Oct 26, 2023 Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting

[00:00:01]

EVERYBODY,

[Call to Order]

IT IS 2:00 PM WE ARE MEETING IN THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS THAT ARE LOCATED IN AUSTIN CITY HALL AT 3 0 1 WEST SECOND STREET IN AUSTIN, TEXAS.

A QUORUM OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL IS PRESENT.

AS I INDICATED, THIS IS A JOINT MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL AND THE AUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO I'M PLEASED TO NOW RECOGNIZE THE CHAIR OF THE AUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION, CHAIRMAN SHAW, UH, TO CALL TO ORDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.

OKAY.

UH, YES, TIME IS TWO O'CLOCK AND, UH, I, THE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BRING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.

AND, UH, I WANNA RECOGNIZE WE DO HAVE QUORUM.

IN FACT, THIS IS A VERY GOOD TURNOUT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THANK YOU ALL PLANNING COMMISSIONERS .

THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

THANK YOU.

AND THANK YOU TO ALL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE PARTICIPATING IN THIS, AND I WANNA WELCOME EVERYONE ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL.

UH, IT'S BELIEVED THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THERE'S BEEN A JOINT MEETING OF THE AUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL.

UH, I'M SURE THAT THERE WILL BE AN HISTORIAN OUT THERE THAT WILL REMIND US IF THAT'S INCORRECT, BUT IT'S UNIQUE IN ANY EVENT, AND SO WE'RE HAPPY TO BE DOING THIS.

PART OF THE REASON WE'RE DOING THIS IS AN EFFORT TO ALLOW FOR THERE TO BE ROBUST PUBLIC INPUT AND ALLOW THOSE THAT ARE RECOMMENDING POLICY AND THOSE MAKING THE POLICY TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR COMMENTS.

AT THE SAME TIME.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AGAIN ON NOVEMBER 14TH, 2023.

AT THAT TIME, THERE WILL BE THE CHANCE FOR FURTHER PO PUBLIC COMMENT AND INPUT, AND IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS READY, WE'LL BE ABLE TO VOTE ON RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL AT THAT TIME.

THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL ARE SCHEDULED TO MEET AT A SPECIAL MEETING ON DECEMBER 7TH.

WE WILL BE POSTED TO VOTE AT THAT TIME IF WE'RE READY.

PRIOR TO THAT, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL HAVE A WORK SESSION ON THIS ITEM.

THAT WILL BE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28TH.

UH, NOT ONLY WILL WE AS A COUNCIL HAVE A CHANCE TO DISCUSS THIS AND ASK ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OF STAFF, BUT I'M RECOMMENDING THAT WE USE THAT DATE FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL TO LAY OUT ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT THE MEMBERS MIGHT HAVE.

IT'S LIKE WE DID.

UH, PEOPLE WILL REMEMBER WHEN WE WERE WORKING ON THE BUDGET.

WE HAD A DAY SET ASIDE IN ADVANCE OF THE ACTUAL MEETING WHERE EACH MEMBER COULD LAY OUT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

IT ALLOWED FOR QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION BY THE COUNCIL, AND IT PROVIDED GREATER TRANSPARENCY FOR THE PUBLIC, PUBLIC.

THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ARE ABLE FOR, FOR THE PUBLIC TO KNOW AND FOR THE, AND THE PLANNING.

COMMISSIONERS ALREADY KNOW THIS, BUT, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ARE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS AND GET AN ANSWERS FROM STAFF BY CONTACTING ANDREW RIVERA VIA EMAIL.

THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL ARE ABLE TO DO THE SAME BY EMAILING QUESTIONS TO KATIE POWERS IN THE AGENDA OFFICE.

RESPONSES TO THOSE QUESTIONS WILL BE SHARED WITH THE COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS SOON AS THEY ARE FINALIZED FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

YOU CAN ACCESS SUBMITTED QUESTIONS AND STAFF RESPONSES, AND I'M GONNA GIVE YOU AN, AN ADDRESS, A WEBSITE, PUBLIC INPUT, P-U-B-L-I-C-I-N-P-U-T PUBLIC INPUT.COM/LDC UPDATES L SO PUBLIC INPUT.COM/LDC UPDATES THAT WILL HELP THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SEE WHAT'S BEING THOUGHT AND CONSIDERED, AND WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO THAT.

ADDITIONALLY, THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE WHERE AUSTINITES CAN MEET WITH CITY STAFF AND ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT PROPOSALS.

THAT PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE WILL BE ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6TH FROM SIX TO 8:00 PM AT THE CENTRAL LIBRARY.

THAT ADDRESS IS 7 1 0 7 1 0 WEST CESAR CHAVEZ STREET.

IN ADDITION, WE HAVE PROFESSIONAL STAFF, UH, OUT IN THE LOBBY AREA.

IF SOME PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS, PART OF OUR EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THIS WAS A PRODUCTIVE MEETING WHERE QUESTIONS COULD ALSO BE ANSWERED.

WE HAVE A, A PROFESSIONAL STAFF THAT ARE THERE AS WELL.

THE RUN OF SHOW IS THIS.

FIRST WE'LL HEAR A PRESENTATION

[00:05:01]

IF THE COMMISSIONERS OR COUNCIL HAVE BRIEF CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, THEY'LL ASK THEM AFTERWARDS.

BUT OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WISHING TO BE HEARD, UH, ANY OF OUR DEBATE, OUR DISCUSSION OR MORE THAN JUST CLARIFYING QUESTIONS WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH STAFF WILL BE AT THE FUTURE MEETINGS I JUST TALKED ABOUT OR THROUGH THE Q AND A PROCESS THAT I MENTIONED.

WE WILL THEN HEAR FROM THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK.

EACH PERSON WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES.

PEOPLE MAY DONATE TIME, TIME TO SOMEONE SO THAT A SINGLE SPEAKER CAN SPEAK UP TO SIX MINUTES.

IF YOU'RE DONATING TIME, PLEASE SEE THE CITY CLERK OVER HERE TO MY RIGHT, YOUR LEFT TO, TO COMPLETE A TIME DONATION FORM IN ADVANCE.

THE DONORS MUST BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT AT THE TIME THE PERSON TO WHOM THEY'RE DONATING TIME IS SPEAKING IN PERSON DUE TO THE LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE SPEAKING THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ROOM, WHICH IS RIGHT ACROSS THE ANYWAY HERE, UH, THAT WILL BE USED AS AN OVERFLOW ROOM.

ATXN WILL BE STREAMING THE MEETING IN THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ROOM SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN FOLLOW ALONG.

SPEAKERS WILL BE ABLE TO CHECK ON THE ORDER OF UPCOMING SPEAKERS AT THE KIOSKS THAT ARE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.

BUT I ENCOURAGE YOU, PLEASE BE PATIENT WITH THE SYSTEM.

DUE TO THE LARGE VOLUME OF SPEAKERS, THERE MAY BE SOME LAG TIME, UH, IN THAT TECHNOLOGY.

PLEASE, WE ASK THAT YOU STAY WITHIN THE TWO MINUTES OUT OF RESPECT FOR THOSE WHO ARE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK AND WILL BE FOLLOWING YOU.

