* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [00:00:02]
          MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER 
          [CALL TO ORDER]
AT SIX 5:00 PM UM, I'LL BE SERVING AS CHAIR TODAY AS, UH, CHAIR HEMPEL IS ABSENT. 
          WE'LL START OFF WITH A ROLL CALL, UM, AND PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR PRESENCE WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME. 
          LET ME START HERE. 
          UH, CHAIR HEMPEL IS ABSENT. 
          VICE CHAIR IS HAR PRESENT. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON HERE. 
          PARLIAMENTARIAN WOODS. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER HOWARD. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER BARR RAMIREZ. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER MUTO. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. 
          COMMISSIONER COX. 
          COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS HERE. 
          AND COMMISSIONER HAYNES HERE. 
          THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. 
          AND I KNOW I DO NOT SEE OUR TWO EX OFFICIALS, UM, AND I WILL OF COURSE ACKNOWLEDGE THEM AS THEY JOIN US. 
          UM, PER USUAL, TONIGHT'S MEETING WILL BE HYBRID, ALLOWING FOR VIRTUAL QUORUM AS LONG AS THE COMMISSIONER IS SERVING AS CHAIR PRESENT IN THE CHAMBERS, WHICH IS MYSELF. 
          AS SUCH, WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS HERE IN THE CHAMBERS AND IN TENANTS, VIRTUALLY. 
          SIMILARLY, SPEAKERS CAN BE PRESENT IN THE CHAMBERS OR PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY AS WELL. 
          UM, I WILL ALSO ASK, UH, THE COMMISSIONERS ONLINE TO STAY ON SCREEN TO BE COUNTED TOWARDS OUR QUORUM AND TO VOTE. 
          UM, AND PLEASE JUST LET ME KNOW IF YOU NEED TO TAKE A RECESS OR GO AWAY. 
          VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS. 
          PLEASE REMEMBER TO SEND YOUR SIGN IN SHEET TO OUR STAFF LIAISON OR EMAIL THEM, UM, YOUR PRESENCE AT TODAY'S MEETING AND OR, AND IF YOU NEED TO RECUSE FROM AN ITEM. 
          THIS IS PER THE CLERK'S GUIDELINES. 
          UM, AND WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE, UM, YOU ARE COUNTED HERE AS PRESENT IN TODAY'S MEETING. 
          A REMINDER, UH, COMMISSIONERS CANNOT, UM, MISS MORE THAN THREE CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS UNEXCUSED, AND WE WOULD OF COURSE WANNA HONOR Y'ALL BEING HERE, SO PLEASE DO SEND THAT IN. 
          UM, ALSO, COMMISSIONERS ONLINE, PLEASE HAVE YOUR GREEN, RED, AND YELLOW ITEMS FOR VOTING. 
          UH, PLEASE REMAIN MUTED WHEN NOT SPEAKING, AND RAISE YOUR HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. 
          IF I DON'T SEE YOU, PLEASE TRY AGAIN AND VERBALLY LET ME KNOW IF NEEDED. 
          AND I KNOW COMMISSIONER WOODS WILL BE HELPING ME TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M FOLLOWING ALONG IN CASE THERE'S AN ISSUE. 
          UM, I, I WANNA SAY, IF YOU'RE ASSIGNED UP TO SPEAK, YOU WILL RECEIVE AN EMAIL PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION TAKING UP YOUR ITEM. 
          SPEAKERS CAN DONATE TIME. 
          UM, BOTH THE SPEAKERS DONATING TIME AND THE SPEAKER. 
          A RECIPIENT MUST BE PRESENT IN PERSON WHEN THE ITEM IS CONSIDERED. 
          UM, AND I WILL HAVE ASSISTANCE FROM MS. GARCIA AND MS. CAR ANNOUNCING THE SPEAKERS DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS. 
          BEFORE WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO MENTION? COMMISSIONER HAYNES? YEAH, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          UM, PARLIAMENT. 
          YOUR INQUIRE PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS IT A REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN THAT WHEN WE HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, WE HAVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION? I AM. 
          I'LL BE HONEST, I'M UNAWARE. 
          UM, IF WE ARE REQUIRED, I DON'T KNOW IF OUR PARLIAMENT, IF OUR STAFF HAVE RESPONSE TO THAT, I WILL PARTICULARLY DEFER AND SEE IF WE HAVE, UM, LEGAL STAFF PRESENT. 
          UM, I AM UNSURE. 
          UM, LET ME SEE IF , I SEE MR. MADDOX IS WALKING UP AND AS YOU ARE SIR, I'M ALSO GONNA, UH, RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER COHEN OR CHAIR COHEN FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ONE FOR EXHIBITION MEMBERS. 
          UH, THANK YOU, SIR. 
          PLEASE CONTINUE. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          UH, CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. 
          STEVE MADDOX, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. 
          UH, BELIEVE YOUR QUESTION, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYS, WAS ARE YOU REQUIRED TO HAVE, UH, AN ATTORNEY PRESENT, UH, DEAR FOR A PUBLIC HEARING? YES, SIR. 
          UH, NO. 
          YOU, WE, WE DO PROVIDE, THERE'S NO ATTORNEY HERE IN THE, IN THE CHAMBER. 
          UM, BUT THERE IS AN ATTORNEY MONITORING THE MEETING ONLINE AND AVAILABLE TO THE STAFF LIAISON DURING THE MEETING SHOULD QUESTIONS ARISE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THERE, THERE IS ONE TONIGHT THERE. 
          PROBLEM ARY INQUIRY. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          MR. MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          DID WE HAVE, UH, OUR LAST MEETING, 15, THE NINTH, I BELIEVE. 
          UM, DID WE HAVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION DURING THAT? WE, WE HAD GREAT LEADERSHIP FOR THAT MEETING. 
          DID WE HAVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR THAT MEETING? I WAS NOT PRESENT IN PERSON AT THE MEETING. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF CAN HELP WITH THAT. 
          UH, YES, COMMISSIONER, UH, THERE WAS AN ATTORNEY ON CALL ONLINE. 
          UM, AND, UH, WE DID RESPOND TO THE STAFF LIAISON A COUPLE OF TIMES WHEN INQUIRIES WERE MADE. 
          I ASKED SEVERAL QUESTIONS, LEGAL QUESTIONS, AND, AND GOT ANSWERS FROM CITY, CITY STAFF THAT WERE NOT ATTORNEYS GIVING ME THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT'S A, YOU KNOW, IT, IT, I DON'T THINK THE CITY WANTS TO, THAT'S 
          [00:05:01]
A SUBOPTIMAL WAY TO RUN A MEETING. 
          WOULD YOU AGREE? UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, FOR THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE RELATES TO ME AS THE ATTORNEY, I DID TRY TO RESPOND TO THE STAFF LIAISON HAS BEEN OUR PRACTICE FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU SENT OUT A, A EMAIL THIS MORNING LISTING OUT A, UH, PROCEDURE, UH, ABOUT QUESTIONS AND, AND ALL. 
          UM, I, I THANK YOU FOR FOLLOWING UP FROM LAST WEEK'S. 
          UM, MY, MY SERIES OF EMAILS. 
          I, I APPRECIATE THAT MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          IS, IS IT OUR INTENTION TO, UM, LEAVE THOSE AS PROCEDURES OR ARE WE GOING TO ADOPT THOSE AS RULES FOR THE COMMISSION? UM, FOR NOW WE ARE REALLY LOOKING AT PROCEDURES. 
          IF IT IS THE WILL OF THE BODY, WE CAN ADOPT THEM AS RULES. 
          BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, UM, JUST TO LET FOLKS KNOW, WE'VE HAD A CONVERSATION, ME AND THE CHAIR, WE NEED TO GO THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF GOVERNANCE WORK. 
          WE HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT RULES, AND I THINK A LOT OF THINGS HAVE COME UP IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS, AND PARTICULARLY WE'VE SET UP SOME NEW WAYS OF LOOKING AT, UM, HOW TO DO AMENDMENT PROCESSES FOR REALLY COMPLEX LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ITEMS, WHICH WE'RE TAKING UP MORE AND MORE. 
          UM, SO WE WILL BE DOING THAT WORK DURING THE FALL. 
          IT'S LARGELY THE ME, ME, AND THE CHAIR, BUT WE WERE THINKING OF FORMING A GOVERNANCE WORKING GROUP AND GOING THROUGH A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF ALL OF OUR RULES BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE IT'S THIS, BUT A LOT OF OTHER PROCEDURES THAT NEED UPDATING AS WELL. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU. 
          AND, AND MR. MAGS, LET ME JUST, LET ME JUST ABSOLUTELY BE, UH, A HUNDRED PERCENT TRANSPARENT. 
          I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE IN CHAMBERS TONIGHT. 
          UM, I, I DON'T, I DON'T MEAN BY MY LINE OF QUESTIONING, UM, TO, TO SAY THAT WE NEED AN ATTORNEY PHYSICALLY PRESENT, UM, IN, IN CHAMBERS. 
          I KNOW WE CAN DRONE ON LIKE UN UNTOLD, UH, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT AND, AND I WOULDN'T WISH THAT ON MY WORST ENEMY, I ASSURE YOU. 
          BUT, UM, BUT I DO THINK, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS, AND, AND I'LL PUT IT INTO THE CHAIRMAN IS AS THEY, UH, DEVELOPED A WORKING GROUP, UH, BUT, BUT I, I DO THINK IT SHOULD BE A STANDARD PRACTICE THAT WHEN A COMMISSIONER ASK A LEGAL QUESTION THAT THE, THE ATTORNEY, UH, WHO IS ASSIGNED THAT NIGHT, WHO DRAWS THE SHORT STRAW, I WILL ADMIT, UM, COME ONLINE IF THEY'RE NOT PRESENT IN THE CHAMBERS TO, OR, OR OVER IN THAT ROOM TO COME ONLINE AND ANSWER THE QUESTION VERBALLY OR, OR, UH, RATHER THAN RELAYING IT THIRD HAND, IT, IT, IT, IT WAS NOT A GOOD LOOK FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          MY OPINION, OBVIOUSLY, MY OPINION, UH, IS NOT A GOOD LOOK LAST WEEK FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          SO, BUT I THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT AND AND COMMISSIONER, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND IF THE, AND IF THE, UH, COMMISSION HAS CHANGES THEY WANT TO DO, UM, TO THE RULES THAT WE'VE HAD IN PLACE AND KINDA THE PROCEDURE, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THOSE BACK TO THE LAW DEPARTMENT AND WE DISCUSS HOW TO MOVE THIS FORWARD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          THANK, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, AND I DO WANNA TYPE, UM, YES, GO AHEAD. 
          COMMISSIONER COX. 
          SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING. 
          I JUST A REAL QUICK REQUEST, UH, TO OUR LIAISON. 
          UM, I'M HEARING THAT COMMISSIONER MOALA IS STILL NOT GETTING ANYTHING, UM, IN TERMS OF BACKUP AGENDAS, ANYTHING AT ALL. 
          UM, AND I'M SURE ALL OF US WOULD BE VERY FRUSTRATED IF WE WERE BEING  CUT OUT FOR SOME REASON OF ALL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION EMAILS. 
          WE DID GET A WHOLE LOT OF LATE BACKUP EMAILS. 
          SO I'M HOPING THAT, UM, THE, UH, OUR, OUR STAFF LIAISON CAN FORWARD ALL OF THOSE EMAILS TO COMMISSIONER MUTAL BECAUSE SHE DOES INTEND TO JOIN AFTER I FORWARDED HER THE LINK TO THE MEETING. 
          JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER COX, UM, FOR BRINGING THAT UP. 
          AND I'M SORRY, I WAS JUST LOOKING AT, AND I REALIZED THAT SHE HAD REACHED OUT TO ME AS WELL. 
          UM, HOPEFULLY SHE'LL BE ABLE TO JOIN HERE. 
          AND, UM, STAFF AS WE MOVE FORWARD, WE CAN PERHAPS MAYBE TRY TO DO SOME TECH WORK AND PERHAPS COPY HER PERSONAL EMAIL ON THERE AS WELL, JUST SO SHE HAS A RECORD IN TWO DIFFERENT INBOXES. 
          UM, AND I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAYNES FOR BRINGING UP SOME OF THE QUESTIONS AROUND PROCEDURE FOR THE LAW DEPARTMENT. 
          AND I REALLY WANT TO THANK OUR, UM, ATTORNEYS, MR. MADDOX AND, UM, MS. LINK FOR WORKING WITH ME AND HELPING ME FIGURE OUT THE PROCESS THAT THEY FOLLOW INTERNALLY AND WHAT WE CAN DO AS COMMISSIONERS, UM, TO REALLY HAVE A GOOD CONVERSATION WITH THEM. 
          SO THANK YOU ALL FOR THAT. 
          UM, AS WE PROCEED, MS. GARCIA 
          [PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
OR MS. CARONA, DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? WE HAVE THREE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, I'LL LET YOU MC THAT AND CALL FOLKS UP. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, FIRST SPEAKER IS STEWART HIRSCH. 
          AND STEWART, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. 
          MY NAME IS STUART HARRY HIRSCH, OR STU FROM DISTRICT TWO. 
          SINCE JANUARY OF THIS CALENDAR YEAR, I'VE APPEARED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION EACH 
          [00:10:01]
MONTH URGING YOU TO INCREASE THE SMART HOUSING RENTAL AFFORDABILITY PERIOD FROM FIVE YEARS. 
          IT'S CURRENT STANDARD TO 40 YEARS. 
          40 YEARS HAS BEEN THE RENTAL AFFORDABILITY STANDARD IN THE UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY OR UNO AND VERTICAL MIXED USE VMU FOR MORE THAN A DECADE. 
          SMART HOUSING IS THE KEY TO ACHIEVING THE ADOPTED, ADOPTED AUSTIN STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT, WHICH IS THE DOCUMENT THAT IS ADOPTED AS AN AMENDMENT TO IMAGINE AUSTIN BY THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          SMART HOUSING HAS A GOAL OF 60,000 HOUSING UNITS OVER 10 YEARS THROUGH REPAIR OR NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT WILL SERVE LOW INCOME OWNER OCCUPIED AND OR RENTAL PROPERTY, 600 REPAIRS A YEAR, 6,000 NEW CONSTRUCTION A YEAR HOUSING UNITS OVER A 10 YEAR PERIOD. 
          IF I CAN READ THE DRAFT BUDGET THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ADOPT NEXT MONTH, I FIND THAT IT'S NOT REQUIRING 6,000 REASONABLY PRICED OR INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS IN THE NEW BUDGET, OR 600 REPAIRS TO LOW INCOME OWNER OCCUPIED, WHICH TELLS ME THAT THE DRAFT BUDGET IS NOT REQUIRING. 
          IN ADDITION TO THOSE STANDARDS, SITE PLAN AND BUILDING PERMIT EXPEDITED REVIEW WITHIN 29 DAYS, AS OUTLINED IN THE LAST SMART HOUSING GUIDE I CAN FIND FROM 2008, I CAN'T FIND ANYTHING NEWER THAN THAT, WHICH IN 2008 ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IN 2002, WE ACTUALLY HAD A SMART HOUSING DEVELOPMENT GO THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS, BOTH FOR SITE PLAN AND BUILDING PLAN IN 21 DAYS. 
          AND I ASK YOU AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AT SOME POINT, WHY COULD WE GET 29 DAY REVIEW IN 2002 AND WE CAN'T GET IT IN 2024 OR 2025? IF THERE'S AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, I'D SURE LIKE TO HEAR IT. 
          SO I URGE YOU TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON 40 YEARS, AFFORDABILITY, AN EXPEDITED REVIEW BEFORE JANUARY 2ND OF NEXT YEAR, IF YOU'RE SERIOUS ABOUT PURSUING AUSTIN'S HOUSING AFFORDABILITY GOALS. 
          BUT IF YOU'RE NOT, THEN WE CAN KEEP SHOWING UP FOR THREE MINUTES AT A TIME. 
          YOU GET TO MAKE NO COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS. 
          YOU GET EVENTUALLY FRUSTRATED WITH ME AND I GET FRUSTRATED WITH YOU. 
          THAT'S NOT A GOOD PLACE TO BE, BUT I WILL CONTINUE TO APPEAR 'CAUSE I'M A RETIREE LIVING ON A PENSION AND I CAN AFFORD TO DO IT WHEN OTHERS CAN'T. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU MR. HIRSCH. 
          UM, MS. CORONA AND THE NEXT SPEAKER IS MARIO CANTU JOINING US VIRTUALLY. 
          MARIO, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS. 
          YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. 
          I'M HERE. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          MR. CANTU, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          MARIO CANTU FROM SOUTH DAWSON. 
          IT'S, I, IT'S IRONIC TONIGHT HOW THE VOTING PROCESS CAME UP, AND THAT'S ONE OF MY CONCERNS HERE WITH THE COMMISSIONERS. 
          UH, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, UH, REFLECT ON YOUR VOTING PROCESS AND NOT TOO OFTEN THE VOTES GO THE WAY THAT YOU WANT MAY NOT GO THE DIRECTION THAT YOU WANT, BUT BE RESPECTFUL AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE PROCESS. 
          SOME OF YOU ARE NOT NEW TO THIS PROCESS, AND MANY OF YOU HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN THIS. 
          IT'S UNACCEPTABLE TO TRY TO CHANGE THINGS THE WAY THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO GO WORK WITH EACH OTHER AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT. 
          RECOGNIZE WHY YOU ARE IN THIS POSITION, AND MOST OF ALL, STEP IN AND SPEAK WHEN THE OBVIOUS IS NOT RIGHT OR CORRECT. 
          IT'S GOOD THAT WE HAVE INDIVIDUALS THAT CAN STEP IN AND SPEAK FOR EACH OTHER, AND I EXPECT THE SAME THING TO HAPPEN WITH EVERYBODY ELSE THAT IS TRYING TO REDIRECT SOME THINGS. 
          NOW, IS IT PURPOSEFUL? IS IT BY ACCIDENT? IS IT A MISTAKE THAT I DON'T KNOW, AND I'M NOT GOING TO, YOU KNOW, CHOOSE AND, AND TRY TO, UH, SUSPECT THINGS. 
          BUT WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT AS A HUMAN BEING OF ALL OF US, UH, I ASK FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT. 
          AND SOMETIMES THE RIGHT PART MAY NOT BE RIGHT, BUT RECOGNIZE THAT AND, AND STEP IN FOR EACH OTHER AND BE RESPECTFUL AND SAY, HEY GUYS, LOOK, WAIT A MINUTE. 
          LET'S, LET'S JUST GO BACK FOR A SECOND. 
          LET'S GO BACK FOR RECOUNT. 
          LET'S HEAR WHAT WE SAID. 
          LET'S HEAR WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT. 
          AND IF IT GOES A CERTAIN WAY, IT GOES A CERTAIN WAY. 
          AND YES, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYES, I I DO AGREE WITH YOU THAT, UH, 
          [00:15:01]
WE SHOULD HAVE THE, THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS A YES OR NO QUESTION, WHETHER THE, WHETHER LEGAL'S GONNA BE HERE VIRTUAL OR THEY'RE GONNA BE IN, IN-HOUSE. 
          EITHER WAY, IT IS THE QUESTION THAT I WANNA HEAR IS IT, IS LEGAL GONNA BE AROUND WHEN WE HAVE A SITUATION AND, AND MY, MY PERSONAL, UH, ANSWER WOULD BE YES. 
          SO I WANTED TO PASS THAT ON AND PLEASE WORK WITH EACH OTHER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          THE NEXT SPEAKER IS PHILIP WILEY. 
          PHILIP, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          AND MR. WILEY, AS YOU'RE COMING UP, UH, MS. RONNA, CAN WE PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT COMMISSIONER AL HAS, UM, THE LINK SHARED WITH HER? UM, IT SEEMS LIKE MIGHT STILL HAVE I EARLIER. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          GO AHEAD MR. WILEY. 
          THANK YOU FOR HAVING, THANK YOU FOR HAVING THIS UP. 
          YOU'RE SO ORGANIZED. 
          UM, MY NAME IS PHILIP WILEY. 
          UH, I'VE LIVED DOWNTOWN FOR 32 YEARS. 
          I'M HERE, UM, SPEAKING IN TWO ROLES. 
          THE FIRST WILL BE AS AN OFFICER OF THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND THE SECOND WILL BE AS A LONGTIME RESIDENT. 
          UM, I'D, I'D FIRST LIKE TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR ALL THE WORK YOU PUT INTO, UM, ALL THE DOWNTOWN INITIATIVES THAT WENT FORWARD LAST THURSDAY TO COUNCIL. 
          UM, IT'S REALLY VERY ENCOURAGING, EXCITING TO SEE THE PROGRESS, AND WE HAVE A LOT MORE WORK TO DO. 
          UM, EARLIER THIS YEAR, THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UM, DECIDED TO MAKE A STATEMENT THAT WE WOULD SUPPORT SOME OF THE COMMISSIONS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR AREAS NEAR THE LIGHT RAIL TO QUADRUPLE THEIR RESIDENTIAL, UM, POPULATION. 
          THE, THE DENSITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL POPULATION WE'RE DOWNTOWN. 
          THIS, THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I'D LIKE TO REMIND PEOPLE THAT IT'S NOT JUST A PLACE THAT PEOPLE COME TO WORK OR SPEND THE NIGHT IN A HOTEL. 
          THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS 15,000 PLUS OR MINUS RESIDENCE. 
          UM, AND WE'RE, WE'RE ABOUT TO HAVE A LIGHT RAIL, HOPEFULLY, UH, GOING RIGHT DOWN GUADALUPE, WHERE WE HAVE COUNTLESS BUSES GOING TODAY. 
          UH, THE, THE, UH, WHAT WE WOULD REFER TO AS THE SPINE OF THE TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR THE METROPLEX RUNS DOWN GUADALUPE TODAY. 
          IT WILL IN THE FUTURE. 
          WE NEED A LOT MORE PEOPLE THERE IN ORDER FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO SUCCEED IN ORDER FOR RAIL TO SUCCEED AND IN ORDER FOR DOWNTOWN TO BE A HIGH ENERGY, EXCITING PLACE TO LIVE AND, AND, AND VISIT. 
          UM, ONE OF THE THINGS I TALKED ABOUT THURSDAY WAS THE NEED TO MAYBE GO BACK TO SOME OF WHAT WE WERE DOING DURING CODE NEXT, WHICH IS, UM, BENCHMARKING, IF YOU WANNA CALL IT, OR USING REFERENCE SITES. 
          UM, I I, I'D LIKE TO BRING UP TWO DIFFERENT CITIES WHOSE DOWNTOWN WE MIGHT WANNA THINK ABOUT COMPARING OURSELVES TO. 
          UM, THE FIRST IS PHILADELPHIA. 
          THEY HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF HISTORIC AND CULTURAL ASSETS THERE, AND THEIR DOWNTOWN IS SIGNIFICANTLY DENSER THAN US. 
          THEIR OLD CITY, THE CITY THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS IS DENSER THAN US. 
          WE CAN DO THAT. 
          THE SECOND CITY, THAT'S PROBABLY A BETTER REFERENCE SITE THAT'S MORE CURRENT AND TOPICAL AND COMPETITIVE WITH WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GO IS SEATTLE. 
          SEATTLE DOWNTOWN IS SMALLER THAN AUSTIN'S AND HAS OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND RESIDENTS, 300,000 JOBS, A HUNDRED THOUSAND RESIDENTS. 
          WE HAVE 15,000. 
          WE, WE HAVE A GREAT STARTER KIT DOWNTOWN. 
          IT'S LIKE A STRIP MALL THAT'S RUNNING A, ALONG THE, UH, WATERWAY. 
          AND, UH, THANK, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE. 
          THANK YOU, MR. . 
          MS. GROAN, DO WE HAVE OTHER, UM, PUBLIC COMMUNICATION SPEAKERS AT THIS TIME? AND THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKER SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, WE'RE GONNA GO OVER 
          [APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
TO OUR, UH, APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND JUST LET FOLKS KNOW, HOPEFULLY WE CAN HAVE AS PART OF OUR CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF OUR JUNE 25TH MINUTES AND THEN WE HAVE A POSTPONEMENT, UM, FOR OUR JULY 9TH MINUTES TO THE NEXT MEETING. 
          AND HOPEFULLY THAT SHOULD BE PART OF OUR CONSENT AGENDA. 
          AND THOSE MINUTES WERE SHARED PREVIOUSLY. 
          SO IF NOBODY HAS ANY CONCERNS WITH THOSE, WE CAN PUT THEM INTO THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          UM, OUR FIRST ACTIVITY THIS 
          [Consent Agenda]
EVENING IS TO VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          ITEMS THAT ARE CONSENT APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL, POSTPONEMENTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS OR NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS. COMMISSIONER WOODS WILL READ THE PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA AND IDENTIFY THOSE THAT ARE CONSENT POSTPONEMENT, NON-DISCUSSION, UH, COMMISSIONERS, AS ALWAYS, YOU WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY 
          [00:20:01]
TO REQUEST CONSENT ITEMS WE PULL FOR DISCUSSION. 
          UM, SO COMMISSIONER WOODS, I HAND IT OVER TO YOU FOR THE FIRST READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          ITEM NUMBER TWO IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 2 9 0.02 HUMANE SOCIETY OF AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT FOUR. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 10TH. 
          ITEM NUMBER THREE IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 4 0.0 3 43 0 2 KNUCKLES CROSSING DISTRICT TWO. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 10TH. 
          ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 2 5 0 2 55 24 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90 DISTRICT EIGHT. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT. 
          ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 2 4 0.0 1 2700 GRACIE FARMS LANE, DISTRICT SEVEN. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL AUGUST 13TH. 
          ITEM NUMBER SIX IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 5 2700 GRACIE FARMS DISTRICT SEVEN. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL AUGUST 13TH. 
          ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 8 0 6 67 25 SHIRLEY AVENUE, DISTRICT DISTRICT FOUR. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 10TH. 
          ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 3 2 67 25 SHIRLEY AVENUE, DISTRICT FOUR. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 10TH. 
          ITEM NINE IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2024 DASH ZERO ZERO TWO FIVE ZERO ONE EIGHTY NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE FIFTY SIX WEST STATE HIGHWAY 71 MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT EIGHT. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          ITEM 10 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH ZERO ZERO THREE TWO EIGHTY NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE FIFTY SIX WEST STATE HIGHWAY 71 MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT EIGHT. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          ITEM 11 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 0 5 0.01 MONTOPOLIS FAIRWAY MIXED USE DISTRICT THREE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO AUGUST 13TH. 
          ITEM 12 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 15 ONTOP FAIRWAY MIXED USE DISTRICT THREE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT UNTIL AUGUST 13TH. 
          ITEM 13 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 0 0.02 EAST SECOND STREET, 2300 BLOCK DISTRICT THREE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          ITEM 14 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 2 7 EAST CAESAR CHAVEZ, 2300 BLOCK DISTRICT THREE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          ITEM 15 IS A PUT AMENDMENT C EIGHT 14 DASH 2014 DASH 8 3 1. 
          SUN PUT THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL AUGUST 13TH. 
          ITEM 16 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 88 OTX DESIGN DISTRICT FIVE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT UNTIL AUGUST 13TH. 
          ITEM 17 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH NINE FOUR MERLE DISTRICT FIVE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 10TH. 
          ITEM 18 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 1 46 21 30 GOODRICH AVENUE, DISTRICT FIVE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          ITEM 19 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 8 0 59 31 DILLARD CIRCLE REZONING DISTRICT FOUR. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT UNTIL AUGUST 13TH. 
          ITEM 20 IS A CONDITIONAL USE SPC DASH 20 24 0 1 1 3 A 2200 MAINOR ROAD COCKTAIL LOUNGE DISTRICT NINE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          ITEM 21 IS CONDITIONAL USE IN ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE SPC DASH 2023 DASH ZERO 100 C STANE PARK DISTRICT TWO. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT UNTIL AUGUST 27TH. 
          ITEM 22 IS A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY S PC DASH 2024 DASH 0 1 6 2 C POINT STATE HIGHWAY, SUNSET RIDGE APARTMENTS DISTRICT EIGHT. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          ITEM 23 IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE C EIGHT DASH 2023 DASH 0 2 5 9 BRIDAL RIDGE AT WILDHORSE RANCH. 
          PRELIMINARY PLAN, DISTRICT ONE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          ITEM 24 IS AN LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2024 DASH ZERO 11 DB 90 REVISIONS. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          AND FINALLY, ITEM 25, 
          [00:25:01]
DISCUSSION AND ACTION TO APPROVE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 20 24, 20 25. 
          BUDGET IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER WOODS, BEFORE WE PROCEED, I DO WANNA SAY, UM, YOU KNOW, ON ITEM NUMBER 28, THE DISCUSSION AND ACTION TO APPROVE THE ANNUAL INTERNAL REVIEW AND REPORT. 
          I'LL BE HONEST, THIS IS A LAPSE ON MY PART. 
          WE DID NOT HAVE IT SHARED WITH Y'ALL IN ADVANCE. 
          IT IS, UM, IT WAS SHARED WITH Y'ALL. 
          HOPEFULLY WE CAN STILL TAKE A VOTE AT THE END OF THE, UH, MEETING. 
          WE'RE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT IT BY THE END OF THIS MONTH. 
          IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR THE COMMISSION TO VOTE ON IT, BUT I KNOW THE CHAIR AND I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THAT ABILITY FOR THE ENTIRE COMMITTEE TO FORWARD IT. 
          AND I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT IT WHEN WE GET THERE. 
          BUT I DO WANNA APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE. 
          UM, DO WE HAVE ANY BEFORE WE CONTINUE? I GUESS I'LL JUST, UH, START WITH SAYING, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS NEED TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN THEMSELVES FROM ITEMS ON THE AGENDA? UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I'LL BE ABSTAINING FROM ITEM NUMBER 20 2200 MANNAR ROAD. 
          UM, MY EMPLOYER WILL LIKELY BE TAKING ON THAT PROPERTY OWNER AS A CLIENT IN THE NEAR FUTURE. 
          UM, NO NEED TO RECUSE TECHNICALLY, BUT I JUST WANNA BE SAFE. 
          APPRECIATE THAT. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, JRB RECUSING FROM ITEM 15. 
          I WORK FOR AUSTIN HABITAT FOR HUMANITY AND WE WILL BE BUILDING IN THIS COMMUNITY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, DO WE HAVE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO WISH TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN AT THIS TIME? UM, MS. GARCIA, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, SPEAKERS SIGNED UP ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA? UM, YES, WE HAVE SOME SPEAKER SIGNED UP. 
          UM, JUST LET ME FIND THE ITEM. 
          ONE SECOND. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND AS WE DO COMMISSIONERS, AFTER WE HEAR THOSE SPEAKERS, OF COURSE, UM, THE COMMISSION CAN EITHER LEAVE THE ITEM ON CONSENT OR PULL FOR DISCUSSION AND WE'LL, UH, WAIT TO HEAR, UH, FROM THE CONSENT SPEAKERS. 
          UM, FOR ITEM 19, WE HAVE THREE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP. 
          WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, YOU CAN CALL THEM UP. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, MATTHEW FRANKLIN IS THE PRIMARY SPEAKER SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION. 
          MATTHEW, YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. 
          THIS WAS UP FOR, UH, POSTPONE. 
          POSTPONE. 
          UM, THIS, THIS WAS UP FOR POSTPONEMENT. 
          ARE WE NOT GETTING POSTPONEMENT? YES, SIR. 
          NO, THIS IS UP FOR POSTPONEMENT. 
          IT IS BEING POSTPONED. 
          IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE POSTPONEMENT, YOU CAN OR OF COURSE YOU CAN JOIN US AT LEAST. 
          I'LL JUST SPEAK THEN. 
          THANKS. 
          LET ME JUST CONFIRM. 
          ACTUALLY, HOLD ON A SECOND. 
          ISN'T 19 IS ON, IT'S A CONSENT NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO AUGUST 13 STAFF, CORRECT? YES. 
          I'M SEEING A ATTEND UP. 
          THANK YOU SIR. 
          JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE AND THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN HERE. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          UM, YES, COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          WHILE THEY WERE SHORTENING THAT OUT, UH, I PREVIOUSLY ASKED FOR, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS READ 25 IS STILL ON CONSENT. 
          I PREVIOUSLY ASKED FOR THAT TO BE PULLED. 
          OUR APOLOGIES. 
          UM, NO WORRIES. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES WILL MAKE SURE THAT 25 IS FULL FOR DISCUSSION. 
          UM, MS. GRU, WE CAN CONTINUE WITH THE CONSENT SPEAKERS. 
          OKAY. 
          FOR ITEM 19. 
          CAROL OWIN IS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AS WELL. 
          UM, CAROL IS SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION. 
          UM, CAROL, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES AND MA'AM AGAIN, THE ITEM IS POSTPONED SO YOU CAN SPEAK TO THE POSTPONEMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          APPRECIATE IT. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT, UH, I'M CAROL OWIN AND I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF POSTPONEMENT TO ALLOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO WORK WITH URBAN GENESIS TO GO OVER SOME OF THE, UH, REVISIONS THEY'RE REQUESTING. 
          OH, THANK YOU MA'AM. 
          AND THE NEXT SPEAKER IS KATHY BARTLEY, SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION. 
          KATHY, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          I AM ALSO IN FAVOR OF, OF POSTPONEMENT. 
          THANK YOU MS. BARLEY. 
          AND I DO APPRECIATE Y'ALL COMING DOWN HERE EVEN AS WE'RE GOING TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM. 
          UM, THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. 
          MS. GRONER, DO WE HAVE OTHER SPEAKERS ON CONSENT CHAIR, CHAIR COMMISSIONER, UM, COMMISSIONER STALLER, PLEASE. 
          UM, WE'RE HAVING SOME DIFFICULTIES THIS EVENING. 
          UM, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE AGENDA WITH THE BACKUP OR ANY MATERIALS FOR THIS MEETING. 
          I ALSO MISSED ALL OF PUBLIC COMMENTARY AT THE BEGINNING. 
          THIS IS NOT MAKING IT TO MY COMMISSION EMAIL ADDRESS, SO I DO NOT HAVE ANY OF THE MATERIAL TO WORK WITH. 
          I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND ACTUALLY THANK YOU FOR THE REMINDER, WHICH IS THAT, UH, WE ARE JOINED BY COMMISSIONER AL. 
          I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER AL. 
          I DID NOT RECOGNIZE YOU. 
          UM, BUT HOPEFULLY STAFF CAN WORK TO HAVE THOSE THINGS FORWARDED TO YOU. 
          I DID SHARE YOUR PERSONAL EMAIL AS WELL, SO AT LEAST HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THERE. 
          AND I DO APOLOGIZE, UM, FOR THE ISSUES TODAY. 
          CONTINUE WITH THIS SPEAKER. 
          YES, MS. KONA. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ITEM 23, KEVIN 
          [00:30:01]
BURKES, UM, IS HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. 
          KEVIN IS THE PRIMARY SPEAKER SPEAKING IN FAVOR, KEVIN, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. 
          YEAH, I'M JUST HERE IN CASE THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU, MR. BURKES. 
          AND THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKER SIGNED UP ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          THANK YOU MS. CORONA, AND THANK YOU FOR THE SPEAKERS. 
          UM, AS WE CONTINUE, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? WOULD THE NOTE THAT 25 INDEED IS PULLED BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M NOT SEEING ANY, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE OUR CONSENT AGENDA, INCLUDING OUR MINUTES? UM, ENC CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          SORRY, I'M SORRY. 
          I HAVE ONE QUESTION. 
          YES. 
          ITEM NUMBER 27. 
          ARE WE DISCUSSING THAT ONE? I HAVE IT HERE, BUT I GUESS YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ IT OR STILL ON THE AGENDA. 
          IT, IT IS, YES, I BELIEVE WE ARE. 
          IT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          YEP. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO WE'LL GET IT TOWARDS THE END OF THE DATE. 
          UM, DO WE, UM, COMMISSIONER WOODS? DID I SEE? OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE OUR CONSENT AGENDA AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          ORVIS, YOUR RAISE YOUR GREEN CARDS THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, YOU'RE VOTING IN FAVOR? YES. 
          OH, I'M SORRY. 
          COMMISSIONER AL, YOU WERE ABSTAINING. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WOODS FOR HELPING ME WITH THAT. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, SO THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY WITH, UH, WELL THAT PASSES OVER THE VOTE AND COMMISSIONER AL ABSTAINING. 
          UM, THIS CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA AS WE MOVE TO A PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. I DO HAVE A REQUEST THAT I WOULD LOVE TO RUN PAST OUR COMMISSION, WHICH IS WE HAD SPEAKERS WHO WERE WAITING TO, UM, UH, SPEAK TO THE DB 90, UH, LDC CHANGE LAST TIME. 
          AND AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE WERE UNABLE TO EXTEND OUR MEETING TIME. 
          SO THOSE SPEAKERS, UM, ARE HAVING TO COME HERE TODAY. 
          WE HAVE A REQUEST FROM THEM TO, FOR THAT ITEM TO GO FIRST, SO THAT INDEED THEY CAN DO THAT. 
          I WOULD LOVE TO HONOR THAT REQUEST. 
          IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, CAN WE CHANGE THE ORDER OF OUR MEETING AND START WITH THE DB 90 LDC CHANGE? OKAY. 
          I'M NOT SEEING ANY OBJECTION. 
          SO WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
          UH, WE'RE GONNA CHANGE OUR ORDER AND THAT TAKES 
          [24. LDC  Amendment: C20-2024-011 - DB90 Revisions]
US TO ITEM NUMBER 24, WHICH IS THE LDC AMENDMENT FOR THE DB 90 REVISION C 20 20 24, UM, DASH ZERO 11. 
          AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM, WHICH MS. CORONA, I'LL RELY ON YOU, UM, TO HELP US THROUGH THAT. 
          AND A REMINDER TO SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE A TIMER THAT GOES OFF, UH, WHEN YOUR SPEAKING TIME IS OVER, WE'LL HAVE TO WORK TO MAKE SURE IN ALL FAIRNESS, UM, THAT FOLKS REMAIN WITHIN THEIR TIME. 
          MS. CORONA, PLEASE CONTINUE. 
          BRAD MASSENGILL IS THE PRIMARY SPEAKER SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION. 
          BRAD, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES AND I AM REALIZING ALREADY THAT I'M OUT ACTUALLY OUT OF ORDER BECAUSE OUR STAFF WOULD NEED TO PRESENT FIRST. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, UH, SO SORRY SIR, IF WE CAN HAVE OUR STAFF COME AND PRESENT ON THIS ITEM AND THEN WE'LL CALL YOU UP. 
          FIRST THING. 
          THANK YOU MR. BROOKS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          AND I DO HAVE A PRESENTATION. 
          COOL. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, MY NAME'S PAUL BOOKS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HERE TO GIVE A PRESENTATION ON THE REVISIONS TO THE DENSITY BONUS 90 OR DB 90 COMBINING DISTRICT. 
          UM, SO SOME OF Y'ALL WERE HERE FOR THE BRIEFING ON THE DB 90 PROGRAM, WHICH WE GAVE IN JULY, BUT FOR THOSE THAT WEREN'T, I'M GOING TO BEGIN WITH SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND CONTEXT ABOUT THE PROGRAM. 
          BEFORE DISCUSSING THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN JUNE OF 2022, CITY COUNCIL MADE CHANGES TO THE VERTICAL MIXED USE OR VMU BONUS PROGRAM THAT INCLUDED A NEW TIER THAT ALLOWED FOR AN ADDITIONAL 30 FEET IN HEIGHT BEYOND THE BASE ZONE STANDARD KNOWN AS VM U2 IN DECEMBER OF 2023, THIS CHANGE AS WELL AS SEVERAL OTHERS WERE INVALIDATED. 
          MOST RECENTLY, IN FEBRUARY, 2024, CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE WHICH CREATED THE DB 90 COMBINING DISTRICT WITH REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES, MIRRORING VM U2 PROVISIONS AVAILABLE CITYWIDE THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS. 
          THE DB 90 PROGRAM INCLUDES REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          PARTICIPATING DEVELOPMENTS MUST RESERVE BETWEEN 10 TO 12% OF THE UNITS 
          [00:35:01]
AS AFFORDABLE DEPENDING ON TARGETED INCOME LEVELS AND TENURE. 
          PARTICIPATING DEVELOPMENTS MUST ALSO PROVIDE A MIX OF USES, INCLUDING REQUIREMENTS FOR PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED SPACES ON THE GROUND FLOOR. 
          PARTICIPATING, EXCUSE ME, DEVELOPMENTS MUST ALSO COMPLY WITH SUB-CHAPTER E DESIGN STANDARDS PARTICIPATION IS INCENTIVIZED THROUGH WAIVERS FROM CERTAIN SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS, MAXIMUM FLOOR TO AREA RATIO, MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE, MINIMUM SETBACKS AND HEIGHT RELATED COMPONENTS OF COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS. 
          DEVELOPMENTS ARE ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR AN ADDITIONAL 30 FEET IN HEIGHT FROM THE BASE ZONE TO A MAXIMUM OF 90 FEET. 
          BELOW IS A ZONING STRING DEMONSTRATING HOW THE DB 90 COMBINING DISTRICT MAY BE USED IN COMBINATION WITH BASE ZONING DISTRICTS AND OTHER COMBINING DISTRICTS. 
          THE TABLE ON THE SLIDE LISTS THE COMMERCIAL BASED ZONING DISTRICTS ELIGIBLE TO REZONE INTO DB 90 A. 
          A PROPERTY MAY REQUEST REZONING INTO AN ELIGIBLE DISTRICT AND ADD THE DB 90 COMBINING DISTRICT IN THE SAME ACTION. 
          BUILDING MASS IS CONTROLLED BY THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED UNDER THE BONUS PROVISIONS AND THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITATION OF THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT. 
          SO THIS SLIDE PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW OF THE DB 90 PROCESS. 
          OWNERS OF ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES MUST REQUEST A REZONING TO ADD THE DISTRICT TO THEIR ZONING STRENGTH. 
          THIS ZONE REZONING REQUIRES COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL APPROVAL. 
          NOTICE AND PROTEST RIGHTS ARE PROVIDED. 
          FOLLOWING REZONING, AN APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO RECEIVE A CERTIFICATION LETTER FROM THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A SITE PLAN APPLICATION. 
          THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS INCLUDES A LAND USE AND RESTRICTIONS AGREEMENT, WHICH MEMORIALIZES THE AFFORDABILITY CONDITIONS OF THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM. 
          OKAY. 
          AND NOW I'M GOING TO GO OVER THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE DB 90 PROGRAM, WHICH INCLUDE MATCHING GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL STANDARDS WITH THE VMU PROGRAM, ADDING COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN OFFICE-BASED ZONING DISTRICTS, ALIGNING COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS WITH CITYWIDE CHANGES, AND CLARIFYING THAT PROVISIONS OF THE DB 90 PROGRAM GOVERN OVER A CONFLICTING PROVISION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR OTHER ORDINANCE. 
          OKAY, AS STATED, WE ARE PROPOSING CHANGES TO MATCH THE CALCULATION OF COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS TO THE VMU PROGRAM AS PROPOSED, 75% OF THE GROUND FLOOR BUILDING FRONTAGE ALONG THE PRINCIPAL STREET MUST BE DESIGNED FOR COMMERCIAL OR CIVIC USES. 
          CURRENTLY, 75% OF THE ENTIRE GROUND FLOOR IS REQUIRED. 
          THIS CHANGE WILL ALLOW FOR LIVE WORK UNITS OR CIVIC USES, MEETING DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS TO COUNT TOWARDS THIS, UH, GROUND FLOOR REQUIREMENT. 
          ADDITIONALLY, AS YOU SAW IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, A LOBBY SERVING OCCUPANTS OF THE BUILDING WILL NOT COUNT TOWARDS THIS REQUIREMENT. 
          THIS CHANGE WILL ENSURE THAT DEVELOPMENTS UNDER THE DB 90 PROGRAM WILL RESEMBLE EXISTING VMU DEVELOPMENTS AND ENABLE STAFF TO REVIEW APPLICATIONS CONSISTENTLY FACILITATING A STREAMED LINE APPROVAL PROCESS. 
          ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED CHANGES WILL ADD CERTAIN COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL USES TO OFFICE BASED ZONES ALLOWING FOR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY BESIDES OFFICE AND MEDICAL OFFICE WITHIN THESE DISTRICTS, AMENDMENTS WERE MADE DURING THE ADOPTION PROCESS FOR THE CITYWIDE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS CODE AMENDMENT. 
          THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO DB 90 BRING THE PROGRAM IN LINE WITH THOSE CHANGES. 
          A COUNCIL AMENDMENT APPLIED SCREENING NOISE AND DESIGN STANDARDS ACROSS AN ALLEYWAY, WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DB 90 PROGRAM. 
          AND THEN IN RESPONSE TO A PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT LANGUAGE, CLARIFYING THAT CERTAIN OBJECTS MUST BE SCREENED AND NOT VISIBLE FROM A PROPERTY LINE OR ALLEY SHARED WITH A TRIGGERING PROPERTY ARE PROPOSED. 
          UM, SO WE'RE HERE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TODAY ON JULY 23RD, AND THEN WE'LL BE BRINGING THIS TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION ON AUGUST 29TH. 
          AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION. 
          THANK YOU, MR. BROOKS. 
          AND MY APOLOGIES FOR GOING OUT OF ORDER, UM, STAFF WEEKEND. 
          START WITH OUR PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ITEM. 
          THE FIRST SPEAKER IS BRAD MASSING. 
          HE'S A PRIMARY SPEAKER SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION. 
          BRAD, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, MR. MASSING. 
          CORRECT. 
          HI, Y'ALL. 
          I HAVE TO SAY I LIKE IT BETTER IN THE OTHER ROOM OVER THERE. 
          A LOT MORE INTIMATE. 
          UM, 
          [00:40:04]
PUT MY EYEBALLS ON HERE. 
          UM, I'M BRAD MASSENGILL FROM DISTRICT THREE. 
          I'M REPRESENTING THE BIRD STREETS AT PLEASANT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE FRIENDS OF MYSTERY CREEK. 
          UM, IT'S WORTH REMINDING Y'ALL THE BIRD STREETS NEIGHBORHOOD STILL HAS A VALID PETITION ON THE BOOKS CONCERNING CASE C 20 DASH 2024 DASH ZERO 11 AT 54 0 2 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE. 
          UH, MORE DENSE RESIDENTIAL WITHOUT AMENITIES IS GOING TO BE NOTHING BUT HEADACHES FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED. 
          MY NEIGHBORHOOD ON SOUTH CONGRESS CORRIDOR NEAR STANE HAS ONE GROCERY STORE, AND THAT'S A STRENUOUS MILE HIKE AWAY FOR ANYONE LIVING WEST OF CONGRESS AVENUE. 
          WE NEED MORE SMALL BUSINESSES TO CATER TO THE NEEDS OF RESIDENTS, NOT MORE RESIDENTS WITH IT SEEMS LIKE A NO BRAINER TO ME. 
          UM, EVEN WITH THE EXTRA TIME THAT WE'VE GOT FROM EXTENDING THIS FROM LAST WEEK, I'M, I'M REALLY UNSURE OF WHY WE'RE HERE. 
          I'VE KIND UNDERSTAND, I KIND OF UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEING ASKED HERE, BUT THE IMPETUS BEHIND THE CHANGES. 
          WHO BROUGHT THIS UP? WHERE'S THE NEED FOR THIS CHANGE? ORIGINATING? THE BACKUPS DON'T SHOW ANYTHING TO JUSTIFY THESE CHANGES. 
          THEY JUST TELL US WHAT THE CHANGES ARE GOING TO BE BESIDES THE HUGE EFFORT IT TAKES TO TRY TO FIND THIS STUFF OUT. 
          AMONGST THE TINY TYPE AND BLUE NUMBERS, AMONGST THE DARK TYPE, THERE'S NOTHING HERE TO INDICATE WHAT FORCES INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY HAVE PRECIPITATED THE REQUEST FOR THESE CHANGES TO THE DB 90 ORDINANCE. 
          REMOVING 75% RETAIL REQUIREMENT FOR DOWNSTAIRS, DOWNSTAIRS BUSINESSES ON THESE NEW HIGHRISES SEEMS COUNTER TO THE VERY MANDATE THAT BROUGHT THEM INTO BEING TO BEGIN WITH, THE MANDATE BEING TO CREATE A MORE WALKABLE CITY BY SUPPLYING RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL SPACES CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS. 
          I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT STACKING A BUNCH OF PEOPLE ON TOP OF BUSINESSES WITH THE ENTIRE END GAME, THE BUSINESSES WOULD HAVE BUILT-IN CLIENTELE. 
          IN TURN, THE RESIDENTS WOULD HAVE SOME USEFUL AMENITIES THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO LEAD THE PREMISES TO UTILIZE THESE PROPOSED CHANGES. 
          ACTUALLY JUST CREATE MORE DENSITY WITH LESS SERVICES, WITH LESS SERVICES. 
          THAT MEANS MORE TRAFFIC FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AS FOLKS GO OUT TO FIND THEM. 
          THE PROPOSED SCENARIO HERE CUTS THE AMOUNT OF IN-HOUSE RETAIL IN HALF. 
          WE COULD BE TALKING ABOUT ADDING DOZENS OF CARS AND TRIPS EVERY DAY TO OFFSITE BUSINESSES. 
          QUIT FIDDLING WITH THIS FORMULA AND LET IT AT LEAST HAVE A CHANCE TO START WORKING BEFORE YOU START TRYING TO FIX IT. 
          HAVING SAID ALL THAT, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MINUTE, UH, TO TALK TO Y'ALL ABOUT THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS. 
          I KNOW, I KNOW I'D LIKE TO BACK UP HERE. 
