[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]
[00:00:03]
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT HERE ARE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, AND I WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER AT 6:12 PM AT THE AUSTIN CITY HALL AT 3 0 1 WEST SECOND STREET IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
OF COURSE, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND TAKE ROLL CALL, STARTING WITH THOSE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THOSE WHO ARE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY.
PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR PRESENCE WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS HERE, CAN YOU PLEASE? HERE? THANK YOU.
IF YOU'RE SAYING WE CAN'T SEEM TO HEAR YOU, WE CAN SEE YOU.
COMMISSIONER COX AND COMMISSIONER AL HERE.
I BELIEVE I HAD SEEN COMMISSIONER COX.
WE'LL RECOGNIZE HIM WHEN HE JOINS US.
I ALSO WANT TO RECOGNIZE OUR EX OFFICIALS JOINING US TODAY.
WE HAVE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CHAIR, JESSICA COHEN.
UM, AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE, UM, FROM THE A SU BOARD OF TRUSTEES, UH, TRUSTEE CANDACE, HUNTERS HERE AS WELL, VIRTUALLY.
SO I THANK YOU ALL BEFORE WE MOVE ON.
WE DO HAVE A NEW COMMISSIONER HERE TODAY.
AND WE'RE SO GLAD THAT YOU COULD JOIN US TOO.
UM, HOPEFULLY WE CAN GIVE YOU A MINUTE OR TWO TO, UH, SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, INTRODUCE YOURSELF TO EVERYBODY.
UM, THANK YOU ALL FOR HAVING ME.
I'M EXCITED TO JOIN THE COMMISSION.
UM, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO CONTINUING MY PUBLIC SERVICE.
I WAS ON THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION, UH, FOR ABOUT THE LAST YEAR.
I I LIVE IN DISTRICT SEVEN, SORT OF NORTH CENTRAL AUSTIN.
UM, I AM A PROFESSIONAL PLANNER BY TRADE AND LOVE IT SO MUCH.
I DECIDED TO DO IT FOR FREE AS WELL.
BUT, UH, JOKING ASIDE, I I DO ENJOY PUBLIC SERVICE THAT I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO, UH, HEARING CASES AND, AND GIVING MY OPINION AND DOING MY BEST TO REPRESENT, UH, THE VIEWS OF THE PEOPLE OF MY DISTRICT.
WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO HAVE YOU JOIN US.
UM, SO AGAIN, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND REMIND EVERYBODY THAT YOU KNOW, THE CITY COUNCIL HAS APPROVED HYBRID MEETINGS AND FOLLOWING A VIRTUAL, UH, YOU KNOW, AND ALLOWING FOR A VIRTUAL QUORUM AS LONG AS THE COMMISSIONER SERVING AS CHAIRS, PRESIDENT CHAMBERS.
UM, AS SUCH, WE CAN HAVE COMMISSIONERS HERE IN CHAMBERS AND ATTENDANCE VIRTUALLY.
AND TODAY OUR CHAIR, HEMPEL IS JOINING US VIRTUALLY.
SO I WILL BE CHAIRING, UM, IN HER ABSENCE IN PERSON.
SIMILARLY, SPEAKERS CAN PRESENT FROM THE CHAMBERS OR PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY.
I DO WANNA SAY FOR THOSE FOLKS WHO MIGHT BE LISTENING, IF YOU WISH TO WAIT IN THE ATRIUM, THE LAND USE COMMISSION LIAISON, MR. ANDREW RIVERA WILL MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT IN THE ATRIUM A FEW MINUTES BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION BEGINS, UM, IF BEGINS EACH PUBLIC HEARING.
FURTHERMORE, IF YOU'RE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, YOU'LL RECEIVE AN EMAIL ABOUT 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION TAKING UP YOUR ITEM.
UM, THAT SHOULD BE GOOD TO GO.
AND I AND I WILL HAVE ASSISTANCE FROM MR. RIVERA ANNOUNCING THE SPEAKERS DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS.
THANK YOU MR. RIVERA FOR THAT.
UM, CHAIR HEMPEL WHO'S JOINING US VIRTUALLY WILL PROVIDE US THE FIRST READING OF OUR AGENDA AND, UM, CHAIR ALSO, PLEASE HELP ME IN TRACKING QUESTIONS AND DEBATE AS WE GO ON IN CASE I MAKE AN ERROR AS WE'RE FOLLOWING THROUGH FOR OUR COMMISSIONERS.
I JUST WANNA SAY FOR THOSE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY REMINDER, PLEASE HAVE YOUR GREEN, RED, AND YELLOW ITEMS PRESENT FOR VOTING.
UM, AND WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE COUNTING THOSE VOTES AS WE GO ALONG.
AND THOSE ONLINE, PLEASE REMAIN MUTED WHEN YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING AND RAISE YOUR HAND TO BE RECOGNIZE.
IF I MISS YOU, PLEASE TRY AGAIN AND VERBALLY LET ME KNOW IF NEEDED.
I'M, I WILL HAVE COMMISSIONERS HERE HELPING ME THROUGH THAT PROCESS AS WELL IN CASE WE'RE, WE'RE MISSING ANYTHING.
UH, MR. VE, I BELIEVE WE DO NOT HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION TODAY.
SO WE CAN, UM, MOVE ON WITH THAT.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
FIRST ITEM IS OUR APPROVAL OF MINUTES.UM, THIS IS FOR THE JANUARY 9TH, 2024 MEETING.
I HOPE FOLKS WERE ABLE TO LOOK IT OVER AND UNLESS I HEAR FROM FOLKS OTHERWISE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ROLL THAT IN INTO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
SO I'LL GIVE A PAUSE HERE AND SEE IF SOMEBODY HAS ANY CONCERNS WITH THAT.
NOT HEARING ANY, UM, WE'LL GO ON TO OUR,
[Consent Agenda]
UM, CONSENT AGENDA OR SORRY, READING OF OUR AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA CHAIR.DO YOU WANNA WALK US THROUGH THAT? YES, THANK YOU VICE CHAIR.
NUMBER TWO, WE HAVE PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 0 5 0 2 600 KEMP.
THAT IS APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.
NUMBER THREE, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 1 0 0 2
[00:05:02]
EAST SECOND STREET UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 12TH.NUMBER FOUR, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 0 5 0.01 ON TOPLESS FAIRWAY MIXED USE, UH, FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.
NUMBER FIVE, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 2 0 0 1 INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD AND TERRY LANE THAT IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 13TH DUE TO A NOTIFICATION ISSUE.
NUMBER SIX, REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 6 2 INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD, ONTARIO LANE.
THAT IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 13TH.
NUMBER SEVEN, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 2023 DASH 0 0 8 5 KENTON RESIDENTIAL THAT IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
UM, STAFF AND APPLICANT, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENT AGREE ON THE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE.
BUT NUMBER EIGHT, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 22 HENTON RESIDENTIAL IS ALSO FOR DISCUSSION.
APPLICANT WISHES FOR MF SIX NP AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING MF THREE, NP NUMBER NINE.
PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 2 3 0 1 SHERIDAN IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
NUMBER 10, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 3 5 SHERIDAN IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
NUMBER 11, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 1 0 AT UH, ADDRESS 1 2 3 Z UH, EXCUSE ME, 1230 EAST 38TH AND A HALF STREET.
THAT IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.
NUMBER 12, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 9 6.
BEN WHITE BOULEVARD MEDICAL OFFICE IS UP FOR DISCUSSION NUMBER 13, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 4 7 19 11 WILLOW CREEK DRIVE IS OFFERED FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.
NUMBER 14, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 2 3 1900 BURTON DRIVE IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
NUMBER 15, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 3 3 55 55 NORTH LAMAR REZONING OFFERED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.
NUMBER 16, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 3 1 E FIVE A TX REZONE UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 13TH.
NUMBER 17, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 3 8.
ENFIELD OFFERED FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.
NUMBER 18 REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 3 0 MAINOR ROAD CSS ONE OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
THIS HAS BEEN REVISED, EXCUSE ME, CS ONE M-U-C-O-V-N-P WITH PROHIBITED USES PER APPLICANT MEMO IN EXHIBIT E NUMBER 19, PUT AMENDMENT C 8 1 4 20 14 DASH 0 0 8 3 0 1 SUN FIELD PUD.
THIS IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 12TH.
NUMBER 20, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 5 6 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90 UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 13TH.
NUMBER 21, HISTORIC ZONING C 14 H DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 0 5 STATE THEATER OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
C 14 H DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 43 DEEP EDDIE GROCERY SLASH DEEP EDDIE CABARET IS UH, OFFERED FOR A POST UH PLANNING COMMISSION POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 13TH.
NUMBER 23 CONDITIONAL USE LATE HOURS PERMIT S PC DASH 2023 DASH 0 2 8 0 A AXIS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
NUMBER 24 LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2023 DASH 0 3 9 MODIFIED MINIMUM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IS OFFERED FOR DISCUSSION.
AUSTIN'S STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN, CITY
[00:10:01]
OF AUSTIN TELEWORK POLICY IS UP FOR DISCUSSION PULLED BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES.AND THAT CONCLUDES THE READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
I APPRECIATE THAT CHAIR AND I ALSO WANT TO FIND OUT, WE JUST RECEIVED SOME INFORMATION.
SO IN IN THE CONSENT AGENDA I WANT TO READ, UM, THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 13 C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 4 7 1911 WILLOW CREEK DRIVE, DISTRICT THREE.
THIS IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 13TH.
JUST TO CLARIFY, IT'S A FEBRUARY 13TH POSTPONEMENT NOT THE 27TH.
UM, AS WAS READ OUT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
THANK YOU, UM, CHAIR FOR READING US THROUGH THAT AND FOR LEADING US TO OUR FIRST READING.
I DO WANNA OPEN UP TO SEE MR. VERA IF WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, NOT SAYING THAT I'LL SORT OF MOVE ON AND ASK DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO NEED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM ANY ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, NOT HEARING ANYTHING.
SO I'M GONNA MOVE ON, BUT DO LET US KNOW IF WE NEED TO COME BACK TO THAT CHAIR.
COMMISSIONER LAY ON ANDREW RIVERA.
UH, FOR THE MEMBERS ONLINE, UM, IF, UH, YOU COULD PLEASE, UH, SUBMIT YOUR ATTENDANCE AND CONFLICT, UH, EMAIL OR FORM AT THIS TIME, PLEASE.
I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO WANT TO PULL ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE HAVE QUESTIONS ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA? IN WHICH CASE, CAN I HAVE A MOTION FOR OUR CONSENT AGENDA, INCLUDING OUR MINUTES FROM OUR JANUARY 9TH MEETING? I BELIEVE I GOT THAT CORRECT.
THAT SHOULD BE THE JANUARY 9TH MEETING.
AND, UM, THE CON THE AGENDA AS READ OUT BY THE CHAIRS.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THAT? I SEE.
UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, WE HAVE A MOTION, DO HAVE A SECOND ON THIS.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS MOTION IS TO CLOSE OUR PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE OUR CONSENT AGENDA AND APPROVE THE MINUTES AS WELL.
UM, SO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ITEM.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL TO CLOSE OUR PUBLIC HEARING, APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AND APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR EITHER SAY AYE OR RAISE YOUR GREEN CARDS.
FOLLOWING ALL THE HANDS, IF I CAN SEE ONLINE, THIS PASSES, UH, ON CONSENT.
SO WE HAVE 11 VOTES IN FAVOR OF THIS.
THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR GETTING US TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA.
THIS CONCLUDES THAT WE'LL GO TO OUR FIRST DISCUSSION
[Items 7 & 8]
ITEM, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.DO WE HAVE STAFF, UH, FROM OUR PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT? I, I GUESS I SHOULD JUST START BY SAYING THAT UH, WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM WHICH DEPARTMENTS ARE PRESENT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THIS.
ON THIS ITEM, WE, WE COULD WE'LL START WITH YOU.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 23 0 0 1 8 0.05.
KENTON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ADDRESSES IS FOUR 10 AND FOUR 12.
KENTON DRIVE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE BRENTWOOD HIGHLAND COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA.
THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM HIGHER DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY TO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE.
WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A LETTER RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HIGHLAND NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM AND THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED.
UM, WE'LL GO INTO SO FAR, UM, OUR SPEAKERS STARTING WITH THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION AND MR. RIVER, WILL YOU PLEASE MC THE PUBLIC HEARING ANNOUNCING SPEAKERS AND WHEN THEIR SPEAKER TIME HAS ENDED.
UH, CHAIR WILL NOW HEAR FROM ZONING, UM, UH, STAFF.
CYNTHIA HAD WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THIS IS ITEM EIGHT ON YOUR AGENDA.
C 14 2 MILLION 23 0 1 22 KINISON RESIDENTIAL.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON FOUR 10 AND FOUR 12 KINISON DRIVE.
IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED SF SIX MP AND THE REQUEST IS MF SIX MP.
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION ARE APPROXIMATELY 0.4 ACRES DEVELOPED WITH TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND HAVE ACCESS TO KINON DRIVE LEVEL ONE AND ARE CURRENTLY ZONED TOWNHOUSE AND CONDOMINIUM RESIDENCE.
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, SSF SIX MP COMBINED DISTRICT.
THE PROPERTIES HAVE MF THREE AND P TO THE NORTH, SOUTH AND EAST SSF THREE AND SF SIX TO THE EAST AND WEST, A PARKING GARAGE TO THE SOUTH AND OFFICE FACILITIES TO THE WEST.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING MF SIX TO DEVELOP 30 DWELLING UNITS ON THE SITE.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTS MEDIUM DENSITY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN MF THREE AND P DISTRICT ZONING.
SINCE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
NESSON DRIVE DOES NOT HAVE ANY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCES DEVELOPED HIGHER THAN MF THREE AS THIS STREET IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, A LEVEL ONE STREET AND IS NOT LOCATED ON AN THE
[00:15:01]
IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CORRIDOR.THE GR R-M-U-V-C-O-N-P ZONING TO THE SOUTH IS NOT DEVELOPED WITH MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING.
IT IS DEVELOPED WITH A PARKING GARAGE AND THIS REZONING WOULD FACE THE BACK OF THE GARAGE.
MF THREE NP WILL ALLOW FOR A BALANCE OF INTENSITIES AND DENSITIES ON KENTON DRIVE AS THERE IS SSF SIX NP ON BOTH SIDES OF THE SITE.
I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
AND THANK YOU FOR THE REMINDER OUT TO OUR COMMISSIONERS AS WELL.
WE'RE TAKING OUR PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING, SO BOTH SEVEN AND EIGHT TOGETHER FOR AFGHANISTAN RESIDENTIAL, UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
YEAH, JUST A POINT OF ORDER THAT WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH SOME AV ISSUES HERE AT THE CITY HALL.
SO IF THERE ARE EITHER OUR, UH, REMOTE COMMISSIONERS CAN'T HEAR US, UM, AND OR THERE'S ISSUES WITH SORT OF SOUND, JUST LET US KNOW.
AND ALSO JUST TO POINT OUT THAT WE ONLY HAVE ACCESS TO SOME OF THE SCREENS, WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS IN FRONT OF US.
SO IF WE ARE MISSING ANY VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE JUST, UM, SPEAK UP AND LET US KNOW.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, UM, MR. RON THROWER, UM, WITH, UM, MR. VICTORIA HAAS PRESENT, UM, MR. THROWER WILL HAVE OR VICE VERSA, UH, WITH MR. RON THROWER PRESENT, MR. VICTORIA HASSI WILL HAVE NINE MINUTES.
GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS VICTORIA HASSI WITH THROWER DESIGN ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER.
SUBJECT TRACT IS OUTLINED IN BLUE.
IT'S UH, JUST A LITTLE UNDER A HALF ACRE.
WE ARE ASKING TO CHANGE THE COLOR ON THIS MAP FOR THESE TWO PROPERTIES FROM THAT, UH, KIND OF OLIVE GREEN COLOR TO ORANGE, WHICH WOULD BE MULTIFAMILY.
AND SOMETHING I WANNA POINT OUT IS THAT HALF OF THIS BLOCK IS ALREADY, UH, FLUMED FOR, UH, MULTIFAMILY USE.
IN THE ASSOCIATED REZONING, WE'RE ASKING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO MF SIX.
UM, SOMETHING I WANNA POINT OUT IS THAT THIS PROPERTY IS SANDWICHED BETWEEN MF THREE TO THE NORTH AND GR IMMU TO THE SOUTH.
AND THEN IF YOU MOVE A LITTLE FURTHER SOUTH ALONG AIRPORT BOULEVARD, WHICH IS AN IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CORRIDOR, YOU HAVE C-S-M-U-V.
SO ALREADY THERE'S A TRANSITION IN, UH, ZONING AND INTENSITY OCCURRING AS YOU MOVE NORTH.
SO THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT SLIDE IN THIS PRESENTATION.
EARLIER TODAY, THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND PLANNING MET AND THEY RECEIVED AN UPDATE FROM AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP ON THE, UM, PROJECT CONNECT OR THE, UH, LIGHT RAIL PROGRAM OF THE PROJECT CONNECT.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY, SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED WAS THAT THERE'S AN URGENCY TO ADOPT POLICIES, UH, THAT WILL DIRECT GROWTH AND DENSITY TO OUR, UM, LIGHT RAIL.
UM, OUR LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS. AND THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS, UM, ALREADY WITHIN A HALF MILE FROM TWO CURRENT LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS. ONE AT CRESTVIEW AND THEN ONE RIGHT THERE, UH, ACROSS FROM HIGHLAND MALL.
UM, ALSO THIS PROPERTY IS SANDWICHED DIRECTLY BETWEEN TWO IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UM, CENTERS.
ONE'S A REGIONAL CENTER, ONE IS A TOWN CENTER.
SO THE GOLD STAR IN THE MIDDLE REPRESENTS THE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF THIS PROPERTY.
I CANNOT THINK OF OH, OH WELL CALLING ALSO TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT IT'S WITHIN A HALF MILE OF TWO RAPID STATION STOPS AND MORE THAN A DOZEN CAPITAL METRO BUS STOPS.
SO I REALLY CAN'T THINK OF A SITUATION OR A PROPERTY THAT IS BETTER, UH, SITUATED TO RECEIVE INCREASED DENSITY.
UH, 0.5 MILES WAS THE, UM, CRITICAL DISTANCE TO HAVING DENSITY TO SUPPORT THESE RAIL STATIONS.
AND WITH THIS PROPERTY BEING WITHIN LESS THAN A HALF MILE FROM TWO, I WOULD THINK THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE GREAT OPPORTUNITY.
THIS IS A CHART COMPARING THE DENSITY BETWEEN, UH, SSF SIX AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING WITH MF SIX.
UM, MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE DIFFERENCE, UH, THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS JUST TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE UNITS.
UH, THIS SITE AT POINT 0.4 ACRES IS NOT GOING TO YIELD A 90 STORY OR 90 FOOT DEVELOPMENT.
UM, BUT IT IS GOING TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR MAYBE SOME SMALLER MICRO UNITS, UM, UNITS, UH, THAT WOULD BE, UM, PLACED WELL WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE TO A LOT OF TRANSIT AND MOBILITY.
THIS IS JUST A STREET SHOOT, A STREET SHOT OF, UH, THE, THE OF KENTON LOOKING NORTH TOWARDS CRESTVIEW STATION.
YOU'LL NOTICE, UM, ALONG THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN THERE IS A PARKING GARAGE THAT STAFF REFERENCED.
AND THIS IS LOOKING DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE TWO SUBJECT TRACKS.
UM, NOT REALLY SURE HOW THIS PARTICULAR PARKING GARAGE WAS ABLE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT THIS LOCATION WITH COMPATIBILITY APPLYING, BUT NEVERTHELESS, IT'S
[00:20:01]
EXISTING.IT'S HERE AND THIS IS WHAT'S ACROSS THE STREET.
THIS IS ANOTHER SITE JUST TO THE NORTH OF THAT PARKING GARAGE.
AND UM, IT SHOWS TO BE UNDEVELOPED TODAY, BUT THEY ARE NEAR COMPLETION OF A A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT, UM, ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE AS WELL.
AND I WILL PASS IT TO RON CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, RON THROWER REPRESENTING THE LANDOWNER.
UM, THIS CASE REALLY COMES DOWN TO THE ABILITY TO PUT MICRO UNITS ON A, ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY.
WE NEED UNLIMITED DENSITY FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO HAPPEN.
THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS A PROJECT THAT I TOURED IN SEATTLE SOME MANY YEARS BACK, BUT IT'S UH, A PROJECT WHERE THEY TORE DOWN A TRIPLEX AND THEY PUT IN 42 MICRO UNITS ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY.
AND SO HERE'S THE TRIPLEX IN THIS LOCATION.
AND GRANTED IT HAS SOME SMALLER SCALE MULTIFAMILY THAT'S NEARBY, BUT IT'S GOT SINGLE FAMILY DIRECTLY BEHIND.
AND SO HERE'S THE NEW 42 MICRO UNITS THAT ARE PUT ON THE PIECE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THE PROPERTY IS 6,800 SQUARE FEET.
IT'S A UNIQUE SITUATION THAT I THINK THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY HAS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE MICRO UNITS.
AND SO REZONING TO MF THREE IS GONNA LIMIT DENSITY.
UM, THE TENT FOR DEVELOPMENT IS GONNA BE THE EXACT SAME WHETHER IT'S MF THREE OR MF SIX 'CAUSE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE COMPATIBILITY THAT'S GONNA CONSTRAIN IT FROM THE EAST AND THE WEST AND ALSO FROM THE THE NORTH.
UM, MF THREE, IF YOU'RE GONNA DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY WITH MF THREE, YOU CAN ONLY HAVE 14 MICRO UNITS 'CAUSE YOU'RE SUBJECT TO THE SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS OF EFFICIENCIES BASICALLY.
AND SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ABILITY TO HAVE MAYBE MORE THAN 14 MICRO UNITS ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
AND SO AGAIN, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THE ABILITY TO HAVE MICRO UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
AND I'LL ALSO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS SEVEN BUS STOPS, OR EXCUSE ME, SEVEN BUS LINES WITHIN PROXIMITY TO THE PROPERTY AND THE ONE RAIL LINE.
AND SO THERE'S A RIDERSHIP THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR THESE BUS LINES THAT HAS 175,000 PEOPLE EVERY WEEK ON THESE TWO BUS LINES.
AND SO AGAIN, AS VICTORIA HAD STATED, THIS SITE BEING IN THIS UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE IT'S LOCATED HALFWAY BETWEEN TWO RAIL STOPS, ALL THIS BUS SERVICE THAT'S AROUND THERE, YOU GOT MICRO-UNIT POTENTIAL THAT WE'RE SEEKING, UH, UNDER AN UNLIMITED MS SIX DENSITY OPPORTUNITY AND A LOCATION THAT IS VERY WALKABLE.
UM, THERE'S A LOT OF SERVICES THAT ARE NEARBY AND OF COURSE YOU GOT A COLLEGE THAT'S RIGHT THERE, UH, NEARBY AS WELL.
AND WE'RE AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
CHAIR COMMISSIONER LAYS ON ANDREW RIVERA.
THERE ARE NO SPEAKER ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
AND THE APPLICANT WILL FORGO THE REBUTTAL.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND, UM, GONNA TAKE A VOTE TO CLOSE OUR PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM VOTE FROM COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
BUT WE HAVE A, A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON TO CLOSE OUR PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM SEVEN AND EIGHT, BOTH THE NPA AND THE REZONING CASE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE OR RAISE YOUR GREEN CARDS.
I BELIEVE THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
SO THAT PASSES ON A VOTE OF 11.
I APPRECIATE, UM, THAT VERY MUCH SO, UH, ERS, WE'RE NOW GONNA GO INTO OUR RON ROBBINS.
A REMINDER TO EVERYBODY THAT WE, UH, WE ALLOW EIGHT COMMISSIONERS FIVE MINUTES EACH TO ASK QUESTIONS.
UM, AND A QUICK REMINDER TO COMMISSIONERS THAT AS YOU STATE YOUR QUESTION, PLEASE SAY WHO THE QUESTION IS FOR AND ALLOW A FEW SECONDS BEFORE, UM, ASKING YOUR QUESTIONS SO WE CAN HAVE THAT.
DO WE HAVE ANY FOLKS WHO ARE WANNA ASK A QUESTION ON ANY OF THESE ITEMS? MR. JOHNSON, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
UM, UNDER THE CURRENT COMPATIBILITY RULES IN EFFECT, WHAT WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ON THIS SITE? I UNDERSTAND THAT UNDER THE REQUESTED MF SIX, IT WOULD THEORETICALLY WOULD BE 90 FEET BEFORE COMPATIBILITY AND MF THREE WOULD BE LESS THAN THAT BEFORE COMPATIBILITY.
SO I'M WONDERING WHAT WOULD THE ACTUAL MAXIMUM HEIGHT ACHIEVABLE ON THE SITE BE UNDER CURRENT RULES, UM, FOR COMPAT, FOR COMPATIBILITY, WE DON'T REALLY KNOW YET, BUT UM, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 40 CURRENTLY FOR MF FOUR.
[00:25:01]
HAVE OTHER FOLKS WHO HAVE QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, PLEASE GO AHEAD.SO, SO MY QUESTION IS FOR THE APPLICANT, UM, IS THERE AN AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT WITH, UM, THESE, THIS DEVELOPMENT VICTORIA HASI, UM, COMMISSIONER? THERE IS NOT AN AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT AT THIS TIME.
UH, DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE CAN'T BE IN THE FUTURE.
UH, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT GOING ON WITH CERTAIN PROJECTS, UM, CERTAIN TOOLS THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST.
UM, BUT AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, THERE ISN'T, UH, AN AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT.
THERE'S NOT EVEN A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN AT THIS TIME.
AND MIGHT I ASK, UM, WHAT, UM, WHO ARE THE TARGET RESIDENTS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT? I WOULD SAY PROBABLY THE TARGET RESIDENTS ARE GONNA BE STUDENTS, UH, COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH THE A CC CAMPUS DOWN THE WAY.
UM, IT'S REALLY CLOSE TO BUS LINES THAT, YOU KNOW, GO TO UT, THOSE SORTS OF OF THINGS.
SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE HIGHLIGHTING.
SO IS THERE ANYTHING STOPPING YOU FROM PROVIDING AFFORDABILITY, UM, UNITS TO PEOPLE WHO ARE ALSO IN NEED OF HAVING AFFORDABLE MICRO UNITS IN THIS CITY? UM, OR IS THERE MANY PEOPLE WHO, WHO NEED THAT KIND OF RESIDENCE? ABSOLUTELY, AND I WOULD SAY THAT THE MORE DENSITY WE CAN GET, THE MORE, THE LOWER THE COST IS THAT THOSE UNITS CAN BE, UM, PROVIDED, UH, OR CAN BE OFFERED AT.
UM, WE HAVE NOT SPECIFICALLY SPOKEN ABOUT AFFORDABILITY AND AFFORDABLE UNITS WITH THIS PARTICULAR LANDOWNER, BUT, UM, IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS ON EVERYONE'S RADAR.
AND AND WHAT DO YOU ENVISION THAT THE RENTS WOULD BE? I MEAN, A TARGET, THEY HAVE ZERO CLUE AT THIS TIME.
SO THERE'S NO AFFORDABILITY AT THIS POINT IN TIME AND NO DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT IN TIME ABOUT AFFORDABILITY? THAT'S CORRECT.
NOW I WILL CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT IF THIS PROJECT MOVES, UH, FORWARD AND CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SOME OF THOSE DENSITY BONUSES, UM, THAT WOULD REQUIRE AFFORDABILITY.
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY AN OPTION AND OPPORTUNITY.
IT WOULD AFFORD MORE UNITS, UM, DUE TO, UM, RIGHT, THE COMPATIBILITY AND NOT APPLYING, BUT IT'S NOT ON THE TABLE TODAY.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
AND A REMINDER, WE'RE BEING REMINDED AGAIN THOUGH TO SORT OF LIMIT OUR QUESTIONS ON AFFORDABILITY, AS IS ALWAYS THE CASE.
I I WAS JUST SAYING, JUST TO REMIND YOU TO, ALL OF OUR COMMISSIONERS WE'RE BEING REMINDED BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT TO TIGHTEN OUR QUESTIONS ON AFFORDABILITY.
DO WE HAVE OTHER FOLKS WHO HAVE QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER COX.
