* 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]
          HAVING 
          [CALL TO ORDER]
A QUORUM PRESENT WITHIN COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND ONLINE. 
          I NOW CALL THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER AT 6:07 PM FIRST WE'LL TAKE ROLL CALL. 
          SO JUST SAY HERE, WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, I'LL CALL IT IN ORDER OF THE AGENDA. 
          SO CHAIR HEMPEL. 
          HERE. 
          VICE CHAIR ZA. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER HOWARD? HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER BORE RAMIREZ. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER HANEY? HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER COZ NOT PRESENT. 
          COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS NOT PRESENT. 
          AND COMMISSIONER HAYES HERE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          AND RECOGNIZING OUR EX-OFFICIO CHAIR OF BOARD ADJUSTMENT, JESSICA COHEN. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, PER USUAL, TONIGHT'S MEETING IS HYBRID, ALLOWING FOR A VIRTUAL QUORUM AS LONG AS THE COMMISSIONER SERVING AS CHAIR IS PRESENT IN CHAMBERS. 
          AS SUCH, WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS HERE IN CHAMBERS AND IN ATTENDANCE, VIRTUALLY, SIMILARLY, SPEAKERS CAN PRESENT FROM THE CHAMBERS OR PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS. 
          PLEASE REMEMBER TO SEND YOUR SIGN IN SHEET TO OUR STAFF LIAISON PER THE CLERK'S GUIDELINES, AND PLEASE HAVE YOUR VIVID COLORS OF GREEN, RED, AND YELLOW ITEMS FOR VOTING. 
          ALSO, JUST A REMINDER TO REMAIN MUTED WHEN YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING AND RAISE YOUR HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. 
          AND IF I MISS YOU, PLEASE TRY AGAIN AND LET ME KNOW, UM, THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK. 
          UH, IF YOU ARE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, YOU'LL RECEIVE ANY EMAIL PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION TAKING UP YOUR ITEM. 
          UM, WE ARE LOOKING AT A LONG EVENING TONIGHT, SO, UM, THAT COULD BE A USEFUL TIDBIT. 
          SPEAKERS CAN DONATE TIME, BOTH THE SPEAKER DONATING TIME AND THE SPEAKER RECIPIENT MUST BE PRESENT IN PERSON WHEN THE ITEM IS CONSIDERED. 
          UM, I WILL HAVE ASSISTANCE FROM MS. GARCIA IN ANNOUNCING OUR SPEAKERS TONIGHT DURING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. 
          [PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
SO, MS. GARCIA, DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? YES. 
          CHAIR. 
          WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. 
          ANGELA GARZA. 
          ANGELA, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          OKAY. 
          HELLO COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK AS ALWAYS IN OUR CITY. 
          UM, I AM SPEAKING, UM, FOR THE FOLKS THAT WE HAVE HAD THE HONOR OF WORKING WITH ON THE GROUND NEIGHBORS, ET CETERA, UM, ACROSS ALL RELATIONS, ALL GENDERS, ET CETERA. 
          AND WE HAVE FOUND INDICATION THAT NOTIFICATIONS ARE NOT GOING OUT TO NEIGHBORS AS THEY SHOULD GO OUT. 
          WE'VE SEEN ENOUGH OF THAT ON THE GROUND. 
          UH, THE SECOND THING IS THAT WE ARE GONNA REQUEST, WE HAVE WORKED REALLY HARD TO TAKE AWAY THE TERMS NIMBY AND YBI AS WE COME ACROSS RELATIONS. 
          UM, THOSE ARE NOT THE BEST WORDS TO USE WHEN WE'RE SPEAKING WITH OUR NEIGHBORS OUT THERE. 
          UH, WE HAVE DONE WHAT WE CAN TO ACTUALLY BRIDGE THEM OUT THERE. 
          UM, ALSO, I WAS PART OF A SPECIAL, UM, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND I WAS ONE OF THE FEW THERE WHERE IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT THERE'S ABOUT 156 ZONING CASES RIGHT NOW WITH 56 OF THOSE BEING ABOUT 90, 56 OF THOSE BEING 90 FOOT BUILDINGS. 
          AND THAT'S SCARING SOME OF OUR PEOPLE RIGHT NOW IN THE COMMUNITY. 
          UH, WE REALLY NEED TO KNOW WHAT OUR RIGHTS ARE WHEN THESE BUILDINGS COME. 
          EXACTLY WHAT, UM, DETER, UM, WHAT THE GOAL IS. 
          I DID SEE THE WRITEUP WITH MR. ANDERSON ABOUT IT. 
          UM, BUT THAT STILL DOESN'T TELL US WHAT OUR RIGHTS ARE, UM, WITH ALL THE WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING ON THE GROUND FOR SO LONG AS WELL. 
          SO OUT OF THE RESPECT FOR THE COMMUNITY, I'M ASKING THAT WE TAKE A DIFFERENT APPROACH WITH THE COMMUNITY AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY CLEARLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THESE COMPLEX TERMS ARE. 
          I'VE HAD THE HONOR OF WORKING WITH NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE ON PURPOSE SIMPLIFIED THE TERMS TO INCLUDE OUR SPANISH SPEAKERS AS WELL. 
          UM, THE TERMS ARE TWO COMPLEX, EVEN FOR THE MOST EDUCATED PERSON AS WELL, THAT IS EDUCATED, FORMALLY EDUCATED GRAD SCHOOL STUDENTS. 
          CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT THAT FEELS LIKE FOR OUR FOLKS THAT HAVE BEEN HERE AND NEIGHBORS FOR QUITE A BIT, QUITE A LONG TIME HERE IN AUSTIN? UM, SO WE'RE ASKING TO COME FROM A RESPECT POINT OF VIEW AND UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR FAMILIES DO NOT UNDERSTAND THESE TERMS. UM, OUR NEIGHBORS WERE ABLE TO WITNESS THE FACT THAT WE WERE A, WE WERE HAVING TO DO EXTRA WORK AND THEY WERE HAVING TO DO A LOT OF EXTRA WORK JUST TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT WAS HAPPENING AND THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DO THAT. 
          UM, SO I AM HERE TO ASK THAT WE TAKE A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO RESPECT WITH OUR, OUR, UM, OUR COMMUNITY, COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. 
          UM, I'M ASKING AS NATIVE OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, THEIR GENERATION. 
          UM, I'M ASKING BECAUSE I'VE COME ACROSS 
          [00:05:01]
WONDERFUL PEOPLE ACROSS THE BOARD WHO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED, NOT RECENTLY ESTABLISHED NATIVES COMING ACROSS THE BOARD, ALL CULTURES INCLUDED THAT WE TAKE A MUCH MORE RESPECTABLE APPROACH AND A MUCH MORE INTUITIVE, UH, APPROACH, AN EMPATHETIC APPROACH WHEN WE'RE APPROACHING THESE CHANGES IN OUR CITY. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          THANK YOU, MS. GARZA. 
          I APOLOGIZE, CHAIR. 
          THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS, UH, FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. 
          OKAY, THANKS SO MUCH. 
          UM, WE'LL 
          [APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
MOVE ON TO OUR MINUTES. 
          UH, THE FIRST ITEM, UM, WE'RE LOOKING AT IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 22ND. 
          DOES ANYONE HAVE EDITS TO THOSE MINUTES? OKAY, HEARING NONE THE MINUTES, UM, AS POSTED WILL BE ADDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          AND THEN MOVING ON TO PUBLIC 
          [Consent Agenda]
HEARINGS, OUR FIRST ACTIVITY TODAY IS TO VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          ITEMS THAT ARE CONSENT APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL, POSTPONEMENTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, OR NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS, COMMISSIONER, UH, OR SORRY, VICE-CHAIR ARE WILL WRITE, 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 VICE CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          UM, I'LL BE GOING TO ALL OF OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS TODAY. 
          THIS IS ITEM NUMBER TWO, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2 24 DASH 0 5 0 2. 
          SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST ALPHA CHURCH DISTRICT ONE. 
          THE ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT TONIGHT. 
          ITEM NUMBER THREE, THE ASSOCIATED REZONING, UH, C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 4. 
          SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST ALPHA CHURCH DISTRICT ONE. 
          THE ITEM IS ALSO UP FOR DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT I NUMBER FOUR IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 15 0 1 COUNTRY STREET REZONING DISTRICT ONE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION I NUMBER FIVE THERE. 
          ASSOCIATED REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 1 0 9 COUNTRY STREET REZONING DISTRICT ONE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR, UH, DISCUSSION AS WELL. 
          I NUMBER SIX IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 7 0 1 ANDERSON SQUARE, DISTRICT FOUR. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT. 
          I NUMBER SEVEN, THE ASSOCIATED REZONING C 14 DASH 20 23 8 ANDERSON SQUARE, DISTRICT FOUR. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT. 
          THIS TAKES US TO ITEM NUMBER, EXCUSE ME, I'M JUST LOSING, UH, I NUMBER. 
          OKAY, THIS I NUMBER EIGHT, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH TWO FOUR DASH 0 0 1 8 0.04. 
          1200 WEST 49TH STREET, DISTRICT SEVEN. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          I NUMBER NINE IS, UH, THE ASSOCIATED REZONING C 14 DASH 24 DASH 0 16 0 1 1 16, 1200 WEST 49TH STREET, DISTRICT SEVEN. 
          THIS ITEM IS ALSO UP FOR CONSENT. 
          I NUMBER 10 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 2 9 0 2 HUMANE SOCIETY OF AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT FOUR. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          THE ASSOCIATED REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 3 2 CITY INITIATED REZONING, HUMANE SOCIETY OF FOSTER AND TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT FOUR. 
          THIS ITEM IS ALSO UP FOR CONSENT I NUMBER 12 IS THE PLAN AMENDMENT NPA A DASH 2 24 DASH 0 0 8 0 3 BRENTWOOD MULTIFAMILY DB 90 DISTRICT SEVEN. 
          THE SIGN IS UP FOR CONSENT AND THE ASSOCIATED REZONING IS ITEM NUMBER 13 C 14 DASH 2 24 DASH BRENTWOOD MULTIFAMILY DB 90 DISTRICT SEVEN. 
          THE ITEM IS ALSO UP FOR CONSENT. 
          ITEM NUMBER 14 IS THE ASSOCIATED RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TERMIN TERMINATION. 
          THAT'S C 14 DASH 24 DASH FOUR RCT, BRENTWOOD MULTIFAMILY 2023 PUBLIC RC TERMINATION DISTRICT SEVEN. 
          THIS ITEM IS ALSO UP FOR CONSENT. 
          I NUMBER 15 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 2 4 0 2 STONE HOLLOW TRACKS DISTRICT SEVEN. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT AND ASSOCIATED WITH THIS IS THE REZONING ITEM NUMBER 16 C 14 DASH 204 DASH 0 1 25. 
          STONE HOLLOW TRACKS EAST DISTRICT SEVEN. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          NUMBER 17 IS ALSO ASSOCIATED REZONING C 14 DASH TWO FOUR DASH 0 26. 
          STONE HOLLOW TRACKS WEST DISTRICT SEVEN. 
          THIS ITEM IS ALSO UP FOR CONSENT. 
          ITEM NUMBER 18 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT AND PA DASH 2 24 DASH 0 0 1 2 0 1 EAST 30TH STREET, DISTRICT NINE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO OUR DECEMBER 10TH MEETING. 
          I'M NUMBER 19. 
          UM, IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 24 DASH 0 4 8 11 0 6 AND 1110 EAST 30TH STREET, DISTRICT NINE. 
          THIS ITEM IS ALSO FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 10TH. 
          ITEM NUMBER 20 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH FOUR DASH 0 5 0 4 CITY INITIATED, NPA BERT ROAD DISTRICT ONE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          THE ASSOCIATED REZONING. 
          ITEM NUMBER 21 RE, UH, C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 1 27 CITY INITIATED REZONING HIBBS ROAD DISTRICT ONE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT I NUMBER 22 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2024 DASH 15 THREE CHERRY LONG 
          [00:10:01]
REZONING DISTRICT ONE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT AND STAFF JOINT POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 10TH I NUMBER 23, WHICH IS THE ASSOCIATED REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 12 2 CHERRY LAWN REZONING DISTRICT ONE. 
          THE ITEM IS ALSO UP FOR APPLICANT AND STAFF JOIN POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 10TH. 
          ITEM NUMBER 24 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 2 0.02 2002 MAINER ROAD, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT DISTRICT NINE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT THE ASSOCIATED. 
          UM, AND THEN WE, THE ASSOCIATED REZONING IS ITEM NUMBER 25 C 14 DASH 2 24 DASH 0 0 7 7 2002 MAIN ROAD REZONING DISTRICT NINE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          I NUMBER 26 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH TWO FOUR DASH 0 1 3 9 REZONING FOR 11 5 0 1 BURNETT ROAD CITY INITIATED DISTRICT SEVEN. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          ITEM NUMBER 27 IS ALSO A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 29 BURNETT IN RULAND DISTRICT NINE. 
          THIS ITEM IS ALSO UP FOR CONSENT. 
          ITEM 28 RE IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 24 DASH 0 1 3 8 BURN AND 180 3 DB 90 DISTRICT FOUR. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          I NUMBER 29 IS, UH, C 14 DASH 2 24 DASH 0 1 3 4 7 0 1 BAYLOR STREET, RESIDENT DISTRICT NINE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          I NUMBER 30 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 24 DASH 0 1 3 5 WESTLAND MIXED USE DISTRICT NINE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          ITEM NUMBER 31 IS REZONING C 14 DASH 2 24 DASH 0 20 1504 DRIVE DISTRICT THREE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          ITEM NUMBER 32 IS ASSOCIATED RESTRICTIVE GO AMENDMENT C 14 DASH 72 DASH 24 RCA SIX 1500 FIRE DRIVE RCA DISTRICT THREE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT I NUMBER 33 IS OF REZONING C 14 DASH 24 DASH 0 1 3 3 BURLESON FOREST. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          I 34 IS A HISTORIC ZONING C 14 H DASH 2 24 DASH 0 1 53 ROMA JOHNSON HOUSE DISTRICT THREE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT. 
          I NUMBER 35 IS AN ETJ RELEASE, CE TJ 2 24 0 0 0 1 MAYNARD DOWNS INDUSTRIAL PARK ETJ RELEASE AND ACCOMPANYING INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. 
          THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. 
          ITEM NUMBER 36 IS ALSO AN EDJ SWAP, CADJ 2023 DASH 0 0 0 1 EDJ SWAP WITH THE CITY OF MAINOR ALONG BLUE BLUFF ROAD. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          ITEM NUMBER 37 IS AN LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2 23 DASH 0 4 5 SITE PLAN, SITE PLAN, LIGHT PHASE TWO AND INFILL LOSS. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT. 
          ITEM NUMBER 38 IS ALSO AN LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH TWO FOUR DASH 0 2 1 SAFETY BALLARDS. 
          THIS ITEM IS ALSO FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT. 
          ITEM NUMBER 13 LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2022 DASH 0 2 5 COLORADO RIVER PROTECTIONS. 
          THIS IS A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 10TH. 
          THAT NUMBER 40 IS A PLAT VACATIONS CS 64 DASH 0 3 8 VSC PLACE VACATION DISTRICT NINE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT AND CHAIR. 
          THAT IS ALL OF OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VICE CHAIR. 
          I JUST WANNA OFFER ONE CORRECTION ON ITEM 27. 
          IT WAS, UH, READ OUT AS DISTRICT NINE AND THAT'S DISTRICT SEVEN. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          DO ANY COMMISSIONERS NEED TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS ON THE AGENDA? ALL RIGHT. 
          AND RECOGNIZING COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS HAS JOINED US. 
          HELLO. 
          ALL RIGHT, MS. GARCIA, I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE SPEAKERS SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON SOME OF THE CONSENT ITEMS. YES. 
          CHAIR. 
          OUR FIRST SPEAKER ON CONSENT FOR ITEMS EIGHT AND NINE, UH, 1200 WEST 49TH STREET IS JAY LONG. 
          HE'S OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION. 
          JAY, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING, RESPECTED MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          MY NAME IS JAY LONG AND I LIVE ON WEST 49TH. 
          OH, SIR, IS YOUR, IS YOUR MICROPHONE ON? AH, SORRY. 
          AH, BETTER. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MY NAME IS JAY LONG AND I LIVE ON WEST 49TH STREET IN THE WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD OF BRENTWOOD. 
          WE ARE HERE THIS EVENING BECAUSE WE ARE TOLD THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 1200 WEST 49TH STREET WAS HAVING TROUBLE RENTING THEIR PROPERTY AND THAT THEY BELIEVED THAT AN IMPROVEMENT IN THEIR ZONING WOULD INCREASE THEIR POOL OF POTENTIAL TENANTS. 
          I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT AS OF TODAY, EVERY SINGLE OFFICE BUILDING ON OURS AND THE ADJACENT STREETS ARE FULLY OCCUPIED, INCLUDING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION 1200 WEST 49TH STREET IS NOW OCCUPIED BY OVERLAND ARCHITECTURE, A WELCOME AND APPROPRIATE OFFICE EDITION TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I WOULD NOTE THAT CATTYCORNER BEHIND 1200 WEST 49TH STREET IS ALL RESIDENTIAL HOMES. 
          CADDY CORNER ACROSS THE STREET IS THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING FOR THE SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND. 
          DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE IN A SMALL 
          [00:15:01]
APARTMENT BUILDING. 
          AND THEN THE REST OF THE SMALL HOUSE IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST 49TH STREET, ENDING WITH ANOTHER APARTMENT COMPLEX AT BARNETT ROAD. 
          SO WHILE WE HAVE THE LIMITED OFFICE ZONING FROM BACK WHEN THEY MADE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THIS AREA IS STILL LARGELY RESIDENTIAL. 
          ALSO, IN REGARDS TO RENTABILITY, I HAVE NOTICED A LOT OF EMPTY COMMERCIAL SPACES AROUND THE CORRIDORS ON BURNETT LAMAR IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          SO I ASSUME THAT THOSE PEOPLE MUST BE EXTREMELY JEALOUS OF OUR STREETS. 
          100% OCCUPANCY. 
          WE MUST HAVE A PRETTY DESIRABLE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET. 
          I GUESS I KNOW THAT MY NEIGHBORS AND I LIKE IT. 
          ON OUR SIDE OF WEST 49TH STREET, THERE ARE TWO APARTMENT COMPLEXES AND FIVE SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES. 
          THERE USED TO BE THREE MORE HOUSES ACROSS THE STREET, BUT EVEN THOUGH WE ARE TOLD THAT THERE IS A HOUSING SHORTAGE, THOSE WERE TORN DOWN AND REPLACED WITH AN OFFICE BUILDING, WHICH LIKE THE REST IS CURRENTLY RENTED. 
          OF THE FIVE SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES LEFT JUST THE FIVE ON OUR SIDE OF THE STREET, ONLY TWO ARE CURRENTLY OFFICES. 
          THE REMAINING THREE, WHICH ARE STILL RESIDENTIAL, ARE OWNED BY MYSELF, ERIC HANSEN, WHO'S HERE TONIGHT. 
          AND STEFAN WISTROM WHO COULDN'T MAKE IT BECAUSE HE DEALS WITH, UH, ADULT CHILD WITH DISABILITY AT HOME. 
          BUT HE IS OPPOSED TO THIS. 
          AND ALL RESIDENTIAL OR ALL THREE OF US OPPOSE THIS CHANGE. 
          SO AS FAR AS I CAN SEE, 100% OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS ARE AGAINST THIS CHANGE. 
          WE MAY NOT BE A LARGE COALITION, BUT AT THREE OUT OF FIVE I WOULD SAY THAT WE ARE THE MAJORITY, AT LEAST AS OWNERS OF THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND RESIDENTS WHO ACTUALLY LIVE IN AND ARE CONCERNED MEMBERS AND STAKEHOLDERS OF THE WELLBEING OF OUR COMMUNITY. 
          THE ENTITIES THAT OWN THE APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND THE OFFICES ARE NOT RESIDENTS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE TRADITIONAL SENSE WITH CONCERNS ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY, BUT RATHER THOSE WHO PROFIT FROM IT AT A DISTANCE. 
          SO WHILE WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE MARKET HAS BEEN STRUGGLING POST PANDEMIC, IT SEEMS LIKE THE MARKET FOR OFFICE SPACE IN THE LOS ZONED AREA OF WEST 49TH STREET IS DOING JUST FINE. 
          AND SO TO SUM UP, IF EVERYTHING IS CURRENTLY RENTED AND EVERYTHING IS ALREADY EXISTING IN COMPATIBLE WAY, THEN MYSELF AND MY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS WOULD PREFER THAT IT STAY THAT WAY. 
          IF IT'S NOT BROKEN, THEN THE CITY DOESN'T NEED TO FIX IT. 
          THANK YOU AND THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER AND OPPOSITION ON THESE ITEMS IS ERIC HANSEN. 
          ERIC, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. 
          MY NAME IS ERIC HANSON. 
          I LIVE AT 1301 WEST 49TH STREET, WHICH IS A FEW DOORS DOWN FROM, UH, THE PROPOSED PROPERTY. 
          I'M HERE TO OPPOSE THE, UH, CHANGE IN THE PLUM AND THE ZONING. 
          UH, PRETTY MUCH ALONG THE SAME LINES AS JADE HAD JUST MENTIONED. 
          I BELIEVE THAT THE, UH, CITY HAS HIRED AND, UM, PUT TOGETHER A GREAT TEAM OF PEOPLE TO CREATE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAPS. 
          UM, OUR STREET HAS GONE THROUGH A FEW DIFFERENT PH FLUB CHANGES AND WE'VE ACCEPTED THAT AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, WE FEEL THAT IT WOULD BE VERY DISRESPECTFUL TO CHANGE THE ZONING AS IT IS SINCE WE SPENT SO MUCH TIME AND EFFORT CREATING THE SPECIFIC CORRIDORS AND THE CRITERIA ON WHY THE ZONING SHOULD BE WHAT IT IS. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THESE ITEMS. OUR NEXT SET OF ITEMS WE HAVE SPEAKERS ON ARE THE CHERRY LAWN REZONING CASES FOR 22 AND 23. 
          OUR SPEAKER AND OPPOSITION IS MARK, TERRY. 
          MARK, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          UH, MY NAME IS MARK TERRY AND I'M A NATIVE AUSTINITE. 
          UM, WHILE I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE ENTERTAINING A, UH, A POSTPONEMENT, UM, OF THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE THAT I'LL SPEAK ABOUT, I ALONG WITH OTHER STAND IN OPPOSITION OF THE REZONING OF THIS REQUEST. 
          UH, AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE FOR, UH, MY NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS TO, TO STAND. 
          SO AS A SHOW OF SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION. 
          AND SO WE WANNA MAKE IT KNOWN, UH, THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THE ZONING APPLICATION FOR C 14 20 24 0 1, 2 2, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNED AMENDMENT, UH, NPA 20 24 0 0 1 5, UH, TO REZONE THE PROPERTIES AT THE ADDRESSES 61 0 2, 61 0 6 AND 61 0 8 ON CHERRY LAWN CIRCLE. 
          I WISH TO EXPRESS MY EXTREME CONCERNS ABOUT THIS BEING PROPO, ABOUT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED BY, UH, EMERSON SMITH. 
          THE PROPOSED ZONING ALSO GOES AGAINST THE ZONING PRINCIPLES, UH, IN SECTION TWO OF THE AUSTIN ZONING GUIDE. 
          THIS CREATES A MULTITUDE OF VIOLATIONS AGAINST THE ZONING PRINCIPLES, INCLUDING BUT 
          [00:20:01]
NOT LIMITED TO ONE ZONING, UH, SHOULD SATISFY PUBLIC NEED AND NOT CONSTITUTE A GRANT, NOT CONSTITUTE A GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TO AN INDIVIDUAL OWNER. 
          THE REQUEST SHOULD NOT RESULT IN SPOT ZONING. 
          TWO, GRANTING A REQUEST FOR ZONING SHOULD RESULT IN AN EQUAL TREATMENT OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTIES. 
          AND THREE ZONING SHOULD ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE OF PROPERTY. 
          THE PROPOSED CHANGES DO NOT MEET THESE GUIDELINES. 
          AND, UM, WHATEVER YOUR DECISION IS TODAY, WE WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE ARE EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS GROW. 
          I'VE GROWN UP IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, FOR 50 YEARS AND THIS IS A, AN ICONIC NEIGHBORHOOD, A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND WE ALL HAVE THOSE STORIES IF YOU'VE BEEN IN AUSTINITE ABOUT HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          BUT IT'S NOT YOUR PROBLEM UNTIL IT'S YOUR PROBLEM. 
          AND WE'VE GOT AN EXTREME PROBLEM. 
          WE'VE GOT A BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE CHILDREN PLAY STILL, UH, ALL KINDS OF, UH, THINGS IN WHICH YOU WANT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THIS ZONING IS GOING TO INTERRUPT THAT QUALITY OF LIFE FOR PEOPLE. 
          AND OF COURSE IT IS EAST OF THE HIGHWAY AND IT'S ABOUT TIME THAT WE START TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT WE STAND DEPOSE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          THE FOLLOWING SPEAKERS ARE ALSO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, BUT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY HAVE WAIVED THEIR RIGHT TO SPEAK. 
          THEIR NAMES ARE NADIA BERBA, SHIRLEY, TERRY, KATIE DUFFY, RUTH A ER, JESS HILL, KATIE TOLL, AND KAREN MAYER. 
          OH, CAN YOU MENTION IF THEY'RE FOR OR AGAINST ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS ARE IN OPPOSITION. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JUST FOR THE RECORD. 
          AND THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THAT ITEM. 
          IT LOOKS LIKE I ACCIDENTALLY SKIPPED ONE SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION ON ITEMS 18 AND 19. 
          SO OUR SPEAKER IS GERARD KENNY GERARD, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES CHAIR. 
          UM, IF WE COULD ASK CITY HALL TO SHOW THE SPEAKERS WHEN THEY'RE SPEAKING FOR THOSE OF US ONLINE, THAT'D BE GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NOTED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          MR. KENNY, WE GET STARTED. 
          WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. 
          COMMISSIONER GERARD KINNEY. 
          LIFELONG AUSTINITE. 
          I'M HERE, UH, REPRESENTING THE CHERRYWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. 
          I WAS THE FOUNDING CHAIR OF THE CHERRYWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN THE EARLY EIGHTIES. 
          I ALSO WAS THE FOUNDING CHAIR OF SCENIC AUSTIN AND SERVED ON THE SCENIC TEXAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR MANY YEARS. 
          I'M HERE ABOUT THIS CASE. 
          IT'S A UNIQUE CASE IN THAT NOTHING THAT YOU'RE READING IN THE APPLICATION THAT ON THE AGENDA MENTIONS THAT THE SPECIFIC REASON THEY WANTED TO TO TO BRING THIS FORWARD WAS TO RELOCATE A BILLBOARD. 
          'CAUSE YOU DON'T RELOCATE BILLBOARDS, YOU TEAR THEM DOWN AND BUILD NEW ONES. 
          AUSTIN, OVER 50 YEARS AGO, THE COUNCIL ESTABLISHED AN ULTIMATE GOAL OF GETTING REAL RID OF BILLBOARDS IN AUSTIN. 
          THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP START IMPLEMENTING THAT GOAL. 
          AS, AS I 35 HAS DEVELOPED. 
          THE BILLBOARDS THAT ARE ALONG I 35 AND THE, AND THE OTHER CORRIDORS AS THEY COME DOWN, THEY NEED TO BE, NOT GO BACK UP. 
          THEY COULD GO BACK OUT SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE STATE AND USE THE PER STATE PERMITS FOR THAT PURPOSE. 
          BUT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THEY NOT GO BACK UP IN AUSTIN AND CERTAINLY NOT IN ONE IN CHERRYWOOD GO BACK UP IN CHERRYWOOD. 
          SO THAT'S THE REASON THAT WE'RE OPPOSED. 
          BILLBOARDS, IF YOU HAVEN'T REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT IT, PROVIDE INCOME FOR THE ADVERTISER, BUT THEY LOWER THE PROPERTY VALUES AROUND THEM. 
          THEY PROVIDE DISTRACTIONS TO, TO DRIVERS. 
          THEY OFFER OPPORTUNITIES TO ADVERTISE PRODUCTS THAT MOST OF US DON'T WANT ADVERTISED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, GENTLEMAN'S CLUBS, ALCOHOL, ET CETERA. 
          AND THEY BLOCK THE VIEW OF OUR BEAUTIFUL CITY. 
          SO THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY MAKE A POSITIVE STEP TOWARD REDUCING THE NUMBER OF BILLBOARDS IN AUSTIN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THAT ITEM. 
          AND OUR NEXT SET OF ITEMS ARE ITEMS 24 AND 25 2002 MAINOR ROAD. 
          OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS JIM WALKER. 
          JIM, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES AND CHAIR. 
          WE'RE STILL JUST SEEING THE DAY. 
          [00:25:02]
IF I WAVE MY HANDS, DOES IT HELP? YEAH, CHAIR, WE'RE HAVING SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH THAT. 
          WE CAN ONLY SEE YOUR HAND, BUT THAT'S OKAY. 
          GO AHEAD AND OKAY. 
          I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE WORKING ON IT. 
          SO  UH, THANK YOU. 
          MY NAME'S JIM WALKER. 
          I'M THE CHAIR OF THE CHERRYWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. 
          UH, I KNOW THIS IS ON CONSENT. 
          I DID SIGN UP AS OPPOSED, BUT AFTER SOME DISCUSSIONS, UH, TODAY AND YESTERDAY, WE ARE, OUR OFFICIAL POSITION IS NOT OPPOSING THIS, UH, FROM MOVING, MOVING FORWARD TONIGHT. 
          UM, WE HAD A GOOD DIALOGUE WITH, UH, THROW AND ASSOCIATES AND MR. COTA, UM, THAT WE HOPE TO BRING TO FINALIZATION, OBVIOUSLY BEFORE WE GET TO COUNCIL. 
          UM, I, I WILL SAY WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, HOOVER ALEXANDER, WHO'S BELOVED IN CHERRYWOOD AND MR. COTA HAVE A REALLY LONG AND POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP. 
          AND WE WANNA HONOR THAT AND RECOGNIZE THAT. 
          UH, BUT THIS PROJECT, THIS SITE IS ON THE WESTERN END OF THE MAINOR ROAD CORRIDOR, WHICH IS ABOUT A MILE AS YOU GO OVER TO AIRPORT BOULEVARD OF A LOT OF REALLY RIPE PROPERTIES. 
          AND SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS SET A TONE AND SET SOME KIND OF, UH, MOMENTUM FOR HAVING A PLANNED INTENTIONAL VIEW OF THAT WHOLE CORRIDOR. 
          SO THAT'S IT, THAT'S OUR OFFICIAL POSITION. 
          I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM. 
          ALRIGHT, WELL, UM, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO PULL THE ITEM, WE'LL GET TO QUESTIONS, BUT NONE FOR RIGHT NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          FAIR ENOUGH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU MR. WALKER. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER AND OPPOSITION IS STACEY ABEL. 
          STACEY, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          I AM NOT STACY, SHE'S ON HER WAY, BUT I'M JEN SPENCER WHO IS PROBABLY AFTER HER IN THAT. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? MA'AM? WE HAD YOU DOWN AS SPEAKING IN FAVOR, NOT, UH, YEAH. 
          YES. 
          AND I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT. 
          MAY I SPEAK TO THAT? UH, WE'D LIKE TO TAKE ALL THE SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION FIRST AND THEN, UM, WE CAN WELL WHO ELSE IS LEFT? THERE'S NOBODY ELSE. 
          STACEY WAS OUR FINAL SPEAKER. 
          WE CONSENT. 
          OKAY. 
          YES, PLEASE DO. 
          OKAY. 
          MY NAME IS JEN SPENCER. 
          I'M AN 18 YEAR RESIDENT OF, UM, BREEZE TERRACE. 
          WE LIVE IN 29 0 2 BREEZE TERRACE. 
          UM, ONE THING THAT WAS NOT NOTED IN THE ACTUAL AGENDA WAS THE, UM, THE CONSISTENT CONCERN FROM RESIDENTS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION. 
          UH, IT FEELS LIKE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF NUANCE WITH SOME OF THE POLICIES AND THE PLANNING AROUND HOW THIS HAPPENS FOR INDIVIDUAL AREAS. 
          UM, FOR ANY OF THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA, WE HAVE A COFFEE SHOP JUST TURNED A BAR. 
          WE HAVE ESTEE ACROSS THE STREET AND WE HAVE THE I 35 EXPANSION GOING. 
          AND IT'S BEEN VERY, LIKE, IT'S BEEN A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WORKING WITH THROWER. 
          THEY HAVE FACILITATED WITH WITH COTA AND THAT'S BEEN GREAT. 
          BUT THE REALITY IS DB 90, IF THEY'RE UNDER 90 UNITS, THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A TIH DONE. 
          AND I INVITE ANY OF YOU TO GO BETWEEN 7 45 AND 8 45 ON MAINOR ROAD, UM, AND SEE WHAT ANOTHER 90 TO 120 CARS WOULD POSSIBLY DO GOING TO WORK IN THE DAY. 
          UM, I KNOW THAT MAINOR IS PART OF THE MAINOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR EXPANSION, BUT THOSE, THOSE BUSES ARE GONNA BE HELD UP TOO IF WE HAVE THAT KIND OF TRAFFIC. 
          SO I THINK MY REQUEST IS, AND I AM, I AM NOT OPPOSED AS WELL. 
          I THINK IF THE NEGOTIATIONS ARE GOING WELL IS THAT THERE IS SORT OF SOME NUANCE THAT'S CONSIDERED WITH THE ANALYSIS AS, AS RESIDENTS, WE DON'T GET MUCH OF INPUT INTO THIS. 
          I HAVE A DAY JOB, THIS IS A LOT OF EXTRA WORK. 
          IT'S REALLY CONFUSING TO READ ALL THE STUFF ON THE SITE. 
          UM, AND SO WHAT I WOULD ASK IS THAT LIKE WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN ONE IN THE COVENANT, ONE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WITH A DEVELOPER. 
          THERE'S NO DEVELOPERS THAT IS PARTNERED WITH THIS RIGHT NOW. 
          SO IT DOES FEEL LIKE THE BURDEN FALLS ON THE RESIDENTS BECAUSE WE WON'T HAVE MUCH SAY AND THE WAY THE CITY'S GONE, A LOT OF THOSE DEVELOPERS ARE COMING FROM OUT OF TOWN IN DALLAS AND SO THEY DON'T HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE THE LATE 18 HUNDREDS. 
          IT'S A WORKING CLASS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO DENSITY. 
          WE JUST WANT SMART DESIGN AND WE WANT IT NOT TO IMPACT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AS WE CONTINUE TO BUILD DENSITY AND BUILD OUT MANNAR CORRIDOR. 
          THANKS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          IF STACEY IS NOT YET PRESENT, THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          AND IF MS. ABEL MAKES IT WHILE WE'RE STILL DISCUSSING, WE'LL GIVE HER AN OPPORTUNITY. 
          UM, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WANNA PULL ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA CHAIR? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, AS THIS BODY VOTED ON ITEMS TWO AND THREE LAST TIME, IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN HEAR FROM, UH, THE REQUESTER OF THE POSTPONEMENT AND IF WE DECIDE NOT TO POSTPONE IT, COULD WE KEEP THAT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? 
          [00:30:02]
UM, AND IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO THAT, WE CAN PROCEED THAT WAY. 
          I'M NOT SEEING ANY OBJECTION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO LET'S HEAR FROM, UM, LET'S SEE. 
          THE PERSON THAT IS SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE POSTPONEMENT ON ITEMS NUMBER TWO AND THREE, SO I BELIEVE THAT'S OUR SPEAKER WOULD BE ERIC SHEPHERD. 
          NO, IT'S ROBERT MENDEZ. 
          UH, I AM HERE TO REQUEST A POSTPONEMENT OF THIS, UH OH. 
          IF YOU CAN SPEAK INTO THE, SORRY, APOLOGIES. 
          I'M HERE TO REQUEST A POSTPONEMENT IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS, UH, LOOKING AT ENGAGING COUNSEL TO REPRESENT US IN THIS MATTER AND WE WISH TO BE AFFORDED THE TIME TO DO SO. 
          THAT'S ALL. 
          AND WHAT DATE ARE YOU LOOKING FOR? UH, ONE MONTH PLEASE. 
          WHAT, UH, CAN IS, SO TODAY'S THE 12TH, SO THE NEXT MEETING AROUND DECEMBER 12TH. 
          SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT OUR DECEMBER 10TH MEETING? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST TO BE SPECIFIC. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          DECEMBER 10TH, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE WAY THAT, THIS IS A LITTLE OUTSIDE OF OUR USUAL PROCESS, BUT UM, WE'LL JUST ASK THE COMMISSION IF THERE'S ANYONE THAT WISHES TO PULL THE ITEM FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE POSTPONEMENT. 
          I'M NOT SEEING ANYONE IN SUPPORT THAT CHAIR. 
          JUST TO CLARIFY, IF WE DON'T PULL THE ITEM, DOES THAT MEAN IT WILL STAY ON CONSENT TO BE POSTPONED? YES. 
          UH, WAIT. 
          NO, NO, NO. 
          IT'LL STAY. 
          IT, WE STAY ON CONSENT TO MOVE FORWARD TO COUNSEL. 
          OKAY. 
          WOULD THE RECOMMENDATION MADE AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING WHEN THE SURE. 
          TO GET ACTION AND THEN RESCINDED? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YES. 
          SO I'LL ASK AGAIN, AGAIN, JUST TO BE CLEAR. 
          ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT WISH TO PULL THIS ITEM FOR DISCUSSION? EXCUSE ME. 
          UH, CHAIR. 
          SO COULD RUN THAT BY AGAIN. 
          'CAUSE IT WAS KIND OF IN THE INVERSE. 
          IF WE CONTINUE WITH IT ON POSTPONE, UH, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, YOU'RE SAYING THAT, THAT IT WILL WON'T BE POSTPONED. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I KNOW THIS IS STARTING TO GET A LITTLE TRICKY, SO BE CLEAR. 
          CURRENTLY THE ITEM IS ON CONSENT. 
          THIS IS THE ITEM THAT WE HEARD AT OUR LAST MEETING THAT WE HAD TO RESCIND BECAUSE OF HOW IT HAS, UM, UH, A MISTAKE IN THE AGENDA AS IT WAS PUBLISHED. 
          AND SO THE, THE COMMISSION ALREADY VOTED ON THIS, I BELIEVE IT WAS 11 TO ONE, UM, IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. 
          AND SO TODAY IT IS LISTED AS CONSENT, UM, WITH THE VOTE, UH, THAT PC HAD AT THE LAST MEETING, UM, WHICH WAS APPLICANT'S REQUEST. 
          THE REQUEST FROM MR. MENDEZ YES. 
          IS FOR A POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 10TH. 
          UM, SO NORMALLY WE WOULD HAVE, WE WOULD PULL THIS ITEM FOR A DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT. 
          UM, AND IF IT WAS DECIDED TO BE HEARD TONIGHT, WE'RE THEN HEARING THE ITEM AGAIN. 
          UM, SO I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER ANDERSON WAS PROPOSING WAS TO HEAR THE REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT. 
          AND BEFORE WE TAKE IT OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, DECIDE IF WE WANT TO PULL IT OFF. 
          SO THE QUESTION BEFORE US NOW IS IF WE WISH TO PULL IT OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AND NOT SEEING ANYONE WISHING TO PULL. 
          SO, MS. MENDEZ, IT WAS MOVING FORWARD ON CONSENT TONIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          WE HAVE A FEW SPEAKERS SIGNED UP IN OPPOSITION THAT WOULD I BELIEVE NEED TO SPEAK IF IT'S ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          YES. 
          SO OUR FIRST SPEAKER WOULD BE WENDY FRAN. 
          WENDY WILL BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY. 
          WENDY, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS. 
          YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          WHAT'S UP BUDDY? UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, IF YOU WANNA GO ON MUTE. 
          SO WE HAVE MS. RESNICK ON THE PHONE. 
          [00:35:01]
IT LOOKS LIKE SHE'S NOT ONLINE. 
          WE'LL DOUBLE CHECK AFTER OUR NEXT FEW SPEAKERS. 
          OKAY. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS EMILY NOBLE. 
          EMILY, YOU, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          HI, I'M EMILY NOBLE. 
          I REPRESENT THE NEIGHBORS ON WAY BORN HILL AND MARYMOUNT, WHO HAVE SIGNED ON TO A ZONING PETITION REQUESTING THE MORE LIMITED SITE USE OF NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE AND IMPERVIOUS COVER OF 70%. 
          SO LAST TIME WE TALKED, I THINK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CHURCH AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE ZONING, BUT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE COMMUNITY OF WAY BORN HILL. 
          SO, ALTHOUGH I HAVE LIVED AT MY HOME FOR JUST OVER 12 YEARS, MANY OF MY SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS HAVE LIVED IN THEIR HOME SINCE THE 1970S. 
          THAT'S HALF A CENTURY. 
          MY NEIGHBORS, THE LOPEZ FAMILY, WERE THE FIRST HISPANIC FAMILY TO MOVE TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          MR. LOPEZ WAS THE BASEBALL COACH FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD KIDS AT DELWOOD IN THE SEVENTIES. 
          MY NEIGHBOR MARCY, OWNS THE ORIGINAL FARMHOUSE WHERE 51ST STREET USED TO END. 
          MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS, INCLUDING MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, MISS ALMA, HAVE STORIES TO TELL FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD FIRST BEING BUILT TO THE AIRPORT MOVING AND NOW THE MANY CHANGES THAT ARE MAKING AUSTIN IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          WHAT IT IS TODAY. 
          MOST OF THESE FAMILIES HAVE MULTI-GENERATIONAL HOMES WITH THEIR KIDS, GRANDKIDS, AND SOMETIMES GREAT-GRANDKIDS PRESENT. 
          THEY UNDERSTAND THIS COMMUNITY AND ARE IMPACTED BY THE CHANGES WITHIN IT. 
          I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK AGAIN FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THESE FAMILIES AND THIS COMMUNITY WHO LIVES SEVEN DAYS A WEEK NEXT TO THIS PROPERTY. 
          THIS COMMUNITY WANTS TO SEE ALL THE CHURCHES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THRIVE. 
          WE ARE ALSO DEEPLY CONCERNED BY THE UNS SOLIDIFIED PLANS, THE POTENTIAL FOR THE PROPERTY, PROPERTY TO BE SOLD SOONER THAN EXPECTED. 
          THE LACK OF FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT THOSE CHANGES AS REPORTED IN THE LAST COMMISSION MEETING AND THE IMPACT ON THIS COMMUNITY AND THESE FAMILIES 50 YEARS FROM NOW. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A PRESENTATION. 
          IT'S OKAY IF THERE ISN'T. 
          UM, THAT'S FINE. 
          I HAD A PRESENTATION. 
          IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. 
          SO EXPANDED USE AT THE SITE IS, IS A CONCERN GIVEN THE PROPERTY HAS TWO POINTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS. 
          IT WAS IN MY PRESENTATION, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST TIME, BUT I WANNA BE REALLY CLEAR, THE CHURCH PROPERTY HAS INGRESS AND EGRESS AT AT 51ST STREET. 
          SO THE INTEREST TO THE CHURCH PROPERTY IS AT 51ST. 
          THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THE, THE FOOD PANTRY, THE UNDEVELOPED LOT HAS INGRESS AND EGRESS ON PECAN SPRINGS ROAD. 
          SO AS WE TALKED ABOUT, UH, WELL HERE'S, I THINK WE'RE GOING THROUGH ALL OF THE, THE PICTURES. 
          SO ACTUALLY IF WE CAN BACK UP JUST A LITTLE BIT. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          I'LL SPEAK TO IT REALLY QUICKLY. 
          I KNOW I'M AT TIME. 
          SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT FLOODING, I THINK IN THE LAST MEETING IN TERMS OF MS. N, BUT WE'LL GIVE YOU AN EXTRA MINUTE. 
          OKAY. 
          WE TALKED ABOUT FLOODING, I THINK IN THE LAST MEETING IN TERMS OF FLOODING CONCERNS. 
          AND ADMITTEDLY, MOST OF MY NEIGHBORS HAVEN'T PRIORITIZED TAKING PHOTOS OF WHEN THAT HAPPENED. 
          SO THIS IS ONE EVENT WHERE WE HAD TAKEN A RAIN HOSE AND THIS WAS AFTER THE RAIN WAS GOING, BUT I WANTED TO DEMONSTRATE KIND OF WHY WE HAVE THESE CONCERNS. 
          UM, IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT PHOTO AND YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT ONE. 
          THIS IS MY HOUSE. 
          SO MY HOUSE IS, YOU CAN SEE THE, THE LOWER LEFT CORNER THERE. 
          IT SITS LOWER THAN THE PROPERTY. 
          AND SO THE FENCE LINE THERE IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT, WHICH IS THAT VACANT LOT, UH, WITH THE INGRESS AND EGRESS AND PECAN SPRINGS. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT THE ELEVATION CERTIFICATE, AND IF YOU LOOK AT AN AERIAL, THERE'S TWO CREEKS. 
          SO ONE CREEK, UM, THAT'S ON, THAT'S ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ANOTHER CREEK THAT'S ON THE EAST SIDE. 
          SO THE RESIDENTS AT THE GROVE, THEY HAVE THE, THE DRAINAGE ISSUE POTENTIALLY FROM THE PROPERTY WHERE THEY'RE AT A LOWER ELEVATION, THE WATER DRAINS TOWARDS THE CREEK. 
          BUT I WANTED TO KIND OF DEMONSTRATE WHY WE HAVE THESE CONCERNS. 
          UM, IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT IMAGE, THESE ARE JUST THE PICTURES OF WHAT THAT INGRESS EGRESS ACTUALLY IS ON PECAN SPRINGS FOR THE ACCESS TO THE BACK OF THAT PROPERTY. 
          IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, YOU CAN SEE, AND THEN THE NEXT ONE, SO THE NEIGHBOR. 
          SO WHAT OUR POSITION IS, IS IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO MAXIMIZE THE IMPERVIOUS USE TO ACCOMMODATE FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING NEEDS. 
          SO THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW. 
          WHAT YOU CAN SEE HERE IS THE, THE PARKING LOT WHERE THE ALPHA CHURCHES ISN'T MAXIMIZED AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY TO ACTUALLY ACCOMMODATE FOR MORE PARKING. 
          IT CAN, YOU CAN REDRAW THE LINES, YOU CAN ACTUALLY CREATE MORE SPACE WHERE YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S UNUSED SPACE. 
          AND I THINK THAT YES, YOU CAN DEVELOP OUT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY CERTAINLY, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THE REQUEST FOR 90% IMPERVIOUS COVER ACTUALLY MATCHES THE NEED. 
          UM, SO I GUESS I'LL FINALIZE THIS. 
          PROPERTY IS PART OF THE IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDOR AND AS THE IMAGINE AUSTIN PLAN STATES, AUSTIN IS A CITY WHERE COMMUNITY NEEDS AND VALUES ARE RECOGNIZED. 
          THIS COMMUNITY VALUES A CHURCH PRESENCE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE NEED A REASON TO APPROACH TO BALANCE THE CHURCH STATE'S NEED FOR MORE PARKING WHILE NOT OVERLY EXPANDING ZONING FOR UNKNOWN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ROBERT MENDEZ. 
          ROBERT, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          [00:40:08]
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT. 
          UM, SO FIRST I WANNA TALK ABOUT THE COMMUNITY JUST AS EMILY JUST DID. 
          THE CHURCH HAS NO CONNECTION WITH OUR COMMUNITY. 
          I HAVE LIVED IN MY HOUSE FOR SIX YEARS, ADMITTEDLY PROBABLY ONE OF THE NEWEST RESIDENTS ON THE STREET. 
          THE FIRST TIME THAT I HEARD HYDE NOR HAIR FROM THIS CHURCH WAS WHEN THE CITY OF AUSTIN REACHED OUT TO LET US KNOW ABOUT THE REZONING, NOT THE CHURCH. 
