[00:00:05]
[Called to Order]
UH, MAY 23RD.UM, BRINGING THIS MEETING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER.
UH, HEY FOLKS, LET'S GO AHEAD AND HOLD UP.
UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, DO A QUICK ROLL CALL AND, UH, THEN WE'LL GET STARTED ON, ON OUR DISCUSSION CASES, UH, AFTER WE, UH, DO A READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
OKAY? UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND START OVER HERE.
WE'LL START WITH, UM, COMMISSIONER CONLEY PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, PRESENT.
CHAIR SHAW AND, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON HERE.
THEN WE HAVE COMMISSIONER HAYNES HERE, UH, AND THEN ALSO ON THE DIAS.
WE HAVE, UH, CHAIR OF THE BOARD ADJUSTMENTS, UH, CHAIR COHEN, AND THEN GOING TO THE VIRTUALLY HERE WE HAVE, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS HERE.
OKAY, COMMISSIONER AZAR HERE, AND VICE CHAIR HEMPEL HERE.
AND SO I THINK THAT'S, UM, SO THAT BRINGS US TO 1 2 3 4, 5 8.
UH, WE MIGHT HAVE OTHERS JOINING US, BUT THAT'S OUR COUNT OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THIS EVENING.
UH, WE HAVE FOLKS PARTICIPATING ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOTH VIRTUALLY AND HERE ON THE DIOCESE, AS WELL AS SPEAKERS OUT IN THE AUDIENCE.
ALSO, UH, VIRTUALLY IF YOU'RE HERE, UH, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF DISCUSSION CASES YOU CAN WAIT OUT IN THE ATRIUM.
YOU'LL GET AN EMAIL, I BELIEVE ABOUT 15 MINUTES OUT ALERTING YOU THAT YOUR ITEM IS COMING.
THAT IS IF YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
SO, UM, YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAY HERE THE WHOLE TIME.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE AT ABOUT FOUR DISCUSSION CASES THIS EVENING.
AND, UM, WE'LL START WITH A, UH, READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AND, UM, VICE CHAIR HEMPEL, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, UH, READ THROUGH THAT
[Consent Agenda]
THE FIRST TIME.UM, WE, WELL, WE'LL HAVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM APRIL 25TH AND MAY 9TH.
UM, SO WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY UPDATES TO THAT FROM THE COMMISSIONERS.
ITEM TWO IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 2 3 0 2 EAST 51ST IN CAMERON.
THAT IS, UH, STAFF IS REQUESTING POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 27TH.
ITEM THREE, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 3 EAST 51ST IN CAMERON.
STAFF REQUEST POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 22ND, 27TH.
ITEM FOUR, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 20 22 17 0 1 CRESTVIEW VILLAGE STAFF REQUEST POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 27TH.
ITEM FIVE, PLAN AMENDMENT N P A DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 3 0 1 GOBI TWO 50 IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
ITEM SIX REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 1 58 GOBI TWO 50.
THAT IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT WITH A STIPULATION, UH, NOTED HERE WITH REMOVAL OF PROHIBITED USES AGREED UPON BY APPLICANT AND STAFF PER EXHIBIT A, ITEM SEVEN, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 8 0 1 3 117 TO 31 21 EAST 12TH STREET.
IT'S PULLED FOR DISCUSSION ITEM EIGHT REZONING C 14 DASH 20 22, 1 50, 3117 AND 31 21 EAST 12TH STREET.
ITEM NINE, REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH ONE 40 BRENTWOOD MULTI-FAMILY STAFF REQUEST POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 13TH.
ITEM 10, REZONING C 814 DASH 97 DASH 0 0 0 1 15.
LEANDER REHA REHABILITATION PUT AMENDMENT NUMBER 16 IS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM 11 REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 93 S D C M L K, THE APPLICANT REQUEST INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
[00:05:01]
SIX DASH 1 75 0 4 EAST AVENUE.PUT AMENDMENT PARCEL H IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
ITEM 13 RIGHT OF WAY VACATION 20 23 4 4 92.
CLOVER LAWN DRIVE IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO KEEP GOING, WAIT, IT'S MOVING.
UH, YEAH, WHY DON'T YOU KEEP GOING, SHARON.
OKAY, VICE CHAIR, I'LL PICK IT UP ON ITEM 15, RIGHT OF AWAY VACATION 20 23 0 3 19 BRONZE DRIVE, DISTRICT ONE IS ON CONSENT.
ITEM 16, SITE PLAN S P 20 22 0 5 1 8 C FOUR 15 LAVACA STREET, HILTON DUAL BRAND HOTEL.
ITEM 17, SITE PLANS P 20 22 0 1 0 1 C, THE ACRE AT BERKMAN.
ITEM 18, FINAL PLA FROM APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN C EIGHT DASH 2021 DASH 1 52 2 A TENTACLE AT WILDHORSE RANCH SECTION TWO, CONSENT WITH CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT C.
UH, MOVING ON TO 19 SUBDIVISION C EIGHT DASH 2023 DASH 0 36.
DO, UH, ZERO A VERANDA APARTMENTS.
THAT ITEM IS ON CONSENT 20 SUBDIVISION C 8 20 21 DASH 50 ZERO A 6 0 7 MONOPOLY DRIVE SUBDIVISION DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT C.
UM, IMAGINE AUSTIN 10 YEAR REPORT.
UH, LET ME TALK JUST BRIEFLY AROUND ABOUT THIS ONE.
I PULLED IT BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE MIGHT WANNA GO AHEAD AND HEAR STAFF PRESENTATION.
UH, ORDINARILY THIS WOULD'VE GONE THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.
UH, THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO MEET QUORUM DURING NOT HAVING APPROVED MEMBERS YET.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND HEAR IT FROM STAFF, OFFER UP IF WE HAVE Q AND A, BUT THEN PUSH IT BACK TO THE, UH, CONFERENCE AND PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW AND POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS.
UH, IF, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH EVERYONE.
UH, SO 22 IS CODE AMENDMENT C 20 20 22 0 0 4 A COMPATIBILITY ON CORRIDORS CORRECTION.
ITEM IS ON CONSENT ITEM 23, CODE AMENDMENT C 20 20 20 2015, SAFE FENCING REGULATIONS.
UH, THAT ITEM IS FOR DISCUSSION.
AND, UM, SO THOSE ARE THE ITEMS ON OUR, UH, PUBLIC HEARINGS.
DO I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? UM, ON THE ITEMS FOR, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? OKAY.
UM, I THINK THE, WE'RE CLEAR ON OUR DISCUSSION ITEMS. AND ARE THERE ANY, UH, PLAINTIFF COMMISSIONERS THAT NEED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FOR ANY OF THESE ITEMS THIS EVENING? ALL RIGHT.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
DO I HAVE A, UM, MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE OUR CONSENT AGENDA, INCLUDING TWO SETS OF MINUTES FROM, UH, THE LAST TWO, TWO MEETINGS? YES.UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UH, ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO, UH, THE MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? SEEING NONE, UH, UNANIMOUS APPROVAL, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO THE FIRST DISCUSSION CASE.
ARE WE NEEDING TO TAKE THOSE OUT OF ORDER? CHAIR COMMISSION LADIES ON ANDREW ROAD? YES.
IF WE COULD CONSIDER, UH, TAKING UP ITEM 10.
UH, SO ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO TAKE STARTING WITH ITEM 10 THIS EVENING? OKAY.
UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START WITH
[10. Rezoning: C814-97-0001.15 - Leander Rehabilitation PUD Amendment #16; District 6]
ITEM 10 AND THEN WE'LL DO SEVEN AND EIGHT.HOPEFULLY IT'LL BE READY NEXT.
[00:10:02]
GOOD EVENING.I'M JOY HARDEN WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HERE FOR CASE MANAGER SHERRY STIS.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 10 ON YOUR AGENDA, CASE NUMBER C 8 1 4 9 7 0 1 0.1 15.
LEANDER REHABILITATION PUT AMENDMENT 16.
THIS SITE IS LOCATED AT 13 4 30 AND A HALF THROUGH 13, 450 AND A HALF LYNN HURST DRIVE.
AND THIS IS THE LAST UNDEVELOPED TRACT IN THE LEANDER RE UH, REHABILITATION.
UM, P U D THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO AMEND THE PUT TO INCREASE MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL UNIT COUNT FROM 3,500 TO 4,700 UNITS REDUCED MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL USES FROM 3 MILLION SQUARE FEET TO 1.77 MILLION SQUARE FEET AND INCREASED MULTI-FAMILY, UM, USE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FROM SIX STORIES TO EIGHT STORIES IN REALIGN INTERNAL DRIVES.
THE SUPERIORITY, UM, FOR THIS IS, UM, 5% OF THE ADDITIONAL 1,200 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WILL BE RESERVED TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT 80% MFI OR PAY $8 PER SQUARE FOOT.
AND THEY WILL PROVIDE ONSITE WATER REUSE SYSTEM UTILIZING ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCES WITHIN ALL GROUND FLOOR, NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
STAFF SUPPORTS THE PUT AMENDMENT, THE WAL, UH, WATER UTILITY AS ASKED FOR A CONDITION, AND SO I WILL TURN IT OVER THEM FOR THEM TO OUTLINE THAT CONDITION.
THE APPLICANT IS, DOES NOT AGREE TO THAT CONDITION, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE FOR THE DISCUSSION.
THIS IS PANK, UH, WITH AUSTIN WATER BUSINESS STRATEGY MANAGER.
UM, I'M HERE TO JUST, UH, REPRESENT THE AUSTIN WATER.
I HAVE MY TEAM, UM, HERE AS WELL, CATHERINE JASINSKI.
I'LL VERY QUICKLY TURN IT OVER TO HER ON IF THERE ARE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSIONER TODAY.
UH, ESSENTIALLY I THINK AUSTIN WATER STAND HAS BEEN THAT OVERALL, UM, CITY COUNCIL PASSED THE WATER FORWARD ORDINANCE IN 2018 THAT TALKS ABOUT LOOKING AT COMMERCIAL MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS FOR POTENTIAL WATER SAVINGS.
WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PROJECT IS A GREAT CANDIDATE FOR WATER SAVINGS, ESPECIALLY EXTENDING AUSTIN WATER'S, UH, WATER SUPPLIES FOR THE NEXT 100 YEARS FROM THAT STANDPOINT.
AUSTIN WATER'S CURRENT PROPOSED LANGUAGE IS THAT, UM, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN AN ONSITE WATER REUSE SYSTEM USING ALTERNATE WATER SOURCES FOR ALL NON PARTICLE USERS, UM, THAT INCLUDE IRRIGATION, COOLING, AND TOILET FLUSHING.
ALSO, UM, WE HAVE AGREED WITH THE APPLICANT ON PUT LIMITING THE USE OF TOILET FLUSHING TO THE GROUND FLOOR, NON-RESIDENTIAL AREAS ONLY, UNLESS OF COURSE THE SITE PLAN IS SUBMITTED AFTER DECEMBER 1ST, 2023.
CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT ALL APPLIC, ALL COMMERCIAL PROJECTS LARGER THAN 250,000 SQUARE FEET COMPLY WITH REQUIRING AN ANTIQUA REUSE FOR ALL FLOORS.
IF IT IS SUBMITTED AFTER DECEMBER 1ST, 2023.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, CHAIR WILL NOT HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR, UH, FIVE MINUTES, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO, UH, SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION.
HELLO, COMMISSIONERS, I'M LEAH BOJO WITH JENNER GROUP HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UH, AM I RUNNING THIS OR? YES.
UM, SO JUST TO GIVE YOU A QUICK ORIENTATION TO THE SITE, THE LAND LEANER REHABILITATION POD, UM, IS IN NORTH AUSTIN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SIX 20 NEAR LAKELINE STATION.
YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE OUTLINED IN BLUE.
THAT'S THE PARCEL THAT WE'RE HERE TALKING ABOUT.
UM, AND ACTUALLY THAT PARCEL, SORRY, THE PARCEL NEXT TO IT IS ALSO UNDER DEVELOPMENT.
SO THIS IS THE LAST REMAINING, UM, PARCEL IN THIS PUT.
UM, HERE YOU CAN SEE THE PUT BOUNDARIES.
YOU CAN SEE THE SURROUNDING ZONING IS MOSTLY PUT AND OTHER COMMERCIAL USES.
UM, IT'S A 20, JUST ABOUT A 30 ACRE SITE AT A 446 TOTAL UNDEVELOPED TODAY.
UM, IT IS, ESPECIALLY FOR THIS FAR NORTH LOCATION, HAS PRETTY GREAT ACCESS TO SUSTAINABLE MODES.
UM, AND IT IS A MIXED USE PUT WITH QUITE A BIT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE DESIGNATED TO OFFICE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES AS IN ADDITION TO THE 300 AND OR 3,500, UM, UNITS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY DESIGNATED WHEN THE POD WAS APPROVED IN 2008.
UM, SO WITH THIS BEING THE LAST PARCEL, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE LEFT OVER THAT'S NOT GONNA BE DEVELOPED, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY WE'RE HERE REQUESTING THIS EXCHANGE OF RESIDENTIAL
[00:15:01]
SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR, FOR SOME OF THIS COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE.UM, WE COULD SUBMIT A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TOMORROW THAT WOULD NOT HAVE ANY HOUSING UNITS IN IT AND WOULD ALSO NOT, UM, HAVE ANY WATER REUSE REQUIREMENTS.
UM, BUT THAT'S THE PUT AMENDMENT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU FOR, EXCEPT REQUEST AS THE PART OF THE PUT AMENDMENT.
UM, THE DRIVING, THE DRIVING REQUEST IS CLEARLY THE INCREASE BY 1200 UNITS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL.
UM, BUT THERE ARE A FEW OTHER, UM, JUST IN INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY, THERE ARE A FEW OTHER REQUESTS, UM, THAT WE HAVE MADE THAT HAVE BEEN AGREED TO BY STAFF.
UM, THIS IS JUST SORT OF AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT, UM, 1200 UNITS, SOME OFFICE AND SOME GROUND FLOOR RETAIL COMMERCIAL USE.
UM, THIS, LIKE I SAID, THIS IS THE PROPOSED SUPERIORITY THAT JOY RAN THROUGH JUST A MINUTE AGO.
UM, AND SO THIS IS REALLY, UM, I THINK WHERE IT IS KIND OF WHERE THE, THE IMPASSE IS.
SO THE WATER REUSE ORDINANCE WAS APPROVED IN 2021.
UM, I HOPE, I'M SURE THAT, UM, KATHERINE CHER WILL CORRECT ME, BUT I THINK THE TWO MAIN COMPONENTS OF IT ARE THAT YOU HAVE TO RECONNECT TO A RECLAIMED LINE IF YOU'RE CLOSE TO ONE.
WE ARE NOT, WE'RE OVER TWO MILES AWAY AND YOU HAVE TO DO ONSITE WATER, UM, RIO IF YOU ARE NOT NEAR, UM, A RECLAIMED LINE OR, OR EITHER WAY.
UM, AND THAT, THAT, UM, REQUIREMENT GOES INTO EFFECT ON DECEMBER 1ST, 2023.
UM, THE WATER UTILITIES CURRENT REQUEST AS, AS WAS JUST DESCRIBED IS THAT WE, UM, AND WHAT WE HAVE AGREED TO IS THE FIRST PART, WHICH IS THAT WE WOULD DO FULL WATER REUSE ON THE FIRST FLOOR, UM, COMMERCIAL USES.
UM, THE, THE, THE, THE IMPASSE THAT WE'RE AT IS BECAUSE, UM, THEY HAVE ASKED THAT WE THEN COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THESE NEW REGULATIONS THAT ARE COMING IN ON DECEMBER 1ST.
UM, AND WE ARE ASKING THAT DUE TO THE YEAR AND A HALF THAT HAS PASSED THROUGH THE NEGOTIATION OF THIS PUT MUCH LONGER THAN I THINK ANYONE EXPECTED.
UM, WHAT WE ORIGINALLY ASKED FOR IS THAT THIS, THIS PUT WOULD ACTUALLY SUPERSEDE THOSE CODE REQUIREMENTS, UM, THROUGH SOME CONVERSATIONS TODAY.
UM, WHAT WE HAVE COME TO IS THAT WE WOULD ACTUALLY, IF WE COULD JUST MAKE UP THIS AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WE HAVE LOST THROUGH THESE NEGOTIATIONS AND SAY, UM, WE'VE LOST ABOUT 18 MONTHS OF TIME IN THIS NEGOTIATION WITH THE WATER UTILITY ABOUT WHEN, WHAT, WHAT AND WHEN, AND, AND WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS AS WELL.
IF WE COULD JUST IN THE PUD EXTEND THAT DATE, WE WOULD HAVE TO COME INTO, UM, COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT CODE.
I BELIEVE 18 MONTHS WOULD BE MAY 1ST, 2025.
UM, IF WE COULD HAVE THAT, THAT WAY WE ARE, UM, ABLE TO KIND OF PULL THIS PROJECT BACK TOGETHER, GET THESE HOUSING UNITS ON THE GROUND, GET THE SUPERIORITY THAT WE'VE AGREED TO, UM, AND GET THIS PROJECT BUILT.
BUT WE DON'T, AREN'T SETTING UP THIS, THIS INDEFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME WHERE, UM, SOMEONE, YOU KNOW, IF THIS PROJECT WERE TO WERE TO FALL APART AND 10 YEARS FROM NOW SOMEONE CAME IN, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THESE OLDER RULES.
UM, SO I THINK THAT'S A, THIS IS OUT OF DATE.
I APOLOGIZE, UM,
I WISH I THOUGHT OF IT SOONER.
UM, AND WITH THAT, I WOULD, UM, MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD, UH, DO A MOTION TO PLEA PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECOND.
ANY OBJECTIONS? ALL RIGHT, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO Q AND A.
WHO'S GOT THE FIRST QUESTION? I'LL TAKE IT.
UH, CAN I HEAR FROM THE CITY? CAN I HEAR FROM THE CITY WATER FOLKS? DO Y'ALL AGREE? IT SOUNDS LIKE A, TO ME SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD COMPROMISE.
UM, I'VE GOT NODDING IN THE AUDIENCE.
DO Y'ALL AGREE WITH THAT COMPROMISE TO MOVE IT OUT TO 2025? UM, UH, SHWETA PANK, BUSINESS STRATEGY MANAGER, AUSTIN WATER, UM, NO COMMISSIONER SIR.
WE, UH, DO NOT HAVE AGREEMENT ON THAT.
I THINK WE, UM, WERE AT AN IMPASSE PARTLY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE FULL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE SITE PLAN IS DOING.
UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE OFFERED AS A COMPROMISE, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO RETURN IT TO MY STAFF, BUT ONE OF THE OPTIONS WE'VE OFFERED, UH, AS A COMPROMISE IS TO JUST TAKE AWAY ALL OF THE CONDITIONS ON THE POD.
WE CAN JUST LET THIS POD GO WITHOUT ANY UTILITY CONDITIONS, AND AT THE TIME OF THE SUBMITTAL OF THE SITE PLAN, THEY'LL JUST COMPLY WITH CURRENT CODES.
SO THAT'S AN OFFER THAT WE HAVE MADE.
MAY 1ST, 2025 IS, UM, IT IS TOO FAR OUT FOR THE UTILITY.
UH, LIKE I SAID, I THINK FUNDAMENTALLY IT COMES DOWN TO OUR, UM, WATER SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS AND 3 MILLION SQUARE FEET IS A LOT FOR A MULTI-FAMILY COMMERCIAL, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THAT'S A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY, A MISSED OPPORTUNITY FOR WATER SAVINGS, UH, IN, IN THE STAGE THAT WE ARE IN STAGE ONE, UM, HEADED TO STAGE TWO PERHAPS THIS SUMMER.
SO WE BELIEVE THAT THAT'S A MISSED OPPORTUNITY FROM A WATER SUSTAINABILITY STANDPOINT.
IF MAY 1ST, 2025 IS TOO FAR OUT, WHAT'S, WHAT'S NOT TOO FAR OUT, UH, WE COULD PERHAPS CONSIDER SIX MONTHS FROM NOW? SO DECEMBER ONE IS WHEN THE ORDINANCE GOES LIVE, WE WOULD PERHAPS, UM,
[00:20:01]
SUGGEST, UM, MAY 1ST, 2024, BUT WE STILL WOULD PREFER MAYBE PRESENTING ALL OF OUR COMMENTS AND JUST HAVING THE CARD GO AT WITHOUT, UM, A W CONDITIONS AND THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD JUST COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS AT THE TIME OF WHEN THE SITE PLAN IS SUBMITTED.THANK YOU MS. BOW RESPONSE COMMISSIONERS.
UM, UNFORTUNATELY OF A YEAR AGO THAT COMPROMISE OF, UM, WITHDRAWING THE COMMENTS AND LETTING US COME INTO COMPLY, COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT CODE AS IT COMES IN WOULD'VE BEEN A FANTASTIC POSITION, BUT WE HAVE LOST SO MUCH TIME SINCE THEN THAT WE, WE, WE HAVE TO P PUT THIS PROJECT BACK TOGETHER, UM, GET UNDER THE NEW RULES.
AND SO WE, WE NEED AT LEAST A YEAR.
UM, I THINK WE COULD, WE COULD AGREE TO, TO A YEAR WHICH, SO DECEMBER 1ST, 2024.
UM, BUT SIX MONTHS IS JUST NOT ENOUGH TIME.
COMMISSIONER ANDERS, QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.
IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE STAFF HAS BEEN TRYING TO ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO ADHERE TO AN ORDINANCE THAT COUNSEL'S COUNSEL SPECIFICALLY DIDN'T HAVE GOING TO EFFECT UNTIL DECEMBER.
IS THAT ACCURATE? AND IF SO, CAN I JUST UNDERSTAND BRIEFLY WHY THAT IS? UM, UM, I, I CAN PROBABLY START OFF HIGH LEVEL AND I MIGHT NEED, UH, CATHERINE TO CHIME IN.
UM, COUNCIL MEMBERS PRO, UH, YOU KNOW, THE WATER FORWARD ORDINANCE WENT INTO EFFECT IN 2018 INTENTIONALLY.
THE TIME BUILT FOR DECEMBER 1ST, 2023 WAS TO ALLOW STAFF TO DO THE RIGHT KIND OF STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH, GET FEEDBACK, INPUT AND INCORPORATE, INCORPORATE THE SYSTEM.
SO THAT WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE A CONCEPT OF, OH, WE HAVE TIME UNTIL DECEMBER ONE.
THIS WAS JUST THE TIME NEEDED TO GET DEVELOPMENT READY, FOCUS ON COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH.
UM, THAT'S REALLY WHY WE BELIEVE THAT EVER SINCE IN 2018 AND THEN 2021 WHEN SOME OF THESE ORDINANCES WENT INTO EFFECT, WE HAVE BEEN CONTACTING APPLICANTS VOLUNTARILY, NOTIFYING THEM, ESPECIALLY IF THEY EXCEED THE 250,000 SQUARE FEET NOTIFYING THEM OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT'S COMING.
UM, I CERTAINLY TURN IT TO MY TEAM, UM, UH, TO SEE IF I'M MISSING SOMETHING HERE.
CATHERINE, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO CHIME IN? YEAH, UH, CATHERINE DINKY SUPERVISING ENGINEER WITH AUSTIN WATER.
UH, WE'VE BEEN, UH, WORKING UNDER COUNCIL DIRECTION SINCE THE WATER FORWARD PLAN WAS ADOPTED IN 2018 TO DEVELOP THESE ORDINANCES, UM, IN A PHASED APPROACH TO MAKE THE PROGRAM VOLUNTARY AT FIRST AND THEN MOVE TOWARDS THE MANDATORY PHASE AT THE END OF THIS YEAR.
HEY, REAL QUICK BEFORE I RUN OUT OF TIME, I'M, I AM CURIOUS, UM, DO WE HAVE COST ESTIMATES OF WHAT THIS IS GONNA RUN? BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHEN WE PASSED THIS, WE WERE KIND OF IN A, A HEYDAY OF THE ECONOMY AND NOW NEW STARTS ARE FALLING OFF A CLIFF.
AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, DO WE HAVE ESTIMATES OF WHAT THIS WILL COST AS FAR AS A PERCENTAGE OF OVERALL CONSTRUCTION? SO WE HAVE A PRELIMINARY, SO WHEN THIS WENT THROUGH 2018 AND THEN 2021, WE HAD A PRELIMINARY AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT THAT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE ONSITE QUARTER REUSE, UM, REQUIREMENTS ROUGHLY.
WE BELIEVE THAT IT'S SOMEWHERE IN THE RANGE OF $2,000 PER UNIT FOR HIGH RISE DEVELOPMENT.
I JUST CAN'T HELP TO THINK OF THE, UH, THE A AND M STUDY THAT DOCUMENTS EVERY YEAR, EVERY THOUSAND DOLLARS YOU RAISE THE PRICE OF A HOME, YOU DISPLACE X FAMILY.
LAST, LAST FIGURE I HEARD WAS 1,222 FAMILIES.
I'LL START JUST BY SAYING THAT, UH, CLIMATE CHANGE, UM, YOU KNOW, DROUGHT IS PROBABLY THE LARGEST RISK, UH, THIS REGION WILL FACE AND I THINK, UM, WE SHOULD TAKE EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO CONSERVE WATER, UM, OR WE'RE GONNA BE IN REALLY BAD SHAPE.
SO THESE OPPORTUNITIES WITH PUDS, THEY'RE EXPECTED TO COME FORWARD AND MEET AREAS OF SUPERIORITY.
SO MY QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, OUT OF ALL THESE SUPERIOR ELEMENTS WITHIN YOUR PUD AGREEMENT, WERE THERE ANY WATER CONSERVATION, UH, AREAS OF SUPERIORITY THAT, UM, YOU'RE DEMONSTRATING, UH, THAT JUST TO HELP? SO WE KNOW YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING FOR SURE.
UH, WE HAVE AGREED TO DO THE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE IN ADVANCE OF THESE REGULATIONS GOING IN PLACE.
UH, AND THEN I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT, THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE, I BELIEVE I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS TO SAY THIS CUZ IT'S ME USING A WATER BALANCE CALCULATOR, BUT I BELIEVE THAT OUR INHA OUR WATER USE IS INHERENTLY QUITE A BIT LESS WITH MULTI-FAMILY THAN IT IS WITH SOME OF THE COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE PERMITTED ON THE SITE TODAY.
UM, SO IT'S A VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE ALLOWED, BUT
[00:25:01]
IT'S A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE.SO YOU'RE SAYING BY SHIFTING TO MULTI-FAMILY THAT WILL YIELD LESS WATER USE? YES.
AND I WOULD ASK, LIKE TO ASK AUSTIN WATER STAFF IS THAT I'M USED TO DOING ENERGY LOAD CALCULATIONS.
SO IS THAT YOUR FINDING THAT MULTI-FAMILY, UH, RESULTS IN LESS WATER CONSUMPTION THAN, UH, COMMERCIAL USES? IS THAT, IS THAT, UH, IS THAT A ACCURATE STATEMENT? CATHERINE, DO YOU WANNA TAKE THAT QUESTION? SURE.
ON A PER SQUARE FOOTAGE BASIS, MULTI-FAMILY IS A MUCH MORE WATER INTENSIVE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AND UM, THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR OUR KIND OF TRYING TO NEGOTIATE THIS WATER REUSE STRATEGY, UM, INTO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
UM, SO ARE THERE, UM, WHAT WAS THE APPLICANT? I GUESS I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
WHAT WAS THE I DIDN'T READ IT ALL.
I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR OFFER.
I'M TRYING TO GET CLARITY ON WHAT THAT WAS.
UM, SO, UM, ON YOUR PRESENTATION.
UM, SO WHAT OUR REQUEST HAD BEEN UP UNTIL TODAY WA OR LAST NIGHT WAS, UM, WE WOULD AGREE TO DO GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL WATER REUSE, AND WE WOULD ASK THAT THAT COMMITMENT SUPERSEDE FUTURE CODE CHANGES THAT WE KNOW ARE COMING IN DECEMBER.
WHAT WE HAVE AGREED TO NOW IS INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING IT SUPERSEDES IT INDEFINITELY, WE WOULD SAY IT SUPERSEDES IT AND WE WOULD REQUEST UNTIL MAY 1ST, 2025.
SO THAT GIVES US BACK THE 18 MONTHS THAT WE'VE LOST IN THIS NEGOTIATION.
BUT THEN IF A PROJECT COMES IN AFTER THAT DATE, THEN IT COMES IN WITH WHATEVER IS IN PLACE AT THAT TIME.
UM, I, I I GUESS I'LL HAVE A RELATIVELY QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF FIRST.
UM, WHICH IS JUST KIND OF ELABORATING ON COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S QUESTION.
I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, COUNSEL PASSED THE ORDINANCE WITH THE SPECIFIC START DATE OF DECEMBER 1ST, 2023.
AND, UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE WAS ANY DIRECTION AROUND SORT OF SLOW ROLLING OR DELAYING PROJECTS SO THAT THEY WOULD FALL WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE IF COUNCIL PROVIDED ANY DIRECTION LIKE THAT, UM, OR IF THERE WAS ANY DIRECTION LIKE THAT PROVIDED AT THE TIME WHEN THE, WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS APPROVED.
