* 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.
          [00:00:03]
          WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT, 
          [CALL TO ORDER]
UM, WITHIN COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND IN VIRTUALLY. 
          SO I'M NOW CALLING THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER AT 6:06 PM FIRST WE WILL TAKE ROLL CALL. 
          UM, I WILL GO IN ORDER AS YOU SEE IT ON THE AGENDA, STARTING WITH MYSELF. 
          CHAIR HEMPEL HERE. 
          VICE CHAIR ZA. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER HOWARD? HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER BURRA RAMIREZ. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER HANEY? HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER COX? HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS. 
          NOT HERE YET. 
          AND COMMISSIONER HAYNES HERE. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UM, TONIGHT IS, UH, A HYBRID MEETING PER USUAL. 
          SO, UM, WE'VE GOT COMMISSIONERS ONLINE AND HERE IN IN CHAMBERS. 
          AND SIMILARLY, SPEAKERS CAN PRESENT FROM CHAMBERS OR VIRTUALLY VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS. 
          PLEASE REMEMBER TO SEND YOUR SIGN IN SHEET TO OUR STAFF LIAISON PER THE CLERK'S GUIDELINES. 
          AND PLEASE HAVE YOUR GREEN, RED, AND YELLOW ITEMS FOR VOTING. 
          UM, IF I MISS YOU, AS ALWAYS, COME OFF MUTE AND LET ME KNOW THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. 
          MOVING ON, UM, 
          [PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
MS. GARCIA, DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? YES. 
          CHAIR. 
          OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS ANGELA BEIDA, GARDA GARZA. 
          ANGELA, YOU WILL BE, OR ANGELA, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          PLEASE PRESS SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? WE CAN, YES, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          UM, I, UH, REALLY QUICKLY WANNA MAKE SURE TO PUT ON RECORD, AND I KNOW THAT YOU'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THIS, THAT, UM, WE SUPPORT THE, UM, POSTPONEMENT FOR THE GENTER STREET AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE PUT THAT INCORRECTLY AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I HAVE THAT ON RECORD. 
          UM, BUT GOING BACK TO, UM, THE INFORMATION THAT I WANNA GO AHEAD AND SPEAK ON, I'M SO SORRY TO NOT BE THERE IN PERSON TONIGHT. 
          UM, I WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO THE DB 90 THAT Y'ALL SPOKE ABOUT YESTERDAY. 
          AND THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS THAT WERE BEING ASKED AND THEY WERE NOT, UM, ANSWERED CORRECTLY. 
          AND THAT'S ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE PART OF OUR NATIVE LAND IN AUSTIN, TEXAS. 
          AND THE PEOPLE THAT WERE ANSWERING IT, UM, THE QUESTIONS WERE NOT, ARE NOT PART OF OUR NATIVE LAND. 
          AND WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE BRIDGE THAT UNDERSTANDING SO YOU HAVE THE CORRECT ANSWERS. 
          UM, WHEN DB NINETIES GO UP IN AUSTIN, TEXAS, AND IT'S WITH PRIVATE LAND, UH, THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT WE'RE NOTICING ON THIS SIDE OF TOWN IS THOSE DB NINETIES ARE GOING HEAVILY EAST OF THE HIGHWAY AND IT DOES IMPACT THE FAMILIES AROUND THEM AND IT DOES ACTUALLY CHANGE THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS AS WELL, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND. 
          UM, IT CHANGES THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS AROUND THEM. 
          I WANNA KEEP HER MUELLER FOR A SECOND. 
          THE REASON THE MUELLER IS DIFFERENT IN AUSTIN, TEXAS IS BECAUSE THAT'S ON PUBLIC LAND. 
          THAT'S 25% OF THAT WAS ALLOWED FOR AFFORDABILITY AND THERE WAS NO PEOPLE LIVING ON THAT LAND BEFORE THAT WAS ACTUALLY DEVELOPED. 
          'CAUSE I WAS PART OF THE PLANNING ON THAT AS WELL. 
          AND IT ALSO, EVEN THOUGH IT'S IN EAST AUSTIN, IT ACTUALLY BELONGS TO A DISTRICT THAT'S EITHER WEST OR CENTRAL AUSTIN. 
          AND THAT WAS REALLY WEIRD FOR US TO UNDERSTAND, BUT I JUST KIND OF WANNA EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE ABOUT THE DB NINETIES AND EXACTLY WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT'S DOING TO ACTUAL FAMILIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          AND I, I UNDERSTAND THAT 56 ARE GONNA GO THROUGH OR ARE IN THE PIPELINE OF THE 150 AND WE SAW THE NOTE, UM, THE WRITING FROM, UM, GREG ANDERSON AS WELL. 
          I GOT TO HEAR THAT. 
          UM, AND ONCE AGAIN, I'M GONNA ASK GREG BECAUSE I, THE, THE IRONY WAS THAT I WAS ACTUALLY GONNA GO BACK TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT SOME OF THE WORDS HE WAS USING ONCE AGAIN THAT WERE GOING OVER MY HEAD. 
          AND THEN WE FOUND THIS CONVERSATION OF DE NODDING. 
          SO ONCE AGAIN, I'M GONNA ASK GREG BECAUSE I REALLY RESPECT THE WORDS HE DOES FOR HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, BUT I'M GONNA ASK THAT HE RESPECTS US AND TO USE SIMPLE LANGUAGE, UM, SO THAT WE CAN REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. 
          'CAUSE WE'RE REALLY, REALLY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          SO, UH, D 90, I'M SO, UM, GRATEFUL THAT, UM, COMMISSIONER COX ASKED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SEVENTIES 6 65. 
          I WAS LISTENING TO EVERYTHING. 
          UM, THE THING ABOUT IT IS THAT IT'S HAPPENING AGGRESSIVELY FIRST IN EAST AUSTIN AND THEN IT'S GONNA HAPPEN AROUND AUSTIN, TEXAS AS WELL. 
          WHEN YOU SEE THE NINETIES COME OUT AND IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF RETURN FOR EXACTLY WHAT'S GONNA GO UP. 
          SO THE MORE IT GOES HIGHER, THAT MARGINS GONNA HAPPEN AND IT DOES SCARE THE NEIGHBORS AROUND THEM AS WELL. 
          WHAT WE DON'T HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WHEN DB NINETIES GO UP, EXACTLY WHAT CAN A NEIGHBOR SAY ABOUT THAT? WHAT IS THEIR RECOURSE IN THAT SITUATION? AND IT'S, AND IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE UNDERSTAND FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S POINT OF VIEW HOW THEY WOULD FOLLOW UP WITH SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY NOT GONNA MAKE SENSE FOR THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL. 
          WE'VE WORKED WITH A LOT OF NEIGHBORS. 
          I'M A THIRD GENERATION HERE IN AUSTIN, TEXAS. 
          I'M NOT AN MB I'M NOT, I'M NOT PART OF YOUR LAWSUITS. 
          AGAIN, I'M NOT PART OF A KAREN 
          [00:05:01]
GROUP. 
          WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO EXPRESS TO YOU WHAT THAT THE ACTUAL, UM, TRAUMA THAT THIS IS CALLING CAUSING SOME OF THE FAMILIES MORE SO BECAUSE THEY'RE CONFUSED AND THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO RESPOND TO 56 DV NINETIES THAT ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE PIPELINES. 
          UM, SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE ARE ASKING ONCE AGAIN TO PLEASE USE SIMPLE LANGUAGE. 
          IT'S OUR FAMILIES THAT ARE GETTING CAUGHT UP IN ALL THIS. 
          AND IF YOU REALLY, REALLY WANNA DISPLACE OUR FAMILIES, JUST PAY OUR FAMILIES A MILLION OF $5 MILLION EACH AND, AND YOU CAN ACTUALLY DISPLACE THEM OUT OF THEIR CITY. 
          BUT UNTIL THEN, WE REALLY NEED TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH THE FAMILIES IN AUSTIN, TEXAS AND WE REALLY DO A LOT OF WORK TO TRY TO EXPLAIN THESE CHANGES TO THEM. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          THANK YOU MS. GARZA. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BOBBY LEVINSKY. 
          BOBBY, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS BOBBY LEVINSKY. 
          I'M WITH THE SAVE SPRINGS ALLIANCE. 
          PRIOR TO FINDING OUT ABOUT THE DELAY ON HAYES COMMENTS, WHICH WOULD SOUND GONNA SOUND LIKE GOBBLEDYGOOK TO THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, UM, WE HAD DIRECTED OUR MEMBERS TO THIS MEETING. 
          UM, SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT ANYBODY'S WHO HE'S HERE FOR IT, THAT THIS ITEM IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, UM, AND THAT WE HEAR THAT IT'S GONNA BE BROUGHT BACK IN NOVEMBER. 
          SECONDARILY, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PLEA TO EACH MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MEET WITH US, UM, GIA, SBCA, THE AUSTIN SIERRA CLUB, UM, ABOUT THIS ITEM BEFORE BRINGING AN SOS AMENDMENT, UM, AT YOUR NEXT MEETING. 
          YES, THE CITY IS LOSING ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AS PROPERTIES ARE BEING RELEASED FROM THE ETJ. 
          THAT IS OUR CONCERN TOO. 
          THAT'S WHY WE ARE SCARED ABOUT PIPING IN WATER TO HUNDREDS OF ACRES WITHIN THE RECHARGE ZONE WITH MORE THAN A THOUSAND ACRES OF UNINCORPORATED AREAS IN THE RECHARGE ZONE RIGHT AROUND, UM, UH, INCLUDING HAYES COMMONS AND RIGHT AROUND IT, UH, PIPING WATER TO THIS AREA WILL CAUSE IT MORE IRREPARABLE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM THAN ANY REGULATIONS CAN, CAN CONTROL. 
          THE MAIN ENTITLEMENT ENTITLE, UH, THAT MILESTONE IS SEEKING IS, UH, NOT AN SOS AMENDMENT. 
          IT'S WATER. 
          ACCESS TO WATER IS WORTH MILLIONS TO MILESTONE. 
          THEY WANT TO US TO GET RILED UP IN A DEBATE OVER THE SOS AMENDMENT KNOWING THAT QUITE FRANKLY SOME PEOPLE ARE USED TO DISAGREEING WITH US. 
          BUT WHAT'S REALLY AT STAKE HERE IS WHAT YOU AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AS THE CITY OF AUSTIN WILL SET AS THE BASELINE FOR WATER FUELED SPRAWL BY EXTENDING WATER WITHOUT UPHOLDING CITY OF REGULATIONS. 
          YOU GIVE THE ADVANTAGE TO SPRAWL OVERDEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CENTRAL CITY. 
          YOU MAKE IT EASIER TO DEVELOP WITH AUSTIN WATER THAN IT IS IN THE CENTRAL CITY ON THE RECHARGE ZONE. 
          WHAT IS YOUR IDEAL POLICY FOR THE PO FOR THE PROVISION OF WATER TO AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY? WHAT IS YOUR IDEAL POLICY FOR THE PROVISION OF WATER TO AREAS OVER THE RECHARGE ZONE? THAT'S WHAT YOU'LL HAVE TO DECIDE WITH HAY COMMONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, CHAIR. 
          THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          MOVING ON TO 
          [APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. 
          UM, WE HAVE THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 8TH. 
          ARE THERE ANY EDITS OR COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS TO THOSE MINUTES? ALL RIGHT. 
          HEARING NONE THOSE MINUTES AS POSTED WILL BE ADDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          SO NOW WE'LL 
          [Consent Agenda]
MOVE ON TO, UM, THE READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          SO THESE ARE 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 AND NON-DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS. 
          YOU'LL ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST CONSENT ITEMS TO BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION. 
          SO COMMISSIONER WOODS, ITEM TWO. 
          I THINK, UH, I THINK COMMISSIONER WOOD'S MICROPHONE IS MUTED, TURNED ON. 
          IT'S ON GREEN. 
          DO YOU WANNA USE MINE? SURE. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ITEM TWO IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 2 7 0.01 ROSS AND SAUNDERS TARRYTOWN CHRISTIAN CHURCH IMPROVEMENTS DISTRICT 10. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT UNTIL DECEMBER 17TH. 
          ITEM THREE IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 5 1 ROSS AND SAUNDERS TARRYTOWN CHRISTIAN CHURCH IMPROVEMENTS DISTRICT 10. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT UNTIL DECEMBER 17TH. 
          ITEM FOUR IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 7 0 1 ANDERSON SQUARE, DISTRICT FOUR. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH. 
          ITEM FIVE IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 8 0 ANDERSON SQUARE, DISTRICT FOUR. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH. 
          ITEM SIX IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 2 9 0.02 HUMANE SOCIETY OF AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT FOUR. 
          THIS 
          [00:10:01]
ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH. 
          ITEM SEVEN IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH THREE TWO HUMANE SOCIETY OF AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT FOUR. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH. 
          ITEM EIGHT IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 5 0 1 SAXON TWO DISTRICT THREE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT UNTIL DECEMBER 10TH. 
          ITEM NINE IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH NINE NINE SAXON TWO DISTRICT THREE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT UNTIL DECEMBER 10TH. 
          ITEM 10 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2024 DASH 15 0 1 GUNTER STREET REZONING DISTRICT ONE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT AND NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH. 
          ITEM 11 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 1 0 9 GUNTER STREET REZONING DISTRICT ONE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT AND NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH. 
          ITEM 12 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 15 0.02. 
          SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST ALPHA CHURCH DISTRICT ONE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          ITEM 13 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 1 0 4 SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST ALPHA CHURCH DISTRICT ONE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          ITEM 14 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 4 0.03432 KNUCKLES CROSSING DISTRICT TWO. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT. 
          ITEM 15 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 1 29 BURNETT AND RUTLAND DISTRICT SEVEN. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          ITEM 16 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 3 4 2 2 1 WILLOW CREEK DRIVE, DISTRICT THREE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          ITEM 17 IS A FINAL PLA VACATION C EIGHT S DASH 78 DASH 3 3 1 VAC MIKE JOHNSON EDITION PLA VACATION ETJ. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          ITEM 18 IS AN ETJ RELEASE, CE TJ DASH 2024 DASH ZERO ONE MAINOR DOWNS INDUSTRIAL PARK ETJ RELEASE AND ACCOMPANYING INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH. 
          ITEM 19 IS AN LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2024 DASH 0 1 7 PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA TWO. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          ITEM 20 IS AN LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2024 DASH 0 22 DENSITY BONUS FOR COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION AND ITEM 21 IS AN LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2023 DASH 0 4 5, SITE PLAN, LIGHT PHASE TWO AND INFILL LOTS. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          UM, LET'S SEE. 
          DO ANY COMMISSIONERS NEED TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS ON THE AGENDA? OKAY, NOTHING THERE. 
          AND THEN MS. GARCIA, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? YES. 
          CHAIR. 
          WE HAVE A NUMBER OF SPEAKERS SIGNED UP FOR ITEM 11. 
          OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS COLETTE HANKY. 
          COLETTE, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          HELLO. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. 
          UH, I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AND FOR THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE CONCERNED REGARDING THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST. 
          UH, WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY AGREED WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEVELOPERS FOR A POST POSTPONEMENT AND ARE CONFIRMING THAT REQUEST. 
          UH, WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THE POSTPONEMENT DUE TO A LACK OF NOTIFICATION, SEVERAL OF THE RESIDENTS WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DID NOT RECEIVE THE INITIAL NOTICES REGARDING THE ZONING REQUEST AND THE FIRST MEETINGS BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE DEVELOPER'S ATTORNEYS. 
          THIS HAS CAUSED SIGNIFICANT DELAYS AS WE'VE HAD TO WORK QUICKLY TO INCLUDE ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS. 
          THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE DEVELOPER'S ATTORNEY, UH, HAD AN ADDITIONAL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26TH. 
          UH, BUTL THE, UH, ATTORNEY WANTED TO DELAY THE MEETING BECAUSE SHE DID NOT HAVE AN UPDATE FROM THE DEVELOPERS. 
          WE RESCHEDULED THAT MEETING FROM MONDAY, OCTOBER 14TH, 2024, THE VERY FIRST PROPOSED DATE THAT SHE PUT FORWARD. 
          WE HELD THE RESCHEDULED MEETING AT 6:00 PM ON OCTOBER 14TH. 
          THE NEIGHBORS MET WITH THE CIVIL ENGINEER, THE DEVELOPER AND THEIR ATTORNEYS. 
          FOLLOWING THE MEETING, THE NEIGHBORS GATHERED TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE ISSUES, UH, RAISED AS WELL AS QUESTIONS THAT REMAIN UNANSWERED. 
          UM, AND THAT THE ATTORNEY SAID WOULD THAT THEY WOULD FOLLOW UP WITH, UH, ANY UPDATES VIA EMAIL. 
          UH, NICOLE, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS INITIATED CONTACT ANDEL, UH, AND SENT ELLE A SUMMARY EMAIL TO THE ATTOR, UH, WITH THE QUESTIONS  AND THE REQUESTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS. 
          BUT AT THIS POINT WE HAVEN'T HAD A RESPONSE FROM THE DEVELOPER, SO WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE POSTPONEMENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          I'M HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER COX. 
          [00:15:01]
UH, WHAT ITEM WAS THAT? YES, IT'S NUMBER 11, THE GUNTER STREET REZONING. 
          IT'S UP FOR APPLICANT AND NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 12TH. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU COLETTE FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ELIZABETH INKY. 
          ELIZABETH, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          MY NAME IS ELIZABETH NCE AND I'M A RESIDENT OF ABATE CIRCLE IN AUSTIN, WHERE I LIVE IN A QUIET CUL-DE-SAC OFF OF GUNTHER STREET, UH, WHICH IS ON THE PROPOSAL TONIGHT. 
          UH, WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CONSIDERATION WE'RE ASKING YOU TO P**N IS FOR A REZONING. 
          I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT IN OUR AREA, BUT IT'S CRUCIAL THAT THE CITY AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR RESIDENTS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE IMPACT IT WILL HAVE ON OUR CURRENT RESIDENTS INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SAFETY. 
          AND THE REASON WE ARE ASKING FOR A PROPOSAL IS SO WE HAVE MORE TIME TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE, AS DOES THE DEVELOPER. 
          I AM MAKING THIS REQUEST, UH, ON BEHALF OF OUR NEIGHBORS. 
          AS YOU HEARD FROM COLETTE, UH, MORE TIMES REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT THE DUE DILIGENCE IS CONDUCTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. 
          AS YOU'VE HEARD, UH, WE HAD A LACK OF NOTIFICATION IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THERE WERE MANY RESIDENTS WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICES REGARDING THE INITIAL MEETINGS BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE DEVELOPER'S ATTORNEYS. 
          THIS HAS CAUSED MULTIPLE DELAYS AND WE'VE HAD TO WORK REALLY QUICKLY TO BRING ALL OF OUR IMPACTED NEIGHBORS UP TO SPEED ON THE PROPOSAL AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACT ON OUR COMMUNITY. 
          ON OCTOBER 14TH, UH, MYSELF AND MY NEIGHBORS WERE ABLE TO MEET FOR THE FIRST TIME IN PERSON, UH, COLLECTIVELY WITH THE CIVIL ENGINEER DEVELOPER AND THEIR ATTORNEYS TO DISCUSS OUR CONCERNS. 
          UH, BUT WE ARE STILL AWAITING RESPONSE FROM THE DEVELOPERS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS ON SEVERAL OF OUR QUESTIONS. 
          ONCE RECEIVED, WE'D LIKE TO REQUEST THE TIME TO, AS A NEIGHBORHOOD COME TOGETHER COLLECTIVELY AND DISCUSS THE DEVELOPER'S FEEDBACK ANSWERS, AND TALK THROUGH OUR NEXT STEPS AS A NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          IN LIGHT OF THESE ISSUES, A POSTPONEMENT WILL PROVIDE THE NECESSARY TIME FOR ALL OF US ON GUNTHER STREET, ABATE CIRCLE, AND MUNSON STREET TO ENGAGE IN THIS PROCESS FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO FULLY ASSESS THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT BEING PROPOSED. 
          I ALSO WANTED TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF THE SPECIFIC CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD REQUESTED MORE INFORMATION ON, UH, THAT ARE TIED TO THE PROJECT. 
          THE FIRST ONE IS TRAFFIC AND PARKING. 
          ONE OF OUR PRIMARY CONCERNS IS THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. 
          WE'LL BRING OUR, ON OUR RESIDENT STREET. 
          THE PROPOSED PROJECT'S MAIN ENTRANCE IS ON GUNTHER STREET, UH, BUT IT ALSO OPENS ONTO OUR CUL-DE-SAC, WHICH IS NOT DESIGNED TO HANDLE HIGH TRAFFIC. 
          OUR STREETS OFTEN USED BY CHILDREN PLAYING AND NEIGHBORS WALKING, AND INCREASED VEHICLE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO SIGNIFICANTLY DISRUPT THE SAFETY AND CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          FURTHERMORE, WITH THE LIMITED PARKING, I'M DEEPLY CONCERNED THAT THE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTS AND VISITORS ARE GOING TO SPILL OVER INTO OUR CUL-DE-SAC AND WON'T LEAVE US WITH ROOM FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING IF THIS REZONING, UH, CONTINUES FORWARD. 
          SO I'M URGING THE COUNCIL AND OUR DEVELOPER, UH, TO CONDUCT A THOROUGH TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OF ALL THE CONNECTED STREETS TO THE REZONING BEFORE MAKING ANY PARTICULAR DECISIONS. 
          THE SECOND CONCERN THAT WE'VE RAISED IS THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND PRESSURE IN RECENT YEARS. 
          WAS THAT MY TIMER? THAT'S YOUR TIME. 
          SORRY. 
          OH, THAT'S FANTASTIC. 
          FINAL THOUGHT. 
          UH, FINAL THOUGHT. 
          OUR PUBLIC SAFETY, UH, FOR OUR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE CONCERNS AND PARKING ARE STILL UNANSWERED AND WE LIKE THE TIME TO CONSIDER ALL OF THOSE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JESSE GARCIA. 
          JESSE WILL BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY. 
          JESSE, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS. 
          YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          UH, GREETINGS, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, COUNSEL. 
          UM, I AM BASICALLY ECHOING WHAT THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS HAVE SAID. 
          I LIVE ON, UH, MY WIFE AND I LIVE ON A BAIT, UH, A CIRCLE. 
          AND, UH, WE HAD MET RECENTLY WITH THE DEVELOPERS AND IT BECAME APPARENT THAT YEAH, THERE WAS NOT EVERYBODY GOT NOTIFIED. 
          I DON'T, UM, I'M SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF POSTPONING, UH, THE, UH, THE MEETING. 
          UH, I HAVE VERY SIMILAR CONCERNS AS HAVE ALREADY BEEN STATED HERE. 
          UH, SO I'M TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF THAT, UH, POSTPONING. 
          AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE REALLY. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, JESSE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ANGELA GARZA. 
          ANGELA WILL ALSO BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY. 
          ANGELA, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS. 
          YOU WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE, 
          [00:20:18]
AND ANGELA, PLEASE PRESS SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS. 
          HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? I APOLOGIZE. 
          YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. 
          OH, MINE IS SIMPLE. 
          WE, I AGREE WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORS. 
          THEY'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK ON US. 
          WE AGREE WITH THE POSTPONEMENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS OMAR GAVI. 
          OMAR WILL ALSO BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY. 
          OMAR, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS. 
          YOU WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE. 
          CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME OKAY? YES, GO AHEAD. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, MY NAME'S OMAR GAVI. 
          I LIVE ON GUNTER STREET. 
          A FEW HOUSES DOWN FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. 
          UM, MYSELF AND NICOLE HAVE PERSONALLY WALKED THE ENTIRETY OF THE BLOCK AND DOOR KNOCKED ON EVERY PROPERTY THAT'S WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND, UH, IT'S LIKE PAINFULLY OBVIOUS BASED ON THE MEETING THAT WE HAD WITH THE DEVELOPER, THAT NOT EVERYONE RECEIVED, UH, A LETTER. 
          AND, UH, WHEN, WHEN ASKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHY THE NOTICES ABOUT THE MEETING WEREN'T GET SENT, YOU KNOW, WEREN'T GETTING SENT OUT APPROPRIATELY, THE RESPONSES THAT WE GOT WERE JUST KIND OF LIKE, IF, IF YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN THAT MEME OF THE SPIDER-MAN POINTING AT EACH OTHER, IT KIND OF FELT LIKE THAT. 
          YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? JUST LIKE ALL THE SPIDER-MAN POINTING AT ONE ANOTHER, LIKE TRYING TO BLAME THE POST OFFICE OR LIKE THE MALE OR, UM, THE FACT THAT THE ADDRESSES WERE WRONG. 
          AND I, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT W THE, THE NOTICES THAT DID GO OUT REGARDING THE REZONING, UM, ALL HAD DIFFERENT ADDRESSES ON THEM. 
          AND THEY SHOULD HAVE ALL, THEY SHOULD HAVE ALL CONTAINED THE APPROPRIATE ADDRESSES. 
          SO LIKE I'M, I'M STANDING HERE PHYSICALLY STARING AT TWO DIFFERENT LETTERS THAT I GOT, OH MY GOD, GOSH, THAT ONLY HAVE THE ABATE CIRCLE ADDRESS ON THEM. 
          AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OF THE GUNTER STREET ADDRESSES, WHICH I THINK IS EITHER TWO OR THREE OF THEM. 
          OMAR, THAT WAS TIME BASED THE LAST, UH, LAST CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD. 
          SO IT'S WORTH POINTING OUT THAT MR. OMAR, PEOPLE ON ABBA CIRCLE. 
          I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          WE'RE AT TIME. 
          FINAL THOUGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS CHAIR. 
          THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          UM, AND AS A REMINDER, THAT ITEM IS POSTPONED SHOULD IT PASS ON CONSENT, UH, AGENDA THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO VOTE ON TO NOVEMBER 12TH. 
          UM, ALRIGHT. 
          DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE HAVE QUESTIONS ON WHAT WE JUST COVERED? MADAM CHAIR? I DON'T, YES, I DON'T WANNA PULL AN ITEM, BUT I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT, UM, BECAUSE I'VE LEARNED FROM MY FRIEND COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND MY FRIEND COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, THAT IF WE TAKE A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND MAKE IT SIMPLE AND MAKE IT STRAIGHTFORWARD THAT IN 15 OR 20 YEARS WE'LL BE IN A BETTER PLACE FOR IT. 
          AND I WISH, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY WISH THAT ITEM 15, WE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE PUT FORWARD AND SAID LET'S JUST REDO ALL THE BURN IT, UH, NORTH GATEWAY IN ONE ZONING CATEGORY. 
          AND THAT REQUEST HAS BEEN ON THE AGENDA FOR SIX WEEKS, PROBABLY, PROBABLY LONGER. 
          AND YET WE'RE GONNA DO ANOTHER SPOT ZONING TONIGHT. 
          I'M GLAD WE DID, I'M GLAD WE DID IT ON CONSENT. 
          BUT WE'RE GONNA HAVE A PATCHWORK IN OUR SECOND DOWNTOWN, UM, WITH BUILDINGS ALL OVER THE PLACE AND IN 15 YEARS ALL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS GOING, GONNA CURSE Y'ALL 'CAUSE WE DIDN'T DO ONE ZONING CATEGORY AND GET IT ALL DONE WITH. 
          THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER ZA. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A QUICK COMMENT ON ITEM NUMBER 16. 
          UH, UM, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MS. BOJO. 
          I REALLY WANNA THANK HER AND HER CLIENT FOR REALLY WORKING TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE HEIGHTENED PROTECTIONS FOR TENANTS AS THIS CASE GOES FORWARD. 
          AND THAT THERE WILL BE MEMORIALIZING THIS AND WORKING TO MAKE SURE THIS ALL GETS FINALIZED. 
          THIS MOVES FORWARD TO COUNCIL, BUT I JUST WANNA THANK THEM FOR WORKING WITH THE TENANTS, MAKING SURE THE TENANTS ARE PROTECTED AS PART OF THIS REZONING AS IT MOVES FORWARD AND FOR AGREEING TO WORK THROUGH ANY SORT OF REMAINING PIECES AS THIS GOES TO COUNCIL. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? 
          [00:25:01]
OKAY, I'M LOOKING FOR A SECOND, A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          SEE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UNLESS THERE IS OPPOSITION TO THAT, THAT VOTE IS UNANIMOUS OR THAT MOTION PASSES. 
          AND I WANT TO RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS AND OUR EX OFFICIO CHAIR, COHEN AND UH, BOARD TRUSTEE. 
          UM, UH, HUNTER, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US TONIGHT. 
          ALRIGHT, WE WILL MOVE ON. 
          THIS CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          WE ARE GOING TO OPEN 
          [Items 12 & 13 (Part 1 of 2)]
UP OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER 12 AND 13. 
          WE'LL TAKE THOSE UP TOGETHER. 
          THIS IS THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST ALPHA CHURCH. 
          AND FIRST WE WILL HEAR FROM MS. MEREDITH MARIE MEREDITH, PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          ITEM NUMBER 12 IS NPA 20 24 0 0 1 5 0.02. 
          SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST ALPHA CHURCH IN DISTRICT ONE PROPERTY LOCATION IS 36 1 6 EAST 51ST STREET, 30 21, AND 30 39 PECAN SPRINGS ROAD. 
          IT IS WITHIN THE EAST MLK COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA. 
          THE, UH, PECAN SPRING SPRINGDALE AREA OF THE PLAN. 
          THE REQUEST IS A CHANGE OF FUTURE LAND USE MAT FROM MIXED RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE LAND USE STAFF RECOMMENDS AN ALTERNATE LAND USE RECOMMENDATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE JONATHAN TOMKO WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          ITEM NUMBER 13 IS CASE NUMBER C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 1 0 4. 
          ALPHA SEVEN DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH IS A REZONING REQUEST OF 3 0 1 6 EAST 51ST STREET, 3 0 2 1 AND 3 0 3 9 PECAN SPRINGS ROAD FROM SF THREE NP TO G-R-M-U-C-O-N-P AS AMENDED BY THE APPLICANT. 
          THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT PROHIBITS ALL USES NOT ALLOWED IN AN LR BASED DISTRICT. 
          AND AN ADDITIONAL SIX USES THAT ARE DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. 
          STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND GRANTING G-R-M-U-C-O-N-P AND OFFERS. 
          THE ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION OF L-R-M-U-N-P SUBJECT TRACK IS APPROXIMATELY 2.285 ACRES ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAST 51ST STREET. 
          UH, IT CURRENTLY CONTAINS AN 11,000 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH WITH APPROXIMATELY 21,000 SQUARE FEET OF PARKING AREA, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND AN APPROXIMATELY 600 SQUARE FOOT MANUFACTURED BUILDING TO THE NORTH IS ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO THE EAST IS THE GROVE CONDOMINIUMS, APPROXIMATELY 52 ATTACHED, UH, UNITS IN TWO STORY CLUSTER BUILDINGS TO THE SOUTH ARE TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND TO THE WEST ARE FOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE TWO VALID PETITIONS ON THIS CASE IN BACKUP. 
          UH, ONE SEEKS TO OPPOSE ANY ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS EITHER USES OR SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS GREATER THAN THE CURRENT SF THREE. 
          THE OTHER SUPPORTS A ZONING UP TO NO NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE WITH A MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER OF 70% AND A MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE OF 50%. 
          I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CHAIR. 
          WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM OUR APPLICANT FOR EIGHT MINUTES. 
          HE HAS RECEIVED A TOTAL OF THREE MINUTES OF DONATED TIME FROM APRIL BROWN. 
          APRIL, ARE YOU PRESENT? MICHAEL, YOU'LL HAVE EIGHT MINUTES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, THANK YOU MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. 
          WE'RE HERE TONIGHT ASKING FOR A FLUME AND A ZONING CHANGE FOR THE ALPHA SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH LOCATED IN DISTRICT ONE ON 51ST STREET. 
          THE CHURCH IS CURRENTLY ZONED FOR SINGLE FAMILY WITH A MIXED RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION. 
          AS YOU JUST HEARD, WE ARE SEEKING TO AMEND THE FLU TO MIXED USE AND TO REZONE FOR GR MU ZONING WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, WHICH WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS IN SOME DETAIL. 
          OUR REQUEST WOULD PROVIDE THE PROPERTY WITH THE APPROPRIATE SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE ITS CURRENT UTILIZATION AS A CHURCH AND A FOOD PANTRY, WHICH SERVES UP TO 2000 FAMILIES A MONTH AND ALSO PLAN FOR FUTURE EXPANSION. 
          CURRENTLY THE CHURCH ONLY HAS 42 PAVED SPACES. 
          THE MAJORITY OF PARKING IS LOCATED IN A DIRT GRASS AREA BEHIND THE CHURCH, WHICH I'LL SHOW YOU IN A MINUTE. 
          THIS MAKESHIFT PARKING AREA IS NOT GREAT AND EVEN IN GOOD CONDITIONS AND IT BECOMES MUDDY, IT BECOMES A MUDDY, MESSY SAFETY HAZARD WHEN IT RAINS. 
          IN ADDITION TO FIXING THE IMMEDIATE SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY NEED AT THE CHURCH, LAY LEADERSHIP IS ALSO HOPING TO EXPAND THEIR COMMUNITY OFFERINGS AND PRESENCE AND IS CONSIDERING OPTIONS FOR THINGS LIKE A GYM AND COMMUNITY CLASSROOMS. THE CHURCH WOULD ALSO LIKE THE ABILITY TO BE RESPONSIVE TO FUTURE NEEDS OR PARTNERSHIPS, WHICH COULD INCLUDE OPENING 
          [00:30:01]
A SMALL CLINIC ON SITE, OFFERING OFFICE SPACE TO A LOCAL SMALL BUSINESS, OR EXPANDING THE FOOD PANTRY TO INCLUDE MORE GROCERIES FOR THE BROADER COMMUNITY. 
          REZONING TO GR UH, BASED ZONING WOULD INCREASE THE CHURCH'S IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT, WHICH IS CURRENTLY MAXED OUT AT 45% ON THE MAIN LOT AND WOULD ALLOW THE CHURCH TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A PARKING LOT TO IMPROVE WALKABILITY AND ACCESS TO THE CHURCH AND THE FOOD PO AND THE FOOD PANTRY. 
          THE ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER BUILDING COVERAGE AND PERMITTED USES WOULD ALSO ALLOW THE CHURCH TO EXPAND TO MEET THE NEED, THE NEEDS OF ITS CONGREGATION. 
          I WANNA BE VERY CLEAR JUST IN CASE THERE IS ANY MIS UH, UH, UNDERSTANDING. 
          THE CHURCH HAS NO PLANS OR INTENTIONS TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY. 
          THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR FOUR DECADES. 
          THEY'RE SEEKING THIS REZONING AS A WAY TO DEEPEN THEIR PRESENCE AND USE AND USE THEIR SPACE MORE INNOVATIVELY. 
          WE HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND HAVE WORKED TO BE ATTENTIVE TO THEIR CONCERNS WITHOUT FULLY TRYING, UH, TYING THE CHURCH'S HANDS OR RESTRICTING THEIR OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH. 
          TO THAT END, WE OFFERED AN INITIAL CONDITIONAL OVERLAY BEFORE OUR FIRST MEETING THAT WOULD RESTRICT THE COMMERCIAL USES DOWN TO THOSE ALLOWED IN THE LESS INTENSE LR ZONING DISTRICT. 
          FOLLOWING THE VIRTU, THE FIRST VIRTUAL MEETING, THE PASTOR HOSTED A GROUP OF PEOPLE AT THE CHURCH TO FURTHER ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS. 
          AT THAT MEETING, WE WENT THROUGH THE ENTIRE LIST OF COMMERCIAL USE CATEGORIES AND DEFINITIONS, AND AS A GROUP WE TALKED ABOUT WHICH USES WERE MOST UNDESIRABLE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AS A RESULT OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AT THE CHURCH, WE SUBMITTED A NEW CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO CITY STAFF ASKING TO PROHIBIT ADDITIONAL USES BEYOND THE LR USE RESTRICTION, LEAVING THE CHURCH WITH 14 TOTAL PERMITTED USES AND A HANDFUL OF CONDITIONAL USES. 
          I BELIEVE FIVE. 
          WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD LIKE TO PROHIBIT ALL COMMERCIAL USES ON THE PROPERTY, AND WE ARE ASKING THE COMMISSION TO SUPPORT OUR PAIRED DOWN LIST OF USES. 
          14, TO ALLOW THE CHURCH TO BE RESPONSIVE TO FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES. 
          I'M GONNA MOVE THROUGH THESE NEXT SLIDES QUICKLY. 
          THIS SHOWS YOU THE CHURCH'S LOCATION LONG AND BETWEEN SEVERAL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S, MAIN CORRIDORS. 
          THE CHURCH IS ON 51ST STREET. 
          YOU CAN SEE MAINOR ROAD TO THE LEFT, WHICH IS TO THE WEST AND SPRINGDALE ROAD TO THE EAST. 
          THIS IS THE AERIAL THAT SHOWS YOU THE CONDITION ON THE GROUND TODAY. 
          THE CHURCH AND THE EXISTING PAVE LOT WITH THE 42 SPOTS IN THE FRONT AND THE DIRT LOT AND THE BI BACK, WHICH, UH, ACCOMMODATES MOST OF THE PARISHIONERS. 
          THERE'S ALSO A SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE THAT IS USED AS THE FOOD PANTRY. 
          HERE IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. 
          THE BROWN MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS ALREADY EXIST IN THIS AREA ALONG THE MAIN CORRIDORS, BOTH AT INTERSECTIONS AND EVEN FOR LOTS THAT ARE MID-BLOCK, AS WELL AS FOR MANY OF THE LOTS THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES. 
          AND THE ZONING IS SIMILAR. 
          IT, UH, SAME TYPE OF PLANNING, GR ZONING AND OTHER COMMERCIAL ZONING IN THE RED IS VERY COMMON FOR PROPERTIES ALONG 51ST STREET SPRINGDALE MAINOR AND AGAIN, INCLUSIVE OF LOTS THAT ARE LOCATED MID-BLOCK. 
          YOU CAN SEE THE MID-BLOCK LOTS AS WELL AS THOSE THAT ARE BLACK THAT ARE BACK RIGHT UP TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. 
          51ST STREET IS BOTH AN IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDOR AND AN A SMP TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK ROADWAY, MAKING IT AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR GR ZONING. 
          THIS IS THE TOPO. 
          UM, I SHOW YOU THIS IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR, OBVIOUSLY THE, UH, THE, UM, UH, NUMBERS INDICATE THE ELEVATION ABOVE SEA LEVEL AND FOLLOW CONTOUR LINES AT THAT ELEVATION SO THE WATER FLOWS OR DRAINS IN THE DIRECTION OF DESCENDING NUMBERS. 
          AND HERE YOU CAN SEE IT STARTS AT APPROXIMATELY 5 78 AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER AND SLOPES DOWN TO 51ST STREET AWAY FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. 
          THE SITE'S TOPOGRAPHY IS SUCH THAT STORMWATER DRAINS, UM, TOWARDS THE CHURCH CONSTRUCTION OF ANY NEW SITE. 
          IMPROVEMENTS WILL GO THROUGH THE STANDARD CITY OF AUSTIN REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDES DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY, NONE OF WHICH EXISTS. 
          NOW, ENSURING THAT THERE IS NO ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I ALSO WANTED TO, THIS IS A TYPICAL SATURDAY AT THE CHURCH, AND EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN'T SEE THE FULL SANCTUARY OR THE MANY STAFF MEMBERS AND VOLUNTEERS BEHIND THE SCENES, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE ROOM IS PRETTY PACKED AND THERE ARE FOUR FAR MORE PEOPLE ATTENDING REGULAR SERVICES THAN THE 42 EXISTING PARKING SPACES CAN AT, CAN ACCOMMODATE. 
          THE CHURCH HAS BEEN IN THIS LOCATION FOR THE LAST 41 YEARS, HAS BEEN STEADILY GROWING SINCE COVID. 
          AND OUR ASK TONIGHT IS THAT YOU SUPPORT ITS DESIRE TO ACCOMMODATE EXISTING AND FUTURE PARISHIONERS AND VISITORS BY GRANTING THEM THE FLEXIBILITY TO EXPAND. 
          SO TO RECAP, WE'RE HERE TO AMEND THE FLU TO MIXED USE AS WELL AS IN ACCOMMODATING REZONING, THE GR BASED ZONING WITH MEANINGFULLY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL USES, AGAIN, DOWN TO 14 PERMITTED AND FIVE CONDITIONAL, UH, VIA CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. 
          A MIXED USE FLUME DESIGNATION AND GR ZONING ARE BOTH CONSISTENT WITH NEARBY PROPERTIES ALONG 51ST MAINOR AND SPRINGDALE, INCLUDING THOSE THAT SHARE PROPERTY LINES WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. 
          YOU WILL FIND COMMERCIAL ZONING ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ALL ACROSS THE CITY. 
          AND THIS ZONING IS APPROPRIATE ALONG IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDORS AND 
          [00:35:01]
A SMP TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK. 
          ROADWAYS, I WANNA CLOSE BY STATING AGAIN, THE CHURCH HAS NO PLANS OR INTENTIONS TO SELL. 
          THEY WISH TO DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE AND CREATE THE ROOM THEY NEED TO GROW THEIR PRESENCE AND ABILITY TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY. 
          WE ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN FAVOR IS LAURENT GROSSMAN. 
          LAURENT, YOU WILL HAVE SIX MINUTES. 
          HE'S ALSO RECEIVING THREE MINUTES OF DONATED TIME FROM MICHELLE GROOM. 
          MICHELLE, ARE YOU PRESENT? LAUREN AGAIN? YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GOOD EVENING DISTINGUISHED COMMISSIONERS AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT THE REZONING REQUEST FOR ALPHA SEVENTH ADVENTIST CHURCH. 
          MY NAME IS GRONER AND I'VE HAD THE HONOR OF PASTORING ALPHA CHURCH FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS. 
          THIS COMMUNITY HOLDS A SPECIAL PLACE IN MY HEART AND THAT OF MY WIFE, MAJOR CRYSTAL GRONER, AN INTERNAL MEDICINE PHYSICIAN CURRENTLY SERVING IN THE US ARMY. 
          WE ARE PROUD TO CALL THIS CHURCH. 
          OUR HOME ALPHA CHURCH HAS BEEN A CORNERSTONE OF THE COMMUNITY, WITNESSING GENERATIONS OF AUSTINITES BEING BORN, RAISED, GRADUATING, MARRYING, STARTING FAMILIES, AND EVEN RETIRING AND PASSING ON BECAUSE THIS IS MORE THAN A CHURCH, THIS IS OUR COMMUNITY. 
          SUCH DEEP FELLOWSHIP AND LASTING RELATIONSHIPS ARE BUILT OVER TIME WITH INTENTIONAL CARE. 
          I SHARED THIS TO UNDERSCORE OUR INVESTMENT IN THIS VERY COMMUNITY, IN THIS VERY LOCATION. 
          AND TO EXPRESS OUR DESIRE TO CONTINUE DEEPENING OUR AS OF NEXT YEAR, JUNE 80-YEAR-OLD ROOTS. 
          BECAUSE THIS IS MORE THAN A CHURCH, IT'S OUR COMMUNITY. 
          MY VISION IS NOT JUST TO CONTINUE TO GROW THE CONGREGATION, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY OUR ABILITY TO SERVE WITH EXCELLENCE, THE COMMUNITY AND THE CITY. 
          CURRENTLY AS PART OF OUR OUTREACH, WE RUN A FOOD PANTRY ON SITE THAT SERVES OVER TWO, 2000 FAMILIES EACH MONTH. 
          AS MR. WELLON MENTIONED, THE BACKSIDE OF OUR PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY AN UNBECOMING DIRT LOT WHERE CONGREGANTS, FOOD PANTRY VISITORS AND GUESTS ARE FORCED TO PARK THE GROUND IS UNEVEN, MAKING IT HAZARDOUS FOR OUR OLDER OR LESS MOBILE VISITORS TO NAVIGATE, ESPECIALLY AFTER STORM OR RAIN, WHERE IT BECOMES A SERIOUS ISSUE FOR DAYS. 
          THIS REZONING WOULD ALLOW US THE NECESSARY IMPERVIOUS COVER TO BUILD A PARKING LOT, MAKING IT EASIER AND SAFER FOR THOSE VISITING THE FOOD PANTRY, RELYING ON THE FOOD PANTRY, AND VISITING OUR CHURCH. 
          IT WOULD ALSO GIVE US FLEXIBILITY FOR FUTURE EXPANSION AS OUR NEEDS CONTINUE TO GROW BECAUSE THIS IS MORE THAN A CHURCH, IT IS OUR COMMUNITY. 
          WE WERE DELIGHTED TO HOST A MEETING WITH SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS A FEW WEEKS AGO WHERE WE REVIEWED THE POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL USES UNDER GR ZONING. 
          WE SHARE THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT HOW LOTS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED INTO GAS STATIONS OR SMOKE SHOPS, AND WE ALL WANT TO SEE COMMUNITY FOCUSED BUSINESSES LIKE GROCERY STORES. 
          INSTEAD TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS, WE AGREE TO PROHIBIT MOST COMMERCIAL USES UNDER GR ZONING, HELPING TO EASE ANXIETIES ABOUT WHAT THE FUTURE MIGHT BRING. 
          HOWEVER, WE WOULD LIKE TO REMAIN SOME COMMERCIAL USES TO PROVIDE MINIMAL FLEXIBILITY FOR FUTURE MAXIMUM IMPACT NEEDS OR OPPORTUNITIES. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, WE'RE CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY OF BUILDING A GYM CLASSROOMS, OFFICE SPACES THAT COULD SERVE BOTH THE CHURCH, THE CITY, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR FREE. 
          THERE MAY ALSO BE OPPORTUNITIES TO PARTNER WITH LOCAL SMALL BUSINESSES SUCH AS MEDICAL CLINIC, GROCERY STORES. 
          UH, FOR A NEW ENTERPRISE, WE HAVE BEEN, WE REMAIN AND WE SHALL BE CONSISTENT PARTNERS WITH THIS CITY AND OUR COMMUNITY BECAUSE THIS IS MORE THAN A CHURCH, IT'S OUR COMMUNITY. 
          THESE ARE GENUINE CONSIDERATIONS AS WE PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. 
          WE HAVE NO INTENTION, OUR DESIRE TO SELL OUR CHURCH AS HAS BEEN PROMULGATED AMONGST THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I'M AWARE THAT CITY STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED A LOWER ZONING CATEGORY AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT FOR GR ZONING SO WE CAN BENEFIT FROM THE MINIMAL FLEXIBILITY OF ITS IMPERVIOUS COVER AND BUILDING COVERAGE REGULATIONS. 
          I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HOST EACH OF YOU AT OUR CHURCH WITH A MEAL INCLUDED, OF COURSE. 
          SO YOU CAN SEE FIRSTHAND THE BACK LOT AND THE CHALLENGES THAT WE FACE. 
          IDEALLY, YOU COULD VISIT ON A RAINY DAY OR IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARD TO OBSERVE HOW THE TOPOGRAPHY OF OUR PROPERTY DIRECTS WATER TO 51ST STREET, OFTEN CAUSING IT TO POOL AND PUDDLE AT THE BACK ENTRANCE OF THE CHURCH. 
          AN ADDED BENEFIT OF THE PARKING LOT WOULD BE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CITY RULES, INCLUDING A THOROUGH PERMITTING PROCESS 
          [00:40:01]
FOR FLOOD AND DRAINAGE REVIEW, WHICH WOULD ULTIMATELY IMPROVE STORM WATER CONDITIONS FOR THE AREA. 
          I WANT TO REITERATE THAT OUR SANCTUARY ON 51ST STREET IS A HOME, A HOME FOR JUDGES, PHYSICIANS, FIRST RESPONDERS, TEACHERS, ENGINEERS, COLLEGE STUDENTS, CITY WORKERS, BUSINESS OWNERS, RETIREES, MEMBERS OF THE L LGBTQIA PLUS COMMUNITY, AND THOSE WITH VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE DISABILITIES. 
          WE CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THIS COMMUNITY AND HAVE INVESTED DECADES IN BUILDING OUR PRESENCE HERE. 
          THIS REZONING WILL HELP US TO CONTINUE TO GROW AND SERVE IN THIS LOCATION FOR MANY YEARS TO COME. 
          BECAUSE THIS IS MORE THAN A CHURCH, IT'S OUR COMMUNITY. 
          WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF OUR HUMBLE REQUEST. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JUDGE ERIC SHEPHERD. 
          YOU'LL HAVE ONE MINUTE. 
          I, I'M NOT SURE WHO MADE THE ARRANGEMENTS, BUT I HAVE TO FOLLOW MY PASTOR, WHICH IS NEVER A GOOD THING TO DO. 
          . 
          GOOD LUCK. 
          UH, GOOD EVENING. 
          MY NAME IS ERIC SHEPHERD AND UM, I'VE CALLED I, UM, I'VE BEEN ASKED TO GIVE A FEW WORDS FOR THE ALPHA SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH ON BEHALF. 
          I'VE BEEN A MEMBER OF ALPHA SINCE, UH, THEY MOVED THERE IN 1983 WHEN I HAD ABOUT A YEAR AFTER I CAME HERE FOR LAW SCHOOL. 
          THE REZONING REQUEST BEFORE YOU TONIGHT FORTIFIES OUR LONG-TERM VISION FOR THE CHURCH, UH, IN THIS LOCATION. 
          AS YOU'VE HEARD PASTOR GRONER SAY, WE ARE LOOKING FOR, UH, LOOKING TO REZONE OUR PROPERTY FOR TWO REASONS, TO SOLVE AN IMMEDIATE NEED AND TO ALLOW OURSELVES TO F UH, TO THINK MORE EXPANSIVELY ABOUT HOW WE CAN GROW THE FUTURE, GROW IN THE FUTURE. 
          RIGHT NOW, MORE THAN 50% OF OUR PARKING, UH, CAPACITY IS OUT BACK IN THE DIRT AND THE RAW CONDITIONS OF THAT AREA TO SAY THE LEAST, UM, TRULY POSE A SAFETY HAZARD FOR OUR CONGREGATION AND VISITORS. 
          THAT IS THE IMMEDIATE NEED WE NEED TO SOLVE FOR HERE TONIGHT. 
          UM, WE DIDN'T WANT TO GO, UM, DIDN'T WANT TO AND FRANKLY CANNOT AFFORD TO. 
          THAT WAS FAST. 
          NO, A MINUTE GOES BY TIME. 
          LET ME JUST TELL YOU FINAL TIME. 
          WE'RE NOT GOING ANYWHERE. 
          I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE I GOT HERE TO LAW SCHOOL AND I'M NOT LEAVING AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO SPEAK. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN FAVOR IS MARTHA WILLIAMS. MARTHA, YOU'LL HAVE ONE MINUTE. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          I WANT TO, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT. 
          MY NAME IS MARTHA AND UH, I'VE BEEN A PART OF THAT COMMUNITY FOR OVER 41 YEARS. 
          AND IN MY EXPERIENCE, ALPHA HAS ALWAYS TRIED TO BE GOOD, UH, AND RESPECTFUL NEIGHBORS. 
          I KNOW INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE LEANED HEAVILY ON THE FOOD PANTRY. 
          IT HAS SERVED THIS COMMUNITY. 
          AND TO SEE AT LEAST 100 CARS EACH TIME IS A TREMENDOUS SITE TO BEHOLD. 
          I PERSONALLY HAVE SEEN WHAT THE BACK PARKING LOT CAN GET, UH, WHEN IT RAINS. 
          AND IT REALLY IS A MESS FOR PEOPLE TO TRY TO WALK, UM, IN THEIR CHURCH CLOTHES, IN THE SHOES. 
          THEY GET ALL MUDDY. 
          AND THE CHURCH HAS COMMITTED, UH, TO FOLLOWING THE CURRENT CITY RULES FOR FLOODING. 
          AND RIGHT NOW THERE AREN'T ANY CONTROLS FOR THAT KIND OF THING. 
          SO IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT ALL AROUND IT WOULD. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CHURCH HAVE THE ABILITY TO GROW IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD  AND I BELIEVE THEY HAVE SHOWN THEMSELVES TO BE GOOD FAITH ACTORS BY RESPONDING TO NEIGHBORS, UH, CONCERNS OVER FUTURE USE CHANGES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          CHAIR WILL NOW BE, WE WILL NOW BE HEARING FROM THOSE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION. 
          OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS EMILY NOBEL. 
          EMILY, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. 