          UH, I HAVE SPOKEN TO OTHER NEIGHBORS IN OUR COMMUNITY, UM, BEING THERE 15 YEARS TO 50 YEARS, NONE OF THEM HAVE HEARD HYDE NOR HAIR FROM THIS CHURCH. 
          50% OF THE NEIGHBORS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY HAVE SIGNED ONTO PETITIONS TO BLOCK OR REDUCE THE ZONING REQUEST. 
          THEY DO NOT HAVE COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR. 
          THEY HAVE HAD ONE FORMAL MEETING WITH THE COMMUNITY AND ONE INFORMAL MEETING. 
          AT THE END OF THE INFORMAL MEETING, THEY WERE TOLD THAT WE WOULD TAKE THIS BACK TO OUR ELDERLY NEIGHBORS WHO WERE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND. 
          WHEN WE DID, THEY HAD ADDITIONAL CONCERNS. 
          THE CHURCH REJECTED ANY FURTHER RESTRICTION OR USE RESTRICTION. 
          UM, AS OF THE LAST MEETING, THEY HAD ZERO PLANS FOR WHAT THEY ACTUALLY WANTED TO DO AND THEY MENTIONED THAT THEY HAVE NO FUNDING FOR WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. 
          UH, IT'S EXTREMELY PREMATURE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS TO A PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY PLAN. 
          UM, THEY HAVE MENTIONED POTENTIALLY ADDING A GYM COMMUNITY, FINANCIAL MEDICAL USES. 
          AS OF THIS DATE, THE CHURCH HAS PROVIDED ZERO EVIDENCE OF ANY SUCH PLANS. 
          THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE ANY MEANS OF INGRESS OR EGRESS FROM AN AUSTIN CONNECT CORRIDOR. 
          THE ONLY MEANS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS ARE RESIDENTIAL STREET OFF 21ST STREET. 
          ACTUAL PARKING NEEDS. 
          YOU KNOW, THE CHURCH HAS GREATLY EXAGGERATED THEIR NEED. 
          THEY'RE CURRENTLY NOT UTILIZING THEIR IMPERVIOUS COVER EFFICIENTLY. 
          UH, THEY ARE ONLY AT THE PROPERTY FOR A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY THREE HOURS A WEEK. 
          DURING THOSE HOURS, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY UTILIZING. 
          THEY'RE ALREADY INEFFICIENT PARKING. 
          HERE ARE SOME PICTURES TAKEN DURING CHURCH SERVICES. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY HAVE NOT UTILIZED THEIR PARKING LOT. 
          THEY ARE EMPTY SPACES IN THE BACK FIELD. 
          IT'S LARGELY EMPTY. 
          CHURCH SERVICES ON THE SECOND, AGAIN, EMPTY SPACES IN THE PARKING SPOT AND AN EMPTY FIELD. 
          THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY NEED 90% IMPERVIOUS COVER DOES NOT HOLD WITH THE REALITY OF THE CHURCH. 
          ADDITIONALLY, I WANNA TALK ABOUT THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES. 
          UM, YOU'LL SEE THERE'S A NUMBER OF COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ON SPRINGDALE ROAD. 
          THOSE ARE ACTUALLY ALL SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY HOMES. 
          THERE IS NO COMMU, THERE IS NO COMMERCIAL THERE. 
          THE, UH, NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT SPRINGDALE AND 51ST EMPTY LOT NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED TO THE SOUTH. 
          WE HAVE A DOLLAR GENERAL AND AN EMPTY OFFICE BUILDING THAT'S BEEN EMPTY FOR A YEAR SINCE IT WAS DEVELOPED. 
          YOU HAVE A MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET. 
          IT'S AN EMPTY LOT. 
          IT IS OWNED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND WAS FORMERLY SECTION EIGHT HOUSING. 
          IT WAS TORN DOWN AND RESIDES IN A FLOODPLAIN. 
          IN CONCLUSION, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU PLEASE REJECT THIS ZONING CHANGE AND THE CHURCH TO, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY EFFICIENTLY USE THEIR SPACE AS OPPOSED TO CREATING HEAT ISLANDS AND OTHER EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ACTUALLY RESIDE NEAR THE PROPERTY. 
          MR. MENDEZ, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          CHAIR. 
          THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. 
          DID MS. RENICK COME BACK? NO. 
          NO. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT, UM, GOING BACK, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE HAVE DISC, UH, QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? UH, JUST A LITTLE SPEAK. 
          SO, UH, GO AHEAD. 
          WE WILL HEAR FROM COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE AND THEN GO TO YOU COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS AND REMEMBER TO COME ON CAMERA WHEN YOU'RE SPEAKING. 
          OKAY. 
          THIS IS, BECAUSE THIS IS A LITTLE BIT STRANGE PROCESS, RIGHT? SO WE VOTED ON THIS LAST MEETING THREE WEEKS AGO AND I BELIEVE MYSELF AND COMMISSIONER COX WERE THE NO VOTES ON IT. 
          AND OF I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO REFLECT MY NO VOTE ON IT, UH, FOR ITEMS TWO AND THREE, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T NEED TO PULL IT FROM CONSENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS. 
          SORRY I WAS HAVING TROUBLE COMING, COMING ON THE SCREEN. 
          THAT'S OKAY. 
          UM, SO I GUESS THE, THE, UH, CONCERNS WE HEARD TONIGHT ABOUT FLOODING HAVE, HAVE, UM, THEY WEREN'T AS FLESHED OUT IN THE LAST, THE LAST TIME WE HEARD FROM, UM, ON, ON THESE FROM ON ON THIS PARTICULAR ZONING CHAIN. 
          [00:45:01]
HAVE, HAVE WE GOTTEN ANY FURTHER CLARITY ON THAT? I MEAN, I TRULY RESPECT, UM, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE AND COMMISSIONER COX AND, UM, THEIR, WHAT THEY TALKED ABOUT AS ENGINEERS AND BUILDERS REGARDING, UM, THE SITE. 
          SO DO WE HAVE ANY MORE CLARITY ON THE FLOODING ISSUES AND THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ISSUES AT ALL OR ARE WE JUST WHERE WE ARE AND WE WON'T GET ANY MORE CLARITY ON THAT? UM, THE WAY TO INVESTIGATE THAT FURTHER BESIDES THE BACKUP IS TO PULL THE ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION AND, UM, WE WOULD GO THROUGH OUR USUAL PROCESS, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS OF HAVING A PRESENTATION AND THEN OPENING UP FOR Q AND A. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE HAVE TO PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION AND THEN OPEN IT FOR Q AND A AND OUR, DO WE HAVE THE APPROPRIATE CITY STAFF HERE TO ANSWER THOSE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED IN MORE CLARITY THIS EVENING? MR. TOMKO IS HERE TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          THEN I, I WANT TO PULL THE ITEM PLEASE. 
          UM, MR. TOMKO IS YOUR YES, UH, JONATHAN TOMKO CASE MANAGER ON THIS CASE WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          UM, I SPOKE WITH THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT. 
          UH, THERE, THERE WAS ANY FLOODING ISSUES THAT WERE, UH, AROSE IN THE REVIEW OF THE CASE BY THEM. 
          UM, ADDITIONAL REVIEW WOULD BE UNDERTAKEN AT THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS. 
          UM, THE QUESTION IS STILL KIND OF ON THE TABLE FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO DECIDE THE APPROPRIATE ZONING RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL ON THIS CASE. 
          UM, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY STAFF HERE FROM THE WATERSHED DEPARTMENT OR ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AT THIS TIME. 
          ALRIGHT, SO I'LL ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN. 
          UM, DID YOU WANNA PULL THE ITEM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, SINCE THE ANSWER'S GONNA BE THE SAME AS IT WAS LAST TIME, I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST TO PULL THE ITEM SINCE WE'RE NOT GONNA GET ANY FURTHER CLARITY ON THE PLANNING ISSUES. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          UM, ARE THERE COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? VICE CHAIR, CHAIR, IF I CAN MAKE A QUICK COMMENT. 
          I JUST, UM, EXCUSE ME. 
          THIS IS ON ITEM NUMBER 31 AND 32, WHICH IS 1500 FAROH DRIVE. 
          UM, I JUST, UH, REALLY WANT TO THANK THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY FOR WORKING WITH THE TENANTS TO REALLY ENSURE THAT THERE IS A PLAN IN PLACE TO SUPPORT THEM, UM, IN ANY SORT OF FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT AND ENSURE THAT WE'RE PROVIDING, UH, FOLKS WITH THE SUPPORT SERVICES NECESSARY. 
          SO I REALLY JUST WANTED TO THANK THEM FOR WORKING WITH THE TENANTS AND I REALLY HOPE THAT SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT THEY'VE HAD WITH THE TENANTS CAN BE SOLIDIFIED THROUGH A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT OR OTHER MEANS, UM, AS THIS GOES TO COUNCIL. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UM, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AND APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE 22ND TEMPLE. 
          I ALSO JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT WE ARE APPROVING THE MINUTES FOR BOTH THE 21ST AND THE 22ND. 
          'CAUSE I BELIEVE IT WAS ONLY THE 22ND. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          UM, THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          UM, UNLESS THERE'S OBJECTION TO THAT, BOTH OF THOSE SETS OF MINUTES WILL BE ADDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO VICE CHAIRS, UH, THE MOTION AND THEN SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, UNLESS THERE IS AN OBJECTION TO THAT, THAT MOTION PASSES NOTING COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE'S, UM, VOTE ON ITEMS TWO AND THREE. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. 
          AND THIS CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          UM, AS A POINT OF PRIVILEGE SUGGESTION 
          [41. Discussion and action to approve the Planning Commission 2025 meeting schedule.]
FOR THIS EVENING, KNOWING THAT WE WILL LIKELY BE GOING LATE, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ITEM NUMBER 41, WHICH IS DISCUSSION IN ACTION TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2025 MEETING SCHEDULE. 
          LET'S JUST GET THAT TAKEN CARE OF FIRST, UM, BECAUSE WE MAY LOSE COMMISSIONERS AS WE GET LATER INTO THE EVENING. 
          UM, YES, SO THIS, UH, CALENDAR WAS SHARED A FEW DAYS AGO BY MS. GARCIA, CAN YOU PUT IT ON THE SCREEN? SO, UM, BY APPROVING OUR CALENDAR FOR NEXT YEAR, THIS ALLOWS FOR PLANNING WORK TO OCCUR FOR WHEN THOSE MEETINGS HAPPEN, UM, AND THE PROCEDURE OF ZONING CASES AND CODE AMENDMENTS. 
          UM, THIS WOULD ALSO INCLUDE OUR, UM, FEW MEETINGS THAT ARE CONSENT ONLY, UM, AND HAVE A DIFFERENT STARTING TIME. 
          UM, I'LL 
          [00:50:01]
OPEN IT UP AS THEY'RE BRINGING THAT CALENDAR ONLINE. 
          WERE THERE ANY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS? MADAM CHAIR? YES. 
          WHY ALL OF THE MEETINGS IN NOVEMBER? IT'S GONNA BE A, LOOKS LIKE IT'S GONNA BE A FUN NOVEMBER. 
          UM, LET'S SEE, CAN YOU ZOOM INTO NOVEMBER 3RD, FIFTH, 10TH, 12TH, 17TH AND 19TH. 
          YEAH, SO, OKAY. 
          WAIT, WHAT? WAIT, WHAT? NO, THEY'RE OPTIONS, RIGHT? SO, UM, VETERANS DAY NEXT YEAR FALLS ON A TUESDAY AND WE CAN'T HAVE, UH, OUR COMMISSION MEETINGS ON HOLIDAYS. 
          UM, SO THOSE ITEMS ARE, UH, POSTED AS OPTIONS TO COVER THAT MEETING. 
          THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
          OTHER COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? UM, JUST FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, SO ARE WE PICKING AN OPTION NOW OR THERE OPTIONS FOR US TO CHOOSE LATER? OPTIONS FOR US TO CHOOSE LATER SO THAT WE CAN ACHIEVE A GOOD QUORUM. 
          OKAY. 
          AS WE GET CLOSER AND THEN WHENEVER THE MEETING IS NOT CHOSEN WOULD BE CANCELED AND THE, AND THE SAME IS TRUE FOR THE 17TH, 19TH AND THEN DECEMBER AS WELL. 
          WE'LL PICK ONE OF THOSE TWO OPTIONS. 
          OKAY, THANKS. 
          UM, IF I MAY MAKE A COMMENT, JUST A QUICK REMINDER TO FOLKS. 
          SO, UM, WE CAN STILL CALL SPECIAL CALL MEETINGS EITHER QUARTERLY OR AS, UH, NECESSITY BY COUNCIL ACTION. 
          WE, WE CAN ALSO OF COURSE REMOVE MEETINGS AS NECESSARY. 
          THE IDEA HERE IS I THINK JUST TO BLOCK OFF THOSE, SO ONE, WE ALL HAVE IT ON OUR CALENDARS AND TWO ALSO BECAUSE WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT ROOM RESERVATION AND OTHER THINGS THAT STAFF HAS TO DO. 
          SO THIS IS TO FACILITATE THAT FOR NEXT YEAR. 
          YES. 
          CHAIR KELLY. 
          I I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF, IF WE DO THIS, DON'T WE ALSO HAVE TO CANCEL THE MEETING IF IT'S LISTED ON THIS CALENDAR FOR THAT POTENTIAL DATE? I BELIEVE SO, YES. 
          YEAH, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN HOW WE'VE HANDLED IT IN THE PAST. 
          JUST TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF THE COMPLICATION OF GETTING THESE MEETINGS ON THE CALENDAR AROUND PARTICULARLY VETERANS DAY 2025 CHAIR. 
          YES. 
          UH, SO JUST TO CONFIRM THAT, UM, THERE, THIS IS NOT INCLUSIVE OF ANY SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS OR MEETINGS WE MIGHT ADD GIVEN A WORKLOAD, WHICH WE OBVIOUSLY DID THIS YEAR AS WELL. 
          CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS AND ANY JOINT MEETINGS WITH COUNCIL FOR CODES THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT VICE CHAIR. 
          UM, CHAIR IF I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE YES. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          UM, ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? ALRIGHT, UM, IF YOU COULD TAKE DOWN THE CALENDAR JUST TO HAVE A CLEAN VOTE ON THIS. 
          ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          12. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH EVERYBODY. 
          WE WILL MOVE 
          [Items 4 & 5]
ON TO OUR FIRST DISCUSSION CASES OF THE EVENING. 
          UM, THOSE BEING ITEMS NUMBER FOUR AND FIVE, THIS IS THE GUNDRY STREET REZONING. 
          SO FIRST WE'LL HEAR FROM MS. MEREDITH AND MR. TOMKO MARINE MEREDITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 24 0 0 1 5 0.01 GUNTER STREET REZONING WITHIN DISTRICT ONE. 
          THE PROPERTY ADDRESSES ARE 1 1 4 3 GUNTER STREET, 1 1 4 5 GUNTER STREET, 1 1 4 5 AND A HALF GUNTER STREET, 36 0 5 ABATE CIRCLE AND 1 1 4 4 WAY NOR WAY NOR DRIVE. 
          IT IS WITHIN THE EAST MLK COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA. 
          THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. 
          AND IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF JONATHAN TOMKO WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS CASE NUMBER C 14 DASH 2 24 DASH 0 1 0 9. 
          IT IS A REZONING OF 1143 AND THREE QUARTER GUNTHER STREET, 1145 GUNTHER STREET, 1145 AND A HALF GUNTHER STREET AND 1144 WAYNE NARROW DRIVE FROM SF THREE NP TO MF THREE NP AND FROM SF THREE NMP TO SF SIX NMP ON 36 0 5 ABATE CIRCLE. 
          THE STAFF OFFERS THE ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION OF MF THREE CO NP ON THE ENTIRE, UH, SITE EXCEPT FOR 36 0 5 ABATE CIRCLE WITH A CO PROHIBITING MORE THAN 50 DWELLING UNITS AND SF SIX NP ON 36 0 5 ABATE CIRCLE. 
          THE SUBJECT TRACK IS APPROXIMATELY 2.75 ACRES AND IS APPROXIMATELY 550 FEET EAST OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD. 
          [00:55:01]
APPROXIMATELY 550 FEET SOUTH OF OAK SPRINGS DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET WEST OF SPRINGDALE ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT AND GUNTHER STREET. 
          THE TRACT CURRENTLY HAS APPROXIMATELY SEVEN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES CONSTRUCTED IN THE EARLY 1940S AND 1950S. 
          THE STRUCTURES APPEAR TO BE VACANT AND BOARDED UP TO THE NORTH ARE TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES CONSTRUCTED IN THE LATE 1930S AND ONE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED DUPLEX TO THE EAST IS SPRINGDALE GARDENS APARTMENTS, APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS TO THE SOUTH IS UNDEVELOPED LAND AND TO THE WEST IS ONE CHURCH, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND TWO RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED FOURPLEXES STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS, UH, BECAUSE THE LOCATION OFFERS PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND TRANSIT OPTIONS IS LOCATED WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF TWO IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDORS, AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND SPRINGDALE ROAD, AND AN IMAGINE AUSTIN CENTER SPRINGDALE STATION, WHICH IS THE FUTURE HOME OF A GREEN LINE, UH, RAIL STOP. 
          UM, I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CHAIR. 
          WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR FIVE MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS ELLE MEAD WITH HUTCH BLACKWELL HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. 
          SO AT JONATHAN'S SIDE, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED SF THREE. 
          UM, IT IS ON GUNTER, WHICH IS NEAR AIRPORT IN SPRINGDALE. 
          AND WE UM, INITIALLY FILED OUR REQUEST FOR MF THREE NP. 
          WE'VE ACTUALLY AMENDED THAT REQUEST AND I DON'T HAVE IT ON THE SLIDE, I SHOULD. 
          UM, BUT IN DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF TO TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS WE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THE LEVEL OF DENSITY ON THE SITE, WE ACTUALLY ARE AGREEING TO REZONE A PORTION OF THE SITE TO, UH, TO REDUCE OUR REQUEST TO SF SIX. 
          AND YOU'LL, I'LL, I'LL SHOW YOU WHERE THAT IS. 
          SO THIS IS THE SITE, IT'S ABOUT THREE A, JUST UNDER THREE ACRES. 
          UM, AND THAT KIND OF ODD SHAPED PIECE AT THE TOP OF, UH, THE THREE TRACKS IS THE TRACK THAT WE ARE AGREEING TO REDUCE THE REQUEST TO SF THREE, UH, I'M SORRY, SF SIX. 
          UM, JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. 
          IT'S, UH, REAL INTERNATIONAL, WHICH IS LYNN JUAN WHO'S AN ENGINEER AND FORMER DELL EXECUTIVE JAMES SHEA ARCHITECT THAT I THINK MANY OF YOU KNOW IN ING. 
          ALSO AN ARCHITECT WHOM I THINK MANY OF YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE BEEN DEVELOPING SINCE 2013 AND THEY REALLY HAVE DEVELOPED A SPECIALTY IN TAKING THESE INFILL SITES AND MAKING SOMETHING REALLY BEAUTIFUL ON THEM. 
          JUST A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF SIMILAR PROJECTS THAT THEY HAVE DONE. 
          THE PROPOSED PROJECT, UM, THE ONES I'M SHOWING YOU ARE ALL TOWN HOME PROJECTS AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD ALSO BE TOWN HOMES. 
          SO WE REALLY THINK WE CAN TAKE THE SITE IN GUNTER, WHICH HAS ACTUALLY HISTORICALLY ALWAYS BEEN USED AS MULTIFAMILY. 
          IT'S HAD ABOUT SEVEN UNITS ON ONE SF, THREE TRACT, UM, AND DO SOMETHING REALLY SPECIAL WITH IT. 
          SO THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT, UH, WE ACTUALLY HAVE ALREADY FILED ON THE SITE AND I'M SURE YOU'RE ASKING YOURSELF WHY HAVE YOU FILED A SITE PLAN. 
          UM, VERY LONG STORY SHORT, BUT THE CITY'S PROFILE TOOL WAS INACCURATE ON THE SITE AND THE DEVELOPER AT, UH, BELIEVED THAT THE SITE WAS ZONE MF THREE. 
          THEY FILED A SITE PLAN, GOT THROUGH THREE ROUNDS OF REVIEW OF A SITE PLAN. 
          AND REALLY THE REASON WE, UM, ARE ANXIOUS TO GET THE ZONING CASE COMPLETED IS THAT WE HAVE A PENDING SITE PLAN. 
          WE'RE READY TO BUILD THIS HOUSING AND WE HAVE A PENDING SITE PLAN THAT EXPIRES IN JANUARY. 
          AND THAT'S JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF, UM, WHAT THE BUILDINGS WILL BE LIKE. 
          SOME WILL BE THREE STORIES, SOME WILL BE TWO STORY. 
          UM, THE ONES THAT A BUCK GUNTER WILL ACTUALLY FACE GUNTER AND OPEN UP TO GUNTER. 
          SO WE REALLY THINK WE CAN DEVELOP SOMETHING THAT FITS WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          WE KNOW WE HAVE OPPOSITION, WE KNOW THAT THE NEIGHBORS WOULD LIKE FOR THE SITE TO REMAIN SF THREE. 
          UM, BUT WE REALLY THINK THIS SITE, THREE ACRES AND A PLACE REALLY CLOSE TO DOWNTOWN, REALLY GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING, UM, TO PROVIDE A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF HOUSING. 
          WE, BECAUSE OF OUR EXISTING SITE PLAN ONLY HAVING 48 UNITS AND BECAUSE OF STAFF'S REQUEST THAT WE LOWER THE DENSITY, WE HAVE AGREED TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF 50 UNITS. 
          WE'D LOVE TO DO MORE ON THE SITE, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR US TO DO AT THIS MOMENT IS TO GET THE SITE PLAN APPROVED. 
          JUST ANOTHER VIEW OF, UH, WHAT THE BUILDINGS WILL LOOK LIKE. 
          UH, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE THINK THIS LOCATION IS IDEAL. 
          WE THINK THIS IS AN UNDERUTILIZED 
          [01:00:01]
SITE AND MOST IMPORTANTLY WE THINK WE CAN DEVELOP SOMETHING THAT REALLY DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          ONE LAST THING THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS THAT, UM, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC AND I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT WHEN WE FILED THIS CASE ORIGINALLY, WE ACTUALLY HAD ASKED FOR CS DB 90. 
          UM, AND SO WE FILED THE REQUEST TO THE TRAFFIC WORKSHEET, UM, FOR THE CITY'S REVIEW WITH 149 UNITS. 
          AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMISSION TO KNOW THAT TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC WORKS ASSESSED DOING A NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ANALYSIS THAT EVEN WITH 149 UNITS, THE SURROUNDING STREETS INCLUDING GUNTER FUNCTION FINE AND WOULD CONTINUE TO FUNCTION FINE. 
          I POINT THAT OUT BECAUSE I THINK YOU'LL HEAR A LOT OF COMMENTS TONIGHT ABOUT TRAFFIC IN THE AREA AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU MAY HAVE ANY. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          WE'LL, UH, HEAR FROM OUR OTHER SPEAKERS AND THEN COME BACK. 
          OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS CANDACE BOEM. 
          CANDACE WILL BE RECEIVING THREE MINUTES OF DONATED TIME RESPECTIVELY FROM ADAM LEVITT, ELMOS, BA BAHANA, AND CHRISTINA VINCENT. 
          ARE ALL THREE OF US PRESENT? CANDACE, YOU'LL HAVE EIGHT MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          YOU ARE WELCOME TO KEEP THIS UP. 
          THIS IS NOT MY PRESENTATION. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, MY NAME IS CANDACE, I'M A MOTHER OF TWO. 
          I'M A FORMER SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER, POLITICAL STAFFER. 
          THIS IS, UM, THIS IS FAMILIAR FROM SENATE YEARS AGO. 
          I LIVE ON MUNSON STREET. 
          IT'S A FEW, UH, DOORS DOWN FROM THE PROPOSED REZONING. 
          WE'VE LIVED IN OUR HOME FOR FIVE YEARS. 
          I'VE LIVED ON THE EAST SIDE SINCE 2009. 
          I WANNA TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          UM, DO ANY OF YOU LIVE OVER THERE? LIVE IN EAST MLK? JUST CURIOUS IF I'M GONNA TELL YOU THINGS YOU ALREADY KNOW. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WE LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WHERE LONGTIME RESIDENTS AND NEW RESIDENTS CATCH UP ON FRONT PORCHES, SIDEWALKS. 
          YOU MIGHT GET A GOLF CART RIDE FROM STEVE, IF YOU'RE LUCKY. 
          HE'S A FOUNDING MEMBER ON MUNSON STREET. 
          UH, WE SUPPORT HUNGRY NEIGHBORS WITH A LOCAL FOOD PANTRY IN THE LOT ACROSS FROM MY HOME. 
          UM, AND IT'S A SUPER DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE WELCOME, UH, DEVELOPMENT THAT PROMOTES THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          IT'S ALSO A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT FACES NUMEROUS AND DANGEROUS CAR WRECKS. 
          IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH MANY, MANY PEDESTRIANS. 
          MY LOT BACKS UP TO WHEN I MOVED IN TO SECTION EIGHT. 
          HOUSING LOTS WITH A TON OF WALKERS AND JUST A STONE THROW AWAY. 
          WE HAVE TWO OTHER SECTION EIGHT HOUSING LOTS WITH A TON OF WALKERS. 
          UM, WE ALSO DON'T HAVE A TON OF SAFETY CONTROL. 
          UM, IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH RESIDENTIAL STREETS AND WE DO HAVE LIMITED ACCESS TO AIRPORT ONE WAY AND LIMITED ACCESS TO SPRINGDALE ONLY FROM MY STREET, NOT FROM GUNTER. 
          UM, THE THREE TRACKS OF LAND THEY'RE AT ISSUE ARE LOCATED AT THE CENTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THEY CONNECT TO A CUL-DE-SAC, AS WAS MENTIONED, A BATE CIRCLE AND A RESIDENTIAL STREET, AND ARE SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES, NONE OF WHICH HAVE SPEED CONTROL MEASURES LIKE STOP SIGNS OR SPEED BUMPS. 
          AS A RESIDENT, I AM EXCITED ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I LOVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I LOVE THE COFFEE SHOPS, I LOVE THE LIBRARY. 
          I LOVE THE MEXICAN GROCER. 
          I LOOK FORWARD TO INTRODUCING THOSE PIECES OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WITH PEOPLE WHEN THEY MOVE IN. 
          THE NEIGHBORS. 
          YOU SEE HERE TONIGHT, WE'VE LOST ONE AND TWO KIDS. 
          WOULD Y'ALL STAND UP? THIS IS WHO HAVE COME ALL OPPOSED, THANK YOU'ALL. 
          UM, WE WANNA ADVOCATE FO FIRST AND FOREMOST TO MAINTAIN THE THREE TRACKS OF LAND PURCHASED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE SF THREE ZONING THAT WE ARE OPEN TO SF FOUR A SF FOUR B SF FIVE. 
          THERE IS A LOT OF SPACE BETWEEN SF THREE AND MF THREE. 
          UM, THE REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN ZONING FROM SF THREE TO MF A JUMP AND IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          PER THE CITY OF AUSTIN ZONING GUIDE, THE REQUEST IS NOT MEET THE PRINCIPLES AND SHOULD BE DENIED. 
          THE GUIDE, AS I READ IT, OUTLINES 12 PRINCIPLES OF ZONING FROM AND REZONING FROM SF THREE TO MF THREE WOULD VIOLATE FIVE OF THOSE PRINCIPLES FROM MY READ. 
          THEY ARE ZONING SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OR ADOPT A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. 
          IT IS NOT ZONING. 
          ZONING SHOULD SATISFY A PUBLIC NEED AND NOT CONSTITUTE A GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TO AN INDIVIDUAL 
          [01:05:01]
OWNER. 
          THE REQUEST SHOULD NOT RESULT IN SPOT ZONING. 
          IT, UH, IT WOULD CHANGING ZONING CHANGES SHOULD PROMOTE COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT AND NEARBY USES AND SHOULD NOT RESULT IN DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. 
          IT WOULD ZONING SHOULD PROMOTE A TRANSITION BETWEEN ADJACENT AND NEARBY ZONING DISTRICTS. 
          LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT INTENSITIES IT DOES NOT ZONING SHOULD PROMOTE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY GOALS SUCH AS CREATING EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND PROVIDING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          IT DOESN'T EITHER. 
          I HAVE A NOTE ON THE COMMUNITY, BUT I'LL COME BACK TO THAT IF I HAPPEN TO HAVE TIME BY THE DEVELOPER'S ZONE ADMISSION AND THEIR COVER LETTER AND, UM, WHAT ELLE JUST SAID, THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITHOUT PERFORMING DUE DILIGENCE ON THE EXISTING ZONING AND ARE NOW ASKING US TO UP ZONE TO MATCH THEIR SITE PLANS. 
          IT IS NOT THE DUTY OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BEAR THE BURDEN TO PREVENT THESE DEVELOPERS FROM NOT MAXIMIZING PROFIT TO THEIR OWN LACK OF DILIGENCE. 
          WE'RE BEING ASKED TO COMPROMISE THE SAFETY OF OUR KIDS, THE SAFETY OF OUR HOMES, THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR LACK OF DILIGENCE. 
          FURTHER, WE'RE CONCERNED THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT BEEN A GOOD NEIGHBOR SO FAR AND WOULD NOT BE WITH THE CURRENT PLAN, PARTICULARLY AS IT MAINTAINS IF IT STAYS A RENTAL DEVELOPMENT. 
          SOMEONE MAY BE ABLE TO SPEAK ON THAT LATER. 
          SHE CALLED IN SICK. 
          AND SO, UH, I HOPE THAT Y'ALL GET TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT. 
          UM, THE SITE HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY SECURED. 
          UH, AT THE FRONT END. 
          WE'VE THE, THE PERSON IMMEDIATELY THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR DEALT WITH SQUATTER ILLICIT ACTIVITIES, MULTIPLE CALLS FOR EMERGENCY HELP. 
          UM, THE DEVELOPERS IN RESPONSE DID NOT EVEN DOCUMENT THE CORRECT LOT AND THE POSTING THE ZONING SIGNS, IT WAS TWO LOTS TO THE SOUTH. 
          UH, HERE'S WHAT WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE. 
          WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE ZONING STAY AT SF THREE OR FOR THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER SF FOUR A SF FOUR B SF FIVE IF THEY WERE TWO STORY AND BUILT TO SELL VERSUS RENT. 
          WE WOULD LOVE FOR THE APPLICANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE LOVE SO MUCH AND IF THEY ARE INTERESTED IN MAKING A DONATION THAT THEY WOULD MAKE A DONATION TO ORGANIZATIONS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CARES ABOUT WHERE MONEY WOULD STAY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS OPPOSED TO A TOKEN, WE'LL DONATE SOME MONEY TO SOMETHING GENERALLY EAST SIDE AND HOPE THAT THAT COUNTS FOR THE COMMUNITY INTEREST. 
          UM, WE KNOW THIS ISN'T GONNA BE THE LAST TIME WE SEE A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THE CHOICES MADE WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT THOUGH, WILL HAVE LASTING IMPACT INSTEAD OF PRESIDENT FOR THE FUTURE. 
          WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DENY THE, UM, ZONING TO MF THREE, THE CURRENT REZONING APPLICATION. 
          I THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND HAVE ONE MORE NOTE. 
          SHOULD I HAVE ANY TIME YOU HAVE, UH, ALMOST TWO MINUTES. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THIS IS SMALL BUT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME. 
          UM, I HEARD ON FRIDAY I SAW WRITTEN THAT THE APPLICANT SAID THAT THEY WOULD DONATE, UM, MONEY TO THE EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY, WHICH I'M SURE Y'ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH. 
          THE GAY GET LOTS OF MONEY FROM APPLICANTS HERE. 
          UM, THEY DO INCREDIBLE WORK THAT GOES INTO A BIG POT. 
          THAT MONEY CAN GO ANYWHERE THAT DOESN'T STAY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT CAN GO ANYWHERE. 
          WHEN THE, UM, THE LAST DEVELOPMENT THAT SAID THEY WOULD DONATE TO THE EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY AND DID IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT MONEY WENT TO SOUTH AUSTIN AND IT DOES GOOD THINGS. 
          THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. 
          UM, WE DO HAVE, UH, HE HAD TO GO HOME TO TAKE CARE OF HIS KIDS, BUT ON OUR BLOCK WE HAVE AN EAST SIDE, UH, ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL. 
          WE HAVE, UM, ONE OF THE FOUNDING FAMILIES ON MUNSON STREET THAT IS WITHIN THE 500, UH, STRETCH THAT, UH, THAT Y'ALL LOOK AT, UM, RUNS A FOOD PANTRY WITH A CERTIFIED NONPROFIT. 
          LIKE I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE APPLICANT APPROACH OUR BLOCK WITH CURIOSITY ABOUT WHAT MATTERS TO US IF THEY ARE INTERESTED IN, UM, CHECKING THAT COMMUNITY BOX THAT'S ON THE ZONING GUIDELINES. 
          I WOULD LOVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. 
          UM, AND JUST WANNA SAY ONE MORE TIME, WE WELCOME, UM, BUILDING THAT HONORS OUR BLOCK AND IS SAFE FOR OUR FAMILIES. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          THANK YOU GUYS. 
          WELL STICK AROUND THE, WHEN WE GET TO Q AND A, SOMEONE MIGHT CALL ON YOU. 
          YEAH, WOULD LOVE TO ANSWER ANYTHING I CAN. 
          THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JULIA LEVITT. 
          JULIA WILL BE RECEIVING THREE MINUTES OF DONATED TIME RESPECTIVELY FROM BETH BAKER, NICOLE KOKA, AND COLETTE HANKY. 
          ARE EACH OF Y'ALL PRESENT? JULIA, YOU WILL HAVE SIX MINUTES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          ONE SECOND. 
          MY NAME IS JULIA LAVEY AND I'M A RESIDENT OF 1 1 4, 7 AND A HALF GUNTER STREET. 
          AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE. 
          MY HUSBAND ADAM LAVEY AND I BOUGHT OUR HOME IN 2018. 
          [01:10:01]
THE HOME WAS OLDER AND BUILT IN 1940, BUT WHILE TAKEN CARE OF, WE WERE CHAR BY THE SMALL HOMES SURROUNDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND EVEN WHILE VISITING, I RECALL PATRICK, WHO LIVES AT ONE ONE FOUR SEVEN, SEVEN EIGHT GUNTER STREET. 
          I'M SORRY MA, CAN YOU, UM, TALK MORE CLOSELY INTO THE RIGHT HERE? THAT'S BETTER. 
          THAT'S GOOD. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          SHOULD I START OVER? OH, YOU'RE GOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SORRY. 
          I'LL REREAD THAT SENTENCE. 
          WHEN WE'RE, WE WERE CHARMED BY THE SMALL HOMES SURROUNDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND EVEN WHILE VISITING, I RECALL PATRICK, UH, WHO LIVES DOWN THE STREET AT 1 1, 4, 7, AND SEVEN EIGHTHS ENCOURAGING US TO BUY THE HOME BECAUSE IT WAS A NICE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          WHAT ULTIMATELY SOLD US ON THE HOME WAS THE PROXIMITY TO A BATE CIRCLE, CUL-DE-SAC DESIRING TO LIVE IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT. 
          IT FELT RARE TO FIND A HOUSE SO CLOSE TO DOWNTOWN, YET NEXT TO A CUL-DE-SAC. 
          IN OUR TWENTIES. 
          WE IMAGINED THE FAMILY WE WOULD HAVE AND IDEALIZED ABOUT HOW OUR FUTURE CHILDREN WOULD LEARN TO RIDE THEIR BIKE OR SCOOTER IN THE CUL-DE-SAC OF A BATE CIRCLE. 
          WHILE THE IDEAL FUTURE IS WHAT SOLD ADAM AND I ON THE HOME, IT WAS OUR PROMISE TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER, MS. CARMEN, THAT WE WOULDN'T TEAR DOWN THE HOUSE AND BUILD A LARGE OUT OF SCALE MCMANSION THAT SOLD IT TO US. 
          THE PREVIOUS OWNER, MS. CARMEN, HAD LIVED IN THE THE HOME FOR 35 YEARS AND CARED DEEPLY FOR THE RESIDENTS AND COMMUNITY. 
          EVEN THOUGH SHE WOULD NO LONGER BE A RESIDENT HERSELF. 
          ADAM AND I INTEND TO HONOR HER WISHES ABOUT THE COMMUNITY SHE CARED ABOUT SO DEEPLY. 
          HAVING NOW LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR ALMOST SEVEN YEARS, WE HAVE SEEN FIRSTHAND HOW THE COMMUNITY USES THE STREETS AND SPACES CHURCHES HELD, HELD ON SUNDAYS AND WEDNESDAYS AT FREEDOM HOUSE BAPTIST CHURCH. 
          TOWARDS THE END OF THE WEEK, THE VALEZ FAMILY FEEDS LOCALS FROM THEIR PROPERTY. 
          DURING HOLIDAYS, OUR NEIGHBORS USE THE CUL-DE-SAC TO CELEBRATE AND SHOOT OFF FIREWORKS. 
          AND BETWEEN ALL OF THAT TIME AT BATE CIRCLES WHERE MANY CHILDREN PLAY BASKETBALL, HE'S NOT YET WON AND HE IS JUST OVER THERE. 
          BUT MY HUSBAND FEAR THAT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCALE THAT IS BEING PROPOSED, OUR SON WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SAFELY PLAY IN A BATE CIRCLE AND ON THE STREETS AROUND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD DUE TO THE CARS AND TRAFFIC THAT WILL INEVITABLY FLOW THROUGH. 
          FROM THIS ALONE, YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS STAUNCHLY OPPOSED TO A DEVELOPMENT THAT AIMS TO DEVELOP THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN OUR SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD WHO HAS TOLD OUR EAST AUSTIN COMMUNITY THAT THIS WILL BE GOOD FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHO HAS MADE LITTLE CONCESSIONS TO THEIR DESIGN AROUND OUR CONCERNS. 
          I KNOW THAT A LOT OF YOU WILL SEE THIS PROPOSAL AND MINUTELY THINK THE DENSITY AND THE GOOD THAT IT WILL BRING AUSTIN, BUT THE SCALE OF THIS DENSITY COMES AT A COST TO THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THIS AREA. 
          I WANT YOU TO HEAR US PLAINLY WHEN WE SAY WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT, BUT THE SCALE OF THIS PROJECT IS TOO LARGE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO SUPPORT WHILE STILL MAINTAINING THE CULTURE AND COMMUNITY THAT THRIVES HERE. 
          MOREOVER, I QUESTION THE ETHICS BY WHICH OUR LAND CODE IS BEING DEVELOPED, THAT A DEVELOPER'S VOICE CAN BE LOUDER AND MORE IMPACTFUL THAN THE HOMEOWNERS WHO LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY. 
          YOU HAVE HEARD AND WILL CONTINUE TO HEAR WHAT AMOUNTS TO RESOUNDING OPPOSITION TO THE SCALE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND OUR COMMUNITY FEELS FEARS THAT ITS CONCERNS WILL FALL ON DEAF EARS. 
          THE PROJECT WAS NEVER PERMISSIBLE TO BEGIN WITH AND IS NOW BEING PUSHED ONTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BY A DEVELOPER CLAIMING TO ADVOCATE FOR OUR AREA IN EAST AUSTIN. 
          AND WE KNOW THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE. 
          THE AUSTIN I KNOW AND WANT TO LIVE IN ADVOCATES FOR THE ACTUAL RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY RATHER THAN AGREE DEVELOPER TRYING TO MASK THEIR DESIRE FOR PROFIT AS AN OUT OF SCALE MULTIFAMILY PROJECT. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ELIZABETH EY ELIZABETH WILL BE RECEIVING TWO MINUTES OF DONATED TIME RESPECTIVELY FROM JESSE GARCIA AND MARISSA POOLE. 
          ARE Y'ALL BOTH PRESENT? ELIZABETH, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I WANNA MAKE SURE THE CAMERA CAN SEE ME. 
          UM, MY NAME'S ELIZABETH AND I AM JULIA AND ADAM'S NEIGHBOR. 
          I'M A RESIDENT ON ABATE CIRCLE. 
          SINCE BEING MADE AWARE OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY THAT I SEE OUT MY FRONT WINDOW, I HAVE READ THE CITY OF AUSTIN ZONING GUIDE AT A CI AS A CITIZEN, NOT AN EXPERT, THAT IS WHAT Y'ALL ARE, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS REQUEST DOES NOT MEET THE PRINCIPALS OUTLINED IS A REASON FOR REZONING AND THUS I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MY NEIGHBORS TO ASK RESPECTFULLY THAT YOU DENY THIS REZONING PROPOSED ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA AS MENTIONED, I'M GONNA GO THROUGH, UH, SOME MORE DETAILS TO WHY I BELIEVE THESE FIVE PRINCIPLES THAT STOOD OUT TO ME, UM, SHOW THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE, UM, ALLOWED. 
          FIRST ZONING SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OR ADOPTED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. 
          THE PROPOSED ZONING IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH FLU. 
          EVERYTHING CURRENTLY SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY IN THE OAK SPRING SUB-DISTRICT IS SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, UM, OF VARIOUS SIZES AND AGES AND HISTORIES. 
          [01:15:01]
AND THIS IS ONE OF THE SPECIAL ELEMENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND A COMMON REASON WHY MANY OF THE RESIDENTS CHOSE TO MAKE THIS OUR HOME. 
          SECOND ZONING SHOULD SATISFY A PUBLIC NEED AND NOT CONSTITUTE A GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TO AN INDIVIDUAL OWNER. 
          THE REQUEST SHOULD NOT RESULT IN SPOT ZONING. 
          WELL, THE PROPOSED ZONING WOULD CONSTITUTE SPOT ZONING AS EVERYTHING DIRECTLY SURROUNDING IT IS ZONED A SINGLE FAMILY, UH, THAT IS NOT CONNECTED TO A MAIN ARTERY WAY OR ROADWAY. 
          AS THE OTHER MULTI-FAMILY ZONED LOTS ARE ZONING CHANGES SHOULD PROMOTE COMPATIBILITY AND ADJACENCY IN NEARBY USES SHOULD NOT RESULT IN DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. 
          THIS IS OUR GREATEST CONCERN AS JULIA OUTLINED IN CANDACE, SPOKE TO, THE PROPOSED ZONING IS NOT COMPATIBLE AS MENTIONED BEFORE, AND WE ARE GREATLY CONCERNED FOR THE DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS TO OUR TRAFFIC, CERTAINLY AS KEL MENTIONED, BUT ALSO OUR ABILITY TO WALK AND DRIVE SAFELY THROUGH AN AREA WHERE THE STREETS ARE CONTINUALLY CONGESTED, NOT ONLY WITH TRAFFIC, BUT ALSO THE PARKED CARS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET, WHICH AS Y'ALL KNOW, WHEN IT WAS BUILT, UM, THAT WASN'T NECESSARILY IMAGINED. 
          WE ARE ALSO, UH, EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT FURTHER EXACERBATING ISSUES OF UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE IN OUR EAST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD, PARTICULARLY OUR ALREADY MAXED OUT WATER MAIN THAT HAS REQUIRED MULTIPLE EMERGENCY SHUTOFFS OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS FOR REPAIRS BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          AND THIS LEADS ME TO A CONCERN OF WOULD OUR LOCAL EMERGENCY SERVICES AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS BE ABLE TO RESPOND APPROPRIATELY TO A EMERGENCY SHOULD THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SIZE ON THIS NEW ZONING BE BUILT? ZONING SHOULD PROMOTE A TRANSITION BETWEEN ADJACENT AND NEARBY ZONING DISTRICTS, LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT INTENSITIES. 
          WHILE THE PROPOSED ZONING DOES NOT PROMOTE A TRANSITION, IT MOVES DIRECTLY FROM SF THREE TO MF THREE. 
          UM, EFFECTIVELY DOUBLING THE DENSITY IN AN AREA, UH, WHERE THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY DON'T SUPPORT IT. 
          ZONING SHOULD PROMOTE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY GOALS SUCH AS CREATING EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          WELL, THIS PROPOSED ZONING DOES NOT PROMOTE OUR COMMUNITY GOALS OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AS THE DEVELOPER HAS MENTIONED. 
          UM, THE DEVELOPER SAID THAT THESE UNITS WILL BE OPERATED SOLELY AS MARKET RATE RENTAL UNITS. 
          SO THIS DOES NOT ACTUALLY PROMOTE RESIDENT OWNERSHIP AFFORDABILITY OR ACTUALLY HELP OUR EXISTING EAST AUSTIN NEIGHBORS IN ANY WAY. 
          WE'RE HERE TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THIS COMMITTEE DENY THE REZONING OF THIS LAND SINCE IT DOES NOT MEET THE GUIDELINES OUTLINED IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN ZONING GUIDE. 
          THIS LAND CAN PROVIDE THE INCREASED DENSITY IN ITS CURRENT STATE, AND I ECHO MY NEIGHBORS. 
          WE WANT TO SEE THIS LAND DEVELOPED. 
          WE WANT TO SEE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR ATTACHED HOMES BUILT ON THESE LOTS THAT ALLOW FOR NEIGHBORS TO COME IN AND BUY THEIR FIRST HOME IN AUSTIN OR BUY THEIR FIRST FAMILY HOME OR STAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY'VE GROWN UP IN. 
          THAT IS OUR HOPE AND DESIRE SO THAT PEOPLE CAN COME IN, CONTINUE TO INVEST IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WE HAVE GROWN TO LOVE. 
          I KNOW THAT THIS OPTION WILL NOT BE AS LUCRATIVE TO THE APPLICANT AND WHAT THEY MAY HAVE DESIRED, BUT RESPECTFULLY, THEIR OVERSIGHT AND RELIANCE ON A GLITCH WHEN PLANNING THEIR INVESTMENT SHOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A REASON TO REZONE THIS LOT OF LAND. 
          AGAIN, WE ASK THE COMMITTEE TO DENY THIS PROPOSED REZONING THAT ARE ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE ON YOUR AGENDA TONIGHT AS IT DOESN'T PROMOTE RESIDENT OWNERSHIP, AFFORDABILITY, OR ALIGN WITH THE NEEDS OF THE EAST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD IN ANY WAY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND YOUR TIME AND YOUR ALLOWANCE FOR US TO BE HEARD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ANGELA GARZA. 
          ANGELA WILL BE RECEIVING ONE MINUTE OF DONATED TIME FROM TREVOR BO. 
          TREVOR, ARE YOU PRESENT? ANGELA, YOU WILL HAVE FOUR MINUTES COMMISSIONERS. 
          AND ONE THING I'M EXCITED ABOUT THIS IS, UM, I AM THE INTERIM, UH, SAUNA PRESIDENT, UM, RIGHT NOW ACTING PRESIDENT IN THE AREA. 
          I HAVE NEVER SEEN SO MUCH ENGAGEMENT, AMAZING ENGAGEMENT OF ALL SORTS OF NEIGHBORS IN THIS AREA. 
          I IT WAS EQUIVALENT TO A WEST AUSTIN MEETING, I'M GONNA TELL YOU THAT. 
          AND I WAS BLOWN AWAY BY HOW MUCH ENGAGEMENT THAT WAS ACTUALLY INVOLVED HERE. 
          WHAT THESE NEIGHBORS DID WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND WHEN THEY FOUND OUT NOTIFICATIONS WERE NOT BEING RECEIVED. 
          THEY WENT OUT THERE, PAID THEIR OWN MONEY FOR THOSE NOTIFICATIONS AND WENT OUT THERE TO SIMPLIFY TERMS TO ENGAGE THE SPANISH GROUP AS WELL IN A SAFE ENVIRONMENT, ALL GENDERS, ALL UM, FOLKS IN THAT AREA WHO WANTED TO BE PART OF THAT, CHURCH LEADERS, ET CETERA. 
          UM, OUT THERE IN THE EVENING TO BE PART OF THE MEETING AS WELL, TO COMPREHEND AND UNDERSTAND HOW THEY WERE GONNA COME UP WITH A UNITED DECISION. 
