* 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.
          [00:00:04]
          PRESENT WITHIN COUNCIL 
          [CALL TO ORDER]
CHAMBERS AND ONLINE. 
          I NOW CALL THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER AT 6:04 PM SO FIRST WE WILL TAKE ROLL CALL AND UM, I'LL GO ON THE ORDER AS LISTED ON THE OUR AGENDA, STARTING WITH MYSELF. 
          CHAIR HEMPEL HERE. 
          VICE-CHAIR ZA. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER WOODS HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER HOWARD IS ABSENT THIS EVENING. 
          COMMISSIONER BARRO RAMIREZ WILL BE JOINING US LATER. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER HANEY NOT PRESENT. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          JUST WALKING. 
          OH, THERE YOU , RECOGNIZING COMMISSIONER HANEY. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          NOT PRESENT YET. 
          COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER COX HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS IS NOT YET HERE AND COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS NOT PRESENT. 
          UM, AND WE'LL RECOGNIZE PEOPLE AS THEY COME ONLINE 'CAUSE I HAVE A FEELING THERE MAY BE TRAFFIC WITH THIS WEATHER. 
          UM, AS USUAL, TONIGHT'S MEETING'S HYBRID. 
          SO ALLOWING FOR A VIRTUAL QUORUM AS LONG AS THE PERSON SERVING AS CHAIR IS PRESENT IN CHAMBERS. 
          SO AS SUCH, WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS HERE IN CHAMBERS AND, UM, ONLINE. 
          SIMILARLY, SPEAKERS CAN PRESENT FROM THE CHAMBERS OR PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS. 
          AS ALWAYS, PLEASE REMEMBER TO SEND YOUR SIGN IN SHEET TO OUR STAFF LIAISON AND HAVE YOUR ITEMS FOR VOTING. 
          UM, EXCUSE ME, I'LL TRY TO REMEMBER TO CALL OUT THE NUMBER OF VOTES FOR AGAINST AND AN ABSTENTION TO HELP, UM, FOR THE RECORD. 
          SO IF YOU ARE SIGNED UP 
          [PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
TO SPEAK, YOU'LL RECEIVE AN EMAIL PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION TAKING UP YOUR ITEM AND SPEAKERS CAN DONATE TIME. 
          THE PERSON, UM, RECEIVING THE TIME AND THE DONATING THE TIME MUST BE PRESENT IN PERSON WHEN THE ITEMS CONSIDERED. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY, UM, UH, SORRY. 
          I'LL HAVE ASSISTANT FROM MS. GARCIA ANNOUNCING OUR SPEAKERS THIS EVENING. 
          AND, UM, JUST A QUICK REMINDER, SINCE THIS HAS COME UP IN SOME OF OUR MEETINGS RECENTLY WITH RESPECT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ZONING, I JUST REMIND YOU THAT ASIDE FROM OUR CONSIDERATION OF PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, THE APPLICANT ELECTING TO INCLUDE OR NOT INCLUDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS IS NOT PART OF A ZONING OR REZONING REQUIREMENTS. 
          SO, UM, MOVING ON TO PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. 
          MS. GARCIA, DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? YES, CHAIR. 
          OUR FIRST SPEAKER FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION IS ANGELA BENAVIDES GARZA. 
          MS. GARZA, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS. 
          YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          HI, CAN YOU HEAR ME? ME? YES, WE CAN. 
          PLEASE GO, GO AHEAD. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'M SORRY I WAS HAVING TROUBLE UNMUTING. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          HOW MANY MINUTES DO I HAVE TO SPEAK? THREE MINUTES. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          UM, THIS IS ANGELA VID GARZA. 
          I'M A CO-CHAIR WITH THE EASTON K COMBINED CONTACT TEAM, THE INTERIM PRESIDENT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. 
          UM, UH, UH, ACTUALLY, UM, SPRINGDALE AIRPORT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UM, AND ALSO A TAXPAYER IN THE AREA. 
          UM, ALSO I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, THE REASON I'M SPEAKING TODAY IS THAT I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT ONCE AGAIN, WE'VE RUN INTO AN ISSUE WHERE WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT AND, UM, I KNOW WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT STRS LATER, I KNOW THAT. 
          BUT THE ISSUE OF NOT KNOWING ABOUT THE MEETING IN THE COMMUNITY, UM, THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO SPEAK ABOUT, UM, THIS SITUATION. 
          UM, I LOOKED AT THE PURPLE CARD THAT I RECEIVED IN THE PURPLE CARD, THE FIRST MEETING THAT WE SEE ON THE PURPLE CARD THAT CAME WITH TO AUSTIN ENERGY. 
          UH, I CAN SEE THAT THE FIRST MEETING WAS ACTUALLY IN FEBRUARY. 
          SO WE HAD NO IDEA THAT THESE COMMUNITY MEETINGS WERE OUT THERE IN JANUARY. 
          ONE VIRTUAL AND TWO FACE-TO-FACE. 
          IN FACT, I, I LISTENED TO THE NUMBERS 'CAUSE I WENT BACK TO LISTEN THAT MEETING REGARDING THIS, UM, ONLY ABOUT 35 PEOPLE WERE IN ATTENDANCE AND, UM, FACE-TO-FACE, FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS, AND ABOUT 200 PEOPLE ON A VIRTUAL MEETING. 
          WE REALLY NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS THE PROCESS. 
          I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE TO SPEAK UP AUSTIN WHENEVER SOMETHING LIKE THIS NEWS GONNA COME ON. 
          AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE VERY ENGAGED IN OUR COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY RIGHT NOW ENGAGED. 
          SO WE WOULD'VE PICKED UP ON A FACT THAT THERE WERE THREE MEETINGS, UM, BEFORE ALL THIS HAPPENED AS WELL. 
          WHERE CAN WE SEE ALL THESE PROCESSES IN ONE SPOT SO WE'RE NOT HOPPING AND SKIPPING MISSING MEETINGS AND WE REALLY WANNA WORK WITH Y'ALL AND WANNA RESPECT YOUR PROCESSES, BUT WE'RE JUST SO CONFUSED BY WHAT DO WE DO? WHEN DO WE DO IT? WHEN SHOULD WE SHOW UP TO SOMETHING AND WE REALLY WANNA BE ENGAGED IN THE COMMUNITY FOR 
          [00:05:01]
SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT AS THE SPR. 
          THIS IS A BIG DEAL. 
          THE OTHER THING IS THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE LOBBYIST PAGE, LOOK AT THE THE LOBBYIST PAGE, THE COMPANY NAME EXPEDIA GROUP IS THERE SINCE WHEN DID WE START PUTTING BIG CONGLOMERATE COMPANY NAMES ON THE LOBBYIST PAGE AS A CLIENT? WHEN DID THAT CHANGE? SO THAT, THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT WE REALLY NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT AS THESE PROCESSES AND POLICIES CHANGE, CAN WE PLEASE BE INFORMED AS A COMMUNITY HOW TO APPROACH THESE THINGS AND WHY THESE THINGS ARE CHANGING SO MUCH THAT WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHEN THESE COMMUNITY MEETINGS ARE HAPPENING, THAT WE WANNA BE INVOLVED WITH THAT. 
          AND THIS JUST HAPPENED LAST QUARTER AND WE JUST BROUGHT THIS UP LAST QUARTER AND THAT'S WHY WE ASKED FOR THE POSTPONEMENT TO START TO PROCESS OVER SO THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY BE INVOLVED FROM DAY ONE OF THE ACTUAL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. 
          I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, MS. GARZA. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS SANTIAGO. 
          SANTIAGO, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          GREETINGS COMMISSIONERS. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK, UM, WITH REGARDS TO A HISTORIC ZONING OVERLAY. 
          UM, I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THIS ORGANIZATION CALLED FESTIVAL BEACH, FOOD FOREST FOR NEARLY 10 YEARS NOW. 
          UM, WE ARE, UH, THREE ERES ON A, A PILOT PROJECT ON PUBLIC PARK LAND, UM, VOLUNTEER DIRECTED, UH, SHAPING EQUITABLE ACCESS TO, UH, FRUIT BEARING, UM, SPEAK CLIMATE RESILIENCE SPECIES. 
          UM, AND WE ARE ADJACENT TO I 35, UH, EAST AND IN EAST AUSTIN. 
          UM, AND LOCATED IN EDWARD RENDON PARK. 
          UM, SO TODAY I WANNA SPEAK TOWARDS, UH, THE DIRECTING THE PRESERVATION OFFICER TO, UM, DESIGNATE A HISTORIC LANDMARK OR HISTORIC OVERLAY IN EDWARD RENDON PARK, UM, HONORING A, UH, UH, GRANITE MARKER FROM 1965 AND ADDRESSING A LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO THIS COMMISSION BY THIS HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION. 
          UM, UH, AND I WANT TO ADDRESS THE LAND CODE, UH, CHAPTER 25 8 6 43 LAND USE COMMISSION VARIANCE WITH REGARDS TO REMOVAL OF A HERITAGE OF HERITAGE TREES. 
          UM, UH, AND SO A TO REMOVAL OF HERITAGE TREE IS NOT BASED ON A CONDITION CAUSED BY THE METHOD CHOSEN BY THE APPLICANT TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY, UNLESS REMOVAL OF THE HERITAGE TREE WILL RESULT IN A DESIGN THAT WILL ALLOW FOR THE MAXIMUM PROVISION OF ECOLOGICAL SERVICE, HISTORIC AND CULTURAL VALUE OF THE TREES ON SITE. 
          AND I DON'T REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE WORDING OR HOW THAT CAN BE MODIFIED, UM, BUT HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSIONS, UH, FEBRUARY 7TH, 2020, 2024 RECOMMENDATION WAS TO PRESERVE, UH, THE PECAN GROVE THAT IS MARKED BY A 1964 UM, GRANITE MARKER. 
          UM, AND IMPORTANT IN THIS RECOMMENDATION IS ITS CHARACTER DEFINING, CULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          UM, SEVERAL ASPECTS THAT I THINK CAN BE INCLUDED IN AN AGENDA ITEM AND A RECOMMENDATION FROM THIS DAIS IS, UH, THE HOLLY SHORES EDWARD RENDON SENIOR PARK FESTIVAL OF BEACH VISION PLAN, UM, WHICH WAS I BELIEVE IN 2014, UH, AND ITS GOAL OF RESTORING ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION. 
          UM, THE ANNE AND ROY BUTLER HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL ELIGIBILITY FOR NATIONAL REGISTER TO HISTORIC PLACES, UH, AND A NEED TO DIRECT STAFF TO FILL OUT THAT APPLICATION. 
          UM, AND THEN, UH, HONORING ROBERTA CRENSHAW AND HER WORK WITH REGARDS TO THE TOWN LAKE BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE AND CHAIR OF THE 1960S PARK BOARD TO SPEARHEAD, UH, PRES PRESERVATION OF PARKLAND. 
          AND IT CREATED A TRAIL AROUND TOWN LAKE AND BACK IN 18 17 72, THE, UH, CORDOVA TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP LABELS THE NORTH SHORE AS A RIVER WALK. 
          UM, SO THERE'S A, A LOT OF DIFFERENT OVERLAYS HISTORICALLY THAT SHOW THAT THIS IS A, A VALUABLE PIECE OF LAND. 
          AND CURRENTLY IN TRAVIS COUNTY, UH, PROBATE COURT, UH, THERE'S A CON CONDEMNATION GOING ON, UH, FEBRUARY 18TH TO, UH, SEED THIS LAND TO TDOT. 
          AND SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS CHAIR. 
          THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU EVERYONE. 
          UM, THE FIRST ITEM 
          [Consent Agenda]
ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF OUR MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 14TH AND JANUARY 25TH MEETINGS. 
          DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY EDITS TO THOSE MINUTES? AND I WANT TO RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AND COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ. 
          UM, THANKS FOR JOINING AND UM, TRUSTEE HUNTER, WELCOME BACK. 
          AND, UM, WHILE EVERYBODY'S THINKING ABOUT ANY POTENTIAL EDITS TO THE MINUTES, JUST WANTED TO, UM, MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S DOING A QUORUM COUNT. 
          UM, BEFORE YOU GO OFF CAMERA, JUST 
          [00:10:01]
SO WE MAKE SURE THAT WE, UM, HAVE AT LEAST SEVEN. 
          OKAY. 
          COMING BACK TO THE MINUTES. 
          DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY EDITS? OKAY, HEARING NONE THE MINUTES AS ARE IN THE BACKUP WILL BE ADDED TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'LL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS. 
          OUR FIRST ACTIVITY TODAY IS VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          ITEMS THAT ARE CONSENT APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL, POSTPONEMENTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS OR NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS, VICE-CHAIR Z WILL READ THE PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA AND IDENTIFY THOSE THAT ARE CONSENT POSTPONEMENT AND NON-DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS. 
          YOU'LL ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST CONSENT ITEMS TO BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION. 
          AND GOOD EVENING, CHAIR COHEN. 
          OKAY, GO AHEAD. 
          VICE CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          THESE ARE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS FOR TODAY. 
          ITEM NUMBER TWO, PLAN NPA DASH 2024 DASH 8.0 1 2600 EAST MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. 
          BOULEVARD DISTRICT ONE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 25TH. 
          I NUMBER THREE IS THE ASSOCIATED REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 1 2600 EAST MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. 
          BOULEVARD DISTRICT ONE. 
          THIS ITEM IS ALSO FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 25TH. 
          I NUMBER FOUR IS THE PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2 24 DASH ZERO 8.0 2 2 9 6 7 MAIN ROAD REVISION DISTRICTS ONE AND NINE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 11TH I NUMBER FIVE IS THE ASSOCIATED REZONING C 14 DASH 2 24 DASH 0 1 0 7 MAIN ROAD DIVISION REZONE DISTRICT ONE AND NINE. 
          THIS ITEM IS ALSO UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 11TH. 
          I NUMBER SIX IS IN, UH, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2024 DASH 3 0 1 9 0 1 RED RIVER DISTRICT NINE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT. 
          THE ASSOCIATE REZONING IS ITEM NUMBER SEVEN C 14 DASH 24 0 21 RED RIVER DISTRICT NINE. 
          THIS ITEM IS ALSO UP FOR DISCUSSION I NUMBER EIGHT, UH, IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NP DASH 1 24 DASH 0 0 2 3 0 1 12 11 EAST 56 50 SECOND STREET, DISTRICT FOUR. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          ASSOCIATED REZONING IS I NUMBER NINE C 14 DASH 24 DASH 0 1 8 0 12 11 EAST 50, UH, SECOND STREET ZONING DISTRICT FOUR. 
          THIS ITEM IS ALSO UP FOR CONSENT. 
          I NUMBER 10 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2018 DASH 0 2 1 0 2 SKYLINE TRF MIXED USE DISTRICT THREE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT I NUMBER 11 C 14 DASH 1 24 DASH 0 24 11 0 9 SOUTH LAMAR BOULEVARD, DISTRICT NINE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 11TH. 
          I NUMBER 12 IS A REZONING, UM, C 14 DASH 24 DASH 0 1 3 7 12 0 7 FIRST STREET DISTRICT NINE. 
          THIS ITEM, UM, IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          I NUMBER 13 IS THE REZONING AS WELL. 
          C 14 DASH 2 24 DASH 0 180 2 57 0 6 NANCY DRIVE, DISTRICT TWO. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT I NUMBER 14. 
          THE REZONING C 14 DASH 2 24 DASH 0 1 66 WEST BY BEST BEND, WHITE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT THREE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT. 
          I NUMBER 15 IS, UH, REZONING C 14 DASH 24 DASH 6 1 505 OAKLAND AVENUE REZONING DISTRICT NINE. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT I NUMBER 16. 
          UM, THIS IS A RIGHT OF WAY VACATION 2 0 2 4 UM DASH 12 8 3 9 0 LM 1 1 1 4 WEST FIFTH STREET, DISTRICT NINE. 
          THIS ITEM IS WITHDRAWN I NUMBER 17. 
          UM, IS A CODE AMENDMENT THAT'S C 20 DASH 2024 DASH FOUR SDR MODIFICATIONS. 
          THIS ITEM IS UP FOR A DISCUSSION. 
          THAT IS ALL OF OUR PUBLIC HANG ITEMS TONIGHT. 
          CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          VICE CHAIR. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT NEED TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN FROM ANY OF THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA? OKAY, SEEING NONE. 
          UM, MS. GARCIA, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON SOME OF THE CONSENT ITEMS? YES. 
          CHAIR. 
          WE HAVE A NUMBER OF SPEAKERS FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          OUR FIRST SPEAKER WAS GOING TO SPEAK ON ITEMS TWO AND THREE, BUT HE SPOKE WITH ME BEFORE THE MEETING AND STATED THAT HE WOULD WANT TO, UM, WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO VOTE OR WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO SPEAK GIVEN THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION TO THE POSTPONEMENT. 
          AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE NONE. 
          SO I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT SPEAKER. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER WOULD BE ON ITEM NUMBER 12, AUGUSTINE VARECIA. 
          AUGUSTINE WILL BE SPEAKING IN FAVOR. 
          AUGUSTINE, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          OKAY, MOVING ON. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER FOR ITEM 12 IS WILLIAM WEAVER. 
          HE IS OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION. 
          WILLIAM, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. 
          [00:15:01]
HI, UM, WILLIAM WEAVER. 
          I'M A MEMBER OF THE BOULDER CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING COMMISSION ZONING COMMITTEE. 
          I'M ALSO A CONCERNED NEIGHBOR. 
          UM, I GUESS WE ARE CONCERNED BECAUSE YOU'VE GRANTED EAD ZONING TO A PROPERTY THAT REALLY CAN'T COMPLY WITH THE MAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR EAD AND SO WE ARE OBJECTING TO THAT REQUEST FOR VARIANCE. 
          UM, THE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED GROUND FLOOR IS INTEGRAL TO E TODD AND IF YOU CAN'T PROVIDE THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU'RE GETTING THE ADDITIONAL UPZONING ENTITLEMENTS THAT WOULD COME WITH E TODD. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          QUICK QUESTION. 
          AM I GOING TO BE CALLING UP ALL THE SPEAKERS THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ITEM 16, THE ONE THAT WAS WITHDRAWN DURING THE CONSENT? OKAY. 
          SO FOR ITEM 16, OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IN FAVOR IS MICHELLE SMITH AND SHE'S GONNA BE DONATING THREE MINUTES OF HER TIME TO JIMMY NASSER. 
          JIMMY, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES. 
          JUST RESTATING THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AND NO ACTION IS REQUIRED. 
          WE ARE JUST GIVING EVERYONE THEIR TIME TO SPEAK. 
          CAN YOU CALL THE NAME AGAIN? JIMMY NASSER, WHO IS RECEIVING THREE MINUTES OF DONATED TIME FROM MICHELLE SMITH. 
          JIMMY, ARE YOU PRESENT? MOVING ON. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN FAVOR ON ITEM 16 IS STEVE AMOS. 
          STEVE, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES MOVING FORWARD. 
          OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION ON ITEM 16 IS STEVEN GRIFFITH. 
          STEVEN, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. 
          MOVING, MOVING FORWARD. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS DONNA OSBORNE. 
          DONNA, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          AND FINALLY ON ITEM 16, OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BAILEY GRIFFITH BAILEY, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          OKAY. 
          AND CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          OKAY, THANKS SO MUCH. 
          UM, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? . 
          OKAY. 
          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 TWO MEETINGS. 
          UM, DID I HEAR, SORRY, DID I HEAR CHAIR MY NAME CALLED I'M HEARING THINGS. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M SO SORRY. 
          I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION IN A SECOND. 
          I SEE MOTION BY VICE CHAIR SECOND BY, UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UM, UNLESS THERE IS OBJECTION, THAT MOTION PASSES. 
          ALL RIGHT, THIS CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          SO WE WILL MOVE ON 
          [Items 6 & 7]
TO OUR FIRST, UM, OUR ONLY DISCUSSION CASE THIS EVENING. 
          UM, THE RED RIVER CASE. 
          SO THIS IS ITEMS NUMBER SIX NPA DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 1 9 1. 
          AND NUMBER SEVEN THE ASSOCIATED REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 21. 
          ALL WE'LL HEAR FROM MS. MEREDITH. 
          FIRST RE MEREDITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          ITEM NUMBER SIX IS PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 2024 9.01 RED RIVER IN DISTRICT NINE. 
          THE PROPERTY ADDRESSES IS 43 0 5, 43 0 7 AND 43 0 9 RED RIVER STREET. 
          IT'S WITHIN THE CENTRAL AUSTIN COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA. 
          THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE LAND USE AND IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. 
          HI MARCEL BOUDREAUX. 
          THIS IS ITEM NUMBER SEVEN ON YOUR AGENDA CASE NUMBER C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 1 21, UM, ADDRESSED AT 43 0 5 THROUGH 43 0 9 RED RIVER STREET. 
          THE APPROXIMATELY 0.35 ACRE SUBJECT REZONING AREA IS CURRENTLY ZONED SF THREE CO AND P AND THE REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT IS LRMU DB 90 AND P. 
          THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY WITH THE DB 90 COMBINING DISTRICT, WHICH WOULD ALLOW A MIXED USE BUILDING WITH GROUND FLOOR, COMMERCIAL, OR CIVIC USES WITH MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL STAFF. 
          IS HOWEVER RECOMMENDING L-R-M-U-V-C-O-N-P, WHICH ALSO WOULD ALLOW FOR A MIXED USE BUILDING, GROUND FLOOR, COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL. 
          UM, STAFF ALSO RECOMMENDS A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FOR PROHIBITED AND CONDITIONAL USES WITHIN 
          [00:20:01]
THE LR DISTRICT. 
          THE ANALYSIS AND BASIS OF THE RECOMMENDATION IS AS FOLLOWS. 
          THE BASE DISTRICT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PROMOTES A TRANSITION BETWEEN ADJACENT AND NEARBY ZONING DISTRICTS, ESPECIALLY THOSE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT PROPERTY ZONE SINGLE FAMILY. 
          THE STAFF RECOMMENDS REZONING THE SITE TO INCLUDE MU AND VERTICAL MIXED USE COMBINING DISTRICTS, WHICH ALLOWS FOR A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          RED RIVER STREET IS A SMP LEVEL THREE AT THIS POINT WITH ACCESS TO PUBLIC TRANSIT AND THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE V COMBINING DISTRICT CONTINUES TO ALIGN WITH CITY OBJECTIVES TO INCREASED DENSITY AND AFFORDABILITY IN EXCHANGE FOR RELAXED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 
          UM, I'M HERE FOR FURTHER QUESTIONS. 
          IN ADDITION, THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS, UM, AVAILABLE TO FIELD INQUIRIES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WE'LL NOW BE HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS VICTORIA HASI WITH THROWER DESIGN ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER. 
          THE SUBJECT TRACT IS IN BLUE TOWARDS THE MIDDLE OF THE MAP IN FRONT OF YOU. 
          IT'S ABOUT TWO BLOCKS NORTH OF THE HANCOCK SHOPPING CENTER AND TWO BLOCKS SOUTH OF 45TH AND RED RIVER. 
          THIS MAP SHOWS THE CAPITAL, METRO ROUTES AND BUS STOPS AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON DIRECTLY ON, UH, A ROUTE THAT IS, UM, ROUTE 10. 
          IT'S A RAPID ROUTE, HAS A HIGH RIDERSHIP. 
          AND THEN THIS PARTICULAR MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, THE DATA ON THE SCREEN SHOWS YOU THERE WAS OVER 155,000 RIDERS. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO THE LOCATION IS GREAT. 
          UH, IT PROVIDES A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR MULTI MULTIMODAL TRANSIT USE. 
          UH, WITHIN A 15 MINUTE WALK YOU CAN ACCESS FOUR COMMERCIAL NODES, A PARK, A GOLF COURSE, AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, A MEDICAL FACILITY. 
          THERE'S QUITE A BIT THAT YOU CAN GET TO WITHIN THIS AREA JUST WITH A 15 MINUTE WALK. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          AND THEN EXTENDING BEYOND A 15 MINUTE BIKE RIDE GETS YOU ACCESS TO THE TRIANGLE, THE CENTRAL PARK RETAIL CENTER, WHICH ALSO INCLUDES ANOTHER, UM, HOSPITAL FACILITY, ST. 
          DAVID'S MEDICAL CENTER, UT UM, UT CAMPUS, UT INTRAMURAL FIELDS, A CC HIGHLAND MALL. 
          THERE'S SO MUCH IN THIS AREA THAT YOU CAN ACCESS BY WALKING, BY, BIKING, AND THEN OF COURSE BY TAKING THE BUS AS WELL. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE PROPERTY. 
          THE HOUSES TO THE LEFT ARE, UH, TWO OF THREE A SE TWO OUT OF A SERIES OF THREE HOUSES THAT ARE 1940S BUNGALOWS. 
          UM, THEY ARE SOME VERY AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS AREA, BUT THEY'RE VERY AFFORDABLE BECAUSE THEY'RE IN VERY POOR CONDITION. 
          UM, THERE'S ALSO IN THE DISTANCE YOU CAN SEE THERE'S THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. 
          AND THEN YOU CAN ACTUALLY ALSO SEE THE CAPITOL METRO BUS STOP RIGHT THERE ON THE CORNER WITH, UH, A BICYCLE AND THEN A CYCLIST OFF TO THE LEFT AS WELL. 
          THIS IS A HIGHLY BIKEABLE AND WALKABLE AREA. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 0.35 ACRES. 
          IT IS LOCATED, LIKE I SAID, JUST A LITTLE BIT NORTH OF THE HANCOCK SHOPPING CENTER. 
          IT'S TWO PLATTED LOTS THAT ACTUALLY FRONT ON EAST 44TH STREET, BUT THE HOUSES ON THESE LOTS FRONT ON RED RIVER, THE REZONING IS SOUGHT TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL HOUSING AS WELL AS OPPORTUNITY FOR A MIXED USE PROJECT. 
          UM, AGAIN, THIS IS, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE DATA IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THE SCREEN. 
          IT IS VERY WALKABLE. 
          IT'S GOT AN 87 SCORE FOR WALKABILITY 52 SCORE FOR GOOD TRANSIT AND AN 88 SCORE FOR BIKEABILITY. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO COMPARING THE VARIOUS, UH, ZONING COMBINATIONS THAT ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION TONIGHT, THE YIELD FOR SF THREE, UH, KEEPING THE CURRENT ZONING WOULD PRODUCE SIX UNITS. 
          UM, THERE'S TWO LOTS AND SO SIX THREE UNITS PER LOT UNDER THE HOME. 
          ONE, UH, PROGRAM WOULD GIVE YOU SIX UNITS, HOWEVER, NONE OF THOSE WOULD BE INCOME RESTRICTED AND ALL OF THEM WOULD BE AT MARKET RATE, UM, WHICH WOULD GREATLY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND USES IN THE AREA. 
          UM, UNDER LR LRM AND LRV, AS YOU HEARD WAS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          SO LOOKING AT THE TWO SEPARATELY UNDER LRMU, YOU COULD ALSO GET INTERESTINGLY, SIX UNITS, UH, DUE TO SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS AND WHICH WOULD PRODUCE NO INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS. 
          THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WOULD BE 40 FEET, THREE FLOORS. 
          BUT SOMETHING I WANNA CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO IS THE DIFFERENCE AT THE VERY BOTTOM WHAT'S IN YELLOW. 
          UNDER SF THREE AND THE HOME ONE PROGRAM, YOU CAN ACTUALLY GET 0.65 FAR, WHICH PRODUCES 9,910 SQUARE FEET 
          [00:25:01]
OF FLOOR AREA VERSUS UNDER LRMU THAT HAS A 0.5 TO ONE FAR MAXIMUM. 
          SO IN IN ESSENCE, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF LRMU IS ACTUALLY CONSIDERED A DOWN ZONING IN TERMS OF FLOOR TO AREA RATIO UNDER LRV, THAT IS AN OPTION AS WELL, BUT WE HAVE IT X THROUGH BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKELY IT, IT WON'T BE USED. 
          ACTUALLY IT'S NOT THAT IT'S NOT LIKELY IT WON'T BE USED AND I'LL, AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS UNDER LRV, WHILE IT LOOKS VERY SIMILAR TO DB 90 AND SOME OF THE RELAXATIONS, IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL HEIGHT. 
          AND SO WITH A PROJECT HERE THAT IS CONFINED TO 40 FEET, YOU DON'T GET ENOUGH UNITS TO SUBSIDIZE ANY INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS, WHICH WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT UNDER THE V PROGRAM IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THERE ARE ONLY ABOUT 40 LAND PARCELS THAT HAVE COMBINATION OF LR AND V. 
          NONE OF THEM HAVE DEVELOPED USING THE V PROGRAM. 
          ONLY ONE OF THEM THAT HAS DEVELOPED WITH HOUSING USED AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED. 
          SO THIS IS NOT A VIABLE OPTION FOR THIS PROPERTY. 
          CONVERSELY, LRDB 90, YOU GET TWO TO THREE UNITS OF INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. 
          I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN FAVOR IS RON THROWER. 
          RON, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES PASS. 
          MOVING ON TO OUR SPEAKERS AND OPPOSITION. 
          OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER AND OPPOSITION IS CHARLES DE HAR DE HARCOURT. 
          CHARLES, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS AND CITY STAFF. 
          I'M GONNA SPEAK FROM STATEMENTS BECAUSE PREPARED STATEMENTS BECAUSE HOPEFULLY THEY'LL SAVE US SOME TIME. 
          UM, I'M THE NEW, UH, PRESIDENT OF THE HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. 
          THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE MIDDLE OF HANCOCK AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION VOTED IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST ON ON OUR NOVEMBER 4TH, UH, MEETING. 
          THE REASON FOR THAT WAS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION OR ACTUALLY ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. 
          UM, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, KPAC, THE ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ALSO VOTED IN OPPOSITION AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME. 
          AND FOR THE SAME REASON, THE PROPERTY OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE IS SPOKE AT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEETING ON JANUARY 27TH, THREE WEEKS AGO, BUT PROVIDED NO NEW INFORMATION AT THAT TIME. 
          AND IN FACT, THEY INDICATED THAT THE PROPERTY'S OWNER DID NOT WISH AT THIS TIME TO INVEST IN MAKING EVEN TENTATIVE PLANS AVAILABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. 
          WERE A BIT PUZZLED BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WOULD BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH OWNERS TO SUPPORT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH NEIGHBORHOOD'S LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT. 
          BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IN THIS CASE, THE REQUEST IS PURELY SPECULATIVE WITH THE INTENTION OF INCREASING THE PROPERTY VALUE FOR SALE INSTEAD OF DOING ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD BENEFIT THE CITY OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          IN SUMMARY, IT SEEMS TO US THAT ALLOWING THE ZONING CHANGE WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE BULK UPZONING SIMILAR PROPERTIES. 
          UM, AND IT WOULD MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, UH, WORTHLESS BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY ANYBODY WHO ASKS WOULD, WOULD BE ABLE TO GET AN UPZONING AND IN ADDITION, WITHOUT ANY PLANS FOR ANYTHING. 
          AND IN ADDITION, THE UPZONING WOULD GO BEYOND WHAT, UH, CODE NEXT PROVIDED THAT WAS CAREFULLY PLANNED TO GIVE THE IDEAS OF TRANSITION OF FORM FROM CORRIDORS TO INNER NEIGHBORHOODS AND, UM, ALSO MIDDLE, UH, MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING. 
          BUT THIS PROVIDES NONE OF THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GONNA GO UP THERE. 
          UM, FOR THESE REASONS AND AS WAS VOTED BY OUR MEMBERS, WE'D REQUEST THAT THE ZONING CHANGE BE EITHER DENIED OR AT LEAST POSTPONED UNTIL INFORMATION ABOUT ACTUAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PRESENTED. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DON LARSON. 
          DON, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          I CHAIR HEMPEL COMMISSIONERS. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          MY NAME IS DON LARSON. 
          I'M SPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER. 
          HOMEOWNER. 
          UH, THIS STATEMENT FOLLOWS A LETTER THAT WAS SENT IN TODAY. 
          DESPITE THE SUGGESTIONS THAT THE HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD PORTION OF THE 2004 CENTRAL AUSTIN COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN DOES NOT SUPPORT DB 90 AND THE APPLICANT'S REZONING REQUEST, THAT IS NOT, THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN. 
          SINCE 2004, AUSTIN HAS GROWN 45%. 
          THE CITY HAS NOT KEPT UP WITH TRAFFIC AND PARKING. 
          IN 2004, DEVELOPERS WERE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SOME ADEQUATE PARKING WITH EACH PROJECT. 
          IN 2023, THE 
          [00:30:01]
CITY COUNCIL REPEALED THAT REQUIREMENT. 
          IN 2004, HANCOCK PLAN PARTICIPANTS HAD NO IDEA THAT THE CITY WOULD ADOPT DB 90, WHICH IN THIS CASE ALLOWS A 70 FOOT BUILDING IN AN AREA WITH PRIMARILY 25 FOOT ROOF PEAKS. 
          IT'S NOT CONSISTENT. 
          SO 2004 PLAN PARTICIPANTS HAD FAR DIFFERENT EXPECTATIONS REGARDING THIS PROPERTY THAN THE EXPECTATION OF APPROPRIATENESS ACCORDING TO THE DB 90 APPLICATION. 
          SO LET'S LOOK AT PLAN LANGUAGE AND CLEAR REQUIREMENT FOR COMPATIBILITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THE PLAN'S VISION STATEMENT SAYS, PRESERVE THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY OF SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          ALLOW REDEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATE TO REFLECT RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE APPROPRIATELY ORIENTED AND SCALED RELATIVE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          GOAL THREE RELIES ON ASSUMPTIONS LIKE ALLOW MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SCALED. 
          THE TOP 10 PRIORITIES INCLUDE STOP INCURSIONS OF NEW COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE USES INTO RESIDENTIAL AREAS, WHICH THIS IS. 
          AND IT SAYS DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE WEST CAMPUS SHOULD BE, UH, SHOULD USE SIMILAR SETBACKS, ROOF FORMS, RIDGE HEIGHTS, ET CETERA. 
          PLANNING PARTICIPANTS ADDRESSED MIXED USE, BUT THEY IDENTIFIED AREAS WHERE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. 
          OBJECTIVE FIVE NINE SAYS IMPROVED THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT OF 41ST STREET BETWEEN RED RIVER AND I 35 WHEN IT IS REDEVELOPED AS A MIXED USE CORRIDOR. 
          THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR A MIXED USE CORRIDOR. 
          SIMILAR STATEMENTS TO THE ONES THAT WE'VE COME OUT OF THE PLAN HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE STAFF'S REPORT TONIGHT. 
          IN SUMMARY, NOTHING IN THE PLAN CONTEMPLATES THE TYPE OF STRUCTURE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. 
          COMPATIBILITY IS MORE THAN A 25 FOOT BUFFER. 
          A 70 FOOT BUILDING IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. 
          FOR THE RE THESE REASONS AND FOR THOSE OFFERED BY OTHERS, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TIME PERFECTLY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ANDREW SCHULTZ. 
          ANDREW, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONERS. 
          I LIVE ON EAST 44TH STREET NEAR BENNETT AVENUE. 
          UM, I'D START LIKE TO START BY, UH, ACKNOWLEDGING AND APPLAUDING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S RECOGNITION THAT THE, UH, HEIGHT LIMITS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER DB 90, UH, WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UH, 70 FOOT, UH, TALL BUILDING WOULD FRANKLY BE AN ABOMINATION. 
          UH, THIS IS MOSTLY SINGLE STORY BUILDINGS. 
          AS MR. LARSON SAID, MOST OF THEM NOT MORE THAN 25 FEET. 
          EVEN THE 40 FOOT LIMIT THAT WOULD BE ALLOWABLE UNDER THE DEPARTMENT'S, UH, RECOMMENDATION WOULD STILL BE AT LEAST TWICE AS HIGH AS MOST OF THE BUILDINGS IN THE AREA. 
          BUT APART FROM HEIGHT, THERE ARE OTHER REASONS WHY THIS APPLICATION IS, UH, TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE. 
          AND I SPEAK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE FACT THAT RED RIVER AT THIS LOCATION IS ALREADY A HAZARDOUS AREA, ALTHOUGH IT IS, UH, UH, CLASSIFIED AS A SMP LEVEL THREE. 
          IT IS DOES NOT ACTUALLY QUALIFY FOR THAT. 
          IT IS NOT THREE LANES, BUT IT IS TWO. 
          AND JUST SOUTH OF THIS SITE, AS YOU'RE HEADING NORTH, EXCUSE ME, RED RIVER HAS ABANDONED IT AND A RISE AND NARROWS FROM THREE LANES TO TWO. 
          AND IN THIS STRETCH THERE ARE BIKE LANES ON EACH SIDE, BOTH UNPROTECTED AND NARROW. 
          THERE'S A PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK AND AS ALREADY NOTED, THERE ARE TWO BUS STOPS, ONE ON EACH SIDE. 
          THERE IS A LOT GOING ON IN THIS NARROW STRETCH ROAD AND THE CARS COMING NORTH ON RED RIVER, DON'T SLOW DOWN FOR IT. 
          WHEN I PULL OUT ONTO RED RIVER FROM 44TH STREET, IT IS OFTEN DIFFICULT TO DO SO SAFELY BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LIMITED SITE DISTANCE SOUTH AND YOU HAVE ALL THIS ACTIVITY OF BUSES, BICYCLISTS, PEDESTRIANS, NOT TO MENTION THE SCOOTERS AS UH, THE APPLICANT NOTED IN ONE OF, UH, THEIR PHOTOGRAPHS. 
          SO IT'S ALREADY A DANGEROUS SPOT. 
          AND ADDING MORE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ON THIS BLOCK ALONG WITH MORE WITH COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ONLY MAKES THE PROBLEM WORSE. 
          THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS DONE, UH, INTERESTINGLY DIDN'T EVEN MEASURE THE TRAFFIC ON RED RIVER, WHICH IS, AS I'VE JUST SAID ALREADY DANGEROUS. 
          THEY MEASURED IT AT THE CORNER OF 44TH STREET IN BENNETT, BUT THEY DID IT AT A TIME WHERE THEY COULDN'T, THEY WOULDN'T ACTUALLY 
          [00:35:01]
CAPTURE THE CR UH, AN ACCURATE READING OF THE TRAFFIC. 
          AND THAT'S BECAUSE THESE STREETS ARE FEEDERS TO THE NORTH PARKING LOT AT THE HANCOCK CENTER. 
          AND AT THE TIME OF THIS STUDY, THAT NORTH PARKING LOT WAS CLOSED BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION GOING ON TO EXPAND HEB. 
          SO WHEN THEY TOOK, TOOK THESE MEASUREMENTS OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AT THAT CORNER, THEY'RE NOT CAPTURING THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT WILL ACTUALLY BE THERE ONCE THAT PARKING LOT IS REOPENED. 
          SO, UH, THAT STUDY IS FLAWED FOR THAT REASON ALONE, BUT IT'S ALSO FLAWED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE INCREASED TRAFFIC THAT WOULD, UH, INEVITABLY FOLLOW FROM THE EXPANDED HEB, THE CONVERSION OF THE SEARS BUILDING TO A COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER AND THE EXPANSION OF I 35, ALL OF WHICH ARE GONNA PUSH MORE TRAFFIC INTO AN ALREADY DANGEROUS AREA. 
          THANK YOU SIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MARGO WITT. 
          MARGOT, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'M MARGO WITT. 
          I LIVE ON EAST 44TH AND I SEE THEY PUT MY PICTURE UP SO I DIDN'T HAVE TO BRING THEM , BUT UH, I'M A VISUAL PERSON SO I CAN'T LOOK AT THE MAPS LIKE THE DEVELOPER SHOWED YOU. 
          THIS WILL SHOW YOU ACTUALLY WHAT A 75 FOOT BUILDING WOULD LOOK LIKE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND THESE ARE THE THREE HOUSES THAT ARE, UH, PROPOSED TO BE BULLDOZED THAT THEY HAVE ADMITTED OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          UM, AND PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LIVING IN THEM SINCE I'VE LIVED IN THE AREA SINCE 2016. 
          SO, UH, I DO AGREE WITH MY NEIGHBORS. 
          UH, THIS WOULD NOT BE IN CHARACTER WITH THE, WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOU CAN JUST SEE HOW IT WOULD TOWER OVER ANY OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE AREA. 
          IT'S A WONDERFUL AREA TO LIVE IN, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S INCUMBENT UPON YOU TO, AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION, TO THINK ABOUT HOW THIS WOULD INTEGRATE WITH THE FOLKS THAT ALREADY LIVE THERE. 
          I UNDERSTAND YOUR MARCHING ORDERS FOR DENSITY. 
          I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COUNCIL DID IN 2023, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR MISSION IS TO TRY TO PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER THAT'LL MEET THEIR NEEDS AND OUR NEEDS. 
          AND I THINK WE'VE VISUALLY SHOWN HOW THIS WOULD NOT MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY. 
          IT'S, IT WOULD BE TERRIBLY OUT OF PROPORTION AND, AND ACCORDING TO THE DEVELOPER, IF YOU DIDN'T GO 70 FEET TALL, YOU WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THERE, WHICH I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RECONCILIATION OF THAT. 
          SO I OPPOSE IT AND I WOULD APPRECIATE YOU OPPOSING IT AS WELL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS LIZ MCPHAIL. 
          LIZ, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          I'M LIZ MCPHAIL. 
          I OWN AND LIVE IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IMMEDIATELY ACROSS FROM THESE PROPERTIES UNDER REVIEW. 
          I LIVE HERE WITH MY THREE SCHOOL AGED CHILDREN AND OUR DOG. 
          I KNOW THIS PORTION OF RED RIVER MORE INTIMATELY THAN MOST AS I WATCH THE ROAD AND FOOT TRAFFIC HERE AND PERSONALLY EXPERIENCE IT EVERY SINGLE DAY. 
          THIS PORTION OF RED RIVER BOTTLENECKS TO SINGLE LANES NORTH AND SOUTH DOWN FROM THE MUCH WIDER AREA JUST SOUTH OF HERE AT HANCOCK SHOPPING CENTER, WHICH SAFELY NAVIGATES TRAFFIC WITH A ROAD WIDTH OVER TWO TIMES THE WIDTH OF THE ROAD HERE AT QUESTION IN FRONT OF THESE PROPERTIES AT THIS NARROW SECTION OF RED RIVER IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF MY HOME AND THE PROPERTIES UNDER CONSIDERATION. 
          THERE IS ALSO THE CONFLUENCE OF 44TH STREET TRAFFIC CROSSING RED RIVER AT AN OFFSET INTERSECTION, WHICH ACTUALLY ADDS TO THE INCREASED COMPLEXITY OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC CROSSING RED RIVER ALSO CONTRIBUTING TO THIS CONGESTION. 
          CONFLUENCE IS A PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK, TWO BUS STOPS AND BIKE LANES. 
          I CANNOT TELL YOU HOW CONGESTED THIS ONE PORTION OF RED RIVER IS EXACTLY IN FRONT OF THESE HOMES. 
          I WAS SHOCKED WHEN I HEARD ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. 
          I'M OPTIMISTIC AND SUPPORTIVE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR CITY FOR GREATER DENSITY AND RECOGNIZE AND WANT ADDITIONAL HOUSING TO DRIVE AFFORDABILITY. 
          HOWEVER, I'M DEEPLY CONCERNED FOR MY SAFETY OF MY SONS, MY NEIGHBORS, AND THE MANY UNHOUSED NEIGHBORS WE ACTUALLY HAVE RIGHT HERE BECAUSE OF THE BUS STOPS. 
          ADDITIONALLY, I'M DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC AND PARKING ON 44TH STREET, 44TH STREET, EAST AND WEST OF RED RIVER IS ALREADY CONGESTED WITH STREET PARKING AND NO SIDEWALKS. 
          DAILY. 
          I AM FORCED TO WALK IN THE CENTER OF THESE, OF THIS ROAD TO WALK MY DOG AND I WATCH ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS AND THEIR DOGS AND THEIR CHILDREN WALKING THIS WAY AS WELL. 
          I CANNOT FATHOM THE INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND PARKING THAT THIS WOULD CAUSE. 
          I AM TERRIFIED AT WHAT THIS WILL MEAN IN PRACTICE. 
          THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION OF LRV 40 WHILE OUT CHARACTER AT LEAST ALLOWS A BETTER MANAGEMENT OF THIS SPACE AND FOR THE SAFETY OF ME AND 
          [00:40:01]
MY CHILDREN AND MY NEIGHBORS. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KRISTEN PHILLIPS. 
          MS. PHILLIPS WILL BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY. 
          KRISTEN, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS. 
          YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          HI, THIS IS CHRISTINE PHILLIPS. 
          I LIVE ON EAST 44TH. 
          UM, I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT EVEN AS A FOUR STORY BLOCK OF BUILDINGS FROM MAIN AND MANY OF THE REASONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN STATED. 
          HOW DO YOU I DID, HI, THIS IS KRISTEN PHILLIPS. 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN. 
          UM, YES, I'M SORRY I WAS DOING AFTER SIX, BUT IT'S PROBABLY A COMMON PROBLEM. 
          BUT ANYWAY, UM, I LIVE ON EAST 44TH STREET, UM, AND I AM, I REGULARLY WALK AND A BIKE AND, AND USE THE BUS ON THIS INTERSECTION SO I'M WELL AWARE OF ALL THE PROBLEMS THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN STATED ABOUT CONGESTION, ABOUT THE NARROWING OF THE ROAD. 
          UM, THE IDEA OF EVEN A FOUR STORY BUILDING ON THAT AREA WOULD JUST, AND, AND ALSO A BUILDING THAT COMES TO THE SIDEWALK, UM, JUST SEEMS EXTREME. 
          UH, I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW THE BUS STOP WILL, WILL WORK, ET CETERA. 
          THE OTHER MAJOR CONCERN IS HOW NARROW, BOTH EAST 44TH STREET ON EITHER SIDE, AS LIZABETH HILL MENTIONED THAT IT'S AN OFFSET INTERSECTION. 
          IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR GARBAGE TRUCKS TO EVEN DRIVE DOWN THESE ROADS NOW, UM, BECAUSE OF THE NARROWNESS OF THE ROADS OF EAST 44TH, UM, THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS. 
          UM, SO YOU'VE GOT PEDESTRIANS ON THE SIDES AS WELL. 
          UM, WITH NO PLACE TO WALK AND NO PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO DRIVE. 
          PEOPLE DRIVE VERY QUICKLY DOWN THESE ROADS, MAINLY BECAUSE THEY THINK OF RED RIVER AS A 35 MILE AN HOUR ZONE. 
          UM, SO MY CONCERN MAINLY IS THAT I WOULD SUPPORT DENSITY, BUT THIS LOCATION IS REALLY NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS KIND OF DENSITY BECAUSE OF THINGS THAT ARE NOT VISIBLE IN THE PRESENTATION, WHICH IS THE TRUE NARROWING OF RED RIVER, THE LACK OF SPACE. 
          UM, IT, IT JUST, ANYWAY, I'M, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF, UH, A DIFFERENT PROPOSAL. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS CHAIR. 
          THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. 
          OKAY. 
          WE CAN HEAR IT FROM THE APPLICANT FOR REBUTTAL. 
          VICTORIA HASI AGAIN, UM, COMMERS RED RIVER IS A LEVEL THREE STREET. 
          IT'S INTENDED TO FUNCTION AS AN ARTERIAL THAT CONNECTS NEIGHBORHOODS AND DESTINATIONS, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE SEEN AND WHAT IT DOES FUNCTION AS TODAY. 
          UM, THERE'S A REASON WHY IT NARROWS AND THE REASON WHY RED RIVER NARROWS IS BECAUSE THIS NORTHERN PORTION OF RED RIVER HASN'T SEEN ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE PAST SEVERAL DECADES. 
          WHEN NEW DEVELOPMENT COMES FORWARD, THAT'S WHEN THE CITY OF AUSTIN SAYS, GUESS WHAT? YOU WANT NEW DEVELOPMENT, YOU WANT PERMITS, YOU HAVE TO GIVE US RIGHT OF WAY. 
          THAT'S WHAT THIS PROPERTY WILL HAVE TO DO AT SOME POINT WHEN IT DOES GO INTO A REDEVELOPMENT PHASE, IT WILL BE GIVING RIGHT OF WAY TO THE CITY TO HELP EXPAND RED RIVER TO MAKE SOME OF THESE PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE, UM, IMPROVEMENTS. 
          BUT I'LL ALSO SAY IT'S AN ACTIVE CORRIDOR AND IT WOULD SERVE THIS AREA WELL. 
          ALL OF THE REASONS WHY, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE THINGS THAT YOU HEARD IN TERMS OF ACTIVITY, THE BUS STOP, THE PEDESTRIANS, THE CYCLISTS, ALL OF THOSE THINGS HELP TO SLOW TRAFFIC DOWN. 
          THE MORE THINGS YOU HAVE GOING ON, THE SLOWER VEHICLES DRIVE. 
          I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT'S A CONSISTENT THING ALL OF THE TIME, BUT RESEARCH DOES SHOW THAT WHEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE AND CARS PARKING ON THE STREET, IT ORGANICALLY HAS CARS SLOWING DOWN BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE WHAT'S COMING. 
          YOU CAN'T SEE WHAT'S GOING. 
          SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BENEFIT THIS AREA. 
          BUT I WILL SAY THAT THE WHOLE POINT OF PUTTING UNITS ON RED RIVER, THIS IS A CORRIDOR, IT IS AN ACTIVITY CORRIDOR WHERE WE SHOULD BE PUTTING MORE UNITS. 
          IT WOULD BUFFER THE INTERIOR, SINGLE FAMILY AREAS, UM, WHICH WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          UM, I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS COMMISSIONERS. 
          SO LET'S VOTE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          SEE, UH, MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECOND BY ADVICE CHAIR. 
          UNLESS THERE'S OPPOSITION, THAT MOTION PASSES AND I WILL OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS. 
          SO, ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER 
          [00:45:01]
COX? SOMEONE ELSE IS GONNA HAVE TO ASK THE FIRST QUESTIONS ONCE I'M OFF THE , IT'S GONNA BE SILENT FOR A MEETING. 
          , UH, QUE I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTIONS ARE FOR STAFF. 
          UM, AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I, I APPRECIATE STAFF'S ATTEMPT AT TRYING TO FIND SOME INTERESTING ZONING CATEGORY THAT'S EXTREMELY LONG, UM, UH, IN RESPONSE TO WHAT, UH, WHAT I AGREE IS AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST FOR DB 90 IN THIS LOCATION. 
          UM, AND SO MY, MY QUESTION TO STAFF IS MORE ABOUT PRECEDENT SETTING FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE. 
          UM, THE ONLY REASON I CAN EVEN REMOTELY THINK THAT ANYONE WOULD FIND DB 90 TO BE APPROPRIATE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS SF THREE ZONED AREA IS THAT THE PROXIMITY TO A BUS STOP. 
          BUT ANYONE WHO KNOWS THIS NEIGHBORHOOD KNOWS THAT AT THIS WHOLE PART OF AUSTIN IS FILLED WITH BUS STOPS. 
          IT'S JUST A GRID OF BUS STOPS ALONG DUVAL AND SPEEDWAY AND AND AND ALL THE STREETS. 
          AND SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO STAFF IS, IF, IF THE CITY, IF THIS COMMISSION AND THIS COUNCIL APPROVES DB 90 ON THESE TWO LOTS, DO YOU SEE ANY REASON WHY ALL OF THE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN THIS SUBDIVISION, IN THIS PART OF AUSTIN WOULD GET DB 90 DENIED IF THEY CAME AND TRIED TO REZONE THEIR SINGLE FAMILY LOT? I, EXCUSE ME, MARCEL BOUDREAUX? UM, SO LEMME SEE IF I CAN JUST RESTATE YOUR QUESTION. 
          UM, I THINK YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE DB 90 COMBINING DISTRICT HERE. 
          CORRECT. 
          HOW WOULD THAT BE PRECEDENT SETTING? YES. 
          WOULD, WOULD IT BE PRESIDENT SETTING AND, AND I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER REASON FOR THIS ENTIRE AREA OF AUSTIN, BASICALLY NORTH OF THE UNIVERSITY UP TO CAN LANE, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN GUADALUPE AND I 35, WHY ANY OF THOSE SINGLE FAMILY SF THREE ZONE PROPERTIES WOULD END UP BEING DENIED DB 90 IF WE APPROVE IT IN THIS ONE SPOT. 
          UM, SO I'LL GO BACK TO THAT. 
          EACH ZONING CASE THAT'S APPLIED FOR IS, IS UNIQUE. 
          SO WE WILL LOOK AT EACH CASE, UM, AS REGARDS TO ITS LOCATION, THE ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE. 
          UM, AND ALSO WILL STATE THAT STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING DB 90 FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE. 
          UH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE L-R-M-U-V ZONING DISTRICT. 
          SO TO BE HONEST, WE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A GREAT ANALYSIS OR RESPONSE TO THE DB 90 'CAUSE STAFFS DID FOCUS ON THE MUV UM, EXHIBIT. 
          WELL, LET'S, LET'S THINK OF IT MORE, UH, LET'S, LET'S ZOOM OUT A LITTLE BIT. 
          IF, IF THIS COMMISSION AND COUNCIL APPROVES A DB 90 ON AN SF THREE ZONE LOT SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF A BUNCH OF SF THREE ZONE LOTS, DON'T YOU THINK THAT WOULD KIND OF BE PRECEDENT SETTING THAT, THAT ESSENTIALLY EVERY SF THREE ZONE LAW COULD COME AND REQUEST DB 90 AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE REASON TO DENY IT? UM, COMMISSIONER COX, THIS MIGHT BE A A A BETTER, LARGER QUESTION DURING A DISCUSSION FOR DB 90. 
          UM, I'M NOT SURE I'M GONNA BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, ANSWER THAT QUESTION DUE TO THE LARGE BREADTH. 
          YOU KNOW, I'LL SAY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU, I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DON'T WANNA ANSWER THE QUESTION, BUT I, I APPRECIATE, I APPRECIATE YOU TRYING. 
          SO I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTION IS TO, UM, IS TO THE APPLICANT. 
          UM, I'M, I'M, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN BY RED RIVER. 
          UM, AND, AND THIS LOT BEING A TRANSITION BETWEEN, I I AM ASSUMING THE COMMERCIAL THAT'S AT THE HANCOCK CENTER AND THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN, WHEN THIS, WHEN THIS PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY TWO BLOCKS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SF THREE PART OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UM, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. 
          SO WHAT I'M, WHAT I INTENDED TO SAY OR COMMUNICATE IS THAT RED RIVER AS AS A WHOLE, UM, STRETCHING ALL THE WAY CLOSER TO UNIVERSITY AND ALL THE WAY UP TO 45TH STREET IS A HIGHLY TRAVELED THROUGHWAY THROUGH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND MANY OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          I LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN I WAS A STUDENT AT UT, YOU KNOW, 20 OVER 20 YEARS AGO. 
          I'M VERY FAMILIAR. 
          I WORKED OUT AT THE GYM THERE THAT'S AT, AT THE SHOPPING CENTER. 
          I LIVED BEHIND MOTHER'S CAFES. 
          I'M VERY FAMILIAR 
          [00:50:01]
WITH THIS AREA AND I KNOW IT WAS BUSY THEN AND IT'S PROBABLY ONLY BUSIER NOW. 
          UM, BUT I WILL SAY WHAT WAS INTENDED IS THAT THIS STRETCH OF RED RIVER IS AN ACTIVITY CORRIDOR AND SO I THINK IT DESERVES UM, THE PROPERTIES THAT LINE RED RIVER DESERVE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN JUST SINGLE FAMILY BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE GONNA TRANSITION BETWEEN THE ACTIVITY AND THE INTENSITY OF RED RIVER AND THE SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON EITHER THE EAST OR THE WEST SIDE. 
          SORRY TO INTERRUPT. 
          UH, NEXT QUESTION. 
          BYE CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. 
          UM, THE FIRST QUESTION I HAD WAS I, I KNOW UM, STAFF ESSENTIALLY SUGGESTED THE VMU WHICH WOULD ALLOW TO GO TO BASE HEIGHT AND I KNOW ONE OF THE CONCERNS THE APPLICANT HAS BROUGHT UP IS THAT THE 40 FEET SORT OF LIMITATION. 
          DID STAFF CONSIDER SOMETHING LIKE GR COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL OR CS TO ALLOW THE 60 FEET THAT SORT OF A LOT OF OUR OTHER VMU PROGRAMS HAVE? 'CAUSE WE'RE DOING IT A LOT ON CS IN OTHER CORRIDORS WHERE 60 FEET, LIKE DID STAFF CONSIDER SOMETHING LIKE THAT? UM, STAFF LOOKED AT THIS AREA AND REALLY SAW THAT KIND OF ACROSS THE STREET AND SITES GOING SOUTH. 
          THERE DOES START TO UM, TR THE LAND USES DO START TO TRANSITION FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO MORE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. 
          SO THERE IS LO AND LR ZONING GOING SOUTH ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE HANCOCK CENTER, WHICH IS CS. 
          UM, IN THIS PARTICULAR, FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE AND APPLICATION AND THE ADJACENT ZONING AND NEARBY ZONING, LR FELT THE MOST APPROPRIATE. 
          UM, BOTH DUE TO UNDERLYING USES BUT ALSO THE HEIGHT. 
          GOT IT. 
          MM-HMM . 
          UM, I ALSO HAD SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING THE USES, UM, AND I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND, UM, STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE. 
          SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I SAW WAS THAT CHILDCARE IS MOVED TO SORT OF CONDITIONAL USE, IT'S ALLOWABLE UNDER THE BASE. 
          WAS THERE SOME CONCERN REGARDING THOSE TYPE OF USES ON THE CORRIDOR? UM, STAFF, BECAUSE IT IS STILL A BIT OF A TRANSITION AREA, UM, STAFF WAS LOOKING AT EXI, UH, MORE RECENT ZONINGS, UM, ACROSS THE STREET. 
          THERE WAS A CO ADDED THAT HAD UM, THE SAME KIND OF UH, PROHIBITED AND CONDITIONAL USES. 
          AND SO IT TOOK A LOOK AT THOSE AND FELT LIKE, YOU KNOW, AS REZONING THAT WASN'T THAT LONG AGO, VERY NEAR FELT THAT THEY'RE AND APPROVED BY COUNSEL FELT THAT THOSE WERE APPROPRIATE TO ADD TO THE SITE. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT AND I APPRECIATE Y'ALL ADDING THAT TO THE BACKUP AS WELL. 
          UH, ONE OTHER SORT OF FOLLOW UP TO THAT IS, DO WE KNOW WHEN THAT CO FOR THE ACROSS THE WAVE WAS DONE? UM, 2014. 
          OKAY, THAT'S HELPFUL. 
          OR 2012? I'M SORRY, IT'S 2012 OR 2014. 
          OKAY. 
          NO, THAT'S HELPFUL. 
          JUST ROUGHLY, I KNOW IT'S HARD TO REMEMBER WHO CAN REMEMBER A YEAR FOR A PARTICULAR COI APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          AND LOST, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AS WELL. 
          SURE, THANK YOU. 
          I HAD A QUESTION. 
          I KNOW THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THE ANSWER TO THIS TO SOME DEGREE IS GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, SORT OF FIGURED OUT ITS SITE PLAN. 
          BUT CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SORT OF THE TRAFFIC, WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE OR THE MITIGATION? LIKE WHAT ARE SORT OF THOUGHTS BEHIND SORT OF MANAGEMENT OF TRAFFIC ON THE STREET? WELL THE, MR TH AND AGAIN, I KNOW I'M ASKING THIS QUESTION SOMEWHAT PREMATURELY, BUT I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND, I'M ASSUMING THERE'S THINGS THAT WILL BE HAPPENING AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN AND BEYOND. 
          UM, IN REGARDS TO WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN WITH TRAFFIC ON, ON OUT OF THIS PROJECT, IT'S GONNA HAVE BASICALLY SURFACE PARKING WITH THE COMMERCIAL OUT FRONT AND THE UNITS ABOVE. 
          SO THERE'S NOT GONNA BE LIKE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF PARKING ON THE PROPERTY. 
          THERE'LL BE ADEQUATE PARKING FOR THE UNITS AND SUCH. 
          IS THE ACCESS GOING TO BE TO 44TH OR RED RIVER? I THINK THAT'S STILL INDETERMINED MY OPINION. 
          IT SHOULD BE OUT TO 44TH STREET. 
          THERE'S GONNA BE SOME RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION. 
          THERE'S GONNA BE UM, YOU KNOW, PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE GONNA BE REQUIRED ALONG THE STREETSCAPE AND AS WELL AS ALONG 45TH STREET AS WELL, UH, IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT PARTICULARLY ANSWERS YOUR QUESTIONS, BUT WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN INTO FULL SITE DESIGN ON THIS AT ALL. 
          SURE, NO, THAT'S HELPFUL. 
          JUST, JUST I THINK THAT REALIZATION THAT OF COURSE THERE'D BE WAYS TO WORK ON MITIGATION AND OTHER THINGS AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY. 
          YES. 
          UM, AND IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, THE BACKUP THERE, THERE IS GONNA BE COMMERCIAL COMPONENTS, SO THERE WILL BE SOME COMMERCIAL PARKING AS WELL? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          AND SO THERE MIGHT ACTUALLY BE MORE PARKING AVAILABLE IF THE DEVELOPMENT GOES THROUGH AS PLANNED FOR OTHER USES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. 
          'CAUSE OFTEN PEOPLE ARE SHARING PARKING FOR COMMERCIAL USES. 
          THAT'S CORRECT, YES. 
          OKAY. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT, THANK YOU. 
          UM, AND MY LAST QUESTION, UM, 
          [00:55:01]
FOR THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT AS WELL, AND WE MIGHT RUN OUT OF TIME. 
          IT'S OKAY. 
          BUT CAN YOU REMIND US AGAIN SORT OF THE AFFORDABILITY LEVELS THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED CONSIDERING THERE'S TWO SEPARATE TIERS? UM, YES. 
          SO UNDER DB 90, IF IT'S OWNERSHIP OCCUPIED, UM, UNITS, IT WOULD BE 12% AT 80% MFI AND WITH, UH, RENTAL UNITS YOU CAN EITHER DO 10% AT 60% M OR SORRY, 12% AT 60% MFI OR 10% AT 50% MFI. 
          AND I'M ASSUMING THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE LOOKING AT THAT ONCE SORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT GOES INTO A, A FUTURE PHASE OF FIGURING OUT WHAT THE EXACT DISTRIBUTION MIGHT LOOK LIKE, CORRECT. 
          IF YEP. 
          IF THE DB 90 IS UTILIZED, YES. 
          BUT OF COURSE IT WILL BE REQUIRED PER THE BONUS ITSELF. 
          CORRECT. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THAT'S ALL MY TIME. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, I BELIEVE I SAW YOUR HAND UP. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF. 
          I KNOW WE CAN'T ASK FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          I DON'T THINK ANYONE'S GONNA DO THAT HERE, BUT I I AM CURIOUS, UM, BETWEEN THE APPLICANT PROPOSAL AND STAFF PROPOSAL, UM, HOW DO THOSE FAIR AS FAR AS YIELD OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING? BALLPARK? UM, UM, LET'S SEE, LET'S SEE. 
          I'M SORRY, THERE'S A FEEDBACK. 
          OKAY, NOW DONE. 
          UH, SO WELL, I MEAN I THINK, YOU KNOW, STARTING WITH THE FACT THAT, UM, THE MUV AND THE DB 90 WOULD, UH, PRODUCE, YOU KNOW, DIFFERING SETS OF UNITS, UM, WITH THE V IF THAT WERE IMPLEMENTED, UM, IT IS A LOWER RATE OF AFFORDABILITY. 
          UM, OWNERSHIP WOULD BE 5% UNITS, 5% OF UNITS AT 80% A MI AND THE RENTAL WOULD BE 10% OF UNITS AT 80% A MI. 
          SO JUST AS, UM, THE APPLICANT, UM, VICTORIA HASI WAS JUST SAYING WITH DB 90, THE AFFORDABILITY PERCENTAGES ARE HIGHER. 
          SO, UM, THE YIELD WOULD BE HIGHER WITH DB 90. 
          OKAY. 
          I'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AS WELL IN A MINUTE. 
          UM, AND, AND I THINK I HEARD THE, THE AGE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. 
          COULD YOU SHARE THAT WITH US WHILE YOU'RE THERE? UM, I BELIEVE IT'S 2004, BUT I WILL LOOK TO MY COLLEAGUE, MAUREEN MEREDITH, UM, TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, AS SHE'S THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT PLANNER 2004. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          I MEAN, WE, WE ALL HAVE OUR, OUR OWN RIDES IN THE CITY. 
          RIGHT. 
          I I KNOW, I KNOW FOR A FACT I HAVE $400 A MONTH RENT BACK IN 2004, SO IT'S INTERESTING HOW MUCH HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN. 
          SO, UH, I'M UP HERE WITH, UH, HABITAT FOR HUMANITY AT HABITAT ON THE HILL IN DC AND TODAY THEY AWARDED A BUNCH OF GROUPS, KIND OF, UM, THERE WAS A LOT OF RECOGNITION FOR CITIES THAT HAVE DONE A LOT OF RIGHT ZONING AND CORRECTING THEIR ZONING IN AREAS THAT HAVE A BIG LEGACY OF RACIAL DEED RESTRICTIONS AND EXCLUSIONARY ZONING, UM, WHICH THIS AREA IS, YOU KNOW, GROUND CENTER FOR. 
          AND SO I'M JUST CURIOUS, UM, IT SEEMS LIKE IN AUSTIN, UM, WHEN WE, WE SEE THESE ZONING CASES, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET COMPREHENSIVE REZONING, RIGHT? WE WERE VERY CLOSE AS A CITY, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE, YOU KNOW, SO NOW THE ONLY TOOL, WE HAVE ALL OF THESE ONE-OFFS AND IT SEEMS LIKE STAFF'S KIND OF RELUCTANT TO ACTUALLY GIVE MORE ZONING IN PLACES THAT HAVE THESE KIND OF, THE, THE LEGACY OF RACIAL DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THE, THE EXCLUSIONARY ZONING THAT'S RAMPANT. 
          SO I'M JUST, JUST CURIOUS WHAT THAT'S ABOUT. 
          LIKE IS THAT JUST KIND OF A, A STAFF AND ARE WE JUST KIND OF STUCK OR WHAT'S GOING ON THERE? UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, UM, MS. HASI CAME UP IN ANTICIPATION OF A QUESTION, DID YOU STILL WANT STAFF? I WAS HOPING THE STAFF CAN ANSWER THAT. 
          YEAH, THEY'RE APPROACHING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SEEMS DIFFICULT TO GET GOOD ZONING AND GOOD AREAS SOMETIMES. 
          HI, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          I MEAN, AGAIN, LOOKING BACK AT EACH APPLICATION FOR ZONING, UM, IS UNIQUE AND SO IS BEING LOOKED AT WITHIN THE, UM, IMMEDIATE ADJACENCY, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDED L-R-M-U-V-C-O-N-P AS, UM, APPROPRIATE FOR THAT SITE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          AND MS. HASI, DO YOU HAVE A QUICK RESPONSE? I'M SORRY. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, CAN YOU REPEAT WHAT YOUR QUESTION IS? I I THINK IT WAS JUST THE COMPARISON OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING BETWEEN YOUR PROPOSAL AND STAFFS. 
          OH, RIGHT. 
          WELL, UM, I MEAN WITH, I THINK STAFF WAS WELL INTENTIONED, BUT WHAT THEY DIDN'T REALIZE WAS THAT IT, YOU KNOW, THE V IS NOT GOING TO BE USED, IT'S NOT BEEN USED ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY AND IT WON'T BE USED HERE BECAUSE YOU JUST CAN'T, YOU CAN'T GET ENOUGH UNITS TO SUBSIDIZE THE AFFORDABLE UNITS WHEN YOU ONLY HAVE 40 FEET TO WORK WITH. 
          SO WHAT'S IT PRODUCES? SO WHAT'S THE ANSWER? NUMBERS PRODUCES ZERO AFFORDABLE UNITS VERSUS WITH THE REQUEST FOR DB 90 OVERLAY, UTILIZING THAT PROGRAM, YOU, YOU'D GET TWO TO THREE UNITS OF INCOME RESTRICTED, UM, HOUSING. 
          YEAH. 
          [01:00:01]
GOTCHA. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UM, AND THEN, UH, I LIVE IN A 75 FOOT TALL BUILDING AND I HEARD SOMEONE CALLING OUT A POTENTIAL 70 FOOT FOOT BUILDING HERE AS BEING AN ABOMINATION. 
          UM, I'D LOVE TO JUST UNDERSTAND WHERE THAT WORD COMES FROM AND DESCRIBING A 70 FOOT TALL BUILDING IF, IF THAT GENTLEMAN CARES TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT. 
          I WAS THE COMMISSIONER, I WAS THE ONE WHO USED THAT TERM AND I USED IT BECAUSE IN RELATION TO THE EXISTING BUILDINGS IN THE AREA, IT IS AN ABOMINATION. 
          MOST OF THE BUILDINGS IN IT, IN THAT AREA ARE, UH, ABOUT 25 FEET TALL. 
          AND THIS WOULD OVERSHADOW THOSE BUILDINGS AND CREATE IN FACT A PRECEDENT FOR MORE OF THOSE BUILDINGS BECAUSE EVERY TIME AN APPLICANT COMES BEFORE, UH, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THIS COMMISSION, THEY CITE THE EXISTENCE OF LIKE BUILDINGS IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          SO THIS WILL BE A PRECEDENT THAT WILL BE CITED BY THE NEXT APPLICANT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          IF I AHEAD OF TIME, I WOULD DEFINITELY WANNA KNOW WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHETHER OR NOT HOUSING IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH HOUSING, BUT THANK YOU. 
          SORRY, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MORE AT TIME. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? OH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          UM, QUESTION FOR STAFF. 
          UM, YOU MENTIONED SOME OF THE THINKING THAT WENT BEHIND YOUR, YOUR STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF LR V. 
          UM, I'M, THIS IS A MORE GENERAL QUESTION ABOUT YOUR PROCESS. 
          WHEN YOU'RE REVIEWING REZONING REQUESTS, DOES STAFF CONSISTENTLY MODEL THE ACTUAL POTENTIAL YIELD OF THE DIFFERENT ZONING, WHETHER IT'S CURRENT ZONING, REQUESTED ZONING, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, IF THOSE AREN'T THE SAME THING? I MEAN, WAS THAT PART OF THE PROCESS HERE? YOU ACTUALLY WENT AND DID SOME RUDIMENTARY MODELING OR ESTIMATION OF HOW MANY UNITS OF HOUSING OR HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE EACH OPTION WOULD, UH, ENTITLE? UM, SO STAFF, HMM. 
          WE DON'T HAVE A PRO FORMA TO REVIEW. 
          UM, WE HAVE THE MM-HMM  YOU KNOW, THE SITE CHARACTERISTICS, SITE DIMENSIONS, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE WITHIN EACH ZONING DISTRICT. 
          UM, SO WE HAVE KIND OF ROUGH NUMBERS. 
          WE HAVE ROUGH NUMBERS THAT COME FROM THE APPLICANT AS WELL. 
          AND ANY ANALYSIS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN PERFORMED FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ANALYSIS. 
          UM, SO SURE. 
          I I I GUESS, YEAH, I DIDN'T MEAN NECESSARILY FINANCIALLY, JUST PURELY PHYSICALLY, LIKE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS. 
          WHEN YOU'RE EVALUATING WHETHER TO RECOMMEND, SAY STAFF, UH, SORRY, APPLICANT REQUEST OR SOMETHING DIFFERENT, IS IT PART OF THE STANDARD PROCESS OF REVIEWING A ZONING CASE AND PREPARING A STAFF REPORT TO LOOK AT LOCK AREA, YOU KNOW, SETBACKS, HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS? AND, AND GET A SENSE OF ACTUALLY HOW, YOU KNOW, WHAT NUMBER OF SQUARE FOOTAGE, FOOTAGE EACH OPTION WOULD ENTITLE ON A PROPERTY? SURE. 
          I MEAN WE, YES, WE WOULD COME UP WITH A ROUGH, ROUGH NUMBER, ROUGH IDEA. 
          MM-HMM . 
          AND I GUESS WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THOSE DIFFERENT NUMBERS IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, TAKING THE APPLICANT'S NUMBERS 'CAUSE OF WHAT WE HAVE SIX UNITS, WHICH IS THE SAME AS CURRENT ZONING VERSUS 25 TO 30 ISH UNITS. 
          HOW DO YOU MAKE THAT JUDGMENT CALL TO SAY WHAT IS OR IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A GIVEN TRACK OR THIS TRACK IN PARTICULAR? I MEAN, WHY, WHY IS THIS A SITE THAT SHOULD ONLY EVER HAVE SIX UNITS AND NOT MORE SURE? UM, AND I THINK OUR CALCULATIONS, WE, I MEAN IT'S ONLY ONE MORE UNIT. 
          WE DID COME UP WITH SEVEN UNITS. 
          I KNOW IT'S NOT A LAR IT'S, IT'S NOT, NOT A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER. 
          UM, BUT I MEAN WE DID, YOU KNOW, WE LOOKED AT THIS PARTICULAR SITE, WE LOOKED AT WHAT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WAS, WHICH WAS LRMU DB 90. 
          WE SAW THAT THE GOAL WAS TO LOOK FOR SOMETHING OR TO, UM, DEVELOP SOMETHING THAT WAS A MIXED USE, YOU KNOW, GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL WITH MULTIFAMILY ON TOP, LOOKED AT THE IMMEDIATE ADJACENT LAND USE AND ZONING, LOOKED AT WHAT THE EXISTING ZONING WAS, RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN TEAM. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, YES, LOOKED AT THE A SMP LEVEL, YOU KNOW, NOTING THAT IT, IT DOES DECREASE JUST A BLOCK OR TWO NORTH. 
          UM, AND TOOK ALL OF THAT INTO ACCOUNT. 
          AND THE STAFF, YOU KNOW, WE DID HAVE KIND OF MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS ON THIS AND CAME UP WITH, UH, THE MUV BEING MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE, LOOKING AT ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT, THIS WOULD STILL BE A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. 
          IT WOULDN'T BE MM-HMM . 
          UM, NECESSARILY DETRIMENTAL TO THE, UM, IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT PROPERTIES. 
          AND SO WHEN YOU SAY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT, YOU MENTIONED THAT A MINUTE AGO AS WELL, WHEN YOU LOOK AT SURROUNDING, UH, ZONING DESIGNATIONS, DO YOU MEAN LITERALLY JUST PHYSICALLY ADJACENT PROPERTIES? IS THERE A FIXED DISTANCE YOU LOOK AT? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND A BIT OF WHAT GOES INTO THE, THE REASONING HERE. 
          SURE. 
          AND IT'S IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO SF THREE ZONE PROPERTIES MM-HMM . 
          THAT ARE CURRENTLY DEVELOPED 
          [01:05:01]
WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. 
          SURE. 
          SO THAT, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT DID COME INTO ACCOUNT IN THIS PARTICULAR ZONING APPLICATION. 
          AS WE'VE NOTED, WE LOOK AT THEM ALL INDIVIDUALLY, UM MM-HMM . 
          AND OR SO, SO IT'S ONLY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT. 
          YOU DON'T LOOK AT, SAY, ZONING WITHIN 500 FEET OR 200 FEET, OR THERE'S NOT OF LOTS. 
          IT'S, YOU KNOW, RIGHT. 
          YEAH. 
          WE DID LOOK ON RED RIVER STREET AND, YOU KNOW MM-HMM . 
          NOTED THAT THERE, THERE WAS A SMALL TRANSITION COMING UP FROM THAT HANCOCK CENTER TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL LAND USES. 
          SO THERE IS SOME OF THE LO IN LR THERE IS MULTIFAMILY. 
          MM-HMM . 
          THERE IS NOT REALLY MIXED, THERE'S NOT ACTUALLY MIXED USE IN THAT AREA. 
          AND SO FELT LIKE MIXED USE HERE WOULD BE LR IN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL WITH MM-HMM . 
          A 40 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT WOULD BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UM, ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IF I HAVE TIME, WAS THERE A SPECIFIC REASONING BEHIND THE PROHIBITED USES Y'ALL CHOSE TO RECOMMEND IN THE CO OTHER THAN IT MATCHED WHAT WAS ACROSS THE STREET? I MEAN, DID YOU GO THROUGH THOSE USES AND SAY, OH, THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE, THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE? OR WAS IT JUST AN ATTEMPT TO, TO MATCH WHAT WAS ACROSS THE STREET? UM, IT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO MATCH. 
          WE ALSO, WE DID REVIEW WHAT THE, UH, PROHIBITED AND CONDITIONAL USES WERE, UM MM-HMM . 
          SO IT STARTED FROM AN ATTEMPT TO MATCH AND FELT LIKE, CAN I SPEAK, CAN I CONTINUE SPEAKING? YES. 
          UM, AND FELT LIKE THE, THE CEO THAT WAS, UM, RECENTLY GRANTED ACROSS THE STREET WAS STILL GONNA BE APPROPRIATE AS THIS WOULD STILL BE A TRANSITION SITE BETWEEN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO MORE OF THE SINGLE FAMILY SURROUNDING. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MM-HMM . 
          THANK YOU. 
          OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, YEAH, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. 
          UH, LET'S START WITH SOME DB 90. 
          UM, GENERALLY, SO A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, I BELIEVE IT WAS SOMETIME IN THE FALL, WE GOT A REPORT OR HAD A BRIEFING ON DB 90 AND WHERE WE'VE SEEN THEM IN THE CITY. 
          AND MY UNDERSTANDING, WE'VE SEEN QUITE A LOT OF THESE ON THE EAST, EASTERN CRESCENT EAST SIDE, AND THAT SOME OF THOSE HAVE BEEN IN NEIGHBORHOOD AREAS. 
          SO CAN YOU JUST TELL ME IF THERE'S A COMPARISON OF SOMETHING SIMILAR? AND I KNOW YOU'VE REPEATEDLY SAID THAT THEY'RE DIFFERENT IN EACH CASE, BUT, YOU KNOW, A DV 90 WHERE WE'VE HAD IT POTENTIALLY ON THE EDGE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD? OH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE AN EXAMPLE. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M, I GUESS MORE GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE'VE SEEN THOSE DB NINETIES CASES COME AND MANY OF THEM HAVE BEEN ON SITES. 
          AND I KNOW THAT SOME OF THOSE WERE ALSO ARE LEFTOVER OR REZONED VMU CASES, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL, HAVE WE HAD AS MANY IN THIS AREA WHERE WE MIGHT WANT SOME ADDITIONAL HEIGHT AND UNITS GIVEN THEIR TRANSIT ACCESS AND CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THINGS LIKE UT AND OTHER THINGS. 
          HAVE WE SEEN SOME DB 90 CASES IN THIS AREA SPECIFICALLY? OH, THIS AREA SPECIFICALLY? UM, AGAIN, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A NO, , IT SOUNDS LIKE A, AND, UM, WE, AS, UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON WAS ASKING AND KIND OF OUR, YOU KNOW, ANALYSIS AND SITES, PROPERTIES AND SITES AROUND, THERE WERE NOT RECENT APPLICATIONS FOR DB 90. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I GUESS WHAT I'M, I'M REALLY TRYING TO GET AT HERE IS IT FEELS LIKE WE'VE BEEN PRETTY, I DON'T WANNA SAY PERMISSIVE, BUT WE'VE CERTAINLY APPROVED SEVERAL DB 90 CASES THAT MIGHT HAVE SOME SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS, MAY MAYBE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF I 35. 
          AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS CASE AND WE'RE REALLY PUTTING A LOT OF COS AND LIMITATIONS AND POTENTIALLY WITH THE ZONING CATEGORY THAT DOESN'T ALLOW US TO BOARD BUILD AFFORDABLE UNITS. 
          SO THAT JUST REALLY RAISES SOME CONCERNS FOR ME, AND I THINK MAYBE SOME OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ARE SHARING THOSE SAME CONCERNS GIVEN WE'RE ASKING ABOUT THE PROCESS. 
          AND HOW DID YOU GET TO THIS RECOMMENDATION? BECAUSE I, I DON'T THINK WE'VE SEEN THAT NECESSARILY WITH OTHER DB 90 CASES IN OTHER PARTS OF TOWN. 
          WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? UM, , YOU KNOW, IT'S, I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. 
          I'M, I'M NOT SURE I'M GONNA BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT RIGHT NOW MM-HMM . 
          UM, WE, WE COULD POTENTIALLY COME BACK WITH SOME INFORMATION FOR YOU. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          NO, I, I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S JUST KIND OF A BIG PICTURE IS WE SEE A LOT OF DB 90 CASES, NOW IT'S VERY POPULAR NEWS REZONING CATEGORY MM-HMM . 
          AND I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IN SOME CASES, HEY, DB 90 IS GREAT. 
          IN OTHER CASES IT'S NOT. 
          AND AS PLANNING COMMISSIONER IS PART OF OUR JOB IS TO UNDERSTAND THOSE DIFFERENCES. 
          SO JUST REALLY GETTING TO WHY WE WOULDN'T RECOMMEND DB 90 IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, WHEREAS WE WOULD IN OTHER CASES. 
          I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE CLARIFICATION WE'RE LOOKING FOR TONIGHT. 
          MM-HMM . 
          UM, MOVING ON, I'M JUST CURIOUS, HOW OFTEN DO WE THINK ABOUT, AND THIS MAY BE FOR YOUR COLLEAGUE ABOUT, UM, UPDATING NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, BECAUSE I KNOW SEVERAL FOLKS SPOKE TO THAT TONIGHT, AND, AND I KNOW IT'S BEEN AN ONGOING PROCESS TO TRY TO GET THOSE UPDATED, BUT IT DOES CONCERN ME THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PLAN THAT WAS CREATED 20 YEARS AGO WHEN THE CITY WAS VERY DIFFERENT. 
          AND I DO KNOW THAT SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS NEIGHBORS ADDRESS THAT, BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT IS SORT OF AN ISSUE HERE. 
          IT SEEMS LIKE, AND I, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT AS TO WHAT WE CAN DO WHEN WE HAVE SUCH, I DON'T WANNA SAY OUTDATED, BUT PER, PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, THE PLAN WE'RE LOOKING AT MAYBE ISN'T AS RELEVANT TODAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO MARINE MERIT AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WE HAVE NO INTENTIONS TO UPDATE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS. 
          COUNCIL DIRECTION HAS BEEN TOWARD DISTRICT PLANNING, CORRIDOR PLANNING, 
          [01:10:01]
AND THE FACT THAT THERE'S LARGE AREAS OF THE CITY THAT DON'T HAVE ANY NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS. 
          AND THAT'S WHY IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IT'S NOT ON THE HORIZON, AND I'M NOT SURE IF IT WILL BE ON UPDATING EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS. 
          WELL, AND I GUESS THAT GETS TO MY NEXT QUESTION, WHICH IS WHEN WE HAVE SUCH KIND OF OLDER PLANS AND THEN WE SEE THESE NEW REQUESTS COME IN, THAT DOES MAKE IT SEEM HARD TO MAKE THESE TWO THINGS COMPATIBLE. 
          SO I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW WE THINK THROUGH THAT. 
          AS, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE SAYING THAT, OH, HEY, WE, WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY WANT MIXED USE FOR SOMETHING IN THIS PARTICULAR SPOT, BUT WE NOW UNDERSTAND AS THE CITY HAS DEVELOPED, THAT PLAN DOESN'T MATCH WHAT THE REALITY IS. 
          SO HOW DO WE SORT OF THINK THROUGH THAT AS POTENTIALLY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS? SO WE LOOK THROUGH, WE UNDERSTAND THE, UH, STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT AND THE NEED FOR MORE HOUSING, THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          UM, THE, UM, YEAH, SO WE LOOK AT OTHER DOCUMENTS. 
          OTHER DOCUMENTS, OKAY. 
          COMP ON THE COMP PLAN. 
          YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. 
          BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK THAT'S A CONCERN WE'RE ALSO HAVING HERE IS THAT WHAT WE HAVE IN THE PLAN IS A LITTLE BIT OLDER. 
          WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO MAY BE A LITTLE BIT NEWER. 
          HOW DO WE MAKE THOSE TWO THINGS WORK TOGETHER? AND I GUESS THIS ALSO COMES TO THE QUESTION OF WHERE OUR DB NINETIES FIT IN, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT ZONING CATEGORY WHEN A LOT OF THESE PLANS WERE MADE. 
          YEAH, EXACTLY. 
          UM, AND THEN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AS WELL. 
          UM, WITH REGARDS TO ADDITIONAL UNITS IN THIS AREA, I THINK YOU POINTED OUT THAT THERE'S GREAT TRANSIT AND A LOT OF IT'S A POPULAR PLACE TO LIVE. 
          UM, DO WE THINK THAT, AS YOU POINTED OUT, THERE HAS NOT BEEN A TON OF NEW UNITS IN THIS AREA DEVELOPED RECENTLY? IS THAT SOMETHING YOU STATED EARLIER? THAT IS ACCURATE? YES, THERE'S, UM, NEW SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. 
          I THINK THERE'S MAYBE TWO LOTS TO THE EAST OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY THAT HAS NEWER CONSTRUCTION. 
          IT'S A THREE STORY OR TWO STORY WITH A HABITABLE ATTIC, UM, TYPE SCENARIO, TWO LOTS SIDE BY SIDE. 
          AND IT LOOKS LIKE EACH LOT IS GETTING A HOUSE AND A, AND A SECOND UNIT IN THE BACK. 
          UM, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE NEWEST I'VE SEEN. 
          YEAH. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THESE ARE MY QUESTIONS HERE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WE HAVE THREE MORE SPOTS FOR QUESTIONS. 
          GIVE EVERYONE AN OPPORTUNITY, OTHERWISE, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. 
          COMMISSIONER COX, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          LOOKING FOR A SECOND ON THAT. 
          I AM NOT SEEING A SECOND, SO I'M LOOKING FOR A SUBSTITUTE OR A DIFFERENT MOTION SINCE THAT ONE. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, Y'ALL MOVE THE APPLICANT REQUEST SECOND 90. 
          OKAY. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? ABSOLUTELY. 
          UM, THIS REMINDS ME A LOT OF, AND I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER MAXWELL FOR BRINGING UP PAST DB 90 CASES. 
          IT REMINDS ME A LOT OF A CASE WE HEARD IN THE FALL, UM, ON I BELIEVE EAST SECOND STREET. 
          IT WAS A CHURCH AND THE PARKING LOT ADJACENT TO A CHURCH REZONING TO DB 90, UM, A BLOCK OFF OF A LEVEL THREE CORRIDOR, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, UH, IN THE MIDDLE OF WHAT IS LARGELY A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UH, AND WE APPROVED THAT REQUEST FOR DB 90. 
          LOOK, THE REALITY IS THIS IS A MAJOR ROAD. 
          IT'S PHYSICALLY SMALL, IT'S NARROW, IT'S TWO LANES, WHICH IS AN APPROVED CROSS SECTION FOR LEVEL THREE STREETS. 
          UM, BUT IT'S AN ACTIVITY CORRIDOR. 
          IT'S A BUSY PART OF TOWN. 
          IT'S WELL SERVED BY TRANSIT EVEN WITHOUT SIDEWALKS ON THE CROSS STREETS. 
          IT'S STILL A VERY WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UH, WE SHOULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT PRIORITIZING SIDEWALKS AND AREAS LIKE THIS. 
          UM, BUT IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE MORE PEOPLE LIVING IN THIS PART OF TOWN. 
          CONGESTION IS A SYMPTOM OF A SUCCESSFUL CITY, OF A WONDERFUL PLACE THAT LOTS OF PEOPLE WANT TO BE. 
          UM, NOBODY MOVES TO A CITY, UH, BECAUSE THE, THE CONGESTION IS SO LOW. 
          THERE'S NOBODY HERE. 
          I WANNA LIVE THERE. 
          I MEAN, SOME PEOPLE DO. 
          SURE. 
          BUT, UH, NOT MANY PEOPLE WOULD WANNA LIVE IN A PLACE WHERE NO ONE ELSE IS. 
          THAT'S NOT A CITY. 
          UM, THERE ARE GROWING PAINS. 
          SURE. 
          I, YOU KNOW, DO YOU WANT A 70 FOOT BUILDING ON EVERY SINGLE LOT? PROBABLY NOT. 
          BUT ON THE CORNER OF A BUSY STREET AT A BUS STOP, WELL SERVED BY TRANSIT DESTINATIONS, IT MAKES SENSE. 
          UM, TRAFFIC CONCERNS, I, I HEAR THAT ON PROBABLY EVERY ZONING CASE WE GET, UH, 25, 27, 30 UNITS THAT WON'T MAKE A, A NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE IN TRAFFIC. 
          EVEN IF EVERY UNIT HAD TWO PEOPLE LIVING IN IT, EACH OF WHOM HAD THEIR OWN CAR AND THEY ALL PARKED ON THE STREET, IT WOULDN'T EVEN FILL UP THAT WHOLE LENGTH OF 44TH STREET, UH, 50, 60 CARS. 
          UM, AND AS THE APPLICANT POINTED OUT, STREET PARKING ACTUALLY IMPROVED SAFETY IN MANY CASES, ESPECIALLY ON NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS. 
          SO I SEE THIS AS A HUGE WIN. 
          I THINK IT'S, UM, NOT QUITE A NO BRAINER, BUT DEFINITELY, UH, AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WORTH VOTING YES. 
          ON, UH, 
          [01:15:01]
AND WE'RE GETTING 25 TO 30 HOMES, TWO OR THREE OF WHICH WILL BE, UH, SUBSIDIZED, LOW INCOME, AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          IT'S A WIN-WIN. 
          UM, VICE CHAIR, ARE YOU SPEAKING AGAINST? UM, CHAIR? I HAVE A, UM, AN AMENDMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, MY AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO INCLUDE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES AND MOVING SOME USES ONTO, UM, ESSENTIALLY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT STAFF HAD IN THE BACKUP WITH SOME CHANGES. 
          AND I'LL READ IT ACTUALLY, MAYBE I'LL JUST READ OUT. 
          SO CON, UM, MOVING FORWARD, THE PROHIBITED USES WOULD BE ALTERNATIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES, CONSUMER CONVENIENCE SERVICES, COMMUNICATION SERVICE FACILITIES, FINANCIAL SERVICES, LOCAL UTILITY SERVICES, OFFSITE ACCESSORY PARKING, PLANT NURSERY PRINTING AND PUBLISHING, SAFETY SERVICES, SERVICE STATION, URBAN FARM, COMMUNITY RECREATION CLUB LODGE, CUSTOM MANUFACTURING COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY FACILITIES, COMMUNITY EVENTS, COMMUNITY RECREATION COM, UH, PUB PRIVATE COMMUNITY RECREATION, PUBLIC GUIDANCE SERVICES, HOSPITAL SERVICES, LIMITED RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT, AND SPECIAL USE. 
          HISTORIC. 