          I KNOW Y'ALL ARE SUPER BUSY PEOPLE, AS ALL OF US ARE, AND YOU'RE WORKING FOR FREE. 
          SO I DON'T EXPECT Y'ALL TO KNOW EVERY SINGLE THING ABOUT THIS PROCESS, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT Y'ALL UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THE NOTIFICATIONS THAT ARE BEING SENT OUT. 
          AND THE FRUSTRATION LEVEL THAT MANY OF US ARE FEELING DUE TO THE FACT THAT THESE NOTIFICATIONS SEEM TO BE DESIGNED TO FRUSTRATE, WOULD BE PARTICIPANTS IN THIS IMPORTANT MUNICIPAL PROCESS. 
          Y'ALL MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE RECEIVED ANY OF THESE NOTICES SINCE YOU KNOW ABOUT THEM. 
          MAYBE YOU DON'T GO THROUGH THE PROCESS LAID OUT IN THESE INSTRUCTIONS. 
          THESE BRIEF LETTERS ARE A CITIZENS ONLY WINDOW ON WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THESE HEARINGS AND CHANGES TOWARDS CITY CODE. 
          THE HUGE PACKET SENT TO US IN REGARDS TO THESE AMENDMENTS CAME IN THE MAIL ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 3RD. 
          ACCORDING TO THE POSTMARK, IT WAS MAILED THE PREVIOUS FRIDAY, AUGUST 28TH, SINCE THE 4TH OF JULY WAS ON A THURSDAY THAT LEFT FRIDAY, JULY 5TH AND MONDAY JULY 8TH FOR US TO REQUIRE AS TO WHAT ALL THIS WAS ABOUT. 
          THE DOCUMENT SENT OUT CLAIMS TO BE NOTIFICATION, BUT IN ACTUALITY, IT'S A NOTIFICATION OF A NOTIFICATION. 
          AND IF ONE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO FIND THE NOTIFICATION, ONE WOULD NEVER KNOW ABOUT THE NOTIFICATION 'CAUSE IT AIN'T THERE. 
          LEMME SEE IF I CAN, I PUT THIS THING TOGETHER LAST WEEK, SO HOPEFULLY MY SLIDES WILL MATCH UP WITH WHAT I'M SAYING HERE. 
          UM, ON THE THIRD PAGE OF THE MAILER, ON THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH AT THE VERY BOTTOM IS THE COA, THE CITY OF AUSTIN WEB ADDRESS. 
          ONE GOES TO FOR THE ACTUAL NOTIFICATION, THIS LINK TAKES ONE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE. 
          SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT, IN TINY LETTERS IT SAYS, VIEW, AGENDA, APPROVE MINUTES, SUPPORT, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION. 
          AND SOMEHOW 
          [00:45:01]
FROM THIS FOURTH PARAGRAPH, CITIZENS ARE SUPPOSED TO KNOW ALL THE INFORMATION ABOUT GOING TO THE THIRD PAGE, FINDING THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT PAGE. 
          GO TO THE LINK IF YOU NEED TO GO THERE, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. 
          THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. 
          THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO LET PEOPLE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. 
          THIS IS NOT RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, BRAD. 
          UH, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS LEE Z ZIEGLER. 
          UM, SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION, LEE WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          LEE ZIEGLER, CHAIR OF THE OAK HILL NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING CONTACT TEAM. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          THE CONTACT TEAM WOULD LIKE TO GO ON RECORD IN OPPOSITION TO THE EXTENSIVE SCOPE AND CHANGE IN COMPATIBILITY WITH THIS AMENDMENT. 
          A DB 90 ORDINANCE THAT BROADLY DESELECTS COMPLIANCE WITHIN THE MIXED USE BASE ZONING DISTRICTS WILL HAVE FAR REACHING NEGATIVE IMPACT IN OAK HILL. 
          DB 90 WILL NOT PROMOTE QUALITY DENSITY AS IT RELIES UPON OLD EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND INHERENTLY IGNORES LIMITATIONS ON AVAILABLE LAND, INCLUDING DRAINAGE, FLOODING, ROADWAY CROWDING AND MAINTENANCE, UNSAFE TRAFFIC, INEFFICIENT TRANSIT, LACK OF BUS SERVICE, WATER, WATER PRESSURE, AND THE GROWING LIMITS OF ELECTRICAL CAPACITY. 
          THE ORDINANCE CLEARLY IGNORES APPROPRIATE STEPS IN LAND USE UPZONING AND IGNORES THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING NATURE FOR WHICH AREA PLANNING IS NEEDED NOW MORE THAN EVER. 
          CLEARLY AND IMPORTANTLY, THIS DENSITY BONUS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED NEAR SUBURBAN SCHOOLS IN AN AREA WITH INADEQUATE ROADWAYS, NOR ON ANY ROADWAY NEAR THE NATURE CONSERVANCY. 
          THESE ARE IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS. 
          THESE PROPERTIES AND OTHERS SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE PROTECTED IN OAK HILL. 
          THAT INCLUDES PARTS OF SOUTHWEST PARKWAY, A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY, HIGHWAY 71, AND SCHOOLS ALONG WHAT IS STILL RURAL SUBURBAN HIGHWAY TWO 90, ALL WITH CHALLENGE DRAINAGE IN INADEQUATE ROADWAY STRUCTURE. 
          THIS ORDINANCE WITH AMENDMENTS DOES NOT SUPPORT EXISTING HOMESTEAD VALUES AND NEGATIVELY AFFECTS THOSE TAX PAYING PROPERTY OWNERS THAT HAVE WORKED OR EXPECT TO WORK MOST OF THEIR LIVES TO CREATE A HOMESTEAD WITHIN A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT, PLEASE EXCLUDE ANY PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE NATURE CONSERVANCY IN YOUR SCHOOLS THAT HAVE LESS SAFE TRANSIT OPTIONS IN RURAL AND SUBURBAN AREAS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU MA'AM. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          THE NEXT SPEAKER IS JEFFREY BOWEN, SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION. 
          JEFFREY, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          NEXT SPEAKER IS MARIO CANTU, SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION. 
          MARIO, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          MARIO CANTU, CHAIR OF THE SOUTH CONGRESS CONTACT TEAM. 
          UH, ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS THAT I'VE LOOKED AT ON THIS IS THE FEE IN LIEU OF, UH, I, I WOULD LIKE FOR COMMISSIONERS TO KIND OF QUESTION THAT KIND OF SEE WHERE, WHAT'S GONNA TAKE PLACE WITH THE FEE IN LIEU OF, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE TO OR TO KNOW ONE, WHERE IS IT GONNA GO AND HOW IS IT GONNA BE USED? UM, AND SINCE WE HAVE CONTACT TEAMS, WILL THAT FEE IN LIEU STAY WITHIN THE CONTACT TEAM AREA FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND? I THINK THAT'S GONNA BE, UH, REALLY ESSENTIAL INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE IN MAKING SURE THAT WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN WITH THIS, UH, FEE IN LIEU OF, UH, 'CAUSE THAT'S A, THAT'S A HUGE COMPONENT OF THIS. 
          UM, SECONDARY THING THAT I'VE BEEN HEARING AS WELL IS THAT, UH, WE HAVE MAJOR CORRIDORS AND I HEAR VERY OFTEN FROM COMMISSIONERS AND FROM OTHERS, UH, THAT PRESENT THEIR, THEIR CASES HERE, HOW, UH, MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY IS A HIGH PRIORITY AND IT MAKES EVERYTHING REALLY, REALLY GOOD. 
          OFTENTIMES, I DO HEAR WHAT WAS MENTIONED JUST BEFORE MYSELF, UH, AS IT WAS STATED, THAT HAVING THESE 90 FOOT BUILDINGS IN NO CORRIDORS IN NEIGHBORHOODS NEXT TO HOMES WITH NO MOBILITY, AND IT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE WHERE AGAIN, AND THIS GOES BACK TO THE VOTING AND DOING WHAT IS RIGHT, WHAT I MENTIONED ABOUT EARLIER IS THAT, UH, I HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST WHERE IT'S A HALF MILE DISTANCE FULL ON MOBILITY A HALF MILE AWAY. 
          THERE'S NO BIKE LANES, THERE'S NO BUSES. 
          IN FACT, THE ROADS ARE HARD TO GET THROUGH. 
          UM, AND IT GETS VOTED ON HERE THAT THE, UH, 
          [00:50:01]
CONDOS OR THE UNITS CAN BE BUILT AT 90 FEET AND THE MOBILITY IS, IS HALF A MILE OR LONGER AWAY. 
          UH, WHERE WE DO KIND OF PREACH AND PRAISE THAT HAVING MOBILITY WITHIN, YOU KNOW, 30 METERS OR, YOU KNOW, ACROSS THE STREET IS A BIG THING. 
          AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT'S ICING ON THE CAKE IN ORDER FOR THESE CASES TO MOVE THROUGH. 
          SO I REALLY ASK TO TAKE A LOOK THAT THE IMPACT IN NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THERE IS NO BUILDINGS AND THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY BUILDINGS, UH, PRODUCED OR ESTABLISHED TO BE HEAVILY LOOKED AT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU SARAH. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          THE NEXT SPEAKER IS JENNY GRAYSON JOINING US VIRTUALLY. 
          JENNY, PLEASE PRESS, PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS. 
          YOU'LL HAVE ONE MINUTE. 
          NEXT SPEAKER. 
          IS RITA BERRY JOINING US VIRTUALLY, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX. 
          YOU'LL HAVE ONE MINUTE, RITA. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          MY NAME IS RITA BERRY. 
          I'M THE PRESIDENT OF WEST CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN DISTRICT EIGHT, AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS IN WEST CREEK. 
          WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE BD 90 BEING BUILT IN AN AREA ALREADY CONGESTED FOR FOUR SPECIFIC REASONS, THE SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN AND RESIDENTS DUE TO THE SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN TRAFFIC THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CHALLENGES FROM A LACK OF PARKING FOR SCHOOLS, SPORTING EVENTS, AND THE POTENTIAL FOR INCREASE IN STORM WEATHER DRAINAGE AND THE LOSS OF HERITAGE TREES. 
          ALL OF THIS USAGE FROM CHILDREN, STUDENTS, AND FAMILIES NATURALLY BRINGS A LEVEL OF CONGESTION TO THE AREA, NOT ONLY IN THE FORMER PEDESTRIAN STREET CROSSINGS AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, BUT ALSO INTERMITTENTLY HEAVY STREET PARKING ON WEST CREEK DRIVE. 
          THERE ARE NO DESIGNATED PARKING SPACES FOR SOCCER PARTICIPANTS AND LIMITED VISITOR SPACES AT THE SCHOOL RESULT IN PARK CARS THAT LIMIT VISIBILITY FOR PEDESTRIANS AND TRAFFIC. 
          WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE PROPOSED INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM TRAFFIC FROM THE PROJECT AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE INGRESS AND EGRESS ON THE FRONTAGE ROAD, TWO 90 EASTBOUND RATHER THAN WEST CREEK. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          THAT WAS THE TIMER THAT JUST WENT OFF. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. 
          THANK YOU, MS. GROAN. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, AND JUST TO CONFIRM, MS. GRAYSON IS NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M SEEING THAT SHE'S, THANK YOU. 
          UM, THIS ALLOWS US TO, YOU KNOW, GO INTO THE Q AND A FROM OUR COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, AS WE'VE DONE BEFORE, WE'LL ALLOW EIGHT COMMISSIONERS, UM, UP TO FIVE MINUTES TO ASK QUESTIONS. 
          OH, SORRY. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT REMINDER. 
          , UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM? I HAVE A, A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR GREEN CARD. 
          SERVE YOUR HANDS OR SAY AYE. 
          PARDON ME. 
          WE DO HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKER. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, WE'LL, WE'LL PAUSE. 
          GOOD. 
          WE HAVE NOT, YEP. 
          WE HAVEN'T TAKEN A VOTE, SO I THINK WE CAN. 
          UH, BUT SINCE THE MOTION IS ON THE TABLE, I'LL JUST SAY WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
          DO FOLKS MIND IF WE DISPOSE OFF THAT MOTION AND COME BACK TO IT LATER, NOT SEEING OTHERWISE, WE'LL TAKE OUR SPEAKER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          KATHY BARTLEY. 
          UM, ARE YOU SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR FAVOR? OPPOSITION. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU'LL HAVE ONE MINUTE, KATHY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I WROTE A LETTER TO YOU ALL EARLIER TODAY. 
          I LIVE IN SKYVIEW IN THE SKYVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I'VE BEEN THERE ABOUT 15 YEARS. 
          MY HOUSE, UH, DIRECTLY ABUTS UPON A VACANT LOT. 
          UH, THAT WAS BE A TALL BUILDING FROM THE, UH, DB 90. 
          UH, IT'S, I'M REQUESTING A, AN AMENDMENT TO THE DB 90 IF YOU'RE GOING TO ACCEPT IT. 
          UH, IN ORDER TO ADMIT THE VARIANCE THAT ALLOWS DEVELOPERS TO CHANGE THE COMPATIBILITY ISSUE TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, WE REQUEST THAT THE PRE PREVIOUS COMPATIBILITY BE STILL IN PLACE. 
          WE WANT THE SETBACK TO BE INCREASED TO 35 FEET OR MORE FROM THE TRIGGERING PROPERTIES. 
          AND TO LIMIT THE FIRST 50 FEET OF THE DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO THESE FAMILY HOMES. 
          TO TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT. 
          WE WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE SKYVIEW RESIDENTS DO NOT OPPOSE INCREASED DENSITY OR THE HEIGHT THAT THE DB 90 ALLOWS, BUT ONLY THE SETBACK DISTANCE AND THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING IN OUR BACKYARD. 
          THIS VARIANCE THAT ALLOWS THESE CHANGES IS DISASTROUS TO OUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          ONE MINUTE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU MA'AM. 
          IT'S UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          UM, THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. 
          THANK YOU, MS. CORONA. 
          DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? AND A SECOND? SO AGAIN, I HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR 
          [00:55:01]
SAY AYE. 
          RAISE YOUR HANDS OR SHOW YOUR GREEN CARDS. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WE'RE GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UM, AND AS I WAS GOING ON MY LITTLE TRAIN BEFORE, WE'RE GONNA GO TO Q AND A HERE. 
          IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE FIRST SET OF QUESTIONS? UM, OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER AL, I SAW YOUR HEAD FIRST AND THEN COMMISSIONER COX WILL GO TO YOU. 
          UM, WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY WITH STAFF AND, UM, FOR THE PUBLIC. 
          WHEN WE LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE AND THE BACKUP MATERIAL, THE DRAFT THAT I BELIEVE IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR US THIS EVENING, I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE ORDINANCE ACTUALLY ALREADY EXISTS. 
          THAT, UH, I WANT TO, IS THIS CORRECT THAT IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PASSED AND TONIGHT WE ARE CONSIDERING SPECIFIC CHANGES TO THIS DB 90 EXISTING ORDINANCE COMMISSIONER, MR. CHILDER, UH, MR. BOOKS IS WALKING UP. 
          PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          SURE. 
          YEAH. 
          SO IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, CITY COUNCIL DID ADOPT AN ORDINANCE WHICH CREATED THE DB 90 PROGRAM, AND THAT WAS ALSO RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THAT TIME. 
          UM, SO THIS IS A SEPARATE ORDINANCE MAKING CHANGES TO THE DB 90 PROGRAM THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN CREATED. 
          AND SO WHEN WE PULL UP THAT ORDINANCE IN THE BACKUP MATERIAL, THE CHANGES THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT AGAIN, TO CLARIFY SO EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PAGE. 
          THE ONLY THINGS THAT ARE CHANGING ARE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN CROSSED OUT. 
          THERE'S A SINGLE LINE THROUGH IT OR IT IS UNDERLINED, OR PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I, IF IF WE DON'T HAVE, UH, A CORRECT UNDERSTANDING. 
          THAT IS CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER THE VERY FIRST ONE, PART ONE PREREQUISITES, THERE IS, UH, NUMERAL C PART ONE THAT WAS ALREADY EXISTING. 
          THERE'S NOW A PART TWO, WHICH IS UNDERLINED. 
          THAT WOULD BE THE NEW CONSIDERATION AT THIS MEETING IS JUST CONFIRMING AGAIN, CORRECT UNDERSTANDING. 
          SO EVERYBODY'S UP ON SPEED ON THAT. 
          THAT IS CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT, SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS CHANGES TO, UM, WHAT THEY'RE COMPLYING WITH ON THE DENSITY BONUS THAT'S IN THE PREREQUISITES. 
          THEN WE'RE LOOKING AT CHANGES TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL USES THAT WERE ADDED IN, UM, F PART C. 
          SO WE'VE NOW ADDED CONVENIENCE STORES, FOOD SALES, WHICH I BELIEVE WE HAD COMMENTARY ON, UM, GENERAL RETAIL AND RESTAURANT WITHOUT DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICES ON THAT PART. 
          AND THEN I'M, I'M JUST SCANNING QUICK 'CAUSE I THINK THERE'S SOME MISUNDERSTANDING WITH THE PUBLIC ON WHAT'S ACTUALLY, WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO CONSIDER TONIGHT AND WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY CHANGING UNLESS PEOPLE ARE ADDING AMENDMENTS TO THIS AS WE PROCEED. 
          THERE WAS SOME CHANGE LANGUAGE TO SCREENING UNDER THE SCREENING, UM, AND SCREENING OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND THAT, I THINK I GOT MOST OF IT THERE, BUT JUST SO THAT THE PUBLIC IS FOLLOWING ALONG, IT'S ONLY THE UNDERLYING PARTS THAT ARE NEW OR THAT HAVE A SINGLE LINE THROUGH IT THAT IS BEING REMOVED. 
          WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. 
          YES. 
          AND UH, UH, COMMISSIONER AL, YOU DIDN'T SEE IT, BUT MS. BROOKS WAS NODDING, SO, OKAY. 
          ? YEAH, SORRY, I WAS LOOKING THROUGH THE DOCUMENT. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          I I I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE. 
          I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS CLEAR FOR, FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE PARTICIPATING OR WATCHING TONIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SCHOL, AND THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, I, I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION BECAUSE THAT THE, UH, THE, THE LEGAL NOTIFICATION THAT WAS SHARED WITH US WAS, WAS, I MEAN, WAS COMICAL IN HOW IT, IT ? NO, THE ONLY REASON WE KNOW WHAT THAT NOTIFICATION MEANS IS BECAUSE WE'VE SPENT HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS OF OUR TIME, UH, ACTUALLY WORKING ON DB 90. 
          BUT THAT NOTIFICATION WAS, I MEAN, COMICALLY USELESS. 
          AND, AND I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. 
          I'M HOPING STAFF CAN CLARIFY. 
          UM, IN OUR STAFF BACKUP, WE HAVE A LIST OF PROPERTIES THAT IT SAYS THIS CHANGE IS AFFECTING, BUT THAT LIST IS, SEEMS TO BE MUCH LESS LENGTHY THAN THE LIST THAT WAS IN THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS SHARED WITH US. 
          AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF THAT'S TRUE AND, AND WHY. 
          YEAH, SO THE LIST THAT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE MAPS, SO THOSE ARE PROPERTIES WHERE DB 90 HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. 
          SO THOSE ARE THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE DB 90 COMBINING DISTRICT WHERE THIS CHANGE WILL COME INTO EFFECT, UM, IF IT'S ADOPTED. 
          AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL, UH, PROPERTIES ON THE NOTICE ARE UNDER REVIEW, UM, FOR A REZONING APPLYING 
          [01:00:01]
FOR THE DB 90, UH, COMBINING DISTRICT, IN WHICH CASE THE A THE AMENDMENT WOULD COME INTO EFFECT IF THEY WERE TO BE APPROVED FOR THE PROGRAM. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, AND, UM, I, I MAY BE REMEMBERING THIS COMPLETELY WRONG AND IT'S NOT RELATED TO THE COMMERCIAL, COMMERCIAL GROUND FLOOR OR SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, BUT UM, I REMEMBER I I VAGUELY RECALL A PREVIOUS DB 90 CASE, UH, THAT WE HAD RECENTLY WHERE WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO DO, UH, CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT LIMITS HEIGHT. 
          THERE WAS SOME SORT OF PROHIBITION RELATED TO DB 90 AND, AND I, I, UH, I SKIMMED EVERYTHING AGAIN AND, AND DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAD THAT ISSUE ON A PREVIOUS CASE. 
          UM, AND I'M JUST CURIOUS IF STAFF CAN HELP ME EITHER CORRECT MY RECOLLECTION OR EXPLAIN WHY WE WERE NOT ABLE TO DO COS FOR HEIGHT ON DB 90 CASES. 
          YEAH, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE DRAFT ORDINANCE IN BACKUP, UM, PART ONE B, THIS SECTION GOVERNS OVER A CONFLICTING PROVISION OF THIS TITLE OR OTHER ORDINANCE. 
          SO A CO WOULD BE PART OF A ZONING ORDINANCE, UM, IN WHICH CASE, UH, THIS SECTION ALLOWING UP TO 90 FEET IN HEIGHT WOULD GOVERN OVER THAT, UH, CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. 
          AND IS THERE A REASON WHY WE WOULD ALLOW ANY PART OF THE CODE TO GOVERN OVER COS THAT ARE RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADOPTED BY COUNCIL? UM, SO THAT WAS HOW THE PROGRAM WAS ADOPTED, UM, BACK IN FEBRUARY. 
          SO THAT'S THE INTENT OF CITY COUNCIL WHEN THEY ADOPTED THE PROGRAM. 
          DO ANY OTHER PROVISIONS GOVERN LIKE THAT OVER COS THAT ARE ADOPTED BY COUNCIL? SO AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED, UH, SIMILARLY GOVERNS OVER CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS, UM, AS WELL AS THE EQUITABLE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THAT WAS, UH, ADOPTED IN MAY. 
          INTERESTING. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION. 
          COMMISSIONER COX, IS THAT ALL YOUR QUESTIONS OR? YES, IT IS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, THE COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DO I SEE A HAND FROM YOU AS WELL? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          A QUESTION FOR STAFF FOLLOWING UP ON THE NOTICE QUESTIONS, AND THIS IS SORT OF A GENERAL QUESTION. 
          WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THE, 'CAUSE I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A SORT OF STANDARD FORMAT THAT MAILED NOTICE ACTUALLY USES. 
          WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THAT FORMAT WAS COMPREHENSIVELY UPDATED OR CHANGED? UM, IT IS, AS I UNDERSTAND, BLACK AND WHITE TEXT PREDOMINANTLY WITH BLACK AND WHITE MAPS, UM, FOR ZONING ORDINANCE NOTIFICATION OR ZONING CASE NOTIFICATIONS. 
          AND I'M JUST WONDERING WHEN, WHEN HAS THE CITY ACTUALLY GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF CHANGING THAT FORMAT? SO IT WAS RECENTLY SLIGHTLY CHANGED TO INCLUDE A, UH, QR CODE THAT WILL BRING YOU TO MORE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ONLINE AND IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES. 
          UM, BUT THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE THAT I'M AWARE OF. 
          UM, AND I'M NOT SURE WHEN THE LAST TIME IT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY OVERHAULED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, DID YOU HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER HANSON, PLEASE GO MR. BROOKS, YOU CAN, YOU CAN, I'LL SAVE YOU A FEW STEPS, MAYBE , UH, FIRST OF ALL, AS YOU'RE WALKING BACK UP, TRY TO SAVE YOU A STEP OR TWO. 
          UH, THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS OVER EMAIL. 
          I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTIVENESS AND UH, SORRY IT TAKES ME, I'M THE NEW GUY THOUGH. 
          SORRY IT TAKES ME SO LONG TO KIND OF GRASP SOME OF THIS. 
          BUT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU SAID, I GUESS IN ANSWERING, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, OR AT LEAST I INFERRED, YOU MAY NOT HAVE IMPLIED OR SAID IT, BUT I INFERRED THAT, THAT THE CHANGES WE'RE MAKING HERE, THE REASON WE NOTICED THE EXISTING DB 90, UM, CASES OR INSTANCES IS THAT WE'RE ARE WE GONNA APPLY THE CHANGES WE MAKE TONIGHT RETROACTIVELY TO THOSE, UH, THAT THOSE DB 90 CASES WE'VE ALREADY PASSED? THAT IS CORRECT, YES. 
          SO WE WOULD BE APPLYING THE NEW, UM, APPROVED AMENDMENTS TO THOSE CASES UM, THAT'S WHY WE, UH, INCLUDED THEM IN THE NOTICE. 
          SO WE PASSED A SET OF LAW REGULATIONS FEBRUARY MONTHS AGO. 
          AND IN BETWEEN THEN AND NOW WE'VE PASSED APPROVAL AUTHORIZATION OF INDIVIDUAL CASES BASED ON THE LAWS AS 
          [01:05:01]
THEY EXISTED AT THAT TIME. 
          AND NOW WE'RE PASSING A LAW THAT SAYS WHAT WE DID 6, 8, 10 MONTHS AGO IS OFF THE BOOKS AND THIS LAW APPLIES TO THOSE CASES. 
          IS THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING? Y YES. 
          AND IT WOULD APPLY GOING FORWARD. 
          I UNDERSTAND IT WOULD APPLY GOING FORWARD. 
          UM, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. 
          UM, MAYBE WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT, BUT THERE'S A, A LATIN PHRASE CALLED EXPO FACTO. 
          I'M WONDERING HOW THIS WORKS. 
          I'M NOT SURE IF I'LL JUST QUICKLY ASK. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES, WOULD YOU LIKE FOR OUR LAW DEPARTMENT TO HELP RESOLVE THAT ANSWER? I WOULD JUST LIKE SOMEBODY TO, I, I WOULD THINK LAW WOULD BE THE ONE TO DO SO, BUT IF SOMEBODY COULD ANSWER HOW IS, HOW, HOW ARE WE RETROACTIVELY APPLYING A LAW TO CASES WE'VE ALREADY PASSED, SO IT'S NOT A RETROACTIVE, RIGHT. 
          SO WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA IS THE CODE AMENDMENT AS WELL AS REZONINGS FROM DB 90 TO DB 90 FOR THOSE FOUR PROPERTIES TO CHANGE THE CONDITIONS OF ZONING. 
          UM, SO THAT IS, THOSE ARE, THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA TODAY. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE STEVE IS STILL HERE. 
          UHHUH. 
          AND IF WE, UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, IF YOU DON'T HAVE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS, DO YOU MIND IF WE MAYBE PAUSE YOUR TIME AND COME BACK TO YOU? PERFECT. 
          SO WE'LL, WE'LL STOP AT TWO AND A HALF MINUTES AND IF WE CAN, UNLESS, OKAY. 
          UM, IF STAFF, IF WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT OUR ATTORNEY ON, ON ASSIGNED FOR TODAY CAN, UM, POP UP ON THE VIDEO, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 
          WE'LL GO TO OTHER QUESTIONS IN THE MEANWHILE. 
          UH, OTHER FOLKS WITH QUESTIONS GOING ONCE , YOU DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS? I'LL, OH, I, I HAVE ADDITIONAL, BUT I WAS GONNA LET OTHER PEOPLE GO. 
          I APPRECI THAT COMMISSIONER SCH. 
          SO WE'LL GO TO THE BROWN FOR COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTIONS? OKAY, GO AHEAD. 
          IS THERE ANYTHING IN HERE, AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. 
          IS THERE ANYTHING IN HERE THAT INCREASES A FEE OF SOME KIND THAT'S NOT CALLED OUT THAT YOU HAVEN'T PRESENTED TO US? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          DIDN'T THINK SO. 
          JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OTHER FOLKS WITH QUESTIONS? UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          YEP. 
          SO JUST I THINK, UM, IN THE SPIRIT OF GETTING SOME CLARIFICATIONS HERE, UM, OBVIOUSLY WHEN THIS WAS PASSED, IT WAS IN A RESPONSE TO A COURT SITUATION, WE NEEDED TO QUICKLY RECONSIDER SOME VMU CASES THAT HAD BEEN SORT OF STUCK IN THE PIPELINE AND THESE REVISIONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW, WERE THOSE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING KIND OF CONCERNS THAT HAVE COME UP AS WE'VE WORKED THROUGH SOME OF THESE DB 90, FORMER VM U2 CASES AND CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT PLEASE? YEAH, SO SOME OF THESE CHANGES CAME AS A RESULT OF, UH, CONSULTATION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AS THEY WERE REVIEWING, UM, SITE PLAN CASES FOR NEW, UH, DB 90 PROJECTS. 
          UM, AND THAT GROUND FLOOR REQUIREMENT TO CHANGE, UM, IN HOW THE, THE LANGUAGE WAS WRITTEN IN THE DB 90 PROGRAM. 
          SO THE CHANGE THERE IS TO JUST TO MATCH, UM, ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS IN, IN THE VERTICAL MIXED USE PROGRAM. 
          UM, AND THAT CAME AS A RESULT, LIKE I SAID, FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. 
          UM, AND THEN THE OTHER CHANGES, UM, PRIMARILY ARE TO, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, ALIGN WITH CHANGES THAT WERE MADE AFTER, UH, THE PASSAGE OF DB 90 TO BRING THEM IN LINE WITH CITY STANDARDS RELATED TO SCREENING AND, UH, NOISE, UH, ASSOCIATED WITH COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 
          GREAT. 
          AND JUST ALSO TO CLARIFY THINGS, WHEN WE, UH, PASS NEW TYPES OF SORT OF DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS, WE DO OFTEN SEE REVISIONS AND IN FACT, WE'RE ABOUT TO GO THROUGH A ENTIRE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM REVISION. 
          SO THESE TYPES OF UPDATES AND SORT OF AMENDMENTS TO A PREVIOUSLY CREATED PROGRAM ARE QUITE NORMAL, CORRECT? Y YES, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          AND I GUESS ALSO GOING BACK TO SORT OF OVERALL LOOKING AT DB 90, WOULD YOU SAY THAT MOST OF THESE CHANGES TO YOUR POINT, ARE SORT OF MINOR AND ALSO JUST KIND OF GETTING THINGS IN ALIGNMENT IN REQUEST AND RESPONSE TO WHAT WE'VE SEEN WITH THESE DB 90 CASES? WOULD, WOULD YOU SORT OF CHARACTERIZE IT THAT WAY? YES, THEY ARE SMALL CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS TO THE DB 90 PROGRAM. 
          SO IN NO WAY WOULD WE THINK THAT THIS IS SOME RADICAL REVISION OF DB 90, WHICH WE DID JUST PASS AND DISCUSS EARLIER THIS YEAR. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S NOT HOW I WOULD DESCRIBE IT. 
          EXCELLENT. 
          AND ONE FINAL QUESTION. 
          WE WOULD EXPECT THAT IF THERE WERE ADDITIONAL CHANGES NEEDED IN THE FUTURE, SAY THIS TIME NEXT YEAR, THERE'S SOME CHANGES WE WANTED OR COUNCIL DIRECTION THAT YOU MIGHT COME BACK TO US AGAIN WITH ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO THE DB 90 PROGRAM AND THAT THAT MIGHT BE AN ONGOING PROCESS? YES. 
          WE ARE CURRENTLY REVIEWING, UM, MULTIPLE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS FOR UPDATES. 
          UM, SO WE DO EXPECT TO MAKE UPDATES, UM, CONTINUALLY. 
          EXCELLENT. 
          AND THEN ONE FINAL QUESTION FOR YOU, BECAUSE I THINK THIS HAS BECOME A ISSUE OF, WE KNOW THAT 
          [01:10:01]
THERE WERE SOME CASES THAT WOULD USE DB 90 BECAUSE OF THE COURT HEARING SITUATION OR THE COURT DECISION. 
          UM, WE HAVE ALSO SEEN OTHER DEVELOPMENTS KIND OF TAKE ADVANTAGE OF DB 90. 
          IS THERE A TRACKING OR SORT OF ONGOING CASE MANAGEMENT OF THE DB NINETIES OVERALL AND WHAT THE USAGE IS LOOKING LIKE AND WHAT WOULD BE GETTING INFORMATION ABOUT THAT? UM, SO I WOULD PROBABLY TURN TO THE ZONING DEPARTMENT ZONING TEAM IN TERMS OF HOW MANY APPLICATIONS HAVE COME IN. 
          UM, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE BEST TRACKING INFORMATION ON THAT. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS, CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UM, STAFF, PLEASE LET US KNOW WHEN WE HAVE, UM, STAFF FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT AVAILABLE AS WELL. 
          WE GOT THEM. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO IF WE CAN GIVE TWO AND A HALF MINUTES TO, OR THREE IS GOOD, WE'LL START OR TWO AND A HALF . 
          SORRY. 
          YOU KNOW, I'M CHANGING YOUR TIME AGAIN AND AGAIN. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, PLEASE CONTINUE WITH YOUR QUESTIONS. 
          AND WE DO HAVE MS. MANN AVAILABLE FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT. 
          UH, JUST THE CLARIFICATION AS TO WHY, YOU KNOW, HOW CAN WE RETROACTIVELY APPLY THE, EVEN IF THEY'RE A MINOR AMENDMENT, HOW CAN WE RETROACTIVELY APPLY THIS TO CASES THAT HAVE ALREADY PASSED? AND IS THAT AM AM I CLEAR THAT THAT'S EXPO OR AM I MISINTERPRETING IT? IT'S NOT EXPO FACTO. 
          GIVE ME JUST A SECOND TO GET MY CAMERA ON. 
          I AM SORRY. 
          UH, ALL RIGHT. 
          ALLOW ACCESS ONE MORE SECOND. 
          UM, LET'S TRY THIS. 
          SEE, WATCH CAMERA. 
          IT SHOWS. 
          AND AS YOU'RE DOING THAT, MS. MANN, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, I'M SORRY. 
          OF COURSE. 
          GIMME JUST A SECOND. 
          I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, I'M USING A DIFFERENT COMPUTER THAN NORMAL, WHICH IS NOT HELPFUL. 
          THAT SHOULD BE OKAY, MS. BEN AND I SEE STAFF, YOU PAUSED THE TIME. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          THAT'S PERFECT. 
          IT'S MY LAST QUESTION, BUT SHE GETS THE ANSWER. 
          EVEN IF I RUSH ONE, DON'T GO AND CAN'T GET, I CAN'T GET THE CAMERA TO START. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHY. 
          UM, SO I'M OKAY WITH JUST TURN, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE, THIS HAS BEEN NOTICED AND, UM, FOR THOSE TWO CASES, WEBEX IS TELLING ME, NO, , UM, THIS IS THE, THE DB 90 CASES WERE NOTICED AS PART OF, OF TONIGHT'S PROCEEDINGS. 
          AND SO THEY'VE BEEN NOTICED AS, UM, UM, RENO THEN DB 90 TO DD 90 TO CHANGE THE CONDITIONS OF ZONINGS, WHICH WILL BE THE AMENDMENTS TO DD 90. 
          SO THEY'RE HAPPENING TONIGHT. 
          THEY'VE BEEN RETIC I CAN'T HEAR NOW. 
          OH GOD, THIS IS, COULD NOT BE MORE INCONVENIENT. 
          I AM REALLY SORRY. 
          NO WORRIES, MS. THERE WE GO. 
          OKAY, GO AHEAD AGAIN. 
          I'M SORRY MR. HAYNES AND MS. WE'RE STILL NOT ABLE TO SEE YOU ACTUALLY YEAH, I KNOW THAT I CAN'T GET MY CAMERA TO WORK. 
          OKAY, NO, NO WORRIES. 
          BUT NOW I CAN ACTUALLY HEAR Y'ALL, SO, OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES, GO AHEAD. 
          PERFECT. 
          UM, MS. MAY, MY QUESTION WAS NOT ABOUT THE NOTICE. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT THE FOLKS GOT NOTICE. 
          MY QUESTION WAS HOW CAN WE PASS A LAW TODAY AND APPLY IT SIX MONTHS, EIGHT MONTHS BACKWARDS, UM, TO THE CASES THAT WE'VE ALREADY PASSED UNDER THOSE LAWS? AND IS, IS THAT NOT THE, I DON'T HAVE BLACK'S LAW OPEN, BUT IS THAT NOT THE DEFINITION OF AN EX POST FACTO LAW EX IT WOULD BE, EXCEPT THAT WE RE WE WERE RE NOTICING 'EM AND THEY, THEY WERE RENO TO CHANGE THE CONDITIONS OF ZONING. 
          AND SO, OKAY, SO IF, IF SOMEBODY HERE TODAY DOESN'T WANT FILLS, FOR EXAMPLE, COMMISSIONER HANDS, IF YOU DIDN'T, IF YOU THOUGHT, WELL, IT WAS APPROPRIATE BEFORE, BUT IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE UNDER THESE CONDITIONS, YOU, YOU COULD VOTE ACCORDINGLY. 
          BUT COULD SOMEBODY THAT, UH, NOT ME, I, I'M GONNA VOTE BASED ON THE TOTALITY OF THE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF US, BUT IF SOMEBODY, UH, THAT'S IMPACTED, IF SOMEBODY'S, UH, PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE BEING IMPACTED BY THIS CHANGE, CAN THEY COME, CAN THEY PROTEST SIX MONTHS AFTER THE FACT? SO WE, LET ME, LET'S LET MS. MAY WELL, NO, I MEAN, IF, 
          [01:15:01]
IF, IF I'M MISUNDERSTANDING THE FACTS ABOUT THE NOTICE, UM, PAUL, UH, MR. BOOKS CAN, UM, CAN CORRECT ME, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE I AM. 
          OKAY, LET ME, LET ME ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU AFTER MR. BOOKS ANSWER GETS THE OKAY, SURE. 
          GETS THE FACTUAL EXPLANATION. 
          I WAS JUST GOING TO EXPLAIN THAT NOTICE WAS REQUIRED AND PROTEST RIGHTS ARE ALLOWED FOR THOSE IMPACTED BY THE FOUR, KIND OF, THAT ARE ALREADY WITHIN THE DB 90 COMBINING DISTRICT. 
          SO THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO SUBMIT A PROTEST AGAINST THE REZONING FROM DB 90 TO DB 90. 
          THAT CHANGES THE CONDITION OF ZONING. 
          ARE WE GONNA CALL THIS DB 90 , BUT WHATEVER THIS VERSION OF DB 90. 
          SO SOMEONE COULD HAVE, SOMEONE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY WHEN THEY GOT NOTICE TO COME HERE AND SAY, I DON'T WANT GROUND FLOOR AND ROOFTOP MECHANICAL SCREAMING. 
          THAT, THAT'S JUST THE FIRST CHANGE THAT I SAW THAT YES, THEY COULD DO THAT. 
          THAT WAS EXPLAINED ON THE NOTICE. 
          IT WAS EXPLAINED ON THE WEBSITE AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? COMMISSIONER HAYNES? YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          AND SO THAT WAS, THAT THAT WAS ADDRESSED BY, THROUGH THE NOTICE FO FOLKS GOT NOTICE COULD COME AND EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT, UM, THE PARTICULAR PROPERTIES THAT YOU'VE IDENTIFIED. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ROUND OF QUESTIONS. 
          MS. MANN, IF YOU CAN STAY ON, UH, FOR A LITTLE BIT LONGER, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 
          DO WE HAVE OTHER FOLKS WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS? PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          THANKS, CHAIR. 
          I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. 
          HAVE ANY OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY REZONED TO DB 90 AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN, OBJECTED TO ANY OF THESE CHANGES? HAVE YOU HEARD FROM ANY OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHT HERE? SORRY, THE ONES THAT HAVE, THAT HAD, UM, REZONED THEIR PROPERTIES TO DB 90? NO. 
          NO. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          SO WHAT IS THE PROTEST PERIOD? HOW LONG IS THE PROTEST PERIOD? WHEN WERE THEY NOTICED AND WHAT FRAME OF TIME, WHAT LENGTH OF TIME DO THEY HAVE TO PROTEST? YEAH, SO THE NOTIFICATION WAS SENT ON, SO THE FIRST NOTIFICATION WAS SENT ON JUNE 28TH, AND THEN A SECOND NOTICE WAS SENT ON JULY 12TH. 
          AND, AND BETWEEN JULY 28TH. 
          SO WHAT WAS THE PERIOD OF TIME, WHEN DID THE PROTEST PERIOD END FOR PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE WANTED TO PROTEST? THE PROTEST PERIOD HAS NOT ENDED. 
          OKAY, SO IT'S STILL ONGOING. 
          SO WHAT, WHEN DOES IT END? UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY'RE ABLE TO SUBMIT UP UNTIL THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SO THAT WOULD BE AUGUST 29TH. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          MR. PHILLIPS, DO YOU HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS? THAT IS ALL EIGHT QUESTIONS. 
          JUST, ARE THERE FOLKS WHO WANT MORE TIME OR WANT MORE QUESTION ROUNDS? WOULD FOLKS BE OKAY IF WE ADDED TWO MORE, UH, QUESTIONS WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
          NOT SEEING AN OBJECTION? COMMISSIONER AL, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND I, I DO, AGAIN, WANNA HIGHLIGHT WHAT, UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL WAS EXPLAINING THAT AGAIN, IF, IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE IN THE BACKUP, WHAT IS UNDERLINED ARE THE PIECES THAT WE HAVE FOR CONSIDERATION FOR CHANGE TONIGHT. 
          THOSE ARE PRETTY, IT'S, IT'S FAIRLY LIMITED. 
          SO WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING TO ADAPT, ALLOW SOME ADDITIONAL USES. 
          THERE'S ACTUALLY SOME ADDITIONAL SCREENING THAT IS COMING IN. 
          UM, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, MOST OF THE DB 90 AS IT WAS ALREADY PASSED IS NOT CHANGING. 
          BUT MY QUESTION IS A LITTLE BIT ON THE NOTICING BECAUSE THIS IS APPLYING TO, UM, ESSENTIALLY CODE VERSUS A ZONING CASE. 
          AND, AND THIS MAY HELP SOME OF OUR NEWER COMMISSIONERS AS WELL. 
          SO I GUESS THIS CASE IS, OR THIS QUESTION IS FOR MS. MANN, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IF WE'RE DOING A ZONING CASE, RIGHT, WE'RE NOTICING THE CERTAIN PROPERTIES THAT ARE BEING AFFECTED AROUND IT. 
          BUT IF WE'RE DOING CODE CHANGE, THEN THAT HAS TO BE THAT AFFECTS ALL THE CITY, 
          [01:20:01]
THEN WOULDN'T WE HAVE TO NOTIFY EVERYBODY? I THINK YOU'RE ON MUTE. 
          YEP. 
          I'M, I'M REALLY BATING A THOUSAND TONIGHT. 
          WE'RE GONNA NOTE WE'RE GONNA, I HAD TROUBLE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING TOO. 
          SO YOU'RE IN GOOD COMPANY. 
          , WE'RE GONNA NOTIFY, UM, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT CASE BY CASE. 
          ZONING IS NOT CASE BY CASE. 
          WE KNOW EXACTLY HOW WE'RE DOING NOTICE, UM, CITYWIDE CODE AMENDMENTS, WE STARTED DOING THOSE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. 
          UM, WE CAN TALK ABOUT, UH, SOMEBODY FROM, FROM THE PLANNING STAFF MIGHT BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT, LIKE WHAT NOTICE WAS PROVIDED FOR THE CODE AMENDMENT VERSUS, UM, ZONING CASE. 
          AND IF THEY WERE BROUGHT TOGETHER, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A, A CODE AMENDMENT THAT ACTUALLY IF PAUL COULD, COULD SHARE THE, HOW THE CODE AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY WAS NOTICED. 
          I THINK THAT WOULD BE YEAH. 
          HELPFUL. 
          THAT MIGHT ANSWER THAT. 
          THIS IS ESSENTIALLY CODE AMENDMENT CHANGE, RIGHT? MM-HMM. 
           WE'RE CHANGING, I MEAN IT'S SMALL , BUT WE ARE CHANGING CODE, RIGHT? RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO ONE COMBINED NOTICE WAS SENT FOR THE ZONING CASES AND THE CODE AMENDMENT, UH, THE CODE AMENDMENT REQUIRES US TO SEND NOTICE ALSO TO THE COMMUNITY REGISTRY. 
          AND SO WE DID THAT AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO CODE AMENDMENTS THEN DON'T HAVE, UH, SORRY. 
          I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WHEN WE'RE DOING CODE AMENDMENT STUFF, THESE SMALL CHANGES WHERE WE'RE TWEAKING LITTLE BITS, WHAT ARE OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR, FOR NOTICE TO SPEAK IN GENERAL TERMS? THE PROPERTIES WITH THE ZONE WHERE THE CODE AMENDMENT WILL APPLY NEED TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE. 
          SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT IS A RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF PROPERTIES BECAUSE ONLY A FEW PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN APPROVED WITH DB 90 AND OTHERS ARE STILL IN THE WORKS. 
          THE DIFFERENCE WITH THE CITYWIDE NOTICE THAT YOU SAW FROM SOME CODE AMENDMENTS EARLIER THIS SPRING IS BECAUSE THEY APPLIED TO A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES. 
          AND SO WE CHOSE TO NOTICE ALL PROPERTIES IN THE CITY RATHER THAN TRYING TO IDENTIFY THE PROPERTIES WHERE THAT WOULD APPLY SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS SUCH A LARGE NUMBER. 
          OKAY. 
          MS. BATES, CAN YOU PLEASE, UH, SAY YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? FORGIVE ME. 
          ANDREA BATES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND SO TO THEN, TO CLARIFY AGAIN, FOR ME, FOR THE PUBLIC, FOR ANYBODY NEW ON THE COMMISSION, THIS IS THE SAME QUESTIONS I DO THEN, UM, ARE THE ACTUAL LIKE LEGAL LAW REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTICE BASED ON AFFECTED PROPERTIES VERSUS IT HAVING TO BE CITYWIDE SO THAT WHEN, YOU KNOW, LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S AFFECTING A LARGE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES, IT'S JUST EASIER TO NOTIFY EVERYBODY THAN TO JUST TO PICK OUT, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY HUNDREDS OF PROPERTIES WE HAVE VERSUS WHEN IT'S A SMALLER NUMBER. 
          YOU CAN, AND IT, AND IT, THE CODE CODE AMENDMENT IS A PRETTY BROAD CATEGORY OF THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN. 
          THIS KIND OF CODE AMENDMENT THAT, THAT IS ZONING RELATED SPECIFICALLY LIKE THIS WILL HAVE DIFFERENT, MORE SPEC, MORE, UM, DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS THAT REQUIRE MORE NOTICE. 
          AND IN PART, BASED ON OUR, YOU KNOW, CORRECTION OR, OR THE WAY WE'RE, WE'RE NOTICING, UM, POSTS SOME, YOU KNOW, AFTER SOME, SOME LEGAL DECISION. 
          SO WE ARE NOTICING IT FOR A SPECIFIC WAY FOR THINGS LIKE THINGS THAT IMPACT SPECIFIC PROPERTIES. 
          AND SO AGAIN, AS ANDREW, SO CERTAIN OTHER KINDS OF CODE AMENDMENTS THAT DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC PROPERTY IMPACTS, WE MIGHT NOT NOTICE LIKE THAT. 
          AND THEN THEY WOULD BE GETTING NOTICE, THEY WOULD BE NOTICED NOT APPLIED BECAUSE, BECAUSE DB 90 IS A ZONING CATEGORY, THEN EVEN THOUGH THIS IS GONNA PERPETUATE IN THE FUTURE CHANGE, IT'S ONLY GONNA COME UP AS THOSE CASES REQUEST TO BE REZONED TO DB 90 AND THEY GO THROUGH WHICHEVER CONDITION A HUNDRED PERCENT. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THAT'S PART OF THE, PART OF THE, UM, THE THINKING BY CREATING THIS CATEGORY AND MAKING IT A ZONING THING THAT YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE TO OPT INTO IS THAT AS EACH SUBSEQUENT, UM, PROPERTY CHOOSES, UM, LIKE, OH, I WANT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT, AND I MEET ALL THE CRITERIA THEY CAN DO SO, AND THEY CAN REQUEST A ZONING CHANGE AND THEN THAT GOES  ZONING CHANGE THEN KICKS OFF ALL THOSE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES. 
          SO WE'RE CREATING A CATEGORY. 
          UM, AND SO YEAH, IF THAT, IF THAT IS HELPFUL. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THAT ANSWERS SOME OF MY OTHER QUESTIONS WHY WE SOMETIMES DON'T HAVE THIS COME UP ON SOME OF OTHER THINGS THAT WE'VE DEALT WITH FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AND, AND CODE TWEAKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER AL. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. 
          IF FOLKS ARE OPEN, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR, UM, NEXT PART, WHICH IS, UM, YOU KNOW, TAKING ACTION ON THIS. 
          I KNOW THERE'S A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS FOR SHARING THOSE IN ADVANCE. 
          AND OF COURSE FOLKS CAN SHARE THEM, UM, AS THEY COME UP AS WELL. 
          UM, JUST TO GET THE CONVERSATION STARTED THOUGH, DO I HAVE A MOTION FROM SOMEONE BASE MOTION 
          [01:25:01]
STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN WE CAN OF COURSE MOVE ON TO AMENDMENTS TO THAT. 
          I HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? FROM COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS WOULD BE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS THE BASE MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO THIS IS THE PART WHERE WE CAN START ON THE AMENDMENTS. 
          I WAS PLANNING ON GOING ALPHABETICALLY, BUT I'M HAPPY TO GO TOWARDS THE END SINCE, UM, I WILL BE COMING IN THE MIDDLE. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, DO YOU HAVE A COM UH, AMENDMENT AT THIS TIME? IF FOLKS DON'T MIND, I'LL GO TOWARDS THE END SO THAT IT'S EASIER FOR ME TO, UM, CHAIR GO THROUGH THIS. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, DO WE HAVE A AMENDMENT FROM YOU? I DO NOT APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER BARR RAMIREZ? I DO NOT. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? NOPE. 
          COMMISSIONER AL. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? NO. 