YEAH, I, I GUESS QUESTION FOR, UH, MR. THROWER OR, OR THE APPLICANT, UM, BASED ON JUST A QUICK LOOKING AT THIS MAP AND SOME QUICK MEASUREMENTS, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE GONNA BE JUST AS TALL OR COULD BE TALLER THAN THE PARKING GARAGE THAT YOU INDICATED, UH, IN THE PRESENTATION.
KINDA WONDERING HOW THAT COULD BE SO TALL.
AND, AND I GUESS MY, MY ISSUE WITH THIS IS THAT YOU'VE PRESENTED KIND OF A SCENARIO THIS, THIS IDEAL SCENARIO OF MICRO UNITS AND, AND PEOPLE WALKING TO, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE TRAIN STATIONS, COLLEGE STUDENTS LIVING THERE, ALL THAT SORT OF THING.
BUT I GUESS MY ISSUE IS WITH THE MICRO-UNIT CONCEPT, THE IDEA IS TO HAVE PROBABLY ZERO PARKING ON SITE.
IS THAT CORRECT? UM, TAKING YOUR QUESTIONS IN ORDER ABOUT THE PARKING GARAGE ACROSS THE STREET, I BELIEVE THAT PARKING GARAGE IS, UH, CLOSE TO 60 FEET IN HEIGHT.
UH, WE THINK, YEAH, THAT THERE'S SOME ERROR IN THE ABILITY FOR THAT PARKING GARAGE TO ACHIEVE THAT LEVEL OF HEIGHT, GIVING THE COMPATIBILITY CONSTRAINTS.
UM, I'LL ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN ERROR IN THE ACTUAL USE ASSIGNED TO THAT PROPERTY.
UM, IT'S A, IT'S SPECIFICALLY LABELED ON THE SITE PLAN AS AUTOMOTIVE SALES, AND I THINK IT IS MORE VEHICLE STORAGE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE CSS ZONING, WHICH IT DOESN'T HAVE.
BUT THAT, PUTTING THAT ISSUE ASIDE, IT'S BASICALLY A QUASI INDUSTRIAL USE THAT'S RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.
UM, AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT THAT WE'RE GONNA BE ALLOWED ON OUR PROPERTY, UH, BECAUSE OF COMPATIBILITY, IT'S GONNA BE AROUND THE 40 FOOT RANGE.
AND AGAIN, THAT'S WHY I KEEP SAYING THAT THE TENT FOR COMPATIBILITY IS GONNA DICTATE WHETHER THIS IS MF THREE OR MF SIX.
THE QUESTION IS, IS HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE GONNA BE ALLOWED THERE? AND YES.
WELL, AND, AND I'M, I'M GETTING, I'M GETTING 300 FEET FROM SSF THREE AND THAT PUTS YOU AT 60 FEET, DOESN'T IT? UH, WE HAVE SSF THREE THAT'S DIRECTLY BEHIND US USE, USE SSF THREE AND ALSO USE SSF THREE.
[00:30:01]
OH, I ON OUR MAP IT SAYS MF THREE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT ZONING, THAT'S THE, THERE'S ZONING TRIGGER.THERE'S ALSO A USE TRIGGER FOR COMPATIBILITY.
AND SO, SO YOU THINK THE USE TRIGGER IS GONNA LIMIT YOUR HEIGHT THE MOST? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND IN FACT, I'LL GO TO THE PARKING GARAGE AGAIN BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE USE ON OUR PROPERTY TODAY, A SINGLE FAMILY SHOULD HAVE LIMITED THE HEIGHT OF THE PARKING STRUCTURE, BUT AGAIN, FOR WHATEVER REASON, IT GOT CLOSE TO 60 FEET.
UM, SO, SO WOULD YOU OBJECT TO, TO SOME SORT OF MF ZONING THAT HAS A HEIGHT LIMITATION AT 40 FEET SINCE YOU THINK THAT THAT'S GONNA ESSENTIALLY BE YOUR CAP ANYWAYS? WELL, I WOULD QUESTION WHY WE NEED TO PUT A RESTRICTION ON HOUSING TO BEGIN WITH, BUT SECONDLY WELL, WELL, AND, AND, AND I CAN, I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
UH, IT'S BECAUSE I MEAN, YOU'VE, YOU'VE PRESENTED A SCENARIO THAT I THINK IS MORE PALATABLE THAN POSSIBLY A SCENARIO WHERE WE, WHERE THE CITY OPTS TO START TO LIMIT OR ELIMINATE COMPATIBILITY.
AND SO IF THAT'S THE CASE THEN, THEN YOU'VE GOT A 90 FOOT TALL BUILDING SURROUNDING, SURROUNDED BY A LOT OF SINGLE FAMILY USES.
AND I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE DOING ON THIS COMMISSION.
I MEAN, DO YOU THINK A 90 FOOT TALL MF SIX BUILDING IS APPROPRIATE IN, IN ESSENTIALLY SURROUNDED BY SSF USES? I DO NOT.
UH, BUT I WILL ALSO SAY THAT I DON'T THINK THAT 40 FOOT IS APPROPRIATE WHEN YOU'VE GOT A INDUSTRIAL 60 FOOT DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET AND YOU'VE GOT OPPORTUNITY EVEN UNDER M UNDER MF THREE TO HAVE GREATER HEIGHT WITH AFFORDABILITY BONUSES.
SO WHY PLACE A HEIGHT CAP ON ANYTHING IF IT'S GONNA BE CONSTRAINED NO MATTER WHAT.
AGAIN, COMPATIBILITY MAY GET RELAXED IN THE FUTURE.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S GONNA BE.
I DON'T EVER SEE IT GETTING RELAXED TO THE POINT WHERE 90 FEET'S EVER GONNA BE ALLOWED ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.
BUT LET'S JUST SAY IT DOES GET RELAXED, AS WE HEARD IN THE HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE TODAY, WHERE 75 FEET IS GOING TO BE THE TRIGGER OF WHERE COMPATIBILITY WILL NO LONGER BE APPLICABLE.
THESE PROPERTIES ARE SEVEN TWO LOTS AT 73 FOOT WIDE EACH.
WE STILL HAVE SINGLE FAMILY ON EACH SIDE, MUCH LESS TO THE NORTH, UH, ABUTTING THE PROPERTY AS WELL.
THIS PROPERTY IS NEVER GOING TO HAVE AN EXEMPTION OF COMPATIBILITY UNDER THAT 75 FOOT, UH, DISCUSSION THAT'S HAPPENING TO TODAY ON WELL, BUT, BUT THE BUT THE DISCUSSION COULD QUICKLY TURN TO ESSENTIALLY JUST USE ZONING RATHER THAN USE, IN WHICH CASE THE 75 FEET WOULD GIVE YOU FULL ENTITLEMENTS UP TO 90 FEET.
I GUESS THAT COULD BE A POSSIBLE SCENARIO.
HOW GREAT WOULD THAT BE TO HAVE THAT LEVEL OF HOUSING BE ALLOWED? WELL, I JUST, I MEAN, YOU AGREED THAT THAT'S, THAT, THAT YOU DON'T EVEN AGREE THAT THAT A 90 FOOT TALL MICRO-UNIT STRUCTURE IS APPROPRIATE NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY USE.
BUT, BUT WE MAY BE LOOKING AT THAT IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
AND SO I'M TRYING TO THINK OF THIS AS FUTURE PROOFING.
I WANT, I THINK IT DESERVES A MULTIFAMILY DESIGNATION, BUT IF WE'RE GONNA START CHANGING COMPATIBILITY, I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S, IF AN MF SIX, WHICH IS TYPICALLY CLOSE TO DOWNTOWN, IS, IS APPROPRIATE FOR, FOR THIS SITE.
SO THAT WAS KIND OF MY, MY POINT.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR, YOUR POINT AND RESPECT IT.
DO WE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, PLEASE GO AHEAD IF YOU NO, COMMISSIONER.
AND, AND BECAUSE WE HAVE A NEW COMMISSIONER, BUT HE'S WAY MORE VERSED THAN I AM.
AND LANKA, I'M STILL THE NEW KID ON THE BLOCK.
SO WHY DID YOU, UH, WHY DID YOU RECOMMEND MF THREE OR WHY DID THE STAFF RECOMMEND MF THREE? UM, WE LISTED A COUPLE OF REASONS.
OH, CAN YOU GIMME ONE SECOND TO I I CAN'T, AND I'M GONNA HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT IF Y'ALL WANT TO COME THIS WAY AFTER THEY'RE DONE.
UM, THE BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT, UM, I'M JUST GONNA READ A COUPLE OF THEM REALLY QUICK.
UH, THERE'S A LEVEL ONE STREET, WHICH IS KENON DRIVE.
UM, DOES, SORRY, I'M JUST GONNA RE READ REALLY QUICK.
THE STREET IS IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, A LEVEL ONE STREET, AND IT'S NOT LOCATED ON THE IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CORRIDOR.
UM, THE GR M-U-V-C-O-N-P ZONING TO THE SOUTH IS NOT DEVELOPED WITH THE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING.
IT'S DEVELOPED WITH THE PARKING GARAGE.
AND THIS REZONING WOULD FACE THE BACK OF THE GARAGE.
MF THREE NP WILL ALLOW FOR A BALANCE OF INTENSITIES AND DENSITIES ON KENON DRIVE AS THERE'S SSF SIX AND P ON BOTH SIDES OF THE SITE.
[00:35:01]
UH, MS. HSI, CAN I ASK YOU FIRST, AND THEN, UM, IN YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS, THERE'S A DIRECTION, OR I, I FORGET HOW YOU PHRASE THAT.I DON'T WANNA PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, UH, BUT THAT THERE'S A NEED DIRECTION TO, UH, DO DENSITY FOR THE, UH, LIGHT RAIL FOR ALL THAT.
WHY, WHY IS THAT THE CASE? WELL, THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DENSITY THAT'S NEEDED IN ORDER TO MAKE TRANSIT WORK, UH, EFFICIENTLY, PROPERLY.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH DENSITY TO SUPPORT IT, YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET THE RIDERSHIP.
SO 0.5 MILES WAS THE SIGNIFICANT NUMBER IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF THE, THE PROXIMITY WHERE YOU WANT INCREASED DENSITY IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THAT TRANSIT SERVICE.
I'LL ALSO POINT OUT THAT, UM, THERE'S A RANKING, THE WAY THEY EXPLAINED IT IN, IN THE MEETING COMMITTEE TODAY, THERE'S A RANKING IN TERMS OF LIKE WHAT THEY LOOK AT, WHAT THEY LOOK AT FOR PROJECTS TO RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDING.
AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THE MORE DENSITY WE CAN SHOW, THE MORE POLICIES WE HAVE IN PLACE TO SHOW THAT DENSITY IS COMING TO THESE CORRIDORS, THE, THE BETTER CHANCES WE ARE OF GETTING THAT FEDERAL FUNDING.
SO NOT TO QUOTE KEVIN COSTNER IN THE FIELD OF DREAMS, MAYBE IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL FUND IT ESSENTIALLY.
THANKS MR. TH I'LL ONLY ADD TO THAT, THAT THERE'S A STUDY THAT WAS DONE IN THE, IN THE NORTHWEST KINGS COUNTY AREA THAT'S CONSIDERED, I THINK THE GOSPEL DOCUMENT ABOUT WHAT IS KINGS COUNTY, WHAT STATE? IN WASHINGTON, NOT BY SEATTLE.
UM, BUT IT'S CONSIDERED THE DOCUMENT THAT EVERYBODY REFERS TO ABOUT DENSITIES NECESSARY FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSIT AND FOR RAIL LINES.
THE GOAL IS TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 54 PEOPLE IN JOBS PER ACRE WITHIN, I BELIEVE IT'S, MAYBE IT'S A HALF MILE.
UM, AND THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE WHEN YOU TAKE A, WHEN YOU TAKE A SPHERE AROUND A STATION, YOU GOTTA EXCLUDE ALL THE RIGHT OF WAY IN THAT AREA.
YOU GOTTA EXCLUDE ALL THE FLOODPLAIN IN THAT AREA, AND YOU GOTTA EXCLUDE EVERYTHING WHERE YOU CAN'T PUT A UNIT OR A JOB TO GET TO THAT, A LEVEL OF 54 UNITS PER ACRE.
AND WE ARE WAY BEHIND ON ALL OF THIS STUFF, ON ALL OF OUR CORRIDORS TODAY.
UH, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE IS, UM, YOU KNOW, STAFF RECOMMENDS AN MF, AN MF THREE MP, AND, UM, HAS EXPLAINED PRETTY THOROUGHLY THAT, YOU KNOW, IF IF YOU, IF WE GO WITH THAT, THEN THROUGH DEVELOPMENT, THROUGH PARTICIPATION IN BONUS PROGRAMS, IT WOULD PROVIDE SOME, SOME HOUSING, SOME HOUSING DIVERSITY, SOME UM, LOWER INCOME HOUSING.
YOU COULD ACTUALLY GET HIGHER THAN 75 FEET IF COMPATIBILITY.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT ALL 'CAUSE I'M STILL THE NEW KID ON THE BLOCK, BUT, UH, SO IF MP THREE GETS YOU WHAT YOU NEED, EVEN THOUGH I GET IT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE, IN THE DEVELOPMENT BONUS PROGRAM.
BUT IF IT GETS YOU WHAT YOU NEED, WHY, WHY WOULDN'T WE JUST GO WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION? IT'S A SMALL SITE TO BEGIN WITH.
UM, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO GO UNDER AFFORDABILITY, UNLOCK TIER ONE, UH, WHICH REQUIRES 25% OF THE UNITS TO BE AFFORDABLE ON A SMALLER PROJECT, IT IS VERY HARD TO ACHIEVE THAT.
THAT'S WHY YOU, YOU TYPICALLY ONLY SEE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCK PROJECTS THAT ARE BIGGER COMPLEXES BECAUSE THEY CAN SPREAD THAT OUT OVER MORE UNITS.
AND SO COULD WE DO THAT? SURE.
IS THAT LIKELY TO HAPPEN? PROBABLY NOT.
I THINK IT'S, IF YOU, IF YOU WERE TO HAVE THAT LEVEL OF CONSTRAINT ON THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, THEN YOU'RE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A SITUATION WHERE IT'S GOING TO ONLY DEVELOP AS MF THREE AND YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET DENSITY.
DO WE HAVE OTHER FOLKS WHO HAVE QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER AL UM, A QUESTION FOR STAFF REGARDING THE, THE STREET LEVEL DESIGNATIONS THAT ARE THERE, COMMISSIONER AL, WE HAVE STAFF WALKING UP.
UM, YEAH, I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN WHAT THE LEVEL ONE DESIGNATION MEANS AND WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT.
I KNOW MR. THROWER SHOWED SOME REALLY NICE PICTURES OF THE SEATTLE STREET AND I, I REALLY DO.
I LIVED THERE FOR FIVE YEARS AND SERVED ON THE PARKS AND REC THERE AND I, I REALLY ADMIRE THEIR PLANNING, INCLUDING DESIGNATED OFF STREET, UH, PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS, DESIGNATED BIKE LANES, AND SEPARATE PARKING SEPARATE FROM THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC ON THEIR SMALL LEVEL STREETS THAT GO IN FRONT OF THESE MULTI-UNIT COMPLEXES.
SO THE EXISTING STREET CHARACTERISTICS, KINISON ROAD IS A LEVEL ONE,
[00:40:01]
UH, WHICH MEANS A SMP REQUIRED RIGHT OF WAY IS 58 FEET EXISTING.AN EXISTING PAVEMENT IS 28 FEET.
UM, THE SIDEWALKS ARE ONLY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF KINISON DRIVE, SO NOT ON THE SIDE THAT THEIR PROPERTY IS ON.
UM, THERE IS NOT A BICYCLE ROUTE AND THEN THE CAPITAL METRO IS WITHIN A QUARTER MILE.
UM, AND THEN THE OTHER STREETS THROUGH THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ARE THOSE ALL LEVEL ONES AS WELL THAT GET ALL THOSE HOMES OUT GOING SOUTH OR GOING UP NORTH? UM, I BELIEVE IT'S TO THE, SORRY, I'M JUST DOUBLE CHECKING ON THE MAP.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S KIND OF TO THE NORTHEAST MAYBE THERE'S A, THERE'S A MIDDLE SCHOOL, THERE'S A PUBLIC MIDDLE SCHOOL ON ONE SIDE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEN ACROSS THE MAIN STREET WE HAVE AN ELEMENTARY AS WELL.
I WANNA SAY THAT LIKE SWEENEY DRIVE, WHICH IS NORTH A LITTLE BIT NORTH IS GONNA BE A LEVEL ONE, BUT I'M, I'M NOT POSITIVE WITHOUT PULLING IT UP.
I HAD NO OTHER QUESTIONS YIELD BACK.
COMMISSIONER SHUTTER, CAN YOU PLEASE REMAIN STATE THAT AGAIN, NO OTHER QUESTIONS YIELD BACK.
DO WE HAVE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
UM, YEAH, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR APPLICANTS REALLY.
UM, SO LOOKING AT GOOGLE'S PREVIEW, WHICH IS EVERYBODY'S FAVORITE THING TO DO, I AM NOTICING THAT THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF MULTIFAMILY ON THE STREET AND IT SEEMED TO BE THE SAME CASE WHEN YOU SHOWED US SOME OF THE MAPS EARLIER IN YOUR PRESENTATION.
AND SO WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE EXPECTATION IS THAT A LOT OF THESE LOTS WILL COME UP FOR REDEVELOPMENT AS WE SEE, YOU KNOW, SORT OF INVESTMENTS ALONG THE LINES OF PROJECT CONNECT AND WHATNOT? I WOULD SAY YES.
AND THEN RELATED TO THAT, OBVIOUSLY WE'VE JUST TODAY HEARD ABOUT, UM, SOMETHING CALLED AN EAD OVERLAY, WHICH IS EQUITABLE TRANSIT OVERLAY.
AND IF WE HAD SOME OF THOSE TOOLS IN PLACE, DO YOU THINK THAT THIS CASE MIGHT HAVE BEEN HANDLED DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE STAFF WOULD'VE CONSIDERED THE PROXIMITY OF THE INVESTMENTS RELATED TO PROJECT CONNECT? YES, I DO.
AND THEN I GUESS ALSO RELATED TO MY QUESTION ON THIS IS, UM, AS YOU WERE SPEAKING TO EARLIER, WE UNDERSTAND FROM THE FTA MODELING THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR THAT THAT HALF MILE IS REALLY CRITICAL.
SO IF WE HAVE PROJECTS LIKE THIS, THAT THAT BASICALLY INCREASES THEIR DENSITY LEVELS AND ESSENTIALLY ENSURES MORE FEDERAL DOLLARS, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND THEN I GUESS ONE LAST QUESTION HERE IS THAT DOES SEEM TO BE A SORT OF MIXED NEIGHBORHOOD AS, SO PEOPLE WERE ASKING ABOUT THE TYPES OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE SEVERAL, LIKE THE ACC HIGHLAND CAMPUSES NEARBY ALL OF THOSE.
SO I GUESS YOU WOULD EXPECT IT TO BE NOT JUST RESIDENTIAL, BUT THERE IS ALREADY A SORT OF, UM, RENTERS AND OTHER PEOPLE LIVING IN THIS AREA.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM FOLKS NOT SEEING OTHERWISE? I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION CHAIR.
PROCEDURAL PROCEDURAL QUESTION, UM, SINCE WE HAVE EX OFFICIOS PRESENT AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY FOR US, CAN WE ASK THEIR ADVICE? UH, IF YOU HAD QUESTIONS FROM THEM, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DIRECT QUESTIONS TO THEM? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
SO ARE WE ARE ABLE TO DIRECT QUESTIONS? YES.
MAY I DIRECT A QUESTION TO OUR A ISD TRUSTEE CHAIR COMMISSIONER LAYS ON ANDREW.
SO, UM, JUST, UH, KEEP IN MIND THAT WOULD BE DURING YOUR REGULAR Q AND A.
I APPRECIATE THAT SINCE, LET ME WAIT, UH, 'CAUSE MR, SINCE COMMISSIONER STALL YOU HAD ALREADY GONE FOR HER.
LET ME MAKE SURE THERE'S NOBODY ELSE WHO DOES NEED TO ASK A QUESTION.
WE DO HAVE SOME SPOTS LEFT TO ALLOW, ALLOW YOU TO GO ON THE SECOND ROUND.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO HAS NOT ALREADY ASKED A QUESTION? WHO WOULD LIKE COMMISSIONER HOWARD, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
I'LL, I'LL DEFER MY TIME TO COMMISSIONER MS. STALL.
UH, IN THAT CASE, HONESTLY, COMMISSIONER MICHELLE, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND ASK YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE ASKING A QUESTION.
I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO A ISD SCHOOLS ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS AREA.
UM, WHAT'S HAPPENING IN TERMS OF THE PLANNING IF WE'RE THERE? OBVIOUSLY THERE ISN'T ANY HOUSING ON THIS PROPERTY RIGHT NOW, BUT IF WE'RE BRINGING IN, UM, I I GUESS IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY FROM THE APPLICANT, AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THESE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SMALLER TENANT UNITS, SO WE'RE NOT REALLY EXPECTING FAMILIES PER SE, BUT MAYBE, UH, WORKERS OR STUDENTS.
BUT I'M, I'M CURIOUS WHAT THAT DOES TO OUR SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS IF, IF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION OR CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
[00:45:01]
ONE, ANYTIME YOU PUT IN UNITS THAT DON'T ALLOW FOR MULTIPLE FAMILIES, TWO BEDROOMS, THREE BEDROOMS, YOU'RE, UM, AUTOMATICALLY GOING TO SHRINK THE NUMBER THAT, UH, WHAT WE CALL OUR SHARE OF THE STUDENTS WHO ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ATTEND, UM, PUBLIC SCHOOLS OR EVEN THERE'S NEAR A CHARTER SCHOOL NEAR THERE.UM, UNFORTUNATELY I SAY THAT 'CAUSE MY OPINION
UH, THE MFI OF THIS AREA IS NOT WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE.
IT'S, IT'S, YOU'VE GOT OLDER FAMILIES THERE AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING IN THOSE APARTMENTS, THEY ARE, I BET YOU THERE'S NOT ANYBODY OVER THERE PAYING $1,200.
THIS WILL PUSH ALL THAT UP, BUT IT JUST KIND OF, KIND OF CASCADES.
THEN THE NEXT APARTMENT WAITS TILL ALL THE LEASES END AND THEN THEY REFURBISH AND THEN THOSE RENTS GO UP AND THEN THE NEXT APARTMENT DOES THE SAME.
SO IT, IT IS A CASCADING EFFECT AND WE SEE IT ALL OVER THE CITY.
COMMISSIONER, MR. STALLER, DID YOU HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP? NO.
NOT HEARING OTHERWISE, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ITEM.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
UM, I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE APPLICANT REQUEST.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THIS? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON THANK YOU CHAIR.
COMMISSIONER LAYS ON ANDREW VERA.
UH, JUST A REMINDER THAT WE'RE TAKING TWO ITEMS IN TANDEM, SO IF WE CAN, UH, RESTATE THE MOTION THAT IS, UM, I, WE SHOULD THAT, SO JUST TO CLARIFY, UH, COMMISSIONER MAXIM, WHAT I'M HEARING IS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BOTH 12 AND 13, SO BOTH THE NPA AND THE REZONING, AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE WOULD GO AHEAD WITH APPLICANT REQUEST SEVEN, EIGHT, SORRY.
DID I READ IT OUT WRONG? YES, YOU DID.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ITEM SEVEN AND EIGHT.
UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
OH, YOU'RE, WAIT, YOU JUST, OH, OKAY.
SO YOU WERE TRYING TO SECOND IT.
SO WE HAVE A, UM, MOTION HERE FROM, UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON FOR BOTH THE NPA AND THE REZONING.
THIS ITEM SEVEN AND EIGHT TO MOVE AHEAD WITH APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
UH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A, UM, SUBSTITUTE MOTION AND FOR SEVEN AND EIGHT, UH, PROPOSE THAT WE GO WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? SECOND.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
UM, THIS IS FROM COMMISSIONER HAYNES SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS ON BOTH SEVEN AND EIGHT TO GO WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
SO WE DO ALLOW, AT THIS POINT FOR FOLKS IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE MOTIONS, WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO THAT OR WE CAN ACTUALLY GO, UM, TO OUR VOTING AS WELL.
BUT I'LL CERTAINLY GIVEN, UH, AN I AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR MOTION MAKER TO EXPLAIN THEIR MOTION.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN? UH, YES, I OFFER A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, UH, FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND, UH, DO SO BECAUSE, UH, THE WAY I I LOOK AT THE THING AND THE WAY I READ IT IS THAT, UM, I, I'M, I'M IN GENERALLY IN FAVOR OF THE INCREASED DENSITY HERE AND THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED MF THREE.
AND, UH, WITH THAT, UH, IF THE APPLICANT DECIDES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BONUS PROGRAM, UH, IT GETS THEM ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, IT GETS THEM ADDITIONAL DENSITY AND THE ADDED BENEFIT FOR THE OVERALL, NOT ONLY OF NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THE OVERALL POPULATION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, IT GETS US SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I THINK BOTH OF THOSE ARE, ARE CERTAINLY IN LINE WITH OUR, UM, UH, GOALS UNDER THE IMAGINE AUSTIN PROGRAM.
UH, AND IT, IT MEETS ALL OF THE CRITERIA THAT THIS PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, HAS PREVIOUSLY SAID WE'RE FOR.
AND I THINK IT'S A, WOULD BE A WIN-WIN.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST THIS? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? I HAVE A QUESTION.
THE MOTION MAKER AS LONG IT'S A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I KEEP HEARING HEARING YOU SPEAK OF POTENTIAL BONUS PROGRAMS ON THIS SITE.
CAN YOU ELABORATE WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? SURE.
UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IF, IF THEY DO AN MF UH, AN MF THREE THAT, UH, THEY CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE BONUS PROGRAM AND INCREASE THEIR HEIGHT, UH, THAT THEY WOULD BE CAPPED AT, AT, I BELIEVE 40 FEET, UH, UNDER THE BASE ZONING.
BUT IF THEY ADD, UM, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THEN THEY CAN INCREASE THAT HEIGHT AND THEN, AND THEREFORE INCREASE THE DENSITY.
SO ARE YOU REFERRING TO AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED? YES.
AND THEN CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT? UNLESS IT'S A, IT IS A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND ALLOW IT APPLICANT.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF, UH, IF, IF YOU ALL WOULD LOOK TO MOVE FORWARD
[00:50:01]
WITH THIS AND HOW YOU ALL FEEL ABOUT THIS SUBSTITUTE.WOULD, WOULD THE APPLICANT STILL LOOK TO DEVELOP UNDER THIS NEW ZONING THAT'S BEEN COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? I FEEL LIKE THAT'S JUST BECOMES A REGULAR QUESTION, SO I MIGHT ASK YOU TO PULL BACK ON THAT QUESTION.
I GUESS IN A NUTSHELL, ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT WITH US? NO, WE'RE NOT.
IT'S GONNA BE VERY LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT.
SO WHERE WE ARE IN THE ORDER IS DO WE HAVE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK AGAINST THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, GO AHEAD.
UM, SO I THINK A LOT OF US UP HERE WERE IN THE ROOM WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT DOING AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED AND AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE JUST KIND OF A MARKET RATE DEVELOPMENT TOOL.
IT WAS ALWAYS MEANT TO BE SUBSIDIZED.
AND I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING FROM THIS APPLICANT SAYING THEY HOPE TO DO A SUBSET SUBSIDIZED DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE.
I THINK THEY WANNA DO MARKET RATE AND I DON'T WANNA KILL THE VIABILITY OF A MARKET RATE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH JUST LOOKS TO DO INADVERTENTLY MOST LIKELY.
UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND A FEAR OF HEIGHT, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE FEAR OF NOT HAVING ENOUGH HOUSING A LOT MORE.
AND SO I WOULD JUST HOPE THAT WE CAN VOTE NO ON THIS AND VOTE YES FOR THE BASE MOTION OF THE APPLICANT'S UM, REQUEST.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, DO WE HAVE OTHER COMMISSIONERS? SPEAKING IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER COX, CHAIR.
UM, COMMISSIONER COX, GO AHEAD AND COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS WELCOME, COME TO YOU TO THE THIRD SQUAD.
COMMISSIONER COX, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
YEAH, I JUST, I JUST WANT TO SAY, UH, MF SIX DOESN'T BELONG ON LEVEL ONE STREETS AND, AND THE MAP THAT THE APPLICANT SHOWED IS VERY ILLUMINATING.