          I DIDN'T REALIZE I WAS A PRIMARY SPEAKER. 
          MY NAME IS EMILY NOBLE. 
          I LIVE AT, UH, WAYBURN HILL DRIVE. 
          MY PROPERTY SITS AT THE, THE BACK OF THE CHURCH PROPERTY. 
          UM, AND I'M A PARTY TO THE ZONING PETITION LIMITING THE ZONING TO NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE WITH NOT MORE THAN 70% IMPERVIOUS COVER AND 50% BUILDING COVERAGE. 
          I OPPOSE THE CHURCH'S REQUEST FOR TWO MAIN REASONS. 
          THE USES WITHIN THE LR O, THE LR OVERLAY REQUESTED AND THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWED WITHIN THE GR ZONING. 
          SO THE CHURCH STATED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD EXACTLY WHAT THEY'VE SAID HERE, UM, THAT THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST IS TO ADDRESS PARKING ISSUES. 
          UM, AND THEY DO NOT INTEND TO MOVE OR SELL THE PROPERTY ASSUMING THE CHURCH STAYS, WHICH I 
          [00:45:01]
DO BELIEVE THAT THEY INTEND TO DO. 
          THE ONLY DEVELOPABLE LAND IS THAT VACANT LOT AT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADJACENT TO HOMES ON PECAN SPRINGS AND WAY BORN HILL INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THAT BACK PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS ON PECAN SPRINGS, WHICH IS NOT A PRIMARY ROAD. 
          IT'S NOT ON 51ST. 
          IT HAS LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD ONLY TRAFFIC. 
          THE USE IS ALLOWED. 
          UH, THE USE IS ALLOWED FOR WITHIN THE OVERLAY REQUESTED BY THE CHURCH, INCLUDING FOOD, SALES, FINANCIAL SERVICES, PERSONAL CARE RESTAURANT, ET CETERA, GO BEYOND ADDRESSING JUST PARKING. 
          ADDITIONALLY, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER UP TO 90% IS A SERIOUS CONCERN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THE BACK OF MY PROPERTY, WHICH CONNECTS TO THE CHURCH'S PROPERTY, SITS HIGHER THAN MY HOUSE AND WATER MOVES TOWARDS MY HOUSE. 
          MY BACKYARD ON WAYBURN HILL HAS HAD LOCALIZED FLOODING DURING SERIOUS RAIN EVENTS, WHICH IS SOME TYPES REQUIRED SANDBAGS IN THAT BACKYARD. 
          WE'VE WORKED HARD TO MITIGATE THOSE ISSUES, BUT ALLOWING THE CHURCH TO ESSENTIALLY DOUBLE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER PUTS MY PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING HOMES AT RISK OF ADDITIONAL LOCALIZED FLOODING. 
          WHILE I UNDERSTAND AND SUPPORT THE CHURCH'S DESIRE TO IMPROVE THEIR LAND FOR THE PARKING FOR THEIR CONGREGATION, I OPPOSE ANY ZONING CHANGE THAT GOES BEYOND ADDRESSING THOSE SPECIFIC NEEDS. 
          IN THE ZONING PETITION, NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE WAS NOTED FOR ITS LIMITED USES, SO IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT OR IT'S AN INCREASE FROM SF THREE, BUT IT'S STILL, UH, A FURTHER LIMITATION AS TO WHAT THEY CAN EXPAND INTO. 
          GIVEN THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE BUILDING COVERAGE UNDER THAT NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE IS ACTUALLY SIMILAR OR EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE SF THREE. 
          THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND BUILDING COVERAGE ALLOWED FOR, UM, THAT WE BASICALLY CAME TO WAS LO. 
          SO, UH, WE RECOGNIZED THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE DESIGNATION ALLOWED FOR TWO RESTRICTIVE OF A BUILDING COVERAGE AND IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          THE LO DESIGNATION SPECIFIC TO THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE BUILDING COVERAGE STILL ALLOWS FOR SOME EXPANSION. 
          UM, AND IF THEY NEED TO EXPAND BEYOND THAT TO ADDRESS ADDITIONAL PARKING, UM, THEY CAN INCLUDE NONPERMEABLE, OR SORRY, THEY CAN INCLUDE PERMEABLE, UM, UH, MATERIALS, UH, CRUSH GRANITE, ET CETERA. 
          BUT THEY HAVE ABILITIES TO EXPAND BEYOND AS LONG AS IT'S NOT JUST CONCRETE. 
          UM, SO THAT IS WHAT I'M HERE TO SAY. 
          I DIDN'T KNOW I HAD FIVE MINUTES, BUT I THINK THAT'S ENOUGH. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS ROBERT MENDEZ. 
          ROBERT, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          UH, HELLO AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, UM, BOTH IN HEARING US TODAY AND SITTING ON THIS COMMISSION. 
          IT IS CLEARLY A USE OF YOUR TIME THAT TAKES UP MORE THAN JUST TODAY. 
          UM, AS MENTIONED, MY NAME IS ROB MENDEZ AND I LIVE AT, UH, WAY BORN HILL DRIVE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST ALPHA CHURCH. 
          I'M HERE TO OBJECT TO REZONING OF THE REFERENCE PROPERTY TO COMMERCIAL ZONING. 
          UH, THE PARCEL AT ISSUE IS LOCATED IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          IT IS SURROUNDED ON ALL SIDES BY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND A SIMILARLY SITUATED CHURCH. 
          THE MAP THAT WAS SHOWED BY THE CHURCH SHOWS CERTAIN MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES, UM, NEAR THE CHURCH BUT NOT ADJACENT. 
          UH, THOSE PROPERTIES ARE CURRENTLY CONDOMINIUMS AND A VACANT LOT AS THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING THERE WAS TORN DOWN A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO. 
          UH, THAT LOT CAN ALSO NOT BE, UH, IMPROVED AT THIS TIME BECAUSE OF DRAINAGE ISSUES FROM THE CREEK. 
          SO THAT MULTIFAMILY ZONING IS SOMEWHAT QUESTIONABLE. 
          UM, FURTHER TO THIS, THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE IS NOT ON 51ST STREET. 
          51ST STREET IS THE MINORITY PART OF FRONTAGE. 
          THE MAJORITY OF FRONTAGE IS ON PECAN SPRINGS ROAD, WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREET. 
          UH, AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THE ENTRANCE TO THE AREA THAT IS LOOKING TO BE DEVELOPED IS ON PECAN SPRINGS ROAD, NOT ON 51ST STREET. 
          UM, THE CHURCH HAS STATED TO US, AS THEY HAVE MENTIONED, THEIR INTENTIONS TO INCREASE PARKING AS WELL AS POSSIBLY WORK ON THEIR FOOD PANTRY. 
          UM, NONE OF THIS SHOULD REQUIRE, UH, COMMERCIAL ZONING, LET ALONE COMMERCIAL ZONING AT THE LEVEL THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED. 
          UH, THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, IS SUBJECT TO DRAINAGE ISSUES. 
          THE CHURCH THEMSELVES MENTIONS THAT WHILE MY HOU MY BACK OF MY PROPERTY, SIMILAR TO EMILY'S, WHO IS ACTUALLY MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, IS AT THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE CHURCH, I HAVE A TWO FOOT RETAINING WALL THREE FOOT OUT FROM MY FENCE THAT THEN DROPS ABOUT 18 INCHES TO TWO FEET BELOW THE CHURCH PROPERTY. 
          THIS IS A SERIOUS CONCERN FOR DRAINAGE ISSUES. 
          IF THEY WERE TO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THE LEVEL OF IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUESTED. 
          UM, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL WAYS THAT THEY COULD INCREASE THEIR PARKING WITHOUT USING IMPERVIOUS COVER, CRUSHED GRANITE, UH, TURF STONE PAVERS AND OTHER METHODS. 
          UM, SO I I SUPPORT THE CHURCH. 
          I WANT THE CHURCH TO BE THERE. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE IMPACTS 
          [00:50:01]
ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE LIMITED. 
          UM, AS TO THE FOOD PANTRY, THE CHURCH HAS MADE CLAIMS THAT THEY NEED COMMERCIAL USES. 
          THIS IS HIGHLY SUSPECT TO ME GIVEN THAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY OPERATING THIS FOOD PANTRY UNDER SF THREE ZONING. 
          THE REQUEST IS FURTHER CALLED INTO QUESTION BY THE FACT THAT THE GREATER MOUNT ZION CHURCH FOOD PANTRY IS CURRENTLY ZONED MF TWO MULTIFAMILY. 
          THE BAPTIST, UH, COMMUNITY CENTER MISSION AUSTIN, INCLUDING A FOOD PANTRY, IS CURRENTLY ZONED SF THREE. 
          THE ST. 
          JOHN'S COMMUNITY CENTER FOOD DISTRIBUTION CENTER IS CURRENTLY ZONED SF THREE. 
          THE A NUMBER OF OTHER FOOD PANTRIES ARE ALSO ZONED SF THREE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UM, IF COMMERCIAL ZONE AND REQUIRED, THOSE WOULD ALL LIKELY NEED TO SHUT DOWN. 
          UH, AS MENTIONED, I DO OBJECT TO THIS REZONING. 
          UM, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS CHAIR. 
          THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. 
          OKAY, WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. 
          THREE MINUTES. 
          THANK YOU AGAIN. 
          UH, MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. 
          UM, JUST A FEW POINTS. 
          UH, AS I ALREADY MENTIONED, 51ST STREET MAINOR, SPRINGDALE ARE IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDOR AND AN A SMP TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK ROADWAY. 
          UM, WE HAVE OTHER EXAMPLES OF MIXED USE AND COMMERCIAL ZONING, UH, MIDBLOCK ON BOTH SPRINGDALE MAINOR AND 51ST STREET. 
          UM, I ALSO WANT THE FLOODING IS AN INTERESTING ONE. 
          AS YOU WELL KNOW, WHEN YOU SUBMIT A SITE PLAN, YOU CANNOT HAVE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT ON ANY ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THAT OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE THE STANDARD HERE. 
          AND, UH, IT'S A STANDARD IN THE CODE AND IT'S A STANDARD WE WOULD, UH, APPLY. 
          UM, AS WELL. 
          UM, THE LIST, IT, IT, WE, AS I MENTIONED, AND I I THINK THEY ACKNOWLEDGED, UH, THAT WE SAT DOWN, WE WENT THROUGH THE ENTIRE LIST OF COMMERCIAL USES AND WE CAME UP WITH 14 THAT, UH, EVERYBODY FELT LIKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN PARTICULAR FELT LIKE, UH, WOULD BE, COULD BE PERMITTED. 
          AND, BUT WHEN WE DID THIS, BY THE WAY, WE HAD THE DEFINITIONS, WE WALKED THROUGH THE DEFINITIONS AND THE, THE 14 QUICKLY ARE ADMINISTRATIVE AND BUSINESS OFFICE AND ART GALLERY, ART WORKSHOP, CONSUMER REPAIR SERVICES. 
          IF, UH, A SMALL REPAIR LIKE, UH, MIGHT BE, UH, POSSIBLE FINANCIAL SERVICES. 
          'CAUSE PASTOR WAS THINKING MAYBE HELPING PEOPLE WITH A BANKING TYPE THING. 
          FOOD SALES, MEDICAL OFFICES, NOT EXCEEDING 5,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          I THINK THE PASTOR MENTIONED THAT OFFSITE ACCESSORY PARKING, PERSONAL SERVICES, PET SERVICES, PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, RESTAURANT LIMITED, UM, SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND THEATER. 
          AND I, I, I WOULD SAY ON THE RESTAURANT LIMITED, ONE REASON, OBVIOUSLY, UH, A LOT OF CONGREGATIONS, INCLUDING THE ONE I GO TO, HAS A KITCHEN, A COMMERCIAL KITCHEN AND OFTEN THAT IS UNDERUTILIZED AND, UH, HAS CHALLENGES IN TERMS OF HELPING TO OFFSET THE COST OF A KITCHEN IN A, A CHURCH OR A ANOTHER FAITH INSTITUTION. 
          SO, UM, WITH WITH THAT, WE WOULD ASK AGAIN TO LIMIT US TO THESE PERMITTED, THESE 14 PERMITTED USES. 
          I THINK THERE'S FIVE CONDITIONAL USES, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE'D HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS BODY FOR WHAT ANY OF THOSE. 
          UM, BUT THESE ARE THE FIVE PERMITTED THAT THE PASTOR FEELS LIKE, UM, CLEARLY WOULD WORK AND WE HAD GONE OVER THEM WITH, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          THAT IS ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS THIS EVENING. 
          IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UNLESS THERE IS OPPOSITION, THAT MOTION PASSES. 
          SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR QUESTIONS. 
          WE HAVE A COMMISSIONER WHO WANTS TO START US OFF ON QUESTIONS. 
          COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS. 
          YES. 
          ASIDE FROM WHAT MEAL YOU WOULD BE SERVING US, UM, WHAT I'D LIKE TO KNOW FROM STAFF IS WHERE IS THE ACCESS TO THE, UH, PROPERTY IN QUESTION? IS IT 51ST STREET OR PECAN SPRINGS? I I'M ASKING STAFF, UM, WAS IT FOR STAFF OR WAS IT FOR IT'S FOR STAFF? YES. 
          MM-HMM. 
           I WANNA SAVE FROM THE TRIP. 
          UM, THERE IS ACCESS BOTH FROM 51ST STREET AND FROM PECAN STRINGS. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          AND, AND I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAVE TOO IS THE, UM, THE ISSUE OF FLOODING. 
          UM, HOW WOULD THE IMPER THE ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER, UM, IMPACT FLOODING? SO, UM, I'M NOT A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT ON FLOODING THAT WOULD GO THROUGH THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS. 
          IF A ZONING IS GRANTED, THE ZONING SETS THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WHICH THEN WOULD, UH, COMPLY, UH, THAT THE, THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH. 
          UM, I THINK THAT THE HANDY THING THAT I WAS PUTTING TOGETHER IS IT'S CURRENTLY SF THREE, 
          [00:55:01]
IF YOU LOOK IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT'S APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT LOT. 
          SO ANY OF THOSE PERCENTAGES FOR ANY OF THESE ZONING CATEGORIES, YOU CAN GET AN IDEA FOR HOW MUCH IMPERVIOUS COVER THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE. 
          UM, TODAY THAT'S ABOUT 40,000, 45,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          UM, THE REQUEST IS, UH, FOR ROUGHLY DOUBLE ABOUT 90,000 SQUARE FEET AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, LR IS FOR ABOUT 80,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? YEAH, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. 
          I GUESS, UH, I THINK ONE OF 'EM WAS JUST ANSWERED. 
          IT'D BE STEPH, CONFIRM. 
          SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR THE LR, OH, I FORGET THE MP AND W MP 80% ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING GR WHICH IS 90%. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT, UH, IS A DIFFERENCE OF APPROXIMATELY 10,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          SO THIS QUESTION, I GUESS IS TO THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, AND AGAIN, THESE ARE ROUGH NUMBERS, BUT THAT, THAT WORKS OUT TO PLUS OR MINUS AN ADDITIONAL 30 PARKING SPACES. 
          AGAIN, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 80% IMPERVIOUS COVER AND 90 IS ABOUT 30 MORE PARKING SPACES, ASSUMING ABOUT 300 SQUARE FEET PER PARKING SPACE. 
          HOW MANY OF PARKING SPACES ARE Y'ALL PROPOSING TO ADD, MR. WHALEN? I THINK THAT'S FOR YOU. 
          YEAH, SORRY, IT'S A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          HE IS COMING. 
          OKAY, THANKS. 
          NO, NO, NO. 
          SORRY, COMMISSIONER. 
          WE'RE TRYING TO, UH, ONE WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY DESIGNED IT COMPLETELY. 
          YOU PROBABLY AS THE TR AS AS THE EXPERT. 
          UH, AND THIS WOULD KNOW BETTER ON HOW MANY WE COULD FIT ON. 
          UM, THE ADDITIONAL WE'VE USED UP TO 45 THOU, YOU KNOW, 45% ALREADY. 
          SO WE'D ONLY HAVE 45,000 SQUARE FEET LEFT. 
          UM, IF YOU, IF YOU DID THE MATH AND YOU SAID 10, YOU SAID 30 SPOTS WERE ON THE, UH, WELL THAT'S ABOUT, I MEAN, ASSUMING EACH SPACE IS UNDERNEATH SQUARE FEET AND A LITTLE BIT FOR PARKING AISLES, LET'S SAY 300 SQUARE FEET, PLUS OR MINUS PER PARKING SPACE, THAT A D ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER SORT OF AMOUNTS TO ANOTHER 30 PARKING SPACES. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO I'M TRYING, I GUESS I'M CURIOUS AS TO HOW MANY PARKING SPACES THE CHURCH IS ANTICIPATING NEEDING. 
          UH, I MEAN THEY REALLY, THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE A NUMBER YET. 
          THEY HAVEN'T DESIGNED ANYTHING. 
          I THEY DO KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW YOU SAW THE, THE CHURCH CAN GET PRETTY CROWDED ON, UH, ON SATURDAY AND UM, WITH PARISHIONERS AND THE FOOD PANTRY ALSO HAS A LOT OF PEOPLE. 
          AND THERE THE PARKING IS GONNA BE INTERESTING 'CAUSE THERE IS A DISTANCE BETWEEN THE FOOD PANTRY AND THE CHURCH ITSELF THAT'LL NEED TO BE PAVED WITHOUT PARKING SO THAT THERE'S ABILITY TO MOVE FOOD FROM THE KITCHEN TO THE PAN TO THE PANTRY ACROSS THE WAY. 
          SO IT WON'T ALL BE PARKING. 
          OBVIOUSLY, THERE'LL NEED TO BE SOME, UH, TRAVEL WAYS AND PEDESTRIAN WAYS AS WELL. 
          UM, BUT I THINK THEIR, THEIR HOPE IS PROBABLY TO GET CLOSE TO, YOU KNOW, 75 TO 90, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL PLACE SPACES ON THERE, ON THE, ON THE PROPERTY. 
          KEEPING IN MIND WE HAVEN'T DESIGNED ANYTHING AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH SPACE WILL BE NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE MOVING FOOD FROM THE KITCHEN TO THE FOOD PANTRY. 
          OKAY. 
          OF, HAS THE CHURCH INVESTIGATED ANY TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT? I MEAN, JUST, UH, I GUESS I, I'VE LOOKED AT KIND OF GOOGLE EARTH IMAGES OF THIS LOT AND PARKING OVER THE LAST, I DON'T KNOW, 20 CYCLES OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND THE NUMBER OF CARS IN THE EXISTING LOT. 
          AND IN THE BACK FIELD, MAYBE AT WORST CASE, I SAW ABOUT 75 CARS OF FREQUENTLY IT WAS LESS THAN 25 AND I WOULD SAY HALF THE TIME IT WAS, THERE WAS ONLY ONE CAR EVER PARKED AT THE CHURCH. 
          SO I REALIZED THIS DEMAND IS VERY FOCUSED ON, UH, ON THE WEEKEND, ON SUNDAY. 
          BUT HAS THERE, HAS THE CHURCH INVESTIGATED ANY DEMAND MANAGEMENT LOOKING WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, TDM DISCUSSIONS WITH MOVABILITY AND SOMETHING LIKE THAT? NO, I MEAN, UH, SO LIKE MANY CONGREGATIONS UH, RAISING FUNDS FOR ANYTHING IS A CHALLENGE. 
          I'M OBVIOUSLY HERE PRO BONO, UH, UH, FOR MY, UM, UH, UH, FRIEND ERIC SHEPHERD, WHO I'VE KNOWN FOR DECADES. 
          AND IT'S HARD TO GO AND GET TRANSPORTATION, HIRE, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS AND OTHERS, UM, PRIOR TO ACTUALLY HAVING A RIGHT TO DO SOMETHING. 
          AND I THINK, UH, THEY'RE KIND OF CAUGHT IN THAT POSITION WITH NOW, UM, WITH, WELL THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE THEY ARE RIGHT NOW. 
          BUT WE'RE, WE'RE, IF YOU'RE 
          [01:00:01]
OFFERING SOME TDM ADVICE, I'M SURE THEY'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE IT. 
          , , I THINK WHAT I'M TRYING TO RECONCILE IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SORT OF STAFF'S PROPOSAL, WHICH IS ABOUT 80% IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE, THE GR ZONING THAT THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING. 
          IT SEEMS LIKE ON USES, THEY'RE VERY MUCH, UH, THE SAME, VERY SIMILAR, UH, BUT IT FEELS LIKE THE ONLY REAL DIFFERENCES IS REALLY THE ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENT FOR IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          I, I THINK THAT IS CORRECT. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER COX, I I WAS, I WAS GONNA DRILL DOWN TO THE POINT THAT COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE WAS MAKING THAT WE'RE, IT SEEMS TO ME, AND, AND MR. WHALEN TELL ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT, BUT THIS IS, IF WE'RE DECIDING BETWEEN STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, WERE A ESSENTIALLY JUST TALKING ABOUT A REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL 10% IMPERVIOUS COVER UP TO 90%. 
          IS THERE ANY OTHER CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THINGS THAT YOU CAN THINK OF THAT IS A, A DELTA BETWEEN STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING? THERE IS SHAME ON ME. 
          IT'S THE BUILDING COVERAGE AS WELL, AND I HAD THAT NUMBER, BUT I'M SURE THAT, UM, JONATHAN HAS, IT'S 50, IT'S 50 TO 75%, RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT. 
          IT'S 50% UNDER LR AND 75. 
          THAT IS THE OTHER THING IS HAVING THE ABILITY TO, AS, AS PASTOR MENTIONED, TO EXPAND, UM, WITH SOME COMMUNITY USES THAT THEY'RE PRETTY SPECIFIC, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST THEY'VE IDENTIFIED IN TERMS OF THEIR VISION, YOU KNOW, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          I GUESS MY THOUGHT PROCESS IS THOUGH, IS THAT LR SEEMS LIKE IT CAN ACCOMPLISH EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE HEARD. 
          UM, SIMPLY BECAUSE I, I MEAN, IF, IF PARKING IS AN ISSUE, YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE MORE THAN 50% BUILDING COVERAGE, WHICH IS ALLOWED UNDER LR. 
          I DON'T THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STRUCTURED PARKING , UH, FOR, FOR THIS ANY, ANYTIME SOON. 
          UH, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING ALL THIS PARKING UP TO POTENTIALLY 90% OF IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          AND YOU, YOU MENTIONED THAT ALL OF, UH, YOU KNOW, ALL THE CITY REGULATIONS ARE GONNA HAVE TO BE MET, AND THAT INCLUDES STORMWATER DETENTION AND POTENTIALLY WATER QUALITY. 
          AND SO SPACE IS GONNA HAVE TO BE DEDICATED ON SITE TO THAT, SIMPLY BECAUSE I THINK UNDERWATER DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY'S COST PROHIBITIVE AND PROBABLY WON'T WORK ON THIS SITE POTENTIALLY. 
          UM, SO I, I GUESS MY MINDSET AND MR. WHALEN TRY TO CONVINCE ME IF I'M WRONG, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT THE CHURCH IS THINKING OF DOING, IT FEELS LIKE PRACTICALLY SPEAKING WITH ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT Y'ALL ARE GONNA HAVE TO CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE, THAT AN 80% IMPERVIOUS COVER AND 50% BUILDING COVERAGE PROBABLY PROVIDES THE BOX THAT Y'ALL NEED TO, TO DO A LOT OF WHAT Y'ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT. 
          HE'S COMING, UH, COMMISSIONER THAT, THAT'S A GOOD STRATEGY FOR RUNNING DOWN THE CLOCK. 
          MR. . 
          COMMISSIONER, YOU KNOW HOW MUCH I LOVE YOU. 
          UM, YES, , THE, UH, THE, UM, THAT, THAT MAY BE THE CASE. 
          COMMISSIONER COX. 
          UH, I THINK THE REALITY IS BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW YET, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A LITTLE BIT OF, UM, LEEWAY, AND THAT PROVIDES 'EM A LITTLE BIT OF THAT ELBOW ROOM TO SEE WHAT WILL WORK, HOW IT WILL FIT. 
          OBVIOUSLY, PARKING LOT, AS PASTOR MENTIONED, UH, IS THEIR FIRST PRIORITY, BUT IT DOES ALLOW THEM THE LEEWAY TO EXECUTE ON, UH, SOME OF THE OTHER VISION AND SOME OF THE OTHER DREAMS THAT THEY HAVE FOR, UH, THE COMMUNITY AT THAT LOCATION. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          KEEPING IN MIND THAT IT'S HIGHLY RESTRICTED TO JUST THESE 14 PERMITTED USES, WHICH ARE ESSENTIALLY THE LR USES, SO, OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT, NEXT QUESTION. 
          COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. TOMKO. 
          SO, SINCE THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT CONSIDERS ANY SERVICE THAT'S ANY SURFACE THAT'S BEING USED FOR PARKING AS IMPERVIOUS COVER 'CAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE SOIL IS IMPACTED BY THE WEIGHT OF CARS, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THIS AREA IN THE BACK OF THE LOT THAT'S BEING PARKED ON IS ALREADY HAVING AN IMPACT ON STORM WATER RUNOFF AND LOCALIZED FLOODING? UH, THAT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE. 
          I'M, I'M NOT, AGAIN, THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT, UH, WITH WATERSHED, UH, THE ZONING STANDARDS THAT, THAT EXIST TODAY ARE SF THREE, WHICH WOULD, YOU KNOW, BE WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO TODAY. 
          UM, BUT I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE FACT OF WHETHER THERE'S ALREADY BEEN AN IMPACT OR NOT. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THE SITE PLAN PROCESS AND WHAT 
          [01:05:01]
THE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS WOULD LOOK LIKE IF THE CHURCH DECIDED TO PAVE THAT PORTION OF THE LOT? WELL, I MEAN, IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROCESS THAN THE REZONING THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, EVERY CASE HAS TO GO THROUGH, UM, AFTER THE ZONING IS GRANTED IN THOSE ENTITLEMENTS. 
          SO THERE WOULD BE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT, UH, WAYS IN WHICH THEY COULD MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. 
          IT'S, IT'S GOT SOME FLEXIBILITY TO IT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT TODAY ARE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE THINGS LIKE P PERVIOUS PAVERS, WE CAN'T REQUIRE AS A CONDITION OF ZONING THAT THE APPLICANT USE, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. 
          UH, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE STANDARDS ARE, ARE THE STANDARDS WITHIN THE, THE ZONING THAT'S BEING GRANTED. 
          AND SO THAT WOULD BE EVALUATED, UH, WITH WHATEVER THEY'RE PROPOSING DURING THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS. 
          UM, BASED ON THE QUESTIONS THAT THE APPLICANT HAD ASKED, UH, ANSWERED, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THEY HAVE A PLAN TODAY TO BE RESPONSIVE TO, TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WOULD BE, UM, HOW THAT WOULD FIT AND, AND MEET THE STANDARDS, WHETHER IT'S 80% OR 90% IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          BUT THOSE CURRENT SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED UNDER THE SF THREE ZONING. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          EVEN THOUGH THAT IS TECHNICALLY WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN PREVIOUS COVER, BASED ON THE WAY THAT IT'S BEING USED, THERE HASN'T BEEN A CODE ENFORCEMENT, UH, REPORT ON, UH, LOOKING INTO THAT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          UH, ACCORDING TO THE, THE CASE RECORD, NO. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU MR. HAMCO. 
          CHAIR. 
          THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS. 
          ALRIGHT, OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HAYNES? YEAH, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UH, STAFF AS WELL. 
          UH, I'M CONTRARY TO WHAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES MIGHT SAY, I AM THE NEW GUY . 
          UM, AND SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND, UM, COMPLETELY IF WE GO WITH, UH, WHAT THE APPLICANT IS, UH, IS ASKING, THAT BASICALLY KICKS IT DOWN TO THE NEXT STEP IN THE REVIEW PROCESS. 
          SO THAT COULD MEAN THAT ONCE WATERSHED GETS THROUGH 'EM, THEY COULD BE AT 82% OR 75% OR WHEREVER IT MIGHT BE. 
          THAT'S CERTAINLY A POSSIBILITY FOR THEM TO EVALUATE THAT AND LOOK AT THAT. 
          UM, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT LIVES, WHERE THAT EXISTS TODAY RIGHT. 
          OR WHAT THAT NUMBER MIGHT BE WITHOUT ANY KIND OF COST BEING INCURRED BY EITHER THE APPLICANT OR THE CITY. 
          SURE. 
          AND BUT IF WE GO WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT IT'S 80%, EVEN IF, YOU KNOW, MAYBE ONCE THEY GOT TO WATERSHED IT COULD HAVE BEEN 85. 
          THAT THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S CERTAINLY A POSSIBILITY. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I APPRECIATE IT. 
          ALRIGHT, MR. ANDERSON, I'D LOVE TO ASK SOMEONE FROM THE CHURCH TO COME UP AND JUST KIND OF TALK US THROUGH KIND OF WHAT ARE YOUR CHALLENGES TODAY? AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT MIGHT BE THE DIFFERENCE IF YOU GET STAFF RECOMMENDATION VERSUS WHAT YOU ARE REQUESTING WITH YOUR AGENT? YOU KNOW, CAN YOU WALK THROUGH MAYBE JUST THE CHALLENGES OF JUST RUNNING THE CHURCH NOWADAYS AND, AND HOW THIS MIGHT HELP? THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO SHARE, UH, GRONER PASTOR ALPHA CHURCH. 
          UM, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, ONE OF THE GREATEST CHALLENGES FOR US IS THE UNBECOMING LOT AT THE BACK. 
          UM, THE WEATHER MAKES IT PRETTY, PRETTY UN UNPACKABLE AND INDIVIDUALS WHO COME, UH, USUALLY ON SATURDAYS, UH, OUR OTHER EVENTS, WHEN THE WEATHER IS BAD, UM, HAVE TO TRUST THROUGH THAT UNEVEN AREA. 
          UH, I'M, I'M A PASTOR WHO BELIEVES IN EXCELLENCE. 
          MY CHURCH WILL TELL YOU I, I BELIEVE IN EXCELLENCE AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT, UH, THIS BACK LOT IS CURRENTLY EXCELLENT IN SERVING OUR PARISHIONERS, UH, AS WELL AS SERVING OUR COMMUNITIES. 
          I'M THINKING OF INDIVIDUALS WHO COME, UH, ON A WEEKLY BASIS TO THE FOOD PANTRY, UH, INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE, UH, ON THE MARGINS OF SOCIETY AND IN SOME CASES STRATEGICALLY MALIGNED, UH, WHO HAVE TO TRUDGE THROUGH UNEVEN WEAR, PERHAPS DAMAGING CARS. 
          UH, THIS IS NOT THE KIND OF MINISTRY THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE OR THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO EXECUTE. 
          AND SO OVERALL, I'M HOPING THAT WITH A FAVORABLE OUTCOME, UH, WE CAN HAVE A PARKING LOT THAT MEETS OUR NEED, THAT MEETS OUR COMMUNITY'S NEED, THAT MEETS OUR CITY'S NEED, BUT ALSO TAKES INTO ACCOUNT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UM, BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 80 YEARS, WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 40 YEARS, BEEN IN CHURCH FOR 80 YEARS, UH, BUT BEING A PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR ME MEETS ALSO BEING A GOOD COMMUNITY MEMBER AND ACTING IN GOOD FAITH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S ALL. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          OKAY, WE HAVE TWO MORE SPOTS FOR QUESTIONS. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. 
          OH, COMMISSIONER COX. 
          I WAS JUST GONNA MAKE, UH, MAKE THE MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON BOTH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE, UH, ZONING CHANGE. 
          [01:10:01]
OKAY. 
          LOOKING FOR A SECOND. 
          I'LL SECOND. 
          UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH. 
          UH, I, I, I VERY MUCH SUPPORT WHAT THE CHURCH IS, IS WANTING TO DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY. 
          UM, I'LL BE COMPLETELY HONEST, I I I GET THE IMPRESSION THAT, UM, UH, THE CHURCH IS, IS POTENTIALLY SHOOTING FOR THE MOON AS IT RELATES TO IMPERVIOUS COVER, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE UNDERSTANDING, UM, AT LEAST AT THIS POINT OF WHAT IS POSSIBLE ONCE YOU ACTUALLY FACTOR IN ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS, THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, THE STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS, UM, AND WHAT THEY'RE, WHAT THEY'RE DESCRIBING TO US IS WHAT THEY WANNA DO, I THINK IS, IS EXTREMELY FEASIBLE WITHIN THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF LR. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE FOR MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY HOW WE SHOULD BE ZONING OUR CITY. 
          WE SHOULD BE ZONING OUR CITY BASED ON WHAT CATEGORY MAKES THE MOST SENSE IN THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION. 
          AND I JUST DON'T THINK GR WOULD SET A GOOD PRECEDENT IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION. 
          LR SEEMS LIKE A MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE USE AND, AND I THINK THE APPLICANT RECOGNIZES THAT BY TRIMMING BACK ALL OF THE USES DOWN TO LR AND SO I, I DON'T FEEL LIKE 90% IMPERVIOUS COVER AND 75% BUILDING COVERAGE IS NEEDED FOR WHAT THEY'VE EXPLAINED THAT THEY'D LIKE TO DO. 
          I ALSO FEEL LIKE IT'S A LITTLE BIT REGRESSIVE BECAUSE OFTENTIMES WHEN WE SEE DEVELOPMENTS WITH 90% IMPERVIOUS COVER, IT'S USUALLY HUGE PARKING LOTS ON REALLY OLD STRIP MALLS. 
          AND WE'RE DEALING WITH A REDEVELOPMENT WHERE WE'RE SHOOTING FOR SOMETHING WITH LESS IMPERVIOUS COVER, UM, AND MORE, MORE BENEFITS. 
          AND SO, UM, I THINK BY APPROVING STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WE'RE STILL ALLOWING THE APPLICANT AND THE, AND THE CHURCH TO DO WHAT THEY WANT IN THE FUTURE, UM, WITHOUT LETTING THE IMPERVIOUS COVER SETBACKS, THAT SORT OF THING, GET, GET IN THEIR WAY, WHICH IS WHY SUPPORT WHAT THE APPLICANT IS OR WHAT THE STAFF IS PROPOSING. 
          SURE. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SUBSTITUTE MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          I'D LIKE TO MOVE WITH, UH, APPLICANT REQUEST FOR ITEMS 12 AND 13. 
          SO YOU A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HANEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? I WOULD, I WOULD. 
          UM, I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE SEARCH COMING DOWN HERE TODAY, AND I WANT THEM TO SHOOT FOR THE MOON. 
          AND I, I THINK COMMISSIONER HANEY HAD A REALLY GOOD POINT OF THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MAXING THESE THINGS OUT, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE FOR THE CHURCH TO SUCCEED AND TO CONTINUE SUCCEEDING. 
          UM, WE HEARD FROM OUR DEMOGRAPHER LAST NIGHT THAT THERE'S A LOT OF CHANGES IN AUSTIN'S DEMOGRAPHY RIGHT NOW, AND THERE'S A CHURCH HOLDING ON AND THERE'S A CHURCH THAT'S STILL, YOU KNOW, DOING AMAZING THINGS 80 YEARS IN. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK I'VE FOUGHT FOR A PARKING LOT ONE TIME ON THIS COMMISSION, , AND I DON'T PLAN TO IN THE FUTURE. 
          THAT BEING SAID, I, I ALSO UNDERSTAND WHAT DISPLACEMENT IS DOING AND THE COST OF LIVING. 
          AND MY GUESS IS THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF FOLKS THAT ARE STILL A PART OF THIS CHURCH THAT DO NOW HAVE TO COMMUTE IN AND CULTURAL DISPLACEMENT IS REAL AS WELL AS NEIGHBORHOOD DISPLACEMENT AND PEOPLE GETTING DISPLACED. 
          AND I DON'T WANT TO PLAY A ROLE IN DISPLACING THIS CHURCH OR ANYONE FROM ATTENDING THIS CHURCH. 
          AND SO I HOPE THAT WE CAN SUPPORT WHAT THE CHURCH IS REQUESTING. 
          COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST, UH, I'LL SPEAK AGAINST, UH, YES. 
          COMMISSIONER SMORE. 
          YEAH, I THINK THAT, UH, I GUESS I'LL ECHO OF COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S COMMENTS. 
          I, I THINK THE IDEA THAT WE WOULD BE APPROVING, UH, 90% IMPERVIOUS COVER ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE IT'S BEEN DESCRIBED AS NEEDING FOR PARKING THAT IS, IS JUST SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T SIT, SIT WELL WITH ME. 
          AND I DON'T WANNA DIVE INTO THE WEEDS LIKE ENGINEERS CAN, BUT IT'S HARD FOR ME TO NOT LOOK AT THE SITE AND LOOK AT THE FRONT PARKING LOT AS IT EXISTS TODAY AND ASK MYSELF, WHY IS THE DRIVE AISLE IN THAT PARKING LOT ALMOST 40 FEET WIDE? LIKE, I'M ALREADY TRYING TO SOLVE THE PUZZLE TO GET MORE SPACES ON THE PAVEMENT THEY HAVE BEFORE WE PERMIT AN ADDITIONAL 10% BEYOND STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          COMMISSIONER SPEAKING, FOUR. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER ZA. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          UH, I'LL, I'LL SPEAK FOR THIS MOTION. 
          I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD A PRETTY ROBUST CONVERSATION AND IT REALLY BOILS DOWN TO THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND BETWEEN, UM, THE MAXIMUM COVERAGE PIECE. 
          AND I REALLY HAVE TO SAY WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING FROM STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS REALLY THEIR CONCERN ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS SOMETHING THAT BELONGS MID-BLOCK OR NOT, BUT 
          [01:15:01]
WITH THOSE SORT OF AMENDED USES THAT THE APPLICANT IS OPEN TO, IT IS SOMETHING THAT WORKS WITHIN MID-BLOCK. 
          WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDOR. 
          THIS IS 51ST STREET AND SORT OF THE WORK, AND IT DOES HAVE ACCESS TO BOTH OF THESE STREETS. 
          SO THERE IS THAT PRECEDENT OF DOING IT. 
          AND INDEED YOU CAN SEE THAT PRECEDENT IN OTHER PARTS OF THE SAME CORRIDOR, WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW, MIDBLOCK OR OTHERWISE. 
          AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, I'VE SPOKEN BEFORE HERE, I UNDERSTAND THAT SOMETIMES WE WANT TO, YOU KNOW, MINIMIZE THE IMPACT AND REALLY PROVIDE THE APPLICANT SORT OF FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY NEED. 
          BUT WE, WE ARE OFTEN REALLY LOOKING AT ZONING CASES COMING FROM LARGE INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT BODIES WHO ARE COMING IN AND HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF RESOURCES. 
          AND I THINK HERE AS SOMETIMES WE DO SEE, WE HAVE SORT OF, YOU KNOW, SMALL COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS A FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATION HERE COMING BEFORE US AND ASKING FOR THAT FLEXIBILITY SO THAT THEY CAN SERVE THEIR PARISHIONERS SO THAT THEY CAN SERVE THEIR COMMUNITY, WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW, THROUGH EXPANDING THEIR CONGREGATION AND WHETHER THAT REQUIRES PARKING OR WHETHER THAT'S, YOU KNOW, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY AROUND THEM. 
          AND I TRULY BELIEVE PROVIDING THEM WITH THE FLEXIBILITY HERE ALLOWS THEM TO DO WHAT THEY THINK IS NECESSARY FOR THEIR COMMUNITY. 
          AND I'M NOT SURE WHY WE WOULD, WE WOULD USE ZONING TO INHIBIT THAT SORT OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENGAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT THAT A PROPERTY OWNER WOULD LIKE TO DO. 
          SO I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS SPEAKING AGAINST OR FOUR? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. 
          THIS IS THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HANEY. 
          UM, FOR THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST ON, I WANNA CLARIFY THIS. 
          THE ADDRESS IS 30 16 EAST 51ST STREET. 
          IT IS, UH, DIFFERENT ADDRESS IN THE AGENDA. 
          IT'S CORRECT IN THE BACKUP THOUGH. 
          UM, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          8, 9, 10, 11. 
          AND LOOKS LIKE TWO AGAINST THOSE WOULD BE COMMERS, COX, AND SKIDMORE CHAIR. 
          YES. 
          POINT OF INFORMATION, YES. 
          MAYBE FOR STAFF, WOULD THAT MEAL THAT PASTOR GRONER OFFERED BE CONSIDERED LOBBYING ? AND IF IT'S NOT, I WANNA TAKE PART, BUT IF IT'S CANCELED, . 
          ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. 
          EXCUSE ME. 
          WE'RE GOING TO MOVE 
          [Items 19 & 20]
ON TO ITEMS. WE'LL TAKE UP 19 AND 20 TOGETHER. 
          THIS IS FOR PDA TWO. 
          UM, SO WE'LL HEAR FROM MR. PONTY. 
          AND REMEMBER, WE HEARD THIS AT OUR LAST MEETING, I BELIEVE, UM, POSTPONED. 
          UM, SO HERE WE ARE. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, STAFF DID NOT AMEND THE PROPOSAL DUE TO THE SHORT TIMELINE OF THE BUFFER, SO WE DON'T HAVE AN UPDATE AS FAR AS THE PRESENTATION FOR UPDATE. 
          UM, I DID WANNA SHARE, UM, THAT WE ARE HOSTING A VIRTUAL PUBLIC MEETING. 
          SO THE TIMELINE OVERALL HAS CHANGED, OBVIOUSLY DUE TO THE POSTPONEMENT THAT OCCURRED AT THE LAST MEETING. 
          SO WE ARE HERE TODAY AT PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          UH, WE ARE HOSTING A VIRTUAL PUBLIC MEETING ON ZOOM ON OCTOBER 28TH. 
          THE LINK IS THERE. 
          UM, IT IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON OUR UP WEBSITE. 
          UM, AND THEN CITY COUNCIL IS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 24TH. 
          WE'RE, UH, THAT IS TOMORROW. 
          WE'RE POSTPONING TO A LATER DATE AT TOMORROW'S COUNCIL MEETING. 
          THAT'S ALL HAPPENED. 
          ALRIGHT, SHORT AND SWEET. 
          UM, LET'S SEE, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? MS. GARCIA? YES. 
          CHAIR. 
          I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER. 
          UM, OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS ANGELA GARZA. 
          ANGELA WILL BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY. 
          ANGELA, PLEASE, PLEASE PRESS SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS. 
          YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN GO AHEAD. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          UM, I JUST REALLY WANNA GIVE A QUICK UPDATE. 
          UM, WE'VE BEEN MEETING WITH GOOD FRIENDS, UM, UH, MR. LAWLER OF, UH, NATASHA'S TEAM ABOUT THIS SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND THIS MORE. 
          WE HAD A MEETING WITH OUR, OUR CONTACT TEAM AS WELL, UM, TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THESE, UM, UH, DEVELOPMENTS AND TO, UM, UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS PROCESS IS GOING TO BE LIKE SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND 
          [01:20:01]
EXACTLY THE, THE REASONING THEY'RE DOING IT. 
          UH, WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE IN A LOT OF INFORMATION. 
          IT WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT WE WERE DOING. 
          UH, AND SO WE, UM, BASICALLY WHAT WE FIGURED OUT IS THAT I THINK ONLY A THOUSAND PEOPLE, UM, MAYBE HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED BY THIS 'CAUSE WE'RE ALL, EVERYBODY'S WORKING ON TRYING TO NOTIFY PEOPLE BETTER ABOUT THESE CHANGES IN OUR COMMUNITY. 
          AND I ALSO WANNA READ SOMETHING THAT CAME FROM OUR LAWYER. 
          I ALSO WANNA THANK ERIC BIRD AND I, I FORGET THE LADY'S NAME IN A, IN A TEAM, BUT THEY WERE ALL VERY GRACIOUS TO MEET WITH US, UM, TO TALK MORE ABOUT THIS AS WELL. 
          UM, BUT I DO WANNA, UM, GET SOME THOUGHTS. 
          AND THIS CAME, I'M NOT A LAWYER. 
          THIS CAME FROM A LAWYER. 
          UM, IT SAYS HERE THAT, THAT THESE CHANGES WILL NOT YIELD THE INTENDED RESULTS AND COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT HARM. 
          UM, HERE'S A DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF THE KEY ISSUES AND WHY WE SHOULD OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL. 
          EXCESSIVE DEVELOPER FLEXIBILITY AND LACK OF OVERSIGHT. 
          IT SAYS, UM, THE PBAT COMBINING DISTRICT SECTION C 20 2024 17 ALLOWS DEVELOPERS TO MODIFY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD STANDARDS SUCH AS BUILDING HEIGHT AND BORDER RATIO, AREA RATIO FAR, BUT WITHOUT THEIR RESTRICTIONS OR CHECKS. 
          THESE MODIFICATIONS GIVE DEVELOPERS FAR TOO MUCH CONTROL OVER WHAT CAN BE BUILT, CREATING A DANGEROUS LEVEL OF FLEXIBILITY THAT COULD PRIORITIZE PROFIT OVER COMMUNITY NEEDS. 
          ADDITIONALLY, THE DB TWO 40 DENSITY BONUS FOR COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY AND INDUSTRIALS AND GRANTS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN EXCHANGE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT DOESN'T SET PARAMETERS FOR ENFORCEMENT. 
          AND I KNOW THAT WE WERE TALKING TO MR. LAWLER ABOUT FLOORS, HIM INCREASING FLOORS. 
          DEVELOPERS COULD EXPLOIT THESE PROVISIONS TO SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS AFTER RISK SAVING APPROVAL OF LEAVING NEIGHBORHOODS VULNERABLE TO OVER DEVELOPMENT. 
          THE, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISIONS IN THE DB TWO 40 ZONE ARE MINIMAL. 
          AND WHEN COMPARED TO THE MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT BENEFITS IT OFFERS, FOR EXAMPLE, ONLY 10 TO 15% OF UNITS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, DEPENDING ON THE HEIGHT INCREASED GRANTED UP TO 240 FEET. 
          THIS IS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE SCALE OF THE INCENTIVES LEAVING A GAP BETWEEN WHAT DEVELOPERS GAIN AND WHAT THE COMMUNITY RECEIVES. 
          THERE'S ALSO AN OPTION FOR FEE AND LIE, WHICH MEANS DEVELOPERS CAN PAY A FEE INSTEAD OF BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          AND THIS WEAKENS THE IMPACT ON HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND REDUCES THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE ACTUAL AFFORDABLE UNITS BEING DEVELOPED, PARTICULARLY IN HIGH RISK DISPLACEMENT AREAS LIKE DISTRICT 1, 2 3. 
          UM, THE CDC AND EPA HIGHLIGHT THE HEALTH RISK ASSOCIATE WERE LIVING NEAR HIGHWAYS, INCLUDING INCREASED RISK OF ASTHMA, CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE, AND OTHER HEALTH ISSUES. 
          SECTION EIGHT OF AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT, THE DBT, UH, THE DBT 4 2 40 AMENDMENTS ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY ZONES, WHICH ARE NEAR MAJOR TRAFFIC ROUTES. 
          THIS INTRODUCES SERIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RISKS, PARTICULARLY FOR LOW INCOME AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR THAT WILL BE DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED BY SUCH DEVELOPMENT. 
          THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT INCLUDE SUFFICIENT GUIDELINES OR STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE THESE RISKS, LEAVING VULNERABLE POPULATIONS AT A HIGHER RISK OF EXPOSURE TO AIR POLLUTION AND RELATED TO HEALTHY, UM, HEALTH CONCERNS. 
          ALSO, AIRSPACE RIGHTS AND LOOPHOLES. 
          DEV DEVELOPERS WILL BE ALLOWED TO SELL OR LEASE AIRSPACE RIGHTS, GIVING THEM THE ABILITY TO ALTER APPROVED PROJECTS WITHOUT THE COMMUNITY'S INPUT. 
          THIS INTRODUCES SIGNIFICANT UNCERTAINTY AS DEVELOPERS COULD SPLIT PROPERTIES OR SELL AIRSPACE AFTER GAINING APPROVAL, RESULTING IN PROJECTS THAT ARE VERY DIFFERENT. 
          BUT WHAT WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED ONCE APPROVED, THESE AMENDMENTS COULD LEAD TO A SERIOUS, A SERIES OF CHANGES THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS LITTLE CONTROL OVER CREATING LOOPHOLES THAT ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO PRIORITIZE FINANCIAL GAIN OVER LONG-TERM COMMUNITY WELLBEING. 
          ALSO, THE DISTRICT'S MOST AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSAL, DISTRICT 1, 2, 3, AND FOUR ARE ALREADY AT HIGH RISK OF DISPLACEMENT. 
          THESE AREAS HAVE VULNERABLE POPULATIONS AND A DB TWO 40 PROVISIONS ENCOURAGED THE KIND OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT THAT THAT COULD INCREASE PROPERTY VALUES AND RENT AND THE LONG-TERM RESIDENTS OUT. 
          UM, AM I, DO YOU STILL HAVE TIME? HELLO? YES. 
          20 SECONDS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND THEN SO WE COMMUNITY SAFEGUARD, BUT I DO WANNA SPEAK TO ALL THE WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING WITH MR. LAWLER. 
          HE'S, WHO'S BEEN TRYING TO EXPLAIN THIS WITH US AS WELL. 
          AND I CAN SEND Y'ALL A COPY OF THIS SO THAT Y'ALL CAN HAVE THIS FOR YOUR RECORDS SO YOU CAN REVIEW THIS. 
          THIS CAME FROM A LAND DEVELOPMENT CO LAWYER TO ACTUALLY CONSIDER AS WELL AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, AND WE COULD ACTUALLY ADD BENEFITS ON MR. LO LOLA, UM, UH, DIRECTION AS WELL. 
          AND I'M SO SORRY TO HAVE TO SPEAK SO FAST ON THIS, BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          HAVE A GREAT EVENING. 
          THANK YOU, MS. GARZA. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, CHAIR. 
          THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, LET'S VOTE TO, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          THANK YOU FOR A MOTION. 
          UM, SO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          YES. 
          [01:25:02]
SO, AND I, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S TIME FOR THIS QUESTION BEFORE I'M SORRY. 
          GO AHEAD WITH YOUR QUESTION AND THEN, OKAY. 
          THE, UM, THE EMAIL THAT WE RECEIVED FROM ANDREW RIVERA, UM, THAT TALKED ABOUT PROPER NOTICING, IS THAT THE TIME TO ASK ABOUT THIS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE, UM, THE FOLKS WERE PROPERLY NOTICED ABOUT REGARDING THE POSTPONEMENT. 
          UM, WE'LL GET INTO THAT. 
          SO LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING OKAY. 
          AND THEN WE CAN TAKE THAT UP AS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK, SURE. 
          OKAY, SO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AND THEN SECOND, UM, COMMISSIONER HANEY. 
          ALL, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          UH, I'LL  SORRY, THERE'S SOME BACKGROUND NOISE. 
          IS THAT MS. GARZA? YES. 
          OKAY, MS. GARZA, CAN YOU PLEASE GO ON MUTE? UM, OKAY. 
          WE'LL DO THIS AGAIN. 
          SO THE MOTION WAS, UH, TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HANEY. 
          UNLESS THERE IS OPPOSITION, THAT MOTION PASSES. 
          OKAY. 
          FIRST QUESTION, COMMISSIONER PHYS. 
          YEAH, I THINK THAT WE ALL GOT A COPY OF THE EMAIL FROM ANDREW RIVERA, UM, TALKING ABOUT WHEN THERE'S A POST POSTPONEMENT THAT THE, THE, THE, UH, RE-NOTICE HAS TO BE DONE BY DATE AND TIME. 
          AND IN THE EMAIL THAT WE GOT, HE HAD ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT HAD HAPPENED. 
          AND AS OF THE EMAILS THAT I'VE RECEIVED, I'VE NOT SEEN IT ANSWERED. 
          SO I'M KIND OF ASKING WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS REPOSTED ACCORDING TO THE CODE THAT HE HAD. 
          HE CITES IN THE EMAIL BY DATE AND BY TIME THAT WOULD BE, I GUESS, FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE EVENING COMMISSIONERS CHAIR, STEVIE GREATHOUSE, UM, PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKING UP ALAN PAN THIS EVENING. 
          ON THIS ITEM, UM, THIS ITEM, WE DID SEND OUT PUBLISHED NOTICE AND NOTICE TO THE COMMUNITY REGISTRY AS IS REQUIRED FOR A CODE AMENDMENT, UM, THAT IS AMENDING THE CODE AND NOT AMENDING PROPERTY SPECIFIC ZONING, UM, REGULATIONS. 