          I'VE NEVER SEEN SOMETHING SO DEMOCRACY DONE IN THIS AREA TO INCLUDE ALL VOICES THAT WANTED TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS AREA. 
          AND I'VE BEEN IN NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERSHIP FOR A 
          [01:20:01]
VERY LONG TIME, HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING TO THIS CAPACITY OF WHAT THESE NEIGHBORS HAVE DONE, AND I JUST WANNA COMMEND THEM FOR ALL THE WORK, ALL GENDERS, ALL CULTURES INVOLVED. 
          UM, THE ACTUAL, UM, NATIVES THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE, UM, THE VALDEZ FAMILY IS THE BIGGEST, UM, STAKEHOLDER OF THAT STREET AS WELL TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE INVOLVED AND THEY WERE HOSTING A MEETING FOR ALL THE NEIGHBORS AS WELL INTO THE NIGHT HOURS SO THAT WE COULD FINALLY MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY WAS GETTING THE COMMUNICATION AND UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS ABOUT TO HAPPEN ONCE WE CLEARED UP THAT MISHAP AS WELL. 
          SO CAN I JUST PLEASE COMMEND THEM FROM A NATIVE OF AUSTIN, TEXAS? I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS KIND OF ENGAGEMENT AND THIS MUCH WORK. 
          GO INTO SOMETHING TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERY VOICE WHO WANTED TO BE INCLUDED BE ON THE TABLE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS OMAR. 
          AVI OMAR WILL BE RECEIVING ONE MINUTE OF DONATED TIME FROM MATTHEW WONG. 
          MATTHEW, ARE YOU PRESENT? OMAR, YOU WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          ALL RIGHT, I'M GONNA TRY TO BE QUICK. 
          SO I'M A HOMEOWNER ON GUNTER STREET. 
          I LIVE A FEW, UH, PLOTS DOWN FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS OF BEING AN OWNER OCCUPANT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THE NUMBER OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS HAS, UH, WORSENED AND NOT IMPROVED WITH ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S HAPPENED. 
          UM, AND AS SUCH, THE THE REQUEST FOR THE UP ZONE IS, UH, PERPLEXING AND UH, FRANKLY JUST KIND OF IDIOTIC. 
          SO WE'VE HAD OVER TWO DOZEN CARS THAT HAVE BEEN HIT IN THE PAST TWO YEARS ALONE. 
          UH, TWO OF OUR VEHICLES PERSONALLY HAVE BEEN TOTALED. 
          AND SO DESPITE THE DISMISSIVENESS OF THE TRAFFIC ISSUE, UH, THERE IS A CAR THAT CAME THROUGH OUR FENCE AND INTO THE SIDING OF OUR HOUSE, WHICH IS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS A TRAFFIC PROBLEM IN CASE YOU NEEDED TO HEAR IT. 
          UH, THE OTHER THING THAT IS WORTH TALKING ABOUT IS THE CONTEXT ABOUT OUR COMMUNICATION WITH THE DEVELOPERS. 
          AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT INITIALLY WE RECEIVED LETTERS STATING THAT THE PROPERTY ADDRESS WAS JUST ON ABAE CIRCLE AND THAT'S WHAT WAS SENT TO ALL THE HOMEOWNERS ON GUNTER. 
          ON THE FLIP SIDE, THE HOMEOWNERS ON ABATE CIRCLE WERE GETTING LETTERS THAT JUST HAD THE GUNTER STREET ADDRESS. 
          WE CAN, UH, PROVIDE THESE LETTERS. 
          WE HAVE THEM PHYSICALLY IN OUR HOUSES, SO IF ANYONE NEEDS TO SEE THEM, WE CAN. 
          UH, AFTER MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPERS, WHICH ONLY HAPPENED ONCE, WE HAD A LIST OF REQUESTS THAT WE HAD OUTLAID JUST LIKE ASKING FOR PROVISIONS TO NOT, UH, ALLOW FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNITS, FOR EXAMPLE. 
          UH, THAT WAS COMPLETELY NOT ADDRESSED. 
          AND THE QUOTE UNQUOTE LARGE CHANGES THAT THEY CLAIM THAT THEY HAD MADE IN THE SITE PLAN WERE NOT LARGE CHANGES AT ALL. 
          IT WAS QUITE LITERALLY EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE TOLD DURING THE MEETING. 
          AND SO, UH, IT MADE MY HEAD HURT TO THE POINT OF WANTING TO CRY THAT THIS WAS TRYING TO BE SOLD TO US. 
          AS, YOU KNOW, SOME KIND OF BIG CHANGE WHEN QUITE LITERALLY IT WAS 47 UNITS, I THINK THAT WAS PROPOSED. 
          AND SO THE CAP AT 50, UH, DIDN'T REALLY DO MUCH TO CHANGE ANYTHING. 
          UM, THE OTHER THING I JUST IN CLOSING, I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE EVERYONE HERE TO GO AND DO IS IF YOU DON'T LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, I WOULD JUST GO DRIVE DOWN GUNTER STREET AND DRIVE UP AND DOWN MUNSON STREET BECAUSE WE WERE ALL TAUGHT TO READ GRAPHS AND MAPS IN SCHOOL IN HIGH SCHOOL, RIGHT? AND SO IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY, THOSE ARE TWO VERY SMALL STREETS THAT FORM A T THAT KIND OF V OFF BETWEEN OAK SPRING AND UH, AIRPORT BOULEVARD, RIGHT? UM, THOSE STREETS INDEPENDENT OF THEMSELVES CANNOT TOLERATE THE AMOUNT OF VEHICLES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND SO YOU HEAR AIRPORT BOULEVARD, YOU HEAR OAK SPRING BEING THROWN AROUND. 
          THIS DEVELOPMENT IS NOT ON AIRPORT BOULEVARD. 
          IT'S NOT ON OAK SPRING. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          SO THANKS. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MYRA, IRA KENNY. 
          MYRA WILL BE RECEIVING ONE MINUTE OF DONATED TIME FROM MATTHEW KENNY. 
          MATTHEW, ARE YOU PRESENT? OH, HE TO GO BECAUSE 2-YEAR-OLD I HAVE A PRESENTATION, SO SINCE, UM, BUT I, I SAW SOME PEOPLE LIKE, YOU KNOW, THAT GOT A LOT OF TIME EVEN WHEN THE THING WENT OFF. 
          SO I HOPE THAT, UM, WE CONSIDER THAT HE WAS HERE AND MY KIDS WERE HERE TOO. 
          UM, SO MY NAME IS MARIA KENNY. 
          UM, I LIVE ON, UM, MUNSON STREET AND I BROUGHT SOME PICTURES FOR THOSE OF US THAT DO NOT, 'CAUSE I JUST WANTED TO ASK TOO, RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU HAVE BEEN ON GUNTER STREET AND MAY AND MANSON. 
          OKAY. 
          COUNTRY STREET AND, UM, UM, OAK SPRINGS. 
          OKAY, WELL THIS IS MY DAUGHTER, TWO YEARS OLD, AND SO I AM LIKE, UM, ACROSS, UM, SO THAT BACKYARD YOU SEE BY THAT TRUCK BACKS UP INTO THE, UM, PROPOSED PRE ZONING PROJECT. 
          UM, AND THERE'S ONLY SIDEWALKS ON ONE SIDE. 
          SO I, THERE WERE SOME, UM, THE PERSON THAT WAS DESCRIBING THE ITEMS, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THEY WERE VERY 
          [01:25:01]
DECEIVING AND INACCURATE. 
          THEY SAID THAT THEY WERE, UM, CYCLING LIKE IT WAS PROGESTERONE FRIENDLY AND, AND CYCLING FRIENDLY. 
          OKAY. 
          THERE ARE CYCLE, UM, PROTECTIVE CYCLING LANES ON, UM, NOT ON AIRPORT, ONLY ON SPRINGDALE AND UM, OAK SPRINGS, BUT THERE ARE NO PROTECTED, PROTECTED BIKE LANES ON THERE. 
          OKAY, WELL THIS IS WHERE I LIVE. 
          YOU COULD SEE HOW IT'S REALLY CROWDED. 
          THAT'S OMAR'S HOUSE RIGHT THERE. 
          AND YES, I WAS HOME WHENEVER I HEARD THAT CAR CRASH INTO HIS FENCE. 
          IT COULD HAVE KILLED HIM OR MY KID THAT WALKS DOWN THE STREET. 
          UM, SO WE WANTED, I WANTED TO SKIP AHEAD. 
          UM, YEAH, IT WAS LIKE THERE'S ALL THESE SITES LIKE, UM, LIKE GOLF COURSES ON THE EAST SIDE THAT MAKE MY, I DON'T KNOW WHY Y'ALL DON'T SACRIFICE OR, SO THOSE, BECAUSE, UM, OUR PEOPLE, UM, THAT LIVE THERE, UM, UH, DON'T EVEN USE 'EM. 
          AND THIS IS A CUL-DE-SAC THAT, UM, JULIE AND THE OTHER LADIES LIVE ON AND WHERE YOU SEE THAT, UH, SO YEAH, UH, AND THAT'S WHERE EVERYBODY WOULD ENTER OR EXIT OR FROM GUNTER, BOTH VERY NARROW STREETS. 
          UM, AND SO I WANNA FINALIZE WITH SAYING THAT, UM, IF, UM, SOMETHING OF REZONING HAPPENS, IF SOMEWHERE WE MEET IN THE MIDDLE, WE HIGHLY, UM, WOULD ENCOURAGE OUR PROPOSED, UM, SPEED BUMPS AND UM, AND SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES. 
          UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO, I JUST ALSO WANTED TO TELL THE LADY THAT WHEN SHE SAID THAT THIS WOULD NOT, UM, INTERFERE WITH THE RESIDENTS' LIFE LIVES, I, I HONESTLY SAY I WASN'T CELEBRATE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          PLEASE. 
          THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SPEAK TO EACH OTHER, RIGHT? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OUR NEXT THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS NICHOLAS THATCHER. 
          NICHOLAS, YOU'LL HAVE ONE MINUTE. 
          I DON'T SEE HIM HERE. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MIRANDA CURRY. 
          MIRANDA, YOU WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE. 
          MOVING ON. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS NADIA, BARB, NADIA, YOU'LL HAVE ONE MINUTE, I APOLOGIZE. 
          HELLO COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, MY NAME IS NADIA BARBO. 
          I AM A, UH, CO-CHAIR OF THE LK CONTACT TEAM. 
          UM, UH, OUR CONTACT TEAM HAS MET, UM, A FEW TIMES WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND UH, ONCE WITH THE, UH, DEVELOPER. 
          UM, SO I'M JUST HERE TO PRESENT THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING. 
          UM, UH, THE NEIGHBORS HAVE, UH, CONVEYED TO US THAT THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED, UM, AND WOULD BE A SAFETY RISK FOR DRIVERS. 
          AND I THINK CYCLISTS HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT. 
          I THINK THE PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT SAID THAT CYCLISTS ARE HO HOPEFULLY MORE CYCLISTS WOULD COME, BUT I'M NOT SURE HOW SAFE THAT COULD BE WITH THE AMOUNT OF, UH, CAR TRAFFIC. 
          UM, THAT ALREADY SEEMS TO BE HAPPENING IN, UH, CAUSING WRECKS ON THIS STREET. 
          UM, THEY ALSO LET US KNOW ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE AND WATER PRESSURE AND FIRE SAFETY ACCESS TO THE, FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES BEING A CONCERN HERE. 
          UM, I THINK IT'S BEEN COVERED THAT THEY'RE INTERESTED IN, IN BETWEEN. 
          I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD THIS AREA HAS HAD A LOT OF ADDITIONAL HOUSING BUILT IN IT AND I THINK WE MIGHT BE THE CONTACT TEAM WITH THE MOST ZONING CASES TONIGHT. 
          SO I'D LIKE THAT TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS CHAIR. 
          THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL. 
          MSM, SORRY, I WAS BEING ASKED A QUESTION. 
          UM, I DO WANNA SAY WE MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS MORE THAN ONE TIME. 
          WE MET WITH THEM A FEW TIMES AND HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION BY EMAIL AS WELL, SO I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP. 
          UM, I REALLY WANNA JUST ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. 
          I MEAN, I FEEL LIKE IF YOU CAN'T PUT 50 UNITS, WHICH TO ME FEELS LIKE A MODEST NUMBER ON A SITE LIKE THIS, I'M NOT SURE WHERE YOU CAN PUT IT. 
          UM, AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT FOR THIS BODY TO CONSIDER, BUT I DID HEAR A LOT OF BAD INFORMATION ABOUT EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY. 
          WHAT WE HEARD FROM THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR MEETINGS WITH THEM WAS THAT THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO WERE BEING PRICED OUT AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPED. 
          AND SO WE WERE TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO WORK WITH A REPUTABLE NONPROFIT THAT DOES THE WORK THAT HELPS PEOPLE STAY IN THEIR HOMES. 
          THAT'S HOW WE ARRIVED AT WORKING WITH EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY. 
          AS YOU GUYS KNOW, THEY HELP PEOPLE PAY THEIR TAXES, DO REPAIRS TO THEIR HOMES, ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU NEED TO DO TO BE ABLE TO STAY IN YOUR RESIDENCE. 
          AND IT IS NOT A FACT THAT THOSE FUNDS CANNOT BE EARMARKED FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          WE SPECIFICALLY HAVE HAD THAT DISCUSSION WITH EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY AND THEY CAN BE, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THOSE FACTS WERE ACCURATE AND 
          [01:30:01]
WERE ON THE TABLE. 
          UM, AGAIN, WE THINK THAT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE SITE. 
          WE WOULD LOVE TO DO MORE UNITS, BUT WE THINK THAT 50 REALLY IS A MODEST NUMBER. 
          WE FEEL LIKE THE REDUCTION TO SF SIX ON THE PIECE THAT'S ADJACENT TO ABATE CIRCLE, UM, MAKES IT EVEN MORE CONSIDERATE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          SO WE REALLY WOULD APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION'S SUPPORT. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          BELIEVE THAT IS ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS THIS EVENING. 
          UM, SO A LITTLE BIT OF A PLOT TWIST FROM LAW. 
          UM, I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT PER OUR AGENDA, THE ADDRESS ON THE AGENDA IS INCORRECT. 
          UM, IT STATES, IT IDENTIFIES THE PROPERTY AS 1 1 4 3 GUNTER STREET AND SHOULD READ 1 1 4, 3 AND THREE QUARTERS GUNTER. 
          SO, UM, THE NOTICE IS CORRECT, SO IT'LL NOT NEED TO BE RENO. 
          UM, HOWEVER, WE CANNOT TAKE ACTION ON THIS THIS EVENING. 
          UM, SO, UM, MR. TOMKO, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT WAS CORRECT. 
          OKAY, MS. IF I MAY, IT'S REALLY A BIG DEAL FOR US, , THAT THAT IS IN ERROR. 
          AND I WILL SAY THAT WHEN STAFF ASK TO ADD THOSE ADDRESSES TO THE NOTICE, THEY AREN'T ADDRESSES THAT EVEN SHOW UP IN THE TAX RECORDS, WHICH IS WHAT THE CITY TYPICALLY USES TO, UM, FOR NOTIFICATION TO OTHER PROPERTIES. 
          THOSE ADDRESSES DON'T EXIST. 
          THE ONES THAT ARE IN THE RECORD ARE THE ONES THAT EXIST. 
          SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE CITY ATTORNEYS WHO TAKE, MAKE CONSERVATIVE RULINGS ON THINGS, BUT THIS IS ONE THAT I ACTUALLY THINK IS JUST WRONG. 
          I THINK THE COMMISSION COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CASE TONIGHT. 
          WE HOPE THAT THE COMMISSION WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CASE TONIGHT. 
          WE, WE CANNOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CASE TONIGHT. 
          STAFF DISAGREES. 
          THE 1143 ADDRESS IS NOT WITHIN THE, THE TRACT BEING REZONED. 
          AND SO IT NEEDS TO BE 1143 AND THREE QUARTERS TO BE WITHIN THE SUBJECT TRACK. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, CHAIR, SO, UM, CHAIR, CAN I ASK YES, VICE CHAIR, UM, JUST A QUESTION FOR STAFF, WE WOULD BE POSTPONING TO DATE CERTAIN CORRECT CHAIR IN THAT CASE? THAT IS CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          MS. DECEMBER 10TH, UH, CHAIR, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE GIVEN THAT WE HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE HERE TONIGHT TO GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH OUR Q AND A AT LEAST AND LAW HAS ADVISED US TO NOT TAKE ANY MORE ACTION, NO Q AND A ON THIS TONIGHT, SO EVERYONE'S GONNA HAVE TO COME BACK. 
          IT, IT'S NOT WHAT I WOULD PREFER TO DO, BUT WE CANNOT WHERE OUR HANDS ARE TIED. 
          COMMISSIONERS. 
          AGAIN, I HAVE FIERCE OPPOSITION TO THIS CITY ATTORNEY DECISION, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU GUYS HAVE TO FOLLOW IT 'CAUSE THEY'RE ADVISING YOU. 
          BUT WE WOULD ASK THAT EVEN THOUGH I KNOW IT'S A CONSENT ONLY MEETING, IF WE CAN, UM, HAVE IT COME BACK IN NOVEMBER 21ST, I GUESS IS THAT DATE THAT WOULD BE PREFERABLE? WE ARE SCHEDULED TO BE AT CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER, WHATEVER THE LAST DECEMBER MEETING IS DECEMBER 12TH. 
          I THINK OUR NEXT MEETING IS NEXT TUESDAY THE 19TH. 
          AND SO I THINK IT WOULD JUST, IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO RE NOTIFY, I THINK YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TIME TO, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF GETTING THE AGENDA CORRECT. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S CORRECT. 
          RIGHT. 
          NOVEMBER 19TH, I JUST WANTED TO CORRECT THAT THIS CASE HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED FOR COUNSEL AND HAS NOT BEEN SCHEDULED FOR COUNSEL AT THIS TIME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO, UM, MAY I JUST ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS HAD A QUESTION? SORRY. 
          UM, SORRY, SITUATION. 
          YEAH. 
          SINCE THIS IS AN UNUSUAL SITUATION, UNLESS THERE IS OBJECTION SIR. 
          IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. 
          MY QUESTION IS, WHAT WERE YOU GOING TO SAY , JUST WAIT AND FIND OUT. 
          NO, I'M JUST KIDDING. 
          UM, I WAS, UH, JUST GONNA ASK IF THIS DOES GET MOVED. 
          SORRY, I FORGOT. 
          YOU CAN MOVE THESE THINGS. 
          UM, IF THIS DOES GET MOVED, WOULD WE ALL HAVE TO REREGISTER TO SPEAK AGAIN? YES, SIR. 
          TO BE CLEAR, YOU WILL HAVE TO DO THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WE'RE FINE WITH IT. 
          UH, JUST 'CAUSE THIS IS PERSONALLY KIND OF FUN FOR ME, BUT, UM, DESPITE ALL THE STRESS AND LIKE FINANCIAL ANXIETY IN THIS ROOM, THIS IS KIND OF A GOOD TIME, TIME. 
          BUT UM, YEAH, WE'RE, WE'RE FINE WITH IT. 
          WE WOULD JUST, UH, 
          [01:35:01]
ASK, UH, THAT THEY GET THEIR ADDRESSES RIGHT. 
          'CAUSE THIS IS LIKE THE THIRD TIME THAT THEY'VE MESSED THEM UP, IT SEEMS. UM, THANK YOU. 
          AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION RELATED WOULD BE WHEN YOU'RE REGISTERING TO SPEAK, IS THERE AN ORDER, UH, THAT MATTERS FOR HOW MUCH TIME YOU GET? BECAUSE THE EMAIL THAT I'D RECEIVED BEFOREHAND HAD SAID THAT I WAS GONNA HAVE SIX MINUTES AND SO MY HEART RATE REALLY INCREASED WHEN YOU SAID I ONLY HAD TWO. 
          UM, SO YES, IF YOU'LL GET WITH MS. GARCIA ABOUT THAT, IT, IT'S A LITTLE TRICKY, UH, WITH DONATING TIME ON HOW THAT, ON HOW THAT WORKS. 
          BUT, UM, UM, SO, SO YES SIR, WE DO ASK, UH, THAT ESSENTIALLY OUR RULES SAY THAT, UH, IF COLLECTIVELY Y'ALL CAN DECIDE WHO IS THE PRIMARY SPEAKER AND THEY GET FIVE MINUTES AND THEN EVERYBODY AFTER THAT, ESSENTIALLY THREE PEOPLE GET THREE MINUTES AND ONE MINUTE AFTER THAT. 
          AND IT'S BASED ON ESSENTIALLY THE ORDER IN WHICH YOU SIGN UP. 
          UM, BUT FOLKS CAN STILL, OF COURSE, WHATEVER TIME IS ALLOTTED TO THEM, THEY CAN DONATE IT. 
          OKAY, COOL. 
          UM, IN CONSIDERATION ON THIS MATTER, I WOULD ALSO JUST ASK YOU GUYS TO REMEMBER THAT WE'RE NOT BEING PAID TO BE HERE AND THE ATTORNEY IS. 
          SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND. 
          THANKS, UH, CHAIR, JUST MAYBE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION THAT WHILE WE WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO HEAR FROM EVERYONE AGAIN, IT, WE WILL CERTAINLY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IN A FUTURE HEARING OF THIS CASE, EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT TOO, AND I DON'T WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE TO COME BACK AND MAKE ACCOMMODATIONS, UM, A SECOND TIME IF THEY DON'T WANT TO OR IF THEY CAN'T. 
          YES. 
          YES. 
          UM, GERALD, GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE THIS ITEM DUE NOVEMBER 19TH, OUR NOVEMBER 19TH MEETING AT 5:00 PM AND THEN I CAN SPEAK TO IT IN A SECOND. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES? NO, UM, BOTH ITEMS? BOTH. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          YES. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. 
          NUMBER FOUR, FIVE BEFORE, I'M NOT A SECOND WAIT, SO YOU'RE NOT THE SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. 
          UM, THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          I'LL JUST GO SPEAK QUICKLY TO IT. 
          WE KNOW THAT IT IS A CONSENT AGENDA, SO, UM, SINCE THAT IS THE WISH OF THE APPLICANT WILL GO WITH IT BECAUSE IT IS SORT OF AN UNUSUAL SCENARIO HERE WITH THE CAVEAT THAT HONESTLY, IF THIS CANNOT BE MANAGED WITHIN A CONSENT ITEM, THEN IT WILL BE CONSENT POSTPONED TO THE DECEMBER 10TH MEETING. 
          BUT FOR NOW, WE WILL CONSIDER THAT REQUEST AND GO WITH THE UM, NOVEMBER 19TH MEETING. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          ALRIGHT, ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST THE POST THE POSTPONEMENT SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? SO I WAS, I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT COMMISSIONER AZAR SAID. 
          UM, COULD YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT, I I MISSED PART OF WHAT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT THE POSTPONEMENT DECEMBER, I MEAN, NOT TO THE 19TH OR THE DECEMBER 10TH. 
          COULD YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THAT, PLEASE? SURE, COMMISSIONER, WE WOULD BE AT THIS POINT, UM, POSTPONING TO NOVEMBER 19TH, BUT OUR NOVEMBER 19TH MEETING IS A CONSENT ONLY MEETING, SO WE CANNOT HAVE A LARGE DISCUSSION CASE. 
          IT IS THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. 
          IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS MANAGED, THEN WE'LL MOVE AHEAD AT THE NEXT MEETING. 
          HOWEVER, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT NEEDS TO BE A FULL DISCUSSION CASE, THEN WE WILL LIKELY HAVE TO AUTOMATICALLY POSTPONE TO DECEMBER 10TH AGAIN AT THE WILL OF THE BODY. 
          AND, AND THEN HOW WILL WE KNOW, UH, IF IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER? UM, I HEAR SOME OF THE PEOPLE HERE TODAY SAYING THAT WE WON'T UNTIL THAT MEETING, THEY WOULD WANT IT TO BE A FULL DISCUSSION. 
          WE WON'T UNTIL THAT MEETING. 
          OKAY. 
          MM-HMM, , SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT. 
          YOU HAD PAUSED SO I THOUGHT YOU WERE, YOU HAD FINISHED I'LL. 
          SO I THINK TO THAT POINT WE WOULD BE DOING NOVEMBER 19TH. 
          I WILL SAY, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN STAFF REACHES OUT TO US, AND THIS IS, I GUESS IT'S KIND OF UNUSUAL. 
          I'M, I'M HAPPY TO, I KNOW A LOT OF THE FOLKS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, I'VE WORKED WITH THEM BEFORE, I CAN ESSENTIALLY REACH OUT TO THEM. 
          NO, BUT AS YOU KNOW, WE, WE DON'T GET OUR AGENDA AND KNOW FULLY THE DISPOSITION OF ITEMS UNTIL FRIDAY AS WELL. 
          BUT WE'LL MAKE SURE, I'LL PERSONALLY MAKE SURE THIS IS NOT A STAFF DUTY, BUT I'LL PERSONALLY MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMUNITY IS AWARE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THAT. 
          YEAH, BECAUSE MY CONCERN IS THAT THEY SHOWED UP TONIGHT AND THEN THIS HAPPENED AND BY NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, AND THEN THEY'LL HAVE TO SHOW UP AGAIN NOVEMBER 19TH AND THEN POSSIBLY DECEMBER 10TH. 
          SO TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN MAYBE GIVE THEM MORE CERTAINTY AND MORE CONSIDERATION, UH, AS THEY SAID, THEY'RE NOT BEING PAID TO BE HERE AND IT'S HARD FOR PEOPLE IN THEIR DAILY LIVES TO COME TO A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 
          AND WE, I I JUST WANNA BE A LITTLE BIT MORE EMPATHETIC IN THAT REGARD. 
          IF, IF IT, IF WE CAN BE YES, UNDERSTOOD. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THE POSTPONEMENT, MADAM CHAIR, I'LL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND SPEAK AGAINST IT. 
          UM, UH, I'M, I'M IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING IT, BUT, UH, I I WOULD JUST SAY WE 
          [01:40:01]
POSTPONE IT STRAIGHT TO THE 10TH. 
          UM, AND I'LL JUST BE AS FRANK AS I CAN. 
          THERE WILL, THERE WILL BE AN, AN, AN EFFORT ON THE NEXT TUESDAY ON THE 19TH TO POSTPONE IT TO THE 10TH. 
          SO, UM, I JUST GOTTA, I I DON'T WANT TO, I DON'T WANNA, DID YOU WANNA PROPOSE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION? GREAT IDEA. 
          UH, DO WE, DO WE HAVE A SEC? OH, I WILL, YES. 
          I'LL PROPOSE A SUBSTITUTE THEN TO POSTPONE THIS TO DECEMBER THE 10TH MEETING. 
          THANK YOU FOR A SECOND. 
          COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS IS A SECOND ON THAT. 
          DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT ANYMORE? COMMISSIONER HAYNES? JUST THAT, UM, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK I PROBABLY KNOW HOW THIS IS GONNA GO, BUT THIS IS NOT A CONSENT ITEM. 
          THIS IS A, THIS IS A HEARING ITEM AND, AND SO I, I WOULD SAY LET'S JUST PUT IT ON THE 10TH AND GO FROM THE 10TH. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST THE POSTPONEMENT, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, FOR THOSE WHO MAY NOT BE AWARE OF, WE'RE IN THAT TIME OF THE YEAR WHERE EVERYTHING GETS COMPLICATED. 
          A, BECAUSE IT'S THE END OF THE YEAR AND B, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF MEETINGS AND UNFORTUNATELY GIVEN THAT WE HAVE A NEW COUNCIL COMING OR SOME NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS COMING IN IN JANUARY, THE FIRST COUNCIL MEETING IS ACTUALLY NOT UNTIL JANUARY 25TH. 
          UM, I WAS INFORMED EARLIER TODAY BY THE APPLICANT THAT THEIR SITE PLAN WILL BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE AT THAT POINT. 
          SO THEY UNFORTUNATELY HAVE A VERY HARD DEADLINE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. 
          SO I THINK IF IT IS AT ALL POSSIBLE, WE SHOULD TRY TO ACCOMMODATE THEM FIRST FULLY UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEXITIES OF THIS CASE. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT I WOULD BE NOT SUPPORTING, GOING STRAIGHT TO THE 10TH. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? SO I JUST WANNA SAY THAT CITY STAFF IS ALREADY INFORMED US THAT THIS ITEM IS NOT EVEN SCHEDULED FOR COUNSEL YET. 
          SO IT'S NOT ON THEIR AGENDA AND WE DON'T KNOW WHEN IT'S GOING TO BE. 
          SECONDLY, I WANNA SAY THAT I UNDERSTAND GIVING CONSIDERATION TO THE APPLICANT, BUT WE ALSO NEED TO GIVE EQUAL CONSIDERATION TO THE PEOPLE WHO SHOWED UP HERE THIS EVENING, AND BY NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, THIS COULD NOT GO FORWARD. 
          AND SO WE, WE TEND TO LEAN INTO WHAT DEVELOPERS WANT AND APPLICANTS WANT AND WE DON'T GIVE EQUAL CONSIDERATION TO THE PEOPLE WHO SHOW UP AND DO THE WORK. 
          AND I AM NOT, YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I THINK THIS IS A VERY REASONABLE PROPOSAL IN MY MIND, 50 UNITS IN THAT SPACE. 
          BUT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT DISENFRANCHISES THE, UH, HOMEOWNERS AND THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          RIGHT. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? I'LL SPEAK BRIEFLY AGAINST, I, YOU KNOW, WE WERE SET TO HEAR THIS CASE TONIGHT AND TAKE AN ACTION AND VOTE ON IT. 
          AND I THINK THAT, UH, I RECOGNIZE MISTAKES HAPPEN, BUT I THINK THAT WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY GIVEN THAT THE MISTAKE HAPPENED TO AT LEAST GIVE THE APPLICANT CONSIDERATION AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME. 
          AND OUR NEXT MEETING IS NEXT TUESDAY, SO I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULDN'T AT LEAST MAKE, MAKE THAT, UH, CONSIDER THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          LAST SPOT FOR OR AGAINST THE POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 10TH. 
          OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. 
          THIS IS EVERYONE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING THIS ITEM TO DECEMBER 10TH. 
          3, 4, 5. 
          OKAY. 
          AND AGAINST 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 
          CAN YOU SHARE WITH HOW DID YOU VOTE? ABSTAIN. 
          OKAY, ABSTAIN. 
          ALRIGHT, THAT IS FIVE TO SIX TO ONE. 
          DID I GET THAT COUNT RIGHT? OKAY. 
          THAT MOTION FAILS. 
          SO WE'LL GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL, THAT WAS, UM, NOVEMBER 19TH, UM, SECOND BY, UH, IS MADE BY VICE CHAIR IS OUR SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. 
          ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THE POSTPONEMENT TO NEXT WEEK'S TUESDAY MEETING CHAIR? YES, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          SUPER, SUPER BRIEF. 
          THIS IS TWO WEEKS, TWO MEETINGS IN A ROW WHERE WE'VE HAD SUCH A CLERICAL ISSUE, SO WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO ENCOURAGE STAFF TO LET THIS BE THE LAST TIME WOULD BE REALLY TERRIFIC. 
          THANKS. 
          YES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SPEAKERS FOUR ARE AGAINST, LET'S GO TO A VOTE. 
          THIS IS FOR POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 19TH. 
          ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 10 AGAINST ONE, TWO. 
          THAT MOTION PASSES 10 TO TWO WITH COMMISSIONER HAYNES AND PHILLIPS VOTING NAY. 
          ALRIGHT, SO, UM, VICE CHAIR, 
          [01:45:01]
CHAIR, I JUST WANNA MAKE A QUICK COMMENT. 
          ONE, DO THANK THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO ARE HERE. 
          UM, I KNOW WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO OUR, OUR OTHER ITEM. 
          UM, AND I DID, I WILL CONTACT WITH NOT MS. NADIA BARBO, BUT I'LL STEP OUTSIDE FOR A SECOND AS WELL. 
          IF FOLKS WANNA SHARE THE CONTACT INFORMATION, WE'LL MAKE SURE FROM THE COMMISSION SIDE WE'RE CLEAR ON THE, WHEN THIS ITEM WILL BE UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          UM, THAT SORT OF A SORT OF A PERSONAL COMMITMENT. 
          AND ALSO JUST A THANK YOU TO OUR STAFF AND EVERYBODY AND APPLICANT WE'RE WORKING IN REALLY DIFFICULT SITUATIONS AND THESE TIMELINES ARE HARD AND WE'RE SORT OF WORKING ALL TOGETHER. 
          SO I JUST WANNA APPRECIATE EVERYBODY FOR THEIR PATIENCE. 
          THANK YOU VICE CHAIR. 
          UM, MOVING ON 
          [Items 6 & 7]
TO ITEMS NUMBER SIX AND SEVEN. 
          UM, THIS IS ANOTHER CASE JUST TO WARN EVERYBODY. 
          WE'RE GOING TO HANDLE LIKE WE DID WITH ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE WHERE WE'LL HEAR FROM THE CITY FROM THE APPLICANT AND OUR SPEAKERS SIGNED UP FOR AND AGAINST. 
          UM, HOWEVER, THERE IS, UM, AN ISSUE THAT THIS WAS NOTIFIED FOR 125 FEET IN HEIGHT AND THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING FOR 250 FEET AND IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL NEED TO BE RE NOTIFIED AND MS. HARDEN OR SOMEBODY, IF I MISSPOKE ON ANY OF THAT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. 
          BUT I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER. 
          UM, SO THIS ITEM DOES NOT NEED TO BE REIFIED. 
          HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT DID AMEND THEIR REQUEST ON MAY THE FIFTH. 
          AND THAT IS WHAT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON. 
          AND THAT IS WHAT THE LAW DEPARTMENT SAYS. 
          IT'S THE UPPER LEVEL OF WHAT CAN BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION TONIGHT, WHICH WOULD BE A REQUEST FOR 120 FEET IN HEIGHT AND A 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE LIMITATION, WHICH ARE WHAT WAS AMENDED FROM THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD BE HEARING TONIGHT IF WE HEARD THE CASE IS, AND THAT'S WHAT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON. 
          IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE APPLICANT WANTS TO ASK FOR THE ORIGINAL 250 FEET IN HEIGHT, WHICH WAS THEIR ORIGINAL APPLICATION, HOWEVER IT WAS AMENDED. 
          AND THAT IS WHAT IS IN YOUR BACKUP IN EXHIBIT D. 
          SO, SO THIS WILL NOT NEED TO BE RE NOTED. 
          NO, BUT WE WILL HAVE, WE WILL HEAR FROM THE SPEAKERS BUT IT'LL HAVE TO BE POSTPONED. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? WE DON'T HAVE TO POSTPONE IT. 
          IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION. 
          IF THEY WANT TO, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, IF THEY WANT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, THE ORIGINAL REQUEST, THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO AMEND THEIR CASE AGAIN AND WE WOULD HAVE TO BRING IT BACK. 
          SO YES, WE WOULD HAVE TO POSTPONE IT AND BRING IT BACK IN THAT CASE. 
          I UNDERSTAND. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT, WELL AND THAT'S CONFUSING . 
          UM, WE'LL FIRST HEAR FROM MADAM CHAIR. 
          YES. 
          PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. 
          SURE. 
          COULD WE MAKE THE MOTION TO POSTPONE NOW? WOULD THAT BE AN ORDER FOR ME TO JUST MAKE THAT MOTION TO POSTPONE TO A FUTURE MEETING SO THAT THE APPLICANT CAN DO WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO, UM, OR WHAT THEY NEED TO DO? I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM MS. GLASGOW, UM, ON THAT, BUT YES, THAT IS TOTALLY PART OF THE PROCESS. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANK YOU MS. GLASGOW? YEAH, MISSIONERS, UH, THANK YOU. 
          I'M ALICE GLASGOW REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. 
          UH, WE WERE HOPING TO BE HEARD TONIGHT AND UM, WE JUST OBVIOUSLY JUST FOUND OUT FROM STAFF, UH, THAT, UM, WHILE THE STAFF REPORT HAS MY ORIGINAL LETTER, SO FOR PD APPLICATIONS, WHEN YOU ARE APPLYING FOR THE PD COMBINING DISTRICT, THE, UH, THE APPLICATION ITSELF DOES NOT INDICATE WHAT IT IS THAT YOU ARE SEEKING AS FAR AS YOUR HEIGHT AND YOUR FLOAT AREA RATIO AND YOUR SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. 
          IT'S SUMMARIZED IN A LETTER. 
          SO WHAT, UH, STAFF IS SAYING THAT, UH, WHILE BOTH LETTERS, MY ORIGINAL LETTER WHERE THE HEIGHT WAS AT 250 FEET IS STILL IN THE BACK. 
          AND THE LETTER THAT IN WHICH I AMENDED THE TO ONE 20 IS ALSO IN THE BACKUP THAT I NEED TO SUBMIT A NEW LETTER, JUST BASICALLY RESUBMIT MY ORIGINAL LETTER SO THAT YOU CAN HEAR IT. 
          UH, WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, CONTACT TEAM. 
          THEY'RE HERE TONIGHT AND WE'RE HOPING THAT OUR WORKING ON COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND WE'VE DONE THAT. 
          WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT ON THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND WE'RE HOPING THAT AT LEAST WE CAN, UH, SHARE THAT WITH YOU TONIGHT. 
          YOU KNOW, UM, AT LEAST THAT INFORMATION. 
          AND REALLY THE REASON WE, UM, WE AMENDED APPLICATION ORIGINALLY FROM THE TWO 50 BECAUSE WHEN WE MET WITH STAFF, THEY SAID THEY COULD ONLY SUPPORT THE 120 FEET OF I BECAUSE THERE WERE, THERE WERE NO COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THE PDA. 
          HOWEVER, IN MEETING WITH COUNCIL MEMBER VELA, UH, COUNCIL FOR DISTRICT FOUR, HE TOLD US THAT, UH, HE, HE WAS, HE WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THE CHPA WITH A HEIGHT OF 250 FEET AS LONG AS WE WORKED WITH A WOODEN NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM AND HAD THEIR SUPPORT. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING TOWARDS. 
          AND UM, SO IF THE LAW DEPARTMENT SAYS WE NEED TO AMEND THE LETTER, IT 
          [01:50:01]
WOULD BE JUST RESUBMITTING THE NEW LETTER, BUT WE'RE HOPING THAT YOU CAN INDULGE US AND AT LEAST HAVE US GIVE A BRIEF PRE PRESENTATION. 
          SO IF YOU CHOOSE TO POSTPONE US TO THE 19TH IS YOUR CONSENT AGENDA THAT MAYBE WE CAN BE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IF WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT. 
          UM, YES. 
          SO I'LL WALK THROUGH THE TWO SCENARIOS. 
          SO WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW DIRECTION FROM LAW. 
          UM, WHAT WE WOULD BE LIMITED TO HEARING THIS EVENING, JUST SO EVERYONE IS CLEAR, IS THIS STAFF'S PRESENTATION. 
          WE'LL HEAR FROM YOU MS. GLASGOW, WE'LL HEAR FROM ANY SPEAKERS IN FAVOR, IN AN OPPOSITION WITH A REBUTTAL. 
          AND THEN JUST LIKE WITH THE LAST CASE, WE WOULD LIKELY I, WELL IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM THE LAST ONE, WE COULD GO INTO Q AND A. 
          HOWEVER, IF WE WANTED TO CONSIDER WHAT YOU'RE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING OF THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, THEN WE'LL HAVE TO POSTPONE IT REGARDLESS. 
          SO I THINK THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU, IS IT, IS IT VALUABLE TO GO THROUGH THAT ONLY TO POSTPONE IT AND DO THAT AGAIN AT THE NEXT MEETING? BECAUSE, UM, WE'LL WE'LL JUST GO THROUGH THE SAME THING WHERE WE'LL GO, WE'LL HEAR FROM SPEAKERS, WE'LL HEAR Q AND A FROM THE COMMISSIONERS AND THEN WE'LL BE ABLE TO DEBATE AND COME UP WITH A MOTION. 
          YEAH, THERE ARE ONLY TWO SPEAK. 
          UM, I'M THE ONLY SPEAKER FROM THE APPLICANT'S SIDE AND ONLY ONE SPEAKER FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM. 
          SO THERE SHOULD BE JUST TWO SPEAKERS. 
          WE WERE GONNA JUST SUMMARIZE THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND THEN OF COURSE, JUST SO YOU HEAR IT AND MAYBE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THAT MAYBE ON THE 19TH IT CAN BE A, A LOT OF, A LOT SIMPLER BECAUSE YOU WOULD'VE DELIBERATE SOMEWHAT OR ON NOT, MAYBE YOU'D BE SATISFIED WITH WHAT WE ARE BOTH SIDES ARE PRESENTING BECAUSE WE ARE, WE DO HAVE A COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT THAT, UH, WE WERE GOING TO SHARE WITH YOU. 
          YEAH, LET ME OPEN IT UP FOR A, A STRAW POLL FROM THE COMMISSION TO SEE, GET A, A TEMPERATURE CHECK ON WHERE COMMISSIONERS ARE FEELING WE SHOULD GO TONIGHT. 
          CHAIR. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          IT'S NEVER EASIER THE SECOND TIME AROUND, WE ALWAYS DO THE SAME AMOUNT OF SPEAKING. 
          YEAH. 
          AND QUESTIONING. 
          SO I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD JUST POSTPONE THIS AND MOVE ON. 
          WE HAVE SUCH A BUSY NIGHT. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          OTHER THOUGHTS? I KNOW COMMISSIONER HANEY, YOU WERE QUESTIONING ABOUT POSTPONING AND, AND I APPRECIATE YOU, UH, ALLOWING ME TO MAKE THAT QUESTION AND GUIDING ME TO LISTEN TO THE APPLICANT FIRST  YES. 
          CHAIR POINT OF INFORMATION. 
          IS THERE ANY WAY AROUND THIS TO GET THAT FULL HEIGHT TONIGHT? BECAUSE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DELAYING BUILDING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THIS IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE AND THIS IS CRAP. 
          CAN WE HELP THEM AT ALL? I TRUST MR. NELL, HE WAS ON MY BOARD. 
          I'M SORRY MR. NELL THE SECOND SPEAKER. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, WITH WOOD NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM. 
          CONTACT GROUP, MY GUY AGAIN. 
          IS THERE ANY WAY AROUND THIS? I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. 
          I'M, I'M LISTENING TO OUR CITY LEGAL. 
          SO MR. HAYES, WOULD YOU PLEASE I'M AN ATTORNEY. 
          YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO ASK FOR LEGAL. 
          YES, WE HAVE MASTER. 
          SO I GUESS THE ONLY POINT THAT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT IT DOES SEEM THAT IF WE HAD OUR DISCUSSION IN Q AND A THIS EVENING, THAT THEORETICALLY IF WE FELT COMFORTABLE AFTER THAT DISCUSSION, IT COULD END UP BEING A CONSENT AGENDA ITEM FOR THE NEXT MEETING. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? YES, I BELIEVE SO. 
          AND THAT MAYBE IT MIGHT BE WORTHWHILE TO DO THAT EFFORT NOW JUST SO THAT, AND IT WOULD ACTUALLY LIGHTEN OUR LOAD THEORETICALLY FOR A FUTURE MEETING DECEMBER 12TH, WHICH IS ALSO, IT SEEMS LIKE GOING TO BE QUITE BUSY. 
          OKAY. 
          OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH THOUGHTS? UM, CHAIR I WOULD AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          UM, I DON'T SEE WHY WE GO THROUGH THIS EXERCISE AND WE'RE, WE'RE BE DOING THE SAME THING NEXT TIME, SO I I TOTALLY AGREE WITH, WITH HIM. 
          OKAY, SO VICE CHAIR. 
          I'M SO SORRY MS. BARTH, THE, THE DISCUSSION, SO MY APOLOGIES FOLKS. 
          UM, I I WAS JUST GONNA ASK STAFF, THIS IS, THIS IS NOT A POSTING ERROR, THIS IS A NOTICE ERROR, CORRECT? NO. 
          OKAY, SO SORRY, MY APOLOGIES. 
          SO IT'S NOT A POSTING OR A NOTICE ERROR, IT'S ACTUALLY THE APPLICANT AMENDED THEIR REZONING REQUEST. 
          THAT'S WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND THE WHAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS THE 120 FEET AND THE CHANGE IN LOT MAXIMUM LOT SIZE. 
          UM, AND SO BY LAW, ACCORDING TO OUR LAW DEPARTMENT, I MEAN THAT'S ALL WE CAN CONSIDER THIS EVENING BECAUSE THEY FORMALLY AMENDED THEIR REQUEST. 
          IF THEY WANT TO GO BACK TO THEIR ORIGINAL APPLICATION, THEY'LL HAVE TO FORMALLY AMEN THE REQUEST A SECOND TIME. 
          AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE TONIGHT. 
          [01:55:01]
THE REASON WE HAD THESE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT WAS BECAUSE AS MS. GLASGOW STATED, WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND WE THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE BETTER AS A PUD APPLICATION. 
          MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION, THE REASON I ASKED THAT QUESTION WAS HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE FOR THE APPLICANT TO CORRECT THAT? WHEN THEY CAN GET ME A LETTER. 
          OKAY. 
          THEN WE'LL TURN IT AROUND. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          CHAIR GOING. 
          CAN SHE SEND IT RIGHT NOW?  UNFORTUNATELY SEND THE EMAIL, UNFORTUNATELY THE AMENDMENT LETTERS IN THE BACKUP AND THAT'S WHAT STANDS RIGHT NOW. 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, WELL LET'S COMMISSIONER HANEY, IF YOU WANNA MAKE THAT A, A MOTION, WE'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND. 
          WE'LL TAKE A VOTE ON POSTPONEMENT, WE'LL SEE WHERE IT GOES. 
          I'LL LET SOMEONE ELSE MAKE THAT MOTION. 
           . 
          UM, IF NO ONE ELSE IS GOING TO MAKE THAT MOTION, THEN WE'LL HEAR THE ITEM TONIGHT AND PROCEED. 
          I WILL MAKE THE MOTION 'CAUSE I TOTALLY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          COMMISSIONER, WE'RE GONNA END UP DOING THE SAME THING. 
          COMMISSIONER CLUB, CAN YOU COME ON THE, WE'RE DOING TONIGHT, SO I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. 
          CAN YOU COME ON VIDEO? OH, SORRY. 
          YES. 
          OKAY, SO YOU'RE MAKING THE MOTION TO POSTPONE TO WHICH DATE TO THE NEXT MEETING OR NOVEMBER 19TH? YES. 
          I MEAN, WHAT WHAT YES TO THE 19TH BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THE SAME THING OVER AGAIN ON THE 19TH. 
          AND SO, UH, JUST, JUST IN TERMS OF EFFICIENCY, I'M GONNA MAKE THAT MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE NOVEMBER 19TH NEXT TUESDAY MEETING IS CONSENT ONLY. 
          SO, UM, WE WOULD NOT BE HEARING THE, THE THEORY IS THIS THAT WE HAVE IF YES, VICE CHAIR, UM, CHAIR IF I MIGHT MAKE A REQUEST. 
          I JUST, UH, FOR THE COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE JOINING US ONLINE, I THINK IT'S SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VIEW FOR US HERE. 
          I I JUST WANNA SAY WE HAVE COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO ARE HERE TO SPEAK AND I DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY CAME HERE, BUT THEY WOULD'VE SIGNED UP. 
          IT'S TWO HOURS PAST WHEN OUR MEETING STARTED. 
          I WOULD REALLY LOVE TO BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THAT PIECE AND THEN POSTPONE. 
          WE KNOW WE NEED TO POSTPONE, BUT I REALLY JUST TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THE FOLKS WHO ARE HERE, I WOULD KNOW, I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO HEAR THEM SO WELL. 
          COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS HAS A MOTION LOOKING FOR A SECOND ON THAT. 
          I WAS JUST PRO PROVIDING SOME CLARIFICATION AROUND WHAT OUR NOVEMBER 19TH MEETING IS, IS CONSENT ONLY. 
          SO IS THERE A SECOND ON THAT? I DON'T SEE A SECOND. 