THIS IS NOT WITHIN A TOWN CENTER, IT'S NOT WITHIN AN ACTIVITY CENTER, IT'S NOT WITHIN A CORRIDOR.
SO WHEN THE APPLICANT SAID, I DON'T KNOW WHAT BETTER PROPERTY TO HAVE MF SIX ON, I CAN THINK OF MANY.
UH, AND THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE WITHIN OUR DESIGNATED ACTIVITY CORRIDORS, TOWN CENTERS, TRANSIT CORRIDORS, ALL OF THE FUN STUFF THAT WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY PLANNING OUT.
UM, I ALSO AM ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS SKEPTICAL OF A MARKET VI VIABILITY ARGUMENT.
YOU JUST LOOK AROUND, THERE'S PLENTY OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE ZONED MF THREE IN THIS AREA THAT ARE PERFECTLY FINE.
DO THEY OFFER MICRO UNITS THAT DON'T KNOW? MAYBE NOT, BUT IS MICROUNITS WHAT WE NEED? I DON'T KNOW.
LET LET THE MARKET DETERMINE THAT.
SO I I JUST THINK THAT VIABILITY IS NOT A STRONG ARGUMENT AND, AND THERE'S MUCH BETTER PROPERTIES THAT WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING.
MF SIX, MF SIX WITHIN COUPLE HUNDRED FEET OF SSF THREE IS JUST NOT APPROPRIATE.
AND IF WE OPEN THAT PANDORA'S BOX, I THINK, I THINK IT'S GONNA BE A BIT OF A MESS.
I ALSO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BEING CLEAR AS TO HOW WE CAN INTERACT DURING THIS PROCESS IF WE'RE ALLOWED TO ASK THE APPLICANT EVERY SINGLE TIME A MOTION IS MADE, IF THEY AGREE TO IT.
UH, I, I'D REALLY LIKE THAT CLARIFIED BY WHOEVER ENDS UP BECOMING THE PARLIAMENTARIAN BECAUSE THAT JUST SEEMS NOT APPROPRIATE IN THIS DISCUSSION ON THE DIETS AT THIS POINT.
SO JUST HOPING WE CAN GET THAT CLARIFIED.
COMMISSIONER COX, DO WE HAVE OTHER FOLKS SPEAKING AGAINST THIS MOTION? MR. JOHNSON, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
YEAH, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT NOT INCREASING OR MAXIMIZING THE DENSITY ON THIS SITE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT IT ISN'T WITHIN THE EXACT BOUNDARIES OF THE DESIGNATED, UH, PLAN CENTERS NEARBY, BUT YOU KNOW, TO THE POINT THAT THE APPLICANT MADE THIS IS A PROPERTY WITHIN A VERY EASY WALKING DISTANCE OF EXISTING MASS TRANSIT, NOT JUST PLANNED FUTURE TRANSIT.
UM, THAT ALONE IN MY MIND, QUALIFIES IT FOR SOME DEGREE OF, OF RELATIVELY HIGH OR VERY HIGH DENSITY.
UH, IT'S A VERY SMALL SITE AND THERE ARE A LOT OF COMPLICATED CONSTRAINTS.
I THINK COMPATIBILITY IS SORT OF THE BIG QUESTION.
I THINK 90 FEET IS R TWO TALL IN THE, UH, MIDDLE OR EVEN ON THE EDGE OF A LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE THIS.
I THINK 60 FEET LIKE THE PARKING GARAGE PROBABLY MAKES SENSE.
UM, IF ANYTHING, I THINK MF FIVE MIGHT BE AN APPROPRIATE COMPROMISE ON THIS SITE.
UH, BUT IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT HEIGHT ASIDE, MF THREE ACTUALLY CAPS THE UNIT COUNT DENSITY OF A PROPERTY AT A LOWER LEVEL THAN MF FOUR OR MF FIVE, WHEREAS MF SIX DOESN'T COUNT THE CAP, THE ACTUAL COUNT OF UNITS ALLOWED.
AND SO THAT'S REALLY MY CONCERN WITH MF THREE IS THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT HEIGHT, UH, THE APPLICANT COULD REACH UNDER MF THREE OR FOUR OR FIVE OR SIX, UH, THAT ACTUAL NUMBER OF UNITS IS GOING TO BE LOWER, UH, BASED ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF MF THREE.
UH, BASICALLY ENSURING THAT WHATEVER NUMBER OF UNITS ARE BUILT WILL BE LARGER AND INHERENTLY LESS AFFORDABLE UNDER MF THREE.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, YOU HAVE THE LAST FOUR SPOTS SINCE YOU HAD RAISED YOUR HAND EARLIER.
YEAH, SO WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT DENSITY AND I
[00:55:01]
GENERALLY AGREE THAT DENSITY, THAT MORE DENSITY IS NEEDED AND I THINK THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION GETS US THERE.WHAT WE NEVER REALLY HEAR ENOUGH OF IS AFFORDABILITY, BECAUSE A LOT OF, AND AND HOW THESE, UH, DEVELOPMENTS AND REDEVELOPMENTS AND REZONING IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IMPACT IN PARTICULAR PEOPLE OF COLOR.
AS, UH, TRUSTEE CANDACE HUNTER POINTED OUT WHAT IT DOES TO THE SCHOOLS, WHAT IT DOES TO THE POPULATION OF AUSTIN.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE WE'RE INTERESTED IN, IN BUILDING THE MARKET RATES, BUT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD FOR A MF THREE ZONING THAT WOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IF THE, UH, APPLICANTS WERE WILLING TO DO THAT.
SOME OF THE TOOLS THAT ALSO ADDRESS AFFORDABILITY.
SO AT SOME POINT WE'VE GOTTA, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THAT DENSITY IS A TWO-EDGED SWORD.
THERE ARE THOSE WHO ARE ADVANTAGED AND THERE ARE THOSE WHO ARE DAMAGED AND WE CANNOT PRETEND THAT THERE'S NO DAMAGE.
AND SO WE, I WOULD HOPE WE WOULD LOOK FOR A COMPROMISE THAT PUTS US IN THE POSITION TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF ALL OF THE CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS OF AUSTIN AND NOT JUST STUDENTS AND NOT, OR NOT JUST THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD THESE UNITS.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST THIS ITEM, THIS MOTION? SORRY, THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
WE CAN GO AHEAD AND CALL A VOTE ON THIS.
SO THIS IS THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THE STAFF REQUEST.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HANDS OR SHOW US YOUR GREEN CARDS, ALL THOSE AGAINST.
AND I AM SORRY, WHY AM I COUNTING EIGHT COMMISSIONERS? DO WE HAVE SOMEBODY JOIN? OH, UM, I SEE COMMISSIONER WOODS, YOU'RE HERE AS WELL.
I'M, I'M LIKE, I'M NOT, MY ARITHMETIC HAS GONE OUT THE WINDOW
UM, SO IF I COUNT THAT CORRECTLY, THAT WAS 4, 4 8 AGAINST THAT ITEM, UH, THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILS.
THIS TAKES US BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION.
THIS IS BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
UM, THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT REQUEST AND SOMEONE PLEASE REMIND ME, I BELIEVE WE DID NOT SPEAK ON THIS, SO, UM, I'LL GIVE THE MOTION MAKER THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON IT AND IT WILL GO THROUGH AGAIN.
THREE, FOUR AND THREE AGAINSTS.
IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO OFFER ANOTHER SUBSTITUTE? YES, YOU CAN OFFER A SUBSTITUTE AT THIS TIME.
I WAS KIND OF CONVINCED BY, UH, OUR NEW COMMISSION'S ARGUMENT AS A COMPROMISE.
AND SO I'LL OFFER THE SUBSTITUTE THAT WE APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE LAND USE PLAN AND THEN OR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND THEN, UH, UH, RECOMMEND MF FIVE FOR THE ZONING CHANGE.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? I SEE YOU HAVE A YOU HAVE A SECOND? SO THIS IS A SUBSTITUTE BY COMMISSIONER COX, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
UM, THIS WOULD BE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE NPA AND THEN MF FIVE ON THE UM, UH, ZONING CASE.
UH, COMMISSIONER COX, I WILL GIVE YOU THE FIRST TALK TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, PARLIAMENTARY INCORRECT.
AND THIS JUST PLEASES MY HEART TO OFFER THIS, TO ASK THIS.
UM, IF WE HAVE ANOTHER TIE IN THIS INSTANCE, UH, AND THEN WE HAVE A TIE IN THE BASE MOTION.
WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE? UM, THE PROCEDURE AND STAFF CAN CORRECT ME IS IT ESSENTIALLY MOVES FORWARD TO COUNCIL WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO MOVE FORWARD AS A NO RECOMMENDATION AND THEN COUNCIL WEIGHS IN AS IS THE APPROPRIATE.
COMMISSIONER COX, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
UM, CHAIR COEN, COMMISSIONER COX.
MY, MY APOLOGIES, I'M TOGGLING BETWEEN VIRTUAL AND
I, I I DID HAVE, I HAD A QUESTION TOO.
'CAUSE THAT'S ACTUALLY A REALLY GOOD QUESTION.
UH, IS THERE A, A SPECIFIED NUMBER, A LIMIT ANYWHERE ON HOW MANY TIMES THE, THE BODY CAN TIE ON SOMETHING? MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE NO, BUT I WILL LOOK TO STAFF AND I'M HEARING THAT NO, THERE IS NO SUCH STIPULATION.
NO, I APPRECIATE PLEASE THE CLARIFICATION.
LOOKING AROUND, MAKE SURE COMMISSIONER COZ FLOOR IS ALL YOURS.
I, I UM, I THINK, I THINK MF SIX IS APPROPRIATE.
I'M LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATION CHARTS AND UH, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT MF FOUR AND MF FIVE
[01:00:01]
SEEMS TO BE, UM, A RELATIVELY REASONABLE COMPROMISE CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WE'VE GOT PROBABLY AN ILLEGAL PARKING GARAGE ACROSS THE STREET.SO, UM, I'M ALWAYS LOOKING FOR, FOR WAYS TO, TO COMPROMISE ON THINGS.
AND WE'VE GOT A FIVE IN BETWEEN FOUR AND SIX, SO LET'S DO IT.
COMMISSIONER COX, DO WE HAVE ANY, UM, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? UM, SO FORGIVE MY EARLIER QUESTION ABOUT ASKING THE APPLICANT THEIR THOUGHTS ON MF THREE, SEEING AS HOW WE WERE ALREADY DISCUSSING MF THREE IN MF SIX, BUT AS THIS IS A NEW DISCUSSION, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND GET THEIR THOUGHTS ON THIS.
AS WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED MF FIVE, I DO BELIEVE THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
I'M GONNA HAVE TO, I, I DON'T THINK I SHOULD BE, I WILL BE ABLE TO ALLOW IT.
UM, THIS IS A BRAND NEW THING THAT WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED.
IT WOULD BE GOOD TO CHAIR COMMISSIONER LAYS ON ANDREW.
SO YOUR, UH, Q AND A HAS EXPIRED AND YOU'RE CURRENTLY IN DELIBERATIONS.
SO THAT WOULD MEAN, MR. ANDERSON, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO SPEAK EITHER AGAINST OR IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
UNFORTUNATELY, I GUESS I JUST HAVE TO BE AGAINST IF I'M NOT ALLOWED TO HEAR FROM THIS BRAND NEW ZONING CATEGORY ABOUT THE THOUGHTS WITH THE APPLICANT.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY? UH, YES.
MR. ANDERSON, I HAVE AARY INQUIRY TO ASK, WOULD COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SUPPORT THE, THE IDEA OF, THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT THESE COMMISSION MEETINGS SO WE CAN FLESH OUT THESE IDEAS THAT MAY NOT BE THE APPROPRIATE POINT.
THAT WILL NOT BE A QUESTION THAT WE WILL ENTERTAIN, AND I WILL GO BACK TO SEE.
UM, I'LL SAY, UH, ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION? ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST NOT, NOT SEEING OTHERWISE,
SO THIS IS THE SUBSTITUTE BY COMMISSIONER COX, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
THIS WOULD BE A MOTION TO, FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE NPA, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
AND ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, WHICH IS THE REZONING.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR, UH, RAISE YOUR HANDS OR SHOW US YOUR GREEN CARDS.
OH, BUT HOLD ON, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I, I ACTUALLY DO HAVE AN ACTUAL PARLIAMENTARIAN QUESTION.
UHHUH, UH, THIS, THIS CASE IS ZONED M OR IS NOTICED MF THREE, UH, IS MF FIVE A MORE DENSE ZONING CATEGORY? SO MY, I THINK OUR UNDERSTANDING, OH, WE'RE GONNA TAKE IT, IS MY EXACTLY, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THIS IS NOTICE FOR MF SIX, SO WE CAN GO DOWN, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE APPLICANT REQUEST HAD BEEN.
NO, I APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH.
THEY'RE ELEMENTARY, BUT THEY'RE NEW.
WE CAN GO DOWN, BUT WE CANNOT GO UP.
UM, SO I GUESS AGAIN, WE'LL GO BACK TO WHERE WE WERE, WHICH IS, WE'RE ABOUT TO TAKE A VOTE.
SO THIS IS, AGAIN, I'LL STATE AGAIN.
THIS IS SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY COX, SECONDED BY JOHNSON STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE MPA AND MF FIVE ON THE REZONING.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF, RAISE YOUR HAND OR SHOW US YOUR GREEN CARDS OR FIVE.
SO THAT'S, AND THOSE AGAINST, AND I BELIEVE THOSE AGAINST ALL.
AND THEN, UH, THOSE ARE ABSTAINING.
AND DID I GET THIS CORRECTLY THAT COMMISSIONER WOODS IS OFF THE DIET? YES.
AND SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME TO MAKE SURE I GOT THE MATHS RIGHT ON THIS.
I BELIEVE THIS WAS A FIVE AGAINST, UH, 5, 4, 4 AGAINST.
COMMISSIONER LAVER, JUST FOR THE RECORD, MR. WOODS DID, OR COMMISSIONER WOODS, UH, DID NOTE SHE WAS, UH, AGREE IN FAVOR.
SO THAT WOULD BE 6 4 4 AGAINST, OH WAIT, IS THAT YELLOW OR GREEN? I THINK THAT'S AN ABSTENTION.
COMMISSIONER WOODS, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO CLARIFY IF THAT WAS A
CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT THAT THUMB? THAT'S A THUMBS UP.
AND I KNOW YOU'RE, UM, TRAVELING, SO YOU'RE FIGURING THIS OUT.
SO WE HAVE THIS MOTION ACTUALLY FAILS WOODS 6 4 4 AGAINST AND TWO ABSTENTIONS.
THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILS AS WELL, WHICH TAKES US BACK TO THE BASE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER MAXWELL SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, BOTH THE NPA AND THE REZONING FOR APPLICANT REQUEST.
UM, AND COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, I'LL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ABOUT IT.
[01:05:01]
I'M GONNA PAUSE JUST IN CASE ANYBODY ELSE HAS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.UM, I AM HAPPY TO MOVE THIS FORWARD WITH APPLICANT REQUEST.
I THINK IT'S REALLY CRITICAL TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THESE PROPERTIES IN THE LONG TERM.
UM, AS WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER, IF WE HAD ALREADY HAD SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF AN ETOD OVERLAY, THIS, UM, ZONING CASE WOULD'VE BEEN HANDLED DIFFERENTLY AND WOULD'VE BEEN CONSIDERED DIFFERENTLY.
WE KNOW THAT MAXIMIZING OUR FEDERAL MATCH IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL.
AND THAT IT SEEMS, IF WE'RE TAKING THAT LONGER TIME SPAN HORIZON TO BE THINKING OF THESE AS THE HEIGHT OR THE AFFORDABILITY, WHATNOT, WE NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT DENSITY AND OUR INVESTMENTS RELATED TO TRANSIT AND RAIL.
AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT CURRENTLY WE ARE IN DEFINITE FLUXX REGARDING A LOT OF OUR AFFORDABILITY, UM, OPTIONS AND DENSITY BONUSES DUE TO LEGAL CHALLENGES THAT WERE BROUGHT TO PEOPLE BY PEOPLE IN THIS CITY.
SO I FEEL VERY UNCOMFORTABLE TRYING TO IMAGINE HOW WE CAN MAKE AFFORDABILITY WORK AS A DENSITY BONUS WHEN WE DON'T EVEN LEGALLY KNOW WHAT'S PERMITTED CURRENTLY.
SO I'M HAPPY TO MOVE APPLICANT REQUESTS BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD DENSITY AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL HAVE ADDITIONAL WAYS TO ADD SOME AFFORDABILITY, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE UNNECESSARILY DOWN ZONING OR LIMITING WHAT CAN BE BUILT WITH THIS SITE, ESPECIALLY GIVEN IT'S HALF MILE TRANSIT ACCESS, SEEMS, UM, CARELESS, GIVEN THE LONG TIME, A LONGER TIME HORIZON.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST THIS MOTION? I WILL.
UM, UM, I AGREE WITH, WITH DENSITY AND, UM, IT AMAZES ME WHEN THIS PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, ISN'T CONSISTENT WITH OUR MESSAGING AND ISN'T CONSISTENT WITH OUR VOTES.
LAST WEEK, WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON A PROJECT THAT WOULD'VE ADDED A HUNDRED STORIES, 100 STORIES OF DENSITY TO THIS CITY, BASICALLY, NOT, NOT IN THE SAME AREA, BUT, BUT WITHIN THE ZONE THAT, THAT WE'RE TARGETING, WE CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT.
AND SO NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, I BELIEVE IT'S, IT'S 14 AND, AND MAYBE 10 OR 12.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER? SPEAKING IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING IN FAVOR.
COMMISSIONER STALLER, I SAW YOUR HAND UP FIRST ON AGAINST, AND THEN COMMISSIONER COX WILL GO TO YOU.
COMMISSIONER STALLER, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
UM, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT, AS WE LOOK TO INCREASE OUR DENSITY TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT OUR TRANSIT, WE HAVE TO THREAD THE NEEDLE WITH BALANCING THAT ON, ON THE RESIDENTS WHO ACTUALLY ARE LIVING THERE RIGHT NOW IN OUR SCHOOLS AND THOSE NEEDS.
AND SO WE'VE HEARD, UH, SOME IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THIS AFFECTS OUR SCHOOL FUNCTIONING.
WE'VE HEARD THAT WE NEED NOT JUST THESE, UM, SMALL, UH, SINGLE OR TWO BEDROOM UNITS, BUT WE NEED THE MULTIFAMILY UNITS TO COME IN.
AND, AND WE HEARD HOW WE NEED AFFORDABILITY.
I HEARD A COUPLE OF COMPROMISE OPTIONS THAT WOULD'VE GIVEN US BOTH THE DENSITY THAT WE NEED TO SUPPORT THE TRANSIT AND ALSO, UH, OPPORTUNITIES TO BRING IN THE AFFORDABILITY THAT OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE AT THE CHOICE OF THE DEVELOPER.
UM, BUT, BUT WE, BUT WE NEED TO FIND THOSE WAYS.
SO I, I WANNA ENCOURAGE US TO CONTINUE TO LOOK, TO FIND THOSE WAYS TO THREAD THE NEEDLE TO, TO ACHIEVE MULTIPLE ASPECTS OF OUR GOALS.
AND I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS.
I'LL AGAIN OPEN UP TO SEE IF ANYBODY'S SPEAKING IN FAVOR, NOT SEEING ANYTHING.
I'LL GO TO YOU, COMMISSIONER COX FOR SPEAKING AGAIN.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, WERE YOU GONNA SPEAK IN COMMISSIONER COX? PLEASE GO AHEAD AND WE'LL, OH, NO, UH, ANDERSON CAN GO IF HE'S SPEAKING IN FAVOR.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
SO, I MEAN, IT'S INTERESTING THAT WE, WE KEEP LOSING ZONING TOOLS IN THE COURTS WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS COMPLETELY OVERTURNED.
AND NOW WE'RE SPENDING TIME AS A CITY TRYING TO WATER DOWN A DEVELOPMENT'S POTENTIAL WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S NOT HERE.
NO ONE'S HERE AGAINST IT, BUT WE'RE FIGURING OUT WAYS TO SAY, WELL, THE STREET'S TOO SMALL, IT'S NOT BIG ENOUGH CAR SEWER, SO WE'RE NOT GONNA ALLOW MORE HOMES HERE.
IT, IT JUST, IT, IT'S VERY STRANGE TO ME.
AND THE LOWER ZONING HERE, THE LOWER ZONING CATEGORY IS JUST GONNA REQUIRE LARGER HOMES, WHICH PROBABLY WON'T GET BUILT IF THIS APPLICANT IS HOPING TO BUILD MICROUNITS.
THEY'RE GONNA TRY AND FIND A SITE WHERE THEY CAN BUILD MICRO UNITS.
AND WE, WE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY HOMES HERE TODAY, SO WE'RE JUST GONNA ALLOW FOR MORE AFFORDABLE TYPE HOMES WHEN WE DON'T HAVE BETTER ZONING TOOLS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO ADOPT BETTER ZONING TOOLS.
AND THE ZONING TOOLS WE DO HAVE GET ALL THROWN OUT.
AND SO, I DUNNO, IT JUST SEEMS FRUSTRATING
[01:10:01]
THAT 9% OF OUR NEW HOUSING UNITS THAT WERE BUILT IN AUSTIN, OR LAST TWO YEARS WERE IN AUSTIN AND 91% WERE OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN.AND WE'RE GONNA FIGURE OUT WAYS TO DRIVE UP THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT HERE AND, BUT MAYBE WE'RE NOT, MAYBE WE'RE GONNA ALLOW FOR MICRO UNITS HERE AND A LOT OF OTHER PLACES AND GET BETTER ZONING TOOLS.
BUT, UM, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE WRESTLING WITH A LOT OF ISSUES HERE AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE, BUT I'M DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS, AND HOPEFULLY WE GET MORE.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
COMMISSIONER COX, WE'LL GO TO YOU TO SPEAK AGAINST, UH, MF SIX IS THE HIGHEST DENSITY MF ZONING THAT WE HAVE.
UM, I THINK IF YOU, IF YOU JUST LOOKED AT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, DROVE AROUND THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, I DON'T THINK IMMEDIATELY SOMEONE, A CITY PLANNER OR SOMEONE WOULD THINK, OH, WE REALLY NEED THE HIGHEST DENSITY MULTIFAMILY THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY ACHIEVE UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE RIGHT HERE NEXT TO ALL THESE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY PLANNING SENSE.
AND, AND THE, THE APPLICANT EVEN SHOWED US THE PLANNING DOCUMENTS THAT THE CITY HAS, THAT THIS IS NOT WITHIN THOSE AREAS THAT WE WOULD TRY TO STICK AS HIGH A DENSITY AS WE CAN POSSIBLY GET.
IF, IF OUR ARGUMENT, AND IF THIS COMMISSION'S MODE OF OPERATION IS DO NOTHING TO LIMIT HOUSING, THEN WHY DO WE EVEN TAKE UP ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONING CHANGES? WHY, WHY DON'T WE JUST RUBBER STAMP THAT ALL THE WAY THROUGH, JUST WHATEVER THE APPLICANT WANTS THAT'S RELATED TO HOUSING, JUST RUBBER STAMP IT THROUGH.
I I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT ARGUMENT.
UM, AND SO WE'VE, WE'VE OFFERED SOME MIDDLE GROUND PROPOSALS BETWEEN STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH I THINK IS REASONABLE AND WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS.
AND, AND I JUST, I'M BAFFLED AS TO WHY THIS COMMISSION WOULD, WOULD VOTE THOSE DOWN.
UH, THE OTHER ISSUE IS, I, I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE COMMISSIONERS TO VOTE ON WHAT IS POSSIBLE UNDER A ZONING CATEGORY, NOT WHAT THE APPLICANT PRESENTS TO US AS WHAT THEY'D LIKE TO DO.
BECAUSE WHAT THEY'D LIKE TO DO IS MOST OFTEN A MUCH MORE PALATABLE VERSION OF WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO DO AND WHAT THE MARKET IS GONNA TELL THEM TO DO.
MF SIX DOESN'T MAGICALLY GET US A BUNCH OF AFFORDABLE MARKET RATE MICRO UNITS.
MF SIX CAN ALSO LEAD TO MUCH LARGER UNITS THAT ARE MORE EXPENSIVE AND JUST MORE OF THEM UNDER AN MF THREE OR MF FOUR OR MF FIVE ZONING EXAMPLE.
SO, SO JUST, JUST THINK ABOUT WHAT THE ZONING CATEGORY ALLOWS, WHAT POSSIBLE FUTURE CHANGES WE'RE GONNA SEE IN THE CODE AND, AND COMPATIBILITY AND, AND VOTE BASED ON THAT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER COX, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER SPEAKING IN FAVOR? WE HAVE ONE SPOT LEFT.
REAL QUICKLY, UM, I'LL BE VOTING FOR THIS, BUT I, I DID WANT TO MAKE THE COMMISSIONERS AND ANY LISTENERS AWARE THAT, UM, THERE WILL BE AN UPDATE TO IMAGINE AUSTIN COMING SOON.
THE RF, THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO CONSULTANTS CAME OUT THIS WEEK.
UM, IT'S GONNA BE DUE LATE FEBRUARY.
AND SO THE, THE CITY WILL BE UNDERGOING AN UPDATE TO THE CO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THESE CONVERSATIONS ARE GOING TO BE, UM, REALLY APPROPRIATE FOR HOW WE UPDATE THAT PLAN AND, AND, UH, WRAP IN ETOD AND ALL THESE KIND OF DISPARATE ELEMENTS THAT ARE, UM, WE'RE TRYING TO SCRABBLE TOGETHER TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS.
SO, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I HAD.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CALL, UM, A VOTE ON THIS ITEM.
SO THIS IS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO MOVE AHEAD WITH APPLICANT REQUEST ON BOTH ITEMS SEVEN AND EIGHT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HANDS OR SHOW US YOUR GREEN CARDS.
CAN I SEE ALL THOSE AGAINST? AND THOSE WHO ARE ABSTAINING? I'M SO SORRY.
COMMISSIONER WOODS, CAN YOU KEEP YOUR CARD UP? 'CAUSE YES, SHE'S SAYING YES.
OKAY, SO YOU'RE A YES ON THIS AS WELL.
SO BY MY, WOULD PLEASE HELP ME IF I GOT THIS WRONG.
THIS MOTION PASSES SEVEN FOUR WITH ONE ABSTENTION.
WE CAN MOVE ON TO OUR, UM, NEXT DISCUSSION CASE.
UM, SO THIS WILL BE ITEM 12, BUT AS WE'RE MOVING TO IT, WE'RE GONNA GIVE STAFF A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO JUST DO A TECHNOLOGY SET UP FOR ONE OF OUR SPEAKERS.
[01:15:55]
[12. Rezoning: C14-2023-0096 - Ben White Boulevard Medical Office; District 3]
SORRY FOR THE DELAY.PLEASE GO AHEAD WITH YOUR STAFF PRESENTATION.
NANCY ESTRADA WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 12 ON YOUR AGENDA.
BEN WHITE BOULEVARD MEDICAL OFFICE, LOCATED AT 4,000 JAMES CASEY STREET.
IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED G-R-V-N-P AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING C-H-P-D-A-N-P AS AMENDED.
THE SUBJECT AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 6.3 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST BEN WHITE BOULEVARD SERVICE ROAD AND JAMES CASEY STREET.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A TWO STORY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND SURFACE PARKING.
THIS SITE DOES NOT HAVE FRONTAGE, DOES HAVE FRONTAGE ON THE WEST BEND WHITE SERVICE ROAD.
HOWEVER, ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY WILL BE FROM JAMES CASEY STREET AND RAD LANE.
THE APPLICANT ADMITTED THE REZONING REQUEST FROM CH HNP TO C-H-P-D-A-N-P TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT BUILDING SETBACKS AND LOT WITH, THESE ARE THE ONLY SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT WILL BE MODIFIED.
ALL OTHER DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR CH DISTRICT ZONING WILL REMAIN THE SAME.
DAVID'S SOUTH AUSTIN MEDICAL CENTER IS IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST ACROSS JAMES CASEY AND WITHIN THE HOSPITAL SPECIAL DISTRICT, WHICH ALLOWS UP TO 120 FEET OF HEIGHT ALONG WEST BEND WHITE BOULEVARD.