          UM, SO JUST TO MENTION, WHAT I HAVE REMOVED FROM THIS LIFT LIST OF PROHIBITED USES INCLUDES PERSONAL IMPROVEMENT SERVICES, FOOD SALES, PET SERVICES, UH, RESTAURANT LIMITED, AND RESTAURANT GERMAN, UH, GENERAL. 
          AND THEN FOR THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, UM, I WOULD GO WITH WHAT STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED, BUT REMOVE BOTH DAYCARE SERVICES GENERAL AND DAYCARE SERVICES COMMERCIAL. 
          AND I CAN SPEAK TO MY MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          LOOKING FOR A SECOND ON THAT. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          UM, I, I, I THINK I DO WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE STAFF I THINK HAD A GOOD POINT ON WHAT KIND OF USES WOULD FIT IN HERE, CONSIDERING THE BASE AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. 
          MY REMOVAL OF USES REALLY DEPENDS ON THE KIND OF, UM, WALKABLE COMMERCIAL OR GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL THAT WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER PLACES. 
          I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T MAKE IT TOO RESTRICTED TO NOT HAVE FOOD SALES OR PERSONAL IMPROVEMENT SERVICES LIKE HAIR SALONS OR NAIL SPA, WHICH WE OFTEN SEE SEE IN SOME OF THIS COMMERCIAL USES. 
          SO MAKING SURE THAT THOSE ARE ALLOWABLE. 
          UM, AND THEN MOVING FROM THE CONDITIONAL TO PERMITTED FOR THE DAYCARE SERVICES, I THINK IS JUST IN ALIGNMENT WITH COUNCILS MORE RECENT DIRECTION, WHERE WE WANNA HAVE, UM, AS MUCH PERMISSIBILITY FOR DAYCARE SERVICES. 
          UNDERSTANDING IT MIGHT NOT GO IN EVERYWHERE FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, BUT ESSENTIALLY I'M JUST TRYING TO ALIGN THE USES WITH WHAT STAFF HAD WITH THE EXISTING CEO ACROSS THE STREET, BUT THEN ALSO SEEING HOW DO WE BRING IT UP TO SOME OF THE USES THAT WE'RE MORE FOCUSED ON IS BEING ALLOWABLE AT THIS TIME. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST THE AMENDMENT SPEAKING FOR, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT. 
          UM, DOES ANYBODY NEED THE LIST OF USES? REREAD OUT FOR YOU? HEARING NONE. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT. 
          1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9. 
          THAT'S NINE. 
          WITH COMMISSIONER COX ABSTAINING. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'LL GO BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION. 
          UM, THIS IS FOR APPLICANT'S REQUEST. 
          UM, ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER COX? I'M GONNA TRY TO MIX IT UP SO THAT I'M NOT COMPLETELY REPETITIVE. 
          IT'S, UH, IT IS CASES LIKE THIS THAT, UM, ARE BOTH GONNA MAKE ME, UH, ENJOY MY TIME AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT THEN ALSO, UH, REALLY MISS MY TIME ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          UM, BECAUSE, UH, WE DON'T SEEM TO REALLY HAVE THAT MUCH DIVERSITY IN, IN, IN THOUGHT AND VOICE ON THIS COMMISSION ANYMORE. 
          UM, YOU CAN NOTICE WHO'S NOT HERE, WHO SEEMS TO BE DROPPING OFF AND I'LL BE DROPPING OFF AFTER THE NEXT MEETING. 
          UM, IT, IT, IT SEEMS LIKE ALL WE CARE ABOUT IS YIELD. 
          THAT'S THE ONLY DISCUSSION WE SEEM TO HAVE IS YIELD, YIELD, YIELD. 
          AND IF YIELD IN UNITS IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS, WHY EVEN HAVE ZONING? WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE POINT OF OF EVEN DOING ALL OF THIS? UM, AND WE HAVE ONE COMMISSIONER NODDING, YOU KNOW, WHO, WHO WOULD SUPPORT NOT HAVING ZONING AT ALL. 
          UM, AND SO I, I, I JUST HOPE THAT THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS WHERE THIS COMMISSION IS AT ON, ON THIS THOUGHT PROCESS. 
          UM, AND I FEEL LIKE A HUGE CHUNK OF THE AUSTIN CITIZENRY, UM, ESPECIALLY ALL THOSE EVIL PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES JUST DON'T HAVE A VOICE, UM, ON THIS COMMISSION OR AT LEAST WON'T, UH, IN THE NEAR FUTURE. 
          UM, PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THE SUBDIVISIONS, ALL OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN CENTRAL AUSTIN HAVE BUSY STREETS AND THEY HAVE BUS LINES THAT GO THROUGH THEM. 
          AND SO IF THOSE ARE THE TWO REASONS WHY WE'RE THINKING DB 90 IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS SF THREE ZONES, MULTI BLOCK AREA, THEN PRETTY MUCH ALL THE LOTS WITHIN NORTH UNIVERSITY, HYDE PARK, NORTH 
          [01:20:01]
LOOP, BRENTWOOD, CRESTWOOD, MY NEIGHBORHOOD OF SOUTH ALLENDALE, OAKMONT HEIGHTS, UH, THE REST OF ALLENDALE, ALL OF THOSE LOTS THAT ARE ZONED SF THREE OR SF TWO, THIS COMMISSION IS SAYING DB 90 IS PERFECTLY FINE. 
          IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING, THEN WE JUST NEED TO BE VERY, VERY OPEN AND FRANK ABOUT IT. 
          AND I HONESTLY FEEL LIKE THE MAJORITY OF THE AUSTIN POPULATION WOULD NOT AGREE WE SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING DB 90 IN THIS LOCATION. 
          ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOUR. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          SO NOW WITH ONE IN SIX FAMILIES SPENDING OVER 50% OF THEIR INCOME ON HOUSING, I THINK I'M GONNA JUST START WORRYING A WHOLE LOT MORE ABOUT HOUSING THAN WORRYING ABOUT THE FEAR OF HOUSING AND THE FEAR OF CHANGE. 
          UM, WE ARE NOW IN A RECORD SHORTAGE OF STARTER HOMES ACROSS AMERICA, BUT BY, BY FAR IN A BIG WAY IN AUSTIN, TEXAS. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, MY BUILDING THAT WAS RECENTLY, YOU KNOW, DESCRIBED ITS HEIGHT AS AN ABOMINATION. 
          IT HAS A LOT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IN IT, AND IT HAS A WHOLE LOT OF MARKET RATE UNITS THAT WERE PURCHASED BY FOLKS BUYING THEIR VERY FIRST HOME. 
          I HAD A STUDENT WRITE A PAPER ON CONDOS ARE THE NEW STARTER HOME, BUT IF WE CONTINUE TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO BUILD CONDOS, THEN THAT'S JUST NOT GONNA HAPPEN. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, I KNOW SOMETIMES THERE'S A, THERE'S A DESIRE TO JUST KIND OF PUSH ALL THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE GONNA HAVE NEW HOUSING AND CAR SEWERS, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE IT'S A REALLY BIG ROAD THAT'S DANGEROUS TO PEOPLE AND MAYBE A LOT OF EXHAUST. 
          MAYBE THAT'S A MORE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO PUT A BIG BUILDING. 
          YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT A BIG BUILDING HERE. 
          WE'RE TALKING A COUPLE DOZEN UNITS. 
          AND I KNOW, I KNOW THERE'S ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, A A, A MUCH STRONGER DESIRE TO COME OUT AND SPEAK AGAINST NEW HOUSING. 
          AND THAT'S THE REASON WE'RE NOT HEARING FROM ANYONE WHO'S GONNA LIVE IN THIS BUILDING. 
          'CAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW THEY'RE GONNA LIVE IN THIS BUILDING. 
          THERE ARE DOZENS OF FAMILIES WHO HOPEFULLY WILL BE ABLE TO LIVE IN THIS BUILDING THAT AREN'T HERE TODAY BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO IDEA THAT WE AS A BODY ARE SITTING HERE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. 
          I'VE BEEN IN CITY HALL, UH, OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS LISTENING TO CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW TERRIBLE CERTAIN BUILDINGS WOULD BE AND HOW IT WOULD RUIN CERTAIN AREAS. 
          THOSE BUILDINGS WERE BUILT AND NOW THERE'S A LOT OF AMAZING FAMILIES LIVING THERE. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, ONE DAY I'D LOVE TO KIND OF DIG THOSE UP AND, YOU KNOW, SHOW PEOPLE JUST HOW SCARY THEIR BUILDING WAS SUPPOSED TO BE. 
          BUT NOW IT'S JUST A PART OF OUR AWESOME COMMUNITY. 
          BUT THE FACT IS WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH BUILDINGS AND WE HAVE TERRIBLE ZONING AND WE HAVE AN OUTDATED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. 
          AND SADLY WE HAVE TO HAVE ALL THESE ONE-OFF CASES UNTIL WE FIND THE COURAGE TO REWRITE OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GET GOOD ZONING THROUGHOUT THE CITY. 
          BUT JUST OF COURSE, MAKES SENSE HERE. 
          I COME BY HERE ALL THE TIME ON MY BUS ROUTE. 
          IT'S A GOOD SPOT FOR HOUSING. 
          ALRIGHT, ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST SPEAKING FOR BYE SHERRY. 
          THANK YOU, CHERYL, GO AHEAD AND SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE, UM, BASE MOTION. 
          I, I THINK SIMPLY PUT, THERE'S MULTIPLE REASONS FOR WANTING TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THIS PROJECT, AND I THINK THERE'S TWO SEPARATE PIECES THAT I'M LOOKING AT. 
          ONE, I THINK THE BASE HEIGHT OF 40 FEET JUST SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK. 
          AND WE'VE SEEN THAT IN OTHER PLACES. 
          I THINK IF OUR CODE ALLOWED DIFFERENT KINDS OF FLEXIBILITY TO DO MULTIFAMILY AND THE CROSS SUBSIDY TO ACHIEVE DENSITY BONUS UNITS THAT ARE AFFORDABLE, WE WOULD BE DOING IT IN DIFFERENT PLACES. 
          BUT THERE'S A CHALLENGE HERE BECAUSE OF SORT OF THE LIMITATIONS OF OUR VARIOUS PIECES OF OUR CODE. 
          AND I KNOW OUR STAFF IS WORKING REALLY HARD TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE CHALLENGES, UM, THIS YEAR IN THE COMING YEAR. 
          I ALSO WANNA SAY BEYOND JUST SIMPLY SAYING THIS IS NEARLY ACCESSIBLE TO TRANSIT, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE PROVING THIS. 
          I JUST WANNA MENTION THIS IS ACTUALLY ONE OF OUR FREQUENT ROUTES. 
          SO AS A PERSON WHO WRITES TRANSIT IN OUR CITY ALL THE TIME, THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE. 
          THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS JUST ONE OF OUR REGULAR ROUTES. 
          YES, THIS IS NOT OUR RAPID ROUTES, BUT IT IS AT THE SAME TIME A FREQUENT ROUTE WHICH RUNS AT THE SAME FREQUENCY AS ONE OF OUR BUS RAPID SYSTEMS. SO THIS IS NOT JUST SOMEWHERE THAT HAS A BUS, IT HAS ONE OF OUR MORE ADVANCED BUS SYSTEMS IN THE CITY THAT WE'RE UTILIZING. 
          COULD WE HAVE A BETTER SYSTEM? YES. 
          AND THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT, BUT STILL THESE ARE AREAS WHICH ARE PERHAPS MORE TRANSIT ACCESSIBLE THAN A LOT OF OTHER PARTS OF OUR CITY. 
          AT THE SAME TIME BEING WALKABLE TO HANCOCK SHOPPING CENTER, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RESTAURANTS, A GROCERY STORE, A GYM, A BARBER SHOP, VARIOUS AMENITIES THAT PEOPLE NEED FOR THEIR DAILY LIFE TO HAVE THEM WITHIN WALKABLE OR EVEN JUST ACCESSIBLE TO A LOT MORE PEOPLE IN OUR CITY. 
          THAT'S A OVERALL PLUS. 
          THIS IS ABOUT CREATING HOUSING IN AREAS WHERE THE AMENITIES EXIST TO SUPPORT THAT HOUSING. 
          AND LASTLY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN AREA THAT IS HIGH OPPORTUNITY AND WE WANT FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO LIVE IN AREAS, INCLUDING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO LIVE IN THOSE AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT ARE PART OF OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVE PROGRAMS. SO ALL THAT SAID, CREATING HOUSING THAT IS, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, CONNECTED TO GOOD TRANSIT, CONNECTED TO AMENITIES, CONNECTED TO FOOD, ALL OF THOSE THINGS IS WHY I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT CASE TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          ALL RIGHT, LAST SPOT AGAINST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. 
          THIS IS FOR 
          [01:25:01]
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. 
          ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, THAT'S NINE TO ONE WITH COMMISSIONER COX VOTING AGAINST AS AMENDED. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR COMING UP TO SPEAK AND FOR CALLING IN AND WRITING, UM, EMAILS. 
          REALLY APPRECIATE IT. 
          SO WE ARE GOING TO MOVE 
          [17. Code Amendment: C20-2024-014 - STR Modifications]
ON TO OUR SHORT TERM RENTAL DISCUSSION. 
          ALRIGHT, SO WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT, UM, THE SHORT TERM RENTAL CODE AMENDMENT. 
          UM, I'M GONNA PROPOSE, UH, A COUPLE OF THINGS. 
          UM, THE FIRST, OUR, OUR PRESENTATION IS TYPICALLY SIX MINUTES OF TIME. 
          UM, THE, UM, THE PRESENTATION THAT WE HEARD AT THE JOINT COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING LAST WEEK WAS ABOUT 20 MINUTES. 
          SO, UM, I'M GOING TO PROPOSE THAT WE ALLOW STAFF 20 MINUTES FOR THEIR PRESENTATION. 
          AND ALSO WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME, UM, COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS ABOUT THE SPEAKING TIME, UM, AND, UH, TALKING WITH STAFF, UM, COUNCIL HAD ESTABLISHED DURING CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS, UH, REGULAR TWO MINUTE SPEAKING TIME FOR EVERYBODY INSTEAD OF OUR TYPICAL RULES. 
          WE'LL START OFF WITH FIVE MINUTES AND THEN GO DOWN TO THREE AND THEN TWO. 
          UM, SO I'M PROPOSING THAT, UM, WE ALLOW ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS, UM, TWO MINUTES IN IN EFFORT OF FAIRNESS FOR THIS AMENDMENT, UM, PROCESS. 
          AND SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION AROUND THAT OR IF, UM, IF THERE'S ANY OBJECTION. 
          IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, WE'LL CONSIDER THOSE, UM, MOVING FORWARD. 
          AND THEN A NOTE AFTER WE HEAR, UM, FROM STAFF AND WE HEAR FROM OUR SPEAKERS, UM, WE ARE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OUR AMENDMENT PROCESS IS, UH, SUCH THAT WE'LL ALLOW EVERY COMMISSIONER WHO'S PRESENT TO ASK A QUESTION, UM, AND THEN WE WILL VOTE ON OUR BASE MOTION, WHICH IS THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED IN THE BACKUP AND START OUR AMENDMENT PROCESS. 
          AND, UM, RIGHT NOW WE'VE, I'M PROPOSING TWO ROUNDS OF AMENDMENTS AND WE CAN REASSESS IF WE NEED TO GO TO MORE ROUNDS AS WE GET, UM, INTO THOSE TWO ROUNDS. 
          SO ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GET STARTED? OKAY. 
          WE'LL START WITH, UH, THE PRESENTATION ON SDRS. 
          I AGREE, WE'RE MAKING GOOD TIME. 
          UM, JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY, WE CAN TAKE A, A QUICK BREAK. 
          WE'LL COME BACK IN FIVE MINUTES AT 7 38. 
          YOU WANNA GET STARTED MS. LINK. 
          UM, AND WE'LL WALK THROUGH, UM, A LITTLE BIT OF OUR, BASICALLY WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF OUR PRESENTATION, KIND OF THE HISTORY OF STR REGULATION AND WHAT OUR CITY'S GOALS ARE. 
          UM, DANIEL WARD, WHO'S WITH ME WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE PROPOSAL, KIND OF WHERE WE ARE IN THIS PROCESS. 
          SO THE PURPOSE IS REALLY, WE ARE RECOMMENDING A SERIES OF CODE AMENDMENTS THAT WILL UPDATE OUR EXISTING SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS. 
          THESE AMENDMENTS ARE INTENDED TO PROMOTE RESPONSIBLE STR OWNERSHIP TO HELP MANAGE AFFORDABILITY ISSUES AND TO IMPROVE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX COLLECTION. 
          IN 2012, COUNCIL, UH, CREATED THE STR USE AND CREATED AND, AND ESSENTIALLY CREATED TWO TYPES OF STR. 
          ONE IS OUR TYPE ONE, WHICH IS THE OWNER OCCUPIED STR TYPE TWO, WHICH IS A NON-OWNER OCCUPIED STR. 
          AT THE SAME TIME, COUNCIL IMPOSED DENSITY CAPS FOR THOSE TYPE TWO STR, UM, AT A CENSUS TRACK LEVEL. 
          AND 2013, UM, COUNCIL CREATED A THIRD TYPE OFS, TR, WHICH WE CALL THE TYPE THREE, UM, WHICH IS FOR MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS THAT ARE NOT OWNER 
          [01:30:01]
OCCUPIED. 
          UM, COUNCIL ALSO IMPOSED DENSITY CAPS FOR TYPE THREE ST. 
          UM, IF YOU, IF YOUR PROPERTY ZONING IS COMMERCIAL, YOU CAN HAVE UP TO 25% OF THE UNITS STR. 
          IF IT IS A NON-COMMERCIAL ZONING, IT IS 3%. 
          UM, IN 2015, UM, WE HAD BY THIS POINT WE'RE A COUPLE YEARS IN, WE'VE LEARNED SOME LESSONS AND COUNCIL BEGINS THE PROCESS TO AMEND OUR STR REGULATIONS. 
          UM, THE FOLLOWING YEAR, COUNCIL PHASED OUT, UM, THE EXISTING TYPE TWO STR. 
          SO BASICALLY THERE WERE FIVE, THERE WAS A FIVE YEAR PERIOD FOR EXISTING TYPE TWO STR, AND THEN THEY WERE GOING TO BE NO LONGER ALLOWED. 
          UM, ADDITIONALLY, COUNSEL ALSO TOOK ACTION TO PROHIBIT NEW TYPE TWO STR IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. 
          AND THEN AT THE SAME TIME, COUNSEL ALSO ADDRESSED OCCUPANCY AND NOISE ISSUES. 
          LET'S FAST FORWARD A LITTLE BIT FARTHER DOWN THE LINE IN 2019, UM, THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AND VALIDATED THE CITY'S PHASE OUT OF THE EXISTING TYPE TWO SDRS AND OUR LIMITS ON OCCUPANCY. 
          AND WHAT THAT TELLS US AT THIS POINT IS WE CAN'T HAVE A BLANKET PROHIBITION, UH, AGAINST EXISTING S STR. 
          WE CAN ONLY SAY THAT SOMEONE CANNOT BE AN STR OR CANNOT OPERATE AN STR IF THERE IS, UH, PROBLEMS AT THE PROPERTY. 
          SO, IRRESPONSIBLE, UH, OPERATIONS. 
          UM, IN 2022, WE HAD TWO KIND OF, UH, IMPORTANT EVENTS. 
          UH, THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN NEW ORLEANS, UM, INVALIDATED NEW ORLEANS REQUIREMENT THAT THE PROPERTY MUST BE HOMESTEADED TO OPERATE AS AN STR. 
          NOW WITH OURS, WE DON'T EXACTLY SAY HOMESTEADED AS A TYPE ONE, BUT THAT IS ONE WAY TO PROVE THAT YOU ARE A TYPE ONE STR IS THROUGH YOUR HOMESTEAD, THROUGH YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE OR, UM, VOTING REGISTRATION CARD. 
          UM, LATER THAT YEAR, UM, THE COUNCIL ACT ASKED THE MANAGER TO CREATE AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR OUR PLATFORM. 
          SO THE VRBO, THE AIRBNBS OF THE WORLD TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR THEM TO COLLECT A FEE FROM A SHORT TERM RENTAL THAT IS NOT LICENSED. 
          UM, THE FOLLOWING YEAR, UM, THE TRIAL, THE FEDERAL COURT ACTUALLY INVALIDATED OUR PROHIBITION ON NEW TYPE TWO STR BASED ON THE HIAL STARK DECISION, THE HIAL STARK DECISION, UM, FOR, AND I MEANT TO MENTION A MOMENT AGO, IT SAID THE COURT DETERMINED THAT THE HOMESTEAD REQUIREMENT OR THE HOMESTEAD REQUIREMENT, UH, VIOLATED THE US CONSTITUTION. 
          SO, UM, THAT IS WHY THE COURT HERE IN THE TRIAL COURT, UH, INVALIDATED OURS AS WELL. 
          UM, IN FEBRUARY AND, UH, THE SPRING OF 2024, UH, THREE CITY COMMISSIONS TOOK UP THIS ITEM, UH, THE TOURISM COMMISSION, ARTS MUSIC COMMISSIONS. 
          UM, THE TOURISM COMMISSION WAS, UH, RECOMMENDING THAT COUNCIL EMPHASIZE SUPPORTING NEIGHBORHOODS ALIGNMENT AND PRESERVATION OF LOCAL CHARACTER AND PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE GROWTH. 
          ALSO PROPOSED PARTNERING WITH PLATFORMS, CREATING AN ACCOUNTABLE ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESS, AND THEN FOCUSING ON HOT COLLECTION. 
          UM, THE ARTS AND MUSIC COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS REALLY PROPOSED FOCUSING ON IMPROVING AND STREAMLINING STR LICENSE PROCESS ALONG WITH COMPLIANCE. 
          UM, SO WE CAN INCREASE OUR HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX COLLECTIONS. 
          ADDITIONALLY, THEY PROPOSE REQUIRING STR PLATFORMS TO COLLECT AND REMIT THE CITY'S PORTION OF THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAXES. 
          SO OUR PROPOSAL, IT FOCUSES ON, UH, FIVE GOALS. 
          THREE OF OUR VERY SPECIFIC CITY COUNCIL GOALS, WHICH IS ONE, UM, OVER THE YEARS HAS BEEN TO MAKE STR MORE COMPATIBLE WITH NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          THE SECOND WOULD BE TO RECOVER HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAXES, AND THEN THIRD, UM, AVOID FURTHER EXACERBATION OF AFFORDABILITY ISSUES. 
          AND THAT'S REALLY A TWO PIECE, UM, THERE'S TWO SIDES TO THAT. 
          ONE IS FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO OWN THEIR HOME, FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO RENT IT OUT, UM, TO ASSIST THEM WITH PAYING TAXES, AGING IN PLACE, ANYTHING, UM, OF THAT NATURE. 
          BUT THE AFFORDABILITY ALSO WENT FOR THE SIDE OF WANTING TO ENSURE THAT WE HAD SUFFICIENT HOUSING STOCK AND NOT PUT MORE PRESSURE ON OUR HOU EXISTING HOUSING STOCK. 
          UM, UH, TWO ADDITIONAL GOALS THAT WE HAVE. 
          ONE IS ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, IMPROVING COMPLIANCE RATES AND ENFORCEMENT OUTCOMES. 
          AND THEN THE LAST IS TO REGULATE CONSISTENT WITH RECENT COURT DECISIONS. 
          NOW, WHAT WE KNOW FROM THE COURT DECISIONS ARE THAT WE ARE LIMITED TO REALLY REVOKING LICENSES FOR IRRESPONSIBLE OPERATIONS, AND THAT WE REALLY, WE CANNOT LIMIT OWNERSHIP TO THOSE WHO RESIDE IN A HOUSE IN AUSTIN. 
          AND NOW I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO DANIEL WARD, UH, FOR THE PROPOSAL. 
          UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, DANIEL WARD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. 
          UM, NOW I'M GONNA PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE DRAFT PROPOSAL. 
          UM, I'LL FOCUS ON FOUR KEY AREAS, UM, LICENSE ELIGIBILITY, HOST REQUIREMENTS, PLATFORM REGULATIONS, AND ENFORCEMENT ENHANCEMENTS. 
          SO CURRENTLY SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE TREATED AS A 
          [01:35:01]
SPECIFIC LAND USE IN OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE, UH, GIVEN THE IMPACTS TO THE CITY. 
          FROM THE RECENT COURT DECISIONS, WE ARE PROPOSING TO MOVE THE MAJORITY OF THE SHORTTERM RENTAL REGULATIONS TO THE BUSINESS CODE. 
          UH, SHORT TERM RENTALS WOULD BE TREATED AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO ALL RESIDENTIAL USES, UM, MOVING FORWARD. 
          PROVIDED, UH, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT ANY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE USED AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROVIDED THEY OBTAIN A LICENSE AND COMPLY WITH THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS. 
          UM, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT OUR CURRENT CONTEXT WITH THE COURT CASES, UH, MS LINK JUST TALKED ABOUT, BECAUSE WE CANNOT REGULATE TYPE, WE CANNOT USE OWNER OCCUPANCY AS A DECISION POINT ANYMORE AS TO WHETHER SOMEONE'S ELIGIBLE FOR A LICENSE OR NOT. 
          THAT MEANS WE HAVE TO ALLOW TYPE TWO LICENSES ANYWHERE THAT WE ALLOW TYPE ONE LICENSES. 
          OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE ALLOWS TYPE ONE LICENSES ESSENTIALLY IN ALL RESIDENTIAL LOCATIONS. 
          AND SO AS A CONSEQUENCE, RIGHT NOW, SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE ALLOWED IN ALL RESIDENTIAL LOCATIONS. 
          UM, AS FAR AS ELIGIBILITY, UM, ON PROPERTIES WITH THREE OR FEWER DWELLINGS, UH, SO WHAT WE'D CALL SINGLE FAMILY CONTEXT, UH, ONLY INDIVIDUALS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO OBTAIN A LICENSE. 
          NOW, INDIVIDUAL COULD BE ONE OF THREE THINGS. 
          AN INDIVIDUAL CAN BE A HUMAN BEING. 
          YOU OWN THE PROPERTY IN YOUR NAME. 
          AN INDIVIDUAL CAN ALSO BE A TRUST PROVIDED THAT ALL BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST ARE HUMAN BEINGS. 
          AND THIRDLY, AN INDIVIDUAL CAN BE A CORPORATION PROVIDED THAT THE, THE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION ARE HUMAN BEINGS. 
          WHAT WOULD NOT BE, WHO WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR A SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSE IN SINGLE FAMILY CONTEXT WOULD BE LLCS THAT PURCHASE PROPERTIES THROUGH LLCS. 
          IN THE OTHER THING TO POINT OUT IN SINGLE FAMILY CONTEXT, AN INDIVIDUAL CAN CHOOSE TO OWN AND OPERATE MORE THAN ONE SHORT-TERM RENTAL. 
          HOWEVER, THAT INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SPACE THEIR SHORT-TERM RENTALS AT LEAST A THOUSAND FEET APART FROM THE OTHER SHORT TERM RENTAL THAT THEY OWN AND OPERATE. 
          NOW AT MULTIFAMILY SITES, UH, MEANING PROPERTIES WITH FOUR MORE UNITS, AN OWNER MAY OPERATE AT LEAST ONE, BUT NOT MORE THAN 25% OF THE UNITS THEY CONTROL. 
          UM, AND I'LL TRY TO EXPLAIN THIS BETTER JUST THROUGH EXAMPLE. 
          LET'S TAKE AN A HUNDRED UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. 
          IF THAT A HUNDRED UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX IS ALL OWNED BY ONE ENTITY, THAT ENTITY COULD OPERATE 25 OF THOSE UNITS AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. 
          MOVE THAT TO A CONDOMINIUM REGIME WHERE ALL HUNDRED UNITS ARE OWNED BY INDIVIDUALS. 
          EACH INDIVIDUAL COULD OPERATE THEIR UNIT AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. 
          IF THE SAME INDIVIDUAL OWNS MORE THAN ONE UNIT IN THAT CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX, THEY WOULD BE BOUND BY THE 25% CAP. 
          SO IN PRACTICE, SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO OWN AT LEAST EIGHT UNITS TO OPERATE MORE THAN ONE SHORT-TERM RENTAL AT THAT LOCATION. 
          UH, I WANNA TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT EXISTING LICENSE HOLDERS AS WE HEARD. 
          UM, ONE LESSON WE'VE LEARNED THROUGH THE COURT CASES IS THAT WE CANNOT REGULATE AWAY SOMEONE'S SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSE. 
          THOSE THAT ALREADY HAVE AN ACTIVE LICENSE WILL BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THAT LICENSE AND CONTINUE OPERATING, UH, PROVIDED THAT THEY RENEW TIMELY AND THEY COMPLY WITH ALL OUR OTHER CODES AND ORDINANCES. 
          UM, BUT IF THEY DON'T MEET THAT OWNERSHIP, THE THE NEW OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE REQUIREMENT, THEY WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN. 
          IF THEY CURRENTLY HAVE LICENSES WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF EACH OTHER, THEY WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THOSE LICENSES GOING FORWARD. 
          SO HOST REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE THAT OBTAIN A LICENSE, UM, WE WOULD REQUIRE THE HOST COMPLETE AN ONLINE TRAINING COURSE. 
          WE'D REQUIRE THEY SUBMIT A SELF-CERTIFIED SAFETY CHECKLIST. 
          SO THIS WOULD BE A HIGH LEVEL LIFE SAFETY CHECKLIST TO ENSURE THAT MINIMUM LIFE SAFETY STANDARDS ARE MET IN THE DWELLING. 
          THIS WOULD BE THINGS LIKE THE SMOKE DETECTORS ARE OPERABLE MEANS OF EGRESS, YOU KNOW, THE BEDROOM WINDOW WINDOWS ARE OPEN, ARE ARE ABLE TO BE OPENED, UM, AND, AND HIGH LEVEL LIFE SAFETY ISSUES LIKE THAT. 
          UM, WE'D ALSO REQUIRE THE HOST POST AN EVACUATION PLAN IN THAT EVACU IN THE KITCHEN OF THE DWELLING. 
          AND THAT EVACUATION PLAN WOULD SHOW THE LOCATION OF THE FIRE ALARMS, FIRE EXTINGUISHERS, AND THE EXITS, UM, FOR 
          [01:40:01]
THAT DWELLING. 
          ADDITIONALLY, WE'RE GOING TO ASK THAT HOSTS MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF $1 MILLION IN LIABILITY INSURANCE. 
          AND THEN FINALLY, WE ARE GOING TO REQUIRE THAT A HOST PROVIDE A LOCAL CONTACT WHO IS ABLE TO RESPOND WITHIN TWO HOURS. 
          NOW, THERE'S ALREADY A REQUIREMENT IN OUR ORDINANCE TODAY THAT REQUIRES A LOCAL CONTACT BE NAMED. 
          WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING THOUGH, WILL BE A STRENGTHENING TO THAT IN THAT IF THE LOCAL CONTACT FAILS TO RESPOND, EITHER THAT COULD BE BY PHONE OR IT COULD BE POTENTIALLY TO THE SITE IF REQUESTED BY THE CITY STAFF. 
          IF THEY FAIL TO RESPOND WITHIN THAT TWO HOUR PERIOD, THAT BECOMES A REVOCABLE OFFENSE AGAINST THEIR LICENSE . 
          NOW THE PLATFORM REGULATIONS, UM, WE WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE PLATFORMS AND KNOW I SAY PLATFORMS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VRBO, S BOOKING DOT COMS, ET CETERA. 
          UM, THOSE PLATFORMS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO FORCE USERS TO DISPLAY A LICENSE NUMBER IN THE ADVERTISEMENT BEFORE IT COULD BE PUBLISHED IN ESSENCE. 
          NOW WE ARE NOT ASKING THE, THE PLATFORMS VALIDATE THAT LICENSE NUMBER. 
          THAT WILL STILL BE THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY, BUT THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A FIELD AVAILABLE TO INPUT A LICENSE NUMBER, UM, ON THE ADVERTISEMENT NOR FOR IT TO SHOW UP PUBLICLY. 
          ADDITIONALLY, UM, WE ARE GOING TO ASK THE PLATFORMS TO COLLECT AND REMIT THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX ON BEHALF OF THE HOSTS AND THEN SUBMIT THAT TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          UM, THIS ON SOME LEVEL HELPS I THINK LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD BETWEEN THOSE THAT ARE OPERATING WITH A LICENSE AND THOSE THAT ARE OPERATING WITHOUT A LICENSE. 
          UM, AND TO SUPPORT THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE PLATFORMS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE HOST DOCUMENTATION AT LEAST QUARTERLY. 
          THEY WOULD PROVIDE THAT HOST WITH THE INFORMATION THEY NEED TO THEN TURN AROUND AND REPORT THEIR, UH, RECEIPTS TO THE CITY TO FOLLOW ALONG WITH A RESOLUTION FROM 2022. 
          UM, IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BECOME UNLAWFUL FOR A PLATFORM TO COLLECT A FEE FROM AN UNLICENSED SHORT-TERM RENTAL. 
          UH, ANOTHER ELEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE THAT PLATFORMS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DE-LIST ADVERTISEMENTS UPON REQUESTS FROM THE CITY. 
          SO IF CODE COMPLIANCE STAFF FINDS ADVERTISEMENTS LISTED THAT DON'T HAVE A VALID SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSE NUMBER, WE WOULD THEN TURN AROUND AND SEND THE, THE RELEVANT PLATFORM A NOTICE DEMANDING THAT THAT ADVERTISEMENT BE TAKEN DOWN. 
          UM, ALONG WITH THAT THOUGH, THERE WOULD ALSO BE WHAT WE CALL A SAFE HARBOR PROVISION FOR THE PLATFORMS. IF THE PLATFORMS ARE REQUIRING LICENSE NUMBERS BE DISPLAYED AND THEY ARE RESPONDING APPROPRIATELY TO THE D-LIST NOTICES THEY RECEIVE FROM US, THEY WOULD BE PRESUMED TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE PLATFORM REGULATIONS. 
          NOW TO SPEAK ON ENFORCEMENT, UM, SOME OF THE ENHANCEMENTS IN THIS PROPOSAL, ONE ITEM THAT WE WOULD PUT FORWARD IS THE ABILITY FOR THE DIRECTOR TO IMPOSE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS ON A SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSE HOLDER. 
          IF WE'RE SEEING RECURRING ISSUES AT A PROPERTY, A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THIS COULD BE OVERFLOWING TRASH CANS. 
          UM, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON THAT WE SEE SHORT-TERM RENTALS UTILIZE THE 30 GALLON TRASHCAN THAT'S AVAILABLE FROM AUSTIN RESOURCE RECOVERY, BUT IT TURNS OUT THAT THAT ROUTINELY IS NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE THE GARBAGE VOLUME. 
          UM, SO A MITIGATION REQUIREMENT COULD BE TO FORCE THEM TO UPGRADE TO A 60 OR 90 GALLON CART OR ADDITIONAL CARTS IF NECESSARY. 
          WE ALSO DO THE SAME THING IN TERMS OF NOISE ISSUES. 
          THERE ARE NOISE MONITORING DEVICES ON THE MARKET, UM, THAT THEY DON'T RECORD THE ACTUAL CONVERSATION, THEY JUST RECORD THE NOISE LEVEL. 
          AND THOSE ARE GENERALLY APP BASED. 
          YOU, IT'S A DEVICE YOU PLUG INTO AN ELECTRIC OUTLET. 
          IT MONITORS THE NOISE ONCE IT REACHES A CERTAIN DECIBEL LEVEL OVER A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME. 
          IT CAN ALERT THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY IF THERE'S AN ISSUE, WHICH SHOULD TRIGGER THAT RESPONSIBLE PARTY TO CONTACT THE GUESTS AND LET THEM KNOW THAT THINGS ARE TOO LOUD. 
          UM, ADDITIONALLY, THE DIRECTOR WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO DENY AND REVOKE LICENSES, UH, IN A SITUATION WHERE THE DIRECTOR DETERMINES THAT THE PROPERTY IS BECOME A NUISANCE. 
          UM, IF, IF A PROPERTY WERE TO BE DECLARED A NUISANCE, UM, WE COULD REVOKE THE LICENSE AND THEN ALSO SEND DE-LIST NOTICE TO THE APPLICABLE PLATFORMS TO HAVE THOSE ADVERTISEMENTS REMOVED. 
          WE'VE EXPERIENCED A LOT OF CHALLENGES WITH THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROGRAM 
          [01:45:01]
AS IS. 
          UM, I'LL TRY TO QUICKLY WALK THROUGH SOME OF THOSE CHALLENGES. 
          UH, ONE ITEM THAT WE RUN INTO CURRENTLY AND HAVE BEEN FOR A LONG TIME IS JUST VERY THE SIMPLE ACT OF TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT THE ADDRESS IN AN ADVERTISEMENT IS. 
          IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE PLATFORMS AT ALL, YOU'LL KNOW THAT WHEN YOU GO ON, UH, TO LOOK AT A SHORT-TERM RENTAL ADVERTISEMENT, YOU ARE NOT GIVEN THE ADDRESS OF THAT PROPERTY UNTIL YOU BOOK. 
          AND SO MY STAFF IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TRYING TO DETERMINE THE AD, UH, ADDRESS BY MOSTLY USING THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE ADVERTISEMENT, WHICH IS A CHALLENGE. 
          UM, I THINK AS THE WORLD HAS RECOGNIZED HOW WE GO ABOUT DOING THAT, WE'RE STARTING TO SEE MORE AND MORE PHOTOS THAT ARE ONLY THE KITCHEN, THE BATHROOM INTERIOR PHOTOS, WHICH MAKE IT REALLY DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHAT THE PHYSICAL ADDRESS OF THAT PROPERTY IS. 
          GONE ARE THE DAYS WHERE WE GET A PICTURE OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WITH THE ADDRESS ON THE PORCH. 
          UM, PROVING OPERATION IS ALSO DIFFICULT, UH, THAT REQUIRES A HUMAN TO HUMAN INTERACTION. 
          UM, SO IF WE RECEIVE A COMPLAINT THAT SOMEONE IS OPERATING A SHORT TERM RENTAL AND THEY BELIEVE THEY'RE DOING SO WITHOUT A LICENSE, OUR STAFF WILL RESPOND, UH, TO THAT LOCATION AND TRY TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THE OCCUPANTS. 
          SO THAT STEP ONE INVOLVES KNOCKING ON THE DOOR. 
          A LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE WILL NOT OPEN THE DOOR, UH, WHEN THEY DO OPEN THE DOOR, SOMETIMES THEY'RE RELUCTANT TO SPEAK TO US ABOUT THE ISSUE. 
          UM, BUT IF WE ARE ABLE TO ENGAGE, WE HAVE A BIT OF A SCRIPT THAT WE WALK THROUGH. 
          YOU KNOW, GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME'S DANIEL WORD. 
          I'M WITH THE CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          SO SORRY TO BOTHER YOU TODAY. 
          WE RECEIVED A COMPLAINT ON THIS PROPERTY. 
          ARE YOU THE OWNER BY CHANCE? AND WHAT I'M HOPING THEY'LL SAY IN THAT MOMENT IS, NO, I'M NOT THE OWNER. 
          I JUST BOOKED THIS THROUGH AIRBNB. 
          NOW I HAVE SOME EVIDENCE. 
          OH, THAT, THAT, WELCOME TO AUSTIN, SORRY TO DISTURB YOU. 
          UM, HOW LONG ARE YOU STAYING? I'M HOPING THEY TELL ME SOMETHING LESS THAN 30 DAYS. 
          NOW I HAVE THE EVIDENCE I NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ENFORCEMENT FOR OPERATING WITHOUT A LICENSE, BUT ALL OF THOSE THINGS HAVE TO HAPPEN TO GET THERE. 
          WE'VE ALSO NOTICED THAT EVEN ON THOSE PROPERTIES THAT DO ESCALATE THROUGH LEGAL ENFORCEMENT A AVENUES, IT HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN A DETERRENCE TO CONTINUING TO OPERATE. 
          WE'LL TAKE THEM THROUGH A ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PROGRAM, DELIVER A FINE AGAINST THE PROPERTY, TAKE 'EM THROUGH MUNICIPAL COURT, DELIVER A FINE AGAINST THE PROPERTY, THEY STILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE. 
          UM, LASTLY, NUISANCE STR WHERE WE'RE HAVING, YOU KNOW, NOISE ISSUES, PARKING, TRASH, ET CETERA. 
          UH, OUR STAFF HAS TRIED TO TAKE A MORE PROACTIVE APPROACH WITH THAT, UM, THROUGH TRYING TO CONTACT THE OOC OCCUPANTS WHEN THEY'RE CHECKING IN. 
          SO WE'LL SHOW UP ON THURSDAY AFTERNOONS, FRIDAY AFTERNOONS TO TRY TO GET TO THEM EARLY AND JUST INTRODUCE OURSELVES, WELCOME TO THE CITY, BUT ALSO LET THEM KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE OPERATING IN A, IN A COMMUNITY, A NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL OF THE NEIGHBORS. 
          THESE ARE OUR NOISE REGULATIONS. 
          HAVE A GOOD TIME, BUT AGAIN, BE RESPECTFUL. 
          UM, SO WE, WE DON'T HAVE FIRM NUMBERS ON HOW MANY SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE OPERATING IN AUSTIN WITHOUT A LICENSE. 
          THAT'S NOT DATA THAT WE HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO. 
          WE HAVE ABOUT 2200 LICENSED SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN AUSTIN. 
          BUT WE DO BELIEVE THE MAJORITY OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN AUSTIN OPERATE WITHOUT A LICENSE. 
          UM, WHEN WE WERE RESEARCHING SOME OF THIS, ONE THING THAT STOOD OUT TO ME, UM, IS THAT 94% OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT WE RECEIVE REGARDING SHORT-TERM RENTALS INVOLVE AN ADDRESS THAT IS UNLICENSED. 
          NOW, THERE MAY BE OTHER FACTORS AT PLAY, BUT ONE THING THAT SUGGESTS TO ME IS THAT IN, IN, AT, IN GENERAL, A LICENSED SHORT-TERM RENTAL SEEMS TO BEHAVE BETTER THAN AN UNLICENSED SHORT-TERM RENTAL. 
          UH, MR. WARD, DID YOU NEED ADDITIONAL TIME? UH, I HAVE 1, 2, 3, 3 MORE SLIDES. 
          I CAN GO REALLY FAST IF YOU WOULD LIKE OR OKAY. 
          AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, IF NOT TWO MORE MINUTES. 
          I WILL GO REALLY QUICK. 
          UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          UM, ONE THING TO BE AWARE OF, IN ADDITION TO THE ORDINANCE CHANGE, WE'RE ALSO SEEKING THIRD PARTY CONTRACTS TO ASSIST US WITH THE LICENSING PROCESS TO MAKE THAT MORE EFFICIENT. 
          AND ALSO LOOKING FOR A THIRD PARTY VENDOR TO ASSIST US WITH THE ENFORCEMENT. 
          THERE ARE SOFTWARE VENDORS OUT THERE THAT DO DATA SCRAPING OPERATIONS ON THE MAJOR PLATFORMS AND THROUGH SOME BACKEND MAGIC THAT I DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND, THEY'RE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE ADDRESS MUCH MORE EFFICIENTLY THAN WE CURRENTLY ARE. 
          UM, SO WE'LL BE SEEKING LICENSES BOTH FOR THE LICENSING PROCESS AND THE ENFORCEMENT TO HELP ENHANCE OUR ABILITY TO IDENTIFY THOSE ADDRESSES AND HOPEFULLY PROVIDE MORE SWIFT ENFORCEMENT. 
          UM, 
          [01:50:01]
COMMUNITY INFORMATION SESSIONS. 
          WE HOSTED A TOTAL OF FOUR. 
          UM, THE FIRST ONE WAS A ZOOM CALL ON THE ICE DAY. 
          UH, THAT ONE HAD ABOUT 215 ATTENDEES. 
          AND THEN WE HOSTED THREE IN-PERSON SESSIONS, ONE AT MONTOPOLIS REC CENTER IN THE SOUTH, ONE AT THE PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER UP NORTH, AND THEN AT THE DOWNTOWN CENTRAL LIBRARY. 
          THOSE WERE LESS ATTENDED. 
          I THINK THE TOTAL COUNT WAS 36 ATTENDEES COVERING ALL THREE. 
          THERE WERE SOME RECURRING THEMES THAT WE'VE NOTICED SO FAR IN THE FEEDBACK, BUT PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THROUGH OUR PUBLIC INPUT INPUT WEBSITE, WE'RE STILL ACTIVELY RECEIVING CATEGORIZING AND SUMMARIZING THE FEEDBACK. 
          UM, BUT A LOT OF ATTENDEES HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE, HOW THE ACQUIRE, UH, REQUIREMENTS WOULD AFFECT EXISTING LICENSE HOLDERS. 
          UM, HOW WE WOULD THE CITY WOULD GO ABOUT TRYING TO ENFORCE VIOLATIONS. 
          AND THEN ALSO QUESTIONS ON THE THOUSAND FOOT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT AND THE TWO HOUR RESPONSE TIME. 
          AND THEN FINALLY, TIMELINE FOR ACTION. 
          WE'RE HERE TONIGHT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN WE WILL BE AT, UH, CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 27TH. 
          AND THAT'LL BE THE EARLIEST, UH, DATE THAT COUNCIL COULD TAKE ACTION ON THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          AND THAT WRAPS UP THE PRESENTATION. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          I'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR SPEAKERS. 
          OUR FIRST SPEAKER IN FAVOR IS ABBY OVITZ. 
          ABBY, YOU WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          YEAH. 
          I'M ABBY OVITZ. 
