[00:00:04]
EVERYONE, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
IT IS SIX OH SEVEN AND I CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
ALRIGHT, FIRST WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ROLL CALL AND, UM, THERE'S SOME TECHNICAL THINGS STILL BEING WORKED OUT.
SO I'M GONNA HAVE TO SQUINT REALLY FAR IN ORDER TO SEE WHO IS ON SCREEN OR ELSE TURN AROUND.
UM, BUT LET'S GO ALPHABETICALLY, UM, AND JUST SAY HERE, OR RAISE YOUR HAND WHEN I CALL ON YOU.
COMMISSIONER OR VICE-CHAIR ZA.
COMMISSIONER BARRERRA RAMIREZ.
AND COMMISSIONER WOODS IS ABSENT AND WE HAVE A VACANCY IN DISTRICT SEVEN SEAT.
UM, I ALSO WANT TO RECOGNIZE OUR EX-OFFICIO MEMBER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, CHAIR COHEN.
UM, WELL THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.
SO, TONIGHT'S MEETING IS USUAL IS AS USUAL HYBRID.
UM, SO AS LONG AS WE HAVE A VIRTUAL QUORUM, UM, AS LONG AS I'M HERE IN CHAMBERS.
AND, UM, SIMILARLY, SPEAKERS CAN PRESENT FROM CHAMBERS OR PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY.
SO IF YOU'RE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, YOU'LL RECEIVE AN EMAIL PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION TAKING UP YOUR ITEM AND NEW, UM, AS OF A COUPLE MEETINGS AGO, SPEAKERS CAN DONATE TIME, BOTH THE SPEAKER DONATING TIME AND THE SPEAKER RECIPIENT MUST BE PRESENT IN PERSON WHEN THE ITEM IS CONSIDERED.
UH, MR. RIVERA'S GONNA HELP ME TONIGHT IN ANNOUNCING SPEAKERS DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS.
SO COMMISSIONERS, JUST AS A FRIENDLY REMINDER, SINCE WE ARE IN A NEW YEAR, UM, PLEASE HAVE YOUR GREEN, RED, AND YELLOW ITEMS FOR VOTING.
AND, UM, IF I DON'T HEAR YOU, UH, OR SEE YOUR HAND, ESPECIALLY TONIGHT, BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE ABOUT AN INCH BY AN INCH TALL, UM, JUST, UH, COME OFF MUTE AND LET ME KNOW THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SPEAK.
[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION]
MR. RIVERA, DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON DURING PUBLIC COMMUNICATION CHAIR COMMISSION AND ANDREW RIVERA? YES, WE DO.WE HAVE MR. STEWART HIRSCH, WHO WILL BE PROVIDING HIS REMARKS.
THANK YOU CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS STUART HARRY HIRSCH, OR STU FROM DISTRICT TWO.
UM, I FIRST REPORTED TO WORK HERE IN 1977, REPAIRING LOW INCOME OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING.
SO MY CONTEXT FOR TONIGHT'S COMMENTS ARE DIFFERENT THAN MOST.
I WAS ALSO ONE OF THE CO-AUTHORS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN THE EIGHTIES AND THE SIMPLIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN THE NINETIES.
UH, YOU'RE GONNA TAKE UP CODE AMENDMENTS THIS YEAR.
UH, NOTHING APPEARS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT FOR ACTION.
UH, ONE OF THEM I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER IS SMART HOUSING.
SINCE APRIL 20TH, 2000 HAS HAD A ONE YEAR OF AFFORDABILITY PERIOD FOR HOME OWNERSHIP AND FIVE YEARS FOR RENTAL.
WHEREAS IN THE UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY AND IN VERTICAL MIXED USE, WE HAVE 40 YEARS OF AFFORDABILITY.
AND IT SEEMS STUPID IN A HOUSING CRISIS TO BE GETTING ONLY ONE IN FIVE YEARS JUST 'CAUSE WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN AROUND TO CODE CHANGES.
SO I'M ASKING YOU TO DO THAT AND I WANNA BORROW FROM A SCOTTISH TUNE, UH, TO REMIND YOU OF WHAT YOU'RE FACING IN THE COMING YEAR.
YOU'LL KEEP YOUR OLD CODE, WE'LL HAVE A NEW CODE, AND WE'LL BUILD MORE HOUSING BEFORE YE THE RULES WERE SIMPLER WAY BACK WHEN ON THE BONNY BONNEY BANKS OF LAKE AUSTIN ON THE BONNEY BONNEY BANKS OF LAKE AUSTIN ON THE BONNEY BONNEY BANKS OF LAKE AUSTIN.
I WAS HOPING YOU WERE GONNA SING.
I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT'VE SPOKEN IT, BUT WE MISSED YOU, SUE FROM DISTRICT TOO.
UM, MAD CHAIR, CAN I MAKE A MOTION THAT EVERYBODY HAS TO SING THEIR PRESENTATION?
[00:05:02]
OKAY.[Consent Agenda]
ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE, UH, MEETING THAT WE HAD ON DECEMBER 19TH.UM, DOES ANYBODY HAVE EDITS TO THOSE MINUTES? OKAY, HEARING NONE, THOSE MINUTES WILL BE ADDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA AS THEY ARE IN OUR BACKUP.
UM, ALL RIGHT, SO MOVING ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS.
OUR FIRST ACTIVITY TODAY IS TO VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ITEMS THAT ARE CONSENT APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL, POSTPONEMENTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, OR NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS. COMMISSION CZAR IS GOING TO READ THE PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA AND IDENTIFY THOSE THAT ARE CONSENT POSTPONEMENT AND NON-DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS.
YOU'LL ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST CONSENT ITEMS TO BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
UM, I'M GONNA GO OVER THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS FIRST AND READ THOSE OUT.
AND THEN, UH, I'LL ADD IN THE OTHER ITEMS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDAS.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER ONE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, UM, ITEM NUMBER TWO, THIS IS PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 2023 DASH 0 0 2 8 0 1 1200 ANDERSON DISTRICT FOUR.
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT.
NUMBER THREE IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 4 0 3, UH, 4 3 0 2 KNUCKLES CROSSING DISTRICT TWO.
THIS IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.
I NUMBER FOUR IS ALSO A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 2023 DASH 0 2 5 0.0 1 5 7 2 5 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90, EASTBOUND DISTRICT EIGHT.
THIS IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 2 3 0 3 6 3 0 4 MAINOR ROAD DISTRICT FOUR.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.
ITEM NUMBER SIX IS ALSO PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 5 0 3 6 6 0 5 ROAD DISTRICT ONE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS PLAN AMENDMENT AND PA DASH 2023 DASH 0 2 9 0 2 HUMANE SOCIETY IN AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT FOUR.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 4 4 DOMAIN, NORTHSIDE PD AMENDMENT DISTRICT SEVEN.
THIS ITEM, I BELIEVE IS OF FOR CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER NINE IS A REZONING C 14 20 23 DASH 0 0 9 6, BEN WHITE BOULEVARD MEDICAL OFFICE DISTRICT THREE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR A DISCUSSION TONIGHT.
I NUMBER, UH, I, ITEM NUMBER 10 IS A REZONING SEVEN 14 DASH 2023 DASH 1 0 4 NORTH BURN GATEWAY, CMU MIDWAY REZONING DISTRICT SEVEN.
UM, THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.
IT WAS PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND THIS IS A, UM, WE'RE REDOING THE ITEM BASED ON SOME NOTICE ISSUES.
I NUMBER 11 IS A CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLAN S PC DASH 2022 DASH 0 1 16 2 C DOHERTY ART CENTER REPLACEMENT DISTRICT NINE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.
UM, ITEM NUMBER 12 IS AN LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2023 DASH 0 3 0.
UH, A ROLL WAYSIDE SPECIFIC SOS AMENDMENT.
UM, THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER 13 IS ALSO AN LDC AMENDMENT.
THIS IS C 20 DASH 2023 DASH 0 3 9 MODIFIED MINIMUM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
THAT'S ALL OF OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE'RE ALSO ADDING IN TO THE CONSENT UNLESS WE HEAR OTHERWISE FROM OTHER FOLKS.
UM, I NUMBER 15, WHICH IS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION, INITIATING A CODE AMENDMENT, UM, AMENDING TITLE 25 TO REMOVE BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS FOR INNER WEST CAMPUS.
AND THE SPONSOR FOR THIS ITEM WHERE COMMISSIONER ANDERSON CONLEY AND HOWARD.
ALL RIGHT, MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LEE ON.
SO JUST, UM, ONE, UM, CORRECTION TO ITEM NUMBER NINE.
THAT SHOULD BE A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 23RD.
SO THEN YES, WE'D BE LOOKING ITEM NUMBER NINE, REZONING C FOUR D DASH 2023 DASH NINE SIX, BEN WHITE BOULEVARD MEDICAL OFFICE DISTRICT THREE UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 23RD.
UM, MR. RIVERA, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS, CHAIR? WE DO NOT.
AND DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO, UM, PULL THOSE CONSENT ITEMS THAT WERE READ OUT FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? OKAY.
I DON'T SEE ANY, BUT AGAIN, YOU GUYS WERE VERY TIME CHAIR.
UH, MADAM CHAIR, I'D ASK THAT AND JUST MAKING SURE.
'CAUSE I WILL ADMIT I WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION AS, AS I SHOULD HAVE, BUT THAT ITEMS 10 AND 13 ARE NO.
THOSE ARE BOTH PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
[00:10:01]
CHAIR, UH, YEP.AND CHAIR, JUST TO CLARIFY, I DID READ I NUMBER 10 AND 13 BOTH INTO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
SO WE'RE PULLING THOSE FOR DISCUSSION AT THIS, CORRECT? YES.
IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AND APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING? I SEE, UH, UH, MOTION BE BY VICE CHAIR AZAR AND SAY GOODBYE, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UM, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, SO TINY LITTLE.
UM, THIS CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA.
DO YOU WANT MY LAPTOP WEBEX? UM, NO, THAT'S OKAY.
'CAUSE I'VE GOT A LOT OF STUFF HERE, BUT THANK YOU.
I'LL JUST ASK FOR HELP ON IF I'M MISSING ANYTHING.
[10. Rezoning: C14-2023-0104 - North Burnet/Gateway CMU-Midway Rezoning; District 7]
SO OUR FIRST DISCUSSION ITEM TONIGHT IS GOING TO BE ITEM 10, THE NORTH BURNETT GATEWAY, CMU MIDWAY REZONING.DO WE HAVE, UM, THE, LET'S SEE, THAT WOULD BE MR. CELINE.
JORGE LAN WITH URBAN DESIGN PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
I AM NOT IN PERSON WITH YOU THIS EVENING.
I AM QUITE ILL AND DON'T WANT TO BE ANYWHERE NEAR PEOPLE.
SO I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE.
IF I DO COUGH ON CAMERA, I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR INDULGENCE OF FORGIVENESS IF I DO THAT.
BUT, UH, THE REASON THIS REZONING IS BACK ON YOUR AGENDA WAS DUE TO A NOTICE ISSUE.
UH, DUE TO THE RECENT RULING OF THE KUIA CASE, WE ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE ON CODE AMENDMENTS AS WELL AS CITY INITIATED CASES.
AND THEREFORE, THIS CASE IS BACK ON YOUR AGENDA.
ON NOVEMBER 14TH OF LAST YEAR, THIS CASE WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND FORWARDED TO COUNCIL, AND HAS BEEN POSTPONED AT THE COUNCIL, UH, PENDING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THIS IS A REZONING TO A NEWLY CREATED SUBDISTRICT CMU MIDWAY THAT COULD POTENTIALLY INCREASE ENTITLEMENTS UP TO 350 FEET OF HEIGHT, AS WELL AS A 10 TO ONE MAXIMUM FAR WHEN USING A DEVELOPMENT BONUS.
ONE OF THE KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE BASE ENTITLEMENTS, UH, OF THE PROPERTIES.
UH, THOSE PROPERTIES WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THOSE HIGHER HEIGHTS AND FA IF THEY PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT BONUSES, WHICH IS IN ARTICLE SIX OF THE REGULATING PLAN.
THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS, UH, REQUEST AS INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND PROCESSED THROUGH A CODE AMENDMENT TO CREATE WHAT WE OFTEN REFER TO AS THE PAPER DISTRICT, WHICH WOULD ENABLE US THEN TO COME IN WITH A REZONING, WHICH ACTUALLY CHANGES THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTIES FROM CURRENTLY NOW CMU COMMERCIAL MIX USE TO CMU MIDWAY.
PENDING YOUR QUESTIONS, MADAM CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION, I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.
MR. RIVERA, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK CHAIR? NO, WE DO NOT HAVE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM, SO YOU CAN, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, IS THERE SOMEONE, UH, MAKING A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY.
UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY SECONDED VICE CHAIR AZAR.
WE ARE GOING TO GO INTO OUR ROUND ROBIN.
SO FIRST QUESTION, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I'LL TAKE IT.
UH, AND, UM, UH, MS. ROSE ROSALYN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR A, ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS.
UM, UH, IT IS, IT AMAZES ME WHEN STAFF WORKS PROFESSIONALLY, UM, OR I'M APPRECIATIVE OF WHEN STAFF WORKS PROFESSIONALLY, AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOU AND, AND YOUR ANSWERS WERE, UH, EXTREMELY DETAILED AND, UH, TO THE POINT.
AND I DIDN'T KNOW THAT I'D HIT A NERVE.
AND I, I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS AND YOUR PROFESSIONALISM.
NOW, MY COMMENTS TO THE GENERAL SPHERE OUT THERE, UH, I DIDN'T KNOW I'D HIT A NERVE UNTIL MY PHONE BLEW UP THIS AFTERNOON, UH, FROM VARIOUS FOLKS.
AND, UM, SO I GUESS I HIT A NERVE.
AND SO, UH, DID NOT KNOW THAT THERE WAS A, A DEAL WORKED OUT ON THIS.
UM, AND, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE GOT, WE GOT REGULATIONS AND WE GOT, UH, POLITICS.
[00:15:01]
AND SO I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A, A DEAL WORKED OUT ON THIS.UM, MY EFFORTS TO BRING THIS UP ARE NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, FORM, OR FASHION TO, UM, IMPACT ANY PROPERTY OWNER OR ANYBODY WITH A, WITH A, WITH AN APPLICATION PENDING OR AN APPLICATION ABOUT TO BE PENDING OR AN APPLICATION ABOUT TO TURN DIRT.
MY APPLICATION AND, AND FOR, YOU KNOW, SINCE MOST OF Y'ALL ON THE COMMISSIONER ARE YOUNG, AND I'M THE OLD GUY ON THE COMMISSION, UH, YOU KNOW, I'M GONNA REMIND Y'ALL OF THE, THE OLD SESAME STREET THAT THIS LETTER, THIS TONIGHT, IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE LETTER C AND THAT MEANS CONSISTENCY.
UM, AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT IS MAKE SURE THAT THIS COMMISSION IS CONSISTENT IN ITS APPLICATION OF PROCESSES ACROSS THE CITY.
WE WENT FOR HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS AS A COMMISSION AND AS THE COUNCIL LISTENING TO HOW IMPORTANT IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT, IT'S IN, IN FACT, IT IS DIRE TO THE SUCCESS OF AUSTIN THAT WE, UM, UP ZONE, THAT WE BUILD DENSITY AND THAT WE DO SO WITH THE UTMOST URGENCY.
AND WE DO SO EVEN OVER THE OBJECTIONS, FOUR TO ONE OF HOMEOWNERS IN THE CITY.
YET HERE WE HAVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS THE CROWN JEWEL THAT SHOULD BE THE CROWN JEWEL OF DISTRICT SEVEN.
THERE ARE NO NEIGHBORS, THERE'S NOTHING AROUND THIS, AROUND THIS PROPERTY.
IT'S VERY SUCCESSFUL RETAIL DOWN BELOW, WE SHOULD PACK PEOPLE IN THERE LIKE THERE'S NO TOMORROW.
THIS SHOULD BE THE BASE ZONE FOR, THIS SHOULD BE TOD GATEWAY.
WE SHOULD GIVE 491 FEET, 12 TO ONE FAR, AND THAT SHOULD BE BY, RIGHT? BUT I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A DEAL TO DO MIDWAY ZONING, AND THAT WOULD, WHICH ELIMINATE, WHICH LIMITS IT TO THREE 50 AND 10 TO ONE.
AND SO IF IT, AND THERE'S, THERE'S ROOM TO PUT SIX OR EIGHT OR 10 BUILDINGS, THAT'S A HUNDRED STORIES, 100 STORIES OF APARTMENTS, TOWN HOMES, CONDOS THAT COULD GO INTO THIS AREA AND HOUSE THOUSANDS OF OTHER PEOPLE, IT WOULD HAVE MAGNIFICENT VIEWS OF DOWNTOWN AND, AND THE NEW APPLE CAMPUS AND THE DOMAIN AND EVERYWHERE.