THE HOSPITAL SPECIAL DISTRICT RECOGNIZES THE UNIQUE LAND USE REQUIREMENTS OF A MAJOR MEDICAL CENTER AND RELATED OFFICES, MEDICAL OFFICES, AND BUSINESSES.
THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT WILL ALLOW MEDICAL OFFICE PROJECT THE FLEXIBILITY TO ACHIEVE UP TO 120 FEET IN THE HEIGHT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING C-H-P-D-A-N-P FOR A PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING MEDICAL OFFICES.
THE PROPOSAL WOULD CREATE AN ADDITIONAL 136,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEW MEDICAL OFFICE SPACE FOR A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY 194,000 SQUARE FEET OF MEDICAL OFFICE SPACE ON THE SITE.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT C-H-P-D-A NP COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING.
THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY SERVICES, CH ZONING DISTRICT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS LOCATION SINCE WEST BEND WHITE BOULEVARD IS A SPECIFIED HIGHWAY CORRIDOR THAT ALLOWS FOR CH ZONING.
THEREFORE, MEDICAL OFFICE USE ALONG THE HIGHWAY CAN BE PROVIDED TO HELP SUPPORT MEDICAL SERVICES AT A RE AT A REGIONAL SCALE.
[01:20:02]
I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.MR. RIVER, WILL YOU PLEASE HELP MC, UM, FOR THE REST OF OUR HEARINGS THROUGH OUR PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT MR. MICHAEL WHALEN, WHO WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
UH, CHAIR, VICE CHAIR COMMISSIONERS.
UH, MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF ST.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.
OUR PROJECT IS, UH, THE BEN WHITE BOULEVARD MEDICAL OFFICE REDEVELOPMENT AT 4,007 JAMES CASEY STREET.
WE ARE SEEKING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM G-R-V-N-P TO C-H-P-D-N-P AS, UH, MS. EST STRATEGIST POINTED OUT TO FACILITATE THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE EXISTING TWO-STORY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND SURFACE PARKING LOT.
THE EXISTING MOB WAS BUILT BACK IN 1983, AND THIS REDEVELOPMENT WOULD ADD ABOUT 136,000 SQUARE FEET OF MEDICAL OFFICE TO THE SITE FOR A NEW TOTAL OF 194,000 SQUARE FEET.
A ZONING ALLOWS US TO BUILD HIGHER THAN 60 FEET WHILE MODIFYING TWO SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO MAINTAIN THE SETBACK AND LOT WITH STANDARDS UNDER THE EXISTING GR ZONING.
CH ZONING IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE SITE IT, GIVEN ITS LOCATION, A BUDDING STATE HIGHWAY 71, UH, WHICH IS ALSO, AS YOU KNOW, KNOWN AS BEN WHITE BOULEVARD.
AND THIS PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN MODERNIZED AND EXPANDED HEALTHCARE OPTIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S DESIGNATED HOSPITAL SPECIAL DISTRICT.
AND IT ADVANCES COUNCIL DIRECTION AND PLANNING POLICIES THAT SEEK TO PLACE HEIGHT AND DENSITY ALONG MAJOR CORRIDORS, SUCH AS A HIGHWAY.
HERE'S A LOCATION MAP WITH THE MOB SITE IN BLUE, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PROPERTY OF BUTTS BEN WHITE.
AND TO THE LEFT ACROSS JAMES CASEY IS THE ST.
DAVID'S HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS THE SOUTH AUSTIN MEDICAL CENTER.
AND HERE IS THE SITE TODAY, AS YOU CAN SEE, OOPS, GUESS WE'RE MUST HAVE BEEN SCRUBBED.
UH, WELL, IT, YOU CAN'T SEE IT, BUT BEAUTIFUL, UH, EMPTY SLIDE WOULD SHOW A TWO STORY, UH, CONDO PROJECT, MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING WITH SURFACE PARKING.
SO ANYWAY, THE SLIDE, IT'S A SLIDE THAT SHOWS, UH, THE CURRENT SITE, THE PROPERTIES IN THE SOUTH AUSTIN COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA, WHICH INCLUDES THE SOUTH MANCHACA NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WHICH WAS ADOPTED IN 2014, DESIGNATED THE AREA IN BLUE AS THE HOSPITAL SPECIAL DISTRICT TO THE IMMEDIATE WEST, AGAIN, OF THE MOB SITE AS THE HOSPITAL, WHICH HAS A HEIGHT REACHING AS HIGH AS 120 FEET.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SPECIFICALLY CALLS OUT, CALLS OUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE HOSPITAL SPECIAL SPECIAL DISTRICT SAYING THAT IT RECOGNIZES THE UNIQUE LAND USE REQUIREMENTS OF A MAJOR MEDICAL CENTER AND RELATED MEDICAL OFFICES AND BUSINESSES.
COUNCIL HAS SUPPORTED DENSITY AND HEIGHT ALONG OUR MAJOR CORRIDORS.
AND EVEN WITH, AND EVEN WITH RECENT COURT ACTION, WE ANTICIPATE FUTURE DIRECTION AND UPDATES WILL FOLLOW THIS PLANNING PRINCIPLE.
WE ARE ASKING FOR C-H-P-D-A ZONING BECAUSE THE ZONING WOULD ALLOW US TO BUILD ABOVE THE 60 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT SET BY THE EXISTING GR ZONING, WHILE ALSO ALLOWING US TO MAINTAIN A LESS RESTRICTIVE GR SETBACK AND LOT WITH STANDARDS ON THE SCREEN.
YOU CAN SEE IN THE RED THE AMOUNT OF LAND WE WOULD LOSE UNDER THE CH SETBACKS, WHICH IS MEANINGFUL.
AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE SITE'S FLAG LOT CONFIGURATION GIVE GIVES IT A SOUTHERN LOT WIDTH OF ABOUT 50 FEET.
HERE IS A SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF SOME OF THE KEY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR BOTH CH AND GR ZONING.
YOU'LL SEE THAT CH ZONING REQUIRES A HUNDRED FOOT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, WHICH WE SIMPLY CANNOT ACHIEVE WITH LOT CONFIGURATION.
YOU'LL ALSO SEE THAT CH REQUIRES SOME OF THE LARGEST SETBACKS OF ANY ZONING.
DISTRICT GR SETBACKS ALLOW US TO BUILD CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND CLOSER TO THE HIGHWAY.
IF YOU AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH CH AS A ZONING DISTRICT, IT IS STRUCTURED TO GIVE YOU MORE HEIGHT IN EXCHANGE FOR LESS IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SO IF YOU'RE OVER 80%, UH, IMPERVIOUS COVER, BUT UNDER 85% IMPERVIOUS COVER, YOU CAN REACH UP TO 60 FEET OF HEIGHT.
IF YOU ARE LOWER YOUR IMPERVIOUS.
IF, IF YOU LOWER YOUR IMPERVIOUS COVER BELOW 80%, YOU CAN ACHIEVE 80 FEET.
IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE IMPERVIOUS COVER IS UNDER 75%, YOU CAN GET A HUNDRED FEET AND SO ON.
YOU CAN SEE THE NUMBERS THERE.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT UNDER GR IS 60 FEET, AND YOU CAN HAVE UP TO 90% IMPERVIOUS COVER.
THE MAXIMUM, THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWED UNDER CH ZONING IS 85%.
BUT OF COURSE, THE, THAT CORRELATES TO THE LOWEST MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT.
SO JUST TO RECAP, WE ARE SEEKING TO REDEVELOP A 40-YEAR-OLD TWO STORY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ITS SURFACE PARKING LOT.
THE REDEVELOPMENT WILL YIELD ALMOST 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEW MEDICAL OFFICES AND FACILITIES THAT CAN BETTER MEET OUR COMMUNITIES GROWING AND EVOLVING MEDICAL NEEDS.
THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS DESIGNATED HOSPITAL SPECIAL DISTRICT, AND COMPLIMENTS THE ADJACENT ST.
AND THE FLEXIBILITY OFFERED WITH THE C-H-P-D-A-N-P
[01:25:01]
ZONING IS NEEDED TO BUILD ABOVE THE 60 FEET WHILE MAINTAINING THE EXISTING GR SETBACKS AND LOT WITH REQUIREMENTS.UM, APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND OF COURSE, AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AFTER, UH, YOU HEAR FROM, UH, MR. COLLINS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
CHAIR WILL NOT HEAR FROM MR. COLLINS.
I CHAIR THE SOUTH MINCH NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM.
AS OF THIS WRITING, THE APPLICANT CONTINUES TO IGNORE THE NUMEROUS NEGOTIABLE COMMUNITY BENEFITS PROVIDED BY THE CONTACT TEAM'S EXHIBIT A, WHICH VARY FROM EXTRAORDINARILY INEXPENSIVE TO EXTRAORDINARILY GENEROUS.
MY SUGGESTION TO THE COMMISSIONERS IS THAT YOU VOTE A POSTPONEMENT TO GIVE THE APPLICANT TIME TO RECONSIDER WHETHER IGNORING THE CONTACT TEAM IS THEIR BEST COURSE OF ACTION.
HAVING WATCHED PC COUNCIL ENTER ACTIONS THROUGH CODE NEXT CODE CRONK AND HOME, I'M WELL AWARE OF HOW THE COMMISSIONERS ARE IGNORED BY, OR HOW OFTEN THE COMMISSIONERS ARE IGNORED BY COUNCIL, AS IN A RECENT EXAMPLE OF GARAGES AND FAR.
SO I'M CERTAIN YOU CAN EMPATHIZE.
THAT SAID, I WILL NOW ADDRESS SOME OTHER STATEMENTS BY THE APPLICANTS STARTING WITH MY PERSONAL HISTORY AFTER LONG AGO, MAKING THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH THE CHURCH OF MY ADULT CHOICE, AND HAVING SINCE THAT TIME CONTINUOUSLY LIVED IN THE DIOCESE OF TEXAS AND EXPERIENCING THE FOLLOWING EVENTS.
MANY YEARS AGO, THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF TEXAS CHOSE TO SELL ITS NONPROFIT HOSPITAL ST.
DAVID'S TO THE FOR-PROFIT HOSPITAL, HCA HEALTHCARE, AND I'LL REFER TO THAT ENTITY AS ST.
THIS INVOLVED A CONTRACT BY WHICH THE HCA HEALTHCARE REMAINS OBLIGATED TO FUND THE NONPROFIT ST.
DAVID'S FOUNDATION CREATED BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
AND THE CONTRACT WAS SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED FROM THE IRS OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS, ENDING ABOUT 2002 BY THE CHURCH'S LAW FIRM, VINCENT AND ELKINS OF HOUSTON, HCA HEALTHCARE CONTINUES TO FULFILL THIS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION.
THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY CONFLATES THE NONPROFIT'S ST.
DAVID'S FOUNDATION, CREATED BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH AND THE FOR-PROFITS.
DAVID'S HCA HEALTHCARE HOSPITAL IS THE FOUNDATION, WHICH IS THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDING FOR VACCINATION PROGRAMS, FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES, KARITAS, ET CETERA.
MR. WAYLON CORRECTLY REPLIED TO MY QUESTION IN A CONTACT TEAM MEETING THAT THE FOR-PROFITS ST.
DAVID'S HCA HEALTHCARE IS HIS CLIENT, NOT THE NONPROFIT ST.
THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE CONTACT TEAM ARE FROM ST.
DAVID'S HC HEALTHCARE AND NOT FROM THE ST.
WITH THAT CLARIFICATION, I WILL NOW SORT THE SMORGASBOARD OF NEGOTIABLE CHOICES IN EXHIBIT A INTO THOSE THAT OFFER THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO MITIGATE A PROBLEM THE CONTACT TEAM SEEKS TO ADDRESS.
NAMELY THAT THEY ARE DISCHARGING PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS INTO THE SOUTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD AS CORRECTLY STATED IN EXHIBIT B, AND IS EXPERIENCED BY SUNRISE CHURCH MEMBERS AND OTHER SUNRISE SOUTHWOOD RESIDENTS.
BASED ON OUR LONG-TERM EXPERIENCE WITH THIS PROBLEM CAUSED BY ST.
DAVID'S HCA HEALTHCARE, THE CONTACT TEAM DOES NOT FIND THEM A RELIABLE PARTNER AND REQUIRES A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR ENFORCEMENT.
DAVID'S HCA HEALTHCARE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE INEXPENSIVE SPACE IN THEIR MEDICAL OFFICE, COMPLEX OR RESPITE CARE, RESPITE CARE OF PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS THAT ST.
DAVID'S HCA HEALTHCARE ARE CURRENTLY DISCHARGING INTO SOUTHWOOD VIA SUCH ORGANIZATIONS AS CENTRAL HEALTH, INTEGRAL CARE, A-T-C-E-M-S, COMMUNITY HEALTH PERSONNEL, AND VIA NON-PROFIT MEDICAL CLINICAL SPACE.
[01:30:02]
CHAIR, MAY I MAKE AN UNRELATED, UH, CO MR. COMMENT ABOUT, UH, ADA A COMPLIANCE? THANK YOU.UH, I APPRECIATE MR. WAYLON, UH, PROVIDING THIS, UH, UH, ALTERNATIVE.
HOWEVER, I WANT TO MENTION THAT, UH, BY THE TIME I WAS 14, MY HEARING WAS RUINED BY GUNFIRE.
AND, UH, I HAVE NEVER BEFORE COME BEFORE INTO THESE CHAMBERS, UH, WITH THE, UH, FM AMPLIFIER THING NOT FUNCTIONING.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HOPE IT'LL BE THE ONLY TIME.
AND, UH, ONCE AGAIN FOR THE THANK YOU, SIR.
AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR NOTE ON A DA COMPLIANCE AS WELL.
CHAIR COMMISSIONER LA LIAISON, ANDREW RA, CAN WE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS? YES.
LET'S ALL PLAN TO COME HERE BY 7 48.
SO WE'RE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ABOUT TO GO INTO RECESS IN WES SLOWLY, I'M BACK TO THIS.
SO WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE OFF THE DICE, WHETHER THE VIRTUAL DICE OR THE, UH, IN-PERSON D PLEASE GO AHEAD AND JOIN US AGAIN, BUT WE DO HAVE QUORUM.
SO I'LL PICK IT UP FROM, AGAIN, WE WILL BE, SO WE HAVE, UM, A STAFF REQUEST TO POSTPONE ITEM NUMBER 12 TO THE NEXT MEETING.
SO THIS WILL BE GOING TO OUR FEBRUARY 13TH MEETING.
UM, AND SO WE WILL NOT HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM.
IS THAT CORRECT, MR. VAR? PERFECT.
SO AGAIN, I'M JUST GONNA REPEAT, ITEM NUMBER 12 IS POSTPONED TO FEBRUARY 13TH, AT WHICH POINT WE WILL HAVE, UH, A PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN AND GO THROUGH OUR FULL PROCESS.
THANK YOU MR. COLLINS FOR BEING HERE AS WELL.
THIS TAKES US TO OUR NEXT, UM, DISCUSSION ITEM, WHICH IS ITEM
[24. LDC Amendment: C20-2023-039 - Modify Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements]
NUMBER 24.THIS IS, UM, AN LDC AMENDMENT.
AND I REALLY, UH, LET ME JUST MAKE SURE I PULL IT UP.
YES, THAT'S THE MODIFYING THE MINIMUM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
AND JUST TO REMIND COMMISSIONERS WHERE WE ARE IN OUR PROCESS, WE DID HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM PREVIOUSLY, AND WE DID GO THROUGH OUR Q AND A ON THIS.
UM, BUT WE CAN, AS A BODY RECONSIDER HAVING A PRESENTATION IN Q AND A IF THAT IS INDEED THE WILL OF THE BODY.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE HAD SO MANY MOVING PIECES AND LATE ADDITIONS AND ALL KINDS OF OTHER THINGS LAST WEEK, I WOULD, I THINK I WOULD, I KNOW I WOULD BENEFIT, BUT I'M THE NEW KID ON THE BLOCK, SO, NO, I, I APPRECIATE THAT.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND SECOND THAT SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, UM, UM, OPENING UP FOR A PRESENTATION FROM STAFF AND REGULAR Q AND A TO FOLLOW FROM IT ALL ON THIS ITEM.
DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE MOTION IS? DO WE HAVE, NEED ANY CLARIFICATION? OKAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR GREEN CARDS OR YOUR HANDS, GO FOR IT.
I BELIEVE MR. CATON, WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM YOU.
AND IF, UM, I CAN GO AHEAD AND SHARE MY SCREEN AND I'LL WALK THROUGH IT.
I'M A DIVISION MANAGER IN OUR TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, AND THIS PRESENTATION WAS PROVIDED IN YOUR BACKUP ALONG WITH THE STAFF REPORT AND, UM, UPDATED ORDINANCE.
SO I'LL GO THROUGH, UM, AND THEN I'LL ENSURE TO COVER, UM, THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE OUR, OUR PREVIOUS, UH, DISCUSSION.
SO, RECENT PARKING, UM, CHANGES, UM, THAT WERE MADE AND APPROVED BY COUNCIL, UM, TO REMOVE, UH, MINIMUM PARKING RE REQUIREMENTS, UM, DID NOT INCLUDE, UM, CHANGES TO THE BICYCLE, UM, PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
HOWEVER, THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION INCLUDED THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THEIR OCTOBER 3RD MEETING.
[01:35:01]
THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, SHOWN ON THE SCREEN, UM, PROVIDED VERY SPECIFIC TEXT, UM, AND DIRECTION ON, ON THE TYPES OF CHANGES THAT SHOULD BE MADE TO TITLE 25.UM, TO MODIFY THE BAR, UH, BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ON NOVEMBER 9TH, CITY COUNCIL INITIATED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25 TO, TO MODIFY BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, UM, PER THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THESE CHANGES TO CREATE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN MODAL SPLIT GOALS AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND TO SIMPLIFY BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
SO, LISTED HERE ARE ALL OF THE CHANGES.
UM, SPECIFIC, UH, CHANGES TO TITLE 25.
ALL OF THEM PRIMARILY CONSIST OF REMOVING REFERENCES TO THE BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS THROUGHOUT, UM, THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS, AND PRIMARILY INCLUDING, UH, MODIFIED LANGUAGE TO REFLECT THE UTC, UH, RECOMMENDATION WITHIN SECTION 25 6 4 7 7, UH, BICYCLE PARKING.
SO WITHIN THIS SECTION IS WHERE, UH, WE RAN INTO ISSUES IN THE LAST MEETING.
UM, THE CHANGES THAT WE HAD MADE, UH, WERE TO ENSURE THAT, UM, PREVIOUSLY, PREVIOUS LANGUAGE THAT WAS REFERENCED THAT HAD BEEN REPEALED ON, UM, COUNSEL'S ACTION ON NOVEMBER 2ND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED SOMEWHERE.
SO WHEN WE ADDED THAT TEXT BACK IN, UM, IT PROVIDED A LITTLE AMBIGUITY ON WHAT, UM, DEVELOPMENTS WERE SUBJECT TO THIS, THIS, UH, REQUIREMENT.
UM, UM, SO WE'VE GONE AHEAD AND, AND, UM, CHANGED THAT TO BE MORE SPECIFIC.
SO, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS SLIDE, UM, THE SECTION UNDER 25 DASH TWO, UM, UM, CONNECTIVITY REQUIREMENTS, UM, STILL SHOWS THAT IF YOU WERE TO CHOOSE THIS OPTION, UM, BASED ON, UH, THE SITE, UH, THE APPLICABILITY OF THAT SITE, THEN YOU WOULD COMPLY WITH THIS OPTION.
THE SITE MUST, UH, MEET THE SHOWER REQUIREMENTS OF LDC SECTION 25 DASH 6 4 77 H, AND NOW H READS AS A SITE OR DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION TWO, B2 OF ARTICLE TWO OF SUBCHAPTER E OF CITY CODE CHAPTER 25 DASH TWO, AND CHOOSES TO PROVIDE SHOWER AND CHANGING FACILITIES AS AN OPTION UNDER TABLE B.
ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO IMPROVE CONNECTIVITY SHOULD PROVIDE FACILITIES AS FOLLOWS, FOR BUILDINGS WITH UP TO 99,999 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA, A MINIMUM OF TWO SINGLE USER SHOWER AND CHANGING FACILITIES FOR BUILDINGS WITH 100,000 OR MORE SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA, A MINIMUM OF FOUR SINGLE USER SHOWER AND CHANGING FACILITIES.
SO, UM, THIS IS NEW LANGUAGE BASED ON THE, THE FEEDBACK WE HEARD IN THE PRIOR MEETING, WHICH, UM, UH, WAS BASED ON CONCERNS WITH THE PRIOR LANGUAGE, UH, BEING, UH, NOT BEING GENDER NEUTRAL, BUT, UM, WITH THE NEW LANGUAGE BEING INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE.
THE FOUR, UM, SECTION 25 DASH 6 4 7 7 H IS VERY SPECIFICALLY REFERENCING SUBSECTION 2.3 0.1 B2.
WHEREAS PREVIOUSLY IT ONLY REFERENCED SUBSECTION 2.3, WHICH PROVIDED THAT AMBIGUITY TO ITS, UH, APPLICABILITY.
SO FROM HERE, THE REMAINING SCHEDULE IS TO GO TO COUNSEL ON FEBRUARY 1ST.
AND, AND THAT IS, UH, THE CONCLUSION OF, UM, MY PRESENTATION.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? MR. RIVERA CHAIR COMMISSIONER LAYS ON ANDREW RIVERA.
SO, UM, YOUR PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED ON THIS ITEM, AND I DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS.
UM, WE'LL GO TO THE Q AND A ON THIS ITEM PARLIAMENT HEARING INQUIRE.
WHEN, WHY IS THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED? WE JUST REOPENED IT.
OUR PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE SORT OF, IT'S THE POST OR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF IF SOMEBODY WAS WITH PUSHING TO COME UP AND SPEAK TO IT.
WE ONLY TOOK A VOTE ON OUR PROCEDURALLY TO DO THE PRESENTATION AND Q AND A AMONGST US.
THANK YOU, CHAIR COMMISSIONER LEE
[01:40:01]
ON VER THIS IS ALSO A CONTINUATION FROM YOUR PREVIOUS MEETING.THANK YOU, MR. RIVER, AND THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION, MR. UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
UM, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO OUR, UH, Q AND A REMINDER AGAIN, IT'S, UM, EIGHT FOLKS HAVE THE ABILITY TO ASK QUESTIONS FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES.
WHO WANTS TO START OFF? MR. HAYNES? DID YOU? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, GO AHEAD AND THEN WE'LL MOVE TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
UM, I, I DO HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS ON THIS.
UM, COLE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR, YOUR PRESENTATION.
UM, I THINK MY FIRST QUESTION IS REGARDING THE LANGUAGE IN 4 77 H.
UM, WHAT WAS THE REASONING BEHIND USING THE WORD SHOULD INSTEAD OF THE WORD MUST OR SHALL? UH, I JUST WORRY THAT LEAVES THE LANGUAGE OPEN TO UNNECESSARY SORT OF VAGUENESS.
UM, LET ME TAKE A LOOK REAL FAST, BUT WE ALSO HAVE, UH, LEGAL COUNSEL THAT MAY BE ABLE TO, TO JOIN AND PROVIDE CLARITY ON THAT.
WELL, I'LL MOVE TO MY NEXT QUESTION IN THE MEANTIME.
UM, I APPRECIATE THAT THIS HAS BEEN AN ITEM OF CONSIDERATION FOR QUITE SOME TIME THAT I'M NEW HERE.
UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M CURIOUS WHY ARE WE CONTINUING WITH THIS PROPOSED LANGUAGE TO TIE THE REQUIREMENT FOR BICYCLE PARKING TO THE NUMBER OF VEHICLE PARKING SPACES? UH, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CURRENT CODE REQUIRES 5% OF THE REQUIRED VEHICLE PARKING SPACES, WHICH ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED, AND THIS CHANGE WILL CORRECT THAT ISSUE BY CHANGING IT TO 10% OF THE PROVIDED VEHICLE PARKING SPACES.
UM, I SEE HOW IN THEORY, THAT WOULD SORT OF MEET THE MODE SHARE GOALS OF THE A SMP, BUT WOULDN'T IN PRACTICE AS THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PROVIDED IN DEVELOPMENTS GOES DOWN OVER TIME, THIS WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF ALSO REDUCING THE NUMBER OF BICYCLE PARKING SPACES, WHICH WOULD SORT OF DIRECTLY CONFLICT WITH THOSE MODE SHARE GOALS.
SO I'M, I'M CURIOUS WHAT THE REASONING BEHIND CONTINUING TO TIE A BICYCLE PARKING TO VEHICLE PARKING IS INSTEAD OF JUST SIMPLY MOVING TO, UH, AN A NUMBER OR NUMERICAL REQUIREMENT BASED ON SOME OTHER FACTOR FOR BICYCLE PARKING.
THAT'S A, THAT'S A VERY GOOD, UM, COMMENT AND CONSIDERATION TO MAKE.
I THINK, UH, AS WE ALL PROBABLY SEEN PLAY OUT THAT, UH, FOR THOSE THAT PAY ATTENTION TO THE, THE PARKING ISSUE, UM, THERE IS NO EXACT SCIENCE TO QUANTIFYING PARKING.
UM, HOWEVER, UM, WHAT THE, THE UTC RECOMMENDATION CAME UP WITH WAS, UH, RATIO OF PARKING, UM, BASED ON THE MO SHARE GOALS.
SO FOR EVERY 10 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED, UH, A BICYCLE PARKING SPACE, UM, SHOULD BE PROVIDED AS WELL.
SO 10 TO ONE RATIO, UM, WHICH FOLLOWED, WHICH FOLLOWED THE, THE MO SHARE GOAL.
UM, I THINK, UH, SOME OF THE ASSURANCES IN THERE, UM, THAT ARE WRITTEN TO THE ORDINANCE AT LEAST, UH, INCLUDES A MINIMUM NUMBER, UM, OR WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
SO THERE'S AT LEAST A NUMBER IN THERE, UM, THAT ENSURES THAT A, A BICYCLE PARKING SPACE, UM, WILL BE INCLUDED.
UM, BUT TO, TO BE ABLE TO QUANTIFY AN EXACT, UM, PARKING, A BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR EVERY LAND USE, UM, UH, POSSIBLE IS, IS EQUALLY AS DIFFICULT AND, UM, IMPRACTICAL AS THE CURRENT PHILOSOPHY WAS ON, UM, PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES.
I, I APPRECIATE THAT, AND, AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.
UM, I DO WONDER THAT WOULDN'T, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES OF REQUIRING TOO MUCH BIKE PARKING ARE FAR LOWER THAN THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES OF REQUIRING TOO MUCH CAR PARKING, GIVEN THAT BIKE PARKING SPACES ARE MUCH SMALLER AND ANY POTENTIAL INDUCED SORT OF DEMAND FOR BIKE TRAVEL WOULD BE A NET POSITIVE TO THE CITY AS OPPOSED TO POTENTIAL INDUCED DEMAND FOR DRIVING MORE? I DEFINITELY AGREE THAT, UM, PROVIDING BICYCLE
[01:45:01]
PARKING, UM, IN ANY NUMBER, UM, DOES, DOES NOT CAUSE, UH, SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, UM, IN, IN ITS SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS.SO IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL AND CONDUCIVE TO OUR, OUR MODE SHARE GOALS.
IF THE REQUIREMENTS WERE BICYCLE PARKING OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY DEVELOPMENT, UM, WERE HIGHER AIR.
AND FINAL QUESTION, WE, I HAVE 20 SECONDS LEFT.
UM, THE CURRENT MODE SHARE FOR BICYCLE, IS IT ABOUT ONE POINT A HALF PERCENT AND THE GOAL IS 5%? IS THAT ACCURATE? I BELIEVE THAT'S, UM, WHAT WE'VE STATED IN THE, THE A SMP, WHICH WAS A 2019 FIVE-YEAR ROLLING AVERAGE.
UM, FROM THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY.
BUT, UM, I DO NOT, I DO NOT HAVE THOSE NUMBERS, UPDATED NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW.
UH, MR. KITTEN, I, UH, COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
I, I'D ALREADY ASKED HIM, I, A, I APPRECIATE YOU, UH, GETTING BACK TO ME ON EMAIL, UH, SHOWS A LEVEL OF PROFESSIONALISM THAT I, UH, UH, COME TO APPRECIATE.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS, UM, THIS COMMISSION IS CHARGED WITH MAKING SURE THAT WE PASS REGULATIONS AND RULES THAT ARE IN COMPLIANCE ARE, ARE AT LEAST, UH, CONSISTENT.
