* 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. [CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:08] UM, IT IS SIX OH THREE. LET'S CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ON MAY 18TH, 2020 TO 6:00 PM AT THE PERMIAN DEVELOPMENT CENTER AT 63 10 WILAMENA DELCO DRIVE, AUSTIN, TEXAS. UM, LET'S GO AROUND THE ROUND TABLE HERE AND, UH, GO WITH, UH, ATTENDANCE, COMMISSIONER CHRISTIAN HERE. COMMISSIONER SCOTT COMMISSIONER SHIRA SECRETARY HERE, COMMISSIONER AGGIE ERIE HERE, COMMISSIONER BRIMER IR AND REMOTELY COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR BEDFORD HERE. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. THANK YOU. AND COMMISSIONER NICHOLS HERE. AND THIS IS ROMBERG I'M HERE AND WE'RE ROLLING. UM, FIRST [1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND ACTION] ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS TO REVIEW THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING. UH, DOES ANYONE, HAS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THESE? ANY COMMENTS OR ADDITIONS OR CHANGES? MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. WE GOT A MOTION FROM BEDFORD A SECOND FROM SCOTT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. OR RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'RE REMOTE. ALL RIGHT, WE CAN RAISE HANDS HERE TOO. GREAT. I THINK THAT'S NINE OH, OR UNANIMOUS. UH, KEEP ME HONEST ON THE NUMBERS. DO YOU HAVE A PLACE? UM, ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UM, NEXT UP IS [2. ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER UPDATES] ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER UPDATE AN UPDATE FOR MRS. COYNE ON THE SAMSUNG WASTEWATER SPILL. THANK YOU, CHAIR, KATIE COIN, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER. UH, WE, UH, HAD A COMMISSIONER REQUEST, JUST A BRIEF UPDATE, UH, ON THE SAMSUNG DISCHARGE EVENT, UH, AND JUST HAD A FEW BULLET POINTS TO OFFER. UH, SAMSUNG HAS UPDATED THEIR SPILL REPORTING PROCEDURE TO INCLUDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT FOR REQUIRED NOTIFICATION IN THE EVENT THAT TCEQ OR THE EPA, UH, NEED TO BE NOTIFIED AS WELL AS WHETHER ITS SPILL CAUSES ANY OFFSITE IMPACTS. UM, SAMSUNG CONTINUES TO WORK WITH OUR DEPARTMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE ONSITE RETENTION POND. THE POND DREDGING WORK IS ONGOING THROUGH REMOVE SEDIMENT THAT HAD BEEN CONTAMINATED. UH, S ESTIMATED TIME OF COMPLETION IS, UH, JUNE 6TH. ONCE, ONCE THAT IS COMPLETED, UH, WE WILL COLLABORATE, UH, WITH SAMSUNG, UM, ON BRINGING THAT POND BACK INTO NORMAL OPERATIONS. THIS WILL CONSIST OF A FINAL WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENT FOLLOWED BY A VOLUME LOSS TEST AND ASSESSMENT OF AQUATIC SPECIES WITHIN THE POND. UH, THAT INCLUDES THE PLANT AND THE FISH ECOSYSTEM. UH, SAMSUNG CONTINUES TO WORK WITH TCQ ON INCIDENT INVESTIGATION. TCEQ IS SCHEDULED TO PERFORM ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY MONITORING WITHIN THE TRIBUTARY THIS WEEK. ARCADIS A CONSULTANT AT SAMSUNG BROUGHT ON. IT HAS COMPLETED AN AQUATIC SURVEY WITH WITHIN MULTIPLE AREAS OF THE TRIBUTARY IN LATE APRIL, UH, THAT ASSESSED THE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE WATER. THE REPORT NOTED DIVERSE AQUATIC AND BIOLOGICAL LIFE WITHIN THE TRIBUTARY, INCLUDING MULTIPLE SPECIES OF FISH AND INVERTEBRATES PRESENT. SAMSON'S WORKING WITH HARRIS BRANCH HOA ON ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS WITHIN THE TRIBUTARY ENHANCEMENT LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND STAKED. THESE AREAS WILL BE WALKED AND REVIEWED WITH, UH, REPRESENTATIVES WITHIN WITH HARRIS BRANCH HOA REPRESENTATIVES WITHIN THE NEXT ONE TO TWO WEEKS. EDUCATIONAL KIOSKS CONTAINING INFORMATION ON LOCAL WATERSHEDS ARE BEING FABRICATED AND WILL BE POSTED AROUND THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE HARRIS BRANCH NEIGHBORHOOD WALKING TRAIL AND WATERSHED PROTECTION CONTINUES TO MONITOR THE IMPACT OF TRIBUTARY ONCE PER WEEK AND PLANS TO DO SO UNTIL THE STORM WATER POND IS RETURNED BACK TO NORMAL SERVICE MONITORING HAS FOUND NO INDICATIONS OF FURTHER POLLUTANT DISCHARGES, AND THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH, WITH THE RK TO SURVEY. UH, AND WE DO SEE SIGNS OF AQUATIC LIFE RETURNING. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR KATIE PRIMARIA? YEAH. KATIE, THANKS FOR THE UPDATE. I HAVE QUESTIONED ABOUT THE WATER QUALITY POND. IS THERE SOME SORT OF A LINER IN THAT SORT OF THING THAT PREVENTS, UH, STUFF FROM BEING ABSORBED INTO THE GROUND OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? UH, SO PART OF THE WORK THAT, UM, HAS OCCURRED WAS SOME DREDGING OF THE SEDIMENT, UH, AT THE, THE BASE OF THAT POND, UH, AS IT WAS CONTAMINATED AS PART OF THAT DISCHARGE EVENT THAT HAS BEEN SOMETHING, UH, HAS BEEN NEEDED TO BE MITIGATED FOR AS A PART OF THEIR REMEDIATION. AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'LL BE TESTING FOR PERFORMANCE BEFORE THAT POND IS PUT BACK INTO SERVICE. [00:05:01] SO THERE IS NO WIENER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND THE BOTTOM OF THE POND THAT WOULD PREVENT IT FROM ANY CONTAMINANTS FROM SOAKING INTO THE PAST, THE BOTTOM OF THE POND OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT GETS TO MY QUESTION, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I WOULD NEED TO CONFIRM WITH MY TECHNICAL FOLKS. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE GOT QUESTIONS FOR KATIE? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, KATIE, FOR THE, FOR THE UPDATE. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO [3a. Discuss and consider an ordinance amending Title 25 of the City Code related to floodplain regulations. City Staff: Kevin Shunk and Jameson Courtney, Watershed Engineering Division Manager, Watershed Protection Department] THREE, A ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION. WELL TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE CITY CODE RELATED TO FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS. AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION. IS THAT RIGHT? THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JAMISON COURTNEY I'M WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENTS, FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT OFFICE. AND WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO BRIEF YOU ON THE PROPOSED ATLAS 14 COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, AND, UH, ASK FOR A RECOMMENDATION FROM Y'ALL TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THIS PROPOSED EXCEPTION IN THE FLOODPLAIN RULES. UM, GO AHEAD AND GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. NOW, I THOUGHT I'D START WITH A, UH, SUMMARY OF ATLAS 14 AND WHAT FLOODPLAIN RULES WERE PREVIOUSLY CHANGED IN 2019. UH, IT'S BEEN AWHILE AND SOME OF Y'ALL MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION BACK THEN. UM, AND THEN AFTER WE DO THAT, I'LL DISCUSS WHAT THE PROPOSED, UH, CURRENT CHANGE TO THE RULES IS. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. SO ATLAS 14 WAS A REPORT FROM THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ON RAINFALL STATISTICS FOR TEXAS. AND THAT REPORT SHOWED THAT SIGNIFICANT RAINFALL EVENTS WERE HAPPENING, UM, MORE FREQUENTLY OR HAD BEEN LARGER THAN HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED. AND THAT, THAT CHANGE, AND THAT ASSUMPTION LED US TO REALIZE ALL OF OUR FLOODPLAIN MAPS WERE UNDERREPRESENTING THE FLOOD RISK IN AUSTIN. AND SO AS A RESULT, UM, WE BEGAN A PROCESS TO UPDATE OUR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT, UH, RULES TO ADDRESS THIS CHANGE, UH, THAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IN 2019. AND WE KEEP ADVANCING THE SLIDE PLEASE. AND THAT ENDED UP BEING THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN 36 YEARS TO OUR FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, UH, WE UPDATED DEFINITIONS FOR FLOODPLAINS. WE ALSO MADE SOME CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT RULES TO ADDRESS HOW DEVELOPMENT IN THIS CITY, UH, WAS OCCURRING DIFFERENTLY THAN HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN WHEN THE RULES WERE WRITTEN IN THE 1980S. UM, SO WE UPDATED FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS OF THE RULES, THE FLOOD PLAIN DEFINITIONS TO MAKE THE FLOODPLAINS LARGER. THE, WE CREATED A RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION THAT REPLACED SOME OF THE OLDER EXCEPTIONS REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN THE FLOODPLAIN. WE EXPANDED AN EXISTING EXCEPTION FOR THE COLORADO RIVER, AND WE INCREASED OUR FREE BOARD FROM ONE FOOT TO TWO FOOT AND WE'LL GET INTO WHAT ALL THOSE ARE IN THE NEXT SLIDES. ALL RIGHT. SO FOR THE DEFINITIONS, THE FIRST CHANGE, UH, THE ATLAS 14 RAINFALL NUMBERS FOR TEXAS, AND THAT SHIFT REALLY COINCIDED PRETTY WELL WITH OUR OLD ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE 500 YEAR RAINFALL EVENT WAS COMPARED TO OUR ASSUMPTION ABOUT THE A HUNDRED. SO WE HAVE ADOPTED THE CURRENT THEME OF 500 YEAR FLOOD. PLAIN IS NOW THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S REGULATORY 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, AND THE OLD CITY OF AUSTIN 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN IS NOW OUR REGULATORY 25 YEAR FLOOD, PLAIN. THESE ARE INTERIM DEFINITIONS THAT WILL BE, UM, THAT WILL BE PHASED OUT. AS WE COMPLETE NEW FLOODPLAIN STUDIES IN THE FEMA MAPS GET UP TO DATE WITH WHAT THE CHANGES WE'VE MADE ARE, UH, DOSE STUDIES ARE IN PROCESS. THEY'RE STILL PROBABLY SEVERAL YEARS OUT FROM BEING COMPLETED AND THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CARRY WITH THEM, THE UPDATES TO THE FEMA MAPS AND A WHOLE HOST OF OTHER OUTREACH PROJECTS WHEN THOSE STUDIES ARE AVAILABLE. UM, SO W ALONG WITH CHANGING THE FLOODPLAIN DEFINITIONS, WE WENT AHEAD AND TOOK A LOOK AT THE FLOODPLAIN RULES THEMSELVES FOR DEVELOPMENT, AND WANTED TO LOOK AT HOW DEVELOPMENT WAS OCCURRING IN THE CITY TODAY AND WHAT NEEDED TO BE UPDATED. AND SO WE CREATED WHAT WAS CALLED THE RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION. UH, CITY CODE NORMALLY STARTS WITH PROHIBITING BUILDINGS IN THE FLOODPLAIN, AND THEN WE MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO THAT. AND SO THE RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION ALLOWS A NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IN THE FLOOD, PLAIN, IF YEAH, IT ALLOWS A NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IN THE FLOODPLAIN, IF IT'S REPLACING OR MODIFYING AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, UM, IT NEEDS TO BE THERE'S BULLET POINTS FOR THE OTHER ONES TOO, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST TWO FEET ABOVE THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD, PLAIN. YOU NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT [00:10:01] YOU'RE NOT MAKING FLOODING WORSE ON ANY OTHER PROPERTY. YOU NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU'RE NOT DISPLACING ANY FLOODPLAIN VOLUME FROM THE SITE, UH, AND IT NEEDS TO BE STRUCTURALLY DESIGNED TO THAT FLOOD RISK. AND THEN THE MAIN THING IS YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY. SO IF YOU HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, YOU COULD REPLACE IT WITH A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME. IF YOU HAD A DUPLEX, YOU COULD REPLACE IT WITH A NEW DUPLEX OR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, OR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN AN ADU. THE MAIN THING IS WE DON'T WANT THERE TO BE MORE DWELLINGS IN THE FLOOD PLAN THAN WE CURRENTLY HAVE. WE JUST WANTED AN OPTION FOR THE EXISTING HOMES IN THE FLOOD, PLAIN, TO BE REPLACED WITH SOMETHING THAT WAS SAFER AND BETTER, BETTER DESIGNED TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF FLOOD RISK TODAY. MOVING ON ONTO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO THE PURPOSE WAS TO INCENTIVIZE REDEVELOPMENT TO REDUCE FLOOD RISK, UH, WATERSHED PROTECTION. WE DO LOTS OF PROJECTS TO TRY AND MITIGATE FLOOD RISK TO THE PUBLIC. THERE'S A LIMIT TO HOW MUCH WE CAN DO. WE HAVE A LOT OF OLDER HOMES IN THE FLOODPLAIN. SO THIS WAS A WAY OF ALLOWING REDEVELOPMENT TO NATURALLY REDUCE THAT FLOOD RISK BY FOLLOWING THESE RULES. AND IT COVERED A BULK OF THE BUILDINGS IN THE FLOODPLAIN. UH, WE ALSO, WITH THE ATLAS 14 ORDINANCE INCLUDED SOME OPTIONS FOR MINOR IMPROVEMENTS TO RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. UH, THIS WAS WORKING WITH CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR DIRECTION. IT ALLOWS FOR ADDITIONS TO RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. IF THAT ADDITION IS PROPERLY ELEVATED, IF IT'S NOT A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT, UH, IF IT DOESN'T CAUSE AN ADVERSE FLOODING IMPACT, AND IF THOSE ARE MET, THEN YOU'RE ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT THE ADDITION TO THE HOME. WE ALSO EXPANDED THE COLORADO RIVER EXCEPTION. THIS IS AN EXCEPTION THAT ALLOWS NEW BUILDINGS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE FLOODPLAIN OF THE COLORADO RIVER ITSELF. UH, MEANING TOM LAKE DATA STREAM AND TOWN LAKE LIKE AUSTIN AND LAKE TRAVIS. WE TREAT THESE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. THE FLOOD RISK IS DIFFERENT. WE HAVE, UH, LCRA DAM CONTROLS. WE ALSO HAVE JUST LARGER WARNING TIMES AND WE'VE SEEN IN PAST FLOOD EVENTS, PEOPLE ARE SUCCESSFULLY ABLE TO EVACUATE THEIR HOMES WELL IN ADVANCE OF THE FLOODING. SO WE TREAT THEM A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY THAN WE TREAT THE CREEKS THAT ARE PRONE TO FLASH FLOODING. UM, SO WE JUST EXPANDED THAT TO INCLUDE PORTIONS OF THE COLORADO RIVER THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THAT EXCEPTION. AND THEN THE OTHER SIGNIFICANT CHANGE WE MADE TO OUR FLOOD PLAN RULES WAS INCREASING FREEBOARD. FREEBOARD IS THE DIFFERENCE IN ELEVATION BETWEEN THE LOWEST FLOOR OF THE HOME AND THE HEIGHT OF THE FLOODPLAIN. IT HAD BEEN, UM, ONE TO TWO FEET. IT WOULD VARY IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF TOWN. WE, WE WANTED TO GET SOME UNIFORMITY AND WE ALSO WANTED TO INCREASE THAT FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR NEW BUILDINGS. AND SO WE INCREASED OUR FREEBOARD TO TWO FEET CITYWIDE. IT, UH, FREEBOARD HAS BEEN SHOWN TO SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE, UH, MONETARY LOSSES AND, UH, YOU KNOW, IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF RESIDENTS IN THOSE BUILDINGS. SO THAT WAS, THOSE WERE THE CHANGES THAT WERE ADOPTED IN 2019. WE CONTACTED IN 2,700 PEOPLE. WE HAD 110 DIFFERENT PUBLIC MEETINGS ABOUT THIS WITH STAKEHOLDERS, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED IT. AND AS PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL PROCESS, UH, STAFF WAS ASKED IF WE COULD COME BACK IN THE FUTURE WITH A DRAFT WHERE A COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, SIMILAR TO WE HAD WHAT WE HAD DONE FOR RESIDENTIAL. AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY. WE HAVE A DRAFT LANGUAGE, WE'VE WORKED WITH STAKEHOLDERS ON THAT AND OTHER, UM, INTERNAL LAND . AND SO THAT'S WHAT, UH, I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT NOW IS WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING, WHAT ACTION WE'RE RECOMMENDING COUNCIL TYPE NOW. AND SO THAT IS A COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION. AND SO THE GOAL IS TO CREATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, TO BE REPLACED WITH ONES THAT HAVE DECREASED FLOOD RISK. UH, AND WE HAD A LOT OF CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT ON THIS BUILDING USE SQUARE FOOTAGE, OCCUPANT LOAD PARKING, FLOOD RISK BUILDING HEIGHT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY THE CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE TO SEE IF THERE WERE CONFLICTS WITH BUILDING HEIGHT AND A NEW BUILDING MEETING FREE BOARD. AND SO WE WORKED REALLY CLOSELY WITH THE FIRE MARSHALL'S OFFICE AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND DSD STAFF TO COME UP WITH A SET OF CRITERIA THAT WE THOUGHT WOULD, UH, MEET OUR GOAL OF HAVING THESE BUILDINGS BE REPLACED WITH SOMETHING SAFER. AND SO WE'VE, UH, LET'S SEE, WE LANDED ON SOME OF THOSE CONSIDERATIONS STAYING IN. SO OUR PROPOSED COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION ALLOWS FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT REPLACES OR MODIFIES AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING THE FINISHED FLOOR, BUT NEED TO BE AT LEAST TWO FEET ABOVE THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD, PLAIN IN LINE WITH ALL OF OUR OTHER DEVELOPMENT RULES IN THE FLOOD, PLAIN IT'S, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY. THIS WAS, WE DISCUSSED OCCUPANT LOAD, BUT THE FIRE MARSHAL HAS ANOTHER POTENTIAL CRITERIA. UH, WORKING WITH DST STAFF, IT WAS DETERMINED [00:15:01] THAT THIS WOULD BE THE EASIEST, UM, FOR THE APPLICANTS TO UNDERSTAND, AND FOR STAFF TO REVIEW AND ENFORCE AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. AND IT, UH, WE ALSO PROHIBITED CERTAIN BUILDING USES FROM THE FLOODPLAIN AND THOSE ARE EDUCATIONAL FACTORY HIGH HAZARD AND INSTITUTIONAL. AND THAT WAS THROUGH DISCUSSION WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR WHAT USES WE THOUGHT WE DIDN'T WANT IN THE FLOOD, PLAIN, EVEN IF THE BUILDING MET ALL OF THE OTHER SAFETY CRITERIA AND THEN, UH, FIVE, IT DOES NOT INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IN THE FLOODPLAIN OR INCREASE THE DEPTH OF FLOODING IN THE PARKING SPACES. THERE ARE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THAT WOULD BE IF THE EXISTING BUILDING DID NOT MEET CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS, IF YOU HAD AN OLDER COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING AND THEY WERE MEETING ALL THE OTHER CRITERIA, BUT NEEDED TO ADD PARKING, JUST TO MEET THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIRED BY CODE, WE WOULD ALLOW THEM TO ADD ONLY THOSE SPACES. AND THEN AGAIN, YOU MUST DEMONSTRATE THROUGH ENGINEERING THAT YOU'RE NOT CAUSING AN ADVERSE IMPACT. THAT'S INCREASING FLOOD HEIGHTS ON OTHER PROPERTIES. SO IF ALL THOSE CRITERIA ARE MET, STAFF WOULD BE ABLE TO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED THE NEW BUILDING IN THE FLOOD PLAIN, AND ALSO POINT OUT THAT THIS DOES NOT WAIVE ANY OF THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL RULES. SO IF ANY, UM, ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL RULES REGARDING CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONES, AND ANYTHING ELSE WOULD STILL NEED TO BE MET OR GO THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT AN APPLICANT WOULD FOLLOW TODAY TO ADDRESS THAT. SO I HAVE SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW THIS MIGHT LOOK. HERE'S A EXAMPLE OF AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE 14 PARKING SPACES IN THE FLOODPLAIN, 14 PARKING SPACES OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN AND A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE FLOODPLAIN. IF YOU WANTED TO, YOU COULD JUST DEMOLISH THAT BUILDING CONSTRUCT A NEW, ONE OF THE SAME SIZE, SAME FOOTPRINT, JUST PROPERLY ELEVATED AND PROPERLY DESIGNED, MAYBE RESURFACE THE PARKING, BUT YOU DON'T CHANGE THE CONFIGURATION. THIS WOULD BE A VERY SIMPLE SCENARIO FOR STAFF TO APPROVE. AND IT WOULD PROBABLY BE A SIMPLE SCENARIO FOR THE APPLICANT TO DEMONSTRATE STUFF LIKE NO ADVERSE IMPACT, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT REALLY CHANGING FLOW ON SITE. THIS WOULD BE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT COULD MEET THE EXCEPTION. IT'S STILL A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. IT'S IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION ON THE PROPERTY. IT HAS A DIFFERENT FOOTPRINT, UH, UH, BUT THEY'VE DEMONSTRATED NO ADVERSE IMPACT. THEY HAVE NOT INCREASED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IT'S PROPERLY ELEVATED, AND WE'VE NOT INCREASED THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IN THE FLOOD, PLAIN EVEN, OR THE DEPTH, EVEN THOUGH THE PARKING HAS BEEN RECONFIGURED ON THE SITE. UM, AND I THOUGHT, I'D TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW I THINK THIS MIGHT GET USED. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY COMMON EXCEPTION FOR DEVELOPERS TO USE. I THINK THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO FOR THIS WOULD BE AN INSTANCES WHERE PERHAPS A BUILDING HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED. THAT COULD BE FROM FLOOD. IT COULD BE FROM FIRE SOMETHING ELSE. AND THEY'RE JUST LOOKING TO SORT OF REPLACE WHAT HAD BEEN THERE. THIS WOULD GIVE THEM AN OPTION TO DO THAT WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE COUNCIL VARIANCE PROCESS. UH, I THINK WE'LL ALSO SEE IT USED IF SOMEBODY JUST AS BUILDINGS AGE OUT AND PEOPLE WANT TO REPLACE THEM WITH SOMETHING NEWER, BUT NOT A BIG CHANGE IN USE. THIS IS NOT ENVISIONED TO BE, OR WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO BE USED TO SAY, REDEVELOP A GAS STATION INTO A HIGH RISE. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT REDEVELOPMENT IN THIS SENSE. SO OUR PROCESS TO APPROVAL RIGHT NOW, WE'RE CURRENTLY IN FRONT OF YOU, ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION. OUR NEXT STEP IS THE BUILDING AND FIRE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS. AND WE'LL BE GOING BACK TO THE CODES AND ORDINANCES, JOINT COMMITTEE ZONING AND PLANNING, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND EVENTUALLY CITY COUNCIL. AND SO WITH THAT, I WOULD ASK IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT WAS A VERY WELL ORGANIZED PRESENTATION THINKING, UM, COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MAYBE WE'LL JUST GO AROUND THE HORN PRIMER. YEAH. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. I APPRECIATE IT. SO WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS IS NOT IF WE, WELL, WHAT IF THIS IS NOT APPROVED, APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL BY COUNCIL? UM, THEN IT WOULD JUST NOT BE IN THE CODE AND WE WOULD HAVE OUR RULES TODAY. AND SO IN THIS SCENARIO WHERE SOMEBODY WAS PROPOSING SOMETHING THAT WOULD OTHERWISE COMPLY WITH THIS, THEY WOULD MORE THAN LIKELY HAVE TO GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL AND SEEK A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT THAT NEW BUILDING IN THE FLOOD PLAIN. AND I GUESS THE REASON I ASK IS THIS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH FLOODING, OBVIOUSLY IN AUSTIN. AND, UH, I WASN'T AROUND WHEN THE RESIDENTIAL, UH, VARIANCE THING WAS, WAS DISCUSSED. SO I WOULD HAVE RAISED THE SAME QUESTIONS AT THAT TIME. IT SEEMS LIKE [00:20:01] WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE ALLOWING PEOPLE TO CONTINUE TO DEVELOP AND FLOOD AN AREA THAT'S PRONE TO FLOOD OR NEAR PLUM TO FLOOD. IF THEY MEET SOME SMALL TECHNICAL FACTORS, WHEREAS REALITY, WHAT WE OUGHT TO BE DOING IS TELLING THEM TO CLEAR OUT. I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO THINK ABOUT THAT. AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU AT ALL. UM, OUR, OUR DEPARTMENT WATERSHED, WE HAVE SPENT, UH, AND, YOU KNOW, WITH THE HELP OF CITY COUNCIL SECURING FUNDING, WE HAVE SPENT HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON BUYOUTS TO REMOVE HOMES FROM THE FLOOD PLAIN. WE CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THAT AND OTHER FLOOD MITIGATION SOLUTIONS, WE WOULD PREFER TO HAVE NO BUILDINGS IN THE FLOODPLAIN IN THIS CITY. BUT I THINK ALSO FOUND THAT THE REALITY OF IT IS, IS WE HAVE A LOT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND WE DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO MITIGATE ALL OF THAT RISK, UM, IN ANY KIND OF REASONABLE TIMELINE. AND SO IN THE MEANTIME, WE WANT OPTIONS FOR THOSE EXISTING BUILDINGS TO BE MADE SAFER WITHOUT MAKING THE PROBLEM WORSE. SO, SO YEAH, LIKE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, WE SAID, WE DON'T WANT TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS. WE HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF FAMILIES IN THE FLOODPLAIN, AND THAT MAY BE TOO MANY AND OTHER, OTHER GROUPS WITHIN WATERSHED PROTECTION WORK TOWARDS REDUCING THAT NUMBER. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE DON'T WANT SOMEBODY THAT OWNS A HOME IN THE FLOOD PLAIN, TO FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE NO CHOICE, BUT TO SIT THERE AT THIS HOME THAT WE KNOW IS NOT PROPERLY ELEVATED AGAINST THAT FLOOD RISK. AND SO LIKEWISE WITH THIS COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, WE WANT, WE HAVE THESE EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS. IF YOU THINK ABOUT LAMAR THROUGH DOWNTOWN, ALONG, UM, ALONG SHOAL CREEK, I MEAN, IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY BUILDINGS IN THE FLOODPLAIN THERE, THAT AREA HAS BEEN DEVELOPED FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS. AT THIS POINT, THE COST OF BUYING THAT OUT WOULD BE VERY EXORBITANT. THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING A TUNNEL LIKE THE WALNUT CREEK TUNNEL WOULD ALSO BE QUITE HIGH. AND SO THIS IS POTENTIALLY A SOLUTION TO ALLOW THE SMALL BUSINESSES TO REMAIN AND NOT FLOOD, UH, IN THE WAY THAT THEY HISTORICALLY HAVE. ARE YOU NOT MAKING THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY OWNED BY A SMALL BUSINESS? AND IT'S ONE THING IF YOU KNOW, I, AS AN INDIVIDUAL OWNED THE PROPERTY AND I OWNED A SMALL SHOE STORE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF IT'S A LARGER CONCERN THAT OWNS IT, THEN THERE, THEN YOU WOULD, I MEAN, I WOULD ASSUME THAT THEY WOULD, IT'D BE BETTER UNDER, THEY ASSUME THE RISK AND DO IT. IF THEY FELT THAT IT WAS, YOU KNOW, CONSEQUENTIAL TO THEIR BUSINESS TO DO THAT, RATHER THAN HAVING THAT THE CITY GREASE THE SKIDS FOR THEM TO ALLOW THEM TO DO THIS. I MEAN, THEY WANT TO STAY THERE WITH THE RISK, THEN THEY WOULD ASSUME THE RISK. I MEAN, I GUESS WE, IF WE'RE ENCOURAGING THEM BY SETTING RULES, ALLOW THEM TO STAY. WE'RE DOING THE CITY A DISSERVICE BECAUSE IN THE END, THE TAXPAYERS HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, CLEAN UP THE MESS AFTER IT'S OVER WITH, EVEN THOUGH WE MAY NOT DIRECTLY REIMBURSE A LARGE BUSINESS FOR THE DAMAGE THAT'S OCCURRED FROM A FLOOD, WE HAVE TO IN SOME MANNER SHOULDER, THE BURDEN OF THAT TO SOME DEGREE. AND, YOU KNOW, IF THE BUSINESS DECIDES THAT THE RISK ISN'T WORTH IT, THEN THEY'LL, YOU KNOW, PICK UP AND MOVE TO A PLACE IN TOWN WHERE THE RISK IS LESS TRUE. AND SO KIND OF WONDERING WHY WE'RE MAKING IT EASIER FOR THEM TO DO THAT. I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S A QUESTION PERHAPS WITH NO ANSWER, BUT, UH, YEAH, I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, THIS IS, THIS IS JUST ABOUT THE EXISTING BUILDINGS THAT WE HAVE WITH THE AN SEVEN. I UNDERSTAND. AND, BUT, BUT IT DOESN'T AFFECT NEWER BUILDINGS. SO IF THERE WAS A VACANT LOT DOWN THERE AND SOMEONE WANTED TO CARRY IT DOWN, IF THERE WERE, IF THERE WAS A VACANT LOT, OUR RULES WOULD, WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR A NEW BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON IT. BUT LIKE, UH, WHAT'S SCHULKE SHOW CREEKS, LOON AND TORE IT DOWN IN ORDER TO PUT UP, UH, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, UH, THEN THESE RULES WOULD APPLY. CORRECT. WELL, IF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPLIED WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS EXCEPTION, CORRECT THAT. SO, SO YES, IF SOMEBODY PURCHASED SHOAL CREEK SALOON AND WANTED TO DEMOLISH IT AND CONSTRUCT A NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING OF THE SAME SIZE AND NOT INCREASE THE PARKING AND ELEVATE IT AND DEMONSTRATE THAT IN DESIGN DID NOT CAUSE AN ADVERSE IMPACT, THEN YES, THIS ROLE WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT. I THINK THAT'S UNLIKELY. I THINK THE MORE LIKELY SCENARIO WE'D SEE FOR THIS WOULD BE IF, SAY THERE WAS A KITCHEN FIRE AT SHELL CREEK SLIM AND THEIR BUSINESS BURNED DOWN AND THEY WANTED TO REBUILD. I, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE ECONOMICS [00:25:01] OF THIS CITY WOULD NATURALLY ELIMINATE A LOT OF, UH, A LOT OF THIS RURAL BEING USED FOR REDEVELOPING IN THE SENSE THAT MAYBE YOU'RE THINKING WITH THESE LIMITS THAT WE HAVE IN THE RULE. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION OR YOUR CONCERN AS MUCH AS IT CAN? YES. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. UM, I JUST HAVE A, SO THIS HELPED ME UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF HIGH HAZARD WHEN YOU'D REFERENCED TO THE FOLLOWING USES? WHAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF HIGH HAZARD? UM, I WOULD HAVE TO ASK SOMEONE FROM DSD PERHAPS IF THEY KNOW, UH, I, I BELIEVE IT'S LIKE AN INDUSTRIAL FACTORY USE THIS, THE LIST OF USES THAT WERE PROHIBITED WAS SOMETHING THAT WE WORKED UP WITH, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND THE FIRE MARSHALL, AND IT WAS REALLY THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WHAT USES WE DIDN'T THINK SHOULD BE IN THE FLOOD PLAIN. UM, I'M AFRAID, I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT WOULD FALL UNDER HIGH HAZARD. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. AND, UM, I KNOW LIKE 80%, I BELIEVE OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ARE IN A FLOOD PLAIN. IT WAS PROBABLY 20% THAT ARE COMMERCIAL OR IS THAT, YEAH, IT WAS ABOUT 80% OF THE BUILDINGS IN THE FLOOD, PLAIN ARE RESIDENTIAL. AND SO THIS, THIS EXCEPTION REALLY IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO A RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF BUILDINGS. THERE'S A RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN THE FLOODPLAIN. AND THEN WITH THESE RESTRICTIONS AGAIN ON TOP OF THAT, THAT WOULD FURTHER REDUCE THE NUMBER OF THOSE BUILDINGS THAT MAY BE INTERESTED IN THIS, DEPENDING ON WHAT TYPE OF REDEVELOPMENT THEY WANT TO DO. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. AND SO FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER ONE OF THESE THAT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING CASES THAT DO NOT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING USES, FOR EXAMPLE, EDUCATIONAL. SO IF YOU'VE GOT AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THAT IS CURRENTLY IN A FLOOD, PLAIN AND AISD, OR YEAH. WHOMEVER WANTED TO REDEVELOP, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REFILL IT BECAUSE IT IS AN EDUCATIONAL STRUCTURE. RIGHT, RIGHT. WE WOULD SAY, WE STILL, WE SAID, YOU KNOW, YEAH, THERE'S AN EXISTING BUILDING HERE AND YOU CAN OTHERWISE MEET THIS, BUT WE REALLY DON'T THINK A SCHOOL SHOULD BE IN THE FLOODPLAIN REGARDLESS OF HOW HIGH IT'S ELEVATED OR THE OTHER CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE. OKAY. SO THAT HEAVEN FORBID THAT THAT STRUCTURE WOULD, YOU KNOW, TORNADO OR FIRE OR SOMETHING, IF THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO, THEY WOULD NEED TO LOOK FOR A LOCATION OUTSIDE THE FLOODPLAIN TO REBUILD THAT SCHOOL. YES. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. UM, AND JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE IF ANYBODY'S DOING A REDEVELOPMENT WITH DP ELIGIBLE TO USE ANY IN LOOP PROCESS UNDER THIS, COULD THEY SAY, UM, IF I DON'T WANT TO DO THIS, SO FOR EXAMPLE, PART OF THEIR BRAIN DEVELOPMENT COULD, WOULD, COULD REQUIRE YOU NOW NEED TO HAPPEN IN DETENTION POND OR ATTENTION PRETENSION POND. COULD THEY SAY, NO, WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT AS PART OF THE REDEVELOPMENT, CAN WE PAY A FEE IN LIEU, BUT THEY'D BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT. I MEAN, I, I THINK THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY'S R S AND P PROGRAM IF THE ARTISTS AND P REVIEW STAFF DETERMINED THAT THAT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. THAT WOULD BE INTERESTING. OKAY. THANK YOU. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. I DO NOT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS COMING BACK AROUND THIS PHONE? UM, YEAH, I APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION. UM, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING THROUGH SOMEWHAT OF A HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS, UH, AS A BIT OF AN UNDERSTATEMENT. UM, SO I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY OF THOUGH WE WOULD LIKE TO NOT HAVE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, RESIDING IN THE FLOOD PLAIN. UH, THE REALITY IS THAT PEOPLE NEED TO PLAY, STAY AROUND HERE AND IT WILL PROBABLY BE CHEAPER THAN PLACES IN THE US. AND THEY'RE NOT IN THE FLOOD PLAIN, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE ANY KIND OF INCENTIVE PROCESS FOR, ESPECIALLY LIKE FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO BE ABLE TO UPGRADE THEIR, UM, I GUESS I FORGOT WHAT THE TERM WAS, BUT BASICALLY HAVING THE, UH, I GUESS, UH, THE FLOOR HEIGHT OR WHATEVER, BE A TWO FEET INSTEAD OF ONE FEET. CAUSE I WOULD IMAGINE IF WE'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE'S LIVES THAT, UH, WHATEVER WE CAN DO PROCESS WISE TO INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO MAKE THEIR BUILDINGS MORE FLOOD PROOF WOULD PROBABLY BE A GOOD IDEA. YEAH. SO, UM, THAT, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY PERTAIN TO THE COMMERCIAL REVOLVE EXCEPTION, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION DID WHEN COUNCIL APPROVED IT IS IT DID CLEAR SOME HURDLES THAT WOULD ALLOW, UM, OPEN UP GRANT FUNDING OPTIONS FOR THINGS LIKE HOME ELEVATION PROGRAMS. A LOT OF THOSE GRANT FUNDINGS FROM THE STATE OR FROM FEMA CARRIED THE CRITERIA THAT THAT BUILDING MUST MEET THE CITY'S FLOODPLAIN RULES WHEN [00:30:01] YOU FINISH THE PROJECT. AND PRIOR TO THAT, RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION BECOMING EFFECTIVE, THAT SORT OF PROHIBITED A LOT OF THE, UH, GRANT FUNDING OPTIONS FOR HOME ELEVATIONS. SO WITH THAT EXCEPTION NOW IN THE CODE, IT DOES OPEN UP OPTIONS FOR THINGS LIKE THAT. UM, WE'VE NOT, IT'S SOMETHING WE'VE EXPLORED AND CONTINUE TO EXPLORE. AND I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT REGARDING HOW THAT COULD WORK. IT'S NOT, WE'VE NOT DONE A HOME ELEVATION PROGRAM YET, BUT IT'S IN DISCUSSION. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. UM, ALONG THE SAME LINES, IF, UM, I LIVE ON LARK CREEK FOR EXAMPLE, AND, UM, EVERYONE THAT LIVES ON THAT SIDE OF, UH, WITH, UH, THE CREEK, UM, LARK CREEK AND THEN OVER ON THE, UH, UH, MEADOW SPRING MEADOW ROAD, UM, I, I THINK YOU'D HAVE TO TAKE, UH, IT'S IT'S I, I KNOW I LOOKED FOR MY, MY HOUSE AND I CAN SEE THAT THE FLOOD PLAIN IS NOW SOMEWHERE IN MY YARD AND MY RISK HAS GONE FROM LOW TO MODERATE. AND SO I GUESS I'D HAVE TO GET A SURVEYOR OR SOMETHING TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, LASER TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WELL, WHERE IS THAT TWO FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE FLOOD PLAIN. AND WHEN, IF PEOPLE DO MEET THAT, UH, CRITERIA, UH, DO, UM, HOW FAR ARE YOU FROM A POINT WHERE FEMA FUNDING WOULD BE AVAILABLE? IS THAT AN OPTION CURRENTLY, OR HOW FAR AWAY DO YOU SEE IT AS BEING, UH, A LOT OF THE RANT FUNDING FROM FEMA FOR THINGS LIKE HOME ELEVATION PROGRAMS ARE, UM, DEPENDENT ON COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS RATIOS. AND ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WE RUN INTO IN AUSTIN IS THE HOME VALUES ARE SO HIGH. THAT IT'S REALLY HARD FOR US TO MEET THOSE CRITERIA WITH FEMA. YOU KNOW, IF THE, IF IT'S GOING TO COST A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY TO RAISE THE HOME AND THE HOME IS OF A CERTAIN VALUE, BUT A FLOOD WOULD ONLY CAUSE X AMOUNT OF DAMAGE FROM A DOLLAR PERSPECTIVE, IT CAN BE DIFFICULT FOR US TO MEET THOSE RATIOS. UM, SO IT DEPENDS ON, IT CAN DEPEND ON A NUMBER OF FACTORS THERE, WHAT IT WOULD COST TO ELEVATE THE HOME ITSELF, WHICH IS GOING TO DEPEND ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME, THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, THE CURRENT DEPTH OF THE HOUSE IN THE FLOODPLAIN. IF THE HOUSE IS CURRENTLY VERY DEEP IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND, UM, AND A FLOOD WOULD CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT, UH, FINANCIAL LOSS, THEN IT'S A LOT EASIER TO JUSTIFY THAT GRANT FUNDING TO ELEVATE IT. IF A HOME, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE SIX INCHES OF WATER COMING INTO THE HOME, WHILE THAT CAN STILL BE VERY EXPENSIVE, IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO CAUSE ENOUGH DAMAGE TO MEET THE COST BENEFIT OF SPENDING, YOU KNOW, 20, $30,000 ON ELEVATING THE STRUCTURE. I CAN SEE THERE ARE MULTIPLE PROBLEMS. 35% OF THE, UM, SINGLE RESIDENTIAL HOMES IN AUSTIN ARE, WERE BUILT BEFORE 1980. SO THEY'RE STRUCTURALLY GOING TO BE PROBABLY BUILT ACCORDING TO A DIFFERENT SET OF CODES THAN WHAT BUILDINGS WERE 20, 30 YEARS LATER. UM, BUT, UM, I WOULD GUESS WHAT WOULD YOU THINK THAT THE MAJORITY OF, OF HOMES IN AUSTIN ARE STICK-BUILT HOMES ON CONCRETE PLATFORMS? IS THAT PRETTY MUCH, UH, IT DEPENDS ON THE AREA OF TOWN. I THINK I TH I THINK, UM, FOR WEST AUSTIN, THAT'S PREDOMINANTLY TRUE. I THINK IT NEEDS TO AUSTIN. WE SEE A LOT MORE PIER AND BEAM CONSTRUCTION HISTORICALLY. OKAY. AND WHAT ABOUT OTHER OPTIONS? IF LIKE I'VE SEEN, UH, APRONS THAT KIND OF, IT CAN EITHER BE PERMANENT OR IT CAN BE ROLLED UP SO THAT THEY, THEY, UM, PREVENT WATER FROM COMING IN A COUPLE OF INCHES OR A FOOT OVER THE, THE FLOOR SO THAT YOU GO FROM, YOU KNOW, RUINING ALL THE FLOORS IN THE HOUSE AND MAYBE HAVING TO REPLACE ALL THE, ALL OF THE, UM, THE SHEET ROCK TO, UM, TO NOT HAVING THAT HAPPEN. UH, IS, I MEAN, IS THAT A, IS THAT A DIFFERENT, IS THAT ALSO AN OPTION OR, UH, IS THAT WHAT MEAN, WHAT, WHERE DID DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT STAND? [00:35:01] UH, I THINK IN AUSTIN, THOSE, THOSE TEND NOT TO BE THE BEST OPTIONS, JUST BECAUSE OUR TIME OF CONCENTRATION ON THE CREEK, I THINK I NEED BATTERY COMMITTED SHOPS ON YOUR MICS ON, OH, UM, THE TIME OF CONCENTRATION ON THE CREEKS IN AUSTIN IS SO SHORT. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THIS FLASH FLOODING. AND SO IF, IF, YOU KNOW, IF YOU GET 15 MINUTES WARNING THAT THE FLOOD FLOODS GOING TO HAPPEN, AND IT'S A SYSTEM THAT YOU HAVE TO ACTIVELY DEPLOY AND IT MAY BE AS THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. I THINK IT'S JUST VERY UNLIKELY. I THINK, WHERE WE SEE THOSE USED A LOT. AND I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THERE ARE PRETTY COOL SYSTEMS. WE SEE THOSE A LOT IN COMMUNITIES THAT ARE ON LARGER RIVERS. YOU KNOW, IF YOU THINK ABOUT LIKE WHEN THE MISSISSIPPI FLOODS AND THE RIVER FORECAST CENTER FROM THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IS SAYING LIKE, OH, IT'S GOING TO FLOOD THIS HIGH IN YOUR TOWN IN THREE DAYS. AND THAT'S WHEN THAT'S WHEN SYSTEMS LIKE THAT ARE REALLY EFFECTIVE, UM, IN AUSTIN, EITHER NOT HAVING THE HOME IN THE FLOOD PLAIN OR HAVING THE HOME ELEVATED ARE REALLY THE KEYS TO, UM, PREVENTING THAT LOSS. HOW MANY HOMES ARE IN AUSTIN ARE IN THE FLOOD PLAIN AND, AND KIND OF, YOU KNOW, A FOOT, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, IN THAT KIND OF, I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER ON THE TOP OF MY HEAD, UNFORTUNATELY. OKAY. WE DON'T, WE DON'T KNOW THE SIZE OF THE RISK. SO, I MEAN, WE WE'VE AS PART OF THIS ALICE 14, WE OF COURSE CALCULATED ALL THAT. I JUST, I DON'T REMEMBER, UH, DEVINEY FIGURE SISTER, WHAT I MEAN, AND IF THE FEMA GRANT FOR SOMEBODY, NO, I KNOW MY HOUSE HAS GONE FROM A HUNDRED THOUSAND TO MAYBE 400 PLUS THOUSAND, JUST BECAUSE PRICES ARE GOING UP, UP, UP AS THE DEMAND SUPPLY ISSUES, INTERSECT, SAME HOUSE, SAME CONSTRUCTION, BUT, YOU KNOW, SO, AND IF YOU HAVE LIKE THAT, YOUR BABY THAT, YOU KNOW, SIX INCHES THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, IT'S A LOT OF MONEY TO RAISE THAT HOUSE UP. THAT THAT PROBABLY WOULD JUST NOT, I MEAN, I, WHAT DO PEOPLE DO WHO ARE KIND OF IN THAT KIND OF GRAY ZONE? WE HAVE HAD QUITE A FEW PEOPLE ELEVATE HOMES, UM, AND IT'S, IT'S PREDOMINANTLY BEEN SMALLER PIER AND BEAM BUNGALOW TYPE CONSTRUCTION. UH, IN THOSE INSTANCES, IT IS RELATIVELY AFFORDABLE TO ELEVATE THE HOME. AND THEN, UH, AND THEN THAT DOES ALLOW YOU TO MAKE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO IT, UM, PER 500 SQUARE FEET. WHAT IS THE COST FOR A, I DON'T KNOW. NOPE. OKAY. UM, I, UM, IT JUST LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF MISSING PIECES OF DATA THAT, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MORE, BUT I APPRECIATE, UM, YOUR PRESENTATION THAT I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. UM, I GUESS, I MEAN, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. THIS IS A LOT OF DATA THAT WE CAME UP WITH WHEN WE WERE PROPOSING THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION. IT'S JUST THAT COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, WE DID A REALLY GOOD JOB OF PRESENTING IT. I'M JUST THINKING, WELL, YOU KNOW, IF, IF YOU'RE ONE OF THOSE HOMEOWNERS AND CHECK, I'M GOING TO JUMP IN HERE REAL QUICK. IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'M GOING TO REFOCUS THIS A LITTLE BIT AND, AND YOUR QUESTIONS ARE WONDERFUL AND GREAT, BUT THEY'RE FOCUSING ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE AND HIS PRESENTATION IS MORE ON COMMERCIAL, ON YEAH. ON THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO THE LAND CODE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO INCLUDE COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT. AND SO I THINK YOU'RE FEELING LIKE HE DOESN'T HAVE YOUR FACTS AND FIGURES BECAUSE WE'RE KIND OF TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. SO I JUST WANT TO REFOCUS US A LITTLE BIT. YEAH. I SEE. WELL, THEY'RE BOTH IN HERE AND I THINK WHERE WE DEVOTE ON BOTH OF THEM. NO. SO THE RESKIN FOR RECOMMENDATION ON THE COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, THE RESIDENTIAL ONE IS ALREADY BEEN COUNCIL APPROVED THAT IN 2019, I WAS JUST PROVIDING A SUMMARY OF WHAT WE'D ALREADY DONE AND WHAT WE'RE COMING BACK AND DOING. OKAY. SO, UM, THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE MAYBE QUESTIONS FOR ANOTHER TIME IN PLACE AND WE HAVE ANSWERS FOR THOSE. I JUST DON'T HAVE THAT. THAT'S NOT WHAT, OKAY. SO, UM, OKAY, THANKS. THANK YOU. IT'S A NORMAL QUESTION. SECOND. NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. UM, REMOTE BATTERY PEOPLE. UM, DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU GOT IT. YEAH. THOMPSON. OH, FULLY CHARGED. WHAT DO YOU GOT? SORRY ABOUT THE INTERRUPTION. I DIDN'T REALIZE MY MIC WAS ON. OKAY. UM, THIS IS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND I AM AWARE OF THAT. SO I HAVE A LIST OF QUESTIONS. I'LL JUST READ THEM AND THEN [00:40:01] WHOEVER NEEDS TO ANSWER THEM CAN, UM, THE CITY HAS LIABILITY, BUT THESE PEOPLE ARE AWARE THAT THEY'RE IN A FLOOD PLAIN AND THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE FLOOD INSURANCE. AND I ASSUME THAT THAT IS CORRECT. UM, HAS THE CITY CREATED AN AGREEMENT TO SAY THAT THEY'RE AWARE OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY IN THE REED IN THE CASE OF APPROVAL OF THE VARIANTS FOR REDEVELOPMENT SO THAT, UM, I DUNNO, MAYBE THEY COULD SHARE THE BURDEN OF CLEANUP OR, OR WHATEVER IT IS, WHATEVER THEY PRODUCE. THERE ARE, I'M JUST TRYING TO, I MEAN, MR. BREMMER SAID THAT THIS WOULD BE AN ISSUE. SO I WAS THINKING ABOUT THAT. UM, I ALSO WANT TO KNOW IF THEY COULD SELL THE PROPERTIES AND WE HAVE A LOT OF OUT OF TOWN PEOPLE BUYING, SO IS LIKE CAVEAT EMPTOR AND PLACE HERE. ARE THEY REQUIRED TO TELL THESE PEOPLE THEY'RE IN THE FLOOD PLAIN? AND CAN WE REVIEW THIS WHEN THE STUDY IS COMPLETED? I KNOW THAT WE REALLY LIKE TO KEEP AWARE OF ATLAS 13 AND ITS PROGRESS PROGRESSION THROUGH THE PROCESS. SO, UM, I WOULD ALSO LIKE FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN, EXPLAIN THE STAFF REVIEW, TO USE, IF SOMEONE USES THE SPEAR, IF WE APPROVE IT AND, OR THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES IT, WE RECOMMEND IT. UM, IF THEY USE THE REV, THE VARIANCE, UM, WHAT IS THE STAFF REVIEW PROCESS? AND, UM, THEN WE'LL THE VARIANTS, UM, PASS WITH TITLE. IF THE PROPERTY IS SOLD, MY, MY ISSUE HERE IS, UM, RESPONSIBILITY GOING FROM ONE TO THE OTHER. OKAY. YEAH. SO, UM, THIS IS ABOUT ALLOWING BUILDINGS THAT HAVE EXISTING RISKS TO BE REPLACED WITH SOMETHING WITH LOWER RISKS. SO IN, IN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING BUILDING DEBRIS GENERATED FROM THAT SITE DURING A FLOOD, UM, IS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE THAT WE FACE AS A CITY, ALLOWING THESE EXISTING BUILDINGS TO BE REPLACED WITH SOMETHING THAT'S PROPERLY ELEVATED, PROPERLY STRUCTURALLY DESIGNED SHOULD IN THEORY, REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF DEBRIS THAT WE ENDED UP IN THE CREEKS WITH FOLLOWING A FLOOD MIKE WISE, THAT'S WHY WE'RE NOT ALLOWING AN INCREASE IN PARKING IN THE FLOOD. PLAIN VEHICLES GETTING WASHED INTO CREEKS IS A SIGNIFICANT ANSWERED AND CLEANUP EFFORT. SO IT, UM, IN THEORY, IT SHOULD BE REDUCING THAT BURDEN. UH, BUT THAT YOU'RE CORRECT, THAT DOES EXIST FROM, UH, YOU KNOW, FLOODS DO GENERATE LOTS OF DEBRIS THAT THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANING UP. UM, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT ALL THE QUESTIONS WERE. UM, YOU ASKED ABOUT FLOOD INSURANCE AND, AND, UH, FLOOD INSURANCE IS REQUIRED BY LENDERS IF THE BUILDING IS IN THE FLOOD PLAIN. SO IF YOU'RE TAKING ON A LOAN TO PURCHASE A PROPERTY AND THE BUILDINGS IN THE FLOOD, PLAIN, THE LENDER REQUIRES YOU TO HAVE FLOOD INSURANCE AND THEY'RE REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW TO REQUIRE YOU, IF YOU OWN THE PROPERTY OUTRIGHT OR YOU'RE PAYING IN CASH, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO CARRY FLOOD INSURANCE. WE ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO CARRY FLOOD INSURANCE, BUT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO CARRY FLOOD INSURANCE. IF YOU OWN IT OUTRIGHT, THE BANKS REQUIRE IT BECAUSE THEY'RE PROTECTING THEIR ASSET, THEIR INVESTMENT IN IT. UM, YOU ALSO ASKED ABOUT DISCLOSURE. WE HAVE, UH, WE HAVE EXISTING DISCLOSURE LAWS IN TEXAS FOR FLOOD PLAIN. THOSE, UH, THE LEGISLATURE STRENGTHENED THOSE, UH, LAST SESSION FOLLOWING HARVEY. SO THERE IS REQUIRED DISCLOSURE. IF A BUILDING IS IN THE FLOOD, PLAIN, IF A VACANT PROPERTY IS IN THE FLOOD, PLAIN, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE IF IT HAS FLOODED BEFORE. IF IT'S IN THE 500 YEAR FLOOD, PLAIN, IF IT'S IN A SPILLWAY THERE'S, WHICH ISN'T NECESSARILY RELEVANT IN AUSTIN, BUT THERE'S A WHOLE HOST OF DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS NOW REGARDING FLOODPLAINS. SO WHEN PEOPLE PURCHASE THESE, THEY ARE, THAT IS DISCLOSED TO THEM. WHAT THAT MEANS TO THEM. I DON'T KNOW. IT IS VERY MUCH CAVEAT INVENTORY AS FAR AS WHAT SOMEONE IS BUYING. UM, BUT IN, IN THEORY, WE WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT A BUILDING THAT IS SAFER THAN WHAT HAD BEEN THERE PREVIOUSLY. SO IF, UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THAT'S, THE WHOLE GOAL IS TO REPLACE SOMETHING WITH A HIGH RISK AND HAVE THE RISK BE LOWER. UH, THERE'S STILL A RISK, BUT IT'S, IT'S A LOT LOWER THAN WHAT IT'S REPLACING. UM, AND THEN LASTLY, YOU ASKED ABOUT THE REVIEW PROCESS. SO THIS WOULD COME IN AND I WOULD DEFER TO DSD TO GO INTO MORE DEPTH ON THIS, BUT IT WOULD FOLLOW THE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. THIS IS, THIS IS AN EXCEPTION RATHER THAN A VARIANCE. AND SO IT'S, AND SO YOU WOULD SUBMIT YOUR SITE PLAN AND IT WOULD GET ASSIGNED THE VARIOUS REVIEWS. THERE'D BE AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL RULES AND THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE THERE'D BE, AND THERE'D BE A FLOOD PLAN REVIEW. WE'RE LOOKING AT FLOODPLAIN AND THEY WOULD LOOK AT, THEY [00:45:01] WOULD REVIEW THE ENGINEER'S REPORT ON NO ADVERSE IMPACT. THEY WOULD, UH, WORK WITH OTHER REVIEWERS TO ENSURE THAT LIKE SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS REMAINING THE SAME. THEY WOULD EVALUATE THE PARKING, THEY WOULD CHECK THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION. UM, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD CHECK THE USE, THEY'D WORK WITH WHAT STAFF WERE NECESSARY TO DO THAT. AND IF IT MET ALL OF THOSE CRITERIA, THEN THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO APPROVE THE FLOODPLAIN REVIEW. AND THERE WOULD BE CONDITIONS PLACED ON THAT SITE PLAN FOR DOCUMENTATION DOWN THE LINE, SUCH AS ELEVATION SURVEYS DURING CONSTRUCTION TO ENSURE THAT THE FINISHED FLOOR WAS BEING BUILT TO THE HEIGHT SPECIFIED ON THE PLANS. BUT, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS THAT WOULD FOLLOW THE STANDARD PROCESS. AND RATHER THAN HAVING TO GO SEEK A VARIANCE, THE FLOODPLAIN STAFF WOULD BE ABLE TO APPROVE THEIR REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVELY. IF ALL THOSE CRITERIA ARE MET, WHERE DID THAT CATCH ALL YOUR QUESTIONS? WAS THERE SOMETHING IN THIS, JUST THE LAST ONE, IF THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD, IF THEY HAD ACQUIRED APPROVAL AND THEN THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD WITH THE, THE NEW PEOPLE KNOW OF THE PROBLEM IS ALL I WAS WONDERING, WOULD THEY COME BACK TO YOU OR WOULD THEY JUST BUILD BY THE SPECIFIC, THE SPECS THAT YOU HAD ALREADY APPROVED? LIKE IF, IF THE SITE PLAN, IF, IF THE SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED AND THEN THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD BEFORE THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED, CORRECT. THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT THAT SITE PLAN AS IT WAS APPROVED FOR A LOAN, FOR THE DURATION OF THE LIFE OF THAT SITE PLAN. I MEAN, IF IT WERE TO EXPIRE, THEY WOULD NEED TO SUBMIT A NEW ONE. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS YES, YOU COULD TRANSFER THAT APPROVED PLAN WITH THE CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP. OKAY. I WAS JUST WONDERING, I MEAN, IT, IT IS SO SLIGHT PROBLEM THAT I WAS JUST WONDERING, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE BUILD, UM, I, I'M JUST HOPING THAT WE WON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT AS ALL. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING. THANK YOU. UM, PERRY OR NICHOLS, DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANYTHING? UH, NO QUESTIONS FOR ME, NO QUESTIONS FROM ME EITHER. UH, JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AND AS SOMEONE WHO WORKED IN DISASTER RECOVERY WITH THE STATE FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS, I REALLY, REALLY APPRECIATE STAFF'S EFFORTS TO, UH, ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY WITH COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, RISK REDUCTION, WHILE ALSO NOT OVER EXPANDING AND EDIT THE TABLE. YES. THANK YOU, SECRETARY AMBERSON. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. I DO HAVE A FEW CONCERNS, BUT I'M STILL MULLING THEM OVER, BUT NOTHING FOR ME RIGHT NOW. UM, YEAH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. UM, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. UM, IF YOU HA HOW, UM, SO I KNOW ATLAS 14 IS TAKING A LONG TIME TO KIND OF OFFICIALLY COME ONLINE. UM, IN THE PRESENTATION YOU WALKED THROUGH, HOW WE KIND OF, I GUESS, TOOK THE FABRIC OF YOUR FLOOD. AND NOW IT IS THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN UNTIL THOSE FLOOD PLAIN STUDIES I GUESS, ARE FINALIZED. UM, HOW CAN WE KEEP PEOPLE IN OUR DISTRICTS UP TO SPEED ON THAT PROCESS AND HOW CAN THE GENERAL PUBLIC KIND OF STAY, STAY, STAY IN THE LOOP ON THAT? CAUSE I KNOW IT DOESN'T HIT PEOPLE'S RADARS WHEN IT TAKES YEARS TO DO. YEAH. UH, SO WE, YOU KNOW, WE DID A BIG OUTREACH PUSH WITH THE ATLAS 14 ORDINANCE AND WE WILL BE DOING SO AGAIN, WHEN THESE NEW STUDIES BECOME AVAILABLE, UH, WE HAVE A WEBSITE ABOUT THE PROCESS, UM, AND, UM, DON'T KNOW THE WEB ADDRESS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT IT, IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT IS 14. UH, THERE WE GO. ATX FLOODPLAINS.COM AND IT HAS THE TIMELINE FOR THE STUDIES. IT HAS UPDATES. AND AS WE GET CLOSER IN THE PROCESS, ONCE WE HAVE LIKE FOR PRELIMINARY MAPS TO SHOW AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THE OUTREACH IS GOING TO RAMP UP AGAIN WITH CIGNA, YOU KNOW, WE'LL, WE'LL DO PUBLIC MEETINGS, WE'LL DO POSTCARD MAIL OUTS, MORE MEDIA STORIES, AND IT'S GONNA I'M, I'M SURE IT WILL RIVAL THE OUTREACH PUSH THAT WE DID WITH THE ATLAS 14 ORDINANCE ITSELF. IT'S JUST, WE'RE IN THIS LOW PERIOD AT THE MOMENT WHERE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO SHOW PEOPLE OTHER THAN JUST TELLING THEM WE'RE WORKING ON IT AND SHOWING THEM WHAT OUR TIMELINE IS. OKAY. AND THOSE ARE ALL THE KIND OF, I GUESS, CREEK OR RIVER BASIN WHERE ALL HAPPENED AT THE SAME TIME, BUT MOMS WOULD COME OUT AND THEN THERE'LL BE DRAFTS. AND THEN, AND THEN BE KIND OF PUBLIC OUTREACH AND THEN FINALIZED IS THAT RIGHT? DIFFERENT WATERSHEDS ARE GOING TO BECOME AVAILABLE AT DIFFERENT TIMES. SOME ARE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO TAKE LONGER TO COMPLETE THAN OTHERS BASED ON SIZE, THE AMOUNT OF SERVING THAT'S NEEDED, UH, YOU KNOW, THE CONSULTANT THAT'S WORKING ON IT, ET CETERA. OKAY. UM, YEAH, [00:50:01] THAT WAS, THAT WAS MY MAIN QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? ALRIGHT, WELL, UM, I TOLD THE COMMISSIONER THAT'S ABSENT THAT I WOULD WAIT, BUT WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND READ THE MOTION. UM, AND THEN SHE CAN ASK IF SHE HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT, OKAY. UM, ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? PARAMOR YOU GOT ANYTHING? I WILL SAY THAT, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, UM, CONDITIONS, AND I'M HAPPY TO RECEIVE THOSE, UM, ONLINE, IF YOU, IF YOU READ THE BACKUP MATERIALS AND YOU'RE LIKE, HEY, I THINK I'D LIKE TO INCLUDE CONDITIONED TO THIS. JUST MAKE SURE THAT KEVIN PERRY, MYSELF AND AT LEAST KAYLA ARE INCLUDED ON THAT EMAIL CHAIN AS WELL. SO IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO ADD, IT'S EASIER FOR ME TO, YOU KNOW, ADD IT THEN, BUT I'M HAPPY TO DO IT ON THE FLY TOO. IF WE HAVE CONDITIONS ON SOMETHING, THAT'S A GREAT POINT. YEAH. JUST DON'T INCLUDE EVERYBODY ON THE EMAIL BECAUSE THEN WHEN WE GO ROLLING QUORUM. SO IF YOU WANT TO SEND SOMETHING TO EVERYONE, JUST SEND IT TO KAYLA AND ASK HER TO DO THAT. OH YES. THANK YOU, MR. THOMPSON. UM, I WAS WONDERING, I LOOKED BACK OVER MY NOTES. UM, I MENTIONED THE FACT THAT PERHAPS THEY COULD OCCUR, CREATE AN AGREEMENT TO SAY THEY WERE AWARE OF THE RESPONSIBILITY IN THE EVENT OF FLOOD OF, UM, CLEANUP AND ARE CONTRIBUTING TO SOME SORT OF CLEANUP. IF THEY'RE GOING TO, UM, REBUILD THEIR, I MEAN, THIS IS A COMMERCIAL, I, I DON'T THINK THIS CRITERIA WAS MET FOR THE RESIDENTIAL, BUT I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA TO SUGGEST TO CITY COUNCIL OR IF WE JUST DO THE BEST WE CAN WHEN WE CLEAN UP, I MEAN, IT'S EXPENSIVE. IT IS EXPENSIVE. UM, IT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA. I'M, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF, I DON'T, I DON'T UNDER, I DON'T HAVE AN IDEA OF MYSELF YET HOW WE WOULD ASSESS THAT FEAR, DETERMINE WHAT THAT WOULD BE, WHAT THE CON, WHAT THE FEE OR CONTRIBUTION WOULD NEED TO BE, BECAUSE IT'S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO VARY BY FLOOD EVENT AND BY THE PROPERTY, AS FAR AS, UM, W WHAT KIND OF CLEANUP IS REQUIRED. I MEAN, AND OBVIOUSLY THESE PEOPLE ARE INCURRING, UM, THEIR OWN CLEANUP COSTS TO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE CLEANING OUT THE CREEK, BUT THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE POTENTIALLY GOING TO HAVE TO BE CLEANING OUT THEIR PARKING LOT. IN THEORY, THEY SHOULDN'T BE HAVING TO CLEAN OUT THE BUILDINGS BECAUSE IT'S PROPERLY ELEVATED, BUT, UH, ONSITE, ONSITE CLEANUP, THEY WILL LARGELY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVEN IF THE CITY DOES OFFER SOME ASSISTANCE WITH SAY TRASH REMOVAL, YOU KNOW, DUMPSTERS, ET CETERA. BUT, UM, BUT YEAH, I JUST, I DON'T KNOW WHAT CRITERIA STAFF WOULD BE ABLE TO USE TO COME UP WITH, UH, AN EQUITABLE FEE FOR THAT AT THIS TIME. UH, IT'S SOMETHING WE COULD CONTINUE TO EXPLORE IF YOU WISH. CAN I, CAN I ASK A QUESTION ON YOUR QUESTION? ARE YOU THINKING, LIKE THERE WOULD BE A POOL THAT EVERYBODY PLAYED PAID INTO THAT IS WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN, THAT'S A COMMERCIAL, UM, IN THE FLOOD PLAIN, AND THAT THEY WOULD PAY INTO SOME SORT OF CLEAN UP POOL. IS THAT KINDA WHAT YOU'RE THINKING? UM, I REALLY HADN'T. I, I HADN'T FORMED AN IDEA. I JUST KNOW IN A WAY I WAS HOPING THAT IT WOULD LIMIT DEVELOPMENT OF THINGS LIKE, UM, OKAY. SAY THEY MAKE RUBBER DUCKIES. I MEAN, IF IT FLOODS, THERE'S GOING TO BE A MILLION RUBBER DUCKIES DOWN THE, YOU KNOW, THE CREEK AND JUST GOING ON FOR INFINITY. I MEAN, AND SO THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE FAIRLY HARMLESS. UM, NOW IF THEY MADE SOMETHING ELSE AND IT CAUSED A GREAT DEAL OF, I MEAN, I KNOW YOU, DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? THERE'S, THEY'VE ALREADY LIMITED THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN, UH, THINGS, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT THEY MIGHT BE INCENTIVIZED TO NOT DO IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA IF THEY HAD TO FORM SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT. SO THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD LIMIT DEVELOPMENT TO THINGS THAT I THOUGHT WOULD BE, UM, NOT FINANCIALLY UNFEASIBLE FOR THEM, BECAUSE THE CLEANING UP THE CREEK IS MEAN THE WATER QUALITY, EVERYTHING IS JUST SO DIFFICULT AFTER A FLOOD. AND I DUNNO, AND I THINK, I THINK THE POTENTIAL DANGER WITH THAT WOULD BE, YOU COULD DISINCENTIVIZE SOMEBODY FROM REDEVELOPING. SO SAY YOU HAD AN EXISTING RUBBER DUCK FACTORY IN THE FLOOD PLAIN. AND WE HAD A FLOOD AND THERE WERE FOUR FEET OF WATER. [00:55:01] AND YEAH, WE HAD ALL THOSE DUCKS IN THE CREEK AND THEY'RE NOT BOUND BY THIS AGREEMENT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T REDEVELOP. AND, BUT IF THEY SAID, HEY, WE WANT TO REDEVELOP. AND THE FACTORY IS GOING TO BE TWO FEET ABOVE THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD, PLAIN, WHERE IN THEORY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANY DUCKS IN THE CREEK. AND WE SAID, OKAY, YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY IN CASE THEY GET IN THE CREEK. DOES THAT DISINCENTIVIZE THEM AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO AGAIN, KEEP THE EXISTING FACTORY WITH THE KNOWN RISK. SO THAT WOULD BE THE CONCERN WITH THAT. UM, IT ALSO, AGAIN, I WOULD, I WOULD REMIND YOU, WE, WE DID WORK WITH THE FIRE MARSHALL TO COME UP WITH CERTAIN USES, LIKE INDUSTRIAL, THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO HAVE IN THE FLOOD PLAN, EVEN USING THIS EXCEPTION SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT REASON TO TRY AND MINIMIZE MATERIALS THAT COULD REPRESENT A REAL HAZARD IF THEY WERE TO SOMEHOW COME IN CONTACT WITH FLOOD WATER. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. YES. UM, IF I MAY, I THINK IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WHEN WE, I WAS ON THE PLATTE MEDICATION TASK FORCE AND WE MADE RECOMMENDATIONS ON SOME PRECAUTIONS TO TAKE AS INCLUDING FOR BUSINESSES. UM, SO I KNOW WATERSHED PROTECTION HAS DONE EDUCATIONAL, UM, YOU KNOW, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, SERVICES OR WHATEVER, TOO. AND SO MAYBE THOSE NEW D NEW REDEVELOPED INDIVIDUALS, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE BRAND NEW TO AUSTIN, MAYBE THEY, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY GET NEW INFORMATION ON WHAT TO DO TO PROVE IN, YOU KNOW, FLOOD PREPAREDNESS STRATEGIES. SO THAT COULD BE INCLUDED IF THEY'RE, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE BRAND NEW TO AUSTIN AND ARE NOT AWARE OF THE FLASH FLOOD RISKS THAT ARE IN PLACE. SO THAT COULD BE SOMETHING WE COULD DO. YEAH. AND OUTREACH IS VERY IMPORTANT, BOTH FOR PEOPLE OWNING PROPERTIES IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND FOR FOLKS THAT MAY NOT LIVE IN THE FLOOD PLAIN, BUT DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FLOOD RISK WE HAVE IN THIS CITY AS THEY'RE OUT AND ABOUT ENJOYING THE TOWN. FOR SURE. I REMEMBER. CAN I ASK, I HAVE ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION NOW. UM, SO FOR THE HIGH HAZARD FACILITIES, SUCH AS AN INDUSTRY INDUSTRIAL PLANT THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HYPOTHETICAL, SO, UH, WILL YOU PLEASE CLARIFY? SO THERE, THEY CAN KEEP THEIR, FOR THE CURRENTLY THERE, THEY WILL JUST REMAIN THERE UNTIL THEY EITHER OUTGROW THE BUILDING OR THE BUILDING NEEDS RENOVATION AND CORRECT. CORRECT. WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE USE OF THEIR EXISTING BUILDING. YOU'RE, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN THAT USE. YOU'RE JUST PROHIBITED, UH, FROM ANY ALTERATION OR CHANGE THAT INCREASES THE NON-CONFORMITY. BUT IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING BUILDING, YOU CAN MAINTAIN IT. AND SO THAT'S KIND OF, AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WHEN WE SEE LIKE, OKAY, WE HAVE THESE EXISTING BUILDINGS WITH THIS RISK THAT DON'T MEET CURRENT ANY OF OUR CURRENT RULES. AND THIS IS ABOUT PROVIDING THEM AN OPTION THAT'S MAYBE LESS OUTRAGEOUS THAN GOING TO COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT PARTICULAR SITE SAFER. AND IF THEY WERE WANTING TO REDEVELOP IN A WAY THAT EXPANDED THE USE BY MAKING IT A LARGER BUILDING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT'S WHEN THEY WOULDN'T QUALIFY FOR THIS. AND THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO BACK TO CITY COUNCIL AND SEEK THAT VARIANCE. BUT THIS IS ABOUT AGAIN, FINDING A WAY TO REDUCE THOSE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS LIKE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT ARE EXISTING AND ARE THERE THAT CAN JUST CONTINUE TO BE UNTIL THE LIFE OF THE BUILDINGS OUT HENRY MADE THIS MOTION. OKAY. UM, COMMISSIONER SCOTT, JUST ADD INTO WHAT YOU'RE, UM, DISCUSSING, UM, IT'S KIND OF A FIELD THAT I'M FAMILIAR WITH. I'M NOT IMAGINING THAT WE HAVE BRILLIANT MANUFACTURER OR, UM, OR SOMEONE WITH, UH, UM, UH, BUT MAYBE, I MEAN, THERE ARE A LOT OF, UM, HEAVY METALS THAT WE REALLY WOULD NOT WANT TO BE CONTAMINATED THE RIVER. I MEAN, SHOULDN'T WE BE ALLOWING, UM, SHOULD WE SURVEY WHAT'S WHAT'S THERE? AND, UM, I MEAN, I THINK IT COULD, SOME, SOME THINGS, IF THEY ARE HAZARDOUS COULD GET INTO THE WATERWAYS AND, UH, PARTICULARLY, UH, SOME OF THE HEAVY METALS AND SOME OF THE, IN SOME, OF COURSE, SOME TOXIC CHEMICALS, UH, THAT, WELL, IT'D BE IMPOSSIBLE TO REALLY CLEAN. UM, JUST, IT WOULD BE, UM, WE JUST, UH, MERCURY THINGS LIKE THAT ARE JUST ONCE THEY, ONCE THEY GET OUT OF THE BOX, YOU CAN'T GET THEM BACK IN. UM, I MEAN, WOULD IT BE REASONABLE TO, UM, TO SURVEY, TO SEE WHAT IS THERE THAT WE DON'T HAVE HAVE, UH, UH, THOSE EXISTING [01:00:01] IN, AND THAT THEY'RE AWARE OF THE RISK IF, CAUSE THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT. UM, I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION AND IT MAY WELL BE ONE THAT OUR DEPARTMENT HAS ANSWERED. I WOULD NEED TO SPEAK TO OUR SPILLS RESPONSE CREW TO SEE WHAT KIND OF SURVEYS THEY'VE DONE IN THE PAST ON THAT THEY MAY HAVE THAT INFORMATION ALREADY. UM, IT'S UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT CAME ABOUT AS FAR AS FROM A FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE, WHAT WE COULD DO BASED ON THAT INFORMATION IS, WOULD BE A BIGGER DISCUSSION WITH CITY ATTORNEYS. BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN EXISTING ESTABLISHED USE, UM, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE SO LONG AS THEY WEREN'T, UM, MAKING CHANGES TO THAT. BUT, BUT I'M SURE, UM, MY COLLEAGUES FROM OUR DEPARTMENT WOULD BE HAPPY TO GET WITH OUR SPILLS GROUP AND GET BACK TO YOU TO SEE IF THAT SURVEY HAS BEEN DONE ALREADY. THANK YOU. OKAY. MAY 18TH, 2022, UH, PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 25 DASH SEVEN DASH 93 AND 25 DASH SEVEN DASH 96 TO INCLUDE A COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT, UM, EXEMPTION. WHEREAS THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION COMPLETED A STUDY OF HISTORICAL HISTORICAL RAINFALL FOR TEXAS IN 2018 CALLED ATLAS 14 THAT SHOWED THAT THE AUSTIN AREA IS EXPERIENCING HEAVIER RAINFALL MORE FREQUENTLY. AND THAT THE PROBABILITY OF SEVERE FLOODING IS GREATER THAN PREVIOUSLY REALIZED IN RESPONSE, THE CITY OF AUSTIN REVISE ITS FLOOD PLANNING REGULATIONS AND ADOPTED IN TERMS OF FLOOD PLAIN MAPS UNTIL A CITYWIDE FLOOD PLAIN STUDY COULD BE COMPLETED AS PART OF THE REVISED FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS. A RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXEMPTION WAS CREATED AMONG OTHER ITEMS TO PROMOTE REDEVELOPMENT THAT REDUCES FLOOD RISK FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THE CITY, AND I'M GOING TO CHANGE THAT TO SAY DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. I THINK THAT'S MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT'S IN THE WORDING. UM, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THE CITY STAFF RECOGNIZES CITY STAFF ARE REQUESTING CHANGES TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PROMOTE FLOOD RISK REDUCTION. WHEN WE DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, THEREFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 27 DASH 25 DASH SEVEN DASH 93 AND 25 DASH SEVEN DASH 96 WITH THE FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONS. IF WE HAVE ANY SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT ADDING LANGUAGE FOR A MONTH FOR A CONDITION I'VE BEEN IN FRONT, AS IT RELATES TO YOU WHAT YOU WERE BRINGING UP COMMISSIONER, UH, I THINK IT MAY JUST AS EASILY BE DONE TO, FOR US TO CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE WATERSHED PROTECTION STAFF, TO FRAME UP THEIR OUTREACH AS THEIR OUTREACH DETERMINES TO BE BEST, MOST EFFICIENT OR EFFECTIVE. UM, AND INDEFINITELY, IF SOMEONE'S COMING IN TO REDEVELOP IN THE FLOODLINE MAKE SURE THEY HAVE ALL THE DOCUMENTATION, BUT, BUT DON'T NECESSARILY FOCUS ON THAT BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S JUST AS MANY PEOPLE THAT MAY NOT BE REDEVELOPING IN THE FLOODPLAIN THAT NEED THAT OUTREACH JUST AS MUCH. YEAH. I THINK PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS COULD INCLUDE IF THIS IS A NEW A PERSON OR A BUSINESS, NEW TO AUSTIN, AND THEY WANT TO REDEVELOP IN AN OLD LOCATION, THEN THAT WOULD BE AN ALERT FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION TO PROVIDE THE EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION THAT THEY NEED TO STAY SAFE AND OPERATE THEIR BUSINESS SAFELY. SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. DO WE WANT TO, CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH HOW THIS WORKS AGAIN? IF WE ADD LANGUAGE TO THE, TO THE, UH, IT'S THE IT'S THE BODY'S AND YOU'VE HAD A SECOND, SO IT'S, UH, EVERYONE HAS TO HAVE FULL CONSENSUS TO ADOPT ANY CHANGE AT THIS POINT, NOT JUST THE INITIAL PROPOSER YES. COMMISSIONER. UM, I WOULD, YEAH, TO REGARD WHAT A COMMISSIONER IS. AM I SAYING THAT RIGHT? UH, GUERRA AKITA AS CLOSE. YEAH. UM, I, IN ITS PRESENT IS ITS PRESENT FORM. I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT MODIFIED IN ORDER TO VOTE FOR IT, THAT, THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THE FLOOD PLAIN ZONE ARE IDENTIFIED, WHICH ARE HAZARDOUS. UM, AND THAT, I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD BE IN A FLOOD PLAIN ZONE PERIOD IF THEY'RE HAZARDOUS. [01:05:01] UM, SO, SO I HAVE TROUBLE VOTING FOR THE, AS IT'S, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I SHOULD JUST VOTE AGAINST IT OR WHETHER, IF SOMEONE HAS A PROPOSAL PROPOSED AMENDMENT, UM, AS TO, I WOULD SAY, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD INCLUDE MUCH ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL STUFF SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COMMERCIAL AND, AND I, UH, THE, IN THE, I THINK THE WAY THEY TRIED TO ADDRESS THAT IN THE, IN THE REVISIONS IS TO EXCLUDE THOSE CERTAIN THINGS, NOT JUST EDUCATIONAL, BUT FACTORIES AND THOSE THAT ARE IN THE FLOOD PLAIN AND ARE HIGH HAZARD. UM, IS THERE, IS THERE NO WAY ALOUD TO USE THIS AVENUE TO REDEVELOP AND THE FLIPPER? RIGHT. OKAY. BUT ARE THEY ALLOWED TO BE IN A FOOT PLAY NOW THAT IT'S, IF THEY ARE EXISTING IN THE FLOODPLAIN, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THEY WOULD, THEY'RE FULLY ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE WITHIN THEIR OWN IT'S TO SAY WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS DETERMINED THAT JENISON. I MEAN, THAT'S, WHAT'S IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH REGARD TO EXISTING NON-CONFORMING USES AND NONCONFORMING, MEANING SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T MEET CURRENT FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS, SUCH AS THE BUILDING NOT BEING PROPERLY ELEVATED. UM, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN THE USE, BUT YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM ANY ALTERATION OR EXPANSION THAT INCREASES THE NON-CONFORMITY. AND LIKEWISE, YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM WHAT IS CALLED SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT, WHICH IS, UM, IF YOUR IMPROVEMENTS AND REPAIRS TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURE, ONCE THOSE EXCEED 50%, YOU NEED TO BRING THE BUILDING INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT CODE, INCLUDING ELEVATING IT. UH, I THINK THE QUESTION OF, UM, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT COULD LIKE, IF WE HAVE PRESUMING WE HAVE EXISTING USES IN THE FLOODPLAIN THAT REPRESENT A HIGH HAZARD BASED ON BEING IN THE FLOOD, PLAIN, THE QUESTION OF WHAT COULD WE DO ABOUT THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR, UH, THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK ON WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, BECAUSE I'M NOT FAMILIAR ENOUGH WITH THE RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR US TO GO REQUIRE THEM TO CHANGE THEIR USE OR MOVE THAT BUILDING OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN. UM, BUT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, WHICH IS THE REDEVELOPMENT OF BUILDINGS. AND SO IF SOMEBODY IS REDEVELOPING AND IT'S THAT USE, THAT WOULD REPRESENT A HAZARD THAT WOULD BE PROHIBITED BY THIS EXCEPTION, IT'S REALLY A STICKY WICKET BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROPERTY THAT COULD BE WORTH QUITE A BIT OF MONEY DEPENDING ON, ON, UM, UM, HOW MUCH, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH LAND THERE IS THERE. SO, UM, IS ANYBODY, DID ANYBODY ELSE SEE, UH, HAVE AN ISSUE WITH, UH, WITH WHAT, UM, I JUST, UH, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I DON'T, I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THIS. YEAH. AND, AND, AND, UM, YEAH, I HEAR YOU. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE WOULD BE. UM, BUT YOU KNOW, IT BE, BE AS YOU. YEAH. I JUST, UH, I HAVE A VIVID IMAGINATION AND I, I KNOW THAT, I KNOW THAT WE WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT MUCH MORE VIOLENT, UM, UH, AND MORE SEVERE AND MORE FREQUENT, UM, STORMS THIS SEASON BECAUSE OF, UM, WHETHER IT'S EL NINA OR I FORGET WHICH ONE IT IS, BUT THE WAY CONDITIONS ARE DEVELOPING IN THE, IN THE GULF EMIT MAY BE A LOT MORE RAIN THAN THEN A FEW INCHES. AND, AND WE MAY BE SEEING WHOLE BUILDINGS AND EVERYTHING JUST DOWN THE RIVER, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST A QUESTION OF A FLOOR FLOODING. OH, I WOULD SAY, I THINK THE INTENT OF THIS IS TO PROVIDE, UH, AN AVENUE THAT IS LESS BURDENSOME FOR PEOPLE TO GET OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN WITH COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. UM, AND, AND UNDERSTANDABLY, THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE FRAMEWORK OF IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THAT, UM, FOR HAZARDOUS OR, UH, HIGH HAZARD EDUCATIONAL OR INSTITUTIONAL. UM, BUT, UH, YEAH, LET'S, YOU HAD SOMETHING VERY, I WAS JUST GOING TO SUGGEST MAYBE A, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF IT, IF IT GOES ONTO THIS, BUT MAYBE IT COULD BE A QUESTION FOR STAFF TO FOLLOW UP, TO SEE IF THERE WERE, IF THERE ALREADY IS A SURVEY OF THESE TYPES OF HIGH HAZARD BUILDINGS WITHIN THE FLOOD, PLAIN OR MISSIONARY BIXLER, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT WOULD YOU MIND BRINGING YOUR MIC A LITTLE CLOSER? THANK YOU. OKAY. SO IT WAS JUST A, A SUGGESTED SUGGESTION TO, UM, TO INQUIRE ABOUT WHETHER A SURVEY ALREADY EXISTS OF THE HIGH HAZARD BUILDINGS WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN, AND THEN WE COULD GET MORE INFORMATION TO SEE, [01:10:01] UM, WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY ARE, AND THEN POTENTIALLY TALK ABOUT IT ON A DIFFERENT LATER DATE. YEAH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD. YEAH. DO YOU HAVE SOME LANGUAGE OR YOU'RE DILIGENTLY LANGUAGING OVER THERE OR YOU MAKE IT, IS THAT EMOTION? I WOULD SAY WE JUST, UM, WITH MAYBE BRING IT UP AT THE END OF THE MEETING AND I'LL, I'LL SECOND IT AS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM TO, UH, FOR, FOR STAFF TO CIRCLE BACK WITH. SO YOU DON'T WANT THIS INCLUDED IN THE CON UM, IT'S A LANGUAGE ABOUT HIGH HAZARD, CORRECT. OKAY. THAT WAS, I WAS GOING TO PUT IT IN. OKAY. WELL, IF YOU'VE GOT LANGUAGE THAN THAT'S FINE, THAT'S FINE. OKAY. SO KIND OF COMBINING EVERYTHING THAT YOU'RE SAYING, UM, HERE, UM, UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, UM, CONDITIONS, UM, NUMBER ONE, CONTINUE TO INFORM THE PUBLIC, UH, VIA OUTREACH AND PUBLIC COMMENT, UM, EVENTS AND INCLUDE THE HIGH HAZARD VANCE FOR THOSE PUBLIC, UM, UH, OUTREACH EVENTS. SO HAVING THOSE MAPS READY FOR THOSE EVENTS IS THAT WORK. THAT SOUNDS GOOD. SO NOW WITH THAT ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION CONDITION WE'LL VOTE AND, OR I GUESS WE VOTE TO ADD THAT AND WE HAVE TO HAVE A UNANIMOUS VOTE FOR IT TO BE ADDED. UM, SO YEAH, NOPE. UH, KAYLA CHANDLER WATERSHED PROTECTION. IF IT'S, IF EVERYONE ON THE COMMISSION ACCEPTS THAT YOU DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON, ON THE CONDITIONS, YOU CAN JUST VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION. DOES ANYONE OBJECT TO THAT ADDITION, ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION, ADDITION, COMMITMENT, EDITION, EVERY SEEN NO OBJECTIONS. WE'LL APP GET BREMMER. YEAH, I DON'T OBJECT JUST BECAUSE I'VE KIND OF LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT, THE RUBBER DUCKIES. GOT IT. YEAH. WELL, AS YOU GET OLDER, UM, I'D LIKE THE WHOLE THING TO BE RE-READ AND SO I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I'M VOTING ON. I THINK IT'S A VALID, VALID QUESTION. IF WE'RE VOTING FOR DINNER, CHICKEN OR BEEF. YEAH. I'LL HAVE THE FISH. YEAH, THEY DO IN THE AIRLINE. YEAH. THIS IS GOING TO BE THE TOSS SALAD OPTION. OKAY. UM, PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 25 DASH SEVEN DASH NINE THREE AND 25 DASH SEVEN DASH NINE SIX TO INCLUDE A COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT, UM, EX EXPECT EXCEPTION, UM, THE NASH, WHEREAS THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION COMPLETED A STUDY OF HISTORICAL RAINFALL FOR TEXAS IN 2018 CALLED ATLAS 14 THAT SHOWED THAT THE AUSTIN AREA IS EXPERIENCING HEAVIER RAINFALL MORE FREQUENTLY. AND THAT THE PROBABILITY OF SEVERE FLOODING IS GREATER THAN PREVIOUSLY REALIZED. WHEREAS IN RESPONSE, THE CITY OF AUSTIN REVISE ITS FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS AND ADOPTED INTERIM FLOODPLAIN MAPS UNTIL A CITYWIDE FLOODPLAIN STUDY COULD BE COMPLETED AS PART OF THE REVISED FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS. A RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION WAS CREATED AMONG OTHER ITEMS TO PROMOTE REDEVELOPMENT THAT REDUCES FLOOD RISK FOR DEVELOPMENT, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. WHEREAS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THAT THE CITY STAFF ARE REQUESTING CHANGES TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PROMOTE FLOOD RISK REDUCTION WHEN REDEVELOPING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, THEREFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 25 DASH SEVEN DASH NINE THREE AND 25 DASH SEVEN DASH NINE SIX WITH THE FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. AND THOSE CONDITIONS ARE CONTINUE TO INFORM THE PUBLIC VIA OUTREACH AND PUBLIC COMMENT EVENTS, AND INCLUDE THE HIGH HAZARD MAPS FOR THOSE OUTREACH EVENTS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. RAISE YOUR HAND OR SAY, OR RAISE YOUR HAND REMOTELY OR, YEAH, JUST RAISE YOUR HAND. I'M EASIEST. OKAY. ALL THOSE AGAINST OR OPPOSED WE'VE GOT BRIMER AND, UH, SCOTT, YOU GOT THAT. ALL RIGHT. AND ALL THOSE ABSTAINING. ALL RIGHT. SO IS THAT EIGHT TO KAYLA? OKAY. OCEAN PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. THANKS FOR THE DISCUSSION GUYS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. LET'S KEEP CRANKING, UM, ONTO THREE B [3b. Discuss and consider a recommendation on proposed changes to City Land Development Code Title 25 (§ 25-1, § 25-2, § 25-8) to address challenges to the successful design and construction of public mobility projects in the right-of-way] UH, DISCUSSING CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TITLE 25 25 1 2, AND TWENTY-FIVE EIGHT TO ADDRESS CHALLENGES TO THE SUCCESSFUL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC MOBILITY [01:15:01] PROJECTS AND RIGHT AWAY. THANK YOU GUYS FOR COMING BACK. UM, AND THANK YOU FOR STICKING OUT THE SHOAL CREEK RUBBER DUCKY, UH, DISCUSSION ITEM TWO. UM, THANKS FOR COMING BACK. UH, YEAH, IF YOU WERE, IF YOU COULD MAYBE GIVE US AN UPDATE, IF ANYTHING HAS CHANGED, UH, IN THE BACKUP IN REVIEWING IT EARLIER, I NOTICED THERE WAS A REVISED THING. I DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY IF ANYTHING HAD BEEN REVISED, BUT, BUT, UH, I WOULD APPRECIATE ANY UPDATE YOU'VE GOT ALONG. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M SUSAN DANIELS, I'M THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE QUARTER PROGRAM OFFICE. AND THANK YOU FOR HAVING US BACK TONIGHT. UM, I'M JOINED BY DONNA GALODIE WITH THE PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HER AS WELL. UM, YES, I, I, JUST, AS A REMINDER, I WAS HERE AT YOUR LAST MEETING MAY 4TH TO GIVE A PRESENTATION ON THE PROPOSED, UH, CODE AMENDMENTS FOR PUBLIC MOBILITY PROJECTS AND THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND, UM, WANT TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF UPDATE ON WHAT HAS HAPPENED BETWEEN THE MEETING, UH, WHERE I WAS HERE ON MAY 4TH TILL TODAY. UM, ON MAY 5TH, WE WENT TO CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE, THE JOINT COMMITTEE, UM, AND PRESENTED THE SAME PRESENTATION THERE. UM, THEY DID APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE FORWARD TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON A FIVE ZERO VOTE. UH, WE DID MOVE ON TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON MAY 10TH, UH, WHERE WE RECEIVED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL FOR, UH, MOVING THE ITEM FORWARD, UM, OR THE CODE AMENDMENTS. UM, DO YOU WANT TO TALK TO YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, UH, SOME OF THE INPUT THAT WE RECEIVED THAT NOT ONLY FROM THIS COMMISSION, BUT FROM OTHERS AS WELL? UM, AND YOU KNOW, WE HAD QUESTIONS FROM BOTH YOU ALL AND BECAUSE AN ORANGE SAYS COMMITTEE ON TREES. SO WE TALKED ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE. UH, WE DID HAVE A REQUEST FROM COUSIN ORANGES TO ADD A DEFINITION FOR PUBLIC MOBILITY PROJECTS. UM, YOU MIGHT'VE NOTICED THAT WE HAVE USED THAT LANGUAGE THROUGHOUT BOTH, UM, AND THEY DRAFT VERSION THAT YOU ALL SAW AND THE FINAL ONE THAT'S MOVING FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL TOMORROW. UM, SO WE HAVE AGREED TO ADD THAT, AND WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THAT MORE IN JUST A MOMENT WHEN I TALK ABOUT THE, THE CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THE LAST, UM, DRAFT OF THE ORDINANCE. UM, ONE OF THE OTHER ITEMS THAT WE HEARD FROM BOTH COMMISSIONS, UM, COMMISSIONER BRIMER AND SOMEBODY ON THE, UH, COUSIN ORANGES COMMITTEE, UM, HAD TO DO WITH THE ABILITY TO TRACK ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES, UM, THAT ARE, UM, ALLOWED AS PRODUCTS MOVE FORWARD. AND SO, UM, AS CITY STAFF, WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH SEVERAL OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND INDIVIDUALS, AND I DO WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT, UM, THE, THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DOES THAT TRACKING. SO THEY DO THAT THROUGH THEIR PERMITTING PROCESS. THEY TRACK ANY ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES THAT ARE APPROVED, UM, AND THROUGH OUR STAFF AT THE QUARTER PROGRAM OFFICE, WE'RE ALSO COMMITTING TO DOING THAT TRACKING AS WELL FOR OUR CORRIDOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM PROJECTS. AND SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE HAPPY TO BRING BACK, UM, AT KEY JUNCTURES OR WHATEVER TIME MAY MAKE SENSE FOR YOU ALL. UM, THOSE WERE THE HIGHLIGHTS OUT OF THE, THE MEETINGS AND THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD, UM, UH, THAT, THAT PIGGYBACKED OFF OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD HERE. UM, WHAT I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT ARE NOW IS KIND OF TURNING TOWARDS THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AND IN GENERAL, UM, THE CONTENT REMAINS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT IT IS THAT YOU ALL SAW, UM, ON MAY 4TH. UM, THERE ARE REALLY FOUR ITEMS THAT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT. THE FIRST IS THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC MOBILITY PROJECTS. AND SO THAT NOW READS, UH, PUBLIC MOBILITY PROJECT MEANS A TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, INCLUDING A MULTI-USE TRAIL RAIL OR TRANSIT LINE OR STREET FUNDED BY A PUBLIC ENTITY AND LOCATED ON A PUBLICLY OWNED LAND OR IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, OR IN A PUBLIC EASEMENT. UM, AND THEN ANY WORDING THAT IS NOW DUPLICATIVE THE PUBLIC MOBILITY PROJECT, UH, WE WERE ABLE TO REMOVE THAT FROM SUFFOLK SUBSEQUENT SECTIONS, WHERE NOW THAT DEFINITION TAKES PLACE, UH, ONE OF THE OTHER ITEMS, UM, AND YOU MAY REMEMBER THIS FROM YOUR MEETING ON MAY. FOURTH IS IN CITY CODE SECTION 25, 8 TO 11 WATER QUALITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS. UH, WE HAD AN ITEM IN A NUMBER OUR IN E THAT, UH, TALKS ABOUT CURB SEPARATED BICYCLE LANES. UH, YOU ALL HAD A CITIZENS SPEAK UP AGAINST HAVING THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE. SO CITY STAFF DID GO BACK AND EVALUATE, UM, ITS APPLICABILITY [01:20:01] AND DID FIND THAT IT CAUSES A BIT OF CONFUSION. AND WE ALSO FOUND THAT IT DOESN'T IMPEDE THE CURRENT DOESN'T IMPEDE OUR ABILITY TO DO THE PUBLIC MOBILITY PROJECTS. SO WE DID AGREE TO, UM, DELETE THAT FROM, UH, THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED. UM, THE THIRD ITEM THAT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT AS FAR AS CHANGES IN THIS DRAFT ORDINANCE IS THE REWORDING OF THE STRUCTURAL CONTROL FUND, UM, FOR PAYMENT IN LIEU. UM, IT HAD BEEN WRITTEN IN THE VERSION THAT YOU SAW TO BE A PUBLIC MOBILITY PROJECT, STRUCTURAL CONTROL FUND, AND THAT HAS BEEN CHANGED TO ALIGN, UM, MORE SPECIFICALLY WITH THE WATERSHEDS THAT IT APPLIES TO. SO IT NOW READS SUBURBAN AND WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS STRUCTURAL CONTROL FUND, AND, UM, THEN THERE'S WORDING THROUGHOUT THAT SECTION THAT BASICALLY MAKES THOSE SAME CHANGES. IN ADDITION, THERE IS, UM, AN ITEM THAT WAS ADDED THAT SAYS UNTIL A SEPARATE FORMULA IS ESTABLISHED AS SET OUT UNDER SECTION F UH, CITY CODE 25, 8 TO 14 OPTIONAL PAYMENT, INSTEAD OF STRUCTURAL CONTROLS, A PAYMENT INTO THE SUBURBAN AND WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED STRUCTURAL CONTROL FUND SHALL BE CALCULATED USING THE SAME FORMULA ALREADY ESTABLISHED BY COUNCIL OR A PAYMENT INTO THE URBAN WATERSHEDS STRUCTURAL CONTROL FUND UNDER SUBSECTION C OF THE CITY CODE 25, 8 TO 14. SO THAT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO USE THAT, UM, SAME, UH, PAYMENT CALCULATION UNTIL ONE IS, IS SET FOR THIS NEW STRUCTURAL CONTROL FUND. AND THEN REALLY THE, THE OTHER PIECES ARE JUST MINOR TWEAKS THAT ARE MADE FOR LANGUAGE CONSISTENCY. UM, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S, UH, AN ITEM WHERE WE HAD ROADWAY PROJECTS AND FOR CONSISTENCY, WE CHANGED THAT TO PUBLIC MOBILITY PROJECTS AND THE RIGHT OF WAY, SO THAT WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH THE WORDING THROUGHOUT THE AMENDMENTS. UH, WE DID HAVE SOME LEGAL CLARIFYING LANGUAGE THAT WAS NEEDED, UM, AS WE PUT THE ORDINANCE, UM, THROUGH OUR, OUR LEGAL VETTING PROCESS. AND THEN WE ALSO REMOVED ANY REDUNDANCY THAT WAS NO LONGER NEEDED IN THE ORDINANCE. AND THAT IS, THAT KIND OF GETS YOU ALL UP TO SPEED. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU ALL HAVE. PERFECT. THANK YOU. UM, REMOTE COMMISSIONERS. YEAH, THOMPSON PLEASE. OKAY. UM, MY ISSUE IS, UM, THE URBAN WATERSHEDS, UM, ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL AND THAT'S SORT OF A STICKLER WITH ME BECAUSE THERE'S NO INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO STAY WITHIN THE 55%. AND I'LL GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF THAT. THE FIRST MEETING I WAS EVER ON WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, ONE OF THEM WAS ABOUT PILOT KNOB AND WE WORKED AND WORKED AND WORKED, AND THE ROAD GOT MOVED TO PROTECT THE TREES AND SO FORTH. AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HERE IS AGAINST DOING THAT WORK IF WE THINK, I MEAN, THAT, THAT IS JUST MY ONLY PROBLEM WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. AND IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T TRUST STAFF. IT'S JUST THAT I THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS IT, UM, IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE. SO THAT, THAT IS REALLY, AND THEN THE BIKE, UM, AMENDMENTS, WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT. SO, OKAY. SO JU JUST TO SUMMARIZE SOMETHING, THOSE ARE JUST COMMENTS YOU WANT TO MAKE THERE. ISN'T A QUESTION IN THERE. IS THAT ACCURATE? UM, WELL, THOSE ARE MY POINTS. YEAH, THAT'D BE GREAT. I MEAN, IF THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL AND NOT PUT IT ON STAFF WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE FOR THE URBAN WATERSHEDS, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME CONTROLS THAT OTHERS HAVE. AND SO I JUST WANT THAT SAID NOTED. YES. NICOLE'S OR, UM, BEDFORD, YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. OKAY. THANKS GUYS. UM, BRIMER, LET'S GO BACK AROUND THE HORN HERE AND FIND HER, EXCUSE ME. YEAH. IF I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER THOMPSON'S, UH, COMMENT, I, I SHARE THAT WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL AND THAT, UM, I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME SORT OF, UH, PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE PROCESS THAT IS GONE THROUGH FOR THIS, UH, IT'S NICE TO RECEIVE A QUARTERLY OR A MONTHLY OR ANNUAL REPORT ON THIS, BUT YOU CAN'T [01:25:02] REPLANT TREES. YOU CAN'T, YOU KNOW, MOVE THE ROAD F THE CONCRETE'S BEEN POURED, YOU EAT ALL THE STUFF THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK BACK AND YOU SAY, YOU KNOW, GEE, WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED SOMETHING DIFFERENT. YOU CAN'T GO. AND OF COURSE THE FLIP SIDE IS YOU DON'T WANT TO HOLD UP, YOU KNOW, BUILDING LAMAR BOULEVARD OR, YOU KNOW, PUTTING PROJECT CONNECT DOWN IT, OR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IT IS, UNDULY FOR A BUNCH OF, UH, YOU KNOW, MISSIONS TO REVIEW. UH, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CORRECT SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM IS, BUT I'M REALLY RELUCTANT TO HAVE WHOLESALE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND APPROVAL, EVEN WITHIN THE GUIDELINES THAT ARE NOMINALLY FAIRLY REASONABLE IN YOUR PRESENTATION. I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE ANY, BUT, YOU KNOW, TO HAVE THEM JUST WHOLESALE BE APPROVED, I'M CONCERNED THAT THERE'S NOT ANY PUBLIC REVIEW OF. UM, AND IF I MAY, I WOULD JUST WANT TO BE, UM, MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS DOING. UM, SO IN PART FOUR, UM, THERE'S LANGUAGE INCLUDED THAT IS ALREADY PART OF THE CODE. AND THEN AT THE VERY BOTTOM, LET'S SEE PAGE FOUR, FIFTEENS NINE, NUMBER NINE, THE UNDERLYING LANGUAGE IS WHAT IS GOING TO BE ADDED. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR IN CASE ANYONE WAS CONFUSED ITEMS ONE THROUGH EIGHT WERE ALREADY PART OF THE CODE AND NINE IS WHAT IS BEING ADDED TO AS, UH, ALLOWABLE FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE. SORRY, JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. THANKS. OKAY. THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION EITHER. IT'S A MILLIE MERELY A CONCERN THAT I HAVE ABOUT THE PROCESS. GOOD, GOOD. SO PAGE FOUR, SORRY. NUMBER NINE. OKAY. IS THIS, THIS WEEK'S PRESENTATION OR LAST WEEK TH THIS ISN'T THE BACKUP THAT KAYLA PROVIDED TODAY? I BELIEVE, UM, THE, UM, THE TOPICS IN RED, IT SAYS STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, ORDINANCE NUMBER, UM, AND IT'S A 15 PAGE PDF OF THE ORDINANCE CHANGES WHERE THOSE CHANGES ARE UNDERLINED. UM, SO YOU CAN SEE ADDITIONS, OR I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE MARK THROUGHS FOR, FOR REVISIONS. UM, I'M NOT FINDING IT ON MY EMAIL. AND IS IT IT'S IN THE BACKUP AS WELL? CORRECT. KAYLA UP ON THE WEBSITE. YES, IT IS POSTED. I'M LAID BACK UP AND I AM HAPPY TO READ THAT FOR YOU. YEAH, THAT'D BE GREAT. IT IS, UM, OR PART FOUR SUBJECTS FROM B AND D A CITY CODE SECTION 25, 8 42 ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE. UM, THERE IS AN ADDITION OF, UM, ITEM B NINE, UH, THAT SAYS SUBJECT SUBSECTION 25 8 3 92, B SIX, UPLAND ZONE, SUBSECTION 25 8 3 92 C SIX, UPLAND ZONE, SUBSECTION 25 8 4 23 D SUB UPLAND ZONE AND SUBJECTION 25 8, 4 53 UPLANDS ZONE. UM, SO THAT IS CREATING THE ABILITY, UH, TO DO AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR THE SUBURBAN WATER SUPPLIES OF BOURBON AND WATER SUPPLY RULE, UH, WATERSHEDS. AND THEN IT GOES ON TO ADD, UM, NUMBER, LET'S SEE D SEVEN FOR A VARIANCE FROM THOSE SECTIONS. I'M NOT GOING TO READ THOSE AGAIN. UM, IF YOU DON'T MIND FOR THOSE, UM, SECTIONS, UM, A VARIANCE, UH, CAN BE GRANTED, UM, LET'S SEE, UH, AS LONG IT IS THE MINIMUM DEVIATION NEEDED TO PROVIDE NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS FOR A PUBLIC MOBILITY PROJECT AND THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND DOES NOT CREATE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. AND THIS OF COURSE IS REVIEWED, UM, BY WATERSHED PROTECTION STAFF, UH, DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND BY THE VARIOUS FENDING DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE AS WE TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MEETING, UH, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, BUT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE, AND OF COURSE, THIS IS A TOOL IN THE TOOL KIT, UM, THAT ALLOWS US IN THOSE INSTANCES WHERE WE'RE NOT ABLE TO MEET, UM, THE WATER QUALITY ARE THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER, UM, LIMITS AND THE PAYMENTS, UM, IN LIEU FOR THOSE SECTIONS. UM, ONLY AFTER WE'VE PROVEN THAT EITHER WE CANNOT BUILD IT OR IT [01:30:01] IS IN FEASIBLE TO MEET THOSE COMMISSIONERS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? YES. UM, SO THANK YOU. I WENT BACK, THERE WAS, I WOULDN'T COMPARE THE TWO WEEKS AGO AND THEN THIS ONE, SO THERE WAS SOME TO ME, SUBSYSTEM CHANGE, QUITE A FEW CHANGES. UM, SO THEN YOU DIP INITIALLY THE WAY I'M READING IT NOW, UM, THIS WILL INCLUDE PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, WHEREAS BEFORE I WAS UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BECAUSE IT'S CONNECTING THIS TO THE ASAP AND ALSO PROJECT CONNECT. SO, SO SOME OF THE RIGHT-AWAY ISSUES THAT, YOU KNOW, ARE, ARE THERE, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS WOULD AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDE ALL RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITH A ROUTE AWAY, UH, IF THERE'S A RIGHT AWAY, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST COMMERCIAL. SO THESE ARE SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC MOBILITY PROJECTS. SO THE PROJECTS THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN, UM, OR TRAVIS COUNTY OR PROJECT CONNECT MIGHT BE MOVING FORWARD. SO IT'S SPECIFICALLY FOR THOSE PROJECTS, IT'S NOT ABOUT, UM, THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND, AND ACCEPTING THOSE OR A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR PUBLIC MOBILITY PROJECTS, WHICH COULD BE AN AREA THAT COULD BE GO THROUGH A RESIDENTIAL. IT COULD, YES. OKAY. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHAT I, UM, SO I HAD A QUESTION. SO FOR EXAMPLE, UM, I JUST FIND THAT LOCATION. SO ON ITEMS ON PAGE FIVE, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, THAT WHEN DECIDING THE NEW VERSION DOES NOT INCLUDE, UM, IS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE BARTON SPRINGS ZONE, WHEREAS THE PREVIOUS ONE DID. SO WHAT IS YOUR RATIONALE FOR, LET ME CLARIFY THAT. SO THE SECTIONS THAT THIS APPLIES TO ALREADY EXCLUDE THE BARTON SPRINGS ZONE, NOTHING HAS CHANGING IN THE BARTON SPRINGS ZONE. AND SO THIS IS SPECIFICALLY, IT WAS REDUNDANT TO SAY THAT, UM, BECAUSE IT DID NOT APPLY, UM, AS AN AMENDMENT IN THAT PARTICULAR SECTION, KATIE COYNE, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, JUST WANT TO BACK UP THAT STATEMENT, THAT IT WAS JUST EXCLUDED FOR CONSISTENCY, THAT WE'RE CERTAINLY NOT ALLOWING ANYTHING TO OCCUR IN THE BARTON SPRINGS ZONE THAT WOULD NOT ALREADY BE ALLOWED. OKAY. OKAY. AND, UM, ON PAGE 13 PART 12, IT ONLY THE WAY IT'S READ IT TALKS ABOUT, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS. IT ONLY HAS B, SO IT DOES AWAY WITH A AND C DOES, WAS THAT THE INTENT? UM, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. UM, ARE YOU SAYING THAT PREVIOUSLY IT HAD, UM, OTHER SECTIONS, THERE WERE SOME AREAS WHERE THE PREVIOUS ONE HAD SOME OF THE OTHER SECTIONS, UM, OR CONTEXT WHERE THERE WEREN'T ANY, UM, CHANGES PROPOSED AND IN THIS VERSION, IF THERE WEREN'T ANY CHANGES PROPOSED IN THOSE OTHER, UM, LETTERED ITEMS, THOSE WERE REMOVED. AND SO THIS PERSON ONLY HAS THE PIECES, UM, THAT HAD LANGUAGE THAT WAS CHANGING OR ADDED, WHICH I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE IN SOME, IN SOME, IT SAYS REVIT'S SUBSECTION, WHATEVER IT IS, BUT HERE, IT DOESN'T SAY REVISE, SUBSECTION B, IT TOTALLY LEAVES OUT A AND C. SO I SAW, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS AN A AND C MEANS THAT THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THOSE SECTIONS, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING, THE INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH IN THAT SECTION STATES IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS THAT IT ONLY HAS B WHAT IT SHOULD SAY IS AMENDED TO MODIFY SECTION B INDICATING THAT A AND C ARE NOT GOING TO BE IMPACTED, BUT HERE, THE WAY IT'S RE READ, IT'S ONLY INCLUDING SECTION B. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS COMMISSIONER. UM, ARE YOU REFERRING TO PART 14 SUBSECTION THOUGH THAT STARTS SUBSECTION B OF CD CODE SECTION 25, 8 4 52. IS THAT SPARKS WELL, 12 OR 22? WOULD YOU JUST INTRODUCE YOURSELF? THANK YOU. UM, S UM, THAT WAS A DECISION OF THE LAW DEPARTMENT. THAT IS THE DRAFTS, THE ORDINANCE. AND SO I SEE THAT PART 12 MATCHES THE LANGUAGE OF PART 13. WHEREAS PART 13, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT SAYS, YOU KNOW, THIS SECTION, OH, I SEE, IS AMENDED TO ADD IT TO, TO READ AS FOLLOWS. AND THEN PART 12 SAYS, READ AS FOLLOWS. WE CAN CERTAINLY ASK THE LAW DEPARTMENT, UM, YOU KNOW, BUT UPON, YOU KNOW, UPON APPROVAL WHEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THIS ORDINANCE, [01:35:01] UM, WITH THE HEADER OF PART 12, DOESN'T MATTER SO MUCH AS THE UNDERLINED PART IN PART B IS THE PART THAT CHANGES IN CITY CODE PART A AND PART C DO NOT CHANGE. THEY REMAIN EXISTING IN CITY CODE. AND PART 12 IS SAYING, SUBSECTION B CHANGES, BUT IT'S THE UNDERLINED LANGUAGE HENDERSON WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS I'M LOOKING AT WHAT I'M READING AND WHEN I'M COMPARING ONE SECTION TO ANOTHER, AND THE LANGUAGE IS DIFFERENT, IT'S IMPLYING THAT HERE. UM, UNDER PART 12, THE NEW PART 12 THERE'S NO, A AND THERE'S NO, SEE, I'M JUST LETTING, I'M JUST, THAT'S MY PERSPECTIVE WHEN I'M READING, YOU KNOW? UH, YEAH. SO I JUST WONDERED IF THAT'S THE INTENT. I THINK THE INTENT IS NOT TO REMOVE ANC. IT'S ONLY TO, BECAUSE IT SAID SUBSECTION B, IT'S ONLY REFERRING TO SUBSECTION B. IT'S NOT REFERRING TO SUBSECTION A OR C. OKAY. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. SORRY, LIZ JOHNSTON. SO IT'S WEIRD HOW YOU GUYS DO VISITS IN ONE SECTION. YOU DO IT WHERE THEY ONE WAY IN ANOTHER. SO THIS HAS BEEN A CONFUSING PROCESS WHEN I'M COMPARING ONE DOCUMENT TO THE PREVIOUS ONE, AND IT'S NOT HELPFUL WHEN YOU USE ONE STRATEGY, ONE LANGUAGE STRATEGY IN ONE SECTION IN A DIFFERENT STRATEGY, IN A DIFFERENT SECTION. SO THAT CAN BE CONFUSING TO ME. AND I'M SURE JOHN Q PUBLIC, WHEN THEY'RE READING THIS, THEY'RE LIKE, THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. SO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CONSISTENCY SO THAT PEOPLE THEY KNOW WHAT THE PATTERN IS. KA KATIE COIN, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, THIS TYPE OF WRITING IS COMPLICATED AND IT'S HARD FOR A LAY PERSON TO UNDERSTAND AND, UM, WANT TO BE AS CONSISTENT AS POSSIBLE. I THINK THAT THE CONVENTION THAT THEY USED WAS LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, PART NINE, SUBSECTION A IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS, RIGHT? THAT'S THE SAME CONVENTION THEY USE THERE. IF THERE'S A COMPLETELY NEW SECTION, UH, LIKE LET'S SEE PART 13 CITY CODE IS AMENDED TO ADD A NEW SUB SECTION D THAT'S WHERE IT MENTIONS THE SUB-SECTION LATER. BUT IN ANY SITUATION I'VE SEEN THAT WHERE IT SAYS THERE'S AN AMENDMENT TO A SUBSECTION. THEY START BY SAYING, SUBSECTION B CITY CODE IS AMENDED TO READ. I THAT'S, WHAT I'M READING IS CONSISTENT, IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? SO, AND FOR ME, I JUST, WHEN CERTAIN SECTIONS STARTED LEFT OUT AND YOU'RE JUST PUTTING IN CHANGE, IT, DOESN'T GIVE YOU THE BIG PICTURE OF WHAT IS CHANGING. AND SO THAT FOR ME IS VERY UNLIKE, THAT CAUSES ME TO PAUSE. UM, SO ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THIS IS ON PAGE 10, THERE'S A PART 10, AND THERE'S A REFERENCE TO D AND THEN ON PAGE 12, THERE'S DIFFERENT LANGUAGE. SO HERE, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE SAME LANGUAGE, BUT ONCE THEY SEE A HUNDRED PERCENT, THE OTHER ONE STATES 90%, BUT I CAN'T CONNECT THE DOTS AS TO WHY UNDER PART 10, WHAT YOU WOULD SAY THAT, AND THEN DIFFERENT LANGUAGE IN THE, SOME OF THE OTHERS. SO, I MEAN, FOR ME, IT'S, I'M NOT GETTING THE BIG PICTURE TO SEE WHAT THE IMPACT IS OF THAT SPECIFIC CHANGE IS TO THAT SUBSECTION, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SURE. AND MAYBE I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE WHOLE SECTION. OH, YOU KNOW, I THINK CERTAINLY, UM, YOU KNOW, SUSAN KIND OF THE INTENT OF HER PRESENTATION A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WAS TO GIVE THAT A BIG PICTURE OF SPECIFICALLY PART 10. SO IT READS DIFFERENTLY THAN PART 12, BECAUSE PART 10 IS ADDING A WHOLE NEW SUBSECTION D D DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE A, THROUGH C EXISTS. AND NOW THERE'S A THROUGH D WHERE WE'LL, YOU KNOW, SOON, AND THEN PART 12 SECTION A EXISTS SECTION B EXISTS. IT'S JUST BEING AMENDED. AND I'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT. UM, IT, I AGREE THAT, THAT IT DOES GET CONFUSING WHEN WORDING CHANGES AND HOW IT'S STRUCTURED CHANGES, UM, THE VERSION THAT, THAT YOU ALL SAW THAT DID HAVE SOME OF THAT ADDITIONAL CONTEXT TO IT. AND THEN WHEN IT WENT THROUGH THE FINAL LEGAL REVIEW PROCESS FOR SPECIFIC EXACTLY WHAT COUNCIL WILL BE VOTING ON, THAT'S WHEN THAT LANGUAGE GOT TWEAKED AND FINALIZED, YOU KNOW, SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT COUNCIL ACTION. SO YES, IT DOES REMOVE SOME OF THAT CONTEXT, BUT IT MAKES IT, UM, A MORE DIRECT, UM, REFLECTION OF WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON. OKAY. AWESOME. UM, THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR THE UPDATE. UM, ALSO DID Y'ALL FIND OUT WHAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IS FOR EACH WATERSHED. UM, CAUSE I KNOW CUMULATIVELY, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S WATER QUALITY OR FLOODING, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO KNOW WHAT THE AVERAGE IS IN THE WAY I'M READING. I THINK SOME OF THIS, [01:40:01] UM, IT CAN, IT CAN BE APPLIED TO A WATERSHED AS MEAN THE FUNDS WOULD STAY WITHIN THAT WATERSHED. AND, BUT MY QUESTION IS, WHAT IF IT'S A SUPER HUGE WATERSHED LIKE CANYON CREEK? HOW WOULD YOU CALCULATE THAT? YOU KNOW, SO, I MEAN, THERE'S SOME OTHER, YEAH, I, THE STEEL WAS NOT MAKING SENSE TO ME, JUST FYI. UM, I CAN TAKE A STAB AT PART OF IT. UM, THIS IS LIZ JOHNSTON WITH THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT. UM, THE, THE STRUCTURAL CONTROL FUND THAT IS BEING SET UP IS, UM, AS, AS IT IS NOW, IT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO USE THOSE FUNDS AND A INDIVIDUAL WATERSHED. IT MAY BE WINED UP THAT IT'S, UM, HER WATERSHED REGULATION AREA, BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SORT OF FLEXIBILITY WE'RE RUNNING INTO ISSUES WITH OTHER SIMILAR FUNDS WHERE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT GOES INTO THAT FUND IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL PROJECT WITHIN EACH WATERSHED. AND IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO USE THE FUNDS EFFECTIVELY, WE NEED SOME FLEXIBILITY ON WHERE, UM, WE, UM, HE USED THE MONEY TO INSTALL, UM, WATER QUALITY CONTROLS, UM, AS FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER PER WATERSHED, UM, WE HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THAT FOR THIS PARTICULAR EFFORT. HOWEVER, UM, WE DID DO SOME ANALYSIS ON OUR END AND, UM, AS SUSAN'S GROUP ALSO DID ANALYSIS WITHIN THE CORRIDOR, UM, OFFICE AS WELL TO IDENTIFY WHICH, UM, LIKE EXISTING PROJECTS AND EXISTING CORRIDORS AND WHAT THE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVER IS. AND THE, UM, THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT THE ORDINANCE HAS IDENTIFIED AS, UM, THE AVERAGE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING. IS THAT CORRECT? CLOSE? UH, YEAH. UH, YEAH, WE, WE DID DO SOME OF THAT ANALYSIS, BOTH FROM WHAT'S EXISTING AND THE, WHAT, UM, A PUBLIC MOBILITY PROJECT WOULD NEED. AND SO WE LOOKED AT, IF YOU REMEMBER BACK TO THE SLIDES, I'LL HAVE TO LOOK AND SEE WHICH SLIDE NUMBER IT IS. BUT, UM, WE LOOKED AT, UH, WHAT WOULD BE NEEDED, UH, FOR OUR PUBLIC MOBILITY PROJECTS KIND OF LOOKED AT KIND OF A HIGH AND A LOW RANGE. AND IN ORDER TO SET THOSE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS THAT WE HAVE IN THIS AN LDC AMENDMENT, UM, WE, WE TOOK THE AVERAGE OF THAT, RIGHT? SO IT WOULD, UM, ALLOW FOR MOST OF THE PROJECTS. UM, BUT WE KNEW THAT IT WOULD NOT COVER ALL OF THE PROJECTS, UH, THAT WOULD BE MOVING FORWARD. AND SO REALLY, UH, PART OF THE INTENT THERE IS, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT, UM, ANY OF THEM WHERE WE'RE NEEDING TO, UM, YOU KNOW, PAY PARTICULARLY CLOSE ATTENTION, UM, REALLY, REALLY, UM, MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE HITTING ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS OF, CAN YOU DO THIS? CAN YOU DO, UH, THE OTHER, UH, UH, ACTION OR THIS, THIS OTHER, UM, TYPE OF, UM, MODIFICATION IN ORDER TO MAKE THINGS WORK THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY HELD TO BE ABLE TO REALLY, UM, GO THROUGH THAT VETTING PROCESS AND WORK WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT AND ENSURE THAT WE'RE DOING ALL THAT WE CAN. AND SO THE, THE, THE VARIANCE WOULD JUST ALLOW US TO, UH, BE ABLE TO, UM, PROVE THAT OUT, UM, DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS, UH, TO ENSURE THAT WE'VE, WE'VE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE EXIT FOR NOW. ERIN, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? I DO NOT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. KORESH'S COMING AROUND THE HORN. YOU GOT ANYTHING? UH, NO QUESTIONS. APPRECIATE IT. YEAH. SCOTT, YOU'RE UP TWO PARENTS, NO QUESTIONS. UM, THANK YOU GUYS VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE YOU COMING BACK. UM, I ONLY HAD ONE QUESTION I BELIEVE, OR MY PAGE SHOULDER. UM, AND THAT WAS OUR, THE FUNDS WHEN YOU WERE MAKING LYNDA INTRODUCTION TO FUNDS, ARE THEY GOING TO BE BROKEN OUT BY URBAN SUBURBAN AND, UH, OR IS IT JUST, I KNOW WHEN YOU SPOKE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, IT WAS, THERE WERE SEVERAL LONG PROJECTS THAT WOULD SPAN DIFFERENT WATERSHEDS AND BEING ABLE TO BE MORE OR LESS APPLICABLE TO THEIR RESPECTIVE WATERSHEDS IN PART, BUT ARE THE FUNDS GOING TO BE BROKEN UP IN THOSE WATERSHEDS AS WELL? YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE STRUCTURAL CONTROL FUND BRETT. YES. I'LL DEFER TO WATERSHED. SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AND HAVE MADE SURE WE GOT MORE CLARITY [01:45:01] ON, UM, IN, IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS SINCE WE SAW YOU LAST. UM, BUT I, I BELIEVE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS IF THE MONEY IS COMING FROM, UH, THE SUBURBAN WATERSHED CLASSIFICATION, IS THAT GOING TO BE USED WITHIN THAT CLASSIFICATION AS WELL? I BELIEVE THAT'S THE INTENT, UH, NOT IN THE SAME WATERSHED, BUT WITHIN THAT SAME WATERSHED CLASSIFICATION. YEAH. AND I, YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT SOMETIMES THEY DON'T ALL FIT IN THE SAME SPOT AND HAVING A CRITICAL MASS TO MAKE, TO HAVE A PROJECT START, BUT, UM, IT WOULD BE, I THINK THAT KIND OF SPEAKS TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS ARE THERE TOO. UM, THAT'S ALL, I, THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I'VE GOT. DID I ASK AMMONIA? WE ALREADY ASKED REMIND, CORRECT? YEAH. THOMPSON. OKAY. I FOUND MY MUTE BUTTON. OKAY. I JUST, I WANTED TO JUST CLARIFY THIS BECAUSE I DID HAVE ISSUES WITH THE URBAN, UM, WATERSHED. SO IN JANUARY WE ARE, ARE THE COUNT THE COMMISSION IS TO, UH, REVIEW THE, THE STRUCTURAL, THE STRUCTURAL CONTROL PLAN. SO I'M WONDERING IF WE COULD, I MEAN, I DON'T MEAN TO, UM, PUT UNNECESSARY DEMANDS, BUT I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE COULD REVIEW THE PLANS THAT ARE TO BE BUILT. AND AT THE SAME TIME, THE ONES THAT WE ARE AGREEING WILL NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE TO JUST SEE IF WE COULD COME UP WITH SOME IDEAS. UH, UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT MIGHT HELP OR ALLOW A PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS OF SOME SORT. SO, UM, THE STRUCTURAL CONTROL FUND, UM, IS SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN PAY INTO. SO I DUNNO, IT'S JUST A, A 30,000 FOOT IDEA. I DON'T KNOW. IT MAY HELP ME BE ABLE TO AGREE WITH THIS BECAUSE I WANT SOME SORT OF, UH, INPUT TO HOLD THEM TO THE 55%. THAT'S ALL COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT THE SPECIFICALLY THE STRUCTURAL CONTROLS FUND OR THE ACTIONS, OR I GUESS THE MOBILITY PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE USING THIS ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE PROCESS? WELL, I'M ASKING ABOUT THE TWO AND THE OVERLAP. I'M SAYING THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO REVIEW SOMETHING IN JANUARY, IF THEY HAVE THE PLANS THAT THEY INTEND TO BUILD THROUGHOUT, UM, THAT WE'LL USE THESE FACILITIES THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO, UH, IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE THE WATER CONTROL, WATER QUALITY CONTROL FACILITIES, THEN PERHAPS WE'LL FEEL BETTER. I MEAN, THAT'S AN OVERALL REVIEW. THAT'S NOT AN INDIVIDUAL, UH, DEMAND THAT THEY COME BACK TO US RELENTLESSLY. SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF AT THAT TIME WE HAD SOME IDEA OF WHAT WAS PLANNED COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, UH, KATIE CORNY, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, I'LL HAND IT OFF TO LIZ TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THAT KIND OF REPORTING PROCESS AND ALL OF THAT. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR BECAUSE THE URBAN WATERSHED CLASSIFICATION, WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANY OF THE REGULATORY COMPONENTS OF RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN ALREADY, UH, USE PAYMENT IN LIEU. YOU CAN ALREADY, UH, HAVE UP TO A HUNDRED PERCENT MAXIMUM PERVIOUS COVER. UH, AND SO SOME OF THE STRUCTURAL CONTROL FUND EXPANSION IS FOR DIFFERENT WATERSHEDS AND JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS CLEAR. YEAH. AND OKAY, SO FOR THE URBAN STRUCTURAL CONTROL FUND, AS IT IS NOW, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR WATERSHED TO BRING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, UM, A REPORT THAT DETAILS HOW WE SPEND THE FUNDS MORE OR LESS, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS WITH THE BUDGET CYCLE. SO IN THE PRESENTATION WITH THE UPCOMING BUDGET CYCLE, THERE IS, UM, UH, INFORMATION RELATED TO HOW WE SPEND THOSE FUNDS AND SOME OF THE CIP PROJECTS OR OTHER PROJECTS, UM, THAT ARE RELATED TO THAT. AND SO WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT WITH THIS FUND AS WELL. WELL, MY QUESTION WAS, IF WE COULD, UM, I KNOW IT'S A LIMITATION, PERHAPS THEY CAN'T DO IT, BUT I WAS WONDERING IF AT THE SAME TIME WE COULD SEE WHAT THE PLANS WERE FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE IN THAT AREA, JUST, UM, TO REVIEW AND MAKE SURE THAT THE FUNDING IS THERE FOR THE CONTROLS THAT THEY MIGHT NEED, THAT THEY WILL USE THEM. I MEAN, I KNOW THAT STAFF IS GOING TO DO THIS, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT IT, IT MIGHT BE GOOD FOR US TO REVIEW [01:50:01] THEIR INTENTIONS AT THIS POINT FROM, UH, LIKE I SAID, 30,000 FOOT VIEW. I MEAN, WHAT THEIR INTENTIONS ARE. THAT'S ALL, I MIGHT FEEL BETTER ABOUT IT IF I HAD SOME CLARITY ABOUT WHAT THEIR INTENTIONS WERE IN THAT AREA. UH, YEAH. I, I HEAR YOU, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, I THINK, UM, THE INTENT OF THE, OF THE CODE CHANGES TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS TO WHERE THEY HAD SOME FRAMEWORK FOR STAFF REVIEW. UM, AND, AND MAYBE WE PUT IN SOME RECOMMENDATION FOR PERSON FEEDBACK, UH, OR REPORTING BACK, BUT I, I HEAR BOTH YOU AND, AND BRIMER IN YOUR, YOUR, YOUR WANT FOR MORE, MORE IN-DEPTH INVOLVEMENT. BUT I THINK THAT KIND OF IS COUNTER TO WHAT THE INTENT OF THE CHANGES. WELL, I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. I MEAN, I, I UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS NEEDS TO BE STREAMLINED. THAT IS THE KEY TO WHAT IS BEING SUGGESTED. BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT I WOULD REALLY LIKE AN INCENTIVE FOR THE, I MEAN, THERE'S NOT AS MUCH PROTECTION FOR THE URBAN WATERSHEDS IS THERE IS ELSEWHERE. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MIGHT CHANGE ACCORDING TO THE COUNCIL, BUT AT THIS POINT THERE ISN'T COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. WE'RE NOT NONE OF THE CHANGES BEING REQUESTED, HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS IN URBAN WATERSHEDS, MAX AND PREVIOUS COVER, OR THE PAYMENT IN LIEU, THOSE ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. YEAH. THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION. I UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT I HAVE AN OBJECTION TO, UM, AT THIS POINT IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR THEM TO JUST, OH, A HUNDRED PERCENT AND FEE. AND LOU, AND I JUST, THAT'S SORRY, I'LL, I'LL HAND IT OFF TO LIZ, UH, TO EXPLAIN, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS PROPOSING. YEAH. THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOES NOT APPLY AND THEY'RE URBAN WATERSHED BECAUSE, UM, THERE ARE NO WATERSHED IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS AND ZONING APPLIES. UM, BUT THERE IS NO ZONING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO EFFECTIVELY, CURRENTLY THERE IS A 100% IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT AND THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROADWAYS AND THE URBAN WATERSHED. SO THERE WOULD NEVER BE A TIME THAT A VARIANCE WOULD NEED TO BE REQUESTED IN THE URBAN WATERSHED. OKAY. I THINK, I THINK COMMISSIONER THOMPSON WAS MORE SPEAKING ABOUT THE OTHER WATERSHEDS AS WELL. UM, BUT, BUT, BUT DULY NOTED, WE HAVE A MOTION. WE DO ONE MORE. SO I INITIALLY THOUGHT THIS TWO, TWO WEEKS AGO, UM, ON PART SIX, UM, ITEM D WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT THE, IF YOU DON'T MIND, IT IS ON PAGE SIX. THANK YOU. YEAH. SO ON PAR ON SECTION SUBSECTION D THE DIRECTOR SHOT THE POSITIVE PAYMENT MADE UNDER SUBSECTION C. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MEANS THAT DIRECTOR FOR UNDER SUBSECTION C OR IF THE PAYMENT IS MADE UNDER, I MEAN, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED. SO WHO IS, WHAT IS THAT ABOUT? SO THIS IS TALKING ABOUT THE DIRECTOR THEN FROM SUBSECTION D C. OKAY. SO YEAH, THAT, THAT IS THE RE THAT IS REFERRING TO THE DIRECTOR OF WATERSHED PROTECTION OR THEIR DESIGNEE. SO IT WOULD BE BASICALLY WATERSHED PROTECTION STAFF, UM, MICHELLE DEPOSIT. SO THIS IS EXISTING LANGUAGE THAT IS BEING, UM, AMENDED SLIGHTLY TO CLARIFY WHICH STRUCTURAL CONTROL FUND THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. UM, SO THAT, THAT ALL AT ALL THIS IS DOING IS SAYING THE DIRECTOR SHALL DEPOSIT A PAYMENT MADE UNDER AND THEN INCLUDING, AND THEN THE UNDERLYING LANGUAGE, SUBSECTION C IS WHAT'S BEING ADDED. SO THAT LINE IS ALREADY THERE. IT'S JUST ADDING SUBSECTIONS C OH, SUBSECTION C. OH, BUT WHY WOULD IT NOT SAY SUBSECTION EIGHT? BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THE DIRECTOR OF WATERSHED IS LISTED OUT. IT'S REFERRING TO SEE. SO THAT IS, UM, THE, THE PARAGRAPH THAT SAYS, INSTEAD OF PROVIDING THE WATER QUALITY CONTROLS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 25, 8 TO 11 IN AN URBAN WATERSHED AND APPLICANT MAY REQUEST APPROVAL TO DEPOSIT. SO THAT'S ALREADY, IT'S JUST REFERRING TO WHAT IS ALREADY IN THE CODE AND JUST CLARIFYING IT. SO IT IS CLEARER, WHICH, WHICH STRUCTURAL CONTROL FUND THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE, THE IN PART D THE DIRECTOR, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS WHOLE, I JUST HIT PAGE DOWN FOR NO REASON AT ALL. UM, THE DIRECTOR IN, IN 25, 8 TO 14 [01:55:01] PART A SAYS THE DIRECTOR OF WATERSHED PROTECTION AND CONVENTIONALLY THROUGHOUT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, YOU KNOW, DIRECTORS ARE, ARE NAMED AND, AND, AND TITLE ONE DEFINES THAT IT'S THE DIRECTOR OR THEIR DESIGNEE IN PART D HERE, IT'S SAYING THE DIRECTOR, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED, SHALL DEPOSIT THE PAYMENT MADE UNDER C. SO SUBSECTION C IS ADDED BECAUSE IT'S THE PAYMENT IN THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE THAT'S BEING DIRECTED. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND SINCE THERE ARE TWO PAYMENTS, NOW, IT'S NOT CLEAR WHICH FUND THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO THEY'RE ADDING WHICH FUND THAT IS. ALRIGHT. GO FOR IT. MAKING ME MISS MY DAYS AT THE STATE AGENCY. ALL RIGHT. UM, SO MAY 18TH, 2020 TO PROPOSE CHANGES, UM, TO CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 25, 25 DASH 1 25 DASH 2 25 DASH EIGHT, TO JUST CHALLENGES TO THE SUCCESSFUL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC MOBILITY PROJECTS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. UM, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS FOR MOBILITY PROJECTS AND THE RIGHT OF WAY. WHEREAS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THE CHANGES TO THE CODE WERE DEVELOPED IN COLLABORATION WITH EIGHT CITY DEPARTMENTS. AND WHEREAS ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGREES, UM, ACTUALLY CHANGED THIS. WHEREAS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION UNDERSTANDS THE PURPOSE OF THE CODE CHANGES. AND WHEREAS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THAT THE CITY STAFF ARE REQUESTING THE CHANGE TO LINK THE CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TITLE 25, 1 25 TO 25 8 TO ADDRESS CHALLENGES TO THE SUCCESSFUL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE MOBILITY PROJECTS AND THE RIGHT OF WAY. THEREFORE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAND, TO THE CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, UM, OR PROJECTS WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY. THERE ARE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL, UM, CONDITIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED, UM, THAT I'LL READ IT THIS TIME. NUMBER ONE, WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT REPORT ANNUALLY TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FOR THE FALL ON THE FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC MOBILITY PROJECT THAT RECEIVES ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES PATIENTS, THE PUBLIC MOBILITY PROJECT AND THEIR RESPECTIVE FUNDS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE PUBLIC, UM, PROJECT STRUCTURAL CONTROL FUND AND THE WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS DESIGNED OR CONSTRUCTED CONSTRUCTED WITH THESE FUNDS AS TOTO. ALL RIGHT, LET'S DO THIS, UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, OR RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL RIGHT. OH, GOT EVERYBODY. KAYLA. KAYLA IS BIGGER THAN LOOKING. ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE OPPOSE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ALRIGHT, SO THAT'S SEVEN, THREE. IS THAT CORRECT? KYLA EIGHT. THREE. OKAY. THANK YOU GUYS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING BACK. OH, REAL QUICK. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WHAT THESE THOMPSON, UH, GIRA AND BRIMER OR HOST QUICKLY. GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOU. THANK YOU GUYS. THANK YOU ALL. ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS, UM, AND, UH, CIRCLE BACK HERE AT APPROXIMATELY 8 0 7. UM, THANK YOU. WE'RE TRYING TO GET BACK. LET'S UH, LET'S LET'S WRANGLE ISH. LET'S TAKE OUR SEATS. THANK YOU. NICOLE'S IN BEDFORD, YOU GUYS GET FULL CREDIT FOR, FOR, FOR REMAINING IN THE APOLLO CAPSULE THE ENTIRE TIME UP THERE. I'M PROUD OF YOU. THANK YOU. IF WE COULD TAKE OUR SEATS, THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE'RE BACK. LET'S SAY WE'RE BACK. I'LL TALK SLOWLY. ALL RIGHT. UM, THANK YOU GUYS. UM, THOSE ARE TWO BIG ITEMS, UH, OF COURSE [02:00:01] WARRANT AND, UH, OR DESERVE IT. HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSION. UM, MOVING THROUGH THESE NEXT COUPLE ITEMS. I'M GOING TO JUST HAVE YOU GUYS RAISE YOUR HANDS. IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS OR WANT TO MAKE COMMENTS, INSTEAD OF KIND OF DOING THE FULL ROLL CALL. UM, SO JUST BE PREPARED FOR THAT. IF, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT SOMETHING TO SAY, MAKE SURE YOU GET EYE CONTACT HER, IF YOU'RE REMOTE, GET YOUR HAND UP. UM, SO WE, UH, EXACTLY. UH, SO WE CAN MAYBE RECOVER A LITTLE BIT OF TIME. I'M TRYING TO BE RESPECTFUL OF EVERYBODY'S TIME WITH THESE MEETINGS, AND I KNOW THEY CAN, UM, GO ALONG. SO, UM, WITH THAT, [4a. Name: 1881 Westlake Drive, SP-2021-0349D] WE'RE ON TO, FOR A, UM, OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS WITH, UM, 1881 WEST LAKE DRIVE, SP 2021 DASH 0 3 49, D APPLICANT IS JOSEPH LEE, AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CITY STAFF FROM ERIC BROWN PRESENTATION. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ERIC BROWN. I'M A HYDROGEOLOGIC REVIEWER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. ONE MOMENT WHILE WE BRING UP THE PRESENTATION, MR. BROWN, YOU'RE GET EXTRA CREDIT. IF YOU CAN GET RUBBER DUCKY OR SHOAL CREEK SWAN, ENTER THIS PRESENTATIONS ON THEM, RUBBER DUCKIES SHOULD BE A SHOE IN WHILE WE'RE GETTING THAT UP. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE STAFF. UM, WE, THIS IS, I BELIEVE OUR FIFTH MEETING IN OUR FOURTH ROOM CONFIGURATION. UM, SO THANK YOU FOR BEING FLEXIBLE IN PROVIDING US THE SPACE AND ALL MOVING EVERYTHING AROUND. I KNOW IT'S NOT EASY. YEAH. MY SECOND DEAD MOTION. UH, UM, YEAH, AND I DO LIKE THE HORSESHOE, THE KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE. I THINK THAT IT HELPS. SO THANKS FOR THAT. SHE, YEAH. OH, THAT'S, THAT'S THE MTC RIGHT THERE NEXT TO ERIC. YEAH. JANICE SMITH. ARE YOU HERE? OKAY. I'M JUST MAKING SURE. SO WE HAVE A SPEAKER, BUT IF THERE'S QUESTIONS WE'VE GOT, WE'VE GOT YOU NOTED HERE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU AGAIN, MY NAME IS ERIC BROWN. I'M A HYDROGEOLOGIC REVIEWER FOR THE SAY BOSTON MARSHA PROTECTIONS. UH, THE SITE IS THE DEMOLITION AND REPLACEMENT OF A BOAT DOCK, UH, ON LAKE AUSTIN. UH, HERE IS THE SITE. IT IS IN LAKE AUSTIN AND B CREEK WATERSHED. IT'S A WATER SUPPLY RURAL, UH, THERE ARE FOUR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ON SITE AND IT IS IN COUNCIL DISTRICT EIGHT. THIS SITE IS THEY'RE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED, UH, JUST OUTSIDE OF THE RECHARGE ZONE. HERE'S A, AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SITE WITH THE FOUR ROOM ROCKS HIGHLIGHTED IN RED. HERE'S THE TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS OF THE SITE. AGAIN, THIS IS A, UH, DEMOLITION AND REPLACEMENT OF A BOAT DOCK WITHIN A REMARK CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE SETBACK. UH, [02:05:01] AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO BE DEMOLISHING AND REPLACING THE EXISTING BOAT DOCK. THE CODE REFERENCE BEING MODIFIED IS, UH, LDC CHAPTER 25 8 2 8 1, SUBSECTION C TWO B. AND THEY REQUESTED VERY TO, UH, ALLOW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 150 FOOT OF THE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE BUFFER. THESE ARE THE REMARKS AND QUESTION. THIS IS REMARK 1, 2, 3, AND FOUR, AND IT IS A STAFF'S POSITION THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT HAT FINDINGS OF FACT HAVE BEEN MET. UH, AND WE RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE WITH THE CON WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION BE COMPLETED BY BARCH. PERFECT. THANK YOU. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BROWN? I GUESS I WOULD SAY, UM, YEAH. PERFECT. THOMPSON. YEAH, PLEASE. UM, OKAY. MY QUESTION IS, WHAT SIZE WILL THE BOAT DOCK BE? I MEAN, CAN YOU TELL US, BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE THAT ANYWHERE IN THE BACKUP AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, IT WAS GOING TO BE, UH, COMPARABLE TO WHAT IS THERE ALREADY. I WILL DEFER TO JANICE SMITH, THE ENGINEER. PERFECT. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM I'M A CIVIL ENGINEER AND THE ENGINEER OF RECORD THE EXISTING BOAT DOCK IS NON-COMPLIANT IT'S, UM, 25, 30 FEET LONG THAT DOCK THAT'S REPLACING AND IS COMPLIANT. AND DO YOU MIND GIVING US THE DIMENSIONS OF THE PROPOSED? THE PROPOSED BOAT DOCK IS 25 AND A HALF FEET WIDE, AND THE DOCK FOOTPRINT IS SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY ONE FIFTY SEVEN SQUARE FEET. OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. DO YOU HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP EITHER ON THE DOCK OR OTHERWISE? WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HAVE YOU SAID 650 FEET SIDE? 657 SQUARE FEET IS THE AREA. OKAY. BUT HOW LONG? 25 AND A HALF FEET WIDE, WIDE OR LONG WA WHY, SO, WHY? IT IS PARALLEL TO THE SHORELINE? OKAY. AND THE DEPTH OUT INTO THE LAKE IS IT'S ALWAYS 30. IT'S NOT 30 FEET. I THINK IT'S 23 FEET OUT INTO THE, UM, IT'S 23 FEET EXTENDS 23 FEET INTO THE LAKE. OKAY. IT'S A NARROWER PART OF THAT. WE HAD TO EXTEND THE 1 23. NO PROBLEM. I JUST WANTED TO GET THE EXACT CAUSE I THINK THAT WAS WHAT COMMISSIONER THOMPSON WAS ASKING FOR WAS THE, NOT SO MUCH THE AREA OF THE FEE EXACT DIMENSIONS, BUT THE DOC, ANYBODY ELSE GOT ANY QUESTIONS? YES. COMMISSIONER BARRETT BIXLER. UM, THE CURRENT BOAT DOCK I'M ASSUMING IS ALSO WITHIN 150 FEET OF THE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, THE ENTIRE SHORELINES WITHIN THE CF SETBACK. SO IT'S, IT'S IT, THIS VARIANCE IS REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT A BOAT DOCK ON THE SHORELINE. YEAH. CAN I ASK YOU TO STOP? AND THE PICTURE I HAVE THE SITE I SAW STAIRWAYS COMING DOWN. UM, IS THAT ALSO GOING TO BE, UM, I SAID THAT'S ALSO GOING TO BE, UM, REPLACED. NO, THEY'RE JUST REPAIR AND REPLACE AS REQUIRED BECAUSE THEY'RE WHEREVER IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE AGING, SO THEY'LL JUST BE REPAIRED. OKAY. THANK YOU. SORRY, I CUT YOU OFF. NO, IT'S OKAY. UM, I, I HOPE YOU DON'T MIND. CAN I ALSO USE THIS TIME FOR AN EDUCATIONAL QUESTION? UM, I, I KNOW THAT I'M DOING CONSTRUCTION BY VAR, BY BARGE IS THE PREFERRED APPROACH. WHAT WOULD THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES BE BY LAND BY SO BY LAND? IT'S JUST THAT WE'RE ALL OVER THE, THE S THE, UM, TREY ROOTS ZONES. AND WE'RE ALL WITHIN THOSE THERE'S FOUR RIM ROCKS, AND WE'LL BE ALL OVER THOSE RIM ROCK SETBACKS. SO THIS IS THE LEAST INTRUSIVE WAY TO CONSTRUCT IT. AND DON'T LET ME, I MUST SPEAKING FOR YOU. NOPE. NO. OKAY. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. OKAY. THE, [02:10:01] THE SLOPE IS DOWN FROM THE, FROM WESTLAKE DRIVE TO THE SHORELINE WHERE THE BOAT DOCK IS GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED IS A VERY STEEP, AND IT'S A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE FOR THE WORKERS AS WELL. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION MAY 10TH, 2022, IN CASE ANYBODY WAS CONFUSED ON THE DATE. UM, THE SUBJECT IS 1-881-WESTLAKE DRIVE S P DASH 2 0 2 1 DASH 0 3 4 9 D. WHEREAS ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED, UH, IS REQUESTING TO VARY FROM LDC 25 8 DASH EIGHT ONE C TWO, AND BE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN A HUNDRED AND 150, BUT OF WORM ROCK, CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE. THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION WHO RECOGNIZES THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE LAKE AUSTIN AND BEE CREEK WATERSHED WATER SUPPLY RULE, DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ZONE. AND WHEREAS ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS. HAVING DETERMINED, THE FACTS DETERMINED THE FINDINGS OF FACTS HAVE BEEN MET. THEREFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE VARIANCE REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING STAFF CONDITION, REMOVE EXISTING BOAT DOCK WITH, UM, ACCESS TO PATH AS SPECIFIC, UH, PLANT ON PLANS, RESTORED DISTURBED AREA PER CITY STANDARDS, UM, AND ALL CONSTRUCTION TO OCCUR VIA BARGE. SECOND, IS THAT YOU PAIRING BEDFORD? YES, IT WAS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YOU GOT ME. YOU BEAT ME TO, UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. UM, AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. WAS THAT AN I OR OPPOSE NICKELS? ALRIGHT, SO, UH, I GOT A UNANIMOUS RENT KILLER. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR STICKING AROUND AND INDEPENDENT AND GOING THROUGH THAT WITH US. YOU'RE WELCOME FOR THAT CHAIR. THERE WAS A LAG ON MY END. I'M JUST TRYING TO KEEP YOU ON YOUR TOES. I'M COMING AROUND THE HORN HERE. OKAY. UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH GUYS. UH, FOUR [4b. Name: Crossroads Logistics Center Additions, SP-2021-0169D] B CROSSROADS LOGISTICS CENTER ADDITIONS SP 2021 DASH 0 1 609 D. UM, APPLICANT, STEVE JAMISON, AND, UH, AT 8,500 EAST PARMER LANE. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS TONY. DHARAMSALA MY NEIGHBOR, OUR MENTOR, YOU SPECIALIST FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. UM, TODAY, UM, I WILL BE PRESENTING A VARIANCE FROM FUEL REQUIREMENTS, 25 8 3 42 4 FUEL EXCEEDING A FORFEIT UP TO 17 AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. UM, THIS PROJECT IS CROSSROADS LOGISTICS CENTER ADDITIONS LOCATED AT 8,500 EAST PARMER LANE WITH SITE PLAN NUMBER S P 20 21 0 1 6 90. UH, I'LL TALK ABOUT THE PROPERTY DATA, THE SUMMARY, THE CONDITIONS, THE REQUEST, THE GRADIENT EXHIBIT, THE RETAINING STRUCTURE, AND THE VARIOUS CONDITIONS THAT HAVE NECESSITATED THE RECOMMENDATION. SO THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE GOLAN CREEK, WATERSHED CLASSIFIED OUR SUBURBAN, UH, IT'S IN THE DESIRE DEVELOPMENT ZONE AND THE EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. NOW LOOK AT HER BY THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE, AND THERE ARE NO CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ON THIS PROPERTY. UH, THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF THREE TRACKS OF LAND LOCATED AT THE NURSE IS CORNER OF STATE HIGHWAY ONE 30 AND PERMALINK, AND IT PROPOSES [02:15:01] THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS OR OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS, INCLUDING WATER QUALITY POND TO BRING GARDEN WASTEWATER AND GREENWICH IMPROVEMENT. AND IT'S IN THE TWO MILE ETJ AND THE LIGHTS WITHIN A MANUFACTURING CORRIDOR WITH WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS RANGING FROM ABOUT 212,000 SQUARE FEET TO ABOUT 359,000 SQUARE FEET. AND THIS PROPERTY SLOPES, UH, FROM 550 IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER TO ABOUT 520 IN THE NORTH EAST CORNER. AND THAT'S A TOPOGRAPHIC MAP SHOWING THE SLOPE FROM 500 TO FIVE 20, WHERE THE FIELD IS, UH, BEING PROPOSED UH, EXISTING CONDITIONS. UM, PRETTY MUCH GROUND VEGETATION ON THESE, YOU KNOW, TYPICAL GRASSES PRAIRIE. AND, UM, THE TREES HERE ARE YOUR OWN MESS KID AND, UH, HACKBERRY, NO CES, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, AND NO, UM, CRITICAL WHAT ACCORDING IS ON, UH, THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FIELD IN EXCESS OF FOUR FEET UP TO 17 WITHIN THE DESIRE DEVELOPMENT ZONE. UM, UH, PRETTY MUCH THE EMAIL HERE, UM, IS A REPRESENTATION OF GRADING, UH, PROPOSED ON THIS SITE AND IT'S MEASURE UP CONTAINMENT, UH, THE PART, UH, SHADED IN DARK BLUE SIGNIFIES FILL UP TO 17 FEET, UH, WHICH IS PIVOTAL IN PROVIDING THE REQUIRED, UH, LEVEL FILING AND, AND, AND SEEING MANEUVERABILITY INTO THE LOADING DOCKS. UH, THE RETAINING STRUCTURE ALSO, UH, WILL BE PROVIDED TO STRUCTURALLY CONTAINED FIELD AND MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF GRADING TO RESIST LATERAL PRESSURE OF THE SOIL TO PREVENT A MOVEMENT OF SOIL DOWNWARD INTO AN ANT STABILITY. UH, THIS VARIANCE HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND, UM, I'VE BEEN AT THE TIMING THAT THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACTS I'VE BEEN MET, UH, STAFF ALSO RECOMMENDS AND SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IN ACCORDANCE TO APPROVE TO VARIANCE EXHIBITS, UH, PRETTY MUCH INCREASE IN THE SETBACK AREA BY A MINIMUM OF 1.09 ACRES FOR EXISTING CF, UH, PRESERVATION OF TREES, WHICH IS IDEALLY, YOU KNOW, NOT REQUIRE THEM TO ETJ BECAUSE THE ETJ IS UNINCORPORATED LAND WITHIN FIVE MILES OF AUSTIN'S BOUNDARY. AND IT'S NOT WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, UM, APPLICATION OF, UH, LANDSCAPING ORDINANCES NOT REQUIRED, BUT IT'S PART OF THE CONDITIONS THAT THE APPLICANT, UM, AS AGREED TO, UM, AND INCREASING THREE INCHES ON SITE AND MITIGATION ALSO NOT REQUIRED IN THE ETJ AND PROVISION