THEY MAY BE FOLLOWING YOU MAYBE EVEN MUCH LATER TONIGHT.

WE'VE TRIED TO MAKE THINGS EFFICIENT AND RESPECTFUL.

UH, SO WHERE WE CAN TAKE, WE CAN BE RESPECTFUL OF, OF SPEAKERS IN THEIR TIME.

AND ONE EFFORT WE HAVE INSTITUTED IS WE'VE PUT UP TWO PODIUMS FOR SPEAKERS TO USE.

WHAT I WOULD REQUEST IS THAT YOU PLEASE ALTERNATE THE USE OF EACH PODIUM SO THAT WHEN ONE SPEAKER IS FINISHED, WE CAN IMMEDIATELY MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SPEAKER.

THERE ARE RESERVE SEATS UP FRONT.

WHEN YOU HEAR YOUR NAME CALLED, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND COME UP FRONT.

SO ONCE YOUR NAME IS CALLED AGAIN, YOU'LL BE READY TO MOVE TO ONE OF THE PODIUMS. THERE WILL BE NO VOTE TONIGHT.

THIS WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING.

ONLY REMEMBER, AGAIN THAT THE PUB PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE MEETING ON NOVEMBER 14TH.

THERE WILL BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND IF READY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL VOTE THEN.

AND THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 7TH.

LET ME JUST SAY THAT RIGHT NOW IN OUR COUNTRY, WITH EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT SEEMING TO HAVE AS A BACKDROP OF EXTREME PARTISANSHIP AND SORT OF THE RELENTLESS PURSUIT OF WINNING, I HAVE BEEN PLEASED TO SEE THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE IN AUSTIN, TEXAS, AT LEAST A RELENTLESS PURSUIT OF OUR COMMON PURPOSE AS A CITY, OUR UNITY OF PURPOSE, IF YOU WILL.

EVERYONE THAT'S HERE TODAY, THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT ARE GIVING THEIR POINT OF VIEW OR WATCHING ON TV OR WRITING US BY EMAIL OR OTHERWISE, WE ALL HAVE A COMMON PURPOSE OR A UNITY OF PURPOSE.

AND THAT IS THAT WE LOVE AUSTIN, WE LOVE OUR HOME.

WE RECOGNIZE IT AS AN EXCEPTIONAL PLACE AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE PARTICIPATING.

WE MIGHT DISAGREE ON HOW WE ACHIEVE THOSE GOALS.

WE MAY HAVE GOALS OR EVEN FEARS THAT AREN'T FULLY SHARED, BUT I HOPE THAT'S NOT WHAT WE FOCUS ON.

I DON'T THINK IT IS WHAT WE SHOULD FOCUS ON.

WE OUGHT TO FOCUS ON THAT COMMON PURPOSE AND THAT THAT UNITY OF PURPOSE.

WE LOVE AUSTIN AND WE WANT TO MAKE AUSTIN A HOME WE CAN PASS ON TO OUR CHILDREN, OUR GRANDCHILDREN, AND THE PEOPLE WE LOVE.

UH, I FEEL IT IN MY HEART THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS SQUARELY IN OUR POWER.

THIS UNIQUE GATHERING IS A PART OF THAT, AND I ENCOURAGE ALL OF US TO PLEASE USE IT IN THAT WAY.

WITH THAT, AND WITHOUT OBJECTION, I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR

[1. Conduct a public hearing to receive public comment on proposed amendments to City Code Chapter 25-2 (Zoning) that would allow up to three housing units, including tiny homes and recreational vehicles, on a single-family (SF) zoned property; revise regulations that apply to a property with two housing units; and remove restrictions on the number of unrelated adults living in a housing unit.]

AND

[00:10:01]

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TO YOU TODAY.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO HOUSING REGULATIONS IN OUR GREAT CITY OF AUSTIN.

IN THE RECENT MONTHS, CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED THE CITY MANAGER TO ANALYZE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS THAT COULD ALLOW UP TO THREE HOUSING UNITS ON A SINGLE FAMILY ZONE PROPERTY, REVISE REGULATIONS FOR PROPERTIES WITH TWO HOUSING UNITS AND REMOVE REGULATIONS ON THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED ADULTS LIVING IN A HOME.

THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE INTENDED TO ENABLE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY BY INCREASING HOUSING SUPPLY, AS WELL AS PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY WITHIN OUR EXISTING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

TODAY MARKS THE BEGINNING OF A POLICY DELIBERATION FOR YOU AS A COLLECTIVE BODY, AND WE'LL CONTINUE WITH EACH OF YOUR RESPECTIVE BODIES.

IN SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS THIS AFTERNOON, WE HAVE STAFF AND THE ATRIUM WHO ARE THERE TO COLLECT COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM THE MEMBERS OF PUBLIC SHARE FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULES, AS WELL AS INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO ACCESS OUR LDC UPDATES WEBSITE WHERE YOU CAN FIND REAL TIME CURRENT INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

AT THIS TIME, ANDREA BATES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILL INTRODUCE STAFF'S PROPOSAL BASED ON COUNCIL'S RECENT ADOPTED RESOLUTIONS.

SHE'LL ALSO OUTLINE HOW THESE AMENDMENTS COULD IMPACT AND SHAPE THE FUTURE OF HOUSING IN AUSTIN.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.

I WILL BE DESCRIBING THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO RESIDENTIAL USES AND STANDARDS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES AMENDMENTS IN RESPONSE TO SOMETHING CALLED THE HOME INITIATIVE, WHERE HOME STANDS FOR HOME OPTIONS FOR MIDDLE INCOME EMPOWERMENT.

I'LL BEGIN WITH SOME OF THE REASONS BEHIND THESE CODE AMENDMENTS.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RESPOND TO POLICY GOALS SET BY CITY COUNCIL THROUGH PLANS AND RESOLUTIONS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.

FIRST, THEY ARE INTENDED TO EXPAND HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES BY CREATING MORE HOUSING OPTIONS THAT ARE AFFORDABLE TO MIDDLE INCOME EARNERS.

THEY ARE INTENDED TO GIVE HOMEOWNERS OPTIONS TO HOUSE A FAMILY MEMBER OR A CAREGIVER ON THEIR PROPERTY OR TO EARN A PASSIVE INCOME.

THEY ARE INTENDED TO INCREASE HOUSING SUPPLY.

THEY CAN HELP CREATE WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS WITH A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES, WHICH IS IN LINE WITH OUR CITY'S IMAGINE AUSTIN GOALS.

THEY COULD HELP SUPPORT PROJECT CONNECT TRANSIT INVESTMENT BY ALLOWING ADDITIONAL PEOPLE TO LIVE NEAR TRANSIT STATIONS.

AND THEN FINALLY, THEY COULD HELP RESPOND TO CLIMATE CHANGE BY REDUCING TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS, SLOWING SPRAWL, AND CREATING INCENTIVES FOR SMALLER, MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT HOMES.

MANY PEOPLE KNOW THAT THE AUSTIN METRO AREA IS THE FASTEST GROWING LARGE METRO REGION IN THE COUNTRY, AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS A MAJOR DRIVER OF THAT GROWTH.

AUSTIN IS NOW THE 10TH LARGEST US CITY.

ONE FACTOR DRIVING THAT POPULATION GROWTH IS JOB GROWTH.

HOWEVER, AUSTIN'S HOUSING PRODUCTION IS NOT KEEPING PACE WITH JOB GROWTH.

WE CAN SEE THIS IN AN INDICATOR CALLED THE JOBS HOUSING BALANCE.

SINCE 2010, OVER 66,000 MORE JOBS HAVE BEEN CREATED IN AUSTIN THAN HOUSING UNITS PRODUCED.

SO THE JOBS HOUSING BALANCE HAS INCREASED FROM 1.24 JOBS FOR EVERY HOUSING UNIT IN 2010 TO 1.31 IN 2022.

WHEN NEW JOBS OUTPACE THE HOUSING SUPPLY, A GREATER SHARE OF THE POPULATION MUST DRIVE IN TO AUSTIN, LIVE OUTSIDE AND COMMUTE IN FOR WORK.

RESEARCH SHOWS THAT HIGHER COST METRO AREAS GENERALLY HAVE HIGHER RATIOS OR A LARGER JOBS HOUSING IMBALANCE.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, AMONG CITIES WITH HIGH JOB GROWTH, EXPENSIVE METRO AREAS LIKE NEW YORK, BOSTON, SAN FRANCISCO AND SAN JOSE HAVE RATIOS THAT ARE TWO OR GREATER LESS EXPENSIVE.

METROS LIKE HOUSTON AND RALEIGH HAVE RATIOS THAT ARE CLOSE TO ONE.

[00:15:02]

BUT THE TREND WE SEE SINCE 2010 IS MOVING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

THE PERCENTAGE OF TWO, THREE, AND FOUR UNIT HOUSING TYPES HAS ACTUALLY DECREASED SINCE 2010 FROM 9.3% TO 6.6% OF THE TOTAL HOUSING STOCK.

AND THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF DUPLEXES, NOT JUST THE PERCENT, HAS ALSO DECREASED SINCE 2010.

I MENTIONED BEFORE THAT COUNCIL HAS PROVIDED POLICY DIRECTION TO TACKLE THESE CHALLENGES, AND WE ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE OF THREE RECENT COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS.

THIS JUNE COUNCIL ASKED STAFF TO WORK ON CODE AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD ELIMINATE SOMETHING CALLED THE OCCUPANCY LIMIT OR LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED ADULTS WHO CAN LIVE TOGETHER IN A HOME.

IN JULY, COUNCIL ASKED STAFF TO PREPARE CODE AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR SMALLER, MORE DIVERSE HOUSING TYPES AND ADDITIONAL UNITS ON SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES.

THIS IS THE RESOLUTION CALLED THE HOME INITIATIVE.

THE DIRECTION IN THAT RESOLUTION WILL ACTUALLY BE SPLIT INTO TWO PHASES, SO SOME IS UNDER CONSIDERATION TODAY AND SOME OF THE DIRECTION IN THE RESOLUTION WILL BE TAKEN UP LATER.

AS A PHASE TWO IN SEPTEMBER, COUNCIL PROVIDED DIRECTION TO PREPARE CODE AMENDMENTS THAT ALLOW TINY HOMES AND RVS TO BE USED AS DWELLING UNITS.

IN ADDITION TO RESPONDING TO THESE THREE RECENT RESOLUTIONS, THE PROPOSAL ALSO INCORPORATES DIRECTION FROM TWO PRIOR RESOLUTIONS IN DECEMBER, 2021 AND JUNE, 2022, THAT WERE ABOUT EXPANDING ACCESS TO AND INCREASING FLEXIBILITY FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS OR ADUS.

THAT'S THE POLICY CONTEXT AND THE COUNCIL DIRECTION.

THAT BRINGS US HERE TODAY.

NOW I'M GOING TO DESCRIBE THE REGULATIONS IN THE CURRENT CODE.

I'M GOING TO FOCUS ON THE RULES FOR THREE ZONING DISTRICTS CALLED SSF ONE, SSF TWO, AND SSF THREE, WHERE THE SSF STANDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY IN SSF ONE AND SSF TWO.

YOU CAN GENERALLY BUILD ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A COUPLE OF VERY SPECIFIC EXCEPTIONS.

YOU COULD BUILD AN INTERIOR APARTMENT FOR SOMEONE WHO IS DISABLED OR OVER 60 YEARS OLD, OR YOU COULD BUILD A SEPARATE HOME ON THE PROPERTY FOR GUESTS OR FOR AN ONSITE WORKER IF THE LOT SIZE IS LARGE ENOUGH.

IN ADDITION TO ALLOWING FOR A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF UNITS, A ZONING DISTRICT HAS RULES FOR THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT ON A PARTICULAR PROPERTY BUILDING COVER LIMITS THE SIZE OF A BUILDING'S FOOTPRINT COMPARED TO THE PROPERTY SIZE.

OVERALL, THE BUILDING COVER LIMITS AN SSF ONE IS 35% AND AN SF TWO IS 40%.

IMPERVIOUS COVER APPLIES NOT ONLY TO THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT, BUT TO DRIVEWAYS AND PATIOS AND ANY OTHER SURFACE THAT PREVENTS THE INFILTRATION OF RAINWATER INTO THE GROUND.

IN SSF ONE, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT IS 40% AND AN SSF TWO IT'S 45.

ZONING.

DISTRICTS ALSO REGULATE THE HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY, AND THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN BOTH DISTRICTS IS 35 FEET.

YOU MAY NOTICE THE DRAWING ON THIS SLIDE, AND YOU WILL SEE DRAWINGS LIKE THIS THROUGHOUT THE PRESENTATION.

THESE ARE SIMPLE EXAMPLES OF THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT CAN OCCUR UNDER TODAY'S CODE OR COULD OCCUR UNDER THE PROPOSAL.

THE BUILDINGS AND THE DRAWINGS FOLLOW THE EXISTING OR THE PROPOSED CODE REQUIREMENTS BASED ON THE ZONE AND THE HYPOTHETICAL LOT SIZE.

THE DETAILS FOR EACH DRAWING ARE IN THE GRAY TEXT.

SO WHAT CAN BE BUILT IN SSF THREE TODAY? THE SF THREE ZONE INCLUDES THE SAME USES ALLOWED AN SSF ONE AND TWO, ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME, AN INTERIOR APARTMENT FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS DISABLED OR OVER 60 SEPARATE HOME FOR GUESTS OR AN ON-SITE WORKER.

IF IT'S LARGE ENOUGH LOT.

OR IN SSF THREE, YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD SOMETHING CALLED AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT OR ADU.

AN ADU IS A SECOND HOME THAT IS GENERALLY INTENDED TO BE SMALLER AND LOCATED TO THE BACK OR TO THE SIDE OF THE PRIMARY HOME ON THE LOT.

OR IN SF THREE, YOU CAN BUILD A DUPLEX IF YOU HAVE A LARGER LOT.

