[00:00:01]
OKAY, EVERYBODY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
WE WILL CALL OUR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28TH, 2022 TAC MEETING TO ORDER.
WOULD STAFF PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL.
MR. MANNA? MR. CHERYL? MS. REED? HERE.
MR. RAMIREZ? MR. VASQUEZ? HERE.
UH, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT
[Public Comment ]
TODAY? ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM? YEAH.WE HAVE ONE VOICEMAIL TO PLAY AND THEN WE CAN GIVE YOU A, A SUMMARY OF THE WRITTEN COMMENT THAT WE RECEIVED AS WELL.
UH, STEVE ORTEIG, 1 0 5 RENO STREET.
CALLING ABOUT AMENDMENT FOUR DASH ONE.
UM, UH, THIS WAS SUBMITTED TO CLARIFY THE SECTION ON THE WITHDRAWAL PENALTY.
UH, THE, UH, THE, YOU, THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED MY EMAIL, WHICH SHOWS THE PREVIOUS WORDING BACK IN 2006.
UH, THE, THE NEED TODAY IS TO INTERPRET WHAT THAT CHANGE INTENT REALLY WAS AND MAKE IT WORDED MORE CLEARLY.
UM, RIGHT NOW IT ISN'T CLEAR WHEN THE TIME PENALTY SHOULD BE APPLIED.
WE RECEIVED, UM, WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 18 DASH SIX AND POSITION WAS NEUTRAL FOR 23 DASH ONE.
WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT, POSITION IN SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 18 DASH SEVEN, A WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT, POSITION IN SUPPORT.
AND THEN FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR DASH ONE, WE RECEIVED, UH, TWO WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT PROVIDING EXPLANATION ON HIS AMENDMENTS.
WE DID PROVIDE THESE, UM, PUBLIC COMMENTS TO THE PTAC THIS MORNING, AND THAT WAS ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED FOR ITEMS ON THIS AGENDA.
AND NO ONE WAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, CORRECT? NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
AND I BELIEVE WHEN YOU DID A ROLL CALL, YOU DIDN'T CALL MICHAEL MOORE'S NAME.
[New Business ]
ALL AND DO THE MINUTES.DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES IN THE LAST MEETING? SEEING NONE, UM, ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
ROBERT HANLEY WILL MOVE APPROVAL.
ROBERT TAPIA, SECOND MOTION FROM ROBERT HANLEY.
ALRIGHT, MOVE RIGHT INTO IT HERE.
ITEM NUMBER ONE, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT.
ITEM 18 DASH SEVEN AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 3 98 B.
DOUG, CAN YOU USE THE MICROPHONE? PUSH THE BUTTON BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE ANYTHING AND I'M NEW HERE, SO THANK YOU.
AND I FOR NOW ON, I, I DON'T KNOW WHY I'M FIRST ALL THE TIME, SO WE'RE, I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE A, A THING, BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH.
UM, THE PROPOSED, UH, AMENDMENT, THE OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY PUT FORWARD IS REGARDING, UM, UH, RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS. UH, THE GOAL WAS TO, UM,
[00:05:01]
REALLY TRY TO BRING IT IN LINE WITH, WITH BEST PRACTICES.UH, THE CURRENT, UM, LANGUAGE FOCUSES ON, ON SOLAR FARMS. UM, BUT WE HAD, UM, INCLUDED LANGUAGE, UH, AROUND ROOFTOP SOLAR ARRAYS, AS WELL AS, UM, AS, UM, SOLAR CANOPIES, WHICH ARE, UM, PARTICULARLY SOLAR CANOPIES ARE SOMETHING NEW THAT WE'RE SEEING AROUND TOWN.
YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN SOME NEWS RELEASES AROUND, UH, SOME OF OUR, UM, AUTO DEALERS THAT ARE STARTING TO USE, UM, SOLAR CANOPIES 'CAUSE THEY ALSO PROVIDE, PROVIDE SHADE AS WELL AS POWER.
UM, SOME OF THE OTHER, UM, AMENDMENTS THAT WE WERE PROPOSING WERE INCORPORATING, UM, SOME, UM, SOME LANGUAGE AROUND, UM, UH, ONE IN THE DISCON DISCONTINUATION LOOKS LIKE THAT'S UNDER SECTION SIX.
UM, UH, TYPICALLY WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS THAT THAT, UM, UH, MAY TAKE MORE THAN ONE YEAR.
UH, ONE YEAR DIDN'T, SEEMS SORT OF A LONG ENOUGH TIME PERIOD FOR SOMEBODY TO DETERMINE WHAT NEXT STEPS THEY'RE GONNA TAKE.
SO, UM, UH, RECOMMENDING THAT THAT COULD EXTEND IT TO, TO THREE YEARS AS WELL AS THAT DECOMMISSIONING MUST, UH, COMPLY WITH, UH, TEXAS SENATE BILL SEVEN 60, WHICH IS BASICALLY OUTLINES ALL THE STEPS THAT NEEDED BE, UM, TO BE TAKEN.
SO, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO CODIFY IT.
UM, AND THEN I THINK, AND THEN WE GO INTO THE, THE BASIC, UM, UH, INFORMATION FOR ROOFTOP SOLAR ARRAYS.
WHAT ARE THE, THE REQUIRED, UM, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, UM, STATING THAT, UH, ROOFTOP IS, IS PERMITTED.
UM, AND THEN REALLY JUST SORT OF OUTLINING WHAT THE EXPECTATION IS IN TERMS OF THE, UM, UH, APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS AND COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER REGULATIONS.
AND THEN IT'S BASICALLY SIMILAR FOR THE, UM, SOLAR CANOPIES SECTION.
UM, THERE WAS ONE CLARIFICATION.
WE DID RECEIVE A COMMENT FROM C P S ENERGY ON, UM, SECTION TWO H IF YOU CAN GO UP, UM, WHERE, UH, WE HAD RECOMMENDED, UM, ONSITE POWER LINES SHALL BE BURIED EXCEPT WHEN CONNECTING TO THE EXISTING OVERHEAD, UTILITY LINES AND SOLAR INFRASTRUCTURE.
UM, WE DID RECEIVE, THEY'RE OKAY.
AND SO THAT WAS RECOMMENDED AS WELL AND WE'RE, WE'RE SUPPORTIVE WITH THAT.
IS THAT IT, DOUG? THAT'S, UM, THAT'S ALL THE COMMENTS.
THE ONE THING WE, UM, ARE SORT OF WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION EARLIER THIS, THIS MORNING IS THERE ARE AREN'T DEFINITIONS, UM, FOR SOLAR, UM, SOLAR FARMS, SOLAR CANOPIES.
SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO, TO LOOK AT AND, AND POTENTIALLY AND WHAT WOULD THE PROCEDURE BE FOR IF WE, WE WANNA BRING THOSE FORWARD IN ADDITION.
SO, UH, IF THERE ARE CURRENTLY NOT SOLAR DEFINITIONS, UM, THE DISCUSSION CAN EVOLVE HERE BECAUSE IT'S STILL TIED TO THIS AMENDMENT.
UM, BUT HAVE WE CHECKED ANY OTHER CODES? UM, SAY FOR INSTANCE, THE ELECTRICAL CODE OR SOMETHING ELSE THAT MAY, I HAVEN'T.
SO LET US DO A LITTLE BIT OF DUE DILIGENCE ON THIS ONE WHILE WE'RE IN THIS MEETING, UH, TO SEE IF THERE IS, UM, SOMETHING, A DEFINITION OUT THERE FOR THESE THAT WE CAN UTILIZE.
'CAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO REINVENT THE WHEEL.
AND I HAD REACHED OUT TO, WE, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH, UH, AN ORGANIZATION CALLED ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTES, A NON-PROFIT, UM, UH, EXPERT THINK TANK.
AND ASKING BASICALLY THIS MORNING, THE SAME QUESTION.
ARE THERE STANDARD DEFINITIONS THAT WE COULD LOOK AT? SO DOUG, WHICH ITEMS ARE YOU SOLAR FARMS IS MISSING? IT WOULD BE, SO THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS SOLAR ARM.
UH, AND THEN IF WE'RE RECOMMENDING, UM, SOLAR CANOPIES AND SOLAR, UM, ROOFTOP SOLAR ARRAYS, DO WE, DO WE NEED A DEFINITION OUTLINING WHAT THOSE, THOSE THREE ARE? BUT SOLAR CANOPIES IS CURRENTLY IN THE CODE, BUT THERE'S NO DEFINITION CORRESPONDING WITH IT.
AND WE'LL HEAR LATER IN THE MEETING ABOUT THAT.
IS THAT CORRECT, STEPH? I'M SORRY.
YOU DID GET THOSE THREE? YEAH, I GOT THOSE THREE.
AND WE'LL DO A LITTLE BIT OF DUE DILIGENCE.
SO, UH, WHILE WE'RE GOING ONTO THE NEXT ITEM, IF WE WANNA TABLE THIS SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE EXISTING DEFINITIONS OUT THERE THAT WE CAN REFERENCE OR COULD WE MAKE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM SINCE THAT WOULD GO INTO DEFINITION SECTION AND WOULDN'T BE HERE? WHAT WOULD YOUR MOTION BE TO APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT TO? YEAH.
AND THEN COME BACK TO THE DEFINITIONS IF WE HAVE TO ADD 'EM.
BUT TO CONSIDER THE ADDITION OF THOSE THREE DEFINITIONS TO THE DEFINITIONS.
'CAUSE WOULDN'T THEY GO IN THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE U D C? NOT IN HERE.
THEY WOULD, BUT THIS ITEM IS THE ONE THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED.
[00:10:01]
MAKE YOUR MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF POSSIBLE DEFINITIONS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH SOMETHING ELSE, THEN WE CAN BRING THOSE BACK TO YOU HOPEFULLY BEFORE THE END OF THIS MEETING.MR. HANLEY? YEAH, DOUG? UM, I, I HAVE A QUESTION SINCE THIS IS ALL NEW LANGUAGE WHERE YOU'VE GOT YOUR SOLAR ARRAYS ON ROOFS AND YOUR, UM, SOLAR CANOPIES.
AND ONE OF THE PROBLEMS, UH, THAT IS NOT CLEAR BECAUSE YOU ARE GIVING SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF WHERE ON A SITE THOSE CAN GO AND GO.
SOLAR HAS BEEN PUTTING THOSE ALL OVER THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
THEY'RE TRYING TO GET AS MANY SOLAR CANOPIES ON A SITE AS POSSIBLE.
IT'S BLOCKING THE ENTRIES, IT'S CONFUSING THE PEOPLE.
WHERE'S THE FRONT DOOR? AND I'M THINKING IF YOU'RE GONNA PROPOSE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WE NEED TO SAY IT SHOULD NOT BE IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING BLOCKING THE ENTRY BECAUSE THAT'S BECOME AN ISSUE ON MM-HMM.
SO SHOULD NOT OBSTRUCT, UM, CLEAR ACCESS.
AND SINCE THIS IS NEW LANGUAGE, IF EVERYBODY'S OKAY WITH THAT AMENDMENT, SIR, ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT IN TWO D OR A B? IT'S IN TWO D TO ADD A TWO D D TWO SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
YOU GOT A, B AND C ADD A D THERE.
COULD YOU ALSO, THIS IS ROBERT TOP.
COULD YOU ALSO ASSIGN PERHAPS A TITLE IN OTHER WORDS, TO, TO ARCHITECTS TO BE, TO OVERSEE THE DESIGN AESTHETICALLY WHERE THEY PLACE 'EM? OH NO.
WELL, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S EITHER ROBERT, IT'S EITHER, UH, ARCHITECTS OR ENGINEERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, RIGHT? OH YEAH.
UH, BECAUSE THE, THE ISSUE IS IF YOU SEE THEM WHERE THEY'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING, UH, IT'S VERY CONFUSING.
AND I KNOW THAT, UH, OWNER'S REMORSE HAS BEEN, UH, EVIDENT IN SOME OF THESE CASES.
AND I JUST THINK WE CAN ADDRESS IT HERE ONCE AND FOR INSTEAD OF THE VENDOR SELLING THEM AND TRYING TO MAXIMIZE THEIR LOT WITH SOLAR CANOPIES.
DO YOU HAVE PROPOSED LANGUAGE THERE? CHAIR? IF I MAKE NOT OBSTRUCT, CAN I CHIME IN? A SHALL NOT, SHALL OBSTRUCT.
I THINK WE NEED TO TREAD A LITTLE BIT CAREFULLY ON, UM, GETTING INTO THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE, HOW THEY, WHERE THEY'RE PLACED ASKING, BECAUSE WE HAVE, I THINK IT'S A STATE LAW THAT DOESN'T ALLOW US TO DO THAT.
WE CAN REGULATE THEM THROUGH A PERMITTING PROCESS, BUT WE CAN'T DETERMINE HOW THEY LOOK OR I'M NOT ASKING HOW THEY LOOK, BUT WE CAN'T GIVE TOO MANY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
SO AGAIN, WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH THIS BECAUSE OF STATE LAW.
SO I I WOULD SAY THAT WE NEED TO, WELL, YOU'RE DICTATING SIGNAGE AND SITE DESIGN AND ALL OF THAT, SO YOU'RE ALREADY DEVELOPED IT.
YOU'VE ALREADY SET THE PRECEDENT FOR DEVELOPING, UH, STANDARDS.
I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'RE REGULATING WHAT THE PANELS LOOK LIKE.
I DIDN'T SAY ONCE WHERE THE LOOK AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT PLACED IN FRONT OF THE FRONT ENTRY OF THE BUILDING IS ALL THAT I'M SAYING.
CAN I ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION THAT, 'CAUSE YOU BROUGHT UP THE, UM, CAR DEALERSHIPS.
MANY OF THESE CAR DEALERSHIPS USE THEIR, UH, CANOPIES TO COVER THE CARS AND THEY ADD THE SOLAR PANELS ON TOP OF THOSE.
YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT NOT NO LONGER ALLOWING FOR THOSE, ARE YOU? NO, MOST OF THE OLD, UH, COVERS OR CANVAS AWNINGS, BUT NOW THEY'RE GOING TO METAL STRUCTURES.
THE COVER IS ACTUALLY THE SOLAR PANEL.
IF YOU LOOK UNDER THE CANOPY, YOU'RE SEEING THE BOTTOM OF THE SOLAR PANEL.
I'M NOT DICTATING THE DESIGN OF YOU CAN'T DO THEIRS CAN.
ALL'S I'M SAYING IS WE'RE STARTING TO GIVE SOME SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
AND MY THOUGHT WOULD BE LET'S NOT OBSTRUCT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND THE CLEAR POINT OF ENTRY TO THAT BUILDING.
RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THE TAIL WAGON, THE DOG AS THE SOLAR PANEL COMPANIES GOING TO AN OWNER SAYING, I'M JUST GONNA COVER YOUR SITE WITH AS MANY SOLAR PANELS AS I CAN BECAUSE IT'S MORE MONEY FOR ME.
LET IT LET JOSEPH'S DOING A LITTLE BIT OF DUE DILIGENCE FINE TO DETERMINE IF WE CAN DETERMINE PLACEMENT.
THERE WAS A, THIS PAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, THERE WAS A SENATE BILL THAT PASSED THAT, UM, UH, IT, IT WAS PRIMARILY TARGETING, UM, RESIDENTIAL RESTRICTIONS.
UH, WE GOTTA KIND OF CHECK THAT LANGUAGE AND MAKE SURE WE'RE COMPATIBLE.
BUT IN IT, JOSEPH, YOU GOT, UH, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIVING TO SYSTEM HEIGHT, SYSTEM MOUNTING, LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, LOCATION OF POWER LINES, WIRE, THAT'S ALL DICTATED STANDARDS AND DESIGN.
UM, THIS, WE AGAIN, WE'LL JUST MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WAS PASSED, UM, AT THE STATE LEVEL IS COMPATIBLE WITH THIS LANGUAGE, UH, UH, HERE AS LONG AS, UM, FOR INSTANCE, THINGS LIKE THE, UM, YOU KNOW,
[00:15:01]
OBVIOUSLY, UH, UM, AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT RIGHT WITH, WE CAN'T OBSTRUCT, UM, WALKWAYS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.SO, UM, I THINK ALL THAT IS INTENDED TO BE COMPLIED WITH.
IT'S JUST THAT THIS, WITH THIS RECENT STATE LAW, UM, WE'LL SEE HOW MUCH OF THAT IMPACTS THIS, THIS LANGUAGE.
CHAIRMAN PECK, UH, CAN WE JUST TABLE THIS ISSUE UNTIL WE GET THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE? YES, SIR.
THANK YOU, DOUG, FOR ADDING THE DEFINITIONS TO THE APPENDIX.
UM, MY OTHER CONCERN IS ABOUT THE BROWNFIELD SITES.
UM, WHEN YOU REMOVE THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION, UM, I UNDERSTAND BROWNFIELD SITES THAT CAN BE LARGE INDUSTRIAL AREAS, BUT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE BRO BROWNFIELD SITES THAT ARE IN OUR URBAN CORE THAT ARE SMALL PARCELS OF LAND THAT ARE, MAY BE POTENTIALLY ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
AND WITH REMOVAL OF THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION, HOW, UM, ARE WE GONNA ALLOW THESE SOLAR FARMS, SOLAR CANOPY, SOLAR ARRAYS, UH, WHERE THEY DON'T CONFLICT WITH THE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES? I THINK, UM, DEFINITIONS WILL, WILL HELP.
AND AS I WAS LOOKING AT THE, THE DEFINITIONS WILL, WILL HELP, UM, CLARIFY.
UM, BUT WHEN I JUST GLANCED OVER AT, UM, B UM, ONE APPLICABILITY, IT DOES CLEARLY STATE, UM, THAT THESE ARE SOLAR FARMS ARE COMPATIBLE AND NON URBANIZED LOW DENSITY AREAS WITH OTHER AGRICULTURAL AND SCATTERED INDUSTRIAL USES.
SO I THINK THERE'S GUIDANCE THERE THAT WE CAN, UM, USE TO, TO DEFINE THESE, THESE THREE ITEMS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT CREATING ANY SORT OF SITUATION WHERE THERE'S A PROBLEM.
THE LAST THING I WANT IS FOR OUR SOLAR FARM TO BE ADJACENT BECAUSE IT'S NOT CLEARLY DEFINED.
AND ONE LAST POINT, UH, TO MR. HANLEY'S POINT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, OBSTRUCTION OF THE FRONT VIEW.
I MEAN, WE'RE BATTLING THIS IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS WHERE THERE'S NO OVERVIEW OR ANY REVIEW FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SOLAR PANELS ANYMORE.
AND SO HE DOES BRING UP A GOOD POINT.
I DON'T KNOW, HOWEVER IT CAN BE ADDRESSED.
UM, YES, WE'RE BEING OUR, HE ARE BEING TIED AS TO WHAT KIND OF DESIGN THE CITY CAN INFLUENCE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SOLAR PANELS.
SO IT IS A PR PRUDENT POINT, SO THANK YOU.
LOOK FORWARD TO THE NEW LANGUAGE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS RIGHT NOW, DEBBIE? YES.
JUST, UM, ONE QUESTION, DOUG, ABOUT THE APPROVAL FROM C P SS, THAT'S FOR SYSTEMS THAT ARE BEING TIED INTO THE C P S CORRECT.
AND IF IT WAS A STANDALONE SAY FOR A UTILITY SHED OR WHAT THAT IN TERMS OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR UNDERGROUND UNDERGROUNDING OR JUST IN GENERAL NO, FOR APPROVAL FROM C P S.
WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE THE, YEAH, C P SS IS ONLY, UH, IT WOULD REQUIRE DSDS APPROVAL, UM, FOR ELECTRICAL, UM,
I DIDN'T FIND THAT REALLY CLEAR, BUT IT MADE SENSE.
I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, DOUG.
UH, THE FIRST OCCURRENCE IS UNDER C THREE.
IT SAYS BY RIGHT ON ANY ELIGIBLE AND VIABLE STRUCTURE, WHAT IS AN ELIGIBLE STRUCTURE MAY PERMITTED BY RIGHT.
ON ANY ELIGIBLE AND VIABLE STRUCTURE.
I WANTED TO ASK THAT QUESTION.
YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD, I NEED TO CLARIFY WHAT THAT ONE IS.
YEAH, NO, I NEED TO GET A CLARIFICATION FOR YOU ON THAT ONE.
AND THE OTHER OCCURRENCE IS UNDER, UH, D THREE.
AND ON ANOTHER, THE LAST, UH, ONE UNDER FIVE, UH, IT'S 5 4 5, I GUESS IT'S FIVE TWO, IT'S ON THE LAST PAGE UNDER PARAGRAPH TWO IT SAYS, UH, WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS A SUBMITTED INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT.
DOES THE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT ONLY HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED TO C P S OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE LIKE, APPROVED OR WHAT? YEAH, WE WERE, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, ABOUT THAT ONE.
UM, AND THAT BECAME A, A, A TIMING ISSUE.
BUT LET ME GET CLARIFICATION AGAIN WITH C P SS ON THAT ONE AS WELL.
YOU DIDN'T COMMENT THAT IT'S A INSTEAD OF, AND I DID.
THAT WAS GONNA BE MY NEXT QUESTION, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER YOU SAY IT, IT SAYS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS IT SAYS AND SUBMITTED IT SHOULD BE, IF YOU'RE GONNA LEAVE THE WORD SUBMITTED, IT SHOULD BE A SUBMITTED.
AND THEN MY LAST LITTLE NITPICKY ONE IS, UH, BACK ON THE FIRST PAGE, FOUR B.
THERE SHOULD BE A COMMA AFTER THE WORD CAPACITY WITH A TICK ON THE A.
SO VALERIE, ARE YOU MAKING THOSE CHANGES? YES, PLEASE.
[00:20:04]
OKAY.SO ON THIS ONE, I THINK WE'RE WAITING ON A BUNCH OF STUFF.
SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO, UH, PASS ON THIS ONE FOR RIGHT NOW AND COME BACK TO IT.
A MOVE WE TABLE ITEM ONE OR WHATEVER.
A MOTION BY CARRIE TO TABLE A SECOND.
WAS IT BIANCA? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM NUMBER TWO, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON NU D C ITEM FIVE DASH 28 AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 4 0 3 D.
THIS WILL JUST ADD, UM, THE, UH, NR, WHICH IS A NOISE RESTRICTIVE, UM, UH, DISTRICT, UH, TO THE ABILITY, UH, TO AMEND AT THE PODIUM, IF YOU WILL.
IT'D BE SIMILAR TO HOW WE CURRENTLY DO NON-ALCOHOLIC SALES OR, UM, UH, RESTRICTED ALCOHOL SALES.
THIS WOULD ALLOW US TO AMEND AT THE PODIUM AS OPPOSED TO HAVING TO RE NOTIFY AND GO THROUGH THE, THE PROCESS.
AGAIN, THIS HAPPENED TO ONE CASE, UH, WHERE COUNSEL WANTED TO ADD IT, BUT IT HAD TO START ALL OVER IN ORDER, UH, TO ADD THAT, UH, ABILITY.
SO THIS WOULD ALLOW IT IN, IN, IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S, IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE RANGE, IF YOU WILL.
THAT'S, THAT'S THE COIN PHRASE THAT WE USE.
A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MS. WRIGHT.
ITEM THREE, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM 22 DASH 22 AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 4 21 D.
DID YOU MISS THIS, MICAH? DID YOU MISS ME?
IT IS UPDATING REFERENCES TO, UM, SUB AREA PLANS, SECTOR PLANS, UM, JUST GENERAL PLAN TYPES THAT ARE ADDRESSED IN SECTION 35, 4 20, UM, WHICH YOU HAVE NOT HEARD YET.
IT'S JUST A REFERENCE TO ANOTHER SECTION.
AND I CAN ADD THESE ARE ALL TERMS THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED AS PART OF THE ESSAY TOMORROW, SO WE'RE JUST, WE ARE GOING STEP BY STEP TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT HAPPENS.
ANY QUESTIONS? JUST A QUICK QUESTION.
UM, HOW IS THE CONTROLLING PLAN OUT OF ALL THE MASSIVE PLANS THAT WE HAVE? HOW DO YOU SELECT THAT
UM, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL, ALL OF THE PLANS THAT ARE CURRENTLY LISTED IN THAT SECTION.
UM, AND, AND UPDATED THOSE LISTS TO DETERMINE WHICH ONES HAVE BEEN UPDATED, WHICH ONES HAVE NOT EVER BEEN UPDATED.
AND SO THEY STILL CONTROL, UM, WHICH ONES HAVE BEEN SUPERSEDED THROUGH SOME OTHER ACTION.
SO WE'VE, WE'VE REALLY DONE THE RESEARCH AND THE DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE EVERYTHING LISTED WHERE A LAND USE PLAN HAS BEEN UPDATED OR ADOPTED.
UM, THE PREVIOUS PLAN NO LONGER CARRIES A CONSISTENCY REQUIREMENT, HOWEVER, THAT PLAN MAY STILL HAVE SOME ELEMENTS IN SECTIONS THAT THAT APPLY, BUT NOT NECESSARILY FOR A ZONING REQUEST.
SO WE ALSO CLARIFY THAT THOSE LISTS ARE SPECIFIC TO CONSISTENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR ZONING REQUESTS, UM, AND PLAN AMENDMENT CONSIDERATIONS.
SO THE POOR APPLICANT HAS TO COME TO YOU FIRST, I GUESS, JUST TO FIGURE THAT PART OUT.
OH, WELL, IF I CAN SHOW YOU MICAH, THEY ACTUALLY COME TO US AND WE WORK WITH THEM.
'CAUSE WE WORK CLOSELY WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON ALL OF THESE PLANS.
