[00:00:01]
WE'RE GOING TO GET THIS THING STARTED.
IT IS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14TH, 2023.
I'M GONNA BRING THIS MEETING IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER AT, UH, SIX 11, RUN A LITTLE BIT LATE.
UM, IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE PLENTY OF FOLKS HERE.
UM, AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO A, UH, A ROLL CALL TO KICK THINGS OFF AND I'LL START, UM, OVER ON MY LEFT AND MOVE TO THE RIGHT.
AND THEN WE HAVE A FEW PEOPLE ONLINE JOINING US TOO.
AND I THINK WE'VE GOT EVERYBODY THIS EVENING.
UM, SO STARTING OVER HERE ON THE LEFT, WE'VE GOT COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
AND THEN I SEE COMMISSIONER HAYNES HERE, AND COMMISSIONER WOODS HERE.
UH, AND THEN MOVING DOWN THE ROAD, WE GOT COMMISSIONER, UH, AZAR HERE, AND THEN, UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY HERE.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON HERE, COMMISSIONER COX HERE.
AND, UH, VIRTUALLY WE HAVE COMMISSIONER RAM MUTAL HERE, AND WE'VE GOT COMMISSIONER HOWARD.
AND SO THE ONLY ONE WE DON'T HAVE, UM, THIS EVENING WHO I THINK WILL SHOW UP A LITTLE LATER IS COMMISSIONER, UH, VEDO RAMIREZ, BUT I THINK SHE SAID, UH, PROBABLY AN HOUR OUT.
UM, SO I'M LOOKING AROUND EXOFFICIO MEMBERS.
COMMISSIONER COHEN IS JUST ALL RIGHT.
UH, COMMISSIONER COHEN IS JUST WALKING UP.
AND THEN WITH THAT, UM, WE'LL KIND OF MOVING THROUGH THE AGENDA, UM, OH, FOR THOSE ONLINE, WE WILL HAVE A LOT OF VOTING ACTIVITY LATER IF WE GET AROUND TO, UH, OUR AMENDMENT ON THE HOME INITIATIVE.
BUT, UH, HAVE YOUR GREEN, UH, YELLOW AND RED CARDS READY FOR ME.
WE'VE, UM, WE'VE GOT FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE OF COURSE, AND WE HAVE FOLKS, UH, PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY.
UM, SO THAT'S THE HYBRID ELEMENT TODAY.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
WE HAVE NONE, UH, ON THE MINUTES.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
WE'VE GOT TWO SETS OF MINUTES.UM, WE'RE GONNA ROLL THOSE INTO THE CONSENT AGENDA IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS, UH, CHAIR COMMISSIONER LEES ON ANDREW, IF WE COULD POSTPONE THOSE TO YOUR NOVEMBER 28TH MEETING.
WE'RE POSTPONING APPROVAL OF MINUTES TO THE SECOND MEETING IN NOVEMBER.
[Consent Agenda]
HELP, UH, WELL FOR A LARGE PART OF THE EVENING FROM MY PARLIAMENTARIAN AND THE VICE CHAIR, HEMPEL VICE CHAIR HEMPEL IS GONNA START OFF BY READING THE CONSENT AGENDA THIS EVENING, AND WE'LL DECIDE ON WHICH ITEMS TO GET, UH, APPROVED ON CONSENT.ITEM NUMBER TWO, CODE AMENDMENTS C 20 DASH 2023 DASH 24 CHANGES TO RESIDENTIAL USES AND STANDARDS.
UH, HOME AMENDMENTS IS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM THREE, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA A DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 2 2000 EAST SIXTH STREET AND 2007 EAST SEVENTH STREET PULLED FOR OUR ON APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 1 3 0 1 200 WEST MARY STREET.
THAT IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 12TH.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE, REZONING C 14 DASH 20 20 20 23 DASH 0 21 200 WEST MARY STREET.
THAT IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 12TH.
ITEM SIX, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 2 5 0 1 57 25 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90 EASTBOUND.
THAT IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 9TH.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 1 5 0 1 TRAER LANE, MPA THAT IS UP FOR APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 2 2 1 0 6 AND ONE 18 REDBIRD LANE.
THAT IS UP FOR PLANNING COMMISSION POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 28TH.
ITEM NINE, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 3 4 54 0 2 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE.
THAT IS UP FOR PLANNING COMMISSION POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 28TH.
ITEM 10, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 4 0 1 0 3 1 7 TO 1 0 4 2 3 MACAL PLACE IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 28TH.
ITEM 11, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 0 1 4 10 PRESLER IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 12TH.
[00:05:01]
AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 1 15 0 1 FM 9 69.THAT IS UP FOR PLANNING COMMISSION POSTPONEMENT NOVEMBER 28TH.
NUMBER 13, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 8 7 FM 9 69 IS UP FOR PLANNING COMMISSION POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 28TH.
NUMBER 14, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 2 0 3 300 TO 400 INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD, MPA UP FOR PLANNING COMMISSION POSTPONED TO NOVEMBER 28TH.
NUMBER 15, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 4 4 300 TO FOUR 40 INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD IS UP FOR PLANNING COMMISSION POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 28TH.
NUMBER 16, REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 0 4 NORTH BURNETT GATEWAY, CMU MIDWAY REZONING IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
NUMBER 17 REZONING C 14 DASH 0 2 1 9 5 RCT WATERLINE IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
NUMBER 18 REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 4 6 600 INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT NUMBER 19 REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 5 6 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90 IS OFFERED FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 12TH, NUMBER 20, SITE PLAN SPC DASH 20 22 4 8 4 A 1505, AND 1209 MULTIFAMILY OFFERED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 12TH.
NUMBER 21 SITE PLAN, SP 2023 DASH 0 2 4 D LONGHORN DAM, MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT NUMBER 22 SITE PLAN SPC DASH 2023 DASH 0 2 4 7 C.
LITTLE WALNUT CREEK GREENBELT PARK IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT 23 SITE PLAN SP DASH 2022 DASH 1 3 8 7 C.
THE EDDIE IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT AND NUMBER 24 CODE AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2023 DASH 0 27 PARKLAND, DEDICATION, REPEAT AND REPLACE, SORRY, REPEAL AND REPLACE IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT AND THAT CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, UM, I THINK WE HAD A FEW FOLKS THAT WANT US TO SPEAK ON SOME OF THESE ITEMS NOW.
I THOUGHT WE WERE ENTERTAINING PEOPLE TALKING ON THE
SO COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LADIES ON ANDREW THERE IF WE COULD JUST, UH, MAKE NOTE, UM, THAT ON ITEMS 1415 AND 18, THOSE ARE PLANNING COMMISSION POSTPONEMENTS TO NOVEMBER 28TH.
1415 AND ITEM 18 ARE NOT CONSENT, THEY ARE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION, POSTPONEMENT, POSTPONEMENT TO THE 28TH, CORRECT.
UH, SO ANY QUESTIONS ON THE COMMISSIONER? MAX HAD HER HAND UP? NO, IT'S VERY GOOD.
SO WITH NO QUESTIONS OR UH, COMMENTS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, DO I HAVE A MOTION CHAIR? COMMISSIONER LAVER, APOLOGIES FOR THE INTERRUPTION.
UH, DO YOU WANT TO INCLUDE YOUR 2024 CALENDAR? THAT'S ITEM 25.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THE CALENDAR? OKAY, WE'LL ROLL THAT IN.
I WAS JUST GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE OUR CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE INCLUSION OF ITEM 25, OUR 2024 MEETING CALENDAR.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UH, ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE CONSENT AGENDA? ALL SEEING NONE, UH, CLEARED THAT ONE.
UH, OUR FIRST ITEM
UM, MR. CHAIRMAN ADAM? OH, YES.
UH, SORRY, MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE, UM, BEFORE WE GET INTO THAT, AND I SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS AT THE OUTSET OF THE, AT THE HEARING, UM, LITTLE BIT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE, BUT A ASK OF THIS COMMISSION AND THE FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE, WE ARE HERE ON IMPORTANT MATTERS TONIGHT AND, AND IT'S GOING TO SHED A A LONG COURSE AND, AND THEY ARE IMPORTANT, BUT I JUST WANNA REMIND EVERYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE AND EVERYBODY HERE THAT THIS WEEKEND WE HAD REALLY IMPORTANT MATTERS AND YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S GONNA DIE TONIGHT, BUT
[00:10:01]
WE HAD AN OFFICER, TWO OFFICERS GIVE THEIR LIVES FOR US.AND SO I WOULD ASK FOR A MOMENT, JUST A MOMENT, A BRIEF MOMENT OF SILENCE JUST TO REMEMBER AND PUT THINGS INTO PERSPECTIVE OF, THERE'S, THERE'S IMPORTANT BUSINESS TONIGHT AND THERE'S REALLY SERIOUS BUSINESS THAT THIS CITY DOES.
AND SO JUST A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR OUR FIRST RESPONDERS.
I THINK THAT WAS, UM, VERY APPROPRIATE.
[2. Code Amendments: C20-2023-024 Changes to Residential Uses and Standards (HOME Amendments)]
ITEM, WHICH IS I THINK THE ITEM MOST FOLKS ARE HERE FOR, UM, ITEM TWO, THE PUBLIC HEARING.UM, WHAT I WANNA KIND OF GO OVER IS, UH, WE'RE GONNA OF COURSE HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC.
UH, WE'RE GONNA START WITH THOSE WHO SIGNED UP TO BE HERE IN PERSON.
UH, THEN WE'LL TAKE A MOMENT, UH, AS A PRIVILEGE.
I WILL THEN, FOR THOSE THAT WEREN'T ABLE TO SIGN UP AND YOU'RE HERE STILL, UH, WE'LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO SPEAK AND THEN WE'LL MOVE INTO THOSE THAT ARE VIRTUALLY ONLINE.
UM, BASED ON THE NUMBERS, THIS COULD, UH, IF YOU JUST DO THE MATH AND EVERYBODY DOES SPEAK, WE'RE GONNA BE HERE FOR ABOUT FIVE HOURS.
UM, SOMETIMES WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT DON'T HANG IN THERE AND AT THAT TIME GETS COMPRESSED, BUT IT'S GONNA BE A PRETTY LONG STRETCH HERE.
UH, IS, UH, ANDREW, AS FAR AS HOW ARE WE GOING TO PROCEED AS FAR, ARE WE GONNA CALL MORE THAN ONE UP AT A TIME? WHAT'S KIND OF THE PROCESS HERE TO GET PEOPLE A FEEL FOR HOW WE'RE GONNA CALL SPEAKERS? THANK YOU, CHAIR.
COMMISSIONER LADIES ON ANDREW RIVERA.
SO YES, I WILL CALL FIVE SPEAKERS AT A TIME.
WE HAVE TWO PODIUMS. UM, SO IF YOU CAN MAKE YOUR WAY TO, UM, UH, IF ONE PERSON'S AT THE, UM, FIRST PODIUM, MAKE YOUR WAY TO THE SECOND PODIUM AND, UH, WE CAN WORK THAT WAY.
DO SPEAKERS KNOW WHERE THEY ARE IN THE ORDER? IS THAT INFORMATION CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION? UH, THE, UH, SPEAKER LIST IS POSTED ON THE AGENDA.
WE WILL ALSO HAVE IT, UH, PRINTED SHORTLY.
JUST TO GAUGE YOUR, YOU KNOW, WHETHER YOU'RE HERE OR OUTSIDE, JUST TO KNOW KIND OF ABOUT WHERE YOU ARE.
BUT YEAH, WE DON'T WANNA MISS YOUR, UH, PLEASE, UH, PAY ATTENTION TO THE MONSTERS SO YOU DON'T MISS YOUR PLACE IN LINE.
AND WITH THAT, UH, IS THERE ANY BUSINESS WE NEED TO, UH, DISCUSS BEFORE WE GET STARTED WITH OUR FIRST SPEAKER CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LAZARA? SO ACTUALLY WE WILL BEGIN WITH STAFF PRESENTATION FOLLOWED BY PUBLIC TESTIMONY, THEN YOUR Q AND A DELIBERATION.
I'M ANDREA BATES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
I'LL BE GIVING A VERY BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO RESIDENTIAL USES AND STANDARDS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, INCLUDING THE CODE AMENDMENTS REFERRED TO AS THE HOME INITIATIVE.
THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT WOULD DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS.
THEY WOULD ALLOW UP TO THREE HOMES ON PROPERTIES ZONED SSF ONE, SF TWO, AND SF THREE.
THEY WOULD SIMPLIFY SOME OF THE EXISTING REGULATIONS FOR BUILDING TWO HOMES.
THEY WOULD REMOVE DUPLICATIVE ACCESSORY, APARTMENT, GUEST HOUSE, AND ONSITE WORKER HOME PROVISIONS THAT ARE IN THE CODE TODAY.
THEY WOULD LIMIT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN AND COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS OR MCMANSION STANDARDS TO LOTS WITH ONE HOME.
THEY WOULD ALLOW TINY HOMES THAT MEET CERTAIN STANDARDS TO BE CONSIDERED A DWELLING UNIT AND THEY WOULD REMOVE THE LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED ADULTS ALLOWED TO LIVE TOGETHER.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECEIVED A FULL BRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS DURING YOUR JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 26TH.
STAFF HAS MADE SOME MINOR CHANGES TO THE PROPOSALS SINCE THAT TIME.
THESE CHANGES ARE REFLECTED IN THE UPDATED BACKUP THAT YOU RECEIVED FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING.
FIRST, THE TEXT CLARIFYING THAT TINY HOMES ARE ALLOWED AS A DWELLING UNIT HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE CODE.
NEXT, THE PROPOSAL TO EXEMPT DUPLEX TWO UNIT AND THREE UNIT USES FROM THE MCMANSION STANDARDS WAS, UH, PUT IN SUBCHAPTER F, WHERE THOSE STANDARDS ARE LOCATED BY ACTUALLY AMENDING SUBCHAPTER F.
THE FAMILY HOME AND GROUP HOME USES WERE ALSO DELETED FROM THE MCMANSION STANDARDS IN SUBCHAPTER F.
AND THEN THERE WAS A CLARIFICATION MADE TO SUBSTITUTE THE SUBSTANDARD LOT LIMITATION FOR THE THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL USE WITH
[00:15:01]
A, THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LOT BE AT LEAST 5,750 SQUARE FEET.WE REMOVED TO REFERENCE TO SUBSTANDARD LOTS AND CLARIFIED THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
THIS BRINGS US TO THE CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS THAT WE ARE GOING THROUGH AND WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
AS YOU KNOW, THERE WILL BE THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS TOTAL ON THESE CODE AMENDMENTS.
THE FIRST WAS THE JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 26TH.
AFTER THAT LAST MONDAY ON NOVEMBER 6TH, THERE WAS AN OPEN HOUSE FOR THE PUBLIC TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL.
THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING IS TONIGHT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
THE COMMISSION COULD VOTE TONIGHT TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL ON THIS PROPOSAL.
THE CITY COUNCIL IS SCHEDULED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSAL ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7TH, WHICH IS A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING STARTING AT 10:00 AM HERE AT CITY HALL.
AT THAT TIME, THE COUNCIL COULD CHOOSE TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENTS.
THIS IS A SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCESS.
TO DATE, 387 COMMUNITY MEMBERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK OR REGISTERED FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSAL AT THE OCTOBER 26TH JOINT MEETING.
AS OF YESTERDAY, STAFF HAVE RECEIVED 55 EMAILS, 118 PHONE CALLS, AND 386 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED VIA THE SPEAK UP AUSTIN WEBSITE.
THAT WEBSITE HAS HAD ABOUT 10,500 VISITORS TOTAL.
WE ALSO HAD APPROXIMATELY 70 PEOPLE ATTEND THE OPEN HOUSE LAST WEEK.
WE ENCOURAGE THE COMMUNITY TO VISIT THE WEBSITE THAT YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL AND TO STAY UP TO DATE ON THE PROPOSAL AS IT MOVES THROUGH THE PROCESS.
THE WEBSITE INCLUDES A SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU TONIGHT AND THE DRAFT CODE LANGUAGE.
IT ALSO INCLUDES A VIDEO OF STAFFS PRESENTATION FROM THE OCTOBER 26TH MEETING, WHICH WENT INTO FAR MORE DETAIL EXPLAINING WHAT IS ALLOWED UNDER TODAY'S CODE AND WHAT WOULD BE CHANGED BY THE PROPOSAL.
THERE IS A QUESTION AND ANSWER SECTION WITH ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS, AS WELL AS INFORMATION ON HOW TO PROVIDE INPUT AND HOW TO PROTEST THE CHANGES.
UH, THE PUBLIC CAN EMAIL STAFF WITH QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AT THE ADDRESS ON THE SCREEN OR ALSO CALL AND RECEIVE A CALLBACK.
STAFF IS RESPONDING TO COMMENTS OR TO QUESTIONS, UH, SUBMITTED IN THESE FASHIONS.
AND ALL OF THE COMMENTS ARE BEING COLLECTED.
THE ONES RECEIVED TO DATE WERE SHARED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND EVERYTHING WILL BE COLLECTED AND SHARED WITH CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION AS WELL.
AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.
ALRIGHT, JUST, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
UH, JUST POINT OF PROCEDURE AND ANDREW, HELP ME OUT HERE WHERE A DONATION OF TIME IS ALLOWED UP TO TWO.
SO, UH, YOUR, THOSE DONATING TIME NEED TO BE PRESENT AND RECOGNIZED, UH, BEFORE YOU COME ON AND SPEAK.
SO WE WILL ALLOW DONATION AND TIME WITH UP TO TWO PERSONS.
SO YOU HAVE, IF YOU MAX IT OUT, YOU GET SIX MINUTES TOTAL.
WE'LL, UH, BEGIN, UH, OUR, UM, PUBLIC TESTIMONY PORTION AND I HAVE, UH, MS. BEGG, UH, PRESENTING WITH, UM, DONATION A TIME OF UP TO, SO SHE'LL HAVE A TOTAL OF SIX MINUTES.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY.
MY NAME IS LUCY BEGG AND I'M AN ARCHITECT HERE ON BEHALF OF A I A AUSTIN'S HOUSING ADVOCACY COMMITTEE.
WE ARE A GROUP OF PRACTICING ARCHITECTS WORKING ON HOUSING AT ALL SCALES AND INCOME LEVELS IN THE CITY.
WITH DEEP EXPERIENCE OF HOW AUSTIN ZONING IMPACT, WHAT TYPES AND SIZES OF HOMES GET BUILT.
WE HAVE SPENT MANY HOURS MODELING POTENTIAL OUTCOMES OF THE HOME PHASE ONE DRAFT AND ARE HERE TONIGHT TO SHARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE EMERGED FROM THOSE EFFORTS.
OUR GROUP IS MOTIVATED BY OUR CONCERNS WITH HOW OUR CURRENT RESIDENTIAL ZONING LIMITS HOUSING CHOICES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO SMALLER HOMES.
WE APPLAUD THE INTENT OF THE HOME INITIATIVE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE AND ARE EAGER TO MAKE SURE THE DETAILS OF THE POLICY WORK IN SUPPORT OF ITS GOALS.
PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF OUR CURRENT ZONING STANDARDS, IN 1984, HOMES IN AUSTIN AVERAGED AROUND 1500 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, AND ALMOST
[00:20:01]
ONE IN FIVE OF THOSE WERE PART OF A DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, OR FOURPLEX.AFTER OUR CURRENT ZONING WAS PUT IN PLACE, RESTRICTING LARGE AREAS OF THE CITY TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON LARGE LOTS, THOSE UNIT SIZES BEGAN TO INCREASE.
THIS CHART SHOWS HOW THE AVERAGE HOME BUILT SINCE 1990 IS ALMOST 50% LARGER THAN THE AVERAGE BUILT PRIOR.
AND HOW JUST A FRACTION OF THOSE LESS THAN 3% HAVE BEEN WITHIN TWO, THREE OR FOUR UNIT BUILDINGS.
THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF HOUSES PERMITTED IN THE LAST DECADE.
IN AUSTIN, OVER 75% OF THE NEW HOMES BUILT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS IN THAT TIME EXCEEDED 2000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE.
WE ARE ACTUALLY ADDING HOMES GREATER THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET TO OUR HOUSING STOCK AT A FASTER RATE THAN HOMES UNDER 1000 SQUARE FEET.
THIS PHENOMENON IS BEING DRIVEN BY THE COLLISION OF OUR 1980S ZONING STANDARDS WITH TODAY'S HIGH LAND COSTS, WHILE OUR MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZE IS 57 50 SQUARE FEET, OUR MEDIAN LOT SIZE IS MUCH LARGER AT ALMOST 8,000 SQUARE FEET, WITH ENTITLEMENTS LIMITED TO TWO DWELLING UNITS ON MOST RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND WITH MANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE SIZE AND CONFIGURATION OF THE SECOND UNIT.
THE MOST COMMON DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME TODAY IS A SINGLE HOUSE THAT'S AS LARGE AS POSSIBLE, UP TO 40% OF THE LOT SIZE TO MAKE THE ECONOMICS WORK.
PUT SIMPLY OUR CURRENT RESIDENTIAL ZONING HAS A BIG HOUSE BIAS AT THE SAME TIME, WHAT HOUSING OPTIONS HAVE WE BEEN EDITING OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS? OUR UNIT RESTRICTIONS AND SETBACKS MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THIS ONE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD OF EAST CESAR CHAVEZ IN 1926 AND RENOVATED A FEW YEARS AGO.
THESE THREE LIVABLE SMALL HOUSES ON A 9,600 SQUARE FOOT LOT EACH HAVE A FRONT PORCH, A SMALL PRIVATE BACKYARD, AND AN OFF STREET PARKING SPACE.
THEY'RE OWNED BY A YOUNG COUPLE, A SINGLE DAD AND AN ELDERLY RETIREE WHO ALL ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF OUR HIGH QUALITY NEIGHBORHOOD LIFE IN AREA.
THEY TOTALED THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT TODAY YOU WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED TO BUILD AS ONE OR TWO HOUSES TO MEET THE HOME INITIATIVE'S GOAL OF GIVING SMALLER HOMES LIKE THESE A BIGGER CHANCE.
IN AUSTIN, WE BELIEVE THE DETAILS ARE CRITICAL.
THE FOLLOWING ARE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT THE HOW THE HOME ORDINANCE SHOULD BE FINE TUNED TO BETTER MEET ITS GOALS.
RECOMMENDATION ONE IS TO FURTHER INCREASE FLEXIBILITY WITHIN THE TWO UNIT USE.
THE REDUCTION OF LOT SIZES FOR DUPLEXES.
REMOVAL OF THE COMMON WALL MANDATE AND LOOSENING OF ADU REQUIREMENTS ARE ALL GREAT STEPS.
WE RECOMMEND THAT THE 1100 SQUARE FOOT CAP THAT APPLIES TO DETACHED SECOND UNITS ALSO BE REMOVED.
THIS WILL FURTHER INCREASE FLEXIBILITY FOR ADDING A SECOND UNIT TO EXISTING PROPERTIES, INCREASING LIKELIHOOD OF UPTAKE.
OUR SECOND RECOMMENDATION IS TO CREATE A NEW FLOOR AREA RATIO TOOL FOR TWO AND THREE UNIT U USE.
AS YOU ARE ALL AWARE, REMOVING SUBCHAPTER F FOR TWO AND THREE UNITS TAKES AWAY THE CURRENT FLOOR AREA CAP FOR RESIDENTIAL USE TO MITIGATE AGAINST THE HOME ORDINANCE PRODUCING EQUALLY LARGE UNITS AS OUR CURRENT CODE, WE RECOMMEND A FOUR-PART APPROACH.
THE FIRST PART IS TO CREATE AN FAR CAP FOR TWO AND THREE FAMILY USES.
THE SECOND IS TO INCENTIVIZE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO AND THREE UNITS BY MODESTLY INCREASING THIS TOTAL ALLOWABLE FAR CAP AS YOU GET MORE UNITS.
THE THIRD PART IS TO SET A MAXIMUM SIZE LIMIT FOR A SINGLE UNIT, AND THE FOURTH PART IS TO INCLUDE GARAGES AND CARPORTS IN THE FLOOR AREA DEFINITION.
OUR THIRD RECOMMENDATION IS TO REDUCE FRONT YARD AND STREET SIDE YARD SETBACKS TO HELP WITH FLEXIBILITY IN HOW MULTIPLE UNITS ARE PLACED ON A LOT, WHICH WILL BE PARTICULARLY HELPFUL WHEN WORKING AROUND PROTECTED TREES AND WILL ALIGN WITH TYPICAL SETBACKS IN OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND FINALLY, OUR FOURTH RECOMMENDATION IS TO ADOPT A PRESERVATION INCENTIVE TO MITIGATE AGAINST THE DEMOLITION OF OLDER, SMALLER, AND MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT THE INDI THAT THE ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS OF HOME COULD ACCELERATE.
WE DEFER TO PRESERVATION AUSTIN'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS PIECE.
AND AT THIS POINT I'LL BE PASSING, UH, THE MICROPHONE TO MY COLLEAGUE CHRIS GANNON TO EXPAND ON THE DETAILS OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND IF I COULD JUST CONFIRM THAT MS. ANDREA FREIBERGER IS PRESENT.
UM, MR. AND THEN, UM, LET'S SEE,
[00:25:05]
SALINAS, JOHN SALINAS.ALRIGHT, UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
I'M THE INCOMING CO-CHAIR OF A'S HOUSING GROUP.
UH, WE LOOKED AT PORTLAND'S RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT, UM, AS PRECEDENT.
THIS IS A VERY SIMILAR INITIATIVE PORTLAND UNDER, UH, UNDERTOOK IN 2021.
UM, THE PROJECT ALLOWS NEW MIDDLE HOUSING TYPOLOGIES, THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN IN, IN DECLINE SINCE THE NINETIES IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO THEY'RE ALLOWING ADUS ALL THE WAY TO SIX PLEXES IN THIS PROGRAM.
UH, THE YEAR FOLLOWING THE ADAPTATION OF THIS POLICY SAW A DRAMATIC UPTICK IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS MIDDLE HOUSING WITH NEARLY THREE QUARTERS OF ALL NEW UNITS IN FOURPLEXES.
UH, PORTLAND ADDED AN FAR CAP TO THEIR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND STEPPED THAT FAR AN ADDITIONAL 0.10 FOR UNIT.
WE LOOKED MOST CLOSELY AT THE R SEVEN LOTS AS THEY'RE MOST ALIGNED WITH AUSTIN'S LOT SIZE.
SO UNDER THIS PROGRAM, THEY FOUND THAT BY INCREASING THE FAR 0.10 PER ADDED UNIT, THEY WERE ABLE TO BOTH ENCOURAGE MORE UNITS AND THOSE UNITS ON AVERAGE WERE SMALLER.
SO OUR MODELING, WHICH WE DID COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF PORTLAND'S REPORT, FOUND A VERY SIMILAR THING, UH, THAT AN FAR CAP WITH A GRADIENT WOULD INCENTIVIZE MORE UNITS AND THAT WOULD ON AVERAGE BE SMALLER.
SO WE LOOKED AT SEVERAL GRADIENT INCREASES AND BELIEVE THAT 0.10 WORKS FOR AUSTIN AS WELL.
UM, OURS STARTS AT 0.55 FOR TWO UNITS AND GOES TO 0.65 FOR THREE.
UM, THIS IS A CRUCIAL DETAIL TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS.
OUR SINGLE FAMILY UNITS CURRENTLY BEING BUILT UNDER MCMANSION ARE CAPPED AT AN FAR OF 0.4, BUT THROUGH THE SET OF EXEMPTIONS THAT ARE BAKED INTO MCMANSION OR THE SUBCHAPTER F THE AVERAGE SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS ACTUALLY CLOSE TO 0.45 FAR.
UM, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE DATA, SOME ARE EVEN GETTING UP TO 0.57 OR HIGHER.
UM, SO WHAT ARE THESE EXEMPTIONS? THERE'S ONE FOR ATTICS FOR GARAGES AND BASEMENTS.
UM, AND THIS IS ALL BUILT INTO THE DEFINITION OF FAR UNDER MCMANSION, SUB CHAPTER F.
SO OUTSIDE MCMANSION, UH, FAR IS DEFINED DIFFERENTLY AND THE EXEMPTIONS WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE.
ALL PARKING STRUCTURES ARE ALREADY EXEMPT IN THE BASE CODE.
SO OUR RECOMMENDATION HERE IS, UH, OR OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TAKE THIS DISPARITY INTO ACCOUNT AND WE'VE ADDED A 0.05 FAR BUMP TO OUR STARTING POINT TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THESE EX UH, OF THESE EXEMPTIONS.
THAT'S WHY, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A 0.55 AND A 0.65, UH, BUT TO, TO MAKE THIS WORK, IT'S CRUCIAL THAT WE INCLUDE PARKING STRUCTURES IN THE DEFINITION OF FAR.
SO WE MODELED WHAT THIS MIGHT LOOK LIKE ON AN AVERAGE 7,500 SQUARE FOOT MIDLOCK MID-BLOCK LOT.
UH, YOU'LL HEAR THAT THE STEPPED FAR GENERALLY ENCOURAGES MORE SMALLER UNITS.
UH, SO IN THIS FIRST ONE YOU'LL SEE IT'S SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND IT'S SUBJECT TO THE F TO THE SUBCHAPTER F TENT AND IT'S CAPPED AT FAR.
BUT WITH THE EXEMPTIONS WE'RE GETTING TO 0.45.
AND THEN, UH, THE NEXT TWO MODELS SHOW TWO UNITS AND THREE UNITS.
UM, SO WE SUPPORT CAPPING THE FAR OF A SINGLE UNIT IN MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS THE, UH, THE GUARDRAIL THAT KEEPS THE STEALTH MCMANSIONS AT BAY.
UM, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD IMAGINE A VERY SMALL POOL CABANA WITH A GIGANTIC HOUSE ATTACK THAT POOL CABANA COULD BE A UNIT.
UM, SO BY LIMITING ONE, ANY ONE UNIT OF A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO, YOU KNOW, A CERTAIN FAR, UH, THAT'LL PREVENT THAT.
WE SUPPORT, UH, PRESERVATION AUSTIN'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PRESERVATION INCENTIVE, AND WE'D LIKE TO SEE IT BOLSTERED AND EXPANDED TO TREES AS WELL.
IN PHASE TWO, UH, WE'RE LOOKING AT A PROJECT HERE, UM, BY, UH, THOUGHT BARN AND DELINEATE STUDIO.
UM, THIS IS TWO EXISTING HOMES THAT WERE PRESERVED AND THERE WERE TWO NEW DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE BUILT IN BACK.
EACH ONE OF THESE IS A FOURPLEX.
UM, WE'D LIKE TO SEE MORE OF THIS KIND OF STUFF.
WE SUPPORT REDUCING OUR SETBACKS AND ENCOURAGE THIS RESOLUTION TO GO FURTHER THAN THE FRONT YARD AVERAGING, UM,
[00:30:01]
WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, BUILT IN UNDER SUB CHAPTER F UH, BUT WE'D LIKE TO GO FURTHER.UM, FRONT YARD AVERAGING, WHICH IS EXPENSIVE AND TIME CONSUMING.
UH, IT ALSO RELIES ON THE LUCK OF THE DRAW.
IF YOUR HOME IS IN AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD, THEN MAYBE YOU'LL GET FRONT YARD AVERAGING AND YOU GET UP TO, UH, 15 FOOT.
IF IT'S NOT, THEN YOU'RE OUT OF LUCK.
AND, UH, WE DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS FAIR FOR A CITY CODE.
UM, WE ALSO SUPPORT, UH, UH, REDUCING THE SIDE YARD, THE STREET SIDE YARD DOWN TO FIVE FEET.
THIS WOULD PERMIT TWO AND THREE UNITS TO GET CLOSER TO THE STREET, AND IT JUST MAKES IT WORK EASIER.
THERE'S MORE FLEXIBILITY, UH, BUILT IN LIKE WE SAW IN LUCY'S SLIDE WITH THOSE THREE UNITS.
UM, AND FINALLY, WE DO NEED TO INCLUDE PARKING STRUCTURES IN THE DEFINITION OF FAR.
UH, CURRENTLY YOU COULD BUILD A LARGE GARAGE WITH A HOME ON TOP AND YOU EXCLUDE ALL THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE GARAGE FROM THE FAR CALCULATIONS.
UM, AND I GOT 10 SECONDS LEFT.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. AGUIRE RE WITH DONATED TIME FROM JULIA WOODS.
MS. WOODS PRESENT, SPECIFICALLY MARY
UH, WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE DONATOR OF, UM, MS. INGLE AND, UM, MS. MACARTHUR.
GOOD EVENING CHAIR SHAW AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS ANA GIRE AND I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOODS COUNCIL.
THE ANC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REACHED OUT TO YOU IN ORDER TO HA FOR US TO HAVE SOME DIALOGUE REGARDING THE HOME OPTIONS FOR MIDDLE INCOME EMPOWERMENT RESOLUTION.
WE WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONER SHAW, HAMPEL PHILLIPS, AZAR, HAYNES WOODS BARR, RAMIREZ, MUCH TALLER AND COX FOR TAKING THE TIME TO, FROM THEIR VERY BUSY SCHEDULE TO MEET WITH US.
WE ALSO THANK COMMISSIONERS ANDERSON AND CONNELLY FOR SPEAKING WITH ME.
RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING, THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO OPPOSE THE HOME RESOLUTION AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.
THIS PLAN IS NOT ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND IT IS NOT ABOUT EQUITY.
THIS PLAN WILL GENTRIFY THE REMAINING AFRICAN-AMERICAN BLACK, HISPANIC, AND LATINO RESIDENTS THAT ARE HOMEOWNERS OR RENTERS IN THE EASTERN CRESCENT.
THIS KIND IS ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE DIRT AND IT SHOULD BE ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON IT.
THE COMMITTEE ARE JUST MAYOR WATSON AND THE COUNCIL TO FOLLOW THE MAYOR'S MAYOR WATSON'S CAMPAIGN PROMISE TO STEP BACK AND INITIATE A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH WITH STAKEHOLDERS IN EACH DISTRICT APPOINTED TO A TASK FORCE AND CHARGED WITH CONSENSUS ON FINDING REALISTIC DENSITY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADDRESSING THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS WE ASK FOR CO A TRUE COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.
THERE ARE MANY CONCERNS REGARDING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.
THIS SUMMER, WE WERE ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES TO LIMIT OUR ELECTRICITY USE AND AVOID TO AVOID A BLACKOUT.
WE LOSE MILLIONS OF GALLONS OF WATER DUE TO LEAKING PIPES, AND WE HAVE A LOSS OF OUR TREE CANOPY DUE TO EXTREME CLIMATE, UH, CLIMATE WEATHER CONDITIONS.
IN THE INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE, THE COUNCIL SHOULD NEEDS TO FUND AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THESE ZONING CHANGES.
WE SHOULD MAINTAIN SUBCHAPTER F AND EXISTING FAR REQUIREMENTS AND REEVALUATE AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY.
OCCUPANCY LIMITS SHOULD FOLLOW NATIONAL AND STATE LAWS, AND ONCE ADOPTED, MUST BE ENFORCED SO AS NOT TO RESULT IN HARM FOR THE VULNERABLE POPULATION.
THOSE THAT ARE SU SUSCEPTIBLE TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING, SEX TRAFFICKING, THOSE WITH DISABILITIES, SENIOR CITIZENS AND THE HOMELESS POPULATION.
AUSTIN IS NATIONALLY KNOWN AS SLASH FLOOD ALLEY.
I LIVE IN THE SPRINGS ONION CREEK, WHERE ONION CREEK AND WILLIAMSON CREEK CONVERGE.
IN 2015 AND 2013, WE SUSTAINED SERIOUS LOSS OF HOMES AND LIFE.
FOR THIS REASON, WE RECOMMEND YOU PROHIBIT ANY DUE DENSITY IN AREA SUSCEPTIBLE TO CREEK FLOODING, LOCALIZED FLOODING, STREAM BANK EROSION, OR DESIGNATED TO BE WITHIN THE ATLAS 14 PLANE FLOODPLAIN.
THERE SHOULD BE NO INCREASING IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWANCES OVER THE CURRENTLY ASSIGNED LIMITS SITE PLAN AREA, EVALUATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE IN CASES OF EXPANSION TO MEET THOSE LIMITS MODIFIED TO INCREASE DENSITY, THERE SHOULD BE A PROHIBITION OF BEING IN LIEU OF STORM WATER CONTROL OPTIONS TO, TO NEW DENSITY.
AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, YOU, WE SHOULD COMPLY WITH THE FEMA REGULATIONS SO AS NOT TO COMPROMISE ANY PROPERTY OWNER'S ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.
WE SHOULD ADDRESS THE IMPACT THAT ADDITIONAL DENSITY WILL HAVE ON SANITATION RELATED SERVICES, SUCH AS, UH, STREET ACCESS FOR PICKUP, FOR TRASH RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING.
WE SHOULD ENSURE BASIC PUBLIC SERVICES ARE PROVIDED WHEN HOUSING, HOUSING DENSITIES INTRODUCED, INTRODUCED UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE, PUBLIC SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE,
[00:35:01]
HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.WE SHOULD COMPLY WITH ALL NATIONAL HOUSING STANDARDS.
WE SHOULD MAINTAIN RESPECT AND NOT UNDERMINE EXISTING HOMEOWNER DEED AND COVENANT RESTRICTIONS.
WE SHOULD INCENTIVIZE HOMEOWNERS SO THEY CAN AFFORD TO PARTICIPATE IN PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THEIR LOT AND THAT MEET PROTECTIVE AND FUNCTIONAL CODE COMPLIANCE.
AND WE SHOULD EXPLORE HOUSING OPTIONS ON CITY OWNED AND VACANT PROPERTIES.
SO GOING BACK TO WHY DOES FLOODING MATTER IN 2013, THIS IS WHO WE LOST.
EDWARD JACKSON, 72 ONION CREEK, JOSEFINA RODRIGUEZ AND HER EIGHT MONTH OLD SON.
THERE WERE TWO UNIDENTIFIED MALES IN ONION CREEK.
THERE WERE 200 STUDENTS THAT BECAME HOMELESS IN 2015.
WE LOST JORGE AGUILAR TORRES 50 FROM DEL VALLEY, EDWARD HERNANDEZ JR.
HE WAS WITH TWO OTHER MALES AND THEY WERE RESCUED IN ORTIZ GARZA, 67 FROM SOUTHEAST TRAVIS COUNTY.
SHE WAS WITH HER HUSBAND WHO WAS RESCUED.
AGAIN, THIS SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT THE VALUE OF DIRT.
THIS SHOULD BE ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE.
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, YOUR CONSIDERATION AND SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. BETSY GREENBERG.
DONATED TIME FROM MS. ANN DANGLER AND MS. HELEN PVI.
MY NAME IS BETSY GREENBERG AND I LIVE IN THE HERITAGE NEIGHBORHOOD, JESS NORTH OF THE UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF OCCUPANCY LIMITS, THE CHANGE TO THE DEFINITION OF GROUP RESIDENTIAL AND THE PROPOSED REMOVAL OF DEFINITIONS FOR FAMILY AND GROUP HOMES.
THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF GROUP RESIDENTIAL IS THE USE OF A SITE FOR OCCUPANCY BY A GROUP OF MORE THAN SIX PERSONS WHO ARE NOT A FAMILY ON A WEEKLY OR LONGER BASIS.
GROUP RESIDENTIAL IS CURRENTLY PROHIBITED IN SSF ZONES AND IS ONLY ALLOWED IN MF ZONING.
BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, IN 2004 THERE WAS A CODE CHANGE TO SPECIFY THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED ADULTS IN EACH DWELLING UNIT OF A DUPLEX OR SECONDARY APARTMENT.
THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO SUPER DUPLEXES IN 2014 IN RESPONSE TO CONCERNS ABOUT NEW HIGH RENT SIX BEDROOM HOUSES IN THE ASSOCIATED DEMOLITIONS.
A TWO YEAR TRIAL WAS PASSED, REDUCING OCCUPANCY LIMITS ON NEWLY CONSTRUCTED SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES TO FOUR.
EACH TIME A CHANGE WAS MADE, LARGE FAMILIES WERE PROTECTED, EXISTING USES WERE GRANDFATHERED AND NOBODY WAS DISPLACED.
CONCERNS WITH OCCUPANCY LIMITS HAVE PERSISTED.
THE FIRST ISSUE IS ALWAYS AFFORDABILITY.
THE REALITY IS THAT THE MOST AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS EXISTING HOUSING.
NEW HOUSING IS ALWAYS MORE EXPENSIVE.
AFTER CONSIDERING THE DATA THE COUNCIL MADE THE 2014 REDUCTION PERMANENT IN 2016, THERE HAVE ALSO BEEN CONCERNS THAT OCCUPANCY LIMITS VIOLATE FAIR HOUSING LAWS THAT PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING BASED ON FAMILIAL STATUS.
THIS CONCERN IS EASILY ADDRESSED BY ADDING AN EXCEPTION THAT PERMITS A HIGHER OCCUPANCY AS NEEDED TO ALLOW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING LAW GROUP RESIDENTIAL HAS BEEN REDEFINED OR A NEW, THE STAFF HAS PROVIDED A NEW DEFINITION FOR GROUP RESIDENTIAL AS THE USE OF A SITE FOR OCCUPANCY BY A GROUP OF MORE THAN 16 ADULTS WHEN A THIRD PARTY PREPARES OR PROVIDES FOOD WITH THIS DEFINITION, IF THERE ARE 17 OR MORE ADULTS AND A THIRD PARTY PREPARES OR PROVIDES FOOD, THEN THE USE IS GROUP RESIDENTIAL AND ONLY ALLOWED IN MF ZONES.
IF THERE'S ISN'T A THIRD PARTY PREPARING FOOD, AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF ADULTS ARE ALLOWED IN SSF ZONES.
I HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT WHY HAVING A THIRD PARTY PREPARING FOOD MATTERS AND SUGGEST THOSE WORDS BE DELETED ON JUNE 1ST.
COUNCIL RESOLUTION MENTIONED THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE HAS OCCUPANCY LIMITS THAT ARE EASIER TO ENFORCE.
THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE SAYS A BEDROOM FOR THREE ADULTS MUST BE AT LEAST 120 SQUARE FEET, UM, WITH APOLOGIES TO THE ARCHITECTS IN THE ROOM.
UM, THIS ILLUSTRATION SHOWS A 2300 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE WITH 11 BEDROOMS THAT ARE EACH 120 SQUARE FEET.
TEXAS PROPERTY CODE SPECIFIES THAT THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ADULTS ALLOWED TO OCCUPY A DWELLING UNIT IS THREE
[00:40:01]
TIMES THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS. SO THIS HOUSE COULD BE RENTED TO 33 ADULTS.I DON'T THINK THIS IS WHAT COUNCIL INTENDED WITH THEIR RESOLUTION.
16, 17 33 OR MORE IN ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT WITHOUT MULTIFAMILY HEALTH SAFETY AND FIRE CODES ALONG WITH INSPECTIONS IS A BAD IDEA.
THE PROPOSED CODE CHANGE WILL SUBJECT DISADVANTAGED PERSONS TO SUBSTANDARD OR DANGEROUS HOUSING.
THE STAFF ALSO PROPOSED THAT FAMILY AND GROUP HOME DEFINITIONS ALSO BE REMOVED FROM THE CODE WHEN THE DEFINITIONS ARE REMOVED.
THESE USES WILL EITHER FIT THE GROUP RESIDENTIAL DEFINITION MORE THAN 16 RESIDENTS, AND THE THIRD PARTY PROVIDES FOOD, WHICH IS ALLOWED ONLY IN MF ZONES OR THEY'RE ALLOWED IN SSF WITH NO LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS.
UM, I HAVE THESE USED DEFINITIONS, BUT TO SAVE TIME, I'LL GO RIGHT TO THE SUMMARY
OKAY, SO FAMILY HOME AND GROUP.
HOME TYPE ONE LIMITED BOTH ALLOW SIX RESIDENTS AND TWO SUPERVISORS.
THE RESIDENTS ARE PEOPLE WITH ILLNESSES OR DISABILITIES, AND THESE USES ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN SSF ZONES GROUP.
HOME GENERAL ALLOWS UP TO 15 RESIDENTS AND THREE SUPERVISORS, AND IS CURRENTLY A CONDITIONAL USE IN SF ZONES GROUP HOME TWO ALSO ALLOWS ONLY 15 RESIDENTS AND THREE SUPERVISORS, THE RESIDENTS OR INDIVIDUALS NEEDING CORRECTIONAL OR MENTAL INSTITUTIONALIZATION, INCLUDING JUVENILE DELINQUENTS.
THIS USES CURRENTLY PROHIBITED IN SSF.
REMOVING THESE DEFINITIONS AND THE LINES IN THE TABLE MEANS THAT THEY ARE ALL PERMITTED IN SSF WITH NO LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS AND LESS THE MORE THAN 16 AND A THIRD PARTY PROVIDES FOOD.
JUVENILE DELINQUENTS NEVER FIT THE DEFINITION FOR GROUP RESIDENTIAL AS THEY ARE NOT ADULTS.
FAMILY AND GROUP HOMES ARE OFTEN RUN BY FOR-PROFIT ENTITIES.
HOWEVER, LOCAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSING AND INSPECTION WILL ONLY BE REQUIRED FOR PROPERTIES THAT MEET THE NEW DEFINITION FOR GROUP RESIDENTIAL.
THESE CODE CHANGES WILL SUBJECT THE SICK, THE POOR, THE ELDERLY, EX-OFFENDERS AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES TO UNSAFE CONDITIONS.
AND POSSIBLE ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND EXPLOITATION CODE THAT IS ALTERED WITHOUT CAREFUL ATTENTION TO DETAIL CAN RESULT IN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. SCOTT TURNER.
DO I HAVE CODY CARR PRESENT? DO I HAVE OD MUDHAL PRESENT? YES.
DO I HAVE SEAN KIRKPATRICK PRESENT? DO I HAVE NANCY ROEDER PRESENT? MR. TURNER, YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES.
I BROUGHT A, UH, COUPLE OF SLIDES TO SHOW YOU WHY I THINK THE HOME INITIATIVE IS SO IMPORTANT.
UM, THIS FIRST ONE HERE JUST SHOWS THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME AND THE RELATED HOME PRICES THAT PEOPLE CAN AFFORD.
MANY OF YOU HAVE SEEN THIS, THIS DATA BEFORE, BUT FOR THOSE THAT HAVEN'T, FOR THE MEDIAN INCOME EARNER IN AUSTIN, YOU CAN AFFORD A $311,000 HOME ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S STANDARD CALCULATIONS.
UH, THE STATS BELOW ARE MEDIAN HOME PRICES FOR AUSTIN AND FOR BASTROP COUNTY.
AND YOU'LL SEE THE ONE THERE FOR BASTROP, WHICH IS ONE OF OUR MORE AFFORDABLE SURROUNDING MARKETS, UM, $349,000.
SO TODAY THE MEDIAN INCOME EARNER IN AUSTIN CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY THE MEDIAN HOME IN BASTROP, MUCH LESS IN AUSTIN.
UM, AND THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT TODAY.
SO THIS SLIDE IS, UH, UH, CENSUS DATA FROM THE CITY DEMOGRAPHER.
UH, IT SHOWS, UH, POPULATION DENSITY.
I KNOW I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO SAY THE D WORD DENSITY, BUT, BUT THAT'S WHAT THIS SHOWS.
UM, YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE IT ON THE SCREEN THERE, BUT, UH, THE, THE TWO LIGHTEST COLORS ARE, UH, RURAL AND SUBURBAN LEVEL OF DENSITY, FOUR TO 10 PEOPLE, UH, PER ACRE.
UH, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT COVERS MOST OF THE CITY.
UM, THAT IS SSF THREE ZONING IN A NUTSHELL,
[00:45:01]
AND FOR THE 10TH LARGEST CITY IN THE COUNTRY, UM, THAT, THAT THAT IS ONE REASON WHY WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH HOUSING.AND THAT'S COMPOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT 30% OF OUR JOBS ARE WITHIN THREE MILES OF DOWNTOWN.
UH, THAT STATS FROM TERRY MITCHELL, UM, I'M SURE HE HAS A SOURCE FOR IT.
BUT, UH, UH, SO THAT'S 200,000 JOBS RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE OF TOWN.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, EVEN THAT AREA DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH HOUSING, UH, BEYOND A, A SUBURBAN LEVEL OF DENSITY.
UM, AND YOU CAN ALSO SEE THIS IN THE PERMIT DATA.
SO, UH, WE ASSEMBLED THE ADU PERMITS, UH, SINCE THEY BECAME LEGAL ON EVERY LOT IN 2015.
UM, SO THIS SHOWS ADU AND DUPLEX PERMITS BY YEAR.
UH, FROM 2015 TO DATE, UM, ONLY 12% OF NEW PERMITS WERE FOR TWO.
THE SECOND UNIT, YOU KNOW, UM, SO YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE MAP IN TERMS OF POPULATION DENSITY.
YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE CODE HERE.
OUR CODE FAVORS, AND I KNOW A, I A TOUCHED ON THIS EARLIER, OUR CODE FAVORS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND, AND THE DATA REALLY SHOWS THAT.
UM, SO THAT'S WHY, THAT'S WHY THIS IS SO IMPORTANT.
WE ARE GONNA HAVE TO CHANGE OUR, OUR APPROACH TO HOUSING.
I I IF, IF THE AVERAGE AUSTINITE IS GONNA BE ABLE TO AFFORD ANYTHING, UH, UM, IN, IN THE CITY LIMITS.
UM, WE JUST NEED MORE HOUSING.
UH, OTHERWISE, AND I'M GOT GOT ONE MORE SLIDE HERE.
OTHERWISE, UH, WE END UP WITH THIS.
THIS IS POPULATION GROWTH FROM 2010 TO 2020.
UM, THE, THE BLUE COLORS ARE, ARE THE MOST RAPID GROWTH OVER THE 10 YEARS.
AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S ALMOST A CIRCLE THERE, UH, CENTERED ON CENTRAL AUSTIN, UH, WHERE WHITE IS ALMOST, ALMOST NO GROWTH.
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW SOME AREAS OF AUSTIN DIDN'T GAIN ANY POPULATION, BUT THEY DIDN'T.
APPARENTLY THOSE ARE THE ORANGE FIELDS.
SO, SO THAT, THAT BLUE AREA, THAT'S THE WAVE OF DISPLACEMENT THAT PEOPLE TALK ABOUT.
UM, THAT IS, THAT IS FAMILIES BEING FORCED TO MOVE FURTHER AND FURTHER AWAY FROM AUSTIN, FROM THEIR HOMES IN ORDER TO FIND A PLACE THAT WILL FIT THEIR FAMILY AND THEY CAN AFFORD TO BUY.
YOU KNOW, YOU'VE HEARD THAT DRIVE UNTIL YOU QUALIFY, UH, YOU KNOW, SORT OF NOM IN THE PAST.
BUT, UM, THAT'S A, A VERY REAL REPRESENTATION OF IT HERE IN AUSTIN.
SO, UM, EVERYTHING YOU DO TONIGHT REALLY, I THINK IS, IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF, OF THE FOLKS WHO, WHO PERHAPS CAN'T BE HERE TONIGHT.
UH, BUT WHO, UH, I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO CONSIDER, UM, IN, IN TERMS OF, OF WHAT WE DO AS A CITY BECAUSE, UH, WE NEED MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
NOT EVERY HOUSE IN AUSTIN IS AFFORDABLE CERTAINLY, BUT WE NEED MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN, IN MORE NEIGHBORHOODS OR, OR THIS PATTERN IS JUST GONNA CONTINUE.
LAY, DO I HAVE MR. DAN KENNEDY PRESENT? DO I HAVE KEVIN BRODERICK PRESENT? UH, MR. LEE, IF YOU COULD PLEASE HOLD, HOLD.
DO I HAVE ALSO KATHY GATTUSO PRESENT IS JASON HASKINS PRESENT.
AT THIS TIME I'LL START CALLING FIVE SPEAKERS AT A TIME.
IF YOU'RE PRESENT, PLEASE MAKE YOUR WAY TO A PODIUM.
MR. PAUL ZOSS, MR. RON THROWER, MS. VICTORIA HASI, MS. BILL, MR. BILL MCCOLLY AND MS. HOLLY REED SWITCH.
WHERE, JUST ON THAT SO PEOPLE CAN SEE.
DO YOU REMEMBER THE PERMISSION RON THROWER? UM, MANY OF Y'ALL HEARD ME TALK ABOUT HOW OVER THE LAST 38
[00:50:01]
YEARS THERE'S BEEN HUNDREDS OF CODE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE WHITTLED AWAY AT DEVELOPABLE LAND.AND WHAT'S BEFORE YOU DENIED IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY AND CAPTURE SOME OF THAT BACK SO WE CAN ACTUALLY GET HOUSING AS A PRIORITY.
AND FOR THAT, I SUPPORT IT A HUNDRED PERCENT.
BUT THERE'S ANOTHER RESOLUTION THAT COUNCIL HAD PASSED THAT I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT SHOULD BE RUNNING PARALLEL WITH THIS.
AND THAT IS FOR THE ABILITY TO CREATE LOTS IN A MUCH SIMPLER WAY.
RIGHT NOW TO TAKE A 12,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, DIVIDE IT INTO TWO, SO YOU CAN HAVE TWO 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, TAKES SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR, TAKES ABOUT A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS RIGHT NOW TO DO AN AMENDED PLATT, YOU CAN ONLY REMOVE A LOT LINE OR SHIFT A LOT LINE.
BUT THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE STATE CODE AND COUNCIL HAS RECOGNIZED THAT AND IT HAS INITIATED A CODE AMENDMENT THAT HAS KIND OF STALLED OUT.
BUT IT'S THE ABILITY TO CREATE LOTS THROUGH THIS AMENDED PLATT PROCESS.
IT GOES FASTER, IT IS A LOT CHEAPER, AND IT HAS THE ABILITY TO CREATE LOTS MUCH EASIER SO THAT WE CAN GET ADDITIONAL UNITS ON THE GROUND AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.
THANK YOU MS. VICTORIA HASSEY, FOLLOWED BY BILL MCCOLLY AND HOLLY RE.
VICTORIA HASI, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR LISTENING TO ALL OF US AND EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE TO SAY.
UM, SO I'M BECOMING A LITTLE MORE CONCERNED WITH, SOMETIMES IT FEELS LIKE THERE'S A SENTIMENT OF I GOT MINE IN THE HELL WITH EVERYONE ELSE.
SOMETIMES THESE AMENDMENTS HAVE GREAT OPPORTUNITIES TO OUR CITY AND SOME OF THOSE INCLUDE AGING IN PLACE RATHER THAN GENTRIFICATION.
ANOTHER, UH, THESE AMENDMENTS ALLOW MULTI-GENERATIONAL HOUSING AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING BACK THE FAMILY VILLAGE THAT A LOT OF FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN LONG FOR THESE AMENDMENTS HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADD ADDITIONAL UNITS AND AREAS OF OUR CITY THAT CAN SUPPORT DENSITY OR CAN SUPPORT TRANSIT.
SO I URGE YOU TO LOOK AT THESE AMENDMENTS AND, AND TAKE THEM VERY SERIOUSLY.
A LOT OF THE LOVELY HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WE THAT PUT AUSTIN ON THE MAP, THEY WERE THE ORIGINAL DISRUPTORS OF THE CITY.
AND TRUTH BE TOLD, WE'RE ALL DISRUPTORS OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
WE ALL CAME HERE WHAT WAS ONCE GREEN OPEN LANDS ON THE BANKS OF THE RIVER.
WE'VE ALL COME HERE LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO LIVE.
WE NEED MORE HOUSING AND IT ONLY MAKES SENSE IF WE'RE GONNA BRING MORE HOUSING, BRING IT TO THE AREAS WHERE WE'VE ALREADY DISRUPTED LAND.
LET'S NOT DISRUPT MORE LAND IN SPRAWLING OUTSIDE OUR CITY AND LET'S GAIN MORE HOUSING, MORE UNITS, MORE ABILITY OF PEOPLE TO LIVE CLOSER AND CREATE BETTER COMMUNITY INSIDE OUR CORE.
THIS CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS BILL MCKINLEY, I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF TRANSIT FORWARD.
WE'RE AN AWESOME BASE 5 0 1 C THREE THAT WORKS ON EDUCATION AND ENGAGEMENT REGARDING PROJECT CONNECT AND TRANSIT AS A WHOLE.
REALLY LIKE TO THANK, UH, COMMISSIONERS ANDERSON, CONNOLLY AND MAXWELL FOR ATTENDING A TALK WE HAD LAST WEEK.
UH, WITH PETER PARKS, WHO IS A CONSULTANT BEING EMPLOYED BY THE CITY'S PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE.
IT IS REALLY VITAL FOR THE SUCCESS OF PROJECT CONNECT THAT WE HAVE MORE DENSITY AROUND TRANSIT CORRIDORS AND MR. PARKS ACTUALLY ACTUALLY HAD A REALLY WONDERFUL INTERACTIVE MAP AROUND THE HALF MILE, AROUND THE PROPOSED LIGHT RAIL LINE SHOWING HOW THE DIFFERENT OVERLAYS UNIVERSITY OVERLAY THE RIVERSIDE OVERLAY AND IT INCLUDED THE HOME INITIATIVE WOULD ADD DENSITY.
THIS IS NOT ONLY IMPORTANT FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE SYSTEM IN GENERAL, BUT IT'S GONNA BE A REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP HAS THESE TOOLS TO BE ABLE TO GO TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND SHOW MORE DENSITY AROUND THESE TRANSIT CORRIDORS WHEN THEY APPLY FOR THEIR TWO AND A HALF BILLION DOLLARS IN A COMPETITIVE GRANT.
SO THIS INITIATIVE IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR PROJECT CONNECT DIRECTLY, BUT IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT FOR TRANSIT MORE GENERALLY AT A CITYWIDE LEVEL.
AND LEMME GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES.
LAST YEAR WE HAD A PANEL DISCUSSION WHERE WE HAD THE HR DIRECTOR FROM CAT METRO WHO SAID THAT I THINK THE VAST MAJORITY, I BELIEVE THE NUMBER SHE SAID WAS ABOUT 80% OF THEIR MECHANICS DO NOT LIVE IN AUSTIN BECAUSE THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO LIVE HERE.
WE WERE PART OF A, UH, RECENT PROGRAM WITH WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS WHERE THEY ESTIMATED THAT ALL OF THE TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS BEING BUILT IN THE IN TOWN WILL REQUIRE 10,000 WORKERS PER YEAR FOR THE NEXT 17 YEARS.
IF WORKERS CANNOT AFFORD TO LIVE HERE, THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO WORK HERE.
AND I THINK THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT PART OF THIS DISCUSSION.
YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS SAID, THIS SHOULDN'T BE ABOUT DIRT, THIS SHOULD BE ABOUT PEOPLE.
AND I AGREE OUR WORKERS SHOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO LIVE NEAR THE JOBS THAT WE DESPERATELY NEED THEM FOR AND WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO PASS THIS TODAY.
THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR YOUR WORK AND YOUR TIME AND GOOD LUCK WITH THE REST OF YOUR EVENING, MS. HOLLY REED PRESENTATION
[00:55:01]
MS. OR BLA BLAZE CROSSLEY AND KYLE VANEK, IF YOU CAN MAKE YOUR WAY TO THE PODIUM MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.MY NAME IS HOLLY REED AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE WEST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP.
IN OPPOSITION TO THE HOME DRAFT ORDINANCE AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, THE LACK OF SIZE RESTRICTIONS IN THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT'S AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 23RD STATES THE LACK OF SIZE RESTRICTIONS, LACK OF PRESERVATION INCENTIVE, AND EXCUSE ME, DELAYING MINIMUM LOT SIZE REDUCTIONS TO PHASE TWO SEVERELY LIMITS THE PROPOSAL'S EFFICACY.
IT ALSO STATES THAT UNITS MAY NEARLY TRIPLE THEIR ALLOWABLE SIZE WITHOUT SUBCHAPTER F FLOOR AREA RATIO RESTRICTIONS WITHOUT UNIT SIZE RESTRICTIONS EITHER BY SUBCHAPTER F OR ANOTHER FAR LIMITATION, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS MAY RESULT IN UNITS WITH SIMILAR SIZE AND PRICE TO CURRENT SINGLE UNIT USES.
WE ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED THAT IF THE ORDINANCE PASSES AS WRITTEN, IT COULD RESULT IN MORE EXPENSIVE HOUSING THAN CURRENTLY EXISTS.
DEMOLITION OF OLDER, MORE AFFORDABLE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND DUPLEXES, DISPLACEMENT OF PEOPLE IN NEIGHBORHOODS WITH LOWER LAND VALUES, INCREASED PROPERTY TAXES, MORE SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND LESS PERMANENT HOMES FOR FAMILIES TO PURCHASE IN NEIGHBORHOODS.
REMOVAL OF TREES WITH ADDED IMPERVIOUS COVER FLOODING, INADEQUATE CITY UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY ISSUES WITH ADDED STREET PARKING, VIOLATION OF DEEDED RESTRICTIONS, RESTRICTED COVENANTS AND DISREGARD FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS AND NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS.
COUNCIL MEMBER POOL HAS STATED THAT, SORRY, NEXT SLIDE.
COUNCIL MEMBER POOL STATED THAT SHE SUPPORTS LIMITING SIZE FOR TWO AND THREE UNIT BUILDINGS AND SHE ALSO SUPPORTS ADDING A PRESERVATION INCENTIVE TO THE DRAFT ORDINANCE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
WE ASK THAT YOU RET RETAIN SUBCHAPTER F FLOOR AREA RATIO TO 0.4 FOR TWO AND THREE UNITS AND WE HAD SOME OTHER ONES THAT I WANTED TO TELL YOU AS WELL.
PLEASE MAKE THE CHANGES IN ONE PHASE.
NOW HEAR FROM KYLE SEK, REYA, ISAAC COHEN AND IRENE, IF YOU CAN MAKE YOUR WAY TO THE PODIUM.
UM, HI, MY NAME'S JAY CROSSLEY AND HOPEFULLY I HAVE A SLIDE AND I WAS JUST HOPING TO SHARE WITH YOU GUYS ONE POINT.
UM, AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE AND FOR LISTENING TO ALL OF US HERE.
UM, AND SO MY POINT IS THAT THE, THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT, UM, HAD US A LINE IN IT THAT SAID UPZONING CAUSES DISPLACEMENT.
UM, AND THAT'S A VERY RADICAL CLAIM, UH, TO SAY THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED CAUSALITY BETWEEN UPZONING AND DISPLACEMENT.
AND I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY ACADEMIC LITERATURE THAT SHOWS THAT TO BE TRUE.
HOWEVER, IF WE LOOK AT WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN AUSTIN, THERE ARE PLACES THAT HAVE NOT GONE UP IN HOUSING COSTS.
UH, THERE'S REALLY TWO SIGNIFICANT PLACES AND THAT IS WHERE UNO WAS IN WEST CAMPUS AND THEN A LONG EAST RIVERSIDE THAT HAD PLANS A WHILE AGO THAT ALLOWED MORE PEOPLE TO LIVE THERE.
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS SLIDE IS SHOWING YOU.
WHEREAS IN SAY, HYDE PARK, UH, YOU KNOW, IF I WANNA LIVE IN HYDE PARK, IT COSTS $682 MORE A MONTH TO LIVE IN HYDE PARK IN 2021 THAN IT DID IN 2011.
UM, THAT STORY IS NOT THE SAME IN THE PLACES WHERE WE DID UPZONING AND ALLOWED MORE PEOPLE TO LIVE THERE.
AND SO WE NEED EQUITABLE GROWTH AND IF YOU CARE ABOUT AFFORDABILITY, THE THINGS LIKE HOME WILL ALLOW MORE PEOPLE TO AFFORD TO LIVE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
UH, THANKS FOR HAVING US THIS EVENING.
WE'RE GONNA TAG TEAM THIS ONE.
UM, WE'RE TWO CO-FOUNDERS OF A A LITTLE STARTUP WE'RE BUILDING HERE IN AUSTIN CALLED CEDAR.
UM, WHICH IS FOCUSED ON HELPING THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY BUILD MORE AFFORDABLE, MORE WALKABLE, DENSER, MORE BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, AND WE'RE HERE IN, YOU KNOW, FIRM SUPPORT OF THE HOME INITIATIVE, WHICH WE BELIEVE IS AN, AN IMPORTANT STEP IN.
WELL WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE THE REALLY FUN ANIMATIONS TONIGHT.
[01:00:01]
UH, YEAH, I'LL JUST REITERATE THAT WE'RE, UM, VERY MUCH HERE STANDING IN SUPPORT OF THE HOME INITIATIVE AS WE BELIEVE IT'LL BRING MORE LIVABILITY, WALKABILITY, AND AFFORDABILITY TO AUSTIN BY UNLOCKING A REAL DIVERSITY OF HOUSING OPTIONS THAT SUPPORT THE DESIRE OF CURRENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS TO RAISE THEIR FAMILIES HERE TO LIVE CLOSE TO WORK, TO LIVE CLOSE TO THEIR FRIENDS AND TO LIVE CLOSE TO CULTURAL AMENITIES, THE THINGS THAT THEY FIND BEAUTIFUL ABOUT LIVING IN THE CITY.UM, UNFORTUNATELY WE CAN'T SHARE, UH, WHAT WE'VE BUILT WITH YOU, BUT WE ESSENTIALLY BUILT A, AN AN OPEN SOURCED CATALOG OF, UH, HOUSING OPTIONS FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
IT'S ON THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER, IT'S JUST CALLED THE CATALOG.
AND YOU CAN REALLY SEE HOW BEFORE AND AFTER WITH THE HOME INITIATIVE, UH, THE CHANGES THAT, UM, WILL BE UNLOCKED IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS AND REALLY THE, THE DIVERSITY OF HOUSING OPTIONS THAT'LL BECOME AVAILABLE.
SOMETHING LIKE FOUR OR FIVE HOUSING TYPES ARE NOW AVAILABLE WILL GO TO SOMETHING LIKE 30 PLUS HOUSING UNITS OR HOUSING TYPES THAT'LL BE AVAILABLE POST THE HOME INITIATIVE.
IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE LIVING IN A REALLY FAST GROWING VERY DIVERSE CITY, WE NEED A DIVERSE ARRAY OF OPTIONS TO, TO MEET THAT DEMAND.
UM, SO
WE'LL, UM, HELLO, MY NAME IS ISAAC COHEN.
I AM A HOMEOWNER IN DISTRICT NINE IN A BOULDER CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD MEMBER.
UM, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR TREE CANOPY, IT'S GOT NOTHING ON THE THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF RANCH LAND BEING TURNED INTO SUBDIVISIONS.
OFFSETTING THE CARBON MONOXIDE FROM THE MILLIONS OF EXTRA DRIVEN MILES AND REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE FROM THE UNNECESSARY SUBURBS.
70% OF YOUR WATER IS WATERING, YOUR LAWN LAWNS AREN'T GREAT FOR WATER.
IF YOU CARE ABOUT THAT SORT OF THING, YOU COULD BRING OUT LOCALIZED HEAT.
BUT TALKING ABOUT IT WITHOUT SPRAWL IS DISINGENUOUS.
OUR SEWER PLANTS OPERATE AT 55% CAPACITY WITH A $78 MILLION UPGRADE UNDERWAY.
HIGHLY DENSE CITIES SUPPORT HIGHLY DENSE, HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PUBLIC TRANSIT, WHICH LOWERS COST OF LIVING AND ALLOWS PEOPLE TO BE MOBILE AS THEY AGE IN PLACE.
HOME PRICES AND TAXES HAVE RISEN, HAVE RISEN THROUGH 40 YEARS OF CONTINUOUSLY TIGHTENING LAND USE REGULATION IN SINGLE FAMILY AREAS.
MEANWHILE, RENTS HAVE DECREASED IN THE LAST THREE YEARS DUE TO RECORD BREAKING CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RENTAL UNITS.
UM, I HEAR THAT HOME IS A HANDOUT FOR DEVELOPERS THAT THE OPPONENTS OF HOME BUILD THEIR OWN HOUSES.
THERE ARE, THE DEVELOPERS NOT ONLY BUILD THE HOMES AND WRITE THE RACIST RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, THEY HOLD SO VALUABLE IF HOMES ARE NEEDED AND SOMEBODY'S GONNA BUILD IT.
WHO ELSE BUT DEVELOPERS? I MEAN, SERIOUSLY.
UM, I HEAR A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE UPSET ABOUT STAFFING LEVELS AND NOT ENOUGH EMERGENCY SERVICES, AND THEN I HEAR ABOUT THE ALLENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REJECTING DENSITY AT THE SITE OF THE ROSEDALE SCHOOL BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC.
'CAUSE APPARENTLY THE SCHOOL THAT WAS THERE BEFORE DIDN'T CAUSE TRAFFIC.
I HEAR ABOUT HOW SMALLER HOUSES DON'T GET BUILT ANYMORE, BUT THEN ZNA AND BREER WOODS ARE READY TO DIE ON SMALL LOT SIZES.
OUR CITY CODE MADE YOUR AFFORDABLE 1930 BUNGALOW IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD AT A PRICE TO MARKET WILL BEAR BECAUSE OF THE ANC.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM IRENE PICARD, JAMES VALDEZ.
GO RIGHT TO THE SECOND SLIDE IF YOU WOULD.
THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME BE HERE TONIGHT.
AND I AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT OUR TREE CANOPY.
UM, IN FACT, TONIGHT IN THE CAR COMING OVER HERE, I HEARD A FEDERAL REPORT WAS JUST RELEASED TODAY ABOUT THE, THE COST, THE FINANCIAL COSTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
AND ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS THAT WAS MENTIONED WAS THE EFFECT ON NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WERE LINED ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND LACK A TREE CANOPY.
AND THE FACT THAT THEY ARE HAVING MORE HEALTH EFFECTS, FLOODING EFFECTS AND FINANCIAL EFFECTS BE BECAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE RIGHT NOW.
AND THAT TREE PLANTING WAS CRITICAL.
UH, WE HAVE SOMETHING IN AUSTIN THAT WE SHOULD BE VERY PROUD OF, AND IT'S OUR TREE ORDINANCE.
THIS TREE ORDINANCE PROTECTS TREES THAT ARE FOUR AND A HALF FEET OFF THE, THE,
[01:05:01]
THE, UH, THE LAND, 19 INCHES IN DIAMETER.I DID A LITTLE RESEARCH ON HOW MANY TREES IN AUSTIN ARE PROTECTED AND HOW MANY TREES WE WILL NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BECAUSE THEY LIKELY WILL REMAIN WHERE THEY ARE.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THIS CHART, YOU WILL SEE THE DIAMETER CLASS ACROSS THE BOTTOM AND YOU WILL SEE THE PERCENT COMING UP THE SIDE.
AND YOU SEE FOR THOSE TREES THAT MEET THE PROTECTED STATUS IN OUR CITY, UM, ONLY 3.4% OF THOSE TREES IN AUSTIN ARE PROTECTED.
THAT MEANS THAT OVER 96% OF THE TREES ARE NOT AND ARE EXPENDABLE.
AND THIS IS A, AN AUSTIN, DOES THAT MEAN I'M WARNED OR DONE? GO AND FINISH YOUR THOUGHTS.
GO AND FINISH THIS SLIDE AND WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE TO MOVE ON.
UM, I, I JUST HAVE A REQUEST THAT WE STRENGTHEN THE TREE ORDINANCE TO, TO PROTECT TREES THAT ARE 14 INCHES IN DIAMETER.
PATRICK LAUREN, JEFFREY BOWEN.
MR. GEORGE FER, RITA THOMPSON.
NEVER HAVE I BEEN SO CONFLICTED AND AMBIVALENT WHERE OTHER PEOPLE SEEM TO HAVE CLARITY.
WELL, I'VE BEEN HERE 45 PLUS YEARS.
CO-OPS WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH AS A, UM, EVEN WORKING FOR NONPROFITS AS A SOCIAL WORKER, MY HUSBAND BEING A TEACHER AT ACC, WE WERE FORTUNATE TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD A HOME.
AND I KNOW SO MANY PEOPLE IN THOSE PROFESSIONS TODAY OR OTHERS SERVING OUR COMMUNITY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO SO.
AND SO I KNOW WE NEED ZONING REFORM.
AT THE SAME TIME, I KNOW THAT, UM, NEIGHBORHOODS ARE MORE THAN SOMEONE SAID IS DIRT.
THEY'RE MORE THAN BUILDINGS AND THEY'RE LOTS.
I'VE LEARNED FROM THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING WITH PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES THAT THEIR CONNECTIONS, THEIR RELATIONSHIPS, THEIR RESOURCES, THEIR INFORMAL THINGS THAT WE CAN'T EVEN DEFINE.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT FRAMING THE DISCUSSION IS ONE AS EITHER BEING A NIMBY OR PRO-DEVELOPMENT IS NOT HELPFUL.
AND IN MY MIND IT'S A FALSE NARRATIVE.
IF ANYTHING COULD JUST BE SO SIMPLE.
I BELIEVE WE NEED ZONING REFORM, AND I SUPPORT THIS AND I NEED KNOW THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY ARE CHANGING.
BUT I WANT TO ADDRESS HOW BROAD THIS REFORM IS BECAUSE MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT WITH SUCH A BLANKET ZONING CHANGE THAT COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED BASED ON ONE ZONING CATEGORY WITH SUCH A DRAMATIC CHANGE, IF WE DON'T LOOK AT THINGS LIKE CODES AND ORDINANCES AND VARIANCES, THAT WE COULD RUN INTO SOME DIFFICULTY.
AND I'LL GIVE AN EXAMPLE, FLOODING IN AN AREA THAT'S BEEN ZONED, I'M THINKING, AND THE ROADS COME UP IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD ON SUBSTANDARD ROADS.
HOW ARE THEY GOING TO SUSTAIN WITH TWO OR THREE MORE HOUSES? SO I'M FOR THIS ON SOME LEVEL, BUT WE SURE HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW TO INTEGRATE OUR CODES AND ORDINANCES AND WATCH OUT FOR THOSE VARIANCES OR WE WILL RUN INTO A PROBLEM.
LEE ZIEGLER SPEAKING FOR MYSELF.
UM, A MEMBER OF ANC TIME AND FOCUS ARE NEEDED TO BETTER EVALUATE AREAS DISTRICT BY DISTRICT, WHERE ADDITIONAL MIDDLE INCOME, AFFORDABLE HOUSING MIGHT BE ADDED TO CREATE COMPACT AND CONNECTED LIVING RELATIVE TO EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE.
LIMITATIONS INDUCED BY DENSITY SHOULD BE ADDRESSED.
[01:10:01]
INITIATIVE FAILS TO CONSIDER SUSTAINABLE LIVING CONDITIONS AND FAILS TO RESPECT COMMUNITY SAFETY AND WELFARE.IT IGNORES STRUCTURAL AND LAND LIMITATION AT THE OUTSET.
REVISION SHOULD INCLUDE PROTECTIONS LIKE PLANNED FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS TO UNITS IN THE BACK OF THE LOT LIKE DRAINAGE AND SEWAGE, WHICH CALLS FOR UPDATED STANDARDS BEFORE WHICH THERE SHOULD BE NO INCREASE IN UNITS, ANYWHERE THAT'S NOT DEEDED, AND NO INCREASE IN ONSITE IMPERVIOUS COVER NOR INCREASE FAR.
WHERE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NECESSARY INCLUDE PROTECTIONS LIKE REVISION OF OUR TREE ORDINANCE FOR GREATER PROTECTION SINCE RAPID GROWTH AND CLIMATE CHANGE HAVE ALREADY INCREASED.
HEAT ISLANDS SEVERELY THREATENING AUSTIN'S REMAINING TREES LIKE DATA FOR EXISTING UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ACROSS AUSTIN.
CURRENTLY UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION LIKE PLANNED CITY OF AUSTIN SERVICES, INCLUDING TRASH COLLECTION, ACKNOWLEDGING NO REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING THAT PUSHES CARS AND BIKE LANES AND PEOPLE ON MISSING SIDEWALKS.
DO YOU REALLY WANNA SEE THE EFFECTS OF EIGHT ADDITIONAL UNITS ON A 280 ACRE LOT? WITHOUT ADDRESSING ALL OF THESE ISSUES DO NOT DESTROY EXISTING ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS.
FOR MANY YOUNG AND OLDER HOMEOWNERS CURRENTLY IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, THE EXISTING MODEL HAS BECOME THE MOST AFFORDABLE OPTION AND BENEFICIAL COMMUNITY LIFESTYLE, WHICH IN MANY CASES WOULD BE DESTROYED BY THIS INITIATIVE AND RESULT IN DISPLACEMENT.
DO NOT APPROVE THIS, BUT GIVE ADDITIONAL FOCUS UPON LAND LIMITATION PER DISTRICT AND SIMULTANEOUS REVIEW OF PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO.
GEORGE FER, LIFELONG RESIDENT OF TRAVIS COUNTY.
THANK YOU FOR THAT MOMENT OF SILENCE.
UH, I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THE WORK THAT YOU ARE DOING.
I DON'T MEAN TO SOUND FLIPPANT, BUT SEVEN HOURS AND NOW WHATEVER THIS IS GONNA BE, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU GUYS.
I THINK MR. TURNER HAD ALL THE RIGHT DATA.
I'M ONE OF THE PRIVILEGED FEW, VERY FEW.
WE'VE DEBATED THIS FOR 25 YEARS, SO THANK YOU FOR MOVING US FORWARD.
I'M FORTUNATE TO LIVE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND BUTTS RIGHT UP TO WESTLAKE HILLS.
UM, OBVIOUSLY A VERY CONVENIENT AREA AND IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT ONLY A NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT'S A COMMUNITY.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF Y'ALL HAVE CHILDREN OR NOT, BUT I DON'T ALLOW MY CHILD TO PLAY IN THE STREETS, AND THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT.
THAT'S WHERE YOU DEVELOP A LOT OF SKILLS FROM A TACTICAL STANDPOINT, FROM THE ABILITY OF DISCERNING HOW TO CATCH, HOW TO PLAY, HOW TO DO DIFFERENT THINGS.
YOU STACK A BUNCH OF UNITS UP ON TOP OF A BLOCK LIKE WE HAVE AROUND US RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S NOT AN ENVIRONMENT FOR A CHILD.
IT'S NOT AFFORDABLE BY ANY MEANS.
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT'S NOT GONNA BE ANYWHERE NEAR WHAT SOME OF THESE PEOPLE STILL CAN'T AFFORD RIGHT NOW.
YOU GOTTA LOOK AT THESE THINGS AND THINK ABOUT IT FROM A LARGER PERSPECTIVE.
THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS IN OUR SOCIETY THAT WE'VE LOST, AND THE FAMILY IS PROBABLY ONE WE SHOULD NOT.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE EVERYONE'S HEART IS AND WHERE EVERYONE'S FOCUS IS.
WE CAN BUILD THINGS, WE CAN TEAR THINGS DOWN, WE CAN TAKE AWAY HISTORY, WE CAN PLAY ALL SORTS OF GAMES, BUT REALITY IS YOU'RE TAKING AWAY YOU, YOU'RE TAKING AWAY YOUR FAMILY, YOU'RE TAKING AWAY HISTORY.
AND THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT GAVE A LOT OF BLOOD FOR THIS COUNTRY.
AND I THINK YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT.
WE DIDN'T HAVE TO GO OUT AND DO THOSE THINGS AND PAY THE PRICE LIKE BACK IN THE TWENTIES AND THE THIRTIES AND THE FORTIES.
IT'S DISGUSTING WHAT HAPPENED IN OUR HISTORY.
AT THE SAME TIME THOUGH, IT'S REAL AND WE'RE LIVING IN A VERY OPULENT TIME.
AND I THINK THAT YOU NEED TO BE FOCUSED ON WHAT WE'RE DOING AS A COMMUNITY.
AND IF EVERYONE NEEDS A HOME, LET'S FIND A WAY TO DO THAT.
BUT LET'S DO IT IN A SMART MANNER.
WE HAVE LIMITED ASSETS, WE HAVE LIMITED RESOURCES.
YOU BRING TOO MANY PEOPLE INTO ONE AREA THAT DOESN'T WORK.
MAYBE WE NEED TO CONTROL ISSUE.
MAYBE WE NEED LOOK AT IT FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE ARE REALLY DECIMATING OUR VERY PRISTINE ENVIRONMENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYONE KNOWS OR IF THEY'VE DONE THEIR RESEARCH ON IT, BUT THEY NEED TO.
EVERYTHING COMES FROM SOMETHING.
AND I TELL YOU, WE ALL SHOULD RESPECT THAT IN EVERY WAY, SHAPE AND FORM, BUT ALWAYS, ALWAYS FOCUS ON TAKING CARE OF THE CHILDREN.
[01:15:02]
GOOD EVENING.I'M MONICA GOSMAN, POLICY DIRECTOR AT GO AUSTIN, VAMOS AUSTIN.
MY OCTOBER 26TH TALKING POINT SHOULD BE IN THE BACKUP DOCUMENTS.
THAT NIGHT I RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM A PROPERTY OWNER WHO SAID, AND I QUOTE, I'M A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, SINGLE FAMILY LANDLORD, AND OWNER OF LAND IN AUSTIN THAT WILL BENEFIT FROM THE PASSING OF THE HOME INITIATIVE.
HOWEVER, YOU ARE 100% CORRECT THAT LAND PRICES WILL INCREASE AND AFFORDABILITY WILL BE UNLIKELY.
PROPERTY TAXES WILL INCREASE DUE TO RISING LAND VALUE FROM ENTITLEMENTS.
I BELIEVE A LARGE PART OF UNAFFORDABILITY IS FROM THE PROPERTY TAX BURDEN AND DIFFICULTY FIGHTING THE APPRAISAL PROCESS.
LAST FRIDAY, A DISTRICT FOUR RESIDENT REACHED OUT TO ME, ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYTHING NEW THEY SHOULD KNOW.
I ASKED IF THEY RECEIVED THE PURPLE POSTCARDS.
THEY SAID YES AND BEYOND THAT HAD LIMITED INFORMATION.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD THEY LIVE IN IS OVER 70% SPANISH SPEAKERS AND IS IN A COMMUNITY IN THE RUNDBERG AREA WHERE 50 OVER 50 LANGUAGES AND DIALECTS ARE SPOKEN.
WHILE IT WAS NICE TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY, MANY WERE STILL LEFT OUT OF THE CONVERSATION.
WE RECOMMEND AT MINIMUM ANOTHER LANGUAGE ACCESSIBLE OPEN HOUSE, A VIRTUAL ONE WHERE PEOPLE CAN VISIT STAFF IN A BREAKOUT ROOM.
A BETTER RECOMMENDATION IS SCHEDULING OPEN HOUSES IN EACH DISTRICT WITH INTERPRETATION SERVICES NEEDED FOR THE RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS SUCH AS DISTRICT FOUR.
URBAN FORESTRY IN A MODERN CITY SAYS IN AUSTIN, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RESIDENCES ARE THE SECOND LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO CANOPY COVERAGE.
THE URBAN CANOPY IS ESPECIALLY CRITICAL TO DISTRICT FOUR IN THE, ESPECIALLY THE BERG AREA.
SINCE IT HAS THE LEAST AMOUNT OF URBAN CANOPY IN AUSTIN AND WHILE ALREADY APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL, THE ELIMINATION OF MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS IS NOT GOOD.
CERTAINLY NOT FOR THE BERG AREA OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN.
IT IS THE MOST DENSIFIED AREA WITH PLENTY OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES AS WELL AS SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS WHERE CARS LINED BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.
INCREASING RISK OF AUTO PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS HIT AND RUNS SOME LACKING ACCOUNTABILITY AS WELL AS MAKING IT MORE CHALLENGING FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND EMMS TO NAVIGATE THE STREETS.
I LIVE IN DISTRICT EIGHT AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING MYSELF.
UH, I'D LIKE TO THANK THOSE COMMISSIONERS THAT ACTUALLY MET WITH SEVERAL OF US FROM FROM ANC WHERE WE ACTUALLY HAD A CONVERSATION.
THERE WAS AN EXCHANGE OF IDEAS.
THERE WAS ACTUALLY DISCUSSION, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, ACTUAL DISCUSSION OVER THESE ISSUES.
NOW, I, I HEAR, AND I'VE, AND I'VE TOLD SEVERAL OF YOU ON THE COMMISSION THAT MET WITH US, THERE'S A US AND A THEM MENTALITY, AND THAT REALLY NEEDS TO GO AWAY.
WE REALLY NEED TO BE ABLE TO FOCUS ON THIS.
YES, I'VE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME, BUT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THOSE THAT, THAT HAVE ALSO STRUGGLED IN OUR YOUNGER DAYS.
I CAME HERE AS A YOUNG MILITARY GUY AND STRUGGLING ON THAT TYPE OF PAY TO LIVE, TO, TO BUY A HOUSE AND LIVE HERE.
AND AS I GET OLDER ON AND START GOING INTO FIXED INCOME, WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE SOME OF THE SAME STRUGGLES WE HAD BACK THEN.
THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO WORK TOGETHER, NOT SEPARATELY OR, OR ON OUR OWN AGENDAS OR WITH OUR OWN BIASES.
THIS IS AN ISSUE YOU'VE HEARD FROM THESE PEOPLE AND YOU'VE ALL HEARD ABOUT THE TREE CANOPY AND CURTEOUS COVER, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
WE ALL KNOW THOSE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES, WHETHER YOU'RE ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER.
IT'S JUST, IT BREAKS MY HEART TO SEE WE GET INTO AN US VERSUS THEM SITUATION, AND THAT BECOMES THE DIVIDING LINE VERSUS BEING ABLE TO WORK IN A COOPERATIVE COORDINATED METHOD AND WAY.
WE ARE NOT AGAINST AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
LOOK AT WHAT GOES ON AND MAKES THIS AREA UNAFFORDABLE.
OUR TAXES, OUR FEES THAT THE CITY PUTS ON US.
WE, I KNOW OF ONE PERSON HERE THAT HER INSURANCE WENT UP 150% JUST BECAUSE SHE LIVES CLOSE TO THE GREEN BELT.
THOSE ARE ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED TO BRING AFFORDABILITY DOWN AND MAKE IT MORE AFFORDABLE TO BUILD.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. SARITA THOMPSON.
[01:20:08]
GREETINGS COMMISSIONERS.UM, THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TONIGHT.
AND I HAVE TO ADMIT, THIS IS MY FIRST RODEO.
KAREN CLARY, AND I'M AN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST AND AN EXPERT ON THE ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON PROPOSED PROJECTS SUCH AS THIS.
I SPEAK TO YOU TODAY TO ADDRESS WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC IMPACTS TO BOTH THE NATURAL AND HUMAN ENVIRONMENT OF OUR CITY.
BASED ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO SSF ONE ZONING, SPECIFICALLY LOSS OF PERMEABLE COVER, AKE TREES AND DIRT.
I URGE YOU TO NOT RECOMMEND THIS PLAN AS WRITTEN.
WE KNOW THAT THE ZONING CHANGE WILL IMPACT 150,000 PROPERTIES AND 130 SQUARE MILES OF SSF LAND.
MUCH OF IT PRECIOUS URBAN FOREST, WHICH I CALL THE LUNGS OF THE CITY.
WITH THIS PLAN, OUR FORESTS ARE AT GREAT RISK.
SO I HAVE AN EXAMPLE, UM, I HAVE TWO EXAMPLES.
THE FIRST SLIDE, UM, SHOWS A SECTION.
THIS IS A, A NEIGHBORHOOD IN TRANSITION AND THAT'S THE POINT I WANNA MAKE.
THIS IS A SECTION OF THE HIGHLAND HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ZIP CODE 7 8 7 5 2 BUILT AROUND 1946.
MANY OF THE TREES AND YARDS HERE ARE AT LEAST 50 YEARS OLD AND MANY ARE OLDER.
THIS FORMER SSF ONE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS REZONED SSF THREE NP AND T-O-D-N-P.
AND YOU CAN SEE HOW THEY'RE, UM, THEY'RE MARKED AS SUCH.
AND THE YELLOW LINE DOWN, UM, THE MIDDLE IS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE TWO.
UM, ALL RIGHT, IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THIS SLIDE, LOOK AT THE LARGE APARTMENT COMPLEXES.
TREE COVER AND PERMEABLE GROUND COVER ARE GONE.
YOU CAN SEE THE TRANSITION FROM SSF ONE TO SSF THREE, THE OLD SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOTS WITH THEIR SMALL FOOTPRINTS, STILL SUSTAIN HEALTHY TREE CORRIDORS AND BACKYARDS WITH 30 TO 50% GREEN COVER.
NOW LET'S TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT SECTION TWO SINCE I'M OUT OF TIME.
THIS DETAILS THE LOSS OF PERMEABLE COVER.
SLIDE TWO SHOWS A CLOSEUP OF LOTS THAT HAVE ALREADY TRANSITIONED TO SSF THREE, THE SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH LOTS ON EAST GUADALUPE ON CROSS EAST OF GUADALUPE ON CROSMAN STREET ARE BUILT AS PERMITTED UNDER SF THREE.
THE BUILDINGS ON LOTS TWO AND THREE OCCUPY FIVE, SIX OF THE LOTS ARE 83%.
THE BUILDING ON LOT FOUR TAKES UP 80%.
WHEN YOU ADD THE SLAB DRIVEWAY, WHERE ARE THE TREES? SO, SO I, I DON'T WANNA A FIRST TIMER DISCOURAGE YOU.
THIS IS, UH, I LIKE THAT YOU BROUGHT YOUR OWN SLIDES.
WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SPEAKER.
I LOVE YOUR GRAPHICS, BUT WE HAVE TO MOVE ON.
UH, CAN I SAY ONE MORE THING? SURE.
YOU CAN'T IN SUM, YOU CAN'T PLANT A TREE BACK WHERE THERE IS NO GROUND LEFT TO PUT IT IN.
UH, CHRISTOPHER, YOU GOT IT? YEAH.
UH, CHRISTOPHER PAGE, DISTRICT ONE.
UM, AS RECENTLY AS THIS LAST WEDNESDAY, THE AUTHORS OF THIS POLICY WERE LITERALLY RECOMMENDING IN A MEETING THAT OUR NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING GETS LOADED ONTO FLATBED TRUCKS AND DRIVEN OUT TO THE EDGE OF THE CITY THAT WAS PRESUMABLY FOR PRESERVATION, BUT THIS IS LITERALLY UPROOTING EXISTING COMMUNITIES.
YOU WANNA HAUL 'EM OFF TO THE EDGE OF THE CITY SO THAT THREE NEW UNAFFORDABLE UNITS CAN REPLACE IT.
OR IF THEY WAIT UNTIL NEXT SPRING, THEY CAN DO MAYBE SIX OR NINE UNITS.
UM, THIS IS PHYSICAL DISPLACEMENT.
I OPPOSE THIS ORDINANCE BECAUSE I SUPPORT AFFORDABILITY.
I'M TALKING ABOUT ACTUAL AFFORDABILITY THAT THE MARKET NEVER PROVIDES TO THE PEOPLE ON THE CUSP OF FINANCIAL DISPLACEMENT.
THE CITY IS RECOMMENDING THAT THEY BUILD TWO OR SIX OR WHATEVER CRAZY NUMBER OF HOUSES THAT OBVIOUSLY THEY CAN'T.
IT SOUNDS LIKE A POLICY WRITTEN BY MARIA ANTOINETTE.
NOW, LET'S PRETEND FOR A MOMENT THAT THAT'S A REALISTIC OPTION.
YOU'RE ENCOURAGING AMATEURS TO GO INTO THE MOST HOSTILE FINANCIAL MARKET LENDING MARKET THAT HAS EXISTED IN DECADES.
IT'S SO BAD THAT SEASONED PROFESSIONALS ARE BUCKLING OUT THERE, AND THE PEOPLE THAT GO INTO THAT MARKET ARE GONNA LOSE THE HOUSE AND THE YARD THAT THEY STARTED WITH.
YOU RECOMMEND WE DO THIS TO SOLVE OUR AFFORDABLE, OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS.
[01:25:01]
WE DEREGULATE, HAS THAT EVER MADE SENSE IN THIS CITY? AS YOU TRY TO PRODUCE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TEACHERS, FIREFIGHTERS, EMS, MUSICIANS, SOCIAL WORKERS, UH, CONSTRUCTION, POLICE, LIKE ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WORK WITH THEIR HANDS AND MAKE THE CITY GO.YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS IS GONNA BENEFIT THEM, BUT REALLY WHAT THIS IS, IS FREE MARKET, UNRESTRICTED PRICE, NEW HOUSING, AND AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY LAID OUT, YOU'RE NOT EVEN LIMITING THE SIZE FOR IT TO BE SMALL AND AFFORDABLE.
AND THE LAST THING I COULD GO ON FOR DAYS, BUT THE LAST THING, SOMEBODY FROM A I A SUGGESTED THAT THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN UPZONING AND UNAFFORDABILITY.
YOU SHOULD LOOK UP YUNA FREEMARK.
HE'S AN MIT PHD AND HE'S PROVEN IT.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM RITA THOMPSON.
I'VE LIVED IN COUNCIL MEMBER POOLS DISTRICT SINCE 1992.
I KNOW SOME OF YOU ON THE COMMISSION, OTHERS OF YOU, I DO NOT KNOW.
I DO APPRECIATE THE TIME THAT YOU DEVOTE TO THIS, AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT GIVE THIS PROPOSAL, UM, A FAIR LOOK AT ALL SIDES, NOT JUST ONE SIDE.
BECAUSE THIS PROPOSAL UNDERMINES OUR WORKING POOR, OUR LOW INCOME, AND OUR MIDDLE INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS.
BECAUSE IT PROVOKES PROMOTES SPECULATION AND GENTRIFICATION.
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS OR THE LAW.
IT IS A ONE-SIDED POLICY THAT HAS LEFT OUT THE VOICES OF COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS.
THE COUNCIL COULD AND SHOULD HAVE URGED EARLY COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION STAKEHOLDERS AND DEVELOPMENT ADVOCATES.
I DO THANK YOU FOR MEETING WITH SOME OF THE ANC REPRESENTATIVES TODAY TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY.
I WANT TO SAY THAT I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF HEARING THE LATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, AND HE URGED VIGILANCE IN PROTECTING OUR RIGHTS.
HE WAS TALKING ABOUT AN ORDINARY FROG THAT COULD SWIM HAPPILY IN A WARM POT OF WATER AND NOT JUMP OUT, BUT TURNING UP THE HEATED NOTCH WOULD MAKE THE FROG MOVE SLOWER.
ANOTHER NOTCH WOULD MAKE THE FROG UNCONSCIOUS, AND SOON THERE WOULD BE FROG LEGS FOR DINNER.
THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS ALWAYS GUARD YOUR RIGHTS AND NOT LET THEM BE TAKEN AWAY INCREMENTALLY STEP BY STEP.
THAT IS WHAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES INCREMENTALLY.
IT SEPARATES PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO.
DOES THAT SET UP TWO PHASES OF PROTEST AND NOTICE DOES IT? IF IT DOES, THEN YOU GET TO START OVER WITH ALL OF THAT.
THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND AND RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL TAKE A TRANSPARENT APPROACH AND NOT TAKE INCREMENTAL STEPS FOR UPSELLING, HOPING THE VOTERS WON'T NOTICE THEY'RE BEING COOKED FOR FROG LEGS.
THE CITY'S AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT DEMONSTRATES THAT PHASE ONE IS A LOSS FOR THE COMMUNITY AND NOT A WIN.
UH, PLEASE CONTINUE WITH COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, ADVOCATES.
MY NAME IS JEFF DICKERSON, REPRESENTATIVE OF MATTHEWS LANE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
BUT TONIGHT I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE MISLEADING COS CONCEPT PROPOSED BY UPZONING IT THEY WILL COME, DOES NOT WORK.
THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION BY NOT PUTTING TOGETHER PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO ARE BEING DISHONEST AND DISINGENUOUS TO THE HOMEOWNERS AND THE TAXPAYERS.
[01:30:01]
LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT THAT GOES ALONG WITH THE ZONING IS MISSING.NOBODY EVER TALKED ABOUT NEEDING TO UPGRADE THE STREETS.
NOBODY EVER TALKED ABOUT NEEDING TO UPGRADE THE SEWER, THE DRAINAGE.
AND TO PARAPHRASE THAT PREVIOUS SPEAKER, WE HAD DEVELOPERS AND YOU GUYS APPROVED OF 1109 MATTHEWS, 1501 DAMON, ALBERT ROAD.
THERE HAVE BEEN DEVELOPERS PUT THERE, HOUSE PRICES ARE HALF A MILLION TO $700,000.
WE PUT MORE HOUSES AND UNITS ON THE STREET, AND NONE OF 'EM ARE AFFORDABLE AND NONE OF THE PRICES HAVE GONE DOWN.
THESE ARE REAL LIFE STATISTICS, NOT NUMBERS, NOT THINGS YOU SEE ON STATISTICS.
YOU KNOW, THE OLD SAYING, NO MATTER HOW MUCH LIPSTICK YOU PUT ON A PIG, IT'S STILL A PIG.
PRESENT, OKAY, IS MS. SUSAN'S PRESENT.
BRITA WALLACE L ALLEN WITH MS. SUSAN SPIT PRESENT MSS SHARON B OR I'M SORRY, SHARON BLYTHE.
MS. RO, YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES.
UM, SUSAN SPIRO, I LIVE IN IN SECTION, UH, DISTRICT EIGHT.
AND I DON'T WANNA REPEAT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID, BUT SOME OF THE THINGS, IF YOU'RE, IF WRIGLEY THE GOAL HERE IS AFFORDABILITY, THEN YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ADEQUATE FACTS AND THE FISCAL NOTES TO DETERMINE IF THAT'S TRUE.
I DID A HANDOUT THAT I THINK ALL OF YOU GOT.
AND, AND WHAT IT SAYS IS BASICALLY WE HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE.
YOU'RE SAYING NOW LET'S EXPAND IT BY THREE.
WHERE THERE'S ONE DWELLING, YOU CAN NOW HAVE THREE.
OKAY? INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ONE DOESN'T SERVE THREE.
SO THE FIRST THING YOU NEED TO DETERMINE IS, IS THERE ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE? AND THE ANSWER OF COURSE IS NO.
TWO, WHAT WILL IT COST TO BUILD THAT INFRASTRUCTURE? AND THREE, WHO'S GONNA PAY FOR IT? DOES THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER PAY FOR IT? IS IT YOUR ELECTRIC BILL GOES UP? YOUR TAXES GO UP? I THINK WHAT YOU'RE GONNA FIND, IF YOU PUT AN ANALYSIS OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE, WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO AND WHAT IT COSTS, THIS PLAN DOES NOT INCREASE AFFORDABILITY.
THE OTHER THING I THINK THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT, WHICH BOTHERS ME EVERY TIME WE TALK ABOUT THIS, IS WE REALLY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE QUALITY OF HOUSING.
AND THAT IS, DO WE WANT HOMES WHERE PEOPLE CAN HAVE CHILDREN? I, THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT, ANOTHER GENTLEMAN BROUGHT THAT UP, AND THAT IS, WHY DO WE WANNA SCRUNCH EVERYTHING TOGETHER AND ELIMINATE YARDS FOR CHILDREN? AUSTIN RIGHT NOW IS LOSING FAMILIES AND CHILDREN.
ASD ENROLLMENT THIS YEAR IS PROJECTED AT 73,000 STUDENTS IN FOUR YEARS.
SO THE TRUTH IS, IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF SMASHING EVERYTHING AS MUCH AS WE CAN.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU IS GO OUT AND LOOK YOURSELF AT A LOT.
THAT'S 5,000 OR 6,000 SQUARE FEET.
AND THEN LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, NOW WHAT IF THERE'S THREE DWELLINGS ON THERE AND IN JANUARY, WHAT IF THERE'S SIX ON THERE? AND BY THE WAY, NOW THE INFRASTRUCTURE DOUBLES.
AGAIN, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO THAT BECAUSE THESE PICTURES AND AND DEPICTIONS REALLY DON'T SHOW THE REALITY.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MASSIVE GROWTH.
BUT THE TRUTH IS THIS, THIS IS AN ARTICLE 11, 2 23 AUSTIN'S MEDIAN HOME PRICE IS DOWN ABOUT 5% YEAR OVER YEAR.
THE BIGGEST DECLINE IN THE UNITED STATES FOR THE FIRST TIME ON RECORD AUSTIN IS LOSING HOME BUYERS TO OTHER CITIES.
AUSTIN WAS THE NUMBER ONE DES, UH, DESTINATION FOR HOME OWNERS IN 21.
BUT NOW MORE PEOPLE ARE PACKING THEIR BAGS.
SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD ASSUME WE ARE GONNA CONSTANTLY GET THIS MASSIVE GROWTH.
[01:35:01]
SECOND ARTICLE FROM JANUARY TO MAY THIS YEAR, AUSTIN SAW THE FIFTH LARGEST NET OUTWARD MIGRATION AMONG MAJOR UNITED STATES CITIES.SO WHAT'S HAPPENING IS WE ARE FORCING PEOPLE OUT IF YOU HAVE A HOME OR IF YOU'RE RENTING.
NOW, THE REASON YOU CAN'T STAY HERE IS THE TAXES ARE TOO HIGH, THE ELECTRIC BILLS ARE TOO HIGH, THE WATER BILLS ARE TOO HIGH, AND THE FEES ARE TOO HIGH.
RENTERS SOMETIMES THINK THEY, THEY DON'T PAY TAXES, BUT OF COURSE THEY DO BECAUSE THE OWNER PASSES THAT ON TO THE RENTER.
SO THE TRUTH IS, IF WE REALLY WANNA LOOK AT AFFORDABILITY, WE SHOULD LOOK AT THOSE KIND OF THINGS.
AND BEFORE WE EMBARK ON A PLAN LIKE YOU'RE LOOKING AT, THERE HAS TO BE A FACTUAL ANALYSIS OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND THEN THERE'S THE MATTER OF STREETS.
AND THAT IS, A COUPLE OF PEOPLE BROUGHT THAT UP.
UM, WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT YOU DO TO STREETS WHEN YOU'VE GOT THREE STRUCTURES WHERE THERE WAS ONE AND NO PARKING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
WE HAVE BRITTA WALLACE, ELLEN ALLEN, DAVID GLENN, EDWARD HENDERSON.
HI, GOOD EVENING, UH, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
I WORK FOR THE HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, AND I'M ALSO A HOMEOWNER IN DISTRICT FIVE.
I WANT TO THANK THE COUNCIL AND THIS COMMISSION FOR TAKING UP THIS ITEM.
WE THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE.
UH, WE SENT IN COMMENTS YESTERDAY, SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE.
UM, OTHER CITIES HAVE ADOPTED SIMILAR, SIMILAR INITIATIVES AND HAVE SEEN SUCCESS.
WE'VE SEEN HOME PRICES MITIGATED, RECOGNIZING THAT THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS THAT CAUSE HOMES TO GO UP, LIKE THE COST OF LABOR, COST OF MATERIALS.
UM, BUT THIS ITEM RIGHT HERE INTRODUCES GENTLE DENSITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
UH, A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN INCREASE FROM ONE TO THREE, BUT A VAST MAJORITY OF OUR CITY IS ZONED SSF THREE AND ALREADY ALLOWS FOR TWO UNITS.
SO THIS IS ONLY ONE MORE UNIT THAN WHAT'S TYPICALLY ALLOWED TODAY ON A, ON A TYPICAL LOT.
UM, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ENSURE THAT THESE, THESE HOMES ARE SIZED FOR FAMILIES.
I HEAR SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT LIMITING THE SIZE OF THE UNITS, BUT, UH, WE ALSO HEAR ABOUT ISDS STRUGGLING TO KEEP, UH, FAMILIES AND, AND SCHOOL, UH, KIDS IN THEIR SCHOOLS.
I THINK IF WE CREATE HOMES AND A, AN ADDITIONAL DENSITY THAT ALLOWS THOSE FAMILIES TO LIVE IN THE CORE OF THE CITY WHERE THERE ARE JOBS, WHERE THERE'S TRANSPORTATION, AND WHERE THERE ARE, WHERE THERE ARE MORE SCHOOLS, UM, WE MIGHT SEE SOME OF THOSE ATTENDANCE RATES INCREASE.
UH, AS SCOTT MENTIONED, THOSE FAMILIES, THEY'RE, THEY'RE LEAVING AUSTIN BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE HERE.
SO THEY'RE GONNA DRIVE UNTIL THEY QUALIFY AND MOVE INTO A, UH, SOUTHERN, SUBURBAN COMMUNITY.
UM, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT THIS CODE AND MAKE SURE THAT IT, IT, UM, IT JIVES WELL WITH OTHER PARTS OF THE CODE.
WE'VE GOT A, A VERY OLD AND VERY OUTDATED FRANKENSTEIN CODE.
UM, AND I THINK THAT THERE ARE POTENTIAL PITFALLS FOR THIS ITEM.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE CITY STAFF AND THE POLICYMAKERS CONSULT WITH THE EXPERTS.
UM, I KNOW IT'S VERY EASY TO, UM, TO TALK ABOUT AFFORDABILITY OR, UM, CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFORDABILITY, BUT IF THOSE PROJECTS DON'T PENCIL, THEY'LL NEVER GET BUILT.
UM, SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER IS OFFERED UP AND FINALLY APPROVED, UM, THAT THE PRACTITIONERS AND THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY USE THE CODE GET TO WEIGH IN ON IT.
UH, AND I, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.
WE'RE TALKING A LOT ABOUT THE, IF I COULD FINISH MY THOUGHT HERE.
UH, WE TALK A LOT ABOUT THE FOLKS WHO ARE IMPACTED BY THIS.
70% OF AUSTIN EMS WORKERS DON'T LIVE IN TRAVIS COUNTY.
THE AUSTIN EMS ASSOCIATION SUPPORTS THIS ENVIRONMENT, TEXAS, THE LEADING ENVIRONMENTAL VOICE FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS.
THEY SUPPORT THIS 'CAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF DENSITY AND THE AARP WHO TALKING ABOUT AGING IN PLACE, HAS THEIR OWN MISSING MIDDLE, UM, PACKAGE THAT THEY GIVE TO THEIR MEMBERS SO THAT THEY CAN AGE IN PLACE.
WANNA HEAR FROM JARED, HANS, HANS MANON, MARIO CANTU, PARKER WELCH,
I'M HERE REPRESENTING MYSELF AND I'M FROM DISTRICT SEVEN.
UM, I THINK WHAT YOU HAVE IS A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM.
UH, WHAT I SEE IS GONNA HAPPEN WITH THIS, UH, UH, PROPOSAL IS THAT, UH, WE'LL BE ABLE TO EXPAND THE MCMANSIONS TO BE MEGA MANSIONS AS THE ARCHITECTS HAVE PRESENTED EARLIER TODAY.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING WE'RE GONNA HAVE IS A LARGE NUMBER OF, UM, SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
NOTHING OF THIS WILL HELP AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
[01:40:02]
GOOD EVENING, COMMERS.I'M A NATIVE TEXAN HERE FROM AUSTIN, TEXAS.
UH, SO MY THING IS THE VALUE OF DIRT VERSUS THE VALUE OF LIFE.
UH, WHAT'S THE INTENT FOR THIS? IS THERE GONNA BE ANY AFFORDABILITY? AND I TALK ABOUT REAL AFFORDABILITY WHERE AEMS WORKER COULD POTENTIALLY RENT AAAA PLACE FOR 800 TO 1200.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE TALK A LOT ABOUT EMS WORKERS AND WE'RE IN A CRISIS RIGHT NOW WITH THEM.
WE TALKED ABOUT THIS 15 YEARS AGO, AND WE'RE STILL AT THE SAME POINT WITH 9 1 1 DISPATCHERS, FIVE MINUTE, 10 MINUTE WAIT TIMES.
GOOD THING THERE'S NO CARDIAC ARREST.
LAST TIME I CALLED, GOOD THING THERE WAS NO HOUSES ON FIRE.
SO, SO NONE OF THAT WAS, WAS EVEN CONSIDERED.
BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PARAMEDICS, EMTS AND THE DISPATCHERS WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING THAT, I HADN'T HEARD ONE PERSON UP HERE THAT'S WALKED UP AND SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE, WE HAVE, WE HAVE A WAY THAT WE CAN RETAIN 'EM HERE IN OUR CITY AND WE CAN GET 'EM SUPREME RENTAL UNITS.
AND IT, IT'S, IT'S ONGOING ALL THE TIME AND WE'RE LOSING THOSE GUYS.
JUST THINK ABOUT IT FOR A SECOND.
IF I TOOK HALF OF THIS ROOM RIGHT HERE, THESE INDIVIDUALS UP HERE AND THESE OTHER, OTHER HALF HAD TO DO CPR ON AN EIGHT MONTH, 13 YEAR OLD OVERDOSE CHILD, TEENAGER, HOW DO YOU GONNA FEEL WHEN YOU GO BACK HOME TONIGHT? AND THEN YOU GOTTA WORRY ABOUT YOUR RENT AND THEN YOU'RE NOT GETTING PAID AS MUCH AND IT'S OVER AND OVER AND OVER, BUT YOU LOVE DOING YOUR JOB AND YOU'RE GOOD AT IT, YOU'RE GOOD AT RESUSCITATING, BUT YOU CAN'T LIVE IN THE CITY BECAUSE NO ONE IS, IS IS ADDRESSING THAT ONE PARTICULAR CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM.
SO THIS WHOLE THING IS, THIS WHOLE SCHEME IS GREAT, AND I KNOW OMS IS A PORT, BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD ONE PERSON UP HERE IN THE FRONT OR IN THE BACK WITH DEVELOPERS, ARCHITECTS, ANYBODY THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW WHAT? I GUARANTEE THAT WE CAN GET THOSE EMS WORKERS AT 800 BUCKS OR 500 BUCKS A MONTH.
MY NAME IS PARKER WELCH AS A TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER.
I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TONIGHT ABOUT THE UNFOUNDED ASSUMPTIONS OF NEGATIVE IMPACTS FROM HOME ON OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.
I WANNA MAKE CLEAR THAT EVEN WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL CYCLING, WALKING, OR TRANSIT TRIPS, THE HOME AMENDMENTS WOULD STILL RESULT IN REDUCED VEHICLE MILES AND REDUCED CARBON EMISSIONS SIMPLY BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD BE A CLOSER DRIVE TO WORK TO SCHOOL INTO THE GROCERY STORE.
TAKE THE FORMER ROSEDALE SCHOOL, FOR INSTANCE, WITH HOME AISD CAN ADD 25 MORE HOUSES FOR TEACHERS TO THAT PROJECT EASILY 50 PEOPLE IN THE CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD OF ROSEDALE.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD I LIVE IN THERE ARE MULTIPLE COFFEE SHOPS, CHURCHES, BARBER BARBERSHOPS, A BAKERY, ACVS, A HIGH SCHOOL AND MORE.
ALL WITHIN A 10 MINUTE WALK OR A TWO MINUTE DRIVE, THERE'S EVEN A CLOCK REPAIR STORE HOME WILL REDUCE THE LOAD ON OUR MOST EXPENSIVE CONGESTED AND POLLUTED ROADWAYS.
IF WE BRING ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS CLOSER TOGETHER THAN THE 10 LANES FITS ALL APPROACH OF HIGHWAYS WILL NO LONGER BE THE ONLY OPTION FOR PEOPLE JUST TRYING TO GET THROUGH THEIR DAY.
FINALLY, A LOT OF MY JOB IS DRAINAGE MODELING.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT IN DRAINAGE TO UNDERSTAND YOUR FRAME OF ANALYSIS.
CONTRARY TO OPPONENT'S CLAIMS, HOME IS LIKELY TO REDUCE FLOODING BY REDUCING THE DEMAND FOR IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF AUSTIN.
AND YOU NEED NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.
IT IS IN THE BENEFITS OF INFILL ARE IN THE EPAS GUIDANCE FOR URBAN WATERSHEDS, AND YOU CAN FIND THAT ON THEIR WEBSITE EPA.GOV.
IF WE CAN HAVE JAY DY PHILLIP WILEY, ZACH FED, MEGAN S. DAVID SULLIVAN.
UH, HOW DO PLANNING COMMISSIONER, HOW DO PLANNING COMMISSIONERS? MY NAME IS ZACH FADDIS.
I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT NINE PRESIDENT OF AURA ME.
ME AND A GOOD NUMBER OF MY FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS HAVE COME DOWN HERE TODAY TO SHOW Y'ALL OUR SINCERE EXCITEMENT AND GRATITUDE FOR THE HOME ORDINANCE OR IS COMMITTING, IS COMMITTED TO MAKING AUSTIN, AUSTIN THE FRIENDLIEST GOSH DARN CITY IN TEXAS.
AND FOR THAT TO HAPPEN, WE HAVE TO END THE LAWS THAT KEEP US EXCLUSIVE, SEGREGATED, AND UNWELCOMING TO ALL BUT THE RICHEST.
WE'VE GOT A LONG WAY TO GO TO MAKE THAT DREAM A REALITY.
BUT COUNCIL MEMBER POOL'S HOME INITIATIVE IS A HUGE STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, AND WE ARE GOING TO BE THERE WHENEVER NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT NOT JUST THE CHANGES BEFORE YOU GET PASSED, BUT THE FULL VISION LAID OUT IN THE HOME RESOLUTION.
[01:45:04]
UM, HELLO FRIENDS.I SERVED ON THIS AUGUST BODY FOR 16 YEARS IN THE LAST CENTURY.
UM, SO ACTUALLY IT WAS EARLIER IN THIS CENTURY.
LET ME, I STARTED IN THE LAST CENTURY.
I DID SPEAK BEFORE YOU DURING THE JOINT COUNCIL IN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND I READ YOU THE LETTER FROM THE CONGRESS FOR NEW URBANISM.
SO I WON'T GO INTO THAT AGAIN.
I JUST WANNA SPEAK TO ONE ISSUE.
AND THAT'S THE FACT THAT HIGHER DENSITY LEADS TO LOWER GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
I REFER TO YOU, REFER YOU TO THE CALIFORNIA, UH, THE CAL UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY'S COOL CLIMATE WEBPAGE.
AND IT WILL SHOW YOU THAT THE GREENEST PART OF THIS CITY IS DOWNTOWN.
AND THEN AS YOU GO INTO THE SUBURBS, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS PER HOUSEHOLD GO UP BECAUSE MORE PEOPLE HAVE TO DRIVE.
BUT IF WE CAN DENSIFY THE CITY, AND THIS IS JUST A SMALL STEP IN THAT DIRECTION, IT WOULD BE EASIER FOR MASS TRANSIT.
UH, PEOPLE WILL HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO WALK TO, UH, LOCAL BUSINESSES BECAUSE THE MORE ROOFTOPS WILL ATTRACT THOSE LOCAL BUSINESSES TO CORNERS ON ARTERIALS AND MAYBE SOME COLLECTOR STREETS.
AND THEN YOU HAVE FEWER PEOPLE DRIVING.
AND THEN IF WE HAVE, UH, I THINK, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER POOL'S IDEA WAS TO CONNECT SOME OF THESE SMALL, UH, TRIPLEXES SO THAT THEY SHARE WALLS AND THAT WAY THEY WILL SAVE ENERGY AND COOLING, UH, ENERGY, UH, AND HAVE LOWER BILLS SO THAT THAT'S ANOTHER WAY THAT THEY CAN SAVE MONEY AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
SO ANYWAY, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO PLEASE MOVE HOME ONE FORWARD AND THE OTHER, UH, RESOLUTIONS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS PASSED RECENTLY.
AND I HEAR FROM CYRUS ANI, HEATHER HUBS, KIRK PHILLIPS, KIM LIER, MATTHEW ATKINSON.
WE WILL HEAR FROM MICHAEL WATSON.
BOB BARONE, RYAN NELL, BENJAMIN KELLY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
I'VE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE AND I FIND THE WHOLE PROCESS EXTREMELY FASCINATING IN A GOOD WAY.
UH, I'M AN ENGINEER AND I'M A GRADUATE OF UT.
MY WIFE DONNA AND I HAVE LIVED IN AUSTIN IN THE SAME HOUSE FOR 38 YEARS.
WE ARE, AS YOU CAN TELL, OR I CAN, YOU CAN TELL THAT I'M VERY NEAR RETIREMENT.
UM, FOR MANY YEARS WE'VE EXPENDED MUCH EFFORT, BOTH PHYSICAL AND FINANCIALLY INTO OUR CURRENT HOME TO CREATE A PLACE TO ENJOY AND LIVE OUT OUR RETIREMENT YEARS.
I'M HERE TONIGHT JUST TO EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION TO THE HOME RESOLUTION WITH THE IN, UH, IN INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF THE RESTRICTION ON THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED ADULTS LIVING IN A HOUSING UNIT.
WHEN I THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE, UH, WITH THE HOME INITIATIVE IN PLACE, IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO IMAGINE WHAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MIGHT LOOK LIKE WHEN THAT IS HAPPENING WITH ONE EXCEPTION.
AND THAT WOULD BE, UH, THE PERSPECTIVE I HAVE BASED ON THE FACT THAT I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM A SHORT TERM RENTAL
UM, WITH JUST THAT ONE PROPERTY, I HAVE EXPERIENCED AS MANY AS 14 VEHICLES PARKED UP AND DOWN THE STREET.
A LOT OF NOISE AND A LOT OF TOTAL STRANGERS AS NEIGHBORS.
I THINK THAT GIVES ME A BIT OF A GLIMPSE OF WHAT A NEIGHBORHOOD MIGHT LOOK LIKE IF IT WAS FULL OF TINY HOMES, LOSS OF TREES, LOTS OF DISTURBING CONSTRUCTION, LOTS OF PEOPLE, I DON'T KNOW, LOSS OF PRIVACY, A STREET LINED WITH CARS ON BOTH SIDES, UP FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER, A POTENTIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES MOST CONCERNING THE POTENTIAL FOR INCREASED CRIME.
HELLO, UH, MY NAME IS RYAN MILL AND I REPRESENT THE AUSTIN COOPERATIVE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION.
UH, Y'ALL HAVE HEARD HEARD MY TESTIMONY BEFORE TWICE, AT LEAST AT THIS POINT.
SO I WANNA RESPOND TO A POINT THAT BETSY
[01:50:01]
GREENBERG MADE IN HER PRESENTATION EARLIER, UM, ABOUT THE DISCRIMINATORY NATURE OF THE CURRENT OCCUPANCY LIMITS, WHICH DISCRIMINATE BASED ON FAMILIAL STATUS.AND I WILL CONFIRM THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO LAWSUITS, AT LEAST THAT I'M AWARE OF, BROUGHT TO CHALLENGE THAT, AND I CAN GIVE YOU SOME INSIGHT INTO WHY.
UM, I'VE WORKED WITH AT LEAST FOUR DIFFERENT CO-OPS THAT HAVE, UM, BEEN IN VIOLATION OF THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS.
UH, ONE OF THEM DID SO BECAUSE THEIR REALTOR GUARANTEED THEM THAT THEY HAD THE RIGHT AND THAT WAS INCORRECT.
AND THEY WENT THROUGH A THREE YEAR LONG LEGAL, UH, STRUGGLE TO GAIN THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT WAS SONO CO-OP IN THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS.
UH, THE OTHER THREE, I WON'T GO INTO MORE DETAILS BECAUSE THEY STILL VIOLATE OCCUPANCY LIMITS AND THEY ARE AFRAID TO ENGAGE IN A LAWSUIT BECAUSE THEY FEAR THEY WILL LOSE THEIR HOUSING.
SO THAT IS WHY YOU DON'T SEE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THIS VULNERABLE POSITION BRINGING LAWSUITS, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WILL SUPPORT THEM AND HELP THEM FIGHT THAT DISCRIMINATORY, UM, STATUTE, BUT THEY'RE TOO AFRAID TO DO SO.
UM, SO IF ANYONE KNOWS SOMEONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ENGAGE IN THIS, IF IT'S NECESSARY, I'M CERTAINLY WILLING TO TRY TO SUPPORT THAT.
UM, BUT THAT IS THE SITUATION AS WE SEE IT, WE'D LOVE TO CHALLENGE IT, BUT THIS IS JUST A MUCH BETTER WAY THAT'S GONNA RISK LESS PEOPLE'S HOMES TO PASS IT TONIGHT.
SO I URGE JOEL TO PASS THESE INITIATIVES AND THANK YOU AND HAVE A GOOD REST OF YOUR NIGHT.
NOW HERE FROM BENJAMIN, JONATHAN LEE, JENNY GRAYSON, MR. MARISSA BARRETO, CHER, NICK HANNO.
UM, I WAS, I'VE BEEN DEVELOPING REAL ESTATE IN AUSTIN FOR THE LAST 11 YEARS, AND JUST RECENTLY IN THE LAST YEAR BEGAN, UH, MANUFACTURING TINY HOMES.
UM, WE BUILD REALLY HIGH END TINY HOMES THAT CAN SLEEP UP TO FOUR PEOPLE.
THAT'S ALL IN EVERYTHING INCLUDED, NO EXTRAS.
UM, SO ANYONE WHO'S SAYING THAT THIS CANNOT CREATE AFFORDABILITY HAS NOT LOOKED AT THE OPTIONS THAT WE ARE OFFERING.
UH, OUR TINY HOMES CAN BE MOVED INTO SOMEONE'S YARD, UH, AND HOOKED UP IN A MATTER OF HOURS.
UM, THEY USE THE SAME CONNECTION THAT A TESLA CHARGER USES.
UM, AND, UH, WE RECENTLY DID AN ENERGY AUDIT ON ONE OF THEM.
AND DURING THE HOTTEST MONTH OF AUGUST OF THE HOTTEST SUMMER ON RECORD, UH, USED A TOTAL OF $26 OF ELECTRICITY MAINTAINING A TEMPERATURE INSIDE OF 74 DEGREES FOR THE ENTIRE MONTH.
UM, SO, UH, NOT ONLY WOULD THIS CREATE REAL AFFORDABLE OPTIONS, I I CAN'T REMEMBER THE LAST TIME I'VE SEEN A HOUSE THAT YOU COULD BUY IN AUSTIN FOR $125,000.
UM, BUT ALSO THE SPEED AT WHICH IT COULD ACTUALLY PROVIDE REAL AFFORDABILITY.
BECAUSE MOST OF THE DEVELOPMENT STUFF, EVEN THE ORDINANCES THAT HAVE BEEN BEEN PASSED RECENTLY, WHICH THE PARKING REDUCTION IN SOME OF THOSE THINGS WILL ADD REALLY SIGNIFICANT VALUE TO, TO CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING HERE IN AUSTIN.
BUT THEY WILL STILL TAKE MANY YEARS TO, TO ACTUALLY HAVE THAT ROLL OUT.
YOU KNOW, DEVELOPING A APARTMENT COMPLEX MIGHT TAKE A YEAR OR TWO JUST TO FIND LAND AND DO DUE DILIGENCE, AND THEN ANOTHER YEAR OR TWO TO DESIGN, AND THEN ANOTHER TWO OR THREE YEARS TO DO CONSTRUCTION AND LEASE UP.
AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S AFTER DEVELOPERS HAVE DECIDED TO, YOU KNOW, MOVE INTO TO AN AREA.
UM, TINY HOMES CAN BE MANUFACTURED BY ANY NUMBER OF COMPANIES.
THEY CAN BE BUILT IN DAYS AND, AND BROUGHT IN IN WEEKS.
YOU COULD HAVE 150,000 OR MORE TINY HOMES, UH, BRINGING AFFORDABILITY INTO THIS CITY VERY QUICKLY.
JENNY GRAYSON, DISTRICT ONE, THE HOME INITIATIVE IS NAMED FOR HOME OPTIONS FOR MIDDLE INCOME EMPOWERMENT.
HOWEVER, THERE'S NOTHING IN HOME OPTIONS FOR MIDDLE INCOME EMPOWERMENT AMENDMENT TO EMPOWER MIDDLE INCOME EARNERS TO BUY, LIVE OR AFFORD THE HOMES IN AUSTIN.
IF OUR CITY'S CONCERNED WITH PRESERVING THE MIDDLE CLASS, WHY ARE WE MIDDLE INCOME EARNERS NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THESE AMENDMENTS.
THE HOME OPTIONS FOR MIDDLE INCOME EMPOWERMENT AMENDMENTS ACTUALLY DO NOTHING TO EMPOWER US OR HELP US BUILD ON OUR PROPERTIES, QUALIFY FOR A LOAN, OR HELP KEEP THE HOME IN WHICH WE LIVE.
MIDDLE INCOME FOLKS, THE VULNERABLE HOMEOWNERS AND THE FIXED INCOME HOMEOWNERS ARE NOT EMPOWERED AGAINST SPECULATORS BUYING UP SUBDIVIDED PARCELS.
[01:55:01]
WE'RE NOT EMPOWERED TO KEEP THE HOMES IN WHICH WE LIVE.A I A SHOWED YOU TODAY THE MODELS THEY'VE COME UP WITH FOR THESE SUBDIVIDED PARCELS, AND ALL OF THEM SEEM TO START WITH A BLANK SLATE AS IF OUR HOMES DIDN'T ALREADY EXIST ON OUR PROPERTIES.
WE'RE NOT EMPOWERED AGAINST INVESTORS WHO WILL PURCHASE PROPERTIES TO PUT THEM ON SHORT-TERM RENTAL MARKET.
WE'RE NOT EMPOWERED AGAINST HIGHER INCOME HOME, HIGHER HOME PRICES.
AFFORDABILITY IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE HOME OPTIONS FOR MIDDLE INCOME EMPOWERMENT AMENDMENTS.
WHY WOULD WE EXPECT THESE NEW HOMES TO COST ANY LESS THAN THE NEARLY MILLION DOLLAR HOMES AS SEEN ON SMALLER LOTS IN MUELLER? WE'RE NOT EMPOWERED AGAINST THE UTILITY COMPANIES OR OUR CITY AND THEIR CAPACITY TO SUPPLY MORE WATER, MORE ENERGY, MORE SERVICES, MORE NEEDS.
WE'RE NOT EMPOWERED AGAINST TAX INCREASES AND THERE'S NO CLEAR PATH FORWARD FOR HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION REGULATIONS.
MY POINT IS THERE'S SO MUCH MORE CON MORE TO CONSIDER THAN JUST ADDING HOMES ON LOTS.
CONSIDER THE DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS AND UNINTENTIONAL CONSEQUENCES BEFORE PROCEEDING.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ON THE SOLUTIONS, BUT AS BUT AS IT STANDS, I AND MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS DO NOT SUPPORT THE HOME OPTIONS FOR MIDDLE INCOME EMPOWERMENT INITIATIVE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EMPOWER MIDDLE INCOME EARNERS.
PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THIS ZONING AMENDMENT.
AND I LIKE HOW THERE'S ALREADY SOMEONE ADVERTISING OUTSIDE THAT THEY CAN BUILD A TINY HOME ON YOUR LOT JUST OUT THERE.
UM, I'M MARISA BARREDA LIPER AND I LIVE IN SHEPHERD MOUNTAIN DISTRICT 10.
SHEPHERD MOUNTAIN IS NEAR 360 AND 2222.
I'M GONNA KEEP IT REAL SHORT BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S ALREADY SAID WHAT I WANNA SAY, BUT ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL.
PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT PASS A SWEEPING ORDINANCE THAT WOULD HARM OUR MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY VULNERABLE WILDLAND NEIGHBORHOODS ALREADY AT THE MERCY OF THE NEXT WILDFIRE.
THIS VIOLATES OUR DEEDED RESTRICTIONS.
AND WHO HAS TO PAY TO ENFORCE THOSE HOMEOWNERS? WE DO.
AND I CAN ALREADY HEAR THE SOUNDS OF LAND DEVELOPER ATTORNEYS RUBBING THEIR HANDS TOGETHER IN ANTICIPATION THAT WON'T BE CHEAP FOR US.
PLEASE CONSIDER OTHER WAYS TO ADDRESS AFFORDABILITY, SUCH AS WORKING WITH NEIGHBORHOODS TO DEVELOP SMALL AREA REGULATORY PLANS.
WE ARE COMMITTED TO HELPING IF YOU ARE WILLING TO PARTNER WITH US.
UH, WE HAVE NICK QUIN HANO, MARK KIRK, DR.
OKAY, WE HAVE MEG DAVIS, DAVID FELS, JOE SUE HOWARD, TREY FARMER, JUSTIN LUMIER, JOHN FOXWORTH.
WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH, UH, FOR SPENDING ALL OF YOUR TIME OUT HERE AND LISTENING TO US, ONE AFTER ANOTHER, GOING ON AND ON.
I LIVE IN DISTRICT TWO AND I, WHICH I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF REPRESENTING ON THE ZONING AND CLADDING COMMISSION WHERE I SEE A LOT OF THESE ISSUES, UH, TWICE A MONTH, UH, IF NOT A LITTLE BIT MORE OFTEN.
UM, I WANNA TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MYSELF AND THEN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT SOME ABSTRACT NERDY STUFF.
UM, I'M VERY FORTUNATE TO LIVE IN A PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT CALLED GOODNIGHT RANCH, WHERE THEY HAVE A LOT OF THE HOUSING TYPOLOGIES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE.
I COULDN'T HAVE AFFORDED THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, ESPECIALLY THE ONES ON THE LARGE LOTS THAT WERE ALSO TOWN HOMES THAT I COULD HAVE LIVED IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF RENTALS.
BUT IT WAS APUD, IT'S A SPECIAL PLACE.
IT HAS, YOU KNOW, MORE FLEXIBILITY TO DO THE THINGS THAT THE REST OF THE CITY CANNOT DO.
AND I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE ON OCTOBER 26TH, PLEASE ALLOW THE REST OF AUSTIN TO HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY TO PROVIDE THOSE DIFFERENT, UM, HOUSING TYPOLOGIES THAT ALLOWED ME TO BECOME A HOME NOTE RUNNER.
UH, BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE NOT AS FORTUNATE AS ME.
UH, FOR EXAMPLE, A NUMBER OF THE TEACHERS AT BLAZER ELEMENTARY WHERE MY SON ATTENDS HAVE HAD TO LEAVE SOME QUITE SUDDENLY.
[02:00:01]
UM, IT'S A SCHOOL THAT DOES PRETTY WELL, BUT THEY'RE REALLY STRUGGLING WITH STAFF BECAUSE PE TEACHERS ARE JUST LEAVING.AND THEN THE O THERE ARE TEACHING THE KIDS OF OTHER FAMILIES THAT GOT DISPLACED, UH, OUT IN BUTTA AND, UH, BASTROP AND ELSEWHERE.
SO THIS HAS REAL CONSEQUENCES.
I ALSO WANNA ADDRESS VERY BRIEFLY, AND THIS IS A SOMEWHAT NERDY THING, UH, THERE SEEMS TO BE A LACK OF CONVERSATION ABOUT THE OTHER SIDE OF INFRASTRUCTURE.
THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF WE ADD MORE PROPERTIES TO INFRASTRUCTURE.
BUT THE OTHER, THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO BUILD NEW INFRASTRUCTURE.
SUBURBAN INFRASTRUCTURE IS A MONEY PIT.
IT'S BEEN REFERRED TO AS A GROWTH PONZI SCHEME.
'CAUSE IT CAN'T SUPPORT OURSELF.
IT IS MUCH MORE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE TO USE OUR EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE.
I OWN A 1952 HOME WITH A CRUMBLING FOUNDATION HERE IN AUSTIN.
I DESPERATELY WANT TO REMAIN IN IT, BUT I'M WORRIED BECAUSE OF THE LAND VALUE INCREASE THAT HOME AMENDMENT COULD CAUSE AS IT'S WRITTEN THAT I'LL BE DISPLACED ALONG WITH A LOT OF OTHER EXISTING AUSTIN RESIDENTS.
WE ALL WANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT IT'S CLEAR THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE IT CONTAINS NO GUARDRAILS TO ENSURE IT DEREG DEREGULATION WILL ALWAYS BE EXPLOITED BY A FREE MARKET.
WE'VE SEEN THAT TIME AND TIME AGAIN IN AUSTIN.
IT WILL RESULT IN A CATASTROPHIC LOSS OF TREES AND PERMEABLE LAND, MAKING AUSTIN HOTTER AND INCREASING OUR FLOOD RISKS.
IT WILL RAISE LAND VALUES AND PROPERTY TAXES TO LEVELS THAT WILL DISPLACE AUSTIN HOMEOWNERS, ESPECIALLY FAMILIES LIKE MINE.
A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT COULD HAVE 12 UNITS.
THAT'S PROBABLY AN AVERAGE OF 24 CARS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT MEANS CHILDREN WOULD NO LONGER BE ABLE TO RIDE THEIR BIKES UP AND DOWN THE STREET BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE AT RISK OF BEING DOORED.
REMEMBER, WITHOUT A PREEXISTING HIGH QUALITY MASS TRANSIT SYSTEM, CARS ARE GOING TO REMAIN THE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION IN THIS CITY.
OTHERWISE, THOSE 12 UNITS WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY BE PURCHASED BY REAL ESTATE INVESTORS.
THAT'S ALSO THE TREND IN AUSTIN.
THEY WON'T BE PURCHASED BY FAMILIES OR INDIVIDUALS MORE THAN LIKELY BASED ON PAST HISTORY.
THAT'S NOT THE PATH TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR HOME OWNERSHIP FOR AUSTINITES.
LASTLY, IT'S BEEN REPORTED RECENTLY THAT A NUMBER OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE NOT BEEN REPORTING THEIR MEETINGS WITH LOBBYISTS AS REQUIRED BY CITY CODE.
IF THOSE ALLEGATIONS HAVE MERIT, THERE SHOULD BE AN INVESTIGATION AND IT SHOULD DEEPEN EVERY AUSTINITE SUSPICION OF THIS ORDINANCE.
WE HAVE A BEAUTIFUL CITY WITH LUSH NEIGHBORHOODS.
LET'S PLEASE DON'T THROW IT AWAY WITH AN UNTHOUGHTFUL ORDINANCE.
HELLO, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS JOHN FOXWORTH AND I'M AGAINST THE HOME INITIATIVE THAT AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS, UH, I WANT TO KIND OF REITERATE THINGS.
I WAS GONNA READ A STATEMENT, BUT I'M JUST GONNA GO CONTEMPORANEOUS ON YOU GUYS.
Y'ALL ARE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I HAVE NOT SEEN ENOUGH PLANNING WHERE WE'RE REALLY DEALING WITH SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TODAY THAT, THAT, THAT WILL CAUSE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE THAT SOME PEOPLE JUST WANT TO TURN A BLIND EYE ON.
I DO BELIEVE THAT, UH, THIS WILL BENEFIT DEVELOPERS AND NOT FAMILIES, BUT ALSO WE ALL WANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I LIVE AND HAVE LIVED IN WEST CAMPUS AREA FOR 40 YEARS.
I WORKED ON THE PLANNING TEAM, THE PLANNING TEAM MADE UP OF NEIGHBORS AND BUSINESS OWNERS WHO BROUGHT YOU UNO UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY.
AND YOU GOT, WE HAVE A NEW DOWNTOWN IN WEST CAMPUS.
OKAY, BUT THAT DID NOT AFFECT AFFORDABILITY.
HOW, HOW I I'M NOT GONNA GIVE YOU THE ANSWER FOR AFFORDABILITY, BUT I CAN TELL YOU MOST OF THE AFFORDABLE PLACES THAT THOSE BIG BUILDINGS REPLACED, THOSE WERE THE AFFORDABLE, THE EXISTING ONES.
AND NO, I'M HAPPY THOSE BIG BUILDINGS ARE THERE.
I LOOK AT THAT AND GO, HOLY POOP, I HELPED GET THAT DONE.
BUT WHEN YOU PUT A BLANKET WIDE THING COVERING THE ENTIRE CITY AND SAY, WELL, YOU'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO DO ALL THIS EVERYWHERE AT ONCE WITHOUT REGARDS TO INFRASTRUCTURE WITH INCREASED OCCUPANCY WITH NO LIMITS.
I MEAN, WHO ATE THE YOGURT? IF THERE'S 10 PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE, YOUR YOGURT'S GONE AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHO TOOK IT.
WHO WANTS TO LIVE LIKE THAT? SERIOUSLY, WHO TOOK
[02:05:01]
MY YOGURT? I'VE HAD ROOMMATES FOR YEARS.I'M NEVER GONNA FIGURE OUT WHERE MY YOGURT WENT.
SO YES, I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK FOR SOLUTIONS, BUT THIS BLANKET WHITE EFFORT IS GONNA REALLY CAUSE BAD PROBLEMS. IT'S, AND IT'S GONNA MAKE INVESTORS HAPPY.
AND IT, IN MY NEIGHBORHOODS, I ALREADY HAVE CARS ALL THE TIME PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.
IT'S REAL HARD FOR, UH, FIRETRUCKS TO GET DOWN IT.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM BARBARA ELLI, LUKE WALFORD, THOMAS ADDIS KAI GRAY.
I'M HERE, UM, ON BEHALF OF THE AUSTIN INFILL COALITION.
I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE IN AUSTIN INFILL COALITION AND WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF HOME.
IN ADDITION, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH PRESERVATION AUSTIN ON A PRESERVATION BONUS FOR ACTUALLY LIKE THE LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS.
SO IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN A WHILE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY THEY CAN'T BE HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR ONE IN, YOU KNOW, ONCE A YEAR AWARD CEREMONY.
UM, BUT THEY SENT ME A STATEMENT TO, TO READ ON BEHALF OF THEM.
AND ALSO I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT AUSTIN AND PHIL COALITION SUPPORTS, UH, THE POSITION OF PRESERVATION AUSTIN, UM, PRES AND THE, SO THIS IS THE STATEMENT PRESERVATION AUSTIN STRONGLY SUPPORTS AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BONUS FOR PROJECTS THAT PRESERVE HOMES CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO 1960, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BONUS WOULD EXEMPT THESE HOMES FROM FAR IN NEW DEVELOPMENTS TO ENCOURAGE SUBSTANTIAL PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC HOUSING AND KEEP DEMOLITION AND WASTE OUT OF LANDFILLS AND RETAIN THE NATURAL OCCURRING AFFORDABILITY OF OLDER, SMALLER HOMES WHILE SUPPORTING INCREASED DENSITY IN CENTRAL AUSTIN PRESERVATION.
AUSTIN FURTHER SUPPORTS AMENDMENT SIX A FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY PRESERVATION BONUS FOR BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED AFTER 1960.
PRESERVATION AUSTIN IS STRONGLY AGAINST OPTION SIX B FOR WATERED DOWN SUSTAINABILITY PRESERVATION BONUS EXEMPTING ALL EXISTING HOMES FROM FAR WITH MINIMAL PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERMINE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BONUS AND THE GOOD THAT CAN DO FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
UM, UNLESS I JUST WANNA SAY, YOU KNOW, I WANNA THANK ALL OF Y'ALL FOR WORKING ON THIS.
UM, WE'VE HAD A, A LACK OF, YOU KNOW, MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING FOR A LONG TIME AND I KNOW EVERYONE ON THIS PANEL'S STAYING UP HERE LATE TO WORK ON THIS STUFF STUFF.
AND WE JUST WANNA THANK Y'ALL FOR, FOR WORKING ON THIS TO MAKE YOU KNOW, AUSTIN A BETTER CITY.
UM, I'M ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND I ALSO LIVE IN THE HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I'M HERE REPRESENTING FRIENDS OF AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOODS FAN, A COALITION OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND RESIDENTS EXPANDING NEIGHBORHOOD CONVERSATIONS TO INCLUDE THE FULL DIVERSITY OF VOICES MOVING BEYOND NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTIONISM.
WE BELIEVE MORE NEIGHBORS AND A GREATER DIVERSITY OF NEIGHBORS ENRICH OUR LIVES AND MAKE FOR A MORE SUSTAINABLE CITY.
OUR NEIGHBORHOODS CAN'T WELCOME AN ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY OF NEW NEIGHBORS AS LONG AS IT MAY REMAINS ILLEGAL TO BUILD A GREATER ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY OF HOMES WHERE THEY CAN LIVE ACCORDINGLY, OUR MEMBERSHIP HAS CALLED FOR ALLOWING ALL FORMS OF NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE HOUSING THROUGHOUT ALL OF AUSTIN'S NEIGHBORHOODS.
IMAGINE AUSTIN SAYS, THE RANGE OF AVAILABLE HOUSING CHOICES MUST EXPAND THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
IN 2019, CITY COUNCIL CALLED FOR A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT PRIORITIZES ALL TYPES OF HOMES FOR ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE IN ALL PARTS OF TOWN.
FRIENDS OF AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOODS ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORTS THE HOME ACT AS AN IMPORTANT STEP TOWARDS LEGALIZING THE FULL DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TYPES.
GOOD EVENING PLANNING COMMISSION.
UH, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE HOME, UM, THE HOME RESOLUTION AND ALL YOUR HARD WORK ON IT.
I KNOW IT'S DIFFICULT TO LOOK AT ALL THESE NUMBERS IN THE FAR AND THE 25 DASH ONE DASH 1 21 BEFORE YOUR EYES GLAZE GLAZE OVER.
UH, I WANT TO HELP YOU OUT WITH THAT.
WE ACTUALLY BUILT SOME HOMES BACK IN 2013 THROUGH 2016 UNDER SMALL LOT AMNESTY WHERE WE WERE DOING THREE LOTS ON THREE SEPARATE, UH, 25 FOOT WIDE LOT HOMES.
AND I JUST PULLED THAT UP DURING THIS MEETING AND LOOKED AT IT.
AND LO AND BEHOLD, FOR THREE HOMES ON 93 75
[02:10:02]
SQUARE FOOT, UH, THE FAR WAS 63%, WHICH IS WHAT, UH, THE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT IS.AND, BUT WHEN WE DID IT, WE WERE ABLE TO GO UP TO 52% IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REIGNED IN JUST A LITTLE BIT.
WE WERE ALLOWED 65%, BUT WE ONLY DID 52.
BUT IF YOU GOOGLE MAP 52 0 4 MARTIN AVENUE OR LOOK AT THE PLANNING, UH, PERMIT APPLICATION, YOU CAN SEE WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THREE FAMILY HOMES, MODERATELY SIZED, UM, THAT FIT WELL WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOW.
IT GOT, UH, DISALLOWED, THE CITY COUNCIL TURNED IT OVER AND UNFORTUNATELY IT'S BEEN TOO LONG SINCE THAT HAPPENED.
UM, BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOW SUPPORTS THEM AND WANTS THEM BACK.
THAT'S WHY, UM, VELAS, UH, SMALL LOT AMNESTY, UH, RESOLUTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY ON CONSENT.
AND THAT'S BEEN KIND OF PUSHED BACK WHILE WE WORK ON ALL THIS STUFF.
BUT IN, IN THE REAL WORLD, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
THREE HOMES ON A 9,300 SQUARE FOOT LOT THAT ARE ABOUT, UH, ABOUT 1700 SQUARE FOOT EACH.
WE WERE SELLING THEM AT 65% OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AVERAGE HOME PRICE AT THE TIME, IT WAS THE SIX HUNDREDS WAS THE AVERAGE PRICE WE WERE SELLING IN THE FOUR HUNDREDS.
AND UM, I JUST THINK IT'S A POSITIVE REAL WORLD EXAMPLE THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT AS YOU GO THROUGH THIS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
I UNDERSTAND MR. JASON HASKINS IS PRESENT.
I'D JUST LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE AFFORDABILITY ASPECT OF THIS FOR A SECOND.
UM, I'M IN THE TRENCHES DAY IN AND DAY OUT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, ON A RANGE OF DIFFERENT, UM, PROJECT TYPES AND DIFFERENT SCALES OF AFFORDABILITY.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT AFFORDABILITY, WHAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT IS NOT WHETHER A HOUSE IS AFFORDABLE, WHETHER NOT HIRED GASPS AT $400,000 ON FIRST 17 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE.
THE QUESTION IS FOR WHOM IS THE HOUSE AFFORDABLE? AND TO DO THAT, WE LOOK AT AMI, SO A HUNDRED PERCENT AMI YOU'RE RIGHT AT THE MEDIAN INCOME.
IN THEORY, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE MEDIAN HOUSE IN AUSTIN.
IT REQUIRES ANYWHERE FROM 160 TO 240% MFI TO ABOUT TO PURCHASE THE AVERAGE HOUSE IN AUSTIN, DEPENDING ON YOUR, UM, CREDIT SCORES AND OTHER ISSUES AS WELL.
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT, WHAT IS THIS GONNA DO? SO WE, AS WE'VE BEEN LOOKING THROUGH IT, I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THREE USE CASES, THE THREE USE CASES THAT I HAVE DIRECT, UM, CLIENTS AND FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES WHO ARE IN THESE POSITIONS.
ONE IS FOR THE EXISTING HOMEOWNER TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE AN INCOME GENERATING PROPERTY ON THEIR LOT.
OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE A BACKLOG OF ADUS THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED UNDER THE REGULATIONS BECAUSE OF THE SPACING, BECAUSE THEY WANNA SAVE THEIR TREE.
AND IF THEY COULD DO A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VERSION OF A DUPLEX OR AN ADU, THEY, THEY'RE READY TO GO.
TODAY I'VE GOT ANOTHER FAMILY WHO'S TRYING TO HOLD ONTO THEIR ROBERTSON HILL, UH, PROPERTY AND ARE, WOULD BE ABLE TO DO SO IF THEY COULD HAVE A THIRD, A THIRD LOT ON TWO EXISTING ON A PRESERVATION PROJECT.
UH, THE SECOND GROUP, UM, THOSE ARE GONNA HELP PEOPLE ALL OVER THE SPECTRUM.
UM, MOSTLY BECAUSE THEY'RE IN FOLKS WHO ARE IN THEIR HOUSES.
SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE 80 TO 160% MFI, THAT IS THE MIDDLE INCOME.
UM, I ALSO HAVE A NUMBER OF CLIENTS WHO ARE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS WHO I'VE ALREADY TALKED TO AND SAID THEY'VE ALREADY GOT ADUS AND IF THEY COULD DO A THIRD, THEY COULD DO IT, THEY WOULD DO IT TODAY.
AND THOSE ARE GONNA BE RESTRICTED TO 60% FOR RENTAL AND 80% MFI FOR, UM, FOR PURCHASE.
THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE READY TO GO TO TODAY.
THEY DON'T NEED, THERE ARE OTHER BARRIERS, ESPECIALLY FOR, FOR EXISTING HOMEOWNERS THAT WE CAN ADDRESS FUTURE.
BUT THERE ARE FOLKS WHO ARE READY TO GO TODAY TO PROVIDE REAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGH THESE METHODS.
CHAIR CODE, MISSION LIAISON, ANDA, SO THAT'S YOUR, UM, LAST REGISTERED SPEAKER IN PERSON.
I THINK WE, YEAH, WE HAD A FEW FOLKS THAT, UH, WE WERE GONNA HAVE 'EM COME UP BEFORE WE GO TO VIRTUAL.
I AM THE CONSERVATION CHAIR FOR THE AUSTIN REGIONAL GROUP OF THE SIERRA CLUB.
AND WE ARE NEUTRAL ON THIS BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH THAT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND AND WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND.
WHAT WE WANT IS TO SEE THAT THE ENVIRONMENT COMES FIRST.
THAT'S WHAT THE CODE NEXT, UH, CONSULTANT SAID IN 2013.
PUT THE ENVIRONMENT FIRST AND BUILD EVERYTHING AROUND IT.
WE HAVE COME TO SEE THAT DENSITY IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
[02:15:01]
AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AFFORDABILITY.TO BE TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABILITY IS, IS MISLEADING BECAUSE IT'S SLIGHTLY LESS EXPENSIVE.
HOUSING IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE AND WE NEED TO ADDRESS AS A CITY REAL AFFORDABILITY, BUT THAT'S NOT WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.
WE DO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT OUR TREE CANOPY IS PROTECTED SO THAT WE HAVE THE CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND UH, THE HEAT ISLAND PROTECTION, UH, THAT TREES PROVIDE.
PLUS JUST THE GOOD MENTAL HEALTH THAT TREES PROVIDE.
WE WANT TO ADDRESS STORM WATER RUNOFF, HOPEFULLY STORM WATER CAPTURE AND REUSE.
BUT WITH MORE ROOFTOPS, WE'RE GOING TO GET MORE RUNOFF.
AND SO WE'RE GOING TO NEED PLACES FOR THIS WATER TO GO.
THAT MEANS POCKET PARKS THAT DOUBLE AS WATER, UH, CATCHMENT AREAS.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A FLOOD OF PEOPLE STEPPING FORWARD TO DO THIS.
IT'S GOING TO BE IN CERTAIN AREAS.
SO WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THOSE AREAS ARE GOING TO BE.
WE CAN'T HAVE THEM IN FLOOD PRONE PRONE AREAS.
WE CAN'T HAVE THIS IN AREAS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THOSE, TO THE, THE RUNOFF WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THAT.
SO WE NEED TO LOOK AT ALL OF THIS, BUT WE, I REALLY WANT TO STRESS THAT IT IS NOT ABOUT AFFORDABILITY.
THIS IS SLIGHTLY LESS EXPENSIVE HOUSING.
RUBY ROA IS WORKING ON AN AFFORDABILITY PROJECT RIGHT NOW, AND I HOPE THAT WILL COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION.
AND YOU WILL LISTEN TO RUBY ROA, WHO HAS A LONG TIME ACTIVIST FOR THE NEEDY.
MY NAME IS GRACE RIVERA, AND I LIVE IN WHAT WE LIKE TO REFER AFFECTIONATELY AS FAR EAST AUSTIN, WHICH IS USED TO BE THE DELL VALLEY AREA.
UH, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE OUT HERE OUT THERE TODAY YET.
UM, AND WE HAD TO FIGHT FOR THE ONE BUS LINE THAT CLOSES IN THE EVENING.
UM, HOWEVER, WHAT I'M HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT IS THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF CHANGING 25 DASH TWO, UM, REGARDING IN PUTTING MORE PEOPLE IN HOUSES, UH, AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF HOUSES ON A PARTICULAR PLOT OF LAND.
I'M ONLY HERE TO ASK YOU TO REALLY LOOK FAIRLY TO LOOK AT THE INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUE.
I'VE HEARD SOMEBODY CALL IT A PONZI SCHEME.
I'VE HEARD OTHER PEOPLE SAY, UH, YOU KNOW, A FROG IN A POT.
WELL, THERE'D BE 33 POSSIBLE FROGS IN THAT POT.
UH, SO IT IS SOMETHING YOU REALLY HAVE TO BALANCE OUT, AND I COMPLETELY RESPECT YOUR ABILITY TO DO SO.
PLEASE ALSO CONSIDER THAT MENTAL HEALTH DECREASES WITH LESS SPACE AND MORE PEOPLE.
FAMILY VIOLENCE INCREASES, INFECTIOUS DISEASE, INCREASES, WASTE, PRODUCTION INCREASES, AND YOU HAVE THE DECREASED ABILITY FOR THE UTILITY REQUIREMENTS.
AND HOW ABOUT THE REDUCED ABILITY OF AUSTIN TO COMPLY WITH ITS CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN ON CLIMATE RESILIENCY? SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU REALLY NEED TO THINK ABOUT.
MORE HOUSING UNITS WITH SMALLER PROPERTY, LESS PERIAL, GROUND LESS TREE COVER.
YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR SIMILAR ARGUMENTS AGAIN WHEN THIS COMES UP.
AGAIN, I HOPE THAT YOU'LL CONSIDER THIS ALL IN ONE PHASE.
I JUST WANNA LEAVE YOU WITH A COUPLE OF THINGS, UM, THAT REALLY AFFECTED US OUT IN THE FAR EAST.
AND THAT WAS, UH, THE HALLOWEEN FLOODS.
IT'S RURAL, AND YET WE WERE STILL FLOODED, AND THEN A FEW YEARS LATER, AGAIN FLOODED.
OKAY? SO PLEASE CONSIDER THOSE.
AND ALSO THAT THE CENSUS BUREAU, UH, STATES THAT MORE THAN ONE PERSON, POOR ROOM IS OVERCROWDING, AND 1.5 PEOPLE IS SEVERELY OVERCROWDED.
AND, UH, THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION STATES MENTAL HEALTH AND PHYSICAL HEALTH DECREASE WITH OVERCROWDING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND CONSIDER THIS WISELY.
MY NAME IS GREG UNDERWOOD AND I LIVE IN BRECKER WOODS.
AND I'LL JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION AND THEN ONE STATEMENT.
MY NEIGHBORS AND MYSELF, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A HOUSING PROBLEM.
[02:20:01]
WE DO.WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A DIRE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE CITY.
I MEAN, MY QUESTION IS, I GUESS IS WHY HAVEN'T NEIGHBORHOODS BEEN INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF PUTTING TOGETHER THIS CODE? HAD, I MEAN, IT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER ON BOTH OF US IF WE WOULD JUST GET INVITED TO THE TABLE AND BE ABLE TO INPUT INTO THIS, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD YOU LIVE IN.
UH, AND MY OTHER STATEMENT IS, IF YOU COULD PLEASE LISTEN TO NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLEASE SLOW DOWN.
THERE'S SO MANY ISSUES YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT 'EM TONIGHT THAT NEED TO BE IRONED OUT TO BRING THIS TO THE CITY SO WE CAN WORK TOGETHER.
WE'RE NOW GOING TO TRANSITION TO THE, UH, TELECONFERENCE TEST POINTS.
YEAH, LEMME JUST, UH, COMMISSIONERS, I WAS, UH, TRYING TO PICK A GOOD PLACE FOR A BREAK.
WE COULD START WITH SOME, OR WE COULD USE THIS AS A TRANSITION POINT.
ANY, ANY SHARE? I, I WOULD APPRECIATE IF WE WENT THROUGH ALL SPEAKERS.
I UNDERSTAND SOME OF US WOULD LIKE A BREAK, BUT I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IF WE WENT THROUGH SPEAKERS FIRST.
UM, THEN IF YOU NEED A BREAK, JUST, UH, LET'S MAKE SURE WE HAVE QUORUM.
I THINK WE GOT PLENTY OF PEOPLE HERE.
JUST REAL QUICK, UH, WE HAD A BOARD OF TRUSTEE, UM, UH, REPRESENTATIVE HERE, CANDACE, UM, HUNTER.
AND THEN ALSO WE'VE GOT OUR LAST COMMISSIONER HERE, UH, COMMISSIONER BETA RAMIREZ.
SO THANK YOU ALL FOR SHOWING UP.
PARTICIPANTS ON TELECONFERENCE.
UH, JUST A FRIENDLY REMINDER WHEN IT'S YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, SELECT STAR SIX AND THEN PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
WE'LL BEGIN WITH MS. ABIGAIL TAKO, SELECT STAR SIX.
COMMISSIONER, UH, THANK YOU COMMISSION ZA FOR PUSHING THROUGH.
UM, MY NAME IS ABBY TAKO, AND I'M SPEAKING TODAY IN FAVOR OF ITEM TWO ON YOUR AGENDA AS THE CHAIR OF THE AUSTIN HOUSING COALITION, WHICH IS A NONPROFIT COALITION OF THOSE DEVELOPING AND ADVOCATING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN AUSTIN.
UH, SINCE MOVING TO AUSTIN IN 2012, I HAVE WORKED IN MANY ROLES THAT FALL ALONG THE FULL SPECTRUM HOUSING WORK.
FIRST, I WORKED FOR A COMBINED SIX YEARS AT CARITAS OF BOSTON AND AT ECHO, THE ENDING COMMUNITY HOMELESSNESS COALITION, WORKING TO CONNECT UNHOUSED INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR FAMILIES WITH EXISTING HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES.
AFTER TWO OR SO YEARS OF STRUGGLING TO WADE THROUGH THE MANY GATEKEEPERS INVOLVED IN HOUSING OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT, I ELECTED TO ATTAIN MY REAL ESTATE LICENSE, SOMETHING THAT I WILL COME BACK TO, UH, TO ALLOW FOR MORE STREAMLINED ACCESS TO HOUSING UNITS.
AFTER, UH, SIX YEARS OF PAINSTAKINGLY SEEKING HOUSING IN OUR LIMITED STOCK OF NATURALLY AFFORDABLE APARTMENT COMPLEXES, I DECIDED TO TRANSITION TO A SMALL COMMUNITY-BASED DEVELOPER BUILDING INCOME RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP UNITS, AND THEN TO TAX CREDIT, AFFORDABLE MULTI HH, MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPER TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE SUPPLY ISSUE.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS LONG, EXPENSIVE AND DIFFICULT WITHOUT DEEP SUBSIDIES FROM THE CITY, STATE, AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS AND PRIVATE SOURCES, AND IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD HOUSING THAT IS AFFORDABLE TO VERY LOW INCOME FAMILIES.
I SPEND MOST OF MY TIME USING THESE PROGRAMS AND ADVOCATING FOR MORE OF THEM.
BUT THE REASON I'M SPEAKING WITH YOU THIS EVENING IS TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE IMPACT OF CONTINUING WITH OUR CURRENT RESTRICTIVE CODE, WHERE EVEN A DECADE AGO WHEN I MOVED TO AUSTIN, THE MARKET PROVIDED FOR THE HOUSING NEEDS OF MANY LOWER INCOME EARNERS AND MOST MIDDLE INCOME EARNERS.
WITH THE MARKET CONDITIONS THAT HAVE EVOLVED OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS, EVEN THE WELL COMPENSATED PROFESSIONALS I HAVE SERVED AS A REALTOR HAVE ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SUBSIDIZED HOUSING OPTIONS AVAILABLE.
WE SHOULD NOT HAVE, NOR CAN WE SUBSIDIZE EVERY SINGLE HOUSING UNIT THAT GETS BUILT IN ORDER TO HOUSE OUR COMMUNITY.
BUT IF WE DO NOT REFORM OUR CODE THROUGH EFFORTS LIKE THE HOME INITIATIVE, WE WILL HAVE TO ALLOWING UP TO THREE UNITS AND SMALLER UNITS ON A SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND REMOVING RESTRICTIONS ON THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED ADULTS LIVING IN HOUSING UNIT.
OUR CODE REFORMS THAT INDISPUTABLY WILL ALLOW FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS.
AND IF WE DO DO NOT APPROVE THEM, WE ARE ENSURING THAT LIMITED HOUSING BOND DOLLARS WILL BE SPENT TO
[02:25:01]
SUBSIDIZE HOUSING FOR MIDDLE INCOME EARNERS INSTEAD OF ON DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.THANK YOU FOR YOUR DILIGENCE TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN CREATE THE DIVERSE HOUSING STOCK THAT ALLOWS HOUSEHOLDS OF ALL KINDS TO THRIVE IN OUR CITY.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM CATHERINE CHAMBLEE, MS. CHAMBLEE, SALT LAKE STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
UH, I'M OPPOSED TO THE HOME AMENDMENT ALLOWING THREE, ALLOWING THREE HOMES ON, UH, EACH LOT.
I THINK, UH, MOST OF WHAT MY ARGUMENTS ARE HAVE ALREADY BEEN STATED, SO I'M NOT GONNA GO OVER THOSE OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT AS FAR AS THE INFRASTRUCTURE OR LACK OF IN INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE CITY, IT'S, IT'S NOT A HYPOTHETICAL THAT WE WILL HAVE DRAINAGE ISSUES, THAT WE'LL HAVE ELECTRICAL ISSUES AND SEWER ISSUES IN PRESS VIEW, WHERE WE CAN ALREADY HAVE ADUS ON LOTS AND IN FACT DO IN MOST AREAS.
OUR ELECTRICITY GOES OUT ALL THE TIME, EVERY STORM.
WE'VE HAD DRAINAGE ISSUES, I HAVE DRAINAGE ISSUES.
I'VE HAD TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL, UM, BASICALLY DRAINS ALONG THE SIDE OF MY PROPERTY.
ALL OF THIS CURRENT HOMEOWNERS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY ADDITIONAL TAXES AND FEES TO, TO UPDATE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO MAKE A WAY FOR ALL OF THESE ADDITIONAL HOMES.
AND SO BASICALLY WHAT I'M SEEING IS THAT WHAT CURRENT HOMEOWNERS ARE GETTING IS ONE ADDITIONAL, YOU KNOW, FUNDING ADDITIONAL FEES, ADDITIONAL TAXES TO MAKE WAY FOR PROPERTIES THAT WE DON'T WANT.
WE'VE ALREADY VOTED AGAINST THIS, AND HERE WE ARE AGAIN.
SO IN THE END, I'M JUST ADVOCATING THAT EITHER WE COME UP, Y'ALL COME UP WITH A BETTER WAY OR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WILL ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL HOMES FIRST OR VOTE NO VOTE AGAINST THIS.
WHEN I'LL HEAR FROM MS. THERESE CROCKER, MS. CROCKER, I'LL LIKE STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
UH, I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TEXAS FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUB HISTORICAL FOUNDATION.
UM, WE OWN THE MANSION, WHICH IS 2312 SAN GABRIEL, AND I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE REASONS FOR OUR OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED LAND CODE AMENDMENTS AND POPULATION DENSITY INCREASES.
UM, HOPEFULLY YOU HAVE MY STUFF UP, UP ABOVE, UNDER NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO REDUCE QUALITY OF LIFE DUE TO OVERPOPULATION, THE DEGRADATION OF HISTORICAL LANDMARKS AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.
STRESS OF THE AQUIFER, STRESS TO MAN, ANIMAL AND REMAINING TREE LIFE.
DESTRUCTION OF TREES AND VEGETATION TO ACCOMMODATE BUILDINGS AND DRIVEWAYS WILL GREATLY REDUCE AIR QUALITY, CLIMATE IMPROVEMENT, WATER CONSERVATION, SALT PRESERVATION, AND WILDLIFE HABITATS, AND GREATLY REDUCE SHADE THAT NATURALLY INSULATES HOMES THAT'S CAUSING INCREASED COST TO HOMEOWNERS AND UNNECESSARY EXTRA ENERGY CONSUMPTION.
UNDER DE DECREASED SAFETY AND SECURITY ADVERSE EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY AS PERSONS, IF, IF THEY STILL HAVE THE RVS AND MOBILE, TINY HOMES CAN QUICKLY CHANGE THEIR PERMANENT RESIDENT ADDRESS.
A GREAT PLUS FOR TERRORIST SEX TRAFFICKERS, MOBILE METH LABS, AND OTHER CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES.
THERE'LL BE A BURDEN ON POLICE FORCE, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, TRASH COLLECTION SERVICES.
THE GREATLY INCREASED PARKING ALONG STREETS WILL INHABIT AUSTIN CITY SERVICES, THUS CAUSING ADDED DANGER TO CITIZENS UNDER STRESS AND OVERLOAD TO EXISTING UTILITIES.
MAJOR STRESS WHEN THE EXISTING UTILITIES OF WATER, GAS, ELECTRICAL, AND INTERNET CAPABILITIES WILL BE CAUSED.
COST OF IMPROVING UTILITIES TO MEET THE INCREASED NEED, WILL NEED TO BE BUDGETED AND PAID FOR COST TO CITIZENS OF THEIR TIME, MONEY, AND CONVENIENCE TO LIVE WITH THE WORKS NEEDED FOR UPGRADES.
IT'S UNFAIR TO EXISTING RESIDENTS.
MULTIPLE RESIDENCES WILL INCLUDE THE AMOUNT OF CARS ON ALREADY VERY CROWDED STREETS, CAUSING MORE HAVOC TO TRAVEL AND TIME MANAGEMENT.
UM, AND THERE ARE TREMENDOUS COST TO RESIDENTS AND TAXPAYERS.
POSSIBLE TAX DECREASES TO COVER COSTS OF NON-PERMANENT RESIDENTS.
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES NEEDED LOSS OF INCOME FOR BUSINESSES THAT REQUIRE AUTO TRAVEL AND PARKING LOSS FOR QUALITY OF LIFE, FOR EXISTING TAX PAYING CITIZENS, LOSS OF THE BEAUTY OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND ITS NEIGHBORHOODS.
PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE PHASE ONE OR PHASE TWO.
NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM MS. KIMBERLY LEVISON.
YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES, SELECT STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
[02:30:06]
HELLO, MY NAME IS KIMBERLY LEVINSON, AND I AM IN, UH, DISTRICT NINE, AND I AM HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE HOME ACT.I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND I BELIEVE THAT THE MOST AFFORDABLE WAY AND THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE WAY TO EXPAND OUR HOUSING SUPPLY IS TO DO IT IN AREAS WHERE WE HAVE ALREADY EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE RATHER THAN BUILDING OUT OVER THE AQUIFER.
AND I BELIEVE THAT IT IS A LOT EASIER AND CHEAPER TO UPGRADE ALREADY EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE THAN IT IS TO BUILD ENTIRELY NEW SECTIONS OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRYING TO CONNECT THEM UP WITH LONG PIPELINES AND SUCH LIKE THAT, THAT IS ALWAYS MORE EXPENSIVE AND IT ALWAYS CAUSES MORE LEAKAGE, WHICH CAUSES A PROBLEM WITH WATER QUALITY.
AND THIS IS WE DRAW OUR WATER FROM THE WATER FROM THE AQUIFER.
IT IS ALSO THE BEST WAY TO HAVE WORKFORCE HOUSING FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ALREADY WORK IN OUR COMMUNITIES AND WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO LIVE CLOSER TO THEIR JOBS, LIKE POLICE OFFICERS AND TEACHERS AND FIREFIGHTERS.
SO I WOULD URGE YOU TO PLEASE APPROVE THIS TONIGHT AND TO GIVE US, UH, A MORE DENSE, WALKABLE, AND AFFORDABLE CITY.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. MICHAEL TI UH, SIX, PROCEED WITH EARMARKS.
MR. TI, ARE YOU PRESENT? SELEK SIX PROCEEDED WITH THE REMARKS GOING FORWARD TO MS. JOYCE ABANO.
MS. BASCIANO SEK SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
I'M OPPOSED TO BOTH PHASES OF THE HOME RESOLUTION BECAUSE IT'S A GROSS OVERREACH BY CITY GOVERNMENT.
AUSTIN PRIDES ITSELF ON BEING PROGRESSIVE, BUT THE HOME INITIATIVE AND THE PROCESS THAT CREATED IT IS NOT AT ALL PROGRESSIVE.
IT'S DOWNRIGHT UNDEMOCRATIC, AND THAT'S UNDEMOCRATIC WITH BOTH A LOWERCASE D AND A CAPITAL D.
DEMOCRACY WORKS BEST WHEN AN INFORMED PUBLIC IS INVOLVED IN A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS THAT BRINGS ALL OF THE VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS TO THE TABLE AS EQUALS AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS TO FIND CONSENSUS, THE LOCAL MEDIA AND THE CITY GOVERNMENT HAVE DONE A VERY POOR JOB OF INFORMING THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE HOME INITIATIVE.
PEOPLE ARE ASKING, WHERE DID THIS HOME IDEA COME FROM? WHY DOES IT HAVE TWO PHASES? AND WHY ARE WE MAKING THE CITYWIDE RADICAL CHANGES TO SINGLE FAMILY ZONING? NOW DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, IT SEEMS HOME IS BEING DONE BACKWARDS.
THAT IS THE RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS CALLED OUT FOR, FOR PHASE TWO SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BEFORE THE UPZONING IN PHASE ONE WAS PROPOSED.
THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT'S AFFORDABILITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT MAKES THE FOLLOWING POINTS ABOUT THE HOME INITIATIVE.
IT MAY HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HOMEOWNERS EXPERIENCING PRECARITY, AND SOME RENTERS INCREASING ENTITLEMENTS MAY INCENTIVIZE RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO REDEVELOP SINGLE FAMILY UNITS.
UPZONING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED NEIGHBORHOODS HAS LED TO DISPLACEMENT.
DISPLACEMENT PRESSURE FROM TAX, PROPERTY TAX MAY INCREASE AS WELL.
THE BLACK AND BROWN RESIDENTS OF AUSTIN'S EASTERN CRESCENT WILL BE THE MOST NEGATIVELY IMPACTED EXACERBATING AUSTIN'S SYSTEMIC RACISM.
MS. CAROLINE CRUM, SELECT STAR SIX.
MR. DAVID KRAMER, SELECT STAR SIX.
I APPRECIATE VERY INFORMATIVE.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED IS HOW RUSH FINISHED THIS PLAN.
EVEN SOME OF THOSE WHO SPEAK IN SUPPORT, THE PROPOSAL KNOWLEDGE NEEDS WORK ON THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND BOTH A ON MY PROPERTY YEARS AGO.
[02:35:01]
UH, HELLO, THIS IS CAROLYN CRUM.I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE HOME AMENDMENTS, PARTLY BECAUSE CHANGE, I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE HOME AMENDMENTS, PARTLY BECAUSE CHANGES WOULD BE IN TWO PHASES.
SO IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO EVALUATE THE EVENTUAL OUTCOME FROM THE, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS FIRST PHASE ALONE.
CAN, CAN YOU HEAR ME? I, I DON'T SEE.
UH, PHASE ONE WITH SPREAD DENSITY ALL OVER THE CITY, RATHER THAN CONCENTRATING IT IN THE CORRIDORS, PHASE TWO WOULD ADD EVEN MORE DENSITY, AND THERE'D BE CHANGES TO IMPERVIOUS COVER, SETBACKS AND TREE REGULATIONS.
SO THAT PHASE COULD BE VERY DAMAGING TO THE ENVIRONMENT.
IT WOULD MEAN HIGHER IMPERVIOUS COVER, INCREASED LOCALIZED FLOODING AND INCREASED URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT, AND A REDUCTION IN OUR TREE CANOPY.
IN AUSTIN, SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ARE THE SECOND LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO CANOPY COVERAGE.
TREES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO THE URBAN FOREST, REDUCING FLOODING, REDUCING HEAT, REDUCING WATER POLLUTION, AND COMBATING, UH, CLIMATE CHANGE.
BOTH PHASES WOULD ALSO PUT PRESSURE ON AUSTIN'S INFRASTRUCTURE AND FIRE SAFETY.
THERE ARE NO AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS OR SUBSIDIES, SO THE AMENDMENTS WOULD INCREASE GENTRIFICATION.
THESE AMENDMENTS AREN'T FRIENDLY TO HOMEOWNERS OF MODERATE INCOME, BUT WOULD INCREASE PROFITS TO DEVELOPERS IN COMPARISON TO THE PRESENT CODE BECAUSE MORE COULD BE BUILT IN A GIVEN SPACE.
SPREADING OUT DENSITY TO EVERYWHERE IS A SUPREMELY BAD IDEA FOR MANY REASONS.
DENSITY SHOULD BE ALONG THE BIG CORRIDORS, CORRIDORS WHERE THERE, THERE'S ALREADY HIGHER IMPERVIOUS COVER WHERE MASS TRANSIT IS MOST EFFECTIVE, AND WHERE IT'S EASIER TO IMPLEMENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS AND FLOOD CONTROL MEASURES.
PLEASE DO NOT RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THESE AMENDMENTS BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
WE'LL PROCEED TO MS. ANGELO, BEN GARZA.
MR. GARZA, UH, UHS STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME? YES, PLEASE PROCEED.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, I DO WANNA THANK ANDREW FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER AND ALLOWING US TO SPEAK, UM, OVER TELECONFERENCE AND ALL THE COMMISSIONERS WHO DO ALL THIS, UH, TITLEIST WORK AND, AND LONG HOURS.
UM, I'M SPEAKING ON, I, I HAVE TO ECHO WHAT, UM, GAVA STATED ABOUT HAVING ADDITIONAL OPEN HOUSES, ESPECIALLY FOR OUR BILINGUAL, UM, FOLKS THAT COULD NOT GET TO THE OPEN HOUSE, THAT LESLIE POOL IS GOOD ENOUGH TO HAVE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN.
UM, I, UH, I DO BELIEVE, I WANNA KNOW MORE PERSONALLY ON HOW WE CAN BE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING GENTRIFIED LEFT AND RIGHT, WHETHER WE'RE EXTREME RIGHT OR EXTREME LEFT.
AND IF WE HAVE NO MIDDLE GROUND AND DON'T WORK TOGETHER, WE'RE GONNA LOSE FAMILIES IN THE MIDDLE EITHER WAY.
SO IT'S REAL IMPORTANT THAT WE UNDERSTAND OUR WORKING FAMILIES, OUR HARDWORKING FAMILIES, HOW WE CAN BE, UM, CONTRIBUTORS AS WELL AND ASSIST IN WORKING PARTNERSHIP, UH, WHATEVER, WHATEVER, WHATEVER ANYONE DECIDES, AND HOW WE CAN WORK EFFECTIVELY TOGETHER.
UM, ALSO, CALIFORNIA HAS AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE THEY HAVE ENCOURAGED, UM, FAMILIES AND, UM, IN CALIFORNIA WITH A $50,000 GRANT GIFT TO ASSIST FAMILIES IN BUILDING, UM, UH, THESE, UM, ADUS THAT ARE OUTTA REACH FOR A LOT OF FAMILIES IN AUSTIN, TEXAS.
WE WOULD LIKE TO MAYBE EXPLORE THOSE KIND OF IDEAS WITH, UM, UH, FOLKS HERE, BUT NOT THE EXTREME LEFT OR EXTREME RIGHT SO THAT WE CAN WORK TOGETHER ON COMMON GROUND.
UM, REASON BLANKET, IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE IMPORTANT THAN DOING IT IN PIECES.
UM, DOING IT IN PIECES DOESN'T WORK OUT FOR FAMILIES AND NEIGHBORS.
SO WORKING TOGETHER ON, UM, AN OVERRIDE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE TOGETHER, UM, SO THAT WE'RE NOT FLOODING EACH OTHER OUT IS REALLY IMPORTANT AS WELL.
UM, ANDREW, IS MY TIME UP? YES.
OKAY, WE'LL, I'LL HEAR FROM JOHNNY LOVE MARKS, MR. LOVE MARKS.
IF YOU'LL SELECT, UH, STAR SIX, PROCEEDED WITH REMARKS.
THIS IS JOHNNY LOVE MARKS, AND I WAS INITIALLY IN FAVOR OF THIS NEW PROPOSAL.
UH, HOWEVER, LISTENING TO THE MANY COMMENTS, I THINK
[02:40:01]
IT WOULD BE MORE BENEFICIAL TO DO PLACES LIKE THE DOMAIN OVER ON EAST EAST RIVER SIDE, THE DISTRICT THAT I'M IN, UH, WHERE YOU HAVE LIVING, WORKING, SHOPPING, SHOPPING, ALL IN ONE AREA.UH, IF THE DEVELOPER COULD COME IN AND DO MORE PLACES LIKE THAT, MAKE IT, THAT WOULD BE MORE IDEAL, AND LEAVE ALL THE OTHER SUBDIVISIONS AND NEIGHBORHOODS ALONE, LEAVE OUR TREES ALONE, LEAVE OUR WILDLIFE ALONE.
UH, YOU'VE ALREADY GOT THE INFRASTRUCTURE THERE, YOU HAVE LINES.
UH, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE MORE BENEFICIAL AND MORE COST EFFECTIVE TO, UM, TO GO WITH THAT ROUTE.
AND I HEAR FROM ALEXANDRA ANDERSON.
MS. ANDERSON, SELECT STAR SIX.
WE'RE, THE SOUND IS VERY DIFFICULT TO HEAR THE CALLERS ON, UM, THE REMOTE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S AN OPTION.
I CAN READ THE TELEPROMPT, BUT I'M HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING THE VERBAL.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE A WAY TO ADJUST THE SOUND.
SO COMMISSIONER HOWARD, ARE YOU HAVING THE SAME ISSUE? I AM, YES.
UM, IT'S JUST HARD TO UNDERSTAND THE WORDS.
IT'S, WE'RE WE'RE KIND OF GETTING THE CHARLIE BROWN VERSION
I JUST SAID I'VE BEEN ABLE TO READ THE, THE, UM, TELEPROMPT, SO THAT'S HELPFUL.
BUT IF, IF WE NEED TO ADJUST HOW THAT'S COMING, THAT'D THAT'D BE GREAT.
COMMISSIONER ALEXANDRIA WILL, UM, WORK ON, UM, HAVING THAT RESOLVED.
I WILL NOW HEAR FROM MS. ALEXANDRA ANDERSON.
MS. ANDERSON, SELECT STAR SIX.
MY NAME IS ALEXANDRIA ANDERSON.
I'M SPEAKING ON MY BEHALF AND AS CHAIR OF THE MARTIN LUTHER KING NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND OPPOSITION OF THE ITEM TWO HOME AMENDMENTS.
WE DO NOT SUPPORT THE HOME AMENDMENTS AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY WRITTEN.
WE SUPPORT INTENTIONAL, WELL THOUGHT OUT, COMPREHENSIVE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BASED ON EACH DISTRICT SOLELY.
THE PROPOSED HOME RESOLUTION DOES NOT ADDRESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE EASTERN CRESCENT, ESPECIALLY DISTRICT ONE EAST AUSTIN, ARE STILL DEALING WITH THE DECADES OF INEQUITABLE DISPARITIES.
SOME OF THE EFFECTS OF FORCED URBAN RENEWAL, AND SO FAR REVITALIZATION THAT HAVE LED TO MARKET DRIVEN GENTRIFICATION OF VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES, DISPLACEMENT OF PEOPLE IN NEIGHBORHOODS WITH LOWER LAND VALUES.
LET'S BE HONEST AND REAL OF WHERE AND WHO THIS IS TRULY GOING TO IMPACT.
AS IT STANDS, THIS RESOLUTION DOES NOT ADDRESS THE MATRIX AND REQUIREMENTS OF AFFORDABILITY.
THIS IS NOT GENTLE DENSITY BASED ON PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO LENDING OPTIONS.
GENERALLY, PEOPLE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY OR THE PERSONAL CAPITAL TO GET THE BIG LOANS TO BILL SAFETY ISSUES WITH ADDED STREET PARKING.
EAST AUSTIN ALREADY HAVE SMALLER STREETS WITH DOUBLE-SIDED PARKING, AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, ISSUES AND LACK OF IN INFRASTRUCTURE.
THERE NEEDS TO BE A FACTUAL ANALYSIS.
DISTRICT ONE IS IN DIRE NEED OF INFRASTRUCTURE UPDATES, ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT ARE CURRENTLY PLUGGING OUR AREA, SUCH AS LACK OF TREE CANOPY, JUSTIFYING THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECTS WHILE COMPROMISING THE IMPLE IMPLEMENTATION, EXCUSE ME, OF THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN.
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, SPECULATION AND PREY ON HOMEOWNERS IN OUR AREA, WHICH WE'RE ALREADY EXPERIENCED.
THE FIRST INITIAL LDC WAVE, THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT SOCIAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE IN OUR COMMUNITY.
WE ARE STANDING UP, WE ARE USING OUR VOICE TO DETERMINE A VIBRANT, SUSTAINABLE FUTURE.
WE ARE ASKING FOR YOU TO LOOK AT THE HOLISTIC PICTURE.
WE SHOULD POSTPONE THIS RESOLUTION FOR A DEEPER COMMUNITY OUTREACH SIMILAR TO THAT SUGGESTED BY MANA GUZMAN OF GAVA.
WILL NOW HEAR MS FROM MS. TAMMY EASTON.
MOVING ON TO, UH, MR. DAN KETTE,
[02:45:01]
SELECT STAR SIX.THIS IS, UH, DAN KETTE FROM DISTRICT SIX.
UM, I AM, UH, CALLING IN FAVOR OF THE HOME INITIATIVE.
UH, ITEM TWO, I WANNA ADDRESS, UH, DIRECTLY THE ISSUE OF TIMING THAT WE'VE HEARD NOW, UH, FROM, FROM MANY SPEAKERS.
AND I WANNA SAY, I AGREE WITH PEOPLE THAT NOW IS NOT THE TIME FOR THIS.
THE TIME FOR THIS WAS 10 YEARS AGO.
10 YEARS AGO, A HOUSE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, COST ONE QUARTER.
WHAT IT DOES TODAY, 10 YEARS AGO, A NUMBER OF MY FRIENDS HADN'T ALREADY BEEN DRIVEN OUT OF AUSTIN AND MOVED TO OTHER CITIES BECAUSE THEY REALIZED ON THEIR MIDDLE CLASS SALARIES, THEY WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO AFFORD A HOME IN AUSTIN 10 YEARS AGO, THE IDEA OF AUSTIN AS A WELCOMING CITY, THAT PEOPLE COULD, YOU KNOW, THAT PEOPLE, IMMIGRANTS, PEOPLE WHO, YOU KNOW, DIDN'T HAVE A TON OF MONEY COULD COME TO AND, YOU KNOW, MAKE THEIR OWN WAY, WAS LEGITIMATE.
UM, WE'VE BEEN HAVING THIS DEBATE FOR AT LEAST ABOUT 10 YEARS.
I'VE BEEN PERSONALLY HERE AND KNOW MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE OPPOSED IN SAYING, THIS IS ALL GOING TOO FAST.
AND HERE HEARD A LOT OF THEM AT HOUSING HEARINGS OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, THE DEBATE HAS BEEN GOING ON.
WE HAVE A, UH, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, A CITY COUNCIL THAT'S BEEN ELECTED THAT ON, YOU KNOW, LARGELY ON PLATFORMS OF ADDRESSING THE NUMBER ONE PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, OVERWHELMINGLY, UH, YOU KNOW, CITED BY VOTERS.
THE TIME WAS YESTERDAY, THE TIME WAS FIVE YEARS AGO.
THE TIME IS 10 YEARS AGO, AND IT BETTER NOT BE TWO YEARS FROM NOW OR FIVE YEARS FROM NOW.
'CAUSE NOW IS THE BEST WE CAN DO.
I HAVE AN SSF THREE IN DISTRICT EIGHT RIGHT ON THE BORDER OF ROLLINGWOOD.
WHILE I APPRECIATE THE INTENT FOR THIS CODE, I VEHEMENT VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE IT.
WHEN MY HUSBAND AND I MOVED TO AUSTIN, WE TOOK A GREAT DEAL OF CARE AS TO WHERE WE'D LIVE.
WE HAVE TWO KIDS THAT ARE ON THE SPECTRUM AND LOOKED EVERYWHERE FOR A SPATIAL AND QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH WE HAVE BEEN PEACEFULLY LIVING AT FOR THE PAST EIGHT YEARS.
BY CHANGING THE ZONING AND THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED ADULTS THAT ARE ALLOWED TO LIVE ON THE PROPERTY, IT OPENS THE DOOR FOR CONDOS, CROWDS, NOISE, SAFETY ISSUES TO SAY THE LEAST.
ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE THINGS THAT SOMEONE ON THE SPECTRUM FIND DISTURBING AND CHALLENGING.
THE FACT THAT YOU CAN MAKE THIS CHANGE WITHOUT HAVING GIVEN THIS TYPE OF INFORMATION BEFORE WE BOUGHT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS MIND BOGGLING TO ME AND PUTS OUR KIDS IN HARM'S WAY.
SO I ASK YOU, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED HOW THIS DECISION WILL AFFECT DISABLED PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY? AS AN AUSTIN RESIDENT, WE'VE HAD WATER SHORTAGES AND AIR CUT HAS BEEN PUSHING IT, IT PUSHED TO THE LIMIT SO MUCH THAT WE GET REGULAR MESSAGES FROM AUSTIN UTILITY PLEADING FOR US TO TURN OFF THE POWER SO THE GRID DOESN'T COLLAPSE.
HOW CAN YOU ACCOUNT FOR ALL THESE THINGS GOING FORWARD IF WE'RE ALREADY STRUGGLING AT WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW? ALSO, WHERE WOULD ALL THE INFLUX OF PEOPLE PARK? THERE'D BE CONGESTED PARKING ALL ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET, AND THIS CAUSES A SAFETY PROBLEM.
WHAT CHANGES TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE HAVE YOU MADE IN ADVANCE TO PREPARE FOR A CODE LIKE THIS? LASTLY, CODE NEXT FAILED.
AND THIS FEELS LIKE A SLICK WAY OF TRYING TO GET AROUND IT, WHICH I DON'T FEEL IS VERY ETHICAL.
THERE SHOULD BE A VOTE DONE BY THE PEOPLE.
THERE SHOULD BE MORE THOUGHT AND COLLABORATIVE WORK DONE BY THE COMMUNITY.
THESE, THIS IS GOING TO BE A SOLUTION FOR DEVELOPERS, NOT FOR MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE LOOKING FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AN EXAMPLE OF THIS WAS WHEN MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, WHEN CODE NEXT, WHEN CODE NEXT WAS PASSED, DEVELOPERS WHO ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED PLANS AND WERE DENIED, RESUBMITTED ON THE VERY DAY CODE NEXT WAS IMPLEMENTED AND GOT THEM APPROVED.
AS A RESULT, 25 TREES WERE DESTROYED AND A MONSTROUS HOME WAS BUILT IN ITS PLACE.
THAT IS NOT WHAT I CALL SUSTAINABILITY, NOR DOES DID IT INCREASE HOUSING FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.
SO, I PLEAD YOU TO THINK THAT, I PLEAD YOU TO THINK, NOT THINK THAT DEVELOPERS WILL NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE I HONESTLY DO BELIEVE THEY WILL.
OKAY, WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. BARBARA EPSTEIN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.
YOUR LATEST REZONING PLAN SEEMS LESS ABOUT FINALLY ALLOWING A SINGLE STORY DETACHED GARAGE OR A GUEST COTTAGE ON A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT.
[02:50:01]
USED AS LEGALLY TO USE AND MORE ABOUT OPENING THE ZONING FLOODGATES AND WAITING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS.HAVING BEEN INVOLVED IN ZONING ISSUES NORTH OF UT FOR 36 YEARS, I PREDICT IT WILL RESULT IN A HAPHAZARD DEVELOPMENT MESS.
HERE ARE THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS I POSED TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.
NUMBER ONE, WHY IS AN AUSTIN REDEVELOPING RUNDOWN AREAS OF THE CITY BEFORE PROPOSING GENERAL REZONING? NUMBER TWO, WHY ISN'T AUSTIN USING ITS LAND TRUST PROGRAM TO CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD? FIRST, NUMBER THREE, WHY ISN'T AUSTIN PREPARING ITS AGING INFRASTRUCTURE, WATER, SEWER, ROADS, SIDEWALKS, ESPECIALLY IN A HUNDRED YEAR OLD NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE MINE BEFORE ADDING MUCH GREATER DENSITY? NUMBER FOUR, WHY DON'T WE KNOW HOW MUCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE BUILT ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS? NUMBER FIVE, WILL AFFORDABILITY RESULTS FROM SHEER NUMBERS OF UNITS BUILT OR THROUGH A REQUIRED NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS? NUMBER SIX, HOW MUCH BUILDING OUT WILL IT TAKE TO LOWER AUSTIN HOUSING PRICES? OR WILL THAT DEPEND ON HOW MANY PEOPLE KEEP MOVING HERE? AFFORDABILITY THROUGH DENSITY WAS THE PITCH WITH THE 22 ACRE CONCORDIA PUTT IN 2007, AND WITH THE 22 ACRE, SORRY, WITH THE 75 ACRES AT THE GROVE IN 2019.
NUMBER SEVEN, WILL DEVELOPERS STILL BE ALLOWED TO PAY INTO A FUND INSTEAD OF PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING? IF SO, WHY? NUMBER EIGHT? IF AFFORDABILITY IS THE OBJECTIVE, WHY ARE THE PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS ALLOWING MCMANSIONS TO BE BUILT? NUMBER NINE, WILL SHORT TERM RENTALS BE ALLOWED INSTEAD OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING? AND HOW WILL THAT BE ENFORCED? ARE RVS STILL IN THE PROPOSAL? AND LASTLY, NUMBER 10, WHY HAVE WE HEARD SO LITTLE ABOUT HOUSING FOR THE CITY AND STATE WORKERS WHO HAVE TO COMMUTE? IF YOU ELIMINATE YARDS, YOU ELIMINATE FAMILIES.
IF YOU DON'T ELIMINATE THE COMMUTERS, YOU WON'T ELIMINATE PEOPLE USING CARS.
I THINK THE 15 MINUTE CITY IS A MUCH BETTER MODEL TO LOOK AT FOR DENSITY AND AFFORDABILITY AND A LIVABLE CITY.
AND I'LL HEAR FROM MS. BE SCHREIBER.
MS. SCHREIBER, SELECT STAR SIX.
I, UH, HELLO, THIS IS BETH REGER.
I'M AGAINST THE HOME CODE AMENDMENT.
I'VE, I'VE HEARD SOME VERY INTELLIGENT RESPONSES, BOTH SIDES, BUT, BUT STILL FEEL REALLY STRONGLY EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID TONIGHT.
SOCIAL JUSTICE, ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, TREES, STREET CROWDING, PARKING.
I REALLY THINK THAT THIS IS MORE ABOUT DEVELOPERS BEING ABLE TO PUT A LOT OF HOMES IN A VERY DENSE AREA.
I DO NOT THINK IT'S REALLY GONNA HELP, UM, AFFORDABILITY AT ALL.
UH, I CONCUR WITH, WITH, WITH EVERYONE THAT'S BEEN TALKING ABOUT DISPLACEMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE, STRESS NEIGHBORHOODS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
I DON'T ENVY YOUR JOBS AT ALL.
UM, THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING BOTH SIDES.
MR. KATI, ARE YOU PRESENT? SEK STAR SIX CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LEELAND.
THAT CONCLUDES YOUR SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
UM, IF YOU'LL, UH, STATE YOUR NAME, THEN PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
I'M A RESIDENT AND RENTER LIVING IN A DUPLEX IN DISTRICT NINE, AND I'M SPEAKING TODAY IN OPPOSITION OF THE HOME INITIATIVE.
THERE IS NO DENYING THAT WE HAVE A HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS HERE,
[02:55:01]
BUT THE HOME INITIATIVE IS DRIVEN BY GREED AND PROFIT, NOT WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEST FOR THE MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY.IT'S SHORTSIGHTED TO BELIEVE THAT THIS INITIATIVE WILL DRIVE DOWN HOUSING COSTS FOR MIDDLE AND LOW INCOME HOME HOMEOWNERS AND RENTERS.
AND IT IS IGNORANT TO SAY THAT THIS INITIATIVE GIVES HOMEOWNERS THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE MIDDLE AND LOW INCOME.
HOMEOWNERS CANNOT AFFORD TO DEMOLISH AND REDEVELOP THEIR HOME OR BUILD AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
ONLY HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS AND INVESTORS CAN DO THIS.
THIS MEANS INVESTORS WILL BUY UP HOUSING FROM LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME HOMEOWNERS AND HOMEOWNERS WILL FEEL THE PRESSURE TO SELL BECAUSE PROPERTY TAXES WILL NOT INCREASE.
THIS IS GENTRIFICATION BECAUSE HOME IS INVESTOR DRIVEN.
THERE ARE NO AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS.
MONEY IS WHAT'S FUELING THIS INITIATIVE.
INCREASING THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING ONLY CAUSES HOUSING COSTS TO GO DOWN WHEN THERE IS A SUPPLY OF DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
HOME IS MISSING THIS KEY INGREDIENT.
WE NEED AN INITIATIVE THAT WILL REQUIRE THE BUILDING OF ACTUAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE NEED COMMUNITY-BASED DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT DISPLACEMENT.
WE NEED AFFORDABLE DENSITY, NOT MARKET RATE DENSITY.
AND WE NEED THESE PLANS TO ALIGN WITH OUR CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN GOAL.
HOME IS NOT WHERE THE HEART IS.
WITH THAT, YOU CAN CONSIDER CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING CHAIR? I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? ANY OPPOSITION? UH, SECOND VICE CHAIR, HEMPEL, SEEING NO OPPOSITION.
AND, UH, LOOKING AROUND THE ROOM, SO KINDA LOOKING AT THE TIME, UM, WE, I WOULD LOVE TO GET THROUGH Q AND A BEFORE THE 10 O'CLOCK HOUR, AND THEN WE WILL MAKE A DECISION ON WHAT WE DO NEXT.
UH, IF WE PUSH ON, WE WOULD GO THROUGH OUR, UM, WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT.
AND, UH, BOY, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET THIS DONE TONIGHT.
UM, IT'S VERY LIKELY AND WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK TOMORROW.
SO, UH, DO WE NEED A QUICK FIVE MINUTE BREAK? UM, ALL RIGHT.
FIVE MINUTES AND WE'LL COME BACK AND WE'LL START THE Q AND A.
SO WE'RE BRINGING THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER HERE.
IT'S, UH, NINE 20, UM, CONTINUING WITH OUR ITEM TWO Q AND A.
SO, UM, THIS IS WHERE COMMISSIONERS HAVE, UM, FIVE MINUTES EACH, INCLUDING OUR EX OFFICIOS CAN HAVE SOME Q AND A TIME.
UH, BUT WE WANTED TO DO IS, UH, START WITH THE FOLKS THAT WEREN'T ON THE WORKING GROUP.
'CAUSE WE HAVE HAD SOME, UH, STAFF AVAILABLE TO US TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS.
SO IF YOU DON'T, I'M JUST GOING TO, UM, I'M GOING TO START WITH THE VICE CHAIR IF YOU'RE READY, OR YOU CAN PASS AND I CAN PICK YOU UP LATER ON.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR OTHERS, OR YOU CAN PASS AND WE CAN COME BACK TO YOU LATER.
VICE CHAIR IS GONNA TAKE A PASS.
WE'LL SEE IF SHE HAS QUESTIONS LATER.
SO, UM, JUST LOOKING AROUND THE ROOM.
COMMISSIONER, UH, HOWARD, DID YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UM, IT CAN BE FOR STAFF OR SPEAKERS.
UM, JUST TRYING TO SEE WHO IS READY WITH THEIR QUESTIONS.
MAYBE THAT SHOULD BE THE QUESTION I ASK.
SO YOU WANNA, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, ARE YOU READY? YOU WANNA PASS? I CAN PICK YOU UP LATER.
COMMISSIONER M TOLER, ARE YOU READY WITH QUESTIONS? NO.
SOMEBODY'S GOTTA ASK SOME QUESTIONS HERE.
LET'S GIVE FOLKS A FEW MINUTES TO COME BACK AND WE'LL SEE WHO HAS QUESTIONS.
UM, SO COMM, AND WE'RE INCLUDING EX OFFICIO, SO IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, LET ME KNOW.
WE'RE, WHO HAS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND WANTS TO KICK US OFF.
SO VICE CHAIR HAS HER HAND UP.
YOU WANNA START US OFF? YES, THAT'S RIGHT.
UH, VICE CHAIR HEMP WILL, AND AGAIN, WE HAVE, WE'RE GIVING FIVE MINUTES TO EVERYBODY.
SO, UH, WE'LL START WITH THE VICE CHAIR.
UH, SO MY QUESTION, UM, I'M NOT SURE WHO THIS WOULD BE DIRECTED TO IF WE HAVE SOMEBODY FROM PUBLIC WORKS.
UM, BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE, THE INFRASTRUCTURE BEING READY FOR THE INCREASE OF UNITS ON LOTS, UM, THAT BEING SEWER, WATER, ELECTRIC, UM,
[03:00:01]
THE ROADWAYS.AND I REMEMBER THIS QUESTION WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE Q AND A, UM, BUT I JUST WANTED TO, UM, SEE IF THERE WAS ANY MORE DETAIL OR RESPONSE ABOUT HOW THAT WOULD BE HANDLED AS THESE, UH, THE NEW APPLICATIONS COME IN.
ERIC LEAK WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE MEMBERS FROM THE UTILITIES HERE THIS EVENING, BUT WE HAVE ANSWERED A NUMBER OF THOSE QUESTIONS IN THE ONLINE, UH, PORTAL.
UM, SO, SO THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST RESOURCE FOR THOSE ANSWERS AT THIS POINT.
I'LL GO BACK AND REVIEW THOSE.
BUT, UM, ABOUT THE, THE FLOODING CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP AS WELL, I KNOW THAT, THAT, I THINK THAT WAS ANSWERED IN THE Q AND A, BUT NOT VERY CLEARLY, AT LEAST TO ME.
UM, THE ATLAS 14 AREAS AND, AND SOME OF THE AREAS THAT HAVE LOCALIZED FLOODING.
HOW, HOW WOULD THAT BE INVESTIGATED AS, UM, UH, APPLICATIONS FOR NEW UNITS COME INTO THESE AREAS THAT HAVE THOSE KIND OF ISSUES? WE DON'T HAVE WATERSHED STAFF HERE, BUT WE COULD ADD THAT TO THE, UH, A RESPONSE TO THAT, TO THE, THE PORTAL, AND WE CAN CAPTURE THAT QUESTION.
UM, I THINK THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR NOW.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, UH, GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE NEXT SLOT.
SO I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE THIS IS, UH, A STATEMENT WITH A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS WRAPPED UP IN IT.
SO JUST WANNA START OUT BY SAYING, THIS IS A PROCESS THAT I WANT TO BRING MY LIVED EXPERIENCE TO.
AND SO I LOVE WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT THE VALUE OF DIRT VERSUS THE VALUE OF PEOPLE.
AND I BELIEVE IN DENSITY FURTHER, HAVING GROWN UP IN NEW YORK.
AND FURTHERMORE, I BELIEVE THAT AUSTIN MUST HAVE MORE DENSITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ALL ITS RESIDENTS.
I WELCOME COMMENTS ABOUT DENSITY, BUT THEY LEAVE OUT THE HISTORY, THE FACTS, AND THE REALITIES OF THIS CITY.
HERE'S WHAT WE KNOW BASED ON THE HISTORY OF THIS CITY AND THE FACTS THAT THE HOME INITIATIVE WILL RESULT.
THE FACT IS THAT IT WILL RESULT IN THE THIRD RELOCATION OF AFRICAN AMERICANS AND LATINOS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, BECAUSE DENSITY WITHOUT AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS HAS ALWAYS EQUALED MARKET PRICE HOUSING IN AUSTIN.
THAT IS OUR HISTORY, AND THOSE ARE THE FACTS.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE HOME INITIATIVE CAN BE FIXED TO ADDRESS THE FACTS IN HISTORY OF AUSTIN, BECAUSE DENSITY WITH AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS EQUALS EQUITY AND NO FURTHER RELOCATION, FORCED RELOCATION OF AFRICAN AMERICANS AND LATINOS.
THIS IS OUR HISTORY, AND THOSE ARE THE FACTS.
SO IT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE TO ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND THE HISTORY IN THE CITY.
THE FIRST RELOCATION WAS IN 1928 UNDER THE CITY PLAN THAT CREATED THE NEGRO DISTRICT.
AFRICAN-AMERICANS WERE FORCED TO MOVE TO CENTRAL EAST AUSTIN.
BLACK PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN FREEDMAN COMMUNITIES ACROSS AUSTIN IN CLARKSVILLE, WHEATVILLE, BOLDING CREEK, WHAT IS NOW BOLDING CREEK, AND MANY OTHER PLACES WERE FORCED TO RELOCATE UNDER THE THREAT OF BEING DENIED CITY SERVICES, INCLUDING UTILITIES AND PICKING UP TRASH.
SO THEY MOVED EAST OFTENTIMES HAVING TO SELL THEIR HOMES FOR LESS THAN MARKET VALUE.
CITY LEADERS PROCLAIMED TO SOLVE THE CHALLENGES THAT CONFRONTED THE CITY BECAUSE OF STRICTLY AND SEGREGATION AND JIM CROW.
SO BY PUTTING BLACK PEOPLE, IN PARTICULAR AFRICAN AMERICAN DESCENDANTS OF SLAVES IN THE NEGRO DISTRICT, THEY COULD PLACE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, AND OTHER ENTERPRISES IN THOSE COMMUNITIES.
SO THE CITY WOULD NOT SPEND MONEY DUPLICATING THOSE SERVICES ACROSS THE CITY.
LATINOS AND PARTICULARLY MEXICAN AMERICANS WERE SIMILARLY PUSHED TO THE MARGINS OF THE CITY
[03:05:01]
INTO EAST AUSTIN, WHICH AT THE TIME WAS NOT CONSIDERED A PORTION OF THE CENTRAL CITY.SO THEY WERE PUSHED TO THE MARGINS, AND THEY SUFFERED IN SIMILAR TERMS OF REDLINING AND LACK OF ACCESS TO CAPITAL, LACK OF ACCESS TO CREDIT, AND THE CHALLENGES OF GETTING TO THEIR JOBS ON THE WEST SIDE.
SO BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES IN THE FIRST RELOCATION WERE SACRIFICED TO ENSURE THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN COULD IMPLEMENT ITS JIM CROW SEGREGATION POLICIES.
THE SECOND FORCE, LO RELOCATION OF BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE CAME IN THE 1990S ALSO TO SOLVE ANOTHER PROBLEM FACING THE CITY.
THE DECADE OLD WAR BETWEEN DEVELOPERS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY LED BY SOS THAT KEPT THE CITY IN CONSTANT CHAOS.
PEACE WAS BROKERED IN A DEAL THAT STOPPED OR SIGNIFICANTLY SLOWED DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION IN WEST AUSTIN TO PROTECT BARTON SPRINGS AND THE EDWARDS AQUA RECHARGE ZONE.
EAST AUSTIN WAS THE SACRIFICE.
IT WAS DESIGNATED THE DESIRED DEVELOPMENT ZONE WITH FAVORABLE REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES TO DEVELOPERS.
THE VOICES AND INPUT OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND LATINOS LARGELY WERE LEFT OUT OF THAT DEAL.
AND I LIVED THERE AT THE TIME AS A WAY OF CORRECTING URBAN BLIGHT.
BEAUTIFYING, TRASHED OUT LOTS REVIVING BUSINESSES AND CONSTRUCTION OF ABANDONED HOMES.
BUILDING AND HOUSING DENSITY AND ZONING RULES WITHOUT AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS RESULTED IN THE MASS RELOCATION AND DISPLACEMENT THE SECOND TIME OF BLACK PEOPLE.
OVERWHELMINGLY AMERICAN DESCENDANTS OF SLAVES AND LATINOS, PRIMARILY MEXICAN AMERICANS.
RENTERS COULD NOT AFFORD THE NEW COST OF HOUSING.
ACCESS TO CAPITAL AND CREDIT STILL WERE IMPACTED BY THE POLICIES OF REDLINING.
AS A RESULT, THE VOTING STRENGTH OF AFRICAN AMERICANS WAS DRASTICALLY DIMINISHED.
AND WE SEE THE RESULTS OF THAT TODAY IN WHICH DU ONE DISTRICT, ONE DESIGNATED AS THE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT THAT WOULD MAINTAIN BLACK REPRESENTATION, NO LONGER HAS A PLURALITY OF BLACK RESIDENTS, THOUGH STILL IT IS THE AREA OF AUSTIN WITH THE GREATEST CONCENTRATION OF BLACK PEOPLE.
WELL, WENDY, I WANNA RECOGNIZE, UM, CHAIR COHEN.
I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION, BUT I'M WILLING TO DONATE THE MAJORITY OF MY TIME TO THE FELLOW COMMISSIONER IF I CAN DO THAT.
WELL, WE WEREN'T, THAT'S NOT IN OUR RULES.
WE WEREN'T DONATING TIME, QUESTION, TIME.
SO I, UH, VERY POWERFUL COMMENTS.
CAN YOU WRAP UP IN 30 SECONDS? UM, YEAH.
UH, WELL, I, I DIDN'T KNOW HOW THIS PROCESS WORKED.
'CAUSE I COULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY EDITED MYSELF, BUT NO, GO AHEAD.
BUT, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE SPEAKING ON THESE TOPICS WITH MISINFORMATION AND ERRONEOUS INFORMATION.
AND I THINK IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED.
WE NEED TO HAVE THE CORRECT FACTS, THE CORRECT HISTORY, AND THE CORRECT CONTEXT.
SO, WITHOUT AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS FINANCIAL TOOLS THAT RECOGNIZE AUSTIN'S PAST REDLINING PRACTICES THAT LEFT MANY BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE TODAY, FAR LESS RESOURCED THAN THEIR WHITE COUNTERPARTS, WITHOUT THE RIGHT TO RETURN AND WITHOUT INCENTIVES WITH DEVELOPERS DEDICATED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SUCH AS FOUNDATION, COMMUNITIES, HABITAT, THE GUADALUPE NEIGHBORHOOD AND OTHERS, WITHOUT A DISCUSSION OR ANALYSIS OF THE VOTING STRENGTH AND POLITICAL IMPACT OF NEW LAND USE PLANS, WE WILL NO DOUBT ENABLE THE THIRD MASSIVE RELOCATION OF BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES.
UH, WE NEED TO STOP THERE, BUT THANK YOU.
UM, OKAY, SO YES, COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE NOT DONATING TIME, DONATING TIME ON THE Q AND A, UM, THAT, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO THE NEXT.
SO, ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS THAT WEREN'T ON THE WORKING GROUP, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO FIRST 'CAUSE YOU DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO STAFF.
SO, COMMISSIONER VETA RAMIREZ, DO YOU HAVE YOUR QUESTIONS READY? OKAY.
WE'LL GIVE YOU FIVE MINUTES IF YOU NEED IT.
I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT I NEED FIVE MINUTES.
MY QUESTION IS VERY SIMILAR TO MY SHEER HEMPEL, UM, ABOUT UTILITIES, BUT MINE IS MORE ABOUT THE, AND THE WILDFIRE INTERFACE THAT, AND THAT WAS ALSO IN THE Q AND A, BUT I DIDN'T SEE IT ANSWERED FROM FIRE.
AND I SEE SOMEBODY THAT LOOKS LIKE THEY REPRESENT FIRE BACK THERE.
[03:10:01]
THE FIRE MARSHAL.UH, SORRY, MY QUESTION IS ABOUT, UH, THE IMPACTS THAT YOU WOULD FORESEE FROM THIS, FROM, YOU KNOW, THE AMENDMENT AND, AND ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE INCLUDED WITHIN IT, AND ANY, YOU KNOW, FEEDBACK YOU HAVE OR SPECIFICALLY TO THE WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE OR YES.
OR ANY, UM, CHALLENGES, CHALLENGES YOU FORESEE WITH PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO GET OUT IN CASE OF A FIRE OR, 'CAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM FOLKS IS THAT THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR SAFETY AND, AND THIS MIGHT, YOU KNOW, ENDANGER THEM IN SOME WAY.
SO, UH, A LOT OF WHAT'S BEING CONTEMPLATED WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE IN THE WWE, IN THE, UH, IN THE WWE ZONES BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITATIONS.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST THE, THE INTENT OF THE, UH, CODE IS TO LIMIT THE SPREAD OF WILDFIRE, PARTICULARLY STRUCTURE TO STRUCTURE.
SO IF YOU'RE GONNA PUT STRUCTURES CLOSER TOGETHER, THAT RUNS CONTRARY TO THE INTENT OF, OF WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE UI CODE.
UH, AS FAR AS IN AREAS THAT ARE NOT CLASSIFIED AS THE WE, WE DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS, UH, THAT I THINK MANY OF WHICH CAN BE ADDRESSED.
BUT IT'S JUST THE TYPICAL, UM, ISSUES THAT WE DEAL WITH ON A DAILY BASIS, ACCESS, UH, TO, UM, STRUCTURES.
AND WE DEAL THAT WITH, WITH THAT ON IN OUR CURRENT PLANNING PROCESS.
AND, AND WE SEEK ALTERNATIVES OF HOW TO ADDRESS THOSE.
UH, WE HAVE ALTERNATIVES THAT ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS THAT WILL OFFSET A LOT OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE FACE.
I DON'T KNOW IF OTHER PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS, BUT THAT WAS ALL I HAD.
CHIEF, CAN YOU IDENTIFY WHAT WWE IS? THE WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE.
I SHOULD'VE SAID IT AGAIN AND I MENTIONED IT TOO, BUT, YEP.
AND ACTUALLY, I REMEMBERED ONE MORE QUESTION I HAVE FOR STAFF IF I STILL HAVE TIME.
AND THIS IS FOR YOU, MS. LEAK, AND IT'S ABOUT DEEDED RESTRICTIONS AND HOA, AND I'D READ THIS IN THE Q AND A, BUT JUST WANTED TO KIND OF SAY IT OUT LOUD THAT THESE AMENDMENTS WOULDN'T NECESSARILY IMPACT DEEDED RESTRICTIONS OR HOAS THAT THOSE KIND OF SUPERSEDE BECAUSE THEY RUN WITH THE LAND OR THEY HAVE THEIR PRIVATE AGREEMENTS.
SO CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT? SURE.
UM, SO DEEDED RESTRICTIONS ARE PRIVATE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PARTIES.
UM, AND THE, THE CITY IS NOT INVOLVED IN, UM, REGULATING THOSE, UM, AGREEMENTS, BUT THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO, TO HOLD.
AND ON OUR DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, WE DO HAVE QUESTION.
WE DO HAVE A QUESTION THAT SAYS, HAVE YOU LOOKED AT ANY RESTRICTIONS THAT MAY APPLY TO THIS PROPERTY? UM, AND KNOW THAT, UH, THAT, THAT THEY MAY IMPACT WHAT YOU CAN BUILD ON YOUR PROPERTY.
SORRY, ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT, SO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, THEY HAVE SIMILAR TYPES OF REQUIREMENTS THAT MAY ALSO SUPERSEDE THE ZONING OR THE WAY THAT YOU CAN BUILD ON YOUR PROPERTY.
TRISH LINK WITH THE LAW, THE LAW DEPARTMENT, IF AN HOA HAS PROVISIONS THAT LIMIT HOW MANY UNITS THEY CAN HAVE ON A PROPERTY, THEN THAT WOULD CONTROL OVER OUR ZONING REGULATIONS.
UH, LET ME, I'M LOOKING AT, UH, THE VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS.
EITHER OF YOU READY? COMMISSIONER MUSH? TAYLOR, YOU? NO, NOT YET.
COMMISSIONER COHEN HAD A QUESTION.
WHY DON'T WE JUST GO OVER COMMISSIONER COHEN, DID YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR I I I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION, UH, FOR FIRE PREVENTION, IF YOU WANNA COME BACK UP.
I'M SAD WE DON'T HAVE SOMEONE FROM EMS HERE, SO TO, NOT TO GET TOO DEEP IN THE WEEDS, BUT IS THERE ANY CONCERN ABOUT, LIKE, SAY, GETTING A 75 FOOT QUINT DOWN A FLAG LOT DRIVE TO AN EDU, THAT'S THE THIRD UNIT ON THE BACKSIDE OF A BIG HOUSE? WELL, SO WE'RE TYPICALLY NOT GONNA PULL A FIRETRUCK DOWN A NARROW DRIVEWAY.
IT'S MORE ABOUT THE HOSE, UH, LENGTH.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, WE DEAL ON THIS, DEAL WITH THIS RIGHT NOW, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO BUILD A REALLY LARGE HOUSE IN AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, THAT MIGHT TRIGGER A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO SPRINKLE, PUT, UH, RESIDENTIAL
[03:15:01]
SPRINKLERS, FIRE SPRINKLERS IN THAT HOUSE.AND SIMILARLY, IF THERE ARE ACCESS ISSUES OR OTHER THINGS THAT CAN'T BE ADDRESSED BECAUSE OF THE LOT CONFIGURATION, THAT MIGHT ALSO TRIGGER, UH, A REQUIREMENT THAT THE ONE OF THE D ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS BE, UH,
BUT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS THE LENGTH THAT WE WOULD STRETCH A HOSE FROM THE STREET A A ARE THERE ANY PROVISIONS THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD HELP ADDRESS THIS? OR IS THAT MAYBE SOMETHING THIS BOARD COULD HELP WRITE IN? THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THE CODE, YES.
WHEN THERE'S THREE OR MORE STRUCTURES ON A SINGLE LOT.
MM-HMM,
UM, ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS? SURE.
IT'S REALLY A QUESTION FOR THE MARSHALL.
AND THEN A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SO MY QUESTION IS, YOU'LL HAVE TO FORGIVE MY IGNORANCE.
WHAT IS THE CURRENT MINIMUM DISTANCE IN WHICH, UM, STRUCTURES CAN BE SEPARATED BY THE MINIMUM? THAT ACTUALLY IS PROBABLY, AND THAT, WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S A BETTER QUESTION, UH, FOR THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL, BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON VARIABLES.
BUT, UM, 10 FEET IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, UM, IN MOST CASES.
AND THAT IF, IF IT'S LESS THAN 10 FEET, THEN YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO CONSIDER THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALL THE UNITS IN THE AGGREGATE.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WOULD CONSIDER TO BE ONE LARGE STRUCTURE IF THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SEPARATION BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS.
AND THEN I GUESS IF THERE'S MORE, UM, WE'RE GOOD.
AND THEN FOR STAFF IN THE, UM, IN HOME, ARE THE PROVISIONS MADE FOR THAT? ARE THERE ANY ADJUSTMENTS MADE FOR THAT? LIKE IF THERE'S SOMETHING FOR TINY HOUSE, SOMETHING FOR DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES, FOURPLEXES, IS THERE LIKE A SLIDING SCALE ON THAT? SO THE STRUCTURES WOULD BASICALLY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS.
SO, UM, SO THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS AND ALSO THE BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS.
SO IT WOULD SPECIFY THE BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS WOULD SPECIFY THE, THE, AND MAYBE, AND MAYBE ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS, UM, WOULD SPECIFY THE POTENTIAL DISTANCE BETWEEN UNITS.
SO I GUESS WHAT, UM, I'M, I'M TRYING TO GET TO JUST GO AHEAD AND SAY THIS.
THERE'S NOT AN IN RUN AROUND IT.
LIKE WE WON'T HAVE STRUCTURES FOUR FEET APART, LIKE THERE'S NO LOOPHOLE.
'CAUSE I HAVEN'T READ A WHOLE CODE AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IF YOU BUILD IT WITH THIS DOOR, NO CLOSET, NO WINDOW, THEN YOU CAN FILL IN THE BLANK.
WELL, I'M GONNA LET THEM SPEAK TO THAT.
I'M THE, UH, BUILDING OFFICIAL, UH, NO, THERE'S NO LOOPHOLES.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO SACRIFICE WINDOWS OR SOMETHING ELSE IF YOU WENT INSIDE SIX FEET.
UH, SO IT'S, IT WOULD BE BASED ON THE EXTERIOR WALLS, FIRE RESISTANCE RATED CONSTRUCTION ON HOW FAR THEY GOTTA BE SEPARATED, WHICH IS MANDATED IN CHAPTER THREE OF THE IRC.
YOU HAVE, ARE YOU READY? I, I, UM, SORRY, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION.
I WANNA MAKE JUST A VERY QUICK COMMENT, WHICH IS, UM, I THINK IT WAS, UH, UM, NOTED THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD IF EMS COULD BE HERE AS WELL TO ANSWER SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS.
AND I JUST WANNA, UM, REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS THAT I THINK SOME OF THEM HAVE HEARD DIRECTLY FROM EMS AND EMS SENT A VERY SPECIFIC ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES.
AND IF ANYONE DIDN'T GET IT, UM, I'LL HAPPILY FORWARD, UM, THAT, BUT, YOU KNOW, AND I'M ALSO HAPPY TO, UM, SHARE IT WITH ANYONE THAT NEEDS IT.
BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR THAT EMS HAS TAKEN THE TIME TO ANSWER ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS IN THAT REGARD.
OH, COMMISSIONER COHEN, CHAIR COHEN C CAN I JUST QUICK FOLLOW UP FOR, FOR TRUSTEE HUNTER? UH, NO.
AREN'T I THE LOOP POLL? SO, NO, I'M SORRY.
UH, COMMISSIONER COHEN, I'LL JUST BE HONEST BECAUSE WE LAID OUT THE RULES FOR THIS MEETING EARLIER ON.
JUST TO BE FAIR TO EVERYBODY, WE DO NEED TO BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THEM.
YEAH, IT'S, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTE BLOCK.
UH, HAVE YOUR QUESTIONS READY, ASK THEM.
AND WE NEED, WE NEED TO GET, UH, WE NEED TO GET OVER TO THE AMENDMENTS.
IS THERE, IS THERE ANY INTEREST ON THIS COMMISSION TO VOTE TO CHANGE THAT? JUST BECAUSE I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE AREN'T READY AND THEY MIGHT WANNA COME BACK TO QUESTIONS.
I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN CHANGING THAT.
SO YOU DEFINITELY SOME SOMEBODY CAN MAKE A MOTION TO CHANGE.
[03:20:01]
CHANGE THAT.BUT LET ME JUST, AS THE CHAIR, I'M GONNA COMMENT THAT
UM, SO PREPAREDNESS IS IMPORTANT AND, UM, I WOULD'VE REALLY LIKED IF PEOPLE HAD THEIR QUESTIONS READY, UM, TO GO, UH, I'M A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED WE'RE SITTING HERE IN DEAD AIRSPACE WITHOUT ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, THAT KIND OF BOTHERS ME A LITTLE.
INDICATED THAT I WAS READY FOR QUESTIONS,
LET'S LET THE F 'CAUSE IF WE BURN AN HOUR, UH, WITH THIS, UH, BUT I, I HEAR PEOPLE ARE READY.
BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS, LET'S LET THE PEOPLE THAT ARE READY TO GO AND THEN LET'S ENTERTAIN AND CHANGE OUR RULES.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, THEY'RE SPEAKING.
ALRIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN, UM, AS YOU KNOW, I WAS ON THE WORK GROUP SIDE, THE, THE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING, UM, SOME OF MY QUESTION ANSWERED.
SO I'M GONNA, UH, SINCE WE'RE NOT DONATING TIME, I AM, UH, IT'S A POOR, IT'S A POOR REPRESENTATION.
BUT PRETEND MY VOICE IS COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS'S VOICE.
UM, AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER, I'M NOT LOOKING FOR THE PERFECT, I'M LOOKING FOR THE GOOD.
THE HOME INITIATIVE IS NEITHER PERFECT NOR GOOD, NOR FAIR, NOR EQUITABLE.
THE COMPONENT, UH, THE HOME INITIATIVE HAS NO AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS OR COMPONENTS.
WHAT'S TO BECOME OF COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS WITHOUT HOA ARE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH THE VAST MAJORITY OF NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE, UH, EASTERN CRESCENT LACK, WILL THIS LIKE OTHER LAND USE, UH, PLANS STARTING IN 1928 ALSO BE CARRIED ON THE BACKS OF, OF BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE.
HOW IS IT THAT THE CITY HAS COME TO THE POINT IN CRAFTING A NEW LAND USE PLAN WITHOUT PRIORITIZING ISSUES OF FORCED DISPLACEMENT OF PEOPLE OF COLOR, STRUCTURAL AND SYSTEMATIC RACISM IN EXCESS TO CAPITAL AND CREDIT VOTING RIGHTS, THE RIGHT OF RETURN AND, AND OUR OWN HISTORY.
SOME IN THE CITY ARE SAYING THAT AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER TOOLS AIMED AT, UH, INFUSING EQUITY ACROSS RACIAL AND INCOME LINES WILL HAPPEN ON THE BACK END.
THAT CANNOT BE THE CASE, NOT THIS TIME.
THESE DISCUSSIONS NEED TO BE ON THE FRONT END.
SO WE WON'T FACE ANOTHER FUTURE IN AUSTIN, WHICH DENSITY, WITHOUT AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS EQUALS, UH, EQUALS MARKET PRICED HOUSING WHERE DENSITY WITHOUT AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS LEADS TO, UH, THE INTENDED OR, OR UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF A THIRD RELOCATION OF BRACKEN BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE.
MR. HAYNES, DO YOU WANNA USE YOUR REMAINING TIME FOR ANY Q AND A? UH, I'LL, I, UH, OH, I CAN'T RESERVE THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME.
UM, UH, SINCE MS. LEAK IS THERE, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ASK YOU THE QUESTION.
UM, AND, AND IT, IT MAY BE A QUESTION FOR LAW.
UM, SO, UH, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I ASKED, UM, I GOT A, A LITTLE BIT OF AN ANSWER IN, BUT, UM, UH, IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, UM, CHAPTER 5 12, 1 55, I BELIEVE, UH, THERE ARE PROVISIONS THAT ALLOW CERTAIN CITIES, BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THE, THE BILL WAS DRAFTED AND IT WAS, IT'S A LOCAL BILL AND IT, SO IT ALLOWS CITY OF HOUSTON AND CITY OF DALLAS TO, UH, ENFORCE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE LOCAL DEVELOP OR IN THE, UM, UH, IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, THE LGC THAT PREVENTS THE CITY OF AUSTIN, UH, FROM ADOPTING SOME OF THOSE SAME PROVISIONS BY RESOLUTION FOR, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN? UH, TRISH LINK.
TRISH LINK AGAIN, WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
SO THE WAY THE STATE LAW IS WRITTEN, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN POPULATION OR YOU DON'T HAVE ZONING ORDINANCES.
SO IN ORDER TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE UNDER THAT PARTICULAR SUBCHAPTER OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, THE CITY OF AUSTIN WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE ZONING ORDINANCES.
THE CITY OF AUSTIN DOESN'T FIT IN THE BRACKET FOR THAT PARTICULAR SECTION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
[03:25:01]
THERE ANYTHING IN SUB CHAPTER F OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE? UM, I THINK IT'S TWO 12, UH, THAT PREVENTS THE CITY OF AUSTIN FROM ADOPTING SIMILAR REGULATIONS AT THE ORDINANCE LEVEL.THE SUB CHAPTER THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING IN TOTAL DOES NOT APPLY TO THE CITY.
SO THE CITY'S OPTIONS ARE, I'M GONNA TAKE BACK MY TIME.
I'M GONNA ASK, UH, UH, I'M TRYING TO ASK A VERY SPECIFIC, IS THERE ANYTHING, OKAY, LET ME, LET ME BROADEN IT OUT.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN CHAPTER TWO 12 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE THAT PREVENTS THE CITY OF AUSTIN FROM ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE THAT HAS SIMILAR LANGUAGE AND ENFORCING DEED RESTRICTIONS? THIS ONE MOMENT, I'M NOT ASKING WHETHER THAT PROVISION OF THE LOCAL DEVELOP OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE APPLIES TO AUSTIN.
I'M ASKING IF AUSTIN CAN'T ADOPT AN ORDINANCE THAT DOES SIMILAR ACTIVITIES.
I GUESS I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY SIMILAR ACTIVITIES.
DEED RESTRICTIONS ENFORCE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS.
THE STATE LAW SAYS THAT CITIES HAVE ZONING POWERS, AND HERE'S HOW YOU IMPLEMENT THAT.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE ZONING POWERS OR YOU HAVE A CERTAIN POPULATION THRESHOLD, THEN YOU CAN ENFORCE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS.
THERE WOULD BE LEGAL ISSUES THAT I CANNOT GET INTO IN THIS SPACE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY WOULD, UM, BECAUSE WE HAVE ZONING ORDINANCES, WE DON'T FIT INTO THAT SUBCHAPTER.
AND I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME IS, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT SAYS THAT WE CAN'T DO IT AND THERE ARE OTHER LEGAL ISSUES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE THAT WOULD LIKELY PREVENT US FROM DOING THAT.
UM, WHO'S NEXT? COMMISSIONER WOODS.
MR. MAXWELL? UH, YEAH, I HAVE A FEW QUICK QUESTIONS ABOUT FROM STAFF ABOUT TINY HOMES IF ANYBODY WANTS TO
UM, SO I THINK, UH, PROBABLY THE BEST THING FOR US TO JUST REVIEW, 'CAUSE I THINK YOU TOUCHED ON IT, UM, BRIEFLY, MS. LEAK IS JUST REGARDING THE USE AND HOW THAT'S GONNA LOOK IN TERMS OF TINY HOMES IN TWO AND THREE UNITS.
AND IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO THE, THE, UM, USE OF THAT AND I CAN ASK A MORE SPECIFIC QUESTION IF THAT'S HELPFUL.
SO, UM, ESSENTIALLY WHEN THE, I THINK THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THIS ORDINANCE, WHICH MOST PEOPLE MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH OR WHAT THEY SAW IN THEIR NICE LITTLE PURPLE SHEETS, UM, INDICATED THE TINY HOMES WERE A SPECIFIC SIZE, BUT MAYBE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND EXACTLY HOW TINY HOMES WOULD BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER PARTS OF THE HOME ACT.
AND I THINK THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME CLARIFICATION REGARD THAT, AND I WAS JUST WONDERING IF YOU COULD SHARE SOME OF THOSE DETAILS.
UM, SO WHAT I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS, UH, A TINY HOME IS CONSIDERED A UNIT, UM, PER THIS, THIS ORDINANCE.
SO BASICALLY, UM, WHEN IT SAYS YOU COULD HAVE TWO UNITS ON A LOT OR THREE UNITS ON A LOT, IF, IF YOU HAD A TINY HOME, THEY WOULD COUNT AS ONE OF THOSE UNITS.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? YES.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, HOW WOULD THEY INTERACT WITH OTHER THINGS LIKE TRUE ORDINANCES, PREVIOUS COVER, FAR, ALL OF THAT? UH, THEY, THEY WOULD COUNT TOWARDS THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, UM, TOWARD THE FAR, ET CETERA.
SO THEY WOULD JUST, THEY WOULD COUNT LIKE ANY OTHER DWELLING UNIT.
UM, THEY JUST HAVE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT CODE BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS.
AND PERHAPS IF OUR BUILDING INSPECTOR WOULD CARE TO SPEAK TO THE, THE CODE RELATED TO TINY HOMES, THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL AS WELL.
UH, THERE'S A SPECIFIC APPENDIX IN THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE THAT GIVES THEM ALLOWANCES FOR TINY HOMES, 400 SQUARE FEET.
IT ALLOWS 'EM TO HAVE A LOFT AS LONG AS THEY HAVE EGRESS, UH, ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS STILL APPLY.
THE REST OF THE RESIDENTIAL CODE STILL APPLIES TO A TINY HOME, BUT IT JUST ALLOWS YOU TO BASICALLY SHRINK IT WITH, WITH SOME CONCESSIONS.
AND JUST ONE MORE CLARIFICATION.
WE'RE EXPECTING THAT THAT TINY HOMES IN THE FINAL ORDINANCE WILL BE CONSIDERED ONE OF THE UNITS JUST TO CONFIRM, SO THAT IF WE SAY HAD TWO UNITS, THE THIRD UNIT COULD BE ASSIGNED AT HOME AND IT WOULD COUNT TO ALL OF THE NEW REGULATIONS WE'RE CONSIDERING.
MR. CHAIR, POINT OF INFORMATION PLEASE, UH, POINT OF INFORMATION.
IS THE TINY HOME GOING TO BE DEFINED IN THE 25 1 21 DEFINITIONS OR, I KNOW THAT THERE WAS SOME REFERENCE TO THAT DURING
[03:30:01]
THE INITIAL BRIEFING.I'LL LET IT SEEMS, UH, RELATED TO WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL IS ASKING.
SO DO YOU HAVE, DO WE HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT ONE WHILE WE'RE ON THE TOPIC? YES, WE WE'RE FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT'S WHERE THE DEFINITION WILL GO, BUT, BUT WE'RE STILL DRAFTING THE FINAL ORDINANCE.
SO COMMISSIONER, UH, HOWARD HAD HIS HEAD.
COMMISSIONER HOWARD, ARE YOU READY? YES.
SO THIS IS FOR MS. LEAK AS WELL, MAYBE OTHER STAFF.
SO I MEAN, OTHER THAN OBVIOUSLY THE IDEA OF CREATING MORE DENSITY, WHICH OBVIOUSLY I IDEALLY WOULD LEAD TO MORE, GREATER AFFORDABILITY, UM, AND I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THAT LIKELY, THAT THAT MAY IN FACT BE THE CASE.
ARE THERE, IS THE CITY CONTEMPLATING OTHER WAYS OF TRYING TO LAYER THIS ORDINANCE WITH OTHER TYPES OF INCENTIVES MAYBE THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN CONTEMPLATED OR NOT, OR IN, OR THAT ARE NOT IN PLACE TO HELP SORT OF FURTHER THE GOAL OF TRYING TO CREATE MORE AFFORDABILITY AS PROPOSED.
THERE ARE NOT ANY, UH, AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS OR INCENTIVES IN, IN THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
ARE YOU ALL WORKING ON ANYTHING OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN SORT OF TOSSED AROUND OR, UH, THE, THE, I I GUESS THE ONLY THING THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED HERE TONIGHT IS, UH, A PRESERVATION INCENTIVE, BUT, UM, BUT OTHERWISE THERE IS, THERE ARE NOT ANY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ALONG THOSE LINES.
UM, THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION.
I THINK I HEARD THAT'S, YOU'RE, YOU'RE FINISHED FOR NOW? YES.
UH, AND COMMISSIONER AL, DID YOU RAISE YOUR HAND? YES.
UM, I, I WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONER, UH, PHILLIPS FOR HER COMMENTS AND ALSO COMMISSIONER HAYNES FOR SUPPORTING THOSE COMMENTS AND, AND, UM, COHEN FOR SUPPORTING THOSE COMMENTS.
THERE'S A LOT OF DIVISION IN OUR WORLD RIGHT NOW AND IT WOULD BE A LOT NICER TO SEE, UH, WE CAN DO IT VERSUS IN US VERSUS THEM MENTALITY.
I TOOK A LOT OF NOTES FROM OUR OCTOBER 26TH HEARING AND THERE WERE A LOT OF REALLY GOOD THINGS THAT CAME OUT OF THAT.
UM, THERE WERE SOME TONIGHT AS WELL, AND I MIGHT PROPOSE SOME THINGS LATER WHEN WE GET INTO OUR AMENDMENTS.
BUT LET ME, LET ME ASK FEW QUESTIONS HERE, UM, ABOUT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ORGANIZE THIS START, SORRY.
ON, I GUESS WHEN WE HAVE, UM, SOMEBODY FROM FIRE HERE, I, I'M HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING HOW, AND THIS MAY BE A CITY STAFF QUESTION VERSUS FIRE, BUT YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE OPTION TO HAVE UNITS.
THERE'S SO MUCH GOING ON IN THIS HOME THING, I CAN'T UNPACK IT BECAUSE WE'VE GOT GROUP HOUSING.
AND SO HOW DOES FIRE AND SAFETY COME INTO THAT? WE'VE GOT POSSIBLE ATTACHED ADUS ADJACENT LIVING STRUCTURES AND THAT'S GONNA BE A WHOLE DIFFERENT SET OF ISSUES.
AND THEN WE HAVE COMPLETELY STRUCTURALLY SEPARATE UNITS AND THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT SET OF ISSUES.
I AM HAVING TROUBLE GETTING MY HEAD AROUND THAT AND HOW ALL OF THAT SEPARATES AND WORKS
AND I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, SO
I'LL TAKE THAT
I THINK THAT THE SIMPLEST ANSWER IS THAT THE SPECIFIC APPLICABILITY WOULD BE TRIGGERED BY WHATEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCE IS.
SO IF IT WERE A GROUP HOME OR IF THERE WERE MINIMAL SEPARATION DISTANCES OR WHATEVER, WE WOULD JUST REFER BACK TO THE SAME CODES THAT WE USE TODAY.
UM, AND, AND THOSE WOULD STILL BE APPLICABLE EVEN THOUGH IT'S JUST A, A DIFFERENT ARRANGEMENT OF HOUSING ON A SINGLE LOT.
UH, ANY OF THE TRIGGERS THAT WOULD NORMALLY, UM, APPLY WOULD STILL APPLY.
AND SO, 'CAUSE THAT'S GONNA COME INTO THINGS ABOUT SHARED WALLS AND WHERE KITCHENS ARE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
IF YOU'RE TRYING TO BUILD UNDER ONE, LET'S SAY YOU'RE TRYING TO SPLIT YOUR HOUSE INTO TWO TOWN HOMES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT,
[03:35:01]
THAT SHARE A WALL, RIGHT? SO IF YOU, IF YOU BUILD A, A SEPARATION WALL AND IT HAS A A, A FIRE RATING, A ONE HOUR OR TWO HOUR, THREE HOUR, THEN THAT BASICALLY GIVES YOU CREDIT TO DO OTHER THINGS.SO IF YOU HAVE, UM, A REINFORCED WALL HERE, THEN YOU, UM, ADJACENT TO IT, YOU CAN HAVE SOMETHING CLOSER BECAUSE YOU HAVE THAT, UH, REINFORCEMENT SO TO SPEAK.
I, YOU KNOW, SOME THINGS CAME UP ON THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS AND SO IF WE CHANGE THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS AND WE HAVE A LOT OF, UM, FOLKS RENTING, LEASING BY THE BEDROOM IN A HOME, ARE WE GONNA GET THE SAME FIRE PROTECTIONS THAT YOU GET IN MULTIFAMILY OR A WHAT, WHAT WOULD NOW BE A REGISTERED CO-OP GROUP HOUSING HOME? LIKE DO WE HAVE SOME PITFALLS HERE THAT WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT CAREFULLY ENOUGH FOR SAFETY, UM, WITH THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS? UM, CHAIR, I'M SORRY.
COULD WE PAUSE FOR A SECOND AND EXTEND THE TIME TO MIDNIGHT? THAT'S
UH, ANY OPPOSITION TO THE MIDNIGHT? SO JUST RAISE YOUR HAND, WE'LL COUNT YOU.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER AND THANK YOU STAFF.
UH, WITH THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS, IT WOULD BRING IN OTHER QUESTIONS AS FAR AS THE TECHNICAL CODES ARE CONCERNED IF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WAS CHANGED AND ALLOWED MORE UNRELATED PEOPLE TO LIVE TOGETHER, THAT'S ONE THING.
THE TECHNICAL CODE HAS CERTAIN STANDARDS IN IT AS WELL.
SO THE IRC IS DEVELOPED FOR SINK ONE IN TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS AND TOWN HOMES ONLY.
SO IF OCCUPANCY LIMITS WERE INCREASED, THERE ARE CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE TECHNICAL CODES THAT MAY ELIMINATE A HOUSE FROM BEING BUILT UNDER THE IRC AND MOVE IT TO THE IBC, WHICH IS WHERE MULTI MEANS, SORRY, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO DUMP DUMB IT DOWN FOR ME.
SO THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE IS THE, THE CODE THAT COVERS ALL ALL HOW ALL STRUCTURES OTHER THAN ONE IN TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS AND TOWN HOMES.
IF, IF YOU DON'T FALL INTO A ONE OR TWO FAMILY DWELLING OR A TOWN HOME, YOU USE THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, WHICH IS A MUCH BROADER CODE, HAS A LOT MORE FIRE RESISTANCE RATED CONSTRUCTION, A LOT MORE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS.
WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT PEOPLE THINK THEY CAN TAKE A HOME AND CHANGE, CHANGE THAT, AND NOT BE PROPERLY FIRE RATED FOR WHAT THEIR USE IS.
WELL, AND THE, THE USE THE CONSTRUCTION IS, IS DETERMINED BY THE USE.
SO E EVEN THOUGH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE MAY ALLOW IT, THE TECHNICAL CODE MAY KICK IT INTO THE HIGHER CLASSIFICATION AND IT WOULD BECOME AN R TWO OR AN R THREE RIGHT, IN THE BUILDING CODE.
SO WHAT HAPPENS IF I TAKE, YOU KNOW, I LIVE IN AN SSF HOME.
WHAT HAPPENS IF I TAKE MY HOME AND I WANNA SPLIT OUT MY BEDROOMS? 'CAUSE NOW I CAN DO THAT.
HOW, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE THAT I'M RENTING BEDROOMS TO ARE SAFE IF I'M EXCEEDING CERTAIN NUMBERS? WHAT OVERSIGHT MECHANISM DO WE HAVE FOR THIS? DURING THE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS, WE WOULD HAVE TO SEE WHERE YOUR DESIRED CHANGE FALLS INTO THE CODE AND YOU'D HAVE TO DESIGN YOUR CHANGE ACCORDING TO WHAT THE CODE WOULD ALLOW IT.
IT MAY, AND THAT'S, THAT'S ASSUME I'M COMING TO YOU FOR A PERMIT VERSUS DOING IT UNDER THE TABLE.
I'LL, I WILL HAVE MORE QUESTIONS.
OKAY, LET'S UH, GET THROUGH, UH, THOSE WHO HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE YET.
UM, COMMISSIONER COX, ARE YOU READY? OKAY, GO AHEAD.
YEAH, I HAVE A LIST OF LIKE EIGHT QUESTIONS AND THE LIST KEEPS GROWING, SO I'LL WORK THROUGH THIS AS FAST AS I I CAN.
FOLLOWING ON WHAT COMMISSIONER MOTALA WAS JUST ASKING ABOUT, SO DOES THAT MEAN THE IBC IS GONNA APPLY FOR THREE SINGLE FAMILY UNITS ON THE SAME LOT OR WOULD IT ONLY APPLY TO TRIPLEXES? TRIPLEXES.
AND THEN, UH, RELATED TO FIRE, DOES HOME APPLY TO PARTICULARLY FIRE PRONE AREAS WITH LIMITED EGRESS? AND I'M SPECIFICALLY THINKING OF THE AREA AROUND, UH, FIRE STATION 47.
AND THE REASON I'M THINKING OF THAT IS 'CAUSE I DID SOME WORK RECENTLY TO HELP GET A PERMIT THROUGH ON SOME EXPANSION AND, AND WE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY HOW IMPORTANT THAT FIRE STATION WAS BECAUSE THAT'S THEIR ONLY LINE OF DEFENSE AGAINST CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES OF, OF WILDFIRE AND OTHER EMERGENCY EVENTS.
SO I'M JUST THINKING OF NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND THERE LIKE GLEN LAKE, WESTMINSTER, GLEN, ARE WE ALLOWING THREE UNITS ON EACH OF THOSE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS BY THIS PROPOSAL?
[03:40:01]
SO IT WOULD BE TOUGH UNDER THE WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE CODE, THE WWE CODE, UH, THERE'S, THERE ARE SO MANY MORE LIMITATIONS UNDER THE, UNDER THAT CODE THAT, UH, IT WOULD BE CHALLENGING.IT, IT COULD BE DOABLE, BUT THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD HAVE TO BE, UH, MORE ROBUST, LET'S SAY.
POTENTIALLY INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLERS, UH, OR OTHER ENHANCEMENTS THAT WOULD ALLOW IT TO BE BUILT.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, THE WAY THAT THE WEI CODE IS DESIGNED WOULD BE TO, TO DISCOURAGE THAT TYPE OF HOUSES BUILT IN CLOSE PROXIMITY BECAUSE OF THE HOME TO HOME IGNITION POTENTIAL.
BUT I'M, I'M PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN LIKE THE EGRESS ISSUE WHERE WE HAVE ONLY ONE OR TWO SMALL STREETS TO EVACUATE FOLKS FROM THESE AREAS.
AND I, I MEAN, DOES ENHANCED STRUCTURE REQUIREMENT HELP WITH THAT IN TERMS OF EVACUATION OF THOSE AREAS? WELL, FROM THE FIRE PERSPECTIVE, IT POTENTIALLY COULD BECAUSE YOU, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO SHELTER IN PLACE IF YOUR HOUSE WAS BUILT APPROPRIATELY, BUT I, IF YOU'RE GETTING TO THE POINT OF PUTTING MORE CARS ON THE ROAD, THAT'S, THAT'S MORE OF A TRANSPORTATION ISSUE AND THOSE, THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS OBVIOUSLY FACE A LOT OF CHALLENGES AND, AND THAT'S WHY THE, THE WWE CODE WOULD HAVE TO COME INTO PLAY TO REALLY MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS DONE APPROPRIATELY.
AND THE REST OF MY QUESTIONS ARE FOR, UH, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STAFF.
SO WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT HOME OWNERSHIP AND I WANT TO CLARIFY, DO THESE HOME AMENDMENTS ALLOW FOR MULTIPLE HOMEOWNERS ON A SINGLE LOT OR IS THIS LARGELY JUST INTENDED TO RESULT IN RENTAL PROPERTIES AND SHORT TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES? SO THE, THE UNITS COULD BE SOLD SEPARATELY THROUGH A CONDO REGIME WHERE CONDO REGIME, YEAH.
AND I HEARD FROM VARIOUS STAFFERS THAT THAT WOULD BE KIND OF AN ONEROUS AND DIFFICULT THING TO DO FOR THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER.
UM, IS THERE ANY ECONOMIC MODELING THAT STAFF HAS DONE TO SHOW THE MOST LIKELY AND OR PROFITABLE SCENARIO IN THESE TWO AND THREE UNIT, UH, POSSIBILITIES THAT ARE OPENED UP BY HOME? N NO.
UM, I MEAN WE HAVE, WE HAVE LOOKED AT WHAT SIZE UNITS COULD BE BUILT, UM, ON A FEW DIFFERENT SIDES OF LOTS, BUT NOT, BUT IN TERMS OF, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR TALKING OVER YOU, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THIS IN, BUT, BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT'S MOST PROFITABLE ON THE MARKET THAT THERE'S NO INFORMATION ON THAT THAT STAFF HAS.
NOT, UM, IS THERE ANY MODELING THAT STAFF HAS DONE ON KIND OF THE PRACTICAL IMPACT OF THE HOME AMENDMENTS ON THE ATLAS 14 FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARIES AND BY PRACTICAL IMPACT, I MEAN, A LOT OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ARE NOT BUILT OUT TO MAX, YOU KNOW, WE HEARD FROM STAFF THAT A LOT OF HOMES DON'T MAX OUT THE FARA LOT OF HOMES DON'T MAX OUT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER BY THESE HOME AMENDMENTS.
I FEEL LIKE WE'RE KIND OF ENCOURAGING THAT IN ORDER TO GET MULTIPLE UNITS.
AND SO DO WE HAVE ANY MODELING OR INDICATION OF WHAT THE PRACTICAL IMPACT OF THINGS LIKE THE FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY WOULD BE IF, IF HOME TOOK OFF AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF IT? SO I, I THINK THAT'S FAIRLY SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION ABOUT ATLAS 14.
UM, WE'LL HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT ONE.
AND THEN, UM, IS THERE ANY INCENTIVE UNDER THE HOME AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT ACTUALLY ENCOURAGES TRUE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING? AND BY THAT I MEAN DUPLEXES AND TRIPLEXES, OR ARE WE REALLY KIND OF EXPECTING JUST MORE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH THE HOME AMENDMENT? I THINK THAT IS POTENTIALLY DEPENDENT ON WHETHER THERE ARE CHANGES OR RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO FAR.
I ALSO HAVE A LOT MORE QUESTIONS,
LET'S GET, DO THE FIRST ROUND HERE AND WE CAN, UM, ENTERTAIN MOTIONS FOR RELATED TO Q AND A.
WHO HAS NOT GONE YET? I, I HAVE A LIST, BUT, UH, COMMISSIONER ZA, YOU READY? AND THEN COMMISSIONER CONLEY, DO YOU WANNA GO NEXT? OKAY, THANK YOU CHAIR.
UM, MS. LEEKA, THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
CAN, CAN STAFF PLEASE HELP ME EXPLAIN IN TERMS OF APPLICABILITY, WHAT ZONES ARE TWO UNIT AND THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL USES GOING TO BE ALLOWED IN? THEY'LL BE ALLOWED IN SSF ONE, SSF TWO, AND SSF THREE.
SO NO OTHER ZONES WILL ALLOW THE TWO AND THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL USES? WELL, CORRECT.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED AS PART OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
AND THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS ON THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT, I'M GONNA TRY TO SUM IT UP.
UM, I THINK THE BIG CONCERNS THAT WE HEARD FROM STAFF, AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT STAFF CAN
[03:45:01]
CONFIRM THAT INDEED I'M LISTING THESE RIGHTS.SO WHAT WE HEARD WAS THAT THE CONCERNS WERE AROUND THE LACK OF SIZE RESTRICTIONS, THE LACK OF A PRESERVATION INCENTIVE, DELAYING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE DUE A PHASE TWO, AND ESSENTIALLY OTHER POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES SUCH AS HOME REPAIR LOANS, MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE, RENTAL ASSISTANCE, TENANT LEGAL SERVICES AND REPRESENTATION, HOMEOWNER RIGHTS.
DID I MISS ANYTHING? NO, THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, AND SO FROM Y'ALL'S PERSPECTIVE, IF WE'RE ADDRESSING THE SIZE RESTRICTIONS, WE'RE ADDRESSING A PRESERVATION INCENTIVE, WE'RE OF COURSE GONNA COME TO THE PHASE TWO WHERE WE WILL HAVE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE THAT THOSE SHOULD ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED IN THE AFFORDABLE IMPACT STATEMENT.
UM, I, I APPRECIATE THAT AND I THINK, I GUESS I BRING THAT UP BECAUSE I KNOW THE WORKING GROUP REALLY TOOK TO HEART WHAT Y'ALL HAD PUT IN THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT AND TO REALLY MEANINGFULLY ADDRESS A LOT OF THOSE THINGS.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT MISSING ANYTHING AND I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT TO SORT OF HIGHLIGHT OTHER THINGS AS WELL BEYOND SORT OF ZONING THAT WE REALLY NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.
SO I JUST WANNA SAY I APPRECIATE THAT.
UM, MS. LEE, THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
I, THIS MIGHT BE ONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE TO GET BACK TO US LATER, BUT CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE ABOUT WHAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN TODAY? OOH, I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
UH, WE DO NOT HAVE FOLKS WHO CAN ANSWER THAT ON THE SPOT.
SO I GUESS I'LL EXPAND MY QUESTION.
SEE, STAFF CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND, UM, SORT OF WHAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT CAN HAPPEN WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN OR UNDER AREAS DESIGNATED UNDER ATLAS 14.
UM, I KNOW THAT'S COME UP BEFORE, MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE THAT I'M, WE HAVE SOME RESTRICTIONS THAT APPLY TO THOSE AREAS, BUT OF COURSE WE'LL WAIT TO SEE, UM, UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE ARE.
UM, MY OTHER QUESTION WAS IN THE CHANGE DEFINITION, THERE'S DEFINITION FOR THE GROUP RESIDENTIAL AND WE'RE NOW SEEING, UM, THAT THE CHANGE, THE DEFINITION OF GROUP RESIDENTIAL FROM SIX UNRELATED ADULTS TO 16 ADULTS AND THIRD PARTIES THAT PREPARE OR PROVIDE FOOD, UM, REQUIRES AN AUSTIN PUBLIC HEALTH PERMIT.
CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN WHAT IF THERE IS NO THIRD PARTY SORT OF FOOD PREPARATION, DOES THAT MEAN THAT IT REVERTS BACK TO OUR REGULAR BUILDING CODE LIMITS? UH, GOOD EVENING, DANIEL WORD WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION.
UM, TO SPEAK TO THE ROOMING AND BOARDING HOUSE QUESTION, UH, UNDER CURRENT CODE, IF THERE ARE SE SEVEN OR MORE UNRELATED ADULTS RESIDING IN A DWELLING UNIT, THAT TRIGGERS A REQUIREMENT FOR ROOMING AND BOARDING HOUSE LICENSE THROUGH HER DEPARTMENT.
UM, WITH THE OCCUPANCY CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED, THAT NUMBER WOULD MOVE FROM SEVEN TO 16 AND WOULD ALSO, UM, INCLUDE THE, UH, THAT THE, IT'S OPERATING WITH A FOOD PERMIT, MEANING THAT A THIRD PARTY IS BRINGING IN FOOD OR PREPARING FOOD, UM, FOR THE OCCUPANTS THAT RESIDE IN THE DWELLING.
UM, SO IT WILL IMPACT THE, UM, NUMBER OF LICENSES WE CURRENTLY ISSUE.
AND I GUESS, UM, JUST TO SORT OF UNDERSTAND THAT PIECE, WOULD THAT IN ANY WAY LIMIT FOLKS WHO MIGHT NOT NEED THAT SORT OF SERVE FOOD? WOULD IT LIMIT THEIR ABILITY TO LIVE TOGETHER? NO, I SEE MS. LINK YOU MIGHT HAVE A RESPONSE BEYOND.
I MEAN, WE DO HAVE THE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE THAT PROVIDES OCCUPANCY LIMITS.
UM, REGARDLESS OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE ZONING PART OF THE CODE, IT WOULD STILL APPLY.
UM, SO THERE'S STILL MAXIMUMS IN TERMS OF HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO RESIDE IN A DWELLING.
UM, BUT THERE WOULDN'T BE AN IMPACT FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS AT THAT POINT.
MS. LINK, DID YOU WANNA ADD SOMETHING? JUST TO ANSWER, I THINK YOUR FIRST INITIAL QUESTION, GROUP RESIDENTIAL NOW AS AS PROPOSED IS 16 PLUS THE THIRD PARTY FOOD SERVICE.
IF THERE'S NOT THIRD PARTY FOOD SERVICE, THEN IT WOULD NOT QUALIFY AS GROUP RESIDENTIAL.
AND SO IN THAT CASE, WE WOULD HAVE THE BUILDING CODE GUIDELINES ON OCCUPANCY.
UH, I GUESS COMMISSIONER WOODS, I DON'T THINK YOU'VE GONE YET.
COMMISSIONER CONLEY, DID YOU? OKAY.
I JUST, I HAVE A FEW, UM, QUESTIONS.
UM, SO I GUESS FOR THOSE THAT WERE STAFF THAT WAS HERE DURING THE LAST LAND CODE, I KNOW THERE WAS ATTENTION TO AREAS IN EAST AUSTIN THAT WERE EXPERIENCING GENTRIFICATION BASED ON A STUDY THAT WAS DONE AND WE LIMITED CERTAIN
[03:50:01]
DENSITY ALONG CORRIDORS THAT WAS BEING PERMITTED IN OTHER AREAS.UM, CAN WE HAVE A LITTLE HISTORY THERE? AND, AND SO I THINK THERE WAS A RECOGNITION THAT WE WANTED TO LIMIT SOME OF THE RE IN DENSITY INTENSITY OF MORE UNITS ALONG THOSE TRANSITION ZONES.
UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A FEEL FOR WHETHER OR NOT THAT KIND OF, UM, CONCERN THAT WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT THAT HERE BASED ON SOME OF THE COMMENTS EARLIER.
'CAUSE THERE COUNCIL WAS, AND STAFF I THINK WORRIED ABOUT IT THEN.
AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH IT NOW, UM, FOR THIS AMENDMENT, FOR THIS CODE CHANGE.
SO THE ISSUES ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN THE SENSE OF ONE, WELL, ONE OF, ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN KIND OF THAT PROPOSAL AND THIS ONE IS THAT THAT ONE WAS CORRIDOR BASED AND THERE ARE A LOT MORE DENSELY PACKED CORRIDORS IN EAST AUSTIN.
AND SO ONCE YOU ADDED THE KIND OF TRANSITION ZONES FROM THE CORRIDORS, IT IT, IT HAD A LOT OF AREAS OF EAST AUSTIN HAVING MUCH HIGHER INTENSITY.
SO THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN THAT IT WOULD BE SIMILAR ACROSS ALL, IT WOULD BE THE SAME PROPOSAL ACROSS ALL SSF ONE, SF TWO, SSF THREE ZONING.
UM, SO I DON'T THINK THEY'RE EXACTLY THE SAME, UM, ISSUES.
AND THERE HAS, THERE HAS NOT BEEN A PROPOSAL TO HAVE DIFFERENTIATION.
UM, IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CITY.
SO S ONE, S TWO, S THREE, AND I, I, I DO HAVE SOME TABLES HERE THAT WE COULD BRING UP LATER IF WE NEED TO WHEN WE'RE MAKING AMENDMENTS.
BUT, UH, THE DISTRIBUTION, IS THERE ANY LOT SIZE OR IS, IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT EAST AUSTIN IN KIND OF LOT SIZE OR S TWO S THREE S ONE THAT DIFFERENTIATES IT FROM OTHER AREAS THAT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC FROM A GENTRIFICATION STANDPOINT? JUST FROM THE S ONE, S TWO, S THREE DISTRIBUTION? I DON'T THINK THERE'S MANY S ONE LOTS.
ANY STATON AND IF AT ANY, IF ANY, BUT IS ANY OF THAT SOMETHING WE SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO? I, I CONCUR THAT THERE, THE S ONE LOTS ARE GENERALLY LOCATED MORE ON THE PERIPHERY OF THE CITY.
I I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT IN MORE DETAIL.
I JUST, UM, I KNOW THOSE CHARACTERISTICALLY THOSE ZONES CAN BE IN DIFFERENT AREAS MORE OR LESS AND, AND LOT SIZES VARY DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU ARE IN THE CITY.
AND I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT COULD BE IN THOSE CHARACTERISTICS, COULD, YOU KNOW, DRIVE CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES.
BUT THAT IS PROBABLY A VERY COMPLEX QUESTION
SO, AND, AND THERE THERE IS A MAP IN BACKUP.
UM, IT'S AN ATTACHMENT TO THE STAFF REPORT THAT SHOWS WHERE S ONE, UM, SSF ONE, SSF TWO, SF THREE ZONING IS LOCATED.
AND THEN MY NEXT QUESTION IS, UH, I'M REALLY STRUGGLING WITH ADU AND TWO UNIT RESIDENTIAL.
THE REAL DIFFERENCE, I MEAN, ONCE WE'VE DONE THIS, I SEE A ROOF IS REQUIRED OVER THE TWO UNITS TO MAKE IT AN ADU AND YOU CAN'T HAVE A BREEZEWAY, DUPLEX, DUPLEX, DUPLEX, SORRY.
UH, BUT THEN TWO UNIT RESIDENTIAL, NO ROOF, BUT YOU CAN HAVE A BREEZEWAY.
SO, BUT REALLY WHAT STRUCTURALLY AND WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE OR WHAT DO WE DO? WE REALLY NEED A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, UH, TWO TYPES OF TYPOLOGY GIVEN WHERE WE ARE NOW WITH THE PROPOSED CODE CHANGES.
ON, ON TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS, THEY'RE CONNECTED.
SO THERE'S A COMMON WALL, UM, WHICH IS, HAS A FIRE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE TWO FAMILIES.
SO DUPLEXES TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS WOULD GO UNDER THE IRC.
ADUS WOULD BE A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON THE SAME LOT AS ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING MAY MAYBE, I'M SORRY, I'M USING ROOM.
SO DUPLEX VERSUS TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND DUPLEXES JUST A DIFFERENT NAME FOR THE SAME THING.
SO WE'RE NOT REQUIRING A COMMON WALL ANYMORE.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M LIKE, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? S SINCE THEY ARE SEPARATED, THEY, THEY'D BE THREE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ON THE SAME LOT.
I LINDY GARWOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
SO PREVIOUSLY, UM, DUPLEXES HAD SPECIFIC REGULATIONS THAT DIFFERENTIATED THEM FROM TWO FAMILY AND THE SIZE OF THE LOT, THE CONNECTING WALL, THE ZIPPER WALL, THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL,
[03:55:01]
THOSE DIFFERENTIATIONS WOULD BE REMOVED.AND SO THE SIMILAR, THE TWO USES ARE EXTREMELY SIMILAR.
RIGHT NOW THE ONLY DIFFERENTIATION, AS YOU POINTED OUT, IS THE ROOF CON, UH, TYPOLOGY VERSUS A BREEZEWAY TYPOLOGY, UM, OR SEPARATION.
SO THEY, THEY ARE EXTREMELY SIMILAR.
AND, UM, SPEAKING TO WHAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WAS SPEAKING TO DIFFERENT BUILDING CODES MAY APPLY TO THEM OR DIFFERENT REGULATIONS WITHIN THE BUILDING CODES MAY APPLY BASED ON THE STRUCTURE TYPE.
BUT THAT'S INDEPENDENT FROM THE USE SPECIFIC TYPES THAT ARE IN THE ZONING CODE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES.
I'M GONNA USE, I'M GONNA USE MS. COHEN CHAIR COHEN'S, UH, POINT OF PERSONAL INFORMATION.
WHERE'S THE MAP? I AM LOOKING IN THE BACKUP AND I HAVE, I'M NOT REAL GOOD AT IT, BUT I'VE LOOKED, IT'S THE LAST PAGE OF THE STAFF REPORT.
SO, UM, IS EVERYBODY WAVING STAFF? WE CAN ENTERTAIN SECOND STAFF REPORT'S, THE SECOND PDF FROM THE VERY BOTTOM OF EVERYTHING POSTED IN THE BACKUP FOR ITEM TWO.
SO ANY MORE QUESTIONS? WE DID THE ROUND ROBIN, I THINK OTHERS KIND OF PASSED ON THIS.
UH, THAT MAP IS NOT IN OUR STAFF REPORT.
I WAS GONNA SAY, UM, MS. LEE, CAN YOU ENSURE THAT THAT IS EMAILED OUT TO THE COMMISSIONERS AS WE PROCEED? YES.
WE WILL GET THAT EMAILED TO YOU ALL.
SO I THINK WE'VE BEEN THROUGH EVERYONE THAT WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION.
UM, I HEARD THERE'S SOME FOLKS THAT HAVE A FEW MORE.
UM, I JUST WANNA PUT IT OUT THERE FOLKS.
WE WILL, UM, IF WE DON'T GET THROUGH TONIGHT, WE WILL COME BACK TOMORROW AND THAT'S FINE.
WE HAD ALREADY KIND OF PLANNED AROUND THAT.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL, YOU KNOW, IF WE DON'T HAVE, IF WE HAVE SEVEN OR EIGHT, IT'S REALLY NOT GONNA MAKE FOR A GOOD EVENING OF VOTING ON THESE RESOLUTIONS.
SO WE NEED A GOOD GROUP HERE BACK TOMORROW.
I MEAN, AT THE PACE WE'RE GOING NOW, WE COULD PROBABLY GET DONE BY THE MIDNIGHT, BUT, UM, BUT I DO WANNA HONOR IF THERE'S SOMEBODY WANTS TO ENTERTAIN MORE TIME FOR QUESTIONS, THEY CAN PUT IT OUT THERE.
WE'LL VOTE ON IT AND WE'LL SEE WHICH WAY THAT GOES.
I WILL PUT OUT A MOTION FOR ENTERTAINMENT THAT WE ALLOW A SECOND ROUND OF COMMENTS UP TO THREE MINUTES FOR EACH COMMISSIONER.
OKAY, SO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? OH, SORRY, I MEANT TO SAY QUESTIONS.
I, I JUST, I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE SOME FOLKS HAVE USED QUESTION TIME TO MAKE COMMENTS.
AND SO IF, IF IT WAS STRICTLY FOR QUESTIONS AND PARTICULARLY QUESTIONS THAT HAVEN'T YET BEEN ANSWERED, THEN I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT.
BUT IF IT WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, MORE TIME IT, MY, MY MOTION IS FOR QUESTIONS, BUT HONESTLY I'M NOT A QUESTION POLICE, SO PEOPLE HAVE THEIR TIME, BUT, BUT IT'S MEANT FOR QUESTIONS.
SO DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? UM, LOOKING FOR A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES SECOND SET.
SO, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON WHAT I HEARD WAS THREE EXTRA MINUTES.
FOR THOSE THAT WANT IT, WE DON'T, I'LL HAVE TO USE IT.
UH, SO, UM, ON THE DIOCESE, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE JUDGE, CAN I SPEAK TO THE MOTION? SURE.
UM, I JUST WANNA SPEAK TO THE MOTION QUICKLY TO SAY AT THIS POINT WITH JUST THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS AND HONESTLY MY OWN PERSONAL AMENDMENTS, WE'RE LOOKING AT 30 OR MORE AMENDMENTS.
LET'S ASSUME THAT WE END UP WITH 40 AMENDMENTS BETWEEN THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS COMING UP WITH 10.
UM, AND WE MULTIPLY THAT BY FIVE, THAT'S 200 MINUTES.
YOU DIVIDE THAT BY 60, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OVER THREE HOURS, INCLUDING THE BASE MOTION.
SO HONESTLY, I'M LOOKING AT FOUR HOURS OF DELIBERATION ON AMENDMENTS IN THE BASE MOTION.
SO I JUST WANNA BE CAUTIOUS THAT AS WE GO TOMORROW, THEN WE'RE MAKING A COMMITMENT TO STAY AS LATE AS POSSIBLE TO GET THIS WORK DONE.
AND IF NOT, THEN WE HAVE TO LEARN TO MOVE ON AND WE HAVE TO LEARN TO FIND OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO ASK QUESTIONS.
I KNOW AT LEAST FOR THE WORKING GROUP, I SPECIFICALLY SCHEDULED TWO SEPARATE MEETINGS WITH STAFF TO ASK QUESTIONS.
AND I'LL BE HONEST, COMMISSIONERS DID NOT SHOW UP.
SO IF WE'RE GONNA PROCEED, THEN MAY WE PROCEED WITH THAT AND ASK QUESTIONS, BUT ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WILL IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO DISCUSS THE ITEM, PROPOSE AMENDMENTS, AND ENSURE THAT WE CAN ADDRESS A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE HEARING FROM THE COMMUNITY IN A MEANINGFUL WAY.
ALRIGHT, SO THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE.
UH, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE EXTENDED Q AND A, UM, RAISE YOUR HAND.
[04:00:01]
SEVEN.SO THAT, UH, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON WITH, UH, ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
UH, I WOULD SAY BE VERY TARGETED AND LET'S MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING GOOD INFORMATION OUTTA STAFF WHILE WE HAVE THEM HERE.
WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST? UH, COMMISSIONER COX HAD, SO WE'LL GO COX MOALA.
AND THEN, UH, COMMISSIONER VETA RAMIREZ.
DO WE HAVE THE TIMER ON? ALL RIGHT.
IS IT, ARE WE STARTING, LET THE COMMISSIONERS KNOW WHEN THEIR TIME STARTS? LET'S PLEASE.
OH, UH, YEAH, SO MY, MY NEXT QUESTION IS, UH, RELATED TO THE BENCHMARKING THAT, THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
UM, IT SEEMS LIKE PORTLAND'S RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROGRAM ACTUALLY DIDN'T ALLOW MULTIPLE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, WHICH IS WHY THEY ENDED UP GETTING A LOT OF TRIPLEXES AND FOURPLEXES.
THEY'VE GOT RENT CONTROL, WHICH IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT SCENARIO.
AND THEN HOUSTON'S PROPOSAL, SINGLE FAMILY TO TOWN HOME KIND OF RESULTED IN THESE WALLS OF GARAGES THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO NOW FIX.
AND SO I'M CURIOUS IF STAFF HAS A BENCHMARK THAT WE COULD BE USING TO UNDERSTAND KIND OF THE IMPACT OF A PROPOSAL LIKE THIS, WHICH IS REALLY KIND OF INTENDED TO ADD SINGLE FAMILY HOME MORE UP TO THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON A SINGLE, SINGLE FAMILY LOT.
DO, DO WE KNOW OF ANY BENCHMARK LIKE THAT? UM, SO YOU, YOU CERTAINLY ALLUDED TO SOME OF THE, THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE PROVIDED, UM, IN COUNCIL Q AND A.
UM, WE DO, WE HAVE SOME MODELING, UM, THAT STAFF JUST COMPLETED TODAY, UM, THAT SHOWS POTENTIAL, UM, MAXIMUM BUILD OUTS AT DIFFERENT FAR.
UM, SO IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL, WE COULD, YEAH, THAT WOULD BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL.
AND THEN I'LL JUST KIND OF MOVE ON.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A REALLY GOOD BENCHMARK FOR THE HOME AMENDMENTS.
I I WOULDN'T, I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD CALL IT A BENCHMARK.
I MEAN, I, OKAY, WELL I'LL MOVE ON.
OR MAYBE REPHRASE IT TO, I DUNNO, I, I'M CURIOUS, UH, ABOUT THE DEED RESTRICTION QUESTIONS.
IS THERE A, IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ENFORCING DEEDED RESTRICTIONS AND SIMPLY NOT APPROVING SITE PLANS THAT CLEARLY VIOLATE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS? 'CAUSE TO ME, ENFORCEMENT MEANS THE CITY IS LIKE SUING PEOPLE TO ENFORCE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS.
BUT WHY CAN'T WE JUST NOT APPROVE SITE PLANS THAT CLEARLY VIOLATE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS? BECAUSE THOSE ARE NOT PART OF THE CODE.
SO STAFF REVIEWS AN APPLICATION BASED ON THE REQUIREMENTS IN CITY CODE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT CITY CODE PROVISIONS.
SO THEY WILL NOT REVIEW THE APPLICATION BASED ON THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS.
BASED, BASED ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, DO WE THINK THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A MUCH HIGHER INCIDENCE OF SITE PLANS BEING APPROVED THAT VIOLATE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS VERSUS UNDER THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY REGULATIONS? I DON'T KNOW THAT.
AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION, IF I STILL HAVE TIME, IS RELATED TO, UH, AND, AND MS. LEE, THIS IS PROBABLY TO YOU, UM, IS KIND OF TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PRACTICAL CHANGES OF THE HOME AMENDMENTS WE HEARD.
I ACTUALLY GOT A COUPLE OF MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED, SO THAT SHOULD MAKE IT EASIER.
UM, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ON, SO THE IDEA IS TO INCREASE OUR MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING SUPPLY WITH THIS PROPOSAL, BUT BECAUSE NOW I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT IN ORDER FOR SOMEBODY TO ACTUALLY HAVE OWNERSHIP, UH, THEY HAVE TO THE, THEN THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS TO CONDO EYES.
AND SO ARE, IS OUR GOAL TO GET MORE RENTAL UNITS, OR IS OUR GOAL TO GET OWNERSHIP WITH THIS RESOLUTION? SO THE, THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION, UM, SPECIFIED TWO POTENTIAL PHASES OF WORK.
UM, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD NOW IS THE FIRST PHASE.
THE SECOND PHASE WOULD POTENTIALLY ALLOW SMALLER, UM, SMALLER LOT SIZES, UM, POTENTIALLY AS SMALL AS 2,500 SQUARE FEET.
UM, SO THAT WOULD LIKELY PROVIDE
[04:05:01]
MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR OWNERSHIP OF SMALLER LOTS HOUSES, SMALLER.WE DON'T KNOW HOW LOTS THAT LOOKS YET 'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT PIECE IN WITH THIS PIECE.
'CAUSE IT, IT, I I I GUESS IF WE'RE TRYING TO GET TRUE OWNERSHIP, THEN PEOPLE EITHER NEED TO UNDERSTAND THEY'RE BUILDING CONDOS OR WE HAVE TO GET TO THAT DIVISION OF THE PROPERTY.
SO WE HAVE THE SMALLER LOTS TO HAVE SMALLER ENTRY LEVEL TRUE OWNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP.
LIKE HOW DOES THIS WORK WITH THE
AND DOES THIS JUST BECOME A SITUATION OF BUYER BEWARE? WELL, I, I DON'T, I'M, I'M TRYING TO IMAGINE YOUR SCENARIO, BUT, UM, I, I MEAN WHAT AT, AT THIS POINT, UNLESS SOMEONE CREATED A CONDO REGIME, ONE PERSON WOULD BE OWNING ALL OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, AND I ASSUME THE MOST COMMON SCENARIO WOULD BE TO RENT OUT THE OTHER UNIT, OTHER ONE UNIT OR TWO UNITS.
UM, I MEAN THEY COULD PUT A TINY HOME AND RENT IT OUT.
THIS IS, SO REALLY GETTING TO OWNERSHIP IS REALLY PREDICATED ON BEING ABLE TO OWN THE LAND UNLESS SOMEONE CREATES CONDOS, RIGHT.
IT LIKE SPLITS THE PROPERTY USING A CONDO REGIME.
I, I WONDER IF THAT'S REALLY CLEAR, GIVEN THE FEEDBACK THAT WE HEARD, UH, YOU KNOW, FROM THE PRIOR HEARING IN THIS HEARING.
I, I'M CONCERNED THAT THAT'S NOT CLEAR TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND, AND HOW IMPORTANT THAT SECOND PIECE IS TO REALLY GET PEOPLE TO ENTRY LEVEL OWNERSHIP.
IT PROBABLY SHOULD BE UPFRONT WITH THIS.
I GUESS THAT'S NOT A QUESTION.
IT LOOKED LIKE STAFF WAS GONNA SAY SOMETHING.
CAN YOU RESPOND QUICKLY AND THEN I'LL GO TO MY NEXT SORRY ABOUT THAT.
MY QUESTION IS ABOUT FLOODING.
SO I CERTAINLY HEARD A LOT ABOUT THAT AND WHEN I TALKED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOODS COUNCIL, AND I JUST, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IS NOT CHANGING, RIGHT? SO, BUT THEY WERE SAYING THAT A LOT OF HOUSES IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS AREN'T MAXED OUT ON IMPERVIOUS COVER.
DO WE KNOW, DO WE, AND HAVE AN IDEA ABOUT HOW FLOODING WILL BE IMPACTED BY THIS CHANGE? UM, SO WATERSHED HAS RESPONDED, UM, TO THAT QUESTION IN, UM, THE ONLINE Q AND A AND I'M TRYING TO FIND IT QUICKLY.
UM, OH, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS.
UM, YEAH, YOU CAN JUST DIRECT ME TO THE NUMBER 'CAUSE I HAVE IT HERE.
UH, I, WHENEVER, IF YOU LET ME ACTUALLY, IF SOMEONE CAN FIND THAT ANSWER, WE WILL DIRECT YOU TOWARD IT.
UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES AND THEN COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
UH, BACK TO MY FAVORITE TOPIC, MS. LINK, CAN YOU, UH, ANSWER SOME MORE QUESTIONS, PLEASE? OR I, I HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS.
UH, IN, UM, BEEN TRYING TO CATCH UP REAL FAST HERE, BUT BROADLY IN, UH, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER TWO 11, IT GIVES MUNICIPAL, IT GIVES AUTHORITY TO HOME RULE MUNICIPAL, UH, CITIES BROAD ZONING AUTHORITY.
WOULD YOU AGREE? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
AND, UH, INCLUDING HEIGHT, NUMBER, SIZE OF YARDS, POPULATION DENSITY, UH, LESS CONGESTION, SECURE, UH, SAFETY PROMOTE HEALTH AND GENERAL WELFARE, DAH DAH, DAH, DAH, UH, AND PRETTY EXTENSIVE LIST HERE.
UM, SO YOU MADE A COMMENT EARLIER, UH, THAT THE REASON THAT THE CITY CAN'T ENFORCE A PRIVATE CONTRACT GET, GET INVOLVED IN A PRIVATE CONTRACT IS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT IN THE CODE.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN, IN CHAPTER TWO 11 THAT PREVENTS AUSTIN AS A HOME RULE CITY FROM PUTTING DEEDED RESTRICTIONS IN THE CODE? THE ISSUE ISN'T WITH THE WORDS AND STATE LAW.
THERE ARE OTHER LEGAL PRINCIPLES THAT COME INTO PLAY THAT WOULD CREATE SOME LEGAL CONCERNS FOR US WITH THAT APPROACH.
CAN YOU GIVE ME EXAMPLES OF THOSE LEGAL PRINCIPLES? I CANNOT IN A PUBLIC SETTING.
[04:10:01]
COMMISSIONER RERA, UM, 24.WE CAN GO IN A CLOSED SESSION, RIGHT? FOR LEGAL, UH, RESPECTFULLY, IF THE COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAKE TO THE COUNCIL, I WOULD, YOU CAN MAKE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND WE WILL ADVISE COUNSEL ACCORDINGLY.
MR. CONLEY? UM, YES, THANK YOU.
I WAS GONNA TRY TO AVOID ASKING QUESTIONS, BUT NO, HANG OUT HERE FOR A SECOND.
UM, I WAS GONNA TRY TO AVOID ASKING QUESTIONS, BUT I I I FEEL LIKE IT'S IMPORTANT TO, YOU KNOW, I FIND THIS, UM, AMONGST OTHER THINGS, THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT DEEDED RESTRICTIONS, VERY INTERESTING.
AND I FIND IT FASCINATING THAT SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE WHO WILL SPEAK TO, YOU KNOW, THE HISTORY OF SEGREGATION AND CHALLENGES IN AUSTIN AROUND AFFORDABILITY AND DISPLACEMENT WILL IN THE SAME BREATH THEN SPEAK TO THE IMPORTANCE OF ENFORCING DEEDED RESTRICTIONS.
AND WE KNOW FROM THE AUSTIN RESTRICTED REPORT AND A NUMBER OF OTHER STUDIES THAT DEEDED RESTRICTIONS PLAY A CENTRAL ROLE IN SHAPING AUSTIN'S PATTERNS OF SEGREGATION RESIDENTIALLY.
UM, WOULDN'T IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT IF THE CITY OF AUSTIN WERE EVEN TO ATTEMPT TO CONSIDER SUCH A THING, UM, THE CITY WOULD BE PLAYING A ROLE IN OPPOSING THE FURTHERING OF FAIR HOUSING IN AUSTIN? WOULD IT BE FAIR OF ME TO ASSUME
COULD YOU SAY THAT LAST PART AGAIN? I'M SORRY.
PRIVATE ZONING RESTRICTIONS THAT APPLY ONLY TO CERTAIN GEOGRAPHIES WITHIN THE CITY.
SO DEEDED RESTRICTIONS ARE AGREEMENTS, OUR DECISIONS MADE BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES.
IT'S A DIFFERENT ANIMAL THAN US REGULATING, RIGHT.
AND SO WE HAVE OUR OBLIGATIONS AS A REGULATORY BODY AS IT RELATES TO FAIR.
BUT THOSE OBLIGATIONS ASIDE, IF WE WERE TO ATTEMPT ANY SUCH A THING OR EVEN TO HAVE SUCH A CONVERSATION, WOULDN'T WE BE FAILING TO BE FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING, WHICH IS OUR MANDATE? IT'S FINE.
I'LL, I'LL TAKE THE SILENCE AND I'LL LEAVE THAT, UM, FOR MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO, TO CHEW ON.
UM, I DO, HOWEVER, ON THE FAIR HOUSING NOTE, UM, WANNA, UM, YOU KNOW, NOTE, UH, AN IMPACT REPORT STATEMENT AROUND OCCUPANCY LIMITS.
WE ARE, BY MAKING THOSE CHANGES BECOMING FURTHER IN LINE WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS, FEDERAL, FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING REGULATIONS, WHICH ARE CURRENT OCCUPANCY LIMITS ARE NOT IN LINE WITH, IS THAT CORRECT? THE FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES THE CITY, IF WE HAVE AN OCCUPANCY LIMIT LIKE WE HAVE TODAY, WHICH HAS THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS OR THE REGULATES THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL THAT THOSE PROVISIONS DO NOT VIOLATE THE FAIR HOUSING ACT.
WHERE THAT CAN COME UP FOR, FOR CITIES SUCH AS AUSTIN, IS WHEN IT COMES TO INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES OR, UH, A DISPARATE IMPACT BECAUSE FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING BASED ON FAMILIAL STATUS.
UM, CHAIR, CAN WE PAUSE FOR A SECOND AND JUST SAY, IN THE ESSENCE OF FAIRNESS, SINCE COMMISSIONER CONLEY NEVER USED HIS TIME, HE NOW HAS FIVE MORE MINUTES.
I PROMISE YOU I WILL NOT USE FIVE MINUTES.
JUST THIS LAST QUESTION, COMMISSIONER QUESTION THEN COMMISSIONER ANDERSON WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THEIR ORIGINAL FIVE MINUTES AS WELL.
PART OF THE RULES WITH IT, BUT SURE, GO AHEAD.
SO FAMILIAL STATUS PROTECTS HOUSEHOLDS WHO HAVE CHILDREN.
OUR REGULATIONS ADDRESS THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS WHERE MUNICIPALITIES CAN GET INTO TROUBLE IS IF YOU DO NOT GRANT REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS, ALLOWING EXCEPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES, WHICH WE HAVE A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS.
AND FOLLOW THE, UM, I'M SORRY, I DON'T MEAN TO, BUT THE, THE, THE ACTUAL, UH, AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT PUT OUT BY CITY STAFF STATES THAT STATES SOMETHING QUITE DIFFERENT THAN THAT STATES THAT IT, IT IS ILLEGAL TO, UM, BY FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION AND HOUSING BASED ON FAMILIAL STATUS AMONG OTHER PROTECTED CHARACTERISTICS.
IT IS ILLEGAL TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A HOUSEHOLD THAT HAS A CHILD, WHICH MEANS YOU ARE A HOUSEHOLD THAT HAS, THAT WOULD MEET THE FAMILIAL STATUS
[04:15:01]
DEFINITION.GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHEN YOU HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS TYPE OF OCCUPANCY LIMIT, IT COMES INTO DIS WITH DISABILITY OR DISPARATE IMPACT.
BUT IT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF FAMILIAL STATUS BECAUSE OUR PROVISIONS, SAY IF YOU HAVE A FAMILY OF 10 PEOPLE AND THOSE, BUT IT DEFINES FAMILY IN A VERY NARROW WAY, DOESN'T IT? OR, OR IT DOESN'T OR IT FAILS TO DEFINE FAMILY AND THEREFORE LEAVES IT AMBIGUOUS.
OUR CITY CODE DO YOU MEAN? YES.
WE HAVE, UM, SOME DIFFERENT LAYERS OF WHAT UNRELATED MEANS.
WE ACTUALLY DON'T USE, FOR INSTANCE, TWO QUEER PARENTS WITH AN ADOPTED CHILD MAY NOT MEET CITY CODE DEFINITIONS OF A FAMILY.
THAT WOULD NOT BE CORRECT THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER THEM RELATED.
UM, SO, AND I APOLOGIZE, I SKIPPED OVER COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, YOU WERE NEXT AND I JUMPED TO MY RIGHT.
UM, SO FIRST JUST, I WANNA CLEAR UP THE RECORD.
I WANNA STATE THAT I HAVE SPOKEN VERY STRONGLY AND PASSIONATELY ABOUT AUSTIN'S HISTORY OF JIM CROW IN SEGREGATION.
AND I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF DEEDED RESTRICTIONS.
JUST TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD, UM, MY QUESTION IS ABOUT HOA REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTING COVENANTS.
WOULD THEY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, WOULD THOSE EXEMPT CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS AND PROPERTIES FROM THE HOME INITIATIVE? AND HAS THE CITY DONE ANY MODELING ABOUT WHICH NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE THOSE PROTECTIONS? SO IF AN HOA IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN CITY CODE, A PROPERTY OWNER HAS TO COMPLY WITH THEIR HOA REQUIREMENTS.
SO THEY WOULD BE EXEMPT IF IT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE.
THEY WOULD NOT BE, THEY WOULD HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THEIR HOA, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
IF THEY DON'T, IF THEY, IF THEY PUT TOO MANY UNITS.
SO, SO LET'S JUST PUT IT IN THIS OTHER WAY.
WOULD THEY, COULD THEY, THEY WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THEIR HOA IF THEY DECIDED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE HOME INITIATIVE.
IF THEY ARE HOA AND OR, UM, RESTRICTED COVENANTS THAT LIMIT THE NUMBER OF THEIR UNITS, YES, THEY WOULD BE IN TROUBLE WITH THAT.
THE, SO HAVE, HAS THE CITY DONE MODELING ON WHICH COMMUNITIES HAVE THAT AND, AND LIKELY THEN WOULD NOT HAVE TO, TO VIOLATE THEIR HOA OR THEIR RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS? DO WE KNOW WHERE THOSE THINGS EXIST AND WHERE THEY DON'T EXIST? THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE, UM, ACCOUNTING OF, OF WHERE ALL OF THOSE EXIST? NO.
WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT THEY WOULD EXIST MORE IN HIGHER WEALTH NEIGHBORHOODS GIVEN THE HISTORY AND THE FACTS OF AUSTIN? UM, I, I, I DON'T KNOW.
UM, BUT YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
I, I, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION SPECIFICALLY, BUT, UM, BUT WE KNOW THAT THAT DEEDS HAVE BEEN USED IN RESTRICTIVE WAYS, UH, BECAUSE THOSE ARE ADDED COSTS FOR HOMEOWNERS.
AND, AND I THINK IF THE, THE EVIDENCE WOULD SHOW, IF WE LOOKED AT THE FACTS THAT THEY WOULD EXIST MORE IN HIGHER WEALTH NEIGHBORHOODS THAN THEY DO IN LOWER WEALTH NEIGHBORHOODS, I THINK WE CAN GO TO THE FACTS ON THAT WITH NO AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS OR INCENTIVES.
WHO ELSE WANTS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE THREE MINUTE OR THOSE, UH, PRIOR PARLIAMENTARIAN POINTED OUT, IF YOU DID NOT USE YOUR TIME THE FIRST TIME YOU DO HAVE THAT FIVE MINUTES.
UM, THAT MIGHT BE JUST COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
UH, BUT WHO NEEDS THREE MINUTES? OH YES.
I DON'T THINK YOU, UH, WENT EITHER.
UM, ALRIGHT, WELL THAT WRAPS UP THE Q AND A AND BE CLEAR, UH, I THINK ONCE WE ROLL UP OUR SLEEVES AND GETTING INTO THESE AMENDMENTS, UM, WHICH WE WILL, I'LL GO OVER THE RULES OF THAT IN A SECOND.
UM, THERE'LL BE TIME FOR Q AND A, BUT I'M GONNA REALLY KEEP TIGHT TIMELINES ON THOSE Q AND A SO WE CAN MOVE THROUGH THESE
[04:20:01]
AND GET THE WORK OF THIS COMMISSION DONE SO WE CAN HAVE SOMETHING, A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL, UH, THAT THEY CAN USE, UM, IN DEVELOPING THE FINAL ORDINANCE.SO WITH THAT, UM, SO WE'VE DONE CODE AMENDMENTS BEFORE.
I'M JUST GONNA GO OVER REAL QUICKLY.
UH, SO WE'RE GONNA START WITH THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
LET ME GET OUT MY CHEAT SHEET HERE.
THESE WERE SENT TO EVERYONE, BUT UM, THEY ARE IN TRUE CHAIR SHAW FASHION.
UH, JUST IN TERMS OF THE ORDER THAT WE DO THINGS, I WOULD, IF I GET A SECOND, LIKE TO HAVE A MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION ABOUT POSTPONEMENT.
AND SO I DON'T, I THINK NORMALLY I WOULD INTERJECT WITH A, SOME SORT OF SUBSTITUTE MOTION IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR AMENDMENT CONVERSATION, BUT I THINK THAT MIGHT BE DISRUPTIVE AND NOT VERY COHESIVE.
SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF, IF I SHOULD MAKE THAT MOTION NOW BEFORE WE GET INTO THAT? OR DO I NEED TO FOLLOW THE STRICT RULES AND JUST DO A SUBSTITUTE AT SOME POINT? SO, UM, WE ASKED THIS QUESTION OF, UM, OUR LEGAL TEAM JUST TO BE PREPARED.
UH, LEMME READ THIS REAL QUICK.
SO THIS IS WHAT LEGAL WROTE, UH, REQUEST BY PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO POSTPONE AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, A REQUEST TO POSTPONE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER THAT IS MADE AFTER THE CLOSING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE HOME AMENDMENT SHOULD INCLUDE AS PART OF THE MOTION TO POSTPONE TO A DATE CERTAIN, A MOTION TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF AFTER DELIBERATION AND AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF SEVEN COMMISSIONERS DOES NOT REACH, UH, TO, UH, POSTPONE TO DATE CERTAIN, THE PUBLIC HEARING SHALL REMAIN CLOSED AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULDN'T, SHOULD ACT ON THE HOME AMENDMENTS.
SO, YES, UH, YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO DATE CERTAIN CHAIR.
COMMISSIONER ON, UH, FOR CLARIFICATION FOR THE COMM, UH, COMMISSIONER, UM, ARE YOU ALS DO YOU WANT TO INSTEAD WANT TO CONSIDER CONTINUING TO TOMORROW? NO, UH, MINE WAS MORE OF JUST A, TRYING TO BE RESPECTFUL.
IF I NEED TO WAIT UNTIL WE GET THE BASE MOTION AND THEN I SUBSTITUTE A POSTPONEMENT MOTION, THAT'S FINE.
BUT I JUST THINK THAT THAT WILL MAKE THINGS A BIT INCONGRUOUS.
AND SO I'M JUST ASKING THE CHAIR IF, IF I SHOULD TRY TO MAKE THAT MOTION NOW SO WE CAN EITHER APPROVE OR DISPOSE OF THAT AND THEN MOVE ON OR WAIT UNTIL WE'VE GONE THROUGH AND STARTED THE BASE MOTION.
IT'S REALLY, I I HAVE NO PREFERENCE IF IT'S NOW OR LATER, IT'S STILL GONNA HAM OUR, UH, EFFORTS TO GET THIS DONE.
SO, UM, SO, SO YES IS ALL, ANYBODY CAN ALWAYS MAKE A, A MOTION TO POSTPONE AND WE, WELL, IN AN, IN AN EFFORT TO TRY TO KEEP THIS AS LEAST CONFUSING AS POSSIBLE.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT MOTION TO POSTPONE.
I I HAVEN'T AND TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING POSTPONEMENT TO DATE CERTAIN, WHAT IS OUR SECOND DATE IN JANUARY? I, I DON'T, I DON'T, I DIDN'T LOOK AT OUR 2024 CALENDAR.
SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, JUST SO YOU ALL KNOW WHAT THAT ENTAILS ON YOUR PART, WE ALL GET TO GET BACK TOGETHER AND, UH, ALL THE SPEAKERS, UH, ARE ABLE TO SPEAK AGAIN.
REOPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING SO WE DON'T HAVE TO RE NOTIFY.
UH, DO WE HAVE A, OUR DATE SET FOR JANUARY, THE SECOND MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS JANUARY 23RD.
SO MY MOTION IS TO POSTPONE TO A DATE CERTAIN JANUARY 23RD AND REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND I'M CURIOUS IF I'LL GET A SECOND CHAIR COMMISSION, LADIES ON ADVAIR, IF YOU WANNA DO THAT IN TWO STEP.
UM, FIRSTLY, IF THE, UH, POSTPONEMENT SUCCEEDS AND THEN, UH, RECONSIDER THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO WHAT'S THE DATE AGAIN? JANUARY 23RD.
SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR A SECOND.
ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE MOTION.
SO IS THIS JUST A MOTION TO POSTPONE WITHOUT A DATE ATTACHED TO IT? NO, 23RD OF JANUARY.
WAITING FOR BOOKING AROUND COMMISSIONER UH, COMMISSIONER MOTO A SECOND.
I'LL, I'LL GIVE, I'LL GIVE THE SECOND SO THAT WE CAN HEAR THE THOUGHT
[04:25:01]
PROCESS.YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER COS YEAH.
SO, UM, I CONSIDER WHAT WE'RE DOING PRETTY BAD POLICYMAKING.
UM, A LOT OF THE ANSWERS TO OUR QUESTIONS ARE, WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU OR, I DON'T KNOW, OR, THAT WASN'T THE DIRECTIVE OF COUNSEL.
UM, I CAN'T, I I HAVE A REALLY HARD TIME SEPARATING MY POSITION HERE ON THE DAIS WITH MY PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND, WHICH IS ENGINEERING.
UH, WE DO A LOT OF DUE DILIGENCE.
WE DO A LOT OF ANALYSIS OF THE DATA BECAUSE IF WE DON'T AND WE GET IT WRONG, PEOPLE DIE.
UM, IF WE GET THIS WRONG, WE'VE KIND OF HEARD A LOT OF THE CONCERNS.
I DON'T KNOW IF ALL OF THEM ARE VALID OR NOT, BUT THEY'RE CONCERNS.
AND I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THE TIME NECESSARY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROPOSAL WE PUT FORWARD AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO COUNSEL ACTUALLY PRODUCES THE RESULTS THAT WE DESIRE ON THIS PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE INFORMATION RIGHT NOW.
I DON'T THINK THE WORK HAS BEEN DONE EVEN NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES WE MET WITH THE WORKING GROUP
UH, THAT'S WHY I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THE TIME TO GET THIS RIGHT.
UM, SPEAK AGAINST THIS MOTION.
UH, WELL, I'LL SPEAK AGAINST IT.
I THINK, UM, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE, AND I DO BELIEVE IT IS A MODEST INCREASE IN DEVELOPMENT, AND I DO HEAR, I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT KIND OF ON THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN FOR THE SAME REASONS OF THAT.
WE, UM, MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS IN THE TRANSITION AREAS IN THE LAST CODE REWRITE.
UM, BUT I THINK THIS, WE'RE LOOKING AT A DUPLEX WITH AN ADU, WE'RE LOOKING AT DUPLEXES, WE'RE LOOKING AT TWO A, A, A DUPLEX THAT'S SEPARATE.
AND THEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THREE UNITS.
AND AGAIN, I THINK WE, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE KIND OF THE, THAT'S IT.
I MEAN, THOSE OF US THAT WERE ON THE LAST LAND CODE, WE WERE LOOKING AT OTHER OPTIONS FOR MORE DEVELOPMENT ON TRANSITION AREAS.
BUT TO ME, THIS SPREAD THROUGHOUT ON SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IS A VERY MODEST INCREASE IN DENSITY.
UH, AND IF WE GET THROUGH SOME OF THE GOOD WORK THAT MY WORKING GROUP, WHICH MAY HAVE, I SHOULD HAVE ANSWERED YOU DIFFERENTLY, BUT YOU WERE ON THE WORKING GROUP, YOU SAW THE GOOD WORK WE DID TO REALLY ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE PUBLIC.
AND I HOPE WE GET TO THAT BECAUSE WE PUT IN A LOT OF WORK AND A LOT OF THE CONCERNS VOICED HERE TODAY, YOUR PLANNING COMMIT YOUR WORKING GROUP REALLY MADE THE EFFORT.
AND YOU COULD SEE THAT IF YOU READ THE AMENDMENTS, UH, AND AS WE EXPLAINED THEM, YOU'LL SEE WE ARE TRYING TO RESPOND TO THE PUBLIC.
SO I REALLY DON'T WANT TO WAIT AND I WANNA GET THIS TO COUNCIL IF THEY WANT, IF THERE'S ENOUGH MOVEMENT THERE TO PUSH IT OFF.
BUT I DON'T FEEL LIKE PUSHING COUNCIL OFF TO THE DATE THEY WANT TO ACT ON THIS, UH, BECAUSE WE JUST DON'T WANT TO.
I'D RATHER GET IT TO COUNCIL AND LET THEM MAKE THAT DECISION.
UH, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS SPEAKING, UH, IN FAVOR.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S IN FAVOR OR AGAINST, BUT, UM, MY CONCERN, UM, WITH THE WORK FROM THE WORKING GROUP, AND I HAVE NO, NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT'S NOT GREAT WORK.
SO, AND I TRUST MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THAT IT IS GREAT WORK.
BUT AS WAS POINTED OUT, AND, AND YOU YOU JUST SAID THAT TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE, OF THE FOLKS WHO CAME AND TALKED TO US, THERE IS NO AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT OR INCENTIVE IN THE HOME INITIATIVE.
AND SO THAT CONCERN, WHICH IS A DEEP CONCERN, ESPECIALLY FOR BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE IN THIS CITY, HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED.
AND I WOULD ASK THAT IT BE ADDRESSED ON THE FRONT END, LIKE ALL OF THESE OTHER ISSUES NOT BE PUT OFF THE TABLE BEHIND THE DOOR, OR IN BACK OF THE BUS.
SO MY CONCERN IS ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT OR INCENTIVE IN THE HOME INITIATIVE AND DENSITY WITHOUT THAT EQUALS MARKET PRICED HOUSING, WHETHER THEY'RE CONDOS, DUPLEXES, OR ADUS, AND LEADS TO FURTHER DISPLACEMENT.
UH, SPEAKING AGAINST, I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST MOTION.
I JUST, I JUST WANT TO REMIND US ALL THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SPEAKING ONLY ON THE MERITS OF THE POSTPONEMENT AND, AND, AND NOT ON THE MERITS OF THE HOME INITIATIVE, WHICH WE WILL ALL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE AND, AND STILL ARGUE AND DISCUSS.
AND SO I JUST WANNA EMPHASIZE THAT, AND SPEAKING ON THE MERITS OF THE POSTPONEMENT, I THINK IT WOULD BE A SHAME, UM, TO, TO
[04:30:01]
PUT OFF THE GOOD WORK THAT THE WORKING GROUP HAS DONE UNTIL NEXT YEAR AND US ONLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE AMENDMENTS NEXT YEAR.UM, AND I THINK IT WOULD ALSO BE, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK, UM, PAINFUL TO THE MANY FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY WHO ALREADY CAME OUT AND SPOKE AND ADDRESSED THIS COMMISSION AND, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR US TO TELL THEM, WE'LL COME BACK AGAIN NEXT YEAR AND, AND LET'S HAVE THIS CONVERSATION ALL OVER AGAIN.
SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE TIME OF THE MANY FOLKS ON THIS COMMISSION AND IN THE COMMUNITY WHO ARE SHOWING UP, VOLUNTEERING THEIR TIME AND, AND NOT BEING PAID TO BE HERE, BUT ARE DOING THIS BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THIS IS IMPORTANT POLICY FOR THE CITY.
I HOPE THAT WE CAN RESPECTFULLY MOVE THIS PROCESS FORWARD.
WE HAVE ONE MORE FOR AND AGAINST, OH, SORRY.
ONE MORE SPOT FOR AND AGAINST ON THE MOTION BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE.
UH, COMMISSIONER, WHO IS IN FAVOR? COMMISSIONER HAYES.
UM, UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS THE FOUR GO, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
I DON'T NEED TWO MINUTES, SO I'LL JUST SIT HERE AND STAMMER.
UM, BUT COMMISSIONER COX, I'M GONNA VOTE AGAINST IT.
I HUNDRED PERCENT AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER COX.
I AM NOT FRUSTRATED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PERSON.
I'M NOT FRUSTRATED WITH ANYBODY.
YOU KNOW, I AM ON THIS COMMISSION TO BE A POLICY PERSON AND FORWARD A POLICY TO THE, TO THE COUNCIL SO THEY CAN MAKE THE DECISION AND DO WHAT ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.
AND THE FIRST, I, I THINK IT WAS THREE COMMISSION, CERTAINLY THE FIRST TWO COMMISSIONERS THAT SPOKE, THAT ASKED QUESTIONS, THE ANSWERS WERE, WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
WE, WE NEED MORE TIME TO DO THAT.
OR WE NEED, AND, YOU KNOW, AND I, AND I HAVE JOKED ON THE WORKING GROUP, AND IT'S NOT A JOKE.
THE, THE BEST INFORMATION I GOT ON THE WORKING GROUP WAS FROM COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
AND I HAVE ASKED FOR THIS MAP, THIS MAP THAT SHOULD BE A, A CLICK AWAY FOR 15 DAYS.
AND MAYBE I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO FIND IT ON MY OWN.
I'M PROBABLY NOT SMART ENOUGH TO FIND IT ON MY OWN.
AND COMMISSIONER WOODS GETS IT FOR ME TONIGHT.
AND SO THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT.
WITH ALL THAT SAID, I, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD POSTPONE TILL JANUARY, BUT I DO THINK WE ARE RUSHING THROUGH THIS, AND THAT'S WHERE I AM.
ONE MORE SLOT FOR ANYONE THAT WANTS TO BE, SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION.
I CAN'T SPEAK FOR AGAINST THE MOTION, BUT I DO JUST WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS REALLY, REALLY CLEAR.
IF THERE ARE ANY AMBIGUITIES THAT ARE GOING TO NEED TO BE INTERPRETED.
AND THIS WAS RUSHED THROUGH AND IT GETS MISSED.
IT'S COMING TO ME AND MY BOARD IS, I DON'T WANT MY BOARD TO BE WRITING ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY.
IT, IT'S PLANNING COMMISSIONING COUNCIL.
BUT THAT'S WHAT WILL END UP HAPPENING IF DURING AN INTERPRETATION APPEAL, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECIDES NOT TO UPHOLD STAFF'S INTERPRETATION.
AND I JUST, I, I DIDN'T KNOW IF EVERYONE HERE WAS AWARE OF THAT, SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT PART OUT.
ALRIGHT, SO, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE AND HELP ME OUT HERE IF YOU WOULD.
UM, BUT SHARE JUST SOME TALLYING 'EM UP SO WE CAN GET IT CLEAR.
SO THOSE ON THE S THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO POSTPONE TO JANUARY 23RD, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
AND ON VIRTUAL, UH, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE POSTPONEMENT.
SO THAT MOTION FAILS WITH COMMISSIONER COX.
UH, VOTING IN FAVOR AND COMMISSIONER MOALA ABSTAINING.
EVERYONE ELSE VOTING AGAINST ABSTAINS.
COMMISSIONER, UH, PHILLIPS ABSTAINS.
ONE, FOUR, AND THE REST AGAINST.
I THINK THAT'S, UM, ALL RIGHT.
SO, UM, AND I THINK THAT WAS GOOD DISCUSSION.
SO I'M NOT, I DIDN'T AGREE, BUT IT WAS A GOOD TOPIC TO DISCUSS.
SO, UM, WHERE I WAS, AND LET'S DO A QUICK TIME CHECK, BUT IT, SO HERE'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO.
WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
WE GET A LARGE VOLUME, BUT WE'LL SEE WHAT WE CAN GET ON CONSENT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY IT'LL BE, BUT AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE WAY WE WORK THROUGH THIS IS, AND I HAVEN'T EVEN ASKED, COMMISSIONER, YOU ARE OUR WORKING GROUP CHAIR.
[04:35:01]
UH, IF YOU'RE GONNA LEAD US THROUGH THESE IN A DESCRIPTION, ONE MORE, COMMISSIONER CAN AID COMMISSIONER AZAR IN THAT DESCRIPTION, ESPECIALLY IF THEY WERE THE MOTION MAKER THEY WANT.UH, BUT HE'S GOT A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET THROUGH THE INTRODUCTION.
I WAS GONNA SAY, ANDREW EMAILED OUT THE TABLES THAT I COULDN'T GET.
OH, I WAS JUST, UH, TELLING EVERYONE THAT ANDREW EMAILED EVERYONE, UH, SOME FAR DISTRIBUTION TABLES THAT REALLY HELPS TO ILLUMINATE WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER ZA IS GONNA TALK ABOUT.
AND, AND BEFORE WE GO THROUGH THE LIST, UH, MR. RIVERA, COULD WE HAVE THAT TABLE JUST READY? SO WHEN COMMISSIONER, UH, CZAR GETS THERE, WE CAN SHOW THAT TO THE COMMISSIONERS WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE DESCRIPTION? UH, SO IT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO PUT ON YOUR SCREEN.
SO LET ME JUST GO REAL QUICK 'CAUSE IT CAN BE CONFUSING.
UH, WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH AND DO AN INTRODUCTION FOR ONE MINUTE.
UH, I HAVE MORE Q AND A WHY I DID THIS.
I DON'T KNOW,
UH, BUT YOU DARL, WHAT I DID IS HAVE FOUR COMMISSIONERS.
TWO COMMISSIONERS WITH TWO MINUTES, AND IT'S ALL ABOUT JUST IF YOU, AND IF YOU KNOW RIGHT AWAY YOU WANNA PULL IT, WE DON'T NEED ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, JUST PULL IT AND GET IT OFF THE LIST.
OKAY? WE DON'T NEED TO GO USE THOSE TWO MINUTES.
SO, UH, OR YOU CAN ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, THEN WE'LL DECIDE THAT WILL, UH, THAT'LL CREATE OUR CONSENT LIST AND OUR DISCUSSION LIST.
AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS, UM, MOVE THROUGH AND GET THAT CONSENT LIST ESTABLISHED, AND THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH THE DISCUSSION PART, UH, NEXT.
BUT LET'S GO AHEAD AND WORK THROUGH AND CREATE, LIKE WE DO ON OUR AGENDA, CREATE OUR CONSENT ITEMS. SO WITH THAT, I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO THE CHAIR OF THE WORKING GROUP WHO DID A GREAT JOB.
UM, I THINK, I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT COMMISSION ZA IS THE KING OF SCHEDULING
UM, CAN WE PULL UP THE SPREADSHEET FOR THE AMENDMENTS AS WELL? AND CHAIR, JUST TO CLARIFY, I HAVE ONE MINUTE PER AMENDMENT, CORRECT? YEAH.
AND, UM, WE'RE GETTING THROUGH THESE, AND AGAIN, IF PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS, WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE, THEY CAN ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
UM, SO I'LL START WITH THE FIRST, UH, AMENDMENT.
THIS WAS A AMENDMENT FROM COMMISSIONER HAYNES, AND ESSENTIALLY IT SAYS, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NEEDS MORE TIME WITH THE EXTENDED MEETING ON NOVEMBER 14TH, THAT WOULD, IE MEAN GOING INTO TOMORROW.
THE COMMISSION MAY SELECT TO CONTINUE ON NOVEMBER 28TH.
SO ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS REAL QUICK, JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT WOULDN'T INVOLVE ANY ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION OR SPEAKERS SIGNED UP.
WHAT IT, IT WOULD NOT INVOLVE NOTIFICATION, BUT IT WOULDN'T INVOLVE NEW SPEAKER SIGN UP.
SO IF WE GO TO A NEW DATE, UM, FOR EVERY TIME WE GO TO A NEW DATE, THIS SPEAKER LIST OPENS IT AGAIN AND LIKELY, UM, SO WITH SOME DEGREE OF QUESTION ANSWER AS WELL.
SO THIS WOULD NEGATE THE MEETING TOMORROW.
THIS WOULD MEAN THAT IF WE GET TO THE END OF TOMORROW, THEN WE WOULD BE MOVING FORWARD, UH, WITH THE APRIL POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 28TH.
SO IS THIS ITEM DISCUSSION OR ARE WE AGREEING WITH IT? UH, CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO PULL THIS ITEM.
ALL RIGHT, GO TO THE NEXT ONE.
THE NEXT ONE IS THE FLOOR, A RATIO CAPPER DEVELOPMENT.
SO THIS IS FOR THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT.
WE ARE NOW CAPPING FLOOR AREA RATIO.
SO IN A, UM, WITHIN THE SUBCHAPTER F BOUNDARY, THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED ON A PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS ORDINANCE WITH TWO UNITS IS LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF EITHER 0.55 FLOOR TO AREA RATIO, OR 3,200 SQUARE FOOT OF GROSS FLOOR AREA AS DEFINED IN 25 DASH ONE DASH TWO.
AND IN THE NOTES, YOU'LL SEE THE DEFINITION THAT WE HAVE IN THE CODE FOR 25 DASH ONE DASH 21.
SORRY, THAT SHOULD HAVE SAID 21.
SIMILARLY, THE MAXIMUM OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED ON A PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS ORDINANCE WITH THREE UNIT UNITS IS LIMITED TO 0.65 OF FLOOR TO AREA RATIO OR 3,750 SQUARE FOOT.
SIMILARLY, NO CHANGE IS RECOMMENDED AT THIS TIME FOR DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE OF SUBCHAPTER F.
SO JUST TO SUM IT UP, WITHIN THE SUBCHAPTER F BOUNDARIES, THERE'S NOW FAR LIMITS 0.5 FOR TWO UNITS AND THE SORT OF REQUISITE SQUARE FEET ASSOCIATED OR 0.65 FOR THREE UNITS WITH THE REQUISITE SQUARE FEET.
ALL RIGHT, SO IF THIS IS CONFUSING OR IF YOU, I MEAN, UH, FOR COMMISSIONERS THAT WEREN'T PART OF THE WORKING GROUP, UM, SO DO WE LEAVE IT ON CONSENT OR DO WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS ONE? OR
[04:40:01]
DO YOU HAVE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER? LOOKING AROUND? COMMISSIONER AL, GO AHEAD.YEAH, I, IT LOOKED TO ME LIKE THERE WERE LIKE CHOICES.
IS ALL OF THIS GOING? BECAUSE IT LOOKED TO ME LIKE, IT WAS LIKE, OKAY, WE THOUGHT OF THIS IDEA AND THEN WE THOUGHT OF THIS IDEA.
UM, SO THERE'S ESSENTIALLY SORT OF, UM, THREE DIFFERENT DISTINCTIONS.
THE FIRST DISTINCTION IS WITHIN SUBCHAPTER F BOUNDARY AND WITHOUT SUBCHAPTER F BOUNDARY.
SO WITHIN THE SUBCHAPTER F BOUNDARY, WE'RE RECOMMENDING SOMETHING.
AND I'LL TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT IS.
WE'LL, I THINK IT'S TIED TO THE NEXT ONE.
AND I ACTUALLY HEARD SOMETHING, UH, FROM STAFF THAT MAY MAKE ME WANNA PROPOSE A SUBSTITUTE, UH, AN AMENDMENT.
OKAY, CHAIR, WE'LL PULL THAT ONE.
UM, THE NEXT ONE, AND THIS WILL LIKELY BE PULLED AS WELL, THIS IS A SLIGHTLY MORE COMPLEX ONE, SO I WOULD REALLY REFER TO THE TABLES THAT WE HAVE.
COULD WE PULL UP THE TABLES THAT COMMISSIONER COX HAD SHARED? AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS WOULD SAY IS, AND I'M SORRY FOLKS, BEAR WITH ME FOR A SECOND.
IN ADDITION TO HAVING PER DEVELOPMENT CAPS, WE'RE NOW SEEING THAT THERE ARE CAPS PER UNIT AS WELL.
SO FOR EVERY UNIT THERE IS A CAP ON WHAT THE FAR CAN BE FOR THAT.
SO WHAT WE HAVE IS ESSENTIALLY, UM, NUMBER TWO, THREE B IS THE AMENDMENT THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
UM, THREE B WOULD SAY THAT IF YOU HAVE ONE UNIT ON A, IN A, IN A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT, IF YOU HAVE ONE, IF YOU'RE BUILDING THE FIRST OR ONE UNIT HAS TO BE AT LEAST 0.45 OR HAS TO BE NO MORE THAN 0.45 PAR.
IF YOU DO TWO UNITS, ANY COMBINATION OF THE TWO UNITS IN A THREE UNIT SIDE CYCLE CANNOT PASS MORE THAN 0.5 FAR.
AND THEN FOR THREE UNITS, YOUR FAR WOULD OF COURSE BE CAPPED AT WHAT THE PER DEVELOPMENT FAR IS, WHICH IS 0.65.
SO AGAIN, WITHIN A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT ONLY, THIS WOULD NOT IMPACT WHAT SOMEBODY WOULD WANT TO DO IN A SINGLE UNIT TODAY BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE WITHIN SUB-CHAPTER F.
THIS WOULD BE IF SOMEBODY WERE TO DO A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ONE UNIT 0.45 FAR, UH, TWO UNIT.
UM, WE'RE GOING TO CAP IT AT ESSENTIALLY 0.5.
ACTUALLY, I'M SORRY, NOW I'M REALIZING THAT I'M READING THIS CHART WRONG.
SO FOR ONE UNIT, I'M SORRY TO SAY IT'S 0.4 FAR FOR TWO UNITS, IT'S 0.5 FAR.
FOR THREE UNITS, IT'S 0.65 FAR.
SO IT'S THE BOTTOM EXTREME RIGHTMOST TABLE THAT YOU WOULD BE LOOKING AT FOR THREE UNITS, TWO UNITS SIMILARLY, AND THEN ONE UNIT.
AND SO AT THIS, CAN I ADD, CAN I ADD TO THAT COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH.
UM, SO I STRUGGLED TO UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE UNTIL I PUT THESE TABLES TOGETHER AND THEN I WAS LIKE, OKAY, NOW I GET WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
SO, SO THE PER SITE IS GRADUATED UP BY A 0.1 FROM SINGLE UNIT TWO UNIT THREE UNIT.
THEN THE WORKING GROUP VOTED TO, ON THE TWO UNIT AND THREE UNIT SCENARIO, ON A PER UNIT BASIS, ANY SINGLE UNIT CANNOT EXCEED 0.4, WHICH IS LESS THAN THE TOTAL, UH, FOR THE SITE.
AND, AND TO TRY TO HELP UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS, UM, WE, WE PUT IN THREE EXAMPLE LOT SIZES AND WE HAVE THE MOST EQUAL FAR DISTRIBUTION POSSIBLE AND THE MOST DISPARATE FAR.
SO, UH, UH, UH, POSSIBLE WITH, WITH THE VARIOUS LIMITATIONS.
FOR THE THREE UNIT, IT'S EVEN MORE COMPLICATED BECAUSE ANY TWO UNITS CAN'T EXCEED 0.5 FAR IN ADDITION TO ANY SINGLE UNIT NOT BEING ABLE TO EXCEED 0.4.
SO IF EVERYONE'S BRAINS HAVE EXPLODED, THAT'S WHERE I WAS ABOUT A WEEK AGO.
UM, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO EXPLAIN THE TABLES, BUT COMMISSIONER ZA IS BETTER EXPLAINING THIS.
AND SO, UM, ARE WE GONNA KEEP, I'M LOOKING AROUND.
WE'RE PULLING THIS, CAN'T THAT PROBABLY FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, BUT WE'RE PULLING IT.
ALRIGHT, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.
I WAS WAITING FOR SOMEBODY TO JUST TAKE ACTION THERE.
OKAY, LET'S GO TO THE NEXT ONE, PLEASE.
UM, IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TABLE AS WELL, SO WE CAN SEE IT AS WE GO ALONG.
SO THIS WOULD BE AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR FROM THE WORKING GROUP.
UM, THIS WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE REMOVING THE 1,100 SQUARE FOOT LIMITATION THAT WE CURRENTLY NOW HAVE FOR THE SECOND UNIT WITHIN THE DUPLEX CONFIGURATION.
SO WE'RE SAYING THAT THAT, UH, LIMITATION THAT SAYS ONE OF THE DWELLING UNITS MAY NOT EXCEED 1,100 TOTAL SQUARE FOOT, THIS WOULD BE REMOVED.
THE REASONING BEHIND THIS WAS BECAUSE INSTEAD OF HAVING THE SQUARE FOOT LIMITATIONS, WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE TO THE FAR LIMITATIONS.
SO IT'S MORE CONTEXT SENSITIVE IN THAT WAY.
UM, AND ESSENTIALLY WOULD SORT OF ALIGN WITH THE WAY WE CURRENTLY HAVE SUB-CHAPTER F.
SO I'M JUST GONNA ASK QUICK CLARIFY, UH, QUESTION.
SO THIS, AND EVEN THOUGH, UH, SO THIS WAS EMBEDDED IN CURRENT CODE, THE 1100, UM, DO YOU KNOW, OR SHOULD WE ASK STAFF WHERE THAT IS? CORRECT.
HERE, I I BELIEVE STAFF CAN ANSWER THIS AS THIS
[04:45:01]
WAS EMBEDDED IN OUR CURRENT CODE FOR DUPLEXES.SO WE LIMITED THE SECOND UNIT IN A DUPLEX TO 1,100 SQUARE FOOT.
UM, AND ESSENTIALLY WE ARE REMOVING THAT LIMITATION BECAUSE WE'RE PUTTING IN FAR LIMITATIONS.
WAS WAS IT DUPLEX OR TWO UNIT FAMILY RESIDENTS OR ADU? YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS DOING.
SO IT WAS FOR TWO UNITS CHAIR.
SO WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS THAT IT WAS FOR TWO UNITS.
SO THERE WAS A LIMITATION ON THE SECOND UNIT BEING 1,100 SQUARE FOOT.
WE'RE REMOVING THAT LIMITATION FOR THE SECOND UNIT AND GOING WITH FOREIGN.
AND, AND JUST, AND ONE MORE CLARIFICATION THAT IS, THAT IS NOT JUST IN THE SUB-CHAPTER F THAT IS CITYWIDE.
I'M LOOKING FOR A, A NOD FROM, YEAH, THANK YOU.
UH, SORRY, PLEASE SPEAK 'CAUSE I CAN'T SEE THE HEAD NODS.
WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THIS ON CONSENT OR PULL IT FOR DECISION.
AND THE NO, THE ANSWER TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES QUESTION, I'M SORRY.
THE HEAD NOD WAS FROM STAFF THAT THIS, THE REMOVAL WOULD BE REMOVE IT FOR CITYWIDE FOR THAT'S CODE THE SECOND UNIT.
SO THE ADU, NOT FOR DUPLEX FOR THE ADUS.
UM, I'M NOT SEEING ANY HANDS UP FOR, SO WE'RE KEEPING THIS ONE ON CONSENT.
CAN I ASK FOR SOMEONE TO PULL THIS? I'M GONNA BE THE ONE WHO'S GONNA HAVE TO HEAR THE VARIANCE CASES FOR THIS.
AND THAT EXCEPTION NEEDS TO BE SPELLED OUT.
WE HAVE COMMISSIONER WHO'S PULLED IT, SO NOW IT'S PULLED.
I DO THINK WE'VE HAD A SLOW CREEP FROM OUR EX OFFICIALS NOW INTO THE BODY ITSELF.
AND WE'VE BEEN SEEING THIS FOR A WHILE.
AND I, I WOULD ASK THAT, I THINK AT SOME POINT WE ALL HAVE A DISCUSSION AS A BODY WHETHER WE NEED TO HAVE IT WITH STAFF OR OTHERWISE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR ROLES AND DELINEATIONS ARE.
I THINK THAT'S ALREADY BEEN SPELLED OUT ONE TIME BEFORE BY COUNSEL.
LET'S, IN 2012, LET'S, SO I'LL SAY THIS.
I THINK I'M TRYING TO BALANCE HERE.
I I, I'M TRYING TO KEEP THINGS MOVING AND I THINK THIS ONE I THOUGHT WAS PRETTY EASY, BUT THE PER I, AGAIN, I WANT TO HEAR FROM THE EX-OFFICIO, JUST FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM AND THINGS THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH, BUT I'LL PULL IT.
SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND YOU WERE PULLING IT, BUT LET'S SEE IF WE CAN KEEP SOME OF THESE ON CONSENT.
WHY BOTHER? WHY, WHY SHOULD WE JUST GO AHEAD AND PULL THEM ALL AND THEN JUST GO TO THEM ALL ONE BY ONE? YES, MR. ZA, PLEASE HELP.
I, I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH THIS AND GO THROUGH THESE AGAIN.
SO WE MIGHT AS WELL JUST PULL THEM ALL AND GO THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE.
WELL, LET'S, WELL, LET'S DO THAT.
IS IF PEOPLE READ THIS, IS THERE ANYTHING, UM, HOW WOULD WE PHRASE THIS? IF THERE'S ONES THAT FOLKS ARE PLANNING TO PULL, DO YOU WANT TO TELL ME? YEAH, SO I DON'T GO THROUGH THEM RIGHT NOW.
LET'S, LET'S DO THAT AND I CAN MAKE A LIST.
SO WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4 PULLED OFF.
ARE THERE OTHER ONES THAT FOLKS WOULD LIKE TO PULL AT THIS TIME? AND I GUESS THAT EXTENDS TO OUR EX OFFICIALS AS WELL.
I'LL JUMP OUT THERE AND PULL FIVE.
I'M TRYING TO GET THE AMENDMENTS UP REAL QUICK 'CAUSE I WAS WATCHING THE SCREEN.
BUT
I WOULD LIKE TO PULL 15 PLEASE.
SO WE'RE PULLING 15 OTHERS THAT FOLKS WOULD LIKE TO PULL DOWN AT THIS TIME.
CAN WE PULL SEVEN? SO WE'RE PULLING DOWN SEVEN AND EIGHT AND EIGHT.
ANY OTHER ONES? I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO PULL IT, BUT SIX A AND B ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
SO WE ACTUALLY NEED TO PULL SIX TOO.
WE'RE PULLING 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 17.
CAN WE PULL OR CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT 10 OR JUST PULL IT? JUST PULL IT.
I THINK WE'VE PULLED THEM ALL.
NOPE, THAT'S ONLY LIKE HALF DON.
UM, ANY OTHER ONES? SO JUST SO FOLKS ARE CLEAR, THE ONES THAT ARE NOW LEFT ON THE TABLE ARE 9, 11, 13, 16, AND 17.
ACTUALLY, NO, NOT, UH, SORRY, NO, 15 WAS PULLED.
16 WAS ACTUALLY, 17 WAS PULLED AS WELL.
SO 9, 11, 13, AND 16 ARE THE ONES ON THE TABLE.
ANYBODY WANTS TO PULL THOSE FOUR? I I WILL DO A
[04:50:01]
GOOD AND I WILL REVOKE MY PULLING OF SEVEN AND EIGHT.OKAY, BECAUSE I THINK I HAVE MY QUESTION ANSWERED.
SO NOW WE HAVE 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, AND 16 IN THE MIX.
ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO PULL ANY MORE? I, ONE MORE.
7, 8, 9, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 AND 16.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM SUBCHAPTER F, REAR YARD SETBACK FROM SUBCHAPTER F REDUCED STREETSIDE YARD SETBACK.
THE GENERAL RECOMMENDATION FOR AN ANNUAL REPORT, THE GENERAL RECOMMENDATION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, BONUS INFORMATION AND A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION ON INFRASTRUCTURE COMMISSIONERS ARE, YES, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT 15 BACK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, AND I, YEAH, SO I CAN GO BACK ON CONSENT, NO ONE ELSE.
OKAY, SO NOW WE'RE ADDING IN 15, WHICH IS THE, UH, GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND SDRS AS WELL.
SO THAT'S 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, AND 16.
AND, AND JUST A POINT OF INFORMATION FOR PROCESS.
IF IT STAYS ON THE CONSENT, NO ONE CAN MAKE AMENDMENTS TO MODIFY IT.
SO IT'S GONNA GO INTO THE BASE MOTIONS AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO ENTERTAIN CONVERSATION SIMILAR, UM, INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS THAT ARE RELATED.
SO IF YOU HAVE A RELATED AMENDMENT TO WHAT'S ONE OF THESE, I'D SAY YOU NEED TO, YOU NEED TO PULL IT 'CAUSE WE'RE GONNA TAKE IT UP AT THAT TIME.
OR YOU'RE, YOU NEED TO INTRODUCE A SUBSTITUTION OR AN AMENDMENT AT THAT TIME.
SO TOPICAL AREAS THAT YOU HAVE AS INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS, YOU NEED TO THINK NOW IF THEY RELATE TO ANY OF THESE.
WELL, AND, AND I APOLOGIZE, I'M TRYING TO RUN THROUGH THIS IN MY HEAD.
SO IF WE WANT TO VOTE AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT HERE, YOU HAVE TO PULL IT TO VOTE AGAINST IT.
WE, WE CAN ALWAYS VOTE NO ON, UH, CONSENT AS WELL.
BUT, BUT YOU'RE VOTING NO ON ALL THE CONSENTS? NO, WE CAN INDIVIDUALLY HIGHLIGHT.
OH, YOU ONE, YOU COULD SAY YOU'RE OPPOSED TO SPECIFIC.
THAT IS THE RULE THAT WE HAVE FOLLOWED IN THE PAST.
YOU COULD DO SO JUST IN TERMS OF PROCESS, LET ME CLARIFY AND CHAIR, PLEASE CORRECT ME AND STAFF PLEASE CORRECT ME FROM HERE ON THE ONES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PULLED.
I WILL GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM WITH ONE MINUTE EACH.
ANOTHER COMMISSIONER FROM THE WORKING GROUP CAN JUMP IN AND HELP ME EXPLAIN IT.
TWO PEOPLE WILL STILL HAVE TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS UP TO TWO MINUTES.
PEOPLE WOULD STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO PULL ANY OF THOSE AFTER ME LAYING THEM OUT.
EVEN AFTER THAT, IF WE GO FORWARD WITH SOMETHING IN CONSENT FOLKS, WE'LL HAVE THE ABILITY TO INDIVIDUALLY LET US KNOW WHICH ONES THEY'RE VOTING AGAINST OR ABSTAIN, ABSTAINING ON.
WERE YOU SAYING THAT 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16 ARE THE ONES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH? SO YOU'RE HERE MORE HE'S GONNA GO THROUGH.
SO IF WE CAN GET THE TABLE UP AND SCROLL DOWN TO NUMBER SEVEN.
SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT NUMBER SEVEN, THIS ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT YOU'RE, THERE'S A LONG AMENDMENT, BUT ESSENTIALLY THIS TAKES LANGUAGE FROM SUBCHAPTER F WITHIN SUBCHAPTER F TODAY YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO AVERAGING OFF THE FRONT YARD.
WHAT THIS MEANS IS IF YOU'RE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH VERY VARIABLES, FRONT YARD SETBACKS, YOU'RE ABLE TO AVERAGE SO THAT THERE IS A MAINTAINING OF A ESSENTIALLY LINE OF ESSENTIALLY FACADES TO ALLOW FOR MORE COHERENCE IN THE WAY THE HOUSES LINE UP.
SO IN THIS IS USUALLY APPLICABLE IN OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THERE IS A VARIATION IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
SO THIS WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE TAKING THAT, UH, CONVERSATION FROM SUBCHAPTER F AND APPLYING IT WITHIN THIS HOME AMENDMENT AS WELL.
SO THIS WOULD BE FOR ONE, TWO, AND THREE UNITS AS WELL THAT YOU CAN DO FRONT YARD AVERAGING AS IT IS ALLOWED UNDER SUBCHAPTER F TODAY.
AND I'M GONNA, ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE? SO I'M GONNA JUST ADD AN ELEMENT TO MAYBE TRY TO MM-HMM,
CAN WE RE, INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH EACH OF THESE, DO YOU WANT, CAN YOU TELL US WHICH ONES YOU NEED TO HEAR MORE THAT YOU'RE NOT CLEAR ON? AND MAYBE WE CAN JUST GET THROUGH THIS OR DO YOU WANNA HEAR EACH ONE? I DO.
WHAT DO FOLKS HAVE? I, I MEAN, DON'T WE, DON'T WE HAVE TO KIND OF READ IT OUT FOR THE MOTION PURPOSES OR NO, I MEAN, USUALLY PEOPLE STATE THE MOTION.
WE CAN ALWAYS REFER BACK TO AN EXHIBIT.
SO SINCE THIS IS AN EXHIBIT IN OUR BACKUP, WE DO THAT REGULARLY AS WELL.
SO I'M TRYING TO BALANCE THE NEED TO KNOW, BUT IF WE'RE JUST WASTING PEOPLE'S
[04:55:01]
TIME AND THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED, WE DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH THESE.SO DO, WHICH ITEMS DO WE NEED TO HEAR MORE ON MY KITCHEN, PEOPLE OFF GUARD? SURE, FOLKS ARE FINE.
LET ME JUST, HOW ABOUT WE DO IT THIS WAY INSTEAD OF ASKING FOR QUESTIONS ON EACH? DO FOLKS MIND IF I JUST GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE AND THEN YOU ALL CAN ASK ME COLLECTIVE QUESTIONS? YES.
THAT WOULD NOT BE WITHIN THE RULES THAT WE DECIDED, BUT IF FOLKS ARE FINE WITH IT, WE CAN PROCEED WITH THAT.
I'LL GO TO EIGHT, WHICH ESSENTIALLY IS A RARE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
SO THIS TAKES FROM SUBCHAPTER F AGAIN TODAY AND ADAPTS IT.
AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT IF YOUR, UH, REAR LOT LINE IS ADJACENT TO AN ALLEY OR WITH A NONS SINGLE FAMILY USE, YOU CAN HAVE YOUR REAR SETBACK REDUCED TO FIVE FEET.
AGAIN, THE ALLEY EXCEPTION IS WITHIN SUB CHAPTER F TODAY.
WE'RE ALSO SAYING STAFF MAY CONSIDER OTHER FEATURES TO ALLOW THIS SETBACK EXCEPTION WHILE MEETING OTHER HEALTH SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT REQUIREMENTS.
THIS WOULD REDUCE THE STREET SIDE YARD SETBACKS.
A REMINDER, THIS IS NOT JUST THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, BUT THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE STREET ON ANOTHER STREET.
SO THINK CORNER LOT, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHERE YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO REDUCE YOUR STREET YARD SIDE SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 10 FEET.
SO ESSENTIALLY IT ALLOWS, THE, THE NOTION BEHIND IT IS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE FIVE FEET PLUS ROOM SIDEWALK, EVEN THOUGH THAT EASEMENT IS SOMEWHAT SEPARATE.
BUT ESSENTIALLY YOU WOULD HAVE THE REDUCTION ON YOUR STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 10 FEET, WHICH TAKES US TO NUMBER 11.
THIS IS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION FOR AN ANNUAL REPORT.
SO IT REQUIRES THAT STAFF PRESENT AN ANNUAL REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH INFORMATION AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION, UM, SO THAT WE'RE ABLE TO ASSESS HOW THE PROGRAM IS PERFORMING AND OTHER ISSUES THAT MAY ARISE AND TWEAK THEM AS NECESSARY AS WE MOVE INTO THE FUTURE.
NUMBER 13 IS A RECOMMENDATION, UH, FOR INFORMATION ON THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BONUS INFORMATION.
NOW, OF COURSE THIS DEPENDS ON OUR ABILITY TO PASS THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BONUS, BUT IF IT WERE TO PASS, WHAT WE WOULD BE SAYING IS THAT STAFF SHOULD EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES TO PROACTIVELY SHARE EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION BONUS AS PART OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS, INCLUDING FOR DEMOLITION PERMITS.
AND THIS WAS A REQUEST THAT SPECIFICALLY CAME FROM THE PROPOSAL FROM PRESERVATION AUSTIN, WHO WOULD LIKE TO PROACTIVELY, UM, PUT THIS INFORMATION BEFORE DEVELOPERS SO THAT THEY MIGHT ACTUALLY USE THIS BONUS, UM, AND ACTUALLY PRESERVE OUR HISTORIC STRUCTURES.
THIS IS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION AND SDRS, UM, AND IT ESSENTIALLY STATES THAT COUNCIL AND STAFF SHOULD PRIORITIZE AMENDING OUR CODES FOR PERMITTING AND ENFORCEMENT RULES FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS THAT COMPLY WITH STATE LAW AND RECENT COURT RULINGS, AND TO LIMIT THE IMPACT THAT LARGE QUANTITY OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS HAVE ON HOUSING AVAILABILITY.
WE UNDERSTAND WITH THE RECENT, UM, SORT OF CHANGES IN LAW AND INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW, OUR CURRENT SDR RULES HAVE TO BE REVISED AND, UH, THE WORKING GROUP FEELS THIS SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THIS SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
THIS TAKES US TO NUMBER 16, WHICH IS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION ON NEW, UH, ON INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND THIS WOULD SAY COUNCIL SHOULD REQUIRE ALL RELEVANT DEPARTMENTS TO ASSESS THE IMPACTS OF ADDITIONAL UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED.
SO THIS IS, AGAIN, RESPONDING TO COMMUNITY CONCERN OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE IMPACT ON INFRASTRUCTURE IS, UM, EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE TAKEN CARE AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN.
AND I'LL PAUSE THERE 'CAUSE WE'VE GONE THROUGH ALL OF THE ONES THAT WE DID NOT PULL.
SO THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK FOR ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS TO DETERMINE IF YOU WANNA PULL THIS OR NOT ON ANY OF THEM.
UM, SORRY, I'M JUST REALIZING THE MATH ON 18 AND 19 CAN, DON'T THOSE HAVE TO BE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS? THE NOT WORKING GROUP? I'M, I'M SORRY, WHICH ONES 18 AND 19 OR ARE THEY THEY'RE NOT IN OUR SHEET, SO, OH, I'M LOOKING AT THE WRONG SHEET.
UM, SO YES, UH, COMMISSIONER COX IN THE BACKUP, THERE IS A SHEET WITH THE CORRECT VOTING ORDER.
SO AGAIN, LET ME JUST CLARIFY.
SO WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IN THE CONSENT POOL IS 7 8 9 11 13 15 16.
WHAT WE HAVE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION IS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14, 15, AND 17 AND 17 IS THE LAST ONE.
15 IS IN, SO 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16 ARE IN CONSENT.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14 AND 17 ARE BEING PULLED.
OKAY, SO LET'S CHANGE FIRST NO QUESTIONS ON WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED FOR ME SO FAR.
CHAIR, MIGHT I GO AHEAD AND THEN MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE IN THE EXHIBIT THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN OUR BACKUP FOR, UM, THE WORKING GROUP TO ESSENTIALLY
[05:00:01]
MOVE FORWARD ON CONSENT WITH, UH, WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS NUMBER 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, AND 16.DO DO WE DO QUESTIONS FIRST OR? OH, YES, WE, WE, WE HAD, IF WE CAN STILL ASK QUESTIONS BECAUSE NOBODY, SO YES, IF YOU, OKAY.
SO WE TABLED THE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
IS THIS TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANTED TO PULL IT OR NOT? OH, NO.
UH, COMMISSIONER MHA SAID SHE HAD QUESTIONS, SO I OH, I, OH, OUR APOLOGIES.
NO, I'M MAKING SURE THEY KNOW WE'RE, WE'RE MOVING ALONG.
THANK YOU FOR LEADING US THROUGH THAT.
I MEAN, I THINK GETTING TO THIS POINT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THESE ARE MOVING OVER INTO THE, WE'RE GOOD BUCKET LIST AND THIS IS GOOD.
UM, SO WITH THAT, DO WE NEED ANY, DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THE MOTION ON THE TABLE? UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.
DO WE, UH, CAN WE JUST MOVE TO A VOTE? ALL RIGHT.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE CONSENT AGENDA? SO, SO WE HAVE TO INDICATE WHICH ONES WE'RE FOR AND AGAINST.
IF AT THIS POINT, UH, IF YOU HAVE, YOU CAN SAY, I'M IN FAVOR EXCEPT I OBJECT TO A SPECIFIC NUMBER OR ABSTAIN YOUR, OR ABSTAIN.
SO YEAH, IF THERE'S ANY THAT YOU ARE ABSTAIN, YOU'RE OBJECTING TO, UH, GO AHEAD AND CLARIFY THAT.
SORRY, CAN YOU INDICATE ONE LAST TIME WHICH ONES ARE ON THE CONSENT? SURE.
SO SEVEN, AGAIN, I'LL GO THROUGH THESE AND SO FOLKS CAN UNDERSTAND THEM.
SO SEVEN, WHICH IS THE SUBCHAPTER F ALIGNMENT FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK AVERAGING NUMBER EIGHT, WHICH IS SUBCHAPTER F ADOPT ADOPTION AND EXTENSION FOR THE REAR YARD SETBACK.
UM, THE STREET YARD, UH, STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK REDUCTION, WHICH IS NUMBER NINE 11, WHICH IS THE GENERAL RECOMMENDATION FOR AN ANNUAL REPORT.
NUMBER 13, WHICH WHICH IS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION FOR PROVIDING INFORMATION ON THE HISTORIC RESERVATION BONUS.
UM, NUMBER 15, WHICH WOULD BE A GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
AND NUMBER 16, WHICH IS A, A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION ON INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT.
SO, SO, UH, THERE'S A CLARIFICATION FROM MR. RIVERA THAT WE DON'T, THIS IS, I ALWAYS FORGET THIS, THAT WE'RE NOT TAKING A VOTE AT THIS POINT.
SO, MR. RIVERA, THEY STATE OBJECTIONS AT THE CLOSE AND WE, UH, CLOSE OUT THE VOTE.
MR. VER, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? WOULD IT NOT MAKE SENSE FOR US TO DISPOSE OF THESE AMENDMENTS? WELL, ACTUALLY NO, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T MADE A BASE MOTION, SO I NEED TO MAKE A BASE MOTION AND THEN AMEND THESE.
SO ACTUALLY WE'VE GONE OUT OF ORDER HERE.
I'M GONNA, AND MR. VER, PLEASE LET ME KNOW, I'M, I HAVE THE ABILITY TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION.
CHAIR, COMMISSIONER VER UH, IF YOU COULD JUST, UM, TABLE THIS, UH, CONSENT ITEMS, UM, AND THEN, UM, HAVE YOUR BASE MOTION AND THEN COME BACK TO THIS CONSENT.
SO WE'RE TABLING THIS AND I'M GONNA MAKE A BASE MOTION CHAIR.
MY BASE MOTION IS TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE HOME ITEM.
AND I'LL SPEAK TO IT IN A SECOND.
SO THERE IS, IT'S NOT A STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
I'LL PROVIDE, UH, MR. AZAR, UM, SOME INFORMATION.
I THINK IT'S JUST A DRAFT CODE.
SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT, WHAT WE HAVE POSTED IN OUR BACKUP WOULD BE THE BASE CHAIR.
AND IF WE'RE IN DEAD AIR, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, I'M CHANGING MY WORK GROUP.
VOTE ON NINE SINCE IT'S JUST CORNER LOTS.
IF THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S GIVEN YOU PROBLEMS, I'M CHANGING.
I WAS LOOKING AT THE WRONG TABLE THAT HAD THE THREE VOTES ON IT, SO NO, NO WORRIES.
I'M, I'M CHANGING MINE ON NINE.
'CAUSE IT'S JUST THE CORNER LOT.
SO THE, I'M JUST LOOKING FOR A, UM, CLEAR.
PEOPLE WANTED TO KNOW THAT, WHERE THEY CAN STATE THEIR OBJECTION TO.
CAN I LAY OUT, SO JUST A REMINDER, AND I MADE A MISTAKE, SO I'M SORRY FOR CONFUSING EVERYBODY.
THE WAY THE MOTIONS WORK IS THEY'RE NESTED MOTIONS.
WE HAVE A BASE MOTION THAT IS ESSENTIALLY MOVING FORWARD WITH WHAT IS IN OUR BACKUP.
AND THEN WE HAVE THE ABILITY, SO THAT MOTION IS JUST MADE, WE DO NOT VOTE ON IT.
WE HAVE OPENED UP THE BASE MOTION, THEN WE WILL GO THROUGH THE FULL LIST OF LIST OF AMENDMENTS, CONSENT, WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION, WORKING GROUP, INDIVIDUAL.
OTHERWISE, ONCE WE HAVE VOTED ON EACH AND EVERY AMENDMENT, THEN WE TAKE A VOTE ON THE BASE AS AMENDED.
SO AT THIS POINT, I'M JUST MAKING A MOTION SO THAT I CAN START MY AMENDMENT PROCESS CHAIR.
SO MY MOTION IS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE BASE, UM, THAT STAFF HAS PRESENTED IN OUR BACKUP.
AND SO I STILL, I'M TRYING TO GIVE GUIDANCE TO THE COMMISSIONERS HERE.
IT WOULD BE AT THE END THAT THEY WOULD STATE THEIR OBJECTION TO AN ITEM, DO THE, TO A PARTICULAR CONSENT ITEM.
'CAUSE THERE'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.
SOME FOLKS WANT, THEY WANNA MOVE IT ON, BUT THEY WANNA STATE THEIR OBJECTION TO
[05:05:01]
MR. RIVERA, PLEASE.OH, SO ESSENTIALLY, OKAY, SO I'M GONNA GO, OKAY, LET ME, IF IT HELPS MOVE THINGS ALONG, I JUST WANNA VOTE AGAINST NUMBER NINE SO I COULD JUST PULL IT AND THEN VOTE AGAINST IT.
SO CHAIR, LET ME JUST CLARIFY AGAIN, I DON'T WANNA CONFUSE YOU AGAIN.
PLEASE LET ME MAKE THE BASE MOTION.
AND I NEED SOMEONE TO SECOND IT THEN LET'S GET TO THE AMENDMENTS, RIGHT? SO MY BASE MOTION IS I MOVE TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL AMENDS, CITY CODE TITLE 25 TO ACCOMPLISH THE CHANGES DESCRIBED IN THE DRAFT DOCUMENTS PROVIDED FOR THIS MEETING, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR HEMPEL.
WE WOULD TAKE A VOTE ON THIS WHEN WE'RE DONE SOMETIME TOMORROW EVENING.
UM, SO THIS THEN LEADS TO THE FIRST SET OF AMENDMENTS, WHICH IS THE CONSENT AMENDMENTS.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS REFERRING TO THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS TABLE POSTED IN OUR BACKUP FROM THAT, WE'RE MOVING AHEAD WITH ITEMS 7 8 9 11 13 15 16.
AT THIS POINT, WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THESE AND THEN TAKE A VOTE, AT WHICH POINT ANYBODY WOULD TELL US IF THEY'RE VOTING NO OR ABSTAINING ON ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS. SO DISCUSSION CHAIR, YOU CAN OPEN IT UP.
3, 4, 3 AGAINST, YEAH, THIS IS BASICALLY, YOU'VE HAD THE MOTION A SECOND.
SO WE HAVE 3, 4, 3 AGAINST, IF WE NEED TO USE THAT TIME, UH, TO, TO DEBATE THE, UH, DISCUSS THE, UH, CONSENT AGENDA OR WE CAN MOVE ON.
SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON, EXCEPT IF SOMEBODY HAS A NO OR AN ABSTENTION, THIS IS THE TIME FOR Y'ALL TO DO IT.
OTHERWISE, WE ARE VOTING ON THESE AND MOVING FORWARD THAT I'M A NO ON NINE.
DO WE HAVE OTHER NOSS OR ABSTENTIONS AT THIS TIME ON ANY OF THESE AMENDMENTS? 7, 8, 9 11, 13, 15.
AND COMMISSIONER COX, YOU WERE NO ON NINE AS WELL.
SO CHAIR, MY, YOU CAN OF COURSE TAKE THE FINAL VOTE, BUT YOU CAN GO AHEAD.
AND MY TALLY AT THIS POINT IS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS AMENDING AND ADDING IN 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, AND 16 UNANIMOUSLY.
AND NINE IS PASSED ON A VOTE WITH TWO NOS, NO ABSTENTIONS AND ALL ELSE IN FAVOR.
RIGHT? BUT MR. RIVERA, DO YOU WANNA CLARIFY ANYTHING THERE? I THINK WE CAN MOVE.
WE'RE WE'RE, OUR VOTE HAS BEEN TAKEN, SO, OKAY.
THESE ARE NOW IN, IN ADDED INTO THE BASE.
SO NOW THAT TAKES US TO NUMBER ONE OF THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
SO THIS, IF WE CAN, I WANNA TAKE BACK MY NOTE ON NINE AND VOTE IN FAVOR OF NINE.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS IS VOTING IN FAVOR OF NINE.
UM, AND SO GIVE ME THIS MOMENT TO GO OVER THE PROCESS HERE, UH, JUST BEFORE WE DIVE IN.
SO WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE DISCUSSION ITEMS, CORRECT? UH, COMMISSIONER AZAR? UM, YES, THAT IS CORRECT, CHAIR.
SO WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN, UH, BY THE RULES IS, UM, WE'RE GOING TO GO OVER EACH ONE OF THESE COMMISSIONERS ARE ALLOWED FOUR COMMISSIONERS, TWO MINUTES.
WE DON'T HAVE TO USE IT ALL TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF, SPEAKERS OR OTHER COMMISSIONERS ON THE WORKING GROUP OR ANYONE ON, ON THE DIOCESE OR VIRTUALLY.
UH, SO FOUR FOR TWO MINUTES, AND THEN WE WILL MOVE TO, UH, LOOK AT A MOTION AT THAT POINT.
BUT IT DOES GIVE YOU ADDITIONAL TIME TO GET CLAR MORE CLARIFICATION OR ASK STAFF ABOUT THESE.
SO FOUR AT TWO MINUTES ON EACH ONE.
SO WE'LL START WITH THE FIRST ONE.
IF WE CAN PULL UP THE SPREADSHEET AGAIN.
THIS IS GOING TO NUMBER ONE, WHICH WAS BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
UM, THIS WAS, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NEEDS MORE TIME WITH THE EXTENDED MEETING ON NOVEMBER 14TH, THE COMMISSION MAY SELECT TO CONTINUE ON NOVEMBER 28TH.
AND I HAVE WITHDRAWN THIS CHAIR.
I'LL, I'LL TAKE IT VERSE SINCE IT'S MINE, IF IT'S ALL RIGHT.
WELL, UH, YES, IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR AMENDMENT.
OH, I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST, UH, OH.
I THOUGHT IT WAS FOREIGN AGAINST.
UM, SO JUST TO CLARIFY, WE ARE ALLOWING QUESTIONS ON EACH AMENDMENT FIRST WITH FOUR FOLKS BEING ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS TO, FOR, TO AGAINST, AND THEN WE GO TO SOMEBODY TAKING THAT AMENDMENT, MAKING THE MOTION, SPEAKING FOREIGN AGAINST AND VOTING ON IT.
SO THIS IS TO DIVE IN, TO GET, MAKE SURE YOU'RE CLEAR OF IT AND IF NO ONE HAS QUESTIONS, I POLL IT.
SO RIGHTFULLY IT WOULD BE, I WOULD BE THE FIRST QUESTION CHAIR.
[05:10:02]
I SUPPORT THIS, BUT I'M, I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE ACTUAL APPLICATION OF IT.IS THIS JUST SIMPLY ALLOWING US TO REVISIT THIS ON NOVEMBER 28TH IF WE AGREE AT A FUTURE TIME? OR IS THIS POSTPONING FINAL CONSIDERATION UNTIL THE 28TH? MY MR. CHAIRMAN, MY, MY INTENT FOR PUTTING THIS FORWARD IS TO, UM, KEEP THE, THE SPIRIT, IF YOU WILL.
I, I WANT THIS COMMISSION TO WORK WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED TONIGHT AND TOMORROW, BUT AT SOME POINT TOMORROW AND, AND I WILL PROBABLY MAKE A, MAKE AN AMENDED MOTION HERE AT SOME POINT TOMORROW.
UH, WE DO A DISSERVICE TO THIS COMMISSION, THE COUNCIL AND THIS CITY, IF WE TRY TO VOTE AT 1131, IF, IF IT GETS TO THAT POINT TOMORROW AND IT'S 1131 AND WE ARE TRYING TO VOTE A FINAL PRODUCT OUT, I WILL VOTE AGAINST THE WHOLE THING BECAUSE WE ARE NOT UPHOLDING OUR, OUR TRUST TO THE, TO THE CITIZENS.
SO SHOULD WE REVISIT THIS, THIS TOMORROW? THAT'S FINE WITH ME.
UM, BECAUSE HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE VOTE ON THIS NOW IF WE DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE AT TOMORROW? SO MR. RIVERA, ANY COMMISSIONER TOMORROW COULD BRING UP A MOTION TO POSTPONE THE MEETING IF WE'RE BACK HERE TOMORROW? CORRECT.
CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LAY THAT, THAT IS CORRECT.
SO YOU COULD JUST TABLE THIS ITEM? YES.
SO IT COULD BE TABLED AND WE COULD TAKE THIS UP TOMORROW.
UM, THIS TAKES US TO ITEM NUMBER TWO, AND I'M LOOKING AT THE TIME AND I'M TEMPTED TO ACTUALLY EXTEND IT, BUT WE'LL SEE HOW WE GET THROUGH THIS.
SO WE HAVE A FLOOR AREA RATIO CAP PER DEVELOPMENT REMINDER.
THIS IS NOT PER UNIT, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY RELATED TO, UM, JUST THE, UM, THE BIRD DEVELOPMENT.
AND RIGHT NOW AS DRAFTED IT'S 0.55 FOR TWO UNITS OR 3,200 SQUARE FOOT WITH GROSS FLOOR AREAS DEFINED IN 25 DASH ONE DASH 21 OR IT FOR THREE UNITS, IT IS 0.65 OR 3,750 SQUARE FOOT OF GROSS FLOOR AREAS DEFINED IN 25 DASH ONE DASH 21 WITHIN SUBCHAPTER F.
AND THEN OUTSIDE OF SUBCHAPTER F, WE WOULD NOT BE PUTTING ON ANY FAR LIMITS AT THIS TIME.
WE'RE QUESTION? YES, QUESTION.
UM, JUST REALLY SIMPLY, IS THIS ONE AND I GUESS THREE A, IS THIS AN ATTEMPT TO MITIGATE MAXIMUM SIZE OF UNITS BEING BUILT HERE? THAT IS TRUE.
SO ESSENTIALLY THESE WERE MEANT TO LIMIT THE SIZE OF THE UNITS.
WE HEARD THAT BOTH IN THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT FROM FEEDBACK FROM STAFF AND FROM STAKEHOLDERS.
SO WE ARE LIMITING THE SIZE OF UNITS THAT YOU CAN HAVE IN A DEVELOPMENT AND IT'S GRADUATED FAR, UH, BASED ON WHETHER IT'S TWO UNITS OR THREE UNITS.
UH, QUESTION FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM.
IN THE LAST MEETING WE HAD WITH Y'ALL DISCUSSING THE GRADUATED FAR FOR PARTICULARLY TWO AND THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, THERE WAS KIND OF SOME HESITATION ABOUT PARTICULARLY THE 0.65.
UM, AND SO I'M CURIOUS IF, IF Y'ALL WOULD LIKE TO ELABORATE ON THAT BECAUSE I THINK YOU WERE EXPLAINING TO THE WORKING GROUP AND THEN WE HAD SOME COMPLICATIONS WITH THE MEETING.
UM, THAT TWO UNIT DEVELOPMENTS REALLY DON'T GET UP TO 0.5 ON AVERAGE.
AND SO THE 0.65 FOR THREE UNITS SEEMED TO BE POTENTIALLY EXCESSIVE.
THAT WAS MY INTERPRETATION OF STAFF'S FEEDBACK IN THE LAST WORKING GROUP MEETING.
AND, AND, AND IN GENERAL, JUST KIND OF UNDERSTANDING HOW THESE COMPARE TO WHAT WE GET NOW, PARTICULARLY IN TWO, TWO UNIT DEVELOPMENTS.
LINDY GARWOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
UM, SO UNDER TODAY'S CODE, SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY TYPICALLY ARE CALCULATE OR THERE'S CURRENTLY CALCULATED UNDER SUB CHAPTER F, BUT WE'VE DONE STUDIES TO SEE HOW THEY'RE CALCULATED UNDER 25 1.
AND THE DIFFERENCE IS NEGLIGIBLE IN SINGLE FAMILY AND IN TWO FAMILY.
THE, UM, DIFFERENTIATION, UM, IS ON AVERAGE
[05:15:01]
ABOUT, UH, 0.03UM, BUT, UM, FOR, BUT IT CAN GET UP TO 0.5, SO IT'D BE POINT, IT'S 0.4 UNDER MCMANSION, BUT 0.45 UNDER 25 1, UM, OR 0.43 ON AVERAGE.
UM, IT CAN GO HIGHER THAN THAT.
IT'S PARTICULARLY IN, UH, TWO FAMILY WHERE THEY'RE MORE APTT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE, UM, AT EXEMPTION.
BUT, UM, THE, THEY, THE CHANGES BETWEEN THE TWO REGULATIONS IS FAIRLY NEGLIGIBLE IN THAT, UM, IN THAT THE EXEMPTIONS THAT ARE ALLOWED IN EACH, IN EACH CALCULATION FAIRLY OFFSET EACH OTHER.
MS. CARWOOD, I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM, WAS STAFF'S CONCERNED WITH THE 0.65 FOR THREE UNITS? I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A PARTICULAR CONCERN WITH THE THREE UNIT 0.65.
IT'S UM, IN GENERAL, WE JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE DIFFERENTIATION IS MINIMAL BETWEEN THE TWO CALCULATIONS AND THAT THERE'S PROS AND CONS TO, YOU KNOW, ALLOWING MORE.
AND I'M NOT ASKING FOR WHAT DEFINITION WE USE.
SO THE OTHER QUESTION IS THE POINT, BUT IS DO YOU HAVE A CONCERN WITH THE 0.55 FOR TWO UNITS REGARDLESS OF WHAT DEFINITION WE USE? LET'S PUT THE DEFINITION ASIDE FOR A SECOND, UNLESS YOU TELL ME THAT THE DEFINITION CHANGES, THE, WHAT YOUR CONCERN IS, IS YOUR CONCERN WITH THE 0.65 FOR THREE UNITS OR THE 0.55 FOR TWO UNITS? SO AGAIN, I, IT'S, IT'S A POLICY QUESTION.
IF THE IN THE ALLOWING A REDUCED FAR, UM, WOULD INCENTIVIZE SMALLER UNITS AND, UM, BE MORE IN LINE WITH CURRENT CODE STANDARDS, PARTICULARLY FOR TWO FAMILY.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, ALLOWING A LARGER FAR INCENTIVIZES, UM, MORE FAMILY FRIENDLY, MORE FAMILY FRIENDLY PRODUCT AS WELL AS IT GIVES MORE, UM, FLEXIBILITY.
MR. LLOYD, DO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE AT THIS POINT? I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
IS THE CONCERN THE 0.55 FOR TWO UNITS OR THE 0.65 FOR TWO UNITS? I THINK WE CAN WORK WITH ALL OF THOSE FAR NUMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN STATED FOR THIS AMENDMENT.
AND I THINK THE NEED FOR THE PRACTICAL NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FAR IS MOST CLEARLY EVIDENT WITH THREE UNITS, WHICH ISUE DEVELOPMENT TYPOLOGY.
AND I THINK SOME OF THE DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING THAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER WAS SIMPLY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE AMENDMENTS AND, AND THESE AMENDMENTS ARE VERY WELL PUT TOGETHER, ESPECIALLY IN TANDEM WITH THE CHART.
BUT AS I THINK SEVERAL OF YOU HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY ARE, IT'S COMPLICATED AND SO WE WANTED TO WORK THROUGH IT, BUT WE CAN OPERATIONALLY, I THINK WORK WITH ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
AND, AND JUST TO EMPHASIZE ONE POINT THAT I THINK LINDY MADE VERY WELL IS THAT THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS OF CALCULATING FAR AND UNDER SUBCHAPTER F, WHICH WE AFFECTIONATELY CALL MCMANSION, THERE ARE A LOT OF DETAILED EXEMPTIONS.
AND THIS, UH, THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD TAKE US AWAY FROM SUBCHAPTER F TO A MUCH SIMPLER STREAMLINED METHOD OF CALCULATING.
AND THE POINT THAT LINDY MADE IS THAT THERE'S NOT A BIG DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE ON THE GROUND.
WE HAVE ONE MORE SLOT FOR TO KIND OF, SO PEOPLE ARE CLEAR ON THIS ONE, LOOKING AT THE VIRTUALLY DON'T WANNA FORGET YOU GUYS.
YOU GUYS GOT REALLY SMALL
SO, UM, WELL I'M GONNA JUST REAL QUICK AND I DON'T WANNA BELABOR IT, BUT THERE'S A NOTE ON THE BOTTOM, NO CHANGE, IT'S RECOMMENDED FOR DEVELOPERS OUTSIDE THE SUB-CHAPTER F BOUNDARY.
WHY WOULD THAT BE IMPORTANT STAFF? CAN YOU ANSWER THAT? UM, IF YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS ITEM.
SO, UH, BRENT LLOYD, DSD DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS.
SO CURRENTLY TODAY, UM, FOR RESIDENTIAL FAR ONLY APPLIES WITHIN THE SUBCHAPTER F BOUNDARY.
IT IS, IT IS SOLELY A CREATURE OF THE MCMANSION ORDINANCE.
AND SO WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING AS PART OF THIS AMENDMENT WOULD NOT, UM, THE INTENT WOULD BE NOT TO START APPLYING FAR IN AREAS OF THE CITY WHERE IT CURRENTLY DOESN'T APPLY.
SO IT WOULD RESTRICT IT TO THE SUBCHAPTER F BOUNDARY.
UM, AND WE CAN I GUESS MOVE ON, UM, TO A MOTION.
AND MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR THOSE OF US THAT AREN'T SMART ENOUGH, THE, THE, THE BOUNDARY FOR SUBCHAPTER F IS BASICALLY 360 RESEARCH OVER TO ED BLUESTEIN AND DOWN TO BEN WHITE
[05:20:03]
CLOSE.AND SO AT THIS POINT WE'RE LOOKING AT A MOTION, AND AGAIN, THIS DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE WORKING GROUP ITEM, IF THERE'S SOMETHING YOU WANNA PROPOSE AS A MOTION, BUT THAT'S TYPICALLY WHERE WE START.
AND THEN WE CAN DO AMENDMENTS OR SUBSTITUTIONS CHAIR FOR FURTHER CHAIR FOR FURTHERING THE CONVERSATION FORWARD, I MOVE AHEAD WITH THE AMENDMENT AS DRAFTED AND VOTED ON BY THE WORKING GROUP.
OKAY, WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY.
UM, AND, UH, WE CAN GO INTO FOR AND AGAINST, CAN I MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION? MM-HMM.
SO KNOCKING THOSE TWO DOWN BY 0.05 FAR AND MY TIME IS DONE.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THE SUBSTITUTE? UH, COMMISSIONER, I'M, WHO RAISED THEIR HAND FIRST? I SAW COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
UH, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION JUST REAL QUICK? AND THIS IS GONNA RELATE TO A MOTION THAT I PLAN TO MAKE FOR THREE B, BUT WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM MULTIPLE PEOPLE IS WHEN THEY SAW THE FAR NUMBERS FOR TWO AND THREE UNITS, THEIR EYES WENT, OH, Y'ALL WENT THAT FAR.
AND I DON'T THINK WE AS THE WORKING GROUP OR THIS PLANNING COMMISSION RIGHT HERE HAD THE LUXURY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT MODELING HAS BEEN DONE OR IS IN THE WORKS TO REPRESENT WHAT 0.55 AND 0.65 ACTUALLY IN THE REAL WORLD LOOK LIKE.
WE KIND OF WERE JUST WORKING OFF OF A BASIC TABLE THAT A I A PRODUCED WITH MULTIPLE OPTIONS, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, AND SO ON.
AND, AND THE FEEDBACK THAT I'M GETTING AND, AND BASED ON DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF, THEY EVEN INDICATED THAT, THAT THE TWO UNIT DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE SEE, UH, DON'T REALLY GET TO THAT LEVEL.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF DATA POINTS FOR THREE UNIT, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE JUST GOING A LITTLE BIT TOO FAR WITH THIS.
WHICH IS WHY I'D LIKE TO PULL IT BACK.
I GUESS I JUST WANT TO, UM, MAKE AN OFFER HERE.
I CAN'T SUBSTITUTE, BUT THE OFFER IS THE CONTEXT OF THE NEXT ONE.
UM, WOULD THE MOTION MAKERS, UH, BE OPEN TO DISCUSSING THE NEXT ONE AND THEN GOING BACK TO YOUR SUBSTITUTE MOTION SO WE SEE THOSE TWO TOGETHER? YEAH, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO TAKE 'EM UP TOGETHER IF WE CAN.
SO WE WILL, UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND WE'LL TABLE THAT, MOVE TO THE SECOND ONE AND WE'LL COME BACK TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION AND SHARE.
THAT WOULD REQUIRE ME TO TABLE, UM, THE BASE MOTION AS WELL.
SO I'M TABLING THAT AT THIS TIME AS WELL.
I'M NOT SURE
SO THAT HAS TO BE TABLED AS WELL.
WE'VE TABLED TWO MOTIONS AND NOW WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT DISCUSSION JUST FOR I HAVE TWO.
I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHAT YOU JUST, OKAY.
SO, UM, LET'S GO TO THE NEXT ONE.
I THINK WE NEED TO EXTEND TIME.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO 1:00 AM OKAY, SECOND THAT SECOND.
ANY OBJECTIONS YOU GONNA STATE COMMISSIONER PHIL PHILLIPS, COMMISSIONER MELLO OBJECT.
UM, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO, UM, THE NEXT ONE CHAIR.
COULD, COULD I ASK, UM, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD CONFIRM WHETHER THEY INTEND FOR GARAGES TO COUNT TOWARDS FAR AS PART OF THIS? WE WILL BE GETTING TO THAT LATER.
AND AS RIGHT NOW IT'S ESSENTIALLY EXACTLY WHAT IS IN THE CODE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE NOTES DOCUMENT, IT SAYS, EXCLUDING ATRIA AIRSPACE, PARKING FACILITIES, DRIVEWAYS, AND ENCLOSED LOADING BIRDS AND OFF STREET MANEUVERING AREAS.
AND THERE WILL BE ANOTHER AMENDMENT FROM MY INDIVIDUAL TO REALLY CLARIFY THAT AS WELL.
OKAY, SO THE NEXT ONE IS WE'RE OPENING UP THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE.
SO FORWARD IT TO QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS.
SO THIS IS, AGAIN, THIS IS LOOKING AT THREE B, THE OPTION THAT WE DID IN A PASSING,
[05:25:01]
WHICH IS SETTING PER UNIT FAR CAPS WITH 0.41 OR 2300 SQUARE FOOT FOR ONE UNIT WITHIN A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT ONLY 0.5 OR 3,200 SQUARE FOOT WITHIN FOR TWO UNITS WITHIN A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT.AND THEN FOR THREE UNITS, IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY GO TO WHATEVER WE END UP DECIDING FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO.
AND COULD STAFF PULL UP THAT TABLE ONE MORE TIME? THE TABLE, UM, SHOWS NOT THE AMENDMENTS, THE, UH, THE TWO OPTIONS ON THE, UH, FAR THE FAR TABLES.
AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
OKAY, SO FIRST QUESTION OF STAFF.
UH, I, I'M TRYING TO GENERALLY UNDERSTAND HERE, UM, SO I CAN MAKE MY SUBSTITUTE MOTIONS, BUT THE IDEA IS THAT IF, IF THE PER UNIT AND PER SITE FAR WOULD TO GO DOWN EVEN A LITTLE BIT, THE LIKELY RESULT IS THAT WE WOULD END UP WITH SMALLER UNITS.
HE'S, UH, FOR EITHER ARB THREE A OR B, THE, THERE'S A MENTION OF AN EXCEPTION FOR, UH, ANY DEVELOPMENT ALREADY ON THE PROPERTY.
THIS, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE AMBIGUITIES THAT I WAS REFERRING TO.
IS THERE ANY WAY WE COULD, UH, CLARIFY EXACTLY WHAT THAT EXCEPTION WOULD BE? WOULD IT BE LIKE NO FAR? THE CLARIFICATION IS ESSENTIALLY TO SAY THAT FOR, UM, SO IF YOU, BECAUSE FOR IF WE DO A PRESERVATION BONUS OR OTHERWISE, IF YOU KEEP THE PRIMARY HOUSE AS IT IS TODAY AND YOU GO ABOVE IT UNDER SUB CHAPTER F, YOU MIGHT HAVE ACTUALLY BUILT A UNITS THAT SAID 0.4 5.5 0.55.
SO WOULD THAT MEAN THAT THAT BECOMES LEGALLY NON-COMPLIANT? WE'RE SAYING NO.
SO IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING UNIT THERE TODAY AND YOU WISH TO ADD TWO AND THREE THESE FAR LIMIT SUPPLY, IF YOU'RE STARTING FROM SCRATCH, BUT YOUR ORIGINAL UNIT DOES NOT BECOME NON-COMPLIANT, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOUR OVERALL FAR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT GOES UP.
IT STAYS UNLESS USER PRESERVATION BONUS, IT WOULD REMAIN AS IS.
BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY IS FOR EXISTING HOMES TODAY, THEY DO NOT BECOME LEGALLY NON-COMPLIANT.
JUST BECAUSE WE WROTE IT IN, WOULD, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO INCLUDING THAT IN THE AMENDMENT? SO IT'S LIKE PART OF THE, THE, UH, AMENDMENT ITSELF? I, I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE AMENDMENT RIGHT NOW.
SO THIS ENTIRE THING IS THE AMENDMENT, BUT IT SIMPLY SAYS EXCEPTION, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT THE EXCEPTION IS OTHER THAN, SO IT'S NO FAR THE NO, IT DOESN'T COUNT.
SO, OKAY, LET ME READ IT AND LET'S SEE IF THAT MAKES CLARITY.
BUT I CAN ADD IN LANGUAGE IF THAT WILL CLARIFY.
SO YOU CAN LET US KNOW WHAT YOU WOULD WISH THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED FOR ONE UNIT ON A PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS ORDINANCE IS LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF 0.4 FAR, OR 2300 SQUARE FOOT OF GROSS FLOOR AREA AS DEFINED IN 25 DASH ONE DASH 21 FOR TWO UNIT AND THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF QUALIFIERS HERE, FOLLOW ALONG WITH AN EXCEPTION FOR AN EXISTING UNIT ON THE SITE THAT WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT, EXCEPTION FOUR EXISTING UNIT ON THE SITE THAT WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT.
FOR 0.4, IF THERE'S OTHER LANGUAGE THAT YOU WOULD WISH TO, UM, BRING IN, I THINK WE CAN ADD THAT IN.
SO A SECOND QUESTION, QUESTION CHAIR, WHILE THEY'RE CLARIFYING, UM, I'LL GIVE 'EM A MINUTE TO KIND OF THINK THROUGH IT, MAKE SURE THEY HAVE IT WHERE THEY WANT IT.
UM, IS THE INTENT TO PUSH THIS THROUGH TO WHATEVER HOUR IT TAKES TONIGHT OR WE INTENDING TO TAKE THINGS UP AGAIN TOMORROW AT FIVE 30? UM, ANYONE CAN, I GUESS WE'VE EXTENDED TO WHAT TIME SO FAR TO ONE EXTENDED TO WHAT? RIGHT NOW WE'RE GOING TO ONE.
UH, SO, UM, SO ARE WE CL SO WE'VE PULLED, I ASKED THE TABLE THIS AND I GUESS IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO ASK ME A QUESTION SO I CAN CLARIFY, UH, ABOUT THE SECOND TIER CHAIR, I'LL ASK A QUESTION OF YOU OF THE SECOND TIER AND THEN I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO GO TO COMMISSIONER COHEN AS WELL.
SO, UM, THE POINT, IF YOU ALL, THERE IS A CONCERN ABOUT, I GUESS COMMISSIONER COX ABOUT THE KIND OF CALIBRATION IN THE LOT SIZE.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE DONE, UM, THE 0.55 AND THE 0.65,
[05:30:01]
UH, THAT'S ON THE SITE AS A WHOLE, UH, BUT THEN WE HAD A LIMITER ON THE SINGLE LARGEST UNIT, WHICH IS 0.4.SO NO UNIT ON THAT SITE, WHETHER IT'S A, ON A TWO UNIT DEVELOPMENT OR THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENT CAN BE OVER 0.4 FAR.
AND THEN IF YOU HAVE A THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
THE OTHER THING WE DID, AND I WANNA CREDIT, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, UM, WE HAVE ON ANY TWO UNITS, YOU CAN'T EXCEED 0.5.
SO THAT ALSO KIND OF CONSTRAINS THE SIZE OF THESE UNITS ON A THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
SO WE GET LESS COSTLY CON, YOU KNOW, BUILD OUT, YOU AVOID THE ONE LARGE UNIT WITH TWO SUPER TINY UNITS.
SO THAT ELEMENT OF THE SECOND TIER 0.5 ALSO KIND OF GIVES US A BETTER DISTRIBUTION, SMALLER UNITS, AND THUS WE THINK LESS COSTLY.
SO THE GOAL WAS TO TRY TO KEEP THE THERE FROM BEING ONE HUGE UNIT AND THEN TWO TINY UNITS AND BRING THE DISTRIBUTION CLOSER TOGETHER.
UH, I UNDERSTOOD THAT COMPLETELY.
THESE ARE GREAT AMENDMENTS AND I'M LOOKING AT YOU, BUT I'M TALKING TO EVERYONE.
ALL RIGHT, SO THAT ANSWERS THAT QUESTION.
SO, UM, WITHIN MY REMAINING TIME, COMMISSIONER COHEN, DID YOU NEED ANY OTHER CLARIFICATION OR DID YOU HAVE ANY CONCERN THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT? UM, ONLY THAT IF I, I THINK MAYBE IF YOU ADDED LIKE THE NO FAR RURAL TO THAT, UH, EXISTING UNIT, IT, IT MIGHT KEEP STAFF FROM HAVING TO MAKE GUESSES.
WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT THAT GETS ADDED IN SOMEWHERE AS AN AMENDMENT.
AND I THINK, DID WE USE UP OUR QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER HEMPEL? DO WE HAVE ONE MORE? WE HAVE ONE MORE SLOT FOR OUTTA THE FOUR OF THE TWO MINUTES.
THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST COMPLICATED THING WE DID WHILE WE WERE GETTING TOGETHER.
SO THIS IS IMPORTANT AND KEEP THINK OF IT IN CONTEXT OF THE SUBSTITUTION MOTION, UH, THAT COMMISSIONER COX LAID OUT EARLIER.
SO I HAVE A CLARIFICATION QUESTION, AND I'M NOT SURE IT'S FOR THE MOTION MAKERS OR FOR STAFF, BUT JUST DOESN'T MATTER.
DO WE THINK THAT THE, UM, ITEM TWO AND THREE DO HAVE TO BE COMPLETELY CONSISTENT BECAUSE OUR FIRST GROUP OF AMENDMENTS, THEY WERE NOT, AND DO WE HAVE AN OPINION ON THAT? AND MAYBE THAT IS A STAFF QUESTION.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO THE POOR, WE COULD CHOOSE DIFFERENT NOTE, DIFFERENT, UM, DIFFERENT INCREMENTS FOR THE PER UNIT OR PER DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS WHAT AMENDMENT TWO DEALS WITH VERSUS THE DIFFERENT, A DIFFERENT SET OF NUMBERS FOR WHATEVER VERSION OF THREE WE END UP WITH.
THOSE DON'T HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT JUST TO MAKE THAT CLEAR TO EVERYBODY.
YEAH, YOU WE CAN CALIBRATE THIS HOWEVER WE WANT.
SO, SO I JUST, I I THINK, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MATCH BETWEEN TWO AND THREE.
WE CAN USE TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF NUMBERS.
EXCEPT THOSE NUMBERS WE GOT ARE PERFECT, BUT
YEAH, AND I GUESS CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR ME, IF THAT'S OKAY, HERE'S OH, THANK, GO AHEAD.
SO I, I I'M NOT CLEAR WHY WE NEED BOTH OF THEM.
SO TWO IS LOOKING AT YOUR BIRD DEVELOPMENT FAR CAPS.
SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY HOW BIG YOUR ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT CAN BE.
AND WE WERE CONCERNED WE DON'T WANT GIANT THREE UNITS OR GIANT TWO UNITS, AND THEN THREE ESSENTIALLY LOOKS AT YOUR PER UNIT CAP.
SO WHAT WE ALSO DIDN'T WANT IS THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED UP TO THREE AND YOU DO ONE GIANT UNIT AND TWO MICRO UNITS AND YOU MEET YOUR REQUIREMENT.
SO WE'RE ALSO MANAGING THAT WITHIN A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
YOUR PER UNIT SIZE IS ALSO GRADUATED AND NOT VERY EXTREMELY DISPARATE.
YEAH, AND, AND A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THE TABLE IN, IN DARK BLUE, WELL BOTH THESE, BUT THE TABLE IN DARK BLUE SAYS WORKING GRID AMENDMENT THREE THREE B, BUT IT ALSO ILLUSTRATES THE AMENDMENT TWO AS WELL ON A PER SITE BASIS, WHICH IS WHAT TWO WAS.
SO TECHNICALLY THE TABLES COVER BOTH TWO AND THREE B AND MR. CHAIRMAN, SINCE YOU SAID THAT I WAS THE, I DON'T KNOW IF THE BRAINCHILD OR PROBABLY THE BRAIN OLD GUY, UH, OF THIS, OF THIS IDEA.
UM, COMMISSIONERS JUST TELL YOU WHERE I, WHERE I WAS TRYING TO COME FROM IS, YOU KNOW, THE OLD I, I GUESS EINSTEIN OR WHOEVER, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DO THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND EXPECT DIFFERENT RESULTS, THAT'S INSANITY.
AND UH, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT FOUR OR FIVE AND FIVE FIVE IN THE BASICALLY THE SUB-CHAPTER F BOUNDARY.
AND RATHER THAN STAYING AT THOSE IT, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE GETTING OBVIOUSLY IS FRUSTRATING EVERYBODY AND WE'RE NOT GETTING THE MIDDLE HOUSING AND WE'RE NOT GETTING THE PRODUCTS WE WANT.
[05:35:01]
DOWN BY 0.5 ON THE, TO GO TO 0.40 AND POINT, UH, 0.50.AND WHY I'M PROJECTING, I'M THINKING STRONGLY ABOUT COMMISSIONER, UM, UH, COX'S AMENDMENT ON THE 0.5 AND 0.65.
IF WE CONTINUE TO DO THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND OVER, WE'RE GONNA GET THE SAME PRODUCT WE GOT TODAY AND THAT'S NOT GETTING US THE HOUSING WE WANT.
SO, UM, HELP FROM THE PARLIAMENTARIAN HERE.
I ASKED TO TABLE THE, WHERE WE WERE ON THE FIRST ONE.
UH, WE'VE DISCUSSED THE SECOND ONE.
UM, SO WE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO TAKE THESE UP TOGETHER AT THIS POINT, OR DO WE'D HAVE TO RESCIND THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
MR. VERA, LOOK AT YOU SINCE WE HAD, UM, WE, WE WOULD HAVE TO RESCIND THE, YES, WE WOULD HAVE TO RESCIND THE ORIGINAL MOTION AND THE SUBSTITUTE TO IT.
UM, BUT IT WOULD STILL, YOU CAN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PACKAGE IT ALL AT ONCE.
I'M LOOKING AT COMMISSIONER COX.
UM, OR DO YOU WANNA JUST VOTE ON, GO AHEAD AND CLEAR OUT ITEM TWO, WHICH I THINK WE CAN DO IT THIS TIME? WELL, I, I, MY GOAL IS TO ALLOW EVERYONE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON AN OPTION WHERE ESSENTIALLY ALL OF THE PER SITE AND PER UNIT FAR ARE LOWER BY 0.05.
AND, AND WHEN I MAKE THAT MOTION, I CAN SPEAK TO IT.
UM, COMMISSIONER COX, WOULD YOU RESCIND YOUR SUBSTITUTE TO MY MOTION? I WILL RESCIND AND I RESCIND MY BASE MOTION.
SO NOW YOU'RE WELCOME TO CREATE A NEW BASE MOTION.
UM, SO I, I MAKE A MOTION ON BOTH TWO AND THREE B.
OKAY, SO IT'S UP TO YOU YOUR CHOICE.
OKAY, SO, SO MY MOTION ON TWO IS WHAT I SAID.
THOSE, THOSE FAR NUMBERS PER SITE DROP BY 0.05 ON ON THE FAR AND THEN FOR THREE B, THE PER UNIT AND ANY TWO UNIT IN A THREE UNIT SCENARIO, FAR CAP DROPS BY 0.05 FROM WHAT WE HAVE IN THREE B.
SO ESSENTIALLY ONE UNIT PER SITE PER UNIT 0.4 FAR FOR A TWO UNIT SCENARIO PER SITE, IT'S 0.5 AND PER UNIT IN A TWO UNIT SCENARIO IS 0.35 AND THEN A THREE UNIT SCENARIO, IT'S PER SITE 0.6, ANY SINGLE UNIT IS 0.35 AND ANY TWO UNITS CANNOT EXCEED 0.45.
CAN I ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION? AND YOU WOULD ALSO BE CHANGING WITHIN YOUR OPTION OF THE THREE, YOU'LL BE CHANGING THE 0.65 IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH TO 0.6 AS WELL, OR YOU CAN STRIKE IT EITHER WAY.
IT'S THE SAME IMPACT, BUT YOU, YOU SHOULD CLARIFY THAT.
ALRIGHT, SO WE HAVE THE MOTION, WE HAVE A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES SECOND SET.
SO JUST FOR CONSISTENCY, THE SQUARE FEET HAVE TO ALIGN WITH THAT.
SO THE SQUARE FEET WERE CALCULATED BASED ON, SO I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE FORMULA WAS AND THEN MAYBE WE JUST STATE IT AND THEN LATER ON WE CAN CLARIFY TO STAFF WHAT IT WOULD BE.
BUT ESSENTIALLY IT'S WHATEVER WE DECIDE IN FAR FOR A 5,750 SQUARE FOOT LOT ROUNDED UP, ROUNDED UP TO THE NEAREST 50.
THAT'S THE WHAT WE HAD BEEN USING.
SO I CAN DO THE CALCULATIONS IF Y'ALL GIVE ME A FEW SECONDS OR LET'S JUST, LET'S JUST TRANSLATE THE FAR TO THAT.
SO IF Y'ALL WOULD JUST GIVE ME A SECOND.
SHOULD, SHOULD I SPEAK TO MY MOTION WHILE COMMISSIONER? YES, SIR.
SO, SO WHAT, WHAT I GOT FEEDBACK ON WAS THAT 0.45 IS NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME AS EXISTING SUB-CHAPTER F THAT THE PRODUCTS THAT WE GET NOW VERY RARELY EXCEED 0.4.
AND I DON'T THINK OUR INTENT IS TO GET LARGER PRODUCTS TO GET LARGER RESIDENTIAL UNIT PRODUCTS.
I THINK THE INTENT BEHIND THIS TO MAKE THINGS MORE MARKET RATE AFFORDABLE IS TO ENCOURAGE SMALLER SIZED RESIDENTIAL UNITS BECAUSE AT MARKET RATE, THOSE ARE NATURALLY GOING TO BE LESS EXPENSIVE THAN A LARGER UNIT.
SO BY DROPPING ALL OF THESE BY 0.05 ACROSS THE BOARD, IT'S GOING TO INCUR, ENCOURAGE SMALLER UNITS IN, IN A, IN A TWO AND THREE UNIT SCENARIO, THEREBY PRODUCING SLIGHTLY LESS EXPENSIVE MARKET RATE UNITS.
THAT IS THE FEEDBACK THAT I GOT FROM MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING STAFF ON THIS.
AND I, AND I THINK WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE A SCENARIO WHERE WE'RE ACTUALLY ALLOWING LARGER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITHIN THE SUBCHAPTER AREA OR URBAN CORE.
WE WANT THOSE MULTIPLE, SMALLER,
[05:40:02]
MORE MARKET RATE AFFORDABLE UNITS.AND I BELIEVE DROPPING THAT FAR BY 0.05 ACHIEVES THAT.
ALRIGHT, ANYONE WANNA SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION? COMMISSIONER? ZA CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE.
MY SUBSTITUTE WOULD BE, THIS IS RELATING TO TWO.
SO THE PER DEVELOPMENT CAPS WOULD BE 0.5 OR 2,900 SQUARE FOOT FOR TWO UNITS 0.65 OR 33,750 FOR THREE UNITS WITHIN THE PER UNIT CAP.
ONE UNIT WOULD BE AT 0.4 OR 2,302 UNITS WOULD BE AT 0.5 OR 2,900.
AND THEN POINTS AND THE THREE UNIT WOULD AGAIN BE AT THE 0.65, WHICH IS 37 50.
SORRY, CLARIFYING, IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT WE HAVE IN THREE B RIGHT NOW? NO.
UM, SO JUST TO CLARIFY, I'M, I'M MERGING WHAT WE HAVE WITH, SO THREE B REMAINS EXACTLY AS IS, YOU'RE RIGHT.
AND TWO FOR FOR TWO UNITS IT CHANGES TO WHAT YOU HAD IN YOUR MOTION 0.5.
AND THEN FOR THREE UNITS IT GOES BACK TO 0.65 AS IT WAS IN THE WORKING AMENDMENT.
AND I CAN SPEAK TO THAT AMENDMENT WHENEVER FOLKS ARE READY.
WAS THERE QUICKLY ANY CHANGE TO THE 0.4? NO.
SO LET ME REPEAT THAT AGAIN ON THE THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON THE THREE, UM, YES.
SO WITHIN, ESSENTIALLY FOR YOUR OVERALL DEVELOPMENT 0.5 FOR TWO UNITS, 0.65 FOR THREE UNITS WITHIN A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ONE UNIT AT 0.4, TWO UNITS AT 0.5, THREE UNITS AT 0.65.
EVERYBODY CLEAR ON WHAT WE JUST LAID OUT? WE NEED A SECOND AND THEN FOR ME TO SPEAK TO HER.
SO I'M GONNA SECOND THAT 'CAUSE I WANT US TO TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE MORE.
SO GO AHEAD AND SPEAK YOUR MOTION.
SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING AT THIS MOMENT IS PRETTY MUCH GOING TO WHAT, UM, COMMISSIONER COX WAS SAYING.
SO WE'RE REDUCING THE FAR FOR TWO UNITS DOWN TO 0.5 FROM 0.5 BECAUSE WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO HAVE A LARGE TWO UNIT CONFIGURATION FOR ONE UNIT WITHIN A MULTI-UNIT.
SO WHAT WE HAD HERE, SO IT'S ON THE SMALLER SIDE, HOWEVER, THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MY SUBSTITUTE AND COMMISSIONER COX'S AMENDMENT IS THAT 0.65 FOR THREE UNITS.
AND THE REASON I HAVE THAT IS WE REALLY WANT TO INCENTIVIZE THAT THREE UNIT, THEN THERE HAS TO BE ENOUGH OF A GRADUATION UP.
SO IF REALLY YOU'RE GETTING 0.6 FOR, FOR THREE UNITS WHEN YOU CAN ACTUALLY DO 0.55 IN SOME PLACES WITH SUBCHAPTER F TODAY, THERE'S REALLY NOT THAT MUCH FOR YOU TO DO.
THREE KITCHENS, THREE GARAGES, THREE SETS OF BATHROOMS, THREE SETS OF EVERYTHING JUST FOR THAT 0.5 EXTRA IF YOU'RE PER YOUR FLOOR AREA THAT YOU'RE GONNA BE SELLING IS GONNA BE LIMITED.
SO MY HOPE WITH THIS IS THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE ACTUALLY INCENTIVIZING THREE UNIT WHILE WE'RE ALSO LIMITING THE SIZE OF THE ONE UNIT AND THE TWO UNIT AS WELL.
THE, THE SINGLE UNIT IS KEPT AT POINT ON THE THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S STILL 0.4? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND IT'S 0.5 FOR TWO UNITS ON THAT? THAT IS CORRECT.
ALRIGHT, SO STAYED AND THEN 0.65 IF YOU GO UP TO TWO.
SO YOU MAINLY CHANGED THE THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENT? YES.
SO I'VE ESSENTIALLY MERGED WHAT THE WORKING GROUP HAD SORT OF COME UP WITH AND WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER COX JUST PRESENTED.
SO ANYONE WANNA SPEAK TO THIS? SPEAK CAN, CAN I MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION? WE CAN'T SUBSTITUTE TO A SUBSTITUTE, UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL PER OUR RULES, YOU CAN AMEND A SUBSTITUTE, BUT WITHIN THE SORT OF NESTED RULES YOU CANNOT SUBSTITUTE, YOU CAN DISPOSE OFF THE SUBSTITUTE AND THEN GET BACK TO YOUR SUBSTITUTE AS WELL WITH THE REMINDER THAT IF YOU DISPOSE OFF THE SUBSTITUTE, THEN THIS SUBSTITUTE CANNOT BE BROUGHT FORWARD AGAIN.
MAY ASK, BUT YOU CAN MAKE AN AMENDMENT IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE SOMETHING.
CAN I MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO YOUR, IF YOU'RE CHANGING A NUMBER I YEAH, THAT'S SEND THAT AMENDMENT.
UM, SO MY AMENDMENT IS STRICTLY RELATED TO, UM, THE THIRD, THE THREE B, WHICH I BELIEVE IS WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING RIGHT NOW.
UM, THERE WAS A THREE A OPTION WHICH, UM, WAS CONSIDERED BY THE WORKING GROUP THAT ACTUALLY COMPLETELY MIRRORS WHAT WE SAW TONIGHT FROM A I A, UM, WHICH I THINK IS ACTUALLY GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE SAW MODELING FROM PROFESSIONALS PROBABLY THE WAY TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND THAT IS A POINT, SO LET ME JUST WRITE THESE OUT FOR EVERYBODY SEES THEM, IT'S A 0.45 FOR THE, UM, INITIAL UNIT 0.55 FOR THE SECOND UNIT AND 0.65 FOR THAT THIRD UNIT.
[05:45:01]
AND I BELIEVE THAT'S ACTUALLY ALSO LISTED ON COMMISSIONER COX'S TABLES BECAUSE THAT IS LISTED AS THREE A THERE, SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE NUMBERS.IS THAT CORRECT? CAN I CLARIFY SOMETHING? YES.
MR. MAXWELL, WOULD THAT ALSO BE SAYING THAT FOR THE, UH, PER DEVELOPMENT TWO UNIT, YOU WOULD WANT IT AT 0.55? I AM, I AM HAPPY.
HAPPY TO, I AM HAPPY TO NOT AMEND TO, YOU'RE ENDING UP WITH A BIT OF A DISCREPANCY THERE.
I, THIS IS WHY I ASKED MY EARLIER QUESTION.
THE BIG, THE BIG THAT IS YOUR WILL
WELL, AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, THE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE CONSIDERED IN THREE A, UH, THAT DIDN'T GET ENOUGH VOTES VERSUS WHAT WE CONSIDERED IN THREE B WAS THE PER UNIT CAP WENT UP IN FAR RATHER THAN GOING DOWN IN FARI WASN'T, I WASN'T SUGGESTING WE GET ON CHAIR, JUST TO FURTHER THE DISCUSSION, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND SECOND THAT AMENDMENT.
SO NOW WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT ON THE TABLE, STATE YOUR AMENDMENT, AND THEN FOLKS CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF THAT AND THEN WE CAN PROCEED WITH THAT AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE SO WE CAN GET TO THE BASE.
BECAUSE I NEED TO SEE THE NUMBERS ON MY TABLE IF YOU CAN REPEAT THOSE VERY CLEARLY.
I BELIEVE THAT THE, IF I, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, COMMISSIONER COX, BUT THE NUMBERS LISTED ON THREE A ON THE TABLES IN FRONT OF US ARE REPRESENT THE WORKING GROUPS ORIGINAL AMENDMENT.
UM, IS THAT, SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M TELLING YOU TO LOOK AT NUMBERS THAT ARE CORRECT.
IS THAT I, I, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, I JUST WANNA BE VERY CLEAR.
THREE A IS NOT AVAILABLE TO BE COMMISS.
I'M SAYING JUST FOR A REFERENCE POINT.
JUST FOR FOLKS WHO, FOLKS WHO HAVE THE TABLES IN FRONT OF THEM CAN SEE THE NUMBERS AND I WILL NOW READ THEM OUT.
COULD WE ASK FOR THE TABLES TO BE PULLED UP THE TABLES THAT COMMISSIONER COX HAD SHARED? SO ARE YOU ASKING FOR WHAT IS EXACTLY IN THREE A? YES.
THAT'S ALL, THAT WAS ALL I WAS TRYING TO DO.
AND THAT'S WHY IT IS THE ONLY THING, GO AHEAD.
THREE A, BUT WITH TWO AT 0.5 FOR TWO UNITS, 0.65 FOR THREE UNITS.
SO I'M GONNA PARLIAMENTARIAN THOUGH, I MEAN THIS IS A BIG JUMP.
I THOUGHT WE WERE JUST TWEAKING A NUMBER, BUT WE'RE REALLY TAKING UP AN ENTIRE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT.
SO I ALMOST FEEL LIKE THIS WOULD BE A SUBSTITUTION.
I, I MEAN I'M HAPPY TO PRESENT IT AS, AS, AS I, THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION IF IT WAS THE RIGHT, I'LL BE HONEST.
I LOOK AT, UM, MR. RIVERA GUIDE US.
WOULD THIS BE A, WOULD, CAN THIS BE CONSIDERED AN AMENDMENT IF WE'RE CHANGING THE NUMBERS? OR IS IT SUBSTANTIVE ENOUGH TO BE CONSIDERED A SUBSTITUTE CHAIR COMM
UM, CHAIR IN THAT CASE I WOULD SAY WE CAN MOVE AHEAD WITH THE AMENDMENT.
SO COULD I HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT? 'CAUSE I THINK IT CHANGES THE WHOLE DEAL.
AND IT'S NOT WHAT IS RECOMMEND WHAT ULTIMATELY CAME OUT OF THE WORKING GROUP.
SO LET LET, OKAY, LET'S DO IT THIS WAY.
I'M GONNA RESCIND MY SUBSTITUTE SO IT BELONGS TO THE BODY.
SO IT HAPPENS, BUT WE'VE BEEN RESCINDING ALL ALONG.
SO I THINK COMMISSIONER ON
YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE A MOTION YET.
SO HERE, HERE'S WHAT I'M STATING, UNLESS THERE'S AN OBJECTION FROM SOMEONE ELSE, I'M RESCINDING MY SUBSTITUTE YES TO COMMISSIONER COX'S BASE MOTION.
DO WE HAVE A CONCERN WITH THAT? ANY OBJECTION? OKAY.
SO NOW WE ARE READY TO MAKE ANOTHER SUBSTITUTE IF COMMISSIONER MAXWELL OR ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT.
SO I'M RECOGNIZING COMMISSIONER MAXWELL ON HER SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UH, AND IS EVERYBODY CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE DOING? NO, I'M NOT.
CAN I, WHAT WAS THE BASE MOTION? CAN WE, SORRY, REPEAT MY, MY BASE MOTION IS, UH, THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT THREE B, BUT ALL OF THE PER SITE AND PER UNIT AND ANY TWO UNIT FAR CAPS ARE LOWERED BY 0.05.
DO I NEED TO READ OUT WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE? DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND THAT? OKAY.
AND THEN AS I UNDERSTAND, DID YOU HAVE A SECOND YET? NO.
'CAUSE I HADN'T FINISH MY MOTION MEETING SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES, SO OH, NO, NO, NO.
ALL RIGHT, SO THAT'S THE BASE.
AND NOW WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THREE A THAT'S ON THE TABLE UP THERE.
UM, AND YOU NEED A SECOND AND WITH AGAIN, JUST TO CLARIFY AGAIN, AND WITH TWO AT 0.5 FOR TWO UNITS, 0.65 AT THREE UNITS, UH, SORRY.
AND IT'S, LET ME, LET ME REPHRASE THAT BECAUSE I HAD NOT ORIGINALLY PLANNED TO AMEND, UH, I'M SORRY, I'M THE SECOND AMENDMENT, BUT I DO NEED TO NOW BECAUSE I HAD THAT THE, I WILL BE WORKING FROM COMMISSIONERS, UH, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, I THINK WE'RE, SINCE THIS IS NOT AN AMENDMENT, YOU'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING IN HIS, BUT IT'S A OKAY.
[05:50:01]
MOTION.THAT MAKES SENSE TO YOU AND IF IT GETS SECONDED, THEN WE DISCUSS IT.
SO, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT IS, UH, REFERS TO THREE FOR, FOR AMENDMENT THREE FOR THE NUMBERS PROVIDED ABOVE WHICH AS DISCUSSED ARE 0.45 FOR THE FIRST UNIT POINTS.
UH, FIVE FIVE FOR THE SECOND UNIT AND 0.65 AS AS DISCUSSED BY THE AA MODELING AS REGARDS TO PO.
UM, THE SECOND I WOULD ACTUALLY GO WITH THE, UM, THE NUMBERS AS PROVIDED IN THE ORIGINAL WORKING GROUP DRAFT, WHICH I THINK IS THE BIZARRE MOTION.
AND THAT IS, UH, LET ME SEE IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS RIGHT.
IS THAT POINT WI WITHIN THE ORIGINAL? YES.
THAT IS WRONG ACTUALLY BECAUSE I, I ALTERED THAT.
SO YOU'RE GOING BACK TO 0.5 FOR TWO UNITS.
SO THIS IS AS IT IS IN OUR AMENDMENT TABLE NUMBER 2.5 OR 3,200 SQUARE FOOT FOR TWO UNITS AND 0.65 OR 3,750 FOR THREE UNITS.
SHOULD I SPEAK TO MY MOTION OR SHOULD GET A SECOND? OH, WE NEED A SECOND.
UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY, NOW YOU CAN SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION.
UH, YEAH, SO AS I EMPHASIZE, THIS WAS THE MODELING THAT WE SAW FROM THE, UM, A I A GROUP.
UM, WE ALSO DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE OTHER CONSTRAINTS ON THESE SITES BESIDES JUST FAR.
WE HAVE THINGS LIKE THE TREES, WHICH EVERYONE IS SO EAGER TO PROTECT AND I AGREE.
WE ALSO HAVE THINGS LIKE AOUS COVER SETBACKS.
SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PHARR, THIS IS NOT THE BE ALL, END ALL OF HOW WE BUILD ON THESE SITES.
SO WHILE WE THINK ABOUT PHARR, WE ALSO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT GIVING OURSELVES FLEXIBILITY, GIVING FAMILIES AND UH, THE BUILDERS WHO MIGHT ACTUALLY COME AND HELP THEM BUILD THESE THINGS, THE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THINGS IN A CREATIVE WAY.
SO TO ME, THE HIGHER NUMBERS GIVE US THOSE FLEXIBILITY.
AND THE EMPHASIS IS ON MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING, WHICH HONESTLY IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SLIGHTLY LARGER, NOT NECESSARILY AS LARGE THAN MCMANSION, BUT WE DO WANT SOMETHING THAT IS MORE IN THAT 1500 TO MAYBE EVEN 2000 RANGE.
AND IF WE GO WITH THESE LARGER NUMBERS, WE HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY AND ENTITLEMENTS SO THAT PEOPLE CAN BE ENCOURAGED TO BUILD THREE MISSING MIDDLE UNITS THAT ARE FAMILY FRIENDLY, WHICH IS WHAT WE'D ULTIMATELY LIKE TO DO, I THINK.
I WOULD, I WANNA MAKE, UH, PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT IF IT CAN BE TREATED AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE, UH, SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS YOU STILL HAVE THAT 0.45.
AND THAT REALLY IS BOTHERING ME.
THE 0.4, IF 0.45 COULD REALLY CREATE BIGGER HOUSES THAN CURRENTLY THAT 0.5 WAS STAFF SAID THEY DON'T 0.3, THEY WERE THINKING NOT ALL OF THE TIME.
SO WE'RE ACTUALLY CREATING BIGGER HOUSES ON LOTS.
AND SO 0.4 IS WHERE MY COMFORT LEVEL WAS FOR THE SINGLE LARGEST UNIT ON, ON EITHER A TWO UNIT DEVELOPMENT OR A THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
AND I THINK THAT REALLY ENSURES WE DON'T GET BIGGER HOUSES OUT OF THIS PRODUCT.
SO THAT'S WHERE I WOULD PROPOSE THAT TWEAK.
UH, SO IF I HAVE A SECOND WE CAN VOTE ON THAT AMENDMENT.
YOU'VE BEEN SO QUIET, MR. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
NOW WOULD THAT BE AFTER WE ELIMINATE A LOT OF EXEMPTIONS? 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE'S A LOT OF EXEMPTIONS, BUT TECHNICALLY I HEAR THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I HEARD A MINUTE AGO.
I HEAR A LOT OF HOMES ARE ACTUALLY RIGHT NOW, IF YOU DON'T INCLUDE ALL THE EXEMPTIONS, WE'RE HITTING OVER 0.5.
SO IF THE EXEMPTIONS ARE GOING AWAY, THEN TECHNICALLY 0.45 WOULD BE LOWER THAN WHAT YOU HAVE AT 0.4 WITH ALL THE EXEMPTIONS.
NO, WHAT WHAT STAFF TOLD US WAS THAT THEY'RE NOT HITTING 0.4 ON THE MAJORITY OF SUB-CHAPTER F SUBMITTALS.
I I ACTUALLY THINK THE AAIA SAID IT WAS 0.5 IF YOU DID INCLUDE, IF YOU DIDN'T INCLUDE THE EXEMPTIONS, THAT WAS WHAT THEIR MODELING SHOULD I A A'S CLEAR ON THAT.
AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING ALL OVER THE CITY.
AND, AND COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, JUST TO CLARIFY, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION, WE DO HAVE STAFF.
I, I THINK I'M ASKING THE MOTION MAKER, ARE YOU CONSIDERING THIS AFTER ELIMINATING EXEMPTIONS? IN WHICH CASE, I DON'T KNOW IF WHAT YOU JUST SAID WAS ACCURATE.
SO YOU CAN, IF IT'S AT 0.45 AND WE ARE TOLD 0.45 WITHOUT EXEMPTIONS AND WE WERE USING THAT NUMBER BECAUSE THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT WE HEARD WAS GO AHEAD.
IT'S JUST FOR THE SAKE OF PROCESS.
CAN WE HAVE A, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND SECOND YOUR MOTION OKAY.
SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE SORRY, NOW GO AHEAD.
I'D ACTUALLY SECONDED IT, BUT THAT'S FINE.
SO, UM, SO 0.45 IS WHAT WE HEARD IS THE EFFECTIVE FAR WITHOUT EXEMPTIONS IS THAT WAS THE NUMBER WE WERE HEARING.
WE SUBSEQUENTLY HEARD THAT THAT NUMBER IS NOT ALL THE TIME REACH, UH, STAFF TODAY TOLD US IT'S MORE LIKE 0.43, BUT IT'S NOT CONTINUOUSLY, UH, ON ANY DEVELOPMENTS.
SO WHAT I'M JUST SAYING IS I REALLY WOULD PREFER NOT TO HAVE AN EFFECTIVE, THE SAME SIZE UNITS GOING UP ON THESE TWO AND THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENTS AS WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
I I HAVE BEEN AT THAT THE LARGE,
[05:55:01]
HUGE HOUSES THAT ARE GOING UP EVERYWHERE ARE NOT IN LINE WITH THE INTENT OF THIS, WHAT I THINK IS THE INTENT OF THE HOME INITIATIVE.OKAY, THE CHAIR FOR, TO CLARIFY, CAN YOU PLEASE RESTATE YOUR MOTION? IT'S CHANGING THE, THE LIMIT FOR A, THE SINGLE, UH, LARGEST UNIT ON A TWO UNIT AND THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENT FROM FOUR OR FIVE TO 0.4.
BUT SINCE IT'S AN AMENDMENT, IF IT'S THE ORIGINAL, THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THIS SUBSTITUTE SUBSTITUTE.
SO, BUT AN AMENDMENT HAS TO BE AGREED TO BY THE MOTION MAKER.
IT, THE MOTION HAS BEEN PRESENTED AND SECONDED.
BUT WHEN WE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT, ARE WE ALSO VOTING ON COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S? NO, IT'S VOTING ON THIS CHANGE.
THESE ARE NEST NESTED MOTIONS.
SO WE'LL GO THROUGH EACH MOTION SEPARATELY.
SO WE'RE LIKE A TRIPLE NEST RIGHT NOW? YES.
WE'RE IN A TRIPLE NEST RIGHT NOW.
WE'RE IN A LITTLE DOLL, RIGHT? COMMISSIONER WOODS, DID YOU HAVE A CLARIFI? YEAH, YEAH.
I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT ONE MORE TIME THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A 0.4 FAR WHERE GARAGES AND ATTICS AND ALL OTHER EXEMPTIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY INCLUDED IN SUB CHAPTER F ARE EXEMPT FROM THAT 0.4 FAR.
NO, I'M SORRY, LET ME JUST CLARIFY.
THIS IS THE 25 DASH ONE DASH 21 DEFINITION UNDER THAT DEFINITION, AND I'M GONNA READ IT HERE.
MEANS THE TOTAL ENCLOSED AREA OF ALL FLOORS IN A BUILDING WITH A CLEAR HEIGHT OF MORE THAN SIX FEET MEASURED TO THE OUTSIDE SURFACE OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS.
THE TERM INCLUDES LOADING DOCKS AND EXCLUDES ATRIA AIRSPACE, PARKING FACILITIES, DRIVEWAYS, AND ENCLOSED LOADING BIRDS IN OFF STREET MANEUVERING AREAS.
BEAR WITH ME FOR A SECOND ESSENTIALLY, AND I WILL DO A CLARIFYING AMENDMENT LATER, WHICH HONESTLY JUST CLARIFIES THIS, IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING TO IT IS WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THAT ATTICS ARE INCLUDED, UNLIKE SUBCHAPTER F ATTICS ARE INCLUDED, BUT CARPORTS AND GARAGES ARE NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE 25 DASH ONE DASH 21 DEFINITION.
CAN I SPEAK IN FAVOR AND THEN ALSO MAYBE ADD A LITTLE BIT TO THAT? IS THAT WHERE WE'RE AT? I, I THINK, NO, I THINK INSTEAD OF SPEAKING IN MOTION INSTEAD OF SPEAKING IN FAVOR, YOU CAN JUST ANSWER HER QUESTION IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO.
WELL, SO I'M LOOKING AT, UH, COMMISSIONER BETA RAMIREZ.
I JUST HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
ATS YOU'RE SAYING ATTICS ARE INCLUDED BECAUSE THEY'RE SIX FEET IN HEIGHT? UH, SO BECAUSE WE'RE NOT USING THE SUB-CHAPTER F DEFINITION, WE'RE USING THE 25 DASH ONE DASH 21 DEFINITION, WHICH IS IN THE CODE ITSELF IN THE DEFINITIONS CHAPTER.
ACTUALLY ATS, THERE'S NO AT EXEMPTION ONLY IN SUB-CHAPTER F DO YOU GET AN AT EXEMPTION.
HOWEVER, YOU DO HAVE A EXEMPTION FOR PARKING FACILITIES, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE CARPORTS AND GARAGES.
CAN I SPEAK TO OR CLARIFY SOMETHING? SURE.
FOR A SINGLE UNIT, THE INTENT IS TO NOT NECESSARILY CHANGE THE EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS.
PEOPLE WHO BUILD UNDER MCMANSION NOW CAN BUILD GENERALLY SOMETHING SIMILAR UNDER THESE AMENDMENTS.
THE CHANGE IS WHEN WE GET INTO TWO AND THREE UNITS WHERE WE WANT TO PUSH THAT PER UNIT CAP A LITTLE BIT DOWN.
BECAUSE REMEMBER, THIS IS SUBCHAPTER F BOUNDARY, THIS IS OUR URBAN CORE.
SO WHAT WE DON'T WANNA DO, IN MY OPINION IS, IS CREATE SCENARIOS WHERE WE CAN THEN JUST PRODUCE MORE MCMANSIONS IN OUR URBAN CORE OR ALLOW FOR SCENARIOS THAT CREATE EVEN BIGGER HOUSES THAN SUBCHAPTER F ALLOWS BY KIND OF FINDING WEIRD WAYS TO COMBINE THESE UNITS.
AND THAT'S WHY WE PUT, THAT'S WHY WE PUT IN THIS, IN THIS TABLE, THE LOT SIZE MOST DISPARATE FAR DISTRIBUTION AND HOW THAT EQUATES TO SQUARE FOOTAGE BECAUSE THAT IS A FEASIBLE SCENARIO UNDER THESE DISTRIBUTIONS.
YOU KNOW, WHAT CAN BE THE BIGGEST UNIT AND THEN WHAT'S LEFT OVER.
AND THE IDEA WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT CREATING SCENARIOS THAT ARE ALLOWING PEOPLE TO BUILD EVEN BIGGER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BY JUST ADDING A FEW TINY STRS IN THE BACKYARD.
THAT, THAT WAS KIND OF THE DISCUSSION GENERALLY THAT WE HAD AT THE WORKING GROUP WHEN WE WERE DEVELOPING THESE, THESE CAPS.
