* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          COUNCIL MEMBER 
          [00:00:01]
JADA ANDREW SULLIVAN. 
          [Call to Order]
HERE. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER REBECCA BRAN. 
          HERE. 
          HERE. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER JOHN RIDGE. 
          PRESENT. 
          WE HAVE A QUORUM. 
          MADAM CHAIR. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, LET'S 
          [1. 19-9154 Approval of the minutes from the October 14, 2019 Planning and
Community Development Committee Meeting]
START WITH APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 14TH. 
          MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, UH, FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. 
          UH, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. 
          OKAY. 
          MOTION CARRIES. 
          OH, I'M 
          [2. 19-9155 Approval of the minutes from the November 12, 2019 Planning and
Community Development Committee Meeting]
SORRY. 
          WE ALSO NEEDED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12TH. 
          MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          OKAY. 
          SECOND. 
          OKAY, WE HAVE MOTION AND SECOND FOR NOVEMBER 12TH. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          UH, WE ALSO HAVE AN 
          [Consent Agenda]
ITEM ON CONSENT. 
          UM, AND THIS IS A RE RESOLUTION OF NO OBJECTION FOR FRANKLIN DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES. 
          L T D APPLICATION IN THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS NON-COMPETITIVE 4% HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF GREEN LINE NORTH 22 UNIT, AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL HOUSING COMPLEX, LOCATED AT 74 0 2 NORTH NEW BRAUNFELS AVENUE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE. 
          SO THAT ITEM IS ON CONSENT. 
          COUNCILMAN, ARE YOU SUPPORTIVE OF THE ITEM? DID YOU HAVE ANY? I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT IT, UM, CHAIR AND SAY THAT I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE. 
          I KNOW WE'VE DISCUSSED IT IN OUR, UM, P F C COMMITTEE AND WE'RE MOVING FORWARD. 
          'CAUSE THIS IS ALSO PART OF OUR BOND PROGRAM THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH IN 2017. 
          SO, UM, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE, IT'S NEAR BROOKS AREA AND IT'S BRINGING THAT MIXED INCOME THAT WE NEED FOR MULTIFAMILY IN THE, IN THE AREA. 
          SO, UM, MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE TO APPROVE. 
          OKAY. 
          CONSENT. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          NEED OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. 
          OKAY. 
          MOTION CARRIES. 
          UM, SO WE HAVE TWO 
          [4. 19-9057 Briefing and possible action on the City of San Antonio Short Term
Rental Ordinance. [Roderick Sanchez, Assistant City Manager; Michael
Shannon, Director, Development Services]]
ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. 
          THE FIRST IS A BRIEFING AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO'S SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE. 
          AND, UH, MIKE, YOU'RE GONNA GIVE US THAT, UM, PRESENTATION. 
          WE'LL START WITH A PRESENTATION, AND THEN IF THERE ARE ANY CITIZENS, WE'LL GO AFTER THAT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU COUNCILWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. 
          UM, SO I'M JUST GONNA GIVE YOU, UH, AN UPDATE AS TO WHERE WE ARE ON THE SHORT TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE. 
          UM, ACTUALLY THIS UPDATE WAS ASKED WHEN WE PASSED THE ORDINANCE, UH, ABOUT A YEAR AGO. 
          AND, UH, WE WANT TO TELL YOU WHERE WE'RE AT. 
          SO, AND IT WAS JUST NOVEMBER LAST YEAR THAT WE PASSED THE SHORT TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE HERE FOR SAN SAN ANTONIO. 
          SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME AGO FOR SOME OF US, AND MAYBE, UH, NOT SO MUCH FOR OTHERS. 
          UH, WE PASSED IT ON NOVEMBER 1ST, 2018. 
          UH, THERE WAS ABOUT A 90 DAY, UH, PERIOD WHERE THE PERMITS WOULD GO INTO EFFECT AFTER THAT. 
          UH, BUT THAT ACTUALLY TOOK, REMEMBER THAT THAT WAS ABOUT A, A YEAR AND A HALF WORTH OF EFFORT, UM, FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE, UH, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE SHOULD DO HERE IN SAN ANTONIO, UH, TO BEST, UH, REGULATE, UH, CERTAINLY THIS GROWING ECONOMY. 
          WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH AIRBNB AND, UH, HOMEAWAY, V R B O. 
          SO THE ORDINANCE WE PASSED IS BALANCED, RIGHT? IT REGULATES SHORT-TERM RENTALS. 
          THEY NEED PERMITS. 
          UH, WE TR WE, UH, TRIED TO MINIMIZE, UH, NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO, UH, QUALITY OF LIFE OF NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          WE INCLUDE SOME BASIC SAFETY PROVISIONS, UH, REGISTRATION FOR THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX, ENSURING THAT THEY WERE PAYING, UM, ZONING REQUIREMENTS, SOME GRANDFATHERED RULES AND ALL THAT, UH, WERE PART OF THE ORDINANCE. 
          SO THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF THE BACKGROUND THERE. 
          UH, THAT WAS ALL STARTED IN 2017 WHEN THERE WAS A C C R BY FORMER COUNCILMAN, UH, MIKE GALLAGHER IN DISTRICT 10. 
          AND, UM, THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE, UH, STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, UH, PUBLIC MEETING INPUT. 
          THERE WERE DOZENS AND DOZENS OF, UH, MEETINGS, UH, NOT ONLY OF THE STAKEHOLDER BUT COMMUNITY. 
          UH, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF B SESSIONS, COUPLE OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS, AND WE FINALLY GOT TO WHAT I THINK IS THE, THE, THE, UM, THE RIGHT BALANCED ORDINANCE. 
          SO WHEN WE PASSED IT, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT NOW FOR A YEAR. 
          AND THAT BALANCE, I THINK, UH, I, I THINK I KNOW WE, WE, WE STRUCK THE RIGHT BALANCES BECAUSE, UH, NATIONALLY WE WERE GETTING CONTACTED SHORTLY AFTER WE ADOPTED IT FROM WHETHER IT BE, UH, YOU KNOW, FROM TEXAS, CITIES LIKE CORPUS CHRISTI AND ARLINGTON, BUT ALSO MARYLAND, UH, FREDERICK, MARYLAND, NEW ORLEANS. 
          THEY CALLED US VERY QUICKLY. 
          AND SINCE, UH, THE ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE ASKED US WHAT WE DID, HOW WE DID IT, HOW'S IT WORKING, AND HOW DID YOU FIND THAT RIGHT BALANCE, UM, TO ENSURE THAT NEIGHBORHOODS WERE PROTECTED, BUT ALSO ENSURING THAT THIS, UH, SHORT-TERM RENTAL MARKET, UM, AND THOSE BUSINESSES COULD, UH, OPERATE HERE WITHIN OUR CITY. 
          WE ALSO, UH, IN THE 86 LEGISLATIVE SESSION THIS PAST YEAR, UH, WE HAD A LOT OF MEETINGS. 
          UH, THERE WERE SEVERAL, UM, LEGISLATORS LOOKING AT OUR ORDINANCE AS POSSIBLY MAKING THAT THE STATE MODEL ORDINANCE. 
          THERE WAS ACTUALLY A HOUSE BILL PROPOSED. 
          UH, IT ACTUALLY DIDN'T, UM, GET PASSED, UH, BUT IT DID, IT WAS BASED 
          [00:05:01]
ON OUR FRAMEWORK HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. 
          UH, SINCE THEN, UH, WE'VE ALSO HAD A TIMBERWOOD PARK, UM, THAT WAS ACTUALLY RIGHT BEFORE WE PASSED THE ORDINANCE. 
          BUT THAT TAR VERSUS TIMBERWOOD PARK, UM, UH, WAS ALSO SOME LEGIS, UH, SOME, UH, LEGAL ACTION THAT HELPED DEFINE, UH, WHAT SHORT-TERM RENTALS COULD DO, UH, IN NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          SO LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT WHERE WE'RE AT. 
          IF YOU REMEMBER WHEN WE STARTED THIS IN 2017, THERE WAS ABOUT 150 RENTALS REGISTERED WITH THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT PAYING HOT. 
          OKAY? SO NOW WE'RE UP TO 1,852 REGISTERED. 
          SO WE, UH, IT'S BEEN, THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS ARE LESS THAN A YEAR. 
          UM, BUT WE HAVE 1,852 WE ANTICIPATED BACK THEN. 
          UH, AND YOU REMEMBER SOME OF THE MEDIA, UH, UH, ARTICLES IN THE RESEARCH DONE THAT THERE WAS APPROXIMATELY 1500 TO 2000 SHORT TERM RENTALS POSSIBLY OPERATING IN SAN ANTONIO AT THAT TIME. 
          AND WHAT WE'RE SHOWING HERE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, AS OF, I BELIEVE THIS WAS DECEMBER 1ST, 1,852 ARE NOW REGISTERED AND PROPERLY PERMITTED IN SAN ANTONIO, UH, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE. 
          WE KNEW THEY WERE OPERATING, WE KNEW MANY OF THEM WERE OPERATING WITHOUT PAYING HOT. 
          A LOT OF EDUCATION OUTREACH HAS BEEN HAPPENING. 
          WE ALSO SHOW THERE IS THAT ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF THE 1800 ARE TYPE TWO, TYPE TWO MEANING, UH, NON-OWNER OCCUPIED. 
          UH, SO NO ONE, THE PROPERTY OWNER DOESN'T LIVE THERE, TYPE ONE. 
          UH, THE OTHER THIRD IS THE PROPERTY OWNER LIVES ON THE PREMISE. 
          AND, UM, AND THEN THOSE, SO THAT'S JUST A BREAKDOWN OF THE PERMITS. 
          AND IF, UH, WE DID JUST PUT UP THERE, THE, THERE WERE 564 GRANDFATHERED, UM, UH, SHORT-TERM RENTALS THAT ACTUALLY GOT IN, UH, PAYING THE LEGAL HOT TAX BEFORE THEN, UH, THAT IT WENT LIVE ON NOVEMBER ONE. 
          SO IT'S BEEN GROWING, UH, SINCE WE WENT LIVE. 
          UH, THIS IS JUST A BREAKDOWN. 
          UH, WE KNEW THIS INFORMATION, MAYBE NOT THE DETAILED, UH, NUMBERS LIKE WE'RE SHOWING THERE, BUT, UH, AS YOU CAN SEE, MOST OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE HAPPENING IN DISTRICTS ONE AND TWO, DISTRICT ONE HAVING, UH, THE MOST, A THIRD OF THEM. 
          AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE BREAKDOWN BY COUNCIL DISTRICT. 
          BUT IT ALSO SHOWS THIS GRAPHIC SHOWS THAT SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE ALL OVER SAN ANTONIO. 
          IT'S NOT JUST ONE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          IT'S NOT JUST ONE COUNCIL DISTRICT OR ONE AREA. 
          UH, WHILE, UH, THEY ARE IN ONE AND TWO, MOSTLY, UH, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S THE CITYWIDE, UH, PHENOMENON. 
          JUST LIKE, UM, IT'S NATIONALLY. 
          ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE WAS WE'RE GONNA CREATE A SET OF RULES FOR PEOPLE TO REQUIRED TO GET REGISTERED, PERMITTED, PAY THE HOT. 
          BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE THAT ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES? AND AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, AS WE WENT LIVE WITH THE ORDINANCE, THE FIRST FEW MONTHS, A LOT OF EDUCATION, THE STRATEGY WAS LESS ENFORCEMENT, BUT MORE, UH, EDUCATION OUTREACH TO TRY TO GET THEM INTO COMPLIANCE. 
          UH, SO SINCE THEN, UH, CODE ENFORCEMENT THROUGH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WE'VE INVESTIGATED 58 PROPERTIES. 
          SO AS WE'RE CAPTURING, UM, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE PEOPLE COMING IN AND EACH MONTH MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE COMING INTO COMPLIANCE, ESPECIALLY THOSE FIRST FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS OF THE ORDINANCE. 
          UH, BUT THE 58 PROPERTIES, WE HAD TO, WE HAD CALLS COMING INTO OUR OFFICE, SO MOST OF THEM REACTED. 
          WE, WE FOUND A COUPLE PROACTIVE, ABOUT 58 PROPERTIES WE HAD TO GO AND ENFORCE. 
          UM, WE ACTUALLY, UH, A FEW OF THEM STILL PENDING. 
          MOST OF THEM, UH, ARE CLOSED, UH, AND INTO COMPLIANCE. 
          EITHER THEY SHUT DOWN OR THEY'RE ACTUALLY ONE OF THE 1852. 
          NOW, ONE IMPORTANT ELEMENT I JUST PUT THERE, WE DID, UH, PUT IN THAT THREE STRIKES, UH, IN YOUR OUT RULE, MEANING I WILL REVOKE, UH, THE, THEIR PERMIT IF THEY HAVE THREE, UM, PUBLIC NUISANCE VIOLATIONS WITHIN, UM, A SIX MONTH TIME. 
          NO SHORT-TERM RENTAL THAT HAS BEEN PERMITTED, UH, IN THIS FIRST YEAR HAS HAD A THREE STRIKE AND REVOKE OF YOUR PERMIT, WHICH IS A GOOD THING. 
          MEANING THEY'RE ALL TRYING TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. 
          THEY'RE TRYING TO STAY, UM, IN GOOD STANDING WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS. 
          TRY NOT TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE. 
          UH, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION ON OUR COURT CASES THAT WE'VE HAD TO GO TO. 
          AND ONE, ONE ITEM ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT THERE IS WE ARE USING, UH, HOST COMPLIANCE, WHICH IS A THIRD PARTY ORGANIZATION THAT ALSO THAT, THAT LOOKS AT THE PLATFORMS TO FIND OUT WHERE THESE SHORT-TERM RENTALS MAY BE OPERATING THAT AREN'T PERMITTED. 
          IN JUNE, WE HAD TO ISSUE 800 LETTERS TO POTENTIAL SHORT-TERM OPERATORS THAT WE THOUGHT MIGHT COULD BE, UM, OPERATING WITHOUT COMING PERMITTED. 
          UH, NOW, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THAT IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, WE ONLY HAVE TO SEND OUT 46 LETTERS IN OCTOBER. 
          IN OCTOBER. 
          SO PEOPLE ARE GETTING THE MESSAGE, THOSE THAT ARE DOING IT, A FEW OF THOSE LETTERS WENT OUT TO THE WRONG ADDRESS, OR MAYBE THEY WERE OUTSIDE OF SAN ANTONIO, BUT MOST OF THEM WERE, WERE NOT PERMITTED YET. 