UM, I'LL ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THAT AND PROBABLY TURN IT TO CATHERINE AGAIN FOR SOME OF THE SPECIFICS.
UH, UM, I THINK THE WHOLE VOLUNTARY PERIOD FROM 2018 AND THEN 2021.
SO THERE ARE THREE MILESTONE DATES FOR THIS, THIS ENTIRE WATER FORWARD.
THE ENTIRE WATERFALL FORWARD PLAN ITSELF IS A COMBINATION OF DEMAND AND SUPPLY STRATEGIES.
IT TALKS ABOUT HOW WE CAN CONSERVE WATER THROUGH DEMAND AS WELL AS THROUGH SUPPLY SUPPLY.
UM, BUT DID, THAT WAS A MILESTONE FOR 2018.
IN 20 20, 20 21, WE HAD THE RECLAIMED WATER CONNECTION ORDINANCE AS WELL AS THE BENCHMARKING.
AND THE 2023 DECEMBER IS WHERE IT BECOMES MANDATORY.
SO THIS ENTIRE FIVE YEAR TIME PERIOD HAS BEEN USED, USED AS A VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE TIMEFRAME, BUT THAT IS WHAT WE BELIEVE WAS A SOFT LAUNCH OR A SLOW ROLLOUT AS OPPOSED TO THE HARD DATE OF DECEMBER 1ST, 2022.
BUT DID THIS SOFT LAUNCH INCLUDE A SOFT VETO ON DEVELOPMENTS UNTIL THEY COMPLIED? BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THIS STARTING TO SOUND LIKE BECAUSE, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GET SOME CLARITY HERE.
WAS THERE ANY DIRECTION SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTING STAFF TO SORT OF HOLD PROJECTS UP IN THE PROCESS SO THAT THEY WOULD EVENTUALLY BE FORCED TO COMPLY? I, I WANT WAS THAT EVER PART OF THE ORDINANCE IN ANY WAY OR WAS THIS JUST A SORT OF A, AN INITIATIVE TAKEN BY STAFF? KEVIN, DO YOU WANNA CHIME IN ON THAT? SURE.
UM, THERE WAS NO DIRECTION TO, UH, BASED ON THE, A SPEED OF REVIEWING A POD APPLICATION, THERE WAS JUST THE DIRECTION TO WORK ON THE ORDINANCES AND THEN NEGOTIATE WITH PROJECTS THAT ARE ASKING FOR ENTITLEMENTS TO INCLUDE ELEMENTS OF WATER FORWARD BEFORE THE MANDATE GOES INTO EFFECT.
SO WE'RE NOT ASKING REGULAR DEVELOPMENT PERMITS TO DO STUFF LIKE THIS, AND WE ALSO HAVE A, A VOLUNTARY, UM, OR A PILOT INCENTIVE THAT WE OFFER FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE VOLUNTARY VOLUNTARILY COMPLYING.
UM, I DON'T THINK THIS YEAR AND A HALF HAS BEEN SPENT, YOU KNOW, NEGOTIATING WITH JUST AUSTIN WATER.
THERE ARE OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT HAD COMMENTS, UM, AND OUR, UM, YOU KNOW, THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO US BY THE DEVELOPER, THAT IS WHAT IS HELPS US SHAPE WHAT KIND OF WATER FORWARD ASK THAT, THAT WE ARE, YOU KNOW, PUTTING FORTH AND WE NEGOTIATE WITH EVERY SINGLE PROJECT BASED ON THE SPECIFICS OF THEIR PROJECT.
WHAT IS, YOU KNOW, A REASONABLE ASK.
AND SO WE'RE, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S THE APPROACH THAT WE'VE TAKEN.
IT'S JUST, BUT IT'S ALSO HARD WHEN THE INFORMATION BEING PRESENTED IS NOT
[00:30:01]
VERY COMPLETE.LIKE, BUT IS IT FAIR, SORRY, I JUST HAVE VERY LIMITED TIME.
IS IT FAIR BASED ON THE CHARACTERISTICS HERE THAT THE, THE, FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT, IT IS A PRIORITY TO MAKE IT SO THAT THIS PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE WATER FORWARD STANDARDS? IS THAT CORRECT? IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THAT IS, THAT THAT HAS BEEN A PRIORITY OVER THE PAST YEAR TO MAKE THIS PROJECT COMPLY? NO.
TO IMPLEMENT WATER FORWARD, TO IMPLEMENT WATER FORWARD IT'S COST AND WHAT'S PRIORITY TO IMPLEMENT WATER FORWARD, ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT YET KICK INTO EFFECT UNTIL DECEMBER 1ST, IS THAT CORRECT? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH HERE WAS, UH, DIRECTIVE FROM COUNCIL.
I JUST WANTED TO ADD ONE MORE CONTEXT.
UM, AS CATHERINE WAS MENTIONING, WE'VE HAD ABOUT 38 OR 39 HARD, UH, AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE COME IN IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF TIMEFRAME.
AND THIS IS THE ONLY ONE WE ARE AT AN IMPASSE.
SO UP UNTIL THE PREVIOUS APPLICANTS WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO RETEACH SOME KIND OF A NEGOTIATION IN TERMS OF WORKING WITH THEM AND FINDING SOME KIND OF A COMPROMISE.
SO, UM, WE'VE FOUND WAYS TO WORK WITH APPLICANTS IN THE PAST TO BE ABLE TO NOT BE AT AN IMPASSE SPR IN THIS CASE.
HEY, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? YEAH, I HAD A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, I THINK YOU MENTIONED THIS IN YOUR PREVIOUS PRESENTATION, BUT, UM, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT IF YOU DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD, THAT THIS COULD JUST BE DONE AS COMMERCIAL AND YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THESE PARTICULAR COMING.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND IF THAT WAS THE CASE, WE WOULD NO LONGER HAVE ANY MULTI-FAMILY THAT WOULD BE BECAUSE OF THE MANDATE TO TRY AND GET THIS DONE, IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, THAT'S RIGHT.
WE WOULD NEED TO COME, WE, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE ZONING CHANGE TO ALLOW THE MULTI-FAMILY, UH, WE'VE, THE MULTI-FAMILY IS BUILT OUT.
UM, SO IT WOULD HAVE NO MULTI-FAMILY IN IT AND IT WOULD ALSO HAVE NO WATER REUSE IF THE SITE PLAN CAME IN BEFORE DECEMBER 1ST.
AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, CAUSE I'M JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M REALLY CLEAR ON THIS.
YOU ARE ACTUALLY COMPLYING WITH CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THIS NEW WATER FORWARD PLAN? YES.
THAT'S THE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL ELEMENT OF THIS, CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO REALLY THE ISSUE IS THAT THE COMPLIANCE IS NOT AT A HIGH ENOUGH STANDARD.
SO REALLY THE SITUATION HERE IS THAT WE HAVE A REGULATION THAT'S NOT YET IN FACT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY AS AN APPLICANT AND THERE SEEMS TO BE A BIT OF AN IMPASS HERE AND YOU'RE ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL TIME.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SURE, MA'AM.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
UM, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE BACKUP.
WE SEE THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO COME TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON IN SEPTEMBER OF 2022 AND IT GOT POSTPONED BY STAFF AND THERE WERE MULTIPLE POSTPONEMENTS.
CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IF YOU KNOW, I KNOW MR. DAVIS WOULD KNOW FOR SURE WHAT THOSE POSTPONEMENTS WERE BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS BEING RESOLVED DURING THE STAFF POSTPONEMENTS? I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY, BUT I KNOW THE APPLICANT WAS WORKING WITH AUSTIN WATER AND THEN THE PARTS DEPARTMENT, THOSE TWO WERE OUTSTANDING, AND SO THEY WERE WORKING SEPARATELY WITH THOSE DEPARTMENTS TO BRING THIS FORWARD.
UM, I THINK THEY EVENTUALLY GOT WORKED OUT WITH PARKS AND NOW WE'RE HERE WITH THIS CONDITION AS THEY WANTED TO MOVE THIS FORWARD AND HAVE THIS DISCUSSION FOR Y'ALL TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION FOR US TO MOVE ON TO COUNCIL.
DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION? IT DOES.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR, UH, HELPING ANSWER THAT.
COMMISSIONERS, ARE WE READY FOR A, A MOTION? YES, WE ARE
UM, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET THIS RIGHT.
SO LET'S JUST CLARIFY THAT DATE WOULD MEAN WHAT, ONE MOMENT HERE, LET ME JUST MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT, IS THAT IN THE, I'M LOOKING AT THE BOLD STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ARE WE CHA SORRY, MY APOLOGIES HERE.
IT SAYS, UM, YEAH, SO IT SAYS, UH, AT THE END, SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AT THE END OF TOILET URINAL FLUSHING APPLICATIONS WILL BE LIMITED TO GROUND FLOOR NON-RESIDENTIAL AREAS FOR DEVELOPMENT UNES, UNLESS A NEW DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS APPLIED FOR AFTER THE CURRENT RECOMMENDATION READS FOR AFTER DECEMBER 1ST, 2023.
AND I'M RECOMMENDING THAT WE CHANGE THAT TO DECEMBER 1ST, 2025 AND KEEP STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[00:35:01]
AS IS.DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UH, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THE MOTION, YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER CONLEY? UM, YEAH, I, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A WHOLE LOT THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID BEYOND WHAT HAS BEEN, UM, KIND OF LAID OUT HERE IN FRONT OF US.
I THINK CITY COUNCIL, UM, YOU KNOW, PASSED THE WATER FORWARD ORDINANCE AND THE INTENT OF THE DELAY WAS NOT ONLY TO GIVE STAFF TIME TO PREPARE, BUT ALSO TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE ALREADY IN PROGRESS AND IN WORK TO MOVE ALONG AND TO NOT HAVE THOSE DEVELOPMENTS BE HELD UP BY THE NEED TO IMPLEMENT NEW REGULATIONS AND NEW REQUIREMENTS.
SO THE IDEA WAS THAT THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT CREATE A BLOCK IN THE PIPELINE OF HOUSING, WHICH OUR COMMUNITY SO DESPERATELY NEEDS.
SO IF WE ACCIDENTALLY CREATED A SORT OF A PERVERSE INCENTIVE FOR STAFF TO SLOW ROLL CERTAIN PROJECTS SO THAT THEY WOULD EVENTUALLY BE INCLUDED, THEN I THINK THAT WE NEED TO CORRECT FOR THAT HERE BY ALLOWING THIS, THIS POD TO MOVE FORWARD.
I THINK THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ADDITIONAL 1,200 UNITS OF HOUSING AND, YOU KNOW, SOME FOLKS MIGHT NOT FEEL THAT WAY, BUT THIS CITY IS VERY, VERY MUCH IN AN EXTREME HOUSING SHORTAGE.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, WE, WE, WE HAVE, UH, SO MUCH TO SPEAK TO THAT, THAT I FEEL LIKE IT'S HARD TO EVEN KNOW WHERE TO START, BUT WE ARE IN A HOUSING SHORTAGE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME VERY SIGNIFICANT COMMUNITY BENEFITS IN THAT REGARD.
AND WHILE I DO VALUE, AND I THINK WATER REUSE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ARE OF EXTREME IMPORTANCE, I AM WORRIED ABOUT THIS WAY IN WHICH WE HAVE SORT OF SEEN A PATTERN OF, OF A KIND OF A SOFT VETO WHEN STAFF, UH, YOU KNOW, DOESN'T SEEM TO AGREE WITH A PROJECT, THIS ABILITY TO JUST DRAG IT ON INTO ETERNITY.
AND I THINK THAT PART OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, APPOINTED BY A COUNCIL THAT WAS ELECTED BY A STRONGLY PRO-HOUSING MAJORITY IS TO, UM, FULFILL THAT, UM, FULFILL THAT MISSION.
UM, I'M GONNA GO AND ENTERTAIN A, UH, JUST TRYING TO A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO SET A DATE OF DECEMBER 1ST, 2024.
UM, I THINK ON BALANCE, UH, WE MIGHT BE MOVING INTO ANOTHER DROUGHT.
I THINK, UH, UM, I DON'T KNOW, 2025 SEEMS PRETTY FAR OUT.
UM, BUT, UH, SUBSTITUTE MOTION WOULD BE, UH, FOR SETTING A DATE ONE YEAR EARLIER.
IS ANYBODY WILLING TO SECOND THAT CHAIR? SECOND AGAIN.
I'LL JUST SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THAT MOTION IS I'VE ALREADY COMMUNICATED HOUSING, YES, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO LIVE HERE.
PEOPLE WON'T BE ABLE TO LIVE HERE IF WE DON'T HAVE WATER.
AND I THINK THE LAST DROUGHT POINTED OUT TO WHERE WE COULD EVENTUALLY GET TO, I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA GET ANY BETTER, UM, FROM EVERYTHING THE SCIENTISTS ARE TELLING US.
SO ALSO PUDS, THEY'RE GETTING MORE ENTITLEMENTS WITH THIS REQUEST.
UH, YOU OPEN UP THE DOOR FOR A NEED FOR MORE SUPERIORITY.
SO I WOULD OFFER THAT, HEY, YOU'RE OPENING UP THE BOOK, YOU'RE GETTING MORE, THE BAR MAY HAVE MOVE UP A LITTLE JUST FOR ADDITIONAL SUPERIOR ITEMS. SO I THINK THIS IS TOTALLY FAIR IN LIGHT OF, UH, THE CLIMATE CHANGE RISK, YES, IT IS A COST, BUT IN THE END, WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WATER'S GONNA COST.
THERE MAY BE AN OFFSET, UM, TO THE PEOPLE LIVE HERE WITH, UH, REDUCING THEIR WATER RATES.
SO ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO REDUCE THE CONSUMPTION OF DOMESTIC WATER WILL HELP WITH THEIR BILLS IN THE FUTURE.
ANYWAY, THAT'S, UH, UM, SW PRESENTING THIS MOTION.
ANY, UH, VOTES AGAINST, UH, ANY FURTHER IN FAVOR? UH, COMMISSIONER DESAR.
I'LL SAY I'LL ECHO, UM, COMMISSIONER CON THESE WORDS HERE, WHICH IS REALLY, YOU KNOW, THIS MAKES A BIG IMPACT IN HOUSING AND THEN THE 5% AFFORDABLE REQUIREMENT IN THIS MAGNITUDE OF UNITS IS PRETTY CONSIDERABLE.
I ALSO WANNA SAY IT'S VERY EXCITING BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING SOME ENVIRONMENTAL SUPERIORITY ITEMS HERE AS WELL.
I THINK THE MOST EXCITING ONE IS THAT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, ALL NON PORTABLE USES SUCH AS IRRIGATION AND COOLING WILL UTILIZE RAINWATER AND AC CONDENSATE.
SO THAT'S REALLY EXCITING, TO BE HONEST.
AND THEN AT THE SAME TIME, WE'RE ALSO GETTING THIS SAME GRAY WATER USAGE PER GROUND FLOOR, NON-RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL USES AS WELL FOR TOILET AND URINAL FLUSHING.
SO I HONESTLY, I FEEL LIKE THE CONVERSATION TODAY WAS REALLY ABOUT THOSE TOP FOUR FLOORS.
AND SO BE IT, IF THE SITE PLAN GETS REALLY DELAYED, WE WILL STILL SEE THOSE.
BUT REALLY WE'RE SEEING NOT JUST HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, YOU KNOW, SUPERIORITY HERE.
WE'RE ALSO SEEING SOME GREAT WATER AND WATER.
WE USE SUPERIORITY ITEMS HERE.
SO I THINK THIS IS AN EXCITING ITEM TO SUPPORT.
[00:40:01]
DO THINK THAT WE HAVE A MOVE HERE THAT REALLY HELPS US MOVE FORWARD.ANY OTHER SPEAKERS FOR OR AGAINST? WELL, LET'S, SO THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION, UH, TO, UH, TO IT'S, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT THE DATE OF DECEMBER 1ST, 2023 IS DECEMBER 1ST, 2024.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT ON THE DIAS, UH, IN FAVOR.
UM, IT LOOKS LIKE WE GOT EVERYBODY THOSE ON THE SCREEN.
OKAY, SO THAT'S, UH, IS THAT, IF I'M COUNTING RIGHT, NINE TO ZERO.
[Items 7 & 8 ]
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO OUR, ARE WE READY TO DO ITEM SEVEN AND EIGHT? UH, WE'LL TAKE THOSE UP TOGETHER.ALL RIGHT, SO WE'LL HEAR FROM STAFF ON ITEM SEVEN.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS NPA 20 22 0 0 0 8 0.0 1 3 3117 THROUGH 31 21 EAST 12TH STREET.
THE PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 31 21 EAST 12TH STREET IS LOCATED IN THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA.
THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE A FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE LAND USE.
IT'S NOT SUPPORTED BY THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM.
AND YOU HAVE CITIZEN COMMUNICATION THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF CASE REPORTS AND ALSO SUBMITTED AS LATE BACKUP.
GOOD EVENING, JONATHAN TOMKO WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRESENTING ON CASE C 14 2020 2 0 1 50 31 17, AND 31 21 EAST 12TH STREET.
THE PARCEL IS APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE AND THE REQUEST IS TO GO FROM CS ONE C O N P AND C S C O N P AND C S M U V C O N P TO C S M U V C O N P STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST OF C S M U V C O N P, THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING 110 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AND 1500 SQUARE FEET OF STREET LEVEL RETAIL.
UH, THERE IS A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT WAS ESTABLISHED, UH, AS PART OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 0 2 0 1 1 0 DASH 17.
THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN THAT HEIGHTS RESTRICTION, UH, APPLIES TO THESE PARCELS AT 40 FEET.
UH, UNDER CS DONING, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD UP TO 60 FEET AND UNDER VM U TWO THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD, UH, UP TO 90 FEET.
UM, STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND CARRY FORWARD THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION OF 40 FEET ON THESE TRACKS.
UH, THE HEIGHTS RESTRICTION'S TOO RESTRICTIVE AROUND A CAP METRO RAIL STATION LEVEL TWO AS M P ROADWAY AND IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CORRIDOR, WHICH IS AIRPORT BOULEVARD, UH, MAINTAINING THIS HEIGHT RESTRICTION WOULD, UH, NOT ALLOW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS TO BE BUILT ON SITE, UH, AS A PART OF V MU'S PROGRAM, UH, ADDITIONAL STREET LEVEL RETAIL, AND POTENTIALLY THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THESE UNDERUTILIZED PARCELS.
UM, THERE HAS BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF COMMENTS THAT ARE IN THE BACKUP AND LATE BACKUP, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR FIVE MINUTES.
UH, MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
OH, SORRY, SOMEBODY'S TURNING IN.
UM, I'M HERE TONIGHT TO DISCUSS A REQUEST TO UNIFY, UH, 31 17 AND 31 21 EAST 12TH STREET UNDER ONE ZONING CATEGORY AND ONE FLUME DESIGNATION.
AS YOU'LL SEE IN OUR PRESENTATION A MOMENT, THE SITE IS A BIT MESSY.
TODAY WE HAVE TWO LOTS CONSIST OF THREE CA, THREE TCAD PARCELS AND THOSE THREE DIFFERENT, AND THEN THERE ARE ALSO THREE DIFFERENT ZONING CATEGORIES AS, UH, CASE MANAGER JUST MENTIONED, AND TWO DIFFERENT FLUME DESIGNATIONS.
MORE SPECIFICALLY, WE'RE ASKING FOR THREE THINGS.
REZONE THE TWO LOTS TO THE SAME ZONING CATEGORY, CSM, U V C O N P.
THE SECOND THING IS AMEND THE FLUME DESIGNATION ON ONE LOT FROM COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE SO THAT BOTH LOTS ARE MIXED USE.
AND THEN THIRD, REMOVE ONE OF THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS ON THE SITE THAT LIMITS THE HEIGHT TO 40 FEET.
AS YOU'LL SEE IN THE BACKUP, WE'VE, UH, UH, UH, CONCURRED WITH LEAVING THE CONDITIONAL, THE OTHER CONDITIONS, UH, CONDITIONAL OVERLAY
[00:45:01]
OF PROHIBITED USES.SO OUR PROPOSAL IS, UH, OUR REQUEST WILL HARMONIZE THE SITE AND ALLOW FOR A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH ABOUT 80, 80 TO A HUNDRED UNITS, INCLUDING UNITS SET ASIDE FOR RESIDENTS MAKING 60% MFI THROUGH THE CITY'S VERTICAL MIXED USE PROGRAM.
THE RATIONALE AS WE'LL DISCUSS TONIGHT, OUR PROPOSAL ADVANCES THE CITY'S AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS PLANNING GOALS AND CREATES HOUSING NEAR A RAIL STATION AND TRANSIT LINES.
AND I WANNA NOTE NOW, CAUSE I'M GONNA HIGHLIGHT THIS, THE TRANSIT STATION DID NOT EXIST, DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WAS PASSED.
UM, YOU CAN, YOU CAN KIND OF ORIENT YOURSELF.
THE PROPERTY IS, AS YOU KNOW, ON EAST 12TH STREET WITHIN 400 FEET OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
AND HERE'S AN IMAGE OF THE CURRENT SITE TODAY FROM EAST 12TH STREET.
IT IS LARGELY UNDEVELOPED WITH ONE VACANT COMMERCIAL SPACE.
IT ALSO SLOPES SLIGHTLY DOWN FROM 12TH STREET.
THIS IS, UH, THIS MAP SHOWS THE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICTS, THE TCAT PARCELS AND THE LOTS, THE LOTS ARE BRACKETED IN RED.
THE TCAD PARCELS ARE OUTLINED IN BLACK, AND THE ZONING DISTRICTS ARE THE GREEN, BLUE AND PURPLE FILL.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SITE IS FAIRLY DISJOINTED.
TRACK ONE CONTAINS TWO TCAD PARCELS, AND TRACK TWO IS ONE TCAD PARCEL WITH TWO DIFFERENT ZONING CATEGORIES WITHIN IT.
AS WE STATED, OUR ZONING REQUEST WITH UNIFY THE SITE UNDER CS M U V C O N P AND REMOVE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ON THE SITE THAT LIMITS THE HEIGHT TO 40 FEET.
UNDER THIS ZONING, THE SITE COULD REACH 60 FEET, THOUGH IT IS LIMITED BY COMPATIBILITY ON THE STREET FRONTAGE.
AND AS YOU KNOW, UNDER THE V M U PROGRAM, THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE, WOULD HAVE A REQUIRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT AT 60% M MFI.
HERE'S THE FUTURE, THE HERE'S THE CURRENT FLUME DESIGNATIONS FOR THIS AREA WITH EACH TCAT PARCEL DE DELINEATED IN BLACK.
AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP, THERE ARE A LOT OF BROWN, UH, OF MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS.
THAT'S THE BROWN COLOR IN THE, IN THE AREA.
SO CHANGING THE EASTERNMOST TRACK TO MIXED USE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING FLUME CATEGORIES.
OUR RESIDENTIAL FOCUSED PROJECT WOULD ALSO BE COMPATIBLE WITH NEARBY MULTI-FAMILY USES, DENOTED ON THE MAP WITH THE ORANGE FILL, AND THEN IMAGINE AUSTIN AND AS M P.
UM, SO I WANNA TALK ABOUT WHY THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION.
AS I MENTIONED, THE SITE IS LESS THAN 400 FEET FROM AIRPORT BOULEVARD, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS AN IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CORRIDOR AND AS AN ASMP TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK ROADWAY.
AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE CITY USES THESE DESIGNATIONS TO GUIDE GROWTH WITH THE AIM OF CONCENTRATING NEW DEVELOPMENT AROUND CORRIDORS AND TRANSIT.
OUR PROJECT ALIGNS WITH THE IMAGINE AUSTIN PLANNING PRINCIPLES SUCH AS FOCUSING INVESTMENTS AROUND CORRIDORS AND EXPANDING HOUSING CHOICES IN AUSTIN AND SUPPORTS THE A AND P.
IN FACT, THE FIRST LAND USE PO POLICY IN THE A AND P WRITTEN DOCUMENT THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN PASSED IS TO PROMOTE TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE DENSITIES ALONG TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORKS IN TERMS OF, UH, TRANSIT.
ONE KEY BENEFIT TO THIS PROPOSAL IS THE SITE'S PROXIMITY TO A CAP METRO RAIL STATION.
THIS SITE IS WITHIN HALF A MILE RADIUS OF THE MLK JUNIOR RAIL STATION AND HAS A COUPLE OF PEDESTRIAN ROUTES COMPLETE WITH CROSSWALKS AND SIDEWALKS FOR SAFETY.
AGAIN, THIS WAS, THIS TRANSIT STATION DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE, WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WAS PASSED.
THE SITE IS ALSO WELL SUPPORTED BY EXISTING BUS LINES AMONG THE ROUTES, UH, RUNNING ALONG AND NEAR THE PROPERTY.
OUR ROUTES 6 3 54, 85 AND TWO.
AND I WANT TO TURN TO, UH, THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FOR A MOMENT AND TALK ABOUT HOW THE PROJECT SUPPORTS THAT PLAN.
THE PROJECT, AS I MENTIONED, WAS ADOPTED IN 2001 OVER 20 YEARS AGO.
IT'S, IT'S SOUGHT TO OR SEEKS TO INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE AREA, ENCOURAGE INFILL DEVELOPMENT, REDUCE THE NUMBER OF VACANT LOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND ALLOW LIVE WORK FLEX SPACE OR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON TRACK ZONE FOR COMMERCIAL USES.
OUR PROPOSAL WOULD FULFILL ALL FOUR OF THOSE STATED OBJECTION OBJECTIVES.
AS YOU CAN SEE, MANY OF THE OBJECTIVES ADOPTED IN 2001 ACTUALLY REFLECT TODAY'S LAND USE AND PLANNING GOALS.
AT THE SAME TIME, AS YOU WELL KNOW, AUSTIN'S GROWING DEMAND FOR HOUSING AND TRANSIT ACCESS COMPELS US TO MODIFY AND MODERNIZE MODERNIZE PLANNING PRINCIPLES TO BE RESPONSIVE TODAY'S, UH, COMMUNITY.
SO I HOPE THAT YOU'LL, UH, SUPPORT STAFF'S, UH, PROPOSAL TO CHANGES TO MIXED USE AND TO GO WITH CS M U V C O N P OVER THE ENTIRE SITE WITH THE COS THAT ARE LISTED ON PAGE ONE.
AND I'LL HEAR FROM MR. CHRIS PAGE, FOLLOWED BY MS. JENNY GRAYSON.
[00:50:04]
OKAY, UM, SO WE'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE IN 2022, HORIZONTAL INVESTORS UNDERSTOOD THE EXACT ENTITLEMENTS THAT THEY PURCHASED AT, UH, 31 21 AND 31 17 EAST 12TH.THEY GAMBLED THAT WHEELIN COULD STIGMATIZE EAST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOODS EXPLOIT AUSTIN'S AFFORDABILITY PROBLEMS, FUELED MOSTLY BY OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY, AND LEAN ON THE CANDIDATES THAT THEY FINANCIALLY BACKED TO EXTRACT MORE VALUE THAN THEY PAID FOR.
WE'RE LITERALLY HERE LISTENING TO A BOUTIQUE LAWYER HIRED BY A COUPLE THAT SOLD THEIR COMPANY FOR 280 MILLION, SUGGESTING THAT EAST AUSTIN IS EX EX, UH, EX EXCLUSIONARY BECAUSE THEY WANT THEIR THEORETICAL BUILDING TO BE MORE THEORETICALLY PROFITABLE SO THAT THEY CAN, IN THEIR OWN WORDS, STRETCH THEIR INFLUENCE FURTHER, THE APPLICANT SEEMS TO IGNORE, UH, THE MEANING OF OUR COMMUNITY'S CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE HISTORY OF THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN INFORM BY LIFELONG RESIDENTS AND THE DOC IN THE DOCUMENTS AUTHORS IS AS FOLLOWS.
AFTER AUSTIN FORMALLY SEGREGATED THE CITY IN 1928, IT MAKES VERY INTENSE LAND USE INTO EAST AUSTIN'S NEIGHBORHOODS, PARTICULARLY AFTER THE 1957 INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY LAND USE UNDER THE 1957 INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY AND APPROPRIATELY POSITIONED NUISANCE GENERATING HIGH TRAFFIC, POLLUTING AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USES NEXT TO FAMILIES' HOMES.
OVER TIME, THOSE PROXIMATE BUT, UH, INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES WERE ENSHRINED IN OUR CITY'S ZONING MAPS.
AND AFTER TWO YEARS OF EFFORT AND ADVOCACY, THE RESIDENTS OF THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM SUCCESSFULLY DRAFTED THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ADOPTED BY THE CITY IN 2002 AS AN ORDINANCE.
IT ENVISIONED THE COMPACT COMPLETE WALKABLE INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY THAT THE CITY IS STILL TRYING TO GET OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS TO CATCH UP TO.