SO, SO I, I'M GONNA, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'M GONNA TREAT THAT AS A SUPPORT FOR MY AMENDMENT.
AND UH, SO THEN WE CAN GO SPEAKERS AGAINST, OR WE CAN GO AHEAD AND CALL THE QUESTION HERE, ANY SPEAKERS AGAINST THIS MOTION.
DO YOU WANNA GO AND, UH, TAKE A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT? YES.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.
CAN CAN I JUST, CAN I JUST, UM SURE, SURE.
JUST TO CLARIFY, SO FOLKS REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
[06:00:01]
WE HAVE A BASE MOTION THAT WE'LL GET, OR SORRY, A SUBSTITUTE THAT WE'LL GET TO FOR NOW.ALL WE ARE DOING IN THIS AMENDMENT IS SAYING THAT WHEN IN A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT, A SINGLE UNIT IS CAPPED AT 0.4 FAR OR 2300 SQUARE FOOT.
UH, THOSE ON THE DIOCESE IN FAVOR.
UH, AND WHO'S VOTING AGAINST MAXWELL CONLEY? AGAINST ABED? ME ARE AND YOUR AGAINST? AGAINST.
OH, UM, WE DIDN'T SEE, UH, YEAH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, HOW DID YOU VOTE? OKAY, GREEN.
WHY CAN'T WE SEE THE GREEN RIGHT THERE? BECAUSE, OH, YOU JUST CAN'T SEE
MR. AL, UH, COMMISSIONER AL IS OFF THE D AND MR. RIVERA JUST TO TEE UP, I'M GONNA HAVE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT IN A LITTLE WHILE.
SO, UM, AND I SENT YOU A SPREADSHEET TO BE ABLE TO PULL UP.
SO COMMISSIONER HOWARD, UH, WHAT IS YOUR VOTE ON THIS? HE VOTED IN FAVOR OF YOUR IN FAVOR.
OKAY, SO THAT ONE PASSES WITH IF I'M, TELL ME IF IT'S RIGHT.
UH, WITH COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, COMMISSIONER VICE HEMPEL VOTING AGAINST AND COMMISSIONER CONLEY ABSTAINING.
NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
AND DO WE SPEAKERS FOR AND AGAINST ON THAT SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED AMEND AND WE CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
I DO HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THAT.
WE HAVE A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE BECAUSE WE KILLED ONE THERE.
YOU WERE STILL, WE GOT OUT OF THE TRIPLE NEST.
ALL RIGHT, SO GO AHEAD, LET'S KEEP THIS THING GOING.
IF IF WE CAN PULL THAT UP, I'LL BE ABLE TO PULL IT UP.
UM, THERE WAS AN A SPREADSHEET THAT I JUST SHARED WITH MR. RIVERA.
HOPEFULLY THAT CAN BE PULLED UP.
BUT ESSENTIALLY I'LL JUST WALK THROUGH IT.
IT'S ONE OF MY INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO DO IT HERE, UM, BECAUSE IT IS GERMANE.
SO THIS IS FOR THE GROSS FLOOR AREA CALCULATION.
GROSS FLOOR AREA IS DEFINED AS IN 25 DASH ONE DASH 21 WITH CARPORTS AND PARKING STRUCTURES SUCH AS GARAGES EXEMPTED FOR THE FAR CALCULATION GARAGES ARE EXCLUDED FROM GROSS FLOOR AREA PER UNIT FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ORDINANCE UP TO 450 SQUARE FEET OFF A DETACHED REAR PARKING, IF IT'S NOT LESS THAN 20 FEET, A REAR PARKING AREA THAT IS 10 FEET OR MORE FROM THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, BUT IS ESSENTIALLY CONNECTED VIA EITHER A BREEZEWAY OR DETACHED FROM THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.
AND I'M SORRY, BEAR WITH ME FOR A SECOND 'CAUSE THIS IS THE AMENDMENT AND I'LL TALK ABOUT WHAT THIS DOES.
OR UP TO 200 SQUARE FOOT FOR AN ATTACHED PARKING AREA OR A GARAGE THAT IS LESS THAN 10 FEET FROM THE REAR OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, WHETHER IT IS DETACHED OR WHETHER IT IS COVERED WITH A BREEZE WAVE CONNECTED WITH A BREEZE WAVE.
SO IF, IF I THINK WHAT HAD JUST HAPPENED, I MEAN THIS IS AN AMENDMENT AND THIS IS CONSIDERING THE FAR WHAT'S YES.
SO THIS IS NUMBER FIVE IN FRONT OF YOU.
THANK YOU BY THE WAY, STAFF FOR HELPING GUIDE US THROUGH THIS AND I PROMISE TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF THAT THESE TWO ARE PERHAPS THE MOST COMPLEX ONE.
IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA BE EASIER FROM HERE ON.
UM, SO THIS IS AGAIN IN FRONT OF YOU ESSENTIALLY.
AND I CAN, I LAID OUT THE MOTION.
I WOULD NEED A SECOND TO SPEAK TO IT.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION OR DO I NEED TO WAIT PHIL? SECOND.
I'LL SECOND IT SO WE CAN KEEP THIS THING GOING.
YES, GO AHEAD AND ASK THE QUESTION.
SO THIS IS, THIS IS GOING BACK TO KIND OF THE ORIGINAL MCMANSION ORDINANCE WHERE WE ADD IN EXEMPTIONS FOR THESE PARTICULAR ITEMS. SO THESE PARTICULAR ITEMS ARE NOT GOING AGAINST THE FAR.
SO ALREADY IN 25 DASH 1 21, BY MY UNDERSTANDING, THESE THINGS WERE ALREADY EXEMPTED.
WHAT I'M DOING IS, I'M CLARIFYING THAT THESE ARE EXEMPTED BUT UP TO LIMITATION BECAUSE IF YOU READ 25 DASH 1 21 AS IT IS, IT WOULD LITERALLY MEAN YOU COULD DO A 700 SQUARE FOOT PARKING GARAGE AND IT WOULD BE EXEMPT.
AND I'M SAYING NO STILL IF IT'S AN ATTACHED PARKING GARAGE, IT'S LIMITED AT 200.
IF IT'S DETACHED PARKING GARAGE, IT'S LIMITED AT FOUR 50.
SO ESSENTIALLY I'M NOW DOING A CLARIFICATION WITH SOME CAPS
[06:05:01]
ON PARKING AND STILL THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ATTIC EXEMPTION THAT COMES WITH SUBCHAPTER F.SO THAT'S THE DISTINCTION HERE.
SUBCHAPTER F WOULD BE THIS PLUS AN ATTIC EXEMPTION.
AND I'M SAYING NO ATTIC IS NOT EXEMPTED.
AND IN ADDITION WE'RE USING 25 DASH 1 21, BUT WE'RE CAPPING HOW MUCH PARKING YOU CAN DO.
YOU CAN'T JUST HAVE UNLIMITED PARKING FAR.
AND HOW DOES THIS COMPARE TO SUB-CHAPTER F? UM, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A COPY PASTE FROM THAT BUT ADAPTED TO OUR PURPOSES.
SO THERE WAS MORE, UH, THE BIGGEST, I THINK THE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE WOULD BE THERE'S A SPECIF SPECIFICATION ON HOW WIDE THE PATHWAY AND ROOF CAN BE OF A BREEZEWAY.
AND AS THIS RELATES TO THE FAR DISCUSSION, THE EXISTING SUBCHAPTER FF A'S 0.4 WITH THESE EXEMPTIONS WITH THESE PLUS WITH THE ATTIC EXEMPTION? YES.
SO THE EFFECT OF THIS WOULD YOU SAY REALLY? 'CAUSE IT'S ALL ABOUT DETACHED GARAGES.
YOU GET CERTAIN ALLOWANCES, BUT FOR THE ACTUAL GARAGE THAT'S ENCLOSED, WHICH IS UH, IT'S 200 SQUARE FEET.
SO FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE YOU'RE AT 200 SQUARE FOOT.
UM, AND THEN WE WOULD BE DOING ESSENTIALLY 450 FOR A DETACHED GARAGE.
SO THIS IS ACTUALLY CLARIFYING BY OUR INTERPRETATION BY WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY, IF WE ALL AGREE TO IT, IS WE'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 25 DASH 1 21, ESSENTIALLY YOU DO NOT HAVE THE ATTIC EXEMPTION AND YOU HAVE A PARKING EXEMPTION BUT UP TO A LIMIT.
SO BY MY INTERPRETATION, THIS IS ACTUALLY MORE LIMITING THAN BOTH SUB-CHAPTER F AND 25 DASH ONE DASH 21.
BUT IT'S NOT MORE LIMITING IF WE ADOPT OUR 0.45 FAR IN THREE B.
CAN WE JUST, WE JUST DID 0.4 WITHIN OUR AMENDMENT.
OH, I THOUGHT THE 0.4 WAS JUST ON THE TWO AND THREE UNIT SCENARIOS TOUCHING, WE'RE NOT EVEN TOUCHING ONE UNIT WITHOUT MULTI-UNIT ONE.
SO WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT ONE WITHIN A MULTI-UNIT CONFIGURATION.
WE'RE NOT TOUCHING WHAT PEOPLE CAN DO OTHERWISE, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME TODAY, THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND ESSENTIALLY DO WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO.
SO THIS ONLY APPLIES TO TWO AND THREE UNIT SCENARIOS WITHIN A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
ONE UNIT IS NOW CAPPED AT 0.4 BASED ON THE AMENDMENT.
AND THIS IS OUR DEFINITION OF HOW THAT GROSS FLOOR AREA WILL BE CALCULATED TO DO THE FAR.
SO COMMISSIONER COX, I HEARD YOU SAY SOMETHING EARLIER AND I SHOULD HAVE PAID ATTENTION.
YOU WERE THINKING WE WERE ON THE, WHERE A DEVELOPMENT JUST IS PUTTING A SINGLE HOUSE, YOU THOUGHT WE WERE MAYBE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING THERE.
I THOUGHT WE WERE TWEAKING THAT UP TO 0.45 AND THEN GETTING RID OF THE EXEMPTIONS.
NO, BECAUSE, BECAUSE ALL OF THE HOME AMENDMENTS DISPOSE OF SUBCHAPTER F.
SO YOU CAN, YOU, WELL YOU CAN, WE'RE NOT DOING THAT NOW, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING YOU CAN DEFINITELY BRING UP AS AN INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT.
BUT, BUT JUST TO CLARIFY, IF WE DON'T HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO HOME ONE FOR ONE UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, THEN HOME, ONE DISPOSES OF SUBCHAPTER F AND SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE SUBCHAPTER F BOUNDARY ARE NOW TREATED THE SAME AS THOSE OUTSIDE THE SUBCHAPTER F BOUNDARY BECAUSE SUBCHAPTER F IS BEING DISPOSED OF.
COMMISSIONER, MAY I INTERRUPT? I APOLOGIZE.
YOU ARE NOT POSTED AND WE ARE NOT NOTICED TO TOUCH ANYTHING THAT IS FOR A ONE UNIT USE.
YOU ARE ONLY POSTED TO TALK ABOUT THREE UNIT USES AND TWO UNIT USES.
NOW CAN, CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? MS. LINK ARE ARE, ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE'RE NOT POSTED TO DO IT FOR ONE UNIT WITHIN A MULTI-UNIT CONFIGURATION? EITHER YOU ARE BECAUSE THAT IS A COMPONENT OF A TWO UNIT OR THREE UNIT USE.
BUT IF WE ARE TALKING LITERALLY ABOUT A SINGLE STRUCTURE, YOU ARE NOT POSTED AND WE ARE NOT THAT.
YEAH, WE, SO MY OWN TABLES CONFUSED ME BECAUSE I HAD PUT EXACTLY A ONE UNIT TABLE AND THAT WAS FOR REFERENCE ONLY.
YOU PUT IT THERE FOR REFERENCE ONLY.
WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES TO ONE UNIT AS IT IS ALLOWED TODAY.
CAN WE, SO WHERE WE, WE ARE AT THE POINT WHERE WE'RE, YOU'RE SO THE, WE NEED TO, YOU HAVE A SECOND AND NOW WE NEED TO SPEAK FOR AGAINST YES.
EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING? YES.
UM, SHARON, SINCE I NEVER SPOKE TO MY MOTION, I'LL SAY IT AGAIN.
SO MY MOTION HERE IS ESSENTIALLY DEFINING, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FAR THE CALCULATION OF FAR MATTERS, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT KEPT ON COMING UP WITHIN THAT CALCULATION OF FAR IS THIS NOTION OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA.
AND WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT IN CALCULATING PHA WHEN YOU'RE DOING THAT, ESSENTIALLY ONCE WE'VE ADOPTED WHAT WE'RE PUTTING DOWN HERE, YOU WOULD HAVE LIKE ATRIA EXEMPTED, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE ATTIC SPACE EXEMPTED, YOU WOULD HAVE, UM, CARPORTS EXEMPTED, YOU WOULD HAVE GARAGES THAT ARE DETACHED, EXEMPTED UP TO 450 SQUARE FOOT AND THAT CAN BE UP TO 10 FEET FURTHER
[06:10:01]
OR CONNECTED BY A BREEZEWAY.AND FOR AN ATTACHED PARKING YOU'LL BE CAPPED AT 200 SQUARE FOOT OF PARKING AGAIN WITH THE SIMILAR RESTRICTIONS SOME EXTENT.
AND CAN I, SO THE, YOUR INTENT HERE IS NOT TO GET HUGE GARAGES THAT ARE EXEMPTED.
SO THE REALLY, THE INTENTION BEHIND THIS IS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE GIANT ATTICS THAT ESSENTIALLY BECOME WHOLE SEPARATE SPACES, WHICH WE CURRENTLY ALLOW UNDER SUBCHAPTER F AND YOU DON'T GET GIANT GARAGES, WHICH POTENTIALLY COULD BE ALLOWED UNDER 25 DASH ONE DASH 21.
BUT WE'RE LIMITING AND TALKING ABOUT THAT IN A SEPARATELY.
DID YOU HAVE A SECOND? HE DOES, YES.
WHICH IS, SO WE'RE SPEAKING AT THIS POINT, WE NEED TO MOVE TO FOUR AGAINST, I THINK IF EVERYBODY'S CLEAR ON THE MOTION, UH, THE, THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.
DO YOU KNOW, I'M, ARE WE CLEAR ON IT? I'M GONNA ASK A QUESTION.
DO YOU HAVE A, DO YOU HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION? YES.
UH, JUST ON THE, SO EVEN ATTIC SPACE, IT'S NOT HABITABLE LIKE A FOUR FEET HIGH WITH LIKE A 14 DEGREE, UH, CEILING WOULD STILL BE INCLUDED IN FAR.
SO AT THAT POINT I WOULD BE LOOKING AT STAFF ON HOW THEY DEFINE 25 DASH ONE DASH 21.
SO MINE AND MR. LLOYD MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO HOW ATTICS ARE TREATED UNDER 25 DASH ONE DASH 21 TODAY, DSD.
UM, AND IN APPLYING THE 25 1 DEFINITION OF GROSS FLOOR AREA, IT'S A MORE STREAMLINED CALCULATION THAN IS PROVIDED FOR UNDER SUBCHAPTER F AND IT'S BASICALLY ALL ENCLOSED SPACES WITH THE EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE MENTIONED IN THE CODE SECTION THAT OF AS READ.
UM, AND SO IT WOULD INCLUDE ATTICS, IT WOULD INCLUDE AREAS THAT ARE PART OF ATTICS, UM, WHETHER THEY'RE HABITABLE OR NOT.
THAT'S, THAT'S WAY MORE LIMITED.
SO COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, I WANNA MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING.
THIS IS THE MOST COMPLICATED THING.
SO, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD, UM, IS IT A MOTION
SO WE'RE SPEAKING, WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE WE'RE YES, BUT WE'RE ENTERTAINING CLARIFYING, RIGHT, BUT MY CLARIFYING QUESTION, OKAY, IS THE 200 UH, SQUARE FEET WITH THAT ACCOMMODATE A A CAR AND WOULD THE 400 SQUARE FEET ACCOMMODATE 450? IS IT YES.
WOULD THAT ACCOMMODATE TWO CARS? MR. LLOYD? GO AHEAD.
I FEEL LIKE YOU OH YEAH, SORRY.
IT WOULD BE, THE SPACE WOULD HAVE TO BE SIX FEET OR HIGHER FOR IT TO COUNT.
SO IF IT WERE UNDER YOUR SCENARIO, I THINK YOU SAID FOUR FEET IT WOULD NOT.
SO YOU'RE, SO I MISSED THAT AND THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL.
SO HABITABLE ATTIC SPACE, NOT COUNTING NON-HABIT SPACE, UH, NOT, SORRY, NON HABITABLE SPACE COUNTING HABITABLE SPACE, NOT COUNTING, COUNTING.
UM, AND COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, DO YOUR QUESTION.
SO ESSENTIALLY THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE TODAY FOR SUBCHAPTER F SO UNDER MCMANSION, THAT IS WHERE I GOT THOSE NUMBERS FROM.
SO 200 FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE, FOUR 50 FOR A DETACH, THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT WE ALLOW TODAY.
UM, UNDER MCMANSION FOR ALL SINGLE FIVE, TYPICAL PARKING SPOT IS 10 BY 20, SO THAT'S 200.
SO ESSENTIALLY THE IDEA IS ONE PARKING SPOT FOR, UM, FOR ATTACHED AND TWO-ISH WITH SOME SPACE IN THE MIDDLE TO PASS FOR, TO, FOR A DETACHED.
AND, AND MY QUESTION WAS GONNA BE KIND OF DOVETAIL ONTO COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS IS WHY THE DIFFERENTIATION? I UNDERSTAND THAT NOW, BUT IF WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE DOWN THE ROAD OF WE ARE TRYING TO LIMIT SIZES OF HOMES WE'RE TRYING TO LIMIT WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE HOME, WITHIN THE THREE UNITS, WOULDN'T WE DO THE SAME FOR GARAGES? SO I THINK FOR ME THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION OF ESSENTIALLY ARE WE GOING LIKE IN TERMS OF ARE WE TRYING TO MAKE A PARKING POLICY HERE IN RELATION TO SINGLE FAMILY AS WELL? FAIR.
AND I'M HESITANT IF DOING THAT THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A OVERALL CITYWIDE CONVERSATION AROUND, AND A I A ASKED US TO DO THAT AS WELL, RIGHT? SO I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A CITYWIDE CONVERSATION WHETHER PARKING COUNTS TOWARDS FIRE OR NOT IN ALL SORT OF ZONES AND USES.
UM, FOR NOW I'M JUST ALIGNING IT WITH WHAT WE HAVE.
UM, I WOULD AND AN ATTEMPT AT SIMPLICITY, WHICH I'M NOT SURE IS A VERY GOOD ATTEMPT.
SO LET'S, LET'S GO AHEAD AND I THINK IF EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, LET'S GO AHEAD.
DO WE NEED TO SPEAK FOR AGAINST THIS ITEM? I, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST.
GO, UH, WELL YOU WANT, YOU NEED TO SAY ANYTHING MORE ABOUT YOUR MOTION.
SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER COX.
SO, SO I'M GONNA VOTE AGAINST THIS BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T ENCOURAGE GARAGES AND CARS.
UM, WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT PARKING MINIMUMS AND
[06:15:01]
STUFF LIKE THAT.I, I GUESS I ALWAYS VIEW THESE FROM A PRACTICAL VIEW AND IF YOU DID A SURVEY OF HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY USE THEIR GARAGE FOR CAR PARK PARKING, I THINK IT WOULD BE RELATIVELY LOW
AND SO WE'RE JUST INCENTIVIZING MORE BUILDABLE AREA THAT IS LIKELY GONNA END UP AS STORAGE OR A BONUS ROOM OR A MAN'S CAVE OR POTENTIALLY CAR PARKING.
BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE INCENTIVIZING ANY OF THAT.
WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING SMALLER UNITS THAT ARE CHEAPER AND OBVIOUSLY A UNIT THAT HAS A GARAGE IS GONNA BE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN A UNIT THAT DOESN'T.
AND SO THE MARKET CAN STILL BUILD A GARAGE, BUT WE'RE STILL DICTATING, LOOK, WE'RE LOOKING FOR SMALLER, MORE AFFORDABLE MARKET RATE UNITS.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I THINK THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO FINALLY REMOVE SOME OF THOSE EXEMPTIONS TO HELP DISCOURAGE THAT.
SPEAK IN FAVOR, UH, SPEAKING AGAINST, ALL RIGHT, I'M NOT SEEING ANY, ANY OTHERS.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
UH, SO THIS IS ON THE AMENDMENT, UH, AS ON THE GARAGE AMENDMENT.
LET'S GO THOSE IN FAVOR ON THE S RAISE YOUR HAND.
UH, THOSE VOTING AGAINST, I'M GONNA GO AND TAKE THE WHAT HEEL COX, WHO ELSE IS VOTING AGAINST THIS ITEM? ABSTAINING.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE TWO VOTES AGAINST, THAT'S COMING FROM, UH, VICE HEPPELL, COMMISSIONER COX, AND WE HAVE COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS ABSTAINING THAT PASSES.
NOW BACK TO THE, ARE WE BACK TO THE, WE HAVE THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE TWO AMENDMENTS? YEAH, THAT IS CORRECT.
SO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WE HAD FROM COMMISSIONER MAXWELL WAS, AND I'LL REPEAT THIS AGAIN AS AMENDED.
SO ESSENTIALLY THIS IS NOW AS IT HAS BEEN AMENDED, IT WOULD BE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT FOR TWO UNITS.
YOU'RE AT 0.55 OR 3,200 SQUARE FOOT FOR THREE UNITS, YOU'RE AT 0.65 OR 3,750 SQUARE FEET FOR THE PER UNIT CAP.
WITHIN A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ONE UNIT IS AT 0.4 OR 2300 SQUARE FOOT, TWO UNITS ARE AT 0.55 OR 3,200 SQUARE FOOT.
AND FOR THREE UNITS YOU WOULD HIT THIS 0.65 OR 3,750 THING.
AGAIN WITH THE PARKING DEFINITION, UH, WITH THE, SORRY, GROSS FLOOR DEFINITION THAT WE JUST SPECIFIED.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE MOTION THAT WE WOULD ALL BE VOTING ON AT THIS MOMENT.
JUST TO CLARIFY, SO ON THE THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENT, YOU SELL THE CAP OF THE SINGLE LARGEST UNIT 0.4.
THAT'S WHAT, YES, THAT'S, YES, THAT IS CORRECT BECAUSE THAT WAS THE POINT, 0.55.
IS THE CAP ON TWO UNITS? THAT IS CORRECT HERE.
ALRIGHT, JUST TO CLARIFY, COMMISSIONER VEZ, DID YOU MENTION
SO I SAID FROM, UH, THE AMENDMENT TWO VARIATION FOR THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT 0.55 OR 3,200 FOR TWO UNITS FOR THREE UNITS 0.65 OR 3,750 WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF, FOR PER UNIT IT'S 0.4 OR 2300 FOR ONE UNIT 0.5 OR 3,200 FOR TWO UNITS AND THEN HITS THE SAME CAP OF 0.6 5 3 7 54, UH, THREE UNITS.
ALRIGHT, SO THAT IS A WHOLE LOT.
THIS IS VERY COMPLICATED, BUT HOPEFULLY WE'VE TRIED TO DO A GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING THIS AND THE INTENT.
THIS IS REALLY WHEN THIS GOES FORWARD, IT'S ABOUT THE INTENTION OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
COUNSEL PROBABLY, DEFINITELY HAVE A LOT TO SAY ABOUT THIS.
LET'S GO AHEAD, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY MORE DO WE NEED TO SPEAK FOR AGAINST THIS? I'LL SPEAK AGAINST, OKAY.
SO THE DECISION ON THIS VOTE IS GENERALLY A DECISION ON HOW MUCH BUILDABLE AREA WE'RE GONNA ALLOW IN, IN OUR URBAN CORE.
ON THESE, ON THESE SSF LOTS, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT OTHER RESTRICTIONS LIKE TREES AND IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITATIONS.
AND SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE ALLOWING SIGNIFICANTLY MORE BUILDABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN OUR URBAN CORE WHEN THE GOAL IS MANY FOLD.
OUR GOAL IS TO ACHIEVE SMALLER UNITS THAT ARE MORE MARKET RATE AFFORDABLE.
OUR GOAL IS STILL TO PROTECT OUR TREES.
OUR GOAL IS NOT TO INCREASE FLOODING, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD DEFER, WHY WE WOULD DEFAULT TO A SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER FAR ON THESE PROPERTIES IN THE URBAN CORE WHEN THAT GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST WHAT THE GOALS OF THIS HOME AMENDMENT WERE SPELLED OUT TO BE.
SO THAT'S WHY I AM GONNA BE VOTING AGAINST
[06:20:01]
THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENTUH, OKAY, THAT'S SPEAKING AGAIN.
I, I APPRECIATE A I A WEIGHING IN ON THIS AND SHARING SO MUCH WITH US AND I, I I JUST FEAR THAT AT THIS POINT REDUCING FAR IT WOULD BE COSTING US FEASIBILITY OF GETTING THESE THROUGH.
AND THEN ALSO JUST BEDROOMS. UM, THERE'S A LOT OF HOMES IN MILLER WITH 0.7 FAR AND, AND HIGHER AND I JUST THINK THAT TO ALLOW 0.65 FOR THREE HOMES IS, IS ACTUALLY NOT ENOUGH.
BUT, UH, IT IS WHAT IT IS AND I I DON'T WANNA SEE IT GO ANY LOWER, SO I'LL DEFINITELY BE SUPPORTING THIS ALL.
UH, SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, I WANNA SAY THAT THE, I I AGREE THAT THE, UM, AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTION
AND SO I THINK THAT ANYTHING WE DO NEEDS TO BE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORKING GROUP THAT ACTUALLY DID THE WORK ON THIS.
SO I WOULD BE VOTING AGAINST THIS BECAUSE AS, UM, ONE COMMISSIONER SAID TONIGHT THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS CONTINUING TO DO THE SAME THING AGAIN AND AGAIN, AGAIN AND EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT.
UM, WELL, LET'S, SO SPEAKING WE HAVE ONE MORE SPEAK IN FAVOR AND SPEAKING AGAINST, I'M SO SORRY, CHAIR.
I JUST REALIZED, OH GOSH, PLEASE DON'T HATE ME ALL THIS WAS COMMISSIONER COHEN'S DOING, THIS IS NOT MINE.
SO WE JUST FORGOT TO DO AN AMENDMENT.
AN AMENDMENT TO THE BASE, THE SUBSTITUTE.
SO I NEED TO MAKE SURE I HAVE MY, THE RIGHT LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF ME.
SO AS DRAFTED, WHAT WE'RE ADDING, ADDING TO THE END OF WITHIN THREE B OR WHATEVER OPTION WE'RE GOING WITH THE VERSION OF THREE AT THE END OF THE BULLET POINTS FOR ONE OR TWO, WE'RE SAYING WHEREVER WE SAY WITHIN EXCEPTION FOR EXISTING UNITS ON THE SITE, THAT WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT, IT WOULD BE ADDED WITH COMMA AS IT RELATES TO FAR SHE HAD ASKED US, WE WOULD CLARIFY THAT IT ONLY RELATED TO FAR.
SO ANY OBJECTIONS TO ROLLING THAT IN? I DO NEED A SECOND CHAIR.
IF I'M NOT HERE, COMMISSIONER.
I HAVE A QUESTION POINT OF INFORMATION.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE, UM, AS COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS MENTIONED, SIR, YOU, I'M, ARE YOU SPEAKING IN FAVOR AGAINST? I JUST, I HAVE A QUESTION.
I'M SORRY I'M, IT'S LATE AND I'M CONFUSED.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE, THE, THE AMENDMENT AS SHOWN WAS WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE, IT'S LIKE THE 0.4, THE 0.5 AND THE 0.65.
SO YES, I'M SAYING RIGHT NOW DON'T TALK ABOUT NUMBERS AT ALL.
MY AMENDMENT IS JUST SAYING THE LANGUAGE HE WANTED IT CLEANED UP FOR CLARITY.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE THREE B AS IT WAS PRESENTED TO EVERYBODY IN OUR BACKUP, EACH BULLET POINT ENDS WITH THIS, WITH THE SENTENCE WITH AN EXCEPTION FOR AN EXISTING UNIT ON THE SITE THAT WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT IN MY AMENDMENT.
THE ONLY THING I'M SAYING IS WE'RE ADDING COMMA AS IT RELATES TOO FAR.
AND I HAVE A SECOND FROM, UH, BEAR RAMIREZ.
SO UNLESS WE HEAR OTHERWISE, I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ROLL THIS.
ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT ADDITION? NO.
SO NOW WE DID HAVE, SO NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE SUBSTITUTE BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
AND WE HAD DONE, UM, I BELIEVE TWO FOURS.
AND SO WE HAVE 1 4 1 AGAINST LEFT.
AND FOR THE, THE BENEFIT OF EVERYONE, CAN WE REPEAT? THANK YOU WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE AS AMENDED? YES, I CAN REPEAT IT.
SO THE MOTION THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION AT THE MOMENT IS FOR THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT 0.55 OR 3,200 SQUARE FOOT FOR TWO UNITS 0.65 OR 3,750 FOR THREE UNITS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ONE UNIT IS CAPPED AS 0.4 OR 2,302 UNITS ARE CAPPED AT 0.5 OR 3,203 UNITS WOULD ESSENTIALLY FALL BACK TO 0.65 OR 37 50.
IN ADDITION, THE LANGUAGE CLARIFIES NOW THAT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EXEMPTIONS FOR EXISTING UNITS, IT ONLY RELATES TO FAR AND WE'RE DEFINING GROSS FLOOR AREA.
DO NOT HAVE HA HABITABLE DOES NOT INCLUDE EXCEPTIONS FOR HABITABLE
[06:25:01]
ATTICS AND HAS LIMITATIONS ON PARKING EXCEPTIONS UP TO 200 FOR ATTACHED FOUR 50 FOR DETACHED CHAIR.AM I ALLOWED TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THAT? YES.
TO WHICH PART? GO AHEAD TO THE, ANY TWO UNIT WITHIN A THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENT FAR CAP.
DID WE ALREADY VOTE ON THAT? NO, WE HADN'T GOTTEN TO IT YET, NO.
WHAT, WHAT I'D LIKE TO AMEND BASED ON EVERYTHING THAT COMMISSIONERS ZA SAID IS JUST ONE NUMBER, WHICH IS THE, THE MAXIMUM FAR OF ANY TWO UNITS WITHIN A THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENT, B 0.5 INSTEAD OF 0.55, WE'RE BACK TO MY SUBSTITUTE FFY, I
WE CIRCLED RIGHT BACK TO MY SUBSTITUTE, BUT IT'S OKAY.
THAT SUBSTITUTE WAS RESCINDED.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO SAY ONLY FOR ONE BRIEF THING.
NOT EVERYTHING WITHIN A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT TWO UNITS ARE CAPPED AT 0.5 OR 2,900 SQUARE FOOT.
SO THAT'S THE MOTION IN FRONT OF US.
YEAH, WE HONOR, I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND THAT TO MOVE ALONG THE CONVERSATION.
DO WE NEED TO SPEAK TO THIS MOTION OR CAN WE MOVE ON TO A VOTE? ANY FOR YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? UH, IT'S JUST A MECHANISM TO GET MORE EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED UNITS RATHER THAN IMBALANCED REALLY BIG AND REALLY SMALL UNITS.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE INTENT BEHIND THIS.
UH, ANY OTHERS WANNA SPEAK FOR AGAINST THIS ITEM? ARE WE CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE? I, I WANT IT RESTATED, BUT I'M, I'M CLEAR, BUT I I CAN RESTATE IT AGAIN.
SO THE ONLY THING WE'RE DOING AT THIS MOMENT IS SAYING THREE A, THAT IF THE SUBSTITUTE, THE, THE BASE SUBSTITUTE PASSES TWO IN, WITHIN A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT, A TWO UNIT WOULD BE CAPPED AT 0.5 OR 2,900 SQUARE FOOT.
IT'S JUST FOR THAT NUMBER ON THREE B.
SO, UM, ANY MORE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OR AGAINST, ALL RIGHT.
EVERYBODY CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON? YES.
THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE, UH, THIS IS AN AMENDMENT.
AND SO WE'VE GOT, UM, 1, 2, 3, 4.
HOW MANY IS THIS? I'M SEEING 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
WHO'S VOTING AGAINST THE ITEM? HOWARD? WE'LL, FINALLY, MR. SURE.
I'M SORRY, I'M GONNA REPEAT IT AGAIN.
AND ACTUALLY Y'ALL PLEASE BEAR WITH ME.
YOU'LL MAKE ME VERY HAPPY TONIGHT.
CAN I EXTEND THE MEETING TO ONE 15 NOW, MS. MS. CHAIRMAN, I OBJECT.
SO I'LL GO THROUGH THIS AND ESSENTIALLY SAY THAT WE NOW ARE VOTING ON, I'M NOT GONNA STATE THE SUBSTITUTE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON IT.
ALRIGHT, SO LET'S, UM, LET'S GO AND VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE WITH THE THREE AMENDMENTS.
SO THOSE THAT ARE, SO, I'M, I'M, I'M UNCLEAR WHERE WE ARE.
WHAT, SO WE'RE BACK, WE'RE WE'RE AT THE END OF THIS LONG JOURNEY,
SO WE HAD A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
WE HAD A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT HAS THREE AMENDMENTS.
AND SO THEY WERE, THE FINAL TALLY WAS READ OUT BY COMMISSIONER ZA, WHERE OUR NUMBERS WERE.
UH, WITH THE GARAGE AMENDMENT.
SO WE'RE BACK TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT HAS HAD THREE AMENDMENTS TO IT.
IT'S, AND IT'S A SUBSTITUTE TO THE BASE MOTION.
WHICH WAS BUT ONCE THIS PASSED, YEAH, GO AHEAD.
IF, IF IT PASSES, THEN, THEN THE BASE MOTION IS DISCARDED, WHICH WAS MY ORIGINAL MOTION ON THE FAR CAPS.
AND IF IT PASSES, IT DISCARDS.
RECOMMENDED SUBSTANTIVELY IT IS THREE B.
NO, IT'S AT, SO, SO ESSENTIALLY THE ONLY DIFFERENCE NOW LEFT, I'M CONFUSED BETWEEN THESE TWO AMENDMENTS.
BETWEEN THE BASE AND THE SUBSTITUTE IS THE THREE UNIT IS 0.6 IN ONE AMENDMENT, 0.65 IN THE OTHER.
THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE LEFT.
THE PER UNIT IN THE BASE MOTION WAS POINT.
OH, NOW WE'RE RUNNING ON 0.6, 0.5.
THIS IS, THAT IS WHY I WANTED THE TIME EXTENSION SO I COULD REPEAT THE AMENDMENT.
SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND REPEAT IT REGARDLESS.
HERE'S WHERE WE ARE FOLKS IN FOR A OVERALL DEVELOPMENT.
WE ARE NOW AT THE FACT THAT ESSENTIALLY
[06:30:01]
ONE UNIT IS ACTUALLY, NO, THERE'S A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE HERE.TWO UNITS ARE AT 0.55 OR 3,200 SQUARE FOOT.
THREE UNITS ARE 0.65 OR 3007 50.
WITHIN THE MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ONE UNIT IS CAPPED AT 0.4 OR 2,302 UNITS ARE CAPPED AT 0.5 OR 2,903 UNITS FALL BACK TO THE 0.65 OR 3,750.
WITH THE, UH, DEFINITION OF WHAT GROSS FLOOR AREA IS WITH THE EXEMPTION FOR EXISTING STRUCTURES RELATED TO FAR.
YOU SAID THAT SOMETHING ABOUT 0.5, WHICH I DON'T SEE ON MY PAPER.
IT'S 0.50, IT'S TWO NOW BECAUSE WE ONLY AMENDED THE 0.5 FOR WITHIN.
THE 0.5 IS ANY TWO UNITS WITHIN A THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
THE 0.55 IS THE PER SITE FAR FOR A TWO UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
SO IF YOU DO JUST TWO UNITS, YOU CAN GO UP TO 0.5.
IF YOU DO TWO UNITS WITHIN A THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENT, YOU'RE CAPPED AT 0.5.
WHICH, WHICH IS, WHICH IS THE SUBSTANT DIFFERENCE FROM THE MY BASE MOTION, WHICH LOWERS THE SITE BY 0.05.
SO FOR CLARIFICATION, SUBSTANTIVELY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW IS TWO AND THREE B AS WRITTEN IN THE ORIGINAL WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS.
ESSENTIALLY WE'VE GONE PRETTY MUCH YEP.
WE'RE WE'RE BACK AT WHERE WE STARTED.
ACTUALLY, FOLKS, CONGRATULATIONS.
DO I DON'T, UH, I DON'T KNOW OF ANOTHER, UH, MOVE THE QUESTION PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, TAKE A VOTE.
'CAUSE WE, WE, IT'S, WE'RE GETTING ON OUR LIMIT, SO YEAH.
I'M GONNA CALL THE QUESTION 'CAUSE WE GOT SIX MINUTES LEFT.
SO COMMISSION, LET'S VOTE ON THIS ONE.
THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, UH,
WHO'S AGAINST? UH, VOTING AGAINST, UH, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
ANY ABSTENTIONS? COME AND COMMISSIONER HOWARD IS, YES.
AND WITH THAT, I THINK, UM, YES.
SO LET'S, WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO, UM, TALK ABOUT TOMORROW.
SO WE'RE GONNA, UH, TERMINOLOGY, WE'RE GONNA RECESS UNTIL TOMORROW.
AND WHEN IS STAFF GONNA BE HERE? UH, WILL THEY BE HERE BY SIX O'CLOCK? FIVE 30.
CAN WE START, CAN WE START EARLIER? FIVE 30.
FIVE 30? CAN WE HAVE QUORUM? OKAY, SO WE'LL RECESS UNTIL FIVE 30.
YOU HAVE A DAY JOB? SAME SPACE? OH YEAH.
HERE AT CITY HALL IN THE CHAMBERS.
ALTHOUGH REMOTE, A REMOTE OPTION WILL BE AVAILABLE AND THE REMOTE OPTION WILL STILL BE AVAILABLE.
UH, IT IS 5 43 AND WE ARE RECONVENING, UM, THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND, UH, WE'VE GOT THROUGH WITH, UM, PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, WE GOT THROUGH WITH Q AND A AND WE STARTED WORKING THROUGH OUR WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
AND WE'RE CONTINUING THAT EFFORT NOW.
UM, WE WERE GONNA GO IN ORDER, BUT WE HAD A REQUEST, UM, DUE TO I THINK STAFF, UM, A SLIGHT, UH, REORDER OF THE AMENDMENTS WORK GROUP AMENDMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION.
THE STAFF HAS SOME, UM, THINGS THAT THEY WANT US TO CONSIDER FOR FIVE OR SIX.
SO WE'RE SORT OF WORKING THROUGH THEM IN THE, UM, RIGHT NOW AND WE'LL GET TO IT.
SO WE'RE GONNA START WITH, UH, NUMBER FOUR, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN PROBABLY WHERE WE STARTED ANYWAY, BUT, UH, BUT WE WILL THEN JUMP TO I THINK 10, IF I'LL LOOK AT MY NOTES.
SO LET'S START WITH FOUR AND, UM, I CAN KICK IT OFF IF YOU WANT ME TO READ IT WHILE YOU'RE TYPING.
SO THIS IS, UM, I'M GONNA READ IT HERE.
THIS, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TOPIC.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM OUR SPEAKER FIRST AND THEN WE'LL START ON THIS ITEM.
HELLO, MRS. PHILLIPSON, THANK YOU FOR OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH THIS.
NOT, UH, THEY'RE PUTTING A NEW ROOF ON, SO IF YOU HEAR PING, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
UH, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
UM, I'LL JUST TAKE ME TWO MINUTES, BUT, UM, I REALLY WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING.
UM, I LISTENED YESTERDAY TO COMMENTS MADE BY RESIDENTS AND COMMISSIONERS.
ONE COMMENT REALLY BOTHERED ME, MADE BY CHAIRMAN SHAW.
[06:35:01]
MR. SHAW MADE LIGHT OF THESE MAJOR FAR REACHING ZONING CHANGES BY CALLING THEM MINOR.WELL, THAT'S NOT, I'M NOT SURE IF HE'S REALLY LISTENING TO COMMENTS OR EVEN HAD READ HOW EXTREME THESE CHANGES WILL BE FOR AUSTIN RESIDENTS, YOUR DECISIONS WILL SEVERELY AFFECT ALL RESIDENTS, INCLUDING YOUR HOME, YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND SHOULD NOT BE RUSHED.
THE FUTURE OF AUSTIN IS IN YOUR HANDS, SO TREAD LIGHTLY AND PURPOSELY ALL QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS MUST BE ADDRESSED WITH INCREASED PROPERTY VALUES, INCREASED TAXES, INCREASED COST OF BUILDING THIS PLAN CANNOT AND WILL NOT GUARANTEE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IN FACT, THERE WILL HASTEN DISPLACEMENT OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SPEED GENTRIFICATION, ESPECIALLY IN OUR MOST AFFORDABLE NEIGHBORHOODS.
DEVELOPERS WILL BE THE ONLY WINNERS WITH THIS ASSAULT TO OUR CITY.
TO RE REITERATE WHAT OTHERS HAVE FEARED, ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY INTO CONSIDERATION.
JULY, 2023, A NEW YORK CITY BASED NATURAL AREA CONSERVANCY CONDUCTED A STUDY IN 12 CITIES, INCLUDING AUSTIN.
THIS STUDY FOUND TEMPERATURES IN URBAN FORESTS WERE AS MUCH AS 10 DEGREES COOLER THAN IN THE CITY.
AUSTIN METEOROLOGIST REPORT THAT 2023 WAS AUSTIN'S HOTTEST SUMMER ON RECORD AND THE DRIES IN 113 YEARS WITH FUTURE PREDICTIONS OF INCREASED HEAT DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE.
AT THE SAME TIME, MORE CONCRETE AND DENSITY PLUS RANDOM CUTTING OF TREES WILL CREATE HUGE POCKETS OF EVEN HIGHER TEMPERATURES, WHICH WILL INCREASE ENERGY AND WATER USAGE.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, COVERING THE GROUND WITH ADDITIONAL CONCRETE BLOCKS.
PRECIOUS WATER NEEDED TO KEEP OUR AQUIFER A VIABLE SOURCE OF WATER FOR 2.5 MILLION RESIDENTS.
THEN THERE IS OUR PRESENT INFRASTRUCTURE ODD THAT IT APPEARS, EXCUSE ME, NO COUNCIL MEMBER HAD THOUGHT ABOUT OUR NEW INFRAS.
WHAT NEW INFRASTRUCTURES NEEDED FOR THESE MEGA CHANGES? MS. OUTTA THE PLAN.
SORRY, WE'RE THE TWO MINUTES IS UP, MA'AM.
UM, CHAIR, I'M READY TO LAY OUT THE AMENDMENTS WHERE WE LEFT OFF.
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR FROM THE WORKING GROUP.
THIS WAS A ESSENTIALLY, UM, A, A REMOVAL OF THE 1100 FOOT SQUARE FEET EXEMPTION FOR THE SECOND DWELLING UNIT IN THE TWO UNIT CONFIGURATION.
UM, AND ESSENTIALLY, I KNOW THIS WAS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION, SO I OPEN UP TO OTHER FOLKS TO SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AND WE CAN PROCEED ACCORDINGLY.
SO THIS IS, UH, WE HAVE FOUR, TWO MINUTES OF STAFF OF THE, UH, THE WORKING GROUP OR WHOMEVER, UH, TO GET CLARITY ON, ON THIS ITEM.
UH, SO WHO WANTS TO KICK US OFF? I'M NOT SURE WHO PULLED THIS OR REQUESTED IT BE PULLED, BUT HERE'S YOUR MOMENT TO ASK QUESTIONS ON IT.
BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS COMMISSIONER COX WOULD PULLED THIS ITEM.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT MUST HAVE TURNED IT OFF.
UM, SO DO WE HAVE, UH, QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? UM, IS THERE ANY WAY POSSIBLE THAT WE CAN SKIP THIS ONE AND COME BACK AT THE END? 'CAUSE I'M, I'M LIKE THREE BLOCKS AWAY FROM CITY HALL.
UM, UH, YES, WE CAN CERTAINLY MOVE ON.
COMMISSIONER COX AND RESPECT THAT PAGE.
SO WHAT THAT BRING, THANK YOU.
WHAT, UH, ARE WE GOING TO, IS IT 10? UM, YES, CHAIR.
WE WOULD BE GOING TO ITEM NUMBER 10 FROM THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
AGAIN, THIS WAS THE BACKUP THAT WAS POSTED TO OUR MEETING.
UM, AND SO, OH GOSH, COMMISSIONER CO.
YOU MIGHT, ACTUALLY, I THINK THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THAT YOU PULLED AS WELL.
SO LET'S LOOK AT NUMBER 12, WHICH I HAD PULLED.
HERE WE'RE LOOKING AT NUMBER 12 HERE FROM THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
THIS WAS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION FOR FAR LIMITATIONS AND LIMITATIONS OUTSIDE OUR SUBCHAPTER F BOUNDARY.
SO, UH, UH, MR. RIVER, COULD WE PULL UP, THEN I'LL TALK ABOUT THIS AND COULD WE PULL UP MY INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS BECAUSE I HAVE A, I, UM, HAVE AN ALTERNATE FOR THIS.
SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE WERE SAYING WAS WE WOULD LIKE OUR STAFF TO LOOK AT FAR LIMITATIONS AND COME BACK TO US FOR, WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS BOTH WITHIN, UM, THE SUBCHAPTER F BOUNDARY AND OUTSIDE THE SUBCHAPTER F BOUNDARY.
I PULLED THIS, THAT, THIS IS AS HARD ONE IN MY INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS, AND I BELIEVE THOSE HAVE BEEN POSTED TO BACK UP AS WELL.
UM, AND I'M SORRY FOLKS, I'M WORKING OFF MULTIPLE SHEETS.
Y'ALL WILL HAVE TO BEAR WITH ME A LITTLE.
BUT ESSENTIALLY THE ONLY CHANGE BETWEEN THIS AND THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT IS THAT INITIALLY WE HAD ESSENTIALLY ONLY TALKED ABOUT THE ONE UNIT FAR LIMITATIONS.
AND REALLY NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FAR GENERALLY.
[06:40:01]
SO AGAIN, READING IT OUT HERE, WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, SO THIS WOULD NOT BE THE SHEET, 'CAUSE THIS IS THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT SHEET.SO I'LL READ IT OUT, FOLKS, LISTEN OUT TO ME HERE AND WE'LL PULL IT UP IN A SECOND.
AFTER ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE, STAFF SHOULD PRESENT RECOMMENDATIONS ON FAR LIMITATIONS FOR ONE, TWO, AND THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE SUB-CHAPTER F BOUNDARY TO FURTHER ACCOMPLISH THE POLICY GOALS OF THIS ORDINANCE AND INCENTIVIZE DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES.
AND THE TOPIC WOULD ALSO BE CHANGED, WHICH ACTUALLY I MADE AN ERROR IN MY, MY PERSONAL AMENDMENTS AS WELL.
BUT THE TOPIC WOULD OF COURSE ALSO BE CHANGED TO FAR LIMITATIONS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE SUBCHAPTER F BOUNDARY.
SO AGAIN, I CAN TALK ABOUT THAT IN A SECOND, BUT THAT'S THE AMENDMENT THAT I'M LAYING OUT AT THIS POINT.
UM, FOR COMMISSIONERS, TWO MINUTES EACH TO GET CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THIS AMENDMENT.
DO YOU NEED A SECOND? YOU NEED NO PARDON? WE NEED A SECOND REQUEST.
WE'RE, WE'RE NOT UNTIL WE CAN START DISCUSSING.
SO YOU MAY WANT TO CHANGE IT, BUT IT'S A TIME TO ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS REGARDING THE AMENDMENT.
YEAH, I'M WHICH NUMBER, WHICH NUMBER ARE WE LOOKING AT? UM, UM, THIS IS AN ALTERNATE FOR NUMBER 12.
AND ESSENTIALLY THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT SPREADSHEET THAT WAS SHARED OUT TODAY FROM MY INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS, AND IT WAS POSTED TO BACK UP AS WELL.
AND SO WITHIN THAT, THIS IS THE NUMBER ONE, BUT THIS IS AN ALTERNATE TO THAT.
AND, UM, COMMISSIONER COXEY WOULD REMEMBER IN THE WORKING GROUP, WE ESSENTIALLY SAID WE WOULD LIKE ANALYSIS FROM THE STAFF ON FAR AS THEY BRING IT BACK.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING, WE HAVE THE WORKING GROUP, WE HAVE THE INDIVIDUAL, SO WE ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT OF BOTH.
AND THEN WE WILL WORK ON MAKING A MOTION.
BUT THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS REGARDING BOTH OF THESE, BUT THEY ARE KIND OF TOGETHER NOW THAT WE CAN SEE THEM IN CONTEXT.
SO DO THEY WORK TOGETHER AND IF SO, HOW DO THEY WORK TOGETHER? UM, UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, I'M ESSENTIALLY PUTTING FORWARD AN ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNA.
SO WE WOULD NOT BE LOOKING AT THE ALTERNATE.
UM, THE OTHER ONE, AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT IS THAT WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IN THE, IN THE, UM, WORKING GROUP IS WE HAD ONLY TALKED ABOUT ASKING FOR STAFF TO GIVE US FEEDBACK ON FAR LIMITATIONS FOR ONE UNIT INSIDE THE MCMANSION BOUNDARY BECAUSE WE WERE MAKING SOME RECOMMENDATIONS LOOKING AT THE CONVERSATION YESTERDAY.
AND I THINK SOME OF THE FEEDBACK WE HAVE FROM STAFF, IT MAKES SENSE TO OPEN IT UP A LITTLE AND SAY THAT AFTER ADOPTION STAFF CAN ACTUALLY LOOK AT FAR FOR ALL THREE UNIT VARIATIONS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE.
THIS HOPEFULLY GIVES STAFF MORE BREADTH TO COVER THAT BECAUSE IT'S VERY OBVIOUS THAT WE CAN MAKE A DECISION HERE, BUT IT WILL LIKELY NOT BE PERFECT.
AND I THINK MORE ANALYSIS WOULD PROBABLY HELP US AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
SO I'LL, I'LL GO AND ASK A QUESTION BECAUSE, UM, THE SCOPE OF THIS, UM, WE HAD A LOT OF DEBATE YESTERDAY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, 0.5 HERE, WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO.
AND WE DON'T DO THIS FOR A LIVING.
I MEAN, WE HEARD FROM EXPERTS, BUT YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO PICK A SPOT THAT WE THINK IS GOOD, BUT, AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THE IDEA OF EXEMPT PORTIONS.
WE HAD, UH, GARAGE EXEMPTIONS, I MEAN, ALL OF THAT TOGETHER.
AND SO WOULD THIS INCLUDE IN THAT ANALYSIS, ARE WE KIND OF EMBODYING THAT LEVEL OF ANALYSIS? UM, THE WAY I SEE IT, IT WOULD BE INHERENT TO THIS BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT IT ESSENTIALLY JUST FAR FOR ONE, TWO, AND THREE, UM, INSIDE AND OUTSIDE.
SO THE WAY REALLY THIS IS MEANT TO BE AS BROAD AS POSSIBLE FOR STAFF TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE US THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND GUIDANCE THAT THEY THINK IS NECESSARY.
UM, BUT IF SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE A FURTHER CLARIFICATION, WE CAN, WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT AS WELL.
BUT THE INTENTION REALLY IS JUST TO CLARIFY FROM THE D IS AS WIDE AS POSSIBLE.
TWO MORE SPOTS FOR Q AND A TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S CLEAR ON THIS.
UM, SO, UH, I APOLOGIZE WHERE I LEFT OFF LAST NIGHT.
THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION GOING ON ON THE PARTICULAR WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS FOR SPECIFIC FAR.
UM, I GUESS I NEED TO UNDERSTAND, WAS THERE ACTION TAKEN ON THOSE AMENDMENTS, UH, BY THE BODY AND WHERE WE AT? BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS WOULD KIND OF SUPERSEDE THAT THIS IS BROADER AND ALLOWS THE STAFF TO WORK WITH IT VERSUS PRESCRIBING SPECIFICS.
SO COMMISSIONER STALLER, WE DID ADOPT, UH, AMENDMENTS RELATED TO FIRE, AND I'LL REPEAT THEM HERE, UM, FOR YOUR BENEFIT AND OTHER FOLKS' BENEFIT AS WELL.
SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE LEVELED ON IS THAT FOR A TWO UNIT CONFIGURATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AS A WHOLE, YOUR FOREST IS CAPPED AT 0.55 OR 3,200 SQUARE FOOT FOR TWO UNITS 0.65 OR 3 7 54 3 UNITS FOR PER UNIT.
WE WOULD NOW BE LOOKING AT 0.4 OR UH, 2300 SQUARE FOOT PER UNIT.
[06:45:01]
THEN FOR TWO UNITS IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE 0.5 OR 2,900 SQUARE FOOT, AND THEN THREE UNIT WOULD GO BACK TO 0.65.IN ADDITION, WE SAID WE'RE CLARIFYING THAT AT THE END WHERE WE SAY, UM, THAT AN EXISTING UNIT ON THE SIDE, IF IT LEADS TO SORT OF LEGAL NON-COMPLIANCE, THAT WOULD NOT CAUSE THAT.
AND WE ESSENTIALLY SAID THAT AN EXEMPTION IS ONLY AS IT RELATES TO FAR FOR THE EXISTING UNIT.
SO WE MADE THAT CLARIFICATION.
IN ADDITION, WE ALSO CLARIFIED THAT IN THE CALCULATING OF PHA.
WE'RE AT THIS POINT SAYING THAT AND HONESTLY IS THE LEGALITY OF HOW WE LANDED THERE OR LANGUAGE OF HOW WE LANDED THERE.
BUT TO EXPLAIN IT IN SORT OF LAYMAN TERMS, WE'RE SAYING THAT YOUR ATTICS ARE NOT EXEMPTED AND YOUR CARPORTS ARE EXEMPTED AND GARAGES ARE EXEMPTED UP TO THE POINT THAT 200 SQUARE FOOT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND 450 SQUARE FOOT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE.
AND SO, SO WE SORT OF SETTLED ON SOMETHING YESTERDAY AND THAT'S WHAT WE MOVED AHEAD WITH.
COMMISSIONER TAL TO YOUR QUESTION.
AND THE HOPE WOULD BE THAT WE ARE ALSO GIVING OUR STAFF THE ABILITY AS WE'RE LOOKING AT PHASE TWO AND BEYOND, TO THINK ABOUT IF THERE'S OTHER TWEAKS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE TO MAKE THEM, UM, AS WE MOVE FORWARD,
SO THIS PROPOSAL, WOULD IT SUPERSEDE THAT OR WOULD IT GO WITH THAT? UM, IT'S, IT WOULD BE A STUDY WHICH WOULD BE CONDUCTED AFTER ADOPTION OF HOME.
IF THAT IS INDEED HOW THIS MOVES FORWARD.
I THINK I'M CONFUSED ABOUT OUR SENDING SPECIFICS AND THEN ASKING STAFF TO STUDY IT.
I FEEL LIKE I'M MISSING SOMETHING OBVIOUS.
IT'S A WELL, I'LL SAY SO, UM, YEAH, YOU HAVE 10 SECONDS LEFT IF YOU WANNA USE IT FOR ANOTHER QUESTION.
UH, HOW MANY IS THAT? UH, WE'RE UP TO YOU.
WERE GONNA RESPOND TO HER QUESTION.
UM, COMMISSIONER ZA, UM, THE AMENDMENTS ON FAR THAT WE ADOPTED LAST NIGHT, THEY APPLY ONLY IN THE SUBCHAPTER F AREA.
AND SO THIS STUDY, WOULD THIS STUDY BE ONLY FOCUSED ON THE SUBCHAPTER F AREA? UM, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAYNES FOR REALLY HELPING ME OUT HERE
ONE IS, UM, THAT WE'RE SAYING WHAT HAPPENS OUTSIDE OF THE SUBCHAPTER F BOUNDARY.
SO THAT IS BEING OPENED UP WITH THIS SO OUR STAFF CAN BRING THAT BACK BECAUSE WE DID NOT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION RELATED TO THAT.
SIMILARLY, WE DID NOT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO WHAT HAPPENS TO ONE UNIT UNDER SUBCHAPTER F TODAY BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING AT THE MOMENT.
AND STAFF WAS VERY CLEAR ON THAT YESTERDAY.
BUT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT HAS IMPLICATIONS ON THE TWO UNIT AND THREE UNITS.
SO WE'RE ASKING FOR MORE ANALYSIS AND FUTURE WORK FOR THOSE AREAS WHERE WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY LOOKING, UM, TO MAKE AMENDMENTS RIGHT NOW.
BUT ALSO AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE ALLOWING AND GIVING THE SPACE FOR STAFF TO PROVIDE US WITH FURTHER FEEDBACK AS NECESSARY.
NOW, NOW I UNDERSTAND YOUR AMENDMENT.
UH, I'M GOING TO THE LAST QUESTION, UH, FOR THIS ITEM AND THEN WE'LL MOVE INTO A MOTION.
UM, AND IT'S, I CAN'T, SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME IF THERE'S A HAND ON THE SMALL SQUARE, UH, RAISE.
UM, OH, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER HOWARD.
UH, SO LET'S, UH, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? UM, YES.
AND BEFORE THAT I'LL JUST MAKE A QUICK COMMENT.
COMMISSIONERS ONLINE, UM, AS WE HAVE MATERIAL PULLED UP, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO SEE YOU ALL.
SO IF YOU ALL NEED OUR ATTENTION, I WOULD SAY JUST UNMUTE YOURSELF AND SAY, CAN I BE RECOGNIZED? AND WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
SO JUST APPRECIATE Y'ALL VERY MUCH.
UM, SO CHAIR, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE MOVE AHEAD WITH THE AZAR ALTERNATIVE, UM, AS IT IS BEFORE YOU WITH ACTUALLY AN, THE LANGUAGE FOR TOPIC BEING REVISED AS WELL, WHICH I FORGOT TO REVISE THIS AFTERNOON.
SO IT WOULD BE SAYING FAR LIMITATIONS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE SUBCHAPTER F BOUNDARY.
AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT AFTER ADOPTION OF THIS ORGAN, STAFF SHOULD PRESENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND FAR, FAR LIMITATIONS FOR ONE, TWO, AND THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE SUBCHAPTER F BOUNDARY TO FURTHER ACCOMPLISH THE POLICY GOALS OF THIS ORDINANCE AND INCENTIVIZE DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES.
SO I WANT TO, UH, I KNOW I'M TRYING TO MOVE THROUGH FAST, BUT I WANNA RECOGNIZE, UM, SOME DISCUSSION IN THE WORKING GROUP EARLIER.
UH, DO WE WANNA CLARIFY THE SCOPE OF THIS AND IN PARTICULAR WORKING GROUP THERE, THE E THE TEXT THAT WE HAD EARLIER.
UM, DO WE WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING ABOUT IN PARTICULAR TO, YOU KNOW, A GARAGE EXEMPTIONS OR IF WE WANNA NARROW
[06:50:01]
DOWN AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE A TARGETED SCOPE? SO THIS WOULD BE THE TIME TO TRY TO DIRECT STAFF THAT IF THERE'S ANY PARTICULAR THING, IT'S VERY BROAD, BUT WE CAN MAKE SURE THEY COVER CERTAIN ELEMENTS RIGHT NOW WITH AN AMENDMENT.I'M, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, UH, I'M TRYING TO CONNECT THE DOTS BETWEEN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND, AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW.
SO, SO WE ARE AT, SO THE WHAT WAS PROPOSED WAS, UH, YOU KNOW, WE WORKED TOGETHER, WE CAME UP, WE PASSED THAT FAR TABLE THE NUMBERS CORRECT.
UH, DISCUSSION ON WORKING ROOF ABOUT, YOU KNOW, UH, WHETHER OR NOT GARAGES, HOW THAT WAS GONNA IMPACT THINGS.
I'M JUST SAYING I DON'T THINK WE'RE EVER GONNA GET IT PERFECT.
BUT I DO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT FOR STAFF THAT, AND, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GOT, UM, AND WE NEVER DO, RIGHT? WE PASS THINGS AND COUNCIL TAKES IT.
THEY HAVE MORE INFORMATION THAN WE DO TYPICALLY BY THE TIME IT GETS TO THEM.
AND SO THIS IS JUST ASKING STAFF TO BE PREPARED AND START, UH, PLEASE BRING THE BODY OF RESEARCH THAT THEY CAN SO THAT IN THE END WHEN COUNSEL SEES THIS, THERE'S, THEY HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION, UH, AVAILABLE TO THEM.
WELL, I AGREE WE CAN'T MAKE IT PERFECT, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY MAKE IT BETTER.
AND, AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME, THIS IS JUST SO WE'RE ON THE, WE'RE IN, WE HAVE A MOTION THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED.
UM, DID YOU GET A SECOND? I, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
SO JUST SO WE CAN FURTHER DISCUSSION, SO NOW WE CAN MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE.
SO I WAS OFFERING UP SUGGESTIONS TO MAKE THIS MEANING MORE MEANINGFUL TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS.
WELL, SO, SO I WOULD OFFER UP, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S AN AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTE OR WHATEVER, BUT IF WE'RE MAKING A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF IN THE INFORMATION THAT THEY PROVIDE TO COUNSEL, SINCE THIS GROUP IS DETERMINED TO APPROVE THIS TONIGHT RATHER THAN TRYING TO GET IT RIGHT.
I WOULD ARGUE WE, WE, WE HAD TWO HOURS OF DEBATE AND I THINK WE GOT IT AS RIGHT AS, AND ALL THE INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE HERE.
INCLUDING THOSE ON NO, ACTUALLY, ACTUALLY THAT'S INCORRECT.
ALL, ALL THE INFORMATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE.
WE ARE JUST GETTING THE STAFF MODELING THAT.
STAFF MODELING AS FAR AS I CAN TELL DOESN'T INCLUDE I I'M SORRY, JUST TO INTERRUPT HERE, ARE WE MAKING AN AMENDMENT OR WHAT DO WE, WHAT DO WE YEAH, GO.
CAN WE, CAN WE GO AHEAD AND FOCUS ON THE ONE THAT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF US BEFORE, LIKE I JUST LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING.
THANK YOU FOR A GENERAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION, I THINK WE SHOULD BE REQUESTING THAT STAFF UPDATE THEIR MODELING TO INCLUDE THE EXEMPTIONS THAT THIS COMMISSION APPROVED YESTERDAY.
BECAUSE WHAT WE APPROVED WAS POTENTIALLY UP TO 1300 PLUS SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL BUILDABLE SPACE FOR, FOR CARS.
AND THAT WAS NOT IN ANY OF THE INFORMATION THAT THE A I A OR STAFF PROVIDED TO US.
AND I WAS INFORMED OF THAT LAST NIGHT AFTER THIS MEETING.
SO THAT, THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION, GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF.
YEAH, SO I, I LIKE THAT WORDING.
SO SAY IT ONE MORE TIME AS AN AMENDMENT THAT THEY UPDATE THEIR MODELING FOR COUNCIL.
I JUST WANNA BE VERY CLEAR THOUGH.
I THINK SO WE MIGHT BE GETTING A LITTLE CONFUSED HERE.
SO LET ME READ OUT WHAT I HAVE HERE.
THIS IS NOT IN ADVANCE OF THE COUNCIL MEETING.
THIS SAYS AFTER ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE.
SO IF WHAT COMMISSIONER COX IS SUGGESTING, THAT MIGHT BE ANOTHER AMENDMENT, I THINK, AND I CAN MAKE THAT A SEPARATE AMENDMENT.
I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE APPROPRIATE TIME WAS, SO I THAT'S MY BAD.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
OKAY, LET THEN I'LL, I'LL RETRACT WHAT I SAID AND I'LL BRING IT UP.
ANY AMENDMENTS? IT'S PRETTY BROAD.
I HAVE, UM, AND I'M WORKING ON IT.
I CAN TELL YOU, UM, I WOULD, YOU'RE YOU'RE RIGHT MR. CHAIRMAN, IT IS PRETTY BROAD AND I WOULD LIKE TO SOME, UH, TO ADD SOME SPECIFICS IN THERE.
UM, AND, AND SO I WAS STARTING, UM, AND I MAY NEED MS LINK TO HELP ON THE LEGAL, BUT I WAS, BUT I WAS GOING ALONG THE LINES OF RIGHT AT THE END SAYING, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, UM, EXEMPTIONS.
UM, UH, AND IF YOU WANT TO, IF YOU WANNA SAY GARAGES OR PARKING STRUCTURES, WHATEVER, UH, PUT THOSE WORDS IN THERE.
BUT I'D ALSO LIKE TO PUT IN THERE THAT, UM, WE FOCUS, UH, UH, ON THE AREAS OUTSIDE OF SUB CHAPTER F THAT THOSE AREAS FOCUS ON, UH, TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS, UH, E TODD, AND, UM, UH, PROBABLY
[06:55:01]
PROBABLY THOSE TWO.'CAUSE IF WE'RE GONNA BUILD OUTSIDE OF, IF, IF WE'RE GONNA, IF WE'RE GONNA UP ZONE AND IF WE'RE GONNA DO THIS, UM, OUTSIDE OF THE SUBCHAPTER F AREA, THEN I WANNA FOLLOW WHAT'S LISTED IN IMAGINE AUSTIN.
AND THAT SAYS WE ARE TO FOCUS OUR DENSITY ON TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS.
AND, UM, UM, WELL ACTUALLY ON TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS, CAN WE, UH, SPLIT THE QUESTION 'CAUSE UH, INTO TWO AND TAKE UP THE FIRST ON THE EXEMPTIONS AND THEN TAKE UP THE SECOND ONE.
CAN WE SPLIT THE QUESTION? SURE.
SO ON THE, UM, THE AMENDMENT TO, UM, SURE.
I'M GONNA MAKE THIS SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN KEEP OURSELVES MOVING.
UM, I'M MAKING AN AMENDMENT TO MY AMENDMENT AND I'M ADDING IN THE END WHERE WE SAY, UM, AN INCENTIVIZED DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES, COMMA, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO EXEMPTIONS FOR PARKING STRUCTURES AND GARAGES.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I'M LOOKING TO YOU FOR A SECOND.
CAN, CAN WE HAVE THAT UP ON THE SCREEN OR IS, WAS THAT DISTRIBUTED VIA EMAIL? UM, SO I'M SORRY, LEMME JUST FOCUS ON A SECOND.
SO THERE'S INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS THAT I HAD, THOSE ARE POSTED TO BACKUP AND THERE WERE SHARED VIA EMAIL.
AND THEN I'M ADDING IN LANGUAGE RIGHT NOW BASED ON WHAT HE JUST SAID.
SO UNLESS THERE'S A WAY FOR ME TO SHARE MY LAPTOP, I'M JUST READING FROM NOTES.
I'M TAKING AS PEOPLE ARE SPEAKING THIS, THIS IS IN OUR BACKUP.
THIS SHOULD BE IN YOUR BACKUP.
UH, THIS IS IN BOTH IN THE BACKUP.
JUST SEARCH FOR MY NAME ON THE WEBPAGE AND THESE AMENDMENTS WILL POP UP OR THEY WERE ALSO SHARED VIA EMAIL.
COMMISSIONER ZA, DO YOU WANT TO DO THE TRANSPORTATION PIECE OF IT IN A, IN A THINK I SECOND SENTENCE? I THINK I JUST HEARD THAT WE WANT TO SPLIT THE MOTION, SO PERFECT.
LET'S, DID YOU GET A SECOND? I'LL, I I WILL SECOND THAT.
DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE AMENDMENT? ALL RIGHT.
I'M NOT SEEING ANY, SO THE AMENDMENT PASSES.
UH, NOW LET'S FRAME THE SECOND PART OF THAT.
UH, AND, AND SINCE WE'VE GOT A PERIOD, WE'LL HAVE TO GO TO A NEW SENTENCE.
UM, AND THIS IS WHERE I NEED, UH, I GOT CODE OF CONSTRUCTION, BUT I NEED A, UM, I HAVE A RECOMMENDATION.
I, 'CAUSE I WAS NOTING AS YOU WERE WRITING IT DOWN, UM, WE WOULD BE ADDING AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE, UM, AT THE END OF WHAT WE JUST APPROVED WITH THE AMMUNITION OUTSIDE OF SUB CHAPTER F STAFF SHOULD FOCUS ON ETOD AREAS IN TRANSIT CORRIDORS.
WHO IS A LAWYER? I DON'T NEED A LAWYER.
SO DO WE WHO? I GOT A LET'S MOTION.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO ADD THIS AMENDMENT? I'LL SECOND THAT.
I, I, I HAVEN'T MADE THAT MOTION.
AND WE HAVE A, I'LL PROVIDE A SECOND FROM MR. STALLER.
WE ALREADY HAD COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER HANKS.
ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS AMENDMENT? CAN YOU READ THE AMENDMENT? SO AT THE END OF IT, WE WILL BE SEEING OUTSIDE OF SUBCHAPTER F STAFF SHOULD FOCUS ON ETOD AREAS IN TRANSIT CORRIDOR.
AND QUESTION, UM, THE IDEA OF THIS IS TO GET STAFF TO COME BACK WITH NEW FAR RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO WE ARE, UM, JUST TO STUDY, WE'RE THE POINT.
WE'RE DONE, WE'RE MOVING ON TO AMENDMENTS AND SUBSTITUTIONS, THAT KIND OF STUFF.
SO WE'VE GOT, UH, WE'RE READY.
SO ANY OBJECTIONS TO ADDING THIS AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT.
SO ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS? SO WE'VE PASSED THE TWO AMENDMENTS, NOW WE NEED TO PASS THE YES AND I'LL READ THE ENTIRE MOTION AT THIS TIME.
SO AFTER ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE, STAFF SHOULD PRESENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND FAR LIMITATIONS FOR ONE, TWO, AND THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE SUBCHAPTER F BOUNDARY TO FURTHER ACCOMPLISH THE POLICY GOALS OF THIS ORDINANCE AND INCENTIVIZE DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO EXEMPTIONS FOR PARKING STRUCTURES AND GARAGES OUTSIDE OF SUBCHAPTER F STAFF SHOULD FOCUS ON ETOD AREAS IN TRANSIT CORRIDORS.
AND THE TOPIC OF THIS WILL BE CHANGED TO FAR LIMITATIONS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE CHAPTER F BOUNDARY.
SO, UH, I THINK THAT IS REALLY GOOD WORK.
UM, SO THANK YOU ALL FOR, UH, GOING THROUGH THERE AND AMENDING IT AND MAKING IT BETTER.
UM, SO WE'RE GOING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE WORKING GROUP LIST.
UM, WHICH, ANY ABSTENTIONS OR NO, YOU GOTTA TAKE A VOTE.
I THOUGHT I SAID WERE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS? AND I SAW NONE, BUT ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS THAT WAS FOR THE AMENDMENT.
THAT WAS THE AMENDMENT TO THE ACTUAL, TO THE BASE AS WELL.
NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BASE AS AMENDED.
ANY OBJECTIONS? ALL RIGHT, I'M SORRY.
I'M TRYING TO MOVE THINGS ALONG FOLKS AND CATCH ME IF I'M GOING TOO FAST.
[07:00:01]
BACK.ARE WE GOING BACK TO WHICH ITEM FOUR? UM, YES, CHAIR.
I THINK WE CAN AT THIS POINT GO BACK TO FOUR, WHICH, UM, I HAD LAID OUT EARLIER AND COMMISSIONER COX HAD PULLED THE COMMISSIONER.
IS COMMISSIONER COX'S TO, UM, LET US KNOW HOW HE WOULD LIKE US TO PROCEED? SO THIS IS, UM, YES.
SO YOU HAVE A CHANCE, WE HAVE FOUR QUESTIONS, TWO MINUTES EACH SO YOU CAN EXPLORE MORE ON THIS ITEM, UH, TO GET A BETTER GRASP OF WHAT IT MEANS SO THAT WE CAN THEN GO FORWARD WITH THE MOTION.
I PULLED NUMBER THE, WE WERE THINKING WORKING DATE NUMBER FOUR.
YOU HAD PULLED IT YESTERDAY BECAUSE THERE WAS A REQUEST.
THERE WAS A REQUEST FROM COMMISSIONER COHEN AND YOU HAD PULLED IT.
OH, WELL THEN I WILL DEFER TO COMMISSIONER COHEN.
SOMEBODY IS MUCH BETTER MEMORY THAN ME.
UH, CHAIR COHEN, DO YOU WANT TO START OUT WITH ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM FOUR.
UM, THIS WAS THE ITEM WHERE WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE LIMITS ON THE SINGLE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE 1100 SQUARE FOOT LIMIT.
AND I'LL BE FINE IF, IF EVERYBODY'S LIKE, WOW, YOU KNOW, FORGOT WHAT WE HAD DONE YESTERDAY AND WE CAN JUST MOVE THIS ON
I DON'T RECALL HAVING A PROBLEM WITH FOUR.
ALL RIGHT, WELL, I, UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CAN WE GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ONE, UH, CHAIR? WE DO NEED TO MAKE A MOTION NOW.
SO I'M MAKING A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE, UM, THE WORKING GROUP.
ALRIGHT, GET A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
ANY OBJECTIONS TO ITEM FOUR ON THE WORKING GROUP? I'M SEEING NONE.
AND I REALLY HAVE TO SAY I REALLY APPRECIATE STAFF'S FEEDBACK ON THIS, BUT I WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THE WORKING GROUP SHARED THESE AMENDMENTS WITH STAFF VERSIONS OF THIS WERE SHARED LAST WEEK AND THEN WE HAD A REALLY LONG MEETING WITH STAFF ON FRIDAY AND I WAS RECEIVING FEEDBACK ON THIS ONE AND A HALF HOURS BEFORE.
SO I REALLY APPRECIATE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, UH, GIVING US THE TIME TO IRON OUT THIS WITH STAFF, PARTICULARLY SINCE YOU HAVE EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS WHO WORKED ON THIS AS WELL.
AND WE'RE HAVING TO, UM, WORK WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FINE WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT PIECES.
BUT I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S WORK ON THIS.
SO, UH, DID YOU WANNA START ON 10? 10? YES.
I THINK WE CAN GO TO 10, WHICH WAS, UM, SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN PULLED BY COMMISSIONER COX AS WELL.
SO I LAID OUT, AGAIN, THIS WAS, UM, FOR FRONT DOOR AND DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS AND WE SAID FOR A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT, THE FRONT DOOR OF AT LEAST ONE UNIT MUST MEET, MUST FACE THE FRONT LOT LINE AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A DRIVEWAY MUST MATCH THOSE ALLOWED FOR ONE UNIT OR TWO UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EXISTING CODE.
UM, AND THIS WAS BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM OUR STAFF, UM, WHO WANTED US TO ENSURE THAT THESE ELEMENTS WERE INCLUDED.
SO, UH, YEAH, COMMISSIONER COX, YOU WANTED TO GO FIRST WITH Q AND A? PLEASE DO.
YEAH, I'M, I'M CURIOUS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF CAN ILLUMINATE THIS OR MAYBE ANOTHER COMMISSIONER IN THE WORKING GROUP, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, HOUSTON'S UH, SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO TOWN HOMES WERE, WERE PRODUCING KIND OF WALLS OF CONDOS AND, AND JUST ENDLESS DRIVEWAYS IN THEIR RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS.
AND I KNOW THAT THEY WERE DOING SOMETHING, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS TO TRY TO PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING.
I KIND OF SEE THIS AS TOUCHING ON THAT SUBJECT, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S ALL THE WAY THERE.
AND SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF STAFF OR FELLOW COMMISSIONER THAT MAY BE MORE INFORMED ON THAT COULD HELP ME UNDERSTAND IF, IF THIS AMENDMENT GETS US THERE TO PREVENTING WALLS OF GARAGES AND ENDLESS DRIVEWAYS OR IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING AND ADDING TO THIS.
SO WE DO HAVE COLE KITTEN ON WEBEX IF WE WANT TO GET INTO SORT OF DRIVEWAY REGULATIONS, UM, AS WRITTEN, UH, BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE, OF THE NEW DRIVEWAY REGULATIONS IN THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL, THERE WILL BE WIDTH LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRIVEWAYS THEMSELVES, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE ANY LIMITATION ON THE ACTUAL WIDTH OF THE GARAGES OR THE GARAGE DOORS.
SO, SO HAVING SOME LIMITATION ON THE, ON THE DRIVEWAYS WOULD HELP FROM A CURB CUT STANDPOINT, BUT IT WOULDN'T ACTUALLY IMPACT HOW MUCH OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE COULD BE GARAGE DOOR.
AND SO WHEN WE SAY REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVING MISMATCH, THOSE ALLOWED FOR ONE UNIT, TWO UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EXISTING CODE, COULD YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT
[07:05:01]
THAT, WHAT THE EXISTING CODE IS ON THAT? OH, WE MIGHT BRING COLE OVER TO, UH, TO ANSWER THAT.UM, SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, UH, OR DOES, DOES ANYONE FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE ON TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA? EMMANUEL? I I GOT A PRIMER A LITTLE WHILE AGO, BUT, SO DO COMMISSIONER MIND.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE BOTH, I KNOW IT'S
SINCE WE HAD STAFF MEETING, I THINK I'M FINE WITH LETTING MR. LLOYD RESPOND TO THIS.
UH, YES, COMMISSIONER, UH, GOOD AFTERNOON.
COULD YOU, UH, REPEAT THE QUESTION FOR ME PLEASE? I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, UH, OUR AMENDMENT SAYS REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVEWAY MUST MATCH THOSE ALLOWED FOR ONE UNIT OR TWO UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EXISTING CODE.
CAN YOU ILLUMINATE WHAT THOSE EXISTING CODE REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR ONE UNIT AND TWO UNIT DEVELOPMENTS? UM, CERTAINLY, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, LIKE RIGHT NOW IN THE CODE AND IN THE CRITERIA MANUAL, WE HAVE, UH, ONE DRIVEWAY PER UNIT AND WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE, UH, LIKE THAT BECAUSE IF YOU PROVIDE MORE DRIVEWAY CARS ON A CERTAIN LEVEL OF THE STREET, IT IS GONNA CREATE MORE CONFLICT POINTS ON THAT PARTICULAR STREET FOR COLLATION POTENTIAL AND SO FORTH.
SO OUR PROPOSAL IS TO, UH, KEEP THE DRIVEWAY AS IT IS IN THE, IN THE CODE THERE.
THERE'S AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION THAT DID YOU MEAN TO SAY ONE DRIVEWAY PER SITE OR ONE DRIVEWAY PER UNIT? IT'S ONE DRIVEWAY PER SITE.
SO IF YOU HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY LOT, THAT IS GOING TO BE ONE DRIVEWAY FOR THAT.
IF YOU ARE HAVING THREE UNITS, UH, FOR THAT PARTICULAR SINGLE FAMILY LOT, YOU ARE STILL GONNA HAVE ONE DRIVEWAY HAVE A FOLLOW UP TO THAT WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE.
UM, DO YOU HAVE FOLLOW, DO YOU HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FOR OKAY, UH, COMMISSIONER MUELLER, GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.
UM, AND THIS MAY, WE MAY NOT HAVE THIS ANSWER YET, BUT WHEN WE GET TO PHASE TWO AND WE START TALKING ABOUT BEING ABLE TO SUBDIVIDE THE LOTS, UM, I, I, I KNOW WHAT Y'ALL ARE GOING AT, AT THE, AT THE, AT THE CURB CUT.
UM, I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT WOULD, WOULD THAT THEN GO TO THOSE CURB CUTS IF THEY SUBDIVIDE? SO IF WE GET TO PHASE TWO AND WE HAVE SUBDIVIDING AND SOMEBODY DOES THIS UNDER THAT, THEN ARE THERE CURB CUTS FOR EACH OF THOSE NEW INDIVIDUAL LOTS ONCE WE CHANGE LOT SIZE? UM, SO WE HAVE COMMISSIONER, WE HAVE CERTAIN CRITERIA AND DISTANCE FOR CURB CUTS.
UM, AND IF THE CURB CUTS ARE PROVIDED WITHIN, UH, CERTAIN DISTANCE, THEN WE MAY ALLOW ADDITIONAL CUT CUTS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
WE'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE CAR SPACES, EFFECTIVE CAR SPACES FOR TRASH PICKUP DROP OFF AND YOU KNOW, FOR ON STREET PARKING AND SO FORTH.
SO THANK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION.
I'M WONDERING IF THAT'S GONNA CHANGE HOW WE WORD THIS.
UM, 'CAUSE ADDITIONAL CURB CUTS ARE GONNA MAKE SOME, IF, IF THE LOTS GO TO SUBDIVISION, UH, SUBDIVIDING AND THEN THEY END UP BECOMING INDIVIDUAL LOTS.
CAN UM, COMMISSIONER MOOCHER, CAN I JUST, IN MY HEAD WHAT I'M THINKING ABOUT IS, UM, WE, PHASE TWO IS GONNA COME BACK TO US AND I THINK A LOT OF THOSE ELEMENTS, UM, I TRYING TO ANTICIPATE WE COULD ADD SOMETHING HERE AS AN AMENDMENT OR A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF, UH, THAT, I'M TRYING TO THINK, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE'RE GONNA HAVE HANDS ON PHASE TWO AS WELL AND SURE.
UH, AND DEFINITELY NEED TO ADDRESS, I THINK A LOT OF US HERE ARC, UM, A LITTLE, WHEN WE SAW SOME OF THE PICTURES FROM STAFF WERE CONCERNED ABOUT, WE DIDN'T WANNA CREATE THAT KIND OF LOOK ALONG ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS.
SO, UM, AND I DON'T HAVE THE IMAGE HERE, BUT YES, IT WAS, THEY WERE 10 FOOT OFF THE PROPERTY LINE, JUST A ROW OF GARAGES WITH CARS.
SO IT WAS, YEAH, THERE WERE CONCERNS AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
WE MAY WANNA BROADEN IT OUT A LITTLE BIT OR ADD, UH, ANOTHER TO STUDY THAT.
WELL, LET'S THINK ABOUT AN AMENDMENT IF WE NEED TO.
WE ADD, UH, UP TO OUR THIRD QUESTION ON THIS.
UM, IF A COMMISSIONER HAS QUESTION AND I'M LOOKING AT COMMISSIONER HAYNES, YOU LOOK LIKE YOU MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING.
UM, I, I WILL JUST FOR THE, FOR THE INFO, INFO OF THE BODY, I VOTED AGAINST THIS IN THE WORK GROUP.
THE REASON I VOTED AGAINST IT IN THE, IN THE WORK GROUP IS,
[07:10:01]
UM, AT THE TIME, UM, COMMISSIONER CZAR SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON THE, IN, IN ADDITION TO THE DRIVEWAY, IT WAS FOCUSED ON THE FRONT DOOR.HE WANTS THE FRONT DOOR, FACING THE FRONT STREET TO, TO KEEP THE KIND OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD APPEAL, OBVIOUSLY, UM, SINCE NONE OF MY NEIGHBORS ARE IN THE AUDIENCE, UH, THEY MAY BE WATCHING.
UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD APPEAL IS ALREADY, IF, IF FOLKS START PUTTING THREE UNITS IN ALLENDALE, AND THAT'S MY NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT'S WHY I'LL PICK ON 'EM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD APPEAL IS GONE.
WHAT I, THE REASON I VOTED FOR THIS OR VOTED AGAINST THIS IS I DON'T WANNA MANDATE FOR A BUILDER TO PUT A FRONT DOOR ON THE FRONT UNIT.
UM, IF, LET'S LET'S SAY THEY WANT TO BUILD THREE, HEY, UH, I, I LOVE THIS FOR LIKE DEBATE.
OH, BUT DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? BECAUSE LET'S GET OUR QUESTIONS AND THEN I LOVE YOUR ARGUMENTS AND THERE'S TIME FOR THAT WE WILL GO INTO DEBATE.
IS, CAN I JUST FOLLOW UP A QUESTION FIVE? THIS WAS A, UH, ISSUE RAISED BY MS. ERICA LEAK.
MS. LEE, DO YOU WANNA PLEASE SPEAK TO YOUR ISSUE SO THAT WE CAN, 'CAUSE THIS WAS A REFERENCE TO WHAT Y'ALL HAD TOLD US, NOT NECESSARILY THINGS THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT.
UH, ERICA LEAK PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UM, SO CERTAINLY PART OF IT IS, IS THE UNITS ACTUALLY JUST HAVING A RELATIONSHIP TO THE STREET SO THAT YOU DO HAVE SOME, UM, CONNECTION BASICALLY, UM, BETWEEN THE STREET AND AT LEAST ONE UNIT IN, IN DUPLEXES, THERE WAS ACTUALLY AN EXISTING REQUIREMENT WHERE YOU HAD TO HAVE, UH, DOORS FACING BOTH KIND OF THE FRONT STREET AND THE SIDE STREET.
AND THIS WAS A BIT OF A COMPROMISE TO SORT OF SAY, YOU KNOW, IT MAY NOT BE FEASIBLE TO HAVE ALL THREE UNITS HAVE A, UM, A DOOR THAT FACES THE STREET, BUT YOU COULD AT LEAST HAVE ONE FRONT DOOR.
AND DOES THIS AMENDMENT, UM, ESSENTIALLY ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS? I THINK THE, THE FRONT DOOR PART IS IMPORTANT.
UM, THE GARAGE, THE POTENTIAL GARAGE WIDTH IS NOT ADDRESSED.
SO I THINK YOU COULD, WITH THE MEN, THE AMENDMENTS AS PROPOSED, IF I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING CORRECTLY, YOU COULD STILL HAVE A VERY WIDE GARAGE DOOR AND JUST ENOUGH WIDTH FOR A FRONT DOOR.
SO I, UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I JUST, WE KINDA SKIPPED OVER AND TRYING TO ANTICIPATE WHAT YOU MIGHT WANNA ASK.
SO I THINK WE CAN, IF, IF FOLKS BELIEVE THEY UNDERSTAND THIS ENOUGH, WE CAN HAVE A MOTION AND AMENDMENTS OF COURSE IF WE NEED THEM.
SO, UM, YOU WANNA GO AND START THE BASE HERE? YES, CHERYL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A UM, UM, A MOTION.
UM, AND SO IT'S A SLIGHT ADAPTATION BASED ON WHAT MS WEEK JUST SAID.
SO THE TITLE IS FRONT DOOR AND DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS AND WE WOULD SAY FOR A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT, THE FRONT DOOR, IF AT LEAST ONE UNIT MUST FACE THE FRONT LOT LINE, THE SECOND UH, POINT IS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A GARAGE DOOR AND DRIVEWAY MUST MATCH THOSE ALLOWED FOR ONE UNIT AND TWO UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EXISTING CODE.
SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO KINDA GET THIS THING FIRMED UP? I'LL SECOND IT AND THEN WE CAN UM, SO WE AMENDMENT SUBSTITUTIONS, UM, UH, I DUNNO IF IT'S AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTION, BUT I'LL, I'LL OFFER IT AS AN AMENDMENT.
UM, THAT WE ADD A PROVISION THAT REQUIRES THAT IF MORE THAN ONE GARAGE IS FACING THE FRONT LOT LINE, THE NUMBER OF FRONT DOORS FACING THE FRONT LOT LINE HAS TO EQUAL THE NUMBER OF GARAGES.
COULD WE HAVE STAFF SPEAK? UH, JUST I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT STAFF HAS TO SAY IF YOU GUYS WILL, UH, GIVE YOU THAT PRIVILEGE.
SO I ASSUME THIS IS BASICALLY IF YOU WERE HAVING THREE UNITS AND THEY ALL HAD GARAGES, LIKE IF YOU HAD A WIDE LOT AND YOU HAD THREE GARAGES ALL FACING THE STREET, THAT AMENDMENT IT SOUNDS LIKE WOULD, WOULD ADD A FRONT DOOR REQUIREMENT FOR EACH OF THEM.
SO YES, THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE INTENT AND IF IT CAN BE WORDED BETTER, THEN I'M OPEN TO IT.
SO IT STAFFORD IS THAT, ANY ISSUES WITH THAT THAT YOU SEE? MM.
UM, I HAVE A, A FOLLOW UP QUESTION FOR STAFF ON THIS.
I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THE INTENT OF THE CONNECTION WITH THE STREET AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WE HAVE DIFFERENT LAYOUTS AND WHERE THERE'S GONNA BE SORT OF FLEXIBLE USE OF DIFFERENT LOT SIZES AND LOTS, YOU KNOW, HOW A HOUSE MIGHT BE
[07:15:01]
HIDDEN FURTHER IN THE BACK.WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE AT A CERTAIN POINT IF ONE OF THE UNITS IS NOT SORT OF REALLY FACING THE STREET ANYWAY, UH, OR EVEN NECESSARILY VISIBLE WHEN I'M ON THE SIDEWALK, WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE IF I HAD A FRONT DOOR FACING IN A CERTAIN DIRECTION? THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
WELL, SO THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN INITIALLY AND THE SECOND ONE MAKES IT A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED, BUT THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN INITIALLY, IT WOULD JUST BE THAT THE, WHATEVER THE FRONT UNIT IS, THE FRONT UNIT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A DOOR OR I MEAN WELL, SO FOR THE FRONT UNIT THAT MAKES SENSE.
I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, IF WE START TALKING ABOUT ANY OF THE OTHER UNITS THAT, AND I, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THIS IS PARTIALLY A QUESTION FOR YOU COMMISSIONER COX, BUT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE, I I UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THE CONNECTION WITH THE STREET FOR THE FRONT UNIT.
WHAT WELL, AND, AND, AND ACTUALLY I'M NOT EVEN THINKING OF UNITS STACKED BACK TO BACK.
I'M THINKING MORE OF THE HOUSTON EXAMPLE AND TRYING TO AVOID WALLS OF GARAGES.
AND SO BY, AND MAYBE IT SHOULD BE A PROXIMITY THING.
UM, 'CAUSE I DON'T REALLY CARE WHAT DIRECTION THINGS ARE FACING IF A UNIT IS IN THE BACK OF A LOT.
MY INTEREST IS IF, IF, IF THE LOT'S WIDE ENOUGH TO GIVE US A TRIPLEX.
I DON'T, I DON'T WANT IT SET UP SO THAT THE FA THE FRONTAGE IS JUST DRIVEWAYS AND THEN THEY PUT, THEY PUT THE DOORS ON THE SIDE.
I, I WANT AN ARTICULATION SO THAT WE DON'T END UP WITH WALLS AND GARAGES AT, AT THE FACE OF OUR SIDEWALKS, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, UH, I APPRECIATE CLARIFICATION WHEN WE'RE MAKING AMENDMENTS, LET'S GO AND NA UH, LET'S GO AND ASK FOR AND BE GRANTED A UH, JUST POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
UH, JUST 'CAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE IN MY RULES THAT WE COULD DO Q AND A FOR EACH AMENDMENT, BUT IT DOES MAKE SENSE.
I OPENED THE DOOR, I ASKED STAFF TO COME UP.
SO MY BAD, UM, THE ONLY THE ONLY POINT OF CLARIFICATION I WAS SEEKING, I THINK I PRETTY MUCH GOT, BUT IF STAFF HAS ANYTHING ELSE THAT THEY'RE, THAT THEY WANT TO ADD, HAPPY TO HEAR THAT.
WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, I, I MIGHT NEED A CLARIFICATION POINT OF CLARIFICATION HERE.
I'M GOING TO, I'M GOING GO AHEAD.
UH, ARE YOU WANNA GET IT NOW WE HAVE ONE PERSON THAT'S ASKING YOU HAVE ONE TOO.
NO, THIS IS, I WANT A, I WANT A GENERAL POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
I'M GOING TO HAVE A QUESTION ON, ON MOST OF THE AMENDMENTS TONIGHT.
AND SO THERE WILL BE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
SO AS MAKE AS FOR A POINT OF CLARIFICATION AND UNLESS THERE'S OBJECTION WE'LL KEEP MOVING FORWARD, JUST MAKING SURE.
AND, AND CHAIR, I MAY CHANGE 'CAUSE THIS IS KIND OF A COMPLICATED SUBJECT AND I RECOGNIZE MY ONE SENTENCE MAY HAVE BEEN TOO RESTRICTIVE FOR ALL DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.
SO I WONDER IF I CAN CHANGE MY PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
DID YOU GET A, YOU DIDN'T GET A SECOND RIGHT? YOU DIDN'T SECOND THAT? I DON'T REMEMBER.
AND, AND ESSENTIALLY CHANGE IT TO A, A REQUEST THAT STAFF DEVELOP, UH, IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS WE ARE PUTTING IN NUMBER 10, THE WORKING GROUP, NUMBER 10 TO ADD THAT STAFF DEVELOP RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO PREVENT, UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO CALL IT, BUT, BUT THE HOUSTON SCENARIO WHERE, WHERE WE END UP ON THE FIRST FLOOR AGAINST OUR SIDEWALKS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS, JUST WALLS OF CONTINUOUS GARAGE.
JUST SAY TO ENCOURAGE AN ACTIVATED STREET FRONT, AN ACTIVATED PEDESTRIAN STREET FRONT.
OKAY, SO THAT, UM, I'M, I'M, BUT YOU I THINK HAVE TO REPEAT THAT BECAUSE
I, 'CAUSE I THINK WE CUT IT IN THE MIDDLE AND THEN I'M NOT SURE WE CAN SAY TO NOT HAVE THE HOUSTON ISSUE.
I MEAN I CAN PUT IT IN AN AMENDMENT IF THAT IS THE WISH OF THE BODY
OKAY, LET ME, LET ME THINK, LET ME THINK.
THIS REQUEST THAT STAFF DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENCOURAGE, TO PROMOTE
DO YOU GET THAT? I'M NOT SURE YOU GOT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER.
WHO SECONDED THAT? MR. I'M ANDERSON.
I'M GONNA DO A SLIGHT, UM, I READ IT OUT SO IT'S A SLIGHTLY, DID NOT CAPTURE THE LAST PART, BUT I THINK IT SHOULD BE FINE OTHERWISE.
SO TO THE SECOND, UH, BULLET POINT, WE'RE NOW ADDING A SENTENCE THAT SAYS STAFF SHOULD DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO AVOID A SERIES OF GARAGES FACING OUR RESIDENTIAL SIDEWALKS AND ENCOURAGES ARTICULATIONS IN ACTIVE STREET FRONTS.
BUT CAN WE ADD RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COUNSEL? I'D LIKE COUNSEL TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO, TO, YES.
[07:20:01]
WE HAVE A SECOND BITE.I'M JUST CURIOUS, COULD WE, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD TO THIS? I THINK YOU ALL LANDED AT A REALLY GOOD PLACE.
YOU WERE STRUGGLING WITH WORDS.
SO I WAS GONNA SUGGEST DESIGN STANDARDS, YOU KNOW, UM, STAFF RECOMMEND APPROPRIATE DESIGN STANDARDS TO ACHIEVE.
AND THEN I THINK THE REST OF THE, THE BALANCE OF THE SENTENCE WAS GREAT.
SO, UM, YOU GUYS ARE KEEPING, COMMISSIONERS ARE VERY BUSY HERE WRITING UP THESE GREAT AMENDMENTS WHILE I'M STILL FIXING THE AMENDMENTS FROM OUR STAFF ON THE PRESERVATION BONUS THAT I NEED TO GET OUT TO YOU ALL.
SO WE CAN ACTUALLY PUT THOSE ON.
SO I'M TOGGLING THROUGH SPREADSHEETS, BUT WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT WE'RE ADDING A SENTENCE THAT STAFF SHOULD DEVELOP, WHAT WAS IT DESIGN? WHAT, WHAT DO WE WANT? DESIGN STANDARDS FOR COUNCIL.
AND THEN THE REST IS THE SAME.
THEN IT'S DESIGN STANDARDS FOR COUNCIL.
AND I JUST WANNA SAY FOLKS, AS WE GET THROUGH THE NIGHT, RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE DESIGN STANDARDS, DESIGN STANDARDS CAN BE RECOMMENDATIONS.
IF WE REALLY ARE GONNA BE STUCK ON WORDS, IT MIGHT BE A VERY LONG NIGHT.
AND I'VE GOT MY COKE AND I'VE GOT MY CAFFEINE AND I'M READY,
SO Y'ALL BETTER BE READY WITH ME.
UH, SO THAT WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
ARE YOU GOOD WITH THE, UH, CHANGES? OKAY.
SO WE'RE VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT.
ANY OBJECTION TO THE AMENDMENT CHAIR? I WOULD JUST ADD THAT, UH, I SPOKE TO MARGARET WALLACE BROWN, MS. MIDDLETON PAT'S, UM, PR PAT'S COUNTERPART IN HOUSTON THE OTHER DAY, AND SHE'S VERY FORTHRIGHT WITH ALL THIS INFORMATION.
SO ALL I THINK ALL STAFF HAS TO DO IS REACH OUT TO THEM AND THEY HAVE ALL THE INFO READY TO GO.
NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE I'M A NOTE, I'M A NOTE.
I DON'T, I DON'T NEED ANY QUESTIONS.
YES, SHE'S A NO, YOU'RE A NOTE.
SO WE HAVE COMMISSIONER HAYNES OBJECTING TO THAT AMENDMENT.
SO NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE BASE BASE AS AMENDED.
I THOUGHT WE WERE PUTTING, OKAY, I'M A YES HON ON THE AMENDMENT.
THE AMENDMENT, SORRY, WE'RE NOT THERE YET.
UM, SO ARE THE AMENDED MOTION THAT IS BEFORE US FOR CONSIDERATION RIGHT NOW IS THAT FOR A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT, THE FRONT DOOR OF AT LEAST ONE UNIT MUST FACE THE FRONT LOT LINE.
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A GARAGE DOOR AND DRIVEWAY MUST MATCH THOSE ALLOWED FOR ONE UNIT OR TWO UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EXISTING CODE.
STAFF SHOULD DEVELOP SIGN STANDS FOR CONSOLE TO AVOID DISPUTES OF GARAGES FACING RESIDENTIAL SIDEWALK AND GARAGE ARTICULATION, ACTIVE SEQUENCE.
ALRIGHT, UH, WE, UH, WE ALREADY HAD A SECOND ON THAT, SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND ANY YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THIS MOTION? NO, I HAVE A SMALL TINY AMENDMENT.
UM, I WAS GONNA TRY AND DO THIS EARLIER, BUT I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO JUST CHANGE ONE WORD IN THIS, WHICH IS THE, UM, FRONT DOOR CHANGES TO FRONT ENTRANCE.
AND THE REASON I WAS ASKED TO DO THAT WAS BECAUSE A DOOR, AN ENTRANCE WAY GIVES MORE FLEXIBILITY, WHEREAS A DOOR IS A SPECIFIC TYPE OF ENTRANCE.
THAT IS A MOTION AND I'M SECONDED IT.
DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS JUST TO MAKE THAT SMALL CHANGE? UH, COMMISSIONER MUSH TOLER, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR, OKAY, I WOULD LIKE TO OPPOSE THAT.
ANY OTHER OPPOSITION OR WE'LL JUST NOTE COMMISSIONER MOTO IS IN OPPOSITION.
I'LL, I'LL, I'LL BE OPPOSED AS WELL.
DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO IT? I'M JUST NOT UNDERSTANDING IT.
JUST MAYBE OTHERS MIGHT WANNA HEAR WHY DO YOU WANT, YEAH.
WELL, BECAUSE ENTRYWAY COULD BE A BREEZEWAY, THAT KIND OF THING.
NO, IT'S, AND THEN THE DOORS COULD BE TO THE SIDES.
I THINK AN ENTRYWAY IS ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY DEFINED.
SO A BREEZEWAY WOULDN'T COUNT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT HAS GOT FOLKS CONCERN.
DO WE HAVE A DEFINITION FOR LIKE, I'M, I'M TOTALLY FOR, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'VE GOT A DUPLEX THING THAT ENTERS THROUGH THAT ONE ENTRANCE PHYSICAL DOOR AND THEN THEY GO IN AND MAYBE THERE ARE TWO DOORS OR YOU KNOW, IF YOU SPLIT LEVEL THE HOME OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I JUST DON'T WANNA SEE, UM, THAT WE LOSE THAT ACTIVATED STREET FROM, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE'S A CLEAR ENTRY POINT CAN SPEAK TO IF THE LANGUAGE WORKS AND, AND STAFF'S HAPPY WITH THAT.
AND I WITHDRAW CON DOES STAFF HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT COMMISSIONER CO THE CHANGE? MAYBE THEY COULD OFFER UP A DEFINITION OF ENTRYWAY.
OKAY, LET'S, UH, COMMISSIONER, LET'S, UH, OKAY, SO THAT'S TWO.
COMMISSIONER COX, COMMISSIONER MTO.
SO THAT, UH, THAT PA THAT AMENDMENT PASSES.
UM, SO NOW BACK TO THE BASE MOTION WITH THE TWO AMENDMENTS.
UH, SO ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE BASE AS AMENDED? ALL RIGHT.
ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE BASE AS AMENDED? SO I RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER HAYNES OBJECTIONS AND COMMISSIONER MOOCH TOLER.
ANY OTHERS? OBJECTING TO THE BASE IS AMENDED.
ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE ON THE, UH, THE BASE IS AMENDED ON ITEM FOUR.
[07:25:02]
UH, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER MOOSE TOLERANT HAYES.OBJECTION 10, ITEM 10, I'M SORRY, ITEM 10.
UH, ARE WE READY FOR THE, NO, WE'RE NOT READY.
OKAY, CHAIR, WE'RE MOVING TO 14.
THIS IS, UM, 14 FROM THE WORKING GROUP.
I HAD PULLED THIS AND I CAN, UM, SPEAK TO THAT IN A SECOND.
SO ESSENTIALLY THIS SAYS, REMOVE ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DOING IT RESIDENTIAL AND DUPLEX.
LOT SIZE BUILDING COVERAGE, LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS.
DUPLEX SHOULD FOLLOW BASED ZONING DISTRICTS FOR LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONS.
UM, AND I HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE FOR THIS IN THE AZAR INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
UH, WHICH, UH, WHICH NUMBER IS THAT? OH, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT INDIVIDUAL.
WELL, WHAT, WHAT DO WE HAVE TO COMPARE THEM ONE IS AN ALTERNATIVE.
SO, JR HOW DO YOU WANT, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO PROCEED? I CAN EITHER WALK THROUGH MY ALTERNATE.
UH, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE, UM, THESE AREN'T THE INDIVIDUALS ON THE SCREEN.
WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE TOGGLING BACK AND FORTH A LOT, SO OUR APOLOGIES STAFF.
UM, SO ESSENTIALLY, UM, AND I'LL SPEAK TO IT IN A SECOND, MY LANGUAGE, ESSENTIALLY, IT SAYS REMOVE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DUPLEX AND DOING IT RESIDENTIAL USES AND ESTABLISH THE SAME REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
I DON'T HAVE THAT, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT STARTING AS A BASE.
SO WE STILL HAVE FOLKS, WE HAVE FOUR QUESTIONS, UH, FOUR PEOPLE, TWO MINUTES.
I CAN AND THEN WE CAN GO INTO AS OURS AMENDED.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT ITEM? I, I'LL JUST OFFER A QUESTION TO THE AMEND.
UM, WAS THERE A SPECIFIC LEGAL CONCERN THAT, CAN YOU ELIMINATE US ON THAT? YES, I THINK, UM, SO NOT RESOLVED, BUT WE CANNOT DECIDE ON THAT.
I SEE MS. LINK IS WALKING DOWN.
SO THE CONCERN HAD BEEN MS. LINK.
WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO IT AND THEN WE CAN, UH, CONSIDER IT ACCORDINGLY.
TRI LINK WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
IF THE COMMISSION WILL TELL US WHAT THE GOAL IS OF THE AMENDMENT, WE WILL DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO TRY TO ACHIEVE THAT.
THERE MAY BE SOME INSTANCES WHERE WE'RE HAVING SOME CONCERNS THAT WE NEED TO EVALUATE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T CREATE ANY ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS FOR OURSELVES FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT.
UM, SO YES, REALLY, JUST SO FOLKS ARE CLEAR, I JUST WAS RESPONDING TO, UM, UH, FEEDBACK FROM OUR LAW DEPARTMENT AND AS WE'RE GIVING THAT GUIDANCE, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YES, UM, OUR LEGAL STAFF HAS THE ABILITY TO BE FLEXIBLE IN WORKING ON IT IN A WAY THAT MAKES SURE THAT THEIR WORK IS ACCOMPLISHED.
UH, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR 'CAUSE WE CAN MOVE INTO AMENDMENTS.
THIS IS A KIND OF A GOOD TIME TO GET Q AND A, BUT MAYBE WE'LL SAVE THOSE FOR LATER.
UM, ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE MOVING OUTTA THE FOUR, FOUR FOLKS AT TWO MINUTES INTO A MOTION.
UH, I'M HAPPY WITH THE ONE COMMISSIONER CZAR PROPOSED.
ANY SECOND COMM UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS.
AND ANY AMENDMENTS? CAN YOU READ IT AGAIN PLEASE? ONE MORE TIME.
SO THIS WOULD BE ALTERNATE TO WORKING GROUP 14 DUPLEX.
REMOVE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DUPLEX AND TWO UNIT RESIDENTIAL USES AND ESTABLISH THE SAME REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
UM, IF WE, IF WE WANT TO GO TO TWO UNITS, THEN, THEN LET'S JUST GO TO TWO UNITS.
UM, DUPLEXES ARE A, A REAL VIABLE AND, AND ACCORDING TO THE PORTLAND PLAN, THE HOUSTON PLAN AND OTHER PLANS ARE A, A MORE AFFORDABLE AND, AND COMMISSIONER HAYES
UH, SO LET'S GO AHEAD, LET'S MOVE INTO DEBATE THEN.
SO LET ME SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
AND THEN YOU CAN SPEAK NEUTRAL OR AGAINST.
SO I'LL, LET ME JUST ADD WHERE I WAS COMING FROM.
'CAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE BASE IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL, WHAT WE HAVE ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW, I BELIEVE PROPOSED BY STAFF, AND THERE PROBABLY WERE SOME CHANGES BETWEEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, JOINT PUBLIC HEARING.
BUT WHAT I DIDN'T WANNA HAPPEN IS I WANTED TWO UNIT RESIDENTIAL AND DUPLEXES TO HAVE THAT SAME BUILDING AREA,
[07:30:01]
THE SAME REQUIREMENTS FOR, YOU KNOW, FRONT, UM, UH, THE LENGTH, UH, WIDTH OF THE LOT.THERE'S THINGS THAT ARE IN ONE OR THE OTHER.
I SAID THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THOSE KIND OF, UM, REQUIREMENTS FOR ONE OR THE OTHER.
AND SO, AND WHAT WE HAVE NOW, STAFF ALSO SAID YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE A COMMON WALL.
AND SO IT EVEN MAKES THEM MORE SIMILAR THAN DIFFERENT.
SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT DON'T DISADVANTAGE ONE OR THE OTHER, THE SAME.
UH, HEIGHT BUILDING SETBACKS, UH, THINGS SHOULD APPLY ONE TO THE OTHER.
SO I JUST, I WANTED THEM TO BE EQUAL FROM THAT RESPECT.
SO THAT WAS THE PURPOSE BEHIND THIS, UM, THIS, UH, AMENDMENT.
SO THAT'S SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF MY MOTION OR THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE.
SO, UH, SPEAKERS FOR I GUESS NOW AGAINST THE MOTION OBJECTIONS SPEAKING NEUTRALLY
POINT OF CLAR, POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IN, IN, I'M GONNA HAVE TO GET ONE OF THE CODE FOLKS UP HERE IS THAT TO BE A DUPLEX, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A COMMON WALL.
AM I, AM I INCORRECT IN THAT YOU CAN HAVE TWO UNITS SEPARATED BY A BREEZEWAY WITH A COMMON ROOF.
BUT TO BE A DUPLEX, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A COMMON WALL.
AND IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE TWO UNITS, THAT'S FINE.
BUT IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE A DUPLEX AND HAVE A REFERENCE TO A DUPLEX IN THE CODE, SO, UH, IN THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS POSTED AS BACKUP FOR THIS MEETING, UM, THERE IS A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF DUPLEX THAN IS IN THE REST OF THE CODE, WHICH PROVIDES MORE FLEXIBILITY.
AND YOU JUST HAVE TO HAVE A SHARED ROOF, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU COULD HAVE STACKED UNITS.
UM, DOES THAT CLARIFY YOUR QUESTION? IT IT CLEAR BUT IT'S STILL, IT'S STILL A COMMON OH, OKAY.
IT'S, IT'S, THERE'S STILL A COMMON THING.
FLOOR, WALL, SOMETHING, THERE'S A COMMON THING WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN TWO UNITS.
THAT'S MY CONCERN, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS I GET IT.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE A SET OF STANDARDS FOR TWO UNITS, BUT WE SHOULD HAVE A SET OF STANDARDS FOR DUPLEXES AS WELL.
THEY MAY BE EQUAL, MIGHT, MIGHT HAVE MENTIONED THAT TO THAT.
SO, UM, COMMISSIONER, UM, HAYNES, IF YOU LOOK AT STAFF'S BACKUP SIX OF 12, YOU'LL SEE THAT FOR DUPLEX AS USED WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE, STAFF ACTUALLY ALREADY REMOVED THAT.
SO THE TWO UNITS MUST HAVE A COMMON FLOOR AND CEILING OR A COMMON WALL, WHICH MAY BE A COMMON GARAGE WALL HAS BEEN REMOVED.
SO THAT WAS A STAFF'S PROPOSAL.
IF I CAN FOR A SECOND, IT'S SURE THE ISSUE THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED THAT WE ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY A PROVISION THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR SIDE-BY-SIDE OR STACK DUPLEXES.
'CAUSE WE DO NOT READ THE AMENDMENT TO TELL US TO DO THAT.
NO, MY, MY, MY GENERAL CONCERN, OVERREACHING CONCERN IS ONE OF THE GOALS THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE HERE IS TO SIMPLIFY THIS CODE SO THAT IT MAKES IT EASIER TO BUILD STUFF IN AUSTIN.
I AM A HUNDRED PERCENT FOR THAT.
AND IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE NOW HAVE A DU WE'RE GONNA NOW HAVE AT LEAST TWO DEFINITIONS.
THERE'S GONNA BE A DUPLEX HERE AND A DUPLEX IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CODE.
AND NOW THERE'S GONNA BE TWO UNITS THAT MAY BE SIMILAR TO OR DIFFERENT THAN A DUPLEX.
ARE WE GONNA HAVE THE SAME THING FOR THREE UNITS IN TRIPLEXES? ARE WE GONNA HAVE THREE, THREE UNITS IN TRIPLEXES? LET'S, LET'S DECIDE, LET'S, LET'S FIGURE THIS OUT AND LET'S EITHER HAVE A DUPLEX, WHETHER IT'S SHARED ROOF AND HEIGHT, SHARED WALL AND LONG, I DON'T CARE.
LET THE BUILDERS BUILD IT, BUT HAVE A DUPLEX AND HAVE TWO UNITS, HAVE A TRIPLEX AND HAVE THREE UNITS.
SO, SO, UM, I'M TRYING TO GET THE INFORMATION.
I THINK I WANNA JUST POINT OF PRIVILEGE AS, UH, CHAIR COHEN, DO YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING TO THIS CONVERSATION? UH, YEAH, DUPLEX, UH, JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE IN THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE 3 0 2 0.32 FAMILY DWELLING IS, DUPLEX IS DEFINED AND IT DOES HAVE DUPLEX AS EITHER
[07:35:01]
BEING A TWO FAMILY DWELLING UNIT THAT ARE OVER EACH OTHER.AND THERE'S A, A PICTURE, A DIAGRAM OF IT OR SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE SHARED WALLS.
SO IT COULD BE SHARED CEILING OR SHARED ROOF BETWEEN THE TWO ARE SHARED WALL.
SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT AND STAFF HELP ME OUT HERE.
'CAUSE THIS IS, YOU'RE, YOU'RE ASKING THE QUESTIONS THAT I ASK AND, AND WAS THINKING ABOUT IS YOU'RE NOT REQUIRING, YOU CAN STILL DO IT, BUT YOU'RE NOT REQUIRING THAT THERE BE A SHARED WALL OR SHARED CEILING IN THIS AMENDMENT.
IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO THEY'RE REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT THAT YOU'RE READING BUILDING CODE, BUT THEY'RE SAYING FOR AUSTIN, FOR THESE TWO AND THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRING A SHARED WALL OR A SHARED CEILING.
YOU, IT'S NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T, YOU'RE JUST NOT REQUIRED.
AND TO SPEAK TO THAT, THE IRC AND THE ZONING CODE CAN HAVE DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS AND STILL WORK IN TANDEM AND THERE'S, THERE'S NO ISSUE BETWEEN THAT.
THERE'S OFTEN, YOU KNOW, SLIGHT VARIATIONS AND HOW IT'S, IT'S LAID OUT IN THE BUILDING OR, UM, RESIDENTIAL CODE THAN IT IS IN A PARTICULAR ZONING CODE.
UM, THE IRC AND THE IBC ARE BOTH INTERNATIONAL, UM, STANDARDS AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A SPECIFIC ZONING I WAS TRYING TO EXAMPLE OF.
NO, IT'S TOTALLY DEFINITELY THE FUTURE.
UM, AND THEN ALSO JUST TO SPEAK TO THE REASONING, UM, TODAY IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO BUILD A DUPLEX WITH THE, UM, COMMON WALL BEING REQUIRED.
THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S CALLED THE ZIPPER WALL THAT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO BUILD, REVIEW AND DESIGN.
SO REMOVING THE COMMON WALL FEATURE WILL MAKE IT ACTUALLY MUCH EASIER TO BUILD DUPLEXES.
AND THEN ONCE YOU REMOVE SOME OF THESE FEATURES, LIKE THE 7,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT, THE ZIPPER WALL, THE, UM, HEIGHT DIFFERENTIATION, THEN IT'S JUST TWO UNITS WHO HAPPEN TO BE TOUCHING.
AND, UM, SO AT THAT POINT, LIKE THERE, THERE'S VERY LITTLE, LITTLE SIMILAR, OR THERE'S VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO UNITS AND DUPLEX.
SO COMBINING THEM WOULD SIMPLIFY THE CODE BUT STILL ALLOW BOTH DEVELOPMENT TYPES TO BE CONSTRUCTED.
SO I, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES JUSTIFICATION FOR ME, I'LL EXPLAIN.
IT WAS NOT TO, UH, I DIDN'T, THIS IS FINE, I JUST SAID, BUT JUST DON'T HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR THE TWO.
UH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU, IT'S A DUPLEX SHARES A, A ROOF, WE SHOULDN'T RESTRICT HEIGHT OR SET CHAINS OF SETBACKS OR BUILDABLE AREA.
SO, UH, SO YOU HAD A POINT OF, UM, I GUESS CLARIFICATION, UH, ANY FURTHER POINTS OF CLARIFICATION.
AND WE GOT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM CHAIR COHEN.
WE HAVE A MOTION THAT HAS, DID WE HAVE A SECOND? WE DID, YEAH.
SO, UM, ANY SPEAKERS FOR AND AGAINST OR CAN WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS ONE? LOOKING AROUND.
UM, ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS AMENDMENT? I'M IN YELLOW CARD.
SO WE HAVE AN EXTENSION BY COMMISSIONER HAYES.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS REALLY GOOD CONVERSATION BECAUSE YOUR QUESTIONS ARE EXACTLY WHAT WAS I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AND STAFF ANSWERED IT VERY CLEARLY.
UM, CHAIR, I THINK JUST FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, I'M GONNA ASK THAT WE GO DO, UH, NUMBER 17 AND THEN WE CIRCLE BACK WITH THE PRESERVATION BONUS ONES.
SO NUMBER 17, UM, WAS A WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT, UM, FROM COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UM, AND I HAD PULLED THIS BECAUSE I HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE.
SO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL HAD SAID, ENSURE THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF TITLE 25 THAT DO NOT APPLY TO ONE OR TWO UNITS DO NOT APPLY TO THREE UNITS.
THIS SECTION SUPERSEDES THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF TITLE 25.
I AM, UM, RECOMMENDING AN ALTERNATE, WHICH WOULD BE, BEAR WITH ME, UM, UH, WHICH WOULD END WITH COMMA EXCEPT FOR THE APPLICABILITY PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE.
SO WE SHOULD BE, WE WOULD BE SAYING ENSURE THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF TITLE 25 THAT DO NOT APPLY TO ONE OR TWO UNITS DO NOT APPLY TO THREE UNITS.
THIS SECTION SUPERSEDES THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF TITLE 25, EXCEPT FOR THIS, UH, FOR, EXCEPT FOR THE APPLICABILITY PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE.
UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF TITLE 25 IS WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THIS, BUT I THINK WE LEARNED THAT TRIPLEXES ARE HELD TO A DIFFERENT BUILDING STANDARD THAN SINGLE UNITS AND DUPLEXES.
[07:40:02]
DOES THIS IN ANY WAY CONFLICT WITH THAT OR ARE THOSE IIBC AND IRC CODE SEPARATE FROM ALL REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 25? DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR YES.POINT OF CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF.
IT WILL NOT CONFLICT, BUT YES, THE TRAFFIC WILL BE UNDER THE IBC AND THE TWO FAMILY BUILDING WILL BE UNDER THE IRC, BUT IT WILL BE IN NO CONFLICT WITH THE TITLE 25.
ALRIGHT, IS, ARE FOLKS CLEAR ON THIS ITEM? WE HAVE THREE MORE QUESTIONS IF YOU NEED 'EM.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE, OH, SORRY, GO AHEAD.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION, UM, AS WE HAVE A SECOND.
OH, YOU'RE GONNA READ IT? YES.
UM, I KNOW KEEPING THEM ON MY TOES ENSURE THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF TITLE 25 THAT DO NOT APPLY TO ONE OR TWO UNITS DO NOT APPLY TO THREE UNITS.
THIS SECTION SUPERSEDES THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF TITLE 25 UHLAND DEVELOPMENT EXCEPT FOR THE APPLICABILITY PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE.
AND WHEN I, UH, WANNA REMIND FOLKS IS WHAT YOU'RE SEEING COMMISSIONER AZAR DO, AND I NEED TO ENCOURAGE OTHERS, IF YOU HAVE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS, UM, EITHER THAT YOU SENT IN OR EVEN THAT YOU HAVE NOW, IF THEY'RE RELATED, THIS IS THE TIME 'CAUSE WE CAN'T GO BACK ON A SIMILAR ISSUE AND REVISIT IT.
SO IF IT'S IN THE SAME TOPIC AND ASK, IF YOU'RE NOT SURE, BRING IT UP AND WE'LL DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO CONSIDER IT, THEN END AS AN AMENDMENT OR A SUBSTITUTE.
SO JUST REMEMBER IF IT'S COMMON OR RELATED, UH, BRING IT UP AT THAT TIME.
YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
UM, AND BEING NEW TO THIS BODY, THIS IS REALLY AMOUNTS TO MY THIRD MEETING.
IF YOU COUNT LAST NIGHT AND TODAY AS ONE MEETING, AND YOU DON'T COUNT THE CITY COUNCIL MARATHON MEETING.
UH, SO, AND I, I, I BEG THE INDULGENCE OF THE BODY BECAUSE I HAVE MADE MISTAKES AND, UM, SO, AND ENGAGING IN THIS PROCESS IS NOT EASY WHEN I'M TRYING TO PLAY CATCH UP BECAUSE IT IS MY THIRD MEETING.
AND YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A WHILE, SO I HAVE, I JUST, TODAY, I THINK YOU TOLD ME RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING THAT MY AMENDMENTS NEEDED TO BE TURNED OVER TO ANDREW, WHICH I DID.
UM, SO, SO ARE, I GUESS I'M TRYING TO, I'M, I'M JUST, I'M HOPING I DON'T MISS MY OPPORTUNITY.
SO, UH, IF YOU YEAH, GO AHEAD.
CAN I SPEAK TO THAT FIRST QUESTION? YES.
UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, I COMPLETELY APPRECIATE AND UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
SO I, I THINK JUST IF I CAN CLARIFY IN TERMS OF RULES.
SO, UM, AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH AMENDMENTS, IF THERE'S AN AMENDMENT, OTHER AMENDMENT THAT'S MATCHING UNDER ROBERT'S RULES, WE HAVE TO TAKE THEM TOGETHER.
UM, SO WE CAN PICK ONE OR THE OTHER.
IF WE END UP MAKING A DECISION THAT WE LATER ON REALIZE IS NOT TO OUR LIKING, SOMEBODY FROM THE PREVAILING SIDE CAN ASK FOR A RECONSIDERATION OF THAT MOTION, AT WHICH POINT WE CAN GET A SUPER MAJORITY OF OUR BODY TO RECONSIDER IT AND GO BACK.
SO WE STILL HAVE THAT OPTION AS WELL BEFORE WE CLOSE OUT THE MEETING.
IN ADDITION, IF YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT IS NOT RELATED TO ANY OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING RIGHT NOW, UM, WE'LL STILL HAVE AN OPTION TO DO THOSE AMENDMENTS LATER ON AS WELL.
SO I THINK, JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT COMMISSIONER, UM, CHAIR SHAW WAS SAYING, UM, JUST TO CLARIFY, IS THAT IF WE HAVE LIKE SOMETHING THAT IS LIKE ON DUPLEXES AND SOMEONE HAS A DUPLEX ONE, WE JUST NEED TO CONSIDER THEM TOGETHER.
'CAUSE WE NEED TO PICK ONE OR THE OTHER UNLESS WE NEED TO RECONSIDER THEM LATER.
SO ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS I HAVE HAS TO DO WITH HOW MANY UNITS, UM, CAN, CAN ANY OF THE UNITS BE DESIGNATED AFFORDABLE? SO THAT WOULD NOT BE RELATED TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING.
NO, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY WORKING GROUP OTHER AMENDMENTS.
SO WHEN WE GET TO INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS, YOU WILL HAVE FULL OPPORTUNITY DO THAT AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT.
AND PLEASE ASK IF YOU'RE NOT SURE.
OKAY, SO DO WE NEED A SECOND? SO WE'RE, WHAT'S OUR NEXT ONE? NO, NO, WE HAVEN'T FINISHED THIS ONE.
UH, WE HAVEN'T, I'LL READ IT AGAIN.
ENSURE ALL PROVISIONS OF TITLE 20 FIVES THAT DO NOT APPLY TO ONE OR TWO UNITS DO NOT APPLY TO THREE UNITS.
THE SECTION SUPERSEDES THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF TITLE 25 LAND DEVELOPMENT EXCEPT FOR THE APPLICABILITY PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE.
AND I BELIEVE I GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER CONLEY.
AND, UH, ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, THAT
[07:45:01]
MOTION, THAT AMENDMENT PASSES.NOW WE WILL BE GOING TO THE, UH, PRESERVATION ITEMS. AND I, I'M SORRY FOLKS JUST BECAUSE WE WERE SORT OF DOING THEM SEPARATELY.
I JUST SENT STAFF IN UPDATED, UM, SPREADSHEET THAT WILL LIKELY BE PULLED UP AND WE CAN WALK THROUGH THEM.
THERE IS, THESE ARE ALSO IN
UM, YES, THESE ARE DISTRIBUTED VIA EMAIL AS WELL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. RIVERA.
SO THOSE WERE DISTRIBUTED VIA EMAIL AS WELL, AND WE'LL GO THROUGH THEM.
THE MAIN ONES ARE FIVE AND SIX A.
UM, AND I JUST WANNA SAY, JUST SO FOLKS HAVE CLARITY AS IT LIES IN FRONT OF THEM, IF YOU REMEMBER OUR WORKING GROUP HAD TWO OPTIONS FOR SIX, SIX A AND SIX B.
UM, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH COMMISSIONER WOODS AND I, I REALLY APPRECIATE HER.
SHE WITHDREW THE COM, UH, SIX B BECAUSE IT WAS CAUSING SOME CONCERN.
OF COURSE, ANY COMMISSIONER EVEN AT ANY POINT CAN BRING THAT UP.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING THAT UN UNLESS SOMEONE EXPLICITLY BRINGS THAT UP AGAIN.
AND THE DISTINCTION FOR THAT WAS, UM, WHAT'S EM BOLDED WAS THE DISTINCTION.
SO I'LL LAY OUT, UM, THIS IS THE PRESERVATION BONUS FIVE.
UM, AND AGAIN, THANK YOU TO PRESERVATION AUSTIN FOR THEIR FEEDBACK AND WORK ON THIS AND OUR PRESERVATION STAFF AS WELL FOR HELPING US REFINE THESE AND MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE WORK THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENING.
BEAR WITH ME, THIS IS A LITTLE LONG AND I'M RUNNING OUT OF TIME HERE.
UM, SO THIS IS FOR STRUCTURES THAT ARE BUILT IN 1960 OR EARLIER.
THE INCENTIVE THAT YOU GET FOR UTILIZING THE PRESERVATION BONUS IS THAT THE FAR FOR THE EXTRA EXISTING STRUCTURE DOES NOT COUNT AGAINST THE OVERALL ALLOWABLE FAR ON YOUR, UH, SITE.
IN ADDITION, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL UNIT WITH NO ADDITIONAL FAR, SO YOUR FAR FOR YOUR SITE REMAINS THE SAME.
YOU'RE JUST ALLOWED TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL UNIT.
AND THIS WOULD BE REVIEWED BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT AS WELL.
AND OF COURSE, WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE SOME REVISIONS TO OTHER DEFINITIONS IN, IN THIS ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR THAT IN ORDER TO ESSENTIALLY FULFILL THAT PRESERVATION BONUS REQUIREMENT.
WHAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DO IS YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE 50% OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE HAS TO BE PRESERVED AND A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE STREET FACING FACADE WITH REMODELING OR ALTERATIONS ALLOWED USING THE CRITERIA BELOW.
SO ANY REMODELING OR ALTERATIONS THAT ARE FOR A SIDE GDD, CROSS GDD HIP OR PYRAMIDAL ROOF, THEY ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO BE LOCATED BEHIND THE EXISTING ROOF RIDGE LINE OR PEAK.
IF THERE ARE ANY REMODELING OR ALTERATIONS TO A FRONT GD SHED ROOF OR FLAT ROOF FORM, ESSENTIALLY IT MUST BE THE LESSER OF EITHER 15 FEET FROM THE FRONT FACADE OR ONE HALF OF THE WIDTH OF THE FRONT WALL AT THE SAME TIME.
SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WHAT IS THE INCENTIVE THAT A DEVELOPER WOULD GET FOR DOING THIS, AND WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIVING UP TO THAT.
IN ADDITION, THERE IS A OTHER PROVISION THAT SAYS THAT IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A 15 FOOT CLEARANCE AT THE SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE TO DO CONSTRUCTION ON ADDITIONAL UNITS THAT YOU MIGHT BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT STAFF WILL PERMIT THE REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF AN EXISTING OR CONNECTED OR, OR CONVERTED CARPORT OR GARAGE.
SO ONLY THOSE TO PROVIDE SUCH A CLEARANCE.
AND IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THIS, ANY MODIFICATIONS, WHETHER IT'S TO YOUR 50% OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT OR THE GARAGE OR CARPORT, ALL MODIFIC, UM, MODIFIC TO THE PORTION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, SUBJECT TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS AS DETERMINED BY OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE.
I KNOW THIS WAS A LOT, IT'S MULTI-PART, BUT THE IDEA BEHIND IT IS REALLY WE ARE TRYING TO CREATE A ROBUST ENOUGH INCENTIVE FOR FOLKS TO REALLY GO AHEAD AND PRESERVE HOMES FROM 1960 AND EARLIER.
BECAUSE AS HIS, AS RESERVATION AUSTIN HAS POINTED OUT, THERE'S SOME VERY SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT ERA.
AND SO WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND PRESERVE THEM.
AND THAT'S WHY THE FOCUS IS ON THE FACADE BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY RELATED TO PRESERVATION OF THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER THAT OUR HISTORIC HOMES REALLY PUT FORTH IN OUR COMMUNITY.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION OF STAFF.
UM, SO WE HAVE A SUSTAINABILITY BUCKET.
WE HAVE A HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF THE BUILDING BUCKET.
DOES THIS, DOES THIS, UM, AMENDMENT, UH, PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO KEEP EXISTING UNITS, UM, WHEN A DEVELOPER IS CON UH, BUILDING A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT, UH, FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAINTAINING A LOWER COST STRUCTURE? SO MORE ON THE AFFORDABILITY, UH, CATEGORY AND LESS SO.
I'M TRYING TO THINK, DOES THIS ALSO SERVE
[07:50:01]
TO MEET THAT? BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THESE EXISTING UNITS OR LOWER COSTS THAN IF YOU DESTROY IT AND BUILD ANOTHER ONE.SO DOES THIS ALSO MEET THAT GOAL? CAN WE GET, DO WE ACCOMPLISH BOTH THOSE THINGS WITH THIS, UM, THIS AMENDMENT
UM, YES, I THINK IT HAS THAT POTENTIAL.
UM, I THINK IT DOES HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE AFFORDABILITY BENEFITS DEPENDING ON THE LEVEL OF MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING BUILDINGS, WHICH, WHICH IS NOT, NOT REALLY PROPOSED TO BE, UM, LIMITED UNDER THIS PROPOSAL.
BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WAS ANOTHER GOAL OF PRESERVATION COMMISSIONER.
UM, EVEN THOUGH I WAS ON THE WORKING GROUP, I, I DIDN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEXT, BUT THE TEXT AS I'M READING IT ESSENTIALLY OPENS UP FOUR UNIT DEVELOPMENTS OF A POTENTIALLY UNKNOWN FAR.
IS THAT CORRECT? NO, JUST TO CLARIFY.
YES, YOU CAN DO FOUR UNITS, BUT YOUR FAR IS DOES NOT CHANGE.
SO IF YOU REMEMBER WHEN WE PASSED NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT, BUT THE BUT THE BUT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE DOESN'T COUNT AGAINST THE FR YES, THAT IS TRUE.
AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS CURRENTLY AT.
SO, SO ESSENTIALLY WE'RE OPENING UP FOUR UNIT DEVELOPMENTS OF AN UNKNOWN FAR THROUGH THESE AMENDMENTS.
WE DO KNOW THAT THE AVERAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF, UM, HISTORIC AGE BUILDING THAT'S DEMOLISHED IS ABOUT 1100 SQUARE FEET.
SO IF, SO, IF WE KEEP 550 SQUARE FEET OF THAT, WE CAN BUILD FOUR UNITS AND THEN AN ADDITIONAL 0.65 FAR TO WHATEVER'S, WHATEVER'S CURRENTLY EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
I DON'T HAVE THE, THE FAR ALLOWANCES IN FRONT OF ME, BUT IT WOULD, I, I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.
BRENT LLOYD, UM, DSD, YOU KNOW, THE PRESERVATION INCENTIVE, UM, BY ITS DIFFERENT NAMES IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT FOR MANY YEARS NOW, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK A LOT OF US ARE SUPPORTIVE OF IN PRINCIPLE AND IN CONCEPT.
BUT IT DOES PRESENT MANY CHALLENGES FROM AN IMPLEMENTATION STANDPOINT, A REVIEW STANDPOINT, AN ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT.
AND SO WHAT WE RECOMMEND IS THAT THE COMMISSION MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU FEEL ARE APPROPRIATE, THAT ARE ASPIRATIONAL, THAT POINT IN THE DIRECTION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THE CITY TO GO.
AND WE WILL WORK INTERNALLY AND WITH OUR LAW DEPARTMENT AND OUR OTHER PARTNER DEPARTMENTS TO CRAFT SOMETHING THAT FURTHERS YOUR, YOUR GOALS TO THE GREATEST EXTENT THAT POSSIBLE.
BUT I, BUT I THINK IT'S JUST IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS NEW TERRITORY FOR THE CITY AND SEVERAL ASPECTS OF, OF, OF IT, INCLUDING THE POTENTIAL INCLUSION OF A FOURTH UNIT.
UH, BUT OTHER PROVISIONS AS WELL, UH, WARRANT A BIT MORE REVIEW.
UM, BUT I DON'T WANNA BE COLD WATER.
I THINK YOU GUYS ARE DOING GREAT WORK AND WE, AND AGAIN, ENCOURAGE YOU TO JUST MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU FEEL ARE IN THE CITY'S INTERESTS AND WE WILL WORK TO FURTHER THEM TO THE BEST EXTENT THAT WE CAN.
UH, COMMISSIONER ZA, I HAVE A QUESTION.
UH, UH, COMMISSIONER ZA, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, LET MS. UH, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS CAN GO FIRST AND I'LL JOIN.
I JUST WONDER WHY IS IT NECESSARY TO HAVE A FOURTH UNIT AS OPPOSED TO JUST HAVING THE THREE UNITS THAT WE ARE LIMITING THE REST OF THE HOME INITIATIVE TO PROPERTIES IN THE HOME INITIATIVE TO, I THINK THERE'S A POLICY QUESTION ABOUT HOW MUCH OF AN INCENTIVE YOU ALL WANT TO PROVIDE, AND I KNOW THAT'S PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
I THINK WE NEED TO, IF YOU INCLUDE IT, YOU KNOW, WE'LL NEED TO WORK WITH OUR LAW DEPARTMENT AND OUR OTHER PARTNER DEPARTMENTS TO ASSESS THE VIABILITY OF IT.
BUT JUST FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT, I THINK THE IDEA IS THAT YOU'RE MORE LIKELY TO GET PRESERVATION IF YOU OFFER MORE ROBUST INCENTIVES.
AND SO THE IDEA OF A FOURTH UNIT IS JUST TO PROVIDE A GREATER INCENTIVE.
BUT AS YOU'VE RECOGNIZED, COMMISSIONER, THERE ARE OTHER INCENTIVES TOO.
IT'S THE AMENDMENT PROVIDES FOR FAR INCENTIVES AS WELL.
SO I THINK THAT IS A POLICY ISSUE.
AND AREN'T THERE TAX INCENTIVES AS WELL? THERE ARE TAX INCENTIVES FOR DESIGNATED HISTORIC LANDMARKS AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS BASED ON WORK THAT IS COMPLETED.
[07:55:01]
THIS WOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO JUST DESIGNATED HISTORIC PROPERTIES.YEAH, I HAVE QUESTIONS AT SOME POINT.
I KNOW COMMISSIONER AZAR I THINK WAS GOING, UM, SINCE WE, WE DO ONLY HAVE FOUR FOUR SLOTS.
COMMISSIONER AL, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
UM, I HAVE A FEW, THIS ONE IS 'CAUSE IT'S COMPLEX.
UM, SO LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT, UH, ABOUT THE, UH, FAR LANGUAGE SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND CLEARLY.
IS THERE ANY SCENARIO UNDER THIS AMENDMENT IN WHICH THE FAR THE TOTAL FAR IS EXCEEDING WHAT ANY OTHER PROPERTY WOULD HAVE? YES.
IF IT'S NOT UNDER PRESERVATION, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT CLEARLY WHAT ARE THE DELINEATED, SO WE, WE, WE'VE IDENTIFIED THAT A FOURTH UNIT IS A POSSIBLE INCENTIVE FOR, FOR PROCEEDING THIS WAY, AND THEN I WANNA UNDERSTAND THE FAR PIECE AS WELL.
SO COMMISSIONER MR. STALLER, ESSENTIALLY THE FIRST PART OF THIS IS THAT IF YOU'RE PRESERVING A STRUCTURE FOR WHATEVER, ESSENTIALLY SQUARE FOOTAGE YOU'RE PRESERVING, IT WOULD NOT BE COUNTING TOWARDS YOUR FAR CALCULATION FOR ESSENTIALLY YOUR ADDITIONAL UNITS THAT YOU MIGHT BE CREATING UNDER THE HOME ORDINANCE.
SO ESSENTIALLY, IF YOU'RE ADDING A SECOND AND THIRD UNIT, THE FAR FOR THIS FIRST UNIT WILL NOT BE COUNTING TOWARDS THOSE FAR CAPS THAT WE INTRODUCED YESTERDAY.
BUT IN THIS, AND, AND TO FURTHER CLARIFY IN THIS, THEY ONLY HAVE TO PRESERVE, UH, 50% OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, 50% OF THE STRUCTURE, BUT ALSO A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE FACADE.
UM, THIS IS SORT OF LIKE A COMMUNITY CHARACTER CONVERSATION, SO WE'RE NOT YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.
WHAT I'M, HERE'S AND, AND HERE'S WHAT I'M, I'M WHERE MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT IS GOING IS THAT WE KNOW THAT OUR EXISTING HOUSING, RIGHT, IS OUR MOST AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND SO FOR ALLOWING THE DESTRUCTION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WITH, UM, ENTITLEMENTS OR CHANGES OR WHATEVER WE WORD WE WANNA USE, RIGHT? WE, WE MAY ACTUALLY BE ENCOURAGING THE DESTRUCTION OF THOSE HOMES.
SO I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT ALLOWING THIS TO GO THROUGH WITH JUST 50%, UH, BECAUSE THEN WE'VE LOST, I, I REALIZE YOU CAN GET MORE DWELLINGS OUT OF IT, BUT I'M WORRIED ABOUT THAT POSSIBLY ACTUALLY ENCOURAGING DISPLACEMENT.
UH, WAS THERE A DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR CHAIR? I COULD RESPOND.
UM, I'LL MAKE THIS QUICK SINCE WE'VE RUN OUT OF TIME.
SO, UH, COMMISSIONER STALLER, REALLY THE, THE ISSUE HERE IS WE'RE NOT, SINCE WE'RE NOT REQUIRING EVERYONE, LIKE WE, ONE OPTION COULD BE TO SAY THAT NOBODY WHO'S BEYOND A CERTAIN AGE CAN UTILIZE THE HOME ORDINANCE, RIGHT? SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE'RE INCENTIVIZING IT.
SO IF WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS WE'RE PROVIDING A GOOD ENOUGH INCENTIVE FOR SOMEONE TO NOT TEAR DOWN ORIGINAL HOUSE.
OTHERWISE, WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE SOMEBODY WHO'S LOOKING TO MAXIMIZE THE POTENTIAL OF THEIR SITE, THEY HAVE TWO OPTIONS BEFORE THEM.
EITHER YOU CAN BUILD THREE NEW UNITS AND SELL THEM SEPARATELY, OR KEEP YOUR OLD UNIT AND SELL IT FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH.
SO WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS PEOPLE ARE GONNA TEAR DOWN THAT ONE OLD UNIT AND TRY TO BUILD THOSE THREE NEW, WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO PRESERVE THAT STRUCTURE, SPECIFICALLY THE FACADE ELEMENTS FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF HISTORIC AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER PRESERVATION.
SO, UM, THIS IS A COMPLEX TOPIC.
UM, DO WE, WE USE FOUR, BUT DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO THIS IS CLEAR BEFORE WE MOVE INTO TWEAKS,
THE NOTICES THAT WERE SENT OUT SPECIFICALLY SAYS, ALLOWING UP TO THREE HOUSING UNITS, AND NOW WE'RE CONTEMPLATING AN AMENDMENT THAT ALLOWS UP TO FOUR A BONUS.
DO, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I, I'LL JUST QUICKLY SAY, SO, SO LEGAL CAN DEFINITELY MS. LINK, IF YOU HAVE A RESPONSE, YOU CAN, AND THAT IS WHY YOU WILL NOTICE BASED ON FEEDBACK, AGAIN, FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT, IT SAYS NO ADDITIONAL FILE ALLOWED SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING OUR LAW DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW THAT.
SO IF THAT IS INDEED SOMETHING THAT, THAT THERE WILL BE AN, UH, LEGALITY ISSUE, OF COURSE OUR STAFF WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO REVISE THAT.
SO I THINK, UH, OKAY, SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THIS IS, THIS IS A TOUGH ONE, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, SORRY.
BUT PROVIDING THE ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE OF ALLOWING A FOURTH BUILDING DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE, THAT THE OTHER STRUCTURE WILL NOT BE DEMOLISHED.
IS THAT CORRECT? AND IF IT, IT'S JUST AN INCENTIVE, THEY CAN STILL GO AHEAD AT SOME POINT BECAUSE IT'S NOT DESIGNATED AND THEREFORE AS HISTORIC AND THEREFORE
[08:00:01]
DOES NOT HAVE THE PROTECTIONS OF OTHER QUOTE UNQUOTE DESIGNATED PROPERTIES.SO THOSE STRUCTURES STILL COULD BE SUBJECT TO DEMOL, IS THAT CORRECT? SO, UH, MS. BERTRAN, I, I, I'LL, I'LL, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
SO IF SOMEBODY WERE TO DO THAT, THEY WOULD ESSENTIALLY BECOME NONCOMPLIANT WITH THE PRESERVATION BONUS.
AT WHICH POINT, UM, THERE'S ANOTHER AMENDMENT THAT I HAVE, AGAIN FROM FEEDBACK FROM OUR STAFF THAT ESSENTIALLY TALKS ABOUT HOW TO ADDRESS NON-COMPLIANCE IN THAT FORMAT.
IS THAT AN INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT? YES, THAT IS AN INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT BASED ON STAFF FEEDBACK.
UM, BUT ESSENTIALLY ALL THAT TO SAY THAT IF SOMEBODY DOES NOT PRESERVE THE STRUCTURE UP TO THE STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE LAID OUT HERE, THEN THEY'RE NO LONGER COMPLIANT WITH THE PROGRAM.
AND THEN THEY, OUR STAFF WILL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MANAGE THAT.
I DON'T THINK THEN THEY CAN USE THE BONUS BECAUSE THEY'VE ACTUALLY BURNED THROUGH THEIR ABILITY TO DO THAT.
FOR ME, THAT WOULD BE THE SAME AS WHEN WE HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES.
IF SOMEBODY DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT, THEY'RE NO LONGER ELIGIBLE FOR THAT PROGRAM.
COMMISSIONER AGAIN, MAY I OFFER A SHORT CLARIFICATION KARA BURTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT? I DON'T, MY MIC WAS NOT ON BEFORE.
UM, THE, THE NICE THING ABOUT USING PHA AS A PART OF THE, A MAJOR PART OF THE BONUS IS THAT IF I'M GOING TO, I'M GONNA TRY TO EXPLAIN THIS AND MY COLLEAGUES CAN, CAN FIX IT IF I, IF, IF I DON'T GET IT RIGHT, IS THAT THERE'S THE EXISTING BUILDING THAT WOULD NEED TO BE, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST SOME PRESERVED.
AND THEN YOU, THE, THE, UM, PROPERTY OWNER, THE BUILDER WOULD, WOULD ASSUME, WE WOULD ASSUME THEY WOULD MAX OUT THE FAR, THEY ALLOWED FAR IN THE BACK IF THAT EXISTING BUILDING WERE TO BE DEMOLISHED.
THEY'RE ALREADY MAXED OUT ON THEIR FAR, SO THEY'RE LOSING OUT, THEY'RE LOSING SQUARE FOOTAGE.
THEY, THEY, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GET THAT BACK UNDER BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE THE EXISTING FAR WITH THOSE NEW BUILDINGS IN THE REAR BY HAVING THE BONUS TIED TO THE PRESERVED UNIT.
WE THINK THAT THAT, AS FAR AS A WORKABLE PRESERVATION INCENTIVE, THAT THAT IS THE MOST EASILY TRACKABLE AND IMPLEMENTABLE.
UM, IT WOULD BASICALLY, IT WOULD NOT RENDER THE EXISTING, THE, THE UNIT THAT CLAIMED THE BONUS.
IT WOULD NOT RENDER THAT NONCOMPLIANT IN ANY WAY.
IT MIGHT LIMIT THE EXTENT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD BE BUILT BACK WHEN THE, WHEN THE, IF THE PRESERVE STRUCTURE IS DESTROYED.
BUT FROM A IMPLEMENTATION STANDPOINT, WE FEEL LIKE THAT BASIC APPROACH IS THE, IS THE MOST WORKABLE, AGAIN, SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW REGARDING JUST THE OVERALL IDEA OF THE PRESERVATION IN SENATE.
BUT WE THINK IN PRINCIPLE, THIS DIRECTION IS, UH, IS THE MOST WORKABLE APPROACH.
UH, SO WE'VE ALLOWED A FEW MORE QUESTIONS.
UH, CAN WE GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH A, A MOTION, CHARLES, GO AHEAD AND, UM, MOVE MOTION AS PRESENTED IN THIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION INCENTIVES FOR THE PRESERVATION BONUS? OKAY.
SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL PHILLIPS? OKAY.
PHILLIPS, CAN I OFFER, CAN I OFFER SUBSTITUTE YOU, I HEARD YOU SUBSTITUTE, UH, SUBSTITUTE OR AMENDMENTS.
WHAT? WE CAN DECIDE WHAT IT IS WHEN YOU, I STILL DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN THOSE TWO, SO YOU CAN TELL ME.
BUT, UM, I, I AM, IT'S PRETTY, SO MY SUBSTITUTE MOTION IS TO REMOVE, TO REMOVE THE, THE BONUS UNIT PROVISION.
AND REQUIRE THAT AT LEAST 70% OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE BE PRESERVED, NOT 50.
THOSE ARE THE TWO CHANGES I WOULD LIKE TO, UM, SO I HEAR YOU, LET'S SEE.
REQUIRES 70% OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE BE PRESERVED.
UM, ARE THOSE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT ENOUGH OR CAN WE TAKE THOSE AS SEPARATE AMENDMENTS? COMMISSIONER AZAR, HOW WOULD YOU, WHAT WOULD YOU CONSIDER THOSE AMENDMENTS? I THINK A SUBSTITUTE WOULD BE CLEANER CHAIR.
SO WE'RE GOING TO, UH, SO THIS IS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH, UH, WE'RE REMOVING THE FOURTH UNIT BONUS AND WE'RE REPLACING 50% WITH 70%.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
UM, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION OR, YES.
COMMISSIONER MOSLER SAID EXACTLY WHAT WAS ON MY MIND AS, AS I WAS READING THIS.
I WAS JUST THINKING, GOSH, THOSE EXISTING PRE 1960 STRUCTURES ARE, THOSE ARE A GOLD MINE NOW.
AND SO THAT'S GONNA BE A TARGET FOR DEVELOPERS WHO KNOW THAT THEY CAN KNOCK DOWN HALF OF THE HOUSE AND, AND THEN BUILD ESSENTIALLY A, A A FOUR UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PROPERTY.
AND, AND SO THERE'S GOTTA BE SOME SORT OF BALANCE.
[08:05:01]
KNOW WHERE THE TIPPING POINT IS BETWEEN ACTUALLY HAVING TRUE MEANINGFUL PRESERVATION INCENTIVES VERSUS INCENTIVES TO SEEK OUT HOMES WE SHOULD BE PRESERVING, BUT INSTEAD TURNING THEM INTO, UH, MUCH LARGER FOUR UNIT BRAND NEW SPARKLING EXPENSIVE DEVELOPMENTS.UM, AND SO THAT'S, I I I AM VERY MUCH OPEN TO OTHER, UM, INCENTIVES THAT WE CAN INCLUDE, BUT I DON'T THINK, UH, KNOCKING DOWN HALF THE STRUCTURE AND ADDING A FOURTH UNIT, THE FOURTH UNIT'S JUST ILLEGAL UNDER NOTIFICATION.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I'M OFFERING THIS.
SO I'M GONNA, I THINK I HAVE TWO FOLKS.
COMMISSIONER, UH, CONLEY AND THEN COMMISSIONER.
SIR, ARE YOU SPEAKING AGAINST, AGAINST, AGAINST, ARE YOU SPEAKING AGAINST, OKAY.
CAN WE TAKE DOWN THE AMENDMENT SO Y'ALL CAN SEE VIDEO FOLKS TOO WHILE WE'RE HAVING DISCUSSION? THANK YOU,
SO UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT TIPPING POINT WHERE THE, THE INCENTIVE CREATES PRESERVATION, UM, AND THAT PRESERVATION AUSTIN HAS WEIGHED IN ON THIS.
I FEEL LIKE WHAT IS IN FRONT OF US IS THAT TIPPING POINT THAT THEY HAVE DETERMINED.
UM, AND I THINK IF WE INCREASE THE REQUIRED STRUCTURE PRESERVATION TO 70%, THEN THE STRINGENCY OF THAT REQUIREMENT IS GOING TO UNDERMINE THE INCENTIVE TO PRESERVE AND THE LOSS OF THAT POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL UNIT ALSO TAKES AWAY FROM THAT INCENTIVE.
SO I FEAR THAT BY MAKING THAT CHANGE, WE WILL SEE MUCH LESS PRESERVATION BECAUSE IT IS NO LONGER ENOUGH OF AN INCENTIVE TO PRESERVE.
AND FOR THAT REASON, I'M OPPOSED.
SO SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER MOTO, UH, I'M, I'M CONCERNED THAT IF WE LOOK AT PARTICULARLY THESE OLDER HOMES, I MEAN, LET'S JUST PULL UP A MAP AND LOOK AT WHERE THEY ARE.
I, I I, I THINK WE'RE ENDANGERING COMMUNITIES AGAIN, I THINK, UM, I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
I THINK WE'RE ENDANGERING, I THINK WE'RE UNINTENTIONALLY ENDANGERING COMMUNITIES, UM, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT KEEPING THE STRUCTURES WHERE PEOPLE CAN LIVE WITH, DON'T HAVE ENOUGH, AT LEAST THE, UH, THE ORIGINAL, THAT'S WHY I LIKE THIS CHANGE.
IT PUSHES IT BACK THE OTHER WAY.
UM, I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE THE RIGHT BALANCE HERE AT ALL YET.
I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT AND WHAT THE GOAL IS, AND I, AND I LIKE THAT, BUT IT MIGHT STILL NEED SOME MORE TWEAKING.
AND MAYBE OUR RECOMMENDATION IS EVEN THAT, THAT WE NEED MORE TIME TO LET COUNSEL TWEAK IT.
BUT I THINK IT'S TOO FAR THE OTHER WAY WITH THE, THE ORIGINAL ONE THAT CAME IN.
AND I, AND I THINK THOSE OLDER HOMES ARE GOING TO BE LOCATED IN COMMUNITIES THAT ARE AT HIGH RISK.
SPEAKING, UH, AGAINST THIS, WE NEED ANOTHER AGAINST THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO FOR AND AGAINST.
SO, UM, SO I THINK A NUMBER OF THINGS CAN BE SAID HERE.
I WAS AVOIDING BRINGING THEM UP IN THE QUESTIONS, BUT FIRST OF ALL, YOU KNOW, THE IDEA IS THAT THIS BE A REAL INCENTIVE TO PRESERVE.
I WANT TO ADDRESS THE IDEA THAT WE'RE CREATING SOME KIND OF A GOLD MINE.
EXISTING HISTORIC HOUSES IN AUSTIN ARE ALREADY A GOLD MINE
UM, AND, UH, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO, NO INCENTIVES ARE NEEDED IN ANY REGARD.
SO THE IDEA IS TO PRESERVE THE STRUCTURE, YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY CREATE A REAL INCENTIVE FOR IT.
SO THAT'S ONE THING, LIKE THE IDEA THAT SOMEHOW THIS IS GONNA ACCELERATE, UH, DEMOLITIONS, THAT DEMOLITIONS ARE ALREADY HAPPENING.
UM, I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
I ALSO WANNA CHALLENGE THIS TRUTH THAT I'VE HEARD REPEATED MANY TIMES, UM, OVER, BETWEEN LAST NIGHT AND TONIGHT.
THE IDEA THAT OUR EXISTING HOUSING STOCK IS OUR MOST AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK.
I LIVE IN AN ADU AND A NEWLY, NEWLY CONSTRUCTED ADU IN THE BACKYARD OF A LARGE SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
MY ADU IS VASTLY MORE AFFORDABLE TO ME THAN THAT SINGLE HOME WOULD EVER BE.
I'M NEVER GONNA AFFORD RENT IN THE SINGLE HOME, SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
I CAN'T AFFORD RENT IN THE LITTLE ADU THAT I LIVE IN, IN THE BACKYARD.
SO THIS IDEA THAT THE OLD STRUCTURE IS NECESSARILY THE AFFORDABLE STRUCTURE IS JUST NOT SOME KIND OF SELF-EVIDENT UNIVERSAL TRUTH.
AND WE NEED TO PUT THAT TO REST.
UM, AND SO I THINK AGAIN, IS THERE VALUE IN PRESERVING? YES, HOMES BUILT BEFORE 1960 HAVE FOUNDATION PROBLEMS, HAVE PLUMBING ISSUES, HAVE HVAC PROBLEMS, HAVE A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS TO MEANINGFULLY PRESERVE THOSE HOMES.
YOU NEED TO GIVE THE BUILDERS AND THE FOLKS THAT ARE GONNA PRESERVE THEM SOME FLEXIBILITY, UM, TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT.
SO WE WANT AN INCENTIVE, WE WANT A BONUS.
THIS IS, THIS IS, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD LISTEN TO WHAT PRESERVATION AUSTIN HAS PUT MANY HOURS WORKING ON WITH
[08:10:01]
THE COMMUNITY, WITH STAKEHOLDERS, WITH ARCHITECTS.UM, WE HAVE A THING THAT PRESERVATION AUSTIN HAS TOLD US THEY THINK WILL WORK.
AND SO THE IDEA THAT WE'RE GONNA COME HERE NOW AND ARBITRARILY TINKER WITH IT JUST DOESN'T WORK FOR ME.
ALRIGHT, SO, UH, IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
SORRY, NOW I'M GETTING CONFUSED ABOUT BUTTONS.
UH, SO, UM, AGAIN, I NEED SOME HELP BECAUSE MY REQUEST WAS GOING TO BE TO SPLIT THE QUESTION BECAUSE I AGREE WITH BOTH SIDES OF THIS ARGUMENT THAT ON THE ONE HAND THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING MORE THAN PRESERVING A COMMUNITY ASSET, UM, THAT IS WORTH MORE THAN ITS VALUE TO THE COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF PRESERVING THE HISTORY AND CULTURE OF THE CITY FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
SO THE 70% IS, IS ATTRACTIVE TO ME, BUT I DO THINK AS OTHER COMMISSIONERS HERE HAVE PUT IT, AND, AND THERE IS A DEBATE, IT'S NOT A LIE ABOUT ADUS, THERE'S A DEBATE ABOUT AED AND THAT REALLY IS NOT GERMANE TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
HOWEVER, POINT OF CLARIFICATION DO YOU WANT WE CAN SPLIT THE QUESTION NOW.
SPLIT THE QUESTION BECAUSE, BECAUSE THERE SHOULD BE MORE INCENTIVE AS OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE POINTED OUT TO PRESERVE THOSE STRUCTURES.
ALRIGHT, SO, AND YOU WANTED TO SPEAK, UM, YOU WANTED TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE FOR YES.
IF WE SPLIT THE QUESTION, I'M GONNA ALLOW SPEAKERS, UH, TO WE'LL CONTINUE THAT.
YOU CAN SPEAK ON BOTH IF YOU NEED TO.
JUST TO CLARIFY FOR OUR SAKE, SO WE'RE SPLITTING THE CUTTING DOWN OF THE FOUR UNIT AND THE 30, 70%.
CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN, I THINK COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, PLEASE EXPLAIN.
NO, I'M SAYING THAT WE KEEP THE FOUR UNIT AND, AND SO WE HAVE THAT AS A SEPARATE QUESTION AND THAT WE GO TO 70% INSTEAD OF 50% IN TERMS OF WHAT IS PRESERVED.
SO WE ARE GONNA SPLIT THOSE TWO INTO SEPARATE AND WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY.
UH, SO ANY OBJECTIONS TO SPLITTING THE QUESTION? OKAY.
SO JUST SO, SO THAT WE'RE VERY CLEAR, THE FIRST ONE I THINK WE'RE ADDRESSING IS, UM, THE REMOVAL OF THE FOURTH UNIT.
SO THAT'S THE, SO THAT'S THE AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE VOTING ON RIGHT NOW, SO EVERYBODY'S VERY CLEAR.
AND THEN ONCE WE'RE DONE, AND WE ARE AT THE LAST SPEAKER, ONCE WE'RE DONE WITH THAT CONSIDERATION, WE WILL HAVE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE 70% STRUCTURE.
SO AGAIN, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, YOU WANNA SPEAK? JUST TELL US WHAT'S ON YOUR MIND.
I'M, I'M, I'M SPEAKING FOUR EVEN BEFORE WE SPLIT OR AFTER WE SPLIT IT.
I'M SPEAKING FOUR, BUT I'M, I'M GONNA DO IT THIS WAY.
UM, UH, COMMISSIONER CONNOLLY, I I APPRECIATE YOUR WORDS AND I APPRECIATE, UM, THE IDEA.
I WANT TO PRESERVE THESE HOUSES.
I I WANT TO PRESERVE 'EM, NOT FOR THEIR, BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK THE IDEA THAT THEY'RE HISTORIC IN SOME SHAPE, FORM OR, OR NATURE IS QUITE FRANKLY KIND OF, WELL, IT, IT'S SOMETHING, UH, I WANT TO PRESERVE 'EM 'CAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO THE LANDFILL.
BUT THIS IDEA, AND, AND I DON'T KNOW THE FOLKS FROM PRESERVATION AUSTIN, BUT JUST LIKE Y'ALL, I GOT INUNDATED WITH 14 EMAILS TODAY FROM PRESERVATION AUSTIN.
SO I STARTED, I STARTED SENDING THEM BACK AND I SAID, OKAY, TELL ME THESE THINGS.
THEIR ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS WERE, ASK COMMISSIONER AZAR, HE'S GOT THE INFORMATION.
WELL, WHAT ABOUT THE PRESERVATION VOTE? ASK COMMISSIONER AZAR, HE HAS THE INFORMATION.
WHAT ABOUT THE, HOW MANY, HOW MANY HOUSES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE? ASK COMMISSIONER AZAR, HE HAS THE INFORMATION.
UM, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 1960 AND A 1970? I DID GET ONE PERSON TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION AND THEY SAID, BECAUSE THE 19 PRE 1960S WERE BUILT WITH, WITH, UM, GOOD CONSTRUCTION AND, AND, AND HARDWOODS.
WELL, GUESS WHAT? MY 1967 HOME IS BUILT WITH HARDWOOD STUDS.
AND, AND IT HAS ALL THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT, THAT THE ONE GENTLEMAN SAYS, WERE WERE UNIQUE AND NEEDED TO BE.
I'M STILL SPEAKING FOR THE AMENDMENT, UH, AND, AND STILL HAS ALL THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT THE GENTLEMAN SAID WE NEED TO PRESERVE FROM 1960.
SO I SAY, WHY NOT 1970? AND AND MY ANSWER IS TO ASK COMMISSIONER CZAR
SO YOU'RE, YOU ARE SPEAK, JUST CLARIFY.
THAT'S, SO I'M SPEAKING FOUR FOUR, OKAY.
ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE FOUR UNITS, BUT I HEAR YOU
[08:15:01]
ONE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF BOTH.BUT, UH, SO SPEAKING AGAINST, I'LL, I'LL JUST NOTE, UM, AND I'M ALL FOR WHEN, WHEN POINTS ARE DIRECTED TO SPECIFIC COMMISSIONERS AND COMMISSIONERS DON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THOSE POINTS, IT CREATES AN AWKWARD SITUATION.
IT'S IDEAL IF WE AVOID DOING THAT, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE DIALOGUE WITH YOU OFF GUYS.
COMMISSIONER CONNOLLY, THANK YOU FOR THAT POINT OF ORDER.
SO, UM, WHERE WERE WE? WE WERE, THIS ITEM IS TO, UM, WE'RE VOTING ON THE REMOVAL OF THE FOUR UNIT PROVISION AND ANY SPEAKERS THAT WANNA SPEAK AGAINST THIS CHAIR.
I WOULD LIKE TO, UM, SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION.
I REALLY WANNA SAY, FIRST OF ALL, I'LL BE HONEST, I'M GETTING MESSAGES FROM FOLKS IN PRESERVATION AUSTIN WHO ARE SAYING QUOTE UNQUOTE, THAT IS NOT TRUE.
THEY DID NOT SAY THAT, BUT I'M NOT GONNA GO THERE BECAUSE I CANNOT SPEAK FOR OTHER PEOPLE.
I THINK WHAT I WOULD POINT OUT IS TO SAY, HERE'S THE THING, I'M NOT A PRESERVATION EXPERT, BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT FOLKS FROM PRESERVATION AUSTIN HAD DONE WITH ME TO REALLY UNDERSTAND SOME OF THESE IN-DEPTH THINGS.
UM, AND I, AND I HAVE TO SAY, SO I'M GONNA DEFER TO THEIR EXPERTISE ON THIS.
AND NOT ONLY DID WE GET AN EMAIL FROM THEM, BUT WE ALSO GOT AN EMAIL FROM OUR HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSIONER TODAY.
THIS WAS IN OUR EMAILS, HARMONY GROGAN SAYING, I'M WRITING TODAY TO YOU AS A MEMBER OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION RESPECT, RESPECTFULLY ASKING THAT YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FIVE AND SIX A.
WE GOT A SIMILAR ONE FROM A BOARD MEMBER FROM PRESERVATION AUSTIN.
BUT WHAT I'LL REALLY PUT IT DOWN TO IS, HERE'S THE THING FOLKS.
WE'RE PUTTING UP FALSE CHOICES IN FRONT OF US.
THE CHO, IF WE HAVE BAD ACTORS WHO REALLY WANT TO MAXIMIZE THEIR DEVELOPMENT, THEIR CHOICE IS SIMPLE.
KEEP AN 1100 SQUARE FOOT HOME OR TEAR DOWN AND BUILD 6,500 SQUARE FOOT THREE UNITS AND SELL THEM, THAT'S THE CHOICE.
AND SO WE HAVE TO INCENTIVIZE IT IN A WAY THAT THEY'RE NOT TEMPTED TO DO THAT.
SO HOW MUCH CAN WE PUSH FOR PRESERVATION AND HOW MUCH CAN WE PUSH INCENTIVE? SO THERE HAS TO BE BALANCE BOTH IN INCENTIVE AND PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT TO GET TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN PRESERVE IT BECAUSE IT IS TRULY THE HISTORIC NATURE AND CHARACTER OF SOME OF THESE CORE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE.
OKAY, SO AZAR IS AGAINST THE MOTION.
UH, YEAH, YOU DID NOT TAKE YOUR, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MOTION
SO YOUR MO YOU YOU SPLIT THE QUESTION? YES, I SPLIT THE QUESTION.
THE BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE, SO WE HAD REMOVAL OF THE FOURTH UNIT WAS A IT WAS THE ORIGINAL MOTION BY, OKAY.
AND, AND SO WE'RE, WE SPLIT IT.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW? YES.
SO WE'RE SPEAKING FOR AND AGAINST, RIGHT? WE HAD ONE, UH, SPEAKER FOUR ONE AGAINST, WE HAVE TWO MORE SLOTS.
SO NOW SPEAKERS THAT WANNA SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE REMOVAL OF THE FOURTH UNIT BONUS.
PLEASE SPEAK NOW SINCE WE SPLIT THE MOTION.
AM I ALLOWED TO SPEAK AGAIN OR HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN? I'LL, I'LL, I'LL LET YOU IN LIGHT OF WHAT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT, WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES HERE.
AND, AND I APPRECIATE YOU WANTING TO SPLIT THE MOTION BECAUSE THEN IT ALLOWS US TO EVALUATE THE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.
THE ONE ISSUE THAT WE HAVEN'T SPOKEN ABOUT THUS FAR IS THE FACT THAT FOUR UNITS IS ILLEGAL.
THE COURTS HAVE SMACKED US DOWN.
HOW MANY TIMES ABOUT NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS? NO ONE, NONE.
NO ONE THAT WE HEARD COMMENTARY FROM ABOUT THIS VIA EMAIL IN PERSON OVER THE PHONE WAS AWARE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING NOW ALLOWING FOUR UNITS ON SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AS LONG AS THAT SINGLE FAMILY LOT HAS A HOUSE ON IT THAT WAS BUILT BEFORE 1960, WHICH A LOT OF 'EM DO.
THAT'S WHY I THINK WE SHOULD REMOVE IT.
I AM OPEN TO OTHER INCENTIVES, BUT THIS ONE IS NOT ONE THAT WE CAN DO UNDER THE NOTIFICATION THAT WE GAVE OUT POINT OF INFORMATION PLEASE.
AND CAN WE GET LEGAL TO SPEAK TO THIS? SO YES, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND AGAIN, POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
GRANTED, AND I, I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION TO ASK.
WE THOUGHT WE HAD SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE, BUT WHAT I DON'T WANNA DO IS PUT ANY NOTICE OUT IN JEOPARDY.
SLING WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT, YOU ARE DISCUSSING A BONUS PROGRAM.
ALL OF OUR NOTICE HAS BEEN ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WAY TO DESCRIBE BY, RIGHT.
SO EVERY ZONING DISTRICT, SSF ONE, TWO, AND THREE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE UP TO THREE.
UM, WE HAVE BONUS PROGRAMS THAT, UM, ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS.
SO THERE ARE ISSUES UNRELATED TO NOTICE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WILL HAVE TO LOOK INTO AS MR. LLOYD BROUGHT UP EARLIER.
UM, SO IF THE BODY FEELS LIKE THAT IS SOMETHING TO RECOMMEND, IF WE FEEL LIKE WE CAN ACHIEVE IT, THEN WE WILL DO WHAT WE CAN.
[08:20:02]
I THINK WHAT I HEARD THE CONCERN WAS IS NOTICE WENT OUT AND WE'RE AT THE STAGE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.WERE WE NOTICED FOR PRESERVATION? ARE WE PUTTING ANYTHING, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE WORDING OF THE NOTICE COMPARED TO THE ACTIONS THAT WE'RE TAKING HERE.
IS IT PUTTING ANYTHING IN JEOPARDY OF THE HOME INITIATIVE? ARE WE PUTTING THAT IN JEOPARDY? AND, AND MAYBE WE COULD ASK STAFF TO LOOK AT THAT.
I MEAN, I GUESS MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO TABLE THIS.
MS. LINK CAN ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
UM, UM, AS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED WHERE WE SAID SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT, WOULD YOU READ IT TO MEAN THAT ONCE THIS IS APPROVED, BEFORE IT IS APPROVED BY COUNSEL, YOU WILL CONSIDER IT.
IF THERE IS A LEGALITY ISSUE, YOU WILL OF COURSE DROP THAT.
WOULD YOU READ IT THAT WAY AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED? SO AS DRAFTED, WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT IT OBVIOUSLY TO ENSURE THAT ALL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ARE MET ACROSS THE BOARD, WHETHER THAT'S NOTICE OR, UM, JUST KIND OF THE LEGAL ISSUES THAT MAY COME FROM HAVING THIS TYPE OF PROGRAM.
AND, AND I HOPE THAT THE INTENTION IS VERY CLEAR THAT IF INDEED A LEGALITY ISSUE IS FINE, YOU CAN DROP THIS PROVISION.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHY IT HAD BEEN DRAFTED THIS WAY IN CONSULTATION WITH YOU.
CAN CAN, JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THIS COMMISSION, DO ANY OF Y'ALL ACTUALLY HAVE A COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE AND THE THREE POINTS THAT WERE LISTED IN THAT NOTICE, ALLOWING UP TO THREE UNITS, INCLUDING A TINY HOUSE OR AN RV ON SINGLE FAMILY'S OWN LOTS.
TWO, UH, REVISING REGULATIONS RELATED TO TWO UNIT USES AND, UH, REMOVING OCCUPANCY LIMITS RELATED, UM, OR CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS WHO CAN RESIDE IN A HOUSING UNIT.
SO, UM, WE GOT A CLARIFYING QUESTION NOW.
WE'RE, UH, FOR MEMBERS AGAINST THIS, UM, SPLIT MOTION, WHO'S ANY SPEAKERS THAT ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF REMOVING THE FOURTH UNIT BONUS? OKAY.
UH, ANY SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE REMOVAL, YOU CAN JUST CONSIDER, LET'S JUST GO AHEAD.
DID YOU WANNA SPEAK HANDS? WELL, YOU SPOKE ON BOTH, RIGHT? YEAH.
COMMISSIONER, I THINK WE ARE
CAN WE GO AHEAD? UH, YOU WERE FIRST.
SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE THIS ONE.
SO, UM, LET'S GO AND TAKE ACCOUNT.
I'LL, I'LL MENTION THE MOTION AGAIN, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.
WE ARE STRIKING THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS AND DEVELOPMENT, UTILIZING A PRESERVATION BONUSES ENTITLED TO AN OPTIONAL BONUS UNIT IN ADDITION TO OTHER ALLOWABLE DWELLING UNITS WITH NO ADDITIONAL FAR ALLOWED SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT REVISES THE DEFINITION OF MULTIFAMILY, RESIDENTIAL, AND OTHER TERMS ACCORDINGLY.
SO THIS ENTIRE LANGUAGE WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE ORIGINAL MOTION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
WE WERE AT A SUBSTITUTE, RIGHT? YES, GO AHEAD.
UM, MY MOTION WOULD READ RATHER THAN RIGHT.
WERE WE AT A SUBSTITUTE? I'M SORRY.
WE CANNOT DO A SUBSTITUTE THIS TIME.
'CAUSE THIS WAS ALREADY A SUBSTITUTE THAT'S BEEN SPLIT.
SO NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT TWO SUBSTITUTE.
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT, MR. CHAIRMAN.
UM, AND THE AMENDMENT IS TO, UM, WELL, HOLD ON.
WE'RE WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE, THE FOURTH UNIT, FOUR UNIT BONUS, FOURTH UNIT REMOVING IT.
NEVER MY, MY AMENDMENT GOES TO ANOTHER PART.
THAT IS WHAT'S WE'RE VOTING ON RIGHT NOW.
SO LET'S GO, GO BACK TO THE VOTE.
SO THOSE, SO TO CLARIFY, IF YOU'RE VOTING YES, YOU'RE VOTING TO REMOVE THE FOURTH UNIT IF YOU'RE VOTING NO, YOU WANT TO LEAVE THAT IN THE BASE MOTION.
UM, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER AL.
OKAY, SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND, UH, LET'S TAKE HANDS THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION ON THE DAAS.
AND THOSE, UM, LET'S SEE THOSE IN FAVOR VIRTUALLY.
THOSE ON THE DAAS THAT ARE, UH, VOTE IN A, UH, AGAINST THIS.
UH, AND THOSE ON VIRTUALLY THAT.
OKAY, SO I HAVE HOW, AND, UH, YOU'RE, THAT'S YELLOW VICE CHAIR,
[08:25:01]
SO THAT, UM, THAT MOTION FAILS.SO WE SPLIT THAT MOTION, THAT MOTION FAILS IN THIS SPLIT MOTION FORMAT.
WE'RE NOW AT THE OTHER, UM, ALTERNATE.
UH, SO THE OTHER CHANGE, THIS IS, SO ESSENTIALLY WOULD KEEP THIS STUFF AS IT IS, AND INSTEAD OF SAY 50% OFF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND PRESERVE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE STREET FACING FACADE, IT WOULD NOW BE SAYING 70% OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND PRESERVE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE STREET FACING FACADE THAT IS, UH, WHAT IS BEFORE US.
THERE'S ONLY ONE SPOT AGAINST LEFT.
AND I WOULD LOVE TO TAKE IT IF I LEAVE IT TO YOU CHAIR, ARE WE ONLY IN ONE SPOT? ARE WE DOING IT OVER AGAIN? NO, I DO IT OVER AGAIN BECAUSE WE HAD ALREADY SPOKEN IN ONE SET OF MOTIONS.
UH, SO REAL QUICK, JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE, WE'RE KEEPING TALLY.
SO THAT LAST ONE, JUST TO MAKE IT EASY ON ME, IT WAS, UH, UM, IT, IT WAS HAYNES FORK, COMMISSIONER COX, UM, AGAINST COMMISSIONER CONLEY FOR COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS AGAINST, I BELIEVE IT WAS COMMISSIONER WOODS, IT WAS YOU.
AND THEN FOR COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
AND THEN WE HAVE ONE AGAINST SPOT LEFT FOR, UM, THIS OTHER MOTION THAT I WAS, UM, HE WAS TALKING ABOUT VOTE.
I WAS, I WAS LOOKING AT, JUST 'CAUSE I KNOW, UM, MR. RIVERA LIKES TO HEAR.
SO IT WAS, UH, HAYNES COX MOTO THAT WERE, UH, VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WITH THE VICE CHAIR OFIN ABSTAINING.
EVERYONE ELSE, UH, VOTED AGAINST THAT MOTION.
I, I WILL BE DIGGING OVER THE LAST SORT OF AGAIN SPOT.
AND SINCE I'VE BEEN GIVING MY TWO MINUTES, I'LL HAVE A MOMENT OF SELF-REFLECTION HERE, AND Y'ALL WILL HAVE TO BEAR WITH ME.
AS FOLKS KNOW, I'M NOT EXACTLY THE PERSON WHO ALWAYS RISES UP TO THE OCCASION FOR PRESERVING, UM, OUR HISTORIC STRUCTURES, UNLESS I FEEL LIKE THEY REALLY MEET A STRONG REQUIREMENT FOR HAVING THAT HISTORIC INTEGRITY.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING I ALWAYS ASK OUR STAFF AND SORT OF CHALLENGE THEM TO GIVE ME THE INFORMATION PROVIDED.
SO I REALLY HAVE TO SAY THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN ENLIGHTENING TO ME ON A PERSONAL LEVEL BECAUSE I'VE LEARNED SO MUCH FROM THE FOLKS AT PRESERVATION AUSTIN, FROM OUR STAFF AND OTHERS TO REALLY APPRECIATE AND RESPECT.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN? LIKE, I'LL BE HONEST, WHEN WE STARTED THE WHOLE GABLE STRUCTURES, Y'ALL, I HAD TO DO A LOT OF GOOGLING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THESE DIFFERENT GABLES ARE, WHAT THE DIFFERENT ROOF TYPES ARE, AND WHAT THE IMPLICATION IS.
I JUST WANNA SAY, REALLY, I NOW SEE TRULY THE VALUE OF LOOKING AT THESE UNITS WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT 1960 OR EARLY.
AND FROM THE DATA THAT WE HAVE, IT'S LOOKING AT 32,000 UNITS IN OUR CITY, OR 18,000 UNITS.
AND AGAIN, WE'RE NOT REQUIRING FOLKS TO DO IT.
THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTIES AS IT IS TODAY, OR UNDER THE HOME AMENDMENT OR OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT MIGHT COME IN THE FUTURE TO OUR CODE.
WE ARE TRYING TO PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE THAT REALLY CONVINCES FOLKS THAT THERE IS NOT JUST A VALUE FROM AN INTRINSIC PERSPECTIVE OF PROTECTING OUR HISTORIC FABRIC, BUT A VALUE FROM AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE AT PRESERVING AS WELL.
SO WE CAN INCENTIVIZE THOSE ACTORS WHO MIGHT NOT CONSIDER THE IMPORTANCE OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO GO AHEAD AND PRESERVE THESE STRUCTURES AND PRESERVE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THAT FACADE.
SO IF ANYTHING, I APPRECIATE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOLKS WHO HAVE REALLY COME AND TALKED TO IN FIELD DEVELOPERS AND FIGURED OUT A REALLY FINE TUNED COMPLEX AMENDMENT THAT ADDRESSES THEIR CONCERN, WHILE ALSO ENSURES THAT FOLKS WHO MIGHT WANNA ADD A SECOND OR THIRD UNIT ON THESE PROPERTIES CAN DO IT.
SO I TRULY SEE SO MUCH VALUE IN THIS AMENDMENT AS IS, AND I CANNOT SUPPORT CHANGES TO THAT BECAUSE THIS HAS GONE THROUGH A LENGTHY PROCESS WITH OUR STAKEHOLDERS.
AND I WANT TO RESPECT THAT PROCESS AND RESPECT THOSE EXPERTS ON THIS WHO HAVE PROVIDED US THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'RE TRYING TO UTILIZE HERE.
HAYNES, DID YOU WANT OH, WERE YOU ABOUT TO? SO WE ARE, WE'RE DONE WITH THE, UH, FOREIGN AGAINST, SO WE'RE AT THE POINT WE'RE AT THE, UH, REQUIRED CHAIN.
THE 70%, 50%, UH, IS WHERE WE ARE.
I'M SORRY, DID COMMISSIONER 70, COMMISSIONER HANS, YOU WANTED TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS PORTION? LET HIM LAY IT OUT.
DID YOU WANNA MAKE AN AMENDMENT? UH, YEAH, LET'S FINISH LAYING IT OUT.
SO, SO WE ARE, UM, DONE WITH FOREIGN AGAINST, SO WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD.
DO WE NEED, UM, DOES THIS HAVE A SECOND? IT'S ALREADY, WE'RE ALREADY THERE.
SO JUST ONE OH, IT NEEDS A SECOND.
JUST TO CLARIFY, THE SUBSTITUTION, WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE TO MOVE FROM, THIS IS ONLY THIS PIECE.
WE HAVE THREE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SPOKEN FOR, THREE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SPOKEN AGAINST.
WE ARE NOW READY TO TAKE A VOTE.
UNLESS COMMISSIONER HAYNES, YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS SPECIFIC THING, IN WHICH CASE THIS IS THE MOMENT TO SAVE.
UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, WHILE AGAIN, I WANT TO PRESERVE THESE HOUSES, UM, AND I DO NOT WANT THIS MATERIAL.
[08:30:01]
THE SAKE OF HOW WE LAY OUT THE MOTION, YOU WOULD HAVE TO LAY OUT YOUR MOTION, THEN YOU CAN SPEAK TO IT.SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO TELL US WHAT YOUR AMENDMENT IS BEFORE YOU CAN SPEAK TO IT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO, UH, REMOVE THE, UH, WHAT WAS 50% NOW? 70%.
AND THE, UH, I WANT TO KEEP THE A HUNDRED PERCENT STREET FACING FACADE, BUT I WANT TO REPLACE IT WITH, FOR EVERY 10% OF THE EXISTING, UH, UNIT REMOVED, 0.5 OF ADDITIONAL FAR IS WHATEVER WORD YOU WANNA PUT ON THERE.
LOST, SACRIFICED, FORFEITED, UM, GIVEN UP WHAT, WHATEVER WORD YOU WANNA PUT ON THERE ABOUT.
SO THAT REDUCED BY, SO THAT YOU TIE DO WHAT? REDUCED BY.
SO YOU TIE THE, UM, THE, IF, IF, IF OUR GOAL HERE IS TO PRESERVE THE UNIT AND WE HAVE, HAVE CONSISTENTLY ON THIS BOARD SAID THAT WE ARE GOING TO ATTACK AND, AND FOCUS ON FAR AS THE SOLUTION FOR BUILDING ALTERNATIVE UNITS AND, AND, AND ADDITIONAL THINGS, THEN TIE PRESERVATION TO FAR, THAT'S WHAT MY AMENDMENT DOES.
IF SOMEBODY CAN DO THE, HOW DO THOSE THINGS CORRELATE? THE 10% 0.5? I'M TRYING TO SEE IF I, I'M SORRY.
I I DID, I DID SAY 0.5, 0.05
YOU'RE GETTING, I WAS A LITTLE WORRIED THERE.
ALRIGHT, I'LL SECOND GIVE A SECOND AND NOW WE CAN SPEAK FOR AGAIN.
SO MOTION MAKER, YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? UM, I, I THINK I DID.
I, I WANT TO TIE, UH, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO KEEP US CONSISTENT AND TIE EVERYTHING TO THE, UH, TO THE FAR PRINCIPLE, THE GRANTING APHA AND IF PRESERVATION IS OUR, IS OUR GOAL HERE, AND THAT'S A LAUDABLE GOAL, THEN TIE PRESERVATION TO, UH, TO FAR AND FOR EVERY 10% YOU DON'T PRESERVE, YOU LOSE 0.05
SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE PRESERVING IT.
IS IT, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S, UM, ANY PART OF THE SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE.
WOULD ANY PERCENT OF THAT JUST TO, SO WE'RE CLEAR? WELL, IT, THE, THE, THE LANGUAGE SAYS EXISTING STRUCTURE.
I WOULD, I WOULD, I WOULD APPROACH.
SO WE'LL KEEP THE SAME LANGUAGE.
UH, SO YOU SPOKE, AND I HAVE A POINT OF INFORMATION IS DO, CAN YOU POINT TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES, UH, A PROGRAM PRESERVATION PROGRAM? BECAUSE THE GOAL IS TO PRESERVE THAT WORKS THE WAY THAT YOU HAVE JUST LAID THIS OUT WITH ANY EFFECTIVENESS.
UM, BUT WHAT, WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS, UH, TAKE THE, THE, AS I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO PRESERVE THE UNITS AND, AND IN PRESERVING THE UNITS, YOU GET, YOU GET BONUS, YOU GET FAR, YOU GET.
AND SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS GREAT, KEEP THAT CONCEPT IN PLACE.
BUT IF YOU DON'T PRESERVE, DON'T, IF YOU PRESERVE A HUNDRED PERCENT, YOU GET ALL THE FAR YOU PRESERVE 90, YOU LOSE 0.05.
BUT ARE YOU JUST TALKING ABOUT THE FACADE AND NOT THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE? NO, NO.
THE EXISTING, UM, BECAUSE YOU SAID A HUNDRED PERCENT AND WE NEVER HAD A HUNDRED PERCENT.
WELL, IT, THE, THE EXISTING, AS I READ IT SAYS 50% OF THE EXISTING AND WE WERE GONNA CHANGE IT TO 70% OF THE EXISTING PER STRUCTURE AND, AND PERCENT OF THE 100% OF THE FACADE.
SO I'M, SO ANY REDUCTION IN ANY OF THOSE? SO I'M SAYING KEEP THE FACADE AND THEN, YEAH.
SO HOW I UNDERSTOOD IT WAS IF YOU ONLY KEEP 50% OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE PENALIZED BY 0.25 ON THE FAR.
IF YOU KEEP A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, THEN YOU GET EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE LAID OUT HERE, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY UNLIMITED FAR DEPENDING ON HOW BIG THAT EXISTING HOME IS, IT LINKS THE TWO TOGETHER.
COMMISSIONER, ARE YOU SPEAKING AGAINST? I HAVE QUESTIONS.
THE FIRST ONE IS COMMISSIONER HAYNES, SINCE THE ORIGINAL ESSENTIALLY WAS, I KNOW YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS IS TIED TOO FAR.
THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS ALSO TIED TOO FAR.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS YOU'RE NOW PENALIZING
[08:35:01]
PEOPLE IN A CERTAIN WAY.DO YOU THINK THAT THIS WOULD ACTUALLY INCENTIVIZE, ESSENTIALLY FOR SOMEONE TO TEAR DOWN THE HOUSE? 'CAUSE AT SOME POINT, LIKE AS, UM, COMMISSIONER COX SAID, WHEN YOU GO DOWN TO 50% REDUCTION, YOU'VE LOST TWO POINT, YOU KNOW, 0.25 OF YOUR FAR, THAT'S MORE THAN WHAT WE ALLOWED FOR THE ADDITIONAL SECOND AND THIRD UNIT.
WOULD SOMEONE HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO PRESERVE THE HOUSE, OR DO YOU THINK AT THAT POINT IT WOULD BE JUST EASIER TO TEAR IT DOWN? MY GOAL IS TO IS TO GIVE THEM THE BONUS OF, OF KEEPING, YOU KNOW, THE, THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW IS TO GO DOWN TO 70.
I WANT 'EM TO KEEP A HUNDRED PERCENT.
AND WHEN THEY KEEP A HUNDRED PERCENT, THEY GET THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF FAR ALLOWABLE.
BUT WE KNOW THAT THERE'S CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS THAT DO NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO PRESERVE THE FULL HOME AT THAT POINT.
IS THE INCENTIVE THEN TO JUST TEAR DOWN THE ENTIRE HOUSE? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE HOPING TO GET OUT OF THIS? NO, I DON'T WANT THEM TO TEAR DOWN THE I WANTED TO.
SO, AND I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
CAN YOU PLEASE HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR EVERY 10% OF THE UNIT REMOVED, HOW WOULD WE CALCULATE THAT AND ENSURE THAT THAT IS WHAT WE'RE MANAGING? CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT TO ME? IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
UM, AND I THINK I'M JUST GONNA SAY THAT WE, I THINK, FEEL THAT THIS AMENDMENT, WE UNDERSTAND THE INTENT AND THE PRINCIPLE OF IT, BUT IT'S VERY PRESCRIPTIVE AND IT'S VERY COMPLEX.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT FOR THE PRESERVATION INCENTIVE TO SUCCEED ON THE STAFF SIDE, IT NEEDS TO BE SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD.
WE ALREADY HAVE A, AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, A VERY COMPLICATED SET OF REGULATIONS TO APPLY.
SO MY MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO BE MORE CONCEPTUAL IN YOUR DIRECTION AND SIMPLY SAY SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, UM, YOU KNOW, TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE, PROVIDE, UH, GREATER BONUS FAR TO FOUR HIGHER LEVELS OF, UH, PRES OF PRESERVATION AND LEAVE IT AT THAT.
AND, UM, OUR, UH, CARA MAY HAVE BETTER LANGUAGE THAN THAT, BUT I JUST, I WOULD FOCUS ON THE PRINCIPLES, THE CONCEPTS, AND NOT GET TOO MIRED IN THE PERCENTAGES AND ALL THE NUMBERS.
THIS IS A, THIS IS A NUMBER, NOT A PRINCIPLE, BUT A ANOTHER, UM, I THINK SOMETHING THAT MIGHT ACHIEVE WHAT YOU'RE AIMING FOR IS TO EXEMPT FROM THE BASE FAR THE PRESERVED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOME.
I'M SO SORRY, MS. BERTRAN, CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT THAT AGAIN? SURE.
UM, THE, I THINK A, A MORE POTENTIALLY SIMPLER ALTERNATIVE MIGHT BE TO EXEMPT FROM THE FAR, THE, THE PRESERVED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE EXISTING HOME.
MY DSD COLLEAGUES MAY HAVE THOUGHTS ON THAT, BUT I THINK IT MIGHT BE A SIMPLER, AND I'LL SAY THAT WAS ACTUALLY WHAT IS IN THE BASE MOTION.
THE BASE MOTION ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT WHATEVER SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT YOU ARE PRESERVING IS EXEMPT FROM YOUR FAR CAP.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING? OR ARE YOU SAYING SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND I'M MISUNDERSTANDING? I I THINK IT IS, ALTHOUGH IT, IT WAS NOT, I GUESS IT WAS NOT CLEAR TO ME.
SO IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO CLARIFY THAT, UM, RATHER THAN, BECAUSE IT SAYS THE EXISTING HOUSE, UM, AND CHANGES MADE TO THAT EXISTING HOUSE.
SO IN THIS MOMENT, I GUESS JUST TO CLARIFY THE, THE INTENT OF THE INITIAL MOTION, AND WE CAN CLARIFY THAT IN THE LANGUAGES THAT ESSENTIALLY WHATEVER FAR, WHATEVER SQUARE FOOTAGE YOU'RE PRESERVING IS NOT COUNTING TOWARDS YOUR FAR EXEMPTION OR FARC UP.
YES, THAT IS, UM, WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING, WHAT YOU HAD ALREADY SUGGESTED, BUT I THINK A CLARIFICATION WOULD BE HELPFUL.
YEAH, I, SO I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY, THIS PIECE IS ACTUALLY HELPFUL.
SO IF SOMEONE CHOOSES TO PRESERVE 50% AND JUST TO, OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE ONLY THE 50% THAT IS PRESERVED IS EXCLUDED FROM THE FAR CAP.
BUT THE OTHER 50% THAT MIGHT BE NEW, HOWEVER THAT'S MEASURED.
SO THAT WOULD NOT BE NO, EXACTLY.
THAT'S COUNTED IN THE BASE MOTION.
THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED, THE IDEA WAS IF YOU TORE DOWN 50%, THAT 50%, IT'S NOT LIKE YOU GET EXTRA FAR FOR TEAR DOWN 50%.
IF YOU PRESERVE 60%, YOU GET 60% EXTRA.
YOU PRESERVE 92% THAT ESSENTIALLY HOW IT ALREADY WORKS.
THAT IS, UH, SO TO WHAT MS. BERTRAN IS SAYING, THAT WAS THE INTENTION.
WE CAN CLARIFY THAT, OF COURSE, IN OUR AMENDMENT.
BUT WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER HENES HAS IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.
CAN I SPEAK FOR, IS THAT AN, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK FOR THIS AMENDMENT? WE'RE CLARIFYING.
RIGHT? SO LET'S, UM, THE, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHERE WE'RE AT.
SO DID WE HAVE THIS, WE DIDN'T HAVE A SECOND ON.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE 10% AT YOU SECONDED IT.
SO, ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON WITH THE FOR AND AGAINST.
WE HAD SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
UM, LET ME ASK ONE MORE CLARIFYING QUESTION BECAUSE AS I READ THIS AS I JUST, SORRY, I'M CATCHING UP.
IS I READ THAT FIRST BULLET, SO COMMISSION, I'LL ASK AGAIN.
SO YOU ONLY GET CREDIT FOR FAR, FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE
[08:40:01]
BUILDING THAT YOU PRESERVE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.I DON'T SEE THAT AS I AGREE IN THERE.
I I, I THOUGHT YOU GOT A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE BUILDING BEFORE YOU, THE MOST YOU DID NOT.
AND WE CAN CLARIFY THAT IN THE LANGUAGE, CERTAINLY.
UM, AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN EXTRA AMENDMENT.
BUT SINCE WE'RE SO NESTED AT THE MOMENT, YES.
I CANNOT MAKE THAT AMENDMENT UNTIL WE DISCARD OFF, UM, OR GO THROUGH THIS AMENDMENT.
CAN I, SO LET'S WORK OUR WAY THROUGH.
YOU WANT, I JUST HAVE, SO THAT'S BEEN CLARIFIED.
AND PRIMARILY TO MAKE TWO IMPORTANT POINTS BECAUSE I'M VERY FRUSTRATED WITH THIS.
FIRST OF ALL, WHERE WAS THIS MASSIVE PROCESS THAT HAPPENED TO DEVELOP THESE PRESERVATION INCENTIVES? 'CAUSE I WASN'T INVOLVED IN IT.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO WAS INVOLVED IN IT.
AND IT, IT CERTAINLY CERTAINLY WASN'T PUBLIC.
AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE CONSIDERING PRESERVATION AUSTIN'S RECOMMENDATIONS AS THE HOLY GOSPEL BECAUSE, UH, WHERE, WHERE WAS THIS PROCESS? WHO WERE, WHO WERE THE STAKEHOLDERS? WAS ABOR A PART OF IT? IS THAT A GENUINE QUESTION OR IS THAT A RHETORICAL QUESTION? YES, WE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
DO YOU WANT AN ANSWER? AND MY SECOND, MY SECOND POINT IN SUPPORT OF THIS IS I LIVE IN A 1953 HOME SPEAKING FAVOR.
I THINK EVERYONE'S PERSONAL EXPERIENCES ARE VERY INFORMATIVE TO WHERE THEY ARRIVE IN THESE DECISIONS.
I LIVE IN A 1953 HOME, MY HOME IS AT LEAST HALF THE PRICE OF ALL OF THE NEW HOMES THAT ARE POPPING UP AROUND MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I DO BELIEVE THAT IN GENERAL, ALL OF THESE NEWLY BUILT HOUSES ARE MORE, ARE GOING TO BE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN OUR EXISTING HOUSING STOCK.
AND, AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT EVERY URBANIST HAS BEEN TELLING ME UP TO THIS POINT.
SO MAYBE THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST WAY TO ACCOMPLISH THE PRESERVATION GOALS, BUT I'M VOTING FOR THIS BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT INCENTIVIZING FOLKS TO TEAR DOWN HALF OF THESE OLDER HOMES IS A WAY TO PRESERVE THE OLDER HOMES.
IT'S JUST A MECHANISM TO GET MORE DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS.
THAT'S HOW I, THAT'S HOW I VIEW THIS, WHICH IS NOT REALLY THE GOAL OF ANY PRESERVATION PRINCIPLES THAT I'M AWARE OF.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS EFFORT.
MAY I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? OKAY.
DI I THINK SOME QUESTIONS WERE RAISED AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S OPPORTUNITY TO, TO JUST HAVE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS, BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK, I THINK IT, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT.
THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE PROCESS BY WHICH PRESERVATION AUSTIN ARRIVED AT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND I THINK THAT, THAT IT'S WORTH, UM, AT LEAST HAVING INFORMATION ABOUT THAT FOR ALL THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY TO, TO KNOW.
ALRIGHT, SO, UM, POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
DO YOU HAVE, DO WHO CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION? BRENT LLOYD CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
QUESTION FOR BRENT LLOYD
AND IF IT DOESN'T, THEN, THEN BY ALL MEANS WE'LL CONTINUE.
CAN YOU PLEASE LET, LET'S GO AHEAD.
WE WANT THIS QUESTION ANSWERED FIRST.
SO YEAH, SO LET'S STAY IN ORDER.
UH, I RECOGNIZE, UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY, YOU'LL BE RECOGNIZED NEXT.
SO FOR THESE PARTICULAR RECOMMENDATIONS, I DON'T HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE IN GENERAL.
THERE'S BEEN, OVER THE YEARS, INCLUDING IN CONNECTION WITH, YOU KNOW, PRIOR DIRECTION ON ADUS AS WELL AS GOING BACK TO THE CODE REWRITE.
THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE INFILL BUILDERS AND PRESERVATION AUSTIN AROUND A PRESERVATION INCENTIVE.
AND BASICALLY, I THINK PRESERVATION AUSTIN HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON REALLY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIMENSIONS OF IT.
AND THEN OTHERS HAVE FOCUSED MORE ON SIMPLY AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, KEEPING DEMOLITIONS FROM OCCURRING AT SUCH A RAPID PACE AND KEEPING, UM, PERFECTLY GOOD HOMES OUT OF LANDFILLS.
AND SO THERE'S BEEN, I THINK, DIFFERENT POLICY PRIORITIES.
AND I THINK THIS RECOMMEND SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE SORT OF, UH, NODS TO BOTH.
THERE'S THE SUSTAINABILITY INCENTIVE AND THEN THE, UH, HISTORIC PRESERVATION BONUS.
SO I THINK THOSE ARE THE KIND OF BASIC PRINCIPLES THAT HAVE SORT OF BEEN PART OF THE DISCUSSION.
AND THEN AS TO THE SPECIFIC CONTENT OF THIS RECOMMENDATION, I, I WAS NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN IT, BUT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE HEARD ABOUT OVER THE YEARS.
YEAH, THAT'S, DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
DO ANY OF, UH, I THINK, UM, DOES COMMISSIONER AZAR, DO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL HAVE ANY ADDED CONTEXT TO THIS THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL? YES.
COMMISSIONER ZA, I'LL, I'LL SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT THE PRESERVATION AUSTIN HAD RELEASED, SENT A
[08:45:01]
RECOMMENDATION THAT I LOOKED AT AND WORKED VERY PERSONALLY WITH THEM.THERE WAS A MEETING WITH THEM, UM, SEVERAL SORT OF STAFF FROM OUR COUNCIL OFFICES, AND THEN WE WORK WITH, UH, THE INFO COALITION, THE SAME CONVERSATION.
WE WENT TO TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT MEETINGS WITH THEM, ACTUALLY WENT A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH AND EMAIL.
I CHECKED IN WITH STAFF ON THIS CONCEPTUALLY, WE CHECKED IN WITH STAFF IN OUR REGULAR MEETING.
THEN I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH BOTH MS. LINDY GARWOOD AND MR. BRENT LLOYD, UH, AT MONDAY TO DISCUSS THEIR CONCERNS.
MORE CONCERNS WERE RAISED TO ME BY TODAY, EARLIER BY OTHER STAFF.
AND WE INCORPORATED THOSE AS WELL.
AND BEFORE ALL OF THAT, WE HAD ALREADY LOOKED AT THE WORK THAT HAD BEEN DONE AS PART OF THE ADU AMENDMENTS AND PRESERVATION.
SO ESSENTIALLY ALL THAT TO SAY, A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS HAVE COME TOGETHER.
AND I'M NOT SAYING HERE TO SAY, OH, WE NEED TO AGREE WITH WHAT PRESERVATION OSSNER ONE ORGANIZATION, ONE GROUP OF STAKEHOLDERS HAVE SAID.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS, THIS IS NOT MY AREA OF EXPERTISE.
I'M JUST GONNA BE VERY HONEST.
AND WE HAVE FOLKS WHO HAVE SPOKEN WHO I BELIEVE ARE THE EXPERTS HERE.
AND IT IS THEIR GUIDANCE AND THEIR ENGAGEMENT THAT I'M RELYING ON HERE TO, UM, GUIDE ME THROUGH THIS, WHICH COUNCIL OFFICES WERE INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER COX? I REALLY JUST WANT CHAIR, DO I HAVE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION? NO, IT'S NOT, I'M SORRY.
I FEEL LIKE, LIKE I'M IN A DEPOSITION RIGHT NOW.
IT'S NOT REALLY RELEVANT TO THE MOTION.
IS IT TIME FOR THE NEXT, ARE WE AT A, ARE WE TIMING THESE OR WHAT ARE WE DOING? UH, WE, THESE WERE QUESTIONS.
YOU HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF ASKING.
I'M GIVING, YES, YOU'RE THE NEXT QUESTION.
SO WE'RE, WAIT, UH, TELL US WHO DO YOU WANNA DIRECT THE QUESTION TO? I, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF I CAN MAKE A SUBSTITUTE.
WHERE ARE WE IN THE PROCESS? NO, WE'RE, THAT WOULD BE A SUBSTITUTE TO A SUBSTITUTE.
WE HAD AN AMENDMENT, WE SPLIT IT.
UH, WE TABLED THE TABLE, THE SUBSTITUTE.
AND I, AND I'LL ASK, I'LL ASK THE QUESTION TO, UH, THE, DOES THAT TO BE A PARTICULAR PERSON? SO WE'RE AT WHERE WE'RE AT, JUST SO WE ALL CAN CATCH UP.
WE'RE AT, WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE THAT WAS PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES GOT A SECOND WHERE, UH, BASICALLY HE WANTS YOU TO, FOR EVERY 10% OF THE BUILDING THAT'S DEMOLISHED, YOU GET DEDUCTED A 0.05 FAR.
SO WE'RE TALKING, WE HAVE POINTS OF CLARIFICATION, NOW WE'RE GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH PROS, UH, FOR AND AGAINST, UH, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER COX SPEAK IN FAVOR.
UM, AND NOW WE'RE YOU HAVE A ONE SECOND.
YOU HAVE NOW I'M, UH, GIVING YOU A CHANCE TO ASK A QUESTION.
MY, MY QUESTION IS FOR MR. BRENT LLOYD.
MAYBE YOU SHOULD JUST STAY IN THE HOT SEAT.
I, I WANT, I I I WAS LISTENING TO WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER, AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO KNOW IS IF I, DID I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY OR COULD YOU PLEASE CORRECT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT MIGHT BE MORE HELPFUL FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ADOPT AN AMENDMENT THAT GIVES CITY STAFF DIRECTION ON HOW TO PROCEED WITH THESE INCENTIVES WITH THE ALIGNED GOALS? I THINK THAT IF, IF THE COMMISSION PASSES THE ASCENT THE AMENDMENTS AS THEY'RE LAID OUT IN THE WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS, OR WITH ANY OF THE CHANGES, THE RESULT WILL BE THE SAME.
AND THAT RESULT WILL BE THAT WE WILL TRY AS HARD AS WE CAN TO COME UP WITH A WORKABLE PRESERVATION INCENTIVE THAT ADDRESSES THE VARIOUS CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN TOUCHED ON TONIGHT.
AND THIS IS NEW TERRITORY FOR THE CITY.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LOT.
UM, I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH, UM, WITH COMMISSIONER AZAR AND WITH OTHERS ABOUT IT.
BUT THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN SOME, UM, ISSUES THAT NEED FURTHER REVIEW.
AND THIS HAS ORGANIZATION WIDE IMPACTS.
ORIGINALLY THE HOME INITIATIVE DID NOT INCLUDE A PRESERVATION INCENTIVE AND IT WAS ADDED, AND WE WANNA RISE TO THE OCCASION AND, AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING.
BUT MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO, UM, VOTE AND ADOPT SOMETHING THAT'S YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT, AND WE WILL DO OUR VERY BEST TO RESPOND AND PROVIDE SOMETHING THAT MOVES THE BALL FORWARD IN THIS IMPORTANT POLICY PRIORITY, RECOGNIZING THAT THERE ARE ISSUES THAT STILL NEED TO BE REVIEWED AND LOOKED AT AND DISCUSSED INTERNALLY.
SO I'M WONDERING IF WE, IF WE PULL BACK ON SOME OF THE DETAILS, UH, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY CITY STAFF HAS THAT INFORMATION NOW THEY'VE SEEN THIS ALSO, AND THEY'LL HAVE CHANCE TO REVIEW IT IF WE PULL BACK ON PRESCRIBING THE DETAILS AND INSTEAD SEND AN AMENDMENT.
SO COMMISSIONER, WE, WE CAN TALK ABOUT HYPOTHETICALS, BUT WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION SO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT.
WHAT I'M GONNA DO, WOULD THAT BE HELPFUL, SIR? SO I'M GONNA GO AND CALL THE QUESTION ON THIS.
I'M GONNA CALL IT, DO I HAVE THE VOTES? I NEED A MAJORITY VOTE.
I'M GONNA, THIS IS JUST PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ITEM.
SO I, I NEED THE VOTE, SO I WANNA MOVE FORWARD ON THIS AMENDMENT AND GET IT VOTED ON.
SO WE, YOU COULD RESTATE, ARE YOU SPEAKING FOR AGAINST, I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT, YOU KNOW, THE, WHAT'S ON THE TABLE, NUMBER ONE,
[08:50:01]
BUT ALSO JUST TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT TRUSTING COMMISSIONER ZAS, UH, WORK ON THIS ALONG WITH PRESERVATION AUSTIN.IN MY EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH PRESERVATION AUSTIN AND, AND THE TEXAS LANDMARK, UH, COMMISSION, UM, THEY ARE THE EXPERTS AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE PROTECTIONS ARE STRONG ENOUGH, BUT I TRUST WHAT THE, THE INFORMATION.
I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY FUNNY BUSINESS GOING ON WITH THIS INFORMATION.
SO WHAT IS THE MOTION ON THE TABLE? SO IT IS, CAN I READ THAT OUT? SO THE MOTION AT THE, ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MADE BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
THIS WOULD SAY A DEVELOPMENT, UTILIZING A PRESERVATION BONUS MUST PRESERVE AT LEAST A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE STREET FACING FACADE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WITH A 0.05 REDUCTION IN ALLOWABLE FAR FOR EVERY 10% OF THE UNIT REMOVED WITH REMODELING OR ALTERATIONS ALLOWED USING THE CRITERIA BELOW.
AND FROM THERE ON, IT WOULD CONTINUE.
SO DO I HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO CALLING THE QUESTION AND TAKING A VOTE ON THIS ITEM? HEARING NONE, WE'RE GONNA GO AND MOVE TO A VOTE.
SO LET'S GO AND TAKE THE TALLY.
THOSE, UM, UH, THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE.
ON THE DS, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
HAYES COX, UH, THOSE ON VIRTUALLY THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
SEEING NONE, THOSE THAT ON THE DAIS THAT ARE VOTING IN OBJECTION TO THIS MOTION, UH, THAT IS THE REST OF THE BODY.
THOSE ON THE DIOCESE THAT ARE AGAINST.
UM, THAT'S EVERYONE COM EXCEPT COMMISSIONER MOOSH TO IS ABSTENTION.
SO WE HAVE HAYES AND COX IN FAVOR.
AND, UH, COMMISSIONER MOTO VOTING, UH, ABSTAINING.
SO NOW WE'RE BACK TO, UH, WE HAD SPLIT THE MOTION.
SO NOW WE HAVE, UM, CHAIR WEBER ADD IS A SUBSTITUTE, UM, THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY CHANGE THE 50% OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO 70% OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
AND I AM, UH, SO I WANT TO ADD THAT LINE CLARIFICATION IN THE FIRST BULLET.
UM, CHAIR, SINCE THIS IS A SUBSTITUTE AND IT IS RELATED TO A VERY SPECIFIC THING, WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT FOR THAT AMENDMENT UNTIL THIS SUBSTITUTE IS OKAY.
SO WE'LL HAVE TO CHANGE, UH, THAT AFTER, AND I HAVE LANGUAGE FOR THAT, THAT I WOULD BE ADDING IN.
BUT REALLY RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TO FOCUS ON THIS ELEMENT.
OKAY? AND WE HAVE HAD ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS BORN AGAINST THIS.
ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE GONNA GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS, UH, ITEM.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
THOSE THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS, UM, THIS MOTION ON THE DIOCESE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
IT'S COMMISSIONER COX? YES, COMMISSIONER COX.
UH, SO WE HAVE FAVOR IN FAVOR IN FAVOR.
AND, ALL RIGHT, AND THOSE IN FAVOR, VIRTUALLY.
THOSE ON THE DI THAT ARE OPPOSED.
AND, UH, THAT'S SIX IF I'M COUNTING.
AND THOSE, UM, AND THAT'S THREE MORE.
SINCE WE'RE NOW BACK AT THE BASE MOTION, WHICH WAS THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT AS DRAFTED, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO IT.
AND WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT IN THE FIRST BULLET POINT, WE NOW ADD, UH, ONE WORD PRESERVED FAR.
SO IT WOULD NOW READ THE FIRST BULLET POINT, WOULD READ DEVELOPMENT CAN UTILIZE A PRESERVATION BONUS IF IT PRESERVES A STRUCTURE BUILT IN 1960 AND EARLIER FOR A DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING A PRESERVATION BONUS.
THE PRESERVED FAR OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE DOES NOT COUNT AGAINST THE FAR LIMITS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL ALLOWABLE DWELLING UNITS.
AND HOPEFULLY THAT SHOULD CLARIFY THE ISSUE THAT HAD BEEN RAISED BY MS. BERTRAN.
CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION? I THINK IT'D MAKE MORE SENSE, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, TO SAY THE FAR OF THE PRESERVED EXISTING STRUCTURE.
UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT LANGUAGE? NO.
AND SINCE IT HAD NOT BEEN SECONDED, SO GIVE ME A SECOND, LET ME MAKE SURE I NOTE IT DOWN PROPERLY.
SO WE DO THIS RIGHT WAY, THE FAR OF THE PRESERVED EXISTING STRUCTURE.
UM, SO THAT IS MY MOTION AT THIS POINT FOR DEVELOPMENT, UTILIZING THE PRESERVATION BONUS.
THE FAR OF THE PRESERVED EXISTING STRUCTURE DOES NOT COUNT AGAINST THE FAR LIMITS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL ALLOWABLE DWELLING UNITS.
I'M WAITING FOR A SECOND AT THIS TIME.
IT, UM, SO, UH, SO WE ARE BACK TO THIS.
I WOULD GO AHEAD AND LIKE TO GO AND TAKE A VOTE.
SO, UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE, HOLD ON, MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT ONE.
DO YOU, THAT QUESTION, OR YOU WANNA SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST? I NEED A, I NEED A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
SO, IN AND MATH WORKS BEST IN MY MIND, COMMISSIONER AZAR.
SO THE, WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY OR, OR STATS THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, THESE STRUCTURES ARE 1500 SQUARE
[08:55:01]
FEET.SO IF, IF THEY REMOVE HALF, THAT'S 7 7 50.
SO IN THAT INSTANCE, SEVEN 50 WOULD, WOULD COUNT TOWARD EITHER THE 40 55 OR 65 FAR WOULD, WOULD NOT COUNT, WOULD I'M, I'M SORRY, WOULD NOT COUNT.
AND THEN WHEN THEY ADD BACK THE SEVEN 50, THAT NEW SEVEN 50 WOULD COUNT, AND THEN THEY WOULD BUILD OUT THE REST.
SO ESSENTIALLY, ANYTHING THAT YOU DO TO WHATEVER AMOUNT OF STRUCTURE IS JUROR DOWN NOW, IT'S NEW COMPLETELY.
AND IF AFTER YOU'RE DONE WITH THIS, AND WE'LL GO TO THAT NEXT AMENDMENT.
IF AFTER YOU'VE USED THE PRESERVATION BONUS, YOU TEAR DOWN THE ENTIRE HOUSE, GUESS WHAT? YOU HAVE ZERO EXTRA FAR BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE PROGRAM.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS? OR DO WE NEED TO MOVE INTO FOREIGN AGAINST THE AMEND? JUST TO CLARIFY, THE AMENDMENT IS FOR DEVELOPMENT, UTILIZING A PRESERVATION BONUS.
THE FAR OF THE PRESERVED EXISTING STRUCTURE DOES NOT COUNT AGAINST THE FAR LIMITS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL ALLOWABLE DWELLING UNITS.
SO WE'RE VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT? YES, TOTALLY.
WE'RE ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT ON THE AMENDMENT, NOT THE ENTIRE.
SO I THOUGHT WE AMENDED THE MAIN BASE.
NO, WE'RE JUST VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT.
SO ANY DO WE NEED TO SPEAK FOR AGAINST, TO ME THIS A THIS ENLIGHTENING IN A VERY GOOD, UH, ADDITION.
UH, SO ANY, DO WE NEED TO SPEAK TO THIS COMMISSIONER? MUTAL? JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
WE'RE BACK TO THE, THE BASE AMENDMENT THAT INCLUDES THE FOUR UNIT BONUS.
COMMISSIONER MU WE'RE JUST PRESERVING ONE BULLET POINT.
I WANNA KNOW WHERE WE ARE ON THE, I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW HARD IT IT'S TO FOLLOW THE, THAT'S, SO WE'RE ONLY ADDING THE WORD PRESERVED BEFORE EXISTING STRUCTURE IN THE FIRST BULLET POINT.
SO DO WE NEED ANY SPEAKERS FOR AND AGAINST, OR CAN WE MOVE TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT? ALL RIGHT, LET'S, UH, THOSE ON THE DS IN FAVOR OF THE ADDITION, THE AMENDMENT.
UH, I THINK THAT'S EVERYBODY ON THE SCREEN.
SO NOW TO CLARIFY, WE ARE DOWN TO THE BASE MOTION.
THIS IS THE PRESERVATION BONUS AS DRAFTED BY THE WORKING GROUP WITH THIS LANGUAGE ADDED.
SO COMMISSIONER AL, TO YOUR POINT, YES, THIS DOES HAVE THE LANGUAGE ON THE FOURTH UNIT PENDING, ESSENTIALLY REVIEW FROM OUR LAW DEPARTMENT.
DO WE NEED ANY, DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS OR CAN WE GO AND MOVE TO VOTE? ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON.
UH, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION ON THE DAS, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
UH, THOSE ON THE SCREEN IN FAVOR.
AND THOSE ON THE DIOCESE THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION, UH, AND IN OPPOSITION ON THE SCREEN.
ALL RIGHT, SO THAT MOTION PASSES, UH, WITH MO SHELTER VOTING AGAINST AND HAYNES AND COX VOTING, UH, ABSTAINING.
THAT WAS, UM, CHALLENGING, BUT WORTH IT.
UM, THIS TAKES US TO SIX FROM THE WORKING GROUP.
AND AGAIN, THE THANK YOU TO COMMISSIONER WOODS RIVER WITHDRAWING HER, HER VERSION OF THIS AMENDMENT.
SO THIS IS THE CREATION OF A SUSTAINABILITY BONUS.
UM, THIS ESSENTIALLY WOULD, IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO OUR PRESERVATION BONUS, BUT HERE'S WHAT, WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS.
ONE, WE ARE PRESERVING A STRUCTURE THAT IS MORE THAN 15 YEARS OLD AND BUILT AFTER 1960.
TO UTILIZE THE BONUS, YOU ONLY HAVE TO PRESERVE 50% OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY FACADE REQUIREMENTS, BUT YOU DO NOT GET ANY ADDITIONAL BONUS.
SO, AGAIN, FOR A DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING A SUSTAINABILITY BONUS, THE FAR OF THE PRESERVED EXISTING STRUCTURE DOES NOT COUNT.
I'LL MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S ADDED IN EARLIER ON.
THE, THE, THE IDEA HERE WOULD BE IF YOU ARE PRESERVING, OR IF YOU'RE PRESERVING 50% MORE OF A STRUCTURE THAT WAS, IS OLDER THAN 15 YEARS, BUT BUILT AFTER 1960, WHATEVER AMOUNT OF STRUCTURE YOU'RE PRESERVING, THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE WILL NOT COUNT TOWARDS YOUR ADDITIONAL FAR.
YOU DO NOT GET ANY ADDITIONAL UNITS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
AND YOU MUST PRESERVE AT LEAST 50% OF THE STRUCTURE.
AND THIS ONE IS, UM, AS WAS MENTIONED BY STAFF, IS REALLY FOCUSED ON, UM, PRESERVING THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF OUR, UM, HOUSING TO SAY, WE DON'T WANT STUFF TO JUST GO TO LANDFILLS.
THIS IS TRYING TO PROTECT FROM A SUSTAINABILITY PERSPECTIVE OF HOW MUCH REUSE THAT CAN WE HAVE OF STRUCTURES SO THAT WE REALLY AVOID LANDFILLS FILLING UP WITH MATERIALS.
ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS? WHAT WE'RE CALLING SUSTAINABILITY, UH, PRESERVATION BONUS, SUSTAINABILITY BONUS? I'M COMMISSIONER COX.
COMMISSIONER WOODS AND COMMISSIONER COBB, I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I CERTAINLY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THIS QUESTION DURING
[09:00:01]
THE WORK GROUP PROCESS, BUT CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THE JUSTIFICATION BEHIND THE 15 YEAR CAP AND WHY WE WOULDN'T WANNA PRESERVE STRUCTURES THAT WERE LESS THAN 15 YEARS OLD? I, I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY REALLY GOOD POINT.THANK YOU FOR RAISING THAT SO I CAN GET TO SPEAK TO IT, WHICH IS WHAT WE DON'T WANT SOMEONE TO DO IS CHEAT USE THE BONUS, RIGHT? SO IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY TIME LIMIT IN THERE, GUESS WHAT I CAN DO? I CAN CREATE A UNIT TODAY, TWO MONTHS LATER, SAY I'M PRESERVING IT.
NOW THAT DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS FAR.
WE'RE NOT ALLOWING YOU TO DO THAT.
YOU HAVE TO BE AT LEAST 15 YEARS OLD TO COUNT TOWARDS THIS BONUS.
AND THE OTHER NOTION OF THAT 15 YEARS IS THAT LIKELY WE DO NOT EXPECT HOUSES THAT ARE 15 YEARS OLD TO BE TORN DOWN AT THIS TIME.
SO ESSENTIALLY THE TIMELINE WOULD KEEP MOVING UNLESS THERE'S ACTUALLY SOME STRUCTURAL DEFICIENT OR SOMETHING ELSE.
THERE'S NOT THAT MUCH INCENTIVE FOR SOMEONE WHO'S TRYING TO MAXIMIZE PROFIT TO TEAR DOWN A HOUSE THAT'S ONLY 15 YEARS OLD.
AND AGAIN, I THINK I'M OPEN TO TALKING ABOUT THAT DATE, BUT THE IDEA WAS WE DON'T WANT TO ALLOW SOMEONE TO CHEAT AND USE THIS BONUS TO GET EXTRA FAR UNDERSTOOD.
BUT THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY, AND YOU KNOW, I WILL DEFER TO PRESERVATION AUSTIN, AGAIN, THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY A STRONG DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN 10 YEARS AND 15 YEARS.
NO, THIS IS, SO THIS IS NOT BASED ON YOUR HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE.
THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE WAS 1960 AND OLDER.
THIS IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING ANY OLDER EXISTING HOME, HOW DO WE DISINCENTIVIZE IT FROM BEING TORN DOWN AND SENT TO THE LANDFILL WHILE ALSO NOT ALLOWING PEOPLE TO CHEAT AND USE THAT AND GET EXTRA FAR JUST BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT.
UH, WHO HAD THE NEXT QUESTION? COMMISSIONER COX? THOSE WERE EXACTLY MY QUESTIONS.
AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, UM, ON THIS ITEM AND, 'CAUSE I THINK IT COVERS SOMETHING ELSE.
AND SO I'VE ALSO BEEN INTERESTED IN THE AFFORDABILITY ELEMENT.
SO DOES THIS SUSTAINABILITY BONUS ALSO KIND OF GET US THAT WE'RE MAINTAINING EXISTING MORE, UH, AFFORDABLE UNITS? DOES IT ALSO COVER, UM, BOTH THE AFFORDABILITY AND THE SUSTAINABILITY NEEDS? BECAUSE I, I, I ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT'S WHY WE WERE DOING THIS IS MORE FROM THE, WE'RE PRESERVING LOWER COST UNITS.
WE JUST HAD A LONG DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FRONT, THE CHARACTER, AND MAINTAINING THAT SUSTAINABILITY IS GOOD, BUT THIS, THIS DOUBLE UP IS ALSO OFFERING THAT ELEMENT OF MORE KEEPING MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
SO I, UM, I THINK WITH THREE MORE MINUTES I COULD SUMMARIZE THIS BETTER.
THAT IS THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE AT THIS MOMENT.
THAT'S, IT'S NOT CAPITAL A AFFORDABLE, IT IS ON THE MORE AFFORDABLE HALF, WHICH, AND I THINK WE ALL, WE ALL HAVE A SENSE OF HOW AFFORDABLE THAT IS.
SO WHERE YOU GET, WHERE YOU GET A LOT OF THE, THE AGES OF BUILDINGS THAT REALLY PUNCH ABOVE THEIR WEIGHT CLASS ARE OLDER.
UM, FOR EXAMPLE, THE, IN OUR CORE NEIGHBORHOODS, WE HAVE 14% OF THE BUILDINGS WERE BUILT BETWEEN 2006 AND 2023.
SO IN THE LAST 17, 18 YEARS, 14%, 2% OF THOSE BUILDINGS ARE BELOW MARKET, UH, BELOW MEDIAN VALUE.
SO NOT PERFECT, BUT, BUT IT IS COMPREHENSIVE.
UM, 6% OF BUILDINGS WERE BUILT BETWEEN 1991 AND 2005.
3% OF THOSE ARE BELOW MEDIAN VALUE.
SO IT'S, THAT'S NOT, UM, WHERE YOU START REALLY SEEING BUILDINGS PROVIDING MORE MEDIAN, MORE, A LARGER PERCENT OF OF BUILDINGS ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE MORE AFFORDABLE HALF, UM, IS WITH THOSE OLDER BUILDINGS.
UM, PRE 19, WELL, REALLY PRE 1960 IN THE CORE NEIGHBORHOODS, IF YOU LOOK A A LITTLE FARTHER OUT STILL IN CENTRAL AUSTIN, BUT KIND OF THE, THE LARGER RING, UM, IT'S REALLY, UH, PRE 1975 IS THOSE ARE THE BUILDINGS THAT, THAT ARE IN THAT THE BOTTOM HALF MORE, MORE OF THE BUILDINGS ARE IN THE BOTTOM, LARGER PERCENTAGE ARE IN THE BOTTOM HALF THAN EXIST IN THE PARCELS.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I JUST TOLD Y'ALL ABOUT A TABLE AND OTHERS CAN ASK MORE QUESTIONS.
SO WE'RE NOW TO OUR THIRD QUESTION.
UM, CAN I SUGGEST AN AMENDMENT? UH, CAN I ASK A QUESTION FIRST? YEAH.
LET'S GET THROUGH THE QUESTIONS AND THEN YES.
UM, UH, COMMISSIONER AZAR, IS IT, UH, IS IT YOUR INTENTION, UH, THAT THE PRESERVATION BONUS AND THE SUSTAINABILITY BONUS COULD EVER STACK? NO.
[09:05:01]
STACK THEM.AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE SETTING THAT DISTINCTION OF 1960 AFTER.
SO IF YOU'RE A HOUSE OLDER THAN 1960, YOU CAN ONLY DO THE PRESERVATION INCENTIVE.
AND IF YOU'RE AFTER 1960, YOU CAN USE THIS BONUS.
AND THE REALLY, THE REASONING FOR THAT IS THAT IF YOU DON'T ALLOW THAT, THEN REALLY I HAVE A LOWER THRESHOLD PRESERVATION BONUS AND A HIGHER THRESHOLD WHO'S GONNA TAKE THE HIGHER PRESERVATION.
SO THE PREVIOUS ONE IS REALLY MEANT TO PRESERVE THOSE STRUCTURES THAT A 1960 OR OLDER I HAD, I HAD MISSED THE, AND BUILT AFTER GREAT ADDITION.
AND THEN, UM, UH, BASED ON WHAT STAFF HAS SAID, AND, AND I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THAT STAFF, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WOULD YOU CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT MOVING THAT 15 YEARS BACK? NOT, I HEARD SOMEBODY SAY UP, BUT I WOULD SAY WE MOVE IT BACK OKAY.
LET, LET'S, LET'S GET ONE MORE QUESTION IF SOMEBODY HAS ONE, AND THEN HOLD THAT THOUGHT WE HAVE DANG CHAIRMAN SURE.
QUESTION SINCE HE HASN'T MADE A MOTION AND, AND HE'S ASKING A QUESTION ON YEAR ALONE.
UM, SO YES, I WOULD BE OPEN TO THAT WITHIN, I GUESS SOME DEGREE OF REASONABILITY, RIGHT? SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT A, A LARGER AMOUNT OF HOMES HAVE THE ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE.
SO LIKE IF WE GO BACK TO 40 YEARS AND PARTICIPATION HAS REALLY SHRUNK AT THAT POINT.
I THINK THAT I, I WOULD CERTAINLY BE OPEN TO THAT TO GO TO 20.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT WHEN IT'S TIME TO TALK.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, COMMISSIONER.
UM, NOT HAYNES AND UH, COM AND CHAIR PLEASE.
THANK YOU FOR KEEPING US ALL ON TRACK,
HOW WANT MY 13
I I MISUNDERSTOOD YOUR, UH, YOUR, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
SO WE HAVE ONE MORE SPACE FOR Q AND A.
ANYBODY GOT A QUESTION? DO WE NEED PEOPLE UP HERE? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
SO I DON'T HEAR, I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS UP FOR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
SO, UM, WE'RE GONNA GO AND PRESENT A MOTION.
UM, SO I'LL MAKE THE BASE MOTION, AND THEN I KNOW THAT ACTUALLY COMMISSIONER, UH, COX HAD, HAS, HAS FIRST DIBS ON AN AMENDMENT, AND THEN COMMISSIONER HAYNES HAS SECOND DIBS ON AN AMENDMENT.
UM, SO THE BASE MOTION IS THE SUSTAINABILITY BONUS AS PRESENTED IN THIS SHEET DEVELOPMENT CAN UTILIZE THE SUSTAINABILITY BONUS IF IT PRESERVES A STRUCTURE THAT IS OLDER THAN 15 YEARS AND BUILT AFTER 1960 FOR DEVELOPMENT.
UTILIZING THE SUSTAINABILITY BONUS.
THE FAR OF THE PRESERVED EXISTING STRUCTURE DOES NOT COUNT AGAINST THE FAR LIMITS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL ALLOWABLE DWELLING UNITS.
AND DEVELOPING, UTILIZING THE SUSTAINABILITY BONUS MUST PRESERVE AT LEAST 50% OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
I'LL SECOND, UH, THE MOTION SO WE CAN GET STARTED WITH THE AMENDMENTS.
YEAH, MY, MY AMENDMENT IS JUST ALL OF THAT.
BUT THEN AT THE END INCLUDE, UM, A REQUEST THAT STAFF PROVIDE, UH, RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL, UM, OF INCENTIVES, SUSTAINABILITY INCENTIVES OTHER THAN FAR FOR POTENTIAL ADOPTION WITH THE HOME AMENDMENTS.
IN ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS FAR, AND I JUST WOULD LIKE MORE OPTIONS.
WE HAVE A SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS SECOND IT.
SO DO WE NEED TO, ANY, UH, QUESTIONS, UH, SPEAK FOR AGAINST, OKAY.
JUST TO MAKE SURE I GOT THE LANGUAGE RIGHT BEFORE WE PROCEED.
SO, UH, WHAT I HEARD IS, 'CAUSE I WAS DRIVING THIS AS FAST AS I COULD, WE WERE ADDING A THIRD BULLET POINT THAT SAID STAFF SHOULD PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL FOR OTHER SUSTAINABILITY INCENTIVES BESIDES FAR AS A PART OF THE ADOPTION OF THE HOME ORDINANCE.
DID I CAPTURE THAT? YEAH, YOU CAPTURED IT.
CAN WE GO AND, UH, TAKE A VOTE? OKAY.
ARE YOU OPEN TO A TINY CHANGE IN LANGUAGE, ADDITIONAL INSTEAD OF OTHER? SURE.
I'M, I'M SO SORRY, WHAT DID YOU SAY? ADDITIONAL INSTEAD OF OTHER ADDITIONAL IN, UH, IN FRONT OF INCENTIVES.
SO, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE THIS TO A VOTE.
IF WE CAN, THIS AMENDMENT, UH, LET'S GO AND CLEAR THIS ONE, THEN WE'LL GET, UNLESS, UNLESS IT'S GONNA AFFECT WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
DOES IT HAVE ANY IMPACT? I SHOULD LIKE ONE AT TWO.
CAN YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN, JUST SO I CAN UNDERSTAND IF IT'S GERMANE OR NOT? UH, IT INSTEAD 15 YEARS, FEBRUARY 25.
UM, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE AMENDMENT.
DISPOSE OFF THIS ONE AND THEN GET TO THAT.
MAKE THIS, TRY TO MAKE THIS EASY.
ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE AMENDMENT ON THE TABLE? ALL RIGHT.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, IT'S YOUR TURN TO PRESENT YOUR AMENDMENT.
[09:10:03]
UM, I'D LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE, TO THE AMENDED BASE AND RATHER THAN SAY 15 YEARS, SAY 25 YEARS, COMMISSIONER HANDS, WOULD YOU OPEN? DO WOULD BE OPEN TO 20? NO.UM, I WAS, I WAS SAYING 25 BECAUSE I THOUGHT STAFF'S PRESENTATION SAID THAT IF YOU GOT BACK TO THE 1990S, I, I THINK IT WAS 94 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT IT, YOU, WE INCREASED THE VALUE.
WE, SO THIS IS MY QUESTION ON THE AMENDMENT, AND, UM, I'M, I'M ASKING STAFF THAT QUESTION.
STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE HELP US UNDERSTAND? THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HINTS? YES.
SO BASED ON THE FIGURES I HAVE FOR CENTRAL AU, CENTRAL AUSTIN, BUT THE, THE BIGGER DEFINITION OF CENTRAL AUSTIN, UM, THE, THE BUILDINGS THAT WHERE YOU START SEEING A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF BUILDINGS IN THAT LOWER HALF, THEN THE PERCENTAGE OF BUILDINGS THAT EXIST ON THAT FOR THAT AGE IS 1960 TO 1975.
THAT'S WHERE, THAT'S WHERE THEY START.
REALLY, THAT'S WHERE THEY START SHOWING UP MORE IN THE, IN THE MORE AFFORDABLE HALF.
DID I MISS, WASN'T THERE ANOTHER BREAK IN 1994? ONE SOME, I, I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY THAT THAT'S, YES, I THINK I WAS LISTED.
UM, FROM 1991 TO 2005, THOSE MAKE THOSE BUILDINGS MAKE UP 8% OF THE BUILDING STOCK IN CENTRAL AUSTIN.
AND 4% OF THE, OF THE BUILDING STOCK THAT IS IN THAT MORE, UH, THE BELOW THE MEDIAN VALUE FOR THE AREA, WE UNDERSTAND QUESTION AND WE'RE TAKING, I, I'M OKAY.
AND COMM, SINCE WE HEARD UP TO 2003, IT'S INCLUSIVE.
SO 20 YEARS WOULD GET US THERE.
CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? SURE.
UM, SO SORRY, SINCE WE'RE KI IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE KIND OF NEGOTIATING YEARS HERE.
AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE, COULD YOU JUST CLARIFY HOW THE ORIGINAL 15 WAS ARRIVED AT? WHAT WAS THE CALCULUS FOR THAT? SO, SO REALLY COMMISSIONER CONLEY, THE 15 WAS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT, UM, SOMEONE IS VERY UNLIKELY TO TEAR DOWN A HOUSE THAT'S OLDER THAN 15 YEARS UNLESS THEY'RE REMODELING.
SO THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH OF AN INCENTIVE FOR SOMEONE TO TEAR DOWN A 15 YEAR OLD HOUSE IN ORDER TO BUILD THREE NEW UNITS.
SO IT WAS REALLY BASED ON AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW MUCH AN INCENTIVE IN A MARKET SITUATION WOULD SOMEONE HAVE FOR, UH, USING THE HOME, UH, AMENDMENT IN THAT SCENARIO.
SO IT'S MORE LIKE, SO, SO I MEAN, IT FOCUSES ON SUSTAINABILITY ASPECT AND IT'S MORE ABOUT PREVENTING THE DEMOLITION THAN IT IS ON ABOUT THE AFFORDABILITY PIECES.
SO CAN I ASK CLARIFYING QUESTION? AND THE MOTION MAKER IS, SO IF THE SMALLER NUMBER WILL YIELD A GREATER, WILL ALLOW GREATER PRESERVATION? YES.
WHAT IS THAT TO THE FEWER YEARS? MORE? IF IT'S, UH, IF IT'S 10, YOU'RE GETTING MORE, UH, IF IT'S 25, YOU'RE GONNA GET LESS.
CAN I MAKE A SUBSTITUTE TO THE AMENDMENT? JUST A SECOND.
THIS IS A, THERE HAS NO BEEN NOT, THERE'S MOTION HAS NOT BEEN MADE.
SO, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS, IF YOU HAVE AN, UH, IDEA FOR COMMISSIONER HAYNES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
BETTER TO DO THIS NOW THAN TO MAKE AMENDMENTS.
WE WANNA GO THE OTHER DIRECTION.
WELL, I THINK I, I'M WANTING TO MOVE IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, WHICH IS TO, UH, SAY OLDER THAN 10 YEARS AS OPPOSED TO 15.
SO WE MIGHT NOT BE PRESENTING THAT AS AMENDMENT TOGETHER.
CAN I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT WE GO AND SPEAK TO THE MOTION? CAN WE GO AND JUST FOLLOW OUR PROCEDURES? AND I WAS GONNA SECOND THE 22ND, SINCE THE MOTION HAS NOT SECOND BEEN MADE.
WE, IF WE SETTLED ON SOMETHING.
SO COMMISSIONER HAYNES, NOW YOU'VE HEARD EVERYTHING YOU HAD TO HEAR.
NOW MAKE YOUR MOTION AND THEN LET'S GO FOR IT.
I AM GONNA MAKE MY MOTION THIS WAY BY, I WAS SWAYED BY COMMISSIONER AZAR.
NO ONE'S GONNA TEAR DOWN A 10 YEAR OLD HOUSE EVEN TO GET THE BONUS.
AND SO THAT'S WHY, THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT WE WENT THE OTHER WAY TO SAY 25, BUT I'M ALSO OKAY WITH 20.
I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION FOR 20 AND SEE WHERE I GO SECOND.
WHO, WHO SECONDED THAT? COMMISSIONER.
UH, DO WE NEED, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION BEFORE THAT? CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? UM, I'VE LOST MY PLACE A LITTLE BIT.
DID I MAKE THE BASE MOTION FOR THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT? UH, YEAH, YOU MADE THE BASE MOTION.
AND THEN NOW WE'RE AMENDING THE YEARS.
AND SO THAT WAS SECONDED, RIGHT? YES.
JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
[09:15:01]
UH, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? COMMISSIONER HAYNES, UH,HEY, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, JUST, NO, I'M GOOD.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS ITEM.
UH, EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THE AMENDMENT? OKAY.
UH, THOSE ON THE DIOCESE IN FAVOR OF 20 OF 20 GOING FROM 20, YEAH, FROM 15 TO 20.
UH, THOSE ON THE SCREEN IN FAVOR, MR. TYLER? UH, HOLD ON.
NOW, UH, THOSE, UH, THAT ARE OPPOSED TO THE MOTION, THE CHANGE, THINK YOU LOST.
AND ON THIS SIDE, WHO'S OPPOSED? CON.
AND THOSE, UM, THAT ARE OPPOSED ON THE SCREEN VICE.
SO WHAT ARE TOTAL NUMBERS? IT'S SIX FOUR.
SO WE ARE GOING BACK TO THE BASE OF FIFTEENS.
YEAH, IT'S, IT'S GOTTA HAVE MAJORITY.
ALL IN FAVOR? WHO WERE IN FAVOR? OH, YOU WEREN'T? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.
THOSE IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND ONE MORE TIME.
WE WERE IN, WE WERE VOTING IN FAVOR OF 20, CORRECT? YES.
UH, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE, THE AMENDMENT.
SHOW YOUR HANDS ONE MORE TIMES.
OKAY, SO THEN IT DOES PASS AND THEN SIX, SEVEN.
SO JUST TO, UH, FOR THE RECORD IS, UH, VOTING AGAINST, WERE SHAW, MAXWELL WOODS, UH, CONLEY, VICE CHAIR HEMPEL.
SO REMIND PEOPLE OF OUR PLACE.
WE'RE NOW BACK TO THE BASE MOTION AS AMENDED.
SO THE CHANGES FROM THE BASE MOTION ARE THAT INSTEAD OF 15 YEARS, WE'RE SEEING OLDER THAN 20 YEARS AND BUILT AFTER 1960.
AND WE ADDED A THIRD BULLET POINT THAT SAID, STAFF SHOULD PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL FOR ADDITIONAL SUSTAINABILITY INCENTIVES BESIDES FAR AS A PART OF THE ADOPTION OF THE HOMEWORK.
UH, SO I'D LIKE TO GO AND MOVE THIS TO A VOTE.
UH, THOSE IN FAVOR? UH, THE MOTION IS AMENDED.
AND, UH, VIRTUALLY THOSE IN FAVOR.
UM, I HAVE SOME MISERY FOR EVERYBODY.
ARE WE DONE? WOULD IT, WHERE AM I? AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT WOULD LOVE LIKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK? ARE WE, NO, I'M SO SORRY.
CAN Y'ALL PLEASE BEAR WITH ME FOR ANOTHER, JUST OF, AS WE DISPOSE OFF THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS, WE'RE DONE WITH NEARLY ALL THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
I WOULD LIKE TO RECONSIDER NUMBER 13.
UM, AND I'M MAKING A MOTION FOR IT TO BE RECONSIDERED.
CAN SOMEONE BE SECONDED TO SO I CAN SPEAK TO IT? YEAH.
WE JUST CHANGED THE NOMENCLATURE FOR OUR PRESERVATION BONUS, UM, BASED ON STAFF FEEDBACK FROM HISTORIC PRESERVATION BONUS TO PRESERVATION BONUS, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT A CONFUSION WITH OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE SEPARATELY.
BUT NOW WHAT'S HAPPENED IS THAT THE 13 THAT WE HAD, UM, ORIGINALLY MENTIONED HISTORIC PRESERVATION BONUS.
SO NOW WE HAVE INCONGRUITY BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS.
SO ALL I WANT IS THAT WE GO BACK TO 13, THAT WE HAD ACTUALLY PASSED ON CONSENT.
JUST REMOVE THE WORD HISTORIC AND IT IS IN FRONT OF YOU RIGHT NOW.
SO IT WOULD JUST BE STAFF SHOULD EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES TO PROACTIVELY SHARE EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE PRESERVATION BONUS AS A PART OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS, INCLUDING FOR DEMOLITION PERMITS.
SO I'M ASKING FOR A RECONSIDERATION.
SO THE VOTING PROCEDURE FOR THIS WOULD BE, FIRST, WE'RE GONNA ESSENTIALLY, UH, IF Y'ALL ARE WILLING, WE NEED A SUPER MAJORITY TO OPEN UP THE VOTE.
I WILL MAKE A MOTION WITH THAT CHANGE IN LANGUAGE, AND THEN WE WILL VOTE ON IT AGAIN.
OKAY? AND WE CAN DO THIS VERY QUICKLY.
UM, MOTION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE.
AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
SO, UM, LET'S JUST MAKE IT ANY OBJECTION.
ALL RIGHT, THAT MOVES FORWARD.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVED AMENDMENT NUMBER 13 AS AMENDED.
SO WE'RE NOW SEEING GENERAL RECOMMENDATION PRESERVATION, BONUS INFORMATION.
STAFF SHOULD EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES TO PROACTIVELY SHARE EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION WHILE THE PRESERVATION BONUS AS A PART OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS, INCLUDING FOR DEMOLITION PERMITS.
ALRIGHT, EVERYBODY CLEAR? ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE DISPOSED OFF ALL OF OUR WORK AND GROUP AMENDMENTS.
ALRIGHT, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE NOBODY WANTS TO LEAVE, UH, IN INTERVALS TO KIND OF KEEP THIS THING GOING.
DO WE, UM, COMM, UH, UH, CHAIR, MR. MR. VERA, PLEASE GUIDE US HERE.
CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LAYS LIAISON, AND VERA.
[09:20:01]
INTEREST OF THE, UM, INTEGRITY OF THIS, UH, MEETING IF THE MEMBERS CAN ALTERNATE IN TAKING BREAKS.WHY CAN'T WE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK? WE'VE DONE THAT A MILLION TIMES.
UH, IF WE, I'VE BEEN BAD ABOUT GETTING US BACK IN FIVE MINUTES.
IT TOOK ALMOST OVER 10 MINUTES FOR US TO RE GET TO RECONVENE.
LET'S DO A QUICK FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
UM, CHAIR, SHAR, I'M SO SORRY.
CAN I JUST, HERE CAN, IS, IS THE CONCERN AROUND THE PROCEDURE OF TAKING A BREAK DURING A RECESSED MEETING? MS. LINK, CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK TO THAT? YES.
IT SOUNDS LIKE, SO YES, THIS MEETING HAS BEEN CONTINUED FROM THE DAY BEFORE AND UNDER STATE LAW.
WE CAN ONLY CONTINUE AT ONE TIME.
AND SO AS YOU TAKE RECESSES, WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, UM, HOW THAT IS FLOWING.
I THINK, UH, CHAIR, WE CAN KEEP ON GOING AND FOLKS CAN, UH, STEP OFF AS NECESSARY WITH THE REMINDER THAT AT ANY GIVEN POINT, AT LEAST SEVEN FOLKS HAVE TO BE ON OUR DICE.
OH, I MEAN, I MEAN THE VIRTUAL AND IN PERSON DICE.
SO I CAN TUNE IN FROM THE BATHROOM.
OKAY, LET'S, UH, IT'S EIGHT 30.
UM, SO THIS WOULD MEAN CHAIR THAT WE'RE GOING TO, UH, INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS AT THIS TIME.
UM, OUR PROCESS FOR THIS MR. RED, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? CAN I, YES.
CAN I ASK JUST A QUICK PROCEDURAL QUESTION? WHAT, WHAT ARE, CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT ARE THE RULES ON RECONSIDERING VOTES? THE RULES ON RECONSIDERING VOTES SAYS THAT ANYBODY WHO WAS FROM THE PREVAILING SIDE HAS TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER AT WHICH POINT THE MOTION BELONGS TO THE BODY.
AND YOU NEED A A THREE FOURTH MOTION, WHICH IN OUR CASE IS 10 FOLKS.
SO 10 FOLKS WOULD HAVE TO VOTE TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION, AT WHICH POINT THE OLD MOTION IS DISPOSED, AND THEN SOMEBODY CAN MAKE A NEW MOTION, UM, RELATED TO THAT AND PROCEED WITH A, WITH A SIMPLE MAJORITY AT THAT POINT.
MR. RIVER, DID YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING? CHAIR? COMMISSIONER LAVER? I WOULD BE A SIMPLE MAJORITY ON BOTH.
OH, FOR THE RE AH, TO RECONSIDER, WE JUST NEED A SIMPLE MAJORITY.
SO WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY, AS SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, WE WOULD NEED A SIMPLE MAJORITY TO RECONSIDER AT WHICH POINT THE OLD MOTION WILL BE DISPOSED OF AND THEN SOMEBODY CAN MAKE A NEW MOTION TO BE PASSED WITH THE SIMPLE MAJORITY AGAIN.
UM, AND IF WE'RE READY, THEN WE CAN MOVE INTO OUR INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
AND, UM, AS PER TRADITION I AND CHAIR, WE CAN LOOK AT THE RULES, BUT I BELIEVE WE GO ALPHABETICALLY.
CAN YOU PLEASE, UH, INTRODUCE THE RULES FOR OUR INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS AND TAKE IT FROM THERE? OKAY.
UM, SO WE'RE GONNA DO, DO WITH THE POSTED RULES FIRST, DISPOSE OF THEM, UH, FOLKS PUT EFFORT INTO THAT.
AND I KNOW YOU MAY HAVE ONES THAT YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON THAT WERE YOU.
SO GO WITH THE POSTED RULES FIRST.
UH, WE'LL GO IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER.
UH, AND THEN YOU CAN PASS AND I WILL GET BACK TO YOU ON THE FIRST ROUND IF YOU DON'T, IF YOU'RE NOT READY YET, UH, ON WITH YOUR POST-IT AMENDMENT, THAT'S REALLY MORE IMPORTANT FOR SOME OF THE UNPOSTED AMENDMENTS.
BUT YOU CAN PASS ON YOUR POST-IT, IF YOU WANNA SEE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE SAYING FIRST, AND THEN BRING YOURS UP.
SO WE HAVE THE, UM, WE HAVE THE EXHIBIT WITH THE AMENDMENTS.
UH, WE'RE GONNA BRING THOSE UP.
THESE ARE THE ONES THAT WERE SUBMITTED.
THEY'RE ALL BUT TODAY'S BACKUP OR YESTERDAY.
TODAY'S IT'S, IT'S UPDATED ON THE WEBSITE, BUT IT'S FOR, SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS, WELL THESE ARE ALL COMMISSIONERS.
DO WE HAVE ANY, OR IS THERE A SECOND PAGE? CHAIR? COMMISSIONER LEEVER.
SO WHAT YOU FIRST SEE ARE, UM, IF YOU'RE GOING OUT ALPHABETICALLY, WE FIRST HAVE AZAR AMENDMENTS.
OKAY? THEN FOLLOWED BY, UM, UH, COX.
SO WE'RE, WE GET, WE GO ON ALPHABETICALLY, WE GET ONE, AND THEN WE COME BACK ROUND ROBIN UNTIL THESE ARE DISPOSED OF.
SO WE'LL START WITH A COMMISSIONER, CZAR, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE TO COMMISSIONER COX.
SO YOU WANT TO, AND YOU CAN PICK ANYONE.
DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IN THE ORDER.
I THINK JUST TO KEEP THE CONTINUITY GOING, AND I'M SO SORRY STAFF, I'M GONNA MAKE YOUR LIFE MISERABLE AGAIN AND I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO GO TO THE PRESERVATION.
ACTUALLY, NO, WE CAN STAY HERE.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ONES.
THE SPREADSHEET THAT I HAD SHARED THE LATEST, THERE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL ONE AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT ONE.
AND I WOULD LIKE THAT TO CON BE CONSIDERED FIRST TO KEEP THE PRESERVATION PIECE GOING.
SO THIS ONE, UM, COMMISSIONERS, UM, I LAID OUT AND I CAN SPEAK TO IT.
IT REALLY IS KIND OF WHAT WE'VE ALREADY SHARED.
UM, SO THIS IS PRESERVATION BONUS.
COMPLIANCE STAFF SHOULD DEVELOP GUIDELINES ON HOW TO MANAGE A SITUATION WHERE DEVELOPMENT, PARTICIPATING
[09:25:01]
IN THE PRESERVATION BONUS MAKES CHANGES TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT MAKE IT NON-COMPLIANT WITH THE BONUS REQUIREMENT.AND I WOULD NEED A SECOND BEFORE I CAN SPEAK TO IT.
ALRIGHT, SECOND, LIKE, COMMISSIONER WOODS.
UM, AND REALLY, I, I PRETTY MUCH HAD LAID IT OUT, SO I'M NOT GONNA BELABOR IT TOO MUCH.
THE IDEA BEHIND THIS IS IF SOMEONE TEARS DOWN THE PRESERVE STRUCTURE, THEY'RE NOW NON-COMPLIANT WITH THE PROGRAM.
AND WE'RE ASKING STAFF TO DEVELOP GUIDELINES ON HOW THAT WOULD BE ASSESSED.
ALRIGHT, SO I'M GONNA TRY TO MOVE THIS, THIS ONE MAKES SENSE TO ME.
I'M GONNA TRY TO MOVE THIS TO A VOTE.
UM, BUT WE CAN, WE CAN STOP AND WE HAVE FOUR QUESTIONS IF WE NEED 'EM.
UH, BUT IN ANY OBJECTIONS TO MOVING THIS TO A VOTE, I'M LOOKING AT THOSE ON SCREEN JUST TO MAKE SURE.
ARE YOU GUYS CLEAR? THIS ONE MADE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME.
UH, AND I, AND I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU TO OUR STAFF FOR BRINGING THIS TO MY ATTENTION.
SO ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS AMENDMENT? OKAY, THAT MOVES FORWARD.
ALL RIGHT, SO NOW WE GO TO COMMISSIONER COX, YOU'RE NEXT FROM THE BACK.
SO THIS IS CLEAR IN OUR RULES.
IF WE SKIP OVER YOU, WE CAN COME BACK TO YOU.
SO YES, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE HOLD YOU HOSTAGE.
YOU, YOU'LL STILL GET YOUR TURN.
DO YOU WANNA, WANNA TAKE ANOTHER AND ARE WERE WE DOING, I'M SORRY.
UH, PLEASE REMIND ME, ARE WE DOING LAST NAME OR FIRST NAME? LAST NAME.
SO WE SKIPPED OVER COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, WHO POSTED IS POSTED FIRST.
DID YOU HAVE AH, THE POST? SO WE'RE DOING POSTED FIRST? YES, POSTED FIRST.
SO ANYONE ELSE HAVE POSTED? I'M GIVING, YES.
THANK YOU FOR HELPING ME TO THE ALPHABET,
ALRIGHT, WELL YOU'RE HERE NOW.
SO ARE YOU READY TO, UH, BRING UP YOUR POSTED INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT? POSTED? CAN I ADD ONE MORE? NO, YOU'RE GONNA, WE'RE DOING ROUND ROBIN, SO YOU GET ONE AND THEN YOU COME BACK AGAIN.
OH, DO YOU HAVE A POSTED AMENDMENT? I WAS PEEING.
I MISSED ALL THE INSTRUCTIONS.
SO, YES, IT'S, SO WE'RE GOING ROUND ROBIN.
THE ONES THAT WERE POSTED WE'RE ADDRESSING FIRST.
GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
SO IT IS YOUR TURN TO DISCUSS YOUR AMENDMENT OR AMEND PICK ONE THAT YOU POSTED.
WELL, CAN I, CAN I DO ONE? CAN I, 'CAUSE I, I CREATED ONE LAST NIGHT, BUT IT'S NOT IN THE PDF.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE GOING WITH THE POSTED FIRST.
GET DONE WITH THOSE AND THEN WE'LL DO THE INDIVIDUAL MYSTERY AMENDMENTS.
CAN YOU, UM, SCROLL DOWN TO THE SECOND ONE AND THEN I'LL DO THIS ONE LATER.
SO MY FIRST AMENDMENT IS TO MAINTAIN SUB-CHAPTER F AND INCLUDE SELECT REVISIONS RELEVANT TO TWO AND THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, INCLUDING GRADUATED FAR AND PER UNIT AND UNIT COMBINATION FAR CAPS.
UH, UH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? AND THEN WE CAN SPEAK TO THIS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES, GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION.
YEAH, SO, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE'S A WHOLE LOT IN SUBCHAPTER F UH, A WHOLE LOT THAT WE HAVEN'T EVEN DISCUSSED.
UM, AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVE TO WHOLESALE DISPOSE THAT AN ENTIRE SECTION OF THE CODE, UH, THE MCMANSION ORDINANCE THAT WAS INTENDED TO HELP PREVENT MCMANSIONS.
UM, I FEAR THAT BY DISPOSING OF THE ENTIRE SUBCHAPTER F RATHER THAN INCORPORATING THE TWO UNIT AND THREE UNIT REVISIONS INTO SUBCHAPTER F WE'RE GONNA ACTUALLY END UP WORSE OFF WHEN IT COMES TO, UM, THE, THE, THE RESIDENTIAL PRODUCTS THAT WE END UP GETTING.
UH, SO FOLKS, I KNOW SUB PART F IS A COMPLICATED MATTER, SO WE DO HAVE FOUR QUESTIONS, OR YEAH, FOUR FOLKS THAT NEED TWO MINUTES TO KIND OF ASK STAFF QUESTIONS TO THE MOTION MAKER.
UM, SO THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY IF ANYBODY NEEDS IT.
COMMISSIONER AZAR, MICHAEL, TAKE A MOMENT OF PRIVILEGE JUST TO, UH, REMIND SOMETHING AS PARLIAMENTARIAN TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
CERTAINLY ASK QUESTIONS AND EVERYBODY WILL HAVE A RIGHT TO SPEAK ON A MOTION AS WELL.
UM, BUT I WOULD SAY IF WE CAN SORT OF MOVE THROUGH STUFF WITH AS MUCH CLARITY WITHOUT SORT OF NECESSARILY SPEAKING ABOUT OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT NOT BE NECESSARY, IT WOULD JUST MEAN THAT MORE OF OUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE AMENDMENTS.
SO OUT OF SHE RESPECT, I'M GONNA MINIMIZE AS MANY OF MY COMMENTS AS POSSIBLE.
UM, SO OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS.
THIS IS, UM, SO I HAVE A QUESTION OF STAFF.
UM, OH, COMMISSIONER MOCHA, GO AHEAD AND GO, GO FIRST.
YEAH, I WAS, I WAS GONNA GO TO STAFF ALSO.
I, THIS IS A, A, A GREAT OPPORTUNITY.
[09:30:01]
THERE'S A LOT IN SUBCHAPTER F THAT, THAT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND.SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO STAFF IS, UM, CAN YOU IDENTIFY ELEMENTS, PARTICULAR ELEMENTS IN SUBCHAPTER FF THAT WE NEED TO, THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER KEEPING? I THINK, UH, BRENT LLOYD, DSDI THINK, YOU KNOW, WHETHER TO KEEP ANY OF SUB-CHAPTER F IN ITS CURRENT FORM IS REALLY A POLICY QUESTION FOR YOU ALL, AND ULTIMATELY COUNSEL.
BUT I CAN SAY THAT SOME OF THE POTENTIALLY RELEVANT ASPECTS OF SUBCHAPTER F WOULD BE, UM, THE TENT, UM, WHICH IS, UH, BASICALLY A GEOMETRICAL, UM, ENVELOPE THAT EXISTS ON, ON A LOT THAT, UH, PROVIDES, UH, A LIMIT ON MASSING OF VERTICAL SPACE.
SO IT KIND OF FUNCTIONS IN TANDEM WITH HEIGHT TO PREVENT EXCESSIVE MASSING.
THERE'S ALSO THE SIDEWALL ARTICULATION, WHICH, UM, IS MEANT TO BREAK UP SOLID PLANES.
UM, SO THOSE ARE, I MEAN, THOSE ARE TWO OF THE PRINCIPLE REQUIREMENTS BESIDES FAR.
UM, YOU KNOW, IF, IF PHASE TWO UNDER THE APPROACH OF HAVING A PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO, I THINK IF COMMISSION WERE TO GO WITH JUST THIS, THE APPROACH THAT YOU'RE, THE COURSE THAT YOU'RE CURRENTLY ON, WHICH IS JUST TO HAVE A SIMPLIFIED FAR REQUIREMENT THAT IS NOT PREDICATED ON SUB CHAPTER FI THINK THE GOAL WOULD BE IN PHASE TWO TO LOOK AT SOME DESIGN STANDARDS.
AND SO MAYBE SOME DIMENSIONS OF SOME REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE SORT OF, UM, RELATED TO SUB CHAPTER F BUT POTENTIALLY SIMPLER, MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD.
SO I THINK, AND SO WHETHER OR NOT YOU DO THAT NOW, I THINK IT WOULD BE A PART OF PHASE TWO THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT SOME OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS AS A MATTER OF HELPING PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THOSE ELEMENTS THAT YOU LISTED IN SUBCHAPTER F.
WHAT WAS THE INTENT OF THOSE? AND DO WE THINK THAT NOW THAT WE'VE HAD THIS ORDINANCE IN EFFECT FOR A WHILE, DO WE THINK THOSE HAVE ACHIEVED THOSE PARTICULAR INTENDED OUTCOMES? AND, AND GO AHEAD AND ANSWER.
YOU CAN'T HEAR THE BUZZER, BUT I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND YOU, OH, I'M SORRY YOU SPEAK.
IT'S, IT'S HARDER FOR YOU GUYS I KNOW, TO ENGAGE.
SO GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION PLEASE.
SO I'LL ADDRESS AS BEST I CAN, AND I ENCOURAGE OTHERS, OTHER STAFF WITH RELEVANT INFORMATION TO STEP UP AS WELL.
BUT I THINK GENERALLY THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ABOUT REGULATING THE BULK AND SCALE AND MASSING OF STRUCTURES.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT DESIGN STANDARDS, UH, SUBCHAPTER F STYLE DESIGN STANDARDS, YOU REALLY JUST HAVE SETBACKS, IMPERVIOUS COVER AND HEIGHT.
AND SO SUBCHAPTER F IS MEANT TO PROVIDE SORT OF A BULK AND SCALE AND MASSING REGULATION.
UH, WHETHER IT'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL OR NOT IS I THINK A MA A POLICY MATTER, AND IT'S SUBJECT TO DEBATE AS I THINK ALL OF US WHO WORK IN AND ADJACENT TO THESE FIELDS.
NO MCMANSION PROVOKES STRONG FEELINGS.
UM, AND, UH, SO I THINK, I THINK THOUGH THAT, AGAIN, IF THE COMMISSION GOES ON ITS CURRENT PATH, WHICH IS JUST A STRAIGHTFORWARD FAR LIMIT, WE WOULD LOOK IN PHASE TWO AT DESIGN STANDARDS THAT GET TO AT LEAST SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT, THAT, UM, THAT MCMANSION STRUGGLES TO ADDRESS IN ITS CURRENT FORM, POTENTIALLY IN A MORE SIMPLE WAY.
UM, BUT THERE'S CERTAINLY, UM, YOU KNOW, WE CAN WORK WITH THE MOTION THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED AS WELL.
IT REALLY IS, AGAIN, A POLICY MATTER FOR THE COMMISSION AND FOR COUNSEL.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF RELATED TO THE, 'CAUSE I READ THIS, UM, ON THE AT EXEMPTION AND I TRIED TO DRAW OUT WHAT IT IS I WAS READING THE, AND IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE.
UH, SO HOW MUCH STAFF TIME DOES IT TAKE WHEN YOU GET THESE PLANS TO REALLY ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT THE, IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TENT? UH, IS THAT, IS THAT, UM, SO FOR A PROJECT THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE MCMANSION BOUNDARY, IT CAN BE REVIEWED IN AS LITTLE AS A COUPLE OF HOURS TO HALF A DAY.
MCMANSION DOES ADD SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AND REVIEW DEPENDING ON WHAT ASPECTS OF THE MCMANSION ORDINANCE ARE IMPLEMENTED.
UM, IF THEY HAVE AN ATTIC EXEMPTION, OBVIOUSLY THAT HAS A, A LARGE REVIEW TIME.
UM, BUT IF IT'S A STANDARD, UM, DEVELOPMENT THAT FITS COMPLETELY WITHIN THE TENT THAT DOESN'T HAVE AN ATTIC EXEMPTION THAT, YOU KNOW, DOESN'T HAVE ANY OF THE OTHER COMPLICATING FACTORS, UM, IT MCMANSION DOESN'T ADD AS MUCH TIME.
UM, BUT IT IS, IT IS A MORE ROBUST PART OF THE CODE, SO IT DOES HAVE A LONGER LEAD TIME IN GENERAL.
AND I'M GONNA ASK A QUESTION RELATED TO THOSE OF US THAT DID
[09:35:01]
GO THROUGH, WERE THERE IN THE LAST CODE REVISION THAT FAILED, WERE WERE, WERE THERE ANY ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS OR FIND A BETTER WAY TO, DID WE GET RID OF MCMANSION AND SUBSTITUTE WITH SOMETHING ELSE? WE DID.UM, SO THE PROPOSAL UNDER THE LDC REVISION WAS BASICALLY, UM, WHAT CAPTURED THE, THE, THE MCMANSION TENT THAT BRENT MENTIONED, UM, HAS AN ANGLED ROOF THAT BASICALLY ENCOURAGES GREATER HEIGHT AND DENSITY TOWARDS THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT.
AND SO WHAT WE PROPOSED IN THE LDC REVISION IS TO HAVE A HEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE OF THE LOT LINE.
AND THEN ONCE YOU'VE GOT IN PAST THOSE DISTANCES, WHEN YOU WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR LOT, YOU COULD GO TO YOUR MAXIMUM HEIGHT.
UM, FAR IS THE REQUIREMENT THAT IS THE MOST DIRECTLY TIED TO AFFORDABILITY.
UM, THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS SPEAK TO OTHER IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF DESIGN, BUT FAR IS, IS KEY TO THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE LDC ALSO HAD DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WENT BEYOND, UM, WHAT IS IN MCMANSION.
UH, WHO WANTS THE, IS IT THIRD SPOT COMMISSIONER HAYNES? I GUESS I'D JUST HAVE A A, A PROCESS QUESTION MORE THAN ANYTHING.
SO WHEN Y'ALL, WHEN YOU GET THE PERMIT IN AND YOU TELL, AND LET'S SAY SOMEBODY'S GOING FOR MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND THEY WANT AN ATTIC, I MEAN, I'M SURE YOU GIVE THAT PERSON A, HEY, IF YOU'RE GONNA DO THIS, IT'S GONNA TAKE US A LONG TIME.
ISN'T THAT A DECISION BY THE PERSON DOING THE BUILDING? I MEAN, THEY, AM I MISSING SOMETHING HERE? THEY KNOW IT'S GONNA TAKE LONGER AND BE MORE COMPLICATED.
THEY CAN EITHER MAKE THE CHOICE TO BUILD IT THAT WAY OR THEY CAN BECAUSE THEY'RE SUBJECT TO THOSE STANDARDS S OF WHAT THEY'RE BUILDING.
I KNOW IT'S A RANDOM IT, DO YOU, DO YOU ADVISE PERMITEES ABOUT THE COMPLEXITY OF THEIR PROJECT WHEN THEY SUBMIT IT? WE WORK WITH APPLICANTS TO HELP THEM GET THEIR PROJECTS THROUGH THE PROCESS, AND THERE'S CERTAINLY APPLICANTS WHO USE CREATIVE DESIGN TECHNIQUES THAT PUSH THE ENVELOPE ON FAR AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
AND THOSE APPLICANTS CAN SOMETIMES TAKE LONGER TO GET THROUGH THE PROCESS THAN OTHERS.
BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THEIR CHOICE.
JUST, I'LL JUST, THE REASON FOR ME ASKING THE QUESTION IS JUST STAFF, UH, RESOURCES AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT TAKES TO REVIEW IT.
UM, SO READY FOR THE MOTION I MADE? OH, WOULD YOU, DO YOU ALREADY GET A SECOND? YEAH.
SO, UM, ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S GO AHEAD.
I THINK, I THINK WHAT MR. LLOYD SAID WAS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GETTING TO IS THUS FAR IN THE HOURS AND HOURS OF WORKING GROUP AND HOURS AND HOURS OF SITTING ON HERE AND NEGOTIATING ALL THIS STUFF.
WE'VE ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY TALKED ABOUT FAR, BUT THERE'S A LOT MORE THAT GOES INTO, UM, A LOT MORE THAT GOES INTO A THOUGHTFUL DESIGN IN OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND, AND THE MCMANSION ORDINANCE WAS TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT BY CREATING THE ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTS AND THE ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS.
AND AS SOMEONE WHO INTERACTS WITH ARCHITECTS A LOT, I APPRECIATE THAT THAT ADDS SOME COMPLEXITY TO IT, BUT I ALSO APPRECIATE THAT IT'S, IT, IT FORCES US TO HAVE, UM, WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER, UH, MORE APPROPRIATE STRUCTURES IN, IN OUR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, RATHER THAN A BUNCH OF VERY LARGE SQUARE BOXES THAT THAT, THAT YOU SEE HERE THAT JUST MAX OUT EVERYTHING.
UM, AND THAT'S WHAT I TRY TO, LIKE, TO AVOID WITH THIS, WHICH IS MY INTENT BEHIND KEEPING SUBCHAPTER F I'M OPEN TO KEEPING PROVISIONS OF SUBCHAPTER F THAT ACHIEVE THAT AND DISPOSE OF SUBCHAPTER F, BUT I THINK THE EASIEST WAY WOULD BE TO KEEP SUBCHAPTER F ALRIGHT.
SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION, ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? OH, I'M SORRY.
HE, I'M SPEAKING, I'M SPEAKING AGAIN, AND I, I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER COX AND WHAT HE'S TRYING TO DO AS A DESIGNER.
UM, I, I'M THINKING OF, UM, THE POTENTIAL, WHAT THIS MEANS FOR HAVING A CUSTOM DESIGN BUILDING VERSUS SOMETHING THAT'S MORE MODULAR AND, UM, MORE QUICKLY,
[09:40:01]
UM, ABLE TO GET IN THE GROUND.AND SO, UM, I, I THINK THAT THE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT, UM, COULD COME ALONG IN PHASE TWO COULD PERHAPS ADDRESS SOME OF THIS, BUT I DO LIKE THE SIMPLICITY OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE NOW, AND, AND WHAT THE, WHAT A I A HAD, UM, HAD SHOWN IS MASSING MODELS.
THOSE ARE NOT MEANT TO BE BUILT STRUCTURES AS THEY'RE SIMPLY SHOWING MASSING.
SO I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT FOR THE AUDIENCE.
SPEAKING FOR AGAINST, AND THEN COULD WE, COULD WE HAVE THE AMENDMENT POST, UH, BROUGHT UP AGAIN, JUST I WANNA MAKE CLEAR BEFORE WE VOTE.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S, AND THEN I'LL TAKE IT DOWN TO GET A VOTE.
I'M GONNA SPEAK, UH, AGAINST THIS.
I THINK WE HAD A MOTION AND REMIND ME THAT WE ALREADY PASSED THAT ASKED STAFF TO LOOK AT FAR AND, AND ANALYZE THIS.
SO I THINK WE HAD KIND OF A HIGH LEVEL ASK OF STAFF TO ANALYZE THIS IN MORE DETAIL, BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE MCMANSION AREA FOR THE DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS.
I'M, I'M JUST, JUST SAYING, I THINK WE COVERED IT IN OUR GENERAL RECOMMENDATION THAT WE PASSED EARLIER, BUT, BUT THAT WAS SPECIFIC TO FAR.
SO THIS, THIS IS ADDRESSING EVERYTHING ELSE IN SUBCHAPTER F AND THEN INCORPORATING OUR FAR AMENDMENTS OKAY.
UM, UM, SO ANY MORE SPEAKING IN FAVOR SPEAKING AGAINST, ALL RIGHT.
UM, MY ENTIRE LIFE DEALING WITH SUBCHAPTER FI JUST FIND IT TO BE INCREDIBLY COMPLEX AND ONEROUS.
AND AT THE END OF THE DAY WITH EVERYTHING, ALL THE WORK WE'RE DOING HERE JUST ALMOST FEELS REDUNDANT AT THIS POINT.
SO HAPPY TO VOTE AGAINST IT AND GET RID OF IT.
UH, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT.
GIMME ONE SECOND HERE, TAKE ONE.
CAN YOU TAKE ONE? LEMME GET MY SHEET READY.
SO THOSE, UM, ON THE DIOCESE IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
AND THOSE, UH, VIRTUALLY THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT.
THOSE, UH, THAT VOTE, UH, THAT ARE AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
AND THOSE THAT ARE ABSTAINING AGAINST, I'M SORRY, UH, AGAINST VIRTUALLY.
AND THOSE THAT ARE ABSTAINING.
AND, UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, I THINK I MISSED YOUR VOTE.
WERE YOU, SHE, UM, IN FAVOR,
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, PLEASE TURN ON YOUR MICROPHONE SO PEOPLE VIRTUALLY RE VOTING YOU IN FAVOR.
ALL RIGHT, SO THAT MOTION FAILS.
AND THAT WAS, UH, PHILLIPS COX, MOOSH, PHILLIPS COX HAYES, VOTING IN FAVOR AND MOOSH TO OF SUSTAINING THANK YOU CHAIRS.
WE MOVE ON TO THE REST OF THE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
CAN I, THIS IS A REQUEST, THIS WOULD BE SORT OF A SLIGHT BENDING OF OUR RULES, BUT WE'RE GOING THROUGH AMENDMENTS THAT WERE POSTED PREVIOUSLY.
WOULD FOLKS BE OPEN TO ENTERTAINING COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, UH, AMENDMENTS AS THOSE POSTED EARLIER? SHE HAD THEM READY.
SHE JUST DID NOT FROM PROCEDURE PERSPECTIVE UNDERSTAND THAT SHE HAD TO SHARE THEM WITH STAFF TO BE POSTED.
CAN WE JUST COUNT HERS AS HAVING BEEN RECEIVED PREVIOUSLY SINCE WE DID RECEIVE THEM BEFORE THE START OF THE MEETING? OKAY.
WE'RE, WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER UP AMENDMENTS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN POSTED, RIGHT? YES.
SO WE'RE GONNA LET YOU HAVE, UH, PICK WHICHEVER ONE YOU WANT TO.
WERE YOU PLANNING TO GO TO, UH, UM, NO.
SO ALPHABETICALLY, WE JUST HAVE TO PROCEED NOW.
SO, HAYNES THEN, UM, UH, HAMPEL, AND THEN WE WOULD GO TO PHILLIPS.
[09:45:01]
STILL GOING ALPHABETICALLY.I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE SHE'S IN, IN THE QUEUE.
SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
MR. HAYNES HAD A POSTED ONE AND THEN, UH, ADVISED YOU HAD POSTER ONES.
WELL, THAT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL.
DANG, MR. CHAIRMAN, NO RESPECT.
I KNOW I TALK SLOW AND FUNNY, BUT, UM, MY EX, MY FIRST AMENDMENT'S STRAIGHTFORWARD.
UM, AND ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE FACT THAT MY FRIEND COMMISSIONER WOODS GAVE ME THE MAP THAT TELLS ME EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT IT WAS GONNA TELL ME.
THAT, UM, EXEMPTING THE THREE UNIT PROPOSAL, UM, OR THE THREE UNIT POSSIBILITY FROM SSF ONE IS, IS INSIGNIFICANT.
IT'S ESPECIALLY INSIGNIFICANT IN THE URBAN CORE.
IT'S ESPECIALLY INSIGNIFICANT IN THE AREAS IN WHICH IMAGINE AUSTIN SAYS, WE WANT MAXIMUM DENSITY IN, WE WANT TO BUILD.
AND THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO FOCUS THAT ATTENTION AND EXEMPTING IT FROM SSF ONE OUT AND ABOUT IN THE, I MEAN, THERE ARE PLACES THAT ARE SF ONE THAT ARE FARTHER AWAY FROM WHERE WE ARE NOW THAN ANYWAY.
THEY'RE BARELY IN AUSTIN, BUT BY GOD, THEY'RE GOOD, THEY'RE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND THEY'RE IN AUSTIN.
SO THAT'S MY MOTION, UH, PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
UH, LEAVE IT STRAIGHTFORWARD IN THE, IN THE URBAN CORE AND LEAVE IT STRAIGHTFORWARD IN THE SFS ZONE.
BUT, AND I'M, I'M SORRY, IN THE, UH, SUB, SUB CHAPTER F ZONE, BUT, UH, DON'T, UM, TEAR UP THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS OUT IN THE OUTER RING OF AUSTIN.
ALRIGHT, SO ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS AMENDMENT? COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? I THINK, UM, COMM, I THINK COMMISSIONER COX WAS FIRST.
SO AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DOING, CAN, CAN YOU TELL ME THE IMPACT OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING? IT WOULD DIRECT, UH, DENSITY TO CERTAIN CORE NEIGHBORHOODS.
IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY? YES.
UH, WELL, I, I THINK IN FAIRNESS, WHAT IT, WHAT IT WOULD DO IS IT WOULDN'T IMPACT THE, THE EFFORT OF HOME IS TO DIRECT DENSITY INTO THE CORE NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND SINCE THE SSF ONE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE OUT IN THE, UM, E EXTENSIVE REACHES OF AUSTIN, IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPACT WHAT IS THE STATED GOAL OF THE HOME RESOLUTION.
AND, AND I GUESS WHAT I HAVE CONCERN ABOUT IS, IS IDENTIFYING, BECAUSE I REALLY DO FEEL LIKE THE HOME INITIATIVE OUGHTA BE INITIATIVE THAT IS BASED ON SHARED SACRIFICE.
AND I'M NOT HEARING THAT HERE.
I'M HEARING THAT CERTAIN, LIKE WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOAS OR RESTRICTED COVENANTS, AND NOW GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS, WE'RE EXEMPTING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS TEND TO BE BY AND LARGE, MORE AFFLUENT AND MORE WHITE.
SO THAT'S MY CONCERN WITH WHAT IS BEING DONE, AND I APPRECIATE, BUT, BUT LET ME CLARIFY THIS, THIS WOULDN'T BE FOR A GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION.
THIS WOULD BE FOR A TYPE OF ZONING.
NOW YES, IT HAPPENS TO BE IN PARTICULAR AREAS, BUT THAT'S WHAT I MEANT BY GEOGRAPHIC.
SO DO YOU, UH, JUST TO DO, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION TO, OR, MY QUESTION WAS, IS THAT IN THE, THE INTENT AND THE ANSWER WAS YES.
THAT'S THE INTENT OF WHAT WE'RE DOING.
AND WHO HAD THEIR HAND? COMMISSIONER CONLEY, DID YOU EVER YOUR HAND UP FOR A QUESTION OF THE MOTION MAKER? ALRIGHT, UH, SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE MOTION MAKER.
DO YOU THINK THAT, UM, 'CAUSE I, I LOOKED AT THE MAP TWO AND I NOTICED THAT ALL OF THESE SSF ONE OR EAST OF I, OR WEST OF I 35, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY OR FEW, VERY FEW THAT ARE EAST OF I 35.
DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD PRESENT AN EQUITY ISSUE THAT WE'RE EXCLUDING ONLY LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF I 35? JUST A, A QUESTION.
MY ANSWER TO THAT IS, IS MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW.
'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE RACIAL MAKEUP OF THE HOMEOWNERS IN, IN THOSE AREAS.
I SUSPECT THAT THEY ARE MORE AFFLUENT AND MORE WHITE.
I, I JUST, UM, THIS IS SOMETHING WAS BROUGHT UP TO ME SURE.
AND I THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH BRINGING UP THAT THAT IS KIND OF THE DISTRIBUTION GEOGRAPHICALLY.
[09:50:01]
BEFORE WE MOVE? CAN WE LOOK AT THAT MAP? I KNOW WE HAD IT LAST NIGHT.I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF HAS IT AVAILABLE TO YOU.
UM, IT SHOULD BE, IF IT'S IN BACKUP, EVERYTHING'S KIND OF, WE WE OH, IN THE BACKUP.
I THOUGHT COMMISSIONER AL, WE HAVE STAFF LOOKING INTO IT RIGHT NOW.
WAS EMAILED YESTERDAY AT 10:40 PM FROM ANDREW.
I HAVE, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, LET'S, LET'S SEE IF, UM, COMMISSIONER MUTAL ASKED, I DON'T, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION TO FOLLOW THE MAP OR DID YOU, COMMISSIONER MOTO, JUST WANNA, DID YOU, I RECOGNIZED YOU AND I THOUGHT WE MIGHT HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS.
I, WELL, I, JUST LOOKING AT THAT MAP, I DON'T, I DON'T, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S CONCENTRATED ON, UM, 180 3 IS WHERE I SEE MOST OF THE, THE GREEN IS THE SSF ONE ON THIS.
I MEAN, THERE'S BARELY ANYTHING.
IT LOOKS LIKE EVERYTHING IS REALLY SSF TWO AND SSF THREE, AND THERE'S A SMALL CONCENTRATION UP ON NORTH 180 3.
IT ALMOST LOOKED LIKE IT'S ADJACENT TO CEDAR PARK.
OTHERWISE, I DON'T, I DON'T SEE A LOT.
NOPE, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.
UM, AND COMMISSIONER COX HAVE A, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? OKAY.
UM, YOU KNOW, MY SUPPORT OF THIS WAS PREDICATED ON, ON A FEW KIND OF GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS THAT I MADE REGARDING SSF ONE, AND THAT SF ONE TENDS TO BE OUTSIDE OF OUR URBAN CORE AND MORE AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE CITY WHERE CAR DEPENDENCY IS ESSENTIALLY A HUNDRED PERCENT
WERE ON AVERAGE A LOT LARGER THAN SSF TWO AND SSF THREE LOTS.
AND SO I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THOSE ASSUMPTIONS THAT I'M MAKING ARE, ARE GENERALLY CORRECT.
I, I HAVE AN EXHIBIT THAT MIGHT HELP WITH THIS, IF WE CAN GO TO SHAW EXHIBIT, UM, TWO, IT'S THE DISTRIBUTION SSF ONE AND THE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND THE NUMBER, IF THIS HELPS INFORM ANY OF THIS DISCUSSION.
UH, SO STAFF, THANK YOU STAFF FOR PROVIDING THIS TO ME.
IT JUST SHOWS YOU THE NUMBER OF SF ONE, SSF TWO, AND SSF THREE AND THEIR DISTRIBUTION IN THE DIFFERENT DISTRICTS BY SIZE.
I'VE JUST, I'VE BEEN LOOKING FORWARD TO SHOWING THIS BREAKOUT.
UH, CAN YOU KEEP IT UP? CAN YOU PUT IT BACK UP? ALL RIGHT.
AND IF YOU WANT THE, THE VERY HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY, THE MEDIAN, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SSF ONE IS AROUND 14,000 SQUARE FEET.
AND FOR BOTH SSF TWO AND SSF THREE, IT'S IN THE 8,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO IT'S, IT'S ON AVERAGE 50% BIGGER.
SO YEAH, I JUST, THIS WAS HELPFUL ME TO ME, JUST TO KIND OF LOOK AT WHEN WE PUT UNITS OUT THERE, THE SIZE OF LOTS, THAT WOULD BE, WE HAVE JUST TO KIND OF, YOU KNOW, JUST SO I COULD SEE WHAT MIGHT, AND THIS IS, WAS HELPFUL FOR ME.
BUT ANYWAY, MIGHT I, MIGHT I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? SURE.
UM, SIK, I DUNNO IF YOU CAN OR SOMEONE CAN SPEAK TO THIS, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE NUMBER OF LOTS.
SO AM I UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY THAT IN DISTRICT TWO THERE ARE NO LOTS THAT ARE SSF ONE AND IN DISTRICT THREE THERE'S ONLY SIX LOTS.
IS IT LOTS THAT I'M LOOKING AT HERE? YES.
SO WE'RE, UH, ANY MORE QUESTIONS? WE'VE KIND OF GONE OVER OUR FOUR, BUT I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL.
UM, WE'RE TOUCHING ON SOME IMPORTANT ISSUES HERE.
UH, SO WE ARE BACK TO THE MOTION AND, UM, ANY MORE, I DON'T THINK WE, WE ARE GOING FOR AND AGAINST DO WE WANT, I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST.
UM, SO I JUST WANNA MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT IF THIS MOTION WERE TO PASS, THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE DEAL BREAKER FOR ME.
[09:55:01]
UM, AND IN TERMS OF MY SUPPORT OF THE HOME INITIATIVE, THERE'S NO WAY I WILL SUPPORT A HOME INITIATIVE THAT EXEMPTS SSF ONE.UM, THIS WOULD PUT HOME SQUARELY IN LINE WITH THE SEQUENCE OF PREVIOUS HISTORIC ZONING DECISIONS THAT, UM, COMMISSIONER ALBERTA, UM, POINTED OUT YESTERDAY.
UM, THAT HAVE IN FACT MADE A VERY INTENTIONAL DECISION TO CONCENTRATE, UM, UH, DENSITY GROWTH, UM, AND, AND THE SHARING OF SPACE, UM, IN PLACES WHERE FOLKS ARE LESS AFFLUENT AND WE'RE, WE ARE MORE LIKELY TO SEE PEOPLE OF COLOR.
UM, SO THIS WOULD BE, UH, THE OPPOSITE OF AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING, WHICH IS OUR, OUR MANDATE.
UM, AND THIS WOULD BE, I THINK A, A DEEPLY IMMORAL DECISION FOR US TO MAKE AS A COMMISSION.
SO IF WE EXEMPT SSF ONE LOTS, THERE'S NO WORLD WHERE I SUPPORT THE HOME INITIATIVE ANYMORE, UM, UM, IN ANY FORM.
SO I JUST WANNA PUT THAT ON THE TABLE AND MAKE THAT VERY UNAMBIGUOUS.
'CAUSE I DON'T THINK THIS IS, UM, UH, AN AMENDMENT THAT CALLS FOR A LOT OF AMBIGUITY.
UM, IT JUST NEEDS TO BE STATED IN, IN THOSE TERMS. THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING.
SO THE REASON WHY I WAS INTERESTED IN, IN REMOVING SSF ONE FOR, FROM THIS EQUATION, I ACTUALLY WISH WE WERE TALKING ABOUT CREATING NEW ZONING CATEGORIES, TO BE HONEST, INSTEAD OF JACKING AROUND WITH SSF ONE, TWO, AND THREE.
BUT MY CONCERN IS THAT THE PRODUCT WE GET IN SF ONE LOTS, THE ONLY DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD IS BASED ON FR.
SO, SO BY EXTENDING THE HOME AMENDMENTS TO SF ONE LOTS, WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING THAT WE JUST WANT A BUNCH OF BIG NEW HOUSES ON THESE LOTS IN THE OUTER RIM WHERE CAR DEPENDENCY IS A HUNDRED PERCENT.
AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE, WHY WE WANT THAT.
UM, I, I VERY MUCH RECOGNIZE THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISPARITY, UM, IN THAT, AND I'M GONNA OFFER UP AN AMENDMENT THAT, THAT MAYBE ADDRESSES, TIGHTENS THAT UP A LITTLE BIT MORE.
BUT THAT'S THE BASIS OF MY SUPPORT OF REMOVING SF ONE IS I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRODUCTS THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GONNA GET BY APPLYING THE HOME AMENDMENTS TO SF ONE LOTS SOLID OFFER.
IF YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT, IT WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO IT.
'CAUSE WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA RUN OUTTA TIME HERE AS FAR AS, SO DO YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT READY? NO, I MEAN, ONE OF MY MOTIONS THAT I'M GONNA MAKE.
COMMISSIONER M TAYLOR, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP AND THEN COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS I THINK DID TOO.
YEAH, I JUST, WE COULD, UM, PULL THAT PART YOU HAD WAS REALLY EYE-OPENING, UM, AND VERY HELPFUL.
THERE WERE, IF I READ IT CORRECTLY, I GUESS WE'LL GET CONFIRMATION HERE.
THERE ARE 70,000 SSF, TWO LOTS THAT WE HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR.
THERE ARE 70,000 SSF, THREE LOTS THAT WE HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR, AND THERE ARE ONLY 7,000 SOME ODD, SORRY, THAT'S SMALL FOR ME.
SO THERE WAS A LOT OF, UM, ASSUMPTIONS MADE ABOUT THOSE LOTS ACROSS THE BOARD.
AND I, I JUST WOULD CHALLENGE PEOPLE TO A, AGAIN, LOOK BACK AT SOME OF THE HISTORY, THOSE LOTS WERE WAY FAR OUT IN AN AREA THAT WAS RURAL.
UH, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THE ASSUMPTIONS APPLY TO THOSE.
AND I ALSO JUST DON'T THINK THAT THIS SSF ONE THING I, I'M PROBABLY NOT VOTING IN FAVOR BECAUSE I THINK THAT A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS ARE GOING WITH IT THAT CREATES CONCERN.
UM, AND IT'S NOT HAVING AN EFFECT.
I JUST WANNA POINT OUT IT'S ONLY 7,000 LOTS COMPARED TO 140,000 OTHER SF TWO SF 7,000.
YES, THERE ARE FEWER RICH PEOPLE IN AUSTIN.
WHO WANTS TO SPEAK FOR THIS, UM, AGAINST THIS MOTION WE HAVE, WE'RE GOING BACK AND FORTH.
JUST WANNA COMMISSIONER VICE CHAIR.
UM, LOOKING AT THE MAP, UM, SINCE I AM ON THE REDLINE PARKWAY INITIATIVE BOARD, THAT'S THE 32 LONG MILE, UH, HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL THAT WILL BRING PEOPLE FROM LEANDER INTO THE CORE OF THE CITY.
UM, AND THAT WILL GO THROUGH A VERY LARGE GREEN AREA THAT'S SHOWN ON THE MAP HERE.
AND SO WHERE IT MIGHT BE CAR DEPENDENT, NOW WE'RE HOPEFUL AND PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OF OTHER WAYS TO GET AROUND.
AND I JUST THINK WE NEED TO ALLOW FOR THAT KIND OF GROWTH, UH, AROUND THE RED LINE, WHETHER YOU'RE TAKING A LIGHT RAIL, THE FUTURE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL, WHICH IS BECOMING A REALITY.
[10:00:01]
I JUST DON'T WANT US TO BE SHORTSIGHTED AND SAY, JUST BECAUSE IT'S THAT WAY TODAY THAT IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE LIKE THAT.MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, MR. HAYS, MY BASE MOTION IS ON THE TABLE AND NO ONE'S AMENDED OR DONE ANYTHING.
I WILL PULL MY AMENDMENT, IT BELONGS TO THE BODY.
UM, BUT DOES THE, I THINK WE HAVE TO RESEND BEEN SECONDED.
BUT SORRY, GO AHEAD MR. CHAIR.
COMMISSIONER LEE'S ON ANDREW, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, THE HOW MUCH MAKER CAN WITHDRAW THE, SO YEP.
UNLESS THERE'S AN OBJECTION FOR SOMEONE ELSE ON THE BODY.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW IT IS, ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO REMOVING THIS? OKAY.
ALRIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I PUT THIS AMENDMENT UP BECAUSE WE HAVE A DUAL MANDATE TO FOCUS ON THE AFFORDABILITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF GROWTH IN THE CORE, BUT ALSO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS.
UH, BUT I AM NOT GOING TO FORWARD SOMETHING THAT IS, UM, PERCEIVED THAT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT, OR THAT INFLAMES ANY KIND OF DISCUSSION ON THIS.
AND, AND IT'S BETTER TO PULL IT.
CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD JUST QUICKLY SAY, I JUST WANNA APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER HAYNES FOR LISTENING TO HIS FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND, UM, DIGGING INTO THE ISSUE.
SO I JUST WANNA REALLY APPRECIATE YOU COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
SO I THINK TO, UM, I'M GONNA READ, LET'S SEE, THAT ONE GOT A SECOND.
NO, BUT SINCE THAT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN, WE NOW GO TO HEMPEL INDIVIDUAL AND THOSE HAD BEEN SHARED EARLIER AS WELL, AND STAFF SHOULD BE ABLE TO PULL THOSE UP.
AND, UH, COMMISSIONER HEMPEL, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE TWO AMENDMENTS.
UM, SO YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO PICK UP WHICHEVER ONE YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH.
UM, ARE WE COUNTING THE, THE TWO BULLETS THAT I LISTED AS TWO SEPARATE AMENDMENTS? I'M SORRY, I WAS MISTAKEN.
SO IT IS ONE, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND LAY IT OUT.
UM, SO THIS HAS TO DO WITH, UM, DUPLEXES AND TRIPLEXES IN THE D-M-U-C-B-D AND MH ZONES.
UM, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THERE'S SOME, UH, LANGUAGE THAT COULD BE ADDED TO MAKE THE INTENT THAT I THINK THIS IS TRYING TO GET TO VERY CLEAR.
UM, SO, UM, THE, UH, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS IT READS IS FOR 25 DASH TWO DASH 7 7 3 PL RESIDENTIAL USE AND A FOR A DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL USE.
THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS ARE SUPERSEDED BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION.
AND IN RED IS WHAT WE'RE ADDING, UH, OR I'M PROPOSING TO ADD AS LANGUAGE EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION.
B IS FOR A DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL USE, ONE MINIMUM LOT SIZE LOT AREA IS 5,750, WHICH IS REPLACING THE 7,000 NUMBER SQUARE FEET.
AND THEN IN RED IS WHERE I'M ADDING EXCEPT WITHIN CBD AND DMU ZONES, WHICH GENERALLY HAVE NO MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS.
UM, AND THEN THIS WOULD BE SIMILAR LANGUAGE, UH, RECOMMENDED TO ALSO BE ADDED IN 25 DASH TWO DASH 7 74 TO ADDRESS TWO UNIT AND THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL USES.
AND THE IDEA ABOUT THIS IS THAT, UM, I THINK THERE WAS SOME UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THAT SEVEN, UH, OF THE 5,750 SQUARE FOOT NUMBER, UM, UH, LEAVING OUT THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT IN DMU ZONES, UM, THAT WOULD'VE, UH, PROHIBITED DUPLEXES FROM BEING BUILT, UM, IN THOSE AREAS, WHICH IS WHERE WE HAVE SOME OF OUR, UM, MOST WALKABLE, UM, ACCESSIBLE, UM, PARTS OF TOWN THAT ARE THERE TODAY.
UH, I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF IF WE CAN.
UM, QUESTION FOR STAFF IS ON WHETHER THAT THIS IS KIND OF IN THE, IS INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE PROVISIONS ARE, IS THIS, ARE WE GOOD THERE? I THINK BECAUSE WE HAD SSF ONE, SSF TWO AND SSF THREE, BUT WE DID HAVE THE DEFINITION OF DUPLEX.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE ADDING THESE ZONES HELP ME OUT HERE.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT GOING OUTSIDE OF THE WHAT THE NOTICE.
SO I, CAN YOU CLARIFY, ARE YOU THERE CURRENTLY A PERMITTED USE IN, UM, DMU AND AND C-B-D-C-B-D AND THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT IS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A 7,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT? SO I'M GUESS I'M NOT SURE.
I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE AMENDMENT.
[10:05:04]
UM, THE A I THINK EXPLAINS IT.SO FOR, UM, IN THE EXAMPLE WE WERE GIVEN, A DUPLEX COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THE CBD OR DMU ZONES BECAUSE OF THE REQUIRED SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THAT USE.
SO IT, IT'S IN AN EFFORT TO ADD IN, ALLOW THE, THE BUILDING OF DUPLEXES AND, UM, IN THESE ZONES.
I, I WOULD ASK THE COMMISSION TO TABLE THIS FOR THE MOMENT.
IF YOU COULD MOVE ON TO ANOTHER, UM, SET OF AMENDMENTS AND I CAN FOLLOW UP CHAIR, WE CAN, UM, TABLE THIS AND GO DO COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS'S AMENDMENTS, IF THOSE CAN BE, SO LET ME JUST ASK, WAS THIS THE ONLY AMENDMENT THAT, UH, MR. HEMEL HAD? YES.
SO WE CAN GO DO, YEAH, WE CAN, UH, COME BACK TO THAT LATER.
WE CAN GO TO, UH, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS'S AMENDMENTS.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, YOU NOW HAVE A CHOICE BETWEEN PICKING UP ANY OF YOUR AMENDMENTS.
AND WHILE I'M DOING THIS, I JUST WANNA REMIND FOLKS, IF YOUR AMENDMENTS CAN BE COMBINED INTO ONE PACKAGE, YOU CAN COMBINE THEM INTO ONE PACKAGE TOO.
WE HAVE THEM PULLED UP RIGHT NOW ON THE SCREEN AS WELL, IF THAT HELPS.
WE CAN, BUT I, I CAN CAN'T SEE THOSE.
WE CAN TAKE THE TIME FOR YOU TO PULL IT UP.
I'M SORRY, THIS IS EMBARRASSING.
SORRY, I, NOPE, I, WHILE YOU'RE DOING THIS, I'LL REALLY JUST THANK OUR STAFF, UM, FOR TOGGLING THROUGH 5,000 DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS AND SPREADSHEETS, A LOT OF CHAOS CAUSED BY ME ALONE.
SO I JUST REALLY WANNA SAY THANK YOU STAFF FOR GUIDING US THROUGH THIS.
I FOUND MY AMENDMENTS AND SO, UM, I'M GOING TO TAKE UP THE AMENDMENT, UM, COMMISSIONER THAT YOU HELPED ME WORK ON, UM, WITH A BIT OF TWEAKS, AND THAT IS THE AMENDMENT TWO TWO THAT SAYS, I THINK WE TWEAKED IT TO SAY THE CITY SHOULD, UM, IDENTIFY, WELL, LET ME GO BACK TO THE LANGUAGE THAT WE TWEAKED SO THAT IT'S, UM, COMMISSIONER, IF YOU WANT, I CAN READ THROUGH WHAT YOU HAD OUT.
SO I BELIEVE WHAT WE SAID WAS, SO IT'S LARGELY EXACTLY WHAT AMENDMENT TWO IS WITH SOME MINOR LANGUAGE ADJUSTMENTS.
SO WE'RE SAYING THE CITY SHOULD IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES TO CREATE A WELL CALIBRATED DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THAT MAXIMIZE PARTICIPATION IN THE BONUS, WHILE ALSO MAXIMIZING COMMUNITY AFFORDABILITY BENEFITS WITHIN THE HOME INITIATIVE FOR SOCIALLY MORALLY CONSCIOUS DEVELOPERS SUCH AS HABITAT FOUNDATION COMMITTEE, ISPE, NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, BLACKLAND CORPORATION, OTHER COMMUNITY BASED DEVELOPERS.
THOSE DEVELOPERS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE LOW INTEREST LENDING PROGRAM.
UM, THIS REFERS TO ANOTHER AMENDMENT, UH, FROM COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, BUT ALSO DENSITY BONUSES THAT PERMIT THEM TO USE CREATIVE TOOLS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF RETURN THAT ARE DEEMED LEGAL.
SO, SO I GET TO SPEAK ON IT? YEAH, IF YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION, PLEASE DO.
SO I'M, I'M REALLY CALLING THESE MY MORALLY IMAGINATIVE AMENDMENTS, UM, BECAUSE, AND THIS IS TO WRITE IN AFRICAN AMERICANS, LATINOS, UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES, AND A BUNCH OF THE FOLKS IN THE PUBLIC WHO CAME AND SPOKE TO US ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS OR AFFORDABILITY INCENTIVES IN THE HOME INITIATIVE.
AND THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR TO AGE IN PLACE, TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE HOME INITIATIVE IN ORDER TO NOT BE SUBJECTED TO, UH, MASS GENTRIFICATION AND THE TRENDS THAT WE HAVE WITNESSED IN THE PAST.
AND SO, UM, WHILE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN VETTED, UM, SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE THINGS THAT ARE BEING USED AND I THINK THAT, UM, IF WE USE OUR, EXPAND OUR DEFINITION OF IMAGINATION TO INCLUDE THINGS THAT ARE MORAL AND SOCIAL CONSCIOUS AND SOCIALLY JUST, I THINK WE CAN, WE CAN DO SOME GOOD THINGS HERE WITH THIS SITUATION.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, AND I'M SORRY TO KEEP GOING BACK TO WHEN WE WERE WORKING ON THE LAST REVISION OF THE LAND CODE, BUT I THINK THERE'S SOME RELEVANT HISTORY THERE.
I THINK YOU GUYS DID QUITE A BIT OF, UH, CALIBRATION.
WE HAD, UH, INCENTIVE, UH, UNIT LIKE BONUS UNITS, UH, THAT WOULD GET YOU ADDIT WITH, GET YOU INCENTIVES
[10:10:01]
ON SOME OF MORE OF THE RESIDENTIAL PRODUCTS.UM, DO YOU RECALL LIKE THE, THE, AND IT MAY HAVE CHANGED, BUT LIKE THAT THRESHOLD, THE NUMBER OF UNITS AND SOME OF THE INCENTIVES THAT WOULD ACTUALLY TRIGGER IN A, UH, THE CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE UNIT? BECAUSE I JUST WONDER IF WE'RE IN THAT RANGE, IF WE'RE IN THIS ROUND PHASE ONE LOOKING AT TWO AND THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, DO WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SOMEHOW INCENTIVIZE ONE OF THOSE BEING AFFORDABLE? OR ARE WE JUST NOT IN A UNIT COUNT, OR IT JUST, WHAT ARE THE POSSIBILITIES HERE BASED ON OUR PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE? SO, YEAH, WE, WE, UM, MINED THE HISTORY BOOKS.
SO IT WAS, UH, FOUR, NOTHING UNDER R FOUR WOOD PENCIL WITH THE CALIBRATION.
COULD YOU TALK ABOUT R FOUR? JUST FOR THOSE OF US THAT WERE, SO FOUR UNITS ON A LOT.
SO FOUR UNITS, OH, SORRY, UP TO EIGHT.
R FOUR WOULD ALLOW UP TO EIGHT, UP TO, UH, OKAY.
SO IF I CAN CLARIFY, R FOUR USED TO BE A ZONE WHERE THE BASE WAS FOUR AND YOU COULD GO UP TO EIGHT UNITS.
AND, AND SO WE WERE, THAT EIGHT WAS THE CEILING WITH SOME BONUS UNITS, AFFORDABLE UNITS INCLUDED.
SO FOUR BASE UNITS AND UP TO FOUR BONUS UNITS.
CAN YOU CLEAR, CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU MEAN BY DIDN'T PENCIL? SO THE, THE BONUS, SO BASICALLY WITH THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, THE, THE MARKET RATE UNITS ARE SUBSIDIZING THE, THE DEN THE AFFORDABLE UNIT.
AND SO IN, UM, THE LOWER DENSITIES, THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH MARKET RATE UNITS TO SUBSIDIZE ONE WHOLE AFFORDABLE UNIT BECAUSE THE BUY DOWN COSTS, THE LENGTH OF AFFORDABILITY OF A AFFORDABLE UNIT IS MANY YEARS.
AND SO IT, IT BECOMES DIFFICULT FOR THE DEVELOPER TO FINANCE THAT OR, SO I, I KIND OF LOST MY TIME.
UM, BUT SO DO YOU THINK HERE, DO WE HAVE OPPORTUNITIES HERE OR ARE WE JUST NOT IN THE RIGHT ZONE WITH ENOUGH UNITS TO REALLY, 'CAUSE I SUPPORT THIS, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD MAKE THAT A REALITY GIVEN WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON TODAY.
SO WE'VE ALREADY BEEN DIRECTED, I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL REMEMBER THE OPPORTUNITY UNLOCKED OR RYAN ALTER'S, UM, DIRECTION TO DEVELOP A SINGLE FAMILY HOME DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM OR RESIDENT SORT OF LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UM, BONUS PROGRAM.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING WE'VE ALREADY BEEN DIRECTED TO EXPLORE.
AND I THINK AS PART OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE, UM, DENSITY BONUS REWRITE THAT WE WANNA, YOU KNOW, UM, EFFORT WE WANNA DO, WE WANNA EXPLORE THAT POSSIBILITY.
UM, SO THAT'S IN ALIGNMENT WITH EXISTING DIRECTION.
SO I, I'M OUTTA TIME, BUT I'LL JUST FINISH WITH THIS.
DOES, DOES THE MOTION KIND OF ALIGN WITH THAT EFFORT? YES.
I, I THINK THAT, THAT ROSIE TRULA, THE DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT, UM, I THINK THAT AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE MORE ALIGNS, BUT I THINK WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WAS AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO.
UM, WHICH REALLY TALKS ABOUT CREATING SPECIFICALLY, SO AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE ALIGNS WITH THE OPPORTUNITY UNLOCKED, UH, DIRECTION THAT WE'VE RECEIVED PREVIOUSLY FROM COUNCIL MEMBER RYAN ALTER.
UH, AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO SPEAKS MORE TO, UM, A DIFFERENT POTENTIAL NEW TYPE OF DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THAT MIGHT BE SIMILAR ENOUGH TO BE COINCIDING.
IT ALSO KIND OF SPEAKS TO, UM, TO, UH, A, A LOW INTEREST LENDING PROGRAM, WHICH IS ALSO WORK THAT THE CITY IS ALREADY UNDERGOING, UM, WITH OUR RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
SO WE ALREADY HAVE THAT BODY OF WORK IN PLACE.
UH, AND, AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT WITH THE, THE DEVELOPERS THAT YOU HAVE LISTED HERE, THEY'RE ALREADY DEVELOPERS THAT ACTIVELY TAKE PART IN OUR, UH, IN OUR RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE, UM, PROGRAM.
SO, UH, I WOULD ALSO NOT RECOMMEND IF WE WERE TO ADOPT ANY LANGUAGE, I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND LISTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEVELOPERS MM-HMM.
UM, BECAUSE THAT MIGHT MAKE IT SEEM LIKE SOME KIND OF AN EXCLUSIVE THING.
AND FOR OUR RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, WHICH WE'RE HAPPY TO SHARE MORE INFORMATION WITH ANYONE ABOUT AT ANY POINT, UM, THIS IS A QUARTERLY APPLICATION PROCESS THAT IS OPEN TO ANYONE THAT, UH, WANTS TO DEVELOP INCOME RESTRICTED, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, AT AND BELOW 50% MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME FOR, UM, FOLKS IN AUSTIN, TEXAS.
AND I TOOK UP WAY TOO MUCH TIME.
DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? I HAVE A QUESTION.
I'LL TRY TO, I THINK THIS IS RELATIVELY SHORT, BUT HOPEFULLY THIS CAN BE, UM, GERMANE TO THIS DISCUSSION.
AND THERE'S ALSO THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED YES.
WHICH DOES SUPPORT, UM, MANY OF THE FOLKS WHO ARE RECIPIENTS OF OUR RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE.
COULD YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO HOW THAT
[10:15:01]
MIGHT PLAY OUT IN SMALLER SCALE DEVELOPMENTS OF THIS SIZE? UM, WELL, I, I BELIEVE YOU CAN TAKE A ADVANTAGE OF AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED AT THREE UNITS OR MORE.SO YOU, THERE'S ALREADY, UM, A VERY GENEROUS SORT OF SUBSIDY THAT'S INTENDED FOR, UM, THE, UH, KIND OF, UM, NON-MARKET RATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS THAT, UM, THEY CAN KIND OF ALREADY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT.