YET, WE'RE NOT GONNA DO THAT BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH WE SAY HOME IS THE PERFECT THING, AND WE ALL ARGUED AND CUSSED AND DISCUSSED OVER IT BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A DEAL HERE, WE'RE NOT GONNA DO DENSITY ON THIS AREA.
AND, AND SO I'M GONNA END RIGHT THERE, BUT I WILL HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION AND WE'LL SEE WHERE THAT GOES.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
UM, OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
SO SORRY TO SORT OF ASK THIS, UM, WE'RE WORKING WITH SOME NEW TECHNOLOGY, SO IT WAS A LITTLE UNCLEAR TO ME IF YOU COULD SHARE AGAIN, WHAT WAS THE RESULT OF THE LAWSUIT AND HOW WE, WHY THIS IS BEING BROUGHT AGAIN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND IF YOU COULD CLARIFY THAT AND PERHAPS ADD SOME DETAIL, IT WOULD BE APPRECIATED.
IF I MAY, MADAM CHAIR, WE CAN'T APPEAR.
WHAT WAS THAT MR. LEY? PROCEED.
UH, I, I'M NOT PRIVY TO THE DETAILS OF THE RULING, BUT IT DOES REQUIRE THE CITY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTIVE LANGUAGE IN A NOTICE WHEN INITIATING CODE AMENDMENTS OR DOING CITY INITIATED APPLICATIONS, WHICH THIS IS ONE OF THEM.
SO NOTHING HAS CHANGED ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE.
IT'S ONLY THE NOTICE THAT WAS UPDATED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE RULING OF THE LITIGATION OF RECENT LITIGATION.
THEREFORE, IT WAS RE NOTIFIED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED AS, AS SPECIFIED BY CODE.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY THAT, WE BASICALLY ARE RE NOTICING EVERYBODY FOR THE SAME SET OF AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES.
AND THEN THIS IS GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS AGAIN.
AND WE'LL ASIM, HOPEFULLY AGAIN, PASS COUNSEL AND THEN BE OFFICIALLY, UM, PERMITTED TO MOVE FORWARD GIVEN THE NEW CONSTRAINTS.
IS THAT CORRECT? NOT THE AMENDMENT PART.
UH, IT'S, THIS IS ONLY THE REASON ZONING, THE CODE AMENDMENT THAT CREATED THE CMU MIDWAY DISTRICT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY COUNCIL THAT WAS APPROVED LAST OCTOBER WITH FULL SUPPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THIS IS NOW COMING TO REZONE CHANGE THE ZONING FROM CMU TO CMU
[00:20:01]
MIDWAY.SO WE CANNOT DO A ZONING CHANGE THROUGH A CODE AMENDMENT.
IT REQUIRES A LEGISLATIVE ACTION OF THE COUNCIL TO ACTUALLY REZONE PROPERTY.
AND THAT'S THE REASON THERE'S A SEPARATE REZONING CASE TO ACTUALLY APPLY THE NEW SUBDISTRICT OF C-M-U-C-M-U-M TO ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN QUESTION.
SO IT'S ONLY THE REZONING THAT, UH, WE REIFY DUE TO THAT, THE, THE RECENT LITIGATION AND THE DIRECTION THAT CAME FROM, FROM THE OUTCOME OF THAT LITIGATION.
I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION.
AND SORRY, JUST ONE MORE CASE.
WOULD WE EXPECT THAT WE'LL BE HAVING TO DO SOME OF THESE ADDITIONAL LOOPHOLES MOVING FORWARD, OR DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF THAT? I OBVIOUSLY DON'T WANNA ASK YOU ABOUT THINGS YOU ARE OUTSIDE OF YOUR SCOPE
SO THIS SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE WE HAVE UPDATED OUR NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AND HAVE RENO.
I APPRECIATE ALL THOSE CLARIFICATIONS.
UM, OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? SO I HAVE A QUESTION, PLEASE.
AND, UM, I CAN RAISE MY HAND, BUT IT'S NOT LETTING ME RAISE MY HAND.
SO ANYWAY, UM, ONE THING THAT I'M CONFUSED ABOUT, IF THIS HAS TO BE DONE BY COUNCIL ACTION, WHAT, WHY IS IT COMING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IF I MAY? MADAM CHAIR? YES, MS. RULY, AND PLEASE GO AHEAD.
THIS IS COMING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE IT'S A REZONING AND THE CODE REQUIRES A RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN REZONING ANY PROPERTY WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION.
AND, AND WE DID THIS BEFORE, BACK IN NOVEMBER 14TH, UH, IT WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY ON CONSENT, AND AGAIN, DUE TO THE NOTICE ISSUE, WE'RE BACK.
SO IT DOES REQUIRE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO ZONINGS, THE ONE THAT IT IS AND THE ONE THAT YOU WANT TO GO TO, WHAT'S THE DISTINCTION THERE? IS THAT WITH WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD? UM, I'M SORRY.
THE, UH,
WELL, WELL, WELL, IF I, IF I MAY ADDRESS THAT THE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO ZONINGS IS THAT CURRENTLY THE AREA BOUNDED BY CAPITAL TEXAS HIGHWAY US 180 3 AND MOPAC IS CURRENTLY ZONED CMU, WHICH WITH BASE ENTITLEMENTS HAS AN AVERAGE OF 48 TO 60 75 FEET OF HEIGHT.
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT UNDER BASE ENTITLEMENTS IS 120 FEET.
WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO CMUM MIDWAY, WHICH IS THE NEWLY CREATED ZONE, THOSE PROPERTIES COULD BE ENTITLED UP TO 350 FEET AND A 10 TO ONE FAR IF THEY CHOOSE AND ELECT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT BONUS.
SO THERE IS NOT A MECHANISM IN THE REGULATING PLAN TO CHANGE BASE ENTITLEMENTS THAT WOULD REQUIRE A DIFFERENT CODE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE CONSTRUCT OF HOW BASE ENTITLEMENTS ARE APPLIED IN THE REGULATING PLAN.
SO THIS REZONING DOESN'T UP ZONE THOSE PROPERTIES TO THREE 50 AND TEN ONE THREE FIFTY IN, IN HEIGHT AND TEN ONE, IT ALLOWS FOR UP TO THOSE MAXIMUMS WHEN PARTICIPATING IN THE DEVELOPMENT BONUS PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE SIX OF THE REGULATING PLAN.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? OKAY.
UM, MR. ROSLIN, I'M HOPING THAT YOU CAN HELP CONFIRM THIS JUST SO THAT WE HAVE CLARITY HERE.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, OF COURSE, THE BASE ENTITLEMENTS AND THEN THE BONUS.
AND IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE BONUS HERE IS, UM, 60% MFI RESTRICTION FOR RENTAL HOUSING FOR 40 YEARS AND 80% MFI RESTRICTION FOR, UM, OWNERSHIP HOUSING FOR 99 YEARS.
I, I DO BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT.
UH, COMMISSIONER, I, I DON'T HAVE THAT AVAILABLE WITH ME, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT AND, AND TO ALSO CLARIFY THAT THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS TO BE PROVIDED, AND THERE'S ALSO A MECHANISM TO PROVIDE A FEE IN LIEU IF IT'S APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AS WELL.
UH, MR. RUSS, IF I MAY ALSO CLARIFY, CHAIR AND I NEGLECTED
[00:25:01]
TO INFORM THE COMMISSION THAT THERE'S ALSO AN ADDITIONAL CODE AMENDMENT THAT IS HEADED YOUR WAY LATER THIS YEAR THAT WILL RETOOL THE DEVELOPMENT BONUS PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE SIX OF THE REGULATING PLAN COUNCIL UNDER THE SAME MANDATE OF THE CODE AMENDMENT REQUESTED THAT THOSE DEVELOPMENT BONUS PROVISIONS BE IN SYNC WITH THE WAY THAT THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM IS STRUCTURED.THAT WOULD ALLOW APPLICANTS TO PETITION THE CITY COUNCIL BY ORDINANCE FOR ESSENTIALLY UNLIMITED HEIGHT AND FAR.
THERE WOULD BE RESTRICTIONS, OBVIOUSLY, BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOT AREA OF, UH, THE LOT IN QUESTION, BUT THAT'S A CODE AMENDMENT THAT'S IN THE WORKS AND WILL BE COMING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A RECOMMENDATION LATER THIS YEAR.
THAT WOULD THEN APPLY TO ALL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE REGULATING PLAN, INCLUDING, UH, THE CMU DISTRICT, UH, AND THE CMU MIDWAY DISTRICT AS WELL.
HEY, THIS ISN'T REALLY A QUESTION, BUT I WANTED TO PUT IT OUT THERE BECAUSE IT WAS, IT WAS IN ALL THE LOCAL NEWS, BUT WE'VE GOT AN UPDATE, UM, ON, ON THE STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT THAT WAS IN AUSTIN, MONARCH COMMUNITY IMPACT, AUSTIN CHRONICLE, ALL THAT FUN STUFF.
I CAN'T FIND IT NOW, BUT THERE WAS A REALLY GOOD PIE CHART OR SERIES OF PIE CHARTS THAT SHOWED WHERE WE WERE LAGGING BEHIND IN TERMS OF THE SPECIFIC MFI CATEGORY.
AND I KNOW A LOT OF OUR STUFF IS, IS BUILT AROUND THE 60 AND 80% MFI CATEGORIES AND, AND WE HAD SHOWN KIND OF A DEFICIENCY.
I THINK THE BIGGEST DEFICIENCY WAS AT THE VERY LOW END, BUT THEN ALSO A BIG DEFIC, UH, DEFICIENCY, I BELIEVE BETWEEN 40 AND 60.
AND SO IT'S TOO LATE FOR THIS.
UM, BUT I'M HOPING THAT MAYBE FUTURE DISCUSSIONS, WE CAN START TALKING ABOUT DEEPER AFFORDABILITY LEVELS TO TRY TO, TO TARGET THOSE PARTICULAR MFI RANGES THAT WE SEEM TO BE DRAGGING THE MOST IN.
UM, I THINK THE 80 TO ONE 20 WE WERE GETTING THE MOST, UH, OF THOSE UNITS SIMPLY BECAUSE WE'RE SO CONDITIONED TO THINK ABOUT THAT.
PLUS IT'S THE MOST ECONOMICALLY, UH, FEASIBLE.
BUT, BUT I JUST HOPE THAT WE CAN HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS RATHER THAN CONSTANTLY DEFAULTING TO 60 AND 80.
AND THEN I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR SHOWING UP WHILE YOU'RE SICK.
I'M ALSO SICK, SO WE'RE BROTHERS IN SICKNESS.
UM, OTHER QUESTIONS? I'LL JUMP IN.
MR. CELINE, DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE TIMING ON THE SE THE NEXT PART OF THIS CODE AMENDMENT? I, I, I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC TIMELINE, MADAM CHAIR, THAT THAT'S ONE OF THE, UH, AREAS WHERE WE'RE STRUGGLING TO CALIBRATE THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AS WELL AS HOW WHAT WE CALL IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, THE FORMULAS BY WHICH YOU WOULD ACHIEVE BONUS AREA THROUGH THE PROGRAM.
MANY OF THE, UH, POINTS THAT WERE JUST, UH, PREVIOUSLY MADE BY COMMISSIONER COX IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO WORK WITH OUR CONSULTANT TO BE ABLE TO ADVISE US ON HOW TO RETOOL THE MFI AND PERCENTAGES.
SO IT, IT, IT'S A LONG WORK AND IT'S A WORK IN PROGRESS, BUT I, I ANTICIPATE A LATER PART OF THIS YEAR, PERHAPS THROUGH IN THE SUMMERTIME, BE ABLE TO COME BACK TO YOU WITH A CODE AMENDMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY RETOOLS ARTICLE SIX OF THE REGULATING PLAN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR IS THERE A MOTION? CHERYL, VICE CHAIR ZA CHERYL, MAKE A MOTION, UH, TO MOVE AHEAD WITH STAFF, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
IS THERE, OH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
MR. HAYNES WISHES TO BE RECOGNIZED.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, MADAM CHAIR.
UM, I'LL SEE WHERE THIS GOES AND SEE IF I'VE GOT ANY SUPPORT AMONG MY FELLOW DENSITY FOLKS WHO I KNOW JUST LOVE DENSITY IN AUSTIN.
AND THIS, UH, THE ALTERNATIVE, OR I'M NOT OFFERING AN ALTERNATIVE, I'M OFFERING A SUBSTITUTE.
UH, THE SUBSTITUTE IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE LETTER C CONSISTENCY.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FROM, UH, CMUM TO, UH, TODG GATEWAY.
AND, UM, YOU WANT ME TO SPEAK IN FAVOR NOW? OR CHAIR COMMISSIONER LEE ON ANDREW RIVERA.
[00:30:01]
BUT, UH, THAT'S IMPROPER MOTION.CAN, CAN I GET SOME EXPLANATION? YOU'RE NOTICED FOR THE, UH, AS NOTICE ON YOUR AGENDA AND T-O-D-N-P IS, UH, HIGHER THAN WHAT IS NOTICED FOR MADAM CHAIR? UM, I, I KNEW THIS WAS COMING.
UM, UM, MANY TIMES STAFF BRINGS, UM, WHEN, WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING CASES, WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING THINGS, STAFF BRINGS A RECOMMENDATION TO US, AND WE AS A COMMISSION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALTER, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
THIS IS, I'M ALTER, I'M OFFERING AN ALTERNATIVE TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IN THIS INSTANCE.
WHICH, UM, WE DO, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY THOUGH, IT STAFF'S RECOMME OR THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS KIND OF THE TOP LINE WE CAN GO.
IN THIS CASE, IT'S THE CITY AS THE APPLICANT, AND WE CAN'T MAKE IT DENSER IN OUR MEETINGS.
WE CAN ONLY GO LESS CONDENSED WILL LESS.
SO, MADAM CHAIR, WHY WOULD THIS, WOULD THIS COMMISSION VOTE TO INCREASE DENSITY IN EVERY ZONE ACROSS THE CITY AS IT RELATES TO SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING, YET IN, IN THIS PRIME LOCATION, NOT VOTE TO INCREASE DENSITY BECAUSE OF, AND THAT'S A RHETORICAL QUESTION NOTIFIED FOR YEAH, MR. RIVERA CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LIKES ON ANDREW RIVERA.
SO, UM, YOU, UH, THE, UH, COMMISSIONER ALSO NEEDS A SECOND IF, UH, HE WISHES TO ENTERTAIN THIS, UH, MOTION, WHICH IS AGAIN, IMPROPER.
THANK YOU, MR. I'LL PUT IT OUT THERE AND SEE IF ANYONE WANTS TO SECOND MY MOTION TO, UH, BRING MUCH NEEDED DENSITY.
AND, AND THE DESCRIPTION IS BASICALLY SEE 'EM AS MR. ROSARO SAID IT, UH, MIDWAY TAKES IT THREE 50 AND 10 TO ONE TODG TAKES IT TO 4 91 AND 12 TO ONE.
I THINK THOSE NUMBERS ARE RIGHT.
SO YOU CREATE MORE HOUSING, CREATE MORE AFFORDABILITY IF YOU PARTICIPATE IN THOSE BONUSES.
UM, AND IT JUST, IT'S A, IT'S A BENEFIT TO THE CITY.
BEFORE WE CLOSE ON THAT, A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
YES, COMMISSIONER, I JUST, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS, THIS WAS THE PRESENTATION WE HAD PREVIOUSLY HEARD YES.
REGARDING THE SECTIONS BETWEEN, UM, 180 3, AND I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER THE HIGHWAY INTERSECTIONS.
IT'S THAT TRIANGULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY.
IS THAT, IS THAT ALL CORRECT? AM I THAT'S CORRECT.
MM-HMM,
I'LL, I'LL PROVIDE THE SECOND FOR DISCUSSION.
DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK ANYMORE TO YOUR MOTION? SURE.
UM, I WILL SPEAK TO MY MOTION AND, UM, UH, AND I'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
YES, COMMISSIONER, THIS IS BOUNDED BY, UH, MOPAC TO THE WEST, UM, 180 3 TO THE SOUTH GOING NORTHWEST AND 360 TO THE NORTH.
IT IS, UH, THERE ARE NO NEIGHBORS.
THE ONLY NEIGHBORS THAT ARE AROUND IS RETAIL.
AND RETAIL WOULD LOVE TO HAVE AN EXTRA, AGAIN, UM, 150 FEET PER BUILDING.
THAT'S, UH, COMMISSIONER ZA KNOWS WAY BETTER THAN ME, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S 10 STORIES.
THAT'S 12 STORIES PER BUILDING.
IF WE PUT 10 BUILDINGS THERE, THAT'S A, THAT'S A THOUSAND EXTRA.
