[00:00:04]
[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]
IS THE MAY 9TH, 2023 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 6 0 8.WE HAVE QUORUM AND WE'RE GONNA GO AND GET STARTED AND WE'LL START WITH OUR, UH, TRADITIONAL ROLL CALL.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND START WITH THOSE ON THE DIAS AND THEN MOVE TO THOSE THAT ARE ATTENDING, UH, VIRTUALLY.
AND LET'S GO AND START ON MY LEFT HERE.
I'M GONNA START WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, MAXWELL HERE.
AND THEN WE'LL MOVE TO, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS HERE.
AND, UH, COMMISSIONER CONNOLLY HERE, YOUR CHAIR, CHAIR SHAW.
AND THEN MOVING TO MY RIGHT, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER BARNA RAMIREZ HERE, AND THEN, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON HERE, AND COMMISSIONER HAYNES HERE.
AND THEN ON THE SCREEN AS I SEE YOU GUYS IN ORDER, UH, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER AZAR HERE, UH, VICE CHAIR HEMPLE HERE.
UH, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER MO TYLER HERE, AND, UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD HERE.
UM, SO THAT MAKES ME VERY HAPPY.
I ALSO WANNA RECOGNIZE THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, UH, CHAIR COHEN ON MY FAR LEFT.
AND ALSO I WANNA WELCOME, UH, PLANNING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, NEW DIRECTOR, UH, LAURA MIDDLETON PRATT.
DO YOU WANNA STAND UP AND BE RECOGNIZED? OKAY.
UM, AND GONNA GO AND MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
UH, MS. RIVERA, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATION TODAY? CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LAY ON ANDREW RIVERA.
SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
HOW ARE WE? DO HAVE A SPEAKER WHO WILL BE SPEAKING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, UH, FOR ITEM 1818? YES.
SO BEFORE DISPOSING OF THAT ITEM.
PLEASE HEAR FROM THAT SPEAKER.
SO AFTER THE FIRST READ, WE'LL GIVE THE INDIVIDUAL A CHANCE TO SPEAK.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
ON THIS, UH, NEXT ITEM, APPROVAL OF MINUTES.ITEM ONE, UH, FROM APRIL 25TH, 2023.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY CHANGES? OKAY, WE'RE GONNA GO AND ROLL THOSE INTO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, COMMISSIONER BONO RAMIREZ, AND THEN I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND HAND IT OFF TO
[Reading of the Agenda]
YOU TO GO AHEAD AND DO THE FIRST READING OF THE, UH, CONSENT AGENDA.SO ITEM NUMBER TWO IS A PLAN AMENDMENT.
IT'S NPA 20 22 0 0 0 EIGHT.ZERO ONE.
IT'S 31 17 TO 3 31 21 EAST 12TH STREET, DISTRICT ONE, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS SEEKING A POSTPONEMENT UNTIL MAY 23RD.
ITEM NUMBER THREE, AS A REZONING C 14 20 22, 1 50 FROM 31 17 AND 31 21 EAST 12TH STREET, DISTRICT ONE NEIGHBORHOOD SEEKING POSTPONEMENT UNTIL MAY 23RD.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 22 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 5 BROOKS FROM TRAIL DISTRICT TWO.
AND THAT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION AS IS ITEM NUMBER FIVE, WHICH IS ALSO REZONING C 14 20 22, 1 46 BROOKHAM TRAIL, WESTERN TRACK DISTRICT TWO UP FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM SIX IS A REZONING C 14 20 22, 1 48 BROOKS'S TRAIL, EASTERN TRACK DISTRICT TWO UP FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM SEVEN IS A REZONING C 8 14 97 0 0 0 1 15.
LEANDER REHABILITATION, PUT AMENDMENT AND STAFF AND APPLICANT ARE SEEKING A POSTPONEMENT UNTIL MAY 23RD.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS A RESTRICTED COVENANT COVENANT TERMINATION, C 14 77, 1 38 R C T.
IT'S AT TEN SIX OH ONE NORTH LAMAR BOULEVARD, R CT DISTRICT FOUR, AND THE STAFF IS SEEKING AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT FOR THIS ITEM.
ITEM NINE, REZONING C 14 20 22, 1 62 AT TEN SIX OH ONE NORTH LAMAR BOULEVARD, DISTRICT FOUR, ALSO STAFF SEEKING INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
ITEM 10, REZONING C 14 20 22 0 1 63 1 0 1 NORTH CAPITAL, TEXAS HIGHWAY STAFF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL JUNE 27TH.
ITEM 11, CONSENT C 14 20 22, 1 64 AT 5 0 4 OAKLAND AVENUE, DISTRICT NINE, ITEM 12, REZONING C 800 1406 0 1 75.
DO OH FOUR EAST AVENUE, PUT AMENDMENT PARCEL H DISTRICT NINE STAFF IS SEEKING POSTPONEMENT UNTIL MAY 23RD.
ITEM 13, REZONING C 14 20 22 1 60, GREYSTAR TWO 90 AND DISTRICT EIGHT AND APPLICANT IS SEEKING AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT FOR THAT ITEM.
MOVING ON TO ITEM 14, RESTRICTED COVENANT AMENDMENT C 14 85, 20 88, 2 88 79, RCA GREY STAR TWO 90 DISTRICT EIGHT, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT FOR ITEM 15.
IT'S A FINAL PLAT FROM THE APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN,
[00:05:01]
AND IT'S C EIGHT J 20 20 0 0 9 1 1 A AT GREG MAYER SUBDIVISION, PHASE ONE.AND WE, IT'S SEEKING APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT C.
UM, ITEM 16, SITE PLAN APPEAL S P 20 2128 C 24 28 WEST BEND, WHITE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN DISTRICT FIVE IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM 17 IS AN I L A AMENDMENT, THE OWNER, UM, LET'S SEE.
IT'S AIS D INTER IN OUR LOCAL AGREEMENT AMENDMENT.
AND THE ITEM IS INITIATED BY COUNSEL AND IT'S ON CONSENT.
AND ITEM 18 IS A CODE AMENDMENT C 20 20 22 19 SLAUGHTER LANE, SOS SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT.
AND IT IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS AS SHOWN.
UM, SO IN SUMMARY, WE HAVE, SO ITEMS TWO AND THREE ARE UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT UNTIL MAY 23RD.
ITEMS FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX ARE ON DISCUSSION.
ITEM SEVEN IS STAFF AND APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT UNTIL MAY 23RD.
ITEMS EIGHT AND NINE ARE INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST BY STAFF.
ITEM 10 IS A STAFF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL JUNE 27TH.
11 IS CONSENT, 12TH IS STAFF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL MAY 23RD.
13 IS INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST BY APPLICANT AS IS 14.
ITEM 15 IS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS AS SHOWN.
17 IS CONSENT AND 18 IS CONSENT.
ALTHOUGH, UM, I HEARD THAT WE WANTED TO, THERE WAS SOMEONE THAT WANTED TO SPEAK ON THAT ITEM.
UH, SO COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ CHAIR? COMMISSIONER AZAR, I SAW YOU AND THEN FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER COX.
HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION ON ONE ITEM.
I NOT WISH TO BULLET, BUT I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM.
SO THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 11, WHICH IS THE FI 5 0 4 OAKLAND AVENUE.
AGAIN, I DO NOT WANT TO WISH TO PULL THIS ITEM.
I THINK IT'S FINE TO MOVE FORWARD.
IT'S JUST THAT THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED BY STAFF INCLUDES THREE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN, IT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED TO US TO NOT INCLUDE THOSE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER, WHICH IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL LAW, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT, BOTH OF WHICH ARE GOVERNED BY THE FAIR HOUSING LAW.
AND SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, THOSE ARE INCLUDED HERE.
SHOULD WE TAKE THEM OUT? IS THE UNDERSTANDING STAFF WILL RESOLVE THAT ISSUE AS THIS GOES FORWARD? HOW DO WE WANNA TAKE ACTION ON THAT CHAIR, COMMISSION LINES ON IF THE, UH, COMMISSION CAN DISPOSE OF THOSE, UH, CONDITIONS AND THEN PROCEEDED WITH APPROVING THE ITEM? APPRECIATE THAT.
THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION AND THANK YOU MR. DONK.
UM, I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS YOUR MR. RIVERA? WHAT, WHAT WAS YOUR RESPONSE? THE COMMISSIONER WILL APPROVE THE ITEM AS IS WITHOUT THE CONDITIONS.
UH, COMMISSIONER COX? UH, YEAH, I'M PROBABLY MISSING SOMETHING OBVIOUS HERE, BUT ITEM 12 IN OUR MINUTES DOESN'T ACTUALLY HAVE THE MOTION THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION.
I BELIEVE THAT ITEM, WE HAD A VOTE THAT FAILED AND THEN WE RE AND IT PASSED.
CHAIR COMMISSION LAYS ON, I YOU'LL TABLE, TABLE THE MINUTES AND THEN I, WE WILL BRING THEM BACK TO THE DI UH, TOWARD THE END OF THE MEETING.
SO WITH THAT, WE'RE REMOVING THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA TABLING AT THIS TIME.
UH, ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR OUR SPEAKER ON ITEM 18 IF THEY'RE READY.
PLANNING COMMISSION, BOBBY LEVINSKY SAVE OUR SPRINGS ALLIANCE.
UM, I ACTUALLY, I SIGNED UP NEUTRAL MOSTLY BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THIS PROJECT DOES ADD A LOT OF ENVIRONMENTAL, UH, BENEFITS WITH WATER QUALITY, UM, THAT STAFF'S PROPOSED WITH THE PROJECT.
UM, AS SAVE OUR SPRINGS GENERALLY WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTIVE OF INCREASING THE NUMBER OF LANES IN THIS AREA, UM, JUST AS A GENERAL POLICY.
UM, BUT WE DO RECOGNIZE THE BENEFITS THAT THIS PROJECT IS BRINGING TO UNTREATED IMPERVIOUS COVER.
UM, THE ONLY ADDITIONAL ASSET WE'LL BE ASKING OF CITY COUNCIL WILL BE TO, UM, PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR, UH, MITIGATION, LAND MITIGATION THAT CAN ACCOMPANY THE PROJECT FOR THE PARTS OF THE IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT IS NOT, UM, BEING TREATED UP TO SLS WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.
SO, UM, OTHER THAN THAT, UM, I THINK THAT, UM, STAFF'S DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB ON THIS PROJECT.
UM, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE NEUTRAL ON IT.
BUT, UM, WE WILL CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION WITH COUNSEL, UH, SINCE IT'S HIS CONSENT ITEM.
I DIDN'T REALLY WANT TO GET TOO MUCH MORE IN DETAIL, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
[00:10:02]
18 SHOULD READ THE SUE THIS ONE MORE TIME.IS EVERYBODY CLEAR? WE HAD A PRETTY GOOD READING.
WE'RE GONNA TABLE THE MINUTES.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ? ALL RIGHT.
UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND, UH, OKAY.
WHAT? THAT? COMMISSIONER WOODS.
[Consent Agenda]
IT'S CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE, UM, THE CONSENT AGENDA, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE DIAS.AND THAT'S EVERYONE THAT'S ON THE SCREEN.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO OUR FIRST DISCUSSION CASE.
WE'RE GONNA TAKE UP ALL THREE OF THESE TOGETHER.
OH, REAL QUICK, UH, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS. THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE HERE FOR THE SECOND ITEM, YOU CAN WAIT OUT IN THE ATRIUM AND YOU'LL GET A NOTICE ABOUT 15 MINUTES OUT AN EMAIL IF YOU'RE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON OUR SECOND ITEM THIS EVENING.
[Items 4 - 6 ]
ITEMS, UH, FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX TOGETHER.UH, SO WE'LL HAVE STEPH INTRODUCING EACH ONE OF THESE GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
UH, JESSE GUTIERREZ, UH, CITY OF AUSTIN PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UH, ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT CASE.
CASE NUMBER NPA 20 22 0 14 0 5, ALSO KNOWN AS ALSO KNOWN AS BERGSTROM TR BERGSTROM TRAIL.
UH, THE ADDRESSES ARE SIXTY THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY FOUR TEN BURLESON ROAD.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST COMBINED, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA.
THIS IS A FUTURE LAND USE MAP, CHANGE REQUEST FROM INDUSTRY AND TRANSPORTATION TO MIXED USE LAND USE.
THE LONG RANGE PLANNING STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THIS CHANGE.
UH, THE SOUTHEAST COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM HAS SUBMITTED A LETTER SUPPORTING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WITH CONDITIONS, UH, THE LETTER CAN BE FOUND IN THE STAFF REPORT.
NANCY ESTRADA WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER FIVE AND SIX ON YOUR AGENDA.
CASE NUMBER C 14 20 22 0 1 46 IS THE BERGSTROM TRAIL AREA INFILL WESTERN TRACT.
CASE NUMBER C 14 20 22 0 1 48 IS THE BERGSTROM TRAIL AREA INFILL EASTERN TRACT.
THE WESTERN TRACT IS LOCATED AT 6,300 BURLESON ROAD.
THE EASTERN TRACT IS LOCATED AT 64 10 BURLESON ROAD.
BOTH TRACKS ARE CURRENTLY ZONED L I N P, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING C S M U V N P.
THE SUBJECT REZONING AREA IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BURLESON ROAD AND METROPOLIS DRIVE.
IT IS COMPOSED OF TWO TRACKS OF LAND SEPARATED BY RIGHT OF WAY THAT WAS USED FOR BURLESON ROAD UNTIL IT WAS REALIGNED.
ALTHOUGH THESE TWO, THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE ZONING CASES, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT AND IS REQUESTING CS M U V N P COMBINING DISTRICT FOR A POSSIBLE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD INCLUDE MULTI-FAMILY UNITS REQUIRING AN AFFORDABLE COMPONENT.
THE WESTERN TRACT IS APPROXIMATELY 2.7 ACRES AND HAS A HYDRAULIC PARTS SHOP, AN AUTOBODY SHOP CURRENTLY LOCATED ON THIS TRACT.
THE EASTERN TRACT IS 1.2 ACRES AND IS UNDEVELOPED.
THE SUBJECT AREA IS SURROUNDED BY INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARKS, WAREHOUSES CONTAINING DISTRIBUTION AND SUPPLY COMPANIES, MANUFACTURING COMPANIES, CONSTRUCTION SALES AND SERVICE BUSINESSES.
OUTSIDE STORAGE USES A FUEL STATION IN A CAR RENTAL COMPANY.
ALL ARE ZONED EITHER L I N P L I C O N P, OR L I P D A MP.
AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AND DELIBERATION, STAFF IS ENABLED TO RECOMMEND THE APPLICANT'S REZONING REQUEST AND RECOMMENDS MAINTA MAINTAINING LI NP ZONING FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
RESIDENTIAL USES ARE NOT COMPATIBLE SINCE IT IS PREDOMINANTLY AN INDUSTRIAL AREA.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN IMAGINED AUSTIN JOB CENTER AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS GENERALLY DO NOT SUPPORT RESIDENTIAL USES.
SAFETY ISSUES CONTRIBUTE TO RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES NOT BEING COMPATIBLE.
THE SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SUPPORTS MAINTAINING THE INDUSTRIAL USES IN ENCOURAGING NEW INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES, WHICH WILL ALLOW SPACE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, WAREHOUSE MANUFACTURING, AND BLUE COLLAR JOBS.
IN GENERAL, THIS AREA DOES NOT SUPPORT RESIDENTIAL USES.
MIXED USE AND PERMANENT, PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL ARE NOT APPROPRIATE.
AND THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL LANDSCAPE INDICATES THAT THIS AREA IS NOT TRANSITIONING TO RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE.
I'LL BE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
WELL, NOW YOU HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, MR. KING.
[00:15:01]
YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.UH, GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND, UH, COMMISSIONERS.
MICAH KING WITH HUSH BLACKWELL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UH, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.
SO, UM, GETTING USED TO THE, HAVING THE CLICKER AGAIN, SOMETIMES I WOULD LIKE TO WORK, OH, THERE WE GO.
UH, SO THIS IS, UH, AS YOU HEARD IN THE SOUTHEAST COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM AREA.
UH, THE CURRENT DESIGNATION IS INDUSTRY AND TRANSPORTATION.
WE'RE ASKING FOR MIXED USE AND TO GO FROM L I N P TO C S V M U AT NP WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CONTACT TEAM TO APPROVE, UH, WITH CONDITIONS THAT WE ARE AGREEABLE TO.
UM, THE, THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING WITH A MIX OF MARKET RATE AND INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS, UH, NEW OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING.
UH, AND TWO, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE NEWBERG FROM SPUR TRAIL THAT WILL BE, UH, WITHIN 150 FEET OF THE NORTH OF, UH, NORTHERN PART OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, IT WOULD ALSO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE SUCH AS AT THE TECH HEADQUARTERS THAT WAS RECENTLY BUILT, UM, ABOUT A THIRD MILE SOUTH THAT HAS, UM, ABOUT 2000 EMPLOYEES.
UM, THIS IS A MAP OF THE PROPERTY LOCATION, UH, AT THE INTERSECTION OF BURLESON AND WEINE POLIS, UH, CONVERGE OR CHANGES FROM SAING TO MONOPOLI.
UH, THIS IS, IS A, UH, PLUM MAP EXISTING SHOWING INDUSTRIAL, BUT ALSO A MIX OF USES, UM, MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS, COMMERCIAL AND CIVIC.
UM, AND SO WHILE THERE IS MORE, UH, HOMOGENOUS INDUSTRIAL FURTHER TO THE SOUTH BETWEEN THIS PART OF BURLESON ROAD AND BEN WHITE, ALONG ONE TOP LIST, YOU DO SEE A MIX OF USES AND DESIGNATIONS.
UM, AGAIN, EXISTING ZONING SHOWING, UH, CS M U IN VERY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OUR PROPERTY, UM, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ADDING THE V SO WE CAN DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UH, THIS IS THE VIEW OF THE PROPERTY THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS.
THERE IS ONLY ONE SMALL PROPERTY OR BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, THE VAST MAJORITY OF, OF IT IS UNDEVELOPED, UM, AND HAS BEEN UNDEVELOPED SINCE AERIAL IMAGERY STARTED.
UH, THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR THE PROJECT, SHOWING THE HOUSING, UH, WITH A MIX OF USES, UM, UH, RETAIL ON THE GROUND FLOOR, SERVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, AS REQUESTED BY THE CONTACT TEAM.
UH, PUBLIC AMENITIES INCLUDE, UH, THE BERGSON SPUR TRAIL ACCESS POINT, UM, ADJACENT BIKE LANES THAT ALREADY EXIST, UH, NEARBY MCKINNEY FALLS STATE PARK TRAIL HEAD, UM, AND THEN TWO BUS ROUTES, UH, ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY WITH THREE BUS STATIONS.
UH, AND WE'RE ALSO A HALF MILE, UH, JUST SOUTH OF BEND WHITE AND NEAR THE FUTURE METROPOLI METRO RAIL STATION.
UM, THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE WORKED ON, UH, VERY CLOSELY WITH, UM, UH, ANNANA, AGUIRE AND THE CONTACT TEAM, INCLUDING THE, THE MULTI, UH, THE, UM, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, LEVELS, UH, WIDEN SIDEWALKS FOR INCREASED, UH, SAFETY AND CONNECTIVITY, UH, WORKING ON PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS, UM, AT THE ADJACENT INTERSECTION.
AND THEN GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND THE, THE MINIMUM TREE PLANTINGS AND LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE A BUFFER.
UM, AND TO ADD TO THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF THIS, UH, PROPERTY.
UM, WE'LL ALSO BE, AND WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING ON, UH, VACATING THE DILAPIDATED FORMER PART OF BURLESON ROAD THAT BISECTS THE PROPERTY, UH, TO REUNITED, PROVIDE FOR A COHESIVE REDEVELOPMENT, UM, AND THEN SOME GROUND FLOOR RETAIL.
UM, THE CONTACT TEAM LETTER OF SUPPORT WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT WE DISCUSSED.
UH, UNIQUE FOR SOME PROPERTIES IN THE AREA, UH, OR UNLIKE OTHER PROPERTIES, UM, AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT DID A, UM, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REPORT FOR THE PROPERTY.
AND TYPICALLY THEY, THEY COMPLETELY OPPOSE IN THIS CASE.
THEY, THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH THEIR OPPOSITION, UM, BOILER PLATE NOTED, UM, WITH, UH, THEM BEING OKAY WITH IT BASED ON THE SAFE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT OF AT LEAST A THOUSAND FEET.
UH, THIS IS A CROSS SECTION OF THE BERKSON SQUARE TRAIL, THIS AREA, UM, SHOWING A PROPERTY.
UM, IT'S JUST 150 FEET SOUTH OF IT WITH EIGHT TO 10 FOOT BICYCLE PATH AND A SIX EIGHT FOOT PEDESTRIAN PATH.
UH, SO THIS IS NOT A HOMOGENOUSLY INDUSTRIAL AREA.
[00:20:01]
HOUSING THAT SHOULD WENT IN, UH, JUST UP THE STREET WITHIN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS.UH, THAT WAS A SMART HOUSING PROJECT.
UM, REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS, THE NEW RADIO, A COFFEE AND BEER LOCATION, ABOUT TWO LOTS TO THE NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY, UM, THAT HAS AN APPROVED, UH, SITE PLAN.
UM, THE NEXT HEADQUARTERS THAT I MENTIONED.
AND WE ALSO HAVE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THIS PROPERTY AS WELL.
AND, UH, THE, UM, A MEMBER OF THE, THE LOCAL DEVELOPER FAMILY IS HERE, UH, ZANE TODAY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE AS, AS WELL AS ME.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. JASON, SERMON ON THE TELECONFERENCE.
MR. SERMON, SELECT STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH MARKS.
UH, MY NAME IS JOHN THURMAN, AND I'M CALLING ON BEHALF OF THE CONTACT TEAM.
UH, THE SOUTHEAST COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM SUPPORTS, UH, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, AMENDMENT AND ZONING CHANGES PROVIDES FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX.
UH, THE CONTACT TEAM BELIEVES THIS IS A GOOD LOCATION FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING ITS CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE NEW TEXT DOT HEADQUARTERS, WHICH IS IN WITH SHORT, WITHIN SHORT WORK WALKING DISTANCE.
AND WE UNDERSTAND HAZARD WILL HAVE UP TO 2000 EMPLOYEES.
UH, THERE ARE VERY FEW AMENITIES CLOSE TO TECH DOT.
THERE'S A SUBWAY RESTAURANT, UH, CONVENIENCE STORE, AND A COUPLE OF FOOD TRUCKS.
UM, IT WOULD BE NICE FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES TO ALSO HAVE ACCESS TO RETAIL AND RESTAURANTS THAT WE EXPECT TO BE PART OF THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
UM, THE DEVELOPMENT IS ALSO VERY CLOSE.
THE BROOK S SPUR TRAIL, WHICH WILL PASS NEARBY.
UH, THE TRAIL WILL BE A GREAT COMMUNITY FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT AND WHO WORK NEARBY.
THE DEVELOPMENT MAY BE A GOOD ACCESS AND ACTIVATION POINT FOR THE TRAIL SERVING AS A DESTINATION AND PROMOTING THE TRAIL'S USE.
WE UNDERSTAND THE CITY STAFF IS HESITANT TO CONVERT INDUSTRIAL TO MIXED USE, BUT IN ADDITION TO TECHO, WHICH IS NOT INDUSTRIAL, WE NOTE THAT A COMMUNITY FIRST VILLAGE IS ESTABLISHED AND EXPANDING NEARBY TO THE SOUTHEAST OFF OF BURLESON.
AND THE COLORADO CROSSING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IS ALSO CLOSE BY.
IT WOULD BE NICE IF PEOPLE LIVING IN THIS MOSTLY INDUSTRIAL AREA HAD MORE PLACES TO GO NEAR THEIR HOMES.
CONSIDERING THE POTENTIAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
OUR VIEW IS THAT CONVERTING A SMALL PART OF THIS LARGE INDUSTRIAL AREA, WHICH IS NOT CURRENTLY BEING USED, SHOULD NOT BE A CONCERN.
THE CONTACT TEAM APPRECIATES THAT THE APPLICANT AGREES.
SO THE CONDITIONS WE OUTLINED IN OUR LETTER OF SUPPORT, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SIDEWALK AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRAIL ACCESS AND GROUND, FAR FLOOR RETAIL.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND WE HOPE YOU SUPPORT THESE PROPOSED CHANGES.
SO I DON'T HAVE ANY OPPOSITION.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT WISHES TO, UM, HEATHER THREE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL OR NOT.
DID YOU HAVE ANY, UM, I KNOW THE BUZZER RAINED BEFORE YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN DONE.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD? YOU HAVE SOME TIME IN YOUR REBUTTAL.
UM, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANYTHING TO REBUT.
UM, BUT I, I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT, UH, IN THE HISTORY OF THIS, THIS PROPERTY, UM, HALF OF IT, LIKE I SAID, HAS NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED AS FAR AS I CAN TELL.
UM, AND THE OTHER HALF HAS TWO SMALL BUSINESSES THAT ARE COMMERCIAL.
AND SO, UM, STAFF HAS ARGUED THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE GIVING UP INDUSTRIAL LAND.
WELL, THIS PROPERTY'S CLEARLY AND PROPERLY ZONED, UM, OTHERWISE THE MARKET WOULD'VE PROVIDED INDUSTRIAL USE IN THIS PROPERTY.
UM, JUST, UH, WE HAVE SOME FOLKS, I THINK MAYBE ON STAFF AND AS WELL IN THE COMMISSION THAT MAY HAVE TO LEAVE SOONER OF US IN ORDER TO KIND OF, UH, MOVE THROUGH THIS A LITTLE QUICKLY.
I'M PROPOSING THERE ISN'T ANY OPPOSITION AT THIS POINT TO GO WITH, UH, FIVE QUESTIONS AT THREE MINUTES EACH.
IF WE NEED, IF THAT BUILDS, WE HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
UH, WE, UH, I THINK WE CAN ENTERTAIN ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AT THAT POINT.
ANY CONCERNS WITH REDUCING THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS IN THE TIME? OKAY.
BUT AGAIN, IF ANYBODY NEEDS TO ASK A QUESTION, WE CAN, UM, WE CAN ASK AGAIN AND, AND ADD A FEW MORE QUESTIONS ON.
SO WITH THAT, WHO HAS THE FIRST QUESTION? THIS EVENING? CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, WE NEED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, DO I HAVE A MOTION CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING? UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UH, ANY OBJECTIONS TO CLOSING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALL RIGHT, I, I DON'T SEE ANY RED, NO OBJECTIONS.
SO WE'RE GONNA GO AND PASS THAT.
[00:25:01]
ALL RIGHT.UM, ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND START WITH OUR QUESTIONS.
I THINK THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, MY QUESTION IS ABOUT THE BERGSTROM SPUR TRAIL, UM, AND REALLY ANY OF THE URBAN TRAILS THAT THE CITY IS, IS BUILDING.
UM, IS THERE AN ACCOMPANYING LAND USE STUDY, UM, DONE FOR ANY OF THOSE TRAILS, UM, EITHER UNDER DESIGN OR BEING PLANNED THAT LOOKS AT AREAS LIKE THIS WHERE YOU'RE INTRODUCING, UH, AN ELEMENT THAT'S VERY MUCH MEANT TO MOVE PEOPLE, RESIDENTS, PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING BACK AND FORTH, GOING THROUGH AN AREA THAT MAYBE, MAYBE THERE IS SOME, SOME LOOKING AT THE LANDING LAND USES TO BETTER ACCOMPANY INFRASTRUCTURE IN INVESTMENT LIKE THAT? AS FAR AS STUDIES, I WOULD NEED TO CONFER WITH OUR M P A COLLEAGUES TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY SPECIFIC STUDIES.