          THIS WORK IS A, A TEXT AMENDMENT TO CREATE TWO NEW PAPER DISTRICTS. 
          UM, IN TERMS OF THE POSTPONEMENT REQUESTS, WE DID POSTPONE TO A DATE AND TIME CERTAIN, UM, AT THIS BODY LAST TIME. 
          AND THERE WAS ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, EXPLICITLY TO POSTPONE TO THIS EVENING. 
          I ACTUALLY WENT AND, UM, WATCHED THROUGH ALL OF Y'ALL'S DELIBERATIONS AND ACTIONS EARLIER TODAY. 
          UM, AND THAT, UH, SATISFIED FOR PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          IN TERMS OF COUNSEL, WE ACTUALLY ARE CURRENTLY POSTED, UM, TO BE HEARD AT COUNCIL ON THURSDAY, UM, WITH A POSTPONEMENT REQUEST, UM, THAT IS MOVING FORWARD AS A MEMO AND BACKUP TO COUNCIL TO POSTPONE TO A DATE AND TIME CERTAIN. 
          UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE'RE WITHIN BOUNDS IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF DAYS OF POSTPONEMENT. 
          THERE ARE LIMITS AROUND NUMBER OF DAYS. 
          UM, THERE MAY BE A, A DESIRE FROM THIS BODY TO ASK LAW FOR SOME SPECIFIC FEEDBACK, BUT OUR UNDERSTANDING FROM THE PLANNING STAFF PERSPECTIVE IS THAT WE ARE WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS. 
          SO THE ANSWER IS YES, THE ANSWER IS YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? DID I SEE YOUR HAND? OKAY, CHAIR COHEN, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I JUST WANTED TO THROW SOMETHING OUT FROM A BOA PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE I GET HAMMERED ON IT ALL THE TIME IF I MISS IT. 
          I, I THINK WHAT THEY WERE REFERRING TO IS MAYBE MORE RULES AND PROCEDURES, UH, OF, OF, OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAN ACTUAL, UH, WHAT WAS DONE. 
          THE POSTING IN THE BACK OF HAD A SPECIFIC TIME AND DATE, BUT I THINK WHAT'S BEING REFERRED TO IS WHEN WE VOTE, OR SORRY, WHEN Y'ALL VOTE HERE, I DON'T GET ONE OF THOSE, UH, THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY VOTING FOR A SPECIFIC DATE AND TIME THAT'S BEEN VERBALIZED. 
          I THINK TRADITIONALLY WHAT, WHAT THE PC HAS DONE IS JUST GIVEN A DATE, BUT NOT A SPECIFIC TIME. 
          AND I KNOW THAT'S REALLY, REALLY NITPICKY, BUT LEGALLY SPEAKING, MAYBE IT'S JUST SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE MORE CAREFUL OF IN THE FUTURE, I GUESS. 
          DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? AM AM I CORRECT IN THAT? NO, MS. HANS, IS THAT A LEGAL QUESTION? MAYBE? ARE YOU SAYING ANY FUTURE POST? WE DON'T SAY TIME AND A DATE. 
          WE WOULD SAY THE DATE, BUT WE NEVER SAY LIKE, LIKE 6:00 PM 6:00 PM OR 7:00 PM YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          I'M NO LAWYER, BUT I HAVE, THE STANDARD PRACTICE HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO POSTPONE TO A DATE WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE TIME IS THE START TIME FOR THE MEETING. 
          WHY CAN'T WE GET AWAY WITH THAT? 
          [01:30:01]
MY FAVORITE QUESTION, DO WE HAVE LEGAL ONLINE ? NOT SURE. 
          MS. GARCIA. 
          I DIDN'T SAY IT. 
          I LEFT IT TO HIM THIS TIME. 
          WE MIGHT HAVE TO COME BACK IF WE REALLY WANT LAW TO COME ON. 
          NEVERMIND. 
          THIS WAS JUST A OKAY. 
          CLARIFICATION MAYBE, OR, OKAY. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH. 
          CHAIR, UH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SORRY, THIS IS JUST A, A CLARIFYING QUESTION. 
          I HAD TO STEP AWAY FOR A MINUTE. 
          UM, AND I THINK I MISSED THE JUICY PART. 
          ARE WE POSTPONE, ARE WE DISCUSSING POSTPONEMENT OF ITEMS 19 AND 20 RIGHT NOW? WE WERE, UM, NOT DISCUSSING POSTPONEMENT TONIGHT, JUST MORE OF THE TECHNICALITIES OF WHAT A POSTPONEMENT IS. 
          SO HOW, JUST SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT, UH, WHAT IS ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW? WE CLOSED A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT IS THAT JUST ON ITEMS 19 AND 20? WHAT, WHAT, WHAT DID WE HEAR FROM STAFF? THAT'S THE PART I MISSED. 
          NO. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          WE HAD A COM UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS USED HER TIME FOR A QUESTION REGARDING, UH, NOTICE AND, UH, STARTED TO GET INTO A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT POSTPONEMENT. 
          YEAH, NO, I'M SORRY. 
          I I MISSED THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION. 
          I CAME RIGHT AFTER RIGHT WHEN WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          UM, IT JUST SEEMED THAT WAS REALLY BRIEF. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          OKAY. 
          TO HEAR. 
          YES. 
          ITEM 19 AND 20, UM, STAFF, WOULD YOU LIKE TO  MR. PANTY? WOULD YOU LIKE TO, SORRY, I, I I CAN GO BACK AND WATCH THE RECORDING LATER. 
          I JUST WANNA KNOW, YOU KNOW, IF WE END UP VOTING ON SOMETHING, WHAT I'M VOTING ON. 
          YEAH. 
          HI, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          UH, STEPH DIDN'T UPDATE THE PROPOSAL DUE TO THE SHORTENED TIMELINE. 
          WE DID PROVIDE A BRIEF UPDATE ON THE GENERAL TIMELINE OF THESE CODE AMENDMENTS, UM, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS POSTPONEMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TONIGHT. 
          WE ARE HOSTING A VIRTUAL, UH, PUBLIC MEETING ON THE 28TH ON MONDAY AT 6:00 PM UH, WE ARE STILL SCHEDULED TO GO TO COUNCIL ON THURSDAY THE 24TH, BUT WE HAVE SUBMITTED A MEMO FOR POSTPONEMENT TO THE FOLLOWING, UH, COUNCIL MEETING, WHICH IS NOVEMBER 7TH. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MM-HMM. 
           CHAIR HEMPEL. 
          I ALSO RECEIVED WORD BACK FROM LAW AND WAS TOLD THAT MS. GREATHOUSE ANSWERED CORRECTLY AND THAT A PC POSTPONEMENT TO THE NEXT MEETING IS TO 6:00 PM UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 
          POINT, POINT OF THERE'S ALSO A, A ZOOM PUBLIC MEETING ON OCTOBER 28TH. 
          OH, I THINK WE'RE JUST TALKING IN GENERAL ABOUT POSTPONEMENTS AND WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF IT BEING A 6:00 PM YES. 
          BUT THAT WAS THE OTHER ITEM THAT STAFF PRESENTED FOR COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, AND THAT WAS TO ANSWER COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER COX. 
          SO I, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED NOW. 
          I, IS THERE A MOTION TO POSTPONE? 'CAUSE I'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT. 
          NO, NO, WE HAVE NOT. 
          UM, WE'RE JUST TALKING IN GENERAL ABOUT POSTPONEMENTS. 
          THERE HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSION OF A POSTPONE. 
          I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO PASS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, AND I ASSUME WE'RE GONNA GET INTO THESE AMENDMENTS ON 19 AND 20. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE THE BASE MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WOODS, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE SOME AMENDMENTS, UM, THAT WE CAN YES. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, YES, AND I'LL JUST DO A LITTLE BIT OF HOUSEKEEPING FIRST. 
          UM, FIRST OF ALL, I AM PLAYING UNSUCCESSFULLY THE COMM, THE ROLE OF COMMISSIONER ARE. 
          SO IF YOU SEE MY NAME ALL OVER THE PLACE, I REALLY APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE BECAUSE I'M NOT AS GOOD AT THIS AS HE IS, AND I WILL PROBABLY FAIL MULTIPLE TIMES, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR FORGIVENESS IN ADVANCE. 
          UM, UH, BUT I WILL JUST POINT OUT THAT I DID SHARE A WOR A WORKSHEET RELATED TO THE AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE, UM, DB TWO 40. 
          AND I DO WANNA CLARIFY THAT THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING HERE. 
          THAT'S WHY IT'S TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS. ALL OF THESE PRIMARILY P PERTAIN TO THE DB TWO 40 DENSITY BONUS, UM, OR ORDINANCE. 
          UM, I THINK THERE'S MAYBE ONE OR TWO THAT MAY END UP BEING RELATED TO THE PDA TWO, BUT THAT'S REALLY THE FOCUS HERE IS ON THE DENSITY BONUS AND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          UM, THAT'S WHAT THOSE AMENDMENTS ARE PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON. 
          AND THERE ARE JUST ONE OTHER NOTE THAT THERE ARE SOME TEXT AMENDMENTS IN HERE, BUT WE WOULD EXPECT THAT THEY WOULD BE SORT OF CONSIDERED AND LOOKED AT, UM, BY STAFF. 
          SO PROBABLY MOST OF THESE ARE ACTUALLY GENERAL AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD HAVE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT STAFF COULD PULL FROM. 
          SO THE TEXT AMENDMENTS, WHILE GUIDING PRINCIPLES ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE EXACT LANGUAGE THEY'RE EXPECTING TO SEE WHEN THIS ORDINANCE GOES TO THE FULL CONSIDERATION FOR COUNCIL. 
          SO THAT'S JUST TO GIVE YOU ALL SOME HOUSEKEEPING AND GENERAL OVERVIEW. 
          AND I'M HAPPY TO START ON THE AMENDMENTS AND, OR WE CAN HAVE IF THERE'S ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. 
          MM-HMM. 
           MADAM CHAIR PROBLEM IS YOUR INQUIRY. 
          YES. 
          UM, ARE WE GONNA TAKE THESE UP AT 19, DISPOSE OF IT, 20 
          [01:35:01]
DISPOSE OF IT? ARE WE DOING BOTH OF THEM TO GET, WHAT, WHAT'S OUR PROCESS HERE? UM, YES, LET'S MAKE IT CLEAR AND GO THAT ROUTE. 
          SO WE'LL START WITH NUMBER 19, 19 DISPOSE OF IT, AND THEN 20 AND OH. 
          PERFECT. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          STARTING WITH 19. 
          CHAIR. 
          CHAIR. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER COX. 
          CAN I JUST SEE IF, IF THERE'S A SECOND FOR A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS TO OUR, UH, NOVEMBER 12TH MEETING? YOU MAY. 
          SO THE MOTION IS TO POSTPONE TO SEPTEMBER, SORRY, NOVEMBER 12TH. 
          NOVEMBER 12TH. 
          I'LL SECOND THAT. 
          YOU HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? UH, IT'S VERY SIMPLE. 
          WE, WE JUST HEARD FROM STAFF THAT THEY'VE REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT AT COUNCIL. 
          WE'VE ALSO HEARD THAT, THAT THEIR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS IS STILL ONGOING. 
          AND SO IT WOULD BE KIND OF NICE TO BE AS A PLANNING COMMISSION AND MAKING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL, UH, BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS PLAYED OUT, WHAT SORT OF FEEDBACK THEY GOT AND, AND MAKE AN EDUCATED RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THAT. 
          COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          YEAH, I, I'M NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO THE IDEA OF A POSTPONEMENT, BUT IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, STAFF SAID THAT THEY ARE POSTPONING TO THE NOVEMBER 7TH COUNCIL MEETING, SO IF WE POSTPONE TO NOVEMBER 12TH, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO WEIGH IN. 
          AND THAT WOULD JUST PUSH THE WHOLE TIMELINE EVEN FURTHER BACK. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE STAFF NEEDS A WEEK , BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M COMFORTABLE SAYING, OKAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU NEED A WEEK. 
          WE'RE GETTING YOU FOUR TO SIX TO EIGHT WEEKS TO DO THIS SO THAT WE CAN FIND TIME FOR US TO HEAR IT. 
          AND THEN A COUNCIL MEETING WHO KNOW WHAT A WEEK, TWO WEEKS AFTER THAT. 
          I'D RATHER JUST DISPOSE OF IT NOW. 
          I FEEL LIKE IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR QUITE A WHILE AND, UH, WE CAN, WE CAN WEIGH IN NOW AND, AND LET COUNSEL HAVE A FEW WEEKS TO CONSIDER IT BEFORE THEIR NOVEMBER 7TH MEETING. 
          COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR THE POSTPONEMENT COMMISSIONER HAY. 
          UM, I, LET ME, I, THE ONLY THE REASON THAT I VOTED OR, UH, AGREED TO THE POSTPONEMENT IS I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A WHILE. 
          AND, AND, AND COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AT OUR LAST MEETING SWAYED ME THAT, YOU KNOW, WE GOT SOME PENDING ONES, SO WE DO NEED TO TAKE SOME ACTION ON IT. 
          BUT THE ONE THING THAT JUST MAKES ME QUEASY IS THAT, UM, AND, AND, AND LET ME GIVE THE SHOUT OUT TO MR. UH, PAN PONTY IS, UM, YOU KNOW, HE DID GO, DIDN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES BASED ON SOME OF THE INPUT, BUT DID GO OUT AND, AND SCHEDULE A PUBLIC MEETING. 
          AND SO I, I APPRECIATE, I ABSOLUTELY APPRECIATE THAT, I APPRECIATE STAFF DOING THAT. 
          BUT, BUT NOW WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON THIS AND IT'S GONNA FAST. 
          UH, WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON THIS AND THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING. 
          WHAT IF WE GET THE MAGICAL SOLUTION FROM THE PUBLIC AND WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE THE ABILITY TO WEIGH IN? SURE. 
          COUNSEL CAN WEIGH IN AND THAT'S WHO ULTIMATELY MAKES THE DECISION ANYWAY, BUT IT, IT JUST MAKES ME NERVOUS THAT WE'RE GONNA DO IT. 
          WE'RE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. 
          SO NO, SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ, I WOULD, I DO GENERALLY AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I THINK. 
          UM, BUT WE HAVE, I I HAVE SPENT SOME TIME TODAY LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE AND THINKING ABOUT IT IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS AND, AND LOOKING THROUGH PAST, UM, YOU KNOW, WORK THAT THE CITY HAS DONE AND, AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE CAN KIND OF ADDRESS SOME OF MY CONCERNS. 
          AND SO WHILE I DO, I, I PLAN ON ATTENDING THE PUBLIC MEETING, UM, AND LISTENING TO WHAT THE PUBLIC HAS TO SAY. 
          AND I, I JUST HOPE THAT COUNSEL WILL TAKE THOSE THOUGHTS INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN THEY MAKE THEIR DECISION. 
          LAST SPOT FOUR, THE POSTPONEMENT OR AGAINST. 
          ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS TO POSTPONE TO NOVEMBER 12TH. 
          ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          TWO, THREE, COUNTING. 
          THREE THOSE AGAINST 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. 
          THAT'S 10 AGAIN. 
          SO THAT MOTION FAILS. 
          WE'LL GO BACK TO OUR BASE. 
          THIS IS FOR, UH, NUMBER 19. 
          WE'RE GOING TO START WITH OUR AMENDMENTS, UM, AS WAS SENT TO US. 
          SO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DID YOU WANNA LEAD THE CONVERSATION ON THE AMENDMENTS? YES. 
          AND I CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION PLEASE HERE? YES. 
          UM, WE HAVE MADE A BASE MOTION ON 19, CORRECT? 
          [01:40:01]
THAT'S CORRECT. 
          I, WE DID, YES. 
          I WAS, UH, MADE BY COMMISSIONER BARR RAMIREZ, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          I, I THINK WE JUST CLARIFY THAT, JUDGE, WE DECIDED AFTER THE FACT TO, TO ONLY TAKE UP 19, SEPARATE FROM 20. 
          SO WE WOULD MIGHT WANNA CLARIFY THAT THE BASE MOTION IS FOR ITEM 19 ONLY, CORRECT? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          I AM SORRY. 
          I THINK I ALSO HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. 
          YES. 
          I, I REALIZE THAT SOME AMENDMENTS WERE SENT, UH, THIS EVENING. 
          I WANNA MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT THE PROPER AMENDMENTS FOR ITEM 19. 
          I WAS ACTUALLY JUST GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT. 
          COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE ONLY ITEM THAT I THINK, AND THIS IS WHAT I WAS GONNA DEFER TO COMMISSIONER BAREZ, IS THAT, UM, ITEM 11 IS REGARDING THE, UM, INDUSTRIAL SITES, WHICH IS WHAT, WHAT THE, UH, ITEM 19 SPEAKS TO, MORE SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT'S RELATED TO THE INDUSTRIAL, THE ONGOING PDA TWO CASES. 
          SO I WOULD JUST DEFER TO HER IF SHE'D LIKE TO ADD THAT AS A GENERAL AMENDMENT TO THIS ITEM. 
          SO THAT'S THE ONLY ITEM 11 IS THE ONLY ONE SPECIFIC TO ITEM 19? YES, AS FAR AS I CAN. 
          AND I, AGAIN, I WOULD JUST CONFIRM THAT WITH SHE'S, I, NO, I THINK, UM, ITEM 11 IS REALLY ABOUT THE LOSS OF OKAY. 
          INDUSTRIAL. 
          SO, UM, SO IT IT IS MORE FOCUSED ON THE LOSS OF INDUSTRIAL AS IT SHIFTS TO RESIDENTIAL. 
          AND FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, ITEM 19 IS JUST FOR RETAINING, UH, INDUSTRIAL. 
          SO THEN, YES, WE HAVE NO AMENDMENTS RELATED TO ITEM 19. 
          OKAY. 
          I'LL OPEN IT UP TO ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS ON ITEM 19 FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS. 
          MADAM CHAIR, I, I SHARED TWO YOU YESTERDAY. 
          I I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY GOT DISTRIBUTED. 
          I DON'T KNOW MS. GARCIA DID I IT WAS GETTING DISTRIBUTED. 
          I APOLOGIZE. 
          I WAS WAITING TO HEAR BACK IF WE GOT WORD, IF THEY WERE WITHIN THE INTERIM RULES, BUT I WILL SEND THOSE OUT RIGHT NOW. 
          I'M SO SORRY ABOUT THAT. 
          NO WORRIES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DO YOU WANT TO SET UP YOUR AMENDMENTS AS THEY ARE EMAILED OUT? UM, FOR SPECIFICALLY FOR ITEM 19? SURE. 
          I BROKE MINE DOWN INTO ITEM 19 AND TWO. 
          GREAT. 
          I FORM. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, UH, ON, UM, ON ITEM 19, THE POINT OF PRIVILEGE. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES, IS YOUR MICROPHONE ON? NO . 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          THANKS WAL. 
          UM, ON, UH, BROKE MINE DOWN INTO AMENDMENTS FOR ITEM 20 OR 19 AND ITEM 20, UH, SPECIFICALLY ON ITEM 19. 
          I'M GONNA TALK EVEN SLOWER THAN I NORMALLY DO, WHICH IS VERY HARD FOR ME TO DO, OR PROBABLY VERY HARD FOR Y'ALL TO LISTEN TO. 
          UM, GOT TWO. 
          UH, IT'S NOT GONNA SURPRISE ANYBODY. 
          MOST OF MY, UH, NOT MOST OF MY, ALL OF MY AMENDMENTS, UM, ARE FOCUSED ON, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          AND SO, UM, I CAN, I CAN READ 'EM, BUT I CAN WAIT UNTIL IT'S PROBABLY BETTER FOR, UH, I MEAN, EITHER WAY, IF YOU WANT ME TO READ 'EM, I'LL, I'LL ABSOLUTELY HAPPY TO DO SO. 
          YES, PLEASE DO. 
          SURE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I DID IT OFF OF THE, LET ME MAKE SURE I'M ON THE RIGHT ONE. 
          'CAUSE I OPENED BOTH OF 'EM UP. 
          THAT'S PDA TWO. 
          YEP. 
          UM, AND, AND SO ON THE PDA TWO, UM, IF YOU'LL GO TO PAGE TWO, LINE 32, AND AFTER THE TWO ON, ON THAT LINE, UH, THE F YOU WOULD, UH, I'M PROPOSING TO ADD THE FOLLOWING AND I WILL ADMIT TO YOU THAT I HAD TO WRITE IT IN THE NEGATIVE BECAUSE IT'S THE, THE ORIGINAL DRAFT MOTION FROM STAFF IS WRITTEN IN THE NEGATIVE, WHICH DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME, BUT I'M NOT GONNA ASK ABOUT THAT ONE. 
          SO, UH, IT'S WRITTEN IN THE NEGATIVE. 
          UM, UH, SO I'M BASICALLY ADDING ANOTHER, ANOTHER TWO, A THREE, AND THEN RENUMBERING ACCORDINGLY. 
          UM, AND NUMBER TWO WOULD READ COMMUNITY BENEFIT OPTIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, EXCEPT AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 20% OF THE TOTAL UNITS, INCLUDING AT LEAST 10% OF THE TOTAL UNITS AT 50, MF 50% MFI AND A NEW NUMBER THREE WOULD READ A FEE IN LIEU PAID FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS, UH, BUILT, OH, I SAID BUILD BUILT ON SITE EXCEPT FOR THE TOTAL FEE SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 125% OF THE TOTAL DUE UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT BONUS CALCULATIONS. 
          [01:45:05]
SO THAT'S THE FIRST AMENDMENT THAT'S, WE'LL TAKE THAT UP SEPARATELY. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, DO YOU WANT ME TO READ NUMBER TWO? LET'S, UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UM, UH, OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS TO THE AMENDMENT MAKER. 
          CORRECT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          QUESTIONS. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR? ZA. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          AND I'M SORRY I'M HAVING TO GO OFF CAMERA. 
          I JUST NEED TO STAND, I'M HAVING SOME BACK ISSUES. 
          OH. 
          UM, I JUST WANTED TO, UM, ASK, THIS IS A QUESTION OF STAFF TO CLARIFY FOR ITEM NUMBER 19. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HOUSING IS NOT EVEN ALLOWED, WHETHER IT'S AFFORDABLE OR MARKETED, LIKE NO HOUSING IS ALLOWED IN STAFF. 
          CLARIFY THAT PLEASE. 
          ALAN PAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          YES, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          RESIDENTIAL USE IS NOT ALLOWED, UM, AS PART OF PDA TWO OR THE BASE ZONES THAT WOULD BE APPLYING FOR PDA TWO. 
          SO THERE IS NO HOUSING. 
          I I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          I GUESS THEN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE MOTION MAKER. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES, IS YOU, WOULD YOUR AMENDMENT ALLOW RESIDENTIAL TO BE ALLOW, LIKE WOULD RESIDENTIAL THEN BECOME AN ALLOWABLE USE IN THE PDA TWO CATEGORY UNDER AN UNDER ITEM 19 IF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS INCLUDED AT A CERTAIN LEVEL, IF, UM, WHAT I TRIED TO DO IS BASE IT OFF THE WORKING DRAFT AND, AND IT'S IN B ONE IS, EXCEPT FOR RESIDENTIAL USES IT. 
          SO IT IS SAYING, IT IT, IT SEEMS TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USES IN B ONE AND THEN SAYS EXCEPT FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AND GOES DOWN. 
          BUT IF RESIDENTIAL USES ARE NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED, WHY WOULD WE INCLUDE THEN WHY WOULD, WHY IS B ONE INCLUDED? UM, NOT THAT I'M ANSWERING FOR STAFF. 
          I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD ANSWER FOR STAFF. 
          BUT THE WAY I READ IT, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, IS THAT ESSENTIALLY WHAT STAFF IS SAYING THAT IN THIS PD TWO COMBINING DISTRICT, YOU CAN MODIFY OTHER USES, BUT RESIDENTIAL USES CANNOT BE MODIFIED. 
          IE SINCE THE BASE DISTRICTS DO NOT ALLOW RESIDENTIAL, YOU CANNOT MODIFY TO ADD THEM IN. 
          AGAIN, I DEFER TO STAFF SINCE IT IS THEIR ITEM, BUT THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ESSENTIALLY DOES NOT ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. 
          YEAH, THAT THAT'S CORRECT. 
          COMMISSIONER, UH, AS I UH, WORDED IT CORRECTLY, RESIDENTIAL USES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE MODIFIED OR MADE CONDITIONAL INTO OR OUT OF OR ANYTHING BECAUSE YEAH, THE BASE ZONES DON'T ALLOW IT AND IT CANNOT BE ADDED. 
          SECOND, ENCOURAGE INDUSTRIAL USE. 
          CAN COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UM, JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION 'CAUSE I THINK THAT THIS MIGHT ALSO HELP US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ITEM 19 DEALS WITH. 
          CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHAT THE PDA TWO ORDINANCE IS ACTUALLY ALONG, WHICH IS THE CONTINUED USE OF PDA FOR SPECIFIC CASES RELATED TO COMMERCIAL AND CURRENT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SO CURRENTLY UNDER PDAS YOU CAN MODIFY YOUR USES AND SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 
          THAT NEW PDA TWO WOULD ALLOW FOR THE SAME STUFF EXCEPT FOR ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL USE TO BE ADDED OR MODIFIED. 
          SO INDUSTRIAL ZONES, UH, THAT WANT TO ADD OTHER COMMERCIAL AND MODIFY THEIR INDUSTRIAL ZONE OR USES WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO DO SO AND CHANGE SOME OTHER SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. 
          BUT AGAIN, NO RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE INVOLVED. 
          I WITHDRAW MY FIRST AMENDMENT. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO INTO THE SECOND? YES. 
          MY SECOND ONE IS STILL APPLICABLE. 
          UM, BECAUSE IT, IT DEALS WITH, UM, THERE WAS A KIND OF A STAFF BACK AND FORTH THIS WEEK, UH, CITY STAFF, UM, UH, BACK AND FORTH AND TALKING ABOUT THE, THE REASON AND, AND I WILL ADMIT, I'M, I'M I FAVOR, THE REASON IS, UH, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING BEFORE ALL THE PDA AMENDMENTS, UH, OR APPLICATIONS COME IN. 
          AND, UM, I AM, I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. 
          AND, AND WHAT I REALLY THINK WE SHOULD DO IS JUST SAY NO MORE PDAS UNTIL WE GET THE DENSITY BONUS, UH, REPORT AND THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS REPORT AND ALL THOSE I I I UNDERSTAND ARE COMING SOMETIME IN 25. 
          SO WE'RE GONNA PASS THIS TONIGHT AND THEN WE'RE GONNA GET THE REPORT AND THEN WE'RE GONNA AMEND THIS SOMETIME. 
          BUT ANYWAY, UM, SO MY SECOND AMENDMENT, UH, IS ON LINE TWO, UH, PAGE TWO, LINE 56, UM, ADDING A NEW D AND IT READS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PART, AN APPLICATION FOR A PROPERTY THAT IS SUBJECT TO A PENDING ZONING OR A REZONING APPLICATION TO LA TO ADD, UH, PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA PDA BUT NOT, NOT YET DEEMED ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE AS THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL UTILIZE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA TWO PDA TWO 
          [01:50:01]
COMBINING DISTRICT INSTEAD OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA. 
          PDA COMBINING DISTRICT. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT I WANT TO DO IS, UM, STEM THE TIDE, STOP THE FLOW, UH, AS SOON AS COUNSEL PASSES THAT, UM, ANY APPLICATION THAT'S IN THE DOOR AS OF THAT DATE. 
          'CAUSE WE CAN'T RETROACTIVELY GO BACK. 
          WE'LL GET SUED ON THAT ONE FOR SURE, BUT NO MORE APPLICATIONS COULD GO FORWARD UNDER THE OLD PDA AND THEY WOULD ALL HAVE TO GO FORWARD UNDER THE NEW PDA TWO. 
          THAT'S MY, THAT'S MY INTENT AND IF LEGAL DOESN'T THINK I DID IT CORRECTLY, UM, HAPPY TO WORDSMITH. 
          ALRIGHT, UM, LET'S OPEN IT UP FOR, UH, QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER HAYNES ON THIS ONE. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER COX, I TELL ME IF I NEED TO HOLD OFF ON THIS, BUT I ACTUALLY WANT TO GO BACK TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S PREVIOUS AMENDMENT BEFORE HE COMPLETELY GIVES UP ON IT. 
          HE'S ALREADY WITHDRAWN THAT ONE. 
          CAN I, CAN I ASK STAFF FOR CLARIFICATION ON SOMETHING? SO, UM, COMMISSIONER COX, WE'LL LET'S STICK TO THIS ONE THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY ON ABOUT PDA TWO VERSUS PDA. 
          AND THEN IF YOU WANTED TO OFFER UP AN AMENDMENT THAT IS RELATED TO THE ONE THAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES WITHDREW, YOU CAN DO THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS SECOND AMENDMENT? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, VICE CHAIR ZA MINE MIGHT, MIGHT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. 
          THEN I'LL ASK A QUESTION, WHICH IS, I I THINK ONCE WE'VE DISPOSED OFF THIS AMENDMENT SINCE IT WE ARE IN DISCUSSION, UH, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION FROM THE REST OF THE COMMISSION, IF WE CAN GO OUT OF ORDER FOR OUR REGULAR RULES AND ALLOW COMMISSIONER COX TO ASK THAT QUESTION. 
          AND THEN COMMISSIONER COX, OF COURSE YOU WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY IF YOU NEEDED TO COME BACK AND MAKE A MOTION. 
          UM, THAT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION. 
          AND I HAD A QUESTION HOW I BELIEVE THIS MIGHT BE EITHER FOR STAFF OR FOR COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I COMPLETELY, UM, UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE AND I I DON'T KNOW IF IT SHOULD BE LAW OR IF IT WOULD BE OTHER STAFF THAT CAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND. 
          I GUESS WHERE I'M GETTING STUCK IS SINCE PD EIGHT TWO IS A NEW CATEGORY AND SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY TO THE NEW CATEGORY SINCE IT'S NOT BEING MAPPED, I GUESS IS THE IDEA BEHIND THE AMENDMENT THAT IF SOMEBODY IS IN AN, IS IN AN, IS IN AN EXISTING PDA ZONING CASE, THAT CASE WOULD BE PAUSED AND THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A PDA TWO APPLICATION. 
          MY ANSWER TO THAT IS, COMMISSIONER ZA IS NO, WE, WE CAN'T, WELL, CITY OF AUSTIN HAS TRIED TO DO THAT MULTIPLE TIMES, GET SUED AND LOSES THOSE CASE CASES HAND OVER FIST. 
          WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS TO SAY, BASICALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS THE, THE MINUTE THIS PASSES, COUNSEL THIS, UM, THIS ORDINANCE PASSES COUNSEL THAT CLOSES THE DOOR ON ANY APPLICATIONS, UH, NOT FINAL, NOT NOT ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE. 
          AND, AND THEN, AND THEN SO IT SETS THE UNIVERSE, SO ONLY THOSE PDAS THAT ARE IN THE DOOR UNDER THE OLD, UNDER THE EXISTING RULES. 
          AND SO WHEN THIS PASSES, EVERYTHING ELSE HAS TO GO THROUGH PDA TWO. 
          UM, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, LIMITS THE UNIVERSE, LIMITS THE, MY WORD DAMAGE THAT PDA IS AL ALREADY CAUSED. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I THINK THAT HELPS ME UNDERSTAND IT. 
          AND I GUESS, UM, WHEN YOU SAY SORT OF IN THE PROCESS, ESSENTIALLY YOU'RE SAYING ANYONE WHO HAS ESSENTIALLY, IF A PDA ZONING APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED, THAT'S IN THE PROCESS, WHATEVER STATUS IT MIGHT BE IN THE OVERALL PROCESS AFTER BEING FILED, BUT ESSENTIALLY IF SOMEONE HAS NOT FILED, THEY WOULD IN THE FUTURE NOT BE ABLE TO FILE FOR IT. 
          AM I UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY? THAT'S TRUE WITH THE, WITH THE, THE, UM, THE, THE WORDS I USED AND, AND I DO THIS OFF OF MY, MY STATE, I, I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE IF THE CITY DOES THE SAME THING. 
          WE WOULD, WE'VE GOT SOME, UH, DSD FOLKS HERE THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT. 
          BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU FILE A PERMIT AT THE STATE, YOU'VE GOT KIND OF TWO STEPS. 
          YOU'VE GOT ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THE ACTUAL PERMIT. 
          WHAT I'M SAYING IS, UM, IF, IF THE PERMIT IS NOT ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE, IF IT'S, IF THERE'S A FEE THAT HADN'T BEEN PAID, IF THERE'S A FILING DEADLINE THAT HADN'T PASSED, THOSE ARE NOT FILED AS ACCORDING TO THE OLD RULES, THOSE ARE DONE AND THEY FALL UNDER THE NEW PD TWO. 
          UH, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND I GUESS I'LL ASK THE, WE'RE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO ASK OF STAFF TO SEE IF STAFF, 
          [01:55:01]
DO Y'ALL HAVE CONCERNS WITH THIS AMENDMENT 'CAUSE OR IS THIS ALREADY, I BELIEVE WHAT THE INTENTION WAS, UM, WELL, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY. 
          THERE IS LANGUAGE CURRENTLY IN THE ORDINANCE, UH, LINE, PART FOUR, LINE 42 THAT I THINK GETS TO THE SAME INTENT THAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS TRYING TO GET TO THAT, UH, IT INDICATES KIND OF IN THAT LAST SENTENCE, FOR THIS REASON, THE CITY MANAGER IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT ZONING OR REZONING APPLICATIONS TO ADD PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA COMBINING DISTRICT AFTER PDA TWO IS ADOPTED. 
          SO I THINK IT, IT, THE, THE INTENT OF THAT LANGUAGE IS THE SAME THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT NO NEW APPLICATIONS AS SOON AS THE ORDINANCE IS APPROVED BY COUNSEL, AND I'M TRYING TO BACK IT UP BY JUSTICE SCO TO SAY, UH, IF THERE'S BEEN A FILED ONE, BUT IT'S NOT ADMINISTRATIVE AND COMPLETE, IT'S ALSO OUT OF THE UNIVERSE. 
          I, MAYBE THAT'S A QUESTION, I GUESS FOR ZONING OR DST, BUT I MEAN, AN APPLICATION ISN'T CONSIDERED AN APPLICATION UNTIL IT'S BEEN PROCESSED OR, YOU KNOW, FEES HAVE BEEN PAID FOR AN APPLICATION. 
          SO YES, I MEAN WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING TO THE SAME POINT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT'S NOT CONSIDERED AN APPLICATION UNLESS IT IS A COMPLETE APPLICATION, I GUESS IS WHAT I WOULD SAY  FROM MY, FROM MY SIDE OF THE QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAYNES AND THANK YOU STAFF. 
          I FEEL LIKE, UH, MS. GREENHOUSE, YOU MIGHT WANNA SAY SOMETHING. 
          YEAH, I SEE YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE CORNER. 
          I WAS JUST GONNA ADD, AND I THINK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LLOYD WAS UP HERE ABOUT TO KIND OF ANSWER OUR EXISTING PROCESS QUESTION, BUT I THINK WHAT WE WOULD ASK IS IF WE COULD HAVE, WE UNDERSTAND THE INTENT, UM, IF WE COULD HAVE THE DIRECTION BE TO WORK WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT AND SEE HOW WE CAN ACHIEVE THAT INTENT WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW, THAT WOULD BE FANTASTIC. 
          WHAT CHIEF THANK YOU STAFF. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          UM, THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          SINCE THIS IS NOT YET A MOTION THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED IF, IF DESIRED AS PART OF THE MOTION. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ON THIS AMENDMENT? ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THIS INTO A MOTION? I WOULD, UH, HAVE YES THERE IN BOTH WORD AND PF. 
          PERFECT. 
          SO, UM, WHAT I WOULD THEN SAY IS, UM, MICROPHONE, I THOUGHT I'D HIT IT. 
          SORRY, I MUST HAVE TURNED IT OFF. 
          WHAT I WOULD SAY THEN IS, UM, UH, EXCEPT FOR THE, THE NEW D WOULD READ, UM, DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH LEGAL, UH, AND ENSURE AN APPLICATION SO IS, AND I SEE MS. GREY HOUSE SHAKING HER HEAD AFFIRMATIVELY. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE, SO IT, THE NEW AMENDMENT WOULD SAY, DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH LEGAL TO ENSURE AN APPLICATION FOR THE PROPERTY THAT IS SUBJECT DA DA DA DA. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          IS THERE A SECOND COMM VICE CHAIR? I'M GOING AHEAD AND SECONDING IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER HAYES, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT AMENDMENT? I THINK WE ALREADY HAVE. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST? I SPEAKING FOR, YES. 
          COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. 
          I THINK I'LL SPEAK BRIEFLY AGAINST ONLY BECAUSE I GET HONESTLY REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE TRYING TO ADD LANGUAGE TO ORDINANCE LANGUAGE HERE AT THE LAST MINUTE. 
          AND SOMETIMES I THINK THAT BELTS AND SUSPENDERS MAY HAVE AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF CREATING CONFLICTING LANGUAGE. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, IF THE TERM ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE MEANS SOMETHING IN THE CITY PROCESS. 
          BUT I KNOW THAT THE ORDINANCE IS DRAFTED BY STAFF, UH, UNDER PART FOUR. 
          A SAYS, NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT ZONING OR REZONING APPLICATIONS TO ADD PDA. 
          SO LIKE I KNOW WE'RE ALREADY ACHIEVING THIS GOAL, I'M AFRAID BY PLACING NEW LANGUAGE HERE AND THEN, OR EVEN IF WE HAVE LEGAL TO REVIEW IT, WE'RE JUST UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATING IT. 
          WE'VE ALREADY SAID THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA ACCEPT THE PDA ONCE THIS ORDINANCE PASSES COUNSEL. 
          SO I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE. 
          ANYONE SPEAKING FOR VICE CHAIR? UM, CHAIR, I'LL JUST QUICKLY SAY, I THINK, UM, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, I COMPLETELY HEAR YOU AND IT SEEMS LIKE COMMISSIONER HAYNES WAS COMING FROM SORT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION. 
          UM, AND SINCE WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY TAKE IT TO STAFF, I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE, AS I'M, YOU KNOW, VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS AND SECONDING THIS MOTION, I HOPE STAFF CAN CONSIDER IF THIS, YOU KNOW, LANGUAGE ALREADY COVERS 
          [02:00:01]
IT, IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN AND WHATEVER WE'RE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO DO. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS WAS ALWAYS THE INTENTION OF STAFF. 
          SO THAT'S REALLY WHERE I'M COMING FROM TO JUST SORT OF DOUBLE DOWN AND TO AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION. 
          SEE IF WE WANNA ADD THAT IN. 
          ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST FOUR? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT. 
          THIS IS THE COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S, UH, AMENDMENT. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR. 
          ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 AND AGAINST COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. 
          THAT MOTION OR THAT AMENDMENT PASSES, UM, 12 TO ONE. 
          LET'S SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS. 
          THIS IS TO THE PDA TWO ITEM. 
          AND UM, COMMISSIONER COX, DID YOU WANNA ASK YOUR QUESTION REGARDING COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S FIRST AMENDMENT? NO, I, I, UH, I WAS CONFUSING MYSELF SINCE THE STAFF BACKUP COMBINES THE PDA TWO AND DB TWO 40. 
          I, I, I CLARIFIED IT. 
          OKAY. 
          , THAT'S ALL. 
          THANKS. 
          NICE WORK ON THAT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          OTHER AMENDMENTS ON PDA TWO? SEEING NONE, WE ARE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE BASE MOTION. 
          THAT WAS COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AS AMENDED WITH THAT A MOTION OR THAT AMENDMENT THAT WE JUST VOTED ON. 
          UM, BELIEVE WE STILL HAVE SPEAKING SPOTS FOR AND AGAINST ANYONE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST. 
          OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ITEM NUMBER 19 AS AMENDED. 
          ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? 1, 2, 3, 9 11. 
          THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON TO DB TWO 40. 
          UM, ITEM NUMBER 20 AND, UM, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON? DO WE CLO WE PO WE CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING ON 19 AND 20. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO AMENDMENTS AND COMMISSIONER BARR, RAMEZ, ARE YOU LEANING? THOSE ARE COMMISSIONER, I'M, I'M GONNA MAKE THE BASE MOTION. 
          YES, WHICH IS I'D LIKE TO MAKE, UM, MOVE STAFF, UH, THE STAFF PROPOSAL, UM, AS AMENDED BY CGOC AND I THINK WE SAW THAT PROPOSAL THE LAST TIME. 
          SO, AND ESSENTIALLY ENCOURAGES, THERE'S JUST TWO MINOR CHANGES. 
          SO THE BASE MOTION WOULD BE STAFF PROPOSAL AS AMENDED BY THE JOINT CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          SECOND. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE SOME AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SHARED. 
          UM, SO LET'S DIVE INTO THOSE. 
          AND MR. MAXWELL, ARE YOU TAKING THE LEAD ON THAT? OKAY. 
          MADAM CHAIR I'VE GOT, UM, BUT THE, THE, UH, CODES AND ORDINANCES, ANY CHANGES? Y'ALL MEANT THEY'RE ALREADY INCLUDED IN WHAT WE HAVE, RIGHT? UM, NO, I DID NOT. 
          SINCE WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT THE LAST TIME, I DID NOT INCLUDE THEM IN THE, AS THE AMENDMENTS BECAUSE WE'D ALREADY DISCUSSED THEM. 
          WE COULD PULL THOSE OUT AND MAKE THEM AS SEPARATE AMENDMENTS. 
          BUT I JUST WENT AHEAD AND TOOK THE BASIS AS THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CODES AND ORDINANCES 'CAUSE THAT WAS PART OF OUR DISCUSSION THE LAST TIME. 
          SO, BUT THAT LANGUAGE IS INCLUDED IN WHAT WE HAVE FROM STAFF BACKUP. 
          UH, I, I WOULD DEFER TO STAFF ON THAT. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT THEY MADE ANY CHANGE. 
          OFFICIAL CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCES. 
          OH, THAT'S CORRECT, . 
          OKAY. 
          SO WHEN YOU GET TO YOUR, WILL YOU JUST TELL US WHICH ONES FROM CODES AND ORDINANCES ARE COMING FORWARD? I'M SORRY, JUST TO CLARIFY ONE MORE TIME. 
          THE, THE BASE MOTION, THERE WERE RECOMMENDATIONS SHOWN IN THE SLIDES AT THE LAST, AT OUR LAST PRESENT AT OUR PRESENTATION LAST TIME THAT OUTLINED WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY C-O-G-O-C. 
          THERE WERE TWO SMALL CHANGES. 
          I DON'T, STAFF CAN PROBABLY SPEAK TO THAT. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD BE TAKING AS THE BASE. 
          SO THOSE ARE NOT AMENDMENTS ON OUR AMENDMENT WORKSHEET. 
          YEAH. 
          AND SO THE FIRST AMENDMENT FROM COGC WAS REMOVING THE 10 FOOT STEP BACK AT 90 FEET OF HEIGHT THAT WE HAD. 
          UH, IN OUR PROPOSAL. 
          AND THEN THE SECOND ONE WAS CHANGING, UH, THE EMPLOYEE RECREATION USE FROM PROHIBITED TO CONDITIONAL, WHICH WE DIDN'T INCLUDE. 
          THANKS. 
          AND THEN I GUESS THE LAST ONE WAS ABOUT POSTING LANGUAGE TO ALLOW FOR MORE COMMUNITY BENEFITS TO BE DISCUSSED, WHICH THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          EVERYBODY CLEAR? YEAH. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          SO, UM, IF WE'RE GONNA MOVE INTO AMENDMENTS, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE, UM, AMENDMENT ONE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE ONES WE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST TIME. 
          AND ESSENTIALLY THIS IS JUST A STAFF DIRECTION TO GO AHEAD AND PRIORITIZE THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AS DISCUSSED IN TB TWO 40, WHICH WERE PART OF THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE. 
          UM, AND YOU CAN SEE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT LANGUAGE THERE. 
          UM, I THINK WE HAD DISCUSSED THIS SEVERAL TIMES AND MADE IT CLEAR THAT WE WANTED TO SEE THESE ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS BE 
          [02:05:01]
OUTLINED AND SORT OF PRIORITIZED, PARTICULARLY AS WE DO HAVE PD 8 2 2 40 OR SHOULD SAY DB TWO 40 CASES COMING FORWARD, THAT WE BOTH UNDERSTAND HOW THE NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS WOULD BE, UM, CALIBRATED AS WELL AS WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR IN COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, IF I CAN, UM, I'M A LITTLE RUSTY ON THE AMENDMENT PROCESS, BUT THIS IS ALL COMING BACK TO ME NOW. 
          UM, SINCE WE HAVE 11 TO GO THROUGH, WHY DON'T YOU READ THEM OUT? WE'LL SEE IF ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION. 
          OTHERWISE IT WILL REMAIN ON, UH, WE'LL CONSIDER IT CONSENT MOVING FORWARD. 
          DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO EVERYBODY? THAT IS AN EXCELLENT SUGGESTION. 
          MOST WELCOME. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IF WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT NUMBER ONE, THE PRIORITIZATION OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS FOR DB TWO 40, DOES ANYBODY WANT TO PULL THAT ONE FOR DISCUSSION? I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION ON THAT FOR COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, PLEASE. 
          UH, AND THAT IS, IS THERE A TIME ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, LIKE, UH, A PERIOD OF TIME? YEAH. 
          UM, YES, AND, AND WE, WE DIDN'T OBVIOUSLY WANT TO BE OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE, BUT WE ARE TOLD LAST TIME AT OUR PRESENTATION THAT IT MIGHT BE AS LATE AS NEXT FALL BY THE TIME WE WOULD GET THOSE COMMUNITY BENEFITS CUT SORT OF CALIBRATED AND OUTLINED. 
          AND THIS IS SORT OF ASKING FOR THAT PROCESS TO BE SPED UP AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. 
          SO I DIDN'T WANNA BE, BUT IF SOMEONE WANTED TO BE MORE PRESCRIPTIVE, WE COULD PULL IT AND ADD IN A TIMELINE. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT, PLEASE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE'RE PULLING NUMBER ONE. 
          GO TO NUMBER TWO. 
          UM, REGARDING NUMBER TWO, UH, THIS IS ACTUALLY JUST, UM, IN INSERTING A GROUND, GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT. 
          UM, I'M GONNA BE, JUST TO BE TRANSPARENT, SOME OF THESE WERE DISCUSSION ITEMS THAT WE DISCUSSED LAST TIME WERE THINGS THAT WERE BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION. 
          UM, THE LANGUAGE THAT IS INCLUDED HERE IS ACTUALLY FROM OUR, UM, DB 90. 
          AND AGAIN, IT'S JUST A SUGGESTION, BUT ESSENTIALLY IT ALLOWS US TO ENSURE THAT AS WE BUILD IN THESE NEW UNITS, THAT THEY ARE BOTH COMMERCIAL AND UM, HOUSING AND THAT THERE IS A WAIVER PROCESS. 
          SO THAT IS ACTUALLY, AND AS WE'VE SEEN WITH OUR, OUR DB 90 CASES, IN THE MOST, MOST CASES WE END UP USING HAVING COMMERCIAL AS WELL AS THE HOUSING, WHICH IS SORT OF THE DEFAULTS. 
          BUT THEN IF THERE'S A REASON TO ONLY HAVE RESIDENTIAL, THERE IS A WAIVER PROCESS TO MAKE THAT AN OPTION. 
          ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YEAH, I'D, I'D LIKE TO PULL THAT ONE. 
          OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER THREE. 
          UM, THIS ONE ACTUALLY SPEAKS TO THE COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS, UM, PER THE SIZE OF THE, UM, THESE PDAS, THEY ARE ACTUALLY SOMEWHAT LARGER IN SIZE THAN WE GENERALLY SEE WITH SOME OF OUR OTHER, AND I KNOW COMMISSIONER COX HAS THOUGHTS ABOUT OUR PDAS, BUT PART OF THE REASON WE WANTED TO INCLUDE THIS ONE IS BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY THAT, UM, WE UNDERSTAND WHERE THOSE COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS MIGHT HAPPEN. 
          AND AGAIN, NOT TRYING TO BE OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE, BUT JUST ENCOURAGING STAFF TO LOOK AT THESE SITES AND HOW WE MIGHT MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMERCIAL IS BOTH, UM, NOT NECESSARILY DIRECTLY ON THE LARGEST STREET, BUT ALSO MAYBE IN ONE OF THE INTERNAL OR NON-PRINCIPAL SEAT STREETS. 
          SO THAT'S WHY IT'S CONTEXT SPECIFIC. 
          DOES ANYONE WANT TO PUT THIS, I MEAN, I FEEL LIKE WE ALMOST HAVE TO PULL THAT BECAUSE WE PULLED THE LAST ONE, BUT I, I, I'D BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS THOSE TOGETHER WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT. 
          UH, AMENDMENTS NUMBER TWO AND THREE. 
          OKAY. 
          I DON'T THINK IT'LL BE A BIG THING. 
          WE'LL DO THAT. 
          LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER FOUR. 
          UM, THIS IS, UH, TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          AS YOU ALL PROBABLY NOTICED IF YOU LOOKED AT THE DB TWO 40, UM, MAPS, A LOT OF THESE ARE ALONG HIGHWAYS AND WHATNOT. 
          AND THE IDEA WAS BASICALLY JUST, AGAIN, THINKING OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          HOW CAN WE SUPPORT, UM, ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT MOVES US BEYOND CAR CENTRIC DESIGN? SO ONE OF THOSE WOULD BE TO INCENTIVIZE TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE ELEMENTS. 
          UM, AGAIN, THIS LANGUAGE IS TAKEN FROM THE, UM, DB ETA THAT WE PASSED IN MAY AND ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS US TO SORT OF ENHANCE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTS, UM, IN EXCHANGE FOR, UH, SAY SOMETHING LIKE AN ELECTRIC BUS CHARGING STATION OR ADDITIONAL, UM, LIKE ELECTRIC BIKES, THINGS, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY THAT THOSE THAT WOULD BE THE TYPE OF COMMUN COMMUNITY BENEFIT WE'D LIKE TO SEE IN PDAS AND THAT WE WOULD ACTUALLY INCENTIVIZE THAT SPECIFICALLY. 
          AGAIN, THE LANGUAGE IS MEANT TO BE A GUIDELINE, NOT SOMETHING SPEC SPECIFIC, BUT THE HOPE THAT STAFF WOULD TAKE THAT INFORMATION AND ACTUALLY CRAFT IT TO WORK FOR THE PDAS. 
          SORRY, DB TWO FORTIES. 
          ANYONE WISH TO PULL THIS ONE? MR. HAYNES? OKAY, DANIEL. 
          ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER FIVE. 
          UH, THESE I THINK WE ALSO DISCUSSED, WHICH WAS HOW WE CAN BASICALLY INCLUDE BETTER STREET LEVEL I, UM, ENTITLEMENTS, UM, RELATED TO SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF GREAT STREETS IN DOWNTOWN OR THE UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY EXAMPLES IN, IN CAMPUS WEST CAMPUS, ESSENTIALLY, UM, ENSURING THAT ON OUR LOWER LEVEL STREETS, AGAIN, AWAY 
          [02:10:01]
FROM THESE MORE THE HIGHWAYS THAT, THAT THESE MIGHT POP UP ON, THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY DOING ADDITIONAL SEAT STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS. 
          AND AGAIN, THAT IS PART OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS WE'D LIKE TO SEE ULTIMATELY INCLUDED IN DB TWO 40 CASES. 
          I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS WANTING TO PULL THAT ONE. 
          SO THAT ONE WILL MOVE FORWARD. 
          ITEM SIX, UM, RELATED TO, AGAIN, THE STREETSCAPES AND OTHER ITEMS THAT WE HAD SEEN THAT WE HAD A RECOMMENDATION FROM. 
          UM, BASICALLY THIS CONCEPT CAME UP IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN, WHICH IS WHEN YOU HAVE A LARGER SITE THAT YOU WOULD CREATE SOMETHING CALLED INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES. 
          AND THE DDD DDAS, WHICH IS, UM, DENSITY, SORRY, LEMME GET THIS RIGHT. 
          DENSITY DISTRIBUTION AREAS. 