I MEAN, THAT THE, THE I, THE IMMENSITY, THE, THE, IF THIS IS GOING TO BE OUR SECOND DOWNTOWN, AND IT IS GOING TO BE OUR SECOND DOWNTOWN, I KNOW THE DOWNTOWN AND ALLIANCE AND THE FOLKS HATE ME SAYING THAT, BUT THE DOMAIN IS, AND D SEVEN, Y'ALL MOVE TO D SEVEN.
THIS IS WHERE PEOPLE ARE MOVING.
AND IF WE ARE GOING TO PLAN, WE DON'T NEED TO PLAN FOR 40 DAYS.
AND IF WE'RE GONNA PLAN FOR 40 YEARS AND PUT THE FOLKS THAT ARE MOVING TO THIS AREA SOMEWHERE, THIS IS THE PLACE TO PUT 'EM.
AND WE SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND PLAN ACCORDINGLY.
CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LAVERA, UM, TO BE, UM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND AS NOTICE OF THIS ITEM.
THIS, UH, AGAIN, UM, WE'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT NOTICED TO, UM,
[00:35:01]
UH, ENTERTAIN, UH, TEDI AND MADAM CHAIR BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE LEGAL CONCERNS.I WILL PULL MY SUBSTITUTE, BUT, UM, I, I, I GUESS I JUST WANNA, I WANNA SEND THE MESSAGE TO, UM, ANYBODY.
HOW ABOUT THAT? ANYBODY THAT WORKS ON PLANNING.
UM, YOU, YOU KNOW, I, I, I UNDERSTAND THE PECKING ORDER IN, IN THIS BUILDING, IN THIS, IN THIS TOWN.
AND, AND I AM, I AM APPOINTED BY, BY A PERSON.
AND THERE'S 11 FOLKS THAT MAKE THE ULTIMATE DECISIONS, BUT IT'S GOTTA COME THROUGH HERE FIRST.
AND SO INVOLVE THIS PLANNING COMMISSION WHEN WE'RE DOING DEALS.
UM, AND WE WON'T HAVE THIS TROUBLE, BUT I WILL PULL MY MOTION.
OH, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS IS SPEAKING AS WELL.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS CAN'T HEAR YOU.
CAN YOU SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT? YEAH, I CAN'T SPEAK TOO LOUDLY BECAUSE I HAVE A, I HAD A DENTAL PROCEDURE EARLIER, SO IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH A LOT OF US TONIGHT.
UM, AND I'M STILL ON THOSE MEDS, BUT HEARING WHAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS SPEAKING ABOUT, UH, AND ALSO WHAT ANDREW RIVERA IS SAYING IS AN IMPROPER MOTION.
WHAT WOULD BE A PROPER MOTION? WOULD A PROPER MOTION BE TO, TO DELAY THIS AND, AND, AND THEN REPOST IT? I MEAN, HOW COULD YOU ACCOMMODATE THE DISCUSSION THAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS HAVING ABOUT CONSISTENCY AND INCONSISTENCIES, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT, IN CONTEXT OF THE HOME CONVERSATION? THAT STRIKES ME AS BEING SOMEWHAT, UM, I DON'T KNOW, UM, HYPOCRITICAL, IF YOU WILL.
IF, IF WE ARE SAYING, AS HE SAID, ON THE ONE HAND, WE'RE ASKING EVERYBODY TO, TO SHARE IN THIS SACRIFICE, AND YET WE HAVE THIS EXCEPTION, I GUESS IN DISTRICT SEVEN.
AND I LIVE IN DISTRICT SEVEN, BY THE WAY.
AND JUST TO POINT OUT ANOTHER IRONY, THE, THE, THE, I GUESS THE ARCHITECT OF HOME IS THE COUNCIL MEMBER FOR DISTRICT SEVEN.
SO I, I, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS DOESN'T LOOK AND SMELL.
SO WITH COMMISSIONER HAYNES, UM, WITHDRAWING HIS MOTION, YOU CURRENTLY HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE AND SHOULD ENTERTAIN THAT MOTION RIGHT NOW THAT YOU HAVE A SECOND, WE NEED TO VOTE.
COMMISSIONER COX, I'M TRYING TO MAKE THIS LEGAL.
UM, AND SO WHAT I WAS GONNA OFFER WAS TO AMEND, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S MOTION TO, TO ULTIMATELY APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH WHAT HE SAID AS AN ADVISORY COMMENT TO STAFF TO LOOK INTO AND POSSIBLY COME BACK TO US WITH THOSE, THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.
UM, BUT STILL MOVING THIS FORWARD IN ITS CURRENT ITERATION TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN, BASED ON THE POSTING.
AND IF I MAY CHAIR, UH, YES, MR. CELINE.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THEN, THAT MOTION WOULD BE TO RECOMMEND STAFF RECOMMENDATION, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH, WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S COMMENTS AND AN ORIGINAL SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS, AS ADVISORY TO STAFF FOR CONSIDERATION TO COME BACK TO US.
COMMISSIONER, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LAY ON INVER.
SO JUST REMEMBER UNDER 2 2 5 2 82 C.
UH, THAT'S THE PARAMETERS THAT YOU'RE REVIEWING THIS MATTER.
SO YOU CAN, UM, APPROVE THE APPLICATION APPRO A MORE RESTRICTIVE RE ZONING CLASSIFICATION, APPROVE A, THE PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION, OR MORE RESTRICTED CLA CLASSIFICATION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OR DENY THE OBLIGATION.
THOSE ARE YOUR OPTIONS, MADAM CHAIR.
I WILL, NOW WE'RE GETTING TOO DEEP DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE.
WITH ALL THESE, I WILL RECOMMEND STAFF'S, UM, UH, PROPOSAL WITH THE COMMENTS THAT, UM, THIS, UH, THE CMUM ZONE AS IS APPLIED, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WANNA DEFINE IT, BUT THIS AREA, UH, NEEDS TO BE,
[00:40:01]
UH, REEVALUATED WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TOD GATEWAY IS MORE BENEFICIAL TO AUSTIN'S DENSITY GOALS.I'M, BUT SIMILAR TO COMMISSIONER COX'S AMENDMENT, BUT THE ONLY, THE ONLY THING THAT I HEARD WAS COMMISSIONER COX WAS AMENDING MY MOTION.
IT HAS TO BE STAFF'S MOTION AS I UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM.
THAT'S WHAT COMMISSIONER COX SAID.
OH, I THOUGHT HE WAS TRYING TO AMEND MY MOTION.
YEAH, IT WAS AMENDING YOUR SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO A APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
BUT TAKE YOUR, TAKE THE CONTENT OF YOUR SUBSTITUTE AND MAKE AN ADVISORY.
WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON VICE.
I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, SO PROCEDURALLY, JUST, I THINK WE'VE GONE A LITTLE LOST HERE, UM, SINCE, YEP.
SINCE, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES HAD RESCINDED HIS SUBSTITUTE.
SO WE NOW HAVE A SUBSTITUTE FROM COMMISSIONER COX, AND IT HAS BEEN SECONDED BY THE CHAIR.
SO WE CAN EITHER WORD ON THAT RIGHT NOW, AND I THINK WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT THAT'S NOT A PROPER MOTION EITHER.
SO THEN IT IS UP TO THE MOTION MAKER IF YOU WISH TO RESCIND YOUR MOTION AND RECRAFT IT IN SOME WAY.
COMMISSIONER COX, THAT'S UP TO YOU.
I THINK IF I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE WITH MY MOTION WAS THE ADVISORY COMPONENT, AND IF THAT'S THE ISSUE, THEN ALL THE MOTIONS THAT WE'RE MAKING, EXCEPT FOR THE VERY ORIGINAL ONE ARE, ARE NO GOOD.
SO, UM, I THINK, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THIS COMMISSION TO MAKE ADVISORY STATE STATEMENTS, UH, THAT ACCOMPANY RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT ACTUAL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT, THAT GO TO COUNSEL.
UM, SO I DON'T PARTICULARLY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE MOTION I MADE SINCE IT ULTIMATELY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR, FOR THIS, FOR THIS CASE.
BUT I'LL LET THE LAWYERS AND STAFF FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH MY MOTION.
CAN, CAN WE THROW THAT BACK TO LIAISON, MR. RIVERA? CHAIR COMMISSIONER, LIAISON.
SO YOU BE NOTED AS STAFF RECOMMENDATION? YES.
AND THEN WE JUST WANTING TO SEND COMMENTS TO COUNSEL ALONG WITH THAT, UH, IF THIS IS APPROVED, ONCE IT GOES THROUGH, VOTE, IF THIS IS APPROVED THROUGH VOTE FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'RE SENDING SOME COMMENTS ALONG WITH IT.
SO ARE WE VOTING ON, AND I BELIEVE WE'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST, BEEN ABLE TO APPROVE THINGS AND SEND COMMENTARY.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, MADAM CHAIR MAY YES, GO AHEAD.
IF THOSE WOULD NOT BE CONDITIONS OF THE RECOMMENDATION, THAT'S CORRECT.
TO CLARIFY, IT WOULD BE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH COMMENTARY ESSENTIALLY, OR ADVICE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT NOT AS A CONDITION OF THE APPROVAL.
PURELY ADVISORY VICE CHAIR, CHAIR.
I, I, I HAVE A, UM, A CLARIFYING QUESTION, MR. ROSLYN.
CAN YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND THERE'S A LARGER EFFORT GOING AROUND THE NORTH BURN GATEWAY REGULATING PLAN AS WELL.
THERE WERE SOME REVISIONS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE MADE.
IS THERE OTHER WORK PROCEEDING ON THIS AT THIS MOMENT? UH, THERE, THERE ARE MULTIPLE FRONTS OF THAT THAT ARE HAPPENING IN NORTH BE GATEWAY DUE TO AN ENABLING, UH, COUNCIL RESOLUTION THAT HAD 11 POINTS, 11 ASKS, MOST OF THOSE WERE ALREADY DISPENSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL LAST YEAR.
THE THREE PENDING OF THAT, OR ORIGINAL ENABLING, UH, RESOLUTION ARE THE DENSITY BONUS CALIBRATIONS AND THE PARKING, UM, ALIGNING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WITH CITYWIDE EFFORTS.
SINCE COUNCIL HAS RECENTLY MADE CHANGES, WE'RE WORKING TO UPDATE THAT CITYWIDE THAT WOULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON THIS.
COUNCIL ALSO INITIATED, UH, A CODE AMENDMENT TO CREATE A NEW SUBDISTRICT FOR, UH, PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY, UH, THE PICKLE PROPERTIES.
IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THOSE, THOSE THAT ARE JUST ADJACENT TO NORTH AND EAST OF THE SUBJECT REZONING AREA, THAT'S A DIFFERENT, UH, CODE AMENDMENT AND REZONING THAT WILL COME TO YOU IN THE FUTURE.
BUT THOSE ARE THE ELEMENTS THAT ARE MOVING FORWARD RELATED TO NORTH BOROUGH GATEWAY.
OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
THIS WAS, UM, A MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER COX AND SECONDED BY MYSELF, CHAIR HEMPEL.
[00:45:01]
FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD ABOUT TODG GATEWAY, UH, TOTG.UM, INCLUDED AS, UH, UH, NOTIFICATION TO COUNSEL ABOUT THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD TONIGHT.
I THINK WE CAN FRAME IT AS, I THINK WE CAN FRAME IT AS, AS, UM, ADVISING STAFF TO, TO, TO CONSIDER TODG IN THE FUTURE, UM, FOR, FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
ALL OF THOSE ON FAVOR ON THE DIOCESE.
THREE, FOUR, AND THOSE LINE 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5.
COMMISSIONER CONNOLLY, DID YOU VOTE NO? AH, YES.
THANK YOU FOR THAT DISCUSSION.
THANK, THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS.
GERALD, JUST THANK YOU THAT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY PROFESSIONAL.
I WAS JUST GONNA QUICKLY SAY, WHILE MR. ROSALIND IS ON HERE, I, I THINK WHEN WE GET TO FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, I'LL BE REQUESTING A, UM, UPDATE ON THE NORTH POINT GATEWAY PLAN.
MR. ROSLIN, I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF MOVING PARTS.
I THINK IT MIGHT HELP THE COMMISSIONERS TO MAYBE SEE IT ALL IN ONE PLACE, UM, AND SEE IF THERE'S OTHER THINGS FOLKS WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND.
[13. LDC Amendment: C20-2023-039 - Modify Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements]
LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER 13.THIS IS THE LDC AMENDMENT TO MODIFY MINIMUM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
SO, UM, LET'S SEE TONIGHT, UH, DAN HENNESSY IS AT A CONFERENCE, SO HE WILL NOT BE HERE.
WE'VE GOT, UM, MR. KITTEN, I THINK ONLINE, AND THEN, UH, SPENCER, WHO WILL BE SPEAKING, UM, TO IT AS WELL.
BUT, UH, MR. KITTEN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO AHEAD? CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LADIES ON ANDOVER.
UM, IF I COULD JUST CONFIRM WITH, UH, MR. KITTEN, UH, DO YOU WISH TO HAVE THE PRESENTATION? UH, I DON'T, NO, BUT I DID WANNA OPEN UP A DISCUSSION.
UH, FIRST OF ALL, COLE KITTEN, UH, UH, DIVISION MANAGER IN OUR TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, OVERSEEING OUR SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, UM, WHICH IS OUR LONG RANGE PLANNING AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT.
UM, YES, I'M, I'M STANDING IN FOR DAN TONIGHT.
AND, UM, FIRST I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE WAS AWARE THAT AN UPDATED, UH, DRAFT OF THE ORDINANCE WAS PROVIDED.
UM, DURING THE MEETING, UH, LEGAL IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE CHANGES, BUT, UM, THERE WERE, UM, SOME CORRECTIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE MADE, UM, BASED ON HOW WE WANTED TO STRUCTURE, UM, WHERE THE BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WERE BEING REFERENCED.
SO, UM, I CAN, I CAN CERTAINLY SPEAK TOWARDS THE PRESENTATION, UM, AND STAFF REPORT THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE BACKUP.
UM, BUT IF WE WOULD, UM, UH, PREFER, UM, UH, GOING OVER THOSE CHANGES JUST SO IT'S CLEAR ON WHAT WAS CHANGED, UM, AND THAT'S WHAT, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD BE, UH, RECOMMENDING TONIGHT.
I'M HAVING A, A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE HEARING THE, THE SOUND HERE.
UM, LOOK, PICTURE LITTLE SCREEN.
THERE'S, ON THE LEFT SIDE, THERE'S A SLIDER FOR VOLUME.
YEAH, IT'S JUST A LITTLE MUFFLED.
SO, UM, I THINK MR. KITTEN, I'M HEARING YOU'RE ASKING IF YOU WANT US TO HAVE THE PRESENTATION.
UM, WHAT I, JUST TO CLARIFY, UH, WE PROVIDED AN UPDATED ORDINANCE, UM, DURING THE MEETING.
SO WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING IS THAT I COULD PULL UP THE, UM, THE ORDINANCE TO, TO WALK THROUGH WHAT THOSE CHANGES WERE.
WHILE, UM, THE PRESENTATION PROVIDED IN THE BACKUP, UM, MORE, MORE CONCISELY, UM, SUMMARIZES WHERE THE CHANGES WERE MADE IN, UM, TITLE 25, UM, OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
UM, BUT IT MAY BE MORE, UH, IMPORTANT JUST TO, TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT WHAT THESE, THESE LAST MINUTE CHANGES WERE.
SO, UM, IF I MAY, I WILL SHARE MY SCREEN YES.
AND WALK THROUGH THOSE CHANGES.
I MEAN IT, UM, JUST, JUST TO, I GUESS A PROCESS
[00:50:01]
QUESTION.UM, IS IT, UH, COMMONPLACE FOR THE COMMISSION TO VOTE ON ITEMS THAT WE JUST GOT SEVEN MINUTES AGO? IT'S NOT BEST PRACTICE, BUT IT HAPPENS, BUT WE HAVE THE BACKUP AND, AND THERE ARE CHANGES TO THAT.
SO HE'S GOING TO WALK US THROUGH WHERE THE CHANGES ARE AND WE CAN DECIDE IF IT'S ENOUGH TIME.
SO TO SUMMARIZE, ALL RIGHT, WHEN YOU'RE READY, MR. KIN.
I'M SHARING A, A WORD DOCUMENT, UM, FOR SUMMARY PURPOSES.
UM, BUT, UH, THE NEW LANGUAGE THAT WAS INCLUDED IN TABLE B SUBSECTION 2.31 SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN A NEW SUBSECTION H OF 25 DASH SIX DASH 4 77, WHICH SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES BICYCLE PARKING INSTEAD.
TABLE B SHOULD INCLUDE ONLY REFERENCE TO THE NEW SUB SUBSECTION H OF 25 DASH SIX DASH 4 77.
UH, THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THIS CHANGE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL PARKING RELATED REQUIREMENTS, UM, ARE INCLUDED IN 25 DASH SIX INSTEAD OF, UM, TABLE B OF SUBSECTION 2.3.