TODAY, ONE OF ITS ACHIEVEMENTS WAS UNDOING INCOMPATIBLE LAND USE, CREATED BY DECADES OF DISCRIMINATORY ZONING BY ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL SCALE OF 40 FEET.
IT'S CLEAR THAT AUSTIN AS A WHOLE HAS PLAGUED WITH CHALLENGES OF AFFORDABILITY AND ACCESS TO HOUSING.
THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBOR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN HASN'T DONE NOTHING BUT SOLVED THOSE CHALLENGES SINCE ITS INCEPTION.
UNDER THE CURRENT ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN MARKET RATE, DEEPLY AFFORDABLE AND PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED, BOTH RECENTLY AND, AND IN THE PAST.
YOU CAN LOOK AT 12TH STREET AND SEE EXAMPLES OF, UH, MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENTS THAT ARE NEW, THAT ARE OLD, THAT ARE SUBSIDIZED.
YOU CAN ALSO SEE RETAIL AT THE GROUND FLOOR AS IT WAS ENVISIONED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
WHAT IT LACKS IS USUALLY FROM SPECULATION.
UM, ACCORDING TO A NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE INVENTORY, UH, WE'VE GOT I THINK 34 LOTS THAT ARE OWNED BY ONE SPECULATOR, ALSO REPRESENTED BY MR. WHEELING.
UH, OF THOSE THERE ARE SIX WITH STRUCTURES THAT ARE ABANDONED.
THERE ARE FOUR THAT ARE UNIMPROVED SELLING ALCOHOL.
UH, AND AS FAR AS WE KNOW, ONLY ONE THAT'S CONFIRMED TO HAVE ACTUAL HOUSING.
UM, THERE'S ALSO SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC HAZARDS THAT WOULD BE IMPOSED BY THIS SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT.
90 FOOT SCALE IS DYSFUNCTIONAL AND UNREPEATABLE IN OUR COMMUNITY.
12TH STREET IS A TWO-LANE RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR STREET LINED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE SLIDES, UH, WELL COULD YOU SCROLL DOWN, UH, TO NEXT SLIDE.
I'M JUST GONNA GO THROUGH THE SLIDES RIGHT NOW.
SO 78,702, OUR ZIP CODE CONFIRMED BY THE 2020 CENSUS HAS PRODUCED SOME OF THE MOST HOUSING IN THE CITY.
IF THIS DEVELOPMENT GOES FORWARD, THE HOUSES THAT YOU SEE STRUCK WITH A RED LINE, THERE ARE LIKELY TO BE DISPLACED, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE UNITS.
THOSE PURPLE AREAS DESIGNATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SOME OF THE MOST DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN, IN EAST AUSTIN, AND THOSE CAME INTO EXISTENCE UNDER THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
THAT'S THE SCALE THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING AND YOU CAN SEE HOW WELL IT FITS WITH THE COMMUNITY OR DOES NOT FIT.
NEXT, THOSE ARE THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SOUGHT BY DEVELOPERS IN IN THE CITY.
AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S ONLY ABOUT TWO OF THEM THAT EXIST WEST OF I 35.
IS THERE ANOTHER SLIDE? AND THESE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN FROM THE APPLICANT.
YOU CAN SEE HE'S SAYING ON HIS APPLICATION 110 UNITS.
WHAT HE'S SAYING IN HIS LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT APPLICATION IS THAT IT'LL BE 74 TODAY, THEY SAID 80.
UH, THE SAME IS TRUE OF THEIR OTHER PROPERTY THAT THEY HAVE ON OAK SPRINGS, WHERE IT'S INITIALLY STATED OF 250 AND THEN IN THEIR LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT, IT'S 140 SOMETHING.
UM, BUT THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN UNDOES DISCRIMINATORY BASE ZONING ALLOWS SMALL LOT AMNESTY, INCORPORATES VERTICAL MIX USE PROVIDES FOR LITERALLY MILLIONS OF SQUARE FEET OF LAND FOR AUSTIN'S MOST FINANCIALLY VULNERABLE
[00:55:01]
RESIDENTS AND PRIORITIZED BALANCED INFILL DEVELOPMENT, EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT, THE 2020 CENSUS CONFIRMS THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS RACIALLY, ECONOMICALLY, AND EVEN ARCHITECTURALLY DIVERSE.YOU'LL FIND MORE MULTIFAMILY INCORPORATED IN THAT PLAN IN 2002 THAN YOU'LL FIND ACROSS MOST OF THE CITY.
DO NOT ALLOW SPECULATORS TO CONTINUE GETTING FED.
I'LL HEAR FROM MS. JENNY GRAYSON, FOLLOWED BY SETH WILKERSON.
I'VE LIVED IN MCKINLEY HEIGHTS SINCE 2010 AND CURRENTLY SERVE AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD PRESIDENT.
I STRONGLY OPPOSE REMOVING THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FROM 3,117 AND 31 21 EAST 12TH.
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I MOVED TO MCKINLEY HEIGHTS WAS THE PROGRESSIVE THOUGHTFUL COMMUNITY PLAN KNOWN AS THE NA ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY OUR CITY COUNCIL COUNTS ON 2002.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WAS DESIGNED WITH THE GOAL OF MICKEY EAST AUSTIN, AFFORDABLE, WALKABLE, SHOPPABLE, INCLUSIVE, AND SCALABLE WORKING UNDER THIS PLAN AND WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS, A NUMBER OF MIXED USE BUSINESSES HAVE SUCCESSFULLY BUILT UP TO SCALE 40 FEET RENTED OR SOLD THEIR HOUSING UNITS, AND HAVE RENTED OUT BUSINESS SPACE ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
I BELIEVE THIS IS A REPLICABLE, SCALABLE PLAN FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AS DID OUR CITY COUNCIL WHEN IT APPROVED AND ADOPTED THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN YEARS AGO.
I ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RESPECT THE HOMEOWNER'S WISHES AND NOT REMOVE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FOR BUILDING HEIGHT.
DOING SO WOULD SET A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR DEVELOPMENTS TO BUILD UP TO 90 FOOT BUILDINGS ALL ALONG 12TH STREET, A TWO-LANE STREET THAT CANNOT ACCOMMODATE THE INFLUX OF TRAFFIC OF ALL FORMS, PEDESTRIAN, BIKE, BUS, AND CARS THAT WOULD ACCOMPANY SUCH LARGE BUILDINGS.
WHEN INVESTORS PURCHASED THESE PROPERTIES, THEY WERE AWARE OF THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THEY COULD OPERATE.
THEY UNDERSTOOD THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, CAPPED BUILDING HEIGHT AT 40 FEET, AND THEY CHOSE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY.
HAVING A COMMERCIAL SERVICE IN THE MIDDLE OF TWO NEIGHBOR HOODS IS NOT SAFE AND DOES NOT MAKE SENSE IN THE HOMEWOOD HEIGHTS AND MCKINLEY HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOODS.
A MINIMUM OF 43 PROPERTIES ARE NOW OWNED BY A SINGLE INVESTMENT FIRM.
AT LEAST HALF OF THOSE ARE 23 SIT VACANT, SIX ARE ABANDONED.
THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR A SINGLE LANDOWNER TO REMOVE A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FOR A BUILDING HEIGHT.
IT'S AN ORGANIZED TAKEOVER OF THE EAST SIDE BY LARGE INVESTMENT FIRMS WITH LOTS OF MONEY AND LOTS OF TIME TO WAIT, WAIT FOR THE PROPERTY VALUE TO INCREASE SO THEY CAN FLIP IT FOR A PROFIT, WAIT FOR EAST AUSTIN RESIDENTS TO DIE SO THEY CAN ACQUIRE MORE LAND, WAIT FOR EAST AUSTIN RESIDENTS TO GET FED UP AND ABANDON THEIR HOMES.
BECAUSE WE NO LONGER LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY IS NOT PREVENTING DEVELOPERS FROM BUILDING THEIR DESIRE TO REMOVE ZONING, INCREASE THEIR PROPERTY VALUE, SCOOP UP MORE PROPERTIES IN EAST AUSTIN AND LEAVE THEM VACANT, AS YOU CAN SEE, TO SELL AT, AT A LATER DATE, IS THE SOURCE OF THEIR REQUEST.
12TH STREET IS A TWO LANE STREET, ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION WITH BIKE LANES AND RECENTLY ADDED SIDEWALKS FOR YEARS.
RESIDENTS OF MCKINLEY HEIGHTS HAVE PETITIONED THE CITY FOR SPEED BUMPS ON HARVEY STREET, BUT APPARENTLY OUR STREETS AREN'T UNSAFE ENOUGH TO WARRANT AN INTERVENTION.
CARS CUT DANGEROUSLY THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FROM M L K TO 12TH STREET OR VICE VERSA TO AVOID THE CONGESTION ON AIRPORT.
AIRPORT BOULEVARD, SPEEDING IN EXCESS OF 40 MILES PER HOUR, DAMAGING VEHICLES, NOT SLOWING FOR PEDESTRIANS AND DAMAGING THE SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PSYCHE.
IN FACT, WE HAD ANOTHER COLLISION YESTERDAY FROM CARS CUTTING THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD 12TH STREET AT FIVE PMS A NIGHTMARE.
PEOPLE USE IT TO CONNECT TO AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
AND THEN 180 3, THE INCREASED TRAFFIC FLOW IS ALREADY STRAINING THE CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE.
HOW WILL THIS ALREADY CONGESTED AREA HOLD AN ADDITIONAL PROPOSED 180 OR 110 RESIDENTIAL UNITS? THE RAIL IS MORE THAN A MILE AWAY WALKING DISTANCE.
IT WILL TAKE MORE THAN 20 MINUTES FOR EACH PERSON TO WALK.
WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU DO NOT APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OR REMOVE, I'M SORRY, REMOVE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
UM, AS A HOMEOWNER WHO'S IN FAVOR OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, I'M REQUESTING THAT YOU ALL DO NOT REMOVE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FROM FROM 3,117 AND 31 21 EAST 12.
NOW JOINING VIA THE TELECONFERENCE, MR. MR. SETH WILKERSON, START SIX.
HEY, I, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I BELIEVE THE TWO PEOPLE THAT JUST SPOKE FAR MORE ELOQUENTLY THAN I WILL, UM, EXPRESSED A NUMBER OF MY CONCERNS.
UH, THE PROPOSED HEIGHT INCREASE WAS NOT NECESSARY OR REQUIRED FOR ANY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS THAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO FIND SO FAR.
UM, I'VE LIVED HERE ON EAST 13TH STREET.
[01:00:01]
I WILL HAVE THIS MONSTROSITY OF A BUILDING LOOKING DOWN INTO MY BACKYARD.I'M DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THIS.
UM, BUT I'VE SO FAR SEEN THAT NO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS THAT HAVE BEEN DRAWN UP.
UM, BUT THE INVESTORS WERE AWARE OF THE EXISTING OVERLAY WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED, AND THEY SHOULD ABIDE BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN THAT EXISTS TO SERVE AS AN OUTLINE FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, THE BUILDING SHOULD BE NO MORE THAN 40 FEET.
UM, I HAVE A LOT OF HEARTACHE THINKING FOR DANNY THAT LIVES RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM PHASE 12.
THIS IS GOING TO BLIGHT THE SUN FROM HIS YARD.
UH, HE'S BEEN THERE LONGER THAN I HAVE, UH, AS WELL AS CHRIS JOHNSON ON THE CORNER.
UM, IF THE OVERLAY WERE APPROVED, I I, AS I UNDERSTAND IT'S GOING UP, OPEN UP A MUCH LARGER AREA TO BE FURTHER DEVELOPED ABOVE THE 40 FOOT LIMIT.
AND I DO NOT WANT THIS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, THERE ARE PLENTY SUCCESSFUL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE OPERATING UNDER THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
AND I SEE NO NEED FOR AN EXCEPTION IN THIS CASE, ESPECIALLY WHEN NO PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AND THE DEVELOPERS WERE AWARE WHEN THIS, WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED.
UM, AS FAR AS TRAFFIC GOES, I CAN ATTEST TO WHAT JIMMY SAID.
TRY GETTING ON MCKINLEY AT FIVE O'CLOCK AND MAKING A LEFT HAND TURN ON THE 12TH.
YOU HAVE TO GO UP TO HARVEY IF YOU GET LUCKY.
IF THAT DOESN'T WORK, YOU GO UP TO ALEXANDER, THEN TURN LEFT AND LEFT AGAIN ON 12TH STREET AND YOU GET IN LINE WITH THE REST OF THE CARS.
UM, WHETHER SAUL WILSON WAS OPENED UP IN THIS, I DON'T KNOW, BUT THAT AGAIN, IS NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
THOSE ARE SMALL TWO-LANE ROADS WITH STOP SIGNS.
UH, IT'S THE GETTING IN AND OUT, GETTING IN LINE ON 12TH STREET THAT'S CAUSING THE PROBLEMS. UH, THERE'S, IT'S A TWO-LANE ROAD.
UM, THE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC, UH, ANYBODY THAT'S SAYING THE
UH, IT'S A LONG WALK AND ONE THAT I TAKE MY DOG ON EVERY NIGHT.
UH, SO I'M GOING TO URGE THE CITY TO REJECT ANY CHANGES OR AMENDMENTS SO THAT EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND TO KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOODS DEVELOPMENT WITH IN LINE WITH OUR VISION, UH, FOR THIS AREA.
THANK, YOU'LL NOW HEAR FROM SCOTT COLLIER, FOLLOWED BY MS. AL RAMOS.
I, UH, COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF, UH, I'M SPEAKING TODAY TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO AGENDA ITEMS SEVEN AND EIGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TODAY.
MY NAME IS SCOTT COLLIER AND MY WIFE AND I LIVE AT 28 0 3 SAL WILSON, ONE BLOCK SOUTH AND A COUPLE BLOCKS WEST OF THE SUBJECT 12TH STREET PROPERTIES.
WE LIVE CLOSE TO THE SUBJECT PARCEL, NOT A MILE WALK AWAY LIKE THE TRAIN TO LEANDER.
LET ME START BY EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE WORK THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN DID IN COLLABORATING WITH THE RESIDENTS CHURCHES AND OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR EAST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD TO ESTABLISH THE ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
I LIVED IN A DIFFERENT PART OF AUSTIN WHEN THIS PLAN WAS PUT IN PLACE, SO CANNOT CLAIM CLAIM CREDIT FOR IT, BUT I'VE MET SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT DID THE WORK AT THE TIME, AND I'VE GAINED SOME UNDERSTANDING OF THE TREMENDOUS EFFORT THEY PUT INTO IT.
AND I COMMEND THE CITY FOR ADOPTING THIS EXTREMELY WELL THOUGHT OUT PLAN.
HAVE ANY OF YOU READ THIS PLAN RIGHT HERE? YEAH.
IT'S A REALLY GOOD PLAN AND IT'S VERY THOROUGH.
THIS PLAN ALLOWS FOR SIGNIFICANT INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND THE CURRENT 40 FOOT HEIGHT RESTRICTION PERMITS.
NEIGHBORHOOD APPROPRIATE THREE-STORY DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD PROVIDE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS, SEVERAL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY BUILT IN RECENT YEARS, INCLUDING A THREE-STORY CONDO COMPLEX ACROSS THE STREET FROM MY HOUSE TO SUDDENLY OVERRIDE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WITH SO LITTLE INPUT FROM THOSE OF US IN THE IMPACTED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY WOULD BE RECKLESS.
FURTHERMORE, THE APPLICANT FOR THESE CHANGES HAS BEEN VAGUE AND EVASIVE ABOUT PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT SHOULD THEIR REQUEST BE GRANTED ADMITTING THEY'VE ENGAGED NO ARCHITECT TO DESIGN ANYTHING AND PRESERVING THEIR RIGHT TO FLIP THE REAL ESTATE TO ANOTHER OWNER AFTER THEY GET THESE VALUABLE CONCESSIONS.
THERE'S NO GOOD REASON TO GRANT THE REQUEST AS THERE ARE ALREADY FINANCIALLY LUCRATIVE WAYS TO DEVELOP THIS LAND GIVEN EXISTING ZONING AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS.
AND THERE ARE SERIOUS WARNING FLAGS THAT TO GRANT THE REQUEST WOULD BE AN IRRESPONSIBLE DECISION GENERATES WEALTH FOR REAL ESTATE SPECULATORS TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
THE CURRENT ZONING AND CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ARE ADEQUATE AND REFLECT A C SENSIBLE BALANCE OF COMMUNITY INTEREST AND DEVELOPER OPPORTUNITY.
TO BE CLEAR, I'M NOT EXPRESSING NIMBY OPPOSITION TO DEVELOPMENT ON THESE OR OTHER VACANT PARCELS IN THE AREA.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE DEVELOPMENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ADDS AMENITIES AND HOUSING, BUT IN A WAY THAT RESPECTS THE CHARACTER AND HISTORY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PROPOSED CHANGES DO NOT SUPPORT THOUGHTFUL DEVELOPMENT AND INSTEAD INCENTIVIZE LAND SPECULATION THAT HOLDS THE
[01:05:01]
POTENTIAL TO ADVERSELY IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM AMBER OR MS. OR YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE FOR LISTENING TO US TONIGHT.
THIS IS NOT A PROPOSAL ABOUT CLEANING UP ZONING OR ALLOWING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AS YOU'RE HEARING, THAT'S ALREADY, UM, QUITE DOABLE WHERE IT IS.
IT'S ALSO NOT ABOUT BENEFITING US AS A COMMUNITY IN ANY WAY, UM, WHICH IS CLEAR BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN UNWILLING TO WORK WITH US AT ALL ON ANY, UH, COMMUNITY IN CONCESSIONS OR AMENITIES.
UM, THAT IS NOT A CURRENT PHOTO OF THE LOT, UH, AS IT'S BEING USED FOR PROFIT RIGHT NOW.
THERE ARE THINGS SET UP IN IT, UM, AS A BUSINESS, UH, DESPITE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BACKUP DOCUMENTS, THE PROPOSAL FOR THESE PARCELS DOES NOT IN FACT ALIGN UP WITH THE GOALS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
NO ONE KNOWS THIS BETTER THAN THE PEOPLE WHO LIVED THERE AND THE PEOPLE THAT AUTHORED IT.
IT CAN'T EVEN REASONABLY BE EVALUATED, UH, TO THESE ENDS BECAUSE THERE'S NO COMMITMENT TO ANY PLAN WHATSOEVER OTHER THAN SOMETHING IMAGINARY WRITTEN ON PAPER.
HOW ARE THEY GONNA FIT 110 UNITS? WILL ANY OF THEM BE AFFORDABLE? WILL ANY OF THEM BE MORE THAN A STUDIO OR TWO BEDROOMS OR THREE? WILL ANY OF THAT SPACE BE ENOUGH FOR A BENEFICIAL BUSINESS TO THOSE OF US WHO WOULD BE USING IT, ASSUMING THAT THEY ACT ACCORDING TO THE STATED INTENTIONS, THE CITY WOULD BE PERPETUATING INEQUITY IN EAST AUSTIN AND CAUSE PERMANENT IRREVERSIBLE HARM TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR EIGHT AFFORDABLE STUDIO APARTMENTS, THAT'S NOT FEASIBLE.
APPLICANT AND STAFF WANNA ALLOW FOR A LAWYER TO RE-AUTHOR A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PUT INTO PLACE SPECIFICALLY TO UNDO YEARS OF DISCRIMINATION.
CONTRARY CLAIMS THAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IS CLUNKY OR RELEVANT AND OLD, IT'S BEEN UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPLY HERE TODAY BY RESIDENTS WHO JUST REVIEWED IT AND WE CAN REVIEW IT AND AMEND IT AT ANY TIME.
IT'S ALSO WORKING IN PRACTICE AND DOES MANY OF THE THINGS THAT THE CITY IS, UH, TRYING TO DO TODAY.
AS MR. WHELAN STATED IN HIS OWN, UH, PRESENTATION.
IF WE ARE HERE TRYING TO REDUCE DISPLACEMENT, WHY ARE WE LOOKING AT CHANGING LAND VALUE IN A WAY THAT'S GONNA DOUBLE UP THE ALLEVIATION OF HOUSING PRESSURE ON US, SPIKING OUR TAXES, DISPLACING RESIDENTS, AND FURTHER TAXING THE INFRASTRUCTURES IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT ALREADY CAUSED DISPLACEMENT AND GREAT SUFFERING.
AS WE SAW WITH UTILITY FAILURES DURING SNOW VD, THE ANALYSIS IN THE BACKUP IS INACCURATE.
THE NUMBER OF YESES THAT ARE LOGGED IS AT LEAST FOUR TOO HEAVY.
IT DOESN'T EXPAND HOUSING, IT DOESN'T ADD AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IT DOESN'T EXIST NEAR FOOD ACCESS OR THE LINES BECAUSE IT'S IMAGINARY.
I ASK YOU TO AT LEAST CONSIDER THE VOICE OF EAST AUSTIN AND THE RESIDENTS BEFORE YOU ABANDONED SOMETHING THAT WAS PUT INTO PLACE AFTER A LONG HISTORY OF BEING DISCRIMINATORY.
YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO STOP TOOLS LIKE THIS APPLICATION FROM FURTHER STRIPPING US OF OUR HOMES AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN OUR COMMUNITY.
NOW, JOINING US IF YOU HAVE THE TELECONFERENCE, MR. MAZZEO RAMOS.
MY NAME IS RAMOS AND I'M SEEKING IN OPPOSITION.
UM, I'M GONNA KEEP IT PRETTY SHORT.
I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING MY FRIENDS AND OPPOSITION HAVE MENTIONED AND WANTED TO REITERATE SOMETHING, UH, FROM MY END.
THE FRAMING OF THE ARGUMENT AREN'T ONES THAT ARE ANTI-DEVELOPMENT, ANTI-D DENSITY OR ANTI HOUSING.
THEY'RE ANTIS SPECULATOR AT THEIR CORE.
IT'S IN OPPOSITION OF FOLKS THAT COME INTO HISTORICALLY LOW INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS BY THE LAND AND SIT ON IT WITHOUT DEVELOPING ANYTHING IN HOPES OF CHANGING RESTRICTIONS ON THAT PROPERTY OR WAITING FOR IT TO APPRECIATE SO IT CAN BE SOLD TO ANOTHER ENTITY AT A HIGHER VALUE.
WE'VE SEEN THIS TIME AFTER TIME IN EAST AUSTIN.
AND SO WE ASK THAT YOU TAKE A STANCE AS WELL.
OPPOSING THIS MOVE IS TAKING A STANCE AGAINST SPECULATORS THAT ARE JUST IN IT FOR PROFIT WITHOUT GIVING BACK TO THE COMMUNITY.
ASK Y'ALL, PLEASE OPPOSE THE REMOVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY REQUESTED IN ITEM SEVEN AND EIGHT.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
[01:10:16]
HI, MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.I WANNA CLEAR UP, UH, SOME, UH, ITEMS. UH, FIRST, THERE ARE TWO MODULE HOMES ON THE SITE RIGHT NOW THAT ARE BEING DISPLAYED.
UH, THAT'S BEING DONE UNDER A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT.
OTHERWISE YOU WOULDN'T, UM, YOU'D HAVE TO USE THE COMMERCIAL OR THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL OVERLAY, WHICH AS YOU KNOW, HAS SITE AREA RESTRICTIONS.
SO, UH, AND THE MU SITE WOULD ALSO HAVE A SITE AREA RESTRICTION.
SO THE MAX NUMBER OF UNITS YOU COULD PUT ON THE SITE WOULD BE 40.
SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR.
ALSO, UM, I WANTED TO, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT OTHER DEVELOPERS IN THE AREA, UM, THAT, UH, THERE'S BEEN, UH, OPPOSITION TO, I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT AGAIN, THAT THE GROUP HERE, THE GEYSER GROUP, UH, IS WHO OWNS THIS? THEY'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE, ARE WORKING AND RAISING CAPITAL.
THEY JUST FINISHED A 76 UNIT T OD DEVELOPMENT THAT IS NOW LEASING.
UM, AND THEY ALSO HAVE A 363 UNIT DEVELOPMENT UNDER CONSTRUCTION UTILIZING THE VMU PROGRAM.
SO I WANTED TO JUST MAKE THAT CLEAR.
THE, THE SITE I'M TALKING ABOUT IS THE, THE, IT'S CALLED THE JOHNNY.
IT'S JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHAT THEY'VE DONE.
SO, I I DON'T THIS, UH, YOU KNOW, CASTING EX, UH, ASPERSIONS BASED ON WHO'S REPRESENTING SOMEBODY OR A PARTICULAR GEOGRAPHIC AREA.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S NECESSARILY A BASIS OF POLICY DECISION.
ALSO, I'M GLAD THEY MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE TALLER BUILDINGS, INTERIOR.
A LOT OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, AS YOU KNOW, UM, UH, CAN GO PRETTY HIGH.
THERE ARE SOME THREE STORY SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES THAT EXCEED 30 FEET OF HEIGHT THAT ARE RIGHT NEXT TO, UH, OTHER HOMES IN THE AREA.
AND I ALSO WANNA POINT OUT, AND THIS IS MENTIONED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THERE IS A SINGLE FAMILY USE AND, UH, SINGLE FAMILY ZONING NEARBY THAT'S OBVIOUSLY GONNA IMPACT THE SITE IN TERMS OF COMPATIBILITY.
UM, I, I DON'T THINK THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD IS OPPOSED.
UH, I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR BACKUP AT PAGE 31, UH, PAGE 30 AND PAGE 31, YOU'RE GONNA SEE THAT, UH, THERE ARE VOICES OUT THERE THAT FELT, UH, A LITTLE BIT MORE SHY.
UH, THIS IS FROM IMAD O OMED WHO SAID THE REZONING NOTIFICATION REFERRED TO A SPECIAL MEETING ON MARCH 29TH, WHERE RO WHERE RESIDENTS VOTED TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT.
I WAS AT THE MEETING AND THERE WERE ONLY A COUPLE OF INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE VERY VOCAL AND THEIR OPPOSITION AND SWAYED THE OTHERS AT THE MEETING.
BUT BASED ON MY CONVERSATIONS WITH NEIGHBORS, I THINK THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE THE MINORITY.
MOST WANT TO SEE MORE DENSE DEVELOPMENT IN OUR AREA, WHICH YOU'D LIKELY GET WITH THE PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT.
AND YOU CAN SEE HE TALKS FURTHER ABOUT THE NEED FOR MORE DENSITY IN THE FIRST, ON PAGE 30 ON THE FIRST PART OF HIS EMAIL.
SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS IN FRONT OF YOU.
UH, THOSE ARE KIND OF THE FACTS.
AND, UH, AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE RAIL STATION DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WAS ADOPTED.
AND CHANGES IN ADVANCEMENTS LIKE THIS DID LEAD STAFF TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF OUR REQUEST.
AS THEY STATED, THE CURRENT CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE WARRANT A REEVALUATION OF NOT ONLY THE ZONING OF THE SITE, BUT THE DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS PREVIOUSLY IMPLO IMPOSED OVER TWO DECADES AGO.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
UH, LET'S KEEP THIS AT EIGHT, AT FIVE.
UM, IF WE NEED TO, I THINK THERE MIGHT BE SOME QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE.
OH, WE NEED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
YOU HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
MR. WEX MAXWELL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY.
UH, ANY OPPOSITION TO CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING? SEEING NONE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO Q AND A.
WHO WANTS TO START US OFF LOOKING AROUND? COMMISSIONERS? UM, UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND OKAY.
I HAVE, UH, SOME QUESTIONS FOR, UH, THE, THE, SOME OF THE HOMEOWNERS, UH, WHO SPOKE, UM, IF ANY OF THEM, UH, WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD OR, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THEM HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS FOR THEM.
AND THEN I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APP, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
I'LL START WITH THE APPLICANT.
A LITTLE TOO MUCH GOING ON IN MY HEAD RIGHT NOW.
UM, WITH, UH, THE LIFTING OF THE 40 FEET HEIGHT RESTRICTION, DO YOU KNOW HOW HIGH THE BUILDING WOULD ACTUALLY GO, OR IS THERE AN EXPECTED HEIGHT? SO, UH, THEIR GOAL WOULD BE TO HAVE, UM, THE ANSWER IS I DON'T KNOW.
AND THAT'S WHAT YOU, I MEAN, THIS IS ZONING AND WE DON'T
[01:15:01]
KNOW WHAT WE HAVE.AND SO YOU DON'T ENGAGE ARCHITECTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS TO SPEND ALL THE MONEY THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO DO A FULL ANALYSIS.
ONCE YOU GET YOUR ZONING RIGHT, YOU CAN THEN DIVE INTO IT, BUT COMPATIBILITY AS IT EXISTS NOW IS QUITE LIMITING.
WE'LL KNOW BY THE END OF TONIGHT WHETHER IT'S CHANGING.
UM, SO WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT MOST OF THE SITE HAS DIFFERENT LINES OF COMPATIBILITY THAT ARE CUTTING ACROSS IT IN LIMITING THE HEIGHT AND THE TERRAN OF THE SITE.
UM, COULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT? BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S SLOPES SORT OF, DOES THAT IMPACT HEIGHT IT SLOPES ABOUT, UH, IT DOES BECAUSE YOUR AVERAGE GRADE WILL BE MEASURED, UH, ADJACENT TO YOUR PROPERTY, AND THAT'S FROM WHICH YOU'LL MEASURE YOUR HEIGHT.