          I LIVE IN MCKINLEY HEIGHTS, CLIFFORD SANCHEZ NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I'M ACTUALLY NOT IN FAVOR OF A, OF THIS. 
          UM, YEAH, I'LL START OFF WITH, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS UNDER SIEGE. 
          WE RECENTLY HAD A SHOOTING ON NOVEMBER 22ND AT A SHORT TERM RENTAL. 
          UM, THIS WAS INSIDE THE HOUSE ON THE STREET AND IT SHATTERED OUR SENSE OF SAFETY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          WE CALLED 9 1 1 3 1 1. 
          WE SUBMITTED AFFIDAVITS. 
          WE'VE REACHED OUT TO D ONE AND WE FEEL IGNORED. 
          UM, THE SCR IS JUST RENEWED. 
          UM, IF SOMEONE HAD BEEN KILLED, WOULD THE CITY HAVE ACTED DIFFERENTLY? NEXT SLIDE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UNREGULATED. 
          SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE A TICKING TIME BOMB. 
          THERE ARE OVER A HUNDRED SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FUELING SEX TRAFFICKING, DRUG TRAFFICKING, GUN VIOLENCE, AND GANG ACTIVITY. 
          UM, ENDLESS BACHELOR AND BACHELORETTE PARTIES. 
          UM, THERE ARE TONS OF HOUSES AVAILABLE FOR NEIGHBORS TO MOVE INTO, BUT THEY'RE SHORT-TERM RENTALS. 
          WE ALSO HAVE NO IDEA WHO'S COMING AND GOING EVER. 
          UM, OUR, OH, NEXT SLIDE. 
          THANKS. 
          THE COLLAPSING FOUNDATION OF OUR COMMUNITY. 
          WE HAVE AN EROSION OF TRUST AND BELONGING. 
          UM, OUR SCHOOLS ARE AT RISK. 
          THERE'S JUST A PIECE IN THE CHRONICLE ABOUT EAST SIDE SCHOOLS CLOSING, LOW ENROLLMENT, THREATENING TO CLOSE. 
          UM, WE HAVE NO RELIABLE RESOURCES TO HELP US IN, UH, DEALING WITH THE ISSUES WITH SHORT-TERM RENTALS. 
          NEXT, UM, WE'VE ALSO BEEN TOLD BY CODE THAT IT COULD TAKE 15 YEARS FOR THEM TO TACKLE ALL OF THE ILLEGAL SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN AUSTIN RIGHT NOW. 
          ALSO, A PD JUST CLOSED THE CASE ON THE SHOOTING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UH, THERE IS NO RESOLUTION. 
          WE'RE WONDERING WHY NEARBY CITIES LIKE NEW BRAUNFELS ENFORCE STRICT REGULATIONS, BUT WE ARE LEFT FUNDING FOR OURSELVES. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          AND THAT IS IT. 
          PLEASE HELP US. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN FAVOR IS COLIN MCNAMARA. 
          COLIN, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          UH, TO BE CLEAR, I AM NOT IN FAVOR. 
          HOWEVER, I AM IN FAVOR OR CODE ENFORCEMENT WHO IS DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN. 
          UH, WHAT I'M IN FAVOR IS FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY. 
          AND I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT AUSTIN'S LOSING ALMOST A QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS A DAY. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          ON OUR LACK OF ENFORCEMENT, UH, WE'RE LOSING $82.18 MILLION IN REVENUE ANNUALLY WITH THE 13,000 LICENSED STRS. 
          THAT'S 85% OF THE ESTIMATED SDRS IN OUR, UH, UH, IN, IN AUSTIN. 
          THERE'S 850 COMPLAINTS IN THE BACKLOG. 
          IT TAKES FOUR MONTHS TO GET TO GET A, TO GET A, UM, TO GET TO, TO GET A TICKET IN. 
          EVERY MINUTE THAT WE'RE TALKING, WE'RE LOSING $156 AS A, AS AS A CITY. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          UH, NOW OUR P CD IS DENVER AND, OR EXCUSE ME, UH, DENVER AND NASHVILLE. 
          THEY GOTTA FIGURE IT OUT. 
          THEY HAVE 10 AND 12, UH, UH, CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICERS AND THEY HAVE 75 TO 85% CODE COMPLIANCE. 
          MOST IMPORTANTLY, WHEN A CITIZEN PUTS IN A REQUEST, IT TAKES THREE WEEKS TO GET IT TO TO GET IT ADDRESSED. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          THAT'S COMPARED TO OUR FOUR MONTHS. 
          WHAT I SUGGEST IS WE ADD FOUR MORE FTES IMMEDIATELY. 
          WILL IT TAKE FIVE DAYS FOR RETURN ON INVESTMENT? I'LL GET A RESPONSE HIM UNDER THREE MONTHS, 
          [01:55:01]
AND THEN WE CAN ADD FOUR MORE AFTER THAT AND GET UP TO GET UP TO OUR PEERS. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          NOW MY ASK TO YOU IS IMMEDIATELY VOTE FOR SUPPORTING THE CO COMPLIANCE OFFICERS THAT ARE HERE AND IN YOUR MAILBOXES. 
          I DID A DATA STUDY THAT PROPERLY REFERENCED WITH ALL THE INFORMATION FROM, FROM THE CITY. 
          UM, I DID A MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS. 
          I'M AN AI ENGINEER LIVING ON THE A SIDE, RIGHT? THERE'S A LOT OF US LIKE THIS. 
          WE BUILD ROBOTS, WE BUILD CARS, WE BUILD EVERYTHING. 
          UM, WHILE WE'RE MAKING THE DECISIONS, WHAT THE FUTURE OF OUR CITY? LET'S MAKE THE DECISIONS TO TREAT OUR RESIDENTS CORRECTLY, TO SERVE THEM PROPERLY WITH CO COMPLIANCE. 
          BUT ALSO LET'S NOT THROW MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN. 
          LIKE WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO WASTE. 
          WE NEED TO PUT IT TO MAKING THE CITY GREAT. 
          AND YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY IN YOUR DECISIONS, IN YOUR VOTE TO SUPPORT CODE COMPLIANCE. 
          SO WHATEVER THE DECISION YOU COME TO THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY, WHEN WE CALL FOR THE BACHELORETTE PARTY OR THE SHOOTING THAT WAS DOWN THE STREET, THAT WILL ACTUALLY BE SUPPORTED BY THE PROPERLY STAFFED CODE COMPLIANCE TO ENACT THE WILL OF THE CITY AND THE PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE VOTING ON TODAY DAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SIR, CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? SIR? SIR, CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? UH, THANK YOU DANIELLE. 
          UH, MY NAME'S COLIN MCNAMARA. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND YOU HAVE THE REPORTS IN YOUR MAILBOXES. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS HANNAH LUKO. 
          HANNAH, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          HELLO, MY NAME IS HANNAH PICO. 
          I ALSO LIVE IN THE MCKINLEY SANCHEZ NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          WE HAVE ABOUT 300 HOMES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND BY ROUGH ESTIMATE, I'D SAY ABOUT A HUNDRED OF THEM ARE OPERATING AS STRS TODAY. 
          AS ABBY ABBY MENTIONED, WE NOT ONLY HAVE VIOLENCE, GUN VIOLENCE, SEX TRAFFICKING, BUT THERE'S ALSO ADDITIONAL, UM, WE'VE BEEN IN SITUATIONS WHERE WE'VE FILED NOISE COMPLAINTS, UM, FOR HOURS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED SUPPORT FROM NOT ONLY THE POLICE, BUT 3 1 1 HAVE HAD THEM RETURN TO HOMES MULTIPLE TIMES. 
          HAVE I'VE PERSONALLY CONTACTED THE PROPERTY MANAGERS ONLY FOR THEM TO TELL ME THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO CONTROL THE SITUATION AND THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HELP ME. 
          SO REALLY, WE'RE LEFT IN THE COMMUNITY WITHOUT ANYONE TO HELP SUPPORT US IN CONTROLLING SITUATIONS WHEN WE DO HAVE PROBLEMS. UM, SO IF, AND IF WHAT I'M HEARING TODAY FROM THE CITY COUNCIL IS THAT A MAIN CONCERN IS HOUSING AFFORDABILITY, ACCESSIBILITY, MAKING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS STABLE AND SAFE. 
          I'M REALLY CURIOUS WHY WE DON'T ENFORCE S ST R REGULATIONS GET OR LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF STRS AVAILABLE ON THE MARKET. 
          IT SEEMS LIKE A REALLY SIMPLE, EASY WAY TO UNLOCK A LOT OF HOUSING VOLUME. 
          UM, AND YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO BRING TO YOU TODAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN FAVOR IS RUBY. 
          SHE, RUBY, YOU WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          WE'LL CIRCLE BACK TO HER TOWARDS THE END. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN FAVOR IS ANGELA BENAVIDES GARZA. 
          SHE'LL BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY. 
          MS. GARZA, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS. 
          YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          HELLO. 
          UM, THIS IS ANGELA BEZA. 
          COMMISSIONER COX, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. 
          AND WE HEAR YOU, SIR. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          WE WILL KEEP THIS VIDEO. 
          UM, GREG ANDERSON, THANK YOU FOR BEING IN WASHINGTON. 
          UM, BUT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIVATE LAND AND PUBLIC LAND WHEN YOU LIVE AT THE MUELLER. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE, THE BREAKDOWN IN UNDERSTANDING IS. 
          UM, WHEN IT COMES TO SCR FOLKS, WE DO NEED SOME REGULATION HERE. 
          AND, AND WHEN IT, UM, WE DO NEED REGULATION HERE. 
          WHAT I HAVE A CHALLENGE WITH IS THAT WE'RE LETTING A GROUP LIKE EXPEDIA GROUP KNOW BEFORE OUR COMMUNITY SO THAT WE CAN WEIGH INTO THE SITUATION. 
          UH, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR PEOPLE COME FIRST AND WE WAIT INTO SITUATION. 
          LIKE WITH THE THREE MEETINGS IN JANUARY THAT WE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT, WE NEED OUR CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICERS TO BE UP TO PAR TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THESE SITUATIONS. 
          I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE STATE LAWS, THEY'RE STILL BEING DETERMINED ON PUBLIC ACCOUNT. 
          I WANTED, UM, NOTED THAT I AM NOT IN AGREEMENT OF REDUCING OUR TIME OF SPEAKING TO TWO MINUTES. 
          UM, I'VE ALREADY SENT THAT OVER TO THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, THAT THAT IS NOT OKAY. 
          THAT THE PUBLIC IS NOT NOTIFIED AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. 
          THAT OUR TIME OF SPEAKING WILL BE REDUCED. 
          OKAY? THESE ARE IMPORTANT DECISIONS. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE GENTLEMAN WHO PROVIDED THE NUMBERS. 
          YES, WE NEED THOSE. 
          WE NEED THOSE MONIES BACK INTO THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          'CAUSE WE HAVE BILLS TO PAY AND WE NEED THAT MONEY TO COME BACK. 
          WE NEED NO GRANDFATHERS AT ALL. 
          AND IT'S 
          [02:00:01]
ALSO WHAT I'D LIKE TO ADD HERE. 
          IF SOMEONE CONTINUES TO TRY TO RUN THEIR STR ILLEGALLY, WE'LL GIVE CITY OF AUSTIN THE RIGHT TO OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE THE HOME AND ADD IT TO THE AFFORDABILITY BUCKET. 
          BECAUSE WE ALL NEED AFFORDABILITY. 
          SINCE YOU DON'T WANNA LISTEN. 
          WHAT I KNOW FROM THE PLATFORMS IS THAT YOU MAKE A LOT OF MONEY ON THESE STRS. 
          WHY WE DON'T HAVE THE CODE COMPLIANCE TO MEET THOSE NEEDS. 
          I DON'T UNDERSTAND. 
          BUT WE NEED THAT. 
          WE NEED THAT MONEY TO COME BACK INTO OUR BUCKETS. 
          HERE IN AUSTIN, TEXAS KNOW HOW IT WORKS. 
          I WORKED WITH EXPEDIA GROUP. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I KNOW HOW IT WORKS CLEARLY. 
          NOW ALSO WHAT WE NEED AGAIN IS WE NEED NO GRANDFATHERS AT ALL. 
          NO GRANDFATHERS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS NEBBY. 
          KEM NEBBY WILL ALSO BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY NEBI. 
          PLEASE PRESS SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS. 
          YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          WELL, THIS IS NABE JAM. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST TO THE CITY, UM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER USING THE NEW SHORT TERM LAND FOR CODE MADS AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR BETTER INCENTIVIZING THE PRESERVATION BONUS MORE EFFECTIVELY INCREASING THE INTERIOR SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED FOR TWO NEW HOUSING UNITS. 
          IF AN EXISTING HOUSING UNIT IS PRESERVED, HAS NOT BEEN A PERSISTENT ENOUGH ARGUMENTS FOR DIRECTING HOMEOWNERS BUILDINGS TOWARDS MORE PRESERVATION FOCUSED DEVELOPMENT CHOICES. 
          INCREASING CHARGE PRESERVATION BONUS FROM 55 TO 6%, 65% IN APRIL COULD STILL MAKE VERY LITTLE IMPACT ON SAVING THE OLDER AND MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. 
          ONCE AGAIN, UNLESS WE INTRODUCE CERTAIN SPR BENEFITS TO THESE NEWER UNITS, AS LONG AS THEY ARE BUILT WITHOUT DEMOLISHING THE OLDER UNITS ON A LOT, I BELIEVE, RATHER THAN THE, SO BENEFIT OF SAR INCREASES ADDING A TR RELATED INCOME GENERATION BENEFITS FOR HOMEOWNERS WHO COULD ADD NEIGHBOR UNITS FOR KEEPING THEMSELVES IN PLACE. 
          AFFORDABLY COULD X-RAY INCOME WOULD GIVE BETTER RESULTS IN KEEPING MORE OF EXISTING UNITS ON A LOT AS WELL. 
          AND THESE, UM, UH, INCENTIVES COULD BE, UH, NOT REQUIRING 1000 FEET DISTANCE BETWEEN FROM THESE, UM, PRESERVED, UH, PROPERTIES OR NO HOTEL TAX OR NOT REQUIRING $1 MILLION BOND REQUIREMENTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          PERHAPS, UH, NOT DRIVING THE TYPE ONE AND TYPE TWO, UH, DRIVEN BY THE OWNERSHIP. 
          BUT PRESERVATION DRIVEN, UH, PERHAPS WILL ALLOW THE, UH, HOMESTEAD, UH, OWNERS TO ACTUALLY RUN THESE PROPERTIES RATHER THAN LARGE CORPORATIONS, WHICH WILL ACTUALLY MAKE THEM, UH, UM, UH, TOO MUCH, UH, SCALED UP, UH, IF NOT, UH, USED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE HOMEOWNERS, UH, TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THEIR PLACES AFFORDABLE. 
          SO RESPONSIBLE OPERATION, ALL SITE HOST AVAILABILITY AND  FOR RENTER RENTER'S PROFILES AND NOT CRAZY PARTIES IN THE BACKYARD WILL ALL COME AS A, A SIDE BENEFIT TO THIS. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATIONS AND YOUR, UH, THOUGHTS ON THIS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN FAVOR IS MARY OWENS. 
          MARY, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES BEING PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          I'M MARY OWENS, A NATIVE AUSTINITE AND LICENSED SDR OWNER SINCE 2012. 
          I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TONIGHT ABOUT THE PRO PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SDR REGULATION. 
          MY GOAL IS TO ADVOCATE FOR POLICIES THAT IMPROVE OUR COMMUNITY WHILE ENSURING THE CITY EFFECTIVELY MANAGES STRS. 
          THE CITY HAS FAILED TO COLLECT, UM, $20 MILLION ANNUALLY IN HOT TAXES FROM UNLICENSED SDRS. 
          THAT'S MORE THAN A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS LOST OVER THE YEARS. 
          I STRONGLY SUPPORT ALLOWING PLATFORMS TO REMIT HOT DIRECTLY. 
          THIS SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED LONG AGO. 
          IF NOTHING ELSE CHANGES, THE CITY SHOULD COLLECT THE TAXES. 
          IT'S OWED HOT TAX USAGE. 
          EVEN IF ALL THE HOT TAXES ARE COLLECTED, THE STATE HAS LIMITS ON HOW IT CAN BE USED. 
          I HOPE EVERYONE HERE WILL ADVOCATE TO OUR STATE LAWMAKERS TO ALLOW, UM, STR HOT FUNDS TO STAY IN OUR COMMUNITIES INSTEAD OF ONLY PROMOTING TOURISM. 
          LLC OWNED PROPERTIES ARE CLEARLY BEING GRANDFATHERED IN, BUT THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T SPEAK DIRECTLY TO OWNERS WITH PROPERTIES WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF EACH OTHER. 
          PLEASE DO NOT PENALIZE OWNERS LIKE MYSELF. 
          WHO'VE CHOSEN TO HAVE A WALKABLE LIFESTYLE AND LIVE NEAR WHERE I WORK, MAKING A FAILURE TO RESPOND INTO HOURS. 
          A LICENSE REVOCABLE OFFENSE WILL PLACE SIGNIFICANT BURDEN ON SMALL SELF-MANAGED HOSTS LIKE MYSELF, WHO WANT TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES BUT DON'T HAVE SUPPORT STAFF. 
          AT A MINIMUM, THE NEW REGULATION SHOULD BE MORE NARROWLY DEFINED IN WHAT CONSTITUTES AN EMERGENCY AND SUBMIT AND, UM, INCLUDE A REASONABLE TIMEFRAME TO RESPOND. 
          TO SUMMARIZE, AUSTIN NEEDS TO COLLECT THE HOT TAXES IT'S OWED. 
          PLEASE HELP PUSH THE STATE FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY IN HOT TAX USAGE. 
          EXISTING SDRS SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED BY NEW DENSITY RULES. 
          AND IF THE TWO HOUR RESPONSE RULE IS ADOPTED, IT SHOULD BE REASONABLE FOR OWNER MANAGED STS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN FAVOR IS BRIAN KLEIN. 
          BRIAN, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          [02:05:05]
HELLO, MY NAME IS BRIAN KLEIN, MY HUSBAND REGGIE AND I OWN AND LIVE OFF TILLERY STREET IN EAST AUSTIN. 
          WE WOULD LIKE TO VOICE OUR SUPPORT OF THE SHORT, SHORT-TERM RENTAL CODE AMENDMENTS. 
          SHORTLY AFTER MOVING IN THREE YEARS AGO, WE BEGAN TO WITNESS PROBLEMATIC BEHAVIOR NEARBY RESIDENTS AT 9 1 1 TILLERY STREET. 
          WE DID SOME INVESTIGATION DISCOVERED OCCUPANTS OF THESE ADDRESSES WERE GUESTS OF AND LEGAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL. 
          THESE TWO AB UNITS, WHICH ARE SIDE BY SIDE, ARE OWNED AND OPERATED BY URBAN STAY. 
          A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON URBAN STAY. 
          THEY OWN WELL OVER 50 PROPERTIES IN AUSTIN, MOST ARE ON THE EAST SIDE, AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF MINORITY AND DIVERSE COMMUNITIES. 
          THESE UNITS NEXT TO US ARE ADVERTISED AS PARTY COMPOUNDS BEING ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE, ACCOMMODATE OVER 32 ADULTS AND CHARGE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PER NIGHT. 
          THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS CONFIRMED THEY ARE OPERATING ILLEGALLY AND DO NOT HAVE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSE. 
          HERE'S A RUNDOWN OF THE INCIDENTS THAT WE EXPERIENCE, NOT JUST ON THE WEEKENDS, PEOPLE LOUDLY STUMBLING FROM THEIR UBERS BACK TO THEIR RESIDENCES, WITH SOUNDS OF VOMITING AND URINATION OUTSIDE OUR BEDROOM, PARTYING, OUTSIDE, SCREAMING, BLASTING MUSIC BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10:00 PM AND 4:00 AM CONFUSED GUESTS TRYING TO GET INTO OUR HOUSE IN THE EVENING. 
          I'M SURE YOU CAN IMAGINE WHAT IS RACING THROUGH OUR MINDS WHEN WE ARE SLEEPING. 
          OUR WOKEN UP TO HEAR SOMEONE TRYING TO GAIN ACCESS TO OUR HOME TRASH AND EMPTY BEER BOTTLES LEFT BY OUR HOUSE. 
          SO WE HAVE TO PICK UP AMBULANCES, FIRE TRUCKS, AND POLICE OFFICERS BEING CALLED TO THE RESIDENCES PARTY BUS IN SHUTTLES TRANSPORTING THE OCCUPANTS ALL WHILE BLOCKING DRIVEWAYS OF FELLOW RESIDENCE. 
          WE HAVE TAKEN SEVERAL STEPS TO TRY TO END THESE DISTURBANCES. 
          NUMEROUS ILLEGAL STR NOISE DISTURBANCE INCIDENTS CREATED VIA AUSTIN 3 1 1 CONTACT CONTACTING URBAN STATE DIRECTLY CONVERSATIONS EMAILS SENT TO THE CITY STR ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES. 
          AT THIS POINT, IF WE ARE FEEL WE ARE AT WIT'S END AND HAVE EXHAUSTED ALL OF OUR AVENUES WITHOUT FOLLOW-UPS OR IMPROVEMENTS, PLEASE IMPLEMENT THESE AMENDMENTS TO ENSURE INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES WHO EXPLOIT THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL SYSTEM FOR PROFIT AT THE EXPENSE OF THEIR SUFFERING. 
          NEIGHBORS ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          WE WILL NOW BE HEARING FROM THOSE WHO REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION. 
          OUR FIRST SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS RYAN SAUNDERS. 
          RYAN, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          HI, MY NAME'S RYAN SAUNDERS. 
          UM, I'M THE SDR OWNER, LICENSED OWNER THAT PAYS HOT TAXES. 
          UM, I'M NOT AGAINST MORE REGULATION AND I AGREE THAT MORE SDR SHOULD BE LICENSED. 
          I'M JUST AGAINST THE PROCESS OF HOW THEY'RE DOING IT. 
          I FEEL LIKE, UM, THERE SHOULD BE MORE DETAILS IN THE MITIGATION EFFORTS AND, AND SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY'RE STATING THEY'RE GONNA HAVE OF OWNERS. 
          'CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE POSITIONING TO BE ABLE TO SHADOW BAN SHORT-TERM RENTALS WHERE THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY CAN'T LEGALLY BAN THEM, BUT THEY'LL BAN THEM BY MITIGATION THE FEES THAT WILL DRIVE IT UP AND MAKE IT NOT COST EFFECTIVE TO OWN AN SCR. 
          UM, THERE'S AN OVERALL ISSUE IN THE CITY OF THE PROCESS OF HOW NOISE ORDINANCES AND HOW NEIGHBORS AND BUSINESSES INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER. 
          AND I FEEL LIKE EVERYTHING THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE SAYING HAPPEN IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. 
          BUSINESSES ARE RESIDENTS, SHORT-TERM RENTALS TO RESIDENTS, DOG OWNERS, UM, ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT INCIDENTS SINCE THE PROCESS OF HOW THE CITY HANDLES THESE THAT ARE THE ISSUE. 
          AND DENSITY IS THE ONLY WAY THAT WE'RE GONNA SOLVE AFFORDABILITY. 
          AND BY GETTING RID OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS, WHICH ARE SMALL BUSINESSES, NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER SMALL BUSINESS THAT EXISTS IN THE CITY, YOU'RE PUNISHING ONE GROUP FOR A PROBLEM THAT'S MUCH LARGER THAN THAT, JUST SHORT-TERM RENTALS. 
          SO OBVIOUSLY, LIKE I'M AGAINST THE LARGE BACHELOR BACHELORETTE PARTIES, CRIME, UH, UNLICENSED SDRS. 
          BUT I THINK IN THE WAY THAT THEY HAVE IT WRITTEN, I THINK THAT THEY ARE, UM, SPECIFICALLY TARGETING ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE. 
          AND I THINK THE CITY NEEDS TO OVERHAUL THEIR ENTIRE QUALITY OF LIFE, THE WAY THEY VIEW QUALITY OF LIFE, THE WAY THEY REGULATE QUALITY OF LIFE. 
          UM, I ALSO, UH, DEAL WITH A LOT OF ISSUES WITH QUALITY OF LIFE AND THE PROCESS OF THE CITY AND FEEL IGNORED AND FEEL FATIGUED AND FRUSTRATED BY THE EFFORTS THAT I HAVE TO TAKE TO GET RE REMEDIATION FOR THOSE ISSUES. 
          AND THAT'S NOT, I'M AN SDR INTERN. 
          I ALSO EXPERIENCE FROM BAR OWNERS, UM, NEIGHBORS, ET CETERA. 
          SO I WOULD ASK THAT YOU ALL REQUIRE MORE SPECIFICATIONS AS TO WHAT THEIR EXACT REQUIREMENTS ARE GONNA BE SO THAT THEY CAN'T JUST SHADOW, BAN SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND GO AROUND THE WALL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER AND OPPOSITION IS DARRELL. 
          JUST DARRELL, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          MY NAME IS DARRELL GUEST. 
          I'M A, UH, OPERATE, UH, UH, STR THAT WE'RE LICENSED. 
          WE'RE OWNER OCCUPIED. 
          [02:10:01]
WE'VE PAID HOTEL TAXES SINCE 2014. 
          I DON'T SEE ANYWHERE IN THE ORDINANCE WHERE THE PLATFORMS ARE REQUIRED TO COLLECT THE HOTEL TAXES. 
          I'VE BEEN ADVOCATING THAT SINCE 2014, BUT I DON'T SEE IT IN THE ORDINANCE. 
          AND WHILE YOU'RE AT IT, IF YOU'RE WORKING WITH THE PLATFORM TO COLLECT THE TAXES, WHY CAN'T THE PLATFORM PROVIDE THE LICENSE NUMBERS FOR THEIR LISTINGS? THAT WOULD ADDRESS A CONCERN. 
          I HAVE TO HAVE THE LICENSE NUMBER DISPLAYED ON THE OPENING PAGE OF THE ADVERTISEMENT OF MY LISTING ONLINE. 
          I HAVE A SAFETY CONCERN. 
          WE HAVE THE LICENSE NUMBER INSIDE THE WEBSITE SO THAT WHEN YOU BOOK OUR ROOM, YOU THEN SEE THE LICENSE NUMBER. 
          BUT PUTTING IT PUBLICLY FACING LIKE THAT CAUSES ME A CONCERN, UM, FOR PEOPLE TO COME BY THE HOUSE BEFORE THEY'VE EVEN BOOKED IT TO LOOK TO SHOW UP ON THE DOORSTEP AND SAY THEY WANT TO LOOK AT IT, THE LOCAL CONTACT RESPONDING WITHIN TWO HOURS. 
          I ADDRESSED THIS LAST WEEK. 
          I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE IN THERE FOR BEING PRESENT ON SITE WITHIN TWO HOURS. 
          NOTICE I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH RESPONDING, REQUIRING THE OWNER TO RESPOND TO AN EMERGENCY CONDITION WITHIN TWO HOURS. 
          UH, 'CAUSE THAT CAN BE HANDLED BY THE PHONE. 
          BUT REQUIRING SOMEBODY WHO MIGHT BE OUT OF TOWN MORE THAN TWO HOURS AWAY TO BE PRESENT, THERE SHOULD BE SOME SORT OF JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE. 
          FINALLY, UH, AND I ADDRESSED THIS ALSO LAST WEEK, BUT I'LL BRING IT UP AGAIN. 
          THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE OPERATOR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GUEST AND ENSURING THAT THEY COMPLY WITH ALL STATE, LOCAL, AND FEDERAL LAWS IS WAY OVERBROAD. 
          UM, I, SO I WOULD ASK THAT THAT BE ADDRESSED. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS JENNY GRAYSON. 
          JENNY, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          UH, JENNY GRAYSON FROM MCKINLEY HEIGHTS. 
          I AGREE THAT SHORT TERM RENTALS NEED MORE REGULATION. 
          I AGREE WITH EMERGENCY CONTACTS, LICENSES, TAXES, INSURANCE, ALL OF THAT. 
          A 2019 MEMO ASKED THE CITY MANAGER TO TACKLE UNREGISTERED SHORT-TERM RENTALS. 
          SO I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE 2019 LANDSCAPE. 
          COMPARING THEN TO TODAY, WE'RE ALLOCATING ONLY SIX MORE PERCENT BUDGET DOLLARS TO CODE ENFORCEMENT. 
          THE NUMBER OF FULL-TIME CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS HAS DECREASED BY 60%. 
          NUMBER OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS HAS INCREASED BY 97%. 
          NUMBER OF REGISTERED SHORT-TERM RENTALS HAS STAYED THE SAME AT ONLY 2000, AND THE COST OF A TWO BEDROOM APARTMENT HAS INCREASED BY 46%. 
          THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT'S AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT REFERENCES THE PRINCETON STUDY SHOWING AUSTIN RENTAL PRICES INCREASED BY 5% PER 1% INCREASE IN SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNITS. 
          AND WE'VE SEEN THIS FOLD UNFOLD IN REAL LIFE. 
          WE SPENT SO MUCH TIME TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABILITY AND THE HOUSING CRISIS. 
          IF WE'RE IN A HOUSING CRISIS, WHAT WE SHOULD NOT TAKE UNITS OFF THE MARKET BY ALLOWING THEM TO BE SHORT-TERM RENTALS. 
          WE JUST PASSED HOME ONE AND HOME TWO, TO ENSURE AFFORDABILITY AND TO INCREASE THE HOUSING SUPPLY. 
          THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH THE GOALS OF HOME ONE AND HOME TWO, IF IT PASSES AS WRITTEN, ENFORCEABILITY IS ANOTHER ISSUE. 
          HOW ARE WE GOING TO ENFORCE THESE NEW RULES WHEN WE CAN'T CURRENTLY ENFORCE WHAT WE HAVE TODAY? NEARLY 13,000 SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE UNREGULATED. 
          MANY CLAIM HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT OWNER OCCUPIED, AND USUALLY THE OWNER DOESN'T EVEN LIVE IN STATE. 
          FURTHERMORE, VIOLENT CRIMES CAN AND DO TAKE PLACE AT SHORT-TERM RENTALS, YET WE'RE STILL ALLOWED. 
          YET THEY ARE STILL ALLOWED TO OPERATE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS OR STAFF TO ENFORCE THE RULES. 
          WE CAN WRITE AS MANY RULES AS WE WANT, BUT WE CAN'T ENFORCE THEM IF WE DON'T HAVE THE DOLLARS OR THE PEOPLE. 
          NEIGHBORHOODS ARE NOT HOTEL DISTRICTS. 
          SOMEONE RECENTLY TOLD ME THAT WE NEED TO HIRE A LOBBYISTS TO GET OUR POINTS ACROSS IN FRONT OF CITY, BUT YOU ALL ARE OUR LOBBYISTS. 
          OUR CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE ARE OUR LOBBYISTS. 
          PLEASE LISTEN TO US. 
          IT'S RIDICULOUS THAT EXPEDIA AND VRBO WERE OPENLY PART OF CREATING THIS ORDINANCE, BUT WE WERE LEFT OUT OF THE CONVERSATION. 
          AGAIN, PLEASE LOBBY FOR US AND LISTEN TO US. 
          DO NOT PASS THIS AS WRITTEN. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JP. 
          JP, YOU WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          UH, FIRST AND FOREMOST, UM, I'D LIKE TO CALL OUT GRAYSON COX. 
          I THINK YOU DID A FANTASTIC JOB. 
          YOU NAILED, UH, THE SENTIMENT WITH RESPECT TO NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE PREVIOUS MEETING. 
          SO I I JUST WANNA GIVE YOU KUDOS ON THAT. 
          AND I THINK THAT WAS, UM, SPOT ON. 
          UM, YEAH, I, 
          [02:15:01]
AND I THINK THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY ALL HERE FOR THE SAME REASON. 
          RESIDENTS AND LICENSED SCR OWNERS WHO ARE LOOKING FOR BETTER ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNLICENSED RENTALS FOR A BETTER NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UM, AND WHILE I THINK THIS, UH, THIS EFFORT IN REGULATION IS GOOD NATURED, UM, I DO HAVE CONCERNS SPECIFICALLY, WHAT GUARANTEES DO WE HAVE ABOUT DENSITY VOLUMES AND, AND THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED, BUT WHAT GUARANTEE DO WE HAVE? AND WOULD THE HOTEL TAX CREATE MAL INCENTIVES BETWEEN THE STATE AND BUSINESSES, WHICH WOULD EFFECTIVELY RESULT IN A RUBBER STAMP OPERATION AND DILUTE THE OBJECTIVE OF THE REGULATION IN THE FIRST PLACE. 
          FURTHER, IS CODE COMPLIANCE EQUIPPED TO HANDLE THE ENFORCEMENT? ARE THEY CURRENTLY EQUIPPED TO HANDLE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT THAT WE SEE TODAY? AGAIN, I THINK THAT THIS COULD BE A FUTILE EFFORT IF WE CONTINUE TO ALLOW THIS TO ALLOW, UH, SHORT-TERM RENTALS TO OBTAIN A LICENSE EASILY. 
          IT WILL ONLY MAKE IT MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT TO, TO, UH, ENSURE THAT THE REGULATION IS FOLLOWED. 
          SO MY CONCERN IS THAT THIS WILL RESULT IN THE GROWTH OF STR, WHICH IS ALREADY AN UNIMAGINABLE TASK FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT, AND IT'LL DAMAGE THE LONG TERM GROWTH OF AUSTIN FOR SHORT, SHORT TERM RENTAL, BOTH LICENSE AND UNLICENSED GAIN. 
          AND, AND I'M GOING BACK TO, UM, MY OPENING STATEMENT ABOUT, UH, MR. COX. 
          AGAIN, I THINK THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS HAVING A SENSE OF NEIGHBORHOOD IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. 
          AND I BELIEVE THAT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE LONG TERM IS THAT THIS WILL JUST INCREASE SHORT TERM RENTALS ACROSS THE BOARD. 
          IT'LL BECOME A RUBBER STAMP OPERATION WITH A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE THAT WILL BE SUPPORTED BY THE STATE, AND IT ULTIMATELY, IT WILL JUST, UH, DIMINISH THE SENSE OF COMMUNITY THAT WE HAVE HERE IN AUSTIN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ZOU ZOU. 
          YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES, . 
          WE WILL CIRCLE BACK TOWARDS THE END. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BRAD MASSENGILL. 
          BRAD, YOU WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          HEY Y'ALL, I JUST WANNA ECHO EVERYONE'S COMMENTS. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER COX, SORRY TO SEE YOU GO. 
          THE VOICE OF REASON IS LEAVING THE ROOM. 
          UM, WE'RE NOT ALONE. 
          SDRS ARE TAKING OVER TOURIST DESTINATIONS EVERYWHERE. 
          LOCAL ENTITIES ARE PLAYING CATCH UP TO SAVE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THEM. 
          NEW ORLEANS IS SO OVERRUN WITH THEM THAT LOCAL MUSICIANS CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE THERE. 
          SOUND FAMILIAR? THEY'RE CALLING IT DISNEYLAND. 
          NEWARK BAND, NEW YORK CITY BANNED STR IN 2023. 
          SANTA MONICA PASSED. 
          STR RULES RESTRICTING ANY RENTAL OF LESS THAN 30 DAYS. 
          THERE'S A 14% TAX STRICTLY ENFORCED. 
          THE HOMEOWNER WOULD ALSO NEED A DBA. 
          THESE ACTIONS DROPPED SDRS BY 61%. 
          INCREASING HOUSING STOCK. 
          SAN FRANCISCO'S SDR PLAN REQUIRES REGISTERING, ACQUIRING A BUSINESS LICENSE, AND TO PAY HOTEL TAX PLUS PLATFORM ACCOUNTABILITY. 
          AIRBNB AND OTHERS WOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR PATRON AND, AND HOST INFRACTIONS. 
          URBAN CALIFORNIA'S SCR CONTROL EFFORTS INCLUDE NO LESS THE NO LESS THAN 30 DAY RENTALS STIPULATION AND HIRING A TECH FIRM TO MONITOR FOR RENTALS, INCLUDING LOCAL. 
          ULTIMATELY, THE LOCAL RENTS, UH, DROPPED PRICES BY 3%. 
          UM, OVER CITIES. 
          OTHER CITIES HAVE CRACKED DOWN IN SDRS AS WELL AS DALLAS, ATLANTA, LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY, IRVINE, THEIR GROWING CALLS FOR NO SDRS. 
          IN SOME PLACES, 52% OF MAUI'S AVAILABLE HOUSING IS TIED UP IN STRS. 
          PEOPLE CAN'T EVEN AFFORD TO LIVE THERE ANYMORE. 
          LOCALS. 
          UM, SO I'M, I'M JUST SAYING THAT FROM WHAT I'M READING IN OTHER CITIES, WE NEED TO NO RENTALS UNDER 30 DAYS. 
          UH, THE HOTEL TAX TO BE ENFORCED. 
          DVA REGISTRATION PLATFORM ACCOUNTABILITY AND RENTERS SHOULD BE PRIMARY OWNERS, NOT CORPORATE ENTITIES. 
          THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS ALEXIA CLERIC. 
          ALEXIA, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS 
          [02:20:01]
ALEXIA CLE AND I'M A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER WITH COMMUNITY POWERED A TX. 
          AS YOU KNOW, AUSTIN IS AT A CROSSROADS. 
          OVER THE PAST DECADE, OUR CITY HAS BECOME ONE OF THE LEAST AFFORDABLE CITIES IN THE COUNTRY AND THE MOST ECONOMICALLY SEGREGATED. 
          AND EAST AUSTIN DECADES OF REDLINING AND SYSTEMIC DISINVESTMENT HAVE LEFT COMMUNITIES VULNERABLE TO RAPID GENTRIFICATION, PUSHING OUT LONGTIME RESIDENTS, WHILE TECH BILLIONAIRES AND DEVELOPERS PROFIT FROM THE HISTORY OF EXCLUSION. 
          RECENT ZONING CHANGES SUCH AS HOME EO DB 90 CONTINUED TO DRIVE DISPLACEMENT IN THE EASTERN CRESCENT, ALLOWING FOR LUXURY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPERS TO PROFIT. 
          WHILE AFFORDABLE AFFORDABILITY REMAINS AN AFTERTHOUGHT, THESE POLICIES CLAIM TO HELP, BUT IN REALITY, THEY ACCELERATE GENTRIFICATION. 
          ITEM 17, WHICH WOULD ALLOW SHORT-TERM RENTALS ON ALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS WOULD FURTHER GENTRIFICATION. 
          AS SDR TAKES A HOME AVAILABLE FOR A FAMILY OFF THE MARKET. 
          SHORT-TERM RENTALS SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE AVAILABILITY OF LONG-TERM HOUSING IN A COMMUNITY, DRIVE UP RENT PRICES, AND DISRUPT NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER BY BRINGING IN TOURISTS INTO ALREADY VULNERABLE AREAS AND COMMUNITIES. 
          RENTALS ARE PROFITABLE FOR INVESTORS, INCENTIVIZING THEM TO PURCHASE PROPERTIES IN NEIGHBORHOODS WITH POTENTIAL FOR TOURIST DEMAND, FURTHER REDUCING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS. 
          RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE OVER 2000 LEGAL STRS IN THE CITY, AND AT LEAST SEVEN TIMES MORE THAN THAT, THAT ARE NOT LEGAL, AS SHOWN IN THE INSIDE AIRBNB DATABASE BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER TO PAY FOR FINES RATHER THAN TO PAY FOR THE PERMIT. 
          AND THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY OR STAFFING TO ENFORCE THE LICENSING AND NON DISTURBANCE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE. 
          THEREFORE, I'M ASKING FOR A REDRAFT OF THE PROPOSAL TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF FUTURE SHORT-TERM RENTALS TO PAUSE ON SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMITS, TO PRESERVE HOUSING AND TO COMMIT SUFFICIENT MONEY AND STAFFING TO ENFORCE THE LICENSING OF NON DISTURBANCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS MONICA GUZMAN. 
          MONICA, YOU WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          EXCUSE ME. 
          UH, GOOD EVENING. 
          I'M MONICA GUZMAN, POLICY DIRECTOR AT GO. 
          AUSTIN. 
          AUSTIN. 
          LAST WEEK YOU HEARD ME READ THE STATEMENT OF DISTRICT FOUR RESIDENTS. 
          TONIGHT I WANT TO TAKE YOU BACK TO THE HOME INITIATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR BOTH PHASES. 
          THERE WERE FOLKS WHO SPOKE AGAINST STR AT THOSE HEARINGS AS WELL. 
          NOVEMBER 14TH, 2023, PROHIBITING SDRS AND DENSITY BONUS UNITS, A MELWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEMBER QUOTE, PLEASE CONSIDER ADDING A SHORT-TERM RENTAL RESTRICTIONS SO NEIGHBORHOODS DON'T FEEL WITH SHORT-TERM PEOPLE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COMMUNITY BEING LOST. 
          THE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DECEMBER 7TH, 2023. 
          THEN COUNCIL MEMBER ALLISON ALTER STATED, INCREASING THE POTENTIAL FOR HIGH INCOME INVESTOR DRIVEN USE OF OUR LIMITED HOUSING STOCK DOES NOT, IN MY ESTIMATION FURTHER OUR HOUSING SUPPLY GOALS PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          APRIL 23RD, 2024, ALEXIA, WHO YOU JUST SPOKE, DATA RIGHT NOW SHOWS THAT MOST OF THE ADUS ARE JUST BUILT BY LLCS AND THEY'RE BUILDING IT TO PROFIT, BUILDING IT TO PROFIT. 
          THEY'RE BUILDING IT FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS. 
          AND AGAIN, THIS IS NOT FOR THE COMMUNITY UNQUOTE AND GOVE'S OFFICIAL POSITION. 
          WE ARE OPPOSED BECAUSE IN THE HOME INITIATIVE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE NEED FOR HOUSING APPROVING DENSITY, MOTIVES, MORE HOUSING, YET IF YOU PASS THIS, THEN YOU'RE REDUCING THE HOUSING STOCK THAT EXISTS AND THE FUTURE HOUSING STOCK IS WELL. 
          AND IN CLOSING, EVEN TONIGHT ON ITEM SIX AND SEVEN, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SPOKE ABOUT ZONING CHANGES FOR GREAT HOUSING. 
          BUT AS I SAID, IF THIS PASSES IS WRITTEN, IT WILL REDUCE THE STOCK OF SAID GREAT HOUSING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS CHRISTOPHER PAGE. 
          CHRISTOPHER, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          SO I AGREE WITH EVERYONE IN OPPOSITION TONIGHT. 
          UM, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT A COUPLE THINGS THAT ARE WRONG. 
          THE, UH, ZATARI CASE DID NOT INVALIDATE TYPE TWO, WHICH ALREADY EXPLICITLY PROHIBITS, UH, UNOCCUPIED ST BEING WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF EACH OTHER. 
          SO WHEN YOU'RE TURNING IT INTO A CONDITIONAL THOUSAND FOOT BUFFER BASED ON OWNERSHIP, WHICH FRANKLY THE CITY WILL NEVER TRACK DOWN, YOU'RE ACTUALLY ENCOURAGING THE PROLIFERATION OF STRS. 
          IT ALSO DIDN'T INVALIDATE ST UH, OBLIGATION TO PAY HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAXES. 
          THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN, UH, 
          [02:25:01]
NOT PAYING THEIR TAXES ON THE TUNE OF MAYBE 13 TO 16,000 UNITS ACROSS THE CITY MEANS THAT THEY OWE THEY OWE BACK TAXES. 
          RIGHT NOW, IF YOU WANT TO GET REVENUE FOR THE CITY, YOU DON'T GO INTO A VOLUNTARY COLLECTION AGREEMENT THAT GIVES A SAFE HARBOR OR EXCUSES BACK TAXES THAT ARE OWED TO THE CITY. 
          THE 25% CAP FOR MULTIFAMILY SITES THAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS ALSO NUTS. 
          TYPE THREE RIGHT NOW ONLY ALLOWS FOR 3%. 
          SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A 22% INCREASE IN SDR DENSITY ON MULTIFAMILY SITES. 
          I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW ANY OF THESE POLICIES ARE COMING BEFORE YOU WRITTEN BASICALLY BY, BY VRBO AND AIRBNB, THREE POINT PARTNERS, PARTIALLY MAYBE INFORMED BY THE TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS POLICY IS COMING BEFORE YOU AND YOU'RE EVEN CONSIDERING PASSING IT AFTER ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS LAST YEAR ABOUT THE NEED TO INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          WHEN YOU ALLOW THE PROLIFERATION OF STRS, YOU ARE GOING TO SEE THE TRANSFORMATION OF LONG-TERM RENTAL INTO SHORT-TERM RENTAL BECAUSE IT'S LESS RISKY, IT'S MORE PROFITABLE, AND IT'S EASIER TO FLIP WHEN SOMEONE WANTS TO COME IN AND BUY THE BLOCK. 
          UM, BEYOND THIS, YOU ARE GOING AGAINST THE POLICY DIRECTION OF ALMOST EVERY MAJOR CITY IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AND OUTSIDE OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, INCLUDING FORT WORTH, HOUSTON, DALLAS, SAN ANTONIO, GALVESTON, CORPUS CHRISTI, ARLINGTON PLANO, EL PASO, LUBBOCK, NEW ORLEANS, LOS ANGELES, NEW YORK, JERSEY CITY, BOULDER, DENVER, HONOLULU, AND MINNEAPOLIS. 
          EXPLAIN TO ME FINAL THOUGHTS WHY YOU ARE CONSIDERING THIS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS DE DE BLUE MEN. 