I WOULD NEED TO ACTUALLY LOOK INTO INFORMATION TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION SPECIFICALLY.
UM, I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
UH, COMMISSIONER MU TYLER, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER COX.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT REZONING IN AN AREA THAT HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY INDUSTRIAL.
ARE THERE ANY, I GUESS I'M ASKING ABOUT AD'S, SLIGHTLY EQUIVOCAL RESPONSE.
IS THERE ANY INDUSTRY, UH, IN THE AREA THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF THAT IS OF CONCERN FOR RESIDENTIAL HAZARDS? OTHER THAN THE IDEA OF MIXING, MIXING THE RESIDENTIAL WITH INDUSTRIAL USE? CORRECT.
UM, THERE'S NOT A SPECIFIC SITE OR A SPECIFIC, UH, COMPANY OR ANYTHING THAT WE ARE AWARE OF.
UM, SO WE DON'T, IT'S MORE OF THE DON'T TOXIC USES, TOXIC WATER, TOXIC CHEMICALS EXACTLY.
IT'S MORE OF THE CONCEPT OF BEING COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY INDUSTRIAL AREA AND PUTTING RESIDENTIAL LITERALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.
COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, I'M TRULY UNDECIDED ON THIS, SO I'M HOPING SOMEONE CAN SWAY ME IN EITHER DIRECTION.
UM, I GUESS QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, THERE WAS LIKE A THOUSAND FOOT SEPARATION THING THAT A F PUT IN THERE.
CAN, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THE THOUSAND FOOT SEPARATION IS ABOUT? YES.
UH, COMMISSIONER, GOOD QUESTION.
SO THE THOUSAND FOOT IS TO, THEY WILL DO A STUDY OF THE SURROUNDING AREA, UH, LOOK AT ANY POTENTIAL HAZARDS, AND IF THERE IS, UH, SOME, SOME BUSINESS THAT'S STORING, UM, YOU KNOW, A ABOVE GROUND STORAGE TANK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, MAKING SURE THAT THE PROPERTY'S FAR ENOUGH AWAY.
AND IN THIS CASE, UM, ANY POTENTIAL PROPERTY LIKE THAT WAS AT LEAST A THOUSAND FEET AWAY.
AND SO, UM, BASED ON THAT, UM, THEY DID NOT OPPOSE, UM, BECAUSE OF THE SAFE SEPARATION.
I GUESS MY QUESTION ABOUT THAT IS IN THE REVERSE, I IF, IF ONE OF THESE INDUSTRIAL SITES THAT SURROUND THIS ENTIRE PROPERTY DECIDE THEY WANT TO, THEY NEED TO HAVE SOME SORT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TO CONTINUE GROWING THEIR BUSINESS AND THEIR ZONING DESIGNATION ALLOWS IT, DOES THAT, DOES THAT HAPPEN AND THEN PUT YOUR RESIDENTS AT RISK? OR ARE WE ELIMINATING THAT POSSIBILITY NOW BY THE FACT THAT WE'RE PUTTING A RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE MIDDLE OF THESE INDUSTRIALLY ZONED AREAS? I THINK THAT COULD BE A CONCERN AT OTHER PROPERTIES.
UM, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY AND WHAT IS AROUND IT, THIS, THE INDUSTRIAL USES THAT ARE THERE ARE SOMEWHAT STABLE.
SO NORTH OF US IS AN LCR, A SERVICE YARD THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR YEARS.
IT'S AN EXTREMELY LARGE PROPERTY.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THAT CHANGING.
UM, AND WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE NON-INDUSTRIAL USES RIGHT NEXT TO US.
SO IMMEDIATELY TO OUR SOUTH, WE HAVE A GAS STATION WITH A SUBWAY.
UM, CADY TO THE SOUTHWEST IS ANOTHER GAS STATION THAT'S BEING BUILT.
AND I'VE GOT LIMITED TIME, WHICH IS THE REASON I'M INTERRUPTING.
UM, SO I GUESS QUESTION FOR STAFF,
[00:30:01]
IF I CAN, UM, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT BY CHANGING THIS DEVELOPMENT INTO ONE THAT INCORPORATES RESIDENTIAL USE AND A LOT MORE INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT, CAN YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL KIND OF FUTURE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS? DOES THAT, DOES THAT MEAN THESE INDUSTRIAL SITES FROM KIND OF A DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE MIGHT ALL BE SEEN AS UNDERUTILIZED SINCE THEY COULD ALL BE CHANGED TO A HIGHER DENSITY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT? AND THEN NOW THIS ONE SITE KIND OF THREATENS THIS WHOLE INDUSTRIAL AREA? IS THAT, IS THAT I, IS THAT KIND OF JUST CRAZY THINKING, OR IS THAT KIND OF A POSSIBILITY OF ACTIONS LIKE THIS? WELL, I THINK THAT, UM, ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE LOOKED AT IS, OKAY, ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE LOOKED AT IS THAT THIS AREA, THERE OBVIOUSLY OTHER INDUSTRIAL AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN IN TRANSITION.AND THIS IS ONE OF THE AREAS THAT IS REALLY NOT, HAS NOT TRANSITIONED YET.
SO, UM, AS FAR AS IF WE START WITH THIS SITE AND IF IT'S A DOMINO EFFECT, I MEAN, I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS, BUT I THINK THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY DISCUSSED AS A TEAM, AS THIS AREA ISN'T NECESSARILY TRANSITIONING AS SOME OF THE OTHER HEAVILY INDUSTRIAL SITES IN THE CITY.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, BUT, UM, I MEAN, I, AM I OUT OF TIME? UH, YES.
IS ANYBODY WANT TO, UH, PICK UP THE NEXT QUESTION AND ALLOW A LITTLE MORE TIME TO ANSWER THE QUESTION? I'LL PICK UP THE NEXT QUESTION.
AND, AND YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND FINISH YOUR QUESTION.
COMMISSIONER COX, WERE YOU, UH, DID, DID YOU HAVE OH, WELL, NO, I, I WAS, I WAS JUST GONNA, I WAS ACTUALLY GONNA ASK THE APPLICANT IF FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, BEING IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, THIS SORT OF DEVELOPMENT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS, IS LIKELY, UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORD IS, BUT, BUT JUST MORE ATTRACTIVE FINANCIALLY THAN A WAREHOUSE.
AND SO THIS AREA IS SURROUNDED BY WAREHOUSES.
AND SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL DOMINO EFFECT OF BASICALLY OPENING THE DOOR TO THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.
AND IF THE APPLICANT BEING WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY KIND OF SEES THAT SNOWBALL POTENTIALLY OCCURRING BASED ON, BASED ON THIRD DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK THAT'S, LET ME TRY IN FACT THAT, SO THERE ARE, UH, IF, IF YOUR QUESTION IS ARE THEY DECIDING TO GOING AFTER THIS PROPERTY SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE, THE PROPERTY COST? NO.
UM, THEY'RE GOING BASED ON WHERE THE MARKET DEMAND IS, UM, AND WHERE WE NEED HOUSING AND WHERE WE HAVE A SHORTAGE OF HOUSING FOR WORKERS.
UM, IT'S A HISTORICALLY UNDERUTILIZED SITE, AND IT'S NOT A HOMOGENOUSLY INDUSTRIAL AREA.
I MEAN, YOU HAVE HOUSING RIGHT DOWN THE STREET THAT WAS JUST BUILT.
YOU HAVE RADIO COFFEE TWO PROPERTIES AWAY THAT'S GOING IN VERY SOON.
UM, AND SO IT HAS EASY ACCESS TO VIN WHITE, IT HAS GREAT ACCESS TO THE TRAIL, WHICH IS A BIG SELLING POINT FOR THIS PROPERTY.
UM, AND SO THOSE SORTS OF THINGS MAKE THE PROPERTY REALLY ATTRACTIVE, UM, IN OUR POINT OF VIEW.
UM, CAN I TAKE OVER NOW AND FINISH MY TIME? UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, FOR THE STAFF THAT WORKED ON THIS, IT CAN REALLY BE, UM, ANYONE WHO IS INVOLVED IN MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION.
UH, DO WE HAVE SOMEONE FROM STAFF? YEAH.
UM, SO I, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE CONCERN FLAGGED.
UM, THIS ISN'T THE FIRST CASE THAT WE'VE HAD WHERE WE SEE AN INDUSTRIAL SITE TRANSITIONING TO RESIDENTIAL RECENTLY, AND THE CONCERN FOR THE PRESERVATION OF BLUE COLLAR JOBS IN AUSTIN AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, UM, BLUE COLLAR JOBS AS SOMETHING THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ME.
UM, BUT I THINK THERE SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF A TENSION BECAUSE THERE IS GOOD TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY IN THE AREA, THE POTENTIAL FOR, UM, UH, QUALITY OF LIFE WITH ACCESS TO THE TRAIL AND OTHER SORT OF AMENITIES SEEM TO BE COMING IN EVENTUALLY.
AND I WAS JUST WONDERING IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON HOW YOU, UH, WEIGHED THAT DECISION IN TERMS OF THE ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER AMENITIES IN THE AREA? SURE.
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COMMISSIONER.
UM, I THINK OUR GROUP, THE LONG-RANGE PLANNING TEAM REALLY LOOKED AT, YOU KNOW, OUR JOB IS TO LOOK YEAH, AHEAD AND, AND, AND TRENDS, RIGHT? IT'S TO
[00:35:01]
SEE THAT IN PARTS OF AUSTIN THAT HAVE THESE KIND OF LARGER AREAS.AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT IS, UM, INTERESTING ABOUT THESE CASES IS THAT THESE ARE BIGGER AREAS, RIGHT? SO LIKE, UM, IT'S EASIER TO KIND OF, KIND OF MAKESHIFT THESE KIND OF LARGER PROJECTS, BUT, UM, IN CERTAIN PARTS OF TOWN, LIKE, LIKE WE MENTIONED BEFORE, ST.
ELMO FOR INSTANCE, UH, WHICH IS CLOSER TO IT'S RIGHT OFF SOUTH CONGRESS AND THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR RAIL IN THE FUTURE THAT MADE SENSE TO TRANSITION FROM INDUSTRY TO, TO MIXED USE.
AND EVEN THEN, I FEEL LIKE AFTER SOME CASES THERE'S INDUSTRY NEW INDUSTRY GOING IN, WHICH IS IF THERE'S NEW INDUSTRY GOING IN THE SURROUNDING USES, UH, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WON'T ALLOW THOSE.
SO THERE'S KIND OF, THERE IS A WEIRD KIND OF BACK AND FORTH RIGHT NOW WITH THESE AREAS, UM, RIGHT, IN TERMS OF THIS ONE IN SOUTHEAST AUSTIN, UM, WE BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE THE INDUSTRIAL MOSTLY WAREHOUSING IS SO INTENSE THAT IT'S NOT REALLY HOSPITABLE TO PEOPLE LIVING THERE, RIGHT? UM, YEAH, RADIO COFFEE'S GREAT, BUT IF YOU'RE WALKING THERE AND YOU'RE JUST, THERE'S TONS OF TRAFFIC WITH JUST GIANT TRUCKS, I THINK THAT'S THE PROXIMITY TO JUST ALL THESE TRUCKS AND THAT MOVEMENT.
UM, THE FACT THAT THERE'S BUSES, THE FACT THAT THERE IS A TRAIL, THERE WILL BE A BERGSTROM TRAIL, I THINK IS THAT, THAT IS AN AMENITY THAT IS GREAT, BUT PEOPLE THAT WORK IN THOSE INDUSTRIES COULD ALSO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A TRAIL IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA, I THINK.
UM, AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THINKING LONG TERM ABOUT INDUSTRIAL AREAS, BECAUSE THIS ONE IS STILL IN LIKE, UM, MY COLLEAGUE MENTIONED KIND OF INTACT AND YEAH, THERE ARE SOME COMMERCIAL USES AROUND, UM, BUT BECAUSE THESE INDUSTRIAL USES ARE WELCOME THERE BECAUSE THESE WAREHOUSING, UH, USES ARE WELCOME THERE, UM, IT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER IN TERMS OF TRYING TO NOT CHANGE THAT SO QUICKLY.
IF WE DECIDE, OR THE COUNCIL MEMBER DECIDES THAT THIS IS AN AREA THAT'S WANTS TO CHANGE, THAT SOMETHING'S HAPPENING HERE, THAT IT SHOULD TRANSITION TO A MORE MIXED USE AREA, THEN IT'S WORTH LOOKING AT.
BUT THIS ISN'T A, UH, YOU KNOW, IMAGINE AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
THIS ISN'T IMAGINE AUSTIN JOB CENTER.
SO IF WE'RE TRYING, IF WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH NEW DISTRICT PLANS AND REALLY KIND OF HONE IN ON THESE, IMAGINE AUSTIN DISTRICTS AND CORRIDORS, THIS WAS SPECIFICALLY TARGETED AS A JOB CENTER.
UM, AND HAVING THESE TYPES OF WAREHOUSING USES MAKES SENSE HERE, ESPECIALLY NEAR THE AIRPORT, ESPECIALLY HAVING I, UM, THE, THE, UM, BEN WHITE AND ACCESS TO THE AIRPORT, UM, AND HIGHWAYS I 35.
SO IT JUST MAKES SENSE AS LONG RANGE PLANNERS TO THINK ABOUT THIS AS, YEAH, A POTENTIAL PLACE FOR, FOR JOBS.
SORRY FOR GOING, NOT HOUSING NECESSARILY.
THAT WAS I THINK, A VERY WELL PUT EXPLANATION.
AND SO THAT BRINGS US TO FOUR.
WE HAVE ONE MORE S SLOTT, UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
AND I'M HAPPY TO HAVE GIVEN HALF MY TIME TO THAT.
I JUST SAW THE APPLICANT ON THE EDGE OF A SEAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA JUMP IN REAL QUICK AND THEN I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.
UM, I JUST WANNA FOLLOW UP ON THE JOBS QUESTION.
UM, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS PROPERTY CURRENTLY, IT PROBABLY HAS MAYBE 10 EMPLOYEES, MAYBE THE RETAIL THAT WILL BE GOING INTO THE PROPERTY WILL HAVE MORE JOBS CREATED THAN THAT.
AND IF INDUSTRIAL WAS THE RIGHT ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY, YOU WOULD'VE SEEN IT DEVELOP SOMETIME BETWEEN THE 1940S AND TODAY.
SO THERE'LL BE A NET JOB CREATION, UH, IN ADDITION TO GREAT HOUSING AT SITE.
AND, AND IS THERE A, IS THERE A HEIGHT LIMIT ISSUE ON THIS PROPERTY OR A CO, UH, TO DO WITH HEIGHT? THERE'S NO CO PROPOSED, BUT WE WILL, WE'LL BE ASKING FOR, WELL, WE ARE ASKING FOR VMU, RIGHT? UM, TO, TO PROVIDE SOME EXTRA HEIGHT AND, AND PROVIDE THAT LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY.
THERE WAS SOMETHING IN BACKUP ABOUT A 40 FOOT HEIGHT.
WE'RE JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE AGREEING TO A 40 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT.
I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO DO THAT.
READY TO MAKE A MOTION POSSIBLE.
UH, WE'RE AT, I DID ONE HONOR JUST IF WE HAD, WE ASKED ENOUGH QUESTIONS CAUSE WE DID CUT IT SHORT.
SEEING NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
UH, YES, PLEASE, IF YOU HAVE A MOTION, MOVE APPROVAL, MOVE APPROVALS WITH, UH, APPLICANT REQUEST.
I SEE A SECOND BY, UH, COMMISSIONER MUTO.
DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? SURE, SURE.
IT SEEMS LIKE, UH, NEIGHBORHOODS IN AGREEMENT.
APPLICANT WANTS TO BUILD A LOT OF HOUSING, IT'S UNDERDEVELOPED LAND.
AND, YOU KNOW, THERE THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS AND A LOT OF RULES IN OUR CODE THAT MAKE HOUSING VERY DIFFICULT TO BUILD IN A LOT OF AREAS.
AND SO WE'RE JUST GONNA CONTINUE TO SEE THINGS LIKE THIS.
UM, I HOPE THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO SEE MANY STAFF DISAPPROVALS ON CASES THAT ARE VERY, WHAT FEEL LIKE SLAM DUNK CASES TO ADD A LOT OF HOUSING ON A
[00:40:01]
SPOT THAT BARELY HAS ANY DEVELOPMENT ON IT.BUT A LOT OF THE AREAS THAT WE HAVE WATCHED TRANSITION FROM INDUSTRIAL TO HOUSING, UM, WE'VE TALKED TO A LOT OF THOSE FOLKS WHO OWN THOSE OLDER SITES.
AND WHAT THEY SAY IS, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO PASS ON THOSE TAXES, THEY HAVE TO PASS ON THE LAND COSTS, AND WHEN COSTS GET OUT OF CONTROL, BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH OTHER DEMAND FOR OTHER TYPES OF THINGS TO HAPPEN THERE, YOU USUALLY WATCH THE EVOLUTION OF AN AREA TURN INTO SOMETHING WHICH IS BIGGER AND BETTER, AND THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA LOOK TO DO HERE WITH THIS CASE.
SO EXCITED TO GET 300 HOMES ON THE GROUND WITH A, A LOCAL AUSTIN NIGHT WHO WANTS TO BUILD THESE HOMES.
SO EXCITED TO SEE THIS HAPPEN.
ANY SPEAKERS AGAINST, UM, I'LL, I'LL SPEAK AGAINST, ALTHOUGH I DO WANNA CLARIFY THAT I PLAN TO VOTE FOR THIS CASE.
AND I THINK THERE IS PROBABLY A TOPIC HERE THAT REQUIRES SOME KIND OF A MORE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UH, INVOLVING CITY COUNCIL AROUND HOW WE ARE GOING TO PRESERVE INDUSTRIAL ZONED LAND IN THIS CITY.
UM, THE KINDS OF JOBS THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE AND AVAILABLE ON INDUSTRIAL ZONED LAND ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM SERVICE INDUSTRY JOBS OR RETAIL JOBS, THEIR UNION JOBS, THEIR JOBS WITH BENEFITS, THEIR JOBS THAT ALLOW FOLKS WITH LOWER, UM, LEVELS OF EDUCATION TO ACTUALLY BUILD AND ACCESS SOME AMOUNT OF WEALTH.
AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO TAKE THAT SERIOUSLY.
I THINK THAT, UM, THAT THIS, THE CA THE CASCADING DOMINO NEIGHBORHOODS OFTEN WANT TO GET ON BOARD SUPPORT REMOVING, UM, INDUSTRIAL ZONED LAND.
BUT RECENTLY, UM, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT PROJECT CONNECT, WE SEE, UM, RESISTANCE FROM NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND WANTING TO PUT IN A, UH, MAINTENANCE YARD FACILITY FOR THE TRAIN.
AND WE SEE THE WAY IN WHICH, YOU KNOW, THESE, THESE KINDS OF VERY IMPORTANT FUNCTIONING, UM, U USES IN OUR CITY BECOME HARDER AND HARDER TO, TO LOCATE AND PLACE ON THE MAP BECAUSE OF THE TENSION.
UM, AND I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE DES DESPERATELY NEED HOUSING, AND THAT IS WHY I WILL VOTE ON THIS FOR THE HOUSING AND FOR THE, THE TRAIL AND CONNECTIVITY.
UH, SPEAKERS IN FAVOR? UM, OKAY.
UM, LET'S KIND OF, UH, SECOND.
YEAH, LET'S GO WITH THE SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MOTO.
UM, I WANTED TO ECHO COMMISSIONER CONNOLLY'S REMARKS AND THANK STAFF FOR THEIR THOUGHTFUL INPUT ON THIS.
UM, THAT IS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THAT.
AND, AND WE ARE TRYING TO CAREFULLY TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S DRIVING ME ON THIS SITE IS THAT IT IS UNDEVELOPED AND THAT WE DON'T HAVE KNOWN HAZARDOUS SAFETY CONCERNS OTHER THAN HOW THE TRAFFIC AND THE DEVELOPMENT IS GONNA GO IN THIS AREA IF THERE IS CONTINUED GROWTH.
BUT I THINK AS WE LOOK TO OUR GROWTH PLANNING FOR OUR CITY, THE IDEA OF MIXED USE AND PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO WALK OR BIKE TO WORK, AND WE HAVE SOME GOOD EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN AROUND THE AREA MAY BE REASON FOR US TO RECONSIDER HOW WE'RE DOING IT.
SO INSTEAD OF ZONING OUR INDUSTRIAL OUTSIDE WHERE PEOPLE HAVE TO DRIVE TO GET TO IT, ARE THERE USES THAT WE CAN KEEP CLOSE WHERE PEOPLE CAN GET UP AND WALK THERE, WALK TO THE SCHOOL, JUMP ON THE BIKE TRAIL, THAT KIND OF THING.
SO I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING OPPORTUNITY AND I'M IN FAVOR OF IT.
UM, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD, UH, THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST A MOTION.
ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER COXS, AND THEN I THANK, I'M GONNA COMMISSION REAL QUICK, UH, COMMISSION VICE CHAIR.
DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? OKAY, YOU'LL GO NEXT.
I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA PULL A COMMISSIONER CONLEY HERE.
UM, AND, AND FIRST OF ALL, THANK COMMISSIONER CONLEY FOR, FOR GIVING ME SOME OF HIS TIME TO FINISH MY QUESTIONING.
UM, I, I'M GONNA HOLD MY NOSE AND VOTE FOR THIS, BUT I, IT IS NOT A SLAM DUNK CASE.
THIS IS NOT STRAIGHTFORWARD, AND I THINK THE STAFF'S CONCERNS ARE VERY REAL, AND I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO, THE REASON THAT THEY'RE CONCERNED IS GONNA COME TO FRUITION.
AND SO BY THIS VOTE, I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE MAYBE THE DEATH NAIL IN THIS AREA AS INDUSTRIAL HAD ALREADY BEEN RUNG, RANG, WHATEVER THE PROPER TENSE IS.
UM, BUT I THINK THIS IS GONNA ACCELERATE IT.
AND SO I JUST WANNA MAKE A POINT THAT ALL THESE WAREHOUSES THAT, LIKE COMMISSIONER CONLEY SAID, DO, UH, PROVIDE A LOT OF JOBS, UH, BLUE COLLAR JOBS, MAYBE THOSE PEOPLE LIVE IN PLEASANT VALLEY OR MONOLO OR WHATEVER, THOSE ARE GONNA HAVE TO MOVE AWAY BECAUSE A WAREHOUSE DOES NOT MAKE ENOUGH AS MUCH MONEY FROM
[00:45:01]
A DEVELOPER'S PERSPECTIVE AS THIS PROPERTY THAT WE'RE THINKING NOW.THIS MIX USE DEVELOPMENT IS WAY MORE VALUABLE THAN A LOT OF THOSE WAREHOUSE SITES IN THIS AREA.
SO BY ALLOWING THIS TO BASICALLY POSITION ITSELF RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS INTERSECTION OF THIS INDUSTRIAL AREA, WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING THIS IS NO LONGER NEEDS TO BE AN INDUSTRIAL AREA, RESIDENTIAL IS PERFECTLY FINE, AND THAT'S GOING TO ACCELERATE.
THE REASON WHY I'M OKAY SUPPORTING THIS IS, IS PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF A LOT OF COMMISSIONER COX SPACE.
WE NEED TO KEEP TO OUR MINUTES.
UH, THOSE SPEAK YOU IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, UH, VICE CHAIR HEMPLE.
I JUST, I I WANNA ADD THAT I THINK THE BERGSTROM SPUR TRAIL IS A REALLY IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THIS.
AND WHY ARE WE BUILDING THIS TRAIL AS A CITY IF IT'S NOT GOING TO SEE MUCH USE AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO USE IT ARE LIKELY THOSE THAT ARE GOING TO LIVE NEAR IT, GOING TO DESTINATIONS, AND THERE ARE DESTINATIONS WITHIN THIS AREA, THERE'S A KIPP SCHOOL THAT YOU COULD GO FROM THIS SITE TO THE KIPP SCHOOL ON A TRAIL THAT'S AMAZING IN THIS PART OF THE CITY.
NOT TO MENTION THE CENTRAL TEXAS FOOD BANK IS JUST DOWN THE STREET.
AND YES, IT'S A WAREHOUSE, BUT IT'S ALSO A PLACE WHERE FAMILIES, PEOPLE GO TO PICK UP FOOD THAT ARE IN NEED.
SO I, AND THIS SITE, UM, BY VIRTUE OF ITS SIZE IS SMALL.
YOU LOOK AT THE HUGE WAREHOUSE AREAS AROUND IT, IT, I JUST DON'T SEE IT DEVELOPING INTO THAT OF DEVELOPMENT.
SO I THINK THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE USE.
UM, IT DID THINK THAT, UM, IT TOOK SOME CONVINCING, BUT, UM, I SEE THAT I COULD, IT BEING VIABLE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE IN INVESTMENT THAT THE CITY'S PUTTING THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEARBY.
UH, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND TAPE THE LAST SPOT.
UM, I READ A STUDY BY, UH, THE STAFF, UM, A WHILE BACK ABOUT THE, HOW WE'RE LOSING, UH, SO MUCH OF OUR INDUSTRIAL, UH, ZONE PROPERTIES.
AND IT WAS ALARMING AND, AND KIND OF, UH, IMPLORING, YOU KNOW, MORE PLANNING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T LOSE IT.
AND WHAT I HEARD IS THIS IS ONE OF THE LAST AREAS THAT ISN'T KIND OF BEING TURNED OVER.
AND, UM, I THINK THIS WILL SET, UH, SET A PRECEDENCE.
CUZ UNFORTUNATELY, ONCE YOU HAVE RESIDENTS AND YOU DO WANT TO CHANGE YOUR INDUSTRY AND BRING IN, YOU KNOW, CHEMICALS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED, UH, THEY MAY, YOU KNOW, THAT MAY NOT BE A GOOD IDEA ONCE WE HAVE RESIDENTS CLOSE BY.
SO I THINK WE NEED THESE AREAS THAT ARE IMPORTANT.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE DESPERATE NEED FOR HOUSING IS KIND OF CAUSING US TO, UM, NOT PLAN VERY WELL, UNFORTUNATELY.
SO I WILL ECHO THE WHAT, UH, A LAND CODE, A NEW LAND CODE WOULD BE, I THINK DO A LOT TO PREVENT THIS, UH, THESE KIND OF POOR DECISIONS FROM BEING MADE, UNFORTUNATELY.
SO I'M GONNA VOTE AGAINST THIS, UH, BECAUSE I, I THINK STAFF IS MAKING THE RIGHT CALL IN THIS CASE.
ALL RIGHT, WELL, WITH THAT, DO, UH, THIS IS THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S, UH, UM, REQUEST.
AND IT WAS, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MOOCH TYLER.
THOSE FOUR, IT'S ITEMS FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX.
YEAH, WE'RE COMBINING ALL OF THOSE.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
OKAY, LET'S GO AND SEE THOSE ON FAVOR ON THE DIODES.
AND THOSE AGAINST THIS MOTION.
SO THAT IS 12 ONE, IF I'VE GOT MY NUMBERS RIGHT.
[16. Site Plan - Appeal: SP-2021-028C - 2428 W Ben White Mixed Use Development; District 5]
ITEM, UH, ITEM 16, UH, STAFF.HEATHER CHAFFIN WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS CASE S P 20 21, 0 2 7 8 C.
BEN WHITE BOULEVARD, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THAT ADDRESS.
THE WATERSHEDS ARE BARTON SPRINGS AND WILLIAMSON CREEK.
THEY'RE PROPOSING A MIXED USE BUILDING.
AND THE APPEAL IS THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO INCREASE NON-COMP COMPLYING IMPERVIOUS COVER USING THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION WITHIN BOTH OF THOSE WATERSHEDS.
[00:50:04]
GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, KATIE COIN, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF WATERSHED PROTECTION.UH, NICE TO SEE ALL OF Y'ALL AGAIN.
UH, I JUST WANNA MAKE THREE QUICK POINTS AND I'M GONNA HAND IT OVER TO LIZ, OUR DEPUTY ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER.
FIRST, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN A LOT OF CASES YOU SEE.
BEFORE YOU WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU IF YOU AGREE WITH THIS OUTCOME, WE'RE ASKING YOU IF I GOT MY DECISION ABOUT HOW CODE IS INTERPRETED WRONG.
TWO, UH, WE WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR THAT THERE IS A MECHANISM FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND WE'RE UNCLEAR ABOUT WHY THE APPLICANT HAS NOT EXPLORED THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE OFFERED THIS AS AN OPTION.
UH, THE, A AVENUE IS A SITE SPECIFIC SOS AMENDMENT.
UH, SO JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IS CLEAR.
UH, AND ALSO WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR THAT THE WAY WE'VE APPLIED CODE TO THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR IS, IS PRETTY CLEAR WHEN IT COMES TO CODE APPLICATION, AND THERE'S A LOT OF PRECEDENT FOR US APPLYING CODE IN THIS WAY CONSISTENTLY.
AND LIZ WILL OUTLINE THAT IN MORE DETAIL.
BUT WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AFTER OUR PRESENTATION, INCLUDING FOLKS FROM BOTH WATERSHED PROTECTION, DSD AS WELL AS LAW.
UH, KATIE, UH, AND HEATHER, UH, LIZ JOHNSTON.
I'M THE DEPUTY ENVI DEPUTY ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER WITH THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT.
LET'S SEE IF I CAN GET THIS THING TO WORK.
SO, UM, AS DISCUSSED, THIS IS AN APPEAL OF A DENIAL OF A SITE PLAN.
UM, UH, BUT BASICALLY WHAT IS AT UNDER DISCUSSION TODAY IS REALLY AN INTERPRETATION FOR OF ONE OF THE COMMENTS, UM, PROVIDED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWER.
UM, AND SO YOU ALL ARE GOING TO BE ACTING AS STAFF IN THIS CAPACITY IN MAKING THE CALL.
DID STAFF MAKE THE RIGHT DE INTERPRETATION? DID IT, DID WE NOT MAKE THE RIGHT DE DETERMINATION? AND, AND, AND SO WHAT I WANNA MAKE SURE IS THAT IT'S, IT'S NOT, UM, AN APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THE ENTIRE SITE PLAN.
IT'S RELATED TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE, UM, UM, ITEM AT HAND.
ALL RIGHT, SO THIS IS RELATED TO A PROPERTY AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAMAR AND BEN WHITE.
THERE IS EXISTING DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS THE EAST AND, UM, UNDEVELOPED LAND TO THE WEST AND NORTH.
UM, IT IS, UH, A SITE PLAN UNDER REVIEW FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, THE WATERSHEDS ARE SPLIT, UM, BETWEEN THE BARTON CREEK, UH, WATERSHED AND WILLIAMSON CREEK.
UM, BARTON, OF COURSE, IS A BARTON SPRING ZONE.
UM, IT IS OUTSIDE OF THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE.
UM, THIS IS JUST AN IMAGE, GOOGLE STREET VIEW SHOWING THE, UH, BUILDING, IT'S THE OLD STREET MUSIC SITE.
AND THEN, UM, SOME OF THE, UH, LAND THAT, UH, HAD BEEN, UM, UM, ADDED TO THE PARCEL, UH, RELATIVELY RECENTLY TO THE, UH, WEST.
UM, AND IN THE MAP, YOU CAN SEE THE PINK IS THE BURN.
SPRING ZONE BLUE IS THE SUBURBAN WATERSHED REGULATIONS.
ALL RIGHT, SO IN THE BARTON SPRING ZONE, UM, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IS, UH, RESTRICTED TO 20% OF THE NET SIDE AREA.
AND THE WATER QUALITY TREATMENT STANDARD IS NONDEGRADATION.
AND SO THOSE ARE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS THAN THE SUBURBAN WATERSHED REGULATIONS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN SUBURBAN WATERSHEDS, UM, HAVE, UM, SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 80 AND 60% DEPENDING ON THE RATIO.
AND, UH, THE WATER QUALITY TREATMENT IS THE STANDARD, UM, POND.
UM, THE ISSUE AT STAKE IS RELATED TO THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING, UM, ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE BARTON SPRING ZONE SIDE.
AND SO THE IMPERVIOUS COVER INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT WAS, UM, ACTUALLY BASED ON THE POST-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS.
AND I'LL GET INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER.
BUT BASICALLY WHAT IS THAT ISSUE IS THAT THE APPLICANT IS MEETING REQUIREMENTS ON THE SUBURBAN SIDE, BUT NOT THE BARTON SPRING ZONE SIDE.
SO BECAUSE THE APPLICANT OR THE, THE PROJECT HAS, UM, EXISTING NON-COMPLIANT DEVELOPMENT ON BOTH SIDES, THE APPLICANT HAS, UH, RE UH, REQUESTED TO BE REVIEWED UNDER THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS.
UM, I SAY EXCEPTIONS BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO, THERE'S ONE FOR THE SUBURBAN WATERSHED, LDC 25,825.
AND THE BARTON SPRING ZONE IS A DIFFERENT SECTION CALLED, UM, UH, L 25,826.
THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION ALLOWS PROPERTIES THAT DO NOT MEET CODE TO, UM, UH, BE EXEMPT FROM CERTAIN WATERSHED REGULATIONS WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
AND SO THAT IS TO ENCOURAGE REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES.
AND IN EXCHANGE, WE GET CERTAIN THINGS INCLUDING WATER QUALITY, UM, TREATMENT, WHICH IS DEFINITELY A GOOD THING.
UM, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION IS THAT IMPERVIOUS COVER NOT BE INCREASED WITHIN THE SITE.
STAFF SAYS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT WATERSHED REGULATIONS,
[00:55:01]
TWO DIFFERENT REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS, ONE SECTION OF THE CODE APPLIES IN ONE SECTION AND ONE APPLIES IN THE OTHER.AND THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE 25 8 25 SAYS.
AND THIS IS THE BARTON SPRING ZONE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
SO JUST KNOWING THAT ONE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE SIMPLE THAN THE OTHER ONE IS A THROUGH D, AND THIS IS A THROUGH I IN THE CODE.
SO IT'S, IT'S YOU JUST SHOWING THAT YOU CAN'T APPLY ONE IN THE OTHER BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT CODE SECTIONS.
AND JUST, THIS IS JUST KIND OF A REITERATING 25 8, 26 A SAYS THAT IN THE CODE, IT SAYS IT APPLIES TO PROPERTY IN THE BARTON SPRING ZONE 25 8 25 A SAYS THAT THE SECTION APPLIES TO PROPERTY LOCATED IN AN URBAN OR SUBURBAN WATERSHED.
SO NEITHER SECTION SAYS THAT IT CAN BE APPLI APPLIED IN EITHER OF THE OTHER LOCATIONS, AND STAFF HAVE ALWAYS LOOKED AT WATERSHED REGULATIONS SEPARATELY.
THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY AN UNCOMMON THING TO HAPPEN.
UM, PART OF THE, THE CONFUSION IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF SITE? UM, THE CODE DOES HAVE A DEFINITION.
IT IS A CONTIGUOUS AREA INTENDED FOR DEVELOPMENT OR THE AREA ON WHICH A BUILDING HAS BEEN PROPOSED TO BE BUILT OR HAS BEEN BUILT.
AND THEN THERE'S A DEFINITION OF SITE PLANNING IN CASE IT COMES UP.
SO THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR STAFF TO SAY THAT WHEN THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION SAYS YOU MAY NOT INCREASE IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE SITE, THAT SHOULD MEAN THE PROJECT BOUNDARIES STAFF INTERPRETS SITE, AND AS IT APPLIES TO THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION TO BE THE LAND WITHIN THAT APPLICABLE WATERSHED REGULATION.
UM, SO APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO INCREASE IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE BARTON SPRING ZONE SIDE.
UM, AND SO WHILE IT MEETS THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION FOR THE SUBURBAN WATERSHED, WE ARE SAYING IT DOES NOT MEET THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION FOR THE BARTON SPRING ZONE SIDE.
UH, ONE OF THE OTHER, UM, ISSUES AT STAKE HERE IS, UH, THE INTUBATION DIVERSION, WHICH, UH, CODE ALLOWS.
SO, UM, YOU CAN, UH, UNDER CODE WITH SOME, UM, UH, WITH LIMITS MOVE PROPERTY FROM ONE REGULATION AREA TO ANOTHER.
SO THEY'RE PROPOSING TO GRADE THE SITE FROM BARTON SPRING ZONE TO SUBURBAN, AND IT, THAT IS ALL CO COMPLIANT.
NEXT SLIDE CAN JUST, I'M ALMOST DONE.
UM, SO IF I CAN FINISH OR, OKAY.
UM, SO REGULATION, SO, UM, SO, UM, UH, SORRY, WHICH IS, WHICH IS FINE, BUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL SAYS THAT YOU, UM, AS FAR AS REGULATIONS GO, THE PRE-DEVELOPMENT CONSI CONDITIONS ARE WHAT APPLIES.
AND SO THE APPLICANT HAS PROVO PROVIDED POST-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS, SO SHOWING THEIR, THEIR IMPERVIOUS COVER CALCULATIONS SO THAT THEY COMPLY, BUT BASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS, THEY DON'T.
SO THEY'RE PROPOSING TO ADJUST THE WATERSHED BOUNDARY.
THE ECM SAYS THAT, UM, WE MUST LOOK AT APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AS THEY ARE TODAY.
UM, THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION REQUIRES THAT THE PROJECT NOT INCREASE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVER, AND EACH WATERSHED REGULATION AREA MUST MEET CONDITIONS SEPARATELY BASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS.
SO THE SAVERS SPRINGS REGULATIONS DON'T ALLOW STAFF DISCRETION.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES OR WAIVERS BECAUSE THE INTENT OF THAT ORDINANCE IS A HIGHER LEVEL OF PUBLIC INPUT AND SCRUTINY.
UM, SO THE OPTIONS THAT WE BELIEVE THE STAFF HA THE APPLICANT HAS IS TO EITHER REDESIGN OR REQUEST THAT CITY COUNCIL OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATE A SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT TO OUR, UH, THE SAVER SPRINGS INITIATIVE.
YOU HAD ONE ON YOUR, UH, AGENDA EARLIER TODAY.
AND, UM, OUR INTERPRETATION, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER INTERPRETATION IS BASED ON THE PLAN LANGUAGE, UM, PAST PRESIDENT AND CLEAR ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA, MANUAL GUIDANCE.
AND WE'RE HERE FOR QUESTIONS, UH, THE APPLICANT.
UM, DID WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS MR. RIVERA CHAIR? COMMISSION LEAVES ON ANDREW? YES.
I WILL HEAR, UM, FROM, UH, THE APPLICANT.
OH, BESIDES THE APPLICANT, DID WE HAVE ANY YES, WE DO HAVE, WE DO.
MR. ANDERSON, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
AND IF YOU, JUST TO BE FAIR, IF YOU NEED A LITTLE EXTRA TIME, WE CAN ALLOW IT.
GIVEN WE GIVE A LITTLE TIME FOR STAFF TO FINISH THEIR EXPLANATION.
UH, MR. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, I'M STEVE DRER ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, AND, UM, I'M GOING TO, UH, AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'VE HEARD, UH, TO ONE, TO ONE EXTENT.
UH, THE CODE MAKES VERY CLEAR THAT,
[01:00:01]
UH, AS AN APPLICANT, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK THIS COMMISSION TO REVISIT THIS ISSUE, UH, AND TO MAKE YOUR OWN DETERMINATION ABOUT, UH, THE PROPER READING OF THE CODE.SO, UM, LET ME HIT THE NEXT SLIDE.
UH, YOU ARE AWARE NOW OF WHERE WE ARE.
SO, UH, WHY ARE WE HERE? WELL, UM, WE'RE HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK YOU FOR THIS DECISION.
WHAT IS AT STAKE? UH, AS YOU'LL SEE, THIS IS A POSITION THAT THE STAFF HAS REVERSED ITSELF ON AFTER 15 MONTHS OF DESIGN AND PROCESS.
SO WE DIDN'T START THIS PROCESS WITHOUT HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS.
WE GOT CLEAR DIRECTION ON WHAT THE STAFF WOULD APPROVE, AND NOW THEY ARE REVERSING THEMSELVES WHAT IS AT RISK, TWO AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS IN PLANS.
SO IT'S EASY FOR THE STAFF TO SAY, WELL, JUST REDESIGN.
WELL, THAT'S ANOTHER 12 MONTHS AT LEAST, AND ANOTHER TWO AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS IN PLANS.
THE, THE PROJECT CANNOT ABSORB THAT.
WE'VE BEEN IN THIS PROCESS FOR 20 MONTHS.
AND WHAT IS LITERALLY AT RISK OF THE 319 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS THAT ARE PLANNED FOR THIS AREA, 10% OF THOSE WOULD BE AT 60% OF MFI.
WHAT STAFF DID NOT MENTION IS THE WATER QUALITY PROPOSED HERE IS THE MOST, UH, STRICT WATER QUALITY.
IT COMPLIES WITH THE SOS ORDINANCE.
SO THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE WE'RE ASKING FOR SOMETHING THAT WOULD DEC WOULD DEGRADE THE ENVIRONMENT.
THERE IS NO WATER QUALITY ON THAT SITE TODAY.
AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS AN OVERALL REDUCTION OF IMPERVIOUS COVER AND 100% SOS COMPLIANT WATER QUALITY CONTROLS.
YOU'VE SEEN THIS LANGUAGE AND THIS, AND THE STAFF WOULD LIKE YOU TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE LANGUAGE IS RELATIVELY CLEAR TO ME.
UH, SOME 20 YEARS AGO, I DRAFTED THE REDEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE FOR THE BARTON SPRINGS ZONE FOR MAYOR LEFFINGWELL.
UH, IT WAS CLEAR IN MY MIND THEN IT IS CLEAR IN MY MIND NOW THAT THESE RULES ARE SUPPOSED TO APPLY TO SITES AND SITES ARE USED ALL THE, ALL THE TIME IN THE CODE.
AND IT REFERS TO WHAT IS COVERED BY A SITE PLAN.
STAFF WOULD HAVE YOU LOOK AT THAT CLEAR LANGUAGE AND DECIDE THAT THERE'S REALLY TWO SITES HERE.
AND THAT WAS THE INTERPRETATION THAT THEY MAINTAINED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROJECT.
AND THEN FOR MORE THAN SEVEN MONTHS AFTER WE FILED THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SAME LANGUAGE IN THE BARTON SPRING ZONE EXCEPTION.
ALL OF THE DEFINITIONS OF SITE, CONSTRUCTION, SITE, SITE PLAN, THEY'RE ALL CONSISTENT.
IT'S ALL DEFINED BY THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
THAT'S A SITE, IT'S NOT TWO SITES, IT'S ONE SITE.
TEXAS PROPERTY CODE, ET CETERA.
EVERYTHING IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT INTERPRETATION.
THE, UM, REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUB-CHAPTER, UH, I THINK ARE CLEAR AND I'M NOT GONNA BELABOR THIS, BUT I WANT YOU TO SEE OUR TIMELINE.
SO, THE INITIAL SUBMITTAL WAS BACK IN JULY OF 21.
WE HAD CONVERSATIONS BEFORE THAT WHERE WE SAID, WE, THIS IS THE WAY WE READ THE CODE.
DO YOU AGREE? THE ANSWER WAS YES.
WE SPENT THE TWO AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS TO DEVELOP THE PLANS.
WE RECEIVED DIRECTION, UH, ON 10 28 21.
WE WERE CLEARING ALL COMMENTS.
ALL OF THAT CONTINUED WELL INTO MAY OF 22, WHEN FOR THE FIRST TIME STAFF SAID, NAH, I DON'T THINK SO.
WHY DON'T YOU GO BACK AND REDESIGN? WELL, I DON'T THINK A REDESIGN IS APPROPRIATE.
I DON'T THINK IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH CODE.
AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING OF THIS GROUP IS TO LOOK AT THE CLEAR LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE AND TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION THAT SITE MEANS SIGHT AND THAT IT IS ONE SITE.
[01:05:01]
THEN WHEN YOU HAVE A SPLIT WATERSHED, YOU MEASURE THE I THE INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE WHOLE OF THE SITE.AND IF YOU DO THAT, WE COMPLY.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ALSO ARE ADDING THE STRUCTURAL WATER QUALITY THAT COMPLIES WITH THE SOS ON RULES.
SO OUR REQUEST I, I THINK, IS SIMPLE.
IN THIS CASE, DO WHAT THE STAFF WAS DOING FOR 15 MONTHS.
UH, IF THIS WAS SUCH AN EASY QUESTION, WHY WOULD THEY HAVE DONE THAT? WHY WOULD THEY HAVE LED US DOWN THIS PATH AND THEN REVERSED THEIR, THEIR POSITION? IT, THIS ISN'T A WELL SETTLED QUESTION.
THE ONLY THING AS WELL SETTLED IS IN THE CODE SITE MEANS SITE.
AND THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS IN THE REDEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AS WELL.
WE WOULD ASK YOU TO VOTE FOR HOUSING, VOTE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, VOTE FOR A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE, UH, AND LET THIS PROJECT MOVE FORWARD.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. NICHOLAS AON ON THE TELECONFERENCE.
MR. VAUGHN, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I'M, YES, YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
UM, UH, THIS HAS BEEN INTERESTING TO HEAR FOR THE LAST 30 MINUTES.
UH, MY ENTIRE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS HOPING ALL THAT STUFF WAS ALREADY MET IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IT HAS BEEN.
CAUSE I'M GONNA COME AT THIS FROM AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ANGLE THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER.
UM, OBVIOUSLY I LIVE IN THE ZK NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, I HAVE KIDS WHO GO TO ZK ELEMENTARY.
UM, I, UH, OPERATE A COUPLE OF BUSINESSES, UH, WITHIN DISTRICT FIVE.
UH, OBVIOUSLY I'M CALLING TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED MIX USE DEVELOPMENT AT 24 28 BEN WHITE BOULEVARD.
UH, I OPERATE VETERINARY CLINICS IN THE AREA.
AND, YOU KNOW, UH, SINCE COVID, THE LABOR MARKET'S BEEN PRETTY TOUGH.
UH, IT'S CHANGING A LITTLE BIT NOW, BUT STILL IT'S, IT'S HIGHLY COMPETITIVE.
UH, WE, WE'VE HAD TO RAISE PRICES DRAMATICALLY, UM, JUST TO, TO KIND OF KEEP IN THE BUSINESS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TAKING CARE OF OUR EMPLOYEES.
AND A LOT OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE SIMPLE FACT THAT WE'RE HAVING TO HIRE PEOPLE FROM SAN MARCO, UH, BUTTA KYLE AND I GET THEM TO COME IN CUZ THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE IN THE AREA.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE A TECH THAT'S AWESOME.
BUT SHE HAD TO FIND A PLACE CLOSER TO SAN ANTONIO TO MAKE HER FAMILY WORK.
AND WE'VE TRIED TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK AND, AND IT'S WORKING, BUT IT'S, IT'S BEEN BUSINESS DECISIONS AND STRATEGY DECISIONS I NEVER THOUGHT I'D HAVE TO DO ALREADY IN A ALREADY TOUGH ENVIRONMENT TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE IN THE VETERINARY WORLD.
UM, OBVIOUSLY, UH, ALL OF MY LABOR GETS PUSHED FURTHER AND FURTHER AWAY.
PLUS THESE PEOPLE ARE, ARE REALLY AWESOME INDIVIDUALS.
UH, FOLKS THAT SIGN UP TO GET BIT BY DOGS EVERY DAY, OR SCARED CATS, ET CETERA.
UH, THEY ALWAYS HAVE A GREAT STORY TO TELL.
THEY'RE ALWAYS EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT THAT NEVER HAD A CHANCE.
AND, UH, IT'S KINDA LIKE THE ARTISTS MOVING AWAY FROM THE YORE AREA TOO.
YOU HAVE MORE AND MORE OF THESE PEOPLE THAT MADE THAT AREA SO GREAT CONTINUALLY MOVING AWAY.
AND FOR VETERINARY MEDICINE, IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE I LIKE TO, UH, SEE OUR CLIENTS ON A DAILY BASIS.
I LIKE OUR TECHS AND OUR RECEPTIONIST TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE CLIENTS THAT THEY SERVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD EVERY DAY.
AND THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T GET THAT OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO LIVE 45 MINUTES AWAY.
UM, OBVIOUSLY THIS PROJECT WOULD PROVIDE MEANINGFUL, AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.
UH, I HEARD 320 WITH, UH, UH, CLOSE TO 40 OF THOSE BEING AFFORDABLE, WHICH IT'S 40 MORE THAN WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
UM, DENYING MEANINGFUL HOUSING AT THIS LOCATION AS IMPLICATIONS FOR OTHER CRITICAL WORKERS IN OUR CITY.
TEACHERS, UH, POLICE OFFICERS, ANY EMERGENCY WORKERS.
THE THE OTHER THING THAT STRUCK ME WAS IF, IF SAVE OUR SPRINGS ALLIANCE HAS KIND OF PARTNERED UP WITH US AND HELPED LEAD THE WAY.
I MEAN, WHAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE ONE OF THE MOST VOCAL UNITS.
I MEAN, IF THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE AND IT HAS COMPLIED WITH THAT, HOW, WHY ARE WE EVEN HAVING THIS DISCUSSION? IT SEEMS LIKE AN INCREDIBLE WASTE OF TIME.
EVERY TIME I DROP DOWN LAMAR TO GO TO THE GROCERY STORE OR WHATEVER THAT STREET MUSIC COMPANY BUILDING, IT'S AN EYESORE.
[01:10:01]
VAUGHN, PLEASE FINISH UP YOUR THOUGHTS.I'M SORRY YOU COULDN'T HEAR THAT.
THERE'S A DRONE FLYING OVER ME OF ALL THINGS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, WHICH IS WEIRD, BUT I MEAN, UH, YOU'VE HEARD MY STANCE.
WE NEED MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IT, IT DOESN'T ALLOW COMMUNITY TO DEVELOP.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, RIGHT? THANK YOU, AUSTIN.
FOR 20 YEARS I'VE BEEN LIVING HERE.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. AN MAL.
MR. MIRA SELECT STAR SIX PROCEEDING WITH YOUR REMARKS.
HEY, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE Y'ALL CAN HEAR ME.
I'M AN AREA PROPERTY OWNER AND AN ART AND SUPPORTER OF THE TYPE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD PROVIDE TO NEVADA.
AND I'M SPEAKING STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT AND SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT DISCUSSIONS THIS CASE IS ABOUT MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS WELL AS THE CONTEXT OF AN INTERPRETATION OF WATERSHED REGULATIONS.
THAT IS WHY I'M SPEAKING TODAY BECAUSE CONTEXT MATTERS.
THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR DEEPENING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEFICIT JUST AS MUCH AS IT IS REPRESENTATIVE, OUR POORLY WRITTEN CODE.
AS YOU KNOW, AUSTIN CONTINUES TO FALL FURTHER AND FURTHER BEHIND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOAL SET FORTH IN OUR STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT.
A DOWNLOAD ON THIS SITE, UM, DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DENIES THE TIMELY DELIVERY OF MUCH NEEDED MARKET AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO THIS DISTRICT.
I'M ALL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND I WAS PARTICULARLY ENCOURAGED THAT THIS REDEVELOPMENT WOULD REDUCE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE ACROSS THE SITE AND PROVIDE MODERN WATER QUALITY AND DETENTION WHERE NONE EXISTS ON SITE TODAY.
THIS DEVELOPMENT IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF HOUSING PROJECT WE SHOULD BE SUPPORTING.
IN AUSTIN, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD PROVIDE 32 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT 60% OF MFI IN AN AREA OF GREAT NEED AND IN DIRECT PROXIMITY TO MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS AND THE CAP METRO WESTGATE TRANSIT CENTER.
THE PROJECT IS ALSO WITHIN SHORT WALKING DISTANCE TO THREE GROCERY STORES AND THREE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
I RESPECTFULLY ENCOURAGE YOU AS A COMMI, AS COMMISSIONERS TO CONSIDER THE CONTEXT OF THIS SITE AND FOCUS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF DELIVERING MUCH NEEDED HOUSING ON THIS SITE.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION, BEGINNING WITH MR. BOBBY LEVINSKY.
MR. LEVINSKY, I HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
UM, SABER SPRINGS ALLIANCE IS HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF STAFF'S INTERPRETATION, UM, WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, NOT AGAINST THE USE OF THE SITE.
UM, AND BASICAL MAINLY JUST AGAINST THE PROCESS THAT'S BEING USED RIGHT NOW TOO.
UM, YOU KNOW, THERE, WHILE THE SAVER SPRINGS ORDINANCE DOES NOT HAVE A WAIVER OF VARIANCE PROCESS, IT'S NOT HOW WE'VE BEEN TREATED OVER TIME.
WHEN PRODUCTS HAVE COME IN AND THEY'VE, UM, COME IN WITH BETTER WATER QUALITY OR EQUAL WATER QUALITY, THERE HAVE BEEN INITIATED BY COUNCIL SEVERAL ORDINANCES OVER TIME THAT HAVE APPLIED TO PROJECTS FOR THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS ORDINANCE.
IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE AT THE END OF THE PROCESS.
UM, AND THEY COULD BE COMPLIANT WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE BY REDUCING IT BY 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER, JUST 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
AND THEY COULD HAVE GOTTEN THAT, UM, UH, APPROVAL BY COUNCIL, UH, A LONG TIME AGO.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A UNIQUE SITE.
UM, AND I I HONESTLY LOOKED AT THIS QUITE A BIT BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE HOUSING, HOUSING CONCERN HERE.
UM, BUT WE DO HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL, UH, STANDARDS, UH, FOR A REASON.
WE NEED TO BE PROTECTING THEM.
WE NEED TO HOLD THEM, UM, TO A FAIRLY UNIQUE, UM, NOT ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS UNLESS, UM, THERE ARE SPECIALTY CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THIS.
SO, UM, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE DO, UM, BACKS STAFF AND THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE AS THEY'VE DONE FOR UM, YEARS.
SO, UM, I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER OTHER THAN THAT.
JUST PLEASE UPHOLD THE CODE AND, UM, WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT ON A REASONABLE SOLUTION HERE.
I DO THINK THAT THERE ARE OPTIONS.
WILL I HEAR FROM MR. JENNER FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
AFTER BEING IN THIS PROCESS FOR 20 MONTHS, UH, TODAY IS THE FIRST DAY THAT ANYONE MENTIONED A SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT TO THE SOS ORDINANCE TODAY.
SO IT'S NOT THAT THIS HAS BEEN BANDIED ABOUT, BELIEVE ME, MY CLIENT, IF THERE WAS A WAY TO ADJUST THE SITE PLAN SO THAT YOU DECREASED IMPERVIOUS COVER ON BOTH SIDES, THEY WOULD DO IT.
BUT IT REALLY MEANS, BECAUSE IT'S A WRAP PROJECT, AND THIS IS A STRANGE CONFIGURATION OF A SITE, IT MEANS YOU WOULD THROW YOUR PLANS AWAY AND YOU WOULD START OVER
[01:15:01]
AND YOU WOULD ALSO BE TALKING ABOUT MORE EXPENSIVE CONSTRUCTION, WHICH PROBABLY SCUTTLES THE PROJECT, BUT IF NOTHING ELSE RAISES THE RENTS, UH, IN DOING SO, I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE PLAIN LANGUAGE IN THE REDEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.I WOULD REMIND YOU THAT A VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS IMPROVES THE ENVIRONMENTAL SITUATION.