SO THE UPDATED DRAFT ORDINANCE, UM, I'VE HIGHLIGHTED WHAT THOSE CHANGES ARE, AND, AND WE'LL SHOW THOSE.
NOW, ALL ELSE IN THIS ORDINANCE, UM, IS THE SAME.
SO TABLE B OF SUBSECTION, UH, 2.3 0.1 UNDER CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN SITES, I'VE HIGHLIGHTED UNDER, UM, UNDER THIS, UH, COLUMN OF THE DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS FOR THE OPTION TO ENHANCE PHYSICAL FITNESS OPPORTUNITIES AND MULTIMODAL CONNECTIVITY BY PROVIDING SHOWER AND LOCKER FACILITIES FOR EMPLOYEES AND INCREASED REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING BY 10%.
THE DESCRIPTION READ TO COMPLY WITH THIS OPTION, THE SITE MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING SHOWER REQUIREMENTS, AND THE REQUIREMENTS WERE INCLUDED WITHIN THAT TEXT, BUT THEY'RE NOW, UM, CHANGED TO BE INCLUDED IN A NEW SUBSECTION OF 25 DASH SIX DASH 4 77 OF SUBSECTION H.
SO SCROLLING THROUGH 25 DASH SIX IN THE TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER, WE HAVE OUR BICYCLE PARKING SECTION AND A NEW SUBSECTION H, WHICH INCLUDES THAT INFORMATION IN THIS SECTION INSTEAD OF IN TABLE B.
AND SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE, UH, THE ORDINANCE, UM, PROVIDED FOR PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.
ARE WE ABLE TO, SO, UM, ARE WE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS? SORRY.
OR WE WILL, WILL WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY THAT? YES.
WE'LL CHAIR, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THE, THE PRIMARY, THE PRIMARY, UM, PART OF THE PRESENTATION THAT, UH, I WAS GONNA HIGHLIGHT FOR EVERYONE IS THAT, UM, THESE CHANGES ARE INTENDED TO SIMPLIFY HOW WE CALCULATE OUR BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
UM, PREVIOUSLY, UM, IT'S BEEN DESCRIBED AS A PRETTY CONVOLUTED PROCESS TO COME UP WITH THAT NUMBER.
UM, BUT NOW THE RECOMMENDATION, UM, IN, IN, IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS TO MAKE IT, UM, BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT'S BEING PROVIDED, UH, FOR VEHICLES AND, UM, INSTEAD OF BASED ON, UH, MULTIPLE, UH, VARIABLES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED, AND THE, THE, THE RATIOS OF, OF THE BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, UM, WERE RECOMMENDED BY THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.
AND THAT'S WHAT WAS BEEN, UH, HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE ORDINANCE.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LARA? YES, UH, WE DO.
UM, WE HAVE, UH, COMMISSIONER SPENCER SCHUMACHER PRESENT.
UH, CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS SPENCER SCHUMACHER.
UM, I'M THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEMBER WHO USUALLY EMAILS YOU TO BUG YOU ABOUT BIKING.
UH, TODAY OUR MEETING WAS CANCELED, SO I THOUGHT I'D COME OVER
[00:55:01]
HERE AND BUG YOU IN PERSON, GIVE YOU GUYS A LITTLE BIT OF THOUGHT PROCESS AS TO WHAT WE'RE THINKING.UH, JUST TO BE CLEAR, I AM SPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL HERE.
UM, SO FIRST, WHEN WE ELIMINATED MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, WE DIDN'T ELIMINATE EVERYTHING, RIGHT? WE KEPT ACCESSIBLE PARKING, WE KEPT LOADING REQUIREMENTS, AND WE KEPT BICYCLE REQUIREMENTS.
I THINK THE REASON WE DID THAT IS 'CAUSE THOSE PROVIDE MORE BENEFITS THAN THEY DO HARMS. AND I THINK THAT'S ABSOLUTELY TRUE WITH BICYCLE PARKING.
SO FIRST, BICYCLE PARKING IS NOT AN ONEROUS REQUIREMENT, RIGHT? THE AVERAGE COST OF A PARKING SPACE, ACCORDING TO STAFF REPORT, IS ANYWHERE FROM 10,000 TO $60,000.
UH, A U RACK, WHICH IS TWO BICYCLE SPACES, COSTS 50 BUCKS, RIGHT? SO INCREASING BICYCLE PARKING IS NOT GONNA BE THE REASON YOUR RENT GOES UP, AND IT'S NOT GONNA LEAD TO LESS UNITS, RIGHT? THE OTHER THING IS THAT, UH, OUR BIKE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE EXTRAORDINARILY CONFUSING RIGHT NOW, IF YOU WANT TO FIGURE IT OUT, UH, YOU NEED TO GO TO SIX DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF CODE.
IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE, WHICH AS A RESULT, A LOT OF PEOPLE JUST DON'T FOLLOW THROUGH WITH IT.
UH, THIS WOULD TAKE IT DOWN TO TWO.
AND OUR THOUGHT PROCESS WAS WE WANTED TO PUT THE RATIO IN THE A SMP.
SO IF WE WANT 50% OF PEOPLE DRIVING IN 2020 OR 2039 AND 5% OF PEOPLE BIKING, THEN THE RATIO OF PARKING SHOULD BE 50 TO FIVE OR 10%.
SO THAT WAS OUR THOUGHT PROCESS HERE.
COMMERCIAL GARAGES IN THE CITY HAVE ALREADY HAD TO COMPLY WITH THAT 10% RATIO FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW.
UH, THIRD BIKE PARKING IS AFTER AN AFTERTHOUGHT.
IF YOU BIKE PLACES, I'M SURE YOU'VE GONE TO A NEW RESTAURANT, YOU'VE ASKED THEM, UH, WHERE'S YOUR BICYCLE PARKING? AND THEY SAY, OH, WE NEVER PUT IT IN.
EVEN THE BLANTON MUSEUM FORGOT FOR A LITTLE WHILE.
UH, SO MAKING IT SIMPLIFIED MAKES IT SO THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY THINK ABOUT BIKE PARKING AND THINK MORE HOLISTICALLY ABOUT THE TYPES OF PARKING THEY WANT.
AND THEN FINALLY, MY LETTER OF THE DAY IS A, FOR ACTUALLY ACHIEVING OUR A SMP GOALS.
WE TALK A LOT ABOUT THE COMMISSION.
WHAT ARE THE POLICIES WE NEED TO HIT THOSE 2039 GOALS? AND I THINK THE MINIMUM WE NEED TO DO IS PREPARE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.
IF 5% OF PEOPLE ARE BIKING IN 2039, WHICH I THINK WE WILL ACHIEVE, WE NEED THERE TO BE BIKE PARKING SPACES.
SO THIS IS INCENTIVIZING DEVELOPERS TO THINK LONG TERM AND PLAN AHEAD FOR 40 YEARS IN THE FUTURE SO THAT THEY'RE PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE GROWTH OF BICYCLING, WHICH I BELIEVE WILL COME.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, UH, IF YOU HAVE 'EM.
STICK AROUND FOR QUESTIONS FOR SURE.
CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING? MADAM CHAIR? I'D ASK FOR A LITTLE BIT OF LEEWAY SINCE WE'RE GET, WE'VE GOT A RESOLUTION THAT WE LITERALLY GOT NOW NINE MINUTES AGO.
CAN WE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING SO WE CAN ASK STAFF A FEW QUESTIONS RATHER THAN TAKING, SO WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN WE'LL DO OUR REGULAR Q AND A, SO PEOPLE WILL HAVE UP TO FIVE MINUTES EACH.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I'VE GOT, GIVEN WE'VE GOT BRAND NEW TEXT HERE.
UM, WELL, I MEAN, IF THAT'S THE WILL OF, OF THE COMMAND, OKAY.
I WOULD ASK, I WOULD ASK, WE KEEP IT OPEN AND LET US ASK STAFF ABOUT SOME OF THE NEW LANGUAGE, BUT OKAY.
IS THERE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? SECONDED.
ANYONE OPPOSED? COMM, MR. HAYNES? OKAY.
UM, THAT IS, IT STILL PASSES AND ABSTAIN.
DO YOU WANNA ASK IF ANYONE ABSTAINS? UM, SURE.
ANYBODY ABSTAINING ON THAT PASSES? NINE ONE.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE, DO WE HAVE 10 NOW, COMMISSIONER? I BELIEVE WE DO, YES.
COMMISSIONER, UH, COX AND THEN COMMISSIONER MO.
YEAH, I'M, I'M A LITTLE, I THOUGHT THIS WAS ABOUT BIKE PARKING, BUT I'M TRYING TO READ THROUGH ALL OF THIS TABLE B WHERE WE'RE NOW REQUIRING ADDITIONAL MEASURES AND THEN ALSO READING THROUGH THE REQUIREMENT TO ADD A SHOWER.
SO, SO THIS SECTION H 25 6 4 7 7 H THAT'S BEEN ADDED.
WHAT, WHAT IS, WHO IS SUBJECTED TO THAT? MR. KITTEN? I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE QUESTION FOR YOU OR STAFF.
AND I MAY ASK FOR LEGAL COUNSEL TO CHIME IN, UM, IF POSSIBLE, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS ACTUALLY ISN'T NEW TEXT.
SO RIGHT NOW WE REQUIRE ALL DEVELOPMENTS TO HAVE SHOWER AND CHANGING FACILITIES.
IT LOOKS LIKE COMMISSIONER BARRA, RAMEZ KNOWS THE ANSWER TO THIS.
[01:00:01]
I'M SORRY,SO IF YOU LOOK AT NUMBER TWO, IT SAYS, IT TALKS ABOUT FOR SURFACE PARKING THAT AMOUNTS TO MORE THAN A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE PARK, 125% OF THE PARKING REQUIRED IN APPENDIX A.
IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN 125% OF THE PARKING REQUIRED, THEN YOU MUST PICK AT LEAST THREE OF THE OPTIONS PROVIDED IN TABLE B.
SO, AND I APOLOGIZE, IT'S VERY CONFUSING, AND I DON'T KNOW, I, I WROTE PART OF THIS CODE A LONG TIME AGO, SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT.
BUT, UM, SO YEAH, SO THREE OF THREE OF THE BELOW, SO, SO NO, COMMISSIONER, I, I APPRECIATE THAT.
BUT THE THING IS, IS THAT THIS IS, THIS IS IN ADDITION TO TABLE B BECAUSE IT BASICALLY SAYS THAT, THAT ANY, ANY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION 2, 3, 1 HAS TO HAVE THOSE SHOWER FACILITIES.
AND 2, 3, 1 IS THIS WHOLE THING, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS APPLIED TO EVERY DEVELOPMENT, NOW THAT IT'S BEING PERMITTED, NOW I'M CONFUSED.
AND MR. KITTEN, CAN YOU HELP CLARIFY? I, I, UM, I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT INTERPRETATION.
UM, TABLE B IS APPLICABLE TO, AS COMMISSIONER RERA POINTED OUT, UM, TO THOSE THAT NEED TO SELECT THREE OF THOSE OPTIONS.
UM, SO AS IT READS IN SUBSECTION H, IT REFERENCES BACK TO THAT ARTICLE.
SO IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE DEFINITELY NEED TO HAVE CLARIFYING LANGUAGE.
BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IF A DEVELOPMENT OPS TO CONSTRUCT SHOWERS AND CHANGING FACILITIES TO SATISFY THE TABLE B REQUIREMENTS, THEN THIS IS THE REQUIREMENT.
IT BASICALLY JUST SAYS, IT JUST SAYS ANY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO 2.3 0.1 MUST PROVIDE SHOWER AND LOCKER FACILITIES AS FOLLOWS.
AND THEN IT HAS A CUTOFF AT 20, A CUTOFF AT A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, AND THEN OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.
UNLESS, UNLESS THERE'S A PROVISION IN HERE THAT RESTRICTS THE APPLICABILITY OF, OF SUBSECTION 2, 3, 1.
THIS APPLIES TO EVERY DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY, AND I'M NOT SEEING A RESTRICTION.
IF THE ENHANCEMENT OF PHYSICAL FITNESS OPPORTUNITIES, MULTIMODAL CONNECTIVITY IS CHOSEN AS THE OPTION, THEN YEAH.
YEAH, NO, I, I AGREE WITH THAT.
THAT I, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS.
SO I APPRECIATE Y'ALL, Y'ALL WORKING THROUGH THIS WITH ME.
YEAH, I'M, I'M JUST GONNA JUMP IN.
WE ACTUALLY HEARD THIS PRESENTATION FROM DAN HENNESSY, WHO'S BEEN THE STAFF MEMBER WORKING ON THIS AT CO, CO AND JOINT ORDINANCES.
AND THAT WAS NOT INDICATED TO US AS PART OF THIS, BECAUSE WE OBVIOUSLY WOULD'VE QUESTIONED THAT REQUIREMENT VERY CLOSELY.
SO I, I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU'RE INTERPRETING IT, COMMISSIONER COX, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS THE INTENT, AND IT WAS CERTAINLY NOT THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED TO US IN THAT BODY, BECAUSE WE WOULD'VE OBVIOUSLY MADE SURE THAT IT WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN EVERY SINGLE SITUATION, BEING THAT THAT'S A HUGE DEVELOPMENT BURDEN AND PROBABLY INAPPROPRIATE IN A LOT OF CASES.
SO I, I, I DON'T KNOW IF THE LANGUAGE HAS CHANGED OR WHERE THE CLARIFICATION NEEDS TO BE, BUT THAT WAS DEFINITELY NOT HOW IT WAS PRESENTED AT CJOC.
WELL, AND, AND, AND I NO, I APPRECIATE THAT.
AND I JUST, FOR EVERYONE'S, FOR EVERYONE'S USE, PAGE FIVE OF 14 OF THE WORD DOCUMENT, WE WERE EMAILED, UH, ABOUT 11 MINUTES AGO OR WHATEVER, UM, THE, THE NEW BLUE H AND IT, AND IT BASICALLY SAYS, UH, A SITE OR DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION 2.3, 0.1 OF ARTICLE TWO SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF SUB CHAPTER E OF, OF CITY CODE CHAPTER 25 2, WHICH IS EVERYTHING
SO THERE, SO THAT, TO ME, I'M READING THAT AS EVERY DEVELOPMENT IS, IS MUST PROVIDE SHOWER AND LOCKER FACILITIES.
UM, SO I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER, UM, BARRA RAMIREZ SAID, TRYING TO ADD LANGUAGE IN THERE, REFERENCING BACK TO THE TABLE B OPTIONS WOULD BE HUGELY CLARIFYING.
BECAUSE IF, IF SOMEONE HIRED ME TO HERMIT THEIR DEVELOPMENT, I WOULD BE LIKE, WELL, FROM FROM THIS YOU NEED A SHOWER
[01:05:02]
OR TWO OR THREEUM, COMMISSIONER MUSER, I ACTUALLY, I'M LOOKING AT THE SAME.
I DON'T, I, I DON'T THINK IS LAID OUT IN THE ORDINANCE.
I'M, I'M ACTUALLY ALSO CONCERNED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE LANGUAGE, UM, UM, BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY SAYS AVAILABLE TO BOTH GENDERS AND AVAILABLE TO EACH GENDER, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT'S OUR BEST LANGUAGE CHOICES, UM, FOR, UM, UM, I'M STRUGGLING FOR MY WORDS.
I, I THINK WE HAVE BETTER LANGUAGE, UH, TO ENCOMPASS ALL OF OUR CITIZENS.
AND DO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE? UH, I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THIS IS NOT NEW TEXT.
UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN IT COMES TO CODE, IT'S, IT'S, YOU TOUCH IT, YOU BREAK IT, OR YOU BREAK IT, YOU OWN IT.
SO
SO UNDERSTANDABLY THINGS HAVE BEEN MOVED AROUND, BUT THAT MAY INFLUENCE WHAT WE NEED TO DO TONIGHT WITH IT.
SO YOU MIGHT THINK ABOUT POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THAT LANGUAGE.
OTHER QUESTIONS? I, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
UM, UH, MR. KITTEN, I LOOKED OVER THE ORIGINAL, UM, BACKUP AND I DON'T FIND ANY INFORMATION RELATED TO THE, THE SHOWER.
I, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, SO IT'S HARD FOR ME TO DO.
UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR LEGAL.
CAN I GET A LEGAL INTERPRETATION FOR THE NEW LANGUAGE IN H MR. RIVERA'S LEGAL ON THE CALL CHAIR, COMMISSION LAY ERROR? LET ME CONFER WITH LEGAL PLEASE.
AND MR. KITTEN, WHILE WE ARE, UH, WAITING ON LEGAL, UM, WAS, WAS THE SHOWER INFORMATION INCLUDED IN OUR ORIGINAL BACKUP? SORRY, JUST TO CLARIFY.
I THINK THAT THIS, THE LANGUAGE IS MOSTLY THE SAME.