SO WE KNOW WHICH ONES HAVE BEEN SUPERSEDED.
WE KNOW WHICH ONES ARE ACTIVE.
WE'RE THE ONES THAT THEY SAY, HEY, I WANNA REZONE.
WE LOOK INTO, UH, G I S WE LOOK INTO THE PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT THEIR LAND USE IS FOR THAT PROPERTY AND OUR INTENTION MOVING FORWARD AS, UM, SUB AREA PLANS ARE ADOPTED, WE, WE WILL GO THROUGH OR GO BACK TO THAT SECTION AND UPDATE THE EXISTING LIST.
UM, THAT'S PART OF WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
PLANS WERE ADDED, BUT NO PLANS WERE REMOVED OR THERE WAS NO RECOGNITION THAT SOMETHING HAD BEEN SUPERSEDED.
SO WE, WE ARE, I HAVE ALREADY DONE THAT RESEARCH.
I HAVE ALL OF THE ORDINANCE AND DOCUMENTATION OF ALL THE INFORMATION TO SUPPORT IT, WHICH I CAN BRING WHEN, WHEN YOU CONSIDER, UH, THAT SECTION IF YOU'D LIKE.
UM, BUT WE WILL CONTINUE TO UPDATE THAT SECTION TO IDENTIFY THE CONTROLLING PLANS AND LIKE KATT SAID, THE DEVELOPMENT
[00:25:01]
SERVICES ONLINE WEBSITE, UM, WHERE PEOPLE GO TO LOOK AT THEIR ZONING AND, AND ADOPTED FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION THAT WILL BE UPDATED AS WE ADOPT NEW SUBAR PLANS.THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT EXPLANATION.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? ANY MOTION? ROBERT HANLEY MOVE APPROVAL MOTION FROM ROBERT HANLEY FOR APPROVAL.
OKAY, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ITEM FOUR DASH ONE AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 4 21 H OH.
SO THIS AMENDMENT WAS SUBMITTED, UH, BY UH, MR. STEVE ORTEIG, WHO IS AN EXTERNAL APPLICANT.
UH, HE IS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND TODAY'S MEETING, BUT THE VOICEMAIL YOU HEARD AT THE BEGINNING DURING PUBLIC COMMENT, UH, WAS FROM MR. VERTI ON THIS AMENDMENT.
UH, AND THEN I KNOW THAT WE FORWARDED TO THE TAC UH, TWO ADDITIONAL EMAILS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM HIM KIND OF EXPLAINING, UH, WHAT IT WAS THAT, UH, HE SOUGHT TO DO AT THIS AMENDMENT.
ANY DISCUSSION? MANNA? SO, SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD WHEN I WAS READING THIS IS THAT, UM, HE DID ATTEST TO THAT ALREADY.
AVI, CAN WE CHECK THE SO, SO QUESTION.
YOU KNOW WHAT THE PODIUM MIKE IS ON? CAN YOU TURN IT OFF, VALERIE? MINE'S OFF.
OKAY, SO MINE'S, IS IT ON NOW? OKAY.
SO THE QUESTION I HAD WAS, UM, REALLY NOT WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT, THAT YOU OR THE INTENT OF WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE.
BUT ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD IS THAT THIS SECTION IS REPEATED A COUPLE TIMES WITHIN THAT AREA AND AT THE TOP THERE'S LIKE A GENERAL STATEMENT AND I WAS WONDERING IF THIS SHOULDN'T BE PLACED THERE BE, UH, FOR BASICALLY ALL THINGS ZONING, UH, 'CAUSE WE CALLED AND CALLED OUT THE SAME KIND OF INFORMATION FOR CONDITIONAL, FOR SPECIAL, UM, FOR ZONING A COUPLE OF OTHER PLACES.
AND SO TO ME THIS APPLIES OVERALL TO ANYTHING UM, YOU KNOW, THAT MAY APPLY THERE.
AND SO THERE'S SECTION ONE, WHICH IS GENERAL AND I WOULD THINK THIS WOULD BE BETTER PLACED THERE.
AND I GUESS THAT WAS THE OVERALL POSITION STAFF.
CAN YOU PULL UP THE CODE SO WE CAN SEE WHAT PHILLIP'S TALKING ABOUT? I THINK THE TEAM IS WORKING ON THAT.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE PULLING IT UP.
SO, AND JUST TO KIND OF, UM, CONFIRM YOUR QUESTION.
SO THERE'S, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MULTIPLE PLACES IN WHICH THEY TALK ABOUT WITHDRAWALS? YES, AND I, AND I THINK THAT THIS APPLIES REALLY TO EVERY ONE OF THOSE SUBSECTIONS.
AND SO THEREFORE IT MADE BETTER SENSE AND ACTUALLY I DID NOT SEE THIS FOR CONDITIONAL AND I THINK WOULD THE SAME THING WOULD APPLY.
AND SO, SO TO ME THIS WOULD BE AN AD FOR THE CONDITIONAL, BUT THEY CALL THAT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE SPECIAL USE, UM, AS WELL AS UM, UH, ZONING AND PLANNING.
AND SO TO ME, UM, SO, SO IT WAS MISSING OUTTA THE CONDITIONAL, BUT IT WAS APPLIED TO ALL THE OTHER ONES AND TO ME IT SEEMED LIKE WOULD APPLY.
AND SO THEREFORE IT SEEMED LIKE EVERYTHING FROM THAT SECTION FOR WITHDRAWAL COULD BE, UH, SO, OR YEAH, WITHDRAWAL COULD BE MOVED THAT WHOLE BULLET POINT UP TO THE TOP AS UM, YOU KNOW, AS AN OVERALL OVERALL PERSPECTIVE FOR ANYTHING COMING THROUGH THE CITY.
BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I WAS ASKED.
SO TALKING THESE SECTIONS AND MAYBE TRYING TO CLARIFY ALL OF THAT TOGETHER.
SO, SO I THINK ALL OF 'EM READ THE SAME, MORE OR LESS OR PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.
AND SO TO ME BY MOVING THIS RIGHT HERE AND IF YOU SCROLL UP SO TO WHERE, UH, OR YEAH, THE OTHER DIRECTION.
SO AT THE VERY TOP IS NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS GENERAL.
SO YOU SAW IT, REPEAT IT AGAIN JUST A SECOND AGO, BUT KEEP GOING UP.
I THINK THIS IS THE AREA RIGHT UP HERE.
UM, SO IF YOU SCROLL UP A LITTLE BIT MORE, YOU'LL SEE THAT IT'S THE OVERALL SECTION FOUR THINGS THAT ARE COMING THROUGH.
SO IT'S A GENERAL SECTION FOR CODE, UM, MASTER PLAN.
OKAY, SO WE HAD, YEAH, SO THERE WAS A GENERAL SECTION FOR THIS WHOLE AREA, BUT THOSE APPLY.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.
THERE'S SEVERAL AREAS IN WHICH THERE'S WITHDRAWAL LANGUAGE.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE, AND THEY'RE ALL SUB TO THIS ONE TOPIC, IT'S MORE THAN SUB SECTION THAT'S PRESENTED AS AN AMENDMENT, RIGHT? WELL THE, I THINK SOME OF THOSE, SOME OF THE PROCESSES THAT WE'RE SEEING SCROLL ACROSS THE SCREEN ARE ADMINISTRATIVE.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD APPLY TO EVERYTHING.
I THINK HE'S JUST REFERRING TO THE CONDITIONAL USE ONE.
WELL, SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION HAS LANGUAGE RELATED TO WITHDRAWALS.
[00:30:02]
LET'S SEE HERE.YEAH, WELL THERE WAS, UM, THE CONDITIONAL ZONING, SO IT WAS ON PAGE, I APOLOGIZE HERE, I DIDN'T HAVE MARKED THE PAGES.
SO, 'CAUSE WE HAD ZONING PROCEDURES, YOU KNOW, DID MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS.
AND THEN AT THE VERY TOP, SO DIVISION ONE GENERAL, UM, SO IT'S ON, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ SECTION 35, 4 0 1.
SO BASICALLY THIS IS THE WHOLE SECTION, UH, WHICH ALL OF THIS IS DRIVEN FROM.
SO ALL THE SUBSETS, RIGHT? AND SO THERE YOU COULD, IT TALKS ABOUT COMMON ELEMENTS, UM, HOW TO INITIATE IT, HOW TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS CATEGORIES AND THEN CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY.
AND SO, BUT UNDER, UM, YOU KNOW, SO I, THAT'S TO ME, I THINK THIS WOULD FIT RIGHT HERE IN THIS SECTION RIGHT HERE, HONESTLY.
UM, AND APPLIES TO EVERYTHING THAT, THAT'S SUBSEQUENTLY UNDERNEATH IT.
SO BASICALLY A COMMON DEFINITION REALLY TO BE APPLIED ACROSS ALL OF THEM.
QUESTION, OTHERWISE WE, WE ADD THAT SECTION TO EVERY SINGLE SECTION.
BUT DOESN'T THIS APPLY TO ADMINISTRATIVE, YOU KNOW, MDPS THAT DON'T GO TO A COMMISSION? I MEAN THIS IS GOING AND MAKING THAT EVERYTHING SUBJECT TO THAT WHICH AREN'T, YOU KNOW, CORRECT.
WHICH DOESN'T APPLY TO AND IN THE GOAL, RIGHT? IF, IF YOU WERE TO APPLY THIS SORT OF TIME PENALTY OR WAIVER REGULATION TO ALL OF ARTICLE FOUR, I, I, I THINK WE'D HAVE SUBSTANTIAL LEGAL COMPLICATIONS BECAUSE WE CAN'T PROHIBIT SOMEONE FROM SUBSEQUENTLY SUBMITTING A PLATT OR AN M D P OR ANY NUMBER OF OTHER APPLICATION TYPES.
SO, UH, SO THEN, THEN I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS ADDED TO CONDITIONAL THEN, 'CAUSE IT'S MISSING OUT CONDITIONAL AS WELL.
SO CAN, CAN WE JUST TALK ABOUT, UH, QUICKLY 'CAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS.
UM, I WANT KATT TO EXPLAIN WHAT OUR EXISTING PROCESS IS BECAUSE I DO THINK THERE IS, UH, NECESSARY, UH, AMENDMENTS TO THIS SECTION TO CLARIFY, WHICH WOULD BE HELPFUL.
UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHAT THIS SECTION IS DOING.
SO THIS HAS TO DO WITH, UH, CASES THAT ARE WITHDRAWN PRIOR TO BEING, UH, PRESENTED AT CITY COUNCIL.
SO SINCE 2006 WHEN THIS AMENDMENT WAS MADE, THE AMENDMENT WAS MADE TO REMOVE THE LANGUAGE RELATED TO ZONING COMMISSION.
'CAUSE AS WE KNOW, COMMISSION, UM, ZONING COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION ARE RECOMMENDING BODIES ONLY.
AND CITY COUNCIL IS THE FINAL DECISION.
UH, SO WHAT, UH, WHAT'S BEEN IN PLACE, UH, BASED ON THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS DONE IN 2006 WAS THAT IF AN APPLICATION GOES THROUGH ZONING COMMISSION GETS TO CITY COUNCIL AND BECAUSE THE NEGOTIATIONS ARE NOT, UM, GOING FORWARD OR, UH, NOT GOING TO BE, UM, ABLE TO BE REACHED, THEN THE APPLICANT CAN WITHDRAW.
UM, THERE IS NO TIME PENALTY, BUT THERE IS PENALTIES IN PLACE BECAUSE THERE IS THE, IF THEY WANNA RESTART THE PROCESS AND THEY HAVE TO START ALL OVER AGAIN, UH, BACK TO ZONING COMMISSION AND THEN THEY HAVE TO PAY THE FEES ALL OVER AGAIN.
UH, SO THOSE PENALTIES ARE IN PLACE IF THEY DECIDE TO WITHDRAW RIGHT BEFORE, UH, WITTS PRESENTED AT CITY COUNCIL AND THAT'S BEEN THE PRACTICE THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE.
UM, AT, AT MINIMUM I BELIEVE BECAUSE WE DID HAVE THIS ONE CITIZEN THAT WAS CONFUSED ABOUT THE PROCESS OR CONFUSED ABOUT THE LANGUAGE.
AT A MINIMUM, MAYBE WE DO CLARIFY BY ADDING THE WORD CITY COUNCIL IN SOMEWHERE.
UH, BUT, UH, BUT AS PRESENTED, THIS WOULD, UH, INTRODUCE PENALTIES THAT ARE, UH, NOT IN PLACE TODAY.
AND WE DON'T DISAGREE THAT THE LANGUAGE IS NOT CLEAR.
SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE CLARIFYING WHAT SHOULD BE IN HERE.
AND I THINK THERE'S A QUESTION ON, UH, THE COMMITTEE, MR. CHAIR? YEAH, I THINK, UH, ASHLEY HAD A QUESTION.
NO, THAT WAS MY QUESTION WAS TO CLARIFY EXISTING PROCEDURE.
'CAUSE I THINK THIS IS, IT SAYS EDITING, CLARIFYING, BUT I THINK AS PROPOSED TO HAVE A PENALTY IF YOU WITHDRAW AT THE ZONING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL.
UM, THAT'S BEYOND EDITING AND CLARIFYING IN TERMS OF CURRENT PROCEDURE.
'CAUSE RIGHT NOW IT JUST SAYS PUBLIC MEETING AND THEIR INTERPRETATION MAY SAY CITY COUNCIL, BUT THERE'S NOT A R I D OR RID THAT SUPPORTS THAT.
SO WE DO NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS AND, AND MOVE SOMETHING FORWARD.
THE CONCERN ACTUALLY CAME FROM A SPECIFIC CASE REGARDING A GAS STATION WHERE THE ORGANIZATION APPLIED AND THEN WITHDREW THEIR APPLICATION AND THEN GAVE THE SAME SITE PLAN TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO THEN REAPPLIED LESS THAN TWO OR THREE MONTHS LATER WITH THE SAME MATERIALS.
UM, SO I, I THINK THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE ZONING COMMISSION WERE ADDED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DEFINITION
[00:35:01]
OF WHAT THAT PUBLIC MEETING WAS, EVEN THOUGH STAFF INTERPRETED IT TO BE CITY COUNCIL.SO THAT'S WHY IT HAS THE ZONING COMMISSION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE IT'S SAYING THAT IT SHOULD TRIGGER A PENALTY IF YOU WITHDRAW DURING THE PROCESS.
AND SO RIGHT NOW STAFF IS SAYING THEY ONLY DO IT FOR CITY COUNCIL, HOWEVER, THERE IS CONCERN WITH PEOPLE WITHDRAWING DURING THE PROCESS AND NOT COMPLETING IT, THEN COMING BACK WITH THE SAME MATERIALS UNDERNEATH A DIFFERENT APPLICANT.
AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IT WAS A CORPORATION VERSUS A PROPERTY OWNER WHEN THOSE TWO APPLICATIONS WERE SUBMITTED FOR, UM, DEVELOPMENT.
SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH YOU AND I AM SUPPORTIVE WITH THE LANGUAGE AS IT IS WRITTEN.
I GUESS I SHOULD MOTION ANY OTHER COMP.
SO WOULD I ONLY HAVE A QUESTION? I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE, UM, PENALTY DURING THE ZONING COMMISSIONER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
UM, I THINK THAT SO MANY TIMES THAT'S WHEN THINGS COME TO LIGHT OUGHT NOT TO GET KICKED, UM, AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME, BY THE TIME IT'S GONE THROUGH THOSE TWO, I GET IT AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL, BUT IT, IT IS CONCERNING TO ME THAT WE EXTEND THAT TO ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THOSE COMMISSIONS ARE INTENDED TO DO, IS TO FLUSH OUT ISSUES AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESOLVE THOSE, WHICH REMOVING THOSE AND MAKING IT OR KEEPING THEM IN JUST CREATES I THINK A GREATER, AN UNFAIR BURDEN.
THAT WOULD BE MY, JUST A COMMENT.
UH, I WOULD ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THAT.
I MEAN SO MANY, OH, I'M NOT WORKING.
USUALLY YOU'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE ONE.
I DON'T THINK PLANNING BELONGS IN HERE.
I DON'T THINK PLANNING BELONGS IN HERE ANYWAY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT, IT'S A ZONING APPLICATION SECTION, BUT I THINK IT'S ZONING COMMISSION UP TO THAT.
AND THROUGH EVEN THAT POINT, YOU ARE STILL OFTEN TRYING TO WORK WITH NEIGHBORHOODS AND RESOLVE AND THOSE ARE JUST RECOMMENDATIONS.
NOW, STAFF, IF IN THE CASE BIANCA REFERENCED OR OTHERS, THERE'S NOT A TIME DELAY PENALTY IF A SECOND APPLICANT APPLIES, BUT THERE ARE NEW FEES.
SO I MEAN, IT'S A BRAND NEW APPLICATION, IT'S JUST ON THE SAME PROPERTY.
IT'S, IT'S A BRAND NEW APPLICATION, BRAND NEW FEES, UH, AND IT STARTS ALL OVER AGAIN.
AND SO THE TIME CLOCK STARTS OVER FOR THEIR REVIEW, THEIR COORDINATION, THEY'RE NOT GETTING TO SHORT CIRCUIT THE PROCESS ANYWHERE BECAUSE IT'S ON THE SAME PROPERTY.
NO SHORT CIRCUITING THE PROCESS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS AT THIS STAGE? I MEAN, I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH, ESPECIALLY WHAT SUSAN SAID.
I KNOW PLANNING COMMISSION, WHEN WE HEAR PLAN AMENDMENTS A LOT, THINGS COME TO LIGHT DURING THE PROCESS OR EVEN SOMETIMES AT THE PODIUM AND THEY EITHER POSTPONE OR PULL IT AND COME, YOU KNOW, GO BACK, WORK THINGS OUT AND THEN COME BACK.
SO I MEAN, TO, TO REQUIRE A TIME PENALTY WOULD BE, I DON'T THINK IT'S BE VERY FAIR WHEN THINGS COME UP AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
AND ALSO TO KARA'S POINT, THE TITLE OF THE THING SAYS WITHDRAWAL OF ZONING APPLICATION.
WELL THEN HE GOES ON AND TALKS ABOUT PLANNING COMMISSION AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
SO THAT WOULD NEED TO BE STRUCK IF WE WERE TO ENTERTAIN THIS.
YEAH, BECAUSE, UH, 4 21 IS ZONING AMENDMENTS.
UH, WE, WE COULD CERTAINLY REMOVE THE REFERENCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? THIS IS BIANCA.
I JUST HAD A COMMENT IF YOU COULD SCROLL UP THE LANGUAGE AT THE BOTTOM ABOUT THE WAIVER TIME PENALTY.
IS THERE ANY CONCERN ABOUT THIS LANGUAGE BEING ADDED? YES, AS WRITTEN, THERE'S A LEGAL CONCERN, YES, AS WRITTEN.
AND THE LEGAL CONCERN CAN'T, IF WE, IF WE NEED TO LET SUSAN ANSWER THAT, IF WE REMOVE THE PLANNING, COMMISSION, THE ZONING COMMISSION AND LEAVE IT ONLY TO STAY CITY COUNCIL AND KARA, WE WE ADJUSTED YOUR MIC, SO IT SHOULD BE OKAY IN THE ROOM.
WELL, THERE'S ONE ISSUE IN SUBSECTION C THAT YOU'RE TREATING DIFFERENT APPLICANTS DIFFERENTLY.
UM, FOR ONE, AND I MEAN YOU CAN CHANGE THE NAME, YOU CAN HAVE A WIFE AND THEN THE HUSBAND, YOU COULD HAVE THE PARTNERSHIP.
I MEAN, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF WAYS TO GET AROUND THIS.
SO EITHER YOU ALLOW IT OR YOU DON'T.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE TREATING DIFFERENT APPLICANTS DIFFERENTLY,
[00:40:01]
UM, THAT'S EQUAL PROTECTION ISSUES.SO STRIKE WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR C AND THEN MOVING ON TO D IS THERE ANY, UM, ISSUE WITH A SUBSTANTIAL WRITTEN EVIDENCE? I GUESS THAT'S JUST REQUIRING SOMETHING IS RECEIVED IN WRITING.
IS THAT THE REASON WHY THIS HAS BEEN ADDED? IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY? I GUESS IF SOMEBODY VERBALLY OR THROUGH A VOICEMAIL, WE DON'T HAVE NO IDEA.
DON'T BASICALLY RECEIVE, HAVE TO INFORMATION IN WRITING.
YOU HAVE TO RECEIVE AN APPLICATION IN WRITING.
YEAH, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I THOUGHT.
SO I'LL STAB AT AN AMENDMENT HERE.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED WITH ONLY STATING CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETING.
SO, BUT KEEPING WRITTEN, BIANCA, I THINK, I THINK WE'RE KEEPING WRITTEN.
THE WRITTEN, ISN'T IT? THE WRITTEN IS OKAY.
YEAH, THE WRITTEN IS BECAUSE IT'S CLARIFYING, YES, CLARIFYING AS AMENDED AS IT'S PRESENTED.
AND THEN, UH, I THINK WHAT I HEARD CITY COUNCIL, CITY CITY COUNCIL WE'RE KEEPING WE'RE, UH, THAT'S CORRECT.
WE'RE TAKING OUT COMMISSION OR ON THE REST OF THOSE.
SO MAN, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR C SO, SO WE STRUCK OUT WITH REGARDS TO THE SAME APPLICANT, BUT REALLY ISN'T A QUESTION ABOUT THE SAME PROPERTY.
SO ON THE GIVEN PROPERTY, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND NOT THE APPLICATION OR THE APPLICANT THEMSELVES? THIS REALLY STEMS FROM TWO APPLICANTS ON A PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
SO, BUT IT, BUT WHAT DID, BUT ISN'T WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT A SINGLE PROPERTY IS GOING THROUGH MULTIPLE ITERATIONS REGARDLESS OF WHO BRINGS IT THROUGH.
IT WAS A SUMMARY ITERATION IN BOTH APPLICATIONS.
MY UNDERSTANDING AT LEAST IS AS I'M INTERPRETING IT, IS THAT IT REALLY IS ABOUT STOPPING SOMEBODY FROM, UM, FROM NOT, YOU KNOW, LISTENING AND WASTING TIME.
AND THAT IS, THAT PARTICULAR APPLICANT NOT NECESSARILY HAS NOTHING, IT HAS TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY, BUT IT HAS TO DO WITH AN APPLICANT WHO CONTINUES TO KIND OF PUSH THE WINDOW OF, UM, OF STAFF'S TIME, ET CETERA, IN THAT PROCESS, IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND IT WELL AND ADDING TO THAT, IT'S NOT JUST, IT'S IF YOU ARE A PERSON IN THE COMMUNITY AND YOU'RE WORKING WITH AN APPLICANT AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY'RE NOT THE APPLICANT ANYMORE AND YOU HAVE A NEW APPLICANT AND THEY'RE COMING IN WITH THE SAME PLAN, BUT THEY'RE TELLING YOU A DIFFERENT STORY, IT KIND OF GOES TO THE VALIDITY OF WHAT IS REALLY GONNA HAPPEN IN THE DEVELOPMENT.
AND AS MANY OF Y'ALL KNOW, THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, IT IS ABOUT TRUST AND IT IS ABOUT CONSISTENCY AND THE INFORMATION YOU PROVIDE AND, AND TELLING THEM WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO IN THE DEVELOPMENT.
BECAUSE AS WE ALL KNOW, ONCE YOU REZONE A PROPERTY, ALL THOSE GOOD INTENTIONS AND WELL WISHES AND LESS THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS IS THEY DON'T CARRY WITH THE PROPERTY.
AND SO I THINK THAT'S REALLY KIND OF WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE IS YOU SAW A SITUATION THAT LED TO A DIRECT RESULT OF, HEY, LET'S CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE HERE, BECAUSE THEY HAD THAT SITUATION OCCUR IN A, IN A PARTICULAR APPLICATION.
SO I JUST, I KNOW ON THE, ON THE B O A WE HAD, WE'VE HAD A CASE COME THROUGH WHERE, WHERE THERE WAS A, A POSITION MADE AND THEN THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD AND THEN THE PERSON TO COME BACK AND THE, THE ORIGINAL POSITION WASN'T HONORED AND SO THEY HAD TO COME BACK THROUGH A SECOND TIME.
AND SO KIND OF WENT THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS TWICE FOR THAT PARTICULAR CASE.
AND THAT'S WHY I GUESS IT BROUGHT UP FOR A PARTICULAR LOT, UH, IN THAT DIALOGUE.
SO, BUT I'M FINE WITH IT AS IT IS, BUT YOU KNOW, JUST, OKAY, WE DO THIS POINT IN TIME, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED ON THE SCREEN, AND I ASSUME EVERYBODY'S OKAY WITH THE AMENDMENT SHOWN THERE.
WE HAVE A SECOND BY SUSAN IF EVERYBODY'S OKAY WITH THAT.
UH, EVERYBODY IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM FIVE DASH 17 AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 4 31 H.
GOOD AFTERNOON, THIS IS DANIEL HASLET, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER.
UH, SO THIS IS REALLY TO KIND OF REMOVE THAT NINE MONTH REQUIREMENT ON LETTERS OF CERTIFICATION.
OCS ALSO KNOWN AS, UH, SO A LETTER OF CERTIFICATION IS A SECOND REVIEW AFTER THE TECHNICAL REVIEW.
UH, SO OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DOES THESE OCS SAWS, C P S.
AND WHAT ISSUE WE'VE BEEN RUNNING INTO IS A PLAT USUALLY TAKES, CAN TAKE UP TO TWO YEARS TO GET RECORDED.
UH, SO ONCE WE GET TO OUR SUBDIVISION, L O C, WHICH IS THE LAST L O C, UH, SOME OF THESE, YOU KNOW, PREVIOUS OCS WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPIRED BECAUSE IF A PLAT TAKES A YEAR TO GET TO THE FINAL L O C REVIEW, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S PASSED, YOU KNOW, THE NINE MONTHS FOR THE INITIAL OCS THAT WERE APPROVED.
SO THEN THE ENGINEER HAS TO GO BACK TO THE DIFFERENT AGENCIES AND GET NEW OCS.
SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS JUST MAKE IT SO IT'S JUST UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THE APPLICATION, SO WE'RE NOT HAVING ENGINEERS HAVING TO GO BACK AND GET NEW OCS IF THE
[00:45:01]
PROJECT HASN'T CHANGED.AND MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY CHIME IN, THIS IS MELISSA RAMIREZ.
THE OTHER PORTION OF THIS DISCUSSION IS THAT WE HAVE MOVED ON TO BUILD SA, WHICH IS OUR NEW, UH, ELECTRONIC BUSINESS, IF YOU WILL, SYSTEM.
SO EVERYTHING IS DONE ELECTRONICALLY.
I ENVISION THAT THIS AMENDMENT OR THIS U D C REGULATION WAS CREATED BECAUSE I WAS, THAT PROCESS WAS TRACKED THROUGH, IF Y'ALL REMEMBER, T PLATT, UH, T P L T, THAT WAS THE TRACKING SYSTEM.
IT WAS A DINOSAUR, BUT IT WAS ALL WE HAD.
AND SO NOW WE HAVE AN IN MUCH IMPROVED PROCESS TO REVIEW DOCUMENTS AND APPROVALS IN ONE SYSTEM.
UH, PRIOR TO THAT IT WAS A LOT OF PAPER PUSHING AS WELL.
SO WE, WE DID TRY TO BUILD IN, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE PARAMETERS TO WHEN WE WOULD RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL OR NEW OCS TO BE ISSUED.
SO IF YOU, I MEAN, IF YOU INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE PLATT, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT PLATTING LAND THAT STAFF HAS NEVER PREVIOUSLY SEEN BEFORE, WE'RE GONNA RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE THAT NEW OCS BE ISSUED.
AGAIN, IF YOU ADD UNITS, YOU DECREASE OPEN SPACE, YOU ADD, DELETE, OR MODIFY EASEMENTS, WE'RE GONNA RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE A NEW L C.
BUT IF THE PROJECT HAS STAYED THE SAME, YOU'VE BEEN WORKING OUT OTHER ISSUES, WE DON'T WANNA REQUIRE THE ENGINEER GO OUT AND GET A NEW PARKS L O C, JUST BECAUSE THE OLD ONE WAS ISSUED 10 MONTHS AGO AND NOTHING CHANGED.
AND THIS IS THE PROCESS THAT WE DO TODAY.
OKAY, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY KARA A SECOND.
SECOND BY, WAS IT DEBBIE? OKAY.
AND YOU OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM SIX, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM 27 DASH 43, UH, AFFECTING SECTION 35 4 32.
GOOD AFTERNOON, SABRINA SANTIAGO.
NOW WE CAN, MAYBE I NEED TO MOVE CLOSER.
SABRINA SANTIAGO, UM, FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PUBLIC WORKS.
I JUST HAVE TO BE REALLY CLOSE, I GUESS.
UM, THIS IS POLICY THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR SOME TIME.
WE'RE JUST NOW PUTTING IT IN A CODE.
SABRINA, THIS WAS BECAUSE OF THE IB, WHATEVER THE NUMBER WAS FROM A WHILE BACK, RIGHT? THREE.
THIS IS, IS THIS THE ONE REFRESH MY MEMORY THAT TALKS ABOUT THE CONFORMANCE CORRECT LETTER AND ALL THAT STUFF, ALL THAT THAT BE IN PLACE, CONFORMANCE? YES, SIR.
AND IS THE ISSUE WHERE YOU CAN STILL, WHERE, UM, IF YOU PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, IF VEGETATION HASN'T BEEN ESTABLISHED, SAY IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WINTER AND YOU PROVIDE YOUR SW ITEMS, THAT EXACTLY YOU'RE COVERED FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME THERE? CORRECT.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? NOW WE'LL HAVE A MOTION, MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS IS.
I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY DEBBIE.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM ON AMENDMENT FIVE DASH 47, SECTION 35 DASH FOUR FOUR A.
ALRIGHT, THIS AMENDMENT, UH, IS, UH, ADDING TO THE CODE, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS PUT FORWARD BY RID 2019 DASH 0 0 4.
UH, SO 2019, THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION HOUSE BILL 33 14, UH, ESTABLISHED NEW LAWS FOR HOW THE CITY GOES ABOUT NOTIFYING UH, FOLKS FOR RESIDENTIAL RELAS.
UH, SO THIS IS UPDATING THE CODE TO ALIGN WITH THAT STATE LAW MANDATE, UH, HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY.
WHAT THE STATE TOLD THE CITIES IS THAT FOR RESIDENTIAL REPLANTS, UH, RATHER THAN INVITING THE PUBLIC TO A COMMUNITY MEETING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHERE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE A CHOICE BUT TO APPROVE THE PLATT, THIS WOULD REQUIRE NOTICE WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS APPROVED THAT PLATT.
UH, SO THIS HAS BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE 2019.
IT'S JUST ALIGNING THE CODE WITH THAT STATE LAW.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? JULIA? THANK YOU.
BEFORE WE DO THAT, I HAVE A QUESTION.
[00:50:03]
UM, UNDER TWO, NO, I'M SORRY, UNDER B ONE IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT PARAGRAPH, THERE'S A BOLD THING THAT TALKS ABOUT REVIEW FOR APPEAL HERE AND STANDING.DOES THAT BELONG IN HERE? RIGHT THERE.
SEE THE BOLD? I THINK THAT'S PART OF ANOTHER SECTION OF THE CODE THAT SOMEHOW GOT STUCK IN HERE.
LET US HIGHLIGHT IT AND WE'LL WE CAN TAKE IT BACK TO MAKE SURE.
YEAH, IT WAS ANOTHER AMENDMENT, LIKE THE NEXT ONE OR SOMETHING.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM OR HOW IT GOT IN THERE.
I THINK THAT EVERYTHING THAT ALL OF THAT, CAN YOU PULL UP THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE IN THE CODE, LAUREN? YEAH.
ALL OF THAT TO THE END OF THAT BEFORE NUMBER TWO IS MY APPEAL STUFF.
YEAH, I I THINK IT MAY HAVE BEEN CUT ON THE P D F DOCUMENT IN THE WRONG PLACE.
I GUESS IT'S EVERYTHING AFTER THE WORD, THE BOLD WORD REVIEW TO THE END OF THE PARAGRAPH GOES AWAY, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
YEAH, WE, IT MIGHT BE BETTER TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.
THAT WAY WE CAN CLEAN THIS ONE UP, MAKE SURE IT'S CUT OFF WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE.
SO I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION RIGHT THERE.
FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL, IS THAT ONE WORD OR IS THAT ALWAYS SHOULD BE TWO WORDS.
ARE WE CONSISTENT? THAT LANGUAGE RIGHT THERE AS IT'S DISPLAYED.
SO IS THAT CONSIDERED ONE WORD OR WHERE PHILLIP? SO RIGHT THERE ON THE PAGE, TOP OF THE PAGE THAT HE IS DISPLAYED.
SO FIVE RIGHT UNDERNEATH THERE.
SO IS THAT ONE WORD OR IS IT YEAH, WE, WE CAN MAKE IT ONE WORD.
IT'S LISTED AS ONE WORD ELSEWHERE IN THE CODE.
DO WE NEED A MOTION TO TABLE THIS TILL LATER IN THE MEETING OR, YEAH.
I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A COMMA AFTER NON-RESIDENTIAL.
AND THE CODE WAS AFTER TWO UNITS.
SO A TRIPLEX BECAME, OR OH, IT'S TRULY SINGLE.
YEAH, I THINK THERE'S SHOULD BE A COMMA THERE.
NON-RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX PLEX.
YEAH, BECAUSE NON-RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY IS A LITTLE CONFUSING.
IF, IF, IF WE CAN TABLE THIS ONE.
WHAT? 'CAUSE ALL WE DID IS WE TOOK THE LANGUAGE FROM THE RED AND ADDED IT INTO THE CYCLE.
SO WE CAN JUST MAKE SURE IT MATCHES UP TO WHAT'S IN RID.
CAN WE GET A MOTION TO TABLE THIS TILL LATER IN THE MEETING? MOTION TO TABLE SECOND.
ALL RIGHT, MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.
DISCUSSION IN ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT FIVE DASH 21 AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 4 41 B.
ALRIGHT, SO THE, THE IDEA HERE IS WE HAVE A SECTION OF THE CODE, UH, HOLD ON, LEMME GO AHEAD AND PUT IT BACK HERE.
ESSENTIALLY WE HAVE A SECTION OF THE CODE THAT SAYS THAT IF A, UH, AMENDING PLAT IS SEEKING TO MODIFY, ADD, DELETE, ET CETERA, AND EASEMENT WITH THE EXCEPTION, I THINK IT SAYS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A NO BUILD EASEMENT, UM, THEN LIMITED CIRCULATION SHALL NOT APPLY.
NOWHERE ELSE IN THE CODE DOES IT DESCRIBE WHEN LIMITED CIRCULATION SHALL APPLY.
UH, WE HAVE ALWAYS CONSIDERED THAT REQUEST INTERNALLY BASED UPON WHAT THE AMENDING PLAT SEEKS TO AMEND.
SO IF THEY ARE UPDATING THE OWNER'S NAME, WE INTERNALLY CAN MAKE THE DECISION THAT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, 12 TECHNICAL AGENCIES TO TAKE A LOOK AT UPDATING THE OWNER'S NAME.
UH, SO THIS AGAIN, IS JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE, UH, FLEXIBILITY FOR US TO MAKE THAT DECISION, UH, RATHER THAN SAYING WHEN IT'S NOT ALLOWED AND NEVER WHEN IT IS, IT JUST REMOVES SOME OF THAT GRAY AREA.
ANY QUESTIONS? MOVE FOR APPROVAL.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY KARA SECOND, ROBERT.
UH, CHAIRMAN IN THE UNDER B INITIATION UNDER THE, THE SECOND SENTENCE SAYS THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES.
WE, WE CAN STRIKE PLANNING AND THANK YOU.
I'M GONNA CALL YOU EAGLE EYES FROM NOW ON, NOT TO BE TWO.
WE'RE CALLED ALL KINDS OF NAMES IN THE BOOK,
AND MAYBE OUTSIDE OF THE BOOK ARE
[00:55:01]
JUST A QUICK QUESTION.ARE YOU ALL GONNA UPDATE? 'CAUSE I KNOW IN THE LAST SECTION WHEN IT WAS DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, IT WAS CAPITALIZED.
SOME OF THEM ARE UNCAPITALIZED, SOME OF 'EM ARE CAPITALIZED.
I DUNNO IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT'S NOT A PRIORITY, BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK AT IT AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH AMENDMENT.
YEAH, NO, I AMENDMENT COMING ON THE SCREEN.
WE CAN DEFINITELY ADDRESS IT AND WE DON'T HAVE TO IF YOU DO IT ELSEWHERE IN THE CODE, DO WE THEN HAVE TO CONSIDER THOSE AMENDMENTS? YES.
WE'LL DO A, A, A RID AND THEN WE'LL ADOPT THAT FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
OR COULDN'T WE JUST HAVE A GENERIC MOTION THAT SAYS ANYWHERE THAT SAYS DIRECTOR THIS UHHUH? YES, WE COULD, BUT IT'S BE DONE.
WELL, NO, BUT LATER, LIKE WE COULD ADD IT TO AN ITEM.
YES, WE, IF, IF THAT'S AN ACTION THAT P TAC WANTS TO TAKE IN 2027
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
WAS IT BY SUSAN? AND WERE THE AMENDMENT AS NOTED? WHO WAS IT? SHE WASN'T.
WHO MADE THE MOTION, WAS IT? I THINK I DID.
WELL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO AMEND YOUR MOTION? MELISSA, DO YOU HAVE YES, I AMEND MY MOTION TO DELETE PLANNING.
AND, AND WE HAD A SECOND BY ROBERT.
MELISSA, DID YOU GET THE FIRST AND SECOND? YES.
WE'RE ALL LIKE, I DON'T EVEN RE MY SHORT TERM MEMORY.
ITEM NUMBER NINE, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM FIVE DASH 46 AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 48 1 A.
YES, THIS ONE IS A RESULT OF A R IS A RESULT OF ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN AT THE STATE LEVEL, UH, WITH THE LAW RELATED TO APPEALS TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
UM, AND SO, UH, THIS HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE WE PASSED THE R.
SO THIS WILL JUST, UH, CODIFY THE LANGUAGE, UM, IN CREATION OF THOSE TWO TIERS.
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE, OF THE PENALTY OR THE TIME PERIOD IN WHICH, UH, TO SUBMIT THAT APPEAL RELATED TO EITHER A PERMIT, UM, AND, UH, HOW THOSE TIER ARE CLASSIFIED.
SO, AND AGAIN, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH STABLE.
ANY QUESTION ON THIS? IT'S BIANCA.
UM, A ONE B THREE, A PERSON WHO IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION AND IS THE OWNER OF REAL PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY.
THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE DECISION.
IS THERE ANY REASON WHY IT DOESN'T SAY A PERSON OR A, OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE STATE LAW? IT'S GOTTA BE THE PERSON.
I JUST WANTED TO ASK AS CLARIFICATION.
I HAVE MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, TO DETERMINE THAT THEY MEET THAT QUALIFICATION.
I KNOW WE HAVE A MOTION, BUT ON ITEM DON'T, ON, UH, PARAGRAPH B THREE, THERE'S ALSO A PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ON THERE THAT'S SO CLOSE AND COST CAUGHT MOST OF THEM.
AND THEN ON TWO, AT THE END OF TWO, IT'S AN NO ORDER.
HOLD ON JUST ONE SECOND PLEASE.
AND WHAT WAS YOURS? UM, AT THE END OF TWO HEARING, SO, SO DOWN, I THINK, I THINK IT'S DOWN HEARING, SO I GET, I THINK IT'S OH, MAY IT GOT DELETED.
SO, OH, THERE, YEAH, IT GOT DELETED THERE.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT, IF THERE'S NONE, BIANCA, I KNOW YOU MADE A MOTION.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO AMEND IT WITH THE UH, I AMEND IT.
WE HAVE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MIKE GARCIA.
I THINK WE'RE READY TO GO BACK TO AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN TO CLARIFY THE ERRONEOUS LANGUAGE THAT WAS INCLUDED,
LET'S GO BACK TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
WE'RE EXPERIENCING SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.
[01:00:01]
IT HAS IN BOLD REVIEW FOR APPEAL TIER AND STANDING TO THE END OF THAT PARAGRAPH IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE INCLUDED.UH, I THINK, I KNOW WE JUST TALKED ABOUT ONE WITH, UH, RELATED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCES, BUT SUBSECTION ONE, STARTING WITH A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, UH, AND DUPLEX REPL WITHOUT ANY VARIANCES, THAT IS SUPPOSED TO REMAIN WHAT, UH, HOUSE BILL 33 14 CARVED OUT IS THAT IF YOU ARE SEEKING APPROVAL OF A PLATT THAT DOES NOT MEET THE CODE THAT IS SEEKING VARIANCES, THE PUBLIC MUST STILL BE INVITED TO THAT MEETING, UH, TO VOICE THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE.
BUT STARTING IN BOLD TO THE END OF THAT PARAGRAPH, UH, WAS NOT MEANT TO BE INCLUDED ON THIS AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION, LOGAN.
SO IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THAT ITEM? WE RETAIN A MOTION, MAKE MY NEW MOTION WITH THE REVISED LANGUAGE THAT DELETES REVIEW FOR APPEAL TO THE END OF THE PARAGRAPH AND ALSO CHANGED TO B TWO, TO BEING NON-RESIDENTIAL AS ONE WORD, COMMA, SINGLE FAMILY.
CAN WE A MOTION BY KARA SECOND, BIANCA.
ITEM NUMBER 10, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM 20 DASH EIGHT AFFECTING ARTICLE FOUR, DIVISION FIVE, HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW STRIKING.
CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? I DON'T HEAR IT.
I THINK THE MIC IN HERE IS A LITTLE LOW.
WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE THAT LOOKED.
UM, SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE, UH, HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROVISIONS IN TWO PLACES, ARTICLE FOUR AND ARTICLE SIX.
ARTICLE SIX IS MOSTLY WHERE THE APPLICABLE KIND OF, UH, STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES LIVE.
UM, AND ARTICLE FOUR IS HISTORICALLY WHERE PROCEDURES HAVE LIVED.
UM, WE ALSO HAVE PROCEDURES IN ARTICLE SIX.
AND SO SOMETIMES THIS MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO KIND OF NAVIGATE THE PROCESS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE, UM, REQUESTING A DEMOLITION PERMIT OR A REVIEW.
UM, SOMETIMES YOU GOTTA LOOK AT MULTIPLE SECTIONS OF CODE.
UM, PART OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO CONSOLIDATE ALL OF THIS LANGUAGE IN ONE PLACE.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES.
WE'LL BE BACK AT A LATER DATE TO KIND OF GO THROUGH ALL OF ARTICLE SIX AND OUR MORE SUBSTANTIAL, UH, REVISIONS, UM, SOMETIME IN MAY, I BELIEVE.
BUT THIS ONE IS REALLY JUST LEAVING A PLACEHOLDER, DIRECTING THE READER TO VIEW ARTICLE SIX FOR PROCEDURES RELATED TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
UM, AND 99% OF ALL OF THIS LANGUAGE WILL BE RELOCATED TO ARTICLE SIX.
IT IS GONNA BE REORGANIZED, AND SO IT IS KIND OF A FULL STRIKETHROUGH.
UM, AND THEN WE'LL BE REINTRODUCING IT INTO ARTICLE SIX IN DIFFERENT PLACES.
CHAIRMAN ROBERT HANLEY MOVE APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY ROBERT TAP.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. HANLEY, A SECOND BY MR. TAPIA.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM 11, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM 21 DASH THREE SECTION 35 DASH 5 0 1 CRASH.
I'M WITH THE CITY SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT.
UM, ONE I WANT TO THANK Y'ALL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
UH, THE, UH, CITY SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT PROVIDES COLLECTION SERVICE TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE CITY.
UH, IT'S ALL GOVERNED IN CHAPTER 14 OF THE CITY CODE.
SO AMONG THE THINGS THAT THAT CODE DOES IS, UH, SET RULES FOR OUR, OUR CUSTOMERS, FOR OUR USERS AND OUR FEES.
IT HAS SOME REGULATIONS FOR THE PRIVATE COLLECTION COMPANIES, AND WE DO HAVE SOMETHING IN THERE THAT IF YOU HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY OR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE RECYCLING.
SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS JUST A GENERAL REFERENCE, CROSS REFERENCE TO CHAPTER 14, BE ADDED TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND WE BELIEVE THIS WILL BRING AWARENESS TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, UH, OF THOSE PROVISIONS.
ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, MOTIONS.
MOTION BY BIANCA FOR APPROVAL.
WHO IS THE SECOND? JESSE? ERIC ESTRADA.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM 28 DASH TWO, SECTION 35 DASH 5 0 1 G.
[01:05:10]
WE CAN, WE CAN INTRODUCE THIS ITEM, BUT THIS IS A DISABILITY ACCESS OFFICE ITEM.UM, AND WE CAN TRY AND ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS, UM, UNLESS SOMEONE IS HERE TO HELP ANSWER ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS.
IS SOMEONE HERE FROM DISABILITY ACCESS OFFICE? OKAY.
WE'LL INTRODUCE THE ITEM AND DO THE BEST THAT WE CAN TO, UM, EXPLAIN WHAT'S IN THIS AMENDMENT.
UH, SO IN SHORT, THIS AMENDMENT, UH, REPLACES THE 2012 TEXAS ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS.
UH, IT ALSO ADDS A NEW SECTION FOR PUBLIC RIGHTS AWAY AND MOVES THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, UH, PORTION OF THIS TO SUBSECTION THREE.
ANY QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO EDIT? I THINK PART OF THIS WAS JUST TO UPDATE THE WEBSITE WHERE THIS INFORMATION IS FOUND AT AS WELL.
I'M ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN THE PARAGRAPH OF PARAGRAPH TWO SAYS, FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC SAYS, WRITE TO OF WAY.
WRITE O OF WHAT? JUST MAKE THAT RIGHT.
AND THEN SHOULDN'T THE NUMBER THREE BE IN BLUE? 'CAUSE THAT WAS TWO, BUT NOW IT GOT MOVED TO THREE, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
I HOPE I DIDN'T MISUNDERSTAND IT.
YOU'RE REPLACING TOSS STANDARDS WITH THE A D A GUIDELINES.
I WOULD, I WOULD REALLY HAVE TO YIELD TO SOMEONE AT THE DISABILITY ACCESS OFFICE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
WE'RE WE'RE INTRODUCING THE ITEM FOR THEM, BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE HAVE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK TO THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL.
I WAS GONNA SAY BECAUSE T D L R, WHICH IS ENFORCES THE TEXAS ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS AND THE WAY THAT THE LAW, ALL THE AMERICAN OF DISABILITIES ACT, IF YOU MET OR EXCEEDED THEIR GUIDELINES, THE A D A GUIDELINES, THEN, UH, THOSE WERE WHAT WAS ENFORCEABLE.
AND SINCE THE TE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF LICENSE REGULATION ENFORCES TEXAS ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS, I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WHY YOU WERE SUBSTITUTING A D A GUIDELINES, WHICH ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE PER SE, OTHER THAN BY LITIGATION FOR TOSS STANDARDS, WHICH HAS A REGISTERED ACCESSIBILITY SPECIALIST THAT, THAT, UH, OVERSEES THAT.
SO, I, I JUST WAS, IT SOUNDED CONFUSING AND MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU.
I, I THINK IT, IT MAY BE PRUDENT TO TABLE THIS ITEM.
I KNOW MELISSA'S REACHING OUT, UH, TO, TO RAZZIE RIGHT NOW TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THEM TO COME DOWN HERE AND EXPLAIN THIS ONE FOR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY THAT IT'S DIFFERENTIATING HERE.
ROBERT, IS THAT WHAT IT'S, YES.
IT'S ONLY P R DOESN'T HAVE JURISDICTION ON PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY? CORRECT.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT.
AND THE LANGUAGE IS FOR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PROJECTS.
IT SAYS, UH, IN THERE, IN THE UNDER PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY FOR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PROJECTS, IN ADDITION TO ACCEPTING COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE TOSS STANDARDS.
UH, THE CITY WILL ALSO ACCEPT COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S SAYING EITHER OR.
AND GEORGE, WHAT WERE YOU SAYING ABOUT, UH, MULTIFAMILY HOUSING SHOULD BE IN BLUE, BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY IT'S BEEN FOR A LONG TIME.
THE THREE, BECAUSE IT, THAT WAS TWO.
SO IS THERE STILL A REASON TO WAIT? YOU READY? EVERYBODY GOOD? YES.
IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION? ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MOTION BY BIANCA FOR APPROVAL.
DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT FIVE DASH 10, SECTION 35 DASH 5 0 2 B.
HI, I AM RACHEL HOLDER, D S D ENGINEER FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
UH, THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO CLARIFY WHEN CIRCULATION STUDIES ARE REQUIRED.
THE INTENT IS FOR SCHOOL RENOVATIONS THAT DO NOT CHANGE THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS OR STAFF TO NOT REQUIRE, UM, A CIRCULATION STUDY IF NO ONSITE OPERATIONS ARE, UH, ADJUSTED.
[01:10:01]
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? MS. BIANCA? I HAVE A QUESTION, QUESTION AND COMMENT.
CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW THIS DIFF HOW THIS WOULD BE IMPACTED IF A SCHOOL DECIDED TO BUILD A ATHLETIC FIELD OR IMPROVE THEIR ATHLETIC FIELD TO ENHANCE SEATING CAPACITY? UH, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT'S NOT A CLASSROOM, BUT THAT COULD CHANGE THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS, UM, AND THE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AND THE POTENTIAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE COMING TO CA, UH, CAMPUS.
UM, AS OF RIGHT NOW, THE CIRCULATION STUDIES THAT WE REQUIRE, THEY ONLY REQUIRE THE PEAK HOURS BE STUDIED.
SO THAT'S AM AND PM DURING SCHOOL TIMES.
SO THESE PEAK, UH, EVENTS, UM, ARE ACTUALLY NOT STUDIED WITH THE CIRCULATION.
IT'S MORE CONCERNED WITH STUDENT DROP OFF AND PICKUP.
SO THIS WOULD NOT AFFECT THAT, UH, AT ALL.
AND EVEN IF THEY ADDED A SPACE THAT, UH, COULD DOVETAIL AS A, YOU KNOW, YOU SEE A LOT OF INNOVATIVE THINGS THAT ARE BEING DONE, ESPECIALLY WITH COVID AND HAVING TO SPACE THINGS OUT WHERE AUDITORIUMS, WHICH WERE MAYBE USED FOR PERFORMANCE EVENTS OR GYMS ARE NOW NOW BEING USED AS CLASSROOMS. UM, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD TRIGGER AN ADDITIONAL REVIEW FROM THAT STANDPOINT? YES.
SO WHEN THE RENOVATIONS COME IN AND THEY'RE CHANGING THEM INTO CLASSROOMS, THAT WOULD ADJUST THE ANTICIPATED STUDENT COUNT.
AND IF IT IS ABOVE THE REQUIREMENTS, UH, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A T I A, THEN YES, IT, THE CIRCULATION STUDY WOULD BE TRIGGERED.
SO AS A FOLLOW UP, SO IF THEY HAVE AN EXISTING GYM AND THEY COME IN AND THEY ADD PARTITIONS, THAT WOULD TRIGGER A T I A, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
IF THEY HAVE TO COME IN FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, THEN THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT THIS SHEET SHOWING US WHAT IT IS.
AND IF THE STUDENT COUNT INCREASES, THEN YES, THE CIRCULATION STUDY IS REQUIRED.
BIANCA, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT PERMANENT PARTITIONS OR TEMPORARY PARTITIONS? I WOULD SAY BOTH AT THIS POINT.
SO WHAT ABOUT TEMPORARY PARTITIONS? IF THEY DON'T COME IN FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, WE WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF CATCHING THIS.
SO YEAH, I SEE THAT
THERE WOULD BE NO WAY FOR US TO REQUIRE THAT AT THIS POINT.
AND SO LET ME ALSO AS A FOLLOW UP ALONG THIS TEMPORARY DISCUSSION LINE, UH, WHAT ABOUT PORTABLES? SO PORTABLES, WHENEVER THEY COME IN, IF IT DOES INCREASE THE STUDENT CAPACITY, THEN YES, IT IS ALSO REQUIRING THE CIRCULATION STUDY.
SO, UM, ALONG THIS DIALOGUE, SO WHAT HAPPENS IS TYPICALLY THEY'RE UNDER RENOVATION, THEY COME IN, THEY PUT PORTABLES DOWN, AND THE PORTABLES NEVER LEAVE.
EVEN AFTER THEY'VE MADE THE IMPROVEMENTS.
SO IS THERE, IS THERE A SAFETY NET TO CATCH? THINGS LIKE THAT? RIGHT.
SO IN GENERAL, THE PORTABLES DO GET THE CFOS, THEY TRANSFER THEM, UM, ACROSS DISTRICTS.
UM, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, AND YES, IF WE CATCH IT LATER AND SEE THAT YES, YOU HAVE ACTUALLY INTRODUCED ADDITIONAL STUDENTS THAT WERE NOT ANTICIPATED, THEN WE CAN CIRCLE BACK AND ADDRESS IT.
I JUST HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS.
I HAVE SEEN A VERY PARTICULAR SCHOOL DISTRICT JUMP THROUGH SOME OF THESE NOT PULLING PERMITS, YOU KNOW, AND THEY'RE CONNECTING TO ELECTRICITY, THEY'RE BUILDING NEW BUILDINGS AND THEY'RE NOT PULLING PERMITS.
AND THE INTENT OF THIS IS TO ACTUALLY CLARIFY WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE ALREADY DOING MM-HMM.
UM, IF THE STUDENT COUNT ISN'T INCREASING AND THE CIRCULATION PATTERNS AREN'T ANTICIPATED TO CHANGE, THEN WE ARE NOT REQUIRING THE CIRCULATION STUDY AS IT DOESN'T SHOW US ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT'S ALREADY HAPPENING.
SO, AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, YOU'RE ONLY COUNTING THE STUDENTS WHO ARE IN ATTENDANCE, UH, TO OF THAT SCHOOL, NOT THOSE WHO MAY BE VISITING FOR AN EVENT.
AND IT MAY PEAK THE ATTENDANCE PER SAY.
ROBERT HANLEY, MOVE APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. HANLEY FOR APPROVAL, SECOND BY DEBBIE REED, A SECOND BY MS. REED.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM 14, DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON ITEM FIVE DASH I'M SORRY, BEFORE WE GO TO THE NEXT ONE, WE WERE HAVING A, A CONVERSATION, UM, WHEN YOU TOOK THE VOTE, WHEN THE MOTION WAS MADE.
IF SO, IN TALKING ABOUT THE LAST ITEM, THERE IS A, THERE IS A CONCERN THAT I HAVE BECAUSE WHEN THE PORTABLES COME ON, SOMETIMES THE PORTABLES GO ON TRAFFIC, UH, PARKING AREAS, AREAS THAT ARE CURRENTLY USED FOR PICKUP AND DROP OFF CIRCULATION ON A PROPERTY.
SO I WAS WONDERING IF WE COULD AMEND THE LANGUAGE FOR THE LAST ITEM TO INCLUDE PORTABLES SO THAT A TRAFFIC CIRCULATION COULD BE EVALUATED, BECAUSE THAT IS SOMETIMES IMPACTED, UH, ON A CAMPUS WHEN IT'S BEING DONE.
SO, I, I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL WOULD DO A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.
IT SAYS
YEAH, IT JUST SAYS PERMIT, UH, PERMANENT CLASSROOMS. AND SO I WORRY.
DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
[01:15:01]
I DIDN'T MAKE THE MOTION ON THE LAST ONE.OH, MR. HANLEY MADE THE MOTION.
SO YOU NEED TO, IF YOU WILLING, YOU CAN RESCIND YOUR MOTION.
UM, I'LL, WELL, ACTUALLY, WE TOOK ACTION.
SO WE NEED TO HAVE A MOTION TO RESCIND OUR LAST ACTION.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO RESCIND THE LAST, THE APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM A SECOND.
SO BIANCA, WHAT WORDS ARE YOU LOOKING AT? I'D LIKE TO ADD PERMANENT OR ADDING PORTABLE.
ADDING PORTABLES SPECIFICALLY ADDING PORTABLES, SPECIFICALLY PORTABLE BUILDINGS.
WHERE DID, WHERE DID RACHEL GO? SHE'S OVER THERE.
SO, RACHEL, CAN YOU CHIME IN ON THIS ONE REAL QUICK PLEASE? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH, UM, THE PORTABLES TAKING THAT INTO ACCOUNT IS THAT ADDITIONAL QUEUE WOULD BE, UM, ANTICIPATED FOR THE TRAFFIC STUDY.
UM, IT MAY IMPACT THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
UM, I NEED TO CONFIRM THAT BEFORE STATING ON THE RECORD WHETHER OR NOT IT DOES, UH, RACHEL, UH, WHEN SOMEBODY'S, UH, APPLIES FOR PORTABLE BUILDINGS TO PUT ON, BE PUT ON THE CAMPUS, DO THEY ACTUALLY SUBMIT IN THAT APPLICATION FOR PERMIT, UH, THE DURATION OF HOW LONG THE PORTABLES WILL BE THERE? AND I'M ASSUMING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HAS ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.
IF THEY SAY THEY'LL BE UP THERE FOR THE NEXT SIX MONTHS, NINE MONTHS LATER, THEY'RE STILL THERE FOR THE TEMPORARY PORTABLES? YES, BECAUSE TEMPORARY, UM, PORTABLES ARE ONLY ALLOWED FOR 180 DAYS.
I DO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT PUTTING LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THIS AMENDMENT.
I, MY SITUATION THAT I HAVE, THESE PORTABLES HAVE BEEN THERE FOR TWO, THREE YEARS FOR ONGOING CONSTRUCTION WHERE THERE'S ALMOST PERMANENT ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE THAT HAS ALTERED THE TRAFFIC PATTERN FOR A SCHOOL AND THE PARKING ON SITE.
AND I MEAN, SIGNIFICANTLY WHERE YOU'RE DISPLACING 60, 80 SPACES ON A SCHOOL THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, 20% OF THEIR PARKING.
AND SO THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I'M ASKING FOR THIS CONSIDERATION, BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU HAVE PICKUP AND DROP OFF HAPPENING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET BECAUSE THERE'S NO SAFE MECHANISM AND NOBODY SEEMS TO WANNA OWN THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ADDRESS IT.
IT'S KINDA LIKE THE SCHOOL'S LIKE, WELL, WE'LL JUST LET IT GO.
AND WELL, S A P D DOESN'T HAVE RESOURCES TO BE OUT THERE DIRECTING TRAFFIC.
AND AS FAR AS, UM, THE ELIMINATION OF PARKING SPOTS, THEY DO STILL NEED TO MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS EVEN WHEN THE PORTABLES ARE IN PLACE.
SO RACHEL, WHAT I HEAR IS THAT IT'S ACTUALLY A CODE VIOLATION, THEN IT'S DEBBIE'S RV
IF THEY'RE NO LONGER MEETING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, YES.
THAT BECOMES A CO A CODE ISSUE.
AND I'M GONNA JUMP IN TO YOUR POINT, UH, STEVEN STOKE YOUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEER.
UM, IN THE C SEVEN, IT COVERS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UM, WHEN RENOVATIONS ADD AN ADDITIONAL PERMANENT CLASSROOM OR OFFICE SPACE, OR WHEN SITE ACCESS LOCATIONS OR ONSITE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ARE MODIFIED.
SO IF THEY ADD PORTABLES INTO A PARKING LOT AND IT MODIFIES THE OPERATION, THAT IS THE CATCHALL FOR THAT, WITHOUT HAVING TO ADD PORTABLES INTO THIS STATEMENT.
WELL, BUT THAT'S, THEY ADD TO THE PARKING LOT, CORRECT.
IF THEY ADD SOMEPLACE ELSE, IF THEY ADD THEM IN THAT NEW CLASSROOMS, IF THEY'RE GONNA BE PERMANENT, THAT'S WHAT SHE WAS ALREADY STATING.
IF THEY'RE BEING SET UP AS PERMANENT, THEN IT WOULD BE CAUGHT AT THAT POINT.
MR. CHAIR, IF I COULD ALSO ADD, A LOT OF TIMES WHEN WE SEE PORTABLES OUT HERE, WE'RE LOOKING AT SITUATIONS WHERE THEY'RE PREPARING TO, THEY'RE, THEY'RE GETTING A LOT OF STUDENTS IN, THEY'RE EXPANDING, BUT THEY, THE TRIGGER IS GONNA BE WHERE THESE HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED THROUGH A BOND AND THEY'RE PREPARING THOSE BOND DOCUMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND SUBMITTAL.
AND SO IF, IF THERE'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS TRIGGERED AT THE TIME WHEN THE PORTABLES ARE BEING PLACED IN, IT WILL BE TRIGGERED AT THE TIME THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION BEGINS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO GET BUILDING PERMITS FOR PORTABLES, JUST ADDING THEM.
BY DEFAULT, THEY HAVE TO GET THAT, YOU HAVE TO GET PERMITS FOR THE PORTABLES, SO WILL GET CAUGHT.
SO ALL OF THE PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, WHATEVER COMES ALONG WITH THAT AS IS REVIEWED AND INSPECTED.
I THINK MR. NICKS HAD A QUESTION.
NO, I, I THINK IT'S BEEN ANSWERED.
DID, IT'S NOT UP THERE, BUT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ITEM NUMBER OR SEVEN MM-HMM.
[01:20:07]
OKAY.'CAUSE THAT WAS MY CONCERN, IS ANYTHING THAT, NOT IN ITS NUMBERS, BUT, UH, WELL THE NUMBERS WOULD BE IMPORTANT, BUT IF THEY PUT IN SOMETHING THAT INTERFERES WITH THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION, THEN IT SHOULD BE REEVALUATED.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE THAT MAY BE WHAT'S COVERED.
AND YEAH, I THINK IT'S COVERED IN THE CONDITION AT THE VERY END WIND SITE ACCESS LOCATION.
SO IF BY ADDING THOSE ADDITIONAL PORTABLE SPOTS END UP NOW AFFECTING THE QUEUEING THAT WAS NEEDED, THEN THAT WOULD BE LOOKED AT AGAIN.
AND THEN REMEMBER THEY PUT IN PORTABLES AND I'LL GET CAPTURE THE ADDED THE, UH, NUMBER OF STUDENTS.
SO WE'LL CAPTURE IT THAT WAY TOO.
'CAUSE THEY STILL HAVE TO FILL OUT THAT TED THRESHOLD WORKSHEET.
THANK YOU, CHRISTINA, FOR THAT.
SO IF THEY'RE STILL SHOWING US THE SAME NUMBER OF STUDENTS THAT THEY APPLIED FOR ORIGINALLY WITH THE BUILDING, THERE'S NOT GONNA BE A TRIGGER.
BUT IF THEY'RE SHOWING AN INCREASE IN STUDENTS, UM, OR POTENTIALLY PEAK HOUR TRIPS, THEN THE DISCUSSION WILL BE EXPANDED TO TRIGGER THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAFFIC REVIEW.
SO IS THAT, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT ADDING THE PORTABLES? I APPRECIATE THE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED BY BIANCA ROBERT HANLEY.
UH, ITEM 14, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM FIVE DASH FIVE TWO AFFECTING SECTION 35 5 0 2.
MY NAME IS CHRISTINA DELA CRUZ.
I'M WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
I'M A DEVELOPMENT SERVICE ENGINEER.
I OVERSEE THE TRAFFIC T I AND STREET SECTION.
SO THIS ONE I WOULD TELL YOU HAS BEEN LONG AND COMING.
WE WORKED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE, A SMALLER TECHNICAL COMMITTEE, AND WE'VE PROBABLY SPENT OVER A HALF A YEAR WORKING ON THIS OR MAYBE A YEAR.
SO THIS IS PRETTY MUCH TAKING WHAT WE HAD SPENT, WHICH WAS WRITTEN 2020 DASH 0 0 4 THAT WAS ADOPTED BACK IN MAY OF 2020.
AND THIS IS PRETTY MUCH NOW ALL OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD'VE NE NEEDED TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE U D C TO TAKE INTO EFFECT THAT RED 2020 DASH ZERO FOUR, WHICH AS YOU CAN SEE, HAS TO DO WITH ACCESS POINTS, HAS TO DO WITH NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS AND, UH, HOW WE DESIGNED THAT.
SO IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HOPING NOT SINCE WE VETTED IT FOR HALF A YEAR, A YEAR, MAYBE EVEN A YEAR AND A HALF.
PLEASE, LORD, DON'T TOUCH THIS ONE.
SO I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
GEORGE, YOU WERE THE ONE WHO DIDN'T WANT TO BE COMING TO THOSE MEETINGS.
IT WAS
AND I TRIED TO MISS AS MANY OF THEM AS POSSIBLE.
SO UNDER D E TWO D, UM, THERE'S A, IT, IT SAYS WHERE OR RIGHT OR LEFT TURN LANE AT A DRIVEWAY OR STREET THAT WILL DEFINE SHOULD IT SHOULD.
SO JUST, I'M JUST, JUST SIT TIGHT.
I'M AN ENGINEER, SO WE'RE NOT HAVE TO, SO I WOULD SAY THAT.
UM, AND THEN ALSO ON THE LAST, WHERE IS THAT? PAGE ONE D.
THE ONE WHERE SHE JUST CROSSED IT OUT IN YELLOW THERE.
AND THEN THE LAST SENTENCE OF THAT SAME PARAGRAPH, IT SAYS USING TXDOT ROADWAYS DESIGN MANUAL.
IT'S ACTUALLY, IT'S TEXT DOT ROADWAY DESIGN MANUAL.
AND THEN SCROLL ON DOWN TO THE TABLE.
THE, THE WORD DESIGN IS, I THINK YOU'RE MISSING THE E.
UH, SEVEN B UNDER SPACING AND LOCATION.
SO YOU'VE CROSSED OUT THE B SHOULD THAT STAY? I MAY HAVE TO PULL THE REST OF THE CODE, BUT IT,
[01:25:02]
I, IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME, LIKE IT SHOULD HAVE, IT'S GONNA FOLLOW THE ASTERISK.ALRIGHT, ON THAT SAME PARAGRAPH IT SAYS, DRIVEWAY SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN 245 FEET OF FRONTAGE ROAD TO ARTERIALS.
AND THEN IT SHOULD SAY AND ARTERIAL TO ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS.
AND IT JUST HAS A BUNCH OF, IT SAYS ROAD TO ARTERIAL DASH TWO ARTERIAL THE PICTURE.
OH, IT'S THE RED AND ROAD TO ARTERIAL.
AND AFTER THE AND PUT ARTERIAL.
I'VE BEEN TO, SO THE OTHER FROM THE LETTERS IN THAT WERE THERE A NEED? YEAH.
UM, NO, BUT I, WE'LL MAKE SURE WE HAVE THAT CORRECTLY.
AND TO ME, YOU KNOW, ON THAT SAME PARAGRAPH B YOU KNOW, IT SAYS MEASURED FROM THE CURB RETURN OF THE INTERSECTING STREET ALONG THE ROADWAY PERPENDICULAR TO THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE INTERSECTING STREET.
LIKE WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE CURB RETURN? WHY CAN'T IT JUST SAY JUST YOU'RE NOT A TRAFFIC.
YEAH, THERE'S ACTUALLY A LITTLE PICTURE IF YOU GO FURTHER DOWN.
DOES IT HAVE TO BE THE CURB RETURN? IT CAN'T JUST BE THE RIGHT.
YEAH, WE HAD TO PUT, THAT WAS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MEETINGS THAT I DECIDED NOT TO GO TO.
RIGHT? THAT'S WHY WE INCLUDED THAT FIGURE 5 0 6 DASH 10:00 AM OKAY.
THAT'S ALL MY NITPICKY COMMENTS.
I MOVE WE ACCEPT WITH GEORGE'S LITTLE STUFF.
I ALSO HAVE TWO NITPICKY COMMENTS IN THAT SAME SECTION.
UM, THERE SHOULD BE NO, THERE SHOULD NOT BE AN AND BETWEEN 245.
IT'S NOT 245 THE SAME FOR 125.
NOT AN ENGLISH MA MAJOR EITHER, BUT THAT'S NOT PROPER ENGLISH.
AND THEN, AND THEN ALSO I SHOULD SWAP.
SO ON THE SECOND ARTERIAL, WOULD IT BE ARTERIAL DASH TWO ARTERIAL? SO, SO ON THE SEC, ON THE SECOND ARTER AFTER THE END RIGHT THERE.
ANYTHING ELSE? IS THAT ALL YOUR QUESTIONS, JULIE? OKAY.
SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
WE'RE TRYING TO PULL UP THE CODE BECAUSE IT FOLLOWS A WELL THERE'S A B THAT'S CROSSED OUT NOW.
SO SHOULD THE B NOT BE CROSSED OUT? LAUREN, DO YOU WANNA GO ON MICROPHONE? WE'RE TRYING TO FIND IT RIGHT NOW.
WE'RE JUST, WE'RE TRYING TO FIND IT.
'CAUSE WE'RE JUST WORRIED THAT IF THERE'S AN A, IT BECOMES A NOW A LONG SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS FOR A KA.
WE DIDN'T MAKE THAT EDIT, KAT.
YEAH, MY QUESTION WAS, SHOULD BE NOT BE CROSSED OUT.
CAN WE MOVE LIKE A VOTE ON IT PENDING? THEY CLEAN UP THE COURTING, THE, THE, UH, NUMBERING
SNACK PACKS WITH THE TRAIL MIX.
WE CAN BRING SOME MORE IF YOU WOULD LIKE
IF THE SPICY IT'S UNDER, THOSE ARE A LITTLE ADDICTING.
D SEVEN, THEY'RE H E B I HIGHLY
[01:30:01]
RECOMMEND THE SWEET AND SASSY I LOOKING FOR HERE.I THINK WE RAN OUT ON THE TABLE.
MELISSA, IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE, IF YOU COULD PUT SOME ON THE TABLE PLEASE.
I'M GONNA GIVE HER SOME SWEETNESS IF SHE NEEDS IT.
WHAT? I DON'T SEE A, IT SHOULD BE, OH, MINE.
LAUREN, ARE YOU ALMOST THERE? THERE IS A NAME.
LET'S TAKE A, UH, LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND BIO BREAK WHILE THEY'RE LOOKING UP THAT SECTION OF THE COAST.
WE'LL GET OUR MEETING BACK TO ORDER, I GUESS.
UM, STAFF HAD PULLED UP THE CORRECT CODE SECTION NOW.
YEAH, SO WE DID FIND SUBSECTION B SHOULD NOT BE STRUCK OR MAKE, THERE WERE ITEMS IN SUBSECTION B THAT WERE STRUCK AND IT CARRIED OVER THE FORMATTING TO B.
SO B ITSELF WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED.
AND BEFORE WE LEAVE HERE, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, CHRISTINA, WILL YOU TURN? THANK YOU.
IT WAS A
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU GO TO THE LAST PAGE.
THERE'S THAT FIGURE 5 0 6 DASH 10 A.
JUST WANNA MAKE THAT RIGHT, RIGHT THERE.
JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, 'CAUSE SOMETHING WAS BROUGHT UP DURING THE LITTLE BREAK.
WE HAVE LIKE A TITLE BLOCK OVER AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER FOR PURPOSES OF THE U D C AMENDMENTS AND PART OF CODIFYING IT, WE'RE GONNA REMOVE THAT LITTLE TITLE BOX BECAUSE TYPICALLY IT'S EITHER REVIEWED WHO DREW IT AND ALL THAT.
SO WE'RE GONNA REMOVE THAT JUST SO THAT YOU KNOW, AND EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE FIGURE IS WHAT WE WANTED YOU TO CONCENTRATE ON SO THAT THE WORDS, YOU CAN EASILY SEE IT IN THE PICTURE.
SO JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
THE IMPORTANT PART IS THE DETAILS.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT EITHER WAY.
AND EITHER WAY, WE, IF PUBLIC WORKS AT SOMETHING, WE WANTED TO ADD IT TO THEIR STANDARD DETAILS, WE CAN ALWAYS WORK WITH THEM.
BUT FOR THE U D C IN ITSELF, WE'RE GONNA REMOVE THAT TITLE BLOCK.
VALERIE, CAN YOU HIGHLIGHT THAT TITLE BLOCK IF YOU CAN? UM, I KNOW THIS IS A, THIS IS AN EXHIBIT, SO IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE QUIRKY.
AT LEAST WE, MAYBE WE CAN TRACK IT THAT WAY.
SO IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS? WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EASILY APPROVED? WHAT DO YOU REALLY THINK?
MOVE FOR APPROVAL PENDING THOSE REALLY SPECIAL COMMENTS.
ITEM 15, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM 18 DASH SIX, EXPECTING SECTION 35 DASH 5 0 6.
MR. BACK, I'M GONNA TURN ON THE MIC.
UM, DOUG, MEL, CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER.
UH, IN THIS SECTION WE HAD, UM, A FEW ITEMS THAT WERE, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, AND TO, TO ENCOURAGE, UM, UH, THINKING WHEN WE'RE, UM, DEVELOPING THAT THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE CLIMATE PLAN.
SO, UM, SOME OF THIS LANGUAGE IS, IS REALLY JUST TRYING TO, TO GET DEVELOPERS THINKING ABOUT WHERE WE NEED TO GO.
UM, PROMOTING, UM, WAYS TO MITIGATE URBAN HEAT ISLANDS TO PROMOTE THE USE OF, UM, HIGHLY REFLECTIVE MATERIAL, UM, ENCOURAGING PERMEABLE PAVEMENTS.
UM, NONE OF THOSE ARE, ARE REQUIRED.
UH, WE WOULD JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT JUST TO FLAG IT, UM, FOR CONSIDERATION.
IT'S ALSO SOME, SOME PLACE THE WAY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO IS ALSO BEGINNING TO LOOK AT SOME OF OUR, UM, DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES SUCH AS, UH, LOOKING AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL, UM, ATTRIBUTES OF DIFFERENT MATERIALS THAT WE USE DURING DEVELOPMENT.
THE ONE AREA THAT WE ARE PROPOSING AS A, AS A NEW REQUIREMENT IS RELATED TO, UM, STREETLIGHTS.
UM, A FEW YEARS AGO WE WERE UPDATING THE, UM, M L O D, UM, AND THERE THERE WERE, UM, THOUGHTS ABOUT MAKING THAT A, A CITYWIDE REQUIREMENT.
UM, THE THOUGHT WAS, UM, SHORT OF DOING THAT AT THIS POINT, UM,
[01:35:01]
JUST LOOKING AT NEW SUBDIVISIONS AND, AND, AND NEW STREETS.UM, IT DOES REFERENCE, UM, THE SECTION IN THE M L O D FOR STREETLIGHTS.
UH, IT DOES IDENTIFY COLOR TEMPERATURE AND WOULD REQUIRE, UM, FULL CUTOFFS, UM, FOR STREETLIGHTS.
UM, SO OUR, OUR, OUR THOUGHT THAT IS, IS A FAIRLY STANDARD PROCEDURE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
UM, C P S IS ALREADY, UM, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS.
UM, BUT WE THINK IT'S A, A GOOD BALANCE TO TRY TO, UM, IMPROVE LIGHT QUALITY, REDUCE, UH, LIGHT POLLUTION WASTE AND, AND MOVE US, MOVE US FORWARD IN, IN A WAY THAT, UM, SHOULDN'T BE COST PROHIBITIVE.
COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? YES, ASHLEY? I HAVE, I HAVE A QUESTION AND MAYBE FOR SUSAN.
UM, SO WE'RE REFERENCING A ZONING SECTION THAT SAYS THAT IT, IT'S ADOPTED FOR MILITARY LIGHTING PROTECTION PURPOSES, BUT THIS WOULD APPLY TO ANY STREETLIGHT IN THE CITY.
CAN WE DO THAT? IT IT ALSO SAYS IT ENCOURAGES OR, UM, CONSIDER IT, IT'S NOT ABSOLUTELY, IT'S OPTIONAL.
NOT THIS SECTION, NOT THIS ONE.
SO I, AS SHALL THE STREET LIGHTS IS A SHALL IT'S REFERENCING THE STANDARDS IS THE POINT.
THAT'S I THINK WHAT DOUG IS TRYING TO GET AT.
THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE ADOPTED 'EM, WHERE THEY ARE REQUIRED IN THE MIDDLE TERRA LIGHTING OVERLAY DISTRICT.