IT IMPROVES IT, THAT PROPERTY OUT THERE TODAY HAS NO WATER QUALITY FACILITIES.
SO THIS ISN'T AN, A VOTE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT FOR FOR HOUSING.
THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE NOT OPPOSING ISSUES.
THIS IS A VOTE FOR BOTH OF THOSE THINGS.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT ALTHOUGH STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TELL YOU THAT THIS IS A, UH, A WELL ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT, THERE IS NO PRECEDENT WHERE SOMEBODY TRIED TO APPLY THE REDEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE IN A SPLIT WATERSHED SITUATION.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHY WE WENT TO STAFF FIRST AND SAID, HOW DO YOU READ THIS? WELL, THEY READ IT AS IF YOU ARE IN A SPLIT WATERSHED SITUATION, YOU CAN COMPLY WITH EITHER.
AND SO IN DOING THAT, WE NOT ONLY, UH, REDUCED IMPERVIOUS COVER OVERALL, BUT WE ADDED THE SOS WATER QUALITY ON THE BARTON SPRINGSIDE.
SO AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THIS IS, UH, WHAT STAFF HAS TOLD YOU IT IS.
AND I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR TIMELINE, STAFF WAS IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATION FOR 15 MONTHS.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
THE MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY.
ANY OPPOSITION TO CLOSING THE HEARING? ALL RIGHT, I DON'T SEE ANY REDS.
UM, WE'RE GONNA KEEP THE Q AND A THE SENT EIGHT TO FIVE, UM, BECAUSE I KNOW I HAVE QUESTIONS.
UH, ANYONE WANT TO KICK US OFF? UH, COMMISSION? UH, OKAY.
COMMISSIONER WOODS AND THEN COMMISSIONER MOALA.
I WANTED TO GIVE STAFF THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE MOST RECENT COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT AND SPECIFICALLY KIND OF TALK THROUGH WHAT HAPPENED IN TERMS OF THE CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION.
KATIE COY, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER.
I'LL PROBABLY PASS IT ONTO LIZ, UH, AS WELL AS MIKE MCDOUGAL FROM DST IN JUST A MOMENT.
BUT, UH, FIRST, UM, THE WAY THE APPLICANT IS CHARACTERIZING THE WAY WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS AND HAVE BEEN WISHY-WASHY ABOUT THE GUIDANCE THAT WE'VE OFFERED IS INACCURATE.
I HAVE AN EMAIL HERE FROM AUGUST OF 2020, SO THAT PREDATES HIS TIMELINE WA FROM, UH, MR. MCDOUGAL WHO WORKS FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO STAFF ATER GROUP.
THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS, NONETHELESS, I AGREE WITH THE GENERAL NOTION THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION WOULD ALLOW A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO KEEP THE EXISTING AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR EACH WA EACH WATERSHED CLASSIFICATION PROVIDED THERE IS SUFFICIENT SPACE FOR THE REQUIRED PONDS.
IMPERVIOUS COVER WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO TRANSFER FROM ONE WATERSHED CLASSIFICATION TO ANOTHER UNDER THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
SO WE'RE BEING MISCHARACTERIZED AS FOLKS WHO ARE GIVING DIFFERENT GUIDANCE DEPENDING ON WHO YOU ASK OR WHEN YOU ASK.
AND WE HAVE BEEN SAYING SOMETHING CONSISTENTLY SINCE 2020.
WE HAVE ALSO CERTAINLY SAID, INCLUDING IN A, A MEMO AS RECENTLY AS MARCH, A FORMAL MEMO WITH MY SIGNATURE ON IT, UH, THAT A SITE-SPECIFIC SOS AMENDMENT IS WHAT WOULD ALLOW THIS PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD.
YOU'VE HEARD FROM SAVE OUR SPRINGS, UM, YOU'VE HEARD FROM SAVE OUR SPRINGS TONIGHT, BOBBY LEWINSKY, UH, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO TALK TO THE APPLICANT AS FAR AS I AM AWARE TO FIGURE OUT A PATH FORWARD.
UM, THIS IS THE FIRST WE'VE HEARD THAT THE WATER QUALITY CONTROLS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED WOULD MEET SOS NON-DEGREE, NON NONDEGRADATION WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS.
AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A HUGE PRO FOR ACTUALLY BEING ABLE TO MOVE THAT SITE SPECIFIC SOS AMENDMENT THROUGH.
AND CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE PRECEDENT FOR DEALING WITH SITES AS TWO SEPARATE SITES IN SPLIT WATERSHED SITUATIONS? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COMES UP REGULARLY? YES.
UH, AND I MIGHT ACTUALLY ALLOW STAFF TO SPEAK TO THAT, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE'VE DEALT WITH IN THE PAST AND THAT IS VERY CONSISTENT HOW WE APPLY THE DEFINITION OF SITE, HOW WE APPLY REGULATIONS TO TWO DIFFERENT WATERSHED CLASSIFICATIONS.
THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY IN THE WAY WE APPLY CODE IN THAT WAY.
DO WE, DO WE HAVE SOME EXAMPLES OF THAT? WE CAN CERTAINLY PULL EXAMPLES THERE.
UM, MAY NOT BE ONE SPECIFICALLY WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, BUT THERE ARE CERTAINLY EXAMPLES THAT WE CAN
[01:20:01]
FIND TO SEND TO YOU ALL LATER.WE DON'T HAVE THEM HERE WHERE THERE ARE PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN DIFFERENT, UM, WATERSHED BOUNDARIES.
AND WE ALSO, I JUST WANNA SAY LIKE WHEN WE WERE THINKING ABOUT THIS, OUR GIS ANALYSIS LOOKED AT, UM, OVERLAPPING, UM, THE PARCELS WITHIN THE BARTON SPRING ZONE THAT HAVE OVERLAPPING REGULATIONS AND THERE WERE OVER 300 PARCELS OR, UM, THAT, THAT THAT APPLIED TO.
AND SO THIS WOULD BE FAIRLY PRECEDENT SETTING IF FOR THOSE, THOSE PARCELS.
AND, UH, BEFORE WE GO ON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER MOELLER HAD THE NEXT, I JUST, I WANNA SEE, DID EVERYONE RECEIVE AND HAVE A CHANCE TO READ THE LETTER FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY? AND I WANNA CLARIFY, WE HEARD A LOT OF BENEFITS TO THIS PROJECT, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DECIDE.
WE'RE HERE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT STAFF INTERPRETED CODE CORRECTLY.
AND I'LL AGREE 25,190 APP APPELLATE BURDEN, THE APPELLANT MUST ESTABLISH THAT THE DECISION BEING APPEALED IS CONTRARY TO APPLICABLE LAW REGULATIONS.
SO THE BURDEN IS ON, UH, THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE WHO'S APPEALING THIS.
SO I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR, MAKE SURE EVERYBODY READ THAT MEMO.
UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN WHEN WE TAKE UP, UH, PLANNING ZONING CASES.
THIS IS A DIFFERENT KIND OF CASE WE'RE HEARING HERE.
UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO COMMISSIONER MUTO.
AND I'D LIKE TO ASK STAFF A FEW QUESTIONS.
AND WHILE THEY'RE COMING UP, I WOULD COMMENT THAT, UH, RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I'M AWARE OF PROPERTY IN OUR AREA THAT STRADDLES BULL CREEK AND ANOTHER WATERSHED THAT WAS UNDER QUESTION FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT REDEVELOPMENT.
AND THAT HAD TO COMPLY WITH BOTH OF THE DIFFERENT WATERSHEDS INTO THAT.
UM, I BELIEVE MS. JOHNSON MENTIONED THAT IF WE WERE TO GO THIS, IF WE WERE TO UPHOLD WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING, THIS MIGHT TUMBLE DOWN AND AFFECT SOME ADDITIONAL 300 POTENTIAL PROPERTIES AS A PRECEDENT.
UH, WITHIN THE BARTON SPRING ZONE, THERE ARE 322 PARCELS THAT OVERLAP AND THAT'S, UM, SUM TOTAL OF 544 ACRES WITHIN THE BARTON SPRING ZONE ALONE.
BUT THAT'S JUST WITHIN THE BARTON SPRING ZONE.
SO, AND SO IF I'M A DEVELOPER AND I HAVE ONE SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF THE BARTON SPRING ZONE THAT IS CONTIGUOUS, SO I HAVE ONE SITE AND I ACQUIRE A LARGER PROPERTY WITHIN THE BARTON SPRING ZONE, THEN IF WE LET THIS GO THROUGH, THEN I COULD CONCEIVABLY DO THIS THING TO MY PROPERTY BECAUSE I'VE GOT ONE FINGER OUTSIDE THE BARTON SPRING ZONE.
IS THAT CORRECT? WE WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO NOT HAVE THIS SET NEW PRECEDENT FOR THE WAY WE INTERPRET THIS CODE.
UH, THE, BUT IF WE WERE TO MAKE THAT DECISION AS A BODY, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE OPENING THAT, THAT'S OUR CONCERN, IS THE PANDORA'S BOX AND THE 544 ACRES OF JUST DARK SPRINGS ZONE.
SO LET'S TALK ABOUT BARTON SPRINGS A LITTLE BIT AND WHY THIS IS A PROBLEM.
WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF BARTON SPRINGS? WHY DO WE CARE? DO YOU WANNA SPEAK THAT UP? UH, YES.
AND PROBABLY BOBBY WOULD BE ABLE TO, UH, COME UP AND GIVE AN EVEN BETTER JOB.
BUT SO, UM, THIS IS THE BARTON SPRINGS ZONE IS LAND THAT, UM, CONTRIBUTES RECHARGE TO BARTON SPRINGS.
OF COURSE THEY'RE ENDANGERED SALAMANDERS, BUT IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT, UM, CULTURAL RESOURCE, NATURAL RESOURCE, ECONOMIC RESOURCE WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
SAY HUMAN RESOURCE, CUZ I'M NOT SURE, OR THAT A LOT OF PEOP UH, THAT EVERYONE IN THE GENERAL POPULACE APPRECIATES SALAMANDERS OVER THE DANGLE OF HOUSING.
SO WHAT IS THE HUMAN COST OF BARTON SPRINGS IN OUR RESOURCE OUTSIDE OF ENJOYMENT? IS THIS FREE CHARGE? ANY OF OUR WATER WAYS THAT WE NEED? WE'RE WE'RE TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT, ABOUT WATER QUALITY AND HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS OF THAT AND ACCESS TO A CRITICAL RECREATIONAL AMENITY IN THIS CITY THAT ALSO PROVIDES A RIDICULOUS AMOUNT OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO OUR CITY FOR BOTH VISITORS AND, AND RESIDENTS ALIKE.
UM, SO THIS IS, THIS IS A FEATURE THAT IS SYNONYMOUS WITH AUSTIN.
AND SO CAN YOU SPEAK SPECIFICALLY IF WE'RE ALLOWING THIS DEVELOPMENT TO MOVE FORWARD THE WAY THEY'RE ASKING? UM, AND, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE GOT SOME NEW INFORMATION TONIGHT THAT WAS DIFFERENT THAN YOUR UNDERSTANDING BEFORE.
SO OUR PRIOR UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO THINGS THAT WOULD TAKE THE WATER DRAINAGE AWAY FROM BARTON SPRINGS.
EITHER THAT OR, UH, HAVE, UH, A DEGRADING DEVELOPMENT ON THE BARTON SPRINGSIDE BY ADDING ADDITIONAL
[01:25:01]
IMPERVIOUS COVER.UH, IF INDEED THEY ARE IMPROVING THE WATER QUALITY TO SOS STANDARDS, UH, THEN THAT IS SOMETHING THAT AGAIN, WOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THAT SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT.
BUT THEN THAT WOULD BE AN EASY PASS THROUGH FOR A SITE FOR, FOR AN SOS EXCEPTION, PRESUMABLY, THAT THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE CONSIDERED THE, THE FACT THAT THIS IS HOUSING WOULD BE CONSIDERED.
LOOK, I'M, I'M A PRO-HOUSING ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER HERE.
LIKE I'M, I'M NOT ANTI HOUSINGS.
I WANNA DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO MAKE SURE WE GET MORE HOUSING UNITS, UH, BUT JUST THIS IS JUST NOT THE MECHANISM TO DO IT.
AND SO WE DO HAVE A MECHANISM YES.
AND OTHER PROPERTIES HAVE USED THAT MECHANISM IN ITS ESTABLISHED WAY.
YOU HAD ANOTHER CASE ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT THAT SPECIFICALLY USED THAT MECHANISM.
I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS MOMENT.
UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, WANTED TO GO NEXT.
IT SEEMS LIKE WE GAVE STAFF A CHANCE TO TALK FOR A LITTLE BIT.
I'D LOVE TO HEAR IF THERE'S ANY REBUTTAL.
I KNOW WE JUST HEARD A LOT OF INFORMATION.
LOOKS LIKE MR. JENNER'S COMING UP.
YOU PROBABLY NOTICED A RIPPLE BACK THERE WHEN STAFF SAID THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT THE SOS WATER QUALITY FACILITIES, UH, WERE BEING PROPOSED.
IT'S ONLY BEEN IN OUR PLAN SINCE OCTOBER OF 21.
SO THE FRUSTRATION LEVEL, UH, IS HIGH IN TERMS OF TRYING TO BOTH FOLLOW AND, AND DEAL WITH STAFF.
WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU IS STAFF IS NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SHOW YOU ANY PRECEDENT FOR USE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE IN A SPLIT WATERSHED SITUATION.
AND IN, AND I WOULD RE REITERATE THAT WHAT WE ARE DOING IS IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL SITUATION, NOT MAKING IT WORSE, BUT AT THIS POINT, REALLY WHAT WE'RE, UH, WHAT WE'RE FOCUSED ON IS THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE SITE MEANS SITE AND IT'S CLEAR ALL THE WAY THROUGHOUT THE CODE.
IF YOU, IF THERE'S AN INTENTION TO HAVE, UH, DIFFERENT WATERSHED ANALYSIS, THE CODE SPECIFIES THAT IT DOESN'T DO THAT IN THE USE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE SITE MEANS SITE.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, MR. CHAIRMAN, DO WE HAVE, UH, DO SEE IF I'M ON HERE? NEW KID? UH, DO WE HAVE CITY LEGAL HERE? UH, CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, COME ON DOWN IF WE COULD PLEASE.
IF WE COULD MR. RIVER, UH, ENTERTAIN THE INQUIRY FIRST YOU WANTED TO HEAR THE QUESTION, CORRECT? UH, MAYBE, UH, STAFF.
UH, GO AHEAD AND, UH, GO AHEAD AND ANSWER A QUESTION AND THEY'LL, THEY'LL DECIDE, OH, THEY'LL DECIDE WHO, YES, WHO NEEDS TO ANSWER.
UM, I WANT, I WANT THE CITY'S DEFINITION OF SIGHT.
TELL ME, TELL ME WHAT YOUR LEGAL DEFINITION OF SIGHT IS.
HOW IS IT APPLIED IN THIS SECTION OF THE CODE, OTHER SECTION OF THE CODE.
IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HINGING ON HERE.
UH, CHAD SHAW CITY LAW DEPARTMENT, YOU'RE GONNA FIND THIS DEFINITION TERRIBLY HELPFUL, I'M SURE
UM, AND YOU'VE SEEN IT, I THINK ON A SLIDE THAT, UH, THAT CITY STAFF HAS ALREADY PRODUCED FOR YOU EARLIER.
AND I'LL HAVE, I'LL READ IT FOR YOU IF YOU LIKE.
SECTION 25, 1 21 DEFINITION SITE MEANS A CONTIGUOUS AREA INTENDED FOR DEVELOPMENT OR THE AREA ON WHICH A BUILDING HAS BEEN PROPOSED TO BE BUILT OR HAS BEEN BUILT.
A SITE MAY NOT CROSS A PUBLIC STREET OR RIGHT AWAY.
AND THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF SITE AS IT APPEARS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND DO WE HAVE A SUB DEFINITION OF SITE THAT DEALS WITH WHEN A CONTIGUOUS AREA SPLITS A WATERSHED? I, THERE IS NO SUCH DEFINITION.
UM, AND THUS THAT IS WHY ARE WE DIS WE ARE DISCUSSING INTERPRETATIONS.
UM, AND SITE IS A FREQUENT TOPIC OF DISCUSSION, SO THANK YOU.
BUT, UH, MR. COXS, UM, I'VE GOT A BIT OF A CURIOSITY FOR STAFF LOOKING AT ONE OF THEIR SLIDES SHOWING THE BOUNDARY OF THE BARTON SPRINGS ZONE THROUGH THE SITE.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE BOUNDARY OF THE BARTON SPRINGS ZONE WAS INTENTIONALLY DRAWN AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE EXISTING BUILDING ON THIS SITE
[01:30:01]
THAT EXISTS.IS, IS THAT CORRECT? UM, LIZ JOHNSON WATERSHED PROTECTION.
UM, SO OUR, UM, WATERSHED REGULATIONS N GIS ARE PLANNING LEVEL TOOL BASED ON THE BEST INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE RELATED TO OUR DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE.
UM, OCCASIONALLY THERE ARE IN INACCURACIES, UM, WE DO HAVE A PROCESS FOR EXAMINING THAT.
SO IF, YOU KNOW, IF FOR EXAMPLE, THE ENGINEER WERE TO SAY, WELL, THIS ISN'T RIGHT, IT'S ACTUALLY GOES SOMEWHERE ELSE, UM, WE WOULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT THAT.
UM, THEY HAVEN'T, UM, PROPOSED ANY CHANGES TO THAT.
SO AS WE ASSUME IT'S CORRECT UNTIL SOMEBODY TELLS US IT'S NOT, WELL, THE REASON I'M POINTING THAT OUT IS BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE IS, IS A LITTLE BIT MORE AT, AT AN ADVANTAGE BECAUSE IT WAS DRAWN AROUND THE EXISTING BUILDING.
IF THAT BUILDING DIDN'T EXIST, IT LOOKS LIKE THE WHOLE SITE MIGHT BE ACTUALLY OR WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE BARTON SPRING ZONE.
UM, SO I FEEL LIKE THEY KIND OF HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF, OF AN ADVANTAGE IN, IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE IF IT WEREN'T FOR THAT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
I GUESS, UM, JUST JUST A QUICK CLARIFICATION.
DID, DID STAFF EVER TELL THE APPLICANT THAT THEY COULD DO WHAT THEY WANT? WHAT THEY'RE ASKING US TO DO? UM, I'LL, UH, DEFER TO MIKE MCDOUGLE.
SO THE MIKE MCDOUGLE, UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
SO THE PROJECT CAME IN AND IT HAD BEEN REVIEWED THREE TIMES BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
AND EACH TIME, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW HAD BEEN REJECTED.
AT THE FIRST REVIEW, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NOTED THAT, UH, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER WAS PROPOSED WAS BEYOND THE LIMIT.
AND THEN SO THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION BECAME AN OPTION.
HOWEVER, AS, UH, MS. COIN HAD SUGGESTED THAT, UH, OR READ FROM THE EMAIL SENT FROM 2020 STAFF DID, DID SAY, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER WOULD BE APPLIED ON A WATERSHED BY A WATERSHED BASIS FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
SO YOU NEVER, YOU NEVER ACTUALLY GAVE THEM ANY SORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVAL AND THEN PULLED IT BACK? NO, NO, NO.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW HAS BEEN REJECTED.
UH, THE FORMAL REVIEW HAS BEEN REJECTED, UH, FOR UPDATE, UPDATE ZERO IS THE FIRST SUBMITTAL, THE FIRST FORMAL REVIEW.
THEN THE NEXT UPDATE IS CALLED UPDATE ONE.
SO UPDATE ZERO, UPDATE ONE, UPDATE TWO.
SO THREE REVIEWS HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
SO THERE WAS NOT A SITUATION WHERE THERE WAS A, WHERE THERE WAS AN APPROVAL OF A PROJECT THAT WAS THEN SUBSEQUENTLY RESCINDED.
AND, AND IS STAFF, SORRY, I WAS JUST GONNA ADD IF, IF I CAN, UM, KATIE COIN ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER THAT JUST, I KNOW STAFF, UH, FROM LAW PROVIDED THE DEFINITION OF SIGHT, BUT I DID WANT TO READ, UM, UH, SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN OUR CRITERIA MANUAL THAT I IS RELEVANT TO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT.
UH, THAT STATES REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO A WATERSHED CLASSIFICATION, I E IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS CUT AND FILL REQUIREMENTS, CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES REQUIREMENTS SHALL APPLY TO THE WATERSHED BOUNDARIES AS THE EXISTED PRE-DEVELOPMENT.
SO THERE IS LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THAT REGULATIONS APPLY TO EACH WATERSHED CLASSIFICATION.
AND, AND LAST QUESTION TO YOU, AND THIS IS JUST A CONFIRMATION, YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE MECHANISMS AVAILABLE TO THIS APPLICANT THAT GETS HIM TO WHERE HE WANTS TO BE WITHOUT CHANGING LEGAL DEFINITIONS OF HOW WE INTERPRET OUR CODE? THAT IS CORRECT.
WE HAD, UH, UM, YOU'LL GO NEXT AFTER COMMISSIONER, UH, BETA RAMIREZ.
AND WE HAVE COMMISSIONER CONLEY, AND THAT'S SEVEN.
WE HAVE ONE MORE AND I MAY TAKE, UH, I SEE A VEST'S HAND THOUGH.
WE MAY HAVE TO OPEN THIS UP TO A FEW MORE QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY TO THAT.
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION, I MEAN, IN MY OPINION, THE WATERSHEDS IN THIS CASE ARE LIKE AN OVERLAY.
AND SO LOOKING AT THEM, THEY KIND OF, THEY TRUMP EVERYTHING ELSE IN MY OPINION.
SO I'M, I'M WITH STAFF ON THIS.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS MORE FROM THE APPLICANT.
WHAT WOULD YOU CONSIDER INITIATING IT OR ALLOWING US OR COUNSEL TO INITIATE A SITE SPECIFIC CODE AMENDMENT? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO PR, UM, TO GO FORWARD WITH? OR ARE YOU NOT INTERESTED IN THAT OPTION AT ALL NOW THAT YOU KNOW IT'S AN OPTION? I THINK OUR POSITION REMAINS, UH, WE THINK THAT, UH, AND IF ANYBODY WOULD CARE TO GIVE ME AN OPPORTUNITY AND OUR ENGINEER AN OPPORTUNITY TO REFUTE WHAT YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT THE STAFF'S CONSISTENT POSITION, WE'D LOVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.
THE SOS AMENDMENT PROCESS, I THINK IS UNNECESSARY SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT,
[01:35:01]
UH, WILL EVALUATE ALL OUR OPTIONS.ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE DOING TONIGHT IS MAKING SURE THAT WE'VE EXHAUSTED OUR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.
SO, UM, IN MY OPINION, GIVEN WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE AND GIVEN THE CLEAR LANGUAGE AND THE CODE, WE SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO GO DOWN THAT ROUTE.
AND SO, I MEAN, I THINK IT GIVES ME PAUSE THINKING THAT THERE ARE 300 OTHER POTENTIAL PROPERTIES AND, AND THIS ISN'T JUST BARTAN SPRINGS WATERSHED, THERE'S WATERSHEDS ALL OVER THE CITY THAT MAY BE IMPACTED SIMILARLY.
SO I, I THINK THAT THE SITE SPECIFIC CODE AMENDMENT IS THE WAY TO GO.
AND WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT HERE AS THIS BODY.
AND WE ARE ON THE CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE AND WE'RE ABLE TO PUSH THOSE THINGS THROUGH QUICKLY.
AND, AND PERHAPS MR. JENNER AND MR. LAVINSKY WOULD WORK TOGETHER TO DRAFT THAT CODE, CUZ I KNOW STAFF IS SHORT AND, AND IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO DO THAT SORT OF WORK.
SO MAYBE THEY COULD WORK TOGETHER AND DO THAT QUICKLY.
SO NEXT WE HAVE, UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER AZAR.
UM, YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE ENGINEER, UM, SPECIFICALLY IF YOU COULD WALK US THROUGH THE TIMELINE AND WHAT THE COMMUNICATION WAS LIKE FROM WITH STAFF FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, UM, AND, AND, AND WHETHER THERE WAS CONSISTENCY IN CLARITY, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE ALREADY RULED ON, ON THE ZONING CASE FOR THIS.
I REMEMBER THAT DISCUSSION AND WE DECIDED UNANIMOUSLY THIS WAS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT.
AND I'M JUST INTERESTED TO SEE, UM, WHAT THE COMMUNICATION WAS LIKE WITH STAFF.
WILL, UH, WILL MACHAN THE CIVIL ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT.
UM, SO WHAT WE ORIGINALLY PLANNED ON DOING WAS AN INTER BASIN DIVERSION WITH A REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION FOR THE WILLIAMSON CREEK.
AND THAT WHAT THAT WOULD'VE DONE WAS PUSH MORE WATER TO WILLIAMSON CREEK, ALLOWED US TO COMPLY WITH EVERYTHING IN BARTON SPRINGS AND THEN DO THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION IN THE WILLIAMSON CREEK.
AND WHEN WE MET WITH STAFF IN OCTOBER OF 21, THE GUIDANCE WAS A REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION FOR THE ENTIRE SITE.
WOULD SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS, IT WOULD WIPE OUT A GOOD PORTION OF THE CODE, AND IT WOULD SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS FOR STAFF AND FOR US.
WE FOLLOWED THAT PROCESS AND WHEN WE RESUBMITTED, IT BECAME OBVIOUS THAT WE WEREN'T, WE WERE INCREASING IMPERVIOUS COVER IN BARTON SPRING ZONE.
SO, AND THEN THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE THIS TIMELINE STARTED.
AND THEN I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON A PREVIOUS REMARK ABOUT THE PRECEDENT.
SO I THINK SOMEONE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT OWNING A LITTLE PIECE OF PROPERTY IN A DIFFERENT WATERSHED AND THEN BUYING A LARGER PIECE OF PROPERTY IN, IN BARTON SPRING ZONE.
IN THAT SCENARIO, YOU'RE IMPROVING THE WATER QUALITY, THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO GET AROUND IMPROVING THE WATER QUALITY FOR A SITE.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
WE'RE, WE'VE DONE, SO S FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, FROM THE INITIAL SUBMITTAL IN THE BARTON SPRING ZONE, AND WE HAVE TWO WATER QUALITY AND DETENTION BASINS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, I, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU OR FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT JUST AROUND, YOU KNOW, YOU MENTIONED THE COST THAT YOU PUT INTO THE SITE PLAN SO FAR.
UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY SENSE OF WHAT THAT COST WOULD BE IF YOU WERE FORCED TO GO BACK AND REDO EVERYTHING? UH, YES.
SO, UM, THE FIRST SET OF PLANS IS, IS ABOUT TWO AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS.
AND THEN IF WE ARE FORCED TO GO BACK AND MODIFY THOSE PLANS, BECAUSE OF THE SITE CONSTRAINTS AND BECAUSE IT WAS A WRAP PROJECT, IT'S NOT JUST LOSING A COUPLE OF PARKING SPACES, UH, LITERALLY LOSING UNITS, UH, OUR INDICATION IS THAT WE WOULD LOSE MORE THAN A HUNDRED UNITS, WHICH MAKES THE PROJECT NOT VIABLE.
SO WE WOULD BE LOSING A HUNDRED UNITS PLUS WE WOULD HAVE THAT SAME, ROUGHLY TWO AND A HALF MILLION DOLLAR COST TO REDESIGN THE PROJECT.
THE OTHER THING THAT'S OBVIOUSLY HAPPENED IN OUR 20 MONTHS IS, UH, INTEREST RATES HAVE DOUBLED.
SO, UH, WE'RE TRYING OUR BEST TO HOLD THE LINE AND OBVIOUSLY DE DELIVER AFFORDABLE UNITS, BUT, UH, WHEN YOU HAVE THESE, THESE KINDS OF ADDITIONAL COSTS, IT'S ESSENTIALLY, UH, DOING THE PREPARATION TWICE.
