Sound Search™

• also have on the consent agenda, the zoning and planning commission for item two C 14 20 24 dash 0 4 5 Burnett Hotel at
• would think in June. Uh, we did, uh, endorse the budget letter that went on to the Planning Commission. Yes

Item(s)

• Staff and Planning Commission Recommendation: To grant equitable transit-oriented development (ETOD)
• Staff and Planning Commission Recommendation: To grant equitable transit-oriented development (ETOD)

Sound Search™

• adequately studied and addressed at the Planning Commission. Staff repeatedly answered, we don't know the consequences to numerous questions at Tuesday's work session. Legitimate concerns by some in the fire department of the infill in the WUI area were swept away by we can make it work
• we need to be as a city. And I wholeheartedly support all of the amendments passed forward by the Planning Commission. The specific thing that I wanted to focus on is just celebrate the Council and the the organizers both aura the labor unions. Austin justice coalition for
• ten feet, as the Planning Commission proposes. There's a beautiful, ancient maxim that that I came across a few years ago that I think speaks beautifully to this moment, and that is 1st May judge of a king by the state of dancing during his reign
• Commissioner Alberta Phillips Phillips and approved unanimously by the Planning Commission. If you do not do this, the council will be knowingly choosing to sacrifice the community for developer profits. This has been reviewed by experts to confirm that it is within legal bounds of what
• city staff stated that that was both manageable and possible, and they would look into that. While another planning commissioner said in so many words, why they can't do anything at that point. And there it is. I served on the Planning commission. I so
• come back when these concerns are addressed. These equity overlay in particular need to be addressed because it's too late. So let them come back like we did at the Planning Commission. There's so many concerns about lack of infrastructure, the trees. I don't know
• protecting low income residents. Are you listening or are you just pushing forward developer and profit friendly deregulatory policies with no regard for the displacement this can cause? At Planning Commission, city staff have admitted they don't know what the impact on gentrification and
• urge you to consider three key amendments suggested by the Planning Commission reducing setbacks to ten feet and eliminating them entirely on main streets, fostering walkability, and creates inviting spaces for social interaction. Reducing minimum lot width to 15ft promotes finer
• lot size recommended by the Planning Commission, along with the rest of their recommendations. I was born and raised in central Austin, and I'm a fourth generation Austinite. I don't think my children will be fifth generation Austinites. This
• . When planning Commission members asked questions of staff during the April April 23rd meeting, the only question asked from the perspective of a homeowner was how will a homeowner afford to subdivide their property if it costs between 50 and $100,000 to do so? The
• continue with more research, I want to note this was marketed to the public, as we know, as a plan to make housing affordable, and during the last Planning Commission hearing, commissioners unanimously recommended that council explore an equity and anti-displacement overlay. Why did
• , look like at this juncture? One way is a phased approach. And the idea I spoke about was I spoke about this idea in the Planning Commission and further, an idea that the offices of Harper, Madison, Poole and Fuentes aligned on but hasn't seen the light of day
• Austin Free Press. Had no idea about the conversation of the Planning commission. That this rush timeline is being driven by y'all's necessity or perceived necessity to apply for federal funding for Project Connect. It's a classic example of a cart before the horse, and
• clarification for Mayor Watson. Is it true that you you appointed Planning Commission number three to this deals with the lot. Yesterday, Austin Monitor said that in a working session for Todd that you and the Planning Commission would make the decisions. Now
• your constituents, I would recommend thinking about your priorities and how they have or haven't materialized in the right way. And I know that you're under a timeline, but frankly, from also, you know, Planning Commission testimony, you do have a little more time. And
• land use attorney and a term on the Planning Commission in the 1980s, which was very eventful in the early 2000. I was privileged to represent this city in a number of major land redevelopment projects, including the six blocks around the building where we are today, the
• other ATP staff confirmed that there are still design decisions to be made which are needed for the Nepa submission, miss Beaudet also told the Planning Commission that scores cannot be expected to change once submitted, and right now, scores are all around the medium except for parking
• those people on the Planning Commission are doing you much good favors either, because they've been very rude to me personally. So anyway, for what it's worth, those are my comments and thank you very much. I don't think you should vote on this now. I think we should
• outweigh households with children throughout the census tracts. At the April 30th Planning Commission public hearing, an architect even testified that this is worse than existing tides. There are no improvements. It's not equitable, it's not an improvement, and that they
• is Betsy Greenberg and I live in district nine. Although I serve on the Zoning and Planning Commission, I'm giving my own opinion. Today. While I had a break in my service on Zap, I was on the commission when all of the code next drafts were considered. There was a great
• for citywide compatibility. At the April 23rd Planning Commission meeting. Supporters of the Home Initiative and other LDC amendments are telling you asking you for an equity overlay. We urge you to support and approve the CPA recommendations on the Anti-displacement
• got to come from someplace to build these charging stations. I didn't see a money tree anywhere here around City Hall, so I assume it's going to come from taxpayers. Let's be honest. I hear people on council, planning commission and in the audience there complaining about