THE ONLY THING THAT HAPPENED IS THEY MOVED THE LOCATION OF WHERE, SO THE BICYCLE SHOWER INFORMATION TO COMMISSIONER BREWER ROMERO'S POINT HAS BEEN IN THERE THE ENTIRE TIME.
THAT HAS NOT CHANGED THE INTERPRETATION THAT COMMISSIONER COX, THAT MAY BE AN ISSUE, BUT THE LANGUAGE OF THAT BEING PART OF OUR CODE HAS BEEN THERE.
UM, I'M, I'M LOOKING RIGHT NOW AT THE WORDS ON THE PAPER OF THE BACKUP THEY GAVE US, AND THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE SHOWER.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS ALSO TRYING TO SAY IS THAT WE DID NOT DISCUSS SHOWERS AT CJOC BECAUSE IT DIDN'T COME UP.
BECAUSE HAVING SHOWERS AS AN OPTION TO SATISFY THESE REQUIREMENTS IS A LONGSTANDING CO CODE OPTION.
SO THAT, THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING WE DISCUSSED BECAUSE IT WASN'T SEEN AS BEING CHANGED.
WHAT WAS BEING CHANGED WAS THE OTHER ITEMS. MR. RIVERA, WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR LEGAL, I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THEM SINCE WE'VE NOTICED FOR, UH, PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND IT DIDN'T INCLUDE SHOWERS, UH, A PROVISION TO MANDATE SHOWERS ACROSS ALL THE BUILDINGS, UH, IS THIS PROPER NOTICE NOTED? I'LL, UM, CONFIRM WITH LEGAL THOSE TWO QUESTIONS FOR LEGAL, NOT FOR YOU.
OTHER QUESTIONS? REMEMBER WE DO HAVE, UM, UH, THE COMMISSIONER FROM URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TOO, IF THAT, IF THAT HELPS.
I HAVEN'T HEARD OF BUZZER YET.
UM, BUT, BUT AGAIN, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA, DEPENDING ON WHAT LEGAL SAYS, I, SOME OF MY COMMENTS RELATE TO, AGAIN, THE LETTER C.
UH, IT, IT IS HARD FOR ME TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THE FACT THAT, UH, EIGHT WEEKS AGO, THIS COMMISSION VOTED TO ELIMINATE VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
[01:10:01]
THEN, LIKE SIX WEEKS AGO, THE, THE COUNCIL VOTED TO ELIMINATE VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.AND AS PART OF THE UTC, UH, AT STATE, FEDERAL, AND LOCAL LAW BICYCLES ARE VEHICLES.
WE MAY NOT HAVE DONE IT AS ARTFULLY.
AND THAT'S WHAT MR. SCHUMACHER EXPLAINED TO ME IS THAT THERE ARE STILL PROVISIONS IN THE CODE THAT RELATE TO, SPECIFICALLY TO BICYCLE PARKING.
UM, SO WE MAY NEED TO CLEAN THAT UP.
WE MAY NEED TO TAKE THOSE OUT.
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL HAD TO KICK ME OR, OR DRAG ME KICKING AND SCREAMING TO ELIMINATE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
AND ALL I REMEMBER IS, IS LISTENING TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WHO, UH, ABSOLUTELY SOLD ME ON THE IDEA THAT MANDATING PARKING MINIMUMS IS CUMBERSOME AT UNNECESSARY COST TO PROJECTS, INCREASE OUR AFFORDABILITY CRISIS, AND MAKE DEVELOPERS USE SPACE THAT COULD OTHERWISE USE TO BE BILLED AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
Y'ALL WON ME OVER AND I VOTED FOR YOU.
AND I THINK WE SHOULD BE CONSISTENT AND TAKE AWAY ALL PARKING MINIMUM EX EXCEPT FOR ACCESSIBILITY.
'CAUSE THOSE ARE PEOPLE, NOT VEHICLES, BUT FOR VEHICLES DO AWAY WITH PARKING MINIMUMS. BUZZ.
COMMISSIONER COX, I, JUST GOING BACK.
SO I FOUND THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THIS 19 9 9 9 SQUARE FEET, TWO TO 99, AND THEN OVER A A HUNDRED THOUSAND I COM.
I, I THINK SO THE ORIGINAL SECTION, IF ANYONE HAS THE LDC UP, IT'S IN 25 6, 4 78 ITEM E AND, OR SORRY, ITEM D.
AND SO THE LANGUAGE THAT THEY SUPPOSEDLY MOVED ACTUALLY DID CHANGE BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL TEXT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SAYS, EXCEPT FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE A SITE PLAN UNDER 25 52, THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING IS REDUCED BY 10% IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.
AND THEN IT HAS THE THREE CATEGORIES OF SHOWERS.
SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE ORIGINAL CODE WAS DOING WAS ALLOWING A MINIMUM PARKING REDUCTION BY 10% IF YOU PROVIDED SHOWERS IN YOUR FACILITY, THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL CODE INTENT.
NOW THAT WE'VE ELIMINATED PARKING MINIMUMS, THERE'S NO REQUIRED, THERE'S NO REDUCTION GIVEN BECAUSE THERE'S NO MINIMUM.
AND SO SOMEHOW THIS TEXT GOT COPIED AND PASTED OVER TO THIS NEW SECTION, AND THAT INTRO TEXT NOW MAKES IT APPLY TO EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S SUBJECT TO OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
RATHER THAN PUTTING SHOWERS IN YOUR BUILDING ALLOWS YOU TO REDUCE YOUR PARKING MINIMUM.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION IS BASED ON 10 MINUTES OF INVESTIG INVESTIGATORY WORK.
AND SO I THINK WE DEFINITELY NEED TO EITHER CUT THAT OUT ENTIRELY OR CHANGE IT SO THAT IT REFERS ONLY TO THE SELECTION OF THAT ITEM IN TABLE B.
UH, YES, I, THIS IS NOT A QUESTION PER SE I GUESS, EXCEPT FOR MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
IF FOLKS ARE FINE WITH IT, I'M FINE WITH MOVING AHEAD AND IT MAKES SENSE PERHAPS TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO OUR NEXT MEETING.
SO WE WOULD DO A TWO WEEK POSTPONEMENT.
I THINK THERE IS SOME THINGS, HOPEFULLY WE HAVE Q AND A THAT CAN BE RESPONDED TO, UM, WITH A DIFFERENT COMMISSIONERS AND ALSO TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LANGUAGE LOOKS TIED TO US.
SO, AGAIN, I DO NOT WANNA STOP IF PEOPLE WANNA GO THROUGH THE Q AND A, BUT IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE FOR US TO JUST GO AHEAD AND POSTPONE THE ITEM, JUST SO WE CAN FIGURE THIS OUT.
I WANTED COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP EARLIER, SO I DO WANNA HONOR THAT QUESTION.
I'M ACTUALLY GONNA GO AHEAD AND ASK MY QUESTIONS IF THAT'S OKAY WITH COMMISSIONER ZA? YES.
BECAUSE I ACTUALLY HAD SOME QUESTIONS FOR, UH, OUR FRIEND FROM THE UTC
UM, SO FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COME AND SPEAK TO US HERE AT PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND I THINK WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY, JUST BECAUSE I'VE SORT OF BEEN, I WAS HELPING WITH OR UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE DOING WITH PARKING, IS THAT THIS IDEA OF FIXING THE PARKING BIKE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WAS TIED INTO PARKING REFORM GENERALLY, BECAUSE WE WANTED TO ENSURE THAT WE WERE INCENTIVIZING PARKING AS WE TOOK AWAY BIKE PARKING AS WE TOOK AWAY MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING.
AND I'LL, I'LL ALSO SAY, UM, THIS IS, I, I ALSO SERVE ON THE BICYCLE ADVISORY COUNCIL.
UH, THIS IS SOMETHING THE BICYCLE ADVISORY COUNCIL HAS BEEN ASKING FOR SINCE I WAS IN MIDDLE SCHOOL,
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS JUST THE FIRST TIME WE'VE REALLY TAKEN A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT THIS PART OF THE CODE.
AND I'M, I'M GONNA GUESS, YOU KNOW, WE'LL DO CLEANUPS OVER THE NEXT YEAR, BUT IT'LL PROBABLY BE THE LAST.
SO THIS IS KIND OF THE ONE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO INCENTIVIZE, UH, UH, BIKE PARKING AS PART OF A, YOU KNOW, COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT, UH, HOW FOLKS WANNA DEVELOP THEIR SITES GOING FORWARD.
[01:15:01]
AND I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY TOO, BECAUSE WHEN WE DISCUSSED PARKING REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICALLY, WE DID DISCUSS BIKE PARKING AS PART OF THAT, AND WE UNDERSTOOD THAT WE SORT OF, TO THE POINT THAT WE'VE HEARD MANY TIMES THIS EVENING, WERE NOT NECESSARILY NOTICED FOR THAT.OR THE ORDINANCE WAS WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY ABOUT MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING, AND THAT'S WHY WE WANTED TO COME BACK AND DO BIKE PARKING.
AND THAT WAS SUPPORTED BY COUNCIL, BY COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
SO, UH, WE PUT IT IN OUR UTC RECOMMENDATION.
WE SAID, FIRST WE ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT, UH, REMOVING OFF STREET MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING.
SECONDLY, WHILE WE'RE ON THE SECTION OF CODE, IF WE COULD GO AHEAD AND LOOK AT THAT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
UM, AND THEN MAYOR PRO TEM, UH, UM, UH, I THINK SHE'S STILL MAYOR PRO TEM.
UM, ELLIS, UH, DID A MOTION ON THAT.
UH, DURING THE ACTUAL DISCUSSION ABOUT, UH, REMOVING OFF STREET MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING MINIMUMS, LEGAL DETERMINED THAT THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE POSTING.
SO THEY CAME BACK ON NOVEMBER 9TH, DID AN ITEM FROM COUNSEL THAT INITIATED THE PROCESS THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU RIGHT NOW.
AND THEN JUST SORT OF TAKING A STEP BACK IS, OBVIOUSLY YOU TALKED ABOUT OUR A SMP GOALS, AND WE KNOW THAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE A SIGNIFICANT MODE SHIFT AWAY FROM SINGLE USE, UH, OCCUPANCY VEHICLES AND INTO SORT OF MORE SUSTAINABLE MODES OF TRANSIT.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING, HAVING HAD THIS CONVERSATION AT CJOC, IS THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY SORT OF AN INITIAL STEP.
THIS IS A CODE CLEANUP, AND THAT WE MIGHT EXPECT THAT IN THE FUTURE WE WOULD REVISE ADDITIONAL OR PUT IN ADDITIONAL BIKE PARKING REQUIREMENTS OR SORT OF MORE INCENTIVES AROUND BICYCLING GENERALLY, AND SPECIFICALLY ABOUT BIKE STORAGE.
AND THIS IS ALSO GOING TO, UM, COINCIDE WITH OUR TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL UPDATE, WHICH I, I'M SURE STAFF COULD TALK ABOUT MORE.
UH, BUT STAFF IS CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH AND REVIEWING THAT.
THAT'S GONNA BE COMING THROUGH, I ASSUME, TO THE UTC AND THE BAC AND PROBABLY TO YOU ALL IF YOU WANNA SEE IT AS WELL.
UM, SO THIS IS KIND OF TYING IN WITH, UH, THEM THINKING MORE BROADLY ABOUT HOW WE SHOULD BE INCENTIVIZING BIKE PARKING.
UH, PERHAPS THERE IS A WAY WE CAN DO IT WITHOUT A REQUIREMENT.
PERHAPS THERE IS A WAY THAT WE CAN DO IT WITHOUT TYING IT TO MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING.
UH, BUT FOR THE TIME BEING, THIS IS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER WHAT WE HAVE.
UH, AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, WHILE WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, UH, A GOOD CHANGE TO MAKE IT EASIER TO DEVELOP WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY, UH, ENCOURAGING MORE FOLKS, UH, TO BIKE.
AND THEN JUST ONE LAST QUESTION FOR YOU.
WE APPRECIATE UTCS, UH, WORK ON THIS, AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE EXCITED.
SO AS WE SEE THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL, YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL CHANGES THAT YOU WOULD WANNA RECOMMEND REGARDING BIKE STORAGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO WE SHOULD EXPECT THIS TO BE AN ONGOING CONVERSATION.
I WANNA MAKE THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL.
IT IS UP TO STAFF TO DETERMINE HOW MANY THEY WILL PUT IN THERE.
I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE A CITY ATTORNEY ON NOW.
UM, LET'S CLOSE THE LOOP ON THOSE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE FOR THE ATTORNEY.
AND YES, GO AHEAD, MR. RIVERA.
DID YOU ASK, UH, OR, OR DO I NEED TO REPEAT THEM? 'CAUSE IT'S GONNA BE HARD FOR ME TO CHAIR, COMM AND LIAISON.
UH, SO WE HAVE THE, UM, THE NOTICE, UH, INQUIRY, I, AND THEN THE, AS COMMISSIONER COX READ, DOES IT, DOES THIS MOVING AND A MAKE IT APPLY TO A, ACROSS THE BOARD AS OPPOSED TO BEING AN OPTION? YES.
MY NAME IS SONYA, BUT I'M AN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
UM, SO TO MAKE SURE I'VE, I'VE RECEIVED SOME MESSAGES WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE I HAVE SOME, SOME QUESTIONS, AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M ADDRESSING EACH QUESTION IN TURN.
IT SOUNDS LIKE, UH, THE FIRST QUESTION HAD TO DO WITH NOTICE IF YOU COULD PLEASE REPEAT THAT QUESTION TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M, I'M ON THE SAME PAGE.
I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, SO YOU, YOU'LL HAVE TO BEAR WITH ME.
UM, MY, MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT, UM, AS WE WERE PER, AS WE WERE CONSIDERING THIS AT A, SORRY, I SHOULDN'T HAVE, AS WE WERE, I JUST HIT X INSTEAD OF CLICKED ON IT.
SORRY, SORRY, SORRY, SORRY, SORRY, SORRY.
UM, AS WE WERE PRESENTED THIS ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION, MINIMUM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, UH, IN THE BACKUP, UM, THERE WAS, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THERE WAS NO MENTION OF INCLUDING SHOWERS AND FACILITIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO MY QUESTION IS, IS CAN WE NOW PUT THAT IN, GIVEN THE NOTICE THAT WE PROVIDED THAT RELATES TO, UH, THE ELIMINATION OF, OR I'M SORRY, MODIFY MINIMUM PARKING, BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS? SURE.
SO IN THE ORIGINAL, UH, IN THE ORIGINAL INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED AS PART OF THE BACKUP, UH, THE, THE LANGUAGE THAT DISCUSSES THE SHOWER, UH, THOSE SHOWER
[01:20:01]
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS, THAT LANGUAGE WAS ACTUALLY ORIGINALLY INCLUDED IN THE TABLE B, UH, WHICH IS PART OF OUR CHAPTER 25 DASH TWO, SUBSECTION TWO DASH 2.3.AND SO WHAT THE, THE CHANGE THAT WAS PROPOSED WAS, RATHER THAN INCLUDE THAT WITHIN, UH, WITHIN THAT SPECIFIC TABLE, THE PROPOSED CHANGE WAS TO ACTUALLY MOVE THAT LANGUAGE UNDER A NEW SUBSECTION WITHIN CHAPTER 25 DASH SIX, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH TRANSPORTATION, UM, SPECIFICALLY CHAPTER 25, OR EXCUSE ME, SECTION 25 DASH SIX DASH 4 77, AND THEN CREATE A NEW SUBSECTION H UM, TO HOUSE THOSE, THOSE SHOWER FACILITY.
SO THE SHOWER FACILITY, UH, THE, THE SHOWER FACILITY LANGUAGE WAS ALREADY PRESENT IN THE BACKUP, BUT IT WAS LOCATED IN TABLE B AS OPPOSED TO A NEW SUBSECTION H OF 25 6 4 7 7.
UM, SO, SO TECHNICALLY IT, IT WAS ALREADY THERE.
AND THEN THE, THE, SO, SORRY, THE OTHER QUESTION I'LL LET COMMISSIONER COX, I, I THINK HE WAS THE ONE THAT ASKED THE ORIGINAL QUESTION ON, DOES THIS NOW APPLY BROADLY MORE BROADLY? YEAH, YEAH.
I MEAN, THE, THE READING, THE, THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE OF H THE PLAIN READING OF THAT ESSENTIALLY MAKES IT APPLY TO EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 25 2, WHICH IS ALMOST EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY.
SO IT ARE, WE NOW, WITH THIS LANGUAGE, APPLYING SHOWER REQUIREMENTS TO EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPMENT UNDER CHAPTER 25 2.
SO THE ORIGINAL AIM, OR, OR AT LEAST THE INTENT, WAS TO TRY TO, UH, BECAUSE I, I DID, I, I THINK I WAS ABLE TO AT LEAST HEAR SOME OF YOUR INITIAL CONCERNS ABOUT IT BEING APPLIED TOO BROADLY AND WANTING TO TRY TO RESTRICT IT.
AND THAT WAS REALLY THE INITIAL INTENT WAS TO TRY TO, TO RESTRICT IT.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT ARTICLE ONE OF, OF SUB CHAPTER E UH, LET ME SEE IF I CAN SHARE MY SCREEN.
UH, ESSENTIALLY THERE IS A, A TABLE THAT HAS APPLICABILITY AS FAR AS WHAT 2.3, UM, APPLIES TO AND, AND WHAT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT APPLIES TO.
AND SO THE INITIAL INTENT WAS TO TRY TO DRAW ON THAT APPLICABILITY LANGUAGE AND, AND ONLY LIMIT IT TO THOSE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED IN A, IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TABLE.
BUT HEARING THE DISCUSSION AND HEARING THE CONCERNS THAT, THAT YOU ALL HAVE EXPRESSED, I SEE THAT I, I MAY, YOU KNOW, WE MAY HAVE MISSED THE MARK AS FAR AS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THAT, UM, AND MAKING SURE THAT IT WAS, IT WAS RESTRICTED.
UM, AND WE'RE CERTAINLY OPEN TO ANY SUGGESTIONS THAT YOU ALL MAY HAVE OR EVEN, UH, POTENTIALLY POSTPONING THIS ITEM IN ORDER TO RECONSIDER SOME LANGUAGE SO THAT THE, THE TRUE NATURE OF THE INTENT, WHICH IS TO RESTRICT IT SPECIFICALLY TO THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE MENTIONED UNDER 2.3 OF CONNECTIVITY, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ONLY LIMITED TO, TO THOSE SITES AND THOSE DEVELOPMENTS.
AND, AND IF, IF I CAN, AND I KNOW THIS IS OUT OF ORDER, I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ASKING QUESTIONS, BUT, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT TABLE B ONLY APPLIES TO DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE PROVIDING SURFACE PARKING IN AN AMOUNT THAT IS MORE THAN 125% OF THE PARKING REQUIRED IN APPENDIX A, WHICH BASICALLY MEANS WITH, WITH, WITH, WITH THE PARKING MINIMUMS ELIMINATED, WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE CAPTURING ALMOST ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT IS PROVIDING THAT BEYOND JUST WHAT'S REQUIRED BY THE TEXAS ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS.
SO, SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE, MY INTERPRETATION, AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS THAT TABLE B IS GOING TO APPLY TO ESSENTIALLY ALL THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO 25 2.
AND, AND THE INTENT WAS TO APPLY MY UNDERSTANDING BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE INTENT WAS TO IMPLY THIS NUMBER OF SHOWERS REQUIRED BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDING TO THOSE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ELECT TO BUILD SHOWERS TO SATISFY THE TABLE B REQUIREMENT.
IS THAT, AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? IT, IT WAS MORE TO, UH, RIGHT.
SO, SO THE, THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE, THAT ARE REQUIRED TO, TO COMPLY WITH TABLE B, UH, YOU KNOW, UNDER THAT FALL, UNDER THE PURVIEW OF 2.3 AND THOSE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO, TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF TABLE
[01:25:01]
B.UH, THAT'S ORIGINALLY HOW IT WAS INTENDED.
AND SO IN MOVING THE LANGUAGE INTO THIS NEW SUBSECTION OF, OF TWO FIVE DASH SIX DASH 4 7 7, UH, WE WERE TRYING TO, TO CAPTURE THAT SAME ESSENCE AND, AND REALLY JUST LIMIT IT TO WHATEVER, WHAT, WHATEVER DEVELOPMENTS WOULD'VE HAD ALREADY COMPLIED WITH TABLE B OF OF 25 DASH TWO.
AND, AND JUST TO MAKE CLEAR, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO 25 2, IS THAT CORRECT? NOT, NOT EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S SUBJECT TO 25 DASH TWO.
IT'S, WE'RE TALKING, WE'RE LOOKING SPECIFICALLY AT THIS, THIS ONE PIECE OF ARTICLE TWO OF SUBSECTION E.
SO IT'S, IT'S DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH TWO POINT WITH SUBSECTION 2.3.
AND I'M TRYING TO, I'M TRYING TO SCROLL THROUGH THE LDC RIGHT NOW, FIGURING OUT WHERE, WHAT DESCRIBES WHO IS SUBJECT AND WHO IS NOT, IS, DO YOU HAVE A SIMPLE ANSWER TO THAT? DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH ZONING CATEGORY? DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH SIZE TO, I MEAN, SO THIS HAS TO, SO FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE, UH, ONE SUCH DEVELOPMENT HAS TO DO WITH ANY PROJECTS THAT, THAT HAVE A NET SITE AREA OF THREE ACRES OR MORE IN ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, AS WELL AS PROJECTS THAT HAVE A NET SIDE AREA OF LESS THAN THREE ACRES, UM, BUT THAT HAVE PARKING BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE PRINCIPAL STREET IN, IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS.
SO THOSE WERE THE, THOSE WERE THE DEVELOPMENTS WHERE THOSE WERE THE PROJECTS THAT WE WERE, THAT WE WERE AIMING TO, TO FOCUS ON.
IS THERE, IS THERE A SECTION IN THE CODE THAT EXPLAINS THAT? IS THAT 2.1 POINT SOMETHING? UH, THIS WOULD BE UNDER ARTICLE ONE OF SUB CHAPTER E OF CHAPTER 25 DASH TWO 10 APPLICABILITY.
SO IS, IS, IS TABLE A GENERAL APPLICABILITY? THAT'S, THAT'S THE, NO, I MEAN, IT SAYS NEW CONSTRUCTION.
I'M, I'M STILL CONFUSED AS TO IF THIS APPLIES TO PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING OR IF THIS ONLY APPLIES TO A SMALL SUBSECTION THAT'S DEFINED BY THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY SURE WHAT THOSE ARE.
COMMISSIONERS, IF I MAY SUGGEST SOMETHING, BECAUSE WE GOT THIS ADDITION TO OUR BACKUP DURING THE MEETING, LIKE RIGHT BEFORE WE WERE ABOUT TO HEAR THIS ITEM, AND THAT THERE ARE SO MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WAS ADDED, AND IT, THE LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE FINE TUNED.
UM, I PROPOSE, WELL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING.
SECOND BY VICE CHAIR, UM, BOARD MEMBER, UH, COHEN, UH, JUST A, A QUICK MOMENT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.
IF I COULD ASK, UH, IF STAFF COULD LOOK INTO SEEING WHETHER OR NOT THIS LANGUAGE IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH AUSTIN'S GENERAL NEUTRAL SIGNAGE ORDINANCE.
UH, AS MUCH AS I, I HATE ADMITTING IT PUBLICLY.
I, AS A TRANS WOMAN, I HAVE EXPERIENCED BOTH DISCRIMINATION AND VIOLENCE IN BATHROOMS. AND THIS LANGUAGE IS A LITTLE OUTDATED, AND MAYBE WE COULD REFLECT IT TO, UH, BE IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE FACT THAT AUSTIN HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS A TRANSGENDER SANCTUARY CITY.
UH, DEFINITELY MAKE ME FEEL A LITTLE MORE COMFORTABLE.
NOT THAT I COULD GET A COAT ON IT, BUT, UH, IT JUST, I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE HARMONIOUS AND WE'RE CHANGING IT ANYWAYS.
UM, THE CHAIR, I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION AND IT, IT WAS TO SAY, ESSENTIALLY, I DO WANNA THANK MR. SCHUMACHER FOR BEING HERE, AND THANK YOU FOR THE WORK THAT Y'ALL HAVE DONE.
I, I THINK THERE'S JUST A LITTLE BIT OF SORT OF LANGUAGE AND CLEANUP THINGS.
IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO GO AHEAD AND SO WE'RE POSTPONING IT.
JUST TO CLARIFY, CHAIR, IT IS TO THE JANUARY 23RD MEETING, UH, WE'RE GOING AHEAD AND POSTPONING IT, AND HOPEFULLY STAFF, WE CAN, UM, GO AHEAD AND FIGURE OUT THE SORT OF, HOW TO SORT OF STATE THE ISSUE OF GENDER.
[01:30:01]
I AGREE WITH YOU.INSTEAD OF SAYING BOTH, WE SHOULD BE EITHER SAYING ALL GENDER OR OTHERWISE.
UM, SIMILARLY, THE LANGUAGE THAT COMMISSIONER COX WAS HIGHLIGHTING AS WELL, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NESTED RIGHT? SO THAT WE'RE REFERRING TO THE RIGHT SECTIONS AND WE'RE REFERRING TO THE RIGHT KINDS OF DEVELOPMENTS.
WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THAT IS CLEANED UP.
UM, AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SORT OF TAKE ACTION ON THIS AT THE NEXT MEETING.
AND TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD SAY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE BACKUP, THERE IS, UM, A TIMELINE ON THE ORDINANCES ADOPTION.
UM, AND SO THIS GOES TO COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 1ST.
SO AS LONG AS WE ADOPTED OUR JANUARY 23RD MEETING, WE WOULD NOT BE DISTURBING THE TIMELINE FOR ADOPTION FOR THIS ITEM EITHER.
UM, AND THAT'S WHY I THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO MAYBE GO AHEAD AND POSTPONE IT AT THIS TIME.
I'LL OPEN UP FOR ANYONE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST IF YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR ON POSTPONING THIS ITEM TO JANUARY 23RD.
THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR BEING ON.
THANK YOU, UM, MS. HERRERA FOR JUMPING ON LAST MINUTE.
THAT IS ALL OF OUR DISCUSSION CASES THIS EVENING.
[14. Discussion and possible action establishing a working group tasked to provide recommendations regarding outreach and procedure. (Sponsors Commissioners Phillips and Mushtaler)]
UM, WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION, AND THAT IS NUMBER 14, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION, ESTABLISHING A WORKING GROUP TASK TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING OUTREACH AND PROCEDURE.AND THIS, THE CO-SPONSORS WERE COMMISSIONERS, PHILLIPS AND MOHA.
UM, SO, UH, I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR, UM, COMMISSIONER MO MOHA, OR COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? UM, I WAS GONNA, IT, IT WAS COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS' ITEM.
I'M, I'M HAPPY TO LET HER TAKE IF, IF SHE'S AVAILABLE.
IF NOT, UM, I'LL WAIT FOR HER TO COME ON AT I GO AHEAD.
NO, YEAH, I WAS, I I THINK WE, WE TALKED ABOUT THE, THE RATIONALE BEHIND THIS IN TERMS OF WHY WE WOULD WANT TO HAVE A WORKING GROUP, UH, SO THAT THE DECISIONS THAT WE'RE MAKING SO THAT THE OUTREACH THAT WE'RE DOING, WE ARE GETTING TO HEAR FROM MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES, COMMUNITIES THAT DON'T HISTORICALLY ENGAGE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND HOW WE CAN BETTER DO THAT AND REPRESENT ALL OF THE CITIZENS.
UH, AGAIN, WE JUST HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT ALL GENDERS, AND I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT.
BUT THERE ARE COMMUNITIES, ESPECIALLY THE BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES IN, IN THIS CITY THAT ARE, ARE NOT FEELING QUITE REPRESENTED AND HISTORICALLY HAVE BEEN MARGINALIZED AND HAVE NOT ENGAGED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS, BECAUSE OF THE, SOME OF THE DISCUSSION THAT CAME UP, UH, DURING THE HOME, UH, INITIATIVE, UM, HOW THAT KIND OF EXPOSE THOSE GAPS, IF YOU WILL.
SO I'D LIKE TO SEE HOW WE MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE GETTING INPUT FROM ALL OF THE COMMUNITIES, AND ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT HISTORICALLY HAVE NOT ENGAGED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION.
UM, AND I, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT FOR, FOR A VERY LONG TIME, EVEN WHEN I FIRST STARTED.
AND SO I'M, I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT THERE'S A WORKING GROUP, UM, COMING TOGETHER AROUND THIS TOPIC.
UM, SO THE POSSIBLE ACTION TONIGHT WOULD BE, ONE, MAKING A MOTION AND VOTING TO ESTABLISH THE WORKING GROUP, AND THEN, UM, ADDING THE MEMBERS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN UP TO FIVE, UM, TO THAT WORKING GROUP.
AND THEN, UM, THE, THE EXACT TASKS AND MAYBE SCHEDULE OF, OF POTENTIAL DELIVERABLES OR, OR WHAT THE WORKING GROUP COMES UP WITH CAN COME LATER.
UM, BUT THAT WOULD BE, I THINK THE ACTION TONIGHT.
I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR THE, THE SPONSORS, BUT, UM, DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS SOUNDS? YES, HE DOES.
UM, WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SERVING ON THIS WORKING GROUP? AND WE DON'T HAVE ALL OF OUR MEMBERS HERE TONIGHT, SO I SEE COMMISSIONER COX, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, COMMISSIONER AL PHILLIPS.
I MEAN, I CAN, WE CAN WAIT AND SEE, UM, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE HAVE OUR FULL COMMISSION AS WELL.
[01:35:01]
TO NUMBER 16 AND WHY WE HAVE THAT ITEM TONIGHT IS THAT, UM, THAT WAS, UH, WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT WORKING GROUP ABOUT THE AUSTIN BUILDINGS WORKING GROUP, BUT WE WANTED TO LEAVE IT OPEN IN CASE THERE WERE OTHER MEMBERS WHO WISH TO JOIN.AND SO WE CAN DO THE SAME THING WITH THIS, UM, WITH THIS WORKING GROUP.
DID YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT UP TO FIVE MEMBERS IN THE WORKING GROUP? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO, UM, AND IT WOULD TECHNICALLY BE SIX, BUT IF THERE WAS EVER A MEETING OR SOMETHING THAT THE CHAIR NEEDED TO STEP IN ON WITH THE WORKING GROUP, THEN WE WOULD BE OVER QUORUM IF WE HAD ALREADY FILLED IT WITH OTHER COMMISSIONERS.
SO THAT'S WHY WE LEAVE AT F FIVE.
UM, SO IS THERE A MOTION SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE? UH, YES.
AND SHE DOESN'T TALK TO WORK COURT, CORRECT? YES.
UM, ALRIGHT, SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION.
SO CHAIR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION, UH, TO ESTABLISH A WORKING GROUP OKAY.
ON CITIZEN ACCESS AND INVOLVEMENT.
AND, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THEN, WE'RE, YOU'RE ALSO NOMINATED, THE, IT WOULD BE MADE UP OF YOURSELF, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, COMMISSIONER COX, AND, UH, COMMISSIONER, UM, GO CHAIR.
I WANNA SUGGEST THAT'S NOT IT.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER AL.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND IT CHAIR.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
UM, ALL THOSE ON THE DICE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
AND ON THE SCREEN, I SEE EVERYONE.
SO, UM, YOU'LL START SEEING THAT, UM, WORKING GROUP ADDED TO OUR WORKING GROUP UPDATES.
AND AS YOU ESTABLISH, UM, MEETING TIMES AND, AND THINGS LIKE THAT, YOU'LL JUST REPORT OUT OCCASIONALLY, UM, AS THINGS COME UP.
UM, CAN, CAN YOU, UM, I'M SORRY, WOULD YOU REPEAT WHO ALL IS ON THE, THAT WORKING GROUP AT THIS POINT IN TIME, PLEASE? ABSOLUTELY.
SO THAT'S COMM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, MOOSH, TOLER, COX HAYNES, AND BOARD CHAIR COHEN.
AND, UM, TO REPEAT IN CASE YOU, IN CASE ANYBODY DIDN'T HEAR IT, BOARD CHAIR COHEN, BECAUSE SHE'S AN EX OFFICIO DOES NOT COUNT TOWARDS THAT NUMBER FIVE.
SO WE STILL HAVE ROOM FOR ANOTHER COMMISSIONER WHEN WE HAVE EVERYBODY BACK.
UM, NUMBER 15 WAS PART OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, THE INITIATION IN THE CODE AMENDMENT.
[16. Discussion and possible action appointing additional members to the City of Austin Buildings Working Group. (Sponsors: Chair Hempel and Vice-Chair Azhar)]
ON TO NUMBER 16, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN BUILDINGS WORKING GROUP.THAT CONSENT,
UM, VICE SHEARD IS, THIS WAS REALLY JUST TO SEE WE, IF WE HAD MORE MEMBERS HERE, IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTED TO JOIN.
WE, WE FORMED IT AND ESSENTIALLY WE, WE WERE PUTTING IT ON HERE.
AGAIN, THE IDEA WAS TO LOOK AT SORT OF JUST LOOKING AT OUR, SO PUBLIC FACILITIES, UM, MORE BROADLY LOOKING AT HOW DO WE ALIGN THEM BETTER WITH SOME OF OUR PLANNING, UH, DOCUMENTS AND ESSENTIALLY THE GOALS THAT WE HAVE AS A CITY.