          SO, UM, THAT MOTION, UM, DOESN'T MOVE FORWARD AND UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR THE CASES THIS EVENING. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO WE WILL LOOK TO MS. MEREDITH AND, UM, MS. VEDAS, MARINE MEREDITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          ITEM NUMBER SIX IS PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 23 0 0 1, 7 0.01 ANDERSON SQUARE WITHIN DISTRICT SIX, I'M SORRY, WITHIN DISTRICT FOUR. 
          PROPERTY ADDRESSES ARE 9 10, 9 12, 9 14, 9 16, 1 12, I'M SORRY, 10, 12, 10, 12 AND A HALF. 
          1100, 1100 AND A HALF, AND 1102 AND A HALF. 
          WEST ANDERSON LANE, 79 0 5 AND A HALF, 8 0 0 3 AND 8 0 0 5 ANDERSON SQUARE AND 7 9 4 0 7 9 5 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 AND A HALF AND 8 0 0 2 RESEARCH BOULEVARD SERVICE ROAD SOUTHBOUND THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE CRESTVIEW WOOTEN COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA. 
          THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM MIXED USE TO HIGH DENSITY SINGLE, I'M SORRY, HIGH DENSITY MIXED USE, LAND USE AND IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. 
          GOOD EVENING AGAIN. 
          COMMISSIONER SHERRY SWEISS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          THIS IS ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, WHICH AGAIN IS CASE KC 14 20 23 0 0 8 0 ANDERSON SQUARE. 
          HERE WE GO WITH THE ADDRESSES. 
          AGAIN, NINE TEN NINE TWELVE NINE FOURTEEN AND 9 16, 10 12, 10 12 AND A HALF. 
          1100, 1100 AND A HALF, 1100 AND AND OH 1102 AND A HALF. 
          WEST ANDERSON LANE, 79 0 5 AND A FIVE 8,003 8,005 ANDERSON SQUARE, 79 40 79, 50 
          [02:00:02]
8,008,000 AND A HALF, 8,002 RESEARCH BOULEVARD SERVICE ROAD SOUTHBOUND, THE REQUEST IS FROM CS, MUMP AND CS ONE MP TO CH PDA MP. 
          THE STAFF RECOMMENDS CH HPDA NP COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. 
          COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING AS THIS PROPERTY FALLS WITHIN THE NORTH LAMAR TRANSIT CENTER STATION AREA, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS ADDING THE PROHIBITED USES AND CONDITIONAL USES FROM THE RECENTLY ADOPTED EO ORDINANCE TO THE PDA OVERLAY. 
          AND THOSE ARE LISTED IN YOUR BACKUP. 
          THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS A 16 ACRE TRACT OF LAND THAT IS DEVELOPED WITH A RETAIL CENTER THAT CONTAINS SEVERAL USES SUCH AS HOBBY LOBBY, A GYM, PLANET FITNESS AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY COMPANY LAW OFFICES, AND A BINGO HALL. 
          THERE IS A COMMERCIAL ZONING AND OFFICE ZONING AND COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE USES SURROUNDING THE SITE TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST. 
          THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING C-H-P-D-A MP ZONING BECAUSE THEY WOULD LIKE TO REDEVELOP THIS SITE WITH A MIXTURE OF USES THAT WILL INCLUDE HOUSING AND I REFER TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER, WHICH IS EXHIBIT C AND THE APPLICANT'S AMENDED REQUEST LETTER, WHICH IS EXHIBIT D IN YOUR BACKUP PER THE AMENDED REQUEST ON MAY THE FIFTH. 
          THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL FOR THE PDA IS TO ALLOW THE PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT UNDER THE CH ZONING DISTRICT TO PROPOSE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 120 FEET AND MAXIMUM LOT SIZE OR A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 2000, 20,000 SQUARE FEET, EXCUSE ME, A MAXIMUM FLORIDA AREA RATIO OF EIGHT TO ONE. 
          AND THEN THE MINIMUM YARD OR THE MINIMUM SETBACKS ARE FRONT YARD, ZERO STREET YARD, ZERO, INTERIOR SIDE YARD ZERO, REAR YARD ZERO, AND A MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE OF 95%. 
          A MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER OF 95% AND A MINIMUM SITE AREA OF NONE. 
          THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR C-H-P-D-A COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION MEETS THE INTENT OF THE CH BASED DISTRICT. 
          THIS TRACT OF LAND IS LOCATED WITHIN AN ESTABLISHED RETAIL CENTER AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF TWO ARTERIAL ROADWAYS. 
          THE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL ZONING TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, AND WEST. 
          THERE IS CS MP AND P MP ZONING ACROSS REACH RESEARCH BOULEVARD TO THE EAST OF THIS SITE. 
          AS THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION FALLS WITHIN THE NORTH LAMAR TRANSIT CENTER AREA, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS PROHIBITING THE USES THAT ARE NOT CONDUCTIVE WITH THE GOAL OF TO ENCOURAGE MARKET SUPPORTED DEVELOPMENT ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS. 
          THEREFORE, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS PROHIBITING THE USES LISTED IN YOUR BACKUP THAT ARE ADOPTED WITH THE EO ORDINANCE ON THE PROPERTY. 
          THE BASIS OF THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT IT MEETS THE, IT IS CONSISTENT, IT MEETS THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OF THE BASE DISTRICT SOUGHT. 
          THE PROPOSED ZONING SHOULD PROMOTE CONSISTENCY AND ORDER ORDERLY PLANNING. 
          THE PROPOSED C-H-P-D-A MP ZONING WILL PERMIT PROMOTE CONSISTENCY AND ORDERLY PLANNING IN THIS AREA, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL ZONING AND OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, AND WEST. 
          THERE IS CH MP AND P MP ZONING ACROSS RESEARCH BOULEVARD TO THE EAST OF THIS SITE. 
          THE PROPERTY IS LO, IS NEAR A DESIGNATED TOWN CENTER AND IN A NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER AS DESCRIBED BY THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
          THIS TRACT LAND IS LOCATED WITHIN AN ESTABLISHED RETAIL CENTER. 
          IT IS AT THE LOCATION OF TWO INTERSECTION OF TWO ARTERIAL ROADWAYS, WEST ANDERSON LANE AND RESEARCH BOULEVARD. 
          THERE ARE NUMEROUS TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS IN THIS AREA, SUCH AS CAPITAL METRO, RAPID BUS LINES AND BUS ROUTES ALONG RESEARCH BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF MAR BOULEVARD, WEST ANDERSON LANE, AND ANDERSON SQUARE. 
          THERE ARE BUS STOPS ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY ALONG WEST ANDERSON LANE AT ANDERSON SQUARE. 
          IN ADDITION, THE SITE IS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF LIGHT RAIL CRESTVIEW STATION AND THE NORTH LAMAR CAPITAL METRO TRANSIT CENTER. 
          AGAIN, WE'VE HEARD, WE HEARD THIS CASE, OR YOU HEARD THIS CASE AT LENGTH ACTUALLY ON AUGUST THE 27TH, AND WE DISCUSSED THE MERITS OF THE C-H-P-D-A ZONING VERSUS PUD ZONING, AND THAT WAS THE DISCUSSION THAT THE STAFF HAD WITH THE APPLICANT AND WHAT RESULTED IN THE APPLICANT'S AMENDED REQUEST LETTER THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN MAY. 
          SO, I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR EIGHT MINUTES. 
          SHE HAS RECEIVED THREE MINUTES OF DONATED TIME FROM TREY HALEY. 
          TREY, ARE YOU PRESENT? NOT MY PRESENTATION. 
          WELL, GOOD EVENING AGAIN, COMMISSION MEMBERS, ALICE GLASGOW REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. 
          THE, UH, THE PRESENTATION JUST DISAPPEARED AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP HERE. 
          THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS BOUNDED TO THE NORTH BY US 180 3 TO THE SOUTH BY ANDERSON LANE AND TO THE WEST BY ANDERSON SQUARE. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          THE, UM, AS WE 
          [02:05:01]
DISCUSSED THE CASE, UH, EARLIER, UH, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS, UM, CHART HERE, THE CURRENT ZONING IS CSMU. 
          THE, UH, THE AMENDED REQUEST THE STAFF JUST MENTIONED IS CHPD WITH 120 FEET, AND MY ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS FOR C-H-P-D-A 250 FEET. 
          AND, UM, THE CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS A HEIGHT OF 60 FEET. 
          THE, UM, COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WE HAVE THERE TODAY IS 256,263 SQUARE FEET. 
          UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING WITH THE MU COMBINING DISTRICT, WE CAN HAVE UP TO 871, UH, RESIDENTIAL UNITS. 
          UM, UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING, UH, NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS REQUIRED. 
          NO WOULD BE ANY, ANY BE VOLUNTEERED UNDER THE, UM, THE AMENDED PPD 120. 
          AND WE AMEND IT TO THAT ZONING BECAUSE STAFF TOLD US THEY COULD NOT SUPPORT THE, ANY, ANY HEIGHT BEYOND THAT BECAUSE THERE WERE NO COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          AND AT THAT TIME, WE HAD NOT FINALIZED OUR COMMUNITY BENEFITS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM. 
          HOWEVER, IN MEETING WITH COUNCILMAN BABELA, HE SAID HE WOULD BE AMENABLE THROUGH THE HEIGHT OF TWO 50. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE UNDER THE, UM, UH, THE, THE TWO HEIGHTS UNDER CHPD WITH A HEIGHT OF 200, UH, 120 FEET. 
          UH, THE, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE OF COMMERCIAL USE IS 500,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          RESIDENTIAL UNITS WOULD BE 1,192. 
          UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING WOULD BE VOLUNTARY BECAUSE THE CITY DOES NOT REQUIRE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH A PDA. 
          WE, THAT'S WHAT WE WORKED OUT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN OUR COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT WE WOULD, UM, UH, HAVE A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT, UM, MEMORIALIZES THOSE REQUIREMENTS. 
          AND, UM, UM, THAT'S THE APPROACH WE'RE TAKING UNDER CHPD TWO 50. 
          UH, THE, UH, COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS APPROXIMATELY 1.2 MILLION SQUARE FEET. 
          THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE, ARE 2385. 
          THE AFFORDABLE UNITS RANGE FROM 2 39 3 58, AND THAT RANGE IS 10% OF THE AFFORDABLE OF THE UNITS AND 15%, UH, WHICH IS REFLECTIVE OF THE COUNCIL EXHIBIT THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE RESOLUTION THAT DIRECTED THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE PDA ZONING CATEGORY THAT YOU GUYS ALSO, YOU, THE PLANNING COMMISSION INCLUDED IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION IN AMENDING THE DB TWO 40 ORDINANCE OF SEVERAL WEEKS AGO. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          SO, THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, UH, WHILE THERE ARE NUMEROUS, I'VE JUST SUMMARIZED THE KEY, UH, ASPECTS OF THEM. 
          NUMBER ONE, WE HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AS I JUST MENTIONED, UH, FOR RENTAL UNITS, AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR, FOR OWNERSHIP UNITS. 
          UH, WE'VE AGREED TO DONATE $100,000 TO THE, UH, WOODEN PARK TO HELP THEM WITH IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK, WHICH THEY, THEY NEED SOME, UH, AMENITIES FOR THE PARK. 
          WE'VE AGREED TO DONATE $100,000 FOR THE REDLINE PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS. 
          UH, WE AGREED TO CREATE A CAR FREE PER SALE, AND I'LL SHOW YOU THAT ON THE PLAN SHORTLY. 
          WE'VE AGREED TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE TRANSIT CORRIDOR SIDEWALKS UNDER SUBCHAPTER E OF THE CITY CODE. 
          THE, UM, ANDERSON LANE AND ANDERSON SQUARE ARE BOTH CLASSIFIED AS URBAN ROADWAYS MEANS THE, YOUR MAXIMUM SIDEWALKS, INCLUDING YOUR TREE ZONE, IS A MAXIMUM OF 12 FEET VERSUS UNDER THE URBAN, THE CORE TRANSIT CORRIDOR. 
          THE SIDEWALKS ARE 15 FEET WIDE. 
          UM, WE'VE AGREED TO COMPLY WITH, WITH A AUSTIN GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM OF TWO STAR RATING. 
          WE'VE, UM, COME UP WITH, UM, SCREENING FOR PARKING GARAGES. 
          WE, UM, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT CAME HAD ASKED US TO LOOK AT THE BRODY OAKS PUD FOR GUIDANCE BECAUSE THAT PUD DESK HAS CAPTURED SOME LANGUAGE REGARDING HOW YOU SCREEN PARKING GARAGES. 
          SO, UM, WE CAME UP WITH, UM, UM, THIS LANGUAGE JOINTLY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. 
          WE SAT, UH, IN A ROOM TOGETHER AND, AND CRAFTED THIS, UH, LANGUAGE. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          SO THIS CONTINUES AGAIN. 
          SO IT, IT ADDRESSES PARKING GARAGES, YOU KNOW, SHOULD WE HAVE SOME THAT DO FACE WEST ANDERSON LANE AND, UH, ANDERSON SQUARE THAT. 
          AND ALSO IT ADDRESSES THE, UM, PARKING GARAGES THAT WOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION RIGHTS OF THE SITE. 
          CIRCULATION ROUTES RATHER. 
          SO WE ALSO, UM, HAD THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASKED US TO HAVE OUR ARCHITECT, UH, SEND THEM SEVERAL PHOTOGRAPHS FROM AROUND THE CITY SHOWING, UH, DIFFERENT PARKING GARAGES THAT ARE SCREENED SO THEY COULD SELECT THOSE THAT THEY LIKED FOR US TO, TO, TO HAVE AS A, AS GUIDANCE FOR US. 
          SO YOU SEE HERE ON THE, TO THE LEFT YOU HAVE, UM, AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AT THE GROVE, WHICH IS, UM, IT'S CALLED THE BULL CREEK, PUD. 
          SO IT IS A PART DEVELOPMENT. 
          UH, OUR ARCHITECT LIVES THERE, ACTUALLY. 
          UH, SO THAT'S A WRAP BUILDING. 
          AND THEN AT THE BOTTOM OF, UH, THE, THE GROVE BUILDING IS AN OFFICE BUILDING AT THE MUELLER DEVELOPMENT. 
          YOU CAN SEE HOW IT IS SCREENED. 
          IT'S AN OFFICE BUILDING TO, ON THE, UH, ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE IS A MIXED USE BUILDING ON RAINY STREET. 
          [02:10:01]
AND THE BOTTOM IS THE AM EMILY RIGHT HERE ON SECOND STREET CARRY CORNER TO THIS BUILDING. 
          UH, YOU SHOULD, WHEN YOU DRIVE BY, YOU'LL PROBABLY NOTICE IT. 
          THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. 
          AND I KNOW WE LIKE, OH, I'M SORRY. 
          THIS IS THE, UH, CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN. 
          KEEP FORGETTING THAT, UH, SHOWS, UM, HOW THE SITE IS, UM, CONCEPTUALLY, UM, COULD LOOK LIKE, UH, USING THE SUBJECT E AS GUIDANCE REGARDING HOW YOU, UH, HAVE YOUR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES. 
          AND ALSO, UM, WORKING WITH THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, WE HAVE A TRAFFIC ZONING TRAFFIC ANALYSIS. 
          IN YOUR BACKUP, THERE'S A MEMORANDUM FROM A TD THAT, UM, UH, GUIDED WHERE OUR DRIVEWAYS WOULD BE LOCATED. 
          SO THE APPROVED, UM, UH, ZONING TRAFFIC ANALYSIS GUIDED THE LOCATION OF DRIVEWAYS. 
          THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD AN INTEREST IN, UH, MAKING SURE THAT IN THE FUTURE, SHOULD THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST OF ANDERSON SQUARE BE REDEVELOPED. 
          IT'S A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. 
          MY CLIENTS DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER IT. 
          HOWEVER, UH, COUNCILMAN VELA INITIATED A CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE IMAGINE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REQUIRE THAT IN THE, THAT DALE DRIVE SHOULD BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE. 
          SO WE HAVE ALIGNED, OR WE WILL BE ALIGNING OUR, OUR DRIVEWAY ON ANDERSON SQUARE TO ALIGN WITH DELL DRIVE SO THAT YOU HAVE CONNECTIVITY IN THE FUTURE TO, UH, OUR DEVELOPMENT AND INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UH, I WILL PAUSE HERE AND, UM, ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MS. GLASGOW. 
          UM, DO WE HAVE SPEAKERS? YES. 
          CHAIR. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN FAVOR IS RYAN MILL. 
          RYAN, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          THREE MINUTES, CORRECT? UH, I'M THE PRIMARY SPEAKER. 
          I THOUGHT WE HAD FIVE. 
          YOU DIDN'T HAVE YOU DOWN, BUT IF YOU SIGNED UP AS THE PRIMARY THEN I THOUGHT I DID. 
          I MEANT TO, I DO THINK PRIMARY GETS FIVE . 
          YES. 
          YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. 
          I APOLOGIZE. 
          OKAY, COOL. 
          I, I'M NOT SURE THAT I'LL NEED IT ALL, BUT I'D RATHER HAVE IT AND NOT USE IT THAN NOT HAVE IT AND WANT IT. 
          UM, SO MY NAME'S RYAN NI AM THE CHAIR OF THE WOODEN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM. 
          UM, SO WE MET LAST NIGHT AS THE CONTACT TEAM AND WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UH, BECAUSE OUR VOTING RULES ALLOWS JUST ANY RESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO VOTE. 
          UM, AND, YOU KNOW, THIS HAS BEEN SUCH A BIG CASE, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FINAL VOTE WENT TO THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION IN ADDITION TO THE REGULAR CONTACT TEAM FOLKS. 
          AND SO, YEAH, WE, WE VOTED ON THE, UH, UNANIMOUSLY TO, UH, AGREE TO THE TERMS THAT ALICE OUTLINED. 
          AND I WILL OUTLINE SOME MORE. 
          AND I JUST SENT Y'ALL THE, THE FINAL VERSION, UH, ABOUT AN HOUR AGO WHEN I GOT HERE TO CITY HALL, UH, DURING THE MEETING. 
          SO IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE ACTUAL FINAL VERSION, RATHER THAN HEAR OUR SUMMARY AND, AND HEAR THE THINGS, SEE THE THINGS ON THE SLIDE, YOU CAN, YOU CAN REFERENCE THAT. 
          UM, SO FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD PERSPECTIVE, WE WANTED TO CREATE A WALKABLE, BIKEABLE AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DESTINATION, UM, THAT WOULD BE EASY TO GET TO AND WOULD HAVE EASY ACCESS TO ALL OF THE TRANSIT, UH, OPTIONS THAT ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UM, IT'S A VERY LARGE DEVELOPMENT. 
          IT WOULD DOUBLE THE SIZE OF THE RESIDENCES IN THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UM, AND SO WE THINK THAT THERE WAS NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS, UH, IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD THAT COULD BE FUNDED THAT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO SUPPORT, UH, A LARGE DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS. 
          AND THEN WE WANNA SAVE THIS CHARISMATIC PINK GORILLA 'CAUSE IT'S HONESTLY ONE OF THE BEST THINGS ABOUT THE SITE RIGHT NOW. 
          IT'S NINE ACRES OF PARKING. 
          UH, IF, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD GET YOUR MOTORCYCLE LICENSE THERE IF YOU WANTED. 
          BUT, BUT THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST MEMORABLE PARTS OF THE, THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT AS IS. 
          UM, HERE'S THE SITE AGAIN, I THINK ALICE COVERED THAT. 
          SO FOR US, A BIG EMPHASIS WAS TRANSPORTATION, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PLACEMAKING. 
          UH, WE REALLY WANT ANDERSON LANE AND ANDERSON SQUARE TO KIND OF BE LIVENED UP AND BECOME MUCH MORE OF A WALKABLE DESTINATION SO PEOPLE CAN ARRIVE THERE, UH, ON THOSE TWO STREETS, AS WE THINK THAT'LL BE THE PRIMARY WAY THAT PEOPLE WILL WALK TO THE SITE, WANT ACTIVE FRONTAGES. 
          UH, THE INTERSECTIONS AROUND THE AREA SHOULD BE UPGRADED. 
          UH, WE WANT TO RECONNECT DALE AND WATSON STREETS TO THE GRID USING THIS. 
          UM, INCLUDED THIS FOR THE SHADE. 
          UH, WE TALKED ABOUT HOW TO SHADE ALL OF THIS, UH, AT LENGTH. 
          UM, AND, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INTERNAL CIRCULATORS ARE, ARE SAFE AND EASY TO NAVIGATE FOR ALL USERS. 
          UM, IT'S COVERED BIKE PARKING. 
          HERE'S 
          [02:15:01]
A IMAGE OF A POEO THAT WE WERE USING AS KIND OF LIKE A GUIDANCE FOR THAT, WHICH ALICE MENTIONED. 
          WE TALKED ABOUT BLOCK PERIMETER LIMITS OF 1650, UH, FEET FOR THE PERIMETER. 
          SO WE KIND OF REALLY GOT IN THE WEEDS ON, ON THIS ONE. 
          UM, HERE'S SOME MORE OF THE PARKING SCREENING. 
          AND THEY AGREED, WE AGREED TO ACHIEVE GREATER THAN AVERAGE CAR TRIP PRODUCTION. 
          UM, I GUESS I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GETTING THESE, UH, COMMUNITY BENEFITS THROUGH A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BECAUSE THE PDA DOESN'T ALLOW FOR Y'ALL TO DO THAT. 
          SO, SO WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT WORK, UM, AS A COMMUNITY AND SAFE STREETS HAS AGREED TO ASSIST WITH THAT AND HELP DRAFT THE COVENANTS. 
          AND SO THERE'S A FEE FOR THEM TO ASSIST WITH THIS IN THE AGREEMENT. 
          ALSO, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FUNDING SHADE STRUCTURES FOR THE TWO BUSES THAT STOPPED THERE. 
          I GUESS IT'S ONE BUS GOING IN TWO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS, AND THAT THEY COULD CONSULT WITH CAP METRO FOR BIKE SHARE STATIONS, IF THAT SEEMED APPROPRIATE, THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD SITE FOR IT POTENTIALLY. 
          UH, THERE'S REDLINE PARKWAY IMPROVEMENT FUNDS 50,000 AT THE FIRST SITE PERMIT AND 50 AT THE FIRST BUILDING PERMITS. 
          WE AGREE WITH THE STAFF ON THE PRI TO USES THAT COME FROM THE UTAH. 
          SO WE WANNA BAKE THAT INTO THE COVENANT. 
          UH, COUNCIL PASSED SOME PDA AFFORDABLE HOUSING GUIDELINES ON THE 18TH. 
          WE WANT THAT ALSO BAKED INTO THE COVENANT. 
          UH, WE WANNA ENCOURAGE LOCAL BUSINESSES IN A GROCERY STORE. 
          THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE GROCERY STORES NEARBY, BUT THEY'RE ALL QUITE A BIT DIFFERENT DISTANCE IN MANY DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. 
          SO I THINK THIS WOULD BE A GOOD SPOT FOR ONE, IF WE COULD GET ONE. 
          UH, WE HAD AGREEMENTS ON PARKS AND ENVIRONMENTS, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S A DETENTION POND, WE WANT TO TREAT IT KIND OF LIKE AN AMENITY LIKE YOU SEE AT MILLER. 
          UM, WE WANT MAKE, MAKE SURE THAT RESIDENTS WHO HAVE TO LIVE NEXT TO THE HIGHWAY HAVE REALLY GOOD AIR FILTRATION SYSTEMS TO REMOVE POLLUTION. 
          UM, THAT IF THE PARKS DEPARTMENT ALLOWS THAT, WE WANT THE MAINTENANCE TO BE FUNDED BY THE OWNER AND THAT THEY CONTINUE OWNING, OWNING IT INSTEAD OF HAVING IT DEDICATED TO THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND HAVING THE PARKS DEPARTMENT FUNDED IT. 
          UH, IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE WOOTEN PARK, WHICH IS LESS THAN A MILE AWAY. 
          IT'LL BE VERY CLOSE WHEN THE DALE CONNECTION GOES IN. 
          AND ONCE AGAIN, WE WANNA SAVE THE PINK GORILLA RIGHT ON TIME. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU MR. NELL. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JIMMY NASSER. 
          JIMMY, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          NO. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IS THAT THE SAME FOR JIMBO? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. 
          OKAY. 
          MS. GLASGOW, DID YOU WANNA USE YOUR REBUTTAL TIME? THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSION MEMBERS, I JUST WANNA TAKE THIS MOMENT TO THANK THE WOODEN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE CONTACT TEAM BECAUSE I HAD TO ATTEND BOTH MEETINGS TO, TO GET, TO GET THEM ALL ENGAGED AND, UH, THEY CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN A PLEASURE TO WORK WITH. 
          IT'S NOT OFTEN THAT, UH, CONSULTANTS OR DEVELOPERS, UH, GET INTO, UH, SUCH NEGOTIATIONS. 
          AND THIS ONE HAS, UM, HAS WORKED, UH, REALLY WELL AND WE APPRECIATE THE, UH, THE CONTACT TEAM AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TREMENDOUSLY. 
          AND, UH, AND I WAS JUST WONDERING, YOU KNOW, SINCE MY AMENDED LETTER, MY ORIGINAL LETTER IS IN THE BACKUP, I WONDER IF I COULD JUST CHANGE THE DATE RIGHT NOW AND JUST  AND CONSIDER THAT AN AMENDED LETTER. 
          IT'S JUST A THOUGHT. 
          BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND APPRECIATE, UM, YOU ALLOWING US TO, UH, SHARE WITH YOU THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          ALRIGHT, LET'S VOTE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          WE FOR A MOTION IN A SECOND MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. 
          UNLESS THERE'S OPPOSITION. 
          THAT MOTION PASSES. 
          ALRIGHT, WE'LL MOVE INTO OUR Q AND A. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YEAH, CHAIR, JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR MS. SOAS. 
          UM, COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE PROCESS THAT THIS CASE WILL HAVE TO GO UP THROUGH TO REVERT, UH, LET'S NOT CONFUSE THINGS. 
          WHAT IS THE PROCESS TO GET THIS APPLICATION APPLICATION AMENDED? HOW LONG DOES THAT TAKE? JUST SO I THINK EVERYONE'S AWARE OF, OF WHAT ALL NEEDS TO HAPPEN IF THE APPLICANT CHOOSES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AMENDING THE APPLICATION TO 250 FEET. 
          YES. 
          IF THE APPLICANT CHOOSES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AMENDING THEIR APPLICATION, THEY JUST NEED TO GET ME THE CASE MANAGER, THE STAFF, A LETTER STATING WHAT THEIR NEW PDA REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE, WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, UM, AND WHAT THE CHANGES WOULD BE TO THEIR AMENDED APPLICATION THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING TONIGHT. 
          UM, UNDERSTANDING THAT THE COMMUNITY AGREEMENT, WHICH THE STAFF DOES NOT, HAS NOT SEEN YET, UM, BECAUSE THEY JUST VOTED ON IT LAST NIGHT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 
          [02:20:01]
DID MM-HMM  THAT THE ITEMS IN THAT COMMUNITY AGREEMENT CANNOT BE PART OF THE PDA THROUGH THE ZONING. 
          AND SO IN TERMS OF PROCESS, MM-HMM , IF THE APPLICATION IS AMEND, IF WE TOOK ACTION ON THIS APPLICATION TONIGHT AS IS 120 FEET AND IT'S AMENDED, WOULD THE AMENDED APPLICATION MOVE FORWARD TO COUNCIL OR WOULD IT BE REQUIRED TO COME BACK TO COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION? IT COULD MOVE FORWARD TO COUNCIL, HOWEVER, UH, THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD PROBABLY CHANGE BASED ON THE AMENDED APPLICATION. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, BECAUSE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT WAS BASED ON THE, THE AMENDED APPLICATION, WHICH ASKED FOR A HEIGHT LIMIT, MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT OF 120 FEET. 
          SURE. 
          AND A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THOSE WERE THE CHANGES. 
          AND JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, IF STAFF RECOMMENDATION WERE TO CHANGE WHEN THE APPLICATION IS AMENDED, WOULD THAT THEN TRIGGER IT COMING BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION OR AGAIN, THAT WOULD JUST BE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL MIGHT THAT'S RIGHT. 
          NOT BE THE SAME RECOMMENDATION IT RECOMMENDATION TO THAT WE SAW. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          HOWEVER, IT WILL BE DIFFERENT THAN THE RECOMMENDATION YOU WERE CONSIDERING TONIGHT. 
          RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER? I THINK I THOUGHT I SAW SOME COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UM, I HAD A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, UM, ABOUT SOME OF THE DETAILS WE HAD HEARD. 
          UM, AND, UM, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK I WANNA ECHO, 'CAUSE I, I KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN, WE HAVE HEARD THIS CASE AND THIS HAS BEEN ONGOING WORK WITH THE, UM, WOODEN NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CONTACT TEAM. 
          SO WE REALLY DO WANNA THANK EVERYBODY WHO'S BEEN INVOLVED IN REALLY GETTING THIS ACROSS THE LINE AND GETTING SO MANY GREAT COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          I THINK THE QUESTION WE WANTED TO TOUCH ON WAS THE GARAGE SCREENING SPECIFICALLY. 
          UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU GUYS HAVE, THAT YOU ALL HAVE COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON SORT OF WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE. 
          AND IF YOU COULD DISCUSS THOSE DETAILS, THAT'D BE GREAT. 
          UH, COULD YOU PLEASE PULL UP MY PRESENTATION? DID YOU JUST STEP AWAY  WELL BEFORE THE PULPA I'LL JUST STATE THAT, UH, IT READS THIS WAY THAT, UM, FOR ANY, IT SAYS, UH, FOR PARKING GARAGES FACING ANDERSON SQUARE AND WEST ANDERSON LANE, 100% OF THE CONCRETE SURFACE AREA EXCLUDING INGRESS AND EGRESS POINT SHALL BE SCREENED FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PARAGRAPH. 
          SCREENING MAY INCLUDE ANY OR COMBINATION OF THE FOLLOWING AND, UH, THE ITEMS THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE ELEMENTS. 
          CAN YOU, NEXT SLIDE KEEP GOING WOULD INCLUDE VERTICAL ART OR GREEN WALLS. 
          KEEP GOING. 
          NEXT. 
          KEEP GOING. 
          OKAY. 
          STOP RIGHT THERE. 
          STOP RIGHT THERE. 
          GO GO. 
          ONE PAGE. 
          THERE YOU GO. 
          STOP RIGHT THERE. 
          SO THERE YOU GO. 
          YOUR PARKING GARAGE SCREENING, UM, 100% OF THE CONCRETE SURFACE AREA WOULD INCLUDE A A COM, ANY OR A COMBINATION OF THE FOLLOWING. 
          VERTICAL ART OR GREEN WALLS, THAT'S ONE TWO RESIDENTIAL, THAT WILL BE A WRAP BUILDING. 
          THAT'S WHAT YOU SAW. 
          THE GARAGE, TWO PHOTOGRAPH OR OFFICE RETAIL OR CREATIVE SPACE. 
          THAT'S THE, THE BUILDING. 
          NEXT PAGE SLIDE DOWNWARD. 
          AND THEN FOR THE GROUND LEVEL SCREENING OF PARKING GARAGES, UH, EXCLUDING YOUR INGRESS AND EGRESS POINTS, 95% OF EACH BUILDING MUST BE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED. 
          IT MUST HAVE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED FRIENDLY USE. 
          I THINK WE GOT A LITTLE BIT, UM, UH, MESSY THERE WITH, UH, GRAMMAR THINGS JUST SUPPOSED TO BE FRIENDLY, PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED USES. 
          AND THEN, UH, THE NEXT, UH, BULLET HAS TO DO WITH, UM, UM, UH, THE PARKING GARAGE SCREENING FACING THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTE. 
          AND THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE, UH, AGAIN, 100% OF THE CONCRETE SURFACE AREA WOULD INCLUDE A COMBINATION OR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING. 
          VERTICAL ART OR GREEN WALLS RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS A WRAP BUILDING OR OFFICE RETAIL OR CREATIVE SPACE OR ABOUT BUILDING FOR THE GROUND LEVEL SCREENING OF THE PARKING GARAGES. 
          75% OF EACH BUILDING MUST BE PEDE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY BY INCLUDING AGAIN THE RESIDENTIAL RETAIL OFFICE OR OTHER ACTIVE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED USE. 
          SCROLL DOWN. 
          UM, SO I'M JUST GONNA JUMP IN JUST 'CAUSE I WANTED TO GET TO MY QUESTION. 
          YEAH, YEAH. 
          UM, AND SO OBVIOUSLY WHEN WE LOOK AT THOSE DIFFERENT OPTIONS, THERE ARE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF COSTS. 
          AND I THINK WE DISCUSSED THIS, UH, THAT OBVIOUSLY SOME BUILDINGS MAY NOT BE POTENTIALLY BE ABLE TO WRAP JUST BECAUSE OF THE SORT OF CONFIGURATION OF WHERE WE END UP WITH HOW EVERYTHING GETS BUILT. 
          AND I THINK WE HAD MAYBE DISCUSSED MAKING THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A HIERARCHY LIKE THAT. 
          THE FIRST CHOICE WOULD BE TO TRY AND WRAP BUILDINGS. 
          THE SECOND CHOICE MIGHT BE THE VERTICAL WALLS, AND THEN THE LAST CHOICE MIGHT BE ART OR SOMETHING ALONG THIS. 
          AND I JUST WANTED TO, UM, UNDERSTAND IF YOU ALL MIGHT BE AMENABLE TO SOMETHING, A 
          [02:25:01]
REFINEMENT OF THAT LANGUAGE, JUST TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR IN WHICH PRIORITY ORDER THAT THAT MIGHT HAPPEN AS THIS MOVE FORWARD. 
          IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WOULD BE OPEN TO YES, WE'RE AMEN. 
          AMEN. 
          AMENABLE TO LOOKING AT THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST LOOKING AT THE HIERARCHY OF THOSE THREE OPTIONS AS TO HOW THEY MIGHT BE ADDRESSED AND WE'LL, WE'LL WORK TOGETHER WITH THE CONTACT TEAM. 
          GREAT. 
          COME UP WITH, BECAUSE I THINK, I THINK THE CONCERN WAS OBVIOUSLY THAT ONE IS LESS, FAR LESS EXPENSIVE THAN THE OTHER TWO. 
          AND SO MAKING SURE THAT WE TRY TO DO ALL THREE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, OR THAT THERE'S CERTAINLY THE FIRST OPTION IS CONSIDERED BEFORE WE GO TO THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION TO AS THE FIRST CHOICE. 
          SO I THINK THAT WAS MY MAIN QUESTION. 
          UM, I DO THINK THAT THERE WERE ALSO SOME CONCERNS JUST GENERALLY ABOUT PARKING. 
          UM, YOU ALL HAD INDICATED THERE IS A, A, UH, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT. 
          AND IF I HAVE A FEW MINUTES LEFT, IF YOU WANTED TO DISCUSS WHAT YOU ALL WOULD BE DOING TO ADDRESS THE SORT OF TRANSIT AS ASPECTS OF THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. 
          YES, THE, UH, AS YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE AN APPROVED UM, UH, ZTA AND IN YOUR BACKUP THERE IS A MEMORANDUM THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS, THE APPROVED ZTM MEMORANDUM. 
          AND IN THAT MEMORANDUM UNDER PAGE UH, FOUR, IT STATES THAT THE APPLICANT HAS COMMITTED TO ACHIEVING A TRIP REDUCTION OF 20% THROUGH TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES. 
          UH, THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF TDM MEASURES PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS SUSTAINABLE MODES ANALYSIS WILL BE PROVIDED DURING THE SITE PLAN REVIEW STAGE AND IN OUR COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM. 
          I MADE SURE I TABBED EVERYTHING. 
          UH, THERE IS A STATEMENT THAT, UH, STATES THAT WHILE THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, THAT THE ACHIEVE GREATER THAN AVERAGE TREE PRODUCTIONS AT TIME OF CPLAN AND THAT WAS RELATING TO THE TDMS, THE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? IF, UH, THERE WE GO. 
          VICE CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          UH, I'LL, YOU KNOW, GO OVER SOME, SOME OF THE SAME THINGS. 
          IT WAS MORE, UM, A CONVERSATION. 
          I THINK ONE THING I WANTED TO CHECK WAS, WE HAD A CONVERSATION EARLIER ABOUT THIS, I KNOW WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD Y'ALL WERE WORKING ON, UM, THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND, AND YOU KNOW, I'M GLAD THAT Y'ALL WERE ABLE TO WORK THAT OUT. 
          I THINK ONE THING I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WAS IN THE CONVERSATION, ARE WE LOOKING AT SORT OF THE SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFORDABILITY AS CHAPTER FOUR 18? SO ESSENTIALLY 40 YEARS FOR RENTAL, NINE, 10 YEARS FOR OWNERSHIP, YOU KNOW, THE BEDROOM SHARE SOURCE OF INCOME DISCRIMINATION PROTECTION, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO DISCUSS WITH YOUR CLIENT? UH, YES, WE CAN IN, IN LOOK AT INCLUDING THAT. 
          YEAH, YOU RIGHT. 
          WE, WE WERE SO FOCUSED ON ALL THE OTHER ELEMENTS, THE AFFORDABILITY, UM, WE, WE DID NOT DISCUSS THAT, BUT, UM, THAT THAT IS AN ITEM THAT WE CAN ROLL INTO THE, THE COVENANT. 
          SO THAT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT IS IN THE, IN, IN THE AFFORDABILITY DENSITY BONUS FOR THE OTHER, UM, UH, DENSITY BONUS OPTIONS. 
          I, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, AND, AND THEN I, I THINK JUST BUILDING ON THE SORT OF CONVERSATION THAT WE WERE HEARING FROM COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, I THINK, UM, AGAIN, I THINK YOU PRESENT IN YOUR RIGHT SORT OF LANGUAGE AND I THINK YOU CLARIFIED A BUNCH, BUT I GUESS ONE THING I'M JUST GONNA SORT OF, UM, REEMPHASIZE IS IT REALLY WOULD BE GREAT IF, IF AS YOU'RE WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, REALLY THE FOCUS REMAINS ON WRAPPING A PARKING STRUCTURE WITH COMMERCIAL OFFICE OR OTHER WALKABLE SORT OF USES SECONDARY, IT WOULD BE WRAPPING IT WITH RESIDENTIAL AND THEN LOOKING AT SOME OF THOSE OTHER DESIGN FEATURES. 
          BUT I, IT'S, IT, IN OUR CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT REALLY SEEMS LIKE THEY REALLY DO WANT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO HAVE IT WRAPPED IN ACTIVE USES THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN UTILIZE. 
          SO I JUST REALLY HOPE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU'ALL WILL REALLY CONSIDER VERY SERIOUSLY, UM, AS THIS MOVES FORWARD. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, SO ADVICE, JARED, WHAT I REMEMBER YOU WERE GONNA CLARIFY WHAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH TONIGHT OR NOT. 
          Y YES, AND I THINK I, I'LL BE HONEST, I I, I JUST HAD A QUESTION. 
          I FEEL LIKE I'VE GOTTEN A LITTLE CONFUSED IN SOME OF THE LANGUAGE BACK AND FORTH FROM STAFF AND STAFF REALLY JUST HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY TAKE ACTION OR NOT TAKE ACTION JUST SO THAT WE'RE VERY CLEAR AND THEN ACT APPROPRIATELY. 
          IT JUST WOULD BE GREAT FOR CLARIFICATION. 
          THANK YOU MRS. SO COMMISSIONER AZAR, WHAT YOU COULD TAKE A ACTION ON TONIGHT WOULD BE THE AMENDED APPLICATION THAT'S BEFORE YOU. 
          SO, UM, THE INFORMATION THAT'S IN YOUR BACKUP THAT SPEAKS TO THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS BASED ON THAT AMENDED APPLICATION, WHICH HAS A MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT OF 120 FEET AND A MINIMUM LOT SIZE, UM, 20,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          UNDERSTAND THAT IF THE COMMISSION DID TAKE ACTION ON TONIGHT, THAT TONIGHT THAT'S WHAT, EVEN IF THE APPLICANT AMENDS BEFORE CITY COUNCIL, THAT'S WHAT, UH, WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT FIRST 
          [02:30:01]
READING ONLY WOULD BE YOUR RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE AMENDED APPLICATION THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING TONIGHT. 
          AND SO THE STAFF WOULD REQUEST AN ORDINANCE FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT BASED ON IF YOU DECIDED TO ACT TONIGHT BASED ON THAT. 
          AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A DISCUSSION FIRST READING ITEM AT CITY COUNCIL. 
          SO I, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND I'M SORRY IF I CAN JUST ASK MS. GLASGOW A QUESTION OF YOU AS WELL. 
          UM, JUST SO I'M CLEAR AT THIS POINT, THE APPLICANT IS NOT LOOKING AT THE AMENDED APPLICATION. 
          SO IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE 120 FEET AMENDED APPLICATION, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE APPLICANT REQUEST IS, CORRECT? CORRECT. 
          YEAH. 
          TONIGHT BASED ON WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE WOODEN NEIGHBORHOOD WAS, HAS IS BASED ON 250 FEET OF HEIGHT. 
          AND IN OUR COMMUNITY AGREEMENT, IN THEIR LETTER YOU SAW THAT SAYS THAT, UH, WE SUPPORT THE, UH, REZONING UP TO C-H-P-D-A WITH THE HEIGHT OF 250 FEET. 
          SO MY UNDERSTANDING OF STAFF IS THAT, AND MAYBE THEY CAN CORRECT ME THAT IF YOU, IF YOU PROCEED TONIGHT WITH A STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEIGHT OF 120 FEET TOMORROW, I CAN TURN IN A NEW LETTER AMENDING MY REQUEST BACK TO 250 FEET OF HEIGHT AND THE CITY COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER THAT THAT'S WHAT I HEARD OR MAYBE NOT. 
          AND THANK, THANK YOU MS. GLASGOW AND I ACTUALLY THAT WOULD BE GREAT IF, IF YOU CAN CLARIFY 'CAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT I HEARD, SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. 
          SO YES, IF THE APPLICANT AMENDS THEIR REQUEST BETWEEN COMMISSION AND COUNSEL, THE COUNSEL CAN CONSIDER THE APPLICANT'S SECOND AMENDED REQUEST UP TO 250 IN A MAXIMUM HEIGHT. 
          HOWEVER, IF THE COMMISSION MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT, THE MAXIMUM CONSIDERATION YOU CAN MAKE WAS 120 FEET IN HEIGHT BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE INFORMATION IN YOUR BACKUP AND THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON THAT WILL THEN MAKE THIS CASE BE A DISCUSSION FIRST READING ITEM AT CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE IT WILL CHANGE BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'LL ALLOW FOR A FOLLOW UP THEN. 
          COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS. 
          I I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          OH, UH, JUST ONE QUICK FOLLOW UP, WHICH IS, UM, WHAT I'M HEARING IS ESSENTIALLY WE CAN TAKE A VOTE ON THE ONE 20, WHATEVER, WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US, THAT IS TRULY WHAT IS BEFORE US. 
          SO WE, WE'VE TAKEN THE VOTE ONE 20. 
          IF AFTER THAT THE APPLICATION AMENDS AND GOES WITH A DIFFERENT SORT OF ASK FROM COUNCIL, COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER THAT AND IT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY NEED TO COME BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          THAT IS TRUE. 
          HOWEVER, IT MAY AFFECT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT'S PRESENTED TO COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION WILL BE BASED ON PROBABLY THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT FOR 120 FEET. 
          I, I APPRECIATE THAT TONIGHT. 
          I'LL JUST ADD QUICKLY IN MY LAST FOR A FEW SECONDS, WHICH IS MSLA THAT DOES ADD IN A LAYER OF CONFUSION BECAUSE THEN REALLY YOU'RE DOING MOST OF THE WORK AT THE TIME OF COUNSEL, BUT I DEFER TO Y'ALL. 
          COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, YOU GO AHEAD. 
          I, I'LL, I MEAN, YEAH, SO I WANT CLARIFICATION ON THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          SO, UH, AND, AND THANK YOU JOY FOR STEPPING INTO TO MAKE SOME OF THOSE CLARIFICATIONS, BUT WHATEVER, IF, IF WE DECIDE TO VOTE ON IT TONIGHT AND IT'S AMENDED TO THE 250 FEET, WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY IS THAT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS LIKELY TO CHANGE. 
          AND WHAT WOULD THAT BE? HOW, HOW WOULD IT CHANGE COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS BASED ON CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT BEING UNABLE TO SUPPORT 250 FEET AT HEIGHT AT THIS LOCATION THROUGH A PDA. 
          UM, BECAUSE WE COULD NOT PROVIDE ANY OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THROUGH THE PDA. 
          OKAY. 
          IF IT WAS A PUD IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION BECAUSE THOSE WERE THINGS THAT COULD BE WRAPPED INTO THE ZONING. 
          AND SO THAT WAS OUR DISCUSSION AT THIS LOCATION. 
          WE FELT THAT THE MOST THAT WE COULD SUPPORT WOULD BE 120 FEET THROUGH A PDA INSTEAD OF A PUD. 
          SO, UM, THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING IF THE APPLICANT DOES AMEND BETWEEN THE COMMISSION HEARING TONIGHT AND CITY COUNCIL AND DECIDE TO GO BACK TO THEIR ORIGINAL APPLICATION, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 250 FEET, THAT MAY CHANGE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE THAT'S OUR DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING ALL ALONG. 
          WOULD WOULD THAT SO, SO JUST BECAUSE EVEN THAT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING FOR ME AT LEAST. 
          WOULD THE 250 FEET BE A PDA OR PUD? IT WOULD BE THROUGH THE PDA REQUEST THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE. 
          THEY WOULD JUST BE AMENDING BACK TO THEIR ORIGINAL REQUEST. 
          TO YOUR ORIGINAL, OKAY. 
          YES. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YES, I THINK I'M CLEAR ON THAT. 
          IT'S, IT IS CONFUSING. 
          I GAVE YOU THAT  QUITE CONFUSING. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON CHAIR, I'D MOVE TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO NOVEMBER 19TH. 
          OKAY. 
          LOOKING FOR A SECOND. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? UH, YEAH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, APPLICANT AND NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVES 
          [02:35:01]
ARE IN AGREEMENT. 
          IT SEEMS LIKE THEY HAVE AGREEMENT ON COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE HAPPY. 
          UM, I THINK THAT JUST TO MAKE EVERYTHING CLEAR AND MAKE EVERYTHING AS SORT OF ABOVE BOARD AS WE CAN, I WOULD RATHER VOTE ON THIS NEXT WEEK ONCE THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN AMENDED TO REFLECT WHAT COUNCIL WILL SEE, UH, AS OPPOSED TO VOTING ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT COUNCIL WILL SEE THIS WEEK. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST FOUR COMMISSIONER HAYNES? YEAH, RARELY DO I SECOND THINGS. 
          AND, AND SO I'M TRYING TO, UM, IN, IN THIS CASE, WE, WE GOT THE CHANCE, BUT YOU KNOW, NOW APPLICANT AND NEIGHBORHOOD Y'ALL ARE, Y'ALL ARE BASICALLY AGREEING TONIGHT, YOU GOTTA WALK TOGETHER 'CAUSE IT'S 'CAUSE NEXT WEEK'S ONLY CONSENT. 
          AND SO, UH, WORK THIS OUT AND MAKE SURE EVERYBODY SIGNS UP AND, AND GET IT IN INDELIBLE INC. 
          UH, BECAUSE IF YOU GET KICKED NEXT WEEK, THEN YOU'RE STUCK IN THE HOLIDAYS AND YOU WON'T GET BACK TILL AFTER JANUARY. 
          BUT I, I THINK THAT'S OUR BEST CASE, IS TO GO CLEAR WITH IT AND DO THIS, GET THE AGREEMENT, GO TO THE TWO 50, AGREE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, GET EVERYBODY'S SIGNATURES, AND THEN DO THIS NEXT WEEK IN ONE SHOT. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER COMMERS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST CHAIR COHEN? WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO GET A, OR MAKE A POINT OF INFORMATION, UH, REQUESTING THAT THE APPLICANT MAYBE SPECIFY EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ASKING FOR NOW ON THE RECORD SO THAT EVERYONE HERE IS AWARE BUT, AND ABLE TO VOTE ON IT, UH, IF THEY AGREE WITH IT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? UM, SO YOU'RE, SORRY. 
          SO YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS TO BE READ TO THE RECORD SPECIFICALLY WHAT, WHAT THE ASK WILL BE FOR THE AMENDMENT TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, YES, MS. GLASGOW, IF YOU CAN, THE LETTER THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE SENDING TO AMEND BACK TO YOUR ORIGINAL REQUEST, CAN YOU JUST SUMMARIZE IT AND LET US KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE GONNA BE ASKING FOR REAL QUICK? I BELIEVE IT'S EXHIBIT C IN THE BACKUP. 
          SO BOTH LETTERS ARE IN YOUR BACKUP? MY ORIGINAL REQUEST, SO I WOULD BE JUST SUBMITTED CHANGING THE DATE ON THAT LETTER BECAUSE MY RE THE ONLY THING I REALLY CHANGED IN MY RECOLLECTION WAS THE HEIGHT, LOTS SIZE THERE. 
          YOU, DID I CHANGE THAT TO, I THINK I KEPT THE SAME. 
          DID I? OKAY THEN I I'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT. 
          I'LL, I'LL TAKE IT BACK. 
          SORRY. 
          IT'S BEEN A WHILE. 
          ORIGINALLY IT WAS 57, 50 LOT SIZE AND THEN IT WENT TO 20,000 SQUARE FEET LOT SIZE. 
          THEN I'LL, I'LL OKAY, THEN I'LL JUST, I'LL JUST, YEAH, YEAH. 
          SO THAT'S, YEAH, LET ME, YEAH, I THINK WENT WITH THE CH THAT'S WHAT THE CH CALLS FOR, SO I'LL JUST PROBABLY KEEP THE, UM, THE OTHER ONE I'LL, WHAT I'M GONNA BE SENDING, REALLY THE KEY PART IS THE, THE, THE ZONING REQUEST. 
          THE BASE IS GONNA BE THE SAME CH H-P-D-A-N-P. 
          AND UM, THE, UH, SUMMARY OF REQUESTS WOULD BE THE HEIGHT WOULD BE, UH, 250 FEET IN HEIGHT. 
          AND, UM, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE 57 50 AND THAT'S JUST SMALLER. 
          THAT WILL ALLOW US TO WORK WITH THE, THE BLOCK SIZES THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ONE IS, WANTS US TO USE. 
          SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE, ARE GOING TO REALLY JUST CHANGE BETWEEN THE TWO LETTERS. 
          SO THE AMENDED APPLICATION, IT'S NOT THE FORM ITSELF, IT'S JUST MY LETTER, UH, THAT IS GOING TO BE SUBMITTED AS THE AMENDED REQUEST. 
          JUST CHANGING THE HEIGHT AND THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          AND, AND THEN IF I CAN MAKE A POINT OF, OF PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY, WHAT WOULD BE THE LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS IF WE JUST VOTED ON THAT RIGHT NOW? I'M NOT A LAWYER. 
          I AM FOLLOWING LAW'S LEGAL'S DIRECTION. 
          I WE'RE, WE'VE GOT A MOTION ON THE TABLE. 
          I'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD ON THAT. 
          ANY OTHER SPEAKERS FOR OR AGAINST? LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. 
          THIS IS POSTPONING TO NOVEMBER 19TH, MADE BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 11, 12. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S UNANIMOUS. 
          12 TO ZERO. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          YOU WELCOME. 
          REALLY APPRECIATE THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMING OUT AND THE WORK THAT Y'ALL DID TOGETHER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          APPRECIATE IT. 
          YES. 
          SO, UM, WELL WE'VE GOT THE HISTORIC CASE. 
          OH, YES, YES. 
          UM, BEFORE WE GET TO THE THE LDC CODE AMENDMENTS, WE'LL TAKE A BREAK, BUT WE WILL HEAR NUMBER, UH, ITEM 
          [34. Historic Zoning: C14H-2024-0153 - Romo-Johnson House; District 3]
NUMBER 34, THE ROMO JOHNSON HOUSE. 
          THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH. 
          CALL CONTRERAS PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          ITEM 34, CASE NUMBER C 14 H 20 24 0 1 5 3 IS AN 
          [02:40:01]
OWNER OPPOSED HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION INITIATED REQUEST FOR HISTORIC ZONING AT 900 SPENCE STREET. 
          THE ROMO JOHNSON HOUSE STAFF IN THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION RECOMMEND HISTORIC ZONING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETERMINATION MADE BY THE 2016 EAST AUSTIN HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY, WHICH RECOMMENDED HISTORIC ZONING BASED ON THE CRITERIA FOR ARCHITECTURE AND HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS. 
          THE SURVEY ALSO NOTES THAT THE BUILDING IS ELIGIBLE FOR INDIVIDUAL LISTING ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND CONTRIBUTING TO A POTENTIAL LOCAL DISTRICT. 
          THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY LISTED AS CONTRIBUTING TO THE WILLOW SPENCE NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          THE SURVEY IDENTIFIES THE PROPERTY AS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE NATIONAL FOLK STYLE AND THE EAST AUSTIN NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION DESCRIBES THE BUILDING AS AN EXEMPLAR OF THE PARAMETAL COTTAGE STYLE. 
          THE BUILDING'S HISTORY SHOWS THE OVERARCHING DEMOGRAPHIC THEMES OF THE WILLOW SPENCE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE 20TH CENTURY. 
          IT WAS BUILT IN 1915 BY THE WORKING CLASS JOHNSON FAMILY, WHO LIVED THERE FOR 20 YEARS BEFORE SELLING IT TO WIDOW MADDIE SPEAR. 
          SHE RENTED IT OUT, UM, PART OF THE HOUSE FOR EXTRA INCOME FAST DROP NATIVES, BERNARD BERNARDINO AND SANTOS OMO AND THEIR EIGHT CHILDREN MOVED INTO THE HOME AS RENTERS BEFORE PURCHASING IT IN 1959. 
          THE ROMO FAMILY, UH, KEPT THE HOME UNTIL MRS. ROMO'S DEATH IN 2021. 
          THIS CASE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, UH, THAN OUR USUAL HISTORIC ZONING CASES. 
          UM, AND THOUGH THE PROPERTY DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH ANY ONE IMPACTFUL INDIVIDUAL, THE EAST AUSTIN SURVEY NOTES THAT ITS CUMULATIVE OCCUPANCY HISTORY IS A SIGNIFICANT LOOK INTO THE SETTLEMENT AND DEMOGRAPHIC PATTERNS OF WILLOW SPENCE. 
          NOTABLY THE SHIFTS FROM ANGLO TO HISPANIC AND LATINO RESIDENTS AND FROM RENTERS TO LONG-TERM OWNERS. 
          THUS, THE PROPERTY IS SIGNIFICANT, NOT ONLY FOR ITS AND ARCHITECTURE, BUT FOR ITS HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS. 
          I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          WE HAVE NO SPEAKER SIGNED UP ON THIS ITEM. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M LOOKING FOR A, UH, LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC WITH HEARING. 
          IS THERE A MOTION BY SO MOVED. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UNLESS THERE'S OPPOSITION TO THAT, THAT MOTION PASSES. 
          OKAY, LET'S OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, I'LL START. 
          I THOUGHT THERE WAS OPPOSITION TO THIS. 
          UM, I'M JUST WONDERING, LOOKS LIKE STAFF IS LOOKING INTO SOMETHING. 
          NO, I WILL, I'LL RETRACT MY QUESTION. 
          ARE THERE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS, MS. OPPOSED? I THOUGHT IT WAS OWNER OPPOSED. 
          YES. 
          YEAH, CHAIR ALL THE QUESTION FOR STAFF. 
          UM, JUST CLARIFYING MAYBE FOR EVERYONE. 
          SO OUR AGENDA DOES SHOW THIS AND THE STAFF REPORT SHOWS THAT THIS IS AGAINST THE OWNER'S WISHES OR IS OWNER OPPOSED. 
          IS THAT ACCURATE? I MEAN, THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT HERE TONIGHT, BUT THAT THAT IS THE CASE. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER, THIS IS AN OWNER OPPOSED, UH, HISTORIC ZONING REQUEST INITIATED BY THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION, UM, IN RESPONSE TO A DEMOLITION PERMIT THAT WAS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION, UM, SET FORWARD BY, YOU KNOW, THEN THE APPLICANT, NOW THE, THE, UH, OPPOSING SPEAKER. 
          GREAT. 
          SO, SO THERE WAS A, A DEMOLITION PERMIT. 
          THIS WASN'T LIKE A, A PROACTIVE RIGHT. 
          COMMISSION ISSUE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND IN THE, I THINK IT WAS IN THE BACKUP, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS IN THE STAFF REPORT OR THIS WAS BACKUP FROM THE OWNER, THERE WAS A REPORT FROM AN ENGINEER AND A, A PEST CONTROL INSPECTOR TALKING ABOUT, UH, STRUCTURAL ISSUES, TERMITES, WATER DAMAGE, OTHER SORT OF INFESTATION PROBLEMS IN THE HOUSE. 
          UM, IS IT STAFF'S OPINION THAT THESE ARE FIXABLE CORRECTABLE ISSUES? I MEAN, DO, DOES THE HOUSE RETAIN ENOUGH STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY TO WARRANT PRESERVATION IN STAFF'S OPINION? UM, SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DISTINCTION BETWEEN, UM, HOW I, AS STAFF, I'M ABLE TO LOOK AT THESE, UM, WITH REGARDS TO OUR, UM, CODE REQUIRED INTEGRITY CRITERION, UM, VERSUS HOW AN ENGINEER, UM, MM-HMM. 
           OR, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE FOLKS ON OUR LANDMARK COMMISSION ARE ABLE TO LOOK AT THESE. 
          UM, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, I CAN'T REMARK ON, YOU KNOW, THE STRUCTURAL, UM, SURE. 
          SOUNDNESS OF THE BUILDING. 
          UM, SO IN THAT CASE, WE DO HAVE TO RELY SOMEWHAT ON WHAT THE, UH, WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED US. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, HOWEVER, UM, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AND STAFF FELT THAT THE BUILDING'S, UM, INTEGRITY, UH, IN THE SENSE OF IS ITS FORM INTACT WHAT ITS ORIGINAL OWNERS RECOGNIZE IT ARE ITS MATERIALS, YOU KNOW, FORM, UM, 
          [02:45:01]
GENERAL SETTING, UM, GOING TO BE ABLE TO CONVEY ITS HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE. 
          UM, AND IN THAT CASE WE DID FIND THAT IT HAD INTEGRITY, UM, IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH HISTORIC ZONING. 
          AND I BELIEVE I REMEMBER THAT THIS WAS LOCATED WITHIN YES. 
          THE WILLOW SPINS NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          WAS THIS A CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY OR NON-CONTRIBUTING? YES, SIR. 
          IT'S CONTRIBUTING. 
          CONTRIBUTING. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, COULD YOU JUST SPEAK BRIEFLY TO SOME OF THE CRITERIA THAT STAFF DOES USE IN, IN CONSIDERING INTEGRITY? OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, BUT, UH, IS THIS PAINT COLORS ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES? I MEAN, WHAT, JUST KIND OF THE, THE 1 0 1 OF WHAT IT IS THAT WARRANTS HISTORIC PRESERVATION? UM, SO THE NATIONAL REGISTER HAS SEVEN ASPECTS OF INTEGRITY THAT WE CONSIDER. 
          UM, I WON'T GO INTO ALL OF THEM SURE. 
          BUT IT COMES DOWN TO, UM, BASICALLY DOES THIS BUILDING RETAIN ITS CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES? UM, DOES IT LOOK IN A WAY, YOU KNOW, NOW THAT THE ORIGINAL BUILDERS WOULD RECOGNIZE, UM, DOES IT RETAIN ITS ESSENTIAL FORM, ROOF LINE, FENESTRATION, THAT SORT OF THING. 
          UM, AND WERE ANY MODIFICATIONS THAT, UM, WERE ADDED TO THIS BUILDING, ACCRETIONS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT? UM, DO THEY, ARE THEY A DETRIMENT TO HOW WE CAN READ THIS BUILDING FROM THE STREET? UM, SO THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED WITHIN THE HISTORIC PERIOD, FOR INSTANCE, MAY STILL HAVE SIGNIFICANCE AND MAY NOT NECESSARILY DETRACT FROM THE OVERALL INTEGRITY. 
          SURE. 
          BECAUSE THEY'RE A PART OF THE STORY OF THE HOUSE DURING THE HISTORIC PERIOD. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ARE THERE QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, SO , UH, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF. 
          UM, A COUPLE OF, FIRST OF ALL, THIS SEEMS TO BE QUITE PROXIMATE TO I 35. 
          WAS THAT CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS? I GUESS WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S AN EXPANSION HAPPENING. 
          I MEAN, IS THAT PART OF THE REASON THAT THE DEMO PERMIT MAY HAVE COME IN ANYWAY? OR, AND I GUESS MORE SPECIFIC, MORE GENERALLY, SINCE THE, UM, HOMEOWNER IS NOT HERE, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DEMO PERMIT WAS FILED FOR OR WAS THAT PART OF THE APPLICATION? UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, UM, THEY WANT TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO I 35. 
          UM, I DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL SIMILAR APPLICATIONS THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE DISTRICT, UM, THAT HAVE OPTED FOR, UH, PARTIAL DEMOLITION IN ADDITION RATHER THAN TOTAL DEMO AND INFILL. 
          UM, BUT, UM, YEAH, I, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE I 35 PART. 
          WELL, I, AND I GUESS MAYBE A DIFFERENT WAY TO ASK THAT QUESTION IS IF THIS MOVES FORWARD AND THERE IS A, UH, WOULD BE POTENTIALLY DEMO DEMOED OR SORT OF, UM, THE USE WOULD CHANGE BECAUSE OF THE EXPANSION OF I 35, HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT THIS CASE GOING FORWARD? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? WHAT IS, UH, WHAT, HOW ARE HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE, IN THE PATH OF A FREEWAY EXPANSION GENERALLY HANDED BY, HANDLED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN? UM, SO GENERALLY THIS IS, THIS IS KIND OF A, A DUAL LAYERED, UH, PROCESS BECAUSE WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE REVIEWING THIS AS PART OF THE, UM, EVALUATION OF THE I 35 CORRIDOR. 
          UM, BUT FROM A STRICTLY, UH, CASE MANAGEMENT, UM, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDPOINT, UM, WE WOULD REVIEW THIS. 
          UM, AND ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT MOVING FORWARD, JUST AS A PROPERTY WITHIN A NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE WOULDN'T CONSIDER WHERE THE HIGHWAY WAS GOING. 
          UM, AS LONG AS IT WAS NOT ENCROACHING INSIDE THE BOUNDS OF THAT HISTORIC DISTRICT, UM, THAT WOULD BE OUTSIDE OUR PURVIEW. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SORRY, JUST TO BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT THIS, IF TEXT DOT SAYS THAT THIS AREA IS GOING TO BE POTENTIALLY DEMOED OR THE USE WOULD CHANGE, HOW DOES THAT IMPACT THOSE ANY CURRENTLY OR FUTURE ZONE LIKE THIS? IF THIS, UH, SAY MOVES FORWARD WITH HISTORIC DESIGNATION, HOW DOES THAT GET IMPACTED IF TDOT THEN COMES IN AND SAYS, OH, ACTUALLY WE NEED THIS TO BE A FREEWAY ON RAMP, I GUESS IS WHAT I WAS REALLY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. 
          SO IDEALLY TXDOT WOULD, UM, LOOK AT PROPERTIES THAT ARE ZONED HISTORIC. 
          UM, AND YOU KNOW, WITH THE TXDOT FOLKS THAT WE'VE WORKED WITH, UM, IN THEIR CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, THIS HAS BEEN THE CASE. 
          THEY WOULD CONSIDER AN H ZONED PROPERTY, UM, WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ALTERNATIVES, UM, WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD SWAY THE PATH OF I 35, I CAN'T SPECULATE. 
          UM, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD ASK THEM TO CONSIDER IN WHICH THEY GENERALLY DO CONSIDER EXCELLENT. 
          SO IN SOME WAYS, PUTTING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION MAY ACTUALLY GIVE THIS AN ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION GIVEN THE EXP POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF I 35 POTENTIALLY , WELL, AS MUCH AS TDOT IS, WOULD BE ABLE TO DO. 
          AND THEN, UM, ONE FINAL QUESTION. 
          WHEN YOU ALL PRESENTED THIS AT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, WAS THE OWNER, WAS THERE COMMENTS THEN AT THAT POINT FROM THE OWNER? AND CAN YOU POTENTIALLY SHARE WHAT WAS SAID AT THAT MEETING? UM, I CAN, I CAN TRY TO SUMMARIZE. 
          COMMISSIONER, UM, THE OWNER AND AGENT WERE THERE. 
          UM, THEY EXPRESSED THAT THEY WISH TO DEMOLISH THE HOUSE, UM, AND BUILD NEW ON THIS LOT. 
          UM, I BELIEVE THERE WERE SOME SITE CONSTRAINTS INCLUDING TREES. 
          UM, BUT, UM, FOR THE MOST PART THEY, UH, THEY CITED CONDITION OF THE BUILDING AND COST TO REHAB, UM, AS, AS A BARRIER. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THOSE ARE MORE QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          [02:50:01]
ALL RIGHT. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? IF NO QUESTIONS LOOKING FOR A MOTION, UH, I'LL MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ITEM. 
          WE, OR WAS THIS NOT CLOSED A PUBLIC HEARING? NO, WE, THAT WE CLOSED. 
          WE ALREADY CLOSED IT. 
          OKAY. 
          SORRY ABOUT THAT. 
          MM-HMM, . 
          SO I WOULD MOVE TO, UH, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, CAN YOU COME ON? STAFF RECOMMENDATION? OH, I HAVE TO COME ON VIDEO. 
          YES. 
          I WOULD MOVE FORWARD TO, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          OKAY. 
          LOOKING FOR A SECOND, UH, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? WELL, I THINK THAT WE'VE HEARD AS MUCH AS WE CAN HEAR IN TERMS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS PROPERTY AND THE HISTORY OF AUSTIN, UH, AND ALSO THE FACT THAT, UM, IT, IT WOULD BE GETTING SPECIAL CONSIDERATION IN THE I 35 EXPANSION IF IT SHOULD COME TO THAT. 
          AND SO I THINK IT'S WORTH PRESERVING THE HISTORY OF LATINOS AND HISPANICS IN THE AREA GIVEN THE FACT THAT THAT'S SO UN THAT'S SUCH AN UNDERTOLD STORY. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE MY REASON FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? UM, WELL, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO, I GUESS RECOMMEND AGAINST HISTORIC ZONING. 
          I DON'T KNOW,  TO NOT MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? IS THERE A SECOND? IT LOOKS LIKE WE CAN'T MOVE THAT MOTION FORWARD. 
          WE OH, SECOND. 
          OH, COMMISSIONER BARRA RAMIREZ. 
          OKAY. 
          WOULD I, I JUST, I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR HIS RATIONALE , SO I'LL SECOND. 
          OKAY, SURE. 
          UM, YEAH, NO, I, I THINK I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENT THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO PRESERVE THE HERITAGE OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT OF THE CITY OF, UH, LATINO NEIGHBORHOODS, OF ALL NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE STORIES OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED THERE. 
          BUT, UH, LOOKING AT THE CONDITION OF THE BUILDING, IT WOULD BE VERY, I MEAN, I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT, BUT IT'S A HOLLOWED OUT, UH, TERMITE INVESTED A HUNDRED YEAR OLD SHELL OF A BUILDING THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE VERY EXPENSIVE TO REHAB. 
          WE COULD PUT POTENTIALLY MULTIPLE HOMES HERE INSTEAD. 
          UH, AND LOOKING THROUGH AERIAL PHOTOS AND STREET VIEW PHOTOS AND ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, MYSELF, THIS HOUSE APPEARS TO BE AMONG THE LESS WELL PRESERVED, NOT NECESSARILY IN TERMS OF ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY, BUT IN TERMS OF ACTUAL, UH, PHYSICAL INTEGRITY. 
          IT, IT, SEVERAL OF THE OTHER HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE IN MUCH BETTER STATES OF PRESERVATION. 
          THEY HAVE UPDATED PAINT, THEY ARE, UH, LEVEL, THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THEIR DOORS AND WINDOWS ON AND ARE OCCUPIED. 
          SO, UM, I, AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT BUILDINGS DON'T LAST FOREVER. 
          UM, AND SOMETIMES IT'S OKAY TO LOSE ONE OR TWO OLD HOMES, UH, THAT ARE NOT EX SPECIFICALLY SORT OF EXPLICITLY HISTORICALLY RELEVANT IN AND OF THEMSELVES, UM, FOR PROGRESS AND FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY. 
          AND I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE THE HOME DOES ESPOUSE A CERTAIN STYLE, BUT IT IS NOT ESPECIALLY NOTEWORTHY IN AND OF ITSELF AND IT IS IN PRETTY BAD CONDITION. 
          UH, AND IT SEEMS TO ME IT'D BE A BETTER USE OF THE RESOURCES OF THE WORLD TO PUT A NEW HOME THERE INSTEAD. 
          ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION? ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR I'LL SPEAK FOR IT BRIEFLY. 
          YES, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          SURE. 
          SO, UH, I, THIS, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD USED TO BE ONE OF AUSTIN'S, UH, MOST AFFORDABLE WORKING CLASS NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          AND IT'S ANYTHING BUT THAT NOW YOU CAN'T BUY INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR UNDER A MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE MOST PART. 
          AND WITH RECENT INITIATIVES, THE CITY COUNCIL ALLOWING FOR THE, YOU KNOW, BETTER UTILIZATION OF THIS CENTRALLY LOCATED SINGLE FAMILY ZONE PROPERTY JUST SEEMS LIKE A NEW DEVELOPMENT HERE, BUT THE BUILDER OR THE OWNERS ARE ALREADY TRYING TO DO, VERSUS US FORCING THEM TO SAVE ONE STRUCTURE THAT'S ALREADY REALLY IN BAD SHAPE. 
          IT'S JUST GONNA COST A LOT AND KEEP A OLD HOME FULL OF ASBESTOS AND LEAD AND WHATEVER ELSE IS GOING ON THERE WHEN THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. 
          JUST SEE THAT NOT WORKING OUT FOR US. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? NO. 
          [02:55:04]
OH, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          I JUST WANNA SAY THAT NO ONE SITTING AROUND THIS TABLE IS AN ENGINEER OR AN ARCHITECT, AND SO THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE AN IDEA OF THE STRUCTURAL CAPACITY OF THE BUILDING. 
          AND WE'VE LOST SO MUCH HISTORY WITH REGARDS TO AFRICAN AMERICANS AND HISPANICS IN THIS CITY. 
          AND THE FACT THAT THE CITY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING IT TO BECAUSE OF ITS IMPORTANCE, I THINK WE SHOULD LET IT GO FORWARD AND LET IT PLAY OUT. 
          UH, THIS IS ABOUT HISTORY, IT'S ABOUT TELL AUSTIN, TELLING ITS STORY. 
          IT'S ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER FOR HISTORIC SITES. 
          IT DOESN'T GET ANY MORE, I THINK, HISTORIC AND IMPORTANT THAN THAT. 
          SO, BECAUSE THE, THE PEOPLE EVEN WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THIS ARE NOT EVEN HERE THIS EVENING. 
          UM, I THINK THAT WE HAVE A DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO REALLY LEAN INTO THE VALUES OF THIS COMMUNITY IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE TO TELL OUR STORY GOING FORWARD, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE CHANGES THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OTHER SPEAK, UM, OTHER COMMISSIONERS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. 
          THIS IS TO DENY THE HISTORIC ZONING MADE BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RA RAMIREZ. 
          ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          2, 3, 4. 
          SORRY. 
          COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, YOU'RE, I'M JUST, YOU'RE VOTING YES, BUT THIS IS, THIS WOULD BE TO GO AHEAD AND NOT OKAY. 
          , JUST TO CLARIFY. 
          OKAY. 
          1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 
          AND THOSE AGAINST, UM, 1, 2, 3. 
          AND THEN THOSE ABSTAINING ONE, TWO, COMMISSIONER BAR RAMIREZ, WHAT WAS YOUR VOTE AGAINST? OKAY, IS THAT, AM I MISSING? I'VE GOT NINE, SIX. 
          YES. 
          FIVE TO THREE TO ONE. 
          CAN YOU RECOUNT? YEAH, SORRY. 
          LET'S DO THAT AGAIN. 
          JUST TO BE CLEAR. 
          THOSE VOTING FOR DENIAL OF THE HISTORIC ZONING. 
          1, 2, 3. 
          WALK TO VOTE. 
          COMMISSIONERS. 
          LET'S STAY ON PLEASE. 
          3, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, THOSE AGAINST 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 AND ABSTAINING. 
          I GOT IT. 
          YEAH, NO, THAT'S FIVE TO FIVE TO ONE. 
          IT'S 11. 
          OKAY, COUNSEL, THAT MOTION FAILS. 
          UM, SO GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF HISTORIC ZONING, UM, ANY OTHER SPEAKERS FOR OR AGAINST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. 
          ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF HIS HISTORIC ZONING, UH,  1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, THOSE AGAINST ONE, TWO, SHOCKER. 
          THREE, FOUR, AND ABSTAINING TWO. 
          OKAY. 
          FIVE TO FOUR TO TWO. 
          THAT MOTION ALSO FAILS. 
          UM, UNLESS WE WANNA GET CREATIVE WITH ANOTHER MOTION. 
          THIS IS JUST GOING TO MOVE FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION. 
          I, IF I DON'T HEAR ANY OPPOSITION TO THAT, I PROPOSE WE TAKE A 10, 10 MINUTE BREAK, 30 10 MINUTE BREAK. 
          WE'LL SEE EVERYBODY BACK HERE AT NINE 17. 
          24 HOURS. 
          AT 9 23. 
          UM, SO 
          [37. LDC Amendment: C20-2023-045 - Site Plan Lite Phase 2 & Infill Lots]
WE'RE MOVING ON TO SITE PLAN LIGHT. 
          THAT IS ITEM NUMBER 37. 
          UM, WHAT AM I PROPOSE IS WE GET AN UPDATE FROM STAFF ON ANY, UH, CHANGES OR THINGS 
          [03:00:01]
THAT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED SINCE WE LAST HEARD THIS ITEM. 
          AND JUST AS A REMINDER, WE DID HEAR THIS ITEM, UH, UH, LAST MEETING. 
          SO I GUESS IT'S BEEN ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO. 
          UM, WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          WE HAD ALL OF OUR Q AND A. 
          UM, SO WHAT WE'LL PROPOSE TONIGHT IS ALLOWING, UH, FOR ANOTHER ROUND OF Q AND A AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO OUR AMENDMENTS. 
          SO MR. LLOYD, THANK YOU. 
          UM, BRENT LLOYD, DSD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND WITH ME TONIGHT IS, UH, MATT HOLLAND AND LIZ JOHNSON AS WELL FROM WATERSHED PROTECTION. 
          AND WE'RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. 
          I WAS NOT PLANNING TO GIVE A PRESENTATION. 
          UM, EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON. 
          I PROVIDED, UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AND COMMISSIONER AZAR A COPY OF A, AN ATTEMPT TO SORT OF CLEAN UP AND RE REFRAME SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAD BEEN AROSE ON OCTOBER 22ND THAT HAD BEEN DISTRIBUTED ON THAT MEETING DATE. 
          UM, AND UM, AND THEN ALSO I AM JUST IN RECEIPT OF, THIS WAS SENT TO ME YESTERDAY, BUT I DID NOT GET IT IN. 
          I DID NOT SEE IT UNTIL NOW OF SOME STAKEHOLDER PROPOSALS AS WELL THAT ARE VERY CLOSE TO WHAT WE HAD SUGGESTED, UM, ON THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ISSUE. 
          SO I THINK THERE'S, UM, SYNERGIES BETWEEN WHAT THE STAKEHOLDERS ARE PROPOSING AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. 
          UM, AS FAR AS LIKE, AND WHEN I SAY PROPOSE, I MEAN OUR ATTEMPT TO SORT OF, UM, TIGHTEN AND REWRITE, EDIT SOME OF THE PROVISIONS THAT YOU ALL INTRODUCED ON OCTOBER 22ND. 
          SO I THINK WE'RE VERY CLOSE TO HAVING A WORKABLE PROPOSAL. 
          UM, MATT HOLLAND IS AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS ANY ISSUES WITH REGARD TO, UM, THE ACREAGE AMOUNT. 
          UM, THE NEW PROPOSAL THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU THAT YOU ALL INTRODUCED ON THE 22ND WOULD BE, UM, WOULD HAVE, UM, AN ACRE AND A HALF THAT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEVELOP WITHOUT PROVIDING ONSITE DETENTION OR DRAINAGE STUDIES. 
          WE HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED SOMETHING THAT WAS SMALLER THAT WOULD'VE BEEN HALF AN ACRE FOR SITE PLAN LIGHT AND AN ACRE FOR, UM, INFO LOTS. 
          AND MATT HOLLAND IS AVAILABLE TO, I THINK, ADDRESS THE DISCREPANCY THERE AND ALSO SPEAK TO THE EXPERIENCE OF PEER CITIES IN PARTICULAR DALLAS. 
          UM, AND, BUT WE'RE OTHERWISE JUST AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. 
          WE ALSO INCLUDED IN THE, UM, EDITED EDITS THAT I PROVIDED THIS AFTERNOON, UM, A REFERENCE TO, UM, LANDOWNERS COORDINATING WITH EACH OTHER. 
          BASICALLY A GOOD NEIGHBOR PROVISION AS WELL AS, UM, OPTIONS TO DO DESIGN ELEMENTS THAT WOULD HELP TO MITIGATE DRAINAGE IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING AREAS. 
          AND THAT'S A PROVISION I THINK THAT IS VERY SIMILAR IN CONCEPT ANYWAY TO WHAT DALLAS HAS. 
          SO WE'VE MADE AN ATTEMPT TO MOVE THE BALL FORWARD FURTHER IN THE DIRECTION THAT WE THINK COMMISSION WANTS TO GO BASED ON YOUR OCTOBER 22ND AMENDMENTS AND THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU POSTED, UH, FOR BACKUP AS WELL. 
          SO WE'RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          MATT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? NO. 
          . 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, MS. GARCIA, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP? NO CHAIR. 
          WE HAVE NO SPEAKERS SIGNED UP ON THE SIDE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I BELIEVE WE NEED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN, SO JUST TO MAKE SURE IT WAS, THE VICE CHAIRS MADE THE MOTION SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UNLESS THERE'S OPPOSITION TO THAT, THAT MOTION PASSES AND WE'LL MOVE STRAIGHT INTO OUR Q AND A. 
          SO, JOHNSON, JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION. 
          UM, ACTUALLY A CLARIFYING QUESTION, NOT ONE OF MY QUESTIONS. 
          MR. LLOYD MENTIONED THAT, UH, COMMISSIONERS MAXWELL AND VICE CHAIR AZAR HAD A NEWER VERSION OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE IS THAT POSTED ANYWHERE THAT THE REST OF US CAN SEE IT? I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE EVEN VOTING ON TONIGHT. 
          . 
          UM, SURE. 
          I THINK THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. 
          I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME CONFUSION. 
          SO, UM, TWO THINGS. 
          ONE, THERE WAS A SPREADSHEET OF AMENDMENTS THAT WAS SHARED BY OUR STAFF LIAISON THIS MORNING. 
          UM, SO THAT IS WHAT WE WILL BE GOING OFF FOR DISCUSSION. 
          BUT IN THE LAST HOUR WE RECEIVED SOME, UH, FEEDBACK FROM STAFF THIS AFTERNOON. 
          SO I TRIED TO RECONCILE SOME OF IT. 
          I HONESTLY JUST WAS NOT ABLE TO GET THROUGH IT ALL. 
          ALL THAT SAID, THERE'S SOME, I JUST SENT SOME REVISED AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED AS WELL AND I'LL PULL THEM UP, BUT THOSE WILL NOW BE DISCUSSION. 
          THOSE CANNOT BE CONSENT BECAUSE THERE'S REVISED WORK. 
          SURE. 
          I, I THINK THAT'S CONFUSING ME EVEN MORE. 
          JUST TO BE CLEAR, WHAT IS THE BASE ORDINANCE OR WHAT'S THE STAFF ORDINANCE? IS IT WHAT'S POSTED TO BACK UP? YEAH. 
          YES. 
          MR. LLOYD. 
          YES. 
          THE, IN THE DRAFT THAT I PROVIDED, UH, WHICH WAS REALLY JUST FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES TO GIVE 
          [03:05:01]
US SOMETHING TO WORK WITH, WAS BASED ON AMENDMENTS THAT HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO ME, UM, THROUGH COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AT, ON OCTOBER 22ND. 
          AND I THINK A LOT OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THOSE ARE IN THE SPREADSHEET THAT WAS POSTED TODAY. 
          THERE MAY BE SOME VARIATIONS, BUT IT'S PRETTY MUCH, AND THE TWO ARE PRETTY MUCH CONSISTENT. 
          AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAPPY TO, IF YOU WANT TO USE YOUR SPREADSHEET AS A STARTING POINT AND WE CAN JUST WALK THROUGH IT. 
          WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS, SOME ALTERNATE IDEAS ON SOME OF THEM, BUT I THINK WE CAN, WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS HOWEVER YOU'D LIKE TO PROCEED. 
          SURE. 
          I THINK THE VERY PUT, VERY SIMPLY, THE QUESTION I'M TRYING TO ASK, IS THE, THE BASE, THE MOST RECENT BASE STAFF PROPOSAL, IS THAT WHAT WAS POSTED ON OCTOBER 22ND? THE DRAFT ORDINANCE? I CAN'T BELIEVE SO THAT WILL BE THE BASE, THE BASE, NOT AMENDMENTS OR ANYTHING, JUST THE PLAIN LANGUAGE WE'RE WORKING OFF OF. 
          THAT'S THE MOST RECENT VERSION. 
          THAT IS CORRECT, YES. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          SO WE'RE, WE'RE TAKING THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND MAKING EDITS TO THAT AND THEN ADDING SOME ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS THAT WERE NOT IN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO IT'S THE RED LINE FROM THE 22ND, IS THAT, YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND, AND I'M SORRY, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, MR. LLOYD, IS THERE A DOCUMENT THAT YOU WANT THE COMMISSIONERS TO BE LOOKING AT AS WELL? AND MS. GARCIA CAN SHARE THAT OUT? SO RIGHT NOW, COMMISSIONERS SHOULD HAVE THE BASE THAT IS IN THE BACKUP ALREADY POSTED THE ONE SET OF SPREADSHEET THAT WAS AMENDMENTS THAT WAS SPENT THIS MORNING, ONE THAT WAS JUST SPENT IN THE LAST 15 MINUTES. 
          AND MR. LLOYD, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT FOR FOLKS TO HAVE IN FRONT OF THEM, IF IT'S NOT POSTED TO BACK UP, PLEASE UH, SHARE THROUGH MS. GARCIA AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, GO AHEAD. 
          ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS IF NO QUESTIONS, WE, OH, COMMISSIONER CHAIR. 
          I'D MOVE TO EXTEND OUR MEETING TIME TO 11:00 PM OH, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT. 
          SECOND, UNLESS THERE'S OPPOSITION TO THAT MOTION THAT PASSES. 
          AND I ASK FOR QUESTIONS ONCE AGAIN. 
          COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, I KNOW YOU JUST GOT SITUATED. 
          VICE CHAIR, CHAIR. 
          I MIGHT START, UH, ONE, I JUST WANNA START BY HONESTLY THANKING STAFF. 
          I KNOW THEY WORK A LOT WITH STAKEHOLDERS ON THIS AND REVISING THIS, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, UM, SORT OF GET TO A GOOD PLACE. 
          I WILL SAY, UM, MR. LLOYD, I KNOW YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FULLY GO THROUGH, UM, THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED, BUT CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU'VE HAD SO FAR AND WHERE THE SORT OF THINKING IS WITH THEIR, UM, WITH THE WAY STAFF IS MOVING FORWARD? YES. 
          UM, AND BEFORE WE, WHILE YOU'RE WORKING, 'CAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO SORT OF DO MULTIPLE THINGS, I THINK ONE THING QUESTION JUST IS, JUST FOR MY OWN KNOWLEDGE, UM, WOULD STAFF BE ABLE TO SHARE WHERE RSMP GETS UTILIZED? LIKE HOW IS RSMP UTILIZED? UM, MATT HOLLAND WITH WATERSHIP PROTECTION? SO RSMP IS COLLECTED, UM, YOU KNOW, PROJECT BY PROJECT EACH, UH, EACH PROJECT EXISTS IN A PARTICULAR WATERSHED. 
          AND SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE SORT OF SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNTS FOR EACH OF THE WATERSHEDS. 
          AND THEN WE USE THAT MONEY FOR SPECIAL PROJECTS WITHIN THAT WATERSHED THAT HAD TO HAVE TO DO WITH DRAINAGE OR FLOODING. 
          SO IT MIGHT BE COMBINED WITH A LARGER CIP OR IT MIGHT BE A SMALL, UH, SMALLER PROJECT, UM, AS, AS NEEDED. 
          CAN YOU GIVE US EXAMPLES OF BOTH THE LARGER CIP PROJECTS, BUT ALSO SMALLER PROJECTS? WHAT, WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE WE SORT OF LOOKING AT? YEAH, I MEAN, OUR CREWS WORK ON, IN VARIOUS PROJECTS. 
          WE HAVE ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, STAFF THAT, THAT, THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, EQUIPMENT AND, AND, AND, AND, AND DO SMALLER PROJECTS WHERE YOU JUST PLACE ONE INLET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT SORT OF THING. 
          UM, ALL THE WAY UP TO, YOU KNOW, JUST A GIGANTIC PIPE PROJECT WHERE WE REPLACE THE STORM DRAINAGE PIPES FOR AN ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          SO EITHER ONE, ALL OF THOSE SCALES COULD BE POTENTIALLY USE, USED, UH, WITH, UM, WE, WE COULD USE THE R AND P MONEY FOR THOSE, PARDON ME, FOR THOSE PROJECTS. 
          I, I APPRECIATE THAT, THAT'S REALLY HELPFUL BECAUSE AGAIN, THIS IS A NEW, THIS IS REALLY OUT OF MY COMFORT ZONE, SO I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SURE. 
          AND MR. LLOYD, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE IN TERMS OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO RSMP SPECIFICALLY, BUT I THINK WE'RE HAPPY TO JUST START GOING THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS AS THEY'RE POSTED AND BACK UP. 
          SO IF WE LOOK AT, UM, LET'S SEE. 
          UM, SO ANDERSON ON, UM, I'M 
          [03:10:01]
TRYING TO THINK OF HOW TO REFER TO THE AMENDMENTS. 
          NUMBER ONE ON THAT IS, UM, ANDERSON, AZAR, HANEY JOHNSON, MAXWELL SKIDMORE. 
          UM, THAT WOULD ADD A DEFINITION OF RESIDENTIAL INFILL. 
          I THINK STAFF ARE IN PRINCIPLE OKAY WITH THIS. 
          I THINK WE MAY HAVE SOME SLIGHT WORDING CHANGES IN IT, AND WE HAVE TO WORK WITH LAW. 
          SO I THINK I WANNA MAKE JUST THE OVERALL CAVEAT THAT ALL OF THE PRECISE WORDING IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER STAFF AND LEGAL REVIEW. 
          UM, BUT THE OVERALL CRUX AND THE INTENT OF THIS, I THINK IS, IS WORKABLE FOR US. 
          AND IT PROVIDES A, A USEFUL DEFINITION CAN BE REFERRED TO IN OTHER CONTEXT TOO. 
          SO MOVING ON TO AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO, IF IT HELPS, I GUESS, UM, I'M, I JUST WANNA RESPECT FOLKS TIME, SO IF IT, IF IT IS HELPFUL, I THINK WE CAN, I GUESS IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, WE CAN GO TO AMENDMENTS. 
          IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO PULL THEM UP BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE COMMISSIONERS MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO FOLLOW ALONG. 
          UM, THANK YOU MR. LLOYD. 
          I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, LET'S, LET'S GO TO AMENDMENTS. 
          MADAM CHAIR. 
          YES. 
          AND I KNOW THIS, Y'ALL ARE GONNA LAUGH AT ME, BUT I HAVE A, I DO ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION FOR LEGAL . 
          OKAY. 
          I KNEW Y'ALL WERE GONNA LAUGH. 
          . 
          I MEAN, AND, AND I, I MEAN, I'LL ASK IT OF STA I'LL ASK IT OF ANYBODY, UM, IF WE'VE NOTICED THIS PROVISION, THIS PLAN ON, ON OR ABOUT THE 18TH BEFORE THE 22ND, AND WE'VE NOW DONE IT A COUPLE OF TIMES, BUT WE ORIGINALLY POSTED THIS AND, AND THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL I THINK WAS FOR 10,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          AND THEN WE WENT, OR FIVE ANYWAY, AND THEN WE WENT TO 11 AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO AN ACRE AND A HALF. 
          HOW IS THIS NOT THE EXACT SAME ISSUE THAT WE JUST HAD RECENTLY THAT SAID YOU CAN'T GO MORE STRINGENT, UM, IN A PROPOSAL THAT WE'VE ALREADY POSTED? THAT'S MY, YOU KNOW, HAVE, HAVE WE REPOSTED FOR NOW? THE ACRE AND A HALF CONSIDERATION THAT'S BEFORE US? THAT'S MY QUESTION. 
          AND I KNOW LAW IS LISTENING, SO I'M NOT SURE IF WE'LL, IF, UH, CHAIR, CHAIR, IF WE HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, MAYBE WE CAN ASK, UM, LAW EITHER COMMUNICATE WITH OUR STAFF LIAISONS OR, OR COME ONLINE. 
          BUT IF THERE'S ANOTHER QUESTION, WE CAN GO THERE JUST TO GIVE STAFF TIME TO COME ONLINE. 
          I KNOW IT TAKES A LITTLE BIT OF TIME SOMETIMES. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UM, YEAH, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS RELATED TO FEES AND I WAS GONNA DO THIS WHEN WE DID AN AMENDMENT, BUT I'LL JUST ASK THIS NOW SINCE WE HAVE A MOMENT. 
          UM, SO I, UM, IF ONE OF THE STAFF MEMBERS WANTED TO ADDRESS SORT OF, UM, THE FEE STRUCTURE, I KNOW THAT WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THAT THE LAST TIME WHEN WE TALKED, AND I, WE DIDN'T GET TO ADDRESS IT SPECIFICALLY. 
          THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONCERN THAT THERE, THE FEE BURDEN FOR SOME OF THESE SMALLER INFILL PROJECTS MIGHT BE EXCESSIVELY HIGH. 
          AND I WAS CURIOUS, UM, IF SOMEONE COULD TALK THROUGH THAT. 
          AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT SPECIFICALLY IS THAT I DO KNOW THAT SOME DEVELOPMENT FEES WERE ACTUALLY INCREASED RECENTLY. 
          AND I WAS WONDERING IF ANY OF THOSE WERE SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THESE TYPES OF, THESE, THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS. 
          UM, BRETT, LLOYD, DSD, AND I JUST WANNA SAY WE'VE, WE'VE HEARD FROM LAW THE, REGARDING THE NOTICE ISSUE. 
          THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT A ZONING CASE, THIS IS A CODE AMENDMENT. 
          SO I THINK THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES THAT APPLY, BUT WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT THIS WAS PROPERLY NOTICED AND THAT EVERYTHING THAT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF WHAT WAS PROPERLY NOTICED FOR PURPOSES OF A CODE AMENDMENT TO YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, WITH REGARD TO THE DSD FEES, THE SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN FEES AND ALL OF THAT, WE BASE OUR FEES ON A COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS. 
          SO THERE WILL HAVE TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF A DELAY BETWEEN WHEN FEES ARE ADJUSTED AND WHEN THE AMENDMENTS ARE PASSED. 
          WE HAVE REQUESTED A 90 DAY DELAY, UM, AND PART OF THE PURPOSE OF THAT WILL BE TO DO THE ANALYSIS THAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO TO START TO EVALUATE POTENTIAL FEE CHANGES. 
          UM, BUT WE'RE ABSOLUTELY, WE'RE VERY MUCH COMMITTED TO RIGHT SIZING ALL ASPECTS OF THE INFE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, INCLUDING THE FEES. 
          BUT AS, AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE DEVELOPMENT FEES ARE ADOPTED WITH THE ANNUAL BUDGET. 
          AND SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO GET A LITTLE BIT OF A TRACK RECORD IN APPLYING THE NEW REGULATIONS, UM, BEFORE WE'LL FULLY BE ABLE TO PROPOSE MODIFIED FEES. 
          I WILL SAY FOR THE SITE PLAN PIECE, THE REVIEW FEES WOULD BE CORRESPOND TO, UH, SMALL PROJECT SITE PLANS, WHICH ARE A REDUCED FEE AMOUNT. 
          UM, BUT WE'LL LOOK EVEN FURTHER AT THAT AS WE START TO APPLY THE NEW REGULATIONS. 
          A LOT OF THE SMALL PROJECTS ARE SUBJECT TO FULL DRAINAGE REVIEWS. 
          SO I THINK THERE'S A CASE TO BE MADE THAT WE WOULD LOOK FURTHER, UM, AT INFILL REDUCTIONS FOR FEES, BUT IT'S 
          [03:15:01]
GONNA, THAT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN CONCURRENT WITH THIS ORDINANCE, UNFORTUNATELY. 
          GREAT. 
          AND THEN I GUESS JUST A FOLLOW UP QUESTION. 
          THERE IS AN EXPECTATION THAT, UM, AS YOU SAID, THAT THEY USUALLY SET THIS ON AN ANNUAL RATE, BUT WE WOULD'VE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADJUST THAT GIVEN THE CHANGES TO THESE TYPES OF SORT OF PROCESSES AND WHATNOT. 
          SO WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO WAIT FOR FEES TO BE ADJUSTED UNTIL THE BEGINNING OF NEXT, THE END OF NEXT BUDGET CYCLE. 
          EVENING EVEN CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, KEITH, MY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, UH, YES, FEE, FEE CHANGES ARE ADOPTED WITH THE, THE ANNUAL BUDGET. 
          SO THERE'S ALWAYS OPTION OF DOING MID-YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENTS. 
          UH, BUT THAT'S A, A MORE COMPLICATED PROCESS. 
          AND WERE YOU ALSO, UM, ASKING ABOUT THE RSMP AND WATER QUALITY THINGS? YEAH, SO, SO I GUESS LET, YEAH, LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION IN A DIFFERENT WAY. 
          WHEN CAN WE ACTUALLY MAYBE EXPECT TO SEE SOME OF THE FEES REDUCED, FIRST OF ALL? AND SECOND OF ALL, WILL WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE FOLLOWING BUDGET CYCLE TO BE THOSE, FOR THOSE TO BE FULLY ADOPTED AS A, AS AN ONGOING PROCESS? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION, BUT THE, I MEAN, IT'S POSSIBLE. 
          I MEAN, CODE CODE ACTUALLY SPEAKS TO THE WATER QUALITY PAYMENT, FOR INSTANCE. 
          AND SO BY CHANGING THE CODE, YOU COULD CHANGE THAT STRUCTURE POTENTIALLY. 
          UM, WE ACTUALLY BACK IN 2019 AND 2020 RANGE, WE UPDATED THE FEE STRUCTURE, KIND OF MARRIED IT WITH KIND OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. 
          WE ALSO MARRIED IT WITH BASICALLY TCAD VALUATIONS FOR PROPERTIES. 
          SO IT KIND OF CLICKS ALONG YEAR TO YEAR. 
          AND ADJUSTS IS, IS RELATIVELY SELF-ADJUSTING NOW. 
          SO THAT'S, I MEAN, BIGGER CHANGES COULD BE CONSIDERED, BUT THAT IS THE WAY IT WORKS. 
