[00:00:04]
[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]
UH, FIVE 11.AND, UM, I'M BRINGING THIS, UH, MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER.
UM, THIS IS THE NOVEMBER 15TH MEETING, AND WE DO HAVE QUORUM.
UH, WE'LL DO A QUICK ROLL CALL.
AND THEN, UH, JUST WANNA LET FOLKS KNOW WE'VE GOT INTERESTING EVENING WE'RE GOING TO START HERE.
UH, WE'RE GOING TO GO AND, UH, GET THROUGH OUR, UH, CONSENT AGENDA, AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO RECESS AND RECONVENE, UH, IN THE, UH, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, UH, COMING BACK ON AROUND SIX 20 AS SOON AS STAFF CAN SET US UP THERE.
AND I KNOW I HAD COMMITTED TO SOME FOLKS TO NOT START THE BRODY PUD, UM, PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL SIX 30, SO WE'LL TAKE UP SOME ITEMS UNTIL THAT TIME.
UH, BUT ANYWAY, WE'RE GONNA DO SOME QUICK, UM, UH, GET THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA, LIKE I SAID, AND THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE, UH, RECESS AND RECONVENE OVER THERE.
SO, UH, LET'S GO AND DO A QUICK ROLL CALL.
UH, THOSE HERE IN, UH, CHAMBERS, UH, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ROOM.
UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON HERE.
THIS IS YOUR CHAIR, CHAIR SHAW.
AND TO MY RIGHT, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON HERE.
AND, UH, LET'S MOVE OVER TO THE SCREEN.
I SEE, UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD HERE.
COMMISSIONER MUSH TOLER PRESENT.
ALL RIGHT, AND COMMISSIONER FLORES HERE.
SO THAT BRINGS US TO, UH, FOUR.
SO THAT'S NINE TOTAL, UH, SO FAR.
MAY HAVE A FEW OTHERS JOIN US.
UM, SO, UH, REAL QUICK, UM, YEAH, I THINK WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET THROUGH THIS.
WE HAVE NO, UH, PUBLIC COMMUNICATION TODAY.
UM, WE HAD THE MINUTES FROM JUST LAST WEEK, UH, NOVEMBER 8TH, UH, COMMISSIONERS, WERE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE MINUTES AS POSTED? UH, SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ROLL THOSE INTO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[Reading of the Agenda]
FLORES, UM, IF, UH, THINK YOU'RE GONNA HELP ME OUT AND DO THE FIRST READING OF THE, UH, THE CON, UM, CONSENT AGENDA THIS EVENING? YES.UH, WE HAVE ONE APPROVAL OF MINUTES, UM, TWO ZONING AND REZONING.
C 8 1 4 20 21 0 0 99 BRODY OAKS REDEVELOPMENT PUD UP FOR DISCUSSION.
THREE, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT C 14 R 8,133, RCA BRODY OAKS, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT.
THAT ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
SAVE OUR SPRINGS, SOS ORDINANCE, BRODY OAKS REDEVELOPMENT SITE SPECIFIC SOS AMENDMENT.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CON DISCUSSION.
UM, FIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, NPA 20 22 0 0 1 7 0.01 CRISP VIEW VILLAGE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 13TH, SIX.
PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 21, 0 0 1, 0 0.0 1 2400 E CHAVEZ PARKING ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 13TH, SEVEN, REZONING C 14, 20 21, 0 1, 21, 2400 EAST CESAR CHA IS PARKING.
ITS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 13TH.
PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 22 0 0 2, 1 0.02 BURLESON AND BEN WHITE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR PC POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 13TH.
PLAN AMENDMENTS NPA 20 22 0 0 0 7 0.0 ONE TEN EIGHT ONE ZERO NEWMONT ROAD.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR PC POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 13TH, 10.
REZONING C FOURTEEN TWENTY TWENTY TWO ZERO ONE THREE SIX TEN EIGHT ONE ZERO NEWMONT ROAD, PC POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 13TH, 11 REZONING C 8 1 4 97 0 1 0.5 LEANDER REHABILITATION, PUD AMENDMENT NUMBER 16.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF AND APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 13TH, 2022, UH, 12 REZONING C 14 20 22 0 2, 0 6 15 17 KRAMER LANE.
13 REZONING C 14 20 22 0 76, 3100 GUADALUPE, THIS ITEM IS UP FOR PC POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 13TH,
[00:05:01]
14, REZONING C 14 20 22 0 1 31 SOUTHEAST NORWOOD CO AMENDMENT.SPRINGDALE COMMERCIAL TRACK TWO AMENDED.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 13TH, 16 REZONING C 14, 20 22 0 15 SPRINGDALE COMMERCIAL.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 13TH, 17, REZONING C 14 20 22 0 1 2 0 5 0 0 3.
18 REZONING C 14 H 20 22 0 1 39 FELT MOSS HOUSE.
CODE AMENDMENT C 20 22 0 0 0 4.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
UM, PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED, BUT THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO REGISTER AND PROVIDE REMARKS AND STAFF PRESENTATION AND Q AND A CONDUCTED 20 IMAGINE AUSTIN AMENDMENTS CPA 20 22 0 1 PALM DISTRICT PLAN.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
AND THEN 21 POLICY PLAN FOR PRESENTATION AND ACTION, THE EQUITABLE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT POLICY PLAN.
AND THAT IS THE CONSENT AGENDA.
OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER FLORES.
I, UH, FAILED TO MAKE THE ANNOUNCEMENT UP FRONT THAT, UM, UH, THIS MAY BE OF INTEREST TO FOLKS OUT THERE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT OUR COUNCIL PASS FOR RESOLUTION THAT WE WILL NO LONGER MEET ON ELECTION DAYS.
SO, UH, THAT IS A CONCERN TO MANY.
AND SO WE WILL NOT BE MEETING ON DECEMBER 13TH.
SO, I, WHEN I READ BACK THE CONSENT AGENDA, I WILL READ BACK THOSE THAT, UH, WERE POSTED FOR DECEMBER 13TH FOR DECEMBER 20TH.
[Consent Agenda]
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA?I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND REREAD IT AND, UH, WE'LL GO AND JUST TAKE CARE OF THAT.
SO THE FIRST ITEM WE HAVE IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 8TH.
UM, WE HAVE ITEM TWO, UH, ZONING AND, OKAY, SO WE'RE GONNA TAKE UP ITEMS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR TOGETHER IN A PUBLIC HEARING WHEN WE RETURN.
UH, BUT THOSE ARE ALL, UH, DISCUSSION ITEMS. UH, ITEM FIVE IS A PLAN AMENDMENT STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 20TH.
ITEM SIX, PLAN AMENDMENT, UH, STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 20TH, ITEM SEVEN OF REZONING.
IT'LL BE A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 20TH.
ITEM EIGHT IS A PLAN AMENDMENT ON CONSENT.
ITEM NINE, PLAN AMENDMENT IS A PC POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 20TH.
IT'S A HE'S SEAT POSTPONE TO DECEMBER 20TH.
ITEM 11, REZONING STAFF AND APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 20TH.
AND PLEASE REFERENCE THE ATTACHED MEMO.
13, REZONING PC POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 20TH.
15, REZONING STA POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 20TH, 16, REZONING STA POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 20TH, UH, 17 REZONING.
18 REZONING CON, UH, IT'S ON CONSENT OWNER INITIATED THAT SAYS QUI.
THIS ONE IS, UH, ON, THIS IS FOR DISCUSSION.
UH, NUMBER 19, THAT'S THE CODE AMENDMENT.
AND AS COMMISSIONER FLOD POINTED IT OUT, WE DID, UM, HAVE, UH, THE PUBLIC SPEAK.
UH, WE HAD OUR Q AND A, WE HAD STAFF PRESENTATION, BUT WE WILL ALLOW TWO MINUTES TO EACH FOR THE PUBLIC TO CONTINUE SPEAKING IF THEY, UH, WANT TO END THAT ITEM.
UM, WHICH, UH, WHICH ITEM? EIGHT.
ITEM EIGHT IS ALSO POSTPONED PC POSTPONEMENT TO, UH, DECEMBER 20TH.
I HAD SAID THAT WAS ON CONSENT, BUT THAT IS GOING TO BE TAKEN UP ON DECEMBER 20TH.
[00:10:02]
ITEM THE LIST, ITEM 20, WE HAVE IMAGINE AUSTIN AMENDMENT.THAT ITEM WILL TAKE UP FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM 21, THE, UH, EQUITABLE TRANS ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT POLICY PLAN.
WE'LL HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION.
I JUST WANT, UH, THE COMMISSIONERS TO KNOW, UH, THAT, UM, WE, WE CAN HAVE, UM, WE CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO, UH, WE CAN HEAR THE STAFF PRESENTATION.
WE CAN HAVE Q AND A, BUT DO KNOW THAT THE, THERE WILL BE CODE CHANGES THAT WILL COME OUT OF THIS PLAN, AND THOSE WILL GO THROUGH OUR NORMAL CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS.
SO WE HAVE SOME CHOICES THERE ON HOW WE WANNA HANDLE THAT.
BUT, UH, WE'LL TAKE THAT UP WHEN WE GET TO THAT ITEM.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA BEFORE WE TAKE A MOTION? ALL RIGHT.
DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? UH, COMMISSIONERS ZAR, MAKE A MOTION.
MAKING A MOTION TO CLOSE, UH, PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
WE HAVE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
UH, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE THAT IS ON THE DIAS IN FAVOR.
AND I GOTTA BE ABLE TO SEE ACROSS HERE.
OH, PLEASE SHOW ME YOUR GREEN CARDS IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.
SO WITH THAT, UM, I GUESS AT THIS POINT, UM, MR. RIVERA, WE'RE GONNA GO AND RECESS AND WE WILL RECONVENE AT, UM, SIX 20.
IS THAT STILL THE PLANNED TIME TO START, OR IS THAT AN ESTIMATE? OKAY.
SO WE WILL RECONVENE AT SIX 20 AT THE CITY HALL I COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
WE ARE RECONVENING THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IT IS 6:27 PM AND, UH, WE HAD, WHEN WE LEFT, WE HAD JUST PASSED A CONSENT AGENDA.
AND WE'RE GONNA TAKE CARE OF A FEW ITEMS BETWEEN NOW, WELL, IT'S ALMOST SIX 30, BUT I THOUGHT WE'D GO AHEAD AND, UH, COVER A FEW THINGS.
UM, WE'VE GOT, FIRST OF ALL, I NEED, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS, I WANNA NOMINATE, UM, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON TO BE THE SECRETARY.
UM, ANDERSON, UH, NO OBJECTIONS.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
UH, SO HE'LL SIGN OFF ON THE DOCUMENTS OVER THERE.
UH, COMMISSION ZAR, NO, JUST MAKING VOTING IN FAVOR.
UM, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND, UH, THE NEXT ITEM, JUST TO USE THE LAST TWO MINUTES HERE, UH, TALK A LITTLE ABOUT SCHEDULE.
UM, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS, I WANNA MOVE THAT ITEM UP IN THE AGENDA.
[22. Discussion and possible action to approve the 2023 Planning Commission meeting calendar.]
WAS ITEM 22.WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DISPENSE OF THAT IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS.
UH, WE ARE GOING TO SCHEDULE OUR MEETINGS ON THE SECOND AND FOURTH TUESDAY, UH, AS WE DID THIS YEAR FOR 2023.
I DO THEIR, UH, COUNCIL, AS WE MENTIONED EARLIER, UH, THEY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT QUITE SURE WHEN SOME OF THE ELECTIONS WILL BE.
SO AS THOSE ARE ANNOUNCED, AS WE GET FIRM DATES IN MAY, UH, WE KNOW NOVEMBER IS NOT A CONFLICT, BUT THERE COULD BE, UM, FOLLOW UP ELECTIONS.
BUT WE'LL HAVE TO CHANGE OUR MEETINGS AS NECESSARY IF THERE IS A CONFLICT.
BUT THE ONE CONFLICT IS DURING THE, UH, THE WEEK, UH, WHEN OUR MEETING ON THE DECEMBER 26TH, UH, WE WILL JUST HAVE A CONSENT ONLY MEETING ON DECEMBER 19TH.
UH, WE'LL MEET AT FIVE JUST AHEAD OF ZAP AND TAKE CARE OF OUR CONSENT AGENDA.
UH, SO THAT'LL BE OUR LAST MEETING OF THE YEAR.
AND, UM, I THINK THAT'S, UH, SO IF WE CAN, UH, DO WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THAT? OKAY.
SO ANY QUESTIONS ON THE CALENDAR FOR NEXT YEAR? I JUST HAVE A COMMENT.
IF WE CAN JUST MAKE SURE THAT ANY HOLIDAYS, SPRING BREAK, ET CETERA, ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS WELL AS WE DO THAT.
ANDREW, WE DID NOT LOOK AT SPRING BREAK, DID WE? CUZ WE TYPICALLY TRY TO AVOID THAT ONE TOO.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE, OF COURSE, THAT CAN BE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WEEKS DEPENDING ON THE SCHOOL, BUT YES, CHAIR COMMISSION, LADIES ON, WE USUALLY DON'T HAVE THE LUXURY OF TAKING OFF A SPRING BREAK.
WE USUALLY JUST KIND OF HAVE A CONSENT AGENDA.
[00:15:01]
SO, UM, OUR, IF I CAN GET A SECOND ON THE CALENDAR FOR THE NEXT YEAR, COMMISSIONER ZAR, LET'S GO AND TAKE A QUICK VOTE THAT'S ON THE DIAS AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN.UH, THAT LOOKS, COMMISSIONER MOTO.
SO WE HAVE COMMISSIONER MOTO IS, UH, STAINING FROM THAT ITEM.
SO THAT, UH, PASSES POST LIKE WE HAVE NINE TOTAL 8 0 1.
UH, NEXT, UH, THE FIRST DISCUSSION ITEM, WE'RE TAKING UP ITEMS, GET THE NUMBERS RIGHT HERE, TAKING UP ITEMS, UH, TWO, THREE, AND FOUR TOGETHER.
AND THIS IS THE, UH, BRODY OAKS REDEVELOPMENT POD.
AND WE WILL START WITH A STAFF PRESENTATION AND CHAIR COMMISSION.
LADIES ON ANDREW, UH, DO YOU WANT TO, UM, GET AN IDEA OF A ORDER IN REGARDS TO ITEM 21? YEAH.
[21. Policy Plan: Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Policy Plan]
ITEM 21 IS THE ETO.IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT WE TAKE ACTION ON THIS, SO WE CAN, AND LIKE I SAID EARLIER, THE CODE AMENDMENTS THAT COME OUT OF THAT PLANNING DOCUMENT, THEY WILL COME BACK TO US IN PIECES FOR APPROVAL.
BUT THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE ACTION ON OUR PART.
WE CAN, UH, WE CAN DISPENSE THAT ITEM THROUGH AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT AND, BUT WE WOULD NOT BE HEARING ANYTHING FROM STAFF.
BUT I AM OPEN TO HEARING THE PRESENTATION AND EVEN HEARING SPEAKERS, UH, WE CAN STOP IT AT THAT OR EVEN GO INTO Q AND A IF WE NEED TO.
SO, JUST QUICK, UM, WANNA JUST OPEN IT UP FOR A QUICK DISCUSSION ON ITEM 21, ON HOW WE WANNA HANDLE THAT.
ARE THERE ANY, UM, ANY COMMENTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS THERE? UH, COMMISSIONER MOOSE.
TYLER, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR STAFF AND COMMENTS FOR THE EVENING.
SO IF WE START THAT DOWN THAT ROAD, UH, MR. RIVERA, UH, CORRECT ME HERE.
IF WE HAVE STAFF PRESENTATION, WE'RE OPENING IT UP FOR DISCUSSION, WE WOULD THEN GO AHEAD AND HEAR SPEAKERS, UH, AT THAT POINT AS WELL.
CHAIR COMMISSION LADIES ON ANDREW? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
YOU WOULD HAVE, UM, UH, SPEAKERS, UM, OR STAFF PRESENTATION FOLLOWED BY SPEAKERS AND THEN DEBATE IN ACTION.
SO AGAIN, WE CAN DECIDE AT THAT POINT IF WE WANNA FOREGO Q AND A AND ANY ACTION ON IT, BUT WE'LL GO AHEAD, UH, JUST SO FOLKS OUT THERE KNOW THAT CAME TO SPEAK ON THAT ITEM.
WE WILL HEAR FROM STAFF AND THEN WE WILL TAKE UP SPEAKERS AFTER THAT.
SO LET'S GO AND GET STARTED ON PUBLIC
[Items 2 - 4]
HEARING FOR, UH, LIKE I SAID, ITEMS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR.THIS IS THE BRODY OAKS REDEVELOPMENT POD, AND WE'LL GO AND START WITH STAFF REPRESENTATION.
MY NAME IS WENDY RHODES WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UH, THIS IS THE BRODY OAKS REDEVELOPMENT, P U D, AS WELL AS A RELATED RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT AND AN AN SOS AMENDMENT THAT APPLIES TO THIS PROPERTY.
UH, THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED THE NOR NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOOP 360 AND SOUTH LAMAR BOULEVARD, WHICH IS A DESIGNATED CORE TRANSIT CORRIDOR.
UH, THE PROPERTY CONTAINS A VACATED, UH, PORTION OF THE TEXTS RIGHT OF WAY AS WELL AS A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER THAT WAS DEVELOPED IN 1981.
THE BARTON CREEK GREEN BELT IS AND TRAIL IS TO THE NORTHWEST, AND THERE ARE APARTMENTS, UH, TO THE NORTHEAST ON SOUTH LAMAR.
THE P D PROPOSES A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD CONSIST OF UP TO 1700 DWELLING UNITS, 200 HOTEL KEYS, 11, UH, 110,000 SQUARE SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, AND 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT USES.
INTERNAL CIRCULATION, UH, CONSISTS OF PRIVATE STREETS WITH PUBLIC EXCESS EASEMENTS.
UH, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT PROPOSED IS 275 FEET.
THAT WOULD BE AT THE CORNER OF SOUTH LAMAR AND LOOP 360.
AND THERE ARE OTHER LESSER HEIGHTS ALONG THE SOUTH LAMAR AND THE LU 360 FRONTAGE, AND THEN LESSER STILL ON INTERIOR PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY.
THE P U D PROPOSES TWO LAND USE AREAS.
THE FIRST LAND USE AREA IS GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG SOUTH LAMAR AND LUBE 360.
IT INCLUDES ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT I JUST DESCRIBED, AS WELL AS A CENTRAL GREEN AREA LOCATED IN THE CENTRAL PORTION OF THE SITE THAT IS PROPOSED TO, TO INCLUDE A PERFORMANCE AREA.
UH, PHASE ONE IS, IS ESTIMATED TO BE OCCUPIED IN 2027.
[00:20:01]
IS AT THE NORTHWEST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE GREEN BELT, LIMITED TO 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER AND A HEIGHT LIMIT OF 28 FEET.UM, AS THERE ARE, UM, WITH REGARDS TO SUPERIORITY ELEMENTS, THE P D MEETS ALL 12 OF THE TIER ONE ITEMS AND OFFERED SOME ELEMENTS OF SUPERIORITY IN SEVERAL OF THE TIER TWO CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES.
THIS P D PROVIDES A PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT THAT PROMOTES LIVING, INCLUDES AFFORDABLE HOUSING INITIATIVES, EMPLOYMENT AND SHOPPING, AS WELL AS ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE AND CONNECTED TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN A PLANNED COMMUNITY SETTING.
A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WAS COMPLETED FOR THIS, UH, ZONING CASE, AND INCLUDES A SUITE OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITIONAL DENSITY, INCLUDING IN ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS, AND ACTIVE PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.
I WILL JUST NOTE A A FEW OF THE, UH, FACTORS THAT MAKE THIS, UH, P UD SUPERIOR, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, A 1.5 ACRE SITE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, THIS WOULD IS ADJACENT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AND A SOUTH, AND THAT'S ON THE SOUTH OF OUR FRONTAGE AND ADJACENT TO A PLANNED TRANSIT STOP.
OTHER ITEMS INCLUDE, UM, THREE STAR AUSTIN GREEN BUILDING, AS WELL AS A NEW FIRE AND EMS STATION WITHIN A MIXED USED BUILDING, UH, THAT WOULD PROVIDE BETTER ACCESS TO THE GREEN BELT.
SPECIFICALLY, THIS WOULD BE NINE TO 11,000 SQUARE FEET OF, OF, UM, UNFINISHED SPACE.
UM, WITH REGARDS TO OPEN SPACE, THE PROJECT IS PROPOSING 11.6 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE AND 8.1 ACRES OF THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE GREEN BELT.
UM, I DO WANT TO TALK AND THERE ARE, UH, NUMEROUS CODE CODE MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE DETAILED ON PAGES NINE TO 14 OF THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL.
I I DO NEED TO MENTION THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT.
THAT IS ANOTHER, UH, THE SECOND OF THESE THREE CASES.
AND THAT IS TO TERMINATE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITS AS IT PERTAINS TO FIVE OF THE TOTAL OF NINE TRACKS.
SO RIGHT NOW, THOSE, UM, HEIGHT LIMITS ON THE PROPERTY ARE FROM 35 TO 60 FEET.
AND THE REQUEST IS AGAIN, TO TERMINATE THE HEIGHT LIMITS SO THAT THE, UH, TALLER, DENSER MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CAN OCCUR.
UH, WITH REGARDS TO THIS, UH, THIS, HOW THIS PROJECT HAS MOVED THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, UH, THIS, IT, THE PROJECT WENT TO PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD IN SEPTEMBER.
UH, THE APPLICANTS AGREEABLE TO ALL FOUR OF THE PARKS RECOMMENDATIONS.
IT WENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION IN EARLY NOVEMBER, AND THE APPLICANTS AGREEABLE TO NINE OF THE 21 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS.
UH, THE ONLY OUTSTANDING ISSUE AT THIS TIME IS, UH, O ENERGY HAS REQUESTED THE APPLICANT DEDICATED 1.5 ACRE SITE FOR AN ABOVE GROUND SUBSTATION IN ORDER TO ADDRESS CAPACITY LIMITATIONS.
AND THE APPLICANT, UH, IS, HAS ADDRESSED THEIR COMMENT BY, UH, ALLOWING FOR MAJOR UTILITY FACILITIES AS A PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE LAND USE AREAS, BUT IS NOT AGREEING TO DEDICATING A SITE AT THIS TIME.
UH, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS, UH, TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE P U D AS OUTLINED IN THE LAND USE PLAN OR RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND AN AMENDMENT OF THE, UH, COVENANT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TO TERMINATE THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS FOR THE TRACKS THAT ARE COVERED BY THE ZONING AREA.
AND, UH, NOW I WILL TURN IT OVER TO LESLIE, UH, AND SHE WILL DISCUSS THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF THE P U D.
I'M LESLIE LILLY WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION, AND I AM SPEAKING ABOUT THE SOS SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE, UH, BRODY OAKS POD.
AND THE REASON THAT THERE IS A SITE SPECIFIC SOS AMENDMENT IS BECAUSE THE SOS ORDINANCE, UH, RESTRICTS THE ABILITY TO MODIFY THAT SECTION OF CODE WITH THE PUD ORDINANCE.
AND THE PROJECT IS ALSO NOT, UH, DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BARTON SPRING ZONE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
SO THIS SOS SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT IS SPECIFICALLY FOR INCREASING THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT FOR THE PROJECT.
THE CURRENT IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE SITE IS 84%, AND THE PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT IS 56% NET SITE AREA.
THIS, UH, SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT WILL ONLY APPLY TO THE BRO OAKS DEVELOPMENT POD PROJECT AS IT'S PROPOSED IN THIS PROJECT, AND IT REQUIRES A SUPER MAJORITY APPROVAL AT CITY COUNCIL.
UM, SO THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THIS PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO IN TERMS OF SOS, INCLUDE BOTH IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS, UH, THAT ARE WITHIN THE CONTRIBUTING AND RECHARGE ZONE OF THE EDWARDS AQUIFER, WHICH ARE 15 AND 20%.
THEY'RE DELINEATED WITHIN SOME OF THE BACKUP.
YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE EXHIBITS.
AND THE, THE SITE IS ALSO SUBJECT TO, UH, NONDEGRADATION WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
[00:25:01]
THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS BRINGING THE SITE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THAT, SUCH THAT RUNOFF IS GOING TO BE TREATED FROM ALL IMPERVIOUS COVERS TO MEET THE, UM, UNDEVELOPED CONDITIONS, MEANING THE CONDITIONS OF RUNOFF THAT WOULD EXIST ON THE SITE, UH, IF THERE WAS NO DEVELOPMENT AND NO IMPERVIOUS COVER THERE.SO THE BRINGING THE SITE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE NONDEGRADATION WATER QUALITY, UH, REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT FEATURE OF THIS PROJECT.
UM, IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CODE MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED WITH THE POD, IT'S IMPORTANT TO TAKE THOSE TWO INTO ACCOUNT.
SINCE THIS, THE SOS UH, CODE AMENDMENT IS BEING REQUESTED IN A DIFFERENT ORDINANCE.
THE OTHER THREE ENVIRONMENTALLY SPECIFIC, UH, CODE MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED ARE, UM, TO CUT FILL, UH, 25 8, 3 41 AND TWO TO HAVE CUT AND FILL, NOT TO EXCEED 14 FEET.
AND THEN ALSO, UH, CODE MODIFICATION TO 25 8 2 81, UH, ENCROACHMENT WITHIN THE C SETBACKS OF TWO CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES THAT ARE ON THE SITE, WHICH INCLUDE A SEEP IN THE NORTH, UH, THE NORTHERN BORDER, AND THEN AIRMAN'S CAVE, UH, A CAVE FEATURE THAT IS UNDER, UH, THE SITE BY 140 FEET BELOW THE, UM, THE GRADE OF THE SITE.
SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS PROJECT, UH, THE WATERSHED STAFF PROVIDES, UH, SUPPORT FOR THIS PROJECT, UM, DUE TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, THAT THERE'S A REDUCTION OF IMPERVIOUS COVER FROM 84% TO 56%, THAT THERE'S A CLUSTERING OF IMPERVIOUS COVER ALONG THE ROAD, FRONTAGES AND AWAY FROM THE SENSITIVE BARTON CREEK GREEN BELT, THAT TWO TRACK, TWO ACRES OF THE TRACTOR RESTORE TO NATIVE NATIVE VEGETATION, A HUNDRED PERCENT OF WATER QUALITY CONTROLS OR GREEN STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE.
UH, 50% OF ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS WILL, UH, HAVE LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION PROVIDED BY RAINWATER.
THERE'S, UH, SUPERIOR TREE PROTECTIONS, EXCEEDING LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS AND COMPLYING WITH AUSTIN GREEN, BUILDING THREE STAR RATING AND ADDITIONAL, UH, THIRD PARTY, UH, CERTIFICATIONS.
AND, AND THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF PRESENTATION.
WILL NOW PROCEED WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'LL BEGIN WITH, UH, THE APPLICANT, MS. ABBY GAL FILLIN.
IS IT, ARE YOU GONNA ADVANCE OR JUST, UH, NOTE, UH, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
UM, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
I'M WITH LIONHEART PLACES, UH, REPRESENTING THE, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER.
UM, SO, UH, THIS DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED, UH, IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
UM, THE, IS THIS A, I THINK, IS THIS THE PRESENTATION? DID YOU REQUEST TO BEGIN AT SLIDE EIGHT? UH, NO.
IF YOU COULD START AT THE BEGINNING.
UH, SO THIS PROJECT, WE STARTED THE PROJECT, BEGAN THE PROJECT IN 2019, UM, UH, WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT THROUGH THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS.
UM, WE HAVE, WE ARE ANTICIPATING, AS, AS WAS, UH, PRESENTED BY WENDY, WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT WE WOULD NOT START CONSTRUCTION ON THIS AS A LARGE PROJECT UNTIL ABOUT 2025, UH, WITH THE FIRST PHASE, UH, NOT OPENING UNTIL 2027.
WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH PARKS BOARD ON SEPTEMBER 26TH.
UH, WE HAVE INITIATED, UH, THE, THE SOS SITE SPECIFIC SOS AMENDMENT.
WE'VE GONE TO CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE, UM, AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
WE'VE RE, WE'VE RECEIVED A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FROM ALL OF THOSE BOARDS.
UM, AND, UH, WE ARE PROPOSING TO MEET ALL CONDITIONS, UH, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TWO, WHICH I'LL REVIEW LATER.
UH, WE HAVE REACHED OUT TO 20 PLUS ORGANIZATIONS, A HUNDRED PLUS HOURS.
UH, SOME OF THE, UH, OTHER THINGS THAT WE'VE DONE IN, IN ADDITION TO, TO SPEAKING WITH, UH, BOARDS OR ORGANIZATIONS, IS THAT WE HAD A WORKING GROUP ASSEMBLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHENS OFFICE, WHERE, UH, WE BROUGHT EVERYBODY TOGETHER TO MEET, UH, UH, THROUGH THAT WORKING GROUP.
THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS, WE'VE ALSO HAD A PRESENTATION OF THE TIA.
WE DID A HEIGHT DEMONSTRATION WITH CRANES ON SITE.
WE HAVE A PROJECT WEBSITE, UM, AND WE ALSO DID HIKES WITHIN THE GREEN BELT.
ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO POINT OUT HERE IS THAT THE, UH, CORNER THERE, UH, IT WAS ONCE TEXT DOT RIGHT AWAY IS NOW PART OF THE PROJECT.
THAT'S WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE PERVIOUS COVER, UM, ON THE SITE IS LOCATED CURRENTLY.
SO, UH, IT, THE SITE IS CURRENTLY 84% IN PERVIOUS COVER, UM, AND WE'RE PROPOSING TO BRING IT TO 56%.
MOST OF THE PERVIOUS COMES FROM THAT.
THE OTHER THING TO POINT OUT THERE IS SOUTH
[00:30:01]
LAMAR BOULEVARD AND LOOP 360 ARE BOTH TEXT DOT RIGHT AWAY IN THIS LOCATION.THERE ARE, UM, A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT THIS SITE THAT WE WANNA BRING INTO ALIGNMENT WITH THE CURRENT CITY OF AUSTIN, UH, INCLUDING LOTS OF, LOTS OF PARKING, LOTS, SURFACE PARKING LOTS, SINGLE USE RETAIL, AND THERE'S A LARGE WALL AGAINST THE BACK.
UH, THERE ARE SOME ASSETS ON THE SITE, A FEW ASSETS, UM, AND THOSE INCLUDE SOME REALLY NICE TREES THAT WERE PRIOR TO THE DEVELOPMENT IN 1980, UH, WHICH WILL BE PRESERVED.
AND THERE'S SOME REALLY NICE VIEWS THAT WILL NOW BE OPENED UP TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH, UH, PARKS, UH, PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PARKS.
THIS IS THE FIRST IMAGINE AUSTIN, UH, CENTER TO REDEVELOP AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA.
SO IT'S, IT IS A CENTER IN THE IMAGINE AUSTIN PLAN.
IT IS ALSO LOCATED ALONG, UH, PROJECT CONNECT AND CORE TRANSIT, UH, CORRIDORS.
AND SO, UH, THIS DEVELOPMENT REALLY, UH, IS RESPONDING TO BOTH OF THOSE, UM, INITIATIVES OF THE CITY.
NEXT WE HAVE A, UH, SET OF GOALS THAT WE HAVE, UH, DEVELOPED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROJECT AND HAVE BROUGHT ALL THE WAY THROUGH ONE OF THE TOP BEING ECOLOGY.
SO MEETING THE HIGHEST ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL STANDARDS.
NEXT, THESE ARE THE MAJOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS ON SITE REDUCING IMPERVIOUS COVER BY 36%, TWO HUN.
UH, APPROXIMATELY 200 UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 11 ACRES OF PUBLIC PARKLAND, PRESERVATION OF A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE HERITAGE TREES, AND 75% OF THE OTHER TREES WERE CAPTURING AND REUSING 100% OF THE RAINWATER.
AND, UH, THAT FALLS ON THE ROOFTOPS AND THEREBY OFFSETTING POTABLE WATER USE BY APPROXIMATELY 20 MILLION GALLONS PER YEAR, UH, REDUCING PARKING AND EMPLOYING A ROBUST TDM PROGRAM.
NEXT, THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, UM, 140,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, 1.2 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE 1700 UNITS.
UM, SOME OF THE OTHER NOTABLE THINGS IS A COMMITMENT TO A LOCAL BUSINESS.
THERE'S A 25% COMMITMENT, UM, AS WELL AS, UH, A COMMITMENT TO RESERVE 10,000 SQUARE FEET FOR ARTISTS.
UH, NEXT, AND, UH, YOU CAN GO THROUGH THESE QUICKLY.
THESE ARE JUST, UH, SHOWING ALL OF THE CONDITIONS THAT CAME OUT OF THE DIFFERENT COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS.
UH, OUR TEAM IS, UH, UH, ACCEPTING ALL OF THOSE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TWO FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, WHICH IS TO REDUCE HEIGHT, UM, AND, UH, MITIGATION, UH, WITHIN THE BARTON, UH, MITIGATION WITHIN THE BARTON CREEK WATERSHED.
AND YOU CAN GO THROUGH THESE QUICKLY.
THIS IS, UH, THAT'S THE CENTRAL GREEN THERE IN THE CENTER.
IT'S ABOUT THE SIZE OF REPUBLIC SQUARE.
THIS IS SOUTH LAMAR CORRIDOR, CORRIDOR.
NEXT, UM, THIS IS THE, THE, UH, CENTER CENTRAL DRIVE.
AND LASTLY, THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT OVERALL.
SO YOU CAN SEE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU CAN SEE HERE IS THAT, UH, THAT WALL COMES DOWN AND WE REALLY GRADE THE SITE, UH, UP INTO THE GREEN BELT.
WITH THAT, UM, I'LL SAY THAT OUR TEAM IS ALL HERE, UH, FOR QUESTIONS.
UH, WE HAVE OUR, UH, CIVIL ENGINEER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER, AND LAND USE ATTORNEY.
SO WE REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S TIME AND THANK YOU.
WELL NOW HERE FROM MRS. JEAN WILKINS.
I'M MS. WILKINS HALL, UH, SPEAKER, BEGIN THE SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION.
MS. WILKINS, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
I WILL NOT TAKE UP THE ALL THAT MUCH TIME.
UM, THANK YOU FOR HAVING US HERE.
I REPRESENT BARTON VIEW NEIGHBORHOOD AND A COUPLE OF OTHER PEOPLE ARE HERE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I BELIEVE Y'ALL RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD LAST WEEK, OR WHEN WE POSTPONED IT, ADDRESSING SOME OF THE CONCERNS.
I WAS EXTREMELY HAPPY TO HEAR THAT IT FLASHED UP THERE VERY QUICKLY.
BUT IT APPEARS THAT SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAD THAT WERE ALSO SHARED BY THE, UM, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION HAVE BEEN ADOPTED, UH, INCLUDING THE, UH, INTERNATIONAL DARK SKIES, WHICH I WAS PART OF THE ZOOM MEETINGS THAT WE HAD WITH THE DEVELOPERS.
AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, I WAS REALLY PUSHING FOR THAT.
AND I BELIEVE ALSO THE NON-REFLECTIVE GLASS, AGAIN, THAT WAS, THAT WAS FLASHED UP THERE, UH, VERY QUICKLY.
UH, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, THE RECOMMENDATION INCLUDED THE HEIGHT REDUCTION USE OF INTERNATIONAL DARK SKIES FOR LIGHT POLLUTION AND BIRD STRIKE MITIGATION AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR BIRD FRIENDLY BUILDS, SUCH AS LOW REFLECTIVE, UH, GLASS.
PART OF THE BUILD AT 275 FEET IS JUST GONNA BE REALLY DIFFICULT TO MITIGATE WHEN IT'S THAT TALL.
[00:35:01]
SO MANY POSITIVES WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.UM, THERE ARE NUMEROUS PROBLEMS THOUGH, INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, TRAFFIC, NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY, ACCESSIBILITY TO THE SITE, UH, LIGHT POLLUTION STILL.
AND, UH, AGAIN, THE BURN STRIKES IN THE CANYON LIKE SETTING, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE GONNA MITIGATE FOR LIGHT.
AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS OBVIOUSLY, I MEAN, THIS IS AN OLD DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, AND NO, NOBODY IS GONNA ARGUE THAT WE NEED TO PRESERVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH ALL THAT PARKING.
SO IT'S GONNA GO ACROSS THE STREET WHERE TARGET IS, IT'S GONNA GO CENTRAL MARKET, PROBABLY AREA, YOU KNOW, EVENTUALLY IS GONNA GO.
BUT I THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY MINDFUL ABOUT THAT CANYON LIKE STRUCTURE THAT YOU CAN START PUTTING INTO PLACE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.
UH, HEAT, UM, AND, AND ALSO THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE BIRD, UH, MEDICAL SITUATION OF, UM, THERE IS BIKE AND WALKING ACCESSIBILITY WITHIN THE BUILD, WHICH IS REALLY GREAT, BUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS COMPLETELY INACCESSIBLE TO IT.
AND THE LETTER THAT Y'ALL RECEIVED, UM, OUR VICE CHAIR ACTUALLY WROTE THAT LETTER AND SHE GOES INTO GREAT DETAIL.
SO I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU READ OUR CONCERNS ABOUT OUR ACCESSIBILITY, UH, TO, TO THE SITE, WHICH WE VOICED WITH THE DEVELOPERS FROM THE, UH, VERY BEGINNING.
UM, ONE THING THAT I FOUND INTERESTING, UH, IT WAS NOT BROUGHT UP THIS EVENING, BUT, UH, IN OTHER MEETINGS THAT WE HAD, UH, IT WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT THIS BUILD WAS IN THE ACTIVITY CENTER FOR REDEVELOPMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE, UH, AREAS.
AND ACCORDING TO THE IMAGINE AUSTIN, IT CLEARLY LOOKS LIKE IT'S NEXT TO IT, NEAR IT, KIND OF ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT.
BUT THE GREEN CIRCLE IS NOT, I MEAN, FROM LOOKING AT THE IMAGINE AUSTIN, MATT, IT DOES NOT GO OVER IT.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M WONDERING IS, IS THAT PERHAPS BECAUSE AT THIS POINT THE RECOGNITION WHEN THIS WAS DEVELOPED WAS THAT IT WILL SIT ON TOP OF AIRMAN'S CAVE, WHICH IS VERY MUCH A CONCERN.
CAUSE ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS WHO'S HERE THIS EVENING, UM, IS NOT SPEAKING.
SHE GAVE ME HER TIME, SO WE CAN LIKE SPEED THROUGH THIS.
UM, IS IS VERY, UH, INVOLVED IN THE SPLUNKING COMMUNITY AND HAS REAL CONCERNS, UH, ABOUT THE, THE CAVE.
UM, THE TRAFFIC, AND I'LL GO BACK TO THAT IN A SECOND.
THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS RELIES VERY HEAVILY ON THE 8 0 3 BUS ROUTE, IS A MITIGATION, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS GONNA BE, UH, IMPROVED.
BUT WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE, JUST THE TRAFFIC IMPACT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN, IN THAT AREA OF, OF SOUTH AUSTIN, UH, BARTON HILLS ZILKER.
AND IF THIS DEVELOPMENT CAN ACTUALLY BE SUPPORTED, UH, BY THE SOUTH LAMAR CORRIDOR, UM, WE STRONGLY FEEL THAT THE ISSUE OF THE SUBSTATION NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH.
NOW, AUSTIN ENERGY WANTS IT ON SITE, BUT THE DEVELOPER PROPOSES PLACING IT AS FAR AWAY FROM BRODY LANE, UM, WHICH WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE, UM, THAT WOULD NECESSITATE HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES OVER NEIGHBORHOODS, POSSIBLY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, IF NOT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, SOMEBODY'S NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND SO WE'RE CONS QUITE CONCERNED, EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
UM, AGAIN, AS I I MENTIONED, I'M KINDA SPEAKING FOR A COUPLE OF PEOPLE TO SPEED THINGS UP.
UM, THIS IS, UM, FROM INGRID MORTON, AND SHE'S EXTREMELY CONCERNED AND HAS SPENT A LOT OF TIME STUDYING THE MAP, UM, THAT AIRMAN'S CAVE.
UM, DEL R CLAY MIGHT NOT SUPPORT THE TWO, THE 275 FOOT STRUCTURE WITH 80 FOOT EVACUATION, I MEAN EXCAVATION TO GET DOWN THERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
ONE, I'LL HEAR FROM MR. PETER HESS.
MR. HESS, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I'M WITH THE BARTON HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UH, I YOU SAID THREE MINUTES, CORRECT? THREE MINUTES.
UM, I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO COVER ALL THE POINTS.
LET ME JUST, UH, ESSENTIALLY TALK ABOUT THE ELEPHANT IN, IN THE ROOM, 275 FEET ON TOP OF THE BAR CREEK GREEN BELT.
THAT'S REALLY, THAT'S REALLY THE, THE BIG ISSUE I HAVE.
UH, UH, THERE'S A LOT TO LIKE, UH, ABOUT THIS PROJECT.
IT WAS, IF IT WAS AT, UH, AT MOPAC OR NO, IF IT'S AT, AT SOUTH HUT AND BEN WHITE, THAT'D BE A WONDERFUL PROJECT.
THIS LAND WAS ORIGINALLY SOLD IN THE EARLY NINETIES, EARLY EIGHTIES, AND THE
[00:40:01]
OWNERS KNOWING ABOUT THE SENSITIVITY OF THE, OF THE TRACT PUT A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ON THE TRACT OF 35 FEET BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO PRESERVE, UM, UM, THE, THE, THE LANDSCAPE AND, AND THE, THE INTEGRITY OF THE GREEN BELT.WE ASKED THE CITY TO, UM, NOT TO APPLY THIS, THE VMU DESIGNATION ON THIS TRACK A DECADE AGO, AND THIS BODY APPROVED, AND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LABELS THIS AREA AS AN ACTIVITY CENTER IN AN ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVE AREA.
UM, UH, I DON'T THINK I WAS PART OF THAT PROCESS, I DON'T THINK, UM, THAT WE THOUGHT OF A MINI DOWNTOWN, UH, OVER THE GREENBELT WHEN WE THOUGHT OF THAT DESIGNATION.
UM, WE THOUGHT OF A MUCH LOWER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT.
UM, THIS IS A USUALLY IMPORTANT TEST CASE.
IT'S THE FIRST OF SUCH, YOU KNOW, MINI CENTERS THAT'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPED.
IF YOU LET THIS GO, THEN, UH, THE APARTMENT COMPLEX NEXT DOOR IS GONNA GO AND BAR CREEK SQUARE IS GOING TO GO AND SO ON.
IT'S GONNA BE A, A, A, A LONG LIST OF, OF, OF TOWERS ON THE GREEN BELT.
UM, ANOTHER ISSUE WHY A 275 FOOT TOWER HOTEL? WHAT'S THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT OF A HOTEL ON THAT SITE THAT IS 2 75 FEET? LET ME, UH, ONE FINAL POINT, A PERSONAL POINT.
UM, I, UH, LISTENED DURING S I, UM, HEARINGS IN THE EARLY, UH, NINETIES.
I'LL LISTEN TO THE HEARINGS ON KG RADIO.
UM, AND DURING THOSE NIGHTS, I DECIDED TO BECOME A US CITIZEN.
I THOUGHT IT WAS A COOL COMMUNITY.
WE COULD PARTICIPATE THIS, A COMMUNITY WHO CARES ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, CARES ABOUT THE GREEN BELT, WHICH I'VE BEEN HIKING FOR 35 YEARS.
UM, IF WE NOW GIVE THIS AWAY, UH, WHAT CITY ARE WE, UM, ARE WE, ARE WE STILL CARING ABOUT OUR BASIC VALUES? ARE WE STILL CARING ABOUT THE GREEN BELT? UM, OR ARE WE GIVING AWAY A PRECIOUS RESOURCE WITHOUT GETTING, WITHOUT GETTING VERY MUCH IN RETURN? THANK YOU.
YOU'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
SIGNED UP TO SPEED, BY THE WAY, AND I SIGNED UP REGISTRATION CLOSED AT FIVE O'CLOCK, AND I, UM, CHAIR AND I, UM, COMBED AFTER THAT TIME.
NO, I, I SIGNED UP AS SOON AS I GOT THE LINK AND FOR SOME REASON IT SHOWED ME, ONLY SIGNED UP FOR THE COMPATIBILITY ITEM.
MR. CHAIR, WE DON'T MIND IF THEY SPEAK.
UM, MR. RIVERA, COULD WE ALLOW TWO MINUTES PERHAPS FOR THE SPEAKER? OF COURSE.
WE'LL GIVE YOU TWO MINUTES IF YOU CAN.
UH, WE'VE GOT A PRETTY HEAVY AGENDA, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO KEEP THINGS GOING.
BUT, UH, GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND, UH, WE'LL START THE CLOCK AND GIVE YOU TWO MINUTES.
BILL BCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAVE OUR SPRINGS ALLIANCE.
UH, I THINK YOU HAVE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE WITH THE SOS UH, AMENDMENT, WHICH WE SUPPORTED, UH, WITH PROPER CONDITIONS.
AND THE CONDITIONS INCLUDE BUYING MITIGATION LAND THAT WOULD REDUCE THE OVERALL IMPERVIOUS COVER.
IF YOU COMBINE THIS SITE WITH, UH, OFFSITE MITIGATION TO BELOW THE 15% SOS IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT, UM, I DON'T KNOW WHY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AGAINST THAT.
UM, THIS CURRENT DEVELOPMENT IS 360,000 SQUARE FEET.
THE REQUEST IS TO GO TO 3.2 MILLION SQUARE FEET.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT OF PERVIOUS COVER OR DENSITY INCREASE, OR 500, BUT ALMOST A THOUSAND PERCENT INCREASE IN DENSITY.
UM, SOME SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT IS ENOUGH, BUT WITH THE HEIGHT HERE, IT'S TOO MUCH.
STAFF IS ALSO RECOMMENDING AGAINST THE HEIGHT.
UM, THEY SAY THEY DON'T SUPPORT IT.
AND BECAUSE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION REFERENCED THE CANYON EFFECT AND BIRD STRIKES THE REAL REASONS, AND THIS IS IN MY LETTER TO YOU THAT'S IN THE BACKUP, THAT WAS THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
THIS VIOLATES THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN AND IT VIOLATES THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IT'S DOCUMENTED IN ATTACHMENT TO THE LETTER CITATIONS THROUGHOUT.
IMAGINE NEVER CONTEMPLATED SATELLITE DOWNTOWNS ANYWHERE IN AUSTIN, AND CERTAINLY NOT IN ACTIVITY CENTERS OVER THE EDWARDS AQUIFER.
UM, AND THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN CALLS FOR A CLIMATE EMERGENCY.
AND, UH, DESIGNING OUR, OUR BUILDING STRUCTURES TO FIT THAT SKYSCRAPERS ARE INCREDIBLY GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION INTENSIVE.
UM, WE NEED MID-RISE DEVELOPMENT THAT,
[00:45:01]
UH, IS MUCH MORE CLIMATE FRIENDLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE OVERALL PICTURE.UM, AND, UH, IS ALSO HAPPENS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH, UH, UH, AUSTIN.
UH, IMAGINE AUSTIN, PLEASE LOOK AT THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY ORDINANCE ISSUES.
WE DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THOSE CAREFULLY.
WHERE ARE WE? WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS THAT, I'M SORRY.
JUST, UH, POINT OF ORDER HERE.
UM, WERE YOU SIGNED UP? I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE YOU I TRIED TO OKAY.
AND, AND DAVID JUST SAID HE REALLY THINKS Y'ALL NEED TO HEAR WHAT SIERRA CLUB HAS TO SAY.
I'M THE CONSERVATION CHAIR FOR THE AUSTIN REGIONAL GROUP, THIS SIERRA CLUB.
AND FIRST, WE APPRECIATE THE OUTREACH THAT HAS BEEN DONE ON THIS PROJECT AND THE, THE CONVERSATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT AND THAT IS APPRECIATED.
UM, SOS UH, ALLIANCE AND AUSTIN REGIONAL SIERRA BOTH HAVE SIGNED OFF ON THE, UH, REDUCTION OF THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE VARIANCE TO THE SOS ORDINANCE.
THE PROBLEM IS, OUR UNDERSTANDING AT THAT TIME FOR SIERRA CLUB WAS THAT THERE WOULD BE MITIGATION LAND BOUGHT ELSEWHERE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE.
AND THAT IS WHAT I THINK ENVIRONMENTALLY IS OUR MAIN HEARTBURN.
WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT AIRMAN'S CAVE AND THAT IF DURING CONSTRUCTION THERE IS ANY KIND OF BREAKTHROUGH OR CRACK OR ANY KIND OF ENVIRONMENTAL, UH, RECHARGE FEATURE FOUND THAT CONSTRUCTION SHUT DOWN IMMEDIATELY, UH, UNTIL THAT CAN BE RESOLVED.
ALSO, WITH THE, THE LEVELING OF THE BACK, UH, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT RUNOFF FROM THE DEMOLITION.
UM, AND WE'RE GLAD THAT'S TAKING PLACE.
FIRST AND WATER QUALITY CONTROLS WILL BE PUT IN, BUT DURING THAT PROCESS, THERE'S ONLY ABOUT 15 FEET BEHIND THAT WALL THERE FOR THEM TO WORK.
WE WOULD WANT TO SEE A VARIANCE TO THE BCP, UH, TO ALLOW SILT, UH, CONTROLS, UH, INTO THE BCP, UH, TEMPORARY, BUT ALSO, BUT ALSO CRITICAL TO PROTECTING, UH, BARTON CREEK.
AND, AND, UM, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT.
WE'D HOPE THAT THE, THE DEVELOPER WOULD ASK FOR THAT ALSO.
BUT THE MAIN HEARTBURN FOR SIERRA CLUB IS THE, THE LACK OF OFFSITE MITIGATION.
YES, IT'S GOOD TO REDUCE THIS.
THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT THE HEIGHT AND THE EMBEDDED, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAT THAT HAS.
UM, BUT AGAIN, IT IS, WE NEED THAT OFFSITE MITIGATION.
IT'S EXPENSIVE EVERYWHERE RIGHT NOW.
OKAY, CHAIR WILL PROCEED WITH THE APPLICANT REBUTTAL FOR THREE MINUTES.
MR. CHAIR, COMMISSION MEMBERS, MY NAME IS DAVID ARMREST REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
I'M GONNA SPEAK TO TWO ISSUES.
I COULD SPEAK TO ALL THE ISSUES, BUT I DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH TIME.
UH, FROM THE VERY FIRST DAY WE STARTED PLAYING THIS PROJECT, WE RECOGNIZED HOW SENSITIVE THIS SITE IS.
WE KNEW WE HAD TO COMPLY WITH SOS, WE KNEW WE HAD TO DO A GRAND JOB OF, UH, EVERYTHING ABOUT IT.
SO WE, WE NEEDED HEIGHT TO REDUCE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, BALANCE IT OUT, COMPLY WITH SOS THE HEIGHT WE CONCENTRATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF 360 AND LAMAR A 275 TALL FOOT TALL BUILDING IS ROUGHLY 24 STORIES, AND I, I DON'T THINK I WOULD CONSIDER THAT HIGH RISE.
UH, THE HEIGHT STEPS DOWN FROM THERE.
WE INTENTIONALLY DID NOT CREATE A CANYON EFFECT.
UH, THE BIRD STRIKE IS AN ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THE GLASS, WHERE WE, WE WILL ADDRESS THAT REALLY ANY HIGH RISE, ANY BUILDING OVER TWO STORIES PROBABLY HAS A BIRD STRIKE ISSUE IN THIS CITY.
BUT WE ARE, WE NEED THE HEIGHT TO MAKE THE ECONOMICS WORK TO MAKE THE COVER REDUCTION.
AND THEN WITH RESPECT TO THE MITIGATION LAND, WHEN WE STARTED THIS PROCESS, THERE IS AN ORDINANCE, THE BARTON SPRINGS, UH, ORDINANCE, THAT SOS ORDINANCE HAS ALREADY BEEN AMENDED ONCE FOR A BLANKET EXCEPTION CALLED THE BARTON SPRINGS REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
IT ALLOWS YOU TO KEEP THE SAME AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
[00:50:01]
DO SOME SEDIMENTATION FILTRATION PONDS, AND THEN IT REQUIRES YOU TO BUY MITIGATION LAND OFF SITE.UH, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE SAID, DON'T DO THAT.
UH, POLITICALLY THAT LOOKS BAD.
IT'S JUST, WE DON'T LIKE THE ORDINANCE.
WE, IF YOU REALLY LIKE THIS PROJECT, YOU THINK THIS IS A GREAT PROJECT.
YOU NEED TO GO FORWARD AND CREATE A PROJECT WITH LOTS OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND AMEND THE SOS ORDINANCE FOR THIS PROJECT, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DOING.
UH, SO THAT'S THE PATH WE CAME DOWN.
WE ARE, WE ARE TREATING THE WATER TO SOS QUALITY.
WE WERE REDUCED IMPERVIOUS COVER.
THERE ARE MANY, MANY COM COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
AS ABBEY POINTED OUT, THE MITIGATION LAND IS PART OF THAT OTHER PROCESS THAT WE DID, NOT, WE, THAT'S WHERE WE WANTED TO BE, BUT, UH, WE'RE NOT THERE.
SO WE THINK IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO TAKE THAT PIECE FROM THERE AND PUT IT IN THIS PROCESS HERE WHEN WE NEED TO, UH, HAVE A THREE QUARTERS VOTE OF THE COUNCIL BECAUSE OF ALL THE THINGS WE'RE DOING.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
UH, WE WILL, UM, STICK WITH OUR, JUST NEED TO GO CONCLUDE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, COMMISSIONER ZAR SECOND BY VICE CHAIR HEMPLE.
UH, THAT'S ON THE DICE AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN.
UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, YOU SEE YOUR COLOR CARD? THANK YOU.
AND YEAH, WE'RE STILL AT NINE.
UH, LET'S GONNA START WITH QUESTIONS.
UM, YOU WANNA START US OFF? UH, VICE CHAIR? HE, YES, I HAVE A QUESTION.
I BELIEVE THIS WOULD BE FOR THE APPLICANT.
WE'RE HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING YOU.
UM, I THINK THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AND UM, MAYBE THE CITY AS WELL, BUT IT'S ABOUT IF, IF, IF THERE COULD BE A, A CLEAR EXPLANATION ABOUT THE OFFSITE MITIGATION.
LIKE IS THAT PURCHASING OF PROPERTY, HOW MUCH DOES IT HAVE TO BE WITHIN THE BARTON CREEK AREA? JUST MORE EXPLANATION AROUND THAT AND, AND WHY THAT SHOULD BE SEPARATED FROM THE, THE THREE CASES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TONIGHT.
HI, LESLIE LILLY WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION.
SO AS THE MITIGATION LAND OR THE MITIGATION FUNDS ARE REQUIRED, IT'S A PROCESS WITHIN THE BARTON SPRING ZONE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, WHERE A PROPERTY THAT IS GRANTED THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION HAS TO, UH, ACQUIRE LAND SUCH THAT THEY REDUCE THE OVERALL, UM, IMPERVIOUS COVER TO THE LIMITS THAT ARE SET FORTH IN THE BARTON SPRING ZONE.
SO IN THE RECHARGE ZONE, ACTUALLY, ACTUALLY, SORRY, IT'S ALL 20%.
IT HAS TO BE BELOW 20% FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
AND FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, TO GET THIS PROJECT TO 20% IMPERVIOUS COVER, IT WOULD BE 64 ACRES OF LAND ACQUIRED TO GET IT DOWN TO THE 20%, UM, IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT AS IT'S DICTATED IN THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? UM, THIS IS LIZ JOHNSTON, DEPUTY ENVIRONMENT OFFICER WITH WATERSHED.
ALSO, THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION IS SOMETHING THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH SITE PLANS.
THE CODE SET HAS TO BE WITH A SITE PLAN, SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT ODD TO HAVE IT WITH A PUT, AND SO PREVIOUS STAFF SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S TOO LOW OF A BAR.
SO WE, WE WERE SAYING, YOU KNOW, THAT IS NOT THE BASELINE FOR BY WHICH STAFF DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS PROJECT IS SUPERIOR BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S TOO LOW A BAR, THE WATER QUALITY TREATMENT, IT IS AS ISN'T AS GOOD REDUCTION OF IMPERIOUS COVER IS NOT REQUIRED, UM, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
HOWEVER, IT IS A PROCESS THAT IS OUTLINED IN THE CODE.
AND SO I THINK THAT THAT'S WHERE THIS REQUEST IS COMING FROM, FROM THE COMMUNITY AND THE, THE 64 ACRES THAT WOULD NEED TO BE PURCHASED, IS THAT ANYWHERE IN, IN AUSTIN OR WITHIN THE BARTON CREEK WATERSHED? IT WOULD BE SOMEWHERE WITHIN THE BARTON SPRING ZONE.
AND IS THERE THAT MUCH LAND AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE? UM,
[00:55:01]
I, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT NECESSARILY.ONE OF THE OTHER CONDITIONS, UM, OF THE BARTON SPRING ZONE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, SO THERE'S TWO OPTIONS.
THERE'S PURCHASING LAND OR PAYING INTO A MITIGATION FUND.
SO THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS.
THE FUND GOES TO WATERSHED PROTECTION TO BUY LAND AS WELL.
THERE ARE CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MITIGATION LAND PURCHASE THERE, THERE'S A MINIMUM, UM, REQUIREMENT OF A HUNDRED ACRES UNLESS IT IS ADJACENT TO EXISTING MITIGATION LAND AS WELL.
SO IT, YOU KNOW, FOR IF, IF THIS WERE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, WE WOULD SAY IT NEEDED TO BE, YOU KNOW, EITHER ADJACENT TO MITIGATION LAND A MINIMUM OF, OR A MINIMUM OF A HUNDRED ACRES SOMEWHERE, OR PAY INTO THE FUND.
YOU COULD DO SOMETHING ELSE, BUT OUR PREFERENCE IS USUALLY LARGER TRACKS OF LAND, NOT, UM, NOT TRACKS OF LAND UNDER A HUNDRED ACRES.
AND COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER ZAR? COMMISSIONER? OH, COMMISSIONER YTO.
I'LL COMMISSION DETO, GO AHEAD AND YOU GOT, YOU HAVE THE NEXT QUESTION.
I HAVE A FOLLOW UP TO VICE CHAIR, HE'S QUESTION, BUT, UM, WANTED TO SEE IF MR. BUNCH FROM SOS HAD A, A RESPONSE TO THAT OR MR. WILEY FROM SIERRA CLUB, IF EITHER OF YOU COULD COMMENT ON LAND AVAILABILITY AND THE FEASIBILITY OF BUYING MITIGATION LAND FOR A SITE LIKE THIS.
UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BILL BUNCH.
YEAH, THERE'S, UH, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES IN THE UPPER BARTON CREEK WATERSHED THAT ARE STILL UNDEVELOPED, UM, AND, UH, ARE UP FOR GRABS TO BE PROTECTED OR DEVELOPED.
AND, UM, BUYING LAND IS ONE OPTION.
THE OTHER OPTION IS BUYING A CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
UM, AND THERE'S CERTAINLY LANDOWNERS OUT THERE THAT I THINK WOULD BE, UH, VERY OPEN TO EITHER ONE OF THOSE APPROACHES.
UM, AND I'M, YOU'VE GOT AUDIO FOR ME, SORRY, JUST DOUBLE CHECK.
UM, I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS.
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, UH, WE HAVE LEGAL AVAILABLE.
WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANT AND BCP HAVE ASKED YOU FOR CHAIR COMMISSION? AVERA? UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S A LEGAL MATTER.
UH, STAFF WILL BE AVAILABLE TO, UM, DISCUSS THAT.
I WAS TOLD IT WAS HUNG UP WITH LEGAL.
UH, LIZ JOHNSTON WATERSHED AGAIN, UM, I HAVE HEARD THAT THE PAPERWORK HAS BEEN SENT TO LEGAL AND SO IT SHOULD BE A MATTER OF, UM, A MONTH OR TWO BEFORE IT'S, UM, TAKEN CARE OF.
CAN JUST FOR, UH, THE REST OF THE COMMISSION, CAN WE, WHAT IS IT WE'RE SPEAKING OF, OF THIS DOCUMENT? THERE IS A REQUEST FROM, UM, SCIENCE, UH, HYDROLOGY SCIENCE STAFF, UM, WITH THE BCP TO HAVE ACCESS TO AIRMAN'S CAVE IN PERPETUITY SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE AN ACCESS EASEMENT IN ORDER TO DO SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS AND RESEARCH ASSOCIATED WITH THE CAVE.
AND SO THIS WOULD BE AN EASEMENT, UM, GRANTED TO STAFF TO, UM, ACCESS THE CAVE.
YEAH, I THINK, UM, SIERRA CLUB ALLUDED TO THIS A BIT THAT, UM, IN GENERAL THE THOUGHT IS THAT AIRMAN'S CAVE IS, IS, UM, NOT ENDANGERED BY THIS PROJECT, BUT THAT IS IN THEORY.
SO THERE ARE TWO THINGS AT PLAY.
ONE IS BCPS MISSION TO ACQUIRE EASEMENTS TO BE ABLE TO MONITOR AREAS THAT ARE AT RISK.
AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS.
AND SO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND THE APPLICANT IS AMENABLE TO THIS, UM, IS, UH, IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THOSE TWO TO ALLOW ACCESS FOR BCP STAFF TO BE ABLE TO GO IN AND ASSESS.
THE OTHER PART COMES FROM ONGOING SURVEILLANCE OF AIRMAN'S CAVE, AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT SIERRA CLUB ALLUDED TO THAT, UH, IF THERE WAS, IF IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THERE ACTUALLY WAS AN INFRACTION OR ENDANGERMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION, THAT THERE WOULD BE A PROCESS IN PLACE
[01:00:01]
FOR OVERSEEING THIS.AND NONE OF THIS HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND NONE OF IT IS READY FOR US OR THE APPLICANT WHO IS AGREEABLE TO IT.
UM, IF MR. ARMREST WANTS TO COMMENT ON THAT, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO ALLOW THAT.
WE ARE AGREEABLE AND, UH, I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH NICO HOWARD AND UH, HE SENT ME SOME SAMPLE AGREEMENTS.
I DRAFTED A, AN AGREEMENT PROBABLY A MONTH AGO, SIX WEEKS AGO, AND SENT IT TO HIM AND HE WAS GONNA FORWARD CITY LEGAL.
BUT I THINK, UH, IN CONCEPT WE'RE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT.
I, I JUST HAVEN'T HAD ANY FEEDBACK FROM THE, THE WORDING THAT I DRAFTED, BUT IT IS TO MONITOR THE CAVE ON AN ONGOING BASIS.
UM, I WAS GONNA ASK A QUESTION OF, OF STAFF ON THE PROJECT.
IN THE OPENING SUMMARY PRESENTATION, THEY SAID THAT SOME OF THE ITEMS MEET SUPERIORITY, BUT NOT ALL.
SO I'M CONFUSED ON HOW WE GOT TO A SUPERIOR FOR THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS GOES SUPERIOR IF WE HAVE NOT MET ALL OF THE ITEMS OF SUPERIORITY.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, WENDY RHODES HOUSING AND PLANNING, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE BASING SUPERIORITY ON, ON AN OVERALL AND NOT WHETHER THEY, EVERY ITEM IS, IS SUPERIOR.
SO WE HAD, IF I, IF I HEARD CORRECTLY, YOU SAID THERE WERE 43 MODIFICATIONS THAT WERE MADE FOR THIS PUD YES.
AND SO, AND THAT ALSO INCLUDED BASICALLY WAIVING AND GUTTING THE HILL COUNTRY ORDINANCE, WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT ENVIRONMENT AND ENSURE SOME OF THE CLIMATE EQUITY GOALS? UH, YES, THERE WAS ONE TO, UH, HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY ONE MODIFICATION.
I THINK THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
SO YEAH, ACTUALLY THAT'S FINE CUZ I ACTUALLY HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AS WELL.
SO I'LL, WELL, COMMISSIONER
UM, THERE WAS A, ON THE SLIDE DECK, THERE WAS A SLIDE OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL, UH, THE PRESENTATIONS THAT WERE DONE WITH COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND LISTED OUT THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS THAT THEY HAD PRESENTED TO.
AND SO, UH, SO FAR I'M, I'M SEEING, UM, ONLY THREE ORGANIZATIONS COME OUT, UH, FROM THAT SAYING THAT, UM, THEY HAVE COMMENTS ON IT AND NONE OF THEM ARE IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THE PUD.
SO DO WE HAVE ANY ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE AGREEMENT WITH SUPERIORITY OF THIS PUT AT THIS TIME? UH, JUST REAL QUICK.
UM, AND WE MAY ALLOW MORE TIME LATER, COMMISSIONER MUSH TOLER, BUT FOR NOW THIS ONE WHO WOULD ANSWER THAT STAFF, UM, WHOEVER'S BEST SUITED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, UH, TURN OVER TO ANOTHER COMMISSIONER FOR QUESTIONS AND WE CAN COME BACK IF YOU HAVE MORE.
UH, THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT I DID RECEIVE POSITIVE COMMENTS FROM WERE, UH, AUSTIN PARKS FOUNDATION AND THE HILL COUNTRY CONSERVANCY.
UH, WE MAY OPEN IT UP IF THERE'S CONTINUED INTEREST IN QUESTIONS, WE CAN EXTEND A FEW ABOUT WHO'S NEXT.
COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
I RECEIVED A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND I DO SEE MR. MONROE BACK THERE.
I'M CURIOUS IF I CAN ASK HIM OR, OR THE APPLICANT QUESTION.
BUT, UM, WE'VE BEEN ASKED HOW THIS MIGHT WORK WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF YOU CAN MAYBE SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON HOW YOU SEE THIS WORKING OUT FOR FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES EVENING.
I'M WALTER MORROW, THE DIRECTOR OF FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES.
UH, WE'RE SUPER EXCITED ABOUT THIS LOCATION.
WE'VE BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH, UH, APPLICANT, UM, TO, TO BUILD A PURPOSE BUILT AFFORDABLE FAMILY COMMUNITY.
UH, WE'RE LOOKING AT A HUNDRED TO 130 UNITS, AT LEAST A HUNDRED UNITS.
UM, OUR FOCUS IS TO WORK ON TWO AND THREE BEDROOMS, SO REALLY WANT TO COUNT BEDROOMS, NOT UNITS.
UM, IT'S RARE TO FIND THE SITES THAT ARE LARGE ENOUGH THAT CAN MAKE THIS WORK, ESPECIALLY IN A CENTRAL LOCATION LIKE THIS.
UM, I BELIEVE THE MECHANICS WOULD BE, THE PUT APPROVAL WOULD BE PREDICATED ON THE DEVELOPER DELIVERING ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND THEN WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO HAVING A, A, A WRITTEN MOU WITH A DEVELOPER TEAM, UM, TO
[01:05:01]
BE THEIR CHOSEN DEVELOPER TO WORK ON ON THE SITE.UM, ARE THERE ANY AUSTIN WATER PLANTS DOWNSTREAM FROM THIS SITE THAT'S COME UP A FEW TIMES? UH, JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THAT AND, AND IF SO AND IF NOT, UM, AND MAYBE THIS IS MAYBE FOR WATERSHED.
UM, COULD YOU SHARE MAYBE WHAT YOU EXPECT TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WATER FLOWING OFF THIS SITE TODAY UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS VERSUS AFTER REDEVELOPMENT? OKAY.
I, I, I, I DO NOT KNOW, UM, THE NEAREST WATER PLANTS.
UM, AND I THINK THE SECOND QUESTION IS, UH, WATERSHED IS, UH, STAFF IS APPROACHING HI LESLIE LILLY WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION.
UH, THERE ARE NO, UH, WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES DOWNSTREAM FROM THIS SITE.
AND IN TERMS OF THE WATER QUALITY, UM, FLOWING OFF THE SITE, THE, UM, WATER QUALITY CONTROLS THAT EXIST TODAY HAVE ALMOST NO TREATMENT OF THE WATER THAT IS FLOWING OFF THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, UH, INTO THE BARTON CREEK GREEN BELT.
AND ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF THE BLOOD STAFF CONDITIONS WAS, UM, COMPLIANCE WITH THE SOS, UH, NONDEGRADATION WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE WATER QUALITY, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE ON SITE TO TREAT THE WATER FLOWING OFF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES SUCH THAT IT DOES NOT INCREASE POLLUTION AND SEDIMENTATION FROM THE UNDEVELOPED CONDITION.
AND THAT CONDITION IS THE CONDITION WHEN THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT, NO IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SO THE EXPECTATION OF THE DEVELOPED PROJECT AS PROPOSED IN THE POD WOULD HAVE WATER QUALITY THAT IS EQUAL TO THAT OF THE UNDEVELOPED CONDITION.
SO I WENT TO THIS SITE THIS PAST WEEKEND AND I NOTICED IT ALMOST LOOKED LIKE SOMEBODY JUST DUMPED OIL OUT ON THE PARKING LOT.
I MEAN, THERE WAS JUST A TON OF OIL IN THIS MONSTERS PARKING LOT.
SO WHAT OCCURS TO THAT WATER, TO THAT OIL TODAY? AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'LL BE PARKING GARAGE THERE IN THE FUTURE IF THERE WAS A SIMILAR SITUATION WITH OIL IN THE PARKING GARAGE.
SO, UM, UH, CURRENT TODAY THERE IS, UM, LOADING OF, YOU KNOW, BACTERIA AND POLLUTANTS THAT WE HAVE CRITERIA FOR UNDERSTANDING EXACTLY HOW MUCH IMPERVIOUS COVER RESULTS IN HOW MUCH POLLUTION PER, YOU KNOW, INCH OF WATER THAT FLOWS ACROSS THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
AND THE SITE IS 84% IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SO THOSE CALCULATIONS ARE QUITE, QUITE A LOT OF POLLUTION IS, IS FLOWING INTO THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES THAT IS CATCHING THE RUN FROM THE SITE.
UM, THE EXACT NUMBERS ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, DONE IN REALLY COMPLICATED MODELS, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN MODELED BY BOTH THE APPLICANT AND REVIEWED BY WATERSHED ENGINEERING STAFF.
ONE LAST QUESTION FOR STAFF, IF I HAVE A SECOND.
UM, OR NOT, SORRY, IT'S NOT A STAFF.
UM, SO TODAY, THIS SITE, YOU KNOW, ONE STORY, BIG LARGE RETAIL CENTER, IF YOU WERE LIMITED TO MID-RISE HEIGHT, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE SITE? ABBY GILL FILLIN? IF WE WERE, UH, LIMITED TO MID-RISE, IT WOULD SPRAWL OUT, UM, AND COVER THE SITE.
SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE, HAVE THE, THE, UH, REDUCTION IN IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT YOU SEE TODAY.
I, I HAVE THIS QUESTION FOR STAFF.
STAFF CAN HOPEFULLY HELP ME UNDERSTAND.
SO FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, UM, DO WE USUALLY, SO IF SOMEBODY JUST FOLLOWS THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, WOULD WE USUALLY SEE SORT OF THE ITEMS THAT WE'RE SEEING AROUND OPEN SPACE, PARKLAND, AFFORDABLE HOUSING? WHAT HAPPENS TO SOME OF THOSE ITEMS THAT WE'RE SEEING IN THE BUD? SO FOR THE BARTON SPRINGS REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, THERE ARE CERTAIN CONDITIONS THAT ARE MET, BUT THEY DO NOT NEED TO MEET SUPERIORITY LIKE A PUD DOES.
SO FOR, UM, IMPERVIOUS COVER, THE, THE, THEY COULD, THEY COULD NOT INCREASE IMPERVIOUS COVER FROM WHAT THERE IS TODAY, BUT THEY WOULD NOT NEED TO REDUCE IMPERVIOUS COVER.
BUT THERE IS THE, THE PROCESS THAT WE OUTLINED EARLIER WITH BY PURCHASING MITIGATION LAND OR PAYING INTO THE MITIGATION FUND, SUCH THAT EVENTUALLY THE WATERSHED OR THAT THE AREA BE IS WHOLE, UM, ASSUMING WE CAN FIND LAND TO PURCHASE AND ARE PARKLAND ITEMS AND SOME OF THOSE OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ITEMS LIKE GLASS, REFLEXIVITY, ETC.