AND THE IDEA HERE WAS TO CREATE IT TODAY AND APPOINT FOLKS TO IT.
WHO AND WHOEVER WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SERVING ON THIS.
YES, MR. MAXWELL, I'D LIKE TO SERVE ON THIS.
I CAN'T REMEMBER FROM WHEN THIS WAS ESTABLISHED WHAT OUR LIST OF COMMISSION IS, BUT COMMISSIONER ZA, VICE CHAIR, COMMISSIONER ZA, WAS THERE OTHER
SO AT THIS POINT, IT'S REALLY JUST THE THREE OF US, THE CHAIR.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE ARE TWO ADDITIONAL YES.
AND ACTUALLY, BECAUSE REMINDER THE CHAIR IS ON THIS, WE ACTUALLY HAVE SPACE FOR THREE MORE PEOPLE.
SO JUST TO GO BACK TO THAT, UM, IF I CAN JUST TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF PRIVILEGE AND TALK ABOUT THAT.
THE WAY WE'RE LOOKING AT WORKING GROUPS FROM NOW ON IS SIX PEOPLE, IF THE CHAIR IS SERVING ON IT, FIVE PEOPLE, IF THE CHAIR IS NOT SERVING ON IT.
AND THE REASONING FOR THAT SIMPLY
[01:40:01]
IS THAT WHAT WE'VE FOUND IN THE PAST IS THAT IT MAKES IT VERY HARD FOR THE WORKING GROUP TO TALK ABOUT PROCESS WITH THE CHAIR WITHOUT ACTUALLY HITTING A QUORUM ISSUE.SO THEN WE'RE NOT ABLE TO DISCUSS WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO REALLY AT THIS POINT, SINCE THE CHAIR IS PART OF IT, WE STILL HAVE SPACE FOR FIVE MORE FOLKS.
THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THAT.
SO CONGRATULATIONS CHAIR, YOU'RE ON EVERY WORKING GROUP.
MSAR, WOULD YOU ONCE AGAIN, UH, EXPLAIN WHAT THIS, MY BRAIN IS NOT WORKING 'CAUSE OF THE MEDS? WELL, BUT EXPLAIN AGAIN WHAT THIS WORKING GROUP, THE, THE, UH, FOCUS OF THIS WORKING GROUP, PLEASE.
SO IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS, ACTUALLY, UH, EARLIER, A NUMBER OF ITEMS HAVE COME THAT RELATE TO CITY OF AUSTIN FACILITIES.
THOSE ARE CODE ITEMS, WE GO THROUGH THEM.
AN EXAMPLE OF THAT IS, FOR EXAMPLE, OUR AIRPORT.
WE WENT THROUGH AN ORDINANCE FOR OUR AIRPORT.
UM, THERE WAS AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE BARTON SPRINGS, UM, A POOL HOUSE AND SHOWER FACILITIES.
WE WENT THROUGH THAT AND THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION.
THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION LOOKING AT THE PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER IN HIGHLAND AND HOW THAT ALIGNS WITH OUR OTHER GOALS.
AND SO THE IDEA HERE IS I THINK THERE'S A NUMBER OF THESE ITEMS THAT HAVE COME UP AND WE'RE SORT OF HAVING ONE-OFF CONVERSATIONS.
AND IT FELT LIKE FOLKS WANTED TO HAVE MUCH MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND BROADER CONVERSATIONS, SOME OF THESE FACILITIES AND HOW TO ALIGN THESE WITH, YOU KNOW, STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING BLUEPRINT OR CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN.
SO THE IDEA WAS TO PERHAPS CREATE A WORKING GROUP THAT LOOKS AT SOME OF THESE THINGS MORE COMPREHENSIVELY RATHER THAN ON A ONE BY ONE APPROACH.
AS THESE, UH, ARE COMING UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT DESCRIPTION AND BECAUSE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT CLIMATE EQUITY, UM, I WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO HELPED TO WRITE THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN.
SO, UM, I REALLY, THAT REALLY IS VERY CLOSE TO MY HEART.
AND IF THAT'S THE KIND OF THING YOU'RE GONNA BE WORKING ON, UH, I WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE TO BE PART OF THAT, THAT WORKING GROUP.
WE'LL ADD YOUR NAME TO THE LIST.
ANY OTHER, UM, DISCUSSION ON THAT? ITEM NUMBER 16, CHAIR COMMISSIONER LAYS ON.
SO YOU WOULD JUST MAKE A MOTION TO INCLUDE THOSE TWO ADDITIONAL MEMBERS? YES.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, THE WORKING GROUP TO DATE WILL CONSIST OF COMMISSIONERS PHILLIPS MAXWELL, CHAIR, HEMPEL, AND VICE-CHAIR AZAR, ALL OF, IS THERE A SECOND CHAIR? UH, I WAS ALSO COMMISSIONER CONLEY.
OKAY, SECOND COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
AND ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
TO FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. UM, COMMISSIONER HAYES.UM, SO I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, UH, H BEFORE GRACE, RIGHT
AND I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THE PROCESS WILL BE, WHICH IS TECHNICAL CODE CHANGES.
UM, MANY OF YOU KNOW THAT WE HAVE DIFFERENT CODES THAT ARE ACTUALLY MORE RELATED TO, FOR EXAMPLE, FIRE SAFETY AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT BOTH THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AND SOME OTHER RELATED PIECES WILL BE COMING UP FOR REVIEW IN 2024 AND POTENTIAL CHANGES AND THEN AMENDMENTS, WHICH WILL BE ACCEPTED AT SOME POINT, OBVIOUSLY.
SO I WAS HOPING TO GET A STAFF BRIEFING ON THAT PROCESS AND WHAT THE CODE PROCE, LIKE WHAT THE TIMELINE AND WHAT THEY'RE EXPECTING TO BE TAKING UP AS PART OF THAT.
UM, SO THAT WAS A REQUEST FOR A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM NOTED.
UH, MR. RIVERA, DO WE NEED A SECOND CHAIR COMMISSION? VER YES.
SO FOR, UM, ANY ITEMS, UM, FROM THE COMMISSION, IT, UH, TWO MEMBERS, YEAH, GO AHEAD.
VICE CHAIR SECOND THAT, UM, THAT AGENDA ITEM.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF AMENDING THE, UH, BUILDING HEIGHT REMOVAL COMMISSION OR, UH, UH, AMENDMENT OR, UM, WORK GROUP.
UH, IT'S RIGHT NOW LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD BE LIMITED FOR WEST CAMPUS.
I WOULD'VE LIKED TO INCLUDE, UH, I'M JUST GONNA SAY THE DOMAIN AND ALL THAT THE DOMAIN ENTAILS AND HAVE THAT WORK GROUP ALSO LOOK AT THAT AREA OF TOWN.
UM, MIGHT I REQUEST THE USE OF THE LANGUAGE NORTH BURNETT GATEWAY? I WILL GO WITH NORTH, NORTH NOBU.
[01:45:01]
GONNA GET NOBUUM, SO, SO I UNDERSTAND IT'S, UH, SIMILAR TO THE NUMBER 16, NUMBER 15, ITEM NUMBER 15.
SO WOULD BE DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION INITIATING A CODE OF AMENDMENT AMENDING TITLE 25 TO REMOVE BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS FOR THE NORTH BURNETT GATEWAY? I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE, I, I GUESS I'D PROBABLY NEED TO ASK THE, UH, THE WORK GROUP, BUT IF THEY'RE GONNA LOOK AT WEST CAMPUS, CAN THEY ALSO LOOK AT NOBU? SO NUMBER 15 IS IN A WORK GROUP WORKING GROUP.
AND, AND IF YOU HAVE A SECOND ON THIS ONE FOR NORTH BURNETT GATEWAY, THAT CAN BE ADDED TO NEXT MEETING'S, UH, AGENDA AS A CODE INITIATION.
IS THERE A SECOND ON THAT? OH, SECOND.
ANY OTHER ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION? UH, YES.
UM, CHAIR, THIS MIGHT PICK UP MOOT HONESTLY, UH, DEPENDING ON HOW THE CONVERSATION GOES.
BUT I'M JUST GONNA GO AHEAD AND PUT IN THE QUEUE, WHICH IS, COULD WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM STAFF ON THE NORTH BURN GATEWAY, UH, PLAN CHANGES BOTH THAT WERE ADOPTED IN THE PAST YEAR AND SOME OF THOSE CHANGES THAT ARE COMING UP.
AND IF THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT STAFF WOULD SORT OF, UH, WANT US TO CONSIDER.
AND IS THAT, THAT'S WHAT SHE MENTIONED TO MR. LINA.
THAT IS, I MENTIONED SEPARATELY AND, AND IF, IF IT'S NOT NECESSARILY IN THE FUTURE, I'M FINE WITH JUST NOT GOING FORWARD WITH THIS REQUEST.
BUT IF IT HELPS US ALL UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE IT IS JUST BEEN PIECEMEAL, SO I THINK WE'RE ALL BEGINNING TO GET A LITTLE CONFUSED.
IT MIGHT HELP US TO SEE IT ALL IN ONE PLACE.
COMMISSIONER COX? UH, COMMISSIONER COX.
I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS JUST WHAT COMMISSIONERS ARE SAID BECAUSE I'M ALSO DRUGGED UP RIGHT NOW, BUT, UM,
AND I THINK THE FIRST AND SECOND QUARTER OF 2024 WERE ALSO SUPPOSED TO BE VERY BUSY.
WE EVEN CONTEMPLATED HAVING, UH, SETTING ASIDE SOME SPECIAL, UH, COUNCIL OR SPECIAL COMMISSION DATES IF WE NEEDED THEM.
AND I'M JUST WONDERING WHEN THIS COMMISSION AND THOSE WHO KNOW MORE THAN ME FEEL LIKE MAYBE GETTING ANOTHER UPDATE WITH A NEW LOOK AT THE SCHEDULE, UM, SO THAT WE CAN TRY TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT SLAMMED IN MARCH OR WHATEVER IT ENDS UP BEING, UM, FOR, FOR A LOT OF THE CODE CHANGES COMING DOWN THE LINE.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, I KNOW WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THIS AT CODES AND ORDINANCES AT OUR LAST MEETING, AND SO IT'S, IT'S REALLY TIMELY.
UM, I, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE NEXT ROUND OF LDC GANTT CHART, IF YOU, EVERYONE LOVES THAT GANTT CHART THAT THE NEXT ROUND WILL BE COMING UP FOR REVIEW AND DISCUSSION AT THE HOUSING, UH, COUNCIL HOUSING COMMITTEE, WHICH WILL BE ON THE 23RD OF JANUARY.
SO I THINK WE PROBABLY CAN REQUEST A BRIEFING, BUT IT WOULD NEED TO OCCUR AFTER THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN THEY'RE GONNA BE RELEASING THE NEW SCHEDULE, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
AND I HEARD THAT FROM A COUNCIL OFFICE TODAY AND THAT, THAT MAKES COMPLETE SENSE.
YEAH, I'D, I'D LOVE TO HAVE THAT BRIEFING, UH, WITH STAFF ONCE THEY'VE UPDATED IT FOR COUNSEL.
YEAH, I THINK, UM, FROM OUR, OUR STAFF LIAISONS, IT CODES AND ORDINANCES, WHAT KIND OF THREW EVERYTHING INTO THE BLENDER WAS WHEN THE, UM, THE COURTS RULED ABOUT THE VM U2 AND THE OTHER CODE CHANGES THAT WERE ILLEGAL.
AND SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE HAVING TO RECONFIGURE THE ENTIRE SCHEDULE FOR THIS YEAR TO TRY TO MOVE SOME OF THOSE, UM, UH, NOTIFICATIONS AND THINGS FORWARD.
SO YEAH, HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE SOMETHING LATER THIS MONTH.
I'LL SECOND THAT AND VICE CHAIR SECONDS.
ANY OTHERS? I JUST WANTED TO THROW OUT THERE REAL QUICK.
I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, THE COMMISSION WAS AWARE.
THE BOARD DID HEAR ITS FIRST CASE LAST NIGHT THAT RESULTED, UH, BECAUSE OF THAT COURT DECISION.
SO THERE'S SOME SPICY INTERESTING PARTS IF YOU REALLY BORED AND WANNA WATCH A VERY DRY MEETING.
OTHER ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION.
[17. Nominate and elect an interim parliamentarian.]
WE'LL MOVE ON HERE.THERE IS, UM, AN ELECTION ITEM HERE TONIGHT TO NOMINATE AND ELECT AN INTERIM PARLIAMENTARIAN.
SO THIS INTERIM POSITION WOULD RUN CONCURRENT WITH INTERIM CHAIR, INTERIM VICE CHAIR UNTIL APRIL.
UM, AND, UH, FORMERLY VICE CHAIR AZAR WAS IN THIS ROLE AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, THERE'S A COUPLE
[01:50:01]
OF PEOPLE THAT ARE INTERESTED 'CAUSE YOU'RE MAXWELL.UM, SO I WANTED TO BRING THIS ATTENTION TO, BECAUSE, UM, COMMISSIONER WOODS AND I HAD HAD A CONVERSATION.
SHE WAS OPEN TO BEING NOMINATED FOR THIS POSITION, BUT OF COURSE SHE'S NOT HERE THIS EVENING.
SO I, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL NOMINEES, BUT, UM, THERE WAS A REQUEST GIVEN THAT HER ABSENCE IF WE WOULD CONSIDER A POSTPONEMENT OF THIS ITEM UNTIL WE HAD, UM, HER BACK ON THE DAY.
SO WE COULD SORT OF HAVE THAT PERSPECTIVE AS WELL.
BUT IT'S AN OPEN CONVERSATION.
UM, TONIGHT I WAS GOING TO NOMINATE, UM, BOARD CHAIR, UH, COHEN FOR PARLIAMENTARIAN.
AND WE, WE SPOKE EARLIER AND SHE HAS A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH THAT ROLE.
SHE KNOWS ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, UM, LIKE NO ONE SHOULD KNOW THAT BOOK.
AND, UM, I THINK THAT, UH, LOOKING AHEAD TO, AS SOME OF OUR COMMISSIONERS SUNSET OFF AND HAVING THAT EXPERIENCE FOR NEW COMMISSIONERS COMING ON, UM, JUST A STEADY ROLE OF HAVING, UH, SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS AND CAN KEEP A, A LEASH, NOT NOT TOO TIGHT OF A LEASH ON THE MEETING, BUT NOT LET US WANDER OFF INTO UNCHARTED TERRITORY.
UM, UH, BOARD CHAIR COHEN, UM, I'M NOMINATING HER.
WERE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? VICE CHAIR? UM, CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO, I GUESS THE FIRST QUESTION WAS WE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT? SO, YES.
SO WAS THE QUESTION I AM, I'M HAPPY TO MAKE AN OFFICIAL MOTION BEFORE WE START CONSIDERING, BUT I THINK I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY FELT COM UNDERSTOOD WHY I WAS MAKING THE MOTION TO POSTPONE.
UM, SO SHOULD I'LL GO AHEAD AND DO THAT IF THAT SOUNDS, I, I MEAN, I GUESS JUST IN THE, AT THIS POINT SINCE THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE, IT MIGHT BE A SUBSTITUTE.
I HAVE ANOTHER NOMINATION AS WELL.
SHOULD WE NOT DO THE POSTPONEMENT MOTION FIRST.
MR. PLEASE HELP US OUT HERE A LITTLE BIT.
CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LAY LIAISON VERA AS THE, UH, MOTION, UM, WAS NOT, UM, FULFILLED WITH A SECOND AND THE, UH, CHAIR PROPOSED A NOMINATION, I BELIEVE IT'S THE BEST YOU GO FORWARD WITH THE NOMINATION.
AND THEN IF THAT, UH, NOMINATION DOES NOT GARNER THE SEVEN, THEN YOU CAN CONSIDER THE POSTPONEMENT.
IN THAT CASE, I WILL MAKE A SECOND NOMINATION, WHICH IS COMMISSIONER AL AND I CAN SPEAK TO THAT MOTION WHENEVER.
SO WE STILL NEED A SECOND FOR THE CHAIR'S MOTION, IS THAT CORRECT? FIRST OR NOMINATION CHAIR, YOUR NOMINATIONS, UH, DO NOT GARNER SECONDS.
YOU JUST, UH, PLACE YOUR NOMINATIONS.
AND, UH, JUST A REMINDER THAT THE, YOU WOULD FIRST TAKE UP THE, UH, INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS NOMINATED, UM, FIRST PRIOR WE GO WITH COMMISSIONER COHEN'S NOMINATION FIRST.
THEN WE'LL COME TO, BUT I JUST HAVE TO SAY THAT I'LL GO AHEAD AND SPEAK.
I SUPPOSE I'LL, UM, I REALLY DO APPRECIATE, UH, CHAIR COHEN'S WORK ON THE COMMISSION AND FOR HELPING US GET THROUGH SO MUCH.