AND SO IT, IT, THE, THE GRADE IS PLUS OR MINUS, I THINK LIKE 10 FEET.
I I FORGOT THE EXACT NUMBER, I'LL FIND OUT QUICKLY.
UM, BUT IT IS A, A BIT OF A DROP ENOUGH TO, UH, SO THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL FLOOR ON THE BACK END THAT YOU WOULD SEE, YOU WOULDN'T SEE THAT YOU WOULDN'T OTHERWISE SEE ON THE FRONT END BECAUSE OF THAT DROP.
SO GIVEN SOME OF THESE FACTORS, UM, I WON'T ASK YOU FOR AN EXACT NUMBER, BUT DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF KIND OF BALLPARK, ROUGHLY WHERE YOU THINK THE HEIGHT WOULD LAND? CAN BE A RANGE? I, I, I REALLY DON'T.
UM, I KNOW THAT THE FRONT IS HIT PRETTY HARD, UH, SO YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT THE 40 TO 50 FEET ON THE FRONT END AND THEN THE BACK END.
IT'S JUST HARD TO TELL BASED ON WHERE THE COMPATIBILITY LINES AND WHETHER SOMEBODY'S GONNA STEP UP, STEP UP, TALLER ON THE BACK, LIKE, AND, AND WHETHER YOU'RE GONNA KEEP STEPPING UP OR JUST GO FLAT AT SOME POINT BECAUSE IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE TO KEEP DOING THE STAIR STEPPING IN THE BACK.
AND, UM, FOR ONE OF THE HOMEOWNERS, UH, UH, SURE.
I, I'M SORRY, I DON'T REMEMBER YOUR, DON'T RECALL YOUR NAME, BUT THANK YOU.
AND I REALLY APPRECIATED THE STATEMENT YOU READ BECAUSE, UH, IT LISTED OFF MANY FACTORS ABOUT SORT OF THE STRUCTURAL RACISM IN THE HISTORY OF THE CITY AND MANY THINGS THAT I AGREE WITH IN THE HISTORY OF VISA AUSTIN.
UM, I DO HAVE A QUESTION, THOUGH.
WHEN DID YOU MOVE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? WHY DOES THAT MATTER? UM, I'M JUST CURIOUS.
I'M REPRESENTING MY NEIGHBORHOOD, YEAH.
BUT, UM, WOULD YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE SHARING WITH US WHEN YOU MOVED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I DON'T THINK THAT MATTERS.
WELL, IT'S JUST BECAUSE THE WHOLE PROCESS OF GENTRIFICATION, I DON'T, MY SON WAS BORN HERE.
DOES THAT MATTER? NO, I'M JUST, I BELIEVE THE PROCESS OF GENTRIFICATION TOOK PLACE OVER TIME.
AND I'M JUST CURIOUS AT WHAT POINT IN THAT PROCESS YOU, UH, JOINED THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH YOU SPEAK SO PASSIONATELY FOR.
UM, BUT IF, BUT IF YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE ANSWERING THIS QUESTION, THAT QUESTION, THAT'S FINE.
I'M, COULD YOU SPEAK, TELL YOU HOW LONG SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT NO, I'M ASKING YOU THE PLAN.
I'M ASKING YOU, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
UM, SO MOVING ON, UH, COULD YOU ALSO, UM, EXPLAIN TO ME HOW AN ARBITRARY CAP AT 40 FEET IN ANY WAY PREVENTS SOME OF THE PROCESSES OF DISPLACEMENT, WHICH AS YOU NOTE, ARE ONGOING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT NOW WITH THE, WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
COULD YOU ARTICULATE WHY, UH, CAPPING IT AT 40 FEET EXACTLY.
DOES ANYTHING TO PREVENT THAT? IT CHANGES THE VALUE OF THE DIRT AND THE VALUE OF THE DIRT IS WHAT DRAWS IN SPECULATIVE BUYERS THAT ARE PICKING UP.
WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT THAT CHANGE, THAT THAT, THAT SOMETHING WILL BE BUILT THERE REGARDLESS? WOULD, OR DO YOU THINK THAT BY FIGHTING THIS YOU WON'T BE, SOMETHING CAN BE BUILT THERE TODAY.
INCLUDING SOMETHING AFFORDABLE, RIGHT.
AS WE'VE SEEN EVERYWHERE ELSE.
SO WHAT DOES THE CHANGE IN THE HEIGHT DO SPECIFICALLY? JUST THE HEIGHT CHANGES THE VALUE OF THE DIRT.
UM, AND THEN MY, MY, MY LAST QUESTION IS, UM, YOU KNOW, IS, IS THERE ANY ACCEPTABLE CHANGE IN HEIGHT THAT YOU WOULD FIND ACCEPTABLE? OR IS, IS IS 40? I, AGAIN, I REPRESENT MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS IF YOU'D LIKE TO POSTPONE A VOTE FOR TWO WEEKS AND THE APPLICANT COULD TRY TO WORK WITH US, WHICH THEY HAVE NOT DONE TODAY.
THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS, YOUR OWN QUESTIONS AS WELL.
UM, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND THOUGH, JUST ARTICULATING WHEN YOU MOVED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, I SAID THAT IN MY STATEMENT, I MOVED IN 2010.
WOULD YOU SAY THAT IN 2010, UH, THE PROCESS OF GENTRIFICATION OF THAT REGION OF THE CITY WAS ALREADY ONGOING? WOULD YOU SAY IT WAS COMPLETE? WOULD YOU SAY IT WAS IN ITS EARLY STAGES? I THINK THE CITY IS BEING GENTRIFIED ALL AROUND, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THIS HAS TO DO WITH GENTRIFICATION.
WELL, MY TIME RIGHT OUT, SORRY, CAN I STILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS MY TIME RIGHT OUT IF SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO TAKE MY TIME? YEAH, JUST HOLD ON.
WE NEED TO MOVE ON TO ANOTHER, UH, UH, MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR QUESTIONS.
UH, WHO'S NEXT? UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
COMMISSIONER BRIEFLY, IF YOU WOULD, AND I'D LIKE TO ASK STAFF A QUESTION.
OH, DID YOU WANNA FINISH SAYING ANYTHING? OH, SORRY, I THOUGHT YOU MEANT, YEAH, NO, UH, YEAH, SO THE, THE SITE, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE, AND THIS IS JUST MY OPINION, UH, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE, THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING WOULD BE ONLY 40 TO 50 FEET IF IT CAN GO UP TO 90,
[01:20:01]
BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT SLOPE IS 40 FEET FROM FRONT TO BACK OF THE PROPERTY.I THINK THAT'S A GROSS MISCALCULATION.
UM, SECONDLY, IN TERMS OF, OTHER THAN THE PROPERTY VALUE, THAT'S GOING TO BE INCREASED BY THIS ZONING REGULATION CHANGE, IF IT HAS PASSED, THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ALL AROUND HERE THAT ARE ONLY SINGLE STORY.
SO ACROSS THE STREET ON 12TH STREET, THOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE THE FORTIES.
THEY'RE STILL THE ORIGINAL HOMES.
THEY ARE ONE STORY BUILDINGS NEXT TO A POTENTIALLY 90 STORY BUILDING AS SEEN IN THE ZONING COMMISSION OR THE COMMISSION PLANNING THAT IS JUST NOT SCALABLE.
AND WE ARE NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT BY ANY MEANS.
WE HAVE SUCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN EAST AUSTIN, AND WE'VE WORKED WITH BUILDERS ALL AROUND TO BUILD UP TO 40 FEET WITH, UM, LOW INCOME HOUSING.
THANK THIS ISN'T ABOUT FOR THAT.
THAT QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF, UH, WHO COULD SPEAK TO THE FLUM AND WHEN THE FLUM WAS FIRST ADOPTED OPT ROUGHLY? THE PLAN WAS APPROVED IN 2002.
AND I'M CURIOUS, CAN YOU REMIND ME, I'M SORRY.
IT LOOKS LIKE, IT LOOKS LIKE THE SAME CITY MANAGER, SAME MAYOR BACK THEN, TOO.
UM, COULD YOU REMIND ME WHAT THE F STANDS FOR? FUTURE, FUTURE FUTURE LAND USE.
IT'S OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR AN AREA'S 21 YEARS OLD.
DO WE PLAN TO FIX THAT ANYTIME SOON TO MAYBE HAVE IT BE MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF TODAY'S NEEDS? I'M JUST LOOKING AT AUSTIN'S POPULATION WHEN THIS WAS ADOPTED WAS ROUGHLY 1.3 MILLION.
I'M JUST CURIOUS, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, STAFF IS NOT PLANNING TO INITIATE ANY UPDATES OF NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS.
I KNOW NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAMS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT A PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, I COULD WALK THEM THROUGH THE PROCESS.
I'M NOT SURE IF A UPDATE OF A FLUG WOULD BE CONSIDERED, UM, SOMETHING THAT THEY, THEY COULD DO.
I KNOW OUR POLICY UP TO THIS POINT HAS BEEN A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM CAN SUBMIT A PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION, AMENDING ONE ELEMENT OF THEIR PLAN.
UM, AND THAT WOULD INVOLVE ONE COMMUNITY MEETING WHERE THE PROPOSED UPDATE WOULD BE DISCUSSED.
AND I'M NOT SURE IF A WHOLE REVISION OF A FLU COULD BE DONE IN ONE COMMUNITY MEETING.
HAS THAT HAPPENED? HAS A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, HAS A NEIGHBORHOOD COME FORWARD SAYING, YOU KNOW, THE NEEDS OF THE CITY HAVE CHANGED A LOT AND WE KNOW WE NEED MORE HOUSING.
WE'D LIKE TO REALLY UPDATE OUR PLAN AND SEE A, YOU KNOW, A DOUBLING OF INTENSITY OR ENTITLEMENTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.
WE'VE HAD ONE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM OAK HILL WHERE THEY ADDED SOME, UH, TEXTS TO THEIR PLAN.
UM, POLIS ADDED A PARKS DEPARTMENT, I MEAN, SORRY, A PARKS CHAPTER TO THEIR PLAN.
AND MY MEMORY IS THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM PLAN AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED.
I GUESS I, I FEEL, I FEEL FOR FOLKS WHO THINK THAT A FLUM AND A PLAN THAT'S 20 SOME ODD YEARS OLD IS REPRESENTATIVE OF TODAY'S NEEDS, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND FRUSTRATIONS THERE.
CAN I CORRECT THAT? ALL RIGHT.
QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER AZAR FOLLOWED BY COMMISSION, UH, VICE CHAIR HEMPLE.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WE RECEIVED, ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE RECEIVED IS THAT FOLKS ARE TALKING ABOUT HOW RAISING THE CO HEIGHT HERE WOULD INADVERTENTLY RAISE THE HEIGHT OF THE SURROUNDING PARCELS.
MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD ONLY BE MAKING A DECISION ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC PARCEL.
NOW OF COURSE, THOSE OTHER OWNERS CAN APPLY FOR, YOU KNOW, REZONING.
BUT I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND THE ACTION THAT WE'LL BE TAKING TODAY.
IF WE WERE TO GO WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WOULD IT CHANGE THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS ON ANY OF THE SURROUNDING PARCELS? NO, IT WOULD NOT.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR ON THAT IF IN CASE WE WERE MAKING ANY IN INADVERTENT ACTION HERE.
UM, I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
UH, MR. VALEN, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO WALK US THROUGH YOUR COMMUNICATION AND CONVERSATION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, PLANNING CONTACT TEAM AND OTHERS THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS? UH, MICHAEL WAYLAN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
SO, UH, MAUREEN MEREDITH OR STAFF AT, UH, ORGANIZES A COMMUNITY MEETING, THE ONE THAT'S REFERENCED IN, UH, MR. AHMED'S, UH, EMAIL ON PAGE 30 AND PAGE 31 OF THE BACKUP.
AND THEN, UM, WE SAT DOWN WITH, UH, UM, THE GROUP THAT'S HERE, MR. PAGE ORGANIZED MEETING, AND WE SAT DOWN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AS WELL, AND,
[01:25:01]
UH, DISCUSSED THE VISION FOR THE PROPERTY.THE MU PRODUCT TALKED ABOUT THE 10 FOOT SLOPE FROM THE FRONT TO THE BACK.
I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE MENTIONED, UH, OTHER PROPERTIES LIKE, UH, UH, THE ONE IMMEDIATELY WEST THAT'S 20, 39 0.5 FEET TALL.
AND SO WE HAD THESE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING AND THEIR DESIRES TO SEE, UH, THINGS LIKE A GROCERY STORE AND MORE RETAIL ON THE GROUND FLOOR, WHICH IS WHAT VMU DELIVERS.
UH, TH THIS HEIGHT ISSUE HAS BEEN, I, I THINK, AN IMPASSIBLE ISSUE.
AND THERE'S AN IMPASSIBLE ISSUE.
YOU HAVE TO COME TO A DECISION MAKER, UM, TO HELP BREAK THAT IMPASSE.
I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY, UH, WHY WE'RE HERE IS THERE HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING OTHER THAN 40 FEET IS THE NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ARTICULATED REPEATEDLY, INCLUDING TODAY FROM, UH, MR. PAGE.
I'M HAPPY TO HEAR IF THEY'VE GOT IDEAS, BUT THAT, THAT'S WHERE WE'VE BEEN AND THAT'S JUST DOESN'T MAKE IT ECONOMICALLY POSSIBLE.
AS YOU HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED.
I KNOW COMMISSIONER CONLEY MENTIONED IN AN EARLIER CASE WITH INTEREST RATES RISING CONSTRUCTION COSTS NOT DROPPING MUCH.
UH, IT'S JUST BEEN, IT'S HARD TO MAKE SOMETHING WORK, UH, AT THIS POINT.
UM, HOPEFULLY YOU CAN HEAR ME.
MY, MY BANDWIDTH IS SPOTTY RIGHT NOW.
UM, BUT WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE, THE LIGHT RAIL STATION THAT'S ABOUT A MILE AWAY, WHICH I LIVE A VERY, VERY LONG WAY FROM A LIGHT RAIL STATION, SO A MILE.
UM, BUT I ALSO NOTICED THAT THERE'S A LOT OF BUS STOPS, AND I THINK THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
JUST I DIDN'T SEE MORE DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT THE, THE, UH, THE BUS ROUTES THAT RUN ALONG EAST 12TH OR FREQUENCY.
UM, I, I USED TO LIVE IN THIS PART OF TOWN, AND I REMEMBER THIS BEING ONE OF THE MAJOR CONNECTORS INTO DOWNTOWN.
IF SOMEONE COULD, UM, DO A QUICK EXPLANATION OF THAT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
I BELIEVE IT'S THE NUMBER TWO BUS RUNS DOWN 12TH STREET.
UM, LOOKING IN OUR, UH, TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS, UH, THERE ARE SIDEWALKS AND BIKE LANES ALONG 12TH STREET.
IT'S A LEVEL TWO LOCAL MOBILITY CORRIDOR.
IT IS NOT AN IMAGINE AUSTIN, UH, CORRIDOR.
IT IS PARTIALLY UP TO PAQUITO STREET, AND THEN IT ABRUPTLY STOPS, WHICH I FOUND A LITTLE BIT CURIOUS, BUT I DON'T KNOW THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT BEHIND THAT.
UM, BUT THERE ARE BUS ROUTES THAT CONNECT TO THE MLK STOP, UH, FROM ALL DIRECTIONS, INCLUDING MUELLER, WHICH IS, UH, VERY CLOSE TO THE SITE.
UH, ACC C UH, HAS A WHOLE CAMPUS THERE THAT ALSO WAS NOT THERE AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN.
IN THE LINE PARKWAY, UM, YES, THE BARBECUE TRAIL.
SOME PEOPLE CALL IT RED LINE PARKWAY.
THAT'S GOING TO TAKE YOU ALL THE WAY INTO DOWNTOWN AND, AND UP TO LEANDER TO FOLLOW THE RED LINE.
SO YOU'LL HAVE LOTS OF BIKE OPTIONS, WALKING OPTIONS, UH, BUS AND LIGHT RAIL OPTIONS IN A, IN A DECENT DISTANCE FROM THE SITE.
AND I DID NOTICE, UM, LOOKING AT THE STREET VIEW THAT THERE IS A VERY TALL BILLBOARD, UM, THAT I COULDN'T GET A MEASUREMENT ON IT, BUT IT ALREADY LOOKS LIKE IT'S AT ABOUT WHAT MR. WHELAN WAS SAYING, THE HEIGHT OF THE, THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE.
SO I JUST, IF THE BILLBOARD CAN GET TO THAT HEIGHT, I WOULD BE REALLY DISAPPOINTED IF WE COULDN'T GET RESIDENTIAL TO THAT HEIGHT TOO.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? WE'RE UP TO, I THINK THAT'S FOUR.
YEAH, I HAD A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, SPECIFICALLY I WAS CURIOUS IF YOU COULD TALK ABOUT THE AFFORDABILITY, BECAUSE I NOTICED THAT IN THE BACKUP THAT THERE WERE CONCERNS IF, IF WE, UM, ABOUT HOW THAT MIGHT WORK.
IF WE DIDN'T LIST LIFT THE CAP, YOU COULD SPEAK TO THAT.
WELL, UM, HOUSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO I, IT, IT, THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL OVERLAY, I BELIEVE DOES HAVE AN AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT TO IT.
THAT WOULD BE HALF OF THE SITE.
THE OTHER HALF IS JUST MU SO THERE WOULDN'T BE A NE YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE AFFORDABILITY AT ALL ON THAT SITE.
AND BOTH HAVE A SITE AREA LIMITATION OF, AS YOU ALL KNOW, 40, APPROXIMATELY 40 UNITS PER ACRE.
UH, OBVIOUSLY YOU WOULD HAVE HALF A SITE, WHICH IS ABOUT HALF AN ACRE, THAT WOULD HAVE 10%, HALF THE UNITS 40, SO 20, SO YOU'D HAVE TWO.
UM, AND, UH, I MEAN, AND PLUS THAT WOULDN'T EVEN BE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE.
THAT'S COMP THAT SIZE OF A, OF A, OF A DEVELOPMENT VMU HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL.
IT'S GEOGRAPHICALLY DISPERSED, AS WE ALL KNOW.
[01:30:01]
THE, THE, IT'S TYPICALLY NOT DONE WITH SUBSIDIES OR TAX CREDITS.IT'S DONE ON THE BACKS OF THE DEVELOPER, AND IT'S AT 60% MFI.
AND WE'VE SEEN IT ON SOUTH LAMAR.
WE'VE SEEN IT ON, ON, UH, IN OTHER LOCATIONS, AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
UM, THE OTHER, UH, UH, LOCATION, I DID ASK THE CLIENT OF WHERE THEIR 363 UNIT PROJECT IS, AND IT IS THE ONE, UM, THAT'S AT AIRPORT IN GOODWIN.
IT ALSO, I THINK IS A VMU AND HAS, THAT'S THE OTHER VMU ONE.
AND WE'LL HAVE 10% OF THE UNITS AT 60% MFI, WHICH THEY UNDERSTAND WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY HERE AS WELL.
UM, I DO WANNA, AGAIN NOTE THAT MORE THAN HALF, MORE THAN HALF THE SITE IS HIT BY COMPATIBILITY.
I MEAN, IT'S JUST, YOU CAN LOOK AT A MAP ON PROPERTY PROFILE.
YOU SEE THE SF THREE, YOU SEE THE RESIDENTIAL USES ACROSS THE STREET.
IT'S JUST, IT JUST GETS CLOBBERED LEFT AND RIGHT.
AND SO THAT'S ONE REASON WHY WE'RE SEEKING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO, UH, WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS TO GO TO VMU AND GET CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE.
THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS, CHAIR.
UM, I'VE GOT A FEW, UH, AND THEN THERE'S STILL A FEW MORE SPOTS IF, UH, FOLKS, SO STAFF, I HAD, UM, THIS, UH, YOUR COMMENT ABOUT HOW THE, IT, UH, THE TPN DESTINATION STOPS KIND OF SHORT.
UH, BUT I HAD SOME QUESTIONS, UM, ABOUT THE APPROPRIATE USE OF VMU AND VMU TWO ON WHAT STREET LEVEL, IF SOMEBODY CAN HELP ME WITH THAT.
SO V M U TWO, UH, IS AN OPTION FOR THIS SITE? IT IS.
IT'S ON CURRENT AND UNDER V M U ONE, IT WOULD BE 10% OF THE UNITS AT 80% UNDER V M U TWO, IT WOULD BE 12% AT 60% M F I, OR 10% AT 50% M F I, LET ME ROLL.
SO HAVE WE, AS FAR AS THE STREET LEVEL, DOES THAT, DID COUNCIL PROVIDE ANY DIRECTION IN THEIR ORDINANCE ABOUT STREET, UH, TYPOLOGY THAT, THAT YOU SHOULD NO, THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN FOR V M U TWO OF WHETHER IT WAS ADJACENT TO A LIGHT RAIL.
AND SO THIS IS, I DON'T KNOW IF IT ACTUALLY QUALIFIES AS BEING ADJACENT TO A LIGHT RAIL.
IF IT WAS ADJACENT TO THE LIGHT RAIL, THEN THERE WOULD BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT NUMBERS THAN THAT.
SO THERE ARE SOME CRITERIA ABOUT THE COUNCIL WANTED TO EXERCISE FOR THE VM U TWO.
IS THERE ANYTHING FOR VM U OR ARE THEY THE SAME CRITERIA? OH, VMU IS THE SAME CRITERIA.
SO IF, IF YOU'RE THIS LEVEL TWO STREET AND THE PROXIMITY OF AIRPORT IN YOUR STAFF OPINION, I GUESS THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE USE FOR, UH, VERTICAL MIX USE.
THERE IS SOME STREET LEVEL RETAIL ALREADY ON 12TH STREET, AND THERE IS, UH, SOME, AT LEAST THREE STORY BUILDINGS, UH, IN THAT VICINITY.
UM, INCREASING THE HEIGHT TO GET THE, THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS IN TERMS OF THE INCOME RESTRICTED, AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH NO COST, UH, TO, YOU KNOW, THE CITY IN TERMS OF SUBSIDIZING THOSE WOULD BE BE BENEFICIAL.
I, I THINK, I THINK BACK TO THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT THAT ESTIMATED THE COST OF SUBSIDIZING, UH, WHAT IS 60,000, UH, INCOME RESTRICTED, AFFORDABLE UNITS.
IN 2000, UH, 17 WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED, I HAD A COST OF 11 BILLION.
SO THAT COST HAS PROBABLY GONE UP SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE THEN.
UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY, I THINK I, SORRY.
DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? NO.
I APPRECIATE STAFF'S WORK ON THIS.
I AGREE WITH WHERE STAFF CAME FROM, AND I MEAN, JUST, YOU KNOW, THE TALKING POINTS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO HOMES ON THIS SITE.
IT'S, IT'S GOT DECENT TO REALLY GOOD TRANSIT COMPARED TO MOST OF AUSTIN.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IS OLD ENOUGH TO DRINK ALCOHOL AND IS NO LONGER A FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD.
DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE UPDATED.
HOPEFULLY WE AS A COMMUNITY CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT HOLISTICALLY.
UM, I LIKE TO THINK ABOUT THE FAMILIES THAT WILL LIVE IN THIS BUILDING, THE 80 FAMILIES VERSUS THE 40 THAT IT'S LIMITED TO TODAY.
UM, I KNOW SOMETIMES WE'RE A BIT MORE AFRAID OF A TALL BUILDING THAN WE ARE OF OUR LACK OF HOUSING IN AUSTIN, BUT THIS IS A GOOD CHANCE TO, OR GOOD, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD'VE BEEN BETTER TO, TO HOLISTICALLY AGAIN AS A CITY ADOPT A NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT MAPPED THE ENTIRE CITY AND GAVE US MORE ZONING EVERYWHERE VERSUS ALL THE ZONING WE HAVE TO DO ONE OFF.
AND YEAH, I'M EXCITED TO SEE THIS GET BUILT OUT AND JUST MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
ANY COMMISSIONERS, UH, WANNA SPEAK AGAINST THIS MOTION? SPEAK IN FAVOR.
UM, I'M GONNA GO AND SPEAK CUZ THIS ONE, I,
[01:35:01]
I HEAR THE, THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I'M SEEING THIS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.WE HAVE OVERLAYS THAT ARE LIMITING HEIGHT TO 40 FEET ALONG IN AREAS WHERE WE REALLY DO NEED ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.
AND THIS IS, UH, A RECURRING, UM, KIND OF RECURRING, UH, SENTIMENT FROM, YOU KNOW, BASED ON NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS AND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS.
BUT THE DIRECTION, I THINK, COUNCIL, WHAT WE'VE SEEN WITH VM U TWO AND THE, UH, EFFORTS TO TRY TO GET MORE DENSITY IN AND AROUND AREAS WHERE WE HAVE BUS BUSES AND PLAN TRANSIT, UM, I, IN MY MIND SUPPORTS, UH, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
SO, UM, WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE INTO HAVING THESE KIND OF CASES THAT ARE COMING UP QUITE FREQUENTLY.
BUT THIS ONE, I THINK, UH, HITS THE METRICS, UH, FOR INCREASE IN THE HEIGHT AND, UH, ADDITIONAL, UH, UNITS FOR FAMILIES TO LIVE IN.
SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS, UM, THIS MOTION.
ANY MEMBER SPEAKING AGAINST, WE HAVE ONE MORE SLOT FOR SPEAK IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER CONLEY.
OKAY, I'LL, I'LL KEEP MY REMARKS SUPER BRIEF.
I DON'T THINK A WHOLE LOT NEEDS TO BE SAID BEYOND WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID.
UM, BUT I, I WILL SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I DO HEAR AND APPRECIATE MANY OF THE CONCERNS.
I'M, I'M NOT CONVINCED BY ANY DATA, UM, THAT, THAT SETTING A ARBITRARY LIMIT ON HEIGHT TO 40 FEET HAS IN ANY WAY HELPED PREVENT DISPLACEMENT FROM NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO ARTICULATE THAT I STRONGLY HOPE THAT THE APPLICANT WILL INCLUDE THE UNITS ON SITE, THE AFFORDABLE UNITS ON SITE, WHICH THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS ARTICULATED IT NEEDS.
AND I BELIEVE OUR VM U TWO PROGRAM IS ONE OF THE FEW BONUS PROGRAMS THAT'S ACTUALLY PRODUCING, UM, AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT AREN'T DIRECTLY SORT OF SUBSIDIZED RIGHT NOW IN THE CITY.
SO I JUST WANT TO ARTICULATE THAT AND HOPE, HOPE WE CAN ALL HOPE FOR IT.
ANY MORE SPEAKERS AGAINST, UM, CHAIR, TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS FOR ITEM SEVEN AND EIGHT.
YOU WERE TAKEN UP THE PLAN AND THE ZONING CASE TOGETHER.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
UH, THOSE ARE IN THE DI IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONNOLLY FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UH, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND, UH, SEEING THAT'S FIVE AND THOSE ON THE, UH, VIRTUAL, UH, IN FAVOR.
UH, NINE ZERO IF MY COUNT'S RIGHT, THAT MOTION PASSES.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, UH, LET'S SEE.
WE ALREADY TOOK UP 10 AND LET'S SEE,
[21. Imagine Austin: Imagine Austin Year 10 Report]
WE ARE NOW, OH, THIS IS THE IMAGINE AUSTIN TENURE UPDATE.UH, SO ON THIS ITEM, UM, STAFF, I THINK, I'M SORRY, MIGHT I ASK A QUESTION HERE? YES.
COMMISSIONERS ARE, UM, DO WE HAVE, UH, PUBLIC SPEAKERS SIGNED UP ON BOTH THIS AND THE SAFE FENCING REGULATION? ITEM J CHAIR COMMISSION LEE IS ON ANDREW RIVERA.
YES, WE DO HAVE SPEAKERS ON BOTH ITEMS. APPRECIATE IT.
I WAS TRYING TO SEE IF WE COULD PRIORITIZE, BUT I'M GONNA APPRECIATE THE SAFE FENCING FOLKS FOR STAYING.
CHAIR, IF YOU COULD JUST BEAR ME, UH, WITH ME TWO MINUTES CHAIR.
COULD WE MAYBE CALL A FIVE MINUTE RECESS? YEAH, I WAS GONNA, ALL RIGHT.
UM, I'M HEARING A, UH, REQUEST FOR A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
SORRY TO BRING YOU UP HERE AND BREAK, BUT LET'S, UH, BRING FOLKS BACK.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UM, JUST 7 55, UH, GET THE LATEST SO WE CAN GET BACK BEFORE THEN.
SO SORRY, CHAIR COMMISSION LADIES AND ANDREW.
UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, UH, 10 MINUTES WILL SUFFICE.
LET'S, UH, I THINK WE'LL NEED IT.
UM, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND LET'S STAFF AGAIN, WE'LL FOLLOW UP WITH Q AND A.