ARE THEY INCLUDED IN THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION? NO.
SO, SO, NO, IT'S, IT'S REALLY WATER QUALITY TREATMENT, SO EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE TREATED TO CURRENT STANDARDS.
UM, ALTHOUGH IF YOU'RE IN EXCESS OF 40%, YOU DON'T HAVE TO MEET THE HIGH, UH, BAR FOR SOS WATER QUALITY CONTROLS.
AND SO IT WOULD BE A LOWER WATER QUALITY TREATMENT STANDARD, UM, THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
UM, THEN THERE'S, THERE'S CON CONCERN,
[01:10:01]
YOU KNOW, CONDITIONS ABOUT VEHICLE TRIP LIMITS AND NOT INCREASING NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE AND C F AND, AND OTHER ITEMS. BUT THERE'S NO OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT OR OTHER SUPERIORITY ELEMENTS REQUIRED.UM, I, MY FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR, UH, THE APPLICANT, AND I'M NOT SURE WHO WOULD BE THE RIGHT PERSON, BUT CAN Y'ALL HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY Y'ALL WOULD GO WITH THE BUD RATHER THAN THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION? SO WHY, WHY DID Y'ALL CHOOSE THE ROUTE OF THE BUD? WE, AS I SAID, STARTED DOWN THE PATH OF THE BARTON SPRINGS REDEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.
IT'S A DIFFICULT PATH, BUT IT'S EASIER THAN GETTING A THREE QUARTERS VOTE OF THE COUNCIL.
AND WE GOT A LOT OF RESISTANCE FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY, AND WE DECIDED, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE DON'T WANT TO START FIGHTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY ON DAY ONE.
WE, WE ARE GONNA DO THIS PROJECT THE RIGHT WAY.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TODAY.
SO WE'RE, I'M PROUD OF WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING TO YOU.
WE'VE GOT A GREAT PROJECT, BUT, UH, THE BARTON SPRINGS REDEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE WOULD'VE BEEN A WHOLE, WHOLE LOT LESS ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDLY.
IT WOULD'VE BEEN SAME IMPERIOUS COVER, NOT NEAR THE WATER QUALITY.
WE WOULD'VE HAD TO BUY SOME MITIGATION LAND OFF SITE.
AND THEN I GUESS IN MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION FOR APPLICANT, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS WOULD BE YOUR, BUT I KNOW I HEARD THAT Y'ALL ARE FOLLOWING, EXCEPT FOR THE TWO ITEMS THAT WE'VE ALREADY HEARD ABOUT.
ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BEING ACCEPTED.
CAN YOU, CAN YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE ON YOUR TEAM SPEAK TO THOSE ITEMS AS WELL? THAT IS CORRECT.
WE, THEY RECOMMENDED WE LOOK AT THE HEIGHT ISSUE, IMPLIED THAT WE REDUCE IT, UH, AND THEY RECOMMENDED THAT WE LOOK AT MITIGATION LAND, AND WE'VE SPOKEN TO THAT.
AND, AND THEN APART FROM THAT, IT SEEMS LIKE Y'ALL ARE LOOKING AT THE FLEX GLASS REFLEX GLASS REFLEXIVITY, UM, THE LIGHT RELATED ISSUES AND SOME OF THE OTHER ITEMS THAT THEY HAD AS WELL.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THE, THAT GLASS IS A TECHNICAL ISSUE THAT WE WILL ADDRESS BUILDING WHEN THE BUILDINGS ARE DESIGNED.
UM, JUST ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I JUST HAVE ONE FOLLOW UP IF Y'ALL CAN HELP US, UM, UH, ME UNDERSTAND.
SO OF COURSE, THERE'S A PROJECT THAT MR. MEROSE WILL BE WORKING ON AS PART OF THE SITE.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING ALLOWANCES THAT YOU HAVE ON SITE AS WELL? YES.
SO THIS PROJECT HAS, UM, THE PUT ORDINANCES SITUATED SO THAT THE PROJECT WILL PROVIDE 10% OF THE BONUS AREA IN, AND THAT'S IN SQUARE FOOTAGE, NOT IN, UH, 10% OF UNITS.
AND SO, UH, THE WAY THE PUT ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN IS THAT, UH, A NUMBER OF THE BUILDINGS ON THIS SITE THAT ARE TALL AND ARE GENERATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARE NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS.
SO WE CAN'T INCORPORATE RESIDENTIAL WITHIN THOSE BUILDINGS.
THE WAY THE PUT ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN IS THAT YOU PAY A FEE IN LIEU, UM, AND, UH, INTO A FUND.
UH, WE WERE ASKED EARLY ON IN THIS PROCESS, UH, TO REALLY CONSIDER INSTEAD OF PAYING A FEE IN LIEU TO BUILD THE UNITS ON SITE.
UM, AND SO, UH, WE REACHED OUT TO FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES AND ARE, UH, FILING A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ON BLOCK FOUR, SO THAT, UH, THAT BLOCK WILL BE AFFORDABLE.
UH, THE BUILDING THAT WALTER MONROE JUST, UH, SPOKE ABOUT WILL BE AFFORDABLE IN PERPETUITY.
UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, UH, SORRY.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, WHEN THERE IS A BONUS AREA THAT'S GENERATED FROM A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT THAT'S TALL, A RESIDENTIAL TOWER, THAT BONUS AREA WILL BE, UH, DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE SITE, UM, IN THE TRADITIONAL WAY THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGH A PUT ORDINANCES.
SO THERE'LL BE TWO PROGRAMS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THE SITE.
ONE IS STANDALONE AND THEN ONE INTEGRATED THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.
ALL OF OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING WILL BE ON SITE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OH, YOU'RE OUT OF TIME.
UH, I'M GONNA GO AND TAKE THE NEXT ONE.
IT'S RELATED TO THE SUBSTATION.
AND I HAVE FIVE QUESTIONS, SO IF THE FOLKS ANSWERING CAN TRY TO BE BRIEF AS YOU CAN.
SO FIRST OF ALL, IF I COULD HAVE AUSTIN ENERGY STAFF, UM, COME UP, PLEASE.
I'M THE PLANNING OFFICER WITH AUSTIN ENERGY, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN REAL ESTATE SERVICES.
SO MY QUESTION IS, UM, SO WE HEARD THAT THE APPLICANT, UM, IS NOT IN FAVOR OF PUTTING THE
[01:15:01]
SUBSTATION ON THE SITE.UH, DOES AUSTIN ENERGY CONSIDER HAVING A SUBSTATION AT THIS LOCATION CRITICAL TO SERVING THE INCREASED LOAD FROM THE DENSITY, UH, THAT IS PLANNED FOR THIS POD? AND MAYBE YOU CAN EXPLAIN WHY.
I'M THE MANAGER OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES FOR AUSTIN ENERGY.
UM, AUSTIN ENERGY DEFINITELY NEEDS A SUBSTATION SITE ON THIS PROPERTY.
WE ABSOLUTELY CANNOT SERVE IT RIGHT NOW WITH THE CURRENT SUBSTATIONS THAT ARE AS CLOSE TO IT.
AND SO IN ORDER TO SERVE THE LOAD THAT IS DICTATED BY THIS PROJECT, WE WILL HAVE TO HAVE A SUBSTATION.
UM, OUR NORMAL SUBSTATION FOOTPRINT IS FIVE TO SEVEN ACRES, AND WE'VE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT.
WE HAVE INDICATED THAT WE CAN DO A VERY REDUCED FOOTPRINT TO ONE, MAYBE ONE AND A HALF ACRES FOR A GAS INSULATED SUBSTATION.
IT'S A SMALLER, MORE COMPACT SUBSTATION.
UM, A LOT OF THE COMPONENTS ARE, UM, IN THE BUILDING.
THE ONLY THING THAT'S OUTSIDE ON THE EXTERIOR OF A GIS SUBSTATION IS THE ACTUAL TRANSFORMERS.
UM, THERE IS OTHER LAND AROUND THIS PROPERTY.
UH, ARE THERE ANY OTHER SITES THAT ARE SUITABLE FOR A SUBSTATION IN OTHER LOCATIONS? UM, I MEAN, I, I'M JUST TRYING TO, YOU HAVE ACROSS LAMAR OR ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 360, WHAT'S WRONG? WHY CAN'T WE GO TO THOSE OTHER LOCATIONS? AUSTIN ENERGY'S CURRENT POLICY, WE HAVE A LINE EXTENSION POLICY.
SO WHEN DEVELOPMENT OCCURS AND WE EITHER NEED A SUBSTATION OR WE NEED EASEMENTS TO BRING IN, UM, SERVICE FROM, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER SUBSTATION OR TIE INTO A TRANSMISSION LINE, UM, IT'S THE DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE THAT SO THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE CAN'T FORECAST WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT IS GONNA HAPPEN, AND SO WE CAN'T BUILD IT.
AND THEN THEY COME BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LOAD IS GONNA BE.
AND SO WHEN DEVELOPMENT OCCURS, THAT'S WHEN WE LOOK AT FROM A SYSTEM PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, UM, HOW WE CAN SERVE IT BASED ON THE LOAD THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO US.
UM, THE PRELIMINARY LOAD ON THIS PROJECT, UM, IS FROM 28 TO 30 MEGAWATTS, AND WE WOULD NEED THREE TRANSFORMERS TO PROVIDE THAT.
AND, UM, JUST I WAS READING THROUGH SOME OF THE INFORMATION TO BACK.
UM, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE DEVELOPER'S POSITION THAT THE BRODY SITE IS NOT THE RIGHT LOCATION FOR A SUBSTATION TO SERVE THIS GROWTH NODE IN SOUTH AUSTIN? UM, WELL, I THINK THE ANSWER WOULD BE NO.
BUT I GUESS, UM, IS, AGAIN, IS THERE ANY OTHER LAND IN OR AROUND THAT PROPERTY THAT, UH, HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE, TO SERVE THIS LOAD? THERE REALLY ISN'T.
UM, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM FOR ABOUT A YEAR NOW, AND THE, THE BEST SPOT FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE SO THAT WE CAN TIE INTO EXISTING TRANSMISSION IS TO HAVE THE SUBSTATION SITE ON THE BRODY OAK SITE.
UM, THERE REALLY ISN'T ANY OTHER PROPERTY OUT THERE.
WE RUN INTO THE SAME KIND OF CHALLENGES THAT THE DEVELOPER DOES WITH THE SOS OVERLAY.
UM, THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS AND THE BARTON CREEK GREEN BELT.
UM, WE DEFINITELY CAN'T PUT A SUBSTATION IN PARKLAND.
UM, A SUBSTATION HAS TO BE ON RELATIVELY FLAT GROUND.
WE CAN'T PUT IT ON AN INCLINE
SO YES, THE BRODY OAK SITE IS THE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS, UM, FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE AND ALSO FROM A COST PERSPECTIVE.
I'M PROBABLY ALMOST AT A TIME, BUT FOR THE APPLICANT, I JUST HAD A FEW QUESTIONS.
UM, IN THE BACKUP MATERIAL, UH, THE RESPONSE TO THIS, UH, SAID THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO PROVIDE RESOURCES.
WHAT, UH, WHAT DID YOU, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY PROVIDE? WHAT RESOURCES ARE YOU WILLING TO PROVIDE? WE HAVE BEEN TALKING TO US ENERGY FOR A LONG TIME, AND WE'VE JUST NEVER BEEN ABLE TO FIND A SITE ON THE PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T OVERLY IMPACT THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS IN THE SOS ZONE ACROSS ACROSS THE MAR.
IT'S NOT A SOS TARGET, I THINK IS PLANNING ON A REDEVELOPMENT.
WE DON'T NEED POWER FOR PROBABLY FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AT THE EARLIEST WE, UH, HAVE OFFERED TO, UH, HELP FIND LAND.
UH, OUR CLIENT, UH, MARK CHOP IS IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS.
THEY'VE OFFERED US SEND BROKERS OUT.
UH, AUSTIN ENERGY SAYS WE PREFER TO FIND OUR
[01:20:01]
OWN SITES.UH, WE'VE, I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT, WELL, IS THERE A WAY TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE FOOTPRINT? AND WE'VE BEEN KIND OF INTO A SILENT PERIOD FOR THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS.
UH, THE ONLY WRITTEN COMMENT WE RECEIVED IN THE PUD WAS WE WANTED THE LAND USE TO REFLECT A FUTURE CIVIC USE POSSIBILITY.
SO WE DID THAT, AND I THINK WE WERE JUST KIND OF AT AN IMPASSE OF THEY WANTED A X SITE THAT'S GOING TO SERIOUSLY IMPACT THE PROPERTY.
WE ARE ON OUR WAY TO CITY COUNCIL TO GET A THREE QUARTERS VOTE ON THIS POD.
I AM HARING A HARD TIME SEEING THAT THERE'S MAYBE ANY CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT WANT TO SEE AN ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION ON THIS SITE.
I THINK IT WAS SERIOUSLY IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO GET A THREE QUARTER VOTE.
OKAY, SO LAST FRIDAY WE HAD A CONVERSATION, OR MAYBE THURSDAY WITH AUSTIN ENERGY, VERY POSITIVE CONVERSATION, AND WE SAID, LOOK, LET US GO ON THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH YOU.
IF THIS IS TRULY THE ONLY PLACE YOU CAN PUT A SITE, UH, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN FIGURE SOMETHING OUT.
WE WILL WORK WITH YOU IN GOOD FAITH.
I'M OUTTA TIME, BUT THANK YOU.
I'M WILLING TO LET HIM PICK THAT UP, BUT I GONNA HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AFTER HE WANTS TO KEEP GOING.
I HAD A QUICK QUESTION FOR AUSTIN ENERGY ABOUT THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED SUBSTATION.
COULD YOU GUYS ELABORATE A LITTLE MORE ON THAT, PLEASE? YOU SAID THREE TRANSFORMERS, RIGHT? SWITCHES.
IT TOTALLY DEPENDS ON THE LOAD.
BUT FROM WHAT THEY'VE GIVEN US, THAT'S WHAT WE ARE ANTICIPATING IS GONNA BE NEEDED FOR THE SITE.
IT'S VERY PRELIMINARY TO PIN A SUBSTATION AND DO THE DESIGN AND, AND GET THAT ROLLING UNTIL WE HAVE MORE DETAIL FROM THE DEVELOPER.
I WILL TELL YOU ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES THAT WE'RE RUNNING INTO IS THE TIMING.
EVEN THOUGH THEY WANNA START CONSTRUCTION IN 2025, AND, YOU KNOW, THEY PROBABLY WILL NEED ENERGIZATION, THEY'LL NEED TEMPORARY POWER FOR THAT, BUT THEN THEY'LL WANT TO ENERGIZE AROUND 2027 FOR US TO ACTUALLY DESIGN A SUBSTATION.
AND WE HAVE TO TAKE IT THROUGH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AS WELL.
AND SO THE ISSUE FROM AUSTIN ENERGY'S, ENERGY'S PERSPECTIVE IS WE DON'T, WE DON'T SUPPORT THE PASSING OF THE PUT WITHOUT A SITE IDENTIFIED FOR A SUBSTATION, A GIS SUBSTATION.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE WE NEED TO MEET THAT TIMING.
WE NEED TO DESIGN AND BUILD THAT SUBSTATION AS WELL AS ANY FEEDERS COMING INTO AND OUT OF THE SUBSTATION.
AND THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRANSMISSION, THAT'S ALSO DISTRIBUTION.
AND SO IF WE DON'T HAVE ADEQUATE TIME TO DO THAT, AND WE HAVE A SITE PINNED WITHIN THE BRODY OAKS DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY'S AGREED ON AND, AND WE'RE MOVING TOWARD, WE WON'T MEET THAT 2027 ENERGIZATION DATE.
AND SO FOR US, WE DON'T WANNA BE, AUSTIN ENERGY DOESN'T WANNA BE PUT IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE COMING BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ASKING FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE SOS UM, ORDINANCE OR, OR ANYTHING ELSE.
WE WANT IT TO BE READY AND SET TO GO SO WE CAN DESIGN IT AND WE CAN PROVIDE SOME RELIABLE POWER.
ONE OF THE OTHER ISSUES IS, AND THE DEVELOPER HAS ASKED US THIS, THE TWO SUBSTATIONS THAT ARE NEAR THIS ARE BOTH AT CAPACITY AND CARDINAL LANE IS ON FIFTH AND ALMOST OLD, OLD TOUR BY THE LIBRARY THERE.
AND IT IS THAT CAPACITY, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY FURTHER ROOM TO BE EXPANDED.
IT IS IN A RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD OR A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WE, WE JUST DON'T HAVE ANY ROOM THERE.
WE COULD GET A FEEDER OUT OF CARDINAL LANE AND GET IT TO THE BRODY OAK SITE, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE RELIABLE.
AND WE COULD ONLY GET ONE FEEDER.
AND FOR THE AMOUNT OF LOAD THAT THEY NEED, THEY WANT REDUNDANCY.
WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE POWER FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IS SAFE AND RELIABLE.
AND WE CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE THE LENGTH OF THAT FEEDER FROM CARDINAL LANE ALL THE WAY TO THE BRODY OAKS PROPERTY, THE LONGER THE FEEDER LENGTH, THE LESS RELIABLE THE POWER.
SO WE REALLY NEED A SITE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT.
OH, AND MR.
OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN WORKING WITH THEM TO GET POWER IN A TIMELY MANNER.
WE DON'T NEED POWER FOR FOUR OR FIVE YEARS.
AND THERE'S AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER THERE, 300,000 PLUS SQUARE FEET ALL HAD ITS ELECTRICITY TODAY.
SO THERE MAY BE ENOUGH FOR OUR FIRST PHASE.
WE'RE TRYING TO REDUCE THE DEMAND.
[01:25:01]
WE WERE ALSO TOLD THAT THIS, WHAT THEIR, THEIR NEW SUBSTATION REALLY IS INTENDED.75% OF THE, OF THE GENERATION WOULD GO TO OTHER PARTS OF SOUTH AUSTIN.
SO WE JUST THINK, UH, THEY'RE BOUND TO BE A BETTER SITE.
BUT AS I SAID EARLIER, WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH THEM.
WE HAVE A TOTALLY VESTED INTEREST IN MAKING THIS A SUCCESSFUL, TIMELY FACILITY.
CAN I RESPOND TO THAT? IS AM I ABLE GOT 57 SECONDS? OKAY.
UM, SO IF, IF AUSTIN ENERGY BUILDS A SUBSTATION, WE GET TCO REIMBURSEMENT FOR THOSE, FOR THE TRANSMISSION PORTIONS OF THE SUBSTATION.
IF WE BUILD A SUBSTATION WITHIN BRODY OAKS, IN ORDER TO GET THAT TCO REIMBURSEMENT, THAT SUBSTATION HAS TO PROVIDE POWER FOR MORE THAN JUST ONE DEVELOPMENT.
AND YES, THE SUBSTATION WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO SERVE OTHER PROPERTIES AS THEY DEVELOP, BUT WE ALSO NEED AN ADDITIONAL SUBSTATION AND WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH AN ADDITIONAL SUBSTATION THAT'S FURTHER SOUTH FROM HERE TO PICK UP ALL THAT EXTRA DEVELOPMENT.
AND AGAIN, IT'S AUSTIN ENERGY'S LINE EXTENSION POLICY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST IN FIRST TO BUILD, THEY ALWAYS HAVE TO PROVIDE THE POWER AND IT'S JUST THE WAY, BUT, BUT I'M SORRY.
DID YOU REALLY JUST SAY THAT AUSTIN ENERGY NEEDS MONEY? NO, MA'AM.
CAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE TO GET MONEY TO BUILD FOR A BUNCH OF PEOPLE INSTEAD OF JUST DOING A LITTLE BIT OF BUILDING FOR THEM.
NO, NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAID.
WHAT I SAID I WOULD PICK THIS UP FOR ME CUZ YOU JUST GOT REALLY CONFUSED OR REALLY, REALLY ANGRY.
BUT ANYBODY WANTS TO PICK UP THE QUESTIONS? UH, THINK COMMISSIONER MOOW, YOU COULD, UM, CONTINUE WITH YOUR QUESTION AND, BUT MAYBE ALLOW THE, UH, THE, UM, AUSTIN ENERGY TO ANSWER, UH, COMMISSIONER CHAIR COHEN'S LAST QUESTION.
I THINK WE, IT'S, WE MAY, UH, WE MAY TAKE A VOTE ON THAT.
WE'LL, UH, GO AHEAD AND, UH, SO DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER, TO YOUR POINT, UM, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WANT TO ANSWER, UH, ASK QUESTIONS? IF NO ONE ELSE WANTS TO PICK THAT UP, I'M HAPPY TO GIVE A LITTLE TIME TO ALLOW AUSTIN ENERGY TO CONTINUE.
WE'VE GOT, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON IS ASKING FOR EQUAL TIME.
UH, SO HAVE TO BE SOMEBODY THAT HASN'T ASKED QUESTIONS YET.
WE CAN CONTINUE THE LINE OF QUESTIONING WITH AUSTIN ENERGY IF THEY CAN RESPOND.
THE LAST QUESTION, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND COM UH, FOLLOW UP.
WHAT I SAID WAS, WHEN AUSTIN ENERGY BUILDS A SUBSTATION, THE TRANSMISSION COMPONENTS OF THAT SUBSTATION, WE GET A PORTION OF THAT REIMBURSED TO US BY ERCOT IF IT SERVES THE GENERAL PUBLIC, RIGHT? SO IF WE BUILD A SUBSTATION WITHIN THE BRODY OAKS PROJECT, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO SERVE OTHER CUSTOMERS OUT OF THAT SUBSTATION AS WELL.
IT'S NOT 75 25, AND WE DID NOT SAY THAT.
UM, IF WE BUILD A SUBSTATION WITHIN BRODY OAKS TO START WITH, IT'S GONNA BE TWO TRANSFORMERS AND IT'S GONNA SERVE BRODY OAKS, IT'LL HAVE ROOM FOR A THIRD HOPEFULLY.
AND AT THAT POINT, AS PROPERTIES DEVELOP AROUND THAT AREA IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ADDITIONAL SUBSTATION THAT WE'RE DOING SOUTH, THEN WE'LL BE ABLE TO SERVE EVERYBODY.
MR. HOWARD, DO YOU HAVE THE ADDITIONAL TIME? IF YOU WANT, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? GOSH, I DON'T, I DON'T,
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT THEY WANT TO ASK? WELL, LET'S, LET'S PAUSE THERE.
SO, UH, AS A COMMISSION WE CAN SUSPEND OUR RULES IF THERE'S ANY OTHER, UH, QUESTIONS THAT WE NEED TO, UM, MAKE A MOTION ON THIS SITE.
I, I I USED ABOUT 45 SECONDS, MAYBE A MINUTE OF MY TIME.
I WAS WONDERING IF I COULD ASK ONE MORE QUESTION UNLESS YOU FEEL WE NEED TO TAKE IT TO A VOTE.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND JUST GIVEN THE TIME TONIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO SUSPENDING OUR RULES? AND I'M GONNA THROW THIS OUT TO ALLOW FOR, UH, THREE MORE COMMISSIONERS, UH, THREE MINUTES EACH.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT? COMMISSIONER THOMPSON? I, I, I
[01:30:01]
DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION TO COMMISSIONER YATO USING THE BALANCE OF HER TIME.I'M NOT NECESSARILY WANTING TO OPEN IT UP TO MORE TIME FROM THE SAME COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE ALREADY ASKED QUESTIONS.
SO, UM, CHAIR COMMISSION LIES ON RIVERA, UH, FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT, IT'S, UM, DIFFICULT TO DO A, UM, BALANCE OF TIME.
IF YOU COULD PROCEED WITH A MODIFICATION.
UM, SO I'M HEARING, UM, LET'S JUST, LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON, UM, THREE AT THREE MINUTES.
UH, THOSE IN FAVOR ON THE DIAS, UH, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
THAT'S EVERYBODY ON THE DIOCESE ON THE SCREEN, UH, IN FAVOR OF EXTENDING QUESTIONS THREE FOR THREE MINUTES.
SO WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER POLITO.
UM, SO THIS WILL ALLOW YOU TO GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER ZAR, WE'D LIKE TO GET INTO Q OKAY.
AND I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND, WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND START THOSE START, HOPEFULLY WON'T USE IT ALL, AND I'LL, IF I'LL GIVE IT BACK AND NOT ASK FOR IT BACK.
MY QUESTION IS ACTUALLY ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PIECE, AND I THINK IT'S FOR STAFF BECAUSE, UM, I APPRECIATED THE, UM, THE Q AND A ON FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES, BUT AS I UNDERSTAND THAT IS, UM, STILL, IT, IT SEEMS THAT THAT IS LOWER THAN WHAT OUR TYPICAL 10% STANDARD WOULD BE.
UM, I WAS WONDERING IF STAFF COULD EXPLAIN HOW THE VALUE OF THAT WAS CALCULATED IN TERMS OF SUPERIORITY.
UM, JUST GIVEN THAT, UM, IT SEEMS LIKE 10% WOULD BE MORE UNITS THAN WE'RE GETTING CLOSER TO 170 AFFORDABLE UNITS.
IS THAT CORRECT? UH, THE FOUNDATION, WENDY RHODES, UH, HOUSING AND PLANNING, THE FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES PROJECT IS, IS APPROXIMATELY 125 UNITS.
AND THEN WITH REGARDS TO YOUR QUESTION, UH, AND UNFORTUNATELY WE DO NOT HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING STAFF HERE TONIGHT.
UM, BUT OUR SUPERIORITY WAS BASED ON, UH, FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS BASED ON, UM, THE ONSITE PROVISION OF THAT AND, AND A, IN A, UH, SET ASIDE SITE.
UM, AND THAT IT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED AS, OR IT WOULD BE BUILT IN, UH, THE, THE SECOND OF THE PHASES.
SO THAT, THAT WAS OUR BASIS OF SUPERIORITY.
I'M SORRY, COULD YOU, UH, CAN YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME WITH REGARDS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING? MM-HMM.
IS THAT STANDARD FOR A PUD IT SEEMS LIKE SOMETIMES WE GET A COMBINATION OF ONSITE AND, AND, UM, FEE AND LU, BUT THIS, YOU WERE SAYING THIS WAS ONSITE INSTEAD OF ANY F LU? CORRECT? YES.
I, I THINK USUALLY, WELL THE, THE PDS THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH HAS MORE RECENTLY HAVE INCLUDED, UM, THE FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION.
AND SO YOU SAID 125 UNITS AND, UH, IS IT 1700 TOTAL? UH, IT'S A TOTAL OF 200, BUT, UH, THE FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES PROJECT IS APPROXIMATELY 1 25 OF THAT 200.
AND THEN THE REMAINDER WOULD BE, UM, SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
UH, SO WE'RE GONNA GO WITH COMMISSIONER MOSH.
TYLER, IF YOU'RE READY, UH, WITH YOUR REMAINING QUESTIONS OR DO YOU WANNA GO NEXT? NO, I, THE, UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD PICKED IT UP FOR AE.
ALL RIGHT, THEN, UH, WE MOVED.
THIS IS A QUESTION I'M NOT SURE MS. RHODES, IF IT'S FOR YOU, FOR OUR WATERSHED STAFF, IF AUSTIN ENERGY TAKES OVER A BIT OF THE SITE AND DEVELOPS THE SUBSTATION, WOULD THE IMPERVIOUS COVER FROM THAT SUBSTATION COUNT TOWARDS THE OVERALL IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR THE BUD? OR IS THAT CONSIDERED SEPARATE AS PUBLIC LAND? UM, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE OVERALL IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR THE PUD.
SO WE WOULD ASK THAT IT NOT INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER THAN WHAT WE ARE AGREEING TO TODAY.
UM, SO I GUESS MY QUESTION THEN FOR THE APPLICANT
[01:35:01]
IS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL HAD INPUT OR AT THAT POINT, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT INCREASING CAR? CAUSE NOW WE HAVE THIS SUBSTATION IN THERE THAT WASN'T CONSIDERED IN YOUR INITIAL, UM, PLANNING? IT WOULD OBVIOUSLY HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE PROJECT FROM A FINANCIAL STANDPOINT IF WE COULDN'T INCREASE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER BY WHAT THEY WOULD ADD.SO I GUESS WE GO HIGHER, BUT JUST JOKING, UH,
WE'D HAVE TO REDUCE IT SOMEWHERE.
AND I GUESS FOR OUR AUSTIN ENERGY STAFF, IF Y'ALL CAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND, WHAT WOULD THE DESIGN OF THE SUBSTATION LOOK LIKE? I THINK YOU MENTIONED THREE TO FOUR ACRES, IF I'M CORRECT.
AND WHAT WOULD THE IMPERIOUS COVER FOR THAT LOOK LIKE? CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION PLEASE? SURE.
SO IF FOR REGULAR, SO, UM, I'LL ASK MY, I'LL BREAK IT UP.
SO FIRST, HOW MUCH OF ACREAGE ARE WE ASKING FOR? FOR THE SUBSTATION, IT'S ONE TO ONE AND A HALF ACRES.
AND FOR REGULAR SUBSTATION DESIGN, DO WE KNOW, WHAT DOES THE IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR THAT LOOK LIKE? IS IT USUALLY A HUNDRED PERCENT IMPERVIOUS COVER? WHAT THE YES, YES.
SO NOW WE WOULD BE, IT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT.
SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY NOW, WE'RE ASKING OF ADDING 1.5 ACRES OF IMPERVIOUS COVER TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, WHICH WOULD EITHER REQUIRE US TO INCREASE IMPERVIOUS COVER, WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO OUR WATERSHED STAFF, OR WE WOULD HAVE TO SOMEHOW BRING IT INTO THE ORIGINAL PLANNING OF THE PROJECT, WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED.
UM, UM, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?
IT WOULD BE PART OF THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT WOULD THEN NEED TO BE TREATED TO THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.
AND THEY HAVE, THE APPLICANT HAS DONE QUITE A LOT OF MODELING WITH AUSTIN WATER AND WATERSHED PROTECTION ENGINEERING STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, THEY CAN MEET THE HIGH BAR OF WATER OF SOS WATER QUALITY TREATMENT.
AND SO ADDING IMPERVIOUS COVER WOULD BE, WOULD THROW THAT INTO THE QUESTION COURSE.
THAT'S A, THAT'S A BIT OF A CONCERN.
I GUESS MY LAST QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT IS, IT SOUNDS LIKE Y'ALL ARE NOT SAYING NO TO THE SUBSTITUTION.
WHAT I'M HEARING IS YOU WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS AS THIS GOES TO COUNSEL.
DID I HEAR THAT CORRECTLY? THAT IS, THAT IS CORRECT.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY WE COULD FIND A DESIGN THAT IF, IF IT'S GONNA BE ON SITE, THAT WE COULD FIND A DESIGN THAT WORKS WITH A BUILDING IN A, A PARKING GARAGE OR SOME PART OF THE PROJECT THAT MAKES IT WORK.
YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK AROUND AT BIG CITIES AND YOU KNOW, YOU GO TO CHICAGO, NEW YORK OR WHEREVER.
YOU DON'T SEE BIG SUBSTATIONS DOWNTOWN THERE, THERE MUST BE WAYS TO DO THIS IN AN URBAN DESIGN MANNER.
SO WE'RE, WE ARE GONNA WORK WITH THEM IN GOOD FAITH TO FIND SOMETHING THAT WORKS IF THIS IS REALLY TRULY THE ONLY SITE.
UH, SO WE DO HAVE ONE MORE SPOT, UM, FOR THREE MINUTES.
WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE IT, BUT IF IT, IT IS OPEN.
ANYBODY WANTS QUESTIONS, MR. ANDERSON? NOPE.
UH, SO THAT CONCLUDES OUR Q AND A.
UM, SO WE HAVE ANY MOTIONS, AND REMEMBER WE'RE TAKING UP THE THREE ITEMS TOGETHER.
UH, I THINK I SAW COMMISSIONER MUSH TYLER FIRST, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, OR HAND GO AHEAD AND, UH, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION YOU'D LIKE TO PROPOSE? YEAH, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M DOING THIS RIGHT OR NOT.
SO
I'M GOING TO MOTION THAT PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT GRANT THIS SUPERIORITY.
UH, DOES, SO THAT WOULD BE NOT APPROVING THE PUD IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE INTENDING? I GUESS ON ALL THREE.
I'M NOT AGAINST THE PUD, I DON'T BELIEVE IT MEETS SUPERIORITY.
UH, I HEAR YOU, UH, COMMISSION, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO WORD THIS.
OUR CHOICES HERE IS WE, WE KIND OF NEED TO TAKE, UM, WE HAVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND WE CAN PROPOSE THINGS, UH, AMENDMENTS OR ADDITIONS TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
THAT WOULD BE ONE WAY TO APPROACH IT.
UM, OR IF WE FAIL TO, UH, APPROVE THIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION, THEN OF COURSE IT WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION.
SO I GUESS I DON'T KNOW HOW TO, UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO EMPLOY THAT MOTION IN THIS CASE OF THIS POD CHECK
[01:40:01]
COMMISSION LAY ON.SO COMMISSIONER MOST TO HAS A, UH, MOTION, UH, WHICH WOULD NEED A SECOND.
UM, BUT CURRENTLY IT WOULD JUST BE TO DENY THE REQUEST AND, UM, DENY THE, UM, ASSOCIATED CASES.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THE MOTION, UH, COMMISSION POLITO? JUST TO CLARIFY, IS IT A MOVE TO DENY? YES.
SO GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER MUSH TYLER, THERE ARE SOME AWESOME AND EXCITING ELEMENTS TO WHAT IS BEING PUT TOGETHER HERE.
AND I WANNA GIVE CREDIT TO THE DEVELOPER FOR BEING, YOU KNOW, SO APPROACHABLE TO THE GROUPS THAT WOULD LIKE TO MEET, CERTAINLY TO ME IN MY PROCESS THROUGH THIS.
AND I WANNA BE CLEAR THAT I'M NOT A KNOW THAT THIS CAN'T EVER GO FORWARD.
I JUST DON'T THINK WE'RE THERE TODAY.
I THINK I'VE GOT A LIST OF ABOUT 10 ITEMS THAT I'VE GOTTA AMEND, UH, IN ANY KIND OF RECOMMENDATION TO GET THIS TO COUNSEL.
AND THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY OPEN ITEMS HERE.
WE DON'T HAVE MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING ON BCP.
WE DON'T HAVE MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING ON FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE, WE DON'T HAVE ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THIS PROJECT YET, AND THERE'S NOT A CLEAR PATH OF RESOLUTION FOR THAT.
AND I DON'T SEE IT BEING RESOLVED IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS OR SO.
THIS IS GONNA TAKE MORE PLANNING.
THERE ARE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT.
I THINK YOU NEED TO GET MITIGATION LAND.
UH, THERE ARE LOTS OF MUNICIPALITIES.
WHAT, WHAT DIDN'T GET ANSWERED PROPERLY IS THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF MUNICIPALITIES THAT DRAW WATER THAT COMES THROUGH THIS AQUIFER DOWNSTREAM FROM US.
WHAT KIND OF NEIGHBOR ARE WE TO THE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES OR THE EAST SIDE? IF WE DON'T CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO THE WATER AFTER IT GETS FLUSHED THROUGH OUR OWN TOILET, THAT'S WRONG.
SO WE, WE NEED MITIGATION LAND ON THAT.
WE NEED PROPER MEASURES IN IT.
AND THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT IT THAT LOOK TO BE BETTER THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE TODAY.
I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S THERE TODAY.
AND I WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AND GET THIS THROUGH WHEN IT IS READY.
UH, THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST THIS MOTION, UH, BY CHAIR HEMPLE.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, PLEASE.
SO MY MOTION IS FOR MOVING FORWARD ON ITEMS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR AS RECOMMENDED ITEMS, OR ITEM TWO IS RECOMMENDED WITH CONDITIONS.
ITEM THREE IS RECOMMENDED AS PER STAFF.
AND THEN NUMBER FOUR IS RECOMMENDED AS, UH, PER STAFF WITH CONDITIONS.
ARE THE, UH, DO YOU, DO I HAVE A SECOND? UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDS.
YOU WANT GO AND SPEAK TO THE MOTION? YES.
UM, I HAD A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TAKE, UM, BASED ON MY MEETINGS WITH THE APPLICANTS AND THEIR TEAM.