SEE, UH, WITH THE, UH, PLANNING DOCUMENTS THAT THIS CITY HAS SPENT TENS AND TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON, AND IN THIS INSTANCE, IT'S THE A SMP.
UH, DOES THE A SMP SERVE FOR THE BASIS OF BRINGING THIS ITEM FORWARD? I, I BELIEVE IT WAS WHAT WAS REFERENCED WITHIN COUNCIL'S RESOLUTION.
THANK, UM, TO ENSURE, ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE AS SMMP.
AND, UM, UH, IF, IF THE A SMP IS THE, IS THE BASIS FOR BRINGING THIS ITEM FORWARD? I, I AGREE WITH YOU.
I, I THINK THAT IT IS, UH, IS ONE OF THE GOALS OF THE, UM, A SMP STILL, THE MORE EFFICIENT, UH, USE OF OUR LAND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHEN BUILDING NEW DEVELOPMENTS OR REMODEL, REMODELING OLDER PROPERTIES AND ZONING CODE SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO, AND I QUOTE, REDUCED PARKING REQUIREMENTS, PROMOTE SHARED OFFSET PARKING AMONG NEIGHBORHOOD PRIORITIES, UTILIZE UNBUNDLING OF PARKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH SITE SPECIFIC TDM PLANS AND SUPPORT WALKABLE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS TO LESSEN THE NEED FOR PARKING.
UNBUNDLING OF PARKING, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD HELP TO MANAGE THE DEMAND OF TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS BY ONLY PROVIDING PARKING FOR THOSE WHO USE IT, DECREASE PROJECT COSTS FOR THE CREATION OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AFFORDABLE, UH, PERIOD.
CREATIVE MUSIC VENUES IN SMALL LOCAL BUSINESSES IN NEIGHBORHOODS ESPECIALLY, WOULD BENEFIT FROM THE REDUCTION OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
ALL, ALL PARKING REQUIREMENTS REFERENCED WITHIN THE SMP ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE DIRECTION ON MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING.
BUT DOES, DOES THAT, WAS THAT SECTION OF THE, OF THE AS SMP THAT I JUST READ VERBATIM, DID, DOES THAT REFERENCE VEHICLE PARKING OR DOES IT REFERENCE, UH, ALL PARKING, JUST VEHICLE PARKING, I MEAN, MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING.
CAN YOU POINT TO ME WHERE IT SAYS VEHICLE? UH, I THINK IN LAYMAN'S TERMS, WE, WE TEND TO DROP THE WORD MOTOR, UM, FROM THE TERM AND PHRASE VEHICLE.
ARE WE GOING PARTIC PARTICULARLY BECAUSE A BICYCLE IS NOT CONSIDERED A VEHICLE, BUT IT'S CONSIDERED A DEVICE.
UH, BUT IT, I'M SORRY, YOU HAD ANSWERED A PREVIOUS QUESTION OF MINE THAT SAID OF UNDER THE UT, NOT THE, NOT THE UTC, THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, BUT THE UNIFORM TRANSPORTATION CODE THAT A BICYCLE IS CONSIDERED A VEHICLE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TRANSPORTATION CODE.
IS THAT CORRECT OR NOT? CORRECT.
NO, THE DEFINITION THAT I PROVIDED YOU VERY SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT A BICYCLE IS CONSIDERED A DEVICE.
SO UNDER TRANSPORTATION CODE TITLE SEVEN RULE, UH, SUBSECTION C, UH, IT, THAT DOES NOT COVER THE DEFINITION OF A BICYCLE IN UNDER VEHICLE.
UM, THAT'S CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU SENT ME, BUT WE'LL, WE'LL MOVE ON ON.
UM, AND THEN, UM, UH, AND THEN ONE OF THE OTHER FINAL GOALS IN MY LAST MINUTE IS THAT, UH, OF THE A S AND P IS DECREASING THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES
[01:50:01]
PER CAPITA AND INCREASING THE PERCENTAGE OF THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT OPT FOR PARKING, UH, REDUCTIONS AVAILABLE IN THE LAND CODE.IS THAT STILL A GOAL OF THE A SMP? CORRECT.
AND SO IF THIS COMMISSION'S JOB IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PLANNING AND PASSING REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR OVERALL PLANNING COMMISSION, WITH OUR OVERALL PLANNING DOCUMENTS FOR THE CITY, UM, SHOULDN'T WE FOLLOW THE A SMP GOALS AND GUIDELINES, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE JUST PASSED AND COUNCIL HAS JUST PASSED A REDUCTION FOR THE MINIMUM FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE MINIMIZATION OF ALL PARKING REQUIREMENTS? IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE BEING DUPLICITOUS HERE.
AM I MISREADING THAT? IS THAT A QUESTION FOR ME? YES.
AM I MISREADING THAT? NO, I THINK THE THING TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT, UM, DEVICES SUCH AS BICYCLES IN THOSE THAT, UM, DON'T HAVE, UM, LOCKING MECHANISMS, UM, LIKE MOTOR VEHICLES, THEY REQUIRE PLACES TO PARK THEM AND LOCK THEM.
UM, WHEREAS, UM, WHAT WE KNOW AS MOTOR VEHICLES, UM, THEY HAVE PARKING SPACES.
AND WHAT WE'VE GROWN TO LEARN IS THAT A PARKING SPACE FOR A VEHICLE IS NOT AS EFFICIENT AS WHAT IT MEANS TO PROVIDE A PARKING SPACE FOR A BICYCLE.
SO IN ORDER TO PROVIDE BICYCLE PARKING IS SUPPORTIVE OF ALL OF OUR OTHER GOALS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE, NOT JUST IN THE A SMP, BUT WITHIN OUR CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN.
THANK YOU, MR. WITHIN OUR, WE'LL GO ON TO THE NEXT COMMISSIONER FOR QUESTIONS.
DO YOU HAVE ANYBODY ELSE CAN? ITEM NUMBER 24.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER FOLKS WHO HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? NOT SEEING ANYTHING VIRTUALLY EITHER.
IF I'M MISSING SOMETHING, PLEASE DO RAISE YOUR HAND.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
THIS IS THE MODIFYING MINIMUM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
I SEE A STILL FROM, UH, COMMISSIONER.
IS THAT A MOTION? NO, I THINK IT'S COMMISSIONER COX.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER COX.
I'M GONNA ASSUME COMMISSIONER COX, YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO MOVE AHEAD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
SO, SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER COX, SECONDED BY, UH, COMMISSIONER BARR RAMIREZ TO, UH, MOVE AHEAD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM NUMBER 25, WHICH IS THE MODIFY MINIMUM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
DO WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? WE CAN DEFINITELY, IF FOLKS WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, WE CAN.
WELL, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CALL A VOTE ON THIS ITEM.
COMMISSIONER MOLER HAS OUR HAND COMMISSIONER, MY APOLOGIES.
OH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AS WELL.
COMMISSIONER
UH, JUST A A QUICK THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR WORKING WITH US AND TAKING THE FEEDBACK AND COMMENTS FROM THE LAST AND, AND CLEANING THAT UP.
UM, THAT'S, IT'S NICE TO BE ABLE TO WORK TOGETHER.
UH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? I HAVE FOUR, OR AGAIN, JUST FOUR.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO, TO DO THIS WORK.
UM, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE SORT OF FIX THESE TECHNICAL ISSUES IN THE CURRENT CODE.
UM, I THINK THIS IS ONE EXAMPLE, UH, AMONG MANY OF WHY WE NEED A NEW CODE IN THE CITY, IS SOMETHING I, I MENTIONED WHEN I WAS ON THE ZONING COMMISSION, UH, A COUPLE OF TIMES.
CLEARLY, OUR, OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS, UH, SHOWING ITS AGE IN VERY BAD WAYS.
UM, I, I DO JUST WANT TO, I'LL SUPPORT THIS ITEM, BUT I WANT TO NOTE THAT I THINK IT IS SORT OF A SHORT TERM FIX, AND THAT LONG TERM WOULD BE A DETRIMENTAL POLICY TO CONTINUE TO TIE ANY REQUIREMENT FOR BICYCLE PARKING TO PROVIDING VEHICLE PARKING ON A SITE AS WELL.
UM, AND UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE MINIMUMS, IT'S TWO OR FIVE SPACES, DEPENDING ON THE USES.
UM, BUT MOVING FORWARD, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT MANY COMMERCIAL SITES, FOR INSTANCE, WILL BE WELL SERVED BY A SINGLE BIKE RACK WITH, YOU KNOW, ONE SPACE ON EACH SIDE FOR TWO SPACES.
ESPECIALLY IF WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO USE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TO DRIVE LESS, UH, TO PARK THEIR CARS LESS, UH, WE NEED TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE,
[01:55:01]
NOT REDUCE THOSE OVER TIME AS WELL.UM, IF THE MODE SHARE GOAL IN THE A SMP IS ROUGHLY TRIPLING THE NUMBER OF, OF BIKE COMMUTERS AS THERE ARE TODAY, OR WHEN THE PLAN WAS WRITTEN IN 2019, I WOULD'VE LOVED TO SEE THIS TRIPLING THE PERCENTAGE OF REQUIRED BIKE PARKING SPACES INSTEAD OF DOUBLING, DOUBLING ISS BETTER THAN THE STATUS, QUOSS BETTER THAN ZERO, BUT TRIPLING OR QUADRUPLING OR EVEN MORE, UH, PROBABLY WOULD'VE BEEN A GOOD MOVE TO MAKE.
UM, SO I'M ENCOURAGED THAT WE'RE TAKING THIS ACTION.
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE FUTURE ACTION TO DO MORE TO ENCOURAGE ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
CAN I MAKE A QUICK POINT OF PRIVILEGE? I KNOW I CAN'T SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST, BUT I DO REALLY WANNA THANK STAFF FOR TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, UH, THE LANGUAGE, UH, OF, OF, OF GENDER WHEN REFERRING TO THIS, THESE CHANGES.
UH, I, I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU CHAIR GOEN, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.
I'LL JUST, UM, I GUESS I'LL TAKE THE LAST FOUR AND JUST QUICKLY ECHO WHAT, UH, KO WAS JUST SAYING.
I REALLY APPRECIATE STAFF WORKING ON HAVING SOME GENDER INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE INCLUDED.
AND I WANNA SAY, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT SORT OF INCLUSIVITY TOWARDS GENDER.
IT'S MUCH MORE BEYOND THAT, RIGHT? WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SINGLE STALL OR SINGLE, UM, OCCUPANT USE IT, IT SUPPORTS A LOT OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT NEEDS, PEOPLE WHO MIGHT NEED CARETAKERS, FOLKS WHO MIGHT NEED TO BE IN THE POSITION WHERE THEY'RE TAKING CARE OF CHILDREN AND SO ON.
I'LL ALSO BE HONEST, AS A PERSON OF FAITH, MY FAITH DOES NOT ALLOW ME TO, UM, YOU KNOW, IN FRONT OF OTHER PEOPLE IN A CERTAIN WAY.
SO IT'S INCLUSIVE OF MY RELIGIOUS, UM, BELIEFS.
SO REALLY, I WANNA SAY, AS MUCH AS IT EXPANDS GENDER INCLUSIVITY, IT REALLY EXPANDS INCLUSIVITY ACROSS THE BOARD.
SO I'M EXCITED TO SEE US MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION, AND I DO APPRECIATE STAFF'S WORK ON THIS ITEM.
SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND, UM, CALL A VOTE ON THIS.
ALL IN FAVOR, YOU RAISE YOUR HAND OR YOUR GREEN CARDS.
UM, ALL THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST, UM, ANY WHO ARE AGAINST THIS ITEM ARE ABSTAINING.
UM, SO THAT PASSES, UM, 11 WITH ONE ABSTENTION, WHICH IS, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE WITHIN THIS 11, WE NOW HAVE COMMISSIONER WOODS ON THE DAIS.
[25. LDC Amendment: Austin Strategic Mobility Plan – City of Austin Telework Policy]
LAST PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, WHICH IS ALSO AN LDC AMENDMENT.THIS ITEM NUMBER 25, REGARDING THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN, THE CITY OF AUSTIN TELEWORK POLICY.
AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE A, UM, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM STAFF ON THIS ITEM.
UM, SHOULD I SHARE MY OWN SCREEN FOR THE PRESENTATION OR, UH, ARE Y'ALL ABLE TO SHARE THAT? WHATEVER YOUR PREFERENCE MIGHT BE.
I'VE GIVEN YOU, UH, PRESENTER PRIVILEGES, SO YOU CAN, IF YOU'D LIKE.
SO I THINK, YEAH, I CAN SEE Y'ALL.
SO, HI EVERYONE, MY NAME'S KELSEY BIARD.
I'M A SENIOR PLANNER WITH AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, AND I THINK COLE IS STAYING ON WITH ME AS OUR DIVISION MANAGER, UM, TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS TODAY.
BUT THANKS FOR HAVING US HERE FOR THIS ITEM.
THIS IS REGARDING OUR 2024 AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN AMENDMENTS, UM, FROM THE TELEWORK POLICY THAT Y'ALL INITIATED BACK IN OCTOBER.
UM, SO THIS SHOULD BE A BRIEF PRESENTATION.
I'LL RUN THROUGH THE PURPOSE OF THESE AMENDMENTS AND THIS AMENDMENT PROCESS.
UH, I'LL HIT THE TIMELINE AND THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS BEING PROPOSED, AND THEN WE CAN HAVE TIME FOR QUESTIONS AT THE END.
SO, OUR PURPOSE, WHY ARE WE UPDATING THE A SMP RIGHT NOW? UM, SO AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, THIS IS, UM, THE RESULT OF A, A RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 24TH, 2023, UM, THAT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE TELEWORK POLICY AT THE CITY WITHIN THE A SMP.
UM, THIS WENT INTO A COUNCIL RESOLUTION IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR, AND THAT RESOLUTION INITIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN AND TO THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN, AS IT IS, UH, THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF IMAGINE AUSTIN.
THE RESOLUTION ALSO DIRECTED CITY MANAGER AND STAFF TO DRAFT UP THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION
[02:00:01]
AND TO PRESENT THEM AND TAKE THEM, UH, FOR REVIEW THROUGH BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, AND THEN ULTIMATELY TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 15TH, 2024.SO, OUR TIMELINE, AS I SAID, UH, OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR, YOUR, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS WERE, UM, CREATED FOR THESE AMENDMENTS.
AND THEN ON NOVEMBER 9TH OF LAST YEAR, CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THEIR RESOLUTION FOR THESE TELEWORK AMENDMENTS.
UH, AS AN ASIDE, ON NOVEMBER 30TH, 2023, THE AS SMP WAS AMENDED FOR A SECOND TIME, UM, INCORPORATING THE APPROVED, UM, NEW MODAL PLANS OUT OF THE WALK BIKE ROLL PROCESS.
SO, SO MOST OF Y'ALL SHOULD SEEN THAT.
UM, THAT WAS TO INCORPORATE THE BICYCLE URBAN TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS SHARED SHARED STREETS, AND, UH, THE CROSSWALKS PLANS INTO THE A SMP.
SO THEN IN DECEMBER OF 2023, WE STARTED, UH, INTERNAL COORDINATION WITH OUR PARTNER DEPARTMENTS.
THAT INCLUDES THE OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY AS THEY OVERSEE THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN, UM, WHERE THEY MANAGE THAT PLAN.
AND THEY ARE DOING THEIR SEPARATE PROCESS, UM, FOR UPDATING THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN ON THIS ITEM.
UM, AND THEY'RE ANTICIPATED TO RETURN TO COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 15TH AS WELL.
THIS YEAR, ON JANUARY 10TH, WE STARTED WITH A PRESENTATION AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE, AND THEN WE'RE WITH Y'ALL TODAY ON JANUARY 23RD, AND ON JANUARY 30TH, WE'RE POSTING, WE'RE ANTICIPATING POSTING OUR PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INTO THE STATESMEN, UM, TO ADVERTISE THE PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS PLANNED TO TAKE PLACE ON FEBRUARY 15TH, UM, WITH THE COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ON THIS ITEM.
SO SPECIFICALLY THESE AMENDMENTS, UM, THIS IS A SCREENSHOT OUT OF THE, THE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.
THE ADDITIONS, THE AMENDMENTS CAN BE FOUND IN THE RED TEXT.
UM, THERE'S ONE ITEM, WHICH IS AN INDICATOR IN TARGET, UH, TO INCREASE THE SHARE OF CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES WHO WORK AT HOME INSTEAD OF COMMUTING TO WORK.
AND THAT'LL BE WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT SUB CHAPTER OF THE A SMP.
AND THEN THE SECOND ITEM IS TO ADD A SENTENCE, PRIORITIZE THE ALIGNMENT OF CITY OF AUSTIN WORKPLACE POLICIES, INCLUDING TELEWORK POLICIES TO ACHIEVE THESE GOALS.
THAT SENTENCE IS BEING ADDED TO AN EXISTING ACTION ITEM, UM, WITHIN THE AS SMP ACTION ITEM 53 SPECIFICALLY, WE WANTED TO INCORPORATE THE, UH, RED LINE INTO THE AS SMP TO SHOW YOU WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
SO THIS IS THE TWO PAGES WHERE, UM, THE RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE ADDED IN OUR INDICATORS AND TARGET SECTION.
AND THEN IN, UH, THE ADDITIONAL SENTENCE ON THE ACTION ITEM.
UM, I THINK THESE, THESE PAGES, THE RED LINE PAGES WERE PROVIDED AS BACKUP FOR Y'ALL ALONG WITH THIS PRESENTATION.
AND THEN FINALLY, JUST NEXT STEPS IN OUR REMAINING SCHEDULE.
SO, AS I SAID, WE'RE HERE TODAY.
UM, THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN AND OFFICE SUSTAINABILITY WILL BE AT JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE TOMORROW, JANUARY 24TH.
AND THEN WE'RE ANTICIPATING BEING AT CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND FOR CONSIDERATION OF THESE ITEMS ON FEBRUARY 15TH.
UM, I HAVE OUR EMAIL THERE, BUT, UM, YEAH, WE CAN TAKE QUESTIONS NOW.
MR. VER, DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM CHAIR? COMMISSIONER LARA, DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKERS IN THIS MATTER, IS NOT A, UM, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, SO YOU CAN PROCEED TO, UM, Q AND A AND DELIBERATION.
SO WE CAN MOVE AHEAD, UM, TO OUR Q AND A HERE.
THAT WILL BE, AGAIN, EIGHT COMMISSIONERS FOR FIVE MINUTES EACH, AND I'LL OPEN IT UP TO ANYONE WHO WISH, WOULD WISH TO START WITH THEIR QUESTIONS.
AND, UH, IT'S A, IT'S A QUESTION.
IT'S A, IT'S A PLEA MORE THAN ANYTHING TO THE COMMISSION AS WE WORK THROUGH ITEMS. UM, UH, AND, AND MY PLEA IS HOW DO WE ADDRESS, UM, SMALLER WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER, UH, TECHNICAL, UH, AMENDMENTS WITHOUT HAVING TO TAKE AN ITEM OFF OF CONSENT.
UM, I SERVED ON THIS WORK GROUP COMMISSIONER, AND I SENT COMMISSIONER CONLEY AND I, HE'S NOT HERE TONIGHT, AND SO HE, MAYBE HE'S OUT, NEVER GOT THE WORD BACK FROM HIM, BUT COMMISSIONER CONLEY WAS OUR CHAIR OF THE WORK GROUP.
BUT, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS AND COMMISSIONER MAXWELL WERE ALSO ON IT AND, AND WAS, I DON'T KNOW IF COMMISSIONER AZAR.
ANYWAY, UM, UH, BUT DURING THAT WORK GROUP, UH, WE CAME UP WITH LANGUAGE.
AND, AND I DON'T EVER MIND, I THINK THE WAY STAFF AMENDED SOME OF OUR, I, I ACTUALLY PREFER THE WAY THEY AMENDED IT.
THE ONE ITEM, THE ONE LINE THAT I HAVE THAT'S IN THE AMENDMENT
[02:05:01]
TEXT, BUT IT'S NOT IN THE WRITTEN TEXT, WHICH IS WHERE MY CONFUSION LIES, IS THE LINE THAT SAYS, INCREASE THE SHARE OF CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES WHO WORK AT HOME INSTEAD OF COMMUTING TO WORK.WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION DURING THE WORK GROUP, AND WE WERE VERY SPECIFIC TO SAY, WE WANT AUSTIN TO BE A LEADER.
WE WANT TO PROMOTE, WE WANNA DO ALL KINDS OF THINGS.
WE WANT THEM TO ACHIEVE THE 50 WE WANT TO ACHIEVE, BE BE PART OF THE SOLUTION THAT ALLOWS US TO ACHIEVE THE 15% ACROSS THE AREA.
WE HAD ALL THOSE CONVERSATIONS, BUT WE SPECIFICALLY SHIED AWAY FROM THE WORD INCREASE.
WE SAID LEADER, LOTS OF OTHER THINGS.
I THINK THAT'S, UH, MAYBE IT'S AN EDIT, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY A CHANGE IN POLICY, NOT JUST AN EDIT.
AND SO IF, IF WE COULD HAVE TAKEN THAT LINE OUT OR PUT IN THE LEADER, OR PUT IN A LOT OF OTHER THINGS, THIS COULD HAVE GONE THROUGH ON CONSENT.
'CAUSE I'M READY TO VOTE FOR IT, BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD, UM, IN, IN THIS, IT, IT, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS, UH, AN IMPORTANT AMENDMENT, AN IMPORTANT AMENDMENT TO THE AS SMP, BUT IT'S NOT GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS, NOT GONE THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL, ALL THOSE VARIOUS AND ASUNDRY THINGS THAT IT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH IF WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THE SMP, UM, WE'RE JUST DOING THIS AS A KIND OF A STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
SO, UM, THAT'S MY PLEA AND MY QUESTION TO STAFF AND THE HALF, HALF OF MY TIME ALLOTTED.
UM, DO YOU THINK, UH, THE WORD INCREASING THE SHARE OF CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES, IS THAT ACTUALLY A POLICY CHANGE OR WAS THAT JUST MEANT AS A, AS A EDITORIAL COMMENT? YEAH, I'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT.
UH, COL KITTEN, UM, DIVISION MANAGER, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, UM, WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THE AS SMP, UM, UH, INDICATOR SECTION, THERE'S ACTUALLY ALREADY AN INDICATOR THAT SAYS INCREASE THE SHARE OF AUSTIN RESIDENTS WHO WORK AT HOME INSTEAD OF COMMUTING TO WORK.
AND THE CHANGE BEING INCLUDED, UM, IS, IS REFLECTIVE OF THAT SAME LANGUAGE BEING USED IN THE INDICATOR, BUT, BUT IT SAYS INCREASE THE SHARE OF CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES WHO WORK AT HOME INSTEAD OF COMMUTING TO WORK.
SO IT'S, UH, IT, INSTEAD OF, UH, MODIFYING THE EXISTING INDICATOR, IT, UH, DUPLICATES IT AND SPECIFIES CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES INSTEAD OF AUSTIN RESIDENCE.
I THANK YOU FOR THAT ANSWER, MR. KITTEN.
BUT, BUT I, I, I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH YOU.
THE INCREASE THE SHARE OF AUSTIN RESIDENTS IS, YOU, YOU ARE RIGHT, IS A BULLET, BUT IT, IT SAYS TO ACHIEVE THE 15% OVERALL GOAL, WHAT, WHAT STAFF IS IN, IN, IN INCLUDED HERE, IS TO SPECIFICALLY INCREASE THE SHARE OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES THAT DO IT.
THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE A, S AND PI AM FOR THE, I I BELIEVE IT'S A 50 50.
ULTIMATELY, THE GOAL, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'LL GET THERE.
BUT TO LEAVE THAT GOAL AS IS AND MAKE US BE A LEAD THE CITY, BE A LEADER, OR CONTRIBUTE TO, OR, OR, YOU KNOW, MAXIMIZE WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE 15% THAT, THAT WE HOPE TO ACHIEVE FROM THE OVERALL AUSTIN RESIDENCE, I THINK IS FINE.
BUT TO SAY, TO INCREASE THE, THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THE SHARE OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES THAT, UM, UH, TELECOMMUTE IS, IS A POLICY CHANGE, NOT A, NOT AN EDIT.
I KNOW WE'RE AT TIME, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF MR. KANU, YOU JUST WANTED TO QUICKLY RESPOND TO THAT OR WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT Q AND A? UH, I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD.
DO WE HAVE OTHER FOLKS WHO HAVE QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
UM, I, I DO APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER HAYNES PULLING THIS, BUT I ACTUALLY HAVE SOME
AND I THINK SPECIFICALLY THEY HAD A TARGET OF 75% OF WORKERS BEING ELIGIBLE FOR A TELEWORK TYPE PROGRAM.
AND I AM ACTUALLY CONCERNED THAT WE DON'T HAVE THOSE TYPES OF GUIDELINES IN THIS, AND I REALIZE THAT WE DO NOT WANNA BE OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE, AND THAT WAS MADE CLEAR FROM OUR TELEWORKING.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THIS STILL FEELS A LITTLE BIT, I WOULD SAY, UNDERWHELMING AND THAT MAYBE THAT'S A LITTLE BIT HARSH, BUT
[02:10:01]
WE WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND MAYBE TO SET SOME ACHIEVABLE GOALS FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND CERTAINLY BE TRYING TO DO THESE SIM SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT WE SEE AT THE COUNTY.AND WE DID HEAR FROM BOTH COMMISSIONER SHEA AS WELL AS CURRENT CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES THAT THE FLEXIBILITY OFFERED AT THE COUNTY HAS ENCOURAGED THEM TO CONSIDER POSITIONS THERE.
SO I AM JUST CURIOUS IF THERE WAS A CONSIDERATION OF PUTTING IN SOME SORT OF LANGUAGE AROUND WHO MIGHT BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS PROGRAM AND SORT OF REALLY PUSHING THIS A LITTLE BIT BEYOND THE VERY BASE INFORMATION THAT'S, OR BASELINE THAT'S INCLUDED IN THIS REVISION.
YEAH, I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONE THING TO CONSIDER IS THAT THE ADOPTED A SMP, UM, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT, UM, PROGRAMMING CHAPTERS ALL ALREADY PRETTY, PRETTY INCLUSIVE OF A LOT OF STRATEGIES.
UM, AND THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PRESENTED, UH, TODAY INTO COUNCIL ARE SIMPLY REFLECTIVE OF, OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT, UM, THIS BODY, UM, MADE.
SO, UM, AND JUST ANOTHER NOTE IN, IN REGARD TO, UM, THE, THE AGGRESSIVE TARGETS, UM, BEING SET BY TRAVIS COUNTY.
UM, THE THING THAT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT, UH, A 15% MO SHARE GOAL IN 2039 FOR, FOR TELEWORKING IS ACTUALLY PRETTY SIGNIFICANT.
UM, IN 2019, OUR, OUR, UH, BASELINE WAS ABOUT 7%.
UM, AND SO WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE GROWTH AND THE TYPES OF JOBS THAT ARE ACTUALLY ELIGIBLE FOR TELEWORKING, UM, IN THE PEAK OF THE PANDEMIC, WE, WE, WE LARGELY ONLY SAW ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS HALF OF JOBS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR TELEWORKING.
SO THE GOAL ULTIMATELY IS FOR THOSE THAT CAN, UM, AND DO IT SUCCESSFULLY, THEN ENCOURAGE TELEWORKING, UM, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW WE'RE GONNA GET TO THE AVERAGE.
DO WE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS OR STAFF? I'LL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK, UM, SOME QUESTIONS I'LL JUST PICK UP THERE.
UM, MR. KITTEN, I'LL JUST ASK THAT QUESTION.
SO I, I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT.
THAT'S JUST SOMETHING WHEN WE WERE WORKING IN THE WORKING GROUP, WE HEARD FROM STAFF AS WELL IN HEARING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WERE ABLE TO MOVE VERY CLOSE TO THAT 15% GOAL DURING THE PANDEMIC.
AND SINCE THEN WE'VE SORT OF HAD A, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, SORT OF TECHNOLOGY UPSKILLING WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY.
AND WE'VE SEEN THAT WITH SORT OF A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE'VE SEEN THAT 50 50 MODE SHARE THAT OUR TRANSIT WE'RE REALLY NOT ON ON, WE'RE NOT ON, WE'RE NOT ON LINE WITH GETTING TO THAT GOAL.