          BUT NOW THEY ARE. 
          I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE IS EVEN OUR THIRD PARTY ORGANIZATION THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH, THE COMPANY IS SAYING, HEY, THERE'S ONLY 46 OR SO, AT LEAST IN OCTOBER THAT WEREN'T COMPLYING, THAT WE'RE GONNA BRING INTO COMPLIANCE. 
          AND 1800 NOW ARE IN COMPLIANCE. 
          ONE OTHER, UH, ITEM JUST TO, UM, GIVE YOU SOME INFORMATION ON, SO IF YOU REMEMBER, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT THE TIME WE PASSED THE ORDINANCE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE DENSITY LIMITS, MEANING THE BUY RIGHT. 
          UH, IF YOU'RE A TYPE TWO, UH, SHORT-TERM RENTAL, YOU'D BE ALLOWED BY A RIGHT, IN ANY NEIGHBORHOOD, IN ANY AREA UP TO A CERTAIN DENSITY BECAUSE WE WANTED TO BALANCE, WE DIDN'T WANT, WE DIDN'T WANT, UH, THE NEIGHBOR, 
          [00:10:01]
THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET OVERWHELMED WITH, UH, ESPECIALLY THE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTALS. 
          BUT IF YOU GO ABOVE THE DENSITY LIMITS, YOU CAN ASK FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD 11 SPECIAL EXEMPTIONS. 
          SO THINK OF 1800 PERMITS. 
          11, UH, PEOPLE ASKED FOR A SPECIAL EXEMPTION, AND SOME OF THEM ARE PASSING AND SOME OF THEM ARE FAILING. 
          YOU SEE THAT FIVE PAST THREE FAILED, ONE WAS THROUGH, AND TWO ARE COMING UP ACTUALLY NEXT WEEK. 
          UH, AND WHAT THAT IS, IS THAT'S WHEN THE BO O A LOOKS AT THAT SPECIFIC PROPERTY, THAT SPECIFIC CASE, AND THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE B O A. 
          WE GET PUBLIC INPUT FROM THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL NOTIFIED AND THEY COME EITHER IN SUPPORT OR AGAINST. 
          THIS IS JUST A SLIDE TALKING ABOUT OUR, OUR HOT AND, UH, WE'RE TRACKING HOW MUCH HOT IS COMING IN, UH, FROM THE SHORT TERM RENTALS. 
          SO IF YOU LOOK AT, UH, WE COLLECT CITY AND COUNTY, AND IF YOU REMEMBER, WE ACTUALLY, THE CITY DOES, OUR FINANCE TEAM COLLECTS THE COUNTY COUNTY TAX FOR THEM, UH, AND THEN, UH, SUBMITS THAT TO THE COUNTY. 
          BUT LET'S LOOK AT THE CITY TAX. 
          SO IF YOU LOOK IN F Y 2019, UH, THIS IS ACTUALLY DATA THROUGH JUST JUNE, UH, OVER A MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF HOT HAD COME IN, IN JUST THAT SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME. 
          COMPARING THAT TO F Y 2018, AT THAT TIME, IT WAS ONLY ABOUT A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS, SO OVER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS. 
          AND THAT WAS JUST THROUGH, UH, JUNE. 
          AND REALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SHOW HERE IS BOTH CITY AND COUNTY REVENUE, UH, IN TERMS OF THE HOT THAT BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY MORE PEOPLE ACTUALLY, UH, COMING IN TO GET REGISTERED, PAYING THE PERMIT AND, AND THE HOTS, UH, THERE'S MORE REVENUE COMING IN FROM THE HOT THERE. 
          SO IT'S A SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM THERE. 
          SO SINCE GOING LIVE, NOT ONLY IN NOVEMBER, BUT SHORTLY AFTER THE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF, UM, COMMUNITY FEEDBACK, UH, WHETHER IT BE INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS COMING IN AND TALKING TO US OR HAVING GROUPS AND MEETINGS. 
          I KNOW COUNCILMAN TREVINO HAS FACILITATED SEVERAL MEETINGS THROUGH HIS OFFICE, EVEN AT HIS, UH, FIELD OFFICE. 
          UH, AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM SHORT-TERM RENTAL OPERATORS FROM SOME NEIGHBORHOODS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, POSSIBLE, UM, MODIFICATIONS OR THINGS THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER, UH, OR WATCH VERY CLOSELY AS WE MOVE FORWARD. 
          AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THIS, THE ORDINANCE IS WORKING, UH, BUT HERE IS SOME OF THE FEEDBACK WE'LL GET, AND I'LL JUST KINDA LIST THEM. 
          SO THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS, THAT 12.5%, WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THAT, UH, FOR, FOR 18 MONTHS. 
          THAT WAS ONE OF THE KEY, UH, ITEMS. UH, BUT THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS, POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS TO THAT SO THAT IT'S, UH, WE TALK ABOUT BLOCK FACES, WE TALK ABOUT UNITS PER BLOCK FACE, OR SHOULD IT BE LOTS PER BLOCK FACE? RIGHT NOW IT'S UNITS PER BLOCK FACE. 
          THAT'S HOW YOU CALCULATE IT. 
          THERE ARE SOME THAT WOULD LIKE TO CALCULATE IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. 
          WE HAVE AN ONLINE SHORT-TERM RENTAL MAP. 
          YOU CAN ACTUALLY GO ONLINE RIGHT NOW TO THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ZONING MAP. 
          AND YOU CAN LOOK AT EVERY SHORT-TERM RENTAL ID, UH, WHETHER IT BE A TYPE ONE OR TYPE TWO THAT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, VERY TRANSPARENT. 
          UH, PEOPLE USE THAT RIGHT NOW TO HELP ENFORCE THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT THEY ALSO, UH, USE IT RIGHT NOW TO DETERMINE IF THEY WANT TO PURCHASE A PROPERTY AND RUN A SHORT-TERM RENTAL OUT OF THERE. 
          THERE ARE SOME THOUGH THAT, THAT FEEL THAT, THAT MAY BE OPENING THESE, UH, PROPERTIES UP TO POTENTIAL THEFT OR VANDALISM BECAUSE THEY'RE KNOWN TO BE MAYBE A TYPE TWO. 
          SO THAT'S SOME OF THE COMMENTS WE HEARD. 
          UM, WE'RE ALSO, AND WE'RE ALWAYS DOING THIS, CONTINUE TO STREAMLINE, UH, THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, THE PERMITTING PROCESS. 
          THERE WAS SOME, UH, CONTINUED, UH, QUESTIONS ABOUT COLLECTING, UH, THE HOT TAX THROUGH THE PLATFORMS, AIRBNB AND WHAT HAVE YOU. 
          SO, UH, TEMPORARY PERMITS. 
          SO WHAT ABOUT IF I JUST WANT TO DO IT ONCE PER YEAR, ONE WEEKEND A YEAR, ONE NIGHT A YEAR, SHOULD THERE BE A SEPARATE ONE? UH, THE ONE THAT, THAT THE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS NOW WORKS, BUT SHOULD THERE BE A, A THIRD OPTION? THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT ALLOWING SHORT-TERM RENTALS BY RIGHT, UH, A LITTLE BIT MORE IN, IN COMMERCIAL ZONE PROPERTIES, AND THEN MATCHING SOME LANGUAGE OF CHAPTER 16 OF OUR CODE, WHICH IS A LICENSE SECTION WITH OUR BUILDING RELATED CODE, CHAPTER 10. 
          THAT ONE WILL PROBABLY HAPPEN THIS SUMMER, UH, WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT THE CHAPTER 10 ORDINANCE. 
          ANYWAY, UH, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HEARING. 
          SO JUST TO KIND OF SUMMARIZE, UH, THE ORDINANCE THAT WE WORKED SO HARD ON ALMOST TWO YEARS IN THE MAKING. 
          UH, IT'S WORKING, IT'S SUCCESSFUL ORDINANCE, IT'S BALANCED OTHER, UH, CITIES AND EVEN THE STATE. 
          WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AS REALLY A POSSIBLE MODEL ORDINANCE, BUT IT'S WORKING FOR US. 
          UH, D S D I KNOW FIND TROY AND, AND OUR FINANCE TEAM ARE HERE. 
          WE WORK CLOSELY. 
          WE'LL CONTINUE TO ADMINISTER AND ENFORCE THE ORDINANCE, AND WE'LL CERTAINLY MONITOR FOR FUTURE CHANGES, UH, TO THE ORDINANCE, UH, AS WE GO FORWARD. 
          SO THAT'S THE, OR THAT'S THE UPDATE IN A NUTSHELL. 
          OKAY. 
          GREAT. 
          WELL, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS, BUT I'M GONNA SHARE WITH MY COLLEAGUES. 
          SO, UM, , THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          OH, I'M SORRY. 
          YOU KNOW WHAT, ONE SECOND. 
          YEAH. 
          WAS THERE ANY, WERE THERE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? UM, I DON'T KNOW. 
          WERE YOU GOING TO SPEAK SIMON? DID ANYBODY COME TO ANYBODY SIGNED IN? IT'S OVER HERE. 
          NOBODY ON SHORT TERM RENTALS. 
          MM-HMM. 
          OKAY. 
          THEY'RE ALL FINE. 
          NO. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SORRY ABOUT THAT. 
          I SAID I WOULD USE THAT SYSTEM. 
          SO GO AHEAD, COUNSEL. 
          THAT'S OKAY. 
          UM, THANK YOU MIKE, SO MUCH FOR, UH, ALWAYS GIVING US SUCH A THOROUGH PRESENTATION. 
          WE TRULY APPRECIATE IT. 
          SO 
          [00:15:01]
MY QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE ARE, ARE REALLY, UH, GENERAL AS FAR AS WHEN IT COMES TO THE BREAKDOWN ON PAGE SEVEN OF HOW MANY PER DISTRICT OUT OF THESE, UM, VIOLATORS, IF WE COULD GET A BREAKDOWN PER DISTRICT, ESPECIALLY IN DISTRICT TWO, UM, WITH US HAVING 299. 
          AND THEN, UM, AND THEN ON PAGE NINE, UM, IF YOU COULD GET A BREAKDOWN OF PER DISTRICT BASED ON THE UNITS THAT WE HAVE, HOW MUCH OF THE HOT TAXES GENERATED PER DISTRICT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE. 
          UM, THOSE REALLY ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          UM, UM, YEAH, LET'S STAY ON, UH, SLIDE NUMBER NINE RIGHT NOW. 
          I GUESS QUICKLY, UH, THE COUNTY, WE COLLECT THE HOT TAX FOR THE COUNTY AS WELL. 
          JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, DO THEY PAY US FOR THE COLLECTION? I THINK THEY DO, DON'T THEY? HI, TROY. 
          HEY, THEY DO, WE HAVE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONTRACT WITH THEM AND THEY PAY US, I BELIEVE HALF OF 1%, UM, FOR A COLLECTION FEE. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND OF THE, UM, SAME THING WITH THE REGISTRATIONS BY COUNCIL DISTRICTS, IN A BREAKDOWN FOR EACH DISTRICT, CAN YOU TELL ME HOW MANY ARE TYPE ONE AND TYPE TWO? WE, WE CAN, AND I AND I, I'LL GET THAT. 
          UH, OKAY. 
          WE DID, UM, I THINK WE JUST DID THE GLOBAL NUMBER, UH, ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, BUT WE CAN BREAK THAT DOWN INDIVIDUALLY BY DISTRICT. 
          THE ACTUAL ONE, WE HAVE ALL THAT DATA. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE CAN SEND THAT OUT AFTER THIS MEETING. 
          I KNEW YOU DID, MIKE, I KNEW YOU HAD ALL THAT DATA. 
          AND THEN, UM, ALSO ON SLIDE NUMBER EIGHT, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, THOSE THAT ARE GETTING THE SPECIAL EXEMPTIONS, CAN YOU ALSO BREAK THAT DOWN BY COUNCIL DISTRICTS? CERTAINLY. 
          AND ALSO THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT IF THEY ARE MAYBE THE FIVE THAT PASSED, ARE THEY IN JUST DISTRICT ONE, LA VACA? ARE THEY IN DISTRICT TWO, DIGNITY HILL? WHERE ARE THEY? SURE. 
          UM, JUST SO WE CAN KNOW IF THEY'RE IN SPECIFIC AREAS OR IF THEY ARE IN AREAS THAT, UH, ARE, UH, JUST ALL OVER THE CITY TOO. 
          SO ABSOLUTELY, WE CAN SEE THAT. 
          AND DO YOU, DO WE KNOW, I GUESS GOING TO SLIDE 10 OF THE FEEDBACK, I'M CURIOUS, DO WE KNOW OF HOW MANY APARTMENTS, APARTMENT COMPLEX, MULTI-FAMILY, APARTMENT COMPLEX ARE NOW ACTING AS STR OR THAT HAVE TAKEN TWO FLOORS OR A FLOOR? DO, DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET THAT INFORMATION AND CAN YOU SHARE THAT WITH US? SURE. 
          WELL, WE CAN, OF COURSE, WE'LL SHARE IT WITH YOU AND WE CAN GET THAT INFORMATION. 
          UH, SINCE THE ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED, YOU REMEMBER APARTMENTS AND CONDOS AND ALL THAT, THAT WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT THE END. 
          RIGHT? THEY ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO THE 12.5% RULE, THE ONE EIGHTH RULE. 
          UH, SO, UM, WE, WE, WE HAVE HAD, UH, I DON'T THINK ANY IN THE APARTMENTS EXCEED THAT. 
          UH, A COUPLE TRIED, UH, ON, ON ONE B O A CASE. 
          I THINK THEY WANTED TO ON A, ON A CONDO TYPE DEVELOPMENT. 
          UM, BUT THAT WAS DENIED. 
          AND THEN, UM, WE'VE HAD NO, THAT I'M AWARE OF BECAUSE THE OTHER OPTION, THEY COULD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO CHANGE TO A HOTEL, QUOTE UNQUOTE A HOTEL THROUGH A NEW CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, A NEW BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS. 
          I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY THAT HAVE SPECIFICALLY DONE THAT, BUT WE'LL CHECK OUR RECORDS ON THAT. 
          UM, SO, BUT WE'LL GET TO EVERYTHING WE HAVE. 
          I SAW A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ON IT. 