AND OF COURSE, WE WOULD NOT HAVE GONE DOWN THAT ROAD, UH, IF, UH, WE'D HAD ANY INDICATION THAT THE STAFF WAS GONNA REVERSE THEIR POSITION.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL HAVE TIME, BUT, OH, SORRY.
DID YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING
UM, THE TWO AND A HALF MILLION DOLLAR DESIGN FEE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, IS A STATIC NUMBER FROM THE PAST THAT IT COSTS TO, TO DEVELOP THE PLANS THEMSELVES.
[01:40:01]
THE INTERIM, HOWEVER MANY MONTHS IT'S BEEN, THE CARRYING COST FOR THIS LAND IS CLOSE TO $70,000 A MONTH.SO IT'S NOT THE TWO AND A HALF MILLION DOLLAR NUMBER THAT'S UNDER CONSIDERATION.
HAVING TO STOP AND REDESIGN MEANS THAT THE PROJECT LIKELY DIES AND GOES AWAY BASED ON THE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT, THAT STEVE HAD MENTIONED.
AND, UM, FOR STAFF, I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL HAVE TIME, BUT I'M GONNA TRY REAL QUICK.
UM, IS THERE A SOLUTION YOU HAD MENTIONED YOU THERE, YOU BELIEVE THERE WAS A SOLUTION.
IS THERE A SOLUTION THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO GO BACK AND REDO THE ENTIRE SITE PLAN? YES.
A SITE SPECIFIC SOS AMENDMENT IS THE MECHANISM FOR THEM TO MOVE THIS SITE PLAN FORWARD.
AND, AND THAT HAS BEEN CLEAR, YES.
UM, DO YOU SEE THAT CREATING EXTRA LAYERS OF WORK THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO GO BACK AND REDO THEIR DESIGNS AND INCUR EXTRA COSTS? AS SOMEONE WHO CAME FROM THE DESIGN WORLD, THERE MIGHT BE CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THAT PLAN SET, BUT NOT SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THEM TO REDUCE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AS HE'S, UH, STATED DOWN TO BELOW 5,000 SQUARE FEET.
BUT FOR INSTANCE, WE HAVE NOT SEEN CLEAR DEMONSTRATION THAT THEIR WATER QUALITY CONTROLS WOULD MEET THE SOS NON DEGRADATION WATER QUALITY STANDARD.
UH, BUT IF THAT IS INDEED WHAT THEY'RE WORKING TOWARD, THAT, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, THAT MIGHT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL TWEAKS TO THAT SITE PLAN.
JUST CUZ WE, WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT.
UH, COMMISSIONER AZAR, YOU HAVE THE EIGHT SPOT AND I'LL CHECK AND SEE WHO ELSE MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS.
IF YOU WANNA TO, UH, SUSPEND OUR RULES.
COMMISSIONER AAR CHAIR, CHAIR, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND ASK YOUR QUESTIONS AND IF NEEDED I CAN COME BACK.
UH, MY, UH, FOR STAFF, UM, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED HERE.
SO IS IF WE TREAT THIS PER THE APPLICANT, DEFINE THIS AS A SITE, UM, AND IF WE TREAT IT ALL UNDER THE BARTON SPRINGS RULES, UM, I THINK THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE COMPLYING WITH ALL THE RULES.
UM, I MEAN, CAN, I MEAN, CAN WE JUST SAY THAT THE MAJORITY OF, UH, THE PROPERTY IS OCCUPIED BY ONE WATERSHED AND JUST APPLY THE MORE RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENTS TO THE ENTIRE SITE.
WHY, WHY WOULDN'T WE DO THAT? I'LL HAND IT TO LIZ, UH, TO, TO COMPLETE THIS ANSWER, BUT THE, I THINK ESSENTIAL PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT THEY ARE INCREASING IMPERVIOUS COVER WITHIN THE BARTON SPRINGS WATERSHED, WHICH IS THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE YOU WANNA ADD TO THAT.
AND, AND I JUST, WE CAN'T APPLY ONE SET OF REGULATIONS TO ANOTHER SET OF REGULATIONS.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND SO THEY ARE, UM, RE REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THE SUBURBAN WATERSHED.
I'M NOT SURE IF THE, THE POND ON THE SUBURBAN SIDE IS SOS LEVEL, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT, BUT IT'S JUST LEGALLY WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T DO THAT.
SO WE CAN'T MAKE, WE CAN'T REQUIRE THEM IF THEY, WE TREAT THEIR DEFINITION OF SIGHT, WE HAVE A MORE RESTRICTIVE RULE, WE CAN'T APPLY THAT OVER THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, WHICH I MEAN, IF, IF THIS WERE A SOS AMENDMENT, YOU KNOW, COUNSEL COULD DO THAT.
BUT AT STAFF LEVEL, WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.
SO AGAIN, IN YOUR INTERPRETATION, ARE WE, IS IT REALLY THE SITE QUESTION? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE HERE TRYING TO DECIDE? I THINK SO, YEAH.
IT IS, IS WHEN IT SAYS THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, THE ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IS THAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, UM, WITHIN THE SITE MAY NOT BE INCREASED.
AND IT, THAT LANGUAGE IS IN THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS, WHICH APPLY TO EACH SPECIFIC WATERSHED REGULATION.
AND SPECIFICALLY THEY ARE ADDING IN PREVIOUS COVER BASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS TODAY AND THE MORE RESTRICTIVE SITE.
COMMISSIONER AZAR, YOU WANTED, UH, IS THERE ANY, UM, OPPOSITION TO ALLOWING COMMISSIONER AZAR TO HAVE ANOTHER QUE A QUESTION? OKAY, GO AHEAD.
UM, MS. COIN, THIS WAS A QUESTION FOR YOU.
YOU MENTIONED THE DEFINITION OF SIGHT IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL, AND I WAS LOOKING AT THE GLOSSARY AND I SEE SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT, BUT I CANNOT SEE THAT DEFINITION.
CAN YOU PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT SECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL THAT RESIDES IN? YES, AND I, I DON'T WANNA MISSTATE AND SAY THAT'S A DEFINITION OF SITE, BUT IT IS IN, WHAT IS THE SECTION 25 1, 21 OF THE 25 1, 21 OF THE LDC.
AND THEN WHAT I READ EARLIER ABOUT THE WAY WE APPLY DIFFERENT REGULATIONS TO DIFFERENT WATERSHED CLASSIFICATIONS IS IN OUR CRITERIA MANUAL ECM 1 23 IN ECM 1 23
[01:45:02]
SECTION ON INTER DIVERSION.AND THEN I HAD A QUESTION FOR, UM, D S D STAFF.
SO, YOU KNOW, YOU CLEARLY TOLD COMMISSIONER COX THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT WAS NEVER GIVEN AN ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVAL AT THE TIME WHEN IT WAS TOLD TO THEM THAT, YOU KNOW, AS THEIR SORT OF SUBMISSIONS WERE HAPPENING IN SOME, UH, THAT THEY WERE NOT GIVEN ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVAL.
WERE THEY TOLD THAT THIS WAS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THEY WERE USING THEIR REDEVELOPMENT CRITERIA? THE REDEVELOPMENT SECTION HAD BEEN SOMETHING THAT WAS, UM, DISCUSSED AND, UM, ADVISED SINCE 2020, UM, I WOULD HAVE TO TO DO SOME, SOME DIGGING AND SOME RESEARCH TO KNOW SPECIFICALLY, YOU KNOW, WHERE IN THE PRO IN THE FORMAL REVIEW PROCESS, THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION WAS DISCUSSED.
BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN ON THE TABLE ALL ALONG AS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW WAS EVALUATING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, UM, ON A WATERSHED BY A WATERSHED BASIS.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, THEY FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE WAS AN EARLIER MEMO THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, MS. GOYIN HAD READ, AND THEN I THINK WE HAVE THE APPLICANT SHOWING US SOME SORT OF, UH, EXHIBIT WHERE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW THAT WASN'T CLARIFIED AND THEN LATER ON IN THE PROCESS WAS, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WAS THIS SORT OF THIS COMMUNICATION BREAK WHERE THE APPLICANT DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WERE ALL TELLING THEM THAT THEY CANNOT USE THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION? I WOULD'VE TO CHECK MY FILES.
UM, CHAIR, THAT'S ALL OF MY QUESTIONS.
UM, JUST, JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR STA.
UM, WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, THE, THE GUIDANCE MANUAL HAVE, HAVE Y'ALL PROVIDED THE GUIDANCE MANUAL, UH, INFORMATION TO THE, TO THE APPLICANTS WHERE THEY CAN CAN VIEW, CUZ IT SEEMS LIKE AT LEAST THIS IS WHERE WAY I'M HEARING IT, IS THAT, UM, WE'VE GOT A LEGAL DEFINITION OF SITE, UM, IN THE CODE.
YOU'VE GOT A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF SITE OR SITE PLAN IN YOUR DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT.
AM I, AM I HEARING THAT CORRECTLY? THE CODE ITSELF OUTLINES HIGH LEVEL GUIDANCE AND THE CRITERION MANUAL PROVIDES MORE NUANCE.
THE CRITERION MANUAL IS AVAILABLE PUBLICLY ONLINE.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT CONSULTANTS USE ALL THE TIME.
AND TO, TO BE CLEAR, IF I CAN, THIS, THIS CASE WAS SUPPOSED TO GO TO ZONING AND PLATTING, THE CHAIR IS OF THAT COMMISSION IS SOMEONE WHO HAS WORKED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AS AN ENGINEER FOR YEARS AND SAID, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ABOUT THIS CASE ISN'T CLEAR, IT'S BLACK AND WHITE.
WE APPLY REGULATIONS TO DIFFERENT WATERSHED BOUNDARIES.
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS ONE DIFFERENTLY.
DID WE, UH, DID WE HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP TO COMMISSION? OH, DID YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP? WE HEAR FROM THE, UH, PULL THAT, UM, MR. DRER OKAY.
WHOEVER Y'ALL WANT SEND OUT HERE, BECAUSE I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOUR ENGINEERING, MATT.
JUST KNOW WE, WE ARE KIND OF GETTING A LITTLE BIT, UM, IT'S IMPORTANT CASE.
ARE WE, EVERYBODY OKAY WITH US? UH, BREAKING OUR, WE'RE ADDING ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS HERE, SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND FORMALIZE THIS JUST TO, WE'VE GOT, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHERS THAT HAVE QUESTIONS? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE.
SO IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO ALLOWING, UM, CHAIR COHEN AND COMMISSIONER MAXWELL TO ASK A QUESTION AFTER WE GET AN ANSWER TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES QUESTION? ANY OBJECTION? OKAY.
UH, PLEASE CONTINUE WITH YOUR QUESTION THEN.
WE STILL NEED TO GET AN ANSWER TO COMMISSIONER AAR'S QUESTION.
THEN WE'LL GO TO, UM, THE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
UM, AND, AND IF GO AHEAD AND FINISH UP YOUR, CUZ UH, WE DID LEAVE YOU HANGING.
SO, UM, YES SIR, UH, THE EMAIL, I, I HAVE AN EMAIL THAT I HAD SENT TO, UM, LIZ JOHNSTON, THE DEPUTY ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, OCTOBER 22ND, 2021.
I WAS, UH, ASSISTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWER ON THIS.
UM, AND TO JUST QUOTE A PORTION OF IT AT THIS POINT THERE, THERE ARE THREE LARGE OUTSTANDING CONCERNS.
THE FIRST ITEM, MY LIST IS NUMBER ONE, THE APPLICANT WANTS TO APPEAL MY ASSERTION THAT THE WATERSHED BOUNDARY MAY NOT BE MOVED IN ORDER TO HAVE MORE FAVORABLE WATERSHED REGULATIONS.
THAT'S IN THE CONTEXT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, WHICH IS THE, THE QUESTION WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS NOW.
AND THAT WAS OCTOBER 22ND, 2021.
SO MY ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS, AT LEAST SINCE OCTOBER, 2021, THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION WAS A CONCEPT THAT WAS BEING REVIEWED.
COMMISSIONER AZA, DID YOU GET AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION? I, I GUESS I'M JUST, I, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS WAS COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DST STAFF AND ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF.
WAS THIS RELAYED TO THE APPLICANT? WAS THIS EXACT COMMENT SENT TO THE APP? UH, BECAUSE MY EMAIL SAYS THAT THE, UH, THE APPLICANT WANTS TO APPEAL MY ASSERTION THAT THE WATERSHED BOUNDARY MAY NOT BE MOVED.
[01:50:01]
IT LIKE THAT, I, THIS WAS WRITTEN TO LIZ.THIS IS AN INTERNAL MEMO TRYING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THINGS.
BUT BECAUSE I'M, I'M ADVISING WHAT THE APPLICANT IS SAYING IN MY RESPONSE, IN RESPONSE TO MY INFORMATION GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT, I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT WAS MADE AWARE OF THIS, YES, THIS WOULD'VE BEEN, UH, THIS WOULD LIKELY HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN A MEETING.
THEY DISAGREED WITH ME IN THE MEETING.
I FOLLOWED UP WITH LIZ IN WRITING TO GET CLARIFICATION, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN THE STANDARD PROCESS IF SOMEBODY DISPUTES MY INTERPRETATION.
LIZ, THE NEXT TIME AND AFTER AND AFTER THIS COMMUNICATION, IT WAS RELAYED BACK TO THE APPLICANT? YES.
DO YOU RELAY THIS TO THE APPLICANT? YES.
SO JUST MAKE SURE, COMMISSIONER ZA, ARE YOU, HAVE YOU COMPLETED YOUR QUESTIONS? OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES THAT I THINK NEEDED A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.
YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA, I'M JUST GONNA CONTINUE COMMISSIONER CZAR'S TIME, UH, APPLICANT, CAN YOU RESPOND? AND THEN I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR THE ENGINEER.
THE, THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION WAS DISCUSSED ALL THE WAY BACK BEFORE WE STARTED PULLING THE PLANS TOGETHER.
THE ADVICE THAT WE GOT AT THAT POINT WAS THAT SITE MEANT SITE AND THAT YOU COULD NOT INCREASE IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE SITE, WHICH WE DON'T, IT WASN'T UNTIL LATER, UNTIL MARCH OF 2022, A FULL EIGHT MONTHS AFTER SUBMISSION THAT WE HEARD FROM MS. JOHNSON THAT THE INTERPRETATION COULD GO EITHER WAY.
THAT WAS TWO AND A HALF DO MILLION DOLLARS LATER AND EIGHT MONTHS LATER.
AND, UH, AND WE CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT.
AND THEN IN THE ENGINE, IN YOUR, IN YOUR PREVIOUS, UM, UH, PRESENTATION, YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE, I THINK YOU SAID THE PONDS AND, AND THE PONDS ON THE SUBURBAN SIDE DIFFERENTLY THAN THE PONDS ON THE, UM, RIGHT PARDONS.
CAN YOU, DID I HEAR THAT CORRECTLY? YES.
SO LET ME JUST, UH, FINISH YOUR HANDS.
THIS WILL BE THE LAST QUESTION, SO WE'LL HAVE ANSWERED FOR YOU.
AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE, OKAY.
THERE'S A POND ON THE WILLIAMSON CREEK SIDE, AND THEN THERE'S A POND ON THE PART IN SPRINGSIDE.
CAN I ASK, SO MY FOLLOW UP TO THAT THEN IS ARE YOU TREATING THE SITE AS TWO DIFFERENT THINGS WITH TWO DIFFERENT PONDS? WE'RE TREATING, WE'RE TREATING TWO DIFFERENT PONDS BECAUSE THE, YOU HAVE TO TREAT IT AS THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED OUT FALLS.
YOU HAVE TO MEET THOSE OR MATCH THOSE.
SO WE'RE DISCHARGING AT THE SAME LOCATIONS AS IT IS TODAY.
SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT AS TWO DIFFERENT SITES? NO, TWO DIFFERENT WATERSHEDS FOR WATER QUALITY TREATMENT.
UM, LET'S GO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AND THEN FOLLOWED BY, UH, CHAIR COHEN.
I JUST HAVE A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, SO I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE REDEVELOPMENT PROCESS, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THIS IS OFTEN USED AT PLACES WHERE THERE ISN'T GOOD WATER QUALITY AND YOU KNOW, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF SITES LIKE THAT IN AUSTIN WHERE OBVIOUSLY THEY WERE DEVELOPED PRIOR TO OUR CURRENT WATERSHED REGULATIONS.
SO I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF BENEFITS TO THE WAY YOU APPROACH THIS PROJECT, AND THAT INCLUDES THE ACQUISITION OF THE TEXT OUTLAND THAT'S CURRENT WAS BASICALLY UNUSABLE PRIOR TO THAT.
SO I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK TO, IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO THAT PART, THAT'D BE GREAT.
THE, UH, THE OPPORTUNITY FROM THE BEGINNING WAS TO, UH, TAKE ONE OF THESE OLD RETAIL POWER CENTERS AND DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND ADD HOUSING AND THEN TO, UM, HANDLE PARKING IN A DIFFERENT MANNER.
WRAP DESIGN, STRUCTURED PARKING, MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE, BUT, UH, MUCH MORE EFFICIENT AND, UH, MUCH BETTER FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL STANDPOINT.
SO, UH, AND THEN BY A, BY BEING ABLE TO, TO UTILIZE THAT PREVIOUSLY HELD TECH.LAND, UH, IT ALLOWED US TO DO THIS KIND OF A PROJECT RATHER THAN A WHAT YOU SEE A LOT OF THE THREE STORY WALKUP KIND OF PRODUCT.
SO THIS WAS A, UH, AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT HERE, TO DO IT WITH AFFORDABILITY AND, UM, AND TO, AND TO BE ABLE TO, TO BEGIN TO REDEVELOP THAT POWER CENTER INTO SOMETHING THAT WILL MAKE SENSE IN TODAY'S WORLD, NOT SOMETHING BACK FROM THE SEVENTIES.
AND THAT'S, UH, THAT WAS THE OPPORTUNITY WE THOUGHT WE SAW.
AND I GUESS A RELATED QUESTION TO THAT, YOU'VE OBVIOUSLY SEEN A LOT OF, UM, LAND USE CASES, A LOT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT IN AUSTIN.
DO YOU FEEL THAT THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WHERE WE MIGHT END UP SORT OF REALLY TYING OUR HANDS WITH OVERREGULATING, SOME OF THESE THAT WE'D END UP WITH A LOT OF BASICALLY LOTS AND THINGS THAT YOU COULDN'T FIX BECAUSE OF SORT OF EXCESSIVE CONCERNS
[01:55:01]
ABOUT THE, INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT THE BIG PICTURE IN TERMS OF WHAT THESE SITES MIGHT BE ABLE TO COME BECOME, THAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT THE WEEDS AND NOT THINKING ABOUT THE IMPACT OF, SAY, HOUSING OR REDEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE CITY? BECAUSE WE KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF SITES LIKE THIS.WELL, I THINK, UH, I THINK ONE OF THE VERY BEST THINGS THAT WE'VE DONE ON AN AD HOC BASIS IN THE LAST 20 TO 25 YEARS IS TO CONTEMPLATE REDEVELOPMENT.
UH, WE'VE GOT ORDINANCES THAT DO A WONDERFUL JOB, I THINK, OF PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT.
WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH A GREENFIELD SITE, DEALING WITH A REDEVELOPMENT SITE, ESPECIALLY ONE LIKE THIS, UH, YOU'VE GOT TO DO SOME THINGS DIFFERENTLY.
AND, UH, AND, AND THAT'S ALL A NET BENEFIT BOTH TO HOUSING, TO THE ENVIRONMENT, UH, TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE AND WORK IN THAT AREA.
SO, UH, I BELIEVE THAT THE USE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE HERE IS BOTH PROPER AND, AND ADVANTAGEOUS TO, UH, TO ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WOULD FALL INTO THE BAILEY WIGS I JUST MENTIONED.
YOU KNOW, I, I HAVE A PERSONAL BELIEF THAT HOUSING DELAYED IS HOUSING DENIED, AND I HAVE REAL PROBLEM WITH, YOU KNOW, SORT OF SEEING ALL THESE, SHALL WE SAY, LOOP POLES AND DIFFICULTIES TRYING TO GET SOMETHING, A PROJECT LIKE THIS DELIVERED.
SO IT JUST, IN YOUR ESTIMATION, IF YOU HAVE TO REDESIGN OR GO BACK THROUGH THIS PROCESS IN SOME FORM OR FASHION, THAT WOULD CAUSE ADDITIONAL DELAYS IN EXPENSE.
THAT'S WITHOUT QUESTION, CORRECT.
AND, UH, AS YOU, AS YOU WOULD I HOPE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO, TO SEE WITH REGARD TO, UH, SOME OF STAFF'S ANSWERS, UH, THAT WOULD JUST THROW US BACK INTO THE DO LOOP, UM, THE DO LOOP THAT WE'VE BEEN IN FOR 20 MONTHS.
THE MADNESS HAS GOTTA END SOMEWHERE.
APPRECIATE, THAT'S MY CHAIR, MY QUESTION.
SO, UH, BEFORE WE MOVE ON, PLEASE, I'M TRYING TO JUST, ARE WE CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE HERE TONIGHT? IT'S WHETHER OR NOT STAFF INTERPRETED THE CODE CORRECTLY.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE CODE.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE CODE HERE.
I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF OPINIONS ABOUT HOUSING.
BUT WE ARE HERE TO INTERPRET, MAKE A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT, UH, THE STAFF INTERPRETED THE CODE PROPERLY.
I THINK I JUST, UH, WE CAN BRING, UH, OUR ATTORNEY UP HERE TO EXPLAIN WHAT WAS WRITTEN HERE, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON BOARD WITH WHAT WE'RE HERE, OUR, OUR DUTY
UH, COMMISSIONER COHEN, CHAIR COHEN, APOLOGIZE AND BOTH APPLY FOR THE RECORD.
I'M AN ABD ENVIRONMENTALIST AND I ALSO THINK HOUSING'S IMPORTANT, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO SHARE WITH Y'ALL THAT LAST JULY, JULY 13TH, 2022, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAD AN INTERPRETATION APPEAL FOR SUBCHAPTER E UH, ONE THROUGH FOUR.
AND WHEN IT BASICALLY BOILED DOWN TO IS ALMOST EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE HEARING TODAY, IT'S THE DEFINITION OF WHAT IS A SITE.
UH, THEN WE WERE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SOME PARKLAND DEDICATION THAT HAD BEEN PEELED OFF WAS ACTUALLY PART OF THE CONTIGUOUS SITE BEFORE OTHER THINGS WERE APPLIED TO IT.
AND IT SEEMS THAT'S KIND OF WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE TODAY.
AND I'M TORN BECAUSE IS THIS A CASE OF A WAREHOUSE THAT HAS A LITTLE BIT IN CANADA AND A LITTLE BIT IN AMERICA? AND DO YOU FOLLOW THE LAWS OF CANADA HERE OR DOES THE AMERICAN LAWS GO ALL THE WAY ACROSS? AND, UH, I I THINK, OR AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THIS COME FORTH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT IF IT WAS POSSIBLE, AND, AND HERE IT IS, IT'S NOT WITH THE BOARD, WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION, BUT HERE YOU CAN, YOU COULD POSTPONE, ESPECIALLY SINCE I'M HEARING THAT THE APPLICANTS AND STAFF BOTH WEREN'T AWARE OF INFORMATION THAT, THAT THEY NOW ARE, THAT MAYBE THEY COULD FIND A PATH FORWARD.
AND I KNOW YOU DON'T WANNA DELAY, I KNOW YOU WANT A DECISION TONIGHT.
I CAN SEE IT ALL OVER YOUR FACE, BUT WHATEVER GETS DECIDED HERE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE THAT.
YOU'RE NOT INTENDING TO WRITE CODE, BUT THE PRECEDENT WILL END UP WRITING CODE.
SO I JUST WANNA ASK EVERYBODY THINK ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT.
UH, IT, THIS BOILS DOWN TO THE DEFINITION OF SITE.
IS THIS SOMETHING WE NEED TO CREATE A WORKING GROUP WITH ON? IS THIS SOMETHING WE NEED TO SEND IN CODES AND ORDINANCES? WHAT IS THE ACTUAL DEFINITION OF SITE AND HOW DO THINGS APPLY TO IT? BECAUSE IT KEEPS COMING BEFORE THE, I GUESS, DIFFERENT LAND USE COMMISSIONS.
OH, I WOULDN'T HEAR WHAT GPS TO SAY.
I THINK WE DON'T HAVE THE TIME FOR IT.
SO WE, WE NEED, WE'RE WE'RE DONE WITH QUESTIONS, THAT'S ALL.
WE'VE SUSPENDED OUR RULES A FEW TIMES, BUT I DO WANNA REMIND FOLKS, UM, THE APPLICANT CAN APPEAL THE COUNCIL WITHIN 14 DAYS OF OUR DECISION.
[02:00:01]
TO KNOW THAT.I JUST, I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT.
SO, SO WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE OUT OF Q AND A, UNLESS SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION TO FURTHER SUSPEND THE RULES AND ENTERTAIN MORE QUESTIONS, BUT I THINK WE'VE UH, UH, DO YOU, COMMISSIONER COX, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YEAH, I WAS GONNA OFFER UP A MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL AND, UM, YEAH, TO DENY THE APPEAL AND TO SUPPORT STAFF'S INTERPRETATION.
JUST DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON COMMISSIONER COX'S MOTION? WE GOT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER VATA RAMIREZ.
YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, I, I VIEW THIS THE WAY OF A LOT OF, UH, LIKE VARIANCES, APPEALS, ALL THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT ARE USED TO KIND OF TAKE VERY UNIQUE SITUATIONS AND, AND MAKE THINGS WORK WITHIN OUR, UH, OFTENTIMES BINE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND WE'VE HEARD REPEATEDLY THAT THERE IS A MECHANISM THAT IS MORE APPROPRIATE THAT THE APPLICANT CAN USE TO ACHIEVE WHAT THEY WANT TO ACHIEVE.
AND WHAT WE'RE HERE SPECIFICALLY TO DECIDE ON IS THE INTERPRETATION THAT STAFF HAS MADE ON A SPECIFIC PRO PROVISION OF CODE.
I I WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO CARE HOW GREAT THE PROJECT IS OR IF THEY SPENT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS MAKING PLANS OR THIS OR THAT OR YADA YADA.
WE'RE SPECIFICALLY SUPPOSED TO DECIDE ON WHETHER STAFF MADE THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THIS SPECIFIC PIECE OF CODE.
AND I THINK THEY HAVE, I THINK IF WE DECIDE OTHERWISE, THERE ARE A LOT OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND I THINK IT'S WRONG AND THERE IS A MECHANISM FOR THEM TO ACTUALLY GET WHAT THEY WANT AND BUILD WHAT THEY WANT.
SO I THINK IT'S KIND OF A PRETTY OBVIOUS DECISION THAT, UM, WE SHOULD DENY THIS APPEAL.
SO, UM, WE HAVE SPEAKERS AGAINST, I GUESS BEING AGAINST THE MOTION COMMISSIONER CONLEY AND THEN MR. CHAIR.
COMMISSIONER THAT CAN I, I HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER AZAR.
I WOULD LIKE A TO MAKE A MOTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL.
SAY THAT AGAIN AND SPEAK TO THAT MOTION.
I, I'M MAKING A MOTION TO ACTUALLY GRANT THE APPEAL.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS? OKAY.
GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO YOUR SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
I, I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER COX IS SAYING.
THE IDEA REALLY IS DID STAFF INTERPRET THE CODE? RIGHT.
AND TO BE HONEST, IN THIS SCENARIO, I'M ACTUALLY SYMPATHETIC TO WHAT STAFF IS SAYING AND I'M ACTUALLY QUITE WORRIED ABOUT THE PRECEDENT THAT WE MIGHT BE SETTING.
HOWEVER, I JUST DON'T KNOW IN WHAT UNIVERSE I CAN READ THE CODE DIFFERENTLY.
SO I'M REALLY STRUGGLING AT THIS MOMENT.
SO THE CODE SECTION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THE REQUIREMENT OF THIS SUBCONTRACTOR DO NOT APPLY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY IF THE REDEVELOPMENT DOES NOT INCREASE THE EXISTING AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE SITE.
AND AS OUR STAFF AS ITSELF PRESENTED SITE AS DEFINED IN 25 DASH ONE DASH 21 1 0 6 MEANS, SITE MEANS A CONTIGUOUS AREA INTENDED FOR DEVELOPMENT OR THE AREA ON WHICH A BUILDING HAS BEEN PROPOSED TO BE BUILT OR HAS BEEN BUILT.
A SITE MAY NOT CROSS A PUBLIC STREET OR RIGHT OF WAY.
AM I, THE REASON I'M MAKING THIS MOTION IS ESSENTIALLY, AS I LOOK AT IT AS A CONTIGUOUS SITE, IT HAS NOT CROSSED A RIGHT OF WAY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING ELSE WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS IN STAFFING, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE CODE SUPERSEDES THE CRITERIA MANUAL.
AND IN THIS CASE, I HATE TO SAY THAT THE CODE IS VERY CLEAR THAT THIS IS A SITE AND IN THE INTERPRETATION, THE IMPER COVER REQUIREMENTS SUPPLY TO THE FULL SITE AND NOT PARTS OF IT BASED ON THE WATERSHED REQUIREMENTS.
CHAIR PRIVILEGE, I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT THAT IS THE EXACT DEFINITION.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UPHELD, WE UPHELD STAFF'S DECISION THAT IT WAS APPLIED AS A SINGLE CONTIGUOUS SITE ACROSS THE ENTIRE THING.
SO NOW WE HAVE, UH, SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
WE HAVE COMMISSIONER AZAR SPEAKING IN FAVOR.
UH, ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION COMMISSIONER MUSH TYLER, I, I THINK THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS.
WE HAVE PEOPLE HERE WITH YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.
THE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT HAS YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.
MR. LAVINSKY WITH SOS HAS YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.
THE SOS ORDINANCE HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR YEARS AND WAS A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT LANDMARK,
[02:05:02]
UM, ACHIEVEMENT BY THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN TO PROTECT A VERY IMPORTANT RESOURCE FROM WHICH NEW RESIDENTS WILL DRINK AND SWIM.UM, AND SO THEY'VE KNOWN ABOUT THIS AND THEY KNOW THEY HAVE A SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT CROSSES THIS AND THEY KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND THEY KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE OBJECTION.
AND SO INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH THE EXISTING FORMAL PROCESS THAT'S THERE BECAUSE THEY'RE AFRAID THEY'RE NOT GONNA GET THE ANSWER THEY WANT, THEY BACKDOOR IT A DIFFERENT WAY.
I MEAN, IF, IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUFF THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT THEY'VE GOT IS SO GREAT, THEN LET'S GET TO IT AND HEAR IT UNDER AN SOS EXCEPTION.
BUT I DON'T WANNA TAKE AN ATTORNEY'S WORD THAT THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IDEA THAT THEY HAVE IS GREAT.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT FROM THE ENVIRONMENTALIST.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE NOT HERE TO DO TONIGHT.
I THINK THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.
I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A CONTIGUOUS SITE THAT MEANS THAT I CAN TAKE A BIG PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S IN A, UH, DIFFICULT ZONING AREA, AND I CAN FINGER A PIECE OF PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF THAT AND CALL IT A CONTIGUOUS SITE AND THEN GET WHAT I WANT OUT OF IT.
AND MAYBE THAT'S NOT HOW THEY APPROACH THIS PROPERTY WHEN THEY PURCHASED IT, BUT WE'RE OPENING THE DOOR FOR THAT AND THE PRECEDENT FOR THAT, I THINK IT'S A VERY BAD CHOICE.
I THINK WE CAN GET THE HOUSING OUT OF THIS.
I THINK WE CAN GET THE REDEVELOPMENT AND ALL OF THE GOOD THINGS, AND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF DIFFERENCE IN IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SO I THINK WE OUGHT LET THE PROCESS RIDE OUT AND THEN GET THE, THE BEST RESULT FOR THE DEVELOPER AND THE PUBLIC, EVEN IF IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.
UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS, DO YOU WANT, YOU SECONDED THIS.
DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? THE MOTION? I DO.
UM, I'M, I'M TRYING TO JUST SEE THIS AS AN APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE HOUSING AND THE BENEFITS OF THIS SITE AND THE, YOU KNOW, TIME THAT'S GONE INTO IT AND, YOU KNOW, CONFUSION THAT'S COME UP AROUND COMMUNICATION WITH STAFF.
UM, AND IF WHAT WE'RE BEING TOLD IS TRUE THAT THIS JUST HINGES ON THE DEFINITION OF SITE, WE'VE BEEN SPEAKING ABOUT THIS SITE AS A SITE THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION.
I DON'T, I REALLY CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A CONTIGUOUS AREA INTENDED FOR A DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND SO IF THAT'S HOW WE HAVE TO MAKE THIS DECISION, THEN THAT SEEMS VERY CLEAR TO ME.
THE SPEAKING AGAIN, IS THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER COX, I, I AM AFRAID WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF OVER OVERSIMPLIFYING THIS.
UM, JUST BECAUSE A SITE IS A CONTINUOUS AREA INTENDED FOR DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T HAVE TWO WATERSHEDS.
AND IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THOSE WATERSHEDS HAVE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS.
AND IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE ARE REAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES TO TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO AVOID THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
AND IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE WERE GOOD REASONS WHY THERE'S DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE DIFFERENT WATERSHEDS.
AND SO I JUST, A AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS THE WRONG WAY TO DO THIS.
WE DO NOT NEED TO USE THIS PARTICULAR CASE TO TRY TO ESTABLISH SOME FUTURE DEFINITION OF WHEN, UH, BARTON SPRINGS WATERSHED PROVISIONS APPLY TO THIS OR THAT.
I THINK, LIKE CHAIR COHEN MENTIONED, THAT WOULD BE A GREAT THING TO DO IN A DIFFERENT FORUM IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
UM, AND WE PROBABLY SHOULD DO THAT TO GET THIS CLARIFIED, BUT THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT.
AND I THINK, I THINK APPROVING THIS IS, IS THE WRONG THING.
WE'RE GOING IN ORDER THOSE, SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UH, SO COMMISSIONER CONLEY, I THINK YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP EARLIER.
UM, YEAH, AND I WANT TO JUST STATE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHILE I, IT IS VERY CLEAR TO ME THAT WE'RE HERE TO DECIDE ON THE INTERPRETATION OF CODE.
IT IS ALSO CLEAR TO ME THAT WHAT WE ARE WITNESSING RIGHT NOW IS EXACTLY THE GRAVEYARD WHERE SO MUCH OF AUSTIN'S HOUSING GOES TO DIE.
UM, BECAUSE THIS IS THE DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS.
THIS IS THE PROCESS WHERE THERE'S UNCLEAR COMMUNICATION.
THERE'S JUST MONTHS AND MONTHS OF BACK AND FORTH.
I MEAN, WE DECIDED ON THIS ZONING CASE, WE EXPRESSED OUR, YOU KNOW, OUR ENDORSEMENT FOR IT, COUNCIL EXPRESSED ITS ENDORSEMENT FOR IT, AND THEN IT GOES INTO A PROCESS WHEREIN THE APPLICANT IS HELD IN THIS KIND OF ETERNAL LIMBO AND CHARGED ALL OF THESE KIND OF WHAT ARE ESSENTIALLY, TO ME, INFORMAL TAXES.
BECAUSE EVERY TIME YOU SEND THE APPLICANT BACK TO REDO THEIR SITE PLAN AND PAY THE ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS A BUNCH MORE MONEY, THAT IS A TAX NOT ON THE APPLICANT, BUT A TAX ON HOUSING IN AUSTIN.
AND, AND I THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR REGARDLESS OF HOW WE INTERPRET THE CODE.
[02:10:01]
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT WE'RE SEEING THIS KIND OF MESSY COM CONFUSING COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF AND FROM AN APPLICANT AND THIS LACK OF CLARITY AROUND THINGS.AND THERE JUST HAS TO BE A BETTER WAY TO DO THINGS.
AND I, I INSIST THAT UNLESS THERE IS KIND OF CLEAR UNAMBIGUOUS COMMUNICATION FROM THE BEGINNING THAN THE POSITION THAT THE APPLICANT IS TAKING ON, THIS IS QUITE REASONABLE.
IT IS NOT SOME KIND OF ATTEMPT TO SORT OF STRETCH, DRAW, CARVE OUT SOME EXTRA PIECE OF LAND.
IT IT IS, IT IS ONE SITE IT LOOKS LIKE, SORRY, IT LOOKS LIKE ONE SITE ON THE MAP.
UM, AND THE, THE, THE APPLICANT'S INTERPRETATION ON THIS SEEMS ENTIRELY REASONABLE.
AND IF IT WASN'T REASONABLE, THEN THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLEARED UP MONTHS AGO.
THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLEARED UP A YEAR AGO.
UM, AND, AND SO IT'S, IT JUST FEELS LIKE THE POSITION WE'RE BEING PUT IN AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE GRAVEYARD WHERE AUSTIN'S HOUSING GOES TO DIE.
WE HAVE, UH, COMMISSIONER, UM, BETA RAMIREZ TAKING THE LAST SPOT, SPEAKING AGAINST.
SO IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT, UM, THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY HAD NOT WON NOT TO, BUT THREE OPPORTUNITIES TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY, THEY WERE NOT MEETING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS.
AND THEY HAVE ACCESS TO AMANDA, WHICH IS AN ONLINE AVAILABLE FORUM FOR PEOPLE THAT SUBMIT APPLICATIONS.
SO THEY ARE ABLE TO SEE THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWERS COMMENTS, THE PARKS COMMENTS, THE TRANSPORTATION, ALL THE DIFFERENT REVIEWERS.
AND SO THEY KNEW BACK IN 2020 OR WHENEVER IT IS THAT THEY FIRST ADMITTED THAT THEY WERE NOT GETTING APPROVAL.
SO I BELIEVE THAT STAFF WAS CORRECT THAT THEY COMMUNICATED THAT TO THE APPLICANT.
WHETHER OR NOT THEY UNDERSTOOD, I'M NOT SURE THAT MAYBE THEY NEED TO, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT, UM, I THINK WHAT I STRUGGLE WITH IS IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THERE IS A CLEAR PATH FORWARD.
IT SEEMS AS THE CODE TO ME IS VERY CLEAR THAT THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT WATERSHEDS THAT, THAT, THAT, SO S TRUMPS EVERYTHING ELSE.
THERE IS NO EXCEPTION TO, SO S IT IS, THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT GOES.
AND I KNOW THIS IS DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THERE IS A WAY FORWARD AND THERE IS A PROCESS, AND I THINK IT, IT IS GETTING A LITTLE BIT INTO WHEN THE APPLICANT KNEW THAT, UM, THAT THEY WERE NOT GETTING APPROVED AND THEY HAD ISSUES WITH THEIR APPLICATION.
UM, I DON'T, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GETTING, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST THE, THE WORD SITE.
I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT LDC 25 8 DASH 25 AND LDC 25 8 DASH 26, BOTH OF WHICH DEFINE THE, THE URBAN SUBURBAN WATERSHEDS VERSUS THE BARTON SPRING ZONE.
SO IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE WATERSHEDS THAT THEY NEED TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY.
AND IF THE APPLICANT IS IN FACT DEVELOPING OR PLAN TO DEVELOP DIFFERENT SITE STANDARDS AS REQUESTED BY THE WATERSHED STAFF, THAT IS SOMETHING NEW.
IF, IF THEY'RE IN FACT ACCOMMODATING THESE TWO DIFFERENT CODES, THEN THAT'S TOTALLY SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
THAT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE IS NOT, WE HAVE NO ISSUE.
UM, SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED THERE, BUT I CONTINUE TO, OKAY.
SO WE ARE, UH, OUT OF THE, UH, FOR AGAINST, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPEAL.
UH, THIS IS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DESAR, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.
LET ME, UH, LET ME DO THIS VERY DELIBERATELY SO I CAN GET A COUNT.
UH, SO THOSE ON THE DIAS IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
UH, AND THOSE ON VIRTUALLY IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION IN A, SO WE HAVE, I'M COUNTING THREE.
THOSE ON THE DIAS THAT ARE, UH, AGAINST THIS MOTION, PLEASE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN THAT ARE AGAINST THIS MOTION.
AND THEN, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OF THOSE THAT ARE ABSTAINING? SO, DID I NOT SEE YOUR VOTE? YOU DIDN'T SEE MINE VOTE YES.
DID
UM, I GUESS I'M TAKING THE, THE PRIVILEGE OF Y YOU KNOW, THIS IS A, THIS IS A TOUGH DEAL.
IT, IT, UM, UM, I, I AM A PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PERSON, BUT WE ARE ESTABLISHING A PRECEDENT HERE THAT IS, UH, TROUBLING ME.
UM, I'M GONNA, I'M, I'M GONNA RELUCTANTLY VOTE FOR THIS, UH, BUT IT IS A, UM, I'M, I'M FOR THIS,
[02:15:01]
BUT, WOW.SO APPLICANT, SO THAT'S IN FAVOR.
SO I THINK IF I'M GETTING MY COUNT RIGHT, IS THAT EIGHT IN FAVOR? AND, UM, FOUR AGAINST.
UH, THAT WAS OUR LAST THANK YOU FOR ENDING WITH US CHAIR.
I CAN I MAKE A QUICK COMMENT? I, IT WAS SORT OF A POINT OF PRIVILEGE.
COMMISSIONER AAR, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU WANNA ADD? THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY, HONESTLY, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HENS.
I AM WORRIED ABOUT THE PRECEDENT.
IT'S JUST REALLY THE INTERPRETATION THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THE SECTIONS OF THE CODE.
I JUST CANNOT RELY ON ANY INFORMATION ALL THAT TO SAY, I REALLY HOPE THE STAFF WILL WORK WITH US, OUR COUNCIL, SOON TO ENSHRINE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE SO WE CAN ADDRESS THIS MOVING FORWARD.
BECAUSE THIS DOES LOOK LIKE IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A, I'M, I'M NOT SURE, I GUESS WE WERE JUST NOT VERY CLEAR ON HOW THE CODE WAS WRITTEN.
UM, LET'S TAKE A QUICK, UH, LET'S, UH, GO AHEAD AND TAKE A BREAK.
UM, OKAY, LET'S START WHEN WE HAVE A QUORUM.
I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TELL THAT THEY OH, EXACTLY.
SEE, YOU'RE NEVER GONNA READ AGAIN, ARE YOU? NO, I, OKAY.
WE'RE ALMOST THERE IF WE GET, UM, ONE MORE, ONE MORE FOLKS FROM THIS VIRTUAL WORLD TO COME BACK.
SO WE HAVE SEVEN, WE HAVE QUORUM.
LET'S GO AND BRING THIS, UH, MEETING BACK TO ORDER.
[19. Discussion and possible action initiating code amendments to City Code Chapter 25-2 relating to dwelling occupancy limits. (Sponsors: Commissioners Maxwell and Anderson)]
ITEM 19, AND LET'S GO AHEAD AND SET THIS UP.UH, SO I'M GONNA READ IT TO YOUR DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION INITIATING CODE AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE CHAPTER 25 DASH TWO, RELATING TO DWELLING OCCUPANCY LIMITS SPONSORS ARE COMMISSIONERS, MAXWELL AND ANDERSON.
UH, SO HOW WE'LL, UH, START THIS, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, UH, GIVE SOME TIME, UH, TO THE SPONSORS TO PRESENT, UM, WHAT THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT IN THIS CODE AMENDMENT.
I KNOW THERE WAS SOME BACKUP MATERIAL.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT TOO.
AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO, UM, Q AND A AND THEN WE WILL CONSIDER MOTIONS SPEAKERS.
COMMISSION, UH, MR. RIVERA TOLD ME THAT.
SO LET'S START WITH, UH, WE'LL SET THIS UP BY THE SPONSORS AND THEN WE'LL HAVE SPEAKERS AFTER THAT.
SO WE HEAR FROM EVERYONE, AND THAT'LL INFLUENCE OUR, OUR Q AND A.
SO WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL
UH, FIRST, UH, I WANNA SAY THANK YOU TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FOR CONSIDERING THE, UH, UH, THIS AMENDMENT, PRO POTENTIAL AMENDMENT TONIGHT.
I ALSO WANNA THANK, UM, THE ADVOCATES AND, UH, FOLKS WHO HAVE REACHED OUT ABOUT, UM, STARTING THIS PROCESS.
I KNOW THAT THIS IS A PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT PIECE OF CO REVISION THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LOOKING FORWARD TO FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
SO I'M EAGER TO HEAR FROM, UM, THE FOLKS WHO MIGHT BE SPEAKING IN JUST A MINUTE.
UM, I WANNA KEEP THIS PRETTY SIMPLE.
OBVIOUSLY, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE EXHIBIT, THE SUGGESTION IS TO DELETE THE SECTION RELATED TO DWELLING UNITS.
UM, THERE ARE TWO PIECES OF INFORMATION THAT WE INCLUDED, AND THAT'S BASICALLY BECAUSE SORT OF THE BACKGROUND ON THIS IS THE, WHAT WE CALL THE KEATING MEMO, WHICH, UM, IS USED IN MOST CONTEXTS TO UNDERSTAND HOW OCCUPANCY LIMITS, UH, WORK.
AND THAT'S A FEDERAL HOUSING DOCUMENT THAT'S USED AND GUIDED, UH, BASICALLY THOSE TYPES OF OCCUPANCY QUESTIONS SINCE THE LATE EIGHTIES.
UH, I MEAN THE, THE CURRENT VERSION, THE VERSION YOU'LL SEE THERE IS FROM 1991.
AND THEN THE OTHER SECTION THAT I INCLUDED IS THE IP IPMC, WHICH WE'RE ALSO GONNA HEAR SOME MORE ABOUT.
AND ESSENTIALLY THAT TALKS ABOUT, UM, THE SPACE REQUIRED FOR THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF ROOMS. UH, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S CONCERNS ABOUT OVERCROWDING AND WHATNOT.
AND SO OUR CODE ACTUALLY ADDRESSES THAT IN TERMS OF LIVABLE SPACE THAT'S REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF USES WITHIN THE HOUSING, UM, UNITS.
SO JUST TO POINT OUT THAT WHEN WE TAKE AWAY THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF TEXT, THERE ARE ACTUALLY A LOT OF RULES,
[02:20:01]
STATE AND FEDERAL, AS WELL AS A GUIDANCE IN OUR OWN CODE THAT RELATE TO OCCUPANCY LIMITS AND HOW THEY'RE CONSIDERED.SO THIS IS NOT, UM, THIS IS A CHANGE, BUT THERE IS ACTUALLY A GOOD DEAL OF INFORMATION AND SORT OF, UM, REGULATIONS AROUND THESE TYPES OF QUESTIONS THAT EXISTS AT ALL LEVELS, UH, FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCALLY.
SO THAT'S, UH, BASICALLY WHERE WE'RE GONNA START FROM.
UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD, YOU NAILED IT.
UH, THE ONLY SMALL THINGS I WOULD ADD, UM, IT WAS ROUGHLY 10 YEARS AGO WHEN CITY COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, FURTHER RESTRICTED OUR CURRENT OCCUPANCY LIMITS.
AND THE BIG CONVERSATION OF THE DAY WAS, LOOK, LET'S JUST DO THIS TO, TO, TO LOOK AT THESE SMALL KIND OF LITTLE PROBLEMS HERE AND THERE THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT THIS MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADDRESS WHILE WE PUT TOGETHER A NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT SHOULD BE VOTED ON WITHIN THE NEXT THREE TO FOUR YEARS.
OF COURSE, THOSE THREE TO FOUR YEARS TURNED INTO 10 YEARS TURNED INTO I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS HAS GROWN AND THIS UNFORTUNATELY MAKES CERTAIN FORMS OF HOUSING ILLEGAL AND MAKES, UM, ROOMMATE SITUATIONS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT.
AND, YOU KNOW, THE ORIGINAL, UM, THAT WAS KIND OF ALSO PREDICATED ON UNFORTUNATELY, BEING AGAINST STUDENTS.
IT WAS AGAINST STEALTH DORMS. IT WAS AGAINST THE IDEA OF STUDENTS LIVING IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE RIGHT NEXT TO THE BIGGEST UNIVERSITY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
AND THIS IS JUST A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO GO AHEAD AND CORRECT THAT ERROR AND BE ON OUR WAY.
UH, YOU WANNA HAVE SPEAKERS NOW? YEAH.
WELL, UM, FIRST HEAR FROM MR. RYAN NE FOLLOWED BY MS. KENDRICK GARRETT.
MY NAME'S RYAN NILL AND I REPRESENT THE AUSTIN COOPERATIVE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION.
WE HOPE THAT YOU'LL SUPPORT ITEM 19 TO GET RID OF THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS.
UM, COOPERATIVE HOUSING IN AUSTIN COST 50 TO 70% OF COMPARABLE HOUSING, AND THE MAJORITY OF OUR CO-OPS CURRENTLY OPERATE AT OCCUPANCIES ABOVE WHAT WE SEE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND SO A LARGE PART OF THE COST SAVINGS COMES FROM SHARING HOUSING.
SHARED HOUSING ALLOWS FOR A LOWER COST PER SQUARE FOOT OF REAL ESTATE, LESS APPLIANCES, YOU KNOW, SHARING KITCHEN, LAUNDRY FACILITIES, AND ALSO LOWER USE OF ENERGY.
UM, DUE TO THAT, UH, KIND OF MORE EFFICIENT USE OF SPACE.
UM, CURRENTLY IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO FIND SITES THAT ALLOW THAT STYLE.
THERE IS AN EX, AN EXCEPTION IN THE CODE.
IT'S CALLED THE GROUP RESIDENTIAL LAND USE.
IT'S ONLY ALLOWED IN SITES ZONED MF FOUR OR MORE INTENSE.
UM, THOSE SITES ARE VERY LARGE, VERY EXPENSIVE, AND OFTEN BEYOND THE MEANS OF THE COOPERATIVE HOUSING COMMUNITY.
UM, AND IT'S ALSO OFTEN A MISUNDERSTOOD EXCEPTION.
UM, IN THE TWO THOUSANDS, THE FOUNDING MEMBERS OF THEONA CO-OP HAD A REALTOR WHO INSISTED THEY HAD THE EXCEPTION EXEMPTION, UH, BUT THEY WERE WRONG.
AND THEN THEY SPENT THREE YEARS TRYING TO FIGHT THE ZILKER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO ACQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS.
UM, I ALSO WANNA POINT OUT THAT THIS DOES ONLY ELIMINATES THE UNRELATED PERSON'S OCCUPANCY LIMITS, AND IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING TO THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS RELATED TO SAFETY AND OVERCROWDING, AND PUTS US IN LINE WITH OTHER CITIES SUCH AS SAN ANTONIO, HOUSTON, AND DALLAS.
UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT WE REGULATE WHO CAN LIVE TOGETHER BASED ON WHETHER THEY'RE MARRIED OR RELATED BY BLOOD MAY HAVE BEEN SUITABLE IN THE PAST, BUT DOESN'T REALLY FIT THE CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS THAT WE SEE TODAY WITH NON-TRADITIONAL FAMILIES.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, AND INCREASES IN PEOPLE LIVING ALONE.
SO I FELL IN LOVE WITH HOUSING COOPERATIVES.
UM, WHEN I WAS IN COLLEGE, I WAS A FRESHMAN.
UM, YOU KNOW, I FELL IN LOVE CUZ OF SOCIAL SCENE.
IT REMINDED ME OF THE SUMMERS I SPENT WITH MY EXTENDED FAMILY IN MEXICO.
UM, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE AFTER A LONG YEAR AS A FRESHMAN WITHOUT REALLY FINDING ANY FRIENDS OR PLACED, OR A PLACE THAT I FIT IN, MOVING INTO CO-OP IS HOW I RESOLVED THE ISSUES THAT I HAD WITH LONELINESS.
SO IT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT TO MY LIFE AND OTHER STUDENTS FACE THESE CHALLENGES ALSO.
UM, AND LIKE TO POINT Y'ALL TO AN EMAIL THAT MY COLLEAGUE WHO ALSO LIVES IN COOPERATIVE HOUSING SENT ABOUT THE IMPACT HE'S HAD AS A MEMBER OF THE LGBTQ PLUS COMMUNITY.
AND THEY WOULD REALLY BENEFIT FROM THIS ALSO.
UM, AND ALSO, UH, LOW INCOME IMMIGRANT FAMILIES REALLY STRUGGLE THIS WITH THIS CUZ IT'S COMMON FOR TWO UNRELATED FAMILIES TO LIVE TOGETHER, UH, BECAUSE THE, YOU KNOW, THEIR NEEDS ARE GREAT.
UM, SO I HOPE THAT YOU WILL VOTE TO APPROVE THIS, TO REMOVE THE UNRELATED PERSON'S OCCUPANCY LIMITS, UM, AND ALLOW FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT
[02:25:01]
NEEDING MORE CONSTRUCTION.AND IT'LL BE MORE IN LINE WITH THE NEEDS OF OUR CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS THAT'S MOVING AWAY FROM TRADITIONAL FAMILY STRUCTURES.
ONE, I HEAR FROM MS. KENDRICK GARRETT, FOLLOWED BY MICHAEL NEAS.
UM, MY NAME IS KENDRICK GARRETT AND I'M A RESIDENT OF D FOUR, UM, AND AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVOCATE.
UM, I WOULD ALSO WANNA STATE THAT I'M NOT HERE UNDER THE CAPACITY AS A ZAP COMMISSIONER.
UM, I'M JUST GONNA ECHO, UM, WHAT COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SAID.
UM, PER THE 2022 HOUSING WORKS REPORT, 34% OF AUSTINITES OUR COST BURDEN AND 15% OF US NIGHTS ARE EXTREMELY COST BURDEN.
SO ALLOWING UNRELATED PERSONS LIKE RELATED FOLKS, UM, TO LIVE TOGETHER, TO SHARE EXPENSES AND TO THRIVE IN THE CITY SOUNDS PRETTY REASONABLE TO ME.
UM, ELIMINATING THIS SECTION OF THE LAND OF LOMA CODE LINES WITH OTHER MAJOR CITIES LIKE, UM, RYAN JUST STATED.
UM, AND SO IN AN EXTREMELY UNAFFORDABLE HOUSING ENVIRONMENT THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS IN THE CITY PROVIDING VARIOUS TYPES OF HOUSING OPTIONS FOR AUSTIN RESIDENTS AND IS GREAT IN ALIGNED WITH THE CITY GOALS TO PROMOTE DIVERSE INEQUITABLE COMMUNITIES.
SO THANK YOU SO MUCH AND PLEASE APPROVE ITEM 19.
UH, GOOD EVENING CHAIR COMMISSION.
I'M AN ECONOMIST STAYING HOUSING HERE IN AUSTIN.
I'M VICE CHAIR OF THE ECONOMIC PROSPERITY COMMISSION.
I'M NOT HERE RELATED TO THAT COMMISSION.
UM, I'M ALSO RESIDENT OF THEONA CO-OP AND ON THEIR BOARD.
UM, AS AN ECONOMIST, THIS IS ONE OF THE SIX LAWS IN AUSTIN CAUSING THE HOUSING SHORTAGE.
UH, RENTS IN AUSTIN, AS YOU KNOW, ARE EXPENSIVE.
WE'RE OVER, WE'RE AROUND $200 MORE THAN HOUSTON AT THE MOMENT, AND HOUSTON'S FOUR TIMES LARGER THAN US AND ALSO GROWING, UH, THE CHEAPEST LOT ON ZILLOW, WHICH IS SOMETHING YOU SHOULD KEEP TRACK OF, IS OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ANYWHERE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
UM, SO AS A RESIDENT OF SEONA, UM, MY HISTORY, I GREW UP WITH A VERY LARGE, BUSY FAMILY.
UH, TWO PARENTS, FOUR KIDS, A DOG, VARIOUS CATS.
UM, WHEN I FIRST LIVED BY MYSELF AS AN ADULT, I WAS EXTREMELY LONELY FOR MONTHS.
UM, AND DURING COVID O RECENTLY, UM, MY ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT F FELT VERY LONELY AGAIN, AND I KIND OF SWUNG THE OTHER WAY.
UM, I NOW LIVE IN A 17 BEDROOM HOUSE WITH 20 HOUSEMATES.
THEY'RE FROM 25 TO A RETIREE WHO'S CURRENTLY IN THE HOSPITAL GETTING HER HIP REPLACED.
UH, THEY'RE ALL INCOME LEVELS.
THE RENT GOES AS LOW AS $614 PER MONTH.
UM, THAT'S A VERY SMALL ROOM, BUT THE HOUSE HAS A HUGE INDUSTRIAL KITCHEN.
WE HAVE THREE INDOOR LIVING ROOMS, ONE OUTDOOR LIVING ROOM, A FIRE PIT, WONDERFUL TREES.
WE'RE TWO MILES SOUTH OF HERE IN THE ZILKER NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR BARTON SPRINGS POOL.
UM, LET'S SEE, SOME OTHER THINGS.
WE HAVE, UH, THREE TRANSGENDER MEMBERS AT THE MOMENT WHO FIND IT A SAFE SPACE.
UM, LET'S SEE, WE LIVE CLOSE TO DOWNTOWN.
WE GET ALONG FINE WITH OUR NEIGHBORS, AND MOST OF ALL, I DON'T FEEL LONELY.
UH, SO REGARDING THIS ISSUE, THE CURRENT BAND PREVENTS HOUSES LIKE SEONA.
UM, THE CURRENT BAND IS A ONE SIZE FITS ALL SOLUTION.
LIKE THIS IS SAYING LIKE, WE HAVE THE SOLUTION HERE RIGHT NOW FOR EVERY SITE IN AUSTIN.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE.
AND THE CURRENT SOLUTION IS YOU CAN'T DO IT.
UM, SO THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE YOU TO KEEP IN MIND IS THERE ARE OTHER SOLUTIONS TO THESE PROBLEMS. UM, IF PEOPLE DO NOT WANT LARGE POPULOUS HOUSES IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE ARE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THERE'S PLENTY OF CIVIL CONTRACTS WHERE PEOPLE COULD FIND AN AGREEMENT IF IT'S A LANDLORD SITUATION WITH SOMEBODY TO FIND A PRIVATE AGREEMENT THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE THE CRIMINAL CODE.
SO FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, I HOPE YOU'LL APPROVE THIS MOTION.
UM, ALSO, UH, HOUSEMATE HAPPENED TO LEAVE EARLY IS QUICK.
HE STAYED FOR TWO HOURS BUT COULDN'T MAKE IT.
UH, HIS QUOTE WAS CAR, IT'S, IT'S LIKE CARPOOLING WITH A HOUSE.
AND I'D LIKE TO, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED, UH, SEONA HAS AN OPEN DINNER ON SUNDAYS AT 7:00 PM YOU'RE ALL WELCOME TO ATTEND AND SEE WHAT IT'S LIKE.
WILL NOT HEAR FROM SAM SIMMONS.
HE UNFORTUNATELY HAD TO LEAVE NOTED CHAIR.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
[02:30:01]
THIS UP TO, UH, DO YOU, HAVE YOU HAVE FIRST QUESTION, VICE CHAIR OR DO YOU HAVE A OH YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA, I HAVE A QUESTION.ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET, WE'RE GONNA DO EIGHT AT FIVE.
YEAH, I, UM, I WAS REALLY INTERESTED IN THIS TOPIC AND AS SOME OF THE SPEAKERS WERE SPEAKING, UM, I VIVIDLY REMEMBER MY SISTER MOVING TO AUSTIN IN 2000.
SHE GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL A YEAR EARLY, AND SHE LIVED IN THE 21ST STREET CO-OP, AND THEN SHE WAS ONE OF THE FOUNDING MEMBERS OF SEONA.
SO WHEN THAT GOT BROUGHT UP TONIGHT, UM, I WAS VERY EXCITED BECAUSE I REMEMBER HER GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND SHE WAS 22 OR SOMETHING CRAZY LIKE THAT.
SO, UM, FULL CIRCLE AND EXCITED TO SEE THIS AS, UM, AN INITIATIVE.
I'M WONDERING IF, UM, THE ELIMINATION OF OCCUPANCY LIMITS WOULD'VE HELPED THAT CASE THAT WE HEARD A MONTH OR SO AGO THAT WAS IN, UM, OHANA, UM, OVER WHERE THEY WERE TRYING TO HAVE, UM, A THREE HOME SITUATION FOR THE PARENTS, THE CHILD OF THE PARENTS' CARETAKER.
DO, UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL OR ANDERSON KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT? UM, I, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
AND YES, WE KNOW THAT THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS CODE HAS CAUSED ISSUES.
I, I THINK IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE THERE WAS, MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME OTHER ISSUES AS WELL, BUT, UM, WE HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE, UM, FOLKS HAVE HAD DIFFICULTY FINDING HOUSING FOR THIS EXACT, AS YOU SAY, UM, CO-OPS ARE THE MOST COMMON SITUATION.
BUT WE KNOW FOR FOLKS THAT ARE UNRELATED OR MAYBE HAVE UNIQUE SORT OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THEY'VE HAD DIFFICULTY FINDING HOUSING AS A RESULT OF THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS, WHICH SOME FOLKS FEEL VERY OR SEE AS A REAL, UM, IMPEDIMENT.
AND, YOU KNOW, AND WE KNOW THAT REMOVING THIS FROM THE CODE ESSENTIALLY MAKES SURE THAT WE, UM, ARE NOT SORT OF, I WOULDN'T, UH, OVERLY COMPLICATED.
IT'S BASICALLY, IT'S REMOVING A LAYER OF COMPLICATION REGARDING HOUSING, UH, ACCESS FOR A LOT OF FOLKS.
AND THAT MAY APPLY SPECIFICALLY TO THE CASE YOU'RE REFERRING TO, BUT WE KNOW MORE GENERALLY SPEAKING THAT WHEN UNRELATED ADULTS ATTEMPT TO FIND HOUSING IN UNIQUE SITUATIONS, OR IT IS CHALLENGING BECAUSE OF THIS PARTICULAR CODE.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS TO THE MOTION MAKERS, OR, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE MANY STAFF HERE TODAY.
GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER MOCH TYLER.
UM, I, I REALLY LIKE THIS IDEA AND, UM, I'VE HAD OPPORTUNITY TO, TO STAY AND RESIDE IN CO-OP HOUSING AT TIMES.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS I'M SEEING START TO DEVELOP IN SOME OF THE MARKETS THOUGH, THAT CONCERNS ME AND I'M, I'M WONDERING, ARE WE, DO WE HAVE COVERAGE FOR THAT? AND HOW WE'RE DOING THIS IS THAT IN OTHER CITIES, THEY'RE NOW CHARGING BY THE BED.
AND SO WHILE INITIALLY TAKING AWAY THE LIMITS ALLOWS PEOPLE TO REDUCE THEIR, YOU KNOW, SHARED EXPENSE COSTS, THAT KIND OF THING, I'M CONCERNED THAT IT BECOMES A PROFITEERING OPPORTUNITY THE OTHER WAY TO BEGIN THE CHARGE BY THE BED.
AND WE END UP WITH HIGHER, HOW CAN WE PROTECT SO THAT WE'RE GETTING THE DESIRED OUTCOME, WHICH ALLOWS PEOPLE TO COST SHARE IN AN ARRANGEMENT, IN A LIVING STYLE THAT FOR MANY REASONS MAY SUIT THEM VERSUS PREDATORY OPPORTUNISTIC PROFITEERING.
ANY COMMENTS? UM, OH, I'M, YEAH.
I MEAN, THE HARDER WE KEEP HOUSING, WHICH IS WHAT OUR CURRENT CODE DOES, THE MORE THAT'S GONNA TAKE PLACE.
SO ANYTHING WE DO TO MAKE HOUSING EASIER FOR MORE PEOPLE TO LIVE, THE BETTER IT'S GONNA BE FOR MORE PEOPLE.
I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE GOODWILL PROTECTS PEOPLE FROM OTHER PEOPLE'S POCKETBOOKS.
SO WE HAVE A GENTLEMAN HERE WHO RUNS WITH CO-OP POLICY AROUND THE CITY, AROUND THE STATE.
AND RIGHT NOW CODE IS PREVENTING A LOT OF THAT, AND THIS IS THE MOST AFFORDABLE TYPES OF HOUSING WE HAVE, AND IT'S ILLEGAL IN OVER 90% OF OUR CITY, MR. NO.
SO, UH, COOPERATIVE HOUSING IN MANY SITUATIONS, UM, ACTUALLY DOES RENT BY THE BEDROOM AND BY THE BED.
UM, SO PARTICULARLY THE STUDENT HOUSING CO-OPS, WHEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SHARED BEDROOMS. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT IS LIKELY GOING TO HAPPEN.
UM, BUT I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, WHICH IS THAT THE PROFITEERING COMES FROM THE LACK OF SUPPLY AND THE FACT THAT THERE ARE VERY FEW BUILDINGS IN AUSTIN THAT ACCOMMODATE, UH, SHARED LIVING ENVIRONMENTS.
AND SO WHEN A, WHEN A LANDLORD TAKE HAS ONE OF THOSE, THEY'RE LIKELY TO CHARGE MORE THAN IF THERE WAS MUCH MORE SHARED
[02:35:01]
HOUSING IN AUSTIN.AND I JUST WANNA ADD TO THAT, THAT THAT'S THE SECOND PART OF THE, UM, IS THAT THERE IS STILL REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF SPACE PER BEDROOM, UM, AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS STILL BAKED INTO OUR CODE.
AND THE EXPECTATION IS NOT THAT, UM, EVERY SINGLE SITE IS GONNA TURN INTO A CO-OP OR WE'RE GONNA BE RENTING BEDS AND
I THINK THE IDEA IS THAT A LOT OF THE CONCERNS THAT YOU MAY SEE ABOUT SORT OF OCCUPANCY LIMITS ARE COVERED BY OTHER FEDERAL LAWS AS WELL AS WHAT'S ALREADY IN OUR CODE.
AND HONESTLY, OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT HESITANT TO ENFORCE PARTS OF THIS CODE BECAUSE OF THOSE OTHER LEGAL BINDINGS.
SO WE KNOW THAT IN SOME WAYS, TAKING, REMOVING THIS ACTUALLY MAY, UM, HELP US TO BETTER MANAGE SITUATIONS LIKE YOU'RE THINKING OF.
UH, I HAD, UH, UH, CONTACTED EARLIER, UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AND COMMISSIONER, UH, ANDERSON ABOUT THIS.
UM, MY CONCERN, UH, I LIKE THE IDEA OF OF, OF IMPROVING OUR HOUSING STOCK WITHOUT BUILDING, WITHOUT BUILDING ANOTHER STICK, ANOTHER ANOTHER.
BUT, UM, TO ME THE STYLE OF THE, UH, OF THE REQUEST GOES A BRIDGE TOO FAR.
AND, AND, YOU KNOW, FORTUNATELY THE, THE CHAIRMAN WAS IN HIS WISDOM SAID, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE STARTING POINT.
THIS IS ASKING, UH, STAFF TO GO AND RESEARCH AND THEN COME BACK AND PRESENT TO US.
AND SO YOU'VE GOT SEVERAL VOTES TO THIS.
I WOULD JUST FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE.
UM, BUT I CAN ALSO COUNT, UH, I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF WE JUST, IF WE WERE NOT STRIKING THE ENTIRE CODE, WE CAN UPDATE THE CODE, WE CAN MODERNIZE THE CODE, WE CAN ASK STAFF TO LOOK AT, UH, UH, MODERNIZATION OPTIONS, BUT STRIKE, THERE ARE A LOT OF REASONS THAT WE HAVE DWELLING OCCUPA OR OCCUPANCY, UM, RESTRICTIONS AND DWELLING RESTRICTIONS.
THAT'S TO PROTECT, UM, FOLKS IN, IN, UH, LOTS OF DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.
AND, UM, UH, THERE, THERE'S A GREAT B BASIS FOR HAVING THOSE.
AND TO THROW, THROW, THROW THAT OUT AS A NEGATIVE.
BUT TO STRIKE THE ENTIRE TEXT IS, IS A BRIDGE TOO FAR, IN MY OPINION.
ANY RESPONSE? UM, OKAY, MS. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT HEALTH AND SAFETY IS STILL REGULATED UNDER THE BUILDING CODE.
AND SO I THINK MR NO WAS MENTIONING HOUSTON, SAN ANTONIO AND DALLAS ALL REGULATE OCCUPANCY THROUGH HEALTH AND SAFETY, NOT THROUGH UNRELATED FAMILY MEMBER STATUS.
SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THERE'S STILL, YOU KNOW, THAT SAFETY NET THERE, THAT WE'RE NOT CREATING CONDITIONS OF OVERCROWDING, THAT THIS IS SORT OF AN ADDITIONAL LAYER THAT THE INTENT OF WHICH WAS TO KEEP STUDENTS FROM LIVING TOGETHER IN A LOT OF CASES THAT WE'RE REMOVING, BUT WE STILL HAVE THESE HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS THAT WILL BE THERE.
SO, UM, I HAVE A QUESTION RELATED TO THE TWO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE LITTLE I'VE RESEARCHED, BUT, SO YES, LOOKING AT OUR CODE, IT'S ALL UNRELATED ADULTS.
THAT'S WHAT IT, EVERY ONE OF THE CLAUSE IS UNRELATED ADULTS.
IT'S NOT, NOT ADULTS, IT'S UNRELATED ADULTS.
BUT THEN WE HAVE ON THE STATE SIDE, I READ SOMETHING ABOUT THREE PER, UH, BEDROOM IS KIND.
DO YOU KNOW MUCH ABOUT THAT STATE? YEAH.
I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA ASK, DOES RYAN, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THIS? BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE AND WHAT DO WE REALLY NEED TO DO, IF ANYTHING, IF WE'RE CHANGING THIS? YEAH, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SPECIFIC PIECE OF THE CODE IS, LIKE THE NUMBER, THE, BUT IT'S THREE PERSON, THREE ADULTS PER BEDROOM IN THE TEXAS PROPERTY CODE.
UM, AND THEN THE AUSTIN CODE HAS ESSENTIALLY STANDARDS THAT SAYS THE MORE SPACE THAT YOU HAVE, THE MORE PEOPLE YOU CAN HAVE IS THE BEST WAY TO INTERPRET IT.
SO WHAT IS, WHAT WE COMMONLY SEE IN THE CO-OP COMMUNITY IS IT'S NICE TO BE ABLE TO FIND MAYBE LIKE AN OLD MANSION THAT PEOPLE CAN NO LONGER REALLY AFFORD TO LIVE IN AND CONVERT THAT INTO, UH, AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITUATION.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LIKE HOUSES WITH, YOU KNOW, LIKE MICHAEL SAID, 17 BEDROOMS AND SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ENOUGH SQUARE FOOTAGE TO SAFELY ACCOMMODATE, YOU KNOW, THE 20 PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN SEONA.
SO THERE'S, BUT THE CODE THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS THAT THE ONE, THE 25 2, 2 11 THAT YOU'RE,
[02:40:01]
NO.SO WHAT WE'RE STRIKING IS JUST THE CODE THAT REGULATES WHETHER PEOPLE CAN LIVE TOGETHER AS UNRELATED PEOPLE.
BUT THE ONLY, AND I'M JUST TRYING THE CODE THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS, IS THIS CODE THAT WE'RE TALKING THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ELIMINATING, THERE'S NOT OTHER CODES IN THE BUILDING CODE FOR AUSTIN THAT REGULATE? THERE IS, THERE ARE, OKAY.
THERE ARE, THERE IS A DWELLING OCCUPANCY LIMIT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND THEN THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, OCCUPANCY LIMIT, RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY LIMIT IN THE BUILDING CODE.
SO THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT CODES.
WE ARE NOT TOUCHING THE BUILDING CODE, TOTALLY LEAVING THE BUILDING CODE INTACT TO MA TO RETAIN OCCUPANCY LIMITS FOR SAFETY AND HEALTH REASONS.
AND HOW DOES THE BUILDING CODE RELATE TO THIS? UM, CAUSE I'M SAYING INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE THAT YOU, UH, THAT'S THE SAME THING.
YEAH, SORRY TO INTERRUPT THAT.
THAT'S THE STANDARD THAT, THAT IS BASED ON.
SO THAT IS AN INTERNATIONALLY SET STANDARD OF SPACE THAT'S SAFE.
SO AUSTIN HAS ADOPTED YES, WE HAVE THAT, AND THAT'S ALREADY IN OUR BUILDING CODE.
AND THEN THE OTHER PART IS RELATED TO THE FAIR HOUSING AND THAT TALKS ABOUT HOW OC HOW BASICALLY FIRST, UH, EXCUSE ME, FOR FEDERAL STANDARDS SETS OUT PROTECTED CLASSES OF PEOPLE AND HOW THEY CAN LIVE TOGETHER AND WHAT OCCUPANCY LOOKS LIKE AS A FEDERAL STANDARD.
AND THAT APPLIES IN MOST OF OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT GET FEDERAL GRANTS OR MONIES RELATED TO THAT.
SO WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A SET OF STANDARDS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, THERE'S A SET OF STANDARDS AT THE STATE LEVEL, AND THERE ARE BUILDING STANDARDS IN OUR OWN CODE.
AND THIS IS, AS RYAN JUST STATED, AN EXTRA LAYER THAT WE FEEL MIGHT BE SOMEWHAT REDUNDANT AND COULD ACTUALLY BE ELIMINATED.
SO WE, WHAT I HEAR IS WE STILL HAVE LOCAL AND STATE CODES THAT ARE REGULATING OCCUPANCY LIMITS, BUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS JUST THE SECTION OF THE LAND CODE THAT'S REGULATING OCCUPANCY LIMITS FOR UNRELATED ADULTS.
UH, COMMISSIONER COHEN, DO YOU WANT TO ADD TO THAT? I LOCKED IT UP REAL QUICK.
IT IS STATE CODE, UH, SECTION 92 10, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY SUBSECTION B, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ADULTS THE LANDLORD MAY ALLOW TO OCCUPY A DWELLING IS THREE TIMES THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS AND THE DWELLING IN THAT IT HAS, UH, LIKE ONE EXCEPTION WHERE IF IT'S OVER 3000 SQUARE FEET OR, OR SORRY, FAMILY VIOLENCE MISSED THAT ONE.
IF THEY'RE, IF A ADULT OF THE OCCUPANCY WHO'S RELATED HAS EXPERIENCED FAMILY VIOLENCE, THEN THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BREAK THE RULE.
OH, AND IF FEDERAL LAW SUPERSEDES IT.
SO WE DO HAVE SOME THAT WE'RE NOT DOING AWAY WITH THOSE, UH, WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS 25 2 5 11.
AND CAN I SPEAK TO COMMISSIONER HAYES HAYS QUESTION? SURE.
AND I JUST ACTUALLY WANTED TO MENTION THAT, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE REASON WE FELT THAT THIS WAS GOOD, BETTER AS AN ELIMINATION THAN SORT OF A RECONSIDERATION QUITE, QUITE HONESTLY, IS THAT THERE ARE OVERLAPPING, UM, SORT OF REGULATIONS REGARDING THIS ALREADY.
AND SO TO CRAFT SOMETHING SPECIFICALLY FOR AUSTIN, AS OTHER TEXAS CITIES HAVE NOT USED THAT APPROACH, AND WE FELT THAT THIS IS MORE ABOUT ALIGNMENT WITH WHERE OTHER STANDARDS ARE.
AND WE SEE THAT IN HOUSTON AND DALLAS AND OTHER PLACES, THEY HAVE NO REAL ISSUE WITH OCCUPANCY, ARE CERTAINLY NOT OVERCROWDING OR THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO WE KNOW THAT YOU CAN USE THE STANDARDS THAT ALREADY EXIST AND HAVE FULL REGULATION AND FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE YOU THAT, THAT THE CODES ARE BEING PROPERLY ENFORCED AND WHATNOT, AND YOU'RE NOT ENDING UP IN DANGEROUS SITUATIONS OR PRICE GOUGING OR ANYTHING OF THOSE.
UH, COMMISSIONER COX, I GUESS MY PRIMARY CONCERN ABOUT THIS IS, IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE STAFF HERE TO REALLY SPEAK TO IT.
UM, BECAUSE I'M ALWAYS THINKING OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
UM, ONE STAKEHOLDER WE DON'T HAVE HERE IS THE APPARATUS THAT PUT THIS IN THE CODE IN THE FIRST PLACE AND UNDERSTANDING THE REASONS WHY THEY'RE THERE.
I DO KNOW THAT WELLING UNITS ARE SOMETHING THAT'S CARRIED THROUGH THE CODE FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS.
UM, WE, I BELIEVE DEDICATE PARKLAND BASED ON DWELLING UNIT.
UM, DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS, SOMETIMES THAT MATTERS.
AND SO NOT CHANGES THE VOLUME.
I I UNDERSTAND THE SPECIFIC REASONS THAT WERE STATED TO, TO GET RID OF THIS SECTION.
AND THIS SECTION ACTUALLY HAS A THROUGH I WITH A BUNCH OF THINGS BEFORE AND AFTER 2003 AND 2014 AND DIFFERENT ZONING
[02:45:01]
CATEGORIES AND ALL THAT SORT OF STUFF.AND I, I'M, I GUESS I'LL KIND OF ECHO COMMISSIONER HAYNES IN THAT, I'M JUST WONDERING IF DELETING THIS IN AN, IN ITS ENTIRETY MAY COMPLICATE THINGS DOWN THE LINE AND NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE WE ALL WANT TO MAKE CO-OP HOUSING POSSIBLE AND EASY TO DO, WHICH I THINK WE CAN DO, BUT I'M JUST WONDERING ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE IN THIS 3000 PAGE DOCUMENT THAT OFTEN REFERS TO DWELLING UNITS AND HOW THAT RELATES TO THE OCCUPANCY OF THOSE DWELLING UNITS.
SO I, I JUST CURIOUS IF THE, IF THE ANYONE WANTS TO RESPOND TO THAT.
UM, SO, UM, WE HAVE BEEN, THE STAFF THAT WE'VE TALKED TO, THEY ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THIS AND WHEN THEY COME BACK, THEY ARE DEFINITELY GOING TO BRING UP ANY CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE.
THEY'RE GONNA SPELL THOSE OUT VERY CLEAR FOR US, AND THEY'RE PROBABLY GONNA BRING A RECOMMENDATION THAT'S GOING TO INCLUDE WHAT THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH.
AND THEN OF COURSE, THAT CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE IS GONNA START FROM THAT, UM, WITH PARK LANE DEDICATION.
UM, AND A VEST CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M COMMISSIONER ZARK CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE, BUT, UM, THAT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE EITHER.
THAT'S BASED ON MULTI-FAMILY UNITS AND, AND YOU KNOW, PRICE PER UNIT.
SO THAT'S GONNA STAY THE SAME.
AND CITY COUNCIL JUST ABOLISHED PARKING MANDATES, THAT'S AND THE WORKS AS WELL.
BUT, AND, AND THOSE WERE TWO SPECIFIC THINGS THAT I JUST COULD THINK OF AT THE MOMENT.
I, I'M WONDERING ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE, BUT THEN ALSO, WOULDN'T WE BE CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MAYBE I'M MISUNDERSTANDING THIS WHOLESALE, BUT IF THERE'S NO OCCUPANCY LIMITS ON ANY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING BASED ON THE TYPE OF ZONING, DOES THAT MEAN THAT EVERY BEDROOM BASICALLY CAN BE FOR RENT COM COMMISSION? UH, COMMISSIONER, I'LL, I'LL TAKE A STAB AT THIS.
I THINK YOU'RE TRYING TO, YOU'RE GOING WHERE I WENT THIS 25, THIS SECTION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONLY REFERS TO UNRELATED ADULTS.
THE OTHER SECTIONS THAT WE'RE, THEY'RE REFERRING TO, I THINK WHAT THE COMMISSIONER IS TRYING TO DO IS SAY THAT WE HAVE OTHER BUILDING CODE, OTHER STATE, UH, AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING OCCUPANCY RELATED TO ADULTS.
AND YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S, THERE'S, THERE'S PLAQUES IN COMMERCIAL SPACES THAT YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE MAXIMUM OCCUPY OCCUPANCY IS BASED ON THE FIRE CODE.
THAT THAT'S NOT WHERE MY CONCERN LIES, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S STILL IN PLACE.
BUT, BUT MY, MY CONCERN IS THAT IF, IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE OPENING UP EVERY BEDROOM TO BE RENTED PER BED, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THEN, THEN WHAT, HOW DOES THAT IMPACT EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT IS BASED ON A DWELLING UNIT INSTEAD OF, INSTEAD OF PER BED, YOU KNOW, SHOULD, SHOULD WE BE DEDICATING PARKLAND PER BED? I, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE CHANGING, I DON'T THINK WE'RE CHANGING THOSE RULES.
SO I THINK THAT TO YOUR CONCERN VERY SPECIFICALLY, THERE ARE CODES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING HOW MUCH SPACE FOR SA HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS THAT CAN BE, HAVE TO BE ALLOTTED FOR AS YOU BUILD A BUILDING.
SO THAT IS IN THE BUILDING CRITERIA AND IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT, THERE HAS TO BE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SPACE FOR EACH, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS, TO YOUR POINT, OCCUPANCY LIMITS AND SAFETY RELATED TO THAT.
WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING, REMOVING THAT.
WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS REMOVING OCCUPANCY LIMITS AS A BURDEN FOR FOLKS TRYING TO ACQUIRE HOUSING.
AND SO I WELL, BUT, BUT, BUT SPECIFIC TO THAT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE KEEP, WE KEEP GOING BACK TO HEALTH AND SAFETY, AND I'M NOT ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT HEALTH AND SAFETY HERE.
I'M TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
IF WE, IF WE THINK THAT A DWELLING UNIT THAT HAS THREE BEDROOMS, YOU KNOW, CONTRIBUTES X, Y, AND Z BASED ON A TYPICAL OCCUPANCY OF A DWELLING UNIT UNDER THE CURRENT CODE, DOES THAT CHANGE THE DEMAND ON OUR INFRASTRUCTURE IF THAT OCCUPANCY LIMIT FOR UNRELATED ADULTS IS, IS REMOVED? BECAUSE THEN ESSENTIALLY EVERY BED IS ALLOWED TO BE A RENTABLE SPACE, WHICH IN SOME CASES IS FINE, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ARE BASED ON THE REST OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT REFERS TO DWELLING UNITS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION.
[02:50:01]
WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION YET.I I THINK WE'RE, I HAVEN'T BEEN KEEPING COUNT, UNFORTUNATELY.
UH, WHO, SO WE HAVE COMMISSIONER COX TO SPEAK.
WHO WANTS TO ANSWER HIS QUESTION? I MEAN, I, I GUESS YOU'RE JUST DESCRIBING MY FIRST 10 YEARS LIVING IN AUSTIN.
YEAH, I, I RENTED A ROOM IN DIFFERENT HOMES AND AROUND AUSTIN.
THAT WAS JUST THE MOST AFFORDABLE WAY FOR ME TO LIVE CHAIR.