          DEBORAH, YOU WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          HI, DEBORAH BLUMAN TRITT HERE, LONGTIME RESIDENT OF AUSTIN. 
          A GOAL THAT YOU HAVE IS TO PROMOTE, PROMOTE RESPONSIBLE OWNERSHIP. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          UH, YOU WANT TO KEEP QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THOSE WHO LIVE IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS PRESERVED. 
          SO MY GOAL TODAY IS TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THAT RESIDENTS DESERVE AND NEED A SINGLE CITY PHONE NUMBER TO CALL THAT WILL BE ANSWERED TWENTY FOUR SEVEN THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE DAYS A YEAR. 
          THE CALL SHOULD BE ANSWERED BY A STAFF PERSON WHO HAS THE TRAINING AND RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MOTELS, HOTELS. 
          AND I'M, I'M GLAD THEY ARE BEING RECOGNIZED AS ACTUAL BUSINESSES. 
          WE LIVE A COUPLE MILES FROM THE DOMAIN IN A SMALL HOUSE. 
          ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE ABOUT 1,450 SQUARE FEET. 
          COUPLE YEARS AGO, UM, THE HOUSE TWO DOORS DOWN WAS BOUGHT BY AN INVESTOR. 
          HE LIVES IN HOUSTON. 
          AND, AND HE HIRED A MANAGER, AN EXPERIENCED MANAGER WHO LIVES IN AUSTIN. 
          HE EVEN LICENSED HIS STR. 
          WE WERE GIVEN A PHONE NUMBER BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO CALL. 
          IF WE NEED ANYTHING, GUESS WHAT? NOBODY ANSWERS THE NUMBER. 
          OKAY? SO TOO MANY TIMES TO COUNT. 
          WE HAVE, WE AND THE NEIGHBORS HAVE CALLED 3 1 1, SOMETIMES 9 1 1. 
          WE'VE MADE REPORTS. 
          WE'VE SENT NUMBER, YOU KNOW, PHOTOS, WE'VE DONE THE WHOLE NINE YARDS. 
          WE'RE EXHAUSTED. 
          IT'S TRASH, PARKING PROBLEMS, AND MOSTLY NOISE. 
          PEOPLE PULL UP IN THEIR CARS, OPEN THEIR DOORS, THEIR STEREOS ARE GOING ALL HOURS OF THE DAY AT NIGHT WHILE THEY OFFLOAD, THEY'RE LIVING IT UP. 
          YOU HEAR THE STORIES. 
          I'M AMAZED. 
          I'M AMAZED AT WHAT PEOPLE HAVE TO LIVE THROUGH. 
          SO FOR TWO YEARS, WE'VE GOTTEN NO HELP. 
          SO AFTER ONE PARTICULARLY BAD WEEKEND, I ENDED UP IN THE ER, THE DIAGNOSIS WAS EXHAUSTION, LACK OF SLEEP, AND YOU CAN JUST, I WON'T EVEN TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED THAT WILD WEEKEND, BUT WE GOT NO HELP. 
          IT WAS OVER $2,000 I HAD TO PAY. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS BRUCE BLUE MENIN. 
          BRUCE, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          THANK YOU, BRUCE. 
          BLOOM AND TRITT, UH, DIRECTOR WORD MENTIONED THAT THERE'S ABOUT 2200 LICENSED AIRBNBS IN AUSTIN. 
          I'M ON INSIDE AIRBNB.COM. 
          THERE'S ONE THOU, UH, 12,614 ENTIRE HOMES THAT ARE, THAT ARE ST HERE IN AUSTIN, MINUS HIS 2200. 
          THAT'S 10,400 ENTIRE HOMES THAT ARE BEING USED FOR ST. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          THERE'S YOUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK RIGHT THERE. 
          12,200, I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY. 
          10,200 
          [02:30:01]
HOMES TAKEN OFF THE MARKET. 
          THE HOUSE TWO DOORS DOWN. 
          I CALL IT THE AUSTIN FC CONVENTION CENTER BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT'S BEING USED FOR. 
          IT'S A 1500 SQUARE FOOT, THREE BEDROOM HOUSE THAT HAS ONE, WHAT IS IT? 30 40 GALLON TRASH CAN. 
          YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW MUCH TRASH. 
          EIGHT PEOPLE A NIGHT, FIVE, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK PRODUCE A PARTY HOUSE. 
          THEY FILL IT TO OVERFLOWING. 
          THEY TAKE THE TWO RECYCLING BINS, FILL THEM TO OVERFLOWING WITH TRASH. 
          THEY TAKE THE COMPOST BIN, FILL IT TO OVERFLOWING WITH TRASH, AND THEY HAVE BAGS. 
          THERE'S JUST TRASH EVERYWHERE. 
          RECYCLING PICKS UP ONCE EVERY TWO WEEKS. 
          THEY DON'T EVEN PICK UP THAT TRASH. 
          SO IT JUST PILES UP AND PILES UP AND PILES UP ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE. 
          IT'S RIDICULOUS. 
          I TALKED TO THE RECYCLING PEOPLE. 
          YOU KNOW, THESE ARE FULL OF TRASH, NOT RECYCLING. 
          THEY SAY, YEAH, WE KNOW, BUT WE HAVE TO PICK IT UP. 
          ANYWAY, IT'S, IT'S RIDICULOUS. 
          I'M AGAINST THIS BECAUSE OF THE ENFORCEMENT. 
          I DON'T HAVE ANYONE TO CALL AT TWO O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING AT MIDNIGHT AT 11 AT THREE IN ONE, SOME CASES, FOUR, FIVE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING WHEN THEY'RE JUST BLASTING. 
          THERE'S DRUNK PEOPLE OUT THERE PARTYING IN THE STREET, BLASTING THEIR CARS, STREET RACING DOWN. 
          I'VE GOT IT ALL ON VIDEO TOO, BY THE WAY. 
          CITY CODE CANNOT COME OUT TO ENFORCE IT IN 3 1 1 AND 9 1 1 WILL NOT. 
          WE NEED HELP. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS CELINE RENDON. 
          CELINE, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, I'LL TAKE MY, UH, CELINE RENDON. 
          UH, I LIVE IN DISTRICT EIGHT AND I'M A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER WITH COMMUNITY POWERED A TX. 
          UM, WE'RE TIRED OF SEEING ZONING CHANGES ONLY BENEFIT RICH DEVELOPERS REAL ESTATE INTERESTS OR AFFLUENT INVESTORS, WHILE DISPLACING LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES OF COLOR IN THE EASTERN CRESCENT. 
          ITEM 17 WOULD ONLY ALLOW SHORT-TERM RENTALS ON ALL ZONING DISTRICTS AND DEREGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS LIKE THIS WOULD ONLY SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE LONG-TERM HOUSING AVAILABILITY AND DRIVE UP RENT PRICES LEADING TO ACCELERATED DISPLACEMENT AND GENTRIFICATION OF LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS WHO ARE ALREADY BARELY MAKING IT. 
          UM, JUST TALKING TO ONE OF THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY SPEAKING AT THE CDC COMMISSION RIGHT NOW, MEDINA MARTINEZ WAS LIVING IN THE EAST SIDE ONLY TO THEN BE DISPLACED WHEN HER LANDLORD DECIDED TO PROFIT MORE AND TURN HER HOUSE INTO A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. 
          AND HER AND HER FAMILY WAS THEN DISPLACED TO SOUTH AUSTIN. 
          THERE ARE SO MANY STORIES LIKE THIS. 
          THERE ARE TONS OF HOMES THAT ARE VACANT SHORT-TERM RENTALS, OR OWNED BY FOLKS WHO DON'T EVEN LIVE IN AUSTIN. 
          OUT OF ALL OF THE CITY ZIP CODES 7 8 7 0 2 HAS THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION OF OVER 1,800 AIRBNBS. 
          WE SEE THESE SAME PATTERNS IN PLACES LIKE NEW ORLEANS WHERE INVESTORS COME IN, THEY BUY UP THE SUBSIDIZED HOUSING STOCK AND TURN IT INTO A PROFIT SHORT-TERM RENTAL. 
          SO WHAT ARE WE DOING TO TRULY PRODUCE AND PRESERVE TRULY AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY? PLEASE REDRAFT THE PROPOSAL TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF FUTURE ST TO PAUSE ON STR PERMITS AND TO PRESERVE HOUSING AND COMMIT TO SUFFICIENT MONEY AND STAFFING TO ENFORCE THE LICENSING AND NON DISTURBANCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OR ORDINANCE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS SHANE JOHNSON. 
          SHANE, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSION. 
          UM, SHANE JOHNSONIAN PRONOUNS D SEVEN. 
          UM, YEAH, SO I WANNA EMPHASIZE HOW, UH, IN 2021, OVER ONE THIRD OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN AUSTIN, UH, AND 41% IN TRAVIS COUNTY WERE BROUGHT UP BY PRIVATE INVESTORS. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, FLIPPED FOR, UH, EITHER INVESTMENTS OR TURNED INTO STR, UH, OF, YOU KNOW, TOTAL HOME SALES THAT YEAR. 
          ON AVERAGE, PRIVATE INVESTORS WERE BUYING AT 20 CENT, 20% ABOVE ASKING PRICE AN ELEMENT THAT IS DRIVING, UM, UH, INCREASE IN THE PROPERTY APPRAISALS AND THUS PROPERTY TAXES AND FURTHER DRIVES DISPLACEMENT FOR ANYONE WHO CAN'T AFFORD THE INCREASE IN TAXES OR, UH, CAN'T AFFORD WHEN IT'S PASSED ON INTO THEIR RENT. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, AUSTIN ALREADY HAS A PROBLEM WITH TOO MANY STR EVERY, YOU KNOW, ALMOST EVERY SINGLE PERSON BEFORE ME HAS POINTED THAT OUT. 
          UM, 
          [02:35:01]
AND SO EXPANDING THEIR USE OR MAKING IT EASIER TO, TO HAVE THEM AROUND THE CITY IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS GONNA HELP THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN. 
          IN REALITY, IT WILL ADD TO GENTRIFICATION. 
          DISPLACEMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF HAVE SAID THEMSELVES THAT MANY STR OWNERS WOULD RATHER PAY THE A $10,000 FINE THAN GET THEIR PER A PERMIT AND BE, UH, YOU KNOW, OFFICIALLY ALLOWED. 
          COMPANIES OR INDIVIDUALS WHO OWN NUMEROUS UNLICENSED ST SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO HAVE FUTURE, UH, PERMITS OR BE GRANDFATHERED IN. 
          AND WE SHOULDN'T BE TREATING, YOU KNOW, LARGE COMPANIES OR WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS WITH NUMEROUS, UH, STR UH, BETTER THAN INDIVIDUALS WHO OWN ONE OR TWO. 
          UH, AND LIKE SO MANY PEOPLE BEFORE ME HAVE SAID, UH, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH RE ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES, UH, IN, IN REALITY, IT'S WORSE THAN THAT. 
          THERE ISN'T REAL ENFORCEMENT WHEN A PERSON WITH AN UNLICENSED SCR CAN SIMPLY SHUT THE DOOR ON AN ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL AND NOTHING COMES OF IT AS A RESULT. 
          UM, SO WE NEED TO OPPOSE THE CURRENT S STR R AMENDMENT AS WRITTEN. 
          WE NEED TO REDRAFT THAT. 
          UH, WE, WE SHOULD REALLY HAVE A MORATORIUM ON NEW S STRS. 
          UM, PUT MAURICES TOWARDS ENFORCEMENT AND WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION IS OVER BEFORE PASSING THIS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS EDWIN ESCAMIA. 
          EDWIN, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          HELLO, MY NAME IS EDWIN JARIUS. 
          CAMILLA FLORES, PRESIDENT OF STUDENT GOVERNMENT AT AUSTIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE. 
          I'M, I'D LIKE TO OFFER SOME INSIGHT ON THOSE I REPRESENT AND A WAY TO POTENTIALLY CREATE AND PROMOTE POLICY THAT CAN REFLECT THOSE OF OUR COMMUNITY AS A STUDENT LEADER FOR TWO YEARS OF SEEING FIRSTHAND THE HOUSING CRISIS STUDENT FACE, MANY A CC STUDENTS, ESPECIALLY NON-TRADITIONAL STUDENTS, BUT JUST A LARGE SECTION OF A POPULATION STRUGGLE TO AFFORD RENT WHILE BALANCING CLASSES AND WORK, SOME EVEN LOSE THEIR HOMES, FORCED INTO UNCERTAINTY BECAUSE THEY SIMPLY CAN'T KEEP UP WITH THE RISING COST. 
          AND SHORT TERM RENTAL DEREGULATION WON'T SOLVE THIS CRISIS. 
          AND I'VE SAID THIS SO MANY TIMES, IT'LL MAKE IT WORSE. 
          IT CAN COST A REDUCTION OF LONG-TERM RENTAL AVAILABILITY, WHICH WILL INCREASE THE COMPETITION FOR THAT HOUSING THAT WILL ALSO FURTHER WORSEN THEIR ECONOMIC CONDITIONS BY DRIVING UP RENT AND DISPLACING WORKING CLASS STUDENTS AND RESIDENTS WHO ARE SIMPLY LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO LIVE. 
          AND THIS CONSEQUENCES OBVIOUS, JUST LIKE THE OTHER COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE HEARD TONIGHT FROM OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS, INSTEAD OF PRIORITIZING PROFIT, HE MUST FOCUS ON A, ON BUILDING AND OFFERING HOUSING FOR THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN, NOT JUST FOR VISITORS OR THOSE WHO WANT TO PARTY. 
          AS A LEADER IN MY COLLEGE, I URGE THE COMMISSION TO ACTIVELY ENGAGE WITH AUSTIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE TO ENSURE SONY AND HOUSING POLICIES REFLECT THE NEEDS OF STUDENTS AND THE WORKING CLASS RESIDENTS IN OUR DISTRICT, WHOM I TRUE STUDENT GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION ALWAYS MAKE SURE ARE TAKEN CARE OF. 
          AND YEAH, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          JUST GONNA CIRCLE BACK TO THOSE THAT MAY HAVE NOT HAVE GOTTEN TO SPEAK DURING THEIR TIME. 
          RUBY, SHE WAS REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN FAVOR. 
          RUBY, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES IF YOU'RE PRESENT MOVING FORWARD. 
          ZOU WAS REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION. 
          ZOU, YOU WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES IF YOU ARE PRESENT. 
          SEEING NONE, CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANKS SO MUCH. 
          REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS ON THIS. 
          I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          SEE MOTION BY VICE CHAIR, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HANEY. 
          UM, UNLESS THERE'S OPPOSITION, THAT MOTION PASSES. 
          ALRIGHT, SO, UM, OUR RULES FOR CODE AMENDMENTS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. 
          JUST A REMINDER, WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW EACH COMMISSIONER TO ASK A QUESTION. 
          UM, I'LL JUST GO, NOT TO PUT ANYBODY ON THE HOTSPOT, BUT I'LL GO IN ORDER SO I CAN MAKE SURE TO TRACK, UM, OUR Q AND A. 
          SO, MR. HANNEY, I'LL LET YOU START. 
          OH, WONDERFUL. 
          UM, SO I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTIONS ARE ACTUALLY FOR STAFF. 
          UM, SO I, I WAS IN COMMUNICATION WITH AN EDUCATOR WHO HAS A DUPLEX, STR, UM, HERE IN, IN IN TOWN. 
          AND, AND THAT PERSON WAS SAYING THAT THAT'S BASICALLY THE, THEIR STR INCOME FROM THE HALF THAT THEY RENT OUT IS, IS KIND OF THE REASON THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO AFFORD TO LIVE IN AUSTIN. 
          UM, I KNOW COMMISSIONER MAXWELL KNOWS FOR SURE THAT WE DON'T PAY OUR EDUCATORS ENOUGH HERE AT A ISD FOR STATE REASONS. 
          UM, BUT THIS PERSON ASKED IF THERE WAS A WAY THAT, UM, WE COULD ALLOW THEM TO RENT OUT THE PART THAT THEY DO OCCUPY FOR A WEEK OR TWO A YEAR. 
          [02:40:01]
UM, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BECAUSE OF THE COURT CASES, BECAUSE IT'S SORT OF LIKE AN OWNER OCCUPIED ISSUE OR, OR IF THAT'S EVEN SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE FEASIBLE. 
          SO UNDER THE COURT DECISIONS, WE CAN'T FAVOR OWNER OCCUPIED VERSUS NON-OWNER OCCUPIED. 
          HOWEVER, USING YOUR EXAMPLE, JUST FOR CLARITY, THAT INDIVIDUAL WOULD GET TO KEEP USING THEIR OTHER SIDE AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL. 
          THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THAT. 
          RIGHT. 
          IT DOESN'T IMPOSE THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS, IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANY OF THAT. 
          THEY CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS LONG AS THEY MAINTAIN THEIR LICENSE. 
          A GOOD STANDING MEANING THEY RE RENEW TIMELY AND ALL OF THAT, THEY'RE IN GOOD SHAPE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          UM, ANOTHER QUESTION. 
          IS THERE A REASON THAT WE DON'T, OR THAT WE'RE, THAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD NOT, UH, HAVE THE PLATFORMS VALIDATE THE LICENSE? IS THAT, IS THAT JUST A TECHNOLOGICAL LIMITATION OR WHAT, WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS THE REASONING THERE? SO PLA PLATFORMS, WHEN THEY'RE ON THE WEB, THEY'RE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LAW AND THERE ARE SOME FEDERAL LAWS THAT WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND SO THIS ENSURES THAT WE ARE, UM, WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED WE FEEL LIKE, UH, KEEPS US IN THE RIGHT SPACE AS IT RELATES TO THOSE FEDERAL LAWS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, A SORT OF A DIFFERENT WAY OF GETTING AT THE SAME THING. 
          COULD WE REQUIRE THAT LISTINGS SHOW THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOME WITH A HOUSE NUMBER ON IT? I MEAN, BECAUSE IT, IT JUST SEEMS VERY MUCH LIKE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE ALL THESE, I MEAN, I, I, I THINK I READ IN THE, IN THE, IN THE BACKUP THAT A LOT OF THE NEW LISTINGS ARE JUST SHOWING INTERIOR PICTURES. 
          SO THERE'S NO WAY THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY SEE, YOU KNOW, WHERE IS THIS UNLICENSED STR, WE WOULD HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT, UM, BECAUSE IT, THAT WOULD BE AN OBLIGATION WE WOULD PUT ON HOSTS, NOT THE PLATFORMS. GOT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND THEN, UH, ANOTHER ITEM I I, I SEE WE'VE GOT A $500 PENALTY IN, IN THERE, UM, WHICH FOR CERTAIN STR MIGHT BE A LOT OF MONEY FOR A LOT OF OTHER ST YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT NEAR THEIR ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF CONTINUING TO OPERATE ON LICENSED. 
          IS THERE MAYBE SOME CONSIDERATION WHERE WE COULD HAVE THEM DISGORGE SOME OF THEIR PROFITS OR HAVE AN ECONOMIC PENALTY THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE COMMENSURATE WITH WHAT, BASICALLY TO MAKE IT HURT A LITTLE MORE? UNFORTUNATELY, STATE LAW ESTABLISHES THE MAXIMUM FINE AT $500. 
          BUT THAT IS WHERE THE DEAL LIST NOTICE PROCESS THAT WE, THAT DANIEL DISCUSSED, UM, COMES INTO PLAY. 
          BECAUSE THAT IF, IF, IF YOU'RE NOT ON THE WEB, YOU MAY NOT HAVE AS MANY, UM, RESERVATIONS. 
          I, I WOULD EXPECT THAT THAT IS EXACTLY CORRECT. 
          UM, AND LET'S SEE ONE OTHER, LOOKING AT MY NOTES HERE, UM, AND I KNOW WE DON'T, WE DON'T GENERALLY LIKE OCCUPANCY LIMITS, BUT COULD WE DO AN OCCUPANCY LIMIT FOR AN STR SPECIFICALLY OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS ALSO VERBOTEN BY THE COURT CASES? . 
          I SEE, I SEE YOU SMILING. 
          SO I GUESS IT'S, YES, THAT, THAT WAS AN ISSUE IN OUR ZARI LITIGATION WAS THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS WE, UM, ESTABLISHED SOLELY FOR STR. 
          GOT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO OUR MINIMUM OCCUPANCY THAT ANY HOUSE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THIS IS GETTING TOO CUTE, BUT, UH, FOR THE PHONE NUMBER THAT, UH, THE APPLICANTS WOULD HAVE TO LIST, UM, COULD WE IN THEORY MAKE THAT THE PHONE NUMBER OF THE NATURAL PERSON WHO OWNS THE STR, THE MOBILE PHONE NUMBER OF THE PERSON WHO OWNS THE STR? SO THE, BOTH THE CURRENT ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE TODAY, PLUS THE PROPOSAL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT, BOTH REQUIRE LOCAL CONTACT, RIGHT. 
          THAT RESIDES IN THE AUSTIN METRO AREA. 
          UM, THE, THE OWNER CAN BE A LOCAL CONTACT IF THEY CHOOSE TO BE, OR THEY CAN HIRE A PROPERTY MANAGER. 
          UM, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE REALLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO TELL THEM WHO CAN ACT ON THEIR BEHALF. 
          MADAM CHAIR, CAN I CONTINUE FOR JUST ONE FOLLOW UP? UH, HOW ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, LET'S, LET'S 
          [02:45:01]
GO THROUGH, YEAH, LET'S GO THROUGH. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT ASK IT. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UM, YES. 
          AND FIRST OF ALL, THANKS TO STAFF FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS. 
          I KNOW IT'S BEEN A COMPLEX, UM, THING TO BRING TOGETHER. 
          SO A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. 
          WE HAD SOME, UM, CONCERNS RELATED TO THE INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH I BELIEVE SOME OF THE PLATFORMS ALSO, IF YOU GUYS COULD SPEAK TO THAT AND HOW YOU EXPECT THAT TO BE AND, AND SORT OF WHY THE REQUIREMENTS WERE CHANGED AND HOW THE, THE PLATFORMS MIGHT ALSO BE REQUIRING INSURANCE AND IF THAT WAS, UM, A CONSIDERATION AS YOU PUT THIS TOGETHER. 
          SURE. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE GOAL OF BRINGING THIS PROPOSAL FORWARD TO IS, IS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE STR OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION. 
          AND WE FEEL LIKE A RESPONSIBLE OWNER WOULD HAVE LIABILITY INSURANCE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AROUND AT THIS INDUSTRY MARKET, WHATEVER THE RIGHT TERM IS, IT LOOKS LIKE A MILLION DOLLARS SEEMS TO BE KIND OF AN ACCEPTED ESTABLISHED LEVEL OF INSURANCE. 
          AND YES, THE MAJOR PLATFORMS DO PROVIDE THAT INSURANCE COVERAGE ON BEHALF OF HOSTS ALREADY. 
          UM, WE WOULD ACCEPT THAT AS COMPLIANT WITH OUR ORDINANCE. 
          UM, GREAT. 
          AND THEN I THINK THE, RELATED TO THAT, WE'VE HEARD SOME CONCERNS AROUND THE TWO HOUR RULE, UM, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE EMERGENCIES. 
          AND OBVIOUSLY IF SOMEBODY IS TRAVELING AND THEN SOMEONE'S IN THEIR STR, THAT THAT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT TO COMPLY WITH AND THAT THAT WOULD BE A POTENTIALLY REVOCABLE OFFENSE. 
          AND I GUESS I'M CURIOUS IF YOU ALL CONSIDER SOMETHING LIKE A THREE STRIKES RULE OR LIKE JUST MAKING SURE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE SDR OWNERS FOR SOME REASON WERE NOT ABLE TO RETURN OR ADDRESS A CALL WITHIN TWO HOURS THAT THEN MIGHT HAVE THIS PARTICULAR REVENUE STREAM THAT THEY RELY ON REVOKED SORT OF HOW YOU ALL THOUGHT THROUGH THE PENALTIES RELATED TO NOT RESPONDING TO THE TWO HOUR RULE. 
          SO AGAIN, THE CURRENT ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT LOCAL CONTACT, BUT THERE'S NOT REALLY A CONSEQUENCE BEHIND NOT RESPONDING. 
          UM, WE'RE CHANGING OR WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE THAT IN THIS DRAFT ORDINANCE. 
          SO THERE IS A CONSEQUENCE, UM, LIKE PART OF BEING A RESPONSIBLE SDR OPERATOR IS BEING AVAILABLE TO YOUR PROPERTY AND TO YOUR GUESTS. 
          UM, AND FRANKLY TO THE NEIGHBORS INTO THE CITY. 
          UM, WHEN THINGS AREN'T OPERATING WELL, I MEAN, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT A HOTEL OPERATION, THEY GENERALLY HAVE 24 7 STAFF ON SITE. 
          UM, SO WE THINK A COMPROMISED POSITION IS ALLOWING AN SDR OPERATOR TWO HOURS TO RESPOND. 
          UM, IN TERMS OF IT, IT WOULD BE A REVOCABLE OFFENSE. 
          UM, THE DIRECTOR WOULD STILL HAVE SOME DISCRETION AROUND THAT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD LOOK AT KIND OF THE TOTALITY OF THE SITUATION. 
          WHAT WAS THE SEVERITY OF THE SITUATION? HAVE THERE BEEN OTHER ISSUES THAT THE PROPERTY WE'RE AWARE OF? I THINK ALL OF THAT WOULD WEIGH IN, IN TERMS OF A DECISION WHETHER TO REVOKE OR NOT. 
          BUT WE WANT TO PUT SOME TEETH BEHIND THAT TWO HOUR REQUIREMENT SO THAT IT REALLY MEANS SOMETHING. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          AND THEN I THINK WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF CONCERNS ARE RELATED TO ENFORCEMENT AND SORT OF ADDRESSING ISSUES WITH THESE STR AS WE SEE THEM POTENTIALLY BEHAVE BADLY OR HAVE BADLY PAVED GUESTS, I SHOULD SAY. 
          SO I'M CURIOUS IF THERE WAS A CONSIDERATION OF ADDING SOME ADDITIONAL STAFF RELATED TO CO CODE ENFORCEMENT OR HOW THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED. 
          OBVIOUSLY THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY PART OF THE ORDINANCE WON'T BE, BUT IF THAT HAS BEEN PART OF THE DISCUSSION AS WE CHANGE HOW WE DO STR, WOULD WE ALSO BE ABLE TO INCREASE ENFORCEMENT LEVELS? SO WITH THIS DRAFT PROPOSAL, ONE, I THINK ONE OF THE BIG TOOLS THAT WE'D BE EQUIPPED WITH IS THAT D-LIST. 
          NOTICE IF WE'RE ABLE TO HAVE THE PLATFORMS TAKE DOWN AN ADVERTISEMENT OF A PROBLEMATIC OPERATOR, UM, I THINK THAT WILL HAVE A STRONG EFFECT, UM, IN TERMS OF OUR ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITIES. 
          UM, AND SO MOVING FORWARD, I THINK FROM A DEPARTMENT LEVEL, WE WOULD ANALYZE HOW IS THAT NEW SYSTEM WORKING? UM, ARE WE SEEING BETTER COMPLIANCE WITH OUR LICENSING? ARE WE SEEING A REDUCTION IN SOME OF THE NEGATIVE BEHAVIORS AND COMPLAINTS THAT WE RECEIVE? UM, I WOULDN'T WANT TO PREEMPTIVELY STAFF UP ONLY TO FIND OUT THAT THE NEW SYSTEM'S WORKING AMAZINGLY GREAT AND NOW WHAT? NOW I'VE GOT TOO MANY. 
          UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, ADDING STAFF, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALWAYS, THERE'S AN EXPENSE TO THAT AND I WANNA BE VERY JUDICIOUS, UH, AND ADDING STAFF WHEN WE NEED TO. 
          BUT I DON'T WANNA DO THAT WITHOUT KNOWING THAT I REALLY NEED IT, UH, FULLY UNDERSTAND. 
          AND ONE LAST QUESTION IS THAT, OBVIOUSLY WITH THE DE-LISTING IS THAT, CAN YOU SORT OF EXPLAIN HOW IS THAT FOR SPECIFIC PLATFORMS? BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO THE POINT THAT PEOPLE USE FOLKS, FOLKS USE THINGS LIKE, UM, FACEBOOK MARKETPLACE OR INSTAGRAM, THINGS THAT ARE NOT, WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY TRADITIONALLY THINK OF AS LISTING PLATFORMS FOR THESE. 
          SO HOW WOULD THE DELISTING NOTIFICATION WORK FOR THOSE SORT OF NON-TRADITIONAL, UM, PLACES WHERE YOU MIGHT FIND AN AIRBNB OR SIMILAR? 
          [02:50:04]
I THINK, I MEAN, RECOGNIZING THAT THERE ARE WAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE CAN LIST THEIR PROPERTIES OUTSIDE KIND OF THE MAJOR PLATFORMS. BUT I THINK ONE, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE FOR AN OPERATOR TO MAINTAIN SUFFICIENT BUSINESS THROUGH THOSE ALTERNATIVE MEANS, UM, THAT WOULD MAYBE OUTSIDE THE REACH OF WHAT OUR D LIST NOTICE COULD HANDLE. 
          UM, SO I, I THINK THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS, I, I THINK, I THINK BEING ABLE TO TARGET THE ADVERTISEMENTS ON THE PLAT ON THE MAIN PLATFORMS WILL HAVE A A, I THINK THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TRAFFIC GOES THROUGH THOSE LARGE PLATFORMS. AND SO THESE SMALLER PLATFORMS, WE WOULD STILL, YOU KNOW, WE STILL HAVE NOTHING IN THIS DRAFT PROPOSAL TAKES AWAY OUR CURRENT ENFORCEMENT TOOLS EITHER. 
          UM, AND SO WE, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE TO GO AFTER THOSE OPERATORS THAT ARE USING OTHER MEANS TO ADVERTISE, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO IT. 
          IT'S MAYBE LESS EFFICIENT AND MORE CHALLENGING, BUT IF WE CAN GET TO A PLACE WHERE WE'RE MORE COMPLIANT ON OUR LICENSING SCHEME, OUR STAFF MIGHT BE FREED UP TO FOCUS MORE ON THOSE TYPES OF ISSUES. 
          RIGHT NOW WE DO A LOT OF LICENSE CHASING. 
          UM, AND SO IF WE CAN GET TO A PLACE WHERE THAT'S NOT THE MAIN ISSUE ANYMORE, UM, WE MAY BE ABLE TO FREED UP TO PURSUE THOSE TYPES OF PROPERTIES. 
          VICE CHAIR, THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          UM, THANK YOU STAFF. 
          A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS, I'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH THEM AS FAST. 
          UM, FIRST ONE IS, AM AM I READING THE ORDINANCE CORRECTLY THAT ESSENTIALLY A RENTER WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BECOME AN OPERATOR OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL? CORRECT. 
          THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WOULD BE, IS THE, WOULD BE THE PERSON WHO WOULD BECOME THE SHORT TERM RENTAL OPERATOR AND OWNER. 
          OKAY. 
          SO RENTERS WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED, UM, FOR THE, UM, FOR THE GRANDFATHERING. 
          I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. 
          SO IF SOMEONE HAS A LICENSE TODAY, ONCE WE GO INTO THE NEW, THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY A FEE. 
          THEY WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE ABLE TO GO INTO THE NEW LICENSING SYSTEM. 
          SO THEIR LICENSE WILL STAY IN EFFECT UNTIL IT EXPIRES, AS IT WOULD EXPIRE TODAY. 
          SO IF THEY HAD A, UM, A JUNE 1ST LICENSE AND IF THIS GOES INTO EFFECT BEFORE JUNE 1ST, THEY WOULD STAY IN, THEY WOULD STILL BE LICENSED ON JUNE 1ST UNDER CURRENT CODE, THEY WOULD'VE HAD TO RENEW. 
          THEY WOULD HAVE TO RENEW UNDER THIS AS WELL. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND, AND I GUESS A FOLLOW UP TO THAT IS FOLKS WHO ARE UNLICENSED TODAY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO START WITH A LICENSE IMMEDIATELY. 
          AM I UNDERSTANDING IF THEY'RE, IF THEY WOULD LIKE, IF THEY DON'T HAVE A LICENSE TODAY, YES, THEY WOULD NEED TO GET ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE A LICENSE, THEY JUST CANNOT OPERATE ANYMORE. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT IN ANY WAY INCENTIVIZING FOLKS WHO'VE HAD UNLICENSED, UM, RENTALS FOR. 
          SO THOSE FOLKS THAT ARE OPERATING TODAY WITHOUT A LICENSE ARE ALREADY VIOLATING THE ORDINANCE. 
          UM, WE PART THIS PROPOSAL WOULD AIM TO BRING THEM INTO THE LICENSING REQUIREMENT BY MEANS OF ESSENTIALLY POTENTIALLY SHUTTING THEM OUT OF THE ADVERTISING MARKET UNTIL THEY DO SO. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          UM, SO I SAW THE PENALTY, THE $500 AND IT'S SORT OF A CRUC PER DAY. 
          AM I UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY THAT THAT PENALTY IS FOR THE, FOR THE OPERATOR OR THE OWNER OF THE SDR? YEAH. 
          CORRECT. 
          IS THERE ANY PENALTY BEFORE A PLATFORM THAT MIGHT HAVE UNLICENSED FOLKS ON THEIR RIGHT? LIKE, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE GONNA ASK THEM TO SORT OF CHECK LICENSING, BUT LET'S SAY THERE'S A PLATFORM FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY HAVE UNLICENSED SDRS ON THERE, IS THERE A PENALTY FOR THE PLATFORM ITSELF FOR VIOLATING THAT LAW? SO THE OBLIGATIONS ON THE PLATFORMS ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN THAT THEIR OBLIGATIONS WILL BE ONE TO HAVE A FIELD TO PUT A LICENSE NUMBER IN AND NOT BE ABLE TO POST WITHOUT IT. 
          MM MM-HMM. 
          TWO WOULD BE TO REMIT AND COLLECT HOT, UM, THREE TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION TO, TO THE HOST OF WHAT TAXES ARE COLLECTED ON THEIR BEHALF. 
          AND THEN FOUR WOULD BE TO DO THE D-LIST NOTICE. 
          UM, THE FIFTH ONE IS NOT COLLECTING FEES FROM UNLICENSED ST BUT IF THEY'RE TAKING ALL THE STEPS THAT WE'VE ASKED THEM TO TAKE, THERE IS A SAFE HARBOR PROVISION THAT WILL ASSUME THAT THEY ARE COMPLYING BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING WHAT WE ASKED. 
          SO WHEN WE SENT YOU A D LIST, NOTICE IF YOU'RE A PLATFORM AND YOU COMPLY WITH THAT, THEN WE ARE TO US, YOU'RE DOING WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO. 
          UM, THIS MIGHT BE A SHORT QUESTION, HOPEFULLY. 
          CAN 
          [02:55:01]
WE PROHIBIT STRS? I KNOW YOU PRESENTED OUT SORT OF THE LAWSUITS AND THE VARIOUS SORT OF WAYS IN WHICH COURTS AND STATE LEDGE HAVE SEEN THIS. 
          SO WE, UH, NO, I MEAN I, I I, THAT'S THE SHORT ANSWER. 
          THERE'S MORE NUANCE TO IT, BUT DALLAS IS CURRENTLY IN LITIGATION OVER THEIR RECENT PROHIBITION IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. 
          UM, FORT WORTH IS ALSO IN LITIGATION OVER THEIR PROVISIONS. 
          NEW ORLEANS IS STILL IN LITIGATION OVER THEIR PROVISIONS. 
          UM, SO THIS, THIS IS AN EVOLVING AREA FOR US. 
          UM, AND THAT IS ONE OF THE, KIND OF THE UPSIDES OF THE WAY WE'RE TRYING TO KIND OF, UM, ADDRESS THIS NOW IS TO KIND OF SIMPLIFY IT FROM OUR ZONING STANDPOINT, BUT REALLY FOCUS ON TREATING THEM AS THE BUSINESS AS THEY ARE AND NOT THE USE ON THE GROUND, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE TYPICALLY DONE. 
          AND AM I UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, THANK YOU BY THE WAY FOR THAT ANSWER. 
          AM I UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY THAT SORT OF THE TYPE ONE SDR, WE CANNOT, WE CANNOT DO THAT DISTINCTION ANYMORE. 
          SO IF SOMEONE IS DOING AN SDR FOR PART OF THEIR HOME VERSUS THE FULL HOME, IS THERE ANY DISTINCTION? CAN WE DO THAT OR IS THERE NO WAY TO CREATE THAT DISTINCTION? SO I THINK WHAT YOU MIGHT BE SUGGESTING, UM, THERE ARE CITIES THAT HAVE A MODEL WHERE THEY REQUIRE SOMEONE TO BE AT THE PROPERTY. 
          MM-HMM . 
          WHEN IT'S BEING USED AS AN STR. 
          UM, WE HAVE CONCERNS FROM AN ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT WITH THAT. 
          UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE COULDN'T SAY THAT IT HAS TO BE OWNER OCCUPIED. 
          UM, BUT THERE ARE, LIKE I SAID, SOME CITIES THAT ARE DOING AN OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENT. 
          UM, LIKE, AND I SAY OCCUPANCY IN THE SENSE THAT SOMEBODY'S PRESENT ON SITE AND MAYBE THAT'S A BETTER WAY FOR ME TO DESCRIBE IT. 
          SOMEBODY'S PRESENT ON SITE WHILE IT'S BEING USED AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL, WE HAVE SOME ENFORCEMENT CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. 
          UM, THERE'S ALSO SOME OTHER ISSUES THAT I THINK MAY CREATE SOME UNLEVEL PLAYING FIELDS, UM, FOR US AS WELL. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          UM, MY QUESTIONS MIGHT BE A LITTLE ALL OVER THE PLACE, BUT MY FIRST ONE, AND THIS WAS A QUESTION I HAD AT THE JOINT MEETING. 
          UM, WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL THAT SAYS THERE'S SOMETHING LIKE 30 HOSTING SITES. 
          AND I KNOW THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AIRBNB AND, AND EXPEDIA, BUT ARE WE SURE THAT THE, THE 30 PLUS SITES WILL ALSO COMPLY WITH AUSTIN REGULATIONS? HOW, HOW DOES THAT WORK? SO THE REGULATION WOULD APPLY TO ANY PLATFORM. 
          UM, IT WOULDN'T, THERE, THERE WOULD BE EXEMPTIONS IF YOU'RE A SMALLER PLATFORM OR A LESS TRAFFICKED PLATFORM. 
          UM, I MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION THAT WE'RE SEEKING SOME CONTRACTS TO ASSIST US ON THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE. 
          UM, I'VE, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THEIR CAPABILITIES, THEY ARE ABLE TO SEARCH ALL OF THOSE SITES. 
          UM, SO I I, I HAVE A PRETTY DECENT CONFIDENCE THAT, THAT OUR ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITY WOULD BE ABLE TO APPLY REGARDLESS OF WHICH PLATFORM IT IS. 
          AND WOULD THOSE THIRD PARTY CONTRACTS BE IN PLACE AND READY TO GO IF THIS WERE TO MOVE FORWARD? IF COUNSEL IS TO APPROVE, ARE THEY READY TO GO ON DAY ONE? SO WE'RE CURRENTLY DEVELOPING THE SCOPE OF WORK ON THOSE AS THIS PROGRESSES AND THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PROCESS. 
          UM, IDEALLY THOSE TWO WOULD LINE UP. 
          IT MAY NOT BE A PERFECT LINEUP. 
          UM, BUT, BUT WE'RE PREPARED TO GET THOSE CONTRACTS IN PLACE AND IMPLEMENTED AS SOON AS WE'RE ABLE TO. 
          AND, AND THE FUNDING IS THERE IN THE BUDGET THIS YEAR FOR IT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THERE WAS MENTION, UM, UH, AT THIS MEETING AND THE JOINT MEETING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES AND IN THE EXAMPLE THAT WAS SHARED HERE, A SHOOTING, BUT THE LICENSE WASN'T REVOKED. 
          WHAT IS THE, THE TYPICAL PROCESS FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAPPENING? DOES THAT, LET'S SAY THEY ARE A LICENSE, IS THEIR, THEIR LICENSE AUTOMATICALLY REVOKED FOR FOREVER OR A AN AMOUNT OF TIME? UH, UNDER THE DRAFT PROPOSAL? UM, IF YOU ARE DECLARED AN, IF THE PROPERTY'S DECLARED A NUISANCE, UM, I BELIEVE THAT PROHIBIT AND I'LL, I'M GONNA LEAN ON MS LINK HERE TO LOOK A LITTLE BIT FOR ME. 
          UM, BUT I BELIEVE THERE WOULD BE A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE THAT PROPERTY IS SHUT OUT FROM ACCESS TO A LICENSE AND THERE WOULD BE AN EXCEPTION IF A NEW OWNER CAME IN, UM, PROVIDED THAT THAT NEW OWNER COULD PROVE TO US THAT THEY HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE PRIOR OWNER. 
          I BELIEVE IT'S 12 MONTHS NEW ORDINANCE 12. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THERE WAS A, A COMMENT 
          [03:00:01]
MADE ABOUT, UM, THE SAFE HARBOR. 
          UM, BUT I THINK A GOOD POINT ABOUT PAYING BACK TAXES. 
          IS THAT A POSSIBILITY TO HAVE? IF, IF THERE IS SOMEONE OPERATING ILLEGALLY AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY HAD A CHANGE OF HEART AND WANT TO OPERATE LEGALLY, IS THERE A WAY TO BRING THEM IN BUT ALSO STILL HAVE THEM PAY ALL OF THE TAXES THAT THEY, THEY WOULD OWE? SO ENFORCEMENT FOR HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX AND THE COLLECTIONS FOR HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX IS ACTUALLY HANDLED BY THE CITY CONTROLLER'S OFFICE. 
          AND SO WE'RE WORKING WITH THEM AND, YOU KNOW, AS THEY REQUEST ASSISTANCE ON ISSUES LIKE THAT, I DON'T KNOW HONESTLY HOW THAT WOULD PLAY OUT. 
          UM, 'CAUSE IT WOULD BE A LITTLE CHA IT WOULD BE CHALLENGING TO FIND OUT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN OPERATING AND NOT SAYING IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, BUT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK THROUGH WITH THEM. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION IS ABOUT, UM, WHAT, WHAT BILLS ARE CURRENTLY ON THE TABLE AT THE STATE THAT WE MAY WANNA TO KEEP AN EYE ON THAT. 
          UM, I KNOW IT, IT'S UNPREDICTABLE. 
          UNPREDICTABLE TO SEE WHAT WILL PASS OR TO KNOW WHAT WILL PASS. 
          BUT I'M CURIOUS AT THIS STAGE, WHAT DO WE KNOW IT'S BEING TALKED ABOUT AT THE SDRS AT THE STATE LEVEL? UM, WHAT WE'RE AWARE OF AT THIS MOMENT IS A HOUSE BILL 24 33, WHICH WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX COLLECTION, UM, FOR THE SHORT TERM FOR THE PLATFORMS AND SIMILAR ENTITIES, UH, GO THROUGH THE STATE. 
          IT WOULDN'T ACTUALLY BE THROUGH THE CITY ANYMORE AND THE STATE WOULD THEN SEND US THE MONEY THAT THEY COLLECT ON OUR BEHALF. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT WE KNOW OF RIGHT NOW AND THAT'S REALLY ABOUT THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX PIECE. 
          UM, BUT WE'RE OBVIOUSLY KEEPING OUR EYES, UH, PEELED AND, AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, UM, AWARE OF WHAT'S COMING IN WHEN IT COMES IN. 
          I WILL MOVE ON TO, UH, OUR FOLKS ON THE SCREEN. 
          SO COMMISSIONER COX. 
          UM, ALRIGHT. 
          UH, SO ALL MY QUESTIONS ARE GONNA BE FOR STAFF. 
          UM, EVERYTHING THAT I KEPT HEARING THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE CONVERSATION WAS ABOUT ENFORCEMENT. 
          UH, NEARLY EVERY HORROR STORY WE HEAR ABOUT SHORT TERM RENTALS AND NEIGHBORHOODS, I FEEL LIKE COULD BE, COULD BE MITIGATED THROUGH ENFORCEMENT. 
          SO MY QUESTION TO STAFF ABOUT THAT IS, WHAT IS THE COST OR THE PROPOSED COST TO GET AN STR LICENSE AND DOES THAT COST PAY FOR, UH, EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE STR REGULATIONS? SO THE LICENSE COST, UM, IS ESTABLISHED IN THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS EACH YEAR ON THE CITY APPROVED FEE SCHEDULE. 
          UM, THIS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR, IT IS SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $700. 
          UM, THAT COST IS DESIGNED AS A COST OF SERVICE ONLY FOR THE LICENSING PROCESS ITSELF. 
          UM, THE REVIEW OF THE LICENSES, THE MAINTENANCE OF THE LICENSE PROCESS, THE RENEWAL PROCESS, UM, ENFORCEMENT FROM A CODE COMPLIANCE STANDPOINT IS FUNDED THROUGH AN A VENUE CALLED THE CLEAN COMMUNITY FEE. 
          UM, WHICH PROVIDES THE CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION, UM, A BUDGET TO CARRY OUT ALL OF OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES. 
          WHETHER THAT'S, YOU KNOW, VACANT STRUCTURES, DILAPIDATED STRUCTURES, TALL WEEDS AND GRASS, STR NUISANCE RELATED ISSUES, UM, THAT THAT'S FUNDED THROUGH THAT SHOULD STR BE CONTRIBUTING TO THAT FUND DIRECTLY. 
          SO THE PROPERTIES THAT WOULD BE SHORT-TERM RENTALS WOULD BE UTILITY COUNT HOLDERS AND THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THAT FEE. 
          BUT THAT FEE IS THE SAME FOR JUST AN AVERAGE RESIDENT? CORRECT. 
          SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL THIS ENFORCEMENT THAT'S NEEDED FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS, BUT WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY HAVING THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL INDUSTRY IN AUSTIN PAY FOR ADEQUATE ENFORCEMENT. 
          THIS SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE SET UP AND THAT THE COUNCIL HAS APPROVED IS TO USE THE CLEAN COMMUNITY FEE FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT'S, I I APPRECIATE THAT'S A, THAT'S A NO . 
          UM, SO, UH, I'M CONFUSED AS TO WHY. 
          WELL, BEFORE I GET OFF THE TOPIC OF ENFORCEMENT, UM, HAS STAFF PROPOSED MORE FULL-TIME ENFORCEMENT POSITION OR HAS COUNSEL GIVEN ANY INDICATION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO APPROVE MORE FULL-TIME ENFORCEMENT POSITIONS IN THIS NEXT BUDGET? 
          [03:05:03]
SO, I MEAN, WE'RE STILL ON THE BUDGET PROCESS DEVELOPMENT, UH, DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR FY 26. 
          UM, WE DID NOT ADD POSITIONS TO THE SDR TEAM AND FY 25, UM, OKAY. 
          OR TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, RECOLLECTION IN 24 OR 23. 
          UM, OKAY, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, UH, WHY WOULD PLATFORMS NOT BE REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THE ADDRESS OF LISTINGS THAT ARE NOT LICENSED? IS YOUR, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. 
          COULD YOU REPEAT IT? WHY ARE, WHY AREN'T WE NOT REQUIRING PLATFORMS TO DISCLOSE THE PHYSICAL ADDRESS OF LISTINGS THAT ARE NOT LICENSED? SO UNDER OUR CURRENT CODE, THEY, THE OBLIGATION TO LIST YOUR LICENSE NUMBER IS SOLELY ON THE HOST GOING NO, NO, NO. 
          I'M TALKING ABOUT IF WE DISCOVER THAT THERE IS A FAKE LICENSE NUMBER BEING INPUT, UH, BECAUSE THE STR IS OPERATING ILLEGALLY, UM, WOULD THE PLATFORM BE REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THE ADDRESS OF THAT LISTING TO THE CITY FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTION? NOT UNDER WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED, BUT THERE'S NO LEGAL ISSUES WITH REQUIRING THAT I THERE. 
          THAT IS SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT SEPARATELY BECAUSE OF THE FEDERAL LAWS THAT APPLY TO A WEBSITE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, I LOVE THE NEW NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, UM, FOR STRS AND NOTIFYING THE PROPERTIES AROUND IT. 
          I'M CURIOUS WHO IS PAYING FOR THESE NOTIFICATIONS AND WHY WAS IT 100 FEET AND NOT SOMETHING LIKE 200 FEET? SO THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT IS A CARRYOVER FROM OUR CURRENT OR CURRENT ORDINANCE. 
          UM, THE ONE CHANGE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING WITH A DRAFT PROPOSAL WOULD BE THAT IT, RIGHT NOW WHEN WE ISSUE A NEW SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSE, WE NOTIFY THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET. 
          THAT IS A NOTIFICATION FEE THAT IS CHARGED TO THE STR LICENSE HOLDER UNDER THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. 
          WE WOULD ALSO REQUIRE THAT NOTIFICATION OCCUR UPON RENEWAL IF THE LOCAL CONTACT INFORMATION HAS CHANGED SINCE THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. 
          ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER, WE'LL HAVE TO MOVE ON. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          THANKS. 
          JEREMIAH. 
          FIRST QUESTION IS FOR STAFF AND THAT IS, WILL CITY IS THE IDEA THAT CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THE ENFORCEMENT AND ADDRESS VERIFICATION? I THINK YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT A THIRD PARTY CONTRACT. 
          WOULD THAT BE LIKE AN ONLINE SCRAPING AND COMPLIANCE TOOL? OH, UH, YES. 
          UH, THE THIRD PARTY CONTRACT WOULD BE AIMED, UH, TO ASSIST US IN THE ENFORCEMENT END BY HELPING US IDENTIFY THE ADDRESSES. 
          UM, AND WHICH WOULD MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT FOR US TO CARRY OUT EITHER A D-LIST NOTICE TO THE PLATFORM, UM, OR PURSUE SPECIFIC ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST THAT INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER. 
          AND SO WOULD THAT MEAN THAT EVEN IF WE DON'T HAVE COMPLIANCE FROM ALL OF THESE PLATFORMS, OF WHICH I KNOW THERE ARE MANY AIRBNB, AIRBNB AND VRBO ARE TWO BIG ONES, BUT I THINK THAT PROBABLY ONLY MAKES UP MAYBE 50% OF THESE LISTINGS THAT WE CAN STILL TAKE ENFORCEMENT ACTION AND DELIST PROPERTIES THAT DON'T HAVE A LICENSE FROM THESE OTHER PLATFORMS? YES, BASED ON WHAT I'VE SEEN FROM THE, THE, THE INDUSTRY THAT DOES THESE DATA SCRAPING OPERATIONS, THEY, THEY ARE ABLE TO DATA SCRAPE OFF MANY, MANY PLATFORMS, NOT JUST THE MAJOR ONES. 
          OKAY. 
          AND ARE ADDRESSES TIED TO PERMIT NUMBERS PUBLICLY. 
          SO IF A PERMIT NUMBER IS LISTED PUBLICLY WITHOUT SOMEONE HAVING TO BOOK THE STR, WOULD THE AVERAGE PERSON FIND IT EASY TO FIND THE ADDRESS THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PERMIT NUMBER ONLINE? CURRENTLY WE HAVE TWO WAYS OF DISPLAYING PERMIT OR LICENSE INFORMATION. 
          UH, WE MAINTAIN A LISTING OF ACTIVE SHORT TERM RENTAL LICENSES ON WHAT'S CALLED THE CITY'S OPEN DATA PORTAL. 
          ON THAT OPEN DATA PORTAL, WE DISPLAY THE LICENSE NUMBER, UM, ALONG WITH THE BLOCK NUMBER AND STREET ADDRESS, UM, BUT NOT THE SPECIFIC NUMERIC ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY. 
          UH, WE ALSO HAVE A SYSTEM CALLED AWESOME BUILD CONNECT, WHICH HAS A PUBLIC SEARCH FEATURE, UH, ON THAT PUBLIC SEARCH FEATURE. 
          IF YOU SEARCH THE LICENSE NUMBER, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO FIND THE ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY. 
          OKAY. 
          I JUST, I, I GUESS I, I HEARD A LOT OF CONCERNS FROM HOSTS IN PARTICULAR 
          [03:10:01]
AT OUR JOINT MEETING, THAT, THAT PUBLIC LISTING OF THE LICENSE NUMBER, WHILE I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE HAS A LICENSE NUMBER, RAISES SOME SAFETY AND PRIVACY CONCERNS FOR THEM. 
          SO I WONDER IF THERE'S A WAY, A QUESTION TO YOU IS, IS THERE A WAY FOR US TO NOT HAVE THOSE SO DIRECTLY LINKED SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE OUR LICENSE NUMBERS VISIBLE, BUT HOSTS, ADDRESSES ARE NOT TIED TO THEM PUBLICLY? UM, I MEAN, THAT'S CERTAINLY A, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE A COMMUNITY CONVERSATION WE MIGHT NEED TO HAVE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THERE, WITH CITY GOVERNMENT, THERE'S ALWAYS A STRUGGLE AND BALANCE AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL'S PRIVACY VERSUS TRANSPARENCY TO THE PUBLIC. 
          AND SO THAT'S THE BALANCE WE'D HAVE TO TALK ABOUT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN JUST A QUESTION ABOUT THE INSURANCE REQUIREMENT. 
          I JUST WANNA CONFIRM THAT YOU WERE SAYING THAT IF THE MAJOR PLATFORM OFFERS INSURANCE THAT IS, UM, THAT COUNTS TOWARD THAT MILLION DOLLAR LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY, IS THAT INSURANCE POLICY INTENDED TO BE GENERAL LIABILITY? I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DETAILS TO TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT IT DOES, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AT LEAST TWO OF THE MAJOR PLATFORMS DO PROVIDE A MILLION DOLLARS IN LIABILITY COVERAGE FOR THE HOST. 
          AND FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, WE WOULD ACCEPT THAT AS COMPLIANT WITH THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT. 
          NOW, IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT HOSTS MAY LIST ON MULTIPLE PLATFORMS AND THAT INSURANCE WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THEM WHEN THEY'RE BOOKING THROUGH THAT PARTICULAR PLATFORM. 
          UM, SO IT WOULD BE INCUMBENT ON THE HOST TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THAT COVERAGE IN PLACE, REGARDLESS OF WHICH PLATFORM THEY'RE BOOKING THROUGH. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND. 
          THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, JUST MAKING SURE YOU, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, THANKS CHAIR. 
          UM, CHAIR, I GUESS SECOND. 
          CAN, I CAN GO REAL QUICK? OH, SURE. 
          SO JUST, YOU'VE GOT FIVE MINUTES IF YOU WANT. 
          YEAH, LET'S SICK. 
          LESS THAN HALF FROM THAT. 
          SO, QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF. 
          UM, I MEAN, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE'RE IN A ROCK AND HARD PLACE, RIGHT? SO THIS IS JUST, WE'RE FOLLOWING STATE LAW AT THIS POINT AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT AT LEAST TO WHERE WE'RE NOT FOREGOING THE MILLIONS IN TAXES WHILE ALWAYS, WHILE ALSO FOLLOWING STATE LAW. 
          I MEAN, I, I I, I GET THE WISHFUL THINKING ON ONE SIDE AND I GET THE KIND OF, BOY IT WOULD BE GREAT IF, IF THIS WERE DIFFERENT, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE STATE LAW IS STATE LAW AND AT THIS POINT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO COMPLY WITH IT AND FIGURE OUT A WAY TO, TO CAPTURE THE TAXES. 
          LIKE, I'M JUST TRYING TO BE CLEAR, IS THAT, IS THAT ABOUT IT? I THINK WE'RE, SO COUNCIL TRIED TO PROHIBIT EXISTING TYPE TWOS AND NEW TYPE TWOS, AND WE, BOTH OF THOSE WERE INVALIDATED. 
          AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK THAT WE HAVE ALONG WITH THE NEW ORLEANS DECISION, UM, RELATED TO, YOU KNOW, THE OWNER OCCUPIED VERSUS NON-OWNER OCCUPIED DISTINCTION. 
          SO, UH, WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO BALANCE COUNCIL'S OBJECTIVES, CITY OBJECTIVES, AND WHAT THE, AS WE DESCRIBED, THE SANDBOX WE HAVE TO PLAY IN. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, I GUESS I HAVE QUESTIONS TO SORT OF FOLLOW UP SOME OF THE QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONER COX AROUND, UH, ENFORCEMENT AND STAFFING, BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE A RESOUNDING ISSUE, IS THAT THE BAD ACTORS ARE NOT, UH, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO ENFORCE AGAINST THEM, UH, EFFECTIVELY. 
          SO I GUESS FIRST QUESTION IS RELATED TO THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES TOWARDS ENFORCEMENT IS OF, IS IT POSSIBLE TO USE THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TEXTS? UH, HAS THAT BEEN EXPLORED TOWARDS OF ENFORCEMENT? I KNOW IT'S SPECIFIC, THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS, WHAT IT CAN BE USED FOR AND IT, BUT ONE OF THOSE IS ABOUT PRESERVING COMMUNITIES AND HISTORIC AREAS. 
          SO I'M WONDERING HAS THAT BEEN EXPLORED? SO OVER THE YEARS WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW, UM, THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX CAN BE USED AND THIS, THE STATUTE SETS OUT VERY SPECIFICALLY, UM, WHERE WE CAN USE IT. 
          AND THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE, UM, BEEN ABLE TO, UM, FIND THAT WE COULD DO. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IF WE CAN'T USE THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX, AND IT SEEMS THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES OR STAFF TO EFFECTIVELY ENFORCE THE CURRENT ORDINANCE OR THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE OF HOW DO WE, WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO DIFFERENTLY TO IMPROVE THE STAFFING LEVELS? 
          [03:15:12]
SO I MEAN, TALKING ABOUT OUR CURRENT STATE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE 2200 LICENSED PROPERTIES, MANY, MANY MORE THAT ARE UNLICENSED. 
          UM, I CURRENTLY HAVE SIX, UH, CODE INSPECTORS ASSIGNED TO THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PROGRAM. 
          UM, GIVEN THE CURRENT TOOLS THAT WE HAVE AND THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT WE'RE OPERATING IN, I'M NOT, YOU COULD DOUBLE TRIPLE MY STAFF, I DON'T THINK WE'D STILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM. 
          UM, I THINK WHAT THIS DRAFT PROPOSAL DOES IS PROVIDE US WITH SOME ADDITIONAL TOOLS THAT WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE, PARTICULARLY THE DELIST NOTICE. 
          UM, THAT I HAVE A STRONG BELIEF THAT THAT TOOL WILL BE VERY POWERFUL IN TRYING TO IMPROVE THE COMPLIANCE SITUATION. 
          AND IN TURN, HAVING THAT TOOL ALSO GIVES US A MUCH BIGGER HAMMER TO DEAL WITH PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT BEHAVING WELL. 
          WELL, I, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          I GUESS I'M STILL CONCERNED THAT IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE JUST WOEFULLY INADEQUATE IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF STAFF TO, TO SUPPORT, UH, WHEN THESE CALLS ARE MADE. 
          AND IT FEELS FRUSTRATING TO ME THAT AS PART OF THIS PROGRAM FOR STR, WE HAVE NO WAY TO HAVE IT AT LEAST EVEN, EVEN AT THE SLIGHTEST LEVEL OF PAY FOR ITSELF. 
          I GUESS I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS. 
          FRUSTRATION, RIGHT? COMMISSIONER BRI RAMIREZ? IT WORKS. 
          IS IT WORKING? WE CAN HEAR YOU. 
          IT'S A LITTLE ECHOEY. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          MY QUESTION IS ABOUT, MY QUESTION IS ABOUT COMPLIANCE. 
          THERE'S 30 PLUS'S, 30 PLUS PLATFORMS THAT ARE OUT THERE, OUT THERE. 
          I JUST DON'T, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW, HOW WE'RE GOING STRONG ARM COMPLIANCE WITH, YOU KNOW, DELISTING OR ANY OF ANY ACQUIRING, ACQUIRING CLAIMS DATA, BUT DATA. 
          BUT I JUST THINK WHAT LEVERAGE LEVERAGE DO WE HAVE? WHAT LEVERAGE DO WE HAVE TO HAVE AND HAVE THEM ASK THEM THEM TO COME? I THINK THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE HOSTING SITES AND WHAT LEVERAGE DO WE HAVE, UM, AS FAR AS DELISTING PROP, UH, THE LISTINGS AND THINGS. 
          DID I GET THAT RIGHT? COMMISSIONER PER OKAY. 
          I THINK TO DATE WE HAVE NOT REGULATED PLATFORMS. THIS PROPOSAL WILL START DOWN THAT ROAD AND IT WILL REGULATE PLATFORMS IN A WAY. 
          WE HAVE NEVER, WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY PLATFORM REGULATIONS TO DATE. 
          SO THIS ORDINANCE NOW DOES THAT, AND THAT IS A, THAT IS, WE FEEL LIKE IT'S GONNA PUT US IN A POSITION TO UTILIZE SOME OF THESE TOOLS. 
          SO ONE, OBVIOUSLY THE D LIST NOTICE, UM, TWO, HAVING THE LICENSE NUMBER SO THAT IT, THERE CAN BE SOME SCRAPING DONE, UH, UM, MR. WORD HAS DESCRIBED IN HIS, UM, IN THE FUTURE CONTRACTS, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE WEB-BASED BUSINESSES AND SO THEY HAVE A LOT OF, UM, IT CAN BE CHALLENGING BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF, OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          SO I THINK WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED IS WHAT WE FEEL LIKE WE CAN ACHIEVE AT THIS POINT. 
          UM, KIND OF ABSENT KIND OF, UM, LARGER, UM, OR MORE PARAMOUNT JURISDICTIONS, UM, KIND OF GIVING US SOME DIFFERENT TOOLS. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, AND DID MY GROUP KIND OF FOLLOW, KIND OF FOLLOW ANDERSON? ANDERSON WAS SAYING, I, I, TODAY, TODAY T PERMIT RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIALS. 
          CORRECT. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND SO, SO IS TRYING, TRYING TO HELP US, HELP US FIND A WAY, FIND A WAY TO ACTUALLY REQUIRE REQUIRED LICENSING AND TO, TO PREVENT THOSE THAT ARE, THOSE THAT, THAT ARE NOT, ARE NOT LICENSED. 
          BEING ABLE TO BEING ABLE TO JUST CLARIFY, CLARIFY TODAY THAT TODAY IT'S PERMITTED AND ALL ZONING CATEGORY TRYING TO, TRYING TO DO ONE MORE LEVEL ENFORCEMENT. 
          SO THE QUESTION IS, I I THINK THE QUESTION WAS CLARIFYING 
          [03:20:01]
ABOUT WHERE THE STR ARE GOING TO BE ALLOWED. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO UNDER OUR CURRENT STATE, GIVEN THE COURT DECISIONS TODAY, SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE ALLOWED ESSENTIALLY IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'RE OWNER OCCUPIED OR NON-OWNER OCCUPIED UNDER THE DRAFT PROPOSAL. 
          THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY REMAIN THE SAME IN THAT WE WOULD MAKE SHORT-TERM RENTAL AND ACCESSORY USE RATHER THAN A PRINCIPAL USE. 
          UM, BUT IT WOULD BE ACCESSORY TO RESIDENTIAL USES REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE UNDERLYING PROPERTY ZONING IS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? UH, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I WANNA GIVE OUR EX OFFICIOS A CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS. 
          TRUSTEE. 
          HUNTER? NONE. 
          OKAY. 
          CHAIR, I HAD A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS. 
          UH, SO WE CAN'T USE THE HOT TAX, BUT COULD WE DO A FEE? I'M THINKING LIKE STATE OF TEXAS JUST GOT RID OF INSPECTION, BUT THEY STILL CHARGE US FOR US ANYWAY. 
          SO IN ORDER TO CHARGE A FEE, UM, IT'S, WE LOOK AT THE COST OF SERVICE TO, TO PROVIDE A SERVICE OR TO REGULATE. 
          UM, WE WE'RE NOT THE STATE, UM, . 
          SO WE, WE HAVE THOSE LIMITATIONS. 
          UM, AND SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE, UH, THE FEES THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE TODAY ARE THE FEES THAT WE BELIEVE THAT WE CAN CHARGE AT THIS POINT IN TIME. 
          I WAS THINKING BECAUSE STAFF HAS TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS OF VERIFICATION FOR EACH RENTAL, MAYBE YOU COULD IMPOSE A FEE UPON THE SITE THAT DOES THE RENTAL. 
          SO THE FEES THAT WE HAVE TODAY ARE FOR LICENSING, AND THEY HAVE A NOTIFICATION, FEE NOTIFICATION AND THE NOTIFICATION FEE, AND THAT COVERS THE EXPENSES WE HAVE RELATED TO LICENSING, UM, THESE PROPERTIES AS SHORT TERM RENTALS. 
          BUT THAT'S JUST THE INITIAL SETUP. 
          IT DOESN'T COVER THE COST OF, UH, INVESTIGATING COMPLAINTS OR, UH, LOOKING FOR NON-COMPLIANT ST RIGHT. 
          SO THAT THOSE COSTS FOR THE CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION ARE PAID FOR THROUGH OUR CLEAN COMMUNITY FEE. 
          OKAY. 
          THEN I GUESS I WOULD ASK, UH, MAYBE TO ELABORATE ON THE VICE CHAIR'S QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ARE WAYS TO PROHIBIT ST THAT YOU, THE ANSWER WAS IT'S NUANCED. 
          NO, BUT IT'S NUANCED. 
          COULD COULD Y'ALL ELABORATE ON THAT? I THINK I NEED THE VICE CHAIR REFUSE QUESTION. 
          IT WAS, ARE THERE WAYS TO PROHIBIT STR, BECAUSE I KNOW LIKE FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, IF I GRANT A VARIANCE, UH, WE CAN 1% CONDITION IT WITH NO ST, BUT LIKE AN A DU OR SOMETHING. 
          SO WHAT, WHAT OTHER OPTIONS DO WE HAVE HERE IN TERMS OF VIABLE OPTIONS? UM, SO OTHER CITIES HAVE EXPLORED, NEW ORLEANS FOR EXAMPLE, DOES A LOTTERY, UM, AS AN OPTION TO KIND OF LIMIT ON A PER BLOCK FACE. 
          SO THEY'RE STILL USING ZONING REGULATIONS AND, AND SOME OTHER TOOLS, UM, FOR THEMSELVES IN OUR UNIVERSE BECAUSE OF THE COURT DECISIONS THAT SPECIFICALLY APPLY TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          ONCE WE PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE, FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE USED AS CSTO, AS AN STR, WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW THAT SAVE AND ACCEPT SOMEONE WHO ACTS IN WHO'S HAD SOME BAD BEHAVIOR LIKE WE WE'RE TAKING AWAY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT BEING A RESPONSIBLE OWNER. 
          AND SO THAT IMPACTS HOW WE'VE LOOKED AT THE PROPOSALS AND THE OPTIONS ON THE TABLE FOR THE CITY. 
          UM, AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE PROPOSED KIND OF LOOKING AT THIS ON OUR SITES THAT ARE THREE OR FEW, THREE OR FEWER UNITS REQUIRING IT TO BE A NATURAL PERSON. 
          SO IT'S THE NATURAL PERSON OR THE TRUST THAT THE BENEFICIARIES ARE NATURAL PERSONS OR THE LLCS WHERE IT'S SOLELY NATURAL PERSONS. 
          OKAY, LAST QUESTION, JUST REAL QUICK. 
          THE ENFORCEMENT FINE, $500 LIMIT, IS THAT LIKE PER INCIDENT 
          [03:25:01]
OR DOES THAT STACK OVER? SO SOMEONE COULD BE PROSECUTED MULTIPLE TIMES FOR VIOLATING A SINGLE PROVISION OF CODE, LIKE SEPARATE DAYS. 
          UM, AND THAT WOULD BE A $500 FINE FOR EACH VIOLATION. 
          I WAS HOPING I WOULD HAVE SOME KIND OF EPIPHANY, BUT NO, I THINK WE'RE JUST STUCK. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S IT FOR ME. 
          GREAT. 
          COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, WE'VE ALL HAD, UH, A ROUND CHANCE FOR QUESTIONS. 
          UM, WE'LL BE MAKING THE BASE MOTION AND WHEN WE GO INTO OUR AMENDMENTS, I WANT TO REMIND YOU PER OUR RULES, UM, WE'LL ASK THE THE AMENDMENT MAKER TO, UM, DEFINE THEIR AMENDMENT. 
          AND YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS. 
          YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS TO THE AMENDMENT MAKER TO STAFF, REALLY ANYBODY. 
          SO, UM, JUST WORK THAT IN IF YOU, OR THINK ABOUT THAT IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. 
          SO, UM, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO, UM, APPROVE THE, UM, THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AS IS PROVIDED IN OUR BACKUP AS THE BASE SECOND, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR. 
          AND THEN, UM, EACH, UM, COMMISSIONER WILL HAVE UP TO TWO CHANCES, UH, AS IT STANDS NOW FOR AMENDMENTS. 
          SO WE'LL JUST GO IN ORDER AS WE DID THE QUESTIONS. 
          AND COMMISSIONER HANEY, CAN I, CAN I PASS FOR A MINUTE? I'M KIND OF WORKING SOMETHING OUT. 
          OH, SURE, YEAH, WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER MAX SCHWAB, UM, CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION BEFORE I ASK ABOUT HIM? UM, I JUST WAS CURIOUS IF THERE'S REPORTING AMENDMENT OR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THIS ORDINANCE, OR IF THAT'S BEEN SOMETHING DISCUSSED. 
          I FAILED TO ASK THAT EARLIER AND I APOLOGIZE. 
          REPORTING REQUIREMENTS LIKE WE HAVE FOR HOME AND VARIOUS YEAH, JUST TO FOLLOW UP, YES. 
          JUST TO SORT OF ADDRESS, UM, YOU KNOW, TO DO A CHECK-IN RELATED TO HOW THIS IS PERFORMING. 
          UH, WE HAVE NOT PROPOSED ONE, BUT I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED IF ONE IS ADDED. 
           CHAIR. 
          I HAVE AN AMENDMENT . 
          UM, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT THE, UM, PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE BE REVIEWED IN A REPORT IN A 12 MONTH TIMEFRAME SUBSEQUENT TO ENACTMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO PER, UM, PER OUR RULES, YOU GET TO PROVIDE SOME THOUGHT OR BACKGROUND BEHIND THAT BEFORE IT BECOMES AN EMOTION. 
          AND SO IF YOU WANNA PROVIDE A LITTLE DETAIL ABSOLUTELY. 
          AND, AND I AM PLEASED TO HEAR THAT , OUR, OUR STAFF THINKS THAT THIS WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT REGARDLESS, BUT I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO HOME ONE AND HOME TWO AND GENERALLY SPEAKING FOR SOME OF OUR OTHER LDC MOVEMENTS HAVE BEEN USEFUL AS A CHECK-IN AND ALLOW US TO COME BACK AND DO SOME ADJUSTMENTS AS REQUIRED. 
          UM, SO I THINK GIVEN THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT AND JUST GENERALLY HOW WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT THIS MIGHT BE A CHANGE, BUT MAY NOT SEE ALL THE CHANGES THAT WE NEED, THAT A REPORTING REQUIREMENT MIGHT ALLOW US TO HAVE SOME DATA AROUND THOSE. 
          UM, THIS, THE ADDITIONAL TWEAKS THAT MIGHT BE REQUIRED AT A LATER POINT IN TIME. 
          AND AS NOTED, THE CASE LAW IS EVOLVING, SO THAT WOULD ALSO BE HELPFUL IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING WHERE THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE IS ONCE THOSE REPORTS ARE FINISHED. 
          OKAY. 
          I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS AROUND THIS AMENDMENT. 
          BYE, SIR. 
          JUST TO CLARIFY, ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT AT 12 MONTH, UH, THERE WILL BE A REPORT, BUT YOU'RE NOT AT THIS POINT SPECIFYING WHAT PIECES OF INFORMATION MIGHT BE REQUIRED, WILL BE UP TO STAFF TO CONSIDER THAT. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          I WOULD LEAVE THAT TO STAFF'S DISCRETION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. 
          WOULD YOU LIKE TO TURN THAT INTO A MOTION? YES. 
          UM, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE INCLUDE A REPORTING REQUIREMENT REGARDING THE ORDINANCE BEFORE US THIS EVENING, AND THAT A A 12, WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD RE REPORTS AS DETERMINED BY STAFF WOULD BE PROVIDED TO COUNSEL AND PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING THE OUTCOMES OF THESE CHANGES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HANEY. 
          UM, ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION? OTHERWISE WE'LL GO INTO FOR AND AGAINST AND THEN TAKE A VOTE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, I'LL JUST OPEN IT UP AND WE'LL SEE WHERE THIS GOES. 
          BUT ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THIS MOTION, SINCE THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS ON IT? OKAY, LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S, UH, AMENDMENT ABOUT REPORTING OUT ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          THAT'S UNANIMOUS. 
          10 ZERO. 
          OKAY. 
          BYE, CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          [03:30:01]
UM, MS. GARCIA, I EMAILED SOMETHING TO YOU IF IT CAN BE, UM, SHARED WITH THE COMMISSIONERS, BUT I'LL READ IT OUT AS WELL AND TALK THROUGH THIS. 
          UM, I I SHOULD BE RIGHT THERE THAT MY IDEA FOR ALL AMENDMENTS, CAESAR SUGGESTIONS TO STAFF TO CONSIDER. 
          I KNOW THERE'S LEGALITIES TO CONSIDER, SO I WOULD LEAVE IT TO STAFF TO FIGURE OUT WHAT CAN OR CANNOT BE DONE, BUT THIS WOULD BE A REVISION TO THE ELIGIBILITY TO OPERATE A SHORT TERM RENTAL, UH, FOR ESSENTIALLY MULTI-FAMILY OR MULTI-UNIT COMPLEXES. 
          UM, AND SO IT'S A MUCH MORE TIERED SYSTEM AND WHAT STAFF HAD, WHICH WAS ESSENTIALLY THE 25%. 
          SO THE 25% WOULD STAY, WE WOULD SAY FOR FIVE UNITS TO 50 UNITS, IT'S 20%. 
          FOR 51 UNITS TO A HUNDRED UNITS, IT'S 10% FOR 101 TO DO 50, IT'S FIVE. 
          AND THEN AFTER TWO 50 IT DROPS DOWN TO 3%. 
          AND OF COURSE, I WILL SHARE THE LANGUAGE WITH STAFF AS NECESSARY AS WELL, AND I CAN, I CAN TALK THROUGH WHAT, WHAT THIS IS, BUT THIS IS THE IDEA BEHIND IT. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS, UM, ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. 
          DO IT ONE MORE TIME. 
          YEAH. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON HAD A HAND UP. 
          OH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          YES. 
          I'LL REPEAT IT. 
          YEAH. 
          FORGIVE ME IF THIS IS OUT OF ORDER, BUT I'M, I'M JUST CURIOUS IF YOU CAN SPEAK TO WHAT, WHAT IS YOUR DESIRED OUTCOME WITH THIS AMENDMENT? WHAT DO YOU HOPE THAT THIS WILL ACHIEVE AND WHY, WHY, OBVIOUSLY IT'S CLEAR YOU, YOU WANT TO ALLOW FEWER UNITS AS BUILDINGS GET LARGER. 
          WHY, I GUESS ? SURE. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY, RIGHT, THIS WOULD NOT IMPACT, UM, IF THERE'S A CONDO OR IF IT'S INDIVIDUALS LIKE WITHIN DOING IT. 
          THIS IS REALLY FOR SOMEBODY WHO'S INSTITUTIONALLY CREATING OR PURCHASING A GIANT MULTIFAMILY AND TRYING TO CONVERT IT TO S STR UNDER, AS I READ IT, UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, YOU'LL BE LIMITED AT NO MORE THAN 25% OF YOUR UNIT. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, JUST THROWING OUT NUMBERS, IF YOU HAVE A HUNDRED UNIT COMPLEX, 25 OF THOSE CAN BE SDR. 
          THIS WOULD ESSENTIALLY LIMIT THAT A LITTLE FURTHER. 
          AND WHAT IT ESSENTIALLY DOES IS THAT IT ALSO DOES NOT LET YOU, I DON'T WANNA, WHAT IS THE WORD? I DON'T WANNA USE THE WORD CHEAT, BUT THAT'S THE WORD I'M USING RIGHT NOW. 
          BUT ESSENTIALLY, YOU CANNOT GO TO A 500 UNIT COMPLEX. 
          AND WHEN YOU DO 25%, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SDRS IN ONE BUILDING OR ONE COMPLEX. 
          WHAT THIS IS DOING IS, IS SAYING, YES, WE UNDERSTAND FOR SMALLER COMPLEXES YOU CAN HAVE A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF YOURS BS STRS IF YOU'RE TRYING TO DO AS AN INSTITUTIONAL, NOT INDIVIDUALS. 
          SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO ACHIEVE, UM, TO SEE IF, IF, IF IT IS LEGALLY SOUND. 
          UM, THEN IS THERE A WAY TO DISINCENTIVIZE LARGE INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL, UH, MULTIFAMILY LARGE COMPLEX SDRS? DID THAT HELP? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, OTHER QUESTIONS? CHAIR? YES. 
          UM, I HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, AND, AND THAT WAS RELATED TO THE THOUSAND FOOT PROVISION AND SORT OF HOW THAT WORKS FOR THE MULTIFAMILY. 
          AND I, I GUESS I WAS REALLY SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THIS AMENDMENT AND RENTALS, BUT IT ALSO SEEMS, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE LLC REQUIREMENTS THAT THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A BELT AND SUSPENDERS, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING IT CORRECTLY. 
          SO BASICALLY WE HAVE THE THOUSAND FEET, WHICH SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE SO MANY, BUT THEN WE ALSO REQUIRE THE OWNERSHIP VERIFICATION IN TERMS OF WE'RE NOT ALLOWING LLCS TO BE, OR WE'RE REQUIRING, UH, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING OWNERSHIP. 
          SO HOW DO THOSE INTERACT, I GUESS IS MY QUESTION? SO THE, THE LIMITATIONS ON CORPORATE OWNERSHIP, UM, APPLY TO PROPERTIES OF THREE OR FEWER DWELLINGS. 
          UM, AND THAT'S ALSO WHERE THE THOUSAND FOOT, UH, LIMITATION WOULD APPLY AS WELL. 
          UM, THE MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES ARE NOT LIMITED BY OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE. 
          UM, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, A HUNDRED UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX UNDER THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, UM, WELL, IF ONE ENTITY OWNS ALL A HUNDRED UNITS, 25 OF THOSE COULD BE SHORT TERM RENTAL. 
          UM, IF IT'S A CONDO REGIME BUILDING WHERE EVERYONE INDIVIDUALLY OWNS UNITS, THEY COULD ALL CHOOSE TO OR NOT TO OPERATE A SHORT TERM RENTAL. 
          IF YOU HAD AN INDIVIDUAL OWNER THAT BOUGHT UP MULTIPLE UNITS IN THAT COMPLEX, THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE 25% CAP, BUT THERE, THE THOUSAND FOOT LIMITATION DOESN'T COME AT PLAY. 
          GOTCHA. 
          SO THE THOUSAND FEET IS JUST FOR THOSE THAT IS NOT RELATED TO MULTIFAMILY. 
          CORRECT. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. 
          WOULD YOU LIKE TO TURN THAT INTO A MOTION? SURE. 
          CHAIR, I, I CAN REPEAT THAT. 
          AND, AND IF I MIGHT JUST SHARE QUICKLY, ROUGHLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT FOR A FOUR UNIT COMPLEX, 
          [03:35:01]
YOU CAN HAVE ONE SDR FOR 50 UNIT, IT'S 10 FOR A HUNDRED UNITS IS 10 FOR 200 IT'S 10. 
          AND THEN SORT OF TEARS OFF BECAUSE THEN IT BECOMES VARIABLE DEPENDING ON THE, BUT THE IDEA IS ESSENTIALLY, AGAIN, KIND OF WHAT THIS CONVERSATION WAS. 
          HAVING THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE COMING UP AS AN INSTITUTIONAL, UH, BUSINESS MODEL, HOW DO WE SORT OF FIGURE THAT OUT IN A LARGE MULTIFAMILY SETTING? 'CAUSE WE WANT THAT HOUSING AVAILABLE TO FOLKS WHO MIGHT WANT LONGER TERM RENTALS IN THEM. 
          UM, ALL THAT SAID HERE, I'LL, I'LL REPEAT IT AGAIN. 
          UM, AND I'LL SEND OUT THE LANGUAGE. 
          SO THIS IS TO REVISE SECTION FOUR DASH 23 DASH THREE X ELIGIBILITY TO OPERATE A SHORT TERM RENTAL AS FOLLOWS, ON A SITE WITH MORE THAN FOUR, BUT LESS THAN 51 DWELLING UNITS, AN OWNER MAY OPERATE AT LEAST ONE, BUT NO MORE THAN 20% OF THE UNITS ON A SITE WITH MORE THAN 50, BUT LESS THAN 101 DWELLING UNITS. 
          AND OWNER MAY OPERATE AT LEAST ONE, BUT NO MORE THAN 10% OF THE UNITS ON A SITE WITH MORE THAN A HUNDRED, BUT LESS THAN 251 DWELLING UNITS. 
          AND OWNER MAY OPERATE AT LEAST ONE, BUT NO MORE THAN 5% OF THE UNITS ON A SITE WITH MORE THAN 250, 250 DWELLING UNITS. 
          AND OWNER MAY OPERATE AT LEAST ONE, BUT NO MORE THAN 3% OF THE UNITS. 
          ALRIGHT, I SEE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? UH, I'LL, I'LL JUST, UH, QUICKLY STATE THAT IT, I, I THINK THIS IS A LITTLE COMPLEX ONE. 
          I'M TRYING TO ONE SHORT THE PATH. 
          AGAIN, I KNOW THERE'S LEGAL ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED, BUT I THINK THERE'S A DISTINCTION TO BE DRAWN BETWEEN HOMEOWNERS WHO WANT TO CONVERT THEIR WHOLE HOUSING INTO SDRS OR CONDO OWNERS. 
          IT'S A DIFFERENT THING. 
          AND I THINK IF SOMEBODY'S TRYING TO DO IT AT AN INSTITUTION LEVEL AS A BUSINESS MODEL, I THINK HAVING THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS, UH, OTHERS MAKES SO SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT CONCENTRATING A BUNCH OF SDRS IN ONE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ONE COMPLEX OR STRUCTURE. 
          AND I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT SAME SORT OF SPIRIT FOLLOW THROUGH ON MULTIFAMILY AS WELL. 
          WE'RE NOT TRYING TO, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, WE WANNA MEET THE LAW. 
          WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE LEGALLY SOUND, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE, YOU KNOW, PRESERVE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. 
          BUT AT THE SAME TIME, HOW DO WE NOT INCENTIVIZE LARGE INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL STR MODELS THAT ESSENTIALLY SHOULD JUST BE A HOTEL AT THAT POINT? ANY, ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST OR FOR COMMISSIONER COX? I, I'M IN THE, I'M IN THE BUSINESS OF, OF THINKING ABOUT UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. 
          AND SO I'M ALWAYS RUNNING THROUGH MY HEAD ALL THE THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO RUN THROUGH MY HEAD, ALL THE THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT THINKING ABOUT THAT THAT COULD BE GAMED, UH, IN THIS, IN THIS SYSTEM. 
          AND WE, WE ARE TALKING A LOT ABOUT DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS AND WHAT I, WHAT I DON'T WANT DEVELOPERS TO BE THINKING IS, YOU KNOW, WELL, LET'S JUST SHOOT FOR A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE COULD ALWAYS JUST ADD, YOU KNOW, STR TO, TO COVER WHATEVER. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A REALISTIC THING OR NOT, BUT, BUT WHEN I SAW THIS AMENDMENT FROM AZAR, UM, UH, VICE CHAIR, UM, I, I JUST FELT LIKE IT, IT KIND OF REDUCES, IT ADDS A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKSTOP, UM, TO, TO, TO PREVENT ANY INSTITUTIONAL OWNERS OF STRS TO, TO TRY TO GAME OUR SYSTEM HOWEVER THEY MIGHT DO THAT. 
          SO I FEEL LIKE IT'S, IT'S A GOOD KIND OF GRADUATION SCALE FOR THESE LARGER MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS. 
          UM, ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UH, YEAH. 
          AND I WANTED TO ALSO INDICATE MY SUPPORT FOR, UH, VICE CHAIR OURS. 
          AND THE REASON I THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS AN EXCELLENT IS THAT SOMETIMES WE HAVE RENTERS WHO COME INTO MARKET AND DON'T, AREN'T NECESSARILY AWARE OF WHAT TYPE OF BUILDING THEY'RE MOVING INTO. 
          AND PARTICULARLY IF WE HAD A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF STRS THAT FEELS LIKE REALLY UNFAIR SITUATION THAT THEY MIGHT FIND THEMSELVES IN, PARTICULARLY IF THEY'VE SIGNED A LONGER TERM LEASE. 
          SO I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THAT HE'S TRYING TO THINK ABOUT THE, AS COMMISSIONER COX OF ELO, THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND PUTTING SOME LIMITS ON HOW MANY STRS YOU MIGHT FIND IN A LARGER MULTIFAMILY SITUATION, PARTICULARLY FOR THOSE WHO MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THAT, UH, SITUATION BEFORE THEY MOVE IN AND SIGN THOSE CONTRACTS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. 
          THIS IS FOR VICE CHAIR'S, UM, AMENDMENT REGARDING THE TIERS OF PERCENTAGES OF ALLOWED STR AND MULTIFAMILY. 
          ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? FOUR. 
          WE HAVE NINE FOUR, AND COMMISSIONER ANDERSON IS OFF THE DAIS. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          UM, VERY QUICKLY, I AM GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND OUR MEETING UNTIL 11 SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UNLESS THERE IS OPPOSITION. 
          THAT MOTION PASSES. 
          UM, I'LL MOVE ON TO, OH, MYSELF, , UM, I'M NOT NEARLY AS ELOQUENT AS UM, VICE CHAIR, BUT MY FIRST IDEA FOR AN AMENDMENT, UM, IS AGAIN, JUST GENERAL, UM, GENERAL 
          [03:40:01]
RECOMMENDATION FOR STAFF TO EXPLORE HOW THIS WOULD BE WORDED AND CLEAR LEGALITIES. 
          UM, THIS BEING, IF THERE'S A, A NUISANCE, MORE LIKE A CRIMINAL ACTIVITY SUCH AS A SHOOTING OR AN ASSAULT, SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT THAT STR OWNER CANNOT, UH, OPERATE AGAIN UNTIL THERE'S NEW OWNERSHIP. 
          SO THIS IS REMOVING THE, I THINK IT'S A 12 MONTH THAT THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO OPERATE, BUT SAYING THEY CAN NEVER OPERATE AGAIN UNTIL THERE'S A NEW OWNER. 
          UM, AND JUST SOME DESCRIPTION AROUND THAT WE HEARD, UM, FROM SOME OF THE, JUST TO LIMIT SOME OF THE MORE SERIOUS THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING, UM, THAT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD TRY TO PUT IN PLACE TO PREVENT, UM, SOME OF THE MORE, UH, EGREGIOUS CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER COX? SORRY, I WAS GONNA ASK YOU A QUESTION. 
          I, I'LL, I'LL WAIT TILL THIS. 
          OH, I'M DONE. 
          , IT'S TIME FOR QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, MY, MY QUESTION TO YOU WAS, UH, DOES, DOES THE, THE PENALTY THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE PROPOSING FOR, YOU KNOW, THESE EGREGIOUS KIND OF CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS, UM, IS THAT ATTACHED TO THE PROPERTY ADDRESS OR IS IT ATTACHED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER? UM, I MAYBE ALL OF THE ABOVE. 
          OKAY. 
          BECAUSE THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. 
          SOMETHING I MIGHT CLARIFY IS IF IT WAS ONE OWNER WHO HAD MULTIPLE PROPERTIES IN THIS SCENARIO, I THINK IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE THEM CEASE OPERATIONS INTO ALL OF THEIR PROPERTIES. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? OH, YES, CHAIR. 
          UM, I'M NOT TRYING TO REIGN ON ANYBODY'S PREY 'CAUSE I LOVE THIS IDEA OF CAN WE LEGALLY DO THAT UNDER STATE LAW? I DON'T KNOW. 
          THAT'S WHY I SAID IT'S A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION. 
          WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO LIKE BB AND IF IT IS AGAINST STATE LAW, LIKE FIVE YEARS OR 10 YEARS, LIKE PUTTING A NUMBER ON IT BECAUSE THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN DO A HUNDRED YEARS. 
          I MEAN, IF IT'S A TIME LIMIT, , I'M JUST TRYING TO THROW IT OUT THERE. 
          YEAH, THAT'S FAIR. 
          IT'S A FAIR QUESTION. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, WELL, I WILL TURN THIS INTO A MOTION. 
          UM, YES, SURE. 
          THIS IS WHAT I NOT YOU CAN TELL ME IF THIS SOUNDS RIGHT, UM, WITH THAT LITTLE NOTE AS WELL, IF THERE'S A NUISANCE THAT INVOLVES A CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND OWNER CANNOT OPERATE AN SDR AT THAT LOCATION OR ANY OTHER LOCATION IN PERPETUITY OR A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME UNTIL THERE'S A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP. 
          PERFECT. 
          YES. 
          SO SUBJECT TO LEGAL YEP. 
          REVIEW. 
          YES. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX. 
          UM, I'LL BE VERY BRIEF ON SPEAKING FOR THIS. 
          I, I WOULD HOPE THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT A SLIGHT TWEAK TO THE ORDINANCE THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD, UM, AND PUT A SMALL DENT IN SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE HAPPENING, UM, CURRENTLY, UM, ANYBODY SPEAKING  OR FOUR VICE, UM, CHAIR, I, I DO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. 
          I, I THINK JUST ONE NOTE I WANNA ADD, ADD HERE IS I THINK THERE IS SOMETHING TO BE CONSIDERED, I KNOW THERE'S CONVERSATION CAME UP EARLIER AS WELL THAT IF THERE'S AN OPERATOR, HOW DO THEY MANAGE THEIR GUESTS AND MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE LIABILITY QUESTION. 
          I THINK THAT'S A VERY REAL THING TO CONSIDER. 
          BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I AGREE WITH YOU NOT JUST WHAT WE'VE HEARD HERE, BUT WE'VE HEARD ALL ELSEWHERE, FOLKS DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES THAT WAY. 
          I THINK THEY NEED PROTECTIONS, PARTICULARLY FOR THERE'S CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT'S AN, IN SOME CASES MIGHT BE AN UNFAIR BURDEN ON THE OPERATOR BECAUSE THEY MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO CONTROL WHAT THEIR GUEST DOES IN A PROPERTY. 
          BUT HAVING SAID THAT, AT THE SAME TIME, I, I DON'T KNOW BEYOND THAT, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT FOLKS ARE HAVING TO LIVE WITH IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD? UM, HAVING SAID THAT, THE HOPE WOULD ALWAYS BE THE FOLKS WHO ARE COMING INTO OTHER PEOPLE'S NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES CAN REALLY RESPECT THEM AND TREAT THEM LIKE THEIR OWN. 
          BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ALWAYS SEE. 
          SO I DO SUPPORT THIS. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ANYBODY, UM, COMMISSIONER, I SAW COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          I'LL GO TO YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, I'M, I'M SPEAKING AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT. 
          I, WHILE I AGREE WITH THE OVERALL INTENT TO TRY TO ADDRESS ISSUES OF CRIME TAKING PLACE AT SHORT-TERM RENTALS, UH, I DO FEEL LIKE THIS IS AN UNFAIR BURDEN FOR OWNERS, UH, WHO DON'T ALWAYS HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT TAKE PLACE AT 
          [03:45:01]
THEIR RENTALS. 
          AND FOR THE SAME REASON, I THINK WE WOULDN'T TELL A LANDLORD OF A LONG-TERM RENTAL THAT THEY ARE FORBIDDEN FROM EVER OWNING OR OPERATING APARTMENTS IF A CRIME TAKES PLACE IN ONE OF THEIR UNITS OR THAT, UH, A SORT OF TRADITIONAL HOTEL DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SHUT DOWN WHEN A CRIME TAKES PLACE. 
          AND THAT COMPANY BAN FROM AUSTIN, I THINK THIS IS JUST A STEP TOO FAR. 
          UM, I WOULD REALLY WANT TO DO MORE TO LEARN ABOUT RATES OF CRIMES TAKING PLACE AT SHORT TERM RENTALS AND, AND HOW WIDESPREAD OF AN ISSUE THIS REALLY IS BEFORE, UH, TAKING A MEASURE, MAYBE THIS EXTREME TO CREATE THIS HUGE SORT OF PENALTY AGAINST SOMEONE WHO MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE EVEN BEEN AWARE THAT A CRIME TOOK PLACE, UH, UNTIL IT HAPPENED. 
          RIGHT. 
          OBVIOUSLY, IF AN OWNER IS INVOLVED IN THE CRIME, THAT'S , THAT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT. 
          UM, BUT JUST SIMPLY A CRIME TAKING PLACE ON THEIR PROPERTY THAT HAPPENS TO BE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, UH, THAT JUST SEEMS LIKE A BRIDGE TOO FAR FOR ME. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONER COX, UM, ARE, ARE WE ENTERTAINING AMENDING AMENDMENTS? YES, CERTAINLY. 
          WHAT I WANTED, BECAUSE I I ACTUALLY AS, AS I DIGEST THIS, I I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING AS COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AND WHEN I KIND OF FORCED YOU TO DECIDE WHETHER THE PENALTY WAS TO THE OPERATOR OR TO THE PROPERTY, I'M WONDERING IF, IF IT WOULD BE BETTER TO ASSIGN THIS PENALTY TO THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, AND, AND I'M HAPPY TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE AND WELL, AM I ALLOWED TO SPEAK AS TO WHY OR DO I NEED TO GET A SECOND, FIRST SECOND, UM, LET'S STATE YOUR AMENDMENT AND THEN WE'LL GO SECOND. 
          UM, IT'S THE SAME AMENDMENT, BUT INSTEAD OF THE OPERATOR BEING BANNED, UM, I WOULD SAY THE, THE, THE PHYSICAL STR PROPERTY IS BANNED FROM BEING FOR, FOR CONTINUING TO BE AN STR. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'RE LOOKING FOR A SECOND ON THAT. 
          JUST FOR PROCEDURAL PURPOSES. 
          I DO WANNA CLARIFY THAT WOULD BE A, UM, SUBSTITUTE MOTION, UM, JUST BECAUSE IT OH, CHANGES IT SO WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE AN AMENDMENT, BUT THAT'S ALSO GERMANE. 
          WE CAN DO THAT, YES. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? SO THAT ONE DIDN'T HAVE A SECOND. 
          COMMISSIONER COX. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK, UH, IN AGAINST, WELL, I'LL, I'LL JUST SPEAK IN FAVOR BECAUSE I DO AGREE WITH THIS AMENDMENT. 
          UM, BUT THE REASONING AS TO WHY I THINK IT COULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO APPLY TO THE PROPERTY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, A CRIME TOOK PLACE AT A PROPERTY THAT, TO ME, THE PROPERTY MAY BE SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROPERTY MAY BE ATTRACTING THAT CRIME. 
          AND SO APPLYING THE PENALTY TO THE PROPERTY SEEMED TO BE THE BEST WAY TO PREVENT THAT CRIME FROM HAPPENING AGAIN. 
          UM, RATHER THAN NECESSARILY THE OPERATOR WHO MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HAD ANY CONTROL OVER THAT CRIME HAPPENING. 
          SO THAT, THAT WAS MY THOUGHT PROCESS. 
          BUT WITH THE ABSENCE OF THAT, I STILL SUPPORT, UM, THE, THE, THE, THE, THE GENERAL GIST OF, OF THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU'RE MAKING. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST COMMISSIONER MARIA RAMIREZ AND THEN COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? SURE. 
          PUT MY HEADPHONES ON. 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME BETTER NOW? YES. 
          PERFECT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THE CURRENT ORDINANCE TALKS ABOUT NUMEROUS, OR IT CITES, UM, UNDER NUISANCE, IT TALKS ABOUT CONTINUOUS, SORRY, NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS. 
          SO IT DOESN'T REALLY, IT'S NOT REALLY SPECIFIC ABOUT THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT SOMETHING HAS TO HAPPEN BEFORE THE DIRECTOR REVOKES THE LICENSE. 
          AND SO I'M CURIOUS, I HEARD SOMEONE SAY THREE STRIKES. 
          UM, I, 'CAUSE I DO FEEL LIKE ONE CRIME AND YOU'RE CLOSED IN PERPETUITY FEELS EXTREME. 
          SO I WONDER IF THERE'S SOME KIND OF, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF STRIKES OR THERE'S A COUPLE OF INSTANCES WHERE IT HAPPENS ONE OR TWO OR THREE TIMES, AND THEN SOME OF THESE, SOMETHING HAPPENS AND THEN YOU GET YOUR LICENSE REVOKED, OR THEN YOU, THE PROPERTY IS NOT AN AIRBNB ANYMORE THAT, YOU KNOW, I JUST, IT FEELS LIKE ONE TIME IS KIND OF TOO MUCH TO, TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER. 
          UM, SO IS THERE A BALANCE THAT WE CAN STRIKE? DID YOU WANNA PROPOSE A SUBSTITUTE? YES. 
          MAYBE IT'S THREE INSTEAD OF NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS, MAYBE IT'S THREE COMPLAINTS OR UP TO THREE COMPLAINTS. 
          UM, FOR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE PER LIKE LOSING YOUR LICENSE IN PERPETUITY UNTIL A NEW OWNER IS 
          [03:50:01]
BROUGHT ON BOARD. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER PER RAMIREZ, LET ME KNOW IF THIS SOUNDS RIGHT. 
          UM, SO THIS WOULD READ IF THERE ARE THREE OR MORE NUISANCE ACTIVITIES THAT INVOLVE A CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT A PROPERTY. 
          AN OWNER CANNOT OPERATE IN SD AT THAT LOCATION OR ANY OTHER LOCATION IN PERPETUITY OR A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME SUBJECT TO LEGAL REVIEW UNTIL THERE EXCHANGE OF OWNERSHIP AT THAT PROPERTY. 
          PERFECT. 
          CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? YES. 
          IS YOUR INTENT FOR IT TO BE AT THAT LOCATION OR ANY LOCATION IT TO BE TIED TO THE OWNER? I'M, I ACTUALLY, I'M THINKING IT'S SITE SPECIFIC THAT IT WOULD BE JUST THAT PROPERTY, JUST THAT LICENSE, BUT OKAY. 
          I'M, I'M ALSO OPEN IF THERE'S OTHERS THAT DISAGREE. 
          COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? YES. 
          I HAVE A, A CLARIFYING QUESTION TOO. 
          WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THE DRAFT ORDINANCE UNDER 4 23 5 X, IT SAYS THE DIRECTOR MAY REVOKE AN OPERATOR'S LICENSE IF A DIRECTOR DETERMINES THAT AND IT LISTS A BUNCH OF THINGS, BUT NUMBER TWO IS A HOUSING UNIT POSES A THREAT TO LIFE, HEALTH OR PUBLIC SAFETY. 
          SO WOULDN'T THE CRIME LIKE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WOULDN'T THAT FALL UNDER THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN? MM-HMM . 
          I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. 
          I FEEL LIKE THEY'RE, THEY'RE TRYING TO GET ALREADY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S JUST FOR 12 MONTHS THOUGH RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS WHERE I HAD STARTED WITH MY AMENDMENTS. 
          UH, SO REVOKING THE LICENSE IS ONLY FOR A 12 MONTH PERIOD. 
          HMM. 
          OKAY. 
          SURE. 
          WE DO HAVE THE, OUR PROCESS ALLOWS QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. 
          STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THAT ? THANK YOU. 
          SO THOSE ARE KIND OF TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          SO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY IS GENERALLY KIND OF OUR CATCHALL FOR STRUCTURAL SITE CONDITION SITUATIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, LIKE THE, THE HABITABILITY OF THE STRUCTURE. 
          AND THAT IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE THAN WHETHER THERE'S NUISANCE ACTIVITIES OCCURRING AT THE PROPERTY. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO THE DESCRIPTION THAT I UNDERSTAND FROM THE CHAIR WOULD BE ABOUT THOSE NUISANCE ACTIVITIES LIMITED TO THAT PARTICULAR ONE OR THAT PARTICULAR, UM, KIND OF BOX OF ISSUES. 
          SO THEN MAYBE A CLARIFYING QUESTION TO STAFF ON THAT THEN IS, THAT'S COVERED UNDER NUMBER FOUR HERE, WHERE IT SAYS A COURT OF A COMPETENT JURISDICTION DECLARES THE SHORT TERM RENTAL A NUISANCE. 
          CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THAT PROCESS LOOKS LIKE? UM, SO THERE ARE TIMES WHEN SOMEONE, WE'VE ACTUALLY SEEN IT BEFORE WHERE A NEIGHBOR HAS SUED ANOTHER NEIGHBOR FOR NUISANCE BASED ON THE KIND OF POOR OPERATIONS OF THE STR. 
          UM, SO IF A COURT, IF, IF TWO NEIGHBORS, IF THAT HAPPENS AND THE NEIGHBOR IS ABLE TO GET THAT KIND OF, UM, COURT ORDER, THEN WE COULD USE THAT AS THE BASIS TO REVOKE THE LICENSE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? I THINK WE'RE STILL LOOKING FOR A SECOND ON COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ'S MOTION. 
          AND CHERYL RESTATE IT BECAUSE I, I THINK THERE WAS A CLARIFICATION. 
          SO IT'S SLIGHTLY ACTUALLY DIFFERENT FROM YOURS. 
          SO THIS NOW IS A SUBSTITUTE AS WELL. 
          IF THERE ARE THREE OR MORE NUISANCE ACTIVITIES THAT INVOLVE A CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT A PROPERTY, AN OWNER CANNOT OPERATE AN SGR AT THAT LOCATION IN PERPETUITY OR A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME SUBJECT TO LEGAL REVIEW UNTIL THERE IS A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP ON THAT PROP AT THAT PROPERTY. 
          SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AROUND THIS SUBSTITUTE QUESTION? OKAY, SURE. 
          I, I JUST HAD A CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR MY OWN CURIOSITY. 
          WHEN, WHEN YOU ORIGINALLY MADE THE MOTION, YOU, YOU WOULD USE THE WORD EGREGIOUS, BUT IS THIS MORE JUST AIMED AT ANY NUISANCE, LIKE SMOKING WEED OR PLAYING MUSIC TOO LOUD? THAT THAT WASN'T MINE, BUT NOT THAT I'M SAYING. 
          I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ. 
          YEAH, NO. 
          THIS IS SHOOTING SEXUAL ASSAULT BECAUSE THAT SEEMS MORE LIKE VIOLENT CRIME ORIENTED. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ, YES. 
          THAT CRIME, THE VIOLENT CRIME, I'M SURE THERE'S A TECHNICAL TERM FOR IT, BUT I I'M NOT IN THAT WORLD. 
          UM, JUST PROCEDURALLY IF THERE'S NO, UM, THERE'S NO CONSENT FROM OTHERS. 
          AND THE SECOND IS IN AGREEANCE, WE'RE NOW ADDING THE WORD VIOLENT IN, IN FRONT OF VIOLENT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT A PROPERTY FOR A PROCEDURE. 
          WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO, OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE TO OPEN IT UP AGAIN. 
          I SAW A NOD FROM COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT AS THE SECOND? 
          [03:55:01]
OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT, QUESTIONS? ANYBODY SPEAKING? OH, YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR, I'M SPEAKING FOR, BUT COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. 
          COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, I OF, I GUESS, OH, ARE WE SPEAKING FOR AND AGAINST RIGHT NOW OR ARE WE DOING QUESTIONS STILL? I DIDN'T SEE ANY QUESTIONS, SO I WAS ABOUT TO GO INTO FOR AND AGAINST WERE YOU SPEAKING? UM, I GUESS I'M VERY RELUCTANTLY SPEAKING AGAINST, UH, BECAUSE I, I I'M WORRIED THAT I, WHILE WE'RE TRYING, I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE AND I, AND I WANNA FIND A WAY TO GET THERE UNDER THE LICENSE REVOCATION SECTION. 
          I THINK, YOU KNOW, EVEN INCLUDING THE TERM VIOLENT CRIME, I MEAN, I, I THINK IF, I MEAN, GOD FORBID THERE'S A SEXUAL ASSAULT THAT OCCURS AND SOMEBODY'S RENTING AN STR AND THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OWNER OF THE SDR, BUT IT IS STILL IN FACT A CRIME. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD WANT TO PENALIZE THE OWNER OF THE SDR BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT OCCURRED ON THAT PROPERTY. 
          AND SO I I I FEEL LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY DIFFICULT TO PARSE OUT WHICH OF THESE CRIMES IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO SOME NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE, OF THE, THE OWNER, THE LANDLORD, AS THE CASE MAY BE. 
          SO I JUST, I I, I KNOW WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE, BUT I, I JUST FEEL LIKE IT'S, IT SEEMS TO BE UN UNTENABLE TO DIRECTLY CONNECT THE TWO. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONER COX? UM, UH, I'M SPEAKING FOR, UM, SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS, UH, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE AND, AND, AND OTHER COMMISSIONER'S CONCERNS ABOUT ANALYZING THE OPERATOR FOR CRIME THAT THEY MAY NOT HAVE REALLY HAD THE ABILITY TO PREVENT. 
          I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I'M ALSO LOOKING AT THIS FROM MORE OF JUST KIND OF THE WHOLE ECOSYSTEM OF STR AND I KNOW AIRBNB HAS BEEN IN HOT WATER BEFORE, UH, YOU KNOW, UBER HAS BEEN IN HOT WATER BECAUSE OF THEIR DRIVERS COMMITTING VIOLENCE. 
          UM, AND SO I THINK BY HAVING REALLY STRICT KIND OF, UH, UH, REALLY STRICT PENALTIES FOR THINGS LIKE THAT, IT NOT ONLY BECOMES INCUMBENT ON THE OPERATOR TO TRY TO MAKE SURE TO THEIR BEST ABILITY THAT THAT, THAT THEIR SCREENING, HOWEVER THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, WITH POSITIVE REVIEWS OR WHATEVER THE GUESTS THAT THEY ALLOW TO STAY THERE, BUT ALSO JUST THE PLATFORMS THEMSELVES AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY RESPOND, UH, UH, WITH, WITH DECISIVE ACTION AGAINST ANYONE WHO IS USING, UH, THESE PROPERTIES TO, TO COMMIT VIOLENT ACTS. 
          BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY THE CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE THAT THESE STR ARE NO LONGER STR THEY'RE TAKEN OFF THE SYSTEM, SO THEY'RE NOT MAKING THE OPERATOR MONEY AND THEY'RE NOT MAKING THE PLATFORMS MONEY. 
          AND SO I, I AGREE THAT THERE MAY BE SOME INNOCENT, UH, PARTIES CAUGHT UP IN THIS, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THESE STRICT RULES WILL KIND OF FORCE OR HELP FORCE THE WHOLE ECOSYSTEM OF STR TO, TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE DOING THE BEST THEY CAN, UM, WITH SAFETY ON, ON THESE PROPERTIES. 
          VICE CHAIR, DID YOU, YOU HAD WANTED TO SPEAK FOR YES, SURE. 
          AND I'LL MAKE THIS VERY QUICK. 
          I THINK YOU, ALLALL HAVE ALREADY HEARD. 
          I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE POINTS THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE MADE. 
          I DON'T THINK AT LEAST MY INTENTION HERE IS TO OVER CRIMINALIZE OR TRY TO SORT OF MAKE IT MORE HARD. 
          AND I HOPE STAFF WILL SORT OF CONSIDER THESE DIFFERENT THINGS AS THEY'RE LOOKING AT THESE AMENDMENTS. 
          AND I, I, BUT I ALSO AGREE, I THINK WE DON'T WANT FOLKS HAVING TO DEAL WITH A LOT OF SPILLOVER EFFECT WHEN THE OPERATOR DOES NOT HAVE ESSENTIALLY, UM, ANY RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE THAT. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT AS ADULTS, IT'S VERY HARD TO MANAGE THE BEHAVIOR OF YOUR GUEST, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF YOU ARE THE OPERATOR, YOU'RE ALSO A GOOD NEIGHBOR TO THE FOLKS AROUND YOU AS WELL. 
          UH, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE IS YOUR PROPERTY, UM, THANK YOU CHAIR ANYWAY, SPEAKING AGAINST, OKAY. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, COULD, UH, COULD VICE CHAIR REREAD THE MOTION, PLEASE? CERTAINLY, YES. 
          UH, SO THIS IS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. 
          IF THERE ARE THREE OR MORE NUISANCE ACTIVITIES THAT INVOLVE A VIOLENT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT A PROPERTY, AN OWNER CANNOT OPERATE AN SDR AT THAT LOCATION IN PERPETUITY OR A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME SUBJECT TO LEGAL REVIEW UNTIL THERE'S A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP AT THAT PROPERTY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NOW, IS THERE ANY, I'M SORRY, I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS REAL QUICK. 
          ARE, IS THIS TIME BOUND IN ANY WAY OR IS THIS OVER A YEAR, A 20 YEAR PERIOD? FOREVER. 
          UM, JUST TO CLARIFY, I THINK THE CONVERSATION THAT HAPPENED, SO WE SAID PERPETUITY, WHICH WOULD BE FOREVER OR CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME, ESSENTIALLY IT DEPENDS ON LEGAL 
          [04:00:01]
REVIEW. 
          WE'RE NOT SURE AT THIS POINT IF THERE'S A LIMITATION IN HOW STAFF WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT. 
          AND IS THIS CUMULATIVE, LIKE IF THERE'S ONE BUILDING THAT HAS FOUR OF THE 50 UNITS THAT ARE ST IT SAYS PROPERTY, WOULD THAT BE NOW CUMULATIVE OF ALL FOUR? THAT IS A VERY GOOD, UH, QUESTION AND I WILL LEAVE IT TO THE MOTION MAKER, BUT TO BE HONEST, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, YOU'RE RIGHT, IT WOULD READ PROPERTY NOT UNIT. 
          IF WE WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, WE COULD, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE CLARIFIED. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          IN THIS CASE, GIVEN THE EARLIER AMENDMENT, I THINK UNIT MAKES MORE SENSE. 
          AND AGAIN, FOR THE PROCESS, I JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO THAT CHANGE. 
          SO IT WOULD NOW READ IF THERE ARE THREE OR MORE NUISANCE ACTIVITIES INVOLVED WITH VIOLENT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT A UNIT AN OWNER CANNOT OPERATE AN STR AT IN THAT UNIT IN PERPETUITY OR CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME SUBJECT TO LEGAL REVIEW UNTIL THERE'S A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OF THE UNIT. 
          AND COMMISSIONER BARR, RAMEZ, ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? OKAY. 
          I SEE A NOD ON BOTH. 
          OKAY. 
          BACK TO OUR FOR AND AGAINST. 
          ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. 
          UM, I, I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO READ IT AGAIN. 
          IT'S, IT'S BEEN PLENTY. 
          SO ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT, THAT'S ALL 10, THAT'S UNANIMOUS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I'LL GO AS I SEE YOU ON THE SCREEN. 
          COMMISSIONER WOODS, ANY AMENDMENTS? YEAH, I HAVE A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHING A SINGLE CITY PHONE NUMBER FOR STR COMPLAINTS OR COMPLIANCE ISSUES AND FURTHER ESTABLISH A SYSTEM THAT WOULD FIRST ROUTE THOSE CALLS TO THE LOCAL CONTACT FOR THE STR AND THEN TO CODE COMPLIANCE UPON IF, IF NEEDED, UPON FURTHER CALLS. 
          AND OBVIOUSLY TO BE VERY CLEAR, THAT IS NOT INTENDED TO REPLACE 9 1 1 CALLS, BUT WOULD JUST BE FOR, UM, NUISANCE ISSUES OR COMPLIANCE ISSUES. 
          AND I CAN SPEAK TO IT BRIEFLY, UM, WHICH THE IDEA IS REALLY GO AHEAD. 
          OH, I JUST, I JUST TURNED IN MY MIC TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS BEFORE YOU MAKE A MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONER WOODS, DO YOU WANNA RESTATE, UH, AND MAKE IT INTO A MOTION? WE'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND. 
          YEAH, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO MAKE A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHING A SINGLE CITY PHONE NUMBER FOR STR COMPLAINTS AND COMPLIANCE ISSUES, NOT TO REPLACE 9 1 1 CALLS AND ESTABLISH A SYSTEM TO FIRST ROUTE THOSE CALLS TO THE LOCAL CONTACT FOR THE STR IF POSSIBLE, BEFORE ROUTING THEM TO COMPLIANCE STAFF. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? YEAH, I'LL JUST BRIEFLY, THE, MY THINKING HERE IS TO BOTH GIVE THOSE WHO ARE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD FROM A LOT OF FOLKS THAT ARE BEING IMPACTED BY NUISANCES ASSOCIATED WITH STR R IS A VERY CLEAR POINT OF COMMUNICATION. 
          I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGEST FRUSTRATIONS IT SOUNDS LIKE IS, IS CALLING ALL OVER THESE CITY DEPARTMENTS AND, AND NOT NECESSARILY GETTING TIMELY RESPONSES. 
          UM, SO BOTH HAVING A CLEAR POINT OF COMMUNICATION, BUT ALSO THE IDEA WITH FIRST ROUTING THAT TO THE STR LOCAL CONTACT IS TO LESSEN THE BURDEN ON THE ENFORCEMENT STAFF WHOSE CAPACITY IT SOUNDS LIKE IS A LITTLE BIT LIMITED AND PER FIRST PUT THE BURDEN TO RESPOND ON THE OPERATOR OF THE STR. 
          AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IF WE NEED ENFORCEMENT STAFF AFTER THAT, WE HAVE THAT OPTION. 
          AND I RECOGNIZE THAT THAT'S KIND OF A COMPLICATED ASK, WHICH IS WHY IT'S A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST YES. 
          VICE CHAIR, CHAIR? I JUST HAVE A A, A QUESTION OR A REQUEST. 
          COMMISSIONER WOODS, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU MIGHT HAVE A WRITTEN FORM OF THAT. 
          IF YOU OR ANYONE ELSE HAS WRITTEN, UH, AMENDMENTS, PLEASE SEND THEM TO ME. 
          I'M SORT OF COLLATING THE SHEET SO I CAN SHARE IT WITH STAFF. 
          YEAH, I'LL SEND THAT TO YOU NOW. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ARE THEY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST COMMISSIONER COX? I, I, I MEAN, ISN'T 3 1 1 FOR THIS. 
          I I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THIS WHEN WE WERE ASKING QUESTIONS, I APOLOGIZE. 
          UM, BUT 3 1 1 IS REALLY EASY TO REMEMBER  THAN LIKE A DRAWN 
          [04:05:01]
OUT PHONE NUMBER. 
          SO I, I MEAN, IN, IN MY EXPERIENCE, I HAVEN'T USED 3 1 1 A WHOLE LOT FORTUNATELY, BUT IN THE FEW TIMES I HAVE, THEY, THEY'VE BEEN REALLY RESPONSIVE. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW IF I JUST GOT LUCKY OR, OR, OR WHAT, BUT, UM, I I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT KIND OF SPLITTING OUR ENFORCEMENT, UM, ENFORCEMENT'S ATTENTION BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OR WHATEVER, WHICH YOU, YOU, YOU FORMULATED THIS AS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION FOR THEM TO LOOK AT IT. 
          SO I DON'T NECESSARILY OPPOSE THAT, BUT, BUT I DO THINK THAT THE 3 1 1 SYSTEM, AT LEAST WITH MY INTERACTION, UM, MAYBE WE NEED TO PUT MORE, MORE RESOURCES INTO IT, UM, TO ACCOMMODATE THESE, THESE STR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS, BUT I DO THINK IT'S A GOOD SYSTEM. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, I, I THINK WE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR FROM THE FOLKS IN THE ROOM TONIGHT THAT, UM, THE CURRENT OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE FOR RESPONSIVENESS RELATED TO ISSUES AND STRS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT. 
          SO I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER WOODS BRINGING THIS FORWARD AS AN OPTION TO LOOK AT AS A WAY TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR IF THAT THERE ARE COMPLAINTS RELATED TO SCRS, THAT THERE IS A DEDICATED PHONE NUMBER AND THAT THAT IS TIED TO THE PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE NUISANCES. 
          UM, I UNDERSTAND 3 1 1 IS AN EXCELLENT SYSTEM AND I LOVE THEIR APP. 
          HIGHLY RECOMMEND EVERYONE DOWNLOADS IT. 
          SUPER GREAT FOR BIKE LANE ENFORCEMENT, BUT POINT BEING IS THAT IT'S NOT WORKING FOR SDR ENFORCEMENT, SO HAVING OTHER OPTIONS MIGHT BE GREAT. 
          SO I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER WOODS DISCUSSING THIS AND HOPEFULLY STAFF CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MAKE THIS, UM, AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF COMPLIANCE VERSUS BEING REDUNDANT. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST OR FOR? OKAY. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          UM, I'LL JUST CALL IT THE HOTLINE AMENDMENT. 
          UM, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, THAT'S UNANIMOUS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          10 TO ZERO. 
          MOVING ON TO COMMISSIONER COX. 
          UM, I DID HAVE FOUR AMENDMENTS EMAILED OUT. 
          UM, THANK YOU, UH, ELLA FOR DOING THAT. 
          UM, THE FIRST ONE IS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION FOR STAFF TO REVIEW THE FEASIBILITY OF ASSESSING A SEPARATE FEE FOR STR PAID AT LICENSING AND OR RENEWAL FOR CONTRIBUTION TO AND RECOGNITION OF THE ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF TIME REQUIRED FOR ADEQUATE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE STR REGULATIONS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          DO YOU WANNA PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE EXPLANATION BEHIND THAT BEFORE YOU TURN IT INTO A MOTION? YEAH, I, I REALLY, I, SO MANY OF THESE ISSUES WITH STR IS RELATED TO ENFORCEMENT AND, AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE SPENDING HOURS TALKING ABOUT STR REGULATIONS, UM, WHEN, WHEN IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WE'RE ACTUALLY ADDRESSING THE CORE ISSUE OF ENFORCEMENT. 
          AND EVERYBODY THAT WORKS IN GOVERNMENT OR WORKS FOR GOVERNMENT, UH, KNOWS THAT, THAT IF THERE ISN'T MONEY FOR SOMETHING, IF THERE ISN'T A DEDICATED POT OF MONEY FOR SOMETHING, THEN IT'S COMPETING FOR EVERYTHING ELSE. 
          AND SO LET'S USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A POT OF MONEY THAT STR ARE PAYING FOR SPECIFICALLY FOR ENFORCEMENT AND THEN THE CITY WILL, WILL ESSENTIALLY BE FORCED TO USE THAT MONEY FOR ENFORCEMENT. 
          SO IT'S ALMOST KIND OF A BACK WAY OF FORCING THE CITY TO PROPERLY STAFF, UM, OUR, OUR ENFORCEMENT TEAMS AND, AND, AND ACTUALLY PROPERLY DO ENFORCEMENT OF STR REGULATIONS. 
          ALRIGHT, WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS. 
          VICE CHAIR, CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION OF STAFF AND, UM, STAFF IF IT, IT'S NOT A QUESTION THAT COULD BE ANSWERED AT THIS TIME, THAT'S FINE. 
          I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD. 
          COULD, WOULD, COULD THIS BE CONSIDERED A SERVICE FEE SO IT'S TIED TO A CERTAIN PROVISION OF A SERVICE OR WOULD THIS BE MORE ALONG THE LINES OF A LINKAGE FEE? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND LIKE, SHOULD WE BE CONCERNED ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT OR IS IT SOMETHING FINE TO EXPLORE AT THIS TIME? I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S, IF YOU NEED MORE TIME TO IT'S REVIEW IT, THAT'S FINE. 
          IT'S SOMETHING WE'D HAVE TO WORK THROUGH. 
          BUT ALSO THE OTHER THING I WOULD NOT EXPECT NECESSARILY FOR, EVEN IF AN ADDITIONAL FEE WAS ADDED, MY SUSPICION IS IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T COME UP UNTIL THE BUDGET TIMEFRAME JUST BECAUSE OF HOW LONG IT TAKES TO DEVELOP JUST A FEE IN GENERAL. 
          'CAUSE WE NEED TO DO COST OF SERVICE STUDIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          SO EVEN IF, EVEN IF WE, IF WE FIND A PATHWAY, MY SUSPICION IS IT PROBABLY WOULD BE CLOSER 
          [04:10:01]
TO THE BUDGET TIME BEFORE WE COULD REALLY HAVE COUNSEL TAKE THAT UP. 
          THANK YOU. 
          TRUTH, THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. 
          AND, AND, AND THAT, THAT'S WHY I FORMULATED IT AS A REVIEW OF THE FEASIBILITY. 
          'CAUSE I KNEW IT WOULD TAKE TIME TO SET UP SOMETHING LIKE THIS. 
          SO YEAH. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER COX, DO YOU WANNA RESTATE THAT AGAIN? TURN IT INTO A MOTION? UM, UH, MY MOTION IS TO, UM, DIRECT STAFF TO REVIEW THE FEASIBILITY OF ASSESSING A SEPARATE FEE FOR STR PAID AT LICENSING AND OR RENEWAL FOR CONTRIBUTION TO AND RECOGNITION OF THE ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF TIME REQUIRED FOR ADEQUATE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE STR REGULATIONS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          LOOKING FOR A SECOND, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR. 
          DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? I, I THINK I HAVE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST VICE CHAIR? CHAIR? I'LL MAKE THIS VERY QUICK JUST TO BE RESPECTFUL OF EVERYONE'S TIME. 
          I THINK, UH, THE REASON I'M SUPPORTING THIS IS AGAIN FOR STAFF TO SORT OF GO OUT AND FIGURE OUT THE FEASIBILITY OF IT. 
          AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND THERE'S GONNA BE COMPLICATIONS AND WHAT MS. LINK SAID COMPLETELY MAKES SENSE. 
          WE WOULD HAVE TO DO A NEXUS STUDY TO PUT IT IN THE FEE SCHEDULE AND SO ON. 
          THERE'S AN ENTIRE PROCESS TO BE FOLLOWED AND STAFF SHOULD FOLLOW THEIR PROPER PROCESS. 
          UM, BUT I ALSO AGREE WITH THE FACT THAT YES, THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH ENFORCEMENT AND WE KNOW THAT CODE COMPLIANCE STRUGGLES WITH VARIOUS SORT OF REASONS. 
          PARTIALLY JUST BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, HAVING THE RESOURCES TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT LEVEL OF IN DEPTH WORK, UM, IS IMPORTANT. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT THIS. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? OKAY, LET'S VOTE ON THIS. 
          THIS IS THE MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER COX SECOND, MY VICE CHAIR. 
          ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          THAT IS NINE TO ZERO WITH COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. 
          I DON'T HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS AT THIS TIME. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          COME BACK TO YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER HANEY. 
          AND I JUST EMAILED THIS OVER TO THE VICE CHAIR, SO YOU SHOULD HAVE IT HERE SHORTLY. 
          UM, ONE MOMENT. 
          LEMME GET IT BACK UP. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO, UH, THIS ONE WOULD, WELL THE TEXT IS UPON ISSUING A NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR OPERATING AN UNLICENSED SHORT-TERM RENTER. 
          THE RENTAL, THE DIRECTOR SHALL ALSO REFER THE MATTER TO THE STATE COMPTROLLER'S CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION AND THE CITY CONTROLLER'S OFFICE AND, UH, YOU CAN PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE BACKGROUND AROUND IT. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, I, I MEAN, WE HEARD SEVERAL TIMES THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE UNLICENSED OPERATORS OUT THERE. 
          UM, AND YOU KNOW, I, I THINK WHEN THEY WENT AFTER THE MOB AND AL CAPONE, THEY GOT 'EM ON TAX FRAUD. 
          AND, UH, IF WE'VE GOT THE STATE CONTROLLERS, UH, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION AND THE CITY CONTROLLER'S OFFICE LOOKING AT 'EM FOR SOME REVENUE THAT, UH, THAT MIGHT PROVIDE SOME, SOME MORE INCENTIVE TO GET SOME OF THESE UNLICENSED FOLKS, UH, BACK INTO COMPLIANCE. 
          ALRIGHT, WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS. 
          YES, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UM, SO QUESTION FOR THE MOTION MAKER. 
          DO WE BELIEVE THAT THE STATE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT THEY, WOULD THEY HAVE A DIVISION THAT LOOKS AT THIS OR WOULD BE WILLING TO TAKE THESE TYPES OF CASES? UH, THEY DO HAVE A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION. 
          I AM NOT ADVISED AS TO WHETHER, UH, THEY WOULD NECESSARILY LOOK AT THIS, BUT, YOU KNOW, MONEY'S MONEY. 
          UM, I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          WOULD, UM, AND THIS RELATES TO AN AMENDMENT I WAS CONSIDERING THE BY, UM, RECOMMENDING OR REPORTING THEM TO THE STATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY. 
          WOULD THIS ALSO HELP THE CITY GET THE BACK HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAXES? FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, UM, YOU KNOW, THE CITY CONTROLLER AND THE STATE CONTROLLER, SINCE THE CITY GETS PART OF THAT REVENUE AND THE STATE GETS PART OF THEIR REVENUE, WOULD BOTH BE INCENTIVIZED TO, UH, TO LOOK AFTER, UM, THESE SORTS OF CASES AND, UM, COULD CERTAINLY COLLECT THE REVENUE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OTHER 
          [04:15:01]
QUESTIONS? VICE CHAIR? I JUST HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION. 
          GO MR. HANEY. 
          SO THIS WILL BE LITERALLY SPECIFIC TO THE FEES ITSELF, NOT, NOT THE TOTAL OCCUPANCY TAXES, CORRECT? UH, NO, THIS WOULD BE FOR HOT TAX. 
          THEN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, WHICH IS WE, WE DO, WE CURRENTLY COLLECT TOTAL OCCUPANCY TAX ARE FOR THOSE WHO ARE LICENSED. 
          JUST SO AN STR OPERATOR TODAY IS OBLIGATED TO REMIT THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX GENERATED FROM THEIR STR TO THE CITY AND TO THE STATE. 
          GOT IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. 
          AND ACTUALLY VICE CHAIR, I, I THINK MAYBE IF WE JUST REMAIN SILENT ON, ON THAT , UM, SO THEY COULD IN THEORY GO AFTER THEM FOR THE LICENSURE FEE AS WELL AS THE HOT TAX. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. 
          DO YOU WANNA TURN THAT INTO AN OFFICIAL MOTION? UH, I MOVE THAT THE, UM, AMENDMENT AS READ BY THE VICE CHAIR. 
          UH, AGAIN, I CAN READ IT. 
          SO THIS WOULD BE, AND THIS IS SHARED BY YOU, UPON ISSUING A NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR OPERATING AN UNLICENSED SHORT-TERM RENTAL, THE DIRECTOR SHALL ALSO REFER THE MATTER TO THIS STATE COMPTROLLER'S CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION OF THE CITY COMP ORDER. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX. 
          UM, I'LL LET YOU SPEAK TO IT IF YOU WANTED ANY MORE WORDS. 
          I THINK WE'VE ALREADY ALREADY COVERED THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? OKAY. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. 
          ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UH, ALL RIGHT. 
          THAT IS NINE ZERO WITH COMMISSIONER ANDERSON OFF THE COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UM, YES. 
          AND I'M ONCE AGAIN DOING THIS THE WRONG WAY AROUND, BUT I DO HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR STAFF BEFORE I OFFER MY AMENDMENT, IF THAT'S OKAY. 
          UM, I THINK WE, IT WAS RAISED BY VICE CHAIR OF AZAR, BUT JUST TO CONFIRM, UM, IF A LEASE PERMITTED, IF THERE WAS AN UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN A LANDLORD AND A TENANT, THEY COULD THEORETICALLY OFFER AN STR OR IS THERE CURRENT LANGUAGE THAT WOULD NOT PERMIT THAT? SO UNDER TODAY'S CODE, A TENANT IS NOT ABLE TO, UM, ASK FOR A STR LICENSE IN THEIR NAME. 
          THE SAME WOULD CARRY FORWARD IN THE NEW PROVISIONS CHAIR. 
          I HAVE AN AMENDMENT . 
          ALRIGHT, SO I, I MIGHT, I'D LIKE TO, UM, DIRECT STAFF TO CONSIDER HOW WE MIGHT POTENTIALLY ALLOW TENANTS THAT ARE NOT EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN IN THEIR LEASE OR BY THEIR OWNER, THE LANDLORD, TO OFFER STR OR HAVE AN OPTION TO GAIN AN STR LICENSE IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          DID YOU WANNA, UM, PROVIDE ANY MORE DESCRIPTION AROUND THAT? UH, I THINK, YEAH, I, I REALIZE IT'S A REALLY NARROW SCOPE, BUT I THINK WE JUST ARE, THERE MAY BE SPECIFIC EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT IS A RENTAL UNIT AND THE TENANT HAS COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNER WHEREBY THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH AN STR AND THAT, THAT STR REVENUE MIGHT ACTUALLY BE HELPFUL TO THE TENANT AND EVEN TO THE OWNER. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, I, I DON'T WANNA COME UP WITH A, LIKE A LOT OF EDGE CASES, BUT I, I CERTAINLY CAN THINK OF SOME SITUATIONS WHERE THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE. 
          SO JUST, UM, THINKING ABOUT HOW WE COULD POTENTIALLY, UH, EXTEND THE BENEFITS OF STR TO SITUATIONS WHERE TENANTS AND LANDLORDS HAVE COME TO THAT AGREEMENT AND THAT IT IS EXPRESSLY ALLOWED IN THE LEASE AND WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE. 
          SO HAVING STAFF AT LEAST INVESTIGATE THAT AS AN OPTION. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS. 
          COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ, ARE YOU DESCRIBING A SUBLET? IS IT, I I THINK THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF A QUESTION HERE. 
          AND, AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE THAT, AND, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY I WANNA BE CAREFUL ABOUT HOW WE DESCRIBE IT BECAUSE SUBLETS ARE SOMETIMES PERMITTED, AND THEN I JUST, IF WE SAY THAT YOUR SUBLET WAS AN STR, WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? RIGHT? I, I MEAN, I THINK THE CHALLENGE IS THE LICENSE IS NOT CHEAP, RIGHT? IT'S LIKE $700. 
          SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REALLY WORTHWHILE FOR A, A RENTER ANYWAY, IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. 
          BYE. 
          CHAIR, CHAIR. 
          JUST A COMMENT TO, UH, COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          I, I COMPLETELY AGREE. 
          I THINK I WAS JUST TRYING TO THINK OF, AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MAXWELL FOR BRINGING THAT UP AS WELL. 
          I, I THINK JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN IN SOUTH BY OR ACL, THEY ARE RENTERS WHO'VE BEEN ABLE TO RENT A BED OR, YOU KNOW, DO AN STR FOR A BEDROOM OR EVEN A COUCH, HONESTLY, AND FOR A LOT OF LOW INCOME TENANT, THAT CAN BE A REAL BIG BOOST TO THEIR SORT OF, LIKE, INCOME ANNUALLY. 
          SO IT'S SORT OF LIKE JUST EXPLORING THAT OPTION. 
          I REALLY DO NOT KNOW ALL THE NUANCES OF THAT, BUT I'M JUST HOPING THAT STAFF CAN CONSIDER IT. 
          ARE THERE QUESTIONS? 
          [04:20:05]
ALRIGHT, UM, DID YOU WANNA MAKE THAT INTO A MOTION? OH, I, I WILL, UH, SUBMIT THE MOTION AS READ BY THE VICE CHAIR. 
          SO THIS IS WHAT I NOTED, UH, DIRECT STAFF TO ASSESS CONSIDERING ALLOWING TALENT TO OPERATE IN SGR AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE AND ARE ALLOWED TO DO SO BY THEIR LANDLORD IN LIMITED CASES. 
          ALRIGHT, IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          OH, . 
          UM, ANY, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THIS? EXCUSE ME. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          UM, I, I THINK AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, UH, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE EXPLORING AND I LOOK FORWARD TO STAFF. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST, I'M SORRY. 
          THE BALLOONS WERE REALLY FUNNY. 
          UM, ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR HERE SUPER QUICK? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          YEAH, I MEAN, TO PASS SOMETHING THAT IS ONLY FOR LANDOWNERS, THAT JUST DOESN'T SIT WELL. 
          SO I LIKE THIS AMENDMENT VICE CHAIR, I'LL, I'LL JUST SPEAK FOR IT AS WELL. 
          I CAN IMAGINE HONESTLY, THE COMPLEXITY OF HOW, UH, SOMETHING LIKE THIS WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED, AND I WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE THAT VERY MUCH SO HOPEFULLY STAFF CAN CONSIDER IT. 
          BUT, UH, CHRISTIAN ANDERSON, THAT'S SORT OF WHAT I WAS THINKING. 
          HOW DO WE SORT OF MAKE IT SO THAT IT'S NOT LIMITED TO A CERTAIN CLASS OF PEOPLE? UM, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S OPEN TO ALL, PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING THAT WE WANNA MOVE MORE AND MORE PEOPLE INTO A LICENSED FORMAT. 
          WHAT I DON'T WANT IS FOR TENANTS TO HAVE NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO DO AN UNLICENSED VERSION BECAUSE WE REALLY WANT PEOPLE TO BE WITHIN THE AUTHORIZED SYSTEM. 
          ALRIGHT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. 
          THIS IS ABOUT THE, UM, UH, STR PROVISIONS FOR TENANTS. 
          UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          ALL RIGHT, THAT'S UNANIMOUS. 
          10 TO ZERO. 
          COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR? ZA. 
          SORRY, CHAIR. 
          UM, I'M GONNA PULL UP MY OWN AMENDMENTS. 
          UM, THIS IS, THIS IS SHARED AS WELL. 
          THIS WOULD BE AS HARD TWO. 
          UM, THIS ESSENTIALLY AMENDMENT IS, UM, AND I'LL SPEAK TO IT ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT DOES, AND THEN WE CAN, I CAN STATE OUT THE MOTION, BUT THE IDEA WOULD BE THAT WE, WE'VE HEARD FROM A LOT OF FOLKS THAT THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE TWO R WINDOW FOR THE LOCAL CONTACT, BEING ABLE TO, UM, BEING ABLE TO RESPOND IN A MEANINGFUL WAY IF THEY'RE OUT OF TOWN OR THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE. 
          AND, UM, ESSENTIALLY I'M, I'M LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE THE PRIMARY CONTACT OR THE LOCAL CONTACT, BUT THERE'S ALSO AN ALTERNATE CONTACT. 
          AND SO SOMEBODY CAN DESIGNATE AN ALTERNATE CONTACT, UM, SORT OF AT ANY GIVEN TIME. 
          AND THERE WOULD BE NOT AN APPLICATION FEE, REIFICATION FEE ASSOCIATED WITH SUBMITTING THAT ALTERNATE. 
          SO I GUESS THE IDEA WOULD BE, AND AGAIN, I DO NOT KNOW HOW THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE IMPLEMENTATION, BUT ESSENTIALLY IF I'M GOING ON VACATION, I CAN DESIGNATE ANOTHER PERSON AS AN ALTERNATE. 
          THE IDEA WOULD BE THAT ESSENTIALLY THAT PERSON IS THEN IN CHARGE, AND IF THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE WITHIN THE TWO HOURS, I COMPLETELY AGREE WE WANT TO HAVE THAT KIND OF ACCOUNTABILITY OF OWNERS, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY MIGHT NOT ALWAYS BE AVAILABLE, UM, WITHIN A TWO HOUR NOTICE TO BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          EXCUSE ME. 
          OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS. 
          COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF ABOUT THE INTENT OF THAT. 
          NOTICE IS, IS THE IDEA THAT THEY NEED TO BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT WITHIN TWO HOURS? I MEAN, AS THIS MOVES FORWARD, STAFF WILL STILL HAVE TO DEVELOP PROCESSES AND RULES AROUND, UM, THOSE REQUIREMENTS. 
          THE PROPOSAL, THE TWO HOUR CONTACT IN SOME SITUATIONS WOULD BE PHONE BASED CONTACT, BUT IN POTENTIALLY MORE EXTREME SITUATIONS IT WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT TO MEET AT THE PROPERTY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? IF I MIGHT JUST QUICKLY ADD TO THAT, COMMISSIONER WOODS, I CAN DEFINITELY SEE THERE BEING A MOMENT WHERE LIKE A PHYSICAL PRESENCE MADE MIGHT BE NECESSARILY SIMILAR TO HONESTLY SOME OF THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, FOR EXAMPLE, WE'VE RAISED OR A BREAK IN OR SOMETHING WHERE, UM, YOU KNOW, STAFF HAS TO START FIGURE OUT WHAT ENTERING INTO THE PROPERTY. 
          HAVING THE OWNER THERE IS REALLY, REALLY CRITICAL. 
          I THINK IT'S VERY HARD SOMETIMES TO, YOU KNOW, MANAGE NOISE COMPLAINTS TO OTHERS IF THE OPERATOR IS NOT THERE. 
          SO I, I WANT TO GIVE STAFF THAT FLEXIBILITY, BUT ALSO HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY FOR OPERATORS TO BE ABLE TO DESIGNATE ALTERNATES. 
          YEAH, AGREED. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TURN THAT INTO A MOTION? SURE. 
          CHAIR. 
          UM, I'M READING MY MOTION. 
          THIS IS FOR THE, UM, STAFF SHOULD ASSESS THAT THERE BE IMPOSSIBILITY 
          [04:25:01]
TO, UH, FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A LOCAL CONTACT, THE OPERATOR MAY SUBMIT AN ALTERNATE LOCAL CONTACT OR CONTACTS TO, TO, UM, TO DESIGNATE WHEN A PRIMARY LOCAL CONTACT IS UNAVAILABLE, THE APPLICATION FEE AND REIFICATION FEES SHOULD BE WAIVED WHEN ONLY THE PRIMARY OR ALTERNATE LOCAL CONTACT ARE CHANGED. 
          RIGHT. 
          LOOKING FOR A SECOND. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HANEY, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT ANYMORE? I, I'LL RESPECT EVERYONE'S TIME. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THIS MOTION? I, Y'ALL CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. 
          THIS IS ABOUT AN ALTERNATE LOCAL CONTACT. 
          ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY, THAT'S UNANIMOUS. 
          10 TO ZERO. 
          UM, IT'S MY TURN. 
          I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE AMENDMENTS. 
          COMMISSIONER HANEY'S, UM, AMENDMENT COVERED WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO, SO I'LL MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER WOODS. 
          I HAVE ONE MORE, IT SHOULD BE SIMPLE, BUT THE GOAL IS TO, UM, MAKE SURE THAT THE LOCAL CONTACT IS ALSO COMPLETING THE TRAINING, THE ONLINE TRAINING COURSE. 
          AND SO MY AMENDMENT I'VE EMAILED TO VICE CHAIR AZAR, UM, IS TO FOUR DASH 23 DASH FOUR A TO OBTAIN A NEW OPERATOR LICENSE. 
          A PERSON WHO OWNS THE HOUSING UNIT TO BE LICENSED AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL MUST APPLY ON A FORM APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR. 
          AND THEY AND THEIR DESIGNATED CONTACT MUST COMPLETE AN ONLINE TRAINING COURSE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR. 
          SO THE ADDITION IS THEY AND THEIR DESIGNATED CONTACT, AND THEN FOUR DASH 23 DASH FOUR B NINE PROOF OF COMPLETION OF THE ONLINE TRAINING COURSE. 
          AND WHAT I'M ADDING IS INCLUDING FOR THEIR DESIGNATED CONTACT. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          OPENING UP FOR QUESTIONS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          NO QUESTIONS. 
          UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TURN THAT INTO A MOTION? YEAH. 
          UH, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ THE LANGUAGE AGAIN? YES. 
          JUST FOR A CLARIFICATION. 
          OKAY. 
          I WILL MOTION TO CH TO AMEND FOUR DASH 23 DASH FOUR A TO READ TO OBTAIN A NEW OPERATOR LICENSE. 
          A PERSON WHO OWNS THE HOUSING UNIT TO BE LICENSED AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL MUST APPLY ON A FORM APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR, AND THEY AND THEIR DESIGNATED LOCAL CONTACT MUST COMPLETE AN ONLINE TRAINING COURSE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR AND AMEND THE LANGUAGE IN FOUR DASH 23 DASH FOUR B NINE TO READ PROOF OF COMPLETION OF THE ONLINE TRAINING COURSE, INCLUDING FOR THEIR DESIGNATED LOCAL CONTACT. 
          SECOND BY VICE CHAIR. 
          DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? COMMISSIONER WOODS? NOPE. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THIS MOTION? LET'S TAKE A VOTE. 
          THIS IS FOR, UH, TRAINING COMPLIANCE. 
          UM, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT. 
          THAT IS 10 TO ZERO. 
          COMMISSIONER COX, WE'LL MOVE ON TO YOU. 
          MY SECOND ONE IS HOPEFULLY FAIRLY SIMPLE. 
          IT'S UH, 4 23 2 X REQUIREMENTS FOR ADVERTISEMENTS AND PROMOTIONS. 
          I JUST WANT TO ADD A STATEMENT. 
          UH, A PLATFORM IS REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THE PHYSICAL ADDRESS OF A LISTING TO THE DIRECTOR WHEN REQUESTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ENFORCEMENT OF THESE REGULATIONS. 
          ALRIGHT, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT AT ALL? UM, I, I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY, UH, A WAY TO SAVE A CRAP TON OF TIME, UM, WITH OUR INSPECTORS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, AN UNLISTED OR UNLICENSED STR, UM, WHO IS GAMING THE SYSTEM BY PLUGGING IN A FAKE NUMBER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          UM, I ACTUALLY AM A BIT OF A, A, A SLEUTH WHEN IT COMES TO RENTING AIRBNBS MYSELF, AND I'M ALWAYS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED. 
          SO I UNDERSTAND HOW DIFFICULT THAT CAN BE, UM, BY JUST LOOKING AT THE LISTING PICTURES. 
          SO THIS IS SIMPLY JUST A REQUIREMENT TO PLATFORMS THAT IF THE CITY REQUESTS THE PHYSICAL ADDRESS OF A LISTING BECAUSE THEY NEED TO CONDUCT AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION, THE PLATFORM IS REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THAT INFORMATION. 
          ALRIGHT, WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS. 
          YES. 
          VICE CHAIR, JUST A QUICK CLARIFYING QUESTION. 
          I'M GONNA ASSUME THIS GOES WITHOUT SAYING COMMISSIONER COX, THAT THIS IS FOR RECOMMENDATION FOR STAFF TO FIGURE OUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT THAT THIS MIGHT LOOK LIKE, WHETHER IT'S IT CAN BE DONE OR CANNOT BE DONE JUST TO SERVICE. 
          OF COURSE. 
          YEAH. 
          PENDING, PENDING LEGAL REVIEW AND, AND ALL OF THAT. 
          APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER COX, DID YOU WANNA TURN THAT INTO A MOTION? UH, 4 23 2 X REQUIREMENTS 
          [04:30:01]
FOR ADVERTISEMENTS AND PROMOTIONS. 
          ADD THE SENTENCE, A PLATFORM IS REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THE PHYSICAL ADDRESS OF A LISTING TO THE DIRECTOR WHEN REQUESTED, FOR THE PURPOSES OF ENFORCING, OF, OF ENFORCE, OF ENFORCEMENT OF THESE REGULATIONS. 
          ALL OF THAT SUBJECT TO LEGAL REVIEW. 
          LOOKING FOR A SECOND, MY VICE CHAIR. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? ALL RIGHT, LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. 
          UM, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, THAT IS NINE TO ZERO. 
          OKAY. 
          MOVING ON TO COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER BAREZ. 
          NONE. 
          COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          OKAY. 
          AND COMMISSIONER ANDERSON IS OFF THE DIET. 
          SO, UM, WE ARE AT THE END OF OUR TWO ROUNDS. 
          UM, I KNOW THAT I THINK COMMISSIONER COX HAD TWO MORE. 
          UM, ARE WE OKAY TO READ THROUGH THOSE? OKAY. 
          I'M SEEING, UH, A COLLECTIVE. 
          YES. 
          SO COMMISSIONER COX, WHY DON'T YOU GO THROUGH YOUR NEXT TWO AMENDMENTS AND THEN CHAIR VICE. 
          I HAVE ONE MORE. 
          OH, I'M SORRY. 
          LET'S EXTEND MEETING TIME REALLY QUICKLY BECAUSE WE'RE TECHNICALLY DONE IN SEVEN 30. 
          CHAIR. 
          I MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO 1130. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UNLESS THERE'S OBJECTION, THAT MOTION PASSES. 
          APPRECIATE IT. 
          SO COMMISSIONER COX, I THOUGHT THE VICE CHAIR HAD A THIRD AMENDMENT. 
          YES, I, UH, OH, NO, I, BUT COMMISSIONER MAXWELL COVERED IT, SO I'M GOOD. 
          I I CAN READ OUT YOURS IF YOU WANT, OR YOU CAN GO AHEAD. 
          I'LL JUST MAKE THIS SUPER QUICK. 
          UH, MY, MY THIRD ONE WAS 4 23 2 X OBLIGATION TO DE LIST ST. 
          I WANTED TO ADD TO SECTION D, A PLATFORM THAT FAILS TO SATISFY THEIR OBLIGATION TO DE LIST A SHORT-TERM RENTAL SHALL BE ASSESSED A FINE OF $500 PER DAY PER LISTING UNTIL THE DELISTING OBLIGATION IN THIS SECTION IS SATISFIED. 
          OPEN UP FOR QUESTIONS. 
          ALRIGHT, MS. WOODS? UH, I MEAN, JUST A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER COX. 
          I THINK THIS WOULD BE GREAT. 
          I'M NOT, DO YOU SEE THIS AS BEING SOMETHING THAT IS WITHIN THE CITY'S CONTROL TO FIND THESE PLATFORMS? I MEAN, IT'S NO MORE IN THEIR CONTROL TO REGULATE THEM THE WAY WE'RE DOING IN THIS, IN THIS ORDINANCE TO BEGIN WITH. 
          SO IF, IF THE PLATFORMS ARE GONNA COOPERATE, THEN I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME TEETH TO THAT COOPERATION. 
          UM, WE, WE ARE PLACING, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE BURDENS AND REGULATIONS ON THE OPERATORS, UM, AND WE'RE JUST ASSUMING THAT THE PLATFORMS ARE GONNA DO EVERYTHING THAT WE WANT THEM TO DO. 
          SO THIS JUST PROVIDES A LITTLE LEVEL OF TEETH TO THAT. 
          AND, AND AGAIN, THIS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE CITY STAFF, YOU KNOW, BEING ABLE TO, TO ACTUALLY WORK THIS OUT ADMINISTRATIVELY AND, AND, AND LEGALLY, BUT IT JUST ADDS A LITTLE BIT OF TEETH TO, TO WHAT WE EXPECT THE PLATFORMS TO DO. 
          OKAY. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER COX, DID YOU WANT TO TURN WHAT YOU HAD STATED INTO A MOTION? SURE. 
          4 23 2 X OBLIGATION TO DELIST ST ADD TO SECTION D, SUBJECT TO LEGAL AND FEASIBILITY REVIEW BY STAFF, A PLATFORM THAT FAILS TO SATISFY THEIR OBLIGATION TO DELIST. 
          A SHORT-TERM RENTAL SHALL BE ASSESSED A FINE OF $500, $500 PER DAY PER LISTING UNTIL THE DELISTING OBLIGATION IN THIS SECTION IS SATISFIED. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. 
          DID ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST, WE'LL TAKE A, OH, , OH, I'M SORRY. 
          I'LL JUST MAKE THIS VERY QUICK, WHICH IS TO SAY, I KNOW WE'RE BALANCING THIS ON A KNIFE EDGE, AND I THINK OUR STAFF HAS DONE A GOOD JOB OF SORT OF FIGURING OUT THE DIFFERENT, UM, SORT OF NUANCES. 
          BUT I, I AGREE. 
          I SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE EVENTUALLY THERE HAS TO BE A WAY IF A, IF A, NOT JUST THE OPERATOR, BUT IF A PLATFORM IS NON-COMPLIANT WITH OUR RULES, WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE ENSURE COMPLIANCE ARE THERE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S VOTE. 
          UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT'S UNANIMOUS. 
          10 TO ZERO. 
          COMMISSIONER COX, DO YOU WANNA DO YOUR LAST AMENDMENT? MY LAST ONE, AND IT SOUNDS MORE COMPLICATED THAN IT IS, IT'S 4 23 3 X OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 
          SECTION E STATES 
          [04:35:01]
THAT AN OPERATOR MUST MAKE A COPY OF THE INFORMATION PACKET AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 4 23 XX. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THE WORDS AND SECTION 4 23, 3 X FG, AND H AVAILABLE TO EACH GUEST. 
          ALL THAT IS DOING IS THE INFORMATION THAT THE OPERATOR MUST, UH, PROVIDE TO EACH GUEST I'M AT. 
          I'M REQUIRING THEM TO INCLUDE THE NOISE LIMITATION INFORMATION IN THIS ORDINANCE IN THAT PACKET THAT THEY PROVIDE TO GUESTS. 
          I'VE BEEN IN AIRBNBS WHERE THERE'S LIKE A SET OF CITY REGULATIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE POSTED, USUALLY WHERE THE WIFI PASSWORD IS. 
          AND SO I APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS, UH, INFORMATION THAT THE OPERATOR HAS TO PROVIDE TO EACH GUEST. 
          BUT CURRENTLY AS IT'S WRITTEN, THE, THE NOISE LIMITATIONS FROM 10 TO 10 IS NOT IN THAT PACKET. 
          AND I'M JUST ASKING THAT THE, THAT, THAT THE NOISE REQUIREMENTS BE IN THAT PACKET REQUIRED TO GIVE TO EACH GUEST. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          OPENING UP FOR QUESTIONS. 
          MR. MAXWELL. 
          SORRY, THIS IS A CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR, UM, CODE, JUST AS A MATTER OF INTEREST, UM, HOW, HOW WOULD WE EN OR IS, LET ME START AGAIN. 
          THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE THAT THE PACKET WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO RENTERS OR THOSE WHO USE THE FACILITIES. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? I MAY TO CLARIFY THAT ONE TIME, SO YEAH, YEAH, NO, I GUESS WHAT I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS, UM, OBVIOUSLY THIS REQUIREMENT IS COMMISSIONER COX IS ADDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT IS ALREADY IN THERE, WHICH IS BASICALLY SAYING THAT THIS INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO OUR GUESTS AS THEY COME INTO THE STR. 
          AND I GUESS I WAS JUST CURIOUS, HOW WILL WE BE ENFORCING TO ENSURE THAT STR HAVE THIS INFORMATION POSTED? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY HIS AMENDMENT IS NOT HELPFUL IF WE'RE NOT ENFORCING THE, UH, UNDERLYING REQUIREMENT, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          UH, IT'S A GOOD POINT. 
          UM, WE WOULD REQUIRE UPON APPLICATION THAT AN EXAMPLE OF THIS PACKET BE PROVIDED TO US AS FAR AS THAT APPLICATION PACKET. 
          UM, ENSURING THAT IT'S ACTUALLY POSTED IN THE UNIT IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED. 
          UM, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE EITHER A GUEST INFORM US THAT IT'S NOT THERE, UM, AND THEN GIVE US ACCESS TO THE UNIT TO VALIDATE THAT IT'S NOT THERE. 
          UM, SO THE, IT IS, IT WOULD BE A MORE DIFFICULT PROVISION TO TRULY ENFORCE. 
          UM, BUT WE WOULD, WE'D REQUIRE AN EXAMPLE OF THAT PACKET BE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE LICENSE APPLICATION. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER COX, DID YOU WANNA TURN THAT INTO A MOTION? YEAH, SURE. 
          SO 4 23 3 X OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 
          SECTION E ALREADY STATES THAT AN OPERATOR MUST MAKE A COPY OF THE INFORMATION PACKET AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 4 23 XX ADD, AND SECTION 4 23, 3 X OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS, FG AND H EXISTING TEXT AVAILABLE TO EACH GUEST. 
          HOPEFULLY THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? YES. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          UM, ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? OKAY, LET'S TAKE A VOTE. 
          ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, THAT'S 10 TO ZERO, THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          ALL RIGHT, WE ARE AT THE END OF AMENDMENTS, SO WE WILL GO BACK TO OUR BASE MOTION AS AMENDED. 
          SO YES, SPEAK FOR AND AGAINST. 
          THIS IS THE COLLECTIVE BASE MOTION WITH ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE PASSED THIS EVENING. 
          SO I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR, UM, ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK FOR VICE CHAIR, CHAIR, GO, GO AHEAD AND SPEAK. 
          I THINK J JUST STARTING WITH, I TRULY WOULD'VE LIKED TO SEE SOMETHING I THINK STRICTER. 
          NOW I KNOW THAT OUR HANDS ARE REALLY TIED BY STATE LAW AND THE VARIOUS COURT ACTIONS THAT HAVE, THAT HAVE OCCURRED. 
          SO WE'RE SORT OF REALLY BOUND. 
          AND I DO APPRECIATE REALLY THE WORK THAT STAFF HAS DONE TO RISE UP TO THE CHALLENGE AND FIGURE OUT SOMETHING THAT IS SORT OF LEGALLY SOUND, BUT ALSO ADDRESSES A LOT OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM OUR COMMUNITY. 
          AND AS YOU KNOW, I'VE MENTIONED BEFORE, WE DO WANNA HAVE, YOU KNOW, SPACES WHERE FOLKS IN OUR COMMUNITY CAN LIVE WITHOUT BEING IMPACTED BY A LOT OF NUISANCES OR OTHER THINGS. 
          AS MUCH AS WE WANNA WELCOME PEOPLE INTO OUR COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S IMPORTANT TO THINK OF. 
          AT THE SAME TIME, I SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE, ONE, I THINK WE'VE MADE IT BETTER THAN WHERE WE STARTED, AGAIN, WITH A BIG THANK YOU TO STAFF, BUT ALSO BECAUSE I DO SUPPORT COLLECTING TOTAL OCCUPANCY TAXES, I DO SUPPORT HAVING MORE VIGOROUS ENFORCEMENT OF LICENSING REQUIREMENTS, AND I 
          [04:40:01]
DO SUPPORT MORE VIGOROUS ENFORCEMENT OF NUISANCES AND OTHER THINGS. 
          AND I THINK I SEE THAT THERE'S AN INTENTION FROM STAFF AND REALLY MEETING ALL OF THOSE CHALLENGES. 
          AND I THINK WE SEE THAT HERE. 
          BUT I ALSO WANNA, AT THE SAME TIME ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YES, A LOT OF THIS IS DEPENDENT ON OUR ABILITY TO ENFORCE THESE. 
          UM, AND OF COURSE THAT MEANS WE HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, BEEF UP ENFORCEMENT AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE, YOU KNOW, WHAT OUR STAFF HAS ALREADY TOLD US AND HOW THEY'RE VERY THOUGHTFULLY THINKING ABOUT WHAT KIND OF STAFFING AND OTHER RESOURCES ARE NEEDED TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. 
          SO I DO APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, AND I DO AGREE WITH THE FACT THAT HAVING THAT ABILITY FOR RESIDENTS TO BE ABLE TO FILE COMPLAINTS IN AN EASY MANNER, WHATEVER MANNER, PLATFORM THAT MIGHT BE, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. 
          SO ALL THAT SAID, I THINK WHILE THIS IS NOT WHERE A LOT OF FOLKS IN OUR COMMUNITY WOULD WANT TO SEE THIS, I THINK THIS MOVES US A STEP CLOSER TO REALLY DOING SOMETHING THAT DOES, YOU KNOW, PROTECT US FROM LEGAL LIABILITY AS A CITY AT THE SAME TIME REALLY ENSURING THAT WE HAVE BETTER OUTCOMES FOR OUR RESIDENTS. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER COX? UM, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THE VICE CHAIR SAID. 
          UM, AT THE SAME TIME, I, I AM, I I ALSO THINK THAT THIS ACTUALLY IS A PRETTY GOOD ORDINANCE AND, AND WE'VE OFFERED UP SOME PRETTY GOOD AMENDMENTS. 
          UM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE CITY HAS SHOWN THE, THE, THE ENTHUSIASM THAT THE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE DESERVES. 
          UM, AND SO I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN, UH, FROM VOTING YES OR NO UP OR DOWN, UM, SIMPLY BECAUSE I, I KIND OF FEEL LIKE A UNANIMOUS VOTE ON ANYTHING HAS THIS AURA OF ENTHUSIASM AND ACCEPTANCE TO IT. 
          AND, AND I WANT TO TRY MY BEST TO INDICATE TO COUNSEL THAT, THAT THIS DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. 
          THIS IS GOOD. 
          WE NEED THIS. 
          BUT ENFORCEMENT IS THE BIGGEST ISSUE HERE. 
          AND, AND THEY HAVE AT LEAST, IN MY OPINION, NOT TAKEN, UH, EARNEST ENOUGH ACTION TO, TO ADDRESS THE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE. 
          UM, AND SO I HOPE THAT MY VOTE IN ABSTENTION, UM, IS, IS JUST A SIGNAL THAT THAT ENFORCEMENT IS STILL AN ISSUE AND IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BY COUNCIL. 
          ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR MR. MAXWELL? UM, I WANNA ECHO A LOT OF, UH, I THINK COMMISSIONER, VICE CHAIR ZAS COMMENTS. 
          UM, AND JUST GENERALLY, WE'VE HEARD THIS EVENING THAT THERE ARE REAL CONCERNS RELATED TO THIS STR ORDINANCE, AND I DO THINK AN AGREEMENT WITH BOTH OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT WE'VE MADE SOME REALLY SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS AND ADDED SOME IMPORTANT, UM, AMENDMENTS TO THE OVERALL, UM, UH, ORDINANCE. 
          BUT I THINK MOST IMPORTANTLY, I REALLY WANNA THANK THE COMMUNITY FOR COMING OUT TONIGHT TO SHARE WITH US THE EXPERIENCE THEY'VE HAD WITH THESE SDRS, BOTH GOOD AND BAD, UM, TO THE OWNERS WHO'VE TRIED TO BE RESPONSIBLE AND SHARE WITH US THEIR CONCERNS. 
          UM, AND ALSO OBVIOUSLY TO OUR OWN STAFF WHO, AS COMMISSIONER, VICE CHAIR ARE WISELY POINTED OUT, ARE REALLY BALANCING THINGS ON A KNIFE EDGE. 
          UM, THIS IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION TO NAVIGATE. 
          AND I THINK THE NUMBER OF CITIES THAT HAVE TRIED TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM IN NUMEROUS WAYS, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE IS AN ABSOLUTE SUCCESS TONIGHT, BUT I AM EXTREMELY EXCITED ABOUT THE REVENUE BROUGHT IN BY THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO POTENTIALLY RESOLVE SOME OF THESE ISSUES IN TERMS OF ENFORCEMENT AND TO MOVE US INTO A NEW PHASE, QUITE HONESTLY RELATED TO SDRS IN AUSTIN. 
          AND HOPEFULLY WE ARE A LEADER POTENTIALLY GOING FORWARD THROUGH THIS ORDINANCE. 
          AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S CON CON CONTRIBUTIONS THIS EVENING TO HELPING US GET TO THAT PLACE. 
          ANY SEEKING AGAINST OR FOR. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. 
          THIS IS THE BASE MOTION AS AMENDED THIS EVENING. 
          ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, THAT IS NINE TO ZERO TO ONE WITH COMMISSIONER COX ABSTAINING. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU TO STAFF. 
          THANK YOU TO ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS THAT STAYED THIS EVENING AND CAME OUT TONIGHT AND CALLED IN. 
          REALLY, REALLY APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR INPUT AND, UM, I THINK YOU'LL HOPEFULLY SEE SOME OF THIS IN THE AMENDMENTS THAT MOVE FORWARD. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE, UM, JUST A FEW MORE ITEMS THIS EVENING. 
          UM, TRY TO MOVE IT ALONG QUICKLY. 
          [18. Discussion of future agenda items, code amendments, and briefings. ]
UM, IF YOU COULD BRING UP THE, I PUT TOGETHER A FEW SLIDES TO TALK ABOUT OUR, UM, ITEM NUMBER 18. 
          SO, UM, UH, UH, VICE CHAIR AND I, UM, AS WE TALK AND MEET ABOUT THE AGENDA BEFORE EACH OF OUR MEETINGS ON TU EVERY SECOND AND FOURTH TUESDAY, UM, 
          [04:45:01]
WE GET A GLIMPSE, AS DOES THE CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE OF ALL OF THE CODE ITEMS, THE CODE AMENDMENTS, UM, AND BRIEFINGS THAT ARE COMING UP. 
          SO, UM, WHAT WE WANTED TO DO THIS EVENING IS NOT GIVE YOU THE ENTIRE YEAR, UM, AS A SNEAK P BECAUSE THAT'S SUBJECT TO WAY TOO MUCH CHANGE, BUT OVER THE NEXT, UM, FEW MONTHS. 
          SO I, WE WANTED TO GIVE A SNAPSHOT OF WHAT OUR FEBRUARY MEETING WILL LOOK LIKE, OUR MARCH MEETING AND OUR APRIL MEETING. 
          SO THESE ARE OUTSIDE OF THE ZONING CASES THAT HAPPEN, UM, UH, WITH EVERY MEETING. 
          THESE ARE SOLELY FOCUSED ON, UM, CODE AMENDMENTS. 
          SO YOU'LL SEE FOR TONIGHT, UM, WE HAD THE STR MODIFICATIONS THAT WERE FOR COUNT FOR THAT WERE FOR ACTION. 
          UM, SCHEDULED FOR COUNSEL. 
          I MIGHT HAVE THIS DATE WRONG, I THINK IT WAS SAID FEBRUARY 27TH, UM, THIS EVENING IN THE PRESENTATION. 
          UM, SO WE GOT THAT DONE. 
          CHECK THE BOX ON THAT . 
          AT OUR NEXT MEETING, UM, WE ARE GOING TO BE HEARING THE COLORADO RIVER PROTECTIONS FOR ACTION. 
          UM, UH, I HAVE THIS NOTED AS FOR COUNSEL ON MARCH 6TH. 
          WE'LL ALSO BE HEARING, UM, A BRIEFING FROM MR. COLE KITTEN ON THE AUSTIN CORE TRANSPORTATION OR A CT VISION PLAN. 
          UM, REMEMBER BRIEFINGS ARE ABOUT A 15 MINUTE MINUTE PRESENTATION WITH A Q AND A FROM THE COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE PRESENT, UM, AND NO ACTION. 
          AND, UM, WE ALSO, GIVEN WHEN THE WWE CODE OR THE WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE CODE IS GOING TO COUNSEL, WE WANTED TO, UM, SQUEEZE IN A BRIEFING FOR OUR NEXT MEETING. 
          SO, AS YOU CAN SEE TONIGHT, UM, THE AMENDMENT PROCESS FOR STR, UM, HEARING THE PRESENTATION, HEARING CITIZEN COMMENT, AND THEN OUR AMENDMENT PROCESS, THAT TOOK APPROXIMATELY THREE HOURS. 
          SO I JUST WANNA HIGHLIGHT THAT WE'VE REALLY WORKED WITH STAFF AND THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR WORKING WITH US ON THIS TO HAVE ONLY ONE CODE AMENDMENT PER MEETING. 
          UM, UNLESS IT IS A TIME SENSITIVE ISSUE THAT WE, WE CAN'T AVOID. 
          SO, UM, WE ARE, WE WILL HEAR COLORADO RIVER PROTECTIONS, BUT ALSO A FEW BRIEFINGS. 
          SO, UM, THAT POT HAS A POTENTIAL FOR BEING A, A FAIRLY LONG EVENING. 
          ALSO IN THE BLUE TEXT HERE, YOU SEE, UM, WE'VE GOT THE SOUTH CONGRESS TRANSIT CENTER AND THE NORTH LAMAR TRANS CENTER VISION PLANS COMING UP. 
          THOSE ARE GOING TO BE VERY INVOLVED VISION PLANS. 
          UM, AND SO WE FEEL THAT THIS ONE IS WORTHY OF A WORKING GROUP. 
          AND SO JUST CALLING THAT OUT AS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WANT TO HAVE FIVE MEMBERS, UM, SIX, IF YOU INCLUDE THE CHAIR ON THIS WORKING GROUP, THAT WOULD THEN WORK TO CREATE AMENDMENTS. 
          UM, NOTICE WE DIDN'T DO THIS FOR EVERY, UM, UH, ACTION ITEM OR AMENDMENT ITEM THAT'S COMING THROUGH. 
          UM, WHAT I WANT COMMISSIONERS TO THINK ABOUT AND CONSIDER IS IF YOU AGREE THAT THIS WORKING GROUP WOULD BE A GOOD AND VALUABLE THING FOR US TO FORM, AND IF THERE'S ANY OTHER WORKING GROUPS THAT YOU FEEL WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR SOME OF THESE THAT ARE COMING UP. 
          SO THAT'S OUR FEBRUARY MEETINGS MOVING INTO MARCH. 
          WE, UM, HEARD THE BRIEFING ON THE A CT VISION PLAN IN ON THE FEBRUARY 25TH MEETING. 
          WE'LL BE MOVING TO ACTION ON THAT PLAN. 
          SO, UM, AN EMAIL, OH NO, SORRY, I CREATED A SLIDE. 
          THIS SLIDE DECK WILL BE SENT OUT TO THE COMMISSION TOMORROW MORNING, UM, THAT HAS RESOURCES FOR YOU TO CLICK ON TO, UH, WHATEVER'S AVAILABLE INFORMATION WISE ON THESE ITEMS. UM, WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO, TO START GETTING INTO THEM AND BECOMING FAMILIAR, UM, AND FORMULATING QUESTIONS, HOWEVER MUCH YOU CAN GET AHEAD OF ON THESE ITEMS, UM, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS TONIGHT. 
          SO ALSO AT THAT MARCH 11TH MEETING, WE'LL HAVE A BRIEFING FROM STAFF ON THE SOUTH CONGRESS AND NORTH LAMAR TRANSIT CENTER VISION PLANS, UM, THAT'LL BE REALLY IMPORTANT TO HEAR THAT. 
          AND THEN AT MARCH 25TH IS WHEN WE'LL TAKE ACTION ON THESE ITEMS. AND I WANT TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE 12 ITEMS TOTALED THAT WILL BE LISTED IN THE AGENDA FOR THIS, FOR JUST THIS, THIS ONE, WE'LL CALL IT ONE ITEM, BUT IT'S REALLY 12. 
          UM, SO IT'S THE TWO VISION PLANS FOR THE TRANSIT CENTERS, NINE RELATED 
          [04:50:01]
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT UPDATES FOR ALL OF THE AREAS THAT THESE AFFECT. 
          UM, A PROCESS CODE AMENDMENT FOR THE AREA PLAN. 
          UM, ALL OF THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE MARCH 25TH MEETING. 
          SO AGAIN, A LONG MEETING. 
          UM, AND WE'LL ALSO TRY TO SQUEEZE IN THE ARTICLE NINE LANDSCAPING ITEM, WHICH IS, UM, MUCH MORE BRIEF CON UH, COMPARED TO THE VISION PLANS. 
          UM, LET ME GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE AND THEN I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS. 
          LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO IN APRIL, UM, WE'RE LOOKING AT APRIL 1ST, JUST SO EVERYBODY HAS NOTE OF THIS. 
          WE HAVE A JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON THE PRESERVATION BONUS AMENDMENT, PHASE ONE REAL BILL OR A JOKE. 
          WHAT'S THAT LIKE FOR REAL? YEAH, ON THE FIRST, YES, IT'S NOT A APRIL FOOLS JOKE, . 
          UM, AND THEN THE FOLLOWING TUESDAY, WE'LL BE MEETING FOR ACTION ON THAT PRESERVATION BONUS AMENDMENT. 
          UM, AND WE'LL HAVE THE IMAGINE AUSTIN UPDATE BRIEFING, WHICH HAD BEEN REQUESTED, UM, BY, UH, TWO COMMISSIONERS, UM, TO GET AN UPDATE ON THAT FROM STAFF. 
          APRIL 22ND IS WHEN WE ARE CONSIDERING THE UNO UPDATE, WHICH WILL INCLUDE THE CODE AMENDMENT, THE FLU AMENDMENT, AND REZONING, AND ALSO TAKE ACTION ON THE SMART HOUSING UPDATES TO PHASE TWO. 
          SO LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. 
          AND AGAIN, ALL OF THOSE ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON CASELOAD OR STAFF NEEDS MORE TIME OR WHAT HAVE YOU. 
          UM, THESE ARE THE REQUESTED BRIEFINGS THAT, UM, WE'VE COLLECTED OVER THE PAST YEAR, SO THEY MAY NOT REFLECT EVERYTHING. 
          I THINK IT'S COMPREHENSIVE, BUT, UM, LET US KNOW IF, IF, IF WE'RE MISSING SOMETHING. 
          UM, I WON'T READ EACH ONE OF THESE, BUT, UM, ONE OF THE ASKS TONIGHT IS YOU SEE THE CADENCE OF OUR CASELOAD, THE CODE AMENDMENTS BRIEFINGS. 
          UM, ONE IDEA FOR HOW WE CAN START TACKLING SOME OF THESE BRIEFINGS IS A, A COUPLE OF THINGS. 
          ONE, WHENEVER WE HAVE A FIFTH TUESDAY IN A MONTH, USING THAT OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR A COLLECTION OF THESE BRIEFINGS AND PERHAPS TACKLE A CODE AMENDMENT AND OR SOME OF THESE BRIEFINGS BRIEFING REQUESTS ARE HANDLED THROUGH A MEMO FROM STAFF. 
          UM, SO KIND OF LET THAT SOAK IN AND, AND CONSIDER THAT, THAT ASK. 
          LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. 
          THIS IS JUST A LIST OF RESOURCES FOR SOME OF THOSE UPCOMING CODE AMENDMENTS. 
          SO YOU'LL HAVE THIS IN YOUR, UM, IN YOUR EMAIL TOMORROW. 
          SO WE CAN TAKE THE SLIDE DECK DOWN. 
          AND I JUST WANTED TO OPEN THIS UP FOR DISCUSSION AND SEE IF, WHAT QUESTIONS PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE, UM, THOUGHTS ON HOW WE MANAGE OUR CASELOAD. 
          IT'S ALSO A NOTE TO, UM, THINK ABOUT WHEN WE'RE POSTPONING ITEMS. I I'M NOT HERE TO SAY DON'T POSTPONE ITEMS. THAT'S SOMETIMES VERY NECESSARY, BUT JUST GIVING YOU A GLIMPSE INTO WHAT CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR ARE LOOKING AT WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT WHERE DO WE SQUEEZE IN BRIEFINGS, HOW DO WE HANDLE ALL OF THESE CODE AMENDMENTS AND OUR REGULAR ZONING, UM, AMENDMENT OR ZONING CASES. 
          SO, THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, VICE CHAIR, GENERAL, MAKE A QUICK COMMENT. 
          JUST SAY, HONESTLY FOLKS, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS A PLEA FROM US . 
          WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE REALLY AT A LOSS ON HOW TO MANAGE THIS. 
          WE REALLY WANT TO HONOR THE REQUEST FOR BRIEFINGS, BUT WE'RE STRUGGLING TO SORT OF SCHEDULE IT ALL WITH ALL THE CODE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE GOING ON THE CASES BEFORE IT, AND BEING RESPECTFUL OF PEOPLE'S TIME. 
          SO I THINK ANY IDEAS HERE ARE HELPFUL, WHETHER IT'S THE FIFTH, TUESDAY, OR OTHERWISE, ALL OF THOSE HELP. 
          COMMISSIONER BARR RAMIREZ, I'M FINE WITH THE FIFTH TUESDAY. 
          THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. 
          I'D RATHER HAVE SHORTER MEETINGS. 
          MORE FREQUENT THAN LONG MEETINGS. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, I THINK, AND WE HAVE SEVERAL THAT ARE COMING UP THIS YEAR. 
          I THINK THERE'S THREE OR FOUR. 
          UM, SO THERE'S SOME OPPORTUNITIES THERE TO, TO TACKLE SOME OF THOSE BRIEFINGS. 
          YES, AGREED COMPLETELY. 
          I THINK THAT SOLVES PART OF THE PROBLEM. 
          I THINK I JUST WANNA FLAG THAT, THAT ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WITH THAT IS THAT THERE ARE FOLKS WHO PARTICULARLY REQUESTED ITEMS THAT WILL LIKELY NOT BE THERE ON THE DAIS WHEN WE GET TO THAT BRIEFING. 
          AND HONESTLY, IT'S NOT BY INTENT. 
          IT'S JUST BEEN REALLY HARD TO JUGGLE THAT. 
          SO HOPEFULLY FOR THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN WANTING TO ASK FOR SOMETHING, YOU CAN WORK WITH YOUR COLLEAGUES, UM, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR OTHER THINGS THAT YOU WANT TO EXPLORE, UM, IN THOSE ITEMS. COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, 
          [04:55:01]
JUST A BRIEF COMMENT ABOUT BRIEFINGS. 
          I MEAN, I THINK IT ABSOLUTELY MAKES SENSE THAT WE GET, UH, SOME SORT OF WRITTEN UPDATE OF, AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT COULD REDUCE THE LENGTH OF TIME OF THE BRIEFING. 
          I MEAN, I THINK WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE INFORMATION. 
          I DON'T KNOW, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, HOW IT'S DELIVERED TO US MATTERS LESS, QUITE FRANKLY. 
          SO I, I THINK SO. 
          I MEAN, I WOULD BE VERY AMENABLE TO HAVING SOME OF THOSE PROVIDED IN THAT FORMAT, AND MAYBE THAT JUST REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR QUESTIONS. 
          COMMISSIONER BREIRA RAMIREZ, I'D ALSO SAY THAT SOMETIMES WE SEE THEM IN OUR SMALLER GROUPS AND, UM, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, WE, YOU KNOW, GOT A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE ACT PLAN IN OUR SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, WHAT IS IT CALLED? THE, THEIR COMM, THE COMMITTEE THAT I'M ON THE COMMITTEE. 
          RIGHT? YEAH. 
          SMALL AREA PLANNING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO IF OTHERS WERE INTERESTED IN, YOU KNOW, SEEING THE ACT BRIEFING, THEY COULD HAVE COME TO THAT AND, AND GOTTEN IT THAT WAY. 
          SO JUST AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE KIND OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE TO SEE IT AS A GROUP. 
          HMM. 
          THAT'S A GOOD THOUGHT. 
          COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. 
          YEAH, AND JUST TO ADD TO THAT, I WOULD SAY THAT SEVERAL OF THESE ITEMS WILL ALSO BE SEEN AT THE HOUSING AND PLANNING COMMITTEES. 
          SO THE COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL MIGHT BE A GOOD CHANCE TO INVITE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO GET THOSE BRIEFINGS IN A DIFFERENT FORMAT AND AT A DIFFERENT TIME. 
          SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THEM ON TUESDAYS WHEN WE ARE TRYING TO DO SO MANY OTHER THINGS. 
          THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. 
          AND MAYBE A WAY TO MAKE THAT WORKABLE IS UNDERSTANDING WHEN THEY'RE COMING TO THOSE COUNCILS. 
          MAYBE IT'S A REGULAR, JUST HERE'S WHAT'S ON THE DOCKET NOTICE THAT'S SENT OUT TO COMMISSIONERS. 
          UH, UH YES, AND I'M ABSOLUTELY HAPPY TO REACH OUT TO THE, UM, HOUSING AND MOBILITY COMMITTEES TO SEE IF WE CAN DO SOME COORDINATION AROUND THAT EXACT IDEA. 
          OTHER, OH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. 
          THANKS CHAIR. 
          I'M STILL TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THE WHOLE IMAGINE AUSTIN UPDATE AS WELL. 
          I MEAN, WE SPENT EIGHT YEARS TRYING TO REWRITE OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. 
          WE GOT 10 DAYS AWAY FROM DOING THAT, AND THEN WE, WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, BUT WE'RE STILL STUCK WITH A, A TERRIBLE OLD LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE'S LIKE THIS BIG PUSH TO UPDATE A 12-YEAR-OLD COMP PLAN AND TO PUT ALL THE RESOURCES AND TIME TOWARD THAT. 
          AND IT, IT ALMOST FEELS LIKE THERE'S BEEN A BIG EFFORT TO JUST BYPASS PLANNING COMMISSION AND EVERYONE ELSE IN DOING SO. 
          AND I KNOW THERE'S A BIG LOBBYING EFFORT ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO TRY AND JUST PUSH THIS ALONG. 
          AND I THINK THIS, THEY TRIED TO DO THAT LAST YEAR AND THEN IT WAS LIKE, OH WAIT, WE GOT CAUGHT AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          AND SO NOW IT'S JUST LIKE, WHAT IS GOING ON? SO IT'D BE REALLY GREAT TO HEAR, YOU KNOW, IS THERE A ROLE FOR US TO PLAY BEFORE THAT JUST LIKE RANDOMLY HAPPENS, OR ARE WE JUST TO BE CUT OUT? SO IF THAT CAN HAPPEN BEFORE THAT IT GOES TO COUNCIL, IF WE CAN HAVE A CHANCE TO, TO WEIGH IN AND HELP SHAPE WHAT THAT COULD BE, THAT'D BE REALLY TERRIFIC. 
          APPRECIATE THAT. 
          COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, I'LL JUST SAY YOU'LL NOTICE THAT WHAT THE CHAIR AND I ARE DOING IS IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S TIME SENSITIVE, WE'RE TRYING TO SORT OF SLOT IT IN WHEREVER WE THINK THERE MIGHT BE ABILITY OR CAPACITY. 
          SO YOU'LL SEE THE  WAS VERY TIME SENSITIVE. 
          IT WAS A PARTICULARLY, UH, ASKED TO COME BEFORE US AS BEFORE WENT TO COUNCIL. 
          SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET THAT IN AND NOTED. 
          I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN GET FEEDBACK FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS AS WELL. 
          IF YOU, AS YOU'RE REQUESTING A BRIEFING OR IF YOU'VE ALREADY REQUESTED A BRIEFING, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY TIME SENSITIVE FOR SOME REASON, PLEASE DO ALERT US TO THAT AND WE'LL TRY OUR BEST TO GET THOSE LINED UP AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. 
          I DO THINK THAT ONE IS TIME SENSITIVE BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE HOPING TO JUST GET THE GREEN LIGHT AND GO DO RIGHT. 
          A LOT OF WORK THAT NO ONE'S REALLY WEIGHED IN ON YET. 
          SO THAT BRIEFING, THAT ONE'S DEFINITELY TIME SENSITIVE. 
          YEAH, THAT BRIEFING IS CURRENTLY PENCILED IN FOR APRIL 8TH, WHICH IS AFTER THEY HOPE TO GET DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL. 
          OKAY. 
          OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? THOUGHTS? OKAY. 
          WELL THANK YOU FOR LISTENING AND WE'LL SEND OUT THIS, UM, SLIDE DECK. 
          UH, IT'LL BE IN YOUR INBOX TOMORROW. 
          OKAY. 
          CLOSING OUT THE MEETING, 
          [WORKING GROUP/COMMITTEE UPDATES]
WE'LL GO THROUGH WORKING GROUP AND COMMITTEE UPDATES. 
          NUMBER 19, CODES AND ORDINANCES. 
          JOINT COMMITTEE. 
          THAT MEETING IS HAPPENING NEXT WEDNESDAY. 
          UM, NUMBER 20 COMP PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE. 
          THAT'D BE COMMISSIONERS. 
          UH, THERE'S NO, NO UPDATES THAT I'M AWARE OF. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, NUMBER 21, JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE. 
          I THINK WE MIGHT NEED TO APPOINT A NEW COMMISSIONER TO SERVE ON THAT. 
          YES, THAT'S, THAT'S GONNA BE THE CASE WITH SEVERAL OF THESE. 
          UM, NUMBER 22, SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE. 
          WE TALKED ABOUT THE ACT PLAN 
          [05:00:01]
AND WE ALSO NEED TO APPOINT NEW COMMISSIONERS. 
          OKAY, NUMBER 23, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD. 
          , I'M SO SORRY, I HAVE NO UPDATES. 
          NUMBER 24, CITY OF AUSTIN BUILDINGS WORKING GROUP. 
          NO UPDATE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CHAIR NUMBER 25. 
          OUTREACH AND PROCEDURES WORKING GROUP. 
          OH, COMMISSIONER COX. 
          I THINK YOU'RE THE ONLY REPRESENTATIVE THERE. 
          SORRY. 
          NO, NO, NO. 
          UPDATE. 
          AND, AND I THINK, UH, I'M PRETTY SURE WE CAN DISBAND THAT WORKING GROUP. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, NUMBER 26, 20 24. 
          TECHNICAL BUILDING CODE UPDATES, WORKING GROUP. 
          UM, WE ARE PLANNING A MEETING IN NOW THAT WE HAVE OUR BRIEFING DATE SET FOR THE 22ND. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          OKAY, NUMBER 27, GOVERNANCE RULES AND PROCEDURES, WORKING GROUP, NO DATES. 
          OKAY. 
          MOVING ON TO FUTURE 
          [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
AGENDA ITEMS. UM, OKAY. 
          NOT THIS EVENING. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO WITH THAT, I WILL ADJOURN OUR MEETING AT 11:13 PM THANK YOU SO MUCH EVERYONE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GOODNIGHT. 
          EVERY DAY YOU SEE ONE MORE, YOU TAKE IT, YOU TAKE IT TO THE HEART.
* 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.