          SO WE DON'T, WE DON'T, WE DON'T COME BACK EACH YEAR AND SAY, HEY COUNSEL, WE'D LIKE TO BUMP IT UP, YOU KNOW, THIS AMOUNT. 
          BUT, UM, AND IT'S, IT'S BASED ON HOW IMPERVIOUS THE SITE IS, HOW BIG IT IS, AND HOW MUCH OF A CHANGE YOU'RE MAKING IN IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          UM, SO BOTH OF THOSE, THE RSS AND P AND THE, AND THE WATER QUALITY PAYMENT. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE PROPOSALS WE'VE SEEN WOULD ELIMINATE THE SMP PAYMENT. 
          UM, SOME OF THEM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE ARE ADVOCATING FOR THAT ON THE STAFF SIDE, BUT THAT'S, THAT IS A, THAT IS AN OPTION FOR YOU GUYS AND FOR COUNSEL TO LOOK AT THAT. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, OTHER QUESTIONS? NO OTHER QUESTIONS. 
          LET'S, UM, MAYBE START WITH OUR BASE MOTION, UM, VICE CHAIR. 
          CAN YOU HELP ME WITH THAT, UH, GERALD MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS POSTED IN OUR BACKUP? OKAY, I'LL SECOND THAT. 
          UM, ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S, WE HAVE OUR BASE MOTION NOW AND WE'LL WORK THROUGH AMENDMENTS, UM, TO THAT BASE MOTION. 
          SO, UH, VICE CHAIR, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THOSE. 
          UM, I, I THINK, AND YOU'RE ALL GONNA HAVE TO, I'M GONNA HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TOO WITH YOU. 
          UM, BUT STAFF, CAN WE PUT UP THE SPREADSHEET THAT WAS SHARED THIS MORNING AND HERE WE GO. 
          UM, THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          SO THE PROCESS FOR THIS WILL BE, I WILL BE GOING THROUGH THESE AND FOLKS CAN ASK QUESTIONS AND WE'LL BE EITHER PULLING THEM, UH, FOR DISCUSSION OR CONSENT. 
          I THINK THERE'S DEFINITELY TWO THAT I WANNA PULL MYSELF BASED ON SORT OF STAFF FEEDBACK. 
          SO WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT THAT. 
          UM, AND SO WE'LL START AT THE TOP. 
          I'M SORRY, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I HAVE ALL THE RIGHT DOCUMENTS OPEN IN FRONT OF ME. 
          SO, UM, NUMBER ONE, I ACTUALLY WANNA PULL THIS MYSELF, SO I'M JUST GONNA GO AHEAD AND PULL IT AND NOT TALK ABOUT IT. 
          WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT LATER. 
          SO NUMBER ONE WOULD BE PULL, THIS IS ADDING IN A NEW DEFINITION OF RESIDENTIAL INFILL THAT GETS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION. 
          UM, NUMBER TWO IS ESSENTIALLY, UM, THIS IS LOOKING AT, UH, ADDING RESIDENTIAL INFO WITH A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO BE ISSUED WITHIN 90 BUSINESS DAYS. 
          THIS DOES ALIGN WITH THE, UM, INITIATING RESOLUTION BY COUNCIL. 
          I KNOW STAFF HAS, UM, SOME THOUGHTS AND CONCERNS ON THIS. 
          I WILL LEAVE IT IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO PULL THIS FOR DISCUSSION AS WELL. 
          SO THIS IS, UH, ONE OF THEM AND WE CAN GO THROUGH THEM IN THE END AND PULL THEM AS WELL. 
          FOLKS JUST WANT ME TO GO THROUGH THEM. 
          UM, UH, WE CAN'T SEE THE COMMISSIONERS ONLINE, SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, COMMISSIONERS IF YOU WISH TO PULL ANY OF THESE. 
          UM, AND IT, WE CAN SEE YOUR, YOUR FACES NOW, BUT THEY'RE PRETTY SMALL. 
          SO JUST MAKE SURE TO COME OFF OF MUTE  AND LET US KNOW IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PULL ANY OF THESE AMENDMENTS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, OKAY, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S NO OPPOSITION. 
          WE'RE KEEPING NUMBER TWO ON, 
          [03:20:01]
ON CONSENT. 
          I CHAIR, I'LL GO AHEAD AND PULL THAT. 
          OKAY, I'M JUST GONNA GO AHEAD AND PULL THAT IN. 
          PULLED BY COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR ZA ONE, TWO, AND THREE. 
          UM, NUMBER THREE I PLAN TO PULL AS WELL, SO I'M JUST GONNA SKIP OVER THAT ONE. 
          THIS IS LOOKING AT MODIFY TO ANY STANDARDS. 
          I THINK ALL THREE OF THESE NEED TO BE DISCUSSED THROUGH WITH STAFF. 
          UM, WE'RE JUST HEARING ABOUT THAT NUMBER FOUR. 
          SO NUMBER FOUR ONWARDS. 
          THESE ARE ALL GENERAL AMENDMENTS. 
          SO REMINDER TO COMMISSIONERS, UM, THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY NOT EMBEDDED WITHIN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF, UM, BUT A REALLY DIRECTION TO STAFF. 
          AND SO THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY TEXT ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. 
          NUMBER FOUR IS A GENERAL AMENDMENT, UH, LOOKING TO CREATE A SMALL PROJECT AND SCALE DRAINAGE FEED THAT CAN REALLY APPLY TO LOCALIZED FLOODING ISSUES. 
          I THINK I WON'T SPEAK TOO MUCH TO IT, BUT WE HEARD A BUNCH FROM, UM, RESIDENTS WHO WERE REALLY, UM, WORRIED ABOUT THE LOCALIZED FLOODING ISSUES. 
          SO THIS WOULD BE CREATING A FEE STRUCTURE FOR THAT THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM RSMP, BUT ESSENTIALLY IS SCALED MORE TO THOSE KIND OF PROJECTS THAT WILL BE NEEDED FOR THE LOCALIZED FLOODING PIECE. 
          I'LL PAUSE OR I'LL JUST CONTINUE GOING. 
          I DON'T HEAR ANYTHING, SO LET'S KEEP IT ON. 
          UM, NUMBER FIVE IS ANOTHER GENERAL AMENDMENT. 
          THIS WOULD RECALIBRATE THE WATER QUALITY FEE AND LIE FOR RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECTS TO ESSENTIALLY SORT OF LOWER THE COST TO LEVELS APPROPRIATE TO DEVELOPMENT. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT THE WATER QUALITY FIELD VIEW CAN BE REALLY LOOKING AT THE SIZE OF THE PROJECTS AND THE KIND OF INFILL PROJECTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. 
          HEARING NOTHING, WE'LL KEEP IT ON. 
          UM, NUMBER SIX, THIS ESSENTIALLY, AND I SHOULD BY THE WAY, BE RIGHT THERE. 
          SOME OF THESE WERE REALLY CAME FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, SO I DEFER TO THEM. 
          THEY CAN SPEAK BETTER TO THEM THAN I, SO IF I'M MISSING SOMETHING, PLEASE JUMP IN. 
          UM, BUT ESSENTIALLY DEVELOPED SIMPLER STANDARDIZED METHODS TO CONTROL LOT TO LOT DRAINAGE BASED ON REGULATIONS ENACTED BY PEER CITIES IN TEXAS. 
          I KNOW THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER AS WELL, SO LOOKING AT WHAT PEER CITIES DO TO PARTICULARLY LOOK AT LOT TO LOT FLOODING AND MANAGE IT THAT WAY. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES, MADAM CHAIR, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS ONE, BUT I HAVE A, A GENERAL THOUGHT ON EITHER FOUR OR FIVE OR BOTH. 
          AND I, I, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE 'EM OFF 'CAUSE I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT 'EM TOO MUCH, BUT COULD WE ALSO SAY THAT THOSE FEES COULD NOT ONLY LOCALIZE FLOODING ISSUES, BUT COULD ALSO GO INTO A, A FUND TO HELP WITH, UM, AFFORDABILITY FOR INCREASED COST OF FLOOD INSURANCE? HUGE ISSUE FOR THOSE OF US THAT LIVE ON CREEKS AND IN WATERSHEDS, NOT FOR ME. 
          UM, ALTHOUGH MINE'S INCREASING, BUT FOR FOLKS THAT MEET INCOME THRESHOLDS, UH, FLOOD INSURANCE IS GETTING PROHIBITED. 
          IF, IF SO, COULD WE ADD A FLOOD INSURANCE ASPECT TO ONE? WELL, I WOULD NOT HAVE ANY ISSUE. 
          I DO WANNA SAY IF WE DID THAT, WE WOULD NEED TO BULLET ONE. 
          BUT BEFORE THAT, JUST IN THE EXPEDIENCE YOU OF TIME STAFF, COULD YOU SHARE WITH US, WOULD THAT BE POSSIBLE OR CAN THE FEE NOT BE UTILIZED FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? I'M, I'M JUST UNAWARE. 
          I, I'M TOO, UM, PURE QUESTION. 
          UH, COUNCIL ACTUALLY RECENTLY PUT A BUDGET BUDGET LINE ITEM ITEM IN FOR, IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, UH, FOR THAT, THAT WELL ACTUALLY TO, TO HELP SUBSIDIZE LOW INCOME, UM, FOLKS IN THE FLOODPLAIN. 
          SO WE'RE EXPLORING HOW THAT WORKS. 
          YOU KNOW, WE'RE KIND OF IN THE EARLY STAGES OF FIGURING OUT HOW TO USE THAT MONEY AND WHAT, WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE. 
          BUT THAT IS, I'M, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT, COULD WE SAY THIS POTENTIALLY COULD SERVE AS A SOURCE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? UM, I WOULD, IT IS A HUGE ISSUE, Y'ALL. 
          I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU CA IF YOU'RE GONNA DO THAT, GIVEN THE LIMITATIONS ON OUR ABILITY TO REVIEW THOSE ISSUES RIGHT NOW IS JUST SAY TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE, CONSIDER ALLOWING THIS FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH LOW INCOME FLOOD INSURANCE. 
          YEAH, I THINK THAT WILL REQUIRE FURTHER REVIEW AND INTERNAL DISCUSSION WITH OUR LAW DEPARTMENT AND OTHER STAFF AS WELL. 
          COMMISSIONER AZAR, IF YOU WILL PULL, IF, IF YOU'LL ALLOW EITHER ONE OF THE PULL, WHICHEVER ONE YOU WANT AND MEAN, IF WE CAN JUST PUT THAT LANGUAGE ON ONE OF THOSE, THAT WOULD BE AWESOME. 
          THAT WOULD BE NUMBER FOUR. 
          AND I WANNA SAY HONESTLY, IN THE EXPEDIENCY OF TIME, JUST GIMME A SECOND. 
          IF, IF EVERYBODY'S FINE WITH IT, COULD WE SAY CREATE A SMALL PROJECT AND SCALE DRAINAGE FEE THAT CAN BE APPLIED TO ADDRESS LOCALIZED FLOODING ISSUES IN THE SAME WATERSHED AND AS FEASIBLE? I'M SORRY FOR TYPING IT AS I SPEAK. 
          SO YOU ALL WILL HAVE TO PUT UP WITH ME, BUT, AND AS FEASIBLE, CONSIDER UTILIZING FEE TO ADDRESS FLOOD INSURANCE ISSUES. 
          DOES THAT THAT WORK FOR LOW INCOME RESIDENTS TO ADDRESS FLOOD INSURANCE ISSUES FOR LOW INCOME RESIDENTS? THAT'S FINE BY ME. 
          AND IF THAT WORKS FOR THE OTHER FOLKS, I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH JUST KEEPING IT ON CONSENSUS. 
          THERE'S NO MOTION MEET AT THE MOMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          I'LL READ IT AGAINST, SO THIS IS LOOKING AT FOUR, 
          [03:25:01]
CREATE A SMALL PROJECT AND SCALED DRAINAGE FEE THAT CAN BE APPLIED TO ADDRESS LOCALIZED FLOODING ISSUES IN THE SAME WATERSHED. 
          AND AS FEASIBLE, CONSIDER UTILIZING THE FEE TO ADDRESS FLOOD INSURANCE ISSUES FOR LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS. 
          I JUMP IN. 
          I KNOW YOU ARE. 
          OH, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. 
          SORRY. 
          YEAH, I, UH, I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR ANY OF THIS EITHER, BUT I THINK IF WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THAT, THEN WE HAVE TO PULL NUMBER FOUR. 
          I'M SORRY BECAUSE I, I THINK ON PRINCIPLE, I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE THE SMALL DRAINAGE FEES TO RECOGNIZE THE SIZE OF THESE PROJECTS. 
          AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ESSENTIALLY SUBSIDIZING THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM, WHICH I TOTALLY AGREE IS BROKEN NOW, RIGHT? CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, Y'ALL, UH, AND I KNOW THAT PEOPLE ARE HAVING MAJOR CONCERNS WITH IT. 
          IT, IT IS, UH, I I I THINK WE'RE ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO SOLVE ANOTHER USE MONEY FROM THIS SMALL PROJECT FEE TO SOLVE A MUCH LARGER PROBLEM. 
          AND I DON'T, I I THINK CONNECTING IT TO FLOODPLAINS JUST DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT TO ME. 
          NOT OPPOSED TO SUPPORTING, UH, YOU KNOW, FINDING WAYS TO SUPPORT FOLKS IN BUYING FLOOD INSURANCE. 
          I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE TOOL TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST WITH YOU. 
          YES, MR. LLOYD. 
          I HAVE THE SAME EXACT CONCERN. 
          AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHY GIVEN, UH, THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR AND THE CHALLENGE OF GETTING THROUGH THESE AMENDMENTS, IF YOU WANNA MAKE IT AN EXPLORATORY ITEM TO LOOK AT THE FEASIBILITY OF IT, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY HARM IN THAT. 
          BUT I THINK COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE MAKES SOME GOOD POINTS. 
          THESE ARE SEPARATE ISSUES. 
          UM, AND I THINK BLENDING THE TWO WILL WOULD PRESENT CHALLENGES. 
          BUT AGAIN, IF YOU'D LIKE US TO LOOK AT IT, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT. 
          WE'LL DO IT IN A SEPARATE THANK COMMISSIONER ZA? NOPE, NOPE. 
          I'M FINE WITH FOUR AND FIVE AS IS. 
          OKAY. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          I'M ACTUALLY GONNA, OKAY, SO COMM UH, NUMBER FOUR, IT GOES BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGE AND I'LL JUST READ IT AGAIN INTO THE RECORD. 
          CREATE A SMALL PROJECT AND SCALE DRAIN TREE THAT CAN BE APPLIED TO ADDRESS LOCALIZED FLOODING ISSUES IN THE SAME WATERSHED. 
          AND THEN THERE'S A DESCRIPTION IN THE PARENTHESES. 
          UM, THIS TAKES US TO, SORRY, MAKING SURE I HAVE MY RIGHT SHEETS OPEN. 
          THIS TAKES US TO NUMBER SIX. 
          SIX. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MM-HMM, . 
          SO, UM, LOOKING AT NUMBER SIX, THIS IS, UM, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT SIMPLE STANDARDIZED METHODS TO CONTROL LOT TO LOT DRAINAGE. 
          AND WE WERE JUST WAITING TO SEE IF SOMEBODY HAD ANY SPECIFIC THING ON THAT. 
          AND ANYONE WISH TO PULL NUMBER SIX? I AM SORRY, I'LL, WE ALWAYS GET TO TALK ABOUT THESE ENGINEERING THINGS AT LIKE 10 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT AND THEN I FEEL LIKE I'M FRUSTRATING EVERYBODY , BUT, UH, I THINK, I MEAN, IT'S A GENERAL AMENDMENT. 
          I DON'T SEE ANY HARM WITH THE GENERAL AMENDMENT, BUT I THINK THAT THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF STANDARDIZED METHODS TO CONTROL LOT, TO LOT DRAINAGE, I THINK IGNORES THE REALITY THAT EACH LOT HAS DIFFERENT TOPOGRAPHY AND DIFFERENT CONDITIONS. 
          SO I THINK WE'RE STEPPING INTO A TRAP IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STANDARDIZED METHODS. 
          I'M ALL FOR HAVING PERFORMANCE BASED, YOU KNOW, CRITERIA AND REMOVING SORT OF RESTRICTIVE PRESCRIPTIVE MECCA UH, MECHANISMS. BUT THE IDEA THAT OF WE, WE DEVELOP STANDARDIZED METHODS FOR IT, I THINK, AND I'M NOT SURE, SO I CAN'T SUPPORT IT. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANNA LEAVE IT ON CONSENT AND THEN WE'LL JUST, UH, SHOW ME HIS NO ON THAT ONE. 
          UH, WELL, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, DO YOU, UH, THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME WAYS TO MASSAGE THE LANGUAGE, IN WHICH CASE WE COULD PULL IT AND DISCUSS IT FURTHER? OR IF YOU DON'T THINK THERE'S A WAY TO GET THERE, THEN WE CAN JUST LEAVE IT ON THE, I THINK WE SHOULD JUST LEAVE IT, I GUESS. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I JUST, OKAY. 
          I THINK IT'S EASIER SAID THAN DONE, I GUESS IS MY POINT. 
          . 
          I, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND JUST FOR THE SAKE OF, UM, PROCESS, IF I CAN CLARIFY, ONCE WE'VE GONE THROUGH THESE, I WILL BE MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AMENDMENTS HERE. 
          SO THE ONES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PULLED FOR DISCUSSION. 
          SO IF ANY COMMISSIONER WANTS TO INDICATE NO ONE, ONE, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND SORT OF MARK IT OUT. 
          AND THEN WHEN WE'RE VOTING ON THAT ITEM, YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, STATE THAT, OKAY, IN THAT CASE, THAT TAKES US TO NUMBER SEVEN. 
          UM, THIS ONE SAYS RESIDENTIAL INFO PROJECTS THAT INCREASE IN PREVIOUS COVER ABOVE WHAT IS ALLOWED AS OF THE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE MUST PROVIDE A LOT TO LOT DRAINAGE AFFIDAVIT AT BUILDING PERMIT, UH, SIMILAR TO WHAT PIER CITY IS DOING IN TEXAS. 
          THERE'S AN EXAMPLE FROM DALLAS, UM, WHICH FOLKS CAN OPEN TO A LINK SO YOU CAN LOOK AT WHAT THEY HAVE. 
          BUT ESSENTIALLY THIS WOULD BE SAYING AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE A, UM, ESSENTIALLY AN AFFIDAVIT AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT. 
          ANYONE WHO TO PULL. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THAT TAKES US TO NUMBER EIGHT. 
          UM, THIS IS RISE AND REDUCE WHEREVER POSSIBLE, ALL EXISTING DEVELOPMENT FEES SUCH AS R-S-M-P-S-I-F, PARKLAND, ET 
          [03:30:01]
CETERA FOR RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECTS BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT AND THE NUMBER OF UNITS. 
          UM, SO BEYOND SORT OF THE TWO SPECIFIC, UH, WATER QUALITY AND FLOODING FEES THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, THIS IS JUST LOOKING AT FEES MORE GENERALLY AND IT'S A GENERAL AMENDMENT. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          HEARING NOTHING CAN KEEP THAT ON. 
          THIS TAKES US TO NUMBER NINE. 
          UM, WHICH ESSENTIALLY WOULD ASK TO ESTABLISH A DEDICATED RAPID INTERDEPARTMENTAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION TEAM FOR RESIDENTIAL INFO PROJECTS. 
          KEEP THAT ON. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT MOVES US TO NUMBER 10, UM, WHICH IS ALSO A GENERAL AMENDMENT, UM, ESSENTIALLY PROVING THE RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECTS WITHIN 90 CALENDAR CALENDAR DAYS BY REDUCING DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSE TYPES FOR ALL DEPARTMENTS TO LESS THAN 10 DAYS, DEDICATE ALL NECESSARY RE RESOURCES AND REVISED PROCESSES TO ACHIEVE THESE GOAL. 
          SO IF I CAN JUST STATE SOMETHING, I HAD ALREADY PULLED ITEM NUMBER TWO WHERE I THINK STAFF HAS SOME, UM, UH, FEEDBACK WHERE WE'RE PUTTING IT IN THE ORDINANCE. 
          THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A GENERAL AMENDMENT FOCUSED ON THAT 90 DAY THAT WAS IN THE INITIATING RESOLUTION. 
          UM, BUT I KNOW THAT STAFF HAS SOME THOUGHTS ON THIS AS WELL. 
          WILL STAFF BE, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NUMBER TWO, WOULD THAT THEN MM-HMM. 
          BECAUSE TWO WOULD BE THE ONLY BINDING ONE. 
          THIS WOULD JUST BE GENERAL RECOMMENDATION. 
          I'M LOOKING AT STAFF. 
          OKAY. 
          SO HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE FINE. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT TAKES US TO NUMBER 11. 
          UM, THIS WOULD REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT. 
          THE DETENTION POND CANNOT BE LOCATED WITHIN 50 FEET OF A RESIDENCE. 
          THIS IS A CURRENT REQUIREMENT. 
          WE'RE ASKING STAFF TO RECONSIDER THAT IN THE CRITERIA MANUALS. 
          AND WE WERE ACTUALLY TRYING TO FIND THAT AND . 
          SO IT'D BE GREAT IF WE COULD FIND THAT REFERENCE. 
          'CAUSE I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE THAT STILL EXISTS, BUT WE WILL DEFINITELY LOOK AT IT AND WOULD PROBABLY SUPPORT THAT. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, OKAY, WE'LL LET'S KEEP IT ON. 
          WE'LL, WE'LL KEEP IT ON, UM, WITH MR. HOLLAND. 
          THE NO HARM. 
          YES. 
          AS THIS GOES TO COUNSEL, HOPEFULLY Y'ALL CAN ADD IN A NOTE IF IT MAKES SENSE OR NOT. 
          NUMBER 12, AGAIN, GENERAL AMENDMENT IS TO SAY THAT DO NOT REQUIRE A STORM WATER SYSTEM TIE INTO AN EXISTING SYSTEM BEYOND THE FRONTAGE OF THE LOT. 
          AND I KNOW COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, YOU MIGHT HAVE MORE TO SAY TO THIS THAN I DO. 
          SO YEAH, THE IDEA IS THAT WITH THIS, UH, AMENDMENT, UH, I BELIEVE IN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, THE DISTANCE WITHIN WHICH A DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE TO TIE TO AN EXISTING STORM DRAIN SYSTEM IN THE RIGHT OF WAY WAS, I THINK IT'S CURRENTLY 500 TO FIVE 50 AND IS PROPOSED TO BE REDUCED TO 300 ISH. 
          I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBERS. 
          I'M SCROLLING FURIOUSLY TO FIND THEM. 
          UM, THIS WOULD JUST BE A FURTHER REDUCTION TO STATE THAT ESSENTIALLY A, A DEVELOPMENT WOULD ONLY HAVE TO TIE INTO THAT SYSTEM IF IT IS ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, UH, IN THE RIGHT OF WAY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, AND WE COULD EVEN SAY ADJACENT TO, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE WORD FRONTAGE OR ANYTHING, BUT, UM, NOT HAVING TO PAY FOR AND BUILD, UH, AN EXTENSION OF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE RIGHT OF WAY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. 
          I DUNNO IF YOU GUYS WANT ME TO KEEP JUMPING IN EACH TIME, BUT, BUT, UM, SO OUR PROPOSAL WASN'T JUST 300, YOU'LL GO FROM FIVE TO 3, 5 50 TO 300. 
          IT ACTUALLY ALSO SAID IF IT'S LESS THAN A HALF AN ACRE, NO REQUIREMENT AT ALL. 
          AND IF IT'S BETWEEN A HALF AN ACRE AND ONE ACRE, YOU WOULD HAVE YOUR ENGINEER LOOK AND SEE IF THERE IS DRAINAGE CAPACITY IN YOUR GUTTER. 
          SO IN THE SYSTEM ITSELF. 
          AND IF YOU COULD SHOW THAT IT WAS THERE, YOU COULD ALSO FOREGO IT AS WELL. 
          SO THERE'S, WE, OUR, OUR, OUR, OUR PROPOSAL, THEIR STAFF PROPOSAL WENT BEYOND, UH, JUST LOWERING IT FROM FIVE 50 TO THREE THREE. 
          ALRIGHT, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          MIGHT, THAT MIGHT HELP. 
          APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, I DO THINK THOUGH, WITH THE CHANGE IN THE DEFINITION AS PROPOSED IN ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO RESIDENTIAL INFILL, UM, THE IDEA WAS THAT BASICALLY ANYTHING THAT QUALIFIES UNDER THAT DEFINITION WOULD SIMPLY BE EXEMPT FROM, FROM BUILDING THAT EXTENSION BEYOND THE, THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE, IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO PULL THAT OR, OR I MEAN, IT'S A GENERAL AMENDMENT, SO IT'S NOT TEXT-BASED. 
          ANYONE WISH TO PULL? OH, ANYONE WISH TO PULL? OKAY. 
          THAT WILL STAY ON THE CONSENT. 
          OKAY. 
          THIS TAKES US TO, UM, NUMBER 13, UM, WHICH ESSENTIALLY SAYS, DEVELOP SIMPLER STANDARDIZED METHODS AND PROCESSES FOR THE DESIGN APPROVAL AND CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL INFILL DETENTION PONDS SIMILAR TO THOSE USED BY OTHER CITIES. 
          AND THERE'S A NOTE TO LOOK AT HOW OTHER CITIES, UM, LOOK IN THIS AND IF THERE'S 
          [03:35:01]
A WAY TO STANDARDIZE THIS. 
          I DO WANT, AGAIN, NOTE, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, UH, WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT. 
          ANYONE WISH TO PULL FOR DISCUSSION? OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THIS TAKES US TO THE LAST ONE. 
          UM, LAST GENERAL AMENDMENT. 
          THIS WOULD UTILIZE INFRAS, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE AND CLIMATE RESILIENCY GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, AND LEVERAGE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO ADDRESS FLOODING CONCERNS BY CREATING REGIONAL STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE BASED ON COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED DRAINAGE STUDIES. 
          UM, AND THIS IS REALLY JUST MORE BROADLY, AND I KNOW THERE'S A, WE HAVE A BOND ADVISORY TASK FORCE THAT HAS BEEN INITIATED AT THE CITY. 
          SO PART OF THIS HOPEFULLY WOULD BE THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN CONSIDER. 
          I KNOW AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF CONCERN FROM FOLKS AROUND, UM, STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND WE'VE, WE, WE DON'T, WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE THE FUNDING TO DO THAT, BUT AS WE'RE LOOKING AT BONDS AND CLIMATE RESILIENCY, UM, THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD AS COMMISSIONERS, IT FELT LIKE THAT WAS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. 
          ANYONE WISH TO PULL FOR DISCUSSION? OKAY. 
          IT STAYS, UM, CHERYL, GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION, BUT I JUST, I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED SOMETHING AT THE START. 
          SO A REMINDER TO FOLKS THAT, APART FROM IF YOU HAD ANY CONCERNS WITH TWEAKING THE LANGUAGE, IF YOU HAVE A SIMILAR INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT, THEN YOU WILL NEED TO PULL THE AMENDMENT. 
          BECAUSE IF WE APPROVE, THE WAY ROB'S RULES WORKS IS IF YOU APPROVE AN AMENDMENT, YOU CANNOT DO ANOTHER VERSION OF IT. 
          WE WOULD CAUSE CONFUSION. 
          SO ALL THAT SAID, IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER VERSION OF THAT'S SIMILAR, THEN WE LIKELY NEED TO PULL IT. 
          JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE. 
          I HAVE THREE AMENDMENTS THAT I'D LIKE TO PULL. 
          OH. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          YEAH, YEAH. 
          WHICH ONES? ALL THREE OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT I SUBMITTED. 
          OH, YOU ARE, WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO YOURS. 
          YEAH. 
          SO DOES IT MAKE SENSE? MAYBE CHAIR, IF WE COULD JUST GO THROUGH, BEFORE WE EVEN MAKE A MOTION FOR THE CONSENT, DO WE WANNA JUST GO THROUGH COMMISSIONER HANEY'S AMENDMENTS AS WELL, WHICH WE'RE ALSO SHARED IN ADVANCE? UM, YES. 
          AND THAT I HAVE THREE DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS ARE, IS IT JUST THE TWO? THERE WAS A REVISED AND THEN COMMISSIONER HANEY'S? YES, THERE WAS ONE SENT THIS MORNING. 
          THEN COMMISSIONER HAES WENT OUT SOME TIME TODAY, LATER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY, AND THEN ONE THAT WAS SPENT IN THE LAST HOUR. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          LET'S GO THROUGH COMMISSIONER HANEYS. 
          SO THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE OF, SO YEAH, THOSE ARE UP. 
          WOULD YOU LIKE TO START? I, I, I MEAN I CAN WALK YOU THROUGH 'EM RIGHT NOW OR I, BUT I COULD PULL THEM ALL AS WELL. 
          WELL, LET'S, UM, LET'S, DON'T YOU, OKAY. 
          UH, WALK US THROUGH EACH ONE WITH A VERY BRIEF DESCRIPTION AND WE'LL SEE IF ANYONE WANTS TO PULL IT. 
          YEP. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          SO, UH, THE, THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE TO, UH, EXEMPT, UH, SOME RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECTS AS DEFINED IN ANOTHER AMENDMENT BECAUSE, UM, IT'S, WE WOULD NEED TO ADOPT AMENDMENT ONE FROM THE OTHER PACKET TO DEFINE RESIDENTIAL INFILL, BUT IT WOULD, UH, EXEMPT THOSE PROJECTS THAT ARE RESIDENTIAL INFO, RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECTS, UM, WHERE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR EACH LOT DOES NOT EXCEED SF ONE IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          UM, EXEMPT THOSE COMPLETELY FROM THE SITE PLANNING REQUIREMENT. 
          UM, AND THEN, AND I'LL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND PULL THAT ONE MYSELF. 
           . 
          OKAY. 
          I WON'T, I WON'T, I WON'T BOTHER TO MAKE ANYONE ELSE DO IT. 
          UM, AND THEN, UH, THE, THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, UH, APPROACH TO MORE OR LESS THE SAME THING. 
          UM, SO THAT WOULD AMEND, UM, 25 5 2 TO EXEMPT, UH, CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECTS, UM, THAT ARE LESS THAN 16 UNITS, UM, THAT, UH, WILL HAVE NO MORE THAN FOUR, UM, UNITS PER TRACT. 
          SO RIGHT NOW, CODE SAYS THAT, UM, YOU CAN BE EXEMPT IF YOU ARE DEVELOPING NO MORE THAN FOUR UNITS PER TRACT. 
          UM, AND SO THIS WOULD JUST EXTEND THAT TO PROJECTS OF UP TO FOUR LOTS WOULD BE EXEMPT. 
          UM, AND THEN I'LL PULL THAT ONE . 
          UM, AND THEN THE FINAL ONE WAS, UH, IS IS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO A A 90 DAY AMENDMENT. 
          AND THIS IS ONE THAT I, I HAVE 15 YEARS WITH THE STATE AND I HAVE LOTS OF DIFFERENT AGENCIES THAT I'VE BEEN AT. 
          AND, AND, UH, AT ONE PARTICULAR ONE WE WERE KIND OF UNDER, UNDER, UH, LEGISLATIVE, UH, DIRECTION TO COMPLETE A VERY COMPLEX PROCESS IN 180 DAYS. 
          UM, AND SO I WENT BACK IN AND I TALKED TO SOME FOLKS AT THAT AGENCY AND MIRRORED KIND OF, OR WE TOOK A LOOK AT KIND OF WHAT WE DID THERE. 
          AND, AND BASICALLY THE THING THAT GOT EVERYTHING ACROSS THE FINISH LINE SO QUICKLY WAS HAVING ESSENTIALLY A QUARTERBACK THAT, UH, WENT AND SET A PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE EVERY TIME AN APPLICATION 
          [03:40:01]
CAME IN. 
          AND SO IT SAID, YOU KNOW, THIS DEPARTMENT'S GONNA HAVE X DAYS, THIS DEPARTMENT'S GONNA HAVE Y DAYS. 
          AND THEN THAT PERSON WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR, UM, WORKING THAT ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS. 
          AND I, AND I THINK DSD PROBABLY DOES SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, BUT THIS IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A TEXT CHANGE, IT'S JUST A DIRECTIONAL AMENDMENT. 
          UM, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO PULL THIS ONE AND SORT OF DISCUSS IT AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE DISCUSS AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE, I BELIEVE. 
          NO, IT WAS, WELL, THE, THE SIMILAR AMENDMENT ON THE  MAIN, UH, SPREADSHEET NUMBER TWO, I THINK. 
          NUMBER TWO. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE'LL PULL ALL THREE OF THOSE. 
          COMMISSIONER HANEY. 
          AND JUST AS A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY, IF AT SOME POINT I WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW THOSE COMPLETELY, I THAT YES, YES. 
          WOULD STILL BE IN ORDER WE CAN DO THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT A PART OF THE MOTION YET. 
          GREAT. 
          PERFECT. 
          BEFORE WE PROCEED, JUST TO MAKE SURE, WERE THERE OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT HAD BEEN SHARED IN ADVANCE? IN ADVANCE? NO, BUT I DID JUST SEND ONE OUT FROM COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          GOT IT. 
          SO COMMISSIONER HAYNES IN THE REVOLUTION. 
          WE'LL CUT TO THAT ONCE WE'RE GONE THROUGH THIS, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T MISS ANYTHING FROM ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER ONLINE OR OTHERWISE. 
          I DO NOT BELIEVE SO. 
          THESE SHOULD BE ALL OF THEM. 
          OKAY. 
          IN THAT CASE, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE BASE MOTION TO ADD IN. 
          AND THIS IS FOR THE SPREADSHEET THAT WE WERE SHARING EARLIER, AMENDMENTS 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, AND 14. 
          THOSE WOULD BE ADDED IN AS ESSENTIALLY A, A JOINT MOTION. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, IS THAT A SECOND OR QUESTION? NO, NO, I WAS ACTUALLY GONNA MAKE A REQUEST. 
          CAN WE ACTUALLY PULL, UM, UM, ITEM NUMBER 10 OR AMENDMENT NUMBER 10? YES. 
          UM, AND WE MAY COMBINE THAT WITH ONE OF COMMISSIONER HANEY'S. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT, THAT WORKS. 
          SO WE, 1, 2, 3, AND 10 HAVE BEEN PULLED. 
          SO THIS WOULD BE A MOTION TO INCLUDE IN THE BASE MOTION 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13, 14. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I'LL SECOND THAT. 
          AND LET'S START WITH ONE THAT WAS PULLED BY YOU VICE BEFORE THAT CHAIR. 
          WE WOULD NEED TO VOTE ON THAT. 
          I KNOW WE COULD DO NO CONSENT, BUT I KNOW THAT THERE'S AT LEAST ONE COMMISSIONER WHO WANTS TO EXPRESS NO UNCERTAIN ONES. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          SO LET'S GO BACK AND WE'RE VOTING ON 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 TO BE ADDED TO THE BASE MOTION. 
          ANY DISCUSSION FOR OR AGAINST ON THIS, UH, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE HERE? YES, I THINK I'LL DISCUSS, I DON'T KNOW FOR OR AGAINST, I GUESS I'M GONNA  HELP ME ALL I'VE FORGOTTEN. 
          NOW, WHEN DO I, UH, EXPRESS MY THOUGHTS ON TWO OF THEM? THIS IS THE MOMENT COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE TO DO THAT. 
          AND ESSENTIALLY IT'S SIX AND 13. 
          THEY'RE PART OF THE MOTION, AND YOU CAN TALK ABOUT THEM, YOU CAN DECIDE TO VOTE AGAINST THEM, AND WE WOULD NOTE THAT AS WELL IN THE MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, LET ME JUST TALK ABOUT SIX AND 13 BRIEFLY. 
          AND THE REASON WHY I'M, UH, UNABLE TO SUPPORT THEM, UM, IS, I MEAN, PART OF IT IS AS A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, RIGHT? I AM KIND OF BOUND BY SORT OF OUR ENGINEER ENGINEERING CODE. 
          AND I, IT, I STRUGGLE, RIGHT? I CAN ONLY THINK ABOUT THIS THROUGH THE LENS AS AN ENGINEER, AND I KNOW Y'ALL ARE THINKING ABOUT IT DIFFERENTLY, BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DEVELOPING STANDARDIZED METHODS, MY FEAR IS THAT IN DEVELOPING THEM, THEY BECOME PRESCRIPTIVE AND THEN THEY'RE USED INAPPROPRIATELY. 
          SO THAT'S WHERE I THINK THE INTENT IS GOOD, RIGHT? I DEFINITELY WANNA, AGAIN, HAVE PERFORMANCE-BASED CRITERIA THAT IT ALLOWS FLEXIBILITY. 
          BUT I THINK WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT, UH, STANDARDIZED METHODS FOR DESIGNING DETENTION PONDS, WHAT I THINK WOULD HAPPEN IN PRACTICE IS OF ONCE THOSE STANDARDS ARE DRAWN, THEY WOULD BE ENFORCED AS REQUIRED. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S REALLY, AND THEN WE END UP WITH HAVING TO DO THINGS IN PLACES THAT ARE INAPPROPRIATE. 
          SO I I, THAT THIS IS WHERE I'M, UH, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE IDEA, THE LANGUAGE OF STANDARDIZED METHODS FOR, FOR SUCH THINGS AS DESIGNING DETENTION PONDS OR, UH, CONVEYANCE. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S JUST MY POINT. 
          UH, I KNOW THEY'RE GENERAL AMENDMENTS, SO I'M NOT GONNA LOSE TOO MUCH SLEEP OVER IT, BUT, 
          [03:45:01]
ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          ANY OTHER SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, I JUST WANNA THANK MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S BROAD AGREEMENT ON SEVERAL OF THESE. 
          AND I, AND I DO ALSO WANNA THANK THE ADVOCATES WHO REALLY HELPED TO BRING US ATTENTION TO SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT. 
          AND I THINK STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING THROUGH THESE ISSUES. 
          UM, I DO HOPE THAT THESE AMENDMENTS ARE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND REALLY CONSIDERED CAREFULLY BEFORE THIS COMES TO COUNCIL. 
          UM, WE WANT TO MAKE THIS VERSION OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, THE BEST IT CAN BE. 
          AND I DO THINK THAT SEVERAL OF THESE REALLY DO APPROVE, IMPROVE WHAT WE WOULD EVENTUALLY, HOPEFULLY ADOPT AS CODE. 
          SO I'M EXCITED TO SEE THESE AMENDMENTS MOVE FORWARD AND APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S SUPPORT. 
          ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THESE ARE THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE ADDING TO THE BASE. 
          UM, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, AND VOTING AGAINST. 
          OKAY, THAT IS 10 TO ONE WITH COMMISSIONER HAYNES VOTING NAY. 
          OH, I'M SORRY. 
          I THOUGHT I SAW A GREEN FROM COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. 
          WERE WE NOT RECORDING HER AS OPPOSED ON SIX AND YES. 
          ON TWO OF THE ITEMS? YES. 
          SO SKIDMORE IS YES ON ALL THE OTHERS AND NO, ON SIX AND 13, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          YES, CORRECT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S GO BACK TO THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PULLED. 
          UM, WE'LL JUST, I'LL JUST START IN ORDER. 
          UM, SO NUMBER ONE, SITE PLAN, LIGHT INFILL PLAT. 
          THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF RESIDENTIAL INFILL BY CHAIR. 
          YOU PULLED THIS ONE. 
          YES, I DID. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          UM, IF STAFF CAN PULL UP THE ALTERNATIVES THAT I JUST SHARED EARLIER THIS EVENING, AND I'M, I REALLY APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION. 
          I JUST DID NOT GET TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE STAFF FEEDBACK, UM, UNTIL LATER IN THIS EVENING. 
          SO THIS ESSENTIALLY, UH, RIGHT NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THE REVISED NUMBER ONE. 
          THIS IS LANGUAGE THAT WAS GIVEN BY, OVER BY STAFF. 
          I TRULY BELIEVE THAT IT DOES. 
          UH, IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AMENDMENT. 
          IT'S JUST LANGUAGE THAT'S, THAT STAFF FOUND APPROPRIATE. 
          IT ESSENTIALLY ADDS IN A NEW DEFINITION OF RESIDENTIAL INFILL IN 25 DASH EIGHT DASH 64 IN THE DEFINITION SECTION, WHICH ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT RESIDENTIAL INFILL MEANS DEVELOPMENT OF A SITE, NOT EXCEEDING 1.5 ACRES, THAT CONSISTS OF FIVE TO 16 DWELLING UNITS OR A SUBDIVISION OR RE SUBDIVISION OF LAND WITHIN AN SF ONE, SF TWO, OR SF THREE ZONING DISTRICT. 
          AND, AND I CAN, I CAN DEFINITELY ANSWER QUESTIONS TO THAT OR EXPLAIN IT, OR IF STAFF, LIKE STAFF MIGHT HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT. 
          I THINK FROM A READABILITY WORKABILITY STANDPOINT, I THINK WE'RE FINE WITH THAT LANGUAGE AND WE WERE RESPONDING, COMMISSIONER ZA, WHEN I GOT BACK WITH YOU TO THE PROPOSAL THAT HAD BEEN MADE BY SOME OF THE COMMERS ON THE 22ND, I DO WANNA SAY THAT OUR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, UM, THAT WAS IN BACKUP ON THE 22ND, UM, WAS LIMITED TO RE SUBDIVISIONS, NOT GREENFIELD SUBDIVISIONS. 
          AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS SIMPLY WHEN YOU ARE, UM, UNDER OUR CURRENT PROCESS WHEN A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION HAS GONE THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS AND BEEN PLATTED AS A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, THERE HAS OFTEN BEEN SOME REVIEW PROVIDED FOR DRAINAGE. 
          AND I THINK THE DEGREE TO WHICH THAT'S OCCURRED VARIES OVER TIME, DEPENDING ON WHAT RULES WERE IN PLACE. 
          UM, BUT SO OUR IDEA IN, IN INITIALLY AS PROPOSED WAS TO LIMIT THIS TO RE SUBDIVISIONS. 
          AND I JUST, THIS IS THE COMMISSIONER'S PREROGATIVE TO MAKE THIS RECOMMENDATION AND WE'LL, WE'LL DEFER TO THE COMMISSION ON THIS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO FLAG THAT THAT IS A DIFFERENCE FROM THE ORIGINAL STAFF PROPOSAL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER HANEY, DOES THIS ONE GET TO THE, UH, ONE OF YOUR AMENDMENTS? YOU KNOW, I, I, I THINK I'D RATHER DISCUSS THOSE AS, UH, PART OF A, OR, OR WHILE WE'RE DISCUSSING NUMBER THREE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THIS IS SORT OF LIKE THE DEFINITION THAT I WANNA PULL FOR ONE OF MY AMENDMENTS. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          UM, BUT I, I THINK MAYBE NUMBER THREE IS CLOSER TO THE MEAT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          MADAM CHAIR. 
          UM, YES, COMMISSIONER HANK QUESTION FOR, WELL, QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER AZAR AND THEN FOR MAYBE, PROBABLY FOR MR. LLOYD. 
          UM, SO COMMISSIONER, HELP ME OUT HERE. 
          UM, IS, IS THE INTENT OF CREATING THE NEW DEFINITION OF RESIDENTIAL INFILL IS THIS TO REPLACE 
          [03:50:01]
OR TO, UM, WHAT, HOW DO, HOW DOES THIS PLAY WITH PLATS AND REPLANTING? UM, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. 
          I WILL SAY I WILL, MIGHT DEFER TO SOME OF MY OTHER, UM, COMMISSIONERS WHO SORT OF WORKED ON THE AMENDMENT TO HELP ME OUT WITH THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION. 
          IF THIS HELPS. 
          LET ME JUST SAY, SO THIS DOES DEVIATE FROM ESSENTIALLY HOW STAFF HAD DONE THE ORDINANCE STAFF'S ORDINANCE. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT IT WAS A DEFINITION OF SMALL PROJECTS, WHICH WAS BASED ON SORT OF THE MM-HMM,  WATER QUALITY ASPECTS. 
          THIS IS MOVING AWAY FROM THAT AND ESSENTIALLY PUTTING IN A WHOLE NEW DEFINITION THAT'S REALLY FOCUSED ON, UH, INFILL DEVELOPMENT THAT'S FOCUSED ON THE SIZE NUMBER OF UNITS AND THE ZONES. 
          SO THAT'S REALLY THE IDEA INTO, UH, THE POINT THAT MR. LLOYD HAD. 
          IT DOES APPLY BOTH TO SUBDIVISIONS AND RE SUBDIVISIONS. 
          SO IT WOULD BE GREENFIELD AND IF SOMEBODY'S DOING RE SUBDIVISIONS FOR EXISTING AS WELL. 
          I DON'T KNOW. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT. 
          SO MY, LET ME, OKAY, LET ME, LET ME ASK SPECIFICALLY. 
          SO IS, IS IT, IS IT YOUR INTENT THEN TO SAY THAT, UM, BECAUSE WITH THIS NEW DEFINITION THEN, UM, IF I'M, IF I'M SPLITTING MY CURRENTLY PLATTED 11,000 SQUARE FOOT OR UP TO WHATEVER NUMBER OF SQUARE FOOT AN ACRE AND A HALF IS, UM, SITE INTO TWO, THREE SITES OR ADDING UNITS THAT I WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH A A PLAT OR A RE PLAT FOR THAT. 
          I REALLY WOULD DIRECT THIS. 
          HONESTLY, IF WE HAVE STAKEHOLDERS HERE WHO WORKED ON THIS, I WONDER IF THEY WANNA ADD TO THAT. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS IS THAT YES, AS LONG AS ESSENTIALLY YOUR IMPERVIOUS COVERED DOES NOT CHANGE, SO YOU STICK WITH ERV COVER THAT IS IN THOSE THREE ZONES, THEN YOU'LL BE ABLE TO RE SUBDIVIDE. 
          AND AS LONG AS YOU'RE DOING IT WITHIN THESE PARAMETERS, IT WOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED INFILL RESIDENTIAL. 
          AND I, MR. THR WANTS, AND I WOULD NOT, I WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH A REPL. 
          MR. TOR, IF YOU WANT TO COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE, COMMISSIONER RON THROWER, IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, YOU HAVE A LEGALLY PLOTTED LOT TODAY. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , IF YOU WANT TO DIVIDE IT, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH A RE SUBDIVISION PROCESS. 
          BUT IS THE INTENT OF THIS IS, IS THE INTENT OF THIS TO MAKE THE RESIDENTIAL NOW I WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH A A RE PLATTING PROCESS? NO, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH A RE PLATTING PROCESS TO DIVIDE IT UP INTO TWO LOTS. 
          E EVEN WITH THIS. 
          OKAY. 
          'CAUSE THAT I WAS READING THIS AS MAYBE THAT WAS THE, YOU KNOW, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT TRYING TO STREAMLINE PLATTING AND, BUT THIS IS, WELL YOU STILL HAVE TO LEGALLY PLA THE PROPERTY SO YOU CAN SELL 'EM OFF INDIVIDUALLY. 
          RIGHT. 
          WE'RE JUST MAINLY TRYING TO MAKE THE PROCESS A LOT KINDER AND GENTLER. 
          SO UNDER THAT SCENARIO, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO DIVIDE IT UP THROUGH A RE SUBDIVISION PROCESS TO MAKE IT TWO LEGAL LOTS TO SELL OFF, OFF. 
          YOU GET THE, OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT, THANKS. 
          AND THEN, UM, ORIGINALLY THIS WAS INTENT. 
          UM, SO THIS GOES NOT ONLY FOR, UM, FOR EXISTING, BUT THIS ALSO IS GONNA APPLY TO GREENFIELD SITES. 
          DID I HEAR THAT CORRECTLY? YES. 
          YES. 
          IT'S ANY SUBDIVISION. 
          AND JUST TO CLARIFY THAT, HONESTLY, I THINK WE MADE IT SLIGHTLY MORE CONFUSING WHEN I STATED FOR A MOTION ON B I'M GONNA SAY ANY SUBDIVISION OF LAND WITHIN AN SF ONE, SF TWO OR SF THREE ZONING DISTRICT. 
