[00:00:18]
OH, YEAH, THAT HAPPENS ON WORK SITE.
[Call to Order]
APRIL 19TH, 6:01 PM.AND I'M GOING TO CALL THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER FIRST.
I'M GOING TO TAKE ROLE COMMISSIONER ACOSTA.
PRESENT COMMISSURE DINKLER COMMISSIONER GREENBERG HERE.
COMMISSIONER KING COMMISSIONER VICE-CHAIR CABASA HERE.
GOING THROUGH THE AGENDA FIRST, WE'LL START WITH, UH, APPROVAL
[Consent Agenda]
OF THE MINUTES.DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES BEFORE WE APPROVE FOR CONSENT AGENDA? ANY FEEDBACK ON THE MINUTES THERE? NO.
THERE WAS ONE CORRECTION TO THE MINUTES.
UM, NOMINATIONS WERE MADE BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH.
I BELIEVE I WAS NOMINATED IN MY ABSENCE.
GOING FOR B ONE, A IT'S A REZONING C H ONE FOUR DASH 2 0 0 9 DASH 0 1 3 9.
DOTS ZERO THREE BULL CREEK PUD AMENDMENT STAFF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL MAY 17TH, B TWO, REZONING C 14 20 21 0 0 0 3 SOUTH LAKE, SOUTH LAKE LINE.
RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TILL MAY 17TH.
C 14 20 22 0 0 2 5 MIRADOR DRIVE B FOUR C 14 20 21 0 1 9 3 7400 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE.
APPLICANT IS SEEKING, SEEKING POSTPONEMENT UNTIL JUNE 7TH, B FIVE C EIGHT TO 20 20 0 1 4 1 VELOCITY PRELIMINARY PLAN HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT B SIX, UH, FINAL PLATFORM APPROVAL C 8 20 21 0 0 7 8 DOT TWO ONE A SERIALLY COMMUNITY SUBDIVISION IS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT C B SEVEN IS ON CONSENT C EIGHT C 8 20 20 0 1 1 2 BREAKER VALLEY SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAN.
ALL COMMENTS HAVE BEEN CLEARED ON THIS CASE.
OKAY, SO THE CONSENT AGENDA IS BASICALLY ALL OF IT.
A ONE B ONE, UH, STAFF POSTPONE MENTAL MAY 17TH B2 APPLICANT POSTPONED UNTIL MAY 17TH B3 CONSENT BEFORE APPLICANT POSTPONED UNTIL JUNE 7TH, B FIVE WITHDRAWN B6 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS AS SHOWN AS AN EXHIBIT C AND B SEVEN CONSENT.
IF I CAN MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THAT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION.
I'M RECUSING MYSELF ON ITEM SIX, BECAUSE I WORKED FOR AN ENGINEERING FIRM.
THAT'S DOING THE ENGINEERING WORK FOR THAT PROJECT.
FROM ISRAEL HE'S ON ANDOVER TO HAVE SOMEONE ELSE GO AHEAD, SO WELL, OKAY.
YES, JUST AS MOVED BY THE VICE CHAIR AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER.
DINKLER ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OVER THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WITH COMMISSIONER SMITH, RECUSING HIMSELF ON ITEM B SIX.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE A SPEAKER MISS JOSEPHS, AND THIS IS C1 DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING MATTERS RELATING TO ANY PROPOSED REVISIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
I VERIFIED YOU'RE NOT HAVE MS. JOSEPH ON THE LINER.
WELL, SHOULD WE, CAUSE SHE WAS ALSO GOING TO SPEAK ON C2, CORRECT? SHOULD WE PROCEED? SHOULD BE, UM, A FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND THE COMMITTEE REPORTS.
[00:05:31]
CHAIR.IF WE COULD RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES.
WE NEVER COME BACK AT SIX 10 SOMEWHERE.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON.
UM, I'VE UH, ANDREW'S LET US KNOW THAT MR. STUFFS IS NOT QUITE ON THE LINE YET, SO MAYBE SHE CAN CALL A LITTLE BIT LATER.
IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING SO SHE CAN PROVIDE HER TESTIMONY AT ANY TIME.
SO WE'RE GOING TO SKIP C ONE FOR NOW, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T USUALLY HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT C1
[C2. Discussion and possible action regarding Austin Strategic Mobility Plan Update. (Sponsors: Chair Barrera-Ramirez and Vice-Chair Kiolbassa). (Part 1 of 2)]
AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TALK ABOUT C TWO.SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A STAFF MEMBER HERE TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS TO NO STAFF.
UM, NORMALLY THE WAY WE WOULD DO IS JUST GO OVER THE, THE RESOLUTION.
I SUBMITTED A NEW RESOLUTION BASED ON COMMENTS.
I MEAN, IT WAS THE ONE THAT, THAT ONE, THE OUT BASED ON COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE.
AND, UM, SO WE CAN JUST WALK THROUGH IT LINE BY LINE AND, UM, ANDREW, IF YOU WANT TO PUT IT ON THE DOCUMENT CAMERA AND I CAN READ IT REAL FAST.
WE'RE BRINGING, WE'RE BRINGING UP THE KIELBASA VERSION.
WHEREAS THE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 10TH, 2020 ASKED STAFF TO AMEND THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN TO ADD THE PROJECT CONNECT SYSTEM PLAN.
AND WHEREAS THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS CURRENTLY UPDATING THREE OF ITS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLANS.
THE 2014 URBAN TRAILS PLAN, THE 2014 BICYCLE PLAN AND THE 2016 SIDEWALK, ADA TRANSITION PLAN, ALL KNOWN AS ATX WALK, BIKE ROLL.
AND WHEREAS THE ASN P STREET NETWORK TABLE AND MAP IS USED TO IDENTIFY FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS.
AND WHEREAS ON NOVEMBER 15TH, 2021, THE AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT RELEASED A FIRST DRAFT SMP STREET NETWORK MAP IN WHEREAS ROUND ONE FEEDBACK INCLUDED 1,647 MAP COMMENTS SHOWING AMONG OTHER CONCERNS, PARTICULAR OPPOSITION TO CHANGING NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS FROM LEVEL ONE TO LEVEL TWO AND THE ASSOCIATED LARGE INCREASES IN RIGHT AWAY.
AND WHEREAS FURTHER CONCERNS WERE RAISED ABOUT EXPANDING THE TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK WHERE NO TRANSIT SERVICES PLAN AND CREATING UNFEASIBLE OR UNSAFE BICYCLE LANES.
AND WHEREAS ON SEPTEMBER 3RD, 2020 ORDINANCE NUMBER 20 20 20 0 9 0 3 DASH 0 0 5 WAS APPROVED TO ACQUIRE LAND FOR THE 2016 CORRIDOR PROGRAM FROM OWNERS OF 2,166, OUR AUSTIN PARCELS WITHOUT PRIOR NOTIFICATION.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION ENCOURAGES THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL, THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO STREET LEVEL CHANGES IN THE SMP EXCEPT TO INCORPORATE THE PROJECT CONNECT SYSTEM PLAN AS DIRECTED BY THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT PROPERTY OWNERS AND TENANTS WHOSE FRONTAGE IS LISTED FOR POTENTIAL RIGHT AWAY INCREASES BE NOTIFIED IN THEIR PRIMARY LANGUAGE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL VOTE ON THE ASAP AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE ASN P TEAM SHOULD COORDINATE WITH EQUITY OFFICE IN PUBLIC OUTREACH TO ENSURE THE SUCCESS OF ATX WALK, BIKE, ROLL STATED GOAL OF ACHIEVING RACIAL EQUITY AND PLANNING EFFORTS, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK BE EXPANDED ONLY WHEN TRANSIT SERVICES ADDED AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT BEFORE A REVISED BICYCLE PLAN IS INCORPORATED INTO THE ASAP OR STREET LEVEL, ONE B SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL THAT INDICATES THE PRESENCE OF A BIKE LANE FOR BOTH CURVED AND UNCURBED STREET DESIGNS WITHOUT RAISING THE RIGHT OF WAY REQUIREMENTS TO MATCH LEVEL TWO STREETS.
AND THAT ONLY APPROVED INSIDE SAFE BIKE ROUTES BE INCLUDED.
SO THAT WAS, THAT WAS IT GREAT.
SO MY FIRST COMMENT IS ABOUT THE 1 2 3 4 5 6 SEVENTH, WHEREAS WE'RE REFERS TO THE QUARTER CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM.
AND SO I THINK THEIR ISSUE RIGHT, IS THAT THESE FOLKS, THERE ARE ALL THESE PARCELS THAT WITHOUT PRIOR NOTIFICATION AND FOR ME THE D THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPROVAL TO ACQUIRE AND ACQUIRING, RIGHT? SO THIS IS FROM WHAT I READ THE ORDINANCE IS ALLOWING THE CORRIDOR PROGRAM OFFICE TO APPROACH HOMEOWNERS OR LANDOWNERS AND ASK FOR THE PERMISSION TO ACQUIRE LAND.
[00:10:01]
AND A VERY LONG I'M SURE A PROCESS.AND, YOU KNOW, THE RESPONSE I GOT BACK FROM COLE AND I ASKED, UH, COLE KITTEN, WHO IS THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, UM, ABOUT THIS.
AND HE SAID THAT OUT OF THESE ONLY SEVEN TO 8% OF THE TOTAL WOULD ACTUALLY EVEN BE APPROACHED AND MAYBE 168 OF THOSE PROPERTIES.
SO, I MEAN, I THINK REDESIGNING AND RECONSTRUCTING AN ENTIRE CORRIDOR IS A REALLY HARD JOB.
AND I THINK THAT, LET ME, SORRY, LET ME JUST FINISH.
I THINK THAT THE IDEA IS THAT YOU HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE AND MAYBE YOU DON'T NEED TO NOTIFY 2100 PEOPLE IF YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO ASK 168 FOR THEIR LAND.
I HAVE A COPY OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED FOR THAT.
AND 20 20 0 0 9 0 3 DASH ZERO FIVE.
AND IT AUTHORIZES THE CITY MANAGER IS AUTHORIZED.
WE CAN PUT IT ON THE DOCUMENT CAMERA, BUT THE CITY MANAGER IS AUTHORIZED TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTS NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE TO PURCHASE AND FEE SIMPLE OR ACQUIRE OTHER REAL PROPERTY INTEREST IN PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT ARE NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CORRIDOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 23.
SO IT'S THERE, THEY'RE ENABLING THEM TO BE ABLE TO DO THE AUTHORIZED, AND IT'S NOT A TAKING, IT'S LIKE THE FIRST STEP IN THE PROCESS.
IT'S JUST ALLOWING THEM, RIGHT.
THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT AUTHORIZATION THAT I DON'T THINK THEY DO.
MOTION REC RECOGNIZING OF, HEY, I'M SORRY.
VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THE CROSSTALK.
UM, IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT UP THAT DOCUMENT? YEAH, SURE.
