE, I THOUGHT THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE SUBMITTED. 
          YEAH, I THINK WE CAN SUNSET IT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE'RE, WE'RE DONE WITH THAT, UH, WORKING GROUP. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THAT, MR. CHAIR, DO WE PUT COMMISSIONER CONLEY IN CHARGE OF THE WORKING GROUP WE CREATED TONIGHT? 'CAUSE IF WE DIDN'T NOT VOTE, WE DO . 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          LET ME DO THIS. 
          LET ME, YES. 
          SO THE WORKING GROUP, PLEASE, UH, SIGN SOMEBODY TO KIND OF LEAD AND COORDINATE MEETINGS IF YOU CAN. 
          AND I SEE A HAND GO. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          GREAT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, ANY OPPOSITION TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING? THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SEEING NONE. 
          UH, 10 38. 
          UH, THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ADJOURNED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK SIR. 
          THANK  THERE'S LOVE IN HIS HEART. 
          HE CAN'T, BUT HE KNOWS HE'S GOT A GOOD MEMORY. 
          WON'T LET HIM, LET SHE WALK. 
          THE, HE'S A AND HE SIT PATIENTLY HERE EVERY NIGHT SO IT CAN FOOL HIM.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.