          COMMISSIONER COX? YES. 
          UM, UH, MS. CORONA EMAILED FORWARDED MY EMAIL TO EVERYONE, UH, IF YOU WANT TO TRY TO FOLLOW ALONG. 
          UM, BUT ESSENTIALLY I JUST WANTED TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO, UH, ADD TEXT TO PART ONE B SO THAT PART ONE B SAYS THIS SECTION GOVERNS OVER A CONFLICTING PROVISION OF THIS TITLE OR OTHER ORDINANCE, EXCEPT FOR A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY PASSED BY COUNSEL AS PART OF A PROPERTY'S MOST CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE. 
          AND BEFORE MAKING THE MOTION, UH, FOLKS ARE FINE WITH IT, WITH NO OBJECTION, WE'LL FOLLOW THE PROCESS WHERE THREE FOLKS HAVE ABILITY TO ASK QUESTIONS FOR UP TO TWO MINUTES. 
          AND THOSE QUESTIONS CAN BE ASKED OF STAFF FOR THE MOTION MAKER, UM, ANYONE WHO NEEDS A CLARIFICATION ON ANYTHING. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY QUE QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER COX OR STAFF? I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          OH, SORRY, GO AHEAD. 
          COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS. 
          COMMISSIONER COX. 
          SO COULD YOU TELL US IN PLAIN LANGUAGE WHAT THIS AMENDMENT ACTUALLY DOES? YEAH, NO, ABSOLUTELY. 
          I I I'M HAPPY TO, I THOUGHT I NEEDED A SECOND BEFORE I COULD SPEAK TO IT. 
          UM, IT, SO I, I THINK IT'S UNFAIR TO US AND COUNSEL AND, AND ACTUALLY UNFAIR TO THE PUBLIC AND PROPERTY OWNERS APPLICANTS THAT COME BEFORE US TO SOMEHOW REMOVE THE ABILITY TO, UH, PASS CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS AS PART OF AZO ZONING ORDINANCE. 
          THAT INCLUDES DB 90, WHICH CURRENTLY, ACCORDING TO STAFF, WE CANNOT DO CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS, UH, WITH ANY ZONING CASE THAT COMES BEFORE US WITH DB 90. 
          AND I THINK ANYONE WHO'S BEEN DOING THIS FOR A WHILE KNOWS THAT SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, A A A CO, WHETHER IT'S MINOR OR MAJOR, WHETHER IT LIMITS HEIGHT OR HAS A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA SETBACK OR MAKES TWEAKS AROUND THE EDGES, SOMETIMES THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN, UH, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT. 
          UM, AND SO I THINK BEING ABLE TO DO THAT IS, IS EXTREMELY HELPFUL. 
          AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HANDICAP OURSELVES ON DB 90 CASES. 
          THE WAY I WORDED THIS BY SAYING THE PROPERTY'S MOST CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE STILL ALLOWS FOR DB 90 TO ESSENTIALLY WIPE THE SLATE CLEAN. 
          SO WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH LEGACY COS UH, LIKE WE SOMETIMES ARE. 
          UM, BUT COS PASS ALONG WITH DB 90, UH, WOULD STILL APPLY, OR AT LEAST THAT'S MY INTENT BEHIND THIS AMENDMENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? UM, IF NOT, COMMISSIONER COX, YOU'RE WELCOME TO MAKE YOUR MOTION, UH, MOTION AS STATED. 
          DO I NEED TO REPEAT IT? UM, NO, IT'S FINE. 
          COMMISSIONER COX, DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS SECONDS THAT, UM, SO WE'RE GONNA GO INTO SPEAKING FOR AND AGAINST THREE PEOPLE, FOUR, THREE PEOPLE AGAINST. 
          COMMISSIONER COX IS THE MOTION MAKER. 
          YOU GET THE FIRST ROUND IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION AGAIN. 
          NO, I JUST, I JUST SPOKE TO IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OTHER FOLKS? UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, ARE YOU FOR OR AGAINST? SORRY. 
          AGAINST. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, PLEASE AHEAD. 
          YEAH, I, I I DON'T THINK IT'S, UH, I, I THINK IF COUNCIL WANTED THE ABILITY TO PASS CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS, UM, MODIFYING DB 90, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE INCLUDED THIS LINE. 
          THEY CERTAINLY WOULDN'T HAVE INCLUDED A CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE WE'RE CONSIDERING TODAY TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE CLEAR THAT CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS 
          [01:30:01]
DO NOT APPLY. 
          UM, FURTHERMORE, IF YOU DO READ THE EXISTING DB 90 OR ORDINANCE AND THE PROPOSED CHANGES, CERTAIN TYPES OF CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS ARE IN FACT STILL ALLOWED AS LONG AS THEY DON'T CONFLICT WITH THE DB 90 PROVISIONS. 
          FOR INSTANCE, UNDER SUBSECTION F UH, CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS, RESTRICTING USES IN THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT ARE STILL ALLOWED TO APPLY TO DB 90 CASES. 
          UM, I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT COUNSEL KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING, UH, WHEN THEY WROTE THIS ORDINANCE AND ADOPTED IT, AND WHEN THEY WROTE THESE CHANGES, AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A COMPELLING REASON TO, UM, ADD A, A PROVISION THAT WILL MAKE ZONING MORE COMPLEX, LESS TRANSPARENT, HARDER TO ADMINISTER. 
          UM, IF YOU, IF A CASE DESPERATELY NEEDS A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY MODIFYING DB 90, THEN MAYBE THEY SHOULDN'T USE DB 90. 
          UM, I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT THE, THE INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE IS TO MAKE IT EASIER TO BUILD MORE PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, NOT TO ADD MORE CONDITIONS TO THEM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          FOLKS, SPEAKING FOR THE MOTION. 
          MR. ALDER, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          UM, I THINK IT'S REALLY HARD TO ANTICIPATE WHAT ALL THE NUANCES ARE, AND YOU KNOW HOW, AS THIS UNROLLS, I KNOW WE HAVE THIS GREAT VISION OF HOW WE THINK IT'S GONNA WORK, BUT I THINK I, I, I THINK IT'S HARD TO ANTICIPATE ALL OF THAT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE DON'T HAVE GOOD REGIONAL PLANNING IN PLACE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          WE'RE HEARING A LOT OF CONCERN FROM NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          PEOPLE ARE STILL CONFUSED. 
          I THINK AT LEAST GIVING IT AS AN OPTION, OR AT LEAST PUSHING THIS UP TO COUNCIL IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. 
          THEY CAN ALWAYS, IF, IF THAT, IF THAT'S THE CASE AND THEY FEEL LIKE, NO, WE'VE COVERED IT THE WAY WE WANT IT, THIS IS HOW WE WANT IT TO GO FORWARD, YOU KNOW, THEY'LL, THEY'LL PULL THAT OUT, THEY'LL STRIP THAT AMENDMENT OUT. 
          BUT I THINK AT LEAST WE OUGHT TO GIVE IT FOR CONSIDERATION SO THAT IT DOES ALLOW FOR THIS TO ADAPT AND EVOLVE, UM, AS IT NEEDS TO. 
          THAT, THAT WOULD BE MY THOUGHT. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. 
          MR. COMMISSIONER, SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          BRIEFLY AGAINST THIS JUST FEELS LIKE A STEP IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. 
          WELL SAID. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, OTHER COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST, UH, COMMISSIONER BAR RAMIREZ. 
          I, I MEAN, I AM SPEAKING FOR, AND MY ONLY RATIONALE IS THAT WE USE CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS FOR FLEXIBILITY. 
          AND MY, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE USED ALL THE TIME, BUT I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER COX THAT SOMETIMES WE'RE WITHIN FEET OF COMING TO A WIN-WIN SITUATION WITH NEIGHBORS AND THE DEVELOPER. 
          AND I THINK THAT FLEXIBILITY IS NICE TO HAVE. 
          IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE USED ALL THE TIME. 
          AND I ALSO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER ELLER THAT IF COUNSEL DOESN'T LIKE IT, THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO APPROVE IT. 
          SO COMMISSIONER UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, GO AHEAD. 
          UH, I JUST ALSO WANNA ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SHARED WITH US BECAUSE I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THE CONT INTENT OF OUR COUNCIL WHO OBVIOUSLY WROTE THIS ORDINANCE IN A SPECIFIC WAY. 
          AND I DO WANNA POINT OUT THAT IF WE WOULD LIKE TO BE CONSIDERING LOWER HEIGHTS FOR SOME OF THESE PROJECTS, PERHAPS WE SHOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT VERSION OF DB 90, DB 60, VMU FOUR, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE. 
          BUT I WOULD LOVE TO LEAVE THAT TO THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL VERSUS TRYING TO USE SORT OF BACKDOOR METHODS TO HEIGHT LIMIT THINGS THAT WERE CLEARLY NOT INTENDED TO BE. 
          SO, SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS , UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I'LL TAKE THAT. 
          I THINK THE LAST SPOT, UM, ECHO AND DO IT REAL QUICK, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, CITY OF AUSTIN COVERS, UM, AND THIS DOESN'T COUNT EJS, UH, WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT LATER, BUT CITY OF AUSTIN COVERS 325 SQUARE MILES OVER ALMOST 500 SQUARE ACRES. 
          AND WHILE I'M A HUGE FAN OF SIMPLIFICATION, I'VE TRIED TO SIMPLIFY A LOT OF THINGS IN HERE, AND ONE OF 'EM CALLS ANYWAY. 
          UM, AND I WANT SIMPLIFICATION, BUT TO, TO SAY THAT WE CAN HAVE ONE SIZE FITS ALL, DB 90, OVER 250 SQUARE, UM, UM, MILES, UH, I'M SORRY, 300, 325 SQUARE MILES, UM, 450 SQUARE ACRES. 
          IT, IT COS ALLOW US TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY, USE IT AS A BASE, AND WHEN THERE'S A NEED TO TWEAK IT, WE USE THE CO. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          SO WE'LL GO AHEAD. 
          THIS IS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COX, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, UM, AS SHARED BY COMMISSIONER COX. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND OR YOUR GREEN CARDS. 
          THOSE AGAINST THAT MOTIONS FAILS WITH FIVE 
          [01:35:01]
COMMISSIONERS, FOUR AND SIX COMMISSIONERS AGAINST THAT. 
          UH, AND AGAIN, I GUESS JUST FOR THE RECORD, LET ME, UH, SAY THAT THE COMMISSIONERS WHO VOTED FOUR, THAT WOULD BE COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ, COMMISSIONER AL AND COMMISSIONER COX. 
          THANK YOU ALL FOR HELPING ME WITH THAT. 
          AND I'M SORRY, I REALIZED I WAS NOT GOING ALPHABETICALLY MY LAST NAME 'CAUSE I WAS GOING BY OUR AGENDA. 
          SO I'M GONNA GO TO COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, DO YOU NEXT, UM, TO SEE IF YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, UH, YES, AND I, I APOLOGIZE, I DID NOT GET IT TO MS. CORONA UNTIL VERY LATE. 
          AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR GETTING IT OUT SO QUICKLY. 
          I THOUGHT I'D HAVE HOURS TO, FOR Y'ALL TO LOOK AT MY AMENDMENTS, BUT, UH, SO APOLOGIZE, Y'ALL ONLY HAD A FEW MINUTES. 
          UH, JUST TAKE 'EM UP IN NUMERIC ORDER. 
          SO I'LL DO ONE FIRST AND THEN COME BACK AROUND AS MANY AS I CAN AS I GET. 
          BUT, UM, I TRIED TO DRAFT THESE UP BASED ON THE, UM, PROPOSED TEXT IN THE, UH, PROPOSED ORDINANCE. 
          SO IF YOU WILL PULL UP IN YOUR EMAIL, UH, THE, MY EMAIL AND ITS PROPOSED HANS AMENDMENTS ONE, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT WE'RE, UH, AMENDING, UH, FIRST PAGE LINE 17 AND ADDING, UH, TWO NEW SUBSECTIONS AND, UH, TO ADDRESS, UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S, UH, LAST, LAST, UH, STATEMENTS AND, AND ALL, UH, I'M FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND I'M GLAD HE IS TOO. 
          AND WHAT, UH, HANES ONE DOES IS, UM, UH, INCREASES THE ABILITY OF, OF OWNERS AND PROJECTS TO MAKE SURE THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, IS USED FOR THE APPLICANTS AND USED FOR PEOPLE THAT QUALIFY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          AND, UH, THAT'S WHAT WE DO. 
          AND SO WE'RE, WE'RE, UH, UH, SAYING THAT IF YOU LEASE A, UH, UNIT THAT IS LISTED AS AFFORDABLE, UM, AND YOU DO SO FOR LESS THAN 30 DAYS AS AN OWNER OF THAT UNIT, UM, THAT YOU HAVE TO THEN GO FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AND COUNSEL APPROVAL OF THAT, UM, TERM LEASE, UH, FOR THAT, UM, FOR THAT UNIT. 
          AND THEN IF YOU ARE A RENTER OF A UNIT, UM, YOU CANNOT SUB SUB IF YOU'RE AN OWNER OR A RENTER OF THAT UNIT, YOU CANNOT, UM, LEASE OR SUBLEASE THAT UNIT FOR A, UH, PERIOD OF LESS THAN 40 DAYS UNLESS YOU GO FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL. 
          THIS WOULD JUST, UH, MAKE SURE THAT THOSE, UM, UNITS THAT ARE LISTED FOR AFFORDABLE AFFORDABILITY ARE USED FOR, UH, INDIVIDUALS THAT NEED AFFORDABILITY. 
          THOSE ARE MY, THAT'S MY HAYNES NUMBER ONE. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAYNES QUESTIONS ON THIS AMENDMENT? COMMISSIONER WOODS, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          I, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF AND, AND MAYBE FOR MS. MANN, UM, DO WE REQUIRE COUNSEL APPROVAL FOR SHORT TERM LEASES IN ANY CASES? SO I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, UM, CURRENTLY, BUT WE COULD CHECK WITH THE CODE COMPLIANCE, UH, TEAM TO SEE WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS AND GET BACK TO YOU. 
          THAT THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 
          I BELIEVE WE DO NOT, UM, FOR MARKET RATE UNITS. 
          SO I WOULD BE, UM, I GUESS I, MY QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER HANS IS, IS THE INTENT TO LIMIT LOW INCOME RENTERS AND OWNERS OF AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THE WAY THAT THEY USE THEIR UNITS MORE SO THAN WE DO FOR MARKET RATE RENTERS AND OWNERS? NO, IT WOULDN'T BE TO LIMIT, UH, THOSE OWNERS OR RENTERS FROM USING THEIR FACILITIES. 
          UM, THEIR, THEIR, UM, THEIR UNITS. 
          IT WOULD JUST BE THAT IF THEY CHOOSE TO LEASE THEM OUT ON, ON NOT A LONG TERM BASIS, UM, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO, UM, USE THE PROVISIONS THAT ALREADY EXIST IN THE CODE, UH, IN SECTION 4 18 33. 
          AND THE, THE MOST, UH, PREDOMINANT OF THAT IS THAT YOU HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE COUNCIL, UH, TO GET A, UM, TO, TO GET APPROVED FOR THOSE PROVISIONS. 
          [01:40:01]
SO, AND MAYBE I'M JUST MISUNDERSTANDING, WE, WE GENERALLY REQUIRE COUNSEL APPROVAL FOR SHORT TERM LEASES IF, UH, NO, I, I'M TRYING TO ADOPT, UH, THE NOTICE AND HEARING, EXCUSE ME, HEARING PROVISIONS THAT ALREADY EXIST RATHER THAN CREATING SOME, I'M USING THOSE NOTICE AND HEARING PROVISIONS THAT ALREADY EXIST. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO JUST THEORETICALLY, A HOMEOWNER OF AN AFFORDABLE UNIT WOULD HAVE TO, UH, TRIGGER A PUBLIC NOTICE TO THEIR NEIGHBORS IF THEY WANTED TO SHORT TERM LEASE THAT UNIT WHILE THEY WERE TRAVELING, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THEN GO THROUGH A PROCESS OF COMING BEFORE CITY COUNCIL TO GET APPROVAL FOR THAT. 
          THE LANGUAGE SAID OKAY. 
          UH, MORE THAN 30 DAYS. 
          UM, UNDERSTOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU IN A YEAR. 
          APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION, COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          AND IF WE HAVE, UM, CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF, FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN LATER WITH THAT. 
          THAT'D BE GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS, CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER WOODS, OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YEAH, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR I GUESS COMMISSIONER HAYNES OR STAFF. 
          UM, I, I CAN'T FIND A SECTION 4 18 33 IN CODE. 
          CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY WHAT SECTION YOU'RE REFERRING TO OR WHAT, WHAT ARTICLE OR CHAPTER THAT'S IN? I'M ALMOST POSITIVE. 
          I COPIED IT FROM, UH, IT'S ARTICLE FOUR 18. 
          UM, IT'S THE ARTICLE THAT WE DON'T GET TO TALK ABOUT, EVEN THOUGH IT IS, UH, IT IMPACTS AFFORDABILITY. 
          I, I'M SORRY, UH, DYSLEXIA. 
          IT IS 4 18, 23, 23. 
          MY BAD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER . 
          TWO, THREE, NOT THREE, TWO. 
          GOT IT. 
          UM, OR THREE, THREE. 
          SO 4 18 23. 
          MR. JOHNSON, DO YOU HAVE A FOLLOW FOLLOW UP? OH, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS SECTION. 
          I'M JUST LOOKING AT THIS SECTION, BUT I, I, UH, I DON'T SEE IN THIS SECTION THAT THERE'S ANY REQUIREMENT FOR NOTICE FOR LEASES OR, OR RENTAL LESS THAN 30 DAYS. 
          UM, I THINK YOU SAID, OR ARE YOU SAYING YOU'RE ADOPTING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTICE FOR FROM SOME OTHER PROGRAM BY REFERENCE? NO, I'M, I'M USING THIS AS THE, IS THE TEMPLATE FOR, FOR THESE, YES. 
          I'M, I'M APPLYING THAT TEMPLATE TO THESE, UH, LIMITED, HOPEFULLY LIMITED CASES BECAUSE I WOULD HOPE THAT INDIVIDUALS WHO EITHER BUY OR RENT AFFORDABLE UNITS MM-HMM  BUY OR RENT THEM TO LIVE IN AND NOT TO, UH, LEASE OUT TO OTHER INDIVIDUALS FOR, UM, SURE OTHER NEEDS. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          AND THEN I GUESS THE QUESTION FOR STAFF THEN, IN OTHER CITY, AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS, WHETHER THAT'S, UH, SMART HOUSING, IF YOU REALLY CALL THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM, AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED OTHER BONUS PROGRAMS. UM, DO WE HAVE ANY PROVISIONS LIMITING THE ABILITY OF, OF OWNERS OF INCOME LIMITED HOUSING FROM USING THEM FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS? SO PART OF THE LAND USE AND RESTRICTIONS AGREEMENT, UM, WHICH IS IN THE FOUR 18, UH, CODE SECTION, DOES REQUIRE, UH, PARTICIPATING DEVELOPMENTS TO AGREE TO LIMIT THE USE OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS TYPE ONE AND TWO, UM, FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS. 
          SO THAT IS PART OF THE AGREEMENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND, AND MY AMENDMENT WOULD ADD, WOULD ADD IN AND MR BOOKS, THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT TO ME. 
          THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS. 
          AND MY AMENDMENT WOULD ADD ONE MORE, UH, LIMITATION ON THE EXISTING, UH, LIMITS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE. 
          AND, AND SO I GUESS THEN MY LAST QUESTION WOULD BE, IF I STILL HAVE TIME, DOES THE 4 18 4 DASH 18, SO DB 90 WILL REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE? DO WE NEED TO ADD A PROVISION FURTHER LIMITING OWNERS FROM USING THEIR SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL IF THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER MUST ALREADY COMPLY? SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS WANTING TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL BARRIER TO USE OF AFFORDABLE UNIT AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL. 
          SO IF THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO DO, THEN THEY COULD DO THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OTHER FOLKS WITH QUESTIONS? IF NOT, DO FOLKS MIND IF I GO AHEAD AND ASK A QUESTION? UM, ER HAYNES, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS AMENDMENT, AND I'LL BE 
          [01:45:01]
HONEST, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, WHAT I READ IT IS, IS IF ANYONE, THIS IS ANYONE WHO BUYS A UNIT IN A CONDO BUILDING, UM, YOU KNOW, HAS AN AFFORDABLE UNIT IN A CONDO BUILDING, ESSENTIALLY IF THEY RENT FOR LESS THAN 30 DAYS, THEY CAN RENT IT TO ANYONE AS LONG AS THEY GO THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING AS REQUIRED BY A 1423. 
          IF THEY WISH TO LEASE FOR ANYTHING MORE THAN 30 DAYS, THEY CAN ONLY LEASE TO SOMEONE WHO EARNS 50% MFI OR LESS. 
          I MEAN, ESSENTIALLY THIS WOULD SAY AN OWNER CANNOT LEASE THEIR UNIT FOR LONG-TERM LEASING. 
          LIKE IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO LIVE IN A UNIT FOR 10 YEARS, THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE, THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO DO THIS BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S DRAFTED, THEY'RE ACTUALLY NOT ALLOWED. 
          IF THEY EARN 60% MFI AND THEY WANNA STAY IN THIS UNIT FOR 10 YEARS, THEY'RE ACTUALLY BARRED FROM LIVING IN THIS UNIT. 
          SO ACTUALLY WE JUST BARRED LONG-TERM RENTALS. 
          I THINK THE WAY IT'S DRAFTED, IF YOU READ IT, THAT D PORTION ACTUALLY CAUSED A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE HERE. 
          BUT THE, THE D AND, AND IF IT, IT IS, I, I HAD TO WRITE THIS WITHOUT, UH, THE, THE HELP OF, OF LEGAL STAFF. 
          SO, UH, AND NOT A LAWYER. 
          UM, BUT DD RELATES TO THE OWNERSHIP AND THEN SUB TWO C RELATES TO THE RENTAL. 
          SO THE OWNERSHIP, THE REQUIREMENT THAT I'M SUGGESTING FOR OWNERS IS THAT IF YOU'RE THE OWNER OF AN AFFORDABLE UNIT, UM, AND YOU CHOOSE, UH, I, I'M NOT GOING TO TELL A PERSON WHO OWNS AN AFFORDABLE UNIT, THEY CAN'T RENT THEIR UNIT OUT EVENTUALLY, BUT IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT, THEN THEY HAVE TO RENT IT OUT TO SOMEONE THAT IS, UH, 50% M-M-F-I-I, I GUESS LEMME CLARIFY THIS IN D WHERE IT SAYS UNITS FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS, DID YOU MEAN TO SAY FOR LESS THAN 30 DAYS? NO, C COVERS THE, UH, RENTAL OF UNITS FOR LESS THAN 30 DAYS. 
          D COVERS THE RENTAL OF UNITS FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS. 
          SO C IS THE SHORTER TERM RENTALS AND D IS THE LONGER TERM RENTALS. 
          IF YOU AS THE OWNER OF A, UM, AFFORDABLE UNIT CHOOSE TO RENT YOUR UNIT OUT, YOU CAN DO SO. 
          BUT THE LIMITATION IS YOU HAVE TO RENT IT TO SOMEONE WHO IS 50% MFI. 
          GOT IT. 
          SO THAT IS, OKAY, I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS INDEED THE INTENTION OF THE AMENDMENT AND IF THAT IS NOT, UH, O OBVIOUSLY LEGAL WILL, UH, CORRECT, CORRECT ME IF I'M, IF I'VE, IF I'VE WRITTEN IT INCORRECTLY. 
          BUT THAT IS MY INTENT. 
          NO, I UNDERSTOOD THE INTENT. 
          I WAS MISUNDERSTANDING THE INTENT. 
          I THINK THAT MAKES IT CLEAR. 
          UM, YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS AND THAT'S THE THREE QUESTIONS LOT. 
          DO YOU WANNA STATE YOUR MOTION? I HAD A QUESTION. 
          OH. 
          UM, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, CAN WE ALLOW COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS TO ASK A QUESTION? COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? GO AHEAD. 
          YEAH, SO I MAY BE CONFUSED NOW. 
          , BETWEEN ALL OF THE DISCUSSION, UM, C AN OWNER OF A RESIDENTIAL AFFORDABLE UNIT COMMISSIONER HAYNES MEETING, THE CRITERIA OF THIS SUBSECTION MAY LEASE THE UNIT FOR LESS THAN 30 DAYS A YEAR ONLY AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED BY SECTION FOUR 18 DASH 33, BUT IT'S 2323. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S COOL. 
          SO, UM, DOES THAT MEAN THAT SOMEONE WHO, THE OWNER, AND THAT WOULD BE A, A PERSON, A LOWER INCOME PERSON, COULD NOT RENT THEIR UNIT AT ALL UNLESS THEY ADHERE TO THAT SECTION? I, SO THEY COULDN'T DO IT AT ALL. 
          IT DE IT DEPENDS. 
          MY INTENT IS TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE LEASES THAT ARE, ARE FEWER DAYS IN TERM VERSUS THE LEASES THAT ARE MORE DAYS IN TERM. 
          AND SO IF YOU ARE THE OWNER OF AN AFFORDABLE UNIT, UH, THAT QUALIFIES AND THEN GOT THE DEVELOPER OF THAT PROJECT, THE EXTRA 30 FEET IN HEIGHT, THEN UM, I, I CAN'T PROHIBIT YOU FROM RENTING YOUR UNIT OUT FOR LESS THAN 30 DAYS. 
          BUT WHAT I CAN DO IS SAY IF YOU'RE GOING TO RENT IT OUT FOR LESS THAN 30 DAYS, YOU HAVE TO GO THERE. 
          THERE IS, AS MR BOOK STATED, THERE ARE ALREADY REQUIREMENTS IN THE CODE THAT PLACE LIMITS ON THE, THE RENTAL FOR SHORTER PERIODS EXISTING TODAY. 
          AND I'M ADDING 
          [01:50:01]
ONE MORE REQUIREMENT THAT SAYS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THIS, YOU HAVE TO GO IN FRONT OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO GET THAT APPROVED. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I GUESS I, I FEEL LIKE WHY WOULD WE CREATE THAT HURDLE FOR LESS THAN 30 DAYS? BECAUSE, BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S MY OPINION THAT, UM, AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT ARE, ARE SO MADE SO TERMED SHOULD BE USED FOR INDIVIDUALS YEAH. 
          WHO QUALIFY AND NEED AFFORDABLE UNITS. 
          BUT, BUT THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE FOR SHORT TERM RENT. 
          BUT IF THAT INDIVIDUAL IS GOING TO VISIT A FAMILY MEMBER AND THEY COULD REALLY USE THE INCOME, THEN THIS WOULD, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THESE HURDLES. 
          AND THAT TO ME IS PUNISHING SOMEBODY BECAUSE THEY'RE ON THE BACK END OF THE INCOME STRUCTURE. 
          SO I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S HOW I INTERPRET THIS AND I COULD, I PERSONALLY COULD NOT SUPPORT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          MM-HMM, . 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS. 
          UM, SO COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DO YOU WANNA STATE YOUR MOTION OR WE CAN SAY AS STATED EARLIER WITH THAT AMENDMENT THAT WITH THE AMENDMENT OF 14 22, 23 AS OPPOSED TO 33, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION. 
          SO STATE THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THE MOTION? SO WOULD IT BE OKAY TO TRY A SUBSTITUTE OR WOULD I HAVE TO WAIT FOR THIS? UM, BECAUSE THE MOTION DOES NOT HAVE A SECOND AT THE MOMENT, YOU CANNOT DO A SUBSTITUTE, BUT OF COURSE IN YOUR, SINCE WE'RE EVERYBODY'S ALLOWED TO GO THEIR ROUND, YOU WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO IT LATER. 
          OH, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, COX HAS SECOND. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH COMMISSIONER MAXWELL FOR RECORDING THAT UP. 
          UM, SO YES, ACTUALLY IF YOU WANNA MAKE A SUBSTITUTE, THIS WOULD BE THE TIME. 
          WELL, I WOULD MAKE THE SUBSTITUTE THAT IT WOULD BE MORE THAN 30 DAYS . 
          UM, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY THE VERY SAME THING, BUT MORE THAN 30 DAYS. 
          AND THAT WAY NO ONE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A HURDLE OF RENTING OUT THEIR, THEIR PLACE FOR 30 DAYS FOR A MONTH WHILE THEY ATTEND TO A SICK PERSON, UM, A SICK FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          'CAUSE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO AND I THINK THAT THAT'S, UH, A NOBLE CAUSE TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE AREN'T TRYING TO TO, TO EXPLOIT THE SYSTEM, BUT THERE ARE VERY REAL FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT DO ARISE. 
          SO I, I WOULD JUST ASK TO, TO LOOK AT IT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY. 
          AND COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, JUST TO CLARIFY BEFORE BIA FOR A SECOND, UM, YOU'RE SAYING IN C IT WOULD SAY UNITS FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS IN? EXACTLY. 
          PERFECT. 
          SO, UH, C AND D AS STATED WITH 14 EIGHT DASH FOUR 18 DASH 23 AND IT WOULD SAY FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS. 
          GOT IT. 
          AND DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? JUST CLARIFYING QUESTION IS, IS THIS MODIFYING BOTH CS? THERE'S, THERE'S  THREE PARAGRAPHS BEING AMENDED HERE, TWO OF WHICH RELATE TO LESS THAN 30 DAYS AS DRAFTED. 
          SO WE'RE MODIFYING BOTH OF THOSE TO SAY MORE THAN 30 DAYS. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT SEEMS LIKE, THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? OH, I'LL SECOND IT. 
          JUST SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER COX. 
          UM, SO SINCE THIS IS A SUBSTITUTE, WE'RE NOT ALIGNED QUESTIONS ON THIS, BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY SPEAK TO IT. 
          SO COMMISSIONER, UH, PHILLIPS, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? I THINK I'VE REALLY SPOKEN TO IT, BUT THE, I UNDERSTAND THAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS TRYING TO PREVENT SHORT TERM RENTALS, UM, THESE KINDS OF OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING BEING USED AS SHORT TERM RENTALS. 
          SO I UNDERSTAND THE GOAL AND I APPRECIATE THAT GOAL. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING WE TALKED ABOUT DURING HOME IN THE WORK GROUP. 
          HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS INDEED BEING USED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING? BUT I, I THOUGHT THAT THE OTHER RESTRICTION WOULD NOT ALLOW GENUINE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARISE IN PEOPLE'S, UM, REAL LIVES IN ORDER TO HELP THEM OVERCOME THOSE CHALLENGES SO THAT THIS WOULD BE A WAY OF INCORPORATING, UH, WHAT HE'S TRYING TO DO AND WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IN THE WORK GROUP, BUT AT THE SAME TIME GIVING FLEXIBILITY TO PEOPLE IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES AND NOT PUNISHING THEM FOR THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING. 
          MR. BROOKS, DID YOU WANNA, OKAY. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST COMM COMMISSIONER COX? I WAS GONNA ASK, 
          [01:55:01]
I IF, IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK STAFF A QUESTION AT THIS POINT, OR IS THAT A NO-GO. 
          IT IS A NO-GO ON. 
          UNLESS THERE IS NO OBJECTION WITH ONE SLIDE CAVEAT. 
          I'LL JUST BE HONEST TO EVERYBODY ON THIS DICE, I'M LOOKING AT THE TIME, IT'S 8:00 PM WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS ITEM AND THEN WE HAVE TO DO ALL OF OUR DISCUSSION CASES FOR TONIGHT. 
          UM, AND I KNOW WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS WHO DO NOT WISH TO GO BEYOND A TIME CERTAIN, SO IF WE HAVE THAT LIMITATION, I LEAVE IT TO THE BODY TO FIGURE THAT OUT. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER THEN I, I WON'T, I WON'T ASK A QUESTION. 
          I I'LL JUST, I'LL JUST CHIP IN MY 2 CENTS, WHICH IS REALLY NOT FOR OR AGAINST, I, I, I COMPLETELY AGREE AND SUPPORT WITH COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS, IS TRYING TO DO, I I REALLY APPRECIATE, UH, WHAT COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS SAID BECAUSE IT, IT, IT MADE ME START THINKING ABOUT THINGS A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY. 
          BUT I GUESS WHERE I'M AT WITH, WITH THE WHOLE IDEA OF, OF SHORT TERM RENTALS STR IS THAT SHORT TERM RENTALS TO ME TEND TO BE, UM, THE MAJORITY OF THEM TEND TO BE A, A, A PROFIT MAKING TYPE BUSINESS. 
          UM, WHEREAS LIKE LEASING OUT YOUR SPACE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO MOVE OR YOU HAVE TO BECOME A CARETAKER OR SOMETHING, THAT TENDS TO BE A LONGER TERM LEASE, I WOULD THINK. 
          UM, BUT ALSO LONG-TERM LEASES, MOST OF THOSE ARE PROFIT BUSINESS. 
          IT, THE POINT IS, IS THAT WE NEED TO FIND A BALANCE OF MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT ABUSING, UH, RESTRICTED INCOME, AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR PROFIT MOTIVES, BECAUSE THAT'S KIND OF COUNTER TO THE POINT OF IT. 
          AND SO I SUPPORT BOTH OF THESE EVEN THOUGH I KNOW THEY'RE THE EXACT OPPOSITE, BUT FOR THE, THE, THE PRINCIPLE THAT WE NEED TO FIND A SOLUTION TO, TO, TO THAT ISSUE OF POTENTIAL ABUSE. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER COX. 
          ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THE SUBSTITUTE? COMMISSIONER AL. 
          OKAY. 
          I AM GONNA SURPRISE A COUPLE OF YOU, AND I'M ACTUALLY GONNA SPEAK AGAINST THIS. 
          AND MY REASONING IS THAT THE STR ISSUE IS A LOT BIGGER THAN THE DB 90, UM, ISSUE. 
          AND IT ALSO TRENDS UP TOWARDS MANY OTHER CITIES AND STATE LEGISLATURE AND WHAT WE SAW GO THROUGH STATE LEDGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. 
          SO, UM, I THINK THAT TRYING TO PUT THIS IN ON A PARTICULAR PROPERTY TYPE, I ACTUALLY DO THINK IT, IT, IT BOGS US DOWN. 
          IT PUTS US IN IN POTENTIAL RISK FOR THAT. 
          AND I THINK THESE EFFORTS ON HOW WE HANDLE STR IN OUR CITY ARE, ARE PROBABLY GOING TO GET RESOLVED MORE AT THE, UM, STATE LEDGE LEVEL, UM, THAN IN THIS SMALL PIECE OF CODE . 
          THIS IS MY OWN THOUGHT. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER AL. 
          AND, AND, AND REQUEST FOR PEOPLE TO RESOLVE THIS AT THE STATE BETWEEN PROPERTY RIGHTS AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER STALLER, UM, OTHER COMMISSIONERS FOR OR AGAINST NOT SEEING ANY, CAN WE GO AHEAD. 
          THIS IS A SUBSTITUTE BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COX. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HANDS OR YOUR GREEN CARDS. 
          THOSE AGAINST AND THOSE ABSTAINING. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT MOTION FAILS WITH COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, HAYNES AND COX VOTING IN FAVOR. 
          COMMISSIONER WOODS AND COMMISSIONER AL ARE ABSTAINING. 
          UM, AND THE REST OF THE DAES AGAINST THIS TAKES US BACK TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S, UM, ORIGINAL MOTION WE'RE STILL IN THE FOREFRONT AGAINST ON THAT, UM, PARDON ME CHAIR? YES. 
          IS COMMISSIONER HAYNES MOTION, IS THIS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OR THIS WAS A SUB SUB DISPUTE AND IT'S, IT'S, WE'VE DECLINED TO SUPPORT IT. 
          SO NOW WE'VE GONE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          OKAY. 
          SECOND CHAIRMAN BY COMMISSIONER COX. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN? YES. 
          WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
          I'LL WITHDRAW MY MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          I CAN COUNT. 
          LET'S SEE. 
          I DO NOT SEE AN OBJECTION. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT, THAT AMENDMENT IS WITHDRAWN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          UM, THIS TAKES US TO COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          DO YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT? I DO NOT CHAIR. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          THIS TAKES US TO MYSELF. 
          UM, I HAD TWO AMENDMENTS AND I MIGHT ACTUALLY NOT PROPOSE ONE, UM, FOR THE INTEREST OF TIME, BUT THE OTHER ONE, I'LL GO AHEAD. 
          STAFF HAD CIRCULATED THESE PREVIOUSLY. 
          UM, AND I'LL GO OVER MY AMENDMENT AS SOON AS I CAN PULL UP MY AMENDMENT . 
          UM, BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT DOES IS THERE WERE CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY THAT WERE REVISED AND AMENDED IN CHAPTER FOUR 18, UM, BY COUNCIL AS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EO ORDINANCE. 
          AND SO THERE'S CERTAIN PROVISIONS 
          [02:00:01]
OF IT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO BE APPLIED TO THIS. 
          SO REALLY, UM, WHAT IT DOES IS, AND I CAN EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS IN A SECOND, BUT YOU KNOW, I SET THE LANGUAGE, IT'S IN RED IN HIGHLIGHTED. 
          SO IN C TWO WHERE IT SAYS OF CHAPTER 14, WE WOULD SAY, AND WHEN APPLICABLE, SECTION FOUR DASH 18 DASH 32, EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY SEC, UH, STRUCTURES SUBSECTION A TWO TO A FIVE. 
          AND THEN IT WOULD CONTINUE BEFORE APPLYING FOR THE PERMIT. 
          WHAT THAT MEANS IS ESSENTIALLY THAT THIS WOULD NOW REQUIRE THAT FOR ANY DB 90 STRUCTURE, IF SOMEBODY IS REDEVELOPING AN EXISTING MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE, THEY WOULD NOW BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE TENANTS WITH A NOTICE, UM, AS DEVELOPED BY OUR HOUSING DIRECTOR. 
          RELOCATION BENEFITS THAT WOULD EQUAL FOUR MONTHS OF RENT AND FEES, A FIXED PAYMENT FOR MOVING EXPENSES BASED ON A URA, UM, UM, ASSISTANCE THAT EXISTS. 
          GRANT CURRENT TENANTS OPTION TO LEASE FOR A MINIMUM OF 12 MONTHS UNIT OF COMPARABLE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS OR SIZE ALLOW CURRENT, UH, TENANT TO TERMIN TO LEASE WITHOUT PENALTY AND RETURN SECURITY DEPOSITS TO CURRENT TENANTS, UM, IN THAT PERIOD. 
          SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT IS. 
          AND I'LL, I'LL STOP THERE TO SEE IF FOLKS HAVE QUESTIONS. 
          UM, I AM VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT, BUT I JUST WANNA CLARIFY WHETHER THIS POTENTIALLY PUTS ANY OF THE PREVIOUSLY REZONED DB 90 CASES INTO IMMEDIATE NON-COMPLIANCE BECAUSE OF THE TIMING. 
          AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR REMINDING ME OF THE SECOND PART OF MY OWN AMENDMENT, UH, WHICH AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS IS IN ESSENTIALLY WOULD SAY THAT THIS WOULD NOT BE ENACTED UNTIL OCTOBER 1ST, 2024. 
          SO WHAT THAT WOULD, IN ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION, SO ESSENTIALLY, UM, OCTOBER 1ST DATE IS FOR THE FACT FACT THAT IF YOU REMEMBER, WE'VE HAD A VM U2 CASES THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH AND WITH THE LAWSUIT THEY WENT INTO THE DB 90 COUNCIL INITIATED, UM, THAT CHANGE AT THE START OF THIS YEAR. 
          SO THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO THOSE THAT WERE IN THE PIPELINE UNDER THE SORT OF PREVIOUS ORDINANCE REGIME, BUT IT WOULD APPLY MOVING FORWARD AS PEOPLE COME IN WITH NEWER PROJECTS. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WOODS FOR POINTING IT OUT. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT, UM, ARTICLE FOUR DASH 18. 
          AND AGAIN, THIS MIGHT BE FOR YOU, IT MIGHT BE FOR STAFF. 
          UH, YOU REFERENCED A TWO THROUGH A FIVE, BUT WHEN LOOKING AT THE MOST RECENT CODIFIED VERSION OF FOUR 18, IT STOPS AT A FOUR. 
          WAS THERE, AND I PROBABLY SHOULD KNOW THIS, , WAS THERE A RECENT CHANGE TO FOUR 18 THAT HAS NOT BEEN CODIFIED YET ON THE CITY'S MUNI CODE SERVICE THAT INCLUDES THE PROVISIONS YOU WERE REFERENCING? YES, THERE WAS. 
          SORRY, YOU NEED YOUR MICROPHONE. 
          IT'S NOT, OH, IS THIS ON? OKAY. 
          SO THERE WAS A, UH, ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT TO FOUR 18 ON MAY 16TH, AND THAT IS NOT ON THE VERSION THAT'S ON MUNI CODE THAT YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          AND TO CLARIFY, UH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, UH, THE, THE BACKUP THAT I SENT YOU ALL, UM, ACTUALLY INCLUDES THE RELEVANT SECTIONS THAT I'M REFERRING TO. 
          THEY WOULD NOT BE ADDED IN HERE, BUT THEY'RE JUST FOR BACKGROUND BECAUSE I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE THESE CHANGES HAVE HAPPENED RECENTLY. 
          IT'S BEEN HARD TO FIND SOME OF THOSE CHANGES AS THEY'VE OCCURRED. 
          OKAY. 
          I, YEAH, I SEE THAT. 
          UM, THAT ANSWERS THAT. 
          I THINK THAT'S THE, UH, I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UH, YES, CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR THE MOTION MAKER. 
          UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AT SOME POINT WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE FOUR CHAPTER FOUR 18 DOES NOT ACTIVELY APPLY TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, UM, DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS. IS THAT PART OF THE REASON THIS AMENDMENT EXISTS? IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. 
          SO, UM, 1 4 18 WAS DONE, UH, SINCE IT'S BEEN APPLIED. 
          IT ONLY RIGHT NOW APPLIES TO ETOD, UM, WHERE HOPEFULLY WE CAN APPLY TO A DV 90 MOVING FORWARD. 
          IF COUNCIL ACCEPTS THIS AMENDMENT, YOU'LL ACCEPT THIS AMENDMENT AND THEN MOVING FORWARD, ESSENTIALLY MY HOPE WOULD BE THAT WE CAN SLOWLY, SLOWLY START REFERRING THESE DIFFERENT SECTIONS TO FOUR 18 IN ALL OF OUR DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS. GREAT. 
          SO THIS WOULD ACTUALLY BE A FIRST STEP FORWARD FOR INCLUDING FOUR 18 AND MORE OF OUR DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS? YES, AND MY HOPE WOULD, AND I, I'LL, I'LL PAUSE FROM SPEAKING TO IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S THREE QUESTIONS. 
          I'LL GO AHEAD AND STATE THE MOTION. 
          SO THIS WOULD BE AS STATED, UM, I WOULD BE ADDING THE LANGUAGE IN C TWO AFTER OFF CHAPTER FOUR 18 AND WHEN APPLICABLE, SECTION FOUR DASH 18 DASH 32, EXISTING MULTIFAMILY, UH, SUB UH, STRUCTURES, SUBSECTION A TWO TO A FIVE. 
          AND THEN I WOULD CONTINUE AS BEFORE APPLYING FOR A BUILDING PERMIT. 
          AND THIS WOULD ONLY, THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ONLY BE ENACTED AFTER THE OCTOBER 1ST DATE. 
          DO WE, DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? COMMISSIONER WOODS? UM, I WILL GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO THE MOTION. 
          UM, I'M NOT GONNA TAKE TOO MUCH TIME EXCEPT TO SAY REALLY, I THINK Y'ALL AGREE WITH US. 
          IF YOU REMEMBER, WE TRY TO WORK ON THIS COLLECTIVELY WITHIN EO AS WELL, TRYING TO REALLY HAVE SOME PROTECTIONS FOR TENANTS AND EXISTING MULTIFAMILY IF IT IS BEING REDEVELOPED. 
          WHILE WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE MORE HOUSING ON COMMERCIAL SITES AND OTHER SITES, WE ALSO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT DISPLACING EXISTING, UM, RESIDENTS OR LOSING 
          [02:05:01]
LARGE AMOUNTS OF NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          SO REALLY THIS IS A WAY TO PROVIDE THAT SORT OF STABILIZATION WITHIN OUR CODE. 
          UM, AND IT WOULD OF COURSE, UM, APPLY ONLY TO THESE DB 90 AND MY HOPE WOULD BE IN THE FUTURE WE CAN APPLY TO OTHER SECTIONS AS WELL. 
          FOLKS SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION. 
          ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING FOR THE MOTION? OH, Y'ALL ARE REALLY HELPING US MOVE ALONG. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO IF WE DO NOT HAVE AN OBJECTION, CAN WE TAKE A VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT? SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HANDS OR VOTE THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH. 
          THIS TAKES US BACK TO THE START OF THE LINE. 
          UM, AND, UH, COMMISSIONER MOTO, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT. 
          I IF FOLKS DON'T MIND, I'M NOT GONNA ASK EVERYBODY TO STATE IF THEY HAVE A MOTION OR NOT. 
          THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND STARTING. 
          I KNOW COMMISSIONER MTO HAS AN AMENDMENT. 
          I KNOW COMMISSIONER HAYNES HAS AN AMENDMENT. 
          IF SOMEBODY ELSE HAS AN AMENDMENT, JUST PLEASE FLAG IT DOWN FOR ME AND I'LL PUT YOU IN THE QUEUE. 
          COMMISSIONER STOLLER, PLEASE PROCEED. 
          PARDON ME? CHAIR. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, YOU WERE VOTE VOTING FOR THIS. 
          OKAY. 
          PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 
          MR. GRANT WAS A, UH, AS HARWOODS AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER AL, PLEASE PROCEED. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO G FIVE. 
          THIS CURRENTLY STATES MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MAY NOT PRODUCE SOUND IN EXCESS OF 70 DB MEASURED AT THE SITE'S PROPERTY LINE OR ALLEYWAY THAT IS SHARED WITH THE TRIGGERING PROPERTY. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, DELETE 70 DB AND REPLACE THAT WITH 45 DB, WHICH WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR HEALTH BENEFITS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. 
          COMMISSIONER STALLER, I'M, I'M SO SORRY. 
          CAN I ASK YOU TO RESTATE THAT JUST FOR MY BENEFIT? SO THIS IS, SORRY, I'M PLAYING WITH TWO SCREENS HERE. 
          , FORGIVE ME. 
          UM, THIS IS G THIS IS THE, THE DRAFT THAT WE HAVE G FIVE, WHICH CURRENTLY STATES MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MAY NOT PRODUCE SOUND IN EXCESS OF SEVEN DB ET CETERA, ET CETERA. 
          AND I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO DELETE THE SEVEN DB AND REPLACE THAT WITH 45 DB. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER, AND JUST FOR THOSE FOLKS FOLLOWING ALONG, THIS IS LINE 89 IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, UM, SHARED BY STAFF. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          QUESTIONS ON THIS AMENDMENT? UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. BROOKS. 
          I REMEMBER WE HAD KIND OF A LONG CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS WHEN WE WERE PASSING THE ORIGINAL DB 90 ORDINANCE, AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU REMEMBER, CAN HELP JOG MY MEMORY ABOUT WHAT, WHAT LANDED US ON 70? UM, SO THE 70 DECIBEL LIMIT IS, WAS AN EXISTING REQUIREMENT THAT IS JUST BEING CARRIED OVER. 
          UM, SO THAT'S WHERE THE NUMBER CAME FROM, AN EXISTING REQUIREMENT UNDER WHICH POSITION IT WAS UNDER THE COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO UNDERSTOOD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER COX, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          NOT A QUESTION, BUT JUST TO REFRESH EVERYONE'S MEMORY, WE, WE HAD A, UH, A REALLY GOOD CONVERSATION ABOUT NOISE AND NOISE LIMITS WHEN WE WERE, UH, CONSIDERING THE COMPATIBILITY MODIFICATIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. 
          AND, UH, THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME APPROVED MY AMENDMENT THAT DID ESSENTIALLY WHAT COMMISSIONER AL'S AMENDMENT DID. 
          AND IF Y'ALL ARE CURIOUS TO KNOW, WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT STAFF, UM, OPPOSED IT TO COUNCIL, UH, AND, AND COUNCIL DID NOT ADOPT IT IN THE FINAL REGULATION. 
          STAFF CAN ELABORATE HOPEFULLY ON THEIR OPPOSITION TO THAT, BUT I REFRESHED MY MEMORY AND READ THEIR NOTE THAT BASICALLY JUST SAID THAT THE NOISE IS HANDLED ELSEWHERE, WHICH DIDN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE TO ME. 
          'CAUSE IF NOISE IS HANDLED ELSEWHERE, WHY ARE WE EVEN MAKING REFERENCE TO IT HERE? 'CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE HANDLING IT HERE. 
          UM, SO IF STAFF WANTS TO CLARIFY THEIR PREVIOUS OPPOSITION OR WHY THERE'S EVEN A 70 DECIBEL LIMIT IN THIS LANGUAGE TO BEGIN WITH. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, UM, AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO LOOK INTO THIS DECIBEL LIMIT, WE MET WITH THE AUSTIN CODE TEAM, UM, AND THEY LET US KNOW THAT BASICALLY THIS REQUIREMENT IS ONLY UM, ENFORCED AFTER A COMPLAINT IS MADE THROUGH A 3 1 1 CALL. 
          UM, AND SO IT FELT MORE, UM, KIND OF PROACTIVE TO REQUIRE MORE SCREENING 
          [02:10:01]
OF THE ELEMENTS THAT MAKE NOISE OF, BECAUSE THAT WOULD CREATE A BARRIER TO THE NOISE, EXCUSE ME, REACHING THE SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY. 