          SO IT WOULD INCLUDE GREENFIELD INFILL, ANY SUBDIVISION AT ALL. 
          SO WE'RE EXPANDING FROM THE ORIGINAL POSTED INFORMATION THAT WE DID ON THE, THAT I CANNOT SPEAK TO THAT WOULD BE A LAW OR STAFF. 
          I, 'CAUSE I HONESTLY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, I, I MEAN I KNOW WHAT THE POSTING LANGUAGE WAS, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE OTHER PIECES WOULD BE. 
          DID THE ORIGINAL POSTING LANGUAGE APPLY TO GREENFIELD SITES? UH, IT WASN'T THE POSTING LANGUAGE, BUT THE STAFF, THE ORIGINAL STAFF PROPOSAL WAS THE INFILL PLAT PROVISIONS WERE LIMITED TO RE SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PLOTTED SUBDIVISIONS. 
          PERFECT. 
          AND THE, UM, ORIGINAL POLICY BASIS FOR THAT WAS SIMPLY THAT THERE'S USUALLY BEEN SOME LEVEL OF DRAINAGE REVIEW PROVIDED FOR A PREVIOUSLY PLATTERED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. 
          UM, BUT I THINK THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS WELL CRAFTED AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN WORK WITH. 
          I JUST WANTED FOR THE COMMISSION'S UNDERSTANDING TO MAKE SURE IT WAS CLEAR THAT IT WAS AN EXPANSION OF THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL. 
          AND THAT'S FINE. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MOTION MAKER STAFF? OKAY. 
          UM, CHARLES STATED AS A MOTION, SO THIS IS THE REVISED, UM, NUMBER ONE WITH A SLIGHT CHANGE JUST TO SORT OF CLARIFY. 
          UM, SO ESSENTIALLY THE REST OF THE LANGUAGE WOULD REMAIN THE SAME. 
          THEY'RE ADDING IN A NEW DEFINITION SECTION. 
          RESIDENTIAL INFILL MEANS DEVELOPMENT OF A SITE, NOT EXCEEDING 
          [03:55:01]
ONE AND A HALF ACRES THAT CONSISTS OF FIVE OR 16 DWELLING UNITS OR ANY SUBDIVISION OF LAND WITHIN AN SF ONE, SF TWO OR SF THREE ZONING DISTRICT SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UM, ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE AND, UM, THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT'S 10. 
          AND THOSE, UM, SORRY, VOTING AGAINST COMMISSIONER HAYNES VOTING? NO. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THAT AMENDMENT PASSES. 
          LET'S GO TO THE NEXT ONE THAT WAS PULLED. 
          THIS IS, UM, THIS WOULD BE NUMBER TWO. 
          AND AS, AS WE DO THAT, I THINK, UH, IF I CAN JUST SAY ONE THING. 
          THANK YOU ALL COMMISSIONERS FOR PUTTING UP WITH THIS BECAUSE REALLY AGAIN, AS I SAID, NOT ALL OF THESE WERE WORKED ON BY ME. 
          I THINK SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS WORKED ON THESE, I'M SORT OF THE WRANGLER HERE, BUT OTHER FE CAN FOLKS CAN SPEAK MUCH BETTER TO SORT OF WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF ME. 
          BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. 
          UM, SO CHAIR, THIS TAKES US TO NUMBER TWO. 
          THIS WAS IN THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS SHARED THIS MORNING. 
          I PULLED IT BECAUSE I KNOW STAFF HAS, UM, HAS SOME THOUGHTS ON THAT AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE SORT OF GET THAT. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS IS DOING IS, UM, IT IS ADDING A RESIDENTIAL INFILL WITH A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO BE ISSUED WITHIN 90 BUSINESS DAYS. 
          AND AGAIN, THIS LANGUAGE FROM THE COMMISSIONERS WAS COMING FROM THE INITIATING RESOLUTION THAT COUNCIL HAD PASSED. 
          IT MENTIONED 90 BUSINESS DAYS. 
          WE'D ACTUALLY HEARD IN BOTH DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS OF GOING LESS AND MORE. 
          WE STUCK WITH ESSENTIALLY WHAT COUNCIL HAD DIRECTED US, BUT I KNOW THERE'S SORT OF LIKE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS THAT STAFF, UM, HAS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SORT OF DISCUSS AS WELL. 
          I'LL LEAVE IT THERE. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UH, IF I MIGHT ASK YES, MR. LLOYD, CAN YOU PLEASE RESPOND MS. MY QUESTION? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO WE'RE VERY MINDFUL OF THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION AND WE APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION MOVING THE BALL FORWARD ON THIS. 
          WHAT WE, WHAT I WOULD, UH, I THINK THE RESOLUTION DOES PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY TO LOOK AT SORT OF ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES. 
          AND THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE HERE IS THAT JUST A BLANKET THOU SHALL BE APPROVED IN 90 DAYS DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR SOME OF THE THINGS THAT CAN OCCUR IN THE REVIEW PROCESS. 
          WHAT IF THE APPLICANT HASN'T RESPONDED TO STAFF COMMENTS? WHAT IF THERE ARE STILL OUTSTANDING ISSUES AND THE PROJECT DOESN'T, UH, DOESN'T COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS? UM, WHAT IF THE APPLICANT HASN'T PROVIDED, UM, HASN'T FILED AN UPDATE IN A TIMELY MANNER AND THERE'S STILL OUTSTANDING ISSUES. 
          SO I THINK THIS WOULD BE IMPLYING AS IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN THAT, UM, THAT SOMETHING WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT COMPLIES WITH CODE. 
          AND WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. 
          WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST AS AN ALTERNATIVE IS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, UM, IN THE SHOCK CLOCK PROVISIONS THAT APPLY TO SUBDIVISION, WE HAVE AN INITIAL RES DEADLINE FOR STAFF TO RESPOND TO THE INITIAL APPLICATION WHEN IT'S SUBMITTED. 
          AND THEN THERE'S A DEADLINE FOR RESPONDING TO UPDATES THAT THE APPLICANT FILES. 
          AND WE'VE LOOKED AT THE SMART HOUSING DEADLINES THAT ARE USED. 
          AND SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER IS SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, UH, WITHIN 14 BUSINESS DAYS, AFTER AN APPLICATION IS FILED FOR REVIEW, APPROVE THE APPLICATION OR PROVIDE A REPORT SPECIFYING THE REASONS THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS. 
          AND WITHIN SEVEN BUSINESS DAYS AFTER AN UPDATED APPLICATION IS FILED FOR REVIEW, APPROVE THE APPLICATION OR PROVIDE A REPORT, AGAIN, SPECIFYING THE REASONS WHY IT CAN'T BE APPROVED. 
          SO THIS WOULD ESSENTIALLY IMPOSE BINDING REVIEW PERIODS ON STAFF IN TERMS OF HAVING TO RESPOND TO THE INITIAL APPLICATION AFTER IT'S FILED AND THEN FOLLOWING UP IMMEDIATELY WITHIN SEVEN DAYS, UM, WHEN APPLICANTS FILE THEIR UPDATES. 
          AND WE THINK THIS IS A, UH, THIS WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY MOVE THE BALL FORWARD ON REVIEW TIMES FOR THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS. 
          AND I'VE DISCUSSED IT INTERNALLY WITH OUR SITE PLAN REVIEW DIVISION AND THEY'RE, THEY CAN WORK WITH THIS. 
          UH, AND WE THINK THIS AVOIDS SOME OF I, WHAT I THINK WOULD BE THE UNIN UNINTENDED AND UNFORTUNATE CONSEQUENCES OF TRYING TO HAVE JUST A BLANKET 90 DAY APPROVAL REQUIREMENT THAT DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE REAL, SOME OF THE REALITIES THAT OCCUR IN THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. 
          I, UM, SO COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, AND THEN I HAVE A QUESTION AS WELL. 
          YEAH, I JUST FOLLOW UP QUESTION ON THAT. 
          SO UNDER THE CURRENT SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURES, UM, I, MR. LLOYD, AREN'T THERE ALREADY INTERNAL DEADLINES BY WHICH STAFF HAS TO RESPOND TO AN 
          [04:00:01]
APPLICATION, EITHER A PRI ORIGINAL APPLICATION OR AN UPDATE? UH, AND WHAT ARE THOSE TIMELINES FOR A SITE PLAN TODAY? I DON'T HAVE, I DON'T HAVE ALL OF THAT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THESE ARE, THESE ARE THE ONES WE USE FOR SMART HOUSING, WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED FROM WHAT A NORMAL SITE PLAN IS. 
          AND ADDITIONALLY, THIS WOULD BE PLACING IT ACTUALLY IN THE CODE AS OPPOSED TO JUST IN STAFF CRITERIA MANUALS. 
          SO I THINK THIS WOULD SOLIDIFY IT AND THIS WOULD REPRESENT A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT IN REVIEW TIMES FROM WHAT EXISTS TODAY. 
          AND IS THERE A LIMIT TODAY ON THE NUMBER OF CYCLES UPDATES THAT CAN BE REQUIRED TO GET THROUGH THE APPLICATION PROCESS? SO WE HAVE, UM, THE LIFE OF THE APPLICATION IS ONE YEAR, SO WITHIN ONE YEAR. 
          UM, BUT WITHIN ONE YEAR IF YOU HAD COMMENTS GO BACK AND FORTH RIGHT. 
          15 TIMES THAT'S THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE. 
          THAT'S THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE, BUT IT'S NOT LIKELY AND IT CERTAINLY WOULDN'T BE LIKELY FOR THIS FOR SMALL SCALE INFILL. 
          SO THIS IS REALLY RIGHT SIZING THE REVIEW TIMES FOR THIS SCALE OF PROJECT, WHICH I THINK WE RECOGNIZE TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN SORT OF A COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN. 
          I GUESS I JUST WORRY THAT WITHOUT SOME SORT OF OVERALL TIMELINE, WHETHER IT'S UH, CALENDAR DAYS, BUSINESS DAYS, YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE OF THE, THE REVIEW TURNAROUND. 
          'CAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE CURRENT PRACTICE IS ALSO THAT IF A, A REVIEW UPDATE IS DELAYED, UH, THAT TIME IS GIVEN BACK TO THE APPLICANT TO RESPOND, THERE'S ACTUALLY NO PENALTY IS A SORT OF WEIRD WORD, BUT THERE'S NOT REALLY A PENALTY FOR STAFF TO HAVE A DELAY IN GETTING A COMMENT RESPONSE REPORT BACK TO THE APPLICANTS. 
          IT JUST EVEN FURTHER LENGTHENS THAT TIMELINE SO THAT THE STATUTORY DEADLINES A YEAR UNDER TODAY'S CODE. 
          BUT IF STAFF IS DELAYED IN RESPONDING ON SEVERAL UPDATES THAT YEAR COULD STRETCH TO 14, 16, 18 MONTHS. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? AND I'M LOOKING AT MR. MARS AS WELL AND HE MIGHT HAVE THAT ANSWER. 
          TIMELINES PLAY A CRUCIAL ROLE IN THE TIME FROM SUBMITTING APPLICATION TO THE END. 
          MM-HMM. 
          IT'S NOT THE END ALL BE ALL. 
          THERE'S MANY OTHER IMPORTANT PARTS. 
          THE ROLE OF THE CASE MANAGER HOLDING INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENTS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THOSE TIMELINES. 
          OF COURSE WE HAD A WHOLE TRANSFORMATION, THE SITE PLAN OF THE SITE PLAN WORK THAT THE CITY WENT THROUGH. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , IT IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. 
          TIMES ARE SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER THAN WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. 
          SITE PLANNER REVIEW TURNAROUND TIME IS FASTER THAN IT HAS BEEN SINCE WE HAVE RECORDS ON THE PROCESS FROM 2015 TO TODAY. 
          NOW, WHEN IT COMES TO HAVING THAT OVERALL TIMELINE, WE ARE TRACKING KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR THAT END TO END TIME TO PERMIT. 
          WE CAN ALSO SEG SEGREGATE IT OUT BASED ON HOUSING AND ON TOP OF THAT WE CAN SEGREGATE OUT BASED ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          THE THING THAT WE HAVE SEEN THAT'S ACTUALLY MADE THE MOST DIFFERENCE IS HAVING A CASE MANAGER, TRUE CASE MANAGER, AS THOUGH THIS GETS INTO SOME OTHER MOTIONS, UH, THAT IS, THAT THAT QUARTERBACK, UH, THAT ADVOCATE FOR THE PROCESS TO GET IT THROUGH. 
          THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE THING THAT REALLY MATTERS THE MOST IN TERMS OF GETTING TO A QUICK TURNAROUND FOR, FOR PLANS AND IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, REDUCING THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANS SUCH AS, AS FIVE TO 16 UNITS IS GOING TO RESULT IN GETTING TO THAT NINE DAY MARK, UH, IS MORE BECOMES MORE REALISTIC WITH KIND OF A SUITE OF TOOL APPROACH, IF THAT HELPS. 
          IF I MAY JUST ONE MORE FOLLOW UP. 
          UM, WHEN I WAS A CITY STAFF MEMBER AT DSD SEVERAL YEARS AGO, WAS RIGHT AROUND THE TIME THAT THE SHOT CLOCK BILL FOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS WAS PASSED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND ENACTED. 
          UM, CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, I MEAN, THAT ESSENTIALLY DID SAY IF AN, IF AN APPLICATION IS NOT APPROVED WITHIN X DAYS, IT IS APPROVED, WHETHER THE CITY, WHETHER IT MEETS CODE OR NOT. 
          SO HOW HAS THAT BILL IMPACTED SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TIMELINES? I MEAN, ARE WE SEEING SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE APPROVED WITHOUT MEETING CODE OR HAS STAFF FIGURED OUT A WAY TO GET THOSE REVIEWS DONE WITHIN THE STATE MANDATED STATUTORY TIMELINE FOR THAT TYPE OF APPLICATION? TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S BEEN ONE, ONE SUBDIVISION DURING THAT TIME THAT'S BEEN BY RIDE APPROVED 'CAUSE OF NOT MEETING DEADLINES. 
          THE OTHERS HAVE TURNED AROUND QUICKLY. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , WE DO SEE GAPS IN THE PROCESS OF SURE. 
          SOME OF THE ITEMS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, GETTING STUCK ON DRAINAGE COMMENTS AND THE NEED FOR DETENTION, UH, RECORDING LEGAL DOCUMENTS AT, WITH THE, AT THE, AT THE COURTHOUSE, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. 
          SURE. 
          POSTING FISCAL ARE THE THINGS THAT TAKE TIME, BUT THE TIMELINES ARE OVERALL MUCH BETTER. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? OH, MA AND COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UH, YEAH. 
          SO I, I ACTUALLY WANNA THANK COMMISSIONER JOHNSON 'CAUSE HE ASKED MY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SHOCK CLOCK. 
          BUT I THINK, UM, I AM CURIOUS, UH, PRI STAFF CAN JUST HELP US WITH THIS. 
          UM, ARE THERE OTHER 
          [04:05:01]
PLACES IN CODE WHERE WE'VE ACTUALLY PUT A SIMILAR TYPE OF 90 DAY OR SPECIFIC WINDOW AND WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE SO WE COULD MAKE IT MAKE PERHAPS MORE CONSISTENT? UM, I GUESS THAT WAS PROBABLY MY FIRST CUR CURIOUS, 'CAUSE YOU ALL OBVIOUSLY SPOKE ABOUT THE SHOCK CLOCK, BUT THAT WAS A STATE MANDATED ITEM. 
          SO, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE QUESTION IS, ARE THERE OTHER PLACES IN CODE WHERE WE HAVE THE YES, THERE ARE, THERE ARE PLACES IN CODE IN ONE PLACE THAT WE COULD PLACE. 
          UH, THE, THE PROVISIONS THAT I SUGGESTED THAT WOULD JUST BE A, A BINDING, UH, REVIEW TURNAROUND TIME, UM, WOULD BE, FOR EXAMPLE, COULD BE IN 25 1 DASH 64, WHICH IS CAPTIONED ACTION ON APPLICATION DEADLINE. 
          THAT IS A PROCEDURAL PROVISION THAT APPLIES TO, UH, NON SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS. 
          MM-HMM. 
           THAT INCLUDES A LOT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CODIFIED PROCESS REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS. 
          AND SO WE COULD DEFINITELY FOLD THAT IN THERE. 
          AND I HAD SUGGESTED, UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL TO YOU AND COMMISSIONER AZAR EARLIER IN APPROACH ALONG THAT LINE. 
          Y YEAH. 
          AND I, AND I GUESS TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT QUESTION, BECAUSE I THINK I SHARED COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S CONCERN, OBVIOUSLY, THAT WE WANNA BE RESPECTFUL OF THE PROCESS AND BUILD IN SOME FLEXIBILITY, BUT THAT THE OVERALL TIMELINE WAS SOMETHING THAT WE HEARD REPEATEDLY WAS REALLY DIFFICULT FOR THESE INFILL SITUATIONS WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO TO THREE YEARS TO GET THROUGH POTENTIALLY SUBDIVISION, PARTICULARLY IF THERE ARE A LOT OF COMMENTS. 
          SO IS THERE A POTENTIAL, SAY, OVERALL DEADLINE THAT WE COULD REALLY LIMIT SO THAT EVERYBODY GOING INTO THIS PROCESS KNEW CLEARLY THAT THEY WOULD HAVE AN ANSWER SAY WITHIN 6, 8, 10 MONTHS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? OR WOULD THAT BE POSSIBLE GIVEN THE BACK AND FORTH? IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S TRICKY TO SORT OF CALCULATE. 
          WELL, SO I'VE BEEN DIRECTING MY COMMENTS AT THE SITE PLAN PIECE BECAUSE WE HAVE THE SHOCK LUCK LEGISLATION FOR SUBDIVISIONS. 
          AND AS, UM, AS, UM, MR. MARS MENTIONED THAT HAS WORKED SUCCESSFULLY AND WE'VE HAD VERY FEW INSTANCES. 
          I THINK HE'S CORRECT, JUST ONE WHERE THERE'S BEEN A, AN APPROVAL FOR FAILURE TO MEET THE TIMELINE. 
          UM, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A SIMILAR PROVISION FOR SITE PLANS. 
          AND SO MY SUGGESTION WAS TO SIMPLY INCLUDE SOME BINDING REVIEW TIMELINES FOR SITE PLANS AND TO PUT THAT INTO THE PROVISION ON SITE PLAN APPLICATION REVIEW. 
          I DON'T RECOMMEND ANY CHANGES TO THE PROVISIONS ON INFILL PLATS ON SHOT SHOT CLOCK PROVISIONS FOR INFILL PLATS. 
          I THINK THOSE ARE WORKING. 
          AND ADDITIONALLY, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, AS WE SCALE BACK THE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS, WHICH IS GONNA HAPPEN IN RESPONSE TO, YOU KNOW, THIS TONIGHT'S ACTION AND, UM, POTENTIALLY OTHER ITEMS INCLUDED AS WELL. 
          I THINK THAT, UH, IT WILL BE EASIER FOR APPLICANTS TO GET THROUGH THE PROCESS. 
          BUT I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE SOME FAIL SAFES. 
          WE DO HAVE PROJECTS THAT, UM, SIMPLY DON'T COMPLY WITH CODE AND THERE'S A VOLLEY OF BACK AND FORTH AND RESPONSES TO UPDATES, BUT THERE ARE STILL OUTSTANDING ISSUES AND CHALLENGES AND WE, I THINK NEED TO MAINTAIN THE CITY'S ABILITY TO, UH, MAINTAIN DISAPPROVALS ON THOSE APPLICATIONS. 
          UM, BUT AGAIN, OUR PROPOSAL WOULD, THE PROPOSAL THAT I READ INTO THE RECORD WOULD, UM, CODIFY THE SMART HOUSING DEADLINES AND APPLY THOSE TO THESE INFILL PLOT SITE PLANS. 
          MADAM CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YES, COMMISSIONER. 
          AND I'M GONNA KIND OF, I, I'M SITTING DOWN HERE AND TALKING TO COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, UH, IN AN EFFORT TO TRY TO REACH SOMETHING THAT, THAT MIGHT PUT THE CAP, PUT THE END DATE ON IT. 
          UM, HOW ABOUT SOMETHING ALONG, AND COMMISSIONER HANEY CAN, CAN ATTEST THAT HE AND I ARE BOTH FAMILIAR WITH THE WAY WE DO IT PERMITTING AND ALL AT THE STATE LEVEL. 
          AND AT THE STATE LEVEL, IF YOU DON'T GET YOUR PERMIT IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, YOU GET SOME OF YOUR FEES BACK. 
          AND SO WHAT IF WE WERE TO SAY, WE'LL USE MR. LLOYD'S THE 14 DAYS, AND THEN YOU GOT SEVEN DAYS OF, OF RESPONSE AND THEN SAY, IF IF FOUR CYCLES OF, SO THAT'S 21 DAY, FOUR CYCLES OF THAT WOULD BE 105 DAYS, YOU GET 10%, 15, 25, PICK YOUR NUMBER OR YOUR FEEDBACK IF IT GOES MORE THAN 105 DAYS AND PUT, PUT THE INCENTIVE ON STAFF TO GET THIS DONE. 
          UM, AND, AND YES, COMMISSIONERS ARE, I'LL WRITE THAT UP FOR YOU. 
          , YOU KNOW, THE DRILL. 
          UH, MISS ALSO, I, I OBVIOUSLY WANT, WANT Y'ALL'S INPUT ON THAT SETTING A TIMELINE FOR PROJECTS FOR FIVE TO 16 UNITS ON THE SURFACE, IT SHOULD TAKE LESS TIME THAN 400 UNIT INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. 
          I, I, I THINK FROM A TO MR. LOUIS'S POINT, THE, WE, WE 
          [04:10:01]
CAN, WE CAN WORK WITH DIRECTION ON HERE IS THE TIMELINE, BUT PERMITTING IS A TWO PARTY RELATIONSHIP. 
          WE NEED TO HOLD STAFF ACCOUNTABLE, WHICH AS DSD BEING THE ENTERPRISE DEPARTMENT, WE ARE DOING THIS MORE NOW THAN EVER. 
          WE HAVE TO HOLD OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE SO THAT, THAT, THAT THE GOOD ACTORS AND THE ACTORS THAT ARE FOLLOWING CODE AND LIKEWISE THE PROCESS THAT IS TRANSPARENT, PREDICTABLE, REPEATABLE, THAT WE'RE DOING ALL OF THOSE THINGS SO THAT WE ARE SETTING EVERYONE'S UP FOR SUCCESS, THAT WE'RE TREATING IT WITH A CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARD, THAT WE ARE SERVING OUR COMMUNITY AND THOSE THAT ARE SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS. 
          BUT THAT ALSO MEANS THOSE THAT ARE SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS ARE SUBMITTING COMPLIANT PLANS THE BEST THAT THEY CAN AND TURNING AROUND TIME UPDATES IN A TIMELY MANNER. 
          SO AGAIN, THE OVERALL, BELIEVE ME, ON EVEN ON HOUSING PROJECTS RIGHT NOW, ESPECIALLY ON PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, WE HAVE ACTUALLY TO THE POINT NOW, WE ARE MOVING SO QUICKLY ON APPLICATIONS. 
          WE ARE REACHING OUT TO APPLICANTS AND SAYING, WHERE IS YOUR NEXT UPDATE? YOU'RE HURTING OUR TIMELINES. 
          YOU NEED TO TURN THESE AROUND 'CAUSE THIS CITY NEEDS PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING. 
          SO WE ARE DOING ALL THOSE THINGS. 
          NOW, THE 90 DAY OVERALL OF HERE'S, HERE'S THE GOAL, HERE'S WHERE WE NEED TO BE TO TURN THESE AROUND. 
          NO, NO ISSUE TO MR. LLOYD'S POINT OF THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. 
          LET'S NOT PUT THE CITY IN THAT POSITION AND NOT RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S, IT'S A TWO-WAY STREET HERE. 
          ANY, WHERE DO WE TAKE THIS? SINCE THE NO MOTION HAS BEEN MADE, WE'RE WE'RE JUST HONESTLY DISCUSSING THE DIFFERENT SORT OF VERSIONS AND WE WILL STILL SORT OF IN THE RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS. 
          YEAH. 
          CAN I JUST ASK A, A CLARIFYING QUESTION THEN ON WHAT MR. MARS AND, AND, UH, MR. LLOYD HAVE SAID, JUST LOOKING AT TIMELINES THAT DO EXIST TODAY. 
          UH, IT, IT SEEMS LIKE A CONCERN IS THAT APPLICATIONS COULD BE FORCED TO BE APPROVED WHILE NOT COMPLIANT WITH CODE. 
          CAN'T THEY JUST BE REJECTED? I MEAN, IF, IF A SUBDIVISION FOR INSTANCE CAME IN OR LET'S IGNORE SUBDIVISION AT STATE LAW, BUT TODAY, IF A SITE PLAN CAME IN AND WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS AND AT THE END OF THE, THE CODE OR OR MANUAL DICTATED TIMELINE, THEY DID NOT MEET CODE, WOULDN'T THAT APPLICATION JUST BE REJECTED? YES. 
          OUR CONCERN IS THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT'S BEFORE US IN AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS IN THE SMALL PROJECT SITE PLAN PROVISION, WHICH ISN'T WHERE WE SHOULD BE PUTTING A DEADLINE ANYWAY. 
          SO WE WOULD WANNA RECRAFT, YOU KNOW, WHERE THIS LIVES AS FAR AS AS, AS FAR AS WHERE IT GOES IN THE CODE. 
          BUT IT SAYS RESIDENTIAL INFILL WITH A SITE PLAN PERMIT TO BE ISSUED WITHIN 90 BUSINESS DAYS. 
          SO THAT APPEARS TO JUST BE A BLANKET DIRECTIVE FOR STAFF TO ISSUE SOMETHING WITHIN 90 DAYS. 
          AND I THINK THE, THE BETTER APPROACH THAT LINES UP WITH THE WAY THAT THE SHOCK CLOCK IS STRUCTURED FOR SUBDIVISION IS TO HAVE THERE BE A DEADLINE FOR RESPONDING TO THE INITIAL APPLICATION AND THEN A DEADLINE FOR RESPONDING TO SUBSEQUENT UPDATES. 
          AND, UH, THE, AGAIN, THE, WHAT WHAT I'VE SUGGESTED IS MODELED AFTER SMART HOUSING. 
          UM, AND OUR SITE PLAN TEAM, UH, THINKS THAT THAT IS ABSOLUTELY WORKABLE FOR THIS SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND IT WOULD BE A LOT LESS THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR A BIG COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN OR A LARGE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT OR THE THINGS THAT, UM, I THINK HAVE CAUSED IN THE PAST THE MOST CHALLENGE FOR REVIEW TIMES. 
          THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. 
          YES. 
          AND YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE OTHER CONCEPT AT THE STATE IS ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE. 
          I, IT SURPRISED ME THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE CITY ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE. 
          DO WE HAVE THAT? WE DO. 
          AND WE, AND WE'RE, WE INTERPRET THESE PROVISIONS, UH, THIS MEANS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A TURNAROUND TIME ON AN APPLICATION, IT'S ALREADY BEEN DEEMED COMPLETE. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          SO WE DON'T SPECIFY THAT EVERY TIME WE MENTION AN APPLICATION DEADLINE, BUT THAT'S A GIVEN. 
          WE HAVE A COMPLETENESS CHECK PROCESS THAT WE FOLLOW. 
          UM, MR. LLOYD, UM, MY QUESTION WITH, WITH WHATEVER DIRECTION THIS ENDS UP TAKING, JUST HAVING A, A QUICKER REVIEW PROCESS, DO YOU THINK THAT THAT WILL NECESSITATE HIRING ADDITIONAL STAFF OR IS THAT JUST, UM, TRAINING EXISTING STAFF TO A, A NEW WAY OF DOING REVIEW? I THINK IN GENERAL, WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO WORK WITHIN THE MEANS THAT, THAT WE HAVE. 
          SO PART OF THIS IS JUST BEING MORE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT AND BEING QUICKER TO DECISION MAKING AND, AND MOVING ON. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S THE ABILITY, ESPECIALLY REDUCING THE, THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. 
          THIS SEEMS ACHIEVABLE WITH THE RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S GOOD TO HEAR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          [04:15:01]
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, UM, ON THIS ONE FOR STAFF OR MOTION MAKER OR PROPOSAL MAKER? I'LL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND JUST MAKE THE BASE MOTION. 
          I FEEL LIKE THERE MIGHT BE SOME AMENDMENTS EITHER TO THIS ONE OR I'M, I'M TRYING TO TAKE NOTES AS WE GO ALONG. 
          SO THIS WOULD BE TAKING NUMBER TWO AS PRESENTED BY THE GROUP FOR NOW. 
          SO THIS WOULD MEAN, UM, THAT IN THAT SUBSECTION SEVEN, WE WILL BE SEEING RESIDENTIAL INFILL WITH A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO BE ISSUED WITHIN 90 BUSINESS DAYS. 
          AND I'LL, I GUESS WE CAN WAIT FOR A SECOND AND, OR WE CAN HAVE ANOTHER MOTION. 
          I'LL SECOND IT. 
          I'LL SECOND THAT. 
          AND COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DID YOU WANT TO UPDATE THAT OR PROPOSE NEW LANGUAGE? I MEAN, IF, IF THAT'S THE ROUTE WE'RE GONNA GO. 
          I, I MEAN I, I DO UNDERSTAND MR. LLOYD'S CONCERN THERE. 
          WHAT IF WE, WHAT IF WE SAID SOMETHING, UH, IF, IF, IF WE WANT STICK WITH THIS BASIS AND, AND AGAIN, Y'ALL WORK, Y'ALL PUT TIME AND BLOOD, SWEAT AND TEARS IN THIS, SO I DON'T WANNA CHANGE TOO MUCH OF IT. 
          BUT WHAT, WHAT IF WE SAID, YOU KNOW, IF IF THE PERMIT MEETS THE CRITERIA OR THE CODE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN THE RESIDENTIAL LANDFILL SITE WITH A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO BE ISSUED. 
          I MEAN, I I I GET THEIR CONCERN. 
          IT, IT DOES SAY THOU SHALL ISSUE THIS PERMIT EVEN IF THE PERMIT DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA. 
          AND SO WE DO NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          VICE CHAIR YOU HAD HAD THE LANGUAGE FROM MR. LLOYD, CORRECT? YEAH. 
          AND THAT'S DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT. 
          BUT I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU, AND I'M NOTING THIS AGAIN, SO PLEASE, UM, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT WE WOULD NOW SAY SEVEN WOULD BE IF A PERMIT MEETS THE CODE REQUIREMENTS RESIDENTIAL INFILL WITH A SITE DEVELOPMENT FOR, FOR RESIDENTIAL, I'M SORRY, FOR RESIDENTIAL INFILL, UH, WITH A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO BE ISSUED WITHIN 90 BUSINESS DAYS OR IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE FOR A PERMIT MEETING CODE REQUIREMENTS. 
          SORRY, CHAIR. 
          YES. 
          UM, I HAD A POINT OF INQUIRY FOR VICE CHAIR. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , UM, UH, UM, MR. LLOYD WAS KIND ENOUGH TO SHARE SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT REGARDING SMART HOUSING AND USING THOSE TIMELINES. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          BUT IT ISN'T A DIFFERENT SECTION OF CODE AND IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT. 
          SO I GUESS I WAS JUST CURIOUS FROM VICE CHAIR IS OUR POSITION, WOULD THAT BE BETTER SUBMITTED AS A SEPARATE AMENDMENT OR A SUBSTITUTE SINCE IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FOR WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US CURRENTLY? SO, SO THAT WOULD BE TRUE IN THAT I FEEL LIKE, AND THIS IS SOMETHING HOPEFULLY STAFF CAN HELP US WITH THIS, THAT MIGHT BE A GENERAL AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT'S ANOTHER SECTION OF THE CODE. 
          OR ARE WE SEEING THAT THAT SECTION OF THE CODE WOULD BE MOVED INTO THIS SECTION MIGHT NEED STAFF HELP ON THIS ONE? SO I THINK IF, IF COMMISSION IS CLEAR IN ITS AMENDMENT WHAT YOUR INTENT IS, I DON'T THINK THAT YOU NEED NEED TO BE SO FOCUSED ON EXACT PRECISE WORDSMITHING. 
          SO IF YOU WANNA SAY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANNA AMEND AMENDMENT, WHAT IS IT, NUMBER TWO THAT WE'RE ON, UM, TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROPOSAL THAT I SUBMITTED EARLIER, YOU COULD SIMPLY SAY THAT IF YOU, AND, AND IF THERE'S SOME GENERAL NUANCE YOU WANT TO EMPHASIZE TO HAVE US LOOK AT 90 DAYS TO THE GREATEST EXTENT PRACTICABLE, YOU COULD INCLUDE THAT. 
          UM, AND THEN WE WOULD WORK WITH THAT IN CRAFTING AN AMENDMENT THAT GOES TO COUNSEL. 
          I DO WANNA MAKE ONE MORE POINT, IF I MAY, REGARDING 90 DAYS. 
          YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WITH THAT IS, IS YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENS IF AN APPLICANT GETS COMMENTS WITHIN 10 BUSINESS DAYS IN LINE WITH THE PROPOSALS THAT WE'RE SUGGESTING AND THEN THEY DON'T PROVIDE THEIR UPDATE UNTIL DAY 87 89, AND THEN WE LATER AT DAY 95 FIND THAT, YEAH, THAT DID COMPLY WITH CODE, BUT WE DIDN'T FIND THAT BY THE 90TH DAY BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET IT UNTIL THE 89TH DAY. 
          THOSE KINDS OF THINGS HAPPEN NOT INFREQUENTLY. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHY WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING THIS OUTER LIMIT OF 90 DAYS. 
          I THINK THERE'S A WAY FOR THE COMMISSION TO SIGNAL THAT AS A GOAL AND WE WOULD REFLECT THAT IN THE LANGUAGE AS A GOAL. 
          BUT, UH, MY RECOMMENDATION IS, IS IS THAT IT BE FOCUSED ON THE TURNAROUND TIME FOR RESPONDING TO THE INITIAL APPLICATION AT 14 DAYS AND SUBSEQUENT UPDATES AT SEVEN DAYS. 
          AND THAT WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT RELATIVE TO HOW UM, SITE PLANS ARE HANDLED TODAY. 
          MADAM CHAIR, I I JUST SO VERY MUCH RESPECT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THERE. 
          UM, 
          [04:20:01]
I WILL SAY THAT WHEN WE DID A SIMILAR THING AT THE STATE LEVEL, UM, IT REALLY ENCOURAGED ALL OF THE APPLICANTS TO GET THEIR, UH, MATERIALS IN TIMELY BECAUSE THEY KNEW AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT THEY WERE GONNA HAVE TO RESTART THE, THE PROCESS. 
          SO, UM, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SAYING THAT, I MEAN THIS WAS A, YOU KNOW, VERY SOPHISTICATED MULTI TENS OF MAYBE SOMETIMES A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR PROJECTS. 
          BUT, YOU KNOW, I, MY MY THOUGHT IS THAT THE SAME THING COULD HAPPEN HERE, THAT IT MIGHT ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE BETTER BEHAVIOR ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT'S. 
          UM, IF THEY KNOW THAT THEY'RE GONNA GET TO THE END OF THE 90 DAYS AND THAT'S THE END OF IT AND, YOU KNOW, THINK THEY GET TO RESTART. 
          I I COULD BE WRONG THOUGH. 
          I DON'T MEAN TO SPEAK OUTTA TURN PLEASE, BUT I JUST WANNA RESPOND BRIEFLY. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER HANEY, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO WOULD BE REDUCING THE LENGTH OF THE APPLICATION LIFE FROM ONE YEAR TO 90 DAYS. 
          AND SO THAT WOULD DEFINITELY BE AN AMENDMENT THAT I THINK IF THE COMMISSIONER WANTS TO, IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO DO THAT, IF YOU WANT TO SHORTEN THE LIFE OF A INFILL SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM ONE YEAR TO 90 DAYS, I WOULD, I WOULD INCLUDE THAT IN YOUR MOTION. 
          AND THAT'S CERTAINLY WITHIN YOUR PREROGATIVE TO PROPOSE IT. 
          I THINK THERE ARE, AS FAR AS MOVING YOUR OBJECTIVES FORWARD, I THINK THERE ARE PROS AND CONS TO THAT. 
          AND I THINK YOU, BASED ON YOUR COMMENTS, I THINK YOU HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THOSE ARE. 
          SURE. 
          UM, I DO NOT RECOMMEND THAT, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD INCLUDE. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND REDIRECT . 
          JEFF, I MIGHT GO BACK. 
          SO COMMISSIONER HAYNES, IF THE NO SUBSTITUTE HAS BEEN MADE OR AN AMENDMENT HAS BEEN MADE, BUT BASED ON, I THINK WHAT I HEARD YOU, WE WOULD BE AMENDING OUR BASE MOTION TO ESSENTIALLY NOW SAY, 'CAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT SMALL PROJECTS, IS A RESIDENTIAL INFERIOR PROJECT MEETING ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS WITH A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO BE ISSUED WITHIN 90 DAYS. 
          DOES THAT MEET THE INTENT THAT YOU WERE THINKING OF? YEAH, THAT MEANS THAT MEETS THE, WHAT I WAS TRYING TO FUDDLE THROUGH, BUT, BUT LET ME BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. 
          I LIKE MR. LLOYD'S SECOND, I LIKE HIS SECOND ITERATION BETTER. 
          IF WE, IF IF SOMEHOW WE CAN PUT AN OUTLIER AND CAP ON THERE AND IF NOT, IF IT'S NOT A CAP, IT'S A, A STRONG STERN RECOMMENDATION. 
          OR I ALSO JUST WANNA SAY, COMMISSIONER AZAR, THE, AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR SPEAKING OUT OF TURN, Y'ALL CAN SHUT ME DOWN AND I'LL STOP DOING THIS. 
          BUT THE PROVISION ON SMALL PROJECTS IS REALLY JUST LISTING PROJECTS THAT QUALIFY AS SMALL PROJECTS. 
          SO TO PUT A REVIEW TIME INTO THAT PROVISION IS OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF WHAT THAT PROVISION IS ABOUT. 
          SO THAT'S WHY, TO THE EXTENT WE WANT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, WE WOULD SUGGEST PUTTING IN, IN, UH, 25 1 DASH, UH, 64 I BELIEVE IT IS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, UM, MR. MORRIS, GO AHEAD. 
          I'LL JUST QUICKLY RESPOND TO THAT. 
          I THINK ONE PLACES THAT WE GOT STUCK ON THIS ONE WAS, IT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE WERE HEARING A LOT FROM STAKEHOLDERS. 
          IT'S SOMETHING, FRANKLY, I FEEL LIKE I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR A DECADE. 
          I AM, AND I, AND I REALLY WANNA APPRECIATE HONESTLY WHAT THE WORK DSD HAS DONE TO REALLY CHANGE THE WAY IT DOES STUFF AND MOVE THINGS FASTER. 
          AND PART OF IT, I THINK WHAT WAS HAPPENING WAS WE WERE TRYING TO PUT IT IN HERE AS SORT OF A SIGNAL TO BE SORT OF CONSIDERED, BUT I DO AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT BELONGS IN THIS SECTION. 
          WE CAN SORT OF FIGURE THAT OUT AS WELL, I GUESS WITH ALL CAVEATS SAYING THAT WOULD PROBABLY SOMEONE HELP ME HERE PROCEDURE THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A GENERAL AMENDMENT 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT AT THIS POINT AMENDING THAT SECTION OF THE CODE. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, SORRY, BUT MR. MORRIS, SORRY, GO AHEAD. 
          I WAS, UH, ONLY GOING TO ADD, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE'VE NOT DISCUSSED IS WHEN, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A, A TIMELINE, SAY THE 90 DAY TRIGGER IS FOR A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE, WHEN WE GET TO THOSE DAYS, ASSUMING THERE HAS BEEN GOOD BACK AND FORTH AND IT'S BEEN TIMELY, THINGS GET STUCK. 
          AND ONE OF THE THINGS I'M VERY SENSITIVE TOWARDS IN OUR, IN THE CULTURE OF, OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE CITY HAS MOVED TOWARDS BEING SENSITIVE TO THINGS NOT GETTING STUCK AND JUST SITTING THAT A FIVE TO 16 UNIT PROJECT SITTING THERE 180 DAYS, 200, 300 AND JUST LINGERING AND LINGERING, THE 90 DAY MARK FROM A HOLDING ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNTABLE IS, IF THIS HAS HIT 90 DAYS, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME POINT OF INTERVENTION. 
          SOMETHING NEEDS TO HAPPEN TO BEND THE CURVE TO EITHER THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE COMPLIANT AND IS NEVER GOING TO BE COMPLIANT. 
          OR IF IT'S BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS, SILOS ACROSS DEPARTMENTS, THERE'S MISUNDERSTANDINGS. 
          IT'S ONLY BEEN BY THE COMMENT REPORTS BACK AND FORTH AND THERE'S NEVER BEEN A MEETING TO DISCUSS THE CASE OF AT 90 DAY POINT THE CITY IS DEPLOYING, YOU KNOW, A REQUIRED MEETING, UH, IS, YOU KNOW, ALL, ALL OUTSTANDING REVIEW DISCIPLINES SHALL 
          [04:25:01]
MEET TO DISCUSS SOME TYPE OF LIKE, WE ARE DOING THAT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE FRONT AND WE'RE DOING THAT AS FOR TRANSFORMING THE SITE PLAN. 
          BUT FROM POLICY LEVEL DIRECTION, HAVING THAT THIS DATE IS IMPORTANT AND IF THE DATE'S NOT MET, INTERVENTION IS REQUIRED. 
          I THINK THERE'S VALUE ADD, CERTAINLY VALUE ADD TO TO THAT AROUND THE, THE 90 DAY, 90 DAY MARK. 
          I WANNA MAKE A MOTION QUICKLY TO EXTEND OUR MEETING TO MIDNIGHT A SECOND. 
          , I MAYBE WE WON'T NEED ALL OF THAT TIME, BUT AT LEAST I I, WHAT I'M GONNA DO IS IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WOULD SAY, IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, CAN I, UH, CHANGE THE LANGUAGE OF MY MOTION SLIGHTLY SO IT INCORPORATES SOME OF WHAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS SAYING, BUT NOT ALL OF IT. 
          SO IT WOULD NOW READ RESIDENTIAL FOR PROJECT MEETING ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS WITH A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO BE ISSUED WITHIN 90 DAYS. 
          SO IT WOULD BE MEETING ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS AND THEN THE, THE, THE, THE SORT OF DESCRIPTION WOULD SAY ALIGN THE DEFINITION OF RESIDENTIAL. 
          ACTUALLY, I'M SORRY I HAVE IT WRONG HERE. 
          THIS WOULD SAY ALIGN THE DEFINITION OF RESIDENTIAL INFILL WITH THE INITIATING RESOLUTIONS AND ADD THE 90 BUSINESS DAY REVIEW TIME, UM, INAPPROPRIATE SECTIONS OF THE CODE. 
          NO OBJECTION FROM ME AS THE MOTION THE SECOND, UH, YEP AND NO, NONE FROM ANYBODY ELSE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN SECONDED. 
          SO, UH, VICE CHAIR, CAN YOU RESTATE THAT PLEASE? MM-HMM. 
          . 
          MM-HMM. 
          UM, UM, YEP. 
          UM, I'M SORRY, JUST A SECOND. 
          I WANNA MAKE SURE I NOTE THIS CORRECTLY. 
          SO IN THE, IN THE TEXT LANGUAGE, IT WOULD NOW SAY A RESIDENTIAL INFO PROJECT MEETING ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO BE ISSUED WITHIN 90 DAYS. 
          AND THE DESCRIPTION WOULD READ, ALIGN THE DEFINITION OF RESIDENTIAL INFILL WITH INITIATING RESOLUTIONS AND ADD THE 90 BUSINESS DAY REVIEW TIME IN THIS AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS APPROPRIATE. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UM, YES. 
          AND ARE YOU GOING TO PUT THAT IN THE SECTION OF THE CODE THAT MR. LLOYD SUGGESTED OR ARE YOU GONNA LEAVE IT IN THIS SECTION FOR NOW? SO THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. 
          THIS DOESN'T ALIGN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          SO THIS WOULD GO IN HERE AND THEN ALSO SAY IF A CHANGE NEEDS TO BE MADE SOMEWHERE ELSE, SO IT WOULD BE DOING, IT WOULD BE DOING IN THIS SECTION OF THE CODE AS WELL. 
          SO THIS IS BOTH A TEXT AMENDMENT AND DIRECTION? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS I'M COMBINING COMMISSIONER HAYNES POINT, THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT AND WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM STAFF. 
          AND IT'S NOT IDEAL BECAUSE I'LL BE HONEST, IT'S, WELL I DON'T THINK WE HAVE AGREEMENT ON THIS, UM, VICE CHAIR. 
          YES. 
          UM, JUST TO CLARIFY, CAN WE DO A SECOND AMENDMENT THAT ACTUALLY COMES BACK TO SPECIFICALLY THE LANGUAGE SENT TO BY MR. LLOYD? OR WOULD THAT BE REPETITIVE AT THIS POINT? THAT'S ACTUALLY A GOOD QUESTION. 
          I'M SORT OF THINKING ALOUD HERE AND, AND COMMISSIONER WOODS IS OUR PARLIAMENTARY AND YOU MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD TO THIS. 
          I THINK WE COULD DO IT AS A GENERAL AMENDMENT, BUT WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO ANOTHER TAX AMENDMENT BECAUSE THEN THEY'RE ACTUALLY CONFLICTING AMENDMENTS. 
          YEAH. 
          WELL AND I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I WAS, 'CAUSE THE ONLY THING I WAS GONNA SAY TO, I, I MIGHT APPRECIATE YOU ADDING IN IS TO SPECIFICALLY LOOK AT THE SMART APPLICATION HOUSING PROJECTS FOR THE TIMELINES BECAUSE THAT IS BASED WHERE, THAT'S WHERE THAT INFORMATION IS COMING FROM FOR MR. WOOD. 
          SO WE WOULD I'M SORRY, , I'M GONNA DO THIS. 
          UH, SO I WOULD, THIS IS AGAIN, WE WOULD HAVE TO REVISE IT AGAIN A AS LONG AS THERE'S NO OBJECTION. 
          SO THE DESCRIPTION WOULD NOW SAY, ALIGN THE DEFINITION OF RESIDENTIAL INFILL WITH INITIATING RESOLUTIONS AND ADD THE 90 BUSINESS DAY REVIEW TIME IN THIS AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS APPROPRIATE AND LOOK AT SMART HOUSING APPLICATION PROCESS, FORGOTTEN REGARDING DEADLINES. 
          DOES THAT WORK WITH YOU OR IS ARE THE AMENDMENT MAKER? I RE REVIEW CYCLE TIMELINES. 
          YEAH. 
          AND LOOK AT SMART HOUSING APPLICATION PROCESS REGARDING REVIEW CYCLE TIMELINES OR UPDATE TIMELINES. 
          I, I GUESS QUESTION FOR FELICITY, THIS IS A 90 DAY OVERALL LIMIT AND THE SMART HOUSING TIMELINES FOR EACH UPDATE. 
          SO SEVEN OR 14 DAYS? THAT'S EXACTLY AND I CAN RESTATE IT. 
          WE CAN WORK WITH THAT. 
          SO THIS WOULD BE, OH, THANK YOU. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I HEARD COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, WHERE WAS IT? YOU, I'M SORRY. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN UNMUTED. 
          I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, WOULD THIS BE A GENERAL AMENDMENT THEN IT SOUNDS LIKE? NO, I THINK IT'S STILL IN A SPECIFIC AMENDMENT WITH MORE DESCRIPTION IN THE GENERAL FORMAT. 
          I'M SORRY, I HAVE NO GOOD WAY TO SAY THIS. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY I, LET ME RESTATE IT. 
          LET, LET'S READ IT. 
          THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE. 
          SO WE WOULD STILL, THIS WOULD STILL 
          [04:30:01]
HAVE A TEXT AMENDMENT ASSOCIATED WITH IT. 
          SO THIS IS NOT A GENERAL AMENDMENT, IT HAS A TEXT AMENDMENT ASSOCIATED WITH IT. 