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, I KNOW THAT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS OUT OF OUR SCOPE AS PLANNING COMMISSION, SO WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY TOUCH ON THAT.
WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION AMONG STAFF OF PERHAPS EVEN RAISING THAT 15% AVERAGE TO SOMETHING ELSE? SO THAT'S MORE ALIGNED WITH SORT OF THE DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WE FIND OURSELVES IN TODAY, AS OPPOSED TO WHEN A SMP WAS FIRST CREATED.
SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, UM, WE HAVEN'T CONSIDERED UPDATING THE MO SHARE GOAL.
UM, AS IT WAS WRITTEN IN 2019, WE ESTABLISHED THE 50 50 MO SHARES, THE PRIMARY PLAN OBJECTIVE, BUT THAT WAS 50 50, MEANING THE PRIMARY GOAL WAS SIMPLY TO REDUCE OUR RELIANCE ON SINGLE OCCUPANT VEHICLES FROM 74% DOWN TO 50.
AND THEN WITHIN THE SMP, WE EXPLAINED THAT THERE, THERE ARE GONNA BE MANY SCENARIOS THAT CAN GET US TO THAT 50%.
UM, AND THE ONE THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED IS JUST ONE OF THEM.
HOWEVER, IT WILL BE IMPORTANT TO MONITOR THE PROGRESS OVER TIME TO SEE THAT WHETHER OR NOT ONE MODE OR ANOTHER NEEDS TO TAKE A LARGER SHARE OF, OF THAT MODE SHIFT.
SO IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE KEEPING AN EYE ON.
UM, BUT I THINK, UM, WE'RE STILL VERY EARLY IN THE GAME IN THE SENSE OF, UH, WHAT A LONG RANGE PLANNING DOCUMENT IS INTENDED TO DO.
UM, WE'RE APPROACHING OUR FIVE YEAR ANNIVERSARY THIS, THIS YEAR, UM, AND WE'VE GOT A LOT OF WORK AHEAD OF US IN OUR, UH, TRANSIT IMPLEMENTATION, UH, BICYCLE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND, AND OUR LAND USE PLANNING GOALS.
MR. T, AND THIS IS ACTUALLY SORT OF INTERESTING THING.
THIS DEFINITELY HELPS CLARIFY AND CONTEXTUALIZE THE CONVERSATION.
UM, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT THE MAIN GOAL WAS THAT 50 50 SPLIT,
[02:15:01]
WHICH I KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BROUGHT THAT UP IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT SPACES FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT SORT OF COMMUNITY VALUES.UM, BUT REALLY WITHIN THAT, WHERE THERE'S GOALS, IT'S MORE, UM, FOR LACK OF BETTER WORD, SORT OF FUZZY AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT IT, BECAUSE THE IDEA IS REALLY TO GET TO THAT 50%, HOWEVER THAT MIX MIGHT BE THAT GETS US THERE.
SO THERE MIGHT ACTUALLY BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT HOW DO WE EXPAND TELEWORK AS AN ABILITY TO GET TO THAT 50 50.
DID I, DID I SORT OF UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M NOT MISSTATING THAT CORRECT.
AND, AND FOR SOME CONTEXT, WE, WE ACTUALLY DID ACHIEVE OUR 50 50 MO SHARE GOAL DURING THE PANDEMIC, BUT IT WAS BY VIRTUE OF PEOPLE TELEWORKING.
AND WHAT THAT ENDED UP DOING THOUGH, WAS WE HAD FEWER CARS ON THE ROAD, AND IT WAS AS IF YOU LOOKED BACK 20 YEARS IN TIME, AND THEREFORE WE HAD FAST, WE HAD FASTER SPEEDS, WE HAD HIGHER CRASH RATES AND INJURIES.
UM, SO WE ACHIEVED 50 50, BUT WE DID IT, UH, THE WRONG WAY.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S, YEAH, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
IT'S KIND OF A, SORT OF A FASCINATING CASE STUDY, UM, LOOKING AT SORT OF THE PANDEMIC AND VARIOUS WAYS IN WHICH OUR SOCIETY ADAPTED.
I'M NOT SURE IF ANY OF OUR STAFF HERE WILL HAVE AN ANSWER THAT, BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK THEM.
SORT PROCESS RELATED QUESTION.
I THINK I'M SEEING THE TIMELINE IN THE PRESENTATION.
THIS GOES TO COUNCIL, INCLUDING IT SEEMS LIKE THE CLIMATE EQUITY, UH, AMENDMENTS WILL ALSO BE GOING TO COUNCIL ON THE, UM, 15TH.
AND IS MY UNDERSTANDING CORRECT THAT THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN AS A AMENDMENT TO IMAGINE AUSTIN HAS TO COME BEFORE US FOR CONSIDERATION AS WELL BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION? I'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT.
UM, THE, THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN IS NOT AN, AN ATTACHMENT TO IMAGINE AUSTIN.
THEY DO PLAN ON GOING TO THE, THE, UM, JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE TOMORROW, THOUGH, I BELIEVE.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE THEN THAT THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED, UM, TO BRING IT FORTH.
DO WE HAVE OTHER FOLKS WHO HAVE QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME OF STAFF? NOT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM FOR THE SAKE OF CONVERSATION? WHAT I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND DO IS I'M GONNA MOVE AHEAD WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS THE BASE MOTION.
DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? I HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER AL.
SO THIS IS A MOTION BY
UM, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, GO AHEAD PLEASE.
I'D LIKE TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT.
GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR AMENDMENT.
UM, YES, SO I THINK SPECIFICALLY, UM, RELATED TO, UH, THE FIRST RED LINES THAT WE HAVE, UM, ON PAGE 56, AND THIS IS REALLY JUST AN, AN EFFORT TO STRENGTHEN WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PUT IN AND SORT OF CLARIFY.
SO, UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT FIRST LINE THAT WE SEE WHERE IT SAYS INCREASE THE SHARE OF CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES WHO WORK AT HOME INSTEAD OF COMMUNITY TO WORK.
AND THEN MOVING ON TO THE SECOND LINE, ENSURE WHENEVER APPROPRIATE, ALL CITY TELEWORK AND REMOTE WORK POLICIES CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS THE GOAL OF ACHIEVING.
AND THIS IS THE BUMP UP THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR 25% OF AUSTIN RESIDENTS WORKING FROM HOME BY 2030.
AND THEN MOVING TO THE NEXT LINE.
ADDITIONALLY, TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL, IMPLEMENT A CITY OF AUSTIN TELEWORK POLICY OF NO LESS THAN 85% OF ELIGIBLE CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES SHALL WORK FROM HOME.
AND THE ELIGIBLE OF COURSE BEING THE KEY PART HERE.
I'LL LET YOU SPEAK TO THAT IN A SECOND.
BUT DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THIS MOTION? UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS? SO, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND ON AN AMENDMENT FROM COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? UH, YEAH, I THINK AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, JUST SORT OF HIGHLIGHTING THAT, UM, THE TRAVIS COUNTY HAS BEEN A REAL LEADER ON THIS, AND THIS IS ESSENTIALLY FOLLOWING THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT THEY HAVE USED.
AND THE IDEA BEING HERE THAT WE'RE REALLY PUSHING THE ENVELOPE, UM, WHICH I THINK WE'RE SORT OF TOUCHING ON HERE, IS THAT WE KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT HITTING OUR MODE SHARE GOALS.
WE'D LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THIS TYPE OF TELEWORKING AND THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN CAN BE A LEADER AND FOLLOW IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF TRAVIS COUNTY.
AND THAT BY PUTTING FORTH THESE TYPES OF SPECIFIC GUIDELINES AND GOALS, WE'RE ACTUALLY ALIGNING OURSELVES ACROSS A REGION TO SAY THAT TELEWORK IS SOMETHING WE VALUE IN PUBLIC SERVICE AND THAT WE ARE SORT OF ELIMINATING MAYBE SHALL I SAY, A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE FOR CERTAIN SITUATIONS AND REALLY ENCOURAGING CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES ACROSS THE BOARD TO FEEL LIKE THIS IS AN OPTION FOR THEM TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE CITY.
I'LL OPEN IT UP TO, IN A SECOND TO THOSE WHO WISH TO SPEAK AGAINST OR FOR, CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT YOUR MOTION? 'CAUSE I KNOW YOU, YOU HAD IT WRITTEN DOWN.
CAN YOU RE REPEAT THAT? YES, I'M HAPPY AND I'M HAP HAPPY TO SHARE THIS AGAIN.
AS AS NOTED, THE INCREASE THE SHARE OF CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES WHO WORK FROM HOME INSTEAD OF COMMUNITY WORK STAYS THE SAME.
UH, ENSURE THAT WHENEVER APPROPRIATE ALL NEW CITY TELEWORK AND REMOTE WORK POLICIES CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS THE GOAL OF ACHIEVING.
AND THIS IS THE INCREASE, 25% OF AUSTIN RESIDENTS WORKING FROM HOME BY 2030,
[02:20:01]
AND IT'S ADDING ADDITIONALLY TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL, IMPLEMENT A CITY OF AUSTIN TELEWORK POLICY OF NO LESS THAN 85% OF ELIGIBLE CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES SHALL WORK FROM HOME.UH, CAN I JUST CLARIFY SOMETHING IN WHAT YOU JUST SAID? DID YOU INTEND TO CHANGE THE GOAL FROM 2039 TO 2030? OH, THAT IS ACTUALLY A 20, YEAH, SO IT SHOULD BE 20, SORRY.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
ARE YOU OPEN TO A SMALL LANGUAGE AMENDMENT? ABSOLUTELY.
WOULD YOU REPLACE THE WORD SHALL WITH THE WORD MAY? ABSOLUTELY.
SO, OKAY, SO IF I, SINCE THIS IS OBJECTION ON ANDREW VERA, UM, THE, YOUR CITY CODE KIND OF SPEAKS TO SHALL, UM, SO IF YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THAT, THAT MIGHT BE, UH, MORE CONSISTENT WITH CODE I WITHDRAW THAT AMENDMENT.
WE, THAT WE WAS JUST GONNA PROCEDURALLY FIGURE THAT OUT.
SO I LOVE IT THAT IT GOT WITHDRAWN, SO I APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH.
IF FOLKS, IF WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR AND AGAINST THIS, I'M HAPPY TO JUST GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE OR GO AHEAD WITH UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
OH, COMMISSIONER AL, GO AHEAD.
ADD CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, I GUESS.
UM, AND I NOT, SO, UM, WE SAID THAT IT WAS GONNA BE 25% OF AUSTIN RESIDENTS.
IS THAT, UH, DID I HEAR YOU? UH, YES.
I BELIEVE THAT THAT, JUST TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE AND UM, IT ACTUALLY ALIGNS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ONE ABOVE THAT, IT SAYS ACHIEVE 15% OF AUSTIN RESIDENTS.
SO REALLY IT'S JUST BUMPING THAT UP TO 25%.
SO WE'RE MIRRORING THE SAME LANGUAGE.
AND SO THIS IS NOT CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES? THIS IS AUSTIN RESIDENTS.
I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE INTENT WAS TO INCREASE THE GOAL OVERALL.
TO, TO, TO CLARIFY THAT COMMISSIONER ALDER AS, AS WE WERE TALKING EARLIER IN THE WORKING OF WHAT WE LOOKED AT WAS THE, THE 50% GOAL IS FOR ALL CITY OF AUSTIN RESIDENTS.
AND THEN THE TELEWORK, UM, PIECE OF THAT MM-HMM,
AND WHAT WE, AS A WORKING GROUP WE'RE LOOKING AT IS HOW WE COULD LEVERAGE, UM, CITY EMPLOYEE AND CITY RESOURCES TO ACHIEVE THOSE GOALS.
BUT THOSE GOALS ARE COMMUNITY WIDE.
MY ONLY, AND MAYBE YOU GUYS ADDRESS THIS IN THE WORKING GROUP, AND I APOLOGIZE, UM, BUT MY ONLY CONCERN IS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT AUSTIN RESIDENTS, UM, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT OUR HOUSING, WE KNOW THIS, RIGHT? WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE COMMUTING FROM OUTSIDE AUSTIN INTO AUSTIN FOR WORK.
UM, AND SAME THING FOR OUR CITY EMPLOYEES.
UM, SO I'M JUST, I'M WONDERING HOW MUCH I DON'T WANNA SET US UP FOR FAILURE, RIGHT? I, I, I LIKE THIS AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BEING REASONABLE IN HOW WE'RE CREATING IT SO THAT WE HAVE METRICS THAT WE CAN MEASURE AND ACHIEVE.
I DO HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR THE MOTION MAKER, BUT I'LL MAKE SURE YOUR Q AND A FINISHES FIRST.
COMMISSIONER MUTO, UH, I, I, I, IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON THAT OR IF YOU GUYS DISCUSSED THIS ALREADY OR WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT? THANKS.
UM, I, I THINK WE WERE TRYING TO FOCUS ON AUSTIN RESIDENTS, BUT I ABSOLUTELY AGREE AND UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR POINT IS.
AND I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY AN INTERESTING PART OF THE TRAVIS COUNTY BECAUSE THEY ALSO HAVE A LOT OF, OF PEOPLE WHO COMMUTE.
SO I I, I MEAN I DO ACTUALLY WISH, HONESTLY THAT WE COULD REWRITE ALL OF THIS TO BE MORE REGIONALLY SPECIFIC, WOULD PROBABLY ACTUALLY BE AN OVERALL THING WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT.
BECAUSE REALISTICALLY, PEOPLE ARE ALREADY COMMUTING WHO ARE NOT CITY OF AUSTIN RESIDENTS.
AND THOSE ARE PROBABLY THE PEOPLE WE WOULD MOST APPRECIATE BEING TELEWORKERS SINCE THEY PROBABLY DRIVE THE FURTHEST.
BUT GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF US, I THINK WE WERE FOCUSED ON AUSTIN RESIDENTS SINCE THAT IS ALREADY REFERENCED IN THE TABLE AS PRESENTED.
SO DO WE THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE, YOU KNOW, I WANT, WE'RE NOT SETTING OURSELVES UP TO FAIL THAT TARGET, THAT GOAL.
I, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S A 10, IT'S A 10% INCREASE.
AND ACTUALLY, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? THIS MIGHT HELP CLARIFY COMM UH, UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, CAN YOU CLARIFY, YOU'RE NOT SHIFTING THE 50 50 GOAL, RIGHT? NO, IT WAS LITERALLY JUST TO FOLLOW AS YOU THE SHARE.
SO THE SHARE IS CURRENTLY LISTED AS 15% AND RATHER THAN ACCEPTING THAT AS A 15% BASE FOR 2030, WE ARE TRYING TO SAY 25% OF CITY OF AUSTIN RESIDENTS BY 2039.
YEAH, THAT HELPS CLARIFY BECAUSE I THINK COMMISSIONER AL YOU RAISED A GOOD POINT WHERE WE WOULD NOT WANT IT MISINTERPRETED.
SO WHAT I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT THE GOAL IS REALLY WITHIN THAT 50% NON-AUTOMOTIVE USE GOAL, WE WOULD BE PUSHING UP THE GOAL OF TELEWORK TO 25%.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IS OKAY.
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY THE INTENT.
WHAT IF, WHAT IF WE WERE, I KNOW YOU LOOKING AT LANGUAGE CONSISTENCY, I KNOW THAT'S IMPORTANT, BUT WHAT IF WE WERE USING LANGUAGE THAT JUST SAID, UM, PERCENTAGES OF PEOPLE WORKING IN AUSTIN, BECAUSE THEN WE'RE NOT HAVING TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN
[02:25:01]
THOSE FOLKS THAT ARE COMMUTING WITHIN THE CITY TO WORK IN THE CITY AND THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE COMMUTING OUTSIDE THE CITY BOUNDARIES TO WORK IN THE CITY.I'LL BE HONEST, TO CAPTURING, I'LL, I'LL GET CALLED OUT VERY SOON FOR A LONG Q AND A IN OUR DISCUSSION.
I, I DO THINK I, I LEMME DO IT THIS WAY.
I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT THING TO CONSIDER IF, IF NOBODY HAS AN OBJECTION, ARE FOLKS FINE WITH TAKING A FEW QUESTIONS DURING THIS TIME? 'CAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE TO PERHAPS CLARIFY THIS AMENDMENT IF FOLKS DO NOT HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT.
SORRY, COMMISSIONER AL, I DO WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE.
NOPE, FOLLOW FOLLOW THE PROCESS.
SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF, IF WE COULD POSSIBLY OPEN OUR LANGUAGE UP TO THAT OR IF THAT WOULD END UP GIVING US LANGUAGE CONFLICTS WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS.
I, I GUESS, UM, CAN I ASK THAT QUESTION? MR. COLE? UH, MR. KITTEN OF YOU, UM, WHICH IS, IT'S WRITTEN AS 15% OF AUSTIN RESIDENCE.
IF WE WERE TO MOVE IT TO 25%, LIKE IS IT HARDER TO CALCULATE PEOPLE TRAVELING INTO THE CITY? CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THIS METRIC, LIKE IS THERE A CONCERN WITH HOW THE METRIC WOULD BE CALCULATED? SO IT IT, IT DOES CHANGE THE, THE, THE VARIABLES.
UM, OBVIOUSLY AT THAT POINT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT, UM, WHERE PEOPLE ARE TRAVELING FROM.
UM, WHICH, WHICH PRIMARILY WE LOOK AT OUR, OUR FIVE, UM, OR SIX COUNTY, UM, METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION AREA, UM, TO COME UP WITH THAT KIND OF TRAVEL SHED.
HOWEVER, WE DO KNOW THAT WE HAVE SUPER COMMUTERS THAT EVEN TRAVEL, UM, LONGER DISTANCES.
SO THE, THE PRIMARY, UM, GOAL THAT WE WERE, UM, FOCUSING ON WITH A SMP WAS WITHIN OUR CITY BOUNDARIES.
UM, AND THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T LOOK AT THE, THE REGIONAL TRAVEL SHED ASPECT, WHICH IS ACTUALLY OUR, OUR NPOS PLANNING, UM, RESPONSIBILITY.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES? DID YOU, DID I SEE YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP? OH, I SEE.
SORRY, DID I HAD ONE FOLLOW UP.
PLEASE FINISH YOUR THOUGHT AND THEN WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS NEXT.
I JUST WANTED TO ASK OF STAFF WHEN, IF WE'RE PUSHING UP THE GOAL FOR OUR CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES TO GET TO 80%, UM, AGAIN, ARE WE ACTUALLY ABLE, I GUESS HOW ARE WE CALCULATING, RIGHT? 'CAUSE WE KNOW WE HAVE ALL KINDS OF MANNER OF CITY EMPLOYEES.
WE HAVE, WE HAVE EMPLOYEES THAT HAVE TO DRIVE FOR THEIR JOB, WHETHER THEY'RE AUSTIN WATER OR, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, AND SO BECAUSE THEY DON'T, DOES THAT PERCENTAGE, DOES THE 80% OF CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES ACCOUNT FOR THOSE WORK DESCRIPTIONS THAT ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE ON SITE? OR HOW ARE WE ACCOUNTING FOR THAT AGAIN, SO WE'RE NOT SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR FAILURE?
UM, YOU KNOW, THE INFORMATION THAT, THE ONLY INFORMATION I HAVE AVAILABLE TO ME IS OUR MOST RECENT, UM, TELEWORKING POLICY FROM INTERIM CITY MANAGER GARZA.
UM, AND, AND THAT, THAT, UM, FAQ WENT INTO, UH, FURTHER DETAIL ON, ON HOW THEY ESTIMATED HOW MANY EMPLOYEES WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR TELEWORKING, UM, AND HOW MANY OF THOSE TITLES WERE ACTUALLY ELIGIBLE FOR 80 TO 100% TELEWORKING.
AND THEN WHAT THAT WOULD DO TO THE OVERALL AVERAGE FOR, UM, CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES.
UM, AND I BELIEVE, UM, BASED ON THE TABLE IT SAID, UM, THERE ARE 7,570 ELIGIBLE POSITIONS OR POSITIONS ELIGIBLE TO TELEWORK, UM, OUT OF THE 14,500 TOTAL POSITIONS.
SO THEN IF WE'RE PUTTING LANGUAGE THAT WE WANT 80% OF EMPLOYEE, IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, AGAIN, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE CRITICAL, I WANNA PROMOTE SUCCESS AND COMMISSIONER MARSHAL.
YEAH, SORRY, JUST TO, I DIDN'T WANNA JUMP IN WHILE WE WERE GETTING SUCH EXCELLENT ANSWERS, BUT TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS FOR ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES, SO WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE ELIGIBILITY.
IT IS FOR ONLY TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT FOR ELIGIBLE NOT ANY NON-ELIGIBLE JOBS.
I THINK THOSE WERE EXCELLENT CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
[02:30:01]
OF CLARIFYING QUESTIONS AS WELL.SO IT IS FOR EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ELIGIBLE AND IT'S NOT IN YOUR WORDING.
YES, IT'S, IT, I HAVE THE LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF ME AND I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE SENT IT CHAIR TO THE COMMISSION MEMBERS BEFORE, BUT YES, WE WERE SPECIFICALLY TRYING TO ENSURE THAT THOSE ARE ELIGIBLE, RIGHT.
ARE ACTUALLY ABLE TO USE THE PROGRAM.
SO THAT'S AGAIN WHY WE WANTED TO PUT THESE METRICS IN THERE BECAUSE WE DO KNOW THAT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN, I WOULD SAY, CHALLENGING FOR CERTAIN CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF POTENTIAL TELEWORKING OPPORTUNITIES POSSIBLE WOULD BE A BETTER WAY OF SAYING IT.
AND I DO KNOW THAT TRAVIS COUNTY HAS A LOT FEWER EMPLOYEES THAN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS FAR MORE FRONTLINE, UH, UH, WORKERS THAT HAVE TO BE, UH, ON SITE AS OPPOSED TO THE COUNTY.
SO THAT, THAT, I WAS REALLY INTERESTED IN HOW THAT WOULD FALL OUT, BUT THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
AND THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT IS WHETHER OR NOT COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S QUESTION WAS EVER SATISFIED BECAUSE WE'RE, UH, WE ARE INCLUDING THAT LANGUAGE THAT HE HAS TALKED ABOUT AS A POLICY CHANGE IN HERE.
SO ARE WE ACTUAL, AND SO WE NEVER GOT A SATISFACTORY ANSWER ON THAT.
ARE WE HAVING A POLICY CHANGE HERE? ARE WE ABLE TO DO THAT, UH, HERE ON THE FLY? UH, JUST WANTING TO KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS.
I I'LL LET STAFF RESPOND TO THAT IN A SUBSTANTIVE WAY, UH, TO BE HONEST.
BUT FROM A PROCEDURAL PERSPECTIVE, UM, WE, THIS IS LIKE THE PERFECT PLACE IF YOU WANT TO AMEND IT BACK TO OTHER, THE PREVIOUS LANGUAGE OR ANY OTHER LANGUAGE.
WE DO PROCEDURALLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE AT THIS TIME.
BECAUSE HE SAID IT'S NOT WHAT CAME OUT OF THE WORKING GROUP.
SO, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE STAFF WHO WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT IN A SUBSTANTIVE WAY OR SOMETHING.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, OUR AMENDMENT WAS BASED ON THE RED LINES AS PRESENTED, SO WE WERE I UNDERSTAND.
SO I THINK THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THAT'S, AND THAT'S PART OF THE REASON I ASKED THE QUESTION I THE WAY I DID, BECAUSE THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES HERE, WHICH IS, BUT I THOUGHT THAT WAS LEFT UNADDRESSED.
AND I WANTED TO GET BACK TO THAT.
I, I'LL, I'LL SAY THAT THE BODY'S, UM, ABLE TO MAKE ANY RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO, UM, THE DOCUMENT, UM, ANYWHERE THAT, UH, IT SEES FIT.
UM, GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE'VE, UM, TAKEN PRIDE IN THE PROCESS TO DEVELOP THE ORIGINAL A SMP THROUGH A MULTI-YEAR, UM, PLANNING AND ENGAGEMENT PROCESS.
HOWEVER, THESE TECHNICAL TYPES OF SURGICAL CHANGES, UM, UM, OFTENTIMES WON'T, UM, DEGRADE THAT MULTI-YEAR PROCESS.
UM, SO ALL THAT TO SAY, UM, THE AS SMP IS, IS MADE UP OF MANY COMPONENTS.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE PRIMARY THING THAT WE THINK OF AS POLICY CLEARLY IS LISTED AS POLICIES, NUMBER 1, 2, 3, ET CETERA.
HOWEVER, WE ALSO HAVE INDICATORS AND TARGETS.
WE HAVE ACTION ITEMS, WE HAVE SUPPORTING TEXT, UM, AND ALL OF THESE THINGS, UM, AS YOU ALL KNOW, UM, WE USE THEM AS REFERENCE WHEN WE'RE, WE'RE CREATING, SUPPORTING, UM, NARRATIVES IN OUR DECISION MAKING PROCESS, UM, JUST AS WE WOULD WHEN WE LOOK AT IMAGINE AUSTIN.
UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, OH, SORRY.
PLEASE CON, CONTINUE WITH YOUR THOUGHTS.
I'M GONNA DEFER TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT SATISFIES, UM, HIS QUERY.
UH, BUT THE OTHER THING, GETTING BACK TO THE ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES, DID THE WORKING GROUP OR THE A SMP FOLKS, BECAUSE THIS IS DEFINITELY A BENEFIT FOR EMPLOYEES AND A BENEFIT TO THE CITY, DID THEY, DID THEY THINK ABOUT EQUITY AND BENEFITS TO THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO, UM, ARE FRONTLINE AND HAVE TO SHOW UP TO THEIR JOBS? I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION.
SO THERE'S A TWO PART ANSWER TO THAT.
ONE IS WE DID HAVE THAT CONVERSATION REGARDING ELIGIBILITY, AND I THINK VERY EARLY ON THE WORKING GROUP DECIDED THAT THAT FELT LIKE IT WAS A PERSONNEL SORT OF QUESTION AND SORT OF BELONGED TO THE FOLKS WHO'VE BEEN MAKING THOSE PERSONNEL RELATED.
IT DIDN'T FEEL APPROPRIATE FOR THIS BODY TO WEIGH ON THAT.
SO WE WERE REALLY FOCUSED ON THE LARGER POLICY ITSELF.
I WILL SAY IT WAS REALLY INTERESTING, WE DID HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, FOLKS WHO WORK IN THE CITY CAME, WE HAD A WORKING GROUP LISTENING SESSION AND PEOPLE SPOKE TO US.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID HEAR FROM FOLKS WAS THAT, UM, THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO WERE LIKE, WELL, I HAVE TO GO IN AND I, THAT IS SORT OF WHAT MY JOB IS.
AND WHAT THEY WERE SAYING WAS MAKING ONE OF MY FELLOW EMPLOYEES FORCING THEM TO GO TO WORK IN PERSON JUST BECAUSE I HAVE TO GO AND WORK AND DOESN'T MAKE MY EXPERIENCE ANY BETTER.
THAT WAS INTERESTING TO HEAR FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT WE WERE HEARING FROM, UH, UNION REPRESENTATIVES AS WELL, WAS THAT FOLKS WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, KNOWING
[02:35:01]
THAT SOME OF THEM WILL NOT BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THIS PARTIALLY JUST BASED ON THE SORT OF TYPE OF WORK THAT WE DID.BUT BECAUSE THAT REALLY, THAT SORT OF LIKE, WHO'S ELIGIBLE OR NOT FELT LIKE A PERSONAL QUESTION REALLY DID NOT WEIGH INTO IT, EVEN THOUGH I THINK WE DISCUSSED ABOUT IT, WE DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WEIGHING IN.
AND I'M SORRY, JUST TO ADD ONE OTHER POINT IS THAT WE DID HEAR FROM THE TRAVIS COUNTY FOLKS THAT THEY HAVE MADE A LOT OF ADDITIONAL ATTEMPTS TO INCREASE ELIGIBILITY.
CERTAINLY REEXAMINE THAT OVER TIME.
AND I WOULD ALSO HOPE THAT AS WE CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH TELEWORK HERE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND A MORE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, THAT WE WOULD ALSO BE TRYING TO DO THAT AND MIRRORING WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE TRAVIS COUNTY, BECAUSE I THINK THEY HAVE MADE REALLY HUGE STRIDES IN MAKING MORE JOBS ELIGIBLE AND REALLY THINKING THROUGH WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
AND I, I WOULD ENCOURAGE, I WOULD BE, I WOULD BE HOPEFUL THAT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE COULD CONSIDER AT A LATER POINT.