          SO THAT IS HOW WE WANTED TO ACT ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M NOT SURE IF THAT TOTALLY MAKES SENSE TO ME, BUT, UM, I'M, I'M SURE I'M CLOSE TO OUT OF TIME ANYWAYS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER COX. 
          OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? IF NOT, COMMISSIONER AL, DO YOU WANNA STATE YOUR MOTION? I MEAN, WE HAVE A MOTION. 
          DO YOU, I GUESS, CAN YOU SAY, I GUESS, SAY MOTION AS YOU HAD RECOMMENDED EARLIER? YES. 
          SO MOTION IS PREVIOUSLY STATED. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THIS MOTION? COMMISSIONER COX. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER MOTIONAL AND COMM, UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER SCHULER. 
          DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO IT? YEAH, I DO. 
          I THINK ONE OF MY CONCERNS, SO THIS IS, I'M LOOKING FOR WAYS TO, UM, SMARTLY GROW OUR CITY AND INCREASE OUR DENSITY. 
          AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE LIKE ABOUT DB 90 IS BRINGING IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND BRING, AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING IN DIFFERENT KINDS OF HOUSING INTO DIFFERENT AREAS, WHICH MEANS THERE'S EXISTING, POTENTIALLY EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREA, AND THEN WE'RE BRINGING IN RESIDENTS. 
          SO WE HAVE OLD AND NEW RESIDENTS, BOTH AS WE INCREASE DENSITY, ONE OF THE KEY DETERMINANT, AND WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION WHEN WE TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, DENSE HOUSING ALONG FREEWAYS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          AND WE TALK ABOUT LACK OF EQUITY AND THINGS LIKE THIS. 
          SO I'M LOOKING TO PROTECT BOTH EXISTING RESIDENTS AND NEW RESIDENTS THAT WOULD BE OCCUPYING THESE UNITS BY LOOKING AT WHAT THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION RECOMMENDS. 
          UM, IN TERMS OF PROMOTING HEALTHY, DENSE LIVING, WE KNOW THAT HIGHER LEVELS OF DB INTERFERE WITH PEOPLE'S SLEEP. 
          WE KNOW THAT THAT'S LINKED TO HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE AND POOR HEALTH OUTCOMES. 
          SO AS WE INCREASE DENSITY, I'M LOOKING TO MAKE THAT WORK THE LONG-TERM, BOTH FOR EXISTING AND, AND NEW RESIDENTS. 
          AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT OUR, I MEAN, AND STAFF CAN CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, UPDATE. 
          I DIDN'T GET TO ASK, BUT I DON'T THINK ANY OF THESE DETERMINATIONS AND THESE 70 DBS THAT THEY'RE COMING FROM HAVE ACTUALLY COME FROM AUSTIN PUBLIC HEALTH OR THE MEDICAL SOCIETY. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'VE HAD A CHANCE TO WEIGH IN ON THIS. 
          SO I'M PULLING FROM WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER AL. 
          ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION? COMMISSIONER COX, ARE YOU, I'M PRESUMING YOU'RE SPEAKING FOR GO AHEAD. 
          YEAH, YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF RECAP, UH, SOME OF MY THOUGHTS WHEN WE SPOKE ABOUT THIS PREVIOUSLY. 
          UH, ONE, WE DO LIKE TO COMPARE OURSELVES TO PEER CITIES. 
          CITIES THAT ARE DENSER THAN US, UM, HAVE LOWER NOISE LIMITS. 
          WE LOOKED THAT UP DURING THE WHOLE COMPATIBILITY. 
          UH, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES PREVIOUSLY, EARLIER THIS YEAR. 
          UM, THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT MODERN EQUIPMENT MAYBE NOT BEING ABLE TO MEET THAT STANDARD. 
          WE CONFIRMED THAT MODERN EQUIPMENT DEFINITELY DOES MEET THAT STANDARD. 
          AND THE BONUS IS SCREENING IS ONE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAYS TO LOWER NOISE. 
          SO BY ADDING THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS LIKE WE'RE DOING IN THIS AMENDMENT, WE'RE ALREADY HELPING TO ACHIEVE THAT LOWER NOISE LIMIT. 
          AND MY FINAL THOUGHT ON THIS IS THAT THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD THINGS ABOUT HAVING A DENSER CITY AND HAVING MORE PEOPLE LIVE CLOSER TO EACH OTHER. 
          UM, BUT THERE ARE UNDENIABLY UH, UH, NOT GOOD THINGS WHEN IT COMES TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE THAT CAN HAPPEN AS WELL. 
          THE GREAT NEWS IS THAT WE CAN MITIGATE THOSE THINGS AND, AND ONE OF THOSE MAJOR, MAJOR ITEMS IS NOISE. 
          AND SO I REALLY THINK WE NEED TO BE MORE IN LINE WITH OUR PEER CITIES, MAYBE MOVE INTO THE MODERN ERA WHEN WE, UH, SPEAK ABOUT URBAN NOISE. 
          AND THIS IS ONE STEP THAT WILL HELP US GET THERE. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER COX. 
          ANY LAST FOLKS WHO ARE, UH, SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THIS MOTION? IF NOT, UH, CAN WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON IT? IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND OR SHOW YOUR GREEN CARD THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          UM, LET ME JUST, I'M SORRY, JUST TAKING NOTES AS WE GO ALONG. 
          UM, I'LL JUST, I'LL JUST NOTE REAL QUICK, THAT'S THE SECOND TIME THIS PC HAS APPROVED THAT AMENDMENT. 
          . 
          UH, COMMISSIONER COX, DID YOU HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS IN THE SECOND ROUND? NO. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER MUSSER HAD THE ONE I WAS INTERESTED IN. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES COMM. 
          I WILL REMIND YOU, COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          SO WE ALLOW TWO ROUNDS OF AMENDMENTS BY RIGHT, AND AFTER THAT, IF IT'S NO OBJECTION OR WE TAKE A VOTE ON IT. 
          SO IF, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, IF YOU PRIORITIZE, IF YOU WISH TO PRIORITIZE. 
          PERFECT. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          UH, YEAH, IF YOU'LL LOOK AT HAYNES AMENDMENT TWO, AND I, I'LL JUST BE STRAIGHT UP HONEST. 
          [02:15:01]
I, I FEEL A LITTLE CITY SILLY BRINGING THIS ONE. 
          I, I STARTED WITH A, WITH A HARD ONE AND, AND YOU KNOW, MY DEAR FRIEND AND GOOD DOCTOR COMMISSIONER LER, UM, I UNDERSTAND WHY FOLKS ARE A LITTLE, LITTLE IFFY OR, OR, UH, NERVOUS AT TAKING UP STR. 
          I I DO THINK THE LEGISLATURE WILL WEIGH IN ON THAT. 
          UH, BUT THIS ONE'S EASY. 
          UH, LIKE, UH, THE LAST ONE WE, UH, PASSED THIS ONE, UH, THIS COMMISSION HAS ALREADY PASSED THIS. 
          AND, UH, BASICALLY, UM, UNLIKE THE LAST ONE THAT WADES INTO, UH, PRICKLY AREA OF, UM, SDRS, THIS ONE INCREASES AFFORDABILITY. 
          THIS ONE INCREASES DOLLARS THAT GO TO AFFORDABLE UNITS. 
          AND, UH, LIKE THE LAST TIME, UH, THIS COMMISSION PASSED THIS ONE AND, UH, IT GOT LOST IN THE SHUFFLE, DIDN'T GET LOST, STAFF OBJECTED IT, DIDN'T MAKE IT TO THE COUNCIL. 
          AND WE'RE GONNA TRY A SECOND TIME JUST LIKE WE DID ON THE PREVIOUS ONE. 
          AND WHAT THIS DOES IS SAYS THAT, UM, I CAN'T, UH, MANDATE FROM THIS SEAT THAT, UH, OWNERS BUILD THEIR, UM, AFFORDABLE UNITS ON SITE. 
          BUT WHAT I CAN DO IS INCENTIVIZE. 
          AND SO WHAT THIS DOES IS SAYS, UH, IF YOU DON'T BUILD ON SITE AND YOU'RE GOING TO USE THE THE AND L PROGRAM, THAT IS STILL YOUR RIGHT AND STILL YOUR ABILITY TO DO SO. 
          BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA DO THAT, WE'RE GONNA INCREASE THE FEE THAT YOU PAY FROM WHAT, WHAT IS CURRENTLY A HUNDRED PERCENT TO 125% OF THE, UH, CALCULATION THAT IS, THAT IS USED BY OUR HOUSING DEPARTMENT. 
          AND THAT MONEY, THAT EXTRA MONEY WILL GO INTO THE, UM, THE SAME TRUST AND, UH, SO WE'LL HAVE MORE FUNDS TO INCREASE AFFORDABILITY ACROSS THE CITY. 
          AND THAT'S MY MOTION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OR THAT'S MY AMENDMENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER COX, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          UH, MY MEMORY'S NOT THE SAME AS IT USED TO BE, BUT, UM, I KNOW WE PASSED THIS PREVIOUSLY AND I THOUGHT THAT WE ACTUALLY GOT A, A GENERALLY POSITIVE RECEPTION FROM STAFF WHEN WE WERE SPEAKING ABOUT THIS, UH, LAST GO AROUND. 
          SO IF STAFF COULD EXPLAIN TO US WHY THEY OBJECTED TO THIS RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          YEAH, SO THIS, UH, WAS PROPOSED FOR THE DENSITY BONUS ETOD PROGRAM. 
          THE, SO IT WAS NOT PROPOSED FOR DB 90, SO THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IT'S BEING PROPOSED FOR THIS PROGRAM. 
          AND, UH, MR IF I CAN ANSWER, UH, COMMISSIONER COX FOR ONE, UH, FOR THE DB NINE, UH, SORRY FOR THE EO PROGRAM, THAT ACTUALLY IS INCLUDED. 
          IT'S IN THE FINAL ORDINANCE. 
          STAFF PROPOSED IT AS AN AMENDMENT. 
          OH, I DIDN'T THINK, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE DRAFT. 
          I DON'T KNOW. 
          MR. BROOKS. 
          YES, IT IS A PART OF THE DBE ETOD PROGRAM. 
          OH, THAT'S GREAT NEWS. 
          THEN. 
          I HAVE NO, THAT IS FURTHER QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T THINK IT MADE IT. 
          THAT'S AWESOME. 
          SO NOW IT EVEN MAKES IT EVEN MORE APPROPRIATE. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS AMENDMENT? IF NOT, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DO YOU WANT US, I GUESS AS STATED, DO YOU WANNA JUST SET YOUR MOTION AS SUCH, MOTION AS SUCH? DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? COMMISSIONER COX, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION ALREADY DONE? SO ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THIS MOTION? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          UH, I DO WISH I WOULD'VE SPOKEN OUT AGAINST LAST TIME. 
          I JUST DIDN'T SEE THAT ONE PASSING AND IT, AND IT DID BY THE SKIN OF ITS TEETH. 
          SO IT, IT'S INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO BUILD CONDOS IN THE CITY ALREADY, LIKE UNBELIEVABLY DIFFICULT. 
          AND SO TO COME UP WITH AN IDEA OF, HEY, HERE'S ANOTHER WAY THAT WE CAN MAKE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONDOS IN AUSTIN MORE EXPENSIVE. 
          IT SOUNDS GREAT. 
          LIKE IF YOU, IF YOU HOLD UP THE NEWSPAPER, LOOK WHAT WE DID ON PAPER. 
          BUT WHEN THE REALITY IS YOU'RE JUST MAKING CONDOS HARDER TO BUILD AND MORE EXPENSIVE TO BUILD, AND YOU GET FEWER CONDOS, AND I'M MOVING INTO A CONDO BUILDING RIGHT NOW AND THE LUCKY 200 FAMILIES THAT WERE ABLE TO GET INTO THIS CONDO BUILDING, IT SOLD OUT WITHIN MOMENTS. 
          IT'S SOLD OUT IN ABSOLUTE IN A FLASH AND 15% OF THE BUILDING IS AFFORDABLE. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DEAL WITH THOSE, THE ISSUES OF TRYING TO LAND ON THE HOA AND, AND THE LONG-TERM AFFORDABILITY OF THOSE CONDOS. 
          BUT I UNDERSTAND FULLY WHY STAFF HAS ALLOWED FOR THIS BEING U LOU, IT DOES MAKE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF SENSE WHEN YOU TRY TO WORK WITH THOSE FAMILIES WHO ARE HAVING HUGE ISSUES RIGHT NOW WITH TCAD AND WHATNOT. 
          BUT TO JUST COME UP WITH A WAY TO CHARGE MORE AND MAKE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONDOS MORE EXPENSIVE IN THIS CITY IS SOMETHING I HOPE TO NEVER SEE PAST FROM THIS BODY AGAIN, I DEFINITELY WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS. 
          ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION? I'LL, IF FOLKS DON'T MIND, I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND QUICKLY SAY, I WILL BE ABSTAINING ON THIS. 
          AND ALTHOUGH I AGREE WITH YOU, UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES ON THE THING I, WHAT I TALKED TO YOU ABOUT WAS WE ARE GOING 
          [02:20:01]
THROUGH OUR, OUR STAFF IS WORKING THROUGH WITH A CONSULTANT ON A COMPREHENSIVE, UM, DENSITY BONUS, REFORMATION AND CALIBRATION THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR. 
          AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GET A MEMO, HOPEFULLY, KNOCK ON WOOD BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, WHEREBY WE WILL BE LOOKING AT CALIBRATION ACROSS THE BOARD. 
          AND I GENUINELY FEEL LIKE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE CALIBRATION, BECAUSE I THINK WITH ET O THERE WERE TWO THINGS THAT FOR ME WERE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT. 
          AND I DID VOTE FOR THAT AMENDMENT, AND I THINK IT WAS A GOOD AMENDMENT. 
          WE WERE TALKING ABOUT 120 FEET AT SOME OF THE MOST HIGH MARKET PARTS OF OUR CITY AT SOME OF THE MOST CRITICAL HIGH MARKET, HIGH DEMAND CORRIDORS IN OUR CITY, DB 90, WHICH IS A PROGRAM THAT APPLIES ELSEWHERE. 
          I THINK IT LEADS TO COMPLICATION AT THIS POINT. 
          I'M ABSTAINING JUST BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE CALIBRATION, BUT I APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENT. 
          ANY OTHER FOLKS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? NOW WE CAN GO AHEAD AND TAKE A, I I JUST HAVE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. 
          UH, GIVEN WHAT COMM COMMISSIONER ANDERSONS, UH, HAS SAID IT, IT WOULD REALLY BE NICE TO HAVE SOME DATA THAT WE COULD, COULD HAVE SO THAT WE COULD BE BASING OUR DECISIONS ON DATA, UH, IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT, UM, THIS, BECAUSE AS YOU SAID, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SAID THOSE CONDOS WERE SOLD WITHIN FIVE MINUTES OR TWO DAYS OR WHATEVER, UM, AND IF THEY HAD BEEN A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPENSIVE, THEY PROBABLY STILL WOULD'VE SOLD WITHIN MAYBE FOUR DAYS AS OPPOSED TO TWO. 
          UH, AND SO GLAD THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO MOVE INTO TO THAT BUILDING. 
          BUT IT WOULD JUST REALLY BE NICE TO HAVE SOME DATA TO EITHER, UM, TALK ABOUT IF, IF THIS FEE IS SOMETHING I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FEE WOULD, WOULD, WHAT THE RANGE OF FEES ARE, WHAT THEY WOULD GO TO FROM A HUNDRED PERCENT TO 125%, HOW MUCH MORE HOUSING COULD BE BUILT BASED ON THAT. 
          I, I THINK WE, WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DON'T WANNA SQUEEZE PEOPLE EITHER. 
          YOU DON'T WANNA CREATE A SITUATION WHERE THINGS CAN'T BE BUILT, BUT WHAT'S THE BALANCE? AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LACKING HERE. 
          INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND IF WE VOTE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, HOW DOES THAT IMPACT THE WHOLE? SO YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING ON THE ITEM. 
          DO WE WANT TO, OH, COMMISSIONER COX, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          THIS AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS SUBSIDIZED BY MARKET RATE UNITS. 
          SO IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THEN WE NEED TO HAVE A MUCH BROADER CONVERSATION. 
          WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THIS AMENDMENT IS INCREASING THE SUBSIDY SO THAT WE MORE THAN LIKELY GET ONSITE AFFORDABLE UNITS RATHER THAN MONEY PUTTING INTO SOMEONE'S BANK ACCOUNT. 
          AND IF THE MONEY GETS PUT INTO SOMEONE'S BANK ACCOUNT, THEN WE HAVE MORE TO SPEND ON, ON SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE UNITS. 
          SO TO ME, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE NOT TO SUPPORT THIS. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. 
          UM, THAT'S THREE FOURS. 
          WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER ACCOUNTS. 
          I'M GONNA, OH, COMMISSIONER, UH, UH, MAXWELL, GO AHEAD. 
          OH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UH, I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THIS EITHER. 
          AND I THINK THAT THE POINTS THAT WERE MADE EARLIER ABOUT DATA AND OUR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS WOULD IMPACT SOMETHING LIKE DB 90 ARE REALLY CRITICAL TO INCLUDE DB 90 IS THE ENGINE THAT BUILDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS CITY. 
          AND ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS, WHATEVER THEY LOOK LIKE, ARE UNNECESSARY BURDENS TO A CITY THAT DESPERATELY NEEDS MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS. 
          AND IF I UNDERSTOOD CLEARLY FROM STAFF OR HOW THIS WAS GOING TO IMPACT OR THE FACT THAT WE WERE DOING DENSITY BONUS RECALIBRATION ANYWAY, I MIGHT BE MORE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS. 
          BUT WHY WOULD WE ADD IN ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS THAT MIGHT DEVASTATE A PROGRAM THAT WE ABSOLUTELY NEED? JUST BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A GOOD IDEA ON PAPER. 
          I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. 
          UH, THAT'S ALL THE SLOTS AGAINST. 
          SO, UH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA SPEAK FOR? OR AGAIN? OKAY. 
          UM, SO THAT'S, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS FOR THOSE WHO ARE SUPPORTING IS YOUR HANDS OR RAISE YOUR GREEN CARDS. 
          IT'S A VOLUNTEER PROGRAM, THOSE AGAINST AND THOSE ABSTAINING. 
          SO IF I GOT THIS CORRECTLY, FOLKS, PLEASE CORRECT ME, UH, IF I'M WRONG. 
          FOR THE RECORD, IT WAS COMMISSIONER HAYNES, COMMISSIONER MOALA AND COMMISSIONER COX FOR COMMISSIONER HOWARD. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AGAINST, AND THE BALANCE OF THE DI ABSTAINING. 
          THAT MOTION FAILS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, IN THIS SECOND ROUND, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT AS WELL. 
          PARDON ME? 
          [02:25:01]
CAN I JUST GET WHO IS ABSTAINING ONE MORE TIME? UH, SO ALL THOSE ARE ABSTAINING. 
          IF YOU COULD PHRASE HER . 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          THE MR. ANDERSON, PLEASE PROCEED. 
          JUST A REMINDER THAT WE HAVE A LOT MORE TO GO TONIGHT AND THAT I, I HOPE WE ALL STAY HERE AND DO THE WORK AND DON'T POSTPONE ITEMS LIKE WE DID LAST MEETING. 
          THANKS, CHAIR. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          SO DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS FOR THE ROUND TWO AT THIS POINT? IT WOULD BE THE WILL OF THE BODY TO SAY IF WE WANT TO EXTEND TO ADDITIONAL ROUNDS OF AMENDMENTS. 
          DOES SOMEBODY WISH TO ASK FOR THAT? WE HAVE A REQUEST. 
          IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO HAVING ADDITIONAL ROUNDS OF AMENDMENTS? CHAIR, CAN I MAKE A QUESTION OF THE REQUEST? ARE YOU GOING TO BE ABLE TO STAY WITH US TONIGHT AND FINISH ALL THE BUSINESS ON THE AGENDA AS LATE AS WE HAVE TO GO? I WILL. 
          I LIKE I DID LAST WEEK, I WILL BE HERE UNTIL THIS MEETING ENDS. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          CAN WE GET A CLARIFICATION IF WE NEED TO EXTEND THE TIME OF THIS MEETING BECAUSE WE CONSIDER ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS, WILL YOU COMMIT TO STAYING FOR THOSE ADDITIONAL TIME EXTENSIONS? I'M NOT SURE THAT HELPS TO WHAT DOES, WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE ITEM AT HAND? ? BECAUSE I, I I, I, I'LL PUT IT OUT THERE. 
          WE, WE GOT AIRPORT PROBLEMS TOO, AND WE DIDN'T, WE GOT DELAYED LAST NIGHT. 
          AGAIN, THIS IS MY FOURTH TIME TRYING TO TRAVEL TO TAKE CARE OF FAMILY. 
          AND WE NEED, WE NEED AIRPORT FIXES. 
          SO I GUESS SINCE WE HAD A MOTION PARTICULARLY, I CAN'T STAY LATE TONIGHT, SO I, I WOULD I BE OUT EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT ADDING MORE AMENDMENTS? SO, SO I GUESS AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, WHAT YOU'RE HEARING IS THAT WE WILL LIKELY HAVE TO END THE MEETING AT SOME POINT. 
          AND SO I THINK THERE'S AN OBJECTION TO EXTENDING. 
          SO IN WHICH CASE WE HAVE TO GO IN AND TAKE A VOTE. 
          IN WHICH CASE I WOULD SAY, UM, A REMINDER TO FOLKS THAT YOU NEED AN, UH, MAJORITY OF FOLKS TO APPROVE, UM, THE CHANGE TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL ROUNDS. 
          SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF EXTENDING ROUNDS OF AMENDMENT BY, LET'S SAY TWO MORE ROUNDS, WE CAN HAVE A MOTION ON THAT. 
          UH, IS A VOTE OR A MOTION, I'M SORRY, THIS A MOVE, UM, SINCE I, IT'S ESSENTIALLY YOUR REQUEST THAT HAS MADE, SO THE MOTION HAS ESSENTIALLY ALREADY BEEN MADE. 
          SO IF WE WANNA CLARIFY IT, I CAN DO IT THIS WAY. 
          I'M GOING AHEAD AND, UM, ON BEHALF OF COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I'M MAKING A MOTION TO EXTEND THE ROUNDS OF AMENDMENTS BY TWO MORE. 
          DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? I HAVE COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, THAT MOTION FAILS, IN WHICH CASE WE CANNOT DO ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS AT THIS TIME. 
          I DID THE MOTION. 
          THANKS FOR THE USE OF THE HALL. 
          SO THIS TAKES US TO THE BASE MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WOODS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL WITH THE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS. 
          WAIT, I'M SORRY, DID WE, DO WE WANNA GO BACK TO THAT? SO FOLKS IN FAVOR OF EXTENDING ROUNDS OF QUESTION, CAN WE GO AHEAD AND RAISE OUR HANDS? I'M, I'M, I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? CHAIR? UM, THIS IS A MOTION TO EXTEND ROUNDS OF AMENDMENTS TO ADDITIONAL ROUNDS. 
          OH, I THOUGHT THAT JUST FAILED. 
          WE, WE CALLED FOR A REVOTE. 
          WE WANTED TO SEE THE COUNT. 
          YEAH, WE JUST, FOLKS JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WHAT THE VOTE ON THAT WAS. 
          SO BY MY COUNT IT WAS SIX AND IT IS SIX. 
          SO SIX FAILS. 
          WHY DOES SIX HERE? 'CAUSE IT HAS TO BE SEVEN. 
          OH, IT HAS TO BE SEVEN. 
          OKAY, FOLKS, WE DO CHAIR JUST A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. 
          I THINK THE QUESTION IS, WAS THE REQUIREMENT A MAJORITY OF MEMBERS PRESENT OR A MAJORITY OF THE ENTIRE BODY? LIKE WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD OF THE PAST? THE MAJORITY OF THE ENTIRE BODIES, THE RULE THAT WE ALWAYS FOLLOW, WE DO NOT. 
          SO, SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SEVEN VOTES TO, I THINK THAT WAS THE CONFUSION. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. 
          THANK YOU FOR ASKING THAT QUESTION, FOR CLARIFYING THAT. 
          UM, SO THIS IS THE BASE MOTION AS AMENDED. 
          WE STILL HAVE THREE SPOTS TO SPEAK IN FAVOR AND AGAINST THE OVERALL ORDINANCE AS ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN, WILL YOU SUMMARIZE WHERE WE ARE WITH THE, WE ADDED, JUST ADDED COMMISSIONER AL, WHERE ARE WE? SURE. 
          SO IF, IF, AND FOLKS, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG 'CAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I FOUND THIS RIGHT. 
          THE BASE MOTION IS STAFF RECOMMENDATION FROM WOODS MAXWELL. 
          IT HAS BEEN AMENDED TO ADD A MOTION, AN AMENDMENT BY MYSELF. 
          THAT ONE PASSED. 
          THERE WAS ALSO AN, UH, A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MOTO THAT PASSED. 
          AND BY MY COUNT, NONE OF THE OTHER MOTIONS PASSED. 
          THERE WERE THREE FAILED MOTIONS OTHERWISE, OR SORRY, ONE WAS WITHDRAWN. 
          SO TWO FAILED MOTIONS AND ONE WITHDRAWN. 
          MOTION AND 
          [02:30:01]
MOTION DOLLAR. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER COX? DID YOU WISH TO SPEAK AGAINST? GO AHEAD. 
          YEAH, I'M, I'M VOTING AGAINST THIS, NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE OF THE RELATIVELY MINOR CHANGES,  THAT THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE, BUT, BUT THAT, UM, I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE, UH, THE UNDERLYING DB 90 ORDINANCE TO BEGIN WITH. 
          I THINK COMMISSIONER MAXWELL SAID IT BEST. 
          WE, WE DON'T HAVE A DB 60, WE DON'T HAVE A DB 75, WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE FLEXIBILITY UNDER DB 90. 
          AND THIS COMMISSION REJECTED OUR ABILITY TO ADD THAT FLEXIBILITY. 
          AND I'VE, I'VE MADE THIS CONCERN KNOWN ON PREVIOUS CASES THAT WE'VE GOTTEN RECENTLY ON DB 90, MOST RECENTLY, THE A ISD CASE WHERE IT SEEMS LIKE OUR ONLY CHOICE IS ALL OR NOTHING. 
          UM, AND, AND WHEN YOU SET UP A BINARY CHOICE LIKE THAT, YOU GET A LOT OF REALLY UNHAPPY PEOPLE. 
          AND THE WAY, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE CAN COUNT VOTES. 
          SO ANY DB 90 CASE THAT COMES BEFORE THIS COMMISSION AT THIS MOMENT IS LIKELY TO PASS. 
          BUT YOU'RE, YOU'RE WE'RE KIND OF CREATING A LOT OF CITIZENS IN AUSTIN THAT ARE GONNA BECOME INCREASINGLY OPPOSED TO THINGS LIKE DB 90, NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE OPPOSED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN ALL OR NOTHING DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO AND THAT IS IT. 
          AND SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD ACCEPT THAT SORT OF BINARY WITHOUT THE FLEXIBILITY TO CRAFT THESE THINGS TO ADAPT TO NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS AND SITE SPECIFIC CRITERIA. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHY I JUST CAN'T SUPPORT, UH, DB 90, THE UNDERLYING, UH, ORDINANCE TO BEGIN WITH. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. 
          UM, THOSE FOLKS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? I'LL SPEAK IN FAVOR. 
          UM, I THINK AUSTIN IS A VERY ABNORMAL PLACE. 
          WE ARE THE LOWEST DENSITY MAJOR CITY IN TEXAS. 
          EL PASO, CORPUS CHRISTI, SAN ANTONIO, DALLAS, HOUSTON ARE ALL DENSER THAN AUSTIN. 
          OUR ZONING AND PLANNING IS VERY ABNORMAL. 
          WE ARE NOT GOOD AT IT. 
          WE HAVE HISTORICALLY HAD A VERY BAD ZONING CODE THAT IS CRITICALLY, UH, CAUSING THIS SHORTAGE OF HOUSING THAT WE ARE NOW DEALING WITH. 
          IT'S BEEN CAUSING, OUR CODE HAS BEEN CAUSING THIS SHORTAGE SINCE THE 1980S WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED. 
          THE WAY I SEE IT, DB 90 GETS US A LITTLE CLOSER TO A BASELINE NORMAL GOOD ZONING CODE. 
          IF I COULD WAVE A MAGIC WAND, IT WOULDN'T BE DB 90, IT WOULD JUST BE 90 BY RIGHT? IN MANY PARTS OF CENTRAL AUSTIN, WE'RE NOT CALLING FOR THAT TODAY. 
          THAT'S NOT ON THE TABLE. 
          BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT HAVING 90 FOOT BUILDINGS THAT ARE FULL OF HOUSING, SOME OF WHICH IS AFFORDABLE AND SUBSIDIZED WITH NO COST TO US TAXPAYERS CITIZENS OF AUSTIN, UH, TALK ABOUT A WIN-WIN 90 FEET'S NOT THAT TALL. 
          WE HAVE A 25 FOOT COMPATIBILITY BUFFER WITH REQUIRED PLANTINGS AND TREES AND SETBACKS THAT'S ALREADY ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT MANY CITIES WOULD REQUIRE. 
          IN MANY PLACES IT WOULD BE PERFECTLY NORMAL TO HAVE A 90 FOOT BUILDING LITERALLY AT THE PROPERTY LINE, NOT 25 FEET AWAY FROM IT. 
          AND SO I THINK IT'S JUST GOOD TO TAKE A MINUTE AND, AND HAVE A REALITY CHECK THAT THIS IS REALLY IN THE SCHEME OF THE REST OF AMERICA, THE REST OF THE WORLD. 
          THIS IS NOT A VERY EXTREME, UH, ZONING REQUEST TO HAVE A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THAT SIMPLY PROVIDES THE OPTION FOR SOMEONE TO BUILD A 90 FOOT BUILDING IF THEY PROVIDE EXTRA COMMUNITY BENEFITS ON TOP OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT OF SIMPLY BUILDING MORE HOUSING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING. 
          WE ALREADY HAVE ONE. 
          AND COMMISSIONER FOUR. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          SHE'S POINTING AT ME. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, GO AHEAD. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          SO, UM, IN, IN 2018 TO 2022, WE WENT FOR A REALLY BIG HOUSING BONDS HERE IN AUSTIN, TEXAS. 
          AND WE WENT DOOR TO DOOR. 
          WE TALKED TO TONS OF ORGANIZATIONS. 
          WE MET WITH UNBELIEVABLE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, AND AUSTIN REALLY CAME THROUGH AND THEY PASSED THOSE AMAZING BONDS THAT HAVE BUILT A, A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF HOUSING. 
          BUT ONE THING WE DEFINITELY HEARD FROM FOLKS GOING OUT IN THE COMMUNITY THROUGH POLLING THROUGH YOU NAME IT, IS WE NEED OTHER TOOLS. 
          WE NEED TO DO OTHER THINGS THAN JUST HAVING THESE HOUSING BONDS. 
          AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT, IT CALLS FOR THE SAME THING. 
          IT CALLS FOR BETTER DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS. SHAME ON US FOR NOT PRODUCING MORE. 
          OVER THE YEARS WE TRIED, WE'VE LOST THE ABILITY TO DO SO HERE AND THERE, BUT WHEN THE DEMOGRAPHER SHARES TO CITY COUNCIL IN THIS VERY ROOM THAT ONLY 9% OF OUR NEW HOUSING STARTS ARE WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THAT IS A POLICY FAILURE OF EPIC PROPORTIONS. 
          THAT MEANS WE'RE LOSING HOUSING, TRANSIT, TAX BASE, AFFORDABILITY, YOU NAME IT. 
          AND SO FINALLY WE'RE LOOKING TO CREATE A TOOL THAT WILL ALLOW FOR MORE OF THE THINGS THAT AUSTIN NEEDS TO BE BUILT. 
          AND I GET IT, IT'S DIFFICULT AND WE'RE DEFINITELY GONNA HEAR FROM FOLKS 
          [02:35:01]
WHO WOULD RATHER NOT SEE A CHANGE, BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE ZONE MORE ZONING TOOLS AND WE HAVE TO CLEAN 'EM UP FROM TIME TO TIME. 
          WE HAVE A ZONING TOOL, IT'S NOT PERFECT. 
          IT'S A LOT BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAD BEFORE AND WE'RE CLEANING IT UP A LITTLE BIT TODAY. 
          SO I'M EXCITED TO SUPPORT THIS. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. 
          SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER AL. 
          UM, I, I'M GONNA HAVE TO ECHO WHAT WE'VE HEARD, WHICH IS WITHOUT THE FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE THIS WORK OVER 200 TO 300 SQUARE MILES OF VARIABLE CITY, I I THINK WE'RE SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT. 
          I MEAN, THE PUBLIC IS COMING OUT AND CRYING OUT ABOUT THIS. 
          IT'LL BE VERY INTERESTING TO SEE IF THIS BEGINS TO TAKE SHAPE IN IN OUR UPCOMING ELECTIONS AS CANDIDATES COME FORWARD AND START TALKING ABOUT HOW THEY'RE GONNA SOLVE SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS. SO, UH, YOU KNOW, THE DB 90 IN, IN GENERAL TALK WAS SOMETHING I WAS IN FAVOR OF BE AS, AS A MECHANISM TO BE ABLE TO GET A MORE WALKABLE, LIVABLE, DENSE CITY, BUT WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO INTEGRATE IT INTO WHAT WE HAVE EXISTING. 
          I, I, I THINK WE HAVE TO, I THINK WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THOSE FACTORS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UM, CONSIDERING WHERE THIS ALL STARTED FROM, IF WE CAST OUR MIND BACK TO THAT UNFORTUNATE DECISION IN DECEMBER, UM, WHERE WE WERE SUBTLY SCRAMBLING TO FIX AN ISSUE CAUSED BY LOCAL JUDICIAL DECISIONS. 
          UM, I FIRST OF ALL WANNA REALLY THANK STAFF FOR BRINGING DB 90 FORWARD, GETTING IT PASSED, AND HERE WE ARE ALREADY SIX MONTHS LATER TRYING TO AMEND AND FIX THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE ALREADY SEEING WITH THEM IN, WITH THIS ORDINANCE, WHICH I THINK IS ALSO ADMIRABLE BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THAT'S AN EXTREMELY RESPONSIVE ON BEHALF OF OUR CITY. 
          UM, AND, AND SEEING THESE PROJECTS AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED IN REAL TIME AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE DON'T OFTEN SEE IN OUR CITY. 
          MAYBE PLANNING OR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. 
          SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THE SET OF CHANGES IN FRONT OF US TONIGHT AND I WANNA EMPHASIZE THAT VMU AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, IS LITERALLY THE MOST SUCCESSFUL DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM WE'VE EVER HAD IN THE CITY. 
          UM, IT IS FOCUSED ON WALKABILITY AND MIXED USE AND ALL THE THINGS THAT WE VALUE AND WANT TO ENCOURAGE. 
          AND I REALLY DO WANNA ECHO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THIS. 
          THIS IS SO NEEDED IN OUR CITY. 
          THIS IS REALLY, UH, ABSOLUTELY A MUST. 
          IN ADDITION TO OUR EO AND EVERYTHING ELSE WE'RE DOING TO SUPPORT PROJECT CONNECT. 
          IT IS LITERALLY BRINGING THE HOUSING UNITS. 
          WE NEED BOTH COMMERCIAL, UH, BOTH MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE. 
          AND I, I'M SO HONESTLY HAPPY TO SEE THIS IN FRONT OF US AND TO SURPASS THIS IN SUPPORT BECAUSE LONG MAY WE HAVE MANY DB 90 CASES ON OUR, ON OUR AGENDA. 
          AND MAY WE ALSO BE HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC BECAUSE GUESS WHAT? THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE HERE WHO ARE NOT COMING TO THESE MEETINGS BECAUSE THEY HAVE HOUSING AND THEY CAN ACTUALLY GO TO THESE APARTMENTS AND LIVE IN THEM AND TAKE TRANSIT AND EVERYTHING ELSE. 
          SO I'M EXCITED TO CONTINUE TO SEE DB 90 AND TO CONTINUE SEE UPGRADES TO THIS ORDINANCE AS WE MOVE FORWARD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST, CAN, CAN WE GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS? THIS IS, UM, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES. 
          HAVE A SUBSTITUTE. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          SURE. 
          THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          UH, MY SUBSTITUTE MOTION WOULD BE, UH, THE, THE BASE, THE STAFF BASE MO THE STAFF BASE MOTION, UH, AND INCORPORATING THE TEXT OF THE AZAR AMENDMENTS, INCORPORATING THE TEXT OF THE MOOSE DOLLAR AMENDMENT. 
          AND THE SUBSTITUTE WOULD BE INCORPORATING THE, UH, EMAIL THAT YOU RECEIVED, WHICH WAS TITLED THE HANES AMENDMENT THREE. 
          THAT'S MY SUBSTITUTE. 
          I WILL SAY THAT I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING ON THIS, IF STAFF CAN HELP US, IF THAT WOULD BE YOUR MAIN, I CAN. 
          THE HAN AMENDMENT THREE IS A, UH, IS AN AMENDMENT. 
          UM, HOLD ON A SECOND. 
          I DON'T WANT YOU TO SPEAK TO YOUR AMENDMENT. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT PROCEDURALLY, 'CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW IS WE'RE RECONSIDERING FAILED AMENDMENTS. 
          I BELIEVE I RECEIVED TWO AMENDMENTS FROM YOU, COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          I DON'T, I'M NOT AWARE OF A THIRD AMENDMENT. 
          I DIDN'T PERUSE YOUR WORD DOCUMENT EITHER. 
          SO YEAH, WE, UH, I I LOOK TO OUR BAR PARLIAMENTARY AND IF WE HAVE CAUGHT ON THE, I I MEAN I THINK THIS IS ANTITHETICAL TO THE PROCESS THAT WE JUST FOLLOWED TO VOTE AGAINST THE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO BRING FORTH THESE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE USING A DIFFERENT PROCESS, BUT THE OUTCOME IS THE SAME. 
          BUT THE QUESTION, THE PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY IS WHETHER IT'S A LEGITIMATE THING OR NOT, NOT THE 
          [02:40:01]
IDEOLOGY BEHIND IT. 
          AND TO MY LEFT IS SOMEONE WHO STUDIED THE ISSUES OF AND HAS SAID THAT IT IS . 
          I'LL SAY HONESTLY, WE'LL SPEND SO MUCH TIME DEBATING THIS AS USUAL. 
          I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND SAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND JUST TAKE A VOTE ON IT. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES, CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR MOTION? SURE. 
          MY MOTION IS TO INCREASE THE, UM, WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF TALK HERE, NOT SUBSEQUENTLY. 
          I'M SORRY, SIR. 
          YOU'RE, YOU'RE GONNA NEED TO STATE IS YOU SAID BASE PLUS AZAR ONE AND TWO HAYNES, 1, 2, 3, 4, AND NO, NO. 
          OH, NO, NO, NO, NO. 
          'CAUSE 'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE OUTTA ORDER. 
          SO PLEASE SIR, GO AHEAD. 
          TWO, BEEN RESTATE THE MOTION. 
          ONE AND TWO HAVE BEEN DISPOSED. 
          UH, MY MOTION IS TO, UH, THE STAFF BASE MO BASE MOTION, A CZAR ONE MOOSE DOLLAR AMENDMENT ONE, AND THEN ADDING IN THE LANGUAGE FROM HAYNES NUMBER THREE. 
          THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS BODY. 
          AND HANS FOUR AS WELL? NO, JUST HAYNES THREE. 
          OKAY, GOT IT. 
          HANS THREE. 
          SO WE HAVE A MOTION. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I BELIEVE, PARDON ME. 
          I, DID WE HEAR HAYNES AMENDMENT THREE? I DON'T RECALL THAT. 
          WE DID. 
          WE WOULD NEED TO. 
          WE DID NOT. 
          WE WENT THROUGH TWO ROUNDS. 
          WE HAVE, WE HAVE NOT HEARD. 
          HAYES, CAN YOU READ THAT INTO YOUR MOTION PLEASE? I CAN. 
          OH, I CAN READ. 
          DO YOU WANT ME TO READ THE MOTION? CAN YOU PLEASE READ YOUR AMENDMENT THREE INTO THE MOTION? SURE. 
          MY AMENDMENT WOULD BE, UH, IT'S, IT'S A SIM VERY SIMPLE CHANGE. 
          IT CHANGES IN, UM, UH, 2 5 2 6 5 E ONE A, THE NUMBER 12 TO THE NUMBER 15, AND THEN 25 6 2 E TWO A, THE NUMBER 12 TO THE NUMBER 15. 
          AND IN 25 2 6 2 6 5 2 E TWO B CHANGES THE WORD 10 TO THE NUMBER 12. 
          SO IT INCREASES THE, UH, I'M SORRY, I'M NOT GONNA LET YOU SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          SINCE YOU HAVE STATED YOUR MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THE MOTION? MR. COX? I BELIEVE YOU HAD SECONDED IT EARLIER. 
          OKAY, WE HAVE A SECOND. 
          THIS IS A HAYNES COX SUBSTITUTE, UM, FOLKS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK FOR IT, SIR, YOU AGAIN? OKAY. 
          DO WE HAVE ANYONE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          ALL THOSE AGAINST THAT MOTION FAILS WITH FIVE PEOPLE VOTING FOR THAT IS COMMISSIONER AL, COMMISSIONER CO COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, COMMISSIONER HAYNES AND COMMISSIONER BARR RAMIREZ. 
          THIS TAKES US BACK TO OUR ORIGINAL MOTION, WHICH WAS THE BASE MOTION, UM, AS AMENDED AND SINCE WE HAD COMPLETED, COMPLETED OUR FOREIGN AGAINST, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE ON THAT ITEM. 
          ALL THOSE SPEAKING, UH, VOTING FOR, I'M SORRY, MR. YOU DID YOU, YOU MOVE PRETTY QUICK? YOU, YOU CALLED THE QUESTION? YES, SIR. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          SINCE WE HAD ALREADY SPOKEN, WE HAD THREE PEOPLE HAD SPOKEN FOR, THREE PEOPLE HAD SPOKEN AGAINST, AND THEN YOU WENT FOR YOUR, UM, SUBSTITUTE. 
          SO WE'RE GOING, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD. 
          IS ALL THOSE, UH, FOR THE BASE MOTION AS AMENDED THOSE AGAINST THOSE ABSTAINING? THAT MOTION PASSES WITH COMMISSIONER COX AGAINST COMMISSIONER BAR RAMIREZ. 
          I'M NOT SURE I NOTED YOU FOUR. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT PASSES, UH, WITH COMMISSIONER COX AGAINST THE BALANCE OF THE DS FOUR. 
          DID I GET THAT CORRECTLY? YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT PASSES. 
          THIS TAKES 
          [Items 9 & 10]
US TO ITEM NUMBER NINE AND 10. 
          THANK YOU MR. BROOKS. 
          UM, THANK YOU MR. BROOKS. 
          THANK YOU STAFF. 
          THIS TAKES US TO ITEM NUMBER NINE AND 10. 
          UM, WE'LL START WITH THE STAFF PRESENTATION FOR NINE, WHICH IS THE NPA FOR EIGHTY NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE FIFTY SIX WEST S SH HIGHWAY 71 MARINE MEREDITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          ITEM NUMBER NINE IS PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 24 0 0 2 5 0 1 8 9 0 0 AND 8 9 5 6 WEST SH HIGHWAY 71 MULTIFAMILY AND DISTRICT EIGHT PROPERTY LOCATION IS 8 9 0 0 AND 8 9 5 6 WEST SSH 71 WITHIN THE OAK HILL COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA. 
          THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. 
          AND IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, UH, CHAIR. 
          WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR, OH, WE'RE GONNA HEAR THE, UH, ZONING CASES. 
          LAWS. 
          THIS IS NUMBER 10 C 40. 
          GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONER CYNTHIA HAD WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          THIS IS ITEM 10 ON YOUR AGENDA, C 14 2 24 0 0 32. 
          UM, AS STATED, THE PROPERTY IS ON 
          [02:45:01]
EIGHTY NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE FIFTY SIX WEST STATE HIGHWAY 71. 
          UM, IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AG G AND P AND THE REQUEST IS MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTS MODERATE HIGH DENSITY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN MF FOUR NP. 
          THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS APPROXIMATELY 60.67 ACRES UNDEVELOPED AND HAS ACCESS TO OLD B CAVES ROAD, WHICH IS A LEVEL THREE AND WEST STATE HIGHWAY 71 A LEVEL FIVE. 
          THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING MF FOUR NP FOR THE PROPOSED 660 MULTIFAMILY UNITS, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 11 UNITS PER ACRE. 
          THE MF FOUR NP REQUEST WILL ALLOW FOR MORE HEIGHT PER BUILDING AND INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE ON THE PROPERTY. 
          THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE OAK HILL COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD, PLANNED WEST OAK HILL, AND HAS LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS. 
          THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT, UM, M-F-R-M-P COMBINED DISTRICT ZONING AND I'VE ALSO INCLUDED A, A TOPO MAP AND LATE BACKUP FROM THE GIS ANALYST. 
          UM, SO IF YOU GUYS NEED TO REFERENCE THAT FOR SITE ELEVATION, IT'S THERE. 
          THANK YOU MS. HATCHERY. 
          UM, MS. CORONA, UH, CHAIR WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR FIVE OH UH, THE APPLICANT'S RECEIVING DONATED TIME FROM BEN BROER. 
          BRENT, UM, EXCUSE ME, BEN, ARE YOU PRESENT? OKAY, DAVID, YOU'LL HAVE EIGHT MINUTES. 
          PUT MY PRESENTATION. 
          GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. 
          DAVID HARTMAN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. 
          UM, WE HAVE THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPER'S REPRESENTATIVE HERE. 
          UM, AS WAS STATED, THIS IS 61 ACRES AT 71 AND OLD B CAVES ROAD. 
          IT'S CURRENT. 
          IT'S BASICALLY THE LAST 60 ACRES IN OAK HILL THAT'S UNDEVELOPED, PARTIAL PART OF A LARGER FAMILY RANCH. 
          SO THEREFORE OBVIOUSLY THERE'S NO DISPLACEMENT. 
          SH 71 AS SMP LEVEL FIVE STREET OLD B CAVES IS LEVEL THREE. 
          THERE'S MULTIPLE LEVEL TWO STREETS, LEVEL FOUR STREET. 
          THE PREDOMINANT ACCESS TO THIS PROJECT IS GONNA BE TO SH 71, WHICH IS A FOUR, UH, LANE ROAD PLUS DUAL TURN LANE ADJACENT TO MULTIPLE IMAGINE AUSTIN CENTERS CURRENTLY WITHIN THE CAT METRO PICKUP SERVICE ADJACENT TO BUS ROUTE STOPS AND THE BIKE RACK. 
          UM, THAT CHART SHOWS THAT OUR APPLICATION IS GOING FROM THE ZONING APPLICATION FROM AG TO MF FOUR. 
          THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT IS FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO MULTIFAMILY FOR APPROXIMATELY 660 UNITS, WHICH IS APPROX RIGHT AT 12 UNITS AN ACRE, WHICH FROM A DENSITY STANDPOINT EQUATES TO LESS THAN MF ONE DENSITY. 
          AND THE MF FOUR DOES AUTHORIZE THAT 60 FEET OF HEIGHT, WHICH PROVIDES FOR CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, SMALLER FOOTPRINT, MORE, MORE OPEN SPACE AND LESS IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          I WOULD NOTE THAT THIS PROJECT IS NOT SE UH, SEEKING OR OTHERWISE GRANDFATHERED, SO WE'RE LIMITED TO THE 25% IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          OBVIOUSLY WE WILL, UM, WHEN WE DEVELOP IT. 
          WE'LL ALSO COME UP TO CURRENT CODE, WHICH THE, THE BARTON SPRING ZONE HAS REALLY STRINGENT WATER QUALITY, UH, REQUIREMENTS. 
          OBVIOUS AS YOU KNOW. 
          UM, THERE ARE MULTIPLE SIMILAR REZONING CASES APPROVED BY COUNCIL IN RECENT YEARS WE'LL GO THROUGH. 
          AND THEN IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT IS APARTMENTS BASICALLY SIMILARLY SITUATED IN DENSITY AND USE. 
          UM, THERE IS A ZONING TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, WHICH REQUIRES TDM MEASURES. 
          UH, WE'RE GONNA BE REQUIRED AT TIME OF SITE PLAN, UH, TO DEDICATE RIGHT OF WAY ALONG OLD PKS ROAD AND THE STREET IMPACT FEE, WHICH WE KEPT ESTIMATED AT, RIGHT AT ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS. 
          NOT ONLY THAT SIF PAYMENT, BUT OUR PARKLAND DEDICATION FIELD FEE THAT WE ESTIMATED RIGHT AT $4.5 MILLION FOR 660 UNITS. 
          SO A LOT OF BENEFITS FOR THIS PROJECT TO THE AREA AS WELL AS JUST SPRING MUCH NEEDED HOUSING. 
          AND THEN STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTS. 
          THIS JUST SO SHOWS THE GENERAL LOCATION THAT YOU CAN SEE THE Y IN OAK HILL. 
          IT'S ALONG 71 AND OB KIDS ROAD. 
          IT'S FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT MIGHT NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH IT, IT KINDA LOOPS AROUND 71 AND THEN BACK AROUND ON THE SOUTH RIGHT OUT, UH, OAK HILL AS WELL AS WELL. 
          THIS SHOWS THE SUBJECT TRACTS. 
          YOU CAN SEE KIND OF THE, THE SELLERS CARVED OUT AND 10 ACRES, UH, TO RETAIN FOR THEMSELVES ON THE UP AGAINST SH 71. 