          DID THE SOUTHTOWN FLATS, THE ONE THAT'S RIGHT ACROSS FROM LA TUNA AND PROBATE, DID THEY DO THAT? THE, UM, THE APARTMENT COMPLEX? THERE WAS, UH, THE ARTICLE YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS THAT THERE, THERE ARE SOME COMPANIES OUT THERE, AND I THINK ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU HAD ON THAT SLIDE 10, AND I'LL JUST GO TO, LEMME SEE IF I CAN GET THERE. 
          UM, HEY, IT WORKED. 
          UH, SO ALLOWING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN EITHER C THREE ZONED OR MORE COMMERCIALLY ZONED OR MAYBE EVEN DOWNTOWN, DOWNTOWN ZONE, ALLOWING THEM, UH, THERE ARE COMPANIES THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. 
          THEY, THEY ACTUALLY GRAB, UH, SOME UNITS. 
          SOMETIMES THEY HAVE A FLOOR, SONDER, SONDER, OTHERS, UM, A FEW OTHERS. 
          AND, UH, BUT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE 12 POINT A HALF IN SAN ANTONIO. 
          THEY'RE, THEY'RE SUBJECT TO THE 12 POINT HALF PERCENT. 
          OKAY. 
          MAX BY RIGHT. 
          THEY HAVE NOT GOT, I THINK THE SOUTHTOWN FLATS THAT WAS UNDER, WE CHECKED AFTER THAT ARTICLE. 
          THEY'RE UNDER THE 12 POINT A HALF PERCENT IN THAT BUILDING. 
          IF THEY WANT TO GO HIGHER THAN THAT, THEY'D HAVE TO ASK FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. 
          I KNOW THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. 
          THEY WERE TRYING TO GET EXEMPTED OUT OF, UH, THE, UH, 12.5% DENSITY LIMIT. 
          AND, UH, THE ANSWER WAS, UH, NO, UH, PER THE ORDINANCE. 
          SO THIS, UM, FEEDBACK FOR ALLOWING STR AND C THREE ZONED AREAS, THAT'S JUST FEEDBACK YOU'RE GETTING. 
          THAT'S NOTHING THAT WE'RE HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT. 
          I THE PURPOSE OF THIS SLIDE IS TO SHOW YOU THAT WE'RE STILL GETTING PEOPLE THAT ARE INTERESTED IN THE ORDINANCE. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ITEM FOR OUR COMMUNITY, WHETHER YOU'RE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL OPERATOR, WHETHER YOU'RE, UH, A NEIGHBORHOOD LEADER OR ANYWHERE IN BETWEEN. 
          AND, UH, THIS IS JUST SOME FEEDBACK WE'RE GETTING. 
          WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING ANY OF THESE CHANGES NECESSARILY AT THIS TIME. 
          BUT, UH, WOULD 
          [00:20:01]
WELCOME ANY FEEDBACK THAT YOU ALL HAVE. 
          YOU KNOW, TROY'S HERE. 
          GOOD. 
          UM, TROY, CAN YOU HELP ME WITH THIS? I KNOW THIS PAST WEEK, UM, OR LAST WEEK, ERIC GAVE HIS END OF, UH, YEAR FINANCIAL REPORT TO US, AND PART OF THAT WAS THE HOT TAX WAS A LOT HIGHER THIS YEAR. 
          HE DIDN'T GO INTO DETAILS ON THAT. 
          WAS, WAS THIS PART OF THE REASON WHY OUR HOT TAXES ALSO, WE HAD A BETTER COLLECTION WITH HOT TAX. 
          THIS WILL BE A PORTION OF IT. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK THE ADOPTED BUDGET WAS ABOUT 70 MILLION, AND WE CAME IN ABOUT 71 POINT 72, 74, 72. 
          UM, WE HAD ABOUT $650,000 IN THE BASE THAT CARRIED FORWARD. 
          SO THIS WILL BE ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS MORE THAN WHAT WE EXPECTED. 
          SO IT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO SOME OF THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          I, I, I ASKED, SO LORI, I ASKED ERIC TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT, SO I THINK IF YOU CAN LET HIM KNOW THAT I'M GOING TO BE WANTING TO SEE LIKE THAT BREAKDOWN THERE TOO. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          AND THEN, UM, SO THOSE, THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS. 
          IF YOU CAN GIVE ME BACK SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT, UM, WHAT, HOW MANY IN, AS IN EACH COUNCIL DISTRICT OR BREAKDOWN TOO. 
          YEP. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU, . 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          UH, MIKE, COULD YOU TELL US HOW MANY, UH, COMPLAINTS THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED OR THAT 3 1 1 CALLS HAVE COME IN OR THAT SS A P D HAS RECEIVED ABOUT, UM, DISRUPTIONS IN NEIGHBORHOODS, COMMUNITIES, OR WITH HOUSING, UH, DUE TO A SHORT-TERM RENTAL IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD? UH, THAT NUMBER RIGHT NOW IS THE, UH, THE, THE PROPERTIES INVESTIGATED, THE 58 THAT'S INCORPORATED IN THERE, WHETHER IT'S RUNNING A SHORT-TERM WITHOUT PERMITS, BUT WE CAN, WE CAN PULL THAT SPECIFIC DATA OUT AND GIVE IT TO YOU NOT ONLY AS YOU ASK, BUT, UH, BASED ON THE OTHER MEMBERS. 
          I'LL GIVE IT BY COUNCIL DISTRICT AS WELL. 
          SURE. 
          SO THAT 58 WAS FOR, FOR PROPERTIES THAT MAY NOT HAVE REGISTERED OR MIGHT BE IN VIOLATION OF YES. 
          THE PROCESS. 
          UH, AND AND IT ALSO INCLUDE ANY COMPLAINTS FROM THE COMMUNITY AS WELL. 
          IT, IT, IT DOES, BUT I'LL, UH, I'LL GET WITH MY TEAM. 
          WE'LL PULL OUT ALL THAT DATA FOR YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, IT HASN'T BEEN AS MANY AS, UH, WE ANTICIPATED, TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH. 
          UH, I THOUGHT VERY QUICKLY THERE WOULD BE SOME, SOME SHORT-TERM RENTAL OPERATORS THAT WOULD'VE QUICKLY GOT A THREE STRIKE, UH, AND I'D HAVE TO REVOKE THEIR PERMIT. 
          IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET. 
          NOT TO SAY THAT IT MAY KNOCK ON WOOD, BUT, UM, BUT WE'LL, WE'LL GET THAT DATA FOR YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          , ANYTHING FROM YOU? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          I JUST, UM, SO COULD YOU ADD, UM, THEFT TO THE LIST THAT COUNCILMAN COURAGE ASKED FOR? IMAGINE IF YOU HAD LINKS, WHETHER IT WAS NOISE, YOU WOULD HAVE CALLS IF THERE WAS A THEFT TO THE ADDRESS AS WELL. 
          SURE. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, SO PLEASE ADD THAT. 
          SO THE OTHER, UM, SO I THINK COUNCILMAN BRAN ASKED A QUESTION. 
          SO TO TROY'S, SO THE INCREASE WE'VE SEEN IS ONLY ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS FOR ALL THE UNITS. 
          IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE HIGHER WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE S T R WAS PRODUCING, I GUESS IN THE PRIOR YEAR, IT WAS ABOUT $640,000. 
          AND AS MIKE MENTIONED, OVER THE INCREASE THIS YEAR, WE'RE ENDING UP ABOUT 1.7. 
          SO OH, 1.7. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, THAT'S, SO I THINK HIS NUMBERS WERE AT THE END OF JUNE. 
          I'M ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT THE END OF SEPTEMBER OR END OF OUR FISCAL YEAR. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE, SO THE PROJECTIONS ARE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER AT 1.7 VERSUS WHAT WAS IN THE SLIDE AS, AS OF THE END OF JUNE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, AND THAT, OKAY. 
          SO TOTAL, THAT INCLUDES THE ORIGINAL 600 OR SO MM-HMM. 
          , SO AROUND A MILLION DOLLARS ON TOP OF THAT OKAY. 
          COMPARED TO LAST YEAR. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          AND SO I, I GUESS JUST SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT, UM, SOME STATISTICS. 
          SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU ARE, UM, YOU ARE, UM, YOU, YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS, UM, 1,852 REGISTERED. 
          UM, IS THIS, IS THIS A MARKET THAT'S GROWING? IS IT STABLE? IS IT, ARE WE SEEING MORE OR LESS? UH, WE'RE GETTING, WE'RE GETTING NEW APPLICATIONS EACH MONTH. 
          CERTAINLY IN THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF THE ORDINANCE. 
          WHEN, WHEN THE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS WENT LIVE IN FEBRUARY, THE FIRST THREE OR FOUR MONTHS WERE, WE WERE GETTING HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS. 
          IT HAS CERTAINLY TAPERED OFF, BUT LIKE FOR PEOPLE GETTING IN COMPLIANCE, UH, IT WAS BOTH, IT WAS BOTH PEOPLE GETTING INTO COMPLIANCE. 
          AND ALSO I THINK PEOPLE JUST SAYING, HEY, WE'RE STARTING AND WE WANT TO DO IT. 
          WE'RE HEARING IT'S, UH, NOT ONLY GOOD FOR ME AND MY HOME OR ME, UH, AS A RENTAL INVESTMENT. 
          SO, UM, IT, IT WOULD COME IN, I THINK ALL, ALL DIFFERENT WAYS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO I WONDER IF THAT ALSO, I, I WOULD BE CURIOUS, UM, I THINK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS I HAD EARLY ON WAS, UM, THE SORT OF THE PROJECTED GROWTH MM-HMM. 
          , BUT ALSO HOW LONG DO PEOPLE KEEP THEM ON THE MARKET? SO, I MEAN, JUST AS I HAD TOLD THE STORY BEFORE, IN MY EXPERIENCE, PEOPLE SAID THAT THEY TRIED IT AND THAT THEY FOUND THAT IT WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL 
          [00:25:01]
MM-HMM. 
          . 
          SO THEN THEY WENT BACK TO JUST HAVING REGULAR TENANTS. 
          SO DO YOU HAVE ANY FEEDBACK ABOUT THOSE SCENARIOS? YES, WE'VE, WE'VE HEARD THE SAME. 
          WE'VE HAD, WE'VE HAD SOME EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE SAYING THAT THEY'VE TRIED IT AND FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME AND THEN CHOSE TO GO TO LONG-TERM RENTAL OR TO SELL THE PROPERTY. 
          WE'VE ALSO HEARD THAT ONCE PEOPLE GET INTO IT, THEY LOVED IT AND THEY WERE VERY GOOD AT IT AND THEY STAYED IN IT. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHY THE NUMBER'S GROWING. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I MIGHT LIKE TO HAVE THAT WHEN YOU GIVE, UM, SORT OF A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT LIKE HOW LONG PEOPLE KEEP IT AND, AND ALSO, UM, WITH THE GROWTH HAS BEEN, UM, VERSUS PEOPLE JUST GETTING IN COMPLIANCE OR IF THERE'S ACTUALLY BEEN A GROWTH IN THE MARKET. 
          'CAUSE I WOULD IMAGINE THAT AS WE SEE OUR HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY GROW, WE WOULD ALSO SEE THIS GROW MM-HMM. 
          . 
          SO COULD, WE MIGHT LIKE TO SEE THOSE COMPARISONS, UM, WITH NOT JUST A HOT TAX, BUT WHAT'S HAPPENING, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN VISIT SAN ANTONIO COMES AND PRESENTS AND SAYS THEY'VE SEEN, YOU KNOW, SUCH A BIG INCREASE IN VISITORS, ARE WE ALSO SEEING AN INCREASE IN THIS INDUSTRY AS WELL? UM, SO I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE YOU COULD FIND THAT OUT FOR US. 
          UM, I KIND OF, IF THERE, IF THERE'S THAT TREND, UH, AS WELL. 
          SO, UM, OH, OKAY. 
          I'LL, I'LL LET YOU CHIME BACK IN. 
          SO THE OTHER QUESTION, YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT A THIRD PARTY, UM, IS THE THIRD PARTY, WHAT, WHAT WERE YOU REFERENCING WHEN YOU SAID THIRD PARTY? SURE. 
          SO, UH, WE CONTRACTED, UM, THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, UH, CONTRACTED WITH A COMPANY CALLED HOST COMPLIANCE. 
          HOST COMPLIANCE ACTUALLY WORKED WITH US AND I T S D FINANCE TO BUILD FIRST THE ONLINE APPLICATION. 
          SO YOU CAN JUST GO ONLINE, YOU CAN FILL IN ALL, SEND IN ALL YOUR DATA, UH, AS OPPOSED TO DOING A PAPER APPLICATION. 
          SO THAT'S ONE THING THEY DID FOR US. 
          IT'S UP AND RUNNING. 
          THAT'S HOW PEOPLE ARE APPLYING. 
          SECONDLY, THOUGH, HOST COMPLIANCE, THEY ALSO, THEY SEARCH ALL, ALL THESE PLATFORMS AND IT'S NOT JUST TWO OR THREE PLATFORMS. THERE'S TWO OR THREE LARGE PLATFORMS. BUT IF YOU WERE TO EVER GO TRY TO GO TO THE COAST OR GO WHEREVER AND FIND A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, YOU CAN GO ON DOZENS AND DOZENS OF PLATFORMS. WELL, THEY DO THAT AND THEY COMPARE THAT TO OUR REGISTERED LIST. 
          SO AS OUR REGISTERED LIST HAS INCREASED THEIR LIST OF POTENTIAL IN VIOLATION, WORKING WITHOUT PERMITS, MEANING AN OPERATION HAS DECREASED. 
          SO THEY'RE LIKE A SEARCH ENGINE OF THE PLATFORMS THAT ARE OUT THERE, AND WE CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM, I THINK ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I JUST, UH, THANK YOU FOR THAT, UH, QUESTION. 
          SO COUNCILMAN, COURAGE. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          ONE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO KNOW IS HOW MANY NIGHTS STAY HAVE, UH, BEEN ENCOMPASSED BY ALL OF THESE UNITS IN THE LAST YEAR? I MEAN, IF THEY TURN IN HOT TECHS, YOU KNOW, IT'S FOR A NIGHT STAY. 
          SO YOU OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO GIVE US, UH, AN IDEA. 
          CAN WE GET THAT FROM THE HOT? OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'LL TRY TO GET THAT DATA. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MIKE. 
          WE WILL, THAT WAS ALSO JUST FOR BRIEFING. 