AND THANK YOU FOR THE ANSWERS.
I WOULD JUST SAY THAT JUST LOOKING AT IT THROUGH AN EQUITY LENS, IT SEEMS THAT THE, THE LOWER INCOME PEOPLE, UM, THE PEOPLE WHO EARN LESS MONEY ARE GONNA BE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS POLICY, JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING, AS OPPOSED TO THE HIGHER INCOME EARNERS.
SO JUST POINTING THAT OUT, I I THINK THAT THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DID YOU, UH, GO AHEAD.
YEAH, I'LL, UH, LET ME WEIGH IN ON, ON A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE.
UM, I AGREE THAT, UH, THIS COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE POLICY, THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
UM, BUT WHAT CONCERNS ME HERE IS, AS MR. KITTEN IS, HAS, UM, TOLD US, AND, AND AS OTHERS HAVE TESTIFIED ON THE, ON THE COMMISSION DIOCESE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS PART OF THE ASS MP, WE'VE SPENT YEARS, TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO SET THE ASS MP AND TO GET IT RIGHT AND TO DO IT.
BUT, BUT NOW WE'RE COMING BACK AND, AND CHANGING A CRUCIAL PIECE OF THAT AS S AND P WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING, WITHOUT PUBLIC NOTICE, WITHOUT PUBLIC INPUT.
AND, AND EVEN TO GO ONE STEP FURTHER TO IN THE WORK GROUP, AND I'LL DEFER TO MY MEMBERS ON THE WORK GROUP APPEAR, BUT IN THAT WORK GROUP, AND, AND, AND I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER CONLEY DIDN'T GET MY EMAIL.
UM, I, I COPIED COMMISSIONER CZAR AND, AND, AND, AND THE CHAIR, UM, TO, TO CLARIFY, WE WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS ON THAT WORK GROUP TO AVOID THE VERY THING THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO RIGHT NOW IS TO CHANGE THE METRICS OF THE A SMP THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH, AGAIN, LOADS OF HEARINGS, LOADS OF TESTIMONY, AND LOADS OF THAT AS IT RELATES TO THE PIECE, UH, UH, COMPARING IT OR RELATING IT TO THE TRAVIS COUNTY, UM, TELEWORK POLICY.
THE ONE THING THAT THE, THE, THAT COMMISSIONER SHEA, MY COMMISSIONER, UH, UH, TESTIFIED TO, AND I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH HER AND SHE WAS VERY CLEAR ABOUT IT, WAS THAT THE REASON THAT THE, UM, THAT THE COUNTY TELEWORK POLICY WORKS IS BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT, THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE JUDGE MADE A POINT OF ALLOWING THE FRONTLINE MANAGERS AND THE EMPLOYEES WHO WERE IMPACTED BY IT TO BE THE ONES TO DEVELOP THE GOALS AND THE POLICIES, AND THEN THE COMMISSIONERS IMPLEMENTED, IMPLEMENTED THAT AS A POLICY WE ARE DICTATING AS A, AS A POLICY MAKING BODY PERSONNEL DECISIONS HERE.
IN ADDITION TO BEING OUTSIDE, I, I BELIEVE OUTSIDE OF THE WORK GROUP PROCESS THAT WE ENGAGED IN.
AND THEN, AND FINALLY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF CHANGING THE, THE BASIS OF OUR TRANSPORTATION POLICIES WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC HEARINGS, WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC INPUT.
GRANTED, WE DID HAVE SOME, SOME, UH, CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES PRESENT TO THE WORK GROUP, BUT WE'VE HAD NO PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS.
WE'VE HAD NO, UH, NOTICE AND, AND WE'RE GONNA CHANGE IT.
THAT'S, THOSE ARE KIND OF MY THOUGHTS ARE WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.
I, I GUESS WE'RE GOT A LITTLE OUT OF, A LITTLE OUT OF ORDER, BUT, UH, I, I, SO IF FOLKS ARE FINE, CAN WE JUST GO BACK TO THEN FOR AND AGAIN, SO WE HAD 1 4, 1 AGAINST, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
UH, I'LL, UM, SPEAK AGAINST, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE OUT OF Q AND A OR, OR WHATEVER, BUT, UM, I'M SORRY, I MUDDLED THIS UP.
WE'RE NOW SPEAKING FOR AND AGAINST THIS, UM, AMENDMENT THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY COMM, UH, COMMISSIONER, UM, WOODS.
I'LL, I'LL SPEAK AGAINST, UM, MOSTLY TO HIGHLIGHT WHAT COMMISSIONER HAINES SAID.
[02:40:01]
WAS ALSO IN THE WORKING GROUP, AND WE SPECIFICALLY SPOKE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THAT ULTIMATELY WORK FROM HOME SETUPS.AND THIS IS COMING FROM SOMEONE WHO OFTEN WORKS FROM HOME WHO'S ATTENDING THIS MEETING REMOTELY AND IS VERY MUCH A FAN OF, OF WORKING REMOTELY.
UM, BUT ULTIMATELY THAT NEEDS TO BE BASED ON MANAGEMENT, HUMAN RESOURCES, POLICIES, PRODUCTIVITY, EVALUATIONS, THAT SORT OF THINGS.
UH, AND MY CONCERN WAS THAT WE WERE SOMEHOW USING THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN AS DICTATING TO MANAGERS SOME SORT OF GOAL WHERE THEY HAVE TO, THEY HAVE TO ENCOURAGE, YOU KNOW, OR, OR, OR GET PRESSURED TO HAVE THEIR EMPLOYEES WORK FROM HOME.
AND THAT SHOULD NOT BE WHAT, WHAT OUR GOAL IS.
OUR, OUR GOAL IS TO ENCOURAGE POLICIES THAT ACHIEVE OUR GOALS, BUT WE SHOULD NOT BE DICTATING WHAT THOSE POLICIES NECESSARILY ARE WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY BROACH, YOU KNOW, HUMAN RESOURCES AND MANAGEMENT.
UH, AND, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE HEARD FROM TRAVIS COUNTY WAS THAT THEY LEFT THOSE ULTIMATE DECISIONS UP TO THE MANAGERS OF THE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ACTUALLY TRACKING THE PRODUCTIVITY.
THEY, THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THOSE EMPLOYEES ARE DOING.
AND I DON'T WANNA BE IN A POSITION WHERE SOME MIDDLE MANAGER IN A DEPARTMENT IS GOING, OH CRAP.
WELL NOW WE HAVE THIS 80% GOAL, SO WE'RE JUST GONNA TRY TO FIND PEOPLE THAT, THAT WE CAN FORCE TO WORK FROM HOME THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE SHOULD BE, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING.
AND THAT'S WHY WE LEFT THE WORKING GROUP LANGUAGE WITHOUT PERCENTAGES AND THAT SORT OF THING RELATED TO THE EMPLOYEES THAT, THAT NEED THAT, THAT NEED TO WORK FROM HOME TO ACHIEVE OUR ASS MP GOALS.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M NOT A FAN OF, OF THIS AMENDED LANGUAGE.
COMMISSIONER COX, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY? UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS? GO AHEAD.
SPEAKING FOUR, YES, I'LL SPEAK FOUR AND AND JUST WANT TO SPEAK AS A MEMBER OF THE WORK GROUP TOO, AND I APOLOGIZE IF I'M, THERE'S A NUANCE THAT I'M MISSING HERE, BUT CERTAINLY MY UNDERSTANDING AS A MEMBER OF THAT WORK GROUP WAS THAT WE WERE HOPING TO DEFER TO MANAGEMENT ON THOSE DECISIONS, BUT WITH THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF INCREASING THE SHARE OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES WHO WORK FROM HOME AS IT RELATES TO OUR MOBILITY PLAN AND TRANSPORTATION GOALS, I DON'T THINK THAT THE IDEA OF LEAVING THAT UP TO MANAGEMENT WAS, SO THAT WAS WITHOUT THAT ULTIMATE GOAL OF INCREASING, UM, AUSTIN EMPLOYEES WHO WERE ABLE TO WORK FROM HOME.
BUT I FEEL LIKE THE SEMANTICS OF, I'M MISSING SOMETHING IN THE, IN THE WORDING HERE, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE IS THE WORD INCREASE IS YEAH, WE, I MEAN WE SPECIFICALLY, IT, IT, IT, MY ANSWER, I'M GONNA, SORRY, REEL IT BACK BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO COMMENTS, READ STUFF.
SO YOU CAN ASK A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER WOODS, BUT, WELL, THAT, THAT'S MY QUESTION IS, IS HAPPY ANSWER IS, UH, HOW I CANNOT ASK A QUESTION.
NO, THIS WILL BE A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION.
WE'RE IN, WE'RE IN AGAINST CERTAINLY MY UNDERSTANDING COMING OFF OF THE WORK GROUP WAS THAT WHILE WE APPRECIATED TRAVIS COUNTY'S, UM, WAY OF APPROACHING THIS POLICY AND WANT TO MIMIC IT, WE ALSO HAVE AN OVERARCHING GOAL OF INCREASING THE SHARE OF ELIGIBLE CITY WORKERS WHO ARE ABLE TO TELEWORK.
AND THAT RELATES VERY DIRECTLY TO OUR TRANSPORTATION GOALS AS A CITY, WHICH IS WHY I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
DO WE HAVE OTHER FOLKS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST, UH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
UM, I AM SPEAKING AGAINST THE AMENDMENT, UH, TO THE, THE CHANGE IN POLICY.
UM, I THINK MY CONCERN IS TWOFOLD, REALLY.
UM, YOU KNOW, FIRST OFF, I THINK I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT AS WRITTEN, THE AMENDMENT REQUIRING THE CITY, UH, REQUIRE THAT 85% OF ELIGIBLE TO WORK FROM HOME CITY EMPLOYEES MUST DO.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE TYPE OF GOAL TO BE IN A PLAN.
I THINK THAT IS INCREDIBLY NARROW AND FOCUSED AND AT THE LEVEL THAT SHOULD BE MADE CASE BY CASE MANAGER TO MANAGER, DEPARTMENT TO DEPARTMENT.
I, I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR A PLAN TO ESSENTIALLY SAY HOW THE CITY SHOULD HIRE AND DISTRIBUTE ITS WORKFORCE INTERNALLY TO THAT LEVEL OF DEGREE.
I THINK MY BROADER CONCERN IS THAT GIVEN THAT THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THE OVERALL 50 50 MODE SHARE GOAL IN THE A SMP, REALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS SAYING THAT NOW OF THE 50% OF TRIPS THAT ARE NOT IN SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLES, A LARGER SHARE SHOULD BE, WE SHOULD DO EVERYTHING WE SHOULD AS WE CAN AS A CITY BY POLICY TO MAKE SURE THAT A LARGER SHARE IS WORKING FROM HOME.
AND A SMALLER SHARE, THEREFORE WOULD BE CARPOOLING, ACTIVE MOBILITY, TRANSIT RIDING, UH, WALKING, BIKING.
[02:45:01]
WOULD MUCH RATHER SEE THE CITY FOCUS MORE OF ITS EFFORTS ON ACTIVE MOBILITY, PUBLIC TRANSIT, CARPOOL, OTHER THINGS TO REDUCE SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLE USAGE, THAT WE'RE ALREADY INVESTING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN MAJOR PROJECTS TO ACHIEVE RATHER THAN CHANGE POLICY TO SAY THE CITY SHOULD FOCUS A LARGER SHARE OF ITS EFFORTS ON SIMPLY REQUIRING EMPLOYEES TO WORK FROM HOME.I, I, I DON'T THINK I CAN SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT ON THE SUBSTANCE OR THE SORT OF PRACTICAL EFFECT.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE ITEM? NOT GONNA GO AHEAD.
WE CAN GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT.
SO THIS AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS ALT IS IN FAVOR.
PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND OR, UH, RAISE YOUR GREEN CARD.
UM, THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST THIS ITEM OR THIS AMENDMENT, AND THOSE WHO ARE ABSTAINING.
SO THIS ITEM, THIS AMENDMENT FAILS, UH, WITH DEMO COMMISSIONERS VOTING AGAINST, UH, COMMISSIONER BARR RAMIREZ ABSTAINING ON THIS ITEM.
THIS TAKES US BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, WHICH IS, UH, UH, MADE BY MYSELF.
SO THIS IS A MOTION BY HIS HAR, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LER FOR, UH, APPROVAL OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM NUMBER 25.
IF FOLKS, I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION ONCE AGAIN.
CAN, CAN YOU TURN ON YOUR MICROPHONE? SORRY, I'M SORRY.
IF WE GO BACK TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, ARE WE STILL USING THE LANGUAGE IN RED THAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES THEN OBJECTED TO, AND COMMISSIONER JOHNSON POINTED OUT GOES TO A CERTAIN GOAL THAT, UM, DOESN'T INCLUDE ALL THESE OTHER OPTIONS.
SO THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING IF WE GO TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND IT, IF I COULD JUST RAISE A POINT OF YEAH.
UM, TO CLARIFY MY EARLIER STATEMENT, I WAS NOT REFERRING TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION LANGUAGE.
ONLY THE AMENDMENT FROM, UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
WELL, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BECAUSE IT CONTAINS WHAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES POINTED OUT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE RED, I THINK THAT IT ALSO, I I, I WOULD DISAGREE ONLY IN THAT MY OBJECTION WAS TO REALLOCATING THAT 50% OF MODE SHARE THAT IS NOT CAR TRAFFIC, NOT REALLOCATING, HOW WE ACHIEVE 15% TELEWORK CITYWIDE.
SO, SO I, I GUESS JUST TO CLARIFY, JUST TO CLARIFY, UH, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, YES, WE WOULD BE GOING BACK TO VERBATIM WHAT STAFF PRESENTED PREVIOUSLY, AND COMMISSIONER HAYNES RAISED HIS QUESTION REGARDING, UNLESS SOMEBODY WISHES TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT AT THIS POINT.
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT, UH, AND THIS WOULD BE ON PAGES, UH, I FORGET, WHATEVER, FIVE OF EIGHT, WHATEVER THAT PAGE IS, WHERE IT SAYS, BASICALLY ANYWHERE WHERE IT SAYS INCREASE THE SHARE.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE THAT TO DESIGN POLICIES TO PROMOTE CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES TO WORK AT HOME INSTEAD OF COMMUNITY TO WORK, AND THEN DESIGN POLICIES TO PROMOTE THE SHERIFF CITY AUSTIN EMPLOYEES AT WORK AGAIN.
UM, I WANT THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO BE A LEADER.
I WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH THE TRAVIS COUNTY, UH, COMMISSIONERS AND THE JUDGE.
AND, UM, I LIKE THEIR TELEWORK POLICY.
I TRY TO TELEWORK WHENEVER I CAN AND, AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE A, UM, A GOAL OF THE CITY TO, UH, PROMOTE POLICIES THAT DO THAT.
BUT IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THIS COMMISSION TO TELL A FRONTLINE MANAGER WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER COX SAID IT PERFECTLY, TO, TO TELL FRONTLINE MANAGERS THAT 85% OR LEAVE IT AS IS, AND, UH, TELL THEM TO PROMOTE POLICIES THAT INCREASE THE SHERIFF OF CITY OF AUSTIN WORKERS.
AND I, YOU OKAY? DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THAT AMENDMENT? COMMISSIONER WOODS? ACTUALLY, SORRY.
SO WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER AL AND I, I'M GOING, I FEEL LIKE YOU ENDED UP SPEAKING TO YOUR, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK ANY FURTHER? WELL, WE'RE GONNA COUNT THAT AS, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT? CAN I ASK FOR, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN? JUST SO I WRITE FROM MY NOTES, UH, WHERE THE, BASICALLY NOT BASICALLY TAKE THE WORD IN, STRIKE THE WORD INCREASE AND PUT IN THE WORDS DESIGN POLICIES TO PROMOTE THE SHERIFF CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES WHO WORK FOR AT HOME INSTEAD OF COMMUTING TO WORK.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
[02:50:01]
WHO WOULD WISH TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS? NOT, OR, OH, GO AHEAD.NO, I JUST, UH, THANK YOU FOR REMINDING US OF, UM, COMMISSIONER SHEA'S TALK AND ALSO OF THE TESTIMONY THAT WE HEARD FROM UNION WORKERS, AND PARTICULARLY AS IT PERTAINS TO SOME OF OUR CITY EMPLOYEES, THAT ON, ON THE FACE OF THEIR JOB DESCRIPTIONS, THEY HAVE TO BE ON SITE AT CERTAIN TIMES, OR IT DOESN'T APPEAR LIKE THEY HAVE THOSE OPTIONS.
WHAT WE HEARD, BOTH FROM UNION AND FROM COMMISSIONER SHEA, WAS THAT WHEN YOU BACK OFF AND YOU DON'T DICTATE THE SPECIFICS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENTS, THEY'RE ABLE TO WORK THINGS OUT, WHETHER IT'S A PORTION OF THE TIME OR CERTAIN DAYS THAT PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT.
UH, I ALSO RECALL, WE HEARD FROM A COUPLE OF THE UNION FOLKS TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE MAKING TRADES DUE TO CHILDCARE ISSUES AND FAMILY ISSUES AND OTHER THINGS THAT WE HEAR OFTEN, UM, YOU KNOW, PULL PEOPLE IN MANY DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.
SO THAT'S WHY I, I LIKE THIS IDEA AND CHANGE TO, UM, PROMOTE THE, PROMOTE THE POLICY VERSUS TYING THINGS TO SPECIFIC METRICS.
ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST? I'D ACTUALLY, I'LL, I'LL SPEAK AGAINST, I'LL JUST SAY I FEEL LIKE AS I'M LOOKING AT IT, SAYING THAT WE INCREASE THE SHARE OF CITY, I THINK THAT VERY MUCH ALIGNS WITH WHAT IS IN THE PLAN.
I WANNA BE FAIR, I FEEL LIKE FOLKS ARE SAYING WE DON'T SET GOALS, BUT WE, FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE GOALS ON HOW DO WE USE PUBLIC LAND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT.
THERE IS ARGUMENT TO BE MADE THAT, THAT IMPACTS CITY FACILITIES CONVERSATION.
WE SHOULD NOT BE WEIGHING IN ON WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING WITH CITY OWNED LAND OR FACILITIES.
BUT TO UTILIZE CITY OWNED LAND AND FACILITIES FOR FURTHERING A COMMUNITY GOAL OF AFFORDABILITY IS A WORTHY GOAL TO PROMOTE.
SIMILARLY, USING TELEWORK OTHER POLICIES AND BEING A LITTLE ROBUST ABOUT OUR GOALS, I FEEL LIKE HELPS US MOVE CLOSER TO THOSE GOALS AND UTILIZING THE CITY'S OWN INFRASTRUCTURE TO ACHIEVE THOSE GOALS IS PERHAPS THE BEST THING.
INSTEAD OF SITTING IN THIS BUILDING AND CONSTANTLY ASKING AMAZON OR GOOGLE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO CHANGE THEIR PERSONNEL POLICIES, SOMETHING OF WHICH WE HAVE NO CONTROL HERE.
WE ARE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND HAVE THE ABILITY TO USE ALL OF OUR RESOURCES, OUR PERSONNEL, OUR PUBLIC PROPERTY, OUR TECHNOLOGY, THE WAY WE DO CARBON EMISSIONS, THE WAY WE USE ENERGY.
ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT THINGS, I THINK HELP US MOVE OUR GOALS FORWARD.
AND I THINK WE HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AS A BODY TO SAY, WE WANT TO LEAD AS A CITY, AND THAT MEANS CAN WE MINIMIZE OUR ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY USING OTHER THINGS? CAN WE USE PUBLIC LAND FOR AFFORDABILITY PURPOSES? CAN WE USE TELEWORK TO INCREASE OUR MODE SHARE, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
SO I GUESS I'LL JUST SAY, I, I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THIS, BUT I FEEL LIKE WHAT STAFF HAS IN HERE REFLECTS, I THINK WHAT MAKES SENSE AND DOES MEET FOR BETTER LANGUAGE.
AND SAYING THAT WE INCREASING THE SHARE OF CITY AUSTIN EMPLOYEES WHO WORK AT HOME INSTEAD OF COMMUTING.
AND PARTICULARLY WHEN WE'RE NOT SHARING, CHANGING ANY OF THE PERCENTAGE GOALS, WHICH WAS PART OF THE AMENDMENT, THEN REALLY WE'RE JUST SAYING WE HAVE MORE OF OUR CITY EMPLOYEES HELP US ACHIEVE THE GOALS THAT WE HAD ALREADY DECIDED FOR AS A COMMUNITY.
SO I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT.
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST? OH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER COX.
I'LL JUST, I'LL JUST MENTION SOMETHING FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
I, I, I MANAGE TEAMS ON INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND WHAT I'VE LEARNED AND WHAT MY COMPANY HAS LEARNED IS THAT THE MOST SUCCESSFUL WAY TO HAVE EMPLOYEES WORK FROM HOME IS BASED LARGELY ON THE EMPLOYEE THEMSELVES.
SOME PEOPLE ARE, ARE JUST INCOMPATIBLE WITH, WITH WORK FROM HOME.
SOME PEOPLE VERY MUCH ARE MORE PRODUCTIVE FROM HOME.
AND SO I, THAT JUST GOES TO THE POINT THAT I THINK COMMISSIONER HAYNES AND I HAVE BEEN MAKING ABOUT, UH, TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DEFER TO MANAGEMENT IN, IN THESE PARTICULAR DECISIONS.
AND SO I THINK I ACTUALLY DON'T REALLY SEE A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUST THE LANGUAGE SAYING, INCREASE THE SHARE VERSUS PROMOTE POLICIES THAT INCREASE THE SHARE OF EMPLOYEES.
UH, I, I THINK WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT SOME NUANCES HERE THAT THAT MAY NOT MATTER IN THE END, BUT I DO THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE MINDFUL AND TRY TO PROMOTE LANGUAGE THAT PROMOTES OUR GOALS WITHOUT DICTATING HOW ACTUAL MANAGEMENT SHOULD BE PERFORMING THEIR JOB AND MANAGING THEIR EMPLOYEES.
SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE.
COMMISSIONER COX, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING AGAINST, WE HAVE ONE SPOT LEFT AGAINST NOT HEARING THAT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR FOR THE AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STOLLER.
UM, RAISE YOUR HANDS OR YOUR GREEN CARDS,
[02:55:08]
THOSE AGAINST AND THEN THOSE ABSTAINING.I DON'T THINK I RECORDED YOUR, OKAY.
YOU WERE A FOUR FOR THIS AMENDMENT, BUT THIS AMENDMENT PASSES SEVEN FIVE, IF I NOTED THAT CORRECTLY.
THIS GETS BACK, THIS TAKES US BACK TO THE BASE MOTION BY MYSELF AND COMMISSIONER MUTO.
UH, FOR THE STAFF APPROVAL, WE WOULD BE NOW VOTING ON THAT AS AMENDED.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND OR, OKAY.
AND THEN THOSE WERE AGAINST AND ABSTAINING.
I FEEL LIKE FOLKS, I MADE A MISCOUNT HERE, I'M MISSING A FEW PEOPLE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AGAIN OR JUST STATE YOUR VOTE, WHATEVER THE VOTE MIGHT BE.
'CAUSE OTHERWISE I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING.
THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR HELPING ME DO THAT.
THIS TAKES US TO, UH, THIS IS THE END OF OUR PUBLIC, UH, ALL OF OUR ITEMS THAT WERE ON OUR PUBLIC HEARING, SO WE GET TO MOVE TO SOME OF OUR OTHER ITEMS. UM, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION, AND I CAN SPEAK TO IT IN A SECOND HERE.
THE FIRST ONE IS, UM, WE JUST LEFT.
SO IF FOLKS REMEMBER THE ITEM NUMBER 26, DISCUSSION,
[ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION]
POSSIBLE ACTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO THE OUTREACH AND PROCEDURE WORKING GROUP.UM, I JUST WANNA SAY, SO WE HAVE, UM, A, WE CREATED A WORKING GROUP LAST TIME.
AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS WHO WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING HAD THE ABILITY TO JOIN THE GROUP IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO.
SO IF THERE'S ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE NOMINATED TO THAT WORKING GROUP, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND LET US KNOW IN THIS MOMENT.
I WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 29, WHICH IS SIMILARLY WAS A SORT OF A, A, JUST AN ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TO GIVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO FOLKS TO CONSIDER JOINING THE CITY OF AUSTIN BUILDINGS WORKING GROUP.
IF THERE ARE FOLKS WHO ARE INTERESTED AT THIS TIME, WE CAN CONSIDER ADDING YOU TO THE WORKING SEAT COMMISSIONER, UM, COHEN, CHAIR COHEN WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDED TO THAT, BUT WE'LL MAKE A NOTE OF THAT STAFF THAT COMMISSIONER COHEN WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDED TO THAT.
AND I DO WANNA CLARIFY, SINCE COMMISSIONER COHEN DOES NOT COUNT TOWARDS OUR QUORUM, WE DEFINITELY HAVE SPACE FOR MORE MEMBERS, UM, IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO SERVE ON THIS WORKING GROUP CHAIR.
COMMISSIONER LAYS ON ANDREW VERA, IF WE CAN MAKE A MOTION, I'M, UH, TO MAKE A MOTION.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, NOMINATE TO ADD, UH, CHAIR COHEN TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN BUILDINGS WORKING GROUP.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? I HAVE IT FROM COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
SO THAT'S 12 ZERO THAT PASSES.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER COHEN FOR SERVING ON IT.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. NO.SO OUR FUTURE AGENDA IS IN THE ORDER AND THEN WE GET TO SPECIAL ELECTION.
SO DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADD? I HAVE OKAY.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, WE'LL START WITH YOU FOR A PICTURE AGENDA ITEM.
UM, SO WHAT I AM ASKING FOR IS A BRIEFING ON THE LATEST DATA REGARDING THE CITY'S GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHICS FROM CITY DEMOGRA DEMOGRAPHER, LILA VALENCIA AND I I, SHE PRESENTED, UM, SUCH A BRIEFING IN DECEMBER TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND I HAPPEN TO WATCH THAT BRIEFING AND WATCHING THAT.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, IF NOT IMPERATIVE, TO GET A, TO GET SUCH A BRIEFING TO INFORM WITH DATA AND FACTS.
MANY DECISIONS WE'RE MAKING ON THIS BODY.
FOR EXAMPLE, DECISIONS REGARDING DENSITY, AFFORDABILITY, THE HOME INITIATIVE WHICH WE PASS, BUT WILL BE BACK AGAIN BEFORE US AS WE DELIBERATE PHASE TWO.
UM, AND WE NEED TO GET FACTS AND DATA.
EARLIER TONIGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A DEVELOPMENT OF MICRO UNITS AND, UM, TALKING ABOUT THAT WITHOUT, UH, DATA ON THESE OTHER TRENDS, WE TEND TO FOCUS ON WHAT, IN, IN MY VIEW, WE TEND TO FOCUS ON ONE SIDE OF THAT ISSUE.
AND WE DON'T TAKE IN A BROADER DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW, UH, UH, DEMOGRAPHICS, GROWTH TRENDS AND AFFORDABILITY, INCOME HOUSING AND OTHER ISSUES THAT WE HAVE DATA ON IN THE CITY, HOW THAT SHOULD BE IMPACTING
[03:00:01]
OUR DECISIONS.AND I, I WANNA READ HER QUOTE BECAUSE WHEN SHE PRESENTED THE DATA, UH, THE BRIEFING TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE, THE FIRST OR SECOND WEEK OF DECEMBER, CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LAY ON ANDREA, MY APOLOGIES TIP FOR THE INTERRUPTION.
UH, JUST A REMINDER THAT WHEN WE ARE, BECAUSE THIS ITEM IS NOT A POSTED ITEM, THE COMMISSION CAN PROPOSE AN ITEM BUT NOT DELVE INTO THE ITEM ITSELF.
I, I WISH THAT, SO I, SO ARE YOU SAYING I CAN'T READ HER QUOTE? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE BRIEFING THAT SHE GAVE CHAIR? IT'S BEST THAT THE ITEM IS JUST PROPOSED.
SO, UH, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, I GUESS WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT.
I THINK IT MIGHT BE WORTHWHILE.
I THINK YOU HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT DETAIL.
IF YOU COULD SEND THAT IN AN EMAIL TO STAFF AS WELL TO PROVIDE THEM GUIDANCE ON WHAT KIND OF PRESENTATION WOULD BE HELPFUL TO US, I THINK THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
BUT I'M, I'M ASKING FOR A BRIEFING ON GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHICS BY THE CITY DEMOGRAPHER.