          THAT SHOWS THE ADJACENT USES LANDMARK CONSERVANCY APARTMENTS TO THE UPPER LEFT HAND CORNER. 
          UH, THERE'S A, A LARGE CHURCH RIGHT ACROSS 71, FURTHER DOWN SOUTHEAST, UH, TO THE, TO THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. 
          MORE APARTMENTS, RESTAURANTS, UM, GAS STATIONS, UM, DOWN THAT WAY. 
          THIS JUST SHOWS THE SH 71 IN THIS VICINITY AS BEING A FOUR LANE OR A ROADWAY WITH A DUAL TURN LANE IN THE MIDDLE. 
          THIS IS KIND OF A STREET VIEW OF THE CROSS SECTION SHOWING THAT SAME, UH, WIDE STREET ON SH 
          [02:50:01]
71 ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT TRACT. 
          YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT TRACT ZONING IN THE UPPER LEFT HAND CORNER, AND IF YOU FOLLOW IT DOWN, UM, SH 71, YOU CAN SEE MULTIPLE COMMERCIAL ZONING, GOMU, WHICH EQUATES TO MF FOUR OTHER ZONING, UH, ALONG 71 AND THEN KIND OF TO THE EAST OF THE TRACT AS WELL. 
          YOU CAN SEE MF FOUR AND OTHER EQUIVALENT ZONING IN THIS V GENERAL VICINITY. 
          THIS IS A LITTLE ZOOMED IN JUST TO KIND OF SHOW THAT I ACKNOWLEDGE THERE'S MF ONE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE EAST OF THIS TRACK, BUT THOSE, UH, TRACKS DON'T, THEY WERE ZONED QUITE A WHILE AGO AND THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO SH 71. 
          THE MF ONE TO THE NORTH WAS, IS, UH, WAS ZONED IN THE EIGHTIES AND IS CURRENTLY DEDICATED TO THE BARTON CREEK PRESERVE. 
          UM, FUTURE LAND USE MAP JUST KINDA SHOWS THE SUBJECT TRACT IS RURAL RESIDENTIAL ON THE FARM. 
          THIS IS JUST DEMONSTRATING THAT AGAIN WHAT I STATED AT THE OUTSET. 
          THIS IS KIND OF THE LAST, UM, 60 ACRES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. 
          IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT IS THE, THE, THE, THE EDGE OF THE CITY LIMITS, UH, PROPER. 
          AND THEN IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH IS ABOUT 4,000 PLUS ACRES OF BARTON CREEK PRESERVE, UH, BEYOND THE CITY LIMITS TO THE EDGE THERE. 
          AGAIN, NOT ONLY ADJACENT TO THE OAK HILL, IMAGINE AUSTIN COURT CENTER, BUT ALSO MULTIPLE ADJACENT. 
          IMAGINE AUSTIN CENTERS A GOOD VIEW OF ALL THE ROBUST AS SMP LEVEL FIVE STREET ON SH 71 AS SMPP LEVEL THREE ON, UH, ON OB CAVES, ROAD TO THE NORTH HAS GOOD ACCESS TO THIS CAP METRO STOP PRETTY, UH, I THINK IT'S ABOUT A HALF A MILE DOWN THE ROAD, BUT ALSO A PRETTY QUICK DRIVE TO THE PINNACLE PARK AND RIDE WHERE YOU CAN JUMP ON A BUS AND HAVE ACCESS THROUGHOUT THE CITY THROUGH THAT. 
          AND THEN IT'S CURRENTLY IN THE CAP METRO PICKUP SERVICE. 
          THIS IS JUST A SUMMARY OF ALL THE APARTMENT PROJECTS IN THIS VICINITY IN THE LAST 10 YEARS. 
          UM, UH, THAT, THAT WE'LL KIND OF LOOK AT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER IN ANOTHER SLIDE, BUT IT SUMMARIZES THE DENSITY ON THE, THE SECOND FROM THE RIGHT HAND COLUMN THAT IF YOU AVERAGE THE DENSITY, THEY'RE ALL BASICALLY RIGHT IN LINE WITH WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. 
          SO IT'S VERY, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT'S GONE BEFORE US. 
          AND THIS IS A LOT OF DATA HERE, BUT IT'S BASICALLY THE AREA RESIDENTIAL ZONING CASES FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS OR SO. 
          AND AGAIN, YOU KINDA LOOK DOWN, UH, GOING DOWN 71 GOMU EQUATES TO MF FOUR CSMU NUMBER SIX DOWN AT THE BOTTOM EQUATES TO MF FOUR. 
          NUMBER TWO IS MF FOUR, NUMBER FIVE, YOU KNOW, EIGHT, NINE, AND 10 I HANDLE. 
          THOSE RE CASES ARE MF FOUR. 
          SO THERE'S A LOT OF PRECEDENT IN THIS. 
          UM, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS RIGHT IN LINE WITH WHAT'S GONE BEFORE AND WE APPRECIATE STAFF RECOGNIZING THAT AND SUPPORT US SUPPORTING OUR APPLICATION. 
          UM, WHAT STATED, UM, THE, THE ZONING CASE MANAGER STATED IS WE DO HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM OUR IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT NEIGHBORS AND THEN THIS, THIS JUST RESTATES AGAIN, PROVIDES MUCH NEEDED HOUSING INCLUDING AFFORD, EXCUSE ME, MUCH LEADING NEEDED HOUSING. 
          IT'S NOT PROPOSING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          THAT'S THE TYPO THERE. 
          I APOLOGIZE. 
          INCLUDING, UH, A SUPPORTIVE COUNCIL DIRECTIVE FOR MORE HOUSING IN ALL AREAS IN A MAJOR COURT OR WITH ROBUST, UM, TRANSIT. 
          AND THEN ALL THE OTHER THINGS WE'VE SET, WE'VE STATED AS WELL, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A SIF PAYMENT OF A MILLION DOLLARS, UM, UH, UH, UH, PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES OF FOUR AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS. 
          AND THEN ALSO, UH, UH, UH, DEVELOPING THE PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE, UM, BARTON SPRING ZONE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH IS HIGH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. 
          AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU MR. HARTMAN. 
          WE'LL CONTINUE WITH OUR PUBLIC HEARING. 
          UM, THIS, SO THERE ARE SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION. 
          LEE ZIEGLER IS SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION. 
          OH, UM, EXCUSE ME, LEE HAS DONATED TIME TO DANIELLE, BUCKLEY. 
          DAN, DANIELLE, ARE YOU HERE? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IS LEE STILL HERE AS WELL? OKAY, PERFECT. 
          UM, DANIELLE, YOU'LL HAVE EIGHT MINUTES TO SPEAK. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND DANIELLE IS THE PRIMARY SPEAKER. 
          HI. 
          OH, THERE WE GO. 
          NOW YOU CAN HEAR ME. 
          I'M VERY SHORT. 
          UM, MY NAME IS DANIELLE BUCKLEY. 
          I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE OAK HILL ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS AS WELL AS THE OAK HILL, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING, UM, CONTACT TEAM. 
          UM, I'M ALSO A, A NEIGHBOR TO THIS PROPERTY. 
          I AM A LITTLE BIT OVER, UM, 500 FEET THOUGH, SO, UM, I LIVE IN A SMALL DUPLEX COMMUNITY. 
          UM, THAT IS ACTUALLY, UH, THE LAND USED IS MIXED RESIDENTIAL, SO WE HAVE MINI DUPLEXES, UM, WE HAVE APARTMENT BUILDINGS NEARBY, UM, BUT AS MR. HARTMAN SAID, IT IS MF ONE. 
          UM, 
          [02:55:01]
SO WE ALREADY WENT OVER SORT OF THE 60 ACRES THAT'S IN QUESTION, THE NEARBY LANDMARKS OF THE NATURAL GARDENER IN SOUTHWEST TRAVIS COUNTY TAX OFFICE. 
          UM, A COUPLE OF THINGS WITHIN THE ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET IN THE BACKUP THAT ARE CONCERNING TO NEIGHBORS. 
          UM, WE FULLY ACKNOWLEDGE THERE'S HOUSING NEEDS, ESPECIALLY IN OAK HILL AND ESPECIALLY IN FAR WEST OAK HILL. 
          UM, BUT THERE'S REFERENCES TO THE IMAGINE AUSTIN CENTER THAT'S, THAT HAS NOT BEEN FUNDED TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS. 
          UM, THERE IS A NOTE IN THE BACKUP ABOUT IT THIS COMPLEX SERVING VARIOUS INCOMES. 
          HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT INCLUDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH IS OF CONCERN. 
          UM, THERE'S VERY LIMITED BUS SERVICE, WHICH I'LL TALK ABOUT IN A MINUTE. 
          IT'S A VERY AUTOCENTRIC AREA OF TOWN. 
          UM, THE HOUSING CHOICES, WE ALREADY HAVE 12,000, OVER 12,000 APARTMENTS, UM, WITH CURRENT AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS COMING IN THE OAK HILL AREA. 
          UM, SO IT'S MORE DIVERSITY IN THE TYPES OF HOUSING CHOICES, UH, WOULD BE VERY WELCOME BY NEIGHBORS. 
          THE GROCERY ACCESS, THE CLOSEST MARKET IS 0.7 MILES AWAY. 
          THIS IS ACTUALLY A GAS STATION. 
          THIS IS NOT A GROCERY STORE, ALTHOUGH, OF COURSE, AS MOST GAS STATIONS DO, THEY HAVE FOOD OPTIONS. 
          UM, AS MR. HARTMAN PRESENTED IN A MEETING ON APRIL 18TH, UM, HE DID PRESENT THESE NUMBERS WITH 660 UNITS AT 12 UNITS PER ACRE. 
          UM, NEIGHBORS HAVE QUESTION ABOUT THIS NUMBER AND THESE CALCULATIONS WE'RE UNCLEAR ON WHAT UNIT SIZE IS PLANNED TO GENERATE THIS NUMBER OF UNITS. 
          UM, SO WE WOULD APPRECIATE TIME TO TALK WITH MR. HARTMAN AND THE DEVELOPER TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THIS. 
          UM, WE DO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT FUTURE PLANS IN GENERAL FOR THE WHOLE AREA. 
          THE NEW, UH, LEAF JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, OF COURSE THERE'S RURAL RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT, AS MR. HARTMAN SAID, AS WELL AS ACROSS THE STREET. 
          UM, THE CURRENT RESIDENCE, AS I MENTIONED, WE ARE IN MIXED RESIDENTIAL, UM, INCLUDING DUPLEXES AND THIS, THIS WOULD BE VERY WELCOME TO PROVIDE MORE DIVERSITY OF HOUSING IN THIS AREA. 
          UM, THE MIXED RESIDENTIAL WOULD GIVE OPTIONS STILL FOR APARTMENTS, UM, BUT IT COULD MIX IN TOWN HOMES AND DUPLEXES AS WELL. 
          THE HIGHER DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WE DO HAVE QUITE A BIT OF ALREADY IN OAK HILL WITHOUT, UM, FULL INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT IT, SUCH AS PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WALKABILITY. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE IN THIS AREA. 
          I THINK IT WENT A LITTLE FAST. 
          UM, SO PART OF THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD REQUEST FOR A MASTER PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE AREA. 
          THIS, UM, THERE ARE AN ADDITIONAL 62 TRACKS OR 62 ACRES, 52 ACRES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT OWNED BY ANOTHER FAMILY MEMBER. 
          WE'RE UNCLEAR WHAT THE FUTURE PLANS ARE. 
          UM, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD, WOULD, WOULD HELP THE NEIGHBORS ALSO HELP WITH THE PLANNING TO IDENTIFY WHAT IS COMING, IF THERE IS A MASTER PLAN SO THAT, UM, WE KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT AND IT CAN BE BETTER LAID OUT TO PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. 
          UM, THE, AS I MENTIONED, THE NUMBER OF APARTMENTS ACROSS OAK HILLS OVER 2000. 
          WE'VE SEEN VACANCIES, UM, RISE IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS. 
          UM, AND WE HAVE RECENTLY LEARNED THAT SOME OF THESE, UM, ARE ACTUALLY BEING CONVERTED TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS, WHICH, UM, WE, SO WE DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND HOW MORE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENTS ARE COMING IN WHENEVER SOME OF THEM ARE ALREADY BEING CONVERTED TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS. 
          AGAIN, THIS IS A CONCERN WE'D LIKE MORE TIME TO DISCUSS. 
          UM, THIS LIST HERE IS A KEY TO THE MAP I PREVIOUSLY SHOWED. 
          UM, SOME OF THESE ARE IN DEVELOPMENT, BUT WHAT I WOULD POINT TO MR. HARTMAN ALREADY NOTED IS THAT 16 OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS, I BELIEVE, UM, WERE BUILT JUST IN THE LAST 10 YEARS WITH FOUR MORE ON THE DOCKET, UM, CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT OR UP FOR REZONING. 
          SO AGAIN, THERE IS QUITE A, A BIT BEING, UM, BUILT ALREADY AND ALREADY EXISTENT, BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE TYPE OF HOUSING. 
          UM, WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE NEED TO SUPPORT THIS, THIS IS JUST SHOWING WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. 
          UM, IN BLUE ARE THE ONGOING DEVELOPMENTS IN BLACK ARE THE ONES THAT ALREADY EXIST. 
          SO THERE'S QUITE A BIT, UM, UH, THERE ARE QUITE A FEW APARTMENT STRUCTURES ALREADY IN THIS AREA. 
          UM, BUT WE DO HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT SAFETY AND TRAFFIC, ESPECIALLY ON OLD B CAVES ROAD. 
          UM, THE PROPOSAL STATES TWO DRIVEWAYS ON OLD B CAVES ROAD. 
          THIS IS CLASSIFIED AS A SMP LEVEL THREE, BUT THERE'S NO TURN LANES, THERE'S NO MEDIAN. 
          YOU CAN SEE FROM THE IMAGE I'M SHOWING HERE, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, IT'S, IT, IT FEELS VERY NARROW IF YOU DRIVE ON IT. 
          I WOULD NOT BIKE ON IT. 
          I WOULD NOT FEEL SAFE. 
          UM, I WOULD , UM, I QUESTION WALKING ON IT. 
          THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS OF CONCERN WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          SO THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED FOR THIS AREA BEFORE SUCH A LARGE DEVELOPMENT COMES IN. 
          THERE'S ALSO NO SIGNAL CURRENTLY AT 71, WHICH IS WHERE ONE DRIVEWAY IS PROPOSED. 
          SO PEOPLE WILL USE OLD 
          [03:00:01]
B CAVES ROAD MORE OFTEN TO EXIT ON FLETCHER THOMAS SPRINGS OR THOMAS COOK, WHERE THERE ARE, WHERE THERE ARE SIGNALS. 
          UM, SO AGAIN, THIS IS INCREASING TRAFFIC POTENTIALLY MORE THAN, UM, IS ESTIMATED. 
          UM, AS FAR AS PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, THERE ARE MORE SAFETY CONCERNS TO GET TO THE BUS STOP THAT MR. HARTMAN, UM, UH, POINTED OUT. 
          THIS IS ON SILVER MINE. 
          YOU WALK 0.7 MILES ALONG, UH, HIGHWAY 71 WITH NO SIDEWALKS, AND THEN YOU HAVE TO CROSS THE STREET TO GET TO THE BUS STOP. 
          UM, THIS BUS STOP ACTUALLY ONLY COMES TWICE A DAY IN THE MORNING. 
          I HAVE LOOKED AT IT MYSELF BECAUSE IT IS THE CLOSEST ONE. 
          IN ORDER TO TRY AND USE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, I WOULD NEED TO, UM, TAKE EITHER THE 6 35 OR THE 7:15 AM AND I COULD NOT COME HOME UNTIL 6:00 PM AT NIGHT. 
          UM, THERE'S NO OTHER BUS SERVICE WITHIN A WALKABLE DISTANCE. 
          UM, AND ALTHOUGH THE CAP METRO PICKUP AREA IS DOES INCLUDE THIS, WE REALLY HAVEN'T SEEN DATA TO SHOW THE RELIABILITY OF THIS SERVICE. 
          UM, SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S WIDELY USED. 
          AND, UM, THE PINNACLE CAMPUS THAT IS NEARBY IS A PARK AND RIDE. 
          SIMILARLY, THERE'S VERY LIMITED BUS SERVICE THERE. 
          UM, SIMILAR CONSTRAINTS ON THE TIMES. 
          UM, FINALLY, OF COURSE THERE ARE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. 
          WE REALIZE THIS WOULD BE ADDRESSED LATER ON. 
          UM, IT IS UPHILL OF WILLIAMSON CREEK HEADWATERS DIRECTLY UPHILL OF IT. 
          UM, AND ANY, ANY RUNOFF THAT'S CONTRIBUTED WILL ENTER THE WILLIAMS WILLIAMSON CREEK WATERSHED, EVENTUALLY TERMINATING AN EAST AUSTIN FLOODPLAIN. 
          UM, WE KNOW THERE'S ALSO AN EXISTING SPRING ON, ON THE PROPERTY. 
          WE'RE NOT CLEAR HOW THAT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO RUNOFF TO WILLIAMSON CREEK. 
          SO IT'S JUST ANOTHER CONSIDERATION THAT WE WOULD ASK YOU TO KEEP IN MIND. 
          UM, REALLY WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS A POSTPONEMENT. 
          THE ORIGINAL POSTPONEMENT WAS ONLY TWO WEEKS. 
          IT WAS OVER A HOLIDAY WEEKEND. 
          SO WE HAVE NOT HAD A LOT OF TIME TO REALLY, UM, GET TOGETHER AND ALSO TALK TO THE DEVELOPER, TALK TO MR. HARTMAN IN MORE DEPTH TO HELP UNDERSTAND MORE OF THE PROPOSAL. 
          WE WOULD ALSO LIKE, UM, POTENTIALLY THE CONSIDERATION OF MIXED RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND ZONING THAT FITS MORE WITH THE IMMEDIATE AREA AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S IN PLACE. 
          UM, IDEALLY WE'D ALSO REALLY LIKE TO SEE SOME COORDINATION WITH THE A SMP IN A CONCRETE TIMELINE FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS BEFORE THIS OR ANY OTHER NEW DEVELOPMENTS, UM, GO FORWARD. 
          UM, AND WITH THAT, YEAH, AND THAT MAY MINUTES. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. 
          I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. 
          EXCELLENT TIMING. 
          OH, WE'LL GO TO OUR NEXT SPEAKER. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          THE NEXT SPEAKER IS JASON TEX SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION. 
          JASON, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          HEY, COMMISSION. 
          THANKS FOR HAVING ME BACK. 
          IT'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT, I WISH IT WAS UNDER BETTER CIRCUMSTANCES. 
          UM, I WANNA BE CLEAR ON THIS ONE. 
          UM, I'M NOT VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO IT. 
          I I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD RAISED SOME REALLY SALIENT POINTS THAT THE DEVELOPER SHOULD TAKE SERIOUSLY AND ENGAGE WITH THE OTHER PARTY. 
          660 OR 60 ACRES TO BUILD 600 APARTMENTS SOUNDS A LOT MORE REASONABLE THAN SOME OTHER ONES WE'LL DISCUSS LATER. 
          UM, I, I THINK THAT THERE ARE SERIOUS CONCERNS, AS YOU'LL ALSO SEE IN THE, THE LATER CASE ABOUT OLD BKS ROAD, ABOUT THOMAS COOK, ABOUT THE OTHER ROADS THAT SUPPORT THIS DEVELOPMENT. 
          IF YOU HAVEN'T DRIVEN THEM, I URGED YOU BEFORE TO DO IT. 
          I'M GONNA URGE YOU AGAIN. 
          THEY ARE DANGEROUS. 
          THEY ARE NARROW, THEY'RE FALLING APART ON THE SIDES. 
          THE TREES ARE RIGHT UP TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD IN SOME PLACES. 
          AND SO IF YOU WANNA MAKE A COMMUNITY AND BUILD DENSITY, WHICH I SUPPORT, I THINK WE SHOULD BUILD MORE DENSITY. 
          I'M HEARING YOU SAY IT TONIGHT. 
          I AGREE WITH IT. 
          LET'S MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING IT IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY THAT WE'RE PLANNING. 
          I LIKE THE MASTER PLANNING IDEA TO LOOK AT THE ENTIRE AREA, NOT LOOK AT EVERYTHING MYOPICALLY IN ITS OWN LITTLE MICROCOSM AND SAY, OH, THAT ONE MAKES SENSE. 
          OH, THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          WE GOTTA THINK BIGGER. 
          WE GOTTA GET OUTSIDE OF THAT. 
          AND SO I WOULD URGE YOU TO GIVE THIS THE, THE PEOPLE SOME TIME AND, UH, TO LOOK A LITTLE BIT BIGGER AT HOW IT'S, HOW IT'S AFFECTING THE ENTIRE AREA. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT WOMAN WE'VE NEVER MET BEFORE, BUT IT'S AMAZING HOW SIMILAR HER CASE SOUNDS. 
          THE ONE THAT I DELIVERED TO YOU TWO MONTHS AGO, UH, ABOUT A SIMILAR TOPICAL TELECON TONIGHT. 
          ALL THE SAME TOPIC EXISTS, SO I WISH YOU WOULD LISTEN TO THE CONSTITUENTS AND NOT JUST THE DEVELOPERS AND LET'S WORK TOGETHER TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          UH, JENNIFER TEMPLETON IS THE NEXT SPEAKER SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION. 
          JENNIFER DONATED TIME TO DANIELLE BUCKLEY. 
          HOWEVER, DANIELLE RECEIVED THE MAX AMOUNT OF DONATED TIME. 
          UH, JENNIFER, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, YOU'LL HAVE ONE MINUTE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I DIDN'T EXPECT TO SPEAK, UM, HAVING WISHED TO DONATE MY TIME TO, TO DANIELLE, BUT, UM, I WANTED TO 
          [03:05:01]
ALSO THANK YOU FOR LISTENING AND, UM, TELL YOU THAT WE ALL AS NEIGHBORS OF THIS, THIS PROPOSAL, UM, UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT GONNA STAY A FARM. 
          WE GET IT. 
          WE LOVE LOOKING AT THE COWS. 
          IT'S GREAT, BUT DEVELOPMENT'S COMING. 
          WE KNOW IT IS. 
          WE JUST WANT THE RIGHT DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND SHORT OF SEEING SOME TYPE OF MASTER PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS DANIELLE POINTED OUT, IS NOT JUST THE 60. 
          THERE ARE, IT'S A BIG FAMILY PROPERTY, SEVERAL, UM, PEOPLE IN THE MARKS FAMILY AND THEN A ANOTHER NAME ACROSS 71 NEXT TO LIFE AUSTIN CHURCH OR ONE LOT AWAY. 
          IT ACTUALLY COMES TO CLOSE TO, UM, 200 OR 150 ACRES ABOUT. 
          SO IT'S A LOT OF PROPERTY. 
          WE JUST WANT A VISION AND WE WANT TO ENGAGE WITH THE DEVELOPERS AND, UM, ASK YOU TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER DELAYING THIS M UH, MULTIFAMILY FOUR. 
          IT'S TOO MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MA'AM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. 
          UM, WE, I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE A REBUTTAL FROM THE A. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          UM, WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL. 
          MR. HARTMAN. 
          THANKS. 
          SHARING COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS BY THE NEIGHBORS. 
          UM, AS TO SOME ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER ISSUES, A LOT OF ISSUES WERE RAISED BY THAT WERE BASICALLY SITE PLAN ISSUES, UH, THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED AT SIMON SITE PLAN. 
          AND, UH, THERE'LL BE OBVIOUSLY 13, UH, MULTIPLE, 13 DEPARTMENTS, UH, REVIEWING, UH, THIS AND SUBMITTING IT TO STRINGENT, UH, UH, CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVISIONS, INCLUDING THE MOST STRINGENT, UH, WATER QUALITY HAS PROVISIONS IN THE CITY. 
          IN TERMS OF TIME. 
          WE OBVIOUSLY SUBMITTED THIS, UH, ZONING CASE THE EARLY, EARLY PART OF THIS YEAR. 
          AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT BACKUP IS THE, THE, THE RECORD OF THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS COMMUNITY HEARING THAT WAS HOSTED BY THE CITY THAT WE PARTICIPATED WITH IN, UH, APRIL OR SO. 
          SO THERE'S BEEN PLENTY OF TIME FOR, UH, FOLKS TO GET TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THIS CASE, AND WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. 
          THANK YOU, MR. HARTMAN. 
          THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC HEARING. 
          UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? UH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR YOUR HANDS OR YOUR GREEN CARDS? THAT MOTION PASSES BE UNANIMOUSLY. 
          UM, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. 
          THAT TAKES US INTO OUR Q AND A. 
          DO WE HAVE A COMMISSIONER WHO WISHES TO START THE QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. HARTMAN. 
          UH, YOU MENTIONED SOME DOLLAR AMOUNTS. 
          I, I THINK IMPACT FEES, PARKLAND DEDICATION. 
          I, I THINK I SAW $1 MILLION, FOUR AND A HALF MILLION. 
          CAN YOU JUST SORT OF GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF, OF BRIEFLY HOW MUCH MONEY, HOW MANY FEES ARE BEING CHARGED TO THIS PROJECT BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN AS PART OF ITS DEVELOPMENT? BALLPARK IS FINE. 
          WAS IT 1 MILLION? FOUR, FOUR AND A HALF MILLION. 
          SO THE CITY HAS AN ORDER OF PROCESS. 
          SO THE ZONING CASE GOES FIRST, THEN SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN. 
          ONCE THE ZONING CASE IS APPROVED, THEN WE WILL, UH, KICK OFF THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. 
          THAT SITE PLAN PROCESS IN AND OF ITSELF IS FULL BLOWN CIVIL ENGINEERING. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, EASILY SIX FIGURES IN TERMS OF JUST SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION AND GET IT REVIEWED BY THE CITY. 
          IN TERMS OF THIS FEES THAT'LL BE DUE AT TIME OF SITE PLAN ARE THE STREET IMPACT FEES, WHICH I'VE INDICATED FOR 660 UNITS WE CALCULATED TO BE JUST ABOVE A MILLION DOLLARS. 
          MM-HMM . 
          AND SIMILARLY AT, UH, AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, THEY'LL BE REVIEWED AND THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES THAT WE, WE CONSIDERED FOR, WE CALCULATED FOR 660 UNITS WOULD BE RIGHT AT $4.5 MILLION. 
          AND THOSE ARE JUST THOSE TWO FEES. 
          SO IN ADDITION TO THE ACTUAL COST OF DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY PER SE, THE, THE FEES THE CITY CHARGES TO REVIEW PROJECTS AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS ABOUT FIVE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS ROUGHLY OF MONEY GIVEN TO THE CITY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND ONE THING, FOR EXAMPLE, ABOUT THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES IS THAT NEEDS TO, BASICALLY THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT IT BE USED WITHIN THAT GENERAL VICINITY AS WELL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, AND THEN THIS IS LIKELY TO TRIGGER A, A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, A TIA AT THE SITE PLAN STAGE BASED ON THE PROPOSED NUMBER OF UNITS. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, WE, SO WE'LL FOLLOW THE CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS. 
          AGAIN, THAT'S A SITE PLAN ISSUE, BUT BASED ON JUST THE SHEER NUMBER OF UNITS MM-HMM. 
          , I BELIEVE, UM, THAT 660 UNITS PER THE CODE WOULD REQUIRE AN, AN ADDITIONAL TIA AN ADDITIONAL IN, IN ADDITION TO THE ZONING TRAFFIC ANALYSIS THAT WE DID FOR THE ZONING CASE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THEN A, A QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF, UM, AGAIN, 
          [03:10:01]
THIS IS A, A PART OF THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, BUT A GENERAL QUESTION ABOUT THAT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PROCESS. 
          UH, MANY OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HEARD FROM RESIDENTS OF THE AREA ARE ABOUT TRAFFIC AND ACCESS TO ROADWAYS. 
          IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION OF, OF FEEDBACK FROM AREA RESIDENTS DURING THE, THE PROCESS OF A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS? IS THERE ANY WAY FOR FOLKS TO SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, NEW SITES GOING UP THIS ROAD HAS SOME ISSUES HERE THEY ARE. 
          OR IS THAT PURELY DONE BY CITY STAFF OR ENGINEERS? IT'S DONE BY CITY STAFF AND IT'S THE ZTA MEMO. 
          UM, IT'S INCLUDED IN BACKUP, BUT MM-HMM. 
           TO, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, IT DOESN'T INCLUDE, UM, THE PUBLIC INFORMATION PROCESS. 
          CORRECT. 
          IT'S JUST THE CITY'S INPUT. 
          YEAH. 
          I'M GETTING A HEAD NOD. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I GUESS LAST, LAST QUESTION, 'CAUSE I DO HAVE TIME, UM, AGAIN, THIS IS DETERMINED AT SITE PLAN, BUT IN GENERAL FOR LARGER PROJECTS, WHAT ARE THE SORTS OF IMPROVEMENTS THAT MIGHT BE REQUIRED? IS IT FEES THAT ARE CHARGED? IS IT BUILDING TRAFFIC SIGNALS, EXPANDING ROADWAYS? I MEAN, WHAT'S SORT OF WITHIN THE RANGE OF THINGS THAT LARGER SITES MIGHT HAVE TO DO AS PART OF THEIR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION? THAT'S, IT'S, IT VARIES PER CASE IN THIS ONE, AGAIN, IT'S AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN. 
          THAT'S NOT DONE AT REZONING. 
          I MEAN, SIDEWALKS PER CITY CODE IS ONE THAT POPS UP IMMEDIATELY. 
          BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I CAN'T GIVE SPECIFICS 'CAUSE I DON'T DO SITE PLANNING. 
          OKAY. 
          SURE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, PLEASURE WOODS. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT KIND OF BASED OFF OF SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY, SPECIFICALLY THE OLD BCAS ROAD LEVEL AND SAFETY. 
          UM, AND HEARING THAT IT'S LIKELY THAT RESIDENTS WILL USE OLD BE CAVES ROAD INSTEAD OF 71. 
          SOUNDS LIKE THE PRIMARY INGRESS AND EGRESS IS THERE. 
          CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE DEVELOPER'S DECISION TO NOT HAVE RESIDENTS ENTERING AND EXITING ONTO WHAT'S A FIVE LANE STATE HIGHWAY AND INSTEAD USING THIS MUCH SMALLER ROAD? UM, SO I CAN PULL UP A SLIDE IF IT WOULD HELP, BUT IN THE ZONE ZONING TR THE MEMO THAT IS THE ZONING TRAFFIC ANALYSIS. 
          IT DOES DESCRIBE THAT. 
          BASICALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT TWO, UM, INGRESS EGRESS POINTS ON OB CAVES ROAD AND ONE ONH 71. 
          AND I THINK THE, THE, THE REQUIREMENT FOR JUST ONLY ONE ON SH 71, AGAIN IS GONNA BE DECIDED AT TIME OF SITE PLAN, BUT IT HAS TO DO WITH THE SPACING REQUIREMENT. 
          SH 70 ONE'S A TXDOT ROADWAY. 
          SO THE SPACING REQUIREMENT FROM IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT LANDOWNERS IS SUCH THAT WE CAN ONLY GET FIT ONE. 
          WE CAN LIKELY AT TIME OF SITE PLAN ONLY FIT ONE. 
          BUT NEVERTHELESS, AS I STATED, AND I CAN GO TO THAT SLIDE IF IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          THE, THE MODELING THAT OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER HAS DONE, UH, SHOWS THAT ABOUT 75% OF THE PROJECTS GONNA GET THEIR ACCESS FROM SH 71, WHICH AGAIN CARRIES, YOU KNOW, 27,000 CARS PER DAY AS A FOUR LANE DIVIDED WITH DUAL TURN LANE IN THE MIDDLE, IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. 
          SO OLD BECAUSE ROAD IS NOT THE, IT WOULD NOT BE THE PRIMARY INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR THE SITE. 
          THERE, THERE ARE TWO, UH, INGRESS EGRESSES ON OB CAVES ROAD ONE ON S 8 71 AND JUST THE WAY THAT OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER HAS MODELED THE TRAFFIC, BECAUSE THERE'S BASICALLY NOTHING IF YOU GO DOWN OP CAVES ROAD, THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH THERE TO GO OTHER THAN AS WAS STATED, NATURAL GARDEN AND THAT SORT OF THINGS. 
          THE, THE MAJOR EMPLOYMENT TYPE THINGS THAT PEOPLE WILL DRIVE TO AND FROM ISSH 71. 
          SO OKAY, THERE'LL BE TWO TWO INGRESS EGRESS AND IT WILL BE CAVES ROAD UTILIZED BY 25% OF OUR PROPERTY, UH, UH, TRAFFIC. 
          AND THEN ONE ONH 71 THAT UTILIZED 70, 75%. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          AND THEN I ALSO HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT AN EXISTING SPRING ON THE PROPERTY. 
          IS THAT BEING TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN? UM, AGAIN, WE'RE AT THE ZONING STAGE. 
          THAT'LL BE A SITE PLAN STAGE. 
          WE'LL WE WILL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          UM, AND THEN FINALLY I HEARD A REQUEST FOR MORE OF A MASTER PLAN FROM THIS AREA, FOR THIS AREA. 
          DOES THE PROPERTY OWNER, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY OWN THE FULL 150 ACRES AROUND THERE. 
          DO THEY HAVE PLANS FOR THAT, THAT FULL AREA? SO THE SELLER IS OUR 61 ACRES AND THEN THEY'VE RESERVED THE 10 ACRES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT J 8 71. 
          THERE ARE OTHER MARKS FAMILY MEMBERS, I UNDERSTAND, I'M TOLD THAT OWN ADJACENT TRACKS, BUT WE'RE NOT AFFILIATED WITH THEM. 
          THEY'RE NOT OUR SELLERS. 
          AND SO THERE'S NO, NO POSSIBILITY TO ENTER INTO SOME MASTER PLANNING WITH THEM. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          UM, AND I'LL I'LL ASK ONE MORE QUESTION 'CAUSE I HAVE A SECOND. 
          I HEARD, UM, CONCERNS ABOUT THE UNIT SIZES PLANNED AND MAYBE IT'S TOO EARLY IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, MAYBE THIS IS A SITE PLAN ISSUE, BUT CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO, IF YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THE 
          [03:15:01]
UNIT SIZES MAY BE AND MAYBE HOW YOU CAME TO THE CALCULATION OF UNITS PER ACRE? 'CAUSE IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE WAS SOME, SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. 
          YEAH, WE, WE HAVE NOT, UM, REALLY DONE ANY ROBUST PLANNING ABOUT WHAT THE UNIT MIX IS GONNA BE AND WHAT THE UNIT SIZES ARE GOING TO BE. 
          WE JUST KIND OF FROM A, FROM A MAXIMUM TOTAL, YOU KNOW, BACK OF THE BACK OF THE NAPKIN KIND OF CA CALCULATION, HAVE LOOKED AT THE MF FOUR NET SIDE AREA CALCULATIONS AND JUST DERIVED ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT WE COULD GET A MAXIMUM 660 UNITS, WHAT SIZE THOSE ARE. 
          WE JUST AREN'T, AREN'T AT THE STAGE WHERE WE WOULD KNOW THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN, UM, FINALLY, JUST A QUESTION. 
          CAN, CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT THE SITE WILL COMPLY WITH THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS OVERLAY REGULATIONS IN THIS AREA? IT WILL, IT WOULD COMPLY WITH, UM, ALL APPLICABLE LAWS INCLUDE THE, SO S ORDINANCE, THE WATER QUALITY, MORE STRINGENT WATER QUALITY STANDARDS THAN ARE REQUIRED ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY. 
          THANK YOU MR. HERMAN. 
          THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. 
          CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER WOODS AUTHOR, COMMISSIONER COX. 
          UM, I, I HAVE DRIVEN ON OLD B CAVES ROAD BECAUSE I'M A BIG FAN OF THE NATURAL GARDENER. 
          UM, AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S LISTED AS A, AS AS A LEVEL THREE, IT, IT CERTAINLY IS NOT BUILT THAT WAY. 
          AND I'M GLAD THAT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION WOULD BE REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT. 
          SO THAT'S ONE STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. 
          I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT RELATED TO TRAFFIC AND SAFETY. 
          UM, I'M, I'M VERY DISHEARTENED TO SEE A LOT OF THE DEVELOPMENTS. 
          YOU KNOW, TXDOT HAS A PRETTY RELATIVELY STRICT ACCESS CONTROL MANUAL. 
          UH, THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS, IS A LOT LESS STRICT WHEN IT COMES TO ACCESS CONTROL ON THE ROADS. 
          AND I'M, I'M DISAPPOINTED TO SEE A LOT OF DRIVEWAYS TO PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT DON'T, THAT DIDN'T ACTUALLY BUILD THEIR OWN DEDICATED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANES TO ENSURE THAT THE, THE TRAFFIC CONFLICTS OF PEOPLE GETTING IN AND OUT OF THEIR PROPERTY IS DONE IN THE SAFEST WAY POSSIBLE. 
          UM, WOULD, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO COMMIT RIGHT NOW THAT YOUR DRIVEWAYS THAT CONNECT TO OLD B CAVES ROAD, UH, WOULD INCLUDE DEDICATED, UH, LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANES BUILT BY THE DEVELOPER WHEN THIS BUILDS OUT? AGAIN, WE'RE AT THE ZONING STAGE. 
          SO THE QUESTION BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL IS WHAT'S THE PROPER LAND USE AND THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT? UM, WHAT IS STATED IN THE THE ZONING STAFF REPORT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR OB CAS ROAD, UM, ACCORDING TO THE AS SMP IS A HUNDRED FOOT AND WHAT'S ON THE GROUND IS AROUND 60 FEET. 
          AND THAT'S WHY THE STAFF'S ALREADY SAYING THE ZONING STAFF REPORT. 
          YEAH, YEAH. 
          NO, I'VE, I'VE READ AND I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING SINCE I HAVE LIMITED TIME. 
          I'VE READ THE STAFF REPORT SO I KNOW WHAT IT SAYS. 
          WHAT, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER AND, AND AS A TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER, I DO TRY TO ACCOUNT FOR ASPECTS LIKE SAFETY AND PREEXISTING CONDITIONS THAT COULD, UH, CAUSE SAFETY ISSUES WHEN I'M THINKING ABOUT WHAT COULD BE BUILT UNDER A ZONING APPLICATION. 
          AND SO I'M ASKING YOU, UM, IF, IF, IF YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO ESSENTIALLY COMMIT TO MAKING SURE THAT THE TRAFFIC GOING IN AND OUT OF YOUR VERY SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT OFF OF OLD B CAVES ROAD, WHICH IS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL ROAD, UH, WILL BE BUILT OUT BY THE DEVELOPER IN THE SAFEST WAY POSSIBLE. 
          WE'LL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS AT THOMAS SITE PLAN. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, SO THAT'S A NO. 
          UM, AND YOU MENTIONED THAT IT WAS ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE STREET IMPACT FEE? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, A MILLION DOLLARS WON'T DO MUCH ON OLD B CAVES ROAD. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TOTAL, I GUESS IF STAFF MAYBE COULD SPEAK TO A LOT OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND ALL THE STREET IMPACT FEES THAT ARE GOING INTO THE CITY COFFERS FROM THESE NEW DEVELOPMENTS. 
          ARE, ARE, IS THERE ANYTHING ON THE IMMEDIATE HORIZON TO, TO IMPROVE OLD B CAVES ROAD WITH THOSE STREET IMPACT FEES? COMMISSIONER COX, SHERRY SIR, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT THIS TIME, WE DO NOT HAVE THE TRANSPORTATION STAFF WITH US FOR THIS CASE, SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT OTHER DEVELOPMENTS ARE DOING. 
          WE ONLY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS ZONING CASE BECAUSE THAT IS THE PROPERTY WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS EVENING. 
          AND AS YOU KNOW, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, WE WILL. 
          OKAY. 
          SO AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT A TIA IS LIKELY TO BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN AND THAT'S WHEN WE WILL LOOK AT THE INGRESS AND EGRESS ON THIS PROPERTY AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REQUIRE AS PART OF THE ZONING. 
          CORRECT? YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I DO HAVE SOMEONE FROM A TD IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO ADDRESS IF THEY HAVE MORE INFORMATION. 
          OH, THAT'D BE GREAT. 
          IF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON OLD BKS ROAD AND ANYTHING THAT MIGHT BE ON THE HORIZON TO ADDRESS THE COMMUNITY'S CONCERNS AS WE, UH, CONTINUE TO 
          [03:20:01]
BUILD OUT THIS AREA. 
          THANKS. 
          UH, DANIELLE MOORE IN TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC WORKS. 
          UM, I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE MORE INFORMATION FOR YOU, BUT I'M HAPPY TO GO BACK AND PULL SOME OF THAT INFORMATION FROM, UH, THE CIF SERVICE AREA AND I CAN GIVE YOU SOME IDEAS OF WHAT, UM, IS ON THE HORIZON. 
          I THINK THAT'D BE REALLY HELPFUL BECAUSE WE'LL PROBABLY CONTINUE TO GET COMMUNICATION FROM THE PUBLIC. 
          AND SO IF IF THERE'S ANY WAY FOR YOU TO FOLLOW UP WITH THAT INFORMATION, THAT'D BE GREAT. 
          YEP, DEFINITELY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER COX. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I BELIEVE YOU HAD A QUESTION AS WELL. 
          DO WE HAVE OTHER FOLKS WITH QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? COMMISSIONER AL AND THEN WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS. 
          I THINK I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR IF, IF SHE'S STILL PRESENT, MS. DANIELLE WHO SPOKE, UM, ONE OF THE RESIDENTS OR OR ANOTHER RESIDENT, IF THEY CAN ANSWER SOME HISTORICAL QUESTIONS. 
          I THINK, UM, IF I'M CORRECT, THIS AREA WAS ANNEXED AND I WONDER IF YOU MIGHT, AND WE HAVE TO GO QUICKLY 'CAUSE OUR TIME GETS LIMITED. 
          YEAH. 
          IF YOU MIGHT, UM, LET ME KNOW WHEN THIS AREA WAS ANNEXED INTO CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          DO YOU KNOW OR ROUGH GUESSTIMATE? GUESSTIMATE IS FOR, I'M AFRAID, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN CITY OF AUSTIN FOR AT LEAST AS LONG AS MY DEVELOPMENT'S BEEN THERE, WHICH WAS 2004. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT'S NOT VERY LONG. 
          UM, AND SO EVERYTHING WE'VE GOT OUT THERE WAS COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ORIGINALLY. 
          YES. 
          AND JUST ACROSS THE STREET FROM 71 IS ALSO COUNTY. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND SO COUNTY, I KNOW BECAUSE I'M IN AN AREA THAT WAS ANNEXED AND WAS HISTORICALLY, COUNTY, COUNTY HAS A LOT OF PROHIBITIONS FROM REGULATING HOW DEVELOPMENT GOES AND HOW ROADS DEVELOP BECAUSE OF LAWS AT THE STATE LEVEL. 
          SO THOSE DON'T HAVE SIDEWALKS, THOSE DON'T HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          IS THIS ANYWHERE NEAR THE INFAMOUS Y WE GET TO HEAR ABOUT ON THE MORNING NEWS ALL THE TIME? YES. 
          UM, THE Y IS JUST DOWN AT THE OTHER END OF OLD B CAVES ROAD. 
          I FIGHT THAT TRAFFIC AND CONSTRUCTION ALL THE TIME. 
          AND WALKING TO THE BUS STOP ON SILVER MINE WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THAT CONSTRUCTION. 
          NOT ALL THE WAY TO THE Y BUT IT IS ALONG THERE. 
          AND SO ALL OF THAT IS GOING ON THE, THAT FORK THAT'S THERE THAT WE SAW ON THOSE MAPS? CORRECT. 
          SO WE'RE GONNA ADD AN ADDITIONAL 660 APARTMENT UNITS THAT GO THERE. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          AND THEN I, THIS MAY NOT BE FOR YOU, BUT THANK YOU FOR, FOR ANSWERING SOME OF THAT. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS AREA, I THOUGHT WE RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE IN OUR BACK OR FROM SOS THAT THIS AREA DOES FALL INTO THE, SO THIS MAY BE MORE FOR CITY STAFF, THAT THIS WAS ALL SUBJECT TO, UM, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND SOS WATERSHED AREAS. 
          THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND I WASN'T QUITE CLEAR IF THAT APPLIED TO THIS CASE OR A DIFFERENT ONE. 
          SO YEAH, LIKE I SAID, I THINK THIS GOES MORE FOR CITY STAFF. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH, THANK YOU CYNTHIA HARI. 
          THIS DID NOT FALL UNDER THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S A DIFFERENT CASE THEY WERE BRINGING UP. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          NO, THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER AL, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, SORRY ABOUT THIS, BUT MS. DANIELLE, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU AND A FOLLOW UP WITH A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          AND WHAT I WANTED TO ASK YOU IS WHAT YOU WERE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU'RE ASKING FOR A POSTPONEMENT, UM, THAT IS ONE OF THE ASKS SO THAT WE CAN HAVE MORE TIME HOPEFULLY TO, UM, TALK WITH THE DEVELOPER MR. HARTMAN ABOUT SOME OF THE ISSUES WE'VE RAISED. 
          HOW LONG ARE YOU ASKING FOR A POSTPONEMENT? UM, I BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL DATE THAT WE REQUESTED WAS AUGUST 23RD. 
          OKAY. 
          SO MAYBE A MONTH MORE OR LESS? YES. 
          AND, AND MY QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT THEN IS WHY ARE THEY OBJECTING TO AN, AN ADDITIONAL POSTPONEMENT OR POSTPONEMENT? UM, AND WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE LOG JAM BETWEEN WHAT HAD, WHAT THEY ARE COMMUNICATING TO YOU, SIR, AND WHAT YOU'RE COMMUNICATING BACK OR NOT COMMUNICATING BACK? YEAH, NO, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
          SURE. 
          AGAIN, THE, THE ZONING CASE WAS FILED I BELIEVE IN FEBRUARY, MARCH. 
          WE'VE HAD PUBLIC MEETING HOSTED BY THE CITY. 
          UM, THERE WAS A POSTPONEMENT REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AGREED TO THE POSTPONEMENT TO THIS, UM, PARTICULAR MEETING TO HEAR THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 
          AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S A, THERE'S A, THERE'S A POLICY OF, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING THE FIRST POST AMENDMENT REQUEST, WHICH IS DONE. 
          AND WE'VE, WE'RE HAPPY TO CONTINUE WHATEVER SORTS OF DIALOGUE MAY BE NECESSARY AS A MOVE BETWEEN NON CITY COUNCIL, UM, TO CONTINUE TO ADDRESS WHAT WE'VE UH, DISCUSSED WITH THEM BACK IN APRIL. 
          AND THAT'S BEEN PUBLIC RE RECORD SINCE EARLY FEBRUARY OR MARCH, WHENEVER THIS WAS FILED. 
          SO, SO OTHER THAN THAT PUBLIC HEARING, HAVE YOU HAD OTHER 
          [03:25:01]
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD? UM, THERE'S BEEN NO DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS WITH THEM. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME FOR THAT, EVEN IF IT'S NOT FOUR WEEKS, TWO WEEKS? YEAH. 
          I THINK THE, THE ISSUES THAT I'VE HEARD TONIGHT, AS I'VE EXPRESSED ALREADY ARE PRETTY MUCH SITE PLAN ISSUES OR POLICY ISSUES OF WHETHER OR NOT MULTIFAMILY IS CORRECT, UM, UH, ON, ON THIS OR WHETHER IT SHOULD STAY AG, FOR EXAMPLE, AND, AND OR PLANNING THE MASTER PLANNING OF A, A SURROUNDING ADJACENT LANDOWNERS THAT WE DON'T CONTROL. 
          SO I THINK WE'RE AT THE JUNCTURE WHERE IT'S WELL, THANK YOU. 
          A POLICY QUESTION. 
          I I I THINK PART OF IT THOUGH IS BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR, RIGHT? I MEAN, BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT, MOST OF THOSE ISSUES ARE SITE PLAN ISSUES, BUT I'M SURE YOU'VE GIVEN THEM A LEVEL OF COMFORT BY AND RESPONDING TO IT SINCE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE PART OF SOME OF THAT SITE PLAN PROCESS AS WE HEARD TONIGHT. 
          UM, WHETHER IT'S LIKE ON TRAFFIC AND ROAD ISSUES, THEY WON'T, IT'LL JUST BE A CITY ENGINEER AND YOU, YOU, YOU GUYS COULD REALLY PROVIDE SOME LEVEL OF COMFORT IN KINSHIP IF YOU WERE TO MEET AND GIVE THAT OLIVE BRANCH. 
          AND SO I'M JUST ASKING, IS THAT ON THE TABLE? OH, WE'RE NOT IN AGREEMENT OF ANY FURTHER POSTPONEMENT TONIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, DO WE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? CHAIR? YES, GO AHEAD. 
          I WAS GONNA MAKE A QUICK MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO MIDNIGHT. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND THAT SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING. 
          TIME TO NOON. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OR MIDNIGHT ? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          COMMISSIONER HOWARD. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU'RE IN FAVOR. 
          IF, IF I, DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY? OKAY. 
          THAT MOTION PASSES. 
          UM, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          WE CAN GET BACK TO, UH, WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE WE DO NOT SEEM TO HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM. 
          DOES SOMEBODY HAVE A MOTION? I'M SORRY. 
          DID WE SAY, WHO DID YOU CALL THE VOTE FOR? WHO WAS AGAINST THE ITEM? UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND SAY WHO WAS FOR IT AND MAYBE THAT WOULD HELP. 
          UH, I NOTED, UH, COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER WOODS AS HAR ANDERSON, MAXWELL AND HOWARD. 
          DID I DO THE MATHS RIGHT? YEP. 
          THAT'S SEVEN. 
          THANK YOU, MS. CORONA. 
          UH, I'M SORRY. 
          UH, SOMEBODY WAS TALKING ABOUT MY MOTION. 
          YEAH, I'LL MOVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          I HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          AND JUST TO BE BE CLEAR, THIS IS ITEM NINE AND 10, IS THAT CORRECT? THANK YOU. 
          YES, THAT IS CORRECT. 
          RIGHT? TO MAKE SURE OF THAT. 
          UM, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? UH, NO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          DO WE HAVE ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST OR FOR THE MOTION, MR. AL? UM, I'LL JUST  I'M TRY NOT TO BE A JERK, BUT I'D LIKE TO REMIND US WE ARE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THIS IS CASE IN POINT, WHY WE NEED AREA PLANS. 
          UM, THE HOUSING ITSELF IS NOT NECESSARILY THE PROBLEM. 
          WE'RE HEARING THAT CLEARLY. 
          THE PROBLEM IS THIS IS AN ANNEXED AREA THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          IT WASN'T DEVELOPED BY CITY, IT WAS ALL COUNTY AND RURAL, AND IT'S NOT THERE. 
          AND SO WE GET INTO THIS TRICKERY WHERE WE'RE HAVING A ZONE, A PARTICULAR SPOT. 
          I MEAN, THIS TO ME IS LIKE THE DEFINITION OF SPOT ZONING BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S AROUND IT AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THE PLANNING, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THE STUFF THAT'S THERE. 
          UM, AND SO IT'S MY CALL AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE DISCUSSED THIS AND, AND, AND PASSED FORWARD TO COUNSEL A REQUEST FOR AREA PLANS. 
          THIS IS NOT THE ONLY AREA IN OUR CITY THAT NEEDS THIS. 
          WE HAVE A FEW OTHER AREAS THAT DESPERATELY NEED THIS AS THE GROWTH COMES OUTWARD. 
          AND WHAT I GET CONCERNED ABOUT IS WHEN WE START DOING THIS AND WE JUST LET THESE PROJECTS GO WITHOUT LOOKING AT THAT, WE'RE LOSING OPPORTUNITY. 
          WE'RE LOSING. 
          AND WHAT WE'RE HAVING TO DO IN THE DOWNTOWN CORRIDORS IS RETROFIT AND RETRO BUILD A CITY WITH WHAT IT NEEDS TO GROW AND FUNCTION IN A HEALTHY WAY. 
          AND HERE WE'RE MISSING THAT OPPORTUNITY BIG TIME. 
          SO I, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE WE DO EXCEPT TO SEND COUNSEL A NO VOTE ON THIS ZONING REQUEST TO TRY AND HAMMER HOME THE POINT THAT WE NEED PLANNING HERE. 
          THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY THE MF FOUR REQUEST, THAT'S BAD. 
          IT'S THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO INTEGRATED PLANNING TO HELP THIS AREA GROW WHERE IT'S ALREADY GOT TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION. 
          WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO THE DRAINAGE AND THE SEWAGE AND ALL THE OTHER STUFF THAT'S GOTTA GO AND WHERE THE, THE BIKE LANES ARE GONNA GO AND WHERE THE CAT METRO'S GONNA RUN IN THAT THERE'S JUST NO PLAN FOR IT. 
          AND, AND THAT'S, THAT GOES AGAINST WHY WE EXIST. 
          THANK 
          [03:30:01]
YOU COMMISSIONER AL. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          UM, I, I THINK I RECALLING A MEMO. 
          I DON'T REMEMBER ALL THE DETAILS, BUT IT'S SOMETHING LIKE 40% OF THE CITY IS PLANNED AND IT TOOK OVER 25 YEARS TO DO IT. 
          AND MANY OF THOSE PLANS ARE INCREDIBLY OUTDATED ALREADY. 
          AND IT WOULD TAKE ANOTHER HUNDRED YEARS WITH CURRENT RESOURCES TO UPDATE OUR PLANS AND TO REPLAN EVERYTHING. 
          SO IT'D BE GREAT TO BE ABLE TO PLAN EVERYTHING, BUT UNTIL WE HAVE THOSE RESOURCES, WE'RE USING THE TOOLS WE HAVE. 
          SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          DO WE HAVE OTHER COMMISSIONERS? UM, SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION THAT CASE? I'M GONNA GO, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, GO AHEAD. 
          I WAS JUST GONNA EXPLAIN, I I'M, I'M GONNA BE A BIG FAT YELLOW. 
          I, I I, I'VE ALWAYS BELIEVED, AND I'VE ALWAYS PREACHED THAT I THINK DEVELOPERS SHOULD DO MORE THAN JUST THE BARE MINIMUM. 
          UH, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VERY, VERY SUBSTANTIAL ENTITLEMENTS. 
          UM, AND WHAT I HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT TONIGHT WAS THAT THEY'RE ONLY WILLING TO DO THE BARE MINIMUM. 
          UM, IT'S EXTREMELY INEXPENSIVE FOR A PROJECT THIS SIZE TO INCORPORATE SIMPLE SAFETY ASPECTS LIKE DEDICATED TURN LANES. 
          UM, OF COURSE IF A TD OBJECTED, UH, THEN THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUILD IT, BUT I GUARANTEE YOU A TD WOULD NOT OBJECT  TO SOME, TO SOME DEDICATED TURN LANES ON THIS ROAD KNOWING HOW, UH, NARROW AND, AND DANGEROUS IT IS. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I'M NOT GONNA BE VOTING FOR IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER COX, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? OKAY, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND SAY, SO THIS IS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL TO MOVE AHEAD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HANDS FOR YOUR GREEN CARDS. 
          YES, THAT'S EIGHT FOUR. 
          UM, THOSE AGAINST COMMISSIONER, UM, YOU'RE AGAINST JUST TO, OKAY. 
          SO WE HAVE A 8 4 1 AGAINST AND TWO ABSTENTIONS COMMISSIONER AL, THAT'S YELLOW, RIGHT? YES. 
          UM, OKAY, SO THE, THE NO VOTE ON THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS AND THE ABSTENTIONS ARE COMMISSIONER COX AND COMMISSIONER AL WITH THE BOUNCE OF THE DS IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. 
          THANK Y'ALL. 
          THAT MOTION PASSES, THAT TAKES US TO ITEM NUMBER 13 AND 14, BUT I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER AL, DID YOU HAVE A REQUEST FOR US REGARDING THE ORDER OF ITEMS? I, I WAS GOING TO REQUEST IT. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I CANNOT STAY WITH THE COMMISSION. 
          , I'M REALLY WIPED, I'M RUNNING ON ABOUT FOUR HOURS OF SLEEP AFTER, UH, UH, AIRPORT DIFFICULTIES THIS PAST WEEKEND, SOME NATIONAL AND SOME RELATED TO AUSTIN. 
          UM, BUT YES, I WAS HOPING WE COULD TAKE UP BRIEFLY, UM, SO AT LEAST I COULD SPEAK TO IT. 
          SORRY. 
          SO THIS, JUST TO CONFIRM THIS SLIDE NUMBER 27, RIGHT? THE DISCUSSION IN ACTION TO AND BYLAWS AND RULES OF PROCEDURE. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SORRY, I HADN'T , AS YOU KNOW, HADN'T BEEN ABLE TO GO THROUGH THE AGENDA. 
          NO, IT'S ALL GOOD. 
          UM, DO WE HAVE AN OBJECTION TO TAKING UP ITEM NUMBER 27 AT THIS TIME? AND IT WILL BE QUICK ? I DON'T, SORRY, CHAIR. 
          I DON'T SEE ANY BACKUP ON ITEM 27 ONLINE. 
          I DO NOT REMEMBER SEEING ANY, UH, MR. BARRY RAMIREZ THAT YOU, CAN YOU PLEASE TURN ON YOUR MICROPHONE? I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY BACKUP. 
          IS THERE ANY BACKUP? I DIDN'T SUBMIT ANY, WE DIDN'T SUBMIT ANY, SO COMMISSIONER COX, THERE'S NO BACKUP ON THIS ITEM. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          SORRY. 
          SAID WE'LL MAKE IT QUICK. 
          , DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTION FROM COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, WELL, WE'RE GONNA GO QUICKLY TO ITEM 
          [27. Discussion and action to amend the bylaws and rules of procedure to adopt a deadline for  posting backup. Sponsors: Commissioners Barrera-Ramirez and Mushtaler. ]
NUMBER 27 HERE, UM, WHICH IS, UH, SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER AL. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER I, EITHER ONE OF YOU CAN START THE DISCUSSION. 
          UM, NADIA, HOW DO YOU GO ? I MEAN, I THINK GONNA LET YOU GO. 
          IT'S, AND MAYBE IT'S A RESOLUTION STATING THAT OUR PREFERENCE IS TO HAVE, AND I THINK WHAT WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT FOR THE LAST MEETING, WE DIDN'T HAVE OUR AGENDA ITEMS AVAILABLE ON FRIDAY, WHICH I, I SAW THEM MONDAY AFTERNOON. 
          UM, AND WHICH LED ME OR TO, YOU KNOW, QUICK DO REVIEWS AND OUR CURRENT BYLAWS DO NOT REQUIRE STAFF TO POST BACKUP BY FRIDAY. 
          UM, IT'S JUST NOT IN THERE. 
          IT SAYS AGENDA, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY BACKUP. 
          AND SO THAT IS THE SIMPLE CHANGE WE'D LIKE TO MAKE TO THE BYLAWS THAT STATE AGENDA AND BACKUP TO BE POSTED 72 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER. 
          COMMISSIONER AL, DID YOU WANNA ADD SOMETHING TO THAT? YEAH, NO, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, I I, THIS IS NOT MEANT AT ALL TO, TO BE A DIGIT STAFF. 
          WE'VE GOT SOME STAFF TURNOVER AT THE MOMENT. 
          [03:35:01]
UM, SO IT, IT, IT PUTS THEM IN A DIFFICULT SPOT. 
          BUT I THINK BY GETTING A COUPLE OF CONCERNS, ONE IS COMMISSIONERS NEED THE INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO DO THEIR JOB. 
          AND TWO, IT'S PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY. 
          THE PUBLIC NEEDS THE INFORMATION SO THAT THEY CAN REVIEW, THEY KNOW WHAT'S COMING UP AND THEY CAN SPEAK AND BE ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS. 
          SO THERE'S TWO ISSUES. 
          AND BY PUTTING IT IN ON THE, ON THE RULES, WE FEEL LIKE, AND I KNOW STAFF'S TRYING, THIS IS NOT , I MEANT TO BE NEGATIVE ON, ON STAFF AT ALL THAT HAVE JUMPED IN. 
          BUT WE FEEL THAT IT WOULD, IT WOULD EXPRESS THE IMPORTANCE OF THOSE TWO KEY ITEMS. THIS IS ACTUALLY ALSO COMING THROUGH OTHER BODIES LIKE OURS. 
          WE'LL BE CONSIDERING THE SAME THING. 
          AND SO IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT FOR US TO TAKE SOMETHING UP LIKE THIS. 
          I I, I'M PRETTY SURE THAT YOU'RE GONNA SEE THIS COME THROUGH ON ZAP AS WELL. 
          THIS IS KIND OF AFFECTING ALL OF THE LAND USE COMMISSIONS AT THE MOMENT AND, AND CONCERNS. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER ALGER. 
          UM, DO WE, DO Y'ALL, SO WE, I'M SORRY, JUST TO UNDERSTAND, SO THE MOTION WOULD BE TO AMEND THE BYLAWS AND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE TO SAY AGENDA AND BACKUP HAVE TO BE POSTED BY WHAT TIME ON THURSDAY? ACTUALLY, I THINK IT'S, WELL, IT'S, YEAH, FRIDAY AT 5:00 PM IS THAT, I THINK WE WENT WITH THE 72 HOURS IN CASE THE, UM, IT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S ALREADY EXISTING IN THE RULES. 
          ESSENTIALLY. 
          WE'RE NOT TRYING TO REWRITE THE RULES, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO ADD AND BACKUP MATERIALS. 
          SO THE AGENDA AND BACKUP MATERIALS AS IT'S CURRENTLY SLATED IN THE RULES, KEEPS IT SIMPLE. 
          AND THEN IF THE MEETINGS WERE TO CHANGE  THEIR DATES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, IT DOESN'T GET INTO A, WELL NOW THE MEETINGS OR SPECIAL MEETINGS BEEN CALLED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          MM-HMM. 
           APPRECIATE THAT. 
          SO, UM, WE HAVE A MOTION COMMISSIONER BY COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ MO, UH, SECONDED BY, UM, COMMISSIONER AL. 
          I GUESS, I'M SORRY, I'M GOING A LITTLE OUT OF ORDER 'CAUSE WE'RE, THIS IS NOT A REGULAR ITEM, BUT DO FOLKS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION MAKERS? UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          , HOW ARE WE, LIKE WHAT EXACTLY DO WE MEAN BY BACKUP? IS THIS FOR ALL ITEMS? IS THIS FOR, UM, CONSENT AGENDA? IS THIS I I I JUST WONDER LIKE, ARE WE GONNA PUT OURSELVES IN A SITUATION WHERE THE LIAISON IS VIOLATING THE BYLAWS IF THEY ADD LATE BACKUP LATER? YOU KNOW, I JUST, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A BIG THING OUTTA THIS, BUT I JUST WONDER, LIKE, DO WE NEED TO CONSIDER, LIKE, CAN WE GET BACKUP WITHIN THE 72 HOURS OR IF IT'S NOT DONE BY THEN WE JUST YES, AND THE, WE HAVE, IT'S BEEN UNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A CHANGE OVER IN STAFF MM-HMM. 
          , UM, YOU KNOW, THAT HASN'T HAPPENED CONSISTENTLY. 
          YEAH. 
          AND, AND THAT'S BEEN PROBLEMATIC FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO. 
          UM, THIS WOULD REMOVE THE ITEM. 
          I, I, I JUST DON'T WANT IT TO BE A, A PERSONAL PERSONNEL DISCUSSION. 
          YEAH. 
          WE'D LIKE IT TO BE IN THE BYLAWS SO THAT WHOEVER IS SERVING IN THAT CAPACITY UNDERSTANDS THAT'S THE EXPECTATION. 
          I MEAN, A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD ARGUE 72 HOURS ISN'T LONG ENOUGH. 
          MM-HMM. 
           TO ENGAGE THE PUBLIC FULLY IN A, IN A TRULY TRANSPARENT PROCESS. 
          BUT I THINK AT LEAST IT'S A START FROM WHERE WE ARE. 
          MAYBE WE, MAYBE WE SAY, UH, AGENDA AND THEN ADD AND BACKUP FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. INITIAL, YEAH. 
          INITIAL BACKUP FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. JUST SO THAT WAY IF THEY NEED TO ADD MORE, SOMEBODY'S NOT GONNA GET IN TROUBLE IF THEY'RE LIKE, OKAY, HERE'S THE BACKUP. 
          OH, IT CHANGED. 
          OR, OH, WE GOT A LETTER FROM NEIGHBORHOOD OR POSTPONE IT, REQUEST THE DAY BEFORE. 
          YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T WANT TO PUT SOMETHING IN OUR BYLAWS THAT COULD CATCH SOMEONE ON A TECHNICAL, I MEAN, I DON'T WANNA, I DON'T WANNA , I MEAN, YEAH. 
          WELL, WE CAN TALK FURTHER ABOUT HAVING LEGAL AT OUR MEETINGS. 
          I DON'T WANNA CALL THEM IN AND BUG THEM ON THE LANGUAGE. 
          I, I THINK IF WE CAN AT LEAST AGREE THAT WE WANT TO HAVE THE, THE AVAILABLE BACKUP MATERIALS WITH THE AGENDA, UH, THEN MAYBE WE CAN FLESH OUT THE PARTICULAR LANGUAGE, UH, NEXT TIME OR WHATEVER. 
          BUT AT LEAST WE WANTED TO BRING THIS UP FOR DISCUSSION AND GET THAT DISCUSSION GOING EVEN IF WE DON'T TAKE ACTION ON IT TONIGHT. 
          SO I LIKE THAT THAT CHANGE IN LANGUAGE THAT WORKS FOR ME AND TO INITIAL BACK UP. 
          UM, SURE. 
          AND WE HAVEN'T MADE A MOTION YET, SO IT HELPS. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          SO, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, FOR CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC MAYOR MEETINGS, IT'S JUST 72 HOURS. 
          I, I'M NOT SURE WHY WE WOULD PUT INITIAL IN THERE. 
          UM, I THINK WE SHOULD JUST LEAVE IT WITH WHAT ALREADY EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE THAT IT EXISTS. 
          OF COURSE, WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE FLEXIBLE IF SOMETHING, SOME EMERGENCY REALLY HAPPENS. 
          BUT TO PUT INITIAL IN THERE JUST INVITES A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, I WON'T SAY BAD TROUBLE, BUT, BUT 
          [03:40:01]
IT, IT CAN, CAN LEAD TO GAMESMANSHIP. 
          AND I, I THINK THAT, TO KEEP IT CLEAN, TO KEEP IT THE WAY EVERYTHING ELSE WORKS IN THE CITY. 
          72 HOURS. 
          AND DO WE HAVE COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, CAN I GET STAFF HELP WITH THIS? 'CAUSE I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF KIND OF LOGISTICAL PROCESS QUESTIONS AND MAYBE ALSO I'M TOUCHING ON LEGAL, BUT I DON'T NEED TO TALK TO A LAWYER. 
          DON'T WORRY. 
          THANK YOU, MS. HARDEN. 
          UM, SO I HAD THE, I GUESS PLEASURE, SHALL WE SAY. 
          UNFORTUNATE PLEASURE OF SEEING HOW SOME OF THIS WORKS BEHIND THE SCENES. 
          AND I KNOW PARTICULARLY 'CAUSE WE HAVE HAD SOME STAFF TURNOVER AND SORT OF SOME, UM, CHANGES OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS. 
          WE KNOW THAT IT'S QUITE DIFFICULT TO SOMETIMES GET ALL THE MATERIALS PREPARED. 
          AND I KNOW SPECIFICALLY OF A CASE WHERE YOU ALL WERE HERE QUITE LATE ON A FRIDAY PREPARING THOSE MATERIALS. 
          AND I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THIS MIGHT PUT SOME UNNECESSARY DEADLINES AND PRESSURE ON YOU ALL AND THE REST OF THE STAFF. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF YOU HAD CONSIDERATIONS OF THAT OR WANTED TO SPEAK TO THAT. 
          UM, THANK YOU JOY HARDEN, PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          UM, OUR CONSISTENT TIMEFRAME IS TO POST BY FRIDAY, 3:00 PM UM, SO WE WOULD JUST STAY STICK TO THAT. 
          I'M NOT QUITE SURE IT WOULD NEED TO BE IN THE BYLAWS, BUT THAT IS YOUR DISCRETION. 
          UM, BECAUSE THAT IS OUR PRACTICE. 
          AND I ALSO JUST, I GUESS KIND OF CLARIFYING THIS, FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS WE'VE HAD SORT OF THE SAME STAFF AND SORT OF A, A SET OF PROCEDURES THAT WERE SORT OF THE NORMS THAT WE WENT BY. 
          OBVIOUSLY WITH THE STAFF TURNOVER, THAT'S BEEN MAYBE A LITTLE BIT HARDER TO ACHIEVE, BUT WE WOULD EXPECT THAT ONCE WE GET SORT OF BACK INTO A REGULAR ROUTINE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE THESE TYPE OF ISSUES GOING FORWARD. 
          SO THIS MAY BE SOMEWHAT UNNECESSARY. 
          IS THAT WHAT I I, SORRY. 
          I DON'T WANNA PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH. 
          I, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT IS CORRECT. 
          UM, WE ARE, UM, JUST IN, UM, I DON'T KNOW, UH, HOW YOU WANNA SAY THAT, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE TRAINING AND WE'RE GETTING THERE. 
          AND OUR, AGAIN, OUR PRACTICE IS TO HAVE OUR BACKUP. 
          I MEAN, LIKE YOU JUST SAID, THIS ITEM DOESN'T HAVE BACKUP. 
          AND SO NOT EVERY ITEM DOES HAVE BACKUP. 
          AND THEN WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? UM, WE WERE WALKING IN AND SOMEONE SAID, I DON'T SEE THE BACKUP TO THIS ITEM 'CAUSE IT'S YOUR ITEM AND THERE'S NOT THE BACKUP OR THERE WAS NONE GIVEN TO US. 
          SO AGAIN, OUR PRACTICE IS FRIDAY AND WE WANTED THAT PRACTICE, AND THEN THE REST IS AT YOUR DISCRETION. 
          GREAT. 
          AND THEN ONE FINAL QUESTION. 
          IN TERMS OF THE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, WE DON'T NECESSARILY, THERE WOULD BE DIFFERENT RULES DEPENDING ON HOW THEY RUN THEIR COMMISSION. 
          SO THIS IS NOT LIKE A HARD AND FAST THING THAT EVERY COMMISSION HAS A SPECIFIC TIMELINE OR HOW DOES THAT WORK, GENERALLY SPEAKING? WELL, I MEAN, FOR TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT REQUIRES 72 HOURS POSTING. 
          SO THE AGENDA ONLY, UM, I THINK COMMISSIONER COX SAID LAST TIME, THE POSTINGS FOR THE PUBLIC AS WELL, WE COULD NOT AGREE MORE WITH THAT. 
          UM, AND THAT'S WHY WE DO FRIDAY. 
          BUT THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE 6:00 PM ON SATURDAY. 
          WE ARE NOT HERE AT 6:00 PM ON SATURDAY, SO WE DO THREE O'CLOCK ON FRIDAY. 
          UM, WE AGREE, UM, MAYBE THAT'S NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR THE PUBLIC, BUT THAT'S FOR OUR STAFFING, OUR OPERATIONS, GETTING BACK UP. 
          IT'S A LOT OF WORK WHAT WE DO. 
          AND WE DO THAT TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES. 
          AND THAT IS FRIDAY AT THREE O'CLOCK. 
          IF WE CAN POST IT THURSDAY, OF COURSE WE'LL POST IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 
          THAT'S ALWAYS OUR GOAL. 
          BUT A STANDARD PRACTICE WILL BE FRIDAY, UM, BY THREE O'CLOCK. 
          YES. 
          GREAT. 
          AND AGAIN, 72 HOURS IS OUR TOMA, TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. 
          THAT'S ONLY THE AGENDA, NOT THE BACKUP, BUT OF COURSE WE NOT HERE ON SATURDAYS , UM, WELL MOST OF THE TIME WE'RE NOT HERE ON SATURDAYS. 
          AND THEN, UM, SO WE DO FRIDAY AND THEN, UM, AND OF COURSE WE DON'T JUST DO THE O OPEN A MEETING SAC REQUIREMENT OF THE AGENDA, WE DO THE BACKUP AS WELL. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS, CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          DO WE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS, IF NOT, YES, COMMISSIONER BARRY. 
          SORRY, JOY, ONE MORE QUESTION. 
          . 
          UM, DO YOU THINK IT WOULD HELP, UH, YOUR, YOUR ANSWER EARLIER MADE ME THINK THAT IT WOULDN'T HELP TO HAPPEN IN THE BYLAWS, BUT I THINK FOR SUCH A TRANSITION TO HAPPEN, AND IF IT WERE TO HAPPEN AGAIN, IT'S HELPFUL FOR YOU TO LEAN ON AND SAY, LISTEN, THIS IS WHAT'S IN THE RULES. 
          WE HAVE TO DO THE BACKUP BY THIS TIME, OR DO YOU THINK IT'S AN UNDUE BURDEN? I THINK , THAT'S BAD FOR ME TO ANSWER, BUT, UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY HELPFUL. 
          UM, OF COURSE, THAT EVEN IF YOU VOTED FOR THIS, THIS WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE AND, AND THEN THE, UM, IT'S JUST TO CHANGE THEIR BYLAWS THAT WANNA OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE AND THEN THE FULL BODY OF THE COUNCIL. 
          UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S HELPFUL, BUT OF COURSE. 
          AND DOES COUNCIL HAVE THEIR BACKUP POSTED 72 HOURS OR IS IT JUST THE AGENDA THAT THEY HAVE? FOR THE MOST PART, UM, THEY HAVE, UM, MOSTLY THEIR BACKUP POSTED IT. 
          SO, I MEAN, I'M ONLY REALLY GONNA SPEAK FOR ZOOM. 
          THE, THE TWO O'CLOCK ITEMS. I, I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK FOR THE OTHER ITEMS. SO THAT'S ALL THAT WE DO. 
          AND WE, UM, POST THAT FRIDAY MOR YEAH, WE, WE ARE POSTING FOR BOTH COUNCIL ON FRIDAYS AND THE COMMISSION MEETING, WHETHER THAT'S ZAP OR PC. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT'S A VERY BUSY POSTING FRIDAY 
          [03:45:01]
WHEN YOU HAVE TO DO THE COUNCIL. 
          AND IT WAS A PERFECT STORM WITH THE 4TH OF JULY HOLIDAY. 
          WE MISSED, WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT DAY. 
          GOTCHA. 
          WE HAD, UM, SOME STAFFING CHALLENGES AND, AND SO ERIC AND I DID THE BEST WE COULD TO GET THE COMMISSIONERS THERE, BUT THAT'S NOT OUR PRACTICE. 
          I MEAN, AND OUR PRACTICE IS TO HIT OUR THREE O'CLOCK DEADLINE ON FRIDAY AT THE LATEST. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, UHHUH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MR. PHILLIPS, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? WELL, IT, IT'S JUST MORE OF A COMMENT, UM, AND, AND ABOUT TRANSPARENCY AND, AND PROVIDING INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC AND AN AGENDA WITHOUT BACKUP IS NOT IDEAL BECAUSE MANY OF THE ISSUES THAT WE DEAL WITH ARE NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDABLE WITHOUT BACKUP MATERIAL. 
          SO I THINK THAT WE HAVE A DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY THAT STAFF HAS A DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY. 
          THIS PLANNING COMMISSION HAS A DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY. 
          WE ALL TRY TO BE SENSITIVE, BUT OUR DUTY IS MORE FOR THE PUBLIC THAN IT IS FOR THE STAFF IN TERMS OF GETTING THIS DONE. 
          SO I THINK IT WOULD REALLY BE A GREAT IDEA IF IT WERE IN THE RULES, AND PERHAPS WE COULD HAVE SOME EXCEPTIONS FOR THINGS THAT COME IN AFTER, AFTER DEADLINE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          BUT I THINK IT WOULD REALLY BE HELPFUL AS A TRANSPARENCY ISSUE. 
          PARDON ME, I'M STILL SUFFERING WITH TERRIBLE ALLERGIES TRANSPARENCY ISSUE TO MAKE IT AS TRANSPARENT. 
          WE, WE, WE HAD ISSUES EVEN BEFORE THE TRANSITION AS, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES OFTENTIMES POINTED OUT ABOUT GETTING BACKUP MATERIAL WITHIN A 72 PERIOD OF TIME. 
          SO ANYWAY, 72 HOUR. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. 
          COMMISSIONER AL. 
          YEAH, I, I JUST, IT REALLY CONCERNS ME ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO SERVE IN A VALUABLE CAPACITY. 
          IF WE DON'T HAVE THE MATERIAL AND WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S COMING AND WE CAN'T ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, AND WE CAN'T GET THAT INFORMATION AHEAD OF TIME, WE ARE REALLY NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO COVER A LOT OF GROUND IN OUR MEETINGS EFFICIENTLY. 
          THE ONLY WAY WE CAN COVER A LOT OF THESE CASES AND A LOT OF THIS STUFF EFFICIENTLY, IS IF WE HAVE THE INFORMATION AHEAD OF TIME AND WE GET TO A POINT WHERE OUR, OUR OUR, YOU KNOW, OUR GOVERNING CHAIR SAYS, HAVE YOUR QUESTIONS IN BY SUCH AND SUCH A DEADLINE, WE'RE GONNA BE COVERING VOTES ONLY. 
          I MEAN, I KNOW COUNCIL GOES THAT WAY ON THEIR STUFF. 
          THERE'S LESS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S LESS DISCUSSION AT THOSE AT THOSE TIMES. 
          AND IT'S MORE ABOUT MAKING DECISIONS. 
          IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT, THEN WE'RE, THEN WE'RE DOWN TO HAVING TO HAVE, AND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'LL START TO HAVE TO PUSH BACK ON THESE SESSIONS ABOUT EXTENDING THE Q AND AS AND GETTING ALL THAT INFORMATION, UNDERSTAND IT AND, AND TO STUDY IT AND THEN KNOW WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE DELIBERATING ABOUT. 
          I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE IS SUCH A, A THOUGHT THAT HAVING THIS INFORMATION OUT FOR THE COMMISSION AND FOR THE PUBLIC IS A BAD ASK. 
          HOW, HOW IS HAVING INFORMATION AVAILABLE A BAD ASK? AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT 72 HOURS ISN'T LONG ENOUGH. 
          BUT I WANNA KEEP IT CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE'VE GOT GOING IN THE PRACTICE. 
          AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN IN THE PAST. 
          SO WE KNOW IT'S DOABLE. 
          WE KNOW EXCEPTIONS COME UP, BUT WE KNOW IN GENERAL IT'S DOABLE. 
          THAT SHOULD BE THE EXPECTATION. 
          UM, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. 
          I DO WANNA JUST REMIND FOLKS WE'RE IN QUESTIONS I THINK FOLKS ARE BRINGING TO SPEAK FOR AND AGAINST THE MOTION. 
          COMMISSIONER WOODS, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A QUESTION AS WELL. 
          YES. 
          AND I'M SO SORRY I HAD TO STEP OUT. 
          SO I, I HAVE A QUESTION OF THE MOTION MAKERS, AND I APOLOGIZE IF I'M MAKING YOU REPEAT YOURSELF. 
          IS THERE, IS THERE A BACKUP FOR THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING? NO. 
          NO. 
          IRONICALLY . 
          UM, BUT IT'S JUST A SIMPLE RESOLUTION TO ADD THE WORD BACKUP TO WHAT'S ALREADY IN OUR BYLAWS. 
          AND IT'S SPECIFICALLY THAT BACKUP MUST BE AVAILABLE 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          AND SO MAYBE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, AGAIN, I'M SO SORRY IF THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED. 
          UM, IF THE BACKUP IS NOT AVAILABLE 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE, IF THERE'S LATE BACKUP FROM THE, FROM COMMISSIONERS OR FROM THE COMMUNITY, IF WE HAVE AMENDMENTS COMING IN LIKE WE HAD THIS EVENING, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE ITEM IS AUTOMATICALLY POSTPONED? I THINK THAT DEPENDS ON WHAT THIS COMMISSION APPROVES. 
          WELL, IT'S NOT STOP, IT DOESN'T STOP AT THIS COMMISSION. 
          AGAIN, IT GOES ON TO THE AUDIT FINANCING THEN COUNSEL. 
          BUT I THINK THAT'S UP TO YOUR, YOUR WORDING. 
          BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY CURRENTLY IF THERE IS NOT BACKUP TIMELY, YOU CAN POSTPONE THAT ITEM. 
          SO THERE'S NOTHING, I MEAN, I DON'T FEEL LIKE ANYONE IS SAYING THAT THIS IS A BAD THING TO DO. 
          AGAIN, STAFF'S COMMITMENT IS TO POST 
          [03:50:01]
THE FRIDAY AT SIX 3:00 PM I'M SORRY. 
          UM, SO THAT IS OUR COMMITMENT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE TRY TO DO FOR TRANSPARENCY AND ALL THE THINGS THAT Y'ALL ARE STATING. 
          UM, WE JU UM, I JUST THINK THAT WE DO THAT NOW. 
          YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PON POSTPONE ITEMS IF YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE THE MATERIAL. 
          AND IF AN ITEM HAS ALREADY BEEN POSTPONED POTENTIALLY, AND IT IS AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGERED BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE BACKUP, IS IT POSSIBLE WE WOULD END UP HAVING TO RE-NOTICE FOR CERTAIN ITEMS? WELL, IF YOU POSTPONE TO DATE CERTAIN, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO RE NOTIFY FOR. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I GUESS WE COULD CRAFT THE LANGUAGE SUCH THAT IT WAS AUTOMATICALLY POSTPONED. 
          IF THE BACKUP WASN'T THERE TO THE FOLLOWING MEETING, YOU COULD DO SO. 
          OKAY. 
          I JUST, AND THAT IS UP TO YOUR DISCRETION. 
          AND IS THAT, IS THAT KIND OF THE IN INTENTION OF THE MOTION MAKER IS TO JUST, IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION AUTOMATICALLY, WE PUSH THAT TWO WEEKS SO THAT WE HAVE MORE TIME TO DISCUSS. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS FOR THAT. 
          UM, MR. , AT THIS TIME, DO YOU WANNA MAKE YOUR MOTION? SO MY MOTION IS TO ADD THE WORD BACKUP TO THE, TO THE BYLAWS. 
          AND I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I CAN PULL THAT UP. 
          THAT'S OKAY. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY WE'RE THE, THE SUBSTANTIVELY, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE AGENDA AND BACKUP HAVE TO BE POSTED 72 HOURS. 
          AND THIS WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO OUR BYLAWS. 
          UM, CAN, CAN YOU, CAN I, SO THAT IS THE MOTION. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND? UH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, UH, MOOSH TOLER, I BELIEVE. 
          OH, I'M SECOND. 
          COMMISSIONER MOTO. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER JOHNSON FOR POINTING THAT OUT. 
          UM, SO IF I MIGHT ASK JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION, IS THE MOTION WOULD BE IF WE'RE NOT ABLE TO MAKE THE BACKUP DEADLINE AND WE POSTPONE TO THE NEXT MEETING. 
          OKAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL CALL A QUESTION. 
          UH, LET'S, I WILL SAY WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT UNLESS THERE'S AN OBJECTION TO CALLING THE, IS THERE AN OBJECTION TO CALLING THE QUESTION? LET'S JUST NOT SEEING AN OBJECTION. 
          I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND SAY, UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THAT. 
          WELL, THAT IS TRUE. 
          CALL THE QUESTION. 
          WELL, THE QUESTION HAS BEEN CALLED, SO WE'RE NOT EVEN GONNA SPEAK FOREIGN AGAINST. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE HAVE AN OBJECTION, WHICH WOULD MEAN WE NOW GO TO A, DO WE DO HAVE A MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION OR NO? SUPER. 
          NO, THAT'S EXACTLY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION, WE WON'T TALK ABOUT IT. 
          AND THAT MEANS THAT WE CAN NOW TAKE A VOTE ON IT AND WE WOULD NEED A SUPER MAJORITY TO PASS THIS, WHICH MEAN NINE MEMBERS. 
          PARDON ME. 
          WHO IS THE SECOND FOR COMMISSIONER? COMMISSIONER FERREIRA RAMIREZ'S MOTION, UM, COMMISSIONER BRA RAMIREZ. 
          AND THIS WAS, UH, COMMISSIONER AL WAS THE SECOND ON THE MOTION, BUT WE'RE NOW ON CALLING THE QUESTION, WHICH IS PHILLIPS NO, COMMISSIONER. 
          WITHDRAWN. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT IS WITHDRAWN. 
          SO, UM, FOLKS, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, I SAW YOUR HAND UP. 
          PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          I JUST, I JUST WANT TO HAMMER A PARTICULAR POINT THAT WE ALL GOT TO EXPERIENCE THIS EVENING. 
          THE NOTICES THAT GO OUT FOR A LOT OF THESE THINGS ARE A BUNCH OF GOBBLEDYGOOK. 
          IT'S MUMBO JUMBO. 
          IT DOESN'T REALLY EXPLAIN WHAT'S HAPPENING, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC DOESN'T UNDERSTAND IT. 
          AND SO WHAT THEY DO UNDERSTAND IS POTENTIALLY A HYPERLINK OR GOOGLING. 
          AND SO FINDING THE BACKUP THAT HAS BEEN POSTED PRIOR TO THE WEEKEND ALLOWS FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE INFORMED ON WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY TAKING UP. 
          UM, AND THAT COULD MAKE THE INFORMATION WE GET FROM THE PUBLIC BETTER AND MORE INFORMED. 
          IT COULD CAUSE THEM TO DECIDE NOT TO COME AND SPEAK, WHICH HELPS, MAKES OUR MEETINGS GO QUICKER. 
          BUT ULTIMATELY, LIKE, UH, LIKE SOME OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAD SAID, IT'S ABOUT INFORMING THE PUBLIC AND BEING TRANSPARENT. 
          AND SO I'M ACTUALLY LESS CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING BACKUP FOR US AS COMMISSIONERS BECAUSE WE'RE A BUNCH OF NERDS AND WE DEDICATE HOURS OF OUR EVENING TO DO THIS ANYWAYS. 
          I'M MORE INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE IT'S AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC SO THAT THEY CAN BE INFORMED ON WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY DOING, BECAUSE I THINK THE MOST VALUABLE THING THAT WE DO IS HERE FROM THE PUBLIC ON ALL OF THESE ITEMS. SO THAT'S WHY I'M, I'M VERY, UH, ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER, SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          SURE. 
          I, I'M VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT OF THE SPIRIT OF THIS MOTION, BUT I AM WORRIED, I GUESS, THAT WE'RE GONNA LIMIT OURSELVES UNNECESSARILY BY JUST CREATING AN ADDITIONAL DEADLINE WHERE IF THERE IS ADDITIONAL LATE BACKUP THAT COMES IN, THEN WE SUDDENLY CAN'T SPEAK ABOUT THAT ITEM. 
          AND I THINK WE HAVE EXAMPLES OF WHERE LAID BACK, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE INTENT. 
          SORRY. 
          I, I UNDERSTAND THAT'S NOT THE INTENT, BUT, UM, I'M WORRIED THAT IT, IT WILL CREATE, UM, UNNECESSARY BARRIERS FOR US GETTING OUR WORK DONE. 
          AND I DO THINK WE HAVE EXAMPLES ALL THE TIME OF GETTING SOME LAID BACK THAT IS, YOU KNOW, STILL AVAILABLE TO US AND 
          [03:55:01]
HELPS, YOU KNOW, FURTHER OUR CONVERSATION AND DOESN'T PREVENT US FROM HAVING A MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION. 
          AND I, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE HAVING A MOMENT OF TRANSITION WITH OUR STAFF LIAISONS, AND SO, UM, I I REALLY APPRECIATE THE COMMITMENT TO HAVE THAT ALL AVAILABLE ON FRIDAYS AND UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WILL BE THE CASE GOING FORWARD. 
          UM, I, YEAH, I'M JUST, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT PUSHING THE DISCUSSION OFF MORE THAN WE NEED TO. 
          SO I'M GONNA, I'M NOT GONNA SUPPORT THIS AND SUBSTITUTE, UM, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER AL, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SUBSTITUTE THE WORD BACKUP AND INSTEAD REPLACE THAT WITH STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 
          I'M, I'M SORRY. 
          SO CAN YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN? STAFF? OH, INSTEAD OF USING THE WORD BACKUP IN OUR, IN OUR RULES CHANGE, IT WOULD BE, UM, UH, STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OR STAFF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          SO IT WOULD BE THE AGENDA, THE STAFF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          UM, DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? I'D SAY WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BAR RAMIREZ. 
          UM, SO NOW WE'RE ON THE, CAN I ASK A POINT OF CLARIFICATION? YES. 
          UM, I'M JUST SORRY, JUST TO UNDERSTAND, IS THERE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO ITEMS? LIKE, CAN YOU EXPLAIN? YEAH. 
          CAN THE MOTION MAKER EXPLAIN WHY SUBSTITUTE THAT ABOUT LATE, YOU KNOW, LATE THINGS COMING IN, ADDITIONAL COMMENTARIES, JUST ALL OF THAT. 
          THE, THE STAFF HAS A VERY DEFINITIVE DEFINED THING THAT THEY DO, AND THAT WOULD GIVE THE ADDITIONAL, UM, YOU KNOW, EXPLANATION BOTH FOR COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC, UH, AT LEAST WHAT THE ITEM IS ABOUT. 
          BECAUSE SOMETIMES FROM OUR AGENDAS, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO EVEN KNOW WHAT THE ITEM'S GOING TO BE ABOUT. 
          AND OBVIOUSLY STAFF IS, IT DOESN'T COME TO US UNLESS THE STAFF IS READY FOR IT TO COME TO US, SO THEIR STUFF'S READY TO GO ANYWAY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, FOLKS SPEAKING FOR AGAINST THIS MOTION, , I'M GONNA SPEAK AGAINST, WE HAVE A ROOM FULL OF PEOPLE, WE TOOK THIS UP OUT OF ORDER. 
          HEARING THAT THIS WOULD BE A VERY FAST ITEM IF WE WANNA BRING THIS UP AND, AND ANY OTHER ITEM SIMILAR TO THIS WHEN WE'RE ALREADY GOING TO BE DOING OUR GOVERNANCE AND RULES HERE SOON, I THINK THAT'D BE A GREAT IDEAL TIME FOR IT. 
          BUT THIS NEEDS TO BE WRAPPED UP SOON. 
          SO I'LL BE VOTING ON ALL THESE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. 
          OTHER COMMISSIONERS, UH, SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST COMMISSIONER? I'LL SPEAK QUICKLY. 
          I MEAN, I THINK IT IS REALLY HARD FOR ME TO DO THIS AND WORK FULL TIME AND TAKE CARE OF TWO CHILDREN AND REVIEW ALL OF THESE CASES, AND I REALLY NEED TIME TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. 
          AND IT'S, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO DO IT LAST TIME. 
          AND SO I'M JUST ASKING FOR US TO CODIFY THIS IN SOME WAY. 
          I'M NOT ASKING TO DELAY FURTHER CASES, I'M JUST ASKING FOR A STAFF REPORT, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE TO DO ANYWAY. 
          I DON'T THINK THIS IS GOING TO SLOW US DOWN. 
          I SHOULD HAVE PULLED ALL THE CASES THAT I DIDN'T GET ANY INFORMATION FROM FOR THE LAST ONE BECAUSE IT WAS VERY HARD TO DO THAT REVIEW. 
          SO THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING FOR. 
          I SUPPORT THIS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER, SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER, UH, MAXWELL. 
          UM, I FEEL LIKE SOME FOLKS HAVE REALLY RAISED ISSUES REGARDING TRANSPARENCY AND WHATNOT, WHICH I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND AND WANNA SUPPORT FULLY. 
          AND I THINK THERE'S ALSO A BIGGER QUESTION OF GOVERNANCE, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE WE DO WANT TO ADDRESS AS A COMMISSION. 
          BUT WHAT I WANNA BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT HERE IS THIS WAS A ONE TIME SITUATION, ONE TIME, AND WE ARE ANY STAFF TRANSITION, AND WE'VE HEARD COMMITMENT FROM OUR OWN ZONING OFFICER THAT SHE IS GOING TO ENSURE THAT THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE GOING FORWARD. 
          SO I REALLY AM VERY UNCLEAR WHY WE'RE TAKING TIME TONIGHT TO OVERLY COMPLICATE SOMETHING AND ADD SOMETHING INTO OUR BYLAWS THAT JUST SEEMS UNNECESSARY GIVEN A ONE TIME ISSUE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER, UH, HAYNES, GO AHEAD. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          UM, I, I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER AL AND COMMISSIONER BARRES BRINGING THIS. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, IT, I, I THINK THE, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN EXACERBATED BECAUSE, UM, WE'VE BEEN, WE, WE ARE DOWN A STAFF PERSON AND, UH, HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET THAT CORRECTED HERE PRETTY QUICK. 
          BUT, BUT THIS IS NOT A ONE TIME DEAL. 
          AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE TIMES THERE, THERE ARE MANY TIMES WHERE, UH, WE DON'T GET BACK UP. 
          WE DON'T GET STAFF ANSWERS, WE DON'T GET A LOT OF THINGS. 
          AND, UM, I THINK PUTTING THIS IN OUR BYLAWS AS AS, AS WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THIS HAS TO GO THROUGH SEVERAL ITERATIONS, UM, WE CAN MAKE THIS RECOMMENDATION. 
          [04:00:01]
WE ARE AN ADVISORY GROUP. 
          WE'LL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND THIS'LL GO THROUGH, UM, SEVERAL ITERATIONS, UM, TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS ABOUT SLOWING US DOWN. 
          UM, UH, I THINK, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE COULD DO IS PUT THIS, YOU KNOW, IN OUR BYLAWS AND THEN PASS A RULE PACKAGE THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE BYLAWS SAY THIS HAS TO BE POSTED 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE. 
          I TRUST STAFF, THEY'RE GONNA HIT THEIR FRIDAY AT THREE DEADLINE. 
          BUT THEN PUT IN A RULE THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, THIS DOESN'T PREVENT SUPPLEMENTAL BACKUP FROM BEING POSTED WHEN, YOU KNOW, WE HAD NEIGHBORS TODAY GIVE US, UM, SUPPLEMENTAL BACKUP. 
          AND MS. CORONA BLESS YOU FOR STEPPING IN. 
          YOU'RE DOING A FABULOUS JOB, THANK YOU. 
          AND YOU HIT US WITH THE, UM, UH, YOU GAVE US THE INFORMATION WE NEEDED TODAY, UH, IN A SUPPLEMENTAL. 
          AND THERE, THERE'S NOTHING THAT PREVENTS US FROM DOING THAT IN THE FUTURE. 
          AND WE CAN CONTINUE THAT PROCESS AND IT WON'T SLOW US DOWN. 
          I THINK THIS IS A GOOD CHANGE. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR, I'LL BE SPEAKING AGAINST THIS ITEM. 
          UH, AND I'M SPEAKING AGAINST HONESTLY BOTH AND I WILL SPEAK ON BOTH. 
          THERE'S TWO PIECES TO WHY I WOULD VOTE AGAINST THIS. 
          ONE. 
          I THINK THERE'S UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES HERE THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT THINKING OF. 
          I'LL JUST BE HONEST. 
          IF Y'ALL REMEMBER THERE WAS ONE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH COUNCIL WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE BACKUP FOR ONE ITEM BY A PARTICULAR TIME, WOULD THAT MEAN THAT OUR JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WOULD HAVE TO BE MOVED FORWARD BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH BACKUP? LIKE HONESTLY, LET'S JUST THINK TO OURSELVES, WHEN YOU'RE PUTTING IN OUR BYLAWS, WE ARE GONNA BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH OUR OWN BYLAWS BECAUSE, BECAUSE OF THE RULE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE HERE TODAY. 
          AND THAT'S JUST THE REALITY. 
          I CAN SEE PEOPLE NODDING HEADS. 
          I KNOW THAT'S NOT THE INTENTION. 
          THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTENTION AND WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON, AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. 
          THE SECOND PIECE, I JUST WANNA SAY ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, I AM TRULY DISHEARTENED. 
          I HAVE SERVED ON THIS COMMISSION FOR FIVE YEARS. 
          I'M NOT SAYING THAT MY MEMORY IS PERFECT BY ANY MEANS. 
          WE HAVE NEVER KNOWN FOR BACKUP TO NOT BE POSTED BY 5:00 PM ON THAT FRIDAY. 
          AND IT TRULY IS ONCE THAT THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED ON OUR ZONING CASES. 
          AND IT FEELS LIKE WE ARE PUNISHING OUR STAFF AND WE'RE TRYING TO HOLD THEIR HANDS AND TELL THEM, NOPE, YOU ARE GONNA COLOR WITHIN THE LINES. 
          BECAUSE HERE'S WHERE I DREW THE LINES. 
          THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO. 
          THIS FEELS SO PUNITIVE. 
          I KNOW THAT IS NOT THE INTENTION OF THE MOTION MAKERS. 
          IT FEELS SO PUNITIVE. 
          AND I JUST WANNA SAY, WE TALK ABOUT WE HAVE STAFFING ISSUES, WE CANNOT HIRE PEOPLE. 
          I JUST WANNA SAY THERE HAS BEEN A FEELING ON THIS COMMISSION NOW FOR A WHILE WHERE IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE GRILLING STAFF. 
          WE ARE TRYING TO PUSH THEM INTO CORNERS. 
          WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THEM QUESTION THEM PUBLICLY. 
          IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE IN A COURT OF LAW WHERE WE'RE PUTTING PEOPLE THROUGH A DEPOSITION AND THAT IS NOT OUR JOB. 
          I GENUINELY, IN MY FIVE YEARS OF SERVICE, TRULY BELIEVE IT IS OUR JOB TO OUR HAND IN HAND WITH STAFF. 
          AND WE CAN REQUEST THINGS OF EACH OTHER, LIKE COLLEAGUES, BUT GIVE EACH OTHER GRACE IN SUCH A PUNITIVE ACTION. 
          I'LL BE HONEST, I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IN ANY FORM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL POINT OF PRIVILEGE. 
          AND I HAVE A POINT OF PRIVILEGE AS WELL. 
          THIS IS, NO, NO, I'M GONNA SAY THIS BECAUSE I DO NOT LIKE THE CHARACTERIZATION THAT YOU JUST PAINTED WITH A BROAD BRUSH OF THE COMMISSIONERS ON THIS DAY. 
          WE ARE DOING THE BEST THAT WE CAN TO DO OUR JOBS. 
          AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO ASK PRESSING QUESTIONS TO DO THE PUBLIC'S JOB. 
          MY JOB IS NOT TO WORK FOR STAFF. 
          IT IS TO WORK FOR THE PUBLIC AND COACH VILLAGE. 
          I HAVE A RIGHT. 
          I MAKE THAT CLEAR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND I ACCEPT THAT. 
          I ALSO WANNA SAY, I HAVE A RIGHT TO DISAGREE WITH YOU. 
          AND IF I CANNOT DISAGREE WITHOUT SOMEBODY, I SAY DON'T CONSTANTLY SPEAKING BACK, DON'T PAINT A BROAD BRUSH EVERY, I'M NOT GONNA BROUGHT A BORDER HERE. 