          AND THAT WOULD NOW READ A RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT MEETING ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS WITH A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO BE ISSUED WITHIN 90 DAYS. 
          IN ADDITION, IN THE, IN SORT OF LAYING OUT THE AMENDMENT, THE DESCRIPTION WE WOULD HAVE IS SAYS LINE THE DEFINITION OF RESIDENTIAL INFILL WITH THE INITIATING RESOLUTIONS AND ADD THE 90 DAY BUSINESS, UH, 90 BUSINESS DAY REVIEW TIME IN THIS AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS APPROPRIATE AND LOOK AT SMART HOUSING APPLICATION PROCESS REGARDING REVIEW CYCLE TIMELINES. 
          SO IT'S SORT OF ADDITIONAL NOT YOUR POLICING. 
          SO I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT THEN. 
          IS THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO ASK? YES, PLEASE. 
          I I THINK THAT IF WE'RE STILL, IF WE KEEP THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS IT'S TO BE ISSUED IN 90 BUSINESS DAYS, DON'T WE SET OURSELVES UP FOR THE CONFLICT THAT STAFF HAS JUST KIND OF ARTICULATED, YOU KNOW, WHERE IF AN APPLICANT SITS ON SOMETHING FOR 85 DAYS AND THEN TURNS IT IN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE STUCK WITH A TEXT AMENDMENT. 
          THAT'S, THAT IS, AGAIN, IT SOUNDS LIKE SIMILAR TO WHAT STATE LAW HAS DONE AROUND SUBDIVISIONS. 
          AND I, I THINK, I DON'T THINK THAT'S WORKABLE FOR SITE PLANS. 
          I MEAN I, THAT'S, SO THAT'S WHERE I'M STUCK. 
          IF, IF I MAY, I, I, WELL I'LL, I'LL RESPOND AND THEN ASK MR. LLOYD, BUT I THINK VICE, THE VICE CHAIR ADDED LANGUAGE TO THIS THAT SAID, AN APPLICATION MEETING, ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS MUST BE APPROVED WITHIN 90 DAYS. 
          SO I THINK THE INTENT THERE WAS TO CAPTURE THAT IF AN APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, IT CAN STILL BE REJECTED AT THE END OF THAT 90 DAY PERIOD. 
          BUT MR. LLOYD, IS THAT ACCURATE? I MEAN, I THINK WE WOULD PREFER THAT THE COMMISSION FOCUS ON CONCEPTS AND NOT THE EXACT WORDING AND NOT THE EXACT CODE SECTIONS. 
          I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS HERE AND I THINK THAT THIS IS A PROVISION THAT IS NOT WELL SUITED TO KIND OF WORDSMITHING ON THE DAIS. 
          BUT THAT SAID, WE WILL WORK WITH WHATEVER YOU PROVIDE US. 
          I DO THINK THAT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 90 DAYS, THAT FEELS MORE LIKE A LIFE OF THE APPLICATION ISSUE SO THAT APPLICATIONS HAVE A 90 DAY LIFE AND IF THERE'S STILL, IF UPDATES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN A TIMELY MANNER, THERE CAN BE ADDITIONAL DAYS ADDED ONTO THAT. 
          SO IT CAN TRICKLE OVER BEYOND THE 90 DAYS. 
          UM, BUT THAT'S WHAT I THINK I HEAR WHEN I, WHEN I HEAR THE 90 DAYS. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I HEAR. 
          AND THEN WHEN WE HAVE THE REVIEW TIMES, WHICH IS MORE OF HOW THE SHOT CLOCK IS STRUCTURED, YOU'VE GOT A DEADLINE FOR RESPONDING TO THE INITIAL APPLICATION. 
          THAT WOULD BE 14 DAYS IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. 
          AND THEN FOR UPDATES SEVEN DAYS AND THEN THE OVERALL LIFE OF THE APPLICATION WOULD BE 90 DAYS AS OPPOSED TO ONE YEAR. 
          I THINK THOSE ARE ALL CONCEPTS THAT ARE WELL DEVELOPED THAT WE CAN WORK WITH IN TERMS OF HOW THE CODE, UH, SPEAKS TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE THE APPROACH THAT I WOULD PROPOSE THAT KIND OF HARMONIZES THE DIFFERENT IDEAS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED IN THE DAIS. 
          I DO NOT RECOMMEND THAT THE REVIEW TIME PROVISIONS BE PLACED INTO THE SMALL PROJECT CODE SECTION BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THAT SECTION IS ABOUT, BUT WE CAN ABSOLUTELY MEMORIALIZE THE COMMISSION'S INTENT IN THE APPROPRIATE SECTIONS. 
          AND AGAIN, WE'LL DO, WE'LL, WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER YOU ALL RECOMMEND IS DRAFTED AND PRESENTED TO COUNSEL. 
          BUT THOSE ARE OUR THOUGHTS AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PROVISION THAT WILL HAVE, YOU KNOW, IMPACTS ON THE REVIEW PROCESS. 
          SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ALL GET IT RIGHT AND, AND JUST SORT OF BEING CONSCIENTIOUS OF TIME, IF THIS MAKES IT SLIGHTLY EASIER REMINDER, WHATEVER PLANNING COMMISSION PASSES IT IS UP TO COUNSEL WHETHER THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE FINAL ORDINANCE OR NOT WITH OF COURSE, UM, STAFF HAVING, UM, THE ABILITY TO ADVISE COUNSEL ON THAT AS WELL. 
          SO TO THAT POINT, YES, WE WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO AS GOOD AN AMENDMENT AS POSSIBLE, BUT THERE, THERE'S A PATHWAY AFTER WE'RE DONE AS WELL. 
          ARE THERE QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? WELL CHAIR, JUST TO CLARIFY, HAVE WE HAD, THERE'S BEEN A MOTION AND A SECOND, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, BUT WITH NOW WE HAVE A REVISED VERSION OF THAT. 
          SO IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, THIS IS WHAT I'M STATING WITH MY SECOND NOTING IT AS WELL. 
          SO WE'RE CURRENTLY WHERE WE'RE AT IS, UH, IN THE SMALL PROJECT SECTION, WE'RE ADDING A RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT MEETING ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS WITH A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ISSUE WITHIN 90 DAYS. 
          IN ADDITION, THE DESCRIPTION WE'RE SAYING ALIGN THE DEFINITION OF RESIDENTIAL INFILL WITH THE INITIATING RESOLUTIONS AND ADD THE 90 BUSINESS DAY REVIEW TIME IN THIS AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS APPROPRIATE AND LOOK AT SMART HOUSING APPLICATION PROCESS REGARDING REVIEW CYCLE TIMELINES. 
          AND IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION THEN THIS WOULD BE THE MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS OR ARE WE READY TO TAKE A VOTE ON THIS? 
          [04:35:03]
ALRIGHT, CAN WE GET THE COMMISSIONERS BACK UP ON THE SCREEN? OKAY, SO WE'RE VOTING ON THIS SECOND AMENDMENT AS VICE CHAIR HAS, UM, STATED AND HAS BEEN REVISED. 
          EVERYONE CLEAR ON THAT? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND SAY GOOD VOTE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 10 11, THAT PASSES 11 TO ZERO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER THREE. 
          THIS WAS, UM, PULLED BY YOU, VICE CHAIR AND YOU HAD A REVISION YES. 
          CHAIR. 
          AND THEN I KNOW COMMISSIONER HANEY, UM, HAS SOME, SO I'LL GO OVER MY REVISION FIRST. 
          AND ESSENTIALLY WE'RE TRYING TO SORT OF AMEND THE LANGUAGE AS IT WAS AND THAT WAS CAUSING SOME CONFUSION. 
          SO THIS WOULD BE THE V TWO THAT I SENT THIS EVENING AND I SOMEHOW, I'M NOT ABLE TO PULL MY SCREEN UP SO I CANNOT SEE WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED, SO HOPEFULLY IT'S THE RIGHT SHEET. 
          UM, ALL THAT SAID, SO THIS IS THE REVISED NUMBER THREE AND I'LL READ IT. 
          ESSENTIALLY THE, WHAT THIS IS SAYING IS THAT THE MODIFIED DRAINAGE STANDARDS ARE ESSENTIALLY BEING ALIGNED WITH, UM, LIMBUS COVER. 
          AGAIN, OTHER FOLKS I THINK ARE MORE EQUIPPED TO TALK ABOUT THIS ONE. 
          I WON'T, I I WILL READ IT ALL JUST FOR THE RECORD IN THAT COLUMN. 
          SO THIS WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE SAYING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN C AND D, A RESIDENTIAL INFILL APPLICANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE STUDIES, FEES, OR ANALYSES TO DEMONSTRATE A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION COMPLIES WITH SECTION 25 DASH SEVEN, UH, DASH 61, SECTION 25 7 51, SECTION 25 7 1 52 FOR ANY PORTION OF A RESIDENTIAL INFILL DEVELOPMENT THAT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWED UNDER THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS AS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE B, FOR ANY PORTION OF A RESIDENTIAL INFILL DEVELOPMENT THAT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWED UNDER THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS. 
          AS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE, THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE A DRAINAGE PLAN DEMONSTRATING ONE PROVIDED DRAINAGE PLAN DEMONSTRATING THAT ALL STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM THAT PORTION WILL BE DISCHARGED TO AN, TO AN EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM OR INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY AND PAY A SMALL PROJECT DRAINAGE FEE AND A SCALED FEE AND LIE OF WATER QUALITY ONLY FOR THE INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS COVER ABOVE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT ALLOWED AS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE, OR PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE STUDIES, FEES OR ANALYSES TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS COVER ABOVE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT ALLOWED AS THE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE COMPLIES WITH THE SECTIONS THAT WERE STATED PREVIOUSLY. 
          AND C AND D WOULD REMAIN, UH, SUBSECTION C AND D OF THIS WOULD REMAIN AS IS. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M SEEING. 
          ALRIGHT, OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION MAKER OR STAFF COMMISSIONER. 
          HAY MADAM CHAIR, BECAUSE I HAD NOT SEEN THIS, UH, REVISED MOTION BEFORE I GOT HERE, AND BECAUSE I KNOW HOW TO READ A ROOM, I WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW MY MOTIONS AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. 
          UH, ONE, TWO, AND THREE. 
          ALL THREE. 
          OKAY, WE CAN DO THAT NOW. 
          NO, I, I, WE'RE GOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          FOR ALL THREE. 
          SO, UM, IN CASE, UH, ANYONE MISSED THAT, UM, COMMISSIONER HANEY IS WITHDRAWING HIS AMENDMENTS, UM, GIVEN THE REVISED NUMBER THREE THAT WAS JUST READ OUT. 
          UM, SO GOING BACK TO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MOTION MAKER STAFF ON THIS REVISION? NUMBER THREE? UM, YES, JUST, OH, WELL QUESTION FOR STAFF AND THEN I'LL LET STAFF, UH, ANSWER AS THEY WILL. 
          UM, JUST SO I UNDERSTAND TODAY, FOR A PROJECT THAT'S GOING THROUGH A BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW, IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT TO PAY DRAINAGE FEES, INFRASTRUCTURE FEES DEVELOPMENT, STRICTLY BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW? NOT SUBDIVISION, NOT STIPEND, NO. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          I WANTED JUST ASK, UH, THE PROVISION THAT'S ON SCREEN, I'M NOT BY, I THINK I'VE SEEN IT BEFORE AT SOME POINT IN THE VOLLEY OF EXCHANGES WE'VE ALL HAD, BUT I'M NOT ABLE TO FIND IT RIGHT NOW. 
          IS IT POSTED SOMEWHERE? I'LL FORWARDED TO YOU, THIS WAS SHARED THIS EVENING AND, UM, MR. LLOYD, THE EMAIL THAT I SENT TO YOU HAD TWO TWO VERSIONS OF IT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY YOU'LL SEE ONE THAT IN THE COLUMN IT SAYS REVISED NUMBER THREE EMAIL. 
          SO WE'RE ON REVISED NUMBER THREE, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, YES. 
          THIS WILL BE REVISED NUMBER THREE, WHICH WAS IN A PDF WITH JUST TWO AMENDMENTS IN IT. 
          REVISED NUMBER ONE AND REVISED NUMBER THREE 
          [04:40:09]
STAFF. 
          CAN WE JUST MAKE SURE THE VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS REMAIN VISIBLE ON THE SCREEN, PLEASE? THANK YOU. 
          OH, NEVERMIND. 
          SHUT UP. 
          OH, WOW. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MY APOLOGIES. 
          MY, SO I THINK AGAIN, UM, I'M GONNA JUST OFFER A FEW THOUGHTS ON THIS. 
          I THINK THAT THIS IS, UM, AN IMPROVED VERSION OF WHAT HAD BEEN PROVIDED EARLIER ON THE 22ND. 
          IT'S CLOSER TO WHAT WE HAD PROVIDED THIS AFTERNOON AS WELL. 
          I THINK THAT IN PRINCIPLE, THIS IS WORKABLE. 
          I DO WANT TO CAVEAT THAT WE'LL HAVE TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH OUR LAW DEPARTMENT TO REFINE THE LANGUAGE AND THAT THIS MAY NOT APPEAR AND, AND COUNSEL BACK UP EXACTLY AS YOU HAVE IT, BUT I THINK THE PRINCIPLES, UH, REFLECTED HERE ARE WORKABLE FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE STANDPOINT AND MAKE SENSE. 
          I CAN FOLLOW THIS PROVISION, UM, AND I DEFER TO WATERSHED AS FAR AS THE SUBSTANCE OF IT. 
          THIS PROPOSAL DOES GO FURTHER THAN WHAT STAFF HAD INITIALLY PROPOSED, AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY YOUR PREROGATIVE. 
          BUT I DO WANNA BE RESPECTFUL OF WATERSHED'S, UH, CONCERNS, UM, AND ANY INSIGHTS THEY HAVE TO OFFER, INCLUDING BASED ON PEER REVIEW OF OTHER CITIES AND HOW THEY'VE APPROACHED, UH, SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS. 
          MATT, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? UM, SURE. 
          THANKS. 
          THANK YOU, BRENT. 
          UM, SO MATT HOLLAND, WATERSHED PROTECTION AGAIN. 
          SO, SO THIS IS IN A WAY ONE OF THE MOST CRUCIAL SECTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE. 
          UM, AND WHEN WE'RE STRIKING A AND B WITH REVISED THREE, ESPECIALLY B, THAT'S KIND OF GOING AT THE HEART OF OUR, SOME OF OUR DRAINAGE PROVISIONS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH 25 7 61. 
          UM, AND SO I THINK WHAT THIS IS SAYING, AND I MAY DEFINITELY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I THINK IT SAYS IF YOU, IF YOUR PROJECT IS THE RIGHT SIZE, IT'S NOT TOO BIG AND IT'S NOT TOO IMPERVIOUS, THEN WE'RE GONNA WAVE 61, 1 51 AND 1 52. 
          UM, IF THAT CAN'T HAPPEN, THEN THERE'S ANOTHER PATH AND THAT INVOLVES SOME OTHER, A LOT, A LOT MORE, UM, A LOT MORE STUDY, INCLUDING THE THINGS THAT ARE IN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE THAT HAVE TO DO WITH GETTING THE WATER TO THE RIGHT OF WAY, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE IT DOESN'T DRAIN ONTO NEIGHBORS, THAT SORT OF THING. 
          AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE AT WATERSHED ARE GONNA WANNA SEE, I MEAN, THERE'S SOME CERTAIN KIND OF KEY ELEMENTS THAT NEED TO BE IN THERE SOMEWHERE. 
          WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE, THAT SOMEBODY IS LOOKING AT WHERE THE WATER'S GOING. 
          MAYBE THAT'S A THIRD PARTY, THAT'S THE DALLAS MODEL. 
          UM, I MEAN, IT'S THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY THE AFFIRMING, UH, THE WATER'S GOING THE RIGHT SPOT. 
          UM, IF IT'S, IF IT DOESN'T GO TO THE RIGHT SPOT, THEN I'M GONNA FIX IT. 
          UM, IF IT'S GOING INTO A NEIGHBOR'S, UH, PROPERTY, I'M GONNA ATTEMPT TO GET A PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT. 
          SO THEY, THEY HAVE AN, YOU KNOW, THE DALLAS MODEL IS ACTUALLY, IT'S PRETTY COMPLETE. 
          THEY HAVE A LOT OF, UM, A LOT OF OTHER COMMUNITIES AROUND DALLAS APPARENTLY USE THE SAME ONE. 
          UM, WE'RE STUDYING IT, WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT. 
          UM, IT'S GOT SOME MERITS, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY TRYING TO DO SOME OF THE SAME THINGS THAT OUR OTHER, OUR, OUR DRAFT ORDINANCE WAS DOING. 
          UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A NON-TRIVIAL PART OF THE EXERCISE HERE IS, IS TRYING TO GET THIS RIGHT. 
          I'M NOT SURE, UM, IF IF WE'RE TAKING OUT B THE ORIGINAL B WE'RE GONNA NEED SOMETHING IN ITS PLACE, WHETHER IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE RECOMMENDING OBVIOUSLY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT IF YOU WANNA REPLACE IT, YOU NEED, YOU NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT TALKS ABOUT HOW THE WATER GETS TO THE RIGHT PLACE AND HAVING SOMEBODY LOOK AT IT, WHETHER IT'S A STAFF MEMBER OR SOME OTHER ENTITY. 
          WELL, THAT'S THE, UH, THAT'S ONLY IF IT EXCEEDS THE IMPERVIOUS COVER BE I THINK THE, THE NEW BE, I MIGHT BE READING THAT WRONG. 
          UM, AND ONE OTHER, ONE OF THE KEY, UH, ONE OTHER KEY, UH, COMPONENT IS THE, IS THE 1.5 ACRES. 
          AND I KNOW THAT'S, UM, THAT'S A, THAT, YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S A, AN IMPORTANT, UH, TECHNICAL POINT WITH THIS. 
          OBVIOUSLY AS YOUR SITE GETS BIGGER AND BIGGER AND BIGGER, IT'S GONNA GENERATE MORE AND MORE RUNOFF AND MORE AND MORE PEAK FLOW. 
          SO, UH, STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING A ONE ACRE MAXIMUM AND YOU GUYS ARE BUMPING THAT UP TO, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE RECOMMENDING A 1.5 ACRE PROJECT. 
          I CAN IMAGINE A COUPLE OF SCENARIOS. 
          ONE OF 'EM IS YOU SAY, HEY, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND DO THE SMALL PROJECTS ALL THE WAY TO ONE FIVE, THEN YOU GET SOME ADVANTAGES AND FEES AND, AND TIMING AND SO FORTH. 
          UM, WE'RE NOT AS SUPPORTIVE ON GOING ALL THE WAY TO ONE FIVE FROM A DRAINAGE STANDPOINT, UH, JUST BECAUSE THERE'S MORE DRAINAGE. 
          IT'S NOT, THERE'S NO MAGIC NUMBER. 
          BUT, UM, IN LOOKING AT IT, OUR STAFF IS, YOU KNOW, HAS SOME CONCERNS AS WE GO HIGHER AND HIGHER UP THAT CHAIN THAT THAT'S GONNA, UM, CREATE SOME POTENTIAL ISSUES. 
          SO JUST WANTED TO SHARE IT. 
          THAT IS ABSOLUTELY YOUR PREROGATIVE TO SET IT WHERE YOU WANT. 
          UM, 
          [04:45:01]
WHEN WE DID BENCHMARK OTHER COMMUNITIES, UH, WE WOULD BE, UM, UH, ONLY, UH, DALLAS AND FORT WORTH BOTH GO TO ONE ACRE BEFORE THEY START DETAINING. 
          UM, WE WOULD BE KIND OF IN OUR, A NEW TERRITORY ABOVE THOSE AS IN LESS PROTECTIVE THAN, THAN ANY OF OUR PEER CITIES WE'VE LOOKED AT. 
          SO HOUSTON, SAN ANTONIO, DALLAS, FORT WORTH WOULD ALL BE BELOW WHAT WE WOULD DO. 
          SO WHY DON'T, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, WATER PROTECTION IS NOT GONNA RECOMMEND 1.5 AND WE WOULD PUT THAT IN OUR STAFF REPORT TO THE COUNCIL AS WE DRAW THIS UP, BUT WE JUST WANTED TO, I WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IMPORTANT, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENCE. 
          UM, BUT ANYWAY, YOU AND YOU GUYS CAN MAKE WHATEVER RECOMMENDATION YOU WISH. 
          AND ONE OTHER, UM, SMALLER POINT THAT I WANT TO MAKE AS WELL IS IN REVIEWING THIS, UM, EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON, YOU KNOW, WE ALL, THERE ARE A LOT OF PLACES IN THE CODE WHERE IT WILL SAY REQUIREMENTS IN EFFECT ON MARCH 3RD, 1987 OR WHATEVER. 
          WE'VE ALL SEEN THOSE PROVISIONS AND I REMEMBER EARLIER IN MY CAREER AT THE CITY, IT WAS LIKE, I'LL NEVER WRITE ONE OF THOSE AND I'VE WRITTEN A FEW. 
          BUT, UM, BUT RATHER THAN PERPETUATE THAT PRACTICE, ONE OPTION WOULD BE TO SIMPLY, INSTEAD OF HAVING IT BE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE, HAVE IT BE FOR INPO INFILL PLATS, 45% DOES NOT EXCEED 45%, WHICH IS THE, UM, PREVAILING IMPERVIOUS ZONING IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT FOR THE SF ZONES. 
          AND THEN FOR SITE PLAN LIGHT, 65%, UM, MOST OF THE SITE PLAN LIGHT PROJECTS ARE GONNA BE, UH, APPROPRIATELY SCALED TO THE MF UH, UP TO MF THREE ZONING, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE FOR 65% IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          SO WE WOULD THINK FROM A READABILITY USABILITY STANDPOINT, SIMPLY HAVING A BLANKET IMPERVIOUS COVER CAP THAT IS SORT OF THE GOVERNOR BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS RATHER THAN HAVING IT BE THE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE, UM, WOULD BE PREFERABLE. 
          BUT AGAIN, THAT'S THE COMMISSION'S PREROGATIVE. 
          I'LL, I'LL JUST QUICKLY MENTION ONE QUICK THING, WHICH IS, UM, THANK YOU MR. LLOYD, BECAUSE I COULD NOT RE I DID NOT GET THE TIME TO RECONCILE THESE THREE AMENDMENTS, THAT'S WHY I SORT OF PULLED THEM FOR DISCUSSION ON THE 45 AND 65. 
          I'LL BE HONEST, I MIGHT NEED YOUR, I'M FINE WITH SORT OF PUTTING IT IN THERE. 
          IT'S JUST, UH, GOT, LIKE, NOW THERE'S LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DRAFTED THIS, SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE IT WOULD GO IN HERE OR WE JUST ADD IT TO THE DESCRIPTION AND ESSENTIALLY SEE IF FOR STAFF TO RECONCILE IT AS THIS MOVES FORWARD. 
          BUT YOU MIGHT, I MIGHT, CAN YOU RESTATE THAT PIECE AGAIN? I'M SO SORRY. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I TAKE THE NOTE PROPERLY ON THAT. 
          SURE. 
          RATHER THAN HAVING THE AMENDMENT, AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO WORDSMITH AS LONG AS THIS GOES IN THE COMMISSION'S, UM, YEP. 
          DIRECTION RATHER THAN HAVING THE IMPERVIOUS COVER EXPRESSED AS THE LIMIT THAT EXISTED ON THE DATE THE ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED, JUST HAVE IT BE FOR, FOR THE INFILL PLOT PIECE, 45% CAN'T EXCEED 45% UNLESS YOU COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN IN B. 
          UM, AND THEN FOR SITE PLAN LIGHT CAN'T, 65% WOULD BE THE CUTOFF BEFORE YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE, UH, THAT WE DISCUSSED IN RELATION TO SUBSECTION B. 
          AND, UM, I'M SORRY, IT, I'M JUST GONNA RESTATE THIS. 
          PLEASE TELL ME THIS WOULD BE, WE WERE BE SAYING LIB PUR REVIEW COVER FOR 45 FOR, FOR INFILL PLA AT 45% AND FOR SITE BEND LIGHTED AT 65% AS IT RELATES TO THIS AMENDMENT. 
          YES. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          I'M JUST TAKING A NOTE OF THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? I THINK WE MIGHT BE READY TO MAKE IT INTO A MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND SORT OF RESTATE THIS AND HOPEFULLY I JUST NEED YOU A TEEN TINY LANGUAGE CHECK. 
          I'LL DO THAT. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY THIS WOULD BE THE REVISED NUMBER THREE WITH THE LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY AS WAS UP ON THE SCREEN. 
          AND IN THE DESCRIPTION, WE WOULD NOW BE SEEING UTILIZE IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENTS AS THE GOVERNOR FACTOR FOR MODIFIED DRAINAGE STANDARD, ESTABLISH A SMALL PROJECT DRAINAGE FEE AND A SCALED WATER QUALITY FEE LIE AND RENUMBER THIS SECTION ACCORDINGLY, PERIOD. 
          AND THE NEXT SENTENCE WOULD BE LIMITED IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR INFILL PLAT AT 45% AND FOR SITE PLAN LIGHTED 65% AS IT RELATES TO THIS AMENDMENT. 
          I'LL SECOND. 
          UM, ALRIGHT. 
          ANY YEAH. 
          POINTS CLARIFICATION. 
          UM, I, I'M, I REALIZE THIS IS UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN, BUT AT SOME POINT IN TIME IF WE FOR SOME REASON CHANGED OUR IMPERVIOUS COVER RULES, THIS WOULD NEED TO BE REVISED AS A RESULT. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? AND HOW WOULD THAT BE THEORETICALLY HANDLED? I MEAN, I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A DISCUSSION IF THERE'S A OVERALL RE YOU KNOW, IF, IF COUNSEL REVISITS THE OVERALL IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS FOR THE SF ZONES, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE A, A SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH PROCESS THAT 
          [04:50:01]
THE PEOPLE WORKING ON THAT WOULD BE COGNIZANT OF THIS. 
          AND SO I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT IT HOLISTICALLY TOGETHER. 
          I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT, BUT WE JUST THINK THAT IT'S BETTER TO HAVE STRAIGHTFORWARD NUMBERS STATED IN THE CODE RATHER THAN SORT OF THIS STATE THAT REVIEWERS WOULD'VE TO GO LOOK AT. 
          IT WOULD CREATE, I THINK, UH, WE WOULD FIGURE IT OUT. 
          WE WOULD WORK WITH IT, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE NOT BEST PRACTICE AND IT COULD CREATE SOME CONFUSION. 
          GREAT. 
          AND I, I GUESS JUST TO CLARIFY THEN, SO IF WE DID SEE AN ADJUSTMENT IN PREVIOUS COVER, THIS WOULD BE AN ISSUE THAT WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY WANNA FLAG AND UPDATE APPROPRIATELY? YES. 
          YES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANYONE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. 
          THIS IS FOR THE REVISED NUMBER THREE AS VICE CHAIR. 
          JUST READ OUT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10. 
          COMMISSIONER HAYES, UH, AGA AGAINST. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO THAT IS 10 TO ONE. 
          MR. HAYNES VOTING? NO, MR. HOLLAND. 
          I HAD A REALLY NERDY MINOR POINT. 
          UM, WE KEEP, WE KEEP, IT'S JUST, I LIKE TO STICK TO THAT. 
          UM, WE KEEP MENTIONING THE WORD FEE AND I, IF WE COULD HAVE A KIND OF A GLOBAL REPLACE WITH PAYMENT THAT WOULD JUST MAKE US HAPPY. 
          THERE'S THIS, THERE'S A KIND OF AN ACTUAL TECHNICAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE TWO. 
          SO THE RS AND P IS A PAYMENT, ET CETERA, WATER QUALITY PAYMENT IN LIEU, UM, FOR VACATION. 
          SO PROCEDURALLY I COULD MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, UM, NO, LET'S NOT . 
          SORRY. 
          I, I THINK PROCEDURALLY WHAT I'M GONNA SAY IS RIGHT NOW WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF FACE IS THE BASE THAT WAS STAFF WITH ALL THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE DONE. 
          I'LL SAVE THAT ONE FOR AFTERWARDS. 
          AND I THINK WHAT WE'LL DO IS ONCE WE'VE DONE ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS, WE CAN MAKE A MASTER AMENDMENT SAYING REPLACE FEE IN WHATEVER ALL OF OUR AMENDMENTS ARE TO PAYMENT. 
          BUT I, BUT I KNOW BEFORE THAT WE HAVE SOME INDIVIDUAL ONES. 
          I KNOW COMMISSIONER HAYNES, YOU HAD ONE. 
          I'M NOT SURE IF OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAD INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS AS WELL. 
          I HAD MARKED NUMBER 10 AS, OH, I'M SO SORRY. 
          WE DIDN'T EVEN GET TO THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, I'M SORRY. 
          MAKING A NOTE HERE. 
          SO THAT TAKES US TO NUMBER 10, AND THIS ONE IS ABOUT 90 CALENDAR DAYS, THE VIEW TIME. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          RIGHT. 
          SO WE WENT OVER THAT HEAVILY. 
          THIS, SORRY. 
          YEAH. 
          NO, AND, AND THE REASON WE HAD PULLED THIS ONE WAS ACTUALLY RELATED TO, UH, COMMISSIONER HANEY'S, UM, SUGGESTION REGARDING HAVING A QUARTERBACK, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS HAS BEEN RESOLVED AND ALSO THIS DIRECTION MIGHT BE SUPERFLUOUS GIVEN THE OTHER CONVERSATION WE'VE ALREADY HAD. 
          SO I'M CERTAINLY OPEN TO THIS BEING WITHDRAWN IF WE FEEL THAT THAT IS APPROPRIATE. 
          SINCE THIS WAS NOT DONE I'LL, WHAT I'LL JUST QUICKLY DO IS I'LL, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND MAKE AN AMENDMENT. 
          I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION HERE THAT WE WOULD APPROVE NUMBER 10 FROM THE GROUP AS IS. 
          I'LL SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYONE, UH, WANT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ONE? I'LL, I'LL JUST BRIEFLY SEE FOR IT. 
          I THINK IT DOES GET TO THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE THAT LIKE WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT AND DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET THESE PROJECTS APPROVED AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. 
          WHETHER THAT'S CHANGING SYSTEMS, PRIORITIZING THEM OVER OTHER FORMS OF REVIEW. 
          UM, I THINK THE INTENT FROM COUNSEL WAS CLEAR TWO YEARS AGO WHEN THEY PASSED THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION ON THIS. 
          AND, AND, YEAH. 
          LET'S, LET'S MAKE IT HAPPEN FINALLY. 
          . 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANYWAY, ELSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. 
          THIS IS FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 10. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY. 
          THAT 10, THAT'S 10 DEGREES TO ZERO WITH COMMISSIONER ANDERSON OFF THE DAIS ON THAT ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT CHAIR THAT DOES ALL THE PRE SHARED AMENDMENTS FROM ALL COMMISSIONERS. 
          UNLESS WE'RE MISSING SOMETHING FOLKS, PLEASE SPEAK OF. 
          WE WOULD NOW START WITH THE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS. 
          UM, CHAIR GOING ALPHABETICALLY. 
          LAST NAME. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, . 
          YEAH. 
          CHAIR. 
          DIDN'T WE HAVE HAYES'S AMENDMENT? THAT WAS CIRCULATED? THAT WOULD BE IN THE, OH, BUT OH, I SEE IT INDIVIDUAL ROUND, SO, OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, DO YOU HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS? WE JUST VOTED ON THEM. 
          . 
          OKAY. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER BARRA RAMIREZ? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UM, OUR AGENDA ISN'T IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER, SO, OKAY. 
          . 
          [04:55:01]
UM, MYSELF, I DO NOT HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS. 
          VICE CHAIR? I HAVE NONE. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER WOODS? NO. 
          COMMISSIONER HOWARD? NO. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? NO. 
          COMMISSIONER HANEY? WE HAVE DISPOSED OF MINE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? NO. 
          COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. 
          I'M TEMPTED TO SAY I HAVE 14 MORE, BUT NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY . 
          SORRY. 
          UM, LET'S SEE. 
          AND COMMISSIONER HAYNES. 
          UM, THANK, THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. 
          UM, UH, I SUBMITTED ONE AND MR. GARCIA HAS, UH, UH, SENT IT AROUND. 
          AND SO I THINK EVERYBODY GOT, WE'VE BASICALLY TALKED ABOUT IT AT, I'LL HAVE TO MAKE ONE CHANGE 'CAUSE I SAID DRAINAGE FEES. 
          SO WE'LL HAVE TO SAY DRAINAGE PAYMENTS, OR DO YOU WANT ME TO KEEP FEES AND THEN WE'LL JUST DO IT UNIVERSALLY, HOWEVER YOU WOULD WANT TO DO IT. 
          COMMISSIONER? UH, I GUESS I'LL KEEP FEES. 
          UH, AND, AND BASICALLY THE, THE CONCEPT HERE IS TO, UM, UH, UH, I TRY TO KEEP IT. 
          JIM, DID YOU GET A COPY MR. LLOYD? UH, I, I TRIED TO, TO DO IT THE WAY YOU HAD SAID IT. 
          IT, I'LL READ IT. 
          IT SAYS, ENCOURAGE STAFF TO EXPLORE THE APPLICATION OF DRAINAGE FEES TO RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECTS TO SUPPORT THE AFFORDABILITY OF PREMIUMS PAID BY LOW INCOME RESIDENTS TO THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM. 
          SO RATHER THAN TACK IT ONTO A SPECIFIC ONE, IT SEEMED LIKE THAT WAS YOUR CONCERN. 
          SO THIS IS JUST A DIRECTION TO Y'ALL TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S A WAY TO HELP, UM, LOWER INCOME FOLKS PAY FOR THEIR FLOOD INSURANCE. 
          THAT'S MY, AND THAT'S MY EXPLANATION. 
          THAT'S MY MOTION AND MY EXPLANATION. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          CAN I, CAN I ASK A QUESTION BEFORE YOU STATE YOUR MOTION? SURE. 
          UM, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO SAYING INCURRED STAFF TO EXPLORE THE APPLICATION OF DRAINAGE PAYMENTS OR OTHER FUNDS TO RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECTS? SURE. 
          AND THE ONLY REASON I'M SAYING THAT IS BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A TECHNICALITY THAT I HONESTLY DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND OF DRAINAGE PAYMENTS, BUT I, I, I GENUINELY THINK THE AMENDMENT IS A VERY WORTHY AMENDMENT AND SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE AS A CITY HAVE TO FIGURE OUT. 
          I UNDERSTAND FROM A PUBLIC FUNDS PERSPECTIVE, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER WHERE THAT COMES FROM, BUT YES, WE KNOW THAT INCREASINGLY THIS IS BECOMING A REALLY BIG ISSUE. 
          AND FROM AN EQUITY PERSPECTIVE, THE BRUNT OF THIS IS REALLY BORNE BY LOW INCOME FOLKS AND BIPOC FOLKS IN OUR STATE. 
          SO I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER HAYNES OR STAFF ON THIS ONE? OKAY. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DID YOU WANNA TURN THAT INTO A MOTION? SURE. 
          MY, UH, THAT'S MY MOTION WITH THE ADDITION OF THE AZAR LANGUAGE DRAINAGE FEES OR OTHER FUNDS, DRAINAGE PAYMENTS OR OTHER FUNDS, DRAINAGE PAYMENTS OR OTHER FUNDS. 
          AND I SECOND THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? ALRIGHT, LET'S TAKE A VOTE. 
          THIS IS ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS ONE, UM, MADE BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR. 
          THANKS. 
          IS THAT A YELLOW COMMISSIONER? SKIDMORE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT PASSES 10 TO 11, I'M SORRY, 10 TO ONE? UH, 10 TO ZERO TO ONE. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          AND THAT IS THE END OF OUR LIST OF COMMISSIONERS. 
          SO UNLESS THERE ARE ANY OTHER LAST MINUTE AMENDMENTS? OH, YES, I I HAVE A, I I HAVE A MASTER AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD BE ALL THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          WE WOULD CHANGE THE WORD FEE TO PAYMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UM, JUST A POINT OF INQUIRY, AS THIS WAS REFERRED TO AS NERDY, I'M CURIOUS IF THIS IS THE  THE CASE IN EVERYTHING WE DO, IS THAT WE REFER TO AS PAYMENTS OR FEES? OR IS IT USED INTERCHANGEABLY? JUST AS A MATTER OF CURIOSITY, I THINK IN VARIOUS PLACES IN THE CODE, AND PARTICULARLY THE WATERSHED SECTIONS, WHEN A PAYMENT IS BEING MADE TO PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE, THAT'S GONNA MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE PREFERENCE IS TO, NOT TO CALL THAT A FEE, BUT CALL THAT A PAYMENT. 
          FEES ARE, THE TERM FEE IS MORE APPROPRIATELY USED FOR, UM, FEES THAT ARE PROVIDING FOR REVIEW TIME AND THE COSTS OF ADMINISTERING THE REGULATIONS AS OPPOSED TO ACTUALLY PROVIDING HARD INFRASTRUCTURE TO, UM, HELP MITIGATE THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS. 
          AND THAT'S WHY WE USE THE TERM PAYMENT WHERE POSSIBLE. 
          EXCELLENT. 
          APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION. 
          I THINK THE PAYMENT IS IN, YOU HAVE AN OPTION ON THE PAYMENT. 
          I THINK THE FEE IS, HERE'S A FEE. 
          YOU'RE GOING, YOU'RE SUBMITTING YOUR THIS FOR REVIEW, THEREFORE YOU PAY THE FEE YOU WANT, YOU WANT, YOU WANT TO EITHER 
          [05:00:01]
BUILD A DETENTION POND OR PAY A PAYMENT. 
          AND SO IT'S JUST A LITTLE DIFFERENT. 
          BUT MY COLLEAGUE WAS SAYING, UH, LIZ HERE WAS SAYING THAT WE MIGHT BE, THERE ARE SOME PLACES WHERE YOU DO WANT THE WORD FEE, SO I, I MAY, I MAY BE, UH, OVERREACHING. 
          RIGHT. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS FOR VICE CHAIR ON THIS ONE? OKAY. 
          I'LL RESTATE AS THE MOTIONS. 
          I'M MAKING A MOTION ALL AMENDMENTS APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, TO THE BASE MOTION. 
          CHANGE THE WORD FEE TO PAYMENT. 
          I, I, I HAVE AN, SO IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, I'M GONNA SAY CHANGE THE WORD FEE TO PAYMENT AS APPROPRIATE. 
          . 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          LOOKING FOR A SECOND ON THAT. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          UM, ANYONE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? OKAY, LET'S VOTE. 
          THIS IS, UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THREE, FOUR. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THAT IS UNANIMOUS. 
          11 TO ZERO. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'RE GETTING CLOSE. 
          YEP. 
          UM, CHAIR, THIS TAKES US, UM, TO THE BASE MOTION AS AMENDED, SO WE NOW GET TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST, UM, AND THEN TAKE THE FINAL VOTE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THIS IS WRAPPING EVERYTHING TOGETHER. 
          YES. 
          VICE CHAIR, CHERYL, JUST, UM, I'LL MAKE THIS QUICK. 
          I, I GENUINELY REALLY WANT TO APPRECIATE OUR COUNCIL, OUR STAFF FROM MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS, DSD AND WATERSHED SPECIFICALLY. 
          THIS REALLY IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT FOR A WHILE. 
          WE'VE PUZZLED OVER IT. 
          THIS IS TRULY A VERY COMPLEX SORT OF ISSUE AND PIECE OF THE CODE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. 
          AND I JUST REALLY WANNA APPRECIATE THE THOUGHTFULNESS AND THE CREATIVITY AND THE DEDICATION THAT WENT INTO THIS FROM STAFF TO REALLY MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE THAT. 
          AND I THINK THOSE COMING OUT IN THE COMMENTS, COMMENTS TODAY AS WELL. 
          WHAT I REALLY APPRECIATE FROM STAFF IS, I THINK EVEN WHERE WE'RE SAYING, YOU KNOW, THERE'S DIFFICULTIES AND WE MIGHT HAVE SMALL DISAGREEMENTS, WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO COLLECTIVELY WORK TO FIND SOLUTIONS AND GET TO SERVE SIMILAR OUTCOMES. 
          AND I GENERALLY JUST REALLY WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR THIS. 
          THIS IS VERY COMPLEX WORK AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT HAS GONE INTO THIS. 
          'CAUSE AS I SAID, IT'S NOT EVEN WORK OF A FEW MONTHS. 
          THIS IS WORK OF A FEW YEARS THAT HAS GONE IN. 
          AND I KNOW FOR THE STAFF IN FRONT OF US AS WELL, I, OF COURSE, I'LL OBVIOUSLY WANNA THANK MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND SOME OF THE STAKEHOLDERS WHO WORKED ON THIS AS WELL. 
          AND I THINK THIS IS NOT DONE. 
          I'M SURE THERE'S A LOT TO BE WORKED ON AND, AND, YOU KNOW, SUSSED OUT AS THIS GOES TO COUNCIL AND FINESSED AND FIGURED OUT. 
          BUT ALL THAT SAID, I TRULY FEEL LIKE I THINK WE'RE MOVING IN A DIRECTION WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE A LOT OF OUR AIMS AT LOOKING AT INFILL, UH, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, TRYING TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. 
          GOING BACK TO, AGAIN, THE SITE PLAN LIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAD COME OUT OF, UM, THE AFFORDABILITY AND LOCK PROGRAM IN 2019. 
          SO AGAIN, FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I JUST REALLY WANNA THANK EVERYBODY WHO'S BEEN PART OF THIS RATHER LONG JOURNEY IN MAKING THIS A SUCCESS. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? OKAY. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE BASE MOTION AS AMENDED. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AND AGAINST. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THAT PASSES 10 TO ONE WITH COMMISSIONER HAYNES VOTING NO. 
          OH. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU EVERYONE. 
          THAT WAS A LOT OF WORK. 
          REALLY, REALLY APPRECIATE THIS LATE HOUR AND STILL BEING ABLE TO THINK STRAIGHT. 
          . 
          UM, I, GIVEN THE LATE HOUR, OUR ITEM NUMBER 
          [38. LDC Amendment: C20-2024-021 - Safety Bollards]
38, UM, DO WE HAVE TO VOTE POSTPONEMENT ON THAT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. 
          WE WOULD NEED TO, UH, VOTE POSTPONEMENT ON THIS ITEM. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO ITEM 38 IS THE LDC AMENDMENT FOR THE SAFETY BOLLARDS. 
          UM, THERE IS ANTICIPATED TO BE SOME DISCUSSION ON THAT ONE. 
          SO, UM, I WILL MOTION THAT THIS ITEM MOVES TO THE DECEMBER 10TH MEETING. 
          I'LL SECOND SECOND BY VICE CHAIR. 
          UM, ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? OKAY. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, MR. JOHNSON? OH, UH, AT AGAINST AGAIN, YOU AGAINST? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO THAT IS 9 4 2 AGAINST, THAT'S COMMISSIONER HANEY, UM, COMMISSIONER HANEY AND COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          I'M STILL TRYING TO GET HAYES AND HANEY STRAIGHT. 
          IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT. 
          ALRIGHT, . 
          UM, ALRIGHT, WE'LL MOVE TO OUR WORKING GROUP 
          [WORKING GROUP/COMMITTEE UPDATES]
          [05:05:01]
AND COMMITTEE UPDATES AND CLOSE OUT WITH FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, CODES AND ORDINANCES, JOINT COMMITTEE. 
          OUR MEETING FOR NOVEMBER HAS BEEN CANCELED DUE TO LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS, BUT WE WILL BE MEETING IN DECEMBER. 
          COMPREHENSIVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, JOINT COMMITTEE. 
          UH, NO UPDATE. 
          JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS, YOU ARE SECOND. 
          COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS HAS ALREADY GONE FOR THAT EVENING. 
          I HAVEN'T ATTENDED ANY MEETINGS PERSONALLY. 
          OKAY. 
          SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE THERE HAVE BEEN ANY MEETINGS SINCE OUR LAST MEETING. 
          OKAY. 
          SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT. 
          UM, OUR NOVEMBER MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELED. 
          AUSTIN BUILDINGS WORKING GROUP, UM, CHAIR AGAIN, WE'VE NOT MET AND THAT'S I THINK SOMETHING FOR US TO CONSIDER AS WE MOVE INTO THE NEW YEAR. 
          YES. 
          UH, OUTREACH AND PROCEDURES, WORKING GROUP TECHNICAL, TECHNICAL BUILDING CODE UPDATES. 
          UM, I ACTUALLY DO HAVE AN UPDATE. 
          UM, WE ARE EXPECTING COUNSEL ACTION ON THOSE ITEMS AT THE END OF JANUARY, BEGINNING OF FEBRUARY. 
          SO THE WORKING GROUP WILL LIKELY MEET BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR, HOPEFULLY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THE GOVERNANCE RULES AND PROCEDURES WORKING HERE? UM, I AM WORKING TO GET OUR FIRST MEETING SCHEDULED. 
          UH, THAT'LL BE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS. 
          OKAY. 
          EXCELLENT. 
          MOVING ON TO FUTURE 
          [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
AGENDA ITEMS. UM, CHAIR, I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR OUR NEXT AGENDA. 
          UH, SORRY FOR THE DECEMBER. 
          DO WE NOW DO HAVE TWO CODE ITEMS AGAIN, JUST TO CONFIRM SO EVERYONE'S AWARE THAT THAT WOULD BE THE CASE? YES. 
          AND THE COLORADO RIVER PROJECTIONS ONE IS GOING TO BE LENGTHY, BUT WE'LL HEAR SAFETY BOLLARDS FIRST. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR, MADAM CHAIR. 
          UM, WHEN SHOULD WE EXPECT THE SIX MONTH, UH, REPORT FROM FOR HOME AND HOME TWO THAT WERE DUE IN AUGUST AND NOW IT'S NOVEMBER. 
          UM, I KNOW DS, D'S BEEN BUSY , BUT JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE THAT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE THOSE REPORTS. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN I, WHILE WE HAVE DSD STAFF HERE, I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEBODY COULD HELP US ANSWER THIS QUESTION. 
          IT, IT HASN'T GONE INTO WHEN DOES IT GO INTO EFFECT? AND I'LL BE HONEST, I THINK FROM AN AMENDMENT PERSPECTIVE, WE NEVER CLARIFIED, WAS IT SIX MONTHS FROM WHEN IT GOES INTO EFFECT OR, BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS AT LEAST HOME TWO IS NOT, WAS NOT IN EFFECT FOR A WHILE. 
          SO WE'RE HOME. 
          HOME ONE IS THOUGH. 
          YEAH, SO IT SEEMS LIKE FOR HOME ONE AT LEAST, WE MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE MORE DATA. 
          I KNOW MR. MARS, IT WENT INTO EFFECT. 
          IT WAS DUE IN AUGUST. 
          I HEARD HOME AND THEN I COME UP HERE AND HEAR HOME ONE AND TWO, I'M LIKE, OH, WHY DID I WALK BACK UP? I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION AGAIN? YOUR HANDS? UM, THERE WAS A, I THINK THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT TO DO A SIX MONTH REVIEW AND THEN A ONE ANNUAL AND THE SIX MONTH I THINK WAS DUE IN AUGUST. 
          YES. 
          AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT IS STILL IN THE, THE REVIEW CYCLE. 
          UH, I BELIEVE COUNSEL IS AWARE OF THAT. 
          SO WHEN THAT IS PUBLISHED, I'LL BE SURE THAT THIS COMMISSION RECEIVES THAT. 
          MAYBE IT'LL BE AN ANNUAL REVIEW. 
           A LOT OF, A LOT OF AMENDMENTS, A LOT OF, A LOT OF REPORTING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE REAL TIME. 
          THE BEST INFORMATION WE POSSIBLY CAN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? ALL RIGHT, WELL THANK YOU EVERYBODY, ESPECIALLY THE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS FOR UM, THAT, UH, ALL THE AMENDMENTS TONIGHT. 
          AND I'LL ADJOURN OUR MEETING AT 1132. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          GOOD NIGHT Y'ALL. 
          I.
* 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.