AND WE'LL DEFINITELY MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS ADDED TO A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM.
UM, CHAIR COEN, I, I SAW YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO ASK FOR THIS, BUT IS THERE ANY WAY WE COULD GET MAYBE AN UPDATE ON THIS NEW STUFF AND, AND, AND, AND WHEN IT'S GOING TO BE COMPLETELY WORKING? I'VE BEEN STRUGGLING TO HEAR LIKE, UH, I CAN'T REALLY HEAR, UH, MR. RIVERA WHEN HE SPEAKS, BUT I CAN HEAR THE PODIUM JUST FINE AND JUST, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT NEEDS TO BE AN AGENDA ITEM OR SOMETHING THAT STAFF CAN EMAIL US ABOUT, BUT I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY, I THINK IT MIGHT NOT MAKE SENSE FOR AN AGENDA ITEM FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT CERTAINLY I THINK SOMETHING THE CHAIR AND I CAN FOLLOW UP IN OUR AGENDA MEETINGS AND WE'LL HOPEFULLY BY THE TIME WE COME BACK FOR THE NEXT MEETING, THE TECHNOLOGY IS SORT OF BETTER FUNCTIONING.
UM, DO WE HAVE OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? OH, SORRY, DID I DO HAVE ONE? UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK, CAN WE, STEPH, CAN WE HAVE THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN REVISIONS COME TO US AT THE FEBRUARY 13TH MEETING? I KNOW THAT'S TWO DAYS BEFORE COUNCIL ADOPTION, BUT I KNOW THAT WE MIGHT NOT BE REQUIRED TO APPROVE THEM, BUT IT WOULD BE GREAT FOR US TO SEE THEM SINCE WE DID ASK FOR THOSE TO BE CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL.
UM, IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT ITEM? DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? NO, UH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
AND I GUESS WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE CLARIFIED ACTUALLY FOR, UH, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS REQUEST, I'M TO SECOND ON IT AS WELL.
UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DID YOU HAVE A ITEM? UH, UM, IT IS ACTUALLY KIND OF A CLARIFICATION.
I BELIEVE AT ONE POINT WE HAD ASKED FOR AN UPDATE FROM LEGAL REGARDING SOME OF THE SITUATIONS IN THE LAWSUIT.
IS THAT IN PENDING OR DO WE HAVE AN UPDATE? I DON'T WANNA RE-REQUEST IT IF WE THINK THAT IT WILL BE UP ON A FUTURE AGENDA.
I DON'T KNOW MR. RIVER, IF YOU HAD ANY UPDATES ON THAT CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LAY LIAISON.
SO, UM, THAT IS, UH, STILL IN THE HOPPER
UM, WE HAVE QUITE A FEW, UH, REQUESTS.
UM, AND, UM, UM, WE, WE WILL, UM, THAT THOSE HAVEN'T FALLEN OFF AND, UM, WE ARE, THEY ARE NOTED AND, AND, AND I GUESS JUST MAYBE THE DIFFERENT, UH, AGENDA REQUEST IS THAT WE DID HEAR AN UPDATE TODAY REGARDING THE VMU TWO AND THE PLANS TO ADDRESS THAT GIVEN THE LEGAL SITUATION.
SO MAYBE AS PART OF THAT BRIEFING OR IF A NECESSARY A SECOND SECONDARY, WE COULD ACTUALLY GET AN UPDATE ON THAT SPECIFIC TOPIC SINCE THAT WILL BE COMING BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND THAT AS WELL TO MOVE IT ALONG.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AT THIS TIME? NOT SEEING THAT, THAT TAKES US TO OUR LAST
[SPECIAL ELECTION]
ITEM OF THE DAY, WELL BEFORE OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSION UPDATE.SO WE HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION TO NOMINATE AND ELECT AN INTERIM PARLIAMENTARIAN.
SO A REMINDER THAT THE INTERIM OFFICERS SERVE UNTIL MAY ONE WITH AN ANNUAL ELECTION OF OFFICERS THAT WILL ACCC OCCUR ON, OCCUR ON APRIL 9TH.
AND JUST A REMINDER TO FOCUS THE PARLIAMENTARIAN'S MAIN ROLE IS TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE REALLY FOLLOWING ALL OF OUR ROBERT'S RULES AND OTHER RULES THAT ARE SET BOTH IN THE CITY CHARTER, STATE LAW, FEDERAL LAW, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, CITY REQUIREMENTS.
SO MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING ALONG WITH THOSE AND IF WE MIGHT HAVE SOME DISCREPANCY TO ENSURE, UM, THAT WE'RE ABLE TO ADDRESS THOSE.
SO AGAIN, A REMINDER THAT WE'RE NOMINATING, UM, FOR PARLIAMENTARIAN.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP.
I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE DISTRICT TWO COMMISSIONER WOODS.
DO WE HAVE OTHER FOLKS WHO ARE BEING NOMINATED AT THIS TIME? COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, GO AHEAD.
I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE CHAIR COHEN.
AND I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND NOMINATE, UH, COMMISSIONER MUSH DAHLER AS WELL AND HELP ME OUT HERE.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS I SHOULD LOOK WRONG? UM, HELP ME OUT HERE.
I, I BELIEVE OUR PROCEDURE FOR THIS IS THAT WE'RE GONNA GO IN ORDER IN WHICH WE'VE BEEN NOMINATED.
SO THAT WOULD BE, UH, WOODS BONE AND MUSH DOLLAR.
AND AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH IT, WE'RE REALLY ENCOURAGING FOLKS, UM, TO,
[03:05:01]
WELL ACTUALLY WE'RE REQUIRING FOLKS TO VOTE FOR ONLY ONE PERSON, SO YOU CANNOT HAVE A DOUBLE OR TRIPLE VOTES AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH IT.AND THAT, I'LL BE HONEST, I KNOW IT'S SUGGESTED THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE, UM, NOMINATED THEMSELVES, DO NOT VOTE ON THEMSELVES, BUT IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT.
I WOULD HIGHLY ENCOURAGE ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING NOMINATED TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR YOURSELF, JUST SO THAT WE CAN GET TO A MAJORITY AND HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY AND APPOINTED BY THE END OF THIS MEETING.
THAT WILL BE MY SORT OF REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION TO FOLKS.
CHAIR, CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR OR, YES, GO AHEAD.
UM, WE HAVE THREE CANDIDATES AND YOU HAVE TO GET TO SEVEN VOTES, RIGHT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
IS IS IT, IS IT OUTSIDE OF OUR RULES TO DO LIKE A SECOND CHOICE RANKING OR SOMETHING? BECAUSE I THINK, I JUST HAVE A FEELING THAT, THAT NONE OF THE THREE ARE PROBABLY GONNA GET TO SEVEN IF WE CAN ONLY VOTE FOR ONE.
AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE CAN MAYBE BE A LITTLE CREATIVE ABOUT THIS SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY GET AN INTERIM PARLIAMENTARIAN AND I, I HONESTLY WOULD NOT EVEN KNOW HOW TO COUNT THAT IN THIS MOMENT.
BECAUSE AGAIN, MY HOPE WOULD BE THAT WE DO END UP SIGNING ON A PERSON BY THE END OF THE MEETING.
I DON'T KNOW, MR. RIVER, IF YOU WANTED TO SUGGEST ANYTHING.
CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, HE'S ON ANDREW.
YES, I THINK IT SPECIFICALLY SPEAK, UM, THE, UM, THE IDEA IS TO ALWAYS, UH, BE AS CLOSE TO YOUR RULES AS POSSIBLE.
SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND JUST BEFORE WE GO AHEAD, CAN WE HAVE ALL THREE FOLKS TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO SPEAK TO? GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER, GO AHEAD.
I CAN ACTUALLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE THAT CAME UP ON A PRACTICE QUIZ.
UM, SO WE'RE GONNA GIVE EVERYBODY, LET'S SAY A FEW MINUTES TO SAY A FEW WORDS TO SHARE THEIR SORT OF IDEA AND WHY THEY WOULD THINK THEY WOULD BE A GOOD CANDIDATE.
I KNOW IT'S ALWAYS HARD TO TALK ABOUT YOURSELF AND YOUR SKILLS, BUT I, I KNOW WE HAVE A GREAT THREE, UH, FOLKS HERE, SO WE'LL START WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER WOODS, AND THEN WE'LL, UH, GO DOWN.
UM, I APPRECIATE THE NOMINATION, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, AND I JUST WANNA SAY THAT I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER MUTAL AND CHAIR COHEN WOULD DO AN EXCELLENT JOB IN THIS ROLE.
I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER MUTAL HAS A LOT OF EXPERIENCE ON THIS COMMISSION AND CLEARLY A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH ROBERT'S RULES AND DIFFERENT BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS SHE SERVED ON.
AND COHEN JUST SHOWED US HER EXPERTISE WITH, UM, ROBERT'S RULES.
SO I FEEL LIKE I'M IN VERY GOOD COMPANY AND REALLY APPRECIATE THE CONSIDERATION.
I KNOW THAT I'M RELATIVELY NEW TO THIS COMMISSION, UM, BUT I FEEL LIKE I DO HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF ROBERT'S RULES AND PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE PARTLY, UM, AS A RESULT OF NOT FULLY UNDERSTANDING HOW MUCH SUPPORT I WOULD HAVE IN THE FIRST FEW MONTHS ON THE COMMISSION OF UNDERSTANDING THAT AND REALLY STUDYING UP WHEN I WAS NOMINATED.
AND PARTLY JUST FROM SEEING VICE CHAIR AZAR, UH, FORMER PARLIAMENTARIAN WIELD ROBERT'S RULES, SO EFFECTIVELY DURING MEETINGS AND, AND LEAD US SO WELL THROUGH THEM.
AND I THINK PART OF WHAT MADE HIM SO EFFECTIVE IN THAT ROLE WAS HIS ABILITY TO RESPOND IN REAL TIME TO WHAT WAS HAPPENING ON THE DAAS AND, AND BEING HERE AT MEETINGS IN PERSON.
AND I'VE GENERALLY TRIED TO ATTEND IN PERSON.
I RECOGNIZE THE IRONY OF WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY BASED ON HAVING MISSED THE LAST MEETING AND ATTENDED THE FIRST TWO HOURS OF THIS ONE FROM 180 3.
BUT I REALLY
I HAVE A FLEXIBLE SCHEDULE THAT USUALLY ALLOWS FOR THAT.
UM, SO I FEEL LIKE I'M IN, IN GREAT COMPANY AND THAT WE HAVE NOTHING BUT GOOD OPTIONS HERE, BUT REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S CONSIDERATION OF, OF ME FOR THIS ROLE.
I HAVE TO LAUGH A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I'VE, I'VE NEVER, IN THE ENTIRE TIME, LIKE SINCE I'VE STARTED GETTING INVOLVED IN POLITICS AND LAND, YOU'VE SEEN THIS MUCH INTEREST IN THE PARLIAMENTARIAN POSITION.
IT'S USUALLY SOMETHING THAT GETS FORCED ON SOMEONE YOU ARE LIKE, OKAY, WELL YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING YET THIS YEAR, SO YOU'RE THE PARLIAMENTARIAN.
WHICH IS WHY I SORT OF WANTED TO DO IT BECAUSE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, IT, IT LEGAL RECENTLY OPINES THAT AN EX OFFICIO, AND IT'S NOT JUST ME, IT COULD TECHNICALLY BE ANY EX OFFICIO CAN SERVEE AS THE PARLIAMENTARIAN, BECAUSE THE PARLIAMENTARIAN'S JOB IS JUST TO SORT OF HELP GUIDE THE MEETING IF THE CHAIR HAS QUESTIONS REGARDING ROBERT'S RULES OR THE RULES OF PROCEDURE.
AND I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF IT COULD BE DONE, WHICH IS WHY I'M STILL INTERESTED.
UH, I ALSO THINK THAT, UH, AND AGAIN,
[03:10:01]
I KNOW I'M AN EXCELLENT COMPANY.THANK YOU, COMM COMMISSIONER WOODS.
IT'S SUPER INTERESTING, BUT I, I LIKE THE LEGAL ASPECT OF IT.
I LIKE, UH, THAT IT'S KIND OF WHY I CHOOSE TO STAY ON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INSTEAD OF MOVING OVER TO PC AND BE A COMMISSIONER ON PC.
THE, THE, THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF IT, TO ME ARE INCREDIBLY INTRIGUING.
AND, AND I LIKE THE, MAYBE NOT THE BLACK AND WHITE OF IT BECAUSE THERE IS SOME GRAYNESS IN, IN IT, BUT IT'S, IT'S VERY WELL DEFINED.
AND HAVING THAT KNOWLEDGE AND BEING ABLE TO PUT IT FORWARD DEFINITELY HELPS KEEP THINGS MOVING SMOOTHER.
AND IF WE CAN GET OUT OF HERE BY NINE 30 INSTEAD OF 10 OR NINE INSTEAD OF 10, THAT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY AMAZING FOR ME.
AND AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK WE'RE PROMOTING FAIRNESS, UH, UH, INCLUSIVITY AND, AND JUST MAKING SURE THAT IT'S NOT JUST US WHO ARE, ARE BEING PUT UNDER THOSE RULES, BUT THE PEOPLE WHO COME AND SPEAK BEFORE US.
SO EVERYONE GETS THEIR FAIR SHAKE.
AND, UH, I MEAN, UH, COMMISSIONER WOULD YOU, WERE HERE LAST TIME, SO I'LL JUST REPEAT IT REAL QUICK.
I'M INTERESTED IN RUNNING FOR PARLIAMENTARIAN OF THE TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY, WHICH WE'LL SEE.
THAT'S A REALLY POLITICAL POSITION, SO IT'S KIND OF, AND THE PERSON IN IT IS ABSOLUTELY AMAZING.
SO I'LL PROBABLY LOSE, BUT IT'S STILL A LOT OF FUN, WHICH IS WHY I ALSO THREW MY RING IN THE HAT, HAT IN THE RING HERE.
I MAY NOT BE THE MOST ELOQUENT PERSON, BUT I PROMISE I CAN QUOTE ROBERT'S RULES REALLY, REALLY WELL.
UH, AND, AND THAT'S WHY I'M INTERESTED.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, UH, TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE GETS THEIR FAIR SHAKE.
I'M, I'M A REAL BELIEVER IN, UH, ACCESS, ACCESS, ACCESS TO CITY HALL THE SAME, OR LIKE EQUITY, YOU KNOW, FOR ANYONE WHO COMES BEFORE HER SITS ON THE DIOCESE, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOUR BELIEFS ARE, YOUR HOUSING POSITIONS, THAT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE GETS THEIR FAIR SHAKE.
AND THAT'S WHY I'M STILL STAYING IN THE GAME.
AND AGAIN, ALSO JUST TO SEE IF IT CAN BE DONE, BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE SUPER INTERESTING.
IT WOULD ANSWER A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT I THINK NEED TO BE ANSWERED THAT AREN'T CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHARTER OR ORDINANCE.
UH, AND HAVEN'T, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROBABLY 10 YEARS AGO WHEN JEFF JACK BROUGHT THIS UP THE FIRST TIME.
AND, UH, COMMISSIONER MARSHAL.
AND THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THE TEMPORARY ROLE.
I COULD SPEAK TO EXPERIENCE IN SERVING IN THIS KIND OF ROLE.
I, I SPOKE TO THAT BRIEFLY LAST TIME, HAVING SERVED ON, UH, THE, UM, LIMITED DISTRICT BODY, UH, WITH VERY STRONG PERSONALITIES AND KEEPING THOSE MEETINGS IN ORDER AND HAVING SERVED ON THE TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION FOR ETHICS AND INFORMED CONSENT.
UM, SO I WOULD BE, I, I WOULD BE VERY COMFORTABLE IN THE ROLE.
JESSICA AND I HAD A, A GREAT
AND, UM, AND SO I, I'M GLAD WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.
THE SHE AND I BOTH HAVE COMBED THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS AND IT'S, IT'S AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION.
THE, UM, THE CODES OF ORDINANCES SETS UP THE EX-OFFICIO POSITIONS, OF WHICH THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS SEVERAL.
WE HAVE OUR CHAIR OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WE HAVE OUR A ISD TRUSTEE.
THE CITY MANAGER IS AN EX-OFFICIO ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, AS WELL AS OUR STAFF LIAISON.
AND SO WHEN THOSE WERE SET UP, THEY WERE SET UP AS NON-VOTING MEMBERS.
AND, AND JESSICA SPOKE TO THIS PREVIOUSLY, THAT THE, THE POSITIVE ASPECT IS THAT THEY DON'T VOTE AND THEY DON'T MAKE MOTIONS.
UM, BUT IT ALSO SEEMS THAT ONE MIGHT TAKE THE VIEW THAT THE DOCUMENTS SET OUT THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY ONLY AND NOT IN A SERVING CAPACITY ON THE BOARD.
AND TO THAT EFFECT, OUR, OUR PC UH, BYLAWS STATE SPECIFICALLY THAT THERE'S AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, AND THAT THE PARLIAMENTARIAN HAS MORE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES THAN JUST ADVISING ON THE PROPER, UM, FOLLOWING OF OUR, OF OUR PROTOCOL AND PROCEDURES AND ENSURING THE FAIRNESS OF THE INEQUITY OF THE PROTOCOL AND PROCEDURES.
BUT THEY ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE ON THAT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
AND SO THEN IT BECOMES INTERESTING.
OKAY, SO WHAT IF SOMEBODY HAD NOMINATED JESUS GARZA THIS EVENING AS OUR, AS OUR PARLIAMENTARIAN? NOW HE'S SITTING AS ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
DO WE BEGIN TO STACK A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH TOO MUCH CONSOLIDATED
[03:15:01]
THE POTENTIAL FOR TOO MUCH CONSOLIDATED POWER? IT'S JUST AN INTERESTING THOUGHT ABOUT HOW THE BODIES ARE SET UP, WHERE THE CROSS SERVICE IS COMING FROM, AND WHAT THE POTENTIALS ARE.SO I DON'T THINK THIS IS REALLY A REFLECTION ON, ON COMMISSIONER, UM, WOODS COHEN OR MYSELF.
I, I, I BELIEVE WE'LL ALL DO A GREAT JOB FOR THIS PLANNING COMMISSION.
IT'S AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS SAY AND HOW WE WANT THE PLANNING, HOW, HOW WE AS A BODY FEEL, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OUGHT TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND OUGHT TO CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS.
SO I'LL LEAVE THAT FOR, FOR Y'ALL TO CONSIDER.
UM, SO WITHOUT MUCH FURTHER ADO, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO IN THE WOOD, UH, THE VOTING.
AND AGAIN, WE'LL BE GOING IN THE ORDER OF WOODS COHEN, AND MOST TALLER WITH EVERYBODY GETTING ONE VOTE EACH.
SO, AND I'LL TRY TO MAKE SURE I'M TAKING NOTES ON THIS CORRECTLY.
UH, CHAIR, PLEASE HELP ME OUT IF I'M COUNTING THINGS WRONG.
THOSE WHO ARE VOTING FOR COMMISSIONER WOODS FOR PARLIAMENTARIAN AND THOSE VOTING VIRTUALLY, YOU CAN POP YOUR CARDS OTHERWISE.
THAT TAKES US TO THE NEXT NOMINATION, UM, WHICH IS COMMISSIONER COHEN.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR FOR CHAIR COHEN, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND RAISE YOUR HANDS AND THEN, UH, GREEN CARDS WHEN YOU'RE ONLINE.
SO THAT TAKES US ACTUALLY TO THE THIRD, UM, CANDIDATE, WHICH IS COMMISSIONER MTO.
ALL IN FAVOR OF VOTING HER FOR PARLIAMENTARIAN.
UM, IT, UM, MR. RIVER, PLEASE HELP ME OUT.
SO WE CAN JUST GO IN THE ROUND.
SO FOLKS, WE'RE GONNA GO BACK IN THE SAME ORDER, STARTING AT COMMISSIONER WOODS AND ESSENTIALLY MOVE DOWN AND WHOEVER, UH, GETS THE MOST NOMINATION CAN GO AHEAD AND DO IT.
SO THIS WILL BE COMMISSIONER WOODS, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF COMMISSIONER WOODS FOR PARLIAMENTARIAN, UM, BOTH IN PERSON AND THEN VIRTUALLY, VIRTUALLY.
SO WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD WITH, AT THIS POINT, I GUESS WE CAN STOP.
SO THAT WILL BE A WORD OF, UM, SEVEN FOR COMMISSIONER WOODS, WHICH IS A MAJORITY.
AGAIN, I, I WOULD, I, YOU KNOW, I'LL TAKE A MOMENT PRIVILEGE JUST TO SAY THANK YOU ALL FOR HELP LETTING ME SERVE IN THAT ROLE.
AND I THINK EVERYBODY HAS REALLY SAID IT WELL TO SAY THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT ALL THREE OF THESE LADIES ARE GONNA BE AMAZING.
AND IF ANYTHING, I'M JUST VERY EXCITED THAT WE HAVE MORE WOMEN SERVING IN LEADERSHIP, INCLUDING CHAIR, BECAUSE HISTORICALLY WHEN I JOINED, WE REALLY WERE VERY MALE HEAVY AS A BODY AND CERTAINLY IN OUR LEADERSHIP.
SO I'M JUST EXCITED THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE A LOT MORE, UH, GENDER DIVERSITY IN OUR LEADERSHIP.
THIS TAKES US TO OUR BOARDS AND COMMITTEE
[BOARDS, COMMITTEES & WORKING GROUPS UPDATES]
WORKING GROUP UPDATES.SO, UH, WE'LL START WITH CODES AND ORDINANCES.
JOIN COMMITTEE I CHAIR, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO IT? YEAH, OUR MEETING IN JANUARY WAS CANCELED.
I BELIEVE THAT WAS OUR UPDATE LAST TIME.
SO WE JUST STILL PLAN TO MEET IN FEBRUARY.
WE'LL MOVE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.
WE HAD A MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO.
UM, THE MOST INTERESTING THING THAT CAME OUT OF THAT MEETING WAS THAT THE CHART THAT YOU SEE IN OUR BACKUP FOR ZONING CHANGES THAT TALKS ABOUT, UH, IMAGINE AUSTIN, UH, DECISION GUIDELINES, UH, WE ARE HAVING AN ONGOING DISCUSSION TO TRY TO MAKE THAT CHART MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND MORE USEFUL.
UM, SO, UH, BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR THAT, HOPEFULLY IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
AND COMMISSIONER COX IS NOT LYING.
THAT WAS THE MOST INTERESTING THING.
UM, JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE, COMMISSIONER WOODS? YES, WE'RE MEETING TOMORROW EVENING AND WE'RE ALSO GONNA BE LOOKING AT UPDATES AND AMENDMENTS TO THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN.
AND THEN, UM, A SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
MR. RAMIREZ, HOWARD AL PHILLIPS.
DO WE HAVE ANY UPDATE ON THE SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE? I'M GONNA ASSUME LIKELY THERE WAS NO MEETING 'CAUSE IT IS A QUARTERLY NO, I THINK IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE MARCH.
AND I WAS TRYING TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANOTHER EMAIL SUBSEQUENTLY, BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANY, SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
THAT TAKES IT TO SALTS UNDER WATERFRONT COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UH, WE HAD A MEETING LAST WEEK AND, UM, THE REVISED PLAN,
[03:20:01]
WHICH IS NO LONGER A REGULATING PLAN, AGAIN DUE TO LEGAL CONSTRAINTS, AND I WOULD ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.IT WOULD BE COMING TO US AS PLAN TO PLANNING COMMISSION AT SOME POINT THIS SPRING AS PART OF A LARGER GROUP OF AMENDMENTS.
AND ONE NOTE RELATED TO CODE JOINT CODES AND ORDINANCES IS THAT EVEN THOUGH WE HAVEN'T HAD A MEETING, AN UPDATED GANTT CHART OF THE LDC AMENDMENTS AND THEIR PRIORITY ORDER WAS RELEASED TODAY.
SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO LOOK BOTH AT THE WATERFRONT PLAN AND THE STAFF PRESENTATION AS WELL AS THE UPDATED GANTT CHART BECAUSE WE'LL BE SEEING MANY OF THESE ITEMS IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UM, THE CITY FOSTER BUILDINGS WORKING GROUP.
I'LL JUST SAY, UH, WE HAVE NOT MET YET SINCE WE JUST FORMED IT AND, UH, WE WERE JUST LOOKING TO SEE IF MORE PEOPLE WERE JOINING AND WE'LL BE CONTINUING THAT WORK, WHICH TAKES US TO THE PUBLIC OUTREACH AND PROCEDURES WORKING GROUP.
IF ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS ON THERE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY DIDN'T MEET EITHER.
MR. RIVERA, BEFORE I ADJOURN, I'M REALIZING, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO GO BACK AND ADD ANOTHER ITEM IN THE FUTURE? AGENDA ITEMS? CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LA LIAISON ANDREW.
UH, THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING THAT.
UH, BECAUSE, UM, UM, I, I NEED, I WANT TO SEE THE INTEREST OF THE COMMISSION OF RE-LOOKING AT YOUR JOINT COMMITTEES NOW THAT YOU HAVE A, UM, FORER UH, COMMISSION.
SO, AND I CAN, SO I CAN ADD SOMETHING TO.
OKAY, SO JUST SO FOLKS, I'M GOING BACK TO FUTURE GEN ITEMS, THIS CHAIR.
AND, UH, WHAT I'M ESSENTIALLY, UH, GOING TO DO IS ASK THAT WE PUT ON APPOINTMENTS TO OUR, UM, BOARDS AND OUR JOINT COMMITTEES AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
AND ESSENTIALLY WE NOW HAVE A NEW MEMBER.
SO AGAIN, WELCOME AND CONGRATULATIONS.
UM, BUT WE DO HAVE FOLKS WHO ARE SERVING ON DIFFERENT COMMITTEES.
IF, IF SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO STEP OFF A COMMITTEE AND CREATE A SPACE, THEN COMMISSIONER JOHNSON CAN JOIN THAT.
I WOULD SAY, I THINK WE HAVE FOLKS WHO ARE DOING TWO OR THREE, AND THIS IS A REMINDER, NOT THE WORKING GROUPS, ONLY THE JOINT COMMITTEES WE HAVE, WE DO USUALLY ASK THAT EVERYBODY SERVE ON AT LEAST ONE.
SO IF YOU'RE ONLY SERVING ON ONE, I WOULD SAY THIS PROBABLY IS NOT A MESSAGE FOR YOU.
BUT IF YOU'RE SERVING ON MORE THAN ONE AND ARE WILLING OR OPEN TO STEPPING DOWN, THEN YOU SHOULD GO AHEAD AND I SEE COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, YOU'RE EXPRESSING SOME INTEREST.
YES, BECAUSE I'M SERVING ON TWO, SO, AND I JUST DID THE OATH OF OFFICES FOR THE OATHS OF OFFICE FOR THOSE TWO A FEW DAYS AGO, SO I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN STEPPING DOWN OFF OF ONE.
SO IF PERHAPS WHAT WE CAN DO IS, UH, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, IF YOU CAN SEND VIA EMAIL TO MR. ANDREW, UH, RERA, WHICH COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO STEP DOWN FROM THE CHAIR.
AND I WILL ACTUALLY ASK THAT THAT COMMITTEE BE PUT UP AND THEN, UH, HOPEFULLY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, YOU'LL BE WILLING TO SERVE IN THAT POSITION.
UM,
UH, HAS SOMEONE DECIDED WHO'S GONNA BE IN CHARGE OF THAT YET? LIKE, UH, IS IT GONNA BE COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS FOR THE WORKING GROUPS? USUALLY WE JUST ASK THE PEOPLE MEET AND INTERNALLY DECIDE ON WHOEVER MAKES THE MOST SENSE.
BUT CERTAINLY I DO WANNA SAY, I WOULD HIGHLY ENCOURAGE THAT FOR THE WORKING GROUPS, WE DO HAVE SOMEONE INTERNALLY BE, IT'S UNOFFICIAL, BUT SOMEBODY JUST LEADING IT BECAUSE, UH, THAT PERSON CAN THEN LIAISE WITH THE CHAIR TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE NEED TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA OTHERWISE, SO INTERNALLY Y'ALL CAN DECIDE ON WHATEVER MAKES SENSE.
SO NOW NOT HEARING OTHERWISE, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 9:44 PM THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH.