[00:00:01]
ALL RIGHT EVERYBODY.LET'S CALL OUR MONDAY, APRIL 25TH, UH, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING TO ORDER.
UM, STAFF, PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL.
I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE STUCK IN TRAFFIC RIGHT NOW.
UM, I'M SURE THERE IS DUE TO THE RAIN, SO YEAH, IT WAS PRETTY BAD.
AS PEOPLE TRICKLE IN, IF WE CAN JUST IDENTIFY WHAT TIME THEY COME IN, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
MR. FULLERTON? MR. HENLEY? MR. BROWN? HERE.
MS. TACKETT? MS. FAIRMONT? HERE.
MR. ZUKI? MR. GARCIA AND CHAIR PECK PRESENT? DO WE HAVE A QUORUM? A QUORUM IS PRESENT.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND JUMP TO THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST TIME.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? IF NOT ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES? WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY BIANCA SECOND.
A SECOND BY, I DIDN'T SEE WHO THAT WAS.
[Public Comment ]
WE'LL MOVE RIGHT INTO PUBLIC COMMENT.IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? YEAH, WE HAVE, UH, SEVERAL VOICEMAILS AND THEN WE'LL DO A SUMMARY OF THE WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED.
NOBODY IS PRESENT TO SPEAK, CORRECT? I, YES, THERE'S ONE PERSON.
LET'S DO THAT ONE FIRST AND THEN WE'LL GO INTO THE VOICEMAILS AND THE OTHERS.
I, I THINK I CAN SAVE THE COMMITTEE SOME TIME IF I JUST, EXCUSE ME ONE SECOND FOR THE RECORD.
MR. HANLEY HAS ENTERED THE ROOM.
UM, JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION OF, I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM I WAS GONNA SPEAK ON 16 THREE AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT'S BEEN WITHDRAWN.
I DON'T NEED TO SPEAK IF 16 THREE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
YEAH, SO IT HAS NOT BEEN FORMALLY WITHDRAWN YET, BUT WE ARE ANTICIPATING IT WILL BE THE APPLICANT IS IN THE, THE, THE SEATS OVER THERE.
DO YOU JUST WANT A AUDIENCE? THE STANDS, UH,
BUT WE ARE ANTICIPATING IT WILL BE WITHDRAWN.
THEN I WILL SAVE EVERYONE'S TIME AS AND NOT SPEAK ON 16 THREE.
DO WE HAVE NACHOS FOR SALE? IF WE HAVE STANDS? I MEAN, I'M JUST WONDERING.
YEAH, THEY'LL, THEY'LL BE COMING AROUND
SO LET'S MOVE ON INTO THE VOICEMAILS AND WE OWN A HOME AT 1 29 CROFTON IN SAN ANTONIO, AND I WOULD URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THE U D C AMENDMENT, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER ONE ON YOUR APRIL 25TH MEETING, 16 DASH TWO, WHICH PERTAINS TO THE S T TWOS.
AND I, AGAIN, URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THAT TO PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS BY LIMITING THE NUMBER OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS OPERATED BY OWNERS, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO DON'T, DO NOT LIVE ON THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT INVESTED IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, THE SCHOOLS, OR THE COMMUNITY.
I HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH THIS IN DENVER, COLORADO WHERE MANY NEIGHBORHOODS WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE STR AND IT WAS VERY DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, PARKING WAS A HUGE ISSUE, UH, PEOPLE COMING IN AND OUT, UH, NO ONE ON SITE THAT WAS MANAGING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WERE STAYING IN THE HOMES AND NUMEROUS OTHER PROBLEMS. I WOULD HATE TO SEE THAT, UH, IN MANY OF OUR SMALLER NEIGHBORHOODS AS WELL AS OUR HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO AGAIN, I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT 16 DASH TWO.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE RECORD, IT IS 1238 AND CARAT ATTACK HAS ENTERED THE ROOM.
I SUPPORT THE U D C AMENDMENT 16 TWO, WHICH
[00:05:01]
PROVIDES CLARIFICATION ON THE DENSITY CALCULATION OF 12.5% REGARDING STR TWOS.PLEASE HELP PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY OF HISTORIC DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
COLLEEN PAC 1603 TARTAN LANE, SAN ANTONIO, 7 8 2 3 1 2 1 0 2 5 9 7 0 6 7.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I'M AM SPEAKING TODAY AS PRESIDENT OF AND ON BEHALF OF NORTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS FOR ORGANIZED DEVELOPMENT, ALSO KNOWN AS NOD, WE REQUEST THAT YOU SUPPORT PROPOSED U D C AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO AND 16 DASH THREE.
THESE AMENDMENTS SLIGHTLY CURB THE PROLIFERATION OF TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTALS, WHICH IN THE AREAS WHERE THEY ARE MOST DENSE ARE AFFECTING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
TYPE TWO, SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE ALSO CONTRIBUTING TO THE EROSION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT A TIME WHEN HOUSING DEMAND IS OUTPACING HOUSING CONSTRUCTION, NOT ALSO REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED U D C AMENDMENT 16 DASH SIX, 16 DASH EIGHT AND 16 DASH 11.
THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN CRAFTED TO IMPROVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGHOUT SAN ANTONIO SINCE ITS INCEPTION, NOT HAS SUPPORTED EFFORTS TO MAINTAIN THE STABILITY OF NEIGHBORHOODS, AS WELL AS WORKING WITH THE CITY TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CITIZENS TO PARTICIPATE, BUT PROVIDING INPUT AND DEVELOPMENT AFFECTING THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE BELIEVE THAT THESE AMENDMENTS PUT FORTH BY THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION ARE IMPORTANT TO INCREASING PUBLIC INPUT AND MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF NEIGHBORHOODS.
WITH PUT OUTPUTTING UNDUE RESTRAINTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR PTAC SUPPORT FOR THESE AMENDMENTS.
MY ADDRESS IS TWO FOUR ONE KING WILLIAM.
MY TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (210) 224-9756.
I'M CALLING TO SUPPORT THE U D C AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO, WHICH PROVIDES CLARIFICATION OF THE DENSITY CALCULATION OF THE 12.5% REGARDING S STR TWOS.
PLEASE HELP PRESERVE THE NE THE NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY OF HISTORIC DISTRICTS IN THE CITY BY PASSING THIS AMENDMENT.
THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, UH, LOTS ARE SMALLER AND MUCH MORE VARIED.
OFTEN WITH THIS DEFINITION OF, UH, DENSITY, WE END UP WITH A MINORITY OF HOMEOWNERS LIVING IN HOUSES ON A BLOCK, WHICH REALLY UNDERMINES THE CHARACTER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, EVEN, UH, EVEN NEIGHBORHOODS OUTSIDE.
LOOP 1604, IF THIS WERE TRUE, WOULD BE A PROBLEM.
AGAIN, I SUPPORT THE U D C AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO.
MY NAME IS JOHN HURD, JOHN ROBERT HURD, AND MY ADDRESS IS 1 4 6 CEDAR STREET, UNIT 1 0 1, UH, SAN ANTONIO 7 8 2 1 OH.
AND UM, I SUPPORT THE U D C AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO, WHICH PROVIDES CLARIFICATION OF THE DENSITY CALCULATION OF 12.5%.
REGARDING, UH, STR TWOS, PLEASE HELP PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY OF HISTORIC DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
UM, WE WANT TO HAVE, UM, RULES THAT REASONABLY RESTRICT THE USE OF, UH, PROPERTY BY NON-RESIDENT OWNERS WHO DON'T HAVE A STAKE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AND, UH, IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT, UH, CONSIDERATION TO PRESERVE, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY OF, UH, OF OUR HISTORICAL DISTRICT OF KING WILLIAM.
IT IS 1243 AND MR. ZUKI HAS ENTERED THE ROOM.
THE COMPUTER'S LOADING THE NEXT ONE.
DIDN'T LIKE THAT, I INTERRUPTED IT.
[00:10:29]
HI, MY NAME IS GEORGE DE LA GARZA.I RESIDE AT 4 4 3 CHADWELL DRIVE, 7 8 2 2 8.
UH, MY NUMBER IS 2 1 0 6 1 8 6 2 6 1 2 OH.
I'M A MEMBER OF THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UM, THE COALITION AND THE JEFFERSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I WAS A TASK FORCE MEMBER OF THE 2008 JEFFERSON N C D, THE 2017 I D C TASK FORCE AND THE 2019 R M M S TASK FORCE.
I'M HERE TO ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON AMENDMENT 16, 2 16, 3 16, 5 16, 6 16, 8 AND 1613.
I'M PARTICULARLY ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT 16 FIVE AS COORDINATED EFFORTS WITH THE VARIOUS GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE ASSURED NEIGHBORHOODS, THE MARKETS, AND THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY COORDINATED WITH THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IN CREATING VIABLE SOLUTIONS FOR HALF STORY DEVELOPMENTS FOR BOTH ONE AND A HALF, AND TWO AND A HALF STORIES SMART GROWTH RESULTS IN COORDINATED, WORKABLE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.
LET'S REWARD THE HARD WORK FROM ALL THE ASSOCIATED PARTIES WITH YOUR SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENTS.
16 2 16, 3 16, 5 16, 6 16, 8 AND 1613.
KATE CAMPBELL, 10 10 SOUTH FLORES STREET, SAN ANTONIO.
YES, THIS IS KATE CAMPBELL, 10 10 SOUTH FLORES.
I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT OF THE U D C AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO, WHICH PROVIDES CLARIFICATION OF THE DENSITY CALCULATION OF 12.5% REGARDING S T TWO.
PLEASE, I URGE YOU TO PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY OF HISTORIC DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
HELLO, THIS IS KATHLEEN TRENCHARD.
UM, I LIVE AT 1 0 5 NORTH JOSEPHINE TOBIN DRIVE AT 7 8 2 0 1 IN THE CITY, UH, DISTRICT SEVEN AND I SUPPORT THE U D C AMENDMENT 16 TWO PROVIDING CLARIFICATION OF THE DENSITY CALCULATION OF 12.5% REGARDING ST TWO.
UM, THAT'S THE NUMBER TWO WITH AN S.
PLEASE, UH, PRESERVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY, ESPECIALLY IN OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT.
HELLO, MY NAME'S CARRIE MCKEAN AND I'M CALLING ON BEHALF OF MY HUSBAND AND MYSELF.
WE ARE AT 3 26 MISSION STREET IN SAN ANTONIO AND WE'RE CALLING IN SUPPORT OF THE U D C AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO, WHICH CLARIFIES THE DENSITY CALCULATION OF 12.5% REGARDING SDR TWOS.
I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF SDR TWOS THAT ARE POPPING UP IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND I FEEL AN INCREASING SENSE OF TRANSIENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS COMPROMISING OUR FEELING OF COMMUNITY.
PLEASE CONSIDER COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS WHEN YOU'RE VOTING ON THIS.
I, MY WIFE AND I ARE HOMEOWNERS AT 2 0 2 MADISON IN SAN ANTONIO, 7 8 2 0 4 IN THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION, OR KING WILLIAM HISTORICAL DISTRICT.
I JUST WANTED TO CALL TO SAY THAT I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE U D C AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO PROVIDING SOME CLARIFICATION OF THE DENSITY CALCULATION REGARDING S T R TWO.
I WOULD HOPE THIS WOULD HELP PRESERVE THE HISTORIC QUALITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
WE OWN A HOME IN THE 200 BLOCK OF KING WILLIAM, AND SINCE ACQUIRING THIS HOME APPROXIMATELY FOUR YEARS AGO, I'M NOW LOOKING ON MY FRONT PORCH DOWN THE STREET.
I'M LOOKING AT THREE HOMES OUT OF THE CONSUMING FIVE HOMES DOWN THE STREET THAT HAVE BEEN TURNED INTO SHORT TERM RENTAL,
[00:15:01]
OBVIOUSLY OF SOME CONCERN TO ME BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE SAME QUALITY OF OCCUPANCY THAT WE NORMALLY EXPECT WHEN WE HAVE SINGLE FAMILY OWNERS OCCUPYING THESE PROPERTIES.AND IF IT CONTINUES, IT'S GOING TO CHANGE IN THE NEGATIVE SENSE ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LISTENING.
IF YOU HAVE A TELEPHONE, IF YOU HAVE A MESSAGE OR CALL ME BACK, PLEASE.
AREA CODE 8 3 0 5 7 0 7 5 6 5.
VERIFY THE CLAIM AND THE DISCOVERY HAPPENING AS, HELLO, MY NAME IS LAURA HAAS AND I LIVE AT FOUR 10 ADAMS STREET.
I SUPPORT THE U D C AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO, WHICH PROVIDES CLARIFICATION OF THE DENSITY CALCULATION OF 12.5% REGARDING S T R TWOS.
PLEASE HELP PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY OF HISTORIC DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
MY NAME IS LORI SACKETT, 1 3 9 CEDAR STREET, UNIT TWO, UM, AND CALLING ABOUT AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF NON HOMEOWNER OCCUPIED RENTALS.
WE LIVE NEXT DOOR TO TWO, UH, AIRBNB SLASH VRBO UNITS, UM, DRUNKENNESS PEOPLE OUT AT ONE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING HAVING WILD PARTIES WHILE WE'RE TRYING TO SLEEP.
CIGARETTE BUTTS LEFT IN OUR DRIVEWAY.
UM, BRO PARTIES WITH CASES OF BEER GOING IN, AND HONESTLY, IT'S JUST TIRESOME AND IN MY VIEW, UH, LIMITING THE NUMBER REALLY WILL ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN KING WILLIAM.
FOR THOSE OF US WHO LIVE THERE, PLEASE, UH, GIVE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO LIMITING THE NUMBER OF NON-OWNER OCCUPIED RENTALS.
OH, TELEPHONE NUMBER (503) 318-7849.
HELLO, MY NAME IS LEANNE LESTER.
MY ADDRESS IS SIX 13 MISSION STREET, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS SEVEN EIGHT TWO ONE ZERO.
MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 872-2364.
I SUPPORT THE U D C AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO, WHICH PROVIDES CLARIFICATION OF THE DENSITY CALCULATION OF 12.5%.
REGARDING T TWOS, PLEASE HELP PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY OF HISTORIC DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
PLEASE TAKE WHAT I'VE SAID INTO CONSIDERATION.
WE NEED TO PRESERVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
HELLO, THIS IS MARGARET LEEDS.
I RESIDE AT THREE ZERO EIGHT KING WILLIAM.
MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 393-5223.
I URGE THE PASSING OF AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO SECTION 35 DASH 3 7 4 0.01.
SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN ORDER TO RESTRICT TO 12.5% WITH NO ROUNDING UP THE NUMBER OF TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS TO BE ALLOWED ON A BLOCK FACE IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
TYPE TWO ST WITH ABSENTEE LANDLORDS ARE INHABITED INTERMITTENTLY BY STRANGERS WHO OFTEN DEMONSTRATE NO CONCERN FOR THE RESIDENTIAL NATURE OF THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THIS PRACTICE OF INSERTING A BUSINESS VENTURE INTO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD REMOVES THE NEIGHBOR FROM NEIGHBORHOOD AND UNFORTUNATELY IT ALSO REDUCES ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SAN ANTONIO RESIDENTS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF MY REQUEST.
HELLO, MY NAME IS MARIKA EMMETT.
THAT'S IN THE KING WILLIAM AREA.
MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 472-1600.
I'M CALLING ABOUT U D C AMENDMENT NUMBER 16 DASH TWO SHORT TERM RENTAL TWOS.
I'M ASKING YOU TO SUPPORT THE U D C AMENDMENT LINE 16 DASH TWO PERTAINING TO STR TWOS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF OUR KING WILLIAM RESIDENTIAL AREA BY LIMITING THE NUMBER OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS OPERATED
[00:20:01]
BY OWNERS WHO DO NOT LIVE ON THE PROPERTY AND WHO ARE NOT INVESTED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS OR QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES.WITHIN ONE BLOCK OF MY HOME, THERE ARE THREE, UH, NON-OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES THAT I KNOW OF.
THERE COULD BE MORE, UM, THEY CAUSE OF COURSE, A LOT OF ECONOMIC PRESSURE BECAUSE THEY, UM, INCREASE THE PRICE OF THE HOMES, UH, BY THE CASH FLOW THAT THEY CAN GENERATE.
THEY ALSO, OF COURSE, ROB THE POSSIBILITY OF REAL PEOPLE LIVING HERE AND CONTRIBUTING TO OUR RESIDENTIAL AND CULTURAL LIFE OF KING WILLIAM.
UM, ALTHOUGH TWO OF THOSE THREE ARE MANAGED, WELL MANAGED BY LOCAL NEIGHBORS, UM, A THIRD OF, UH, THE THIRD SHORT TERM RIDDLE IS OWNED BY OUT OF TOWN PEOPLE.
UM, IT'S A SMALL COTTAGE ON ADAMS STREET AND IT ADVERTISES THAT IT CAN ACCOMMODATE 13 PEOPLE AND THAT IT HAS OFF STREET PARKING.
WELL, THERE IS ONE GRAVEL SPACE, UH, IN THE DARK ALLEY BEHIND THE HOUSE, BUT PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO, UH, RENTERS DON'T WANT TO USE THAT.
I LIVE AT THREE 10 MADISON STREET, SEVEN EIGHT TWO ZERO FOUR IN KING WILLIAM.
MY PHONE NUMBER'S TWO TEN SIX THREE NINE THIRTEEN THIRTY NINE AND I'M CALLING TO VOICE MY SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT SIX 16 DASH TWO PERTAINING TO THE SHORT TERM RENTALS.
THIS IS NICK LESTER OF SIX 13 MISSION STREET, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 0.
I SUPPORT THE U D C AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO, WHICH PROVIDES CLARIFICATION OF THE DENSITY CALCULATION OF 12.5%.
REGARDING STR TWOS, PLEASE HELP PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY OF OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
I LIVE IN 1 46 CEDAR STREET, UNIT 1 0 1 IN SAN ANTONIO, 7 8 2 1 0.
MY FOUR NUMBER IS 2 1 0 4 1 3 5 0 0 6.
PLEASE SUPPORT THE U D C AMENDMENT ITEM 16 DASH TWO PERTAINING TO SDR TWOS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS BY LIMITING THE NUMBER OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS OPERATED BY OWNERS WHO DO NOT LIVE ON THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT INVESTED IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, SCHOOLS, OR QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES.
HI, MY NAME IS GRETCHEN ROSE, R O S E TWO 15 MISSION STREET, SAN ANTONIO, 7 8 2 1 0.
AND I'M CALLING TO SUPPORT THE U D C AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO PROVIDING CLARIFICATION OF THE DENSITY CALCULATION OF 12.5%.
REGARDING T TWOS, PLEASE HELP PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY OF HISTORIC DISTRIBU.
THANK YOU, ROSE KOWSKI, 6 0 3 MISSION STREET, 2 1 0 5 3 2 1 7 3 8.
I'M CALLING REGARDING THE U D C AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO THAT CLARIFIES THE DENSITY OF TYPE TWO STR.
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS WHERE I LIVE PARTICULARLY THAT WE REDUCE THE NUMBER OF NON-OWNER OCCUPIED ST.
IT WOULD BE TERRIBLE TO HAVE ANY ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS HOLLOWED OUT BY THESE BUSINESSES AND THEY ARE BUSINESSES.
I AM THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION BOARD.
I'M CALLING ABOUT U D C AMENDMENT, REVISED AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO REGARDING SHORT TERM RENTALS.
PLEASE BE ADVISED ON APRIL 20TH, 2022, THE KEEN WILLIAM ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO SUPPORT THE REVISED U D C AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO, WHICH PROVIDES CLARIFICATION OF THE DENSITY CALCULATION OF 12.5% REGARDING SDR.
TWOS, THE REVISED AMENDMENT HAS THE SUPPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
MCKEAN WILLIAM HISTORIC DISTRICT IS THE OLDEST HISTORIC DISTRICT IN TEXAS, REGISTERED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF
[00:25:01]
HISTORIC PLACES CREATED AND PROTECTED BY CITY ORDINANCE.PLEASE PASS U D C AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO AND PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY OF KEENE WILLIAM AND OTHER HISTORIC DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
THOSE ARE ALL THE VOICEMAILS WE HAVE.
SO FOR UM, WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE DASH EIGHT ONE, UM, WRITTEN COMMENT IN NEUTRAL FOR FIVE DASH 5 7 1 IN SUPPORT FOR 16 DASH ONE FOUR IN SUPPORT FOR 16 DASH TWO EIGHT IN SUPPORT AND 18 IN OPPOSITION.
WE DID RECEIVE A LETTER FROM THE SHORT TERM RENTAL ASSOCIATION OF SAN ANTONIO IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO FOR 16 DASH THREE FIVE IN SUPPORT AND 18 IN OPPOSITION FOR 16 DASH FIVE THREE IN SUPPORT FOR 16 DASH SIX FOUR IN SUPPORT FOR 16 DASH EIGHT FOUR IN SUPPORT AND FOR 16 DASH 11 FOUR IN SUPPORT.
WE DID EMAIL ALL THESE PUBLIC COMMENTS TO THE PTAC THIS MORNING AND THAT CONCLUDES THE WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS.
[New Business ]
BUSINESS.SO ITEM NUMBER ONE IS CONTINUED FROM APRIL 11TH MEETING, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO.
I LIVE AT 2 43 E SATCH SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 2.
I'M A MEMBER OF THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION STEERING COMMITTEE.
I WAS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE CITY SHORT TERM RENTAL TASK FORCE IN 2019.
ON BEHALF OF THE TIER ONE AND NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION, WE HAVE SUBMITTED AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO AND 16 DASH THREE TO ADDRESS THE DENSITY ISSUES ATTRIBUTED TO TYPE TWO NON-OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
THE PROLIFERATION OF TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTALS HAS A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT ALSO IMPACTS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING MARKET BY REMOVING DWELLING UNITS FROM THE LONG-TERM RENTAL MARKET AS WELL AS THE OWNER OCCUPIED MARKET.
TIER ONE UNDERSTANDS THE CITY'S CONCERNS IN PROPOSING MAJOR AMENDMENTS TO THE CURRENT TYPE TWO CODE, BUT MAYBE AN EDIT IN CLARIFICATION TO THE CODE IS A BETTER CHOICE FOR ALL CONCERN.
AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION AND SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO REFLECT AND EDIT AND CLARIFICATION TO THE DENSITY LIMITATION FOR TYPE TWO.
IT IS NOT A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT CODE, BUT AN EDIT AND A CLARIFICATION TO THE CODE CODE.
WE BELIEVE THIS CLARIFICATION ADDRESSES OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS.
CAN WE SHOW THE CURRENT LANGUAGE AND HAVE STAFF SPEAK TO IT? YEAH, SO WE, WE JUST PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN.
UH, AGAIN, THIS WAS ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 11TH MEETING.
UH, WE WENT AHEAD AND SENT OUT, UH, TO THE TAC THE UPDATED AND REVISED LANGUAGE.
SO YOU, UH, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
REALLY WHAT THIS AMENDMENT SEEKS TO DO IS CLARIFY THAT WHEN IT COMES TO THE 12.5% LIMITATION, WE'RE NOT GONNA ROUND.
SO IF YOU TAKE 12.5% OF THE DWELLING UNITS ON A BLOCK FACE, IF THAT COMES OUT TO 1.7, UH, TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTALS, WE'RE NOT GONNA ROUND UP TO TWO.
THAT SECOND UNIT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
THE LANGUAGE IN YELLOW AND BLUE, UH, KIND OF BETWEEN ONE AND TWO, UH, PART OF ONE, UH, THAT ACTUALLY CAME FROM DISCUSSION THIS MORNING AND IT REALLY JUST REINFORCES, UH, THE LANGUAGE ABOVE.
AND IT IT GOES ON TO SAY THAT, UH, ON UH, OR AFTER, UH, JANUARY 1ST, 2023, WHICH WE ANTICIPATE BEING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS, IF YOU WERE A TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL THAT WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED BY ROUNDING, YOU WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO RENEW WITHOUT GOING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
IF YOU ARE SUBMITTING A BRAND NEW APPLICATION, YOU DO NOT BENEFIT FROM THAT ROUNDING.
[00:30:01]
BEING ON THE SAME BLOCK FACE AS SOMEONE ELSE WHO DID.YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO GET THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
SO THE, THE LETTER THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE SHORT TERM, UH, RENTAL ASSOCIATION SAID WE SUPPORT THIS PROVIDED THAT THOSE THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN THEIR PERMIT, OUR GRANDFATHERED, THIS LANGUAGE IS THERE JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT THE GRANDFATHERING, UH, IS, UH, PERTAINING TO.
AND LOGAN, THE CITY DIDN'T THINK THAT THIS, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS ALREADY SOME WHERE DO WE STAND ON LEGAL FOOTING.
THIS DOESN'T, I MEAN, THERE'S HUGE SYMPATHY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
THERE'S SO MUCH CHANGE IN SHORT-TERM RENTAL OWNERSHIP OF HOMES.
THINGS IS, WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS STILL, DOESN'T CHANGE THE STANDING LEGALLY OF THE ORDINANCE OR WHERE IT'S HEADED.
NO, THE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS REVIEWED THIS LANGUAGE AND WE'RE COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD.
I HAD SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
UM, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU BECAUSE IF YOU REALLY TAKE A LOOK AT WHERE THE AMENDMENT IS TODAY AND WHERE IT WAS WHEN IT WAS INITIALLY SUBMITTED, IT HAS MORPHED SIGNIFICANTLY, UM, TO COME TO JUST AN EDIT AND CLARIFYING SITUATION TO TRULY ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENTS TODAY.
MANY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE DOWN IN THE KING WILLIAM AREA.
UM, AND IN THAT AREA THERE WERE A LOT OF GRANDFATHERED SHORT-TERM RENTALS THAT WERE IN THERE IN ADDITION TO THE DENSITY LIMIT.
SO THEY WERE ALREADY SEEING THE PRESSURES.
AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE DISTRICT ONE AREA HAS THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF, UH, SHORT TERM RENTALS IN THE ENTIRE CITY.
THEY HAVE 34%, DISTRICT TWO IS RIGHT BEHIND THEM AT 18%, AND DISTRICT SEVEN RANKS IN THIRD AT 9%.
AND WHEN YOU GO UP NORTH TO DISTRICTS EIGHT, NINE, AND 10, THEY HAVE FIVE, SIX AND 8% RESPECTIVELY.
SO YOU CAN REALLY SEE THAT AN ORDINANCE OF THIS NATURE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S FOR CITYWIDE, IT WILL DRASTICALLY IMPACT A CERTAIN AREA MORE SO THAN ANOTHER WITH RESPECT TO THE DENSITY.
UM, AND SO I THINK THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT.
I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT FOR THE RECORD THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED.
UM, AS YOU HEARD STAFF ANNOUNCE THAT THERE WERE 18 IN OPPOSITION TO THIS AMENDMENT.
THOSE COMMENTS FOR OPPOSITION WERE GIVEN BACK IN FEBRUARY.
THAT WAS BEFORE THE AMENDMENT CHANGED TO WHERE IT IS TODAY.
AND ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS SHE SHELLY UH, ALBRIGHT WITH THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ASSOCIATION WAS IN OPPOSITION TO THE INITIAL PROPOSAL OF 16 TWO AND 16 THREE.
AND SHE SUBMITTED A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE AMENDED AMENDMENT THAT IS BEFORE US TODAY THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
SO I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT FOR THE THE RECORD BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT WHEN WE DO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT.
AND WHAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT IS IT'S AN EXTERNAL AMENDMENT.
SO IT WAS ALREADY HEARD AT PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO PEOPLE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT AT THAT POINT.
AND WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS A COLLABORATION OF WORKING THROUGH, UM, SOMETHING TO FIND A COMMON GROUND.
AND ONE LAST THING, AND THIS IS KAT, I SPOKE TO YOU ABOUT THIS, UH, AN EDIT TO THIS EDIT.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE WORD, UM, UNDER EXAMPLE IT SAYS 14 HOMES.
SO INSTEAD OF HOMES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LANGUAGE AND THE ORDINANCE, IT SHOULD BE DWELLING UNIT.
AND SO I'LL MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
DEBBIE, RE SECOND THE QUESTION.
YEAH, UH, LOGAN, UH, THIS IS ROBERT HANLEY.
ONE IN YOUR COMMENTARY A FEW MINUTES AGO YOU SAID, AS WE DISCUSSED THIS MORNING, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHO WAS THE WE THAT WAS DISCUSSING IT.
AND THEN I HAVE A SECOND QUESTION.
SO THE, THAT WAS, UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
EVERYBODY THAT SPOKE ON THE PUBLIC COMMENTS WAS TALKING ABOUT HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS AND, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, THEIR, THEIR COMMENTS.
SO WILL THIS, UH, AMENDMENT APPLY ONLY TO HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS OR IS THIS CITYWIDE? THIS IS A CITYWIDE IMPACT FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS, MANNA.
SO IN PROTECTING THE HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOODS, WE'RE GONNA PENALIZE THE ARREST OF THE CITY.
SO I, THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNED TO, TO ALLOW FOR THE OPERATION OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS WHILE BALANCING THE IMPACT THEY HAVE ON NEIGHBORHOODS.
WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED HAVE BEEN IN OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS NEAR DOWNTOWN.
SO I THINK THAT THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE, HAVE, UH, THEY'VE BEEN MUCH MORE IMPACTED THAN NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
UH, THIS AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT 12.5% OF THE DWELLING UNITS ON A BLOCK FACE ARE ALLOWED TO BE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTALS WITHOUT GOING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
REALLY THE ONLY CHANGE IS THE CLARIFICATION THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA ROUND UP
[00:35:01]
IF THE MATH WORKS OUT TO 1.79 SHORT-TERM RENTALS.UH, SO THAT IF YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF THE ADJUSTMENT AND IT GETS APPROVED, IS IT A NON-CONFORMING USE? NO, THAT THAT IS A LEGAL CONFORMING USE 'CAUSE IT WAS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED THROUGH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
AND THERE'S NO WAY TO TIE THIS AMENDMENT THIS 16.2 TO HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
THE SHORT TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE TODAY APPLIES CITYWIDE.
IT WOULD BE AN ALTOGETHER SEPARATE PROCESS TO REWRITE THE ORDINANCE TO APPLY TO CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS.
THIS IS DEBBIE REED AND I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT.
I DON'T LIVE IN HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE ARE SEEING THE SHORT TERM RENTALS INCREASING TO THE POINT THESE, I MEAN THESE HOMES ARE IN THE CURRENT OWNERS.
NO ONE PARTICIPATES IN THE COMMUNITY.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS.
LAST WEEK I HAD, UM, THE HOUSE CATTY-CORNERED FROM ME, THREE BEDROOM HOUSE, SIX CARS EVERY DAY FOR A WEEK.
COULD I ASK STAFF TO PICK, PUT OUT THE MAP? CAN YOU PUT UP THE MAP THAT SHOWS THE, THE PERMITS FOR THE CITY? IT'S THE, UM, THE OVERLAY.
KARA HAS A QUESTIONAL QUESTIONS VERSUS, SO IN 16 TWO WE'VE KEPT THE LANGUAGE BLOCK FACE AND IN 16 THREE WE'VE STRUCK FACE.
AND IN THE PREVIOUS VERSION OF 16 TWO WE STRUCK FACE.
SO FOR ME, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 16 TWO THAT KEEPS BLOCK FACE FOR THE CALCULATION AND 16 THREE, THIS IS BLOCK, SO 16 THREE, WE ARE ANTICIPATING THAT WOULD BE WITHDRAWN.
I HAVEN'T, I HAVEN'T FINISHED MY STATEMENT.
FOR THE RECORD, IT'S ONE 10 AND MR. FULLTON HAS ENTERED THE ROOM MANNA.
SO, UM, YEAH, CAN YOU CITY OR SO GIVE US, WHAT'S THE DEFINITION BETWEEN BLOCK AND BLOCK FACE? I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE ORDINANCE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE'VE TAKEN THINGS IN AND OUT.
SO BLOCK FACE IS ONE SIDE OF THE STREET BETWEEN TWO INTERSECTING STREETS.
IF IT WERE OPENED UP TO BLOCK, YOU WOULD CALCULATE THE DENSITY BASED ON THE UNITS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE, SO IT'S TWICE THE NUMBER IF IT'S BLOCK FACE VERSUS BLOCK.
THE BIG DIFFERENCE, BIG DIFFERENCE.
SO, SO, UM, LAST WEEK IN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, WE HAD, UH, FOUR CASES, FOUR, UH, SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
UH, 'CAUSE THEY CONTINUED TO HAVE THE DIALOGUE, BUT TWO OF THEM, ONE OF 'EM INTERESTINGLY HAD 33 STR WITHIN THREE BLOCKS.
SO, SO, AND WAS NOT A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SO IT WAS PRETTY DENSE WITH REGARDS TO WHAT WAS THERE.
AND SO I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS HERE.
UM, YOU KNOW, BUT THE SECOND HALF OF THAT DIALOGUE IS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, UM, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IS THERE FOR PEOPLE THAT DO HAVE THAT QUESTION THAT WANNA MOVE THROUGH.
AND THERE ARE TIMES WHEN WE DO APPROVE IT.
AND SO BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, IF IT MAKES SENSE FROM A COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE AND THERE'S FEEDBACK THAT MAKES SENSE, THEN, THEN YES, IT KIND OF WORKS THROUGH.
AND SO I THINK IT GOES, YOU KNOW, WE DO STILL ALLOW FOR THOSE ADJUSTMENTS ACCORDINGLY.
UM, ALSO, UM, SO I ASKED, HAD A QUESTION EARLIER.
YOU KNOW, WE DO, UM, LOOK, WHEN WE SUBDIVIDE PROPERTIES, WE ROUND DOWN, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T HAVE MORE, MORE SO IT'S NOT, ROUNDING DOWN ISN'T NECESSARILY A NEW THING HERE.
SO I THINK IT'S KIND OF PROBABLY MORE CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE DO OTHER THINGS TOO.
MR. GARCIA, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY YOU'RE WITHDRAWING THE STRIKING OF THE WELL, WE HAD, UH, SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND, UH, WE KNOW THAT THE, UH, THE CURRENT CODE IS A MODEL CODE HERE WITHIN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
AND IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WE FELT THAT, UM, NOT TO ROCK THE BOAT, WE FELT THAT WE SHOULD COME TO SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT THAT REALLY ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS OF SOME, UH, SOME OF THE NEIGHBOR ACTUALLY ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND SO WE CAME TO AN AGREEMENT AFTER SEVERAL MEETINGS.
JUST TO CLARIFY A QUESTION, TYPE TWO MEANS WHAT? A, A TYPE TWO SHORT TERM RENTAL IS NON-OWNER OCCUPIED.
SO IF I OWN A PROPERTY, BUT I DON'T LIVE THERE AND I RENT THAT PROPERTY OUT AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, THAT'S A TYPE TWO.
IF I LIVE IN MY HOUSE AND I RENT OUT A BEDROOM, OR IF I RENT OUT IN A, YOU KNOW, SOME, YOU KNOW, THE UPPER FLOOR, THAT'S A TYPE ONE.
THOSE ARE PERMITTED WITHOUT THE DENSITY, UH, CAP.
BUT, UH, TYPE TWO AGAIN IS NON-OWNER OCCUPIED.
IN THIS PARTICULAR EXAMPLE WHERE WE'RE SHOWING, UH, 14, UH, DWELLING UNITS AT 12.5%, AT 1.75, UH, USUALLY THE CITY WOULD ROUND UP TO TWO STR.
SO IF YOU ACTUALLY DO THE MATHEMATICS, THE DENSITY FACTOR IS ACTUALLY 14.3%, WHICH IS, UH, NOT MAINTAINING THE CODE REQUIREMENT AT 12.5%.
[00:40:02]
ALL RIGHT.WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, I THINK THE MOTION WAS BY BIANCA, THE SECOND WAS BY DEBBIE.
IS THAT CORRECT? T O I STILL HAVE A QUESTION.
COULD, COULD I FINISH MY STATEMENT AS WELL? I THINK WE'RE READY TO TAKE A VOTE.
YEAH, LOGAN, JUST POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
'CAUSE THIS WILL BE WHETHER I VOTE YAY OR NAY ON THIS.
UM, THE LANGUAGE THAT WE SEE ON THE BOARD RIGHT NOW WAS SUPPORTED BY THE SHORT TERM RENTAL ASSOCIATION.
SO THE, THE TOP PART IN YELLOW WAS WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THEM IN SUPPORT AND WHAT THEIR LETTER SAID WAS, WE SUPPORT IT BASED UPON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THOSE THAT WERE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED BY MEANS OF ROUNDING WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED.
SO WE ADDED IN THIS OTHER TEXT IN THE BOTTOM TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT IF A YEAR, TWO YEARS AGO YOU WERE APPROVED BY MEANS OF ROUNDING, YOU ARE ELIGIBLE FOR A RENEWAL WITHOUT GOING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
I'D LIKE TO FI UH, FINALIZE MY STATEMENT AT THE, I'M GONNA FINISH AT THE APRIL 11TH PTAC MEETING, WE HAD RECEIVED ORDER 40 VOICEMAILS IN SUPPORT OF THE THE AMENDMENT.
UH, THIS PAST WEEK WE ALSO RECEIVED A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE, I DON'T THINK WE REALLY NEED TO HEAR THIS.
WE'VE ALREADY VOTED AND APPROVED.
WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO THE AGENDA.
WELL, I'D LIKE TO, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION OR AT LEAST A REQUEST A MOTION.
WELL YOU CAN'T, I MEAN, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA MAKE? WELL I'M GONNA MAKE A REQUEST.
UH, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE PTAC SUPPORT THE CURRENT LANGUAGE OF AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO IN ANTICIPATION OF YOUR FULL SUPPORT.
TIER ONE WOULD WITHDRAW AMENDMENT 16 DASH THREE.
ALRIGHT, SO ITEM NUMBER TWO HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE.
THIS HAS ALSO CONTINUED FROM APRIL 11TH.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT 16 DASH EIGHT.
UH, CYNTHIA SPIELMAN, DID YOU WANNA, UH, COME UP AND INTRODUCE 16? EIGHT? GOOD MORNING.
ON BEHALF OF TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION, I'M SUBMITTING AMENDMENT 16 EIGHT, WHICH EXPANDS NOTICES FOR LAND USE, ZONING CHANGES AND REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES TO INCLUDE MORE RESIDENTS SO THAT MORE MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ZONING, COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
WE WANNA THANK THE STAFF OF D S D FOR WORKING WITH US IN A SERIES OF MEETINGS TO HELP US CLARIFY AND REFINE OUR AMENDMENT.
TO THIS END, WE'VE MODIFIED OUR AMENDMENT BY STRIKING OUT PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS.
OUR INTENT WAS TO ADDRESS THE FRUSTRATION THAT PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS FELT FROM NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, COMMUNITY PLANS, PERIMETER SECTOR PLANS, AND OTHER PLANS CODIFIED WITH THE CITY HAVE FELT IN BEING EXCLUDED FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE PLANS.
BUT WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THE DIFFICULTY IN LOGISTICS IN SUCH A REQUEST AND THAT THERE IS ANOTHER, ALTHOUGH INDIRECT PATH FOR NOTIFICATION THAT'S AVAILABLE.
WE ALSO HAVE WITHDRAWN AMENDMENT 1611 AND WE HAVE SYNTHESIZED 1611 INTO 16 EIGHT FOR EASE AND CLARITY.
SPECIFICALLY, THIS AMENDMENT ENSURES THAT A SAN ANTONIO GROWS AND CHANGES THAT NOTICES SENT TO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS WITHIN 200 FEET ARE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE REGISTERED COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS THAT COMPLY WITH SECTION 35 DASH 4 0 8, IMPLEMENTING THE CITY'S PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF TRANSPARENCY, INCLUSIVITY, ACCESSIBILITY, RESPONSIVENESS, AND CONTINUITY FOR NOTICES THE CITY SENDS, BUILDS RELATIONSHIPS WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND HELPS TO CREATE TRUST IN THE PROCESS THAT DIRECTLY AFFECTS OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES.
AS IT IS THE ROLE OF CITY GOVERNMENT TO CONNECT RESIDENTS WITH THE SERVICES IT PROVIDES, EXPANSION OF THE NOTICES BY THE CITY WILL BE STRENGTHENED, WILL STRENGTHEN MEANINGFUL CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATION BY THOSE WHO ARE IMPACTED AND ENGAGED.
SO IN THAT END, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT 16 EIGHT MOVE FOR APPROVAL.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION BY KARA.
A SECOND BY, WAS IT BIANCA? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 1611.
AND WE HAVE THAT IN WRITING FROM THE APPLICANT.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE.
[00:45:01]
THIS IS ALSO CONTINUED FROM APRIL 11TH.THE DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM 16 DASH SIX.
I WAS SO EMBOLDENED BY HOW EASY THAT WAS.
UM, MY NAME IS CYNTHIA SPIELMAN AND ON BEHALF OF STEVE VERTE AND THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION, I'M SUBMITTING AMENDMENT 16 SIX, WHICH ADDS A REQUIREMENT THAT IN THAT IN A CHANGE OF ZONING AND OR PLANNED AMENDMENT, THAT AN APPLICANT MUST SHOW PROOF OF A MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR ORGANIZATION OR DEMONSTRATE AN ATTEMPT TO MEET BEFORE FILING APPLICATION.
THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PRINCIPLES WHICH WERE ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL IN 2019 RECOMMEND THAT INFORMATION INCLUDING ZONING AND LAND USE CHANGES BE INCLUSIVE, ACCESSIBLE, AND INFORMATIVE.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD HELP ENSURE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE FOLLOWED FOR RESIDENTS TO MAKE MORE INFORMED CHOICES, THEY MUST BE GIVEN THE OP, THEY MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE DEVELOPERS AND SEE THEIR PRESENTATION.
THIS AMENDMENT WILL ASSURE THOSE PRESENTATIONS TAKE PLACE.
CONTINUANCE AND POSTPONEMENTS ARE COSTLY TO THE CITY AND APPLICANTS CONTINUANCES ARE A COMMON RESULT OF LACK OF SUFFICIENT DISCUSSION AND INFORMATION SHARED BETWEEN APPLICANTS AND INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORS WHO ARE AFFECTED TO REACH A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT, THIS AMENDMENT WILL HELP ASSURE A PROCESS THAT IS LIKELY TO RESULT IN A LESS EXPENSIVE, INCLUDING EXPENSES BY D S D, TIME AND RESOURCES BY ALL INVOLVED AT THE END OF THE PROCESS.
FINALLY, LAND USE PLANS AND THEIR CORRESPONDING ZONING DISTRICTS.
IN THE CASE OF SUBAR PLANS AND REGIONAL CENTER PLANS AND MOST PARTICULARLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS ARE THE RESULT OF A YEAR OF, OF AT LEAST A YEAR OF WORKING WITH THE CITY NEIGHBORS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS TO CREATE A PLAN THAT ENCAPSULATES THE RESIDENT'S NEEDS AND VISIONS FOR ITS FUTURE.
MY OWN MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, FOR EXAMPLE, WAS NOT ONLY THE RESULT OF A YEAR OF PUBLIC MEETINGS CONDUCTED BY THE CITY AND THE CAFETERIA OF THE LOCAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND IN CHURCHES AND LOCAL BUSINESSES, BUT COUNTLESS NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS BLOCK BY BLOCK AND LIVING ROOMS AND ON LAWNS WE ARGUED AND DEBATED AND COMPROMISE AND WORK TOWARDS CONSENSUS.
IT WAS A TIME CONSUMING AND RIGOROUS PROCESS THAT IN THE END WAS CODIFIED BY CITY COUNCIL.
WHEN AN APPLICANT REQUESTS A ZONING OR LAND USE THAT RUNS COUNTER TO THESE LAND USE PLANS AND ZONING DISTRICTS, THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT CREATED THOSE PLANS SHOULD BE PART OF THE PROCESS OF CHANGE.
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT REQUIRING A NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT, BUT SIMPLY THAT THEIR PARTICIPATION BE PART OF THE PROCESS.
SO WE HOPE THAT YOU SUPPORT 66 TO CONTINUE TO MOVE THROUGH THE PROCESS.
AND TO BE CLEAR, LOGAN, THE ONE THAT'S ON THE SCREEN NOW, IS THE AMENDMENT ON FOR CONSIDERATION, NOT THE FIRST ONE.
THE FIRST ONE THAT WAS PUT UP WAS THE AMENDMENT WHEN IT WAS INITIALLY SUBMITTED.
WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN NOW WAS SENT TO THE TAC, UH, SEVERAL DAYS AGO TO REVIEW AND PREPARATION FOR THIS MEETING.
SO IF YOU'LL NOTICE THE AMENDMENT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED FROM ITS INITIAL SUBMISSION.
SAY THAT AGAIN? IT CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM WHEN IT WAS INITIALLY SUBMITTED.
VERSUS THE LANGUAGE THAT EXISTS TODAY.
YOU CAN SEE THE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF AMENDMENTS THAT EXISTED HAS BEEN SUMMARIZED DOWN TO THIS ONE LAST PARAGRAPH.
SUSAN, YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? YEAH.
UM, A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN I GUESS.
UM, I FEEL LIKE A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE THIS MEETING OR PROVE THAT YOU ATTEMPTED TO.
ANY SMART APPLICANT IS GOING TO REACH OUT TO A COMMUNITY NOW THAT THEY'RE NOTIFIED TO ME.
PUTTING ALL THE ONUS ON THE APPLICANT VERSUS THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOW KNOWS THEY'VE BEEN NOTIFIED AS, YOU KNOW, PER THE PREVIOUS CHANGES, IT'S EVERYONE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO, TO ENGAGE BUT TO REQUIRE THAT AN APPLICANT DO SO OR SHOW PROOF, I THINK IS AN UNFAIR BURDEN.
I DO BELIEVE ANYBODY, AS I SAID, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR THEM TO, BUT A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY DO SO IS PART OF THIS PROCESS WHEN EVERYONE IS NOW GOING TO BE NOTIFIED THAT THIS IS COMING, I THINK IS INAPPROPRIATE.
UM, AND A LITTLE HEAVY HANDED.
IF I COULD, THIS COMES FROM A FORMER ZONE, FORMER ZONING COMMISSION PLANNING.
IF I COULD, I JUST WANTED TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
UM, THAT I THINK THEY'RE IMPORTANT BECAUSE YES, WHILE EVERYBODY WILL BE NOTIFIED, WHEN DO THEY RECEIVE THAT NOTIFICATION? CITY'S NOT REQUIRED TO SEND IT OUT TILL 10 DAYS BEFORE THAT CASE IS HEARD.
AND ALL TOO OFTEN THAT NOTIFICATION MAY COME IN THE FORM OF TWO OR THREE DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING OR WHEN THAT YELLOW SIGN GOES IN THE PROPERTY.
THE WHOLE GOAL IS THAT YOU REAL, WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT AS WE GROW, WE GROW BETTER TOGETHER AS OPPOSED TO BEING DIVIDED.
[00:50:01]
AS, AS SIMPLY AS SENDING AN EMAIL FOR AN APPLICANT TO SAY, HEY, I'M GONNA SEEK TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, I DON'T FEEL IS AN UNDUE BURDEN.I THINK IT SAVES THEM MONEY AND TIME BECAUSE OF ALL THE CONTINUANCES THAT CURRENT ZONING BECAUSE OH WAIT, WE GOTTA TALK ABOUT IT.
OH WAIT, WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS.
OR WE DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS THIS MUCH OPPOSITION OR WE DIDN'T KNOW THE HISTORY ABOUT THIS PROPERTY.
THAT ALL TOO OFTEN IS A VERY COMMON DIALOGUE THAT HAPPENS AT ZONING.
AND THAT'S WHAT I REALLY THINK THIS IS SEEKING TO DO.
I THINK IT'S IN EVERYONE'S BEST INTEREST BECAUSE THE APPLICANT, I THINK PANICS TOO WHEN THEY FIND OUT THREE OR FOUR DAYS BEFORE THEIR HEARING THAT THERE IS A LOT OF OPPOSITION TO A CASE.
AND THEY'LL COME IN AND SAY, WE WANNA WORK IT OUT.
BUT IT GETS CONTINUED AND IT GOES ON FURTHER.
AND WHAT HAPPENS WITH A CONTINUANCE IS THAT THEY DON'T RE NOTIFY PEOPLE.
SO IF YOU'RE WITHIN 200 FEET, THERE'S NOT A REIFICATION THAT SAYS, HEY, THIS MEETING HAS BEEN CONTINUED.
I BELIEVE THAT AS YOU TRY TO HAVE THOSE DIALOGUES THROUGH MULTIPLE CONTINUANCE, WHETHER IT GET CONTINUED AT ZONING OR CONTINUED AT COUNCIL BECOMES A BURDEN FOR EVERYONE.
I THINK YOU'RE PUTTING A HUGE BURDEN AND A TIME, UH, CONSTRAINT, UH, ADDITIONAL TIME ON A DEVELOPMENT WITH THE NOTICES.
I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN, UH, AND I DO THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT APPLICANTS MEET WITH NEIGHBORHOODS, HOWEVER, OR ANY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, UH, THAT IS ENGAGED IN WITHIN THAT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE UNFAIR, FAIRLY BURDENING.
TO ME IT'S AT THEIR OWN PERIL.
BUT TO REQUIRE THAT THEY HAVE THESE MEETINGS, YOU'RE GONNA ADD ADDITIONAL TIME AND DELAYS BEFORE THAT CASE IS HEARD AT THE ZONING OR PLANNING AND AT THAT, I DON'T WANT IT, WE DON'T NEED TO DEBATE IT.
I'M, I DON'T THINK I'M GONNA CHANGE YOUR MIND.
YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT GONNA CHANGE MINE, BUT, UM, BUT THAT'S JUST WHERE I COME FROM.
I THINK IT'S, IT'S CAUSING DELAYS.
WELL POINT I WOULD LIKE TO STAFF IS DO THEY HAVE TO HOST A MEETING? NO.
THEY CAN JUST SEND AN EMAIL AND PROVIDE PROOF THAT THEY ENGAGED.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA CHIME IN ON.
UM, THE EXAMPLE THAT BIANCA PROVI PROVIDED IS EXACTLY WHAT WE AS STAFF WOULD, UH, BE ABLE TO SAY, THIS CHECKS THE BOX, IF YOU WILL, AND, AND E A PRINTOUT OF AN EMAIL THAT'S SENT TO THE CONTACT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TELLING THEM THAT THERE I'M SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO REZONED PROPERTY, I'D LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND THAT, AND THEY CAN THEN SUBMIT WITH THAT AND THEY ARE IN THE QUEUE.
THAT WOULD SUFFICE MEETING THIS, UH, STATEMENT HERE IF APPROVED BY COUNSEL.
HOW IS THIS ENFORCEABLE? AGAIN, THERE'S, SO OUR CODE, OUR U D C HAS CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION IF THIS IS PASSED, THAT INFORMATION IS PART OF THAT CHECKLIST.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE DO A COMPLETENESS REVIEW.
WHEN A, WHEN A CHANGE OF ZONING APPLICATION COMES IN, IF THERE'S SOMETHING MISSING FROM THAT, UM, REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION, THEN WE TELL 'EM THIS IS INCOMPLETE.
SO LITERALLY, LET'S SAY IT'S AN INDIVIDUAL THAT OWNS A HOUSE AND THEY OWN A VACANT LOT NEXT TO IT AND THEY'RE CHOOSING TO REZONE THAT SPECIFIC LOT.
THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL THAT'S NOT A DEVELOPER.
THEY JUST HAPPENED TO BE DEVELOPING A LOT THAT THEY'VE OWNED FOR X AMOUNT OF TIME.
NOW THE BURDEN IS FOR THEM TO HAVE TO ASK OR NOTIFY SOMEBODY WITHIN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD OF WHAT THEIR INTENT IS FOR THEIR PROPERTY.
AN EMAIL SENT TO THE CONTACT OF THE REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 'CAUSE THAT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ONLINE WOULD SUFFICE.
BUT I GUESS TO SUSAN'S POINT, YOU THIS IS REQUIRING IF PROOF OF AN, OF AN ATTEMPT IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAYS I WANNA MEET, BUT THAT APPLICANT AND I THINK THEY'RE AN IDIOTS FOR NOT MEETING.
I MEAN WE ALL THOSE OF US HAVE WORKED ON ZONING CASES KNOW IT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE PROCESS.
BUT IF THEY CHOSE NOT TO MEET AFTER SENDING AN EMAIL, THEY'RE NOW NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THIS.
SO THIS IS A NO CHOICE BUT TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS? NO, THAT'S NOT CORRECT.
SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T MEET, THAT'S NOT THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE MEET NO, I'M SAYING THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS TO MEET ME, THE APPLICANT I DON'T REALLY WANNA MEET.
SO I SENT YOU AN EMAIL, BUT I DON'T REALLY WANNA MEET WITH YOU.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAYS, OH LET'S MEET AND I DIDN'T, WE WE WOULD, I'M NOW NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
WE, WE WOULD ACCEPT IF YOU SUB, IF, IF YOU HAD AN APPLICANT THAT EMAILED THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND SAID, I'D LOVE TO SIT DOWN AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT MY ZONING CASE.
WHAT IF I DON'T MEAN THAT ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS SUBMIT TO US.
NO, I THERE'S, I'M GIVING THE WHAT IFS.
WHAT WHAT WE, SO WE WOULD ACCEPT THAT APPLICATION.
YOU GIVE US A COPY OF THE NOTE, THE EMAIL, THE WHATEVER IT WAS, THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING.
IF YOU DID HAVE A MEETING, YOU SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION, YOU MOVE FORWARD IN THE PROCESS.
NOW OBVIOUSLY THINGS LIKE I SUBMITTED THE EMAIL TO GET MY CASE IN AND THAT'S GONNA COME OUT AT ZONING COMMISSION.
THAT'S NOT GONNA REFLECT WELL ON MY REQUEST.
WE'RE NOT GONNA SIT THERE AND AUDIT HOW GENUINE SOMEONE WAS WHEN THEY SUBMITTED SOMETHING.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE REQUIRING THEM TO MEET IS WHAT THIS LANGUAGE IS.
I MEAN I KNOW THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS AND WE'RE DUCKING IT LEGALLY, BUT THE APPLICATION
[00:55:01]
OF THIS IS ZONING COMMISSION'S GONNA SAY, WELL AREN'T YOU A SCHMUCK THAT YOU DIDN'T REALLY MEAN IT AND YOU DIDN'T REALLY ATTEMPT AND YOU DIDN'T REALLY DO IT.I MEAN THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS, RIGHT? WE ANTICIPATE, UH, KARA, THIS IS MELISSA, WE ANTICIPATE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS WRITTEN FOR THOSE BAD ACTORS, LIKE YOU'VE SAID SEVERAL TIMES, YOU KNOW, ANYONE WHO IS HERE IS GOING, NO, IT DOESN'T SOLVE IT.
BUT IT, IT HELPS HOPEFULLY BRIDGE THE GAP IN THAT COMMUNICATION.
UM, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE BAD ACTORS HERE IN SAN ANTONIO DEVELOPING.
I'LL CHIME IN AFTER KEN, I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
WHEN YOU SAY REGISTERED, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, DOES THAT INCLUDE THESE UMBRELLA GROUPS LIKE THE NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE AND I MEAN, SO AGAIN, IT'S A REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
IF YOU ARE A REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, YOU'RE ON THAT LIST.
THAT'S WHO YOU, 200 FEET OF THAT NOTE OF THAT ASSOCIATION.
MAY I HAVE, ASHLEY, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? IF THERE IF I COULD PIGGYBACK ON THAT OTHER AMENDMENT THAT WAS JUST PASSED, IT TALKED ABOUT COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS.
SO RIGHT NOW THIS, THIS SAYS REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS.
SO EVEN IF THEY HAD OTHER AMENDMENT ABOUT COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, WHICH IS WHERE THE NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE IS LISTED, IT WOULD, THIS WOULD NOT SAY, I'M NOW RE SAY I'M NOW REQUIRED BECAUSE NOW I SEND NOTICE TO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD REGISTERED COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN 200 FEET.
THEY STILL WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY THAT, THAT ORGANIZATION IN ORDER TO MEET WITH THEM.
'CAUSE THIS IS VERY RESTRICTED TO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ONLY MANNA.
SO, UM, WE HAVE A CURRENT CASE RIGHT NOW WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY.
AND SO, SO THIS HITS REALLY HOME FOR ME.
AND SO IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR, THE APPLICANT FILED FOR A ZONING CASE CHANGE AND THE COMMUNITY FOUND OUT ABOUT IT, UM, IN FEBRUARY OF 2021, THE WEEK THAT THE SIGN WENT UP FOR THE POSTING.
AND SO BASICALLY THE COMMUNITY WENT INTO A DIALOGUE TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO? 'CAUSE BASICALLY IT WAS DROPPED IN OUR LAPS.
AND SO THE COMMUNITY'S BEEN SCRAMBLING, TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH BASICALLY EVERYTHING GOING ON RIGHT NOW.
AND HAD WE BEEN TOLD IN OCTOBER, IT'S NOW BEEN CONTINUED TWICE BY THE WAY.
SO WE TALKING ABOUT THE CONTINUANCE THING.
SO, SO THESE ARE ALL TRUE THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED.
AND IF WE HAD HAD THAT DIALOGUE EARLIER, IT'D PROBABLY BE A MUCH DIFFERENT OUTCOME.
LIKELY IF WE WE'D DONE IT, YOU KNOW, ALONG WITH WHAT'S BEING RECOMMENDED HERE.
SO ANYWAYS, ASHLEY, I I JUST HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IF WE DO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, DO WE NEED TO DEFINE WHAT PROOF MEANS? I MEAN THAT'S YOUR, I MEAN I KNOW YOU SAY EMAIL, BUT IT'S NOT IN THE CODE.
WE, WE COULD CERTAINLY ADD TO THE AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY WHAT WE, WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IS PROOF OF AN ATTEMPT TO MEET.
AND THEN IF YOU COULD, HOW REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, IT'S THE OBLIGATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO PROVIDE CURRENT CONTACT INFORMATION TO THE CITY.
SO WE'RE ALSO MAKING THIS APPLY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, BUT NOT THE ACTUAL OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET.
I MEAN THAT'S FOR ME THE, SORRY, THE OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET HAVE MUCH MORE A HIGHER EXPECTATION THAN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR, OR A RIGHT TO EXPECTATIONS THAN THE ASSOCIATION DOES.
LIKE I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE NEIGHBORS, BUT MORE THE ASSOCIATION MAY I, UM, I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS TO THE GENTLEMAN.
YOU KNOW, IT ALMOST FEELS LIKE RIGHT, THIS IS ADVERSARIAL, LIKE NEIGHBORHOODS AGAINST THE SMALL PERSON ON THE LOT.
BUT THE TRUTH IS IN BEACON HILL AND, AND NO, BUT, BUT IT'S NOT.
BUT MOST OF THE TIME, MOST OF THE TIME AND BEACON, BEACON HILL HAS AN EXTREMELY STRONG ZONING, UM, UM, COMMITTEE AND WE USE CRITERIA.
AND THE TRUTH IS, WHEN THE APPLICANT SHOWS UP WITH THEIR, WITH THEIR LAND USE ATTORNEY, IT'S LIKE, OKAY, YOU GOT THIS, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
BUT MOST OF THE TIME, A LOT OF TIMES IT'S JUST SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO DO SOMETHING AND THEY DON'T ALWAYS UNDERSTAND LIKE THE N C D OR THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND I D Z OR THEY DON'T.
AND OFTEN WORKING WITH THEM GOING, OKAY, WHAT IS IT YOU WANNA DO? LIKE HOW CAN WE FIGURE THIS OUT? LIKE IT'S BEEN A REAL HELP AS OPPOSED TO LIKE, WELL I DON'T WANNA MEET WITH YOU.
AND THEY SHOW UP AT ZONING AND WE'RE LIKE, WE'VE TRIED TO REACH THIS PERSON AND THEY WILL NOT.
AND THEN THERE'S CONTINUANCE AND IT BECOMES IT MORE ADVERSARIAL AT THAT POINT.
BUT THE TRUTH IS, MOST OF THE TIME IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IT'S BEEN A HELPFUL RELATIONSHIP.
I THINK THE OTHER THING IS, I MEAN YOU'RE RIGHT, NOT ALL NEIGHBORHOODS ARE THE SAME.
WE BLOCK WALK WITH SITE'S HAND DELIVERING A A NEWSLETTER WITH THE ZONING CASE ON IT.
WE BLOCK WALK AND WE DON'T GIVE OPINIONS.
THE PRESENTER IS THE DEVELOPER'S COMING TO PRESENT.
WE'VE MET WITH THEM THROUGH OUR ZONING COMMITTEE AND WE HAVE CRITERIA.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF WE LIKE THE PERSON, DON'T LIKE THE PERSON HAS A SOB WHATEVER.
[01:00:01]
BY WHICH WE MAKE THOSE DECISIONS AND BUT, AND WE MAKE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITH THOSE 200 FEET RESIDENTS THERE.AND THAT VOTE IS WHAT WE PRESENT AT ZONING AND COUNCIL AND WHATEVER TIER ONE IS WORKING, TRYING TO WORK TO HELP NEIGHBORHOODS.
EVERYBODY HAVE AN INCLUSIVE AND AND RIGOROUS PROCESS BEFORE THEY SHOW UP AND SAY, WELL I JUST DON'T LIKE MF 33.
IT'S LIKE, NO, THAT'S NOT GONNA DO IT ANYMORE.
AND AND HOPEFULLY THIS WILL HELP CREATE THAT.
LIKE IF THERE'S AN OBLIG, IF THERE'S A RESPONSIBILITY OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT DEVELOPMENT HAS TO MEET WITH YOU, YOU BETTER STEP UP TO THE MARK AND HAVE A PROCESS THAT YOU CAN DEFEND.
UM, I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION.
SO OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GONNA CALL STAFF AND STAFF IS GONNA PROVIDE US WITH THE LIST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THAT ARE REGISTERED WITHIN 200 FEET.
I MEAN, SOMEONE HAS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR, IT CAN'T BE US, IT'S YOUR DATABASE, RIGHT? SO WHEN WE SEND THE EMAIL, YOU'VE PROVIDED US WITH THE LIST, WE SENT THE EMAIL AND YOU'RE GONNA CHECK OFF AND SAY, OKAY, YOU SENT IT TO THE FOUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THAT WE GAVE YOU, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO, AND AND I I DO JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT THE LIST OF REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, THE CONTACT AND THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION IS ALREADY POSTED ONLINE, PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.
SO YOU, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO CALL SOMEONE AT D S D TO GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION EVERY TIME.
AND THEN WHEN PEOPLE COME UP TO THE COUNTER AND THEY ASK AND WE SHOW THEM WHERE WE EVEN PRINT IT OUT FOR THEM.
SO YEAH, I MEAN WE'RE ALWAYS HELPFUL WHEN IT COMES TO THAT.
WE ALWAYS TELL PEOPLE, HEY, WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO, UH, TALK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WHILE YOU'RE APPLYING.
WE, AND WE TELL THEM WHERE THE CONTACT INFORMATION IS AND PROVIDE THAT TO THEM.
SO WILL YOU SUBSEQUENTLY INVALIDATE AN APPLICATION IF, IF AT FIRST YOU ACCEPTED IT AND YOU FOUND OUT THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THE COMPLETE LIST OR I DON'T BELIEVE WE'LL GO THROUGH A PROCESS OF INVALIDATING AN APPLICATION, BUT WE WILL WORK WITH YOU TO, TO TELL YOU WHAT'S INCOMPLETE ABOUT IT AND HELP FACILITATE THAT PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT CONTINUES TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
BUT YOU AT LEAST NEED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPLETENESS REVIEW.
BUT WE'LL EVALUATE THAT WHEN IT'S SUBMITTED AND THEN WORK WITH YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU CAPTURE ALL OF THEM.
BECAUSE WE, WE RECOGNIZE THAT NOT EVERYBODY'S GONNA KNOW HOW TO DO THIS AND THEY'RE GONNA SUBMIT AN APPLICATION ONLINE.
THEY'RE JUST GONNA DROP IT OFF AT OUR COUNTER AND WE'LL WORK WITH THEM.
WE'VE ALWAYS WORKED WITH APPLICANTS WHEN THEY'VE SUBMITTED.
JUST BECAUSE WE WOULD GO INTO BUILD SA AND PUT THE CHANGES ZONING REQUEST INTO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED.
IF YOU WERE MISSING FIELD NOTES, WE'D CAPTURE THAT IN THE COMPLETENESS REVIEW, LET YOU KNOW WE'RE MISSING A DOCUMENT TYPE.
HERE'S WHAT IT IS, GET IT BACK TO US AND WE CAN PROCEED WITH SCHEDULING YOU FOR ZONING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION, SUSAN.
THIS IS, I HAVE A CONTINUED A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT CONCERN ME ABOUT THE LANGUAGE.
UM, AND AGAIN, I'M NOT IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICANT'S MEETING, BUT I DO THINK THAT WE ARE TRYING TO LEGISLATE GOOD BEHAVIOR, WHICH YOU CAN'T DO.
UM, AND ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I HAVE IS, LET'S SAY THAT AN APPLICANT, UM, LET'S TAKE THE, THE NEGATIVE CASE ON THE COMMUNITY SIDE AND SAY THE APPLICANT REACHES OUT AND REQUESTS A MEETING, THEY SAY, WELL, OUR NEXT COMMUNITY MEETING IS IN TWO MONTHS.
SO SO NOW WHAT? OH YEAH, THAT IS, I'M JUST, LET'S WALK THROUGH THESE PROCESSES.
'CAUSE I REALLY THINK, I THINK THAT IS PROOF OF AN ATTEMPT.
I THINK WE'RE GETTING IN THE WEEDS HERE.
I THINK WE ARE LEGISLATING BEHAVIOR AND I THINK THAT IS A DANGEROUS PLACE TO GO IN A CODE.
SO I, YOU KNOW, I I THINK AS STAFF WE RECOGNIZE SOME OF THE POTENTIAL PITFALLS, WHICH IS WHY WE WERE, YOU KNOW, WE WANTED LANGUAGE THAT SET AN ATTEMPT TO MEET, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T WANT TO SAY PROOF THAT YOU MET BECAUSE WHAT IF YOU HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION THAT DID YOU SAY PROOF OF ADMITTING OR, OR, OR PROOF THAT YOU ATTEMPTED TO, BECAUSE WHAT IF, I MEAN, IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP DIDN'T LIKE IT AND REFUSED TO MEET IN PERPETUITY, WE DON'T WANT THAT.
YOU CAN'T STOP SOMEONE FROM SUBMITTING WANTS.
NOW IF, AGAIN, IF THEY SAY, HEY, OUR ORGANIZATION ONLY MEETS QUARTERLY, WELL I TRIED TO MEET, I I CAN'T WAIT A QUARTER OF A YEAR.
I THINK THAT'S THE SORT OF MATERIAL THAT CAN COME OUT IN THE ZONING COMMISSION HEARING.
I THINK THERE'S GONNA BE MORE ARGUMENTS AND DEBATES.
THIS IS GONNA BE JUST ONE OF THOSE NIGHTMARISH ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES.
AND I, I FIND IT TO BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE.
UM, ROB PIPES, UM, I CURRENTLY SERVE ON THE ZONING COMMISSION AND HALF THE TIME THAT WE HAVE CONTINUANCES, UM, IT'S BECAUSE EITHER THE, UH, APPLICANT OR THE ASSOCIATION HAS SAID, WELL, WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO MEET, WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO, TO TALK.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'RE SEEING EACH OTHER, YOU KNOW, AND, AND WE'LL SAY, OKAY, FINE, YOU KNOW, WE'LL DO A CONTINUANCE.
AND IN, IN MY OPINION, IT'S NOT THE, THE LARGER FIRMS THAT,
[01:05:01]
THAT, UH, THE ISSUE IS WITH THE LARGER REPRESENTATIVE FIRMS, YOU MIGHT SAY IT'S WITH THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNER WHO DOESN'T KNOW THEY COME, THEY TAKE TIME OUT OF THEIR SCHEDULE, THEY COME DOWN AND THEN WE SAY, OKAY, BUT DID YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW THAT YOU, WE'D LIKE FOR YOU TO MEET WITH THE, THIS, THIS GROUP? I DIDN'T KNOW I NEEDED TO DO THAT.WELL, OKAY, YOU NEED TO MEET, WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE IT FOR TWO WEEKS AND THEN THEY HAVE TO COME BACK AGAIN.
SO IN MY OPINION, THIS BENEFITS THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNER BECAUSE HOPEFULLY IT WILL CUT DOWN THE NUMBER OF CONTINUANCES AND THE NUMBER OF TIMES THEY WILL ACTUALLY HAVE TO COME BACK TO ZONING.
I JUST WANTED TO ADD, UM, THERE ARE SEVERAL EXAMPLES I THINK THAT CAN BE MADE, BUT WHEN YOU ALSO LOOK IN AN APPLICANT, WHEN THEY SPEAK WITH ZONING, WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF ABOUT THE ZONING THAT THEY'RE GONNA SEEK, I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
WE HAD A CHURCH IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS ZONED R SIX AND A STAFF SUGGESTED A C TWO ZONING FOR A CHILDCARE FACILITY, C TWO, C TWO, R SIX TO C TWO THROUGH CONVERSATION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND A CONTINUANCE OF THE APPLICATION.
THEY ENDED UP WITH R SIX WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A CHILDCARE CENTER.
THAT'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN JUMPING ALL THE WAY UP TO C TWO.
BUT THAT CONVERSATION AND THAT IDEA OF THAT TYPE OF ZONING WASN'T SUGGESTED BY ZONING STAFF.
IT WAS SUGGESTED BY THE STAKEHOLDERS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN THAT AREA.
THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE APPLYING FOR BECAUSE THEY DON'T GO THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS EVERY DAY.
YES, THEY SHOULD BE HIRING SOMEBODY WHO'S AN EXPERT TO WALK 'EM THROUGH, BUT NOT EVERYBODY CAN AFFORD TO DO THAT.
SO THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THESE DIALOGUES EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS AS OPPOSED TO ALMOST TWO AND A HALF MONTHS AFTER THEIR APPLICANT APPLICATION WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED TO D S D.
I WOULD THINK THAT'S BENEFICIAL TO ALL FOR THAT REASON, I MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
UH, THIS IS ERIC RA, UH, TO, TO, UH, KIND OF ME AND BIANCA WAS SAYING LIKE, FROM MY EXPERIENCE WITH ZONING CASES, LIKE WE ACTUALLY AS A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WE HAVE TO SUGGEST TO EVERYBODY MOST OF THE TIME, LIKE, HEY, YOU MIND COMING TO OUR MEETING? BECAUSE I'M NOT GONNA LIE TO YOU.
I, IT'S NEVER BEEN REALLY UPFRONT OFFERED TO ME.
THEY NEVER SAY FIRST TIME, HEY, OH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MEET WITH US? YOU KNOW, WE'RE DOING X, Y, Z.
I I'LL BE HAPPY TO, BUT THAT HASN'T NEVER COME UP, QUITE HONESTLY.
SO I THINK THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, YOU KNOW, IT, IT, IT, IT'S AN ATTEMPT AND IT'S GREAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WAY THE, THE, AND THE APPLICANT KNOWS THAT THEY HAVE TO MAKE AT LEAST AN ATTEMPT TO REACH OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND I THINK A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, AND OF COURSE IT'S UP TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS TO KEEP THEIR INFORMATION CURRENT.
THAT'S, THAT'S A WHOLE NOTHER CONVERSATION.
BUT THE THING IS, THEY WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS.
'CAUSE THEY WILL KNOW NOW THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TO COME TO THEM AND THEY'RE GONNA KNOW.
SO NOW WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GET TOGETHER.
AND AGAIN, IT'S GONNA SAVE EVERYBODY, EVERYBODY FACE, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE, ARE NOT GONNA BE MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT FOR THE FIRST TIME WHEN IT GOES TO ZONING OR WHATEVER COMMISSION IT GOES TO, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY IT'LL GET DONE RIGHT THEN AND THERE ON THAT DAY.
SO IT SAVES MONEY AND TIME ON EVERYBODY'S PART AND WE'RE DONE WITH IT, YOU KNOW, SO I THINK THIS IS A GREAT AMENDMENT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IT.
AND I'D LIKE TO SECOND IT, MS. REPUBLICAN.
SO I THINK IT'S WORTH, OH, THAT'S RIGHT.
I THINK IT'S WORTH POINTING OUT THAT THE CURRENT SYSTEM AS IT'S STRUCTURED, IS FULL OF HEADACHES AND ADMINISTRATIVE HASSLES AND CONTINUANCES.
AND LITERALLY IN THIS CASE, TIME IS MONEY.
SO THE LONGER THE CONTINUANCES GO ON, THE MORE EXPENSIVE IT CAN GET FOR EVERYONE, PARTICULARLY FOR THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPER.
AND TO ME, THIS AMENDMENT RECOGNIZES THAT IT DOESN'T OFFER A FULL PROOF SILVER BULLET TO SOLVE ALL OF THOSE PROBLEMS. BUT, UH, IT, IT OFFERS A, A RELATIVELY SIMPLE PROCESS OF PROVIDING NOTICE, UH, WITHOUT CREATING REAMS AND REAMS AND REAMS OF DOCUMENTATION, UM, TO TRY TO GET THAT CONVERSATION STARTED EARLY ON.
WE'VE HEARD EXAMPLES OF THESE CONVERSATIONS WHEN THEY'VE GONE WELL, AND WHEN THERE ARE PRODUCTIVE DIALOGUES AND, AND PROJECTS THAT COME OUT OF THAT, WE CAN ALL THINK OF EXAMPLES WHERE THERE WAS NO NOTICE, THERE WAS NO CONVERSATION.
AND THEN IT ENDS UP IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, REVIEW PROCESS.
AND IN MY EXPERIENCE, THOSE PROCESSES TEND TO HARDEN PEOPLE'S POSITIONS, THAT PEOPLE DRAW BATTLE LINES.
IT'S EVEN HARDER TO NEGOTIATE COMPROMISE, AND IT IS MORE LIKELY TO DRAG OUT LONGER AND LONGER.
SO IF WE CAN STILL HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS WHILE BOTH SIDES OR MULTIPLE SIDES ARE OPEN TO THOSE CONVERSATIONS, THIS SEEMS LIKE A SIMPLE WAY TO DO THAT.
AND IF ONE SIDE IST ORGANIZED ENOUGH OR DOESN'T WANT TO PARTICIPATE, WE'LL SEE WHERE IT GOES.
BUT THIS AT LEAST OPENS THE DOOR TO THAT.
WHEN IS THIS REQUIRED, LIKE Y'ALL KEPT TALKING ABOUT AS PART OF THE APPLICATION? IS THIS
[01:10:01]
ACTUALLY PART OF COMPLETENESS REVIEW? AT WHAT TIME DOES THIS HAVE TO OCCUR? SO ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED WITH AN APPLICATION, AGAIN, THE U D C DEFINES WHAT THOSE APP, UH, WHAT THOSE RE APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE IN ONE OF OUR APPENDIXES.THIS WOULD BE INCLUDED IN, UH, THAT REQUIREMENT, IF YOU WILL.
SO IT WOULD BE AT THE TIME, YES, IT'S PART OF THE COMPLETENESS REVIEW.
SO IT'S PART OF THE COMPLETENESS REVIEW WHEN THEY SUBMIT THE APPLICATION, AND IT'S, IT'S PART OF THE COMPLETENESS REVIEW ONLY FOR CHANGES, ZONING AND, AND FUTURE, UH, LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS.
BEFORE I CAN EVEN FILE FOR A ZONING APPLICATION, I HAVE TO PROVE I'VE ATTEMPTED TO MEET WITH NOT THE OWNERS DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY IT, BUT WHATEVER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO TAKE THEIRS.
SO TIMING OF IT FOR ME IS ALSO A BIT PROBLEMATIC OF THE, BEFORE I CAN EVEN FILE A CASE, I HAVE TO PROVE I DID THAT.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU, YOU CAN SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU EMAILED THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, THE SAME DAY THAT YOU'RE APPLYING, SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION FOR THE REZONING.
THIS IS, THIS IS MICHAEL MOORE.
IS THERE A TIME LIMIT ON WHEN THE, UH, ASSOCIATION OR NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE TO RESPOND? NO, THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THIS AMENDMENT.
IF, IF I COULD, THIS IS GONNA BE WILDLY, UH, PROBABLY UNPOPULAR ON THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE
I MEAN, WE CALL A COUNCIL MEMBER, HE SAYS, HERE'S WHO WE WANT YOU TO CONTACT.
WE MAY NOT DO IT RIGHT BEFORE, BUT WE DO IT BEFORE THEY GET NOTICE OF IT.
SO I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, BUT I'LL VOTE GUYS.
THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO DO IT WELL, AND THERE ARE OTHERS WHO DON'T.
AND, BUT, AND IT'S NOT THAT THEY DO IT IN A, IN AN EGREGIOUS WAY OF SAYING WE'RE NOT GONNA MEET WITH THEM.
IT'S THAT THEY DON'T KNOW AND THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE VALUE THAT CAN BE GAINED THROUGH THEIR PROCESS MOVING FORWARD IF THEY HAVE THAT CONVERSATION UPFRONT AS OPPOSED TO THE YELLOW, YOU KNOW, SIGN THAT GOES IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THAT'S HOW EVERYBODY FINDS OUT.
AND I GET THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE CONCERN ABOUT NOTIFYING THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION VERSUS ALL THE RESIDENTS WITHIN THE 200 FEET TO NOTIFY ALL THOSE RESIDENTS WITHIN 200 FEET PUTS AN ADDITIONAL COST BURDEN BECAUSE THAT INFORMATION'S NOT READILY AVAILABLE UNLESS YOU WRITE IT INTO THE AMENDMENT.
IT SAYS YOU MUST MAIL TO THE 200 FEET OF, UH, WITHIN THAT PROPERTY.
BUT STATE LAW DOES STATE ABOUT THE REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
SO THAT'S WHY THE REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WAS PLACED IN THERE, BECAUSE THE HOPE WAS THERE WAS ENGAGEMENT WITH THOSE LANDOWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET.
SO THERE WAS A, I THINK A LOT OF CONSCIENTIOUS EFFORT IN DRAFTING THIS AMENDMENT TO ENSURE THAT THERE WAS A BALANCE IN ALL OF THIS.
LIKE I SAID, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THAT MEETING, IT'S JUST THAT ATTEMPT.
AND THE HOPE IS THAT THERE IS A BETTER RESULT.
DO YOU NOT THINK THAT MAYBE IT WOULD BE MORE PRODUCTIVE IF YOU WERE TO SAY, UM, AT THE TIME THEY COME IN AND DO, GET THE FORMS FOR THE APPLICATION? IF THERE IS IN BOLD PRINT, YOU'RE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED
IM, YOU KNOW, SOONER THAN LATER, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, PERIOD.
I MEAN, THAT IS REALLY, BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING, IT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE ANYTHING.
AS I SAID, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE LEGISLATING WHAT SHOULD BE GOOD BEHAVIOR AND YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE GOOD BEHAVIOR.
SO TO ME, I THINK IT'D BE MORE INSTRUMENTAL IF STAFF IS SITTING THERE GOING, LISTEN, BY THE WAY, YOU OUGHT TO REACH OUT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
HERE'S WHO THE ONE YOU SHOULD TALK TO AND HERE'S A CONTACT.
'CAUSE THEY HAD THAT, THAT'D BE, THAT WOULD BE MEANINGFUL.
BUT TO DO IT IN THE CODE, I THINK IS, IS PROBABLY NOT GONNA GIVE YOU THE BANG FOR YOUR BUCK THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.
AND I JUST THINK WE'RE CREATING KIND OF SOME BUREAUCRACY, BUT WELL, INSTEAD, I COULD SPEAK TO THAT TOO.
WHEN APPLICATIONS COME IN MANNA AGAIN, SO, SO CASE IN POINT, UH, THAT WAS SAID TO THE APPLICANT IN OUR PARTICULAR CASE THIS TIME, AND THEY WERE TOLD AT THE TIME, YOU KNOW, REACH OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHEN THE SIGN WENT UP, THAT'S WHEN THEY HAD THE DIALOGUE.
AND SO, SO REALLY THEY WERE KIND OF CAUGHT BECAUSE THE CITY WAS CAUGHT SAYING, HEY, WHAT'S GOING ON? AND THEN THE CITY WENT BACK AND SAID, YOU NEED TO REACH OUT TO THE COMMUNITY.
AND SO, SO, SO I THINK THAT DIALOGUE DOES HAPPEN, BUT I THINK THIS KIND OF REINFORCES THAT.
AND THEN ON THE SECOND PIECE, WE'VE HAD GOOD, UM, PEOPLE COME THROUGH, GOOD ACTORS CAN BE ONE OF 'EM.
SO COMING INTO OUR COMMUNITY AND SAYING, YEAH, SO, BUT HE'S COME IN, BUT, BUT HE'S WORKED WELL AND, AND REACHED OUT LIKE, YOU KNOW, LIKE WE WOULD HOPE PEOPLE WOULD WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY.
AND SO WE PUT IN SOME PRETTY BIG INSTALLATIONS IN OUR AREA BECAUSE WE DID HAVE THAT DIALOGUE.
AND SO REALLY THIS IS CAPTURING THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW OR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER REASON.
[01:15:01]
SO, AND I THINK IT'S HELPING THOSE GROUPS.AND STAFF SPEAK TO THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN THAT'S IN THE U D C RIGHT NOW.
SO WE, UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOP OF THIS, THIS AT 35, 4 0 9, IT ACTUALLY HAS, UH, IT'S TO ENCOURAGE APPLICANTS TO MEET WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS PRIOR TO FILING AN APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT OR FOR A PERMIT REQUIRING REVIEW IN A PUBLIC HEARING.
SO IN OUR APPLICATION, WE ACTUALLY HAVE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS, UH, YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS.
HERE'S A WEBSITE IN WHICH YOU'LL FIND THE CONTACT.
UM, AND THEN AGAIN, WHEN THEY COME TO THE COUNTER, THEY CALL US, UH, TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION.
UH, WE LET THEM KNOW THEN AS WELL, WHEN THEY HAVE SUBMITTED, THE CASE MANAGER LETS THEM KNOW, HEY, HERE'S THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT'S WITHIN 200 FEET, HERE'S THE CONTACT INFORMATION.
UH, WE STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTACT THEM.
SO WE DO THAT ALREADY, AND THAT'S ALREADY IN THE CODE.
AGAIN, STRONGLY ENCOURAGED, UH, BUT IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT.
ASHLEY, JUST A QUICK QUESTION.
SO IN TERMS OF 200 FEET, WE'RE GONNA BE RELYING ON G I S SYSTEM AND HOW I MEASURE BASED ON YOUR LAYERS, I MEAN, YEAH, AN APPLICANT CAN UTILIZE A G I S, THERE'S A MEASUREMENT TOOL ON THE ONLINE G I S.
SO I MEAN, IF A NEIGHBORHOOD'S CLOSE TO 200 FEET, LIKE WE WOULD REACH OUT NO MATTER WHAT.
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF, IF MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THE MAP NOT ALWAYS ARE ACCURATE, YOU KNOW, THINGS CAN GO WRONG.
ARE ARE YOU GUYS WILLING TO VERIFY WHEN I SUBMIT AN APPLICATION THAT THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN 200 FEET? ABSOLUTELY.
'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE COMPLETENESS REVIEW.
I MEAN, YOU'RE GONNA TELL US THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WE'RE GONNA DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND DOUBLE CHECK THAT.
YEAH, I, I, I WANNA BE ABLE TO TELL YOU THAT, BUT I DON'T WANT YOU GUYS TO COME BACK LATER AND SAY, YOU WERE WRONG.
YOU KNOW, MAYBE I MISSED SOMETHING.
OR MAYBE, YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, WE WORK WITH ALL APPLICANTS.
IF IT WAS MISSED, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW.
THAT WAY YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO.
I MEAN, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT GONNA INVALIDATE AN APPLICATION.
UM, WE'LL JUST WORK WITH YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU MEET ALL OF THE STEPS FOR COMPLETENESS.
WE HAVE A MOTION, I THINK IT WAS BY BIANCA, IS THAT CORRECT? AND DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY MR. ESTRADA? ANY LAST COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
SHOULD WE DO A ROLL CALL? YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE'RE GONNA DO.
I KNEW WE WERE GONNA END UP THERE, BUT I JUST, YOU KNOW, WAS TRYING TO BE OPTIMISTIC HERE.
IS THE VOTE IS ON THE STATEMENT THE WAY IT LOOKS LIKE NOW, CORRECT? YEAH, THE MOTION FOR, BUT THERE WAS A QUESTION ON HOW TO JUSTIFY THE PROOF.
ARE YOU GONNA ADD THAT TO IT? AND ALSO THE LAST LINE IN THE DO THAT BEFORE WE TAKE THE, THE VOTE AND, AND THE LAST LINE IN THE PARAGRAPH, I GUESS IT'S 200 FEET OFF THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY.
SHOULD YOU ADJUST THAT AS WELL? IF THE LAST STATEMENT, IF THERE'S SOME PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED, NOW'S THE TIME TO ADD IT.
200 FEET OF, OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THE LAST STATEMENT.
AND, UH, JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WORD PROOF, LIKE REGISTERED MAIL, UH, EMAIL ADDRESS, UH, UH, FACTS.
SO WOULD YOU WANT TO DO A PARENTHESES AFTER PROOF OF AN ATTEMPT TO MEET WITH EXAMPLES? SO YES.
COPY OF AN EMAIL, MINUTES FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEETING.
WHAT, WHAT ELSE WOULD WE WANT TO HAVE ENTERTAINED AS PROOF? WHAT IS YOUR PRACTICE? CERTIFIED MAIL.
AND HE EVEN SAID FAX, BUT I DON'T KNOW OF A WHOLE LOT OF, WELL, I WOULDN'T, I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND THE FACTS.
EXAMPLES INCLUDE, I AYE, I HEAR, I HEAR HEARING CERTIFIED MALE MAILING IS FINE.
I MEAN, WE SEND OUR NOTICES THROUGH REGULAR MAIL, NOT CERTIFIED MAIL PROOF.
YEAH, THERE'S NO, IT'S YOU, RIGHT? WHY WOULD WE NOT? YEAH, YOU COULD PUT CERTIFIED MAIL OR PROOF OF DELIVERY OF, I DON'T KNOW, YOU WANNA CALL IT FEDEX, U P S OR MAIL RECEIPT.
[01:20:01]
DID YOU GET YOUR OTHER, YOU HAD AND, AND KATT.DO WE DEFINE SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE U D C WHAT IT MEANS TO CONTACT A REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? LIKE THAT MEANS THE CONTACT PERSON THAT THE CITY HAS ON FILE? OR IF I KNOW SOMEONE THERE, CAN I SEND THAT? YOU KNOW, THAT PERSON AN EMAIL? LIKE WHAT COUNTS? SO THERE IS A CONTACT THAT'S DEFINED IN THE REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DATABASE.
SO MAYBE IT IS ADDING THAT TO, INSTEAD OF SAYING TO ME, TO CON, TO CONTACT THE, LET ME SEE WHAT THEY CALL IT TO CONTACT.
UH, IS IT FORMAL CONTACT OR CAN WE SAY EEG INSTEAD OF IE.
AND WASN'T SOME OF THE 200 FEET NOT OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROPERTY? KAREN, CAN YOU USE YOUR MICROPHONE? I'M SORRY.
I THINK HIS LAST ONE, 200 FEET OF THE APPLICATION WAS THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
OR, OR 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITHIN THE APPLICATION, PATTY.
THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE NEED TO DEFINE HERE INVOLVED LAUREN, LET'S SAY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY, SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION TO CONTACT THEM.
DOES THAT COVER YOU? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL CONTINUE WITH THE ROLL CALL VOTE.
ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM 20 DASH 18.
WE ARE SIMPLY MOVING THE SECTION TO ARTICLE SIX AND UPDATING THE NAME OF THE DEPARTMENT.
BUT IT IS IN ARTICLE SIX, WHICH WILL BE OUR SECTION.
THIS IS ALL NEW LANGUAGE, RIGHT? NO, THIS IS EXISTING IN ARTICLE FOUR.
UM, SINCE 2018, OUR OFFICE HAS OVERSEEN THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDE.
AND SO WE ARE SIMPLY MOVING IT MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
WELL, SHOULDN'T WE THEN HAVE A CODE SECTION THAT STRIKES IT THERE AND THE SECTION THAT PUTS IT HERE, IF WE'RE MOVING IT, IT IS IN ANOTHER AMENDMENT.
I THINK THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT TO STRIKE ALL OF ARTICLE FOUR.
YEAH, I MEAN, WE CAN PULL UP THE LANGUAGE IF WE WANNA DO A SIDE BY SIDE.
WE'RE JUST CONFIRMING IF WE ALREADY, WE ALREADY DID, RIGHT? I THINK IT WAS LIKE TWO MEETINGS AGO.
THERE'S ONE PREVIOUS ONE THAT HAD MULTIPLE.
YEAH, WE, IT WAS THE MEETING WHERE THE LAST EIGHT ITEMS ON THE AGENDA WERE ALL FROM O H P AND MR. HANLEY HAD MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE ALL OF THEM IN ONE CLUMP.
I MEAN, I CAN HELP YOU FIND IT.
WE'RE JUST CONFIRMING WHICH MEETING THAT WAS AT MARCH 14TH.
[01:25:11]
I'D LIKE TO SECOND THE MOTION, AND THIS IS ERIC, BY THE WAY.I MEAN, WOULD IT BE THE END OF THE WORLD IF WE CLICK QUICKLY? JUST PULLED THAT LANGUAGE FROM THE EXISTING ARTICLE FOUR AND CLARIFIED HERE THAT IT'S BEING STRICKEN.
I THOUGHT SOMEONE WAS MAKING SURE IT WAS IN THOSE AMENDMENTS FROM THE 14TH.
SORRY, THIS ISN'T ONE OF OUR BIG ONES, SO I HAVEN'T REALLY BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO IT.
I
IF THOSE OF YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT, AND THE D ZONING EXTENDS OFF INTO THE EAST SIDE TOO.
THAT'S HOW I LEARNED ABOUT IT.
SO IT'LL BE AT THE END OF THIS.
KEEP GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE END.
ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION BY BIANCA, A SECOND BY MR. ESTRADA.
I I DO JUST WANT TO GO ON RECORD AS SAYING THAT WAS ORIGINALLY CONSIDERED AT THE FEBRUARY 28TH MEETING.
ALRIGHT, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON AMENDMENT ITEM 27 DASH 44.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? COMMITTEE MEMERS.
THOUGHT I WAS SAID PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, SO THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT, UM, IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDING SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THE DESIGN OF THE LID COMPONENTS FOR PROJECTS WHERE LID IS REQUIRED IN THE RIO OVERLAY DISTRICTS.
UM, SPECIFICALLY FOR OFFSITE TREATMENT, UM, WHERE YOU MAY BE CONSTRAINED, UM, DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AND ALLOWABLE BUILDABLE AREA.
SO, UM, WE'RE ALSO IDENTIFYING, UM, WHAT AN ACUTE POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE WOULD BE.
UM, FOR EXAMPLE, DOG PARKS, DUMPSTER PADS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
MINE'S NOT SO MUCH AS A QUESTION, BUT ON, UM, THE IV NUMBER FOUR THERE, WE TALK ABOUT, UM, TREATMENT FOR ASSOCIATED PATHOGENS AND OR HEAVY METALS.
THERE IS NOT A LID FEATURE THAT YOU'RE GONNA SHOW YOU'RE TREATING THOSE.
AND SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE OILS, THE GREASE, I MEAN, YOU'RE GONNA GET SOME REMOVALS WITH LID FROM THAT, BUT YOU CANNOT SHOW THAT YOU'RE DOING TREATMENT.
SO I'D PER, YOU KNOW, PROPOSE STRIKING ASSOCIATED PATHOGENS AND HEAVY METALS TO WHERE IT'S TREATING FOR T S S AND OIL AND GREASE.
I HAD A QUESTION ON, UH, THE LAST SECOND TO LAST SENTENCE THERE.
IT SAYS PER 35 DASH 6 73 C EIGHT C FOUR, THERE IS NO C EIGHT C FOUR IN THE CURRENT CODE.
WAS IT ADDED BY IN PREVIOUS AMENDMENT OR? 'CAUSE THAT'S SECTION IN THE CURRENT CODE TODAY ONLY GOES UP TO C THREE.
UM, SHOW ME WHERE I'M, I'M SORRY, I'M THE SECOND TO LAST SENTENCE IN PARAGRAPH FIVE.
I THINK IT'S REFERRING TO THE PREVIOUS, UM, PARAGRAPH ABOUT THE OH T S SS.
IT'S THE OIL, THE, OKAY, GOTCHA.
YOU NEED TO ADD, UH, DON'T STRIKE OUT OIL AND GREASE.
THIS IS DEBBIE REED AND I HAD A, A LITTLE QUESTION ABOUT HOW, UM, YOU WOULD MANAGE TREATING ON AN OFFSITE OR TREATING RUNOFF OFFSITE.
SO THIS IS SPECIFICALLY WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME OFFSITE RUNOFF THAT DRAINS ONTO THE PROPERTY.
AND SO IT'D BE MORE, IT, IT'D BE MORE CONDUCIVE TO TREAT THAT OFFSITE RUNOFF VERSUS THE, THE SITES DEVELOPED.
[01:30:01]
WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.ROBERT HANLEY MOVE APPROVAL MOTION FOR MR. HANLEY.
SECOND AS AMENDED IS YOUR MOTION? YES, THANK YOU.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY MR. HANLEY.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, DISCUSSION.
POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDMENT ITEM FIVE DASH 26.
SO THIS NEXT AMENDMENT DOES TWO THINGS.
UM, LOGAN CAN SPEAK TO THIS, BUT THE STATE LAW THAT WAS PASSED A FEW YEARS AGO TOLD THE CITY THAT WE CANNOT USE VALUATION FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES FOR RESIDENTIAL.
UH, SO WITH THAT CAME, UH, A WAY OF HOW WE DETERMINE HOW TO DO, HOW DO YOU REPLACE SOMETHING THAT IS CURRENTLY NON-CONFORMING, THAT IS RESIDENTIAL USE VERSUS A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE.
UM, AND THERE WERE EXAMPLES OF, UM, THINGS THAT NEEDED TO BE CLARIFIED IN THIS CODE RELATED TO NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
UH, SO WE'RE MAKING SOME EDITS THAT SAYS, IF YOU KNOW THERE, IF A PROPERTY IS DESTROYED OR DAMAGED OR IT'S GOING TO BE REPLACED BY MORE THAN 50%, UH, OF ITS, UH, VALUE, THEN FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL YOU CAN USE THE APPRAISED VALUE FROM A CERTIFIED LICENSED AGENT OR COUNTY, UH, OR COUNTY TAX RECORDS.
UH, SO YOU CAN SHOW US THAT IT, IT DOES EXCEED OR IT DOES NOT EXCEED 50% OF THAT VALUATION IN ORDER TO DETERMINE IF YOU CAN PULL PERMITS WITHOUT HAVING TO NEED TO REZONE OR COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT CODE STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL NON-CONFORMING USES, UM, WE USE, WE WOULD USE THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT.
UH, SO THAT WAY WE CLEARLY DEFINE THAT WE'RE NOT USING VALUE ANYMORE FOR RESIDENTIAL.
AND AGAIN, THIS LANGUAGE ALSO CLARIFIES THAT IT APPLIES TO BOTH ALL RESIDENTIAL USES, SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY.
MR. HANLEY? WELL, I GUESS I'VE, YOU'LL NEED LOGAN, PLEASE GIVE THE QUESTION.
I GUESS I'VE BEEN AROUND THIS INDUSTRY LONG ENOUGH, BUT APPRAISED VALUE IS NOT THE SAME AS REPLACEMENT COST.
JUST LIKE APPRAISED VALUE FOR TAXES IS BASED ON THE PREMISE OF RAISING TAXES.
AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MARKET RATE OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY.
SO I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND WHY APPRAISED VALUE IS THE PREFERRED CHOICE VERSUS A REPLACEMENT COST.
BECAUSE THE REPLACEMENT COST IS REALITY, APPRAISED IS AN ESTIMATE.
SO AGAIN, THE PROCESS IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOU EXCEED 50%.
WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THAT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS, AND THEN THE VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT YOU'RE DOING.
SO IF YOUR APPRAISED VALUE YOU COULD UTILIZE, UM, SAYS THAT MY PROPERTY IS WORTH A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, I'M ONLY DOING, UH, PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE $35,000, THEN YOU CAN PROCEED WITH A NON-CONFORMING USE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXCEED THAT 50% OF THAT VALUE.
WASN'T THIS THE DEAL THAT YOU CAN'T REQUIRE BUILDING PERMITS TO BE DONE BASED ON COST VALUATION? VALUATION IS IN THIS SOMEHOW, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TIED BACK TO THAT BENEFIT? IT'S INDIRECTLY.
SO ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE ENCOUNTERED PROBABLY BACK IN 20 17, 20 18, WAS WE HAD A PROPERTY OWNER WHO WANTED TO DO A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL REHABILITATION TO A STRUCTURE THAT WAS ENTIRELY DILAPIDATED.
AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY MEANS TO REQUIRE SOME SORT OF PROOF OF WHAT THE VALUE OF A PROPERTY IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THAT.
AND THEY CLAIMED THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A $8 MILLION STRUCTURE, SO I CAN DO UP TO $4 MILLION WORTH OF WORK ON IT.
UNDER THE NON-CONFORMING CLAUSE, WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS WORTH, BUT IT WASN'T WORTH $8 MILLION.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO PUT SOME SORT OF PREDICTABLE LANGUAGE IN PLACE THAT SAYS IF YOU'RE GONNA ASCERTAIN THAT YOU CAN IMPROVE A STRUCTURE BASED UPON, YOU KNOW, UP TO 50%, WE NEED A WAY TO CAPTURE WHAT 50% OF THAT VALUE IS.
I THINK WE GET THE BEST WORLDS ON THIS ONE BECAUSE YOU CAN MAKE THE DETERMINATION.
WELL, THE APPRAISED VALUE IS GOING TO BE, IT'S NOT REALITY.
IT IS AS HIGH AS IT'S, THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH.
YOU KNOW, THE, WHAT YOU'RE DOING TO FIX IS BASED UPON PERMITTING.
SO IT'S HARDER TO, IT'S HARDER TO GET TO THE 50%, WHICH IS BETTER 'CAUSE YOU GET TO MAINTAIN YOUR, UH, NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS.
SO I, I THINK, I THINK THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO DO IT.
SECOND, DEBBIE, READ APPROVAL BY MR. BROWN.
BEFORE YOU ALL VOTE, COULD YOU CORRECT ME UP BEFORE YOU ALL VOTE? UM,
[01:35:01]
THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WOULD RECOMMEND A CLARIFICATION BE MADE REGARDING THE CERTIFIED OR LICENSED AGENT LANGUAGE.FOR EXAMPLE, APPRAISALS ARE A, A LICENSED PROFESSION.
AND SO DEFINING WHAT KIND OF AGENT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE HERE IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND.
COULD YOU SAY CERTIFIED APPRAISAL AND OR BROKER PRICE OPINION CERTIFIED APPRAISER SEEMS REASONABLE.
CER YEAH, THAT'S WHY WE'RE CERTIFIED BY APPRAISER.
AND I, I DO WANT THE WAY THE AMENDMENT IS WRITTEN AS WELL IS WE'LL ACCEPT THE COUNTY APPRAISED VALUE AS WELL.
SO IF, IF THAT GETS YOU THERE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO OUT AND HIRE AN APPRAISER.
WELL, WHAT IS LICENSED AGENT? AGENT, I THINK YOU TAKE OUT LICENSED AGENT.
KEEP THE OR FOR OR COUNTY TAX RECORDS.
WHO MADE A MOTION? MR. BROWN? WELL, HE LEFT, HE MADE THE MOTION.
I'LL MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED MOTION FROM BIANCA FOR AMEN.
WHO WAS IT? WAS IT DEBBIE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALRIGHT, ITEM NUMBER NINE, DISCUSSION A POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM 22 DASH 26.
THIS I AM MIKE DIAZ WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UH, THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT, LIKE ALL OF OUR OTHERS THAT HAVE BEEN HEARD TO DATE, ARE SIMPLY INTENDED TO CLARIFY ALL THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PLANS, UM, AND INCLUDE SUB AREA PLANS.
I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO PROPOSE A REVISION TO THIS.
I REALIZE THAT IT DOES NOT LIST COMMUNITY PLANS.
IT LISTS NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, BUT NOT COMMUNITY PLANS.
SO WE WOULD ADD COMMUNITY, ANY COMMUNITY PLAN.
THE MOTION MR. HANLEY FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
WAS THAT MR. HANLEY
SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. HANLEY FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
ITEM 10, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM 20 DASH SIX.
UH, ME AGAIN, COREY EDWARDS WITH THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
UM, SO THIS IS ONE OF OUR BIG ONES.
UM, WE ARE PROPOSING UPDATES TO, UM, THE H C R C SECTION AND APPENDIX, NO, ARTICLE EIGHT.
UM, AND WE ARE MAKING ADDITIONS TO BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH OUR ADOPTED RULES OF PROCEDURE.
AND THEN WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING EXPANSION OF THE COMMISSION.
UM, HOW WE WOULD DO IT IS BY ESTABLISHING A NEW BODY, WHICH WE WOULD CALL THE COMPLIANCE AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD.
IT SOUNDS VERY SIMILAR TO A PTAC.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IT'S A SEPARATE BODY.
IT'S NOT A RECOMMENDING BODY TO THE H D R C.
UM, SO THEY HAD THE ABILITY TO TAKE ACTION ON CERTAIN CASES.
UH, CERTAIN SCOPE OF WORKS WOULD GO TO ONE BOARD VERSUS THE OTHER.
UM, THIS IS A RESULT OF KIND OF WORKING WITH OUR STAKEHOLDERS AND OUR U D C TASK FORCE TO IDENTIFY WAYS TO REDUCE THE LENGTH OF OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.
UM, ROUTINELY AT H C R C, WE'RE HEARING ANYWHERE FROM 10 TO 15 CASES INDIVIDUALLY.
THOSE MEETINGS LAST FOUR TO FIVE TO SIX HOURS AND YOU KNOW HOW DIFFICULT THAT CAN BE.
UM, WE ALSO HAVE THE COMMISSIONER'S MEETING ON THE OFF WEEKS OF H C R C TO SERVE IN SUBCOMMITTEES.
SO OVERALL IT'S A VERY LARGE TIME COMMITMENT.
SO AT A MINIMUM, WE ARE LOOKING TO EXPAND THE MEMBERSHIP SO THAT WE HAVE ALTERNATES, BUT WE REALLY NEED TO ALSO ADD THE ADDITIONAL MEETING, UH, OF THIS NEW BOARD ONCE A MONTH SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THE CASE OVERFLOW.
SO THIS IS AN EITHER OR COMMITTEE, IT GOES TO H D R C OR THE OTHER? IT DOESN'T GO TO BOTH, CORRECT? WE ARE NOT TRYING TO MAKE THINGS HARDER.
I JUST WANNA COMMENT ON YOUR PROPOSED U D C AMENDMENT AND THANK YOU BECAUSE I KNOW THAT O H P STARTED THIS PROCESS BACK IN 2019, AND THESE AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN ON YOUR WEBSITE SINCE THEN AND HAVE ALLOWED ALL THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND THE STAKEHOLDERS TO BE ABLE TO COMMENT AND BE A PART OF THIS PROCESS.
AND I THINK WHAT WE SEE HERE IS THE END RESULT
[01:40:01]
TO A MAJOR CHANGE THAT WILL BE COMING TO HELP STREAMLINE THE PROCESS THROUGH THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, UH, FOR APPLICANTS THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, MAY NOT HAVE TO GO TO THE FULL H D R C NOW WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE THE NEW GROUP.UM, SO I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THAT AND UM, I KNOW THAT IT'S GONE THROUGH A LOT OF SIGNIFICANT, UM, MORPHING TO WHERE IT IS NOW.
UH, SO I'D LIKE TO MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
UH, CLEARLY THE ALTERNATES ON THE C T A B CAN SERVE ON THE CORRECT.
IF THERE'S AN ABSENCE, UH, MAYBE I MISSED IT.
IS IT POSSIBLE FOR IT TO WORK IN THE REVERSE DIRECTION? UM, YEAH, I BELIEVE SO.
UM, I I DON'T THINK WE HAVE IT WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT WOULD RESTRICT THAT.
UM, WE YOU'LL HAVE TO SCROLL UP.
SO LET'S GO DOWN TO WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE COMPLIANCE AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD.
IT CLARIFIES THAT THERE SHOULD BE 11 ALTERNATE MEMBERS APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND THE REPORT.
SO THERE'S 11 MEMBERS OF THE H C C.
NOW WE WOULD ASK COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR TO APPOINT TWO INSTEAD OF ONE.
AND SO THE ALTERNATES WOULD, UH, FORM THE MEMBERSHIP OF THIS, OF THIS NEW BODY.
UM, I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF IT HAD COME UP IN DISCUSSIONS.
IT, IT, IT DOESN'T APPEAR EXPLICIT THAT, UH, A A REGULAR MEMBER COULD ALSO SERVE ON THE NEW BOARD.
YEAH, THAT WASN'T THE PROBLEM WE WERE TRYING TO SOLVE, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T SEE WHAT THE, WHAT WOULD BE BAD ABOUT THAT? IF WE HAD A QUORUM ISSUE AT THE C TTAB, THEN WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY WANT THE ALTERNATE, LIKE THE, THE REVERSE TO BE SO, SO WHAT'S THE THINKING ON WHY? THERE'S A TON OF STUFF IN HERE THAT TO ME BELONGS IN BYLAWS.
IT'S IN PLANNING, COMMISSIONS, BYLAWS, ZONING BYLAWS, OUR BYLAWS ON QUORUM ON MEETINGS, ON VOTES ON.
WHY IS THIS GOING IN CODE FOR THIS BOARD AND FOR EVERY OTHER BOARD OR COMMISSION? IT'S IN THE, BY OUR BYLAWS, NOT IN CODE.
YEAH, I MEAN THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO INCORPORATE MORE OF THOSE SORT OF BYLAWS AND RULES OF PROCEDURE INTO THE U D C.
UM, WE MET WITH C A O ON FRIDAY AND ACTUALLY STRIPPED THIS DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
AND SO THE VERSION I, IS THIS WHAT I SENT ON FRIDAY? SO MEANING THE VERSION WE HAVE ISN'T WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN OR WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE VOTING ON.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT VERSION YOU HAVE.
WE HAVE THE ONE WITH ALL THE BLUE.
WHAT? SO OURS LOOKS DIFFERENT THAN THAT.
WE GOT THE UPDATE LANGUAGE ON FRIDAY.
WE SENT IT OUT FRIDAY AFTERNOON TO PTAC.
BUT WHAT WAS ON THE AGENDA WAS THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL.
IT'S THE SAME LANGUAGE, BUT IT'S FORMATTED CORRECTLY WHERE IT HAS, UM, LIKE STRIKEOUTS THE CORRECT WAY.
I GUESS WE, WE DID TAKE A LITTLE BIT OUT THERE WAS SORT OF LIKE A, UM, UH, LIKE A MEETING ORDER THAT WAS A LITTLE FAR TOO DETAILED THEN SHOULD BE IN THE CODE.
AND SO WE STRUCK A LITTLE BIT.
FOR THE MOST PART IT'S THE SAME AS WHAT WAS POSTED.
I DON'T KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT THIS.
I THINK WE MIGHT WANT TO POSTPONE THIS ONE TO THE NEXT AGENDA.
'CAUSE I DON'T THINK ANYONE IN THE ROOM HAS REVIEWED THAT.
IF I MAY, BEFORE YOU TAKE ACTION ON THAT, I JUST WANT TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT AGENDA IS PACKED.
I WANNA SAY THERE'S 27 OR 28 ITEMS ON THERE.
UM, SO WE, AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT AT DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE, THERE'S ALREADY A MOTION ON THE TABLE THOUGH, BEFORE YOU CAN INTERJECT ANOTHER MOTION.
WE HAD A MOTION TO APPROVE ALREADY.
WHO MADE THAT MOTION? BIANCA? KEN, WHAT WAS YOUR COMMENT? WELL, I'M VOTING NO 'CAUSE I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT SAYS.
AND FRIDAY TODAY I DON'T HAVE TIME TO REVIEW.
THAT MEANS WE ALL NEED TO LOOK AT IT.
YEAH, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO SIT AND GO THROUGH IT LINE BY LINE HERE.
WELL, WE GOT A VERSION FRIDAY THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS AGENDIZED.
AND I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IT'S NOT GREATLY DIFFERENT, BUT WHAT LAUREN SAID WAS WE DID CHANGE KIND OF WHERE THE STRIKETHROUGHS WERE SHOWN SO THAT YOU CAN DO MORE OF A SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON.
AND THEN THERE'S ONE OR TWO TWEAKS THAT I'M HAPPY TO GO OVER.
I JUST FEEL LIKE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL DETAIL IN THIS THING ABOUT HOW MEETINGS WORK, HOW THEY FUNCTION, HOW THE
[01:45:01]
COMMITTEE FUNCTIONS FOR ME, THAT IS SOMETHING WE ALL NEED TO READ.I MEAN, WHEN WE'RE CREATING A TASK FORCE THAT THOSE THINGS ARE PUT IN BYLAW, THAT'S ONE THING.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY HAD A SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INPUT AND PRESENTATION AND DIALOGUE TO GET TO WHERE THEY'RE AT RIGHT NOW.
UM, THIS ISN'T A DEPARTMENT WHO DEVELOPED THIS IN-HOUSE AND HIRED A CONSULTANT.
NOW IT'S JUST SEEN DAYLIGHT FOR THE FIRST TIME.
THIS THING HAS BEEN POSTED TO THEIR, UH, WEBSITE SINCE 2019 AND THEY'VE BEEN ACTIVELY MEETING BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO BRING ALL THE STAKEHOLDER HOLDERS FORWARD IN THE PROCESS AND ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS THAT THEY HAD WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SECONDARY COMMITTEE.
SO I THINK I, I VALUE YOUR INPUT AND I UNDERSTAND IF YOU MAYBE WANT TO TABLE IT TO THE END, UM, TO GIVE YOU MORE TIME TO LOOK AT IT AT THE END.
BUT BASED ON STAFF'S COMMENT THAT OUR NEXT AGENDA'S PRETTY PACKED.
UM, IF HE CAN SHOW YOU THE EDIT SIDE BY SIDE, I, I'LL COREY, IF YOU COULD GO BY THIS VERY QUICKLY.
WELL, I MEAN YOU HAVE TO SCROLL TO THE SAME PLACE, BUT YEAH, WHAT WE'VE DONE IS ORIGINALLY HOW WE WROTE IT WAS JUST REALLY KIND OF A REPLACEMENT BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME RENUMBERING AND WE THOUGHT FOR EASE OF READABILITY, WE WOULD JUST KIND OF PROPOSE IT AS NEW.
AND WE GOT SOME FEEDBACK FROM C A O ON FRIDAY THAT WE NEEDED TO KIND OF MAKE IT TO, YOU KNOW, WE WERE TOUCHING KIND OF SUBSECTION BY SUBSECTION.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE ON THE LEFT.
SO THE ACTUAL, WHAT IS SHOWN AS STRIKETHROUGH WHAT IS SHOWN AS NEW, WHAT YOU SEE ON THE LEFT IS, IS NO, NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS POSTED.
IT'S JUST IN A DIFFERENT SPOT, RIGHT? IT IT WAS, IT WAS UPDATED TO BE FORMATTED IN THE APPROPRIATE LEGISLATIVE CON CONTEXT OR FORMATTING FROM UNICODE.
NOW THE ONE THING WE TOOK OUT, IF YOU WANT TO ON THE RIGHT, IF YOU WANNA SCROLL UP SLOWLY PLEASE.
UH, RIGHT HERE WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT ITEMS UNDER SUBSECTION THREE PROCEDURE, ALL THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE SORT OF MEETING PROCEDURES, THOSE HAVE BEEN STRICKEN BECAUSE LIKE YOU SAID, IT IS TOO MUCH DETAIL THAN IS REQUIRED FOR THE U D C THAT'S SET AT THE CHAIR BY THE ONSET OF EVERY MEETING.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING IN THE REVISED VERSION.
UM, FIVE AND SIX ARE HIGHLIGHTED.
I, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER THAT WAS TOO MUCH DETAIL, BUT WE DECIDED TO KEEP THEM.
IS THERE AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM ON NUMBER FIVE? UH, IT HAPPENS NOW.
SO NO
IT'S NOT COMPLETELY FROM SCRATCH, BUT A LOT OF THE DETAIL ABOUT SUBCOMMITTEE STRUCTURE AND MEETINGS ARE FROM THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT WE HAVE ALREADY HAD ADOPTED BY COUNCIL.
THEY'VE JUST NEVER BEEN CODIFIED IN THE U D C.
YOU KEEP, YOU GONNA KEEP SCROLLING.
IS ANYONE READING THIS? IS ANYONE COMPARING? I MEAN, HE WAS KIND OF GOING THROUGH, ARE YOU DONE COMPARING FOR US OR THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY IT.
WELL WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE BY BIANCA FOR APPROVAL.
A SECOND BY, WAS IT MR. ESTRADA? UM, UH, ROBERT TAPIA.
UM, I GUESS ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
CAN YOU, VERONICA, DID YOU GET THAT? I HAVE MR. DEGI, MR. HACKETT AND MR. HANLEY? MR. PECK.
THANK YOU FOR ASKING AND CLARIFYING.
SORRY, I THINK I'M NEXT RIGHT.
POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM 20 DASH 15.
THIS IS MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS, UM, AND APPENDIX A THAT RELATE TO OUR PROGRAM.
UM, AND LAUREN, IF YOU CAN ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT SO THAT I CAN SEE THEM.
UM, SO BEGINNING WITH CLARIFICATIONS IN A FEW PLACES, IF WE SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE BIT, MID PAGE HERE.
SO TWO THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING AND IF YOU, YOU SCROLL BACK UP A LITTLE BIT.
I WANNA SEE DESIGNATED RESOURCE AND CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY.
SO THERE'S MULTIPLE, UH, EXISTING DEFINITIONS FOR WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HISTORIC IN THE U D C.
AND THERE'S MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS FOR WHAT IT MEANS TO BE CONTRIBUTING IN THE U D C.
[01:50:01]
IS A LOT OF CLEANUP OF THOSE DEFINITIONS AND REFERRING TO THE RIGHT THINGS.UM, SO THERE'S A QUESTION FROM ASHLEY LAST TIME I WAS HERE ABOUT HOW WE WOULD DEFINE CONTRIBUTING.
UM, SO FOR YOUR REFERENCE, CONTRIBUTING BASICALLY MEANS, UH, HISTORIC AND A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SO EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING, YOU'RE STILL ZONED HISTORIC AND IT'S A SIMILAR PROCESS.
BUT WHEN THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT DEMOLITION OF A BUILDING AND A STORE DISTRICT, THIS, THIS DETERMINATION BECOMES REALLY IMPORTANT, WHETHER IT'S CONTRIBUTING OR NOT.
UM, SO THERE'S AN EXISTING PROCESS IN, UH, 3, 5, 6, 1 9 THAT SPEAKS TO THE APPLICATION THAT'S MADE TO OUR OFFICE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION FOR CONTRIBUTING STATUS.
THE NEW PROPOSED, UH, DEFINITION HERE, CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE, UH, COMBINES THE EXISTING, UH, BUILDING AND PROPERTY, UM, INTO A NEW DEFINITION AND THEN ALSO REFERS TO THAT PROCESS.
AND SO WE ELIMINATED LANGUAGE ABOUT THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PLACES AND OTHER THINGS.
IT'S REALLY ABOUT THE PROCESS ESTABLISHED IN 6 1 9 AND REFERRING TO THAT, UM, IF WE SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE FURTHER, UH, KEEP GOING.
AND AGAIN, IF THERE'S ONE YOU WANT ME TO STOP ON, I'M HAPPY TO.
UM, SO PRIOR TO 2010, AND THERE'S A
UM, LANDMARKS WERE CREATED IN TWO WAYS.
THEY WERE EITHER HE OR HSS, SO THAT'S EXCEPTIONAL OR SIGNIFICANT.
UM, THAT'S REALLY BAD KIND OF PRESERVATION PRACTICE.
SO NOW WE JUST DO HL HISTORIC LANDMARK, BUT WE STILL HAVE THOSE, THOSE, UH, ZONING TYPES THAT POP UP ON THE MAP BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO TECHNICALLY REZONE ALL THOSE PROPERTIES TO MAKE EVERYTHING AN HL.
SO THEY STILL EXIST AND WE ARE UPDATING THE DEFINITIONS JUST TO REFER THOSE INSTANCES TO THE STANDARD HL TYPE.
THERE'S HISTORIC LANDMARK, THERE'S HISTORIC SOMETHING RESOURCE.
WE ARE NOW CREATING THE NEW DEFINITION FOR DESIGNATED RESOURCE, AND THAT'S GONNA BE HIGHER UP IN THE DSS.
AND DESIGNATED RESOURCE REFERS TO ANYTHING THAT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN DESIGNATED AS SUCH BY CITY COUNCIL.
SO IT'S A REAL LOCAL LANDMARK, EITHER BY LANDMARK DESIGNATION OR HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION.
NOW IF YOU SCROLL DOWN, WE ALSO WANTED TO DEFINE IN PLACES WHAT IT, WHAT THE WORD HISTORIC MEANT.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY DESIGNATED.
UM, THE STATE PRESERVATION OFFICE TELLS THE CITY THAT WE NEED TO KEEP AN EYE ON OUR HISTORIC RESOURCES.
AND SO THAT MEANS THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN INVENTORIED, THINGS THAT ARE ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER, THINGS THAT ARE STATE LANDMARKS.
AND NOT ALL OF THOSE ARE LOCAL.
AND SO WE DON'T WANNA PRETEND THAT WE ARE TREATING ALL THESE THE SAME WAY 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT.
UM, SO THIS IS THE DEFINITION THAT WE'RE KIND OF, WE'RE CHANGING THE NAME OF, BUT IT'S EXISTING FOR HISTORIC STRUCTURE.
WE'RE CALLING IT HISTORIC AND IT'S IN ANY BUILDING OBJECT SITE OR STRUCTURE THAT MEETS THOSE THINGS.
AND AGAIN, THOSE ARE EXISTING IN THE CODE AND THAT'S SIGN OF KIND OF OUR STATE LEVEL OBLIGATION TO KEEP AN EYE ON THOSE THINGS.
BUT WE DON'T REVIEW THEM LIKE A HISTORIC DESIGNATED LANDMARK.
IS THAT CONFUSING ENOUGH? UM, SO WE ALSO HAVE A DEFINITION FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING.
AND IT'S REALLY JUST THE OPPOSITE OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTING, UH, PROPOSED LANGUAGE.
UM, WE ARE REMOVING A FEW THINGS THAT ARE NO LONGER KIND OF APPLICABLE, LIKE RATING OF RESOURCES AS SIGNIFICANT OR ELIGIBLE.
AGAIN, THESE ARE NOT REALLY METHODS THAT ARE USED ANYMORE.
WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE? AND JUST A CLARIFICATION THERE.
ANY COMMENTS? I HAVE A COUPLE OF MINOR COMMENTS ON THE TOP OF PAGE TWO.
IT SAYS EXCEPTIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK.
YOU NEED TO, OKAY, IT'S ALREADY FIXED.
AND THEN ON THE RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THE THIRD PAGE, THIS, IT SAYS INTRUSION C, NON-CONTRIBUTING.
SHOULD THAT SAY C NON-CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE OR IS IT, WAS IT SAME? YES, IT SHOULD.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY BIANCA SECOND.
GEORGE, I'D LIKE, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION.
I'M A LITTLE SLOW IN THE TRACKER HERE.
RATE, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE MY REALLY AREA OF INTEREST.
I JUST KIND OF WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE.
ON THE THIRD PAGE HERE, WHERE WE'RE JUST AT NOW, IT'S, IT DEFINES NON-CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE AND IT SAYS NON-CONTRIBUTING, I'M SORRY, HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE SUCH BY APPLICATION TO O H P STAFF.
WHO MAKES THE THAT APPLICATION? ANYONE A PROPERTY OWNER.
THE PROPERTY I WOULD PRESUME THE PROPERTY OWNER MAKES, MAKES THE APPLICATION.
SO THEN THE STAFF IS GONNA DECIDE IF THEY AGREE WITH IT OR THEY DON'T AGREE WITH IT.
HIS OPINION, I GUESS IT SEEMS TO ME THERE OUGHT BE SOMETHING
[01:55:01]
IN HERE THAT WOULD SAY THAT IF THE O THE O P O H P STAFF SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO DETAIL IN WRITING THE BASIS FOR THE DECISION THAT APP, THAT THE APPLICATION FOR NON-COM RIGHTS MIGHT BE REJECTED.SO THE PROCESS QUESTION, YOU APPLY, YOU APPLY, THE STAFF SAYS THEY, THEY DISAGREE.
AND UH, UH, RESOURCE SEEM LIKE THEY OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT IN WRITING.
WHY IS THE STAFF SAYING THIS THING IS, IS A RESOURCE WHEN WHEN THE OWNER SAID IT WAS NOT RIGHT.
SO THE, THE PROCESS ITSELF IS EXISTING IN 6 1 9.
WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES TO THAT SECTION.
IT'S, WE'RE KEEPING IT AS IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU APPLY, IT'S, IT'S ON A FORM CALLED A HISTORIC ASSESSMENT.
UM, WE'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR YEARS AND THE ASSESSMENT BASICALLY INSTRUCTS STAFF TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
AND WE SOMETIMES DO A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH.
WE DO AN AS IF WE THINK THAT THE MATERIALS ARE ARE, UM, ORIGINAL OR REPLACEMENT MATERIALS OR IF THE FORM HAS CHANGED.
A LOT OF THINGS GO INTO THAT DETERMINATION IF THERE'S DISAGREEMENT.
SO USUALLY PEOPLE ARE ASKING BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S NON-CONTRIBUTING AND THEY WANNA DEMOLISH IT.
IF THERE'S A DISAGREEMENT WITH STAFF THAT GETS REFERRED TO THE H C R C.
SO WE AREN'T THE, THE STOP GAP WITH THAT, THAT DETERMINATION AND ALWAYS GOES TO THE COMMISSION.
IF THERE'S A SORT OF LIKE AN APPEAL, BUT IT'S NOT AN APPEAL AUTOMATICALLY GO AS AN APPEAL.
WELL, IT WOULD GO TO THE COMMISSION FOR, FOR THEIR DETERMINATION.
YOUR STAFF WOULD SAY WE DISAGREE.
YEAH, YOU GET RESULTS IN WRITING.
YEAH, USUALLY THIS IS USUALLY USED WHEN THERE'S A, A DESIGNATED PROPERTY.
SO LIKE, USUALLY IT'S ONE LANDMARK THAT HAS MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON IT.
AND SO THE PROPERTY ITSELF MIGHT'VE BEEN LANDMARKED BECAUSE OF THE BUILDING ON THE CORNER, BUT THERE MIGHT BE SOME LIKE GARAGES OR YOU KNOW, OUTBUILDINGS IN THE BACK THAT THEY NEED.
THEY NEED A DECISION ON WHAT CAN HAPPEN WITH THOSE.
AND SO UNLESS IT'S DETERMINED NOT CONTRIBUTING THE CODE INSTRUCTS US TO TREAT IT THE SAME AS IF IT'S LANDMARKED.
AND THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS MAKE SENSE.
AND SO THIS IS JUST THE FORMAL PROCESS TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
AND COREY, IF I COULD ADD TO YOUR POINT, UH, IT'S NOT JUST THEM SAYING NO.
THE ASSESSMENT THEY DO IS QUITE SIGNIFICANT.
THEY GO OUT AND PHOTOGRAPH AND DOCUMENT AND DO THEIR RESEARCH.
SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE A, LIKE A THESIS ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE CAN ACTUALLY KNOW BE OF SOME TIME
THEY GO OUT AND THEY, THEY RESEARCH NEWSPAPER ARTICLES.
THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY BUILDING PERMITS, THE OWNERSHIP.
IT IS VERY ROBUST WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT THIS ASSESSMENT.
SO I JUST DIDN'T WANT YOU TO THINK THAT.
THERE'S A LOT OF EVIDENCE THAT IS GENERATED.
I JUST DIDN'T WANNA BE THE FOOL WHO FAILED TO ASK THE QUESTION.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY BIANCA AND A SECOND, UH, BY MR. TAPIA FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
ITEM 12, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDMENT TWO DASH FOUR.
I'M WITH THE SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT AND UM, I SAW Y'ALL ON MARCH 8TH AND YOU APPROVED, I ACTUALLY THOUGHT THIS WAS APPROVED TOO, BUT, UM, YOU APPROVED SOME, UH, REFERENCES TO CHAPTER, SOME REFERENCES TO CHAPTER 34, UH, OR TO CHAPTER 35, REFERENCING CHAPTER 34.
UH, WHAT THIS IS IS, UH, WHAT THIS IS IS BASICALLY ANOTHER REFERENCE, AND IT'S THE DEFINITION SECTION.
SO YOU APPROVED REFERENCES TO CERTAIN SECTIONS, AND THIS IS THE DEFINITION SECTION THAT DESCRIBES THOSE SECTIONS.
WELL, I, I HAVE, WHAT IS, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS SAYS.
SO BASICALLY, UM, WHAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE HERE ACTUALLY.
UM, YEAH, I HAVE MULTIPLE FIRST I DON'T.
BUT, UM, SO BASICALLY THE OTHER SECTIONS THAT WERE APPROVED ON MARCH 8TH TO BE INCLUDED BY REFERENCE.
SO CHAPTER 34 IS THE WATER SECTION OF THE CODE AND CHAPTER 34, UH, ARTICLE FOUR IS THE CONSERVATION PART OF IT.
AND SO IT WAS APPROVED THAT SOME OF THOSE THINGS THAT WERE IN CHAPTER 34, ARTICLE FOUR WERE JUST REFERENCED IN CHAPTER 35.
SO DEVELOPERS COULD FIND THEM.
AND ALL THIS IS, IS JUST THE DEFINITION SECTION THAT GOES WITH THOSE.
SO IT REFERENCES CHAPTER 35, SECTION 35 DASH FIVE 10, WHICH IS BUFFERS.
WELL, THAT'S JUST WHERE THEY'RE, THEY'RE WHERE THEY'RE GONNA PUT THIS CHAPTER 34 REFERENCE.
WHY THEY'RE GONNA, WHY IS IT GONNA BE IN THEIR BUFFERS? 'CAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S ABOUT WHAT, THAT'S THE LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION SECTION.
WELL, MOST OF THE STUFF HAS TO DO WITH LANDSCAPING FOR DEVELOPERS
[02:00:01]
AND BUILDERS.I, I DON'T CARE WHERE YOU PUT IT ACTUALLY,
I MEAN ACTUALLY LOGAN HAS ANOTHER I BETTER IDEA.
THESE ARE, THESE ARE SAS AMENDMENTS.
SO WE ARE GOING BASED OFF OF WHAT SAS IS REQUESTING.
UM, SO IF THERE IS ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU HAVE, I'M SURE, UH, PTAC IS OPEN TO THAT.
WELL, I WAS AGAIN, WHAT IS CHAPTER 34? ARTICLE FOUR.
ARTICLE FOUR IS BASICALLY ALL THE, IT'S COLLOQUIALLY KNOWN AS THE CONSERVATION, UH, SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE CHAPTER ARTICLE ONE HAS A LOT OF THINGS THAT, UM, THAT ARE ASSOCIATED, THAT Y'ALL PASSED ALREADY ON MARCH 8TH THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH, UM, THINGS LIKE REQUIRING FOUR INCHES OF SOIL FOR NEW BUILDS AND YOU KNOW, DROUGHT, TOLERANT TURF, STUFF LIKE THAT.
SO THE, IS STAFF COMFORTABLE WITH THAT REFERENCE? 'CAUSE THAT, THAT, I MEAN WE'RE STICKING IN BUFFERS, NOT EVEN LANDSCAPING.
IT'S LIKE BUFFERS BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL.
NO, I THINK THAT WHERE WE LOOKED AT IT WHEN I, WHEN WE MET, I JUST, UM, I THINK WE LOOKED AT IT, THERE WAS KIND OF AN INTRO SECTION, ALMOST LIKE A PREAMBLE OR SOMETHING.
THIS IS THE PRE, THE ONE THAT'S ON THE SCREEN IS THE PREVIOUS ONE THAT WAS APPROVED BY PTECH.
SO IT WAS LIKE A PREAMBLE OR SOMETHING.
I THINK THE PART THAT I AM NOT UNDERSTANDING IS WHY WE'RE ADDING IS IT NOT VERBATIM THAT SECTION TO THE DEFINITIONS? 'CAUSE IT'S NOT DEFINING ANYTHING.
NO, IT'S, I I UNDERSTAND THIS AMENDMENT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
WELL THE OTHER ONE WAS, WAS THAT HAS THAT ONE LITTLE SECTION, BUT THE OTHER ONE HAS MORE, 'CAUSE WE DID TWO LAST.
THAT'S, THAT'S EXACTLY WHY I'M TOTALLY CONFUSED ON THIS AMENDMENT WET.
AND THEN, AND THEN WHAT? AND THEN WHAT THEY WANTED WERE THE DEFINITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH BOTH OF 'EM TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS, UM, U D C UPDATE.
AND SO I INCLUDED THE DEFINITION SECTION THAT WAS IN, THAT WAS IN CHAPTER 34.
'CAUSE THIS MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.
SORRY, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE ISSUE.
AND WE ALREADY PUT A, THAT'S REFERENCE IN THE CODE THAT SAYS, BUT THAT'S NOT THE ONLY ONE.
I'M JUST SAYING THERE'S A LOT MORE THAT YOU APPROVE THAT THEY APPROVED.
THEY DIDN'T JUST APPROVE THAT ONE.
WHAT'S THE IMPACT BY DI DISAPPROVING THIS DAY TO YOU TO SAWS? UM, WELL, I MEAN THE MAIN IMPACT IS THAT WHEN BUILDERS GO TO CHAPTER 34 TO READ IT, THEY MAY NOT KNOW TO FIND THE DEFINITIONS, BUT THEORETICALLY IF THEY'RE LOOKING AT CHAPTER 34 TO SEE WHAT THEY'RE DOING, THEY WOULD FIND THE DEFINITION SECTION.
SO THIS, I'M OKAY, THIS MOVEMENT HERE ISN'T DEFINING ANYTHING.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE STICK SOMETHING IN DEFINITIONS THAT ISN'T A WORD AND A DEFINITION, RIGHT? YEAH.
IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT DEFINING ANYTHING.
IT'S UNDER THE DEFINITION SECTION, BUT THERE'S NOT A WORD BEING DEFINED.
SO THE DEFINITION SECTION IN CHAPTER 34 IS ABOUT 10 PAGES LONG.
WELL THEN IT WOULD'VE BEEN 10 PAGES THAT NEEDED TO GO INTO THIS CODE IF WE WERE TRYING TO PUT DEFINITIONS.
SO WHAT WE WERE DOING IS JUST DOING IT BY REFERENCE RATHER THAN PUTTING IN THE INDIVIDUAL.
SO YOU'RE SAYING BUILDERS DON'T FORGET TO TAKE A LOOK AT CHAPTER 34 WHILE YOU'RE DOING STUFF? THAT'S WHAT IT'S SAYING.
SO WE ALREADY PUT THAT IN THE, THE INTENT AND PURPOSE SECTION PREVIOUSLY.
THAT'S I THINK WHAT WE WERE GOING FOR, WHICH IS YEAH, WHICH IS FINE.
IT WAS AN INTENT UNDERSTAND PURPOSE.
BUT LIKE IF YOU WERE TO TAKE THE LANGUAGE THERE ON THIS AMENDMENT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, THE DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF INTERPRETATION SECTION IS ALPHABETIZED.
RIGHT? IT GOES BY ALPHABETICAL ORDER.
I WOULDN'T KNOW HOW TO OUT, WHY I WOULDN'T KNOW WHERE TO PUT THIS BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING BEING DEFINED YOU TO PUT IT IN SSS WITH SECTION
WELL, LOGAN AND I MET WITH ON IT STEVE FOR CHAPTER 34.
WE MET ON IT AND TALKED ABOUT IT.
AND I THINK IT WAS SUPPOSED IT WAS IN THAT PREAMBLE AREA, RIGHT? RIGHT.
SO THIS SHOULD GO IN THE PREAMBLE TOO.
SECOND MY MOTION WHERE SHOULD GO? PRETTY, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YEAH.
WHERE THE OTHER ONES WENT, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED IT IN THE YOU ALREADY APPROVED.
YOU JUST DIDN'T APPROVE THIS, THE DEFINITION PART.
BUT IF YOU'RE PUTTING, IF YOU'RE REFERRING TO CHAPTER 34, RIGHT.
AND THERE'S QUESTIONS ABOUT DEFINITIONS, THEY WILL BE FOUND IN CHAPTER 34, 4.
SO WE DON'T, I DON'T ANTICIPATE THERE'S ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO GO HERE IN THE DEFINITIONS OF CHAPTER 35, IF YOU'VE ALREADY REFERENCED IT WITHIN THE CODE
[02:05:01]
IN THE PREVIOUS APPROVALS.WHEN WE, WHEN WE MET, WHAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT IS ADDING REFERENCE TO SOME OF THE SECTIONS, RIGHT.
AND THEN IF YOU HAD INDIVIDUAL OR EVEN ALL OF THE, THE DEFINITIONS IN CHAPTER 34, 1 30, YOU COULD ADD THEM TO CHAPTER 35.
ALL IT IS IS REFERENCING THE DEFINITION SECTION, WHICH IS A REALLY LONG SECTION.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR DENIAL BY KARA.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? WE HAVE A SECOND BY BIANCA.
YOU THINK I ALREADY MAKE MOTION TO HAVE A SECOND? AND WE DIDN'T VOTE ON THAT.
WELL, DON'T FORGET TO LOOK FOR THE DEFINITIONS.
CHAPTER 34, DON'T WORRY BECAUSE THEY'RE WAY DIFFERENT THAN IN CHAPTER 35.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR DENIAL BY KARA, SECOND BY BIANCA.
OKAY, ITEM NUMBER 13, DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM FIVE DASH 38.
MY NAME IS MIKE LEE, RUSTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT.
TODAY AM MY AMENDMENT ADD, UH, OR TYPES OF PERVIOUS PAVEMENT APPROVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
IF YOU READ THE DEFINITION WHOLE, YOU'LL SEE THAT IT GOES AHEAD AND DEFINES IT AND DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING IN THERE FOR PERVIOUS PAVEMENT.
SO THIS ADDS A SECTION IN THERE FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO MAKE A DECISION ON IN THE FUTURE.
UM, I THINK MR. HAMLEY HAS A QUESTION.
SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, PERVIOUS PAVEMENT, I DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER WE NEED NOT TO LIST THEM ALL, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE MISSING SOME THINGS LIKE GRASS CREEK OR CRUSH GRANITE, NOT AS A DRIVING SURFACE, BUT THERE ARE PROJECTS IN THIS CITY WHERE THERE'S PAVEMENT, WHETHER IT'S ASPHALT OR CONCRETE IN THE DRIVEWAYS.
AND TO GET MORE PERVIOUS PAVEMENT, THEY PUT CRUSH GRANITE IN THE PARKING AREAS.
AND SO I'M JUST CURIOUS OF WHETHER THE INTENT OF THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN CAPTURED.
THAT THOSE MAY HAVE BEEN PREVIOUS, BUT CURRENTLY WITH THE DUST CONTROL GRID IN THIS, UH, IN ALL WEATHER, SURFACE PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS REQUIRES IT BE ONE OF THESE, THESE ITEMS. UM, SOMETHING THAT WILL NOT CREATE A DUST ISSUE DOWN THE ROAD.
SO WHAT IS THE, UH, THE BALANCING ACT BETWEEN HAVING MORE PERVIOUS COVER VERSUS DUST CONTROL? THE, WELL, THE, THE BALANCING ACT IS, IS THERE ARE OTHER METHODS OF PERVIOUS PAVEMENT THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE, WE'RE ADDING THIS ONE.
UM, BUT THOSE AREN'T INCLUDING THE ANYTHING THAT WOULD CREATE DUST.
AND SO, UH, IT'S, IF, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING STEVEN, IS THAT, UH, CRUSH GRANITE IS CONSIDERED A DUST GENERATOR.
AND WHAT ABOUT GRASS CREEK? I'M NOT SURE WHAT GRASS CREEK IS, BUT I I DOES NOT, A DUST GENERATOR THINKS TO THE GRASS PART OF IT.
IT GRASS CREEK BASICALLY IS, IT'S, UH, HARD CONCRETE PAVERS THAT HAVE PROVISIONS TO HAVE GRASS GROWING OUT OF IT.
AND IT'S NOT USED IN DRIVEWAYS.
THOSE ARE, THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE ALTOGETHER.
I'LL SECOND THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY KARA, A SECOND BY BIANCA.
ITEM 14, DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON NU D C AMENDMENT ITEM FIVE DASH 25.
SO THIS AMENDMENT IS TO REPLACE OUR CURRENT DEFINITIONS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF CHILDCARE INSTITUTIONS FOR THAT ARE USED IN OUR RESIDENTIAL, UH, USE MATRIX AND REPLACE IT WITH VERY TWO SIMPLE ONES, ONE FOR SIX AND UNDER, AND ONE FOR SEVEN TO 12.
IT'S BECAUSE, AND JUST IF YOU, IF YOU WANNA KNOW THE STATE, WHEN WE ADOPTED, UH, CHILDCARE DEFINITIONS AND SUCH, BACK IN THE, THE 65 CODE, UH, WE MIRRORED WHAT THE STATE HAD.
UH, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR CODE, THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY EXACTLY THE SAME.
AND SO RATHER THAN HAVING, UH, THE APPLICANT DETERMINE WHICH ONE THEY ARE CLASSIFIED IN, UH, WE
[02:10:01]
JUST CREATED TWO TYPES BECAUSE CHILDCARE FACILITY IS A CHILDCARE FACILITY, IS A CHILDCARE FACILITY.JODY, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YES.
UH, WHAT ABOUT IF IT'S OVER 13? THAT'S CALLED THE DAYCARE CENTER.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR MOTION? MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED BY BIANCA.
ITEM 15, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT 18 DASH TWO.
SO IF WE CAN, UH, MOVE THIS ITEM TO THE END OF THE AGENDA.
SOUNDS LIKE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A MEETING CONFLICT, BUT DOUG IS, UH, TRYING TO GET HERE AS QUICKLY AS HE CAN.
ITEM 16, DISCUSSION A POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM FIVE DASH 29.
THIS WILL JUST CLARIFY THAT IF YOU HAVE LIKE A GO-KART, UM, FACILITY THAT IS INDOORS, YOU ARE CLASSIFIED AS AN ENTERTAINMENT INDOOR.
IF ANY OF THOSE USES ARE OUTDOORS AND NOT WITHIN A STRUCTURE, THEN YOU'RE AN ENTERTAINMENT VENUE.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY BIANCA.
ITEM 17, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT 10 DASH FIVE.
THIS IS JUST AN, AN ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO MAKE AN INTERPRETATION.
'CAUSE AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE CONVENTIONAL DISTRICTS AND THEN WE HAVE SPECIAL DISTRICTS.
AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS IN THE CODE HAVE THEIR OWN SET OF, UH, USES OR ALLOWABLE, UH, ZONING DISTRICTS.
UH, SO THIS IS JUST THE INTERPRETATION WHERE, UM, IT'S CONSIDERED CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGNATED LAND USE CATEGORY.
SO LONG AS THOSE PERMITTED USES LOCATED IN IT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE USES AND DENSITY OF THAT LAND USE CATEGORY, IT'S JUST PUTTING INTO, INTO PLACE WHAT WE'VE ALREADY BEEN PRACTICING FOR YEARS.
NOW, WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE DEFINITION IN THE CODE OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS? SO DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ACTUALLY AN ARTICLE A FOR DEFINITIONS, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY AN ARTICLE.
THREE SPECIAL DISTRICTS ARE, FOR EXAMPLE, M M P C D, MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY DISTRICT GOLF DISTRICT IS ANOTHER ONE.
QUARRY DISTRICT IS ANOTHER ONE.
IT, IT JUST BASICALLY MEANS THIS IS A, UM, A DIFFERENT TYPE OF BASE ZONING DISTRICT WITH ITS OWN SET OF RULES, USES, UH, DESIGN STANDARDS ON REQUIREMENTS.
AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE CALLED SPECIAL.
COULD I PROPOSE THAT WE SAY SPECIAL DISTRICTS PER DIVISION FIVE OR 35? SURE, YOU CAN.
THREE, FOUR, WHAT? SINCE WE USE THE LANGUAGE SPECIAL DISTRICTS NOW SO MUCH TO APPLY TO THESE PIS AND OTHER USES WE'RE DOING OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, I THINK IT CAN BE CONFUSING SINCE THOSE AREN'T SUBJECT TO ZONING AND LAND USE BEING OUTSIDE THE CITY.
YEAH, JUST, UH, MAKE SURE IT SAYS ARTICLE THREE SECTION FIVE.
MOTION FOR TO APPROVE AS AMENDED.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY BIANCA, A SECOND BY SUSAN.
DO YOU WANNA MAKE SURE THAT LANGUAGE IS TO YOUR LIKING BEFORE WE TAKE A MOTION OR TAKE A VOTE? DIVISION FIVE.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ITEM 18, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT.
EXCUSE ME, I'M LESLIE PROVINCE WITH THE FOOD POLICY COUNCIL.
UM, THIS IS PART OF OUR PACKAGE THAT, UM, MAKES THINGS EASIER AND BETTER DEFINED FOR URBAN FARMS. AND, UH, SO WE'RE ADDING COMMUNITY GARDENS AND URBAN FARMS UNDER CIVIC USES.
WE HAVE A DEFINITION FOR HIGH TUNNEL AND HOOP HOUSE, AND WE'RE EXPANDING THE DEFINITION FOR PRODUCE.
AND, UM, UNDER RESIDENTIAL MARKET GARDEN, WE HAD A STATEMENT, SALES ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE CONDUCTED OUT OF SIGHT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
WE DIDN'T LIKE THE WAY THAT SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS
[02:15:01]
SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, DIRTY, SOSO, SO WE ASKED, UH, STAFF TO COME UP WITH BETTER LANGUAGE AND THEY DID.
UM, WE'RE DEFINING SOIL ORGANIC MATTER, WHICH IS, UM, HAS BENEFICIAL USES FOR, UM, FLOOD CONTROL AND DROUGHT MITIGATION.
WE'RE REMOVING TRUCK FARM BECAUSE IT WAS REPLACED FIVE YEARS AGO BY URBAN FARM AND RESIDENTIAL MARKET GARDEN, AND WE'RE ADDING, UM, HOOP HOUSES AND COMPOSTING, UH, PROVISIONS UNDER THE URBAN FARM.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE ONE COMMENT.
UH, IT SAYS, UH, IN THE LA IN THE LAST BLUE SENTENCE THERE, IT SAYS, COMPOSTING OF VEGETABLES, MATERIALS PRODUCES, IT SHOULD SAY, PRODUCED WITH A D AND SEVEN SS ON THE FARM.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
IT SHOULD BE PRODUCED WITH A D.
UH, ITEM NUMBER 19, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM FIVE DASH 32.
I FEEL LIKE THIS IS TIMELY AFTER THE SAWS AMENDMENT.
UH, BUT THIS ACTUALLY MOVES A DEFINITION THAT'S FOUND NOT IN THE DEFINITION SECTION INTO THE DEFINITION SECTION.
UH, SO WE HAVE CERTAIN SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS.
ONE OF THEM IS A FUNERAL HOME, AND FOR SOME REASON, WHEN CODE WAS ADOPTED, THE ACTUAL DEFINITION OF A FUNERAL HOME WAS PUT INTO THIS SECTION RATHER THAN IN DEFINITIONS.
SO WE'RE MOVING THAT THIS BE FILED UNDER F FOR A FUNERAL HOME.
OKAY, SO MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY BIANCA, SECOND BY JODY.
THIS ONE IS TO INTRODUCE A, A DEFINITION.
UH, THERE ARE VARIOUS, UM, DESIGN STANDARDS OR OTHER DEFINITIONS THAT REFER TO HABITABLE SPACE OR HABITABLE AREA.
AND THERE THAT DEFINITION DOES NOT EXIST IN OUR CODE.
SO, AS APPENDIX A STATES IN THE PREAMBLES, WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION, THEN YOU UTILIZE THE OTHER CODES, UH, THAT HAVE DEFINITIONS THAT WE RELY UPON.
AND ONE OF THOSE IS THE, UM, LIKE THE BUILDING CODES.
AND THE BUILDING CODE DEFINES WHAT HABITABLE SPACE IS.
SO WE'RE JUST SIMPLY TAKING THAT DEFINITION, THAT BUILDING CODE, UH, DEFINES HABITABLE SPACE AND AREA AS AN INCORPORATING IT INTO THE U D C.
YEAH, FOR THE RECORD, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ITEM 20, ITEM AMENDMENT ITEM FIVE DASH 34 MANA.
SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE IS, UH, STAIRCASES.
SO IS THAT COVERED? THE STAIRWELLS? SO IT SEEMS LIKE I'VE RECALLED THAT THAT'S BEEN DIALOGUE IN THE PAST WITH REGARDS TO HABIT SPACE.
IF THIS STAIRWELLS ARE CONSIDERED HALLS, THEN THAT'S COVERED IN THERE, THEY'RE NOT CONSIDERED HABITABLE SPACE.
SHOULD WE CL SHOULD WE INCLUDE THAT THEN? MAYBE.
SO, SO MINIMIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE I'VE, WE'VE HAD THAT QUESTION IN THE PAST, YOU KNOW, IN, IN OTHER DIALOGUE THAT I'VE HEARD.
IF THE, IF THE PTAG WANTS TO INCLUDE THAT YOU CAN'T HEAR, I'D LIKE TO INCLUDE IT.
MR. UH, HANLEY? UM, YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO CHIME IN.
STAIRWAYS ARE NOT CONSIDERED HABIT SPACES IN THE, UH, IN THE BUILDING CODES.
THEN I STRUCK MY QUESTION, UH, KAT, DO YOU NEED TO, TO TRY TO CAPTURE SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS IN THE BUILDING CODES FOR WHAT A HABITABLE SPACE IS AS IT RELATES TO, UH, HEAD THE HEIGHT? IT CAN'T BE MORE THAN, UH, SEVEN FEET LOWER THAN SEVEN FEET TO BE A HABITABLE SPACE.
UM, AND IF YOU HAVE A SLOPED CEILING, UH, OVER 50% OF THE SPACE HAS TO BE ABOVE FIVE FEET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
ANYWAY, IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS FROM A, A DEVELOPMENT STANDARD IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, I GET WHAT A HABITABLE SPACE IS.
BUT THEN YOU GO TO THE BUILDING CODE, WHETHER IT'S THE I B C OR THE I R C AND YOU GET A, A BETTER CLARIFICATION OF THE DEFINITION OF HABITABLE SPACE.
I'M JUST ASKING, I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO ADD THAT COMPONENT BECAUSE AGAIN, WHEN THEY COME IN FOR THE PERMIT REVIEW, THEY'RE GONNA BE REVIEWED DEPENDING UPON WHICH CODE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO APPLY WITH.
SO THEY'LL GO THROUGH THAT FURTHER, UH, VETTING WITH THAT.
BUT HERE IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHAT IS HABITABLE SPACE AND WHAT IS NOT
[02:20:01]
CONSIDERED HABITABLE SPACE.SO, SO MY REQUEST WAS ACTUALLY TO INCLUDE THE, UM, STAIRWAYS IN NON-HABIT SPACE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE HAD THE QUESTION, RIGHT? SO, SO YOU STATED THAT STAIRWELLS WERE NOT HABITABLE, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO, SO I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT ACTUALLY INTO THE HALLS AND SO SAY HALLS COMMA, STAIRWELLS, UM, SO THAT, THAT'S CLARIFIED.
IS THAT OKAY? AFTER HALLS? I, WE, WE CAN ADD IT FOR SURE.
RIGHT NOW THIS MATCHES, UM, THE DEFINITIONS THAT ARE IN THE BUILDING CODE.
I THINK THAT WAS, UM, THE INTENT OF THIS IS TO MATCH THEM.
YEAH, SO I GUESS WE'LL JUST CALL THIS OUT EVERY TIME WE HEAR THIS IN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
IT'S A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED BY BIANCA, A SECOND BY MR. HANLEY.
ITEM 21, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM 16 DASH FIVE OLA.
I'M RAY MORALES, 2 0 3 MEDFORD DRIVE 7 8 2 0 9.
ON BEHALF OF T ONE NC AND STEVE TI WHO COULD NOT BE HERE TODAY, I'M REQUESTING YOUR SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENT 16 DASH FIVE, WHICH PROPOSES A HALF STORY DEFINITION TO CLARIFY THAT A HALF STORY SHOULD NOT APPEAR AS A FULL STORY.
THIS AMENDMENT APPLIES TO SLOPING ROOFS AND TO FLAT ROOFS AS WELL.
WE HAVE AMENDED OUR PROPOSAL AND OUR FINAL REVISED AMENDMENT, UM, CAN YOU BRING IT UP WE'LL, WE'LL FORWARD.
UH, WAS USED VERBATIM PREVIOUSLY AS PART OF NORTH 14 ON AMENDMENTS 16 DASH ONE AND 16 DASH 12 AMENDMENTS, WHICH THIS COMMITTEE APPROVED AT THE LAST P TAC MEETING OF APRIL THE 11TH.
UM, I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR COMMENTS AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
AGAIN, I, I DO JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT EVEN IT LOOKS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE SOME OF THIS WAS EXISTING LANGUAGE, SOME OF IT IS STRUCK OUT.
UH, BUT THIS DEFINITION OF HALF STORY MATCHES VERBATIM THE DEFINITION OF HALF STORY IN NOTE 14 OF AN AMENDMENT APPROVED BY TAC AT, UH, THE APRIL 11TH MEETING.
SO IF IT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED, DO WE NEED TO CONSIDER THIS AGAIN? WELL, IT, SO THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT WAS ADDING THE DEFINITION TO AN EARLIER SECTION OF CODE.
THIS IS MATCHING THE DEFINITION IN THE DEFINITIONS CHAPTER MOVE.
MR. HANLEY, UM, LOGAN, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT YOU STRUCK OUT USUALLY LIGHTED BY DORMER WINDOWS.
I THOUGHT THAT THE BUILDING CODE REQUIRES ALL HABITABLE SPACES TO HAVE NATURAL LIGHT.
I THINK IT, THE, THE USUALLY LIGHTED BY, AND I'LL LET RACHEL CHIME IN ON THE BUILDING CODE PART PART, BUT THE, THE USUALLY LIGHTED BY DORMER WINDOWS LANGUAGE, THE PLAIN ENGLISH IS SORT OF GIVING YOU AN EXAMPLE.
UH, WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS IN A CASE THAT WAS APPEALED TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS THAT THAT USUALLY LIGHTED BY DORMER WINDOWS WAS MISINTERPRETED TO MEAN IT REQUIRED DORMER WINDOWS.
AND SO WE DON'T WANT THE DEFINITION, DIDN'T WANT TO PRESCRIBE HOW THESE HOUSES SHOULD BE, SHOULD LOOK IF THEY WERE GOING TO BE A HALF STORY.
BUT THEN RACHEL CAN COMMENT ON THE BUILDING.
YEAH, BECAUSE WE STILL, I'LL COMMENT ON THE BUILDING CODE WHEN I FIND IT.
I'LL THROW A MOTION OUT THERE.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY BIANCA, A SECOND BY DEBBIE REED.
ITEM 22, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDMENT ITEM FIVE DASH 44.
OH, I CAN DO IT IF YOU WANT ME TO.
I'M GONNA ROLL TODAY EITHER WAY.
ALRIGHT, SO AMENDMENT 22 AS A RESULT OF R 2019 DASH 0 0 1 TO ADDRESS, UH, UH, MOBILE RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS, UH, THIS IS MERELY ADDING A DEFINITION OF WHAT A MOBILE RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT IS, UH, MEANS SELLING GOODS OR MERCHANDISE FROM A SELF-CONTAINED UNIT, EITHER MOTORIZED OR IN A TRAILER ON WHEELS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC FOR PERSONAL OR HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION AND RENDERING SERVICES INCIDENTAL TO THE SALE OF SUCH GOODS.
AGAIN, JUST PROVIDING A DEFINITION FOR THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT.
[02:25:01]
MOVE APPROVAL.WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY SUSAN.
ANY DISCUSSION OR ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM 23, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT 16 DASH 13.
I'M CYNTHIA SPIELMAN SPEAKING TODAY FOR OSA MC COLVIN ON BEHALF OF THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION, KOUM AND I LIVE BOTH IN BEACON HILL AND I SERVE ON ITS BOARD.
UM, SO ITEM 20, AMENDMENT 1613 ADDS A DEFINITION FOR ONE OVER ONE TO THE U D C CHAPTER 35 APPENDIX A TO CLARIFY EXISTING TERMINOLOGY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN, DESIGN, UM, STANDARDS.
SO A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND N C D ARE APPROPRIATE COMMUNITY STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN CODIFIED THROUGH CITY COUNCIL AFTER A LENGTHY AND ARDUOUS PROCESS OF MEETINGS TO BUILD CONSENSUS.
TYPICALLY WHEN A DEVELOPER PULLS A PERMIT, THEY'RE NOTIFIED ABOUT THE PARTICULAR STANDARD WHICH PERTAINS.
THIS PARTICULAR STANDARD IS ALSO SHARED BY THE ALTAVISTA AND MONKEY PARK NCDS.
SO, UM, THIS IS A PICTURE OF, UM, OUR N C D STANDARDS HAVING TO DO WITH ONE OVER ONE LIGHT WINDOWS.
AND THIS IS TYPICAL, LIKE I SAID, OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSO, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD AND CDS.
THIS IS, UM, THE REASON WHY I'M HERE TODAY.
SO THIS IS NEW CONSTRUCTION IN BEACON HILL WITH NON-COMPLIANT WINDOWS.
THIS IS FROM NOVEMBER 19TH, 19, UH, 2019.
THE SECOND ONE, THESE WERE THE TEMPORARY, UM, IS THAT PRONOUNCED MUTTONS MU MU MUTTONS
SO THIS IS WHAT IT ORIGINALLY LOOKED LIKE WHEN THEY BUILT IT, WHICH, UM, WHICH IS, UH, UH, COMPLIES WITH R N C D AND THEN THE NEXT ONE.
UM, AND THEN THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOME BUYER.
THE ORIGINAL DEFINITION OF A ONE OVER ONE LIGHT DIVISION REFERS TO LIGHTS AS PANELS OF GLASS.
THE INTENT BEING TO HAVE UPPER AND LOWER PANES OF GLASS THAT WERE DIVIDED BY A PERMANENT PIECE OF MATERIAL THAT WAS PART OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE WINDOW.
NEW DEVELOPMENT TRENDS FAVOR SINGLE PANE WINDOWS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE BETTER, UH, CLARITY TO BUILDERS PROTECT FUTURE BUYERS AND RESPECT THE INTENT OF THE LANGUAGE.
IN THE NCDS, WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION, SEVEN, A WINDOW WITH PRIMARY HORIZONTAL DIVISION SEPARATING UPPER AND LOWER SASHES OR LIGHTS.
THE DIVISION SHALL BE, UM, SHALL BE BY A TRUE MEETING RAIL OR TRUE MUTTON,
WHO THOUGHT OF MUTTONS
THE IDEA FOR THIS AMENDMENT AND THE LANGUAGE ARE SUPPORTED BY D S D, IT WILL ONLY AFFECT CONSTRUCTION AND NCDS WHERE THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR WINDOW LIGHT DIVISIONS.
AND IT RESPECTS AND PROTECTS THE INTENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS WHO INCLUDE THIS REQUIREMENT AS A PART OF THEIR N C D DESIGN STANDARDS.
AND IT PROVIDES CLARITY TO DEVELOPERS AND PROTECTION FOR BUYERS WHO INEVITABLY MUST ADHERE TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
AND SO IN THAT, UM, SPIRIT, WE ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT TO MOVE THIS AMENDMENT FORWARD IN THE REVIEW PROCESS.
UH, SINCE THE N C UH, D STANDARDS ARE WELL-DEFINED IN THE CITY, UM, WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU HAVE A SIX LIGHT OR AN EIGHT LIGHT WINDOW OR SOMETHING LIKE THIS? BECAUSE THIS IS BEING VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT A ONE LIGHT OVER ANOTHER, UH, ONE PANE OF GLASS OVER THE UPPER AND LOWER SINGULAR.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S REPETITIOUS WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE HISTORICAL DESIGN GUIDELINES.
AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THIS DOES THAT THE HISTORICAL DESIGN GUIDELINES STANDARDS, WHICH ARE WELL PUBLISHED AND HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR QUITE A WHILE, UH, HOW IT IMPROVES IT.
BECAUSE THIS, IN THE EXAMPLE YOU SHOWED, YOU SHOWED WHERE THEY TOOK OUT THE HORIZONTAL MILLIONS.
BUT WHAT ABOUT IF IT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE MONTE VISTA, THEY HAVE SOME VERY SPECIFIC WINDOW DESIGN CRITERIA ABOUT MATERIALS AND GLASS AND, UH, LIGHTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THIS, THE INTENT OF THIS MODIFICATION IS DOING THAT YOU'RE NOT ALREADY ADDRESSED IN OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT THE CITY ENFORCES.
[02:30:01]
SO, OH, YOU GO AHEAD.YOU PROBABLY ANSWERED BETTER THAN I CAN.
SO FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE ZONE HISTORIC, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THOSE, UH, GUIDELINES THAT ARE, THAT ARE DEFINED FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
UH, THESE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE ARE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS HAVE THEIR OWN SET OF STANDARDS.
THEY DON'T HAVE, THEY DON'T, THEY AREN'T REFERRED TO THE HISTORIC GUIDELINES.
THEY HAVE THEIR OWN SET OF STANDARDS.
AND SOME OF THESE NCDS HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT OF THE ONE OVER ONE LAG DIVISION AS A, UH, COMPONENT OF THEIR, OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT THAT THEY WANT TO CONSERVE.
SO THIS DEFINITION TELLS US THAT YOU, YOU CAN'T USE THESE MUS TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE IT'S ONE OVER ONE LIGHT DIVISION.
IT HAS TO BE A PART OF THE STRUC, THE STRUCTURAL COMPONENT OF THAT WINDOW.
SO OUR CURRENT BASE ZONING DISTRICTS DO NOT HAVE A WINDOW DESIGN REQUIREMENT, IF YOU WILL.
THERE'S A HANDFUL OF NCDS THAT DO HAVE THIS.
AND SO THIS DEFINITION WILL TELL US WHEN WE'RE PROCESSING A PERMIT, HOW TO DETERMINE THAT THAT WINDOW MEETS THE ONE OVER ONE LIGHT DIVISION ONLY IN NCDS KAT.
SO IF I'M IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S AN N C D AND 60 70% OF THE HOMES ARE SIX, SIX OR EIGHT PANEL WINDOWS, UH, SOMEBODY CAN COME IN AND DO ONE OF THESE WHERE IT'S JUST ONE PANEL OVER ANOTHER.
OR AS FAR AS A GLASS PANE, ONLY IF THE N C D HAS A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAVE TO DO A ONE OVER ONE LIGHT, UH, DIVISION.
SO THERE ARE NCDS OUT THERE THAT HAVE NO WINDOW REQUIREMENTS.
SO THE N C D HAS TO SPECIFICALLY STATE ONE OVER ONE LIGHT DIVISION IS WHAT WE WANT FOR NEW WINDOWS OR REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS OR RENOVATIONS.
AND THIS TELLS US IT HAS TO BE A STRUCTURAL COMPONENT OF THE ACTUAL WINDOW.
ALSO, WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT UNDER THE CURRENT BUILDING CODES, ALL UH, REPLACEMENT WINDOWS HAVE TO BE DOUBLE INSULATED.
AND SO THIS TO ME, UNLESS SOMEBODY CAN CLARIFY IT TO ME, SOUNDS, UH, A LITTLE BIT LIKE NEBULOUS AND VAGUE AS TO WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN'T DO IN A NEIGHBORHOOD UNLESS THEY HAVE THEIR OWN DESIGN STANDARDS.
SO I MEAN, SO, SO THIS WERE WAS A YEAR OF, OF, AGAIN, LIKE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMING TOGETHER, TALKING ABOUT AND ARGUING AND BUILDING CONSENSUS AND ALL THE THINGS NEIGHBORS DO TO AGREE ON SOMETHING.
WE DON'T GO TO H D R C WHEN A A SOMEONE COMES IN, A BUILDER WANTS TO COME IN AND DO SOMETHING.
WHEN THEY PULL THE PERMITS, THEY ARE TOLD IT'S BLACK OR WHITE BECAUSE YOU'RE IN THIS N C D, YOU KNOW, FIVE, YOU HAVE TO DO THIS AND THIS.
AND WHEN THEY DON'T, IT'S IF THEY DON'T WANT TO, THEY HAVE THE OPTION OF GOING TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR AN FOR A VARIANCE.
AND I, I DO WANT TO CHIME IN THAT THESE N C D STANDARDS ARE APPROVED BY COUNCIL.
SO IT'S, IT'S A PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS.
IT CITY COUNCIL ULTIMATELY WAS THE DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY THAT SAID ONE OVER ONE LIGHT DIVISION WINDOW IS REQUIRED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS PROVIDING A DEFINITION OF WHAT WAS MEANT BY ONE OVER ONE LIGHT DIVISION.
SO LOGAN, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN NCDS THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVED ONE OVER ONE THAT'S CORRECT.
AND SOME NCDS THAT DON'T HAVE THIS REQUIREMENT OF ONE OVER ONE? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO, UM, SO ONE OF THE, UM, SO WE'LL HEAR CASES COME THROUGH ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON A REGULAR TIME, A REGULAR BASIS WHERE, UM, THERE IS DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TYPES OF WINDOWS.
AND I THINK SOMETIMES WHEN, UM, SOME PEOPLE COME IN TO DO A REHAB IN A FACILITY, THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE DIALOGUE THAT'S REQUIRED TO, TO WHAT A ONE OVER ONE WINDOW IS.
AND I THINK HAVING A DEFINITION ACTUALLY WOULD RESOLVE SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAVE, UH, MAYBE BEFORE THEY EVEN PUT UP THE WINDOW, THE WRONG WINDOWS.
AND SO THEY'RE COMING BACK AFTERWARDS, UM, BUT THEY DIDN'T KNOW AS ONE OF THE DIALOGUES AND SO OR SO TOLD.
AND SO THEN WE HAVE TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION WHETHER OR NOT IT FITS IN WHETHER OR NOT IT'S APPROPRIATE ENOUGH TO FIT WITHIN THE REST OF THE N C D AND GET THE COMMUNITY'S INPUT OR, YOU KNOW, PUT 'EM DOWN THE RIGHT PATH TO BEGIN WITH.
SO I THINK THIS PUTS 'EM ON THE RIGHT PATH BEFORE THEY START.
I THINK IT SEEKS TO CLARIFY THE SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE COMES IN AND PUTS A FOE DIVIDED LIGHT, IS THAT IT'S NOT TRULY THE ONE OVER ONE AND IT YOU SAW, AND IT'S NOT PERMANENT, IT'S REMOVABLE, AND IT, IT DOESN'T GO TO THE TRUE INTENT OF THE N C D.
AND TO YOUR POINT, THE NCDS ARE DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON WHICH ONE WAS ADOPTED.
AND THE NCDS ARE DEVELOPED BASED ON AN EVALUATION OR INVENTORY OF THE EXISTING PROPERTIES.
AS SOMEONE WHO WENT AND INVENTORIED AN N C D GOING AND LOOKING TO SEE HEIGHT OF STORIES, YOU KNOW, TYPE OF WINDOWS SETBACKS, THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENTLY, THEY'RE ADDRESSED DIFFERENTLY IN EVERY C D.
SO I THINK HAVING WORDING THAT TRULY IDENTIFIES THE INTENT BEHIND IT TO CLARIFY WHERE THEY'VE HAD THESE
[02:35:01]
SITUATIONS OCCUR IS, IS BENEFICIAL TO SUPPORTING THE INTENT OF THE N C D TWO.UH, MY, MY QUESTION IS, IS THEY ONE OVER ONE, UH, ASSUMES THAT IT'S A SINGLE HUNG OR A DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW, BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF IT'S A CASEMENT WINDOW AND IT'S A THREE, FOUR OR FIVE LIGHT WINDOW? SO YOU CAN TAKE THE CASEMENT WINDOW, WHICH IS HISTORIC TO LET NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION AND JUST PUT IN A ONE OVER ONE.
SO TO ANSWER THAT AGAIN, IF, IF THE N C D PRESCRIBED THAT THE EXISTING WINDOWS NEEDED TO REMAIN IN PLACE, THEY'LL HAVE USUALLY THE, THE SAME WIDTH, UH, AND OR LENGTH OF THE WINDOW NEEDS TO BE REPLACED.
THAT'S VERY DEFINED IN THEIR, IN, IN, IN AN N C D DEPENDING UPON WHICH N C D THAT YOU LOOK AT.
SOME ARE VERY VAGUE, SOME THEY HAVE NO REQUIREMENTS AT ALL OTHER THAN WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE.
AND WHAT THEY WANNA SEE IS ONE OVER ONE LIGHT.
SO IF SOMEBODY HAS A CASEMENT WINDOW AND THE, AND THE N C D DOES NOT SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO KEEP IT, YOU JUST HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE MINIMUM, UH, FACADE REQUIREMENT A PER CERTAIN PERCENTAGE, AND THEN THE ONE OVER ONE LIGHT DIVISION.
UH, SO AGAIN, EACH N C D IS GONNA BE DIFFERENT, BUT THERE ARE A FEW, A HANDFUL THAT HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF ONE OVER ONE LIGHT, UH, DIVISION REQUIREMENT.
MANKEY PARK IS ONE THAT I CAN I THINK OF THAT HAS THAT REQUIREMENT.
ALTA VISTA HAS THAT REQUIREMENT.
BUT THIS, UH, CHANGE AMENDMENT TO THE U D C IS FOR THE WHOLE CITY, CORRECT? YES.
BUT AGAIN, ONLY THE NCDS REFER TO ONE OVER ONE LIGHT DIVISION REQUIREMENTS.
THE DEFINITION WOULD APPLY CITYWIDE.
THERE ARE TWO OR THREE NCDS THAT REFERENCE ONE OVER ONE WINDOW.
THAT IS THE ONLY PLACE IN THE U D C THAT REFERENCES IT.
SO THIS DEFINITION WOULD NOT, NOT MATERIALLY APPLY TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CITY.
IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT, IT'S NOT A TRIGGERED REQUIREMENT OUTSIDE OF THOSE NCDS.
SO, WELL THIS IS ONLY CLARIFYING WHAT'S ALREADY, YEAH.
TO ME, THIS IS A DEFINITION WITHIN THE NCD TO ME, THIS IS A DEFINITION OF WHAT A ONE OVER ONE IS.
AND IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE IN AN N C D THAT HAS, THAT IS DEFINED BY THAT, THEN, THEN YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT TO GO FOR.
BUT REALLY IT'S ONLY DEFINING WHAT A ONE OVER ONE IS.
WELL, AND MR. HANLEY, AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THE BEACON HILL N C D ONLY ADDRESSES THE FRONT FACADE WINDOWS.
IT DOES NOT ADDRESS ALL THE WINDOWS.
SOME NCDS ADDRESS DIFFERENT ELEVATIONS.
SO, AND, AND IT DOES ADDRESS CASEMENT WINDOWS IN HERE.
YOU KNOW, THE, UM, HISTORIC, UH, THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATIONS TO DESIGN GUIDELINES ADDRESSES ALL THE VARIETY OF WINDOW TYPES THAT ARE IN BUILDINGS.
BUT, AND I JUST THINK THIS IS VERY OVER N CD, HUH? O H P HAS NO PURVIEW OVER N C D.
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WE'VE TAKEN A VERY NARROW PERSPECTIVE IN AN N C D TO HAVE ONLY ONE KIND OF WINDOW YOU CAN USE FOR REPLACEMENT.
BUT THAT'S REALLY NOT WHAT WE'RE DECIDING TODAY.
WE'RE REALLY DECIDING WHAT A ONE OVER ONE IS BECAUSE THEY ARE N C D ALREADY PRESCRIBED THAT RESTRICTION, NOT US.