• , five, three, six and seven. We will. The motions that I will take to get a base motion on one, four, five and three will be the staff recommendation. And then we will take up amendments. At that point in time. Item number six will be the Planning Commission recommendation
• based on the Planning Commission recommendation. Item number one requires seven votes. Item number five seven. I'm sorry, I had a different note to myself. Thank you for pointing that out. Yeah. I'll call out the number of votes we need on each of these
• items as we go along. I had a different note that involved seven, and so I apologize. I'm reading my notes wrong. So 145367 staff recommendation on one planning commission on all of the others. And then I'll call out as we go through Members. What
• recommendation, except for item number six, which will be the Planning Commission. All right. Now with that, I'm going to call up item number one and I will ask for a motion. And then we will go to amendments. And I'll at the council member Cowdrey moves approval of the
• number four. It is the planning of the Planning Commission. Recommendation is made by council. I'm sorry. Staff recommendation. It's it's council member moves adoption. It is seconded by Council member Ryan Alter. Mayor, before we get to
• . Motion number one is on. Is I'm just carrying forward a planning commission recommendation on enhanced street design. It may require alternative code amendments to accomplish. So I brought in it to do just that. Yeah, I was I was other things going on
• three. Members. That will take us to item number six. The main motion that I will accept is a motion to approve item number six, with the base being the Planning Commission preferred version. The mayor Pro tem makes that motion, which is to approve item number
• six, the Planning Commission preferred version. Is there a second? Seconded by Council member Ellis. All right. Let me Members the order I'm going to go in on this will be Council Member Fuentes who has two Council member Kelly. I have one council
• Council Member Kadri. Is there discussion? Councilmember Allison alter. I just wanted to clarify that this is increasing it relative to the Planning Planning Commission. The base motion is because I don't support the smaller. I'll say it again, but I
• want to understand. I'll say it again. The base motion is the Planning Commission recommendation, And this is amending the Planning Commission recommendation. So this would be relative to the Planning Commission. It's increasing if the base motion is the
• Planning Commission recommendation. And this is amending that it would be relative to the Planning Commission recommendation. Okay. Thank you. Further discussion. Yes, I'm mayor pro tem Kadri. Kadri already moved second. Already seconded. So that any
• PC the planning Commission version on this. I think they tossed it around and came to a very good conclusion. And so I'll be voting no on this amendment. Further discussion. Councilmember Kadri. Yeah I appreciate the work that Councilmember Member Hoeger did
• . I'm terribly concerned. I don't think there's any shame in showing a little bit of integrity and humility at this point. For all of you, I just don't think there is. And I just have to say it again, I'm going to take a liberty here because I served on the planning
• Commission and the attitude coming from that commission, I'm not going to mention people, but the lack of humility and respect to the communities of color. I mean, basically cheering and nodding on people they've already aligned with. Thank you. Thank you. Good
• adequately studied and addressed at the Planning Commission. Staff repeatedly answered, we don't know the consequences to numerous questions at Tuesday's work session. Legitimate concerns by some in the fire department of the infill in the WUI area were swept away by we can make it work
• we need to be as a city. And I wholeheartedly support all of the amendments passed forward by the Planning Commission. The specific thing that I wanted to focus on is just celebrate the Council and the the organizers both aura the labor unions. Austin justice coalition for
• ten feet, as the Planning Commission proposes. There's a beautiful, ancient maxim that that I came across a few years ago that I think speaks beautifully to this moment, and that is 1st May judge of a king by the state of dancing during his reign
• Commissioner Alberta Phillips Phillips and approved unanimously by the Planning Commission. If you do not do this, the council will be knowingly choosing to sacrifice the community for developer profits. This has been reviewed by experts to confirm that it is within legal bounds of what
• city staff stated that that was both manageable and possible, and they would look into that. While another planning commissioner said in so many words, why they can't do anything at that point. And there it is. I served on the Planning commission. I so
• come back when these concerns are addressed. These equity overlay in particular need to be addressed because it's too late. So let them come back like we did at the Planning Commission. There's so many concerns about lack of infrastructure, the trees. I don't know
• protecting low income residents. Are you listening or are you just pushing forward developer and profit friendly deregulatory policies with no regard for the displacement this can cause? At Planning Commission, city staff have admitted they don't know what the impact on gentrification and
• urge you to consider three key amendments suggested by the Planning Commission reducing setbacks to ten feet and eliminating them entirely on main streets, fostering walkability, and creates inviting spaces for social interaction. Reducing minimum lot width to 15ft promotes finer
• lot size recommended by the Planning Commission, along with the rest of their recommendations. I was born and raised in central Austin, and I'm a fourth generation Austinite. I don't think my children will be fifth generation Austinites. This
• . When planning Commission members asked questions of staff during the April April 23rd meeting, the only question asked from the perspective of a homeowner was how will a homeowner afford to subdivide their property if it costs between 50 and $100,000 to do so? The
• continue with more research, I want to note this was marketed to the public, as we know, as a plan to make housing affordable, and during the last Planning Commission hearing, commissioners unanimously recommended that council explore an equity and anti-displacement overlay. Why did
• , look like at this juncture? One way is a phased approach. And the idea I spoke about was I spoke about this idea in the Planning Commission and further, an idea that the offices of Harper, Madison, Poole and Fuentes aligned on but hasn't seen the light of day
• Austin Free Press. Had no idea about the conversation of the Planning commission. That this rush timeline is being driven by y'all's necessity or perceived necessity to apply for federal funding for Project Connect. It's a classic example of a cart before the horse, and
• clarification for Mayor Watson. Is it true that you you appointed Planning Commission number three to this deals with the lot. Yesterday, Austin Monitor said that in a working session for Todd that you and the Planning Commission would make the decisions. Now
• your constituents, I would recommend thinking about your priorities and how they have or haven't materialized in the right way. And I know that you're under a timeline, but frankly, from also, you know, Planning Commission testimony, you do have a little more time. And
• land use attorney and a term on the Planning Commission in the 1980s, which was very eventful in the early 2000. I was privileged to represent this city in a number of major land redevelopment projects, including the six blocks around the building where we are today, the
• other ATP staff confirmed that there are still design decisions to be made which are needed for the Nepa submission, miss Beaudet also told the Planning Commission that scores cannot be expected to change once submitted, and right now, scores are all around the medium except for parking
• those people on the Planning Commission are doing you much good favors either, because they've been very rude to me personally. So anyway, for what it's worth, those are my comments and thank you very much. I don't think you should vote on this now. I think we should
• outweigh households with children throughout the census tracts. At the April 30th Planning Commission public hearing, an architect even testified that this is worse than existing tides. There are no improvements. It's not equitable, it's not an improvement, and that they
• is Betsy Greenberg and I live in district nine. Although I serve on the Zoning and Planning Commission, I'm giving my own opinion. Today. While I had a break in my service on Zap, I was on the commission when all of the code next drafts were considered. There was a great
• for citywide compatibility. At the April 23rd Planning Commission meeting. Supporters of the Home Initiative and other LDC amendments are telling you asking you for an equity overlay. We urge you to support and approve the CPA recommendations on the Anti-displacement
• got to come from someplace to build these charging stations. I didn't see a money tree anywhere here around City Hall, so I assume it's going to come from taxpayers. Let's be honest. I hear people on council, planning commission and in the audience there complaining about
• , five, three, six and seven. We will. The motions that I will take to get a base motion on one, four, five and three will be the staff recommendation. And then we will take up amendments. At that point in time. Item number six will be the Planning Commission recommendation
• based on the Planning Commission recommendation. Item number one requires seven votes. Item number five seven. I'm sorry, I had a different note to myself. Thank you for pointing that out. Yeah. I'll call out the number of votes we need on each of these
• items as we go along. I had a different note that involved seven, and so I apologize. I'm reading my notes wrong. So 145367 staff recommendation on one planning commission on all of the others. And then I'll call out as we go through Members. What
• recommendation, except for item number six, which will be the Planning Commission. All right. Now with that, I'm going to call up item number one and I will ask for a motion. And then we will go to amendments. And I'll at the council member Cowdrey moves approval of the
• number four. It is the planning of the Planning Commission. Recommendation is made by council. I'm sorry. Staff recommendation. It's it's council member moves adoption. It is seconded by Council member Ryan Alter. Mayor, before we get to
• . Motion number one is on. Is I'm just carrying forward a planning commission recommendation on enhanced street design. It may require alternative code amendments to accomplish. So I brought in it to do just that. Yeah, I was I was other things going on
• three. Members. That will take us to item number six. The main motion that I will accept is a motion to approve item number six, with the base being the Planning Commission preferred version. The mayor Pro tem makes that motion, which is to approve item number
• six, the Planning Commission preferred version. Is there a second? Seconded by Council member Ellis. All right. Let me Members the order I'm going to go in on this will be Council Member Fuentes who has two Council member Kelly. I have one council
• Council Member Kadri. Is there discussion? Councilmember Allison alter. I just wanted to clarify that this is increasing it relative to the Planning Planning Commission. The base motion is because I don't support the smaller. I'll say it again, but I
• want to understand. I'll say it again. The base motion is the Planning Commission recommendation, And this is amending the Planning Commission recommendation. So this would be relative to the Planning Commission. It's increasing if the base motion is the
• Planning Commission recommendation. And this is amending that it would be relative to the Planning Commission recommendation. Okay. Thank you. Further discussion. Yes, I'm mayor pro tem Kadri. Kadri already moved second. Already seconded. So that any
• PC the planning Commission version on this. I think they tossed it around and came to a very good conclusion. And so I'll be voting no on this amendment. Further discussion. Councilmember Kadri. Yeah I appreciate the work that Councilmember Member Hoeger did
• . I'm terribly concerned. I don't think there's any shame in showing a little bit of integrity and humility at this point. For all of you, I just don't think there is. And I just have to say it again, I'm going to take a liberty here because I served on the planning
• Commission and the attitude coming from that commission, I'm not going to mention people, but the lack of humility and respect to the communities of color. I mean, basically cheering and nodding on people they've already aligned with. Thank you. Thank you. Good