          EVERYBODY'S VIEW AND SAY THAT THAT'S THE VIEW OF EVERY COMMISSIONER SITTING ON THIS DAY. 
          DON'T DO THAT. 
          I CALL THE QUESTION, OKAY, DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO, ALTHOUGH HONESTLY, THAT FILLS ALL THE SLOTS, SO WE CAN, DON'T EVEN NEED TO CALL THE QUESTION. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. 
          ALL THOSE AGAINST THE MOTION. 
          THAT MOTION FAILS WITH COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, HAYNES, BRE, RAMIREZ, JOHNSON, COX, AND MOTO VOTING IN FAVOR. 
          THANK YOU ALL. 
          WE'LL GO BACK TO OUR AGENDA ITEMS HERE AND I'M SORRY. 
          OH, THAT IS TRUE. 
          THAT'S A SUBSTITUTE. 
          SO NOW WE GO TO THE MAIN MOTION. 
          THE MAIN MOTION WAS, UH, COMMISSIONER BARR RAMIREZ, SECONDED BY MOTO. 
          THIS WOULD ASK FOR 72 HOURS FOR BACKUP. 
          DO WE NEED TO HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM OR ARE FOLKS READY TO TAKE A VOTE CHAIR? I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS BRIEFLY. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I, I DO KNOW THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO TAKE UP GOVERNANCE 
          [04:05:01]
AND RULES AND I, I LOVE ALL THE FACTS THAT WE JUST LAID OUT HERE. 
          THE FACT THAT THERE WILL BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES SHOULD THIS PASS. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, TO TO, TO RAKE STAFF OVER THE COALS FOR SOMETHING JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS THE INTENT OR NOT, BUT I, I DO HOPE THAT THIS BODY CAN STAY ABOUT THE ISSUE AND NOT EVER ATTACK A COMMISSIONER AGAIN. 
          THAT'D BE REALLY, REALLY GREAT. 
          BUT IF WE CAN JUST TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE AT HAND AND, AND CHAIR, I APPRECIATE YOUR WORDS A MOMENT AGO BECAUSE THEY THEY BRING VERY TRUE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER. 
          DO WE HAVE OTHER COMMISSION SPEAKING FOR AGAINST COMMISSIONER AL I'LL SPEAK FOR THIS IS THERE IS NO INTENT AT PUNITIVE AT ALL. 
          WE NEED STAFF TO DO OUR JOB. 
          WE NEED THEM TO HELP US. 
          WE NEED LEGAL HERE. 
          SO WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS TO MAKE OUR MEETINGS MORE OPEN, MORE UNDERSTANDABLE AND, AND MORE EFFICIENT AS WELL. 
          AGAIN, I'M JUST GONNA SAY WE NEED THE TRANSPARENCY. 
          WE NEED THE EFFICIENCY. 
          AND I THINK BY FORMALIZING THAT IN OUR RULES, THAT'S THE COMMITMENT WE'RE MAKING TO OUR, TO OUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS THAT WE ARE COMMITTED TO THAT KIND OF A PROCESS. 
          THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE STAFF. 
          I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH HOW HARD OUR STAFF WORK, BUT IF WE HAVE THE INFORMATION AHEAD AND WE CAN PARTNER AND WORK WITH OUR STAFF TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND WELL WHAT'S COMING FORWARD. 
          AND SO DOES THE PUBLIC. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST COMMISSIONER COX. 
          THIS IS A LITTLE EMBARRASSING. 
          UM, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT, THAT EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE BROUGHT UP, UH, PARTICULARLY THE, THE, THE TWO FOLKS THAT, THAT BROUGHT THIS FORWARD, UM, I THINK WHAT WE HEARD FROM STAFF WAS THAT THEY GENERALLY AGREE  WITH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE. 
          I DON'T THINK THEY TOOK IT AS A SLIGHT OR AN ATTACK. 
          AND, AND, AND I GUARANTEE YOU, EVERY ONE OF US ON THIS COMMISSION HAS, UH, HAS TAKEN OUR MOMENT TO, UH, TO DIG INTO STAFF. 
          AND, AND I THINK IF, IF YOU ACTUALLY JUST SPOKE WITH THEM ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, THEY, THEY UNDERSTAND THESE THINGS GET HEATED. 
          UM, THAT'S, THAT'S JUST ALL PART OF IT. 
          THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. 
          THAT'S WHY WE'RE SO PASSIONATE ABOUT ALL THIS. 
          BUT, UM, I, I DON'T THINK STAFF CONSIDERS THIS TO BE A DIG AT THEM. 
          I THINK IT'S MORE OF JUST US EMPHASIZING WHAT WE THINK WE NEED TO DO THE JOB AND WHAT WE THINK IS FAIR TO THE PUBLIC. 
          AND IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE STAFF AGREES THEY MAY DISAGREE WITH THE MECHANISM IN, IN WHICH WE GO ABOUT DOING THIS, BUT I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, UH, IN THE MANY LAYERS OF AMENDING A BYLAW, WE CAN KIND OF CRAFT LANGUAGE THAT'S FAIR TO, TO ALL INVOLVED. 
          SO I STILL SUPPORT THIS ITEM. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. 
          YES. 
          UM, I MAYBE I WAS THE ONLY ONE. 
          UM, BUT I HEARD, UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS COMMISSIONER JOHNSON CALL THE QUESTION. 
          I THINK THAT'S A PRIVILEGED MOTION AND SHOULD BE TAKEN UP, AND WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET. 
          AND COMMISSIONER HENES, THAT WAS ON THE SUBSTITUTE. 
          WE'RE NOW BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION. 
          THAT WAS MOTO BARR RAMIREZ. 
          THIS IS BARR RAMIREZ. 
          MOTO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, ARE YOU SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION? I'D LIKE TO CALL THE QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS OBJECTION. 
          HONESTLY, AT THIS POINT, I'M NOT EVEN GONNA GO FOR THE OBJECTION. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO CALL THE QUESTION? OUR PARLIAMENT ATTORNEY IS REQUIRING THIS. 
          NOPE, NOT SEEING ANY. 
          LET'S GO TO THE MOTION ITSELF AND, UM, THIS IS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MUSH, UH, COMMISSIONER BARR RAMIREZ, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUSH TOLER TO PUT THE WORD BACKUP IN FRONT OF 72 HOURS IN OUR BYLAWS AND RULES OF PROCEDURE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND OR SAY, AYE. 
          ALL THOSE AGAINST ABSTAINING, THAT MOTION FAILS, UH, WITH COMMISSIONERS, UH, JOHNSON ABSTAINING. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS COMMISSIONER BAR RAMIREZ, COMMISSIONER COX AND COMMISSIONER ALDER IN FAVOR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL THAT TAKES US TO ITEM. 
          YES. 
          WOULD, UH, WOULD THE COMMISSION BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN, UH, GOING OUT OF ORDER AND MOVING TO ITEM 22? I UNDERSTAND THERE'S QUITE A FEW MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE FOR THAT ITEM. 
          I AT THIS POINT OBJECT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A VOTE, WE CAN. 
          UM, GOING TO ITEM NUMBER 
          [Items 13 & 14]
13. 
          THIS IS 13 AND 14 STAFF, AND WE HAVE OUR REPORT ON THIS MARINE MEREDITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          ITEM NUMBER 13 IS PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 23 0 0 1, 0 0.02 E SECOND STREET, 2 3 0 0 BLOCK. 
          DISTRICT THREE PROPERTY ADDRESSES. 
          R 1 0 9 1 1 1 1 1 3 MILDRED STREET AND 2 3 0 5 2 3 0 7 EAST SECOND STREET, UNIT A AND 2 3 0 7 EAST SECOND STREET, UNIT B 2 3 1 1 EAST SECOND STREET WITHIN THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA. 
          THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO MIXED 
          [04:10:01]
USE LAND USE, AND IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF JONATHAN TOMKO WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          UH, THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 14, CASE NUMBER C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 27. 
          IT'S A REZONING REQUEST FOR THE 23, UH, HUNDRED TO 2328 EAST CAESAR CHAVEZ STREET, AND 2305 TO 2317 EAST SECOND STREET AND 1 0 9 TO ONE 13 MILDRED STREET FROM SF THREE N-P-C-S-C-O-M-U-N-P-L-O-N-P AND L-O-C-O-M-U-N-P TO C-S-M-U-V DB 90 NP AS AMENDED STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING CS M-U-V-C-O DB 90 NP STAFF'S. 
          RECOMMENDATION DOES NOT, UH, DOES RECOMMEND KEEPING THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ESTABLISHED ON PORTIONS OF THE SUBJECT TRACT ON THE ENTIRE TRACK BEING REZONED. 
          IT PROHIBITS NINE USES IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT. 
          I'M NOT GONNA LIST THEM FOR THE SAKE OF TIME, AND IT CONDITIONALLY ALLOWS SEVEN USES IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT. 
          STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE SECOND PART OF THE APPLICANT'S AMENDED REZONING REQUEST DATED APRIL 29TH, 2024. 
          EXHIBIT TH C AS IN CAT IN THE BACKUP REQUESTING A WAIVER OF SECTION 25 2 6 52, UH, F THREE B, THE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT. 
          I'M HAPPY TO GO IN THE REASONS FOR THE, THAT, UH, STAFF, UH, NOT RECOMMENDING THAT SECTION IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. 
          UH, JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE BACKGROUND. 
          THE SUBJECT TRACK IS APPROXIMATELY 3.26 ACRES ONE MILE EAST OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OF AUSTIN, JUST SOUTH OF THE SANTO RITA COURTS, UH, BETWEEN EAST SECOND STREET AND EAST CAESAR CHAVEZ. 
          IT'S CURRENTLY A LOT OF DIFFERENT USES AND ZONING STRINGS, INCLUDING FOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, A RESTAURANT, THREE OFFICE AND RETAIL SPACES, A SMALL STRIP CENTER, A SERVICE REPAIR GARAGE, AND A CLASS C WAREHOUSE. 
          AGAIN, I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU, MR. DOKO CHAIR. 
          WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR FIVE MINUTES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, MICHAEL WAYLON ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. 
          WE DO, UH, WE AGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR DB 90. 
          I THINK THE PLACE WE HAVE CONCERNS ARE THE SECOND PART OF THE, OF OUR APPLICATION, WHICH IS THE REQUEST TO WAIVE THE GROUND FLOOR, UH, COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT. 
          UH, WE'RE GONNA FOCUS SOLELY RIGHT NOW ON THAT. 
          THAT IS THE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL WAIVER. 
          IN THIS PRESENTATION, I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE A COMPROMISE PLAN, WHICH WOULD ONLY WAIVE THE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT FOR A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK AND MAINTAIN COMMERCIAL ON THE EASTERN AND WESTERN ENDS OF THE BLOCK. 
          UH, HERE YOU CAN SEE THE WHOLE AREA OF THE, THAT WE'RE SEEKING. 
          UH, THIS IS, UH, THE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE REZONING AND THE REZONING CASES COVER THIS AREA. 
          OUR CAPITAL IS THE PRINCIPAL APPLICANT AND WE WORKED EARLY ON WITH THE NEIGHBORS. 
          UH, WE MET WITH THEM, WE TOLD 'EM ABOUT THE REZONING AND WE OFFERED TO LET THEM PARTICIPATE IN THE, IN THE CASE, AND SOME OF THEM AGREED, UH, TO DO SO AND TOOK US UP ON THAT OFFER. 
          THE MIDBLOCK PARCEL IS ARC CAPITAL'S. 
          UH, RIGHT HERE, THE UNSHADED PARCELS TO THE WEST THAT'S TO THE LEFT ARE OWNED BY NEIGHBORS WHO WANTED TO JOIN IN WITH ARC'S APPLICATION. 
          THE COMPROMISE WOULD LIMIT THE REQUEST TO WAIVE THE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT ONLY TO THIS MIDBLOCK SECTION. 
          UH, THE COMPROMISE WOULD DO TWO THINGS. 
          FIRST, IT WOULD ALLOW THE SHADED MID-BLOCK TO REDEVELOP FOR EITHER MIXED USE OR AS FULLY RESIDENTIAL. 
          AND SECOND, BOTH ENDS OF THE BLOCKS. 
          THE AREAS IDENTIFIED WITH THE STARS ON THE SCREEN HERE THAT ARE COMMERCIAL TODAY WOULD REMAIN COMMERCIAL. 
          UH, FOR REFERENCE, THE AREA TO THE RIGHT TO THE EAST, UM, IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS REZONING APPLICATION. 
          IT FEATURES ROUGHLY 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE THAT IS PROPOSED TO REMAIN AS IS. 
          THAT'S WHERE THE BLUE OWL BREWERY IS. 
          JUNIPER RESTAURANT, A SALON AND A BAKERY THAT IS SET TO OPEN IN, UH, SEPTEMBER. 
          THESE AREAS WOULD CONTINUE TO PROVIDE COMMERCIAL USES. 
          THIS IS A BROADER VIEW. 
          THE CITY'S GOAL IS EVENTUALLY TO GET ABROAD A ROBUST MIX OF USES ALONG THIS CORRIDOR, BUT IN ORDER TO GET THERE, YOU NEED TO HAVE ENOUGH HOUSING TO SUPPORT AND TO ANCHOR A THRIVING COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR. 
          YOU HAVE PERSONALLY SEEN PLACES IN THE CITY WHERE THIS SPACE REMAINS VACANT OR TURNS OVER FREQUENTLY IN VMU BUILDINGS THAT REQUIRED THE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE. 
          THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO, TO AVOID. 
          THE CORRIDOR RIGHT NOW LACKS SUFFICIENT HOUSING TO BE ABLE TO CLEARLY SUPPORT NEW GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACES. 
          IN CONTRAST, HERE'S EAST SIXTH STREET 
          [04:15:01]
CORRIDOR, AN AREA WITH AMPLE NEW GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE. 
          AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT TOO HAS NEARBY SINGLE FAMILY AREAS, BUT IT INCLUDES SUBSTANTIAL RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND EVEN HOSPITALITY USES, ALL OF WHICH ANCHOR AND SUPPORT THE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE. 
          IN TERMS OF PROJECT FEASIBILITY, WHETHER AN AREA HAS ENOUGH HOUSING TO SUPPORT NEW GROUND FLOOR SPACES IS REALLY IMPORTANT. 
          WHEN LOOKING AT DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS LIKE T LIKE DB 90 AND TODS, THIS OVERSIMPLIFIES IT A LITTLE BIT, BUT MARKET RATE HOUSING AND THE COMMERCIAL SPACE IS ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE. 
          IT ENDS UP CROSS-SUBSIDIZING AND SUPPORTING SUB-MARKET RENTS FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE. 
          BUT IF YOU'RE UNABLE TO SUPPORT THE COMMERCIAL SPACES, THEN WHAT HAPPENS IS YOUR MARKET RATE HOUSING ENDS UP ALSO SUPPORTING NOT JUST THE AFFORDABLE UNITS, BUT ALSO THE COMMERCIAL SPACE. 
          AND THE MATH JUST DOESN'T WORK. 
          THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR, UH, THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR A WAIVER OF THE MIDBLOCK TRACK. 
          THIS IS THE MIDBLOCK TRACK, WHICH IS, UH, PARKING AND A SMALL AMOUNT OF OBSOLETE OFFICE SPACE. 
          AND AGAIN, WE HOPE THAT YOU'D, WE WOULD HOPE TO BE ABLE ULTIMATELY TO PROVIDE A MIXED USE PROJECT HERE. 
          WE KNOW THAT BY HAVING ON THE EAST AND THE WEST COMMERCIAL USES REMAINING, YOU GET A MIXED USE PROJECT. 
          WE BELIEVE THAT, UH, THIS COMPROMISE IS REASONABLE AND, UH, HOPE THAT YOU CAN SUPPORT IT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          WE HAVE, UH, ONE SPEAKER JOINING US VIRTUALLY BRAD WEINBERG. 
          UM, IDENTIFY AS THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE PRIMARY SPEAKER. 
          UM, BRAD, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS. 
          YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES CHAIR, VICE CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. 
          I'M BRAD WEINBERG WITH OUR CAPITAL PARTNERS, THE PRINCIPAL APPLICANT ON THE CASES, ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE REZONING AND TO WAIVE THE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS SO THAT WE CAN PROVIDE THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS THE COMMUNITY GREATLY NEEDS. 
          I WANNA GIVE YOU JUST SOME QUICK CONTEXT THAT, THAT MICHAEL WAYLAND JUST SPOKE ON, BUT YOU CAN REALLY THINK OF THE BLOCK AS THREE DIFFERENT AREAS. 
          ON THE EASTERN SIDE, YOU HAVE HOLLY COMMONS, WHICH HAS ABOUT 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF LOCAL ECLECTIC COMMERCIAL USES, INCLUDING A RESTAURANT, BREWERY SALON, AND A BRAND NEW BAKERY THAT'S SET TO OPEN IN SEPTEMBER. 
          THIS AREA IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CASE. 
          WE OWN THAT, THAT PORTION, AND WE PLAN TO KEEP THAT USE AS IS. 
          THOSE TENANTS HAVE LONG-TERM LEASES AND ALL THAT COMMERCIAL IS STAYING AND WILL BENEFIT FROM RESIDENTIAL ON THE BLOCK ON THE WESTERN SIDE. 
          YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF LONGSTANDING COMMERCIAL USES THAT HAVE JOINED US AS CO-APPLICANT ON THIS CASE, BUT HAVE NO PLANS TO REDEVELOP. 
          WE HAVE NOT MADE ANY OFFERS TO BUY THOSE PROPERTIES AND HAVE NO PLANS TO DO SO. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, REST ASSURED THAT COMMERCIAL IS STAYING AND WILL THRIVE WITH THE ADDITION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL. 
          THE THIRD AND FINAL AREA IS THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK, WHICH IS CURRENTLY A SURFACE PARKING LOT IN A SMALLER OBSOLETE OFFICE BUILDING WITH OFFICES AND SERVICE USES THAT HAVE SEEN HIGH TURNOVER IN RECENT YEARS. 
          SO I'LL CLOSE BY SAYING WE HAVE SUBSTANTIAL LEC ECLECTIC, LOCALLY OWNED COMMERCIAL SPACE ON THIS BLOCK, AND WHAT WE'RE MISSING IS THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. 
          WE THINK THAT THE PROPOSED COMPROMISE THAT MICHAEL MENTIONED STRIKES A GOOD BALANCE BY ALLOWING THE MID-BLOCK PARCEL TO BECOME FULLY RESIDENTIAL IF NEEDED, WHILE THE REST OF THE BLOCK WILL REMAIN COMMERCIAL. 
          THIS HELPS ENSURE THAT WE CAN PROVIDE A PROJECT THAT MEETS THE CITY'S HOUSING AFFORDABILITY GOALS AND HELPS SUPPORT OTHER COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN THE AREA. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. 
          I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKER'S ON THIS ITEM. 
          I'M ASSUMING MR. VALEN, YOU WOULD NOT LIKE TO HAVE A REBUTTAL FOREGO THAT. 
          UM, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD. 
          UM, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING? COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, UH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? DO YOU RECALL QUESTIONS? YES. 
          UH, BUT I SEE COMMISSIONER COX HAS A QUESTION. 
          COMMISSIONER COX, GO AHEAD. 
          I WAS JUST HOPING, UM, STAFF, I GUESS COULD, COULD, UH, ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE WAIVER FOR THE GROUND FOUR COMMERCIAL. 
          I KNOW WE JUST, WE JUST, I THINK, BEEFED UP THAT TEXT IN DB 90 AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT A WAIVER. 
          SO I'M JUST CURIOUS, UH, FOR A LITTLE MORE DETAIL. 
          YES, THE SUBJECT TRACT IS ON UNIMAGINED AUSTIN CORRIDOR AND ENCOURAGING A MIX OF STREET LEVEL COMMERCIAL USES ALONG THIS CORRIDOR WILL RESULT IN, UH, ENABLING IMAGINE AUSTIN TO, UH, BE, UH, REALIZED ON THE GROUND ALLOWING PEOPLE TO RESIDE WORKSHOP ACCESS SERVICES, UH, RECREATE AND HANG OUT WITHOUT TRAVELING LONG DISTANCES. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS COULD BE PROVIDED 
          [04:20:01]
AT THE STREET LEVEL WITH THIS WAIVER. 
          THE, THE APPLICANT WOULD ONLY BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THAT STREET LEVEL RETAIL ALONG THE PRIMARY STREET, WHICH WOULD BE ALONG CESAR CHAVEZ, NOT ALONG SECOND STREET. 
          AND I THINK THE, THE OTHER CONCERN IS, AS YOU MENTIONED, DB 90 HAS JUST BEEN SCOPED AND WHEN WE START ADDING EXCEPTIONS AND WAIVERS AND COMPLICATING THINGS, IT SETS A PRECEDENT FOR OTHER CASES THAT COULD FURTHER COMPLICATE DB 90. 
          DO, DO, DOES STAFF SEE ANY PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE SUCH A WAIVER WOULD GET A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF? YES. 
          UM, WE'VE SEEN SOME CASES WITH DB 90 THAT ARE ALONG FREEWAYS AND OTHER CORRIDORS WHERE THERE'S NOT A PEDESTRIAN REALM OR RIGHT AWAY, UM, THAT IS TRADITIONALLY STREET LEVEL RETAIL. 
          UM, THERE'S ALSO BEEN OTHER STUDIES THAT WERE CONSIDERED AS A PART, UH, NOT OF THE RECOMMENDATION, BUT JUST SEEN IN PASSING, UH, THERE WAS A STUDY CONDUCTED SAYING THAT THERE'S A 97% OCCUPANCY RATE FOR RETAIL WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN CONDUCTED BY TEXAS A AND M. 
          AND THAT STUDY, UH, INDICATES THAT THERE'S A NEED FOR THAT RETAIL MIX OF USES. 
          AND JUST LIKE WE LOOK AT RESIDENTIAL USES AND THE MISSING MIDDLE AND MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE SPACES THAT ARE DESIGNATED FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUSINESSES, WHETHER THEY BE, UM, MOBILE FOOD VENDORS WORKING THEIR WAY UP THE LADDER TO BRICK AND MORTAR AND SMALLER SPACES MOVING INTO LARGER SPACES. 
          I DON'T THINK STAFF SEES THE IMAGINE AUSTIN CENTER THAT WAS POINTED OUT AROUND SIXTH STREET AS BEING COMPARABLE TO THIS CORRIDOR, WHICH IS SERVES A DIFFERENT USE AND A DIFFERENT NEED. 
          AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IS GONNA MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF SUPPORTING OR NOT SUPPORTING THAT COMMERCIAL STREET LEVEL RETAIL. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER COX. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER HANS. 
          UH, THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          UH, QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANTS THANK YOU, MR. WAYLAND. 
          UM, SO IT'S, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE, YOU KNOW, YOU BASICALLY GOT THREE PARTS HERE. 
          THE, THE MIDBLOCK, WHAT YOU CALL THE MID BLOCK WAS ACTUALLY TO THE, TO THE, I GUESS THE WEST. 
          THOSE ARE RESIDENCES, THEY'RE PARTICIPATING, BUT THEY PLAN TO STAY THE UH, YES. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER, THE, UH, THE CORNER IS, UH, RESTAURANT, UH, ONE IN A MILLION AND THEY PLAN ON STAYING. 
          THERE'S NO PLAN TO REDEVELOP THAT. 
          UH, THE MIDBLOCK, WHICH IS US THE PARKING LOT, UM, IS THE PARCEL THAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE TO REDEVELOP. 
          AND THEN AS YOU NOTED TO THE EAST, THAT IS NOT PART OF THE ZONING, BUT IS THE OTHER THIRD HAS THE BLUE OWL JUNIPER RESTAURANT, A SALON AND, UH, BAKERY THAT'S GOING IN, UH, IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS? YEAH, IF YOU TRIED TO CHANGE ONE IN A MILLION, THERE'D BE PITCHFORKS. 
          NO, I UNDER, I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU'VE SEEN EMPTY COMMERCIAL SPACES IN BMU BUILDINGS ON MAJOR, MAJOR CORRIDORS WITH LOTS OF PEDESTRIAN OPPORTUNITIES. 
          AND FRANKLY, THIS JUST HASN'T EVOLVED YET. 
          AND IT, IT MIGHT EVOLVE IN THE NEXT 30 OR 40 YEARS. 
          UM, I THINK THIS IS, UH, AN ATTEMPT AT A COMPROMISE TO TRY AND BEGIN TO, UH, GENERATE THE TYPE OF DENSITY THAT MIGHT, UH, ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL, COMMERCIAL OFFERS, BETTER RENTS IN RESIDENTIAL SO PEOPLE WOULD BE NORMALLY MOTIVATED TO DO IT. 
          IT JUST DOESN'T NECESSARILY EXIST RIGHT HERE AT THIS TIME. 
          SO IT MIGHT NOT PENCIL OUT. 
          UH, NEVERMIND. 
          UM, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND, UM, I WAS, I WAS TRYING TO DO ONE, I WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT THE BACKUP. 
          DID I HEAR YOU SAY, IS THERE A CO ON THIS? YES, WE'VE, UH, SO WE'RE DOING, WE'RE DOING A CO ON DB 90. 
          OH MY GOD. 
          NO, NO, I THINK, I THINK IT'S ON THE BASE ZONING IS IS THE, UH, THAT'S OKAY. 
          THANK YOU MS. YEAH. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS FROM FOLKS? DO WE HAVE A MOTION COMMISSIONER AL? I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. 
          OH, COMMISSIONER AL, GO AHEAD. 
          LIKE IT'S SERIOUSNESS. 
          DO, DO WE HAVE CO ON THIS STAFF? WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND PLEASE? YES. 
          UH, THERE IS A CO ON THIS CASE, IT'S ON THE BASE OF THE CS. 
          AND THE REASON WHY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS CONDITIONAL OVERLAY IS THERE'S PORTIONS, UH, IF YOU MENTION, UH, IF YOU REMEMBER THE, THE ZONING STRINGS I READ BEFORE, IT'S CURRENTLY SF THREE, NP, C-S-C-O-M-U-N-P, YEAH, YADA, YADA, YADA. 
          UH, THE , THERE IS A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT'S ALREADY ON PORTIONS OF THIS TRACK THAT'S BEING REZONED AND STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND LIFTING THAT CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. 
          IT RECOMMENDS EXPANDING THAT CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO 
          [04:25:01]
THE FULL LENGTH OF THE TRACT. 
          SO IT SEEMS REASONABLE TO DO A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ON D KNOW THAT WE JUST PASSED THE DB 90, THAT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR COS I MEAN I GUESS IT HASN'T GONE THROUGH COUNCIL TECHNICALLY, BUT REALLY WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT CO YEAH, IT'S ONLY RESTRICTED FOR HEIGHT. 
          THE CO THAT Y'ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT. 
          NOT FOR USE. 
          AND THIS IS FOR USES. 
          OKAY. 
          I DIDN'T THINK WHAT WE PASSED HAD ANY, I I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS A, THERE ARE NO COS WHATSOEVER ON DB NINETIES. 
          WELL, I GUESS IF, IF YOU PASS SOMETHING AFTER THE OH, THEM FIGURED OUT . 
          YEAH. 
          IF YOU PASS SOMETHING AFTER THIS GETS APPROVED, THEN IT, I GUESS IT, YOU KNOW, IS NOT VALID ANY LONGER. 
          BUT IN ADVANCE OF THAT GETTING APPROVED, IT WOULD HAVE A CONDITIONAL OVER THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SORRY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. 
          DO WE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? UM, YEAH, JUST A A POINT OF CLARIFICATION OR REALLY POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE. 
          THE EXISTING DB 90 ORDINANCE AND THE DRAFT WE HEARD TODAY, BOTH EXPLICITLY ALLOW FOR USE BASED CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS, THEY ALREADY DO AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO, JUST NOT HEIGHT. 
          UM, I WAS ALSO GOING TO MOVE THE APPLICANT REQUEST. 
          UM, OKAY, WELL WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, UM, MAXWELL SECONDING. 
          AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS ON BOTH 13 AND 14. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          ITEMS 13 AND 14 THE APPLICANT REQUEST, UM, AS AMENDED I BELIEVE BY EXHIBIT C IN THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH IS TO SAY WAIVING THE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT ONLY ON THE MIDDLE TRACKED AS I UNDERSTAND IT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, UH, FOLKS WISHING TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION OR AGAINST, UH, I'LL SPEAK TO IT VERY BRIEFLY. 
          UM, I THINK DB 90 MAKES A LOT OF SENSE ON A, A GREAT CORRIDOR LIKE THIS. 
          UM, I ALSO THINK THAT MIXED USE DOESN'T, A MIXED USE AREA DOESN'T MEAN EVERY SINGLE BUILDING HAS TO BE MIXED USES. 
          UM, AND THAT A LOT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA OF BUSINESSES AND PARCELS ARE COMMERCIAL. 
          UM, I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO HAVE AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE LIVING HERE NEXT TO SOME WONDERFUL RESTAURANTS AND BUSINESSES ACCESS TO EXISTING MASS TRANSIT IN THE RED LINE. 
          UM, AND THAT WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED EVERY SINGLE NEW BUILDING TO HAVE, UH, A RETAIL SHOP THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE OCCUPIED. 
          UM, THAT'S IT. 
          THANK YOU, UH, FOLKS. 
          WISHING TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION FOR THE MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, CAN WE TAKE A VOTE ON THE MOTION? THIS IS A, UH, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, UH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UM, WHICH IS THE APPLICANT REQUEST TO HAVE, UM, THE WA THE ZONING MOVE FORWARD ON THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AND THE WAIVER APPLIED ON THE CENTRAL, UH, MIDBLOCK PORTION. 
          CAN ALL THOSE IN FAVOR THOSE AGAINST THOSE ABSTAINING? THAT MOTION PASSES WITH COMMISSIONER BARR RAMIREZ ABSTAINING. 
          THANK YOU ALL. 
          THIS TAKES US TO 
          [22. Hill Country  Roadway: SPC-2024-0162C.SH - Sunset Ridge Apartments; District 8]
ITEM NUMBER 22, WHICH IS A SITE PLAN APPROVAL. 
          UM, WE'LL FIRST HEAR FROM STAFF ON THIS ITEM. 
          UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS KATE CASTLES. 
          I'M THE SITE PLAN REVIEWER FOR THIS CASE. 
          UH, SPC 20 24 0 1 6 2 C SH SUNSET RIDGE APARTMENTS. 
          THIS IS A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY SITE PLAN THAT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST PARKWAY HILL COUNTRY. 
          ROADWAY, UH, CORRIDOR LAND USE COMMISSION APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR A SITE PLAN IN A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY CORRIDOR. 
          THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TWO TRACKS ZONED GCP AND G-O-M-U-C-M-P. 
          THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF EIGHT MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS WITH 444 UNITS, LANDSCAPE, COURTYARDS, NATURAL AREAS, BICYCLE, PARKING, AND SIDEWALKS. 
          THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT AS AN AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED TYPE TWO DEVELOPMENT. 
          AS SUCH, IT IS A PERMANENT USE IN THE COMMERCIAL BASED ZONING DISTRICT. 
          UH, THANK YOU. 
          AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU STAFF. 
          UM, MS. GRUNER, WE'LL BE HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME. 
          YES, CHAIR. 
          WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR FIVE MINUTES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GO AHEAD MR. SETTLE. 
          MY NAME IS RICHARD SU. 
          I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AND I'M GONNA GO REALLY FAST 'CAUSE I KNOW Y'ALL ARE TIRED. 
          THIS IS A HILL COUNTRY SITE PLAN. 
          IT'S BEFORE YOU, BUT THIS IS A CASE THAT YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD YOU AMENDED ON A VOTE OF NINE ZERO TO AMEND THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TO ALLOW THIS TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          IT HAS SINCE BEEN TO COUNCIL AND THEY'VE APPROVED IT AS WELL. 
          UM, JUST AS A REMINDER, THIS IS AFFORDABILITY AND LOCK. 
          THERE'S 101 UNITS AT OR BELOW 50% 
          [04:30:01]
MFI 77 UNITS AT OR BELOW 60% MFI 44 UNITS AT OR BELOW 80% MFI AND THEN 220, UH, TWO MARKETS. 
          UM, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY WAIVERS FROM THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY ORDINANCE, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS TO BE APPROVED AND WE HAVE CLEARED ALL THE COMMENTS ON THE SITE PLAN. 
          THE, UM, JUST AS AN ASIDE, WHAT THE CODE PROVIDES FOR IS THAT THE LAND USE COMMISSION SHALL APPROVE A SITE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT IN HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY IF THE LAND USE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TITLE. 
          AND SO WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT AND WE HOPE YOU'LL, UM, CONFIRM STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND TURN THIS LOOSE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MR. SETTLE. 
          UM, MS. AK, CAN YOU MC TWO THE PUBLIC COMMENT? YES. 
          UM, SO NOW WE WILL HEAR FROM THOSE. 
          SPEAKING IN FAVOR, WE HAVE KATHY BARTLEY SIGNED UP. 
          KATHY, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          THAT WAS ALL THE SPEAKERS SPEAKING IN FAVOR. 
          UM, SO WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THOSE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION. 
          JASON EK. 
          JASON HAS RECEIVED DONATED TIME FROM LEE ZALAR AND SHEILA ANDERSON. 
          ARE Y'ALL PRESENT? THANK YOU. 
          AND JASON, YOU ARE THE PRIMARY SPEAKER. 
          YOU'LL HAVE SEVEN MINUTES WITH THE DONATED TIME. 
          EXCELLENT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT COUNSEL. 
          THANKS FOR, UH, COUNSEL COMMISSIONER AS WELL. 
          THANKS FOR HAVING ME BACK. 
          UH, HOPE YOU HAVE, YOU PROBABLY HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF FATIGUE GOING ON HERE, MEETING FATIGUE. 
          SO THANKS FOR STICKING IN WITH US. 
          UH, JUST LIKE YOU, UH, WE'RE ALL VOLUNTEERING OUR TIME TO BE HERE AS WELL. 
          SO, UM, TO GET STARTED ON THIS IS JUST THIS CLICKER. 
          YEAH, I'VE BEEN HERE ENOUGH TIMES. 
          I'M THE PRESIDENT OF TRAVIS COUNTRY, WEST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, COMPRISED OF 226 HOMES. 
          AND I WANNA BE REALLY, REALLY, REALLY CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN A QUESTION. 
          THIS IS NOT AGAINST AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          IT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST IT. 
          WE SUPPORT IT. 
          WE BELIEVE IN IT. 
          I'M A NATIVE AUSTINITE. 
          I TOLD YOU BEFORE, MY WIFE'S A SCHOOL TEACHER AT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HERE. 
          WE WANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND DENSITY IN OUR AREA. 
          WHAT THIS IS A FIGHT AGAINST IS ANYTHING OF THIS SIZE, SCOPE, AND DENSITY ON THIS PARCEL OF LAND. 
          YOU HEARD EARLIER ABOUT A DEVELOPMENT I MIGHT SUPPORT. 
          IT WAS 60 ACRES FOR 600 UNITS. 
          THIS IS 450 UNITS ON LESS THAN 20 ACRES. 
          CONTRAST BOTH OF THOSE. 
          SO WE'RE HERE TO HELP SUPPORT THE INITIATIVES OF THIS CITY, BRING DENSITY TO THE AREAS THAT MAKE SENSE. 
          BUT WE'RE ASKING THAT IT BE DONE IN A WAY, IN A SITE PLAN THAT IS SUSTAINABLE FOR THIS AREA. 
          IN ADDITION TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, TRAVIS COUNTRY WEST, HOA BARTON CREEK, SOUTHWEST, HOA OAK HILL ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS, LANTANA, ESCAN, ESCAL, SAVE OUR SPRINGS. 
          EVERY ONE OF THESE CONSTITUENTS ARE OPPOSED TO THE CURRENT SIZE, SCOPE, AND DENSITY OF THIS PROJECT. 
          I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO GET RID OF IT, I'M ASKING YOU TO RIGHTSIZE IT WITH ME. 
          I'M ASKING YOU TO HELP THE DEVELOPER WORK WITH US TO RIGHTSIZE IT. 
          SO I'VE TALKED A WHOLE LOT ABOUT HOUSING TONIGHT AND I'M REALLY HAPPY BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK BACK AT ALL THE ARGUMENTS YOU HEARD TONIGHT ABOUT AFFORDABILITY AND ACCESS AND TRANSPORT, THEY ACTUALLY BASICALLY GAVE YOU MY WHOLE PRESENTATION ALREADY. 
          THIS IS A COMMON THEME WE WERE HEARING ALL OVER AUSTIN ABOUT NEEDING DENSITY, BUT HOW DO WE DO IT WITHOUT THE ACCESSIBILITY THERE? RIGHT? WELL, SOME INTERESTING NUMBERS I FIND IS, DID YOU KNOW LAST YEAR AUSTIN WAS THE NUMBER ONE MARKET IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES FOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STARTS NUMBER ONE BY A LONG SHOT. 
          THE YEAR BEFORE THAT WE WERE NUMBER THREE. 
          THIS YEAR WE'RE TRENDING TO NUMBER TWO. 
          WE ARE BUILDING HOUSING, WE'RE BUILDING LIKE CRAZY. 
          AND AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE BUILDING AND WE'RE STAMPING OUT DEVELOPMENT AFTER DEVELOPMENT AFTER DEVELOPMENT. 
          OUR VACANCY RATES ARE GOING THROUGH THE ROOF IN MARCH THIS YEAR, ACCORDING TO APARTMENTS.COM, WE HAD THE NUMBER ONE VACANCY RATE IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY AND ALMOST 15%. 
          SO I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY OF YOU COME FROM A BUSINESS BACKGROUND, BUT WHY WOULD YOU KEEP STAMPING OUT SO MUCH SUPPLY WHEN VACANCY RATES ARE GOING UP? RIGHT? WE'RE GONNA END UP AT A POINT IN THREE OR FIVE YEARS FROM NOW BASED ON DECISIONS WE'RE MAKING TODAY WHERE WE'VE GOT A GLUT OF, OF EMPTY BUILDINGS SITTING ALL AROUND, ALL AROUND US, JUST LIKE WE HAVE COMMERCIAL OFFICE NOW IS MY PREDICTION. 
          WE'RE ALSO HAVING A NET NEGATIVE MIGRATION IN THE CITY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 20 YEARS. 
          SO WE SHOULDN'T BE BUILDING WITH THE ATTITUDE THAT AUSTIN OF TOMORROW IS THE SAME AUSTIN IT'S BEEN THE LAST 15 OR 20 YEARS. 
          IT'S BEEN AN INCREDIBLE RIDE BEING HERE, BUT THE SAME TIME IT'S SLOWING. 
          THINGS ARE CHANGING. 
          AND UNTIL SOME OF THESE OTHER CONNECTIVITY PROJECTS COME ONLINE, I'M NOT CONFIDENT YOU'RE GONNA SEE THE GROWTH THAT WE'VE SEEN BEFORE. 
          AND I THINK WE'RE MAKING MISTAKES BY STAMPING OUT AS MANY UNITS AS WE ARE AS QUICKLY AS WE ARE. 
          THERE'S ALSO SOMETHING IN THERE AS A PRO PROGRAM ALLOWANCE IN THE, UM, AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED THAT SPECIFICALLY STATES THERE CAN BE NO CHANGES TO IMPERVIOUS COVER TO QUALIFY FOR AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED, YET SOMEHOW WE CONTRACT ZONED IT BY AMENDING IMPERVIOUS COVER AND A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT TO PASS AFFORD A BILLION UNLOCKED. 
          I'M NOT SURE HOW WE GOT THERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW. 
          I'M ONLY SIX MONTHS INTO THIS. 
          SO THANK 
          [04:35:01]
YOU FOR GIVING ME A CRASH COURSE IN POLITICS THAT I DIDN'T EXPECT TO HAVE JANUARY OF THIS YEAR. 
          SOMETHING VERY SALIENT TO JUST MY NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THE MAP IN FRONT OF YOU IS THE INCURSION THAT I'M EXPRESSED BEFORE. 
          CONCERNS THAT ARE ABOUT TO HAPPEN TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I'VE LIVED IN FOR 10 YEARS. 
          THE RED AREA OUTLINED INDICATES THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE 450 OR SO UNITS THAT ARE ABOUT TO BETO ON TOP OF IT. 
          LOOK AT THE BLUE LINES. 
          THAT'S TRAFFIC. 
          YOU'RE GONNA COME OUT ON A SOUTHWEST PARKWAY, YOU'RE GONNA TAKE A RIGHT. 
          ANYONE WANTING TO GO SOUTHEAST OR WEST OR SOUTHWEST ARE GONNA COME OUT, TAKE A RIGHT THE FIRST RIGHTS INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THEN EVERY OTHER STREET LEADS THEM RIGHT THROUGH SO THEY CAN EXIT THE BACK ONTO OLD B CAVE ROADS. 
          BUT I HEAR THAT ROAD. 
          Y'ALL HAVE HEARD THAT NIGHT ROAD TONIGHT, RIGHT? SO NOW WE'RE WITH THE OTHER PROPOSAL IN THIS ONE. 
          WE'RE GONNA SEE IT FROM BOTH ENDS THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS BECOMING A CUT THROUGH STREET WHERE WE RAISE OUR KIDS, WHERE OUR KIDS PLAY, WHERE PEOPLE WALK, DOGS THAT HAVE BEEN HIT. 
          WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE CAR ACCIDENTS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD SOLUTION THAT WE PUT TOGETHER BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HASN'T WORKED WITH US ON THESE CONCERNS. 
          FURTHERMORE, THE, THE GREEN CIRCLE, THIS IS THE PROPOSED CRASH GATE. 
          SO I DO APPRECIATE THEY'RE NOT GONNA ALLOW FOR INGRESS EGRESS ON THAT GREEN CIRCLE, BUT THAT'S A CRASH GATE. 
          WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN ON THAT CRASH GATE? IT'S A POLE THAT PEOPLE GO OOP DUCK UNDERNEATH AND THEN, THEN COME TRESPASS ON PRIVATELY HELD LAND. 
          THERE WAS A COMMISSIONER LAST TIME WE WERE HERE THAT SAID, OH, YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S SO GREAT. 
          LOOK AT ALL THE SUPPORT YOU GOT. 
          I WANT EVERYONE, 'EM TO BE ABLE TO BE ABLE TO ENJOY YOUR AMENITIES. 
          THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. 
          I'D LIKE, LIKE ME ASKING YOU TO BUILD A POOL IN YOUR BACKYARD AND BUILD A PLAY SCAPE AND THEN TEAR DOWN ALL YOUR WALLS AND ALL YOUR FENCES AND ASK 500 OF YOUR NEIGHBORS TO COME USE YOUR AMENITIES FOR FREE. 
          THAT'S WHAT'S ABOUT TO HAPPEN TO US WITH THE AMENITIES THAT WE PRIVATELY PAY FOR. 
          AND THERE'S NO PARK LAND THAT IS BEING PROPOSED IN THIS. 
          ONCE AGAIN, THE DEVELOPERS GET FEE IN LIEU. 
          I THINK IT SHOULD BE REDUCED IN SCOPE FROM 55% IMPERVIOUS COVER, WHICH BY THE WAY, THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT WE TALKED TO TONIGHT WAS 25%. 
          EVERYTHING UP AND DOWN SOUTHWEST PARKWAY IS 25%. 
          AND THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED WITH A REDUCTION IN SCOPE TO PUT IN THEIR OWN AMENITIES TO PREVENT THE INCURSION AND TRESPASSING THAT'S ABOUT TO BE HAPPENING. 
          AND FURTHERMORE, THAT CRASH GATE ON THE BACK, THERE SHOULD BE A PERIMETER FENCE TO HELP SHIELD OUR RESIDENTS FROM THIS TRESPASSING AND, UH, THE CRASH GATE BUILT IN SUCH A WAY THAT PEDESTRIANS CAN'T JUST POP UNDERNEATH AND COME OVER. 
          AND THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I'VE ALREADY GIVEN YOU THESE ISSUES. 
          Y'ALL SAW IT IN FEBRUARY WHEN WE SPOKE. 
          I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MUCH TIME I HAVE LEFT IF THERE'S A TIMER ANYWHERE. 
          BUT, UM, THERE IS A LITANY OF ISSUES WITH THIS THAT Y'ALL SAW BACK IN, IN MARCH, AND THAT WAS THE WRONG TIME BECAUSE THAT WAS ABOUT A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, NOT ABOUT A SITE PLAN. 
          BUT AS YOU'VE HEARD ECHOED AGAIN AND AGAIN TONIGHT, LACK OF PUBLIC TRANSIT. 
          THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS, THERE ARE NO SUITABLE ROADWAYS. 
          THE ROADWAYS AROUND THERE ARE DANGEROUS, WHICH Y'ALL HAVEN'T HEARD IS THE OVERBURDENING OF OAK HILL ELEMENTARY AND NO PLAN TO SOLVE IT. 
          THIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IS THE LOWEST PERFORMING, THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE MINORITY, THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS IN POVERTY IN ALL OF DISTRICT EIGHT. 
          SO WHY WOULD WE KEEP STAMPING OUT MORE AND MORE AND MORE HOUSING IN AN AREA? WE DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION TO FIX THAT PROBLEM FOR THOSE CHILDREN, PARTICULARLY IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE CHILDREN IN THE HOUSE. 
          RIGHT? ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. 
          ALL THE OTHER NEARBY ELEMENTS COMPLY WITH EXISTING CODE AND ORDINANCES. 
          THIS ONE HAS BEEN TAKING A SQUARE PEG AND CHIPPING ALL THE CORNERS OFF OF IT TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO RUB IT INTO A ROUND HOLE, INCLUDING MODIFYING ROADWAY REQUIREMENTS FROM 40% TO 30%. 
          BOTTOM LINE IS GO NO VOTE AND FORCE THE DEVELOPER TO COME TO THE TABLE AND TALK WITH US ABOUT A REASONABLE SOLUTION. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          THE NEXT SPEAKER IS EDWARD WILES, SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION. 
          EDWARD, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          UH, I'D LIKE TO BUILD JUST A LITTLE BIT ON SOME OF THE POINTS THAT, UH, WERE JUST MADE. 
          UM, THE SITE PLAN THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED IS BASED ON, UH, A CLAIM, UH, EXEMPTION TO ALLOW IT TO USE A 55 50 5% IMPERVIOUS COVER, UH, WHERE ALL OF THE OTHER LOCAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE, UH, SAVE OUR SPRINGS ORDINANCE ARE RESTRICTED TO 25%. 
          I MEAN, THAT GOES TO THE DENSITY THAT WAS JUST REFERENCED IN FOUR OH CRAMMING 440 UNITS INTO, UH, YOU KNOW, VERY SMALL SPACE WITH ONE EXIT ONTO SOUTHWEST PARKWAY THAT'S ON A HILL AND NOT VISIBLE, UH, VERY CLEARLY AS YOU APPROACH THE ENTRANCE, THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS, NO BUS LINES, NO UH, AMENITIES OF ANY KIND WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF THIS PROPERTY. 
          THE ORIGINAL COVENANT THAT THE DEVELOPER IS, IS RELIED ON AND, AND CLAIMED IS THAT ALLOWS 'EM TO USE THE 55% IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          WAS, WAS A VOLUNTARY RESTRICTION THAT WAS ENTERED INTO, UH, BY THE PARTIES, UH, 
          [04:40:01]
UH, YEARS AGO. 
          UH, AND THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR GRANDFATHERING BECAUSE IT WAS, UH, THERE WAS NO PROJECT THAT WAS PERMITTED, UH, UH, PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS ORDINANCE AND THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS ORDINANCE ESTABLISHED THE 25% LIMIT THAT, THAT I THINK WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH. 
          SO THE BASIS FOR THE CLAIM THAT SOMEHOW THEY'RE ENTITLED TO A 55% IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THIS PROPERTY SIMPLY DOESN'T HOLD WATER. 
          UH, ALL WE'RE REQUESTING IS THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAD, WE HAD REQUESTED ACTUALLY AN APPEAL ON THE VESTING RIGHTS, BUT THAT WAS DENIED. 
          AND, AND WE'VE, UH, ARE LOOKING TO SEE, UH, IF THERE'S SOME WAY THAT WE CAN WORK, UH, WITH THE DEVELOPER TO, UH, RESTRUCTURE THE PROJECT SO THAT, UH, IT, UH, WOULD NOT OVERBURDEN, UH, THE, UH, THE WATERSHED AREA THAT IT'S BEING BUILT ON. 
          IF, IF YOU'VE LOOKED AT THE DEVELOPMENT, IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO TELL EXACTLY, BUT IT'S UP ON THE TOP OF, UH, A HILL WHERE ALL OF THE DOWNHILL, UH, YOU KNOW, FLOW OF WATER AND RUNOFF ON, ON A PROPERTY THAT'S 55% DEVELOPED IS, IS GONNA BE, UH, COMING DOWNHILL ONTO THE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. 
          UH, AND SECONDLY, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY REQUIREMENTS GOT MENTIONED. 
          THIS PROPERTY'S ON THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY REQUIRING 40% OF THE PROPERTY BE LEFT IN A NATIONAL NATURAL STATE. 
          THE DEVELOPER IS CLAIMING THAT HIS, UH, SEDIMENTATION DETENTION AND RETENTION BASEMENTS, UH, APPEAR TO BE INCLUDED IN FULFILLING THIS 40% REQUIREMENT. 
          WHILE THE CODE STATES THAT 40% OF THE SITE EXCLUDING DEDICATED RIGHT AWAY MUST BE LEFT IN A NATURAL STATE, THE STATUTE DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE INCLUSION OF WATER QUALITY AND DETENTION POND FACILITIES IN THAT 40% IN, UH, REQUIREMENT. 