I DID JUST LIKE COMMISSIONER, UM, RAMIREZ, I PULLED UP THE LANGUAGE TRUST THAT VERIFY, WHICH I UNDERSTOOD IT AS UP TO 2000 PLUS, BECAUSE THOSE WERE THE NUMBERS IDENTIFIED.
AND WHILE IT MIGHT BE 168, IT MIGHT NOT DEPENDING ON WHETHER THEY HAVE TO GO TO CONDEMNATION, HOW MUCH THEY SPEND, BECAUSE I'M THE NATION CAN BE EXPENSIVE.
SO I THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO HAVE THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE IN THERE SO WE CAN ALL INTERPRET IT FOR OURSELVES WELL, AUTHORIZING.
AND THERE IS MORE BECAUSE, UM, I, UM, NOTICED, WELL, I NOTIFIED ONE OF MY FAVORITE BUSINESSES THAT, ABOUT THIS BILL BEING ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA.
AND SO HE REACHED OUT TO COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO STAFF AND, UM, AND IT'S CLEAR THAT THIS IS FOR ACQUISITION AND HE WASN'T SURE WHAT PART OF HIS PROPERTY WAS GOING TO BE ACQUIRED.
AND IT WASN'T IN THE BACKUP IF HE WASN'T SURE IT'S NOT GETTING A QUIET, OH, NO, NO, NO, I'M SORRY.
IT WAS IN, AND I CAN EVEN SHOW YOU EVEN MORE DOCUMENTS.
IT WAS IN AN ENGINEERING SCHEMATA THAT SURE COUNCIL MEMBER TOLD THOSE OFFICE FOUND, BUT THIS DOES SAY AUTHORIZE.
AND THE MEMO THAT ACCOMPANIED IT ALSO DOES SAY THIS IS AUTHORIZING IT.
RIGHT? SO I THINK THE THING IS THE BIG, AND I LISTENED TO THE DISCUSSION AT CITY COUNCIL AT THE TIME, BECAUSE I KNEW THAT CITY COUNCIL OFFICES WERE GETTING A LOT OF CALLS AND THAT WAS A BIG PROBLEM.
THEY WERE GETTING A LOT OF CALLS, FIELDING, A LOT OF CALLS ABOUT THEIR PROP, ABOUT, UM, BUSINESS.
IT WAS BUSINESSES BECAUSE IT WAS AIMED AT SOUTH LAMAR.
AND SO I THINK IN THE ISSUE OF TRANSPARENCY, I THINK NOTIFICATION IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.
AND ALL OF THESE, LIKE THE AGENDA DID INCLUDE, AND THE MEMO INCLUDED ALL THESE PARCELS THAT WERE LISTED AND ALL THESE MAPS THAT WERE LISTED.
SO IT WAS TO BEGIN THE FIRST STEP.
AND, UM, AND IT WAS SO MANY WERE INCLUDED.
AND ACCORDING TO THE MEMO, BECAUSE TO GIVE THE PROJECT TEAM THE FLEXIBILITY TO PURSUE REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS NEEDED ANYWHERE ALONG THE CORRIDORS, WITHOUT THE NECESSITY TO SEEK ADDITIONAL APPROVAL FROM COUNCIL, THE CITY WILL BE PURSUING ACQUISITIONS ON NO MORE THAN SEVEN TO 8% OF THE TOTAL, UM, 2166 PROPERTIES ALONG THE CORRIDORS.
AND SO THIS WAS TO MAKE IT SO THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO BACK AGAIN, THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND SO THAT'S, AND SO THAT, I FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I MEAN, I HAD A VERY CONCERNED PROPERTY OWNER, FAVORITE BUSINESS, AND WATCHING THE CITY COUNCIL, PEOPLE WERE BUSY AND IT WAS BUSINESSES.
SO DON'T SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH TRANSPARENCY.
SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THE GIVING THEM THE AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY IS THE FIRST
[00:15:01]
STEP.IT'S A TWO YEAR PROCESS AT MINIMUM, RIGHT? SO THIS, WHAT THE ENGINEER PLANS THAT YOU HAVE THERE IS PROBABLY 10 30, MAYBE, MAYBE 60%, BUT I DOUBT IT.
AND THE QUARTER PROGRAM I KNOW IS WORKING AS HARD AS THEY CAN TO NOT ACQUIRE ANY PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S GOT THAT HUGE TWO YEAR LONG PROCESS.
SO I, THE REASON THAT I'M ARGUING THIS IS THAT I FEEL AS THOUGH THERE, IT IS VERY CHALLENGING TO NOTIFY ALL OF THESE PEOPLE.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH BEING TRANSPARENT, BUT I, IN FACT, I IT'S HIGHLY LIKELY THAT THERE WERE MULTIPLE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR EVERYONE ALONG THE CORRIDOR TO PARTICIPATE BOTH ONLINE VIRTUALLY AND IN PERSON.
I CAN, I CAN PROBABLY SHOW YOU, UM, CAUSE I'M SURE THERE'S, I'M SURE THERE'S A, PLEASE THERE'S A WEBSITE.
I MEAN, NOT ONLY I, BUT OTHER PEOPLE, SORRY.
I JUST, I THOUGHT, I MEAN, THAT'S, I THAT'S ALL I REALLY HAVE TO SAY IS THAT I'M SURE THAT THERE WAS A PUBLIC PROCESS, UM, AND THAT NO ONE'S PROPERTY WILL BE TAKEN WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT AND UNLESS IT'S EMINENT DOMAIN, WHICH THE CITY, I CAN COUNT ON ONE HAND, THE TIME THAT THE CITY HAS DONE EMINENT DOMAIN, THEY JUST DON'T DO IT.
IT'S TOO MUCH OF A HASSLE SO THEY CAN, YEAH, THEY CAN.
AND THEY WILL, IF IT'S LIKE A HUGE DEAL, BUT LOOKING AT THIS, I MEAN, AGAIN, WE'RE GOING FROM 2100 TO MAYBE 160 PROBABLY.
I, AND I I'M NOT, OR, YOU KNOW, YEAH.
I CAN TALK FOREVER ABOUT, YEAH.
I, I, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU WANT THIS PROVISION STRICKEN.
I KNOW IN CODE NEXT, EVERYBODY GOT A POSTCARD AND IF THEY'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED A LOT OF PROPERTIES ALONG THE QUARTER, I DON'T THINK IT'S, THAT WAS THAT BIG OF A DEAL TO HAVE SENT THEM NOTICE.
I'M IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THAT LANGUAGE BECAUSE I DON'T SEE IT AS INACCURATE.
AND I DO THINK IT HELPS PEOPLE.
MOST PEOPLE DON'T SIT AROUND AND READ COUNCIL AGENDAS EVERY WEEK.
AND I THINK HAVING NOTICED HELPS THEM PAY ATTENTION, UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS BETTER, ET CETERA.
SO MY, MY FEELING AND I'M ONE OF 11 UP HERE IS I, I'M FINE WITH KEEPING THAT LANGUAGE, UM, BECAUSE THAT'S ALSO WHERE AS SO.
AND THEN I SEE COMMISSIONER KING'S HAND IS RAISED.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD.
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT, UH, THE, WHEREAS ON SEPTEMBER 3RD, 20, 20 ORDINANCE NUMBER, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, THAT, THAT BEING STRICKEN.
AND MAYBE I COULD, UH, MAYBE LET ME SAY IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
SO I ALSO DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH NOTIFICATION.
I THINK A POSTCARD IS TOTALLY REASONABLE.
WHAT I DON'T LIKE ABOUT THIS, WHEREAS IS THAT IT INSINUATES THAT, UH, THE ACQUISITION, THE ACQUISITION WAS ALREADY APPROVED AND IT'S IT'S, IT WAS APPROVED, BUT IT'S, UM, IT'S NOT, HOW DO I, IT'S NOT PENDING OR IT'S NOT THE CITY COUNCIL GAVE APPROVAL TO ACQUIRE, BUT THERE'S STILL A PROCESS AND THERE'S THE PROCESS ISN'T HERE.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
SO IF ANYBODY WANTS TO ADD IT TO IT, TO MAKE IT KIND OF MORE A ROBUST STATEMENT.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THAT WAS THE I, THE, THE SECTION THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO THERE AND, AND, UH, LIKE COMMISSIONER DENTLER, UH, AND, AND THE SPONSOR OF THIS ITEM.
I, A RESOLUTION, I SUPPORT THIS.
I, I DO THINK IT, YOU KNOW, IT CERTAINLY IS ONE OF THE NECESSARY STEPS IN ACQUISITION OF LAND.
YOU KNOW, IT CERTAINLY IS WITHOUT THAT THEY CANNOT ACQUIRE THE LAND.
SO TO ME, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THIS AT ALL.
AND, AND I DO THINK THAT NOTIFICATION OF 2,166 PROPERTY, UH, YOU KNOW, TENANTS OR, OR OWNERS ALONG THESE CORRIDORS HERE IS, IS NOT A BIG THING.
IT'S A, IT'S NOT A BIG THING TO THE CITY TO DO THAT, BUT IT'S A BIG THING TO THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THOSE RESIDENTS AND TENANTS ALONG THOSE CORRIDORS ALONG AND, UH, EFFECTED THAT LIVE ON THESE PROPERTIES OR UTILIZE THESE PROPERTIES.
SO, SO I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THESE AND I, I SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION, UH, SO FAR.
YOU HAVE CONVINCED ME, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW.
I MEAN, PART OF MY CONCERN IS THEY'RE WORKING ON DRAFT PLANS, RIGHT? AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE 2,166.
OUR PARCELS THERE'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE OTHER PARCELS ARE GOING TO IDENTIFY AND HAVE THESE 2166 ARE GOING TO ELIMINATE 90% AND THEY MAY IDENTIFY 20 MORE.
UM, SO THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO NOTIFY THESE 2001 OR 66 PEOPLE.
[00:20:01]
OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED AT ALL.I THINK NOTIFYING PEOPLE BEFORE YOU ACQUIRE THEIR LAND IS HIGHLY APPROPRIATE, IS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.
UM, BUT TO COME BACK AND SAY OF THESE PEOPLE WHO IN A SCHEMATIC SET OF PLANS, WE THINK WE MIGHT WANT TO NEGOTIATE TO ACQUIRE THEIR LAND IS NOT APPROPRIATE, NOT NECESSARY, BUT BEFORE YOU HAVING A STATEMENT HERE THAT SAYS, BEFORE YOU START THE PROCESS TO ACQUIRE, WE NEED TO NOTIFY THESE PEOPLE THAT THAT IS MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE.
UM, IN THAT YOU JUST SAY, HEY, WE'VE GOT A SET OF PLANS THAT ARE NOT ANYWHERE NEAR FINISHED.
AND IN THOSE UNFINISHED PLANS, WE IDENTIFIED ALL THESE POTENTIAL TAKINGS, NOT TAKINGS, BUT POTENTIAL ACQUISITIONS THAT MAY GO AWAY.
SO CAN I JUST ASK ONE QUESTION? WHEN IS IT, WHEN WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE NOTIFY? IS IT APPROPRIATE WHEN YOUR PLANS ARE A HUNDRED PERCENT COMPLETE? IS IT APPROPRIATE WHEN YOUR, I THAT'S THE, I MEAN, TO ME, IT'S WHEN THE PLANS ARE A HUNDRED PERCENT, THERE'S A 90% LEVEL.
THE ALIGNMENT HAS BEEN FINISHED.
EVERYTHING'S BEEN FINALIZED IN THE LAST 10% IS GENERALLY ACQUIRING ANY RIGHT AWAY.
THAT'S WHAT THE LAST 10% GENERALLY IS.
SO AT THE POINT IN TIME, WHEN NORTH, WHEN THE ALIGNMENT HAS BEEN FINALIZED AND YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHICH, WHICH ACQUISITIONS YOU NEED TO MAKE, THAT'S WHEN YOU NOTIFY PEOPLE, I'D HATE TO NOTIFY SOMEONE TODAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO ACQUIRE YOUR LAND AND THEN COME BACK TWO YEARS.
AND I WAS LIKE, WELL, NEVERMIND.
RIGHT? BECAUSE THEY MIGHT MAKE SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS BASED ON WHAT WE TELL THEM COULD HAPPEN.
AND THEN THAT MAY NEVER HAPPEN, UM, AND SOLD THEIRS.
CAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE DECISIONS WHEN YOU JUST TELL THEM THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING THIS, THEY MAY DECIDE, HEY, I'M GOING TO UP AND MOVE, UM, WHEN THEY DON'T NEED TO, BECAUSE WE'RE NEVER GOING TO ACQUIRE THAT LAND COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, THAT'S ALL FROM ME.
AND THEN I SEE YOU COMMISSIONER, THOMPSON'S NEXT.
I GUESS I WOULD JUST SAY THAT IF I WERE A PROPERTY OWNER WHOSE PROPERTY WAS ON THAT LIST, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW BEFORE THE COUNCIL VOTES ON IT, EVEN IF I'M GOING TO GET AN EXPLANATION THAT 90% CHANCE THAT IT MEANS THAT NOTHING WILL HAPPEN ON YOUR PROPERTY.
AND I THINK THEY FURTHER TOLD THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT THEY WERE JUST LOOKING AT TAKING SLIVERS, UM, LARGE ENOUGH FOR SIDEWALKS OR BIKE LANES.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IT'S MY PROPERTY.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW, BUT WE'RE NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT NOTIFYING THOSE PEOPLE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHOSE STREET LEVELS ARE CHANGING ON THE ASM P IT'S JUST KIND OF A EXAMPLE OF ANOTHER SITUATION WHERE PEOPLE WEREN'T NOTIFIED AND THIS, I LIKE WHAT IT SAYS, BECAUSE IT POINTS OUT THAT THE CITY DOESN'T ALWAYS NOTIFY IN THAT WE'RE ASKING IN THIS CASE FOR THE ASM P THAT THEY DO NOTIFY.
AND AGAIN, IT COULD BE WELL MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF TIME, UM, OR NEVER THAT ANY RIGHT OF WAY IS EXPECTED TO BE DEDICATED BASED ON A STREET LEVEL CHANGE, BUT STILL IF IT'S IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY, I'D WANT TO KNOW.
SO I THINK YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL IN CRAFTING THE LANGUAGE TO SAY IT COULD BE 200 YEARS AND YOU, THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN, BUT WE'RE LETTING YOU KNOW THAT MAYBE IN A YEAR FROM NOW OR 200 YEARS FROM NOW, DEPENDING ON HOW DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS IN YOUR, ON YOUR STREET, WE MAY WANT TO PUT A SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF HOUSE, ANOTHER ONE, ALRIGHT, SORRY, COMMISSIONER BOON, AND THEN THOMPSON, AND THEN ANYBODY OVER HERE AND THEN STERN.
I THINK, I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M KIND OF STRUGGLING WITH HERE IS THAT FINAL, WHEREAS SEEMS TO BE IMPLICITLY RELATED TO THE RECURRING THEME OF PEOPLE SAYING, OH, IF THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, TO A BLUE LINE IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, THERE WILL BE YOUR RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION, WHICH I THINK WAS ACTUALLY PRETTY WELL CLARIFIED.
AND MAYBE THERE'S A TINY SUBSET INVOLVING A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THAT MIGHT, BUT THIS LANGUAGE IS INCREDIBLY BROAD.
AND I THINK AS WRITTEN COULD RESULT IN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, CERTAINLY, MAYBE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF POSTCARDS GOING OUT BECAUSE OF A LEVEL TWO.
UM, WHICH I JUST, IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF OVERKILL, IT SEEMS ALMOST DESIGNED TO KICK A HORNET'S NEST, UM, MAYBE NOT DESIGNED, BUT, UH, LIKELY TO.
UM, SO I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO SOFTEN THE, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE FINAL, WHEREAS ADDS THAT MUCH INFORMATION.
AND I THINK THE, YOU KNOW, LISTED FOR POTENTIAL RIGHT OF WAY INCREASES SHOULD PROBABLY BETTER REFLECT THE ACTUAL PROCESS THAT IS PROPOSED, WHICH IS CERTAINLY NOT A LISTING OF POTENTIAL RIGHT.
UM, AT LEAST AS I UNDERSTOOD IT FROM STAFF, SOME MAYBE IN, SO I AGREE THAT INCREASE, AND THIS IS THE FIRST BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.
I AGREE THAT INCREASES IS NOT THE RIGHT WORD TO USE.
SO MAYBE WE SAY IT'S THE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THE SECOND RESOLUTION, I JUST, CAN I ASK YOU TO SAY IT'S POTENTIAL RIGHT.
[00:25:01]
ON THIS SINCE I WROTE IT, BUT WE, WE DO SEE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WE ACTUALLY DID NOT GET A SIDEWALK SEGMENT BECAUSE SOMEBODY HAD PUT HARDSCAPE IN THE WAY AND IN THE POTENTIAL RIGHT OF WAY.SO I THINK WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT POTENTIAL JUST RIGHT AWAY, AND SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, SO PEOPLE DON'T PUT EXPENSIVE SIGNS UP THEY'RE HARDSCAPE LANDSCAPING AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
IT'S ALSO, IT'S ALSO, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW FAMILIAR YOU ARE WITH THE DIFFERENT RUNWAYS IN THE BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT, BUT THERE'S A HOTEL THAT WAS BUILT AT THE END OF ONE TO STOP THEM BECAUSE OF A DISCUSSION ABOUT EXTENDING THE RUNWAY.
AND SO JUST AS SOMEONE YOU MIGHT NOT WANT THEM TO PUT IN HARDSCAPE, THEY ALSO COULD PUT IN A HARDSCAPE DEPENDING ON THEIR BED, NOT INSINUATING THAT ANY SUCH PEOPLE LIVE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
NO, I THINK, AND I, I TH I THINK ANYWAY, I MEAN, I, YEAH, I USED TO LIVE IN BOSTON, BUT, UM, SO I THINK IT, I THINK IT'S GOOD.
I THINK IT ALSO MAKES IT SO THAT PEOPLE ARE AWARE THAT REALLY DON'T PUT SOMETHING.
IF THEY HAVE A QUESTION, DON'T PUT SOMETHING ON THE RECORD.
SO FAR UPSTREAM OF THAT PROCESS TO SAY THAT THIS STREET WOULD BE A GOOD STREET FOR A BICYCLE.
AND IF WE WERE GOING TO BUILD A STREET WITH THIS CHARACTERISTIC SOMEWHERE ELSE, WE MIGHT GIVE IT THIS RIGHT OF WAY.
THE INSINUATION THAT, THAT RIGHT AWAY WILL BE ACQUIRED IN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WHEN IT WAS SAID TO HIM, PRETTY NON UNCERTAIN TERMS. THAT THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE PROCESS, I GUESS, PROCEDURALLY, CAN WE TALK ABOUT MORE THAN ONE RESOLUTION FOR AMENDMENTS HERE? THE, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER STERN'S, UH, I THINK THE LANGUAGE DOES A BETTER JOB OF REFLECTING STAFF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESS, WHICH MIGHT SEEK TO AMELIORATE SOME OF THE CONFUSION SURROUNDING IT, RATHER THAN FEEDING INTO IT.
DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT COMMISSIONER? WELL, YEAH, I, UM, YOU KNOW, SO I, I WROTE THAT, UH, ORIGINAL LANGUAGE FOR MINIMIZING THE IMPACT FOR THE OTHER RESOLUTION AS IT WAS WRITTEN, ALTHOUGH, UM, BY, UM, I GUESS THE CONCERN I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS, UM, THAT WE GOT TO INSURANCE THAT THIS WOULDN'T KICK IN FOR SINGLE FAMILY, HOWEVER, MULTIFAMILY IT MIGHT KICK IN.
AND SO I WAS SUGGESTING THAT WE LOOK AT THAT RESIDENTIAL BASED ZONING VERSUS ANOTHER BASED ZONING DISTRICT, BUT THE MORE THAT I LOOKED AT IT, I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE CLEANER IF WE DOES SAY THAT THIS DOESN'T KICK IN, UNLESS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 50 UNITS OR MORE W WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THAT LANGUAGE IS THAT IT REFLECTS THE POLICY.
AND I THINK THE GENERAL LANGUAGE SAYING MAY ACQUIRE RIGHT AWAY IS TOO BROAD TO ADDRESS THE ACTUAL ISSUE AT HAND MADAM CHAIR.
I HAD THE FORTUNE WHEN YOU'RE RUNNING THE MEETING, YOU DON'T QUITE CATCH THE NUANCES.
SO I RE-READ, OR REPLAYED THE MEETING AND THEN WENT INTO THE TRANSCRIPTS.
AND I THINK IN SOME WAYS, THE FEAR THAT'S BEEN RAISED IS IF YOU PUT IT IN THE PLAN THEY COULD, AND WHAT I HEARD AND READ IN THE TRANSCRIPT WAS IT WAS, IT APPLIES TO SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX LEVEL AND ABOVE.
IF THERE'S A SITE PLAN, IT ALSO APPLIES IN SUBDIVISION.
SO THIS ISN'T JUST APPLYING TO COMMERCIAL.
UM, AND I DON'T WANT TO PICK AN ARBITRARY NUMBER OF 50 I'VE SEEN SITUATIONS WHERE WE'VE NEEDED MORE RIGHT AWAY ON A STREET THAT WAS SUBSTANDARD.
UM, SO I AM HA I CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS FOLKS HAVE AT THE SAME TIME.
I WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED WITH, UH, AND I, I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER STERN'S EFFORTS TO TRY TO SAY, WE SHOULD MINIMIZE THIS, BUT WHEN YOU WERE WRITING A DOCUMENT AND I WAS INTERESTED IN THE LANGUAGE STAFF USE BY THE RULES GETS THAT NOT BY THE PLAN.
UM, YOU USE AN IDEAL STANDARD AND THAT'S VERY WELL WHERE THE STAFF COULD GO.
SO, UM, I'M NOT QUITE COMFORTABLE WITH THE 50 EITHER.
I THINK THEY NEED TO DO MORE WORK ON THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE OF THIS.
UM, PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU DO HAVE SO MANY STREETS THAT AREN'T EVEN INCLUDED IN THIS PLAN, YOU REMEMBER THE COMMENTS ABOUT, WE HAVE BLANK SPACES IN THIS DOCUMENT.
UM, THIS ISN'T A DONE, THIS, ISN'T A DONE DEAL.
WE'RE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT'S ALMOST SO AMORPHOUS.
UM, I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE'RE APPROVING.
SO I, I'M KIND OF, OF THE OPINION THAT THEY SHOULD WAIT UNTIL THEY UPDATE THE, I LIKED THE PLAN WALK BY ROLE, UH, IS WHEN WE SHOULD ADDRESSING SOME OF THESE CONCERNS ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL.
I THINK THIS DOC, THIS PLAN, THIS ASAP WAS JUST LIKE HOW NEXT IT'S OVERREACHING AND IN A LOT OF PLACES, OKAY.
I HAVE COMMISSIONER THOMPSON AND THEN COMMISSIONER STERN.
WELL, I SORT OF, UM, GOING BACK A LITTLE BIT, BUT MY THOUGHT ON THE WHEREAS
[00:30:01]
WAS, UM, IT'S A STATEMENT OF FACT, AND I, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S, UH, A LITTLE SENSATIONAL, BUT I THINK IT IS SOME OF THE CONCERN IS THAT THESE THINGS DO KEEP HAPPENING AND THAT I JUST KIND OF WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS NOT NOTIFICATION AFTER DECISION IS ALREADY MADE.AND, YOU KNOW, EVEN, EVEN WE'RE EVEN SKIPPING THAT STEP, BUT THEY EAT IN MY MIND.
THE IDEAL IS ENGAGEMENT, GIVING RESIDENTS OF AUSTIN, THE TOOLS THEY NEED TO ENGAGE IN THIS PROCESS.
AND I DON'T HAVE A STRONG FEELING OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE COMMENT THAT A NOTIFICATION AFTER A DECISION IS MADE IS, IS NOT ENGAGEMENT.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH AND THAT'S WHAT KEEPS GETTING US INTO TROUBLE.
AND SO I THINK THE MORE WE CAN DO TO LET PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IT, KIND OF BIG THINKING AND THE BIG PLANNING THAT'S HAPPENING, INCLUDING THE STREETS THEY LIVE ON THE BETTER, YOU KNOW, THE MORE WE CAN DO TO RAISE AWARENESS OF WHERE THE CITY IS HEADING AND HOW PARTIES ARE GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT THE BETTER.
AND SO IT JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT COMMENT.
UM, SO I, I DID WRITE SOME SUGGESTED LANGUAGE IN HERE, WHICH I COULD SEE IT BEING A, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.
I THINK, UM, I'LL START WITH THAT RATHER THAN SECOND GUESSING EVERYBODY ON THE COMMISSION WITH, UM, OTHER WAYS TO GET AT THIS.
BUT THE REAL CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS ABOUT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BECOMING MULTIFAMILY.
AND, YOU KNOW, I'M THINKING ABOUT IT THROUGH THE LENS OF TRANSIT SERVICE, YOU KNOW, USING, FOR EXAMPLE, MENCHACA ROAD, UM, THERE'S CURRENTLY LOW FREQUENCY SERVICE.
THERE, THERE WILL BE HIGH-FREQUENCY SERVICE WITH A NEW MACRO RAPID COMING FURTHER SOUTH.
AND IN THOSE STATION AREAS, THERE MAY BE INTEREST IN BUILDING TOWNHOUSES, FOR EXAMPLE, ROW HOUSES, UM, NOT DIRECTLY ON MANCHACA, BUT ON THE STREETS GROWING, UM, YOU KNOW, PERPENDICULAR TO MACHACA AND IF THE FIRST LOT, OR TO WANT TO DO THAT.
BUT THEN SOMEBODY WANTS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND THEN ANOTHER LOT, OR TO WANT TO DO ROW HOUSES.
WE COULD POTENTIALLY BE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION FOR AN
UM, AND SO WE CAN WIND UP WITH SITUATIONS WHERE WE HAVE BIKE LANES TO NOWHERE OR BIKE LANES, IT START AND STOP.
UM, BUT MORE LIKELY THAN THAT IS THAT PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL ALL COME OUT SAYING, I DON'T WANT YOU TO OBSERVE TO MF ONE OR MF TWO, BECAUSE THIS COULD POTENTIALLY HAPPEN.
AND I WANT TO KEEP MY SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
AND NOW YOU ARE POTENTIALLY GOING TO HAVE A RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION.
AND WHILE STAFF MIGHT SAY, WELL, WE WON'T DO THAT.
IF YOU'VE GOT A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE IN A ROW, BUT ONLY LIKE TWO OR THREE HOUSES THAT ARE RESISTING IT THERE, THEY TOO ARE GOING TO HAVE TO, THEY'RE GOING TO BE PRESSURED TO OFFER THAT RIGHT OF WAY.
THERE IS I WANT TO BE ABLE ON THIS COMMISSION TO BE ABLE TO SAY MF ONE OR TWO IS FINE AND NOT BE WORRIED ABOUT WHAT WE'RE ACCIDENT LEAD TRIGGERING IF WE DO THAT.
AND SO THAT IS THE BASIS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION THAT ONLY REDEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL BASE ZONING DISTRICTS TO ANOTHER BASE ZONING DISTRICT.
SO COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL SPECIAL PURPOSE, OR COMBINING ZONING DISTRICTS, NOT MULTI-FAMILY BECAUSE AGAIN, IT WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL.
UM, SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO MULTIFAMILY IS RESIDENTIAL, RESIDENTIAL.
IT'S NOT TO ANOTHER BASE ZONING DISTRICT ONLY THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS BUILDING PERMITS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS DO NOT REQUIRE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION UNLESS NEEDED FOR SOME SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT.
AND WHEN THE REQUIRED WITH IS STATED IN THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL.
SO NOW WE'RE SAYING THAT THERE HAS TO BE AN IMPROVED IN THAT CRITERIA MANUAL AS WELL BEFORE ANY SORT OF CHANGE TO THAT BASE ZONING DISTRICT CHANGE, UM, MAKE TECHNICAL CHANGES ONLY FOR PROJECTS PROPOSED IN THE BIKE AND SIDEWALK MASTER PLANS.
AND, UM, I CAN SEE THAT SOME OF THAT IS IN THERE BECAUSE THE BE FURTHER RESOLVED WITH THE BICYCLE PLAN IS THERE.
AND SO I WOULD SUGGEST MAYBE TAKING PIECE OF THAT.
I COULD SEE IT BEING ITS OWN STANDING, BUT I WAS TRYING TO USE, UM, TO YOUR POINT, THE LANGUAGE THAT STAFF WAS USING TO KIND OF GET AT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS AS I SEE IT.
ONE OTHER JUST NOTE IS, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A, THE SECOND TO LAST, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK BE EXPANDED ONLY WHEN TRANSIT SERVICE IS ADDED.
I THINK THAT MIGHT BE GOING A LITTLE TOO FAR ON, ON GRANTED PRIORITY NETWORK BECAUSE THERE'S A CHICKEN AND EGG
[00:35:01]
THING THERE.FOR EXAMPLE, PARMER LANE IS PART OF OUR FUTURE PLAN.
THERE IS NO HIGH-FREQUENCY NETWORK THERE YET, BUT YOU DON'T GUESS SUDDENLY DROP BUS SERVICE AND PEOPLE USE IT, THE SIDEWALK AND THE BIKE LANE AND THE STREET TREES AND THE FURNITURE SUPPORT PEOPLE EVEN BEING ON THE STREET IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND SO I WORRY THAT WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE AHEAD OF OUR SKIS ON THAT ONE IN PARTICULAR, THAT'S IT ON THE TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK.
IT WASN'T SO MUCH, IT WAS THE COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD ABOUT THAT, UM, 35TH STREET RAMP WHERE THERE'S NEVER GOING TO BE TRANSIT, BUT THE BUS GOES THERE TO TURN AROUND.
I JUST DON'T THINK THAT SITUATION WITHOUT ANY TRANSIT SERVICE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE, IN THE TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK.
SO IF YOU COULD SUGGEST MAYBE WEAKENING THE WORDS, BUT STILL FOR SITUATIONS LIKE THAT, WHERE IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAVE TRANSIT SERVICE, IT SHOULDN'T BE IN THE NETWORK.
I THINK THERE IS, UM, THERE IS A NUANCE THERE THAT'S DIFFICULT BECAUSE I RECOGNIZE THE ZONING IMPLICATION OF IT BEING RECOGNIZED AS A TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK.
UM, EVEN STILL THAT THE SERVICE IN QUESTION IS SOMETHING THAT'S, UH, EVERY 15 MINUTES SERVICE GOING ACROSS TOWN ON 35TH STREET.
AND THEN IT KIND OF DOES A LOOP DE LOOP AND THAT'S THE DEAD HEAD TO GET BACK ON INTO SERVICE.
AND SO ON THE ONE HAND, YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT, THAT ROADWAY IS, IS AVAILABLE TO THE BUS, SO IT CAN MAINTAIN THE 15 MINUTE LOOP.
UM, BUT I ALREADY AGREE WITH YOU UNLESS THERE'S A STOP PLACED THERE, THEN YEAH.
THEN THERE SHOULD BE NO ZONING IMPLICATION FOR IT.
SO THAT MAY BE THE PART THAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT NUANCE WISE, BUT ALSO I WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT.
I DON'T WANT TO SAY LIKE BUS STOPS EQUALS ZONING.
THAT'S THAT'S NOT A GOOD POLICY EITHER, BUT IT IS SORT OF, WE ALWAYS LOOK AT SAY, IS THERE TRANSIT HERE WHEN WE WANT TO DECIDE WHAT'S AN APPROPRIATE ZONING, YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE REVERSE OF IT THOUGH.
UM, IF THERE ISN'T A BUS STOP THERE TODAY, THEN YOU'RE CREATING AN IMPEDIMENT FOR ALLOWING IT AND FURTHER.
UM, IF YOU HAVE A BUS STOP THERE TODAY, YOU MIGHT JUST FOCUS YOUR EFFORT ON REMOVING THE BUS STOP BECAUSE THAT'S, I WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT A BUS STOP ON A, A RAMP ONTO MOPAC.
UH, I, I I'M I'M WITH YOU ON THE, ON THAT CASE.
UM, I, I CAN'T, UM, WE, I DO KIND OF WANT TO PRESS PAUSE BECAUSE WE HAVE OUR SPEAKER ON THE LINE AND MAYBE SHE WOULD HELP IN SOME WAY.
SO, AND I DON'T WANT HER TO HAVE TO WAIT TOO LONG.
UM, ANDREW RIVERA, UH, COMMISSIONED LADY ISLAM.
WE DO HAVE MISSES AND NOBODY HAD JOSEPH ON THE LINE.
UM, IF YOU CAN SELECT STAR SIX AND PROCEED TO YOUR MARKS, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I THINK THEY'RE NOT I'M CHAIR MEMBERS ON ZENOBIA JOSEPH.
I DID SEND YOU A WRITTEN TESTIMONY.
I'M NOT SURE IF MR. RIVERA GOT A CHANCE TO SEND IT TO YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE COMMENTS AS IT RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO THE EQUITY AND THE LANGUAGE THAT IS IN THE OFFICE.
STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN ACTUALLY SPECIFIED TITLE SIX.
SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE FOR YOU TO START THE RESOLUTION WITH TITLE SIX IS WORKS FOR EQUITY, AND IT SPECIFIES THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS COMMITTED TO NON-DISCRIMINATION IN THE PROVISION OF OUR TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS.
AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK TO ENSURE THAT THE PRINCIPLES OUTLINED IN TITLE SIX AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT GUIDE PROJECTS WE IMPLEMENT, AND THE PROGRAMMING WE PROVIDE.
AND THAT'S ONE PIECE 2 25, UH, UH, TWO STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN, AS IT RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO THE RESOLUTION.
IF YOU GO TO THE LAST PAGE OF THE DOCUMENT, IF YOU HAVE IT, I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THE SECOND.
WHEREAS I JUST, THAT, THAT IS WHERE, UM, I THOUGHT YOU COULD ACTUALLY INCLUDE THE TITLE SIX LANGUAGE.
THERE'S A LANGUAGE THAT AS IT RELATES TO 2014, AND I JUST WANTED TO CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT 2014 PORTAL OR STUDY
[00:40:01]
THAT WAS THE PROJECT CONNECT LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, AND IT'S SPECIFIED ALMOST HALF THE POPULATION.AND 1.5 MILLION PEOPLE OF THE TWO MOST POPULATED COUNTIES IN THE REGION WILL RESIDE IN THE NORTH CORRIDOR BY 2035 AND ALMOST TWO THIRDS OF JOBS IN THE TWO MOST POPULATED COUNTIES WILL BE LOCATED IN THIS CORRIDOR BY 2035 AND WILL ACCOUNT FOR 58% OF ALL JOBS IN THE FIVE COUNTY REGION.
AND SO THE COMMISSIONERS COMMENT JUST A MINUTE AGO ABOUT PALMER LANE BEING A FEATURE FOUR-DOOR, I WOULD JUST CALL YOUR ATTENTION.
THEN ON JUNE 14TH, 2021, CAMPO ACTUALLY CITED FL 73, 4 POLYMERS AND FM 9 69 AS REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT AT THE START OF THE RESOLUTION, AS IT WAS POSTED, IT HAS JUNE 10TH, 2020.
AND I WILL CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT ON JULY 27TH, 2020, THAT IS ONE COUNSEL UNILATERALLY ELIMINATED PALM AND METRO RAPID, WHICH WAS $4.7 MILLION.
THERE WERE THREE, MY MORTY NORTHEAST WEST.
WELL, THERE'S A PDF THAT I CAN SEND YOU THAT HAS ALL THE DATA, BUT IF IT WAS $22.8 MILLION FOR SOUTH BOSTON, I WAS JUST GLAD TO COME HERE TO SEE IF I CAN, THE RESOLVED PAUSE, IF YOU COULD REWORD IT.
I HAD IT, THE TITLE SIX LANE WAS THERE IN THE
THANK YOU, MS. JOSEPHSON, DID YOU ALSO WANT TO COMMENT WHILE WE HAVE YOU ON C1 ITEMS? SEE, I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME EACH YEAR AND MR. RIVERA DID REMIND ME THAT I HAD BOTH.
DO YOU WANT ME TO READ YOU THREE, YOUR DISCUSSION? I AM HAPPY TO READ YOU, SO THAT'S WHY I JUST KIND NARROW FOCUS ON C2.
[C1. Discussion and possible action regarding matters related to any proposed revisions to the Land Development Code including but not limited to staff updates, presentations and scheduling. (Sponsors: Chair Barrera-Ramirez and Vice-Chair Kiolbassa) ]
BUT IF I COULD GET TO SEE ONE, IT TELL YOU WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY, OR YOU CAN GIVE ME AN OVERVIEW.IT'S ACTUALLY A PLACEHOLDER THAT WE PUT ON EVERY MEETING, AND IT'S JUST IN CASE WE HAVE SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SO IT'S DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING MATTERS RELATED TO ANY PROPOSED REVISION TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SO IT'S, WE DIDN'T HAVE A PARTICULAR TOPIC.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT'S KIND OF A PLACEHOLDER THAT WE KEEP.
BUT IF YOU HAD COMMENTS WE'VE HAD YES, CERTAINLY IN THINKING THAT I'M HERE FOR ACTING.
THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE THAT I SEE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS THAT 80% AREA MEDIAN INCOME, WHICH IS THE FORCE OF INCOME DISCRIMINATION, UM, HAS BEEN A PROXY FOR RACE DISCRIMINATION.
AND SO I WAS JUST ASKING YOU TO RECOGNIZE THAT AS YOU DELIBERATE THAT, UM, AFRICAN-AMERICANS EARN ABOUT $42,000, 80% AREA MEDIAN INCOME IS $55,000.
IF YOU LOOK AT ACC HIGHLAND, HIGHLAND VILLAGE IS THE ONLY AFFORDABLE UNIT THERE, AND THAT'S 80% AREA MEDIAN INCOME.
WHEN YOU LOOK SOUTH UP NORTH AND LONG TRANSIT CENTER, YOU KNOW, THAT HIGH PARK WAS DEVELOPED EXCLUSIVELY FOR WHITE PEOPLE DOWNTOWN THE DEVELOPER STATE OF FEE IN LIEU OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ON THE BLUE LINE COUNCIL REZONED, OCTOBER 17TH, 2019.
AND SO IT IS REALLY DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE FOCUSED ON EQUITY WHEN IT COMES TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, I WOULD JUST ASK YOU TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE MOVIE'S DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU PASS AT A PRIVATE RESTRICTED COVENANT, 80% AREA, MEDIAN INCOME.
SO MY POINT IS FOR YOU TO GET A MAP OVERLAY.
SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE DENSITY IN THE AREA, MEDIAN INCOME, UM, IN THOSE AREAS SO THAT YOU CAN RECOGNIZE THAT, UM, MAYBE IT'S AN UNINTENDED.
I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK SO, BUT, UM, THE CITY IS SEGREGATED BY DESIGN.
UM, AND I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT TRANSIT AND, UH, THE HOUSING IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR THE ONE BECAUSE, UM, WITH NORTHEAST WEST CONNECTIVITY ELIMINATED NORTH OF US, 180 3 IN 30 MINUTES, HE TRANSFERRED TO THE WEST SIDE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT I GAVE YOU, YOU SEE THE RED LINING AND HOW IT ACTUALLY ALIGNS WITH
[00:45:01]
ONE ARE SO FREQUENT, BUT THAT'S NOT THE U S 180 TO ME.SO THAT'S MY BIGGEST COMMENT ABOUT THE LEARNING DEVELOPMENT CODE IS THAT, UM, WE'RE REALLY JUST RE SEGREGATING THE CITY OR ENSURING THAT IT STAYS THERAPY.
UM, AND I THINK IT'S DISINGENUOUS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ASLEEP FOR PROJECT CONNECT AND I CAN'T WITH THE METRO TO CONTINUE TO SAY MORE FREQUENT, MORE RELIABLE AND BETTER CONNECTED.
AND THAT'S WHEN I ASKED MY 2020 TO A BUDGET.
AND THE LAST THING I'LL SAY, MADAM CHAIR, RESPECTFULLY, I DO THINK THAT YOU AND COMMISSIONER SON SHOULD RECUSE YOURSELF.
AND I DID PUT THE JUSTIFICATION IN MY PACKET AS WELL, BECAUSE THEY'RE THINKING OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BUT I THINK BEFORE ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK OUT ON COMMENTS, LET ME ANSWER THEM AT THIS TIME.
SHOULD WE CONTINUE OUR CONVERSATION, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS.
[C2. Discussion and possible action regarding Austin Strategic Mobility Plan Update. (Sponsors: Chair Barrera-Ramirez and Vice-Chair Kiolbassa). (Part 2 of 2)]
SO WE WERE COMMISSIONER STERN HAD READ HIS, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED MR. KING.WELL, UM, YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT, UH, WHEN WE NEED TO DEDICATE RIGHT AWAY.
I KNOW THAT'S IMPORTANT AS WE, AS WE DEVELOP AND, AND, UH, OUR, OUR TRANSPORTATION NETWORK AND AS WE INCREASE OUR POPULATION, YOU KNOW, AND I, BUT I JUST, UM, I'M A LITTLE BIT UNSETTLED ABOUT RECOMMENDING A PARTICULAR STRATEGY ON DEDICATION FOR, YOU KNOW, ITS PARTICULAR RESIDENTIAL, YOU KNOW,
BECAUSE THE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS, IS, IS WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IN THE S AND P CHANGING ANY OF THE CURRENT, UH, POLICIES FOR S FOR DEDICATING RIGHT OF WAY.
BECAUSE AS WE KNOW, AND THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION HERE, WE CAN GET CASES.
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CASES WHERE WE FREQUENTLY SEE DEDICATION OF RIGHT AWAY.
AND, YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T RECALL OFTEN WHEN WE SEE THAT FOR SINGLE FAMILY.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT WE'RE SAYING ABOUT THIS RIGHT AWAY, DEDICATION IS ALREADY WHAT WE'RE DOING.
AND, AND, UH, SO I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT.
I'M UNSETTLED ABOUT MAKING ANY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION ABOUT WHEN TO DEDICATE RIGHT AWAY.
BUT WHENEVER WE DO DO THAT, THEN I DO THINK NOTIFICATION IS IMPORTANT.
AND I WOULD ASK THAT EACH ONE OF YOU THINK ABOUT IF THIS WERE, YOU KNOW, A PLACE WHERE YOU WERE LIVING, OR YOU HAD A BUSINESS THAT YOU WERE LEASING, YOU KNOW, OR THAT YOU OWN, YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD, HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT AT LEAST BEING NOTIFIED EARLY IN THE PROCESS THAT DOWN THE ROAD, THESE THINGS COULD CHANGE.
THEY COULD AFFECT YOU SO THAT YOU HAVE TIME TO PREPARE AND PLAN.
AND, YOU KNOW, I, I, THERE COULD BE PEOPLE DOING THE VARIOUS THINGS OR WHATEVER, TRYING TO THROW WRENCHES MONKEY WRENCHES, YOU KNOW, IN THE, IN THE WORKS HERE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T THINK MOST PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DO THAT.
THEY WANT IT, THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO AFFECT THEIR PROPERTY, THEIR INVESTMENT, THE PLACE THAT THEY LIVE, THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, THEIR PLACE, THAT THEY RENTED, THE PLACE THAT THEY LEASE.