MAY I, MIGHT I SAY SOMETHING? SO, UM, COMMISSIONER COX, THOSE ARE GOOD QUESTIONS.
IT'S SURPRISING BY THE WAY DWELLING UNITS IS IN, OR OCCUPANCY LIMITS IS AN ENTIRE SUBSECTION OF LAND USE LAW.
THEY, YOU WENT UP TO THE SUPREME COURT, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
IT'S A KIND OF A ENTIRE UNIVERSE.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY TO YOUR QUESTION, THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
ONE IS THAT, ESSENTIALLY TO YOUR POINT, CAN WE HAVE MULTIPLE PEOPLE PER, YOU KNOW, BEDROOM? COULD IT BE RENTED OUT? YES.
WOULD THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT IS INDEED WHAT WAS HAPPENING BEFORE 2014.
AND SO WE WILL BE GOING BACK TO THAT.
WE DO NOT KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS LIKE A MASSIVE ISSUE WITH DRAINAGE OR PARKLAND DEDICATION BASED ON THERE BEING TOO MANY PEOPLE.
THE OTHER THING THAT OFTEN GETS BROUGHT UP, UH, BY FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATES IS THAT WE ARE ALLOWING RELATED ADULTS TO LIVE.
SO NINE RELATED ADULTS CAN BE LIVING TOGETHER 15 RELATED LIVES, 35 95, WHATEVER YOU WANNA SAY, AND LIVE IN A SINGLE DWELLING UNIT.
IT'S JUST THAT WE'RE LIMITING IT TO UNRELATED PEOPLE ONLY AND NOT DO RELATED PEOPLE.
SO TO YOUR POINT OF WHAT IS THAT AVERAGE PER UNIT, YOU KNOW, A RESIDENCY THAT WE KNOW TO THE CENSUS ALREADY AND IS SORT OF EVEN ACROSS THE BOARD FROM VERY LARGE HOUSEHOLDS WHO MIGHT BE RELATED OR UNRELATED TO VERY SMALL HOUSEHOLDS WHO MIGHT BE RELATED OR UNRELATED.
AND, AND IS THAT NUMBER BASED ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING, UH, COMMISSIONER VAES, IS THAT NUMBER SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT BETWEEN OCCUPANCY WHEN IT'S LIMITED TO LIKE THE RELATED ADULTS VERSUS UNRELATED? DO WE SEE A LOT HIGHER OCCUPANCY WHEN THIS, THIS SORT OF THING IS REMOVED? LET, LET'S GO AHEAD AN IF ANYBODY HAS AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT QUESTION.
UH, ANYBODY HAVE A I'LL RUN, I'LL, I'LL JUST QUICKLY, CHERYL, I'LL JUST QUICKLY SAY, SO WE, I, THERE'S ACTUALLY NOT THAT BIG A DISTINCTION.
THERE ARE VERY LARGE RELATED INDIVIDUALS IN GENERAL.
AUSTIN HAS ACTUALLY A SMALLER, UM, HOUSEHOLD SIZE THAN THE NATION, I BELIEVE, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
AND THE UNITED STATES AS A NATION HAS A VERY SMALL HOUSEHOLD SIZE AS COMPARED TO OTHER NATIONS.
SO I ALL THAT TO SAY THE DATA IS REALLY RELATED TO HOUSEHOLD SIZE, NOT NECESSARILY ALWAYS RELATED.
LIKE HOW MANY RELATED PEOPLE LIVE VERSUS UNRELATED.
MAYBE STAFF OR SOMEONE ELSE HAS BETTER DATA.
AND COMMISSIONER, UH, CHAIR COHEN, DID YOU ASK SOMETHING TO ADD TO THAT DIALOGUE? I DID SOME, SOME TEXTING REAL FAST TO, TO A FRIEND WHO WAS LIKE PART OF ALL OF THIS IN THE BEGINNING.
AND, AND I WAS TRYING TO GET THE HISTORY ON IT, AND IT WAS TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS WITH STEALTH DORMS IN THE EARLY NINETIES.
UH, SOMETHING THAT REALLY ISN'T A PROBLEM ANYMORE BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY ROOMS, BUT THERE, THERE ARE ALREADY A LOT OF EXCEPTIONS, UH, IN THE, IN THIS SECTION OF CODE, LIKE, UH, EXTENDED LIVING FACILITY OR, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S, UH, IF YOU'RE OVER 60 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER OR IF YOU LIVE IN A CO-OP NONPROFIT HOUSING UNIT.
SO IT'S NOT THAT THERE AREN'T EXCEPTIONS ALREADY, IT'S JUST WE SHOULD TAKE THIS ONE LITTLE PART, MAYBE EXTRA.
IT ALMOST SEEMS SUPERFLUOUS AT THIS POINT.
AIRBNB KIND OF DOES THE SAME THING.
I COULD RUN A ROOM WITH LIKE TWO STRANGE PEOPLE I'VE NEVER MET.
SO WHO ELSE HAS QUESTIONS TO THE MOTION MAKERS? I THINK WE'VE ASKED QUITE A FEW.
UM, IF NOT, WE CAN MOVE TO A MOTION AND I THINK, UH, A MOTION THEN WE CAN AMEND OR SUBSTITUTE WILL FOLLOW OUR SAME RULES JUST SO WE CAN FLESH OUT, FIND SOME.
CAN YOU REMIND US OF THE PROCESS OF WHAT HAPPENS AFTER WE VOTE ON THIS? UH, OKAY.
IT WILL GO TO STAFF TO CRAFT, UM, A DRAFT CODE, UH, AMENDMENT, UH, THAT WILL BE BROUGHT TO THE, UM, CODES AND ORANGE'S JOINT COMMITTEE WHO WILL REVIEW IT AND VOTE ON IT, AND THEN IT'LL PROGRESS BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR OUR CONSIDERATION.
AND THEN IT WOULD GO ON TO COUNCIL, UH, FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION, UH, UM, PARLIAMENTARIAN, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY.
SO WE WILL SEE THIS AGAIN AFTER STAFF COMES BACK AND I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE A, YOU KNOW, WE'LL BE ABLE TO ADD A LOT OF AMENDMENTS AND, AND, YOU KNOW, WE GO THROUGH OUR NORMAL PROCESS FOR A CODE CHANGE AND, UH, WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER SHOT AT IT AND WE'LL HAVE STAFF HERE TO
[02:55:01]
SPEAK TO THEIR, YOU KNOW, THEIR, UH, DRAFT.SO THIS IS JUST THE INITIATION IS ALL IT IS AND IT'S VERY TARGETED AS I UNDERSTAND IN THIS ONE SECTION OF LAND CODE.
UH, YOU ARE ASKING FOR MOTIONS.
ARE WE THERE? I THINK WE'RE DONE WITH THE Q AND A.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? UH, USUALLY, UH, DO YOU WANNA, DO YOU WANNA GIVE US A MOTION? WELL, I WAS GONNA, I DON'T WANNA, I DON'T WANT TO STEAL ANYONE'S THUNDER, SO OBVIOUSLY THIS WAS, UH, THIS WAS BROUGHT BY TWO OTHER COMMISSIONERS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER UP A SLIGHT REVISION TO THE TEXT IF, IF I'M ALLOWED.
WELL, LET'S, LET'S, UH, I WILL DEFER TO THE, UM, THE, UH, SPONSOR.
DO YOU WANNA KIND OF SET THE BASELINE AND THEN WE CAN LOOK AT AMENDMENTS THAT WE MIGHT WANNA SURE.
COMMISSION LAYS ON ANDREW VER UM, IF WE COULD JUST PLEASE KEEP IT GENERAL AT THIS TIME.
UM, THAT WAY, UM, YOU DON'T GET CAUGHT UP IN A NUANCE, UM, AND RESTRICT A STAFF IN GOING FORWARD.
SO CHAIR, I'M HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION.
WE'LL SEE IF WE NEED TO TWEAK, GET IT ALL
UM, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, UH, TO SHEET A CODE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE CITY CODE 25 DASH TWO RELATED TO DWELLING OCCUPANCY LIMITS.
SO THE, LET, LET ME JUST, UM, GIVE A SECOND TO CATCH UP HERE, GET SOME PAPER.
UH, WE HAD THE WAY THIS WAS, UH, ADVERTISED.
LET ME JUST SO WE HAVE DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION INITIATING CODE AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE 25 DASH TWO RELATING TO DWELLING OCCUPANCY LIMITS.
YOUR MOTION IS, UM, COMMISSIONER COHEN JUST REMINDED ME, SHOULD ACTUALLY SAY, UH, 25 DASH 2 5 11.
AND GO AHEAD AND RESTATE YOUR YES, I WILL.
UM, SO I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO INITIATE A CODE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE CITY CODE 25 DASH TWO DASH FIVE 11 RELATED TO DWELLING OCCUPANCY LIMITS.
SO THAT IS VERY SPECIFIC TO REMOVAL OF THAT SECTION OF CODE.
UH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THE MOTION? UH, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER WOODS.
DO WE HAVE ANY, UM, ANY COMMISSIONER COX, GO AHEAD.
SO WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE WE'RE MAKING AMENDMENTS.
UH, I WAS GONNA OFFER UP MAYBE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, I DON'T KNOW, BUT JUST, JUST TO BROADEN THIS A LITTLE BIT AND SAY, REMOVE OR REVISE 25,000 200 511 SO THAT WE'RE NOT JUST TELLING STAFF THAT WE WANT TO REMOVE THE ENTIRE SECTION.
THAT'S, THAT WOULD HELP ME SUPPORT THIS.
I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THIS FONT, THIS, IS THAT AN ACCEPTABLE, UH, GO AHEAD CHAIR POINT OF ORDER.
AND MS. RIVERA, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BECAUSE THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT CODES LIKE, UH, 2, 7 95, UH, LET'S SEE, WHAT ELSE? 2, 7 92.
WE LISTED IT ON THE AGENDA AS JUST 25 2 REGARDING HOUSING OCCUPANCY LIMITS.
THERE CAN, CAN WE ACTUALLY MAKE A MOTION ON THIS? I DON'T THINK IT'S SPECIFIC ENOUGH THE WAY WE PUT IT ON THE AGENDA THE WAY IT WAS.
CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LAY ANDO, IF YOU COULD JUST AGAIN, KEEP IT GENERAL, PLEASE PROCEED.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS SAYS.
IT'S JUST, AND I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER COX PROPOSING KIND OF MAKES IT A LITTLE MORE, GIVE STAFF A LITTLE MORE ROOM TO MAKE SURE IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO REMAIN, WE DON'T, WE MIGHT NOT KNOW WHAT THAT IS THAT THERE, THAT GIVES THEM THAT FLEXIBILITY.
SO I, I THINK WE'RE COMMISSIONER HANS, DO YOU WANNA WE ARE OPEN TO THAT AMENDMENT, I THINK.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION.
WE'VE GOT, WE'VE GOT AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.
SO YOU CAN EITHER AMEND THE CURRENT MOTION OR MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
I'LL MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UM, AND IT WILL GO SOMETHING ALONG THESE LINES.
ASK STAFF TO REVIEW THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS CONTAINED IN 25 2 5 11 TO ENSURE THEY'RE CONSISTENT ACROSS THE CITY.
IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS, INCREASE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY, AND BRING FORWARD RECOMMENDATIONS.
UH, DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? AND WE CAN START A DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A SECOND ON THE MOTION.
WE HAVE A, UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
UH, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? COMMISSIONER HAYES? IT, IT GOES SPECIFICALLY TO THE FACT THAT, UM,
[03:00:01]
UH, I'VE SAID IT A COUPLE TIMES.ELIMINATION IS, IS A BRIDGE TOO FAR FROM ME, BUT I CAN ALSO COUNT.
SO, UH, I'M, I'M SAYING LET'S LOOK AT 'EM, BUT NOT ELIMINATE 'EM.
COMMISSIONER AAR SPEAKING AGAINST THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, I ACTUALLY HAVE AN AMENDMENT, WHICH I'M QUITE SURE I'M ALLOWED TO DO AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE
WE HAVE, WE CAN DO AMENDMENTS TO SUBSTITUTE MOTIONS.
SO JUST IN THAT LIST, I WOULD LIKE TO, UM, ADD, ASSESS EXISTING ORDINANCE AGAINST, UM, CITY OF BOSTON FAIR HOUSING REGULATIONS.
SO REMEMBER, BECAUSE I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO REPEAT ALL THIS SO EVERYBODY'S CLEAR.
UH, ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE AMENDMENT? UH, PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER AZAR? OKAY.
COULD YOU REPEAT YOUR AMENDMENT SO WE CAN WRITE THAT DOWN? HOLD ON, HOLD ON.
READY? GO OVER IT AGAIN AS WELL.
SO, UM, I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS WHAT IT WAS.
AND, UH, HANES, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT ASSESS EXISTING ORDINANCE AGAINST CITY OF AUSTIN FAIR HOUSING REGULATIONS, AND I CAN SPEAK TO THAT IN A SECOND.
SO DID YOU SAY EXCESS EXISTING, UH, ASSESS THE EXISTING ORDINANCE THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE? YES.
I'LL, I'LL SPEAK TO THE MOTION THAT MIGHT CLARIFIED.
I'VE, I'LL BE HONEST, I'VE ALWAYS BEEN KIND OF SURPRISED THAT THIS ORDINANCE WASN'T DENIED BY OUR, UH, LAW DEPARTMENT BECAUSE IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THE INTENTIONS WAS STUDENTS IN STEALTH DORMS. RIGHT.
IT WAS IN THE ACTUAL POSTED ITEM AT THE TIME.
AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S FAIR HOUSING ORDINANCE EXPANDS THE FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT AND ADDS STUDENT STATUS AS A PROTECTED CLASS.
I E NOBODY CAN DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A STUDENT BASED ON THEIR CLASSIFICATION AS A STUDENT.
SO I'VE ALWAYS BEEN SURPRISED HOW WE WENT AHEAD OF A VERY CLEARLY STUDENT FOCUSED ITEM.
AND SO I JUST WANT, I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM STAFF HOW THEY ASSESS THAT WITHIN OUR LOCAL FAIR HOUSING ORDINANCE.
SO ANY, UH, ANY COMMISSIONER TOON SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE? ALL RIGHT, ROB.
SO THAT GETS ADDED ON TO YOUR SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
WANT ME TO READ IT? UH, WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD.
DO WE NEED ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MOTION, THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION? ANY OBJECTIONS? SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO? NO, I JUST WANTED TO, UH, WE ARE GONNA READ IT AGAIN BEFORE, YES, WE ARE GONNA READ IT AGAIN.
SO WE'RE GONNA GO AND HAVE YOU READ IT WITH THE AMENDMENT AND THEN WE'LL TAKE A VOTE.
UH, COMMISSIONER ZA, I THINK I GOT YOU, BUT TELL ME IF I'M WRONG.
UH, ASKED AFTER REVIEW THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS CONTAINED IN 25,000 205 11 TO ENSURE THEY ARE CONSISTENT ACROSS THE CITY, IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS, INCREASE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY, ASSESS EXISTING CITY OF AUSTIN FAIR HOUSING REGULATIONS, AND BRING FORWARD RECOMMENDATIONS.
JUST TO CLARIFY, I HAD SAID ASSESS THE EXISTING ORDINANCE OR THE EXISTING CODE LANGUAGE AGAINST CITY OF AUSTIN FAIR HOUSING.
REGULATIONS, SIR
SO THAT THE AMENDMENT IS THAT MR. RIVERA, IS THAT THE, UH, THE CONTEXT OF THE, UH, LEGAL, THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY COMMISSIONER AZAR AT THE TIME BELIEVE YOU'RE LIMITED TO MANY 25 2 ONLY OCCUPANCY? SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME.
WE'RE RESTRICTED TO THE ELIMINATING LIMITED TO AMENDING 25 2 AND JOINT OCCUPANCY BECAUSE THE FAIR HOUSE, CAN I JUST CLARIFY, SO MY MOTION DOES NOT CHANGE OURS.
I'M JUST ESSENTIALLY SAYING AS WE'RE LOOKING AT DO 25 DASH WHATEVER THE SECTION IS, JUST MAKE SURE ARE WE COMPLIANT WITH OUR FAIR HOUSING LAW OR ARE WE NON-COMPLIANT WITH OUR FAIR HOUSING LAW? SO I WOULD NOT WANNA CHANGE OUR FAIR HOUSING LAW BY ANY MEANS.
I THINK, I THINK THE WAY PRO TO PROPERLY REWORD THAT, THAT MAY BE LEGALLY COMPLIANT IS TO, IS TO DIRECT STAFF TO COME BACK WITH POTENTIAL CODE AMENDMENTS THAT COMPLY
[03:05:02]
WITH THE AUSTIN BEAR HOUSING STATUTES.SO WE, WE, WE DID VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.
SO WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO RE UM, SORRY FOLKS THAT BECAME PART OF THE BODY.
CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE AMENDMENT? YES.
UH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR RECONSIDERATION COMMISSION OR MAXWELL'S SECOND SET.
DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO RECONSIDERATION? OKAY, SO WE'RE PULLING THAT BACK DOWN.
ARE YOU PULLING, WAS THAT JUST YOUR AMENDMENT OR THE WHOLE, THE WHOLE MOTION? IT WAS ALL ONE.
JUST MY AMENDMENT? NO, NO, JUST ONLY MY AMENDMENT.
SO WAS EVERYBODY CLEAR? WE WERE JUST VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT.
SO THAT'S, AND SINCE AND PULLED OUT AND SINCE AND CHAIR JESSICA, I JUST DO MAKE SURE I'M IN THE RIGHT ORDER.
SINCE THE AMENDMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE IN SECOND AID, WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT.
SO NOW WE'RE GONNA TAKE A VOTE ON IT AND I WILL TELL EVERYBODY PLEASE VOTE AGAINST IT.
SO THIS AMENDMENT FAILS, AND THEN COMMISSIONER COX WILL AMEND IT.
THAT IS THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW FOR ROBERTS RULES.
SO VOTE AGAINST THIS MOTION RIGHT NOW FOR MY AMENDMENT.
I'M HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING YOU.
SAYING CALL THE VOTE CHAIR
ESSENTIALLY, SINCE WE ARE NOW REASSESSING MY AMENDMENT AND WE JUST WANNA DISPOSE OFF THAT AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT HAS A SECOND, IT HAS TO BE VOTED ON.
SO I'M JUST ASKING EVERYBODY PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THIS VOTE.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.
UH, THOSE IN FAVOR, THOSE AGAINST
NOW COMMISSIONER COX CAN MAKE HIS AMENDMENT.
PART OF THE, AND AND IT'S YOUR AMENDMENT.
COMMISSIONER ZA, IF, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE ANOTHER ONE IN THE LANGUAGE THAT I RAISED IT, SO THIS IS AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
SO THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, WHICH IS SIMPLY TO ADD, UH, IN ADDITION TO THE LIST THAT WAS LISTED, THAT STAFF RETURN WITH, UH, CODE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COMPLY WITH AUSTIN'S FAIR HOUSING REGULATIONS.
AND BEFORE I SECOND THIS, CAN YOU READ THIS IN THE ORDER FROM COMMISSIONER HAYES YOUR ORDER SO WE MAKE SURE THAT IS CORRECT? INDEED.
IF YOU WOULD TYPING INDULGES
MR. HAYES, CAN YOU JUST REPEAT YOUR MOTIONS, YOUR ING, YOUR MOTION? I'M, I'M TYPING
UH, IT WOULD BE ASKED STAFF TO REVIEW THE, UH, OCCUPANCY LIMITS CONTAINED IN 25 2 5 11.
TO ENSURE THEY'RE CONSISTENT ACROSS THE CITY, IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS.
INCREASE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND BRING FORWARD RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COMPLY WITH CITY OF AUSTIN FAIR HOUSING REGULATIONS.
THANK ANY, THAT IS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COX, SECONDED BY ME.
UH, ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT AMENDMENT? OKAY.
ANY, ANY OF, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE MOTION SUBSTITUTE.
SECONDED BY WHO DID SECOND THAT? ME.
WHAT IS LEGAL AS AMENDED? UH, I HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANYTHING.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER.
ARE YOU, IS THAT A GREEN? YOU'RE IN FAVOR? GREEN.
SO I'M NOT SEEING ANY RED, WHICH WOULD BE ANY OBJECTIONS.
SO I THINK THIS ONE IS GOOD TO GO.
UH, IT PASSES, SO I'LL PASS THAT LANGUAGE ON TO STAFF.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR WORKING THROUGH THAT.
I KNOW THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS AND I THINK WE, WE TALKED THROUGH IT ALL.
[20. Nomination of members to be considered by Council to serve on Joint Committees.]
UH, THE NEXT ITEM IS 20.PARDON? UH, CAN WE TAKE ANY ACTION ON THIS, MR. RIVERA? I THINK CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LAY ON
SO, UH, THE, UM, THAT'S RIGHT.
UH, APPOINTMENT NEEDED IS, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO CODES AND ANNOYANCES JOINT COMMITTEE.
DO WE HAVE, UH, A MOTION FOR COMMISSIONER ANDERSON APPOINTING HIM? UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS.
UH, ANY OBJECTIONS TO APPOINTING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON ON FOR ANOTHER TERM ON THE CODES LAWRENCE'S JOINT COMMITTEE? I'M NOT SEEING ANY OBJECTIONS.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
AGENDA ITEMS. UH, SPEAKING OF ZORES, DO WE HAVE AN UPDATE? VICE CHAIR, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? SUPER QUICK ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? OH, YES.I'M SORRY I WENT OUT OF ORDER.
I JUST, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS PLEASE.
SO WE'RE, UM, TALKING TO A LOT OF FOLKS OUT THERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE US FIGURE OUT
[03:10:01]
A WAY TO KIND OF, IN THE NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, UH, YOU WERE GONNA BE ABLE TO, UH, AMEND FLUS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.AND RIGHT NOW WE CAN'T, AND A LOT OF THINGS ARE GETTING HELD UP FOR SIX MONTHS, EIGHT MONTHS, 10 MONTHS, BECAUSE WE CAN'T, SO GONNA LOOK TO, TO SEE WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO, TO FIX PLUMS AND WOULD LOVE INPUT FROM WHOEVER HAS STRONG OPINIONS ON OUR FLOMS THAT ARE NO LONGER PLUMS. THEY'RE, THEY'RE OLD
SO WE'LL PUT THAT ON FOR, UH, NEXT MEETING.
UH, SO NOW WE CAN MOVE ON TO, SORRY, CHAIR.
CAN I, I'M, OH, YOU'VE GOT ONE TOO.
CAN YOU JUST REPEAT THE ONE THAT COMMISSION ANDERSON MENTIONED? I'M SORRY, I, I, I COULDN'T CAPTURE IT FULLY.
SO THERE'S NO REAL LANGUAGE TO IT.
IT'S JUST, IT'S GONNA BE LOOKED TO, YOU KNOW, AT MINIMUM, REVISE FLUS TO WHERE YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, DO REZONINGS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND THEN MAYBE MORE, DEPENDING ON WHAT I HEAR FROM FOLKS IN THE NEXT WEEK.
AND THEN WE'LL GET THE LANGUAGE ON FOR THE NEXT AGENDA.
AND I GUESS TO POINT OF ORDER ON MYSELF, DID WE HAVE SOMEBODY SUPPORTING THAT ITEM TO GET IT ON THE AGENDA? UH, OKAY.
ANY OTHER AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE FUTURE?
[BOARDS, COMMITTEES & WORKING GROUPS UPDATES]
ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON TO UPDATES, UH, CODES NOR THE JOINT COMMITTEE.WE HAD A SPECIAL MEETING THAT, UM, I ACTUALLY, UM, WASN'T ABLE TO BE AT BECAUSE OFFICIALLY, UM, BUT WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING COMING UP NEXT WEDNESDAY.
COM PLAN, JOINT COMMITTEE, ANY ACTIVITY THERE? NO ACTIVITY.
AND I JUST LOOKED AT MY CALENDAR TO MAKE SURE I WASN'T MISSING ANYTHING.
SO I THINK WE'RE JUST TRYING TO RESCHEDULE ONCE EVERYONE IS FORMALLY ON THE JOINT COMMISSION, UH, JOINT COMMITTEE.
AND WE HOPE, UH, OUR LAST COMMISSIONER THAT, UH, SHOULD BE APPOINTED.
UH, WELL, THERE'S, THAT'S WHERE THE SPACE IS ON OUR JOINT COMMITTEE, SO HOPEFULLY THEY'LL SERVE THERE.
JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE, NO UPDATES.
MOLLY, YOUR PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE? NOTHING.
UH, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD.
UH, NOW LET'S MOVE INTO OUR WORKING GROUP ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND DUPLEXES WORKING GROUP.
UH, WE HAVE, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET A RESPONSE FROM CITY STAFF.
UM, I AM GONNA PROPOSE THAT WE STAY ON HOLD TILL WE SEE WHAT STATE LEGISLATURE DOES, AND THEN ONCE WE KNOW THE OUTCOME OF THAT, THEN THERE MAY OR MAY NOT BE REASON FOR US TO, TO GO.
UH, STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN WORKING GROUP.
WE'RE ACTUALLY SCHEDULING OUR FIRST SET OF MEETINGS FOR NEXT WEEK.
AND IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FROM THE WORKING GROUP AT OUR, THE 29TH THAT FOR MEETINGS? YEAH.
UH, DESIGN GUIDELINES, UPDATE, WORKING GROUP, ANYTHING? STILL JUST REGULARLY MEETING.
AND, UH, PALM DISTRICT WORKING GROUP.
UH, WE HAVE OUR FIRST LISTENING SESSION TOMORROW WITH THE RED RIVER CULTURAL DISTRICT.
UH, I MET WITH THE DISTRICT NINE OFFICE.
THEY DID OFFER SOME GUIDANCE AND DIRECTION, UH, WHICH THE TLDR VERSION IS JUST TO GET IT FINISHED.
PLEASED BY JULY, LIKE YOU PROMISED.
AND, UH, MAKE SURE IT'S MORE CULTURAL, UH, POLICY BASED AS OPPOSED TO REGULATORY SO THAT THERE'S ROOM TO GROW WITH IT, NOT BOX IT IN TOO TIGHT.
UH, WE'LL HAVE OUR SECOND LISTENING SESSION, HOPEFULLY, UH, I'M LOOKING TO PUT IT ON.
IT WILL BE MAY 18TH, AND THAT WILL BE WITH THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY RED LINE DISTRICT.
UH, HOPEFULLY SOMEONE FROM D A A, UM, WATERLOO GREENWAY, AND A REPRESENTATIVE FROM COMMISSIONER GOMEZ'S OFFICE.
ALSO, TOMORROW THERE WILL BE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE DISTRICT NINE OFFICE, OR POSSIBLY COUNCILMAN QUADRI HIMSELF.
UM, GOT A MEETING WITH E DSI, AND WE'RE GONNA SEE IF THEY WANT TO DO ANOTHER MARKETING STUDY LIKE WE ORIGINALLY TALKED ABOUT.
UH, PROBABLY NOT, BUT I'M GONNA ASK THEM ANYWAYS AND WE'LL SEE WHAT THAT, WHAT THAT BRINGS FORTH, I GUESS.
HUH? WHO, WHO, WHAT'S THE ACRONYM? WHO DID YOU USE? E DSI ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
UH, WHO JUST SAID MY NAME? I SAID SURE.
[03:15:01]
DO WE HAVE, UH, ANY, UH, ANYTHING ELSE, ANY OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE WE ADJOURN? ALL RIGHT.IF THERE'S NOT ANY OBJECTIONS, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND, UH, ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT, UH, NINE 30.
BUT ALL THAT FAILS NEXT TO WHAT I'M SEEING HERE.
I KNOW THAT YOU'RE DOWN JUST MISSING ME, AND IT'S HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND RIGHT NOW, BUT YOU WOULDN'T WISH ME BACK IF ONLY YOU COULD SEE THE BEAUTY AND THE PEACE BEYOND.