BUT THIS IS JUST REFERENCING, THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF FIXTURES AS OPPOSED TO RE-EXPLAINING WHAT THOSE FIXTURES ARE.
AND DOUG, THIS IS, AGAIN, I'M NOT WORKING DOUG.
THIS IS APPLYING TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREET LIGHTS BECAUSE IN THE E T J, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY PRIVATE CAN BE DONE INDIVIDUALLY WITHOUT, AND THEY'RE NOT C P SS.
SO ALSO, SO IT'S ACTUALLY DARK DASH SKY SPACE COMPLIANT.
SO BECAUSE THAT'S THE, THE GROUP, I GUESS THE GROUP NAMING.
UM, AND THEN A QUESTION I HAD, I GUESS IS FOR, SO THIS IS NEW ONLY WHERE THEY WOULD NEED TO BE PUTTING THIS IN VERSUS REPLACEMENT AS WELL? NEW SUBDIVISIONS? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? CORRECT.
IT WOULDN'T BE, IT WOULDN'T BE GOING BACK AND WE'RE NOT RETROACTIVELY ENFORCING A REGULATION.
AND I, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT SOMETHING, UH, THE ONLY ISSUE WE HAVE IS WE USE THE, UH, OR SERVICE AREAS AS DETERMINED BY C P S ENERGY.
THIS IS WHAT WE USE FOR OUR COMMERCIAL STANDARDS.
SO, UM, THAT'S BASED ON HOW THEY DO THEIR PHOTOMETRIC STU STUDY, WHICH WE DON'T CONTROL.
UM, SO I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND HAVING THE DARK SKY COMPLIANT WITH THEM UNLESS THEY ARE THAT THEY'RE GONNA UPDATE THEIR PHOTOMETRIC STUDIES TO INCLUDE THAT TYPE OF LIGHTING IN THOSE SITUATIONS.
CHRISTOPHER FULLON, JUST TO CLARIFY THE LAST QUESTION.
UH, IN TERMS OF MODIFICATIONS OR ALTERATIONS OF EXISTING FABRIC, PARTICULARLY IN HISTORIC AREAS, UH, DOES THIS IMPACT, UH, UH, INADVERTENTLY HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS AND HISTORIC LIGHT FIXTURES? ANY I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
I, THE DISCUSSION REGARDING ORNATE, UM, STREET LIGHTS DECORATIVE IS, IS, THAT'S A DIFFERENT REGULATION.
THIS IS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION STANDARD INSTALLATIONS.
UM, THERE IS AN ORDINANCE ALREADY THAT APPLIES TO, UM, DECORATIVE STREETLIGHTS IN, IN TERMS OF CONFLICTS OF LAWS.
HOW DOES THAT TYPICALLY GET WORKED OUT IF, IF IT APPEARS THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME OVERLAP? SO I THINK THERE'S ONLY CERTAIN AREAS THAT YOU CAN APPLY FOR AND IMPLEMENT THE DECORATIVE STREETLIGHTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THERE'S NO REGULATION HERE THAT REQUIRES DECORATIVE STREETLIGHTS TO BE IN BRAND NEW SUBDIVISIONS.
THE REQUIREMENT IS, UM, THE STANDARD THAT WE ARE REVIEWING NOW.
UH, I KNOW THERE'S MORE TO OUR STREETLIGHT STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE, BUT THE DECORATIVE STREETLIGHT, UH, REQUIREMENTS, THOSE ARE TYPICALLY ON FOR EXISTING STREETS AND THEY WANNA CHANGE THE LIGHTING IN THAT AREA TO CERTAIN TYPES OF LAMPS AND, UH, DECORATIVE POLES.
THEY'RE TYPICALLY CREATING A UTILITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT OR SOMETHING TO BE ABLE TO FUND THOSE.
UM, THOSE ARE OTHER AREAS THAT, SO THERE'S A WHOLE PROCESS INVOLVED WITH DOING THOSE.
I DON'T KNOW, STEVEN, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? I WAS GONNA SAY THE MAJORITY OF 'EM ARE EITHER EXISTING AND THEY'RE DOING A REMOVE AND REPLACE OR A MOVE, OR, THE LAST ONE I HAVE SEEN COME THROUGH HAS BEEN, UH, A AND M SAN ANTONIO IN THAT AREA ALONG THEIR MAIN DRAG, THEY WERE DOING DECORATIVE, BUT THEY HAD TO GET SPECIAL PERMISSION FROM C P S AND WORK IT THROUGH US
[01:40:01]
TO ENSURE THAT THAT WAS, UH, COMPLIANT WOULD WORK.AND THAT'S CORRECT, STEVEN, UH, DECORATIVE STREETLIGHTS, THOSE ARE COORDINATED WITH MULTIPLE LEVELS OF CITY DEPARTMENTS, INCLUDING C P S.
UH, C P S IS OBVIOUSLY A PART OF THE CONVERSATION.
THEY ARE TYPICALLY THE ONES THAT WILL APPROVE THE INSTALLS AND DESIGN ON A SEPARATE NOTE, UH, AT THE TOP.
THE SECOND BULLET, URBAN DESIGN POLICY FIVE F.
CAN I SUGGEST THAT WHEN WE SAY AS THESE MATERIALS ARE LESS CARBON INTENSIVE THAN, UH, CONVENTIONAL MATERIALS, UH, TRADITIONAL MIGHT MEAN BRICK OR WOOD.
IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GET INTO THE DETAILS, MOVE TO APPROVE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SECOND, GEORGE.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR YES,
UH, I'M JUST WONDERING, UH, ON, UH, P ONE THERE THAT SAYS THAT PERME PERIAL PAVEMENT AND, UH, NON-REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT IS TO, IS ENCOURAGED HOW YOU RECKON YOU'RE GONNA ENCOURAGE THAT? UH, I THINK THE STARTING POINT IS IDENTIFYING IT IN THE CODE, UH, AS A STARTING POINT.
AND WE ALSO DO HAVE INFORMATION ON OUR WEBSITE WHERE WE'RE PILOTING THE USE OF THOSE MATERIALS.
SO I THINK IT'S JUST THE STARTING POINT IS GETTING IT IN THE, THE CODE AS A, AS A, AS A INITIAL STAT.
WOULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN, YOU'RE PILOTING, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YEAH, WE, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO PUBLIC WORKS HAS, UM, A PILOT WHERE THEY HAVE, UM, UTILIZED UM, HIGHLY REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT MATERIALS AND WE'RE TESTING IT CURRENTLY.
BUT SO A DEVELOPER COMES IN, ARE YOU TELLING 'EM, HEY, WHY DON'T YOU DO THIS? NO, WE'RE NOT TELLING THEM TO, TO DO IT.
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT HE OUGHT TO DO THAT? WE ARE ENCOURAGING AND MAKING A RECOMMENDATION.
WHAT WERE YOU GONNA DO TO ENCOURAGE HIM TO DO THAT? ABSOLUTELY.
I MEAN, ARE YOU GONNA, YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T WANNA ANSWER HIS PHONE CALL IF HE DOESN'T DO IT? NO.
SO CURRENTLY THE, UM, THE, THE LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS CREATED BY SARAH, UM, THOSE STANDARDS FOR PERMEABLE PAVEMENT, UM, IN PARKING LOTS DO EXEMPT YOU FROM PORTIONS OF NOT EXEMPT.
THEY, UH, REMOVE PART OF THE YEAH, THEY'RE IN INCENTIVE FOR THE, UH, PARKING LOT SHADING AND CANOPY REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE ENFORCED BY THE TREE DEPARTMENT.
I BELIEVE WE HAD A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
I DON'T KNOW WHO IT WAS THOUGH.
AND A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND FROM BIANCA.
IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT.
ITEM 16, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM 24 DASH THREE, SECTION 35 DASH 5 0 6 C.
COULD I ASK BEF, COULD I ASK BEFORE MR. MELNICK LEAVES, WAS HE READY FOR HIS OTHER ITEM TO COME BACK UP? I, I THINK WE ARE.
IF, SORRY, I JUST, SINCE HE WAS SORRY, JACOB, I WAS JUST ASKING LOGAN THE SAME THING, BUT I THINK WE ARE READY TO BRING UP HIS ADDITIONAL ITEMS SO THAT WAY IF, UM, WE CAN WRAP THAT UP FOR HIM.
SO, UH, JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, BEFORE DOUG STARTS TALKING, WHILE THE TEAM IS PULLING UP ITEMS, WE DID LOOK, UM, AND FIND SOME DEFINITIONS AND LOGAN CAN GO OVER WHERE WE LOCATED THOSE.
THERE IS NOT ANY THAT WE COULD FIND IN OUR, UH, ELECTRICAL CODE.
UM, SO WE ARE, WE'VE PULLED INFORMATION FROM OUR, UM, NICE WEBSITE.
IF I COULD START, UM, ONE CLARIFICATION.
I DID, UM, CHECK WITH CHECK WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IN TERMS OF SOLAR FARMS. UM, THOSE ARE NOT PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, SO NOBODY COULD JUST BASICALLY COME IN AND, AND DEVELOP THOSE, UH, THE OTHER ITEMS IN TERMS OF, UM, ROOFTOP SOLAR OR SOLAR CARPORTS.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S STATE RESTRICTIONS.
WE, WE CAN'T BASICALLY, UM, RE RESTRICT THOSE.
SO THOSE ARE ALLOWED, UM, AS OF RIGHT AT THIS, AT THIS POINT.
IS THAT CORRECT, MELISSA? RIGHT.
AND I THINK WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT WERE THE SOLAR DEFINITIONS THAT Y'ALL HAD TALKED ABOUT.
UH, SOLAR FARMS, SOLAR CANOPY AND SOLAR ARRAY.
AND THEN THE OTHER POINT OF CLARIFI, UH, CLARIFICATION WAS IN TERMS OF, UM, ELIGIBLE AND VIABLE, I THINK ELIGIBLE PROBABLY ISN'T THE RIGHT TERM.
[01:45:01]
IS MORE JUST THE PHYSICAL CAPACITY TO TO, TO, UM, HOLD THE, UH, THE, THE, UM, THE SOLAR ARRAY.AND THAT WOULD BE IN CONJUNCTION WITH D S D AND, AND C P S.
SO YOU'RE GONNA REMOVE THE WORDS ELIGIBLE FROM THOSE TWO? I THINK WE SHOULD REMOVE THE ELIGIBLE FROM THERE.
MR. HANLEY? DOUG, UH, ANY FOLLOW UP ON THE, UH, UH, THAT'S RIGHT.
SO THE, THE QUESTION WAS CAN WE, UM, I, I DON'T, I'M JUST WONDERING IF, IF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HAS ANYTHING IN TERMS OF TRYING TO, UM, ENSURE THAT THERE ISN'T, AND I THINK THE CONCERN WAS A VISUAL OBSTRUCTION OF, UM, AN ENTRANCE, NOT THE DESIGN, NOT, NOT THE MATERIALS BEING USED, BUT I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S BEEN ANY, ANY THOUGHT ON HERE GUYS.
SO, SO CURRENTLY IN, UH, IB 1 53, WHICH LAYS OUT THE PROCESS YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO OBTAIN A PERMIT TO ADD SOLAR PANELS TO YOUR ROOF OR TO PUT A SOLAR ARRAY ON THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, WE REQUIRE THINGS SUCH AS A ROOF PLAN, YOU KNOW, SHOWING WHERE IT'S GONNA BE LOCATED, ON WHAT TYPE OF ROOF IT WILL BE MOUNTED TO, HOW YOU'RE GOING TO FASTEN IT, THE ELECTRICAL PLAN, UH, FOR THINGS LIKE THE ARRAY ITSELF, YOU KNOW, FASTENING SPECIFICATION SHEETS, THE MODEL OF CEILING ROOF PENETRATION.
SO WE CAN REQUIRE ANYTHING RELATED TO THE, EFFECTIVELY THE BUILDING CODE.
WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE LOCATION, WE CAN'T COME UP WITH RULES THAT WOULD SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT THE PLACEMENT OF SOLAR PANELS, SOLAR ARRAYS ON THE PROPERTY, BUT IT WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE.
SO ON A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, I, I BELIEVE WE WERE DISCUSSING A CAR DEALERSHIP, YOU, WE HAVE A SECTION OF CODE THAT SAYS ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, YOU CANNOT HAVE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WITHIN THE FRONT OR SIDE YARD.
SO IT WOULD STILL, WE WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO, UH, EFFECTIVELY LIMIT THE PLACEMENT OF THOSE STRUCTURES BASED UPON THE WAY WE TREAT ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
BUT WE COULD NOT COME UP WITH LANGUAGE THAT SPECIFICALLY SAID SOLAR PANELS OR SOLAR ARRAYS ONLY ALSO HAVE TO ABIDE BY THESE RESTRICTIONS.
THE SOLAR CANOPIES DON'T COUNT SOLAR CANOPIES, DANG IT.
SOLAR CANOPIES DON'T COUNT AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
ISN'T THAT PART OF THE ISSUE? SO THEREFORE YOU CAN'T REGULATE THOSE 'CAUSE THEY'RE NOT ENCLOSED.
I BELIEVE THAT THE DEFINITION OF STRUCTURE STARTS WITH A WALLED AND ROOF BUILDING.
THESE ARE ROOF NOW WALL, CORRECT.
SO MOST OF YOUR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS HAVE ZERO FRONT SETBACK.
SO I MEAN, IT'S NOT TYPICALLY A FRONT YARD.
UM, SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THE, THOSE, UM, CANOPIES IF YOU WILL, EITHER THE METAL CANOPIES NOW THAT ARE USED AS, UM, SOLAR PANELS, UH, FOR CAR DEALERSHIPS.
I THINK IF THERE'S A LOCATION, ROBERT, THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, MAYBE WE CAN PULL IT UP ON GOOGLE TO SEE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
BECAUSE I MEAN, YOU CAN'T PUT SOMETHING THAT WOULD OBSTRUCT PEDESTRIANS FROM WALKING.
SO YEAH, I THINK IT WOULD HELP IF WE COULD SEE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
CAN, LET ME GO BACK TO THE LANGUAGE THAT'S UNDER HERE, UNDERNEATH SOLAR CANAL CANOPIES NUMBER TWO, SITE DEVELOPMENT, SITE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR SITE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO SYSTEM HEIGHT.
THAT'S A DESIGN STANDARD SYSTEM MOUNTING, IT'S A DESIGN STANDARD LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND LOCATION OF POWER LINES AND WIRES.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER THAT I'M TO THE QUESTION, SEE IF I CAN CLARIFY.
AND IT'S, IT'S NOT CLEAR HERE.
I THINK THE INTENT, THAT'S THE INFORMATION THAT SHOULD BE SUBMITTED, UM, DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS, BUT IT'S NOT DICTATING THE SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF WHAT THE, WHAT THE, UM, WHAT THOSE SPEC SPECS ARE.
SO IT, IT DOESN'T STATE THAT THOUGH.
SO I THINK IT'S AN ERROR ON MY PART.
WELL, BUT THE LANGUAGE HAS SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED BASICALLY.
YEAH, I THINK IT, THAT'S THE INTENT, I THINK.
BUT IT DOESN'T TELL YOU WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO OR THAT THEY'RE REGULATIONS FOR IT.
THEY ARE GIVING YOU SOME DESIGN STANDARDS HERE, BUT THEY'RE NOT GIVING YOU THE LOCATION AS ANOTHER DESIGN STANDARD.
THEY'RE NOT GIVING YOU ACTUAL DESIGN STANDARDS.
THAT'S SAYING THE APPLICANT HAS TO TURN IN THAT INFORMATION TO THE CITY AND THE OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED.
IT'S NOT THE CITY TELLING THEM WHAT THEY, THOSE STANDARDS ARE I GOT.
SO, HI, THIS IS JOSEPH HARNEY WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
SO WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WITH THIS RECENT, UM, UH, LEGISLATIVE ACTION, UH, THAT CAME INTO EFFECT SEPTEMBER 1ST, THE THOUGHT IS WE WOULD STRIKE ANYTHING.
[01:50:01]
THE, THE, THE NEW LAW BASICALLY SAYS A MUNICIPALITY CAN'T PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT.UM, AND SO THE THOUGHT IS BECAUSE OF HOW THIS WORDING COULD BE PERCEIVED AS A RESTRICTION, WE'RE GONNA STRIKE IT AND BASICALLY MAKE A REFERENCE TO, I BELIEVE IT'S, UH, 2 2 9 1 0 1 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH, UM, THAT'S THE SECTION THAT SAYS THE CITY CAN'T, UH, PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT, BUT IT ALSO HAS A SECTION THAT SAYS THAT THEY MUST COMPLY WITH INTERCONNECTION GUIDELINES, UM, UH, INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE, WITH A MUNI MUNICIPALITY, A MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY, THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION RULES, UTILITY CODE RULES.
SO THERE ARE PROVISIONS, UH, IN THERE THAT DO KIND OF REGULATE AND DETERMINE HOW THESE, THESE THINGS GET, GET INSTALLED.
UM, BUT THE CITY SPECIFICALLY HAS TO BE CAREFUL IN, IN, IN WHAT SORT OF RESTRICTIONS, UM, UH, ARE IMPOSED.
SO I, YOU KNOW, OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE JUST TO CROSS REFERENCE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND, AND KIND OF REMOVE ANYTHING, UM, UNDER THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD, STANDARD PROVISION.
JOSEPH, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.
YOU SAID THE CITY, YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING, UH, THAT THE CITY CAN'T DO ANYTHING THAT INTERFERES WITH THE STATE CODE STATE LAW.
SO IF THE CITY'S ASKING FOR SYSTEM HEIGHT, SYSTEM MOUNTING, THAT'S PART OF YOU'RE DICTATING OR YOU'RE TELLING THEM WHAT YOU WANT TO REVIEW AND THAT'S INTERFERING WITH STATE LAW, THEN THAT'S WHY HE JUST SAID THEY'RE STRIKING THAT HOLE.
BUT, BUT JOSEPH CAN DO, THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OTHER CITY CODE.
LIKE YOU CAN'T STICK IT IN A SETBACK AND YOU CAN'T STICK IT IN A BUFFER AND YOU CAN'T STICK IT IN A BASIN.
I MEAN, THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OTHER CODE ANYWAY.
AS WHEN THEY'RE GOING THROUGH WORKING WITH THE UTILITY PROVIDER AND ALL THAT, THEY, THEY, THAT'S WHEN THOSE RESTRICTIONS OR, OR, OR PROVISIONS COME INTO PLAY STRIKING ALL OF A TWO A, JUST A NUMBER TWO IS ALL CAN, CAN YOU USE YOUR MICROPHONE? YEAH, I'M, I'M NUMBER TWO IS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.
UH, SIGNAGE IS REGULATED IN CHAPTER 28.
IN OTHER WORDS, WE DON'T NEED THESE REFERENCES SO WE CAN STRIKE ALL OF NUMBER TWO.
ALTHOUGH I MAY SAY WE WANT TO CONSIDER KEEPING SOMETHING THAT SAYS YOU STILL HAVE CODES TO FOLLOW.
YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT NOT NEED TO RECITE ALL OF THEM, BUT AS A REFERENCE TO SAY, YEAH, THE STATE LAW DIDN'T LET YOU OUTTA EVERYTHING.
YEAH, I, I WOULD RECOMMEND ADDING A REFERENCE TO STATE LAW AND THEN KEEPING THE LANGUAGE IN SUBSECTION D THAT SAYS ALL THOSE OTHER MUNICIPAL CODES, YOU KNOW, STILL APPLY.
THESE ARE BASICALLY INSTALLED BY THE PEOPLE SELLING THEM, SO THEY ARE HIGHLY MOTIVATED TO, UH, GET THEM INSTALLED.
ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION? WHAT'S THE PROPOSED VERBIAGE THAT YOU'RE WANTING TO DO A REFERENCE TO? SO CHANGE, JUST CHANGE D TO A AND THEN WE CAN ADD IN THERE THE REFERENCE TO THE STATE CODE.
I JUST MAKE IT ONE SUBSECTION, A REFERENCE TO THE STATE LAW AND THEN ALL OTHER MUNICIPAL CODE SHALL APPLY.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE IS, UH, SECTION 2 2 9 0.101.
SO DO WE NEED TO GIVE YOU GUYS TIME TO ACTUALLY PREPARE THAT LANGUAGE AND THAT REFERENCE? UH, I THINK WE CAN, INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH, OR IT BE YEAH, ALL SOLAR INSTALLATIONS SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE, SO MM-HMM.
AND THEN PERIOD, ALL MUNICIPAL CODE PROVISIONS NOT SPECIFIED SHALL APPLY.
[01:55:03]
YEAH, WE, WE, YEAH.THIS NEEDS TO BECOME A, AND THEN IF WE WANT THE ALL MUNICIPAL CODE CAN CAN BE SUBSECTION B.
AND WE, WE CAN CLEAN THAT UP TO CHANGE IT TO AND B.
AND THEN DON'T FORGET YOU'RE GONNA, YOU HAVE TO CROSS OUT THOSE TWO ELIGIBLES.
ELIGIBLE AND RIGHT UNELIGIBLE.
AND WE AND YOU ALSO HAVE TO, TO CROSS OUT THE WORD AND BE BY RIGHT ON ANY, YEP.
AND WE ADDED THE C P S LANGUAGE ON TWO H.
DID YOU GET BOTH INSTANCES OF ELIGIBLE? NO.
DOUG, WHERE'S THE OTHER ONE? UH, THREE D, UH, UNDER D THREE D THREE.
OH, AND THEN YOUR COMMENT WAS THE UP ON TWO H THAT WE ADDED THE CS, THE C P S OR THE ON THE UNDERGROUND OR ANY OTHER UP TO TWO H IN THE FIRST PLACE.
SO AFTER BOARDS, DO YOU WANNA USE YOUR MICROPHONE? SORRY, THAT MAY NOT BE A DOZEN.
SO AFTER B BOARDS OR ANY OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE AT UTILITY.
AND THEN I THINK THERE WAS STILL A QUESTION ON, UH, I GUESS IT WAS FIVE TWO AT THE VERY END ABOUT THE SUBMITTED.
I THINK THAT SHOULD BE SIMILAR TO, UM, FOUR TWO, WHERE IT'S, UM, AN APPROVED INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT.
SO IT NEEDS TO BE APPROVED RATHER THAN SUBMITTED.
SO THIS IS, WELL THIS IS FOR, OH, SOLAR CAN SOLAR CANOPIES.
I THINK THE THOUGHT IS THIS IS NOT, IT SHOULDN'T PROHIBIT, UM, SOMEONE BEING ABLE TO GET THE C OF O JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE SOLAR CANOPIES NOT ENERGIZED AND, AND APPROVED.
JUST 'CAUSE C P S IS SLOW NAME.
THIS WAS THE QUESTION ABOUT THE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT DEPARTMENT.
THIS WAS THE QUESTION ABOUT ITEM TWO.
THE VERY END OF THE THING WAY AT THE BOTTOM IS, IS, UH, WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS TO, WELL, IT SHOULD BE A SUBMITTED INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT.
SHOULD THAT BE SUBMITTED OR WE LIKE SUBMITTED SUBMIT.
DO YOU JUST HAVE TO SUBMIT IT, RIGHT? IT'S, IT'S, YEAH, IT'S OKAY.
SO YOU NEED TO MAKE THE A AND THE N AND A.
UNDER SOLAR CANOPIES, DON'T WE ALSO HAVE TO ADDRESS THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS? RIGHT.
IT'S THE SAME 'CAUSE IT'S THE SAME THING BECAUSE WE ADDRESS THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN SOLAR OR ROOFTOP SOLAR ARRAYS, RIGHT? OBJECTION.
ON CANOPIES TWO, PE TWO DID, DID WE WANT TO DISCUSS THE THREE DEFINITIONS? SURE, YEAH.
WHILE WE'RE AT IT,
SO SOLAR FARM IS AN INSTALLATION
[02:00:01]
OR AREA OF LAND IN WHICH A LARGE NUMBER OF SOLAR PANELS ARE SET UP IN ORDER TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY.IF WE'D LIKE IT, WE CAN ADD IT TO APPENDIX EIGHT OR APPENDIX A.
AND THERE WAS NOWHERE IN OTHER CODE OR ELECTRICAL CODE OR THERE IS NOT.
WE CHECKED THAT WE FOUND WOWZA.
DID WE CHECK WITH C P S ENERGY? IF THERE'S A DEFINITION FOR THOSE WE DID NOT.
DO YOU KNOW OF ONE? I CAN TRY TO.
DO YOU NEED ONE THERE? I CAN TRY TO CHECK.
DO YOU KNOW ANYONE THERE THAT WILL RESPOND? YES.
ARE THERE ANY LIMITATIONS WE SHOULD CONSIDER INCORPORATING INTO THAT? YOU KNOW, DOES IT NEED TO BE RURAL OR CAN IT BE ON TOP OF BUILDINGS? AND IF SO, HOW MANY IS THE MINIMUM THAT WOULD QUALIFY AS A FARM? I THINK THAT GOES BACK TO THE SAME STATE LAW CONVERSATION WE WERE HAVING.
UM, AND WE ALREADY KNOW THEY'RE PROHIBITED IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, SO I THINK THERE ARE PARAMETERS ALREADY IN PLACE THAT WILL ADDRESS THAT.
UM, BUT I THINK I DO THINK ADDING DEFINITIONS IS IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE ADDING TERMS TO THE U D C.
YEAH, WE, FOR, FOR THE PURPOSES OF ZONING, WE WOULD NOT, IF SOMEONE WERE TO HAVE A BUILDING AND THEY PUT A BUNCH OF SOLAR PANELS ON TOP OF IT, WE WOULD NOT CONSIDER THAT THE PRIMARY USE OF THE PROPERTY A SOLAR FARM IN, IN TABLE 3 11 2.