OUR ACTION IS ONLY REALLY CLARIFYING THAT IT'S A TRUE DIVIDED LIGHT.
ASHLEY, JUST ONE QUESTION, KATT, SINCE YOU ALL ENFORCE THE ONE OVER ONES AND THE NCDS.
ARE YOU GUYS GOOD WITH THE DEFINITION? WE'RE GOOD.
UM, SHOULD LIGHT BE SPELLED L I T E SINCE WE'RE DEALING WITH WINDOWS? NO, I WOULD LEAVE IT AS L I G H T BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT'S SPELLED OUT IN THE NCDS, THE NC.
IN THE NCDST MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY, WAS IT BIANCA AND THE SECOND WAS DEBBIE.
BOB, WE HAVE ONE OPPOSITION, MR. HANLEY.
A ITEM 24 DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT FIVE DASH 57.
SO THIS IS A, A RECENT READ THAT WE DID THAT, UM, PROVIDES FOR A, UH, AND WE KIND OF DISCUSSED THIS, UH, WHEN WE DISCUSSED THE HUMAN SERVICE CAMPUS DEFINITION AND THE SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
THIS IS A INTRODUCING A USE THAT BASICALLY IS SIMILAR TO, UM, WHAT APARTMENT COMMUNITIES DO.
SO IF YOU LIVE IN AN APARTMENT COMMUNITY, THERE ARE CERTAIN AMENITIES THAT YOU GET TO BENEFIT FROM AS RESIDENTS.
THIS PROVIDES A DEFINITION FOR PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH, UH, OTHER REFERENCES, UH, BY HUD WHERE, UH, THERE ARE USES THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED BY WRIGHT AND RM AND MF DISTRICTS.
AND THEY ALSO PROVIDE SERVICES THAT ARE ONLY, UH, AVAILABLE TO THOSE RESIDENTS.
[02:40:01]
I HAD SOME QUESTIONS.SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE RMM SIX, RMM FIVE AND RMM FOUR, WHERE IT WOULD BE PERMITTED, MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT RM FOUR, FIVE AND SIX DO, DO NOT HAVE ANY BUFFERS OR ANY KIND OF FENCING REQUIREMENTS THAT TYPICALLY COME UP WITH YOUR MF 18 26, 33, 40 AND 50 WHEN IT'S ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
UM, I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT BEING PERMITTED IN RM SIX, FIVE AND FOUR BECAUSE THERE IS NO LACK OF, THERE'S NO BUFFERING WHEN IT'S ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
WHEREAS MULTI-FAMILY, WHEN IT IS ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, THERE IS A BUFFER REQUIREMENT.
UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY I WOULD ASK THAT.
UM, WE CONSIDER REMOVING THE P FROM THE RMMS. SO ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WENT INTO OUR INTERPRETATION OF THIS USE BEING ALLOWED IN THE RMM DISTRICTS IS WE HAVE ANOTHER USE IN OUR CODE THAT IS ALSO SIMILARLY RELATED TO WHERE MAYBE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS PRO PROVIDING THIS TYPE OF HOUSING.
I THINK IT'S CALLED THE COTTAGE, UH, FOR OLDER PERSONS OR HOUSING FOR OLDER PERSONS.
AND WE, THEY'RE MATERIALLY SIMILAR USES IN THE CODE.
AND SO THAT USE IS A PERMITTED USE IN ALL OF THE RMM DISTRICTS AND THE MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICTS.
SO SINCE AGAIN, THEY'RE KIND OF, UM, OVERSEEN BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND WE THOUGHT THAT THESE TWO SHOULD BE RELATED, THAT'S WHY WE, UM, DID A RID THAT WOULD ALLOW PERMITTED BY WRIGHT IN THOSE SAME DISTRICTS.
SO IF YOU WANNA PULL UP MAYBE THE TABLE PERMITTED USES IN ARTICLE THREE, WE CAN FIND THAT USE.
THE ONLY REASON I SAY THAT IS WHEN I GET BACK TO THE RM FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX, WHERE DOES IT EXIST? IT EXISTS IN THE URBAN CORE.
IT EXISTS INTERMINGLED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITHOUT THE LACK OF A BUFFERING ON SMALL LOTS.
I CAN'T SEE HOW I COULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS TYPE OF USE BEING PERMITTED BY RIGHT.
I STILL STAND ON THE SAME PIECE THAT THERE'S NO BUFFERING.
I MEAN, YOU LOOK AT MULTIFAMILY AND THEY'RE REQUIRED TO PUT BUFFERING IN WHEN THEY'RE ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY AND RM FOUR, IF IT'S AN EXISTING PROPERTY, THERE WOULD BE NO BUFFERING.
AND HOW WOULD YOU PUT IT IN, IN AN URBAN CORE WHEN YOU HAVE SMALL LOTS ALREADY? I THINK IT GIVES YOU AN OPPORTUNITY, RIGHT? IF YOU DO SPECIAL USE, THEN YOU CAN TALK ABOUT THOSE KIND OF THINGS AND THERE CAN BE SOME ACCOMMODATIONS MADE IF NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE SPECIAL USE, IT'S KIND OF LIKE CASE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD
SO TO ME, I MEAN, I GET YOUR CONCERNS AS A BY RIGHT? UM, BECAUSE THAT GIVES YOU ABSOLUTELY NO ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WOULD CONCERN IN A VERY CLOSE ADJACENT NAME OR, BUT I THINK IF YOU PUT, UH, AN SS IT WOULD BE COVER THAT ISSUE AND REQUIRE PEOPLE KIND OF PROVE UP THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE A NEIGHBOR.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD PERSPECTIVE, WHY SHOULD IT BE INCUMBENT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO SAY WHY IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE? BECAUSE, AND THE ONLY REASON I SAY THAT, BECAUSE RMM FOUR, RM FIVE AND RM SIX, WHERE DO THOSE, WHERE ARE THOSE LOCATED? THEY'RE LOCATED IN THE URBAN CORE WHERE WE KNOW OUR LOTS ARE ALREADY SMALLER AND WE KNOW THAT THEY'RE INTERMINGLED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
SO IN MY OPINION, WE ARE SAYING THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THESE IN THE MIX OF NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO BY RIGHT PEOPLE ARE, CAN ALREADY HAVE AN ADULT LIVING FACILITY FOR UP TO SIX BEDS BY RIGHT.
THEY CAN ALSO HAVE SOBER HOMES BY RIGHT INTERMINGLED WITH THESE NEIGHBORHOODS REGARDLESS OF THESE ZONING.
SO THAT'S WHY I UNDERSTAND AND I GET, YOU KNOW, WANTING TO TALK IT THROUGH, BUT THINK ABOUT THE RM AND, YOU KNOW, BATTLE IT OUT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND GET THEIR, THEIR SUPPORT.
BUT ULTIMATELY WHERE THE RM FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX EXIST TODAY IS INTERMINGLED IN SINGLE FAMILY COMMUNITIES IN OUR URBAN CORE, AND I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND, AND I'LL REITERATE THE ADULT LIVING SITUATION BY RIGHT, THEY ALREADY HAVE UP TO SIX BEDS, NO LIMIT, AND YOUR SOBER HOMES THAT YOU CAN HAVE BY RIGHT.
AND SO THE NEIGHBORHOODS ALREADY HAVE THOSE USES THAT ARE COMING INTO THEIR COMMUNITIES BY RIGHT.
AND TO SAY THAT IT'S OKAY FOR US TO HAVE THE RM FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX, THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY WHERE I DRAW THE LINE BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER USES THAT COME IN BY RIGHT.
AND HAVING TO ARGUE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS AMENABLE WHEN WE KNOW IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA.
THAT'S WHERE I KIND OF REALLY DIFFERENTIATES THIS
[02:45:01]
PARTICULAR, THE ADULT LIVING FACILITY UP TO SIX BEDS.BECAUSE THOSE ARE ALREADY BY RIGHT.
SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT IT'S EVEN MORE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE MORE INTENSITY OF IN, IN NEIGHBORHOODS.
I JUST, CAN I ASK A QUESTION VERY QUICKLY? BIANCA? WHAT, WHAT BUFFERS ARE YOU REQUIRED, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT ARE REQUIRED? SO IN MULTI-FAMILY, DON'T YOU HAVE FENCING REQUIREMENTS WHEN YOU'RE ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY? RESIDENTIAL? RESIDENTIAL, JUST FENCING.
THEY DON'T HAVE SOLID SCREEN FENCING BETWEEN ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
AND YOU MAY NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT IT IN BECAUSE IT'S IN THE SMALLER LOTS THAT ARE IN THE URBAN CORE WHERE THE R M SIX FIVE AND FOUR ALREADY EXIST.
AND IT WOULD BE, THAT'S MY CONCERN.
AND THEY WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO DENSITY.
SO RM FOUR WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED FOUR UNITS IF THEY MET 4,000 SQUARE FOOT.
RMM FIVE IS THREE AND ARM SIX IS TWO.
SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MORE THAN FOUR AT ANY GIVEN POINT, DEPENDING UPON WHICH RMM YOU'RE IN.
WOULD THEY HAVE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, ADDITIONAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER HOME OR ANY OTHER MULTI-FAMILY USE? THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE, UH, MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING.
I'M GONNA MOVE, MOVE APPROVAL.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY SUSAN.
UM, 'CAUSE YOUR MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED, WOULD YOU CONSIDER THE SPECIFIC USE CHANGE FOR RM FOUR, FIVE AND SIX? YES.
OH, AND THIS IS THE, THIS IS THE USE I WAS REFERRING TO.
THAT'S CURRENTLY IN OUR CODE HOUSING FACILITIES FOR OLDER PERSONS.
SO THOSE ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT AND ARM FOUR, ARM FIVE, AND ARM SIX.
I WOULD RATHER AT LEAST GET THAT IN THERE THAN TO DENY IT.
I THINK THAT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT.
UH, I DO BELIEVE IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT WE HAVE A ZONING FOR THIS AND GIVEN PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY.
OKAY, SO YOU, UH, AMENDED, ARE YOU GOING TO AMEND YOUR MOTION? NO, BUT SHE CAN MAKE A NEW MOTION.
SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FOR PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING ONLY IN MF 18 25, 33 40 AND MF 50 AND E RZ D A SECOND.
DO WE NEED TO IDENTIFY THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWABLE? YES.
ARE YOU CHANGING WHAT YOU YES, SHE'S ASKING YOU.
WELL, YOU WANT ME TO MAKE THE MOTION WITH, OKAY, SO I GUESS ADD THE SS AT RM SIX FIVE AND FOUR
WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, BY BIANCA AS AMENDED.
IN THE PACKET, WE GOT STAFF, IT HAD ANOTHER PAGE TO FIVE DASH 57, WHICH WAS THAT, IS THAT, DOES THAT NOT BELONG THERE? BECAUSE FIVE DASH 57 WAS THE ONE WE JUST TALKED ABOUT WHEN PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING YES.
I FEEL LIKE WE ALREADY REVIEWED THAT AT ONE POINT IN TIME.
YEAH, I THINK THAT THAT WAS PROBABLY A, UH, P D F CUT PASTE ERROR.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 25.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT.
THIS IS RACHEL HOLDER WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
UM, THIS AMENDMENT CLARIFIES THE DEFINITION FOR PORCH, UM, STATING THAT IT'S UNCONDITIONED AS A CONDITIONED SPACE WOULD BE A LIVING SPACE.
AND REMOVING THE, UM, THE USUALLY LOCATED ON THE FRONT OR SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE AND ALLOWING IT TO BE LOCATED AT ANY LOCATION.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY SUSAN, SECOND BY MR. BROWN.
ITEM 26, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM FIVE DASH EIGHT.
UM, OUR AMENDMENT LANGUAGE IS TO CLARIFY THE DWELLING FOR A QUADPLEX AND A TRIPLEX, UM, TO REMOVE
[02:50:01]
HOUSE AND TO HAVE STRUCTURE INSTEAD ON A PLATTED SINGLE LOT, UH, WITH A COMMON FLOOR OR CEILING BETWEEN UNITS.UH, DOUG MELNICK, CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER.
THANKS SO MUCH FOR A ACCOMMODATING MY, UM, WHAT'S THE WORD I WANT? USE MEETING CONFLICT.
MEETING CONFLICT AND TARDINESS.
UM, SO, UH, WE'RE PROPOSING, UM, THREE, UM, ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS THAT RELATED TO, UM, THE PREVIOUS, UH, AMENDMENTS THAT, UM, Y'ALL HAD APPROVED RELATED TO, UM, JUST TRYING TO PROMOTE AND, AND SUPPORT, UM, UH, MORE SUSTAINABLE, UH, CONSTRUCTION, WHETHER IT'S, UM, STREETS OR PARKING LOTS.
AGAIN, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT, UH, THAT IN IN THE CODE, BUT WE THOUGHT BEING ABLE TO DEFINE WHAT DOES EMBODIED CARBON ACTUALLY MEAN.
UM, ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATIONS AND LOW CARBON MATERIALS AS THOSE ARE THE, THE NEW LANGUAGE THAT WAS, UH, UM, RECOMMENDED FOR IN, IN INCORPORATION TO THE UPDATED CODE.
SO THESE ARE NOT REQUIREMENTS, JUST DECLARATIONS, JUST EXAMPLES.
UM, SO BASICALLY, UM, LANGUAGE AROUND NEW PARKING, LOTS, NEW STREETS WAS, UM, PROPOSED AND APPROVED JUST TO CONSIDER USING THESE, THESE ITEMS BUT NOT REQUIRED MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? ONE QUESTION, UH, WITH THE DEFINITIONS, IS THERE ANY THOUGHT MOVING FORWARD IN TO DETERMINING CLASSIFICATIONS OR QUANTIFICATIONS OF CARBON OR LOW CARBON, UH, AND, AND BONUS FEATURES IN THE FUTURE? WE'RE NOT THERE YET.
UM, WE'RE ACTUALLY, WE'RE HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS INTERNALLY FOR OUR OWN ORGANIZATION AND THEN THAT MAY EVENTUALLY, ONCE WE FIGURE IT OUT, IT COULD LEAD TO FURTHER CONVERSATIONS.
THAT'S A WHOLE EMERGING MARKET, UM, AND, AND PROCESS RIGHT NOW.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ENTERTAIN A MOTION? I ASK A QUICK QUESTION.
SO BASICALLY IT'S, UH, ALL THE ENERGY THAT GOES INTO, UM, ALL ASPECTS OF THE CREATION OF THAT MATERIAL.
SO IT'S, IT'S THE ENERGY THAT GOES INTO, UM, MINING MATERIALS, PROCESSING, TRANSPORTING.
SO BASICALLY IT'S TRYING TO FIND THOSE MATERIALS THAT HAVE THE LOWEST OVERALL CARBON IMPACT.
I DUNNO, I OLD GUY, I JUST HAVE TO ASK.
THIS SUGGESTED WE'RE THAT WE ARE THE CITY, SAN ANTONIO WAS HEADING TOWARD SOME THAT WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME STAFF PEOPLE FOR THE CITY MAKING SOME DETERMINATION TO WHAT IS, IS, UH, ADEQUATE AND WHAT IS BEST AS FAR AS ENVIRONMENTAL, UH, PRODUCTION AND EMBODIED CARBON AND STUFF.
IS THAT WHERE YOU BOYS ARE HEADED? WELL, ONE I WOULD SAY IS, UM, THAT'S THE WAY GLOBAL MARKETS ARE GOING.
ALL THIS IS, IS IS ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THESE ARE IMPORTANT CRITERIA THAT WE SHOULD HAVE ON OUR RADAR, BUT IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANYBODY TO DO ANYTHING.
BUT IT'S COMING, UM, WELL ABOVE MY PAID GRADE.
I MEAN, THE PERFECT EXAMPLE IS THE, UM, UH, THE FEDERAL, FEDERAL PIECE.
FEDERAL, OH GOSH, THIS IS WHEN YOU START TALKING, WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT INFORMATION.
BASICALLY THERE'S A, THERE'S A LOT OF, UM, UH, MOVEMENT AT THE, THE FEDERAL LEVEL TAKE OUT FOR WHATEVER YOU WANT, WHERE, UM, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR CORPORATIONS AND LOOKING FOR, UM, FINANCIAL MARKETS TO DISCLOSE CARBON IMPACT.
UM, IS IT COMING HERE RIGHT NOW? NO, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S PROBABLY A WAYS AWAY.
UH, IF I MAY, BOB, UH, THE, THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, THE BUILDING CODES, UM, ADOPTED ABOUT 12 OR 15 YEARS AGO, THE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY GREEN ENERGY CODE.
UH, THE CITY HAS NEVER CHOSEN TO ADOPT THAT.
OTHER CITIES IN THE STATE HAVE, I
[02:55:01]
WAS ON A STATEWIDE COMMITTEE FOR DOING IT AND DALLAS DID ADOPT IT, BUT THE CITY'S NOT.BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE, AS DOUG'S SAYING, IT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? MOTION, MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS COMMITTEE BY BIANCA SECOND BY, WAS IT DEBBIE
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
SO IT'S FUNNY YOU MENTION THAT BECAUSE THAT'S ITEM NUMBER THREE ON MY DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
SO ITEM NUMBER ONE, UH, WE ARE GOING TO BE PUTTING THE AMENDMENT THAT THE SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY HAD PRESENTED ON ON, UH, APRIL 11TH.
UH, THERE WAS ONE DEFINITION IN THAT AMENDMENT, UH, THAT WE FELT, UH, WAS NECESSARY ON, JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S ON THE SAME PAGE.
WE MAY OR MAY NOT BE PUTTING, UH, MR. CROW ROBOT'S TREE MAINTENANCE PLAN AMENDMENT BACK ON THE AGENDA.
UH, WE'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONDUCT A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH AND WE WANT TO SHARE SOME INFORMATION WITH THE TAC.
UH, RIGHT NOW, MAY 9TH IS THE FINAL SCHEDULED TAC MEETING FOR THESE U D C AMENDMENTS.
WITH THOSE TWO ADDITIONAL ITEMS, WE ARE LOOKING AT A 28 ITEM AGENDA.
UH, WE WANTED TO KNOW, DO YOU STILL WANNA START AT 1230? DO YOU WANNA START 1130? WE PROVIDE LUNCH.
SO MAY 9TH IS THE LAST MEETING.
WHAT WERE URL'S FEELINGS ON THAT? THE OTHER OPTION IS WE COULD JUST, IF WE NEED TO GO BEYOND FOUR 30, UH, BUT I, I'M TRYING TO GET US IN A POSITION WHERE WE DON'T HAVE TWO OR THREE ITEMS LEFT AND WE'RE SCHEDULING ANOTHER MEETING WHERE EVERYONE HAS TO DRIVE DOWNTOWN FOR THREE OR FOUR ITEMS. SO I'D SAY WHAT ARE THE, I PERSONALLY, I WON'T BE HERE EARLIER, CAN'T BE ON MONDAYS, THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE, BUT I'D RATHER GO LONGER.
BUT THE FLIP SIDE IS, AS LONG AS WE AREN'T GETTING AMENDMENTS LIKE ON FRIDAY BEFORE MONDAY FOR REVIEW, IT'S THAT STUFF THAT, I MEAN, LOOK, WE DID PAGE TWO AND THREE FAST TODAY.
IF WE HAVE IT AND HAVE TIME TO LOOK AT IT, TIME TO LOOK AT IT, AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN SATURDAY AND SUNDAY, THEN I DON'T, I THINK WE CAN FINISH.
WE DID THAT MANY ITEMS BASICALLY TODAY.
AND I BELIEVE THE NATURE OF THE AMENDMENTS ON THE MAY 9TH ARE PRETTY SIMILAR TO THE LAST CHUNK THAT WE JUST KIND OF WENT THROUGH.
A LOT OF DEFINITIONS, A LOT OF, NOT A LOT OF HEAVY LIFTING REALLY, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT.
YEAH, I, A LOT OF THEM ARE STILL IN APPENDIX A AND RID, SO I, I THINK A GOOD CHUNK OF THEM WE CAN GET THROUGH QUICKLY.
HONESTLY, I THINK THAT IF WE START AT 1230, WE'LL, I MEAN RIGHT NOW IT'S, WHAT IS IT, THREE 30 AND WE DID 26 ITEMS, SO YEAH.
AND WE HAD SOME PRETTY LENGTHY DISCUSSION.
WHAT TIME DOES THE MARK, WHAT TIME DOES THE MARGARITA MACHINE GET HERE?
I JUST HAD ONE COMMENT THAT I, SO WE STILL HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT IS BEING AMENDED, CORRECT? THAT'S STILL WORK.
THE GAS STATION AMENDMENT? YES, SIR.
UM, SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE, EVERYBODY RECEIVES THAT DOCUMENT THAT'S NOT, THAT'S SCHEDULED FOR THE MAY 9TH AGENDA, RIGHT? YEAH.
BUT WHAT'S NOTICED AND WHAT'S GONNA BE AMENDED SO THAT WE GET THE AMENDED VERSION AHEAD OF TIME.
WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO, THE SAME THING THAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED IS GONNA BE POSTED ON THE AGENDA, BUT WE WILL SEND OUT A SEPARATE EMAIL BEFORE THE AGENDA IS POSTED, LETTING Y'ALL KNOW WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED.
THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED AS PART OF AN AMENDMENT AT THE PODIUM.
AND THAT, MAN, THAT'S TRUE FOR ANYTHING ELSE TOO, RIGHT? THAT, YES, THERE MAY BE ONE OR TWO OTHERS IN THERE THAT YEAH, WE, WE, WE WILL NOT BE SENDING YOU ANY AMENDMENTS ON FRIDAY MORNING.
YEAH, WE, WE WILL ALSO BE SURE TO SUBMIT THE, UH, SUBCOMMITTEE, THE TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEES AMENDMENTS TO THE GROUP AHEAD OF TIME AS WELL.
THOSE WERE KIND OF FINALIZED, UH, SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, BUT WE'LL MAKE SURE Y'ALL HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THOSE WELL AHEAD OF TIME AS WELL.
SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO ESSENTIALLY THAT WILL BE AMENDED FROM THE DIOCESE THAT WE'LL GET? NO, I THINK THERE'S THREE.
OH, 'CAUSE WE DID TWO TRANSPORTATION AMENDMENTS, RIGHT? NO, THERE'S, OKAY.
AND THE GAS, ALL OF THE TRANSPORTATION AMENDMENTS, WHICH I THINK THERE'S THREE OF THOSE.
GAS STATION, UM, AND THEN POSSIBLY SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITIES, UM, CODE AMENDMENT.
POSSIBLY JUSTIN'S, SO THERE'S SIX ROSS LAWHEAD.
OH, AND THEN ROSS LAWHEAD, WHICH IS PLANNING DEPARTMENTS SEVEN.
SO JUST SO WE'RE AWARE, THERE ARE SEVEN AMENDMENTS THAT ARE COMING THAT ARE GONNA BE AMENDED FROM HOW IT WILL BE NOTICED IN THE AGENDA.
SO WE'LL GET A PACKET FROM, SO THOSE WILL BES AT THE PODIUM.
WHY CAN WE NOT HAVE THOSE PRIOR TO BEING AMENDED AT THE
[03:00:01]
PODIUM? WE'RE, WE'RE, WE WE'RE SAYING WE, WE WILL SEND THEM TO YOU.WE'LL, BUT THE AGENDA WELL AHEAD.
AND I'M JUST SAYING THERE'S GONNA BE SEVEN, SO EVERYBODY WATCH OUT FOR THOSE SEVEN, YOU'RE GONNA SEND 'EM WAY IN ADVANCE.
AND ON THE TRANSPORTATION, Y'ALL HAD A SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIR, IS THAT CORRECT? THOSE, YEAH, THERE WAS A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT MET TWICE, I THINK IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND WE HASHED THREE TIMES AND WE HASHED THROUGH ALL OF THAT, I THINK TWICE IN, UH, VIRTUAL EMAIL AND VIRTUAL MEETINGS.
AND THEN ONCE THROUGH EMAIL WE FINALIZED SOME LANGUAGE THROUGH THE EMAIL.
I WAS ON IT ON, SAY AGAIN, TRANSPORTATION? NO, BOB BOYS.
ALRIGHT, EVERYBODY IS THERE ANY, ANY OTHER BUSINESS STAFF? ANYTHING ELSE, BOGAN? NO, SIR.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, WELL IT IS 3 35 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.