GOOD EVENING, AND THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
I'M A DIVISION MANAGER THAT OVERSEES COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING FOR THE AUSTIN PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
TONIGHT, I'M HAPPY TO BE PROVIDING AN UPDATE ON THE PROGRESS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND HOW WE AS A CITY ARE GEARING UP TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE NEXT STEPS RELATED TO OUR PLAN.
IMAGINE AUSTIN ARTICLE 10 OF THE CITY CHARTER, IN PART ASKS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT LEAST ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS, PREPARE AN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON JUNE 15TH OF THIS YEAR.
IMAGINE AUSTIN TURNS 11 YEARS OLD.
THE DOCUMENTS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINISHED IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR ARE IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE CHARTER REQUIREMENTS.
[01:40:01]
THIS IS THE SECOND OF THE FIVE YEAR APPRAISALS OF IMAGINE AUSTIN.THE YEAR 10 REPORT IS DESIGNED MUCH LIKE THE YEAR FIVE REPORT DEVELOPED AND PRESENTED IN 2017, LIKE THE YEAR FIVE, THE YEAR 10 REPORT INCLUDES A POPULATION AND JOBS REPORT.
PRIORITY PROGRAM UPDATES A MEASURING SUC SUCCESS SUCCESS SEC SECTION, TONGUE TWISTER.
THE YEAR 10 REPORT ALSO CONCLUDES WITH A LOOKING AHEAD SECTION WITH STAFF'S DRAFT DRAFT WORK FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS TO GENERATE THE YEAR 10 REPORT, THE PRIORITY PROGRAMS OR THOSE GROUPS CONVENED WITH THE OVERARCHING GOAL TO IMPLEMENT.
IMAGINE AUSTIN WE'RE ASKED TO PROVIDE UPDATES ON PROGRESS TO THE COMP PLAN'S IMPLEMENTATION BEYOND KEY HIGHLIGHTS AND CHALLENGES PRIORITY PROGRAM CHAMPIONS WERE ASKED TO NAME ONE GAME CHANGER, OR ONE THING THAT HAS HAD OR WILL HAVE THE MOST LASTING IMPACT OR POSITIVE EFFECT ON IMPLEMENTING OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I'LL PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE GAME CHANGERS FOR THE COMMISSION.
NOW PROJECT CONNECT AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOBILITY BOND INVESTMENTS WAS THE IDENTIFIED COMPACT AND CONNECTED GAME CHANGER.
BUT THESE INVESTMENTS IN PART, THE CITY BUILT 220 LINEAR MILES OF BIKE LANES, 30 MILES OF SIDEWALKS, AND THE QUARTER CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM HAS DELIVERED IMPROVEMENTS ON NINE MAJOR ROADWAYS.
THE CREATIVE ECONOMY IDENTIFIED THE CULTURAL TRUST WITHIN THE AUSTIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND NAMED THE SUCCESS OF PROPOSITION B IN 2018.
AS THEIR GAME CHANGERS WITH THOSE CRITICAL ADDITIONS, THE A E D C CAN THROUGH PURCHASES AND LEASES, CREATE AFFORDABLE ART SPACES FOR ARTISTS AND ART ORGANIZATIONS.
AND NINE IDENTIFIED PR BOND PROJECTS ARE UNDERWAY WITH THE FIRST ANTICIPATED FOR COMPLETION IN 2025, TOOLS GEARED TOWARDS HIGHLIGHTING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DISPARITIES AND THEN MINIMIZING THOSE DISPARITIES THROUGH ACTION ON A WORK PLAN WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE'S PRIORITY PROGRAM GAME CHANGER.
PLANS AND REPORTS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN AND IMPLEMENTATION INITIATED TO SUPPORT THE OUTCOMES OF CREATING MORE EQUITABLE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE.
THE EQUITY ASSESSMENT TOOL WAS USED IN SUPPORT OF DEVELOPING A STRENGTHS AND GAP ASSESSMENT.
THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN WAS PUBLISHED AS WAS THE PLAN, OUR PARKS, OUR FUTURE, AND A NUMBER OF OTHER EQUITY FORWARD GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS. THE WATER FORWARD PLAN IS THE GAME CHANGER FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER.
AN OUTCOME OF THE WATER FORWARD PLAN IS THE INITIATION OF THE MY ATX WATER PROGRAM.
THE CITY'S SMART METER SYSTEM INITIATED IN 2020.
AS OF OCTOBER, 2022, ROUGHLY 75,000 METERS HAD BEEN REPLACED THROUGH THIS PROGRAM INITIATED AS PART OF THE WATER FORWARD PLANS IMPLEMENTATION IS THE A AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY PILOT WITH PHASE ONE OF THE PILOT ANTICIPATED FOR COMPLETION IN 2024.
AS FOR THE HEALTHY AUSTIN GAME CHANGER, IT'S BEEN INTEGRATING EQUITABLE HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS IN PROGRAM AND POLICY MAKING DECISIONS ACROSS THE CITY AND COUNTY.
THIS CAN BE SEEN IN THE INTEGRATION OF HEALTH DISPARITY CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION IN THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN.
AUSTIN'S STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN, VISION ZERO, AND AUSTIN'S ACTION PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS AMONG OTHERS.
IN TERMS OF THE HOUSEHOLD AFFORDABILITY GAME CHANGER, IT WAS PROJECT CONNECT'S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT FUNDS THAT WERE NAMED USING TOOLS LIKE THE NOTHING ABOUT US WITHOUT US REPORT, AND THE RACIAL EQUITY ANTI-DISPLACEMENT TOOL THAT WAS INFORMED BY RACIAL EQUITY CATALYSTS.
THE CITY IS ABLE TO GUIDE EQUITABLE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DESIGNATED $300 MILLION APPROVED FOR THE ANTI-DISPLACEMENT FUNDS
AND LASTLY, THE AUSTIN METRO AREA COMMUNITY WORKFORCE PLAN IS THE GAME CHANGER FOR THE WORKFORCE SMALL BUSINESS AND EDUCATION PRIORITY PROGRAM.
USING THIS PLAN AS A FOUNDATION, 15 MILLION WAS DEDICATED TO SUPPLEMENTING WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES AND THE CITY AND COUNTY COORDINATE WITH WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS CAPITAL AREA TO PROVIDE TRAINING AND TO BE LEVERAGED AS A CAREER HUB TO LOCALS.
LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT COMES NEXT AS WE APPROACH THE 15 YEAR MARK FOR IMAGINE AUSTIN.
IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, STAFF HAVE IDENTIFIED A DRAFT WORK PLAN FOR WHAT WE'RE EXCITED TO ACCOMPLISH.
FIRST, TO COORDINATE NEXT STEPS HOLISTICALLY, WE'LL COLLABORATE WITH PARTNER DEPARTMENTS AND PRIORITY PROGRAMS MORE REGULARLY.
THIS WILL BE TO ENSURE ALIGNMENT
[01:45:01]
OF ACTIVITY WITHIN OUR INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENTS AND ESTABLISH AND EXECUTE A COLLABORATIVE WORK PLAN FOR IMAGINE AUSTIN IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.NEXT, WE'RE AIMING TO STRATEGICALLY UPDATE AND IMPLEMENT IMAGINE AUSTIN FOR EQUITY, AFFORDABILITY, RESILIENCE, SUSTAINABILITY, AND USER FRIENDLINESS FOR THE PUBLIC AND FOR STAFF.
OUR THIRD GOAL FOR THIS WORK PLAN IS TO ENSURE AN EQUITABLE APPROACH TO PLAN MAKING IS ESTABLISHED IN ALL THE WORK THAT WE DO, AND THAT AN EQUITY LENS IS USED TO SUPPORT DECISION MAKING WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THOSE PLANS.
FINALLY, AS THERE WAS A PERMANENT PAUSE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE, STAFF WILL WORK WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE AND CODE CABINET TO EVALUATE AND UPDATE KEY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
THE CITY HAS COME A LONG WAY AND THE NEARLY 11 YEARS SINCE IMAGINE AUSTIN'S PUBLICATION STAFF ARE EXCITED FOR WHERE THE NEXT STEPS WILL TAKE US TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT STAFF, RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TAKE ACTION BY TRANSMITTING A MEMO, THE YEAR 10 REPORT AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO COUNCIL TO MEET CITY CHARTER REQUIREMENTS.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME.
AND WITH THAT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO SEND THE COMMENTS AND TAKE QUESTIONS.
AT THIS TIME, I THINK WE'LL, UH, TAKE SPEAKERS.
WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE, UH, TELECONFERENCE, UH, BEGINNING WITH MS. CHRISSY O'BRIEN, STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
UM, WE'LL COME BACK TO MS. BRIAN, WE'LL MOVE ON TO MR. CHRIS.
UH, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR THE WORK THAT YOU DO.
UM, THIS, UH, THIS IS PUBLIC SERVICE.
I'M THE PRESIDENT OF AFSCME LOCAL 1624 UNION.
THAT REP REPRESENTS THE WORKERS AT THE COUNTY AND THE CITY HERE.
UM, I, I WANT, WANNA SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS.
I LOVE SEEING GOVERNMENT DO LONG-TERM PLANNING.
UH, THERE IS ONE THING THAT I THINK, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ADDED TO THIS ANALYSIS.
UH, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH, UH, THE, IN THE, UH, PROPOSED INTERIM CITY MANAGER'S PLANS ON, ON RETURN BACK TO THE OFFICE.
UH, I THINK THERE ARE SOME IMPACTS THAT NOT ONLY AFFECT OUR WORKERS, BUT ALSO THEIR HOUSEHOLDS AND THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE AS PUBLIC SERVANTS WERE CALLED THE GOOD STEWARDSHIP TO THE ASSETS AND RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE.
UH, AND IT IMPACTS IN SOME AREAS.
THE, UH, A S M P, UH, TALKS ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE GROWTH AND TELEWORK US GETTING TO A, YOU KNOW, A 50 50 CITY, UM, FORCING PEOPLE BACK TO THE OFFICE DOES NOT SET A GOOD EXAMPLE TO OTHER LARGE EMPLOYERS IN OUR AREA WHO WE'RE TRYING TO SAY, HEY, STRIVE FOR MORE, UH, HOUSEHOLD AFFORDABILITY.
UH, THIS WILL FORCE MANY STAFF WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE NEAR THE CENTRAL CITY TO SPEND MORE, UH, MORE MONEY ON GAS TRANSPORT.
UH, IT GOES CONTRARY TO THOSE, THOSE GOALS, AND THAT'S LESS MONEY THAT THEY HAVE FOR, UH, HOUSING.
UM, THE COST OF, UH, THE REAL ESTATE OF THE CITY HAS, RIGHT? UH, IF YOU'RE FILLING BUILDINGS, UH, WITH PEOPLE WHO COULD BE TELEWORKING, YOU'RE SPENDING MORE ON BUILDINGS, NOT TO MENTION THE HEATING AND COOLING COSTS INVOLVED WITH THAT.
UM, AND THEN, UH, OTHER CONCEPTS LIKE, UH, THE, THE RESULTING BRAIN DRAIN, UM, IMPACTS ON LIKE, PERMITTING EFFICIENCY.
IF ALL YOUR ENGINEERS AND ALL YOUR PERMITTING PEOPLE GO TO OTHER EMPLOYERS BECAUSE OF MORE FAVORABLE POLICIES THAT WILL IMPACT THE WORK THAT NEEDS TO GET DONE, UH, IN A CITY THAT FACES ISSUES THAT Y'ALL ARE, UH, MORE AWARE OF THAN I AM.
SO MY ASK WOULD BE JUST TO, UH, IN, IN THE VERY GOOD WORK OF LOOKING TO THESE LONG-TERM PLANS AND AT THIS ANNIVERSARY POINT, SAYING, THIS IS WHERE WE ARE AND HERE'S THE, THE LAY ON THE ON THE LAND.
UH, INCLUDE ALSO ANALYSIS OR LOOK FOR WAYS THAT WE COULD DO, UH, EFFECTIVE DATABASE ANALYSIS ON THE IMPACTS OF WHAT THE CITY DOES IN OUR EXAMPLE, UH, TO OTHER EMPLOYERS.
YOU MIGHT ADD THAT TODAY AT NOON, UH, SEE, UH, THAT TRAVIS COUNTY WAS RECEIVING AN AWARD FROM NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES FOR THEIR LONG PROCESS.
THEY BROUGHT IN DELOITTE, GOT CONSULTANTS, LOOKED AT HOW THEY COULD HAVE MORE TELEWORKING, UH, AND, UH, IMPLEMENTED A PLAN THAT IS NOW WINNING THEM AWARDS AND RECOGNITION.
[01:50:01]
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOMETHING SIMILAR AT THE CITY.NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM MS. CHRISY O'BRIEN.
I'M STAFF FOR THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES.
I'M SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF ITEM 21, AND I AM A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT FIVE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING AND FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK CITY STAFF FOR THEIR WORK TO MAKE THIS MEETING POSSIBLE.
UM, I WANNA START OUT JUST BY TALKING ABOUT THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN, THE A S M P, UM, WHICH I BELIEVE IS THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF IMAGINE AUSTIN, WHICH PASSED IN 2019.
UM, SO IN THIS, UH, MOBILITY PLAN, AUSTIN SET A GOAL FOR 50 50 MODE SHARE BY 2039, MEANING 50% OF PEOPLE IN AUSTIN WOULD COMMUTE TO WORK BY SOME OTHER METHOD OTHER THAN DRIVING ALONE.
AT THE TIME THE PLAN WAS ADOPTED IN 20 19, 70 4% OF PEOPLE DROVE ALONE TO WORK IN AUSTIN BY REDUCING THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE DRIVING ALONE TO WORK.
AUSTIN'S GOAL IS TO KEEP APPROXIMATELY THE SAME NUMBER OF VEHICLES ON THE ROAD, EVEN AS A CI CITY'S POPULATION, UH, CONTINUES ITS RAPID GROWTH, THEN THE PANDEMIC HAPPENED, AND THE NATURE OF WORK CHANGED FOR PEOPLE IN AUSTIN AND AROUND THE COUNTRY.
UH, WELL THAT'S, IT DID CHANGE FOR AUSTIN AND AROUND THE COUNTRY.
AND WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS REALIZED THEY COULD BE JUST AS PRODUCTIVE FROM HOME AS THEY WERE FROM THE OFFICE, WHILE REDUCING TIME LOSS IN TRAFFIC.
UM, AND IT'S, AND OBVIOUSLY TELEWORK APPEARS TO BE HERE, UH, TO STAY.
SO FROM THE 2021 US CENSUS, AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY ESTIMATES SHOW THAT 38.8% OF AUSTIN'S TELEWORK, WHICH PUTS THE CITY ON THE PRECIPICE OF IT, ASMP GOAL, THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE DRIVING ALONE TO WORK IS DOWN TO 51.1%.
SO THE GOAL TO REDUCE CONGESTION AND GIVE PEOPLE MORE OPTIONS ON THEIR COMMUTE TAKES THE SUPPORT OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY.
BUT AUSTIN HAS TO SHOW IT IS SERIOUS ABOUT THIS GOAL GOAL BY STARTING WITH ITS OWN EMPLOYEES.
THE CITY SHOULD BE DOING EVERYTHING IN ITS POWER TO GIVE EMPLOYEES AS MANY OPTIONS AS POSSIBLE, INCLUDING TELEWORK, UM, TO REDUCE CONGESTION ON THE ROADS FOR EVERYONE.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER RECENTLY ANNOUNCED A TELEWORK PROPOSAL THAT WOULD REQUIRE EMPLOYEES TO BE IN THE OFFICE THREE DAYS A WEEK AT MINIMUM, REGARDLESS OF THEIR ABILITY TO CLOCK HOURS REMOTELY.
WE BELIEVE THIS IS A STEP BACKWARDS THEN HINDERS THE PRO HINDERS THE PROGRESS WE HAVE MADE SO FAR IN MOBILITY.
OUR ASK OF YOU TONIGHT IS TO INCLUDE TELEWORK IN THE IMAGINE AUSTIN REPORT, THIS DATA ON TELEWORK, WHAT WE'VE DONE, WHAT WE HOPE TO DO MUST BE INCLUDED AS IT PROVES TO BE A MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO MEETING OUR MOBILITY AND OUR CLIMATE GOALS.
AND I ALSO DID WANNA POINT OUT AS SUSPENDED THAT THE TRAVIS COUNTY GOVERNMENT COURT, UH, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS WERE JUST AWARDED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES FOR THEIR STRONG TELEWORK GOALS TO GET 75% OF ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES ON A PERMANENT RE REMOTE REMOTE WORK SCHEDULE.
THAT IS THE EXAMPLE WE SHOULD BE LEADING WITH HERE AT THE CITY.
AND I ASK YOU AGAIN TO PLEASE INCLUDE TELEWORK THE DATA THAT WAS JUST LAID OUT AND THE STR UH, STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN IN THE IMAGINE AUSTIN REPORT.
THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME.
UM, CHAIR, I'LL TRY, UM, SEE IF, UH, CHRIS STK IS PRESENT.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
UM, SO JUST BEFORE WE GET INTO Q AND A, I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE PROPOSED GLAND.
HERE IS, UH, LATER IN THE EVENING, WE'RE GONNA SEE IF WE CAN GET A TEMPORARY MEMBER FOR THE, UH, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE TO FILL IN UNTIL, UH, WE GET, UM, OUR LAST FINAL PLANNING COMMISSIONER, UM, APPROVED BY COUNCIL.
UH, BUT WE HAVE SOME IMPORTANT ITEMS THAT ARE COMING BEFORE THAT, UH, JOINT COMMITTEE.
THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE BUDGET ITEMS COME, UH, PROBABLY SOMETIME IN THE SUMMER AS WELL.
UH, TWO IMPORTANT ITEMS. UM, I PROPOSE, I'M GONNA PROPOSE THAT WE DELAY IN THE ACTION ON THIS STILL JUNE 27TH WITH THE IDEA THAT WE, UM, THERE'LL BE A MEETING OF THE COMP PLAN SOMETIME IN LATE JUNE.
SO THAT'S, UH, AND IF WE CAN'T GET IT, THEN, UH, WE'LL TAKE IT UP, UM, IN OUR FIRST MEETING IN JULY.
UH, SO THAT'S KIND OF THE PLAN HERE, BUT WE HAVE STAFF HERE WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS, UM, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING THEM HERE.
[01:55:01]
UH, WHO WANTS TO TAKE THE FIRST QUESTION? I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND JUMP IN HERE AND, UH, THEN OKAY.AND THEN COMMISSIONER CONNELLEY.
DID YOU HAVE ANY I'LL GET IN, I'LL JUMP IN.
SO MY FIRST ONE IS I HEARD, I HEARD PERMANENT PAUSE OF THE LAND CODE AND, AND MORE OF AN INCREMENTAL APPROACH.
I DID NOT HEAR ANY, UM, FIVE YEARS, FIVE YEAR PLAN, NOT ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO REWRITE TO COME UP WITH A NEW LAND CODE.
THAT, UM, IS THAT, WHERE IS THAT COMING FROM? IS THAT JUST CURRENT, THE REED OF CURRENT COUNCIL OR STAFF? UM, WHY AREN'T WE TRYING TO PRODUCE A REVISED LAND CODE IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS? DO DO WE KNOW, I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE STEVIE GREATHOUSE WHO OVERSEES THE CODE REWRITE ONLINE.
WE MIGHT, I CAN ALSO SPEAK TO IT AS WELL.
UH, WELL, STEVIE MAY BE ABLE TO JOIN US.
I'M ANDREA BATES, INTERIM ASSISTANT DIRECTOR WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
SO OUR PROPOSAL IS OPEN AT THIS TIME.
IT IS A PREVIEW, AND WE KNOW THAT THE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ARE ONGOING, UH, WITH COUNCIL, WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, WITH STAFF.
AND SO WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING A PARTICULAR APPROACH AT THIS POINT, SIMPLY INDICATING THAT THE NEED FOR REVISIONS REMAIN, OF COURSE.
AND IT WAS A CORE COMPONENT OF IMAGINE AUSTIN AS ADOPTED.
AND SO LOOKING AHEAD, WE WOULD BE SEEKING SOME PATH FORWARD.
AND SO NOT OPINING ON A COMPREHENSIVE OR INCREMENTAL APPROACH, BUT RECOGNIZING THE NEED AND BEING OPEN TO THOSE, UH, COMMUNITY DISCUSSIONS.
UM, AND I WOULD, UM, STEPH, DO YOU WANNA COMMENT ON THE, I I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE THE, THE TELEWORK POLICIES ARE EMBEDDED.
UM, IS IT THAT IN THE CLIMATE PLAN OR WHERE, WHERE DO WE, UH, HAVE ALL THESE TELEWORK GOALS, UH, AS P UH, DO YOU, UM, COULD WE KIND OF NEW, UH, LINE OUT WHERE THOSE ARE INCLUDED AND WHAT SOME OF THOSE POLICIES MIGHT BE? BECAUSE WE HAD SOME SPEAKERS SPEAKING TO THAT, AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO GET, UM, WHERE THOSE ARE REPRESENTED IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TOOLS? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
AND I DON'T KNOW ALL THE PLACES THAT WE, WHERE WE COULD TIE THE IMPACTS OF TELEWORKING TO ADOPTED PLANNING DOCUMENTS.
THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE COULD LOOK INTO.
I KNOW THE A S M P, AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN WAS CITED AS A DOCUMENT THAT COULD, UH, THAT RECOGNIZES THE NEED FOR MODE SHARE.
UH, BUT I DON'T KNOW, I CAN'T THINK OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD ALL THE OTHER PLACES WHERE THERE MIGHT BE A NEXUS.
CHAIR, COMMISSION, LAY AND, UH, THERE, THERE TRIAL REFERENCES AND THE AS M P AND I CAN, UH, PROVIDE THE COMMISSION THAT INFORMATION.
UH, THAT WE HAD COMMISSIONER AZAR AND I THINK, UH, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY.
THANK, WE SHOULD CHAIR, I'LL, I'LL JUST START OFF BY REALLY JUST CONGRATULATING STAFF ON THE WORK.
AND I WANNA SAY, YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE SUCCESSES THAT HAVE HAPPENED, AND NO WAY DOES THIS REPORT COVER ALL THE GREAT WORK THAT OUR STAFF AND CITY HAVE DONE IN ALL THESE YEARS.
OF COURSE, I, I AGREE WITH, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, CHAIR, THAT REALLY WE HAVE A VERY, THERE'S AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, WHICH IS ONE OF OUR BIGGEST FAILURES, I WOULD SAY, WHICH IS THE REVISED REGULATIONS PRIORITY FROM, FROM OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AND I WOULD HONESTLY AT THIS POINT SAY WE ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT CLEARLY SAID THAT REVISING REGULATIONS WAS A PRIORITY AND WE'VE NOT MET THAT PRIORITY.
AND I'M GONNA SAY THIS IS NOT A FAILURE FOR OUR STAFF OR DECISION MAKERS, OR EVEN MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
THIS IS TRULY A COLLECTIVE FAILURE OF OUR COMMUNITY TO WORK ON THIS PRIORITY, WHICH WAS OUTLINED IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
UM, I WILL SAY THAT I THINK ONE OF THE, SO I'LL MAKE A COMMENT FIRST AND THEN JUMP INTO SOME QUESTIONS.
I DO SEE A LOT OF GREAT WORK AROUND EQUITY AND FOCUS ON SORT OF, YOU KNOW, DISPLACEMENT PRESSURES AND HISTORICAL RACIAL IMPACTS THAT WE'VE HAD.
I WOULD ALSO WOULD'VE LOVED TO SEE SOME REAL FOCUS ON HOW DO WE EXPAND OPPORTUNITY? HOW DO WE LOOK AT THOSE AREAS OF HISTORICAL EXCLUSIONS AS IDENTIFIED BY OUR STAFF OURSELVES? YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE NOW HAVE MAPS WHERE WE SAY THESE ARE AREAS OF HISTORICAL EXCLUSION.
HOW DO WE ADDRESS THOSE? HOW DO WE LINK PEOPLE TO MORE AREAS OF OPPORTUNITY AS HIGHLIGHTED IN OUR STRATEGIC HOUSING MOBILITY PLAN? SO I JUST REALLY HOPE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS THIS MOVES FORWARD.
SO REALLY MY QUESTION IS ON THE CREATED CITYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE MAPS.
SO THE FLU QUESTION, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT THING WE DO NEED TO DO.
AND I THINK STAFF IN SOME WAYS, RIGHTFULLY SAYS WE WANNA START WITH, UM,
[02:00:01]
YOU KNOW, FLUS WHERE THEY DO NOT EXIST TODAY.BUT TODAY WE REALLY SAW, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, WE HAVE AN ISSUE THAT WE DO HAVE FLUS ALSO THAT ARE NEARLY TWO DECADES OLD.
IT'S HARD TO KEEP UP AS OUR OWN SORT OF DATA FOR POPULATION SHOWS WE'RE NOT ABLE TO KEEP UP.
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO STAFF WOULD BE, WHAT DOES THE TIMELINE LOOK LIKE FOR DOING THE FLUG WORK AND HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT WHILE WE'RE PRIORITIZING AREAS THAT DO NOT HAVE FLUGS, HOW DO WE UPDATE THOSE, UPDATE THOSE AREAS THAT HAVE REALLY OLD FLUBS AS WELL? SO I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF HAS A RESPONSE.
I THINK A LOT IS, UH, DEPENDENT ON SORT OF THE OUTCOMES OF THE, YOU KNOW, NEXT STEPS AND, AND DISCUSSIONS.
ON THE SCALE OF THE UPDATE ITSELF, YOU KNOW, AS UH, ANDREA MENTIONED, WE ARE IN A DRAFT WORK PLAN PHASE RIGHT NOW.
UM, UH, AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT MAY CONTRIBUTE TO SIZE AND SCALE, BUT TO ADDRESS YOUR DIRECT QUESTION, UM, WE WOULD LIKE TO COMPLETE AN UPDATE OF IMAGINE AUSTIN IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS, UM, AT SOME LEVEL AND SCALE.
UM, AND INCLUDED IN THAT WOULD BE THE UPDATE TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
MY SECOND QUESTION WOULD BE, UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD WITH LAB DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, BUT I GUESS THERE'S ALSO THIS LIKE CHICKEN AND EGG CONVERSATION WHERE WE WOULD HOPEFULLY WANT REVISED REGULATIONS THAT WE COULD THEN IMPLEMENT THROUGH FUTURE LAND USE MAPS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO, IS THE STAFF GIVEN ANY THOUGHT TO HOW DO WE HANDLE THIS ISSUE OF NOT HAVING REVISED REGULATIONS AS WE WORK ON FUTURE LAND USE MAPS? I'LL START AND THEN I'LL PASS IT OVER TO STEVIE GREATHOUSE AS WELL TO SORT OF TALK ABOUT, UM, THE TRANSITION FROM THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OVER, UH, INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS UPDATE.
UM, WE SEE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS BEING SORT OF THE 30,000 FOOT LOOK, UM, OF GROWTH, UM, AND, UH, FUTURE LAND USE IN THE CITY WHERE THE LAND USE REGULATIONS ARE ARE GOING A LITTLE BIT DEEPER, UM, THAN THAT.
SO WE SEE THIS AS AN INITIAL PHASE, AN IMPORTANT PHASE.
UM, AND UH, WE SEE THE ABSENCE OF A FUTURE LAND USE MAP IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS ONE THAT IS, UM, NOTICEABLE, MEANINGLY MEANINGFULLY ABSENT, AND, UM, VERY DIFFERENT FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES AROUND THE COUNTRY.
STEVIE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? SURE.
STEVIE GREATHOUSE DIVISION MANAGER, UM, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND I MISSED ANDREA'S ANSWER AS I WAS LOGGING IN.
SO I KNOW SHE GAVE A BRILLIANT ANSWER, UM, ABOUT SORT OF THE INCREMENTAL CODE UPDATE VERSUS, UM, OVERALL CODE REFORM.
BUT I THINK IN GENERAL, AND ANDREA, I CAN TYPE IN IF I, UM, DEVIATE ANYTHING FROM THE ANSWERS HAS ALREADY PROVIDED.
BUT IN GENERAL, THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAVE BEEN HAVING WITH COUNSEL THAT REALLY SORT OF BEGAN TODAY DURING, UM, THE HOUSING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING AND CONVERSATION IS ABOUT SORT OF PRIORITIZING RESOURCES AROUND MAKING SOME STRATEGIC CHANGES TO THE CODE, FIGURING OUT WHAT THE HIGHEST VALUE CHANGES ARE GONNA BE TO THE CODE, AND THEN IDENTIFYING ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO IT.
WE CAN MAKE ALL OF THOSE CHANGES TO THE EXISTING CODE WITH THE EXISTING ZONES IN PLACE.
WHERE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP BECOMES A BENEFIT, UM, IS REALLY IN DETERMINING, UM, FUTURE APP APPLICATION OF ZONING.