          AND THE IDEA BEING THAT RATHER THAN HAVING SEVERAL LARGE BUILDINGS ON ONE SITE, THAT WE WOULD ALSO ENSURE THAT THERE WAS PERMEABILITY AND SORT OF ACCESS THROUGHOUT THE SITE THROUGH, YOU KNOW, THESE TYPES OF REGULATIONS. 
          AGAIN, WE TOOK THE IDEA FROM THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, WE WOULD ASK THAT STAFF LOOK AT THAT AND THEN CONSIDER HOW THEY COULD BUILD IT INTO THESE DB TWO 40, LARGER DB TWO 40 SITES. 
          ANYONE WISH TO PULL THAT ITEM? OKAY, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT ONE. 
          ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. 
          UM, AND I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES HAS AN ALSO AN ITEM RELATED TO AFFORDABILITY, BUT WE JUST WANTED TO ENSURE THAT, AND I THINK WE DISCUSSED THIS WITH STAFF THE LAST TIME, THAT THE CALIBRATION OF THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AS CURRENTLY OUTLINED IN THE ORDINANCE WAS ACTUALLY PUT, UM, THAT THAT WORK MOVES FORWARD ONCE THE CITYWIDE RECALIBRATION HAS THE MEMO HAS BEEN RELEASED AND THOSE CHANGES MOVE FORWARD. 
          AND THAT THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT FOR THIS WOULD BE ALSO THAT THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS BE CONSIDERED IN THE, IS AS PART OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SORT OF, UH, CALIBRATION. 
          SO THAT WE'RE LOOKING BOTH AT THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AS WELL AS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR DB TWO 40 CASES. 
          SINCE THAT'S A LITTLE, THOSE ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT AS PDAS OR FORMER PDA CASES AND CLOSER TO A PUD, THEN WE WOULD SAY SAVE THAT A DB 90 DENSITY BONUS IS, SO JUST ASKING THEM TO BE CONTEXT SPECIFIC WHEN THEY DO THE CALIBRATION. 
          I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS ON THAT ONE. 
          SO THAT ONE WE PART OF THE BASE AMENDMENT. 
          LET'S GO TO NUMBER EIGHT. 
          UM, THIS ALSO GOT DISCUSSED WHEN WE DID THE PRESENTATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHY WE HAD PICKED A SPECIFIC, UM, CODES THAT WERE, OR I SHOULD SAY, BASE ZONES THAT WERE USED FOR THE DB 4 2 40. 
          UH, I THINK THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION OF POTENTIALLY EXPANDING IT TO ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL AND OR OTHER, UM, S HIGHER USE AND THAT THAT WOULD ALSO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THESE TYPES OF NEW D DB 2 240. 
          SO, UM, IT'S NOT PRESCRIPTIVE IN TERMS OF AN EXPANSION, IT WAS JUST A, A REQUEST TO REVISIT THAT AND LOOK AT OTHER OPPORTUNITIES, OTHER ADDITIONAL BASED ZONES THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE ADDED IN AS PART OF THE NEW DB 202 40 ORDINANCE. 
          ANYONE WISH TO PULL THIS? OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER NINE. 
          OKAY, THIS ONE'S MINE. 
          AND I DO, I AM STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I FEEL AS THOUGH THEY'RE VERY SIMILAR TO, UM, AMENDMENTS FIVE AND SIX THAT COMMISSIONER MAXWELL OUTLINED IN THAT, UM, THEY'RE ABOUT SUBCHAPTER E STANDARDS, WHICH, UM, GENERALLY, UH, MANY OF THESE SITES ARE IN WHAT WE, WHAT'S CATEGORIZED AS SUBURBAN ROADWAYS. 
          UM, AND SO MY AMENDMENT WOULD ENSURE THAT SUB CHAPTER, E CORE TRAN SUB CHAPTER E WOULD APPLY CORE TRANSIT CORRIDOR REQUIREMENTS WOULD APPLY TO THE SITES SEEKING REZONING SUCH THAT REQUIREMENTS FOR RELATIONSHIP TO BUILDING CONNECTIVITY, ET CETERA, INTERNAL CIRCULATION ARE MET. 
          SO SOME, YOU KNOW, THE, THE STREET FRONTAGE THAT WAS IN, UM, ITEM NUMBER FIVE AND THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION, UH, DENSITY DISTRIBUTION AREAS IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT'S IN SUB CHAPTER E. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF ONE'S BETTER THAN THE OTHER OR IF WE HAVE, UM, PREFERENCES AS A COMMISSION. 
          ANYONE WISH TO PULL? OKAY, WE'LL MOVE THAT ONE FORWARD. 
          LOOK AT NUMBER 10. 
          OKAY, THIS ONE I HAVE NO LANGUAGE ON, BUT THIS IS JUST MY CONCERN AS A MOM, YOU KNOW, UM, MIXING RESIDENTIAL WITH INDUSTRIAL AND LOOKING AT THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT ARE BY RIGHT PERMITTED IN LYL ONE ZONING. 
          SO THINGS LIKE STOCKYARDS AND RECYCLING, DROP OFF PICKUP, UM, AND MINERAL EXTRACTION ARE PERMITTED BY, RIGHT? SO YOU COULD HAVE RESIDENTIAL USE NEXT TO MINERAL EXTRACTION. 
          AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE IS A WAY TO IN, YOU KNOW, PROTECT THE RESIDENCES IF THERE'S SOME KIND OF MITIGATING THING THAT WE COULD DO. 
          AND I JUST, I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT HOW TO WRITE THAT IN AND I'M JUST EXPRESSING MY CONCERN WITH THIS AMENDMENT. 
          UM, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND PULL 
          [02:15:01]
THAT ONE SO WE CAN DISCUSS IT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND THEN NUMBER 11 IS, UM, AND I HAVE A LINK HERE TO THE PRESENTATIONS FROM NOVEMBER OF 2021. 
          NO, IT WAS ABOUT, UH, 2020 FROM NOVEMBER OF 2020 FROM MR. WALTERS. 
          AND IT'S TALKING ABOUT LOSS OF INDUSTRIAL AREAS IN OUR, IN OUR CITY AND THE IMPACTS TO JOB CREATION AND THE TYPES OF JOBS THAT WE'RE LOSING DUE TO LOSS OF INDUSTRIAL SITES. 
          AND SO, UM, DUE TO THAT IMPACT, I, MY RECOMMENDATION HERE IS TO HELP CLOSE THE GAP BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF LOCAL JOBS POTENTIALLY LOST AND, UM, I FOUND THE AUSTIN'S HIGHER LOCAL PLAN, WHICH IS WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND SO I WAS THINKING THAT THAT WOULD BE A WAY IN WHICH WE COULD, UM, KIND OF BRIDGE THAT GAP BETWEEN POTENTIAL JOBS, LOSS OF JOBS. 
          ANYONE WISH TO PULL THIS? OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          OKAY, THAT IS THE END OF OUR AMENDMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS BARRA RAMIREZ AND MAXWELL. 
          WONDERING IF WE SHOULD, LET'S DISCUSS THESE, IF YOU DON'T MIND, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, AND THEN COME BACK AND PICK YOURS UP AS WELL. 
          SURE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO WHAT I HAVE THAT WILL JOIN OUR BASE MOTION SO FAR ARE ITEMS NUMBER 5, 6, 7, 8, AND NINE. 
          AND WE ARE GOING TO GET INTO A DISCUSSION WITH, UM, ITEM NUMBER ONE. 
          THIS IS THE PRIORITIZATION OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS FOR DB TWO 40 AND COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, UM, WANTED TO PULL THIS ONE. 
          SO LET'S START WITH QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION MAKER OR STAFF. 
          SO I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE MOTION MAKER ABOUT, BECAUSE WE TALKED, YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW, UM, IT WON'T COME BACK UNTIL FALL AND THAT'S A PRETTY LONG TIME, REALLY LONG TIME. 
          AND IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PRIORITIZING IT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING MORE REASONABLE. 
          SO I'M REALLY OPEN TO A RECOMMENDATION OF THE TIMEFRAME WE COULD PRIORITIZE FOR THIS, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          ABSOLUTELY, AND I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND I THINK THE ONLY REASON WE HAD NOT PUT IN SOMETHING MORE DEFINITIVE WAS TO GIVE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO STAFF, BUT IF WE WANTED TO SAY A DATE OF, I GUESS LIKE MARCH OF NEXT YEAR, BECAUSE JUST TO CLARIFY THAT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE RECALIBRATION MEMO WILL BE RELEASED IN DECEMBER FROM STAFF, AND THAT THEN THEY COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH ACTUALLY DOING THESE ADJUSTMENTS AND THEN BE ABLE TO BRING FORWARD THE ACTUAL AMENDMENT. 
          SO IF, IF MARCH I THINK IS A GOOD, YOU KNOW, SORT OF AGGRESSIVE TIMELINE, THAT'S, LET'S DO IT. 
          , I THINK MARCH IS PERFECT. 
          MM-HMM, . 
          GREAT. 
          SO THEN I'M GONNA MAKE A, UM, SORT OF, I GUESS AN AMENDMENT, UH, AN ADDITION OR AN EDIT THIS AMENDMENT, WHICH IS, UM, AS PART OF THE ONGOING DENSITY BONUS, RE PRIORITIZATION, CODIFICATION OF THE DB TWO 40 COMMUNITY BENEFITS AS OUTLINED IN THE NEWS BY MARCH OF 2025. 
          CAN I DO THE TEXT? YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          MARCH 11. 
          THAT'S OUR FIRST MEETING. 
          I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO GET, I DON'T WANNA GET NOTICE  ANOTHER NOTICE EMAIL AT 6:00 PM . 
          I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE TO PUT IN SPECIFIC DATES FOR THESE TYPES OF AMENDMENTS, BUT IF LEGAL SAYS WE DO, I'LL, WE CAN ADJUST THAT. 
          AND WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON OUR CALENDAR FOR NEXT YEAR YET. 
          THAT WILL BE AT OUR NOVEMBER 12TH MEETING. 
          NOVEMBER AND NOVEMBER 18TH. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT FIRST AMENDMENT? OKAY. 
          UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS SO THAT WE CAN CLOSE OUT EACH ONE. 
          SO THIS IS, UM, DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND HOW THIS HAS BEEN EDITED, THIS FIRST AMENDMENT? UM, SO LET'S MAKE IT OFFICIAL. 
          SO, UM, AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE WOULD BE PRIORITIZATION OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS FOR DB TWO 40, AND THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT SUGGESTION IS AS PART OF THE ONGOING DENSITY BONUS, RECALIBRATION, PRIORITIZING THE CODIFICATION OF DB TWO 40 COMMUNITY BENEFITS AS OUTLINED IN THE INITIAL COUNCIL RESOLUTION BY MARCH OF 2025. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          12. 
          UM, THAT PASSES. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON IS OFF THE DAIS. 
          OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON TO OUR SECOND AMENDMENT. 
          THIS WAS PULLED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, ARE YOU ABLE TO COME BACK ON? MAYBE WE COME BACK TO ITEMS TWO AND THREE. 
          UM, LET'S DO THAT. 
          WE'LL MOVE, WE'LL JUMP TO NUMBER FOUR. 
          THIS WAS PULLED BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          THIS IS THE TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          SO, UM, QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION 
          [02:20:01]
MAKER OR, OR THE AMENDMENT PROPOSER OR STAFF? SURE. 
          THE, UM, AND, AND WE'LL SAY UPFRONT. 
          UM, I AM A FAN OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND, AND I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER MAXWELL FOR BRINGING SO, UH, SO MANY OF THESE FORWARD. 
          UH, THE REASON I PULLED THIS AND ASKED FOR IT IS I DON'T WANT TO PIT COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGAINST AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          UM, WHAT I WOULD RATHER DO IS PUT SOME MARKET INCENTIVES IN HERE AND SAY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARE BENEFITS THAT GET YOU EXTRA HIGH, EXTRA FAR, WHATEVER WE WANT. 
          AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS GET YOU EXTRA HIGH AND EXTRA FAR AND WHATEVER WE WANT. 
          BUT DON'T PIT THE TWO AGAINST EACH OTHER AND SAY, COMMUNITY BENEFITS SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSING OR HOUSING SUBSTITUTES FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          THEY'RE BOTH IMPORTANT. 
          UM, ABSOLUTELY. 
          AND I APPRECIATE THE, THE THOUGHTFULNESS THAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS BRINGING YOU THIS BECAUSE, UM, AS I MENTIONED, I WE JUST TOOK THIS FROM THE DB 90, OR SORRY, SORRY, TDBE TODD LANGUAGE, WHICH IS, AS YOU CAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DETAILED INFORMATION THERE, IT ACTUALLY DOES OUTLINE HOW MUCH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS REDUCED. 
          AND I'M NOT NECESSARILY SAYING THAT THAT SHOULD BE THE RIGHT PATH FORWARD. 
          UM, IF YOU PREFER THAT WE STRIKE THIS OR MAKE IT SAY SOMETHING SO THAT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY IN INTRODUCE A REDUCTION OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THAT'S FINE. 
          I THINK I WAS USING IT AGAIN, MORE AS A GUIDELINE AND SORT OF A WAY A, A SET OF SUGGESTIONS. 
          UM, I'LL, I'LL LEAVE THAT TO YOU. 
          UH, I'M, IF, IF, IF WE CAN STRUCTURE TO WHERE THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS DON'T REDUCE AFFORDABLE, I AM, I'M A HUNDRED PERCENT FOR THIS, BUT THE, IT'S THE SAME REASON I VOTED AGAINST E TODD . 
          UM, I, I THINK THAT THAT'S A FAIR POINT AND I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT THESE SITES ARE LARGER, SO YOU WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DO BOTH. 
          SO REALLY THERE SHOULDN'T BE THE SAME TRADE OFFS AS YOU WOULD NECESSARILY HAVE WITH THE DBE E TODD. 
          SO I THINK THAT POTENTIALLY WHAT WE COULD JUST ADD IN HERE IS A NOTE TO STAFF OR DIRECTION TO STAFF TO SAY THAT BOTH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED THROUGH THE USE OF TRANSIT SUPPORTED, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE, IF THAT SOUNDS. 
          SURE. 
          AND EVEN USING MARKET, MARKET-BASED INCENTIVES. 
          FANTASTIC. 
          WE'RE ALL HAPPY. 
          ? YES. 
          ARE YOU? OKAY. 
          SO LET'S MAKE THAT AN OFFICIAL MOTION. 
          UH, SO, UH, THE, THE AMENDMENT FOUR FOR THE DV TWO 40, UH, ORDINANCE WOULD BE DIRECT STAFF TO SUPPORT TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE AS PART OF THE DENSITY BONUS CONSIDERING BOTH COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PARTICULARLY LOOKING AT MARKET RATE INCENTIVES. 
          SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT'S EVER HAPPENED BEFORE. 
          NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. 
          . 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY, UM, QUESTIONS? ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. 
          YES, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          SORRY. 
          NO, . 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? EIGHT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THAT IS UNANIMOUS. 
          THAT PASSES. 
          I DID JUST WANT TO TAKE A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE. 
          THANK YOU FOR, UH, SKIPPING THE TWO I, BUT HOLD, SORRY I HAD TO STEP OVER. 
          NO PROBLEM AT ALL. 
          UM, YOU'RE ACTUALLY UP NOW. 
          WE CAN GO BACK TO NUMBER TWO. 
          UM, WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN TAKE NUMBER TWO AND THREE TOGETHER. 
          UM, SINCE THEY'RE RELATED, LET'S START WITH THAT. 
          AND IF WE NEED TO GO BACK AND SPLIT THEM, WE CAN DO THAT. 
          SO, UM, THIS IS A GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE AMENDMENT PROPOSER OR STAFF COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, IF YOU WANNA JUMP IN. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, UH, QUESTION FOR THE AMENDMENT MAKER. 
          UM, JUST LOOKING AT THE TEXT YOU REFERENCED, WE, THIS TALKS ABOUT 75% OF THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE BUILDING. 
          I I THOUGHT WE HAD MODIFIED DB 90 SO THAT IT'S NOW 75% OF THE FRONTAGE OR MAYBE EVEN LESS. 
          UM, I UNDERSTAND YOU WANTED TO KEEP THE SORT OF WAIVER PROVISION, SO MAYBE THAT'S WHY YOU USE THE OLDER LANGUAGE, BUT, UM, I JUST WANTED TO ASK, UH, WHAT WAS YOUR THINKING IN, IN THIS? ARE YOU REALLY WANTING 75% OF THE ACTUAL FLOOR AREA OF EACH BUILDING TO BE COMMERCIAL ON THE GROUND FLOOR? NO, AND THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT. 
          I WAS ACTUALLY, I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE REFERENCING DOCUMENTS FROM THE MUNI CODE, THAT'S WHERE I TOOK IT FROM. 
          SO IF IT'S IN, I MAY HAVE NOT COPIED THE SAME INFORMATION, THERE'S MIGHT NOT HAVE CODIFIED THAT CHANGE YET. 
          SO IT'S, AND AND YES, TO YOUR POINT, THE REASON I TOOK THAT WHOLE SECTION IS BECAUSE THE WAIVER PART IS INCLUDED IN THAT SECTION. 
          UM, I DO THINK THAT TO YOUR POINT, ACTUALLY TWO AND THREE ARE SORT OF CLOSELY RELATED, BUT I DO WOULD ALSO AGAIN SAY THAT THIS IS NOT PRESCRIPTIVE PER SE. 
          IT'S MORE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO LOOK AT THESE TYPES OF PROVISIONS TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE COULD BEST UTILIZE COMMERCIAL IN THESE DEVELOPMENTS. 
          [02:25:02]
SORRY, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? IT DOES. 
          UM, AND I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT OUR, OUR PROCESS NOW. 
          IF WE WANTED TO OFFER A SUBSTITUTE OR, OR MODIFY THE AMENDMENTS IN ANY WAY, BUT I JUST JUMP RIGHT INTO THAT OR, OR ARE WE WAITING FOR OTHER QUESTIONS? SO THE WAY THAT WE'VE SET UP OUR PROCESS ACTUALLY HELPS ALLEVIATE SOME OF THIS. 
          WHAT DO WE DO? IT'S NOT YET A MOTION. 
          SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT CHANGES TO THE TEXT THAT THEN WHOEVER MAKES THE MOTION WOULD INCORPORATE. 
          I SEE. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          UM, I THINK WE'RE ALL A LITTLE RUSTY ON THIS AFTER THE SPRING. 
          UM, YEAH, I MEAN I I I THINK I'M JUST NOT REALLY COMFORTABLE GETTING EVEN THIS PRESCRIPTIVE WITH, I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SITES THAT ARE MOSTLY ON THE FRINGE OF TOWN THAT ARE ENORMOUS SITES THAT, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S 75% OF GROUND FLOOR OR FRONT. 
          I MEAN, WHAT FRONTAGE ARE WE, YOU KNOW, THE FRONTAGE MIGHT BE A MILE LONG ON SOME OF THESE SITES. 
          FRONTAGE MIGHT BE A LITTLE FLAG ON A SEVERAL DOZEN OR A HUNDRED ACRE SITE. 
          SO, UM, I WOULD, I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE I THINK WITH A VERY GENERAL DIRECTION TO STAFF TO JUST, YOU KNOW, EXPLORE ADDING, YOU KNOW, REQUIREMENTS OR ENCOURAGE GROUND FLOOR ACTIVATION. 
          UM, BUT I, I DON'T, I WOULDN'T WANT TO EVEN GET AS PRESCRIPTIVE AS TO SAY REQUIRE IT . 
          WELL, AND, AND I GUESS THAT'S A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION THEN. 
          'CAUSE I THINK THAT THERE'S TWO, SORRY. 
          UM, THAT THERE'S TWO PARTS TO THIS. 
          ONE IS ACTUALLY INCLUDING A GOING FOR REQUIREMENT AND THEN THE SECOND IS SORT OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. 
          UM, I DO THINK THAT THOSE ARE, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO BE AS PRESCRIPTIVE AS WHAT I PUT IN HERE WITH THE DB 90, THAT AGAIN, AS I SAID WAS JUST SAMPLE TEXT FOR STAFF TO LOOK AT. 
          BUT I THINK THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION OF IF WE ARE REQUIRING GROUND FLOOR RETAIL WITH OF SOME SORT OF WAIVER PROCESS FOR DB TWO 40 CASES. 
          AND THAT IS THE AMENDMENT I WAS INTENDING TO MAKE, JUST TO BE CLEAR ON ITEM NUMBER TWO. 
          ITEM NUMBER THREE I THINK SPEAKS MORE TO THE WHERE AND WHAT DO WE PUT IN THAT COMMERCIAL RETAIL. 
          AND I WOULD PREFER IF WE CONSIDER THOSE SEPARATELY HONESTLY. 
          YEAH, SEP SEPARATELY IS FINE THEN I THINK. 
          'CAUSE I THINK YOU'RE, YOU'RE RIGHT THAT THEY ARE A LITTLE MORE DIFFERENT THAN THEY SEEM 'EM AT FIRST GLANCE. 
          UM, YEAH, SO I DON'T KNOW. 
          I'M, I I'LL PROBABLY OFFER A SUBSTITUTE 'CAUSE I THINK WE DO DISAGREE ON WHETHER WE SHOULD REQUIRE IT OR NOT. 
          DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THIS MOTION AT ALL? OFFER A SUBSTITUTE? SHOULD I JUST MAKE A MOTION? UM, HOW DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT FOR NUMBER TWO SPECIFICALLY? UM, WELL, I, I I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION AND THEN WE CAN JUST DO A SUBSTITUTE. 
          SO, UM, THE, THE AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO FOR DB TWO 40 WOULD BE THE G GROUND FOUR COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT, INCLUDING SUCH A REQUIREMENT AS PART OF DB TWO 40, UM, THE DENSITY BONUS AND OFFERING A WAIVER SIMILAR TO THE LANGUAGE USED IN DB TWO NINE IN DB 90, UM, IN THE DENSITY BONUS 90 ORDINANCE, IF THAT COVERS IT. 
          SECOND, SORRY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST ONE ONE AMENDMENT THOUGH? COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, YOU, YOU SAY IN A DB 90 COM COMBINING DISC PROBABLY SHOULD BE A DB TWO 40 COMBINING, OH NO, THE LANGUAGE WAS TO SAY THAT THEY SHOULD BASE THE WAIVER PROCESS ON, ON WHAT WAS INCLUDED IN DB 90. 
          OKAY. 
          EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THIS ONE? ALRIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. 
          ALL OF, WELL, I'D LIKE TO OFFER A SUBSTITUTE. 
          SURE. 
          THIS AMENDMENT, YEP. 
          JUST JUMP IN. 
          UM, YEAH, SO THE SUBSTITUTE WOULD BE TO DIRECT STAFF TO, UM, EXPLORE THE CREATION OF STANDARDS TO ENCOURAGE, UH, STANDARDS THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR GROUND FLOORS OF BUILDINGS, UM, THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL USES, BUT NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE THE ACTUAL USES THEMSELVES. 
          JUST THINKING THAT, WELL, THAT'S THE MOTION . 
          I'LL SEE IF I HAVE A SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. 
          DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YEAH. 
          SO, UH, YOU KNOW, I I JUST, I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT WE CREATE THIS TOOL TO INCENTIVIZE DENSITY AND, AND THE CREATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND FAR-FLUNG SORT OF LESS DENSE AREAS OF THE CITY MOSTLY. 
          OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE SOME OF THE, UH, DISTRICTS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE THIS TOOL ARE MORE CENTRAL, UM, BUT IN PLACES THAT ALMOST CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE A MARKET TO SUPPORT SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF RETAIL OR COMMERCIAL AND MIGHT NOT EVEN HAVE THAT MARKET ONCE THE DEVELOPMENT IN QUESTION TAKES PLACE. 
          AND SO I WOULD RATHER HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT I, WE ALLOW DEVELOPMENTS TO GO THAT HAVE GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL, FOR INSTANCE, OR, OR OTHER USES THAT AREN'T THAT SORT OF QUOTE UNQUOTE ACTIVATION, UM, 
          [02:30:01]
BUT ARE PHYSICALLY DESIGNED AND BUILT TO ACCOMMODATE THAT IN THE FUTURE. 
          SO THAT IF SOMEBODY REALIZES THERE'S A MARKET FOR A COFFEE SHOP OR A STORE OR RESTAURANTS OR WHATEVER, THEY CAN PUT ONE IN WITHOUT HAVING TO BUILD A NEW BUILDING, THEY COULD SIMPLY CHANGE THE USE ON THE GROUND FLOOR. 
          BUT WE WOULDN'T BE ESSENTIALLY INCENTIVIZING DEVELOPERS TO BUILD VACANT RETAIL SPACES NOW, UM, THAT THEY COULDN'T USE FOR OTHER USES LIKE RESIDENCES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST ON THIS? I JUST WANNA CLARIFY. 
          OKAY. 
          COULD I JUST ASK A, A CLARIFYING QUESTION? I HAVE DIRECT STAFF TO EXPLORE THE CREATION OF STANDARDS THAT WOULD ALLOW THE GROUND FLOORS OF BUILDINGS THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE COMMERCIAL USES. 
          AND THEN I THINK WE NEED TO END THAT IN SOME WAY. 
          WELL, I THINK, I THINK IT WAS THAT WOULD REQUIRE, UH, THE GROUND FLOORS OF BUILDINGS THAT BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE COMMERCIAL USES, UM, WITHOUT REQUIRING THAT USE SPECIFICALLY. 
          SO ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL AND OTHER USES WITHIN THOSE SPACES WITHOUT REQUIRING THE USE TO BE WITH THE INTENT. 
          ARE YOU SAYING WITHOUT REQUIRING THE USE TO BE ACTIVATED? I THINK, I'M SORRY. 
          REQUIRED PERIOD. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          STANDARDS THAT REQUIRE THE DESIGN OF GROUND FLOORS THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE COMMERCIAL USE WITHOUT REQUIRING THE COMMERCIAL USE ITSELF. 
          SO THAT IF YOU'RE BUILDING A BUILDING IN THIS DISTRICT, IT HAS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE GROUND FLOOR RETAILER COMMERCIAL, BUT YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE FORCED TO USE THAT SPACE FOR ONLY COMMERCIAL. 
          OKAY. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          ON THE INTENT, WOULD YOU MIND COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? I'M SORRY, JUST RESTATING THE MOTION IN ITS FINAL FORM. 
          WOW. 
          THE LAST ONE WAS THE MOST ELOQUENT, SORRY. 
          UM, DIRECT STAFF TO, UH, CREATE STANDARDS FOR THE DB TWO 40 COMBINING DISTRICT THAT, UM, REQUIRE GROUND FLOORS OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH OR ACCOMMODATE COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL, UM, USES BUT DO NOT REQUIRE THE USES THEMSELVES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IT LOOKS LIKE WE STILL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. 
          DO WE NEED TO REPEAT THAT? MAYBE COMMISSIONER WOODS, YOU REPEAT THAT SINCE YOU'VE GOT IT WRITTEN DOWN? I DON'T SURE HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE LANG. 
          I JUST HAVE, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE MOTION MAKER. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT I'LL WORK, GO AHEAD. 
          UM, BEFORE COMMISSIONER HANEY STEALS IT FROM ME, UH, THE NEW GUY, COURSE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, UH, EXPLAINED THIS TO ME. 
          I MEAN, I I GET IT. 
          WE'RE GONNA BUILD A TALL BUILDING OUT ON ED BLUESTEIN OR WAY UP ON SIX 20 AND FAR FLUNG REACHES. 
          I I I'M, I GOT THAT. 
          I UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE HEADED. 
          BUT THEN YOU'RE GONNA SAY THAT THE GROUND FLOOR, WE GOTTA, WE GOTTA DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL SPACE, BUT UNTIL THE PEOPLE MOVE IN WHERE WE NEED A RESTAURANT OR A COFFEE SHOP OR A WHATEVER, YOU'RE GONNA ALLOW SOMEBODY TO MOVE IN A RESIDENCE OR A HELP ME OUT. 
          IS THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH YOU? ALMOST. 
          THAT'S 95% THERE. 
          THE IDEA IS THAT WE WOULD REQUIRE BUILDINGS CREATED UNDER DEVELOPMENTS CREATED UNDER THIS DISTRICT TO HAVE GROUND FLOORS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY DESIGNED AND BUILT IN A WAY THAT THEY COULD ACCOMMODATE COMMERCIAL USES WITHOUT REQUIRING THAT USE ITSELF. 
          BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, WHEN WE REQUIRE A GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL USE, IF YOU CAN'T FIND IT, IF YOU'RE THE LANDLORD OR THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING AND YOU CAN'T FIND A COMMERCIAL TENANT, IT JUST HAS TO SIT EMPTY. 
          UH, YOU CAN'T ALLOW SOMEONE TO LIVE IN THERE. 
          I MEAN, THERE'S LIVE WORK AND THERE ARE KIND OF WORKAROUNDS THAT PEOPLE DO, BUT I WOULD RATHER WE START TO BE EXPLICIT AND SAY, LOOK, WHAT MATTERS IS THAT THE SPACE IS DESIGNED IN SUCH A WAY THAT SHOULD THE MARKET ARISE TO SUPPORT GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL, WE CAN CONVERT IT WITHOUT HAVING TO BUILD AN ENTIRELY NEW BUILDING OR TEAR IT DOWN OR DO HUGELY COST PROHIBITIVE AMOUNTS OF WORK TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. 
          IT'S JUST SORT OF THINKING AHEAD FOR THAT FUTURE INSTEAD OF FIVE OR 10 OR 15 YEARS FROM NOW, BUT 20 OR 30 OR 40 YEARS IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, SOME OF THESE AREAS WILL BE DENSER AND HAVE MORE OF A CUSTOMER BASE TO SUPPORT THOSE USES, UH, THAT THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE TODAY. 
          DID THAT HELP COMMISSIONER HAYES ? SURE. 
          VICE CHAIR. 
          UM, THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          THIS IS A, A, A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          UH, JUST SO I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, AND I I COMPLETELY GET THE INTENT OF IT. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          I GUESS THE IDEA IS THAT IF WE NEED TO HAVE 14 FOOT HIGH CEILINGS AND ESSENTIALLY CREATE, IT'S MORE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SORT OF GROUND FLOOR DESIGN STANDARDS, THE DESIGN STANDARDS. 
          EXACTLY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, AND YEAH, TO YOUR POINT, I MEAN, SOME OF THE COMMON ONES THAT I'VE SEEN IN MY WORK IN THE PAST HAVE BEEN HIGHER CEILING HEIGHTS, UM, LARGER MECHANICAL AND, AND OTHER UTILITY CHASES TO SUPPORT VENTILATION AND PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL, UM, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. 
          MAYBE THICKER 
          [02:35:01]
FLOOR SLABS DEPENDING ON THE CONSTRUCTION TYPE, YOU KNOW, SO THERE ARE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT, UM, TACTICS THAT STAFF MIGHT EXPLORE AND CONSIDER INCLUDING. 
          UM, THIS IS, AGAIN, JUST DIRECTION TO STAFF TO, TO LOOK INTO THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER WOODS, DO YOU HAVE THE LANGUAGE MAYBE I, I'M, I APOLOGIZE. 
          I WAS NOT TYPING AS QUICKLY AS I WANTED TO BE, BUT WHAT I HAVE IS DIRECT STAFF TO CREATE STANDARDS FOR THE DV TWO 40 COMBINING DISTRICT THAT REQUIRE THE GROUND FLOORS OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE COMPATIBLE OR COULD ACCOMMODATE COMMERCIAL USES TO ACCOMMODATE POTENTIAL FUTURE COMMERCIAL USES. 
          DOES THAT CAPTURE IT? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? I THINK THAT'S CLEAR ENOUGH, HOPEFULLY. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. 
          THIS IS I WOULD TO SPEAK AGAINST, SO WE DO SPEAKING. 
          OH, YES, YES. 
          UM, WELL, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR AMENDMENT, YOUR SUBSTITUTE? UM, I THINK I, COMMISSIONER I'VE PRETTY MUCH SPOKEN FOR IT, UH, ALREADY, BUT I, I WOULD JUST ADD THAT AGAIN, I, AS A PLANNER AND AS YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY WHO IS INTERESTED IN LIVING IN A QUALITY URBAN ENVIRONMENT, UM, I WOULD, I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT IS BETTER TO HAVE A RESIDENCE ON A GROUND FLOOR AS OPPOSED TO A VACANT RETAIL SPACE. 
          AND I THINK A LOT OF OUR EFFORTS IN THE PAST HAVE CREATED VACANT GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACES, UM, THAT SIT EMPTY FOR FIVE OR SIX OR 10 YEARS WHILE THE MARKET KIND OF CATCHES UP IN TERMS OF DEMAND. 
          UH, AND SO THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO BE A LITTLE MORE PROACTIVE AND, AND PROVIDE THAT FLEXIBILITY UPFRONT AND SPEAKING AGAIN, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          AND I KNOW WE HEARD A LOT OVER THE YEARS ABOUT VMU AND NOT ALLOWING ENOUGH HEIGHT OVER VMU TO REALLY ACTIVATE THE GROUND FLOOR LIKE ONE WOULD WANT. 
          I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LITTLE BIT MORE INTENSITY HERE WITH THESE DEVELOPMENTS. 
          AND SO I DON'T THINK ANY DEVELOPER WANTS TO SEE THEIR GROUND FLOOR BE VACANT AND THEN THEM TRY AND LEASE OR SELL A BIG BUILDING ON TOP OF THAT. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF THEY HAVE TO TAKE A HAIRCUT ON THEIR RETAIL AND HELP WITH TENANT IMPROVEMENTS AND HELP GET GOOD FOLKS IN THERE AND HELP THAT FIRST GENERATION SPACE GET BUILT, I'D RATHER SEE THAT SPACE BE BUILT AND BE ACTIVATED RETAIL THAT KIND OF HELPS CAPTURE THOSE FOLKS WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO OUT TO GET A TACO OR HAIRCUT OR WHATEVER AND REALLY SEE KIND OF COMMUNITIES HELP THRIVE WITH THE GROUND FLOOR RETAIL. 
          AND SO I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS ITEM. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR THE AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER RAM RAMIREZ? YEAH, I REALLY LIKE WHERE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON IS GOING AND HAVING SEEN A LOT OF THOSE EMPTY VACANT, UM, FIRST FLOOR RETAIL, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH HAVE IT BE RESIDENTIAL AND THEN CONVERT INTO, UM, RETAIL IN THE FUTURE, AS HE STATED. 
          BUT I THINK THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS, WHICH IS INCLUDES A WAIVER, IS THAT IF YOU, IF IN THE, IN THE BEGINNING, IN THE INITIATED PHASE, IF THE DEVELOPER SEEKS A WAIVER AND HAS NO INTENT TO BUILD RETAIL, THEN IT'S NOT BUILT TO THE 12 OR 14 FOOT TALL FIRST FLOOR, AND SO YOU LOSE THE ABILITY TO DO IT IN THE LONG RUN. 
          WHEREAS AS COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S SAYING, IF WE TELL THEM, YOU KNOW, YOU NEED TO BUILD TO A HIGHER HEIGHT AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, UM, AIR REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED FOR A CAFE OR ET CETERA ARE PART OF THAT BUILD OUT, BUT IT'S NOT TURNED ON, ARE NOT ACTIVATED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS, AS THEY WANT, AND IN THE MEANTIME IT CAN BE RESIDENTIAL. 
          I THINK THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UM, YEAH, I, I THINK THAT I, MY INTENT WITH THE THIS AMENDMENT WAS ACTUALLY, ACTUALLY RELATED TO A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. 
          UM, A LOT OF THESE SITES ARE, I THINK, WELL, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, NOT IN, IN THE MOST CENTRAL PART OF, UM, THE CITY. 
          AND SO REALLY ENSURING THAT WE HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL AS A REQUIREMENT AND THAT WE HAVE THAT CHANCE TO DO PLACEMAKING AND SORT OF, AS COMMISSIONER ANDERSON NOTED, UM, CREATES SOME SORT OF WALKABILITY AND SORT OF INTERNAL USES, UM, BE THAT EXACTLY THAT, LIKE A BARBERSHOP OR, YOU KNOW, YOUR PET GROOMERS OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE. 
          AND I DO UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION WITH THE WAY WE'VE SEEN SOME OF THE VMU SPACES, UM, RE LEASED OUT, BUT I THINK THAT'S ALSO WHY I AM INCLUDING THE WAIVER. 
          AND I WOULD SINCERELY HOPE THAT WE COULD HAVE THESE TYPE OF CONVERTIBLE BUILDINGS, BUT I DO UNFORTUNATELY THINK THAT THAT'S NOT REALLY OUR, OUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DON'T ALLOW THAT AS, AS THAT FLEXIBILITY AS MUCH AS WE MIGHT LIKE. 
          SO I DO APPRECIATE THE DIRECTION OF COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, AND I THINK I WAS JUST TRYING TO KEEP IT A LITTLE BIT CLEANER BY SAYING, YES, WE WANT COMMERCIAL. 
          YES, YOU CAN THEORETICALLY GET A WAIVER, AND OF COURSE IF YOU DO GET THE WAIVER, THEN IT IS ADDITIONAL HOUSING. 
          SO I THINK IT'S VERY SIMILAR, BUT JUST KIND OF TWO DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. 
          AND I REALLY WOULD EMPHASIZE THAT I THINK THE COMMERCIAL DOES HELP WITH OUR COMMUNICATE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND PLACEMAKING, WHICH WE ARE TRYING TO DO WITH THIS DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER 
          [02:40:01]
SKIDMORE. 
          ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, THOSE AGAINST THREE, FIVE AND ABSTAINING. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE, UH, THAT'S 12 WITH COMMISSIONER COX OFF THE DS, THAT MOTION FAILS. 
          SO WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT FOR NUMBER TWO. 
          THIS WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, AGAIN BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS. 
          UM, WERE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS TO THE MOTION MAKER, VICE CHAIR, UM, CHAIR, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I GOT A LITTLE LOST THERE. 
          CAN, CAN WE RESTATE THE BASE MOTION AGAIN? UM, UH, THE BASE MOTION OR THIS AMENDMENT I, THE BASE MOTION FOR THIS AMENDMENT? SO WE, WE KNOW, WE JUST DISPOSE OF THE SUBSTITUTE. 
          I JUST WANT TO KNOW THE ORIGINAL MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, YES. 
          SO THE AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO WOULD BE, UH, GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT FOR THE DB TWO 40 DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, AND THAT WE WOULD DIRECT STAFF TO USE, UH, TO REQUIRE COMMERCIAL GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL RETAIL PER THE DB 90 STANDARDS, INCLUDING A WAIVER OF SAID COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS PER THE SAME ORDINANCE OF DB 90. 
          I APPRECIATE IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SHE THANK YOU. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST QUICK QUESTION, GENERAL QUESTION. 
          YES. 
          SURE. 
          UM, SO ON THE WAIVER PROCESS, IF YOU KNOW THE WAIVERS SUCCESSFULLY APPLIED FOR AND GRANTED, WOULD THE DESIGN STANDARDS REMAIN, UH, IN PLACE FOR A COMMERCIAL SPACE OR WOULD IT THEN BE ABLE TO BE DESIGNED WITH, YOU KNOW, NINE FOOT CEILINGS AND, AND ALL THAT? UM, I, I WOULD ACTUALLY DEFER TO STAFF BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE'VE SEEN SOME WAIVERS ON DB 90 CASES, SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THAT PART IS HANDLED, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT PER COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE COULD INCLUDE THAT FLEXIBILITY AND WOULD BE CERTAINLY OPEN TO THAT AS A, AN ADDITIONAL PART OF THIS AMENDMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, I'M HONESTLY NOT ENTIRELY POSITIVE, BUT I DO BELIEVE IF YOU WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT, THEN THE WHOLE REQUIREMENT ABOUT THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS AND ONE IS WAIVED. 
          SO YES, THE HEIGHTS AND BUILDING WOULD BE DIFFERENT. 
          SO IF YOU WANNA CHANGE THAT, THAT'S POSSIBLE. 
          UH, UM, HAS, MY AMENDMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN SECONDED. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO I CAN ASK, IS IT SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? COULD I OFFER A SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE REQUIREMENT THAT IF THERE IS A WAIVER THAT IT BE, THAT IT, THAT THE WAVED PORTION OF THE BUILDING WOULD NEED TO BE DESIGNED TO ALLOW FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE? YES. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT SUBSTITUTE? I, I THINK WE'VE ALREADY SP SPOKEN IT TO DEATH, SO WE'RE, WE'RE GOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST OR FOR, ARE YOU CLEAR COMMISSIONER ANDERSON ON THIS SUBSTITUTE? YES, I'M, I'M GONNA SPEAK TO THE FOUR BECAUSE I'M THE ORIGINAL MOTION MAKER AND I ACTUALLY APPRECIATE THIS, UM, SUBSTITUTE, UM, FOR COMMISSIONER HANEY BECAUSE I THINK IT ACTUALLY GETS TO WHAT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON WAS SAYING WAS THAT WE DIRECT STAFF TO CONSIDER THE FLEXIBILITY OF HAVING COMMERCIAL SPACES THAT CAN ALSO BE USED AS RESIDENTIAL SO THAT WE ARE NOT CLOSING OFF THAT BY ALLOWING THE WAIVER PROCESS TO ELIMINATE THOSE DESIGN STANDARDS. 
          SO I THINK THAT THIS IS AN EXCELLENT SUBSTITUTE. 
          HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT THAN COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S? OH, IT JUST INCLUDES THE WAIVER AND THE REQUIREMENT OF, WELL, SORRY, LET ME ASK IT. 
          , COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S HANDS UP COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          I'LL PHRASE IT AS A QUESTION. 
          AM I CORRECT IN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION HAS A, WOULD ESTABLISH A GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT FOR THIS DISTRICT, BUT WOULD ALLOW A WAIVER PROCESS AND IF THAT WAIVER PROCESS IS USED, WOULD WOULD IMPOSE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT GROUND FLOOR SPACE STILL BE CONVERTIBLE IN THE FUTURE? I THINK SO. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS A MUCH BETTER WAY TO PUT IT THAN THE TORTURED LANGUAGE THAT I USED. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YES. 
          YES. 
          DID THAT HELP ANDERSON? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYBODY ELSE 
          [02:45:01]
SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST, WE'RE ALL CLEAR ON THIS SUBSTITUTE. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? EIGHT, NINE, TEN FIVE. 
          UNANIMOUS? 13. 
          THAT'S UNANIMOUS. 
          OKAY. 
          I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER COX ABSTAINED, UH, THAT'S A, WAIT, IS THAT A YELLOW? ALL RIGHT. 
          I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE A SPRING GREEN, SO IT'S, IT'S A YELLOW. 
          WAIT, WHAT? WAIT, . 
          HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE'S DOING. 
          IGNORE HIM A MUSTARD. 
          I'M JUST SHOWING YOU THE DIFFERENCE IN COLOR. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, BUT IT WAS AN ABSTENTION, CORRECT? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          12 TO ZERO TO ONE WITH COMMISSIONER COX ABSTAINING. 
          NUMBER THREE, , UH, UM, BECAUSE WE SEPARATED OUT NUMBER TWO AND THREE, SO COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, UM, NUMBER THREE, YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE FOR COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, YEAH, I, I AM MORE JUST CUR I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE GENERAL INTENT, BUT I'M CURIOUS WHAT YOU MEAN BY AN, AN ADDITIONAL MIX OF USE REQUIREMENT FOR LARGER SITES. 
          ARE YOU ENVISIONING THAT LARGER SITES WOULD REQUIRE A LARGER PERCENTAGE OR JUST THAT THEY MIGHT BE REQUIRED ALONG INTERNAL STREETS? I'M, I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW YOU, UM, I, I THINK THE ACTUAL POINT THAT WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE HERE IS PROBABLY POORLY WORDED IS ACTUALLY RELATED TO THE ACTIVATION. 
          AND THAT THE IDEA WOULD BE THAT YOU COULD MOVE BEYOND JUST A COMMERCIAL SO THAT, THAT'S WHY YOU MIGHT GET SOMETHING LIKE, UH, LIKE A COMMUNITY PARK OR I DON'T KNOW, EVEN, I DON'T KNOW, BIKE PARKING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          THERE WOULD BE SOME IDEA THAT YOU WERE DOING AN ACTIVATION RELATED TO THE COMMERCIAL. 
          SO I, I THINK THAT THAT COULD BE CLARIFIED PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT MORE. 
          UM, YEAH, SO GROUND FLOOR ACTIVATION MORE THAN JUST SOME PRINCIPAL SEATS AND CRAFT ADDITIONAL MAKES TO USAGE REQUIREMENTS, LARGER SITES. 
          UM, YEAH, SO I THINK THE IDEA WAS TO GIVE SOME FLEXIBILITY AND TO ENSURE THAT THE COMMERCIAL WAS ON NOT NECESSARILY ADJACENT TO THE HIGHWAY, IF THAT, OR SPECIFICALLY THE LARGEST STREET, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          THAT DOES MAKE SENSE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT? OKAY. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DO YOU WANNA YES. 
          MAKE IT OFFICIAL? UM, SO, UH, AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE FOR THE DB TWO 40 WOULD BE CONTACT SPECIFIC CON COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS AS PROPOSED, UH, FOR DB SITES ON LARGER SITES. 
          IIE, THOSE OVER 2.5 ACRES REQUIRE GROUND FLOOR ACTIVATION ON MORE THAN JUST THE PRINCIPAL STREETS AND CRAFT AN ADDITIONAL MIX OF USES FOR LARGER SITES TO REQUIRE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE SITE BE COMMERCIAL OR SIMILARLY ACTIVATED PUBLIC USE. 
          OKAY. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, I THINK WE DID. 
          JUST DID, BUT JUST BASICALLY ALLOWING US TO REALLY GIVE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO WHAT WE HAVE ON OUR GROUND FLOOR AND HOW WE ACTIVATE THESE SITES. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION FOR, UH, VICE CHAIR CHAIR? CAN I SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? YES, YOU CAN. 
          UM, I, I AM IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. 
          I REALLY LIKE THE INTENT. 
          I THINK JUST MY ONE SORT OF PIECES, MY HOPE WOULD BE THAT WE CAN DO THIS IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT BECOME TOO COMPLICATED OR ONEROUS A REQUIREMENT SO THAT WE ARE INDEED MEETING THOSE GOALS OF HAVING SORT OF MORE BROKEN UP BLOCKS AND HAVING THOSE SORT OF WALKABILITY AND COMMERCIAL ACTIVATION. 
          BUT AT THE SAME TIME, HOPEFULLY WE CAN DO THAT WITHOUT BEING, UM, OVERTLY PRESCRIPTIVE AND NOT ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE IT IS HARD AT THOSE LARGER SITES SOMETIMES TO UNDERSTAND THE SPECIFICITY, UM, OF THE, SORT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF WHERE THE SITE IS AND HOW IT INTERACTS WITH ITS SURROUNDINGS. 
          BUT ALL THAT SAID, I DO REALLY APPRECIATE THE INTENT AND WILL BE SUPPORTING IT. 
          . 
          ANY OTHER SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. 
          ITEM NUMBER THREE, SECONDED OR MADE BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, BY COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT IS UNANIMOUS. 
          THAT'S 13 ZERO. 
          OKAY. 
          MOVING ON TO COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ IS NUMBER 10. 
          THIS WAS PULLED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AND I THINK WE WERE GONNA HELP CRAFT SOME LANGUAGE MAYBE. 
          UM, AND THIS IS ACTUALLY A CLARIFICATION FOR STAFF BECAUSE COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ AND I HAD A QUICK CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS, AND I THINK WE WERE JUST A LITTLE UNCLEAR ABOUT HOW THESE SITES MIGHT INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER. 
          SO IF, UM, SOMEONE FROM STAFF MIGHT WANNA COME ASK A QUICK, SO ESSENTIALLY THE IDEA WAS THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, THERE ARE SEVERAL PLACES WHERE WE MIGHT END UP WITH, SAY, A NEW DB TWO 40, AND THEN THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF POTENTIALLY INDUSTRIAL OR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL NEARBY. 
          UM, WHAT DOES THE REVIEW PROCESS LOOK LIKE THAT SO THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT UNINTENTIONALLY POTENTIALLY 
          [02:50:01]
DOING, UH, ALLOWING SORT OF UNACCEPTABLE USES CLOSE IN PROXIMITY TO EACH OTHER? YEAH, SO, YOU KNOW, FOR A NEW SITE APPLYING FOR DB TWO 40, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, STANDARD REZONING REVIEW, UH, WOULD OCCUR. 
          AND SO THE ZONING TEAM WOULD USE PLANNING PRINCIPLES TO DETERMINE IF IT'S ADEQUATE DURING SITE PLAN. 
          THERE IS ALSO AN ACTUALLY DURING REZONING REVIEW FIRE DEPARTMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, REVIEWS, AND THAT INCLUDES REVIEW FOR COMPATIBILITY, KIND OF WITH ANY OTHER LAND USES THAT ARE ADJACENT, SO NOXIOUS USES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          UM, AND SO SIMILARLY, IF YOU HAD A DB TWO 40 SITE AND SOME ONE ADJACENT TO YOU WAS APPLYING FOR SOMETHING WITH A SITE PLAN, YOU'D HAVE VERY SIMILAR REVIEW. 
          SO THERE IS A REVIEW THAT CHECKS GENERALLY FOR WHAT IS APPLICABLE WITH YOUR CONTEXT AROUND YOU. 
          SO I GUESS TO FOLLOW UP ON THE QUESTION THEN, I THINK, UM, COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ NOTED THAT THEY, THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT POTENTIALLY HAVING, I GUESS, NEW HOUSING RELATED TO SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE SORT OF UNSAVORY. 
          AND I DON'T MEAN THAT IN A SENSE OF, BUT LIKE, UH, MAYBE SOMETHING WHERE WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY WANT HOUSING BECAUSE OF THE USES NEARBY, BUT YOU FEEL THAT BETWEEN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW AND OTHER THINGS, THAT THAT WOULD BE AN UNLIKELY CASE HOOD OR IS THERE SOME, IS THERE A NEED TO SORT OF STRENGTHEN THE, THAT REVIEW AND OR SORT OF HOW THAT PROCESS WORKS? UH, YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S UNLIKELY TO NEED IT. 
          I GUESS IT DEPENDS A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT YOU CONSIDER OBNOXIOUS OR, YOU KNOW, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DEFINITELY HAS ITS STANDARDS RELATED TO HEALTH. 
          UM, BUT YOU KNOW, THAT OBVIOUSLY CAN BE CONTEXTUAL TO PEOPLE WITH NOISE AND OR OTHER THINGS RELATED TO INDUSTRIAL USES. 
          QUESTION? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          OH, QUESTIONS MR. NEY. 
          UM, IS THE, IS THE REVERSE. 
          SO, SO YOU WERE SAYING, SO IF WE'VE GOT A HOUSING AND, AND THEN A LOT INDUSTRIAL OR A OBNOXIOUS USE COMES IN, YOU'RE GONNA LOOK AT IT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE, WHAT ABOUT THE REVERSE? IF, UH, IF WE'VE ALREADY GOT A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHED AND HOUSING? YEAH, IF THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW, WHICH WOULD LIKELY BE REQUIRED FOR ANY, ANYTHING MAJOR, UH, LIKE A NEW LAND USE INDUSTRIALS ON SIMILAR REVIEW HAPPENS WHERE FIRE IS INVOLVED. 
          SO WE'RE GONNA TRY TO BASICALLY, WE'RE GONNA TRY TO CUT DOWN ON, YOU KNOW, FOLKS MOVING TO THE NUISANCE. 
          YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE WE ALWAYS GET CLASHES IS WHEN FOLKS MOVE TO THE NUISANCE AND THEN SAY, OH, WELL, YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT A HOUSE NOW AND THE PIG FARMS NEXT TO ME, ARE YOU, YOU KNOW? YES, CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          THE ZONING TEAM WOULD LIKELY NOT RECOMMEND A, UH, DB TWO 40 CASE NEXT TO, NEXT TO SOMETHING THAT IS OBNOXIOUS. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER COX. 
          UM, I HOPE EVERYONE'S READ THE, UH, LETTERS WE GOT FROM OUR ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES AT, AT UT UH, SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE COMMUNITY REGIONAL PLANNING. 
          UH, I GUESS MY QUESTION TO STAFF AND THE QUESTION TO, I GUESS THE, THE WOULD BE MOTION MAKER FOR THIS AMENDMENT IS DO, DO WE, DO WE UTILIZE THE INFORMATION THAT ESSENTIALLY WAS PROVIDED TO US BY DR. MUELLER, UM, RELATED TO ESSENTIALLY TRAVIS COUNTY'S TOP POLLUTION EMITTERS AND THOSE POLLUTION EMITTERS ESSENTIALLY BEING IN THE MAJORITY OF THESE AREAS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR ADDING RESIDENTIAL? I MEAN, DO WE, DOES STAFF FACTOR THAT INFORMATION IN, IN THE RECOMMENDATION? AND, AND IS WOULD THIS AMENDMENT ATTEMPT TO DO THAT IF THAT IS NOT DONE ALREADY? COMMISSIONER COX POINT OF CLARIFICATION, UM, I DON'T THINK ANY OF US GOT COMMUNICATION THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. 
          CAN YOU EXPLAIN? OH, NO, Y'ALL NEED, SO THIS WAS IN OUR BACKUP. 
          UH, I THINK IT MAY HAVE BEEN LATE BACKUP, BUT IF YOU OPEN UP ITEM, UM, ITEM 20, IT'S CALLED PUBLIC COMMENT, AND IT'S ESSENTIALLY LETTERS FROM, UH, TO, UH, PROFESSORS, UM, FROM THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, UH, STRONGLY OPPOSING WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW AND EXPLAINING WHY. 
          AND, AND I DON'T KNOW, IT, IT MAY BE HELPFUL, UH, IF IT'S ALLOWED TO PULL THAT MAP UP THAT IS ATTACHED TO THAT CORRESPONDENCE BECAUSE IT, IT'S EXTREMELY HELPFUL IN KIND OF UNDERSTANDING, I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER BARR RAMIREZ MIGHT BE TALKING ABOUT WHEN IT, WHEN, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TRYING TO NOT HAVE RESIDENTIAL INTRODUCED INTO ESSENTIALLY THE MOST TOXIC AREAS IN OUR CITY. 
          THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. 
          IT'S ON PAGE ONE OF THE, UM, THE BACKUP THAT COMMISSIONER 
          [02:55:01]
COX MENTIONED, AND THE MAP IS ON PAGE FOUR OF THAT LETTER. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW, I GUESS IT, WHILE EVERYONE'S REVIEWING THAT, IF STAFF HAD, IF STAFF HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT LETTER AND MAYBE JUST RESPOND, UM, TO IT AND, AND, AND, OR MY QUESTION ABOUT IT, UM, WE DID NOT RECEIVE THE LETTER, SO NO, WE HAVE NOT REVIEWED IT. 
          OH CRAP. 
          OKAY. 
           MORE REASON TO POSTPONE, BUT I LOST THAT FIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? OR COMMISSIONER COX? DID YOU WANNA, I, I JUST, I JUST THINK THIS MAP IS INCREDIBLY ILLUMINATING, UM, SHOWING HOW DISPROPORTIONATELY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AFFECTS OUR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND, AND, UM, THE AREAS THAT HAVE THE HIGHEST POLLUTANT EMITTERS. 
          AND I, I'M, I GREW UP IN HOUSTON AND SO I'M VERY, I'M SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR WITH, WITH ALL OF THE ISSUES WE HAVE IN THE HOUSTON INDUSTRIAL AREAS AND THE FACT THAT OUR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR IN HOUSTON ARE VERY CONCENTRATED AROUND THOSE AREAS. 
          AND I JUST DON'T WANT US TO GO DOWN THE ROAD HERE IN AUSTIN. 
          WE, WE'VE ALREADY DONE IT. 
          UH, EVERYONE KNOWS THE HISTORY OF, OF, OF ALL OF THIS STUFF AND HOW IT'S, IT'S VERY RACIALLY MOTIVATED. 
          UM, I JUST DON'T WANT US TO DO SOMETHING WHERE WE ALL HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS, BUT WE DON'T, WE DON'T REALIZE THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF POTENTIALLY FURTHERING THOSE, THOSE DISPARITIES BETWEEN THE HEALTH AND WHERE WE LIVE AND, AND, UM, IN OUR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, OUR, OUR DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES. 
          YES. 
          SO I HAVE A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER. 
          HOW COULD WE ADJUST THE AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE THAT? UM, I'M, I TOO AM FAMILIAR WITH, YOU KNOW, HOUSTON AND THE FIFTH WARD, WHICH IS KNOWN AS CANCER ALLEY, UM, AND STRUGGLING WITH THESE ISSUES, THE, THE, UM, HOUSING UNITS ARE AFFORDABLE, BUT THE CANCER RATES ARE WELL-DOCUMENTED IN THE FIFTH WARD. 
          I'M NOT SURE IF STAFF CAN, HAS ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS TO HELP US? YEAH, STEVIE GRID HOUSE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UM, THE OBSERVATION THAT I WILL MAKE IS THAT THIS TOOL TO CREATE THE DENSITY BONUS TWO 40 WOULD BE GOING THROUGH A REZONING REQUEST AND GOING THROUGH THE EVALUATION UNDER A REZONING REQUEST, WHICH WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, A SIMILAR PROPERTY OWNER COULD COME IN AND REQUEST STRAIGHT UP MULTIFAMILY ZONING IN THESE AREAS. 
          AND WE WOULD BE GOING THROUGH A PROCESS TO REVIEW THAT AND REVIEW WHETHER THAT SITE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THAT DESIGNATION OR NOT. 
          UM, SO THE PROPOSAL HERE IS TO CREATE A TOOL THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE APPLIED THROUGH THE SITE, SITE SPECIFIC REZONING PROCESS WITH NOTIFICATION AND LEGISLATIVE EVALUATION BEFORE THIS BODY AND COUNSEL ON WHETHER THAT REQUEST IS APPROPRIATE OR NOT. 
          UM, THAT TOOL IS REPLACING A SITUATION WE FIND OURSELVES IN TODAY WHERE FOLKS ARE COMING IN THROUGH THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROCESS AND REQUESTING, UM, DISCRETIONARY MODIFICATIONS TO SITE STANDARDS AND USES TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL ON THESE SITES. 
          AND SO I THINK THAT THE INTENT ON THIS WORK, UM, IS REALLY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BEING MUCH MORE INTENTIONAL ON HOW WE ALLOW TRANSITION OF THOSE SITES TO RESIDENTIAL. 
          THE PROPOSAL WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INTENTIONALITY AROUND THAT RELATED TO ASKING FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS, BUT THERE WOULD STILL NEED TO BE AN EVALUATION BY THIS BODY AND BY COUNSEL ON WHETHER A REZONING REQUEST, UM, MAKES SENSE ON A PARTICULAR SITE, UM, WITH INSIGHT FROM REVIEWERS AROUND ADJACENT USES AND ADJACENT HAZARDS. 
          THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. 
          CAN I ASK, UH, MS. GREG HOUSE, UM, UH, YOU TRIGGERED SOMETHING IN, IN MY SHORT TERM MEMORY, UM, IN ITEM 19, WE, YOU, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, I GET IT, WE NEED TO CUT OFF PDAS FROM COMING IN AND PUTTING IN RESIDENTIAL USES AND MIXING THOSE WITH THINGS THAT AREN'T COMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL USERS. 
          DIDN'T WE JUST CLOSE THAT DOOR IN ITEM 19? YOU JUST SAT ON DID THAT ON 19. 
          OKAY. 
          [03:00:01]
THAT IS CORRECT. 
          AND SO WHY, IF WE JUST CLOSE THAT DOOR ON 19, THEN WHY ARE YOU, ARE YOU STILL CONCERNED? THE INTENTION AND DIRECTION THAT WE HAVE TAKEN FROM THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS PASSED WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT IN CASES WHERE WE ARE ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL ON THESE SITES, THAT WE REQUIRE COMMUNITY BENEFIT. 
          THE WAY THAT YOU DO THAT IS THROUGH A DENSITY BONUS, WHICH IS WHAT IS ON THE TABLE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          SO YOU SAID THAT THE REQUESTS ARE COMING IN, BUT DOES THAT, IS THAT THE KIND OF URGENCY THAT WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH? I MEAN, SHOULDN'T WE BE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE'S HELP AND EVEN IF THE REQUESTS ARE COMING IN, THEY CAN BE DENIED OR POSTPONED UNTIL THERE'S AT LEAST STAFF CAN EVALUATE THIS KIND OF INFORMATION THAT'S COMING FROM THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. 
          IT JUST SEEMS TO ME TO BE A LITTLE BIT INHUMANE TO PLOW FORWARD WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HEALTH OUTCOMES, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARDS TO PEOPLE OF COLOR WHO ARE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE FOLKS WHO ARE LOOKING FOR THE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT THESE KINDS OF DEVELOPMENTS WILL YIELD. 
          I HEAR THE CONCERN AND NONE OF THESE DECISIONS ARE EASY. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS OR IS THIS READY TO BE MADE INTO AN AMENDMENT THAT CAN MAYBE TAKE SOME OF THIS DIALOGUE AND, UM, INFORMATION FROM THE CRP PROGRAM? I, I JUST HAVE A NEW GUY QUESTION FOR STAFF. 
          YES. 
          UM, WHEN THESE COME BEFORE, UM, BEFORE US FOR EVALUATION BECAUSE YOU KNOW, NEW GUY, UM, IS THERE ANY SORT OF DATA THAT WE GET ALONG, UH, WITH THESE APPLICATIONS THAT, THAT SHOW, YOU KNOW, PROXIMITY TO MAJOR EMITTERS OR TO, YOU KNOW, A QUARRY OR TO, TO SOMETHING THAT COULD AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH? I KNOW WE HAVE A FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW AND YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT DO WE HAVE ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY THAT THAT'S, THAT MIGHT ADDRESS THAT? THERE IS TYPICALLY AN EVALUATION, APPROXIMATE USES. 
          NOW AIR QUALITY CARRIES, UM, AND I DON'T KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT WE'RE DOING, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY I DO KNOW WE AREN'T TYPICALLY DOING LIKE AN AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT AS PART OF A REZONING REQUEST, FOR EXAMPLE. 
          UM, BUT THERE'S DEFINITELY EVALUATION IN THE ZONING CASE REPORTS THAT MOVE FORWARD ON ADJACENT AND NEARBY USES AND WHAT THOSE ARE. 
          AND IF SO, GOING FORWARD, IF WE WANTED TO GET AN AIR QUALITY REPORT ON THAT IS SOME, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD NEED TO SORT OF REQUEST ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS OR IS THAT SORT OF A LEGISLATIVE GLOBAL CHANGE THAT'S TOO BIG FOR, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE AND I'M ASSUMING THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY STATE LAWS AROUND LAND USE THAT WOULD PREEMPT IF THERE AREN'T PREEM STATE LAWS ABOUT THAT, WE MAY BE PREEMPTED FROM IT. 
          IF THERE AREN'T, THERE WILL BE. 
          GOT IT. 
          ALRIGHT, SO WE COME BACK TO, CAN, CAN I OFFER, UM, SUGGESTION ON AMENDMENT LANGUAGE? YOU SURE. 
          UM, TO CAVEAT THIS WITH, YOU KNOW, PENDING LEGAL REVIEW. 
          UM, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE AMENDMENT STATES SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT FOR SPECIFICALLY FOR DB TWO 40 CASES AND ONLY DB TWO 40 CASES THAT THAT STAFF PROVIDE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION, UM, REFERENCED IN THE INFORMATION AND STUDIES PROVIDED BY PROFESSOR MUELLER. 
          AND, AND I COULD GO INTO LIKE THE TECHNICAL STUFF IN THE LETTER, UM, BUT I JUST THOUGHT IT WOULD BE EASIER TO REFERENCE THE LETTER RATHER THAN TRY TO START INTRODUCING KIND OF WEIRD SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE. 
          SO I HAVE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION WHEN YOU'RE DONE BECAUSE IT, IT REALLY, THIS IS REALLY DISAPPOINTING TO HEAR HOW WE'RE GOING ABOUT THIS AND I WOULD PREFER THAT YOU DO PUT THE LANGUAGE IN THERE BECAUSE GIVEN WHAT WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT, I DON'T HAVE THE CONFIDENCE THAT JUST REFERENCING A LETTER WILL DO IT. 
          I MEAN, WE HEARD, YOU KNOW, WELL THESE THINGS ARE TOUGH AND SO 
          [03:05:01]
THE CALL GOES THIS WAY. 
          I MEAN, IF YOU'RE IN THAT CONDITION, WHICH SOME OF US HAVE BEEN, THEN YOU KIND OF KNOW THAT THAT'S, THAT'S NOT WHERE THE CONCERN OUGHT TO BE. 
          IT OUGHT TO BE WITH PEOPLE AND THEIR HEALTH, HEALTH OUTCOMES AND WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THAT. 
          SO I WOULD PREFER YOU PUT IT IN. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          SO I MEAN, I I CAN, I I THINK I CAN MAKE IT SIMPLE THAT FOR PENDING LEGAL REVIEW, UM, RECOMMEND THAT STAFF INCLUDE FOR ONLY DB TWO 40 CASES, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THEIR BACKUP DOCUMENTATION THAT INCLUDES PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON FACILITIES WITH THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF EMISSIONS OF PM 2.5 SULFUR DIOXIDE AND VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ACCORDING TO THE TCEQ, WITHIN PROXIMITY OF THE SUBJECT TRACT. 
          AND I CAN SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE IF I GET A SECOND, OR, OR, SORRY, THAT WASN'T, THAT'S NOT MY MOTION. 
          THAT WAS JUST, THAT WAS A SUGGESTED LANGUAGE. 
          IT'S GOOD. 
          I MEAN, COMMISSIONER BARRE RAMIREZ, I'M FINE WITH YOU. 
          DO YOU WANT TO BE THE MOTION MAKER AND LOOK FOR A SECOND OR WOULD YOU UM, HE CAN BE THE MOTION MAKER . 
          SO COMMISSIONER COX, I'LL READ BACK WHAT I, UH, HEARD. 
          UM, PENDING LEGAL REVIEW FOR DB TWO 40 CASES ONLY STAFF IS TO PROVIDE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON FACILITIES WITH THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF EMISSIONS. 
          I DIDN'T CATCH THE TECHNICAL TERMS ACCORDING TO THE CCEQ WITHIN PROXIMITY OF THE SUBJECT TRACT. 
          IF YOU HELP ME WITH, I, I THINK THAT'S, THAT CAPTURES IT. 
          AND THE, THE TECHNICAL, UM, THE TECHNICAL, IT'S THE, THE THREE ITEMS THAT ARE BEING STUDIED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH BY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS IS PM 2.5. 
          OKAY. 
          SULFUR DIOXIDE AND VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THERE'S SOME, YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          SO, UM, LOOKING FOR A SECOND ON THAT, COMMISSIONER RERA RAMIREZ AND, UM, COMMISSIONER COX, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? THAT IS YOUR MOTION NOW? I, I ACTUALLY, SO THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO, UM, THE LETTERS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM, FROM UT. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW IF COMMISSIONER BREWER RAMIREZ WAS, WAS THINKING ABOUT ADDITIONAL THINGS, UH, WHEN IT COMES TO KIND OF THE SENSITIVITIES BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USE. 
          SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN AMEND IT, ADD TO IT, WHATEVER, IF, IF THERE'S OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE WANT TO TAKE IN. 
          BUT, BUT I THINK, I THINK I'VE TALKED ENOUGH ON THAT ISSUE. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST, UH, FOUR? I HAVE A, I HAVE A, UH, HOPEFULLY A MINOR AMENDMENT. 
          I WOULD ALSO ADD HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT, HAPS ARE THE MOTION MAKER AND THE SECOND OKAY TO THAT, ADDING THAT. 
          SURE. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH, SURE. 
          I THINK, I THINK THAT FITS WITHIN THOSE, THE GENERAL IDEA. 
          YES. 
          VICE CHAIR, CHAIR, WE MIGHT BE SORT OF BEYOND QUESTIONS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO SEE STAFF'S THOUGHTS ON THIS. 
          I THINK I REALLY APPRECIATE THE SORT OF INTENTION BEHIND IT, BUT WE ARE ASKING FOR DATA THAT THEY MIGHT NOT ENGAGE WITH. 
          I'M NOT EVEN SURE THIS IS THE WAY OUT OF MY WHEELHOUSE. 
          I WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT DATA IS AVAILABLE OR NOT. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF HAS ANY RESPONSE TO THIS. 
          I THINK WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK AT IT AND WORK WITH LAW DEPARTMENT AND ZONING CASE MANAGERS TO PROVIDE SORT OF RESPONSES TO GO ALONG WITH IT AS IT MOVES ON TO COUNCIL IF THERE IS AN ISSUE. 
          UM, I'M HESITANT TO TRY TO ANSWER ON BEHALF OF OUR ZONING TEAM SINCE I'M NOT INVOLVED DIRECTLY IN THOSE PROCESSES, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY GET THEIR INPUT, UM, AS WE MOVE IT FORWARD TO COUNCIL AS A RECOMMENDATION. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT, MS. GREATHOUSE. 
          THAT'S HELPFUL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CHAIR. 
          ANYONE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT? ANDERSON, THIS ISN'T A POISON PILL, RIGHT? THIS IS JUST DIRECTING STAFF TO, TO LOOK AT THIS AND SEE IF THIS MAKES SENSE. 
          OKAY. 
          [03:10:04]
OTHERS SPEAKING FOR AGAIN. 
          AND, AND IF, SORRY, CHAIR. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          COMMISSIONER CO. 
          JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS, THE INTENT OF THIS IS TO PROVIDE US ON THE DAAS AND FUTURE COMMISSIONS AND FUTURE COUNCILS, THAT INFORMATION EASILY ACCESSIBLE SINCE IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE TYPICALLY LOOK AT SPECIFICALLY JUST FOR THESE INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL CASES. 
          I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION ON THAT. 
          BUT THIS INFORMATION WOULD, WOULD ALSO BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IN THE WAY OF BACKUP. 
          YES. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I'LL READ IT ONE MORE TIME. 
          PENDING LEGAL REVIEW FOR DB TWO 40 CASES ONLY STAFFED TO PROVIDE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON FACILITIES WITH THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF EMISSIONS PM 2.5 SULFUR DIOXIDE VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS AND AIR, HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS, HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS ACCORDING TO THE TCEQ WITHIN PROXIMITY OF THE SUBJECT TRACT. 
          EVERYBODY CLEAR? LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY. 
          THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          I KNOW THAT WAS A, A JOURNEY WE MADE IT. 
          UM, THAT WAS A, A GOOD DISCUSSION. 
          UH, MOVING ON TO NUMBER 11. 
          THIS IS THE RETENTION OF JOBS. 
          UM, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, YOU PULLED THIS, UM, YEAH, I'M, I'M LOOKING AT IT AND TRYING TO REMEMBER THE BURDEN QUESTION I HAD AN HOUR AGO OR MORE. 
          UM, I THINK COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ, I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHAT, WHAT IS IT YOU ENVISION THIS AMENDMENT DOING? UM, LIKE HOW WOULD THIS, HOW WOULD WE GO ABOUT CLOSING THE GAP BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF LOCAL JOBS AVAILABLE AND THE AMOUNT OF SKILLED WORKERS? I MEAN, I, I WORRY ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS VERY, LIKE SOCIAL ENGINEERINGY SAYING WHAT KIND OF JOBS WE HAVE TO HAVE IN THE CITY BY WAY OF ZONING, OR IS THIS MORE JUST INTENDED TO HELP PRESERVE IN GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL USES? SO I PULLED THIS RECOMMENDATION FROM, UH, MR. WALTER'S REPORTS, AND IT REPORT THE PRESENTATION THAT SAYS POLICY SHOULD BE EXPLORED AS TO HOW TO INCORPORATE OR PRESERVE SOME INDUSTRIAL USES AND NEW, WAIT, THAT'S NOT THE ONE I WANT. 
          SORRY. 
          . 
          IF DECISION IS MADE TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USES INTO INDUSTRIAL CLUSTERS, STEPS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO PRESERVE DISPLACED JOBS. 
          AND SO I STARTED THINKING ABOUT WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND, AND LOOKING FOR PROGRAMS FOR WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND I CAME ACROSS UP UPON THIS PLAN. 
          UM, AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I LANDED, BUT I REALLY, I STRUGGLED ON THIS ONE TOO. 
          I JUST, MM-HMM. 
          , YOU KNOW, WAS TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO, TO HELP, UM, RETAIN JOBS WHEN CLOSING THESE, UM, INDUSTRIAL, UM, AREAS. 
          I, I WILL SAY THAT WHEN I WAS THINKING THROUGH THIS AS WELL, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY, UH, THE RE THE REASONING BEHIND THIS IS BECAUSE THE RESIDENTIAL USE IS HIGHEST IN BEST. 
          AND, UM, YOU KNOW, MANY, IT'S PERHAPS MANY OF THESE WORK, UM, WAREHOUSES SIT EMPTY OR UNDERUTILIZED. 
          AND SO THERE IS A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY FOR RESIDENTIAL. 
          UM, SO ALL THAT TO SAY THAT MAYBE THERE JOBS AREN'T BEING LOST BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ACTUALLY JOBS THERE TODAY. 
          UM, MM-HMM. 
          . 
          YEAH. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHERE MY, MY SORT OF QUESTION WAS IS I WOULD IMAGINE SITES THAT REDEVELOP ARE THOSE THAT ARE VACANT OR BECOMING VACANT FOR A REASON. 
          YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT LIKE A BUSTLING EMPLOYER WILL UP AND CLOSE BECAUSE THEY COULD MAKE MORE MONEY SELLING THEIR LAND TOO. 
          I MEAN, MAYBE, BUT THAT SEEMS UNLIKELY. 
          SO, YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? SO I DON'T, I DON'T REALLY HAVE, I MEAN, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE LANGUAGE I'M PROPOSING IS ABOUT THE AUSTIN'S HIGHER LOCAL PLAN, BUT LOOKING FOR OTHER LANGUAGE. 
          UM, WELL, UH, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO TURN IT INTO AN AMENDMENT. 
          I CAN MAKE THE MOTION. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          UM, SO HELP CLOSE, SORRY. 
          YES. 
          MAKE THE MOTION. 
          YES. 
          I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO, UM, TO INCLUDE, HELP CLOSE THE GAP BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF LOCAL JOBS AVAILABLE AND THE AMOUNT OF SKILLED WORKERS QUALIFIED TO FILL THEM BY IMPLEMENTING PORTIONS OF AUSTIN'S HIGHER LOCAL PLAN. 
          AND JIM, MIGHT I MAKE A LANGUAGE SUGGESTION BEFORE THERE'S A SECOND? YES. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER BAR RAMIREZ, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO ADDING IN THE END AND ENSURE THERE'S EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRIAL USES THROUGHOUT THE CITY? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THE REASON, HONESTLY, I BRING THIS UP IS I AGREE WITH YOU. 
          YOU KNOW, WE SAW THAT STAFF REPORT BEFORE, AND STAFF IS SORT OF EXPLAINING TO US FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, AND IT MAKES SENSE THAT WE WANNA HAVE SOME SPACES DESIGNATED FOR INDUSTRIAL USE IS, I 
          [03:15:01]
THINK WHAT'S REALLY BEEN HEARTBREAKING FOR ME IS INCREASINGLY AS WE HAVE CONVERTED INDUSTRIAL LAND TO OTHER USES THROUGH DISTRICT PLANNING OR OTHERS, THE BRUNT OF INDUSTRIAL USE HAS REMAINED IN EAST AUSTIN. 
          SO IT, IT'S KIND OF PAINFUL THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERY TIME SOMETHING HAPPENS ON TWO 90 AND THE DOSINGS NEIGHBORHOOD IS STANDING IN FRONT OF US SAYING THEY DO NOT WANT TO, YOU KNOW, THEY WANT TO SEE RESIDENTIAL GOING THERE, THERE'S A CONVERSATION ABOUT LOSS OF INDUSTRIAL LAND, BUT SIMILARLY, WHEN THAT HAPPENED IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY, YOU KNOW, WEST OF LAMAR, WEST OF 35, WE HAVEN'T HAD THE SAME CONVERSATION. 
          SO ALL THAT SAID, I, I DO APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENT, AND WE DO WANNA MAINTAIN THAT USE BECAUSE THERE'S A JOB ASPECT TO IT, BUT ALSO THERE IS, YOU KNOW, AN INDUSTRIAL NEED FOR A COMMUNITY TO, TO SORT OF THRIVE. 
          BUT I THINK THIS HOPEFULLY ALLOWS US TO ALSO LOOK AT THAT EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION THROUGHOUT THE CITY. 
          SO REALLY, WHILE INDUSTRIAL USE ISN'T NECESSARY USE TO SORT OF KEEP A CITY FUNCTIONING, THAT IT IS EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT OUR COMMUNITY. 
          SO I APPRECIATE YOU BEING OPEN TO THAT. 
          IS THAT ALSO A SECOND? ALL RIGHT. 
          I SEE, UH, MOTION BAY, MY COMMISSIONER BURRA RAMIREZ, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR AZAR. 
          UM, I'LL READ THAT LANGUAGE AS I UNDERSTAND IT, JUST TO MAKE SURE, HELP CLOSE THE GAP BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF LOCAL JOBS AVAILABLE AND THE AMOUNT OF SKILLED WORKERS QUALIFIED TO FILL THEM BY IMPLEMENTING PORTIONS OF AUSTIN'S HIGHER LOCAL PLAN AND ENSURE THAT THERE IS EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRIAL LAND USES THROUGHOUT THE CITY. 
          GOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. 
          UM, SORRY, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          YEAH, I, I WAS, I WAS GONNA SAY, I'M SPEAKING EITHER NEUTRAL TO AGAINST, UM, I'M, I JUST FEEL LIKE THIS IS STARTING TO TRY AND DO THINGS THAT WITHOUT CHANGING THE MAP ZONING DOESN'T REALLY DO. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER AAR'S POINT, OR VICE CHAIR AZAR, EXCUSE ME'S, POINT ABOUT THE HISTOR HISTORICAL INEQUITY OF WHERE WE PUT OUR INDUSTRIAL ZONES. 
          BUT WITHOUT ZONING NEW INDUSTRIAL AREAS OUTSIDE OF EAST AUSTIN, I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT WE COULD DO WITH THE DB TWO 40 BONUS PROGRAM TO MAKE THE IMPACT OF INDUSTRIAL USES MORE EQUITABLE. 
          I MEAN, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALMOST ALL IN EAST AUSTIN ALREADY, AND THIS BONUS PROGRAM WILL ESSENTIALLY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PURE INDUSTRIAL USES OVER TIME, THEORETICALLY, IF IT WORKS. 
          SO I, IT JUST FEELS LIKE SOMETHING THAT IS KIND OF BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS DENSITY BONUS TO, TO THINK ABOUT OUR IMPACTS ON WORKFORCE. 
          I MEAN, OUTSIDE OF DEBATING WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BE REDEVELOPING INDUSTRIAL LAND IN THE FIRST PLACE, I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE COULD DO IN THIS BONUS PROGRAM TO ENCOURAGE HIGHER LOCAL POLICIES TO ENCOURAGE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRIAL USES THAT ARE ALREADY INEQUITABLE. 
          SO I'M NOT LIKE SUPER ANTI THE, I'M PRO THE INTENT. 
          I THINK I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN DO THAT WITH THIS ORDINANCE. 
          COMMISSIONER COX, I'LL SPEAK FOR PRIMARILY JUST TO, UH, MAYBE PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF RESPONSE. 
          UM, ACTUALLY THERE'S QUITE A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL USE IN NORTH AUSTIN. 
          IT'S NOT ALL EAST AUSTIN. 
          IT'S ACTUALLY PROBABLY ABOUT, UH, HALF AND HALF IF YOU TRY TO LOOK AT NORTH VERSUS EAST. 
          AND MOST OF THE EAST IS AROUND THE AIRPORT, WHICH REALLY SHOULD STAY INDUSTRIAL. 
          UM, BUT I, I'M, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS LANGUAGE, BUT I'M ALSO JUST EXTREMELY CONCERNED BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO DECIMATE OUR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES. 
          AND, AND BY DECIMATE THAT COULD ALSO MEAN MAKE THE OWNERS OF OUR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES VERY WEALTHY, BECAUSE NOW THEY CAN DO ALMOST DOMAIN LEVEL ENTITLEMENTS WITH RESIDENTIAL AND, AND MIXED USE. 
          SO, UM, I THINK IT'S A TOPIC THAT WE REALLY NEED THAT HOPEFULLY STAFF, UH, IS THINKING ABOUT, HOPEFULLY OUR COUNCIL IS THINKING ABOUT, BECAUSE IF WE CONTINUE GOING DOWN THIS PATH, THERE, THERE IS NO FUTURE FOR INDUSTRIAL WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          MAYBE THAT'S OKAY, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD BE MAKING A CONSCIOUS DECISION ABOUT THAT RATHER THAN JUST FEEDING LITTLE BITS AND PIECES INTO OUR INDUSTRIAL ZONES AND, AND JUST SLOWLY KIND OF CHIPPING AWAY AT THEM. 
          BUT I GENERALLY AGREE WITH THE, THE SENTIMENT OF THE, OF THE AMENDMENT. 
          ANY OTHER SPEAKERS FOR OR AGAINST, IF I MIGHT JUST A, A POINT OF PRIVILEGE ON THIS, I, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT INDUSTRIAL LAND USES FOR, UM, A FEW YEARS NOW, AND WHERE THEY'RE 
          [03:20:01]
SHIFTING, WHERE WE'RE LOSING THEM, THE JOB LOSS, AND, UM, WE NOW HAVE THIS, THIS BURGEONING CONDUIT BETWEEN THE PC AND THE HOUSING AND, UM, PLANNING COMMITTEE OF, UH, OF COUNCIL. 
          AND I THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE A VERY PERTINENT RESOLUTION ITEM TO BRING TO THEM TO, UM, TO, TO STUDY THIS FURTHER BECAUSE IT IS COMING UP SO FREQUENTLY IN OUR CASES. 
          SO, UM, WITH THAT, WE'RE READY, WE'RE READY FOR A VOTE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          9, 10, 11, 12 AGAINST AND ABSTAINING. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WE HAVE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON ABSTAINING THAT ITEM PASSES CHAIR. 
          BEFORE WE MOVE INTO THE NEXT ITEM, CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 11:00 PM PLEASE? SECOND. 
          UM, UNLESS THERE'S OPPOSITION TO THAT, THAT ITEM PASSES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, WE ARE GOING TO GO TO, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S AMENDMENTS. 
          UM, MORE MINUTES. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES, YOU HAVE 16 AMENDMENTS? YES, MA'AM. 
          UM, CAN YOU GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF YOUR AMENDMENTS? SURE. 
          AND LET ME THINK ABOUT HOW WE CAN TAKE THESE. 
          UM, MY SAVE UH, WELL, THE FIRST 13 AMENDMENTS ARE VERY SIMILAR. 
          YOU'LL SEE, UM, THEY BEGIN ON PAGE TWO AND MOVE DOWN THROUGH PAGE THREE, UH, AND ALL, UH, AND GO THROUGH, AND THEY ARE ALL DIRECTED AT, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          AND, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UH, WE GOT AT THE LAST STAFF BRIEFING AT THE LAST STAFF, UM, OR AT THE FIRST STAFF BRIEFING WAS THAT, UH, WE WANTED THIS TO BE STRUCTURED TO, UM, UH, FOCUS ON PAST DEVELOPMENT, UH, BONUS DENSITY PROGRAMS THAT WE'VE DONE, AND, UM, MAKE THEM SIMILAR TO, UH, BONUS DENSITIES THAT WE'VE DONE YET, THE FIRST THING WE DO IS REDUCE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, REQUIREMENTS. 
          UM, AND, AND SO MY AMENDMENTS ARE TO, UH, MAKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING A PRIORITY. 
          UM, IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE SAID A THOUSAND TIMES IN THIS, IN THIS SETTING THAT WE'RE IN A HOUSING CRISIS AND WE WE'RE IN AN AFFORDABILITY CRISIS. 
          AND UNLESS WE DO, UH, MARKET INCENTIVES, UH, TO GET DEVELOPERS TO FOCUS ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THEN WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SOLVE THAT. 
          AND SO MY AMENDMENT BASICALLY, OR MY AMENDMENTS, UH, ONE THROUGH 14 OR ONE THROUGH 13, UM, EVERY TIME YOU SEE A, UH, NUMBER, UH, IT IS TO ADD 5% TO THAT, UH, FOR THE AFFORDABILITY, UH, UM, UH, REQUIREMENT TO GET THAT INCENTIVE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I'M GOING TO ASK FOR A FIVE MINUTE RECESS ON THIS. 
          I, I NEED TO THINK ABOUT HOW WE'RE GONNA DO THIS. 
          SO, AND TARA, REAL QUICK, UM, I FEEL THAT THESE ARE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, SO MAYBE WE JUST SEE IF THEY EVEN GET A SECOND OR NOT, BECAUSE HOPEFULLY THEY DON'T. 
          SORRY. 
          AND, BUT BEFORE WE TAKE A BREAK, 'CAUSE I ACTUALLY HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR STAFF THAT I THINK MIGHT HELP US THINK THROUGH THIS. 
          MM-HMM. 
           IS, IS THAT OKAY IF I ASK THAT? YES. 
          UH, CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF RELATED TO THE DRAFT ORDINANCE? UM, SO I, I UNDERSTAND FROM YOUR PRESENTATION AND HAVING REVIEWED THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION FROM COUNSEL, THAT THERE WERE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY PUT IN THAT THEY ASKED YOU TO REPLICATE IN THE ORDINANCE BEFORE WHEN IT CAME TO YOU AND AS STAFF. 
          YOU OBVIOUSLY RESPECTED THAT, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU BROUGHT TO US. 
          IS THAT CORRECT IN THE PROCESS YOU WOULD DESCRIBE IT AS, UH, YES. 
          THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE RESOLUTION. 
          AND I JUST TO UNDERSTAND, WE ARE ABOUT TO GO THROUGH A CALIBRATION PROCESS, SO THESE NUMBERS MAY END UP CHANGING ANYWAY. 
          SO IN SOME WAYS, LOOKING AT CHANGING THESE NOW MIGHT BE SORT OF, SORT OF JUMPING THE GUN, SO TO SPEAK. 
          UH, YES, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          WE ARE SCHEDULED TO HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY COME OUT AT THE END OF THE YEAR THAT WE'LL HAVE CALIBRATION, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DIFFERENT DENSITY BONUSES. 
          AND ASSUMING THIS PASSES SIMILAR ONES. 
          AND ONE 
          [03:25:01]
FINAL QUESTION. 
          WHEN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCES WORK WAS WRITTEN, YOU WORKED WITH THE DISTRICT STAFF WHO WERE SEEING THESE PDA CA CASES AND SORT OF MADE A SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH IS WHY THEY WERE IN THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION FROM COUNSEL AT THE SPECIFIC AFFORDABLE LEVELS. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? YES, WHEN WE WORKED ON THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION. 
          EXCELLENT. 
          SO JUST TO SUMMARIZE, THE NUMBERS ARE WHAT THEY ARE BECAUSE OF COUNCIL DIRECTION AND THAT THEY WILL LIKELY BE CHANGING IN THE NEAR FUTURE ANYWAY BECAUSE OF CALIBRATION. 
          WOULD YOU SAY THAT'S A CORRECT SUMMARY? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M STILL, UM, REQUESTING A RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES TO, SO WE'LL COME BACK AT 9 37 WAS WITH COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S, UH, DB TWO 40 AMENDMENTS. 
          UM, AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONER VICE FOR SENDING IN A RECOMMENDATION FOR HOW WE MIGHT TAKE THESE UP IN A MORE EFFICIENT WAY. 
          UM, AND COMMISSIONER HAYNES, LET ME KNOW IF THIS IS STILL AGREEABLE, BUT, UM, WE HAVE 16 TOTAL AMENDMENTS ITEMS ONE THROUGH 13. 
          WE'RE GOING TO BREAK UP INTO TWO CATEGORIES, ONE OF THOSE BEING THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS OVERALL. 
          AND THEN THE SECOND PART WOULD BE FEE IN LIEBE REQUIREMENTS OVERALL. 
          AND THEN ITEMS NUMBER 14, WHICH IS THE CREATIVE USE AMENDMENT WOULD BE TAKEN UP SEPARATELY AND THEN 15 AND 16 GROUPED TOGETHER AS SHORT TERM RENTAL AMENDMENTS. 
          AND THAT'S AGREEABLE TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          THAT IS PERFECT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, VICE CHAIR Z, CAN YOU HELP ME WITH THE ITEMS ONE THROUGH 13 AND BREAKING THOSE INTO TWO? DO WE WANT TO MAKE THAT A, A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, OR WHAT WERE YOU THINKING THERE? UM, I, I WOULD HONESTLY DEFER A LITTLE BIT TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES, BUT I, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, LET'S DO IT THIS WAY FOR THE AFFORDABILITY LEVELS, I THINK YOU CAN DO IT THROUGH GENERAL WHERE THE GENERAL IS SPECIFIC ENOUGH. 
          SO I WAS TRYING TO GO THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS AND SORT OF TALLY THEM, AND I THINK WHAT I'M SEEING, COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS, AND I WILL SAY, BY THE WAY, THE NUMBERING MIGHT BE SLIGHTLY OFF. 
          I'M NOT SURE WHICH DRAFT YOU WERE WORKING OFF OF, BUT ESSENTIALLY YOU WERE SAYING THAT FOR OWNERSHIP UNITS, IF YOU ARE GETTING A 30 FOOT BONUS, YOU HAVE A 12% REQUIREMENT. 
          IF YOU HAVE A 30 FEET, BUT LESS THAN 61 FEET BONUS, IT'S A 15% REQUIREMENT. 
          IF YOU COULD DESCRIBE IT THAT WAY, I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO OVER THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS MORE EASILY AND SORT OF CONCEPTUALLY UNDERSTAND THEM, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          SURE. 
          AND THE, UH, UH, UM, I CAN EVEN, EVEN MY WORD DUMB IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT, I BASICALLY TOOK THE, UM, THE PROPOSAL AND ADDED 5% NOT ONLY ON THE, UH, OWNERSHIP, BUT ALSO IN THE RENTAL. 
          SO IF IT SAID 15, I ADDED TO 20. 
          IF IT SAID 12 ADDED 17, IF IT'S AT EIGHT, I ADDED TWO 13. 
          SO, UM, ADD A, ADD A 5% UP. 
          AND, UM, SO THAT'S, IF, IF YOU WANT TO, IF YOU WANT AMEND THEM ALL AND PUT THEM ALL INTO ONE TO SAY THAT, AND THEN WE CAN GO OVER, I CAN, I CAN GO THROUGH WHY IT'S NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND WHY, UM, UH, WE CAN LOOK AT WHAT THE COUNCIL DIRECTIVE WAS AND GO FROM THERE. 
          AND I'LL TRY TO STATE THIS AND HOPEFULLY SOMEBODY ELSE CAN HELP ME CAPTURE THIS AS WELL. 
          BUT I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS FOR BOTH OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL UNITS, THE AFFORDABILITY HIGH, UH, THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT IS 5% MORE THAN THE SET ASIDE IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          AND IS THAT AFFORDABLE? THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS OVERALL AND FEE AND LIE IS SEPARATE? YES. 
          WE WOULD DO FEE AND LIE SEPARATELY. 
          UH, WE'LL COME TO THAT IN A SECOND. 
          SO THIS IS REALLY JUST THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR, SO AGAIN, FOR OWNERSHIP FOR 30 FOOT BONUS, IT'S 10 TO FROM 10, YOU GO TO 15, AND AGAIN, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, FOR 30 TO 61 FROM 12, YOU GO TO 17 FOR 60 FEET TO ONE 20 FEET, YOU GO FROM 15 TO 20. 
          AND THEN, UM, ESSENTIALLY WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE FAMILIES SEPARATELY. 
          AND THEN WITHIN RENTAL, IT WOULD BE THE SAME. 
          THAT ESSENTIALLY YOU WOULD HAVE 10% AND THEN, UM, SO INSTEAD OF 10, YOU WOULD GO TO 15%. 
          SO SORT OF JUST A 5% BUMP, ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE ARE HEARING FOR BOTH RENTAL AND OWNERSHIP. 
          YES. 
          SO TO REPEAT THAT, AND THEN COMMISSIONER HANS, YOU CAN SPEAK TO THE PROPOSAL. 
          SURE. 
          UM, BOTH OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL UNITS, THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT IS 5% MORE THAN IT'S SET ASIDE IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR 
          [03:30:01]
ALL CATEGORIES. 
          YEAH. 
          FOR ALL CATEGORIES. 
          YES. 
          SO DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT SURE. 
          MORE AND THEN WE CAN OPEN UP FOR QUESTIONS? ABSOLUTELY. 
          UM, SURE. 
          UH, JUST, JUST PUTTING IN FRONT OF THIS COUNCIL YET AGAIN, UH, WE'VE HEARD YESTERDAY, UH, IN OUR, IN ONE OF THE BRIEFINGS THAT, UH, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DB 90 THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE 54 FOR 55 CASES, UH, CLEARLY WE DON'T HAVE OUR SUPPLY AND DEMAND SIGNALS SET, RIGHT? UM, WE HAVEN'T, WE HAVEN'T TURNED DOWN A, A PROVISION YET WITH, UH, 10%, UM, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES. 
          UM, WE, WE TRIED TO DO SOME ADDITIONAL ONES, AND WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT E TODD AND, AND TRIED TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE ON FEE AND LIE, UH, WE GOT ONE AND WE MISSED ONE. 
          AND SO BASICALLY, UH, WE ARE NOT SENDING THE RIGHT SIGNALS, UH, TO THE, UM, TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY. 
          UM, AND SETTING OUR BAR HIGH ENOUGH IN OFFERING, UM, INCENTIVES, UH, FOR OR, OR OFFERING COMMUNITY BENEFITS, UH, IN EXCHANGE FOR THE INCENTIVES THAT THE DEVELOPERS GET. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, THEY'RE TAKING THE, THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'RE, WE'RE REQUIRING AND THEY'RE BUILDING BECAUSE THEY REALIZE THAT, UH, A 10% AFFORDABILITY OR, OR A 12% AFFORDABLE OR AFFORDABLE UNITS EITHER OWNERSHIP OR RENTAL, UH, MORE THAN, UH, THEY, THEY'RE MORE THAN COMPENSATED BY GETTING 30, 60. 
          AND THEN IN THESE CASES, UM, UH, 180 FEET EXTRA OF, OF BUILDABLE AREA PLUS, PLUS THE FAR, NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE FAR, I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT THE HEIGHT. 
          AND SO WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS ADJUST OUR METRIC SO THAT WE'RE GETTING MORE COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          AND, UM, I, I DO APPRECIATE, UM, UH, MR. UM, I APPRECIATE LOOKING AT, AT THE, AT THE CHART, UM, AND, AND SEEING THAT COUNCIL DID DIRECT. 
          UH, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND WE CAN TELL, TELL COUNCIL IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT WE THINK WE NEED MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DEVELOPERS ARE PROVIDING COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT WE NEED. 
          AND TO, UM, TO MY FRIEND COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, AGAIN, THE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOT MAKING DEVELOPERS BUILD EXTRA HEIGHT. 
          THESE ARE MARKET BASED INCENTIVES. 
          IF A DEVELOPER DOESN'T WANT TO BUILD TO, TO 90 FEET OR ONE 20 FEET OR TWO 40 FEET, THEY DON'T HAVE TO, IF THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT SET ASIDE OF 15 OR 20%, THEY DON'T HAVE TO, THEY CAN BUILD IT AT WHATEVER IS ALLOWABLE ON THE BASE ZONE AND BE DONE. 
          SO THESE ARE MARKET BASED AND, UM, UH, THEIR INCENTIVES TO PROVIDE COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          SO THAT'S MY MOTION IS TO RECALIBRATE. 
          UH, AND THEN WHEN WE GET THE, UM, THE, THE TALKED ABOUT REPORT, UM, IF IT COMES IN DECEMBER OR IF IT COMES IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY, WHENEVER IT IS, WE'LL LOOK AT THAT. 
          AND, UM, UM, IF, IF THINGS GET RECALIBRATED DOWN, WE'LL HAVE THE SAME DISCUSSION THEN. 
          BUT, UH, IT, IT AMAZES ME THAT WE HAVE SO MANY CITIES, PORTLAND AND MINNESOTA AND SEATTLE AND OTHERS THAT REQUIRE MOST, REQUIRE 20%, SOME GO TO 30%, EVEN THE STATE OF TEXAS REQUIRES 20% AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO DO HOUSING TAX CREDITS. 
          AND WE'RE ALLOWING 8% IF AUSTIN IS, UH, SURE. 
          WE'RE ALLOWING 8%. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UH, AT, AT, UH, MFI. 
          SURE. 
          YES, WE ARE, UH, LOOKING PAGE THREE, LINE 84. 
          UM, SO WE'LL, WE'LL OPEN IT UP. 
          BUT ANYWAY, SO, SO THAT'S MY MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          I LOOKING FOR A SECOND? YEAH, JUST WANNA, UH, LIKE QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION MAKER OR YOU MY PROPOSAL. 
          OKAY. 
          I SEE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER COX. 
          SO, UM, WE'RE SKIPPING QUESTIONS JUST FYI, ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? SORRY, THAT WAS NOT MY INTENT. 
          IF, IF ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS, I HOPE THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          GO BACK TO THE MOTION. 
          BE BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX. 
          COMMISSIONER 
          [03:35:01]
HAYNES SPOKE FOR ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST SPEAK AGAINST COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          IF IT WAS JUST SO EASY TO SAY, WELL, WE WANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING SO WE CAN JUST REQUIRE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I THINK WE WOULD DO THAT. 
          I THINK WE WOULD REQUIRE 50%, A HUNDRED PERCENT, 200%, 300%. 
          WE WOULD ASK FOR A TON MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IF JUST WAVING THAT MAGIC WAND WOULD GET US THERE. 
          BUT THE FACT IS, YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT THE STATE OF TEXAS REQUIRING SOMETHING IN EXCHANGE FOR HOUSING TAX CREDITS. 
          THAT'S A BIG DEAL, RIGHT? VACANT LAND DOES THIS NO GOOD. 
          UM, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE ZONING A LOT OF DB 90 CASES, I'M REACHING OUT TO A LOT OF THESE FOLKS TO SEE, OKAY, WHEN ARE YOU BREAKING GROUND? NO TIME SOON IS WHAT I HEAR FROM MOST OF THEM. 
          NO TIME SOON. 
          'CAUSE THE NUMBERS DO NOT WORK TODAY. 
          THEY'RE EXCITED FOR THE DAY THAT IT DOES WORK, BUT THE FED RATE IS STILL HIGH. 
          THERE'S STILL NOT A LOT OF THINGS MOVING. 
          THERE'S STILL SOME PEOPLE SAYING THAT THEY DON'T WANNA INVEST IN THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT. 
          IN AUSTIN RIGHT NOW, A LOT OF SUPPLY IS STILL COMING ONLINE. 
          SO WE CAN'T JUST ARBITRARILY CHOOSE NUMBERS AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? THIS IS THE NUMBER THAT I LIKE AND THIS IS THE NUMBER I'M GONNA MAKE IT BE TODAY. 
          STAFF IS WORKING ON CALIBRATION, WHICH IS GONNA BE BACKED UP WITH REAL DATA, AND THAT'S GONNA BE WHAT WE ARE GONNA BE VERY GLAD TO SEE AS A BODY. 
          AND THAT'S GONNA HELP US GET TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE WITH REAL NUMBERS, NOT JUST, WOW, WOULDN'T THIS SOUND BETTER? SO FOR THAT REASON, I WILL BE SUPPORTING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS AND VOTING NO ON THIS. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER COX? SO THE STAFF CALIBRATION THAT WE'RE EXPECTING IS EXACTLY WHY I THINK WE SHOULD SUPPORT THIS. 
          UM, I, I DON'T WANT TO CREATE, WE, WE, WE HAVE A LOVELY LITTLE HABIT OF PUSHING OUT HALF BAKED THINGS, UM, WHILE HAVING THE DUE DILIGENCE WE SHOULD HAVE HAD BEFORE WE APPROVE THESE ORDINANCE CHANGES, UH, COME LATER IN THE PROCESS. 
          AND I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING THAT LATER THIS YEAR, BUT, UH, EVERYONE WHO'S BEEN ON THE DAIS LONG ENOUGH OR BEEN INVOLVED IN THE CITIES, UH, LONG ENOUGH KNOWS THAT THOSE DEADLINES GET PUSHED OUT QUITE A BIT, UH, FOR, FOR, FOR A VERY UNDERSTANDABLE REASON. 
          CITY STAFF HAS WAY TOO MUCH ON THEIR PLATE. 
          UM, AND SO WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE A SITUATION WHERE WE ARE GRANTING A RIDICULOUS AMOUNT OF ENTITLEMENTS WHILE PROVIDING WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER, AND I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD CONSIDER THE BARE MINIMUM AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PARTICULARLY IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CALIBRATION STUDY COMING IN THE FUTURE. 
          SO MY THINKING IS WHY NOT SET THE STANDARDS AS HIGH AS WE THINK SHOULD BE REASONABLY POSSIBLE? AND WE HAVE SEEN THESE NUMBERS BEFORE IN, IN OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS. AND THEN LET'S SEE WHAT THE CALIBRATION COMES BACK TO. 
          IF IT SAYS WE SHOULD LOWER IT, THEN WE WILL HAVE THE EDUCATED INFORMATION TO RECOMMEND LOWERING IT. 
          IF IT SAYS, HEY, THIS IS ACTUALLY A GOOD TARGET, THEN WE GOT IT RIGHT. 
          I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD SELL OUT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING JUST BECAUSE WE THINK DOWN THE LINE WE'LL HAVE INFORMATION ON WHAT THE RIGHT NUMBER SHOULD BE. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT THIS. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER WOODS? THANK YOU. 
          SO PRIMARILY IT SOUNDS LIKE THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE BASED ON INSTRUCTION FROM COUNSEL IS WHAT WE'RE HEARING, AND ALSO WE'LL SHORTLY BE RECALIBRATED. 
          SO I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER ANDERSON THAT KIND OF ARBITRARILY INCREASING THEM BY 5% ACROSS THE BOARD DOES NOT FEEL LIKE A GOOD USE OF OUR TIME. 
          BUT ALSO I AM CONFUSED BY THE, THE IDEA THAT THE FACT THAT DEVELOPERS ARE UTILIZING THE DB 90 DENSITY BONUS TOOL MEANS THAT WE'RE NOT SENDING THE RIGHT SIGNALS TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, AND THAT WE HAVEN'T CALIBRATED THESE LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY CORRECTLY. 
          WILL WE KNOW THAT WE'VE CALIBRATED THEM CORRECTLY WHEN PEOPLE STOP UTILIZING THOSE PROGRAMS? IT, I MEAN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. 
          IF THE GOAL IS TO MAKE THEM SO ONEROUS THAT PEOPLE STOP UTILIZING THEM, THEN YEAH, WE SHOULD JUST CRANK THESE UP 5% ACROSS THE BOARD INDEFINITELY. 
          BUT IF PEOPLE ARE USING THESE DENSITY BONUS TOOLS, THEN IT DOES SEEM LIKE WE ARE SENDING THE RIGHT SIGNALS TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY. 
          SO I DON'T, I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT ARGUMENT. 
          UM, SO I'LL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS AND, AND DON'T THINK THIS IS A USEFUL DISCUSSION TO HAVE AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCESS. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? SO, EXCUSE ME. 
          STILL RECUPERATING. 
          I I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT YESTERDAY WE GOT A BRIEFING FROM OUR CITY DEMOGRAPHER ABOUT THE DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS WE HAVE GOING ON IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          WE ARE LOSING AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION AND HISPANIC POPULATION, SPECIFICALLY THOSE TWO POPULATIONS. 
          THEY ARE MOVING TO THE FAR-FLUNG AREAS OF, OF THE AUSTIN AND BEYOND THE CITY LIMITS. 
          WE'RE LOSING 
          [03:40:01]
BLACK FAMILIES, BROWN FAMILIES, WE'RE LOSING CHILDREN. 
          THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS LOSING BLACK AND LATINO RESIDENTS. 
          THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO POPULATIONS THAT WE ARE LOSING. 
          AND THERE ARE REAL REASONS FOR THAT. 