OF STRUCTURAL CONTENTMENT OF FEEL WITH THE RETAINING WALL THAT IS REQUIRED. AND THAT'S PART OF THE CONDITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND, UM, ARE YOU GUYS REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT AS WELL? IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND INTRODUCING YOURSELF, MICHELLE LYNCH WITH METCALF WOOL, STUART AND WILLIAMS HERE ON WITH STEVE JAMISON OF JAMISON, CIVIL ENGINEERING ON BEHALF OF THE PROJECT. PERFECT. THANK YOU. UM, LET'S, LET'S GO AROUND AND SEE IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS. DO YOU GUYS HAVE A PRESENTATION YOU WANTED TO GIVE ME, AND THEN I JUST TALK FOR ONE MINUTE. YES, YOU MET. I KNOW IT'S LATE. YOU'RE TIRED. YOU'RE FINE. UM, WE DID HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION. I JUST WANT TO CAST YOUR MEMORY BACK TO 2021, WHICH SEEMS LIKE A MILLION YEARS AGO. IN MY NOTES HERE. I'VE ALSO GOT THAT ROONEY DUVALL IS AVAILABLE ON THE PHONE, UH, NEGLECTED TO MENTION THAT THAT YES, THE, UH, ONE OF THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVES IS ONLINE FOR QUESTIONS OR ADDITIVE AS NEEDED. OKAY. SO LET ME [02:20:01] BRIEFLY, OOPS, SORRY. I WENT TOO FAST. GO THROUGH THIS REALLY QUICKLY AGAIN, CASTING YOUR MEMORY BACK TO 2021. WHEN I WAS HERE WITH MOST OF YOU ARE, THINK WE'RE HERE OR VIDEO CALL AT THAT TIME. UM, THIS IS PHASE TWO OF THE OVERALL PROJECT. SO PHASE ONE IS WHAT YOU SAW IN 2021, UM, AND DID RECOMMEND WITH VERY SIMILAR CONDITIONS. AND SO WE'RE HERE TONIGHT WITH THE FINAL PHASE OF THE PROJECT PHASE TWO, YOU CAN SEE THERE, I MEAN, IT IS A MANUFACTURING CORRIDOR. UM, AS THE STAFF MENTIONED, THIS WAS THE PHASE ONE AGAIN, THE WRAPPING AROUND. SO AGAIN, WE HAD SIMILAR REQUESTS, WE ACTUALLY HAD CUT AND FILL AT THAT TIME. UM, AND SO I WILL COMMEND STAFF TO WORKING WITH US ON THIS PARTICULAR PHASE TWO, WE WERE ABLE TO REMOVE, UM, THE CUT VARIANTS FROM THIS APPLICATION IN 2021, WE HAD A CUT DRINKS OF 14.3 IN FIELD VARIANCE OF 16 AND A HALF AGAINST VERY SIMILAR CONDITIONS. UM, WE'RE IN THE ETJ. SO IT WASN'T MEANINGFUL TO APPLY THE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE TREE REPLACEMENT. THERE WAS A CF OFFSITE AS WELL, UM, THAT WE WERE ABLE TO INCREASE AROUND AND RETAINING WALL. SO THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THIS BODY AND APPROVED BY THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION. AND SO AS I'M MOVING FAST, YOU GO TO THE NEXT LINE. IT'S NOT WORKING. THE NEXT ONE IS PLEASE. SO HERE WE ARE AGAIN TONIGHT FOR PHASE TWO, FINISH OUT THE PROJECT AGAIN, 17 FEET TONIGHT FOR PHIL, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE WERE HERE FOR IN 2021 AND EXTREMELY SIMILAR CONDITIONS, UM, ADDED TO THE SITE. SO I DON'T THINK WE'RE CHARTING NEW TERRITORY HERE, BUT WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I DID GO BACK OVER WHAT PHASE ONE WAS ABOUT. UM, AND THIS IS RELATED TO THIS PROJECT AND, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, THE TECHNICAL GUYS HERE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. UH, COMMISSIONERS HERE. UH, ANYBODY GOT ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH. DID YOU ALRIGHT? WHAT ABOUT ONLINE? REMOTE THOMPSON? YES, PLEASE. UM, ON PAGE 20 OF YOUR, UM, BACKUP, THE ONE THAT HAS 195 PAGES, CAN YOU GO TO PAGE 20 PLEASE? AND TELL ME, UM, JUST SHOW ME THE DISTANCE FROM THE CF THERE THAT YOU PROPOSE WITH THIS BUILDING. WHAT IS THE SETBACK? BECAUSE I COULDN'T SEE THE DISTANCE. CAN YOU PULL THE EXHIBIT PLEASE? I CAN KICK THAT. THE SETBACK THAT YOU SEE THERE IS OUTSIDE OF THE 150 FOOT SETBACK, THE, THE ONE ON THAT PAGE IS THE STANDARD. SO YOU AWESOME. 150 FOOT SET WETLANDS SETBACK, AND THAT CEF IS OFF SITE. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, THE ACTUAL CEF AS OFFSITE, THE BUFFER COMES ON AND THAT'S WHERE WE'LL, UH, EXPANDED BY A LITTLE OVER AN ACRE TO COME AT SOME MORE BUFFER. OKAY. THAT WAS MY QUESTION. I COULDN'T REALLY SEE FROM THIS DIAGRAM. IT WASN'T VERY CLEAR TO ME, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU'RE WELCOME. GO AHEAD. OKAY, GARY, HOW MANY? OKAY. UM, COMMISSIONER BEAR, BIXLER SPEAKING. SO MY FIRST QUESTION, I WAS KIND OF TALKING ON THE SIDE TO, UH, COMMISSIONER RAMBERT AND YOU ALL PRESENTED WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING BACK AT 2021, THAT WAS THAT'S RIGHT. AND CORRECT. YES. I BELIEVE YOU WERE THERE AS WELL. YEAH. OKAY. IT WAS A LONG TIME AGO. I KNOW IT FEELS LIKE A VERY LONG TIME AGO AND THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED AS WELL. YEP. YES, COMMISSIONER. UM, MY, MY QUESTION IS FOR THE VARIANCE THE VARIANCES PROVIDED, UM, OR THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDS AS WELL. HOW DO, HOW IS IT ENSURED THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMEWHAT VAGUE, LIKE PRESERVE TREES. I KNOW IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, NOT REQUIRED IN THE ETJ, BUT HOW, LIKE THERE AREN'T SPECIFICS TO THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE HOW IT'S THE, UM, YOU KNOW, AND AS IN, FROM YEAH, ENFORCEMENT, I BELIEVE IT, THERE ARE NOTES ON THE SITE PLAN THAT ARE, IS THAT YEAH, WE HAVE, UH, IT'S, IT'S DONE WITH THE DATA ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE TOTAL INCHES REMOVED TOTAL INCHES MITIGATED FOR, UH, AND, UH, THAT TRIP, IT SAYS SAVED, BUT I CAN, UH, HELP CLARIFY AS WELL. UM, WHEN THERE ARE NOTES RELATED TO VARIANCES OF BOTH ON THE COVER SHEET AND ON LANDSCAPE SHEETS OR EROSION CONTROL SHEETS, UM, THE ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTOR THAT IS ASSIGNED TO THE CASE THAT WE WILL REVIEW IT MONTHLY AT MINIMUM, WE'LL, UH, BE ABLE TO SEE THOSE [02:25:01] NOTES AND ENSURE THAT, UM, THOSE NOTES ARE APPLIED TO THE PROJECT. SO IT'S, IT'S CAUGHT AN INSPECTION. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M THE OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION, SECRETARY BRISTOL. UM, SO I'M LOOKING HERE AT THE FLOODPLAIN. IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU'RE FULLY, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A FLOOD PLAIN A LOT TONIGHT, UM, THAT YOU'RE OUT OF OUT OF THAT. UM, I KNOW THIS PROPERTY WELL, AND I KNOW THAT DURING A COUPLE OF RAIN EVENTS, YOU KNOW, THAT PLACE HAS REALLY FLOODED, UM, QUITE A BIT, UM, IN THAT AREA BETWEEN 45 AND 35 PARMER LANE, UH, UP, UH, 2 91, THERE ARE TWO 90. UM, DO YOU FEEL CONFIDENT IN THAT, THAT WHAT YOU'RE PLANNING ON BUILDING HERE WILL NOT INCREASE, UM, OR HARM ANYTHING ELSE, ESPECIALLY OUR ROADWAYS THERE, UM, WITH, UH, WITH FLOODING, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT? YES, MA'AM, WE'RE FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE CITY'S DETENTION REQUIREMENTS AND TO SPEAK TO THE EARLIER PRESENTATIONS. ALL OF OUR CALCULATIONS WERE DONE WITH ATLAS 14. SO WE WERE FULLY, AND OUR FLOOD PLAIN HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S A FLAT CLEAN DEPARTMENT. SO I'M VERY CONFIDENT. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU'RE WELCOME. YES, PLEASE. SCOTT. UM, JUST SO FOR MY, FOR MY INFORMATION, UH, WHAT IS ATLAS 15? THE ELDEST 14 IS THE CITY OF AUSTIN. IT'S LIKE PLAIN DATA REQUIREMENTS WHERE THE PRESENTATION EARLIER TODAY, WHERE BASICALLY THE, THE OLD 500 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN IS NOW THE NEW A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLAIN. AND THAT'S WHERE THEIR CALCULATIONS IS WHEN, WHEN THEY INCREASE THE ASSUMED INCHES OF RAIN TO BUMP THOSE NUMBERS OUT. ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION. IF YOU'RE READY, LET'S DO THIS. OKAY. MAY 18TH, 2022. IT'S STILL HERE. CROSSROADS LOGISTICS CENTER ADDITIONS SP 2 0 2 1 DASH 0 1 6 90. WHEREAS ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZED THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO VARY FROM LDC 25 8 3 4 2 TO ALLOW FILL OVER FOUR FEET UP TO 17 FEET. WHEREAS ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THAT THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE GHILLEAN CREEK WATERSHED, SUBURBAN DESIRE DEVELOPMENT ZONE. AND WHEREAS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS VARIANCE. HAVING DETERMINED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT HAVE BEEN MET, THEREFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE VARIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING STAFF CONDITIONS INCREASE SETBACKS AREA BY A MINIMUM OF 1.9 ACRES. NOW, I'M SORRY. UM, 1.09 ACRES FOR EXISTING CEF, UH, PRESERVE TREES AND NATURAL AREA APPLY CITY OF AUSTIN LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE ON THE ETJ SITE AND INCREASED TREES INCREASE TREE INCHES ON SITE MITIGATION, PROVIDE STRUCTURAL CONTAINMENT OF FILL WITHIN THE RETAINING WITH A RETAINING WALL. C'MON THERE YOU GO BETTER NOW. I'LL LET YOU HAVE THAT ONE. UM, ALL RIGHT. WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL RIGHT. UH, LET'S VOTE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. SAY AYE. LOOKS TO BE UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU GUYS. ALL RIGHT. ON TO FIVE, UH, COMMITTEE REPORTS. THIS IS CHAIR JUST, JUST REALLY QUICKLY, JUST SINCE WE'RE POSTED ON THAT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER UPDATE. I JUST WANTED TO GIVE IT A QUICK UPDATE TO COMMISSIONER BREMMER WHO ASKED ABOUT THE POND AT SAMSUNG DOES HAVE A CLAY LINER IS WHAT STAFF CONVEYED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. [5. COMMITTEE REPORTS] UM, ANYTHING TO REPORT FROM COMMITTEES BRIEFLY? GO FOR IT. YEAH, SCOTT WELL, UM, UH, THE BATS STRATEGIC INITIATIVE, UH, IS, UM, CONTINUING, UH, TO, UH, LUMBER ALONG AND, UM, [02:30:01] I'M GETTING SOME, SOME CLARITY. IT APPEARS THAT THE FEMA, UM, PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IT'S. UM, BUT THE, UM, ELEMENTS OF, FOR ACTUAL, UH, IMPLEMENTATION HAVE NOT BEEN, UM, YET, UH, SUBMITTED AND APPROVED. AND, UM, SOME THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE, UH, TIME ELEMENT IS GOING TO BE ON ON THAT. AND, UM, I'M, UH, UH, HOPING TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THAT, UM, IN THE NEAR FUTURE. IT'S ABOUT, UM, AT WORST THE, OH, SORRY. UM, THE, ABOUT COUNTY'S CANYON LANDS, CONSERVATION PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS SET A MEETING FOR, I BELIEVE IT'S OCTOBER 21ST IN THE FALL. OKAY. THE SUBSTANCE FOR WATERFRONT AT BRASSERIE BOARD MADE THIS PAST MONDAY, AND WE GOT AN UPDATE ON A BRIEFING FROM THE, ON THE PROPOSED COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION OF THE DOWNTOWN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BY THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN UPDATE ON THE, UM, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT REGULATING PLAN. SO NOTHING'S CHANGED ON THE TIMELINE. IT'S GOING TO START MOVING FAST. I HAVE, UM, NOT A COMMITTEE UPDATE, BUT, UM, UH, ITEM [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS] THAT I'M INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING IN THE FUTURE. YES. OKAY. SO I THINK WE ALL RECEIVED THE EMAIL FROM PODESTA ABOUT THE, UM, TESLA. UM, I, WELL, THE BASIC TESLA'S REQUEST FOR PERMITS AND THE ONE WAS LIKE SPECIFIC TO THE, UM, BATTERY CATHODE MANUFACTURING FACILITY. AND SO I WAS CURIOUS IF, UM, THERE WOULD BE LIKE, IF WE COULD D WOULD THAT PROCESS EVER COME THROUGH COMMISSION? LIKE, UM, I, I JUST, I NOTICED NUMEROUS ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS WERE SUPPORTING LIKE SLOWING DOWN THE PERMITTING ARTISTS, MORE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT WITH THAT PROCESS. AND SO I WAS CURIOUS IF WE COULD GET INVOLVED OR IT COULD COME. YEAH. WE HAVE ALSO RECEIVED A LOT OF, UM, QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMUNITY AND THERE IS DEFINITELY A LOT OF CONCERNS SURROUNDING THAT CONSTRUCTION. UM, THE SITE PLAN IS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. WATERSHED STAFF ARE A PART OF THAT REVIEW. UM, IT IS IN THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. UM, AND SO USE IS NOT, UM, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE CAN REGULATE IN THAT AREA, BUT WE DO HAVE WATER QUALITY AND DRAINAGE REGULATIONS. AND SO, UH, DSD STAFF AND WATERSHED STAFF ARE REVIEWING FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, UM, UH, RULES. UM, IF THE PROJECT MEETS CURRENT CODE, THERE IS NO, UM, AVENUE FOR ANY KIND OF PUBLIC PROCESS OR PUBLIC HEARING. IT WOULD BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO BRING IT FORWARD, UM, FOR ANY SORT OF VARIANCE OR ANY OTHER KIND OF CONSIDERATION. AND AT THIS TIME I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY VARIANCES, BUT THE PROJECT IS STILL UNDER REVIEW. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, THE SECOND ITEM, I WAS JUST GONNA LOOP BACK UP. I KNOW IT GOT ADDED IN, UM, AS A CONDITION, BUT WHAT COMMISSIONER SCOTT AND I WERE BOTH KIND OF TALKING ABOUT ABOUT THE QUESTION ABOUT THE SURVEY OF THE HIGH HAZARD FACILITIES WITH, IN THE FLOOD PLAIN. AND SO JUST WAS QUITE, YEAH, WE COULD. SO YEAH, IF WE COULD GET MAYBE A BRIEFING FROM STAFF ON, ON THOSE, IF WE KNOW THEM, AND I GUESS MY INTEREST WOULD BE THOSE THAT MAYBE WERE, ARE NOW IN THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, MORE OR LESS THAN WHAT WAS THE 500 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN BEFORE. UM, AND MAY NOT KNOW THAT THEY'RE THE FLOOD PLAIN PER SE. UM, GO AHEAD. OKAY. KATIE CONEY ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER DID JUST WANT TO SAY, THERE'S NO MECHANISM FOR STAFF TO BRING A BRIEFING TO YOU IN LESS. UH, IT, IT GOES THROUGH ONE OF THOSE PRESS SEES WHERE IT'S TRIGGERED, HOWEVER, IT IS YOUR PREROGATIVE AS ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TO POST AN AGENDA OF YOUR CHOOSING. UH, SO LONG AS YOU HAVE ENOUGH, UH, SUPPORT OF OTHER COMMISSIONERS AND THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR, UH, TO POST, AND YOU CAN DISCUSS ANYTHING YOU WANT, YOU CAN PASS RECOMMENDATIONS ON ANYTHING YOU WANT AS A BODY. I JUST WANT IT TO BE CLEAR THAT THERE'S JUST NOT ANY STAFF TRIGGER FOR THAT TO COME TO YOU. UM, I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT, UM, [02:35:01] THERE ARE STATE REGULATIONS AROUND THAT, UM, THAT, UH, PROHIBIT KNOWING SOMETIMES, UM, EXACTLY WHAT UM, IS PRODUCED OR, UM, YOU KNOW, IS THAT SOME OF THOSE MANUFACTURING SITES. SO, UM, IT, IT CAN BE TRICKY FROM A STATE LEVEL, NOT JUST FROM THE CITY LEVEL. YEAH. UM, IT'S INTERESTING. UM, IS WHAT THESE FACILITIES OR THESE CORPORATIONS BEING NOTIFIED, ARE THEY GOING TO BE NOTIFIED LIKE OF THE CHANGES IN THE, UM, YOU KNOW, IN THEIR CATEGORIZATION OF BEING IN A, IN A 500 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN VERSUS A LITTLE WORRIED THAT WE'RE GETTING WAITING INTO THE WATER OF DISCUSSING A TOPIC WE'RE NOT POSTED FOR? COOL. UM, SO-SO KIND OF TIGHTEN THAT UP. UM, IF CAN, CAN STAFF, I GUESS GIVE, GET US A MAP AND MAYBE A BRIEFING OF WHAT HIGH HAZARD FACILITIES ARE WITHIN THE 500 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, OR THE, WHAT WE ASKED FOR IN THE CONDITION THAT IT BE PART OF THE PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD. SO IT JUST, THAT WILL BE THERE. I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED ADDITIONAL ONES HERE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. I THINK THE IDEA IS, AND MAYBE WE DON'T EVEN NEED A BRIEFING ON IT, BUT IT JUST GET US A MAPS WHERE WE CAN SEE IT. UM, AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THAT AND WE CAN RELAY THAT QUESTION TO, UH, JAMISON AND KEVIN SHANK AND, UM, GET BACK WITH YOU. THANK YOU, UH, FROM HER. YES, PLEASE. AND WE SET A TIMEFRAME ON THAT SAME BYE. MAYBE GIVE US FEEDBACK ON WHEN WE COULD HAVE A MAP AT THE NEXT MEETING. YES, WE CAN DO THAT. AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER OECHSLER. WHAT WAS THE FIRST TOPIC YOU MENTIONED? AH, THE, WITH REGARD TO THAT, UH, I UNDERSTAND WE MAY NOT HAVE PURVIEW OVER IT, UH, BECAUSE OF A VARIETY OF REASONS, BUT WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR US TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE STORING THERE? I'M NOT SURE I CAN LOOK INTO THAT. UM, BASED ON WHAT COMMISSIONER BRISTOL JUST SAID, IT SOUNDED LIKE MAYBE THERE ARE SOME RULES THAT I'M NOT AWARE OF, BUT, UM, UH, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW. WELL, THERE ARE STATE RULES THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, IT CAME UP IN THE CONTEXT OF, UH, THE AMMONIUM NITRATE EXPLOSION UP IN, UH, WHEREVER THAT WAS IN WEST, UH, UP IN WEST. AND, UH, PEOPLE WANT TO BE NOTIFIED ABOUT THAT, BUT THERE'S A STATE LAW THAT PRECLUDES NOTIFICATION OF THAT BECAUSE OF SECURITY THINGS. SO YOU COULD SAY, WELL, WE CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT'S BEING STORED THERE BECAUSE OF STATE LAW. OKAY, THAT'S FINE. BUT IF IT'S NOT PRECLUDED BY STATE LAW, YOU CAN TELL US THAT WE'RE STORING MANURE OR I, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IT IS THAT THERE HAPPENED TO BE STORING THERE. AND JUST SO WE HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THE RISK IS. SO WHAT I'M DOING IS I'M KIND OF JOINING COMMISSIONER BIXLER, HIS REQUEST TO REQUEST FURTHER INFORMATION AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE MATERIALS THAT MIGHT BE STORED AT THE LOCATION. EVEN THOUGH WE MAY NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE. OKAY. UM, WE WILL DEFINITELY LOOK INTO THAT AND GET BACK WITH YOU. UM, IT, I, I DON'T BELIEVE WE WILL BE ABLE TO REQUIRE THEM TO TELL US, BUT WE CAN, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD ASK AND THEY MAY WANT TO VOLUNTARILY ANSWER. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS HERE AT, AND I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT, FOR A POTENTIAL FUTURE AGENDA ITEM POTENTIALLY. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE PLANS FOR MAYBE AT DRAINAGE, UM, MITIGATION, UM, IN COMBINATION WITH THE PROJECT CONNECT PLANS, SUCH AS NORTH LAMAR THERE, I KNOW THERE'S AREAS WHERE WATER GOES OVER THE ROADWAY. AND SO I'M WONDERING AT WHAT POINT WE MAY LEARN MORE ABOUT WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. SO THE REQUEST WOULD BE FOR A BRIEFING RELATED TO DRAIN IT AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT CONNECT. YES. OKAY. UM, THAT, THAT COULD VERY WELL BE POSSIBLE. THEY'VE DONE SOME PRELIMINARY, PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS ON RED BLUE ORANGE LINE. SO, UM, IF IT, WOULD [02:40:01] IT BE FOR ALL THREE OF THOSE LINES OR SPECIFIC TO ONE OF THEM? I MEAN, MY INTEREST, MY INTEREST IS DEFINITELY, YOU KNOW, SPECIFIC TO THE ORANGE LINE, BUT I WOULD DEFINITELY WANT THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS TO HEAR, UM, ABOUT ALL LINES. YES. WE CAN CONVEY THAT TO THE PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. THANK YOU GUYS. LET'S CALL IT EIGHT FIFTY THREE. THANK YOU EVERYBODY. THANK YOU. OH, * 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.