UM, I THINK THERE'S BEEN A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF ENGAGEMENT WORK, CAREFUL NEGOTIATIONS, A LOT OF THOUGHT, EVERY QUESTION THAT I HAD ABOUT EVERY ASPECT OF THE PLAN, ESPECIALLY WHEN I MET ON SITE, WAS RESPONDED TO WITH, THEY HAD ALREADY THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
UM, SO I FEEL THIS NEEDS SUPERIORITY.
UM, STAFF HAS PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO THIS AS WELL.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I FEEL THIS IS READY TO MOVE FORWARD SOME OF THESE ISSUES LIKE WITH AE UM, THE ZONING, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE IN, UM, CONCERNED ABOUT HERE, HAS THAT AS A USE WITHIN WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.
WE'RE NOT DOING SITE PLAN HERE AT PLANNING COMMISSION, SO I THINK THAT CAN BE RESOLVED LATER.
UH, SPEAKING AGAINST THIS MOTION, ANY COMMISSIONERS, UM, COMMISSION
MY CONCERNS HERE ARE, UH, LESS ABOUT THE AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, ISSUE SPECIFICALLY AND MORE ABOUT, UM, THE OVERALL PRECEDENT ASSOCIATED WITH, UH, LETTING A PUT THIS SIZE, WHICH, UM, THIS IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF DENSITY AND THIS IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF NEW REVENUE GENERATION.
[01:45:01]
AND I I LOVE A LOT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCESSIONS THAT ARE GIVEN IN THE PROJECT.HOWEVER, UH, THE REDEVELOPMENT IS THREE TIMES OVER THE SOS ORDINANCE LEVEL ON SITE, AND WE'RE NOT SEEING THE OFFSITE MITIGATION.
UM, AND KNOWING WHAT BARTON SPRINGS AND THE EDWARDS AQUIFER HAVE, HAVE LOOKED LIKE, UM, WELL, NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE EDWARDS AQUIFER LOOKS LIKE UP CLOSE.
BUT I MEAN, SEEING THE DIFFERENCE, IF YOU'VE BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED AFTER CIRCLE C DEVELOPMENT, WHY PEOPLE PROTESTED BARTON CREEK MALL FOR SO MANY YEARS, YOU KNOW, YEARS, IT'S BECAUSE THIS IS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA THAT WE CAN NEVER GET BACK.
UM, THAT CAVE ONCE, IF IT'S DESTROYED THE SINKHOLES ALONG BARTON CREEK, UM, YOU CAN NEVER GET IT BACK.
UM, I, THE HEIGHT ISSUE, THE PRECEDENT OF THESE EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY CARBON UNFRIENDLY SKYSCRAPER, NOT SKYSCRAPERS, BUT HIGHER THAN MID RISES IS BEYOND IMAGINE AUSTIN.
I THINK THAT'S VERY, THAT'S VERY TRUE.
AND WE HAVE AN INCREDIBLY ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA THAT CAN DOMINO IN A WAY THAT, UM, WE CAN'T UNDO THAT DAMAGE.
SO I, I THINK THERE NEED, THE MITIGATION NEEDS TO BE THERE AND NEEDS TO BE THERE FOR PRECEDENT, AND THAT'S WHY, UM, I AM NOT FOR THE PUT AT THIS TIME.
I AM GOING TO, UM, GOING, UH, I HAD SOME AMENDMENTS HERE AND I THINK THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT TIME TO PROPOSE THESE AND SEE IF, UH, THERE'S, UH, I CAN GET SOME SUPPORT.
SO, UM, THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION I'M PROPOSING, UM, IS, UH, TO RE UH, RECOMMEND THAT, UM, RECOMMEND THAT, UH, SITE PLAN APPROVAL, BE CONTINGENT ON SUCCESSFULLY SECURING PROPERTY FOR THE SUBSTATION, UH, SERVING THE BRO PUT DEVELOPMENT.
UM, SO THAT IS, UH, THAT WOULD, I KNOW THAT MIGHT NOT SATISFY THE TIMING THAT AE HAS, BUT AT LEAST THAT WOULD BE AN ELEMENT OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
UH, DO I HAVE A SECOND? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT CHAIR? UH, RECOMMEND THAT SITE PLAN APPROVAL BE CONTINGENT ON SUCCESSFULLY SECURING PROPERTY FOR THE SUBSTATION REQUIRED TO SERVE BRODY PUD DEVELOPMENT.
SINCE NOBODY HAS SECONDED THAT, WOULD YOU MIND, I HAVE A, I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SUBSTATION THAT WAS CURRENTLY PUT OUT THERE DOESN'T EVEN SERVE THIS SITE.
SO WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SAY THAT, THAT BEFORE SITE PLAN THEY LOCATE POWER FOR THIS SITE WORKING WITH AUSTIN ENERGY? UH, SURE.
I THINK THIS, IT MEETS THE INTENT.
UH, SO TO MOVE THE, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, COMMISSIONERS, UM, JUST MOVE THINGS ALONG, ANYONE OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION, THIS AMENDMENT ABOUT YOUR, I'M SORRY.
I'M, I THINK I'M GONNA BE WORDING AGAINST THIS ITEM PARTIALLY BECAUSE I THINK I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED.
I THINK THE IMPERIOUS COVER IMPLICATIONS ARE REALLY LARGE AT THE END OF THE DAY.
I UNDERSTAND THERE IS AN AUSTIN ENERGY NEED, BUT THAT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED AT STAFF.
PUTTING THIS REQUIREMENT IN EITHER MEANS THAT WE NOW HAVE A SUBSTATION INSTEAD OF BARLAND, OR WE HAVE A SUBSTATION INSTEAD OF HOUSING, OR WE HAVE A SUBSTATION INSTEAD OF COMMERCIAL AREAS THAT PEOPLE CAN ENJOY.
AND ALL THREE OF THOSE AS CURRENTLY STAND WITHOUT ANY CHANGES IN THE IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENT.
SO I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST JUST BECAUSE I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED FURTHER.
SO, JUST TO CLARIFY, IT IS NOT STATING THAT IT HAS TO BE ON SITE, IT'S JUST SAYING THAT POWER, IT NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED HOW TO GET POWER TO THE SITE.
JUST SO MY AMENDMENT WAS CLEAR, I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION.
THAT ACTUALLY MIGHT HELP ME CHANGE MY MIND.
UH, UM, ANY OTHERS WANNA SPEAK FOR AGAINST THIS MOTION? UH, AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION APPLICANTS, WHAT THEY THINK.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, TAKE A VOTE.
SO THIS IS, UH, JUST SAYING PRIOR TO SITE PLAN THAT, UM, THE, THE ISSUE OF PROVIDING, UH, US AND ENERGY IN THE APPLICANT AND, UH, HAVE DETERMINED HOW TO PROVIDE POWER TO THIS SITE.
THAT'S THREE, THOSE VIRTUAL, UH, SO THAT'S SEVEN.
AND I SEE AN EXTENSION, AND THEN YOUR VOTE AS SEVEN TWO.
SO THAT PASSES AS A, AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
MY SECOND AMENDMENT IS, UH, I WANNA PUT THIS OUT THERE.
I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK ON THE HEIGHT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO THE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE VIEW, BUT, UH, RECOMMEND
[01:50:01]
INCREASING HEIGHT ON THE VILLAS TO ALLOW SPACE WITHIN THE BUILDABLE AREA TO ALLOW FOR A SUBSTATION WITHOUT EXCEEDING THE ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS.AND I CAN RESTATE THAT AGAIN IF NEEDED.
THIS IS BASICALLY RECOMMENDING THAT COUNCIL LOOK AT INCREASING HEIGHT AS AN OPTION, UH, TO, TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBSTATION TO BE CITED ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, AND WITHOUT EXCEEDING THE, UH, PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS.
I HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MOSH TYLER.
UM, I DON'T THINK I NEED TO SPEAK TO THAT ONE.
IT'S JUST, UM, IT'S ALLOWING FOR MORE HEIGHT.
SO, UH, SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST CHAIR, CAN I JUST ASK FOR CLARIFICATION? WOULD THIS BE HEIGHT IN FAR VOTE, OR JUST HEIGHT? UM, SO I'VE ALREADY JUST STATED IT'S JUST A HEIGHT INCREASE STATION COUNT FOR.
SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I'M GOOD.
ANY COMMISSIONERS WANNA SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION? I'M SORRY, CHAIR.
COULD YOU RESTATE IT ONCE MORE? YES.
RECOMMEND INCREASING PYTHON BUILDINGS TO ALLOW SPACE WITHIN THE BUILDABLE AREA TO ALLOW FOR A SUBSTATION TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT EXCEEDING THE ALLOW, UH, THE PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER WANNA SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST? SO THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UM, THIS IS, UH, UH, BY MYSELF, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MOTO.
THAT'S GONNA TAKE A VOTE THAT IS ON THE DIAS IN FAVOR.
UH, THAT'S FOR THOSE, UH, ON THE SCREEN.
THAT'S, I DID HAVE ONE MORE, BUT I THINK, I DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE RIGHT NOW.
SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND, UH, STICK WITH THOSE TWO.
SO WE HAVE THOSE TWO AMENDMENTS, UM, THAT HAVE PASSED TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER ISH TOLER, I THINK I UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS DONE.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
OKAY,
UH, FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT THAT, UH, WE WILL REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH APPLICABLE NON-PROFITS AND TO APPLY FOR THE TRAIL MASTER PLAN PERMIT THROUGH THE BCP PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST SITE PLAN.
ALL RIGHT, SO RESTATE THAT ONE MORE TIME.
UH, CUZ YOU'RE ASKING FOR TWO THINGS.
REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH APPLICABLE NONPROFITS TO APPLY FOR TRAIL MASTER PLAN PERMIT THROUGH BCP PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST SITE PLAN.
AND IF IT WILL PLEASE THE COMMISSION.
I HAVE APPLICANT SUPPORT, I BELIEVE.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THIS, UH, AMENDMENT? UH, COMMISSION IS OUR SECOND SET.
YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION, YOUR AMENDMENT? UM, THEY'VE ACTUALLY, I, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT COULD PROBABLY STATE IT BETTER.
UH, THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS.
UM, BUT I SAID THAT IT WOULD MAKE ME FEEL A LOT BETTER TO ACTUALLY HAVE THIS INCLUDED IF THIS IS GOING THROUGH, UH, THAT THEY WILL BE WORKING ON TRAIL MASTER PLAN WITH BCP.
IT'S A PROCESS THAT GOES THROUGH BCP, SO WE DON'T CONTROL ANY OF THAT.
NEITHER DOES COUNCIL, BUT THEY'RE AGREEABLE TO TAKING THE STEPS NECESSARY.
UH, ANY COMMISSION? GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
SO, FOR BOTH OF YOUR AMENDMENTS, I MEAN, I CAN UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WORKING WITH AUSTIN ENERGY TO FIND POWER FOR PHASE ONE.
I CAN UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF A TALLER BUILDING IN THE SAME A BUT FOR THIS ONE, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS ARE ON THIS.
SO, UH, APPLICANT, JUST A RESPONSE TO THIS MOTION, THIS AMENDMENT.
WE, WE ARE ALREADY WORKING WITH THE NON-PROFIT GROUPS TO DO EXACTLY WHAT JENNIFER ASKED US TO DO.
NOT ONLY CONCERN IS WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT PROCESS WOULD TAKE.
SO TYING IT TO THE SITE PLAN, UH, IT GIVES ME GREAT CONCERN.
YOU KNOW, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T ACT AS QUICKLY AS WE LIKE IT TO SOMETIMES.
SO, UH, MY, MY MOTION ONLY ASKS THAT THE APPLICATION HAS
[01:55:01]
BEEN FILED, NOT THAT BC NOT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS ACTUALLY APPROVED IT, WE'RE OKAY.THANKS FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
UM, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WANNA SPEAK FOR, AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT? UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VOTE THAT WAS ON THE DI OH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND RESTATE IT ONE MORE TIME.
I JUST WANNA GET IT FOR THE RECORD CUZ WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO RECORD ALL THESE.
LET'S JUST MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
THE APPLICANT WILL WORK WITH APPLICABLE NON-PROFITS TO APPLY FOR A TRAIL MASTER PLAN PERMIT THROUGH THE BCP PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST SITE PLAN.
UH, THOSE ON THE D IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
PLEASE RAISE HAND, UH, THOSE ON THE SCREEN.
PLEASE SHOW ME YOUR GREEN CARD IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER I HAVE FOUR.
I SAID I HAD ABOUT 10 OF THEM IF WE WERE GONNA GO THIS ROUTE.
NO, THAT'S TOTALLY PART OF THE PROCESS.
MY NEXT ONE, UH, IS TO TAG ONTO PARKS.
UM, I BELIEVE IT CAME FROM PARKS THAT I, I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, MAKE A MOTION TO REQUIRE RESTROOMS, PUBLIC RESTROOMS AT BUILDINGS CLOSEST TO THE TRAIL HEADS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK.
THE PARKS ONE ONLY ADDRESS THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AND NOT THE TRAIL HEAD.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THIS AMENDMENT? UH, DO YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? YES, AND I STILL, OKAY.
YES, LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR IT FROM THE APPLICANT ON THIS ONE.
UM, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT WE WOULD BE, WE'RE AMENABLE TO THAT AND THAT'S ALREADY IN THE, IN THE PLAN THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE RESTROOMS FOR BOTH PARKS.
OKAY, WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CZAR.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND SPEED THINGS LONG.
IF THERE'S NO OPPOSITION TO SKIPPING ANY SPEAKING REPORT AGAINST AND TAKING A VOTE.
UH, LET'S GO AND TAKE A QUICK VOTE.
THOSE ON THE DIAS AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN IN FAVOR.
UH, NEXT, UM, AND I'M NOT SURE HOW TO WORD THIS, SOMEBODY'S GONNA HAVE TO HELP ME.
UM, AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, UH, FOR A THIRD PARTY OVERSIGHT OF WATER QUALITY DURING DEVELOPMENT AND AFTER SITE DEVELOPMENT.
WATER QUALITY DRAINAGE, SORRY.
SO, THIRD PARTY OVERSIGHT OF WATER QUALITY DRAINAGE DURING DEVELOPMENT AND POST SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONERS.
YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THIS MOTION? WHAT DID I SAY? ANDERSON'S SECOND.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S SECOND TO THAT MOTION.
UM, I, WELL AGAIN, THIS IS THE LAND OF GOOD INTENTIONS.
THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN GOOD INTENTION TO DO THIS.
ACTUALLY, WE DISCUSSED THIS IN OUR DISCUSSIONS.
THEY WERE AMENABLE TO THIRD PARTY.
I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW TO CONSTRUCT THE MOTION TO DO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO, BUT I THINK IT WOULD HELP, UM, UH, UH, PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS TO KNOW THAT THIS IS BEING LOOKED AT BY AN OUTSIDE BODY.
DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, COMMISSIONERS THAT WANNA SPEAK FOR AGAINST THIS? DO WE HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS AMENDMENT FROM ANY COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND INCLUDE THAT AMENDMENT.
APPLICANT HAS AGREED, UM, IN OUR DISCUSSION, OH, YOU WANNA, SORRY, SORRY.
THAT IS A, A VOTE OF AFFIRMATION ACCORDING TO ROBERTS FULL OF ORDER IF NO ONE OPPOSES THAT IS A RULE OF OR A VOTE OF AFFIRMATION.
UH, UH, APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE, UM, CO SCOOP STATIONS AND TRASH CANS THROUGHOUT THE GREEN SPACES.
MR. ANDERSONS, UH, SIMILARLY, UH, ANY OPPOSITION TO SKIPPING THE SPEAKING FOR AGAINST? UH, SO NO OPPOSITION, UH, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS AMENDMENT? TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION? ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND, UH, THAT AMENDMENT IS APPROVED.
ANY OTHERS? I'VE GOT ANOTHER ONE.
[02:00:01]
SPEAKING.UH, NEXT ONE IS, UH, KIND OF A NOTE FOR STAFF.
I WOULD LIKE, UH, THEY WILL HA I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TO EXECUTE OR HAVE I, I GUESS IT'S TO EXECUTE THE MOU BETWEEN, WITH, UH, BCP FOR ACCESS TO THE AIRMAN'S CAVE, UH, PRIOR TO, UH, GOING TO COUNSEL.
SO COUNCIL, JUST COUNCIL IS GONNA TAKE THIS UP, GIVE, YOU KNOW THE DATE CHAIR COMMISSION LAY, UH, THAT'S SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 1ST.
SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THIS? CAN I, A CLARIFYING QUESTION FROM COMMISSIONERS ARE, SO THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF, SINCE THIS IS A, A PRIVATE, I GUESS, AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO PARTIES AND THE CITY'S NOT A PART OF IT, BUT THIS BE SOMETHING, I GUESS, ARE WE JUST SAYING THAT STAFF WOULD FACILITATE THIS OR CAN STAFF INTERVENE IN AN MOU BETWEEN VCP AND THE APPLICANT? UH, I THINK IT'S MORE, LESS OF AN MOU AND MORE OF AN AN EASEMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE EXECUTED.
AND IT IS, UM, THE PAPERWORK IS SITTING IN WITH LAW NOW AND THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT AT LEAST BY SECOND OR THIRD READING IT SHOULD BE DONE.
OKAY, SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED.
THIS IS NOT AN MOU, THIS IS AN EASEMENT.
SO, UH, DOES ANYONE, UH, APPLICANT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD BEFORE WE, JUST TO CLARIFY THE MOTION? YOU COULD CALL IT AN MOU, BUT BASICALLY IN TECHNICAL, TECHNICAL TERMS, IT'S AN EASEMENT ACCESS EASEMENT FOR, UH, MONITORING OF THE CAVE.
AND WHILE YOU'RE THERE, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS FOR THIS ITEM? AMENDMENT? DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS WITH THIS AMENDMENT? UH, IT'S OUT OF OUR CONTROL.
SO IF, IF YOU'RE TELLING THE STAFF TO GET IT DONE, WE WE'RE WITH YOU, BUT, UH, I DON'T WANNA MAKE IT A CONDITION REALLY.
SO WE, UH, SO CAN YOU, DO YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND DO YOU NEED TO RESTATE YOUR MOTION? UH, COMMISSIONER MUTO.
CAN I PHONE A FRIEND FOR ASSISTANCE?
I KNOW THERE'S A WAY TO DO THIS CLEANLY.
I THINK WE'RE JUST, UM, I GUESS I'M SPEAKING TO CALLING IT AN ACCESS EASEMENT, UM, INSTEAD OF THE MOU.
THAT'S ALL I'M LOOKING FOR YOU.
SO THIS IS, THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO HAVE THE LEGAL, THE DOCUMENTATION FOR THE ACCESS EASEMENT FOR BCP COMPLETED PRIOR TO GOING TO COUNSEL.
CAN, CAN I, CAN I CLARIFY? IS THAT BEFORE THIRD READING? OH, OKAY.
I, YES, WE HAVEN'T GOT A SECOND YET, SO I THINK YEAH.
SO PRIOR TO THIRD READING, UH, I THINK EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THE MOTION.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? UH, COMMISSIONER NAAR SECOND SET.
UM, ALRIGHT, ANYBODY WANNA SPEAK FOR AGAINST QUESTION STAFF? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON HAS A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SO IS THIS SOMETHING THAT STAFF FEEL IS COMFORTABLE IS GOING TO HAPPEN? AND IS THERE ANY POTENTIAL THIRD PARTY ROADBLOCK TO DOING THIS AND SEEING THIS THROUGH, LIKE, I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT WE'RE GETTING INTO HERE.
UM, IT'S IN LAW'S HANDS, BUT THE STAFF THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING THAT DID TELL ME THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT IT, THAT IT'S NOT AN ISSUE.
MAKING SURE THAT IT IS COMPLETE BEFORE COMPLETED, BEFORE A THIRD READING.
AND REAL QUICK CHAIR, I JUST, ALL RIGHT.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, APPLICANT, IF YOU DON'T MIND, JUST COULD YOU SHARE A FEW MORE THOUGHTS ON THIS ON BEFORE THIRD READING? I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD ADDITION, BUT ARE YOU, DO YOU HAVE HEARTBURN? DO YOU THINK IT'S A GOOD AMENDMENT? UH, COULD WE SAY THAT, UH, IT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE PUTT ORDINANCE, WHICH WOULD BE THIRD READING, OR IT WOULD BE A CONDITION TO THE PUTT ORDINANCE? IT'S IN THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
SO IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT HARD, BUT IT IS TOTALLY OUT OF OUR CONTROL.
IS THAT GOOD? GO IN FURTHER MINUTES.
SO ANY COMMISSIONERS WANNA SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, ANY, GO AHEAD COMMISSIONERS.
ZAR, SHERIFF, I MIGHT RESTATE THE MOTION.
CAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE JUST DID A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS HERE.
SO I THINK WE'RE ASKING STAFF TO
[02:05:01]
COMPLETE THE DOCUMENTATION FOR AN AGREEMENT WITH BCP TO ALLOW ACCESS TO THE CASE BEFORE, UH, NOPE.UH, ACCESS TO THE CASE AS A CONDITION FOR THE PART ORDINANCE BEFORE THIRD READING.
SO THAT, I DON'T KNOW, THOSE THINGS ARE SYNONYMOUS.
UH, JUST CUZ WE WOULD NEED TO, UM, WE ALREADY HAD A SECOND.
SO YOU THINK WE'RE OKAY? I THINK SO.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS, UH, ANY, UH, ONE OPPOSED TO THIS AMENDMENT? ALL RIGHT, NO OPPOSITION.
SO WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND, UH, THAT'S BEEN APPROVED AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
LAST ONE, AMENDMENT TO SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF EITHER, UH, MITIGATION LAND OR CONSERVATION EASEMENT THAT WOULD BE DEDICATED TO BCP.
UM, SO THAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER OF THE TWO TRACKS MEETS THE SOS STANDARDS.
UM, YOU GOT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER.
YOU WANNA GO AND SPEAK TO THIS ONE? COMMISSIONER MOOW.
I, I, I THINK WE'VE SPOKEN TO IT A LOT.
I THINK THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
WHERE THE PROJECT IS INTERESTING, WE DON'T KNOW THE FULL, UM, IMPACTS OF BRINGING THAT DENSITY OVER THESE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS.
WE HAVE DOWNSTREAM NEIGHBORS THAT RELY ON THESE AREAS.
UM, WE NEED TO DO OUR BEST TO, TO BE GOOD STEWARDS.
AND, AND THE, THE IT IS IS NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT PEOPLE FELT THAT THIS WAS NOT NECESSARY.
I THINK IT OUGHT TO BE A REQUIREMENT.
UH, JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON THIS BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD IS, SO THIS IS, I UNDERSTAND, WOULD BE THEY'RE AGREEING TO THE APPLICANT 52% IN PERVIOUS COVER.
AND THE, UH, AND 20% IS THE SOS ORDINANCE.
15%, 15%, UH, LESLIE LILLY WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION.
UM, ACCORDING TO THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, THE MITIGATION LAND WOULD BE AT A 20% IMPERVIOUS COVER TO BE COMPLIANT WITH SOS ORDINANCE.
UH, THE AREA OF THE SITE OVER THE RECHARGE IS LIMITED TO 15% AND THE CONTRIBUTING ZONE IS 20%.
AND BOTH OF THOSE, UH, CONDITIONS ARE PRESENT ON THE SITE.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THE MITIGATION WOULD BE WHAT IS REQUIRED? THE LAND, I GUESS BETWEEN 56%.
AND HOW, HOW DO YOU CALCULATE THAT? I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR HERE.
THE REQUIREMENT, UM, AS IT'S WRITTEN IN CODE IS LAID OUT IN THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, AND THAT IS AT 20% FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
SO IS THAT COMMISSIONER MOLER, ARE YOU PROPOSING THE DIFFERENCE MITIGATION LAND THAT MAKES UP FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 56% AND 20%? IS THAT YOUR ASK? I'M, I, I APOLOGIZE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW STAFF HAS DONE ALL THE CALCULATIONS ON THIS.
THERE HAVE BEEN CREDITS AWARDED HERE AND THERE.
I, YOU KNOW, I, I KNOW THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE 29 SOME ODD ACRES AND WE'RE GETTING 11 ACRES WITH CREDITS.
I DUNNO HOW THAT CALCULATION IS RUN.
UH, MR. ANDERSON, QUICK, QUICK, MAYBE TWO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
SO STAFF, I BELIEVE YOU LANDED ON RECOMMENDING THESE ITEMS AS THEY ARE REDUCING THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, NOT REQUIRING THIS OFFSITE MITIGATION CAN ASK HOW YOU LANDED THERE AND WHAT WAS BEHIND THAT THOUGHT? SO ORIGINALLY WHEN THE, UM, REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION VERSUS THE SOS SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT WAS IN QUESTION, THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE MET FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, ACCORDING TO STAFF, WAS TOO LOW OF A BAR TO BE A BASELINE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SUPERIORITY.
SO THAT REGULATORY TRAJECTORY FOR APPROVING SUPERIORITY WAS DECIDED TO NOT BE THE, THE DIRECTION.
AND INSTEAD I'M GOING WITH THE SOS SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT ALONGSIDE THE PUT ORDINANCE.
AND LOOKING AT THAT THROUGH THE LENS OF TIER ONE AND TIER TWO SUPERIORITY ELEMENTS AS THEY'RE RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENT, WAS THE WAY TO ASSESS, UM, SUPERIORITY AND, AND, AND NOT THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION
[02:10:01]
REQUIREMENTS.I, I THINK I'M HEARING SOME MISUNDERSTANDING OF CURRENT CONDITIONS VERSUS THIS PROPOSAL BUILT OUT.
AND WE'RE HEARING THINGS LIKE WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT FOLKS DOWNSTREAM.
CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE WATER THAT LEAVES THIS SITE TODAY UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS VERSUS WHAT WE ENVISION OR THIS BUILD OUT? AND IS IT BETTER OR WORSE AFTER BUILT OUT? SO THE WATER THAT LEAVES THE SITE TODAY, UM, IT POTENTIALLY, UH, ENTERS THE EDWARDS AQUIFER AT RECHARGED, UH, FEATURES SOMEWHERE OFFSITE.
SO THE IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT FLOWS OFFSITE IS LIKELY, YOU KNOW, GOING IN SOME PLACES AND TO SOME EXTENT, INTO THE EDWARDS AQUIFER OR INTO THE COLORADO RIVER.
THE MUNICIPALITIES DOWNSTREAM THAT HAVE DRINKING WATER THAT IS SOURCED FROM THE EDWARDS AQUIFER INCLUDE SAN ANTONIO.
SO THE, THE LACK OF WATER QUALITY TREATMENT TODAY ON THE 84 ACRES, UM, PROVIDES A, A CONDITION THAT THE WATER QUALITY IS QUITE A LOT HIGHER TO WHAT EXTENT THE POLLUTION IS, AND THE SEDIMENTATION, I DON'T HAVE THE, THE EXACT NUMBERS, BUT IT'S QUITE ABOUT HIGHER THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED BY CURRENT CODE AND CRITERIA TODAY.
AND THE PROPOSAL WOULD IMPROVE THE WATER QUALITY FLOWING OFFSITE INTO THE EDWARDS AQUIFER TO THE, UM, UH, UNDEVELOPED CONDITION.
AND THAT'S THE CONDITION WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT AND IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SO THE PROPOSED COMPLIANCE WITH SOS NONDEGRADATION WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE, UM, QUITE A BIT OF AN IMPROVEMENT, UH, FROM CURRENT CONDITIONS TODAY.
UH, SO WE HAVE, WELL, I'M NOT CLEAR ON, I GUESS GO AHEAD AND RESTATE YOUR MOTION.
WE GO, WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND ACT ON, ON THIS ONE.
AND THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN SECONDED, SO GO AHEAD AND RESTATE IT ONE MORE TIME.
SO MY MOTION IS TO REQUIRE MITIGATION THROUGH EITHER LAND PURCHASE OR A CONSERVATION EASEMENT, SUCH THAT THE OVERALL IMPERVIOUS COVER IS LESS THAN 20% FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SITE AND ANY MITIGATION TRACK TAKEN TOGETHER.
SO WE HAD, UH, SECOND BY COMMISSION POLITA, DO WE HAVE ANY, UM, COMMISSIONERS THAT WANNA SPEAK FOR, AGAINST THIS ITEM BY HEMPLE? I'D LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS.
SO THERE'S TWO PATHWAYS THAT THIS TEAM COULD HAVE CHOSEN TO GO.
ONE OF THEM IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TONIGHT WITH AMENDING THE SOS, WHICH REQUIRES A SUPER MAJORITY AT COUNCIL TO ACHIEVE.
AND THEY, THEY WENT THAT PATH KNOWING THAT THAT IS A VERY HIGH BAR, VERY DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE, WHICH IS WHY THEY WENT OVER AND ABOVE ON THE WATER QUALITY ITEMS THAT THEY HAVE IN THEIR PROPOSAL.
THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, WHICH HAS THE MUCH LOWER WATER QUALITY THAT STAFF HAS DESCRIBED, IS WHAT REQUIRES THE OFFSITE MITIGATION BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST NOT ABLE TO DO IT ON SITE.
AND SO THE TEAM HAS WORKED FOR A VERY LONG TIME WITH ENVIRONMENTAL STAKEHOLDERS ON THE MORE DIFFICULT PATH.
SO I, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THIS ONE MAKES SENSE.
AND THEN YOU'RE ASKING THE TEAM TO BOTH DO THE MUCH HARDER PATH, BUT ALSO PURCHASE AT LEAST A HUNDRED ACRES OF LAND SOMEWHERE ELSE.
SPEAKING FAVOR, I THINK COMMISSIONER AL, I THINK YOU HAD ALREADY SPOKEN, SO I JUST, IF IF NOBODY ELSE CAN CLARIFY THAT POINT, I CAN CLARIFY.
WAIT, WE NEED, UH, THOSE SPEAKING, UH, IN FAVOR.
ANYONE WANNA SPEAK AGAINST S UH, COMMISSIONER? I'LL, I'LL, I'LL KEEP THIS VERY QUICK.
I, I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST AS WELL.
COMMISSIONER AL, I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT, AND UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, BUT I'M JUST GONNA BUILD ON WHAT THE VICE CHAIR JUST SAID.
MY CONCERN HERE IS I THINK WE'RE ESSENTIALLY INCENTIVIZING IN THE FUTURE FOR FOLKS TO GO AND DO THE REDEVELOPMENT, UM, EXCEPTION AND JUST GO WITH THAT.
NOT COME TO US WITH ANY SUPERIORITY ON ENVIRONMENT, SUPERIORITY ON PARKLAND, SUPERIORITY ON HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE, WALKABILITY, BIKING.
ALL WE GET IS A REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION WITH THAT OFFSITE MITIGATION REQUIREMENT.
AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE I AM AT, WHERE I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IN THE FUTURE WE REALLY GET FOLKS WHO DO THAT PART, PARTICULARLY IF WE HAVE ASKED THEM TO TAKE THIS HIGHER THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT, THEN WE SHOULD IN SOME WAYS, HONOR THAT.
LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE IF THERE'S NO OPPOSITION, UH, TO SPEAK BOARD.
THERE, THERE'S, YES, THERE ARE A FOR AND AGAINST SLOT.
ANYBODY WANTS SPEAK FOR AGAINST ANYMORE? NO.
[02:15:01]
WELL GO AHEAD.COMMISSIONER MITCHLER, I'LL LET YOU GO ONE MORE TIME IF, IF NO ONE ELSE WILL TAKE IT.
I WANNA CLARIFY THAT PATH TO CHOOSE AN SOS SITE AMENDMENT IS VERY PROPERTY SPECIFIC THAT THERE, THERE WASN'T A CHOICE.
THEY ARE CREATING IT, IT DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE.
THEY ASKED FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS, AND THEY ASKED FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO COUNCIL MAJORITY, AND THAT'S FAIR AND THAT'S FINE.
BUT IN ORDER TO HAVE OUR RECOMMENDATION ON IT, THERE IS A THOUGHT PROCESS THAT NOT ONLY ARE THE WATER RECAPTURE AND ALL THE THINGS THEY'RE DOING REQUIRED TO COMPENSATE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND ALL THE HEIGHT AND EVERYTHING THAT'S COMING TO INCREASE THE DENSITY, BUT THAT IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE NEED BOTH PIECES.
THAT ONE OF THEM ALONE BY THEMSELVES ISN'T ENOUGH TO ACHIEVE AND PROTECT THAT ENVIRONMENT THE WAY WE WANT TO.
AND WHEN WE LOOK AT THE DENSITY THAT'S GOING TO COME THERE AND WHAT THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO DRIVE, THERE'S NOT ONE SCIENTIST OUT THERE THAT CAN TELL YOU WHAT IT'S GONNA DO.
SO THE IDEA WAS THAT BOTH OF THOSE COMPONENTS WOULD BE NEEDED FOR MITIGATION.
AND THAT'S IN YOUR BACKUP FROM SOS.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON IS LES, BUT THANK YOU CHAIR.
I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS.
I, I APPRECIATE STAFF LOOKING INTO THIS REALLY HARD AND, AND COMING UP WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATION AND SEEING THAT WE ARE DRAMATICALLY REDUCING IMPERVIOUS COVER.
AND THAT TODAY, US JUST FLUSHING THIS ENTIRE PARKING LOT INTO THE AQUIFER VERSUS THE WATER QUALITY THAT WE'LL BE ADDING AFTER THIS IS BUILT OUT.
IT'S NIGHT AND DAY DIFFERENCE.
AND SO I CAN'T BE SUPPORTING THIS CAUSE IT, IT MIGHT, IT FEELS LIKE AN UNINTENTIONAL POISON PILL TO ADD A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF COST TO BUY A LOT OF LAND UPSTREAM TO PREVENT MAYBE THIS REDEVELOPMENT, THIS MUCH NEEDED REDEVELOPMENT FROM OCCURRING.
OKAY, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE.
UH, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT ON THE DIAS, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
UM, THOSE ON, UM, ON THE VIRTUAL SCREEN IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT.
OPPOSED ON THE DICE? US AND THOSE OPPOSED VIRTUALLY.
SO THAT MOTION FAILS, UH, WITH COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, ASAR THOMPSON, HOWARD, VICE HEMPLE, AND FLORES VOTING OPPOSED.
UH, COMMISSIONER MOTO, ARE YOU OKAY? GOOD JOB.
THAT'S ANOTHER WAY TO GET TO WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO GO.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE CONTINUE WITH THE, WE ARE KIND OF, WE HAD ONE FOR AND AGAINST SPEAKER ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UH, ARE THERE ANY MORE SPEAKERS ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION? A OR AGAINST? ALL RIGHT, SO WHAT WE'RE, OKAY, SO THE, THIS VOTE THEN, UH, SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
IT'S THE, UH, MOTION BY VICE SHARON.
HE SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, UH, TO GRANT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ITEMS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR AS AMENDED.
IS EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THAT? OKAY.
SO WE'RE TAKING A VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
I DON'T THINK WE HAD ANY MORE SPEAKERS THAT'S GONNA TAKE A VOTE.
THOSE ON THE DICE IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED.
THOSE VIRTUALLY THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
THOSE OPPOSED POSED, UH, TO THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION COMMISSION POLITO.
SO THE MOTION PASSES EIGHT TO ONE TO ZERO WITH COMMISSION S POLITO VOTING AGAINST.
I THINK WE'RE DONE WITH THE BRO.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS.
UM, THE NEXT ITEM IS THE COMPATIBILITY.
AND I'M GOING TO, I'M SORRY TO DO THIS TO FOLKS, BUT, UH, I, A FIVE MINUTE BREAK WOULD BE REALLY HELP ME QUITE A BIT.
SO, UH, LET'S GO AND, UH, UH, TAKE A BREAK HERE.
COMMISSIONERS HERE ON THE DIAS, UH, THOSE VIRTUALLY IF YOU CAN GO AND SHOW YOUR FACES.
WE'LL GET STARTED AS SOON AS WE GET QUORUM.
UM, OH, MR. RIVERA, DO YOU HAVE,
[02:20:50]
LET'S SEE, THIS[19. Code Amendment: C20-2022-004 - Compatibility on Corridors]
IS THE ITEM 19 CUT AMENDMENT, UH, C 20 DASH TWO I E 22 DASH ZERO FOUR.JUST REMIND FOLKS, THIS WAS A COUNCIL INIT INITIATED CODE AMENDMENT.
UH, COUNCIL DEBATED THIS ITEM QUITE A BIT BEFORE IT CAME TO CODES, UH, IN ORDINANCES, JOINT COMMITTEE.
UH, WE DID HAVE A WORKING GROUP THAT, UH, HAD STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT.
AND DID I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON THAT.
THEY HAD SOME REALLY GOOD WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS, UH, THAT WERE GOING TO DISCUSS HERE SHORTLY.
BUT I WANTED TO GIVE, UH, BEFORE WE START, UH, JUST GIVE STAFF, UH, THEY'VE NOTIFIED ME THAT THEY HAD A FEW, UH, NUMBER CHANGES, UM, THAT THEY'D LIKE TO JUST SHARE WITH US.
THEY ALREADY PRESENTED LAST TIME.
BUT JUST ANY UPDATES YOU WANNA PROVIDE, UM, HOW LONG, WE CAN GIVE YOU SIX, BUT HOW LONG DO YOU THINK YOU'LL NEED HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT? MAYBE THREE MINUTES.
YEAH, PLEASE PROCEED AND GIVE US A QUICK UPDATE, AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
AM I GONNA GO THROUGH, UH, ALL OF THIS? BECAUSE WE WENT THROUGH IT LAST TIME.
I'LL JUST HIGHLIGHT THE, THE CHANGES IN THE BACKUP FOR TODAY.
UH, THIS MAP HAS BEEN UPDATED WITH THE CORRECT CORRIDOR DESIGNATIONS THAT HAD A COUPLE OF SEGMENTS THAT WERE INCORRECT.
AND THEN THE MAIN THING IS THAT, UH, OKAY, SO THE LAST TIME YOU REMEMBER, UH, WE LOOKED AT THE IMPACT OF THIS AMENDMENT AND WE LOOKED AT THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES.
WE WENT BACK AND WE RE CRUNCHED THE NUMBERS, LOOKING AT ACREAGE INSTEAD OF PROPERTIES.
UM, JUST BECAUSE WE WERE TYPICALLY TALKING ABOUT QUARTER PROJECTS, WE THINK ABOUT THEM IN TERMS OF ACREAGE, UM, AND DENSITIES ARE SPECIFIED BY ACREAGE.
WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A BETTER WAY TO LOOK AT IT.
THE RESULT IS THAT, UM, STILL FOR THE SORT OF BY RIGHT REDUCTION IN COMPATIBILITY, IF YOU'RE NOT DOING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THAT STILL IMPACTS A MINIMUM NUMBER OF, OF, OF THE AREA BY ACREAGE.
UH, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE CORRIDORS BY ACREAGE, IF THE, IF THE PROJECTS DO PARTICIPATE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, PROVIDING THAT, IT DOES GO UP A BIT.
SO YOU CAN SEE THERE'S 80% ON LIGHT RAIL, LARGE CORRIDORS BY ACREAGE, UM, THAT, UH, IF THEY DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT MEANS THAT THEY EITHER HAVE A TOTAL TOTAL REMOVAL OF COMPATIBILITY OR THEY GET SOME HEIGHT BONUS OF SOME KIND.
UH, AND THEN ON MEDIUM S 62%, THERE ARE NEW FIGURES IN THE BACKUP.
SO, UM, THE, THE BAR GRAPH IS SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SAW LAST TIME, BUT IT'S JUST BROKEN DOWN BY ACREAGE.
AND THEN THIS GRAPH, UM, THIS GRAPHIC SHOWS, UM, WHAT, WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED, BUT BY CORD OR TYPE.
AND IT, AND IT SHOWS YOU, UH, IT'S KIND OF A WAY OF COMPARING IT TO COMPATIBILITY.
IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT, LOOKING AT THAT TENT AND THE, THE CUTOFFS BY, UH, DISTANCE FROM TRIGGERING PROPERTY, HOW MUCH ACREAGE IS, IS EFFECTIVELY FREED UP, IF YOU WILL, WHEN YOU START PULLING COMPATIBILITY BACK, UM, COMPARED TO TODAY'S, UH, STANDARDS.
AND THEN THAT FIGURE HERE IS JUST BROKEN DOWN, AGAIN, BY ACREAGE AND, AND PERCENTAGE, UH, OF ACRES.
SO THE, THE UPSHOT IS THAT IT DOESN'T CHANGE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
WE'RE STILL NOT RECOMMENDING THIS ITEM, UM, FOR THE, FOR THE SAME REASONS, THE COMPLEXITY.
AND THAT, UM, THE BUY RIGHT COMPATIBILITY IMPACTS ONLY A, A MINORITY OF PROPERTIES, THE AFFORDABLE PART OF IT, IF THEY'RE PARTICIPATING THAT THAT'S HIGHER BY ACREAGE, BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE OUR RECOMMENDATION.
[02:25:01]
AND THAT'S, THOSE ARE THE CHANGES I'VE GOT.SO, UM, WE ARE GOING TO USE OUR RULES OF DEBATE THAT WE USED, UH, LAST TIME FOR THE, UH, RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL AND WE'VE USED PREVIOUSLY.
UH, BUT THIS GIVES A CHANCE FOR US TO MOVE THROUGH, ESTABLISH A BASE MOTION.
WE HAVE TWO MINUTES PER EACH SPEAKER.
WE'LL BEGIN WITH, UH, HEARING FROM OUR REGISTERED SPEAKERS, BEGINNING WITH MR. BILL MCCOLEY.
MR. MCCULLEY, ON TELECONFERENCE, SELECT STAR SIX.
GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF TRANSIT FORWARD AND AUSTIN BASED 5 0 1 C THREE THAT DOES EDUCATION AND ENGAGEMENT WORK ABOUT TRANSIT ISSUES IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND ALSO WITH A REAL FOCUS ON PROJECT CONNECT.
I SPOKE LAST WEEK AND READ A PREPARED STATEMENT THAT WAS, UH, CRAFTED BY OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
WE STILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE RELAXATION OF COMPATIBILITY ALONG THESE CORRIDORS AS A WAY TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING ON TRANSIT CORRIDORS TO GIVE MORE PEOPLE MORE ACCESS TO TRANSIT.
THIS IS A GOOD URBAN PLANNING DECISION, ALLOWING MORE PEOPLE TO HAVE THE OPTION IF THEY WANT TO GET RID OF THEIR CARS TO FREE UP $10,000 A YEAR IN THEIR BUDGETS TO USE PUBLIC TRANSIT.
BUT WE CAN'T HAVE THAT ON A LARGER SCALE UNLESS WE COMBINE TRANSIT WITH HOUSING.
I WILL ALSO SAY, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION THAT I ATTENDED A MEETING WITH THE AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP LAST NIGHT, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP WAS THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LOOKS VERY, VERY STRONGLY AT TRANSIT SYSTEMS AS A WHOLE, WHICH INCLUDES A HOUSING COMPONENT TO ALLOW PEOPLE ACCESS TO TRANSIT WHEN THEY ARE DETERMINING HOW MUCH AND FOR HOW LONG GRANTS ARE MADE FOR THE SYSTEMS. AND I KNOW THAT PROJECT CONNECT IS GONNA REALLY RELY ON FEDERAL FUNDING.
SO THE MORE WE CAN DO TO ADD MORE HOUSING AND MORE DENSITY TO THESE TRANSIT CORRIDORS IS GONNA BE BETTER FOR PEOPLE INDIVIDUALLY AND WITH THEIR FAMILIES, BUT ALSO WITH THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE TO BE ABLE TO GET FUNDING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO PASS THIS, UM, PROPOSAL COMING ALONG, AND WE ENCOURAGE YOU AND EVERYBODY ELSE IN THESE TYPES OF POSITIONS TO LOOK MORE AT THESE TYPES OF PROPOSALS TO ALLOW FOR MORE DENSITY AND HOUSING TO INCREASE AFFORDABILITY, UH, DECREASE DEATHS, AND INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF FLOW PEOPLE HAVE AROUND TOWN.
THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
GOOD LUCK WITH THE REST OF YOUR EVENING.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. BILL BUNCH, FOLLOWED BY MISS BETSY GREENBERG.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS, UH, BILL BUNCH WITH SAVE OUR SPRINGS ALLIANCE WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO, TO POSTPONE THIS FOR GREATER PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
UM, I THINK THIS IS JUST SOMETHING THAT SHOULDN'T BE JAMMED THROUGH.
UM, I AGREE WITH STAFF, IT'S COMPLICATED.
I, I CAN'T FULLY GRASP WHAT, WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
UM, IT DEFINITELY SEEMS LIKE THE CITY IS, OR SOMEBODY
UM, WE, WE SUPPORTED CORRIDORS IN AUSTIN.
UM, SURE THERE COULD BE SOME ADJUSTMENT TO, UH, UH, ENCOURAGE MORE DENSE DEVELOPMENT HERE AND THERE, BUT THAT TAKES A CLOSER LOOK AND A SLOWER PROCESS THAT ENGAGES MORE OF THE COMMUNITY.
UM, UH, LOOKING AT VERY SPECIFIC AREAS, UM, UH, ONE BY ONE, BASICALLY.
WELL NOW HEAR FROM MISS BETSY GREENBERG, FOLLOWED BY GARY WASERMAN.
I LIVE IN DISTRICT NINE, AND I'M OPPOSED TO THE PROPO PROPOSED CHANGES TO COMPATIBILITY, GETTING RIGHT TO THE POINT.
WHAT I OBJECT TO IN THE PROPOSAL BEING CONSIDERED TODAY IS THAT IT HAS DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR DIFFERENT ROADWAYS, ALONG WITH OTHER CRITERIA.
IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO DECIDE HOW CLOSE OR FAR A TALL BUILDING SHOULD BE FROM A SMALLER RESIDENCE.
I AGREE THAT 540 FEET IS OVERKILL AND COULD BE DECREASED, BUT WHATEVER YOU DECIDE, THAT STANDARD SHOULD BE APPLIED THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
THIS SEEMS ONLY FAIR AND HAS THE ADDITIONAL ADVANTAGE OF KEEPING THE CODE SIMPLE.
[02:30:01]
RECOMMENDED AGAINST THE PROPOSAL ARGUING THAT THESE MODIFICATIONS WOULD ADD COMPLEXITY TO THE CODE BY APPLYING TWO NEW COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS THAT DIFFER FROM THE CURRENT UP TO THREE SEPARATE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS THAT COULD APPLY TO A CARD OR PROPERTY.DEPENDING ON HOW THE PROPERTY IS USED, THE PROPERTY AMENDMENTS WILL BE UNPREDICTABLE FOR STAFF DEVELOPERS.
AND THE PUBLIC STANDARDS WILL DEPEND ON HOW CORRIDOR PROPERTIES ARE USED AND TRIGGERING PROPERTIES ARE ZONED.
I HOPE YOU WILL TAKE SOME TIME AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT APPLY A STANDARD WITH EQUAL TREATMENT THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT CITIES LIKE DALLAS, WHICH THAT SPECIFY A PROXIMITY SLOPE INSTEAD OF STEP BACKS.
IN OTHER WORDS, KEEP IT SIMPLE AND KEEP IT FAIR.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING, AND AS ALWAYS, I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE.
AND I'LL HEAR FROM GARY WASERMAN.
MR. WASERMAN, I WILL, UH, MAKE THIS SHORT.
GREG, UH, GREG DUTTON HAS ANSWERED ALL MY QUESTIONS.
I HAVE HIS EMAIL ADDRESS, AND IF I NEED TO, I'LL CONTACT HIM.
SO I JUST ASK YOU TO GIVE HIM A BIG PAY RAISE WHEN RICK COMES UP.
I HAVE ONE OUT HEAR FROM MR. DANIEL SCHOTTKY.
I AM A RESIDENT OF RIVER LO RIVER OAK LAKE ESTATES, WHICH, UH, WATERS ON PALMER LANE AND NORTH LAMAR, BOTH OF WHICH ARE CONSIDERED IN AS, UH, THESE ONE IS A HIGH ME HIGH CORRIDOR, ONE IS A MEDIUM CORRIDOR.
I HAVE TO SAY THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS GOING.
I'VE LIVED HERE SINCE 2006, GOING THROUGH TOO MUCH DEVELOPMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE IS SOMETHING THAT YOU MUST KEEP IN MIND.
QUALITY OF LIFE IS DECREASING BECAUSE OF SATURATION AND CONSTANT BUILDING.
THE CURRENT RESIDENTS ARE TAKING A BEATING BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE BEING, WHO HAVE BEEN PAYING TAXES FOR A LONG TIME INTO THE SYSTEM, UH, THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE IS BEING DECREASED AS THIS DEVELOPMENT GOES ON.
I HEAR FROM MS. FRANCIS UNA ON THE TELECONFERENCE.
THIS WILL BE FOLLOWED BY JANICE RANKEN.
UM, MY NAME IS FRANCIS AYA AGA SPRINGS RESIDENT.
TODAY, I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 19 ON RECOMMENDATION TO AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN CERTAIN CORRIDORS SUCH AS LARGE MEDIUM IN LIGHT RAIL CORRIDORS.
LAST WEEK, COMMISSIONER SHAY MENTIONED THAT WE CAN'T SAY, WE CAN'T JUST SAY NO.
WE NEED TO COME WITH SOLUTIONS, NOT JUST OPPOSITIONS.
IF YOU COME TO ME, I CAN GIVE YOU SOLUTIONS.
SOLUTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SUPPORTED AND AGREED UPON WITH OTHER RESIDENTS UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE.
THE CITY STAFF AND BOARDS OF COMMISSION NEED TO BE WORKING TOGETHER AND WITH THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THIS CHANGES.
INSTEAD OF CHECKING THE BOX FOR CITY COUNCIL, WORKING WITH NEIGHBORHOODS AND GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO WRITE OUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, WE CAN MEET IN THE MIDDLE.
REAL COMMUNITY PLANNING CAN ACHIEVE THESE THINGS, MAYBE EVEN MORE DENSITY THAN THIS PROPOSAL, BUT IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T HARM OUR COMMUNITIES.
WORK WITH OUR CONTACT TEAMS, COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARDS AND NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS.
HAVE THEM BE A RESOURCE AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR INCLUSION.
HAVE THIS ITEM GO THROUGH FULL COMMUNITY PROCESS.
PASSING AN ITEM JUST FOR CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBERS TO PASS BEFORE THEIR TERM AT THE COST OF COMMUNITIES IS JUST SO WRONG.
I ASKED THE CITY STAFF TO ST TO STAND FIRM IN THE DECISION NOT TO RECOMMEND THIS ITEM.
REMEMBER, INTEGRITY CAN TAKE, CAN TAKE YOU A LONG WAY.
ONE, I'LL HEAR FROM MS. JANICE RANKIN, FOLLOWED BY CYNTHIA HAN.
THANK YOU, UH, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSION MEMBERS.
UH, I APPRECIATE YOUR POSTPONING THIS ITEM, UH, FROM, UH, NOVEMBER 8TH, SO THAT THOSE OF US WHO WORK THE ELECTIONS AND VOTE IN THE ELECTIONS COULD BE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE.
I'M A RESIDENT OF ZIP CODE 7 87 57.
THAT'S COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN I OPPOS 19.
[02:35:01]
DO OR DON'T FOLLOW THE CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION ABOUT THE A HUNDRED FOOT LIMIT, WHAT WE NEED ARE MORE CURRENT FACTS.BECAUSE WHEN WE STARTED THIS PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING CORRIDORS AND, UH, PLANNING ON, UH, MOBILITY FUNDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THERE WAS A DEMOGRAPHER IN PLACE WHO HAD PREPARED MANY REPORTS, AND HIS REPORTS WERE IGNORED, UH, BECAUSE HE HAD, UH, ONLY LIMITED HIMSELF TO, UH, I BELIEVE THE CITY LIMITS.
AND SO, UH, THE CITY WANTED TO USE THE MULTI-COUNTY DATA TO PROPOSE, UH, SOMETHING TO HAPPEN IN WITHIN CITY LIMITS.
SO WE HAD AN OVERROAD USE OF, UH, FACTS THAT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY HIS DATA, AND WE NEED SOME NEW DATA.
AND, UH, WE NEED TO KNOW HOW MANY AFFORDABLE UNITS HAVE IN FACT BEEN BUILT.
WE NEED A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF THE LABOR MARKET, AND WE NEED TO, UH, MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CONCEPT OF AFFORDABILITY BECAUSE THE FPL LIMITS NEED TO BE MODIFIED.
FEES IN LIEU NEED TO BE REMOVED.
BUILDING TALL TOWERS OF CLASS A LUXURY APARTMENTS DOES NOT ADDRESS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUE.
I SAW THAT JUST, UH, THIS LAST WEEKEND ON, UH, 180 3, UH, AT, UH, G LIMAN AND, UH, AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
UH, ALSO WANT TO CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT THE NOTICE THAT WAS SENT TO A LIMITED NUMBER OF PERSONS ABOUT THE ZONING DENSITY CHANGES AND ENCROACHMENTS FAILS FOR LACK OF SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC INFORMATION TO ENABLE PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT CHANGES ARE COMING AND WHERE, AND THE NOTICE IS LACKING ABOUT HOW TO PROTEST THESE ACTIONS.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. DONNA BETH MCCORMICK.
MS. CORMICK ON TELECONFERENCE.
SELECT STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH REMARKS.
I LIVE IN ALLENDALE DISTRICT SEVEN.
BEEN IN AUSTIN ABOUT 65 YEARS.
THE AUSTIN HAS IS WE'VE GOTTEN TOTALLY OUTTA HAND, UH, WHEN THE LEGISLATURE SAID, LET THE CITY COUNCIL REGULATE HEIGHT AND CARTERS WAS WRONG.
AND I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION.
THE CITY STAFF SEEMS TO FORGET THAT WHO THEY WORK FOR, WHICH IS THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN.
I'M ON THE PHONE, I'M AT HOME, SO THIS IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. JANICE BOOKOUT.
AND THANK YOU FOR DELAYING UNTIL THIS WEEK.
UM, YES, TRANSIT ORIENTED HOUSING IN PRINCIPAL IS A GOOD THING WHEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS AFFORDABLE.
TODAY, I WANNA HIGHLIGHT HOW THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS OR BY CITY COMMISSIONED COMMUNITY DRIVEN STUDIES AND REPORTS.
THE CITY OF AUSTIN CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN SAYS WE SHOULD QUOTE, RECALIBRATE, STREAMLINE, AND EXPAND DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS TO SERVE RENTERS AT OR BELOW 60% MFI, AND SUPPORT THE CREATION OF DEEPLY AFFORDABLE UNITS WITHIN THE GROWTH CENTER'S CORRIDORS AND TRANSIT RICH AREAS AT 20% AND 30% MFI AND BELOW, THE PROJECT CONNECT EQUITY TOOL SPECIFIES THAT AND I QUOTE, A STUDIO, AFFORDABLE, UH, TO A PERSON OR COUPLE EARNING 80% OF THE AREA MEDIUM MEDIAN INCOME DEVELOPED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE PEOPLE HAVE RAISED FAMILIES ON AN INCOME OF 35,000 WILL RAISE THE AREA RENTS AND CAUSE DISPLACEMENT.
THIS DOES NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AUSTIN UPROOTED A CITY COMMISSION.
UT STUDY RECOMMENDS THAT PUTTING COMMUNITY VOICES AT THE CENTER AND ADVISES MAKE SURE THAT THE INCOME LEVELS TARGETED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ASSISTANCE MATCH THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY MOST AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT, STATING THAT THE LOWEST INCOME AREAS 60 AND 80 MFI FAR OUTREACH, THE LOWEST INCOME AND MOST VULNERABLE RESIDENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED ALSO, AT LEAST IN THEORY, ADDRESSES DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH BONUSES THAT ENCOURAGE LESS THAN 50% MFI.
WHY SPEND TIME AND MONEY ENGAGING COMMUNITY EXPERTISE AND INTERSECTIONAL PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE ONLY TO IGNORE IT? WHY ENGAGE THOSE SAME INTERSECTIONAL? WHY NOT ENGAGE THOSE SAME INTERSECTIONAL EXPERTISE AND LIVED EXPERTISE TO DEVELOP A BETTER PLAN? PLEASE RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL.
DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO CREATE A WORKING GROUP TO DEVELOP A
[02:40:01]
TRANSIT-ORIENTED ORDINANCE.IT COULD INCLUDE THE EQUITY OFFICE STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN, RESEARCHERS FROM AUSTIN UPROOTED PROJECT CONNECT, ANTIS DISPLACEMENT FOLKS IMPACTED LANDOWNERS, RENTERS, ET CETERA.
UM, DELAY A VOTE ON THIS ORDINANCE UNTIL THE PROCESS IS ASK CITY COUNCIL TO DELAY UNTIL THE PROCESS IS COMPLETED AND THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE HEARD.
NOW HEAR FROM MS. CYNTHIA VASQUEZ, FOLLOWED BY MR. RON THROWER.
HEY, UH, MY NAME IS CYNTHIA VASQUEZ AND I'M AN EAST AUSTIN AND NATIVE RIDING THE GENTRIFICATION WAVE ALONG OUR EASTERN CRESCENT.
I WAS HERE LAST WEEK TO PRESS UPON YOU ALL TO BE MOST INTENTIONAL ABOUT YOUR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN THE LDC PROCESS.
AND I'M HERE AGAIN THIS WEEK TO OPPOSE THE LDC AMENDMENTS TO CORRIDOR COMPATIBILITY.
AT THIS TIME, THIS IS A CLEAR ATTEMPT FOR COUNSEL TO GET AROUND THE LDC COURT RULING.
AND THESE AMENDMENTS YOU'RE DISCUSSING IF APPROVED BY COUNCIL, WILL HAVE AN IMPACT FOR LASTING YEARS.
LAST WEEK, COMMISSIONER COX SAID, SAID THIS WAS NEGOTIATED IN COUNCIL AND STAFF THINK IT'S A DONE DEAL AND IT'S NOT.
THE COMMUNITY IS NOT PART OF THE PROCESS AND THE PROCESS, OR LACK THEREOF, SERVES TO CONTINUE THE DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF THE VULNERABLE RESIDENCE IN AUSTIN TO EASTER.
CRESCENT COMMISSIONER SHAY WAS RIGHT.
JUST TO SUMMARIZE, WE MUST COME WITH SOLUTIONS.
SOLUTIONS START WITH RESIDENTS FROM THE GET GO AND ARE INCLUDED THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.
THE CITY STAFF, COMMISSIONERS COUNCIL AND THEIR STAFF MUST ENGAGE AND WORK WITH RESIDENTS.
SO LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT ONE OF THE BEST AFFORDABLE HOUSING MODELS IN THE G NDCS PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP.
THINK EAST, A PROJECT WHERE THE RICH COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTED IN 60 UNITS AT THE 35% MFI.
REAL SOLUTIONS LIKE THIS COME FROM THE COMMUNITIES YOU CONTINUE TO MAKE VULNERABLE.
YOU THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS, REACH OUT TO COMMUNITY GROUPS AND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND CONTACT TEAMS. MY AREA, SOUTH OF WILLIN CANNON HAS BARELY BECOME INCLUDED IN THE SOUTHEAST COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN TO ENGAGE IN PROACTIVE PLANNING AS A GENTRIFICATION WAVE LOADED WITH SUBDIVISIONS CONTINUE TO SLAM OUR HOOD.
AND THIS COULD BE A MORE EQUITABLE AND EFFICIENT PROCESS.
WE CAN SHOW STAFF WHERE DENSITY MAKES SENSE AND GUIDE THE GROWTH AND WHAT WE REQUIRE TO PROTECT.
EXCUSE ME, WHAT IS CURRENTLY AFFORDABLE AND GREEN? WHAT YOU SEND TO COUNCIL MUST BE ABOUT RESPONSIBLE, EQUITABLE, AND JUST LAND USE, INCLUDING THE COMMUNITY IN THE STAKEHOLDER L PROCESS, IN THE LDC ISSUES.
THIS IS CURRENTLY NOT SUPPORTED BY STAFF, AND I'M COUNTING ON YOU ALL TO KEEP THAT ENERGY WHEN YOU DISCUSS AND VOTE ON THIS.
SO IT DOESN'T GO TO COUNCIL UNTIL YOU HAVE COMMUNITY SUPPORT AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND I'LL HEAR FROM MR. RON THROWER, CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
UM, I'M GONNA BE SPEAKING A LOT ABOUT THE HISTORICAL, UM, TAKINGS OR OR ACQUISITIONS OF LANDS THAT HAVE OCCURRED OVER TIME.
AND I QUESTION JUST EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE UP FOR WITH THIS ATTEMPT TO MODIFY, UH, THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS I DID SPEAK IN OR SIGN UP IN OPPOSITION, I'M ACTUALLY MORE FOR THAN I AM OPPOSED.
I COULD NOT SIGN UP IN NEUTRAL BECAUSE ANDREW WOULDN'T LET ME.
UM, IN 1984 IS WHEN THIS CODE CAME INTO EFFECT.
COMPATIBILITY BECAME THE LAW OF THE LAND.
1986, WE HAD, UH, CAPITAL VIEW CORRIDORS COMING INTO PLACE, SQUASHED DOWN YIELD, UH, 1986, COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED, ORDINANCE, LIMITED IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, UH, CREATED CREEK SETBACKS, CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES, CUT AND FILL A LOT OF EFFECT ON THE, THE YIELD POTENTIAL OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY.
UH, 1987 CRITERIA MANUALS CAME ABOUT.
THERE'S A LOT OF EFFECT ON YIELD THAT HAVE COME ABOUT IN THE CRITERIA MANUALS IN THEIR QUARTERLY UPDATES SINCE 1987.
IN 1987, I BELIEVE, IS WHEN PARKLAND FIRST BECAME PART OF, UH, OF THE CODE.
THE CODE IN 1984 MENTIONED THE WORD ENVIRONMENT EIGHT TIMES.
PARKLAND WAS MENTIONED ONCE, AND NOW IT'S 162 TIMES.
THERE'S BEEN A MARCH TO INCREASE WIDTHS OF EASEMENTS FOR WASTEWATER LINE STORM SEWER LINES, EASEMENTS, WHERE YOU CANNOT PUT A BUILDING.
UM, NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS ARE AN EXAMPLE OF LIMITING YIELD ON PROPERTIES.
UH, MCMANSION IN 2007 PARKLAND IN 2016.
UH, PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT FEES IN 20 16 20 19, ADOPTION OF ATLAS 14 BIGGER PONDS, BIGGER FLOOD PLAINS, AGAIN AFFECTS THE YIELD DEVELOPMENT
[02:45:01]
POTENTIALS ON PROPERTIES 2022 MORE PARKLAND, UH, 2022, MORE WATERSHED PROTECTION REGULATIONS, 2023, PHASE TWO WATERSHED PROTECTION REGULATIONS.UM, UM, 2020S, THE AS S P RIGHT AWAYS BECAME BIGGER.
AGAIN, IT AFFECTS YIELDS, UH, 2006, A TWO WORD CHANGE TO COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS.
TOOK A FLOOR OFF OF EVERY BUILDING POTENTIAL 2010 HERITAGE TREES.
MY POINT ALL THIS IS, IS THAT ALL THIS TIME WE'VE BEEN WHITTLING AWAY ON DEVELOPABLE LAND AREAS AND NOWHERE HAVE WE BEEN ABLE TO GET YIELD BACK.
THIS IS YOUR ONLY CHANCE, AND I DON'T THINK THIS DOES ENOUGH.
CURRENTLY I'M REACHING OUT TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO'S, UM, ATTEMPTING TO, UM, UH, DIAL INTO THE, UM, TELECONFERENCE.
UM, BUT IF YOU WISH TO PROCEED, AND THEN I CAN LET YOU KNOW WHEN I HAVE THE MEMBER ONLINE.
WAS THAT OUR LAST SPEAKER? CORRECT.
SO WE ARE, UM, THE PROCESS IS WE USE LESS TIME.
UM, WE'RE GONNA GO, UH, ESTABLISH OUR BASE MOTION AND JUST POINT OUT THAT, UH, IN THIS CASE, STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING THIS.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, LET'S, UH, THINK ABOUT THAT WHEN PUTTING TOGETHER OUR BASE.
UM, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND WORK THROUGH THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS AND COMMISSIONER AZAR.
I THINK IT'S GONNA LEAD US THROUGH THOSE.
AND AS WE DID BEFORE, WE'RE GOING TO DECIDE ON THOSE THAT'LL BECOME PART OF THE, UH, THE BASE, UH, AMENDMENTS TO THE BASE THAT, UH, JUST GO ON CONSENT AND THOSE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION.
SO, SAME PROCESS AS LAST TIME.
UM, JUST TO REMIND YOU, THAT WILL ALLOW TWO, UH, COMMISSIONERS TWO MINUTES FOR CLARIFYING QUESTIONS JUST IN THE DECISION MAKING OF WHETHER OR NOT TO PULL IT OFF, CONSENT OR NOT.
SO, UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, DO I HAVE A, UM, KIND OF PROPOSAL FOR A BASE MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
UH, I RECOMMEND THE DRAFT ORDINANCE IS PRESENTED BY STAFF.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO THAT BASE MOTION? NOPE.
NEED A SECOND? YES, WE DO NEED A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT IS OUR BASE MOTION? IT'S, SAY IT ONE MORE TIME.
THE ORDINANCE IS DRAFTED BY STAFF, THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF, AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE THROUGH.
UH, COMMISSIONER, IT'S R IF YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH, UH, WE'LL TAKE EACH, UH, WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT AT A TIME.
I'LL START WALKING THROUGH ALL THE AMENDMENTS, AND OF COURSE, WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT BULLYING THEM.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT WAS IN THE BACKUP.
SO THE NUMBER ONE ITEM HERE IS AN AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER SHAY, WHICH INCLUDES THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO STRIKE OUT, UM, THE LANGUAGE THAT RELATES TO STORIES IN SECTION 25 DASH TWO DASH 7 69 0.04 D.
AND ESSENTIALLY WE'RE SAYING, SO WE WOULD LEAVE THE FEET REQUIREMENT OF HEIGHT IN THERE, BUT WE WOULD REMOVE THE STORIES BECAUSE IT MAKES FOR SOME CONFUSING ISSUES.
AND WE'VE SEEN THIS EARLIER AS WELL.
SO, AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS, UH, YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF, OH, WE HAVE A DOG ON THE SCREEN.
UH, SO COMMISSIONERS, YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF, UH, OR THE WORKING GROUP, UM, UH, RELATED TO THESE WORK GROUP AMENDMENTS.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE WORKING GROUP OR STAFF ON THIS FIRST ONE, I'LL GO AND ASK STAFF.
I'D JUST LIKE YOU TO WEIGH IN ON THIS, UH, AMENDMENT, IF YOU HAVE ANY, UH, COMMENTS ON IT AND IF YOU'RE NEUTRAL, BUT IT'S JUST AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO WEIGH IN.
UH, JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
THIS IS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE ORDINANCES DRAFTED.
SO IT WOULD APPLY JUST TO CORRIDORS.
THAT WOULD, YES, WOULD BE THE SCOPE OF THE AMENDMENT.
UH, I, I, I THINK WE'RE NEUTRAL ON THIS.
NO STRONG OPINIONS EITHER WAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? ALL RIGHT.
I'M NOT SEEING ANY HANDS, SO, UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND KEEP THIS ON CONSENT.
[02:50:01]
SO THAT TAKES US TO AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS A AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.UM, THIS ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT THE FILO FUNDS MUST BE USED WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE PROPERTY AND WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF A CORRIDOR.
AND THE, ESSENTIALLY THE IDEA IS TO HAVE HOUSING IN MORE TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE AREAS.
AND THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP IN OUR WORKING GROUP LISTING SESSIONS WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS AS WELL.
ANY QUESTIONS HERE? I'LL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK.
UH, UM, MS. LEE, CAN YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO, OH, YES.
ERIC LEAK HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UM, WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND AND, UH, AGREE THAT WE WOULD LIKE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE, UM, IF A FEE AND LIE IS, IS INCLUDED, HOWEVER, THE PROXIMITY TO IT, EACH INDIVI INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY CAN BE PROBLEMATIC FOR THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT BECAUSE YOU END UP WITH TINY LITTLE BUCKETS OF MONEY THAT, UM, ARE, ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO INVEST, UH, FIND PROJECTS WHERE, WHERE THEY'RE INTERESTED IN APPLYING FOR FUNDS.
SO I WOULD RECOMMEND, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS PROXIMITY TO THE CORRIDORS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BUT, UM, THE WAY THE, THE WORKING GROUP HAS PROPOSED IT IS, IS SO NARROW THAT IT COULD BE DIFFICULT TO FIND PLACES WHERE THE, THE FUNDING COULD BE INVESTED.
CHAIR, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND PULL THIS ITEM FOR DISCUSSION.
UH, THIS TAKES US TO NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS AN ITEM FROM COMMISSIONER.
SHE, SO THIS LOOKS AT THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS ALONG THE LIGHT RAIL AND LARGE CORRIDORS ONLY.
THE WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATION HERE WAS THAT WE ESSENTIALLY, UM, INSTEAD OF HAVING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN LIGHT RAIL AND LARGE CORRIDORS, WE WOULD GET RID OF THAT DISTINCTION FOR ALL OF THOSE CORRIDORS.
WE WOULD SAY THAT A STRUCTURE CAN REACH ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IF THE STRUCTURE IS LOCATED AT LEAST A HUNDRED FEET FROM A TRIGGERING PROPERTY IF IT IS PARTICIPATING IN AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM.
AND A STRUCTURE CAN REACH ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IF THE STRUCTURE IS LOCATED AT LEAST 200 FEET FROM A TRIGGERING PROPERTY IF IT IS NOT PARTICIPATING IN AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM.
ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS OR JUST NEED, WANT TO PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION? NO QUESTIONS.
ANY, DO WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS ONE OR ARE WE GOOD WITH THE, UH, WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT CHAIR? JUST REMINDED EVERYBODY THAT IF YOU HAVE A SUBSTITUTE THAT'S SIMILAR TO THE ONE BEING PRESENTED, YOU WOULD HAVE TO PULL IT.
SO WE DON'T HAVE, UM, CONFLICTING OR SIMILAR ONES.
UH, SO YES, LET ME REMIND COMMISSIONERS.
UH, IF YOU'VE GOT ANY SIMILAR INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS, UH, THAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT, UH, THAT ARE RELATED TO THIS, WE NEED TO PULL IT BECAUSE, UM, WE'RE NOT GONNA ENTERTAIN SIMILAR TYPE, UM, AMENDMENTS LATER.
SO KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN WE'RE GOING THROUGH THESE.
SO WE'RE GONNA LEAD THIS ONE ON NUMBER THREE STAYS ON.
SO I'M GONNA GO TO NUMBER FOUR, WHICH ESSENTIALLY RELATES TO THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS FOR MEDIUM CORRIDORS.
AND OUR, WE HAVE A THREE TIER PROPOSAL HERE.
ONE IS THAT A STRUCTURE CAN REACH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 65 FEET IF THE STRUCTURE IS LOCATED AT LEAST A HUNDRED FEET FROM A TRIGGERING PROPERTY.
IF IT IS PARTICIPATING IN AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, PROGRAM, A STRUCTURE CAN REACH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 75 FEET IF THE STRUCTURE IS LOCATED AT LEAST 150 FEET FROM A TRIGGERING PROPERTY IF IT IS PARTICIPATING IN AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM.
AND LASTLY, A STRUCTURE CAN REACH THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IF THE STRUCTURE IS LOCATED AT LEAST 200 FEET FROM A TRIGGERING PROPERTY, WHETHER IT IS PARTICIPATING IN AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM OR NOT.
ANY QUESTIONS ON WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR? I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
HOW DID, UM, FOR THE WORKING GROUP, HOW DID WE COME UP WITH 75 FEET, UH, CHAIR? I THINK IT WAS EXPLORING A SORT OF A NATURAL HEIGHT, UM, IN BETWEEN THAT 65 AND, UM, ALLOWABLE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT.
BUT I THINK WE'RE FLEXIBLE TO OTHER THINGS IF THAT IS SOMETHING THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE.
ALL RIGHT, BECAUSE THANK YOU CHAIR.