          AND YESTERDAY, I THINK COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE ASKED A REALLY GOOD QUESTION ABOUT HOW MUCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARE WE GOING TO GET FROM THE DB 90 PROGRAM? ARE WE GONNA GET HUNDREDS OF NEW HOMES? AND I ASKED, HOW MUCH ARE WE LOSING WHEN WE DO THESE THINGS? AND I DID FIND ONE PROJECT THAT'S BEING BUILT IN CHERRYWOOD THAT WILL, UM, GENERATE, THERE ARE 250 NEW APARTMENTS, AND SO TWO, FIVE TO 30 WOULD BE INCOME RESTRICTED, BUT THEY'RE IN THE MEANTIME ELIMINATING DEMOLISHING THE ALMA APARTMENTS WITH 74 UNITS. 
          WE HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER WE ARE, UM, A NET POSITIVE, A NET NEGATIVE, OR WE ARE NEUTRAL IN THESE PROGRAMS. SO I SAY SET THE BAR HIGH SO AT LEAST WE CAN MAYBE GET AHEAD OF THESE DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS THAT WE'RE, UH, REALIZING HERE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN BECAUSE WE DON'T, WE'RE NOT MEETING THE DEMAND FOR CERTAIN KINDS OF HOMES. 
          AND AT THE SAME TIME, WE NEED TO GET OUR ARMS AROUND EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING WHEN WE ARE PUTTING THESE PROGRAMS OUT, HOPEFULLY, HOPEFULLY WELL INTENDED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THAT WE ARE GAINING MORE THAN WE'RE LOSING LAST SPOT AGAINST COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          YEAH, I'LL, I'LL ALSO HARKEN BACK TO THE PRESENTATION WE SAW YESTERDAY FROM THE CITY DEMOGRAPHER. 
          WHAT, WHAT REALLY STOOD OUT TO ME WAS THAT, UH, SHE MENTIONED NOT JUST THAT, UH, THE RELATIVE SHARE OF AUSTIN'S POPULATION THAT OUR BLACK OR HISPANIC HAS DECLINED, WHILE THE ACTUAL NUMBERS ARE INCREASING, IT'S STILL TROUBLING THAT THAT DECLINE IN POPULATION SHARE IS HAPPENING. 
          BUT WHAT SHE REALLY HIGHLIGHTED AND WHAT REALLY STOOD OUT TO ME WAS THAT WE ARE NOT JUST FACING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS, WE'RE FACING A HOUSING CRISIS. 
          THE DEMOGRAPHER POINTED OUT THAT OVERALL HOUSING PRODUCTION, AFFORDABLE AND OTHERWISE HAS NOT KEPT UP WITH POPULATION GROWTH EVEN IN THE LAST FIVE OR 10 YEARS. 
          SO WHILE WE'VE BUILT A LOT COMPARED TO 2010, 2005, WE'RE NOT BUILDING ENOUGH HOUSING AT ALL INCOME LEVELS. 
          AND SO I THINK WE'RE LOSING THE PLOT A LITTLE BIT HERE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT, OH, WE CAN JUST JACK UP OUR, OUR DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS RATES AND, AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET A LITTLE MORE, BUT WORST CASE SCENARIO, WE JUST GET LESS HOUSING OVERALL. 
          THAT'S A FAILURE. 
          WE SHOULDN'T JUST BE LOOKING AT THE NUMBER OF INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS WE'RE GETTING. 
          WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS WE'RE ENABLING TO BE BUILT. 
          AND WHEN WE ALLOW FOR A 250 UNIT COMPLEX WITH 25 OR 30 INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS TO REPLACE AN, AN AGING AND PROBABLY BORDERLINE DECREPIT 70 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX, WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE LOST 35 AFFORDABLE UNITS THERE, BUT WE'VE GAINED HUNDREDS OF APARTMENTS OVERALL. 
          AND THOSE HUNDREDS OF APARTMENTS WILL HELP DRIVE DOWN THE PRICE OF HOUSING THROUGHOUT THE CITY. 
          THAT'S A PROVEN FACT. 
          WE KNOW IT WORKS. 
          WE'VE SEEN IT. 
          AUSTIN HAS HAD THE FASTEST DECLINES IN RENT OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS OF ANY CITY IN AMERICA. 
          I WANNA CONTINUE THAT TREND. 
          I WANT TO ENABLE US TO BUILD MORE HOUSING AT ALL INCOME LEVELS, AFFORDABLE MARKET RATE, AND NOT JUST DO ONE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE OTHER. 
          I THINK WE CAN COMPROMISE. 
          I THINK WE CAN FIND A MIDDLE GROUND, AND I THINK THESE BONUS PROGRAMS ARE A WAY TO DO THAT. 
          THEY'RE INHERENTLY A COMPROMISE BY ESTABLISHING A BONUS PROGRAM, INSTEAD OF JUST RAISING ENTITLEMENTS, WE'RE GETTING LESS HOUSING OVERALL. 
          IF WE JUST ZONED THESE AREAS FOR MIXED USE IN 240 FEET OF HEIGHT, WE WOULD GET A LOT MORE HOUSING THAN WE WILL WITH THE, THE BONUS PROGRAM. 
          SO THAT COMPROMISE IS ALREADY BEING MADE. 
          AND I THINK WE TEND TO FORGET THAT BY CHOOSING TO DO A BONUS PROGRAM IN THE FIRST PLACE, WE'RE ACTUALLY CHOOSING TO GET A LITTLE LESS HOUSING OVERALL THAN WE COULD OTHERWISE. 
          AND WHAT WE GET IN RETURN IS THAT SOME OF IT IS INCOME RESTRICTED. 
          WE'VE CHOSEN TO MAKE THAT TRADE OFF. 
          COUNCIL HAS TOLD US TO MAKE THAT TRADE OFF. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          UH, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD PUSH THAT FURTHER IN THE LESS HOUSING OVERALL DIRECTION. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M SPEAKING AND VOTING AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          WE'RE AT THE END OF FOR AND AGAINST, SO LET'S TAKE A VOTE. 
          THIS IS THE MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HAYS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX. 
          MADAM CHAIR. 
          YES, I DO WANT ONE PERSONAL PRIVILEGE. 
          UM, IF, UH, YEAH, I'M, I I I WILL TELL Y'ALL, I, I AM 
          [03:45:01]
SORRY THAT MY COMMISSIONERS, UH, FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THINK I'M WASTING YOUR TIME. 
          IF, IF I WANTED TO WASTE YOUR TIME, I WOULD, I WOULD'VE SAID 50%. 
          I WOULD'VE SAID, YOU KNOW, I, I WOULD'VE DONE THE, THE I, I GUESS, I GUESS THE GOTCHA VOTE. 
          WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS ADJUST THEM VERY SMALL 5% AND SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CAPITAL A AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          NONE OF MY MOTIONS, NONE OF MY AMENDMENTS ARE EVER INTENDED TO BE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS OR WASTE THIS COMMISSION'S TIME. 
          AND, UH, THE FACT THAT, THAT, UH, COMMISSIONERS WOULD LEVEL THOSE, UM, UH, THOUGHTS AGAINST ME IS, IS TROUBLING. 
          AND, UH, ALL OF THESE ARE BROUGHT WITH GOOD INTENTION, UH, TO ADDRESS THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS THAT THIS COMMISSION, THIS COUNCIL, AND EVERYBODY RUNNING FOR OFFICE TODAY SAYS WE HAVE IN THIS CITY. 
          AND I'M TRYING TO, TO BE HELPFUL IN TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'RE VOTING ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          TWO, THREE, THOSE AGAINST 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 
          AND THOSE ABSTAINING TWO, AM I MISSING ONE? . 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ IS OFF THE DAIS THAT VOTE, THAT AMENDMENT FAILS THREE TO SEVEN TO TWO. 
          UM, CHAIR SUPER QUICK. 
          I I DO BELIEVE THAT WE ALL DID A GOOD JOB ABOUT SPEAKING TO THE ITEM AND NOT ABOUT ANY COMMISSIONER. 
          SO I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT WE, WE, UM, AS A BODY DO A GOOD JOB AND YOU DO A GOOD JOB OF KEEPING US ON TRACK ABOUT TALKING ABOUT ITEMS. SO THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, MOVING ON TO, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S SECOND AMENDMENT, UH, ABOUT FEE AND SORRY, WHAT THERE BY DAY, UH, UH, SO I DID SORT OF REVIEW IT AND THERE'S TWO MORE AMENDMENTS THAT WILL BE DONE HERE AND I'LL MAYBE READ THEM OUT. 
          AND COMMISSIONER HAYNES, YOU WOULD TELL ME. 
          SO IN ADDITION TO SORT OF THE OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT WE JUST DID, COMMISSIONER UH, HAYNES AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE AND FIVE WOULD BE NOW COMBINED TO SAY THAT FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITH AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP UNITS, IF A PROPERTY UTILIZES A BONUS HEIGHT OF 30 TO 61 FEET, OR 60 TO 121 FEET, AT LEAST 10% OF THOSE UNITS MUST BE INCLUDED ON SITE. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR? AZAR, CAN YOU PLEASE READ THAT AGAIN FOR ME? SURE. 
          SO THIS IS THREE AND FIVE COMBINED FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITH AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP UNITS. 
          IF A PROPERTY UTILIZES A BONUS HEIGHT OF 30 TO 61 FEET, OR 60 TO 1 21 FEET, AT LEAST 10% OF THOSE UNITS MUST BE INCLUDED ON SITE. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER HAYNES OR STAFF IF NO QUESTIONS. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DO YOU WANNA TURN THAT INTO A MOTION AND LOOK FOR A SECOND? I SO MOVE. 
          OKAY. 
          SECOND. 
          BY COMMISSIONER COX, ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER COX. 
          I'LL JUST SAY, PUT ON, REPEAT EVERYTHING I'VE SAID IN, IN PRIOR CASES ABOUT ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. 
          THAT'S IT, . 
          OKAY. 
          OTHERS? SPEAKING FOR AGAINST VICE CHAIR CHAIR, I'LL JUST, UH, QUICKLY SPEAK AGAINST, JUST TO SAY, COMMISSIONER COX, I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH YOU. 
          WE DO NEED TO HAVE ONSITE UNITS, AND THAT IS WHY I FEEL LIKE I HAVE CONTINUOUSLY PUSHED FOR RENTAL UNITS TO BE ONSITE WITH OWNERSHIP UNITS. 
          THE REASON WE'VE MOVED TO  AND STAFF HAS EXPLAINED THIS IS THE CHALLENGE IS THOSE UNITS, THERE'S NO WAY TO MAINTAIN THEIR AFFORDABILITY ON OVER TIME. 
          SO WHAT WE END UP DOING IS WE PROMISE SOMEONE AN AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP UNIT THROUGH A MARKET INCENTIVE PROGRAM, BUT OVER TIME, THE FEES AND THE CONDO FEES AND OTHER COSTS GO UP SO SIGNIFICANTLY THAT WHAT WE HAVE NOW CREATED IS A OWNER WHO IS IN AN AFFORDABLE UNIT, WHO IS EXTREMELY COST BURDEN. 
          AND SO WE'RE NOT MEETING OUR GUIDELINES VERSUS WHEN WE HAVE A FEE AND WE DO IT THROUGH OUR OWNERSHIP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM OR THROUGH THE CITY'S LAND TRUST, WE HAVE DIFFERENT MECHANISMS TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE FEES ARE MAINTAINED. 
          BUT IN THE PRIVATE MARKET, WE CAN NOT, WE CAN ESSENTIALLY REQUIRE THE INITIAL COST OF A UNIT TO BE CAPPED. 
          BUT WHAT WE CANNOT DO IS CAP THOSE, UH, COSTS OVER TIME. 
          AND WHAT WE'VE BEEN SEEING IS, PARTICULARLY IN HIGH END CONDO ENVIRONMENTS, WHERE THERE MIGHT BE A FEW OWNERSHIP UNITS THAT ARE AFFORDABLE, THOSE AFFORDABLE UNITS HAVE TO PAY FOR THESE LUXURY AMENITIES THAT THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE OTHERWISE WANTED. 
          [03:50:01]
AND SO THEY'RE NOW PAYING CONDO FEES FOR POOLS AND CONCIERGES AND VALETS AND ALL SORTS OF THINGS, WHICH GUESS WHAT MAKES THE HOUSING REALLY UNAFFORDABLE? SO WE'RE NOT TRYING TO ESCAPE FROM HAVING ONSITE UNITS. 
          WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEM, BUT WHAT WE CANNOT DO HAS A ON ONSITE UNITS THAT ARE QUOTE UNQUOTE AFFORDABLE, BUT OVER TIME BECOME UNAFFORDABLE BECAUSE THERE ARE FEES THAT WE SIMPLY, AS A PUBLIC ENTITY, CANNOT MANAGE IN A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. 
          AND SO THAT IS WHY WE'RE VOTING AGAINST IT. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? YEAH, I CAN. 
          UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE ASKED FOR, BECAUSE, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER, IVE, UH, I, I REALLY DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND SO I HAVE, I CAN FEEL TWO WAYS ABOUT THIS, BUT I HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN ANY DATA ON THAT. 
          I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT'S THE FEEDBACK THAT FOLKS GET, BUT I, YOU KNOW, WHERE'S THE DATA TO SUPPORT THAT? UM, SO, AND, AND REALLY WHAT WE DO WHEN WE TAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY AWAY AT, JUST ASSUME THAT THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN. 
          WE MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION. 
          WE ARE, ONCE AGAIN, UH, WE ARE REALLY, UM, MAYBE UNWITTINGLY, UM, ENCOURAGING DISPLACEMENT TO, TO OTHER PLACES OUTSIDE BECAUSE THAT FEE IN LIEU IS THEN USED SOMEWHERE THAT'S NOT IN THE CENTRAL CITY. 
          SO WE CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON A, AN AFFORDABILITY CRISIS, BUT WE'RE NOT FOCUSING ON A DISPLACEMENT CRISIS. 
          AND PERHAPS IT'S BECAUSE IT, IT, YOU KNOW, IT IMPACTS AFRICAN AMERICANS AND HISPANICS. 
          THAT'S WHO IT, THE DISPLACEMENT CRISIS IS IMPACTING. 
          AND SO AT WHAT POINT DO WE TRY TO COME UP WITH POLICIES THAT ARE, ADDRESS THOSE TWO POPULATIONS WHICH ARE BEING DISPLACED SUBSTANTIALLY IN THIS CITY? SO IN TERMS OF THE FEE IN LIEU, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT HOW SOME OF THOSE UNIT, HOW THINGS WILL HAPPEN AND THAT PEOPLE WILL BE PRICED OUT OF THOSE UNITS. 
          BUT HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE THEN ADDRESS THE OTHER CRISIS THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY? ALRIGHT, ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST OR FOR GO, GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. 
          IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND READING, UH, THAT VICE CHAIR OR COMMISSIONER WOODS VICE CHAIR. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          I YEP, I CAN READ THAT AGAIN, CHAIR. 
          SO THIS IS, UH, FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITH AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP UNITS, IF A PROPERTY UTILIZES A BONUS HEIGHT OF 30 TO 61 FEET, OR 60 TO 121 FEET, AT LEAST 10% OF THOSE UNITS MUST BE INCLUDED ON, ON SITE AND CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'M SORRY, I MISSED COMMISSIONER ANDERSON RAISED HIS HAND. 
          I MISSED THAT. 
          I, I'D DEFINITELY LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS AS WELL. 
          JUST A HUNDRED PERCENT REITERATING WHEN COMMISSIONER AZAR SAID, WHO JUST WENT OFF CAMERA. 
          AND, UH, I APPRECIATE STAFF KIND OF FIXING THIS. 
          I KNOW OVER THE YEARS THERE WAS A GOAL TO TRY AND HAVE THESE UNITS AND THEN WHAT WE REALIZED AS A CITY IS THERE WERE A LOT OF ISSUES THAT CAME FROM THESE UNITS AND STAFF HAS RESOLVED THAT WITH THIS. 
          AND THE FEE AND LIE ARE DOLLARS TO BE RAISED TO BE SPENT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN AUSTIN NEARBY. 
          SO DEFINITELY NOT SUPPORTING THIS ITEM. 
          THERE ARE ISSUES WITH HAVING FORELOCK. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THREE, THOSE AGAINST SEVEN. 
          AND THOSE ABSTAINING TO A MOTION FAILS THREE TO SEVEN TO TWO. 
          MOVE ON VICE CHAIR. 
          DO YOU MIND HELPING ME WITH THE NEXT ONE? YES. 
          CHAIR. 
          SO THE NEXT AMENDMENT WOULD BE THE ONE FOR THE FEE. 
          SO THIS WOULD BE A THIRD AMENDMENT. 
          THIS WOULD COMBINE AMENDMENT FROM THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENTS THAT WERE SHARED. 
          THIS WOULD MINE COMBINE AMENDMENT SIX AND SEVENTH. 
          SO THIS WOULD NOW READ AN APPLICANT. 
          AND SO THIS IS THE SECTION FROM THE CODE, AND THERE'S AN AMENDMENT TO IT. 
          AN APPLICATION FOR PROPOSED OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT MAY ELECT TO MEET THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT WITHOUT PROVIDING INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS ONSITE BY PAYING FEE AND LIE TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND. 
          AT A MINIMUM, THE FEE AND LIE SHALL BE EQUIVALENT TO, AND THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE FROM STAFF'S, UH, DRAFT, AT A MINIMUM, THE FEE LIE SHOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO 130% OF THE REQUIRED PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS, INCLUDING THE MIX OF BEDROOMS REQUIRED. 
          AND THIS IS THE NEW LANGUAGE. 
          UNLESS THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSES AT LEAST 
          [03:55:01]
20% OF THE TOTAL OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AS REQUIRED, IS AFFORDABLE FOR OWNERSHIP AND OCCUPANCY BY HOUSEHOLDS EARNING 50% OR LESS OF THE CURRENT AUSTIN ROUND ROCK METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA, MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME AS DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT, THEN THE FEE IS 115%. 
          AT WHICH POINT WE RETURNED BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE FROM STAFF, WHICH IS THE FEE LIE SHALL BE SET BY SEPARATE ORDINANCE. 
          THE AMOUNT OF FEE AND LEAD DUE IS TO BE DETERMINE USING THE FEE SCHEDULE ORDINANCE IN EFFECT, JUST TO CLARIFY THAT, IF SOMEBODY HAS IT OPEN IN FRONT OF THEM, WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS IS DOING IS THAT THE FEE LIE HAS TO BE 130%. 
          AND AT THE END OF THAT SENTENCE, YOU ADD IN THE LANGUAGE FROM COMMISSIONER HAYNES, NUMBER SEVEN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          DID THAT CAPTURE THAT CORRECTLY? YES, IT DOES. 
          AND I CAN, I'LL SUM IT UP. 
          UH, UH, GOING ALONG A SIMILAR PROPOSAL PROCESS THAT WE DID FOR E EAD WHERE WE, UH, BUILT IN, UH, INCENTIVES, AND THIS IS AGAIN, A MARKET-BASED INCENTIVE TO SAY, UH, DEVELOPERS, WE WOULD PREFER THAT YOU PUT THESE, UH, UNITS ON SITE. 
          AND IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO, IF YOU MAKE THE MARKET DECISION, IF YOU MAKE THE BUSINESS DECISION TO DO OTHERWISE, THAT'S STILL YOUR CHOICE, BUT THAT CHOICE IS GONNA BE MORE EXPENSIVE. 
          UM, AND SO IT'S, THAT'S THE 130, BUT THEN, THEN SAY, OKAY, BUT IF YOU PUT SOME OF THE UNITS ON SITE, WE'LL REDUCE THAT DOWN TO 115%. 
          OKAY. 
          QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER HAYNES OR STAFF COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YEAH, JUST TO CLARIFY, I, I THINK I UNDERSTAND, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE FEE IN LIEU WOULD BE 130% OF WHAT IT OTHERWISE WOULD BE, UNLESS THE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES AT LEAST 20% OF THE, THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS WHICH ARE REQUIRED IN TOTAL ON SITE. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO IF, IF HOUSING SAYS THERE'S GOTTA BE 34 AND YOU PUT SEVEN, I THINK THAT MATH WORKS OUT THEN. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          I'M JUST GONNA SAY IF THEY SAY A HUNDRED, YOU PUT 20 . 
          NO. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN OBVIOUSLY IF YOU MEET ALL OF IT ON SITE, THEN THERE'S NO FEE. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, I FALL NOW. 
          THANKS. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. 
          DO YOU WANNA TURN THAT INTO A MOTION? THAT'S MY MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS SECONDS. 
          DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? COMMISSIONER HAYNES? ANYBODY SPEAKING, UH, FOR OR AGAINST? AGAINST MR. ANDERSON? THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          WHEN THIS PASSED IN, EAU HONESTLY, I THINK A LOT OF US DIDN'T SPEAK JUST THINKING IT WOULDN'T PASS. 
          IT KIND OF JUST SQUEAKED BY. 
          AND THEN THIS ITEM HAS COME UP IN LATER CASES AND WE'VE VOTED IT DOWN EVERY TIME. 
          IT'S COME UP SINCE THEN. 
          AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS SIMPLY ADDING COSTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONDOS IN AUSTIN. 
          SO I HAD A STUDENT WHO ONCE WROTE A PAPER, CONDOS ARE THE NEW STARTER HOME, YOU KNOW, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT, LOOK AT THE SINGLE FAMILY MARKET AND HOW EXPENSIVE THEY ARE. 
          CONDOS SERVE A BIG PURPOSE IN AUSTIN. 
          AND SO TO JUST DRIVE UP THE COST AND LET'S JUST ADD 30%, OH, MAYBE JUST ADD 15%. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I THINK STAFF CAME UP WITH A NUMBER AND IT WORKS. 
          AND TO JUST ADD MORE COST TO THE COST OF BUILDING CONDOS IS SOMETHING I HOPE TO NEVER SUPPORT ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST. 
          LET'S GO. 
          OH, COMMISSIONER WOODS SPEAK AGAINST, THANK YOU. 
          AND I KNOW THAT WE KIND OF SET THIS PRECEDENT AGAIN DURING THE E TODD CONVERSATION, AND I WAS NOT IN ATTENDANCE OF THAT MEETING UNFORTUNATELY, BUT IF I HAVE BEEN, I WOULD'VE SPOKEN ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF FEE IN LIEU AS A MEANS OF PROVIDING GAP FINANCING FOR CAPITAL A. 
          AFFORDABLE COMMUNITIES. 
          THESE ARE A HUNDRED PERCENT AFFORDABLE COMMUNITIES THAT CAN HIT MUCH DEEPER LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY THAN IS POSSIBLE IN THESE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS. SO I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE PREFERENCE FOR ONSITE AFFORDABILITY, BUT I THINK THAT FEE AND LIE CREATES A REALLY IMPORTANT POT OF MONEY THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS ARE USING IN THIS CITY THAT THEY ABSOLUTELY NEED TO MAKE THEIR DEALS PENCIL AT THIS POINT. 
          AND IF WE CONTINUE TO JUST JACK THESE UP TO THE POINT THAT THEY'RE, AGAIN SO ONEROUS THAT PEOPLE DON'T USE THEM, THEN WE LOSE OUT ON THAT REALLY IMPORTANT GAP FINANCING THAT WE ALSO NEED FOR THESE DEEPLY AFFORDABLE PROJECTS AND FOR THESE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECTS. 
          SO I WILL ALSO NOT BE SUPPORTING THOSE. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          LAST CHANCE FOR OR AGAINST COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? SO JUST TO SPEAK FOR IT, UM, A LOT OF THIS REALLY COMES DOWN TO, UM, WHAT WE KNOW AND WHAT WE DON'T KNOW. 
          WE, WE KEEP PROMOTING ALL THESE PROGRAMS AS IF THEY'RE CREATING ALL THIS AFFORD AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          THE FEE IN LIEU, AS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT COMMISSIONER, THAT ARE GOING INTO THESE, UM, UH, DEEPLY AFFORDABLE, 
          [04:00:01]
UH, HOUSING PROGRAMS. AND YET WE ARE SEEING THE DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS THAT WE'RE SEEING. 
          SO WE'RE NOT MEETING DEMAND. 
          WE HAVE NO IDEA IF WE ARE POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, OR NEUTRAL. 
          SO WE'RE JUST OUT. 
          SO ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO TRY TO MOVE THE NEEDLE IN A POSITIVE DIRECTION BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE GIVEN WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS, ESPECIALLY FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS AND ESPECIALLY FOR HISPANICS, THOSE TWO POPULATIONS ARE THE, ARE THE SHARE OF THE POPULATIONS THAT ARE DROPPING, THAT ARE BEING PUSHED OUT OF THE CITY, THAT ARE BEING PUSHED BEYOND THE CITY LIMITS. 
          WE HAD THAT BRIEFING YESTERDAY AND AFFORDABILITY IS THE PRIMARY ISSUE. 
          AND SO WE HAVE THIS DISPLACEMENT CRISIS, BUT WE NEVER HAVE SAT HERE AND TALKED ABOUT THAT AND COME UP WITH ANY KINDS OF TOOLS THAT WILL ADDRESS THAT. 
          WE KEEP DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND IT'S NOT MEETING THE NEEDS OF THOSE TWO POPULATION SHARES. 
          SO AT WHAT POINT DO WE THEN ADDRESS THOSE POPULATION SHARES? BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW CERTAINLY IS NOT WORKING. 
          AND, AND JUST TO ADDRESS, UH, ANOTHER POINT THAT, UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SAID ABOUT TEARING DOWN THAT OLD APARTMENT, WELL, THERE ARE PEOPLE LIVING THERE AT, AT RENTS THAT AVERAGE $1,100 A MONTH. 
          SO EVEN IF IT'S OLD AND DILAPIDATED TO YOU, IT'S HOME TO THEM AND THEY ARE LIVING THERE AND IT'S GOING TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REPLACED WITH 24 UNITS OF AFFORDABILITY INSTEAD OF 74. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'D LIKE TO REMIND ALL COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS ALL OF US. 
          PLEASE, IN YOUR REMARKS, FOCUS ON THE ISSUE AT HAND AND WE'RE NOT PULLING OTHER COMMISSIONERS INTO YOUR COMMENTS. 
          ANY OTHER SPOTS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST COMMISSIONER HOWARD? YES, AND I KNOW I DON'T SPEAK OFTEN. 
          IT'S NOT BECAUSE I'M NOT ENGAGED, BUT I I I AM AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPER AND SO I GUESS I DON'T WANNA SOUND LIKE I'M THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT RELATIVE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND INCENTIVES AND THE LIKE. 
          I DO BELIEVE THAT THE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS ARE BENEFICIAL AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SCALE AND MASS IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND SO I DO THINK THAT WE DO NEED TO, I I THINK THAT EVERYONE'S PASSIONATE ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THAT'S VALID. 
          AND I, I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT I'M A PART OF A GROUP THAT REALLY IS INTERESTED IN DOING SUCH. 
          I DON'T, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THE TOOLS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF ZONING IN AND OF ITSELF IS WHAT'S GONNA SOLVE THE PROBLEM. 
          SO IT IS, BUT NOBLE EFFORTS TO DO SUCH, I JUST THINK THAT WE'RE PROBABLY NOT REALIZING THAT WE'RE CONTROLLING FOR DISPLACEMENT OR MIGRATION OR REVERSE MIGRATION IS NOT NECESSARILY JUST AFFORDABILITY IN AND OF ITSELF THAT CAUSES PEOPLE TO MOVE OUT TO THE SUBURBS. 
          IT'S, IT'S, THERE'S OTHER FACTORS INVOLVED. 
          BUT I MEAN, JUST PURELY IN THE ESSENCE OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE NOW, I'M NOT GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FORCE A SCENARIO THAT NOT, MAY NOT BE IN THE OVERALL BEST INTEREST WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO TALK ABOUT THE, THE NEED FOR A LARGE HOUSING SUPPLY. 
          UM, AND THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY GONNA BE MET BY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, IN MY OPINION, BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE DOING DEVELOPMENT. 
          SO THAT'S MY 2 CENTS, BUT I, I WON'T SUPPORT THE MO THIS MOTION. 
          ALL LAST SPOT. 
          FOUR. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A VOTE. 
          ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          1, 2, 3, THOSE AGAINST 2, 5, 6, 7. 
          AND THOSE ABSTAINING IS TWO. 
          THAT MOTION FAILS THREE TO SEVEN TO TWO. 
          THE NEXT AMENDMENT IS ITEM NUMBER 14. 
          UM, THIS IS ABOUT CREATIVE USES. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DO YOU WANT TO SURE. 
          READ THROUGH THIS ONE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. 
          UM, I THINK EVERYBODY'S GOT IT, SO I'M NOT GONNA READ IT. 
          MY MOTION IS AS IT'S WRITTEN AND I'LL, I'LL SPEAK OR WELL, I'LL WAIT. 
          WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS. 
          UM, IF, IF ANY, EVERYBODY HAS THE AMENDMENT WRITTEN IN FRONT OF YOU. 
          THIS IS ABOUT, UH, OFFERING CREATIVE SPACES, ARTISTS IN RESIDENCE PROGRAM. 
          [04:05:01]
UM, QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER HAYNES OR STAFF? UM, WE'LL DO  FIRST. 
          BISHOP WOODS. 
          CAN YOU CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CITY TAX CREDIT THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING IN HERE? IS IT AN EXISTING TAX CREDIT OR IS IT, OR THE CREATION OF A NEW CITY TAX CREDIT? IT IS, IT IS THE CREATION OF, UH, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T DO ANYTHING MORE FOR, UM, UH, BUILDING INCENTIVES. 
          'CAUSE WE'VE ALREADY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE MAXING THOSE OUT AT TWO 40. 
          SO I HAVE TO, UM, WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS IN CONVERSATION WITH A COUPLE OF FOLKS, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY TALKED ABOUT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE BIG CRITERIA, THE REAL CRITERIA WHEN IT COMES TO AFFORDABLE UNITS IS CASH FLOW. 
          IF YOU ARE REDUCING THE RENT, UH, YOU'VE GOTTA HELP OUT WITH CASH FLOW. 
          AND SO, UM, I BASICALLY TOOK THE IDEA OF, OF, UH, LOW INCOME, UH, TAX CREDITS THAT STATE AND FEDS OFFER, UH, TURNED IT IN AND WE'LL DO A CITY TAX CREDIT. 
          SO, UM, IF YOU DO AN ARTIST IN RESIDENCE AND YOU TAKE A UNIT AND OFFER IT AT A 50% RATE, THEN YOU'LL GET A, A TAX CREDIT ON YOUR CITY PROPERTY TAX. 
          UH, IF THAT UNIT REMAINS IN, UM, UH, AS AN ARTIST AND RESIDENT, UH, RESIDENT AND, UH, GOT THE IDEA, UH, READING KEY TO THE CITY AND NASHVILLE DOES THIS, UH, NEW YORK DOES THIS, UM, UH, MINNEAPOLIS DOES THIS AND YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GONNA COMPETE WITH NASHVILLE THEN, THEN WE BETTER START PROVIDING HOUSING FOR OUR, UH, CREATIVE, CREATIVE FOLKS. 
          APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION. 
          YES MA'AM. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER COX? I HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR TWEAKING THE LANGUAGE. 
          UM, WELL ACTUALLY JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT SO THAT IT DOESN'T IMMEDIATELY GET SHOT DOWN BY LEGAL, UM, AS THEY TEND TO DO. 
          BUT WHAT, WHAT I WAS GONNA SUGGEST IS, UM, THAT SECOND SENTENCE THAT SAYS THE UNIT SERVING AS ARTISTS AND RESIDENTS SHALL BE OFFERED AT A MAXIMUM OF 50% MARKET RATE AS DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING DEPARTMENT AND THE OWNER OF THE UNIT IS ELIGIBLE FOR A CITY TAX CREDIT OR OTHER FINANCIAL INCENTIVE EQUAL TO THE REDUCTION OF THE RENT AS LONG AS THE UNIT SERVES AS AN ARTIST AND RESIDENCE UNIT. 
          AND THE REASON I'M THINKING OF THIS IS IF, IF IT GETS BOGGED DOWN IN THE WHOLE CITY TAX CREDIT THING, THERE, THERE ARE OTHER LIKE GRANT PROGRAMS AND STUFF THAT THE CITY COULD CREATE OR TWEAK, UH, AND DEPLOY FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS. 
          UM, 'CAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF GRANT FUNDING THAT WE GIVE OUT FOR, FOR VARIOUS, UM, ART PROGRAMS AND THAT SORT OF THING. 
          SO I WAS JUST TRYING TO OPEN IT UP A LITTLE BIT SO THAT IT DOESN'T GET BOGGED DOWN IN THE WHOLE TAX CREDIT THING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? ONE QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER HAYNES, THIS IS YOUR INTENT IS THIS IS PURELY PERMISSIVE. 
          IT'S UP TO THE DEVELOPER WHETHER THEY WANNA DO THIS, MANDATES DON'T WORK. 
          THIS IS A MARKET BASED INCENTIVE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I WILL, UH, MAKE MY MOTION WITH THE CHAIR. 
          I I HAD A QUITE, I DIDN'T REALIZE MY CAMERA WAS STILL OFF. 
          I, UH, I'M SORRY, I KEEP TURNING IT OFF. 
          UM, JUST A QUICK QUESTION. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES, IS THE INTENT HERE THAT THE ARTIST AND RESIDENCE WOULD BE EMPLOYED IN OR, OR WORKING FOR THE CREATIVE SPACE ON SITE? LIKE, IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT THEY WOULD HAVE TO USE OR BE AFFILIATED WITH THE, THE NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE ON SITE? OR WOULD IT BE OPEN TO, YOU KNOW, SAY A MUSICIAN WHO PERFORMS AT A DIFFERENT VENUE OR, YOU KNOW, UH, I DON'T KNOW, A, A SCULPTOR WHO HAS A STUDIO ELSEWHERE? UH, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? NO, IT, IT, IT MAKES SENSE. 
          UH, I WOULDN'T PUT A, UH, REQUIREMENT IN, BUT IF, IF PUTTING A REQUIREMENT IN GETS YOU, THEN IT, BUT IT MIGHT COST ME ANOTHER COMMISSIONER, BUT NO, NO, I WAS PURELY CLEAR. 
          NO, I WOULD NOT, I WOULD, NO, I I MEAN THE, THE IDEA WOULD BE IF IF SOMEBODY'S GONNA DEVELOP A CREATIVE SPACE AND GET, AND GET, UH, INCENTIVE BONUSES FOR IT, THEN THEY'LL, UH, SET UP A UNIT AND HAVE THE SONGWRITER OR THE, UH, SCULPTOR OR THE, YOU KNOW, PERFORM AT, AT THAT VENUE. 
          SO, BUT, BUT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT. 
          NO. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE ON? OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I WILL MAKE THE MOTION WITH THE ADDITION OF, UH, COMMISSIONER COX'S, UH, LANGUAGE THAT, UH, SO IT WOULD, IT WOULD NOW RE ON THE 1, 2, 3, 4 
          [04:10:01]
FIFTH LINE. 
          UH, THE OWNER OF THE UNIT IS ELIGIBLE FOR A CITY TAX CREDIT OR OTHER FINANCIAL INCENTIVE, UM, EQUAL TO THE REDUCTION. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THERE SECOND? COMMISSIONER COX? ALL RIGHT. 
          I'LL OFFER TO YOU COMMISSIONER HANS, IF YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT ANYMORE. 
          THE ONLY THING IF, IF WE'RE GONNA DO CREATIVE SPACES, WE GOTTA, WE GOTTA HAVE A HOUSING FOR THE CREATIVE SOULS THAT ARE GONNA OCCUPY THOSE CREATIVE SPACES. 
          ALRIGHT, ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST FOUR, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. 
          THIS IS, UM, ABOUT THE CREATIVE SPACES. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 3 4 8 7 8, 9, 10 AGAINST AND ABSTAINING . 
          OKAY. 
          , UH, OKAY, THAT'S 10 TO ZERO TO TWO. 
          THAT MOTION PASSES AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON AND WE'LL COMBINE ITEMS 15 AND 16 TOGETHER AS UM, SITE. 
          YES, YES PLEASE. 
          VICE CHAIR. 
          I HAPPY TO READ THAT OUT. 
          SO IT WOULD NOW BE A 15 AND 16 GET COMBINED TO JUST SAY ALLOW SHORT TERM RENTAL AS A CONDITIONAL USE ONLY AND NOT AS A PERMITTED USE. 
          THAT, THAT IS THE INTENT. 
          SOUNDS GOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER HAYNES OR STAFF VICE CHAIR IF ONE QUESTION IS FOR COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES, JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU WOULD MEAN THAT THIS IS NOT JUST FOR THE AFFORDABLE UNITS BUT FOR ALL UNITS, INCLUDING THE MARKET RATE UNITS? YOU KNOW, I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. 
          IT WAS, IT WAS FOR BUT YES. 
          FOR ALL THE UNITS. 
          YES. 
          YES. 
          AND, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE STAFF AVAILABLE THAT CAN SPEAK TO THAT. 
          I KNOW WE'VE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF, UH, CHALLENGES IN THE PAST, BUT SORT OF REQUIRING THAT FOR ALL UNITS. 
          WOULD THERE BE A CONCERN FROM STAFF FROM A, I DON'T KNOW, A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE OR OTHERWISE FOR THIS RENTALS AT THIS TIME AND MIND? IT'S GONNA BE DANGEROUS. 
          UM, STEVIE GREATHOUSE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UM, IN GENERAL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE ARE RETURNING WITH SHORT-TERM RENTAL AMENDMENTS THAT ARE RESPONSIVE TO STATE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES AND COURT CASES RELATED SHORT-TERM RENTALS THAT SHOULD BE BACK BEFORE THIS BODY, UM, WITHIN THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS, EARLY IN THE NEW YEAR. 
          UM, AND I WOULD NOT PERSONALLY RECOMMEND MAKING CHANGES TO ANY OF OUR CODE LANGUAGE RELATED TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS UNTIL WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO CLEAN UP THE BASE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROVISIONS THAT APPLY CITYWIDE. 
          THANK YOU, MS. GREATHOUSE. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, SO COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DO YOU WANT TO SURE. 
          UH, HAPPY TO DO SO, AND, UH, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT, WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO IN, IN ADJUSTING THE, UM, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS INCENTIVES. 
          UM, AND, AND I APPRECIATE MR. GR GREATHOUSE, UM, UH, BRINGING THAT FORWARD. 
          I DO KNOW THAT THE CITY LAW AND, AND OTHERS ARE LOOKING AT HOW THE CITY IS GONNA HANDLE SHORT-TERM RENTALS. 
          AND UNTIL THAT TIME AND UNTIL THEY COME BACK, UM, THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S BETTER TO MAKE THEM A CONDITIONAL USE. 
          UH, SO THAT, UH, YOU'VE GOTTA COME BEFORE THIS BODY AND THEN GO FOR COUNCIL BEFORE WE GET A SLEW OF, OF STR IF, IF WE'RE GONNA DO THIS, IF WE'RE GONNA DO A, A TWO 40, UM, TO CREATE MORE HOUSING, LET'S CREATE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE IN. 
          NOT, UH, HOUSING FOR INVESTORS TO, UH, COME INTO THE CITY AND, UH, AT THE EXPENSE OF EXISTING RESIDENTS AND, UH, JUST DRIVE UP HOUSING COSTS. 
          AND SO THAT'S, UH, WE'RE NOT OUTLAWING S STRS 'CAUSE THAT'S WHEN WE GET IN TROUBLE WITH THE COURTS AND THE STATE. 
          WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT IF YOU'RE GONNA DO AN STR, UH, YOU'VE GOTTA GET ONE MORE CHECK. 
          OKAY. 
          LOOKING FOR A SECOND ON THAT. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX. 
          UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ANY MORE TO THAT? ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE BE AGAINST THE MOTION. 
          'CAUSE I KNOW I'M NOT UP TO SPEED ON ALL THE LATEST AROUND STATE LAW AROUND STR, BUT, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, ESSENTIALLY MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS WHERE 
          [04:15:01]
WE AS A CITY HAD ALLOWED STR IN THEM OF, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I'M VISUALIZING IF, IF IF SOMEBODY, IF A DEVELOPER WANTED TO BUILD A BUILDING THAT HAD APARTMENTS AND THEIR CONDOMINIUM DECLARATIONS ALLOWED STR, THESE WOULD STILL BE UNITS THAT WOULD STILL BE, AND THEY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF OUR DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, THEY WOULD STILL BE SPINNING OFF FUNDS TO BUILD LONG-TERM AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          SO, ESPECIALLY WHEN I LOOK AT THE, WHERE THESE, THE DB TWO 40 ZONES ARE, WE'RE LARGELY REPLACING INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY AND, AND PARKING LOTS. 
          SO IF SOMEBODY HAS A PROJECT AND THAT WANTS TO HAVE STR OF, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CONVERTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN OUR CORE NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A NEW BUILDING. 
          AND IF THEY WANT THE BUILDING TO DO THAT, I DON'T KNOW, I GUESS WHY I WOULD CARE. 
          'CAUSE WE'RE STILL GETTING THE, UH, WE'RE STILL GETTING THE BENEFITS FROM THE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAM, FROM THE DENSITY BONUS OF WITHOUT DISPLACING EXISTING RESIDENTS. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR, UM, COMMISSIONER COX? UH, WE HAD A VERY PRODUCTIVE AND INTERESTING CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS BEFORE. 
          AND MY PRIMARY, UH, REASON FOR SUPPORTING SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS, UM, I, I, I JUST HAVE KIND OF THIS ISSUE AND I CAN BE CONVINCED OTHERWISE OF THE POTENTIAL OF OUR AFFORDABLE UNITS BECOMING STR THEMSELVES. 
          UM, AND, AND THAT WOULD BE, I UNDERSTAND THE FAIRNESS ASPECT OF IT. 
          YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT FAIR FOR SOMEONE IN A MARKET RATE UNIT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE AN STR FOR THEIR UNIT AND THEN SOMEONE IN AN AFFORDABLE UNIT NOT HAVE THE SAME ABILITY. 
          BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT YOU KNOWS STR EXIST IN A MARKETPLACE AND SO THERE'S A FINANCE, THERE'S A GREATER FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO HAVE AN STR IN A UNIT THAT IS MARK THAT IS, UH, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING CAPITAL A AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, BECAUSE YOU WOULD GET MORE PROFIT. 
          UM, AND SO I JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THAT PROFIT INCENTIVE IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS AND THAT BEING STRONG ENOUGH THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY SEE THAT SCENARIO PLAY OUT WHEN THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT. 
          AND SO I, I AM, I AM UNEASY ABOUT THE SEEMINGLY UNFAIRNESS OF THAT, BUT I'M EVEN MORE UNEASY ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF OUR HA OF OUR, UH, INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS BEING USED FOR STR FOR, FOR THAT, FOR THAT PROFIT INCENTIVE. 
          ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER, SPEAKING AGAINST, SO I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION, UM, FOR THE MOTION MAKER, UM, JUST IN TERMS OF MAKING IT APPLICABLE TO AFFORDABLE UNITS AS YOU HAD INITIALLY INTENDED, UH, BECAUSE I HEAR WHAT, UM, COMMISSIONER SAYING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT, UM, THESE COULD REALLY TURN INTO THE AFFORDABLE UNITS, TURN INTO UNITS THAT ARE BEING USED AND MAYBE INAPPROPRIATELY SO AS STR. 
          UM, SO THAT'S JUST A QUESTION TO YOU. 
          I GUESS HIS HAND WAS UP VICE CHAIR. 
          I LET THE MOTION MERS SPEAK AND THEN I WANT TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE. 
          OH. 
          UM, ANSWERING, UH, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, UH, QUESTION, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN WE, WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION LIKE COMMISSIONER COX SAID WHEN WE HAD THE DISCUSSION BEFORE I TRIED TO LIMIT IT JUST TO THE AFFORDABLE AND, AND THEN I WAS, UH, I, I THINK SOME OF WHAT WHAT YOU ADDED AT THAT POINT WAS, YOU KNOW, IT IS UNFAIR TO SAY, WELL, IF YOU'RE IN THE AFFORDABLE, YOU CAN'T DO STR, BUT IF YOU'RE IN THE OTHERS YOU CAN. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHY I SAID, OKAY, LET'S, I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU'RE SAYING NO, IT'S ALL OF THE RIGHT, BUT IT'S PERMISSIVE. 
          DID THAT HELP CLARIFY YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? NO, I GUESS I, I DON'T KNOW. 
          I'M  IT'S LATE . 
          YEAH, BUT NOW I WAS THINKING THAT SINCE IT'S NOT MANDATING IT, IT'S NOT THE SAME A HUNDRED PERCENT AGREE, BUT IF I MANDATE IT THEN I GET THEN LAW KICKED AUTOMATICALLY. 
          YEAH, I, NO, YOU SHOULD VICE 
          [04:20:01]
CHAIR, UM, CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. 
          UM, MY SUBSTITUTE MOTION WOULD BE ANY ONSITE RENTAL AFFORDABLE UNIT IS PROHIBITED FROM SHORT-TERM RENTAL USE. 
          I CAN SPEAK TO THAT, UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HANEY. 
          OKAY. 
          PLEASE SPEAK TO THAT. 
          UM, SO THIS, I THINK COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I KIND OF UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE GOING AND I ACTUALLY COMPLETELY AGREE THAT I THINK OUR AFFORDABLE UNITS SHOULD NOT BE UTILIZED FOR, UH, ESSENTIALLY FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL BECAUSE I THINK THAT ACTUALLY CIRCUMVENTS THE ENTIRE NOTION OF HAVING THOSE AFFORDABLE UNITS. 
          AND SO I LIKE THE IDEA OF PROHIBITING, NOW I DO WANNA CAUTION THIS BY SAYING I KNOW STAFF IS LOOKING AT THIS. 
          I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE LEGALITY AROUND THIS IS. 
          SO HOPEFULLY STAFF CAN FIGURE THAT OUT WHETHER THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO OR NOT, BECAUSE I REALLY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH THE LAWSUITS. 
          IT'S BEEN HARD TO SORT OF SEE WHAT THE COURTS HAVE DECIDED. 
          BUT ALL THAT SAID, ESSENTIALLY WE WOULD BE SAYING THAT ANY ONSITE RENTAL AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE PROHIBITED FROM SHORT TERM RENTALS. 
          I'M NOT EVEN SAYING IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE, IT SHOULD JUST BE PROHIBITED. 
          YOU SHOULD NOT, THE LANDLORD SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE THE AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT ARE MEANT FOR RENTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND CONVERT THEM TO A SHORT TERM RENTAL, EVEN IF THEY ARE AFFORDABLE IN NATURE. 
          UM, AND WE'RE LEAVING THE OWNERSHIP OFF OF IT BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY TO SAY IF THERE IS A, UM, OWNER WHO WISHES TO DO THAT, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT BECAUSE YES, EVEN IF YOU'RE LIVING IN AN AFFORDABLE UNIT, YOU SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO IT. 
          NOW. 
          I THINK THERE IS AN ARGUMENT THAT COULD BE MADE TO SAY, ARE WE BEING INEQUITABLE TO RENTERS WHO MIGHT WANT TO DO A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, LIKE A COUCH OR ONE BEDROOM? AND I'LL BE HONEST, MOST STANDARD LEASES PROHIBIT THAT ANYWAYS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, ANYBODY SPEAK QUESTION? YES. 
          CLARIFYING QUESTION. 
          I HAVE A, A CLARIFYING QUESTION OF STAFF AND I'M NOT SURE WHO TO DIRECT THIS TO, BUT WHEN WE SET UP THESE LAND USE RESTRICTION AGREEMENTS, WHEN THESE AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE CREATED, ARE THEY NOT ALREADY DISALLOWING SHORT TERM RENTALS FOR THE AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS THAT THE CITY OVERSEAS? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          I MEAN, A ANNUAL REPORTING IS REQUIRED FOR THESE UNITS. 
          UM, AND SO OBVIOUSLY IF YOU HAVE THEM AS S STRS, THE REPORTING WOULD NOT MATCH WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AND SO IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, AT FAULT. 
          SO THE CITY ALREADY DOESN'T ALLOW SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN OUR CAPITAL A AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT ARE PART OF THESE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS. CORRECT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST COMMISSIONER COX? I WAS HOPING TO FOLLOW UP. 
          UM, IS THAT, IS THAT BY JUST CITY POLICY OR IS THAT AN ACTUAL REGULATION OR ORDINANCE OR, UH, THAT WAS NEWS TO ME THAT, THAT WE, THAT WE SOMEHOW PROHIBIT INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS AS SHORT-TERM RENTALS, UH, CITYWIDE FOR RENTALS. 
          SO I WANT TO BE, I THINK THE, THE CLEAR POINT THERE IS IN ORDER TO DO, UM, GET CREDIT AS AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR AFFORDABLE RENTALS, THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS, UM, RELATED TO THE INCOME RESTRICTION OF THE FOLKS THAT ARE LIVING IN THOSE UNITS AND PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO AUDITING THOSE UNITS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE SERVING THE POPULATION AND ARE INCOME RESTRICTED FOR THE TIME PERIOD THAT THEY'RE INTENDED TO BE INCOME RESTRICTED FOR. 
          BUT, BUT, UH, AND NOT TO GET TOO MUCH IN THE WEEDS HERE, THAT'S A REQUIREMENT FOR THE LANDLORD, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. 
          WHICH WAS, I THINK THAT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR THE TENANT. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THE QUESTION THAT WE WERE ASKING WAS RENTAL UNITS IN A BUILDING THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED IN ORDER TO GET THE ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS, HAVE INCOME RESTRICTION ATTACHED TO THEM AND HAVE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS ATTACHED TO THEM THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT THOSE UNITS ACTUALLY BE RENTED TO FOLKS MEETING THOSE INCOME REQUIREMENTS AND THEREFORE BY DEFINITION WOULDN'T BE A SHORT TERM RENTAL. 
          OKAY. 
          NOW TO GET TO THE QUESTION ABOUT RENTING OUT A ROOM OR A COUCH OR SOME OF THE, THE CONVERSATIONS, UM, THAT WE'VE HAD HERE, I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE LEASE REQUIREMENT. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR IT, AND THAT'D BE A QUESTION I'D HAVE TO ASK. 
          HOUSING DEPARTMENT. 
          OKAY, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND THAT, THAT'S WHY I THINK I STILL SUPPORT SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING HERE. 
          UM, EVEN IF THERE ARE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDLORDS, UM, I COULD SEE EASY WAYS TO, TO GET AROUND THAT. 
          SO, UH, I, I DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE, THE MOTION. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONERS AGAINST, I, I'M SORRY, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I, CLEARLY THIS WAS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER AZAR, CORRECT? VICE CHAIR AZAR AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HANEY. 
          [04:25:03]
UM, OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? NO. 
          ARE WE READY TO TAKE A VOTE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 
          THOSE AGAINST 1, 2, 3. 
          AND THOSE ABSTAINING 1, 2, 3. 
          WHAT WAS THAT? FOUR? OKAY, THAT MOTION PASSES. 
          I COUNTED SIX FOUR. 
          SORRY. 
          LET'S DO THAT AGAIN. 
          UM, SO I THINK THE COLORS AREN'T COMING THROUGH. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          1, 2, 3, 4 OR FIVE SIX. 
          COMMISSIONER HOWARD, WHAT ARE YOU HOLDING UP? OH, YOUR GREEN BOTTLE IS IN THERE. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT IS WHY THOSE AGAINST . 
          1, 2, 3, 4. 
          AND THOSE ABSTAINING 1, 2, 3, 10. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT MOTION FAILS. 
          SO THAT'S SIX TO FOUR TO THREE. 
          UM, ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS BACK TO, ARE WE, UH, DO WE GO BACK TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES? WE ARE, WE'VE WENT THROUGH ALL OF COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S, THE, THE BASEMENT. 
          OH, I'M SO SORRY. 
          YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          RENTALS? YES. 
          YES, YES. 
          OKAY, SO SORRY. 
          YES, WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE, UM, THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT THERE. 
          I'LL WITHDRAW YOU. 
          WITHDRAW. 
          I KNOW WHAT THE VOTE'S GONNA BE. 
          . 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ALL RIGHT. 
          SO JUST WANNA, COMMISSIONER COX, I HAD ONE QUESTION THAT COULD TURN INTO AN AMENDMENT. 
          WAS THE, THE BASE MOTION THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING WITH ALL AMENDMENTS, WAS THE 10 FOOT SETBACK REMOVED FROM THAT? OR IS THE 10 FOOT SETBACK STILL IN THE BASE MOTION? THE 10 FOOT SETBACK BEING REMOVED WAS IN THE BASE MOTION AS, SO I WOULD LIKE, I WOULD, LIKE, I'LL TALK ABOUT, IF I GET A SECOND, I WOULD LIKE TO REINTRODUCE THAT 10 FOOT BUILDING, UH, STEP BACK AFTER THE FIRST 90 FEET OF HEIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          LOOKING FOR A SECOND. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? YEAH. 