THE LOT SIZE FOR A DUPLEX TODAY IS 7,000 SQUARE FEET, AND A DUPLEX IS TWO ATTACHED UNITS.

BUILDING COVERAGE LIMIT IS 40% AND PREVIOUS COVER IS 45% AND THE HEIGHT LIMIT IS 35 FEET.

[00:20:01]

THE MCMANSION STANDARDS ARE ADDITIONAL LIMITS ON THE SIZE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF HOMES THAT ARE BUILT IN A CERTAIN AREA OF AUSTIN.

THE AREA IN BROWN ON THAT MAP, WHICH IS GENERALLY THE MORE CENTRAL PART OF THE CITY, THE MCMANSION STANDARDS LIMIT SOMETHING CALLED THE FLOOR AREA RATIO OF DEVELOPMENT, WHICH SETS A MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT CAN BE BUILT ON THE LOT.

THEY ALSO CREATE A BUILDING ENVELOPE COMMONLY CALLED TENT, WHICH CREATES SOME ADDITIONAL HEIGHT LIMITS AND HAVE SOME OTHER DESIGN STANDARDS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT WITH THE INTENTION OF PROVIDING ADDITIONAL REGULATION OF THE SCALE.

SO THAT'S WHAT CAN BE BUILT TODAY, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD DO THE FOLLOWING.

THEY WOULD ALLOW UP TO THREE HOMES ON PROPERTY ZONED SF ONE, SSF TWO, OR SSF THREE.

THEY WOULD SIMPLIFY THE CURRENT REGULATIONS FOR BUILDING TWO HOMES.

THEY WOULD REMOVE USES THAT ARE IN THE CODE TODAY.

THAT WOULDN'T BE NECESSARY WITH THE OTHER CHANGES, THE ACCESSORY APARTMENT, THE GUEST HOUSE, AND THE ONSITE WORKER PROVISIONS, THEY WOULD LIMIT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE MCMANSION STANDARDS TO LOTS WITH ONE HOME AND THEY WOULD ALLOW TINY HOMES THAT MEET CERTAIN STANDARDS TO BE CONSIDERED A PERMANENT DWELLING UNIT.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE EXAMPLES OF THE HOUSING TYPES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED ON LOTS THAT ARE AT LEAST 5,750 SQUARE FEET IN THE SSF ONE, SF TWO, AND SSF THREE ZONES UNDER THE PROPOSAL.

THE SIZE OF THE HOMES THAT COULD BE BUILT DEPENDS ON THE LOT SIZE AND THE UNDERLYING REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT.

SO ONE OF THE FIRST CHANGES IN THE PROPOSAL IS THE CREATION OF A NEW THREE UNIT USE.

THIS IS WHAT WOULD ALLOW THREE HOMES TO BE BUILT ON SSF ONE, SSF TWO, AND SF THREE ZONED PROPERTIES.

THE THREE HOMES COULD BE ATTACHED DETACHED OR A MIX.

THEY WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE MCMANSION STANDARDS IF THEY WERE INSIDE THE AREA.

THEY WOULD HAVE A BUILDING COVERAGE LIMIT OF 40% IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT OF 45% HEIGHT LIMIT OF 35 FEET, AND A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 5,750 SQUARE FEET.

THEY WOULD ALSO BE EXEMPT FROM MCMANSION OUTSIDE OF THE MCMANSION AREA.

JUST FOR CLARITY.

HERE ARE EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL THREE UNIT USES.

THERE ARE THREE DETACHED UNITS ON A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT ON THE LEFT.

THERE ARE THREE DETACHED UNITS ON AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT IN THE CENTER, AND THERE ARE THREE ATTACHED UNITS ON A 5,750 SQUARE FOOT LOT ON THE RIGHT.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD ALSO CHANGE THE EXISTING STANDARDS FOR TWO UNIT USES.

THIS IS A USE ALLOWED IN THE CODE TODAY.

IT'S ALLOWED IN THE SSF THREE ZONES, UH, AND TODAY, AS IN THE PROPOSAL, A TWO UNIT USE IS INTENDED FOR DETACHED UNITS.

AND SO THE PROPOSAL WOULD ALLOW TWO DETACHED HOMES ON SSF ONE, SSF TWO, AND SF THREE ZONED PROPERTIES.

UNDER THE PROPOSAL, ONE OF THE TWO HOMES WOULD BE LIMITED TO 1100 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE.

THEY WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM MCMANSION.

THEIR BUILDING COVER WOULD BE 40% IMPERVIOUS COVER OF 45 IN THE HEIGHT LIMIT OF 35.

WITH THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 5,750 SQUARE FEET.

SOME OF THE EXISTING RESTRICTIONS ON TWO UNIT USE WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE CODE TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY.

FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WOULD BE NO LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF STORIES.

THERE'D SIMPLY BE THE 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT.

THERE'D BE NO RESTRICTIONS ON THE AMOUNT OF DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS IN THE ZONING CODE ITSELF.

THE FIRE CODE SEPARATION RULES WOULD STILL APPLY AND THERE'D BE NO RESTRICTIONS ON THE SIZE OF THE SECOND STORY.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ALSO CHANGED THE EXISTING DUPLEX USE TODAY, AND UNDER THE PROPOSAL, DUPLEX MEANS TWO ATTACHED HOMES AND DUPLEXES WOULD BE ALLOWED ON SF ONE, SSF TWO AND SF THREE, THEY WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM MCMANSION BUILDING COVERAGE OF 40% AND PREVIOUS COVER OF 45 HEIGHT LIMIT OF 35 FEET MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 5,750 SQUARE FEET.

THIS IS A CHANGE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE THAT APPLIES TO DUPLEXES TODAY, WHICH IS 7,000 SQUARE FEET.

OTHER RESTRICTIONS WOULD ALSO BE REMOVED.

THERE'D BE NO SPECIFIC LIMIT ON THE GROSS FLOOR AREA.

THERE'D BE NO LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF STORIES, JUST THE HEIGHT LIMIT,

[00:25:01]

THE PROPOSAL WOULD ALSO ALLOW TINY HOMES TO BE USED AND TO COUNT AS HOUSING UNITS, TINY HOMES OR STRUCTURES THAT ARE SMALLER THAN 400 SQUARE FEET AND MEET VERY SPECIFIC STANDARDS IN THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE.

SO A TINY HOME THAT MEETS THESE STANDARDS COULD BE USED AS A PERMANENT DWELLING UNIT IN ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES.

UNDER THE PROPOSAL, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, SOME OF THE EXISTING ACCESSORY USES WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE CODE UNDER THE PROPOSAL BECAUSE THEY'RE NO LONGER NECESSARY.

THE ACCESSORY APARTMENT, THE GUEST HOUSE, AND THE HOUSE FOR ONSITE WORKER USES COULD BE ACCOMMODATED BY THE ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY FOR THE TWO UNIT DUPLEX AND THREE UNIT USES UNDER THE PROPOSAL.

ONE OF THE MAIN TAKEAWAYS ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL IS THAT IT CHANGES THE PROCESS TO ALLOW THREE UNITS IN THESE ZONES TODAY.

THREE UNITS ARE GENERALLY NOT ALLOWED ON AN SSF ONE, SF TWO, OR SSF THREE ZONED PROPERTY.

TO GET TO THREE UNITS.

THE PROPERTY WOULD LIKELY NEED TO BE REZONED.

SITE CONSTRAINTS OR OTHER LIMITATIONS WOULD POTENTIALLY RESTRICT THE PROPERTY EVEN IF REZONED.

BUT REZONING WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GET TO THREE UNITS.

THE PROPOSED CHANGES APPLY TO THE BASE ZONE.

THEY WOULD ALLOW UP TO THREE UNITS TO BE BUILT IN THOSE ZONES WITH NO PROPERTY SPECIFIC ZONING CHANGE.

OF COURSE, THOSE SITE CONSTRAINTS AND OTHER LIMITATIONS LIKE TREE PROTECTIONS, UH, OR OTHER THINGS LIKE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS MAY RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE ACTUALLY ABLE TO BE BUILT ON THOSE PROPERTIES.

SO THREE UNITS WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE ZONES, BUT THEY WOULD NOT BE GUARANTEED BECAUSE A PROPERTY WOULD NEED TO MEET OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND NOT HAVE OTHER RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE.

THOSE ARE THE CHANGES TO THE RESIDENTIAL USES AND STANDARDS THAT ARE THE BULK OF THIS PROPOSAL.

BUT AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE PROPOSAL ALSO RESPONDS TO COUNCIL DIRECTION TO CHANGE THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS, THE PROPOSAL WOULD REMOVE THE EXISTING LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED ADULTS WHO ARE ALLOWED TO LIVE TOGETHER TODAY.

THAT LIMIT IS FOUR UNRELATED ADULTS WHO CAN LIVE TOGETHER WITHIN THE MCMANSION AREA, AND SIX, UH, WHO COULD DO SO OUTSIDE OF THE MCMANSION AREA.

THESE SPECIFIC LIMITS IN THE ZONING CODE ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED, AND INSTEAD OCCUPANCY WOULD BE ENFORCED THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, WHICH SETS A MINIMUM BEDROOM SIZE TIED TO THE NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS IN THAT BEDROOM.

THIS IS A LIST OF THINGS THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL THAT WE'RE REVIEWING TODAY.

AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE CODE AMENDMENTS CALLED FOR IN THE HOME INITIATIVE ARE BEING SPLIT INTO PHASES, AND SO SOME OF THE DIRECTION IN THE RESOLUTION WILL COME BACK AT A LATER TIME.

THIS INCLUDES DIRECTION TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR SINGLE FAMILY ZONED LOTS TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL TYPES OF HOUSING IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, TO FURTHER ADJUST REGULATIONS, TO CREATE INCENTIVES FOR SMALLER HOMES ON SINGLE FAMILY, LOTS TO CREATE INNOVATIVE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY SOLUTIONS.

THE RESOLUTIONS ALSO ASK STAFF TO EVALUATE CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ON SINGLE FAMILIES OWNED PROPERTIES.

STAFF HAS BEGUN LOOKING INTO THAT AND THERE ARE MANY CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT GIVEN HOW THESE VEHICLES ARE CONSTRUCTED AND REGULATED.

AND SO STAFF IS IN COMMUNICATION WITH COUNCIL AND WHETHER THAT ELEMENT OF THE PROPOSAL NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD AT ALL IN PHASE TWO.

SO THIS BRINGS US BACK TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

THERE WILL BE THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THESE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS.

THE FIRST IS TODAY'S JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL.

AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED, THIS IS A NEW OPPORTUNITY TO OUR KNOWLEDGE.

WE'VE NEVER HELD A JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL FOR CODE AMENDMENTS, BUT TODAY IS FOCUSED ON HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC.

NEITHER BODY WILL BE TAKING ACTION TODAY.

NEXT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14TH AT 6:00 PM RIGHT HERE IN CITY HALL.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD, AT THAT TIME VOTE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON THIS PROPOSAL.

THEY WOULD BE POSTED FOR ACTION AS WE SAY.

FINALLY, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL HOLD A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING IN A THIRD PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS PROPOSAL ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7TH AT 10:00 AM AGAIN, RIGHT HERE,

[00:30:01]

THERE ARE MANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PUBLIC TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE ELEMENTS OF THIS PROPOSAL.

AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, WE ARE HOLDING AN OPEN HOUSE ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6TH FROM SIX TO 8:00 PM AT THE CENTRAL LIBRARY.

THERE'S ALSO A WEBSITE WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSAL, PUBLIC INPUT.COM/LDC UPDATES.

YOU CAN SUBMIT A QUESTION OR A COMMENT VIA THAT WEBSITE, OR YOU CAN EMAIL OR CALL STAFF AT THE EMAIL AND PHONE NUMBER AVAILABLE ON THE SCREEN.

WE ARE RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL, PHONE, AND THROUGH THE WEBSITE, ALTHOUGH IT MAY TAKE US SEVERAL DAYS DURING THE BUSIEST TIMES, SO PLEASE HAVE PATIENTS WITH US.

ANY COMMENTS SUBMITTED THROUGH THOSE METHODS WILL BE COLLECTED AND PROVIDED TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION.

THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION ON THE PROPOSAL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

UM, I'LL ASK IF THERE'S ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR COUNCIL THAT HAS SOME FORM OF A BRIEF CLARIFYING QUESTION OR SHOULD WE JUST GO STRAIGHT TO HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC COUNCIL MEMBER ALLISON ALTER.

THANK YOU, UH, APPRECIATE FIRST OF ALL EVERYONE COMING OUT TODAY.

CAN YOU HEAR ME AS WELL? YES.

UM, I APPRECIATE EVERYONE COMING OUT AND I WANNA THANK STAFF FOR PROVIDING US WITH THE MODELS AND THE DETAILS OF THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT.

UM, AND IF ANYONE IN IN THE CHAMBERS HASN'T SEEN, IF YOU GO TO THE COUNCIL, UM, AGENDA FOR TODAY, YOU CAN CLICK AND SEE THOSE DOCUMENTS.

UM, I THINK I MADE IT PRETTY CLEAR THAT I THINK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE FOR THIS, UH, INITIATIVE LEFT A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY FOR UNATTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND WOULD BENEFIT FROM SOME ATTENTIVENESS FROM OUR STAFF AND HOW WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT THESE THINGS.

UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT STAFF HAVE LANDED ON A, A KEY CONCERN I HAVE, WHICH IS THE IMPACT OF ELIMINATING MCMANSION STANDARDS AND FAR LIMITS, AND HOW THAT WILL NOT HELP US ACHIEVE OUR STATED GOALS OF WANTING SMALLER HOUSING UNITS.

SO I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS RELATED TO DUPLEXES, UM, IN THESE MODELS, UM, THAT I WANNA ASK.

SO FIRST I WANT TO ASK SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ABOUT PAGE 14.

UM, THE MODELING THAT WAS DONE FOR THE DUPLEX USE.

SO I WANT TO KNOW IF THIS MODEL IS MEANT TO REPRESENT A MAXIMUM BUILD OUT OF THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT WE ARE GRANTING OR WHETHER YOU'VE LEFT DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS ON THE TABLE.

GOOD AFTERNOON, ERICA.

LIK WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UM, THE MODELS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE PRESENTATION ARE NOT NECESSARILY MAXIMUMS. THEY ARE POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES.

UM, SO I, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK CAREFULLY TO SEE IF, IF THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS A MAX, BUT IN GENERAL, THESE ARE JUST EXAMPLES INCLUDED IN THE PRESENTATION, NOT NECESSARILY SHOWING THE MAXIMUM.

THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION.

AND JUST WANNA FLAG WHAT, WHAT I SEE IN THIS MODEL AT THIS POINT WITH WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE PROPOSALS.

SO WHEN I READ THE MODEL, IT SAYS EACH UNIT OF THE DUPLEX WOULD BE ABOUT 1400 SQUARE FEET.

UM, BUT THIS BUILDING, AS YOU NOTED, DOESN'T SEEM TO MAX OUT ON THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, NOR DOES IT BUILD OUT TO ITS MAXIMUM HEIGHT.

SO BY MY MATH, A LOT LIKE THIS OF 57 50 COULD HAVE A FOOTPRINT BETWEEN TWENTY THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET, WHICH WHEN DIVIDED BETWEEN THE TWO UNITS LEADS A FOOTPRINT OF 1200 SQUARE FOOT FEET ON EACH FLOOR.

UM, WITH A HEIGHT LIMIT OF 35 FEET, THEY COULD HAVE A THREE STORY UNIT WITH A ROOFTOP DECK AND ABOUT 3000 FOR EACH UNIT OR A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING.

UM, SO THAT'S A SCENARIO THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD, I'D LIKE YOU TO EXPLORE.

YOU'VE INDICATED THIS DOESN'T REPRESENT THE MAX, AND I WILL JUST SAY THAT THIS IS SOME OF THE, THE, THE MORE USEFUL MODELING THAT WE'VE SEEN THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT.

UM, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MODEL THAT MAXES IT OUT FOR DUPLEX.

UM, MY SECOND QUESTION RELATES TO SOME STATEMENTS THAT WERE IN THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT.

UM, AND AGAIN, I WANNA THANK STAFF AND THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT FOR RAISING THAT HAVING A FAR LIMIT DOES INDEED PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN HELPING US TO ACHIEVE OUR STATED GOALS OF HAVING SMALLER HOUSING UNITS.

UM, MY QUESTION RELATES TO THE BOTTOM OF PAGE THREE AND THE TOP OF PAGE FOUR, WHERE YOU WRITE THAT WITHOUT UNIT SIZE RESTRICTIONS, EITHER BY SUB-CHAPTER, FIE, THE MCMANSION STANDARDS OR ANOTHER FLOOR AREA RATIO LIMITATION, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS MAY RESULT IN UNITS WITH SIMILAR SIZE AND PRICE TO CURRENT SINGLE FAMILY UNITS, WHICH WOULD NOT ACHIEVE THE RESOLUTION'S GOAL OF FACILITATING

[00:35:01]

I APPRECIATE THAT STAFF ARE NAMING THIS AND I APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUES RECOGNITION ON THE MESSAGE BOARD THAT WE NEED TO INCLUDE FAR LIMITS IN THIS PROPOSAL.

MY QUESTION, UM, IS THAT THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT SPECIFIES THAT THE THREE UNIT TYPOLOGY WOULD ALLOW UNITS TO TRIPLE IN SIZE, AND THEN IT STATES THAT THE TWO UNIT OPTION, UM, IS LIMITED BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LIMIT FOR ONE OF THE UNITS TO BE 1100 SQUARE FEET.

AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS WHAT HAPPENS TO DUPLEXES BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CODE THAT LIMITS ONE OF THOSE UNITS TO 1100 SQUARE FEET.

UM, AND THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT ISSUE WITH DUPLEXES.

SO YOU CAN HAVE THESE VERY, VERY LARGE DUPLEXES THAT I JUST MENTIONED COULD HAPPEN IN THE PRIOR QUESTION.

SO, UM, CAN YOU, CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WITH DUPLEXES AND WHETHER DUPLEXES HAVE THE SAME LIMIT ON SIZE? SO MAN, DEMAYO FROM THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT IS ONLINE AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER COUNCIL MEMBER ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE WANTED THE Q THE Q AND A PROCESS TO BE USED.

UH, 'CAUSE THESE ARE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AND THEY REQUIRE THOUGHTFUL ANSWERS.

AND TO TRY TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, UH, UH, WITH THESE, UH, ASSUMPTIONS THAT YOU'VE JUST ARTICULATED MAY GIVE YOU WRONG INFORMATION VERBALLY TODAY ONLY TO BE CORRECTED LATER.

I WOULD HATE FOR THE STAFF TO, UH, TO, TO STEP, TO STEP OUT AND NOT FIRST COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION SO THAT THEY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT WHAT IS BEING ASKED.

AND SO THAT WHEN WE PROVIDE THE INFORMATION, IT'S DONE IN ITS MOST COMPLETE FASHION.

THAT'S WHY WE WANTED TO USE THE Q AND A PROCESS SO THAT WE COULD HAVE THE SEVERAL FILTERS TO LOOK THROUGH THAT.

AND I WOULD APPRECIATE THE INDULGENCE, NOT JUST OF YOU AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, BUT OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALLOW US THAT TIME.

'CAUSE WHAT WE WOULD HATE TO DO IS TO BE VERBALLY GIVING YOU AN ANSWER ONLY TO BE LATER CORRECTING IT ON THE, ON THE WRITTEN RECORD.

SO I, I WOULD MAKE THAT REQUEST.

UM, THAT'S FINE IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO ANSWER IT, BUT I WILL POINT OUT, UM, FOR THOSE IN THE CHAMBERS AND MY COLLEAGUES AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ANSWER THIS IN THE Q AND A, BUT AS I READ THE ORDINANCE, THERE IS NO LIMIT ON SIZE FOR THE DUPLEXES THAT MATCHES THE TWO UNITS SO THAT THE CONCLUSIONS THAT ARE THERE FOR WHAT HAPPENS ON THE SIZE FOR TWO UNIT DO NOT APPLY IN THE DUPLEX CASE.

AND AGAIN, IF OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE SMALLER HOUSING UNITS THAT ARE MORE AFFORDABLE, THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS AND WE NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO THAT.

AND I THINK PART OF THE REASON WE HAVE THESE HEARINGS IS SO PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY CAN RAISE THESE ISSUES AND HELP US UNDERSTAND THEM WITH THE MODELING AND MY RAISING.

THIS IS NOT TO MEAN TO SAY THAT THAT STAFF HAS DONE ANYTHING WRONG, BUT IT IS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE AS A, AS A BODY NEED TO ADDRESS IF WE ARE GONNA GET THIS RIGHT AND ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH OUR STATED GOALS.

UM, AND I DO THINK IT IS IMPORTANT AS WE'RE, AS WE'RE, AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE MODELS AND HAVING THE CONVERSATIONS TODAY THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS NOT MAXED OUT.

UM, AND SO I THINK THOSE ARE VERY IMPORTANT CLARIFYING QUESTIONS AND, UM, YOU CAN PROVIDE ME MORE SPECIFIC ANSWERS, UM, IN THE HEARING.

HAPPY TO DO THAT.

WE, WE, WE'VE ASKED THE, UH, STAFF, PLEASE DO THAT.

I, I, UH, JUST FOR CLARITY PURPOSES, WE HAVE THREE PEOPLE THAT HAVE JOINED US VIRTUALLY.

UH, I'M ASSUMING MD IS, UH, MS. DE MAYO CAN, UH, CAN THE PERSON THAT'S, SINCE I CAN'T SEE YOUR FACES, MAYBE I'D RECOGNIZE YOU, MAYBE I WOULDN'T.

BUT WHO, WHO IS CH AND WHO IS RC? THIS IS RACHEL TEPPER, UH, WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

JUST HERE TO SUPPORT ON THE QUESTIONS AROUND AFFORDABILITY IMPACT.

APPRECIATE THAT.

WHO IS CH OH, ONE OF OUR COMMISSIONERS.

THANK YOU.

THERE WE GO.

I'M FREE NOW.

CANDACE, HUNTER AUSTIN, ISD IN THE SEAT.

GREAT, GREAT.

OKAY.

JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE 'CAUSE IT'S, IT'S HARD TO KNOW.

UM, YES, YOUR HONOR.

THANK YOU.

NO PROBLEM.

AND I THINK THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER BEEN CALLED, YOUR HONOR.

THAT'S IT, , THAT, THAT FELT PRETTY GOOD.

WE'LL SEE IF YOU'RE DOING THAT BY THE END OF THE DAY.

UH, ALL WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, LET'S GO TO, UH, THOSE WHO WISH TO SPEAK TO US.

UM, OH, I'M SORRY.

YES, COMMISSIONER WEIGH ON.

THANK YOU, SIR.

UM, I, I DID HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

I UNDERSTAND THE FORMAT.

I JUST WANNA READ THEM IN AND THOSE ANSWERS CAN COME BACK THROUGH THE PROPER Q AND A PROCESS, BUT I AT LEAST WANTED TO GET THEM ON FOR CONSIDERATION.

PLEASE DO.

THANK YOU.

UM, I WOULD LIKE FOR STAFF MAYBE TO PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION EITHER AT THE PUBLIC INFORMATION

[00:40:01]

THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP ON WHETHER OR NOT THESE WOULD FALL UNDER CONDO REQUIREMENTS OR REGULATIONS.

WHO'S GONNA OWE THE OWN THE LAND, WHERE DO THE TAXES GO AND WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS? I AM PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT MAYBE SOME OF OUR POPULATIONS THAT ARE ALREADY BEING SOLICITED TO GIVE UP PORTIONS OF THEIR PROPERTY FOR AN INITIATIVE THAT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN PASSED BY THIS COUNCIL, AND THAT THAT MAY BE OPPORTUNISTIC.

AND SO I, I KIND OF WANT THE PUBLIC TO PROCEED WITH CAUTION AND TO HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE.

SORRY, THIS IS A LOT OF PEOPLE.

UM, WE RECEIVED A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION TODAY, SO THAT SHORTENED MY LIST OF QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

UM, I THINK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT'S COMING UP THAT PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND BETTER PERHAPS THROUGH AUSTIN WATER, IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH WATER, SEWAGE AND UTILITY LINES.

WILL SEPARATE PERMITS BE REQUIRED FOR EACH OF THESE DWELLINGS? WILL SEPARATE PERMIT COSTS, I THINK THEY'RE AT 10 OR 15 OR $16,000 BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THESE LINES? OR WILL THEY BE SUBSERVIENT TO THE MAIN DWELLING LINE? AND THEN TO THAT EFFECT, I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE INTEGRITY OF OUR EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS.

SO IF WE TAKE ONE LINE AND SPLIT IT OUT TO THREE TO ACCOMMODATE THREE NEW FAMILY UNITS, CAN THOSE EXISTING LINES DO THAT? OR IF WE SAY NO, EACH ONE NEEDS ITS OWN TAP, CAN OUR MAIN SYSTEMS HANDLE THAT AS WE GROW THAT? UM, MY OTHER QUESTION IS REGARDING TRAFFIC.

UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANY OF THIS REQUIRES ANY KIND OF NTA OR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AS WE CREATE MORE, UM, UNITS.

AND SO I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW WE'RE LOOKING AT WHETHER OUR ROADS CAN ACCOMMODATE INGRESS AND EGRESS AND AT WHAT POINT IF EACH PROPERTY HAS THE INHERENT RIGHT TO DO THIS, AT WHAT POINT DOES IT TRIGGER THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A SECONDARY INGRESS AND EGRESS, AND HOW WILL THAT WORK? I'M, I'M KIND OF CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY AND FIRST RESPONDERS GETTING IN AND THEN GETTING OUT.

SO TO THAT EFFECT, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT FIREWISE.

UM, WE KNOW THAT OUR CITY IS WOEFULLY UNPREPARED FOR A CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE.

WE HAVE SEVERAL VERY AT RISK AREAS OF OUR CITY.

AND IN PREVIOUS ZONING HEARINGS, AFD HAS ALREADY TESTIFIED THAT OUR FIRE HYDRANTS IN SOME AREAS ARE TESTED AND VETTED AND COULDN'T PUT OUT A FIRE IN A SINGLE DWELLING STRUCTURE, BUT NOT FOR LARGER STRUCTURES.

UM, THIS IS GETTING SO BAD THAT ACTUALLY SOME OF US MIGHT BE SPEAKING PERSONALLY, CANNOT GET UNDERWRITING FOR HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE BECAUSE OF THE FIRE RISKS.

NO, HOME INSURANCE MEANS YOU CAN'T CARRY A MORTGAGE.

SO I'D LIKE FOR A STAFF AND AFD TO DISCUSS OUR CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PUTTING OUT FIRES AND TO KNOW WHETHER OUR INFRASTRUCTURE CAN HANDLE WHAT WE HAVE EXISTING AND HOW THAT, AND THEN CAN IT HANDLE THESE ADDITIONAL UNITS AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

UH, EXCUSE ME, COMMISSIONER MUTAL, I'M, I'M JUST AFRAID THAT IF WE ALL TAKE THIS MUCH TIME, WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE THE VERY VALUABLE TIME FOR THE LARGE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS HERE.

CAN I PLEASE ASK YOU TO EMAIL THESE TO STAFF? THESE ARE VERY COMPLICATED QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE WORDED VERY CAREFULLY.

YES.

I HAVE ONE LAST AND I'LL, AND I'LL YIELD BACK.

I, I JUST REALLY WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE.

SURE.

THAT'S THE GOAL.

I'LL POST MY LAST ONE.

I'LL YIELD BACK.

THANK YOU.

YES, SIR.

UM, I WOULD LIKE FOR WATERSHED TO DESCRIBE OUR DRAINAGE SYSTEMS AND HOW THEY WILL BE PREPARED TO CAPTURE THE ADDITIONAL RUNOFF WHEN WE SEE THESE IMPERVIOUS COVER CHANGES, UH, GO THROUGHOUT OUR CITY.

THANK YOU.

SORRY.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FOLKS.

WE HAVE ANOTHER COMMISSIONER WHO WOULD LIKE TO YES.

TO BE RECOGNIZED.

COMMISSIONER COX.

YEAH, I JUST, I JUST HAVE ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR STAFF RELATED TO THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT.

UM, I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS AND I HOPE THE PUBLIC HAS A CHANCE TO READ IT.

YOU KNOW, IT BEGINS BY SAYING THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGES MAY HAVE SOME POSITIVE IMPACTS TO HOUSING COSTS, BUT THEN IT GOES INTO QUITE A LOT OF DETAIL AS TO WHY POTENTIALLY IT WON'T HAVE A LOT OF POSITIVE IMPACTS TO HOUSING COSTS.

AND THE THING THAT KINDA BLEW MY MIND WAS JUST THIS ONE SENTENCE THAT SAID, COMPARING THESE RESULTS WITH THE AVERAGE SIZE

[00:45:01]

AND, AND THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT DOES QUITE A GOOD, UH, ANALYSIS OF HOW REMOVING THE MCMANSION SUBCHAPTER F REQUIREMENTS KIND OF BLOWS OUT THE IDEA OF GETTING MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS FROM THIS PROPOSAL.

SO MY QUESTION TO STAFF IS, IS IT SAFE TO INTERPRET THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE MAINTAIN THE SUBCHAPTER F MCMANSION ORDINANCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOME PROPOSAL? OR AM I READING THIS WRONG, VERONICA? YEAH.

UH, COMMISSIONERS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, ER I CAN SPEAK TO THIS.

WE HAVE HOUSING STAFF ONLINE THAT CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

YES, PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF.

SURE.

THIS IS RACHEL TEPPER WITH THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT AND, UM, I'M JUST GOING TO QUICKLY RESPOND TO THAT, BUT WE CAN, WE CAN ELABORATE FURTHER IN THE Q AND A.

PLEASE DO THAT.

UM, BUT HOUSING STAFF IS, IS VERY MUCH SUPPORTIVE OF THESE AMENDMENTS, UH, WITH THE, WITH THE RECOGNITION THAT THEY DON'T COULD GO MUCH FURTHER, UM, IN, IN REACHING MIDDLE INCOME BUYERS, UH, BY, UM, CONSIDERING SOME KIND OF SIZE RESTRAIN, UH, YOU KNOW, SOME KIND OF, UM, SIZE LIMITATION, BUT WE DIDN'T, THE AIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE, UH, FOR RECOMMENDATIONS.

IT'S INTENDED TO BE AN ANALYSIS TOOL TO UNDERSTAND AFFORDABILITY IMPACTS.

SO, UH, WE'LL LEAVE IT TO THE POLICY MAKERS, UH, AS WELL AS PLANNING STAFF TO KIND OF WORK, WORK THROUGH WHAT THE BEST LIMITER MIGHT BE.

UH, HOWEVER, WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT, UH, A LIMITER IS NEEDED TO REACH, UH, MIDDLE INCOME, UH, HOMEOWNERS.

THANK YOU FOR THAT ANSWER.

MEMBERS.

UM, WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE'RE GONNA GO TO HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC.

UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE, UH, PERSON THAT IS SEEKING TRANSLATION.

SO WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN THE DAY WITH THAT PERSON, AND THEN WE WILL GO TO THOSE WHO ARE CALLING IN AND OFFERING THEIR POINT OF VIEW, UH, OVER THE TELEPHONE.

AND THEN WE WILL GO TO IN-PERSON, SPEAKERS SPEAKING WITH A SPANISH TRANSLATOR IS ANDREA PENA.

ANDREA PENA, IF YOU'LL PLEASE COME FORWARD.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE HERE PRESENT TODAY.

I'VE COME TO SPEAK TODAY REGARDING A PROPOSAL.

UM, THERE'S A PHOTOGRAPH THAT'S BEEN, UM, IT'S ON THE SCREEN.

IT'S, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENT C 14 2 0 2 3 0 1 0 0.

CAN YOU PLEASE RUN THE SHORT VIDEOS NOW BATTING FOR THE IRON CASE NUMBER ONE, COLE PULL.

DON'T THEY LOOK GREAT? IT, I HAVE A SECOND VIDEO.

YOU CAN SEE IN THIS VIDEO.

IT'S A RECREATIONAL AREA.

THERE ARE, UH, FAMILIES, ENTIRE FAMILIES HERE COMING TO, UM, PLAY SPORTS, FOOTBALL, UH, SOCCER, FOOTBALL, AMERICANO

[00:50:01]

CHILDREN AS YOUNG AS FOUR YEARS OLD, COME AND PLAY SOCCER HERE.

THEY PLAY FOOTBALL, UH, BASKETBALL.

THEY PLAY LACROSSES, INCLUDING MY NEIGHBORS, MYSELF INCLUDED.

USE THIS PARK ALSO TO EXERCISE.

WE WALK AROUND THE PARK AND GET OUR EXERCISES AND, UM, I AM OPPOSED TO ANY CONSTRUCTION, UM, HAPPENING ON THIS PROPERTY.

THIS WOULD HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE FAMILIES, UM, IN AUSTIN.

A NEGATIVE IMPACT FOR FOLKS JUST WANTING TO, UM, USE THIS SPACE RECREATIONALLY.

, MY SON MARCO WILL, UH, GIVE HIS OPINION NOW.

GOOD MORNING.

SINCE I, SINCE, SINCE I CAN REMEMBER I HAVE LOVED GOING TO THAT PARK.

AND NOT ONLY ME, BUT MANY OTHER PEOPLE, KIDS AND ADULTS GO THERE TO PLAY AND HAVE FUN.

OTHER THAN THAT, THERE ARE DOZENS OF ANIMALS LIVING THERE LIKE DEER, TURTLES, FISH, MANY KINDS OF BIRDS, SKUNKS, RACCOONS, POSSUMS, COYOTES, AND MANY MORE.

AND IF YOU BUILD THERE, YOU WILL BE DESTROYING THEIR HOME AND THE, AND THE WILDLIFE.

THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY.

THANK YOU, CIA.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

UH, I PLEASE, I REQUEST THAT YOU DO SOMETHING, UH, TO AVOID, UM, BUILDING ON THIS, UH, RECREATIONAL, UH, SPACE.

THANK YOU.

WILL YOU PLEASE COMMUNICATE THAT AS YOU LEAVE THAT? UM, THIS IS A ZONING CASE THAT IS NOT ON TODAY'S AGENDA.

IT WILL COME AT A FUTURE DATE AND THAT, UM, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY WILL, UH, HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT WILL THROUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT WILL VISIT WITH WITH HER.

YES SIR.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

WE WILL NOW SHIFT TO REMOTE, STARTING WITH LARRY AKERS.

LARRY AKERS, PLEASE UNMUTE MR. AKERS.