I ALSO JUST, YOU KNOW, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH COMMISSIONER TAL LAST YEAR AND SHE HAD EXPRESSED, UM, SOME INTEREST PARTIALLY BECAUSE I HAD ASKED HER
BUT, YOU KNOW, SHE HAS SERVED ON THIS COMMISSION FOR A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME AND IT FELT LIKE IT WAS, UM, IT MADE SENSE FOR HER TO STEP INTO A LEADERSHIP ROLE AND HELP US GUIDE THROUGH THIS WORK AND BE PART OF THAT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AS THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE HAPPENING.
UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I THINK SHE BRINGS A BALANCED POINT OF VIEW TO A LOT OF DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'RE HAVING, AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE HER VOICE IN THESE CONVERSATIONS, AND THAT'S WHY I FELT IT WAS, UM, MESSY FOR ME TO GO AHEAD AND NOMINATE HER.
SO, MR. RIVERA, DO WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VOTE ON CHAIR COHEN? YES.
UM, SO WE'LL CONSIDER CHAIR COHEN AS PARLIAMENT PARLIAMENTARIAN.
I THINK WE, ONCE WE GET TO SEVEN, THEN THAT VOTE IS SET.
AND IF WE DON'T HIT SEVEN, THEN WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER SAL.
IF WE DON'T HIT SEVEN, THEN WE WILL GO BACK TO THE, THE MOTION ABOUT, UM, POSTPONEMENT.
IN THE, IN THE ULTIMATE OF IRONY, I HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION.
SO REGARDLESS OF IF ALL OF OUR SEATS ARE FILLED, WHERE OUR COMMISSIONERS ARE HERE OR NOT, THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT WE NEED TO HIT TO FOR A MAJORITY VOTE.
UM, UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, WE NEED A SIMPLE MAJORITY.
A SIMPLE MAJORITY IN OUR CASE IS SEVEN.
SO REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY PEOPLE MIGHT BE PRESENT, AS LONG AS THERE'S A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTING IN FAVOR OF
[01:55:01]
MOTION, WHICH IS IRONICAL BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT ROBERT TRUSS ORDER SAYS THAT IS CORRECT.I'LL JUST LEAVE THAT OUT THERE.
AND I, I SAW COMMISSIONER BEIRA RAMIREZ HAS HER HAND UP AS WELL.
I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THE, IF THE NOMINEES HAVE A CHANCE TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THEIR NOMINATION BEFORE WE VOTE? 'CAUSE I'M, I DON'T KNOW WHO I'M GONNA VOTE FOR, SO IT MIGHT BE NICE TO HEAR FROM THEM.
SO WE'LL HEAR FROM, UM, BOARD CHAIR COHEN AND THEN, UH, COMMISSIONER MOTO.
SO I GUESS, OKAY, I'LL START FIRST.
I LOVE CANDIDATE FORMS. FEEL FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
THE REASON I WAS INTERESTED IN THIS POSITION IS BECAUSE I SIT DOWN ON THE END OF THE DIOCESE AND WATCH A LOT OF THE MEETING WITH A LOT OF, I WON'T SAY EXTRA TIME, BUT TIME TO REALLY FOCUS ON WHICH PART OF WHICH IS GOING ON, WHO'S MAKING WHAT MOTION VOTES THAT ARE BEING COUNTED, WHETHER WE'RE ON A, UH, SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT, WHETHER A SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT IS APPROPRIATE OR WHETHER OR NOT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT COULD BE USED.
AND I FELT WITH MY EXPERIENCE WITH ROBERT SCHOOLS FROM NOT JUST THE BOARD, BUT UH, 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WORKING IN EITHER 5 0 1 C3 NONPROFITS OR OTHER TYPES OF DEMOCRATIC CLUBS WHERE WE'VE USED IT, THAT I WOULD BE A GOOD FIT FOR THE ROLE.
I'M CURRENTLY, UH, SET TO TAKE MY TEST FOR MY NATIONAL CERTIFIED PARLIAMENTARIAN, UH, CERTIFICATION IN MARCH BECAUSE I'M GOING TO BE RUNNING, HOPEFULLY FOR THE TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY PARLIAMENTARIAN POSITION AT THE NEXT CONVENTION.
AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS, IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN MOST OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, UH, BECAUSE WE ARE A QUASI DUE JUDICIAL BOARD, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE HELD TO A STANDARD WHERE IF WE, OH, SORRY.
AND BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY APPEALABLE TO DISTRICT COURT, WE'RE KIND OF HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD WHEN IT COMES TO PROCEDURE OVERTURNING, A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE IS NOT USUALLY GOING TO BE ON WHETHER OR NOT, UH, THE MERITS OF THE CASE WARRANTED, IT'S GOING TO BE ON A PROCEDURAL ISSUE.
UH, AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST, HISTORICALLY.
SO, UH, BASED ON ALL THAT, AGAIN, AND, AND MY INTEREST, UH, IT WOULD, WOULD TAKE A LOT OF WEIGHT OFF THE COMMISSION AND I THINK I COULD DO A REALLY GOOD JOB KEEPING THINGS TIGHT WITHOUT BEING OVERLY RESTRICTIVE.
UM, SO THIS IS AWKWARD BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE I'M GONNA BE VERY GOOD ABOUT SPEAKING ABOUT MYSELF AS I THINK JESSICA'S WHOLLY QUALIFIED TO, UM, TO DO THIS JOB.
I THINK WHEN WE HAD DISCUSSED IT, MY, MY ONLY CONCERN WAS, UM, THAT IT'S TECHNICALLY AN EX-OFFICIO, WHICH IS ELIGIBLE TO SERVE THE POSITION.
AND IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE BOARD, THEN, THEN THAT'S FINE.
BUT WE DO HAVE COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE INTERESTED, OBVIOUSLY IN ADDITION TO MYSELF AND SERVING.
AND SO I THINK WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO HAVE THAT DIALOGUE.
UM, AND YES, I THINK, I THINK JESSICA IS WHOLLY QUALIFIED TO SERVE IT.
IT'S ALSO ONLY A TEMPORARY POSITION TILL APRIL.
SO THAT COULD FLAVOR US ONE WAY OR ANOTHER ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING IN THE INTERIM.
I AM, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU FOR THE NOMINATION.
I HAVE DONE THIS KIND OF, WHERE I'VE SERVED AS THE PARLIAMENTARIAN FOR THE LIMITED DISTRICT AND THEN LATER WENT ON TO SERVE AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE LIMITED DISTRICT.
SO I WILL NOT BE TAKING A BOARD CERTIFICATION FOR PARLIAMENTARIAN
SO I'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT, UH, ON THE SHORT TERM AND, AND TAKE OUR GROUP THROUGH THAT.
UM, CAN WE CLARIFY THAT EVERYBODY WANTS FOR ONE PERSON? I'M SORRY, I JUST PUT SOMETHING IN MY MOUTH.
I, I DID WANNA POINT OUT, AND THIS IS IN ALL FAIRNESS, UH, AS AN EX OFFICIO, THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT A PLANNING COMMISSIONER WOULD, AN ACTUAL VOTING MEMBER.
ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS BE PART OF THE HIERARCHY AND RUNNING MEETINGS.
SO, UH, IT GOES CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, SECRETARY, AND THEN PARLIAMENTARIAN, AND THEN THE MOST SENIOR MEMBER.
AND THAT'S PER THE CHARTER AS, UH, AN EX-OFFICIO WHO DOES NOT HAVE A VOTE BECAUSE THE CHAIR HAS TO, UH, MAKE MOTIONS SOMETIMES, UH, WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE OR WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO PERFORM THAT ROLE.
ALSO UNABLE TO LEGALLY SIGN A PLATT, WHICH IS SECRETARY CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, AND THEN PARLIAMENTARIAN, AND THEN NEXT SENIOR, I BELIEVE.
[02:00:01]
FAIRNESS, UH, AND ESPECIALLY 'CAUSE I RESPECT COMMISSIONER MUTAL SO MUCH THAT, THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE AWARE OF THOSE TWO SHORTCOMINGS FOR AN EX OFFICIO STILL THINK I WOULD DO A GREAT JOB, BUT WOULDN'T BE FORTHCOMING ABOUT EVERYTHING.THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
AND SO, UM, EACH PERSON CAN VOTE FOR ONE PERSON.
UM, THE WAY THAT WE'LL DO THIS IS WE'LL START WITH CHAIR COHEN AND I'LL ASK EACH MEMBER, UM, VOTING YAY OR NAY.
AND THEN ONCE WE'VE REACHED SEVEN, THAT'S THE MAGIC NUMBER TO, UM, HOLD THAT ROLE.
SO, UM, I'LL JUST GO IN ORDER OF HOW WE'RE SITTING.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES NAY, VICE CHAIR NAYYY.
UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, AM I ALLOWED TO ABSTAIN? SORRY, JUST TO CLARIFY, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO ABSTAIN.
COMMISSIONER AL, UH, I, I THINK I NEED TO ABSTAIN
AND COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS A A, A
UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S NOT TO SEVEN.
UM, LET'S GO TO COMMISSIONER MOTO.
WAIT, I'M ONLY CAN ONLY VOTE FOR ONE PERSON, RIGHT? OKAY.
SO,
UM, COMMISSIONER MTO, DO WE VOTE FOR OURSELVES? NO.
COMMISSIONER MUTO, UH, I'M CONFUSED.
IF YOU VOTE FOR SOMEBODY, YOU HAVE TO ABSTAIN OR YOU CAN ONLY VOTE.
AND I BELIEVED I ABS MR. VERA IS TRYING TO, I THINK MR. IS SAW MR. VERA, THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE PERSON BEING NOMINATED TO ABSTAIN.
SO YOU WOULD LIKELY BE AN ABSTAIN ON THIS ONE AS WELL.
COMMISSIONER AL SOUNDS LIKE MR. YEAH, MY, SO MY QUESTION IS, WE'RE SHORT A LOT.
WE HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO ELECT ANYBODY TONIGHT.
AND WE CAN'T CHANGE OUR VOTES.
THIS IS PART OF THE REASON I THOUGHT IT BE, I NEED TO POSTPONE WHEN YOU SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT EARLIER.
WELL, I JUST, I DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? BECAUSE LIKE, ONCE WE HAVE A CONTESTED ELECTION, IT GETS ALREADY 50 TO SEVENTH.
WAIT, CAN I, SO CHAIR, UM, YES.
YOU, YOU WERE GONNA VOTE YES, BUT THEN YOU DIDN'T BECAUSE OF WHY? BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY VOTE FOR ONE PERSON.
SO ESSENTIALLY THE, YOU EITHER VOTE YAY OR ABSTAIN OR NAY OR ABSTAIN.
YOU CAN'T VOTE YES TO TWO CANDIDATES.
WELL, IF WE HAD FIVE YES VOTES AND WE'VE ONLY GOT YEAH, THAT IS TRUE.
SO REALIZING, BECAUSE I WAS GONNA VOTE YES FOR MOOSH TELLER AS WELL.
WELL, LET'S, LET'S COMPLETE THE VOTE.
LET'S COMPLETE PROCEDURALLY, IF FOLKS ARE FINE WITH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND COMPLETE THE VOTE PER OUR RULE.
SO IF YOU VOTED YAY PREVIOUSLY, YOU WOULD VOTE NAY.
I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER SHOULDER WAS AN ABSTAIN.
AND THEN WE WOULD CONTINUE FROM THERE.
SO, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, I'D LIKE TO VOTE YES, BUT IF I CAN'T THEN I GUESS IT'S AN ABSTENTION.
UM, ALRIGHT, LET'S GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL START OF THIS CONVERSATION.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, I DIDN'T SEE YOU ON, I'M SORRY.
I, I THOUGHT WHEN I'D GET ON IN TIME FOR YOU, YOU TO CALL MY NAME, BUT
UM, YEAH, GO AHEAD AND VOTE PLEASE.
[02:05:01]
SHORTHANDED TONIGHT THAT, UH, BOTH VOTES WERE UNSUCCESSFUL.SO, UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DO YOU WANNA I'D TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE THE ELECTION FOR PARLIAMENTARIAN POSITION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO OUR NEXT MEETING? I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND THAT.
UM, DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THE MOTION WE'RE POSTPONING THIS TO NEXT MEETING? UM, ALL THE, IS ANY DISCUSSION NEEDED? GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
I, YES, COMMISSIONER VICE, I'LL JUST SAY HONESTLY, I, I DO WANNA SAY, UH, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN THROUGH ENOUGH OF THESE.
IT'S ALWAYS IN AN UNCOMFORTABLE POSITION TO BE SORT OF SELECTING COLLEAGUES.
AND I WANNA SAY, YOU KNOW, BOTH OF OUR COLLEAGUES PRESENT AND EVEN THE ONE WHO'S NOT PRESENT, I THINK ALL OF THEM, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT EVERY ONE OF HER COLLEAGUES IS WELL EQUIPPED TO HANDLE THIS POSITION SO MUCH MORE AND LEAD US THROUGH ALL OF THESE CONVERSATIONS.
SO I DO WANNA JUST SAY THAT, AND I THINK JULIE, I THINK TODAY IT'S BECOME A LITTLE BIT A MESS.
'CAUSE I THINK WE'RE JUST VERY SHORT ON PEOPLE.
AND ACTUALLY, YES, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOWARD FOR BEING BACK BECAUSE WE WERE JUST LOST GIRL FOR FIVE SECONDS,
AND REALLY AT THIS POINT WE'RE, WE'RE CHARGING ON AHEAD, SO I THINK NEXT TIME MIGHT BE BETTER WITH MORE PEOPLE PRESENT AS WELL.
UM, SO I, I DO THINK THIS AND JUST WITH HONESTLY A BIG THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO IS WILLING TO SERVE, I KNOW IT IS AN EXTRA TIME AND EFFORT AND I JUST APPRECIATE Y'ALL VERY MUCH.
ALRIGHT, SO, UM, MOTION ON THE TABLE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER, UH, UH, VICE CHAIR IS ARE MADE BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UH, TO POSTPONING THIS TO JANUARY 23RD.
ALL THOSE ON THE DS IN FAVOR, THAT'S THREE.
UM, AND ON VIRTUALLY 4, 5, 6, 7 UNANIM, IS THAT A YELLOW COMMISSIONER? STANDING? OKAY.
[BOARDS, COMMITTEES & WORKING GROUPS UPDATES]
WE'LL GO THROUGH THE, UH, UPDATES FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS, UM, CODES AND ORDINANCES, JOINT COMMITTEE.UM, WE WERE TO, TO MEET TOMAR, UH, SORRY, NEXT WEDNESDAY.
AND THAT HAS BEEN, BEEN POSTPONED AS THEY'RE WORKING THROUGH GETTING A BETTER SCHEDULE.
UM, AND THE ONE CODE THAT I THINK WE WERE GONNA HEAR WASN'T READY, WHICH I REALLY APPRECIATE INSTEAD OF HAVING, WE'LL GET THE, THE LANGUAGE LATER.
SO, UM, WE'LL MEET IN FEBRUARY, HOPEFULLY.
UH, WE'RE MEETING TOMORROW, UH, AT FOUR O'CLOCK.
SO COMMISSIONERS, CONNOLLY, HAYNES AND PHILLIPS, IF YOU COULD, YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY, IF YOU COULD RESPOND TO THAT EMAIL, WHETHER YOU'RE GONNA BE THERE.
UH, STAFF IS TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT QUORUM.
COMMISSIONER HAYES? NO, UM, OH, I THOUGHT YOU WERE, I'M STILL MY CHAIR.
UM, COMMISSIONER WOODS IS OUT.
UM, AND COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, YOU'RE THE ALTERNATE SEAT, SO I DON'T, I THINK, OH, I DON'T SEE.
UM, SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
WE DID NOT HAVE QUORUM FOR OUR MEETING.
AND, UM, JUST EVERYBODY KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR RESCHEDULE OF NEXT MEETING.
'CAUSE I DON'T EVEN THINK THEY HAD THE RSVPS, UM, ON, ON WHO WAS GONNA BE ABLE TO ATTEND OR NOT.
SO I THINK THEY'RE LOOKING TO PUT THAT UP.
UH, MARCH, I BELIEVE THAT'S RIGHT.
SMALL, UH, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.
UM, WE HAVE OUR FIRST MEETING OF THE YEAR, UH, NEXT WEEK.
AND THEN, UM, BUILDING'S WORKING GROUP, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT QUITE FORMED YET, SO, UM, YEP.
WE'LL GET OUR WORK GOING A LITTLE BIT LATER.
UM, WELL THANKS EVERYBODY FOR OUR FIRST MEETING OF THE NIGHT OR THE YEAR, AND, UM, LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU IN A COUPLE WEEKS.
I CALL THIS MEETING, UH, ADJOURNED.
ADJOURNED AT 8:16 PM THANK YOU.
UM, AND THANKS TO STAFF FOR WORKING.
OOH, NOW DIFFERENT BECAUSE NOW WE LIVE A LIFE.