          SO, UM, EVEN THOUGH COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS DO APPLY, A LOT OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE NOT WITHIN TRIGGERING PROPERTIES. 
          AND SO, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE'S, THAT THEY, THAT THEY COULD GO STRAIGHT WALL UP TO TWO 40. 
          AND WE HAD A, I THINK IT WAS COMMISSIONER, UM, HERRERA RAMIREZ HAD SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT TRYING TO MAKE, UM, THESE DEVELOPMENTS HUMAN SCALE, UM, AND, AND GENERALLY FEEL COMFORTABLE TO THE HUMAN SCALE. 
          AND IF YOU LOOK AT EVERY SINGLE CITY THAT HAS TALL BUILDINGS, THEY HAVE STEPBACK REQUIREMENTS. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT NEW YORK CITY, THEY HAVE STEPBACK REQUIREMENTS THAT VARY BETWEEN 10 AND 20 FEET FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. 
          AND, AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS OBVIOUS. 
          YOU DON'T WANT TO CREATE A 250 FOOT TALL GLASS CANYON IN THESE INDUSTRIAL AREAS SURROUNDED BY, YOU KNOW, A 40, 50, 60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY. 
          AND SO I THINK, I THINK HAVING JUST A MINIMAL STEPBACK REQUIREMENT AFTER THE FIRST 90 FEET OF HEIGHT SEEMS LIKE A VERY MINIMAL THING TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T END UP WITH BLOCKS OF, OF NON-HUMAN SCALE, UNDESIRABLE PLACES TO, TO WALK AND, AND, UH, ENJOY THE CITY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST SPEAKING, MR. ANDERSON? SO I, I AGREE WITH COJC ELIMINATING THIS. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          I DON'T, I'D RATHER US NOT PUT THIS BACK IN. 
          UM, THIS JUST SIMPLY ADDS UP COSTS. 
          IT'S JUST A LOT OF COSTS. 
          IT'S, IT'S A REQUIREMENT OF A NEW ROOFING SYSTEM. 
          SUDDENLY YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BREAK IN THE BUILDING. 
          UM, WE TALK ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF HOUSING WHEN YOU'RE SUDDENLY SHRINKING THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE YOU CAN HAVE ABOVE 90 FEET, YOU'RE LOSING HOUSING. 
          AND SO FOR THAT REASON AND MANY OTHERS, I WILL BE VOTING KNOWING THIS CHAIR PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. 
          YES. 
          UM, ARE WE NOT OUT OF ORDER HEARING AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD REVERSE A PREVIOUS MOTION? I MEAN, WE ALREADY, WE ALREADY VOTED TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT 
          [04:30:02]
REMOVING THE 10 FOOT SETBACK AT 90 FEET. 
          WE WOULD HAVE TO RECONSIDER THAT, WOULDN'T WE? YEAH, IT'S ALREADY MOTION. 
          OH, IT WAS PART OF THE BASE MOTION. 
          YES. 
          UM, YEAH. 
          AND, AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE BASE MOTION HAS NOT BEEN FULLY APPROVED 'CAUSE WE WERE LOOKING IN THE AMENDMENTS TO THE BASE MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          SO ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR, SPEAKING AGAINST, UM, I, I FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM TOO, WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON I INCLUDED IT IN THE BASE MOTION BECAUSE I THINK THAT CJOC HAD A VERY ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT CONSISTENCY, WHICH WE HEARD FROM THE NORTH BURN GATEWAY WHEN WE LOOKED AT THOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, VERY CLOSELY PLANNING STAFF INDICATED THAT THEY DID NOT FEEL THAT THE 90 FOOT SETBACKS THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN REQUIRED WERE ACTUALLY HELPFUL IN CREATING HUMAN SCALE BUILDINGS AND THEREFORE REMOVE THAT REQUIREMENT WHEN WE UPDATED THOSE REGULATIONS. 
          SO IF WE TALK ABOUT CONSISTENCY IN OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND IN OUR ACTUAL WORK OF THESE DENSITY BONUSES, WE SHOULD BE LOOKING TO MAKE THEM CONSISTENT. 
          AND THAT IS EXACTLY THE SAME TYPE OF HIGH BUILDINGS THAT ARE BEING CREATED IN NORTH AUSTIN WOULD THEN BE PERMISSIBLE IN DB TWO 40. 
          SO THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WE FELT VERY INTENTIONALLY ABOUT TAKING OUT THE 90 FOOT SETBACKS IS TO ENSURE THAT THE CONSISTENTLY EXISTS AND THAT WE'RE LISTENING TO OUR PLANNING STAFF WHO DO NOT FEEL THAT 90 FOOT SETBACKS ARE ACTUALLY HELPFUL. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. 
          UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? TWO THOSE AGAINST NINE, 10 AND ABSTAINING. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S TWO TO 10. 
          ONE THAT MOTION FAILS. 
          UM, CHAIR, I, I MOVE TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 11:30 PM UM, SECOND. 
          I'LL SECOND WITH COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY. 
          I THINK THAT WAS SEVEN. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          SO WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO OUR BASE MOTION, UM, AS AMENDED. 
          AND JUST TO QUICKLY SUMMARIZE THOSE AMENDMENTS, COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS NUMBER 14. 
          CREATIVE SPACES WILL BE INCLUDED IN THAT, UM, AS WELL AS THE 11 AMENDMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS MAXWELL AND RE RAMIREZ AS AMENDED. 
          ANY QUESTIONS ON THE, WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON? ALRIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 2, 3, 4, 5. 
          I'M SORRY, CHAIR. 
          ARE WE VOTING ON, ON THE ENTIRE MOTION OR YES. 
          YES. 
          DO WE NOT HAVE A FOR AND AGAINST ANY DEBATE? UM, SURE. 
          LET'S, WE CAN GO BACK TO FOR AND AGAINST, UM, THE MOTION, INCLUDING ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER? I'LL SPEAK AGAINST COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          UM, YEAH, I'VE BEEN REALLY ON THE FENCE ABOUT THIS WHOLE THING. 
          UM, BETWEEN THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF LOCATING LARGE AMOUNTS OF RESIDENCES IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, UH, NOT EVEN SO MUCH THE IMPACTS ON THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS SO MUCH AS THE IMPACTS ON THOSE NEW RESIDENTS. 
          UM, THE FACT THAT MOST OF THESE AREAS ARE LOCATED, UH, FAR OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN DECOR, NOT ALL I UNDERSTAND, BUT MOST, BUT MORE THAN ANYTHING, IT FEELS LIKE THIS IS, THIS IS A SORT OF DEMONSTRATION OF, UH, OUR INABILITY TO PLAN AND ZONE RATIONALLY AND PROPERLY. 
          UH, AND I SEE, UH, SOME FOLKS, UH, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT, UH, LOOK, IF WE HAVE AREAS THAT ARE ZONED ALLY OR MI OR IP IN TRANSIT AREAS NEXT TO NEW OR PLANNED STATIONS ADJACENT TO DOWNTOWN, WE SHOULD REZONE THOSE. 
          WE SHOULDN'T, UH, CONTINUE THAT ZONING. 
          IF OUR ZONING ON THE MAP IS WRONG, WE SHOULD FIX THE MAP. 
          UM, I FEEL LIKE WE'VE ALSO, AS A COMMISSION, EVEN BEFORE MY TIME, ADVANCED SOLUTIONS THAT WOULD COVER A LOT OF THESE ISSUES. 
          TOWN ZONING, UH, WAS PUSHED FORWARD BY THIS COMMISSION 18 MONTHS AGO. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHY IT HASN'T BEEN ADOPTED YET. 
          THAT'S REALLY UNFORTUNATE. 
          [04:35:01]
THAT WOULD'VE BEEN USEFUL IN A LOT OF THESE AREAS. 
          UM, IT JUST, THIS FEELS LIKE A BANDAID THAT COULD CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS PERHAPS THAN IT SOLVES. 
          UH, AND I'M REALLY ANXIOUS ABOUT, UH, VOTING TO CREATE, UH, MASSIVE ENTITLEMENTS IN AREAS THAT WILL TAKE A VERY LONG TIME GENERALLY TO BECOME WALKABLE QUALITY URBAN ENVIRONMENTS. 
          AND I WORRY THAT IT WILL ALLOW US TO SORT OF SERVE AS A COP OUT FROM ADDING ENTITLEMENTS TO THOSE AREAS OF THE CITY WHERE THEY SHOULD BE. 
          AREAS THAT ARE CURRENTLY SINGLE FAMILY ZONED IN CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOODS, AREAS THAT ARE ON TRANSIT AND PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE CORRIDORS IN THE CENTRAL CITY THAT ARE CURRENTLY UNDER ENTITLED. 
          UM, THIS JUST FEELS LIKE WE'RE, WE'RE MAKING HUGE STRIDES AND CAPACITY IN ALL THE WRONG AREAS. 
          AND I WORRY THAT DOING SO WILL GIVE US, US BEING A CITY, NOT NECESSARILY THIS COMMISSION WILL GIVE US AN OUT FROM DOING IT IN THE PLACES WE REALLY SHOULD BE. 
          UH, AND LIKE I SAID, I'VE BEEN ON THE FENCE, BUT, BUT RIGHT NOW I'M, I'M LEANING ON THAT NO SIDE. 
          COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UM, I WANTED TO THANK MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER IN PARTICULAR, COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ FOR THE AMENDMENTS THAT SHE AND I OFFERED TONIGHT. 
          UM, WE'VE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE D FOUR OFFICE IN PARTICULAR, BUT ALSO THE D ONE. 
          AND, AND I JUST REALLY WANNA EMPHASIZE THAT WE HAVE PDA CASES THAT ARE COMING BEFORE COM, THE COUNCIL AND THIS COMMISSION THAT ESSENTIALLY HAVE NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          AND WHILE I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WHOLE BANDAID APPROACH IS NOT IDEAL, WE ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO ADDRESS IN A NEED THAT IS BEING SEEN BY THESE COUNCIL OFFICES, BY THEIR COMMUNITIES. 
          AND THE REQUEST HAS BEEN VERY SPECIFIC. 
          WE WANNA KNOW WHAT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE FOR A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM WITH PDA, AND WE WANNA KNOW WHAT COMMUNITY BENEFITS WOULD LOOK LIKE AS THESE SITES TEND TO BE LARGER. 
          AND I THINK WE DID A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS TONIGHT THAT REALLY ADDRESSED THOSE ISSUES. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A BIGGER CONTEXT HERE, WHICH IS COMPLEX, AND I THINK WE ALSO TRIED TO CONSIDER THAT CAREFULLY AS A PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          BUT I JUST REALLY WANNA SAY THAT DOING NOTHING OR SITTING ON OUR HANDS IS NOT ACTUALLY HELPFUL IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION. 
          WE NEED SOME SORT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM FOR PDA SITES AND THAT THAT'S WHAT THIS IS BRINGING, AND THAT IS IN RESPONSE TO A SPECIFIC COUNCIL REQUEST. 
          SO I WILL DEFINITELY BE SUPPORTING THIS, THIS SPEAKING AGAINST I'M, I'M SORRY, CHAIR. 
          JUST TO CLARIFYING QUESTION. 
          I KNOW I ALREADY ASKED ONCE, BUT JUST SO I I UNDERSTAND, IS THIS ITEM 19 AND 20 AS AMENDED OR IS THIS SIMPLY ITEM 20? NO, THIS IS JUST 20. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANK, YEAH, WE VOTED ON NUMBER 19 ALREADY. 
          COMMISSIONER COX. 
          UM, I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE WHAT, UH, THE RESEARCHERS AT UT ARE TELLING US. 
          UH, THEY'RE CLEARLY TELLING US NOT TO DO THIS, AND THEY'VE EXPLAINED IN VERY CLEAR DETAIL WHY, UM, THE LETTERS ARE IN YOUR BACKUP. 
          IF YOU HAVEN'T READ IT, MAYBE YOU CAN READ IT SUPER FAST BEFORE YOU VOTE. 
          UM, THAT, THAT AFTER I READ THOSE LETTERS, THAT BECAME MY NUMBER ONE CONCERN ABOUT THIS. 
          PREVIOUS TO READING THOSE LETTERS, MY NUMBER ONE CONCERN ABOUT THIS WAS IT JUST SEEMED INCREDIBLY HALF-BAKED AND HAPHAZARD. 
          WHAT IF WE WANT TO TURN OUR INDUSTRIAL AREAS INTO THE NEXT DOMAIN, THEN WE SHOULD HAVE A PLANNING PROCESS FOR THAT. 
          INSTEAD OF JUST ALLOWING INDIVIDUAL INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO DECIDE THEY WANNA PUT A 240 FOOT APARTMENT BUILDING IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INDUSTRIAL AREA WITH LITERALLY NO PLANNING ASSOCIATED WITH IT. 
          AND, AND THE POOR PEOPLE WHO ARE SITTING IN OUR SPOTS IN THE FUTURE, OR MAYBE SOME OF Y'ALL ARE GONNA HAVE TO SIT THERE AND GO THROUGH THESE CASES AND SAY, IS IT, IS IT A GOOD THING TO PUT ALL OF THESE PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS INDUSTRIAL AREA WHEN WE'VE GOT THE HIGHEST TRAVIS COUNTY POLLUTION EMITTER, YOU KNOW, TWO BLOCKS AWAY AND, AND ALL THESE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS? AND SO THE, I I, I REALLY WOULD'VE PREFERRED TO POSTPONE THIS TO TRY TO THINK IT THROUGH A LITTLE BIT AND, AND MAYBE TRY TO PINPOINT THE APPROPRIATE AREAS WITHIN THOSE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS WHERE THIS SEEMS MORE APPROPRIATE RATHER THAN JUST BLANKET ACROSS THE CITY. 
          UM, A LOT OF THESE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS ARE AROUND THE AIRPORT. 
          I, I'M A CONSULTANT FOR THE AIRPORT FROM, SO I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO THAT AND, AND THAT A LOT OF THIS STUFF WILL JUST NOT BE REALIZED AROUND THE AIRPORT BECAUSE OF RESTRICTIONS THERE. 
          PLUS YOU DON'T WANT TO PUT PEOPLE THAT CLOSE TO AN AIRPORT. 
          AND SO THERE'S ALL OF THESE ISSUES THAT JUST DON'T SEEM TO HAVE BEEN THOUGHT THROUGH, AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF A LACK OF EFFORT, COMMISSIONER, I THINK IT'S AN INTENTIONAL LACK OF THINKING THIS THROUGH. 
          AND I HOPE WE, WE VOTE THIS DOWN SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY GO BACK AND THINK THROUGH THESE THINGS. 
          ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? 
          [04:40:01]
IT'S NOT IDEAL, BUT IT'S A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. 
          IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE CAN DO A LOT OF THINGS ALL AT ONCE. 
          AND WE TRIED AND NOW WE'RE DOING LITTLE THINGS. 
          COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER BARRE RAMIREZ. 
          I, I DO WANNA SAY, I HOPE YOU CAN HEAR ME OKAY, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, TO SPEAKING TO, UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S POINT AND TO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S POINT THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PENDING CASES, SORRY. 
          UM, WE, WE, IF WE'RE AGAINST THIS AND WE THINK IT'S DANGEROUS, THEN WHEN A PDA CASE COMES TO US, WE HAVE TO DENY THE CASE. 
          SO WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO APPROVE PDAS THAT INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL IF IT'S NOT THE RIGHT FIT. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S THE MESSAGE TO TAKE HOME, IS THAT WHEN THEY COME, BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED A COUPLE OF THEM, WHEN THEY COME, WE HAVE TO SAY THIS ISN'T THE RIGHT FIT TO THE RIGHT PLACE. 
          AND I, THAT'S WHAT MAKES ME NERVOUS ABOUT THIS, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ONE AT ANDERSON SQUARE THAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, AND, UM, THAT ONE IS A GOOD FIT. 
          SO I'M STRUGGLING, UM, A LITTLE WITH THIS DECISION. 
          UM, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WAS FOR OR AGAINST, BUT ONE, ONE MORE SPEAKER, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS. 
          SO I, I TOO AGREE WITH, UH, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID IN ON THE, UM, AGAINST SIDE BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF PLANNING. 
          AND I HEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME URGENCY BECAUSE THESE THINGS ARE COMING TO COUNCIL NOW, BUT COUNCIL CAN POSTPONE IT OR JUST TELL THE, UH, FOLKS WHO ARE BRINGING THESE CASES THAT WE DON'T HA WE, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A GOOD POLICY AT THIS POINT. 
          AND, AND LET'S DO THAT FIRST BEFORE WE, WE ACTUALLY APPROVE THESE. 
          SO THE IDEA THAT JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE COMING TO COUNCIL, WE'VE GOT TO RUSH AND, UM, KIND OF FAST TRACK SOMETHING THAT, THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AND ALSO, UM, OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE POINTED OUT. 
          THERE ARE SOME REAL PROBLEMS WITH I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE TO DO IT BECAUSE THEY'RE COMING TO COUNCIL NOW WHEN COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY TO SLOW THAT PROCESS DOWN. 
          OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. 
          THIS IS FOR ITEM, I'M SORRY, VICE CHAIR. 
          I'LL JUST MAKE A VERY QUICK COMMENT. 
          I JUST WANNA THANK, UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, COMMISSIONER MIR, COMMISSIONER HAYNES FOR BRINGING AMENDMENTS. 
          AND YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL MENTIONED HOW SHE WAS TRYING TO SORT OF CORRAL AMENDMENTS, AND I WANNA SAY YOU DID AN AMAZING JOB. 
          SO I THINK I'M READY TO RETIRE. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK, ALL OF YOU. 
          OKAY, FOR REAL THIS TIME. 
          MUCH A MUCH DESERVED RETIREMENT. 
          . 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 
          THOSE AGAINST 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 
          AND COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. 
          OKAY, SO THAT WAS SEVEN TO SIX, THAT MOTION PASSES. 
          THANK YOU STAFF FOR STICKING AROUND AND I REALLY THANK YOU MR. LLOYD AND TEAM FOR WHAT WE'RE ABOUT TO EMBARK ON. 
          UM, OKAY, WE ARE MOVING ON TO ITEM 21. 
          DO WE HAVE TO REVIEW THE CHURCH ITEM? OH, I'M SORRY. 
          UM, REALLY 
          [Items 12 & 13 (Part 2 of 2)]
QUICK, JUST A, A MATTER OF BUSINESS. 
          UM, I HAVE SOME UNFORTUNATE NEWS FOR OUR ITEMS. NUMBER 12 AND NUMBER 13. 
          THIS WAS THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST ALPHA CHURCH ITEM THAT WE HEARD EARLIER THIS EVENING. 
          UM, THE ADDRESS WAS CORRECT IN BACKUP, BUT INCORRECT IN OUR AGENDA, AND SO WE HAVE TO RESCIND OUR VOTE AND POSTPONE. 
          SO SHALL MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, RESCIND OUR VOTE AND POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING. 
          A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX. 
          ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? 1, 2, 3, 4. 
          UH, OKAY. 
          UNANIMOUS, THAT'S UNANIMOUS. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          I AM SO SORRY THAT THAT DOES NOT MAKE ME HAPPY. 
          UM, ALL RIGHT, NUMBER 21, 
          [21. LDC  Amendment: C20-2023-045 - Site Plan Lite Phase 2 & Infill Lots]
MR. LLOYD. 
          THANKS COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, BRENT LLOYD, UH, DSD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, AND WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT, UM, 
          [04:45:01]
THE SITE PLAN, LIGHT INFO PLOT, ORDINANCE, AND RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE PROPOSALS. 
          AND, UM, I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF STAKEHOLDERS HERE READY TO TESTIFY, AND I THINK COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS AS WELL. 
          SO I'M GONNA BREEZE THROUGH, UH, JUST A SHORT SET OF SLIDES TO UPDATE YOU ON WHERE WE'RE AT. 
          SO FOLLOWING, UH, THE COMMISSION'S LAST MEETING ON THIS, UM, PER THE COMMISSION'S ENCOURAGEMENT, WE CONTINUED TO WORK WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND TO HEAR FEEDBACK, UM, HAD I BELIEVE, THREE DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS IN THAT TIME. 
          AND WE'VE MADE, UM, THREE ADDITIONAL CHANGES. 
          UM, THE FIRST IS THAT WE'VE INCREASED FOR INFILL PLATS. 
          WE HAVE INCREASED, UM, THE RANGE OF PROJECTS THAT WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR NO DRAINAGE REVIEW FROM A QUARTER OF AN ACRE TO 11,500 SQUARE FEET. 
          AND THAT NUMBER IS DOUBLE THE SIZE OF 57 50. 
          SO THAT WOULD ENCOMPASS TWO LOTS, UH, THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THREE UNITS UNDER THE HOME, ONE AMENDMENTS. 
          ADDITIONALLY, WE WORKED WITH, UH, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS WHO, UH, PROACTIVELY DEVELOPED A POLICY THAT WILL ALLOW AUTOMATIC RELIEF FROM RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS ON LEVEL ONE STREETS. 
          AND WE BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL PROVIDE, UH, ROBUST RELIEF IN THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR RIGHT OF WAY, UM, FOR PROJECTS ON LEVEL ONE STREETS. 
          AND WE HAVE, I WANNA MENTION AS WELL THAT WE HAVE STAFF FROM MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS HERE TONIGHT. 
          WE HAVE STAFF FROM, UH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FROM AUSTIN WATER. 
          WE HAVE AUSTIN ENERGY TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS, UM, WATERSHED PROTECTION, AUSTIN ENERGY. 
          SO IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING ANY OF THESE ITEMS, UM, I COULDN'T THINK OF A BETTER, BETTER GROUP OF PEOPLE HERE THAN ARE HERE TONIGHT TO ANSWER. 
          ADDITIONALLY, WE'VE WORKED WITH, UH, PARKS AND RECREATION WHO HAVE COMMITTED TO DEVELOPING A PROCESS THAT WILL ALLOW STREAMLINING THE APPROVAL OF FEE IN LIE PAYMENTS IN, IN LIEU OF DEDICATION AND LIKE THE ITEM FOR TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS. 
          THESE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS, AND THEY WILL TAKE PROCEDURES THAT ARE CURRENTLY REQUIRE AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS AND A CERTAIN MEASURE OF DISCRETION AND JUDGMENT, AND MAKE THEM LESS DISCRETIONARY, MORE AUTOMATIC, MORE SCREEN STREAMLINED. 
          AND SO THAT IS A RECURRING THEME THAT WE HEAR FROM OUR DEVELOPMENT STAKEHOLDERS IS LESS DISCRETIONARY WAIVER PROCEDURES AND MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD NON-DISCRETIONARY, UM, PROCESSES LIKE THIS. 
          SO THOSE ARE THE CHANGES THAT WE'VE MADE. 
          AND, UM, WHY CAN'T THIS ADVANCE? UM, THERE WE GO. 
          UM, SO WANNA RECAP THE INFILL PLAT PROPOSAL VERY QUICKLY. 
          THIS IS A GREEN CLASSIC GREENFIELD SUBDIVISION, UM, CUL-DE-SACS. 
          WE DON'T ALLOW THOSE ANYMORE AS MUCH, BUT, UM, RIGHT OF WAY DRAINAGE PONDS, WATER QUALITY, OPEN SPACE PARKLAND, THE, THE FULL MEAL DEAL, UM, INFILL FOR INFILL PLOTS, WHICH WE HAVE A LITTLE, UM, COUPLE LOTS THAT ARE EMBOLDENED IN RED, AND THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF A RESUB. 
          YOU'RE JUST COMING IN AND YOU'RE RES SUBBING EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LOTS. 
          AND SO OUR PROPOSAL WITH THE REVISION THAT I MENTIONED, UH, BOOSTING A QUARTER ACRE TO 11,500 SQUARE FEET, THIS WOULD BE A TIER THAT WOULD INCLUDE NO DRAINAGE REVIEW WHATSOEVER. 
          AND SO THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS WITH RESPECT TO DRAINAGE WOULD BE THE SAME AS JUST BUILDING ONE TO FOUR UNITS ON A LOT. 
          AND, UH, I KNOW THAT DRAINAGE IS NOT THE ONLY IMPEDIMENT TO INFILL, BUT IT ACCOUNTS FOR SOMETIMES NORTH OF 30 TO 40% OF TOTAL COSTS. 
          SO IT IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST ITEMS THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM OUR STAKEHOLDERS THAT IS A CHALLENGE. 
          SO IF YOU'RE IN THE HIGHER TIER OF 11,000 SQUARE FEET OR ABOVE TO AN ACRE, THEN IF YOUR LOT DRAINS TO THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY OR TO A STORM DRAIN SYSTEM, THEN YOU SIMPLY HAVE TO PROVIDE A, A DRAINAGE MAP THAT SHOWS THOSE WATER FLOWS THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ENGINEERED. 
          IT CAN BE TOPOGRAPHIC, AND THERE'S NO INFRASTRUCTURE FEE PAYMENT REQUIRED. 
          UM, IF GRADING IS REQUIRED, UH, TO ACHIEVE THE WATER FLOWS TO THE RIGHT OF WAY OR STORM DRAIN, THEN UNDER THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, UH, RSMP WOULD BE REQUIRED. 
          AND IF YOU'RE O OVER 11,500 SQUARE FEET, THEN UH, CURRENT FULL SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS WOULD APPLY. 
          UH, BUT THE TWO TIERS HERE FOR BELOW 11,500 SQUARE FEET AND FOR OVER 11,500 SQUARE FEET UP TO AN ACRE, THESE ARE BOTH MEANINGFUL AND SUBSTANTIAL RELAXATION OF THE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS AS THEY CURRENTLY APPLY IN CODE. 
          SO I WANNA, THESE ARE, I WANNA CREDIT WATERSHED PROTECTION AND MATT HOLLAND IN PARTICULAR, WHO, BY THE WAY, JUST CAME TO US AFTER, UH, FLYING INTO TOWN, CAME STRAIGHT FROM THE AIRPORT, WOULDN'T MISS THIS FOR THE WORLD. 
          UH, PREPARED THESE 
          [04:50:01]
SLIDES FOR US THAT REALLY ILLUSTRATE SOME OF THE COMMON DRAINAGE SCENARIOS THAT ARE ENCOMPASSED, UH, IN THESE REGULATIONS. 
          SO LOT, NO GREATER THAN 11,500 SQUARE FEET, WE'VE WE'RE SHOWN HERE. 
          UM, THERE'S NO DRAINAGE STUDIES OR ONSITE DETENTION PONDS. 
          UM, SAME MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT AS BUILDING PERMIT HOME. 
          ONE, UM, NO DIFFERENCE IN DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS FROM JUST ONE TO FOUR UNITS ON A SINGLE LOT. 
          SO IF YOU ARE IN THE RANGE OF 11,500 SQUARE FEET TO AN ACRE, AND YOU HAVE THE NATURAL SURFACE FLOWS TO ERODE, UH, TO ERODE OR DRAINAGE SYSTEM, UM, THEN AGAIN, IT'S JUST A TOPOGRAPHIC MAP. 
          UM, NO ENGINEERING, NO RSMP PAYMENT REQUIRED. 
          UM, AND THEN IF YOU'RE ONE OF THESE SITUATIONS, YOU HAVE A, A LOT WHERE THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHIC FLOWS DO NOT, UM, DIRECT THE WATER TO A STREET OR TO A STORM, UH, DRAINAGE SYSTEM GOES TO YOUR NEIGHBORS, THEN THE OPTION IS TO USE OUR SMP, UM, AND TO DO GRADING, UH, THAT WILL, UH, DRAIN THE WATER TO THE APPROPRIATE PLACES. 
          UM, AND THAT IS A BENEFIT OVER WHAT IS ALLOWED TODAY. 
          UM, AND, UM, SO THESE ARE JUST DIFFERENT EXAMPLES OF THINGS THAT THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE ACTUALLY DRAINING TO A DETENTION POND. 
          SO THAT IS, UH, THE INFILL PLOT PROPOSAL. 
          UM, WE'RE GONNA GO INTO SITE PLAN LIGHT. 
          UM, SITE PLAN LIGHT IS FOR UP TO, UH, FIVE TO 16 UNITS ON AN INDIVIDUAL LOT. 
          UM, GENERALLY CONDO REGIME PROJECTS MOST OFTEN BUILT IN THE MF ZONES. 
          AND OUR PROPOSAL HERE IS IF YOU ARE UP TO HALF AN ACRE, UM, NO DRAINAGE ANALYSIS OR DETENTION PONDS ARE REQUIRED. 
          UM, PROVIDED AGAIN THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE A, A TOPOGRAPHIC DRAINAGE PLAN THAT DEPICTS THAT WATER FLOWS TO THE STORM DRAIN OR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. 
          UM, IF GRADING IS REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THOSE WATER FLOWS, THEN RSMP IS REQUIRED. 
          UM, AND THAT IS, UH, TRUE FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THAT BELOW HALF AN ACRE RANGE. 
          AND THEN IF YOU'RE ABOVE HALF AN ACRE BUT PUT UP TO AN ACRE, THEN RSMP WOULD ALWAYS BE REQUIRED. 
          UM, SO THOSE ARE, THAT IS IN ESSENCE OUR PROPOSAL FOR SITE PLAN LIGHT. 
          UM, AND WE'VE GOT SOME, AGAIN, SOME JUST VISUALS HERE THAT SHOW THE DIFFERENT DRAINAGE OPTIONS, UM, THAT ARE ACCOUNTED FOR IN OUR PROPOSAL, UM, EXAMPLE OF A EXISTING STORM DRAIN INLET. 
          UM, AND SO I WANNA BRIEFLY, WE'RE NEARING THE END OF THIS PRESENTATION. 
          I WANT TO JUST RECAPS SOME OF THE OTHER ASPECTS OF OUR PROPOSAL, THOUGH I THINK THE HEART OF IT IS REALLY FOCUSED ON DRAINAGE BECAUSE THAT IS A, THAT IS THE STUFF THAT'S IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IT'S, UM, INCREDIBLY IMPACTFUL. 
          UM, WE HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH MICRO PONDS, EVEN APART FROM SOME OF THE INFILL ISSUES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT. 
          THE PROLIFERATION OF MICRO PONDS AND THE MAINTENANCE COSTS PRESENT A LOT OF CHALLENGES. 
          SO DRAINAGE IS VERY MUCH THE HEART, HEART OF THIS PROPOSAL, BUT WE HAVE OTHER ELEMENTS TOO. 
          AND SO WE HAVE MODIFIED THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE USED, UH, AT SUBDIVISION, AND THAT IS WHAT DRIVES WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY CONTROLS. 
          AND WE'VE RIGHT SIZED THOSE SO THAT IN ESSENCE, APPLICANTS WILL BE ABLE TO, TO INCLUDE MORE LOTS WITHIN AN APPLICATION, UH, WITHOUT TRIPPING THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY CONTROLS. 
          UM, WE ARE, ARE CLASSIFYING, UH, FIVE TO 16 UNITS AS A SMALL PROJECT, WHICH WILL REDUCE FEES AND LIMIT REVIEWS. 
          UM, WE'RE REDUCING PROPO WATERSHED IS PROPOSING THROUGH CRITERIA MANUALS TO REDUCE THE DISTANCE WHEN YOU'RE REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO A STORM DRAIN FROM 550, UH, FEET TO 300 FEET WITH A BLANKET EXEMPTION FOR SITES THAT ARE A HALF AN ACRE OR LESS. 
          UM, ADDITIONALLY, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, EXPANDING REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION IN RSMP, UM, WHICH WILL PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE TO ONSITE DETENTION FOR PROJECTS THAT DON'T MEET THE OTHER CRITERIA. 
          UM, ADDITIONALLY, AS I MENTIONED, WE'VE WORKED WITH TPW WHO HAVE, UH, DEVELOPED A POLICY THAT THEY'VE, I THINK ALREADY BEGUN TO IMPLEMENT THAT WILL PROVIDE FOR, UH, ESSENTIALLY AN AUTOMATIC, UH, RELIEF FROM DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR, FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS THAT ARE ON LEVEL ONE STREETS. 
          AND WE CAN GO INTO MORE DETAIL ON THAT IF YOU WANT. 
          UM, AND THEN SIMILARLY, UM, NOT AS FAR ALONG, BUT PARD HAS COMMITTED TO IMPROVING ITS 
          [04:55:01]
PROCESS FOR SIMPLY ALLOWING PROJECTS TO PAY A FEE IN LIEU OF DEDICATION WITHOUT REQUIRING AN EXTENSIVE LEVEL OF REVIEW TO REACH THAT CONCLUSION. 
          AND THEN FINALLY, UM, ON THE UTILITIES FRONT, WE HAVE, UM, AUSTIN WATER WHO HAVE COMMITTED TO WORKING ON WAYS TO IMPROVE THE EARLY DETERMINATION PROCESS SO THAT APPLICANTS ARE NOT, UM, BLINDSIDED LATE IN THE REVIEW PROCESS WITH REQUIREMENTS TO UPGRADE OLDER INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          UM, AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT I THINK, UM, STEP FORWARD ON AUSTIN WATERS PART AND IT'S DETAILED IN OUR STAFF REPORT. 
          ADDITIONALLY, UM, NOT MENTIONED HERE, BUT AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, HAS COMMITTED TO WORKING THROUGH THE TARP PROCESS TO LOOK AT, UM, LOOK AT AND EVALUATE THE, UH, SAFETY CLEARANCES THAT WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT IN TERMS I THINK ALL OF YOU HAVE AS WELL, IN TERMS OF IMPACTS ON HOUSING. 
          THERE'S NO EASY SOLUTIONS TO THAT, BUT IT'S A, IT, THE TECHNICAL ADVISOR REVIEW PANEL PROCESS IS THERE TO PROVIDE A ROBUST STAKEHOLDER DRIVEN PROCESS FOR LOOKING AT THOSE SORTS OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL ISSUES. 
          UM, AND SO AUSTIN ENERGY IS COMMITTED, UH, TO LOOKING AT THE CLEARANCES THROUGH THAT PROCESS, WHICH MAY LEAD TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES. 
          SO THAT IN ESSENCE, IS OUR PROPOSAL, UM, AND WE'RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND WE KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF, UH, PEOPLE HERE TO TESTIFY AS WELL. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHAIR. 
          I'D LIKE TO MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL MIDNIGHT. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WE'LL HEAR FROM MS. GARCIA. 
          CAN I HELP US MC THIS? OF COURSE. 
          COULD YOU MIND TELLING ME WHO WAS THE SECOND ON THAT MOTION REAL QUICK? UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON ANDERSON. 
          AWESOME. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          ALL RIGHTY. 
          AND OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IN FAVOR IS SCOTT TURNER. 
          SCOTT WILL BE RECEIVING THREE MINUTES OF DONATED TIME FROM BRIA WALLACE. 
          BRITA, ARE YOU PRESENT? YES, SCOTT, YOU'LL HAVE EIGHT MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, I WANNA STATE THAT I'M IN SUPPORT OF SITE PLAN LIGHT IN PRINCIPLE, UM, BUT I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THE STAFF PROPOSED VERSION OF SITE PLAN LIGHT IN PART BECAUSE, UM, WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT REALLY ONE DEPARTMENT OUT OF A DOZEN OR SO THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE, YOU KNOW, TWO YEARS OR SO WORTH OF APPROVALS WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO GET A SITE APPROVED TODAY. 
          UH, SO I'D LIKE TO START JUST BY SAYING THAT, UH, TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE WHEN IT COMES TO THESE SMALL PROJECTS. 
          THEY SIMPLY CAN'T WITHSTAND TWO YEARS WORTH OF REVIEWS AND APPROVALS AND SO ON. 
          SO PLEASE ENSURE THAT, UM, THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTIONS DIRECTION IS ADHERED TO. 
          EVERY DEPARTMENT IS GONNA HAVE TO MAKE SOME AGGRESSIVE CHANGES TO THEIR PROCESSES IN ORDER TO MEET THESE GOALS. 
          REVER REDUCED RE REVIEW TIMES, REDUCED CYCLES, UH, WE REALLY NEED TO BE ABLE TO APPROVE THESE WITHIN 90 DAYS. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          UM, IN ADDITION, WE REALLY SHOULDN'T LIMIT WHICH TRACKS ARE QUALIFY AS SITE PLAN LIGHT JUST BECAUSE THEY MEET ONE DEPARTMENT'S CRITERIA AS PROPOSED IN THE, IN THE STAFF PROPOSAL. 
          UM, AS PROPOSED, YOU HAVE TO HAVE FIVE TO 16 DWELLING UNITS AND MEET THE DRAINAGE CRITERIA. 
          UM, REALLY WE JUST NEED TO ESTABLISH WHAT IS AN INFILL PROJECT AND THAT QUALIFIES YOU TO USE THE SITE PLAN LIGHT REGS IN EVERY DEPARTMENT, NOT, NOT GO THROUGH ONE DEPARTMENT TO GET TO THE REST. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          UM, TODAY THE CURRENT WATERSHED PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS, JUST TO CLARIFY, ARE THAT WE HAVE TO DO A DRAINAGE STUDY BY AN ENGINEER. 
          THAT STUDY HAS TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED. 
          AND IF SO, UH, THEN IF THE ENTIRE LOT DRAINS TO THE STREET, UH, SO TO SPEAK, RIGHT OF WAY, ET CETERA, THEN THEY MAY BE APPROVED TO PAY WHAT'S CALLED A REGIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FEE OR R RSS MP FEE, AS WE SAY, INSTEAD OF A DETENTION POND. 
          SO IT'S A FEE IN LIEU OF A DETENTION POND, BASICALLY. 
          UH, BUT THAT'S ONLY IF IT'S IN A CERTAIN PART OF THE WATERSHED. 
          SO IT'S NOT JUST A BLANKET APPROVAL. 
          YOU HAVE TO BE, YOU HAVE TO QUALIFY FOR IT, UH, IN ORDER TO COMPLY. 
          IF IT DOESN'T DRAIN TO THE RIGHT OF WAY OR IF YOU DON'T COMPLY WITH THE RSMP, THEN YOU HAVE TO DESIGN AND BUILD A DETENTION POND ON SITE REGARDLESS OF THE PROJECT SIZE. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          SO HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO THE PROPOSAL? UH, THE ITEMS IN GREEN ARE, ARE IMPROVEMENTS AND THE ITEMS IN RED ARE THE SAME AS TODAY. 
          UH, UP TO A QUARTER ACRE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING THAT'S AN IMPROVEMENT. 
          BUT FOR A SUBDIVISION, YOU STILL HAVE THE SAME 45% IC AND THE SAME DRAINAGE THAT YOU WOULD WITH OR WITHOUT A POND. 
          UH, AND YOU STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE TWO YEAR SUBDIVISION PROCESS. 
          UM, IF YOU'RE BETWEEN A QUARTER ACRE AND AN ACRE AND YOUR, AND YOUR LOT DRAINS NATURALLY TO THE STREET, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING EITHER. 
          AND THAT IS 
          [05:00:01]
AN IMPROVEMENT, BUT YOU HAVE TO DRAIN NATURALLY TO THE STREET. 
          IF I HAVE TO PUT A SHOVEL IN THE GROUND TO GET ANY BIT OF MY WATER ON THAT LOT TO GO TO THE STREET, THEN I HAVE TO COMPLY WITH RSMP, WHICH AGAIN, IS ONLY IN A CERTAIN PART OF THE WATERSHED. 
          UM, I, I BELIEVE THEY'RE PROPOSING THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THE DRAINAGE STUDY, UH, TO GO WITH THAT, THAT RSMP FEE. 
          UH, SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN IMPROVEMENT THERE AND THAT I DON'T HAVE TO DO A DRAINAGE STUDY, BUT IT'S THE SAME PROCESS THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH TODAY. 
          AND IF IT DOES NOT DRAIN TO THE STREET, THEN WE HAVE TO DO A POND AND THE RELATED DRAINAGE STUDY. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          FOR SLIGHT PLAN LIGHT. 
          VERY SIMILAR. 
          IF YOUR LOT DRAINS TO THE STREET UP TO A HALF AN ACRE, NATURALLY WITHOUT ANY GRADING, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING THAT'S AN IMPROVEMENT. 
          BUT ONLY IF YOUR LOT DRAINS TO THE STREET, IF I HAVE TO GRADE AT ALL TO GET THAT WATER TO THE STREET, THEN I HAVE TO COMPLY WITH RSMP IN ORDER TO PAY THE FEE, WHICH AGAIN IS ONLY IN A PORTION OF THE WATERSHED. 
          IF I'M IN THE WRONG PORTION OF THE WATERSHED, UH, OR I CAN'T GET MY WATER TO GO TO THE STREET, THEN I HAVE TO DO A POND JUST LIKE TODAY. 
          UM, AGAIN, THE ONLY, THE ONLY CHANGE THAT I CAN SEE IS THAT THERE'S NOT A DRAINAGE STUDY INVOLVED, UM, IN GENERAL. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          SO THE PROBLEM HERE IS REALLY MOST LOTS DON'T DRAIN TO THE STREET. 
          LOTS FALL IN NATURAL CONTOURS, RIGHT? UM, FOR INTERIOR LOTS, STREET FRONTAGE IS KIND OF NARROW AND IF I HAVE TO GET EVERY BIT OF THE WATER ON MY LOT TO GO TO THE STREET NATURALLY, RIGHT? THAT'S A TALL ORDER. 
          MOST LOTS DON'T DO THAT. 
          UM, AND IF ANY SLOPE AWAY FROM THE FRONT TRIGGERS A DRAINAGE STUDY OR A DETENTION POND THAT'S MOST LOTS IN THE CITY, UM, I HAD THE GUYS AT CEDAR, UH, RUN SOME NUMBERS. 
          ABOUT 20% OF THE SF THREE LOTS IN THE CITY ARE CORNER LOTS. 
          UM, AND SO EVEN IF A THIRD OF THEM DRAIN NATURALLY TO THE STREET, THAT'S ONLY 7% OF THE TOTAL LOTS. 
          SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO POINT OUT HERE IS THAT QUALIFYING UNDER THE PROPOSAL IS VERY CHALLENGING FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF LOTS IN THE CITY. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          THIS IS, UH, AN EXAMPLE, A PROJECT I DID OVER EMBOLDEN. 
          IT'S ON AN ACRE ABOUT 12 UNITS. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          UM, IT HAD 480 INCHES OF PROTECTED TREE ON IT, AS YOU CAN SEE. 
          SO IT HAD SOME CHALLENGES, THAT'S WHY I ONLY GOT 12 UNITS ON AN ACRE. 
          I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE GOTTEN MORE, BUT THIS WOULD NOT HAVE QUALIFIED UNDER SITE PLAN LIGHT BECAUSE THAT REAR PORTION THERE COULD NEVER DRAIN TO THE STREET. 
          IT SLOPED DOWN TOWARDS THE BACK. 
          SO THAT WOULD'VE REQUIRED ME TO DO A FULL SITE PLAN, WHICH IS WHAT I DID. 
          IT TOOK TWO YEARS. 
          THIS IS THE KIND OF TRACK THAT THAT SITE PLAN LIGHT REALLY NEEDS TO HELP. 
          THIS IS WHERE OUR HOUSING CAPACITY IS. 
          IT'S ON LOTS LIKE THIS, UH, WHERE YOU REALLY CAN WORK AROUND TREES AND OTHER THINGS AND STILL GENERATE MORE HOUSING. 
          UM, SO SITES LIKE THIS NEED TO BE ABLE TO QUALIFY UNDER SITE PLAIN LIGHT. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          UM, SO, SO SORT OF BROADLY SPEAKING, WHY DO WE NEED ATTENTION PONDS WHEN IT COMES TO THESE SMALL SITES? AS BREN ALLUDED TO A MINUTE AGO, THIS IS A SLIDE FROM A WATERSHED PRESENTATION THAT CAME OUT OF A STUDY THAT WATERSHED DID ON INFILL DEVELOPMENT, UH, DURING THE CODE NEXT PROCESS AND THE CONCLUSION THERE, UM, I'M GONNA TRY AND EXPLAIN VERY BRIEFLY, UM, THIS MAP ASSUMES THAT EVERY SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY IS MAXED OUT ON IC AND NO PONDS EXIST. 
          IT IS FULL IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          AND, AND THEN THEY SAID, WELL, OKAY, IF WE ADDED A LITTLE BIT MORE INFILL DEVELOPMENT, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN? AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THE IMPACTS ON FLOODING DEPTHS ARE VERY SMALL, MAXIMUM OF A INCH AND A HALF. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          UM, THIS IS ANOTHER SLIDE FROM THE SAME PRESENTATION. 
          I BELIEVE, UH, WE PROVIDED THE STUDY FOR YOU GUYS TO REVIEW. 
          UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM THERE, MOST INCREASES ARE UNDER A HALF AN INCH. 
          SO AT MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER WITH NO PONDS, MOST INCREASES IF YOU DO A LITTLE MORE INFILL DEVELOPMENT ARE UNDER A HALF AN INCH. 
          SO THE IMPACT ON THE WATERSHED AS A WHOLE IS RELATIVELY MINIMAL IN A GENERAL WAY, RIGHT? WHEN YOU TRY AND DO THESE, THESE SMALL PONDS, KIND OF AS BRENT SAID, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          BUT WHAT IS AN ISSUE WHEN IT COMES TO INFILL IS LOT TO LOT DRAINAGE. 
          AND THAT'S A CONCERN FOR EVERY HOMEOWNER IN EVERY MAJOR CITY IN THE COUNTRY. 
          THAT IS NOT UNIQUE TO AUSTIN, RIGHT? WATER HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE. 
          SO, UH, STATE LAW PROTECTS HOMEOWNERS HERE IN TEXAS. 
          DALLAS HAS A REALLY GOOD PROGRAM, UH, TO TRY AND PREVENT BOTH SINGLE FAMILY LOT TO LOT FLOODING, BUT ALSO MULTI-FAMILY LOT TO LOT FLOODING. 
          AND, AND I REALLY THINK THAT WE CAN IMPROVE OUR LOT TO LOT DRAINAGE BY, BY TREATING IT FOR WHAT IT IS. 
          IT'S NOT A POND AND A DRAINAGE STUDY. 
          IT'S HOW DO WE MANAGE WATER SO WE DON'T FLOOD OUR NEIGHBOR? AND I THINK THERE ARE SOLUTIONS OUT THERE THAT WILL LET US ADDRESS THAT NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          ALRIGHT, SO WHAT DO OTHER CITIES DO? UM, IN SAN ANTONIO AND HOUSTON? IF YOU'RE MORE THAN ABOUT A THIRD OF AN ACRE, YOU HAVE TO DO SOME KIND OF DRAINAGE CONTROL IN DALLAS AND FORT WORTH. 
          IT'S AN ACRE OR MORE. 
          I WANNA LET THAT SINK IN. 
          IN DALLAS OR FORT WORTH, IF YOU'RE UNDER AN ACRE, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO ANY KIND OF PONDING OR ANYTHING, ANY SORT OF DRAINAGE CONTROLS. 
          UM, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DETAILS, BUT WHAT I DO KNOW IS THEY DEFINITELY DON'T REQUIRE YOU TO DRAIN TO THE RIGHT OF WAY IN ORDER TO QUALIFY TO PAY A FEE, UM, THAT IS UNIQUE TO AUSTIN. 
          SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO TO ASK IS WHAT IS REQUIRED BY OTHER CITIES IF YOU DO HAVE TO, TO DO SOME, SOME DRAINAGE CONTROLS? WHAT ARE THOSE CONTROLS IN SAN ANTONIO AND DALLAS AND HOUSTON? BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS YOU CAN RETAIN THAT WATER USING STANDARD DETAILS, UH, CISTERNS AND SO ON THAT 
          [05:05:01]
AREN'T AS COMPLICATED AS WE MAKE IT HERE IN AUSTIN, WHERE IT'S A ONE SIZE FITS ALL CUSTOM ENGINEERED POND WITH A CUSTOM DRAINAGE PLAN ON EVERY SINGLE LOT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          SO THIS GRAPH WAS IN THE STAFF PROPOSAL, AND I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE IT REALLY ILLUSTRATES THE PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE HERE. 
          UM, THERE ARE 125,000 LOTS THAT ARE LESS THAN 11,500 SQUARE FEET. 
          UH, 33,000 OR MORE. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          I CONVERTED THIS TO AREA. 
          THE PHYSICAL AREA OF THOSE TWO IS ALMOST THE SAME. 
          SO, SO THERE'S SO MUCH MORE HOUSING, UH, THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED THAN THERE IS IN THAT 33,000. 
          SO, SO THE TRACKS THAT GO FROM A QUARTER ACRE TO AN ACRE AND ABOVE, THAT'S WHERE ALL OUR HOUSING CAPACITY IS FOR MISSING MIDDLELAND. 
          THAT'S WHERE SITE PLAN LIGHT HAS TO WORK. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CODY CARR. 
          CODY WILL BE RECEIVING THREE MINUTES OF DONATED TIME FROM L ALLEN L ARE YOU HERE, CODY? YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS CODY CARR. 
          I'M A HOME BUILDER HERE IN AUSTIN. 
          I APPRECIATE Y'ALL STAYING UP LATE. 
          I KNOW WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT SOME REALLY BIG DEVELOPMENTS, 240 FOOT TALL BUILDINGS AND I'M EXCITED TO TALK ABOUT THE SMALLEST TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT AND HOW TO IMPROVE THAT. 
          SO I WANT TO DO A QUICK WAKE ME UP ICEBREAKER. 
          HOW MANY WATERSHED COMMENTS WERE ON A RECENT, UH, FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION MASTER COMMENT REPORT? WELL, I ANSWERED IT FOR YOU 'CAUSE EVERYONE'S TIRED. 
          59. 
          UM, IT'S EXTREMELY COMPLICATED IN THIS TOWN. 
          AND, UH, I I WANTED TO PULL UP THIS SIDE SIDE, UH, SORRY, SLIDE TO KIND OF SHOW YOU A RECENT SUBDIVISION THAT A FRIEND OF MINE IS PARTAKING IN. 
          AND THIS IS THE GANTT CHART. 
          IT'S 500 DAYS, UH, TO MOVE THROUGH THE LABYRINTH OF CITY COMPLEXITY HERE. 
          AND SO OUR HOPE IS THAT WE CAN WORK TOWARDS AN INFILL AND INSIGHT PLAN LIGHT PROCESS THAT'S MORE SIMPLE AND CAN ALLOW SMALL PROJECTS TO NOT HAVE A 500 DAY TIMELINE TO GET APPROVED. 
          UH, HERE YOU'LL SEE A SLIDE THAT I PULLED FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN, AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT STAFF SEEMS TO AGREE THAT SMALL SCALE SUBDIVISIONS, UH, COST MUCH MORE AND TAKE A LONG TIME. 
          THEY TAKE ONE TO TWO YEARS AND COST THREE TO FOUR OR $500,000 FOR SOME OF THESE. 
          AND FLOOD DETENTION AND DRAINAGE CAN MAKE UP 20 TO 40% OF THE COST FROM THAT SLIDE. 
          AND, UH, AS WELL AS, AND, AND WE'VE TALKED IN DEPTH WITH STAFF ABOUT THIS, AND THIS IS SOMETHING I THINK SCOTT POINTED TO, BUT DETENTION PONDS ON REALLY SMALL PROJECTS, THINK 4, 6, 8 HOUSE PROJECTS DON'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE AND WE'RE GONNA KIND OF LOOK AT THAT HERE NEXT. 
          UM, SO THIS IS ANOTHER STAFF SLIDE, BUT I WANTED TO POINT OUT, UH, SOMETHING HERE. 
          IF YOU LOOK ON THE LEFT SIDE, YOU'LL SEE A HOUSE. 
          AND IF YOU WERE TO SUBDIVIDE THAT PROPERTY, YOU WOULD NEED TO PUT IN A DETENTION POND BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE WATER FLOWS. 
          BUT IF YOU LOOK ACROSS THE STREET, YOU'D SEE THAT IF YOU BUILT A LARGE HOME WITH A POOL AND A GUEST HOUSE, UH, EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE TAKING UP THE SAME IMPERVIOUS COVER, YOU WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO DO THE DETENTION POND. 
          SO WITH THAT, YOU ARE SORT OF INCENTIVIZED, UH, TO BUILD ONE BIG HOUSE RATHER THAN, UH, SEVERAL SMALL ONES. 
          AND ON THE, UH, PROJECT ON THE LEFT THERE, THE ONE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ENGINEERING WOULD BE REQUIRED. 