THEY NEED TO KNOW THESE THINGS THAT WILL AFFECT THEM.
SO I'M GOING TO ERR, ON THE SIDE OF NOTIFYING THESE FOLKS ABOUT RIGHT AWAY AND, AND YOU, I READ THAT RESOLUTION, I WENT BACK AND READ IT AND IT DOES SAY EXECUTE ALL THE DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO ACQUIRE THE LAND.
I'M GOING TO INTERRUPT YOU THERE.
CAUSE I, I AGREE WITH YOU AND I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE ALL CONVINCED ME.
SO I'M GONNA REMOVE MY COMMENTS ABOUT THE NOTIFICATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO, IF WE'RE ALL OKAY WITH THAT, IF WE'RE OKAY.
AND THEN IF YOU HAD ANOTHER COMMENT ABOUT ANOTHER SECTION THAT I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO HEAR, YES, I WAS GOING TO FOLLOW UP AND, AND, YOU KNOW, WITH, UH, UH, MS. UH, JOSEPH'S COMMENTS AND SUGGEST THAT WE DO TAKE, UH, ONE OF HER SUGGESTIONS AND START OUR RESOLUTION WITH, WHEREAS THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN STATES THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS COMMITTED TO NON-DISCRIMINATION AND THE PROVISION OF OUR TRANSPORTATION NETWORK.
AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK TO ENSURE THAT THE PRINCIPLES OUTLINED IN TITLE SIX OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 GUIDE THE PROJECTS WE IMPLEMENT AND THE PROGRAMMING WE PROVIDE, WHAT A GREAT INTRO.
WHEREAS, SO I THINK WE SHOULD ADD THAT AS A BEGINNING, WHEREAS, UM, I'M FINE WITH THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT TITLE SIX TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY HAS FEDERAL LAW AND FEDERAL LAW.
[00:50:02]
START WITH COMMISSIONER, UM, CALLED BOSS'S RESOLUTION BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING, BUT I'M, I'M TRYING TO LIKE, JUST GET TO THE ACTION STEPS HERE.SO DO WE WANT TO VOTE AMENDMENT BY AMENDMENT? SHOULD WE VOTE ON ADDING AWARE AS RELATING TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS? UM, THE LANGUAGE THAT COMMISSIONER KANE USED AND THEN AFFIRM THAT WE SHOULD INCLUDE THAT, UM, THEN WHEN WE GET DOWN TO THE SEVENTH, WHEREAS SHOULD WE TAKE, UH, AN AMENDMENT MAYBE TO, UM, KEEP THE LANGUAGE, BUT DELETE THE PHRASE FROM THE OWNERS OF 2166 AUSTIN PARCELS, WHICH I MIGHT ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN? I THINK I'M OKAY WITH IT AS IS.
SHOULD WE DO THIS AMENDMENT BY AMENDMENT OR NOT? I, WE CAN DO IT THAT WAY.
I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AS WRITTEN THAT, UM, VICE-CHAIR KIELBASA PROPOSED WITH THE ADDITIONAL INTRODUCTORY, WHEREAS THAT I CAN'T RECITE, BUT THAT, UM, COMMISSIONER KING SUGGESTED.
AND I WOULD SAY, I MEAN, THE, THE RECOMMENDATION ITSELF IS BASICALLY SAYING FOLLOW COUNCIL DIRECTION AND MAKE THE CHANGES FOR PROJECT CONNECT, NOTIFY, WAIT FOR THE BIKE, WALK, BIKE, AND ROLL UPDATE.
BEFORE YOU DOING THE REST AND ADD A ONE B I MEAN, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT COMMISSIONER BOON DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY, BUT THAT THEN WAS THE NEED FOR MORE CATEGORIES THAT THE BIGGEST COMPLAINT WE HEARD WAS ABOUT A CHANGE TO STREET LEVEL TO JUST FOR A BIKE LANE.
WE'RE GOING TO ADD WHAT THREE OR FIVE FEET, AND YET SUDDENLY THERE'S 84 FEET OF RIGHT.
SO I THINK THE ONE B I THINK THAT THE, UM, RESOLUTION AS WRITTEN IS, IS GREAT.
I MEAN, PEOPLE COULD OFFER AMENDMENTS, BUT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO VOTE LINE BY LINE UNLESS THERE'S SPECIFIC THINGS PEOPLE WANT TO CHANGE, UM, BEYOND THAT EXTRA INTRODUCTORY.
AND THEN IS IT SECOND? ARE YOU SICK? ARE YOU GOING TO COMMENT? I'M COMMENTING.
FIRST I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND ON THIS SECOND, IF I COULD, SO THEN WE DISCUSS, YEAH, I'M GOING TO SECOND THE MOTION.
I GUESS THEY STILL HAVE DISCOMFORT WITH, UM, NOTIFIED AND PRIMARY LANGUAGE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL VOTE ON THE SMP.
UM, I, I THINK THAT'S TOO BROAD OF A RECOMMENDATION FOR NOTIFICATION, UM, AS WE'VE OUTLINED, BUT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO SUBSTITUTE INSTEAD OF BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, BEFORE SUCH TIME, AS YOU KNOW, OR WITH SUFFICIENT TIME TO PREPARE OR TO, I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE IS, BUT NOT BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE S AND P BY CITY COUNCIL DO DUE PROCESS, SUFFICIENT TIME, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO AS PARLIAMENTARIAN, THERE'S AN AMENDMENT MOTION.
YOU NEED A SECOND FOR THAT AMENDMENT, AND I'M ASSUMING YOU WANT TO STRIKE THAT LANGUAGE OR DO YOU WANT TO ALTER IT OR DO YOU WANT TO ALTER IT? AND I'M NOT RUNNING THE MEETING HERE.
UH, SO I'M PROPOSING THAT THE FURTHER RESOLVE THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND TENDENCIES FURNITURE IS LISTED AS A POTENTIAL RIGHT OF WAY INCREASED, BUT LISTED AS A CHANGE OF ASM P LEVEL, UM, BE GIVEN SUFFICIENT NOTICE, UH, BEFORE ANY ACTION TAKEN.
I LIKE IT, THAT LEVEL OF VAGUENESS.
I DON'T WANT TO TIE IT TO A COUNCIL VOTE AND I DON'T WANT TO TIE INTO ADOPTION.
CAN, CAN I UNDERSTAND A LITTLE MORE ABOUT WHY? UH, YES.
I DON'T WANT TO RECOMMEND THAT WE SEND EVERYBODY A POSTCARD, UH, BECAUSE OF, UH, LIKE 10% DESIGN ALIGNMENT FOR A BIKE LANE.
I JUST THINK THAT'S WAY TOO EARLY IN THE PROCESS.
SO IT'S THE NOTIFICATION IS THE ISSUE OR THE TIMING BEFORE THE COUNCIL VOTE? UH, I GUESS IF YOU HAD TO PICK ONE, THE TIMING BEFORE THE COUNCIL VOTE.
UM, BUT I ALSO THINK IT'S TOO EARLY IN THE PROCESS TO NOTIFY PEOPLE.
I MEAN, NOTIFICATION IS A HUGE EXPENSE STAFF EXPENSE, UH, IS, CAN I THINK RILE PEOPLE UP FOR PROBABLY NOT A BIG IMPACT ON THEIR LAND, ESPECIALLY AS WE'VE DESCRIBED, UM, THE PROCESS IS NOT GOING TO RESULT IN RIGHT AWAY BEING TAKEN.
UM, AND THE VAST, VAST MAJORITY OF CASES, CERTAINLY IN THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS IN WHICH SEEMED LIKE MOST OF THE PROTESTS WERE OR COMMENTS RATHER THAN NOT PROTESTS WERE TALKING ABOUT.
SO, SO JUST TO UNDERSTAND, SO WE WOULD BE SAYING WE DON'T, WE DON'T MIND THAT IT WOULD BE CODIFIED BEFORE
[00:55:01]
PEOPLE ARE NOTIFIED.I GUESS IT CODIFIED AT THE LEVEL OF CODIFICATION THAT'S IN THERE.
I THINK THERE'S SO MANY MORE ELEMENTS TO ACTUALLY DEVELOPING A PROJECT AFTER YOU DRAW A LINE THAT SAYS LEVEL TWO.
I MEAN, I COULD BE WRONG, BUT COMMISSIONER SMITH.
I MEAN, I TEND TO AGREE BECAUSE THE ASN P IS GOING TO BE APPROVED HERE VERY QUICKLY, BUT THESE PROJECTS ARE GOING TO BE ENGINEERED AND DESIGNED OVER THE NEXT 20, 30, 40 YEARS.
UM, AND SO TO NOTIFY EVERYBODY WHO'S PROPERTY MAYBE TAKEN 40 YEARS FROM NOW, WHEN WE FINALLY HAVE A DESIGN AND REALIZE, OOH, WE NEED TO TAKE THEIR PROPERTY IS AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK.
WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THESE PLANS ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE, WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT 30, 40 YEARS AGO FROM NOW.
UM, AND SO I THINK SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IT ALL BEFORE COUNCIL VOTE ON THE ASN, P H S AND P IS LIKE, I THOUGHT NOT A DESIGN DOCUMENT.
YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO KNOW WHAT PARCELS YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO NEED TO ACQUIRE AFTER THE DESIGN DOCUMENTS WERE COMPLETED.
AND THAT'S GOING TO BE MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS FROM NOW.
ISN'T THE SMP THOUGH IN THIS I'M NOT, I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT IT, BUT ISN'T IT A REGULATORY DOCUMENT.
IT'S NOT JUST A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT.
IT BECOMES A REGULATORY DOCUMENT.
THIS IS WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY LAST WEEK.
DO YOU EVEN START, UM, THE ACQUISITION PROCESS? AND I'M NOT SORRY, I'M SAD AT TERM.
AND TO ME, IF WE STRIKE THAT LANGUAGE, I'M NOT SURE WHY WE EVEN HAVE A RESOLUTION, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S THE MEAT OF IT.
AS FAR AS WHEN I READ IT TO BE CLEAR, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO STRIKE THAT ALL A BIT.
CAN I ASK A VICE-CHAIR CABASA WHAT THAT AMENDMENT WOULD DO TO THE INTENT OF THE RESOLUTION? I THINK IT'S, WELL, I THINK IT WOULD GUT IT AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT.
I THINK IT'S, AND THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL.
AND I THINK BRINGING UP THE FACT THAT THEY REMINDING THEM, OR AT LEAST SOME OF THEM THAT THEY WERE DELUGED WITH CALLS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WHEN THE CORRIDOR PROJECT WAS PUT ON THEIR AGENDA AND THE PROPERTIES WERE LISTED ON THEIR AGENDA.
AND PEOPLE DID CALL IN TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S AT, THERE WAS ONE LAND USE AGENT, I THINK, WHO WAS CONCERNED ABOUT HER PROPERTIES, HER, HER CLIENT'S PROPERTIES ON SOUTH LAMAR.
AND I KNOW OTHER COUNCIL OFFICE COUNCIL OFFICES SAID THAT THEY WERE HANDLING A LOT OF COMMENTS.
SO I THINK INSTANT NOTIFICATION MAY ACTUALLY NOT BE AS EXPENSIVE AS TAKING AWAY FROM CITY COUNCIL TIME.
AND IT WOULD ALSO, I THINK, INCREASED TRANSPARENCY BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE DEFINITELY REALLY UPSET.
I HAVE, I HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE AMENDMENT LANGUAGE.
MAY I TRY? DO WE HAVE A SECOND OPTION AT ALL? OKAY.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT PROPERTY OWNERS AND TENANTS WHOSE FRONTAGE IS LISTED FOR POTENTIAL CHANGES WITHIN THE ASM P BE NOTIFIED IN THEIR PRIMARY LANGUAGE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL VOTE ON THE S AND P.
SO IT'S NOT TIED TO THE RIGHT OF WAY CHANGE BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW NECESSARILY THAT THERE RIGHT AWAY WILL CHANGE.
BUT WE CAN EXPLAIN THAT THE DOCUMENT, IF, IF THEY'RE ROAD NUMBER, THE CATEGORY CATEGORY OF THE ROAD IS CHANGING, THEN THAT I THINK IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AT.
WE'RE TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT YOU'RE GOING FROM A CATEGORY ONE TO A CATEGORY TWO OR TWO TO ONE OR WHATEVER IT IS.
SO I THINK DOOR HANGERS OR POSTCARDS, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THAT'S TOO MUCH NOW.
I'M GOING TO GO WITH A COASTER BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM HIM ALL NIGHT REPEATED.
LET'S SEE A FURTHER RESOLVE THAT PROPERTY OWNERS AND TENANTS WHOSE FRONTAGE IS LISTED FOR POTENTIAL CHANGES WITHIN THE ASM P BE NOTIFIED IN THEIR PRIMARY LANGUAGE BEFORE THE COUNCIL VOTE ON THE S AND P THAT ACTUALLY THAT BROADENS WHO HAS TO BE NOTIFIED BECAUSE I WAS THINKING IF THEY FOLLOW THE ONE B IDEA, THEN THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE GETTING ONE B INSTEAD OF ONE, MAYBE DON'T EVEN NEED TO BE NOTIFIED.
SO, I MEAN, I'M FINE WITH BROADENING IT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT.
WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT, I WILL SECOND THAT I THINK THE POTENTIAL RIGHT AWAY INCREASES WAS THE BIGGEST, UH, CONFUSION.
SO DID WE VOTE? WHAT ARE WE DOING? CAN YOU VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT? OKAY.
YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
SO ALL THE, LET ME ASK A QUESTION.
DOES YOU REMEMBER IT ALSO INCLUDE ADDING LANGUAGE TO THE FIRST, WHEREAS NO, I'M FINE WITH THE, WHEREAS LIKE IT IS THE, FOR THE SEVENTH.
I DO WANT TO HAVE YOU WANT TO ADD THE FIRST ONE TO MODIFY THE NEXT TO THE LAST OR THIRD
[01:00:01]
FROM LAST AND THAT IS ALL I WANT.THEN I AM HAPPY TO THE REST OF, OH, I HAVE ONE MORE THING.
UM, THE LAST YEAR FOR THE RESOLVES, IT SAYS THE REVISED BICYCLE PLAN.
I WOULD WANT TO SAY THE WALK, BIKE ROLL, WHATEVER PLAN.
IS THAT OKAY? YEAH, THAT'S FINE.
I WAS JUST CONFUSED AS TO WHETHER THERE WERE THREE SEPARATE OR NOT CONFUSED, BUT IT WAS CONFUSING ON THE WEBSITE ITSELF, WHETHER THERE WERE THREE DIFFERENT TIMELINES FOR THOSE OR BECAUSE THEY DO ALSO PARCEL THEM OUT, BUT WHATEVER YOU'RE GOOD WITH.
I THINK IT'S, WELL, I THINK IT'S ONE PLAN.
SO BE IT FOR, UH, FIRST IF I CAN REPEAT.
WELL ACTUALLY I'LL LET YOU REPEAT.
OH, I'M OVERSTEPPING MY PLACE HERE.
SO THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE TO ADD THE F FIRST, WHEREAS AS A STATED BY COMMISSIONER KING, THE SECOND WOULD BE, UH, THE SECOND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED OR THE SECOND RESOLVED IS THAT PROPERTY OWNERS AND TENANTS WHOSE FRONTAGE IS LISTED FOR POTENTIAL CHANGES WITHIN THE ASN P BE NOTIFIED IN THEIR PRIMARY LANGUAGE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL VOTE ON THE S AND P.
AND THEN THE LAST BIT FOR THE RESOLVED WOULD SAY, BE IT FOR THE RESOLVE THAT BEFORE A REVISED PLAN.
MAYBE IT SHOULD SAY MULTIMODAL PLAN.
I THINK REFERRING TO WHAT THEY HAVE IN THE SMP, THE, UM, THE ROCK.
SO THAT, SO YOU SAID BEFORE A REVISE, UH, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT BEFORE VISED WALKED BY ROLL PLAN IS INCORPORATED INTO THE ASM.
P IS STREET-LEVEL ONE B SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE TRANSPORTATION YOU'RE OKAY.
CAN I JUST ASK A QUESTION? SO WHEN YOU SAY DAVID'S, UM, WHEREAS THAT'S ACTUALLY REALLY, UM, THE SUGGESTION FROM MS. JOSEPH'S JOSEPH'S OKAY.
WHAT I HAD AND I THINK COMMISSIONER, JUST, JUST A QUESTION, REALLY.
SO NOTIFICATION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN A POSTCARD IN THE MAIL, RIGHT? JUST THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO CLARIFY.
I FEEL LIKE A DOOR HANGER IS BETTER, BUT I MEAN, WELL, PERSONALLY, I FEEL LIKE POSTCARDS AS SOMEONE WHO HAS TO DO A FAIR AMOUNT OF PUBLIC NOTIFICATION POSTCARDS ONLY REALLY HELP PEOPLE WHO ARE STAYING AT THAT ADDRESS FOR A FAIR BIT, AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, WE'RE A MAJORITY RENTER CITY.
SO THE BEST WAY TO NOTIFY PEOPLE IS ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, MESSAGES AT A LIBRARY OR PUBLIC SPACES, DOOR HANGERS, THINGS LIKE THAT ARE KIND OF LIKE A BETTER WAY TO NOTIFY BILLS.
I JUST WANT LIKE, CAUSE WE'VE BEEN TALKING A LOT ABOUT SENDING POSTCARDS OUT AND THE COST OF THAT AND LIKE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THAT.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT NOTIFICATION DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO NEED THAT.
SO I'M JUST GLAD THAT WE'RE, THAT WE'RE ON THE SAME.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM TALKING TO SOME OF THE LIKE PETER MULLEN AND ALL THAT HAVE, ARE LEARNING THAT TO THE POSTS, THAT DOOR HANGERS ARE MUCH BETTER.
I CAN SUPPORT THAT IF WE DID A WAY.
WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, RIGHT? I'M JUST DOING DISCUSSION.
I WOULD DO A SEPARATE AMENDMENT.
DO YOU SEE WHAT EVERYBODY THINKS ABOUT IT? I CAN SUPPORT THAT.
I THINK WE'VE GOT REDUNDANCY IN THE FACT THAT THE FIRST, WHEREAS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 20, 20 ORDERS, NUMBER BLANK, BLANK WAS APPROVED TO ACQUIRE LAND FOR THE CORRIDOR FROM THE OWNER OF, WITHOUT PRIOR NOTIFICATION.
IF WE STRUCK THAT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE'RE GAINING BY PUTTING THAT IN.
THAT'S JUST GOT ME CONCERNED IF THAT'S REALLY NOT WHAT IT'S INFLAMING, THE PEOPLE WHO READ THIS BECAUSE THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT THE INTENT OF THAT ORDINANCE WAS.
SO I THINK STRIKING THAT, THAT I COULD GET BEHIND DOORS ALL TOGETHER.
I, HOW WOULD YOU FEEL SINCE WE'RE INTO ANOTHER AMENDMENT, WHICH I THINK WE SHOULD BE VOTING ON, WHAT'S ALREADY ON THE TABLE, JUST STRIKING FROM THE OWNERS OF 21, UH, 66 AUSTIN PARCELS, JUST TAKING THAT PART OUT.
UH, APPROVED, ACQUIRE LAND FOR THE QUARTER PROGRAM WITHOUT PRIOR NOTIFICATION.
UM, I THINK THAT GETS TO YOUR CONCERNS.
I THINK IT GETS TO COMMISSIONER COLE BOSS'S CONCERN.
IT WAS JUST A, WHEREAS AS YOU SAY, IT WAS, IT WAS APPROVED TO ACQUIRE LAND FOR THE 2016 CALDWELL PROGRAM, PERIOD.
BUT NO, I KNOW, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAID.
I MEAN, I'VE READ THE ORDINANCE DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU DID.
THAT I AGREE AT SAME, READ THE SAME THING, TWO DIFFERENT WAYS, BUT RIGHT NOW, ARE YOU AMENDING THE CHEF? SO SHOULD WE JUST WORK ON ONE, TWO AND THREE AND THEN GO TO THAT LANGUAGE? OKAY.
SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO ONE, TWO AND THREE.
[01:05:01]
THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE PLEASE.THAT'S THAT'S UP TO, BUT NOT INCLUDING THE, NOT INCLUDING THIS LAST ONE.
SO THAT'S EVERYONE, BUT ME AND COMMISSIONER SMITH, ALL THOSE OPPOSED I AM ABSTAINING.
IT MIGHT'VE JUST THAT ONE REASONABLY TALK ABOUT, I JUST I'M UNCOMFORTABLE.
IF THIS PASSES, IT PASSES THE BAG.
ARE YOU GOING TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT ON THAT FINAL? NO.
I MEAN, IF THIS PASSES IT PASS, SO WE JUST TOOK A VOTE AND IT JUST PASSES.
NO OTHER AMENDMENTS WOULD BE ALLOWED.
SO OTHER AMENDMENTS TO GO AND MR. SMITH, I THINK WAS OFFERING ONE AND THEN I HAVE ONE LAST ONE, IF YOU WILL ALLOW THEIR SEASONS.
I MEAN, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE, WHEREAS ON SEPTEMBER 3RD, 2020 ORDINANCE NUMBER 20, 20 0 9 0 3 DASH OH FIVE WAS APPROVED TO ACQUIRE LAND FOR THE 2016 CORRIDOR PROGRAM.
I WANT TO REMOVE WITHOUT WRITTEN OFF A CASE BEST HOME LEAVING IN WITHOUT PRIOR NOTIFICATION IS FINE.
IT'S JUST STRIKING OUT FROM THE OWNERS OF 2001 OR 66.
I SECOND THAT MOTION THEY'LL STRIKE OUT.
OWNERS OF 2001 ARE STATISTICS ALSO IN PARCELS FROM THAT PIECE.
SECOND BY BOON, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT AMENDMENT AND ALL THOSE OPPOSED THAT'S DISTINCT COLOR AND I'M ABSTAINING.
ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS TO YOUR YES, SIR.
WOULD YOU MIND REPEATING HERE? THE VOTE? YEAH.
WOULD YOU MIND SHARING THE BOAT ON THE, THIS LAST AMENDMENT AND THEN THE PRIOR ONE? I DID NOT GET THE NAMES ON THE PRIOR ONE.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF I REMEMBER THE FIRST ONE.
THE FIRST ONE IS, OH, THE FIRST ONE WAS EVERYONE, BUT COMMISSIONER SMITH AND I ABSTAINED.
OKAY, SO YOU ABSTAINED AT SMITH 9 1 1.
AND THEN, AND THEN ON THE SECOND ONE STRIKING FROM THE OWNERS OF 2100 AUSTIN PARCELS WAS EVERYONE, BUT DINKLER OH, I'M SORRY.
I UNDERSTOOD YOU WERE STRIKING THE HOLE.
NO, JUST THE, FROM THE OWNERS OR THE 2001 OR 66 AUSTIN PARCELS.
SO IT'S EVERYONE, EVERYONE THAT WAS UNANIMOUS, EXCEPT FOR ME.
THOMPSON'S ALSO ABSTAINING WITH ME.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE LAST ONE.
AND THAT IS ALSO FROM MS. JOSEPH.
SHE RECOMMENDED THAT WE CONSIDER A CHANGE TO THE, UH, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED REGARDING THE, UH, S AND P TEAM COORDINATING WITH THE EQUITY OFFICE.
AND THAT, THAT BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.
DOES EVERYONE SEE THAT ONE IT'S ACTUALLY IN THERE IT'S STILL RIGHT? SHE WOULD LIE SIX WEEKS RECOMMENDING THAT THAT BE REWORDED SO THAT IT WOULD READ VIA FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE ASN P A S M P TEEN SHALL COMPLY WITH TITLE SIX FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, CIRCULAR 4 7 0 TWO.ONE B 2012 TO TWO QUOTE, PROVIDE A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND SHOULD COORDINATE WITH THE EQUITY OFFICE AND PUBLIC OUTREACH TO ENSURE THE SUCCESS OF THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT.
KROLL'S STATED GOAL OF ACHIEVING RACIAL EQUITY IN PLANNING AREAS, COMMISSIONER KOSTA.
I DON'T THINK I'M OPPOSED TO THIS AMENDMENT, BUT I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IT DOES.
I DON'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT CHANGES ANYTHING.
WELL, FOR ONE THING, IT HAD HAS PARTICULAR REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OUTREACH AND THE FOLKS THAT THEIR TARGET POPULATIONS, THE PRIORITY POPULATIONS, BLACK INDIGENOUS AND PEOPLE OF COLOR, FOR EXAMPLE.
SO IT, IT SPECIFICALLY, IT LATE ROLLS LAYS OUT THOSE, THOSE, THOSE, UH, GROUPS THAT, THAT ARE, THAT, THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN THE PROCESS AND THE OUTREACH OF SURE.
AND IS THAT NOT THE PUR, IS THAT NOT THE MISSION STATEMENT OF THE EQUITY OFFICE? IS THAT NO, THAT, THAT CERTAINLY MAY BE THE EQUITY OFFICES, YOU KNOW, SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD MISSION STATEMENT TO ME.
I JUST DON'T SEE IT BEING A PROBLEM TO EMPHASIZE IT HERE IN OUR RESOLUTION.
LIKE AGAIN, I JUST WANNA SAY I'M NOT A POSTER.
I REALLY JUST WANT UNDERSTAND, LIKE WHAT IT DOES DIFFERENTLY.
POINT OF VIEW INQUIRY, I MEAN, IS, IS THE JPA GERMANE TO THIS RESOLUTION THAT NOW, NOW WE'RE MOVING WELL BEYOND THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY.
NOW THESE ARE ALL INTERRELATED.
[01:10:01]
THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION IS INTERRELATED INTO, INTO THE, INTO OUR TRANSIT NETWORK ON OUR TRANSIT FUNDING AND OUR TRANSIT POLICIES HERE.SO YOU CAN'T TAKE THAT'S THE, THAT'S A CONCERN IF WE SEPARATE THAT OUT AND SAY, WELL, DON'T, DON'T CONSIDER THAT DON'T INCLUDE THAT.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE POINT THAT OUT AND SAY HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS.
AND AS, AS WE KNOW, HAVING EQUITY IN OUR CITY HAS BEEN A CHALLENGE AND IT CONTINUES TO BE A BIG CHALLENGE.
WE ARE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE BIKE LANE POLICY AND THAT TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK, NOT, NOT THE LARGER, I MEAN, NONE OF THIS IS, I DON'T KNOW.
IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THIS IS MISSION GREEN.
GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER GENTLER.
UM, I WAS CONCERNED LAST WEEK DURING THE PRESENTATION, WHEN THE POINT WAS RAISED THAT 69% OF THE RESPONDENTS WERE ANGLO, UH, AND A LARGE PERCENTAGE MADE OVER 150 K.
AND LET ME FINISH WHEN ASKED HOW THE PROCESS HAD BEEN COMMUNICATED, TARGET POPULATIONS, USE SENIORS, INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, PEOPLE COLOR.
IT WAS FOCUS GROUPS, THE EQUITY OFFICE, HAVING JUST GONE THROUGH THE, UM, YOU KNOW, UNDOING RACIAL BIAS TRAINING, WHICH IS HIGHLY WORTH DOING BY THE WAY.
UM, THE EQUITY OFFICE TENDS TO LOOK AT THEIR WORK PLAN IS, AND LESS DIRECTED, UH, LESS DIRECTED.
I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD IDEA TO, TO DO IS TO INVOLVE THE EQUITY, UM, OFFICE AND TRYING TO REACH POPULATIONS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN REACHED.
UH, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY SOME DEPARTMENTS LIKE THE PARKS DEPARTMENT CAN GET 6,000 PLUS RESPONSES AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS DON'T.
I THINK IF THERE, THIS IS VERY MUCH THE PLACE YOU SHOULD BE BRINGING IN THE EQUITY OFFICE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE REACHING POPULATIONS THAT, UM, HAVEN'T BEEN REPRESENTED TODAY.
SO THAT'S MY, I DO KNOW THAT THE, THE FIRST TIME THE S AND P PASSED, THEY DID, THEY ACTUALLY WON AWARDS FOR THEIR OUTREACH.
AND I THINK THEY FELT REALLY HAMSTRUNG THIS TIME AROUND BECAUSE OF THE, UM, BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC.
I THINK I'M FINE WITH THE LANGUAGE.
I DON'T KNOW IF OTHERS HAVE COMMENTS.
UM, OH, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODY.
HI, ARE YOU SECONDING IT? OKAY.
I AGREE WITH THIS LANGUAGE AND THAT THEY WANT TO IMPLEMENT IN THERE.
UM, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THE OFFICE, LIKE THE EQUITY OFFICE COMES IN AND MAKE SURE THAT THE PROCESS OF, UH, THIS BITTY PACKAGE DOES GO, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS ARE INCLUDING EVERYONE.
SO WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, UH, THAT LOOKS UNANIMOUS AND I'M STILL ABSTAINING.
AND I WILL TELL YOU I'M STANDING.
I, UM, I KINDA, I AGREE, UM, WITH MS. JOSEPH'S AND THAT I DO HAVE A BIT OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, I'M JUST GOING TO BE TOTALLY HONEST.
AND THE ONLY REASON THAT I WANTED TO BE PART OF THIS CONVERSATION IS BECAUSE I FEEL AS THOUGH I AM A TRANSPORTATION EXPERT AND WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY STAFF HERE TONIGHT ANYWAY, TO TALK TO US ABOUT IT.
SO, UM, THAT'S WHY I AM NOT VOTING, BUT I DID WANT TO HELP LEAD THE CONVERSATION IF I COULD.
SO THEY SHOULD HAVE PAID YOU AS AN EXPERT.
SO IT WAS UNANIMOUS AND I ABSTAINED.
AND, AND I HAVE THE WORDING THAT I READ AND I'M HAPPY TO EMAIL THAT TO WHOMEVER NEEDS IT.
I THINK SHE, I THINK IT'S IN THE DOCUMENT.
SHE SENT IT AND THEN ANDREW SENT IT TO EVERYBODY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? CALL THE, OH, OH, CALL THE QUESTION.
SO ON THE WAY WE VOTED ON THE AMENDMENTS, SO DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE WHOLE THING WITH ALL THE AMENDMENTS? OKAY.
WE APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AS AMENDED.
BEAUTIFUL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WOODY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE'RE DOING, BUT WE LIKE IT.
[D. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
WE ARE ON TO D ONE.THANK YOU FOR A VERY GOOD CONVERSATION.
I JUST WANT TO THANK THE FOLKS THAT TOOK THE TIME TO WRITE LANGUAGE UP.
I APPRECIATE ALL THE RESEARCH THAT FOLKS DID ON THIS A HUNDRED PERCENT.
IT'S VERY EASY TO REDLINE SOMETHING.
IT'S NOT EASY TO CRAFT SOMETHING.
[01:15:01]
THANK YOU FOR FINAL BET ON THAT.IT WAS A UNANIMOUS AND I'M ABSTAINING OKEY-DOKE SO, UM, ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS I'M SEEING THEM AND
[G. COMMITTEE REPORTS & WORKING GROUPS]
MOVING ON TO G WE HAVE CODES AND ORDINANCES TOMORROW.IT'LL BE A FUN ONE, UM, ON TOWN LAKE.
AND I HAVE NOT READ THE BACKUP YET, BUT I'M SO LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.
SO, UM, JUST SO Y'ALL KNOW, UH, JUAN, IF YOU HAVE ANY INPUT, UH, PASS IT ON TO ANDREW AND HE CAN PASS IT AROUND TO US.
UM, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE WE'VE MET LAST MONTH.
WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER VIDEO COMING UP AND WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, OH, THEY'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT.
A SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
WE HAD A MEETING ON THE 13TH OR LAST WEDNESDAY AND, UH, WE DISCUSSED TWO PROJECTS.
UH, ONE WAS THE, WELL, ACTUALLY THREE PROJECTS.
ONE WAS A REFLECTIVE VARIANCE, REFLECTIVITY VARIANCE FOR 90, 92 RAINY STREET.
UH, AND ALSO THEN THE PALM DISTRICT PLANNING INITIATIVE.
WE HAD A BRIEFING FROM STAFF ON THAT, AND THEN A BRIEFING ON THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, UH, VISION FRAMEWORK.
AND ONION CREEK AND LOCALIZED FLOODING WORKING GROUP.
WE DO HAVE, WE DO HAVE A PRESENTATION COMING BEFORE US IN THE NEAR FUTURE FROM STAFF ABOUT THAT LOCALIZED FLOODING.