SO THE WORK THAT THE COMMISSION DOES DAY IN AND DAY OUT THAT YOU ALL ARE QUITE FAMILIAR WITH, WITH THE ZONE CHANGES, ONCE A FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS IN PLACE, THAT FUTURE LAND USE MAP THEN INFORMS THOSE INDIVIDUAL PARCEL SPECIFIC ZONING CHANGES, BUT ALSO, UM, WOULD INFORM ANY ZONE CHANGES THAT WE'RE DOING THROUGH THE EQUITABLE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT WORK OR THROUGH OTHER SMALL AREA PLANNING.
UM, OR SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD, IF THE THE CITY DID DECIDE TO EMBARK ON LARGER, UM, REFORM REMAPPING EXERCISE, THAT FUTURE LAND USE MAP COULD GUIDE THAT.
SO REALLY, UM, I THINK THE, THE, THE NOTION THAT THAT ANDREA IS TALKING ABOUT WITH THE COMP PLAN UPDATE, UM, LOOKING TO TRY TO CREATE, UM, FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THAT THAT BECOMES SORT OF THE POLICY GUIDANCE FOR A WHOLE HOST OF DECISIONS.
UM, AND THE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE CAN ABSOLUTELY BE HAPPENING SIMULTANEOUS WITH WITHOUT.
I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE A LITTLE MORE TIME OR NOT.
I'LL JUST QUICKLY MAKE ONE QUICK COMMENT THAT IN THE SUCCESSES FOR THE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY SECTION, I REALLY HOPE THAT WE CAN ADD IN THE WORK DONE ON THE HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE SYSTEM PLAN.
UM, IT WAS A GREAT EFFORT BY OUR COMMUNITY.
I ALSO WANNA SAY A GREAT EFFORT UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF DIANA GRAY, OUR HOMELESSNESS, UH, OFFICER.
I, I JUST WANNA SAY I THINK THAT HAS BEEN AN AREA WHERE WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO, BUT I THINK WE'VE MADE GREAT
[02:05:01]
STRIDES IN THE PAST FEW YEARS AND I WOULD LOVE TO CELEBRATE THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE AROUND HOMELESSNESS.UH, SO I HAVE A, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND I THINK THE FIRST ONE THAT I WANTED TO START WITH JUST KINDA VERY GERMANE TO SOME OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE HAD TONIGHT ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS REALLY AROUND THE, THE GROWTH CENTERS AND THE GROWTH CONCEPT MAP.
AND, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE CURRENT MAP, IT'S, IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE GROWTH CENTERS WE'RE, YOU KNOW, IN THE CURRENT PLAN WE'RE ALL PUSHED EAST AND THERE'S HUGE POCKETS.
IF I LOOK WEST OF NORTH LAMAR, WEST OF LAMAR BOULEVARD, THERE'S LARGE POCKETS OF THE CITY COMPLETELY ABSENT OF GROWTH CENTERS.
UM, OR I THINK THERE'S ONE, UH, WEST OF LAMAR.
AND, AND YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SEVERAL, WE HAVE A FEW, I THINK, YOU KNOW, AROUND WALTER LONG AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
SO I'M JUST WONDERING, LIKE IF SOME SERIOUS THOUGHT IS BEING PUT INTO WHAT WERE THE A WHAT WERE THE, THE, THE FACTORS IN THE PROCESS DESIGNING THE PLAN THAT WE HAVE NOW THAT LED TO THIS KIND OF INEQUITY AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS IT WHEN WE THINK ABOUT UPDATING THE PLAN? CERTAINLY IT'LL BE A CONSIDERATION ON HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE WITH THE CURRENT PLAN AS IT STANDS.
UM, I THINK THERE ARE SOME INTERESTING QUESTIONS TO BE HAD AND DISCUSSIONS TO BE HAD.
UM, BUT AS MENTIONED, UM, OUR PRIORITY IS MAKING SURE THAT EQUITY DRIVES DECISIONS THAT WE ARE, UH, MAKING FOR THE UPDATE OF THIS PLAN AND FOR ALL PLANS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON FROM HERE FORWARD.
AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE WILL BE A LOT OF IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS TO BE HAD ABOUT HOW TO, UM, THINK ABOUT THE GROWTH CONCEPT MAP AND ANY UPDATES OR ADDITIONS TO THAT GROWTH CONCEPT MAP BASED ON TODAY'S AUSTIN.
AND HAS ANY THOUGHT BEEN PUT INTO SORT OF UNDERSTANDING OR, OR IS THIS WORK THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE DONE, KIND OF UNDERSTANDING WHY THE PLAN HAD THAT, THAT SORT OF, YOU KNOW, THE, THE GROWTH DISPERSION PLAN THAT IT HAS? I MEAN, I THINK, I MEAN, IN SHORT ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, YES, THERE HAS BEEN CONVERSATION ABOUT WHY THOSE THINGS, UM, HAVE COME INTO PLACE AND, AND, AND I THINK THERE WILL NEED TO CERTAINLY BE MORE DISCUSSION ON IF THOSE, UM, STAND THE TEST OF TIME OR IF THEY NEED TO BE CONSIDERED, UM, AND UPDATED IN THE FUTURE.
BUT DEFINITELY WE ARE IN THE INITIAL STAGES OF THIS WORK PLAN TO INITIATE THINKING ABOUT UPDATING THE PLAN.
AND SO WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE HAD SIT DOWN DISCUSSIONS ON SORT OF THE HISTORY OF THE CURRENT PLAN, THE NEEDS, UH, THE DEEP DIVE NEEDS FOR THE UPDATE OF THE PLAN.
AND, UM, WE DON'T UNDERSTAND TODAY THE RESOURCES THAT WE'LL HAVE TO PUT FORWARD WITH THE PLAN UPDATE.
SO I GUESS SINCE WE'RE STILL SORT OF VERY HIGH LEVEL RIGHT NOW TALKING ABOUT CONCEPT AND PROCESS, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS I HAD WILL PROBABLY RECEIVE SIMILAR ANSWERS, BUT I WANTED TO FLAG, OBVIOUSLY PROJECT CONNECT, REALLY TRANSFORMATIONAL INVESTMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE ALL WORKING TOWARDS AND REALLY THINKING ABOUT HOW THAT WILL FIT INTO THIS.
AND I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IDEA THAT WE WERE GONNA PRODUCE A, A LIGHT RAIL OR A MASS TRANSIT SYSTEM OF SOME KIND WAS BEHIND THE THINKING IN THE ORIGINAL, IN THE CURRENT PLAN.
AND SO I JUST, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, CURIOUS IF ANY THOUGHT HAS GONE INTO HOW WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE COMMUNICATING AND COORDINATING WITH, YOU KNOW, VARIOUS FOLKS WORKING ON THE PROJECT AND THAT THAT, UH, INPUT WILL BE BROUGHT INTO THIS.
AND YEAH, I I'M NOT SURE IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT OR IF IT'S THE SAME KIND OF IDEA.
I, I DO, COUNCIL HAS ASKED THAT, UM, THE E T O D UH, PLANS BE INTEGRATED INTO IMAGINE AUSTIN, AND SO WE WOULD SEE THAT AS, UM, AN ESSENTIAL UPDATE TO THE PLAN, UH, WHICH DOES CONSIDER ALL OF PROJECT CONNECT, UM, AND ITS IMPORTANT COMPONENT.
SO IT IS ON OUR RADAR AS AN, UH, AN ITEM TO DO AS REQUESTED BY COUNCIL.
AND THEN VERY LAST THING I'M GONNA ASK ABOUT IS, UM, YOU KNOW, HAS ANY CONVERSATION ALREADY TAKEN PLACE OR THOUGHT GONE INTO THE CONCEPTS BOTH OF RIGHT TO REMAIN AND RIGHT TO RETURN FOR PEOPLE RIGHT TO RETURN FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY DISPLACED IN THINKING ABOUT HOW THAT COULD BE FOLDED INTO ANY UPDATE OF A NEW PLAN? WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN INTO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL AND CONVERSATIONS, BUT I CAN TAKE THAT BACK TO STAFF WHEN WE DO.
UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UH, QUICK QUESTION, IF, IF THAT'S OKAY, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE NOT MAYBE QUITE IN THIS PLACE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, SORT OF TIMELINE IN TERMS OF, UH, THE E T O D COMING, BECOMING A PART OF THIS AND SORT OF MARRYING THESE TWO PLANS TOGETHER AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS ON A TWO YEAR PLAN, EADS ON A TWO YEAR PLAN.
SO IS THERE SOME THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE? AND I THINK ALSO BIG PICTURE OF, WE KNOW THAT ONCE WE DO HAVE T O D OR E T O D, THAT THAT'S ALSO GOING TO HAVE A LONG-TERM IMPACT ON WHERE WE
[02:10:01]
GROW AND HOW WE GROW.SO THAT IS OBVIOUSLY GOING TO IMPACT THE NEXT VERSION OF THIS.
SO I JUST SORT OF, YOU'RE CURIOUS ABOUT HOW YOU ALL ARE THINKING ABOUT THOSE BEING BOTH MARRIED TOGETHER IN THE SHORT TERM AND THEN WHAT THE IMPACTS WILL LOOK LIKE OVER THE LONG TERM.
WE ARE CLOSELY WORKING WITH E E T O D STAFF.
UM, UH, STEVIE AND I ARE COUNTERPARTS AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND OVERSEE THOSE TWO DIFFERENT PROGRAMS, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND E TODD.
UM, AND WE HAVE A PLAN TO BE, UH, DISCUSSING HOW TO INTEGRATE E T O D IN IMAGINE AUSTIN OVER THIS SUMMER.
THAT WAS, UH, THE STATED, UM, TIMELINE FROM THE EAD GROUP.
UM, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER TO MAKE, UH, A DETERMINATION AND PLAN.
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS BROADEN THAT PLAN, UH, UM, PLANNING, UH, FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE
STEVIE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? YEAH, I WOULD JUST SAY IT'S ALL HIGHLY INTERRELATED.
THE CODE AMENDMENTS, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING ON EQUITABLE T O D TOUCHES BOTH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CODE.
UM, AND WE ARE WORKING CAREFULLY TOGETHER.
AND I JUST HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION BECAUSE I, I KNOW THAT WE COME BACK TO THIS PLAN EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS.
UM, IS THERE SOMETHING, HAVING LOOKED AT THIS FIVE YEARS AGO AND THEN COME BACK TO LIKE THAT WE FEEL LIKE WE'VE MISSED OR WE'D LIKE TO DO MORE OF, SO, YOU KNOW, WHY YOU GUYS TALKED ABOUT WINS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, IF WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS PLAN, IF THIS WAS FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, WHAT WOULD BE IN HERE THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ALREADY AND MAYBE SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS COME UP TIME AND TIME AND AGAIN, IS, UM, SORT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND THAT TIE OF IMPLEMENTATION INTO, UM, OR EXCUSE ME, FROM PLAN TO IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH PRIORITY SETTING FROM CAPITAL, UH, INVESTMENTS AND, AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.
I THINK ONE THING THAT, UM, CAN BE ENHANCED IN THE PLAN IS REALLY TALKING FROM PLAN TO IMPLEMENTATION AND THEN WORKING, UH, AND COLLABORATING WITH STAFF, UM, UH, AS WELL AS, UM, UH, OTHERS TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT THE COMMUNITY SEES AS THE VISION FOR AUSTIN IS, UM, BEING DEDICATED INTO REALITY INTO, UH, IMPLEMENTATION WITH BUDGETARY PRIORITY SETTING.
AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON THIS.
I HAVE SOME MORE SPOTS IF THERE ARE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
HEY, THANKS FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
SO THE, JUST A FEW HOURS AGO, THIS ROOM WAS FULL OF PEOPLE REALLY WISHING TO SEE A LOT OF CODE CHANGES MOVE FASTER, AND IT, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S STILL NOT AN ANSWER OF HOW WE'RE GONNA GET THERE.
SO IN 2012, WE RECOGNIZE THAT OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS AWFUL.
WE SPENT EIGHT YEARS WORKING ON A NEW ONE, NEGLECTING OUR EXISTING ONE, AND NOW WE'RE STUCK WITH A, A NICE YET DUSTY CODE THAT WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ADOPT, OR WE HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT A WAY TO ADOPT.
I'M JUST STILL NOT HEARING A STRATEGY OF HOW WE'RE GONNA ADOPT MOST OF THE BIGGEST GOALS OF IMAGINE AUSTIN.
WE'RE PREDICATED ON PROMOTING A COMPACT AND CONNECTED CITY, WHICH WE ARE GONNA CONTINUE TO FALL SHORT ON WORKING UNDER A 1984 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SO HOW DO WE ALLEVIATE THE BOTTLENECK THAT IS STAFF AT THIS POINT? AND I'M NOT SAYING DARN IT, STAFF, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND YOU GUYS DEAL WITH, YOU GUYS WORK WITH WHAT YOU HAVE AND THE FOLKS WHO ARE AROUND YOU.
SO HOW DO WE ENCOURAGE THE CITY MANAGER TO DEDICATE MORE THOUGHTS, MORE, MORE RESOURCES, MORE STAFF, MORE EVERYTHING THAT WE NEED TO SEE THESE CODE CHANGES GO THROUGH FASTER AND CONCURRENTLY? HOW DO WE GO AHEAD AND GET A, A NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE? LIKE, I'M STILL WISHING THAT WE COULD JUST, HOPEFULLY IN A MONTH WE HAVE A MUCH BETTER ANSWER THAN WE'RE STILL NOT SURE.
SO LIKE, WHAT, WHAT THAT I JUST THREW OUT THERE.
CAN WE ANSWER IN TERMS OF THE SCOPE OF THE CHANGES? AS YOU KNOW, THOSE CONVERSATIONS HAVE BEGUN AGAIN AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL, AND THEY ARE WORKING TOWARDS A PRIORITIZATION OF EXISTING INITIATED AMENDMENTS AND IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL TOPICS THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HOPE TO TACKLE.
WHEN, IF THAT, AS THAT PROCEEDS, IF THAT PROCEEDS, THEN WE WOULD
[02:15:01]
BE LOOKING AT THE PRIORITIZATION AND DEVELOPING MORE DETAILED WORK PLANS FOR HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE TO CHAIR COMMISSION.I'M SORRY, CAN WE PLEASE PAUSE FOR A MINUTE? I, NO, WE'RE AT SIX MEMBERS, I THINK.
WE'D BE DEVELOPING A MORE DETAILED WORK PLAN TO ADDRESS THE HIGH PRIORITY AMENDMENTS, AND THAT WOULD BE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT WHAT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED UNDER DIFFERENT STAFFING AND RESOURCE SCENARIOS.
AND WOULD BE A WAY TO EXPLAIN, YOU KNOW, WHAT CAN BE DONE IN, UH, DIFFERENT TEAM SETUPS AND WITH ADDITIONAL STAFFING WITH ADDITIONAL CONSULTANT RESOURCES.
I LOVE THAT LAST PART YOU JUST SAID.
SO, YOU KNOW, I HEARD ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE WATER AMENDMENTS THAT CAME UP AND SOMEONE WAS LIKE, OH, DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT.
WE HAVE OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS HELPING US WITH THAT.
WE HAVE OTHER REALLY BIG THINGS THAT WE NEED TO BE WORKING ON AND WHAT CAN WE DO TO, YOU KNOW, GET THOSE CON DIFFERENT CONSULTANTS, OTHER CONSULTANTS THAT HAVE HELPED US, OTHER FOLKS THAT ARE WILLING AND ABLE.
SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE A PLAN FOR THAT AS WELL THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT MORE IN A MONTH.
ALL RIGHT, ANYONE ELSE? AND THIS WON'T BE OUR LAST, UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, ARE YOU, LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE TYPING NOT RAISING YOUR HAND.
UH, SO ANY MORE QUESTIONS? AND THIS WON'T BE OUR LAST OPPORTUNITY.
THE HOPE IS WE GET SOME GOOD RECOMMENDATIONS FROM, UH, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE AND BRING THAT BACK AND WE'LL HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL, UH, TIME TO, FOR Q AND A AND INTERACTION ON, ON THIS ITEM CHAIR.
MIGHT I ASK A PROCEDURAL QUESTION? YES.
ONE IS YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU STAFF OR YOU CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND, CAN WE RECOMMEND CHANGES TO, UM, THE REPORT ONE? AND IF WE CAN, HOW, WHAT IS THE BEST PROCESS FOR DOING THAT
MY CONTACT INFORMATION IS IN THE, UM, PRESENTATION THAT WAS PROVIDED AS BACKUP.
SO I GUESS JUST, UM, THE PROCESS AND, UM, JUST IF FOLKS, SO WE ARE GOING TO, UM, HOPEFULLY HAVE, UH, A GOOD REVIEW BY THE CONFERENCE PLAN, JOINT COMMITTEE, UM, BRING RECOMMENDATIONS.
I THINK, UH, YOU ALL CONTINUE TO KIND OF READ THIS AND MAKE, UH, MAKE YOUR NOTES OR CHANGES OR RECOMMENDATIONS AND WE WILL BRING THAT TO THE BODY.
UM, RIGHT NOW I'M PROPOSING THAT, UH, JUNE 27TH WE BRING THIS, I POSTPONE THIS ITEM TILL JUNE 27TH, UM, WITH THE HOPE THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE WILL HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING AND BE ABLE TO, UH, CONSIDER THIS ITEM AND BRING IT BACK TO US BY THAT DATE.
SO I WOULD, UM, UH, I WOULD HOLD YOUR LOG, BUT UH, HOLD YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS UNTIL WE GET BACK TOGETHER AND THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE ON THE COMP PLAN, UM, YEAH, DEFINITELY, UM, UH, DIG INTO THIS DOCUMENT AND BRING FORTH SOME GOOD RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND AS A MATTER OF CLARIFICATION, THE NEXT UH, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR NOON ON JUNE 8TH.
UM, AND THAT'S A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING.
WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO REQUEST A SPECIAL MEETING, UH, CUZ NOT EVEN SURE IF WE'LL HAVE QUORUM, UM, ON THAT DATE.
SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE PUSHING THIS OUT TO THE 27TH, BUT IT MAY GO TO JULY 11TH, IF NOT, UH, YES, CHAIR, I'M, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.
I'M JUST CURIOUS IF, IF QUORUM SEEMS TO BE SUCH A CONCERN, AND I KNOW RIGHT NOW THERE'S MAYBE A MORE PRESSING ISSUE CONCERNING TELEWORKING GETTING THAT WRITTEN INTO THE PLAN, COULD MAYBE WE AS, AS A BOARD START WORKING ON SOMETHING OURSELVES? OR SHOULD WE JUST RELY ON THE, UH, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE TO TAKE CARE OF IT? I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THERE, UH, IN STAFF, CORRECT ME IF WHAT I HEARD IS, UM, MAY BE INCORRECT, BUT, UH, THERE'S NOT A HUGE URGENCY OR TIME WHEN THIS NEEDS TO BE WRAPPED UP.
SO I WAS TOLD WE HAVE A LITTLE TIME TO OFFER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR, UH,
[02:20:01]
IMPROVEMENT.IS THAT I'M LOOKING AT STAFF, IT'S, UM, ARE Y'ALL UNION MEMBERS
AND, UH, THERE IS NO FIRM TIMELINE.
UH, THERE IS A FIRM REQUIREMENT THAT EVERY FIVE YEARS WE PUT FORWARD, UM, AS, UH, YEAH.
UH, UH, AN UPDATE TO THE PLAN OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TRANSMITS THAT TO COUNCIL, THAT IS THE REQUIREMENT OF, UH, OF THE CITY CHARTER.
UH, SO THIS WILL AFTER I, I THINK WE HAVE SOME TIME AS, AND WE'LL, I THINK, WE'LL, I THINK THE ISSUE THAT WAS HEARD TODAY ABOUT TELEWORK, UH, SO I THINK THOSE ON THE JOINT COMMITTEE WILL TAKE THAT UP.
UH, SO, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, I GUESS, UH, MR. RIVER, DO WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND, UH, VOTE ON A POSTPONEMENT ON THIS ITEM CHAIR? COMMISSIONER LAYS ON ANDOVER.
SO IF WE COULD HAVE A FORMAL, UM, MOTION TO, UH, POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO THE 27TH.
DO I HAVE, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION TO POSTPONE, UH, JUNE 27TH.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER, UH, AZAR, UH, ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS POSTPONEMENT? OKAY, HEARING NONE, UH, WE'LL HEAR THIS AGAIN AT THAT DATE, HOPEFULLY.
UH, WE DO HAVE ONE MORE DISCUSSION ITEM.
UH, STAFF'S GOING TO PULL THIS UP.
[23. Code Amendment: C20-2020-015 - Safe Fencing Regulations]
UH, ITEM 23, SAY FENCING REGULATIONS.I'M A BUSINESS PROCESS SPECIALIST WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT IN THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS DIVISION.
AND, UH, JOINING ME TONIGHT IS TONY HERNANDEZ.
HE'S A CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS SERVICES PROGRAM MANAGER.
AND TONIGHT I'LL BE PRESENTING, UH, SAFE FENCING, REGULATIONS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND SO I GUESS I USED THE CLICKER.
SO, UH, RESOLUTION NUMBER 20 21, 1104 DASH 39 INITIATED CODE AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS DANGEROUS FENCE DESIGN, INCLUDING SPIKED ELEMENTS THAT PROTRUDE ABOVE THE TOP HORIZONTAL BAR OF A FENCE.
CITY CODE CURRENTLY ALLOWS SOME SPIKED FENCE STYLES THAT COMPOSE SIGNIFICANT RISKS TO HUMANS AND ANIMALS.
UH, THE RESOLUTION DIRECTED THE CITY MANAGER TO EVALUATE REQUIRING FLAT STOP FLAT TOP STYLES ON NEW FENCES OF ALL LENGTH, APPLYING FLAT TOP FENCE REQUIREMENTS TO ALL NEW FENCES OF SIX FEET TALL OR LOWER, APPLYING FLAT TOP FENCE REQUIREMENTS TO SUBSTANTIAL FENCE REPAIRS OR REMODELING OF 50% OR MORE OF AN A 16 FENCE STAFF, UM, HOSTED A SERIES OF ENGAGEMENTS AND TARGETED OUTREACH AND TO A BROAD RANGE OF STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING COMMUNITY AT LARGE PARTNER DEPARTMENTS, BUILDING, CONTRACTING, COMMUNITY COMMITTEE ADVOCATES, AND ADVOCACY GROUPS.
ALSO RECEIVED INPUT FROM THE FOLLOWING BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION, HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION BUILDING AND FIRE BOARD OF APPEALS CODES AND ORDINANCES, JOINT COMMITTEE AND FEEDBACK WAS FOCUSED ON SAFETY AND AFFORDABILITY CONSIDERATIONS AND ENFORCEABILITY.
AND SO, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE TO DELETE SECTION 94 9 DASH FOUR DASH 41, RESTRICTION ON USE, OR BOB BARB WIRE FENCES.
THE SECTION WILL BE RELOCATED TO SECTION 25 DASH TWO DASH 8 99, AN AMENDMENT TO SIMPLIFY HEIGHT MEASUREMENT FOR SECTION 25 DASH TWO DASH 8 99, SECTION D, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, A SOLID FENCE CONSTRUCTED ALONG A PROPERTY LINE MAY NOT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF SEVEN FEET MEASURED FROM A NATURAL GRADE UP.
PROPOSED CHANGE REQUIREMENTS, UH, FENCE MAY NOT INCLUDE SPIKED PICKETS, SPIKED BARS, OR OTHER SPIKED DECORATIVE ELEMENTS ABOVE THE TOP HORIZONTAL, HORIZONTAL BACKER RAIL, VERTICAL PICKETS ABOVE THE TOP HORIZONTAL BACK RAIL.
IF THE VERTICAL PICKETS ARE SEPARATED, SEPARATED BY MORE THAN TWO INCHES AND LESS THAN NINE INCHES RAZOR LIKE WIRE, BARBED WIRE.
AND UNLESS THE FENCE IS IN CLOSING AN AIRPORT OR OTHER LANDING AREA FOR AIRCRAFT.
AND THE USE OF BARBED WIRE IS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL AVIATION, AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REGULATION, OR ANY ELEMENT THAT CREATES A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF ENTRAPMENT OR IMPALMENT
[02:25:02]
IN SECTION 25 DASH TWO DASH 8 9 9 H.IT'S A NEW SUBSECTION APPLIES TO ALL OFFENSES CONSTRUCTED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL ORDINANCE, ALL OFFENSES FOR WHICH MORE THAN 50% WILL BE REPLACED, THE ENTIRE FENCE MUST COMPLY.
PERCENTAGE DETERMINED BY TOTAL LINEAR DISTANCE OF EXISTING FENCE AND EXEMPTIONS FENCE IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS.
FENCES THAT ARE AT LEAST SIX FEET IN HEIGHT AND LOCATED ON A PROPERTY THAT HAS A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE INCLUDES MULTI-FAMILY.
PROPOSED CHANGE APPLIES TO FENCES CONSTRUCTED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL ORDINANCE, FENCES FOR WHICH MORE THAN 50% WILL BE REPLACED.
THE PERCENTAGE IS DETERMINED BY TOTAL LINEAR FEET OF EXISTING FENCE EXEMPTIONS.
FENCE IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS, FENCES AT AT LEAST SIX FEET IN HEIGHT AND LOCATED ON A PROPERTY THAT HAS A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE, INCLUDES MULTI-FAMILY, OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
A SOLID CHAIN LINK FENCE SHALL USE KNUCKLE SALVAGE.
A FENCE USED AS A SWIMMING POOL BARRIER SHALL COMPLY WITH CHAPTER 25 DASH 12, ARTICLE 14, SWIMMING POOL AND SPA CODE.
SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UM, THERE WERE AFFORDABILITY AND ENFORCEABILITY CONCERNS WITH THE 50% REPLACEMENT TRIGGER AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO ALLOW PROPERTY OWNERS TO MAINTAIN WHAT THEY HAVE AND TRIGGER COMPLIANCE WITH FULL FENCE INSTALLATION REPLACEMENT.
AND SO THESE ARE FENCING ELEMENTS TO BE PROHIBITED.
AND AT THIS POINT, I'D LIKE TO CALL TONY HERNANDEZ TO HELP DESCRIBE WHAT YOU SEE IN THESE IMAGES AND ALSO TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
WHAT HAPPENED HERE? THE, UM, FENCE ON THE LEFT.
UH, THE, IT'S A IMP IMPAIRMENT, UH, ISSUE.
UH, SAME THING WITH THE RIGHT, UH, ALSO ENTRAPMENT ISSUE.
THE GAP IS, UH, TOO FAR APART, UM, THIS, AND IT'S, UH, NOT GOOD FOR ANIMALS AND, AND CHILDREN TRYING TO CLIMB IT.
UM, THESE, UM, FENCES ALSO HAVE THE SAME ISSUE.
THE, THE IMP IMPAIRMENT ISSUE AND, AND THE GAP ON THE ONE ON THE LEFT SIDE IS, UM, TOO WIDE.
THE GAP ON THE RIGHT SIDE IS, IS WOULD PROBABLY WORK BECAUSE OF THE, OF THE BACK PIECE IN IT, OTHER THAN THE, UH, POINTS ON IT.
THESE, UH, FENCES ARE COMPLIANT FENCES.
UH, THE, THE GAP ON THE RIGHT, UH, PROHIBITS ANY KIND OF ENTRAPMENT.
UM, THERE IS NO ISSUE WITH THE LEFT, UH, WHATSOEVER.
AND, UH, THESE ARE ALSO FENCES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED THAT WOULD, UH, MEET THE REQUIREMENT.
UM, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN HELP YOU WITH OR, UM, UH, YEAH.
WE'LL PROCEED WITH, UH, GET THROUGH AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN WE'LL DO Q AND A.
SO, SH UH, SURELY THERE WILL BE QUESTIONS.
NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO, UH, SPEAKERS.
I HAVE MR. UH, DAVID KING ON THE TELECONFERENCE.
MR. KING, SELECT STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, AND THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING MY COMMENTS TONIGHT.
PLEASE SUPPORT THE PROPOSED SAFE FENCING, THE PROPOSED SAFE FENCING CODE AMENDMENT.
IT WILL HELP REDUCE THE RISK OF INJURIES AND DEATHS TO PEOPLE AND ANIMALS FROM IMPALMENT AND ENTRAPMENT WITHOUT DECREASING SECURITY FOR FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES.
AND WITHOUT IMPOSING NEW PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS, THE AMENDMENT PROHIBITS NEW SPIKES.
FENCING THAT CREATES A RISK OF IMPALMENT AND ESTABLISHES MINIMUM SPACING DISTANCES BETWEEN PICKETS TO HELP REDUCE THE RISK OF ENTRAPMENT.
THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT ADD ADDITIONAL PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTS OR BUSINESSES, AND DOES NOT REQUIRE REMEDIATION OF EXISTING FENCES UNLESS MORE THAN 50% OF THE FENCE IS BEING REPLACED.
OTHER SURROUNDING MUNICIPALITIES, INCLUDING BK, SUNSET CITY, LAKEWAY, AND ROLLINGWOOD, HAVE ENACTED SAFE FENCING REGULATIONS TO HELP PREVENT AND REDUCE INJURIES AND DEATHS FROM IMPALMENT AND ENTRAPMENT.
THE PROPOSED SAFE FENCING CODE AMENDMENT WAS UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTED BY THE CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE.
YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE AMENDMENT WILL HELP PREVENT AND REDUCE INJURIES AND DEATHS DUE TO DANGEROUS FENCING.
WILL NOT HEAR FROM MS. JULIE DAMIEN, ALSO ON THE TELECONFERENCE,
[02:30:01]
SELECT SIX, PROCEED WITH REMARKS.MS. DAMIAN, IF YOU'LL SELECT STAR SIX ON YOUR PHONE, THAT WILL UNMUTE YOU.
UH, MS. DAMIAN, IF YOU WANT TO, UH, TRY CALLING BACK IN, UM, WE'LL SEE IF THAT WORKS.
UH, CHAIR, IF, UH, WE CAN, UH, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, BUT, UH, GO FORWARD WITH THIS MATTER.
SO, UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH THE Q AND A.
HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET THE SPEAKER ON HERE SHORTLY.
UH, LET ME KNOW IF THEY, YOU'RE ABLE TO GET THEM.
UM, YOU WANNA START OFF WITH QUESTIONS? OKAY.
Y'ALL SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THIS WAS COMING.
THIS IS MY BREAD AND BUTTER RIGHT HERE.
LET'S TALK ABOUT 25,000 2,899 D BY THE CHANGE.
UH, WITH THE INTENT TO CREATE A SAFER FENCE, UH, I'M SORRY, MICROPHONE ON.
WOULD THE INTENT TO CREATE A SAFER FENCE FENCE? SO SEVEN FEET WOULD BE A SAFER FENCE THAN SIX FEET? OH, THE, THE D OH, NO, MA'AM.
UH, THAT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF, UH, MEASUREMENT.
UH, IT'S EASIER AND MORE PRACTICAL IN THE FIELD TO MEASURE SOMETHING AT SEVEN FOOT THAN AS WRITTEN WHERE YOU HAVE TO GET A MINIMUM OF SIX, UH, AND NOT OVER SEVEN FEET.
UH, BUT IT, THAT PART JUST, IT'S REAL HARD TO, TO APPLY IN THE FIELD IF, UH, WE SAY, UH, SEVEN FOOT, SEVEN FOOT IS, IS JUST A, A, A GIVEN, UH, SAME AS, AS EIGHT FOOT, UH, IT'S, IT'S JUST A EASIER MEASUREMENT TO, TO APPLY.
WHY ARE WE GOING TALLER? I I SORT OF FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, IN A TIME WHEN WE SHOULD BE BUILDING COMMUNITIES, THIS IS ADDING HIGHER WALLS.
THE, UM, THE MOSTLY BECAUSE OF THE, OF THE TERRAIN.
UH, PEOPLE WANNA SEE A STRAIGHT LINE ACROSS THE TOP OF THEIR FENCE.
UM, AND BECAUSE WHEN THE TERRAIN IS, IS NOT, UH, I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING, YOU KNOW, SIX TO INCHES TO FOOT, UH, DIFFERENCE, UM, THEY, THEY TRY TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE AND, AND ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO CLOSE OUT THE BOTTOM AND HAVE A LEVEL, UM, SIDE LINE ON TOP OF IT.
UH, SO THAT'S WHY, UH, THE, THE CODE SAYS, UH, UP TO SEVEN FEET.
BUT THAT, THAT'S GENERALLY ON A SLOPE.
THAT'S GENERALLY ON, ON A SLOPE, YES.
BUT WHY NOT JUST KEEP IT AT SIX? BECAUSE IF IT'S AT SEVEN NOW, THAT MEANS EVEN A, UH, FENCE ON A FLAT TRAIN WILL BE SEVEN FEET TALL.
I, I AGREE THAT THAT'S WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.
SO THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO, LIKE, WHY I, NOT THAT I, MY MIND, IT'S GONNA BE A LOT LESS FENCE VARIANCES FROM MY BOARD, BUT STILL, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S, YEAH, LIKE I SAY, IT'S, IT'S JUST AN EASIER MEASUREMENT TO, TO ENFORCE.
UH, AND, AND TO BE ABLE TO SEE, UH, AND, AND WORK WITH, UH, IS, IS WHY WE, UH, UH, CHOSEN SEVEN FEET.
UH, WHO ELSE? UM, I HAVE A, OKAY.
MR. CONLEY, WE'RE PRETTY BRIEF.
UM, JUST CURIOUS, UM, IF, IF, IF ADOPTED THESE NEW REGULATIONS WOULD APPLY TO ALL CITY PROPERTIES AND CITY FENCING AS WELL? YES, THEY WOULD.
AND SO WOULD THAT ENTAIL CHANGING EXISTING FENCING TO MATCH THESE NEW REGULATIONS, OR WOULD THAT BE IT'S, UH, IT'S NOT RETROACTIVE.
SO, BUT, BUT NEW FENCING WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY.
THE DEFENSE WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY, YES.
UM, AND THEN JUST ONE LAST, UM, QUESTION.
I, UM, HAS ANY THOUGHT BEEN PUT INTO, UM, DIFFERENCES IN COST OR COST IMPACT AROUND NEW FENCING REGULATIONS? I'M JUST CURIOUS.
SO, UM, WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A, A FENCE THAT, UM, YOU'VE CHOSEN TO REPLACE, UH, INSTALL A FENCE, AND THERE THERE'S GONNA BE A COST OPTION, UH, REGARDLESS.
UH, MR. YOU CAN BUY A FENCE, UH, AT ALMOST ANY RATE.
AND, AND LIKE MY LAST QUESTION, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO OVERTHINK THIS TOO MUCH, BUT, UM, WAS THOUGHT PUT INTO REMOVING, UM,
[02:35:01]
FENCING IN AREAS WHERE IT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE NECESSARY, OR NO, THAT WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, I DO HAVE A, OH, COMMISSIONER AZAR, AND THEN I'LL TAPE THE NEXT SPOT.
GO AHEAD, JARED, GO AHEAD AND I'LL COME IN.
REAL QUICK, UM, I, I HEARD THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT THE, UH, THE GAP, UM, BETWEEN, UM, THE FENCE POST.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT ADDRESSES THAT RISK? I SAW, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT SPIKES, BUT IS THERE ALREADY CODE, OR IS, ARE WE ADDING ANYTHING ABOUT KEEPING THAT TO A MAXIMUM? WE'RE, UH, KEEPING A, A MINIMUM AND A, AND A MAXIMUM AT, AT, UH, WE'RE LOOKING AT LESS THAN TWO INCHES AND NOTHING BETWEEN TWO AND NINE.
DID I DISMISS THAT? IS IT THAT IN THE OR, UH, THE CHANGE, IS THAT INCLUDED? HELLO, ANDREW? I THINK JULIE'S ON THE LINE.
IT'S, UM, H SECTION H UH, THREE.
MR. RIVERA, DID I HEAR WE HAVE SOMEBODY READY TO SPEAK CHAIR? APOLOGIES FOR THE INTERRUPTION.
UM, YES, I DO HAVE, UH, THE MEMBER ON THE TELECONFERENCE IF WE WANNA TRY AGAIN.
YEAH, I WOULD, I MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS RELATED TO THEIR, UH, NOTED.
OKAY, MS. DAMIEN, IT FEELS SELECT STAR SIX.
CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? NO ONE WASN'T SUPPOSED TO ASK THAT, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE.
AND THEN CAN YOU SEE MY POWERPOINT THAT I PUT TOGETHER? YES.
JUST, UH, SAY, UM, NEXT SLIDE AND WE'LL, UH, PROGRESS THE, OKAY.
SO, HELLO, MY NAME'S JULIE DAMIAN.
SO BEFORE THURSDAY, MARCH 22ND, 2018, I NEVER CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT IMPORTANCE OR EVEN THE NEED FOR LAWS ABOUT FENCING OR FENCES SLIDE.
I ASSUME THE FENCE WAS A FEATURE IN A COMMUNITY THAT JUST EXISTED AND HAD BEEN DESIGNED BY EXPERTS WHO CONSIDERED THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE, ANIMALS IN THE COMMUNITY AS A PRODUCT HAS SOLD TO SLIDE.
SADLY, I FOUND OUT THIS IS FAR FROM THE CHASE.
AFTER MIDDLE SIGN, JADE DIED ON A NEIGHBOR'S LOAD, HIS PICKET FENCE.
KADE DIED LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES AFTER HAVING A PEANUT BUTTER FREE SNACK AT THE KITCHEN TABLE AFTER SCHOOL WITH HIS BROTHERS.
IN LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES, OUR LIVES WERE CHANGED FOREVER.
SLIDE KAY'S HEAD AND NECK BECAME TRAPPED BETWEEN THE PICKETS AT THE TOP OF THE FENCE.
HIS FEET WERE UNABLE TO TOUCH THE BOTTOM RUNG OF THE FENCE.
ONCE HIS HEAD BECAME TRAPPED AT THE TOP, HIS LEGS CAME OUT FROM UNDER HIM, AND HE HUNG SLIDE EXPOSED.
PICKET FENCES HAVE BEEN DEEMED DANGEROUS IN MANY COMMUNITIES AND BANNED SOME, MAKING THIS CHANGE YEARS BEFORE KAY'S DEATH SLIDE.
LOCAL COMMUNITIES, LAKEWAY, BKS, ROLLINGWOOD, AND SUN CITY ARE SOME THAT HAVE MADE THESE CHANGES ALREADY.
SLIDE A FAMILY IN THE MIDWEST BLOCKADE STORY AND SHARED WITH ME ABOUT THEIR RELATIVE WHO DIED WHILE PLAYING AFTER CHURCH.
ONE DAY ON HER FARM, HER NECK WAS ALSO TRAPPED ON AN EXPOSED TICKET FENCE.
ALMOST 100 YEARS BEFORE CADE DIED, SHE WAS ABOUT THE SAME AGE AS CADE, AS WELL FLY.
A LOCAL WOMAN SHARED WITH ME HOW HER GERMAN SHEPHERD GOT SCARED DURING A THUNDERSTORM AND BECAME TRAPPED LIKE CADE.
BETWEEN THE EXPOSED TICKETS AT THE TOP OF THEIR FENCE AND DIED.
PEOPLE HAVE SHARED STORIES ABOUT FALLING OUT OF TREES WITH CHILDREN AND REQUIRING STITCHES IN PLACES THAT NARROWLY MISSED MAJOR ARTERIES.
A MAN WHO POSTED HIS BIKE STUNT ON INSTAGRAM, POSTED A VIDEO AT A BIKE PARK WHERE HIS STUNT LANDED HIM UNEXPECTEDLY BETWEEN THE PICKETS OF AN EXPOSED PICKET FENCE SURROUNDING THE BIKE GRANTS AND COURTS AT HIS LOCAL CITY PARK.
IF HE HAD LANDED JUST A FRACTION OF AN INCH IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, THAT VIDEO WOULD'VE ENDED MUCH DIFFERENTLY.
INSTEAD, THE SPOKES WERE CAUGHT RIGHT BETWEEN THE PICKETS.
ANOTHER MAN WORKING ON A ROOF LOCALLY FELL AND WAS IMPALED DOWN HIS WHOLE ENTIRE BODY.
HE LIVED, BUT HE'LL NEVER BE THE SAME.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS OF CHILDREN PLAYING CATCH AND LANDING ON AN EXPERT TICKET FENCE AS THEY REACH TO TOUCH THE BALL THAT'S BEEN THROWN TO THEM.
SLIDE IMPALMENT IS A BRUTAL, GRUESOME WAY TO DIE.
ANIMALS TYPICALLY STRUGGLE TO GET FREE AND WILL RIP OUT THEIR INSIDES IN THE PROCESS.
THAT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR PEOPLE TO POST ON FACEBOOK OR NEXT DOOR ASKING WHO CAN COME AND REMOVE A DEAD OR INJURED ANIMAL FROM THEIR FENCE.
THEY'RE VERY UPSET, UPSET AT THE SITE OF THE DEAD OR INJURED ANIMAL SLIDE.
EVERYONE WHO HEARS ABOUT CHASE SAYS THE SAME THING.
AND GUESS WHAT? NEITHER DID WE.
[02:40:01]
WHY I'M HERE TALKING TO YOU TODAY AND ASKING YOU TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND HELP PREVENT FUTURE INJURIES AND DEATHS WAS VERY MINOR, BUT IMPACTFUL CHANGES SLIDE BANKS COMPANIES HAVE ACTUALLY SAID THAT THEY WILL CONTINUE TO SELL AND INSTALL THE FENCE FILE UNTIL LAWS FORBID IT SLIDE FENCE MANUFACTURERS AND RETAILERS MARKET AND EXPO MARKET EXPOSED TICKET FENCES WITH GOOD OPTIONS FOR GOING AROUND PLAYGROUND POOLS AND OTHER HIGH TRAFFIC TILES AND WILDLIFE AREAS.I'M HERE TONIGHT TO ASK YOU TO PLEASE RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A PROPOSED SAFE FENCE ORDINANCE.
THIS PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT HAS A VITAL AND DEEP IMPACT, REDUCING THE RISK OF INJURY AND DEATH WITHOUT DECREASING SECURITY OR FENCE DESIGN SELECTION FOR OFFICE.
OFTEN RESIDENTS, FENCE MANUFACTURERS AND RETAILERS ALREADY CARRY MANY OTHER FRENCH CHOICES AT COMPARABLE PRICE POINTS.
I ASK THAT YOU RECOMMEND THE SAFE FENCE CODE AMENDMENT GO INTO EFFECT NO MORE THAN SIX MONTHS AFTER ADOPTION, AND THAT INFORMATION BE MADE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE ABOUT WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT AND WAYS TO MODIFY A FENCE TO MAKE IT SAFER.
WHY YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION ON CASE SERS.ORG.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK, UH, ALL OF THE CITY STAFF MEMBERS, BOARD MEMBERS AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS, AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE PROVIDED FEEDBACK AND HELP TO CREATE WHAT IS BEING CONSIDERED TODAY, MY FAMILY AND I THANK YOU.
AND FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL THANK YOU AS WELL FOR PROTECTING THEM AND MAKING THE WORLD A BETTER, SAFER PLACE.
SO I'M GONNA PICK UP, UM, THOSE, UH, VERY POWERFUL PRESENTATION.
I THINK, UM, I'M TRYING TO GAUGE, UH, WHAT WE HAVE HERE IN FRONT OF US IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
AND, UH, WAS THERE SOMEBODY ON THE CODES AND ORANGE JOINT COMMITTEE, UH, THAT CAN, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS GOT, UM, ADOPTED OR MOVED INTO THIS.
DO, UM, STAFF, DO YOU, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? I, I KNOW THEY HAD OFFERED UP SOME AMENDMENTS.
DID WE, DID THOSE MAKE THEIR WAY IN TO THE WHAT, UH, WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDED IS THAT, UH, THIS ORDINANCE APPLIED TO ONLY, UH, FENCES THAT ARE SIX FOOT IN HEIGHT UNLESS, AND, UH, NOT APPLY TO NEW FENCES IS RIGHT.
DO WE HAVE, I KNOW COMMISSIONER AZAR, DO YOU RE UM, COMPARING THIS TO WHAT THE OUT, UH, WHAT WAS IN, UH, CONSIDERED BY CODES NO'S? DID YOU GUYS, UM, ARE THERE ANY AMENDMENTS THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER HERE THAT YOU GUYS FELT STRONGLY ABOUT THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS DRAFT? UM, CHAIR THERE WAS, UM, EXCUSE ME.
ONE WAS THAT THIS SHOULD APPLY TO HISTORIC, UM, HISTORIC FENCES OR HISTORIC PROPERTIES.
AND I SEE THAT THAT HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED.
AND WE SAID ESSENTIALLY THAT IT SHOULD APPLY TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES, BUT THERE CAN BE A VARIANCE REQUEST THAT CAN GO TO HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION OR ZONING.
AGAIN, PLANNING CAN BE, THEY CAN BE THE APPEAL PROCESS FOR THAT.
SO THAT'S ONE THAT I SEE MISSING.
AND UNLESS I'M MISSING SOMETHING, PLEASE STAFF LET ME KNOW IF I'M CONFUSED ABOUT SOMETHING.
AND THEN, YES, I THINK THERE WAS A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE SIX FEET VERSUS EIGHT FEET THAT I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, UM, YOU HAD RAISED, AND THAT I THINK IS ALSO NOT INCLUDED.
AND, UM, I'M TRYING TO SEE, I THINK THOSE ARE THE TWO BIG ONES.
I DO SEE THE SUBSTANTIAL FENCE REPAIRS FOR 50% OR MORE IS INCLUDED.
AND THEN I SEE THAT THERE, WE HAD AN AMENDMENT ON THE SWIMMING POOL BARRIER, BUT I SEE THAT ENTIRE PIECE HAS BEEN REMOVED ALTOGETHER.
SO THE TWO BIG THINGS THAT I CAN THINK OF RIGHT NOW ARE REALLY THE HISTORIC, UH, EXEMPTION AND THEN THE SIX FEET VERSUS EIGHT FEET CONVERSATION.
THE, SO THE HISTORIC VARI, UH, YOU GOT, UM, YOU ALL WERE WANTING IT TO APPLY TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES UNLESS THEY ACHIEVED A VARIANCE.
SO WE ESSENTIALLY SAID THAT IT SHOULD APPLY TO ANY HISTORIC PROPERTY.
UM, AND A ESSENTIALLY YOU COULD GO TO, UH, IF YOU WANTED AN EXEMPTION, YOU COULD GO TO, UM, THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION TO GET AN EXEMPTION FROM THIS SUBSECTION.
AND THAT, THAT DECISION COULD BE APPEALED TO EITHER THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND THEN THERE WAS SOME BACKUP.
I GUESS I'M TRYING TO, UM, MR. RIVERA, THERE WAS SOME BACKUP IN THAT YOU PROVIDED.
HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO WHAT WERE THE DRAFT THAT WE SEE IN FRONT OF US CHAIR COMMISSION? LAY LIAISON ANDA YES, THAT IS WHAT, UH, MR. ORHAN, MR. HERNANDEZ REFERENCED, UM, AT APPLYING TO, UM, SIX FEET, UH, INSTEAD OF, INSTEAD OF ALL FENCES? YES, INSTEAD OF ALL FENCES.
AND THEN NOT APPLYING TO ALL NEW FENCES, TO ONLY APPLYING TO NEW FENCES.
[02:45:02]
UH, THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.
UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AND THEN COMMISSIONER AZAR.
UM, I JUST HAD A QUICK CLARIFICATION.
UM, MOND ZILKER, AND WE'VE SEEN RECENTLY A LOT OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY MOVING TO BUILDING WALLS,
SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS, UM, HOW WOULD THAT WORK INTO THIS? AND ARE WE MAYBE HAVING AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF PEOPLE WALL BUILDING BECAUSE THEY CAN GET A DIFFERENT TYPE OF FENCE? I'M CURIOUS IF Y'ALL HAD THOUGHT ABOUT THAT.
UH, IT'S, UM, IT'S STILL, WE STILL LOOK AT IT IF IT WERE A FENCE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT TYPE OF MATERIAL THEY USED TO, TO, TO CONSTRUCT THAT FENCE WITH.
SO JUST TO BE CON, UH, SO THIS WOULD APPLY EVEN IF IT'S NOT A FENCE IN THE TRADITIONAL, AS WE THINK OF IT OFFICIALLY, THE, THE RULES AROUND A WALL WOULD ACTUALLY BE SUBJECT TO THESE SAME CHANGES.
AND I THINK THE CONCERN HERE, WE, I SEE A LOT OF THIS, AGAIN, SPEAKING OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF WALL BUILDING IN THE FRONT DUE TO POOLS BEING PLACED IN THE FRONT OF YARDS INSTEAD OF THE BACK.
SO THEN YOU END UP THIS VERY, AND ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT'S BEEN RAISED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS REGARDING HAVING THOSE WALLS ON, PARTICULARLY ON BUSY CORNERS, BECAUSE THERE'S A LACK OF VISIBILITY.
SO THAT IMPACTS TRAFFIC, FIRE, ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
HAVE YOU ALL CONSIDERED THAT AS PART OF THIS AS WELL, THAT IS, UH, PART OF A TRANSPORTATION, UH, ORDINANCE.
UH, THEY'RE THE ONES WHO WOULD, WHO WOULD GOVERN THAT, AND THEY HAVE, UH, CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT, THAT CORNERS AND, AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
SO WE DON'T THINK THAT HAVING THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IS MAYBE GOING TO, OR I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT.
IF WE'VE THOUGHT, AGAIN, OF THOSE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF PRE PERMITTING, THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, PARTICULARLY AS IT COMES TO WALLS OR NON OPAQUE FENCING, THAT, THAT WE MIGHT END UP WITH HIGH WALLS THAT THEN IMPACT SOMETHING LIKE A TRAFFIC CORNER.
YES, UNFORTUNATELY, WE, WE HAVE NOTHING AT ALL THAT EXISTS NOW THAT, THAT TELLS YOU WHAT KIND OF MATERIALS YOU CAN USE ON YOUR FENCE.
UH, WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS, IS PROBABLY THE CLOSEST THAT, THAT WE'VE GOTTEN SO FAR.
THANKS FOR THE, APPRECIATE YOUR STEP WORK ON THIS.
UM, SO LET'S, COMMISSIONER AZAR, SORRY, APOLOGIES, I SKIPPED YOU,
AND THEN COMMISSIONER COHEN WILL, UM, AS OUR P O A CHAIR WILL LET HER DIG INTO THIS A LITTLE MORE.
GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER DESAR, THANK YOU CHAIR.
AND I DO WANNA THANK MR. HERNANDEZ AND FOR STAFF'S WORK ON THIS, UM, UM, STAFF.
I JUST HAD A QUESTION, MR. HERNANDEZ, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND, SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THIS ONLY APPLIES TO NEW FENCES, BUT IT ALSO APPLIES IF YOU DO A REHAB OR DO SOME KIND OF WORK THAT CHANGES 50% OF AN EXISTING FENCE? CORRECT.
I'M UNDERSTANDING THE CODE CORRECTLY HERE, RIGHT, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN NOW, IF YOU REPLACE MORE THAN 50%, UH, YOU WOULD HAVE TO COME AT THE FULL COMPLIANCE.
UH, ANYTHING NEW WOULD, WOULD ALSO BE IN COMPLIANCE, WOULD NEED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE.
AND I THINK THAT WAS DEFINITELY THE INTENTION OF CODES AND ORDINANCES.
AND I WONDER IF YOU CAN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THE HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS.
B, SO YOU ESSENTIALLY WERE SAYING THE SUB SUBSECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A FENCE THAT FOLLOWS HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? HOW, HOW WILL WE SORT OF MANAGE THAT EXPECTATION OF FOLLOWS HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS AND SAFETY? I, I JUST, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WOULD EFFECT, GO INTO EFFECT.
WELL, I, I HAVE A LITTLE TO NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THOSE ACTUAL STANDARDS ARE, BUT, UH, TO MY UNDERSTANDING, UH, IT'S A SPECIFIC STANDARD THAT'S GONNA PROVIDE ALL THE GUIDELINES THEY NEED REGARDLESS, UM, OF WHAT THE, UH, THE REQUIREMENT IS.
UH, I, I, I COULDN'T REALLY GO INTO ANY DETAIL.
I, I JUST DON'T HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE TO, TO DO THAT.
UM, AND THEN I GUESS JUST THE BACKUP THAT HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO US, I'M LOOKING AT IT, UH, THE SIX FEET IS ONE QUESTION.
UH, YOU'VE RESPONDED TO THAT, AND THEN IT SAYS, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REPORT OR ORDINANCE AFFECT ONLY NEW FENCES.
AND I THINK THAT WE SEE THAT, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY AGAIN, THAT WE'RE SAYING EFFECT ONLY NEW FENCES UNLESS YOU DO MORE THAN 50% REHAB OF AN EXISTING FENCE.
UH, SO THAT IS, UH, WHAT WE'RE NOT SUPPORTING IS, IS THE 50%, UH, WHAT THE STAFF IS SAYING THAT IF, UH, AN EXISTING FENCE ALREADY IS THERE, THAT THEY CAN MAINTAIN THAT FENCE AS LONG AS THEY MAINTAIN IT, THAT THEY CAN KEEP IT.
SO IT IS IN HERE, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS.
I JUST WANTED TO, UM, UNDERSTAND THAT.
OH, WAIT, CAN I CHAIR BEFORE I, SORRY, I STILL HAVE TIME.
I JUST DO WANNA THANK MRS. DAMIEN FOR HER TESTIMONY HERE AT CODES AND ORDINANCES FOR HER CHAMPIONSHIP ON THIS ISSUE, AND FOR SHARING, UH, HER STORY AND, UM, SHARING THE BEAUTIFUL PICTURES OF HER SON.
I CAN WISH NOTHING BUT LOVE AND RESPECT FOR HER AND HER FAMILY, UM, AND JUST THANK HER FOR HER WORK ON THIS.
[02:50:01]
YOU, CHAIRUH, CHAIR COHEN, DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? YES, PLEASE, MARK.
WAS THERE ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT LIMITING THE HEIGHT OF FENCES IN THE FRONT OF RESIDENCES? THAT CONVERSATION THERE CAME UP? NO.
SO IF SAY A HOUSE WAS NOT, UH, WITHIN THAT, YOU KNOW, MANDATED CORNER AREA THAT CUTS OFF, WHAT IS, I THINK IT'S 20 FEET FROM THE CORNER, LET THINK IT HAS TO BE VISIBILITY FROM LIKE THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
BUT, BUT IF THEY'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET AND THEY WANT TO PUT UP A SEVEN FOOT FENCE IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, THE, THE WAY IT, UH, READS NOW AS, AS IT EXISTS, UH, UH, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AN AVERAGE HEIGHT OF SIX FEET, UH, WEIGH MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SEVEN FEET, SIX ON FLAT SEVEN.
WAS THERE DISCUSSION ABOUT MAYBE LEAVING AT SIX AS JUST A NUMBER FOR FLAT OR LEVEL FENCES AND THEN SEVEN FOR ANYTHING THAT WASN'T THAT THE CONVERSATION, UH, DIDN'T, DIDN'T HAPPEN? UH, UH, LOOKING AT IT FROM, UH, THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE, UH, AND, AND BECAUSE WE KNOW THE TERRAIN AND, UH, WHAT PEOPLE WANT, UM, IT, IT MAKES IT VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO, TO ENFORCE.
I, I WOULD SAY IT'S PROBABLY VERY DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE PERIOD ONCE IT'S BUILT.
UH, VERY RARELY DO WE SEE ANY VARIANCES COME BEFORE US WHERE THE FUNDS HAS BEEN BUILT ALREADY, AND THEN THEY'RE ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS.
IT'S USUALLY BEFORE THEY BUILD, BUT THAT'S KIND OF MY POINT.
UH, I GUESS THIS IS SOMETHING I CAN PROBABLY SPEAK ON AT CODES AND OR THE CODES AND ORDINANCES, RIGHT? WHEN THEY TAKE IT BACK UP AGAIN, OR IS THIS HERE BEFORE US FOR GOOD NOW IT'S, IT'S OUT OF CODES AND ORDINANCES.
SO WE NEED TO MAKE WHATEVER CHANGES WE WANT NOW.
SO IF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WERE TO ASK FOR SOME AMENDMENTS, WOULD MAYBE SOMEONE BE OPEN TO THEM? I KNOW IT MAKES THINGS A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED, AND THAT'S NOT, NOT WHAT I WANT FOR OUR CITY CODE, BUT THE BEST EXAMPLE I COULD PROBABLY GIVE IS KNOCKING ON DOORS FOR A CANDIDATE LAST NOVEMBER, UH, OVER ON EAST MINK.
AND IT IS VERY CLEAR WHICH HOUSES HAVE BEEN BUILT RECENTLY BECAUSE THEY ALL HAVE VERY TALL, VERY WALLED SIX FOOT FENCES.
AND THAT THAT'S NOT HOW YOU BUILD A NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT'S NOT HOW YOU BUILD A COMMUNITY.
SO, UM, THIS ADDRESSES FENCE SAFETY.
UH, WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING? LOOK, THEY DO, IT'S PART OF IT, UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE THEY, THEY INCLUDE IN THE HEIGHT, AND I GET THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO SIMPLIFY IT, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST INSTEAD MAYBE KEEP, UH, THE WITCHES, BY THE WAY, NATIONAL STANDARD SIX FOOT HEIGHT FOR OFFENSES THAT ARE ON A FLAT TERRAIN OR LEVEL TERRAIN, AND THEN ALLOW SEVEN FEET FOR ANYTHING THAT'S NON-STANDARD OR SLOPED.
AND I ALSO THINK THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T REGULATE THE MATERIALS THAT CAN BE USED TO BUILD A FENCE, UH, ESPECIALLY SOLID FENCE, THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD CONSIDER LIMITING THE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT OF RESIDENTS INSTEAD OF JUST LEAVING IT UP TO A DEED RESTRICTION OR AN HOA COVENANT.
AND SORRY, TO CREATE EXTRA WORK.
I, YEAH, SO, UH, LOOKING AT THE, I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE, UH, MARKED UP CODE.
SO THAT WOULD BE, UM, WHICH SECTION WOULD BE, UH, 25, 25 2, 899.
UH, SECTION D IS WHERE THE, THE HEIGHT IS.
UH, I THINK THIS COULD PROBABLY BE TACKED, ALL OF IT COULD BE TACKED ON UNDER THERE.
UH, DEFINING THE HEIGHT LIMITS.
I'M SEEING, UH, 2 5 2 8 9 9 D IT LOOKS LIKE IN THIS, I'M LOOKING AT THE BACKUP.
D EXCEPT, YEAH, SO THEY CROSSED OUT AVERAGE.
SO WHAT IT WAS IS, UH, BEFORE, UH, AVERAGE HEIGHT OF SIX FEET.
SO IF YOU HAVE A SLOPE, UM, LIKE A REALLY HIGH SLOPE, YOU CAN MAKE UP TOWARDS THE TOP OF THE FENCE, LIKE ONLY LIKE FOUR FEET.
AND THEN DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, THE SLOPE, YOU CAN MAKE IT LIKE EIGHT FEET AS LONG AS ONCE IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE, AND EVERY PLANK IS MEASURED, THE OVERALL TOTAL WAS SEVEN FEET.
SO IT WAS, YEAH, IT'S A REALLY COMPLICATED WAY TO GO ABOUT BUILDING A FENCE AND MEASURING FROM A COCO COMPLIANCE STANDPOINT, THIS WOULD MAKE IT A LITTLE SIMPLER.
YOU GO WITH SEVEN FEET FOR ANYTHING ON A SLOPE, SIX FEET FOR ANYTHING THAT'S NOT, AND THEN MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW, YOU COULD GO WITH THREE AND A HALF OR THREE FOR FRONT YARDS AND OKAY.
LET'S DO, UH, IF, IF, IF PEOPLE EVEN WANNA CONSIDER THAT ONE.
I JUST, SO WHAT, WHAT I RECOMMEND IS WE, UH, WHEN WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE THERE'S A MOTION, UH, IS MAKE A MOTION ON KIND OF THE BASE AND WE CAN BUILD AMENDMENTS, UH,
[02:55:01]
TO THAT BASE MOTION.WE'LL, UH, TYPICALLY WHAT WE DO IS STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN WE ADD AMENDMENTS, UH, AND VOTE ON THOSE.
UH, UM, SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE A FEW THINGS WE'D LIKE TO PROPOSE.
COMMISSIONER AZAR, UH, IS OUR PARLIAMENTARIAN DO YOU HAVE A, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, MOVE AHEAD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UH, ARE WE DONE WITH QUESTIONS? UH, YEAH, THAT, THAT WAS MOSTLY MY CONCERN.
UH, SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS KIND OF OUR BASE.
UH, DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT? UH, OKAY.
SO, UM, DO WE HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS PROPOSED THAT, UH, TO THE BASE MOTION? I, I WOULD, I WOULD MOVE TO MAKE THE AMENDMENT SUGGESTED BY CHAIR COHEN.
I'LL PUT, UH, COMMISSIONER COHEN ON THE HOOK FOR STATING THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE OKAY.
I WOULD WRITE IT AS, UH, SOLID BENDS CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTED ALONG A PROPERTY LINE, MAY NOT EXCEED SIX FEET ON FLAT TERRAIN AND SEVEN FEET IF THERE IS A SLOPED GRADE.
AND BY THE WAY, GUYS, THANK Y'ALL SO MUCH FOR THIS, BECAUSE I HATE FENCE CASES.
LIKE THEY'RE JUST, THEY TAKE UP WAY TOO MUCH TIME FOR WHAT THEY'RE, OKAY.
SO, UH, MAY IAM AND, UH, WE'LL SEE IF A COMMISSIONER TAKES THE ACCEPTANCE AMENDMENT.
I THINK COMMISSIONER CONLEY IS INTERESTED.
UH, MAY I ADD, I THINK WE NEED STAFF TO CLARIFY THE FLAT VERSUS, UH, SLOPED.
UH, SO I WOULD JUST ADD WITH STAFF WOULD, UM, GO AHEAD.
CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? OH, SURE.
I, I'M IN, I'M COMPLETE SOLIDARITY WITH THE INTENT OF THE AMENDMENT.
I AM CONCERNED THAT THIS DEFINITION OF FLAT VERSUS SLOPED MIGHT TAKE US DOWN A VERY COMPLEX RABBIT HOLE.
CAN WE SEND THE RECOMMENDATION AS STAFF HAS IT WITH, UM, NOTES OR COMMENTS AND, AND JUST INCLUDE THOSE SEPARATELY? YEAH, I WAS THINKING JUST HAVE THEM WORK ON THE DEFINITION.
LEAVE IT TO STAFF TO DEFINE WHAT SLOPE.
WELL THAT, SO IT IS, IS DEFINED ALREADY? YES.
THAT, THAT'S IN CODE, RIGHT? YEAH.
THE, UH, IT IS, UH, TWO FEET DIFFERENCE.
WELL, IF IT'S ALREADY DEFINED AND THAT'S SIMPLE ENOUGH, I ACCEPT IT.
I, WELL, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER CONLEY TAKING THAT UP IN THIS MOTION.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THIS AMENDMENT? COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UH, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, DO WE NEED ANY DISCUSSION OR ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDA RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT? OKAY, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER CONLEY, I'LL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND USE THIS SPOT TO JUST MAKE A BRIEF COMMENT.
UM, UH, THAT ISN'T TO QUESTION ABOUT THIS, WHICH IS, UH, I ACKNOWLEDGE THE NEED FOR DEFENSE SAFETY, AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT STAFF HAS DONE ON THIS, AND I AM IN FULL SUPPORT OF FENCE SAFETY.
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS A, A SMALL, VERY IMPORTANT, BUT SMALL PIECE OF A LARGER CONVERSATION ABOUT ANTI-SOCIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING INCORPORATED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND THAT LEAD TO A GENERAL FEELING OF UNWELCOMING THIS, THAT MAKE THE STREETS SCAPE LESS WALKABLE AND LESS PLEASANT.
AND I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A BROADER CONVERSATION ABOUT FENCING WALLS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS IN GENERAL.
UM, AND SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT WHILE I FULLY SUPPORT MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS, I HOPE THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THE FUTURE, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF VERY PRESSING THINGS WE NEED TO DO ON OUR CODES.
SO, YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE WHEN WE CAN, I WOULD LIKE US TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A BROADER CONVERSATION ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, SAFETY, UH, FEATURES IN, IN, IN OUR HOUSING DESIGN THAT AFFECT THE STREETSCAPE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, ANYBODY ELSE WANNA SPEAK ON THIS BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE? UH, YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO SECOND ALL OF THAT.
UM, I LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S SEEN A RAPID AMOUNT OF CHANGE AND CAN SEE VISUALLY THE EXACT IMPACT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO AS WE DO MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE WONDERFUL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY CLEARLY NEEDED, WE ALSO SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT THE BIGGER CONTEXT.
AND AS I MENTIONED, MAYBE SOME UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE CURRENT REGULATIONS AND HOW WE CAN THINK MORE BROADLY ABOUT WHAT FENCING LOOKS LIKE IN OUR ACTUAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
UH, CHAIR, WE, AGAIN, WE DON'T, AS OF NOW, WE DON'T LIMIT, UH, FENCE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT OF HOUSES, BUT IF Y'ALL WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT IN ANOTHER FORM OF AN AMENDMENT, I THINK NOW
[03:00:01]
WOULD BE THE TIME.RIGHT? PARLIAMENTARIAN? UH, WELL, LET'S, UH, SO WE HAVE GO.
I THINK WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT I THINK IS PRETTY CLEAR IF WE, UM, UNLESS IS EVERYBODY CLEAR OR DO WE, UH, IS THERE, DO WE WANNA HAVE MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS AMENDMENT CHAIR? I SAW COMMISSIONER WOODS RAISED HER HAND.
I'M NOT SURE SHE NEEDS GO AHEAD.
I JUST WANT A POINT OF CLARIFICATION THAT WE'RE VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT AND THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADD ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS.
YES, WE'RE VOTING ON THIS ONE AMENDMENT.
UH, WE WILL VOTE ON IT AND THEN WE WILL GO DOWN AND ENTERTAIN OTHER AMENDMENTS.
UM, I HAVE ONE, THERE MAY BE OTHERS.
UH, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE HEIGHT LIMITATION, DO WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT NOW IN THIS AMENDMENT, OR CAN WE CONSIDER THAT SEPARATELY? BECAUSE YOU, AND THAT'S WHERE I'M NOT SURE WHETHER, I MEAN, CHAIR, I WOULD, CAN I, CAN I SUGGEST SOMETHING AS A PARLIAMENTARY? AND I WOULD RECOMMEND, UH, SPLITTING THOSE MOTIONS JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR ON THE DIFFERENT PIECES AND ELEMENTS THAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
SO IS EVERYONE CLEAR ON THE AMENDMENT? UH, THAT COMMISSIONER CONLEY SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION ON IT.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS AMENDMENT? ALL RIGHT, NO OPPOSITION.
THEN WE'RE GONNA GO AND, UH, IT PASSES.
IT'LL BE ADDED TO THE BASE MOTION.
I WANTED TO, NOW THAT, UH, THERE ON THE HISTORIC, UH, ITEM AND I NEED HERE, I HAD A COMMISSIONER, I HAD A MOTION TO THAT AS WELL.
BEFORE YOU MAKE A MOTION, MAYBE YOU CAN LAY OUT WHAT YOU WERE THINKING AND I CAN LAY OUT WHAT I'M THINKING AND WE CAN DISCUSS WHAT, IF YOU WERE SPEAKING THE, THE WORK YOU DID ON THE CODES NOS UH, PLEASE GO AHEAD CUZ YOU WERE THERE.
SO I'LL LET YOU TAKE, I APPRECIATE THAT CHAIR.
I WAS TRYING TO SORT OF ALIGN WITH THE NEW LANGUAGE AND HERE IS WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT WE AMEND 25 DASH TWO DASH 8 99 SUBSECTION H ONE B, WHERE IT SAYS THAT FOLLOWS HISTORICAL DESIGN STANDARDS, AND I WOULD SAY, AND COMPLIES WITH SUBSECTION H THREE.
SO MY NEW LANGUAGE WOULD BE AND COMPLIES WITH SUBSECTION H THREE.
AND THAT SUBSECTION IS WHERE WE ESSENTIALLY SAY THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE SPIKE PICKETS, YOU CANNOT HAVE VERTICAL PICKETS, RAZOR WIRE, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO WE WOULD BE SAYING YOU FOLLOW HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS, BUT ALSO AT THE SAME TIME, COMPLY WITH THE SAFETY STANDARDS LAID OUT IN THIS, UM, ORDINANCE.
THAT SEEMS LIKE A MUCH SIMPLER THING THAT WAS, UH, THAN WHAT I'M READING HERE IN THE BACKUP.
SO, UM, DO WE HAVE A, UH, IS THERE EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THIS AMENDMENT? UH, DO I HAVE A SECOND? UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS, ARE YOU SECONDING THIS? OKAY.
ANY DISCUSSION NEEDED? CHAIR? CAN I JUST QUICKLY SPEAK TO IT? SURE.
I, I DO UNDERSTAND STAFF IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE HISTORICAL STANDARDS, UH, WORK AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE STAFF THAT WORKS TWO WORDS THAT, SO YES, I WOULD LEAVE IT TO THEM TO FIGURE IT OUT.
I THINK THE HOPE AT THE, UH, GOOD AND ORDINANCES WAS THAT YOU CAN FOLLOW THOSE HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS.
SO IF A, IF A PICKET FENCE OF A CERTAIN KIND IS REQUIRED, YOU CAN DO THAT, BUT HOPEFULLY STILL FOLLOW THE SAFETY STANDARD.
SO WE MAYBE DO NOT HAVE THE RAISED SECTIONS ABOVE ESSENTIALLY SOMETHING THAT CAPTURES THE ESSENCE OF THAT HISTORIC STANDARD WHILE ALSO COMPLYING WITH THE SAFETY GUIDELINES LAID OUT IN THIS ORDINANCE THAT, THAT'S THE HOPE OF THIS MOTION.
ANY OTHER, UH, DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT? ALL RIGHT.
ARE THERE, UH, WE HAD A SECOND.
SO ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS, UH, ADDING THIS AMENDMENT TO THE BASE MOTION? ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE, UH, I THINK, UM, I THINK COMMISSIONER WOODS, DID YOU, YOU SEEMED INTERESTED IN ADDING AN AMENDMENT.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? THAT WAS IT.
SO WE CUT IT WAS THE HISTORIC ITEM.
ANY OTHER, UM, IMPROVEMENTS? I'M LOOKING AROUND CHAIR COMMISSION, LAEL AND ANDREW RIVERA, IF WE COULD PLEASE PAUSE.
OH, WE ARE, WE'RE, WE'RE AT, WE'RE AT THE MINIMUM.
WELL, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, WE, WE NEED SEVEN, CORRECT? CORRECT.
UM, ALL RIGHT, SO WE'VE GOT THE BASE AND THE TWO AMENDMENTS.
UM, ANY ADDITIONAL CHANGES THAT WE'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN? UM, I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO ALSO CONSIDER SOME THOUGHTS ON, UM, FRONT FENCING.
AND I'M GONNA DEFER TO OUR EXPERT ON THE VOA.
LET ME, LET ME JUST CHECK, UH, POINT OF ORDER.
UM, IS THIS IN, IN LINE WITH COUNCIL DIRECTION?
[03:05:01]
UM, CUZ THEY LAID OUT A SPECIFIC, I MEAN, IN THEIR RESOLUTION, ARE WE WITHIN THAT? DO WE THINK WE'RE WITHIN THAT, UH, COUNCIL DIRECTION OR DOES IT MATTER? COULD YOU PLEASE REPEAT THE, UH, SO COUNCIL DIRECTED AMENDMENT CITY MANAGER TO EVALUATE REQUIRING FLAT TOP STYLES ON NEW FENCES AT ALL LENGTHS, APPLYING FLAT TOP FENCE REQUIREMENTS TO ALL FENCES OF SIX FEET TALL OR LOWER, APPLYING FLAT TOP FENCE REQUIREMENTS TO SUBSTANTIAL FENCE REPAIRS OR REMODELING OF 50% OR MORE OF AN EXISTING FENCE.SO THERE'S A RESOLUTION OUT THERE.
UH, WE CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO I DON'T THINK THIS IS OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE CAN DO.
I JUST ASKING CHAIR, I BELIEVE, UH, THAT'S, UM, WITHIN YOUR OKAY.
I, ME, I, I, I THINK THE INTENT BEHIND IT WAS THE SAFETY OF THE FENCE WHERE, UH, IF I HAD TO MAKE A GUESS, AND IT'S NOTHING AGAINST STAFF, THIS WAS PROBABLY JUST A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAN UP A REALLY KIND OF BADLY WRITTEN, UH, PIECE OF THE CODE.
SO WHAT'S THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED? I CAN'T MAKE AMENDMENTS, BUT I, I WOULD, I WOULD ADVISE THAT IF YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT, UM, MAYBE 40 INCHES, I THINK, UH, WHILE STILL BEING COMPLIANT WITH WHATEVER THE TRANSPORTATION CODE SAYS, UH, AS FAR AS FENCE SETBACK AND, UH, BLOCKING VIEWS FROM CORNER RIGHT OF WAYS.
AND THIS IS, THIS WOULD BE ALONG THE, THE ASSUMING POOL CODE REQUIRED MINIMUM OF 48 INCHES IN 48.
OR I'M SORRY, ARE WE PASSING A MAX OR A MIN ON THE, WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? IT WOULD BE A MAX.
SO YOU DON'T END UP WITH A SIX OR SEVEN FOOT FENCE IN THE FRONT.
SO IT'S A MAX OF 48 IS THE CURRENT CODE FOR A SWIMMING POOL CODE? IT REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 48.
A MINIMUM OF 40 IN HEIGHT? YEAH.
THAT, BUT WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT, WE WERE NOT LIMITED TO.
EVERYBODY HAS TO STAY ON THE STAY IN VIEW HERE VIRTUALLY.
UM, SO THIS IS FRONT FENCE, UH, BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT FENCES THAT ARE SURROUNDING POOLS, ARE WE? WHAT, WHAT'S THE, UH, NO, I THINK THE QUESTION WAS EXACTLY REGARDING FRONT FENCING BEING, UM, HAVE USING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE CLARIFYING WHAT IS PERMITTED AS A, A GOOD FRONT FENCE.
AND I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO THINK THROUGH THE RIGHT WAY TO PUT THIS IN AS AN AMENDMENT.
MAYBE 60 INCHES MIGHT BE MOST PALATABLE TO COUNCIL.
MIGHT BE REALISTICALLY APPROVED.
EVEN I THINK IT'S A LITTLE TALL, PERSONALLY, BUT YEAH, I FELT THAT WAY.
IT STILL OFFERS PRIVACY AND PROTECTION FOR ANIMALS AND, UH, YEAH.
YEAH, SO I I A MAX OF 16 INCHES THE YEAH, THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE A MAC FRONT 16 INCHES IN THE FRONT SECTION.
AND TAKING INTO, SO THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME INTERESTING NUANCES THERE BECAUSE IT, IT'S GONNA DEPEND ON, ON THE LOT ITSELF AND WHICH IS ACTUALLY DETER OR FRONT WHERE'S THE HOUSE FACING.
SO, UH, SO WE COULD, SORRY, GREG, TO KEEP THIS BRIEF, WE COULD ASK STAFF TO LOOK AT MAYBE, I THOUGHT WE WOULD DO A GOOD, USING A MINIMUM OF 60.
AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION POOLS LIKE SAFETY REGULATIONS, NOT THINK WE CAN KEEP IT HIGHER, WE DON'T NEED, I THINK THAT'S GREAT.
MIGHT I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION QUICKLY? YES, PLEASE.
UM, RATHER THAN DOING FRONT, WE COULD JUST DO STREET FACING.
SO, STATE THE AMENDMENT AND WE'LL SEE IF WE GET A SET.
UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, YOU WANT TO LEAD? YES.
UM, I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT REGARDING STREET FACING, UH, FENCING BEING SET AT A MAXIMUM OF 60 INCHES AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION TRANSPORTATION RELATED CONCERNS AS WELL AS POOL SAFETY, AND THAT STAFF WOULD REVIEW THAT.
ARE WE CLEAR ON THE AMENDMENT? COMMISSIONER HOWARD, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP? UH, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.
I WAS JUST, I WAS GIVEN A SECOND.
ALL RIGHT, SO WE GOT A SECOND.
UH, ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM IN THE INTEREST OF TIME? JUST LOOKING AT, WE'RE AT NINE 30.
[03:10:01]
THISSO WE HAVE A, ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS AMENDMENT? THIS WILL BE OUR THIRD THE'S, A GOOD ONE.
UH, ANY ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS TO THE BASE? ALL RIGHT.
UH, I THINK WE JUST NEED, UM, I'M LOOKING AT, UH, PARLIAMENTARIAN.
DO WE NEED A QUICK VOTE ON THE BASE AND THE THREE AMENDMENTS TO WRAP THIS UP? YES, WE DO, EXCEPT WE HAVE NOT TAKEN, UM, FAR AGAINST ON THE BASE MOTION YET.
DO WE NEED ANY DEBATE DISCUSSION ON THE BASE MOTION? ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER AZAR, PLEASE.
I HEAR STAFF'S CONCERN ABOUT APPLYING THIS TO FENCES WHEN YOU'RE REHABBING PAST 50%.
I DO SEE THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACTS AND SORT OF MONITORING IMPACTS OF THAT AND HOW THAT MIGHT BE CHALLENGING.
I JUST DO FEEL LIKE IT'S AN IMPORTANT THING TO SAY THAT NOT ONLY DOES IT APPLY TO NEW FENCES, BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA REHAB YOUR EXISTING FENCE, YOU SHOULD APPLY THESE BECAUSE TRULY IT IS A QUESTION OF SAFETY HERE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
IT WAS ALSO WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED IN COUNCIL RESOLUTION.
SO I'M GLAD TO SEE IT'S IN THE BASE HERE.
WE'RE VOTING AHEAD WITH THAT AGAINST STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
I JUST DO WANNA HONOR WHAT STAFF IS SAYING HERE, BUT I DO THINK FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE, IT MAKES SENSE THAT IF WE GO FOR A REHAB OF MORE THAN 50%, THAT THESE RULES SHOULD APPLY.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, UH, FOR AND AGAINST ON THE BASE MOTION? ALL RIGHT.
UH, THEN WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON NOW, WE'VE GOT THE THREE AMENDMENTS THEY'VE BEEN, UH, APPROVED.
SO WE'RE VOTING ON THE BASE WITH THE THREE AMENDMENTS.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
THOSE ON THE, WELL, I'LL SAY ANY OBJECTION.
WE'LL MAKE THIS EASY TO PASSAGE OF, UH, THE BASE THREE, THREE AMENDMENTS.
SO THAT'S ALL OUR DISCUSSION CASES THIS EVENING.
WE'LL TRY TO GET, GET US OUTTA HERE BEFORE 10.
UM, WE HAVE ITEM 24 NOMINATION, THIS, RIGHT? WHAT'S, UH, YES.
[25. Nomination of members to be considered by Council to serve on Joint Committees.]
NOMINATE, UH, ITEM 25.THEN, UH, WHAT WE NEED IS A TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT TO THE, UM, RIGHT.
THE MOST URGENT ONE IS, AS WE SPOKE ABOUT, IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.
UM, I, WE HAVE, UH, EVERYBODY HAS BEEN ASSIGNED, SO THIS WOULD BE ANOTHER ASSIGNMENT.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD SERVE TEMPORARILY UNTIL WE GET THE NEXT COMMISSIONER APPOINTED? UH, WHO WOULD TAKE ON THIS ROLE? UH, CHAIR COHEN.
CAN WE GET AN OPINION FROM LEGAL ABOUT TEMPORARILY SERVING
THE, UH, UH, EX EXO CAN CERTAINLY ATTEND THE MEETINGS AS A, UM, MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC
I'LL PUT A SECOND OPINION FROM THE MPO.
SO IS ANYBODY, UH, HAVE AN INTEREST IN TAKING THIS ON RIGHT HERE? I GOT VOLUNTEER.
ARE WHICH COMMITTEE ARE YOU ALREADY ON? HE'S NOT
UM, IT'S, IT'S IN LOOKING THROUGH PROBABLY RIGHT NOW.
IT'S, UM, WE'RE AT THE LATEST, PROBABLY MID-JULY, AND THEN WE SHOULD HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE ON BOARD, HOPEFULLY, UH, COMMISSIONER AZA.
ARE YOU, ARE YOU NOMINATING OR ARE YOU PRO NO, I AM VOLUNTEERING HERE IN JUST, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU.
I'M QUESTIONING MY OWN SANITY.
UH, BUT IF NOBODY ELSE IS WILLING TO TAKE IT UP, I'LL TAKE IT, BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT WORK NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD.
IF WE CAN FIND A TIME THAT WORKS FOR ME, I'LL FILL THE SEAT.
UH, A MOTION TO, UH, I, I FEEL VERY GUILTY ALLOWING THIS TO
[03:15:01]
HAPPEN.WE NEED, UH, JUST A QUICK VOTE, UH, UH, A MOTION AND A SECOND.
UM, I'LL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION.
DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR COMMISSIONER AZAR TO SERVE ON THE CONFERENCE FILE? JOINT COMMITTEE SECOND, UH, COMMISSION.
CONLEY, ARE YOU INTERESTED? WAIT, YOU ARE ALREADY, ARE YOU ON THE COMMITTEE? NO, NO.
I'M, I, I'M NOT, I CAN'T BE ON ANYTHING ELSE, BUT I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER AAR CERTAINLY CANNOT BE ON ANYTHING ELSE
I'M TE HE OFFERED, SO WE'RE GONNA TAKE HIM UP ON THAT.
SO WE, UH, LET'S, I THINK WE HAD A SECOND.
UH, LET'S GO AND TAKE, UM, TAKE A, OR ANY OBJECTIONS TO YES.
HAVING COMMISSIONER LAZAR, YOU DO OBJECT.
ANY OTHER OBJECTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON OBJECTING TO, DO WE HAVE, WE HAVE, ALL RIGHT.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? THAT'S IT THIS EVENING, CORRECT, MR. RIVERA? SURE.
UH, THAT CONCLUDES, UH, YOUR, UM, UM, APPOINTMENTS OR NOMINATIONS OKAY.
UH, JUST A REMINDER THAT, UM, COUNSEL WILL CONSIDER THIS ON, ON, UM, JUNE 8TH.
UM, SO THEN SHORTLY THEREAFTER, UM, THE, UH, UH, FILING OF THE OATH SO WE CAN GET THAT, UH, SPECIAL CALLED.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
HAVE ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? MR. ANDERSON, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING? IT, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO EVENTUALLY TALK ABOUT GOVERNANCE.WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT ANYTIME SOON, BUT IT'D BE NICE TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT ALL THOSE FUN THINGS THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT SUBJECT MATTER.
UM, I HAD EMBRACED THIS WITH SOME FOLKS THAT ABOUT, UM, DISCUSSING BUDGETARY RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE GOING TO MOVE THAT PROCESS THROUGH OVER THIS.
BUT, UM, SOMETHING WE CAN EITHER ADD IS TO OUR NEXT MEETING OR CONSIDER AS A BODY.
UM, WE KNOW THAT SEVERAL OTHER GROUPS HAVE ALREADY MADE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS YEAR'S BUDGET.
WHAT'S THE COMP FOR? 90 DAYS ALMOST RIGHT? SEPTEMBER 1ST? YEAH.
THE COMP PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE, UH, LOOKS AT THE LONG, UH, THE C I P BUDGET AND BRINGS RECOMMENDATIONS, CHANGES FORWARD.
UM, SO WE'RE GOING TO LET THEM KIND OF HAVE A FIRST PASS AT THE, UH, CIP P RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT THERE MAY BE OTHER THINGS THAT, UH, WE WANT TO RECOMMEND MM-HMM.
SO WE'LL GO AND PUT THOSE ON AS, UM, UH, JUST SO WE CAN, WE CAN TAKE THOSE UP IF WE WANT TO.
ANY OTHER I FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS?
[BOARDS, COMMITTEES & WORKING GROUPS UPDATES]
OKAY.UH, MOVING ON TO BOARD COMMITTEE AND WORKING GROUP UPDATES, UH, CODES AND NOS.
UM, WE LOST COMMISSIONER HEMP BILL, UH, CHAIR.
WE, UH, I'LL JUST GIVE AN UPDATE.
WE CANCELED OUR LAST MEETING BECAUSE OF, UM, QUORUM ISSUES AND SOME UPCOMING IMPORTANT ITEMS, AND WE'LL BE RESCHEDULING IT MOVING FORWARD.
COMP PLAN, I THINK YOU, YOU ALL HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO MEET? NO.
UH, JOINT SUSTAINABILITY, ANY ACTIVITIES THERE? COMMISSIONER WOODS? NO, NO UPDATES.
UH, SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
COMMISSIONER HOWARD, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT ONE? YEAH, WE HAVEN'T HAD A MEETING SINCE OUR LAST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
UH, DO WE HAVE ONE SCHEDULED? UM, UM, I HAVEN'T SEEN.
WE'LL, UH, LET'S GO AND MOVE TO SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.
IS THERE ANY ACTIVITY THERE? NO, UH, NO UPDATES.
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND DUPLEX WORKING GROUP.
UH, ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING TO MENTION? OKAY.
UH, HAS THAT GROUP BEEN ABLE TO MEET OR ARE YOU GUYS WAITING ON ANY STATUS THERE? UM, THERE WAS A, A DESIRE TO WAIT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED.
THERE WAS A, WHAT LOOKED TO BE A REALLY GOOD STATE BILL, AND UNFORTUNATELY IT LOST BY ONE VOTE AND ONE HAD ONE NOTE, AND A HAD BEEN A YAY.
THEN WE WOULD'VE LEGALIZED THOUSANDS OF ADUS ACROSS TEXAS, BUT IT FAILED.
AUSTIN'S STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN, WORKING GROUP
UH, WE'RE FINALIZING AMENDMENTS THIS WEEK, AND WE SHOULD HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OUR, UH, SPECIAL CALL MEETING ON THE 30TH, TUESDAY, THE 30TH.
ANYTHING? NOTHING FROM MY SIDE.
I HAD TO MISS YESTERDAY'S MEETING BECAUSE OF WORK CONFLICT.
AND FINALLY, UPON DISTRICT WORKING GROUP, UH, MEETING WITH DAA ON THE 31ST.
[03:20:01]
TO COORDINATE EVERYONE GETTING TOGETHER FOR ONE MEETING, AND I'M HOPING THAT WILL BE NEXT WEEK ON THE 30TH.UH, SO THAT'S ALL WE HAVE HERE.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER, UM, THINGS, ANY OTHER ITEMS, UH, THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS EVENING? ALL RIGHT.
HEARING IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THIS MEETING OF PLANNING COMMISSION AT 9 39.
I SEE YOU LOOK ACROSS THE DISTANCE AND RED.
WHAT STORY ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE?