[00:00:07]
WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET THE MEETING STARTED.
[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]
IT IS 6:08 PM UM, WE'LL START OFF WITH ROLL CALL.SO JUST SAY HERE, WHENEVER I CALL YOUR NAME, I'LL GO HOW I SEE FOLKS ON THE DAIS.
AND THEN ON SCREEN, I'VE GOT COMMISSIONER BARRERRA RAMIREZ.
UM, I AM VICE CHAIR HEMPEL SERVING AS CHAIR TONIGHT.
AND WE HAVE OUR, UH, CHAIR OF THE B O A HERE TONIGHT.
SO TONIGHT, AS ALWAYS, UM, WE HAVE A HYBRID MEETING, SO, UM, JUST KNOW THAT WE MAY HAVE VIRTUAL AND IN-PERSON SPEAKERS FOR SOME OF THE ITEMS AS WELL AS OUR VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS.
UM, IF YOU ARE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, YOU'LL RECEIVE AN EMAIL ABOUT 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION TAKING UP YOUR ITEM, JUST SO YOU CAN MANAGE YOUR TIME.
AND MR. RIVERA IS GOING TO HELP ME ANNOUNCE THE SPEAKERS DURING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
SO, AS A REMINDER FOR THOSE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY, JUST HAVE YOUR GREEN, RED, AND YELLOW ITEMS FOR VOTING.
UM, AND I'LL BE TRACKING HOW MANY OF EACH VOTES WE HAVE, JUST SO THAT'S CLEAR, THOSE ONLINE.
UM, IF, IF I DON'T CALL YOUR NAME WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY SOMETHING OR ASK A QUESTION, JUST, UM, COME OFF MUTE.
AND, UM, FIRST, WE ARE GOING TO START WITH PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
SO I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE MR. MR. MARIO CANTU DOING SOME PUBLIC SPEAKING.
GOOD EVENING, UH, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, UH, WANNA BRING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD PERSPECTIVE, UH, DEVELOPMENT THAT IS SPECIAL AND AWESOME.
IF YOU NOTICE, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S STILL VIBRANT.
THERE ARE, UH, A NUMBER OF, UH, COMPANIES THAT STILL MANUFACTURE AND DO VERY SPECIFIC, UH, JOBS AND TRAITS.
THERE ARE A LOT OF PROFESSIONALS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO OUR CITY WHEN IT COMES TO DEVELOPMENT AND VERY SPECIALIZED, UH, TASKS THAT THEY NEED TO DO.
AND OF COURSE, THEY'RE ALL FAMILY PROVIDERS.
THEY PROVIDE FOR THE FAMILY AS WELL.
NEXT, A LOT OF THE MURALS ARE COMING UP IN THE YARD AREA, ARE REALLY NICE AND VIBRANT.
UH, THEY ARE SPECIAL, AND THEY ARE AWESOME.
NEXT, AND THIS IS PART OF THE INDUSTRIAL AS WELL.
I, I, YOU KNOW, THIS IMAGE IS REALLY, REALLY INTERESTING BECAUSE YOU GOT A MURAL TO THE RIGHT, YOU GOT PLUMBING TO THE FAR LEFT BY THE TELEPHONE POLE, AND THEN YOU HAVE DEVELOPMENT TO THE RIGHT.
UH, SWITCHES ALL COMBINED IN, IN WORKING TOGETHER.
NEXT, THIS IS, UM, RETAIL WITH A QUESTION MARK.
UH, THERE'S A LOT OF RETAIL IN THESE TWO PARTICULAR ESTABLISHMENTS OF, UH, DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'VE HAD WHERE WE DO NOT HAVE RETAIL ON THE BOTTOM.
A AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S AWESOME AND IT'S SPECIAL, BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THAT IS FULFILLED AND GUARANTEED.
UH, GO AHEAD TO THE NEXT ONE, PLEASE.
OF COURSE, THERE'S, THERE'S NO CONDOS ON TOP, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF, UH, BUSINESSES HERE.
AND I THINK THERE'S EIGHT IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, SIX TO EIGHT.
UH, IT DOES VERY, VERY, UH, WELL FOR THE, FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEXT.
AND THEN ON THE BOTTOM OVER HERE, YOU HAVE RETAIL.
SO THERE ARE, THERE IS THAT BALANCE OF RETAIL AS WELL.
UH, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT OUR DEVELOPERS ARE, ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR MAKING SURE THAT THEY DO IMPLEMENT SIDEWALKS.
UH, IT'S PAID FOR BY THE DEVELOPERS AS WELL.
UH, AND THAT THIS PROVIDES, UH, GOOD MEANS FOR MOBILITY IN, IN, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
NEXT, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THE DEVELOPERS HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL ONSITE CONSTRUCTION, PARKING.
THIS HAS BEEN AN ONGOING PROBLEM IN OUR AREA.
UH, AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S EXCESSIVE TRASH THAT'S ALWAYS, UH, LAID
[00:05:01]
THERE, UH, AT ALL TIMES OF THE DAY, UH, THROUGHOUT MANY MONTHS.AND THEN OF COURSE, VEHICLES RIGHT NOW.
I THINK THAT'S A SAFETY FACTOR WHEN YOU HAVE A LOT OF, UH, LEAKING OIL AND WITH WILDFIRES, UH, THAT ARE KIND OF MOVING AROUND IN DIFFERENT AREAS THAT COULD ADD TO THE POTENTIAL OF IGNITION NEXT, UH, SIDEWALKS, SIDEWALKS AND ROADS.
THE ROADS, AGAIN, WE NEED TO HAVE THE VEL ACCOUNTABLE FOR TAKING CARE OF THE ROADS.
UH, MY THING IS THEY NEED TO BE EQUAL OR GREATER TO WHAT THE ROAD WAS BEFORE THEY ARRIVED.
UH, IN THIS CASE, WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS NOT BETTER AND IT'S NOT EQUAL.
SO NEXT, AND IN OUR CROWN JEWEL THAT WE HAVE IN, IN SUSTAINABLE MARKET, THAT REALLY DOESN'T EXIST.
THERE'S ANOTHER, UM, IS THERE ANOTHER PRESENTATION AS WELL? OKAY.
UM, WE'RE READY FOR YOUR, UM, COMMENT ON THE, THE FLUME NOTIFICATION.
IT'S THE, UH, ITEM 29, RIGHT? THE M P A FILING DEADLINES.
UH, I JUST WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION, UH, FOR US, IT'S IN FEBRUARY, MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S, THERE'S A, A SLEW OF FILINGS THAT COME IN IN IN FEBRUARY WHEN THEY HIT IT.
IT COULD BE MAYBE A LITTLE, IT COULD BE A LOT.
IT'S A LOT, UH, FOR US AS A CONTACT TEAM, OFTEN SOMETIMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN THOSE FILINGS COME DOWN, UH, WE CAN BE WORKING ON THREE TO FOUR BIG, BIG FILINGS AT ONE TIME.
UH, THERE HAVE BEEN OCCASIONS WHERE, UM, AN APPLICANT DID WANT TO, UH, HAVE WANTED TO CREATE A FILING OUT OF CYCLE.
UH, SO THEY DIDN'T MEET THAT FEBRUARY DEADLINE, AND THEN THEY, LATER ON CAME US, CAME OVER TO US, UH, SOME MONTHS LATER AND SAID, HEY, YOU KNOW, CAN WE DO IT OUT OF CYCLE? UH, THERE'S BEEN TIMES WHERE WE'VE HONORED IT AND THERE'S BEEN TIMES WHERE WE HAVE NOT HONORED THAT.
UH, AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE IF WE GET TOO MANY FILINGS THAT ARE COMING DOWN, DOWN THE PIPE AT ONE TIME AND, AND ADDING ANOTHER BIG ONE ON TOP OF THAT, JUST LIKE THE CITY DOES AS WELL, UH, IT, IT CREATES A LITTLE BIT OF HAVOC ON, ON OUR END, AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO MAINTAIN ALL THE DIFFERENT APPLICANTS ALL AT ONE TIME, DEPENDING ON A LOT OF THINGS THAT, THAT WE WANT AS A NEIGHBORHOOD AND A LOT OF THINGS THAT THEY WANT AS, AS A DEVELOPER.
SO I, I ASKED TO GET SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT, ABOUT THE FILINGS, UH, SOME UNDERSTANDING, INSIGHT, UH, AND JUST KIND OF JUST SEE THE PROS AND CONS TO BOTH ENDS, UH, HOW IT'S GONNA BENEFIT THE CITY, HOW IT MIGHT NOT BENEFIT, HOW IT MIGHT BENEFIT US.
IT MIGHT NOT, OR WE CAN HAVE A BALANCE SOMEWHERE OR WE MAY JUST NEED TO LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS.
NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR APPROVAL
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
OF MINUTES.AND WE HAVE MINUTES FROM TWO MEETINGS, ACTUALLY JULY 11TH AND THE 25TH.
DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY EDITS OR CHANGES TO THOSE MINUTES? NONE.
THOSE TWO, JULY 11TH AND 25TH WILL BE ADDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, AND SO NOW WE ARE GOING TO HAVE COMMISSIONERS CZAR READ THE PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA.
[Consent Agenda]
THANK YOU CHAIR.I'LL BE GOING OVER THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. NUMBER TWO IS PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 23 0 0 2, 0 0.0 2, 1 0 6, AND 118 REDBIRD LANE.
THIS IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 26TH.
ITEM THREE, PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 23 0 0 2 5 0.0 2 5 5 2 4 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90, DISTRICT EIGHT.
THIS IS AN APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT NUMBER, ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS ALSO A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 23 0 0 2 5 0 1 5 7 2 5 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90, EASTBOUND DISTRICT EIGHT.
THIS IS POSTPONED BY STAFF TO SEPTEMBER 26.
UH, NOW ITEM NUMBER FIVE, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA A 2 23 0 0 2 4 0.01 RADIUS OF THE DOMAIN DISTRICT SEVEN.
THIS IS APPROVED BY CONSENT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM NUMBER SIX IS PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 23 0 0 2 0 0.0 3, 300 400 INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD, N P A, DISTRICT THREE.
THIS IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 26TH.
NUMBER SEVEN IS PLAN AMENDMENT.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 23 0 0 2, 0 0.0 1 4 2 0 1 SOUTH CONGRESS DISTRICT THREE.
THIS IS UP FOR STAFF POST ONE THROUGH SEPTEMBER 26.
AND NUMBER EIGHT IS ALSO PLAN AMENDMENT NM P A 20 23 0 0 1, 8 0.0 2 5 5 1 4 GROVER AND 5 5 1 5 ROOSEVELT AVENUE, DISTRICT SEVEN STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 12TH, NUMBER NINE, WHICH IS ALSO PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 23 0 0 3, 0
[00:10:01]
0.0 2, 714 TURTLE CREEK MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT TWO.THIS IS UP FOR POSTPONEMENT BY STAFF TO SEPTEMBER 12TH.
ITEM NUMBER 10 A, WHICH IS A PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 22 0 0 2 0 0.01 INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD, ONTARIO LANE, DISTRICT THREE.
THIS IS AN APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT 10 B, WHICH IS A REZONING C 14 20 22 0 0 6 2 INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD, ONTARIO LANE, DISTRICT THREE.
THIS IS ALSO AN APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
ITEM NUMBER 11 A, WHICH IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 2 23 0 0 1, 3 0 2 700 DAWSON, DISTRICT NINE.
THIS IS, UM, UH, FOR POSTPONEMENT BY STAFF TO AUGUST 22ND, ITEM 11 B, WHICH IS THE CORRESPONDING, UH, REZONING, C 14 20 23 0 6 4, 700 DAWSON, DISTRICT NINE.
POSTPONED ALSO TO AUGUST 22ND I NUMBER 12 A, WHICH IS THE PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 22 0 0 1 7 0.01 CRESTVIEW VILLAGE, DISTRICT SEVEN.
THIS IS UP FOR POSTPONED BY STAFF TO SEPTEMBER 12TH.
THE CORRESPONDING, UH, REZONING 12 B C 14 2 2 2 0 3 5, CRESTVIEW VILLAGE DISTRICT SEVEN.
THIS IS ALSO PER, THIS IS ALSO UP FOR POSTPONEMENT BY STAFF TO SEPTEMBER 12TH.
ITEM NUMBER 13, A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 2 2 3 0 1 3 0 1 200 WEST MARY, DISTRICT NINE.
THIS IS UP FOR POSTPONED BY STAFF TO SEPTEMBER 26TH AND THE CORRESPONDING, UH, REZONING 13 B C 14, 20 23, 2 1 200 WEST MARY DISTRICT NINE.
THIS IS ALSO UP FOR POSTPONEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 26, ITEM 14 HS.
PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 23 0 0 3, 0 0.01 SH MISSION SOUTH DISTRICT TWO.
THIS IS UP FOR POSTPONEMENT BY STAFF TO SEPTEMBER 26TH AND THE CORRESPONDING REZONING ITEM 14 B C 14 20 23 DASH ZERO SEVEN DASH 0 0 7, UM, SH MISSION SOUTH DISTRICT TWO.
THIS IS ALSO UP FOR POSTPONE MID TO SEPTEMBER 26TH.
ITEM NUMBER 15 A, WHICH IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 2 23 0 8 0 2 KENIG DISTRICT SEVEN.
THIS IS UP FOR POSTPONED BY STAFF TO SEPTEMBER 26TH AND THE CORRESPONDING REZONING 15 B C 14 2 23 9 KENIG DISTRICT SEVEN IS ALSO UP POSTPONED BY STAFF TO SEPTEMBER 26TH, 16, A PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 20 23 2 2 0.01821, WOODWARD, WOODWARD STREET DISTRICT THREE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR, UM, UH, APPROVAL BY CONSENT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION PENDING THE VOTE OF COURSE.
AND ITEM 16 B, WHICH IS THE CORRESPONDING REZONING, C 14 2 23 0 0 2 5 8 21 WOODWARD STREET, DISTRICT THREE.
ITEM NUMBER 17, A PLAN AMENDMENT N P A 2 2 2 0 0 2, 3 0.0.
TWO E EAST 51ST, AND CAMERON DISTRICT FOUR.
THIS IS UP FOR CONSENT AS IS THE CORRESPONDING REZONING.
ITEM 17 B REACHES REZONING C 14 20 23 0 0 0 3 EAST 51ST IN CAMERON.
DISTRICT FOUR IS UP FOR CONSENT.
ITEM 18 A PLAN AMENDMENT M P A 20 23 0 0 1 8 0.01, WHICH IS, UH, 7 0 0 2 7 0 0 4, AND 7 0 0 6 QUAD STREET.
IT IS UP FOR CONSENT AS, AS A CORRESPONDING REZONING, UM, WHICH IS ITEM 18 B C 14, 20 23 0 0 7.
UM, 7 0 0 2 7 4 AND 7 0 0 6 GUADALUPE STREET, DISTRICT FOUR.
THIS FOR CONSENT ITEM 19, UM, WHICH IS REZONING C 14 20 23 DASH 0 0 3 5.
THIS IS SOFTWARE POSTPONED BY STAFF TO SEPTEMBER 12TH, ITEM 20, ALSO A REZONING C 14 20 23 DASH 0 0 15, 200 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE, DISTRICT NINE.
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN, UH, PULLED FOR DISCUSSION BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
ITEM NUMBER 21, UM, C 14 20 22 DASH 0 1 7 2.
THIS IS 2,207 HAM LANE, DISTRICT THREE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS ALSO A REZONING C 14 20 22 0 9 DASH 0 9 0.
UH, 2 2 3 9 CROMWELL CIRCLE, DISTRICT THREE.
THIS IS ALL UP FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM 23, WHICH IS A REZONING C EIGHT 14 DASH ZERO SIX DASH 0 6 0 3.
HEIGHT WEST, BUT AMENDMENT, THIS IS POSTPONED, UH, IS RECOMMENDED FOR POSTPONED BY STAFF TO SEPTEMBER 12TH.
ITEM NUMBER 24, WHICH IS A HISTORIC ZONING, C 14 H 20 23 0 0 7 4 AUGUSTA ADAMS, ZILLER HOUSE DISTRICT NINE.
ITEM NUMBER 25, ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE, SP 2 2 2 0 1 9 70.
COUNTRY CLUB CREEK, UH, TRAIL.
THE ASSIGNMENT HAS BEEN PULLED FOR DISCUSSION BY, UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
ITEM 26 S PC 20 23 0 1 8 3 A EAST AUSTIN SEVENTH
[00:15:01]
STREET HOTEL.THIS CONDITIONAL USED PERMIT IS UP FOR CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER 27, FINAL PLATT FROM APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN C EIGHT J 2018.
6 5 3 A LAGOS AUSTIN, SECTION ONE, PHASE TWO A ES AND STREET SUBDIVISION IN THE E T J.
FINAL PLA, UH, FROM APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN, CJ 20 18 0 9 1 5 8 TURNER'S CROSSING SOUTH PHASE THREE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT AS WELL.
IT'S AN L D C AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2020 DASH ZERO 15.
ELIMINATE N P A FILING DEADLINES AS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER 30 L D C AMENDMENT, ALSO C 20 DASH 2022 DASH 0 1 7 10.
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN PULLED FOR DISCUSSION BY MYSELF, COMMISSIONER ZAHAR, I NUMBER 31 REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 3 0 4 3 4 2 0 1 SOUTH CONGRESS DISTRICT THREE.
THIS REZONING IS ALSO UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 26TH.
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT NEED TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN FROM ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE JUST LISTED? OKAY.
UM, MR. RIVERA, ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP ON ANY OF THOSE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS? UH, CHAIR COMMISSIONER LEES ON VERA.
NO, BUT, UM, COMMISSIONER COX, UM, DO YOU WANNA REVIEW WHETHER YOU NEED TO RECUSE ON AN ITEM? OH, SORRY, I DIDN'T SEE THAT.
SO I'LL, DO I RECUSE NOW OR RECUSE WHEN ITEM 20 COMES UP? WHY DON'T YOU, UM, NOTE YOUR RECUSAL NOW? UM, WELL FIRST LET ME ASK THIS.
COMMISSIONER COX, I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
I KNOW YOU HAD A COMMENT ON NUMBER 20.
IS IT ENOUGH TO JUST HAVE YOUR, MAKE YOUR COMMENT DURING CONSENT AND WE PUT NUMBER 20 ON BACK ON CONSENT? OR DO YOU REALLY WANNA PULL IT FOR A DISCUSSION? I WANNA PULL IT FOR A DISCUSSION.
ANY OTHER ITEMS TO BE PULLED? WE ALREADY HAVE A PRETTY FULL AGENDA.
ANY OF THE CUS OH, I DID ASK THAT.
UM, SO LET ME REREAD THE AGENDA REALLY QUICKLY.
I'LL GO VERY FAST BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S A LOT.
UM, NUMBERS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR ARE ALL, UM, POSTPONED.
NUMBER FIVE IS ON FOR CONSENT.
NUMBER SIX AND SEVEN, POSTPONED TO SEPTEMBER 26TH, NUMBER EIGHT AND NINE, POSTPONED TO SEPTEMBER 12TH, NUMBER 10, A AND B INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT NUMBER 11, A AND B POSTPONEMENT TO AUGUST 26TH.
SECOND NUMBER 12, A AND B POSTPONEMENT SEPTEMBER 12TH, NUMBER 13, AB NUMBER 14 AB AND NUMBER 15 AB ALL SEPTEMBER 22ND, POST 26TH, POSTPONEMENT NUMBER 16, AB CONSENT NUMBER 17, AB CONSENT NUMBER 18, AB CONSENT 19.
STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO THE 12TH OF SEPTEMBER, 20, 21, 22, ALL PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
23 POSTPONEMENT TO THE 12TH OF SEPTEMBER 25TH.
IT WILL BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION NUMBER 26, 27, 28, 29.
ALL ON CONSENT NUMBER 30 PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
AND NUMBER 31 POSTPONEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 26TH.
CAN I GET A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, APPROVE THE, AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, INCLUDING THE MINUTES.
WE'VE GOT EVERYBODY ON THE ES AND I SEE ALL GREENS ON THE SCREEN.
WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST, UM, PUBLIC HEARING CASE.
SO THAT IS GOING TO BE A STAFF PRESENTATION ON, LET'S SEE, NUMBER 20.
[20. Rezoning: C14-2023-0015 - 200 S Congress Avenue; District 9]
NUMBER 20.COMMISSIONER SHERRY SIRTI WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 20, WHICH IS CASE C 14 20 23 15, WHICH IS 200 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE.
THE REQUEST IS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 200 208 TO 10 AND 2220 AND HALF SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REZONING FROM L I P D A MP ZONING
[00:20:01]
TO L I P D A IN ZONING MP ZONING TO CHANGE A CONDITION OF ZONING.THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO ALLOW AUTOMOTIVE SALES USE FOR INDOORS ONLY.
THEY WOULD ALSO LIKE TO LIMIT THAT USE TO 550 SQUARE FEET ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THEY WANT TO PROHIBIT AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, AND AUTOMOTIVE WASHING USES ON THE PROPERTY.
THE STAFF SUPPORTS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE L I P D A MP ZONING.
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS A 0.573 ACRE SITE THAT IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH RETAIL AND OFFICE USES THAT FRONT ONTO SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE.
THE LAND TO THE NORTH IS ZONED.
P N P P U D N P AND L I MP AND IS DEVELOPED WITH SURFACE PARKING AND A DELIVERY AREA FOR THE HYATT REGENCY HOTEL DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH.
THERE IS CS ONE V N P ZONING THAT CONTAINS A RETAIL STORE AND A HOTEL.
USE EMBASSY SUITES ACROSS BARTON SPRINGS ROAD ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE.
THE LOTS CONTAIN THE FORMER AUSTIN AMERICAN STATESMAN NEWSPAPER SITE THAT WAS ZONED P U D N P RECENTLY TO THE WEST, THERE IS P U D MP AND CS ONE V MP ZONING THAT IS DEVELOPED WITH A HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND A PARKING GARAGE THAT SERVES THE HYATT REGENCY HOTEL.
AND AN OFFICE USE AND A MULTI-FAMILY USE THE CATHERINE LUXURY APARTMENTS.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE IN BARTON SPRINGS ROAD TO AMEND THE P D A OVERLAY TO PERMIT AUTOMOTIVE SALES USE FOR INDOOR USE.
ONLY THE PROPOSED P D A AMENDMENT IS TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY TO RE BE REDEVELOPED AS A COMMUNITY HUB FOR AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE MANUFACTURER.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PROPOSED ZONING BECAUSE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE DISTRICT OF THE DISTRICT SOUGHT, WHICH IS THEI DISTRICT.
THE PROPOSED ZONING WILL PROMOTE CONSISTENCY AND ORDERLY PLANNING AS THE L I P D A ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE PATTERNS IN THE AREA AS THERE IS COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND MIXED USE ZONING DESIGNATIONS, P U D MP, CSS, ONE V, MP, AND L I M P ZONING AND COMMERCIAL OFFICE AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES SURROUNDING THE SITE UNDER CONSIDERATION TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST.
AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
I'M LEAH BOJO HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, I, I HAVE A PRESENTATION AND I HAVE SOME, SOME PRETTY PICTURES ABOUT THE ACTIVATION IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN THAT.
OR I CAN ALSO MAKE, JUST MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, YOU WANNA DO A QUICK PRESENTATION? SURE.
UM, SO SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER THIS CASE WE BROUGHT, UM, THROUGH YOU A, A YEAR OR YEAR AGO APPROXIMATELY.
UM, THIS IS A, AN OLD P D A, UM, ON AN EXISTING SMALL BUILDING, UM, AT 200 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE.
HERE IS THE OUTLINE OF THE BUILDING.
YOU CAN SEE AT THE CORNER OF BARTON SPRINGS IN SOUTH CONGRESS.
IT'S KIND OF A FUNNY, UM, LOCATION 'CAUSE IT'S PUSHED BACK OBVIOUSLY WITH THAT FLAG.
AND THEN, UM, SOUTH CONGRESS BRIDGE BEGINS THERE.
SO THE SOUTH CONGRESS, UM, FRONTAGE IS ELEVATED.
UM, HERE'S A LITTLE BIT CLOSER.
UM, LOOK, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING BUILDING AND A LOT OF SURFACE PARKING ON THE SITE TODAY.
AND WE WILL BE USING THE EXISTING BUILDING AS IT IS FOR A COMMUNITY HUB, UM, FOR RIVIAN, UH, AN ELECTRIC CAR MANUFACTURER.
UM, THEY DO THIS IN OTHER PLACES AS WELL WHERE THEY, UM, THEY HAVE A, A COUPLE OF CARS INSIDE AND THEY ALSO HAVE A BUNCH OF OTHER KIND OF ACTIVATING USES.
THEY LIKE TO HAVE THEIR PEOPLE WHO WANNA LEARN ABOUT THEIR CARS, PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEIR CARS KIND OF COME AND USE THE SPACE.
THEY LIKE TO HAVE IT NEAR A NATURAL SETTING, SO IT'S NEAR THE WATER.
UM, IT'S REALLY KIND OF A, AN OPTIMAL SPACE FOR THEM.
AND I THINK ALSO FOR THE WATERFRONT OVERLAY AND FOR THE CITY, UM, LIKE I SAID, IT'S A VERY SMALL LOT, UM, JUST OVER HALF AN ACRE.
UM, AND, AND, AND Y'ALL KNOW WHERE, WHERE THE TRANSIT IS, UM, NEARBY.
UM, SO HERE YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT MEETS THE, THE PARK HERE.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THE LOWER SIDE, AGAIN, WE ARE GONNA REUSE THE BUILDING, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SOME, SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BUILDING FOR SURE.
THIS IS A LITTLE OUTTA DATE, BUT I THINK IT GIVES A GOOD IDEA OF WHAT KIND OF REUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AS YOU MAY REMEMBER FROM BEFORE, WE'RE PULLING UP SOME OF THE PARKING SPACES, RE LANDSCAPING, REDUCING THE IMPERVIOUS COVER A LITTLE BIT, INSTALL A ROOFTOP DECK, UM, AND THEN USING THE INTERIOR, LIKE I SAID, FOR THAT KIND OF HUB USE.
UM, THERE'S THE, THIS IS THE, WHAT THE FRONTAGE LOOKS LIKE TODAY.
AND THEN THIS IS, THIS IS A RENDERING YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IN AUSTIN BUSINESS JOURNAL.
THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING ON DOING.
SO YOU CAN SEE IT REALLY IS GONNA OPEN UP THE SITE QUITE A BIT, EVEN USING THE EXISTING BUILDING.
UM, SO IT IS GONNA BE A VERY ACTIVE AND VIBRANT SPACE.
UM, THESE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO INCLUDE IN THERE.
NOT YOUR USUAL AUTO SALES BY ANY MEANS.
UM, WHICH IS SORT OF SHOWS WHY ONLY 550 FEET IS NEEDED.
THAT'S APPROXIMATELY THREE VEHICLE SPACE, WHICH IS SPACE FOR THREE VEHICLES, WHICH IS THE MOST NUMBER OF VEHICLES THEY WOULD WANNA HAVE INSIDE AT A TIME.
UM, IT IS TRUE THAT TEXAS STATE LAW PROHIBITS AUTO SALES AND THEY
[00:25:01]
WILL NOT BE SELLING AUTOS THERE BECAUSE THEY CANNOT PER STATE LAW.UM, HOWEVER, FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, UM, THE CLOSEST USE, AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE OFTEN, UH, KIND OF SHOEHORNING USES INTO THINGS.
THE CLOSEST USE FOR HAVING A VEHICLE ON DISPLAY IS, UM, IS AUTO SALES.
SO WE HAVE 550 SQUARE FEET OF AUTO SALES, WHICH WILL BE THE FOOTPRINTS OF THE, OF THE CARS.
UM, NO SALES WILL ACTUALLY TAKE PLACE THERE PER STATE LAW.
AND THE REST OF THE USE WILL BE THE RETAIL, THE, UM, THE FOOD SALES, ALL THOSE OTHER KINDS OF THINGS.
UM, THOSE ADDITIONAL AUTO USES ARE ACTUALLY ALREADY PROHIBITED TODAY.
UM, SO, AND WE'RE NOT PLANNING ON USING ANY OF THEM ANYWAY, SO THAT PART WORKS GREAT.
UM, WE DID GO VISIT THE, UM, SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE, UM, TWICE NOW, ACTUALLY
UM, AND, AND THE PROJECT IS COMPLIANT.
THEY WERE EXCITED ABOUT THE ACTIVATION.
UM, AND WE SAW 'EM IN FEBRUARY OF LAST YEAR AND THEN AGAIN IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR.
UM, AND WITH THAT, I WILL, UM, ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS FOR OR AGAINST? OKAY.
UM, LET'S TAKE A VOTE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, COMMISSIONER ZARK SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, CHAIR? YES.
THIS IS THE ITEM THAT I NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF TO.
NOTED THAT COMMISSIONER COX IS RECUSING AND YOUR REASON, UH, MY EQUITY STAKE IN RIVIAN EXCEEDS THE, THE LEGAL THRESHOLD.
UM, CAN I ASK YOU TO TURN YOUR CAMERA OFF? THANK YOU.
SO WE HAD ALL IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DAES, AND THEN ON THE SCREEN WE HAVE COMMISSIONER HOWARD.
UM, NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR Q AND A AND, UM, UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WAS ON CONSENT PREVIOUSLY.
ARE, ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO DOING A FIVE, UH, SLOT AT THREE MINUTES FOR OUR Q AND A? OKAY.
WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT AND WE CAN GO AHEAD AND DIVE INTO QUESTIONS.
AND COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DO YOU WANNA START? SURE.
UH, CAN I GET LEGAL? ALRIGHT, I'LL ASK A QUESTION, UH, ABOUT TEXAS OCCUPATION CODE 2301 CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LARO, YOU MIGHT, UH, POSE THE QUESTION AND THEN WE WILL, UM, CONFER WITH LEGAL, UM, AND, UH, PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT TEXAS OCCUPATION CODE 2301 PREVENTS A MANUFACTURER OF A VEHICLE FROM SELLING VEHICLES IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
AND THE APPLICANT IS ASKING THIS COMMISSION TO AUTHORIZE THE, UM, SALE OF AUTOMOTIVE, UM, UH, VEHICLES BY A MANUFACTURER AT THIS SITE.
DOES THIS COMPLY WITH, UM, OCCUPATION CODE 2301 CHAIR? UH, LEGAL WILL NEED A RESEARCH, AND SO WE CAN, UH, WE WILL TABLE THAT INQUIRY.
UM, IF YOU WANNA MOVE ON TO, UH, ANOTHER QUESTION WHILE WE, UH, RESEARCH THAT MATTER.
DID YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS? MY QUESTION RESOLVES COMPLETELY AROUND THE LEGALITY OF, OF COMING FORWARD AND ASKING THIS COMMISSION TO AUTHORIZE A USE THAT IS A, AS STATE CLEARLY STATED IN TEXAS LAW AGAINST THE LAW.
I CAN SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT I DID CONSULT WITH OUR ATTORNEYS EARLIER TODAY ABOUT THIS QUESTION, AND THEY SAID THEY WILL NOT OPINE ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE LAW.
HOWEVER, THEY SAID THAT AS ZONING IS NOT A PERMIT, IT IS SIMPLY A CATEGORY OF USES AND SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THE PERMIT, UM, THINGS TO DEVELOP ON A SITE THAT IT DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
IF YOU WISH TO ADD AUTOMOTIVE SALES BACK AS A USE ON THIS SITE, IT IS SIMPLY A RECOMMENDATION THAT WILL GO ON TO CITY COUNCIL WHERE THEY WILL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON THE ZONING CHANGE.
SO ZONING DOES NOT ACTUALLY ACT AS A PERMIT TO PERMIT A USE ON THE PROPERTY AS IT WOULD BE A NOTE ON A SUBDIVISION PLAN OR A SITE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY.
IT'S SIMPLY A CATEGORY OF USES INSIGHT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
SO THAT WAS THE DETERMINATION THAT WAS MADE EARLIER WHEN I CONSULTED WITH OUR LEGAL STAFF, UM, AGAIN, THEY SAID THAT THEY WILL NOT GET INTO THE DEPTHS OF A STATE LAW BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMISSION.
[00:30:01]
US TO AUTHORIZE AUTOMOTIVE SALES AT THIS SITE? I AM STATING THAT YOU AS A COMMISSION CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION HOWEVER YOU CHOOSE.YOU CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WE DID RECOMMEND PERMITTING AUTOMOTIVE SALES.
BUT THEY WILL NOT BE SELLING AUTOMOTIVE USES ON THE PROPERTY.
SO, CHAIR, MY, UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I'M GONNA LEND MY DIME TO USE TO CONTINUE.
COMMISSIONER, LADIES VERSO AND CONFIRMED WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT, THIS ZONING DOES NOT AUTHORIZE TO SELL VEHICLES, AND THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING.
BASICALLY, THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING IS, DO YOU AGREE WITH A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT P D A OVERLAY THAT WOULD ALLOW AUTOMOTIVE SALES USES AS AN INDOOR USE ONLY? NOW, AGAIN, THAT WOULD ALLOW IT DEPENDING ON THE CONDITIONS THAT APPLY WHEN THEY GO FOR SITE PLAN FOR APPROVAL.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE PERMIT STAGE.
THIS IS JUST PERMITTING OR ALLOWING CERTAIN USES TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE PROPERTY THROUGH THE P D A OVERLAY.
SO DO, DOES STAFF OFTEN COME AND ASK THE, UM, THE COMMISSION TO ALLOW USES THAT ARE, ARE CLEARLY BY BLACK LETTER LAW AGAINST THE, THE STATE OF TEXAS.
THE STAFF DOES NOT ASK THE COMMISSION TO DO ANYTHING.
WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO YOU.
YOU EITHER AGREE WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION, RECOMMENDS SOMETHING ELSE, OR RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST THAT IS BEFORE YOU.
AND THEN THAT RECOMMENDATION MOVES ON TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION.
DOES STAFF DO STAFF OFTENTIMES RECOMMEND THAT THIS COMMISSION SUPPORT ITEMS THAT ARE AGAINST TEXAS STATE LAW.
TEXAS STATE LAW WOULD BE A RULING DOC GOVERNMENT ENTITY OVER WHATEVER THE CITY'S APPROVALS WOULD BE AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING IF IT AFFECTS THIS SITE.
NOW THAT BEING SAID, WE AS STAFF BELIEVE THAT AUTOMOTIVE SALES IN THIS CASE, TO DO A SHOWROOM WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA AS THERE IS NUMEROUS COMMERCIAL USES, CIVIC USES AND MULTIFAMILY USES IN THIS AREA.
AND IT WOULD SUPPORT THE SURROUNDING COMMERCIAL, UH, COMPATIBILITY IN THIS AREA.
SO THAT IS WHY WE'VE MADE OUR RECOMMENDATION AND IT'S UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE YOU OKAY.
OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? YES, CHAIR GOHAN, BECAUSE I THINK I CAN HELP GET CLARIFICATION ON THIS.
IF I OWNED THREE FERRARIS AND I WANTED TO STICK THEM ON A SHOWROOM FLOOR FOR PEOPLE TO LOOK AT BUT NOT BUY YES.
WOULD THIS SAME TYPE OF LAND USE BE APPLICABLE? YES.
THE CATEGORY WOULD BE THE SAME BECAUSE AUTOMOTIVE SALES IS THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU COULD DO THAT TYPE OF DISPLAY FOR AN AUTOMOTIVE USE.
THAT'S WHERE IT FALLS IN OUR CODE.
AS WE KNOW, WE HAVE, WE HAVE SEVERAL USES THAT DON'T ALWAYS ENCOMPASS EVERYTHING THAT IS OUT THERE.
WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON ELECTRIC CHARGING SUBSTATIONS BECAUSE THEY DON'T REALLY FALL UNDER SERVICE STATION USE.
SO WE HAVE A LOT OF USE, NEW USES COME ALONG AND THEY'RE NOT REALLY CAPTURED BY THE EXISTING USES IN THE CODE.
AND SO THEN WE HAVE TO DO CODE AMENDMENTS TO ENCOMPASS THOSE.
NOW IN THIS CASE, THEY WANT TO DO THIS SHOWROOM WHERE THEY MAY HAVE A CAR ON DISPLAY, BUT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWING FOR SALES AT THE SITE, THEREFORE IT FALLS UNDER AUTOMOTIVE SALES.
'CAUSE THAT'S THE CATEGORY THAT WE HAVE IN THE CODE THAT WOULD ALLOW THAT.
UM, QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
I, I BELIEVE I RECALL YOU SAID THAT THEY WILL NOT BE SELLING CARS, IT WILL BE SHOWING ONLY.
COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE SO WE CAN JUST SURE.
SO, UM, THE, THE POINT OF THIS SPACE IS NOT, IT'S NOT A TRADITIONAL SHOWROOM WHERE THEY PEOPLE GO IN AND SELL AND, AND LOOK AT A CAR AND THEN DECIDE TO BUY ONE.
IT'S REALLY MORE OF A COMMUNITY GA LIKE GATHERING SPACE AND HUB WHERE THEY HAVE, UM, TALKS, THEY HAVE, UM, EVENTS, THEY HAVE, UH, LIKE A, UM, SPACES, ROOMS YOU CAN RENT OUT FOR THE COMMUNITY CAN RENT OUT.
THEY HAVE SPACES OF COURSE, FOR THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS.
THEY HAVE EVENTS FOR THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE ALL OF THESE THINGS.
BUT, UM, THE IDEA IS TO KIND OF
THEY'RE, I DON'T KNOW A LOT ABOUT THE CARS.
THEY'RE LIKE, YOU KNOW, REALLY OUTDOORSY.
SO LIKE YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, PUT YOUR KAYAK ON TOP OR WHATEVER.
YOU KNOW, LIKE THE IDEA IS JUST TO KIND OF LIKE, GET PEOPLE EXCITED ABOUT WHAT THESE CARS CAN DO AND WHAT THEIR, UM, SUSTAINABILITY
[00:35:01]
IS LIKE, LIKE EDUCATIONAL, YOU KNOW, LIKE ELECTRIC CARS ARE STILL CARS, BUT THEY'RE VERY DIFFERENT THAN REGULAR CARS AS FAR AS THEIR, UM, CARBON FOOTPRINT AND THINGS LIKE THAT.SO THE IDEA IS JUST TO HAVE IT, UM, HAVE A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN GO AND LEARN.
UM, THEY HAVE ONE IN VENICE BEACH AND THEY HAVE ONE IN MANHATTAN.
UM, I WOULDN'T EVEN BE BEFORE YOU IF THEY HADN'T DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED TO PUT A CAR INSIDE.
THEY ORIGINALLY WERE NOT THINKING THEY WERE GONNA PUT A VEHICLE INSIDE, WHICH IS WHY WE CAME THROUGH BEFORE AND DID ALL OF THIS, UM, WITHOUT THAT USE.
UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MAYBE THE CHAIR OR THE COMMISSION AND LIKE, IS THIS, IS THIS SOMETHING LIKE AS MORE ELECTRIC CARS ARE BEING INTRODUCED TO DIFFERENT MANUFACTURERS, MAYBE SOMETHING, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD LOOK AT TO SEND A CODES AND ORDINANCES, LIKE A NEW LAND USE, UH, DEFINITION? YEAH, WE CAN MAYBE TALK ABOUT THAT AT THE, THE END FOR FUTURE ITEMS. YEAH.
OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS?
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS ITEM.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR, UM, YOUR PROMOTION? I REALLY DON'T THINK A WHOLE LOT NEEDS TO BE SAID.
THAT HASN'T ALREADY BEEN SAID HERE.
I THINK THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY, THIS MAY WELL WARRANT, UH, FUTURE CONVERSATION ABOUT UPDATING SOME OF OUR LAND USE DEFINITIONS.
UM, BUT FOR THE TIME BEING, I AM, UH, IN SUPPORT OF ALLOWING THEM TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS CHANGE AS STAFF RECOMMENDED.
ANY AGAINST? UM, AND IN MY AGAINST, UM, I, WELL IS THE MO THE MOTIONS ON THE TABLE CORRECT? MOTIONS ON THE TABLE, YES.
TO MOVE FORWARD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UM, I WILL MAKE A, UH, I WILL ASK FOR A, UH, AN AMENDMENT THAT AT THE END OF THE RECOMMENDATION AFTER THE WORD ONLY AND BEFORE THE PERIOD, WE INSERT THE PHRASE IN COMPLIANCE WITH TEXAS FRANCHISE LAWS AND THE TEXAS OCCUPATION CODE 2301.
BEFORE I ASK FOR A SECOND, WE'RE GONNA DO THINGS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY TONIGHT.
I DO WANNA GO THROUGH ALL OF THE FOR AND AGAINST DEBATE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION BEFORE WE GET TO THE PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE.
HE'S JUST AN AMENDMENT ON THE SUBSTITUTE.
YOU DID, SO AMENDMENT IS A P YES.
IS THERE WE DO SECOND FOR THAT, RIGHT? YOU DID NOT SECOND.
IS THERE A SECOND ON COMMISSIONER HAYNES? PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION CHAIR? MY, I'M SORRY, CHAIR.
COULD I ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF? UM, STAFF? JUST A CLARIFICATION.
WOULD SOMETHING LIKE THIS, AND I GUESS THIS IS MORE MAYBE A LEGAL STEP, BUT MS. VEES, IF YOU CAN HELP US AS WELL, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY ADD TO A MOTION OR WOULD THIS NOT BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN I'M SORRY, I COULDN'T HEAR YOU.
OH, I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF, IF WHAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES, MR. HAYNES, DO YOU WANNA REPEAT YOUR, UH, SUGGESTION AGAIN AFTER THE WORD IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? AFTER THE WORD ONLY AND BEFORE THE PERIOD, WE INSERT THE FOLLOWING IN COMPLIANCE WITH TEXAS FRANCHISE LAWS AND TEXAS OCCUPATION CODE 2301.
AND, AND SO MY QUESTION WAS, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY ADD INTO THE MOTION? OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD HAVE TO, OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD HAVE TO CHECK WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT, BUT USUALLY WE DON'T REC, UH, REFERENCE OTHER LAWS IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCES.
SO ESPECIALLY STATE LAW, WHICH OF COURSE WOULD STAND ON ITS OWN.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANY, UM, OTHER ADDITIONAL ADVICE FROM LAW AS WELL.
CHAIR COMMISSIONER LAYS ON ANDREA VERA SO, AND CONFIRMED WITH THE LAW, UM, THAT, UM, ADVISE THAT THAT'S AN, UH, A NECESSARY LANGUAGE AND, UM, THE ZONING WILL NOT AUTHORIZE SOMETHING THAT IS PROHIBITED BY STATE LAW.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S AMENDMENT? OKAY, THAT ONE FAILS.
SO WE'LL GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL, UH, MOTION AND ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WANTING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST SPEAK FOR? OKAY.
I, I DO, I DO JUST WANNA SAY I, I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT'S WORK WITH, UM, ME.
I, NO, I, LAST WEEK I HAD POSTPONED THIS ITEM BECAUSE I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ITS IMPLICATIONS WITHIN OUR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PLANNING WORK THAT'S HAPPENING.
AND, UM, I'M REALLY GLAD THAT THE APPLICANT WAS ABLE TO SORT OF ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS I
[00:40:01]
HAD.I REALLY APPRECIATE THEM LIMITING ALSO THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT CAN BE INSIDE.
SO THE 550 SQUARE FOOT LIMITATION THAT IS NOW IN THE P UH, PDAS MORE AKIN TO ESSENTIALLY NO MORE THAN THREE CARS CAN BE PARKED IN THERE.
AND AGAIN, THESE ARE NOT BEING SOLD, THEY'RE NOT OUTSIDE.
UM, AND BEYOND THAT, I WAS, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I GOT A FULL PICTURE OF WHAT THE USE IS LIKE AND IT'S MORE ESSENTIALLY AKIN TO, UM, RETAIL USES, WHICH MADE ME MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
SO I DID WANNA APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT'S WORK ON THAT WITH ME AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS ITEM.
ARE WE READY TO TAKE A VOTE? OKAY.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR IN SUPPORT OF, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION MATTIS, WE, WE HAVE 3, 4, 5, 6, RIGHT? AND THEN ON SCREEN I HAVE TWO.
UM, AND THEN AGAINST AND ABSTAINING COMMISSIONER HAYES PRESENT, NOT VOTING.
SO ABSTAINING, I'M PRESENT, NOT VOTING.
LET'S MOVE ON TO OUR, OUR NEXT, THAT IS NUMBER, UH, 21 AND 22.
[21 & 22-Reconing Wickersham Ln/Cromwell Circle]
TAKING THESE UP AT THE SAME TIME.UM, WE'LL GIVE, UH, AN ADDITIONAL MINUTE FOR OUR SPEAKERS.
UM, AND THEN WHEN WE GET TO THE MOTION, UM, WE ARE GOING TO DO THOSE SEPARATELY.
NANCY ESTRADA WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UM, SINCE WE ARE TAKING THESE UP AT THE SAME TIME, I'LL TRY TO BE AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE, BUT, UM, JUST LET ME KNOW IF YOU NEED ME TO CLARIFY ANYTHING.
UM, THESE ARE ITEMS 21 AND 22 ON YOUR AGENDA.
ITEM NUMBER 21 IS CASE C 14 20 22 72, 22 0 7 WICKERSHAM LANE.
THIS PROPERTY'S LOCATED AT 22 7 AND 2301 WICKERSHAM LANE AND IS 11.1 ACRES.
ITEM NUMBER 22 IS KC 14 2 2 2 0 9 22 39.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 22 39, 22 39 AND A HALF, AND 2309 AND A HALF CROMWELL CIRCLE AND IS 12.2 ACRES.
BOTH PROPERTIES ARE CURRENTLY WITHIN THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR REGULATING PLAN AND ZONED AS URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE BOTH PROPERTIES TO THE E R C NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE AND MU SUBDISTRICT.
AND TO AMEND FIGURE ONE SIX, THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR HUB HUB MAP TO INCLUDE BOTH PROPERTIES WITHIN THE HUB BOUNDARY.
THE REQUEST IS ALSO TO AMEND FIGURE ONE EIGHT, THE E R C DEVELOPMENT BONUS HEIGHT, HEIGHT MAP TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR BOTH PROPERTIES THROUGH PARTICIPATION IN A DEVELOPMENT BONUS FOR WICKERSHAM LANE.
THE REQUEST IS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT UP TO 120 FEET THROUGH PARTICIPATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT BONUS.
AND FOR CROMWELL CIRCLE, THE REQUEST IS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT UP TO 65 FEET.
THE PROXIMITY OF THE PROPERTIES AND THE NORTHWEST PORTIONS OF THE SUBJECT AREA ARE JUST OUTSIDE THE HUB BOUNDARY.
THE HEIGHT REQUESTS ARE APPROPRIATE AT THIS LOCATION AND THIS WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE FUTURE SUCCESS OF THIS TRANSIT CENTER OUTLINED IN THE PROJECT CONNECT BLUE LINE.
THEREFORE, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT E R C NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT ZONING TO AMEND FIGURE ONE SIX, THE E R C HUB MAP TO INCLUDE BOTH PROPERTIES WITHIN THE HUB BOUNDARY AND TO FIGURE ONE EIGHT, THE E R C DEVELOPMENT BONUS HEIGHT MAP TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT UP TO 120 FEET FOR WICKERSHAM LANE AND UP TO 65 FEET FOR CORNWELL CIRCLE THROUGH PARTICIPATION IN A DEVELOPMENT BONUS.
I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
NOW WE'RE HERE FROM THE APPLICANT.
UM, BECAUSE WE ARE TAKING A COUPLE ITEMS IN TANDEM, THE PRIMARY SPEAKERS WILL GET A ADDITIONAL MINUTE.
SO MR. BO, MS. BEJO, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES.
UH, I'M LEAH BOJO HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, OOPS, UH, HERE REPRESENTING THESE TWO CASES.
THEY ARE, UM, NOT EXACTLY THE SAME, BUT THEY ARE SIMILAR AND THEY'RE, AND THEY'RE ACROSS THE STREET FROM EACH OTHER.
SO, UM, I DO THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR THEM TO BE TAKEN TOGETHER.
UM, SO HERE, JUST TO ORIENT YOU FIRST TO THE, UM, THE RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR OVERALL, UM, THIS IS THE TWO STARS ARE WHERE THESE TWO PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED, AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE PINK OUTLINES OF THE HUBS AS THEY ARE TODAY.
UM, WHICH I WILL, WHICH WE'LL I WILL GO INTO MORE DETAIL ABOUT IN A LITTLE BIT.
UM, HERE IS AN AERIAL OF THE TWO SITES, THE THE WICKERSHAM SITE TO THE WEST AND
[00:45:01]
THE CROMWELL SITE TO THE EAST, UM, BOTH TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EAST RIVERSIDE AND PLEASANT VALLEY.UM, I KNOW Y'ALL ARE ALL VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE GOALS OF THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR, BUT I CAN'T HELP BUT MENTION IT'S PARTICULARLY THE LAST COUPLE THERE ABOUT TRANSIT, SUPPORTIVE REDEVELOPMENT, UM, AROUND TRANSIT STOPS AND TRANSIT CORRIDORS, AND THEN HAVING A MIX OF HOUSING OPTIONS WITH A RANGE OF INCOMES.
UM, WHICH I THINK THIS BOTH OF THESE PROJECTS, UM, REALLY EXCEL AT.
UM, I ALSO WANTED TO POINT TO MORE RECENT, UM, COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ON THE CORRIDOR, UM, WITH PROJECT CONNECT AND THE LIGHT RAIL REPORT FROM LAST SPRING, TALKING ABOUT LAND USE AND HOUSING, UM, AND SPECIFICALLY ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF MODE SHIFT AND SUSTAINABLE MODES.
UM, AND THEN HERE, UH, IS A, A EXHIBIT TO SHOW YOU HOW WE'RE SITUATED WITHIN NOT ONLY TRANSIT, NOT ONLY THE LIGHT RAIL, WHICH EVERYONE KNOWS OF COURSE, AND, AND TRANSIT, BUT ALSO, UM, BIKE, PET INFRASTRUCTURE AND A MIX OF USES TO MAKE WALKABILITY, UM, REALLY WORK BETTER THAN IT DOES IN A LOT OF PLACES IN THE CITY.
SO TO START WITH WICKERSHAM SITE, IT'S ABOUT 11 ACRES.
UM, IT IS CURRENTLY, UM, HAS 249 APARTMENTS ON IT WITH ABOUT 35, UM, AT APPROXIMATELY 60% M F I.
UM, IT IS RULED BY SUBURBAN WATERSHED, SO I POINT THAT OUT TO SAY THAT THE ZONING DOESN'T CHANGE THE, UM, IMPERVIOUS COVER.
UM, AND THEN AS WE TALKED ABOUT, THERE'S MULTIPLE TRANSIT OPPORTUNITIES NEARBY, UM, TODAY UNDER URBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONING.
UM, IT COULD, THIS SITE COULD BE REDEVELOPED ON ITS OWN, UH, TO BE ABOUT 550 UNITS.
THIS IS, THESE ARE HIGH LEVEL NUMBERS, BUT THAT'S A GOOD APPROXIMATION AND NO AFFORDABILITY WOULD BE REQUIRED.
URBAN RESIDENTIAL IS NOT ALLOWED TO OPT INTO THE, UH, DENSITY BONUS IN THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR UNDER THE PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU NOW, UM, CHANGING THE BASE DISTRICT TO NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE AND THEN USING THE DENSITY BONUS, UM, UP TO 120 FEET.
UM, THERE ARE, UH, THERE COULD BE ABOUT 1100 UNITS.
THERE WOULD BE, GENERALLY WE WERE EXPECTING TO SPREAD THEM OUT OVER FOUR BUILDINGS, THREE AT 75 FEET AND ONE AT 90.
THESE WOULD BE RENTAL UNITS AND WE WOULD EXPECT THERE TO BE ABOUT 75 AT 60%.
IN ADDITION TO THE DEDICATED OPEN SPACE, IT'S ALSO A REQUIREMENT OF THE DENSITY BONUS FOR THIS REGULATING PLAN.
AND THEN MOVING OVER TO THE CROMWELL CIRCLE SITE, UM, THIS SITE IS ABOUT 12 ACRES.
UM, IT HAS 284 UNITS ON IT TODAY WITH AROUND 30 AT 60% M F I, SAME RULES APPLY WITH SUBURBAN WATERSHED AND IMPERVIOUS COVER.
AND THEN AS WELL, UM, THE, THE TRANSIT AND MULTIMODAL ACCESS ON THIS SITE.
UM, SIMILARLY, WE COULD, UM, DEVELOP ABOUT 550 MARKET RATE UNITS TODAY UNDER THE URBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONING.
NO DENSITY BONUS IS AVAILABLE TO IT ON THIS SITE.
WE WERE ARE PROPOSING N M U WITH A DENSITY BONUS ONLY UP TO 65 FEET.
WE HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED 120 SIMILAR TO THE OTHER SITE, BUT WE HEARD, UH, LOUD AND CLEAR FROM THE NEIGHBORS THAT THIS SITE BEING CLOSER TO SINGLE FAMILY, UM, THEY DID NOT WANT THAT KIND OF HEIGHT.
SO WE AMENDED OUR APPLICATION DOWN TO 65 FEET.
SO THAT MEANS THAT, UM, WE WOULD BE BUILDING PROBABLY THREE BUILDINGS AT 65 FEET AND WOULD HAVE 16 UNITS AT 60% M F I.
UM, SO THE HUB HAS BEEN OBVIOUSLY A, A MAJOR PART OF THE CONVERSATION.
SO THIS IS, THIS IS A SNIP FROM THE USE RIVERSIDE PLAN THAT DESCRIBES WHAT HUBS DO.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST SENTENCE, IT SAYS, PROPERTIES WITHIN HUBS, UM, DO NOT TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS AND ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEVELOPMENT BONUSES.
SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO THINGS THAT IT DOES.
IT DOESN'T TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY ON ANOTHER SITE AND IT DOESN'T, AND THAT'S HOW YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE DENSITY BONUS, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE ASKING TO BE INCLUDED IN THAT AREA HERE.
YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER IN WHAT THE MAP LOOKS LIKE TODAY ON THE LEFT AND THEN WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE, UM, AS WE'RE REQUESTING IT.
UM, WE HAVE OFFERED TO THE NEIGHBORS, UM, TO, UH, WORK ON A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, UM, TO LOCK IN.
I MEAN, AND CLEARLY COMPATIBILITY IS AN ISSUE TO LOCK IN THE COMPATI COMPATIBILITY RULES THAT ARE IN TODAY.
THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE NEED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND EVEN, I KNOW THIS ISN'T EXACTLY YOUR AREA, BUT I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK THROUGH SOME POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS HERE.
UM, UH, SO FAR WE HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN UP ON, BUT, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE PUT ON THE TABLE.
UM, AND THEN SO THERE, TO SUMMARIZE FOR YOU BOTH SITES TOGETHER AS, AS THEY'RE TODAY WITH NO CHANGES UNDER URBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONING, UM, ABOUT 1100 MARKET RATE UNITS COULD BE REDEVELOPED ON THE SITE.
UM, AND AS WE ARE PROPOSING IT USING N M U ZONING PLUS THE TWO DENSITY BONUSES THAT I DESCRIBED, THERE COULD BE ABOUT 2100 UNITS, 91 OF WHICH WOULD BE AFFORDABLE AT 60% M F I.
UM, WE ARE VOLUNTARILY, UM, PROPOSING SOME TENANT PROTECTIONS, WHICH I'LL TALK ABOUT IN JUST A SECOND.
UM, AND THEN IT WOULD ALSO COME WITH THE OPEN SPACE.
AGAIN, THAT'S A REQUIREMENT OF THIS CORRIDOR PLAN.
UM, SO THE TENANT PROTECTIONS THAT WE ARE OFFERING WOULD BE BOTH FOR THE CURRENT TENANTS AND THE FIRST LIST, AND THEN ALSO FOR FUTURE TENANTS.
AND THE SECOND LIST, I KNOW THAT OUR, UM, I KNOW THAT OUR TENANT PROTECTIONS ARE, OOPS, I'M SORRY, ARE KIND OF ALL OVER THE PLACE RIGHT NOW.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALL DIFFERENT.
THEY ALL, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THIS IS AN OLDER PLAN.
SO YOU KNOW, WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IS LOOK AT BEST PRACTICES OF OTHER CASES, THINGS THAT ARE COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE FOR OTHER DENSITY BONUSES AND PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER IN THIS,
[00:50:01]
UM, IN THIS LIST.SO WHILE WE'RE NOT READY TO REDEVELOP YET, UM, WE ARE PLANNING ON COMMITTING TO THESE THINGS NOW SO THAT IF SOMETHING GETS SIDELINED OR TAKES TOO LONG OR WHATEVER, WE KNOW THAT IT'S LOCKED IN FOR THESE FOLKS AND WE HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH THEM AS WELL.
I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED THAT BEFORE.
UM, IN ADDITION TO WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP SINCE PROBABLY APRIL WHEN WE HAD OUR COMMUNITY MEETING, UM, WE'VE ALSO HAD SOME ONSITE MEETINGS WITH THE TENANTS THAT LIVE IN THE BUILDINGS TODAY.
UM, AND SO WITH THAT, UM, THIS IS A SUMMARY OF EACH REQUEST AND YOU'RE GONNA MAKE SEPARATE MOTIONS.
UM, AND I WOULD MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND I'LL HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION, THE FOLLOWING SPEAKERS, IF YOU CAN MAKE YOUR WAY TO THE PODIUM.
I'M MALCOLM YATES, PAT GERING, AND JEN LONG.
WE'LL BEGIN WITH MR. YATES AND MR. YATES, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES.
MY NAME IS MALCOLM YATES, I'M THE CHAIR OF THE EAST RIVERSIDE AL TORF COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM.
THE AREA THAT IS NOW PART OF THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR PLAN WAS ORIGINALLY PART OF THE IRAQ NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND THE MONTOPOLIS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
THE IRAQ CONTACT TEAM MEMBERS AND MONTOPOLIS CONTACT TEAM MEMBERS PARTICIPATED IN THE CREATION OF THE CORRIDOR PLAN, AGREED TO THE, TO THE DESIGN CONCEPTS THAT THE CORRIDOR PLAN IS BASED ON, AND AGREED TO REMOVE THE LARGE CORRIDOR PLAN AREA FROM THE IRAQ AND MONTOPOLIS PLAN AREAS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE DESIGN CONCEPTS WOULD NOT BE CHANGED IN THE FUTURE.
THE FUNDAMENTAL GOAL OF THE EER E R C PLAN IS TO CREATE A PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY AND TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITY.
THE BASIC CONCEPT TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL IS THE TRANSPORTATION HUB.
A TRANSPORTATION HUB IS DEFINED IN THE E R C PLAN AS AN AREA WITHIN WHICH A PEDESTRIAN CAN EASILY WALK TO A LIGHT RAIL STATION.
THIS DISTANCE IS RECOGNIZED AS A FIVE MINUTE WALK OR A QUARTER MILE DISTANCE.
USING THIS CRITERIA FOR TRANSPORTATION HUBS WERE DESIGNED AS PART OF THE E R C.
THIS SLIDE SHOWS A DETAIL OF THE AREA AROUND THE PLEASANT VALLEY TRANSPORTATION HUB.
THE CROMWELL PROPERTY IS TOTALLY OUTSIDE OF THE QUARTER MILE DISTANCE FROM THE STATION, AND ONLY A QUARTER OF THE, A CORNER OF THE WICKERSHAM PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE HUB AREA.
THE ACTUAL DISTANCE THAT A PEDESTRIAN WOULD NEED TO WALK TO GET FROM THE CROMWELL PROPERTY TO THE PLEASANT VALLEY STATION IS AT LEAST SIX TENTHS OF A MILE.
THESE TWO ZONING CASES VIOLATE THE BASIC CONCEPT OF THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN.
FOR THIS REASON, THE IRAQ CONTACT TEAM VOTED TO OPPOSE BOTH OF THESE CASES.
THESE CASES WILL SET A PRECEDENT THAT WILL ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO EXPAND THE TRANSPORTATION HUB BOUNDARIES IN OTHER CORRIDOR PLAN AREAS.
FOR THIS REASON, THE AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL APPROVED A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE EXPANSION OF CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION HUBS.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A MASTER PLAN? IF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT OF THE PLAN IS IGNORED, IF THE, IF THIS EXPANSION OF THE TRANSPORTATION HUB IS APPROVED, AUSTIN CITIZENS WILL LOSE ALL FAITH.
THAT CITY GOVERNMENT WILL ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF ANY PLAN THAT THE CITY PROPOSES.
THERE ARE A LOT OF AUSTIN CITIZENS WHO ARE WATCHING TO SEE HOW THESE CASES ARE DECIDED.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD SUPPORT MASTER PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL, A PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION, AND AUSTIN CITIZENS, PLEASE DENY THESE TWO ZONING REQUESTS.
COMMISSIONER COX? UH, I, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE REST OF THE VIRTUAL, BUT UM, I ONLY PICKED UP ABOUT HALF OF THAT AUDIO.
I HEARD THE APPLICANT LOUD AND CLEAR, BUT THE LAST PRESENTER, I CAN ONLY GET ABOUT HALF OF WHAT HE WAS SAYING.
COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ, ARE YOU EXPERIENCING THE SAME ISSUE? I AM, BUT I WENT AHEAD AND TURNED ON THE, I COULD READ IT, SO I WAS FOLLOWING ALONG READING THE CAPTIONS.
COMMISSIONER HOWARD, IT IS CORRECT.
[00:55:01]
THE LAST SPEAKER? CAN I HEAR YOU CLEARLY? CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES.SO MAYBE IT, IT'S, I DON'T KNOW, BUT WE'LL, UM, MAYBE THE NEXT SPEAKER SPEAK REALLY CLOSE TO THE MICROPHONE, BUT LET US KNOW, UM, IMMEDIATELY IF YOU CAN'T HEAR, I'M FIGHTING A CHRONIC COUGH, SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO LISTEN TO ME AROUND THIS COUGH DROP AND LET'S HOPE I CAN GET THROUGH THIS.
I'M OPPOSED TO BOTH ITEMS 21 AND 22.
MY NAME IS JAN LONG AND I, ALONG WITH MANY OTHERS, WORKED ON THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN.
AND THEN AT THE REQUEST OF THE, THEN OF A, THEN CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBER PARTICIPATED IN THE WORKING GROUP THAT ADVISED THE CITY IN DEVELOPING THE REGULATING PLAN.
MS. LONG, I'M GONNA PAUSE YOUR TIME.
THEY'RE HAVING ISSUES HEARING STILL.
SO I DON'T THINK IT'S YOU CHAIR COMMISSIONER LEE ON ANDREW VERA.
I APOLOGIZE IF WE COULD TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS.
OH, UH, ACTUALLY, UM, UH, JUST REMAIN AT EASE FOR UH, A MINUTE.
I'M SO SORRY, MS. LONG WE'LL HAVE YOU PICK UP AGAIN AND WE'LL HAVE YOU START OVER WHENEVER WE GET, WHENEVER WE'RE READY.
SHOULD I GO AHEAD AND SIT DOWN? YES.
MR, COULD WE TRY THE MICROPHONE AT THE TABLE BEHIND? IS THAT, IS IT A MICROPHONE ISSUE? COMMISSIONER COX, ARE YOU ABLE TO, UH, HAVE AUDIO AT THIS TIME? UH, YEAH, I CAN HEAR ACTUALLY YOU STARTED BREAKING UP ANDREW
WHAT'S GOING ON? OKAY, UM, I'M GONNA KEEP, UH, TALKING TO YOU.
UM, HOW AM I HEARING, HOW IS IT THE AUDIO AT THIS TIME? YEAH, I, I CAN HEAR YOU FINE.
THE ISSUE'S BEING LOOKED AT, SO HOPEFULLY IT'S JUST A MINUTE OR SO.
COMMISSIONER COX, IF YOU CAN, UH, LET ME KNOW HOW THE AUDIO IS ON YOUR END.
N NO, YOU'RE, YOU'RE CUTTING OUT PRETTY BAD.
COMMISSIONER COX, HOW'S THE AUDIO ON YOUR END? UNFORTUNATELY, IT DOESN'T SOUND BETTER FROM THAT MICROPHONE.
COMMISSIONER PEREIRA RAMIREZ, HOW'S THE AUDIO ON YOUR END? SOUNDS BAD FOR ME, BUT I CAN, LIKE I SAID, I'M FOLLOWING ALONG WITH THE CAPTION, SO THANK YOU.
SHOULD WE HAVE CHAIR COMMISSIONER LEE ON? ANDREW, IF WE CAN, UM, AT THIS TIME TAKE A SIX MINUTE RECESS.
WE'LL SEE EVERYBODY BACK AT SEVEN 12.
WE'RE TRYING TO FIX THIS FOR YOU.
AN AN ANDREW, DO YOU NEED ME TO STAY ON TO TEST THINGS? COMMISSIONER COX? I'D APPRECIATE IT IF YOU CAN.
[01:12:28]
HOPEFULLY[01:12:28]
WE[01:12:29]
HAVE OUR AUDIO ISSUES FIGURED OUT.UM, AND SINCE SOME OF OUR COMMISSIONERS ONLINE, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO HEAR THE SPEAKERS, UM, WE'RE GOING TO START OVER AGAIN.
SO, UH, MR. YATES, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR OBLIGING US AND, AND REPEATING YOUR TESTIMONY.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TO HEAR REMINDER TO COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU COULD TURN ON YOUR TRANS, YOUR, UH, CLOSED CAPTIONING, THAT MIGHT HELP TOO.
AND IF YOU COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
I'M THE CHAIR OF THE EAST RIVERSIDE OLD WHARF COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM.
THE AREA THAT IS NOW PART OF THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR PLAN WAS ORIGINALLY PART OF THE IRAQ NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND THE MONTOPOLIS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
THE IRAQ CONTACT TEAM MEMBERS AND MONTOPOLIS CONTACT TEAM MEMBERS PARTICIPATED IN THE CREATION OF THE CORRIDOR PLAN, AGREED TO THE DESIGN CONCEPTS THAT THE CORRIDOR PLAN IS BASED ON, AND AGREED TO REMOVE THE LARGE CORRIDOR PLAN AREA FROM THE IRAQ AND MONTOPOLIS PLAN AREAS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE DESIGN CONCEPTS WOULD NOT BE CHANGED IN THE FUTURE.
THE FUNDAMENTAL GOAL OF THE E R C PLAN IS TO CREATE A PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY AND TRANSIT ORIENTED COMMUNITY.
THE BASIC CONCEPT TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL IS THE TRANSPORTATION HUB.
A TRANSPORTATION HUB IS DEFINED IN THE E R C PLAN AS AN AREA WITHIN WHICH A PEDESTRIAN CAN EASILY WALK TO A LIGHT RAIL STATION.
THIS DISTANCE IS RECOGNIZED AS A FIVE MINUTE WALK OR A QUARTER MILE DISTANCE.
USING THIS CRITERIA FOR TRANSPORTATION HUBS WERE DESIGNED AS PART OF THE E R C.
THIS SLIDE IS THE DETAIL OF THE AREA AROUND THE PLEASANT VALLEY TRANSPORTATION HUB.
THE CROMWELL PROPERTY IS TOTALLY OUTSIDE OF THE QUARTER MILE DISTANCE FROM THE STATION, AND ONLY A QUARTER CORNER OF THE WICKERSHAM PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE HUB AREA.
THE ACTUAL DISTANCE THAT A PEDESTRIAN WOULD NEED TO WALK TO GET FROM THE CROMWELL
[01:15:01]
PROPERTY TO THE PLEASANT VALLEY STATION IS AT LEAST SIX TENTHS OF A MILE.THESE TWO ZONING CASES VIOLATE THE BASIC CONCEPT OF THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN.
FOR THIS REASON, THE ROC CONTACT TEAM VOTED TO OPPOSE BOTH OF THESE CASES.
THESE CASES WILL SET A PRECEDENT THAT WILL ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO EXPAND THE TRANSPORTATION HUB BOUNDARIES IN OTHER CORRIDOR PLAN AREAS.
FOR THIS REASON, THE AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL APPROVED A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE EXPANSION OF CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION HUBS.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A MASTER PLAN? IF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT OF THE PLAN IS IGNORED, IF THIS EXPANSION OF THE TRANSPORTATION HUB IS APPROVED, AUSTIN CITIZENS WILL LOSE ALL FAITH.
THAT CITY GOVERNMENT WILL ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF ANY PLAN THAT THE CITY PROPOSES.
THERE ARE A LOT OF AUSTIN CITIZENS WHO ARE WATCHING TO SEE HOW THESE CASES ARE DECIDED.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD SUPPORT MASTER PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL, A PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION, AND AUSTIN CITIZENS PLEASE DENY THESE ZONING CASES.
WILL NOT HEAR FROM MS. JAN LONG, ONE MORE TIME.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? I'M OPPOSED TO BOTH ITEMS 21 AND 22.
MY NAME IS JAN LONG AND I, ALONG WITH MANY OTHERS, WORKED ON THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN.
AND THEN AT THE REQUEST OF A, THEN CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBER PARTICIPATED IN THE WORKING GROUP THAT ADVISED THE CITY IN DEVELOPING THE REGULATING PLAN.
IN THE FIRST MASTER PLANNING MEETING, ANTOINE NELSON, THE HEAD OF THE CONSULTING FIRM, HIRED BY THE CITY, ANNOUNCED TO THE AUDIENCE OF ABOUT 200 INTERESTED CITIZENS THAT THIS IS YOUR MAIN STREET.
THAT STATEMENT DECORATED THE FACE OF MY FIRST MANILA FOLDER, CONNECTED WITH THIS PROJECT AND GUIDED ME THROUGHOUT.
THIS WAS A CITY GENERATED FIVE YEAR INITIATIVE THAT CREATED A MODEL FOR DEVELOPMENT ALONG EAST RIVERSIDE, THAT FOCUSED DENSE DEVELOPMENT ON FOUR LIGHT RAIL TRANSPORTATION HUBS, EACH CENTERED ON A QUARTER MILE, FIVE MINUTE WALK RADIUS.
THE PLAN ENCOMPASSING ALMOST A THOUSAND ACRES WAS DEVELOPED BEFORE LIGHT RAIL WAS EVEN APPROVED AND WAS MEANT TO PROVIDE A FRAMEWORK FOR ITS INCORPORATION INTO THE CITY.
IT WAS A BALANCED, MEASURED, STEP DOWN APPROACH THAT AMONG OTHER THINGS, RELAXED COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS AND VOIDED ALL EXISTING CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS.
IT WAS INTENDED TO PROVIDE DEVELOPERS WITH A HIGH ENOUGH BAR FOR FUTURE PROJECTS.
IT WAS INTENDED TO BOTH PROTECT SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS AND ENCOURAGE NEW DEVELOPMENT.
NOT A FOOT OF LIGHT RAIL HAS BEEN LAID AND REQUESTS BY DEVELOPERS HAVE ALREADY INCREASED HEIGHT AND DENSITY.
IF THE INTENT IS TO MAKE EAST RIVERSIDE A THOROUGHFARE THAT SNAKES THROUGH A GIANT HUB OF DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR WITH OR WITHOUT LIGHT RAIL, WE ARE WELL ON OUR WAY.
AND LASTLY, ACCORDING TO THE CITY, THERE IS NO N M U PARCEL WITHIN THE E R C THAT HAS 120 FOOT DEVELOPMENT BONUS ALLOWED.
THIS SEEMS TO BE NOTHING SHORT OF ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO DISMANTLE THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR PLAN.
WILL NOT HEAR FROM MS. PAT GRINE, FOLLOWED BY EMILY SCHWARTZ.
HI, I'M PAT GRINE AND I'M OPPOSED TO BOTH ITEMS, UH, 21 AND 22, SPEAKING FOR MYSELF AND MY NEIGHBORS ON RIVERSIDE FARMS ROAD, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE CROMWELL PARCEL.
WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE CHANGE FROM URBAN RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE.
WE UNDERSTAND AND SUPPORT THE NEED FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN AUSTIN.
HOWEVER, MOVING THESE PROPERTIES INTO THE HUB WITH THE ATTENDANT DEVELOPMENT BONUSES IS CONTRARY TO THAT GOAL.
AT CROMWELL AND WICKERSHAM COMBINED, THERE ARE 533 UNITS EXISTING, 65 OF WHICH ARE 60% M F I.
ACCORDING TO AN INTERNET SEARCH, THE RENT PRICE RANGE OF THE 284 CROMWELL APARTMENTS IS BETWEEN ABOUT 900 AND $1,900 A MONTH, WHICH MANY PEOPLE WOULD CONSIDER QUITE
[01:20:01]
AFFORDABLE.IF THE APPLICANT'S PLAN IS REALIZED, ALL 533 APARTMENTS WOULD GO AWAY AND BE REPLACED BY ONLY 91 APARTMENTS AT 60% M F I, BUT 2100 NOT SO AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS.
FOR CONTEXT, THE NEWER HIGHER DENSITY APARTMENTS IN THE AREA OF THE EDISON, ZOE, THE OSCAR, ARE SHOWING ONLINE RENT PRICES OF BETWEEN 1,350 $400 A MONTH.
SO RATHER THAN CREATING MORE TRULY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THIS PROPOSAL, ELI ELIMINATES EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHILE GREATLY INCREASING THE NON AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND DISPLACING THE CURRENT RESIDENTS WHO WILL BE UNLIKELY TO AFFORD THE NEW HIGH-END APARTMENTS.
WE STRONGLY OPPOSE HUB INCLUSION FOR BOTH PARCELS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
WHEN I HEAR FROM MS. EMILY SCHWARTZ, MY NAME IS EMILY SCHWARTZ, AND I WANNA START WITH TWO THINGS THAT WE CAN AGREE ON.
EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM IS A GOOD PERSON DOING THEIR BEST AND GOOD PEOPLE STILL MAKE MISTAKES.
WHAT DISTINGUISHES PEOPLE WHO DO GOOD MEANINGFUL WORK IS THAT THEY LEARN FROM THEIR MISTAKES AND THEY AIM TO DO BETTER EACH TIME.
I WANT THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN FROM PAST MISTAKES AND NOT ACT IMPULSIVELY TO EXPAND THE HUB.
I SPECIALIZE IN WATER SUPPLY AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROBLEMS. AND IN MY 16 YEARS AS A CIVIL ENGINEER, THE BIGGEST ISSUE I SEE WITH OUR INFRASTRUCTURE IS THAT WE FOCUS ON INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS INSTEAD OF THE BIGGER SYSTEMS THAT WE'RE CREATING.
THIS MEANS THAT THOSE FLOOD AND WATER CONTROL PROJECT PROBLEMS THAT I SOLVE ARE CAUSED OR MADE WORSE BY UNCOORDINATED PIECEMEAL DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS ONE.
SMALL SEEMINGLY UNIMPORTANT CHOICES LIKE EXPANDING A HUB ADD UP TO BIG CONSEQUENCES, AND THEY'RE EASY TO AVOID, BUT EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE TO FIX.
MY POINT HERE IS THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO EXPAND THE HUB RIGHT NOW.
FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE, PREMATURELY EXPANDING THE HUB WILL CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT WILL SOLVE.
IN THIS CASE, YOU'RE SITUATING A HIGH DENSITY, LOW POROSITY DEVELOPMENT ON TOP OF A STEEP HILL THAT IS KNOWN TO HAVE HIGHLY EROSIVE SOILS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO A FLOODPLAIN.
THIS WILL COMPOUND THE ISSUES OF BOTH RUNOFF AND EROSION DURING LARGE STORMS, WHILE DEFLECTING SMALLER BENEFICIAL RAIN EVENTS BY CREATING A RAIN SHADOW AND AN AREA THAT STRUGGLES TO GET ENOUGH ADEQUATE RAINFALL DUE TO ITS GEOGRAPHY.
THE STORMWATER AND SEDIMENT RUNOFF HAS PRO HAS POTENTIALLY HAS POTENTIAL TO COMPROMISE THE $24 BILLION COUNTRY CLUB CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT THAT'S CURRENTLY UNDERWAY PR PRECISELY BECAUSE OF UNCOORDINATED DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS INCREASED RUNOFF SO MUCH IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
FURTHERMORE, THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ENERGY AND WATER UTILITIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE NEEDED TO SUPPORT HUB EXPANSION ARE NOT REALISTICALLY REPRESENTED IN THE PLAN AND WILL BE COSTLY TO THE CITY RESOURCES.
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY HAS HIGH TRAFFIC LOADS THAT WILL ONLY BE COMPOUNDED BY THE ADDITION OF A TRAIN LINE.
I DON'T EVEN HAVE TIME TO GET INTO THE ENERGY PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE WITH OUR FAILING GRID IN THE FUTURE.
WE NEED TO GET HUB DEVELOPMENT UNDERWAY AS PLANNED AND THEN ASSESS WHETHER THERE'S CAPACITY FOR EXPANSION INSTEAD OF RUSHING TO GROW THE HUB.
NOW FINALLY, USING OUR HOUSING CRISIS TO JUSTIFY COMPATIBILITY CONFLICTS LIKE HIGH DENSITY URBAN DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON TWO SIDES IS FALSE URGENCY.
THIS IS THE OLDEST MARKETING TRICK IN THE BOOK.
IF THE HOUSING CRISIS WAS TRULY THE ISSUE, PRIORITIZE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE TEMPO PROPERTY AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WICKERSHAM AND RIVERSIDE.
THOSE 684 AFFORDABLE UNITS HAS SAT VACANT FOR A YEAR FURTHER ESCALATING THE AFFORDABILITY HOUSING SHORTAGES THAT WILL BE MADE WORSE IF THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION ARE VACATED BEFORE THE HUB IS BUILT.
DON'T FALL FOR THE FALSE URGENCY IN A MATTER THAT IS SO CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF FALSE PLANS AND CURRENT PLANS AND ZONING POLICIES.
PLEASE SLOW DOWN, LEARN FROM PAST MISTAKES, MAKE GOOD CHOICES, AND VOTE AGAINST THE HUB EXPANSION RIGHT NOW.
WE'LL NOT HEAR FROM DEBORAH PEACOCK.
IS MRS. PEACOCK PRESENT? MS. PEACOCK, YOU'LL HAVE ONE MINUTE.
MY NAME IS DEBRA PEACOCK AND TODAY I AM SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OF THE HUB FOR BOTH WICKERSHAM AND CROMWELL CIRCLE.
I REPRESENT A STATEMENT THAT OVER 60 PEOPLE SIGNED ONE YEAR AGO PROTESTING THE HUB INCLUSION AND CROMWELL.
AT THAT TIME, WICKERSHAM APPLICATION HAD NOT BEEN UH, FILED YET.
[01:25:02]
WE ALL COULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT, BUT WE ALL ARE STILL STRONGLY OPPOSED AND WE RESPECTIVELY REQUEST DENY BOTH PROPOSALS.AND MS. PATRICIA PALOMA KENNEDY, SELECT STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
HELLO, MY NAME IS PATRICIA PALOMA KENNEDY AND I HAVE LIVED DIRECTLY EAST AT THE CROMWELL AND
I OPPOSE BOTH ITEMS NUMBER 21 AND 22, ALTHOUGH I RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR MORE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO I WOULD SUPPORT THESE PROPERTIES BEING REZONED TO N M U.
HOWEVER, I DO NOT SUPPORT INCLUDING BOTH IN THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR HUB WITH N M U.
BOTH PROPERTIES COULD MORE THAN DOUBLE THEIR CURRENT HEIGHT OR WICKERSHAM.
THE HUB WOULD ALLOW AN UNPRECEDENTED HEIGHT OF 12 STORIES COMPARED TO THE RECENT DEVELOPMENT ALL ALONG THE RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR AND EXISTING RAIL LINE WICKERSHAM LANE, WHICH IS THE ONLY STREET FOR BOTH PROPERTIES TO ACCESS EITHER RIVERSIDE OR OLD TURF ALREADY IN LINE WITH MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS HAS INCREASED CONGESTION FROM NARROWED LANE DUE WITH ONLY ONE VEHICLE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION, NO BUS LANE.
AND, UH, CURRENTLY PEDESTRIANS ARE HAVING TO WALK IN THE BIKE LANE, PUSH STROLLERS, UH, THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK BARRIERS TO PROTECT PEDESTRIANS WITH ONLY ONE LANE.
AND ALL THESE MORE PEOPLE THAT BECOME WITH THAT VERY HIGH DEVELOPMENT, UM, WOULD PERHAPS INHIBIT EMERGENCY ACCESS.
UM, I DO ENCOURAGE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAUSE ON EXPANDING THE HUB AND NOT INCLUDE WICKERSHAM MILL PROPERTIES TO SIGNIFICANTLY EXACERBATE THE ALREADY INCREASING URBAN HUMAN AND TRAFFIC DENSITY ON RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR.
I SPEAK TODAY TO OPPOSE THE CROMWELL NUMBER 22 PETITION.
WHILE I SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT, I OPPOSE THE SAID CROMWELL NUMBER 22 HUB INCLUSION.
FOR REASONS I'M ABOUT TO PRESENT.
MY HOME IS LOCATED AT 2206 RIVERSIDE FRANCE ROAD, SITUATED ABOUT 25 FEET BELOW GRADE OF A SET DEVELOPMENT AND 40 FEET FROM THE, THE PROPERTY LINE.
I WILL BE MOST IMPACTED NEGATIVELY BY THIS DUE TO THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF MY RESIDENCE.
ON CONCLUSION, I'M CURRENTLY IMPACTED BY EROSION FROM WATER RUNOFF, TRASH LITER THROWN OVER THE FENCE, AND ALSO NOISE POLLUTION.
THAT'S WHY I OPPOSE THE HUB IUS BECAUSE ALL THESE WILL EXPONENTIALLY INCREASE ON GRANTING THE HUB INCLUSION.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
UM, WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A FOUR MINUTE REBUTTAL.
UM, I WOULD JUST, UM, LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THIS PLAN IS FROM 2013, UM, AND THAT IT HAS BEEN AMENDED AT LEAST 11 TIMES SINCE THAT TIME, UM, OVER THE YEARS AS OUR TRANSIT INVESTMENTS HAVE CHANGED AND EVOLVED AND AS OUR CITY HAS CHANGED AND EVOLVED.
UM, SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT NOT ONLY TO POINT OUT THAT IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE, BUT TO POINT OUT THAT THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE IT, IT, I WOULD ARGUE IT SHOULD BE AN EVOLVING DOCUMENT THAT SHOULD EVOLVE WITH OUR NEEDS AS A CORRIDOR AND OUR NEEDS AS A CITY.
IT'S ONE OF THE BEST PLACES TO LIVE IN THE CITY, AND IT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE, UM, WITHIN, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE REGULATING PLANS, UM, GOALS.
UM, I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH ONE OF THE SPEAKERS THAT THERE IS NO SENSE OF URGENCY.
I THINK THERE ACTUALLY IS A SENSE OF URGENCY WITH OUR HOUSING CRISIS HERE IN AUSTIN.
UM, AND SO I I I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE, UM, LOOKING AT THE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE, AND I THINK THAT THIS IS A GREAT TOOL THAT WE HAVE AND THE ONE THAT WE'VE USED BEFORE.
UM, AND I WOULD, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THERE WERE ESTIMATES MADE IN 2013 THAT DROVE THE DENSITIES THAT THAT LAID OUT THIS PLAN.
UM, BUT IF WE BIND OURSELVES TO THOSE 2013 ESTIMATES, WE'RE NEVER GONNA, WE'RE NEVER GONNA PROVIDE THE HOUSING AND PARTICULARLY THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE KNOW WE NEED NOW IN 2023.
AND, AND WE'LL KNOW EVEN MORE SO IN
UM, SO WITH THAT, I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE APARTMENTS ARE, ARE FROM THE SEVENTIES.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE NEARING THE END OF THEIR LIVES.
[01:30:01]
INVESTMENT HAPPENING TO TRY TO KEEP THEM GOING, BUT THEY'RE NOT GONNA GO FOR THAT MUCH LONGER.AND WITHOUT THESE CHANGES, THEY'RE GONNA TURN INTO MARKET RATE ENTIRELY.
MARKET RATE PROJECTS, UM, THAT IS WHAT'S ALLOWED TODAY, THAT IS ALLOWED TODAY WITHOUT ANY, UM, NOT ONLY WITHOUT ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT ALSO WITHOUT THE TENANT PROTECTIONS, UM, THAT WE'RE HERE TO OFFER YOU TODAY.
SO I WOULD MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE FOR ANY OF THE MORE DETAILED QUESTIONS, BUT I WANTED TO LAY OUT THAT OVERVIEW.
CAN I GET A MOTION TO CLOSE CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION? OH, AND COMMISSIONER WOODS.
UM, WE MIGHT HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THIS EVENING ON THESE TWO CASES.
SO, UM, IS ANYONE OPPOSED TO HAVING 10 SLOTS AT THREE MINUTES EACH? AND WE CAN ALWAYS VOTE TO EXTEND IF WE NEED MORE TIME, WE DON'T VOTE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, WE'RE GOING TO VOTE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT, I GOT IT.
IT'S, IT'S BEEN A MINUTE SINCE I'VE CHAIRED A MEETING, SO I'M A LITTLE RUSTY.
UM, WE DON'T EVEN HAVE 10, 10 COMMISSIONERS HERE TONIGHT, SO EVERYBODY GETS A CHANCE TO ASK A QUESTION.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO, AT THIS TIME, LIMIT IT TO THREE MINUTES, BUT WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK IF WE NEED MORE TIME.
WHO HAS THE FIRST QUESTION? COMMISSIONER COX? UM, I GUESS FIRST QUESTION FOR STAFF, UM, I'M, I'M ACTUALLY A LITTLE SURPRISED WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THIS.
UM, I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A REAL FUN HABIT OF BLOWING UP PREVIOUS PLANS AND P*****G OFF THE PEOPLE THAT WORKED VERY HARD TO PUT THOSE PLANS TOGETHER.
BUT WE HAVE AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTY WITHIN THE HUB ALREADY.
UM, IT SEEMS LIKE IF SOMEONE DID A CALCULATION, PROBABLY, I DON'T KNOW, A THIRD OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE HUB IS JUST SURFACE PARKING.
SO WHY WOULD WE ENCOURAGE BASICALLY THE DISPLACEMENT OF HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE IN VERY AFFORDABLE MARKET RATE APARTMENTS BY EXPANDING THE HUB TO AN AREA THAT'S ALREADY BEING VERY WELL UTILIZED FOR WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER TO BE MARKET RATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I JUST, I'M JUST CURIOUS TO GET STAFF'S THOUGHT ON, ON HOW THEY JUSTIFIED EXPANDING THE HUB TO THIS AREA WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE SO MUCH UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTY IN THE HUB AREA ITSELF.
UM, WELL, I GUESS A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.
UM, WE'RE DEFINITELY NOT, UH, ENCOURAGING, UM, ENCOURAGING THE, HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
DISPLACEMENT OF ANY KIND OF, YOU KNOW, PROPERTIES OR PEOPLE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, WE ARE EVALUATE, WE EVALUATED THE APPLICATION AS IT CAME IN AND I DIDN'T STUDY THE, ALL THE OTHER AREAS THAT ARE NOT DEVELOPED OR REDEVELOPED IN THIS AREA.
BUT AS FAR AS APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE COME IN, THIS IS WHAT WE ANALYZE.
THIS IS WHAT WE LOOKED AT, THIS IS WHAT WE TALKED TOGETHER AS A PLANNING TEAM AND DECIDED THAT THIS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE LOCATION THAT IT IS IN.
SO CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND, I IS ANY PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE HUB BOUNDARIES AS THEY EXIST, EXIST NOW, ARE THOSE APPROPRIATE FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE HUB OF ANY OF THESE HUBS? WHICH, WHICH PROPERTIES ARE YOU REFERRING TO ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE CURRENT HUB BOUNDARY? WELL, I DIDN'T EVALUATE ALL THE PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE HUB BOUNDARY.
WE DID LOOK AT THESE TWO PROPERTIES AND BECAUSE THE NORTHWEST AREA OF THESE TWO PROPERTIES WERE JUST OUTSIDE THE HUB BOUNDARY, THAT IS WHAT WE EVALUATED.
UM, AND THEN QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
IF I HAVE TIME, UH, FROM, FROM MY ONLINE SLEUTHING WHILE, WHILE WE WERE HEARING THE PRESENTATIONS, IT LOOKS LIKE THE, THE RATES, THE RENTS ARE ADVERTISED BETWEEN A THOUSAND AND $1,600 FOR THE CURRENT APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT ARE THERE.
UM, WHEN YOU'RE WITH YOUR TENANT PROTECTIONS, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WERE OFFERING ONLY UP TO 2000, UH, COVERED FOR THE FIRST MONTH'S RENT IF A TENANT CHOSE TO MOVE TO THESE NEW APARTMENTS.
MY MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT THAT MEANS ALL THE MARKET RATES OF THE UNITS YOU'RE PLANNING TO BUILD WITH THIS GREATER ENTITLEMENT REDUCED COMPATIBILITY, IT'S GONNA BE AT LEAST TWICE AS EXPENSIVE AS THE MARKET RATE UNITS THAT EXIST NOW.
[01:35:01]
WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU THINK THAT'S CORRECT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MARKET RENTS ARE GONNA BE IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.WHAT ARE THE MARKET RATES FOR FOR NEW APARTMENTS IN THAT AREA RIGHT NOW? COMMISSIONER COX, THAT WAS YOUR TIME.
SO LET'S, LET'S GET THE QUESTION ANSWERED, BUT WE'LL HAVE TO MOVE ON PRETTY QUICKLY.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THE MARKET RATES IN THE AREA.
I CAN LOOK INTO THAT QUICKLY IF YOU'D LIKE.
UM, WE LOOKED AT THE RENT ROLL AND WE LOOKED AT WHAT THE RENT WE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT PEOPLE'S INCOMES ARE OBVIOUSLY, BUT WE KNOW WHAT THE RENT THEY'RE PAYING AND THAT'S HOW WE DID OUR CALCULATION OF WHAT THE, UM, CURRENT AFFORDABILITY LOOKS LIKE IN THE, IN THE DEVELOPMENT.
AND THEN THE $2,000 FOR FUTURE RENT WAS BASED ON WHAT OTHER SIMILAR, UM, TENANT PACKAGES HAVE LOOKED LIKE.
COMMISSIONER WITH ANOTHER QUESTION.
DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP? NO.
COMMISSIONER ZARK, THANK YOU SO MUCH MS. BOER.
UM, I DO WANNA, WANNA THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH THE TENANTS ON SOME OF THOSE STAND ITEMS. AGAIN, THOSE ARE VOLUNTARILY YOU'RE OFFERING THEM, WE'RE NOT REQUIRING OR ASKING YOU TO DO ANYTHING OF THE SORT.
UM, AND I GUESS JUST, YOU KNOW, I DO APPRECIATE THE LIST THAT YOU'RE WORKED ON.
I GUESS CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT, HOW ARE YOU APPLYING TO MEMORIALIZE THESE? YES.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SOME OF THESE ITEMS CAN GO IN A LEASE ADDENDUM AND SOME OF THEM, AND I DON'T HAVE THE LIST HERE, I'M SORRY.
UM, BUT, AND SOME OF THEM WILL NEED TO GO IN A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
UM, SOME BETWEEN NOW AND GETTING TO CITY COUNCIL, WE WILL HAVE TO SORT OUT WHICH OF THOSE THINGS WILL GO IN EACH PLACES.
OBVIOUSLY THE FUTURE, THE FUTURE TENANT PROTECTIONS WILL GO IN FUTURE LEASES, UM, AND THEN A LOT OF THESE THINGS WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE TENANTS TODAY THROUGH LEASE AMENDMENTS.
AND IN THE PAST, THE WAY IT'S BEEN DONE IS WE'VE HAD A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT REFERS TO AN, UM, M O U WITH THE TENANTS ALONG WITH THE LEASE ADDENDUM.
SO HOPEFULLY THAT IS SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL WILL CONSIDER AS THIS MOVES FORWARD.
UM, THE OTHER PIECE THAT I HAD IS, UM, CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT SORT OF, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD FROM SOME OF THE SPEAKERS AS WELL THE, YOU CAPTURED WITHIN YOUR DATA, THE UNITS THAT ARE AT 60% M F I AND LOWER MM-HMM.
THEY'RE ALL, UM, THEY'RE ALL, YOU KNOW, MARKET RATE AFFORDABLE.
SO THERE IS NO TERM, THERE IS NO, UM, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, GO FORWARD TO ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE.
OBVIOUSLY THAT UNITS THAT COME IN WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE PART OF THE DENSITY BONUS.
THE CITY WOULD BE THE ENFORCING PARTY AND THEY WOULD BE, UM, INCOME RESTRICTED FOR THE, THE 40 YEAR MINIMUM FOR GOT.
SO JUST SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THE UNITS THAT WE WOULD BE GET, IF, IF WE WERE TO BE REDEVELOPED, THE UNITS THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE DEN BONUS WOULD OF COURSE HAVE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE LEGALLY BINDING AND WOULD CONTINUE INTO THE FUTURE.
CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT, I'M NOT SURE, I'M ASSUMING IT'S TIERED, BUT CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO ROUGHLY WHAT ARE THE RENTS FOR THE OTHER UNITS, UM, FOR THE OTHER MARKET UNITS IN THE CURRENT
UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S OBVIOUSLY A RANGE.
UM, WE FOCUSED ON 60 BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE DENSITY BONUS WOULD BE REPLACING AND KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE REPLACING MORE THAN THE NUMBER OF 60% UNITS.
I'M SURE THERE ARE SOME FOLKS IN THERE THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, GETTING A GOOD DEAL, WHICH GOOD, GOOD FOR THEM.
AND I'M SURE THERE ARE OTHER FOLKS IN THERE THAT, UM, THAT NEED THE LOWER RENTS.
UM, ONE OTHER PART OF THE TENANT, UM, PACKAGE, WHICH, UM, I BELIEVE WAS ON THE LIST THAT YOU SAW, IS, UM, WHEN IT COMES TIME TO REDEVELOP AND WE START TALKING TO FOLKS ABOUT WHAT THEIR NEXT STEPS ARE, WE'RE GONNA BRING AN ORGANIZATION IN TO MEET WITH PEOPLE AND TALK ABOUT NOT ONLY OTHER PLACES WHERE THEY MAY FIND HOUSING, BUT ALSO, UM, OTHER PROGRAMS THEY MAY QUALIFY FOR.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENTS AND FOUND THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE IT IF THEY DON'T WANT TO, BUT IT'S A NICE THING TO OFFER TO PEOPLE.
AND SOMETIMES PEOPLE REALIZE THAT THEY'RE ELIGIBLE FOR THINGS THAT THEY DIDN'T REALIZE BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN IN A MARKET UNIT FOR A LONG TIME.
THEY DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THERE WERE OTHER PROGRAMS AND THINGS THAT THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO, TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.
AND IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, FOLKS WHO EVERYBODY WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO RIGHT.
SO THOSE FOLKS WHO LET'S SAY WERE WOULD AT THAT TIME BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE 60% MFI UNITS, THEY COULD COME BACK INTO THE AFFORDABLE UNITS AS WELL, CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT, ABSOLUTELY.
OKAY, OUR NEXT QUESTION, UM, I COMMISSIONER CONLEY.
UM, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT, UM, TRANSIT INVESTMENT COMING THROUGH IN THE RIVERSIDE AREA, AND WE KNOW THAT THE E TODD PLANS ARE STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHAT TYPES OF, UM, SORT OF BOUNDARIES WOULD WE EXPECT MOVING FORWARD WITH ITAD DEVELOPMENT IN TERMS OF WALKABILITY, BIKEABILITY AND ACCESS TO THAT NEW TRANSIT INVESTMENT? AND DO YOU HAVE SOME GENERAL GUIDELINES WE COULD BE THINKING ABOUT? SO WE WERE LOOKING AT JUST THE PROXIMITY OF THE PROPERTIES AND FELT THAT IT WAS A REASONABLE DISTANCE.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S, UM, SOME EXHIBITS THAT WERE PUT UP EARLIER WITH SPECIFIC, YOU KNOW, 0.3 QUARTER MILES FROM, BUT I KNOW THAT WE LOOKED AT, IT WAS
[01:40:01]
PROBABLY ABOUT 0.3 MILES FROM WALKING FROM THE WICKERSHAM AREA TO THE EAST RIVERSIDE AREA.SO I MEAN, WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE FUTURE CAP METRO STOPS THAT ARE THERE, THE TRANSIT THAT WILL BE COMING IN.
SO THEY COULD EITHER, IF THEY WANTED TO WALK WITH IT, IF IT WAS IN THE WICKERSHAM AREA OR THE CROMWELL CIRCLE, THEY COULD USE THE CAP METRO TRANSIT TO, TO GET TO THE TRANSIT.
AND I GUESS THAT WAS MY RELATED QUESTION BECAUSE A LOT OF THIS SEEMED FOCUSED ON WALKING, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE KNOW THAT IT, IT'S A MULTIMODAL SITUATION, SO YOU MIGHT HAVE BIKES OR SCOOTERS OR RIGHT.
EVEN LIKE A PICKUP SERVICE THAT WOULD HANDLE, THAT WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THE TRANSIT.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, BUT I MEAN, I, AS FAR AS LIKE EX, YOU KNOW, SPECIFIC NUTS AND BOLTS ABOUT WHAT IS GONNA BE DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE, THAT'S NOT
AND I GUESS THAT WAS PROBABLY MY MORE GENERAL QUESTION WAS IF WE'RE CONSIDERING THINGS LIKE THIS AROUND TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S A GOOD SORT OF SET OF GUIDELINES THAT WE WOULD WANNA THINK ABOUT? IT SOUNDS LIKE WHEN YOU REVIEWED THESE CASES, YOU FELT THAT THIS WAS AN APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT IN TERMS OF TRANSIT ACCESS BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE.
I, UM, I DO, I WANNA FOLLOW UP WITH SOME MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, ALTHOUGH I, YOU KNOW, WANTED TO SORT OF SPECIFICALLY ASK ABOUT THE, THE, THE CORRIDOR PLAN, THE, THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR PLAN.
I KNOW THAT'S BEEN, IT'S OVER A DECADE OLD NOW, SO I DON'T KNOW.
UM, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW WHAT STAFF'S RECOLLECTION OF THAT PROCESS WAS, BUT I'M INTERESTED IN WHO WERE THE STAKEHOLDERS PRESENT WHEN THAT PLAN WAS FIRST WORKED ON.
UM, DO WE KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY TENANTS, UM, AND, AND YOU KNOW, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY RIVERSIDE IS, THERE'S A LARGE RENT RENTER COMMUNITY.
HOW INVOLVED WERE RENTERS IN THAT PLAN? DO WE HAVE ANY SENSE OF THAT, OF THOSE DEMOGRAPHICS? WELL, I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT, UH, INFORMATION ON THAT PLAN.
I DO KNOW THAT ONE OF THE, UH, SECONDARY SPEAKERS WAS VERY INVOLVED.
SHE WAS ASKED BY ONE OF THE FORMER COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BE INVOLVED OR SIT ON THE COMMITTEE THAT WAS, UM, PRESENTING INFORMATION AS TO THAT COMMITTEE.
UM, OTHER THAN THAT I WASN'T WITH THE CITY AT THE TIME, UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS DEVELOPED, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY, UM, IT'S THAT'S FINE.
AND AT THE TIME THAT THOSE PLANS WERE WORKED ON, WAS THERE EVER A THAT, THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF? WAS THERE EVER A GUARANTEE OR A PROMISE MADE TO THE COMMUNITY THAT THOSE PLANS WOULD NEVER BE CHANGED? OH, THAT I WOULDN'T, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE A HUNDRED PERCENT GUARANTEED, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THE STAKEHOLDERS, THERE WERE A LOT OF STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED AS FAR AS WHEN THAT PLAN, THE VISION PLAN WENT INTO YEAH.
DID THE CITY EVER MAKE THEM THE PROMISE THAT THE PLAN WOULD NOT CHANGE? NO.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARDS TO THE, UH, STORM WATER CONCERNS AND FLOODING CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED BY THE FOLKS THAT ARE MOST NEAR TO THE PROJECT.
CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT TO WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE WHEN THIS THING ACTUALLY GETS INTO DEVELOPMENT? ABSOLUTELY.
UM, SO YOU KNOW, THE, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, THE, THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE ON THE SITES TODAY ARE FROM THE SEVENTIES.
THEY ARE, THEY PREDATE STORM WATER DETENTION.
ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL RULES WE HAVE.
I'M, I'M, UNFORTUNATELY, I'M NOT SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT THEY'RE HAVING STORM WATER RUNOFF ISSUES BECAUSE, UM, THOSE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT IN PLACE AT THAT TIME.
UM, AS WE GO TO THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, UM, WHENEVER THAT HAPPENS, WE WILL BE OBVIOUSLY, UM, HELD TO ALL KINDS OF NEW ENVIRONMENTAL AND STORM WATER RUNOFF STANDARDS.
AND SO I WOULD EXPECT THAT THESE DEVELOPMENTS, NOT ONLY WILL THEY NOT MAKE THOSE PROBLEMS WORSE, SO THEY WILL PROBABLY MAKE HIM QUITE A BIT BETTER.
AND TO THE TENANT PIECE SPECIFICALLY, I THINK YOU DID A GOOD JOB ANSWERING COMMISSIONER AZAR ALREADY, BUT, UM, JUST CURRENTLY ON SITE, SOME OF THE PROTECTIONS THAT YOU LISTED AND THAT WE WENT THROUGH HERE, I DON'T HAVE THE WHOLE LIST IN FRONT OF ME, BUT, UM, CURRENTLY ON SITE, DO ANY OF THOSE PROTECT, ARE ANY OF THOSE PROTECTIONS IN PLACE? NO.
SO RIGHT NOW, IF THERE WERE TO BE A REDEVELOPMENT, TENANTS WOULD NOT HAVE ANY OF THE ASSISTANCE WITH RELOCATION OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT? THEY WOULD NOT, THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE CITY'S NOTIFICATION ORDINANCE, OF COURSE.
AND IF IT WERE TO REDEVELOP AS IS, WITHOUT THIS ZONING CHANGE, OF COURSE, ANY NEW TENANTS WOULD NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE RIGHTS THAT ARE IN THIS AGREEMENT, UH, IN THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, CORRECT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT.
OKAY, OTHER QUESTIONS? IS YOUR HANDS YES.
UH, FOR ANY OF THE APPLICANTS THAT WANT TO COME UP? AND I'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS, OR NOT THE, I'M SORRY, THE, THE, UH, NEIGHBORS AND THEN WHILE THEY'RE WALKING UP, COMMISSIONER COX? UH, TO ANSWER YOURS, I JUST DID MY INTERNET SLEUTHING AND FOUND THE VIBE, WHICH IS ON, UH, RIVERSIDE AND I THINK, I GUESS WORKER SHAM.
UH, PRICES GO FROM 1499 TO 2279, AND AT THE PATENT, WHICH IS TWO DOWN ON WORKER SHAM PRICES GO
[01:45:01]
9 0 6, BUT THAT'S FOR A 475 SQUARE FOOT.UM, I GUESS APARTMENT 2 27 85 FOR A TWO BEDROOM.
SO PRETTY HIGH, UH, FOR THE, FOR THE RESIDENCE.
UM, I'VE GOT A, I I'VE GOT, UM, BASICALLY THE SAME QUESTION FOR YOU ON, UH, AS YOU WERE PARTICIPATING IN THE, IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EAST RIVERSIDE AND THE CORRIDOR AND THE HUBS.
UM, DO YOU, DID YOU HAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT, THAT THE PLANS THAT YOU LOCKED IN PLACE A DECADE AGO WOULD NOT CHANGE? WE COULD EXPECT CH MALCOLM YATES CHAIR, EAST RIVERSIDE COURT,
AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, AS THE APPLICANT HAD MENTIONED, THERE HAVE BEEN 11 DIFFERENT MODIFICATIONS TO THE E R C AND THESE WERE NOT CONTESTED BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL ACTUALLY ALONG THE CORRIDOR.
UM, THIS ONE IS MAJOR BECAUSE IT, UH, IT GOES TO THE BASIC CONCEPT OF THE TRANSPORTATION HUB.
AND BY IGNORING THAT DESIGN CONCEPT, IT PRETTY MUCH DESTROYS THE, THE ENTIRE CONCEPT OF TRANSPORTATION HUBS AND, AND ALLOWS, UM, REAL ABUSE OF THE, UH, THE ENTIRE CONCEPT.
SO, UM, NOW THERE WAS ANOTHER QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED ABOUT, UH, PARTICIPATION.
UM, AT THE TIME IN 2013, THERE WERE STILL CONSIDERABLE ON A NUMBER OF STUDENTS IN THE AREA ALONG WICKERSHAM, UH, MOST OF THEM HAVE MOVED BACK TO CAMPUS NOW, UH, BECAUSE THE, THE BUILDING, UM, RESTRICTIONS ON HEIGHT HAVE CHANGED.
UM, SO NOW, UM, INSTEAD OF STUDENTS, THERE'S MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT THE, UH, THE DEMOGRAPHICS ARE STILL THE SAME IN TERMS OF 50% TURNOVER PER YEAR.
SO MOST OF THE PEOPLE, UM, UH, THAT LIVED IN THE AREA WERE NOT INVOLVED.
AND IT WAS ONLY THE SMALL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS MAINLY THAT WERE REPRESENTED, UM, ON THE PLAN.
WE HAVE, UNLESS SOMEBODY WANTS TO DONATE THEIR TIME, AND THAT'S OKAY.
UH, UH, JUST ONE MORE QUESTION.
DO YOU AGREE THE APPLICANT HAS MADE A PRESENTATION THAT SAYS, UM, THE, ONCE THE, THE UNITS ARE REDESIGNED, THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY GONNA BE AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS? DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT? DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT IDEA OR NO? NO.
NONE OF THE, UH, GROUP THAT IS HERE TONIGHT AGREES WITH THAT ANALYSIS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, A 100% OF THE UNITS THAT ARE MARKET RATE THERE ARE CONSIDERED AFFORDABLE AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE REPLACED BY MARKET RATE, UH, UPSCALE.
THAT WILL NOT BE AFFORDABLE TO MOST PEOPLE.
AND SO YOU CONSIDER THEM AFFORDABLE BECAUSE THEY'RE LOWER THAN THE ONES THAT ARE ACROSS THE STREET ON WICKERSHAM? BAS BASICALLY, I DROVE THE AREA TODAY OR YESTERDAY, ONE OF THE, AND SO THE, THE WHAT I, MY WORD BOUGIE APARTMENTS ON WICKERSHAM, UM, UH, OBVIOUSLY CHARGE HIGHER RENT.
SO YOU THINK THEY'RE AFFORDABLE BECAUSE THEY'RE ON THE OTHER COR ON THE OTHER SIDE OF WICKERSHAM AND DOWN THE BLOCK ONE, ONE UNIT, THEY'RE AFFORDABLE BECAUSE THEY'RE LOWER RENT? NO, THEY'RE, IT, UH, THERE ARE A REAL MIX OF, UH, APARTMENTS AND, UH, SOME OF THEM ARE BETTER MAINTAINED THAN OUR OTHERS IN THE AREA.
AND, UH, THE ONES THAT ARE GENERALLY THE MOST AFFORDABLE OR THE LEAST MAINTAINED.
SO LOCATION DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A LOT TO DO WITH IT.
IT'S MAINLY IN JUST, UH, UM, THE CONDITION OF THE, UH, DEPARTMENT ITSELF.
YES, MR. GATES, I WOULD ASK YOU AT WHAT COST, WHAT ARE THESE TENANTS HAVING TO GIVE UP, UH, IN ORDER TO HAVE THESE LOWER RENTS? DO, DO YOU KNOW? 'CAUSE I, I LIVED AT 24 25 CROMWELL CIRCLE FOR YEARS, AND IT WAS RAT INFESTED IN FULL OF ROACHES.
SO I'M JUST SAYING AT WHAT COST? WELL, WHAT ARE WE TRADING OFF TO HAVE THESE LOWER COST APARTMENTS?
[01:50:01]
WELL, EVIDENTLY PEOPLE LIVE THERE STILL, SO THEY, THEY'RE PUTTING UP WITH THE CONDITIONS JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE AFFORDABLE.SO THAT'S, THAT IS THE ANSWER IF I UNDERSTAND THE CORRECT QUESTION CORRECTLY.
OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER WOODS? NO.
ANYBODY ONLINE VIRTUALLY WITH QUESTIONS? OKAY.
WE WENT THROUGH THEM PRETTY QUICKLY.
UH, WELL I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION THEN.
OBJECTION IF WE'RE DOING MOTION SEPARATELY.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
SO IF WE'RE READY TO GET INTO MOTIONS, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION ON NUMBER 21, UM, WHICH IS THE WICKERSHAM CASE.
SO WE'LL GO THROUGH, GET A MOTION A SECOND, UM, DO SOME DEBATE, VOTE ON THAT, AND THEN WE'LL GO ON TO NUMBER 22.
MAKE SENSE? COMMISSIONER COX, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE APPLICATION.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'M NOT SEEING A SECOND.
SO
APPROVAL OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
AND I'M SORRY, JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, WHICH YOU'RE SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT, ITEM NUMBER 21, THE ERSING LANE.
UM, I MEAN, I KNOW THERE'S 500 HOMES THERE TODAY, BUT THEY WEREN'T BUILT TO LAST FOREVER.
AND THESE HOMES ARE IN ROUGH SHAPE, AND SO THEY'RE GONNA GET REPLACED WITH EITHER 1000 HOMES OR 2000 HOMES.
AND BY PASSING THIS, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE HIGHER END OF BOTH OF THESE ITEMS, AND IT JUST SEEMS TO MAKE A LOT OF SENSE WITH THIS GREAT TRANSIT INVESTMENT TO GET AS MANY HOUSING UNITS AS POSSIBLE IN THIS THRIVING NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I APPRECIATE STAFF'S WORK ON THIS.
I THINK STAFF DID A REALLY GOOD JOB ON THIS ITEM.
UM, COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ, ARE YOU SPEAKING AGAINST? NO, I WANTED TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE IPAD WITH MOTION.
LET'S SEE IF WE, COMMISSIONER COX, WE'LL LET COMMISSIONER COX GO AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU.
I'M, I'M PRETTY SOLIDLY AGAINST THIS.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, THE HOUSE I'M SITTING IN RIGHT NOW WAS BUILT IN 1954, AND IT SEEMS TO BE DOING JUST FINE.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY ALL OF A SUDDEN WE THINK BUILDINGS IN THE 1970S NEED TO BE RIPPED DOWN TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT'S 10 TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE WITH RENT THAT'S TWO TO THREE TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE.
SOMETIMES IT'S REALLY LIKE KIND OF CHALLENGING TO DIRECTLY RELATE OUR ACTIONS ON THIS COMMISSION TO THE DISPLACEMENT ISSUE.
BUT THIS ONE'S PRETTY SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND.
AND SO I I I, IF WE MAKE IT EASIER TO REDEVELOP THESE INTO REALLY EXPENSIVE UNITS WITH A LITTLE BIT OF SPRINKLING OF SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THEN WE ARE DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO THIS, TO THE DISPLACEMENT ISSUE.
THERE IS UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES, SEVERELY UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTY WITHIN THESE TRANSPORTATION HUBS ALREADY.
WE SHOULDN'T BE MAKING IT EASIER TO REDEVELOP OUTSIDE OF THE HUB.
WE SHOULD BE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THOSE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE HUB AS THEY EXIST NOW TO BUILD HIGH DENSITY MIXED USE WITH RESIDENTIAL SUBSIDIZED, AFFORDABLE, ALL THAT FUN STUFF.
AND SO I JUST SEE THIS AS DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING, DIRECTLY ENCOURAGING THE DESTRUCTION OF HUNDREDS OF MARKET RATE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
AND I DON'T THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD BE DOING THAT.
COMMISSIONER BARRE RAMIREZ? YEAH, I THINK FOR ME, THE REAL CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THE LOCATION OF THE HUB.
I MEAN, I AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, APARTMENTS BUILT IN THE SEVENTIES DON'T LAST FOREVER.
AND I THINK WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS WHAT IF THE, WHAT IF THE CENTER OF TRANSIT IS OVER 200, 300 FEET TO THE EAST AND NOT RIGHT IN THE
[01:55:01]
RIGHT, IN THE CENTER OF PLEASANT VALLEY AND RIVERSIDE, AND THESE, UM, PROPERTIES ACTUALLY FALL WITHIN THE QUARTER MILE WALK SHED, RIGHT? SO WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THAT CENTER OF TRANSIT IS GOING TO BE.THEY'RE JUST SO CLOSE AND IT'S KIND OF, YOU KNOW, ANYWAY, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S MY SENTIMENT IS THAT IF WE SCOOCH THAT TRANSIT CENTER OVER A LITTLE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WHICH MAY LIKELY HAPPEN, THEN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE HANGING OUR HATS ON THIS QUARTER MILE HUB DISTANCE AND THAT COULD CHANGE.
I THINK THAT ADDING MORE HOUSING IS IMPORTANT TO THIS AREA.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR.
LET ME SEE IF THERE'S ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST, OKAY, GO AHEAD.
UM, SO I, PREVENTING THE DISPLACEMENT OF TENANTS IS, IS AN ISSUE THAT IS NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART.
IT'S ONE OF MY, UM, DAILY, IT'S PART OF MY DAILY JOB, UM, TO WORK AND ADVOCATE AND FIGHT FOR TENANTS IN AUSTIN.
AND IT'S NOT ONLY SOMETHING THAT I RAISE ON THE OCCASION OF A A ZONING CASE ISSUE, I DO KNOW THAT THIS, THE, THE, THE TENANT, WE HAVE A VERY LIMITED TOOLBOX IN TEXAS OF, OF TOOLS THAT WE ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO USE TO PREVENT THE DISPLACEMENT OF TENANTS.
YOU KNOW, THE CITY CAN COME IN WITH CITY RESOURCES AND ACQUIRE PROPERTIES AND TAKE THEM OFF THE MARKET.
BUT BARRING THAT, WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH PROPERTIES THAT ARE PRIVATELY HELD, PRIVATELY OWNED, WE HAVE TO WORK WITH LIMITED INCENTIVES.
AND WHEN WE HAVE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT FROM A DEVELOPER TO PROVIDE A, TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE TENANTS AND TO PROVIDE A TENANT BENEFITS PACKAGE OF THIS SORT, THAT RAISES THE BAR THAT IS AT THE HIGHEST STANDARD FOR TENANT BENEFIT PACKAGES THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY RIGHT NOW.
UM, I THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY.
I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, I WAS LIVING ON RIVERSIDE AS A TENANT, UM, VERY CLOSE BY IN THE BALLPARK APARTMENTS.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, I'M AWARE OF THE CONDITIONS AND THE, THE REALITY OF HOW TENANTS ARE TREATED IN A LOT OF THESE APARTMENTS.
AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THEY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF RIGHTS.
THEY'RE NOT TREATED WITH DIGNITY.
THEIR LANDLORDS ARE OFTEN SLUMLORDS.
UM, AND OFTEN BECAUSE THEY'RE SEEN AS STUDENTS, THEY'RE SEEN TO HAVE LESS POWER.
UM, SO IF WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO REALLY TIE IN SOME REAL RIGHTS AND BENEFITS, NOT ONLY FOR THE CURRENT TENANTS, BUT MOVING FORWARD, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
NO ONE'S LEASE IS GONNA BE BROKEN.
AND I THINK IT'S SOMEWHAT DISINGENUOUS TO CLAIM THAT THIS IS, UH, SORT OF A, YOU KNOW, UH, THAT, THAT SOMEHOW VOTING THIS CASE DOWN PREVENTS THE DISPLACEMENT OF THESE FOLKS.
DISPLACEMENT IS, IS A COMPLEX PROCESS.
AND IF WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH INCENTIVES LIKE THIS RIGHT NOW, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD WASTE IT.
UM, I ALSO WANT TO, MY TIME IS OVER.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WANTING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST? UM, WE CAN ONLY HAVE AGAINST WE
OH, I WAS JUST GONNA UP THREE DIFFERENT O OKAY.
UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE THEN IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKING AGAINST.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTIONS.
CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER, LADIES, I INTERRUPT.
COULD YOU REPEAT THE MOTION AND THE MOTIONS? THE MOTION IS FROM COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON NUMBER 21.
THEN WE HAVE EIGHT, ONE THAT PASSES.
AND, UM, DO WE HAVE A MO UM, WE'RE GOING BACK TO MOTION, RIGHT? YES, YES.
UM, A MOTION FOR NUMBER 22 CHAIR.
DO WE HAVE BUT THERE TWO AGAINST 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9, 9, 1, 9, 8, 1 9.
YES, BECAUSE THERE'S ONE AGAINST, I THOUGHT IT WAS ONLY COMMISSION.
ARE THERE 10 OF US TONIGHT? IT'S 10 US NINE.
THE OFFICIAL VOTE FOR SEPTEMBER NUMBER 21 WAS, UNLESS OTHERWISE 9 1 0 14.
I HAVE GOTTEN MY NUMBER COMMISSIONERS HERE TONIGHT.
MOVING FORWARD WITH NUMBER WITH 10 COMMISSIONERS ON NUMBER 22.
UM, DO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM ANYONE? UM, UM, I MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM 22, WHICH IS WHAT, UH, CROMWELL, I HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER CONNOLLY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? UM, YES.
[02:00:01]
ACKNOWLEDGE THE TRANSIT RICHNESS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND IN FACT, HOW MUCH EVEN BETTER IT'S GOING TO BECOME.AND I JUST REALLY THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT FEELS ACCESSIBLE AND WELCOMING TO SO MANY FE FOLKS.
SEEMS LIKE THAT'S A REALLY GREAT STEP FORWARD.
UM, AND I DO WANNA BE REALLY THOUGHTFUL ABOUT OUR E T O D INVESTMENTS AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
UM, WE KNOW THAT BEING WALKABLE TO SOMETHING IS IMPORTANT, BUT IT'S NOT JUST WALKABILITY, IT'S ACCESS IN GENERAL.
AND THAT CAN COME IN MANY FORMS AND FASHIONS.
SO I REALLY DO APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S THOUGHTFULNESS ABOUT WHAT TRANSIT LOOKS LIKE AND HOW HOUSING WORKS WITH TRANSIT.
AND I REALLY WANNA THANK STAFF AND THE APPLICANT FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
COMMISSIONER, SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER COX, I JUST WANNA CARRY ON A FEW POINTS, UH, AS I'M SURE SOME OTHER COMMISSIONERS WILL AS WELL.
ONE THING THAT I DON'T OFTEN HEAR MADE, THE POINT IS THAT THERE'S NOT AN INFINITE NUMBER OF DEVELOPERS.
THERE'S NOT AN INFINITE NUMBER OF MONEY GOING TO DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO WHEN WE ENCOURAGE REDEVELOPMENT IN ONE AREA, IT, IT CAN HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT IN OTHER AREAS.
AND SO, AGAIN, WE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING REDEVELOPMENT AND TRANSIT RICH AREAS OF REALLY, REALLY UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTY, PROPERTY THAT'S BLANKETED WITH SURFACE PARKING.
BY NOT DOING THAT, I TRULY BELIEVE THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT HARDER FOR SOME OF THOSE PLACES TO ACTUALLY REDEVELOP BY INCENTIVIZING EASIER REDEVELOPMENT ELSEWHERE.
I ALSO THINK IT'S INTERESTING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WALKABILITY TRANSIT RICHNESS, BECAUSE I TRULY BELIEVE BY THIS VOTE, AND IF COUNCIL APPROVES THE REZONING, WE'RE BASICALLY GUARANTEEING THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING, THE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING IN THESE MARKET RATE AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT EXIST NOW ARE PROBABLY GONNA HAVE TO MOVE TO SOMEPLACE THAT IS NOT EASILY WALKABLE AND IS NOT TRANSIT BRIDGE.
WE'RE BASICALLY CREATING THESE HUBS THAT ARE JUST EXCLUSIVE TO ALL OF THESE WEALTHY, OVERPRICED APARTMENTS WITH ON MIXED USE BUILDINGS WITH COMMERCIAL AT THE BOTTOM, THAT SORT OF THING.
AND SO I THINK WE SHOULD BE TAKING A LOOK AT TRYING TO PRESERVE SOME OF THIS EXISTING HOUSING STOCK THAT IS CLOSE TO THESE TRANSIT HUBS BECAUSE WE WANT TO ENABLE A MIX OF PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT INCOMES TO BE ABLE TO, TO HAVE THE BENEFITS THAT COME WITH THESE TRANSIT HUBS.
UH, YEAH, SO NOTHING ENCOURAGES THE REDEVELOPMENT OF MULTIFAMILY MORE THAN THE FACT THAT IT IS HIGHLY RESTRICTIVE TO BUILD, UM, MULTIFAMILY IN MOST OF OUR, UM, URBAN CENTER AND MOST OF OUR URBAN CORE IN THE CITY.
THAT ALONE IS THE SINGLE LARGEST DRIVER OF THE REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING MULTIFAMILY.
SO IF WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT NOT INCENTIVIZING MORE MULTIFAMILY REDEVELOPMENT, WE SHOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY ALLOWING MORE DEVELOPMENT MULTIFAMILY ON GREENFIELD THAN IN OTHER AVAILABLE SITES IN THE CITY RIGHT NOW.
AND, UM, SO THAT'S JUST ONE POINT.
THE OTHER POINT IS I WANT TO CHALLENGE, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T KNOW WHO WAS PRESENT.
I THINK THAT IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT, UM, MOST TENANTS AND MOST CORE TRANSIT RIDER WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME THAT THESE ORIGINAL PLANS WERE MADE O OVER A DECADE AGO.
UM, I WAS LIVING ON RIVERSIDE AND I CERTAINLY, NEITHER MYSELF NOR ANY OF MY NEIGHBORS KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
UH, IN THE MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENTS THAT WE LIVED IN AT THE TIME, WE WERE NOT INFORMED.
UM, BUT I THINK THIS ARBITRARY FIVE MINUTE WALK SHED WAS DEFINITELY DESIGNED BY SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT WALK TO TAKE THE BUS EVERY DAY.
IT WAS PLANNED BY PEOPLE WHO CLEARLY ARE NOT CORE TRANSIT RIDERS BECAUSE MOST OF OUR CORE TRANSIT RIDERS IN THE CITY HAVE TO WALK SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES EVERY DAY TO GET TO THE NEAREST TRANSIT STOP.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I I I I DON'T KNOW HOW WE DESIGN THOSE ARBITRARY BARRIERS BOUNDARIES, BUT I HOPE THAT WE RECONSIDER THEM.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, AGAIN, TO THE POINT OF THE DISPLACEMENT OF THE TENANTS, I WILL EMPHASIZE, UNLESS THERE IS AN ACTUAL TOOL TO PREVENT THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT MULTIFAMILY IN THE FORM OF SOME, YOU KNOW, CITY MONEY THAT WILL ACQUIRE THAT PROPERTY OR SOMETHING ELSE, THEN WE SHOULDN'T PRO PRETEND THAT NOT APPROVING THE ZONING CASE SOMEHOW PROTECTS THOSE PROPERTIES OR KEEPS THOSE TENANTS IN PLACE AUTOMATICALLY OR BY DEFAULT.
SO, UH, AGAIN, I THINK WE HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD OF TENANT BENEFITS AND PROTECTIONS IN THESE PROPERTIES THAN WE HAVE IN ALMOST ANY OTHER PROPERTY RIGHT NOW IN AUSTIN.
UM, YOU KNOW, EXCEPT FOR, UM, CITY, UM, FUNDED DEVELOPMENTS.
UM, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST FOUR, COMMISSIONER CZAR.
I FEEL LIKE MOST HAS BEEN SET BY, UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY ALREADY ON SOME OF THIS.
BUT I WILL SAY HERE IN TEXAS, WE DO HAVE A VERY LIMITED TOOLBOX ON THE ABILITY ON WHAT WE CAN DO, UM, TO SUPPORT TENANTS, PARTICULARLY AROUND REDEVELOPMENT.
AND I DO WANNA THANK THE APPLICANT FOR VOLUNTARILY
[02:05:01]
OFFERING A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WILL SUPPORT EXISTING TENANTS AND ALSO PROVIDE SOME EXPANDED RIGHTS TO FUTURE TENANTS AS WELL.AND I WANNA SAY AS, AS CRITICAL, CRITICAL AS IT IS TO PRESERVE ALL AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I AGREE THAT I'VE LIVED IN SOME OF THIS HOUSING AND LIFE CAN BE TOUGH.
I'VE LIVED IN RIVERSIDE IN ONE OF AN OLDER APARTMENTS, AND I LIKE TO TELL FRIENDS OUR BUILDING WAS SO TILTED THAT WATER IN THE SHOWER WENT ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE DRAIN.
SO AFTER EVERY SHOWER, MY HOUSEHOLD WOULD SQUIDGY WATER INTO THE DRAIN.
IT WAS AN OLD, WE COULD TALK ABOUT PRESERVING IT, BUT WHAT IS THE QUALITY OF LIFE THAT WE WANT FOR PEOPLE? AND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN NEW UNITS THAT ARE INCOME RESTRICTED AND LEGALLY BINDING IS DIFFERENT FROM OLDER UNITS WHERE THE QUALITY OF LIFE MIGHT BE MUCH LOWER.
AND I THINK THAT IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR AND PRESERVING.
NOW, AGAIN, OF COURSE IT DOES MAKE IT MUCH MORE EASIER TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT BECAUSE OF THE VOLUNTARY, UH, THINGS THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED TO EXISTING TENANTS TO PROTECT THEM, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO RETURN IN SOME OF THOSE UNITS.
IN ADDITION, OF COURSE, I THINK THE CITY IS GONNA CONTINUE ITS EFFORT TO LOOK AROUND PRESERVATION OF EXISTING MULTIFAMILY AND EXPANSION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AROUND THESE AREAS AS PART OF THE WORK THAT'S HAPPENING AROUND TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND THE USE OF THAT AT A SPACEMAN FUNDS FROM PROJECT CONNECT.
BUT AS THIS STANDS, PARTICULARLY NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS REZONING MEANS THAT WE'RE GONNA CREATE A LARGE NUMBER OF MARKETED UNITS, STILL ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING UNITS, BUT PROVIDE NO BENEFITS TO TENANTS, PROVIDE NO PROTECTIONS TO FUTURE TENANTS, NOT HAVE ANY INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS.
SO I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN HAVE ALL OF THOSE BENEFITS FOR EXISTING AND FUTURE TENANTS.
UM, ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
SO THIS IS FOR NUMBER, UH, 22 22 39 CROMWELL.
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CONNOLLY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UM, ALL OF THOSE ON THE DAAS IN FAVOR, THAT'S SEVEN.
UM, ON VIRTUAL WE'VE GOT TWO AND ONE AGAINST, SO THAT'S NINE ONE.
WE HAD ALL 10 BACK AT THAT POINT.
UM, THANK YOU NEIGHBORS FOR COMING.
UM, AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT CASE.
[25. Environmental Variance: SP-2022-0197D - Country Club Creek Trail]
THIS IS COUNTRY CLUB CREEK TRAIL.IT'S REALLY, HI, GOOD EVENING.
I'LL JUST JUMP IN AND INTRODUCE THE PROJECT.
UM, CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? YES.
I'M THE CASE MANAGER FOR THIS PROJECT.
IT'S A SITE PLAN, UM, AND THE SPONSORING DEPARTMENT IS PUBLIC WORKS AND THE URBAN TRAIL PROGRAM WITHIN THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
SO THIS IS, UM, A SITE PLAN WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE, UM, AND THE VARIANCE IS FOR CUT AND FILL.
SO, UM, THAT'S THE, THE QUICK RUNDOWN AND I WILL LET, UH, DYLAN GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH HIS PRESENTATION.
OH, AND STAFF IS, UM, SUPPORTIVE.
CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
UM, THANKS FOR HAVING ME TONIGHT.
UM, MY NAME IS DYLAN JOHNSTONE.
I'M THE PROJECT COORDINATOR OF THE RIVER TRAIL.
NOW, THE TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
UM, URBAN TRAILS IS THE SPONSOR OF THIS PROJECT, AND WE PICK CLOSELY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE LARGE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT.
AND I, GREAT TEAM OF CONSULTANTS, IF YOU WANNA, UH, GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
AND THANK YOU, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, UH, RAS, UH, RERA, SORRY FOR, UH, THAT WONDERFUL COVER PHOTO I WASN'T TRYING TO PANDER TO YOU.
UM, BUT IT REALLY IS A GREAT PHOTO, UM, SHOWING TRAIL, UH, FOLKS ENJOYING THE TRAIL AND, UM, JOY AT, UH,
SO, UM, WE CAN JUMP TO THE NEXT SLIDE AS WELL.
UM, SO I'LL START WITH A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND HISTORY, UM, ON COUNTRY FLOOD CREEK TRAIL, UH, TRAIL'S.
FIRST NAMED TRAILS PLAN THAT WAS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL IN 2014 AS A TIER ONE OR A HIGH PRIORITY TRAIL.
UM, IT IS 3.5 MILES LONG, STRETCHING THE FOUR G RERO METRO PARK IN MAPLE DAVIS DISTRICT PARK IN SOUTHEAST AUSTIN.
UH, IT CONNECTS TO THE ROY BUTLER HIKING BIKE TRAIL AT LADYBIRD LAKE ON NORTHERN END, AND THEN THE TRAILS IN MAPLE DAVIS, NAVAL DAVIS DISTRICT PARK, UH, TO THE SOUTH.
UH, THIS TRAIL WAS COUNCIL ADOPTED
[02:10:01]
THE ALL AGES OF ABILITIES BICYCLE NETWORK IN 2014.UH, AND THE TRAIL IS ENTIRELY LOCATED WITHIN COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE.
UH, THIS TRAIL HAS A LONG HISTORY OF COMMUNITY SUPPORT.
IT WAS FIRST IMAGINED IN THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS, 2000 EXTENSION OF A MALTESE TRAIL THAT BROUGHT THROUGH THE TREE CLUB CREEK GREEN BELT.
UM, FOLLOWING THAT IN THE EAST RIVER SIDE, ULTIMATE COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS FAIL WHERE SUPPORTING FOR PROVIDING CONNECTIVITY.
UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD LAND TALKS ABOUT, UH, THE PHYSICAL LAYOUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO TRAVEL TO A PARK WITHOUT WALKING OR BIKING ALONG A MAJOR ROAD.
SO THIS, THIS WOULD BYSIDE SOME OF SOME OF THOSE MAJOR ROADS, UM, OR BYPASS SOME OF THEM, UH, IN, UH, 2005, UH, THE SOUTHEAST AUSTIN TRAILS AND GREENWAYS ALLIANCE, WHICH IS A
200 VOLUNTEERS, UH, BUILT THE FRESH GRAVEL TRAIL THAT EXISTS TODAY IN RO GRE PARK THAT IS TO MONT IS SLIDE.
UH, THE PROJECT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY IS LOCATED BETWEEN EAST RIVERSIDE AND
UM, IT IS A LITTLE MORE THAN A HALF MILE LENGTH AND IT RUNS ALONG THE CREEK, UH, BETWEEN, UH, TWO, TWO APARTMENT COMPLEXES.
UM, AND IS LOCATED WITHIN CITY ON EAST MEN'S OR STREET BY MAIN STREET, RIGHT OR STREET BREAD.
UM, YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE LAST SLIDE, SORRY.
UM, THIS PROJECT IS ONE OF THE LAST SEGMENTS THAT'S GONNA MAKE A CONTINUOUS TRAIL FROM LADYBIRD LAKE TO MAPLE DAVIS.
UM, IN TERMS OF WHERE, WHERE WE ARE JUST RIGHT NOW, WE, THE DESIGN IS COMPLETED THAT WE'RE IN PERMITTING.
WE'RE EXPECTING A FEW KIND OF FINAL MODIFICATIONS, UH, AND THEN WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING VARIOUS APPROVALS, UH, AND BRIEFING COMMISSIONS, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT.
UM, WE'RE EXPECTING INSTRUCTION TO THE START IN EARLY 2024.
IN TERMS OF TRAILS FEATURES, UH, FOR TO BOARD TRAIL, UM, INSTRUCTING AN OFF TREE CONCRETE TRAIL THAT'S 12 FEET WIDE FRESH SHOULDERS.
UH, WE'RE PLANNING TO INSTALL LANDSCAPING ALONG THE TRAIL IN THE CREEK, WHICH INCLUDES NATIVE GRASS AND SHRUBS.
AND 120 TREES TRAIL WILL BE BUILT TO BE 80 A ACCESSIBLE SUPER WITH ALL AGES DISABIL TO USE THE PLAN.
ALSO INSTALL SOLAR LIGHTING SO THAT TRAVELING IN THE EARLY MORNING AT NIGHT IS MORE COMFORTABLE.
UH, THE LIGHTING IS DARK SKY FRIENDLY, WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR THE
AND, UH, TWO SHORT SECTIONS OF THE TRAIL WILL BE RAISED FORWARD WALK TO ADDRESS DRAINAGE OF THE LYING AREAS.
AND THE PROJECT INCLUDES A TRAIL UNDERPASS AT EAST RIVERSIDE, WHICH ALLOWS TRAIL USERS TO GO UNDERNEATH AND SAFELY BYPASS A BUSY ARTERIAL ROADWAY.
UM, SO WE'RE HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE FORMAL VARIANCE IS NEEDED.
UH, SOMETIMES THE DEPTH FOR WATERSHED, UM, AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR CUT BETWEEN FOUR TO EIGHT FEET IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET OF CLASSIFIED WATERWAY.
UH, THESE CUTS ARE NEEDED FOR TWO PURPOSES.
UM, FIRST ONE IS TO MAKE A D A GRADES FOR THE TRAIL UNDERPASS THAT EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE.
UM, THIS PROJECT IS WORKING TO TRY TO MEET THE GOALS OF THE BETTER OUT AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN OR THE A S M P TO PRIORITIZE BICYCLE INDUSTRY SAFETY AND MOBILITY.
UH, BY LIMITING THE NEED TO PROCESS WITH CRITERIA, THERE WILL BE STILL CONNECTIONS THAT GO ON TO THE SERVER SIDE.
SO PEOPLE, UH, AND THEN SECOND, UH, IS THAT THE, IN SOME LIMITED AREAS ALONG CHANNEL, UH, IS GONNA REQUIRE OPERATOR THAN FOUR VIEW TO INSTALL PROTECTIVE S AND ADDRESS EROSION MACHINES GRID.
UH, STAFF, IF YOU COULD PLEASE, UH, SPEAK LOUDER INTO YOUR MICROPHONE TOO, PLEASE.
YEAH, I'LL TRY TO, I'LL TRY TO DO THAT.
UH, SO THIS NEXT SLIDE SHOWS SOME OF THE EXISTING EROSION THAT'S ALONG THE CREEK.
UM, THE CREEK MEANDERS KIND OF THROUGH THESE TWO, UH, APARTMENT COMPLEXES, APARTMENT CONDOS THAT ARE 350.
WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, I TAKE IT.
UM, SO THROUGH OUR PARTNERSHIP WITH WATERSHED PROTECTIONS PROJECT IS LOOKING TO TACKLE SOME OF THE CURRENT ISSUES ALONG COUNTRY CLUB CREEK TRAIL WEST, OR COUNTRY CLUB CREEK WEST, UH, THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ONGOING EROSION.
THE ECOLOGICAL WILL HELP WITH THE CREEK.
UM, THIS WORK IS FOCUSED PRIMARILY BETWEEN THE EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND SHARING HAND DRIVE, WHICH IS THE NORTHERN SECTION OF THE
[02:15:01]
PROJECT, UM, WHERE WE'RE SEEING THOSE ISSUES THAT I SHOWED YOU ON THE LAST SLIDE.UM, SO THERE'S VALID CONCERN HERE IN GOOD REASON TO PARTNER WITH WATERSHED, UH, BECAUSE THERE'S LIMITED SPACE BETWEEN THE CREEKS AND THE APARTMENT, AND THE EROSION COULD END UP IMPACTING THE COMPLEXES IN THE FUTURE IF LEFT, IF LEFT UNADDRESSED, OR, UM, IF WE ADD A TRAIL HERE, THERE COULD BE CONCERN FOR EROSION ISSUES, UM, IN THE FUTURE THAT COULD END UP UNDERCUTTING THE TRAIL.
SO THIS PROJECT'S PROPOSING IMPROVEMENTS THAT BOTH HELP STREAM BANK STABILIZATION AS WELL AS ARE IMPROVING OR RESTORING THE RIPARIAN HABITAT ALONG THE CREEK.
UM, AND ALL OF THIS WORK IS BEING BASED OFF OF FUNCTIONAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT OF THE FLOOD CLAIM PERFORMED BY WATERSHED STAFF AND THE IMPROVEMENTS OF PROVIDING, UM, WHAT, WHAT A SIGNIFICANT DEMONSTRATE DEMONSTRABLE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT.
UM, SO WE'RE KIND OF GOING JUST BEYOND EROSION PROTECTION HERE AND, AND LOOKING TO IMPROVE THE
UM, THE WORK FOR THIS PROJECT INCLUDES PROTECTED WORKS IN THE STREAM BED, UH, LIMESTONE, UH, BOULDER DROP STRUCTURES FOR GR CONTROL, ROCK RIP WRAP FOR CHANNEL BED SCOUR PROTECTION, FLOOD FLOODPLAIN VENTURES, UM, NATIVE PLANTINGS IN THE UPPER AND LOWER AND REC AREA AREAS, AND ESTABLISHING A WILDFLOWER METAL THAT WOULD BE BORDERED BY, UM, FENCE AND BOULDERS THAT USE FOR PROCEEDING AS A TRAIL OF ND.
UM, CURRENTLY THE CREEK BANKS ARE ROUTINELY BOAT MOW BY THE APARTMENTS MAINTENANCE SCREWS.
UM, SO OUR TEAM HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT THERE AND THEY'RE ON BOARD WITH, UM, WATERSHED MAINTAINING THESE AREAS.
THAT'S WILDFIRE MEADOW WITH LIMITED MOWING.
WE JUST HAD A TIMER, WHICH YOU PROBABLY CAN'T HEAR ON YOUR SIDE.
DID YOU HAVE ANY MORE SLIDES TO GO? THAT WOULD, OKAY.
I THINK THAT, I THINK THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IT.
SO IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, IF IT'S JUST, UH, THANK YOU, THEN OH YEAH, THESE WERE PART OF THE, UM, THE ED'S CONDITIONS RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADD, UH, SPANISH TO THE WAYFINDING SIGNS.
AND THESE ARE ALSO BLOOD WARNING SIGNS, SO, OKAY.
UM, SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS FOR THIS ONE.
CAN I GET A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSIONER HAYES, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, YOU PULLED THIS ONE.
SO DO YOU WANNA START WITH THE FIRST QUESTION? OH, I'LL LET SOMEBODY GO FIRST IF THEY WANT TO, BUT NO, I'M HAPPY TO.
UM, COM UH, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, UH, EITHER MR. JOHNSTONE OR MS UH, GREENFIELD, UM, IN A SERIES OF EMAILS BETWEEN ME AND AND YOURSELVES, UH, THROUGH MR. RIVERA ON SATURDAY AND SUNDAY.
AND THEN DIRECT, UH, BETWEEN US, UH, STARTING EITHER YESTERDAY OR, OR TODAY HAD A SERIES OF QUESTIONS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UM, THIS COMMISSION DID, UH, IN, IN ITS LAST MEETING, UH, WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS PASSED THE URBAN TRAILS PLAN.
AND IN THAT PLAN, UM, YOU TOLD US YOUR CRITERIA WAS THAT, UH, RACIAL EQUITY WOULD BE THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION THROUGH WHICH THE A T X W B R WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS.
AND THEN YOU GAVE US SEVEN DATA FACTORS, UH, THAT WOULD DETERMINE, AND I QUOTE WHAT WE BUILD NEXT.
THE FIRST THING THAT YOU BRING US IS THIS PROJECT.
AND IF I LOOK AT THIS PROJECT AND I LOOK AT YOUR SET OF DATA DRIVEN, UM, FACTORS, UM, I, I SENT YOU A LIST.
MY FIRST QUESTION WAS, WHAT WAS THE SCORE OF THOSE SEVEN DATA, UH, FACTORS THAT MAKES THIS A TIER ONE PROJECT? UM, THANK YOU, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYES FOR YOUR QUESTION.
UM, I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS UP.
UM, DID WANT TO CHECK IN JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT RELATED TO THE PRIORITIZATION IN OUR EMAILS, UM, DOES RELATE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANTS THAT WE'RE SEEKING TONIGHT AND NOT, UM, JUST TO THE, A TX ONE BUCK ROLL OR THE TRAILS FOR THIS TRAILS TOWARDS AS HIGH AS IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S SORT HIGHLY WITH THE 2014 URBAN TRAILS PLAN.
SO WE BEGAN WORK ON THIS BACK IN, UH, 20 14, 20 15 TO DO THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT.
UM, SO THIS TRAIL'S KIND OF BEEN IN PROGRESS NOW FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS, UM, IN TERMS OF THE 2023 YEAR ON TRAILS PLAN UPDATE, WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN
[02:20:01]
ADOPTED BY COUNCIL.BUT AS YOU MENTIONED, UM, WAS PERFORMED FIGHTING COMMISSION LAST WEEK.
UM,
I APPRECIATE YOUR, UH, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR IN.
SO YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT THAT, UH, IN, IN THE DOCUMENT I READ FROM WAS ACTUALLY DATED, UH, DECEMBER OF 22.
BUT YOU'RE TELLING ME SINCE THIS TRAIL, AND, AND ACTUALLY YOU'VE DONE THIS TRAIL IN THREE, THREE PHASES.
YOU DID THE FIRST PHASE AS ONE PROJECT, YOU DID THE SOUTHERN PHASES ONE PROJECT, AND NOW YOU'RE COMING BACK TO US TO DO THIS PROJECT.
SO THESE ARE THREE SEPARATE PROJECTS.
GRANTED, IT'S THE SAME TRAIL, BUT THESE ARE THREE SEPARATE PROJECTS.
BUT AM I TO UNDERSTAND YOU, YOU CUT OUT.
SO I WANT TO GET REAL CLARITY ON THIS POINT.
YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE ASKING US FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL WAIVER THAT THE THE SCORING FACTORS THAT YOU GAVE US JUST LAST WEEK OR JUST LAST MEETING DON'T APPLY TO THIS.
IS THAT YOUR ANSWER? SORRY, I'M NOT MEANING TO, UH, UH, I JUST, I NEED A YES OR A NO.
DO THE, DO THE FACTORS IN THE 23 UPDATE ON THE AUSTIN, TEXAS WALK, BIKE AND ROLL, DO THE SEVEN DATA DRIVEN FACTORS APPLY TO THIS PROJECT? UH, YES THEY DO.
SO THEN WILL YOU TELL ME HOW THIS PROJECT ADDRESSES, UM, EQUITY? EXCUSE ME.
COULD I, UH, ANSWER SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS? UH, MALCOLM YATES, I, UM, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE COUNTRY CLUB CREEK TRAIL SINCE 2004.
UH, I, I'M, I'M WORKING WITH STAFF HERE.
HOW DOES THIS, HOW DOES THIS TRAIL ADDRESS EQUITY
I APPRECIATE THE FOLKS THAT MENTIONED WHO, UH, HAVE LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, THERE IS STILL A MIX OF FOLKS THAT ARE LOWER INCOME OR PEOPLE OF COLOR.
I BELIEVE THAT THE PERCENTAGES OF FOLKS THAT LIVE IN THIS AREA ARE HIGHER ON AVERAGE THAN LIKE THE CITYWIDE AVERAGE.
UM, AND THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN, UM, AS YOU HAD PULLED OUT YOUR EMAILS, UM, THE, YOU KNOW, AN AREA THAT ISN'T MEDIUM TO, UM, HIGH VULNERABLE, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T PRODUCE THOSE AND, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS A, A DIFFERENT TEAM WITHIN TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS.
SO, UM, I CAN'T SPEAK TO ALL THE DETAILS OF HOW THOSE WERE DEVELOPED, BUT, UM, WE DO USE THAT AS A TOOL AND WANNA PUT BACK FOR OUR PRIORITIZATION, UH, OTHER FACTORS THAT WE LOOK BACK IN TERMS OF OUR PRIORITIZATION FOR, UM, THE FUTURE LIGHT RAIL COMING IN, UH, AND TRYING TO CREATE A WALKABLE BIKEABLE AREA THROUGH, UH, RIVERSIDE.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, I SAW MR. YATES MIGHT HAVE A COMMENT.
MR. YATES, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, TO SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS? I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A WHILE.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
MALCOLM YATES CHAIR, ROC CONTACT TEAM.
THE COUNTRY CLUB CREEK TRAIL HAS BEEN A PROJECT OF THE ROC NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SINCE 2006.
WE STARTED WORKING ON IT IN 2004.
PHASE ONE WAS DONE TOTALLY BY VOLUNTEERS IN ROY GUERRERO PARK AND THE COUNTRY CLUB CREEK GREEN BELT THAT STRETCHED ALL THE WAY BACK TO ELMONT.
AND THIS WAS DONE WITH PRIVATE FUNDS AND ALL VOLUNTEER LABOR 1.5 MILES.
NOW TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF EQUITY, UM, THERE ARE TWO FACTORS THAT WERE REALLY IMPORTANT IN THAT, AND ONE IS THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE AREA, AND THE OTHER ONE IS THE FACT THAT THIS IS, THIS AREA IS MAINLY PARKLAND DEFICIENT.
UM, IF YOU COULD BRING UP THAT, UH, PRESENTATION FROM BEFORE FOR ME PLEASE.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU, UM, EXACTLY WHAT THIS WILL HELP.
UM, SO WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS THE IRAQ AREA.
NOW THE AREA DOWN THERE ALONG RIVERSIDE NOW AND, UM, IN THE TRIANGLE BETWEEN EAST RIVERSIDE, LAKESHORE, AND SOUTH PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD, MOST OF THIS AREA HAS BEEN GENTRIFIED AND IS VERY UPSCALE, BUT YOU LOOK MORE TOWARDS THE, UH, LOWER PORTION THERE.
[02:25:01]
ALL IN YELLOW.AND ALSO THE, UH, THE ORANGE THAT IS MAINLY MULTIFAMILY.
THIS IS LOW INCOME AND THEY REALLY HAVE NO RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES.
SO YOU LOOK AT, UH, MABEL DAVIS PARK, UH, IN THE, THE LOWER CORNER THERE, UM, THAT IS THE FORM OF MUNICIPAL WASTE DUMP.
AND THERE ARE NO REAL FACILITIES THERE OTHER THAN JUST WALKING AROUND.
UM, WE CAN'T EVEN PLANT TREES THERE BECAUSE OF THE BURIES CAP THAT NEED IS NEEDED.
SO WHAT THIS TRAIL WILL DO WILL BE, IT WILL OPEN UP THIS ENTIRE AREA TO MORE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE LOW INCOME RESIDENTS OF THE, UH, LOWER PORTION OF, OF THE MAP THERE.
UM, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO GET TO, UM, THE, UH, TOWN LAKE TRAIL, THE LADY BIRD LAKE TRAIL, AND FROM THAT THEY CAN ACCESS JUST ABOUT ANY OTHER TRAIL, ALL OF ALL THE OTHER RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.
ALSO, THEY CAN GET TO, UM, THE, UH, RUIZ LIBRARY AND A C C AND ROY GUERRERO PARK.
UM, AND THIS WILL ALL BE WITHOUT HAVING TO, TO RIDE ON A MAJOR STREET.
IT WILL, IT WILL ALL BE OFF STREET RIDING.
UM, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN SUPPORTED AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS NOW FOR OVER 20 YEARS.
SO, UH, WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IF YOU WOULD, UH, UH, SUPPORT US ON THIS.
UM, SOME OFF STREET CONNECTIVITY OVER HERE WOULD BE PRETTY GREAT.
I THINK A LOT OF US WENT TO SCHOOL OVER HERE AND NEEDED IT BACK THEN, BUT IT'D BE GREAT TO HAVE IT NOW.
UM, QUICK REMINDER TO OUR COMMISSIONERS TONIGHT IS THAT WE ARE FOCUSED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE, UM, IN QUESTION.
SO TRY TO KEEP YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'M SORRY.
OH, WHAT WAS THAT? COMMISSIONER? COMMISSIONER? CO COMMISSIONER COX, GO AHEAD.
I DON'T SEE COMMISSIONER HOWARD, ARE YOU THERE? OR, I JUST WANNA GET OUR NUMBER RIGHT.
SO WE'RE DOWN TO EIGHT, I THINK RIGHT NOW.
UH, MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
IS THERE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER WOODS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, THIS IS NOT REALLY ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS WE MADE FOR THE BIKE PLAN, TRAILS PLAN, ALL THAT SORT OF STUFF THAT I DON'T EVEN THINK THAT'S BEEN APPROVED YET.
THIS DATES BACK TO APRIL OF 2022.
AND THIS IS A CASE ABOUT CUT AND FILL.
THEY NEED A VARIANCE TO BUILD THE TRAIL, MEET A D A STANDARDS, CORRECT, SOME EROSION.
IT SEEMS PRETTY SIMPLE, SO WE SHOULD APPROVE IT AND LET THEM GET ON WITH IT.
ANYONE SPEAKING IN FOR OR AGAINST COMMISSIONER? UH, HAYES? UH, YEAH, I'D, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST AND, UM, UH, SINCE I HAVE BEEN REMINDED TO FOCUS ON THE, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF THIS, AND I AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER COX.
IT IS ABOUT CUT AND FILL AND, UM, UM, READING FROM, FROM THE, UM, ENGINEERING REPORT OF THIS SEGMENT FOUR, THE SEGMENT THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, UH, THE ENGINEERS THAT WERE RETAINED AT THE TIME, UM, UH, IDENTIFIED THAT THIS SEGMENT WAS GONNA BE THE MOST DIFFICULT SEGMENT OF THE PROJECT TO BE DEVELOPED.
UH, AND THAT, UH, BECAUSE OF THE, THE TRAVERSING AND THE TRAVEL ALONG THE CREEK, UM, WOULD BE, UM, UH, DIFFICULT.
BUT, UH, DID POINT OUT THAT THE ROUTE PROVIDES ADVANTAGES, UH, OF CONNECTIVITY.
BUT SAID, UM, AND I QUOTE FROM THE REPORT PAGE 14 OF THE REPORT IN 2014, HOWEVER, THE INTER THE ALTERNATIVE, THE THIS ALTERNATIVE IS ENTIRELY IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND WOULD BE UNUSABLE DURING STORM EVENTS.
THIS AREA ALSO IS OCCUPIED BY NUMEROUS TREES AND WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE TRAIL TO CONSTRUCT DA, DA, DA.
IN ADDITION, THERE ARE WETLANDS THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS TRAIL THAT WOULD DELAY SLASH PREVENT ITS CONSTRUCTION.
AND THE CUT AND FILL IS GOING TO EXACERBATE THE IMPACT ON THE WETLANDS IN THIS AREA.
AND I WANT TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY HAS ITS 4 0 4 PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT THIS PART OF THE CREEK OR PART OF THEIR TRIAL.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE NOT DOING Q AND A.
[02:30:03]
YEAH, I GUESS.ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR AND AGAINST? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
I'LL MAKE A I, BUT I DO HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION, A SUBSTITUTE.
UM, IS THAT, THAT IS AN ORDER RIGHT NOW? UM, SUBSTITUTE? YES.
UM, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, POSTPONE STAFF'S DECISION UNTIL WE RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM THEM REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 4 0 4 PERMIT AND THE IMPACT TO THE WETLANDS IN THE AREA.
UM, IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT? DID EVERYBODY HEAR WHAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES SUBSTITUTE MOTION WAS? I'M NOT SEEING A SECOND.
YOU MIGHT ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION FROM THE RELEVANT STAFF MEMBER, UM, STAFF.
COULD YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND IS, IS THIS ITEM ON A TIMELINE? IS IS THERE A SPACE FOR MORE QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED IN THE FUTURE? OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT IS TIMELY AND HAS TO GO TO COUNCIL AT A CERTAIN DATE OR THE WORK HAS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED? CAN I, CAN I SPEAK TO THAT? I'M ANA SIBERT, I'M THE PROJECT MANAGER, UM, AND I'M, I'M WORKING WITH DYLAN ON THIS PROJECT.
UM, SO I THINK A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS REGARDING, YOU KNOW, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVE BEEN COORDINATED REALLY THOUGHTFULLY AND THOROUGHLY.
UM, WE HAVE CLAYTON WEST FROM WATERSHED HERE WHO, UM, HELPED COORDINATE THAT DESIGN AS WELL AS OUR ENGINEER, CHRIS EVANS.
UM, IT'S BEEN A VERY THOUGHTFUL, THOROUGH PROCESS, UM, TO REALLY ADDRESS THE CREEK CORROSION AND HEALTH, UM, OF THE, THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IN THIS SPOT.
SO, UM, I MEAN, I THINK WE HAVE MOST OF THE INFORMATION, YOU KNOW, REGARDING THAT, UM, RIGHT NOW.
UH, HOW, UM, WE'VE KIND OF WHAT THE FORMAT IS NOW IF, UH, YEAH, Q AND A IS DONE.
I JUST WANTED TO ASK THAT CLARIFYING QUESTION.
I BELIEVE WE WERE LOOKING FOR A SECOND FOR COMMISSIONER HAYNES SUBSTITUTE MOTION AND I'M NOT SEEING ONE.
SO THAT BRINGS US BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, UM, BY COMMISSIONER COX, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WOODS OF APPROVING, UM, THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER HOWARD? OKAY.
WE'VE GOT, UM, EIGHT, ALL THOSE AGAINST COMM RAINS.
THAT CLEARS THIS ITEM AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE TENANT RELOCATION
[30. LDC Amendment: C20-2022-017 - Tenant Notification and Relocation]
ORDINANCE LANGUAGE.I'M SUSAN WATKINS, UH, DISPLACEMENT PREVENTION IN THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.
UM, I'M HERE FOR, UH, ITEM 30, WHICH IS C 20 20 22 DASH ZERO SEVEN, UM, ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.
UH, THIS ORDINANCE, UM, AMENDMENT WAS INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN THEIR RESOLUTION, UM, ON OCTOBER 27TH, 2022, UM, TO, UM, MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S TENANT NOTIFICATION AND RELOCATION REQUIREMENTS.
UH, THE INTENTION WAS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP IN A STAFF MEMO IN 2019 IN RESPONSE TO A RESOLUTION IN 2018, UM, WITH THIS, UH, ORIGINAL ORDINANCE THAT WAS ADOPTED IN 2016.
AND SOME ISSUES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED, UM, IN UPDATE WAS MADE IN 2022.
AND THIS IS JUST FURTHER CLARIFYING SOME LANGUAGE THAT'S THE INTENTION.
UM, THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS WOULD DETER THE DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTS BEFORE SUBMITTING FOR AN APPLICATION, REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER CONDUCTS UN PERMITTED WORK, AND REQUIRE NOTIFICATIONS FOR TENANTS FOR ALTERATIONS OR REPAIRS AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 25 1 7 12 A, AND REQUIRE THAT TENANT RELOCATION REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO ANY MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY WITH FIVE OR MORE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
AND, UM, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS.
UM, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM, SO LET'S HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING COMM A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CZAR SECOND.
GOODBYE, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALMOST UNANIMOUS.
[02:35:01]
LET'S MOVE ON TO Q AND A AND SINCE YOU PULLED THIS ITEM, COMMISSIONER ZA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START? SURE.I APPRECIATE THAT CHAIR, MS. WATKINS.
DO YOU ARE THE DEPARTMENT ONE, BY THE WAY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS AND FOR EVERYBODY WHO WORKED ON THIS, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD ITEM AND I'M SO EXCITED TO SEE IT MOVE FORWARD.
I THINK THIS IS CRITICAL FOR ENSURING THAT OUR RELOCATION ORDINANCE CONTINUES TO BENEFIT TENANTS.
UM, AND I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND, DO YOU OR THE DEPARTMENT HAVE ANY CONCERN WITH PROVIDING RELOCATION BENEFITS TO TENANTS WHO, WHO ESSENTIALLY WERE DISPLACED WITHOUT THE PROPER NOTIFICATION, BUT WERE THERE ARE WITHIN THE LOOKBACK PERIOD? SO ESSENTIALLY THESE ARE FOLKS WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE FOR THE RESOURCES, BUT BECAUSE THEIR, THEIR LANDLORD DID NOT ESSENTIALLY DO THE PROPER PAPERWORK, THEN THEY'RE WITHIN THE LOOKBACK PERIOD.
WOULD, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL WOULD BE COMFORTABLE PROVIDING BENEFITS TO THOSE FOLKS? YES.
UM, IN, IN PRACTICE RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED IN THIS AMENDMENT, UM, SOME OF THIS REDEVELOPMENT IS HAPPENING WITHOUT TRIGGERING THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE, UM, IT'S A BUILDING OR, UM, THE VACANCY OCCURS BEFORE THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED.
AND SO, UM, WE HAVE ASSISTED TENANTS, UM, WHO HAVE BEEN DISPLACED FROM SOME OF THESE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, UM, IN THIS WAY.
AND SIMILARLY, I GUESS I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND ANOTHER SCENARIO THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN, IN ONE CASE, I'M GONNA HAVE TO REMEMBER WHICH ONE, BUT I KNOW THAT IT'S HAPPENED WHERE ESSENTIALLY, UM, TENANTS WHO WOULD'VE BEEN ELIGIBLE FOR NOTIFICATION AND RELOCATION BENEFITS ESSENTIALLY DID NOT RECEIVE IT BECAUSE AFTER THOSE TENS WERE REMOVED, THE, UM, LANDLORD ESSENTIALLY DID NOT APPLY FOR THE PERMITS FOR A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY'RE NO LONGER EVEN WITHIN THE LOOKBACK PERIOD.
SO IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER A MASS DISPLACEMENT EVENT, BUT IN THIS SCENARIO IS NOT OCCURRING THAT WAY BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN.
AND I GUESS I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC CONCERNS WITH PROVIDING BENEFITS TO THOSE FOLKS AS WELL.
UM, WE WANT TO ASSIST, UH, RESIDENTS WHO ARE BEING DISPLACED.
AND SO, UM, FOR THE ORDINANCE TO SUPPORT THAT, THAT IS IDEAL.
UH, CHAIR, THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER COX, I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON THE LANGUAGE ITSELF, MORE ABOUT THE PROCESS.
UM, THE, WE GOT THIS LANGUAGE, I THINK, POSTED IN THE BACKUP THIS AFTERNOON, AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WHEN IT WENT TO CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE, THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE ANY OF THE LANGUAGE TO VOTE ON.
AND SO WE DON'T SEEM TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THEIR INPUT BECAUSE I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT THEY VOTED ON.
SO I, I'M JUST CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM STAFF, IS THIS, WAS THIS AN ANOMALY OR IS THIS KIND OF THE PATTERN OF NOT HAVING, UH, CODE LANGUAGE UNTIL THE DAY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING? I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S ANOTHER STAFF PERSON THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS.
THIS IS MY FIRST, UH, CASE MANAGEMENT OF AN AMENDMENT I REVIEW.
CHAIR COMMISSIONER, LA LIAISON, ANDREW RIVERA.
UM, IF YOU RECALL, UM, YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM ME ON MONDAY AFTERNOON WITH, UH, THE, UH, WITH THE LANGUAGE, OH, THAT WAS SENT OUT MONDAY.
AND COMMISSIONER COX, IF I CAN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THE PROCESS AT CJC YEAH, PLEASE, THAT'S HELPFUL AS WELL.
UM, AT C OJC, WE WERE, WE GOT A PRETTY DETAILED STAFF PRESENTATION, SO THERE'S ANOTHER BACKUP DOCUMENT THAT'S AVAILABLE WHERE STAFF WALKED US THROUGH SORT OF ALL THE DIFFERENT PIECES THAT WERE INITIATED IN THE RESOLUTION FROM COUNCIL AND SORT OF HOW THEY WERE BEING ADDRESSED.
SO YOU'RE RIGHT THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE WITH STAFF, SORT OF WALKED US THROUGH ALL THE SPECIFIC CHANGES.
WE HAD A PRETTY ROBUST DISCUSSION IN Q AND A WITH STAFF, WHICH WAS REALLY GREAT.
UM, AND AFTER THAT, REALLY, YOU KNOW, WE DECIDED AS A BODY TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE WE FELT IT WAS TIMELY.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ESSENTIALLY NEED TO GO AHEAD AND FIX.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE CASES COMING UP DAY AND DAY OUT WHERE SOME OF THESE CHANGES COULD MAKE A REALLY BIG DIFFERENCE TO TENANTS.
AND SO THAT'S WHY THE BODY REALLY DECIDED TO MOVE IT FORWARD TO PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT AT THE TIME THAT THEY WOULD BE VOTING, LIKE RIGHT NOW, WE WOULD HAVE THE ORDINANCE IN PLACE TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THOSE THINGS.
AND, AND JUST WHEN I, WHILE I HAVE THE MOMENT TO SAY IT, I JUST HOPE THAT THIS IS NOT GONNA BE THE PATTERN OF ALL THE STUFF THAT'S HEADED OUR WAY.
UH, I HOPE WE'RE GIVEN THE TIME TO ACTUALLY REVIEW THIS.
I HOPE THAT THE JOINT COMMITTEES ARE GIVEN THE TIME TO REVIEW THIS BECAUSE, UH, WITHOUT THAT I THINK WE'RE AT, WE'RE AT A SIGNIFICANT DISADVANTAGE.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE, MAKE THAT POINT, UH, AND HOPEFULLY, HOPEFULLY STAFF WILL DO EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN TO, TO GET US THE, THESE DOCUMENTS WELL IN ADVANCE.
UM, OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, I HAD A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER.
[02:40:01]
YOU NOTE THAT THERE WERE AMENDMENTS POTENTIALLY TO THIS? I'M SORRY, CAN YOU, CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT THAT? I'M SORRY.UM, I WAS JUST CURIOUS, WE, I NOTICED THAT THERE WAS BACKUP DOCUMENTATION ABOUT SOME AMENDMENTS, OR WOULD, DID YOU WANNA DISCUSS THOSE NOW OR LATER? UM, WOULD IT, WOULD THE BODY PREFER FOR ME TO DISCUSS THE AMENDMENTS BEFORE WE LAY THEM OUT, OR WOULD WE RATHER GO THROUGH THE MOTIONS? I GUESS I CHAIR LOOK TO YOU TO SEE IF THERE'S A PREFERENCE.
LET'S WAIT UNTIL WE GET TO THE MOTION.
OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, I HAVE ONE, BUT IT SHOULD BE RELATIVELY QUICK.
FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU GUYS FOR WORKING ON THIS AND I'M EXCITED TO SEE THAT WE'RE GONNA BE MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS.
UM, MY QUESTION IS ONLY, YOU KNOW, I I THINK SOME OF THE DISCUSSION AND THE ANSWERS PROVIDED ALREADY SPEAK TO THIS, BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S OBVIOUSLY BEEN A, A WHILE SINCE, YOU KNOW, WE, THIS COUNCIL APPROVED THAT DIRECTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.
AND, UM, IN THE MEANTIME, DO, DO WE HAVE A SENSE, UM, THESE CHANGES WITH REGARDS TO EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S HAPPENING AROUND UPDATING THE CODE AND STUFF LIKE THAT? HAS THAT, HAS THERE BEEN ANY CHANGE TO THE PROCESS AROUND WORKING ON THIS SPECIFICALLY IN THAT PROCESS? SORRY, IT'S KIND OF A CONFUSING QUESTION.
UM, MY, I THINK MY QUESTION IS MORE LIKE HOW HAS, HAS THE, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE ORIGINAL DIRECTION, HAVE THERE, HAS THERE BEEN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT UPDATING THIS TO REFLECT KIND OF OTHER CHANGES THAT THE CITY IS GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW? OR I, I WOULD NEED TO, UM, CONSULT WITH SOME OTHER STAFF MEMBERS OKAY.
TO FULLY ANSWER THAT, I THINK.
UM, THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION FOR NOW.
YEAH, I THINK WE'LL PROBABLY GET, GET TO DISCUSS MORE DETAILS WHEN WE WORK THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS.
SO I'LL, I'LL TRY TO NOT TALK ABOUT A SPECIFIC AMENDMENT RIGHT NOW.
UM, IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS, LET'S MOVE ON TO A MOTION.
I'LL MAKE MOTION TO, UH, MOVE AHEAD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
IS THERE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER CONNOLLY.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? UM, SURE.
AND I DO HAVE AMENDMENTS TO IT, BUT REALLY I'LL, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, MOST OF HAS BEEN SAID, REALLY THESE ARE CRITICAL CHANGES.
MOST OF THEM ARE SORT OF CLOSING A BUNCH OF LOOPHOLES THAT EXISTED IN OUR ORDINANCE OVER THE YEARS.
WE'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN AGAIN AND AGAIN, SOMETHING OR THE OTHER HAPPENS THAT WE JUST HONESTLY NEVER FORESAW.
AND SO IT'S GREAT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ITEM BECAUSE WE'RE ABLE TO CLOSE SOME OF THOSE LOOPHOLES AND MAKE SURE THAT OUR ORDINANCE IS BEING IMPLEMENTED THE WAY WE FIRST INTENDED IT.
UM, WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND TAKE YOUR AMENDMENTS.
I, I FEEL LIKE THESE GOT A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED AS I WORKED ON THEM.
UM, YOU SHOULD HAVE A DOCUMENT FORM MR. RIVERA IN YOUR EMAILS THAT YOU CAN REFER TO AS WE GO ALONG, BUT I'LL WALK THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS AND, UM, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PULLING THOSE UP AS WELL.
SO I'LL ESSENTIALLY GO THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE, UM, CHAIR THAT I THINK MIGHT BE EASIER.
I'LL TRY TO MAKE THROUGH THEM SO THAT WE CAN SORT OF GO THROUGH IN A TIMELY MANNER.
I DON'T WANNA TAKE TOO MUCH TIME.
SO REALLY THE FIRST ONE IS, UM, THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS CURRENTLY, UH, WRITTEN, WE ADDED IN ESSENTIALLY TO SAY THAT IF UNPERMITTED WORK WAS DONE, IT WOULD STILL TRIGGER THE ORDINANCE.
BUT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN CURRENTLY, IT WAS ONLY APPLIED TO MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES AND NOT MOBILE HOME PARKS.
SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M DOING WITH THESE AMENDMENTS IS ESSENTIALLY SAY THAT UNPERMITTED WORK APPLIES BOTH TO MULTIFAMILY AND MOBILE HOME PROPERTIES.
NOW I UNDERSTAND WHAT STAFF IS SAYING, IT WOULD BE VERY MINIMAL FOR MOBILE HOME PROPERTIES, BUT AGAIN, WE MIGHT AS WELL BE MORE INCLUSIVE OF THAT RIGHT NOW.
AND THEN THE OTHER ONE WAS THE, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, IT WOULD IMPLY THAT IT, IT'S ONLY TRIGGERED WHERE UN PERMITTED WORK LED TO SOME KIND OF DISPLACEMENT EVENT AFTER THE UNPERMITTED WORK.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE SEEN OVER THE YEARS IS THAT SOMETIMES, AND ACTUALLY A LOT OF TIMES FOLKS ARE ACTUALLY DISPLACED PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL UNPERMITTED WORK AS WELL.
SO ESSENTIALLY IT'S TO SAY THAT IT, IT ALSO ENSURED THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT DISPLACEMENT PRIOR TO UNPERMITTED WORK AND AFTER AS WELL.
SO IF YOU WALK THROUGH THESE AMENDMENTS, SAY REDLINE AMENDMENTS TO SPECIFIC SECTIONS, BUT THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME INTENT THAT I JUST EXPLAINED.
ESSENTIALLY WE'RE SAYING THAT UNPERMITTED WORK AT A MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY IN MOBILE HOME PARK WHERE ONE OR MORE TENS ARE DISPLACED PRIOR TO OR FOLLOWING THE UNPERMITTED WORK, THIS WOULD BE ADDED TO 25 DASH ONE DASH 7 2 82.
SIMILARLY TO 2 25 DASH ONE DASH SEVEN TWO E.
WE WOULD ADD AN OWNER OPERATOR A OF A MULTIFAMILY AND MOBILE HOME PARK PROPERTY MUST PROVIDE 10 NOTIFICATION PRIOR TO ENGAGING IN OR ALLOWING ANOTHER TO ENGAGE IN UNPERMITTED WORK AT THE MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY WHERE THE UNPERMITTED WORK WOULD RESULT IN ONE OR MORE TENS BEING DISPLACED PRIOR TO OR FOLLOWING THE UNPERMITTED WORK.
SIMILAR CHANGE WITHIN 25 DASH ONE DASH SEVEN 14 B2 D SEEING THAT WE ALLOW A TENANT WHO RESIDED AT A MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY AND MOBILE HOME PARK TO BE ELIGIBLE IF UNPERMITTED WORK AT THE MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY CAUSED THE TENANT TO BE DISPLACED PRIOR TO OR FOLLOWING THE UNPERMITTED WORK.
SO THERE'S THREE REDLINE PIECES, ALL THE
[02:45:01]
SAME INTENT.AND IF ANYWHERE ELSE I MISS SOMEWHERE, HOPEFULLY STAFF CAN CAPTURE THAT AS WELL.
UM, SHERRY, IN TERMS OF PROCESS, DO WE WANNA, I, I LEAVE IT TO THE BODY TO SAY I CAN EITHER WALK THROUGH ALL OF THEM AND THEN FOLKS CAN PULL ONES.
WOULD THAT BE THE EASIEST RATHER THAN TAKING MULTIPLE VOTES? LET'S DO THAT.
SO WE'LL FOLLOW WHAT WE REGULARLY DO AND FOLKS JUST PULL WHATEVER ONE MAKES SENSE.
THE SECOND ONE IS ANOTHER RE RED LINE.
WOULD YOU RATHER TAKE QUESTIONS ON EACH ONE OR JUST AT THE BOTTOM QUESTIONS? LET'S TAKE, LET'S TAKE QUESTIONS ON EACH ONE, BUT THE WAY THAT WE'LL HANDLE THESE AMENDMENTS WITH THE MOTION IS IF ANYONE WANTS TO PULL ANY OF THE SIX FOR DISCUSSION, WE'LL CONSIDER THE REMAINDER AS PART OF THE BASE MOTION, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
SO, BUT FOR NOW, WE'RE GOING TO PAUSE AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER CZAR ON EACH ONE.
SO THIS WOULD BE FOR ANY QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER ZA NUMBER ONE, COMMISSIONER HAYES.
SORRY, COMMISSIONER, YOU GOTTA, OOPS.
'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE CODE AS WELL AS YOU DO, SO I'M GOING BACK AND FORTH HERE.
UH, BUT, UH, I CAN RIGHT THERE.
ON YOUR FIRST ONE, UM, I HAVE NO PROBLEM MAKING THIS APPLY TO MULTI-FAMILY AND, AND MOBILE PARK, BUT WHEN YOU STRIKE OUT THE DISPLACEMENT OF ONE OR MORE TENANTS, AND I'M HAVING TO FLIP BACK AND FORTH HERE, UM, AS I READ 75 1 7 2 TENANT NOTIFICATION, DA, DA DA.
IF I, IF I GO DOWN THEN AND, AND AGAIN, I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M STILL THE NEW GUY UNTIL WE GET ANOTHER COMMISSIONER.
SO, UM, I'M, I'M WORKING BACK AND FORTH HERE.
UM, BUT, BUT TO ME, THE, THE LANGUAGE OF THE CODE IS THAT IF THE UNPERMITTED WORK RESULTS OR, OR IS AN ACTION THAT CAUSES HARM, IF YOU WILL, TO A TENANT, UM, NOT THAT THERE ARE ANY UNSCRUPULOUS OWNERS OUT THERE, BUT WHAT IF, WHAT IF SOMEBODY DOES UNPERMITTED WORK ON A, UM, UH, AIR CONDITIONER, OR WHAT IF SOMEBODY DOES UN UNT WORK ON A SPRINKLER SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T CAUSE THE DISPLACEMENT OF SOMEONE? IF YOU STRIKE THAT LANGUAGE, IT'S GONNA TRIGGER THIS PROVISION.
SO HOPEFULLY NOT, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
I HOPEFULLY I'M FOLLOWING THIS AND, AND MAYBE I'M READING IT WRONG.
UM, AND SO I THINK THAT'S DEFINITELY NOT THE INTENTION.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY, UM, ESSENTIALLY IT SAYS, EXCEPT FOR OTHERWISE, PROVIDED THE REQUIREMENTS OF DIS OF THIS DIVISION DO NOT APPLY TO ANY DWELLING UNIT DEMONSTR VACATED BECAUSE OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE TENANTS OR BY OTHER EVENTS BEYOND THE OWNER'S CONTROL.
SO SOME OF THAT IS HOPEFULLY CAPTURED WITHIN THAT APPLICABILITY SECTION.
AND REALLY, JUST TO CLARIFY, MY INTENT FOR THIS IS THAT THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN, IT SAYS, AT A MULTIFAMILY THAT RESULTS IN DISPLACEMENT.
AND THE ISSUE THAT WE'VE SEEN IS THAT SOMETIMES FOLKS ARE, A LOT OF TIMES ACTUALLY FOLKS ARE REMOVING PEOPLE BEFORE DOING ANY UN PERMITTED OR PERMITTED WORK.
SO TECHNICALLY, 'CAUSE THIS IS LIKE A, I'M MAKING A TEMPORAL ARGUMENT, THE RESULTS WOULD IMPLY THAT IT ALL HAS TO BE IN ORDER.
ESSENTIALLY, SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO DO UN PERMITTED WORK THAT LED TO PEOPLE BEING REMOVED FROM THE UNITS.
BUT A LOT OF TIMES WHAT'S HAPPENING IS PEOPLE ARE BEING REMOVED BEFORE THE UNPERMITTED WORK BEGINS.
SO I'M, I'M ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO FIX THAT TEMPORAL ISSUE, IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE.
BUT YOUR, YOUR LANGUAGE CHANGE DOESN'T, IN MY OPINION, DOESN'T ADDRESS WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.
LET ME JUST THINK THIS THROUGH.
SO I THINK THE WAY WE CAN PERHAPS HANDLE IT, HOPEFULLY WE CAN PASS AMENDMENT AND STAFF.
YOU'RE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND MY INTENT HERE CLEARLY, AND IT'S SORT OF IN THE TOP SECTION.
SO EVEN IF IN THE RED LINES I'M MAKING SOME ERRORS, I THINK THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED BY STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INTENT IS PROPERLY CAPTURED.
COMMISSIONER HAYES DOES A WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN IN THE RED LINE FOR 25 1 7 12 E THE RED LINE WHERE IT SAYS PRIOR TO OR FOLLOWING THE UNPERMITTED WORK, DOES THAT, NO, IT'S FIT WHAT MY CONCERN IS.
THE, IS THE PHRASE IN THE DISPLACEMENT OF ONE OR MORE TENANTS.
AND THE EXAMPLE, AND I, I LITERALLY JUST THOUGHT IF, IF, IF I'M DOING, BUT I WOULD BE A SCRUPULOUS APARTMENT OWNER, BUT I'M DOING UN PERMITTED WORK ON MY, UH, SPRINKLER SYSTEM.
'CAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE HASSLE OF OF, OF GOING THROUGH THE STREAMLINE PERMITTING PROCESS AT THE CITY
[02:50:01]
OF AUSTIN.AND SO IF I'M DOING UN PERMITTED WORK ON MY SPRINKLER SYSTEM, THAT HAS NO IMPACT ON THE, UM, ON, ON THE DISPLACEMENT OF THE RENT, THE ENJOYMENT, ANYTHING RE REGARDING THE LANDLORD TENANT RELATIONSHIP.
UH, BUT BECAUSE I'M DOING UNPERMITTED WORK, IF WE TAKE OUT THE PHRASE THAT SAYS THAT RESULTS IN THE DISPLACEMENT OF ONE OR MORE TENANTS, THEN THAT WOULD, BECAUSE BECAUSE OF THE FACT IT IS UNPERMITTED WORK THAT WOULD TRIGGER THIS SECTION AND SORRY, GO AHEAD CHAIR.
I WAS GONNA SAY, BUT THERE'S A PIECE WHERE IT'S JUST ADDED IN A DIFFERENT PLACE IN 25 DASH ONE DASH SEVEN 12 A TWO.
SO THE RED BULL LANGUAGE IS WHAT I ADDED IN.
SO I'M, I, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A GRAMMAR WORK HERE, BUT ESSENTIALLY I'M SAYING, UM, AND MOBILE HOME PARK WHERE ONE OR MORE TENS ARE DISPLACED PRIOR TO THE FOLLOWING OF THE UNPERMITTED WORK.
BUT THE CODE OF CONSTRUCTION, UH, SAYS THAT 75 1 7 2, 1 A, B, AND C TRAVEL TOGETHER 75 1 7 2 2 TRAVELS WITH THEM, BUT SEPARATELY.
SO IF YOU TAKE OUT THE DISPLACEMENT OF ONE OR MORE TENANTS THERE, YOU STILL HAVE IT IN 75 A, ONE A, B, AND C, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE IT IN TWO.
AND THAT'S THE TEXAS CODE OF CONSTRUCTION ACT.
JUST, JUST SORT OF FINE, JUST TO UNDERSTAND IS THE, I MEAN, BUT I'M ADDED THE WORDS WHERE ONE OR MORE TENANTS ARE DISPLACED THAT DOESN'T, YOU DON'T THINK THAT SOLVES THE ISSUE.
OH, I THOUGHT YOU WERE STRIKING IN THE WAY I READ, AND, AND AGAIN, MAYBE I'M READING THIS WRONG.
THE WAY I READ YOUR NUMBER ONE IS YOU'RE, YOU'RE STRIKING THAT OUT THAT RESULTS IN THE DISPLACEMENT OF ONE OR MORE TENANTS.
AND THEN I'VE ADDED THE BOLDED, WHICH SAYS WHERE ONE OR MORE TENS ARE DISPLACED.
RIGHT? SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOLDED RED LANGUAGE, IT SAYS UNPERMITTED WORK AT A MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY IN MOBILE HOME, MOBILE HOME PARK, WHERE ONE OR MORE TENS ARE DISPLACED PRIOR TO OR FOLLOWING THE UNPERMITTED WORK.
AND UNPERMITTED WORK IS DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE AS, I'M SORRY, I HAVE THE DEFINITIONS HERE.
UM, MEANS DEMOLISHING, ALTERING OR REPAIRING THE INTERIOR, YOUR EXTERIOR FOR RESIDENTIAL UNIT WITHOUT THE APPROPRIATE PERMIT FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
I, I GUESS JUST FOR THE INTEREST OF TIME, PERHAPS WE MOVE ON AND HOPEFULLY JUST STAFF CAN CAPTURE THE INTENT HERE, CLEARLY.
UM, I, I'VE GOT A QUESTION WHILE MAYBE EVERYONE DIGESTS THE, THAT PREVIOUS CONVERSATION, UM, AND THIS MAY BE REALLY DUMB, BUT I'VE ONLY HAD ONE DAY TO DIGEST THIS AND READ THROUGH IT, WHICH IS KIND OF IRONIC FOR SOMETHING TO STRENGTHEN NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
I KNOW MS. WATKINS, YOU WERE GONNA SAY SOMETHING.
UM, THERE WAS A SIMILAR QUESTION AT C O J C WHERE, UH, THE QUESTION WAS ASKED WHY FIVE OR MORE UNITS, UM, IN MOBILE HOME? UM, AND, UH, WHAT WAS CONVEYED TO ME IS DURING THAT PROCESS, I, I'VE ONLY BEEN IN THIS ROLE FOR A YEAR, AND SO A LOT OF THIS WAS HAPPENING BEFORE, UM, IS THAT THEY WANTED THIS TO APPLY TO THE LARGER SCALE PROPERTIES AND NOT TO THE SMALLER OWNERS OF FOUR OR MORE UNITS.
AND SO, SO WHY, WHY WOULD, OH, SORRY, GO, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER ZO.
SO ESSENTIALLY THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THE BASE ORDINANCE WHEN IT WAS APPROVED, THAT WAS WHAT COUNCIL'S WILL HAD BEEN TO ESSENTIALLY SAY THAT IT WOULD APPLY TO LARGER PROPERTIES, NOT NECESSARILY SMALLER, UM, PROPERTIES, TO YOUR POINT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RATHER.
SO ESSENTIALLY, BUT WHY, WHY WOULD WE AFFORD, WHY, WHY, WHY WOULD WE AFFORD TENANTS IN A LARGE MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY, GREATER NOTIFICATION AND RELOCATION REQUIREMENTS THAN THOSE IN A SMALL, COMPLEX OR SINGLE FAMILY HOME? I'LL, I'LL BE HONEST, I CANNOT SPEAK TO THE INTENT OF COUNCIL, BUT A LOT OF ACTUALLY, RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE WRITTEN THIS WAY.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FAIR HOUSING LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO FOUR UNITS AND LESS.
THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY, THEY'RE TREATED SEPARATELY BECAUSE OF THE MANAGEMENT IMPACT THAT IT CAN HAVE FOR SMALLER, ESSENTIALLY LANDLORDS.
THAT'S WHAT I WOULD ASSUME, BUT I CANNOT SPEAK TO THE INTENTION THAT COUNCIL HAD AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE.
[02:55:02]
I, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME WHY WE WOULD BE GIVING GREATER RIGHTS JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE LIVES IN A FIVE UNIT COMPLEX VERSUS A FOUR UNIT COMPLEX.AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT LANDLORDS SHOULD NOT BE DOING ANYWAYS.
SO I DON'T SEE HOW THAT WOULD BE A BURDEN CONSIDERED A BURDEN ON SMALLER LANDLORDS WHEN THEY'RE NOT, THEY SHOULDN'T BE DOING THIS ANYWAYS,
IT JUST, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
I, I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD BE, MAYBE I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADD AN AMENDMENT THAT THIS APPLIES TO ALL TENANTS, NOT JUST THE ONES DEFINED IN, IN THE RED, RED LINES.
UM, OTHER QUESTIONS ON NUMBER ONE AMENDMENT? I'M GOOD WITH NUMBER ONE.
COMMISSIONER AZAR NUMBER TWO, YOU SHOULD THAT, SORRY.
SO NUMBER TWO IS, UM, ANOTHER RED LINE AMENDMENT.
UM, ESSENTIALLY THIS ADDS, SO THERE'S AN ELIGIBILITY FOR TENANT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE THAT WE HAVE, AND THERE'S A NUMBER OF CLAUSES THAT YOU HAVE TO MEET TO MEET IT.
AND I'M JUST ADDING AN, AN EXTRA SUBSECTION THAT SAYS, ALLOW A TENANT WHO RESIDED AT A MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY TO BE ELIGIBLE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE HOUSING DIRECTORY IN THE CASE OF MULTIFAMILY REDEVELOPMENT.
AND ESSENTIALLY IT'S SORT OF LIKE A, REMEMBER THE, THE, THE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE SECTION APPLIES TO THE CITY AND NOT TO A LANDLORD.
SO WE'RE CREATING A DISCRETION FOR THE LANDLORD TO EXPAND WHO GETS ELIGIBILITY FOR RELOCATION ASSISTANCE IF THERE IS INDEED A MASS DISPLACEMENT EVENT.
AND HONESTLY, THE REASON FOR DOING THIS IS, I HATE TO SAY IT, WE, EVERY TIME WE FIX THIS ORDINANCE, SOME OTHER VERSION, UH, OCCURS THAT WE NEVER KNEW COULD EXIST.
SOMEBODY DOES UN PERMITTED WORK, DOESN'T FILE FOR AN APPLICATION OVER THE, SO THIS IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING IF INDEED RELOCATION BENEFITS ARE WARRANTED, OUR HOUSING DIRECTOR CAN DO THAT.
MY ONE QUESTION ON THIS IS SPECIFICALLY, UM, WHY SPECIFICALLY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE HOUSING DIRECTOR AND NOT AT OTHER LEVELS.
I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT THE THINKING WAS.
SO GENERALLY, I GUESS THIS IS JUST SOMETHING THAT WE FOLLOWED IN SORT OF JUST THE WAY THE CODE WORKS IN THAT THE DEPARTMENT THAT WOULD BE OVERSEEING THIS WOULD BE THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.
SO WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT THE, THE HIGHEST OFFICIAL WITHIN THAT DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY.
THEY WOULD LIKELY BE CONSULTING WITH STAFF, UM, THAT WORKS FOR THEM.
AND THE UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE, I SUPPOSE, THAT IF SOMEBODY FROM ANOTHER DEPARTMENT THOUGHT IT WAS NECESSITATED, THEY CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION.
BUT SINCE THE FUND AND THE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE IS WORKED ON BY THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT, IT WAS ESSENTIALLY THE HIGHEST OFFICIAL WITHIN THAT DEPARTMENT.
AND JUST ONE, ONE
I GUESS WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A CLEAR DECISION MAKING PROCESS RIGHT.
BUT IF THERE'S OTHER FOLKS THAT YOU CAN THINK OF, I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ADD THAT IN BECAUSE I HAVEN'T MADE A MOTION YET.
IF YOU CAN THINK OF SOMEBODY ELSE.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER THREE.
THANK YOU ALL FOR BEARING WITH ME.
SO FROM HERE ON, IT'S REALLY GENERAL AMENDMENTS.
SO THE FIRST ONE IS, UM, THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT SHOULD MAKE EFFORTS TO ENSURE THAT TENANTS WHO WERE DISPLACED WITHIN THE LOOKBACK PERIOD OR PRIOR TO UNPERMITTED WORK RECEIVE NOTICE REGARDING ELIGIBILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF RELOCATION.
SO ONE OF THE CHALLENGES IS IF SOMEBODY IS REMO, UH, IS DISPLACED BEFORE AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED, THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO, UM, ESSENTIALLY GET THE NOTICE THAT THE LANDLORD WOULD'VE PROVIDED.
SO IN THIS CASE, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT SHOULD MAKE EFFORTS.
I'M NOT GONNA SAY THAT THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE IT TO EVERYONE, BUT THIS DEPARTMENT SHOULD MAKE EFFORTS TO ENSURE THE TENANTS WHO ARE DISPLACED, EITHER WITHIN THE LOOK BACK PERIOD OR PRIOR TO UN PERMITTED WORK, RECEIVE THAT NOTICE SO THAT THEY'RE AWARE THAT THEY ARE INDEED ELIGIBLE AND THAT FOR RESOURCES THAT ARE AVAILABLE ALL.
UNLESS SOMEBODY STOPS ME AND ASKS THE QUESTION, I'LL KEEP GOING.
SO NUMBER FOUR IS, THIS IS WITHIN SECTION 25 1 7 14 B2, WHICH IS REALLY THE SECTION THAT'S AROUND ELIGIBILITY.
IT, IT'S, I THINK IT'S AN ERROR.
I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE, BUT I'M JUST SAYING CLARIFIED BECAUSE IT CURRENTLY READS AND WITHIN THE DIFFERENT CLAUSES IN THAT SECTION RATHER THAN, OR, AND SO FOR EXAMPLE, IT SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO BE SOMEONE WHO, UM, YOU KNOW, RESIDE AT THE PROPERTY IN A MOBILE HOME PARK, BUT ALSO HAD ON PERMITTED WORK.
SO ESSENTIALLY IT'S SAYING YOU HAVE TO BE RESIDING IN A MOBILE HOME PARK AND YOU NEED TO BE RESIDING IN A MULTIFAMILY, WHICH WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE, RIGHT? IT CAN BE ONE OR THE OTHER.
IT'S, I THINK IT'S IN LANGUAGE ERROR, SO IT'S JUST MORE LIKE, PLEASE CLEAN UP THAT LANGUAGE.
[03:00:03]
YES.I, I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION ON, ON THAT, AND AS, AND AS I READ IT FOR THE FIRST TIME,
UM, AND AS, AS, AND STATEMENTS, UH, THAT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN CLARIFYING THAT, UM, WELL, UH, NO B TWO A, B, C, D AND E ALL HAVE TO APPLY.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S NOT, THAT SHOULD, THAT DOES NOT SOUND CORRECT.
I THINK THAT SEEMS TO BE AN ERROR.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT B AND C WITHIN THERE, SO IF YOU LOOK AT, UM, B TWO B TWO, I'M SORRY, I'M LOOKING YEP.
B TWO B, IT SAYS, REQUIRED THAT A TENANT AT A MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY RESIDE AT THE PROPERTY ON THE 119TH DAY, AND THEN C SAYS, REQUIRED THAT A TENANT IN A MOBILE HOME PARK RESIDE AT THE PROPERTY ON A TWO 69TH STAY.
THAT'S JUST SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE FOR SOMEBODY TO BE DOING BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.
BUT THE, AND, AND THAT'S WHY, HONESTLY, I DON'T HAVE A RED LINE ON THIS.
I'M JUST SAYING IF I'M MISUNDERSTANDING, IGNORE IT.
BUT IF THAT IS INDEED A MISUNDERSTANDING, THEN HOPEFULLY LOCK AND FIX THAT TO MAKE SURE WHICH CLAUSES NEED TO BE COMBINED AND WHICH DO NOT.
THEN, UM, THEN WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU ACCEPT AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD, WOULD CLARIFY THAT? WHAT YOU'RE SPECIFIC, AND I, AGAIN, I I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT, BUT THE WAY YOU'RE, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IS YOU WILL GO AT A, B, C, D, AND E.
YOU WANT SPECIFIC CLARIFICATION ON THE WORK BETWEEN, UH, B AND C OR I SUPPOSE OTHER ONES AS WELL, TO BE HONEST.
SO I'M HAPPY TO, I THINK YOU WERE SUGGESTING SOME LANGUAGE, SO IF YOU WANNA SUGGEST SOMETHING, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THAT.
I THINK MS. WATKINS HAS SOME INFORMATION JUST THAT IT, IT IS A MISTAKE.
THE, THE, UH, IT SHOULD BE, OR BETWEEN THE B, C, D AND E AT THE END, IT SHOULD JUST SAY OR, UM, OKAY, SO, SO LET ME ASK OR FORGET.
SO THEN IS, SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT WE'RE GONNA REPLACE THE AND STATEMENTS IN IN ALL OF THOSE A, B, C, D, AND E WITH OR STATEMENTS BECAUSE THEN YOU TAKE IT FROM A FIVE CRITERIA BEFORE YOU CAN RECEIVE TENANT ASSISTANCE, REPLACEMENT ASSISTANCE.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THIS.
YOU HAVE TO MEET ALL OF THOSE CRITERIA.
IF YOU PUT IN ORDERS, YOU ONLY HAVE TO MEET ONE OF THOSE CRITERIA, ANY ONE OF THOSE CRITERIA.
AND SO YOU'RE GONNA EXPAND THE POOL OF PEOPLE WHO ARE GONNA BE ELIGIBLE FOR, UH, TENANT ASSISTANCE BY MAGNITUDES.
YEAH, WE, WE DEFINITELY NEED TO REVIEW IT, UM, BETWEEN SPEC.
I KNOW THAT ON B AND C, IT'S TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS THAT WERE, UM, BECAUSE OF OTHER PLACES IN THE ORDINANCE WHERE WE HAVE LANGUAGE AROUND THE MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY AND WE HAVE LANGUAGE AROUND THE MOBILE HOME, UM, RESIDENCE.
AND SO, UM, B AND C ARE DEFINITELY, OR, AND THEN WE NEED TO REVIEW THE OTHER ONES.
BUT I, I, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, UM, FOR THAT THERE'S AN INCOME CRITERIA AND THEN THIS, THE DATE THAT THEY WERE LIVING IN, IN WHICHEVER SCENARIO CRITERIA.
SO YOU COULD HAVE SOMEBODY THAT MEETS THE DATE, BUT NOT THE INCOME CRITERIA.
IF YOU PUT AN ORDER THERE, THEY'RE NOW ELIGIBLE.
AND I GUESS MADAM CHAIR, IS THERE A DEADLINE ON THE, CAN WE POSTPONE THIS? SO, SO IS THERE, CAN I JUST SPEAK TO THAT MINUTE? I'M SORRY.
I WAS GONNA SAY, AND THAT'S WHY COMMISSIONER HAYNES I DID NOT CHANGE TO, OR RIGHT, THAT'S WHY IT'S A GENERAL AMENDMENT.
AND MAYBE WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU IS, I'M JUST GONNA CHANGE IT.
THIS AMENDMENT WILL NOW READ REVIEW SECTION 25 DASH 1 74 7 14 B TWO TO ENSURE THAT THE ELIGIBILITY, UH, CRITERIA IS CLEAR AND ALIGNS WITH THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE.
SO ESSENTIALLY, I'M JUST FLAGGING THAT THERE IS AN ISSUE AND STAFF CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT MAKES SENSE FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE FOR THE INTENT, IF THAT HELPS.
CAN, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, I, AGAIN, I'M, I'M CURIOUS THE REASONING BEHIND HOLDING MULTI-FAMILY TENANTS AND MOBILE
[03:05:01]
HOME PARK RESIDENTS TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD THAT'S A FAIR HOUSING.I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THESE ARBITRARY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CAN I MAKE THE SINGLE FAMILY OR FOUR OR LESS UNITS DON'T GET ANY OF THIS AND THEN THE MULTI-FAMILY ARE HELD AT A DIFFERENT STANDARD THAN MOBILE HOME PARK RESIDENCES.
IT'S JUST NONE OF THIS MAKES SENSE TO ME AND I HAVEN'T HEARD A GOOD REASON.
BUT IF YOU WANT FOR THIS YET, UM, JUST A LITTLE REPLY FROM MY RECOLLECTION OF WHEN WE WERE WORKING ON THIS WITH COUNCIL IS JUST, THAT WAS SORT OF THE AGREEMENT THAT COUNCIL ARRIVED AT.
AND SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU KNOW, THIS WOULD GO BACK TO COUNCIL AND, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS THE DIRECTION THAT COUNSEL ARRIVED AT AT THE TIME THROUGH, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL'S NEGOTIATING BETWEEN VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS IN THE PROCESS.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK YOUR CONCERN IS FAIR, BUT ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS THE DIRECTION THAT WAS PROVIDED.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE COULD ACCOMPLISH HERE AT THIS POINT.
AND YEAH, OTHER THAN GOING BACK TO COUNSEL FOR THIS TOO, SO MOBILE HOME PARK RESIDENT HAS TO RESIDE 150 DAYS LONGER THAN A MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY RESIDENT TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR RELOCATION ASSISTANCE.
HOW THE, HOW THE HECK IS THAT? HOW ARE WE JUSTIFYING THAT MS. WATKINS? GO AHEAD.
THE, THERE, THERE'S MORE TIME GIVEN TO MOBILE HOME RESIDENTS.
UM, SO THE, THE LOOKBACK PERIOD HERE IS LONGER FOR THOSE RESIDENTS THAN FOR THE RESIDENTS AND THE TENANTS IN MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTIES.
AND, AND I GUESS JUST TO CLARIFY, UH, ON THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION, COMMISSIONER COX, A LOT OF THESE, THESE WERE BASED OFF OF SPECIFIC THINGS THAT WE WERE LEARNING AS WE WERE, THESE CASES WERE COMING UP.
SO IF YOU REMEMBER, THIS CAME UP AFTER THE CACTUS ROSES.
THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE LOOKING RIGHT NOW ARE LOOKING AT CLAYTON LANE.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF SPECIFIC CASES ON WHICH THESE, THIS ORDINANCE WAS FASHIONED.
AND I DO WANNA SAY IF YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO THOSE ITEMS, I THINK THOSE ARE TRULY WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION.
ARE WE ON NUMBER FIVE OR SIX? OKAY.
UM, I GUESS I'LL MOVE ON TO NUMBER FIVE.
UM, AND SO THIS WAS JUST REALLY BASED ON THE, AGAIN, THIS IS REALLY NOW TIED ONLY TO THE RELOCATION BENEFITS.
AND I'LL BE HONEST, I JUST, YOU KNOW, AS MS. WATKINS MENTIONED, THEIR STAFF IS FINE WITH THIS.
SO I'M JUST SAYING ENSURE THE TENANTS WHO WERE DISPLACED WITHOUT PROPER NOTIFICATION, BUT WITHIN THE LOOK PERIOD ARE ELIGIBLE FOR RELOCATION BENEFITS.
AND NUMBER SIX SAYS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME.
AND IT WOULD BE THE TENANTS WHO WERE DISPLACED WITHOUT PROPER NOTIFICATION, IN WHOSE CASE, NO APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE LANDOWNER FOR THE PROPERTY AND THUS ARE NOT WITHIN THE LOOK BACK PERIOD, ARE ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR RELOCATION BENEFITS.
SO ESSENTIALLY THIS IS JUST TO SAY THAT THE CITY STAFF AS THEY'RE WORKING ON RELOCATION BENEFITS, ARE INCLUSIVE OF THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT KINDS OF DISPLACEMENT EVENTS THAT WE'RE SEEING.
LET'S GO TO NUMBER SIX AND THEN WE CAN FINISH.
I JUST WENT DOOR SIX AND FIVE AND SIX TOGETHER, SO THAT WAS, THAT WAS OKAY.
UM, QUESTIONS, OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER COX, OR ARE YOU JUST ADJUSTING YOUR GLASSES? UH,
SO THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH, UH, WE, SO WE'RE DISCUSSING, UH, COMMISSIONER CZAR'S AMENDMENTS.
DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THOSE AMENDMENTS BEFORE MAKING OTHER AMENDMENTS OR HOW, WHAT'S THE PROCESS HERE? SO THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE, UM, BY COMMISSIONER ZAS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CO CONNOLLY.
THAT WAS FOR, UM, MOVING FORWARD THE ORDINANCE AS IT IS, UM, AS STAFF HAS DRAFTED IT.
AND THEN COMMISSIONER ZA JUST PRESENTED HIS SIX AMENDMENTS.
SO WHAT WE'LL DO NEXT IS SEE IF ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL ANY OF THE SIX TO BE INDIVIDUALLY EDITED OR DISCUSSED FURTHER.
AND THE REMAINDER WILL BE ASSUMED AS PART OF THAT BASE MOTION.
AND THEN WE WILL GO THROUGH AND VOTE ON THE UP, UP OR DOWN THE, THE, UH, AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED.
AND YOU CAN, UM, POIT NEW AMENDMENTS.
SO WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON THE AZAR AMENDMENTS BEFORE WE CAN OFFER ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS.
THAT WOULD BE, SO I THINK COMMISSIONER FOX, THAT WOULD BE THE CLEANEST WAY TO DO IT.
WE'LL MAY HOPEFULLY WE CAN GO PERSON BY PERSON TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING IT IN THE RIGHT ORDER.
SO AT THIS, AT THIS TIME, I'LL ASK IF ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL ANY OF THE AMENDMENT AMENDMENTS ONE THROUGH SIX FROM CONSIDERATION
[03:10:01]
FROM THE BASE MOTION.COMMISSIONER HAYES? I'D LIKE TO PULL AMENDMENTS TWO AND FOUR.
UM, THAT MEANS THAT COMM, UH, NOT COMMISSIONERS AMENDMENTS 1, 3, 5, AND SIX WILL BE INCLUDED.
WAIT, DO WE VOTE ON THOSE? I THINK WE SHOULD JUST FOR CLARITY CHAIR, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE VOTE ON YES.
SO I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE AHEAD WITH AMENDMENTS 1, 3, 5, AND SIX AS SEEN ON THE SCREEN.
THAT WOULD NEED A SECOND FOR THAT SECOND.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION ON THOSE OR LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
SO THIS IS VOTING ON AMENDMENTS 1, 3, 5, AND SIX BY COMMISSIONER ZA.
UM, ALL THOSE IN, BUT SORRY, SORRY, CHAIR.
THIS IS NOT APPROVAL OF THE BASE MOTION.
THIS IS TO ROLL IT, IT'S TO ADD THEM TO THE BASE MOTION.
YOU ANY BACK? SO WE'RE JUST ADDING THESE TO THE BASE MOTION.
WE ARE NOT VOTING ON THE MOTION AS A A TOTAL YET.
SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 3, 4, 5, COMMISSIONER.
WE ARE UNANIMOUS ON THOSE FOUR AMENDMENTS BEING ADDED.
UM, LET'S GO BACK TO NUMBER TWO THAT WAS PULLED.
SO ARE THERE, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, ARE THERE COM UM, EDITS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE TO THIS OR PROPOSE A SUBSTITUTE? UH, UNFORTUNATELY PROBABLY NOT.
BUT HERE MY CONCERN IS THAT UNFORTUNATELY TWO AND FOUR HAVE TO TRAVEL TOGETHER BECAUSE THE, WHATEVER THE ANSWER TO NUMBER FOUR IS, ARE THESE OR STATEMENTS AND SAY THAT WITH YOUR COUNTRY ACCENT, ARE THESE OR STATEMENTS OR ARE THEY AND STATEMENTS? IF THEY'RE AND STATEMENTS AND WE PUT F IN THERE, THEN YOU HAVE JUST TAKEN AWAY A THROUGH E BECAUSE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE HOUSING DIRECTOR, YOU CAN GIVE A TENANT REGARDLESS OF THEIR STATUS ON A THROUGH E, YOU CAN GIVE A TENANT, UH, OR YOU CAN ALLOW A TENANT TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR, UM, FOR 10, UH, RENTAL ASSISTANCE FOR ASSISTANCE.
AND I DON'T, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S YOUR INTENT.
UM, SO IT'S GONNA DEPEND ON FOUR AS TO WHAT WE DO WITH NUMBER TWO.
WOULD YOU BE, UH, SO LET ME STATE THIS, THIS WOULD BE MY, I'M GONNA COMBINE BOTH OF THEM TO YOUR POINT AND SAY, UM, THIS IS GENERAL AMENDMENT REVIEW, 25 DASH ONE DASH SEVEN 14 B TWO TO ENSURE THAT THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA IS CLEAR.
I'M, ALL I'M ASKING IS CLARITY.
'CAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT CLEAR AND ALIGNS WITH THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND PROVIDE A CLAUSE THAT CREATES FLEXIBILITY FOR THE HOUSING DIRECTOR TO ALLOW ELIGIBILITY FOR ADDITIONAL TENANTS.
IN THE CASE OF MULTI-FAMILY REDEVELOPMENT, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO READ THAT A LOT.
LET ME, I'M NOT ONLY, I'M NOT ONLY TALKING AND A DRAW.
SO CAN YOU READ A LOT SLOWER? THAT'S MY BAD.
LET ME, UH, READ THIS PROPERLY.
SO REVIEW 25 DASH 1 7 1 4 B TWO TO ENSURE THAT THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA IS CLEAR AND ALIGNS WITH THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND PROVIDE A COMMA AND PROVIDE A CLAUSE THAT CREATES FLEXIBILITY FOR THE HOUSING DIRECTOR TO ALLOW ELIGIBILITY FOR ADDITIONAL TENANTS IN THE CASE OF MULTIFAMILY REDEVELOPMENT.
AND WOULD YOU ACCEPT AND PROVIDE A CLAW, UH, PROVIDE A CLAUSE IF NEED WHERE APPLICABLE IF NEEDED? YEP.
SO THEN I'M RESTATING THIS, UM, REVIEW 25 DASH, OR MAYBE I SHOULD JUST MAKE A MOTION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION AND IF SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE CHANGED, LET US KNOW BEFORE SOMEONE SECONDS IT.
I'M MAKING A MOTION THAT WE ADD REVIEW 25 DASH ONE DASH SEVEN 14 B TWO TO ENSURE THAT THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA IS CLEAR AND ALIGNS WITH THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND PROVIDE A CLAUSE WHERE APPLICABLE THAT CREATES FLEXIBILITY FOR THE HOUSING DIRECTOR TO ALLOW ELIGIBILITY FOR ADDITIONAL TENANTS.
IN THE CASE OF MULTI-FAMILY REDEVELOPMENT.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER WOODS? JUST SECONDED
[03:15:01]
WOODS.UM, AND THAT'S FOR NUMBER TWO AND FOUR? YES.
SO IF COMBINED INTO ONE MOTION, THAT'S MUCH MORE GENERAL AND HOPEFULLY STAFF GETS THE INTENT OF IT AND IS ABLE TO ADDRESS IT.
SO LET'S, AND THEN RENUMBER, 'CAUSE WE'LL TAKE OUT FOUR.
UM, OKAY, SO WE'RE TAKING A VOTE ON THE AMENDED NUMBER TWO AND NUMBER FOUR IS EVERYBODY CLEAR? KIND OF
OKAY, NOW, SO WE'VE BEEN THROUGH ALL OF COMMISSIONER CZAR'S AMENDMENTS.
UM, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS FOR ANY OTHER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
UM, I WANTED, I WANTED TO HAVE ROOM TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, UM, BUT I'M GONNA PROBABLY MAKE AN UNPOPULAR MOVE HERE.
UM, I DON'T, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THIS IS FULLY BAKED.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE THAT I HAVEN'T GOTTEN A GOOD ANSWER TO.
UM, SO I'M WONDERING IF IN THIS PROCESS WE'RE WORKING THROUGH, IF IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO, TO MAKE AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION OR WHATEVER TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO AUGUST 22ND, HOW WOULD THAT WORK? PARLIAMENTARIAN.
SO THAT WOULD BE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO THE BASE MOTION AS AMENDED.
AND WE CAN DO THAT WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.
YES, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT RIGHT NOW.
YEAH, SO YOU CAN MAKE THAT MOTION.
SO AUGUST 22ND, OUR NEXT MEETING.
YEAH, I'LL, I'LL MAKE THAT SUBSTITUTE MOTION AND SEE IF WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT.
IS THERE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER WOODS SECOND.
YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? SO, I, I DON'T, I REALLY DON'T WANNA SLOW THIS DOWN.
I, I UNDERSTAND WHY THERE'S AN URGENCY TO THIS.
THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD STUFF IN HERE, BUT, UM, I'VE HEARD A LOT OF REALLY GOOD QUESTIONS AND NOT A WHOLE LOT OF REALLY GOOD ANSWERS.
AND SO I THINK IF, IF, UH, STAFF TAKES OUR CONVERSATION AND MAYBE SOME ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE HAVING WITHIN THIS PROCEDURE, UH, AS A GUIDE THAT MY HOPE IS THAT THEY CAN COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING.
IT'S GONNA BE QUICK, BUT COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING WITH SOME, WITH SOME ANSWERS THAT MAKE AT LEAST ME AND HOPEFULLY MAYBE OTHERS FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE THAT, THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY CAPTURED EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE INTENDED TO DO AND NOT CREATED, YOU KNOW, ARTIFICIAL BOUNDARIES AND ARTIFICIAL DISPARITIES OF WHO GETS WHAT RIGHTS WITHIN OUR CODE FOR NO SEEMINGLY PARTICULAR REASON.
SO THAT'S WHY I'D LIKE TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE FOR STAFF TO GO BACK AND PROVIDE SOME, SOME THOROUGH RESPONSES TO A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE ASKED HERE ALREADY.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION? RIGHT? UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, CONNOLLY? UM, YEAH, I JUST, I AGREE THERE ARE STILL SOME QUESTIONS.
I THINK THOSE QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED BY, UM, YOU KNOW, NEED TO BE ANSWERED IN A PROCESS WITH CITY COUNCIL.
UM, AND THEY, THERE WILL BE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY STILL FOR ENGAGING WITH COUNCIL ON THIS.
AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE ABILITY OBVIOUSLY TO, YOU KNOW, COMMUNICATE WITH OUR COUNCIL AND SUBMIT QUESTIONS TO THEM.
BUT THIS IS A PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, IN THE WORKS OBVIOUSLY FOR, FOR A GOOD WHILE NOW.
WE HEARD CASES TODAY, RIGHT? THAT HIGHLIGHT HOW IMPORTANT IT IS FOR US TO HAVE THESE CHANGES IN PLACE.
AND SO I, YOU KNOW, KIND OF BEG OF US TO PLEASE NOT HOLD THIS UP, YOU KNOW, AND OBVIOUSLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS NOT THE ONLY SPACE WHEREIN WE CAN ENGAGE WITH THESE POLICIES.
WE CAN AND SHOULD CONTINUE TO HAVE THIS DIALOGUE WITH COUNSEL.
I JUST, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE AN UN UNFORTUNATE IF WE HELD THIS UP.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR I, COMMISSIONER CONLEY, I'M GONNA SPEAK FOR IT.
I'D, I'D TAKE, I I TRUST YOU AND I I TAKE YOUR, UM, YOUR PLEADING ON THIS ISSUE AND I RESPECT YOUR PLEADING ON THIS ISSUE.
UM, THIS IS A TERRIBLE WHAT WE'VE DONE.
TONIGHT'S A TERRIBLE WAY TO MAKE SAUSAGE AND I HATE
[03:20:01]
BEING PART OF AMENDING THINGS ON THE FLY AND READING THEM OUT AND ALL.BUT IT, BUT BECAUSE YOUR PASSION ON THIS, BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN IT, I'LL, I'LL GO THE OPPOSITE WAY, BUT I'M JUST GONNA POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF PASSION ON THIS COMMISSION LATELY AND SOME OF US HAVE BEEN VOTED DOWN AND, AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT SAYS WHEN WE PASS SOMETHING THAT SAYS STAFF GO DO IT.
AS WAS EXEMPLIFIED TONIGHT, WE SAID, STAFF GO DO THIS.
AND THE FIRST ISSUE THEY BRING BACK FLIES DIRECTLY IN THE FACE OF WHAT WE TOLD THEM TO DO.
AND SO THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS, WE PASSED THIS TONIGHT AND STAFF'S NOT GONNA COME BACK AND SAY, UP YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE'RE GONNA DO EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
BUT WITH THAT, I APPRECIATE YOUR PASSION AND UH, EVEN THOUGH I SECOND IT, COMMISSIONER COX, I APOLOGIZE.
'CAUSE YOUR WAS, I THINK I'M SPEAKING AGAINST THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION AT THIS POINT, BUT I AM NOT POSITIVE.
UM, I SECONDED THIS BECAUSE I WANTED TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION AROUND IT, BUT I'M GONNA BE, UH, VOTING AGAINST THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UM, AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IN A PREVIOUS CASE TONIGHT, WHAT'S, WHAT STAFF CAME BACK WITH WAS NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO WHAT WE HAD VOTED ON TWO WEEKS AGO.
UM, BECAUSE THAT HASN'T, THOSE, THOSE AMENDMENTS, IT'S NOT, NOT REALLY RELEVANT TO THIS CASE, BUT THOSE AMENDMENTS HAVEN'T BEEN APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL YET.
UM, AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE TO GIVE STAFF A LITTLE MORE CREDIT FOR THAT.
UM, AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER CONNOLLY THAT THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH TONIGHT, SO I'M GONNA SUPPORT THAT.
ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? AGAINST? YES, THANK YOU CHAIR.
UH, I, I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE VERY CLEARLY THAT I THINK FOLKS ARE RIGHT, THAT THERE, IT WE COULD WE IMPROVE THE PROCESS A HUNDRED PERCENT.
I THINK WE CAN HAVE A BETTER PROCESS FOR HAVING THESE DISCUSSIONS AND HAVING MORE TIME.
ALSO, AT THE SAME TIME, I WOULD HIGHLY URGE ALL OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THIS ITEM.
YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER FOR A CASE AND THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT DISPLACEMENT AND THE APPLICANT WAS VOLUNTARILY OFFERING ALL THESE DIFFERENT THINGS, INCLUDING NOTIFICATION THAT IS NOT THE CASE GENERALLY, AND SPECIFICALLY, IT'S ALMOST NEVER THE CASE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMEBODY FILING FOR BUILDING PERMITS OR DEMOLITION PERMITS WHERE THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO GO THROUGH REZONING PROCESS THAT HAS THIS LEGISLATIVE BODY AND OTHER BODIES TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.
SO REALLY THIS IS OUR BIGGEST PROTECTION, AND WITH EVERY PASSING DAY, THERE ARE FOLKS WHO ARE BEING DISPLACED.
THEY'RE MASS DISPLACED IN EVENTS.
AS I SAID, YOU KNOW, THIS ORDINANCE WAS CREATED IN 2016 IN RESPONSE TO NUMEROUS THINGS THAT HAD HAPPENED, AND THE CARVE OUTS FOR MOBILE HOME PARKS EXISTED BECAUSE WE SAW THE KIND OF DISPLACEMENT IMPACT THAT WAS HAPPENING IN CACTUS ROWS AND OTHERS ALONG RIVERSIDE.
SAME GOES FOR THE 2018 AMENDMENTS THAT WERE MADE TO THIS.
THERE WAS A VERY CONCERTED EFFORT WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO CLOSE THAT, AND TODAY WE'RE CLOSING LOOPHOLES.
SO I HOPE FOLKS CAN NOT VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS SUBSTITUTE AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ITEM BECAUSE IT IS TIMELY.
CAN I ASK, UH, STAFF TO, TO CLARIFY FOR US BEFORE WE VOTE WHEN THIS IS SLATED TO GO TO COUNCIL CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LAY AND I YOUR VOTE? I'LL BE GOING TO COUNCIL AUGUST 31ST.
WERE YOU ABLE TO HEAR THAT? COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH.
AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THAT'S MORE THAN A WEEK AFTER OUR NEXT MEETING IN AUGUST 22ND.
UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
SO THIS IS THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COX, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WOODS TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM UNTIL AUGUST 22ND, 25TH.
UM, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR ON DSS.
ALL RIGHT, THOSE IN FAVOR, VIRTUAL COMMISSIONER COX.
UM, SO LET'S GO BACK AND WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT AMENDMENTS TO BE ADDED TO THE AMENDMENT PACKAGE, UM, FOR THE BASE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER COX, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS IS, BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE AMENDMENTS.
AND SINCE THIS IS, IS HOW WE SUPPOSEDLY IMPROVE THE PROCESS, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES, MOBILE HOME PARK, AND THEN ALSO ALLOW THIS TO APPLY TO
[03:25:01]
ANY TENANTS OF ANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.IS THERE A SECOND? UM, THERE IS NO SECOND.
MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE, WE CLOSE DEBATE.
I'M LOOKING FOR OTHER AMENDMENTS THOUGH.
I UNDERSTAND, BUT I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE DEBATE, BUT WE'RE NOT DEBATING.
YOU'RE USING LANGUAGE I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
SO I BELIEVE, UH, THE COMMISSIONERS ARE REQUESTING, UH, FOR UH, SEE IF THERE'S A SUPER MAJORITY TO UM, UM, MOVE FORWARD TO A VOTE.
IS THAT THE SAME AS I CALL THE QUESTION? YES, CORRECT.
UM, SORRY, HOW SO, HOW, WHAT GOES NEXT? SO THE QUESTION HAS BEEN CALLED, WE WOULD NEED TO TAKE A VOTE ON IT AND IF A SUPER MAJORITY WHAT'S IN FAVOR, THEN WE WILL MOVE TO THE ACTUAL MOTION.
WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE WE VOTING ON? UH, ESSENTIALLY DO END ALL DISCUSSION AND DEBATE AT THIS MOMENT.
MR. RIVER VERA? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO YOU WOULD BE MOVING TO YOUR BASE MOTION WITH THE BIZARRE AMENDMENTS SHOULD YOU HAVE A MAJORITY TO DO SO.
SO, UM, SO VOTE, UM, FOR VOTING.
SO IS EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON? CLOSING DEBATE? NO MORE AMENDMENTS.
I THOUGHT WE HAD TO GOING STRAIGHT TO GOING THROUGH YOUR MOTION.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY TO FOLKS, WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON AT THE MOMENT IS WHETHER WE'RE ENDING ALL DISCUSSION DEBATE ON THIS ITEM AND MOVING TO A VOTE ON THE BASE MOTION AS AMENDED.
NO, I, I THOUGHT PER ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER YOU HAVE TO VOTE TO END DEBATE AND THEN YOU HAVE A VOTE.
IF THAT VOTE HAS A SUPER MAJORITY, THEN YOU HAVE TO VOTE ON THE ACTUAL MOTION.
SO WE'RE RIGHT NOW JUST VOTING ON ENDING THE DEBATE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5.
AM I COUNTING THAT RIGHT? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
SO WE CAN GO BACK TO ASKING FOR MORE.
I'M JUST ASKING FOR MORE AMENDMENTS AND THERE MAY BE NONE, BUT I WANNA GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE.
OKAY, SO LET'S GO BACK AND THEN WE CAN, AND THEN WE CAN SPEAK TO THE MOTION, RIGHT? CORRECT.
SO WE'RE GOING BACK NOW TO THE MAIN MOTION, WHICH IS COMMISSIONER CZAR'S MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CON CONNOLLY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH STACK RE RECOMMENDATION ON THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE, UM, FOR TENANT RELOCATION WITH AMENDMENTS 1, 3, 5, AND SIX FROM COMMISSIONER ZA AS WRITTEN ORIGINALLY, AND A AMENDMENTS NUMBER TWO AND FOUR AS EDITED.
SO, UH, WE'RE GOING INTO DEBATE ON THOSE, CORRECT? YES.
SO COMMISSIONERS ALREADY SPOKE.
IS THERE ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT PACKAGE? COMMISSIONER COX? I'VE HEARD A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WANNA RESPOND TO IF WE'RE JUST GONNA SAY WELL, WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT BEFORE IT GETS TO COUNCIL.
WHAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THESE MEETINGS? IF, IF, IF WE'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE THE PROCESS FOR NOTIFYING TENANTS, MAYBE WE SHOULD ACTUALLY HAVE A PROCESS.
THIS IS NOT A PROCESS AND ALL I'VE SEEN HERE IS IS WE'RE DOING THIS STUFF ON THE FLY.
WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN GOOD ANSWERS TO OUR QUESTIONS AND WE'VE ACTUALLY CREATED DIFFERENT RIGHTS FOR DIFFERENT TENANTS BASED ON ONE, IF THEY LIVE IN A SINGLE UNIT OR FOUR UNITS OR TWO, IF THEY LIVE IN MORE THAN FIVE UNITS OR THREE IF THEY LIVE IN A MOBILE HOME, THEY'RE ALL GETTING DIFFERENT RIGHTS.
AND I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYONE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THE HECK THAT IS, JUST BECAUSE COUNSEL WROTE IT THAT WAY.
BUT IF WE DEFERRED TO COUNCIL FOR EVERYTHING, WHAT'S THE POINT OF THIS COMMISSION EVEN EXISTING AND WHAT'S THE POINT OF THE COEX ORDINANCE JOINT COMMITTEE EVEN
[03:30:01]
EXISTING IF YOU CAN'T EVEN REVIEW THE TEXT OF A CODE REVISION PRIOR TO IT COMING TO PLANNING COMMISSION? THIS WHOLE THING IS JUST MESSED UP TO ME.AND IT'S SO IRONIC THAT IT'S SPECIFICALLY ON EDITING THE LANGUAGE OF TENANT NOTIFICATION.
I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING MORE ABSURD THAN THIS.
AND SO I'M NOT GONNA VOTE AGAINST IT BECAUSE I AGREE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.
UM, BUT I AM GONNA ABSTAIN BECAUSE I THINK WE REALLY DESERVE TO HAVE MORE CONSIDERATION, MORE ANSWERS TO OUR QUESTIONS SO THAT WE GET THE PROCESS RIGHT SO THAT THE PROCESS ISN'T SCREWED UP ANYMORE.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S JUST, THAT'S JUST MY VENTING.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR IT LOOKS LIKE WE MAY BE READY TO VOTE UNLESS THERE'S SOMEBODY SPEAKING AGAINST.
OKAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 5, 6, 7.
AND WE HAVE AN EXTENSION, SO THAT'S SEVEN ONE, UH, 7 0 1.
SORRY, WITH COMMISSIONER COX ABSTAINING ALL EIGHT SEVEN
IS THAT OFFICIAL COUNT? THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT, UM, SORRY, PULLING UP MY AGENDA.
ANY ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION? ALL RIGHT.
UM, OR SORRY, I'VE, THERE ARE NO ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
FROM OUR COMMISSIONERS.LET'S REPORT OUT FROM THE BOARD'S, COMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS.
UM, CHAIR, UH, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WE HAVE NOT HAD A MEETING SINCE OUR LAST, UH, UPDATE, SO THERE'S NOTHING NEW TO WE'RE MEETING NEXT WEDNESDAY.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, JOINT COMMITTEE CHAIR.
WE HAVE NOT HAD A MEETING FOR THAT COMMITTEE SINCE OUR LAST MEETING, SO THE UPDATE WOULD REMAIN THE SAME.
AND WE DO ARE SCHEDULED LATER IN THE MONTH TO LOOK AT THE IMAGINE AUSTIN UPDATE.
ON THE 24TH, THE JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE.
SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
OUR MEETING GOT PUSHED BACK TO SEPTEMBER.
UM, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD.
UM, N NO UPDATE, BUT WE DO HAVE ENOUGH MEMBERS TO HAVE QUORUM, WHICH IS EXCITING.
THE A D U HAS BEEN ON PAUSE AS WE'RE WAITING FOR STAFF TO BRING FORTH THE A D U ITEM.
UM, NO UPDATES FROM ME ON THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
UPDATE WORKING GROUP, UH, DESIGN GUIDELINES.
WE, OUR FIRST DRAFT WAS SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR OUR SIDE, SO GOOD.
UM, AND THEN THE, UH, FISCAL YEAR 2324 BUDGET WORKING GROUP.
AND, AND THIS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPREHENSIVE OF AN UPDATE, UM, JUST DUE TO TIMING, BECAUSE THE BUDGET'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE APPROVED NEXT WEEK.
WHAT WE DID WAS ACTUALLY SUBMIT SOME INFORMATION TO YOU ALL FROM THE WORKING GROUP THAT WE WANTED TO FLAG.
UM, BUT WE OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT POSTED FOR ACTION AND WILL NOT BE DISCUSSING IT IN DETAIL, BUT IT IS IN YOUR INBOXES AND WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU ALL LOOK AT IT.
UM, ONE OF THE REASONS WE WERE DELAYED IS BECAUSE, UH, THE BUDGET IFFC AND, UH, VARIOUS BUDGET AND AMENDMENTS WERE JUST RELEASED LAST NIGHT.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH THE, WHAT COUNCIL MEMBERS AND STAFF HAVE SORT OF BEEN THE ADDITIONS AND CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE BUDGET, UM, AS THEY'VE GONE THROUGH THE BUDGETING PROCESS.
UH, SO WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
I THINK THE ONE THING WE DID ALSO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT IS THAT, UM, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY PUT INTO THE UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR BUDGET FOR THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING.
AND, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE NUMBER OF CASES THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH WEEK IN, WEEK OUT AT ZONING AND ALSO JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING WITH STAFF WORKLOAD, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT WE WERE USING OUR, UM, FUNDING AS EXPEDIENTLY AS POSSIBLE.
AND THAT OUR STAFF BOTH HERE IN ZONING AND PLANNING AS WELL AS YOU KNOW, THE RELATED, UM, STAFF FOR ALL OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS HAD THE CORRECT RESOURCES TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE MOVING THROUGH CASES AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT THERE'S A BACKLOG AND THAT THAT SAME LOGIC BE APPLIED TO ALSO OUR LAW, OUR, UM, LAND DEVELOPMENT MET CODE AMENDMENTS, WHICH WE KNOW THERE'S A BACKLOG OF THOSE.
SO ENSURING THAT PLANNING RESOURCES WERE BEING PUT TO SAY IMMEDIATE
[03:35:01]
NEEDS, SPECIFICALLY ZONING CASES AS WELL AS LAND DEVELOPMENT VERSUS SOMETHING MORE LONG TERM LIKE THE IMAGINE AUSTIN, WHICH WHILE IMPORTANT AND CRITICAL, MAY NOT ACTUALLY HAVE THE URGENCY OF SOME OF THE OTHER ITEMS IN FRONT OF US.UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE WORKING GROUP WHO WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING.
I THINK THAT WAS VERY WELL SAID AND I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT THIS IS NOT, UM, THIS HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED AND VOTED ON BY THE ENTIRE WORKING GROUP.
IT'S MOSTLY COMING FROM COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AND MYSELF.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THAT.
I JUST WANTED TO THANK THE WORKING GROUP FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS AND I THINK THESE ARE, UM, WORTHY THINGS FOR US TO CONSIDER AND HOPEFULLY FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER AS WELL.
UM, MAY I ASK ONE QUESTION IN THE WORK GROUP? MM-HMM.
SO I WAS JUST VERY INTERESTED IN THE, THE DISCUSSION AROUND, I KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT POSTED FOR DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW, BUT I WAS INTERESTED IN THE CONVERSATION AROUND SORT OF, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FUNDING FOR MORE LONG RANGE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, UM, WHEN IT, YOU KNOW, IT, IT SEEMS A LOT OF THAT PLANNING OFTEN, UM, DOESN'T, DOESN'T GET PUT TO USE AND WE DON'T EVEN REACH A POINT WHERE WE ARE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THAT PLANNING.
SO I I I'M JUST, I'M CURIOUS IF, IF, IF THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION OR THOUGHT TOWARDS ACTUALLY MAKING A RECOMMENDATION THERE OR WOULD THAT BE A TOPIC FOR FUTURE? UM, I THINK THAT THAT WAS SORT OF THE ISSUE IS THAT UNFORTUNATELY SOME OF THE ANSWERS REGARDING TO HOW THE PLANNING MONEY WAS GOING TO BE SENT WAS NOT REALLY CLARIFIED UNTIL LAST FRIDAY OR EVEN THIS WEEK.
SO WE DIDN'T HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ALLOCATIONS THAT WERE BEING MADE NECESSARILY.
AND THE CLARIFICATION HAS NOW COME THROUGH, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE, WE DON'T HAVE AN ADDITIONAL PC, UM, MEETING BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN THE BUDGET MAY BE ADOPTED.
SO THAT'S WHY WE JUST WANTED TO FLAG THIS AS A CONCERN, UM, BECAUSE HAVE WE HONESTLY KNOWN A LITTLE BIT SOONER, I THINK WE PROBABLY WOULD'VE MADE A RECOMMENDATION ALL THOSE LINES.
AND AGAIN, I DO THINK THAT COMMISSIONER WOODS IS CORRECT.
WE DID NOT HAVE A FULL DISCUSSION AS A WORKING GROUP, SO I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR ANYBODY ELSE MORE, JUST THAT WE SAW THAT THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ALIGNMENT WITH A BACK TO BASICS BUDGET.
BUDGET IS ALLOCATING A LOT OF FUNDING TO THINGS THAT ARE MORE LONG TERM VERSUS THESE IMMEDIATE NEEDS.
UM, AND JUST ONE MORE QUESTION.
WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION AROUND, UM, PLANS IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE ACQUISITION OF, UM, OFFICE REAL ESTATE BY THE CITY? I KNOW THAT ON THE 29TH WE'RE GONNA BE HAVING A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, UM, TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THE TELEWORK POLICY.
I KNOW THE CITY'S IN THE MIDDLE OF DISCUSSING THE TELEWORK POLICY AND I WAS INTERESTED IF THERE WAS ANY CONVERSATION AROUND, UH, IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET THERE'S 7 MILLION FOR THE ACQUISITION OF NEW OFFICE SPACE, UM, WHICH SEEMS TO BE COMING BEFORE THE CITY HAS A AGREED ON A TELEWORK POLICY.
UM, I WAS WONDERING IF THERE WAS ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT.
UM, THAT WAS NOT AN ITEM THAT WE HAD FLAGGED.
WE WERE MOSTLY FOCUSED ON SPECIFICALLY RELATED ISSUES, BUT I DO KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS RELATED TO THAT.
I THINK IT CAME UP AT ONE OF THE OTHER, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS.
UM, THE TELEWORK POLICY IS AN ONGOING CONVERSATION.
SO I THINK TO YOUR POINT, AGAIN, A GREAT ITEM TO RAISE BECAUSE IF WE WERE REALLOCATING THOSE FUNDS AGAIN TO IMMEDIATE NEEDS, SPECIFICALLY L D C AMENDMENTS AND YOU KNOW, ASSURING THAT THE STAFF WORK HERE IS REALLY WELL SUPPORTED, I THINK THAT THAT MIGHT BE A BETTER USE OF FUNDS.
ALL RIGHT, WELL THAT COMES TO THE END OF OUR AGENDA.
SO THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR BEARING WITH ME TONIGHT, AND I WILL ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 9:46 PM THANK YOU.