          YOU WOULD PROBABLY, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WOULDN'T QUALIFY FOR RSS AND P AND YOU WOULD NEED TO BUILD A DETENTION POND, UH, FOR PROBABLY A HUNDRED GRAND OR MORE. 
          SO, UH, HERE'S KIND OF ANOTHER OUTLINE OF THAT. 
          YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT, IF I PROPOSED TO SUBDIVIDE THAT PROPERTY IN TWO AND IT WAS GREATER THAN A QUARTER ACRE, UM, TO BUILD FOUR SMALLER HOUSES, I, IT WOULD TAKE ME ONE TO TWO YEARS AND $250,000 TO PERMIT THAT. 
          WHEREAS IF I DECIDED TO BUILD THE HOUSE ON THE RIGHT, THE LARGE HOUSE, I COULD PERMIT THAT IN ABOUT 45 DAYS, UH, FOR MAYBE 10 20 GRAND. 
          UM, AND SO THE QUESTION IS, WOULD YOU RATHER KIND OF GO THROUGH RESIDENTIAL REVIEW, TAKE 45 DAYS, 20 TO 30 GRAND TO PERMIT IT, YOU HAVE CLARITY, YOU YOU CAN BUILD ONE BIG HOUSE OR ARE YOU GONNA SUBJECT YOURSELF TO SUBDIVISION? UH, BOTH AS IT STANDS AND SORT OF AS PROPOSED ONE TO TWO YEARS, 150 TO 250,000 AND BUILD DETENTION PONDS. 
          IT'S A PRETTY CLEAR ANSWER IF YOU'RE A HOME BUILDER. 
          AND ESPECIALLY FOR THESE SMALL PROJECTS, YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE A CHOICE. 
          IT'S SIMPLY FINANCIALLY UNFEASIBLE TO GO THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS, BOTH AS IT STANDS TODAY AND AS IT'S PROPOSED. 
          UM, AND SO ALSO I KIND OF WANTED TO POINT SOMETHING OUT. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT THE WAY THE REGULATIONS PROPOSED NOW 11,500 SQUARE FEET OR SMALLER, THOSE PROPERTIES THAT WOULD WOULD NOT HAVE DETENTION REVIEW AT THIS TIME ARE THE LEAST LIKELY TO BE SUBDIVIDED. 
          THERE ARE VERY FEW PEOPLE THAT ARE 
          [05:10:01]
SUBDIVIDING 11,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. 
          AND THE REASON WHY IS HOME ACT ALLOWS YOU TO GO AHEAD AND BUILD TWO OR THREE UNITS BY RIGHT, WITH A BUILDING PERMIT. 
          SO YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY SPEND ONE TO TWO YEARS PAY A $10,000 APPLICATION FEE AND HIRE AN ENGINEER TO GET AN ADDITIONAL, UH, HOME ON A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. 
          YOU WOULD JUST BUILD THREE HOMES BY RIGHT AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT, AND YOU WOULD BE, UM, THROUGH BUILDING PERMITS IN JUST 45 DAYS WITHOUT THAT ADDITIONAL COST. 
          AND SO ONE THING I WANTED TO ADD A LITTLE TRANSPARENCY TO IS, UM, THE ACTUAL COSTS TO DEVELOP. 
          AND SO THESE ARE ACTUAL COSTS THAT I WAS ABLE TO GET FROM SOMEONE WHO RECENTLY SUBDIVIDED A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION. 
          IT COST, UH, AROUND $430,000. 
          AND YOU CAN SEE AT THE BOTTOM, ONE OF THE LA ONE OF THE LARGEST COSTS HERE IS CARRYING COST AT 168,000. 
          AND I JUST WANT TO DRIVE HOME. 
          THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THIS IS HOW QUICK YOU CAN GET PERMITS. 
          IF YOU DIDN'T CHANGE ONE REGULATION, BUT YOU JUST SAID YOU WOULD KNOW THE ANSWER AND YOU WOULD HAVE YOUR PERMIT IN 90 DAYS, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE THE SINGLE BIGGEST LIFT, UH, THAT OUR LEADERS COULD, COULD PULL. 
          UH, AND SO HERE I WANTED TO POINT OUT JUST SORT OF HOW, HOW THESE DETENTION PONDS LOOK AND HOW EXPENSIVE THEY ARE. 
          AND SO HERE'S A RECENT FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION THAT WAS REQUIRED TO INSTALL THIS DETENTION POND ON THE FRONT ALONG THE ROAD, UM, JUST TO BUILD 12 HOUSES. 
          AND THAT POND COST ABOUT 150,000. 
          THE CITY IS THAT, UH, THAT IS OFF. 
          UM, THAT'S IN SOUTH AUSTIN, 7, 8, 7, 4 5. 
          AND YEAH, SO LOOKING FORWARD, I JUST WANTED TO HAMMER THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE, UH, A 90 DAY GOAL THAT THE RESOLUTION CALLED FOR. 
          UM, LOOK TO THE SISTER CITIES HOUSTON, YOU CAN GET THIS DONE. 
          YOU CAN GET THESE SMALL PLATS DONE IN 60 TO 90 DAYS. 
          THEY HAVE TEMPLATES FOR DIFFERENT DESIGN AND DRAINAGE DESIGN IDEAS THAT ARE SMALLER AND THEY ALLOW SURVEYORS TOO TO ALSO PLAT. 
          UH, THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN OPPO, OR WE WILL NOW BE HEARING FROM OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION. 
          OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS BRAD MASSENGILL. 
          BRAD, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. 
          HEY, Y'ALL. 
          UM, I, I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK WATERSHED'S DONE ON THIS, ESPECIALLY THE, THE, AND THEY SKIPPED TO THE SLIDESHOW. 
          UM, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, THIS IS KIND OF A BIG NOTHING BURGER AS FAR AS, UH, UH, ORDINANCE GOES. 
          IT'S, IT'S NOT GONNA BENEFIT THAT MANY FOLKS. 
          I MEAN, I SHOULD, I SHOULD PROBABLY BE AT HOME RIGHT NOW, BUT I FEEL IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ME TO COME UP HERE AND SPEAK, SORRY TO SPEAK MY PIECE ABOUT THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE. 
          IT ISN'T GONNA BE THE PANACEA THAT EVERYBODY THINKS IT IS. 
          ONLY A, A FEW HUNDRED OR A FEW THOUSAND PROJECTS ARE GONNA BENEFIT FROM THIS ORDINANCE. 
          THAT'S JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE CITY ADDING A BUNCH OF UNNECESSARY STUFF TO EXISTING CODE DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES AND WATERSHED STAFF ARE ALREADY STRETCHED VERY THIN. 
          CODE TWEAKS LIKE THIS ARE UNNECESSARY, FRIVOLOUS, AND ONLY A SMALL GROUP OF DEVELOPERS WILL BENEFIT. 
          THE OVERALL COMMUNITY GETS NO BENEFIT FROM IT. 
          THIS SEEMS LIKE A WASTE OF STAFF TIME AND FRANKLY, MY TAX DOLLARS, THE BACKUP MENTIONS A RETRAINING PERIOD FOR STAFF. 
          THAT'S TIME STAFF WON'T BE DOING THEIR, THEIR ALREADY SCHEDULED BUSINESS. 
          THAT GOES FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICE STAFF AS WELL. 
          THE, THE AVALANCHE OF ORDINANCES BEING PILED ONTO OUR DWINDLING CITY STAFF IS CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH FOLKS TO OVERSEE ALL THE NEW DEVELOPMENT Y'ALL HAVE MAY HAVE THE BEST INTENTIONS, BUT THERE ARE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. 
          LET'S TAKE THE DB 90 ORDINANCE, FOR EXAMPLE. 
          IN PARTICULAR THE DB 90 NEXT DOOR TO MY HOUSE ON REDBIRD LANE. 
          THE NUMBER, SIZE AND SPEED AT WHICH THESE PROJECTS ARE BEING PRESENTED HAS OUTSTRIPPED THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ACTUALLY MONITOR THE PROGRESS OF THESE BUILDINGS. 
          A WEEK AGO TODAY, THE DEMOLITION CREW NEXT DOOR TO ME HIT A HIGH PRESSURE GAS LINE 30 FEET FROM MY FRONT DOOR. 
          I DIDN'T KNOW A SPEWING FOR ABOUT 10 OR 15 MINUTES. 
          THE WORK CREW DID NOT CALL NINE ONE ONE, NOR DID THEY CALL BEFORE THEY DUG A DEMOLITION PERMIT WAS NOT POSTED. 
          AND I WAS THE ONE WHO HAD TO CALL 9 1 1. 
          THE GAS COMPANY TOLD ME THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A 50 OR A HUNDRED FOOT CRATER IF A SPARK HAD IGNITED 
          [05:15:01]
THAT LEAK. 
          AS IT TURNED OUT, I ENDED UP IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM WITH CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING. 
          MY WHOLE HOUSE WOULD'VE BEEN THE BLAST ZONE AND I WOULDN'T BE TALKING TO Y'ALL TODAY. 
          Y'ALL NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT WHAT Y'ALL ARE DOING IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. 
          THERE ARE REAL PEOPLE INVOLVED IN YOUR DECISION MAKING PROCESS. 
          THERE'S REAL NEIGHBORS AND REAL CONSEQUENCES IS CUTTING RED TAPE FOR DEVELOPERS. 
          SO IMPORTANT THAT WE CAN'T EVEN HAVE BASIC SAFETY. 
          I TOTALLY EMPATHIZE WITH THESE SMALL BUILDERS, UM, AND THE HOOPS THEY'RE HAVING TO JUMP THROUGH ALL THIS AND THIS. 
          I'M, I'M NOT ANTI-DEVELOPMENT, BUT I'M ANTI STUPID, UM, DOING SOME OF THESE THINGS WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHAT THEY ARE OR THE AMOUNT OF WORK THEY'RE ADDING TO THE WORKLOAD THAT THESE PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE THAT ARE WORKING FOR US. 
          IT'S, IT'S INCONSIDERATE AT, AT THE VERY LEAST UM, THERE WAS SO MUCH WORK WENT INTO THIS AND THERE'S NOT THAT MUCH BENEFIT TO EVEN BE MADE FROM IT. 
          AND PASSING THINGS LIKE THIS, DRIVERLESSLY IS ADDING MORE CODE TO ALREADY LAB RENTING CODE THAT WE HAVE. 
          AND I, I WOULD JUST APPRECIATE Y'ALL HOLDING OFF ON THIS. 
          I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE IF THESE PEOPLE EVEN THINK THIS IS GONNA DO THAT MUCH GOOD FOR THEM. 
          THE, THE STUFF WITH THE, THE WATERSHED STUFF, ESPECIALLY ALMOST ALL THE PREEXISTING LAWS, TEXAS LAW, THE LAW OF GRAVITY IS GONNA KEEP SOME OF THESE PROJECTS FROM BEING BUILT WITHOUT RETENTION PONDS OR WITHOUT SOME SORT OF, UH, WATER CATCHMENT. 
          SO THE, I DON'T THINK THIS IS SOLUTION. 
          I THINK PROBABLY SOME OF THESE OTHER THINGS WE'RE HEARING ABOUT ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF CATCHING WATER, BUT THIS IS NOT, THIS IS NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME. 
          UM, AND, AND I THINK IT'S A BIG WASTE OF STAFF TIME. 
          SO THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ANGELA GARZA. 
          ANGELA WILL BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY. 
          ANGELA, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS. 
          YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          IT, MS. GARZA, ARE YOU THERE? UH, THIS IS KAI, NOT MS. GARZA. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S ALL RIGHT. 
          WE'LL, UM, MR. GRAY WILL, WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU, HOLD TIGHT, SEEING IF SHE'S NOT IN OUR QUEUE RIGHT NOW. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS RON THROWER. 
          RON, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES, RON. 
          SORRY ABOUT THAT. 
          UH, RON THROWER, SORRY, GO AHEAD. 
          Y'ALL READY? ? IT'S QUITE ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, FIRST OF ALL, I JUST WANNA, OBVIOUSLY I WANT TO THANK STAFF. 
          I MEAN, THEY'RE TRYING REALLY HARD ON THIS. 
          THEY'VE ENGAGED WITH ME AND OTHERS PRIMARILY, UH, OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, BUT I'VE ALSO BEEN VERY CONSISTENT WITH THEM OVER THIS WHOLE TIME THAT I NEVER THOUGHT THAT THIS WENT FAR ENOUGH. 
          AND I THINK IT, IT COULD BE SO MUCH MORE THAN WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE NEED TO GET EVERY DEPARTMENT AT THE TABLE. 
          AND I ALSO WANT TO JUST ACKNOWLEDGE RIGHT UP FRONT THAT 25 8 64, THE PROPOSAL THAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE IS GREAT. 
          THAT'S A VERY GOOD START. 
          UM, I, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY MODIFICATIONS THAT NEED TO BE DONE TO THAT. 
          UM, THE PLAT RESOLUTION, THE INFILL PLAT RESOLUTION STARTED 16 MONTHS AGO. 
          I HAVE A SUBDIVISION PLAT THAT'S BEEN IN PROCESS FOR 23 MONTHS. 
          I'VE BEEN WATCHING THE PLAT IN INFILL PLAT PROCESS, LOOKING AT, THROUGH THE LENS OF THIS PLAT THAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK ON, TAKING TWO LOTS TO TRY AND MAKE THREE LOTS. 
          AFTER 23 MONTHS, MY CLIENT FINALLY THREW IN THE TOWEL AND SAID, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. 
          AND HE'S JUST GONNA STICK WITH THE TWO LOTS THAT'S THERE. 
          SO THERE'S THREE UNITS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN, UH, GAINED ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS JUST ABSOLUTELY NOT GONNA HAPPEN NOW. 
          AND THE STAFF'S PROPOSAL IS NEVER GOING TO HELP THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY. 
          IT'S STILL GONNA BE MIRED IN A LOT 
          [05:20:01]
OF TIME TO GET IT DONE, AND A LOT OF EFFORT TO GET IT DONE AND A LOT OF COST TO GET IT DONE. 
          AND IT'S JUST BECAME TOO MUCH. 
          SO HE'S MOVING ON. 
          UM, I THINK THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE WITH THE PROPOSAL IS BEFORE YOU THAT I COULD THEN FIND A WAY TO SUPPORT THE ENDEAVOR. 
          AND ONE WOULD BE TO MAKE A DEFINITION FOR WHAT IS RESIDENTIAL INFILL. 
          THAT WOULD CERTAINLY HELP GUIDE FUTURE DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE GOING, GOING TO BE TASKED IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE TO ADDRESS WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET A RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT SO THAT IT'S PERMITTABLE IN 90 DAYS. 
          SO IF WE HAD A DEFINITION THAT EVERYBODY COULD LIVE BEHIND, THEN EVERY DEPARTMENT KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT, THAT'S THE END GOAL THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. 
          UM, SITE PLAN SMALL PROJECTS IS GREAT IN CONCEPT. 
          MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IS THAT SMALL PROJECT SITE PLANS IS REALLY A SITE PLAN IN, IN PRINCIPLE, AND YOU GET TO SAVE MAYBE HALF OF THE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH A NORMAL SUBMITTAL. 
          SO THERE IS A, A LITTLE BIT OF SAVINGS, STILL TAKES AS MUCH TIME, MONEY, AND EFFORT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. 
          SO THERE NEEDS TO BE ADDITIONAL CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR A SMALL PROJECT TO ACTUALLY GET THROUGH THE PROCESS FASTER, ESPECIALLY ONE THAT IS BRINGING HOUSING TO AUSTIN. 
          AND THEN ANOTHER THING IS TO RAISE THE ACREAGE. 
          UH, 11,500 SQUARE FEET IS STILL VERY LOW. 
          WE NEED TO RAISE IT MORE, 11,500 SQUARE FEET IN CONTEXT OF A SITE PLAN THAT GETS YOU FOUR UNITS IN CONTEXT TO A HALF ACRE THAT GETS YOU EIGHT UNITS. 
          THIS WHOLE GOAL IS MEANT TO BRING FIVE TO 16 UNITS TO FRUITION. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN HERE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DAVID WHITWORTH. 
          DAVID, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          MY NAME'S DAVID WHITWORTH. 
          I'M AN INFILL BUILDER. 
          AND MY UNDERSTANDING WHEN THESE RESOLUTIONS PASSED WAS THAT THERE WERE SUPPOSED TO CLEAR THE PATH FOR MISSING MIDDLE INFILL, UM, PLATS AND SITE PLANS. 
          UM, I DON'T THINK THAT THE CURRENT, UM, PROPOSAL BY STAFF GOES FAR ENOUGH. 
          THE, YOU KNOW, OUR PROBLEM IN AUSTIN HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT WE, WE HAD ONE SUBDIVISION PROCESS AND IT WAS THE GREENFIELD SUBDIVISION PROCESS. 
          AND WHEN YOU HAVE AN A RANCH THAT'S NEVER HAD CITY SERVICES, IT NEEDS UTILITIES, IT NEEDS A LIFT STATION, IT HAS TO DEDICATE RIGHT AWAY, UH, TRASH SERVICE. 
          LIKE, THERE'S ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT GO INTO A SUBDIVISION REVIEW. 
          AND WHAT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU TONIGHT IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS ONLY. 
          THAT'S MY FIRST PROBLEM WITH WHAT WE'RE SEEING. 
          UM, DRAINAGE ISN'T THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES IT TAKE, UH, TWO YEARS, BUT SPEAKING OF THE DRAINAGE PROPOSAL, IT'S, UH, IT'S, IT'S STILL INHERENTLY BIASED AGAINST MISSING MIDDLE. 
          YOU CAN BUILD A HOUSE ON A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND DO IMPERVIOUS UP TO 4,500 SQUARE FOOT. 
          BUT IF YOU WANT TO SUBDIVIDE INTO THREE LOTS AND DO THREE HOUSES UTILIZING 1500 SQUARE FOOT EACH, IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME DRAINAGE IMPACT, BUT MISSING MIDDLE HAS TO JUMP THROUGH ALL THESE EXPENSIVE HURDLES. 
          IT'S A BIAS AGAINST THE HOUSING WE NEED. 
          UM, AND TODAY YOU CAN BUILD A HOUSE THAT DRAINS TO THE REAR. 
          AND IN EXISTING PLATS, THEY ALWAYS KNEW THAT THE HOUSE UPHILL WAS GONNA DRAIN ACROSS THE LOT BEHIND IT TO THE STREET AND THEN OUT TO THE, UH, CREEKS. 
          SO THIS IS REALLY REDUNDANT. 
          UM, THESE INFILL, SUB INFILL SUBDIVISIONS CAN UTILIZE THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS, UM, AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY. 
          THE CITY HAS ALREADY ADMITTED ESSENTIALLY BY APPROVING HOUSES OVER AND OVER AGAIN. 
          UM, THAT TWO SMALLER HOUSES, THREE SMALLER HOUSES ALSO MEETS THE SAME HEALTH AND SAFETY. 
          SO WHEN WE START DOING ALL THESE NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, THE 11 500, UH, IT WAS STATED EARLIER THAT THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S 2 57 50 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. 
          WELL, IF YOU'RE 11 5 0 1, YOU'RE TOO BIG. 
          IF YOU'RE 11 4 99, YOU CAN'T BE 2 57 50 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. 
          WE JUST, WE'RE CREATING MORE COMPLEXITY, MORE PROBLEMS, AND I REALLY THINK WE CAN GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND MAKE IT MUCH, MUCH EASIER, MUCH SIMPLER. 
          MY PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO TREAT SMALL RESIDENTIAL INFILL PLATS JUST LIKE HOUSES, UH, A BUILDING PERMIT. 
          UM, NONE OF THIS WOULD APPLY IF YOU'RE 45% OR LESS IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JOSHUA BRUNSON. 
          JOSHUA, YOU'LL HAVE ONE MINUTE. 
          MY APOLOGIES SAID ONE MINUTE, I BELIEVE. 
          YES, ONE MINUTE. 
          ALRIGHT, WELL I'LL MAKE THIS SHORT. 
          UH, JOSHUA BRUNSON LOCAL LAND DEVELOPER BROKER. 
          UM, I 
          [05:25:01]
WILL NEVER DO ANOTHER SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          I'M DOING A SIX LOT SUBDIVISION RIGHT NOW ON THE EAST SIDE AT 5 2 2 7 LED DESMOND ROAD. 
          I WILL NEVER, EVER, EVER TOUCH ANOTHER SUBDIVISION. 
          THE CITY IS NOT WORTH THE TIME. 
          THE AMOUNT OF FEES RSMP PARKLAND WATER IMPACT HIGHER METER FEES BASED ON THE NEW SUBDIVISION. 
          FOR WHAT? FOR 12 HOUSES. 
          IT'S TAKEN ME TWO YEARS ALREADY. 
          I APPLIED FOR A REZONING. 
          I SCRAPPED THE REZONING BECAUSE OF FEES. 
          THIS IS ABSURD. 
          WE CANNOT TAKE THIS LONG IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AS A STANDPOINT OF BRINGING HOUSING TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          I HAVE TWO YEARS FOR A SITE PLAN, TWO YEARS TO BUILD, AND THEN ABOUT FOUR TO SIX MONTHS TO SELL. 
          SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOUR AND A HALF, FIVE YEARS FOR THIS. 
          I AM NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS. 
          WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, MORE MIDDLE HOUSING THAT IS MISSING FROM OUR COMMUNITY. 
          AND WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE THIS WITH A MORE STRENUOUS CODE. 
          SO I, I ENCOURAGE YOU NOT TO ENFORCE THIS OR EXCUSE ME, NOT ENCOURAGE THIS. 
          UM, YEAH, DON'T DO IT. 
          DON'T DO IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KEY GRAY KEY WILL BE JOINING US. 
          VIRTUALLY KEY. 
          PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS. 
          YOU WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE. 
          HI, THIS IS KAI. 
          I'M A BUILDER IN AUSTIN AND I AM SIGNED UP IN OPPOSITION. 
          UM, THAT KIND OF TELLS YOU HOW LITTLE THIS DOES IS THAT BUILDERS ARE ASKING, OR AT LEAST I'M ASKING YOU TO VOTE NOW. 
          I MEAN, IF, IF, IF Y'ALL ARE THINKING OF ACCEPTING THE STAFF PROPOSAL WITH NOT MAJOR CHANGES, UM, I WOULD LITERALLY WANT YOU TO VOTE AGAINST US BECAUSE IT DOES SO LITTLE. 
          UM, YEAH, THE 0.25 ACRES WAS A BIG ISSUE. 
          UM, TO DO A SITE PLAN, YOU REALLY NEED AN ACRE OR TWO ACRES. 
          UM, BUT THEY CHANGED IT FROM 0.25 TO 11,500. 
          TO PUT THAT IN CONTEXT, IT WENT FROM 0.25 ACRES TO 0.26 ACRES. 
          UM, JUST SO YOU ALL REALIZED IT, IT REALLY DIDN'T CHANGE. 
          AND THEN AS DAVID SAID, YOU KNOW, FOR HOME, UM, THAT MEANS THAT IT WON'T WORK FOR 11 44, 9 9 BECAUSE THAT'S TOO SMALL TO SUBDIVIDE NEW HOME. 
          AND IT WON'T WORK FOR 11 TO 5 0 1 'CAUSE THAT'S TOO BIG. 
          UM, SO YEAH, THIS, THIS JUST DOES SO LITTLE AND, AND SO FEW LOTS ARE GONNA BE DRAINED DIRECTLY TO THE STREET. 
          'CAUSE MOST LOTS ARE FLAT AND THEY DRAIN IN MULTIPLE DIRECTIONS. 
          UM, SO IF YOU HAVE AN AVERAGE LOT, I I WOULD SAY ONE IN 10 LOTS IS A HUNDRED PERCENT OF IT'S GONNA DRAIN TO THE STREET WITHOUT REQUIRING, UM, YOU'D HAVE TO REDO THE LOT. 
          SO, SO BETWEEN THE 0.25 ACRES AND THE DRAIN TO THE STREET, THAT'S JUST DOES PRETTY MUCH NOTHING. 
          UM, MR. GRAY, I HOPE YOU, YOU VOTE NOTE FOR THIS. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          UM, THAT'S ALL I HAVE CHAIR. 
          THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, DOES THIS ANYONE, ANY TIME TO REBUT OR NORMALLY WE WOULD, WE WOULD HAVE THE APPLICANT COME AND GIVE A REBUTTAL, BUT, OKAY. 
          , UM, SORRY. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, LOOKING FOR, UH, MOTION TO CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND SEE COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AND COMMISSIONER WOODS, UNLESS THERE'S OPPOSITION TO THAT. 
          UM, THAT MOTION PASSES. 
          UM, WHAT I MAY PROPOSE TONIGHT IS WE'RE CREEPING UP TO OUR 12 O'CLOCK, UM, STOP DATE THAT WE HAVE AND I KNOW WE'RE ALL GETTING TIRED. 
          UM, SO I'M THINKING THAT WE GO THROUGH OUR Q AND A WHILE WE HAVE ALL THE STAFF THAT'S HERE, THE PEOPLE THAT SHOWED UP, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, UM, AND THEN POSSIBLY ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO POSTPONE. 
          UM, BUT THAT'S UP TO THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION. 
          UM, I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS. 
          COMMISSIONER COX AND THEN COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. 
          UH, QUESTION FOUR STAFF, UH, I HAD TWO THINGS THAT STUCK OUT TO ME, UM, DURING THE QUICK PRESENTATION. 
          SO ON ON THE, UH, OH, THESE SLIDES AREN'T NUMBERED, BUT, BUT ON THE ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS OF STAFF PROPOSAL, YOU HAD, UH, AN IMPERVIOUS COVER ITEM AND, UH, I WAS HOPING TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION. 
          YOU, YOU SAY THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS FOR INFO RE SUBDIVISIONS USE A MORE ACCURATE CALCULATION THAT FACILITATES SMALLER LOTS. 
          WITHOUT USING UP ALL MY TIME, ARE YOU ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHAT A MORE ACCURATE CALCULATION THAT FACILITATES SMALLER LOTS FROM IMPERVIOUS COVER IS? YES, AND I THINK, I THINK THIS SMALL DIMENSION OF THE PROPOSAL, I DON'T WANNA OVERSTATE ITS SIGNIFICANCE, BUT I THINK IT IS ONE THAT HAS, HAS RECEIVED SOME POSITIVE FEEDBACK. 
          BUT BASICALLY WHEN YOU'RE DOING A SUBDIVISION, YOU'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, BUILDING ACTUAL BUILDINGS. 
          AND SO YOU DON'T HAVE THE DEGREE OF IMPERVIOUS COVER 
          [05:30:01]
SHOWN AS YOU WOULD WITH A SITE PLAN. 
          SO WE HAVE TO USE ASSUMED IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          AND THAT IS, UH, IF YOU HAVE 8,000 OR MORE SQUARE FEET OF NEWER REDEVELOPED IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT REQUIRES WATER QUALITY CONTROLS. 
          SO AT SUBDIVISION, WE HAVE TO USE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT IMPERVIOUS COVER IN ORDER TO CALCULATE WHETHER YOU REACH THAT 8,000 SQUARE FEET OR NOT. 
          AND THE CHANGES TO THE ASSUMPTIONS WE'VE MADE ARE TO, RATHER THAN USE, I THINK JUST A STANDARD BLANKET ASSUMPTION OF 2,500 SQUARE FEET, I, I MAY HAVE THE NUMBERS WRONG, BUT WE'RE SIMPLY GONNA USE THE ZONING IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          SO YOU'LL BE ABLE TO HAVE YOUR LOT SIZE WITH YOUR ZONING IMPERVIOUS COVER CALCULATION, AND THAT WILL BE YOUR IMPERVIOUS COVER ASSUMPTION. 
          AND THE NET EFFECT OF THAT IS THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO INCLUDE A LOT MORE LOTS IN A SINGLE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION WITHOUT TRIGGERING THE REQUIREMENT TO BUILD WATER QUALITY CONTROLS. 
          AND SO THAT IS A MEANINGFUL, BUT THERE'S STILL A VERIFICATION IN THE SITE, UH, PLAN REVIEW PROCESS ABSOLUTELY. 
          WHEN TO MAKE, TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT EXCEEDING THEIR IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          THIS DOES NOT INCREASE IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          IT'S SIMPLY AN ASSUMPTION THAT YOU USE TO DRIVE CERTAIN REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND MY SECOND QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE RIGHT OF WAY. 
          UM, YOU INDICATED, UH, THAT YOU'RE GONNA STREAMLINE THE PROCESS FOR PROJECTS UNLIKELY TO REQUIRE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AND BETTER DOCUMENT BASIS FOR DETERMINING AMOUNT OF RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION. 
          THERE'S SO MANY PLACES AND TRACKS THAT ARE PRIME FOR REDEVELOPMENT IN CENTRAL AUSTIN, BUT WE IN AREAS WHERE WE DESPERATELY NEED ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY TO FINISH OUT OUR SIDEWALK NETWORKS AND THAT SORT OF THING. 
          SO CAN YOU HELP UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS? STREAMLINE THE PROCESS? YEAH, I THINK ON, UM, WE HAVE A TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS HERE, BUT I'LL JUST TO TEE IT UP, UM, ON LEVEL ONE STREETS WHERE YOU'RE DOING A SMALL SCALE RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT WHERE GENERALLY SPEAKING RIGHT AWAY IS NOT GONNA BE REQUIRED, THE PROCESS IS GONNA BE MUCH MORE EXPEDITED, MUCH MORE AUTOMATIC SO THAT APPLICANTS WILL NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH SORT OF A SEPARATE BREAKOUT REVIEW PROCESS JUST TO GET A DETERMINATION THAT RIGHT AWAY WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. 
          AND TPW TO THEIR CREDIT, HAVE ALREADY ISSUED A MEMO TO STAFF THAT LAYS OUT THOSE CRITERIA. 
          AND CURTIS, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? YES. 
          I'M CURTIS BADY. 
          WITH TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS, WHAT WE'RE DOING, IF, IF IT'S A LEVEL ONE ROADWAY AND IT ALREADY HAS 50 FOOT OF RIGHT OF WAY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO APPLY FOR A RIGHT OF WAY WAIVER. 
          THERE WILL NOT BE A WATERWAY DEDICATION REQUIREMENT. 
          THE ONE EXEMPTION WOULD BE SUBSTANDARD ROADS, MEANING ROADS THAT HAVE PAVE NO CURB GOOD OR OPEN DRAINAGE. 
          WE MAY REQUIRE, UH, DI RIGHTWAY DEDICATION IN THOSE SITUATIONS TO GET UP TO THE 50 FEET. 
          UM, WE ARE ALSO MAKING IT SO THAT INSTEAD OF COMING WITH A RIGHT OF WAY WAIVER THAT WE ASK FOOT PLANNING ZONE EASEMENT OR SIDEWALK EASEMENT, IF YOU WILL, THAT THE DEVELOP, UH, THE DEVELOPER COULD EITHER REBUILD THE SIDEWALK, PUT IN THE SIDEWALK OR USE IT AS A PLANNING ZONE, UM, DEPENDING ON WHAT IS REQUESTED AND WHAT IS BEING REVIEWED. 
          AND WE'VE ALREADY IMPLEMENTED THESE CHANGES. 
          SO THAT'S HOW WE'RE PROCEEDING AS FAR AS OUR STAFF REVIEWS FOR DEPARTMENTS ON THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          AND, AND I GUESS, UM, UH, UH, MR. LLOYD OR, OR ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO TAKE THIS QUESTION JUST WITH THE TIME THAT I HAVE LEFT, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO? UH, WE KIND OF HAD A, A SMALL PARADE OF, OF INFILL DEVELOPERS COMPLAIN ABOUT OUR PERMITTING PROCESS, WHICH IS NOT SURPRISING , BUT IF THERE, IF THERE WAS ANYTHING SPECIFIC THAT YOU WANTED TIME TO RESPOND TO, I'M HAPPY TO GIVE MY TIME. 
          WE'RE JUST HERE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I THINK MY QUESTIONS ALSO FOR CITY STAFF, I GUESS FOR WATERSHED OF, AND, AND FIRST OF ALL I'LL SAY THAT, I MEAN, I THINK THAT I APPLAUD ALL OF THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE TO, TO STREAMLINE THESE. 
          AND IT SEEMS LIKE FOR THE SMALLEST LOTS OF, THERE'S GENERAL AGREEMENT THAT IT'S QUITE HELPFUL, THESE PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE PROCESS. 
          ONE OF THE, WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND BETTER IS ON THE LOTS THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT LARGER IS IT FEELS TO ME BASED ON WHETHER THE LOT IS ONE LARGE HOUSE OR, UH, SEVERAL SMALLER STRUCTURES OF THAT WE ARE, WE HAVE DIFFERENT SET OF PERMITTING RULES. 
          AND THIS ACTUALLY WAS ONE OF THE SLIDES PRESENTED BY THE ONE OF THE SPEAKERS. 
          BUT IS THERE A TECHNICAL REASON WHY 45% IMPERVIOUS COVER SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY IF IT'S THREE SMALLER HOUSES THAN ONE LARGE? 
          [05:35:07]
HEY, UH, GOOD EVENING, MATT HOLLAND WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION. 
          SO ARE YOU, ARE YOU SPEAKING TO, UM, SO YEAH, THE SAME, LIKE WE HAD A SLIDE THAT SHOWED THE SAME TWO PRODUCTS OR THE SAME TWO SAME OUTCOME. 
          YOU GOT THE SAME IMPERVIOUS COVER, YOU HAVE THE SAME NUMBER UNITS, BUT THEN YOU HAVE A SUBDIVISION PROCESS THAT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN THE BUILDING PROCESS. 
          IS THAT WHERE YOU'RE YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. 
          I MEAN, ESSENTIALLY I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND WHAT, WHAT I KNOW HAS HAPPENED UNDER THE, THE STATUS QUO, WHICH IS, UH, IT'S JUST EASIER TO BUILD, UH, A SINGLE LARGER STRUCTURE. 
          SO THAN, THAN YOU KNOW, OF A COMBINATION OF SMALLER STRUCTURES AND THEREFORE WE END UP WITH THE LARGER STRUCTURE. 
          BUT AS IT STANDS NOW, AND AGAIN, THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS IN PLAY. 
          THERE'S, IT APPEARS TO BE THAT THERE WOULD BE QUITE A FEW LOTS WHERE JUST BUILDING THE THREE SMALLER STRUCTURES WOULD REQUIRE A MUCH MORE ONEROUS IESI PLAN LIGHT PROCESS AND ALL THE DRAINAGE REVIEWS, UH, REQUIRED THAN OF FOLLOWING THE STATUS QUO. 
          SO I, I THINK IF I'M TRYING TO DISTILL IT, IS THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, DOES IT MATTER WHETHER IT'S ONE LARGE HOUSE OR THREE SMALLER HOUSES IN TERMS OF IMPACTS? UH, NO, IT DOES NOT. 
          IT DOES NOT. 
          THERE'S, I MEAN THERE'S, YEAH, I MEAN WE'VE, WE'VE HAD LONG DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS INTERNALLY. 
          I MEAN, YOU CAN ACTUALLY GET IN SITUATIONS WHERE AS YOU'RE SUBDIVIDING YOU'RE GETTING, YOU'RE, YOU'RE COMPLICATING THINGS A LITTLE BIT WITH DRAINAGE. 
          YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO SOME THINGS IN A, IN A COMMON DESIGN THAT YOU COULDN'T DO WITH A, WITH A, A SUBDIVISION WITH BLACK LOTS AND SO FORTH. 
          BUT, UH, BUT, BUT YES, THE QUESTION ABOUT LEGAL ISSUES, SUB VERSUS . 
          SURE, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, TEAM LIZ? YEAH, SORRY. 
          LIZ JOHNSTON, A INTERIM ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER. 
          I DO THINK THAT THERE IS SOME, UH, LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO SUBDIVISIONS VERSUS BUILDING PERMITS. 
          SO IF YOU SUBDIVIDE A LOT AND THEN, UM, IF YOU HAVE A SINGLE LOT AND YOU HAVE THREE UNITS ON THERE AND YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, FLOOD YOURSELF, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN HAVING WATER GO INTO A DIFFERENT LOT. 
          AND SO I THINK THAT THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A, A, AN ONUS TO ENSURE THAT THE DRAINAGE IS WORKING CORRECTLY WHEN IT'S A SUBDIVISION VERSUS A BUILDING PERMIT. 
          OKAY. 
          I'LL HAVE TO PONDER THAT MORE , IT'S LATE FOR ALL OF US. 
          OF THE, THE, THE INTERFACE BETWEEN THE LOTS, WHETHER THEY'RE RE THE NEWLY SUBDIVIDED LOTS OR THE ADJACENT LOTS WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO STATE LAWS AS FAR AS IMPACTS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES, RIGHT? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS, CHAIR? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND TO 1230. 
          I'LL SECOND ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          7, 8, 9. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING COOPERATIVE. 
          UM, NEXT QUESTION. 
          OH, NO QUESTIONS. 
          STILL HAVING, UH, UM, IF THERE ARE REALLY NO QUESTIONS, THEN I'LL BE LOOKING FOR A MOTION. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YEAH, CHAIR. 
          SORRY, I WAS STILL SORT OF TRYING TO FORMULATE MY QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL JUST TAKE A STAB AT IT. 
          SO, UM, THIS IS FOR STAFF PROBABLY MR. LLOYD. 
          YOU KNOW, I'M READING THE RESOLUTION FOR INFILL PLAT, UM, THAT INITIATED THIS PROCESS AND IT, AND IT TALKS ABOUT CREATING AN EASIER, CHEAPER PROCESS FOR SUBDIVIDING SMALL LOTS REVIEWING THE PROCESS AND APPLICABLE REGULAT REGULATIONS TO INCENTIVIZE, MAKE IT MORE ECO ECONOMICALLY VIABLE, TO BUILD SMALLER, THE CURRENT PROCESS IS EXPENSIVE TIME TO ET CETERA. 
          I'M JUST, I'M REALLY STRUGGLING WITH WHY, WHAT WHAT IS CAUSING US TO CONSIDER THIS ORDINANCE THAT MAKES RELATIVELY MINOR CHANGES IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS TO ONE DISCIPLINE OF REVIEW. 
          WHEN THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION REALLY TALKED ABOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS AND SET OF REGULATIONS. 
          I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING, GREAT, NOW YOU WILL HAVE, IN A VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF SITUATIONS, YOU'LL HAVE LIGHTER WATERSHED PROTECTION OR, OR, OR FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS, NOT FLOODPLAIN, BUT FLOODING, YOU KNOW, RUNOFF REQUIREMENTS. 
          BUT YOU'RE STILL GONNA HAVE TO GO FOR TWO YEARS OF REVIEW AND BACK AND FORTH. 
          YOU'RE STILL GONNA HAVE TO PAY FEES TO, YOU KNOW, A DOZEN OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS AND DISCIPLINES. 
          [05:40:01]
UH, YOU'RE STILL GONNA HAVE TO HOLD THE PROPERTY. 
          YOU'RE STILL GOING TO BE DISINCENTIVIZED TO SUBDIVIDE SMALL LOTS. 
          I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE RESOLUTION AND THIS ORDINANCE CAME FROM. 
          I THINK THAT THE PROPOSAL, WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT AS A WHOLE, IT WILL BENEFIT AS I THINK IS BEEN SAID, SMALLER PR, SMALLER SCALE PROJECT, WHICH I THINK IS ONE OF THE OVERALL GOALS OF MISSING MIDDLE. 
          UM, AND ADDITIONALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BEGUN A PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH ALL THE C CHECK THE REVIEW CHECKLISTS FROM THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS AND LOOKING AT WHAT STILL MAKES SENSE IN LIGHT OF THE PROPOSED, UH, REGULATORY CHANGES. 
          AND SO THE CHA I THINK THERE ARE GONNA BE A LOT OF REVIEW ISSUES THAT ARE DOWNSTREAM FROM DRAINAGE, UM, THAT AS SOON AS YOU STREAMLINE THE DRAINAGE REVIEW, THERE ARE GONNA BE A LOT OF, UH, REVIEW STEPS IN THE REVIEW PROCESS ARE GONNA BE STREAMLINED AS A RESULT OF THAT. 
          UM, ADDITIONALLY, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TOUCHED ON, UM, WE JUST HEARD FROM TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS. 
          THIS IS NOT A CODE AMENDMENT, IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE ONE, BUT THEY'VE, UH, PROPOSED THEY HAVE A PROPOSAL THAT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY STREAMLINE THE RIGHT OF WAY REVIEW PROCESS FOR A LOT OF THESE INFILL PROJECTS. 
          SO I THINK THAT IS A WIN FOR INFILL. 
          WE'VE ALSO HAD, I I, I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THAT AND FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING. 
          OBVIOUSLY MY TIME IS LIMITED, BUT YOU KNOW, I I JUST CAN'T HELP BUT WONDER WHAT OTHER CODE PROVISIONS WERE EXAMINED FOR CHANGES OTHER THAN THESE DRAINAGE ISSUES. 
          I MEAN, CODE TALKS ABOUT THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PLATS THAT STATE LAW ALLOWS THE CITY TO REVIEW. 
          UM, CODE TALKS ABOUT SOME OF THE PROCESS AND TIMELINE ELEMENTS. 
          I MEAN, WHY WEREN'T CHANGES RECOMMENDED FOR THINGS LIKE CREATING A SEPARATE TYPE OF PLAT A A SHORT PLAT, OR I THINK A MINOR PLAT IS WHAT THE CITY OF FORT WORTH CALLS IT, WHERE YOU CAN CREATE FOUR LOTS. 
          YOU PAY A VERY NOMINAL FEE, YOU GO THROUGH A VERY SHORT PROCESS AND YOU COULD DO A PLAT FOR FOUR LOTS. 
          UH, I KNOW OTHER TEXAS CITIES HAVE SIMILAR PROCESSES AS WELL, SO I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY WE ENDED UP DECIDING TO TWEAK PARTS OF OUR EXISTING CODE AS OPPOSED TO COMING UP WITH A NEW PROCESS THAT COULD HOLISTICALLY CAPTURE, UH, THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION. 
          I THINK THE RE YOU KNOW, THE RESOLUTION CALLS FOR BALANCING THE GOALS OF STREAMLINING AND THE GOALS OF HOUSING WITH THE OTHER GOALS THAT ARE SERVED BY A REGULATION. 
          AND I THINK THIS, UM, ORDINANCE AND THE SET OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROPOSALS THAT RUN WITH IT ARE INTENDED TO ACHIEVE THAT SORT OF A BALANCE. 
          AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, BEFORE YOU, TONIGHT YOU HAVE A PROPOSAL THAT YOU CAN RECOMMEND MODIFICATIONS TO, YOU'VE HEARD FEEDBACK ON THE ACREAGE AMOUNTS. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN RECOMMEND CHANGES TO. 
          THERE ARE OTHER PIECES OF WHAT WE PUT BEFORE YOU THAT ARE, UM, THAT YOU'RE FREE TO RECOMMEND CHANGES TO. 
          AND AS YOU KNOW THAT IF YOU RECOMMEND A CLEAR CUT EDIT, THAT IS WHAT GOES TO COUNCIL AS PART OF THE BASELINE FOR, FOR REVIEW. 
          IF YOU'RE, IT'S MORE ASPIRATIONAL AND EXPLORATORY THAT'LL TAKE, THAT'LL LEAVE MORE TO STAFF TO FIGURE THINGS OUT. 
          BUT I THINK THERE ARE THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO WITH THE PROPOSAL THAT WE PRESENTED TO YOU THAT WILL ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS. 
          UM, WE HAVE STAFF HERE THAT CAN SPEAK TO WHY THE ACREAGE AMOUNTS WERE CHOSEN. 
          UM, AND SO I THINK THAT WHILE THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT DO EVERYTHING THAT PEOPLE WANT, I THINK IT IS GONNA DO, IT IS GONNA MAKE A MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE FOR A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF INFILL PROJECTS, ESPECIALLY THE SMALLER SCALE ONES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          EXCUSE ME. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? NO, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, IF THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS, I WAS GONNA MAKE, UH, A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO OUR NEXT MEETING. 
          I'LL SECOND , DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT AT ALL? UH, I HAVE A WHOLE LOT TO SAY ON THIS SUBJECT, BUT I WILL WAIT TILL THE NEXT MEETING. 
          , I'LL, I'LL VOTE FOR YOU IF YOU DON'T SAY ANYTHING. 
          COMMISSIONER COX ? YES. 
          SO TO BE CLEAR, UM, THE DATE WE'RE POSTPONING POTENTIALLY TWO IS NOVEMBER 12TH AT SIX 6:00 PM YES. 
          . 
          JUST IN CASE THE TIME NEEDS TO BE IN THERE. 
          DIDN'T, UM, ACTUALLY CHAIR REAL QUICK, UM, DOES ANYONE SEE AN ADVANTAGE? WE HAVE A SPECIAL CALL ON THE 19TH. 
          DOES ANYONE KNOW IF OUR 12TH MEETING IS LIKE 50 MILLION ITEMS? UM, I CAN'T RECALL. 
          JUST FOUR NINE. 
          I CAN'T RECALL THIS HOUR, WHAT CODE ITEM WE HAVE. 
          BUT TYPICALLY WE'VE HAD ONE CODE ITEM PER MEETING. 
          THE 19TH, I BELIEVE IS A CONSENT ONLY AGENDA. 
          [05:45:01]
OKAY. 
          SO VERIFY MY QUICKLY. 
          SO YES, UM, COMMISSIONER COX 19TH WOULD BE THE CONSENT ONLY, WHICH WOULD ONLY LEAVE THE, UM, FIRST DECEMBER MEETING BECAUSE THE, THE LATTER DECEMBER MEETING IS ALSO A CONSENT ONLY. 
          UM, SO IF WE DO IT AT THE NEXT MEETING, IT GIVES US, IF THERE IS NEED FOR MORE POSTPONEMENT, WE HAVE SOME CAPACITY TO DO THAT BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR. 
          UM, AND THEN JUST QUICKLY THE, OTHERWISE I THINK THE CHAIR AND I WILL HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH STAFF. 
          WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF ITEMS COMING TO US. 
          I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY OF THEM NEED TO GO TO COUNCIL BY DECEMBER, SO WE'LL, WE'LL TRY TO BALANCE IT OUT, UM, FOR EVERYBODY. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MR. LLOYD. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE AWARE THAT THE COUNCIL IS SCHEDULED TO CONSIDER THIS ON THE 7TH OF NOVEMBER. 
          NOVEMBER. 
          YES. 
          GOOD LUCK TO THEM . 
          OKAY. 
          RECOMMENDATION. 
          WELL, UM, THAT IS GOOD INFORMATION TO HAVE, BUT, UM, YES, YES, MR. MARS CHAIR, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, KEITH MORRIS, DIRECTOR, MY SERVICES JUST FOR COUNCIL'S CALENDAR FOR THE REMAINING OF THE YEAR. 
          AND IF COUNCIL CHOOSES TO HEAR THIS BEFORE A NEW COUNCIL MEMBER'S TURNOVER NOVEMBER 7TH, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WON'T HAPPEN, BUT THEN THERE'S NOVEMBER 21ST AND DECEMBER 12TH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND CHAIR, IF I COULD ADD THAT, UM, AS SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED, I ACTUALLY OFFERED SOME AMENDMENTS TO THIS AND THERE WAS INDICATION FROM THE COUNCIL OFFICES THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS PRIOR TO THE END OF THIS YEAR BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN IN PROCESS FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND THEY'D LIKE TO DISPOSE OF IT BEFORE THE NEW COUNCIL COMES IN. 
          SO WE REALLY WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE EXPEDIENT OF US TO MAKE SURE WE GET OUR AMENDMENTS DONE ON THE NEXT MEETING. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UM, YES, COMMISSIONER, I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          YES. 
          UH, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT MEETING WERE YOU PROPOSING TO, UH, THE 12TH, NOVEMBER 12TH. 
          12TH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND COMMISSIONER MAXWELL SAID THE FIFTH AND I GOT CONFUSED. 
          NO, IT'S, IT'S THE 12TH. 
          WE, OKAY. 
          THAT'S OUR, OUR FIRST MEETING IN NOVEMBER. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YES. 
          YEAH. 
          IF WE WERE TO STAY HERE TO DO, UH, VERY TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS THIS EVENING, WE WILL BE HERE TILL TWO 30 IN THE MORNING AT LEAST. 
          SO, UM, ALL RIGHT. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION READY TO VOTE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? MOTION POSTPONE STATE NINE 10. 
          YES. 
          THIS IS THE MOTION TO POSTPONE, UH, THOSE AGAINST AND THOSE ABSTAINING. 
          MR. JOHNSON, WHAT WAS YOUR VOTE? HE DIDN'T. 
          OH, GREEN. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WE'LL POSTPONE THAT ONE TILL NOVEMBER 12TH. 
          IF YOU HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS, UM, ANY ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS, PLEASE SHARE AHEAD OF TIME IF YOU CAN. 
          IT REALLY HELPS THIS PROCESS THAT WE GO THROUGH ON THE DAAS VICE CHAIR. 
          UM, CHAIR, I JUST WANTED TO THANK OUR COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND STAFF FOR BEING THERE AND FOR STAYING THIS LATE. 
          WE KNOW IT'S BEEN A PARTICULARLY HARD MEETING, BUT THANK YOU. 
          COURSE TO THE COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, AND THANK YOU TO OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS, BUT THANK YOU ALSO TO OUR STAFF. 
          I REALLY APPRECIATE THEIR EFFORTS. 
          YES, VERY MUCH. 
          MADAM CHAIR PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. 
          YES, SIR. 
          UM, SO CAN WE SPECIFY THAT WHATEVER CODE AMENDMENT WE HAVE ON THE 12TH THAT WE DO THIS BEFORE THAT SO THAT WE'RE UM, YES. 
          CERTAIN TO GET THIS DONE? YES. 
          AND, AND THAT WHEN WE SET THE AGENDA, WE WOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. 
          OKAY. 
          IS TO, LET'S GET, LET'S FINISH THIS ONE UP FIRST BEFORE WE GO ON TO THE NEXT. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          GOOD POINT. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          TO WRAP UP OUR MEETING HERE, UM, UH, QUICK UPDATES ON WORKING 
          [WORKING GROUP/COMMITTEE UPDATES]
GROUP AND WORKING GROUPS AND COMMITTEES. 
          UM, CODES AND ORDINANCES. 
          JOINT COMMITTEE MET, UM, LAST WEEK AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE HAYES COMMONS, UM, UM, CASE AND ALSO, UH, SAFETY BOLLARDS AND, UH, OH, COLORADO RIVER PROTECTIONS. 
          SO SOME, THOSE ARE ALL HEADING OUR WAY AND ALL GOING TO BE PRETTY HEFTY EXCEPT FOR BOLLARDS. 
          THAT WAS, UM, PRETTY CLEAR. 
          UM, NEXT IS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE. 
          WE ARE, UH, WE JUST HAD OUR, OUR REGULAR MEETING AND WE ARE, WE ALWAYS WILL SCHEDULE, UM, UH, INTERIM HERE, OUR SPECIAL MEETINGS. 
          AND IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE AMENDING, IMAGINE AUSTIN, IF HAVE TO COME THROUGH, UM, THE COMBINED JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, COMMITTEE TO GET OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          THAT'S PER CODE AND STATUTE. 
          THANKS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE. 
          I, UM, LET'S SEE. 
          COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS IS UM, ALREADY GONE FOR THIS EVENING. 
          SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE. 
          [05:50:03]
I THINK WE DIDN'T MEET. 
          WE ARE, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING ON THE AGENDA. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          SAW CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD. 
          UM, WE MET BRIEFLY AND HAD VERY LITTLE BUSINESS . 
          WHAT WAS THAT? HAD WHAT? WE HAD VERY LITTLE BUSINESS. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, WE SET OUR MEETING DATES FOR NEXT YEAR. 
          OKAY. 
          CITY OF AUSTIN BUILDINGS WORKING GROUP, WE HAVE NOT MET, UM, OUTREACH AND PROCEDURES WORKING GROUP I HAVEN'T MET. 
          AND THE TECHNICAL BUILDING CODE UPDATES WORKING GROUP. 
          UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S COMING TO US IN JANUARY AND WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THAT FURTHER AT A FUTURE MEETING. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. 
          [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, HEARING NOTHING. 
          I'M GOING TO ADJOURN OUR MEETING AT 1209 THIS EVENING. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH EVERYBODY. 
          HAVE A GOOD NIGHT. 
          THANK YOU'ALL.
* 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.