Sound Search™

• this meeting the planning commission order at 6:12 PM First off, we will take roll call. Um, so just acknowledge your presence
• health benefit veterans with PTSD such as myself, the opportunities are endless. And the Planning Commission has an opportunity
• , and I would, I mean, I would like to work with this planning commission because the other commission seem not to
• Austin. This is the Imagine Austin Planning Commission, FY 24 25 CIP. Memo of recommendations. This item is up for consent
• sign up to bring those concerns to us as a planning commission and speak to 'em directly versus requesting
• sat where you sit. I used to be on the planning commission and having you choose between affordable housing
• Planning Commission Google Maps. So first of all, can you review one more time, this is an affordability unlocked
• on this memo. Okay. So a brief, a memorandum that's provided to the planning commission, does it require it
• council um, basically for the planning commission to get a briefing and then review the technical code updates
• City Council felt that it would be ideal for us as planning commission to understand the proposed amendments as
• these would be excellent. Um, I know we have several technical experts on our planning commission, and I'm hoping
• of this process and ensure that we've really taken into account any recommendations that the planning co commission
• recommendations at our next planning commission meeting. That's such a great thing to do after your honeymoon. Um
• . We'll go to our q and a. So first, commissioner with a question, comm. Commissioner Cox Wouldn't be a planning
• commission meeting if Commissioner Cox wasn't the one with the question. That's right. Uh, yeah. Question for staff

Sound Search™

• the Planning Commission recommendations. And then we will stand for discussion and questions. I'm gonna ask, uh, assistant city
• Cook, principal Planner, both with the planning department, as you recall, on April 11th City Council. And the Planning Commission held
• city. Since April 11th, staff has hosted four public, public open houses. The Planning Commission has also held a separate meeting
• also like to thank City Council and the planning commission for your hard work, your dedication, support, and collaboration
• , on the slide in front of you are the three amendments that planning Commission offered for the EV charging land use
• phase two. Um, we just wanted to give you an update on staff's response to some of the planning commission recommendations
• . So staff does not support the Planning Commission amendment to exclude the flagpole of a flag lot, um, from
• appropriate. The planning commission also made a number of amendments related to setbacks, including reducing setbacks along internal lot
• for this is, uh, fire safety issues. Um, there are also two amendments from planning commission that are not included
• in the planning Commission version of the draft ordinance, and we just wanted to point those out. First is the
• staff version for Home two. Okay. Um, there was a, it was brought up at the planning commission. The
• planning commission did not recommend it. However, it remains in staff's, um, uh, ordinance. What it would have is
• , case manager for compatibility. Um, I'm going to briefly explain our rationale for the planning commission amendments. We
• amendment. Planning Commission introduced a new 35 foot building height limit for the area between 15 and 25
• not recommend the planning commission suggestion to reduce the noise limit to 45 decibels from the current 70
• ? So the planning commission recommended for lots less than 75 feet in width to have a 30 foot, 35
• April 30th, the planning commission, just Real quick and I apologize. No problem. I don't know who Thomas Simpson is
• planning commission voted to recommend the ETOD overlay with 26 amendments that they made to staff's proposal. Seven
• commission matrix that's posted in backup. The text amendments are as follows, that Planning Commission offered, they recommended
• the Conditional List Planning Commission recommended the non-residential redevelopment requirements from the staff proposal be removed
• . ETOD density bonus projects was another amendment from the Planning commission. They recommended that, um, if a fee
• Staff Ordinance Planning Commission recommend re replacing the non-residential redevelopment requirements, um, to instead require notice
• that with slight language changes in our ordinance. And then finally, planning commission recommended that the fee in
• . I'm gonna present the differences between the planning commission, which is the second column and the staff proposal
• eligible to redevelop under the bonus program. Staff and planning commission had similar language relating to the units. A
• bonus programs. While planning commission did not address the length of affordability, both proposals included similar notice
• provisions to make sure tenants are aware of upcoming redevelopment. The Planning commission recommended that tenants who choose
• % of total units on top of that one-to-one replacement. The planning commission didn't address this. So overall planning
• development than the staff proposal. And therefore we don't recommend passing the Planning Commission amendments on this
• requirements. The Planning Commission made some recommendations on these non-residential redevelopment requirements to determine what a
• 10 years. And overall, the version of non-residential redevelopment required offered by the Planning Commission significantly weakens
• it comes, whether we're going to be working off of the planning commission recommendation or the staff recommendation
• recommendation is that we work off of the planning commission recommendation because that way we have good access to
• have been proposed seem to be proposed off of the planning commission recommendation as opposed to off the
• bidding I would start is that we go from the planning commission recommendation. And Councilman Morales, I said
• planning commission recommendation regarding setbacks and porches and whether five feet of the porch would, um, be taken
• me, I'd assumed we were going on the staff and so I will certainly be looking at the Planning Commission recommendations
• ead we'll go with staff and the others will do the planning commission. 'cause I think that's the last Yes
• . Council member. I, I've been working off planning commission On all of them, Uh, on, on all of them
• be able to agree on that. So what I would, um, recommend is we start with the, the planning commission recommendation
• and everybody pay attention to that. We're gonna start with the planning commission recommendation. Okay. Alright
• broader recommendations, which you can find more information about in the e EAD overlay staff response to planning
• porch line need to be? So I just wanted to flag, um, I also assumed we were working off planning
• commission just because that's typically how, um, a lot of these proposals come to us. Um, so in that case
• we do, and unless I hear just a broad objection, we start with the concept of the the planning
• commission because I, I could see where, uh, I mean we do have, we do have differences. For example, I'm

Sound Search™

• Is why Ever since I've been appointed, not one ever, and I haven't missed a meeting at the planning
• commission since I've been elected as chair. Not one ever. And she went on vacation to Hawaii and actually got

Sound Search™

• conversations on whether or not we're gonna recommend them to council. So, or planning commission If I may? Yes

Sound Search™

• was talking. Can I still talk? Um, Yes, go ahead. You working With the planning commission at all? We
• have. We presented, we briefed the Planning commission, yes. Um, on the plan. Okay. And are you going to

Sound Search™

• regarding April 23rd meeting. I did not attend because, um, they had a, like, joint meeting with planning commission. Um

Sound Search™

• just one timeline update. Uh, it was gonna go to the planning commission on the 28th of this month, may
• that's been moved. It's gonna go to the Planning commission on June 11th now. Um, yeah. Uh, and that's just
• did do the set date for council already. Um, the planning commission hearing, uh, has been moved, uh, first

Sound Search™

• concurrence with the council approved East Austin historic resource survey staff and the planning commission recommend
• and the planning commission recommend historic zoning for the historic portion of the home's footprint only as
• so that the historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission are often more concerned about their voices being
• recommendation. Furthermore, both the historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission overwhelmingly recommended this property for
• the people of Austin. The planning commission and the city council have a duty to basis decisions upon
• here for the planning commission and this requested that we add the wording for unlocked and tie it
• housing. That's not the case. Also, uh, in the reef sheet says, it mentioned that the planning commission asked
• to come from planning commission to council in 10 days. Sent me a couple other projects that I've
• again, as we did at Planning Commission. Although we differ on this project, they have been professional and
• make a walking motion, I will move approval of this item as proposed by staff and planning commission. And
• as the Planning commission and is recommended by Staff District eight routinely ranks last in the city and
• . I've been here with you since that time. Um, please note that this happened on February 27th. Planning
• , commission meeting. Um, it was indeed postponed, but we were told to show up after we were told not