THE NON-RESIDENTIAL USE MATRIX IS A STANDALONE INDUSTRIAL USE.
SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS DEFINITION, WE'RE LOOKING AT DEFINING IT AS THE PRIMARY USE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND SO IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THOSE DEFINITIONS UP THERE OR EDITS? NO, BUT I BELIEVE WE NEED TO WAIT TO SEE IF C P S ENERGY RESPONDS.
SO I GUESS WE'LL TABLE THIS AGAIN AND A MOTION TO DO SO.
UH, SO MOVED TO TABLE THE SIGN IMP PENDING DEFINITIONS.
A MOTION TO TABLE AGAIN FROM KARA, A SECOND FROM BIANCA, ALTHOUGH IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
I SHOULD NOTE, I SHOULD NOTE THAT UH, MS. WRIGHT LEFT THE MEETING TO TAKE A PHONE CALL A LITTLE BIT AGO AND WAS NOT PART OF THAT MOTION, UM, AND DID NOT VOTE ON THIS ITEM.
SORRY, LET'S TRY THIS ONE MORE TIME.
SO NOW WE'RE CONSIDERING ITEM 16.
ITEM, UH, AMENDMENT ITEM 24 DASH THREE, SECTION 35 DASH 5 0 6 C.
UH, JACOB FLOYD, UH, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING MANAGER.
UH, THIS AMENDMENT, UH, IS PROPOSED TO CONSOLIDATE MULTIPLE RELATED SECTIONS, UH, HAVING TO DO WITH ROADWAY DESIGN CRITERIA INTO A SINGLE TABLE FOR EASE OF USE IS INCLUDING STUFF LIKE BLOCK LENGTH, ON STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, UH, AND A FEW OTHER THINGS.
UH, IT ALSO PROVIDES CROSS SECTIONS THAT VISUALLY REPRESENT, UH, THE STANDARDS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE PROPOSED TABLE 5 0 6 DASH THREE, UH, AS WELL AS PROPOSES, UM, SEVERAL NEW STREET TYPES THAT ARE EXPANDING ON, UH, EXISTING STREET TYPES.
UM, THIS WAS ONE OF THOSE ONES THAT WAS, HAD GONE THROUGH A COMMITTEE PRIOR AND MANY COMMENTS BACK AND FORTH WITH, UH, THE CITY AND ENGINEERS AND WHATNOT.
UM, IS THERE ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSSIONS ON THIS ITEM? I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, BUT, UH, LET OTHERS GO FIRST.
UM, THIS IS JUST A GENERAL QUESTION I LOOK FOR, BUT COULDN'T FIND IT.
THERE'S NO OTHER PLACE IN THE CODE WHERE IT SPECIFIES WHAT THE, UH, DESIGN AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC IS FOR ANY OF THE STREET TYPES.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, 'CAUSE I KNOW SOME OF THIS WAS CHANGED.
I WANNA MAKE SURE IT DIDN'T AFFECT ANOTHER SECTION.
I COULDN'T FIND IT, SO I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS, THERE WAS A SECTION, UM, AND I'LL DEFER TO AMY IF I MISSTATE THIS.
UM, BUT WE'RE PROPOSING TO, TO MOVE IT OVER INTO THIS TABLE.
UM, THE COM, THE, UH, ROW ABOUT BICYCLE FACILITIES.
UM, THERE'S ANOTHER AMENDMENT 24 DASH ONE, UM, REFERRING TO SECTION 35 DASH 5 0 6 D FOUR THAT SAYS BIKE FACILITIES, UH, ARE REQUIRED IN CITY LIMITS, BUT DOES NOT SPECIFY, UM, WHETHER THEY ARE IN THE E T J OR COUNTY.
SHOULD THAT BE NOTED IN SOME OF THE NOTES ON THIS TABLE? I THINK THAT AMENDMENT IS ACTUALLY PROBABLY NEXT IN THE THING HERE.
IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT NEXT, BUT IT'S UH, IT'S NUMBER 18.
SO SHOULD THERE BE SOME CLARIFICATION JUST TO MAKE
[02:05:01]
THOSE TWO KIND OF CONNECT? YEAH, THAT'S NOT THE ONE.AMY, DO YOU WANNA COME TO THE PODIUM? THANK YOU.
THAT'S NOT THE ONE THAT WAS JUST EDITING A FOOTNOTE, RIGHT? THAT WAS A SEPARATE NO, IT SAYS, OKAY.
YEAH, IT SAYS BIKE FACILITIES ARE REQUIRED ON ALL COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL ROADWAYS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.
SO IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE COUNTY OR E T J.
SO THEN THIS TABLE, IF IT'S ONLY IN THE CITY LIMITS, IF BIKE FACILITIES ARE REQUIRED, THIS TABLE SHOULD REFLECT SOMEWHERE IN A NOTE THAT OH, OUR OTHER AMENDMENT.
SO WE DID HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THAT CHAPTER THAT CHANGED SOME OF THE REFERENCES.
UM, ARE WE TREATING THE E T J DIFFERENTLY FROM STUDY LIMITS? WE HAD BEEN TREATING FROM A CROSS SECTION STANDPOINT, THOSE ROADWAYS THE SAME THAT WE, YEAH.
SO YEAH, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO MAKE A CORRECTION ON, ON OURS.
UH, BASED OFF YOUR, YOUR QUESTION ON WHICH ONE? THIS ONE OR THE OTHER ONE? I THINK, I THINK BOTH, BOTH TO, TO, JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS BOTH FOR THE E T J AND THE CITY LIMITS.
I DO ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE, THE NEXT AMENDMENT ON THE LIST TO BE CONSIDERED, WHICH WAS SUBMITTING SUBMITTED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, REMOVES THE STATEMENT THAT BICYCLE FACILITIES ARE REQUIRED ON COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL ROADWAYS.
AND, AND THAT'S, THAT'S A PROPOSED EDIT TO A FOOTNOTE THAT WE DELETED.
SO THAT IN ITSELF IS A BIT OF A CONFLICT.
SO YEAH, I, I, THE REASON I MENTIONED THAT IS BECAUSE I, I THINK THAT THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED HOLISTICALLY, THAT WAY YOU'RE NOT TAKING ACTION ON ONE AND THEN MM-HMM.
SO CAN YOU, ARE YOU GONNA EDIT THAT NOTE WITH SOME LANGUAGE THAT SAYS YOU JUST DELETED IT? OKAY.
THAT, THAT NOTE WAS DELETED BY INFORMATION IN THE NEW TABLE.
SO YOU DELETED NOTE, WHAT WAS IT? FIVE? YEAH, SO THE CHANGE THEY'RE PROPOSING TO MAKE, UM, THAT NOTE NO LONGER, THAT FOOTNOTE NO LONGER EXISTS.
AND THAT, THAT REFERS TO THE NEXT AMENDMENT, CORRECT.
24 DASH ONE, UH, IT REFERENCES 11 DASH ONE OR 11 DASH ONE.
WHICH IS ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW, IS WHAT THEY MADE EDITS TO.
YEAH, SO I, AGAIN, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT IS SEEKING TO ELIMINATE THAT FOOTNOTE ENTIRELY.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUT FORTH AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD MAKE AN EDIT TO THAT FOOTNOTE.
SO YOU CAN, AGAIN, AS THE TAG CAN RECOMMEND ELIMINATING IT ENTIRELY OR KEEPING IT WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PROPOSED MODIFICATION.
UM, WHEN DO YOU HAVE A DEFINITION OF BICYCLE FACILITIES? IS IT BICYCLE PATHS? IS IT STORAGE, BICYCLE PATHS, FACILITIES? NOT IN INFRASTRUCTURE.
UH, IT, IT WOULD BE BIKE LANES OR SHARED USE PATHS OR ANY, ANY, ANY VARIETY OF DIFFERENT, UH, TYPES OF FACILITIES THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THAT LOCATION.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION ON, UM, AND, UH, TABLE 5 5 0 6 3 ON THE STREET DESIGN STANDARDS AND IT GIVES ALL THE NUMBERS, WHICH I'M ASSUMING ARE FERENCE.
CAN WE FINISH THE DISCUSSION ON I, ON NOTE FIVE AND THE BICYCLE ISSUE FIRST? YES.
SO WE'VE, SO YOU'VE, YOU'VE RECOMMENDED TO REMOVE NOTE FIVE, CORRECT? RIGHT.
WE, UH, OUR, OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS TO DELETE IT, BUT JUST BASED OFF OF, UM, WE, WE CAN EXPLORE, UH, I DON'T, I DON'T SEE A CONFLICT HERE.
WE, UH, WE HAVE A SIMILAR NOTE.
IT'S NOTE EIGHT, UH, AND THIS IS 24 DASH THREE.
YOU COULD PULL THAT UP FOR US.
EIGHT OF WHAT YOU SAID ON 24 DASH THREE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
WHICH NUMBER WAS THAT NOTE? EIGHT.
[02:10:01]
NO, WHICH, WHICH AMENDMENT NUMBER IS 24 DASH THREE? UH, IT'S ITEM NUMBER 1624 DASH THREE.THAT'S A LOT LONGER THAN JUST THE, OH, NOT EIGHT.
IT'S ON, I THINK IT'S FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION TABLE 5 0 6.
5 0 6 DASH THREE STREET STANDARDS.
OH, SO IT'S ON THIS AMENDMENT IT'S NO EIGHT AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING NOTE EIGHT WHICH SAYS WHERE BICYCLE FACILITIES ARE REQUIRED ACCOMMODATING OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR A SHARED USE PATH OR A CYCLE TRACK MAY BE REQUESTED BY THE DEVELOPER AND WILL BE THE SUBJECT TO CITY APPROVAL.
IS THAT THE NOTE YOU'RE REFERRING TO ON EIGHT? YES, SIR.
SO YOU'RE SAYING DELETE THAT OR USE EIGHT AND NOT THE OTHER.
SO MY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY'RE, THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEIR PROPOSAL TO DELETE NUMBER FIVE YEP.
AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS MODIFICATIONS TO NOTE NUMBER FIVE ARE SOMEWHAT CAPTURED IN THEIR PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
WHICH WOULD MAKE, WHICH WOULD MAKE ITEM 11 DASH ONE GO AWAY.
DEBBIE, DID THAT HELP? MOTION, MOTION.
WE WOULD MOTION SOME OF DASH MOTION TO NOT MOVE IT FORWARD.
THERE'S STILL OTHER THINGS IN 11 DASH ONE THOUGH, THE FREEWAY DEFINITION, RIGHT? THAT, THAT PORTION.
SO LET'S, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH CROSSING OUT NOTE FIVE AND THEN THE REWORDING OF THE NOTE EIGHT? IS THAT GOOD WITH EVERYBODY? WHAT ARE WE REWORDING EIGHT TO? NO, I THINK WHAT IT SAYS THERE, RIGHT, THAT'S YOUR RE THAT'S YOUR RE THAT'S YOUR REWORD OF NOTE EIGHT.
I DON'T THINK ANY, UH, ADDITIONAL REWORDING WOULD BE NECESSARY.
THIS TIME NOTE EIGHT OR NOTE FIVE, WELL NOTE, NOTE REWORD IN NOTE FIVE IS GOING AWAY.
AND THEN NOTE EIGHT IS GONNA COVER.
SO TOTAL CONFUSION, NOTE FIVE IS IN ITEM 17, IT'S NOT IN THIS ITEM AND IT'S REFERRING TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
IS IT THE NOTE THAT SAYS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, SIDEWALK SHALL BE LOCATED TO IMPROVE WALKWAY INTERSECTION ELEMENT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND REDUCE SIDEWALK CONFLICTS WITH UTILITY POLES AND MAILBOXES? NO, NO, NO.
SO LET, I THINK JUST TO CLARIFY, UH, THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION WE'RE, WE'RE PROPOSING TO DELETE, UH, TABLE 5 0 6 DASH THREE IN, IN ITS ENTIRETY AS IT IS TODAY, AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW TABLE THAT CONSOLIDATES A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT STANDARDS INTO ONE PLACE.
UH, CURRENTLY THE EXISTING 5 0 6 DASH THREE TABLE HAS A NOTE NOTE FIVE, UH, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE AMENDMENT TO FOLLOW THIS ONE ON THE AGENDA.
SO OUR PROPOSED REVISION STRIKES THAT NOTE REPLACES IT WITH A WHOLE NEW SET OF FOOTNOTES.
WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING NOW.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE REVISION ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 24 DASH THREE, A PORTION OF AMENDMENT 11 DASH ONE GOES AWAY.
BECAUSE, SO WE NEED TO BE COGNIZANT OF THAT, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU WOULD ELIMINATE THE TABLE AND EVERY NOTE RELATED TO THAT TABLE ON AMENDMENT 16 THAT'S BEING CHANGED IN AMENDMENT 17.
SO NOW MY ORIGINAL QUESTION ABOUT, YOU'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE WORDING SOMEWHERE TO INCLUDE THE E T J BICYCLE FACILITIES ET.
OUR, OUR INTENT WAS NOT TO, UH, DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE TWO IN THIS.
WE'RE HAPPY TO ADD A NOTE TO THAT EFFECT OR CORRECT THE NOTES.
UM, MOVING ON, ON A LOT OF THE EXHIBITS, AT LEAST IN THE DOCUMENTS WE GOT FROM THE CITY, THEY WERE JUMBLED AND ILLEGIBLE.
SO WHATEVER GOES FORWARD, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
UM, I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON THE EXHIBIT FOR THE COLLECTOR B THOUGH.
WHICH AMENDMENT ARE YOU ON? YEAH, IT'S ON 16.
SO ON THE EXHIBIT, IT'S ONE OF THE EXHIBITS, IT WASN'T REALLY JUMBLED.
SO, UM, IT SAYS ON THE PART THAT SAYS COLLECTOR B SHARED USE PATH NOTE 13 SAYS THE MINIMUM SHARED USE PATH SHOULD BE 12 FEET WIDE.
BUT THERE'S NOTHING ON THAT EXHIBIT WHICH TALKS ABOUT ANYTHING THAT'S 12 FEET WIDE.
IT HAS A PICTURE OF A GUY ON A BIKE ON SOMETHING THAT'S SIX FEET WIDE AND A GUY WALKING ON WHAT SAYS TO BE AN EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK.
SO, BUT THERE, THERE'S A CONFLICT THERE IF THAT'S THE ONE DESCRIBING THE SHARED USE PATH AND WHAT THE DEFINITION OF SHARED USE PATH IS.
[02:15:05]
YEAH.SO, AND THEN IF YOU GO DOWN TO SITE, UH, THE EXHIBIT JUST BELOW THAT COLLECTOR B CYCLE TRACK, THAT ONE HAS ACTUALLY WHAT LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING CALLED A 12 FOOT CYCLE TRACK.
BUT NOWHERE IS THE CYCLE TRACK DEFINED OR THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CYCLE TRACK STIPULATED.
SO TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION ABOUT, UM, THE WAY IT'S PRESENTED WITH THE, THE SIX FOOT AREA DESIGNATED FOR BICYCLES AND THEN THE EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK WITH ALL OF THESE VISUAL CROSS SECTIONS, THERE'S A NOTE BEFORE GOING INTO THEM THAT THEY'RE A REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE.
SO IF A DEVELOPER WANTED TO SUBSTITUTE, UM, THE SIX AND THE EIGHT AS DESIGNATED SPACES WITH A 12 FOOT, THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.
SO WE, WE HAD GOTTEN SOME COMMENTS ALONG THE WAY.
SO THAT NOTE AT THE BEGINNING THAT, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE TABLE, THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS TO ASSEMBLE THESE PIECES.
THESE WERE JUST INTENDED TO BE EXAMPLES.
SO IN NO WAY IS COLLECTOR B SHARED USE PATH DEFINING WHAT A SHARED USE PATH LOOKS LIKE, I GUESS IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME.
BUT THERE WAS ANOTHER NOTE ABOUT THE MINIMUM WIDTH ON THAT BEING 12 FEET.
IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU CHOSE TO, WELL, YEAH.
NOTE 13 SAYS IT SHOULD BE 12 FEET.
SO YOU DON'T FEEL THERE'S ANY
IF THAT'S WOULD HELP CLEAR IT UP.
OR DO WE NEED THE DIMENSIONS? CAN WE JUST SAY SHARED USE PATH, THE WORDING AND NOT DIMENSIONS ON EVERYTHING.
AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A SHARED USE PATH, USE PATH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BOTH PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THE ONLY REASON YOU WOULD DO A SHARED YOUTH PATH IS IF IT'S REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO'S BICYCLE MASTER PLAN, WHICH IN MOST CASES, EVEN THOUGH THE CITY HAS ADOPTED, THAT IF THE BICYCLE PLAN RECOMMENDED PATHWAY, THE CITY ADOPTS IT AS LAW, EVEN THOUGH IT'S RECOMMENDED BY THE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN.
THE QUESTION COMES UP IS THAT WE'RE, WE PERIODICALLY RUN INTO THIS HERE IN THE CITY WHERE YOU CAN'T COMPLETE THE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN BECAUSE YOU'RE PENALIZING SOMEBODY IN THE MIDDLE BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ADEQUATE ACCESS EITHER ON ONE SIDE OF THEM OR THE OTHER SIDE OF THEM.
AND SOMEHOW WE'RE NOT CAPTURING THAT AND WE'RE HAVING TO APPROACH THIS AS A VARIANCE EVERY TIME WE WE DO THIS.
AND IT'S NOT CLEAR AND IT'S TAKES TIME AND IT TAKES MONEY.
SO I JUST, I'M, I WISH THERE WERE SOME WAY THAT IF YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT COMPLETE A MULTI-USE PATH ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THEN YOU PUT IT IN.
BUT DON'T PENALIZE A, A DEVELOPER OR A, OR A PROPERTY OWNER TO PUT IN A MULTI-USE PATH THAT GOES NOWHERE ON EITHER SIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY.
AND I'M NOT SURE HOW WE ADDRESS THAT CHAIRMAN, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I SEE PERIODICALLY AND I THOUGHT IT DID AWAY WITH REFERENCE TO THE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN.
IT JUST SAYS ON COLLECTORS AND UPS YOU HAVE TO DO IT.
SO IT'S GOTTEN EVEN MORE MM-HMM.
THIS TAKES AWAY THAT REFERENCE.
AMY OR JACOB, CHRISTINA JUST SAYS COLLECTORS AND UP WILL HAVE BIKE FACILITIES, WHATEVER THE HECK THAT MEANS.
BECAUSE THE WAY TODAY, THE WAY THAT WE'RE APPLYING IT IS IF THERE IS NO BIKE FACILITY OUT THERE TODAY, THE DEFAULT IS A 10 FOOT WIDE MULTI-USE PATCH.
WE REFERENCED THE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN ONLY BECAUSE THEY IDENTIFY LOCAL B STREETS.
'CAUSE RIGHT NOW THE CODE JUST SAYS ARTERIAL COLLECTORS REQUIRE BIKE FACILITIES DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT A LOCAL B.
SO WE ONLY LOOK AT IT THROUGH DEVELOPMENT.
DID THEY CALL OUT A LOCAL B THAT THEY WANTED A BIKE FACILITY IF THEY DID, AND THERE IS NO BIKE FACILITY ON THAT ROADWAY.
THE DEFAULT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A 10 FOOT WIDE MULTI-USE PATH.
WE REALLY DON'T MAKE DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENT WITH THE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN.
A LOT OF THE TIMES THE DEVELOPMENTS COME IN AND THEY ONLY HAVE SAY, 250 FEET OF FRONTAGE.
WE'RE NOT GONNA TELL THEM WIDEN IT FIVE FEET FOR BIKE LANE ONLY FOR 200 FEET.
SO DEFAULT HAS ALWAYS BEEN 10 FOOT WIDE MULTI-USE PATH WITH NO BIKE FACILITIES OUT THERE TODAY.
AND THIS WILL NOW GO TO 12 FOOT.
MR. CHAIRMAN IS THIS ONE THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER HAVING A SMALL COMMITTEE OF PTAC LOOK AT SOME OF THOSE DETAILS A LITTLE MORE CLOSELY.
'CAUSE I THINK WE'RE ALL FEELING A LITTLE BIT LIKE WE THINK WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE APPROVING, BUT NOT, SHOULD WE HAVE A SMALL GROUP DO THAT? I HATE SENDING IT AWAY AND COMING BACK, BUT THIS FEELS LIKE ONE THAT MAYBE WE'RE NOT ALL CLEAR AND ON THE SAME PAGE EVEN UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE INTENT IS.
AND WE, WE'D BE HAPPY TO, TO FACILITATE THAT ON THAT FOR THROW THAT TO DISCUSSION FOR EVERYBODY.
OR ARE Y'ALL COMFORTABLE? WHAT WAS THE HISTORY ON THIS
[02:20:01]
ONE? DIDN'T IT COME FROM A COMMITTEE? IT CAME FROM A COMMITTEE.YEAH, BUT THERE'S, THERE'S, I MEAN MOST OF MY OTHER COMMENTS ARE STRAIGHTFORWARD, BUT THIS ISSUE WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW SEEMS PRETTY CONVOLUTED.
AND THE COMMITTEE, AS FAR AS I REMEMBER, DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ON BICYCLES.
IT WAS MORE ABOUT THE DIMENSIONS.
SO, UM, I GOING TO COMMITTEE MAY CLEAR UP SOME OF THIS MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY.
UM, IF YOU ARE, UH, PROPOSING TO CREATE A SUBCOMMITTEE, I WOULD RECOMMEND A SUBCOMMITTEE MADE OF SOME OF THESE MEMBERS.
SO DO YOU, WE CAN GO OVER THE REST OF MY EDITS, I GUESS IN THE SUBCOMMITTEE WOULD BE THE WAY TO DO THAT INSTEAD OF WASTING EVERYBODY'S TIME HERE.
SO DO WE HAVE VOLUNTEERS FOR A SUBCOMMITTEE HERE? ROBERT HANLEY.
I SEE JOE NICKS ROBERT HANLEY.
I WILL VOLUNTEER 'CAUSE I HAVE A MESS OF COMMENTS ON THIS THING.
IF YOU WANNA BE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
AND BIANCA, AND I THINK WE'RE GOOD.
AND CHAIR, IF I MAY SUGGEST, UH, WE ALSO CONSIDER, UH, AMENDMENT 24 DASH ONE.
AND THAT'S, WELL, THAT'S ITEM NUMBER 18.
MR. CHAIR, CAN WE READ OFF THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS ONE MORE TIME? SURE.
IT WAS MR. NICKS, UH, MR. HANLEY, MYSELF, MR. TAPIA AND BIANCA.
AND WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH WEBEX MEETINGS FOR THOSE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS? YES.
SINCE IT'S A SMALLER GROUP AND WE CAN TALK TECHNICAL AND THEN WE CAN COORDINATE SETTING THOSE MEETINGS UP.
UM, AND YOU WANTED TO MOVE, MOVE FORWARD TO, WHAT WAS IT, 24 DASH ONE? YES, SIR.
IT, UH, RELATED TO, UH, BICYCLE FACILITIES AS WELL.
SO I, MY SUGGESTION WAS THAT WE, UH, DISCUSS THAT ONE IN THE SMALL COMMITTEE.
MOVE THAT ONTO THE COMMITTEE ALSO.
SO WE HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE SET UP.
I THINK WE NEED A MOTION TO MOVE THAT.
MOVED TO SUBCOMMITTEE FOR FURTHER REVIEW, ROBERT HANLEY.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MS. TACKETT, A SECOND FROM MR. HANLEY TO MOVE SIX ITEM 16 AND 18 TO SUBCOMMITTEE.
AND FOR THE RECORD, MS. WRIGHT WAS BACK IN THE MEETING AND DID PARTICIPATE IN THAT, UH, MOTION CHAIR.
CAN WE GO TO 18 SEVEN REAL QUICK? TO WHICH ONE? 18 SEVEN.
BRING THAT ONE BACK UP THOUGH.
IT WAS THAT FIRST ONE ON OUR AGENDA.
YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE TO THE NEXT MEETING TO ALLOW C P S ENERGY, TIME TO WEIGH IN ON, UH, INDUSTRY STANDARD DEFINITIONS FOR SOLAR ARRAY, SOLAR CANOPY, AND SOLAR FARMS. SECOND.
YOU JUST MOVE, YOU JUST MOTION TO TABLE IT FOR, FOR ONE WEEK FOR A WHILE.
UH, MOTION ON THE TABLE, THE TABLE ITEM ONE FOR ONE WEEK BY, UH, MS. CREO HAYES, SECOND BY MS. TACKETT.
SO WAS THAT 16, 17, AND 18 THAT WERE COMBINED? 16 AND 16 AND 18.
DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION AND NEED TO SEE AMENDMENT ITEM 11 DASH ONE AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 5 0 6 C.
SO THIS, THIS IS THE ITEM THAT'S KIND OF IN CONFLICT WITH ONE THAT WE JUST CALLED FOR A SUBCOMMITTEE ON.
AT LEAST IN PART, UH, WE COULD, UH, INCLUDE THIS OR WE COULD TAKE A LOOK AT THE PORTION OF IT THAT'S NOT IN CONFLICT, BUT IT'S PROBABLY EASIER TO TACKLE THEM TOGETHER WHEN THEY COME BACK.
I MOVE THAT ITEM 17, BE TABLED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
AND WHEN THEY REVIEW IT, IT'S INCORPORATED INTO THE OTHER TWO ITEMS SO THAT WE SEE THEM HOLISTICALLY AND NOT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT CONFLICTS.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR MS. DAGGETT TO MOVE THAT TO THE SAME SUBCOMMITTEE ON ITEM 18 AND OR 16 AND 18 A SECOND BY BIANCA.
ITEM NUMBER 19, DISCUSSION ACTION ON ITEM 23 DASH ONE, SECTION 35
[02:25:01]
DASH 5 0 6 D.UH, THIS AMENDMENT CAME FROM THE HOUSING COMMISSION AND IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO, UM, ADD AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THAT PROVIDE AT LEAST 50% AFFORDABLE UNITS TO THE EXCEPTIONS FOR SUBSTANDARD EXISTING STREETS.
THAT THE STREET CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS.
THE REASON BEHIND THIS AMENDMENT WAS TO, UH, EASE COST BURDEN ON THESE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS.
UM, AS THE COST OF THIS IS ABOUT $2,000 PER 50 SQUARE FOOT LOT, THIS WOULD ONLY APPLY TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THAT PROVIDE AT LEAST 50% AFFORDABLE UNITS.
A DEFINITION, WHICH YOU GUYS HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW, IF THAT'S COMING UP IN MAY, AND IT ONLY APPLIES TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT UNITS THAT ARE UNDER 2000 SQUARE FEET, 200, I'M SORRY, TWO 20,000 SQUARE FEET.
UM, HOUSING COMMISSION DID REVIEW THIS IN, IN A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
WE DID TALK WITH PUBLIC WORKS ABOUT THIS AS WELL, AND THEY'RE WILLING TO COORDINATE THE, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THESE PROJECTS, UM, SO THAT THE WORK DOES GET DONE.
IT'S JUST CONSISTENT WITH THEIR FIVE YEAR PLAN.
UM, AND THEN I DO DO WANNA POINT OUT THAT THIS AMEND THIS EXCEPTION HAS BEEN APPLIED TO IDCS FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS.
UH, ANY QUESTIONS? I'M HERE TO OKAY.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? BIANCA? BIANCA? SO MY, MY CONCERN WITH THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT AS IT'S PRESENTED SINCE WE'VE NOT HEARD WHAT THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS, IS THAT I FEEL, I, I DON'T FEEL INCLINED TO MOVE SOMETHING FORWARD IF WE HAVEN'T DEFINED WHAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD ON, ESSENTIALLY.
UM, I YOU SAID THAT THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS COMING IN MAY MM-HMM.
I JUST THINK THAT'S MORE CONSISTENT WITH, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ADDING THE WORD AFFORDABLE OR CLARIFYING THE WORD AFFORDABLE, WHICH IS SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS WE PREVIOUSLY HEARD.
SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS UNTIL WE DISCUSS THE DEFINITION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT MOTION.
UM, I AM ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD.
UM, AND, UH, I THINK WE ALL KIND OF UNDERSTAND IN THEORY WHAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS.
THIS IS INTENDED TO, UM, ALLOW THAT TO PROGRESS MORE READILY.
IT'S ALREADY DONE IN NUMEROUS AREAS.
SO I WOULD, UM, LIKE TO SEE THIS MOVE FORWARD.
IT IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER, UM, AFFORDABLE, UM, UH, BASICALLY CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE USED ELSEWHERE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.
AND SO I'M, I'M STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION OF NOT YOUR MOTION, EXCUSE ME, OF THIS AMENDMENT AND, UH, WOULD LIKE TO NOT SEE IT TABLED FOR THAT.
UM, AS I THINK WE ALL ARE VERY CLEAR.
UM, SO THE, THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT'S GONE THROUGH THE HOUSING COMMISSION SHIP AND IT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL AND IT WAS APPROVED BY WHEN THEY APPROVED THE SHIP.
ANY FURTHER? DEBBIE? UM, JUST A QUESTION ABOUT HOW, UM, YOU MAINTAIN THAT PROVIDING 50% AFFORDABLE UNITS IS MONITORED IN PERPETUITY.
CAN YOU CLARIFY YOUR QUESTION? UM, IF THERE'S COVENANT ABOUT THE AFFORDABILITY, HOW LONG IT'S MAINTAINED, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUILT AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S NOT ANYMORE.
AND I'VE ALSO SEEN APARTMENTS WHERE THE, UH, 50% AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS ON THE THIRD FLOOR WITH NO ELEVATORS.
SO THOSE ARE THE ISSUES THAT I'M, I HAVE, CAN I, SO THE, THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABILITY DOES INCLUDE, UM, IT DOES INCLUDE TIME PERIODS FOR THAT.
AND THEN
SO THERE ARE COVENANTS THAT RUN WITH LAND FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, SO THEY DON'T GET THOSE SAME THINGS.
I WAS GONNA SAY THERE ARE DIFFERENT COVENANTS THAT ARE APPLIED, UM, ON THE AFFORDABLE PROJECTS THAT HAVE THESE COVENANTS TO KEEP IT AFFORDABLE.
AND IF WHEN THOSE EXPIRE, IT MAY GO.
BUT THEN, SO DO THE BENEFITS THAT WERE
[02:30:01]
GIVEN TO IT FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PERSPECTIVE.BUT WOULDN'T THAT MEAN THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE HAS ALREADY BEEN BUILT, COMES SOMEWHAT SUBSTANDARD, AND THEN IT WOULD BECOME A BOND PROJECT IN THE FUTURE? MAYBE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION.
DO YOU KNOW I HAVE, YEAH, I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE I'M UNDER, I HAVE THE SAME POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
I MEAN, WE'RE SAYING THAT SOMEONE IS GONNA BUILD 50% AFFORDABLE UNITS.
HOW DO YOU DOCUMENT THAT WHEN YOU PULL YOUR PERMIT FROM THE CITY, NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, HOW DO YOU ENSURE THAT THOSE 50% OF THE UNITS REMAIN AFFORDABLE? AND WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT? IS THE CITY GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, PUT UPON THE, THE ISSUANCE OF THIS THAT YOU KEEP IT FOR HOW LONG? THAT IS MY BIG CONCERN IS THAT I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A, THIS ALLOWS SOMETHING, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GONNA TRACK IT, HOW IT'S TRACKED EXTENSIVELY THROUGH THE TWO.
UH, WE HAVE A FULL HOUSING, UM, UH, DEPARTMENT IF YOU WILL, THAT TRACKS EVERY BIT OF THIS.
AND WHEN IT'S APPROVED BY THE BOARDS OF OUR, OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARDS, IT IS DEFINED HOW MANY UNITS HAVE TO BE, HOW MANY AT WHAT PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE MEDIAN INCOME.
BUT I THINK STAFF SHOULD ANSWER AND SAY HOW THE CITY IS GOING TO TRACK THIS.
YOU CAN ANSWER THAT, BUT THAT'S MY ANSWER AS A BOARD MEMBER.
BUT YOU KNOW, WE COME AND GO AND SO WE'RE PUTTING CODES INTO PLACE AND SO IF WE'RE GONNA CODIFY SOMETHING, THEN I WOULD HOPE THAT THERE'S A CHECK AND A BALANCE AT THE CITY LEVEL.
AND SO THAT'S MY QUESTION, MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY? YES, MA'AM.
UM, SO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO HAS BEEN WORKING WITH, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES, UM, THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.
AND WE HAVE CREATED AFFORDABLE HOUSING REVIEW TEAM, UH, THAT WILL BE DEDICATED TO REVIEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, THIS IS A TEAM THAT WILL GO FROM, UM, LAND DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCTION TO INSPECTIONS.
SO WE WILL BE TRACKING DEVELOPMENT AS IT'S COMING THROUGH.
WE WILL BE WORKING CLOSELY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, UM, TO ENSURE EVERYONE IS IN COMPLIANCE, WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE RECEIVED, UM, MONIES FROM THE CITY AND THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONTRACTS AND THE AGREEMENTS WITHIN THERE.
WE'LL BE WORKING CLOSELY WITH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON THAT AS WELL.
AND FROM THE AWARDING STANDPOINT, I WILL JUST SAY THAT N H SS D DOES MAINTAIN A, UH, PIPELINE OF PROJECTS WHERE WE TRACK ALL PUBLICLY FUNDED PROJECTS.
UM, SO WE DO HAVE THAT LIST OF, OF PROJECTS AND WE, AS MELISSA SAID, WE DO WORK CLOSELY.
SO IN POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THERE IS NO TIME, UM, RESTRICTION WHEN THIS IS OFFERED.
SO YOU CAN ONLY, YOU CAN HAVE 50% OF YOUR AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR ONE YEAR.
NO, I MEAN, AND AND THAT'S WHERE THE, I MEAN, IN THEORY THAT WOULDN'T BE IT, BUT IT IN YEAH.
SO IT, IT IS IN THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE.
SO FOR SOMETHING TO BE AFFORDABLE, IT HAS TO REMAIN AFFORDABLE THROUGH DEEP RESTRICTIONS FOR A MINIMUM PERIOD.
AND AS SUSAN WAS SAYING, IT, IT VARIES DEPENDING ON IF IT'S A FOR SALE PRODUCT OR A RENTAL PRODUCT, BUT YOU'RE GENERALLY TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, 10 TO 30 YEARS.
UH, SO THERE'S GONNA BE A RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS THERE.
THAT'S GONNA TIE WITH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE U D C AMENDMENTS AS IT'S IMPLEMENTED.
FOR, FOR A HOUSE TO BE AFFORDABLE, IT HAS TO BE DEEDED RESTRICTED.
AND SO JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION STAFF, IT WILL BE A RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, UH, FOR THIS TO BE EXECUTED AS AS HE'S EXPLAINING, UM, IF THEY'RE RECEIVING FUNDING, YES.
SO IT'LL BE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS FOR ALL AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UH, I AM NOT THAT RECEIVES FUNDING.
THAT RECEIVES FUNDING, BUT IF YOU'RE WAIVING A FEE OR WAIVING A REQUIREMENT, IS THERE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING? MY CONCERN IS THAT UNDER THE GUISE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THIS CAN BE MANIPULATED.
AND SO WHILE I TRULY A HUNDRED PERCENT SUPPORT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I WANNA MAKE SURE IT IS AND REMAINS AFFORDABLE BECAUSE THE WAY THAT'S WORDED, IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T STATE THAT.
SO, UM, TO MICHAEL'S POINT IN THE DEFINITION OF AN AFFORDABILITY, EXCUSE ME, OF AFFORDABILITY, IT SPEAKS TO ENSURING THAT THERE ARE MECHANISMS WITHIN THE FUNDING AGREEMENTS BE THOSE LAND USE RESTRICTIONS OR DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT ENSURE THAT IT IS AFFORDABLE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME THAT VARIES BASED ON FUNDING.
THAT CAN BE 50 YEARS, THAT CAN BE 25 YEARS, THAT CAN BE UP TO 99 YEARS OR IN PERPETUITY IF YOU USE SOMETHING LIKE A GROUND LEASE.
AND THEN I WILL JUST ADD, SORRY, TAKE THIS OFF.
I WILL JUST ADD THAT, UM, WITH THE STRATEGIC HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN THAT I MENTIONED, UM, CITY COUNCIL DID, UM, APPROVE THAT FULLY.
THAT INCLUDES THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABILITY AND INCLUDES SEVERAL STRATEGIES, UM, AND POLICIES AROUND HOW THE CITY,
[02:35:01]
UH, CONSIDERS AND PROMOTES AND ENHAN AND, UM, ENSURES THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS, IS MORE ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE.UH, THERE'S FOUR, FOUR PRIMARY THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS IS TO ENSURE THAT WE REDUCE COST BURDEN FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND TO YOUR POINT, IT'S TO ENSURE, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S A BEYOND THE INITIAL PERSON WHO COMES AND APPLIES AND THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO PASS AN AMENDMENT LIKE THIS, THAT IT'S TRULY USED FOR WHAT IT'S INTENDED FOR.
AND CAN I ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE TO IT? SO I KNOW WE KEEP GOING BACK TO THIS DEFINITION OF AFFORDABILITY, BUT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE, THE NONPROFIT HOUSING PROVIDERS BASICALLY PUT TOGETHER, AND IT WAS TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NOT, UM, ABUSE, WHICH TYPICALLY HAPPENS FROM THE FOR-PROFIT SIDE.
UM, SO WE, SO THAT DEFINITION DOES ENSURE THAT THESE UNITS ARE TRULY AFFORDABLE FOR A PERIOD.
I JUST WANNA REITERATE THE CAR BEFORE THE HORSE.
SO THAT WAS MY ONLY REALLY CONCERN WITH THIS.
I'M INTERESTED ALSO IN SEEING IT GO FORWARD.
40 YEARS AGO, I STARTED THE NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES WITH THE HELP OF THE FORT FOUNDATION, AND THEN I RETIRED FROM THE AIR FORCE, CAME BACK SAN ANTONIO AND I BELONGS TO THE CITY.
IT, IT STARTED AS A PRIVATE THING, BUT I'M INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN 40 YEARS.
AS A FOLLOW UP TO THE LAST TWO POINTS, UH, IT SOMETIMES SAID THAT THERE'S LAW IN THE BOOKS AND THEN THERE'S LAW IN ACTION.
UH, COULD YOU CLARIFY FOR US WHAT THE, THE CURRENT, UH, ENFORCEMENT AND MONITORING PROCESS IS AND HOW THAT MIGHT HAVE INFORMED THE, THE NEW PROCESS THAT'S GOING FORWARD IN TERMS OF ENSURING THAT SOMETHING REMAINS AFFORDABLE FOR THE DURATION OF THE COVENANT PERIOD? SO RIGHT NOW, THE ENFORCE OH, THANK YOU.
RIGHT NOW, THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS IS ENTIRELY ON THE FINANCING SIDE.
IT WOULD MAINTAIN THAT THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
IT'S JUST A LITTLE EXTRA COMMUNICATION BETWEEN US AND D S D THAT ALREADY HAPPENS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE SAYING, HEY, THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GETTING AWARDS.
THEY MEET OUR DEFINITION OF AFFORDABILITY.
WHEN THEY COME TO YOU, UM, WITH THIS ASK, PLEASE ENSURE THAT, UM, THEY'RE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND GET IT.
MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY? YES, MA'AM.
UM, AS, AS THE CITY, UH, COUNSEL HAS TAKEN ACTION ON SEVERAL PIECES OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUZZLE, IT HAS BECOME APPARENT THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POLICY FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
AND THEREFORE THAT'S WHY WE HAVE CREATED A, AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING TEAM.
I JUST WANNA, UH, MAKE EVERYBODY, OR JUST REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THE SECTION OF THE CODE IS TALKING ABOUT, UH, SUBSTANDARD STREETS AND NOT ABOUT THE DETAILS AND THE MECHANICS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND IF I MAY, IF THERE IS A RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE CHANGE, UM, BIANCA, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS, UM, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT POTENTIALLY WOULD BE AN OPTION.
I KNOW THERE'S, YOU KNOW, PLENTY OF ROOM FOR DISCUSSION THAT WE CAN HAVE, BUT I THINK ALL OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AMENDMENTS ARE IMPORTANT PART OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER.
JOE, I THINK YOU GOT A QUESTION.
YEAH, I WANT TO GO BACK THAT WORK.
WHAT DEBBIE WAS TALKING ABOUT, IF WE, WE HAVE THIS IN THERE, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT AS LONG AS IT'S THERE, IT MEANS WE'RE GONNA HAVE SUBSTANDARD STREETS.
DOES THAT MEAN WE HAVE TO DO, LIKE I SAY, A BOND ISSUE TO IMPROVE THOSE? OR SHOULD WE HAVE SOMETHING IN THERE THAT THAT ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE AN, I DON'T KNOW OF AN EXCEPTION OR VARIANCE IF THEY CANNOT PROVIDE A STANDARD STREET FOR THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, EITHER GIVE THE RIGHT OF WAY OR SOME MITIGATION SO THAT WE DON'T JUST STUCK WITH A SUBSTANDARD STREET FOREVER? PERSONALLY, THAT'S MY QUESTION.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS BECAUSE IN THESE CASES WHERE WE ALREADY HAVE A SUBSTANDARD STREET, IT'S EITHER RIGHT AWAY WIDTH ISN'T WIDEN ENOUGH AND YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET IT BECAUSE YOU'RE ONE LOT OR TWO LOTS ON A WHOLE BLOCK WHERE THE REST OF IT DOESN'T EXIST.
SO YOU'RE GOING IN FOR A VARIANCE ANYWAY.
UM, OR MAYBE THE PAVEMENT WIDTH IS NARROW BECAUSE THE RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH IS NARROW.
AND AGAIN, YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE, YOU ALMOST ALWAYS LIMITED BY EVERYTHING AROUND YOU.
SO FOR ME, A NORMAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SHOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE HARDSHIP OF TRYING TO SOLVE IT, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU DO, TRYING TO GET A VARIANCE.
BUT SAYING A PROJECT THAT IS ALREADY HAMPERED BY DOLLARS AND TRYING TO MEET AFFORDABLE UNITS SHOULD HAVE TO HIT THOSE HIGHER
[02:40:01]
COSTS.THE EFFORT IS COST THE RESOLUTION.
I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO SAY IF WE ARE GONNA PUT, YOU KNOW, OUR EFFORTS BEHIND INCREASING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WE NEED TO FIND SOME WAYS THAT WE CAN TACKLE THOSE ADDED COST AND JUST EXEMPTING THEM FROM THE PROCESS SEEMS A REASONABLE PLACE TO DO IT.
'CAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE THE OP TODAY.
THE OPTION IS TO GO FOR A VARIANCE AND THAT'S WHAT'S GRANTED IN MOST CASES.
'CAUSE RARELY CAN YOU SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL REDO.
UM, I JUST WANNA TAKE A SECOND AND THROW OUT ANOTHER IDEA ON THIS.
ONE IS PERHAPS ADJUSTING THE ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY COSTS, UM, FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS.
UM, IN GENERAL FOR THESE SMALLER LOTS.
A LOT OF TIMES THIS IS HOW THEY GET, UM, THEY GET A VARIANCE FOR THE SUBSTANDARD STREETS, UM, IS DUE TO THE ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY.
UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE TABLE FOR CONSIDERATION THAT POSSIBLY LOOKING AT THE ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY MIGHT BE AN IDEA.
AND, AND REMEMBER, WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT PROPERTIES THAT ARE HALF AN ACRE OR LESS.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT WAIVING THE STANDARDS FOR PROPERTIES ARE HALF AN ACRE OR LESS.
SO IF THEY'RE ZONED MF 33, WE'RE TALKING MAYBE OF MOST 15 UNITS.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RELATED TO THIS AMENDMENT, NOT THE LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE COMING IN AT 300 UNITS.
THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT KAT.
ALRIGHT, ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ON THIS? I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE FOR, WHAT WAS IT, A CONTINUANCE UNTIL WE GET A DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND WE DO NOT HAVE A SECOND THIS TIME.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? I, I DO WANT, AGAIN, I KNOW THE DIRECTION STAFF RECEIVED FROM THE TAC AT THE BEGINNING WAS YOU WANTED TO TACKLE THESE IN ORDER OF THE CODE.
I THINK THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE A LOT OF GOING OUT OF ORDER IF WE'RE TRYING TO CONSIDER DEFINITIONS ALONGSIDE ACTUAL TECHNICAL LANGUAGE.
SO AGAIN, I, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE T TO CONSIDER AS WE'RE MAKING THIS MOTION.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WHO IS THE SECOND? MR. GARCIA? SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO PUSH THIS, UH, OFF UNTIL WE HAVE A DEFINITION UNTIL THE AMENDMENT, THERE IS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEFINITION, UH, BE CONSIDERED BEFORE WE TAKE ACTION UNTIL THE AMENDMENT WITH THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS HEARD AND ANY IDEA WHAT THAT AMENDMENT IS.
WHAT WAS THAT AMENDMENT NUMBER BY NOW? OFF THE TOP OF THEIR HEAD.
SO THAT WOULD BE TOWARDS THE END OF THE, THAT WOULD BE AMONG THE LAST AMENDMENTS DISCUSSED.
WELL WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND THAT'LL, UH, SU SUSPEND THIS, UH, THIS ITEM TILL MAY, SOMETIME PROBABLY.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
SORRY, I FORGOT WHAT WE WERE
MOTION FAILS AND ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION.
ROBERT HANLEY, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. HANLEY TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED A SECOND BY MS. WRIGHT.
IS, UM, MELISSA, YOU MENTIONED ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT COULD BE ADDED THAT WOULD SUBSTANTIATE, UM, OTHER AGREEMENTS THAT WOULD BE IN PLACE
[02:45:01]
TO ENSURE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THIS PARTICULAR, UM, ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE ALLOWING IS, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NOT TO HAVE TO MAKE THE IMPROVEMENT.SO I'VE ASKED MY FELLOW COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHAT LANGUAGE WE COULD ADD TO ENSURE THAT IT DOESN'T, IT'S NOT JUST AN FROM THE INITIAL APPLICATION, THE INITIAL BUILD THAT IT IS MEETING THE, UM, THE DIRECTION THAT THAT IS, UH, IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEFINITION AS FAR AS, UM, TIMEFRAME.
AND I THINK, MICHAEL, YOU COULD APPRECIATE THIS BECAUSE TO YOUR WHOLE POINT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SMALL INFILL DEVELOPMENT, 'CAUSE THIS IS WHAT THIS IS, THIS IS HALF A HALF ACRE OR LESS TO ENSURE THAT IT IS AFFORDABILITY.
IT ISN'T JUST THE INITIAL APPLICATION, THE INITIAL BUILD.
IT IS TO ENSURE THAT IT'S NOT JUST AFFORDABLE FROM THE MOMENT THAT IT'S BUILT, BUT THROUGH ITS OPERATION, BASED ON WHAT OTHER RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS THAT MAY BE EXECUTED IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.
SO I'D LIKE TO, IF YOU WOULD CONSIDER THAT AS SOMETHING, AS PART OF THE AMENDMENT, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
AND IF YOU, I'M OPEN FOR ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON THAT.
MY WHOLE, MY WHOLE CONCERN IS THAT IT'S NOT JUST BUILT, THAT THE AFFORDABILITY CONTINUES WITH THE INTENT AS ADOPTED IN THE SHIP.
IT'S JUST, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT IN THIS SECTION BECAUSE THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE ACTUALLY INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO SOMETHING DOESN'T, ISN'T CONSIDERED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNLESS IT HAS THOSE LONG-TERM DEEDED RESTRICTIONS THAT ENSURE THAT IT REMAIN AFFORDABLE.
SO ANYTHING WE INCLUDED HERE WOULD BE REDUNDANT AT BEST AND CONFLICT AT WORST.
WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED IN A SECOND.
WE'LL TAKE, WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL.
VOTE NO, THAT ACTUALLY, SORRY.
UM, THE, THE DISCUSSION OF DEEDED RESTRICTIONS KIND OF CONCERNS ME BECAUSE IN ZONING WE HAVE BEEN TOLD DO NOT EVER MENTION DEEDED RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE THE CITY CAN'T ENFORCE OR BE A PARTY TO DEEDED RESTRICTIONS.
SO HOW DOES, CAN, JUST A BRIEF EXPLANATION, HOW DOES THAT WORK? CAN WE TALK ABOUT THAT WHEN WE GET TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AMENDMENTS? THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO RECOMMEND.
THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ABOUT SUBSTANDARD EXISTING STREETS.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE POLICY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT THE MOMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OR CREATION OF THOSE, UH, DEEDED RESTRICTIONS.
SO YOUR POINT IS A VALID POINT, BUT I DO AGREE WITH KARA.
I THINK IT THAT WE SHOULD BE HAVING THAT DISCUSSION WITH THE POLICY AMENDMENTS THAT WILL BE UPCOMING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? MR. LEMAN? THANK YOU.
MY QUESTIONS PROBABLY A LOT MORE SIMPLISTIC, BUT I'M JUST READING THAT ARTICLE THAT SEVERAL PROPERTY IS LOCATED BESIDE 70 LIMITS IN THE LAST SENTENCE IN THERE THAT SAID THAT THE MEETING, THE, THE STREET PA THE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE REQUIRED MEETING THE REQUIREMENT BY WHOM? BY THE DEVELOPER THAT'S DOING IT.
UM, BY WHOM? WHO'S, WHO'S GONNA DO THAT? WHO'S GONNA MEET THAT REQUIREMENT? THE DEVELOPER THAT'S DOING IT? THE APPLICANT.
ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE SECTION IN BLUE OR THE SECTION IN, IN RIGHT ABOVE IT? NO, IN SECTION BLUE.
THE LAST SENTENCE THERE, THEN THE MINIMUM PAVEMENT REQUIREMENT UNDER THIS SECTION WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE DONE BY, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S UNDERSTOOD TO BE DONE BY THE PERSON WHO'S DOING THIS.
MR. LEMAN, ARE YOU ON THIS AMENDMENT? I'M, I'M NOT SURE WHERE YOU'RE AT.
23 DASH ONE? YEAH, THAT'S THE NEXT ONE.
NOW I'M TALKING ABOUT THE NEXT ONE.
IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSIONS ON THE CORRECT AMENDMENT?
MOTION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED, CORRECT? MS. CARRIO HAYNES? YES.
[02:50:01]
MS. GANS? YES.DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT FIVE DASH 45, SECTION 35 DASH 5 0 6 D.
THIS FINAL AMENDMENT, UH, IS TO INCORPORATE, UH, RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS TO THE CODE, UH, PUT FORTH THROUGH RID 20 16 0 0 2, UH, ON PAPER STREETS.
BOB, YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS ON THIS.
MY ONLY QUESTION WAS THAT WHEN IT SAYS THIS WILL BE REQUIRED, I PRESUME IT MEANS IT'LL BE REQUIRED BY THAT INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER THAT'S MAKING THE REQUEST.