          SO IT'S OUR, OUR POSITION THAT, UH, FOR THESE TWO REASONS ALONE, THE THE SITE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO PROCEED AS PROPOSED. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          THE NEXT SPEAKER IS REMA DERMAN, UM, SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION. 
          YOU'LL HAVE ONE MINUTE. 
          ONE MINUTE. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          WELL, THAT CHANGES THINGS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WELL, I'M GONNA TRY TO SPEED THROUGH THIS. 
          AGAIN. 
          I'M LIMA BEATERMAN. 
          UM, SO I, I'M SPEAKING TODAY MOSTLY ABOUT THE TIA AND ALSO HERITAGE TREES. 
          AND I GUESS I'LL KIND OF JUMP THROUGH SOME OF THIS. 
          UH, THE AVAILABLE TIA THAT WE WERE GIVEN IS FOR 444 OR 4 28 UNITS. 
          THIS IS 4 44 UNITS, WHICH WOULD, UH, PUT IT UP, PUT US OVER 2000 TRIPS A DAY ON SOME ROADWAYS THAT I'LL TALK ABOUT HERE. 
          THERE'S DIFFERENT CODES THAT ARE MENTIONED HERE. 
          UM, ADDITIONALLY, THE DEVELOPMENTS INGRESS AND EGRESS HAS SIGNIFICANT VEHICLE SAFETY RISKS THAT WOULD DETAIL WITHOUT A DETAILED STUDY DONE IN SAFETY OF THIS INTERSECTION WOULD AMOUNT TO COM A COMPLETE DERELICTION OF THE CITY AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DUTY FOR EVEN ONE TRIP PER DAY, LET ALONE 2000. 
          AND, LET'S SEE. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SKIP NEXT. 
          THERE WE GO. 
          OH. 
          OH, THAT'S THE WRONG SLIDE. 
          SO I DON'T GET TO SHOW YOU MY, THERE IT IS, BUT IT'S NOT SHOW. 
          OH, NOW, THERE IT IS NOW. 
          SO YOU CAN SEE, UH, THE INGRESS AT THE . 
          YOU CAN SEE THAT THE, UH, THERE'S NOT 500 FEET OF SIGHTLINE FOR A ROAD. 
          THAT'S THREE SECONDS LATER THERE'S A CAR THAT YOU CAN'T SEE THAT YOU CAN SEE. 
          AND THEN THE HERITAGE TREES. 
          THANK LINE I DIDN'T GET TO SHOW YOU. 
          I'M SO SORRY. 
          THANK YOU, MA'AM. 
          THE NEXT SPEAKER IS BOBBY LEVINSKY. 
          SPEAKING OF OPPOSITION BOBBY, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT. 
          UM, I'M GOING TO ORDER OF HOW PEOPLE WERE SIGNED UP. 
          AND THEN REMA AND EDWARD AND JASON HAD THE PRESENTATION. 
          SO I MOVED REINA'S NAME UP ON THE SPEAKER LIST, BUT THESE SPEAKERS WERE SIGNED UP BEFOREHAND AND THEY HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          OKAY, TWO MORE SPEAKERS LEFT WITH THREE MINUTES. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, MS. GROSS. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          . 
          BOBBY LEVINSKY. 
          I'M WITH SAVE SPRINGS ALLIANCE. 
          I'M HERE AS COUNSEL FOR OUR BOARD. 
          OUR OFFICERS ARE OUR MEMBERS IN THE AREA. 
          UM, I HAVE THE UNFORTUNATE, UM, TASK OF SPEAKING AGAINST, UH, SITE PLAN WITH INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING. 
          THAT IS NOT A FUN TASK, BUT, UM, IT IS A BROADER ISSUE THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE SAFER SPRINGS ALLIANCE. 
          THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS THAT WAS APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE APPLIES TO 800 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE BARTON SPRING ZONE. 
          SO THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IS EXTREME, EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR US. 
          UM, BECAUSE YOU ARE THE, UH, ACTING AS THE AGENCY TONIGHT, UM, I HAVE TO MAKE A LEGAL ARGUMENT TO YOU, WHICH IS ALSO NOT A FUN, UH, POSITION TO BE IN 'CAUSE IT'D BE A LOT MORE FUN TO BE TALKING ABOUT POLICY. 
          BUT JUST TO, TO KIND OF RECAP WHAT THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS ORDINANCE DOES, IT HAS TWO SPACE, UH, BASIC PROVISIONS. 
          IT HAS IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS AND, UM, UH, WATER, UH, QUALITY TREATMENT, UH, PROVISIONS. 
          THESE, UM, 
          [04:45:01]
PROVISIONS WORK TOGETHER TO ENSURE NONDEGRADATION AND PROTECT BARTON SPRINGS AND BARTON CREEK. 
          THE SITE PLAN IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENTS OF THE SAFER SPRINGS INITIATIVE ORDINANCE, AND IT'S NOT IN COMPLIANT BECAUSE IT'S TAKING ADVANTAGE OF, UM, A VOLUNTARY RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. 
          SO CHAPTER 2, 2 45 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CODE, OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, UH, ALLOWS A DEVELOPER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF RELAXATIONS, UM, THAT ARE BASED ON A RE UH, REQUIRED RESTRICTED COVENANT, NOT A VOLUNTARY ONE. 
          WHEN THIS AREA WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, THE OAK HILL, UM, AREA, THERE WAS AN OAK HILL AREA STUDY THAT RECOMMENDED THAT THE LANDOWNERS LOWER THEIR IMPERVIOUS COVER BASED OFF THE EXISTING CODE AT THE TIME. 
          THIS PREDATES THE CWO AND IT PREDATES THE SOS ORDINANCE. 
          SO WHEN THEY DID THAT, THEY RESTRICTED THEIR IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          GOING INTO IT LATER, THESE APPLICANT HAS GOTTEN TWO AMENDMENTS, AMENDMENTS TO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, VOLUNTARILY REQUESTING RELAXATIONS TO THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. 
          WE OBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BECAUSE IT IS NOT A LEGAL PROCESS. 
          THERE IS NO, NO STATUTORY PROVISIONS IN STATE LAW OR CITY CODE THAT WOULD ALLOW THE CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND THE SOS ORDINANCE IN BY, UH, WAY OF A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. 
          THAT IS NOT A LEGAL TOOL. 
          THEY HAVE TO LEGISLATE BY ORDINANCE. 
          THAT IS ALSO AN OBJECTION THAT WE'RE MAKING HERE TONIGHT. 
          UM, JUST TO KIND OF RECAP, I SENT THIS LETTER EARLIER, AND I WANT IT TO BE A PART OF THE FORMAL RECORD BECAUSE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR US, AND IT'S AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN THAT, UM, IT'S CHAPTER 2, 4 0 5 IS BEING USED IN A WAY THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE SOS ORDINANCE. 
          UM, TO REITERATE THIS RESTRICTIVE, UH, THE CHAPTER 2 45 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SAYS THAT THEY CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A RECORDED RESTRICTIVE COVENANT REQUIRED BY A REGULATORY AGENCY. 
          WHEN THEY CAME HERE EARLIER, THEY REQUESTED A VOLUNTARILY AMENDMENT TO IT, WHICH WOULD BE A CONTRACT. 
          IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BE, TO VIEW THAT AS A CONTRACT, THAT WOULD BE CONTRACT ZONING THAT'S ALSO NOT PERMITTED. 
          SO ALL THESE OBJECTIONS I WANT FORMALLY PUTTED IN THE RECORD, AND I THINK THIS IS A REALLY BAD SITUATION THAT THE CITY IS IN, AND IT'S GONNA PUT THIS INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING AT RISK. 
          THANK YOU MR. LAVINSKY. 
          DAVID ARNOLD IS THE NEXT SPEAKER SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION. 
          DAVID, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          GOOD MORNING CHAIR. 
          GOOD MORNING, UH, COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS DAVID ARNOLD. 
          I'M AN INTERESTED PARTY TO, UH, THIS I LIVE ON SUNSET RIDGE, WHICH STRANGELY ENOUGH IS THE SAME NAME AS THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT ABOUT 500, 500 FEET AWAY. 
          AND I'M ALSO A FIRST RESPONDER. 
          SO I'M IN, IN, UH, I'M IN THE SAFETY BUSINESS. 
          SO I'M HERE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THREE TOPICS. 
          ONE OF 'EM IS SAFETY, SAFETY, NOT JUST TRAFFIC CRASHES. 
          THIS IS LIFE SAFETY. 
          SECOND IS AUTHORIZATION TO IGNORE REGULATIONS AND CODE. 
          THIRD IS UNKNOWN TRAFFIC IMPACTS, ESPECIALLY TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND POTENTIALLY CHILDREN IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          YESTERDAY I OBSERVED A, UH, SEVERE ACCIDENT AT SOUTHWEST PARKWAY IN LANTANA PLACE. 
          AND IT WAS IN THE EXACT SAME PLACE WITH THE SAME FEATURES AS THE EXIT INGRESS DRIVEWAY AS THE APARTMENT COMPLEX. 
          SO IT'S ON AN INSIDE OF A CURVE, TOP OF A HILL, LIMITED SITE DISTANCE. 
          AND DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE VEHICLES, THE VEHICLE THAT HIT THE OTHERS, BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING AT THE PROXIMITY, WAS INITIALLY PROBABLY ESTIMATED AT 80 TO 85 MILES AN HOUR. 
          THAT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR SOUTHWEST PARKWAY. 
          I THINK WE NEED TO RENAME IT SOUTHWEST RACEWAY. 
          THE OTHER REASON IS RIGHT WHERE THIS APARTMENT COMPLEX IS BEING BUILT IS WHERE THE RACERS GO TO TRY OUT THEIR VEHICLES AND MOTORCYCLES, PARTICULARLY ON SUNDAY. 
          IF YOU WANT TO GO THERE ABOUT SIX IN THE MORNING, GO CHECK IT OUT. 
          I'VE TIMED ONE OF THEM CLOSE TO ABOUT 120. 
          SO THEY'RE TI THEIR, THEY'RE TIMING AND TESTING THEIR VEHICLES IN THIS AREA. 
          SO I CANNOT HELP RELATE THOSE CONCERNS NEEDING WHAT'S CALLED A TRAFFIC STUDY. 
          SO I CORRESPONDED WITH MR. CURTIS BEATTY ON TRANSPORTATION STAFF. 
          THE DETERMINATION WORKSHEET, AS WAS PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED, INITIALLY ALLOWED THEM TO AVOID IT BECAUSE OF FIVE TRIPS UNDER 2000 WAS USED ON THE CALCULATION. 
          I ASKED HIM, WELL, THAT WAS IN FAVOR OF THE DEVELOPER, CORRECT? 'CAUSE WHAT HAPPENED NEXT WAS IT WENT OVER TO 444. 
          I ASKED, WELL, THERE IS A CODE, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT IN THE CODE BECAUSE HE SENT 'EM ALL TO ME 
          [04:50:01]
THAT SAYS IT IS REQUIRED THAT THAT TRAFFIC STUDY BE CONDUCTED. 
          AND I SAID, WAS IT, WAS IT RELIEVED BY THE DIRECTOR WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO NOT DO THAT TRAFFIC STUDY? AND HE SAYS, I'M NOT SURE. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW HOW IT GOT RELIEVED. 
          AND NOW THEY'RE SAYING THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO ONE BECAUSE IT WAS ONLY MARGINALLY OR BARELY CROSSED THE THRESHOLD TO TRIGGER IT BASED ON THE CONVERSATIONS EARLIER. 
          IF THE DECIBELS ARE AT 78 ON 75, IT'S OKAY TO NEGOTIATE WITH DEVELOPERS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S CLOSE. 
          IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A, IT'S A REGULATION. 
          SO FOR HERE, I'M JUST REQUESTING THAT I LOOK AT THAT. 
          YOU LOOK AT THE AREAS TO STUDY THAT ARE STILL OPEN. 
          THEY'RE ALL IN YELLOW ON MY DOCUMENTS. 
          I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH MR. CURTIS BADY ON THAT. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          AND I AM DO, I'M HOPING NOW THAT YOU LOOK IN THIS CONCLUSION ON THE BASIS OF SAFETY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MR. YOUR HARD CHAIR. 
          WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL COMMISSION. 
          RICHARD SU I'LL, I'LL BRIEFLY KNOCK THROUGH THIS 'CAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE REALLY TIRED. 
          UM, THE ISSUE OF, OF SOS COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN SETTLED IN THIS AREA FOR A LONG TIME. 
          THESE OLD COVENANTS, I CAN ASSURE YOU, I WAS HERE WHEN THEY WERE DONE. 
          THEY WERE NOT VOLUNTARY BACK WHEN THEY WERE REQUIRED BACK IN THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY, OR I'M, I'M SORRY, IN THE OAK HILL STUDY AREA. 
          UM, I'M NOT GONNA, I'M NOT GONNA DEBATE MR. LEVINSKY ON THE ARGUMENTS BECAUSE IF, IF HE'S REALLY SURE HE, HE WILL SUE US. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE CITY LAW DEPARTMENT AND THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT HAVE ALL AGREED THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING IN THIS AREA IS THE SOS WATER QUALITY, JUST NOT, UH, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER BECAUSE OF THE COVENANTS ON THE SAFETY ISSUES. 
          UM, AND THE TIA ISSUES, THERE ARE TWO TRACKS EACH ALLOWED, ONE ALLOWED 2000 TRIPS, ONE ALLOWED 2200, BUT WHEN YOU COMBINE THEM, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO COMBINE 'EM AND YOU'RE ONLY SUPPOSED TO DO 2000 TRIPS. 
          BUT ALL A TIA WOULD SAY ON THIS ONE WOULD, WOULD BE IS THAT YOU NEED TO PUT A LIGHT AT THE ENTRANCE ON SOUTHWEST PARKWAY. 
          AND WE'VE ALREADY AGREED THAT WE'RE PUTTING THE LIGHT IN AND THAT THAT WOULD SUFFICE TO MEET ANY REQUIREMENTS THAT ANY TIA WOULD HAVE. 
          AND WE, WE, AGAIN, HAVE THE, UH, AGREEMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION STAFF ON THAT. 
          UM, BEYOND THAT, THOSE ARE THE ONLY ISSUES THAT HAD TO DO WITH I THINK, WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED BY YOU FOR A HILL COUNTRY SITE PLAN. 
          AND WE MAINTAIN THAT. 
          WE MEET ALL THE, THE TITLE 25 AND THAT WE ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL TONIGHT. 
          THE REASON I WAS, UM, HOPPING UP HERE AND GETTING SO NERVOUS AND TRYING TO GET THIS DONE REALLY QUICK TONIGHT IS BECAUSE THIS HAS THREE LAYERS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FINANCING THAT HAVE REQUIREMENTS ON US TO GET THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME. 
          AND SO, UM, E EVERY TIME IT GOT DELAYED, IT JUST MAKES US MORE NERVOUS THAT WE CAN'T MEET THAT. 
          AND SO WE'RE HOPING THAT YOU'LL, UH, GIVE US A THUMBS UP OR A THUMBS DOWN TONIGHT, HOPEFULLY A THUMBS UP. 
          AND, UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          THANK YOU, MR. SU, THAT CLOSE THAT UP OFF THE HEARING. 
          I CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. 
          THANK YOU, MS. CORONA. 
          DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY WITH COMMISSIONER MUTO OFF THE DICE. 
          THIS TAKES US TO Q AND A. 
          DOES ANYBODY WANNA START US ON THE QUESTION AND ANSWER OR QUESTIONS HERE? COMMISSIONER WOODS? THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          EXCUSE ME, MS. CORONA, I APPRECIATE YOU EXPLAINING KIND OF HOW THE, UM, TIMING FOR SPEAKERS WORKS. 
          BUT I, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAD A, A SPEAKER THAT DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT IT WOULD JUST BE A MINUTE. 
          SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, I WOULD ASK THE QUESTION. 
          IF YOU WANNA FINISH UP FOR A COUPLE MINUTES, FEEL FREE. 
          UM, I KNOW YOU HAD A PRESENTATION, BUT NO WORRIES IF YOU, BUT I DO HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          SO I'LL ASK YOU TO WRAP UP IN JUST TWO MINUTES, PLEASE. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          THANKS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WELL, I GUESS I'LL, WE, WE ALREADY TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE TIA AND THE SAFETY ISSUES, WHICH IS INSANE. 
          IT'S REALLY CRAZY TO TURN WHEN YOU CAN SEE, I CAN'T IMAGINE SUCH A BLIND CURVE TRYING TO TURN RIGHT WITH A LIGHT. 
          WITHOUT A LIGHT. 
          IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. 
          BUT ANYWAY, MOVING ON TO HERITAGE TREES. 
          JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT GETS ON THE RECORD. 
          THE APPLICANT PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THERE WOULD BE NO HERITAGE TREES, UM, REMOVED ON THE SITE CURRENT. 
          THE NEW SITE PLAN SHOWS 13 HERITAGE TREES ARE, ARE PLANNED TO BE REMOVED BASED 
          [04:55:01]
ON, LIKE I SAID, THE NEW SITE PLAN AND OTHER, AND A LARGE NUMBER OF OTHER PROTECTED TREES. 
          UH, CODE 25 DASH EIGHT DASH 6 41 PROHIBITS THE REMOVAL OF A HERITAGE TREE APPRO. 
          A PERMIT TO REMOVE A HERITAGE TREE MAY BE ISSUED ONLY IF A VARIANCE IS APPROVED UNDER 25 DASH EIGHT DASH 6 42 OR 25 DASH EIGHT DASH 6 43. 
          NO DEMONSTRATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT THE 13 HERITAGE TREES TO BE REMOVED AT THE MINIMUM CHANGE NECESSARY. 
          NOR HAS IT BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THE SUFFICIENT MITIGATION HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AS A CONDITION OF VARIANCE APPROVAL. 
          NO PUBLIC PROCESS HAS BEEN HELD FOR REMOVAL OF HERITAGE TREES. 
          AND GIVEN THE LARGE NUMBER OF HERITAGE TREES THAT ARE PLANNED FOR REMOVAL ON THIS HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY, LAND PARCEL, THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD OPPOSE THIS SITE PLAN. 
          ADDITIONALLY, BECAUSE OF THE SAFETY ISSUES, WITHOUT A MORE THOROUGH AND THOUGHTFUL, UM, TRAFFIC STUDY, THEY SHOULD ALSO, UM, OPPOSE THIS SITE PLAN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I APPRECIATE IT. 
          I HAVE, THANK YOU. 
          A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          UM, AND I'LL START WITH THE, THE HERITAGE TREES, 'CAUSE I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THIS THE LAST TIME THIS CASE CAME BEFORE US. 
          CAN YOU CLARIFY, UM, SURE. 
          WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH HERITAGE TREES? SO UPON FURTHER REVIEW, THERE ARE SOME HERITAGE TREES THAT ARE EITHER DEAD, DISEASED OR DAMAGED. 
          AND WE HAVE, UH, ARBORIST APPROVAL TO REMOVE THOSE. 
          THEY ARE NOT OF THE SIZE THAT REQUIRES A PUBLIC PROCESS, BUT IT HAS BEEN ALL, UM, BLESSED BY THE CITY ARBORIST ON, ON THOSE THAT ARE COMING OUT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THEN I WANNA GO BACK TO THE TIA, UM, I UNDERSTAND MAYBE YOU'RE RIGHT ON THE CUSP OF 2000 TRIPS A DAY, WHETHER OR NOT IT'D BE TRIGGERED. 
          IS THAT SOMETHING THAT, AND FORGIVE ME FOR NOT KNOWING THE ANSWER TO THIS ALREADY, BUT IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU OR, OR THE, THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM WOULD BEAR THE COST OF IF A TIA IS TRIGGERED? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD DELAY THE BOND CLOCK THAT I KNOW IS STARTED ON THIS PROJECT? IT WOULD IF A FULL ON TIA WAS REQUIRED AND HAD TO GO THROUGH THE FULL ON REVIEW PROCESS, AND THE, THE, THE FRUSTRATING PART ABOUT THAT WOULD BE WE'VE ALREADY HAD THAT CONVERSATION FOR MONTHS WITH THE TRAFFIC STAFF. 
          THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD COME OUT OF A TIA WOULD BE TO SAY, YOU NEED TO DO A LIGHT FOR SAFETY AT THE ENTRANCE. 
          AND WE'VE ALREADY, AND WE'VE TOLD 'EM, WE'LL DO THE LIGHT. 
          I GUESS MY, MY QUESTION IS, GIVEN THAT THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERNS AROUND THE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY AND THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THAT TIA WOULD BE, AND YOU'RE ALREADY MEETING THAT REQUIREMENT, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT MAYBE YOU WOULD CONSIDER UNDERTAKING TO CREATE A LITTLE BIT MORE TRUST WITH THE COMMUNITY? UM, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S A HARD CHARACTERIZATION OF IT BECAUSE I, I, I KNOW FULL WELL WHAT TIAS REQUIRE AND WHAT THEY ARE MEANT TO DO. 
          AND THEY'RE NOT MEANT TO SAY CERTAIN THINGS. 
          THEY'RE ONLY MEANT TO SAY, WHAT DO YOU NEED TO DO TO MAKE THIS SAFE? AND THEY'VE ALREADY, AND THE CITY STAFF HAS ALREADY DETERMINED WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS THE TRAFFIC LIGHT. 
          AND WE SAID, OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, AND IF, IF, IF, IF THE TRAFFIC STAFF HAD SAID DO A TIA WHEN WE STARTED THE PROCESS, WE WOULD'VE DONE IT. 
          BUT THEY DETERMINED THAT, I MEAN, THEORETICALLY WE COULD BUILD TWO PROJECTS ON THIS AND HAVE 4,000 TRIPS OR A LITTLE LESS BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO SITES EACH WITH ONE HAS 2000 TRIPS ALLOWANCE AND ONE HAS 2200. 
          BUT WE'RE NOT DOING THAT. 
          WE'RE, WE'RE COMBINING IT AND WE'RE JUST OVER THE 2000. 
          THE RESULT IS THE TRAFFIC LIGHT. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT IS ALL MY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR, AND THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          COMMISSIONER COX, AND I GUESS, UH, SOME QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR WHOEVER IS MOST CAPABLE OF DOING SOME MATH ON THIS. 
          UM, SO OUR, OUR BACKUP CLEARLY SAYS THAT WE'RE ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE, UH, LOOKING AT THIS IN TERMS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY, UH, CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO. 
          AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, UM, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR 40% OF THE SITE TO BE LEFT IN A NATURAL STATE, UH, PRIORITY GIVEN TO PROTECTION OF NATURAL CRITICAL AREAS. 
          UM, UP TO 25% OF THE AREA REQUIRED TO BE KEPT IN NATURAL STATE MAY BE USED FOR SEW DISPOSAL FIELDS. 
          I'M, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT. 
          THEY, THEY'RE PROPOSING AN CUMULATIVE IMPERVIOUS COVER OF 44%, BUT THERE'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF AREA BEING COVERED BY STORMWATER DETENTION AND RETENTION AND BIOFILTRATION PONDS IS CITY STAFF ALLOWING THOSE AREAS THAT ARE NOT LEFT IN A NATURAL STATE, BUT ARE BEING USED FOR 
          [05:00:02]
MEETING, UH, WATER QUALITY AND DETENTION REQUIREMENTS, ARE THOSE BEING ALLOWED TO BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE NATURAL STATE REQUIREMENT? AND I'M SPEAKING TO AN EMPTY PODIUM . 
          UM, WE HAVE STAFF WALKING UP. 
          COMMISSIONER GO. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          THANKS . 
          THE CAMERA WAS ZOOMED IN IS KATE CASTLES AGAIN. 
          I THINK WE HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF ONLINE WHO WOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 
          PAMELA, IF YOU'RE THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF IF YOU COULD UNMUTE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          CAN PEOPLE HEAR ME NOW? YES, MA'AM. 
          CAN YOU PLEASE TURN ON YOUR CAMERA AS WELL? OH, YES. 
          CAMERA, CAMERA AND COMMISSIONER COX WILL DEFINITELY GIVE YOU A LITTLE EXTRA TIME TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOST TIME. 
          PLEASE GO AHEAD, MA'AM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, YEAH, SO PAMELA AB TOLEY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AND, UM, I, UH, SO, SO THE, THE SITE DOES HAVE A LOT OF, UM, A LOT OF IT ALL THE AREA WHERE THERE'S A BUILDINGS ARE BEING USED FOR THE, UH,  BUFFER THAT DOES INCLUDE THE PONDS. 
          UM, THE PONDS HAVE, UH, OR HAVE, UM, WELL THE ONE POND HAS, UH, ALL NATIVE PLANTS IN IT. 
          THEY ARE, UH, SPECIFIC JUST TO OUR GEO REGION, NOT JUST TO THE STATE. 
          SO THEY'RE NARROWLY SPECIFIC TO BLACKLAND PRAIRIE AND, UH, AND, UM, EDWARDS PLATEAUS. 
          SO WE DECIDED, UH, INCLUDING THE, UM, WATERSHED PROTECTION ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER DECIDED THAT, THAT THESE WOULD DO, UH, COULD BE INCLUDED IN THE, UH, IN THE 40% BUFFER. 
          I WILL SAY THAT THE REGULATION THERE DOES ALLOW FOR PARKING LOT ISLANDS TO BE INCLUDED. 
          SO WE FIGURED PARKING LOT ISLANDS CAN BE INCLUDED. 
          WE COULD INCLUDE THESE. 
          SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE DID, UM, THEY'RE RIGHT ON THE, OH, WAIT A MINUTE. 
          WAIT A MINUTE. 
          I CAN'T HEAR YOU. 
          . 
          COMMISSIONER COX, YOU'RE MUTED. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I WAS SPEAKING TO MUTE A MICROPHONE. 
          UH, I'LL JUST SAY REALLY QUICK IT THAT'S VERY INTERESTING YOU SAY THAT BECAUSE I KNOW PEOPLE ROLL THEIR EYES WHEN I BRING UP THE FACT THAT I'VE DONE THIS BEFORE AS AN ENGINEER GOING THROUGH SITE PLANNING PROCESSES. 
          AND IN PREVIOUS SITE PLANNING CASES THAT I'VE PERSONALLY COMPLETED IN MY PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO INCLUDE DETENTION AREAS IN THE 40%, UH, UH, RESERVED SPACE BECAUSE THE, THE, THE, THE, IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR THAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE LEFT IN A NATURAL STATE. 
          AND THESE ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT LEFT IN A NATURAL STATE. 
          SO I DO, I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, UH, MR. SUBTLE IS, IS MOSEYING UP TO THE PODIUM IF HE WANTS TO CHIP IN ON THIS COMMISSIONER RICHARD SETTLE. 
          THERE'S ANOTHER PROVISION THAT IF YOU TAKE A PREVIOUSLY DISTURBED AREA AND RETURN IT TO NATURAL AREA, YOU GET CREDIT FOR THAT. 
          AND THIS SITE, AT ONE POINT, I THINK IN THE EIGHTIES, WAS ACTUALLY USED AS A CONSTRUCTION LAY DOWN STORAGE AREA AND THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS, IT'S SHOWN THAT IT HAD BEEN PRETTY WELL DISTURBED AND THAT THERE WERE, THERE'S STILL SOME STUFF THAT NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP, OLD PLYWOOD AND STUFF LIKE THAT. 
          BUT YOU, YOU CAN TAKE CREDIT FOR AREAS THAT YOU ARE BRINGING BACK TO NATURAL AREA, AND THAT'S HOW WE GET THE CREDIT ON SOME OF THAT. 
          INTERESTING. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT, THAT'S INTERESTING. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER COX. 
          MR. JOHNSON, UH, YEAH, FOLLOWING UP ON THAT QUESTION FOR, UH, STAFF AND OR MR. SUBTLE, IS IT ACCURATE, AS SHOWN IN THE STAFF REPORT, THAT THERE'S ALSO A 2010 CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ON THE PROPERTY EXPLICITLY ALLOWING, UH, WATER QUALITY AND DETENTION POND FACILITIES FOR AN OFFICE USE TO COUNT TOWARD FULFILLMENT OF THE 40% NATURAL AREA REQUIREMENT? WAS THAT AT ALL AMENDED TO INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL USES? WAS THIS PART OF THE CHANGES TO THE RESTRICTED COVENANT? NO, IT WAS NOT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT'S A SEPARATE MM-HMM, . 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION REGARDING THE SUNSET RIDGE RIGHT OF WAY THAT, UH, THE, THE PROPERTY WILL NOT BE TAKING VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM, BUT DOES HAVE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. 
          IS THAT A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR A PRIVATE STREET? I THINK WE ALSO HAVE TRANSPORTATION STAFF WHO COULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          [05:05:03]
DANIELLE WARREN? UH, TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC WORKS. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? IS THE SUNSET RIDGE, THE, THE ROAD, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TECHNICALLY RIGHT OF WAY, UH, AT THE REAR OF THE SITE OR THE SOUTH OF THE SITE, IS THAT A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY? IT IS. 
          IT'S A SMP LEVEL ONE ROADWAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WOULD IT BE ACCURATE TO SAY THAT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THAT, UH, PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WOULD NOT ENCOURAGE TRESPASS ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY? IS THERE ANY REASON TO THINK THAT PEDESTRIANS ACCESSING A A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY CONSTITUTES TRESPASSING? NO. 
          I MEAN, PEDESTRIANS COMING FROM THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ENTERING A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, DO WE HAVE OTHER FOLKS WITH QUESTIONS? NOT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MR. ANDERSON, MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? UM, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? I WOULD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO, UM, THERE'S ALWAYS A REASON TO STOP HOUSING. 
          THERE'S ALWAYS AN EXCUSE TO SUE TO STOP HOUSING, ESPECIALLY HOUSING THAT'S AFFORDABLE TO SO MANY. 
          UH, I'M EXCITED THAT WE GET TO VOTE ON OVER 400 HOMES IN DISTRICT EIGHT, HALF OF WHICH ARE GONNA BE INCOME RESTRICTED TO FAMILIES WHO HAVE VERY LITTLE CHANCE OF LIVING IN THIS AREA. 
          OTHERWISE, I'M EXCITED FOR KIDS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CRASH GATE TO BE ABLE TO PLAY TOGETHER. 
          AND I HOPE WE ALL AS A BODY AND AS A CITY AND STAFF AND EVERYONE REJECT ALL CALLS TO THAT ATTEMPT TO LIMIT THEM FROM DOING SO. 
          AND I KNOW WE TALK A WHOLE LOT ABOUT AFFORDABILITY ON THIS STATUS, AND I'M REALLY EXCITED THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE A CHANCE TO VOTE FOR IT. 
          SO HOPE WE PASS THIS TONIGHT, AND I'M EXCITED TO DO SO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          FOLKS, WISH YOU TO SPEAK AGAINST OTHER FOLKS IN FAVOR. 
          COMMISSIONER COX? DO I, ARE YOU WISHING TO SPEAK? I'M SORRY. 
          I COULDN'T TELL. 
          I WAS DEBATING IN MY HEAD. 
          I JUST WANNA SAY THAT I REALLY HOPE THAT OUR STAFF ARE MAKING AN EFFORT TO TRY TO APPLY THESE REGULATIONS ON A CONSISTENT BASIS. 
          I, I'VE EXPERIENCED INCONSISTENCIES WITH THIS, AND IT FEELS LIKE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THOSE, THOSE, UH, INTERPRETATIONS WERE FAIRLY GENEROUS. 
          SO I, I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE THAT I REALLY HOPE THAT WE'RE MAKING AN EFFORT TO BE EQUAL ACROSS, ACROSS THE BOARD IN THE WAY THAT WE, UH, APPLY THESE REGULATIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER COX. 
          DON'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK. 
          UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THAT MOTION. 
          THIS IS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, THOSE AGAINST ABSTAINING. 
          UM, THAT MOTION PASSES WITH EIGHT FOLKS IN FAVOR WITH COMMISSIONER COX ABSTAINING, UM, AND COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS OF THE DIE. 
          THANK YOU ALL. 
          UM, THAT TAKES US TO 
          [25. Discussion and action to approve a recommendation to Council for the FY24-25 budget.  Sponsors: Commissioners Maxwell and Woods. ]
ITEM NUMBER 25. 
          UM, PARDON ME, CHAIR. 
          OH, SORRY. 
          I JUST WANNA NOTE, UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS AND COMMISSIONER MTO LEFT THE MEETING. 
          UH, OKAY. 
          THANK YOU FOR ATHLETIC. 
          SO I KNOW COMMISSIONER AL HAD TO LEAVE. 
          UM, THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          UM, THIS TAKES US TO ITEM NUMBER 25, WHICH WAS THE RECOMMENDATION, UM, FROM OUR BUDGET WORKING GROUP. 
          I KNOW, UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, YOU HAVE PULLED THIS ITEM. 
          I WONDER IF IT, IF IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, IF, IF THE TWO SPONSORS OF THE ITEM ARE FINE WITH IT, UH, CAN WE PERHAPS TAKE COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S QUESTIONS FIRST AND Y'ALL CAN RESPOND TO IT? THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES, WOULD YOU, DO YOU WANNA KICK US OFF WITH THE CONVERSATION? SURE. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          UM, I, I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE, UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AND, AND, AND WOODS BRINGING THIS ITEM, AND, AND I I TOLD BOTH OF 'EM. 
          I, I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA. 
          MY CONCERN AND, AND THE REASON THAT I DIDN'T WANT THIS TO GO ON, UM, CONSENT AND, AND HAVE A, A BRIEF DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, WAS THAT, UM, UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THEY DON'T HAVE A, NOR CAN WE, DO WE KNOW WHAT THE FISCAL IMPLICATION OF THIS IS. 
          AND I'M, I'M USED TO THE STATE WHERE YOU GOTTA HAVE A FISCAL NOTE. 
          I KNOW THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, HEADLINES AND TALKING WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, MY ELECTED AND OTHERS, IT'S A, IT'S A TIGHT BUDGET. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, IS THIS A, IS THIS A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS? IS THIS A MILLION DOLLARS? UH, WHAT, WHAT IS THE FISCAL IMPLICATION OF, OF THIS ACTION? GO AHEAD. 
          ANY ONE OF THE COSPONSORS. 
          WE CERTAINLY HAVEN'T, UM, GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ESTABLISHING THE FISCAL IMPLICATIONS OF ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS, BUT, UM, GENERALLY, YOU KNOW, THE, I THINK SPECIFICALLY 
          [05:10:01]
YOUR QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE OFFICE OF LAND USE COMMISSIONS. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, I MEAN, IT WOULD JUST BE, YOU KNOW, MY HOPE IS IF WE, YOU KNOW, IF IF THIS WENT FORWARD AND WE COMBINED ZAP AND PC AND A LITTLE BIT OF THIS, MAYBE THERE'D BE A SAVINGS. 
          I DON'T KNOW. 
          BUT, UM, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I WAS GOING, WAS I, THIS IS NOT A REQUEST TO HIRE A NEW DEPARTMENT'S WORTH OF STAFF OR A NEW OFFICE'S WORTH OF STAFF. 
          IT'S, IT'S CREATING A NEW OFFICE AND, UM, YOU KNOW, SHIFTING EXISTING STAFF AROUND. 
          AND I WOULD LEAVE IT TO STAFF TO, YOU KNOW, SPECIFY HOW MUCH THAT COSTS. 
          I, I WOULDN'T WANT TO GUESS AT THAT. 
          YEAH, AND I, I WANT JUST TO ADD, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVING, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT SUPER EXPERIENCED WITH MAKING BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COME COM COME FROM COMMISSIONS ARE OFTEN SORT OF, UM, BROAD BASED AND THAT THEY'RE USUALLY TAKEN UP BY SPECIFIC COUNCIL OFFICERS OR BY THE COUNCIL, THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, IF THEY'RE FELT TO HAVE MERIT. 
          AND AT WHICH POINT YOU WOULD SEE A MORE DETAILED INFORMATION REGARDING WHAT WOULD BE SORT OF APPROPRIATE FOR THE BUDGET LEVELS AND WHATNOT. 
          SO I THINK SORT OF TO ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER WOODS IS, IS THAT WE HAD A GENERAL IDEA OF SOME IDEAS THAT, WHICH TO YOUR POINT, MAY END UP WITH COST SAVINGS, MAY END UP WITH COST EXPENSES. 
          AND THAT RATHER THAN TRYING TO NARROW THAT DOWN, THAT WE WERE SORT OF EXPLODING THIS IDEA TO SEE IF THERE WAS SOME INTEREST IN BRINGING IT FORWARD IN A MORE FORMAL WAY. 
          AND THAT, THAT'S WHAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD NORMALLY DO, IS TO SAY THESE ARE SOME I I IDEAS AND, UH, SORT OF AGENDAS OR SORT OF IDEAS THAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE FLESHED OUT IN A MORE FORMAL WAY WITH THE APPROVAL OR INTEREST OF COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE CO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. 
          SO I THINK IT'S, I'LL JUST BE HONEST, A LITTLE PREMATURE TO TRY AND PUT BUDGET NUMBERS ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS. 
          JARED GOEN, DID YOU WANNA ADD SOMETHING TO THAT OR HAVE A QUESTION? I THINK IT'S, IT'S JUST AS IMPORTANT TO MENTION THAT THIS WOULD CONSOLIDATE THE STAFF MEMBERS INTO A SINGLE ORGANIZATION INSTEAD OF HAVING FOLKS SPREAD ACROSS LIKE DSC AND PLANNING WOULD BRING THEM KIND OF UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF CITY HALL, UH, LIKE THE CLERK'S OFFICE, UH, MAKE EVERYTHING A LITTLE MORE STREAMLINED, HOPEFULLY, UH, IMPROVE THE INTERACTION PROCESS FOR APPLICANTS AND FOR THE PUBLIC. 
          AND I, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD DEFINITELY POINT OUT HERE BECAUSE IT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS. 
          DO WE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? UH, COMMISSIONER COX? I, I JUST WANNA SAY I REALLY APPRECIATE THESE. 
          I, I, I THINK THEY'RE ALL GREAT. 
          UM, AND IT WAS A UNANIMOUS WORKING GROUP, GROUP WORKING GROUP VOTE, SO I THINK WE SHOULD PASS 'EM. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CO. 
          DO WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, TO MOVE THINGS ALONG? I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION, UM, THAT WE APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL FOR THE FY 24 25 BUDGET, UM, AS PRESENTED BY THE WORKING GROUP. 
          DO I HAVE A SECOND? UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DO FOLKS WISH TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST OR HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THE ITEM? OKAY. 
          NOT SEEING IT. 
          UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH. 
          UM, THIS TAKES 
          [26. Select a primary and alternate representative to serve on the Joint Sustainability  Committee. Sponsors: Commissioners Maxwell and Woods. ]
US TO ITEM NUMBER, UH, 26. 
          I'LL BE HONEST, I THINK WE'RE STILL, WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE SHORT OF PEOPLE, BUT I'LL POINT IT OUT THERE REGARDLESS. 
          SO, JUST A REMINDER THAT THE JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE, UM, COMMISSIONER WOODS WAS OUR MAIN, UH, REPRESENTATIVE ON THERE. 
          AND COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS SERVES AS OUR, UH, SECONDARY PERSON. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS VACATED THAT SEAT. 
          SO NOW WE HAVE A VACANCY FOR OUR PRIMARY PERSON. 
          I KNOW COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, I'M GONNA ASSUME IS FILLING THAT ROLE IN THE MEANWHILE. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW IF, IF I WISH SHE WAS HERE, WE COULD CHECK IN WITH HER IF SHE WAS WILLING TO SERVE AS THE PRIMARY. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WILL BE WILLING TO, UM, SERVE IN THAT CAPACITY? UM, I'LL, I'LL ESSENTIALLY POSTPONE THAT ITEM TO THE NEXT, UM, AGENDA. 
          UM, AND WE'LL PICK THAT UP AGAIN. 
          UM, I'LL BRING THAT UP IN FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. AGAIN, THIS TAKES US TO THE LAST ITEM, WHICH IS, OH, WELL BEFORE. 
          PARDON, CHAIR? YES. 
          COULD WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THE ITEM? YES, I'M SORRY. 
          UH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE ITEM NUMBER 26 TO OUR NEXT MEETING. 
          DO I HAVE A SECOND? UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR THAT PASSES YOU UNANIM, MS. LEE. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. 
          UM, THAT TAKES US 
          [28. Discussion and action to approve the Annual Internal Review and Report. ]
TIME. 
          NUMBER 28. 
          THIS IS THE DISCUSSION IN ACTION TO APPROVE THE ANNUAL INTERNAL REVIEW AND REPORT. 
          AGAIN, WITH MY APOLOGIES FOR SENDING IT MUCH LATER THAN I WOULD'VE LIKED TO. 
          UM, BUT WITH THE CHAIR BEING AWAY 
          [05:15:01]
AND HONESTLY ELAPSE AND SORT OF FIGURING OUT WHO WE DOING IT, WE DID NOT GET THAT PIECE DONE IN TIME. 
          HOWEVER, WE ARE REQUIRED, UM, BY THE CITY TO TURN IN AN ANNUAL INTERNAL REPORT, BUT, UM, ESSENTIALLY BEFORE THE END OF THE MONTH. 
          AND I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT. 
          UH, CHAIR CON, I WOULD JUST LOVE TO SAY, AS SOMEONE WHO ALSO HAS TO DO ONE OF THESE EXCELLENT JOB, IT LOOKS AMAZING. 
          YOU DID GREAT. 
          THANKS FOR ALL THE EXTRA HARD WORK. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR, I APPRECIATE IT. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT ITEM? MR. CHAIRMAN? GO AHEAD. 
          AS, AS THE GUY WHO ALSO HAD TO DO THIS AND WAS LATE, AND KUDOS TO MY FELLOW C-P-J-C-D, WHATEVER, WE ARE, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, UH, FOR HELPING AND GETTING, GETTING IT DONE, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID WAS JUST, WE PASSED, UH, KIND OF THE, I GUESS THE SHELL AND SAID, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT THE REPORT'S GONNA BE. 
          AND, AND ONE OF THE MEMBERS OBJECTED TO IT. 
          AND SO COMMISSIONER JOHNSON WROTE US UP AN AMENDMENT AND, AND SO WE SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'LL PASS THE SHELL, IT'S OPEN FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS, AND IF WE DON'T HEAR FROM YOU, THIS IS WHAT'S GETTING FORWARDED TO THE, IT, IT SEEMED TO WORK. 
          I'LL LET COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SAY THAT IF IT DID OR NOT, BUT INCUR MAYBE THAT'S A PROCESS WE COULD USE. 
          AND, AND I HONESTLY, I'LL BE HONEST, WE'VE NEVER USED IT. 
          IF THERE, IF, IF YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO THAT, I HAVE NO CONCERN WITH SAYING THAT WE'LL MOVE AHEAD WITH THIS UNLESS WE RECEIVE COMMENTS IN THE NEXT TWO DAYS. 
          IS THERE, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE DID. 
          MS. , PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          UM, THIS PROCESS WOULD WORK, UM, BECAUSE THE ANNUAL INTERNAL REVIEW AND REPORT TECHNICALLY DOES NOT NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE WHOLE BODY, BUT IT IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. 
          SO YOU MAY DO THAT IF YOU WISH. 
          I AGREE. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT REMINDER. 
          SO LET'S DO IT THIS WAY, FOLKS. 
          UM, WE'RE GONNA KEEP THIS PROCESS OPEN UNTIL, UM, 9:00 AM ON THE 26TH. 
          THAT'S THIS FRIDAY. 
          UM, IF FOLKS HAVE ANY FEEDBACK, PLEASE GIVE IT TO MYSELF. 
          UM, AND I WILL GO AHEAD AND INCORPORATE THOSE THINGS AND APPROVE IT AT THAT TIME. 
          IF NOT, WE'LL GO AHEAD WITH, UM, AS STATED AND FORWARDED AS NECESSARY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, IS THAT A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION. 
          YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO TURN ON YOUR, YOUR MICROPHONE, SIR. 
          I MOTION MOVED. 
          WHAT? YES, I MOVED THAT. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          DO WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THIS? NOT ALL. 
          THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR GIVING ME GRACE ON THAT. 
          UM, THIS TAKES 
          [WORKING GROUP/COMMITTEE UPDATES]
US TO OUR WORKING GROUP AND COMMITTEE UPDATES. 
          SO I'LL START WITH CODES AND ORDINANCES. 
          OUR, UH, UH, WE HAD A MEETING THAT HAD TO BE CANCELED BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE ANY ITEM ON THE AGENDA. 
          UM, I'LL GO TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE. 
          WE MET AND, UH, DID OUR ANNUAL REPORT, BUT WE ARE ALSO, UH, GETTING THE TIMELINE. 
          UH, JUST, JUST WHEN YOU THINK THE FUND CAN'T GET ANY BETTER, WE'RE, UH, STARTING THE FIRST REAL REVIEW AND REVISION AND REWRITE OF IMAGINE AUSTIN AND THAT PROCESS, IT'LL, IT'LL BE MUCH LONGER THAN THIS YEAR, BUT THAT PROCESS STARTS THIS YEAR. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER. 
          UM, I'M GONNA ASSUME WE PROBABLY DO NOT HAVE AN UPDATE FROM THE JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          CHAIR. 
          UM, DO WE HAVE AN UPDATE FROM THE SMALL AREA PLAN PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE? NO UPDATE. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOWARD. 
          UM, DO WE HAVE, UM, AN UPDATE FROM THE SOUTH CENTER WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD? UM, NO UPDATE THIS TIME CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, CITY FOSTER BUILDINGS WORKING GROUP. 
          I'LL BE HONEST, I DROPPED THE BALL ON THIS. 
          UM, AND AS CHAIR HEMPEL RETURNS, IT IS A SMALL WORKING GROUP AND WE HAD THE BUDGET WORKING GROUP WORKING. 
          WE HAD SOME OVERLAP HERE. 
          UH, WE'LL BE RETURNING BACK TO, UH, THIS, AND I'LL BE SCHEDULING SOMETHING WITHIN THE SUMMER. 
          UM, THIS TAKES US TO THE OUTREACH AND PROCEDURES WORKING GROUP. 
          DO WE HAVE AN UPDATE? NO, I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD A, A CHANCE TO MEET AGAIN. 
          UH, HOPEFULLY WE WILL SOON, BUT NO UPDATE. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER COX. 
          AND THIS TAKES US TO THE TECHNICAL BUILDING CODES UPDATE WORKING GROUP. 
          UH, WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO MEET, I SWEAR, IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE NOW THAT I'M BACK ON VACATION. 
          AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW FOR THE PUBLIC WHO ARE STILL WATCHING THAT, I BELIEVE THAT THAT ACTUAL PRESENTATION FROM STAFF WILL BE HAPPENING AT OUR NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, IN AUGUST. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT UPDATE. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UM, THIS TAKES US TO FUTURE 
          [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
AGENDA ITEMS, UH, VICE CHAIR. 
          YES. 
          UM, I'D LIKE TO BRING A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM TO LOOK AT, UM, POTENTIAL CHANGES AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SORT OF FORMAT AND CONTENT OF REQUIRED NOTICE NOTIFICATIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, WE HAVE A REQUEST FROM COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AND WOODS TO DO THAT. 
          UM, I WILL ALSO SAY IF WE CAN, 
          [05:20:01]
I MIGHT WAIT TO SEE IF, IF TO CONCUR WITH THE CHAIR ON THIS, BUT I MIGHT ASK FOR THE CREATION OF A GOVERNANCE WORKING GROUP. 
          SO I THINK SOMETIMES IN THE FALL WE WOULD LOVE TO DIG INTO THAT. 
          SO IF FOLKS ARE OPEN TO IT AND HAVE SUGGESTIONS, PLEASE FEEL, UH, FREE TO REMEMBER THAT AND WE'LL DEFINITELY CREATE THAT. 
          AND I'LL CONCUR WITH THE CHAIR, UM, BEFORE TAKING THAT STEP. 
          DO WE HAVE, AND DO I HAVE A SECOND? OH, YEAH, I WAS GONNA JUST THANK YOU SECOND FOR YES, I'M HAPPY TO SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S, UH, ZAHA AND MAXWELL. 
          DO WE HAVE OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? UH, YES. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UM, RELATED TO THE TECHNICAL CODE, UM, PRESENTATION, WE WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO, UM, HAVE A SPECIFIC PRESENTATION RELATED TO THE WWE, WHICH IS THE WILDLIFE'S WILDLIFE URBAN INTERFACE, UM, CODE. 
          WE ARE SEEING SOME SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THAT, AND I KNOW THIS BODY HAS BEEN VERY INTERESTED IN SEEING AND REVIEWING THAT BEFORE. 
          SO PROBABLY SEPARATE FROM THE ACTUAL TECHNICAL CODE UPDATE THAT WE SHOULD BE SEEING. 
          WE WOULD LIKE TO ALSO SEE A WWE CODE, UM, SORT OF CHANGE BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME MAPS INVOLVED AND WHATNOT. 
          AND I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY RELEVANT FOR US THIS BODY TO DIG INTO THAT. 
          SO I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT ADDED TO A FUTURE AGENDA IF POSSIBLE. 
          AND, AND JUST TO CONFIRM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, WHAT I'M HEARING, AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND THAT. 
          UM, BUT WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU, I BELIEVE IS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A BRIEFING FROM OUR STAFF, OR IS THIS AN ACTION? YEAH, IT'S, THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE A BRIEFING. 
          I, I'M, I, I GUESS MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AT ONE POINT IT WAS CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE TECHNICAL CODES, BUT I THINK THE CHANGES ARE SUBSTANTIVE ENOUGH THAT WE WOULD ACTUALLY WANT A SEPARATE BRIEFING ON IT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? OKAY, IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND TURN THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 11:26 PM THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH AND THANK YOU STAFF.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.