          YES. 
          SO, UM, GLAD THAT WE ARE, UH, WORKING THOSE THINGS OUT. 
          SO WE WILL MOVE ALONG 
          [5. 19-9144 Briefing and Action amending the City Code of San Antonio, Texas,
Chapter 35, Unified Development Code, Section 35-310-01 Table]
TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE, UH, WHICH IS A BRIEFING AND ACTION AMENDING THE CITY CODE OF SAN ANTONIO, CHAPTER 35, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 35 DASH THREE 10 DASH ZERO ONE, UM, LOT AND BUILDING DIMENSIONS TABLE RELATING TO LOT AND DIMENSIONS, SO RM AND MF DISTRICTS AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. 
          SO YOU'RE GONNA GIVE US THIS ONE TOO? YES, MIKE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, GO AHEAD AND GIVE US A PRESENTATION AND THEN WE'LL HAVE, UH, SOME CITIZENS THAT, UM, HAVE ASKED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UH, THANK YOU AGAIN, UH, CHAIRWOMAN. 
          SO, UH, THIS SLIDE SHOULD LOOK FAMILIAR. 
          WE WERE HERE TALKING ABOUT THIS THURSDAY AT, UH, THE A SESSION, AND YOU ASKED US TO BRING IT BACK TO TALK ABOUT SOME SPECIFIC ITEMS THAT WE, THAT WERE, UM, DISCUSSED. 
          SO AGAIN, IT'S MF 33 AND R FOUR, UH, ZONING. 
          UH, NOW I'M NOT GONNA GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PRESENTATION AGAIN. 
          YOU KNOW, WE'RE PROPOSING, UM, TO PUT SOME, UH, SAFEGUARDS, UH, TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS AGAINST SOME WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING, SOME INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENTS, SPECIFICALLY MULTI-FAMILY UNITS OR RMM FOUR MULTI-UNITS, UH, YOU KNOW, RIGHT EX RIGHT NEXT TO EXISTING HOMES. 
          SO, UH, WE PROPOSED THOSE STANDARDS TO PROMOTE COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT. 
          WE RECOMMENDED THREE CHANGES SPECIFICALLY TO LOWER THE HEIGHT, UM, FROM 45 TO 35 FEET, UH, MAKE SOME CONSISTENT SETBACKS AT THE FRONT SETBACK LEVEL, AND THEN THE STREET ORIENTATION TO ENSURE THAT THE FRONT DOOR FRONT ENTRYWAY. 
          SO THAT WAS WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT ON THURSDAY. 
          BUT AT THE COUNCIL MEETING, UM, YOU KNOW, A WEEK OR SO PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL MEETING AND SOME DISCUSSION WITH COUNCILMAN TREVINO, UH, WE LED TO SOME CONCERN THAT, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE AS WAS WRITTEN ON THURSDAY, MIGHT, UH, MIGHT BE CAUSED TO INCENTIVIZE OR 
          [00:30:01]
GET PEOPLE TO, UH, TEAR DOWN SOME EXISTING HOUSING STOCK TO GET OUT OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AS THE LOWER HEIGHT THRESHOLD. 
          SO, UH, TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN, UM, UH, COUNCILMAN HAD READ A PROPOSED AMENDMENT AT THE, AT THE DIOCESE TO ADDRESS THAT. 
          UH, BUT WE WANTED TO TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THAT TODAY SO WE CAN SPECIFICALLY LOOK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, SO THAT WE DON'T PROMOTE THE, UH, DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOMES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO, UH, I JUST TRYING TO TAKE YOU LEFT OR RIGHT THROUGH THIS SLIDE. 
          SO, AS THE PROCESS WAS GOING THROUGH, WE HAD OUR TASK FORCE, I THINK SOME OF THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS, I THINK I SAW MARY HERE, UH, AND THEN AS WELL AS, UH, MANY OTHERS THAT PAID ATTENTION, UH, TO IT. 
          BUT, UM, WE HAD THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, MADE SOME CLARIFICATIONS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO PROTECT EXISTING HOMES AGAINST NEW DEVELOPMENT NEXT DOOR. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT MIGHT BE A THREE OR FOUR STORY STRUCTURE, REALLY OVERPOWERING, UH, MAYBE A ONE OR TWO FAMILY EXISTING HOME. 
          SO, UH, THE FIRST COMMENT CAME FROM THE, UH, THE, THE P T A C THAT SAID, HEY, THE HEIGHT LIMITATION DOES NOT APPLY WHERE A BUDDING PROPERTY IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY BUT NOT DEVELOPED, UH, OR, OR DEVELOPED AS SUCH. 
          SO WHETHER YOU'RE A CHURCH, A SCHOOL, UM, OR A VACANT PROPERTY. 
          AND THEN WHEN WE GOT THE ZONING COMMISSION IN NOVEMBER, UH, THE ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS ASKED, HEY, UH, VACANT PROPERTY, THE, THE NEW HEIGHT RESTRICTION WOULDN'T APPLY. 
          AND WE SAID, YES, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          UH, BUT THEY ASKED US TO ADD THIS TERM VACANT PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY IN THE NOTE 11, WHICH I'LL TALK ABOUT, BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS CLEAR IF THAT'S WHAT THE RULE IS, UH, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER REGULATIONS WE HAVE IN OUR CODE, UH, WHETHER IT BE SETBACKS OR FENCE REQUIREMENTS OR LANDSCAPE, UH, SETBACKS, UH, AND SUCH. 
          SO THAT WE ADDED THIS TERM VACANT PROPERTY. 
          IT WAS REALLY, TO CLARIFY, IT DID NOT CHANGE ANYTHING. 
          IT JUST CLARIFIED THE RULE. 
          UH, BUT THAT CAUSED I THINK, A LITTLE HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY ON IT. 
          IT JUST HIGHLIGHTED THE FACT, UH, THAT, UM, WELL, UH, WOULD SOMEONE BUY A PIECE OF PROPERTY DEMO AN EXISTING HOME TO GET OUT OF THIS NEW REQUIREMENT, I E CREATE A LOOPHOLE OR INCENTIVIZE, UH, DEMO OF EXISTING HOUSING STOCK? AND THE ANSWER, I THINK WAS MAYBE IT COULD, UH, DEPENDS ON, UM, SOME OF THE SCENARIOS. 
          SO, UH, THE, THE, UH, AMENDMENT THAT WAS READ, UH, THE LANGUAGES IS THERE, AND I'LL GO ONTO THE NEXT SLIDE, IS, UH, MAYBE NOT APPLYING, UM, THAT, THAT, UH, THE NEW HEIGHT RESTRICTION, ONLY IF IT'S BEEN VACANT FOR SOME TIME. 
          UH, SOME TIME BEING DEFINED AS MORE THAN THREE YEARS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THAT PROPOSED LANGUAGE, AND YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE IT ON THE SCREEN, UM, BUT THIS IS THE NOTE 11. 
          SO AS YOU GO THROUGH THAT WHOLE TABLE, ALL THAT DEVELOPMENT TABLE BASED ON ZONING MAXIMUM HEIGHT, SO SPECIFICALLY, UH, WHAT TALK ABOUT HERE IS, UM, IF YOU LOOK IN THE MIDDLE THERE, WE, WE LOOK AT THE VACANT PROPERTY LANGUAGE WAS HIGHLIGHTED IN RED. 
          THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT LANGUAGE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT ON THURSDAY WAS ACCEPT THE HEIGHT LIMIT. 
          THAT NEW HEIGHT LIMIT OF 35 FEET RATHER THAN 45 SHALL APPLY TO TIES ABUTTING A VACANT PROPERTY RESULTING FROM A DEMOLITION WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE DEMOLITION. 
          SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? SO LET'S, LET'S TAKE A LOOK. 
          OKAY, SO HERE'S A ZONING MAP, A SPECIFIC ZONING MAP OF A REAL STREET. 
          WE HAVE SOME MF PROPERTIES RIGHT NEXT TO, UH, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONE PROPERTIES. 
          SO LOOK AT THE YELLOW, UH, PROPERTIES, HAVING MULTIFAMILY ZONING TODAY, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT TO BUILD UP TO 45 FEET IN HEIGHT. 
          WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS IF THEY'RE NEXT TO A, UH, A HOME, AN EXISTING HOME, THEY WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED TO BUILD TO 35. 
          OKAY? SO LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE. 
          SO THERE'S MY MF PROPERTY. 
          I JUST HIGHLIGHTED IT THERE. 
          THAT'S THE ONE WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT. 
          THERE IS A, THAT'S A VACANT PROPERTY, THAT ORANGE OR RED, I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT'S COMING OUT. 
          THAT ORANGE PROPERTY. 
          WHAT IF THERE WAS A HOME THAT WAS DEMOLISHED RECENTLY? OKAY, WITHIN, LET'S SAY THIS, IN THIS EXAMPLE, IT'S A YEAR AGO, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY LESS THAN THREE YEARS AS PROPOSED. 
          WHAT THAT MEANS IS THE NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THAT GREEN MF 33 LOT WOULD BE LIMITED TO 35 FEET. 
          OKAY? YOU COULD STILL BUILD, YOU JUST HAVE THIS NEW RULE THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN THERE, WE'RE TAKING IT DOWN 45 TO 35 FEET. 
          SO THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. 
          WHAT IT WOULD ALSO DO IS TAKE DOWN THE STREET, THERE'S ANOTHER MF 33 PROPERTY, MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY, AND WHAT IF THE NEXT DOOR IS, UH, VACANT? IT'S, IT IS ZONED, UH, RESIDENTIAL, BUT THAT WAS DEMOLISHED. 
          IT'S BEEN VACANT PROPERTY FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS. 
          THE PROPOSAL WOULD THEN SAY THAT ON THAT MF 33 LOT, THEY COULD BUILD A 45 FEET BY RIGHT NOW. 
          A COUPLE THINGS TO CONSIDER HERE, AND I JUST PUT THOSE UP AS KIND OF AN EXPLANATION OR AN EXAMPLE SAYING IF IT'S BEEN RECENTLY DEMOLISHED, MEANING LET'S PREVENT SOMEONE FROM BUYING THAT EXTRA PROPERTY, DEMOING IT TO GET THE EXTRA HEIGHT. 
          THAT DOESN'T SEEM WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO DO HERE WITH THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE. 
          BUT IF YOU DO IT RELATIVELY RECENTLY, YOU WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO BUILD, YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE BY RIGHT 35 FEET. 
          IF YOU WANTED MORE, YOU WOULD JUST GO THROUGH A B O A APPLICATION AND YOU WOULD ASK THE B O A FOR A VARIANCE, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT PEOPLE DO TODAY. 
          [00:35:01]
WHATEVER YOUR HEIGHT LIMIT IS, YOU COULD ASK FOR MORE, 38, 40, 45. 
          THE OTHER ONE THOUGH, IF IT'S BEEN VACANT FOR A WHILE, UM, YOU WOULD BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT TO 45 BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO PROTECT, UH, THE, ANY, THE VACANT PROPERTY FROM THIS NEW, UH, THE NEW DEVELOPMENT, UH, LIKE YOU WOULD IN EXISTING HOME. 
          SO I'M JUST GONNA THROW THIS IN HERE. 
          COUNCILMAN COURAGE. 
          YOU ASKED ME A QUESTION ABOUT NOTE 11 BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT NOTE 11. 
          NOTE 11. 
          THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF THE TABLE WE USE. 
          THIS IS THE ZONING, UH, DIMENSION CRITERIA, LOT AND, AND BUILDING DIMENSION. 
          SO EACH ZONE HAS A BUNCH OF, UH, BUILDING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. 
          WHAT YOU SEE HERE, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF IT, UH, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS THIS NOTE 11 GETS PUT IN UNDER THE, UH, THE HEIGHT, THE BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING MAX. 
          AND THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD READ THAT LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE ADDING THAT IF YOU'RE NEXT TO AN EXISTING HOME, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BE 45 FEET. 
          YOU'RE ALLOWED TO BE 35 FEET. 
          OKAY? UH, THERE WAS SOME COMMENTS YOU HEARD, I THINK FROM SOME TESTIMONY LAST WEEK ABOUT WHERE THAT NOTE SHOULD BE. 
          WE BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE THE TOP HEADER OF THIS TABLE. 
          SO IT PROTECTS ALL, UH, ZONING DISTRICTS, UH, BELOW. 
          UM, WE THINK THAT'S, UH, PROPER FORMATTING. 
          SO, UH, THAT BEING SAID, THIS IS JUST OUR RECOMMENDATION AGAIN, UH, WE ALL, THE THREE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST WEEK, UH, THE HEIGHT, THE FRONT STEP BACK, THE STREET ORIENTATION, WE RECOMMEND THOSE STILL. 
          UH, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT WAS READ, UH, BY THE COUNCILMAN, UH, ON THE DIOCESE LAST WEEK, WE, UH, RECOMMEND THAT, UH, WHICH IS THAT, UH, KIND OF BALANCE BETWEEN, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, THREE YEARS, UH, UH, WHEN, WHEN IT SHOULD BE PROTECTED OR NOT. 
          AND, UM, WE, WE BELIEVE WE'RE GONNA COME BACK IF WE HEAR FROM YOU WITH SOME SUPPORT. 
          WE'LL GO BACK TO COUNCIL, UH, LATER THIS WEEK, UH, FOR FULL ACTION. 
          WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS MIKE. 
          WE DO HAVE, UH, QUITE A FEW PEOPLE WHO HAVE COME TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. 
          AND, UH, WE NORMALLY GIVE THREE MINUTES, BUT THERE'S QUITE A FEW. 
          THERE'S, WE HAVE SEVEN PEOPLE. 
          UM, SO I MEAN, WE'LL GIVE YOU YOUR THREE MINUTES, BUT IF YOU COULD MAKE IT BRIEFER, WE SURE WOULD APPRECIATE IT. 
          UM, SO I'LL START WITH MARY JOHNSON FROM TIER ONE. 
          AND YOU CAN, UH, JUST GO UP TO THE MICROPHONE. 
          PLEASE SHOW VISUALS. 
          OH, I HAVE NO IDEA HOW WE SHOW VISUALS, UM, SINCE WE DON'T NORMALLY HAVE, UH, UM, IS THERE A WAY TO SHOW VISUALS? NO, NO, NO. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, WE'LL JUST, YEAH. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GO AHEAD MARY. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          UM, I'M MARY JOHNSON. 
          I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE MONTE VISTA TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. 
          I'M ALSO ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF TIER ONE, AND I WAS ON THIS, UH, TASK FORCE. 
          I WOULD ESPECIALLY LIKE TO THANK COUNCILWOMAN GONZALEZ FOR GIVING US, UH, THE ABILITY TO DISCUSS THE REMOVAL OF THE WORDING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND THE ZONING COMMISSION REGARDING VACANT PROPERTIES. 
          UM, AND NOTE 11, WHICH INCREASES THE HEIGHT OF A MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE IF IT IS LOCATED NEXT TO AN EMPTY LOT THAT IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. 
          THE FIRST REASON THIS WORDING NEEDS TO BE REMOVED IS THIS EDITION WAS PREVENTED AT THE ZONING COMMISSION HEARING WITHOUT AN OFFICIAL PUBLIC PROCESS BEFORE ITS CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION. 
          THIS WAS ADDED AT THE LAST MINUTE BY THE ZONING COMMISSION AND SHOULD GO THROUGH THE OFFICIAL AND PUBLIC PROCESS BEFORE ADOPTION. 
          THIS EDITION WAS NEVER DISCUSSED AT THE M AT THE TASK FORCE. 
          THIS ADDITION HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE TENANTS OF TRANSPARENCY AND INCLUSION THAT IS PART OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PRINCIPLES. 
          IN ADDITION TO THE ABSENCE OF THE DISCUSSION ON VACANT PROPERTY, IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ALL DISTRICTS HAVE NOT BEEN EQUAL EQUITABLY REPRESENTED THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. 
          UM, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT, UM, IF THE VACANT LOT WORDING WAS STRICKEN FROM THIS RECOMMENDATION AND NOTE 11 WAS ADDED TO THE, TO THE HEADING FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY AND PARTICULARLY THE MF, WHICH IS WHAT IT WOULD APPLY TO, UH, IN TABLE THREE 10, THAT I THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF WINS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND IT WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL FOR US. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MARY DAVID. 
          WATCH, CAN I PLEASE SEAT MY TIME TO VIN? OKAY. 
          SIMA, YOU'RE UP. 
          SHE HAS SIX MINUTES. 
          YEAH, SO YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES. 
          HI, I AM OLN AND I'M WITH THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION STEERING COMMITTEE. 
          THE SECOND REASON WHY WE BELIEVE THE WORD VACANT SHOULD BE REMOVED IS THAT THIS ADDITION IS AN ARBITRARY INTERPRETATION AND SHOULD NOT BE CODIFIED CONCERNED. 
          RESIDENTS WERE TOLD THAT, AND I QUOTE, THE HEIGHT LIMIT SHALL NOT APPLY, WHERE AN ABUTTING PROPERTY IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY 
          [00:40:01]
RESIDENTIAL, BUT NOT USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, SUCH AS A CHURCH SCHOOL PARK GOLF COURSE END QUOTE, THAT THIS WOULD BE INTERPRETED IN A WAY THAT WOULD INCLUDE VACANT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. 
          IF THIS IS SO, IT SHOULD NOT NEED TO BE CODIFIED. 
          THIS IS A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION AND CAN BE RESOLVED BY ISSUING A R A RULE INTERPRETATION DETERMINATION. 
          THE CHANCES OF A SCHOOL OR GOLF COURSE, OR A CHURCH BEING BUILT ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD IS LESS THAN THE CHANCE OF A HOME BEING BUILT THERE. 
          THE 45 FOOT HEIGHT ON A MULTI-FAMILY UNIT COULD MAKE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT UNLIKELY. 
          SO, AND IT WAS NICE THAT MIKE HAD THAT GRAPHIC THAT IF YOU CAN KIND OF IN YOUR MIND, IF THERE ARE TWO CONTIGUOUS, VACANT LOTS NEXT TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND THE FURTHER LOT IS ZONED MF 33 OR RMM FOUR, IT COULD BE DEVELOPED UP TO A 45 FOOT HEIGHT BECAUSE OF THE VACANT LOT NEXT TO IT. 
          AND AS THE MAYOR'S ZONING COMMISSIONER, MS. MCDANIEL SAID THIS COULD MAKE IT HARDER TO DEVELOP THAT MIDDLE LOT AS SINGLE FAMILY AND COULD UNINTENTIONALLY CREATE MORE COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT INTO NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          AND ON THE WEST SIDE, WHERE YOU HAVE BOTH A LARGE NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY LOTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ZONED MF 33, UM, AND AT THE SAME TIME, UH, QUITE A BIT OF DEMOLITION GOING ON THIS ZONING COMMISSION LANGUAGE EDITION, EVEN WITH COUNCILMAN TREVINO'S AMENDMENT, COULD LEAD TO WIDESPREAD NEGATIVE IMPACTS IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU SIMA. 
          UH, IRMA HOFFMAN. 
          THANK YOU COUNCILWOMAN GONZALEZ AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. 
          MY NAME IS EDMA HOFFMAN FROM, UH, THE HISTORIC WEST WEBSITE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION, AND WE THANK YOU FOR GIVING US TIME TO, UH, DISCUSS RECONSIDERATION OF THE WORDING FOR THE U D C AMENDMENT. 
          SO THIS WORDING, VACANT PROPERTY REWARDS THE DEMOLITION OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          ADDITIONALLY, AND ALSO COUNCILMAN TRIVINIA, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO YOU, UH, THE PROPOSAL THAT IF A HOME IS DEMOLISHED, DEVELOPERS CAN BUILD UP TO 45 FEET AFTER THREE YEARS. 
          UM, THIS REALLY OPENS AGAIN, THE DOOR FOR, UM, DEVELOPERS TO COME IN AND HAVE THEIR 45 PLUS FEET, UM, CONSTRUCTED. 
          SO WE FEEL THAT THIS WILL NOT PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, IRMA, UH, TERRY CASTILLO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. 
          AND MICHAEL SHANNON FOR THE THOROUGH AND COMPREHENSIVE PRESENTATION. 
          UM, I'M TERRY CASTILLO WITH THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION, AS WELL AS THE COALITION MEMBER OF THE WEST SIDE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION COALITION. 
          AND I'M HERE TO OFFER A FOURTH REASON, UM, FOR THE REMOVAL OF VACANT FROM NOTE, UH, 11. 
          THE ADDITION OF VACANT CREATES OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT AND THE POTENTIAL FOR DISPLACEMENT WITHOUT PUBLIC INPUT. 
          OUR NEIGHBORS ARE STRUGGLING WITH ISSUES OF DISPLACEMENT. 
          AS OUR NEIGHBORHOODS BECOME COMMODIFIED AND A SITE OF SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT, WE SEEK TO FIND COMPATIBLE AND REASONABLE WAYS TO MEET THE CHALLENGES OF AFFORDABILITY AND DENSITY. 
          CREATING POLICY THAT MAKES EXPENSIVE AND INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENTS INSIDE OUR COMMUNITIES EASIER EXACERBATES THE PROBLEM OF ECONOMIC SEGREGATION AND THE LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          THESE DEVELOPMENTS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS AT MARKET RATE, UH, AND TOO EXPENSIVE FOR MOST OF THE RESIDENTS ALREADY LIVING IN THE INTERCITY UH, NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          WHAT WE ASK FOR IS A BALANCE AND THOUGHTFUL PROCESS TO ADDRESS THESE IMPORTANT ISSUES. 
          AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ECHO THAT WE ARE NOT ANTI-DEVELOPMENT. 
          WE ARE ANTI DISPLACEMENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU TERRY. 
          UH, VELMA PENA. 
          I'M GONNA GIVE UP MY TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          TO CYNTHIA. 
          I, I JUST MADE IT AVAILABLE IN CASE . 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR COMING. 
          UM, COUNCILMAN VINNO, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, UH, START US OFF? I KNOW THIS WAS YOUR AMENDMENT. 
          UH, WAS MY C C R C AND SO I MEAN, I,  C UM, YOU KNOW, HEIGHT IS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THIS AND, AND, UM, THE AMENDMENT WAS ACTUALLY CITY STAFF'S AMENDMENT. 
          THEY 
          [00:45:01]
ASKED ME TO READ IT. 
          SO I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR. 
          I THINK, I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF. 
          I I, ON THIS. 
          I I HAVE TO AGREE, YOU KNOW, HYPE MAKES A A, A BIG IS A BIG ISSUE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT PROCESS AND, UM, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, SOME OF THESE LANGUAGES COME OUT AND WE DO THE BEST WE CAN TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS. 
          AND I, I DID THIS BY WORKING WITH STAFF TO, TO TRY TO TRY TO GET US THERE. 
          SO, SO MIKE, JUST HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT IS IT THAT'S, THAT'S BEING ASKED BY REMOVING THIS? DOES THAT REMOVE ANY KIND OF PROTECTIONS, UH, PEOPLE HAVE REGARDING THE HEIGHT? NO. 
          SO, UH, ASKING TO REMOVE, UH, THE, THE WORD VACANT, JUST THE WORD VACANT PROPERTY AND THAT, ALL THAT STUFF THERE. 
          SO I THINK IF WE REMOVE THAT, YOU'RE STILL GONNA BE IN A PLACE WHERE THE CODE REALLY APPLIES, LIKE IT DOES IN OTHER AREAS OF THE CODE, UH, SUCH THAT THE PROTECTION WOULD NOT BE THERE IF IT'S NOT USED AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I THINK IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING IF YOU WOULD LIKE US TO ACTUALLY APPLY IT. 
          AND I THINK WHAT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, AND WE CAN ASK THEM TO CLARIFY TOO, IS IF, IF YOU WANT IT TO APPLY TO A VACANT PROPERTY, WE WOULD NEED THAT DIRECTION AND, AND, AND THAT WE WOULD WRITE THE CODE LANGUAGE TO BE THAT. 
          SO I THINK IF YOU JUST REMOVE THE TERM VACANT PROPERTY AND THE ADDITIONAL I CALL GREEN LANGUAGE, UM, IT'S NOT UP RIGHT NOW. 
          UH, I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO ADD SOMETHING IN TO BE CLEAR. 
          'CAUSE WE'RE MAKING THE DECISION WHETHER IT APPLIES TO A VACANT PROPERTY, IT DOESN'T APPLY TO A VACANT PROPERTY OR IT APPLIES TO A RECENTLY VACANT PROPERTY. 
          I THINK THOSE ARE THE THREE THINGS ON, ON, ON THE TABLE. 
          RIGHT. 
          I MEAN, I THINK THAT, THAT THE ISSUE IS REALLY AT, AND THE SPIRIT OF THE C C R WAS WRITTEN TO REALLY ADDRESS JUST THE, THE DIFFERENCES THAT YOU HAVE BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND THESE MULTI-FAMILY UNITS OR OTHER UNITS THAT, THAT CAN BE AS HIGH AS 45 FEET MM-HMM. 
           AND, UM, WHICH IS WHY, UH, THAT AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN TO, TO BASICALLY TRY TO DISCOURAGE THAT. 
          BUT HELP US UNDERSTAND HOW DID THE, AS WAS STATED, HOW DID THE, DID WE GET TO THIS, UH, PART WHERE, UH, VACANT PROPERTY THAT THIS, THIS LANGUAGE WAS INSERTED INTO, INTO THIS ORDINANCE AND WHY? SURE. 
          SO, UM, AS, AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, SO WHEN WE WENT TO THE ZONING COMMISSION IN NOVEMBER, UH, AS YOU WOULD WITH ANY OPEN HEARING, UH, THERE WAS QUESTIONS ASKED BY, UH, SOME OF THE ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS. 
          UH, THEY ASKED SPECIFICALLY IF THE PROTECTION OF THE LOWER HEIGHT, RIGHT, THE LOWER HEIGHT OF 35 FEET RATHER THAN 45, WOULD THAT APPLY IF THE, UH, PROPERTY NEXT DOOR WAS, UH, VACANT, MEANING A VACANT PROPERTY, NOT WOULD NOTHING ON IT. 
          AND THE ANSWER IS NO, IT WOULD NOT. 
          SO THEY ASKED US, THEY, THEY BELIEVED IT WAS A LITTLE GRAY, SO THEY SAID, IF IT'S NO, IT IS NOT, THEN YOU NEED TO ADD THIS TERM VACANT PROPERTY TO CLARIFY THAT THAT'S WHAT THE CODE SAYS. 
          THEY WEREN'T CHANGING THE CODE, THEY WERE JUST ADDING THIS LANGUAGE TO CLARIFY. 
          CERTAINLY, I THINK BY CLARIFYING IT IS WHEN A LOT OF PEOPLE SAID, I'M NOT SURE THAT'S WHAT WE WANT IT TO SAY, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY, UM, WITH SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT I HEARD, WHICH WAS TO, THEY WANTED TO APPLY TO VACANT PROPERTIES. 
          BUT, SO THAT'S KIND OF HOW, UM, HOW THAT HAPPENED AT THE ZONING COMMISSION WAS A QUESTION, UH, THEY ASKED TO CLARIFY, AND THAT WAS INPUT, UH, WE FELT IT WAS JUST A, A CLARIFICATION OF THE CODE. 
          SO, UH, THAT WAS, WAS PRESENTED, UM, LAST WEEK. 
          I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY I THINK THAT, AS YOU POINTED OUT, THE PREFERENCE OF, OF, UH, AT LEAST DISTRICT ONE NEIGHBORHOODS, UH, THAT I REPRESENT IS TO, IS TO HAVE THESE, UH, PROTECTION FOR THESE LOWER HEIGHTS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT BUILDING THESE, UH, OUTTA SCALE, UH, BUILDINGS THAT PROPORTIONALLY DO NOT MATCH OR FIT WITHIN THE, THE FABRIC OR CHARACTER OF, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          SO, UM, I MEAN, HOW, HOW DO WE ARRIVE TO THAT? HOW, HOW CAN WE GET TO TO WHERE WE CAN SATISFY THAT DESIRE? WELL, I THINK, UH, LET, LET'S NOT FORGET WHAT'S ON THE TABLE, IS WHAT WE WERE REALLY LOOKING FOR WAS WHEN WE HAD EXISTING HOUSING STOCK AND WHAT WAS HAPPENING WHERE THERE WAS SEVERAL EXAMPLES, UH, BY 45 FOOT STRUCTURE OR SOMETHING MORE THAN 35 FOOT REALLY BEING OUT OF CHARACTER OUTTA SCALE WITH THAT EXISTING HOUSE, WHETHER IT BE A ONE OR TWO STORY. 
          UH, THE MAJOR PROTECTION, I THINK WE'RE LOOKING FOR, THE MAIN PROTECTION THAT WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN LOOKING FOR IS HOW DO WE PROTECT THAT EXISTING HOUSE. 
          UH, I THINK WHAT'S COMING UP NOW, AND I, AND I THINK THAT'S THERE WHAT, NO MATTER WHICH I THINK EVERYBODY AGREES THAT THAT PROTECTION OF THE LOWER HEIGHT TO BE 35 FEET IS THERE FOR THOSE EXISTING HOUSES. 
          IF, IF WE'RE LOOKING TO PROTECT THAT VACANT LOT THAT HAPPENS TO BE RESIDENTIAL ZONED FROM A DEVELOPMENT BEFORE A HOUSE IS BUILT OR POTENTIALLY BUILT, UH, THAT SEEMS TO BE THE QUESTION. 
          WELL, I GUESS THE, WELL, THE, THE BIG QUESTION IS WHY CAN'T IT JUST SIMPLY APPLY WHETHER IT'S, 
          [00:50:01]
IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OR A VACANT PROPERTY, WHY CAN'T IT JUST SIMPLY APPLY? IT CAN, WE WOULD JUST THAT DIRECTION, WE WOULD WANT THAT DIRECTION AND WE WOULD WRITE THE CODE THAT WAY. 
          I MEAN, IT'S, THAT'S A CHOICE TO BE MADE. 
          IT'S, THERE'S NO, UH, NO REASON THERE. 
          BUT AGAIN, I WILL TELL YOU THE CODE ITSELF, TYPICALLY WHEN WE DEAL WITH LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AND OTHER TYPES OF BUFFERS, GENERALLY, WE'LL SAY FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONE PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT USED AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, WHICH INCLUDES A VACANT PROPERTY, THOSE OTHER PROTECTIONS DON'T APPLY. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT'S HOW WE'RE HERE TODAY. 
          BUT THAT WOULD BE THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNCIL TO SAY WHICH ONE YOU WOULD, UH, PREFER AND WE WOULD WRITE IT THAT WAY. 
          UM, WELL, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IN THE SPIRIT OF THIS CHAIR, YOU KNOW, THE, THE IDEA IS, UH, THE C C R WAS REALLY WRITTEN TO TRY TO MAINTAIN THE, YOU KNOW, THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND CERTAINLY SCALE AND HEIGHT, UM, ARE ARE WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY ABOUT, ABOUT THIS IN THE C C R. 
          AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE DOING THIS RIGHT. 
          SO IF, UH, IF TABLING THIS FOR NOW SO THAT WE CAN DISCUSS WHETHER THE COLLEAGUES IS, IS, UM, IS, IS A, IS A MEASURE THAT CAN ENSURE THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY GET SOME CLARITY BEHIND THIS. 
          I, I THINK, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I'D BE FINE WITH THAT. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME CONFUSION ABOUT SOME OF THE LANGUAGE, AND I DON'T WANT TO CREATE ANY LOOPHOLES, WHICH IS, AND I, I, IN THIS CASE, WE FELT LIKE WE, WE WERE ADDRESSING IT WITH THIS LANGUAGE. 
          BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I CAN UNDERSTAND MY COLLEAGUES ALSO NOT, NOT, UH, NOT NECESSARILY, UH, BEING CLEAR ABOUT THIS. 
          UH, WE KNOW THIS WILL APPLY TO, UH, EVERYONE THROUGHOUT THE CITY, UM, AND I WANNA GO BACK TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE ADDRESSING THIS. 
          SO, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I AM ON THIS. 
          I THINK THE SPIRIT OF THE C C R IS, IS REALLY TO MAINTAIN, UH, THE CHARACTER AND NATURE OF, OF A LOT OF THE DISTRICT ONE NEIGHBORHOODS AND OF COURSE NEIGHBORHOODS MUCH LIKE YOURS. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, COUNCIL, UM, ROD, DID YOU WANNA ADD SOMETHING? I KNOW COUNCILWOMAN GERRAN HAD COMMENTS AS WELL, I THINK WITH SOME OTHER STUDENTS. 
          I, I, I THINK WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO WALK OUTTA HERE TODAY WITH IS, UH, WHERE THE, THE COMMITTEE'S AT, UM, DO YOU WANT THIS PROTECTION TO APPLY TO EVERY SINGLE PROPERTY THAT'S ZONED R SIX? IF YOU DO THAT, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO US TO GO BACK AND CRAFT THE LANGUAGE SO THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR. 
          SO, SO WE CAN DO THAT. 
          UH, OR YOU KNOW, DO YOU FEEL, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S A SCHOOL THERE, A CHURCH OR SOMETHING ELSE, THEN, THEN, THEN IT SHOULDN'T APPLY THAT, THAT'S THE KIND OF FEEDBACK WE'RE GONNA BE LOOKING FOR TODAY. 
          IF YOU TELL US WHERE YOU'RE AT, WE CAN WRITE IT, YOU KNOW, TO TO, TO SATISFY THAT AND THEN BRING IT BACK TO THIS COMMITTEE AND YOU LET US KNOW IF WE HIT THE MARK OR NOT. 
          UH, OKAY. 
          THANKS ROD. 
          WHAT, LET ME LET, LET ME GET SOME FEEDBACK HERE. 
          SO GO AHEAD COUNSEL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          THANK YOU FOR BEING OPEN TO THAT COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          UM, AND YES, I SIGNED ONTO THE C C R BECAUSE ABSOLUTELY, I THINK YOU SEE THE SPIRIT OF THE C C R, WE HAVE TOO MUCH, UM, MISMATCH ZONING IN AND AROUND, ESPECIALLY OUR OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH ZONINGS OF WEIRD TRANSITION ZONINGS FROM B AND JADE OR WHERE THEY ARE NOW. 
          AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO BRING SOME SORT OF CLARITY PROTECTIONS YES, FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT ALSO DENSITY THAT IS NEEDING BECAUSE WE, NOBODY WANTS TO DISPLACE. 
          WE ALSO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M CONCERNED AND CONFUSED ABOUT HOW THIS COULD POTENTIALLY IMPACT EVEN OUR, UH, TAX CREDIT, UM, MULTI-FAMILIES, EVEN IF THEY'RE SMALLER BECAUSE I HAVE A 56 DO 56 UNIT ONE. 
          SO IT'S REALLY NOT A LARGE LOT, BUT HOW THIS COULD EVEN IMPACT THESE MOVING FORWARD. 
          SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, AND, AND, UH, YOUR SLIDE, THE SLIDE NUMBER SIX, THANK YOU SO MUCH, MIKE, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU TRIED REALLY HARD HERE AND I TRIED TO FOLLOW ALONG, BUT IT WAS STILL A LITTLE CONFUSING FOR ME. 
          UM, WITH THE MF 33 AND THE RM FOUR AND THE RMM SIX AND THE R SIX. 
          I JUST, I'M CONFUSED AS TO WHY THERE'S SO MUCH DIFFERENT ZONING GOING ON IN ONE STREET RIGHT HERE. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S AN EXISTING STREET. 
          I KNOW. 
          YEAH, I KNOW. 
          I'M JUST CONFUSED OF WHY THERE'S, THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WE'RE DEALING WITH. 
          YEAH. 
          IN, IN ONE ON ONE STREET, BUT EXACTLY. 
          I, I GET IT. 
          I UNDERSTAND. 
          UM, SO AT THAT POINT, UH, CAN WE MOVE FORWARD RIGHT NOW WITH THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS PUT ON THE AGENDA LAST THURSDAY, MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, WHICH WAS THIS, UM, LONG TIME OF DISCUSSION ON THIS C C R FOR TWO YEARS, BUT THEN REVISIT THIS LANGUAGE IN PARTICULAR WITH OUR U D C AMENDMENTS. 
          WILL WE BE ABLE TO DO THAT? KEEP THIS ITEM? OH, THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR. 
          SO IF WE NEED TO DO ADDITIONAL, 
          [00:55:02]
UH, 'CAUSE I'M INTRIGUED BY THIS WHOLE VACANT PROPERTY, REMOVING THAT LANGUAGE THERE, BUT I'M NOT READY TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I WANT MORE INFORMATION, BUT I ALSO DON'T WANNA SLOW DOWN THESE PROTECTIONS THAT WE'VE ALREADY WORKED ON FOR TWO YEARS. 
          SO IS THAT OPEN FOR CONTINUED DISCUSSION WITH OUR U D C AMENDMENTS IN 2020? UH, YES, ABSOLUTELY. 
          ANY OF THIS IS TO BE, UH, FURTHER MODIFIED, FURTHER TWEAKED. 
          AND IF YOU REMEMBER THE PRESENTATION LAST WEEK HAD ANOTHER LIST OF THINGS THAT WERE DISCUSSED BY THE TASK FORCE THAT WERE GONNA BE LOOKED AT AS WELL. 
          SO, UH, IF THAT WOULD BE, UM, AND FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD ACTUALLY RECOMMEND THAT BECAUSE THE SOONER WE TAKE THIS TO COUNCIL, THE SOONER THE PROTECTIONS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS START THAT NOW. 
          I, I GET IT. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT. 
          WE HAVE A GAP, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A DISCUSSION ON IF THE PROPERTY NEXT TO HIM IS VACANT, WHETHER WE SHOULD ADD SOME ADDITIONAL PROTECTION OR NOT. 
          YES, WE CAN DEFINITELY TAKE THAT UP IN THE 2020 DC BUT OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT WE GO FORWARD WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT WE HAD SO THAT WE START THE PROTECTION SOONER THAN LATER. 
          AND EVEN IF PEOPLE, EVEN IF IT'S A VACANT LOT, OR EVEN IF PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO, UM, DEMOLISH THE HOUSES OR WHATEVER, NOW WE STILL, WE STILL CAN JUST LIKE YOU HAVE THREE YEARS HERE OR ONE YEAR WITHIN THAT TIMEFRAME, WE CAN STILL HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT SPECIFICITY IN THOSE, IN THAT, IN THE LANGUAGE IN OUR U D C AMENDMENTS AS WELL. 
          THREE YEARS, TWO YEARS, A YEAR, JUST TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO. 
          SO I WOULD, UM, THEN THAT WILL BE, UH, CHAIR, THAT WILL BE MY MOTION IS TO GO BACK TO COUNSEL ON THURSDAY WITH THE ORIGINAL, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND, AND WITH MOVING ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE ON TAB 11, I GUESS, IS IT, WHAT'S IT CALLED? NOTE 11. 
          NOTE 11, UH, UH, TO RESPOND TO THE LANGUAGE THERE DURING OUR U D C REVISIONS. 
          I'M . 
          YEAH, THIS WHOLE THING THAT'S KIND OF HARD. 
          SO IT WOULD BE, THE ORIGINAL WAS EVERYTHING BUT WHAT'S IN GREEN, RIGHT? GREEN, ORANGE. 
          NO, THANK YOU. 
          SO WE WOULD STRIKE THE GREEN IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING US TO DO, BECAUSE EVERYTHING OH, OH, OKAY. 
          INCLUDING THE ORANGE THERE WAS, WAS PART OF THURSDAY'S. 
          OKAY, THEN WAIT A MINUTE, OKAY. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          SO I WANNA BE CLEAR THAT, THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARITY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE VACANT PROPERTY THAT'S RIGHT. 
          WAS PUT TOGETHER ON THE, UM, AT PLANNING COMMITTEE. 
          PLANNING COMMISSION TECHNICAL COMMITTEE. 
          CORRECT. 
          ZONING. 
          ZONING, COMMISSION ZONING. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THERE WE GO. 
          OH, I SEE, I SEE. 
          NUMBER FOUR. 
          SO I THINK WHAT I WOULD LIKE THEN TO, UH, MOVE FORWARD IS, SO LET ME ASK YOU THIS ZONING, WOULD THAT THEN IMPACT ZONING COMMITTEE? ARE WE GONNA HAVE TO GO BACK TO ZONING FOR THIS? WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO, WOULD WE? NO. 
          YOU COULD GIVE US DIRECTION TO RIGHT. 
          TO WHATEVER YOU DIRECT US TODAY. 
          IF YOU WANT US TO GO STRAIGHT TO COUNCIL, IF YOU WANT US TO GO BACK TO PLANNING A ZONING, IT'S, IT'S TOTALLY UP, UP TO YOUR DISCRETION. 
          SO WHAT YOUR, BUT WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO ZONING COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT THE VACANT PROPERTY LANGUAGE. 
          CORRECT? CORRECT. 
          ALL OF EVERYTHING. 
          SAVE THAT VACANT PROPERTY LANGUAGE. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? BUT, UM, JUST CLARIFY, IT'S A CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I'M CHANGING NOW. 
          BUT, BUT AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, EVEN WITHOUT VACANT PROPERTY, IT WOULD NOT BE APPLIED TO VACANT PROPERTY. 
          THEY ONLY ADDED THAT TO, TO, TO CLARIFY HOW TO INTERPRET THE CODE. 
          WE BELIEVED IT WAS ALREADY THERE. 
          SO THEY SAID, WELL, LET'S MAKE IT SUPER CLEAR. 
          SO YOU BELIEVED IT WAS ALREADY THERE, BUT THEY WANTED MORE CLARIFICATION. 
          CORRECT. 
          BUT YOU AS STAFF BELIEVE THAT IT WAS ALREADY INCLUDED. 
          CORRECT. 
          BUT WE CAN MAKE IT IN THE U D C AMENDMENTS. 
          WE CAN MAKE IT CLEAR OR UNCLEAR OR GET SPECIFIC, UH, MOVING DOWN THE ROAD WITH OUR U D C IF WE WANT VACANT PROPERTIES, IF WE DON'T, IF WE WANT 45. 
          IF WE WANT 35, ET CETERA, RIGHT? CORRECT. 
          SO THEN I WOULDN'T WANT WHAT YOU HAD THAT, SO I'M, I'M GLAD THERE WASN'T. 
          SO I TAKE THAT, UH, THAT MOTION AWAY, BECAUSE WHAT I WANT TO HAVE US, UM, TALK ABOUT IS THEN MOVE, CAN WE DO THAT, ED? CAN WE DO THAT? CAN WE MOVE THAT TO COUNCIL? WHAT YOUR, WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR ZONING COMMISSION? YES. 
          [01:00:01]
SHORT ANSWER IS YES. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, UM, I THINK IT'S JUST A MATTER OF MAKING SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR WHAT YOU WANT MOVE FORWARD MM-HMM. 
           SO THAT WE KNOW OH, SURE. 
          HOW TO PRESENT IT SO THAT THAT RECOMMENDATION IS BEFORE YOU, SO WE DON'T END UP WITH A, YOU KNOW, STAFF IS MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION SAYING THIS IS WHAT'S BEFORE YOU, AND THEN YOU END UP WITH MOTIONS THAT ARE TRYING TO KIND OF PIECEMEAL WHAT IT'S, SO WE JUST NEED SOME CLARITY ON WHAT YOU NEED. 
          SO I WANNA PUT THAT OUT TO MY COLLEAGUES THAT THAT'S WHAT I'M PITCHING RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE VACANT PROPERTY CON THE VACANT PROPERTY, UM, CONVERSATION AND THE, THAT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE THAT Y'ALL, Y'ALL PITCHED, I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION IN OUR U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS, BUT I ALSO WANT TO SEE THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE THAT YOU ALL PROPOSED TO THE ZONING COMMISSION MOVING FORWARD THAT HAD BEEN IN THIS COMMITTEE ORIGINALLY, AND THEN YOU ALL WENT TO ZONING COMMISSION MINUS THE ORANGE. 
          SO, SO THAT'S MINUS THE ORANGE TOO. 
          AND I GUESS THAT, THAT, SO THAT'S THE CLARITY THAT WE NEED. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, WE, WE UNDERSTAND WE WANT TO GO BACK TO SORT OF A PREVIOUS ITERATION. 
          SO THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT WE LEAVE THE VACANT PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE ORANGE, OR WE, UH, AND JUST STRIKE THE GREEN, OR YOU WANT BOTH THE ORANGE AND THE GREEN STRIP? SO I WOULD LIKE TO STRIKE THE ORANGE AND THE GREEN. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS THE MOTION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD TO COUNSEL FOR CONSIDERATION ON THURSDAY, BUT I KNOW THERE'S GONNA BE MORE DISCUSSION HERE ON, BUT LET'S TALK IT OUT RIGHT NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE TWO YEAR PROJECT THAT WE'VE DONE. 
          I'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOMETHING ON THURSDAY. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          I'M GONNA TURN IT BACK UP TO  BEFORE WE GET TO THE OTHER COLLEAGUES. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR, IF YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, STRIKING THOSE TWO ACTUALLY, UH, REMOVES ANY KINDS OF PROTECTIONS. 
          AND I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, I, I RESPECT WHAT EVERYBODY'S IS, IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE. 
          AND AS, LIKE I SAID, LET'S, LET'S AGREE THAT WE ALL WANT TO, UH, IN SPIRIT, UH, TRYING TO ACHIEVE SOMETHING THAT IS IN LINE WITH, UH, WITH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO TO, TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          UH, MY UNDERSTANDING AGAIN IS THAT THIS IS A CLARIFICATION WITHOUT IT, IF WE DON'T ADD THIS RIGHT NOW, AND, AND, AND THIS IS WHAT'S, SO, I DO APPRECIATE THAT WE'RE WILLING TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AT THE U D C, WHICH I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT, AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN HAVE A MORE ROBUST DISCUSSION IN THIS COMMITTEE. 
          UH, BUT WHILE THAT, WHILE WE WAIT FOR THAT, WE'RE LEAVING OURSELVES WIDE OPEN. 
          AND, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS TO, UH, TRYING TO ADDRESS. 
          IF WE DO NOT PUT IN ANY KINDS OF PROTECTION, NOW, I'LL, I'LL ASK MIKE SHANNON TO KIND OF SPEAK TO THAT. 
          IF WE DON'T ADD WHAT'S IN THE GREEN, THEN UNTIL WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION AND RATIFY THE U D C, THEN IT IS, IT'S ESSENTIALLY WIDE OPEN. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? YES, IT WOULD, IT WOULD NOT APPLY TO VACANT PROPERTIES IF YOU, IF YOU STRIKE THE ORANGE AND THE GREEN AGAIN. 
          WHAT, WHAT, WHAT, LET ME JUST TRY TO PUT THIS TOGETHER. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT YOU MAY WANT TO DO IS JUST, YOU WANT IT TO APPLY TO VACANT PROPERTIES BASED FOR NOW, AND WE CAN USE THE U D C PROCESS IF WE WANT TO SOFTEN THAT A LITTLE BIT, WHETHER IT'S THREE OR FIVE YEARS, AS OPPOSED TO LEAVING IT WIDE OPEN FOR NOW AND TRY TO CLOSE THE GAP. 
          SO, BECAUSE, BUT THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD TAKE SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE AND THAT, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO RIGHT NOW. 
          SO WHAT, WHAT'S THE MOTION THAT WE NEED TO, TO PROVIDE SOME THAT PROTECTION FOR NOW? WHY DON'T WE GIVE US, WHY DON'T THEY GIVE US THAT GENERAL DIRECTION AND LET US PROPOSE SOME LANGUAGE, UH, ON THURSDAY TO COUNCIL ? WOULD THAT WORK? WOULD THAT LET ME, I CAN GO AHEAD. 
          I CAN SHOW IT NOW. 
          I THINK, RON, CAN YOU LET ME, LET ME, LET ME TAKE ONE QUICK STAB AT IT, BECAUSE I THINK I CAN GET US THERE IF WE GET RID OF THE ORANGE VACANT PROPERTY LANGUAGE, BUT WE KEEP, THAT DOES APPLY TO PROPERTY ABUTTING VACANT PROPERTY AND STRIKE THE RESULTING FROM A DEMOLITION WITHIN THREE YEARS THAT WILL CLEARLY STATE, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT MANY OF THE MEMBERS OVER HERE, RIGHT? I'M GETTING A LOT OF HEAD NODDING. 
          OKAY. 
          GET A LOT OF HEAD NODDING. 
          THAT WILL ACTUALLY TAKE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO CLARIFY. 
          IT DOES APPLY, MEANING PROTECT LOWER HEIGHTS IF IT'S A VACANT PROPERTY, ZONED R SIX OR R FOUR. 
          UM, AND THEN TO YOUR SUGGESTION, COUNCILMAN VERAN, WE WOULD USE THE U D C PROCESS, UH, TO DETERMINE IF THAT NEEDS TO BE SOFTENED A BIT WITH A THREE YEAR SOMETHING OR OTHER. 
          SO THAT, THAT WOULD BE THE OPPOSITE OF LEAVING IT WIDE OPEN. 
          RIGHT. 
          UH, ALTHOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE. 
          WELL, LET ME GO AHEAD AND I'M JUST GONNA GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION AS, AS STATED. 
          SO REMOVING VACANT PROPERTY, THE ORANGE PART, AND THEN INCLUDING DOES APPLY TO PROPERTY ABUTTING VACANT PROPERTY, PERIOD. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT'S THE MOTION. 
          YES. 
          SECOND. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, I THINK WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND 
          [01:05:01]
OVER HERE. 
          SO LET ME, UM, LET, JUST, LET, COUNCIL, I'M TRYING TO, I DUNNO IF YOU HEARD THAT THERE WAS A MOTION HERE, COUNCILMAN, BUT, UM, SO I CAN'T, UM, SO I COULDN'T SUPPORT THAT BECAUSE THAT IS PUTTING TOO MUCH RESTRICTIONS ON RIGHT NOW. 
          AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LOOSENING IT, BUT WHEN ARE WE GONNA LOOSEN IT? I MEAN, I, OKAY, SO MY QUESTION IS, WE ARE NOT LEAVING ANY PROTECTIONS OFF BECAUSE THERE'S STILL A FRONT SETBACK AND STREET ORIENTATION ISN'T THERE TALKING ABOUT HEIGHT, HEIGHT, HEIGHT TO A HEIGHT. 
          THE HEIGHT THERE TOO. 
          BUT HEIGHT IS THE 45 HEIGHT. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO IF AT THE FOUR, THE HEIGHT IS 45, THEN THERE'S THE SETBACK, AND THEN THERE'S THE STREET ORIENTATION. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? NO, THERE, THERE ARE ACTUALLY THREE SEPARATE ITEMS. SO, UM, THE ONE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, THIS RECOMMENDATION, WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE HEIGHT RULE. 
          SO IS THERE NO PROTECTIONS THEN HE JUST SAID THERE WAS NO, IF WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE CHANGES, THEN THERE'S NO PROTECTION. 
          SO IS THAT TRUE? SO THEN THERE'S NO FRONT SETBACK PROTECTION AND THERE'S NO STREET ORIENTATION PROTECTION? NO, I, I SEE WHAT YOUR QUESTION IS. 
          NO, THE FRONT SETBACK AND THE STREET ORIENTATION WOULD APPLY LIE, DEPENDING IF IT'S VACANT OR NOT. 
          UHHUH, IT'S THE, THE HEIGHT ISSUE. 
          THE 45 OR 35 IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. 
          THE ONLY ONE RELATED TO THIS VACANT DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE HAVING, COUNCIL MIKE, YOU GO TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE HEIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO THEN I'M STILL NOT, THIS IS WHAT, WHY DON'T WE, UM, YEAH, LET, LEMME JUST ASK A COUPLE OF THE, AND QUESTIONS, UM, UH, AS WE, UM, FOR, FOR, I MEAN THIS IS I THINK AN IMPORTANT PROCESS. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          DIDN'T YOU SAY, MIKE, THAT YOU GUYS HAD, YOU HAD A COMMITTEE JUST TO REVIEW THIS, RIGHT? 17 PEOPLE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? OR 21? CORRECT. 
          THERE WAS 16. 
          THE TASK FORCE WAS 16 MEMBERS. 
          UH, WE MET FOR SEVERAL MONTHS, UH, SINCE I THINK IT WAS APRIL OR EARLIER IN THE SPRING. 
          SO, AND THE THINGS THAT YOU ALL DID COMPROMISE ON, BECAUSE NOT EVERYTHING WAS AGREED ON. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT THE ONES THAT, THAT WERE GENERALLY, UH, SUPPORTED. 
          WHAT, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PRESENTATION THAT YOU PRESENTED TO US LAST COMMITTEE MEETING SURE. 
          CAN YOU BRING THAT UP? UH, DO YOU STILL HAVE IT? I DON'T THINK I DO. 
          UM, BECAUSE I FELT LIKE WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED THERE, I WAS COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT. 
          RIGHT. 
          THAT WAS WHAT THE COMMITTEE, WE, WE DID MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OUT OF THE COMMITTEE TO GO WITH THOSE THINGS. 
          CORRECT. 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, AND, UM, I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD HAVE THAT, UM, IF WE COULD SEE THAT AGAIN, BECAUSE I, I, I, THOSE WERE, WHICH IS, WAS THAT, WAS THAT THE MOTION THAT YOU MADE, COUNCILMAN? THAT WE GO BASICALLY BACK TO THE ORIGINAL THINGS THAT WERE PRESENTED? NO, THE MOTION, THE MOTION IS, THE MOTION WAS SHOWS, IT WAS IDENTIFIED THAT THEY HAD TO INCLUDE VACANT PROPERTY AS A CLARIFICATION. 
          BASICALLY IT OPENED UP A, A LOOPHOLE. 
          WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE'D SIMPLY TAKE THAT OUT AND JUST SIMPLY SAY, IT APPLIES TO ANY ABUDDING VACANT PROPERTY RE UH, PERIOD. 
          SO IT DOESN'T MATTER, UH, WHERE OR WHAT IT, IT'S SO THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE THAT 35 FEET, IF THEY WANT TO GO TO 45 FEET, THEY CAN ALWAYS GO TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 
          SO THIS IS JUST CLOSING A LOOPHOLE THAT WAS DISCOVERED. 
          AND SO WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO KIND OF FIGURE THIS OUT WITH STAFF, WITH THE VACANT, THE ACTUAL WORDING. 
          VACANT PROPERTY IS WHERE ALL THE CONCERN IS. 
          VACANT PROPERTY AND HEIGHT. 
          WELL, I THINK THE QUESTION, THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD THE HEIGHT BE LIMITED ON A VACANT PROPERTY TO 35 FEET? OR SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO BUY RIGHT. 
          GO TO 45 FEET. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE QUESTION WE'RE TRYING TO ANSWER TODAY. 
          IF WE HAD THAT FEEDBACK, UH, WE COULD ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, GIVE YOU, WE'VE GIVEN YOU A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS. 
          I KNOW IT'S, WE'RE PLAYING AROUND WITH DIFFERENT WORDS AND STUFF, BUT, UM, SO, UM, BUT, BUT THERE'S ALWAYS THE, THE OPPORTUNITY TO JUST COME BACK, RIGHT? 'CAUSE WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH U D C AMENDMENTS, UM, SOON STARTING IN JANUARY, RIGHT? OR MAYBE, YES. 
          UM, 'CAUSE THAT'S SORT OF MY SENSE IS THAT I'M GETTING, I MEAN, I, I'M JUST, I I THINK THAT PROBABLY WE'RE JUST NOT GETTING ENOUGH CONSENSUS AND PERHAPS WE NEED TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE FROM THE COMMUNITY, UH, FOR THE, I, THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS JUST PASSED ME THIS SHEET ABOUT INCOMPATIBLE USES VERSUS COMPATIBLE USES, BUT I THINK THEY'RE ALL NICE. 
          SO, I MEAN, I THINK THEY'RE ALL APPROPRIATE GIVEN THIS IDEA THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE MORE DENSITY, WE HAVE TO HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          I THINK THE IDEA IS, WHAT WE DON'T WANT IS DISPLACEMENT, IT SEEMS LIKE, BUT LIKE, WHETHER OR NOT THESE USES ARE COMPATIBLE. 
          THIS ONE HERE ON CRAIG STREET, ON FULTON, UM, 
          [01:10:01]
THESE ON, THIS IS ALSO ON FULTON, ON ATCH. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE I'M NOT, I I DON'T, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THESE. 
          SO, I MEAN, I THINK PROBABLY THAT'S WHERE WE ALSO NEED TO, NOT SO MUCH HAVE MORE DISCUSSION, BUT JUST GET CLARITY. 
          UM, I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, I, WE HAVE TO HAVE, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DO INFILL HOUSING AND IT NEEDS TO BE, UM, DIFFERENT TYPES. 
          SO I, I I THINK PERHAPS MAYBE WE'RE JUST NOT QUITE READY. 
          I MEAN, MY SENSE IS THAT WE JUST GO BACK, NOT BRING ANYTHING BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR, BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE. 
          IT'S YOUR NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION, MY SENSE THAT WE JUST TABLE IT FOR NOW. 
          CAN ARE YOU OKAY WITH IT? JUST TABLING IT FOR NOW? I THINK, UM, OH, WE DID, WE HAVE, WE DID HAVE A MOTION. 
          WE, WE DO. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          WE DID HAVE A MOTION. 
          CAN I, RIGHT. 
          UM, CHERRY. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT AT, AT THE HEART OF THIS IS A, IS A VERY COMPLEX ISSUE. 
          UM, AND, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE ANY LOOPHOLES THAT, THAT, UH, LEAVE NEIGHBORHOODS UNPROTECTED. 
          WE'RE DOING A WIDE AREA REZONING BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT A, A LOT OF, A LOT OF AREAS OF OUR CITY ARE, ARE ZONING CORRECTLY. 
          UH, WE'RE, WE'RE DOING A LOT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PLANNING ACCORDINGLY. 
          AND THIS IS KIND OF JUST, IT'S REALLY JUST ANOTHER STEP IN THAT DIRECTION TO HELP US WITH OUR GROWTH. 
          AND, AND WE AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO CREATE, UH, PROPER PLANNING IN OUR CITY, BUT I DON'T WANT US TO LEAVE A GAPING HOLE IN THE WAY WE, UH, THE WAY SOME OF THIS LANGUAGE IS GONNA BE MOVING FORWARD. 
          SO THIS IS JUST SIMPLY ADDRESSING THAT THE, THE, THE, THE, THE 10 FOOT DIFFERENCE CAN ALL BE MADE UP BY SIMPLY GOING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 
          THEY CAN GET, THEY CAN MAKE THEIR PLEA THERE IF, IF THEY WANNA MAKE THAT CASE. 
          BUT ALL TOO OFTEN, AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE FACING ISSUES OF, OF DEMOLITION AND, AND THESE KINDS OF DEVELOPMENTS, UH, HAPPENING IN, IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE, THAT ARE DESTROYING THE, THE FABRIC OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS DAILY. 
          AND SO, UM, AS THE COUNCILWOMAN SAID, THE U D C COMING UP, I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S TIME TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND GET THAT ALL STRAIGHT. 
          UH, WE'D LIKE TO HAVE THESE PROTECTIONS IN PLACE NOW SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT AT LEAST UNTIL WE HAVE THE U D C UH, DISCUSSION. 
          AND I'D LIKE FOR US TO VOTE ON THE MOTION ACT, RIGHT? I'M SORRY. 
          HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. 
          SO FORGIVE ME. 
          IN FACT, COUNCILWOMAN ASKED TO CHIME IN AND I DID NOT GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY. 
          SO I'M SORRY. 
          COUNCILMAN, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          UM, SO , WITH ALL OF THE DISCUSSION FOR ME, IF WE'RE TRULY TALKING ABOUT BEING GENUINE AND TRANSPARENT AND HAVING A TRUE CHARACTER OF A COMMUNITY STAY IN PLACE, HAVING VACANT PROPERTY AND HAVING THE AREA TRULY BE SAID, THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT YOU IN THE SAME CHARACTERISTIC, WHETHER YOU'RE, UM, THREE VACANT LOTS DOWN FROM A HOUSE, KEEPING THE TRUE CHARACTER IS, IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. 
          AND, AND MAKING SURE THAT WE STOP DISPLACING COMMUNITIES BECAUSE OF OUR DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH HAS TO BE PUT IN PLACE. 
          AND SO IF WE'RE GONNA SAY WE'RE GONNA GIVE YOU THREE YEARS, I THINK THAT THAT LIMITATION, THAT THAT NUMBER SHOULD BE TAKEN OFF. 
          AND LET'S TRULY LOOK AT THE UNIFORMITY OF THAT COMMUNITY. 
          LET'S LOOK AT EXACTLY PUTTING SOMETHING IN PLACE THAT IS STRAIGHTFORWARD. 
          AND IF YOU WANNA CHANGE IT, THEN GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROCESS OF SEEING AT THAT COMMUNITY WANTS THE CHANGES. 
          BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE JUST NEED TO HAVE THE PROTECTIONS IN PLACE BECAUSE YOU'RE HAVING EVEN HISTORICAL HOMES DEMOLISHED IN AREAS BECAUSE SOMEBODY JUST WANTS TO DEMOLISH IT AND THEN GO WITH BUILDING IT A DIFFERENT STORY. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I'M IN FAVOR OF, OF COUNCILMAN TREVINO'S, UM, MOTION TO TRULY JUST TAKE THAT RESTRICTION OF THREE YEARS TO FIVE YEARS AND JUST SAYING, IF IT'S NEXT TO A VACANT PROPERTY IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, YOU ARE TO BE AT THIS HEIGHT. 
          AND THAT'S IT. 
          ARTICULATE THAT. 
          RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, COUNCILWOMAN ONE MORE TIME WITH COUNCILWOMAN VIEGA. 
          ONE MORE TIME. 
          I THINK, UH, THEN BECAUSE OF THE, JUST THE CLARITY THAT I NEED, AND BECAUSE THIS IS, YES, I UNDERSTAND. 
          AND THE HEIGHT IS AN, AN ISSUE. 
          AND WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT AESTHETICS AS WELL. 
          UM, THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY AND PLANNING COMMISSION ON HERE, IT SAYS THAT, UM, THE HEIGHT LIMITATION DOES NOT APPLY WHERE ABUTTING PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY, UH, BUT NOT DEVELOPED. 
          SO HAVE THEY, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND PLANNING COMMISSION LOOKED AT 
          [01:15:01]
WHAT ZONING COMMISSION AND THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE, HAVE THEY SEEN THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN PRESENTED TO THE TAC UH, THE PTAC. 
          UM, IT JUST, UH, THESE AMENDMENTS KEPT GOING FORWARD. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , UH, BUILDING ON EACH OTHER. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK, UM, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE A LOOK AT IT AS WELL AND LOOK AT IT AS, UH, THE CONTINUED, UH, CONVERSATION WITH MOVING DURING THE U D C AMENDMENTS, UM, TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. 
          AND, UH, MY CONCERN WAS, I, I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS SEPARATE FRONT SETBACK AND STREET ORIENTATION. 
          IT'S NOT, OR IT IS. 
          AND I'M CONFUSED BY ALL OF Y'ALL'S ANSWERS HERE. 
          SO, UH, BECAUSE OF THAT, I'M JUST, I'M GONNA WANT TO TABLE IT AND JUST HAVE MORE CONVERSATION LATER ON. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. 
          UH, I'M SORRY, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF TABLING IT. 
          I WOULD GO ALONG WITH THE, UM, WORDING, UH, IN THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT IS IN BLUE, DELETING THE, THE RED AND THE GREEN, AND ALLOWING THOSE TO BE BROUGHT BACK UP, UH, UNDER, UH, CHANGES TO THE U D C. 
          I THINK WITHOUT THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE VACANT PROPERTY AND THE GREEN LANGUAGE IN THERE, IT'S RELATIVELY CLEAR ON THE PROTECTIONS IT'S OFFERING. 
          AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT YOUR STAFF UNDERSTOOD HOW IT WOULD HANDLE THINGS THAT WERE COMING UP ACCORDING TO THIS LANGUAGE, THAT YOU FELT PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT YOU HAD AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WOULD BE NEEDED AND HOW YOU WOULD, UH, HANDLE SUCH THINGS THAT COME UP. 
          AND ON THE BASIS OF THAT, I THINK THAT WE OUGHT TO ALLOW YOU AND YOUR STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH JUST SIMPLY THE LANGUAGE IN BLUE. 
          AND THEN HAVE THE OTHER SUBJECT MATTER BE BROUGHT UP LATER ON. 
          AND NOW, NOW THAT'S YOUR MOTION. 
          AND IT'S BEEN SECONDED, I BELIEVE, BY, UH, JADA. 
          SO THAT'S WHERE I STAND ON THIS TOO, RIGHT NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL THEN LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. 
          UH, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO MOVE THIS ITEM TO FULL COUNSEL. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? UM, OPPOSED, YEAH. 
          I'M ALSO OPPOSED. 
          SO, BUT THE MOTION WILL MOVE FORWARD TO FULL COUNSEL. 
          CAN I, CAN WE JUST BE VERY CLEAR, UM, I THINK IT WAS, AGAIN, TO GET RID OF THE ORANGE VACANT PROPERTY AND KEEP THE, UH, THE PART THAT SAYS THE HEIGHT LIMIT SHALL APPLY TO VA VACANT PROPERTIES, BUT ELIMINATE EVERYTHING ELSE, RIGHT? YES. 
          IS THAT WHAT WE, IS THAT WHAT JUST WROTE IT ON. 
          OKAY. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, 'CAUSE WE'RE GONNA PREPARE THE MEMO FOR THURSDAY. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, UH, MIKE WILL HOPEFUL, UH, SCHEDULE ANOTHER MEETING BEFORE THEN, JUST SO WE CAN, UM, YEP. 
          I WANNA MAKE SURE. 
          YEAH, YOU GOT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE DO, UM, IT SHALL APPLY TO VACANT PROPERTIES IS WHAT MM-HMM. 
           WHAT THE MOTION WAS. 
          I'M JUST, I'M CLARIFYING BECAUSE AGAIN, EVERYBODY'S OKAY. 
          ARE YOU SAYING THAT OH, ALL THE GREEN STAYS IN, OH, YOU'RE JUST MOVING THE RED? NO, THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO CLARIFY. 
          OKAY. 
          MAYBE THE CLERK COULD DO IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YES, IT'LL BE, UH, THE MOTION WAS MADE TO REMOVE THE ORANGE, UH, VACANT PROPERTY AND INCLUDE THE GREEN, THE LANGUAGE STATING, EXCEPT THE HEIGHT LIMIT SHALL APPLY TO THE PROPERTIES, ABUTTING A VACANT PROPERTY END OF THAT AND, AND DELETING THE REST OF THE SENTENCE. 
          TALKING ABOUT THE THREE YEARS. 
          YES. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S NOT THE WAY I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD IT, BUT I'M WILLING TO GO AHEAD AND SUPPORT THAT AT THIS TIME. 
          . 
          UH, OKAY. 
          SO WE WILL, UM, MOVE FORWARD AND I THINK, UM, WITH THIS TO THE FULL COUNCIL, BUT, UH, I THINK, MIKE, WHEN YOU GIVE YOUR PRESENTATION, UH, TO THE FULL COUNCIL ON THURSDAY, I THINK YOU PROBABLY DO NEED TO GIVE THE WHOLE PRESENTATION. 
          IT WILL BE LENGTHY, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT JUST GIVEN THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT THE COMMITTEE. 
          AND JOHN, DID YOU WANNA YEAH, I WAS GONNA SAY, DO WE HAVE TO BRING IT UP AT, UH, THIS THURSDAY'S MEETING OR COULD IT PUT BE PUT OFF UNTIL JANUARY? I MEAN, OUR RECOMMENDATION GO FORWARD, BUT TO GIVE A LITTLE MORE INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY TO TRY AND CLARIFY THAT BEFORE IT COMES TO COUNCIL. 
          I MEAN, IF IT'S GONNA COME TO COUNCIL IN A FEW DAYS, BUT WE, WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO COME OUT AND SAY MORE ABOUT IT. 
          UH, SO I'M STILL SUPPORTING THE MOTION. 
          I'M JUST SAYING INSTEAD OF HAVING THE COUNCIL VOTE ON IT THIS NEXT MEETING, LET'S EXTEND IT INTO JANUARY. 
          IS THERE A TIME OF THE ESSENCE THAT SAYS IT HAS TO BE PUT IN PLACE? I, I DON'T READ BASEBALL SIGNALS, BUT I CAN SEE IT FROM BEHIND. 
          I, I THINK THAT THEY'RE READY TO, WITH WHAT, WHAT WE HAVE HERE. 
          AND I, I THINK, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE READY. 
          WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AT 
          [01:20:01]
COUNCIL AND IF, AND IF WE NEED MORE TIME, WE CAN CERTAINLY DISCUSS THAT ON THURSDAY. 
          UH, THAT IF WE NEED MORE TIME, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO IT THEN. 
          SO I, I'D RECOMMEND THAT WE MOVE THIS THURSDAY AS PLANNED, AND IF WE NEED MORE TIME, WE CAN REQUEST FOR IT ON THURSDAY. 
          WELL, IF I MAY, UH, I JUST HAVE THE CONCERN THAT IF TWO OUT OF FIVE OF US ARE UNSURE HERE, AND THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD THIS DISCUSSION, HOW CLEAR WILL WE BE ABLE TO COME TO A DECISION IN THREE DAYS? SO THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S WHY, I MEAN, FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE TO GO TALK TO EVERYONE BEFORE, UM, YOU, WE DO THAT. 
          AND MY SENSE IS THAT THEN AT THAT POINT, IF, IF THERE CAN ALWAYS BE A MOTION TO DELAY ON THE DAIS ON THURSDAY, WELL THAT'S FAIR ENOUGH. 
          IF HE CAN VISIT WITH THE OTHER COUNCIL PEOPLE OUT HERE, THERE WAS A, A DESIRE TO, UH, BRING IT BACK. 
          UH, OR AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS MY MOTION, WOULD THAT IT WOULD COME BACK FAIRLY QUICKLY TO THE FULL COUNCIL. 
          UH, AND I THINK AT THAT POINT, IF YOU DON'T HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK TO EVERYONE, WE WILL. 
          AND IF THERE'S ALSO STILL CONFUSION AMONGST MY COLLEAGUES AT THAT TIME, WE CAN ALWAYS DELAY IT AT THAT POINT. 
          SO. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, SO WE, UM, WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO BRING IT TO FULL COUNSEL ON THURSDAY. 
          UH, AND THEN WE CAN DECIDE FROM THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          UH, WE KNEW THAT THAT WOULD BE A, UM, A LOT OF DISCUSSION. 
          UH, AND I THINK THAT, THAT, UM, ADJOURN. 
          WE DID. 
          WE DID. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, WE DID. 
          UM, AND, UH, I, I THINK WE'VE, I THINK THAT'S ALL WE'RE ADJOURNED, RIGHT? OKAY. 
          THANK YOU EVERYONE.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.