WHO'S GONNA BUILD A STREET? UM, I UNDERSTOOD IT'D BE THAT AND IT SUGGESTS THAT IT'S THAT ONE PERSON.
I HAD ONE OF, I HAD ONE OF THESE A WHILE BACK BE, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE YEARS AGO OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND WHAT I AGREED TO WORKING WITH THE CITY OF PUBLIC WORKS IS THAT, THAT MY CLIENT THERE WHO WAS BUILDING THAT BUILT HALF THE STREET.
SO THAT, THAT'S OUR STANDARD PRACTICE.
IF IT COMES IN, UM, WHOEVER IS COMING IN FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT, UM, FOR THAT PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO BUILD HALF THE STREET.
UNLESS, UNLESS FIRE, UH, UNLESS THERE'S FIRE ACCESS NEEDS, AT WHICH POINT THEY MUST BUILD A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET IN WIDTH.
THAT ALL DEPENDS ON, ON WHERE THE FIRE HYDRANTS ARE LOCATED TO ENSURE FOR SAFETY.
BUT WHAT IS THAT UNDERSTOOD IN THIS? IF YOU THINK THERE'S SOME CLARIFYING LANGUAGE THAT WE NEED TO ADD, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT.
THAT'S WHAT WAS DONE WITH WHAT I DID AND IT SEEMED FAIR, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT HERE.
SHE'S ASKING YOU, BOB, IF YOU GOT SOME LANGUAGE TO CLARIFY.
SO WHAT, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE AS SO BASED RIGHT NOW, BASED ON THE SUBSTANDARD STREET SECTION, WE COULD REQUIRE THE ENTIRE STREET.
UM, I, BUT HAVING NO ACCESS AT ALL IS NOT, DOESN'T FALL UNDER A PROPORTIONALITY.
SO WE HAVE COME UP, THE CURRENT PRACTICE IS BUILD HALF THE STREET AND LESS FIRE ACCESS AS NECESSARY THAN 20 FEET.
AND SO I, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T, I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW WHAT WE CURRENTLY DO RIGHT NOW AS FAR AS REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION FOR CONSTRUCTION.
AND THESE ARE PAPER STREETS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO IF YOU REMEMBER BACK IN THE DAY, SEVENTIES EIGHTIES, THERE THINK THE DEVELOPMENT DIDN'T COMPLETE AND THEY DIDN'T FINISH BUILDING OUT THE PUBLIC STREETS.
THERE MAY BE APPROVED RECORDED PLOTS OUT THERE THAT STILL NEED TO POTENTIALLY BE DEVELOPED.
WHEN THOSE ARE DEVELOPED AND THERE'S VACANT DIRT STREETS IN FRONT, THEY, THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO IS DEVELOPING THAT PROPERTY IS RESPONSIBLE TO ACCESS THAT PROPERTY, CREATE THAT ACCESS.
AND SO THEN WE WORK OUT THOSE SOLUTIONS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, DEPENDING UPON THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
SO TO ME, SHOULDN'T THIS BE SPLIT INTO TWO ITEMS? BECAUSE REALLY THE FIRST PART IS YOU'RE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS AND IN THE E T J AND YOU'RE USING EITHER A PRIVATE STREET OR A PAPER STREET.
AND THEN THE SECOND PART IS YOU'RE INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS AND IT'S ONLY TALKING ABOUT A PAPER STREET THAT WASN'T BUILT.
SO FOR ME IT WAS MUDDLED 'CAUSE IT LUMPED TWO ISSUES INTO ONE ITEM.
AND WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE DISCUSSION IF YOU WOULD LIKE.
UM, I WILL SAY THIS WAS CREATED IN 2016 AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH IT SINCE THEN.
UH, THERE HASN'T BEEN A LOT OF CHALLENGES WITH THIS ONE, BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE AMENDMENT LANGUAGE TO ASSIST, TO CLARIFY IF WE NEED TO.
WELL, I'M SAYING THE BLUE THAT STARTS, IF A PROPERTY IS LOCATED INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS BECOMES ITEM FOUR.
AND THE LAST SENTENCE IS A LITTLE CONFUSING.
YOU KNOW, IT'S REQUIRED WHEN THE PROPERTY'S
[02:55:01]
GETTING A PERMIT, PLATTER PERMIT, IT SAYS, AND IN EITHER CASE IT'S PROPOSING TO USE THE PAPER STREET.SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY IS WHEN YOU'RE PERMITTING SOMETHING AND TRYING TO USE A PAPER STREET, YOU'RE NOT CREATING A PAPER, YOU'RE UTILIZING A PAPER STREET AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE GOING TO DEVELOP OFF OF THAT BASED OFF OF PREVIOUS RECORDED PLATTS OR WHATEVER THE SITUATION WAS.
I WOULD ALMOST DELETE IS REQUIRED WHEN THE PROPERTY'S BEING PLATTED OR REQUESTING A BUILDING PERMIT.
'CAUSE THE FIRST PART OF IT SAYS YOU'RE NEXT TO A PAPER STREET.
I, I ALSO WANT TO ADD OR USING IT FOR ACCESS.
SO I GUESS THAT'S THE POINT OF IF YOU'RE HAVE ANOTHER ACCESS POINT, THIS DOESN'T APPLY.
UH, I WAS JUST INFORMED BY UH, RACHEL HOLDER THAT THIS SECTION ALREADY HAS A NUMBER FOUR.
SO IF WE'RE GONNA ADD SOMETHING TO IT, IT NEEDS TO BE A FIVE, NOT A FOUR.
OR SHIFT OR HOWEVER SHIFT THE NUMBERS.
CAN WE JUST, TO ME THERE'S TWO, THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT TOPICS AND DON'T BELONG IN THE SAME ONE THAT FURTHER CONFUSES.
AND I WOULD SAY THESE SHOULD BE BACK TO BACK.
I MEAN, 'CAUSE ONE IS IF IT'S IN THE E T J AND THE OTHER IS IF IT'S IN THE CITY.
SO ALTHOUGH THEY WANNA, ALTHOUGH WHO KNOWS WHAT THE NEXT ONE IS.
WE MIGHT WANNA SEE THAT IT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT.
MAYBE THIS ONE, IF A PROPERTY IS LOCATED INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS AND IS ADJACENT OR CONTIGUOUS TO AN EXISTING PAPER STREET THAT IS PROPOSED FOR SITE ACCESS, THEN THE MINIMUM.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE CURRENT PRACTICE.
SO IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE ACCESS OFF ANOTHER RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S CONSTRUCTED, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T NEED IT FOR EGRESS, UH, EMERGENCY EGRESS, WE DON'T REQUIRE THEM TO, WOULD IT BE BETTER TO SAY AND IS USING THE PAPER STREET FOR OR PROPOSING TO USE THE PAPER STREET FOR ACCESS? 'CAUSE THAT AND IS PROPOSED.
IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU'RE PROPOSING TO USE A PAPER.
IT'S THE EXISTING PAPER STREET THAT IS PROPOSED.
THEN THE MINIMUM IS THAT IS THE REST OF, ARE YOU GOOD WITH THE REST OF THE LANGUAGE? I WOULD END IT AFTER BUILDING PERMIT THEN THE MINIMUM PAYMENT REQUIREMENTS UNDER THIS DIVISION WILL BE REQUIRED WHEN THE PROPERTY IS BEING PLOTTED OR IS REQUESTING AN APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING PERMIT.
SO, UM, PAPER STREET, AS FAR AS I KNOW, THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE IN THE CODE WHERE IT'S MENTIONED AND I HAD TO LEARN WHAT PAPER STREETS WERE.
AND SO, UM, SO SHOULD WE CALL OUT THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDED IN THE APPENDIX SOMEWHERE AS FAR AS THE DEFINITION OF PAPER STREET OR DEFINE IT HERE? SO A PLOTTED STREET THAT WAS NEVER CONCERNED.
I I I, YEAH, I HAD LEARN WHAT IT WAS, BUT, BUT OTHERS MAY NOT OR CITIZEN MAY NOT.
SO, SO JUST SOME DEFINITION SOMEWHERE THAT DEFINES WHAT A PAPER STREET IS.
PUT PAPER STREET IN PARENTHESES OR AN EXISTING PLATTED STREET THAT WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED AND PUT IN PARENTHESES STREET OR VICE VERSA.
IS THAT YEAH, THIS IS THE ONLY SECTION WHERE, WHERE IT, WHERE IT OCCURS.
SO, BUT YEAH, SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT DEFINITION SO THAT WAY ANYBODY READING WOULD UNDERSTAND WHAT IT WAS.
YEAH, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE, THOSE WORKING IN IT, IT'S JUST OUR COMMON VERNACULAR.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE READING CODE, IT'S NOT, I HAVE A QUESTION ON, UM, ACCESSIBILITY.
SOME OF THE BOND ISSUES THAT WE SAW WERE ACTUALLY PROVIDING, UH, EMERGENCY ACCESS.
SO THIS WILL ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A BOND FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS.
I MEAN BECAUSE ANY OF THESE PROPERTIES GETTING A PERMIT TODAY HAVE TO MEET FIRE CODE AND PROVIDE THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS, BOTH PERMANENT AND FOR FIRE.
AND SO MOST OF THOSE ISSUES, DEBBIE OR OLDER SITES WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE MULTIPLE ACCESS POINTS FOR DENSITY REQUIRED UNDER CODE AND NOW YOU DO.
AND SO THIS IS JUST SAYING, HEY, IF YOUR ONLY ACCESS IS THIS PIECE OF PAPER THAT SOMEONE NEVER BUILT, YOU GOTTA BUILD IT.
BUT IF YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATE AND MEET CODE WITH THAT ALTERNATE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUILD THIS.
I DO WANNA POINT OUT THAT PAPER STREET IS DEFINED IN APPENDIX A.
I WAS LIKE, WHO'S TALKING? I STARTED LOOKING AROUND.
UM, AND DEBBIE? I DID WANNA ADD, UH, STEVEN DID MENTION THAT IN THE BEGINNING WHEN HE WAS, UH, PRESENTING, WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE AS THESE ARE DEVELOPED, FIRE IS LOOKING AT THESE WHEN, WHEN, WHERE THERE'S A NECESSARY REQUIREMENT FOR THEM TO REVIEW.
SO WE MAKE SURE THAT FIRE'S INVOLVED IN THE REVIEW PROCESS AS WELL.
'CAUSE IT JUST SEEMED A LITTLE CONFUSING, UM, THAT YOU HAVE TO CHECK WITH 'EM AND DETERMINE, JUST STATING YOU'VE GOTTA HAVE EMERGENCY ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY.
[03:00:01]
THANK YOU DEBBIE.SO AS A POINT THERE, IT'S, IT IS STREET PAPER AND SO WHEN I WAS SEARCHING FOR IT, I COULDN'T FIND IT.
UM, SO, SO MY DEFENSE, I DID LOOK UP.
I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEBODY MADE A DECISION, UH, TO IDENTIFY IT AS STREET PAPER.
AND NO, WE'RE NOT GONNA AMEND THAT.
SHOULD IT BE CAPITAL OR LOWERCASE? SHOULD IT BE A DASH? OKAY.
ANY MORE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? NOPE.
UH, WILL I ENTERTAIN A MOTION? IF NOT, THIS IS DEBBIE.
RE I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED.
HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED BY DEBBIE.
I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM.
THAT IS THE END OF OUR INDIVIDUAL ITEMS HERE.
UH, WE ALREADY APPROVED THE MINUTES.
IS THERE A, IS THERE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT? MR. CHAIR? UM, WITH THE LAST FEW MEETINGS, WE'VE BEEN ENDING AROUND THREE 30.
UM, A LITTLE BIT BEFORE THAT TIMEFRAME.
I JUST WANT TO THROW OUT AN IDEA TO ADD.
I'M SO PROUD OF Y'ALL BY THE WAY.
OUR GOAL HAS BEEN 15 TO 16 AMENDMENTS, BUT UM, WE ARE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE DOING 20 FOR SURE.
SO I WAS GONNA THROW OUT TO ADD FOUR OR FIVE MORE IF THAT IS SOMETHING YOU THINK WE CAN HANDLE.
DEBBIE'S MAKING A FACE MAYBE THREE.
UH, I'M JUST, UM, RIGHT NOW WE ARE STILL ON TRACK.
I KNOW THERE'S SOME HEAVY AMENDMENTS COMING UP SOON.
UM, BUT I WANNA SEE IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY AT LEAST FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF MEETINGS TO THROW A FEW MORE ON THE AGENDA.
THAT'LL GET US THROUGH TO MAY.
AND IF WE NEED TO ADD SOME EXTRA CUSHION, WE STILL HAVE THE MEETINGS IN JUNE.
BUT HOPEFULLY THEY'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, BIG OLD MEATY ONES LIKE THE TRANSPORTATION TABLE OR STORMWATER, YOU KNOW.
WE'LL WE'LL LOOK AT THEM LESS COMPLICATED.
WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THE ORDER REMEMBER.
UM, BUT WE'LL TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE KEEPING THEM NOT SO HEAVY.
SO REGARDING LIKE THAT TRANSPORTATION, THE ONE WE ARE SENDING TO COMMITTEE, HOW ARE YOU GONNA STICK THAT BACK INTO THE FLOW? OR YOU JUST GONNA WAIT TILL AFTER THE COMMITTEE IS DONE AND THEN JUST KIND OF LOOK TO SEE WHERE THERE'S A SPOT? WE'LL HAVE TO, YEAH.
AND WE'LL, WE'LL KEEP IT, WE'LL PUT IT ON THE TOP OF THE AGENDA.
WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS BROUGHT BACK IN A TIMELY FASHION.
'CAUSE IT'S FRESH ON OUR MIND.
UH, BUT IT ALSO, UH, BASED OFF OF HOW MANY MEETINGS WILL NEED BE NEEDED FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE, UH, TO GET THROUGH THAT.
AND THEN I THINK THERE'S A QUESTION DOWN HERE.
UH, BIANCA, SO I HAD A QUESTION, AND THIS GOES BACK TO THE WHOLE DEFINITIONS.
I KNOW THAT THE SEQUENCING THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH IS THE ORDER, BUT I THINK MY CONCERN THAT I EXPRESSED TODAY IS THAT THERE ARE SOME CRITICAL DEFINITIONS THAT OUR U D C AMENDMENTS THAT I THINK WE NEED TO HEAR BEFORE WE CONSIDER AMENDMENTS THAT ARE REFERENCING THAT LANGUAGE.
UM, I THINK IT'S, IT'S JUST MORE PRACTICAL IN MOVING FORWARD AS WE ARE ADDRESSING U D C AMENDMENTS THAT ARE PERTINENT TO NEW DEFINITIONS.
UM, MAYBE I'M WRONG, MAYBE WE'RE GONNA GET INTO STORM WATER.
THERE'S GONNA BE DEFINITIONS THAT NEED TO BE UNDERSTOOD BEFORE WE TAKE ACTION IN THOSE CATEGORIES.
BUT I THINK FOR AT LEAST THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEFINITION, I'D ASK IF THAT ONE COULD BE MOVED UP TO OUR NEXT AGENDA IF POSSIBLE.
UM, AND, AND I DON'T KNOW THE OTHER ONES, MAYBE THERE'S OTHER ONES THAT ARE OUT THERE, BUT TO ME THAT ONE'S VERY CRITICAL BECAUSE IT'S TIED TO THE SHIP AND THERE ARE OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT ARE COMING FORWARD REFERENCING THAT.
AND SO I JUST WOULD REALLY, MY, MY ONLY, UM, COMMENT IS, IS AS LOGAN HAD STATED EARLIER, UH, THERE WAS AN AGREED UPON PATH TO CONSIDER THE U D C AMENDMENTS.
UH, IF WE ARE GOING TO STRAY FROM THAT, UM, THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT OF SHIFTING ON THE TENTATIVE AGENDA THAT WE'VE CREATED FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE CYCLE TO, UM, ALL THE WAY THROUGH MAY.
SO WE WILL HAVE TO RESHUFFLE ALL OF THOSE, UH, IF WE'RE MOVING U D C AMENDMENTS AROUND.
SO, UM, THAT WASN'T A STAFF DECISION, THAT WAS A COMMITTEE DECISION.
UH, THE COMMITTEE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION ON HOW THEY WANT TO MOVE THOSE ITEMS AROUND IF THEY CHOSE TO DO SO.
SO IF WE'RE NOT GONNA BRING FORWARD ALL THE DEFINITIONS FOR FEAR OF A DOMINO EFFECT ON THE TENTATIVE AGENDA, THEN CAN WE LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT ONE AMENDMENT, SPECIFICALLY THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEFINITION AND MOVE THAT ON THE AGENDA.
WE JUST TALKED ABOUT ADDING THREE TO FOUR AMENDMENTS TO POTENTIALLY THE NEXT AGENDA.
CAN THAT BE ONE OF THE AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE NEXT AGENDA WHEN NINE TO BRING THAT DEFINITION, HAVE A, A CONCERN WITH THAT? THE, THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE, WE'RE
[03:05:01]
RECOMMENDING TO ADD, WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CYCLE OR THE PRO OR THE AMENDMENTS, UH, IN THE U D C AS THEY ARE CODIFIED.SO WE WEREN'T GONNA BRING ANYTHING FROM APPENDIX A UP TO NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA.
UM, BUT IF THE COMMITTEE CHOOSES TO DO SO THERE, THAT IS AN OPTION.
SO DO WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE FOR THAT TO BE ABLE TO HAPPEN CHAIR A VOTE TO PUT AFFORDABLE THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING? IS IT ON THE NEXT AGENDA? NO, IT'S IN NO, NO MAY.
APPENDIX A IS ON THE TENTATIVE PTECH AGENDA IN MAY WITH ALL THE OTHER DEFINITIONS.
SO WHAT HAPPENS IF WE MOVE THAT ONE DEFINITION TO THE NEXT AGENDA? WELL, SHOULDN'T WE CONSIDER ALL OF APPENDIX A TOGETHER? I WOULD THINK THAT THAT'S AN OPTION, BUT IT, WE'LL HAVE TO REEVALUATE.
WE'LL HAVE TO REEVALUATE THE AGENDA.
MY ONLY CONCERN IS THERE WAS A STORM WATER CONCERN OF THE HEAVY LIFT.
WE DIDN'T WANNA PUSH THAT TO THE END OF YES.
IF WE'RE MOVING ITEMS, WE'RE GONNA START RUNNING OUTTA MEETINGS AND WE WON'T PUSH STORM WATER TO THE END OF THE P TAC MEETINGS.
I WOULD SAY WE LEAVE IT AS IS THEN JUST SEND IT OUT.
WELL IT'S ALL AVAILABLE ONLINE.
I MEAN I, WE MAY LOOK AT PULLING IT FORWARD A LITTLE BIT IF IT'S, 'CAUSE CLEARLY IT'S GOING TO BE A MORE SUBSTANTIAL CONVERSATION, BUT, BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN PULL IT ALL THE WAY TO THE FRONT.
WHEN ARE THE OTHER AFFORDABILITY AMENDMENTS COMING? WHEN, WHAT AGENDAS ARE THEY ON? ALL IN MAY, RIGHT? LAUREN? DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION? ARE IN INFORMATION? I THINK SHE HAS THE SPREADSHEET.
SO MAYBE COUPLE THE DEFINITION WITH THE NEXT HOUSING.
YEAH, I MEAN WHEN FORWARD IS THE, WHEN ARE ALL THOSE ONES RELATED? WHEN ARE THEY COMING? THEY'RE SPRINKLED.
THEY WERE ALL LATER IN THE PROCESS I THOUGHT.
'CAUSE WE HAD THE BIG TICKET ONES COMING UP AND WE WERE JUST GIVING KUDOS ON HOW WELL WE'RE DOING ON GETTING THROUGH THE AGENDA.
SO MAYBE WE WOULD HAVE ENOUGH TIME ON THAT PARTICULAR TIME TO, TO ADD THAT AS AN EXTRA ITEM FOR THAT PARTICULAR DAY.
PTAC AGENDA OR TENTATIVE AGENDAS AND LOOK AT THE DEFINITIONS TO SEE IF HOW WE CAN MOVE SOME AROUND.
JUST BE MINDFUL THAT THEY'RE COMING OUT OF ORDER.
NOT WITH THE PROCESS THAT WE ALL HAD AGREED UPON.
WELL I WOULD LOOK AND SEE WHEN WE'RE GETTING THE NEXT GROUP OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING RELATED ONES SO THAT THAT DEFINITION MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE BLENDED IN WITH THAT.
SO WE'LL DO, WE WILL LOOK AT THAT.
BUT JAY'S WASN'T AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
BUT IT WAS REFERENCING WHAT THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IS THAT I, I THINK THAT AS WE CONSIDER THESE ELEMENTS, EVEN IF IT'S SUBSTANDARD STREETS, IT'S, IT'S GIVING SOMETHING IN THE SUPPORT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT'S NOT YET BEEN DEFINED IN OUR PROCESS.
SO I JUST THINK IF WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO SUPPORT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THAT IT'S CLEARLY DEFINED WHAT THAT IS BECAUSE IT IS GETTING A NEW DEFINITION.
SO THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN IS IT'S CODIFIED.
AND THEN I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION, UH, CHAIR I MENTIONED TO YOU AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION ABOUT THE EXTERNAL AMENDMENTS THAT ARE COMING TO P TTAC TO HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE FOR SOME OF THOSE BEFORE THEY COME FORWARD.
UM, BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT MAY NEED TO BE WORKED OUT.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DISCUSS NOW OR ASK FOR IT TO BE PUT ON THE NEXT AGENDA FOR THAT TO BE CREATED.
UM, I THINK THAT THOSE HAVE TO COME TO THE TAC BEFORE WE DECIDE AFTER GOING TO SUBCOMMITTEE WOULD BE THE WAY I WOULD SAY WE HAVE TO DO IT.
WELL, COULD WE NOT AGENDIZE AN ITEM THOUGH TO DECIDE IF THOSE GO TO COMMITTEE BEFORE EVEN COMING HERE? WELL, WELL WE WILL HAVE TO REVIEW THOSE ITEMS BEFORE DECIDING GOING TO SUBCOMMITTEE.
THE TECH WOULD NEED TO REVIEW EACH AMENDMENT TO, TO DETERMINE IF THERE, JUST LIKE WE DID TODAY, THERE WAS A DECISION AFTER REVIEWING IT, THAT THERE WAS CLARIFYING LANGUAGE THAT OR MORE DISCUSSION THAT NEEDED TO HAPPEN.
THERE WAS A DECISION FOR A SUBCOMMITTEE TO BE CREATED.
THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION WAY THE, THAT WAY THE TECH MEMBERS HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT AND CAN PERHAPS WE COULD JUST PROPOSE THAT HOUSING DEFINITION OUT BECAUSE ISN'T THAT THAT DEFINITION'S POSSIBLE? I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT WE CAN WE DISTRIBUTE IT? 'CAUSE IT'S BEEN APPROVED BY COUNSEL.
SO IT'S NOT OPEN FOR DISCUSSION BY US.
AT LEAST IF EVERYBODY SAW IT, THERE MIGHT BE.
SO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEFINITION IS NOT ONE OF OUR AMENDMENTS.
IT'S ALREADY AN EXISTING, IT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL.
OH, ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS, BUT OH, IT IS ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS.
[03:10:05]
SO WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW, SUSAN IS ADDING IT TO THE U D C BOTH SUSAN, SORRY.SO YOU'RE SAYING CAN WE PULL THAT FORWARD IS WHAT SOMEBODY SAID OR JUST DISTRIBUTE THE DEFINITION SO EVERYBODY HAS A CHANCE TO REVIEW, LOOK AT IT, UNDERSTAND IT.
WE CAN SEND OUT THE NEW POLICIES THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, WITH, UM, SHIP AND THE PERMANENT HOUSING.
I'M SAYING THAT WRONG, PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING COMPONENT.
UH, WE CAN MAKE SURE WE SEND THAT INFORMATION OUT.
UM, I KNOW SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR I'M SORRY, THE HOUSING COMMISSION OR THE SUBCOMMITTEES.
SO, UH, THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT.
BUT WE'LL MAKE SURE WE SEND THAT INFORMATION OUT TO EVERYONE.
AND WE ALREADY HAVE COMMITTED TO LOOKING TO SEE WHERE THE, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROPOSED DEFINITION THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH SHIP WILL BE ON THE NEXT AGENDA OR WHICH AGENDA IT'LL BE ON.
WE, WE'LL, WE'LL CONFIRM IF IT'S GONNA BE ON THE NEXT ONE OR WHAT SPECIFIC AGENDA WILL BE ON AGENDA.
AND THEN WE, REGARDING BIANCA'S LAST QUESTION, WE'RE GOING TO EACH ONE THAT SHE'S, SHE WANTS TO SEE, GO TO A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT WE'RE GONNA BRING IT TO TACK FIRST AND THEN TACK WILL HAVE TO, AFTER WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT, ALL THE MEMBERS HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT.
THEN WE CAN MAKE A DECISION WHETHER IT'S GONNA SUBCOMMITTEE OR NOT, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT.
UH, I JUST WANTED TO APOLOGIZE FOR ARRIVING A LITTLE LATE BECAUSE OF SOME TRAVEL RATED TRAVEL RELATED DELAYS.
AND, UH, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE RECORD MENTIONED THAT I DID ARRIVE, I THINK DURING THE DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION POINTS? JUST WANNA LET EVERYBODY KNOW I WILL BE NOT AT THE NEXT T MEETING.
AND YOU'LL BE HERE, RIGHT? CHAIR OF THE MEETING? YEAH, WE COORDINATED OUR DAYS OFF.
I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU APPROVED THIS.
IF THAT'S IT, IT IS 3 53 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.