UM, SO THAT TAKES US TO AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE, WHICH IS ALSO BY COMMISSIONER SHEA.
SO THIS IS TO DEFINE WHAT IS OR IS NOT ALLOWED IN
[02:55:01]
THE 25 FOOT COMPATIBILITY SETBACK.AND THE IDEA HERE IS TO, WE SHOULD ENSURE THAT, UM, THAT REFUSE USES, SUCH AS DUMPSTERS ARE NOT ALLOWED AND THAT BUILDINGS ARE ALSO NOT ALLOWED.
BUT THIS WOULD MEAN COVERED SPACES WHICH A HUMAN CAN INHABIT OR ESSENTIALLY NOT ALLOWED ALL OTHERWISE ALL OTHER USES SHOULD BE ALLOWED.
AND THERE WERE SOME NOTES HERE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
THE ESSENTIAL IDEA BEHIND THIS IS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO CREATE MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR THAT 25 FOOT COMPATIBILITY SETBACK, WHERE WE CAN PUT IN CERTAIN KINDS OF THINGS THAT ARE NEEDED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT WITH THE CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE IDEA IS NOT TO CREATE ANY BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES OR CARPORTS OR THINGS LIKE THAT.
ANYTHING THAT A HUMAN BEING CAN INHABIT, THOSE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
BUT OTHERWISE, OTHER KINDS OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER NEEDS OF A DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ALLOWED.
ANY QUESTIONS OF THE WORK GROUP OR STAFF ON ITEM FIVE? ALL RIGHT.
I DO HAVE, UH, JUST QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, COUNCIL HAD IN THEIR RESOLUTION DISCUSSED, UH, THINGS THAT MIGHT BE ALLOWED, GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, LANDSCAPE BUFFERING GREEN WALLS, SOLID FENCING FOR SOUND ATTENUATION, HIS STAFF, UM, CUZ YOU LEFT IT KIND OF OPEN.
HAVE YOU COME TO ANY KIND OF RECOMMEND, UH, CODE LANGUAGE FOR WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THAT 25 FOOT BUFFER? UH, CHAIR? WE ARE STILL WORKING ON IT.
WE ARE COLLEAGUES IN THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, UM, PRIMARILY, UH, HAVE PURVIEW OVER THAT KIND OF A THING.
CURRENTLY IT'S VERY STRICT WHAT CAN GO INTO A COMPATIBILITY SETBACK.
UM, AND, AND SO THE SHORT OF IT IS THAT WE ARE, WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH THAT.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY DEFINITIVE, UH, ITEMS YET.
SO AS A, AS A WORKING GROUP, WE ACTUALLY TRY TO CREATE A LIST AS IT IS LAID OUT IN THE ORDINANCE TO SAY, THIS IS ALLOWED AND THIS IS ALLOWED.
AND WE VERY SOON RAN INTO A PROBLEM THAT WE WERE LIKE, I DON'T THINK WE'RE COVERING EVERYTHING.
SO WE ACTUALLY TRIED TO TAKE A DIFFERENT TACT THAN WHAT IS, UH, CURRENTLY THE WAY IT IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED TO SAY, LET'S DEFINE WHAT IS NOT ALLOWED AND LET THE OTHER THINGS ALLOWABLE BECAUSE IT, IT JUST SEEMED VERY CHALLENGING CUZ THEN WE WERE LIKE, OH, WELL WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT, UM, THE FUNCTIONAL GREEN REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WE ARE PASSING.
SO IT WAS SORT OF CONFUSING ON HOW DO WE ACCOMMODATE THAT.
THE IDEA WAS TO SHIFT THE FOCUS TO WHAT IS, UH, NOT ALLOWED AS OPPOSED TO WHAT IS ALLOWED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL THIS FOR A DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND LEAVE IT IN THE BASE ON THE CONSENT.
THIS LEADS US TO ITEM NUMBER SIX, WHICH WAS BY COMMISSIONER MARSHAL.
IT LOOKS AS 25 DASH 6 4 71 K THREE.
AND IF A DEVELOPMENT HAS A RESIDENTIAL USE ONLY AND IS LOCATED ON A LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR, THERE SHOULD BE NO MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT EXCEPT FOR MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADA COMPLIANCE.
AND ESSENTIALLY THE IDEA HERE IS TO, UM, ALLOW MORE FLEXIBLE PARKING ON OUR LIGHT RAIL CORRIDORS TO HAVE TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE, UM, MOBILITY AND MODE SHARE POLICIES.
UM, SO COMMISSIONER MOSH TELLER, UH, THIS IS I GUESS ONE OF YOUR AMENDMENTS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS? YEAH, I MEAN, MOST OF THIS IS GONNA BE, HOLD ON.
I JUST, YOUR VOLUME WAS VERY LOW.
UM, IT, IN REALITY, THIS IS GONNA BE TEMPERED BY FUNDING AND WE KNOW THAT, UM, THE BUILDING FUNDING IS GOING TO HAVE ITS OWN REQUIREMENTS OUTSIDE OF ANYTHING THE CITY DOES.
BUT IN THEORY, YES, IT WOULD BE NICE NOT TO HAVE THE CITY HAVE MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING ALONG OUR TRANSIT CORRIDORS WHERE THE IDEAS TO USE THE TRANSIT.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS ON THIS WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT? AND I GUESS JUST TO BUILD ON, UH, WHAT COMMISSIONER MOTO SAID, THE IDEA HERE IS THAT WE REMOVE THE MINIMUM AND THEN LET SORT OF, UH, WHAT THE MARKET IS PROVIDING.
AND WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS THAT ACTUALLY THERE'S, FROM MY KNOWLEDGE, ONLY TWO OR THROUGH PROJECTS CITYWIDE THAT HAVE ACTUALLY TAKEN A FULL PARKING REDUCTION.
SO WE WOULD LIKELY SEE THAT PARKING WOULD BE REQUIRED, PARTICULARLY SINCE IT'S REQUIRED AS PART OF FINANCING FOR A LOT OF LARGER PROJECTS.
SO WE WOULD STILL SEE, UH, PARKING BEING BUILT.
IT WOULD JUST NOT RELY ON CITY MINIMUMS. OKAY.
[03:00:01]
I WOULD, UH, STEPH, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO, IN YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS AMENDMENT? I APOLOGIZE.I LOST MY PLACE AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN.
UM, I KNOW YOU WE'RE LOOKING AT NUMBER SIX.
SO THIS WAS TO REMOVE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FROM LIGHT RAIL CORRIDORS.
UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA BE NEUTRAL ON MOST OF THESE, JUST, UM, ONE BY ONE.
UM, MAYBE WE'D NEED MORE TIME TO CONSIDER THEM AS A PACKAGE.
AND, BUT, UM, SO I THINK WE'LL BE NEUTRAL ON THIS.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, UH, ARE WE GONNA LEAVE THIS ON THE, WITH THE BASE AMENDMENT ON CONSENT, OR DO YOU WANNA PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, UH, LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER SEVEN.
UM, SO NUMBER SEVEN IS FROM COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, AND ESSENTIALLY IT SAYS THAT THE RED LINE METRO RAIL SHOULD BE INCLUDED AS A LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR WHERE IT IS ALREADY BEING TREATED AS A CORRIDOR IN A CONSIDERATION, IS A PART OF THIS ORDINANCE.
SO THE IDEA ESSENTIALLY IS THAT WE WOULD BE TREATING, UM, THE METRO RAIL AS A LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR WITH THE CAVEAT THAT ESSENTIALLY WHEREVER CURRENTLY IT IS BEING APPLIED, AND FOLKS HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED, AND WE WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE THIS CHANGE ONLY THERE WITH THIS GOING TO EFFECT.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? UH, ANY DESIRE TO PULL THIS FOR DISCUSSION? OKAY.
WE'LL LEAVE IT CONSENT ITEMS. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
UM, PLEASE DO ANOTHER ITEM FROM COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, UM, WHICH IS LOOKING AT PARTICULARLY WITH THE EQUAL ACCESS REQUIREMENTS IN E SEVEN C.
AND WE'RE SAYING THAT REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR EQUAL ACCESS TO PARKING FACILITIES UNLESS PARKING AND RENT ARE BUNDLED.
AND I CAN SPEAK TO THIS, THE IDEA IS ESSENTIALLY CURRENTLY IN OUR CODE, AND THIS IS ANOTHER PLACE AS WELL, WE WANT TO HAVE FOLKS WHO ARE INHABITING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR ALL HOUSING IN A PROJECT SHOULD HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO ALL FACILITIES, INCLUDING PARKING FACILITIES.
AND WE WANT TO MAINTAIN THEM, EXCEPT WE DO A CAVEAT TO SAY IF THE RENT AND, UH, PARKING BECOME UNBUNDLED, THAT THIS ALLOWANCE BE MADE IN THAT CASE, ESSENTIALLY TO INCENTIVIZE UNBUNDLING.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, IF YOU WANTED TO ADD SOMETHING TO THAT.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? ANY DESIRE TO PULL THIS ONE FOR DISCUSSION? J CAN I ON, ON CONSENSUS MAKE ONE, ONE MENTION? OKAY.
UM, IF WE CAN STRIKE THE STAFF, AND IF YOU CAN PLEASE NOTE THIS ON EIGHT, IF WE CAN STRIKE THE CODE DECK THAT WE HAD SUGGESTED.
THE CODE DECKS ESSENTIALLY TAKES OUT THE, UH, PARKING EQUAL ACCESS TO PARKING FACILITIES.
AND I THINK WHAT WE DID NOT ACCOUNT FOR WAS A CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD WITH STAFF AT THE TIME WE WERE MAKING THIS AMENDMENT TO ESSENTIALLY SAY THAT IT IS ONLY IN THE TIME OF, UM, ESSENTIALLY WHEN WE ARE UNBUNDLING PARKING AND HOUSING.
SO HOPEFULLY STAFF CAN LOOK AT THE INTENT OF THAT AND CONSIDER THE LANGUAGE THAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE.
SO THIS WORKING WITH AMENDMENT, UH, WHAT I HEARD IS IT'S ONLY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
ANY, UH, ANY CONCERNS? QUESTIONS? OKAY, I, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, I KNOW THIS WAS YOUR AMENDMENT.
I, I JUST REALIZED, REALIZED THAT WE HAD MADE A MISTAKE.
OUR, WE HAD ONE IN INTENT AND WE HADN'T FIXED THE TABLE.
SO THIS ONE, UH, THE CLARIFICATION IS WE'RE NOT INCLUDING THE TEXT CHANGE.
AGAIN, ANY DESIRE TO PULL THIS ONE OR LEAVE IT ON CONSENT? ALL RIGHT.
THIS TAKES US TO NUMBER NINE, WHICH IS ONE BY ME, WHICH ESSENTIALLY CLARIFIES THAT THE 8 0 3 AND THE 8 0 1 METRO RAPID ROUTES, UH, BE CONSIDERED AS A LARGE CORRIDOR, UM, WHICH NOT INCLUDING THE LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR CATEGORY.
AND ESSENTIALLY THIS REFERS TO THE FACT THAT IN THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION IN THE LANGUAGE BECAUSE THEY SAY PROJECT CONNECT ROUTES, BUT THEN THEY MENTION THE 8 0 3 ROUTE, UM, ESSENTIALLY ON SOUTH LAMAR AND BURNETT.
AND IN ORDER TO INCLUDE THAT AND LIVE UP TO COUNCIL'S INTENTION, WE WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT THE 8 0 3 AND 8 0 1 HAVE TO BE TREATED AS A LARGE CORRIDOR.
[03:05:04]
OKAY.UM, ANY DESIRE TO PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION? UH, COMMISSION.
POLITO, YOU WANNA PULL THIS ONE? OKAY, PLEASE.
UM, CHAIR, THAT TAKES ME TO NUMBER 10, WHICH IS ALSO AN AMENDMENT BY ME.
UM, WHICH IS TO SAY THAT EXEMPT CIVIC AND PUBLIC USES EXAMPLE SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, GRAVEYARDS, MILITARY OPERATIONS FROM TRIGGERING COMPATIBILITY REGARDLESS OF BASE ZONING.
THE INTENTION BEHIND THIS IS THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE A NUMBER OF CIVIC USERS THAT OVER THE YEARS ARE, UM, ZONED TO SF CATEGORIES, AND WE SEE THEM, UH, TRIGGERING COMPATIBILITY BECAUSE OF THAT.
GRAVEYARDS ARE A GOOD EXAMPLE.
WE'VE SEEN THAT ON CASES HERE.
WE'VE ALSO SEEN IT WITH CHURCHES.
UM, AND THEN OF COURSE, MILITARY OPERATIONS AS WELL ARE A PART OF THAT.
SO THE INTENTION WOULD BE TO REMOVE THAT.
I WILL SAY THAT I ACTUALLY HAVE A SUBSTITUTE FOR THIS.
SO I'M WOULD LIKE TO PULL THIS ITEM FOR DISCUSSION BECAUSE I THINK THE LANGUAGE OF IT NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP RIGHT, WHICH JAKE ME TO NUMBER 11.
UM, WHICH IS TO ENSURE, AND I, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS A NEED, WHAT IS IN THERE? BUT WE WERE A LITTLE CONFUSED WITH THE LANGUAGE.
SO WE JUST WANTED TO ENSURE THAT PROPERTIES WITH SF SIX ZONING OR USE DO NOT TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY ONTO OTHER STRUCTURES AND DO NOT HAVE COMPATIBILITY TRIGGERED ONTO THEM FROM PROPERTIES ZONE SF FIVE OR MORE RESTRICTIVE.
DO WE NEED, UM, DO YOU NEED ANY INFORMATION FROM THE STAFF AT THIS POINT ON THIS ITEM, OR, I THINK JUST TO CLARIFY, WE, WE THOUGHT WE JUST PUT IT IN IN THERE.
EVEN IF IT'S REDUNDANT, OUR STAFF CAN ESSENTIALLY RESOLVE THAT ON THEIR END.
DOES EVERYBODY KNOW WE'RE DOWN TO, OH, NOW WE GOT EIGHT.
UH, DO YOU WANNA LEAVE THIS ONE ON THE CONSENT OR PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION? OKAY.
THAT WOULD BE ALL THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
SO, UM, FOR THE DISCUSSION ITEMS I HAVE, UH, ITEMS TWO.
DO WE NEED TO PUT ON THE CONSENT ITEMS, GO AND VOTE ON THE CONSENT? I WOULD TRY TO DO THAT
I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GO AHEAD WITH WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
WOULD THAT ONE TEXT CHANGE AND 11.
AS, UH, THE CONSENT ITEMS? YES, THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION TO OKAY.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT CONSENT? I ANDERSON.
SO ARE WE, THIS IS WHERE I GET CONFUSED.
BECAUSE THESE ARE AMENDMENTS TO THE BASE MOTION, SO WE CAN TAKE A VOTE ON THEM.
LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THESE AMENDMENTS TO THE BASE.
DO WE NEED ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? JUST TO, HOLD ON.
UH, LET'S GO AND TAKE THOSE ON THE, UH, DIAS IN FAVOR.
UH, THOSE VIRTUALLY IN FAVOR OF THE BASE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT ITEMS. ALL RIGHT.
UH, THOSE OPPOSED, AND THOSE NEUTRAL ABSTAINING.
SO THAT, UH, PASSES, UH, 8 0 1 WITH COMMISSION POLITO ABSTAINING.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, NOW WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH AND, UH, FOR THE RULES FOR DISCUSSION, WE'RE ALLOWING, UM, THREE COMMISSIONERS, THREE MINUTES TO EACH FOR QUESTION TO THE STAFF FOR OTHER COMMISSIONS.
WE DON'T NEED TO USE THEM, UH, BUT JUST USE THEM TO THE EXTENT, UH, THAT WE NEED TO.
AND THEN, UH, AT THAT POINT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MEET THE MOTION.
UH, SOMETIMES, AS YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T END UP, WE, UH, HEAR FROM COMMISSIONERS AND WE END UP CHANGING JUST A LITTLE BIT FROM THE, WHAT THE WORKING GROUP PROPOSED.
SO THAT'S, UH, WE'LL PROCEED THAT SAME WAY THIS TIME.
SO IF THE MOTION GETS A SECOND, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, UH, PROCEED WITH DEBATE.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, START WITH ITEM TWO.
I HAD REMOVED THIS FOR DISCUSSION, UM, JUST LISTENING TO THE STAFF CONCERN.
AND I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON FOR YOU, WOULD YOU BE AMENABLE TO REMOVING THAT ONE MILE OF THE PROPERTY REQUIREMENT AND KEEPING THE QUARTER MILE OF A CORRIDOR? YES.
[03:10:01]
OKAY.UM, ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS FURTHER, FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ITEM? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND HAVE A MOTION THEN.
THIS WOULD SAY THAT WE CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO, FEE FUNDS MUST BE USED WITHIN A A 0.0 TO 0.25 MILES OF A CORRIDOR.
AND THIS WAS SEC, UH, SECONDED BY, DO WE HAVE A SECOND, UH, COMMISSION? THOMPSONS.
UM, SO, UM, DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION FOR, AGAINST, ALL RIGHT.
UM, AND I'M GONNA GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THESE IF WE CAN.
UH, WE'RE MISSING, WE ARE JUST AT, YEAH, WE HAVE EIGHT.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A, ABOUT THOSE ON THE DIAS IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO ITEM FOUR.
I'M JUST, I'M SORRY, JUST MAKING SURE.
UM, YES, THAT WOULD NUMBER FOUR.
AND, UM, CHAIR, THAT WAS YOU, WHO? YES.
SO I HAD THE QUESTION ABOUT WHY NOT, UM, WHY 75? AND JUST ON THIS ONE, UH, AND I STAFF, UM, DO YOU HAVE OR I HAD, I DON'T, MR. RIVERA, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY INCLUDED MY ONE EXHIBIT, UM, THAT I HAD PROVIDED
WE CAN HAVE THAT UP AND DISPLAYED.
SO, UM, MY IDEA WAS, AND THIS CAME UP IN OTHER DISCUSSIONS WE HAD DURING OTHER LAND CODE, IT'S JUST, I THINK, UM, MIGHT HAVE BEEN COMMISSIONER CONNOR KENNY, UH, KIND OF WHAT'S IN THE LINE OF SIGHT, AND IF YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, IN YOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, KIND OF WHAT YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE.
AND SO SOMETIMES THAT, UH, BUILDING HEIGHT THAT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, IT'S PRETTY MUCH BLOCKING ANYTHING BACK BEHIND IT.
SO THIS WAS, UH, JUST SAYING THAT IT REALLY, I DON'T SEE ANY HARM, UH, IN RAISING THE 75 TO 85.
AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT MY EXHIBIT AND WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE OR NOT, BUT, UH, WE HAD HAD THIS DISCUSSION AT MANY TIMES, CHAIR.
I DO NOT, OF COURSE, SPEAK ON BEHALF OF ALL OF MY FELLOW WORKING GROUP MEMBERS.
I THINK THEY CAN SPEAK TO IT, BUT I THINK THE WORKING GROUP WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT, BECAUSE I THINK OUR INTENTION WAS REALLY JUST TO CREATE A STEP UP.
AND I DON'T THINK, THINK WE WERE VERY WEDDED TO THAT 75 FEET.
WE UNDERSTOOD THAT WE JUST WANTED TO GET A STEP UP.
AND TO YOUR POINT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE AMENABLE TO.
AND I JUST TOOK, UH, SOME OTHER EXHIBITS THAT WERE BEING USED BY COUNSEL.
UM, AND JUST ON THE BOTTOM THERE, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, LINE OF SIGHT, UH, WITH THAT 65, YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, THE 85 IS STILL GONNA BE JUST RIGHT THERE.
SO, I MEAN, IT JUST ALLOWS FOR A LITTLE MORE BUILDABLE AREA WITHIN THAT SPACE.
DO YOU WANT ME TO RESTATE IT AS AN AMENDMENT, OR ARE YOU STATING IT AS AN AMENDMENT? WELL, I JUST WANTED TO SEE, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT CHANGE PROPOSED CHANGE? ALL RIGHT.
UH, YEAH, LET'S GO AHEAD, IF YOU DON'T MIND, GO AHEAD AND I CAN GO AHEAD AND STATE IT.
SO THIS WOULD BE, UM, ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE WORKING GROUP HAD WITH ONE CHANGE THAT WE WOULD REMOVE THAT EIGHT, UH, FROM THAT SEVEN TO EIGHT.
SO THAT ONE PART WOULD NOW READ A STRUCTURE CAN REACH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 85 FEET IF THE STRUCTURE IS LOCATED AT LEAST 150 FEET FROM A TRIGGERING PROPERTY IF IT IS PARTICIPATING IN AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS PROGRAM.
SO IT'LL BE ESSENTIALLY THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT WITH 75 CHANGE TO 85.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON'S SECOND SET.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY, I DO THE MOTION.
AND IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT? YES.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION FOR, FOR AGAINST THIS ITEM? OKAY, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE AS ON THE DIAS IN FAVOR.
UH, THOSE ON THE SCREEN IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
AND THOSE, UH, ON AGAINST ARE ABSTAINING.
THAT MOTION PASSES, THAT AMENDMENT
[03:15:01]
PASSES, UH, WITH COMMISSION POLITO ABSTAINING.UM, I BELIEVE NUMBER NINE IS THE ONE THAT I HAD, UH, NO, THE NUMBER NINE WAS THE ONE THAT, UH, COMMISSION JANS BELIEVED THAT HAD REMOVED.
JAN POLITO, DO YOU HAVE, UH, QUESTIONS OF THE WORKING GROUP STAFF OR, YES, THANK YOU, UH, OF THE WORKING GROUP.
I, I THINK, UM, AND I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT BRIEF.
I JUST WAS CURIOUS, UM, I WAS TRYING TO GET THE SPECIFICS OF THE CHANGE HERE.
SO IS THE, IS THE, SO ON THE 8 0 3, BECAUSE THESE RUN ON MAJOR CORRIDORS AND THEN THEY DO SOME JOGGING.
SO, UM, IS IT A CHANGE FROM MEDIUM TO LARGE ON BURN IT? OR CAN YOU, CAN YOU SPECIFY THE CHANGES ON 8 0 1 AND 8 0 3 SHEETS? SURE.
SO, UM, UH, SO FOR, IT'S A LITTLE TRICKY.
SO LET ME START BY SAYING THAT ON BURNETT AND SOUTH LAMAR, IT WOULD CHANGE FROM MEDIUM TO LARGE CORRIDOR.
FOR THE 8 0 1, IT'S LARGELY ACTUALLY MAPPED ONTO THE LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR.
SO THE LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR WOULD GOVERN OVER THAT, UM, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT IS.
AND COUNCIL'S LANGUAGE, THIS WAS, UM, I HAVE IT IN THE NOTES.
IT SAYS PROJECT CONNECT METRO RAPID ROUTES, I E XPO CENTER, PLEASANT VALLEY BURN TO MIN CHAKA AND OAK HILL.
SO THEY HAD THE BURN TO MIN CHAKA IN IT, BUT I THINK THE CONFUSION WAS, THEY, THEY, THEY ESSENTIALLY INITIATED, THERE WAS A PROJECT CONNECT LINE, BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S JUST AN EXISTING NON-PRO CONNECT, METRO RAPID ROUTE.
BUT SINCE THEY HAD SAID THE BERNETT CHAKA, WE JUST WANTED TO LIVE UP TO THAT INTENTION OF COUNCIL.
I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.
DO WE HAVE MOTION? I'LL GO AHEAD AND, UM, ESSENTIALLY MOVE FORWARD WITH THE, UH, THE AMENDMENT AS STATED IN THE WORKING GROUP, INCLUDE THE 8 0 3 AND 8 0 1 METRO RAPID ROUTES, NOT INCLUDING PARTS THAT ARE UNDER THE LIGHT TRAIL, UH, CORRIDOR CATEGORY AS A LARGE CORRIDOR DOOR.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND, UH, THERE'S NO OPPOSITION.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE THIS TO A VOTE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ITEM.
UH, THOSE ON THE DIAS, UH, THOSE VIRTUALLY, UH, THOSE IN FAVOR.
RIGHT? UH, SO THAT PASSES 8 0 1 WITH COMMISSIONER POLITA ABSTAINING.
UH, REAL QUICK, UM, I MISSED YOUR NOTICE, MR. RIVERA.
WE DO HAVE THE LAST SPEAKER, ARE THEY STILL ON THE LINE CHAIR COMMISSION? YES.
UM, I DO HAVE MS. ANGELA BEN GARZA ON THE TELECONFERENCE.
AND, UM, WE CAN TAKE HER REMARKS NOW.
LET'S TAKE A QUICK BREAK AND TAKE HER LESSON.
IF YOU'LL SELECT LIKE STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
CAN YOU HELLO? CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? YES.
I'M CO-CHAIR WITH THE E M K COMBINED CONTACTEE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO TOOK MY CALL TODAY ON ALL THE COMMISSIONERS I SPOKE WITH TODAY.
AND THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK THAT ALL OF YOU ARE DOING, UM, ON THIS.
IT'S A TON OF WORK, UH, CITY STAFF AND EVERYBODY THANK YOU TO THE CITY STAFF FOR VERIFYING AND CONFIRMING THAT.
UM, WE DID NOT HAVE A WEBSITE UP READY FOR PEOPLE TO BE INFORMED ON TIME ABOUT THESE NOTICES OR UNDERSTANDING THESE NOTICES WHEN THEY ACTUALLY WENT OUT.
UM, THAT'S A LOT OF FEEDBACK WE'VE BEEN GETTING ON THE GROUND.
AND BECAUSE WE ARE A RESPECTED TEAM IN A COMMUNITY, WE DIDN'T REALIZE 200,000 NOTICES WENT OUT.
UM, DEPENDING ON WHAT Y'ALL DECIDE TONIGHT, THE ONLY REASON WE VOTED AGAINST YOU DON'T HAVE A NEUTRAL POSITION SO THAT WE CAN SPEAK ON THIS.
UM, NO ONE'S FIGHTING AGAINST THE FACT THAT WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND THIS, WHAT IT IS, IS THAT A LOT OF OUR FOLKS DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DOING, AND WE WANNA BE PART OF THE PROCESS.
AND SO SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT I SPOKE WITH YOU ABOUT TO GET TO, UM, CONSIDER IS THAT WHATEVER YOU'D DECIDE TONIGHT, THAT Y'ALL CONSIDER SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS LIKE AN OPEN HOUSE FOR A COMMUNITY THAT UNDERSTAND AND, AND ACTUALLY SEE WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT, SO THAT WE CAN RESPECT BOTH OF YOUR VIEWPOINTS, UNDERSTAND THE STAFFS AND YOURS, UM, ALSO TO CONSIDER OR AN ACTUAL SATURDAY MEETING WITH THE MAYOR AND CITY LEADERS.
SO WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS.
BECAUSE IT WAS CONFIRMED ON PUB PUBLIC COMMENT THAT THERE WASN'T, UM, A, A TOOL READY FOR OUR CITIZENS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THE NOTICE.
SO THAT'S, WE WERE NOT AGAINST THIS ENTIRE THING, WE'RE AGAINST THE PROCESS THAT TOOK PLACE THAT PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON WITH 200,000 NOTICES GOING OUT.
BUT AGAIN, WE APPRECIATE ALL YOUR WORK AND
[03:20:01]
ALL THE CALLS THAT Y'ALL TOOK FROM ME TODAY.WE TOOK EVERYTHING, BUT PLEASE CONSIDER THIS, BUT WHATEVER YOU, YOU DO TONIGHT WITH THESE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE SPOKE ABOUT TODAY ON THE PHONE, THANK YOU.
SO THAT CONCLUDES OUR SPEAKERS.
UM, SO WE'RE BACK TO OUR, UM, IS IT, UM, NUMBER 10, 10 JAR THAT I HAD REMOVED, UM, FOR, UM, CONSIDERATION.
SO I HAVE A SUBSTITUTE FOR THIS.
IT IS THE SAME INTENTION, BUT ON SORT OF FURTHER TALKING TO FOLKS, UH, IT SEEMED LIKE THEY NEEDED SOME CLARITY.
SO MY SUBSTITUTE IS ALREADY IN THE AMENDMENTS THAT I SHARED IN MY INDIVIDUAL, BUT I'M GONNA STATE IS HERE, WHICH IS COMPATIBILITY SHOULD ONLY BE TRIGGERED BY A CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL USE IN SF OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONES.
AND THE INTENT IS THE SAME TO SAY THAT CIVIC USES SUCH AS CHURCHES, UM, GRAVEYARDS, MILITARY BASES, SHOULD NOT TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY.
BUT JUST TO CLARIFY, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, UM, IT ESSENTIALLY, IT CANNOT BE A NON-CONFORMING USE IN SF FIVE OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONES.
SO DOES THAT GET JUST QUESTION, DOES THAT GET TO WHAT THAT INCLUDES ALL THESE THAT ARE IN HERE? YES.
WE CAN GET CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF AS WELL.
I KNOW THEY HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK IT OVER, BUT I DON'T KNOW STAFF, IF Y'ALL HAVE A RESPONSE TO THAT.
SORRY FOR PUTTING YOU ON THE SPOT, MR. TETON.
UH, THE QUESTION WAS, CAN, CAN YOU REPEAT IT? IS IT INCLUDING ALL OF WHICH ITEMS? SO ESSENTIALLY THIS IS A NEW LANGUAGE.
YOU CAN TELL US IF THIS CAPTURES THE INTENT.
THE LANGUAGE IS COMPATIBILITY SHOULD ONLY BE TRIGGERED BY A CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL USE IN SF FIVE OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONES.
AND BY SAYING CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL USE, OUR IDEA IS THAT CIVIC USES THAT MIGHT BE NON-CONFORMING TO THE ZONE WOULD NOT TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY.
SO HOPEFULLY THIS LIVES UP TO THE INTENT THAT WE HAVE.
UH, IT, IT COULD, I, I'M NOT TOTALLY SURE THAT NOT INFORMING IT WOULD COVER EVERYTHING.
THERE'S A LIST OF CIVIC USES IN THE COMPATIBILITY SECTION THAT TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY.
UM, AND I, I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE, BUT THEY, SOME OF THEM MAY BE ALLOWED IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT NONCONFORMING COVERS IT.
WHAT I'LL SAY IS HOPEFULLY WE CAN MOVE AHEAD WITH THIS AND STAFF UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE INTENT HERE IS.
THE INTENT IS ESSENTIALLY TO HAVE CIVIC USES ZONED AS AN SFI.
WE MORE STRICT TO ZONING TO NOT TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY.
SO I GUESS I'LL MAKE THAT AS A MOTION.
AGAIN, THIS IS, SUBSTITUTE COMPATIBILITY SHOULD ONLY BE TRIGGERED BY CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL USE IN SF FIVE OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR STAFF WILL, UM, REALIZE WHAT OUR INTENT IS.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND COMMISSIONER, UH, VICE HEMPLE SECOND SET.
UH, ANY DISCUSSION FOR AGAINST THIS ITEM? SCENE? NONE.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE IT TO A VOTE.
THAT'S FOR THOSE ON THE SCREEN.
WE ARE THROUGH OUR WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
NOW WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, DO WE HAVE ANY INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS ARE, BUT SOMEONE ELSE, IF SOMEONE NON-WORKING GROUP HAS IT, I WANT THEM TO GO FOR.
UH, HE IS DEFERRING TO ANY NON-WORKING GROUP MEMBERS TO PROVIDE YOUR INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
UH, WELL, YOU AFTER COMMISSIONER ZAR GUYS WILL GIVE ONE MORE CHANCE.
SO GO AHEAD AND GIVE US YOUR INDIVIDUAL.
UM, THIS IS DUE 25 DASH TWO DASH 7 69 0.04.
UM, AND ESSENTIALLY IT IS THAT WE ENSURE THE PROPERTIES WITH 11 OR LESS UNITS DO NOT TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY ONTO OTHER STRUCTURES AND DO NOT HAVE COMPATIBILITY TRIGGERED ONTO THEM FROM PROPERTY ZONE SF FIVE OR MORE RESTRICTIVE.
SO GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO IT, AND THEN WE MIGHT GET SOME INPUT FROM STAFF.
SO THE IDEA HERE AGAIN, IS I THINK WHAT WE DID WITH THE SS SIX TO SAY THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE TRIGGERING COMPATIBILITY NOR HAVE COMPATIBILITY TRIGGERED ON IT.
THE IDEA IS FOR THE MISSING MIDDLE ZONES WHERE WE HAVE HOUSE SCALE, YOU KNOW, DUPLEXES OR TOWN HOMES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE COMPATIBILITY TRIGGERED ONTO THIS.
WE'VE SEEN THIS COME UP MULTIPLE TIMES ON THIS COMMISSION.
UM, WE, I THINK JUST HAD ONE, I WANNA SAY THE GO VALLEY JOHNSTON TERRACE.
WE HAD A ZONING CASE WHERE THEY HAD COMPATIBILITY TRIGGERED ON THEM, ALTHOUGH THEY
[03:25:01]
WERE DOING TOWN HOMES, AND THEY COULDN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO RESOLVE THAT.SO THIS WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE SAYING ANY OF THOSE PROPERTIES WITH 11 OR LESS UNITS, UM, DO NOT HAVE COMPATIBILITY TRIGGERED ON THEM OR TRIGGERED THEM.
UM, SO I RECALL IN THE, UM, STAFF, THE ORDINANCE SERVICE LANGUAGE TO THAT SPOKE TO NUMBER A UNITS.
UM, HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO, I'M GONNA PULL UP MY, I THINK IT WAS, WAS IT 25 2 7 6 9 0 4 THAT HAD INCLUDED LANGUAGE ON NUMBER UNITS? THAT'S, THAT IS CORRECT.
HOW DOES IT RELATE TO THIS, UM, AMENDMENT? SO IT, IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE IT'S PARTLY A CLARIFICATION OF THAT PART OF THE RESOLUTION OR THE ORG DRAFT ORDINANCE, WHERE THE INTENT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT SMALLER RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS ON CORRIDORS DON'T, THEY DON'T HAVE COMPATIBILITY APPLIED TO THEM AT ALL.
SO IF THEY'RE UNDER 35 FEET OR 12 UNITS, THERE'S NO APPLICATION OF COMPATIBILITY.
THAT WAS, THAT WAS IN THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION, AND THAT'S WHAT'S REFLECTED IN THE, OR ATTEMPTED TO BEING, TO BE REFLECTED IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE.
I THINK I'M HEARING THAT THE, THE AMENDMENT HERE GOES A STEP FARTHER AND CLARIFIES THAT THEY, THEY ALSO SHOULDN'T TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY ON OTHER CORRIDOR PROPERTIES THAT THEY'RE, MIGHT BE CLOSE TO.
UM, THAT, THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING.
SO THEY CANNOT HAVE COMPATIBILITY.
UH, THEY SF PROPERTIES CANNOT, UH, TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY ON THESE WHEN YOU HAVE DEVELOPMENTS 11 OR IS 11 OR MORE.
AND LIKEWISE, THEY CANNOT, UM, THEY CANNOT, UH, THEY CANNOT, UH, COMPATIBILITY, THEY CANNOT FORCE COMPATIBILITY ON OTHER UNITS.
AND I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING FROM MR. DUTTON IS THAT THE FIRST PART OF THAT IS REDUNDANT.
SO THEY DO NOT HAVE, UNDER THE DRAFT THAT STAFF HAS CREATED, DOES NOT HAVE COMPATIBILITY TRIGGERED ONTO A, UM, SITE WITH 11 OR FEWER UNITS.
HOWEVER, MY AMENDMENT ADDS ONE MORE LAYER TO THAT SAY, IT SHOULD ALSO NOT TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY ONTO OTHER STRUCTURES.
SO HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY'S MORE CLEAR ON THAT THAN I WAS.
UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE FURTHER QUESTIONS? I'LL, I'LL JUST MAKE A NOTE.
MR. DUTTON, IF YOU CAN WORK WITH LAW TO CLEAN UP THAT ENTIRE SECTION, THE LANGUAGE IN THAT SECTION IS REALLY CONFUSING.
I THINK WE HAVE A NUMBER REDUNDANT ONES HERE BECAUSE WE JUST COULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT IT WAS.
AND I THINK WE'RE HAVING THAT WITH STAKEHOLDERS AS WELL.
DID WE HAVE A SECOND ON THIS? NO, WE DON'T.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON, UH, I'LL GO AND SECOND THIS, UM, MOTION.
ANY DISCUSSION FOR OR AGAINST? ALL RIGHT.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT.
COMMISSIONER ZA SECONDED BY ME.
AND, UH, UM, THE DI THAT'S EVERYONE AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN IN FAVOR.
OH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, DID YOU SPEAK? I'M SORRY.
WHERE DID THAT VOICE COME FROM?
I THINK YOU WERE GONNA ANNOUNCE THE VOTE.
THE VOTE WE HAVE IS, UM, 8 1 0 WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER POLITO IN A POSITION.
I'M JUST GONNA MOVE THAT WE EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 11 O'CLOCK.
UH, 11 O'CLOCK, THOSE ON THE DICE.
AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN IN FAVOR? OKAY.
UH, THAT'S EVERYONE EXCEPT, UH, VICE HE ABSTAINING.
THAT PASSE, WE'RE GOING TO 11.
UH, DO WE HAVE MORE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS? I HAVE ONE MORE CHAIR.
I'LL BRING THIS UP AND LATE BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER.
UM, ESSENTIALLY WILL BE SAYING THAT, UH, THIS WILL BE 25 DASH TWO DASH SOUND 69.01.
ENSURE THAT THIS ORDINANCE GOVERN GOVERNS OVER NCCD REQUIREMENTS ALONG THE LIGHT RAIL CORRIDORS UNLESS THE CONFLICTING PROVISION IS LESS RESTRICTIVE.
AND I CAN SPEAK TO THAT WHEN READY? YES, PLEASE, STEVE.
SO I THINK THE IDEA IS CURRENTLY OTHER PROVISIONS ACTUALLY WOULD GOVERN OVER THIS COMPATIBILITY, UM, PROVISION.
THIS WAS MENTIONED AT LAST MEETING AS WELL.
I THINK PARTICULARLY ON THE LIGHT RAIL CORRIDORS.
ONE OF THE CONCERNS IS THAT WE HAVE THE NCC D SO LARGE PARTS OF, UM, SUB CONGRESS AND, AND LAMAR OR GULU, SORRY, WOULD STRUGGLE BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE THE NCC D GOVERN OVER THIS.
SO THIS WOULD BE SAYING THAT IN, ACTUALLY, IN THAT SCENARIO, WE WOULD, UM, ALLOW THE COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
[03:30:01]
THAT WE'RE DOING HERE TO GOVERN OVER THOSE REQUIREMENTS UNLESS THAT PROVISION IS LESS RESTRICTIVE.I WOULD CLARIFY THOUGH THAT I THINK THIS WOULD STILL NOT HAVE A VERY LARGE IMPACT, BECAUSE A LOT OF THE LOTS THERE ARE VERY SHALLOW.
SO I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS WOULD WORK.
BUT HOPEFULLY THIS GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO ENSURE THAT OUR LIGHT RAIL CORRIDORS HAVE TRANSIT AND USE CAPACITY.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND ANY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
SO THE MOTION IS ENSURE THAT THIS ORDINANCE GOVERNS OVER NCCD REQUIREMENTS ALONG THE LIGHT RAIL CORRIDORS UNLESS THE CONFLICTING PROVISION IS LESS RESTRICTIVE.
DO WE HAVE SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON? UM, LET'S GONNA TAKE A VOTE THAT IS ON THE DIAS IN FAVOR.
THAT WAS VIRTUALLY IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
THAT'S 8 0 1 WITH COMMISSION ON SPOLETO ATTAINING.
ANY MORE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS? MR. ANDERSON? GOT IT.
YOUR FINGER THERE?
I JUST, I NEED TO CHECK IN WITH THAT REAL QUICK JUST TO SEE IF IT'S, I'M ALLOWED TO, UM, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF FOLKS ASKING TO ADD CORE TRANSIT CORRIDORS AND THE TRANSIT CORRIDORS FROM THE 2016 BOND.
IF WE CAN'T, CAN WE HEAR WHY WE CAN'T? CHAIR COMMISSION LAYS ON? SO YOU HAD TO, UM, YOU'RE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE COURT ORDERS THAT ARE, UH, POSTED IN NOTICE AND PER AS, UM, PUBLISHED ON THE AGENDA.
I THINK GREG MIGHT BE DOING OKAY.
I'M JUST, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD'VE LEFT THOSE OFF, BUT HERE WE ARE.
OKAY, LET'S, REAL QUICK, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS? UH, WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS.
YOU CAN HELP ME WITH THIS ONE.
ESSENTIALLY, WE'LL BE CLARIFYING AND ENSURING THAT THE WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.
BOULEVARD IS CONSIDERED A MEDIUM CORRIDOR BETWEEN NORTH LAMAR AND THE AUSTIN CITY LIMITS.
SO CURRENTLY THE WAY IT IS, SO IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING IN THE LIST.
Y'ALL SAY SAN JACINTO TO THE CITY LIMITS, BUT IN THE MAP IT GOES OUT TO LAMAR.
AND IN THE 2016 BOND CORRIDOR BOND PROGRAM, IT ACTUALLY DOES GO OUT TO LAMAR.
SO IT'S MORE OF A CLARIFYING, ENSURING THAT THAT IS DONE AS OPPOSED TO REQUIRING THAT, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT EITHER ONE OF THOSE IS CORRECT, WHICHEVER ONE IS CORRECT.
THE MAP AND THE TEXT JUST MATCH TO WHICHEVER ONE IS THE CORRECT ONE.
AND I KNOW WE MADE OUR STAFF WORK THROUGH THE SITE AND VERY FAST, SO I CAN SEE WHY IT'S HARD.
IT'S SOMETIMES EASY TO MISS THOSE THINGS.
IT LOOKS LIKE MR. ANTHONY, YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING? PLEASE GO AHEAD.
YEAH, THAT, UH, WE'LL, WE'LL LOOK AT THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT MATCH BASICALLY THE MAP IN THE TEXT.
CAN I, CAN I MAKE A SORT OF A SUBSTITUTE THERE THAT IT'S THE, THE WIDEST READING THAT WE CAN, THAT WAS PROPERLY NOTICED? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT, IT DOES.
UM, I MEAN, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT, UH,
YEAH, I, I KNOW, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT IT.
SO IF WE CAN PUT THAT IN TWO WORDS THAT ARE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD THAT ENCOMPASSES YOUR IDEAS.
SO I'M GONNA SAY CLARIFY AND ENSURE THAT WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BOULEVARD IS CONSIDERED A MEDIUM CORRIDOR BETWEEN LAWRENCE LAMAR BOULEVARD AND AUSTIN CITY LIMITS BOTH IN THE MAP AND THE CORRIDOR LIST INCLUDE THE WIDEST READING OF COUNCIL GUIDANCE THAT WE WERE NOTICED FOR.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? ALL RIGHT.
I'M NOT, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, I'M WATCHING, UH, COMMISSIONER AL.
I DON'T KNOW IF SHE'S SPEAKING TO US, OR, UH, SO THAT WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
[03:35:01]
THOMPSON.AND, UH, ANY, UH, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ITEM.
UH, THOSE ON THE DIAS, UM, IN FAVOR, THOSE ON THE SCREEN AND IN FAVOR, THAT'S UNANIMOUS EXCEPT FOR, UH, ABSTENTION BY COMMISSIONER POLITO 8 0 1.
DOES THAT CONCLUDE? SO ALL, WE HAVE ALREADY PASSED THE, UM, CONSENT RIGHT WITH THE ITEMS. SO WE HAVE PASSED ALL THE AMENDMENTS.
SO ARE WE GOOD? WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON THE BASE MOTION CHAIR.
WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE BASE MOTION AS AMENDED.
SO WE'RE GONNA, ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THE FINAL, UH, VOTE ON THE BASE MOTION IS AMENDED? ANYBODY WANNA SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST? OKAY, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD LOUD TIME FOR FOLKS TO SPEAK.
UM, COMMISSIONER MUTO AND THEN COMMISSIONER POLITO.
AND THEN MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ARE GONNA KILL ME, AND I'M SORRY.
UM, I LIKE THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN PUT INTO THIS, AND CLEARLY, CLEARLY WE NEED SOME CHANGES TO ALLOW APPROPRIATE INFILL AND DENSITY.
I AM CONCERNED A BIT ABOUT THE PROCESS ON HOW THIS ALL UNFOLDED.
AND GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF WORK WE'VE HAD TO PUT IN ON AMENDMENTS IN THE DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD, I'M CONCERNED, CONCERNED THAT THIS ISN'T MAYBE GOING FAR ENOUGH AND ISN'T, UM, IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO ACTUALLY PUT INTO EFFECT AND HAVE MEANING.
UM, SO I'M, I'M LEANING MORE TOWARDS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS THAT THIS NEEDS MORE WORK.
COMMISSION POLITO? UH, YEAH, I'LL, I'LL BE BRIEF.
I ALSO, UH, WANT TO ECHO THE THANKS TO THE, TO THOSE WHO MADE AMENDMENTS TO, TO WORK ON, UM, TRYING TO MAKE SOMETHING THAT'S INCREDIBLY BROAD AND SWEEPING INTO SOMETHING, UH, MORE INTENTIONAL AND PRECISE.
I AGREE WITH, I, I, I DON'T REALLY LIKE ABSTAINING
UM, IT'S BECAUSE I THINK SOME OF THESE HAVE EXCELLENT POTENTIAL FOR APPLICATION, BUT I'M CONCERNED THAT WE'RE GONNA MISS SOMETHING BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A CLOSE ENOUGH LOOK FROM A COMMUNITY PLANNING PERSPECTIVE.
AND I'M STILL REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT NOTIFICATION, SO I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST.
ANY OTHER SPEAKERS FOR OR AGAINST? JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THOSE THAT WANNA SPEAK, GET ON THE RECORD.
I'M, I'M JUST GONNA, I, YOU KNOW, I THINK MULTIPLE THINGS.
I'M GONNA TRY TO KEEP THEM SHORT CUZ I DO HAVE A TIME LIMIT.
I THINK THE MAIN THING TO SAY, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS ITEM, I THINK THESE ARE CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE.
UM, AND I THINK THE WORD LEAST MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
I DO AGREE WITH, WE'VE HEARD THIS VERY HONESTLY, LOUD AND CLEAR AND FROM OUR STAFF, BUT WE ALSO HEARD IT IN OUR LISTING SESSIONS.
STAKEHOLDERS WANT US TO LOOK AND TACKLE THIS CITYWIDE AND CONSIDER THE IMPLICATION OF THIS IN DIFFERENT AREAS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THIS ITEM WAS, UM, THE GUIDANCE THAT COUNCIL HAD GIVEN US AND THE WAY IT WAS NOTIFIED, WE ARE LIMITED IN WHAT WE CAN DO.
BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT EVEN AS I SUPPORT THIS, I COMPLETELY HOPE THAT OUR COUNCIL CAN CONTINUE WORKING ON THIS ITEM IN THE FUTURE, LOOKING AT COMPATIBILITY CITYWIDE AND SEEING SOME OF THE IMPACTS BEYOND THE CORRIDORS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED.
THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE, I THINK, REALLY MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE EQUITABLE IN THE WAY THE DISTRIBUTION WORKS IN DIFFERENT, UM, UM, CORRIDORS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE, OF THE CITY, BUT ALSO IN DIFFERENT DISTRICTS.
I, I THINK THAT'S, AGAIN, WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
THIS IS NOT THE END OF THE WORK BY ANY MEANS.
AND I WOULD SAY WHAT COMMISSION AL SAID IS CORRECT.
THERE'S A LOT MORE THAT'S LEFT TO BE DONE.
WE NEED TO GO BEYOND WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
BUT AGAIN, I SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE I THINK THIS SETS US OFF ON THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND HELPS US, UH, BUILD ON THIS HOPEFULLY IN THE FUTURE AND DO THE WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER, JUST WANT TO SPEAK FAR AGAINST, OKAY.
WE JUST HEAR ENDLESSLY ABOUT HOW MUCH HOUSING COMPATIBILITY COSTS US.
LIKE, THERE'S NO SINGLE OTHER RULE ON OUR BOOKS THAT COST US MORE HOUSING THAN COMPATIBILITY.
AND IT'S SAD THAT OUR HANDS ARE TIGHT AS MUCH AS THEY ARE.
WE'RE GONNA GO FROM WHAT FEELS LIKE WHAT LOOKS TO BE THE, THE MOST RESTRICTIVE COMPATIBILITY, LIKE STANDARDS IN THE COUNTRY TO THE MOST RESTRICTIVE COMPATIBILITY LIKE STANDARDS IN THE COUNTRY.
SO INSTEAD OF DROWNING IN 10 FEET OF WATER, WE'RE GONNA DROWN IN ABOUT NINE AND A HALF FEET OF WATER.
I GUESS IT JUST DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT.
THAT BEING SAID, I WILL SUPPORT THIS.
[03:40:01]
IT IS GOOD TO NOTE THOUGH, THAT AT THE TOP 27 CLIMATE SUMMIT IN EGYPT, THE HEAD OF THE UN DECLARED A LACK OF PROGRESS.HAS THE WORLD SPEEDING DOWN A HIGHWAY TO HELL? AND WE MUST LEGALIZE RESPONSIBLE LAND USE TO PLAY OUR LITTLE ROLE.
AND TO HAVE LIFESTYLES LIKE THAT, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE BUILDINGS THAT ALLOW AND MAKE THAT LIFESTYLE CONDUCIVE.
WE ARE SPRAWLING LIKE CRAZY AS A BIG RESULT OF JUST NOT ALLOWING THE TYPES OF BUILDINGS THAT PEOPLE WANNA LIVE IN ALONG TRANSIT LINES.
AND COMPATIBILITY IS ONE OF THE LARGEST CULPRITS OF THAT.
SO HOPEFULLY WE GET TO ADDRESS IT MORE BROADLY VERY SOON.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WANNA SPEAK FOR AGAINST, UH, I'LL JUST, UH, MAKE A FEW COMMENTS.
SO I, UH, HAVE BEEN THROUGH A LOT OF THE PROCESSES TO, YOU KNOW, MODIFY THE LAND CODE AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF VERSIONS OF COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS.
UM, I LIKE THE RESEARCH THAT STAFF DID LOOKING AT OTHER CITIES, UH, THAT DID LEAVE AN IMPRESSION ON ME.
AND, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S POINT, I MEAN, WE, WE WERE JUST KIND OF MAKING A ONE STEP TOWARD, UM, KIND OF GETTING TO WHERE OTHER CITIES ARE AND JUST KNOWING THAT WE HAVE AFFORDABILITY ISSUES HERE THAT ARE IMMENSE.
AND THIS IS JUST, I KNOW IT DOESN'T GO QUITE FAR ENOUGH FOR STAFF'S COMMENT.
THEY WOULD LIKE US TO GO FURTHER, BUT ALSO COUNCIL PUT THIS FORTH, THEY WANTED TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE CURRENT COUNCIL, AND I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT THEM WITH A YES WITH OUR AMENDMENT SO THEY HAVE SOMETHING THAT KIND OF PUSHES FORWARD ALL THE HARD WORK THAT OUR WORKING GROUP DID.
AND LEAVE IT WITH COUNSEL TO KIND OF LOOK AT THOSE AMENDMENTS.
UH, THEY HAVE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, PLEASE, UH, SPEAK BEFORE COUNSEL, UH, WHEN THIS COMES UP ON THEIR AGENDA.
BUT WITH ALL, I WANT THEM TO HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION AND KIND OF KNOW, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE STOOD ON THOSE AMENDMENTS.
SO FOR THAT REASON, I'M GONNA VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION AND LEAVE IT TO COUNSEL TO KIND OF COME UP, MAKE THE FINAL DECISION AND, UM, WE'LL SEE WHAT THEY DECIDE.
SO WITH THAT, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WANNA SPEAK FOR AGAINST BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS ITEM? UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD? YEAH, I WAS DEBATING ABOUT SPEAKING AS WELL BECAUSE I, I DO AGREE WITH ALL OF WHAT WAS SAID AND I DO BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO GO GO FURTHER.
SO PART OF ME WANTS IT
BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF SENDING SOMETHING TO COUNCIL TO SORT OF CODIFY OUR THOUGHTS AND, AND OUR, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND IF THIS DOES THAT, THEN I'M GONNA, I, I'D BE WILLING TO SUPPORT WHAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE, YOU KNOW, TONIGHT, UM, VIA THE WORKING GROUP AND THE BALANCE OF THE, THE COMMISSION.
SO FOR THAT REASON, I, I SUPPORT IT.
BUT I DO AGREE WITH ALL OF WHAT WAS SAID BY THE CITIZENRY AND ALL THAT'S BEEN SAID ABOUT THE IDEA THAT WE NEED TO EXPAND THIS PROCESS AND, AND MAKE IT BETTER.
CUZ THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY, A GREAT OPPORTUNITY THAT I THINK IS BEING MISSED JUST BY THE APPROACH THAT'S BEEN USED, THE NOTIFICATION AND THE LIKE.
SO, UM, I'LL, I'LL SUPPORT IT FOR THAT REASON, JUST WITH THE HOPE THAT IT'LL AT LEAST GET THINGS STARTED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF NOTHING ELSE.
UM, ANY OTHERS BEFORE WE GO ON TICKETS TO A VOTE? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE BASE MOTION IS AMENDED, UH, ON THE DIAS AND THOSE VIRTUALLY IN FAVOR.
UH, SO THAT MOTION PASSES SEVEN TO TWO WITH COMMISSIONERS MUSH TO, AND COMMISSIONER POLITO, UH, VOTING OPPOSITION.
SO WITH THAT, UH, COMMISSION, I MEAN, COMMISSIONER ZAR, JERRY, CAN I MAKE A DINING COMMENT? I, I KNOW THAT OUR, THE WAY NOTIFICATION IS ALONE ONE THING, BUT HOW PEOPLE REGISTER FOR AND SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, I KNOW THAT'S SOMEWHAT OUT OF OUR PURVIEW.
UM, I THINK OUR STAFF HAS HEARD SOME CONCERNS.
I HOPE THAT THERE'S A WAY FOR US TO RESOLVE SOME OF THOSE ISSUES.
I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL, HELPFUL, AT LEAST FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO HAVE A SIMILAR SIGNUP PROCESS TO WHAT COUNCIL HAS.
UM, AGAIN, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S WITHIN OUR PURVIEW, BUT WE HOPE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, I'M GONNA, IN THE INTEREST OF JUST RE-LOOK AT OUR, WHAT WE HAVE REMAINING, WHICH WE HAVE THE, UH, P DISTRICT ITEM AND WE HAVE THE ETO, SO WE HAVE A JUST GONNA PUT IT OUT THERE ON ETO.
[03:45:01]
REQUIREMENT, UH, FOR US TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS.THAT WILL, THAT REQUIREMENT WILL COME ABOUT WHEN WE ACTUALLY HAVE CODE CHANGES, UH, THAT COME BACK THROUGH AND THERE'S PROBABLY GONNA BE MORE THAN ONE.
UH, SO DO WE STILL HAVE AN INTEREST TO LEAVE THAT ON THE AGENDA, UH, STAFF PRESENTATION IN, UH, THIS EVENING? OR DO WE WANT TO POSTPONE THIS? UH, DEFINITELY POSTPONE THIS ITEM.
I'M HAPPY TO WITHDRAW MY REQUEST AS I WAS THE ONLY ONE.
AND I KNOW WE STILL HAVE ANOTHER BIG ITEM FOR THE ACCOUNT, UH, FOR THE COMMISSION.
WE ALSO HAVE SEVERAL SPEAKERS THAT THEY'RE STILL WITH US ON THE NEXT ITEM.
DO I SEE? GO AHEAD COMMISSIONERS, ZAR.
CAN I JUST CONFIRM WITH STAFF THAT, THAT THAT SHOULD BE OKAY.
AND OUR STAFF TEAM THAT WORKED ON THIS PLAN IS HERE.
CAN I TAKE A MOMENT OF PRIVILEGE AND MAKE A COMMENT? SURE.
UM, SO I JUST WANNA SAY, YOU KNOW, IN MY SORT OF ROLE AS THE PROJECT CONNECT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIR, WE'VE SEEN THIS WORK AND I JUST REALLY WANNA THANK OUR STAFF FOR THE WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE ON THIS E DOT POLICY PLAN.
I KNOW FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVEN'T HEARD BEFORE, BUT I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A VERY INVOLVED PROCESS OVER HALF A YEAR.
AND I, WHAT I REALLY WANNA THANK IS THE COMMUNITY CONNECTORS WHO WORKED ON THIS PLAN WITH OUR STAFF AND OUR COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS, ALL VOLUNTARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO REALLY GOT INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS.
AND I THINK THE PLAN THAT THEY'VE CREATED IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ALL BE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT.
I THINK IT REALLY WEIGHS THE EFFORT OF TRYING TO HAVE, UH, TRANSIT INDUCING CAPACITY, BUT ALSO AT THE SAME TIME REALLY ENSURING THAT WE PROTECT AND NURTURE OUR COMMUNITY.
SO I JUST GONNA NOW BE MORE THANKFUL AND EXCITED, UH, FOR THE WORK THAT OUR STAFF AND OUR COMMUNITY HAS DONE ON THIS.
SO LET ME, UM, MR. AVE, YOU CAN HELP ME OUT HERE.
SO WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT THIS ON CONSENT, CORRECT.
CHAIR AT THIS MOMENT, IF YOU JUST WANT TO MOVE INDEFINITELY POST ICE.
THERE'S A MOTION DEFINITELY POSTPONED.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? UH, BY CHAIR HEMPLE.
UH, IF THERE'S NO, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO INDEFINITELY POST FINDING THIS ITEM? HEARING NONE THAT, UH, MOTION PASSES.
LET'S GO AND, UH, GO TO OUR NEXT ITEM.
[20. Imagine Austin CPA-2022-0001 - Palm District Plan]
IS NUMBER 20, IMAGINE AUSTIN AMENDMENT, UH, CPA 20 22 0 0 1 PALM DISTRICT PLAN.AND WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM STAFF STEVIE GREATHOUSE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, I'VE GOT A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON THE PALM DISTRICT PLAN, AND THEN I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
UM, AFTER WE HEAR FROM COMMENTERS, IF WE STILL HAVE COMMENTERS ON THE LINE, I'M EXCITED TO BE HERE TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE PALM DISTRICT PLAN.
WE ARE ASKING THIS EVENING FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE PLAN AS AN ATTACHMENT TO IMAGINE AUSTIN COUNSEL IS SCHEDULED TO HOLD A HEARING ON DECEMBER 1ST.
DURING THE PRESENTATION, I'M GONNA PROVIDE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE DRAFT PLAN.
AND NEXT, THE STUDY AREA FOR THIS PLANNING PROCESS ROUGHLY EXTENDS FROM 15TH STREET TO THE NORTH TO LADYBIRD LAKE TO THE SOUTH, AND FROM TRINITY STREET TO IH 35.
THIS AREA OF DOWNTOWN IS GROUND ZERO FOR A NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INVESTMENTS ANTICIPATED OVER THE YEARS AHEAD.
THE IMPETUS FOR THIS PLANNING PROCESS REALLY CAME OUT OF A DESIRE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ALL OF THE TRANSFORMATIVE ENERGY COMING TO THE DISTRICT AND ENSURE THAT THE CULTURAL AND HISTORIC IDENTITY OF THE DISTRICT IS AMPLIFIED RATHER THAN OBLITERATED BY THE CHANGES AHEAD.
IN ADDITION TO INITIATING A PLANNING PROCESS, THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL IN 2019 PROVIDED DIRECTION ON SEVERAL ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT ARE MOVING FORWARD INDEPENDENTLY.
WE CONDUCTED PRE-PLANNING ACTIVITIES IN 2019.
IN 2020, LAUNCHED A WEBSITE FOR THE PLANNING PROCESS AT THE BEGINNING OF 2021, AND HAVE HELD THREE MAJOR ROUNDS OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, CULMINATING AND RELEASE OF A PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT PLAN IN OCTOBER.
CITY COUNCIL IS SCHEDULED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLAN ON DECEMBER 1ST.
THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS, WE HAVE APPROACHED THIS WORK THROUGH AN EQUITY LENS, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO BE GUIDED BY KEY EQUITY GOALS AS WE MOVE THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION.
THROUGHOUT 2021 AND 2022, WE CONDUCTED A NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.
WE ALSO PARTNERED WITH THE NATIONAL AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS TO CONDUCT A VIRTUAL DESIGN WORKSHOP AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS.
IN JULY OF 2021, WE HIRED LOCAL CONSULTANT, MARTHA TO CONDUCT TARGETED OUTREACH TO EAST AUSTIN THOUGHT LEADERS THROUGH INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUPS.
[03:50:01]
DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE, WHO HIRED ASAKURA ROBINSON TO SUPPORT A SERIES OF SCENARIO PLANNING WORKSHOPS OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS IN SUPPORTED DEVELOPMENT OF A PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO.AS A RESULT OF THESE ACTIVITIES, WE HAVE RECEIVED RICH INPUT FROM A WIDE RANGE OF STAKEHOLDERS THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.
NEXT SLIDE, AND I'LL SKIP THROUGH THE NEXT SEVERAL SLIDES.
UM, THIS PLAN INCLUDES A VISION AND DESIRED OUTCOMES FOR THE DISTRICT, AND IDENTIFIES A PREFERRED SCENARIO FOR DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT.
THE OVERARCHING VISION FOR THE DISTRICT IS THAT IT BECOME A VIBRANT, HISTORIC HUB OF DOWNTOWN, WHERE THE PAST IS HONORED, CULTURE IS CELEBRATED, AND THE FUTURE IS SHAPED NEXT, THE FIRST ELEMENT OF THE VISION LOOKS AT ENSURING INCLUSIVE GROWTH THAT WILL PROVIDE A PROSPEROUS FUTURE FOR LONG TIME IN RECENT RESIDENTS AND ESTABLISHED AND NEW BUSINESSES.
NEXT, THE SECOND ELEMENT OF THE VISION INCLUDES ENSURING THAT THE DISTRICT BECOMES A CULTURAL DESTINATION THAT CELEBRATES ITS MUL MULTICULTURAL HERITAGE.
NEXT, THE THIRD ELEMENT OF THE VISION CALLS FOR STRENGTHENING THE PHYSICAL, CULTURAL, AND SOCIAL CONNECTIONS WITHIN DOWNTOWN AND BETWEEN EAST AUSTIN AND DOWNTOWN.
NEXT, THE FOURTH ELEMENT CALLS FOR PRESERVING AND ENHANCING THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT BY RESTORING EXISTING NATURAL AND OPEN SPACES AND PURSUING HIGH STANDARDS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT WITH A FOCUS ON GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE.
NEXT, THE DRAFT VISION FRAMEWORK INCLUDED IN THE PLAN ALSO INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 50 DESIRED OUTCOMES ACROSS THE FOUR THEMES.
NEXT, IN SUMMER OF 2022, WE PARTNERED WITH THE DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE WHO RETAINED URA ROBINSON TO SUPPORT A SCENARIO PLANNING ACTIVITY THAT LED TO DEVELOPMENT OF THREE WHAT IF SCENARIOS FOR DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE CONCEPTS OF LIVE, WORK AND PLAY.
NEXT, THE PREFERRED SCENARIO THAT'S PRESENTED IN THE PLAN BUILDS ON THE LIVE, WORK AND PLAY SCENARIOS, AND IS GUIDED BY THE RESULTS OF A FEEDBACK SURVEY.
NEXT, AND THE PREFERRED SCENARIO ENVISIONS THE PALM DISTRICT IS A THRIVING 24 HOUR A DAY COMMUNITY AND PRIORITIZES MIXED USE BUILDINGS WITH GROUND FLOOR SPACES FOR RETAIL, ENTERTAINMENT, RECREATION, CULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND SERVICES, WHILE CONTINUING TO SUPPORT EXISTING LIVE MUSIC AND CULTURAL SPACES IN BUILDING ALONG THE SPINE OF THE WATERLOO GREENWAY.
NEXT AND NEXT, THE IMPLEMENTATION SECTION OF THE PLAN PRESENTS SPECIFIC ACTIONS THAT CAN BE TAKEN TO MOVE TOWARDS THE PREFERRED SCENARIO AND THE VISION AND DESIRED OUTCOMES PRESENTED IN THE PLAN.
NEXT, THE IMPLEMENTATION SECTION ALSO TEES UP A CONVERSATION ABOUT GOVERNANCE.
AT A MINIMUM, THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILL MONITOR IMPLEMENTATION AS WE DO WITH OTHER ADOPTED SMALL AREA PLANS.
MANY OF THE FOLKS WHO PROVIDED INPUT DURING THE PLANNING PROCESS EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO IDENTIFY AN IMPLEMENTATION GOVERNANCE BODY WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION OF IMPLEMENTATION.
MORE BROADLY, THERE ARE ALREADY MULTIPLE KEY GOVERNANCE ENTITIES IN THE DISTRICT.
SO WE WILL BE WORKING WITH OUR PARTNERS TO IDENTIFY AN APPROPRIATE GOVERNANCE BODY THAT BUILDS ON THIS ECOSYSTEM.
NEXT, THE PLAN ALSO IDENTIFIES SEVERAL MAJOR INITIATIVES AND PARTNERSHIPS THAT SHOULD BE LEVERAGED OVER THE COMING YEARS TO MOVE THE PLAN FORWARD, AND CALLS FOR US TO WORK TO ACCOMMODATE HOUSING IN A RANGE OF INCOMES IN THE DISTRICT THROUGH INCENTIVES AND INVESTMENTS.
NEXT AND NEXT, UM, YOU CAN FIND THE PLAN IN ADDITION TO YOUR BACKUP, UM, IN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION INCLUDING A VIDEO@SPEAKUPAUSTIN.ORG SLASH PALM DISTRICT.
WE WILL BE HEADED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A HEARING AND POSSIBLE CONSIDERATION SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 1ST.
SEVERAL KEY IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES ARE RECOMMENDED IN 2023, INCLUDING A FOCUSED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATED TO SETBACKS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ADJACENT TO WALLER CREEK AND A FOCUSED AMENDMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN PLAN, AS WELL AS IDENTIFICATION OF A GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE.
UM, WE'LL BE PRESENTING TO COUNCIL COMPANION RESOLUTION THAT WILL TEE UP INITIATION OF THESE IMPLEMENTATION ITEMS, AND THEN WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE COMING BACK TO THIS BODY, UM, WITH THE RESULTS OF THOSE, THOSE ACTIONS.
AND TONIGHT WE'RE ASKING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TAKE ACTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PALM DISTRICT PLAN BE ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL AS AN ATTACHMENT TO IMAGINE AUSTIN.
UM, AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS CHAIR, COMMISSION LAY ON.
SO, UM, WE HAD MR. DO BUNCH, UH, PRESENT TO SPEAK, HOWEVER HE'S NOT, UH, PRESENT.
SO, UH, YOU CAN MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN, UH, MOVE TO DELIBERATION WITH A CONSIDERATION OF FIVE AT THREE.
UH, COMMISSIONER ZAR, MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
YOU HAVE A SECOND, UH, COMMISSION.
UH, COMMISSIONER MS. CHILD, LET'S GO
[03:55:01]
AHEAD AND VOTE IT.UM, QUESTIONS AND COMMISSIONERS.
I KNOW IT'S REALLY WEIRD FOR ME TO WANNA GO FIRST LIKE THIS.
WHY DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT MAP? COULD YOU COME EXPLAIN THE CARVE OUT ON, UH, BETWEEN 10TH AND 11TH FOR ME, AND THEN ALSO AGAIN AT SEVENTH, GOING TO DOWN LIKE, WHAT IS THAT SIXTH IN BETWEEN FIFTH AND SIXTH, LIKE HALFWAY THROUGH RIGHT.
THE MIDDLE OF THE BUILDINGS, BECAUSE I'M GONNA HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THIS IS GONNA AFFECT THE RED RIVER CULTURAL DISTRICT SPECIFICALLY.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PREFERRED SCENARIO MAP, WHICH IS ON SLIDE 24.
FOLKS WANT TO BRING THAT SLIDE BACK UP? SORRY.
YEAH, THESE ARE MY STOMPING GROUNDS.
SO CARVE OUT ON FIFTH AND SIXTH.
OH, WHY THE, ESSENTIALLY WHY THE STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES KIND OF JIG J AND JAG.
UM, SO REALLY THE STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES, WHEN WE CRAFTED THEM IN PARTNERSHIP WITH COMMUNITY AND COUNCIL AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS, PART OF THE SORT OF JIG FAR TO THE WEST WAS AT THAT POINT WE WERE LOOKING AT A POTENTIAL CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION WESTWARD, WHICH IS WHY IT KIND OF JO, WHY IT JOGS TOWARDS THE WEST AND THE CARVE OUT, UM, REALLY TO THE EAST.
WE HUED AROUND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE RED RIVER CULTURAL DISTRICT.
SO THAT BOUNDARY ACTUALLY FOLLOWED THE RED RIVER CULTURAL DISTRICT IS KIND OF AN UPSIDE DOWN L UM, IN THE STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES ACTUALLY FOLLOW RED RIVER.
WHAT IS THAT? THAT'S, UH, IT'S NOT SHERIFFS THAT'S, UH, IS THAT MOHAWK? NO, NO TEACHERS.
SO THERE'S TEACHERS RETIREMENT CENTER IN THERE, BUT THAT REALLY, THAT THE WAY THAT THE MAP BOUNDARY IS DRAWN IN THE NORTHERN PORTION IS, IS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO FOLLOW THE EXISTING BOUNDARIES OF THE DESIGNATED RIVER CULTURAL DISTRICT WITHOUT PULLING IN A WHOLE BUNCH OF SIXTH STREET BECAUSE WE KNEW WE WEREN'T GONNA BE HAVING AN IN DEPTH CONVERSATION ABOUT SIXTH.
AND THIS WOULDN'T HAVE ANY KIND OF ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE BUD RIVER CULTURAL DISTRICT TO NOT LIKE BOUNDARY WISE, JUST OVERALL.
SO THE PLAN, I MEAN, WE ENGAGED THE CULTURAL DISTRICT IN THE PLANNING PROCESS AND DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE HAS BEEN HEAVILY ENGAGED IN THE PLANNING PROCESS.
AND THERE'S BEEN QUITE A BIT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW TO SORT OF PRESERVE CULTURAL USES AND HOW TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PLAN HAS RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE SUPPORTING THE CULTURAL DISTRICT.
RI OUR CULTURAL DISTRICT OR MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION.
SORRY, WHAT WAS IT? THE RED RIVER CULTURAL DISTRICT OR MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION? I'M JUST THE RED RIVER CULTURAL DISTRICT.
FORMALLY UNDER CODY COWAN AND NOW UNDER NICOLE PADDLOW WHO'VE BOTH BEEN HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING PROCESS.
HOWARD, I THINK YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.
SO WE, I WAS ABLE TO SEE THIS, UH, IN THE SMALL AREA PLANS, UH, UH, JOINT COMMITTEE.
SO WE TALKED ABOUT SOME THINGS THERE ABOUT, LIKE A POSSIBILITY ABOUT, I MEAN, NOT SO MUCH IN TERMS OF BEING LOU GOING AWAY, BUT MAYBE CREATIVE USES OF FI AND LU, THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND JUST ABOUT, I THINK I EVEN MENTIONED THE WORD LIKE PLACEMAKING BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEING A VERY SPECIAL AREA, UM, AS IT RELATES TO CULTURAL HERITAGE.
BUT I, I WAS THINKING THAT MAYBE YOU'D GO A LITTLE FARTHER IN THAT DIRECTION, OR AT LEAST MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW IF I HEAR ANYTHING ANY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I'D HEARD BEFORE OR MAYBE I THOUGHT WE WOULD SOME THAT YOU WOULD SPEAK TO MORE OF THAT, THOSE THINGS ABOUT HOW WE ENSURE THAT THERE'S THE CULTURAL, CULTURAL HERITAGE IS PRESERVED, OR AT LEAST THERE IS THOSE THINGS THAT DISTINGUISH IT MORE SO THAN OTHER DISTRICTS OF THIS TYPE OR AT LEAST MAKE IT SOMETHING SPECIAL.
BUT THEN ALSO, AGAIN, THE ISSUE ABOUT THE FEE AND LIE THE, OR THE ABILITY TO TRY TO GET MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE AREA AS OPPOSED TO PEOPLE OPTING OUT OF IT.
AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT HOME OWNERSHIP CUZ WE UNDERSTAND WHY, AS YOU SUGGESTED HOME OWNERSHIP CERTAINLY SOMETIMES, UH, MAYBE AFFORDABLE IN TERMS OF THE UNIT, BUT THEN THE HOA FEES AND THESE OTHER THINGS THAT
[04:00:01]
PRECLUDE US FROM DOING IT, BUT AT LEAST IN THE CASE OF THE RENTAL.SO, UM, APOLOGIZE FOR THE RUN ON STATEMENT THERE, BUT CAN YOU SPEAK TO SOME OF THAT AND I'M TALKING TO STAFF? YEAH, SURE.
SO ON THE CULTURAL, UM, ISSUES AND INTERESTS AND KIND OF GOALS IN THE DISTRICT, FIRST OFF, THERE ARE NUMEROUS, UM, KIND OF DESIRED OUTCOMES EXPRESSED IN THE PLAN AROUND THAT TOPIC.
BUT THEN ALSO THE RECOMMENDATIONS THEMSELVES PROVIDE A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE INCORPORATING CULTURAL SPACES, UM, INTO THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE, THE SORT OF CITY OWNED OPPORTUNITY SITES MOVING FORWARD.
UM, INCORPORATING CULTURAL SPACES, UM, INTO THE, THE SORT OF WORK THAT WE'RE DOING WITH CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION, WITH THE PARTNERSHIP WITH TRAVIS COUNTY AROUND THE PALM SCHOOL SITE, UM, WITH CONVERSATIONS AROUND HOW WE SORT OF DEAL WITH THE PROGRAMMING ON A FUTURE POTENTIAL CAP AND STITCH OVER I 35 IN PALM.
SO I THINK A LOT OF THE, UM, THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE IN THE PLAN DOCUMENT AND THAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE PLAN DOCUMENT REALLY SPEAK TO WEAVING, UM, THAT THE SORT OF CULTURAL PRESERVATION ACTIVITIES, UM, VERY STRONGLY INTO PROJECTS THAT ARE MOVING FORWARD, UM, WITH FUNDING OVER THE YEARS AHEAD.
ON THE DENSITY BONUS, UM, PROGRAM PIECE, THERE ARE SORT OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE LIST THAT RELATE TO, UM, LOOKING AT DENSITY BONUS IN THIS AREA AS WE MOVE FORWARD TO WITH DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENTS FOR DOWNTOWN AS A WHOLE.
UM, BUT WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING INITIATING AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD BE SPECIFIC TO THIS PORTION OF DOWNTOWN.
JUST THE PLAN WOULD BE PROVIDE GUIDANCE, UM, TO FUTURE DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENTS FOR DOWNTOWN AS A WHOLE.
AND I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF CON THERE WAS A PRETTY SPIRITED CONVERSATION AT SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE ABOUT WHETHER WE WANTED TO TRY TO ENCOURAGE ONSITE OR FI AND LOU.
UM, AND IT WASN'T, THERE WAS NOT SORT OF UNANIMITY IN THE SMALL AIRPLANE JOINT COMMITTEE WAS NOT POSTED FOR ACTION.
SO I THINK, UM, MEMBERS OF THE SMALL AIRPLANE JOINT COMMITTEE MAY HAVE TAKEN IT UPON THEMSELVES TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO THAT THAT'LL BE POTENTIALLY MOVING FORWARD TO, TO COUNCIL.
I MEAN, AS IT RELATES TO THE ENSURING THAT THE PROGRAMMING, UH, I MEAN ONE, ONE SECOND.
UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, UM, CHAIR, I'LL TAKE OVER THE QUESTIONS.
UH, COMMISS HOWARD PLEASE GO AHEAD.
COMMISSIONER HOWARD, YOUR TIME EXPIRED, BUT COMMISSIONER ZA LOW.
SO, YOU KNOW, I, I WAS THINKING THAT WE WERE ALSO THINKING MAYBE OUTSIDE OF THE BOX AS IT RELATES TO HOW YOU WOULD ENSURE THAT THE PROGRAMMING HAS THIS, UM, SPECIFIC SORT OF CULTURAL, UM, SPIN THAT MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM OTHER AREAS.
SO I DON'T KNOW, LIKE A COMMITTEE OF SORT, BUT I, I GUESS I, I, AGAIN, I WAS THINKING WE WOULD GOING FURTHER IN THIS CASE THAN WE WOULD IN A TRADITIONAL FROM ADD TRADITIONAL PLAN EFFORT.
UM, BUT I GUESS I WASN'T SEEING THAT STILL, BUT YEAH, AND THERE ARE, I MEAN, THERE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE RECOMMENDATION OR LIST LISTS THAT SORT OF RELATE TO BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND HOW WE LEVERAGE THOSE INVESTMENTS THAT WE'RE GONNA BE MAKING IN BUILT ENVIRONMENT TO PROVIDE THE SPACE.
THERE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO PROGRAMMING THE SPACE THAT WERE DEVELOPED IN PARTNERSHIP WITH OUR PEERS AT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT THAT WOULD BE KIND OF THE CITY ENTITIES, UM, MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR MOVING FORWARD SOME OF THE PROGRAMMING ELEMENTS AS WELL AS THE THE ESB MAC, UM, UNDER PART.
AND THEN THERE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO SORT OF, UM, BRANDED DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE AND THINGS THAT EDD HAS ALREADY KIND OF PROVIDED SOME EARLY OUT IMPLEMENTATION AROUND IN THE DISTRICT AND WOULD BE BUILDING ON.
SO THERE ARE DEFINITELY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT SORT OF RELATE TO ALL THREE, UM, AND THAT RELATE TO MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE TREATING THIS AS A UNIQUE PLACE WITHIN DOWNTOWN THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM OTHER PLACES IN DOWNTOWN.
UM, ONE OF THE INTERESTING PARTS OF THIS DISTRICT IS REALLY THAT YOU'VE GOT SO MANY SORT OF RICH CULTURAL IDENTITIES TO THE DISTRICT THAT ARE ALL OVERLAPPING IN ONE PLACE.
UM, AND HOW TO SORT OF DEAL WITH THAT, THAT OVERLAP AND INTERSECTION, WHICH IS KIND OF BOTH DAUNTING AND EXCITING.
UM, MS.
SO I THINK THE FIRST ONE IS, IS THE IDEA ESSENTIALLY TO DO A REGULATING PLAN AFTER THE VISION PLAN? HOW WOULD WE ENACT THIS ITEM? YEAH, WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING A REGULATING PLAN, UM, AT THIS POINT.
THE, THE ZONING THAT IS IN PLACE ON THIS, ON MUCH OF THIS DISTRICT IS CBD ZONING AT CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONING.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT COUNCIL TAKE ACTION TO INITIATE IS, UM, SOME CODE AMENDMENTS SPECIFICALLY ALONG WALLER CREEK DEALING WITH SETBACKS FROM THE GREENWAY AND SOME BUILDING, UM, FACE STANDARDS THAT WERE ACTUALLY PROPOSED, UM, UM, AS ONE OF THE MANY AMENDMENTS IN THE BUCKET OF AMENDMENTS THAT MADE IT TO THE SECOND READING
[04:05:01]
DRAFT OF THE, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REWRITE WE'RE PROPOSING TO UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THIS PLAN, INITIATE THOSE AMENDMENTS.UM, THE PLAN WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE ADOPTED AND SERVE AS POLICY GUIDANCE FOR ANY FUTURE REGULATORY, UM, CHANGES OR ZONE CHANGES.
THERE ARE A FEW SITES LEFT IN THE DISTRICT THAT AREN'T CBD SOUND, UM, WOULD BE GUIDED BY THE, THE POLICY FRAMEWORK PROVIDED BY THIS PLAN.
AND WE'RE RECOMMENDING INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN PLAN SO THAT THIS WOULD BE CODIFIED AND THE BOUNDARIES, UM, WOULD BE MADE CONSISTENT BETWEEN THE PALM DISTRICT AND THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN PLAN.
AND THEN THERE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT RELATE TO SORT OF FUTURE AMENDMENTS, SO THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, BUT WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING DEVELOPING A FREESTANDING REGULATING PLAN FOR THIS DISTRICT BECAUSE IT IS, UM, IT'S BOTH COMPLICATED IN TERMS OF OWNERSHIP, BUT IT'S ALSO, UM, ALREADY FAIRLY KIND OF LIBERAL IN TERMS OF ZONING.
SO THERE'S NOT REALLY MUCH SORT OF TRADING YOU CAN DO, IF YOU WILL, FOR THE REGULATION PIECE OF IT.
COMMISSIONER ELLA, THIS IS AWESOME.
UM, I'M CURIOUS, UM, HOW LONG, LIKE, HOW LONG IT'S TAKEN TO PUT THIS TOGETHER? WHAT WAS THE TIMELINE TO GET TO THIS POINT? SURE.
SO THE COUNCIL ACTUALLY INITIATED THIS WORK, UM, SORT OF TOWARDS THE END OF 2019.
WE BEGAN DOING PRE-PLANNING WORK IN 2019.
WE APPLIED TO THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS FOR A REGIONAL URBAN DESIGN ASSISTANCE TEAM TO COME TO AUSTIN.
WE GOT ACCEPTED, WHICH WAS SUPER EXCITING RIGHT AROUND THE BEGINNING OF 2020.
UM, THE AIA SENT A TEAM TO AUSTIN FOR A ORIENTATION VISIT FEBRUARY 19TH, 2020, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
UM, AND THEN THEY WERE, WE WERE GEARING UP TO HAVE A, A FULL SORT OF AIA ORIGINAL URBAN DESIGN ASSISTANCE TEAM COME VISIT AUSTIN IN MAY OF 2020.
UM, AND WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN MARCH OF 2020.
SO AT THAT POINT, UM, WE REALLY SORT OF WERE WORKING AND GRAPPLING WITH HOW DO WE DO ENGAGEMENT? YOU KNOW, HOW DO, WHAT DO WE CONTINUE TO DO? THE AIA IS THAT PROJECT WAS GROUNDED.
THEY COULDN'T GET IN AIRPLANES AND EVEN FLY TO AUSTIN.
UM, SO WE, YOU KNOW, TOOK A WHILE TO KIND OF CONTINUE BUILDING THE EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY TO CONTINUE DOING REALLY LIGHT TOUCH PRE-PLANNING AND ENGAGEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERS.
BUT FOLKS WERE NOT REALLY WANTING TO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT LIKE THE PLANNING, LONG RANGE PLANNING IS NOT SOMETHING YOU'RE FOCUSING ON WHEN YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BEGINNING OF A GLOBAL PANDEMIC.
UM, SO WE REALLY, IN MARCH OF 2021 WAS WHEN WE FINALLY ACTUALLY KICKED OFF THE, THE KIND OF VIRTUAL, UM, OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT IN EARNEST.
UM, AND THEN THE US AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS CAME AND PARTNERED WITH US OVER THE SUMMER TO DO A VIRTUAL, UM, SERIES OF SESSIONS THAT WE CANNOT REFER TO AS REGIONAL URBAN DESIGN ASSISTANCE TEAM BECAUSE THEY DID NOT COME IN PERSON TO DO THOSE SESSIONS, BUT THEY DID, UM, PARTICIPATE ALONG WITH THE PLANNERS OVER THE SUMMER.
SO IT'S BEEN A A LONG TIME IN THE MAKING FOR SURE.
AND THEN I NOTED IN SOME OF THE BACKUP MATERIAL THAT THIS PLAN, UM, IDEALLY IS LOOKING AT THE CAP AND STITCH FOR I 35, IS THAT CORRECT? SO THE PLAN, UM, DEFINITELY ACKNOWLEDGES CAP AND STITCH.
IT'S GONNA BE A HUGE EMPHASIS ON THE PLANNING AREA ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
UM, WE HAVE DEFINITELY PARTNERED WITH THE, THE CORRIDOR PROGRAM OFFICE THAT SORT OF THE CITY'S LEAD ON, UM, ON FIGURING OUT KIND OF HOW TO DESIGN THE STITCH AND HOW TO PAY FOR THE STITCH AND WHAT THE, THE VISION OF SORT OF HOW WE'RE WE'RE PROVIDING, UM, POTENTIALLY PUBLIC SPACE IN CONCERT WITH I 35.
UM, THE PLAN SCENARIO WENT SO FAR AS TO PROVIDE JUST FOR SORT OF, UM, VISUALIZATION PURPOSES, SOME POTENTIAL OF WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK ADJACENT TO THE DISTRICT, BUT WE'RE VERY CLEAR TO TO POINT FOLKS TO THAT PROCESS BECAUSE THERE IS GONNA BE A MAJOR KIND OF DESIGN PROCESS HAPPENING AS PART OF CAP AND STITCH, UM, THAT THE CORRIDOR PROGRAM OFFICE IS LEADING THAT THIS PLAN WOULD BECOME, UM, SORT OF GUIDANCE AND INPUT INTO, YEAH.
IS THERE DIRECTION TOWARDS FUNDING FOR THAT? WELL, THERE, I MEAN, THERE IS THE ACTUAL, THE UNDERLYING HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT YEAH.
HAS BEEN FUNDED, UM, THAT TECH ED IS MOVING FORWARD WITH.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY'RE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY'RE NOT IN FAVOR OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO,
THAT'S, SO THAT'S MORE IN FAVOR THAN I'VE SEEN IN THE 30 YEARS IN THIS REGION.
UM, AND OUR, OUR WORK LOCALLY IS TO TRY TO IDENTIFY A DESIGN FOR AND FUNDING FOR HOW TO ACTUALLY MAKE, UM, CAPPING AND STITCHING IN PUBLIC SPACE IN THERE.
SO WE STILL NEED TO IDENTIFY THAT PIECE.
UH, QUESTIONS? YEAH, MR. THOMPSON? UM, I THINK THE PLAN LOOKS GREAT.
THERE'S A LOT OF GREAT STUFF THERE.
I GUESS I JUST WANNA KNOW HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT
[04:10:01]
IT ACTUALLY COMES TO FRUITION? AND, YOU KNOW, WE, WE PASSED THE A S M P, UM, THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, RED RIVER RIGHT THERE THROUGH THE, THE MEDICAL DISTRICT IS IN ALL AGES AND ABILITY BICYCLE AND THERE'S LOTS OF CONSTRUCTION.AND THAT WHOLE AREA HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN FOR TWO OR THREE YEARS AS THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, MOVING THE, YOU KNOW, REBUILDING THE MOODY CENTER AND, AND THE PARKWAY AND, AND THAT CONSTRUCTION.
AND I WAS DRIVING UP ON, YOU KNOW, WRITING UP ON ROBERT DEADMAN ROAD WHERE THE BRAND NEW UT ALL AGES BICYCLE IS, YOU KNOW, BEAUTIFUL WIDE SEPARATED TRACKS PROTECTED BICYCLE PATH.
AND I GET TO THE BRAND NEW SECTION THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN OF RED RIVER JUST CREATED AND THE ALL AGES, YOU KNOW, ACCESSIBLE BICYCLE AT A BRAND NEW STREET THAT WE PAID FOR HAS A LINE OF PAINT IN THE CAR DOOR AREA FOR THE ALL AGES BICYCLE, WHICH IS NOT WHAT I SEE IN THE, YOU KNOW, THE A S M P.
AND WE JUST, WE JUST CUT THE RIBBON ON THAT.
HOW, HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN AND HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN WITH, WITH THE REST OF THIS PLAN? YEAH, SO TRANSPORTATION WISE, WE HAVE THE CITY THROUGH THE AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT HAS JUST LAUNCHED, LAUNCHED THE AUSTIN CORE TRANSPORTATION PLAN THAT'S GONNA BE LOOKING AT ALL OF THE SORT OF TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIVITY, FUTURE STREET SCAPE STANDARDS DOWNTOWN IN GENERAL.
UM, THIS PLAN, AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT WAS ONE OF OUR PARTNERS IN THIS PLANNING PROCESS.
THE PLAN TO THE EXTENT THAT IT MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT TRANSPORTATION WILL FLOW INTO THE AUSTIN CORE TRANSPORTATION PLAN.
UM, BUT I'D SAY IT'S COMPLICATED IN TERMS OF OVERALL HOW YOU IMPLEMENT A PLAN.
LIKE HOW YOU IMPLEMENT A PLAN IS ALWAYS COMPLICATED.
IT'S VERY COMPLICATED IN A PLACE WHERE YOU'VE GOT MULTIPLE OWNERS AND LIKE MANY, MANY VERY LARGE STAKEHOLDERS, LITERALLY MOVING DIRT AND CONCRETE AROUND AS WE SPEAK, UM, ARE DESIGNING DIRT AND CONCRETE THAT'S GONNA MOVE AROUND IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE.
UM, AND THE, THE CONVERSATION ABOUT GOVERNANCE FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE IS REALLY HOW CAN WE BUILD ON THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES THAT ALREADY EXIST? SO WE ARE HAVING CONVERSATIONS, KIND OF CONTINUED CONVERSATIONS, UM, WITH, YOU KNOW, DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE WITH WALL CREEK LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATION, UM, WITH RED RIVER CULTURAL DISTRICT, THE MAC AND OTHERS TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT SORT OF HOW, WHAT IS THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE THAT'S GONNA MAKE SENSE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN.
UM, I MEAN, THE FIRST PIECE OF IT IS JUST HAVING HAD THOSE STAKEHOLDERS AT THE TABLE FOR THE PLANNING PROCESS SO THEY KNOW WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN THERE THAT WAS DESIGNED TO KIND OF COORDINATE INTO A DISTRICT AS A WHOLE AND TAKE THAT WORK BACK INTO THE DNA OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS.
UM, BUT IN TERMS OF HOW WE COORDINATE IT MOVING FORWARD, I THINK WE NEED TO TRY TO BUILD ON THE GOVERNANCE THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN THIS DISTRICT AND IS NOT A DISTRICT THAT SUFFERS FROM A LACK OF GOVERNANCE.
THERE'S A LOT OF EXISTING GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES THAT WE'RE HOPING TO BE ABLE TO BUILD ON.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY MORE QUESTIONS? SECOND ROUND? NOBODY HAS.
ANY, UH, THOSE THAT HAVE ALREADY ASKED QUESTIONS, YOU HAVE ANY OTHERS CON CONTINUED QUESTIONS? SO I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA GO AND ALLOW COMMISSIONER AAR TO, UM, USE ONE OF THE SPOTS.
UM, SO I, I WANNA, AGAIN, I DIDN'T GET TIME EARLIER.
I DO WANNA SAY I REALLY APPRECIATE THE LIVE WORKPLACE ASPECT OF IT AND COMBINING THEM ALL INTO A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN DO THIS.
I GUESS I DO HAVE SOME THOUGHTS AND CONCERNS AROUND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SORT OF PIECE.
I, I SEE ALL THE OTHER THINGS VERY CLEARLY IN TERMS OF ENSURING THAT WE ARE UTILIZING PUBLIC LAND, WE'RE, UM, ENSURING THAT WE'RE USING PUBLIC SUBSIDY.
I THINK THE ONE THAT I HAVE A SLIGHT CONCERN OVER, AND I'LL SHARE WHAT THE CONCERN REALLY IS, IS SPECIFICALLY FOCUSED ON SAYING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO, UM, ESSENTIALLY INCENTIVIZE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS PART.
AND I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD VISION AND GOAL.
I THINK THE TROUBLE IS HOW DO WE ACHIEVE IT LATER? AND ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE SAW WITH THE SOUTH CENTER WATERFRONT, UH, BUD, WAS THAT I THINK WE HAD A VERY GOOD VISION AND I THINK WE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE COULD REALIZE THAT VISION REALITY.
AND THEN WHEN WE GO AND TRY TO MAKE THAT REALITY AND WE'RE NOT ABLE TO MEET ALL THOSE GOALS THAT WE HAVE AS A COMMUNITY, WE REALLY SEE A LOT OF PUSHBACK FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO FEEL LIKE WE'RE LEAVING BEHIND ELEMENTS OF A VISION PLAN.
AND IT'S A HARD, I UNDERSTAND, RIGHT? LIKE A VISION PLAN IS THE IDEA OF VISIONING AND THEN KNOWING THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO NEGOTIATE WHICH COMPETENCE GO AND WHICH PROJECT.
BUT I, I WONDER IF YOU CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW DO WE NEGOTIATE THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE WHEN FOLKS FEEL LIKE WE'RE NOT LIVING UP TO THE VISION THAT WE'RE CREATING? JUST BECAUSE VISION IS GREAT, BUT THERE'S CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED PARTICULARLY WITH FUNDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
YEAH, AND I THINK IN THIS DISTRICT
[04:15:01]
PARTICULARLY BEYOND SORT OF TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE PUBLICLY OWNED SITES, I MEAN THE CONVENTION CENTER WILL HAVE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP REDEVELOPMENT, THAT THERE'S A, A CONVERSATION TO BE HAD ABOUT HOW TO FUND POTENTIALLY HOUSING AS PART OF THAT, UM, FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS.THERE WAS A, A, UM, INDICATION BY COUNCIL SEVERAL YEARS AGO WITH A DESIRE TO LOOK AT THAT SITE TO PROVIDE SOME, UM, AFFORDABILITY AS WELL.
WE'VE GOT AN EXISTING KIND OF HACA LOW INCOME, UM, PROPERTY THAT'S WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE DISTRICT, BUT BEYOND THAT, IT'S REALLY AND BEYOND SORT OF ADDITIONAL SUBSIDIES AND PARTNERSHIPS THAT THE CITY CAN DO WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO, TO SUBSIDIZE INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING.
IT'S REALLY THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
THAT'S WHAT DELIVERS AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THIS DISTRICT.
UM, AND A LOT OF THE UNITS THAT WE'RE SEEING ARE OBVIOUSLY PROVIDED THROUGH FEE AND LU, UM, AND THE SMALL AREA OF PLAIN JOINT COMMITTEE DEFINITELY HAD A VERY ROBUST CONVERSATION ABOUT, AND AS I THINK THIS CONVERSATION IS ROBUST WHENEVER IT HAPPENS ABOUT WHETHER YOU TRY TO PROVIDE SORT OF ONSITE WITHIN THE DISTRICT AFFORDABILITY IN A PLACE WITH REAL ESTATE AS EXPENSIVE AS DOWNTOWN, OR WHETHER YOU PROVIDE FUNDING TO BUILD THAT HOUSING IN A PLACE THAT HAS SLIGHTLY LESS EXPENSIVE REAL ESTATE.
AND THAT'S ALWAYS, IT'S A TRADE OFF.
I THINK THE VISION OF THE PLAN IS THAT WE WOULD BUILD SOME OF THAT HOUSING IN THE PLACE BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF, WE'RE TRYING TO SORT OF PROVIDE, UM, THE ABILITY FOR FOLKS THAT HAVE BEEN DISPLACED OUT OF THE DISTRICT TO RETURN AND THE ABILITY TO HAVE IT BE A MULTI INCOME DISTRICT.
AND I, YEAH, I THINK, BUT IT IS A ROBUST CONVERSATION AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN BE REALISTIC IN WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO ACHIEVE USING THE DENSITY BONUS SINCE IT IS A LIMITED TOOL, BUT I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE ALL HANDS ON DECK TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, UH, GONNA WRAP UP THE Q AND A THERE.
UM, DO WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON? UM, I MOVE, WE RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE PLAN.
DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? I THINK COMMISSIONER MOSH TELLER, YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? WHICH THOMPSON OKAY.
ANYBODY WANNA SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
SO GONNA INVITE COMMISSIONER MOOSE TELLER TO, UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD.
WANNA GO AHEAD AND SPEAK, I THINK, UH, IS THERE, ARE YOU MUTED? SORRY,
UH, AND IF I'M HAVING, MAYBE ME, I'M JUST HAVING A LITTLE BIT TROUBLE HEARING.
IF YOU CAN JUST SPEAK A LITTLE LOUDER.
WHAT IS YOUR SUBSTITUTE? WELL, YEAH, GO AHEAD AND GIVE US YOUR, IS THIS AN AMENDMENT OR A SUBSTITUTE? IT'S A SUBSTITUTE.
SO I DON'T WANNA DO THIS OFTEN, BUT I, I WOULD LIKE TO MAYBE HAVE A LITTLE MORE TIME TO DELIBERATE ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE DISCUSSED.
SO I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE POSTPONE IT AT LEAST TILL THE 20TH OF DECEMBER.
UM, LET'S, UH, WHY DON'T WE QUICKLY HEAR, WE HAVE A SECOND, MY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM STAFF JUST WHAT, WHAT THAT MIGHT CHAIR COMMISSION LAY ON AVIR.
THIS IS THE CONTROLLED FOR DECEMBER 1ST COUNSEL.
UM, AND, UH, YOUR DECEMBER 20TH MEETING WOULD BE A CONSENT AGENDA.
SO YOU WOULD BE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT A MEETING IN JANUARY WHEN YOU TOOK ACTION ON THIS.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE REALITY.
WE CONSENT LEAVE FOR DECEMBER 20TH.
UM, SO, UM, SO IT'D BE THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY? CORRECT.
UM, AND THAT, UM, WOULD BE, WELL WE WOULD GO AHEAD AND POSTPONE THIS TO THE 20TH AND THEN RESCHEDULE IT AGAIN FROM THERE, RIGHT? CORRECT.
UH, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK? SURE, I CAN.
I MEAN, I, I THINK A LOT OF GOOD WORK, I MEAN, HAS BEEN DONE.
I I DEFINITELY APPLAUD THE, ALL THE EFFORTS TO DATE.
I MEAN OBVIOUSLY IT'S A BIG, WE EXPECTING ONE A LOT AND I THINK THE AREA IS SPECIAL.
SO I MEAN, MAYBE A LITTLE MORE TIME TO BRAINSTORM THE POSSIBILITIES MAY, MAY BE HELPFUL.
I MEAN, WE HAVE WAITED FOR SOME TIME, SO I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S TIME SENSITIVE.
I MEAN, WHAT ACTUALLY WOULD, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THERE'D BE ANY DOWNSIDE TO, TO WAITING WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF EXPLORING
[04:20:01]
OTHER OPTIONS.MAYBE YOU CAN EVEN GO BACK TO SMALL AREA PLAN, BUT DOESN'T HAVE TO.
BUT I THINK, UM, YOU COULD ALL THINK ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT MORE BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT MANY OF US ARE ECHOING SOME OF THE SAME SET OF SENTIMENTS.
SO MAYBE THERE'S SOME GOOD IDEAS THAT MAY COME OUT OF IT.
I'M NOT EVEN SUGGESTING A WORKING GROUP GROUP, I'M JUST SAYING MAYBE THERE'S THOUGHTS THAT WE HAVE THAT HADN'T COME OUT THAT WE COULD THINK ABOUT.
UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HEAR FROM STAFF ANY CONCERNS ABOUT POSTPONING THIS.
UM, I MEAN THERE MIGHT BE, WE'VE JUST BEEN SO BUSY WITH THESE OTHER ITEMS AND PERHAPS, AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A LIMITED PLANNING COMMISSION HERE THIS EVENING.
IT, UH, MIGHT GIVE US MORE TIME TO, YOU KNOW, UH, FOCUS ON THIS A LITTLE MORE.
BUT I JUST WANNA HEAR ABOUT CONCERNS WITH EVERYTHING ON COUNCIL AGENDA RELATED TO, YOU KNOW, THINGS WE'RE PUSHING FORWARD.
IS THIS THIS ONE THAT'S A PRIORITY FOR THEM? UM, SO I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC CONCERNS, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE REPORTED BACK TO COUNCIL AND OUR SORT OF REGULAR REPORT THROUGH THE SYSTEM OF KIND OF RESOLUTIONS THAT THEY, THEY INITIATED THIS WORK IN 2019.
UM, OUR MOST RECENT REPORT BACK TO THEM IS THAT WE WOULD TRY TO GET TO THEM, GET IT BACK TO THEM BY SUMMER OF 2022, WHICH I THINK ENDED TWO WEEKS AGO OR ONE WEEK AGO WHENEVER THE TEMPERATURES FINALLY CHANGED.
UM, SO WE ARE ALREADY KIND OF LATER THAN WHAT WE TOLD COUNSEL IN TERMS OF WHEN WE WOULD DELIVER A PLAN BACK TO THEM.
UM, AND WE HAVE KIND OF POSTED OUT THROUGH THE, THE SPEAK UP PAGE AND THROUGH THE NOTICE, UM, THAT I BELIEVE HAS BEEN PROVIDED ALREADY THAT WE'RE GOING FORWARD ON DECEMBER 1ST AND FOLKS MAY BE KIND OF GEARING UP AND READY TO TESTIFY ON DECEMBER 1ST.
UM, THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT THAT I WOULD MAKE, WHICH IS NOT A CONCERN, BUT JUST A COMMENT, IS THAT WE WILL BE COMING BACK TO THIS BODY FOR DISCUSSION AROUND BOTH THE CODE AMENDMENT THAT WILL BE INITIATED AS PART OF THIS WORK AS WELL AS THE AMENDMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN PLAN.
UM, SO THERE'S DEFINITELY POTENTIAL FOR CONVERSATION TO BE HAD AT SMALLER AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE, AS WELL AS THIS BODY AROUND THE AMENDMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN PLAN TO KIND OF CODIFY THIS INTO THE D THAT WOULD BE MOVING FORWARD IN 2023 NO MATTER WHAT.
SO I'LL JUST LEAVE THAT AS A THOUGHT.
UM, AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, MR. RIVERA, SO I MEAN WE WOULD, THE MOTION IS PROPOSED TO DECEMBER 20TH, IS THE WAY TO PROCEED WITH THIS, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE WOULD JUST POSTPONE AGAIN AT THAT MEETING, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND UH, JUST A CORRECTION, THAT WOULD BE JANUARY 10TH, 2023.
UH, SO ANY COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST THIS MOTION? ANY SPEAKING IN FAVOR? I SECONDED THIS JUST BECAUSE IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
WE'VE BEEN SO FOCUSED ON ALL THESE OTHER REALLY DEEP MEDIA ITEMS, AND WE'VE ALREADY HEARD THE BRIEFING, AND IT WOULD BE GREAT IF THIS COULD BE ONE OF THE FIRST ITEMS ON THOSE AGENDAS SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE STAFF WAIT FOR IT.
BUT I, I'D DEFINITELY LIKE THE IDEA OF CHECKING IN WITH THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DAA AND JUST UNDERSTANDING THIS BETTER.
UH, ANY OF COMMISSIONERS THINKING FORWARD AGAINST, OH, ACTUALLY, COMMISSIONER MISHAL, DID YOU RAISE YOUR HAND? NO.
JUST KINDA NEUTRAL WITH THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT THIS HAS GOT MORE PROCESS TO GO THROUGH AND ACTUALLY GONNA HIT CODES AND ORDINANCES.
ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A BETTER OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN, IN SUBSTANTIALLY AT THAT POINT, OR DO WE THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE AT THIS POINT IN TIME? I GUESS THAT'S MORE OF A QUESTION THAN A THOUGHT, BUT I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW TO HELP THIS.
I THINK COMMISSIONERS ARE, COMMISSIONER RESPOND, AND STAFF CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
WE WOULD NOT BE WORKING MORE OR RESPONDING TO THIS PLAN.
WE MIGHT BE TAKING UP ELEMENTS OF THAT LATER.
BUT AS IT IS CURRENTLY THE WAY IT'S BEING PRESENTED, WE WOULD NOT ONCE APPROVED IT WOULD, WE WOULD NOT BE LOOKING AT THIS AGAIN.
UH, WE WOULD JUST BE LOOKING AT OTHER ELEMENTS THAT WOULD BE A PART OF IT IN THE FUTURE.
I AM SUPPORTED THIS POSTPONEMENT JUST BECAUSE, UH, ECHOING SOME OF, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, CHAIR COHEN'S CONCERNS.
UH, I HAVE JUST NOT HAD A CHANCE TO REACH OUT WITH SOME OF MY, UM, FOLKS KIND OF IN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY AND HOW THIS AFFECTS SOME OF THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THEIR PLANS.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.
DO YOU WANNA MAKE COMMENT? I CANNOT SPEAK TOWARDS THE MOTION EITHER FOR OR AGAINST, BUT I WOULD SIMPLY LIKE TO
[04:25:01]
COMMENT.THERE ARE SOME THINGS HERE, LIKE THE PROPOSED KEY OPPORTUNITY NAMING APD HEADQUARTERS THAT WOULD 100% ADVERSELY IMPACT THOSE VERY MUSIC VENUES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAVE.
IF APD GOES, IF ARCH GOES PROPERTY VALUES SKYROCKET, THOSE PLACES ARE DONE.
THERE'S, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN THE GENERAL FUNDS TO KEEP THEM OVER.
SO I, I'D REALLY LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSION TO PLEASE POSTPONE, DIG INTO IT IN THE MORE, AND I, I'M SORRY.
I'LL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT, I HAVE NOT DONE MY HOMEWORK ON THIS.
HAND IT TO ME THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, BUT I WILL BE READY AT THE NEXT MEETING, I PROMISE, BECAUSE THIS IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO ME.
SO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, UH, LET'S GO AND, UH, TAKE A VOTE ON THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOWARD.
SECONDED BY, OH GOSH, I CAN'T READ MY, WHO'S SECONDED? THIS ANDERSON, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
UH, OKAY, SO THIS IS TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TILL DECEMBER 20TH.
UH, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE DIAS, AS IN FAVOR.
UH, THOSE VIRTUALLY IN FAVOR OF POSTPONEMENT AND OKAY.
AND THOSE AGAINST, SO THAT, UH, PASSES WITH, UH, VICE HE, UM, UH, VOTING AGAINST.
SO THAT IS ALL OF OUR ITEMS. OH, I'LL JUST QUICK NOTE, UH, THE CREEK SHOW IS, UH, I'VE GOT MY TICKETS THIS WEEKEND.
SO, UH, FOR, UH, UH, FORKLIFT DANCE WORK IS, IS OUT THERE TOO.
SO A LOT OF GOOD STUFF GOING ON.
UH, HIGHLY ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO TAKE ADVANTAGE.
AND WITH THAT, LET'S, UM, WE'VE GOT A FEW MORE ITEMS WE CAN GET THROUGH.
UM, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FROM COMMISSION? ALL RIGHT.
[BOARDS, COMMITTEES & WORKING GROUPS UPDATES]
BOARDS AND, UH, COMMITTEES, WORKING GROUPS.LET'S JUST QUICKLY MOVE THROUGH THESE, UH, CODES AND ORANGES.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? WE WERE SCHEDULED TO MEET TOMORROW, BUT OUR MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELED SINCE.
WE DID NOT HAVE ANY ITEMS TO CONSIDER AT THIS TIME.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, JOINT COMMITTEE.
UH, COMMISSIONER FLORES, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO REPORT? YES, WE MET LAST, UM, WHAT WAS IT, THURSDAY THE 10TH.
UM, AND JUST HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, OUR PLANS, UM, FOR THE NEXT YEAR.
UM, WE'VE GOT, UH, GO AND SKIP TO SMALL AREA PLANNING.
UM, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD.
MR. THOMPSON MEET MONDAY, I THINK.
UPDATE WORKING GROUP BY SARAH.
HE, UH, DESIGN GUIDELINE, UPDATE WORKING GROUP.
OH, UM, YES, WE HAD A MEETING ON FRIDAY, AT LEAST THE SUB-COMMITTEE THAT I'M WORKING ON AND, UM, HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO IN FRONT OF US.
HOUSING, WORKING GROUP, ANY ACTIVITY THERE FROM ANY OF THE MEMBERS? OKAY.
AND I GUESS WE ARE, THE LAST COMMITTEE IS, UH, DISSOLVED, UH, AS OF THIS EVENING AND AND CHAIR, WE, WE ALL SAW THE WORK OF IT.
I WOULD BE REMISS AND I DID NOT MENTION THIS.
I JUST WANNA THANK ALL MY WORKING GROUP MEMBERS FOR THEIR EFFORTS ON THIS.
AND, UM, IF THERE'S NO OPPOSITION, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
CAUSE YOU COULD LOOK IN AND IS, I SHOULD'VE LEFT YOU ALONE.
YOU WOULD CATCH A CATCH A CATCH A SEAT.
I, WHAT AM I GONNA DO? I'M GREAT WITH YOU.
THAT I'M IN MY, YOU SEE CATCH.