AND I, AND I WOULD ALSO ADD, IT'S NOT, UM, GEOGRAPHICALLY RESTRICTED TO ANYTHING THAT IS BOUNDED BY THIS HOME INITIATIVE.
IT IS AVAILABLE TO ANYONE AND EVERYONE WITHIN AUSTIN, TEXAS.
SO, UM, SOME OF THESE MISSION DRIVEN DEVELOPERS OR RECIPIENTS OF RDA DOLLARS COULD ALREADY USE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED, AND THEY IN FACT DO YEAH.
ON A, ON A, ON A LOT WITH THREE UNITS AND THEY COULD GET THAT BONUS YEP.
UH, COMMISSIONER AZAR, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? AND COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? SURE.
I HAD ONE AMENDMENT I WANTED TO THROW OUT THERE.
LET'S, UM, BEFORE THAT, COULD I ASK A QUESTION? UM, THIS IS, UH, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION MAKER, UM, UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS ONE.
CAN YOU TELL ME, IT'S, THE WAY I READ IT, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE NOT MANDATING ANYTHING.
YOU'RE REALLY ASKING OUR STAFF TO, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE ASKING OUR STAFF TO LOOK AT ANY POTENTIAL THAT THERE MIGHT BE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE THAT HAS COME UP.
I'M, I'M DIRECTING STAFF TO IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES FOR THESE THINGS.
AND, UM, AND THIS WOULD BE, UH, GEARED TOWARD NOT RENTING, BUT REALLY OWNERSHIP.
UM, SO THAT MIGHT SOMETHING OF A DIFFERENCE IN WHAT IS BEING TALKED ABOUT.
AND I TAKE YOUR POINTS ON NOT NAMING DEVELOPERS.
I, I TAKE YOUR POINT ON THAT, BUT I WANTED TO GIVE EXAMPLES OF BECAUSE OF WHO SURE.
AND WHAT, UH, DEVELOPERS MIGHT BE DOING THIS KIND BE OPEN TO THIS KIND OF PROGRAM AND YES.
SO YES, WHILE I DID TALK ABOUT RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE, WE ALSO HAVE ITS COMPANION PROGRAM OWNERSHIP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE THAT ALREADY DOES EXIST THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE, UM, TO HELP WITH, UH, GAP FINANCING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF INCOME RESTRICTED OWNERSHIP, AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND, AND MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THAT IS, WHILE I STILL HAVE A FEW SECONDS, UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, WOULD YOU, SO THIS IS A QUESTION OF COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
COMMISSIONER HANS, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO GIVE HER A MOMENT.
UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, AS I READ THIS, YOU ARE NOT EVEN NECESSARILY SAYING THAT THIS IS WORK THAT HAS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED IMMEDIATELY, THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED AS STAFF GOES FORWARD WITH PHASE TWO.
RIGHT? I FEEL LIKE I, I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND FROM YOUR MOTION MAKING PERSPECTIVE, IT'S, THIS IS REALLY ABOUT IDENTIFYING OPPORTUNITIES, CORRECT? YES.
AND I FEEL LIKE THERE IS AN URGENCY TO IT, JUST TO BE HONEST AND AND TRANSPARENT.
UH, THE SAME KIND OF URGENCY THAT WE WOULD PUT ON, YOU KNOW, UH, UM, BUILDING ADUS FOR, UH, SLIGHTLY LESS AFFORDABLE MARKET HOUSING OR FOR TINY HOMES, THAT SAME URGENCY WOULD BE ATTACHED TO THIS BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS THAT I SPOKE OF IN TERMS OF HOW AUSTIN'S LAND USE PLANS HAVE IMPACTED BLACK AND LATINO PEOPLE OVER TIME.
EACH AND EVERY TIME THEY MAKE MAJOR CHANGES, IT'S BEEN FORCED RELOCATION.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER, AND THANK YOU CHAIR.
I THINK WE HAVE OUR FOUR QUESTIONS.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT'S GONNA HELP INFORM YOUR DECISION? COMMISSIONER COX? WELL, I, I WAS, I WAS ACTUALLY WONDERING IF COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS WOULD BE OPEN TO CHANGING, AND THIS IS JUST THE WANNABE LAWYER IN ME, BUT, BUT CHANGING SOCIALLY, MORALLY CONSCIOUS DEVELOPERS TO THE TERM NON-PROFIT DEVELOPERS.
'CAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD BE A MORE SPECIFIC KIND OF LEGAL TERM THAT'S NOT, SO THIS IS A CLARIFYING QUESTION OF THE MOTION MAKER.
I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, NO MOTION HAS BEEN MADE SO FAR.
SO YOU CAN ASK THAT CLARIFYING QUESTION IF YOU HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION AFTER THIS.
UM, OR YOU CAN HELP HER CRAFT AN AMENDMENT.
BUT COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT.
WELL, UM, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND THAT'S PROBABLY GENERALLY TRUE, BUT HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL THAT PRIVATE DEVELOPERS WOULD ALSO PARTICIPATE IN, IN THE PROGRAM.
SO, OH, SO IF WE WANTED TO CLARIFY BY SAYING NON PROFIT AND, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER.
SO WE, WE HAVE, UH, GENERATING A LOT OF INTEREST HERE.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON ASKS QUESTION QUICK AND EASY, MR. WOODS.
UM, I WOULD HOPE THAT, UM, HEARING THE
[10:20:01]
DIRECTOR'S CONCERN ABOUT LISTING OFF CERTAIN GROUPS THAT THEY HAPPEN TO WORK WITH AND KNOWING I'D HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF HAVING WORKED FOR ONE OF THEM FOR THE PAST NINE YEARS, I'D RATHER NOT ABSTAIN FROM THIS.SO IF WE COULD JUST REMOVE THOSE, I THINK THAT'D BE GREAT.
UM, WELL I WANTED TO PROPOSE SOME LANGUAGE CHANGES THAT MIGHT MAKE THIS A LITTLE BIT BROADER AND IN LINE WITH SURE.
SO WE'RE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
IF YOU ASK A QUESTION OF HER AND SHE'S IN AGREEMENT, THEN WE CAN JUST MAKE A BASE MOTION WITH ALL THE CHANGES INCLUDED.
SO GO AHEAD AND ASK THE QUESTION OF THE MOTION MAKER.
ARE YOU OPEN TO A CHANGE THAT WOULD READ THE CITY SHOULD CONSIDER HOW EXISTING AND PLANNED DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS CAN ALIGN WITH THE HOME INITIATIVE TO INCENTIVIZE THE CREATION OF SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE UNITS AS WELL AS A RIGHT TO, AS WELL AS RIGHT TO RETURN POLICIES.
DO YOU FEEL LIKE THAT CAPTURES THE SPIRIT OF, WELL, THAT WAS A MOUTHFUL,
SO COULD YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME? SURE.
UH, THE CITY SHOULD CONSIDER HOW EXISTING AND PLANNED DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS CAN ALIGN WITH THE HOME INITIATIVE TO INCENTIVIZE THE CREATION OF SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE UNITS AS WELL AS RIGHT TO RETURN POLICIES.
I'M NOT SURE MY GRAMMAR IS PERFECT.
YEAH, I I THINK THAT THAT CAPTURES MOST OF IT.
HOWEVER, AGAIN, I CAN SEE, I CAN SEE THAT THE, THE CREATIVE CITY STAFF AND PERHAPS COMMUNITY MEMBERS MIGHT IMAGINE SOMETHING BEYOND WHAT IS ALREADY EXISTING.
AND I WANT TO LEAVE ROOM SURE.
FOR, FOR CREATIVE TOOLS THAT CAN BE BROUGHT TO BEAR IN, IN THIS.
AND, AND I THINK THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING PERHAPS LIMITS THAT TO JUST EXISTING PROGRAMS. SO THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN.
UH, MAY I PROPOSE CONSIDER HOW EXISTING PLANNED AND FUTURE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM? I, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND I, I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO CAPTURE THAT THERE MAY BE SOMETHING.
YEAH, I WOULD, WOULD WANT TO CAPTURE THAT.
AND PART OF THIS ALSO WOULD LEAD BACK TO SOMETHING ELSE THAT I'M GOING TO BRING UP.
AND THAT'S A LOW INTEREST LENDING PROGRAM OR FORGIVABLE LOAN PROGRAM THAT, UM, WOULD ALSO BE PART OF THIS.
AND THAT I DON'T THINK CAPTURES IT WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU JUST PUT OUT THERE IN TERMS OF DENSITY BONUSES.
CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION OF, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS.
COMMISSIONER WOODS, CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT SLOWLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID? THE CITY SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER HOW THE CITY SHOULD CONSIDER HOW EXISTING PLANNED AND FUTURE, OR WE CAN MESS WITH THAT.
UM, LANGUAGE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS CAN ALIGN WITH THE HOME INITIATIVE TO INCENTIVIZE THE CREATION OF SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE UNITS CAN ALIGN WITH THE HOME INITIATIVE TOO, INCENTIVIZE THE CREATION OF SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE UNITS.
SO THEN I HAVE A, UM, QUESTION OF COMMISSIONER, UM, UH, PHILLIPS COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, WOULD YOU OP, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO HAVING AN AMENDMENT THAT STATES, THE CITY SHOULD IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES TO CREATE WELL CALIBRATED DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS THAT MAXIMIZE PARTICIPATION IN THE BONUS, WHILE ALSO MAXIMIZING COMMUNITY AFFORDABILITY BENEFITS WITHIN THE HOME INITIATIVE FROM MISSION-DRIVEN DEVELOPERS? THE CITY SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER HOW EXISTING PLAN AND FUTURE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS CAN ALIGN WITH THE HOME INITIATIVE TO INCENTIVIZE THE CREATION OF SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE UNITS.
MISSION-DRIVEN DEVELOPERS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE LOW INTEREST LENDING PROGRAM, BUT ALSO DENSITY BONUSES THAT PERMIT THEM TO USE CREATIVE TOOLS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO RETURN THAT ARE DEEMED LEGAL.
WELL, DO WE NEED A SECOND ON THAT, THAT I DIDN'T MAKE A MOTION? THAT'S HER MOTION.
SO IF SHE'S IN AGREEMENT, I CAN READ IT AGAIN AS ON HER BEHALF.
I'M JUST CAPTURING THE DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE FLYING GROUND.
SO I'M, I'VE BEEN LISTENING AND NOT REALLY, I LOST TRACK.
SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR THAT'S THE MOTION.
YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH YOUR, THIS IS YOUR MOTION.
DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.
BUT COMMISSIONER WOODS I SAW FIRST.
SO, UM, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK FURTHER TO THIS MOTION? I, I WOULD YIELD MY TIME TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES WHO HAS OFFERED MORE LANGUAGE.
SO WE'RE GOING TO DO AN AMENDMENT.
SO IT LOVES TO THE BODY AN AMENDMENT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I WAS JUST TALKING WITH COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS AND, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER AZAR, IF YOU WILL FIND A PLACE TO INSERT, UH, TO INCREASE HOME OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES FOR UNDERSERVED
[10:25:01]
COMMUNITIES OR HOWEVER THAT FITS.MAKE SURE HOME OWNERSHIP IS IN THERE.
UM, UM, SO WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, IF COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO RESCIND YOUR MOTION, UM, SO THAT WE CAN JUST DO ONE CLEAN SWEEP? YES.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THE RETENTION? NO, BUT WE DON'T EVEN NEED TO DO THAT BECAUSE IF NOBODY ELSE OBJECTS, THEN WE'RE WITHDRAWING THE BASE MOTION.
RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING ALL NIGHT.
SO UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE OBJECTS, CAN WE JUST CHECK IN? DOES SOMEBODY HAVE AN OBJECTION TO COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS WITHDRAWING HER MOTION? NOT THEN SHE'S MAKING A NEW MOTION.
PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THIS IS RIGHT AND THEN WE CAN SECOND IT.
IT WILL BE THE CITY SHOULD IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES TO CREATE WELL CALIBRATED DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS THAT MAXIMIZED PARTICIPATION IN THE BONUS, WHILE ALSO MAXIMIZING COMMUNITY AFFORDABILITY BENEFITS WITHIN THE HOME INITIATIVE FROM MISSION-DRIVEN DEVELOPERS TO INCREASE HOME OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES FOR UNDER UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES.
THE CITY SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER HOW EXISTING PLANNED AND FUTURE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS CAN ALIGN WITH THE HOME INITIATIVE TO INCENTIVIZE THE CREATION OF SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE UNITS.
MISSION DRIVEN DEVELOPERS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE LOW INTEREST LENDING PROGRAM, BUT ALSO DENSITY BONUSES THAT PERMIT THEM TO USE CREATIVE TOOLS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF RETURN THAT ARE DEEMED LEGAL.
WE ALREADY, I THINK WE HAD A OKAY, WE HAVE A SECOND.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON FROM THE MOTION MAKER.
YOU'VE GOT THE AMAZING COMMISSIONER DESIRE HERE HELPING ME OUT.
SO DO WE NEED TO SPEAK TO THIS OR CAN WE GO AND TAKE A VOTE? UM, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SAY ONE THING.
I WANNA THANK COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS FOR BRINGING THIS AMENDMENT FORWARD BECAUSE I THINK, UM, I, AS MUCH AS WE ARE ALREADY DOING THIS, IS, UM, SOME, THERE'S SO MUCH ROOM FOR US TO DO MORE THAN WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING, AND I THANK YOU FOR HIGHLIGHTING THE URGENCY AROUND THIS ISSUE.
AND I THINK WHILE, UM, YOU KNOW, HOME IS, IS A LIMITED CONVERSATION THAT'S TACKLING ONLY ONE SMALL PIECE OF OUR LAND USE CODE, THIS TOUCHES ON THE MUCH BIGGER CONTEXT AND LIVED REALITY OF PEOPLE WHO ARE STRUGGLING IN AUSTIN.
AND, AND, AND I THINK THE HOPE THAT WE CAN, UM, DO THINGS BEYOND THESE LIMITED CONVERSATIONS AND BEYOND EVEN WHAT WE CAN DO HERE RIGHT NOW ON THE DAAS.
SO I JUST APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT INTO THIS CONVERSATION.
UM, YOU WILL, WERE YOU SPEAKING AGAINST SORRY, BEFORE.
WELL, UM, I WANTED TO SUGGEST SOMETHING.
DO YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT
WELL, I, LET ME JUST SEE IF, IF, IF ANYONE TAKE TAKES INTEREST IN THIS.
I'D LOVE TO SEE IDEAS PRESENTED BY STAFF WITH PHASE TWO ON THIS EXACT SUBJECT BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO COLLABORATE PHASE TWO WITH, WITH THE SMALLER LOTS AND THE IDEA THAT WE SHOULD BE CREATING PROGRAMS FOR LOW INCOME BUYERS, NOT LOW INCOME RENTERS.
'CAUSE THE ISSUE WITH THE HOME PHASE ONE IS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A RENTAL OR CONDO STRUCTURE, WHICH IS NOT VERY CONDUCIVE TO LOW INCOME HOUSING.
SO, SO THAT'S WHY I WAS THINKING IF WE PUT SOMETHING IN THERE ABOUT HAVING RECOMMENDATIONS OR IDEAS PRESENTED WITH PHASE TWO, THAT MIGHT, THAT MIGHT BE NICE.
WE HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
UM, UH, COMMISSIONER COXAL BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS MENTIONED THAT SHE'S NOT NECESSARILY SAYING THAT THIS HAS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN PHASE ONE.
SHE IS, WHILE THERE'S A SENSE OF URGENCY AND WE WANT TO GET IT DONE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, THEN THE CONVERSATION WILL SORT OF CONTINUE THROUGH PHASE TWO.
DO YOU THINK THAT SINCE THAT INTENTION HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO STAFF, DOES THAT ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN OR WOULD YOU STILL LIKE TO AMEND IT? I MEAN, IF YOU DON'T PUT A DEADLINE ON SOMETHING, IT'S LIKELY NOT GONNA GET DONE.
BUT, BUT THAT, THAT'S JUST AN IDEA.
'CAUSE I'D LOVE TO SEE THESE IDEAS WITH PHASE TWO.
IN WHICH CASE, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO SAYING, UH, THE CITY SHOULD IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES TO CREATE WELL CALIBRATED DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS AND MAXIMIZE PARTICIPATION IN THE BONUS, WHILE ALSO MAXIMIZING COMMUNITY AFFORDABILITY MINUTES WITHIN THE HOME INITIATIVE PHASE TWO FOR MISSION-DRIVEN DEVELOPERS TO INCREASE HOME OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES FOR UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES? I WOULD BE OPEN TO THAT.
IF YOU COULD SAY THAT AGAIN,
UM, SO THE CITY, SHOULD I, CAN I, I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION ON THIS.
DO WE HAVE ANY, I MEAN, I APPRECIATE THE NEED FOR TIMELINE.
DO WE HAVE ANY TIMELINE RIGHT NOW FOR PHASE TWO? I MEAN, DOES, DOES, DOES TYING THIS TO PHASE TWO NECESSARILY MAKE IT MOVE QUICKER? OR, OR, OR GUARANTEE THAT IT'S GONNA HA I MEAN, I JUST, SHOULD WE NOT JUST LET THIS LIVE A, AS ITS OWN THING AND NOT CONNECT IT TO PHASE TWO SO THAT IT CAN, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THERE'S IMPORTANT CONVERSATIONS, WHY SHOULD THEY WAIT FOR PHASE TWO TO COME FORWARD? I DON'T KNOW.
I JUST DON'T, THERE'S NO TIMELINE.
SO, UM, I THINK, UH, WE COULDN'T, SO SORRY, THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A CLARIFY QUESTION.
[10:30:01]
NO, NO.I THINK SO WE, WE CAN MAKE AN AMENDMENT AND WE, WE JUST NEED TO MOVE FORWARD.
MY, MY INTENT WAS TO ACTUALLY ACCELERATE THIS.
'CAUSE I ASSUME THAT PHASE TWO WOULD COME BEFORE THESE DISCUSSIONS.
IF FOR SOME REASON WE THINK IT'S DELAYING IT, THEN, THEN CERTAINLY THAT'S NOT MY INTENT.
SO ALL I WANNA SAY IS, SO FAR NO MOTION, NO MOTION TO AN AMENDMENT HAS BEEN MADE.
SO WE'RE STILL AT THE BASE MOTION.
SO COMMISSIONER COX, ARE YOU MAKING AN AMENDMENT? NO.
SO THEN THE BASE MOTION THAT I'M READING OUT HERE IS THE CITY SHOULD IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES TO CREATE WELL CALIBRATED DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS THAT MAXIMIZE PARTICIPATION IN THE BONUS, WHILE ALSO MAXIMIZING COMMUNITY AFFORDABILITY BENEFITS WITHIN THE HOME INITIATIVE FOR MISSION-DRIVEN DEVELOPERS TO INCREASE HOME OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES FOR UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES.
THE CITY SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER HOW EXISTING PLANNED AND FUTURE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS CAN ALIGN WITH THE HOME INITIATIVE TO INCENTIVIZE ACCRETION OF SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE UNITS.
MISSION-DRIVEN DEVELOPERS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE LOW INTEREST LENDING PROGRAM, BUT ALSO DENSITY BONUSES THAT PERMIT THEM TO USE CREATIVE TOOLS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF RETURN THAT ARE DEEMED LEGAL.
SO, I, I, ANY IS THAT GOOD? BUT I, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ON THIS SUPER BRIEF? YES.
SO I JUST WANT ALSO WANTED TO THANK THE MOTION MAKER FOR THIS.
AND, UH, I THINK WE'VE ALL HEARD FROM SOME COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO WERE CONCERNED THAT THERE WASN'T AN AFFORDABILITY ASPECT TO THE ADDITIONAL UNIT.
AND I THINK IT'S GOOD TO, TO REALIZE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ADDING ONE UNIT, AND IF OF COURSE WE WERE TO MAKE THAT AN AFFORDABLE INCOME RESTRICTED UNIT, THEN YOUR ENTIRE BONUS PIECE WOULD BE INCOME RESTRICTED, WHICH IS A 100% BONUS.
WHICH, YOU KNOW, IT'D BE GREAT TO PENCIL AT THAT, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T.
AND, YOU KNOW, AS, AS A GROUP THAT BUILDS INCOME RESTRICTED OWNERSHIP HOMES, WE KNOW THE SUBSIDIES THAT GO INTO THESE.
AND I APPRECIATE STAFF REMINDING US THAT BACK IN THE DAY WITH THE NEW CODE, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EIGHT UNITS TO GET A SINGLE AFFORDABLE UNIT.
AND THAT WAS WHEN INTEREST RATES WERE 2% MORTGAGE RATES RATHER.
AND SO I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE YOU ENCOURAGING STAFF TO LOOK INTO THIS FURTHER AND EXCITED TO SEE WHAT COMES BACK FROM THIS.
UH, LET'S GO, UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, I SEE YOUR HAND UP.
DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THIS MOTION? I, YEAH, SO I DO APPLAUD THE MOTION MAKER.
I, ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS THINKING WAS THAT I GUESS THE REFERENCE TO THE BONUS PROGRAM WOULD SORT OF SUGGEST THAT IT WAS MORE RENTAL ORIENTED.
SO I GUESS THE IDEA THAT YOU ARE ADDING LANGUAGE ABOUT, UH, HOME OWNERSHIP WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS APPROPRIATE.
I GUESS THE ONLY THING I'M THINKING WAS TO MAYBE COMMISSIONER ANDREW'S POINT TO SOME DEGREE.
I MEAN, IF, IF IN FACT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 10%, OR MAYBE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INCREASING THE DI THE PERCENTAGE THAT'S ALLOWED, UM, FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS, THEN MAYBE THAT WORKS.
I GUESS WHAT I FEEL LIKE MAY BE MISSING IS SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO DO AN INFILL LOT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT DOESN'T HAVE A MARKET RATE UNITS AND THEY'RE STILL ABLE TO DO GREATER DENSITY BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING AFFORDABLE AND NOT, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, BASED ON JUST THE DEVELOPMENT IN AND OF ITSELF.
SO, I MEAN, I FEEL LIKE MAYBE WE COULD EXPAND THAT EVEN FURTHER TO JUST TALK ABOUT AFFORDABILITY IN GENERAL AND NOT NECESSARILY JUST A BONUS PROGRAM WHEREBY THERE IS AN INTEREST IN, AND AGAIN, AFFORDABILITY, PURE AFFORDABILITY, AND MAYBE SOMETHING THAT'S NOT EVEN EVEN BEEN EXPLORED AT ALL, AS OPPOSED TO EXPANDING A PROGRAM THAT TALKS ABOUT ADDING DENSITY BECAUSE YOU'RE ADDING, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE ADDING, YOU ARE ADDING GREATER AFFORDABILITY, YOU'RE ADDING AFFORDABILITY.
SO OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ABLE TO INCREASE THE DENSITY.
SO I MEAN, MAYBE SOMETHING RELATIVE TO INFILL, UM, THAT SPEAKS TO AFFORDABILITY AS WELL.
AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, BUT, SO, SO MS UM, CAN I JUST RESPOND TO THAT? FIRST OF ALL, I WANNA THANK COMMISSIONER HOWARD BECAUSE, UH, YOU ASKED SOME VERY POIGNANT QUESTIONS YESTERDAY THAT HELPED GET TO THIS ISSUE OF AFFORDABILITY.
SO I APPRECIATE YOU FOR, FOR THAT.
BUT I ALSO WANNA SAY, I, I HAVE ANOTHER AMENDMENT THAT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE IN ADDRESSING YOUR, YOUR, UH, YOUR INTEREST INFILL.
SO I WOULD LOVE TO MOVE THIS ONE FORWARD TO A VOTE.
UM, WE PICKED THAT A LOT AND WE CAN ALWAYS DO OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT ARE NOT EXACTLY THE SAME, BUT IN THIS MM-HMM,
SO, UH, ARE THERE ANY, UH, OBJECTIONS TO THIS MOTION? OKAY, IT PASSES.
UM, CHAIRMAN, IS OUR LEGAL STAFF READY TO RESPOND TO COMMISSIONER, VICE CHAIR, HEEL'S, AMENDMENT? IT SEEMS LIKE MS. LINK IS COMING DOWN.
[10:35:03]
OKAY.TRISH LINK WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT FROM A NOTICE STANDPOINT, WE'RE FINE.
UM, BUT THE CONCERN WE WOULD HAVE, AND WE WOULD ACTUALLY RECOMMEND THAT THIS CHANGE COME UP IN PHASE TWO, BECAUSE CURRENTLY DUPLEX IS ALLOWED IN CBD AND DMU, THEY DON'T HAVE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, THE ISSUES.
WE ARE TAKING THE CURRENT LOT SIZE FOR DUPLEX FROM 7,000 TO THE 57 50 TO GO LESS THAN 57 50.
WE, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THAT GO INTO PHASE TWO BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO UNDERTAKE AS PART OF THAT PROCESS OF POTENTIALLY PROPOSING THE, THE SMALLER LOT SIZES.
SO THAT WOULD BE OUR RECOMMENDATION.
VICE CHAIR, HEMPEL AND CHAIR IS OFF THE DI SO I'M ACTING CHAIR FOR NOW.
UH, VICE CHAIR HEMPEL, DID YOU HAVE ANY FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS FOR OUR STAFF? OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONSIDER THAT AMENDMENT IN A CERTAIN WAY? NO, I, I'M FINE WITH HOLDING THAT UNTIL WE GET TO THE SECOND PHASE.
UM, I KNOW THERE'S SENSITIVITIES AROUND APPLICABILITY AND, UM, I JUST WANNA, I'M COGNIZANT OF THAT, SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
AND JUST LOOKING AT THE TIME, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND ASK FOR AN EXTENSION TO 11:00 PM WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER COX.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO EXTENDING OUR TIME TO 11
WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND EXTEND OUR TIME TO 11:00 PM AND NOW I FEEL A LITTLE BAD BECAUSE I'M THE PERSON WHO MAKES THE DECISION TO GO BACK TO ROUND TWO AND COME BACK TO MY OWN SELF.
OR DO WE GO TO OTHER COMMISSIONERS FIRST? SO I, I KIND OF NEEDED COMMISSIONER SHAW TO MAKE THIS DECISION.
'CAUSE WE'VE DONE ALL THE POST-IT.
AND SINCE I GUESS I'M ACTING CHAIR, I'M GONNA LOOK AT YOU ALL TO SAY, SHOULD WE GO TO NON POSTIT AMENDMENTS BEFORE WE GO BACK TO SECOND ROUND OF POST-IT AMENDMENTS.
WELL, SORRY, BUT ALPHABETICALLY I DO BELIEVE I AM BEFORE YOU
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, PLEASE LAY OUT YOUR AMENDMENT.
I JUST BE, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE CHAIR SHAW, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT WE WERE GOING TO DEAL WITH ALL POST-IT AMENDMENTS FIRST AND THEN COME BACK.
BUT MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD THAT.
SO FIRST ROUND ONLY WAS FOR POSTED.
DOES ANYONE ELSE, EVERYONE ELSE FEELS COMFORTABLE.
SO I, IT'S MATTERS IN THE SENSE THAT WE MIGHT NOT GET TO EVERYONE'S, ALL OF EVERYONE'S AMENDMENTS.
AND I'M FINE BECAUSE I HAVE THE MOST AMENDMENTS.
I JUST, THAT'S WHY I DON'T, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE MAKING THE DECISIONS.
SO I I'M, I I I'M FINE EITHER.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT I HAD UNDERSTOOD IT, THAT WE WERE ONLY GOING TO DO POST-IT AMENDMENTS FIRST.
IF THAT IS NOT THE WILL OF THE BODY, I'M ABSOLUTELY FINE TO DO THE OPPOSITE.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, I, I ONLY HAVE ONE AND I DON'T, DON'T CARE WHEN WE GET TO IT.
I JUST HOPE WE CAN GET TO ONE.
SO WHAT WE ARE GONNA DO IS LET'S GO TO THE, UH, POST-IT AMENDMENTS NEXT.
UM, SO THIS WOULD BE THE ZAHAR AMENDMENTS.
UM, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT NUMBER FOUR.
THIS IS REQUIREMENTS FOR DWELLING UNITS SMALLER THAN 400 SQUARE FEET.
UM, SO THIS WOULD BE SAYING INSTEAD OF CREATING NEW TINY HOME, A NEW TINY HOME ALLOWED USE, ENSURE THAT A HOUSING UNIT THAT IS 400 SQUARE FEET OR LESS IN FLOOR AREA, EXCLUDING LOFT SPACE, IS ALLOWED IN ALL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES, ENSURE THAT MINIMUM HEALTH AND SAFETY GUIDELINES ARE USED TO ESTABLISH A MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE.
IN ADDITION, CREATE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPING SUCH UNITS THAT FOLLOW BEST PRACTICES WHILE MAINTAINING FLEXIBILITY SUCH AS ALLOWING FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE.
SO I'M NOT MAKING A MOTION YET, SO WE CAN GET QUESTIONS.
SO I'LL OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS, UH, THAT FOLKS MIGHT HAVE ON THIS AMENDMENT.
UH, GUEST COMMISSIONER COX, JUST ONE QUESTION.
AND IT'S, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S BEING CREATED BY THIS, BUT I ASSUME WE HAVE A MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE IN THE CODE ALREADY SOMEWHERE.
OUR BUILDING CODE AND MS. LINCO, YOU'RE GONNA, I WE'RE GONNA RESPOND.
SO OUR BUILDING CODE DOES HAVE A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR HABITABLE SPACE PER PERSON AND SORT OF BEDROOM SPACE PER PERSON AND HOW IT RELATES TO TWO PEOPLE.
AND THEN MORE, THIS IS JUST REALLY CLARIFYING THAT BECAUSE THERE'S A CONCERN WHEN WE SAY LESS THAN 400 SQUARE FOOT, IT ALMOST IMPLIES THAT YOU CAN HAVE SOMETHING THAT WOULDN'T EVEN BE HABITABLE.
AND WE'RE SAYING NO, THOSE, YOU KNOW, BUILDING CODE GUIDELINES AROUND MINIMUM LIVABLE SPACE TO APPLY.
WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WAS MY QUESTION? LIKE FOR, FOR A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, WHAT WOULD OUR MINIMUM, THAT'S DIFFERENT DWELLING UNIT SIZE BE? SO I'M GONNA LEAVE IT TO STAFF TO COME UP AND PERHAPS RESPOND TO THAT.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE HAVE BEDROOM REQUIREMENTS AND I THINK IT'S 70 FEET FOR TWO PEOPLE, THEN FOR EVERY ADDITIONAL PERSON PER BEDROOM AND GOES TO 50.
I DUNNO, MISS LINK, DID YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING? I THINK ACTUALLY STAFF, WE PROBABLY NEED AN, UM, A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFICATION ABOUT YOUR MOTION OR ABOUT YOUR AMENDMENT.
IS IT ASKING US NOT TO MAKE TINY HOME A LAND USE? WE ARE NOT MAKING IT A LAND USE.
WE ARE SAYING SIMPLY THAT IT IS A DWELLING UNIT THAT
[10:40:01]
IS A, A PARTICULAR SIZE? YEAH.SO IN THAT, SO WE'VE, WE'VE DONE, WE HAVE, BECAUSE WE HAVE MOVED IT INTO 25, 1 21, WE HAVE REMOVED ANY, UH, POTENTIAL THAT WE'VE CREATE THAT WE'RE CREATING A LAND USE OUT OF IT, IF THAT'S THE CONCERN.
SO, UM, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE NOT GETTING STUCK IN QUESTIONS.
SO WHAT, WHAT, CAN WE GO THROUGH HIS QUESTIONS? AND THE LAST ONE, SORRY, GO AHEAD.
WHAT IS THE MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN? SO WE, YOU CAN BUILD A SMALLER HOME, THERE'S JUST WAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO COMPLY AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF COMPLIANCE.
AND, UH, DIRECTOR ROY CAN SPEAK, UH, MUCH MORE ELOQUENTLY TO IT.
WHAT WE FOCUS ON GENERALLY IS ACTUALLY THE BEDROOM SIZE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S ENOUGH SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR PEOPLE TO SLEEP.
AND THAT TENDS TO BE ONE OF THE NUMBERS WE TEND TO FOCUS ON WHEN WE ARE JUST GENERALLY TALKING ABOUT THE SIZE OF HOMES.
WELL, SO WHAT I'M THINKING ABOUT IS I WENT TO COLLEGE AT UT AND LIVED IN AN EFFICIENCY IN WEST CAMPUS, AND I BELIEVE THAT EFFICIENCY WAS ABOUT 400 SQUARE FEET, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
AND SO I'M JUST, I'M JUST CURIOUS LIKE IF IT IS THAT ALLOWED RIGHT NOW, A 400 SQUARE FOOT DWELLING UNIT UNDER CODE, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.
UH, JOSE ROY, DIRECTOR FOR DSD, YES, IT IS ALLOWED.
THE SITUATION WITH THE TINY HOUSES IS THAT, THAT IS SPECIFIC DEFINITION.
THE TINY HOUSE HAS SOME CHARACTERISTICS THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED RIGHT NOW BY THE, BY THE RESIDENTIAL CODE, FOR EXAMPLE, USING A LOFT AS A BEDROOM AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO RIGHT NOW YOU CAN ACTUALLY BUILD MAYBE A 250 SQUARE FOOT, UH, DWELLING UNIT THAT ACTUALLY MEETS THE IRC REQUIREMENTS AND IS ALLOWED AS LONG AS YOU MEET THE MINIMUM SIZES OF THE BEDROOMS AND AND SO ON.
BUT THE TINY HOME SPECIFICALLY HAS SOME CHARACTERISTICS, UH, TO THAT, THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED ON THE IRC.
SO BY ALLOWING THE TINY HOUSE AND ALLOWING THE USE OF THAT, OF THAT ON THE IRC, WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO USE APPENDIX THAT IS NOW ON THE IRC TO ACTUALLY ALLOW SOME, SOME FEATURES.
OH, SO THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S THE POINT OF WHY WE'RE DEFINING THIS EXACTLY.
SO THAT WE CAN USE THAT APPENDIX IN THE, IN THE IRC? THAT IS CORRECT.
UM, SO I'LL GO TO MY, UH, MY LINE OF QUESTIONS AND REMINDER, THERE WILL BE TWO MORE PEOPLE WHO WOULD HAVE QUESTIONS AS WELL, AND STAFF.
HOPEFULLY YOU CAN HELP US DIME THESE QUESTIONS AS WELL.
UM, DIRECTOR ROIG OR MS. LINK, CAN YOU ALL HELP ME UNDERSTAND, IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS THAT THIS IS A REDUNDANT AMENDMENT, THAT THIS IS INDEED HOW YOU'RE ALREADY SEEM TO BE HANDLING IT.
THE VERSION THAT IS IN BACKUP, IT'S IN, WE'VE MOVED THE DEFINITION TO 25 1 21.
SO THERE IS NO CONFUSION THAT IT COULD BE CONSIDERED A SPECIFIC LAND USE.
SO IT WOULD NOT BE A USE THAT WOULD'VE BEEN OUR U STAPLES.
AND WE, WE HAVEN'T, WE NEVER PROPOSED IT NECESSARILY THAT WAY.
I CAN SEE THAT WHEN WE DID THE DISCUSSION DOCUMENTS THAT MAY HAVE APPEARED THAT WAY.
UM, BUT THAT WAS NEVER THE INTENT.
IT, SO WE'VE, WE'VE PLACED IT IN THE DEFINITION SECTION, SO THAT'S CLEAR.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY AGAIN, AND I KNOW THIS MIGHT BE NOT THE ANSWER, BUT LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE THAT IS IN BACKUP, DOES LOOKING AT THIS LOOK LIKE THIS IS ESSENTIALLY REDUNDANT? YES.
I'M GONNA REDRAW MY MOTION AND WE'RE DONE WITH THIS.
I'M, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. L.
WHILE YOU'RE THERE, GO AHEAD TO COURT.
MS. LINK DOES, UM, DOES, WHEN, WHEN A TINY HOME COMES IN, DOES IT BECOME REAL PROPERTY? UM, I KNOW, I KNOW THEY COME IN ON SKIDS OR COME IN ON WHEELS, BUT WHEN IT'S ATTACHED, DOES IT BECOME REAL PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF, OF CODE? FOR PURPOSES OF STATE LAW? IT DOES IT, YEAH.
DOES IT, DOES IT LOSE ITS MOVABILITY, I GUESS, TO, AND BECOME REAL PROPERTY? SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF YOU, WHAT, WHAT WHAT'S BEEN CONTEMPLATED IS THAT THE TINY HOME WOULD POTENTIALLY COME IN ON WHEELS, COULD BE MOVED ON WHEELS, BUT IT WOULD BE ATTACHED TO A FOUNDATION AND AS ATTACHED TO A FOUNDATION, IT WOULD BE JUST LIKE ANY OTHER HOME.
SO I'M WITHDRAWING MY AMENDMENT, AND SINCE I'VE USED UP MY TURN, UH, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER COX.
COMMISSIONER COX, WOULD YOU LIKE TO LAY OUT YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT? SURE, SURE.
IF YOU CAN PULL UP, AND THIS IS JUST POSTED AMENDMENTS, RIGHT? YES.
SO YOU GET FIRST THEN COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
SO MY AMENDMENT IS ONE SENTENCE WITH A LOT OF REASONING.
UH, IT'S TO LIMIT HOME TO APPLY ONLY TO PROPERTY ZONED.
AND I'M GONNA MAKE ONE TWEAK HERE TO THE POSTED AMENDMENT BASED ON OUR SSF ONE DISCUSSION
[10:45:01]
LIMIT HOME TO APPLY ONLY TO PROPERTY ZONE SSF ONE, SSF TWO, AND SSF THREE.AND LOCATED WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF A CORE TRANSIT CORRIDOR.
IT'S CO PHILLIPS, ME, COX PHILLIPS, ME PHILLIPS AND SILENCE.
SO THE POINT WE'RE AT, THIS IS WHERE WE GET TO ASK QUESTIONS.
HEAR IT ONE MORE TIME, PLEASE.
CAN YOU PLEASE STATE THAT OH, YES.
LIMIT HOME? YEAH, THERE IT IS.
AND I MADE ONE TWEAK TO INCLUDE SF ONE BASED ON OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION, BUT LIMIT HOME TO APPLY ONLY TO PROPERTY ZONE SSF ONE, SF TWO, AND SF THREE, AND LOCATED WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF A CORE TRANSIT CORRIDOR.
MR. DAHLER, YOU HAVE MORE TIME TO ASK FURTHER QUESTIONS IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO.
UM, I, I HAVE A, I THINK WE ALREADY VOTED ON THIS IN A WAY, DIDN'T WE? BECAUSE IF WE'RE ONLY INCLUDING S TWO AND S THREE, NO SAID GEOGRAPHIC BE LIMITED.
UM, CO COMMISSIONER TAL, DO YOU HAVE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS? YEAH, I, I WAS LOOKING TO CLARIFY.
UM, AS YOU SPOKE, YOU SAID PROPERTIES, UM, AT F ONE, SF TWO, SSF THREE WITHIN THE QUARTER MILE.
UM, THE WRITTEN VERSION ONLY SAYS SSF TWO, SSF THREE.
CAN WE PLEASE CLARIFY WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING? YEAH, I'M CLARIFYING TO PROPOSE THAT WE INCLUDE SSF ONE BASED ON THE CONVERSATION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD AROUND INCLUSION OF SSF ONE WITHIN THE HOME PROPOSAL.
IF YOU HAVE MORE, YOU HAVE MORE TIME IF YOU NEED IT.
NO, THAT, I THINK THAT NEEDED TO BE CLARIFIED.
DO, DO I SPEAK TO IT NOW OR DO I WAIT UNTIL A SECOND? UM, YOU WOULD WAIT UNTIL YOU WOULD MAKE A MOTION.
WELL, LET'S GO THROUGH QUESTIONS FIRST IN CASE SOMEONE WANTS TO EDIT IT.
SO WE'RE ONTO TO QUESTION NUMBER TWO FROM ANY OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS AND CHAIR.
UH, SHAW IS BACK ON THE DICE, SO HE'S TAKING OVER.
UM, DID WE HAVE MOTION? HAD A SECOND.
YEAH, THAT'S, UH, MY MOTION IS TO LIMIT HOME, TO APPLY ONLY PROPERTY ZONE SF ONE, SSF TWO, AND SSF THREE, AND LOCATED WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF A QUARTER TRANSIT CORRIDOR.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND, UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES? UH, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? YEAH, SO I FEEL LIKE THIS, UH, ADDRESSES QUITE A FEW, UH, CONCERNS AND ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP WITH THE PUBLIC, WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND, AND WITH MYSELF.
AND, AND SO I FEEL LIKE IF IF OUR GOAL IS TO INCREASE HOUSING DENSITY AND ACHIEVE SOME LEVEL OF MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING, THEN IT SHOULD APPLY TO THOSE AREAS WHERE WE TYPICALLY WANT TO SEE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING, WHICH IS CLOSER TO OUR CORE TRANSIT CORRIDORS.
UM, APPLYING HOME TO EVERY SINGLE SSF LOT IN THE ENTIRE CITY, I FEEL CONTRADICTS A LOT OF OUR PLANNING DOCUMENTS.
A LOT OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DOCUMENTS THAT CALL FOR HIGHER DENSITY AND GROWTH NEAR OUR CENTERS AND NEAR OUR CORRIDORS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE ONE, THE TRANSIT IS SO THAT YOU'RE NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT CAR DEPENDENT.
AND TWO, THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF OUR MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE IS LOCATED.
AND SO A LOT OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE FAR REACHES OF THESE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, I SHARE THAT CONCERN.
AND BY THINK ABOUT, THINK ABOUT OUR BONDS THAT WE PASS, A LOT OF THAT MONEY, THE MAJORITY OF THAT MONEY, ALMOST ALL OF THAT MONEY IS EXCLUSIVELY GOING TO TRANSIT ON CORRIDORS AND INFRASTRUCTURE ON CORRIDORS.
SO WE RESOLVE THAT CONCERN BY HAVING THIS APPLY IN PROXIMITY TO THOSE CORRIDORS.
I ALSO FEEL LIKE IT ALLOWS FOR THE HOME PROPOSAL TO EVOLVE AS THE CITY'S TRANSIT NETWORK AND INFRASTRUCTURE EVOLVES.
SO WE'RE OBVIOUSLY GONNA HAVE MORE TRANSIT CORRIDORS IN THE FUTURE.
AND BY BUILDING OUT OUR TRANSIT CORRIDORS, WE'RE ALSO ENABLING MORE OF THESE PROPERTIES TO DENSIFY AND BUILD MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING.
I ALSO, ONE LAST THING, THINK THAT ONE OF THE FAILINGS OF THIS IS THAT WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF BENCHMARKING AND TRIALING INVOLVED.
AND SO BY, BY LIMITING THE INITIAL SCOPE OF THE HOME PROPOSAL, UH, WE'RE KIND OF DOING A TRIAL A LITTLE BIT TO SEE WHAT HOUSING PRODUCTS WE GET.
AND IF WE DON'T GET THE HOUSING PRODUCTS WE WANT, WE CAN COME BACK AND TWEAK THE REGULATIONS AND WE WILL HAVE IMPACTED LESS OF THOSE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS THAN IF WE JUST BLANKET APPLY IT ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY.
SO THAT'S WHY I'D LIKE TO LIMIT THIS TO A QUARTER MILE OF A COURT TRANSIT CORRIDOR.
QUESTIONS WE'RE BEYOND QUESTIONS.
I, THAT'S WHAT I GET FOR TAKING A BREAK.
[10:50:02]
SORRY, CHAIR.SO WE'RE SPEAKING FOR AND AGAINST, SO YES, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST.
UM, SO I HAD A PRESENTATION, A PRESENTATION TODAY AT WORK, AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT IT TAKES TO BUY A HOME IN AUSTIN NOW.
UM, $150,000, 940 BUCKS A YEAR IS WHAT YOU NEED TO EARN IF YOU WANNA BUY A HOME IN AUSTIN, TEXAS.
AND SO I THINK THIS, UM, PROPOSED ITEM LOST ME WITH THE FIRST TWO WORDS, LIMIT HOME, LIMIT HOME BY LIMITING HOMES.
I JUST DON'T SEE THAT BEING A WINNER WHATSOEVER.
THIS IS TALKING ABOUT MAKING IT EASIER TO BUILD SMALLER HOMES THROUGHOUT AUSTIN.
SINGLE FAMILY ZONING, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE ZONED, THE MAJORITY OF OUR CITY IS SINGLE FAMILY ZONED.
AND I THINK THIS ALSO KIND OF INADVERTENTLY, BUT IT DEFINITELY LOOKS AT EAST AUSTIN A LOT MORE JUST WITH ALL OF OUR CORE TRANSIT CORRIDORS WE HAVE IN EAST AUSTIN.
THEY'RE BEREFT, ESPECIALLY ONCE YOU GO TO THE OTHER SIDE OF MOPAC.
WE JUST DON'T HAVE ANY, SO TO, TO LIMIT THIS IN SUCH A WAY, I JUST DON'T FEEL IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
UM, AND ALSO WHILE I'M TALKING, I JUST WANNA TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT CONDOMINIUMS, UM, I HAD A STUDENT GO ON TO WRITE HER DISSERTATION ON THE FACT THAT CONDOS ARE THE NEW STARTER HOME.
AND RIGHT NOW STARTER HOMES IN AUSTIN ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN.
SO ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO MAKE CONDOS EASIER, WE JUST BROKE GROUND ON 126 AFFORDABLE CONDOS.
ALL I'VE EVER BOUGHT IN AUSTIN IS A CONDO.
UM, WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO MAKE AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP EASIER.
UM, DOES THIS MAKE IT AFFORDABLE FOR ALL? DEFINITELY NOT, BUT IT, IT OPENS UP THE INCOME EARNER RANGE THAT IT CAN AFFORD HOUSING IN AUSTIN.
SO THIS AMENDMENT ACTUALLY DOES THE OPPOSITE OF THAT.
SO I'M GONNA DEFINITELY VOTE KNOW ON THIS.
WHAT ABOUT A QUESTION? WELL, LIKE, WE'RE DONE WITH QUESTIONS.
SORRY, O ONLY A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
IF THERE'S A CLARIFYING QUESTION OF THE MOTION MAKER, THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING ALLOWED AT THIS TIME.
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MOTION OR NEED MORE CONTEXT, I, I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION IF THAT'S OKAY.
SO IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE COULDN'T DO GEOGRAPHIC BASED ZONING, THAT IT HAD TO BE BASED ON A ZONING TYPE.
SO THIS SEEMS TO ME GEOGRAPHICALLY BASED.
IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, WE'RE SORRY, GO AHEAD.
UM, SO WHAT WAS SUGGESTED TO ME WAS THAT THIS COULD BE INTERPRETED AS AN OVERLAY, UM, WHICH I'M CERTAINLY OPEN TO.
AND I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT WE, ALL OF OUR LEGAL QUESTIONS SEEM TO BE, WELL JUST VOTE ON IT AND THEN WE'LL DEAL WITH THE LEGAL ISSUES LATER BECAUSE WE JUST DID SOMETHING THAT WAS AGAINST NOTIFICATION.
SO I, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF THIS DOES PASS AND THERE'S, AND THERE'S LEGAL QUESTIONS ABOUT GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES, THEN THIS COULD END UP EVOLVING AS MORE OF AN OVERLAY THAN, THAN WHAT IT IS NOW, RIGHT? AGAINST FOUR FOUR, YES.
SO, UM, I'M GONNA VOTE AGAINST IF THERE'S NOBODY TAKING THAT SLOT, AND I THINK THE, UM, I APPRECIATE WHAT I AM ALL FOR DENSITY, WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE AND WHERE WE NEED TO PRIORITIZE IT.
I THINK I'M THINKING OF PHASE TWO.
UM, WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT IS REALLY WHERE WE TALK ABOUT WHERE, UM, I SAW THIS AS MORE SOMETHING THAT, UH, CAN BE APPLIED THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
BUT DEFINITELY WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT TOWN HOMES, YOU KNOW, MORE DENSE, UH, DEVELOPMENT, DEFINITELY PHASE TWO, I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AT THE BEST LOCATIONS.
UH, SO I'M EAGER TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, BUT I DON'T THINK, UH, THIS IS THE TIME TO KIND OF RESTRICT THIS HOME TO JUST CERTAIN TRANSIT CORRIDORS.
AND ALSO WANNA RE ECHO THE POINT THAT COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MADE, WE ASKED YESTERDAY ABOUT THE, THE PULLBACK ON SOME OF THE ZONING, UH, INCREASES ALONG IN EAST AUSTIN THAT WERE MADE IN THE LAST VERSIONS OF THE LAST VERSION OF CODEX.
AND FOR THAT REASON THAT THERE WERE MU MANY MORE TRANSIT CORRIDORS IN EAST AUSTIN.
SO I THINK WE'RE SETTING UP FOR KIND OF A, UH, A PROBLEM THERE BETWEEN, UM, YOU KNOW, EAST OF I 35.
CAN WE TAKE A VOTE? ALL RIGHT.
ANYONE ELSE BEFORE WE VOTE? ALL, UH, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT? UH, OKAY.
AND, UH, VIRTUALLY THOSE IN FAVOR.
THOSE, UH, THAT ARE OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION, RAISE YOUR HAND ON THE DICE.
AND THOSE THAT ARE OPPOSED? EIGHT, NINE.
UM, AND WE HAD COX, AND WE GET THIS
SHOULD WE NOW GO TO COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? OKAY, THANK YOU.
[10:55:01]
YOUR OTHER REMAINING TWO AMENDMENTS WITH A REMINDER.ACTUALLY, IF YOU WANT, YOU COULD EVEN PACKAGE THEM TOGETHER SINCE THEY ARE BOTH RELATED TO AFFORDABILITY.
SO ONE OF MY, UM, MORALLY IMAGINATIVE AMENDMENTS WOULD, WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN, WOULD LOOK AT THE FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A LOW INTEREST LENDING PROGRAM WITH OR WITHOUT THE PRIVATE SECTOR WITH FAVORABLE TERMS UP TO FORGIVING LOANS FOR A DEVELOPER OR A HOMEOWNER WHO BILLS FREE.
OR IF PRESERVATION IS IN PLACE FOR UNITS AND DESIGNATES ONE OF THE THREE OR FOUR AFFORDABLE MEANING FOR 60% TO 80% OF THE MFI.
THIS IS TO PRO PROVIDE INCENTIVES, BUT ALSO OFFSET THE LOSSES THAT DEVELOPERS OR HOMEOWNERS WHO WANNA HELP SOLVE AUSTIN'S SUPPORTABILITY.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, UH, STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE SCROLL UP TO AMENDMENT ONE SO WE CAN SEE? OH, THERE WE GO.
I'M SO SORRY, UH, FOR THAT'S OKAY.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, PLEASE CONTINUE.
SO WE'VE HEARD IN THE PAST, AND I THINK STAFF ALLUDED TO THE PROBLEM OF HOW YOU USE THE MARKET RATE HOUSING TO SUBSIDIZE THE AFFORDABLE HOME, BUT THAT WOULD TAKE THAT AWAY AND ALLOW, UH, THESE HOMES TO BE BUILT THROUGH FAVORABLE LENDING PROGRAMS. IF ONE OF THE THREE OR THE FOUR WERE DESIGNATED AS AFFORDABLE, BASED ON 60 TO 80% OF THE MFI, AND THIS WOULD REALLY BE TARGETED AT HOME OWNERSHIP AGAIN.
UM, AND IT WOULD ALSO BE OPEN TO THE HOMEOWNERS THAT CAME TO US AND TALK TO US ABOUT HOW THEY STABILIZE THEIR COMMUNITIES, HOW THEY ARE NOT, AGAIN, SUBJECTED TO MASS FORCED RELOCATION AND GENTRIFICATION THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM, BUT ARE NOT, UH, WELL RESOURCED, OR THEY HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY HIS, BY HISTORICAL FACTORS.
SO THEY LACK ACCESS TO, TO LOANS AND TO CREDIT.
AND SO THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO BUILD ONE UNIT.
THEY WOULD ONLY HAVE TO BUILD ONE UNIT IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROGRAM.
SO IT'S JUST MEANT TO ADDRESS A LOT OF THE BARRIERS THAT WE WERE TOLD THAT FACE DEVELOPERS, PRIVATE AND NON-PROFIT AND INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS, ESPECIALLY HOMEOWNERS.
AND I THINK THAT THIS MIGHT EVEN SPEAK TO THE INFILL ISSUE THAT COMMISSIONER HOWARD RAISED.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S MY AMENDMENT.
UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO, UH, QUESTIONS FROM, UH, THE COMMISSIONERS, IF THERE ARE ANY.
DO, DO YOU, WE HEARD FROM SOME FOLKS WHO HAVE A PROPERTY AND THEY'D LIKE TO HAVE MORE INCOME COME FROM THEIR PROPERTY, RIGHT? THEY'RE AGING, UM, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO CAPITAL.
DO YOU ENVISION THIS AS SOMETHING THAT MAYBE A TOOL FOR THEM EXACTLY.
UH, UH, GIVE THEM FAVORABLE LOW INTEREST LOANS.
YOU'VE BEEN UP TO THE POINT OF FORGIVENESS OF LOANS AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME.
AND THAT WOULD REMOVE THAT BARRIER THAT WE KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, POLICIES LIKE REDLINING MM-HMM.
SO, SO THIS GOES YES, COMMISSIONER TO ADDRESSING THOSE BARRIERS, AND IT WOULD BE JUST FOR ONE HOMEOWNER.
AND THAT WAY OUR, OUR CITY KNOWS WHAT THAT PLAN IS BECAUSE THEY'VE DONE IT.
I MEAN, IT, I I THINK IT, IT'S IMAGINATIVE.
I'M NOT SURE IF WE NEED TO ADD LANGUAGE, INCORPORATE THAT, BUT I THINK THAT'D BE GREAT IN THIS, AND I LIKE THIS A LOT.
I'M TRYING TO JUST MOVE THIS ALONG.
COMMISSIONER HOWARD, DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UH, AND HOPEFULLY I'M HOPING THAT DIRECTOR TRI CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION FOR ME.
UM, SOME PEOPLE MAY BE AWARE THAT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS ACTUALLY REVISING THE RULES REGARDING ADUS AND, UH, AND SORT OF AFFORDABILITY AROUND USING RENTAL INCOME TO FORNI TO, UM, QUALIFY FOR LOANS RELATED TO ADUS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THAT? NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
SHE MAY HAVE SOME INFORMATION.
AND I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO IT WHILE RACHEL JOINS US.
UM, BASICALLY THERE WAS A REVISION RECENTLY PROVIDED BY THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION
[11:00:01]
INDICATING THAT RENTAL INCOME WILL NOW BE ALLOWED TO USE TO QUALIFY FOR ADU UNITS.AND I THINK THAT THAT'S A REALLY PIECE, IMPORTANT PIECE OF HOW WE THINK ABOUT THIS GOING FORWARD.
I ALSO DO WANNA HIGHLIGHT IN OTHER PLACES IN CALIFORNIA PARTICULARLY WHERE WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF ADUS, THERE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN CREATED PROGRAMS THAT HAVE
AND I JUST WAS WONDERING IF YOU ALL HAD ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YOU WANTED TO ADD? NO, BUT YOU ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION REALLY WELL,
SO, JUST TO, THE POINT THAT I WANTED TO MAKE IS THAT I DO THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME OPTIONS OUT THERE, BUT YES, I AGREE WITH THE MOTION MAKER AND THAT THIS IS AN EXCITING OPPORTUNITY AND WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE STAFF IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN OBVIOUSLY WORK TO MAKE THIS A REALITY FOR LOWER INCOME HO FAMILIES.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS? OR CAN WE ENTERTAIN ANY AMENDMENTS? I HAVE A QUESTION, BUT FOLKS WILL HAVE TO GIMME A SECOND HERE.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, WOULD YOU BE OPEN BASED ON, UH, WHAT WE HEARD FROM COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AT THE END OF YOUR AMENDMENT SAYING SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT? IN ADDITION, THE CITY SHOULD EXPLORE OPPORTUNITY, EXPLORE ALLOWING THOSE WISHES TO UTILIZE THE HOME INITIATIVE, UM, TO, TO DEVELOP USING PRE PROPOSED PLANS, PRE-APPROVED, PRE-APPROVED TO DEVELOP USING PRE-APPROVED PLANS TO EASE FREE.
TO EASE THE CREATION OF OFF THE UNITS.
DOES THAT WORK?
SO, SO COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, I'LL REPEAT THAT AGAIN.
SO WE WILL BE SAYING AFTER YOUR AMENDMENT, WE WOULD ADD SOMETHING THAT SAYS, IN ADDITION, THE CITY SHOULD EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPLORE ALLOWING THOSE WISHING TO UTILIZE THE HOME INITIATIVE TO DEVELOP USING, BE APPROVED PLANS TO EASE THE CREATION OF UNITS OR THE, THE, UH, CREATION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS.
IS THAT OKAY? CREATION OF UNITS.
DOES THAT SEEM OKAY? YOU HAVE A QUESTION? MY QUESTIONS ARE OVER.
SO, UM, THE, THE, THE ITEM IN THERE ABOUT, UH, CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN, IS THAT INCLUDED IN THIS AMENDMENT? NO, IT WASN'T, BUT THAT'S THE NEXT THING.
AND THEN THE SECOND THING ABOUT, I, I AM HUGE PROPONENT OF TRYING TO GET PRE-APPROVAL OF LIKE ADU MANUFACTURERS AND STUFF, BUT DIDN'T WE TASK THAT ALREADY TO STAFF AND THEN IT, AND THEN THEY DETERMINE SOME SORT OF INFEASIBILITY OR SOMETHING? YES.
SO I THINK OUR DSD STAFF CAN SPEAK BETTER TO IT, BUT THERE WAS A MEMO THAT WAS, UM, ESTABLISHED A FEW YEARS AGO.
UM, SO YES, THE IDEA OF PRE-APPROVED PLANS HAS BEEN EXPLORED EXTENSIVELY, AND COUNCIL HAS GIVEN DIRECTION TO STAFF TO LOOK AT IT AND EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL FOR USING IT.
WE PROVIDED SOME, UH, INFORMATION ON LIKE THE COST OF SETTING UP A PROGRAM AND ALL THE DIFFERENT STEPS THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED.
WE ALSO HAVE, YOU KNOW, CANDIDLY RECOMMENDED THAT IT PROBABLY WON'T DELIVER A LOT OF VALUE BECAUSE WITH, IN THEORY, YOU CAN HAVE A PRE-APPROVED PLAN THAT SORT OF IS DESIGNED, EMBEDDED TO MEET, UM, TECHNICAL CODE STANDARDS.
SO THERE WOULD BE SOME RELIEF FOR APPLICANTS WHO WOULDN'T MAYBE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE FULL LEVEL OF TECHNICAL CODE REVIEW FOR A PRE-APPROVED PLAN.
BUT WITH ZONING REVIEW, WHERE YOU'RE DEALING WITH THINGS LIKE MCMANSION, UM, SETBACKS, HEIGHT STANDARDS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO A LOT, THAT REVIEW WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED UNLESS COUNSEL WANTED TO WAIVE THOSE REGULATIONS FOR PRE-APPROVED PLANS.
AND THERE'S NEVER BEEN THE APPETITE OR THE DIRECTION TO DO THAT.
SO OUR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL WAS THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA DELIVER A LOT OF VALUE, AND IT WOULD TAKE SUBSTANTIAL RESOURCES TO SET UP THE PROGRAM.
AND SO AT THIS POINT, THERE'S NEVER BEEN THAT WE DON'T HAVE A PROGRAM FOR PRE-APPROVED PLANS.
SO, SO I, I WOULD JUST COMMENT THAT I REALLY WISH THAT THAT WOULD HAPPEN SOMEHOW, BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT THE REST OF THIS TO GET BOGGED DOWN IN THAT PARTICULAR ELEMENT.
SO THAT WAS JUST MY KIND OF PRO PRODDING ABOUT THAT.
IT DOES SAY THE CITY SHOULD EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES, SO IT'S MORE SOFT IN THAT WAY, IF THAT'S YOUR CONCERN.
SO I THINK WE'RE WRAPPED UP ON QUESTIONS.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION OR DID, OR DID WE AMEND THE MOTION? WE, WE HAVE A MOTION MAKER.
WE HAVEN'T, WE HAVEN'T MADE A MOTION YET.
SO ALL, UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, HOWEVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED.
YEAH, I, YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH THE VOTE, UM, IN PROCEEDING
[11:05:01]
WITH THE VOTE.WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD THE SENTENCE IN THE END THAT I HAD SUGGESTED, OR WOULD YOU OH, SURE.
SO THE, SO JUST TO CLARIFY THE MOTION THAT COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS IS MAKING, AND I'LL SECOND IT, IS, UM, THE FIRST AMENDMENT THAT SHE HAS WITHIN AN, UH, AN ADDITIONAL SENTENCE IN THE END THAT STATES, IN ADDITION, THE CITY SHOULD EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPLORE ALONG THOSE WISHING TO UTILIZE THE HOME INITIATIVE TO DEVELOP USING PRE-APPROVED PLANS TO EASE THE CREATION OF UNITS.
UM, SO IT HAS BEEN, UH, MO MOTION HAS BEEN MADE IN SECONDED, RIGHT? SO I'M LOOKING AT THE CLOCK, AND I KNOW LOT FOLKS WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS, BUT COULD WE MOVE TO A VOTE? OKAY.
UH, ARE THERE ANY OPPOSITION, ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT.
IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, SO I'M CHECK WITH MY, UM, SO I THINK WE, WE HAD, I CHECKED WITH, UH, MR. RIVERA AND, UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES HAD SOME, UH, MOTIONS AND, AND I WAS OUT AND I'M TRYING TO THINK, WHAT CYCLE ARE WE IN? UM, MY APOLOGIES.
I I I, WHAT I HAD SEEN IN THE BACKUP COMMISSIONER HAYNES ONLY HAD ONE.
UM, WE, I GUESS I MISSED A DOCUMENT.
SORRY, MR. RIVER, DO YOU WANNA CLARIFY THAT? I THINK THERE, GO AHEAD.
SO, YES, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES PROVIDED SOME AMENDMENTS, AND I'M JUST ABOUT TO DISSEMINATE THOSE TWO, THE COMMISSION AND THEY WERE RECEIVED TIMELY AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS OPPOSED TO, OKAY, MY APOLOGIES.
SO, UH, ACTUALLY WE THEN SKIPPED COMMISSIONER HAYNES, WE WOULD GO BACK TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES AFTER COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS CHAIR.
UM, AND THIS IS NOT SPECIFIC TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S AMENDMENTS, BUT HOW IS THERE A LIMIT ON NEW AMENDMENTS? HOW MANY AMENDMENT, HOW FAR WILL WE GO? ARE WE GONNA JUST AMEND THIS THING? I MEAN, SOME OF US WOULD LOVE, YOU KNOW, LET'S, I REALLY APPRECIATE MANY OF THESE THOUGHTFUL AMENDMENTS, BUT HOW, HOW MANY AMENDMENTS WE HAVE? I PLAN TO CALL THE QUESTION AT 11 O'CLOCK.
THAT'S WHEN WE EXTEND IT TO, I THINK WE'VE DONE SO MUCH GOOD TO THIS, AND YOU CAN CONTACT YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER AFTER WE'RE DONE.
AND, UH, BUT I AM GONNA ATTEMPT TO CALL THE QUESTION AT 11, AND I'M, IT MAY FAIL AND WE'LL KEEP PLOTTING ALONG, BUT THAT'S MY GOAL.
SO FOLKS HAVE MULTIPLE AMENDMENTS AND THEY CAN CONSOLIDATE THEM OR SOMEHOW TRY TO YES.
AND SO I WOULD REALLY AT THIS POINT, UH, RECOMMEND TO BE FAIR TO OUR COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE MAKING AMENDMENTS.
FOLKS, IF YOU HAVE REAL QUESTIONS, ASK THOSE QUESTIONS AND MINIMIZE COMMENTS SO THAT WE CAN REALLY, UH, GIVE AS MUCH OF A BENEFIT TO EVERYONE AS POSSIBLE.
SO COMMISSIONER HAYNES, PLEASE PROCEED.
HAVE, HAVE YOU POSTED ON CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LAY, MR. HAYNES WILL, UM, PROCEED WITH THE, UM, LAYING OUT THE ITEM AND THEN WE WILL, WILL, UM, HAVE IT POSTED.
DO, DO YOU HAVE IT WITH YOU? I, I HAVE IT.
YOU HAVE IT? I MAKE SURE EVERYBODY ELSE.
UM, I THINK YOU CAN READ IT AND IT LOOKS LIKE STAFF WILL PULL IT UP AS YOU'RE READING THROUGH IT.
AND COMMISSIONER HAYNES, IF YT, UH, NOTE WHICH, UM, ITEM 'CAUSE UM, OR WHICH AMENDMENT YOU'RE CHOOSING.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, WOULD YOU BE, GO AHEAD, PLEASE PROCEED.
UM, THIS ONE RELATES TO DEEDED RESTRICTIONS.
UH, WE HAVE HEARD FROM A LOT OF FOLKS THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT 'EM, AND WHAT I'VE TRIED TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT, UM, IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, WE ARE ELIMINATING, UM, DEEDED RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE BASED ON, UH, ACROSS THE CITY THAT ARE, THAT ARE, UM, UH, CONTAINED IN DEEDS THAT ARE, THAT ARE, UM, ON THE BASIS OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, ELIMINATE THOSE ACROSS ALL DS.
MANY OF THOSE ARE ALREADY DONE BY FEDERAL LAW.
I HAVE ADDED SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND NATURAL, UH, NATIONAL ORIGIN.
UM, AND THEN HAVE SAID THAT, UH, IF A LOT IS, IS PROPOSED TO BE PERMITTED AS A TWO OR THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL, THE CITY STA THE CITY SHALL SEARCH THE TRAVIS COUNTY CLERK'S DEEDED RECORDS TO DETERMINE IF THE LOT IS ZONED SSF ONE, TWO, OR THREE RESIDENTIAL CONTAINS DEEDED RESTRICTIONS, UH, PROHIBITING SUCH ACTION.
AND THE CITY SHALL DEVELOP A NOTIFICATION SYSTEM TO ALERT HOMEOWNERS WITHIN 150 FEET OF THE PROPERTY, LINE OF THE PROPERTY, SEEKING A PERMIT FOR THE PRESENCE OF SEARCH RESTRICTIONS.
BUT THE CITY HAS NO DUTY TO INTERVENE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A PRIVATE CONTRACTUAL MATTER.
ALRIGHT, SO LET'S, LET'S GET INTO QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE.
UM, AND MY FIRST IS, UH, FOR STAFF.
IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN, UH, ENTERTAIN WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS, THE HEARING AND THE NOTICE? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE, WE'RE NOT OUT OF BOUNDS.
[11:10:03]
UH, TRISH LINK WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT.SO I READ THIS AS BASICALLY TWO ELEMENT, UH, TWO ELEMENT AMENDMENT.
THE FIRST BEING ABOUT, UH, HOUSING DISCRIMINATION.
AND THAT IS PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL LAW.
IT'S ALSO PROHIBITED BY CITY CODE.
WHAT IS IN A DEEDED RESTRICTION.
WE DON'T HAVE THE CON, WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GO IN AND, AND STRIP OUT.
I MEAN, IT, IT EXISTS IN THE DOCUMENT.
THERE'S ACTUALLY A PROCESS IN STATE LAW THAT, UM, WILL ALLOW FOLKS TO REMOVE SOME OF THE HISTORICALLY DISCRIMINATORY LANGUAGE FROM THEIR DEED.
UM, THE SECOND PIECE, UM, IT IS ABOUT THE TWO AND THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING.
UM, THAT IS, UM, NOTICED FOR THE COMMISSION AS WE DISCUSSED LAST NIGHT, THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME LEGAL CONCERNS AND I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT IS, UM, AN ISSUE FOR US.
UM, AND MY SEC FOR STAFF, THAT, HOW WOULD THIS BE IMPLEMENTED? IT SOUNDS LIKE, UM, THAT YEAH, THERE WOULD BE STAFFING RECORDS AND STA UH, CITY WOULD'VE TO MAINTAIN THOSE RECORDS AND THEN, UM, YEAH, ALERT THE, ACTUALLY THE CITY WOULD THEN HAVE TO ALERT THE HOMEOWNER.
SO I'M JUST REALIZING, UH, WHAT, WHERE WOULD THAT RESIDE DEPARTMENTALLY AND ANY ESTIMATE ON WORKLOAD REQUIRED TO KEEP UP WITH THAT? I'M JUST TRYING TO ANTICIPATE THE, HOW THAT WOULD IMPACT OUR RESOURCES.
IF SOMEBODY CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
I COULD SAY, JUST BASED ON THE, THE PROCESS THAT WE FOLLOW FROM A DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STANDPOINT, THIS WOULD COME UP IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS, WHICH WOULD THEN ADD A LAYER OF REVIEW TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
IF WE ARE REQUIRED TO GO AND CHECK, UH, THE DEEDED RECORDS TO DO THAT, UM, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A STAFF.
UM, AND I'M ASSUMING IT WOULD BE DSD AS MUCH AS
UM, BUT IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD COME UP AS PART OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
AND SO IT WOULD BE A LAYER OF REVIEW AND NOTIFICATION THEY'D BE REQUIRED TO DO.
AND, AND SO, UM, ARE THERE OTHER THINGS WE LOOK AT THAT ARE LIKE DEEDED, SIMILAR TO DEEDED RESTRICTION THAT ARE KINDA LEGAL DOCUMENTS THAT ARE NOT REALLY THE PURVIEW OF THE CITY, BUT WE STILL GO CHECK.
I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE IF THERE'S SOME EQUIVALENT HERE.
I COULD SAY FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT'S PERSPECTIVE, UM, IF WE ARE, IF SOMEONE'S REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AN EASEMENT TO THE CITY IN ORDER FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT TO MOVE FORWARD, WE DO REQUIRE DOCUMENTS TO ENSURE THAT THE PERSON HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SIGN, UM, WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY, IF THERE'S ANY, UM, LIEN HOLDER CONSENTS.
AND SO THERE'S, THERE CAN BE IN THAT PROCESS, UM, SEARCH TO THE RECORDS.
BUT YOU REQUIRE THE, THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE TO YOU? YES.
YOU DON'T GO SEARCH THAT, I MEAN, OR I, I'M NOT GONNA SAY IN ALL INSTANCES WE DON'T.
BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE DON'T.
HOW DO WE, UM, SO WE HAVE, WE NEED A SECOND OR I'M NOT SEEING ANY MORE QUESTIONS, SO ANYBODY WANNA SECOND THIS ONE? WE WANNA SPLIT IT.
I'M JUST LOOKING, WE GOT TWO ISSUES HERE.
SO, UH, SO DO WE NEED TO, DO YOU WANNA TAKE IT UP TOGETHER? THAT WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST TIME.
WE COULD, UH, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? WE'LL JUST GIVE, GIVE IT DASH, SECONDED.
SO NOW I'M GIVING YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION.
WE'VE HEARD FROM, AND, AND IT'S A LOT OF MY NEIGHBORS THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, UM, THE EXISTING DEEDED RESTRICTIONS.
I HEARD FROM LAW THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CITY DOESN'T WANT TO WANT TO GET INTO A PRIVATE CONTRACTUAL MATTER.
AND SO I'VE TRIED TO PUT IN THERE THAT, THAT THE CITY WON'T INTERVENE IN A PRIVATE CONTRACTUAL MATTER TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS.
AND, UH, BUT THAT THERE IS A, THERE'S A NOTICE PROVISION THAT WOULD GO OUT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS.
UH, WE DO THAT IN, UM, THE EXAMPLE THAT WAS ON THE TABLE WAS, WAS EASEMENTS.
UH, WE DO IT FOR FLOOD, UH, PLANES.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT, I I HAPPEN TO KNOW THAT.
'CAUSE I, I BOUGHT, I BOUGHT IN A FLOOD FLOODPLAIN.
YOU'RE NOTICE THAT YOU'RE IN A FLOODPLAIN.
THE CITY SENDS OUT NOTICES TO HOMEOWNERS ON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
THIS WOULD BE AN ADDED ONE IN THE, OKAY.
UM, SPEAKING AGAINST THIS ITEM, CAN WE PROPOSE AN, UM,
[11:15:01]
A SUBSTITUTE? YES, WE CAN DO SUBSTITUTES.I WOULD, I, HMM, WHERE'D THE LANGUAGE GO? SORRY.
UM, I, I WOULD ACTUALLY PROPOSE THAT INSTEAD OF SENDING OUT NOTICE THAT THE CITY HOLD PERMITTING UNTIL THE MATTER IS RESOLVED BETWEEN THE PRIVATE PARTIES CHAIR, UM, HOW, I'M TRYING TO THINK HOW THAT'S GONNA BE, UH, INTEGRATED IN.
SO A MOTION YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS IF THE MOTION, YOU CAN OKAY.
SO WE HAVE, THIS WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT.
DO WE HAVE A, OR I GUESS A SUBSTITUTE.
SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THE SUBSTITUTE? ALL RIGHT.
UM, SO WE'RE BACK TO THE, UH, THE AMENDMENT, THE BASE.
SO, UH, SPEAKING AGAINST OR FOR, ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE THIS ONE TO A VOTE.
UM, I CAN, I CAN JUST, I'D LIKE TO JUST MAKE ONE QUICK POINT ON FOUR.
I KNOW WHERE IT'S GOING, BUT IT'S OKAY.
BUT I WANNA POINT OUT THAT OUR CITY GETS EMBROILED IN A LOT OF LAWSUITS FOR FAILING TO RECOGNIZE PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND WE'RE WASTING A LOT OF DARN TAX DOLLAR SUING OURSELVES OVER PROPERTY RIGHTS.
WHY NOT JUST CLEAR IT UP ON THE FRONT SIDE AND QUIT WASTING OUR TAX DOLLAR ON IT? IT COSTS A LOT MORE IN COURT THAN IT COSTS SOMEBODY TO LOOK IT UP AND HOLD A PERMIT UNTIL THE PARTIES RESOLVE IT.
THAT'S A MUCH CHEAPER SOLUTION THAN GOING TO THE COURTS FOR TAXPAYERS ACROSS THIS CITY.
HOW MANY SUITS? THAT'S, THAT'LL BE MY THING IN FOUR.
SO, COMMISSIONER DEZA, GO AHEAD.
CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION.
UM, IF FOLKS HAVE NOT READ, THERE'S A, UM, REALLY GREAT RESEARCH DONE BY ELLIOT RE WHO WAS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, UM, HINDU, AND WHO HAD WORKED ON A REALLY GREAT, UH, BOARD CALLED AUSTIN RESTRICTED.
AND I QUOTE FROM THE REPORT, WHILE RACIAL COVENANTS STOOD AT THE CENTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE LAND USE CONTROLS, OTHER SEEMINGLY NON-RACIAL INFLECTED LIMITATIONS MAY HAVE PLAYED A GREATER ROLE IN INFLUENCING RESIDENTIAL GEOGRAPHIES BECAUSE OF THEIR LONGEVITY.
WHILE IT IS NOT COMPLETELY POSSIBLE TO SEPARATE AND ISOLATE THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT DEEDED RESTRICTIONS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THESE OTHER COVENANTS HAVE PROVIDED SIGNIFICANT BARRIERS OF ENTRY, ESPECIALLY FINANCIALLY TO THE RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY OF NON-WHITE MINORITIES.
NEARLY ALL OF AUSTIN'S NORTHWESTERN SIDE, WHICH DEVELOPED WITH RESTRICTED COVENANTS REMAINS OVERWHELMINGLY WHITE.
PERHAPS FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATES COULD POINT OUT THE POWER OF THESE GOVERNANCES TO PREVENT MORE INTEGRATED RESIDENTIAL HOUSING PATTERNS IN THE CITY.
AND ARGUE AS A RESEARCH IN THIS PAPER, HAS SUGGESTED THAT SUCH PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS ON LAND USE DO NOT ACT IN PLACE OF RACIALLY EXPLICIT GOVERNANCES TO SEGREGATE A CITY.
SO I, I UNDERSTAND, AGAIN, THE INTENTION BEHIND IT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT SORT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, BUT WE LIVE WITHIN STRUCTURES AND LEGACIES OF WHAT WE'VE INHERITED.
WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A HISTORY OF HOW EVEN OTHER COVENANTS THAT WERE NOT EXPLICITLY RACIALLY, UH, MOTIVATED, DID HAVE SOME VERY DISPARATE IMPACTS.
AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, THE FAIR HOUSING ACT IS A CHARGE SINCE 1968 FOR US TO AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING IN OUR NATION.
AND IT IS TRULY OBLIGED UPON OUR NATION THAT EVEN TODAY SITTING IN 2023, WE CAN SAY WE HAVE NOT LIVED UP TO THAT CHALLENGE.
WE HAVE NOT AFFIRMATIVELY, FURTHERED FAIR HOUSING.
SO TO TAKE A STEP IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, EVEN INADVERTENTLY WITHOUT THAT MOTIVATION, WOULD JUST BE HEARTBREAKING.
SO I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS.
ANY OTHERS? THIS OPPORTUNITY, UH, FOR SPEAKING FOR ONE MORE AGAINST, ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
UM, NO, THIS IS ON THE BASE ON BASE MOTION.
WE, WE, THE SUBSTITUTE GOT VOTED DOWN.
WE'RE ON THE BACK TO THE BASE MOTION WE'VE DONE FOR AND AGAINST.
AND SO NOW WE'RE GONNA GO AND VOTE.
AND SO I'M GONNA GO AND, UM, CALL THIS ONE.
LET'S GO AND SEE THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS, UH, AMENDMENT ON THE DICE.
THOSE IN OPPOSED ON THE DICE? 5, 6, 7.
AND, UH, THOSE ABSTAINING OR THE, I'M SORRY.
AND, AND VICE CHAIR? HEMPEL IS ABSTAINING.
SO THAT MOTION, I'M ABSTAINING.
[11:20:01]
TOO.UM, WHERE ARE WE IN THE ROUND ROBIN? ARE WE BACK? UM, CHAIR.
WE'RE ACTUALLY BACK TO MYSELF.
SO WE GOT, WE GOT HAYES CAUGHT UP TWO.
ARE WE GOING THROUGH ONE? SO WE WERE DOING ONE EACH.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES HAS ONE LEFT.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES HAS ONE LEFT.
UH, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS HAS ONE LEFT.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, 'CAUSE HE GOT, WE HAD ONE FROM HAYNES AT THE BEGINNING.
UM, SO THIS WOULD BE THE AZAR AMENDMENT, INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT SHEET.
THIS ONE HOPEFULLY SHOULD BE QUICK.
UM, SO THIS WOULD BE AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
AND THIS AMENDMENT SIMPLY SAYS, ENSURE THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THIS ORDINANCE IS 60 DAYS AFTER FINAL ADOPTION.
AND, UM, WE CAN OPEN UP TO QUESTIONS, ASK QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UH, YES.
JUST A CLARIFICATION QUESTION, AND I CAN ASK THIS OF THE MOTION MAKER, OR PERHAPS HAVE, UM, IT SEEMED LIKE IN OUR WORKING GROUP WHEN WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION, THAT THERE WOULD NEED TO BE SOME TIME IN ORDER TO JUST SORT OF GET THIS PROCESS SET UP SO THAT ALL OF THIS COULD MOVE FORWARD.
IS THAT THE INTENT OF THIS MOTION? UM, YES.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO A CONVERSATION WITH STAFF WHO VERY CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE 45 TO 60 DAYS TO ESSENTIALLY BE ABLE TO DO THE WORK THAT DSD NEEDS TO DO TO BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THIS.
UM, WE WOULD'VE NATURALLY BEEN ABLE TO DO SOME OF THAT WORK, BUT THIS IS GIVING THEM THAT SPACE TO REALLY BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT, UM, HOW TO IMPLEMENT THIS ORDINANCE.
SORRY, I JUST, AND JUST A FOLLOW UP QUESTION ON THAT, THE, THE INTENT WOULD NOT ACTUALLY BE TO DELAY THIS ADDITIONALLY OR ANYTHING ELSE, MORE JUST OF A PROCESS AND, YOU KNOW, UM, SORT OF ORGANIZATIONAL TIME, JUST TO BE CLEAR.
SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, WHAT, WHENEVER IT'S FINALLY ADOPTED BY COUNCIL, WHATEVER THAT DATE MIGHT BE FOR 60 DAYS AFTER THIS WOULD NOT BE EFFECTIVE.
SO ONLY 60 DAYS AFTER WOULD BE EFFECTIVE, WHICH, UH, STAFF CAN CORRECT ME WOULD BE THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ONLY AFTER 60 DAYS WOULD ANY POTENTIAL APPLICANTS BE ABLE TO PUT IN PERMITS, UH, TO UTILIZE THE HOME INITIATIVE.
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, UM, AND THIS MAY BE FOR DISCUSSION, BUT COMMISSIONER ZA, I HAVE ANOTHER POSTED ONE THAT DEALS WITH A SIMILAR TOPIC THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN, BUT IT IT WAS THREE.
WOULD YOU CAN, IT WAS, AND IT DEALS ABOUT WHEN WE TAKE UP PHASE TWO, IT WOULD DOVETAIL INTO THIS ONE.
I CAN CARRY IT ON MY OWN, BUT IF SO, PROCEDURALLY, ONCE, UM, THE QUESTIONS ARE DONE, YOU CAN DO A SUBSTITUTE AS WELL.
ONCE I'VE MADE A MOTION, I HAVEN'T MADE A MOTION YET.
SO NOW WE'RE JUST ON QUESTIONS.
OTHER QUESTIONS? Q AND A ANYMORE? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AND MOVE TO THE MOTION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO SET THE EFFECTIVE DATE AND ENSURE THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THIS ORDINANCE IS 60 DAYS AFTER FINAL ADOPTION.
I BELIEVE THERE IS A SUBSTITUTE FROM COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
AND SO I WOULD SAY THAT, UM, UH, THAT THE, UH, AND I DON'T HAVE IT IN, I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE, BUT ANYWAY, THE, UH, THE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL, UH, WOULD, WOULD, UH, ONLY TAKE UP PHASE TWO AFTER THE INITIAL ANNUAL REPORT, UH, FROM PHASE ONE WAS ISSUED AT 425 DAYS.
THAT'S 365 PLUS THE 60 OF THE IMPLEMENTATION.
SO A YEAR AFTER PHASE ONE GOES INTO EFFECTS IS, AND WE GET THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT IS WHEN WE WOULD TAKE UP PHASE TWO OF THE HOME.
UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, WOULD YOU MIND IF I JUST, OKAY.
I CAN, WELL, WHAT THE WORKING GROUP HAD CONSIDERED, I CAN READ IT, IF THAT HELPS IN CLARITY.
THIS WOULD BE A GENERAL AMENDMENT THAT SAYS DELAY PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF HOME PHASE TWO UNTIL AFTER THE EVALUATION OF THE DATA UNDER THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT.
AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS LINK THE, AFTER THE FIRST ANNUAL, SO I JUST ADDED 365 TO YOUR, UH, 60 DAYS TO GET 425 DAYS.
BUT I CAN ALSO DO IT AS A, A AFTER THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT.
I DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIFIC DAY.
YOU HAVE TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE.
CAN YOU PLEASE, UM, SUGGEST THE, UH, THE NUMBER OF DAYS AGAIN? SORRY.
UM, ALL I DID WAS ADD THREE SE WE CAN JUST SAY AFTER THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT, OR WE CAN SAY, UH, 425 DAYS, WHICH IS 60 DAYS, WHICH IS 365 ADDED TO YOUR 60 DAYS.
[11:25:01]
I WERE TO READ IT, SORT OF A COMBINED VERSION, UM, DOES THIS SOUND RIGHT TO YOU? YOU'RE SAYING DELAY PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF HOME PHASE TWO UNTIL AFTER THE EVALUATION OF THE DATA UNDER THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT, CREATING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, 425 DAYS AFTER ADOPTION.AND I CAN, AND YET THE MOTION HASN'T BEEN MADE.
THIS IS JUST QUESTIONS, SO IS JUST A QUESTION ON MY PART.
UM, AND OTHER QUESTIONS ARE OPEN RIGHT NOW.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, TAKE OFF THE LAST CON JUST, JUST SAY, AFTER THE ANNUAL REPORT, I DON'T NEED, YEAH.
EVERYBODY CLEAR? ANY MORE QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
LET'S, UH, SO, UH, DID WE GET A SECOND ON THIS? I'LL SECOND.
THAT'S SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COX.
SO WE HAVE A, UH, SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT'S, UH, MOTION BY, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COX, DELAY PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF HOME PHASE TWO UNTIL AFTER THE EVALUATION OF THE DATA UNDER THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS WAS A SUBSTITUTE TO YOURS.
'CAUSE IT REALLY YOU, YOU HAD A 60 DAY, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO.
YOURS IS STILL, YOU CAN ACTUALLY ACTUALLY COMBINE 'EM.
I, I WOULD SAY SINCE THEY'RE KIND OF, UM, RELATED TO EFFECTIVE DATE, I THINK LET'S JUST TREAT IT AS A SUBSTITUTE JUST FOR THE SAKE OF OKAY.
BUT THEN WE'RE GONNA LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACT ON THE 60 DAY.
I DON'T WANT IT TO PUT AWAY, AWAY.
REMINDER, IF THIS SUBSTITUTE FAILS, WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION MADE BY THIS.
THAT'S HOW, IF IT PASSES, THEN UM, THIS IS THE AMENDMENT THAT PASSES.
UH, SO THAT'S A CONSIDERATION CHAIR.
YEAH, I THINK I WOULD, I WOULD, DO YOU, WELL, MOTION MAKER.
DO YOU FEEL THIS IS AN AMENDMENT OR A SUBSTITUTE? UM, THIS WOULD BE A SUBSTITUTE.
I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS.
'CAUSE I DON'T THINK THIS ALIGNS WITH WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING.
JUST WANTED TO GO THROUGH THAT.
OH, WELL THEN, UM, I, I WAS TRYING TO BUILD IT ONTO YOUR, I DON'T, I DON'T WANT TO SUBSTITUTE, SUBSTITUTE FOR YOURS.
I WAS TRYING TO PUT IT ON, BECAUSE TO ME THEY WERE RELATED, BUT IF NOT, THEN ALRIGHT.
SO JUST IN TERMS OF PROCEDURE, SINCE THE SECOND HAS BEEN MADE, IF COMMISSIONER HAYNES WITHDRAWS, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY CONCERN WITH THE MOTION BEING WITHDRAWN? OKAY, SO THEN THAT IS WITHDRAWN AND WE GO BACK TO MY ORIGINAL AMENDMENT.
I'LL JUST PUT IT UP AS A, AS A STANDALONE.
I, I DIDN'T WANT, I DON'T WANNA KILL THOSE.
SO THEN, UH, WE'RE BACK AT MY AMENDMENT, WHICH SAYS, ENSURE THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THIS ORDINANCE IS 60 DAYS AFTER FINAL ADOPTION.
SO I'M GONNA MOVE THIS TO A VOTE.
FOLKS, CAN WE GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ITEM? UH, THOSE ON THE DSS IN FAVOR.
UH, SO WE'VE GOT AZAR, WHO'S NEXT IN THE ORDER? UM, COMMISSIONER COX.
DID YOU, I WOULD QUESTION THOSE, BUT THE, WAS IT DISTRIBUTED? DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED PREVIOUSLY OR IS THIS SOMETHING? NO, THIS IS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I ABOUT, SO THEN WE CAN'T GO TO YOU RIGHT NOW.
UM, SO WE NOW GO BACK TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES OTHER DISTRIBUTED ONE.
'CAUSE THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE FROM YOU, COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
AND THE, AND THEN WE GO TO COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, AND THEN WE GO TO ME, AND THEN WE'RE DONE WITH ALL THE PRE-APPROVED ONES.
AND THE, THE ONE THAT I, UH, THAT I WAS JUST DOING, UH, THAT WE WOULD, UH, UH, EVALUATE, UH, PHASE TWO AFTER WE GET THE DATA AND THE REPORT FROM, UH, THE ANNUAL REPORT, UH, THAT WE'VE ALREADY ADDED TO HOME ONE.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES AND MR. VERA.
CAN I CLARIFY, WAS THIS DISTRIBUTED PREVIOUSLY? UH, YES.
CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LAVAR? YES, IT WAS, UH, PROVIDED, UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS ALSO ONE THAT WAS PART OF THE, UM, WORKING GROUP THAT DID NOT MEET THE THRESHOLD OF BEING FAVORABLE.
SO COMMISSIONER HANS, CONTINUE.
AND SO THAT IT WOULD, UH, ONCE WE GET THAT DATA, UM, I'M, I'M SEARCHING FOR IT AGAIN SINCE IT DIDN'T GET INCLUDED.
SO IS THIS THE ONE WE JUST WENT THROUGH? NO, BUT I PULLED IT DOWN.
YEAH, I THINK WE, I THINK WE HEARD IT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO PUSH THINGS ALONG HERE.
WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER COX.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WE ANY QUESTIONS TO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DO YOU WANNA DEFER TO COMMISSIONER COX TO SPEAK TO THIS MOTION? OKAY.
WELL, NO, I JUST, I, I HAVE, I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL PRODUCTS THAT ARE GONNA BE BUILT UNDER WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED SO FAR.
AND SO I THINK HAVING AN EVAL, AN EVALUATION PRIOR TO ANY SORT OF SERIOUS CONSIDERATION, ADOPTION OF PHASE TWO WOULD ALLOW US TO MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS WE FEEL ARE NECESSARY TO GET THE RESIDENTIAL PRODUCTS WE WANT COMBINED WITH THE PHASE TWO CHANGES.
SO THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT IT'S VALUABLE TO HAVE, UH, SOME REAL WORLD FEEDBACK ON THE IMPACTS OF PHASE ONE.
BEFORE WE, BEFORE WE TAKE UP PHASE TWO.
[11:30:04]
SPEAKING IN FAVOR.UH, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ITEM.
UM, EVERYBODY CLEAR WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON? YES.
THOSE IN, UH, FAVOR OF THIS MOTION ON THE DICE.
LOOKING AT HANDS, GIMME ONE MOMENT.
ALRIGHT, SO THAT MOTION FAILS.
AND, AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, COMMISSIONER AL IS OFF THE DAIS.
NOW WE CAN MOVE TO COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, YOUR NEXT AMENDMENT.
I HAVE, UM, ONE AMENDMENT AND ONE RECOMMENDATION, SO I'M GONNA WRAP THEM UP TOGETHER.
UH, SO THE REMAINING AMENDMENT SAYS THE HOME INITIATIVE WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AUSTIN'S HISTORIC CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN TO ENSURE RACIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN HOW AUSTIN IMPLEMENTS THE HOME INITIATIVE ON COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND UNDERSERVED AUSTIN COMMUNITIES.
AND I'M WONDERING, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, BECAUSE OF TIME, IF YOU WANTED TO COMBINE THAT WITH THE REST OF YOUR POSTED AMENDMENTS, THAT MIGHT BE ADVANTAGEOUS SO WE COULD CONSIDER THOSE.
ARE THERE OTHERS? UM, A ACTUALLY I'VE DONE ALL EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE, AND THE OTHER ONE WAS JUST A RECOMMENDATION.
SO, I MEAN, I COULD JUST READ THE RECOMMENDATION THAT, UM, MIGHT SERVE JUST AS A RESOLUTION THAT COMES OUT OF THIS BODY IS, OH, OKAY.
IS THAT OKAY OR TO DO? WELL, YOU CAN TRY TO WRAP 'EM IN ONE AND WE CAN SPLIT IT.
ACTUALLY, JERRY, I FEEL LIKE YOU'VE GONE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT BOTH YOUR MEAN, ONE IS CLIMATE EQUITY, ONE IS AFFORDABILITY, SO, OKAY.
LET'S, UH, LET'S GET THROUGH THIS ONE.
UH, SO QUESTIONS ON AMENDMENT THREE.
AND I, UM, IF WE STILL HAVE CANDACE HUNTER, BOARD OF TRUSTEE, I DON'T KNOW IF SHE'S STILL WITH US, BUT, UH, THIS ONE DOES TOUCH ON AISD.
UM, JUST TO CLARIFY, I'M SO SORRY.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT IT? I, COMMISSIONER, UH, CHAIR.
OH, IS IT? I DIDN'T DO THE AISD CITY OF AUSTIN WHEN I WAS DOING THE CLIMATE EQUITY.
SO, CAN I READ, CAN I READ THIS AGAIN AND PLEASE TELL ME YES.
LOOK AT THE FEASIBILITY, UH, OF ALIGNING SLASH OVERLAYING AUSTIN'S HISTORIC CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN TO THE HOME INITIATIVE TO ENSURE RACIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN HOW AUSTIN IMPLEMENTS THE HOME INITIATIVE ON COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND UNDERSERVED AUSTIN COMMUNITIES.
YES, BUT I CHANGED THE LANGUAGE SLIGHTLY TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS UP STRONGER.
SO CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT THAT AGAIN? YES.
SO JUST SO POINT OF ORDER HERE.
UH, WE'RE NOT, OH, THERE IT IS.
SO THE HOME INITIATIVE WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AUSTIN'S HISTORIC CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN TO ENSURE RACIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN HOW AUSTIN IMPLEMENTS THE HOME INITIATIVE ON COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES.
I HELP WORK ON THE, WORKED ON THAT, UM, CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN AND DEEPLY FAMILIAR WITH IT.
AND IT'S CENTERED ON EQUITY BECAUSE IT, IT WAS, AND, AND ESPECIALLY IN UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES, BECAUSE THOSE WERE THE MOST VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES THAT HAD HISTORICALLY, UH, SUFFERED THE, UM, POLLUTION WHERE THINGS HAD BEEN LOCATED GEOGRAPHICALLY.
WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LANDFILLS, WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, BUS DEPOTS OR OTHER KINDS OF POLLUTING THINGS THAT, UH, AFFECT PEOPLE'S HEALTH.
AND BECAUSE OF THE ZONING OF THOSE COMMUNITIES, AND BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF GREEN SPACES AND THE LACK OF TREE COVER, THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN REALLY DRILLED DOWN ON THOSE FEATURES TO TRY TO PROVIDE THE SAME QUALITY OF LIFE AND CATCH THOSE COMMUNITIES UP WITH REGARDS TO THEIR, THEIR CLIMATE ISSUES, BUT ALSO THE MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL WELLNESS AND, UM, PHYSICAL HEALTH OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES THAT LIVE IN THOSE COMMUNITIES.
SO THIS IS MEANT TO, AND IN RESPONSE TO SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO CAME TO US AND TALKED ABOUT THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN IN PARTICULAR, AND ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL, UH,
[11:35:01]
PROTECTIONS THAT THEY ARE DESERVING IN THE SAME WAY THAT WEST DAWSON HAS, THE PROTECTIONS THAT WEST AUSTIN HAS UNDER SOS AND ANY OTHER KIND OF PLAN THAT LOOKS AT THE ENVIRONMENT.SO, I, I CAN DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THIS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX? CAN WE GO, ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO APPROVING THIS MOTION? ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE, THAT MOTION PASSES.
SO THIS WOULD BE MY LAST INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT THAT I HAD SUBMITTED EARLIER.
UM, THIS IS GENERAL RECOMMENDATION ON FLOOD RISK AND INSURANCE INFORMATION.
SO, BUILDING ON HONESTLY, THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM, UM, FOLKS LIKE, UH, MAGUIRE FROM ANC AND OTHERS STAFF SHOULD PROACTIVELY SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT FLOOD INSURANCE AND INFORMATION FROM FLOOD SMART.GOV WITH RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN AREAS DESIGNATED AT AS BEING AT FLOOD RISK INCLUDED, INCLUDING AREAS DESIGNATED IN THE ATLAS 14 STUDY.
SO, I'M NOT MAKING THE MOTION YET IF FOLKS HAVE QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS? I'LL, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION AND JUST DO, I'LL CHANGE ONE WORD, WHICH IS, I'LL START BY SAYING, THE CITY SHOULD PROACTIVELY SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT FLOOD INSURANCE AND INFORM INFORMATION FROM, UH, FLOODS SMARTT.GOV WITH RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN AREAS DESIGNATED AS BEING AT FLOOD RISK, INCLUDING S DESIGNATED IN THE ATLAS 14 STUDY.
SO, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER CONLEY, ANY ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS MOTION? I HAVE A, I HAVE A QUESTION GO.
UM, AND IT MIGHT BE FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER ZA.
IS YOUR, IS YOUR THOUGHT THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE CITY STAFF GO AND CHECK A GOVERNMENTAL WEBSITE AND THEN OH, NO.
UM, THIS WOULD BE LIKE SHARING, UH, WE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MISS AITA AND SHE WAS SAYING HOW WE CAN SHARE PROACTIVELY INFORMATION FOR FOLKS, UM, HOW TO GET FLOOD INSURANCE.
SO IF YOU GO TO, UH, ESSENTIALLY FLOOD SMARTT.GOV, WHICH, UH, YOU KNOW, HAS BEEN SET UP BY FEMA, YOU CAN LOOK AT CHEAPER ALTERNATIVES FOR FLOOD INSURANCE, WHY IT'S NECESSARY, WHETHER YOU SHOULD BE USING IT BECAUSE YOU'RE IN AREAS THAT ARE VULNERABLE.
SO IT'S MORE ABOUT PROACTIVELY SHARING INFORMATION WITH FOLKS TO UNDERSTAND IF THEY'RE IN FLOOD RISK.
BUT IS IT THE CITY THAT'S, THAT'S DOING, IS IT, IS IT INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE DOING IT, BUT IT'S CITY THAT'S, THIS WOULD BE THE CITY DOING SOME KIND OF INFORMATION SHARING OR CAMPAIGN? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A WEBPAGE OR WEBSITE OR IF IT'S A FLYERS.
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WAY FAR.
ARE THEY GONNA DO IT AS PART OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS, OR THEY GONNA NO, I WAS JUST, THIS IS A GENERAL AMENDMENT.
SO I CALLED IT GENERAL AMENDMENT ONLY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT SOMETHING SPECIFIC TO 25 DASH ONE.
UM, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY STAKEHOLDERS.
SO I'M TRYING TO RESPOND TO THAT.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR CAN WE, BUT, UH, ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT.
SO COMMISSIONER MOOCHER IS SHOWN IN OBJECTION.
SO WITH THAT, WE GO TO, UH, ROUND ROBIN.
'CAUSE I HAD MY RESOLUTION THAT WE DIDN'T POST DISPOSE OF.
YOU HAD FOUR AND MY LAST AMENDMENT.
SO THE GENERAL RECOMMENDATION THAT I WAS GONNA ASK THIS BODY TO DO IN A RESOLUTION, BECAUSE WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THIS AS WELL, IS THAT DIRECT STAFF TO LOOK AT THE ISSUE OF HOA AND RESTRICTED COVENANTS AND HOW THEY WORK OR IMPACT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOME INITIATIVE.
AND IF THE EXISTENCE OF HOA AND RESTRICTED COVENANTS, UM, OR, AND OTHER SUCH TOOLS OR LEGAL CONTRACTS CONTRIBUTE TO FURTHER FORCE RELOCATION, GENTRIFICATION OF COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND LOWER WEALTH NEIGHBORHOODS IN WHICH THOSE TOOLS GENERALLY DON'T EXIST.
AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK AND MODELING REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATION TO ASSESS THE REAL IMPACT OF THE HOME INITIATIVE ON UNDERSERVED AND BIPO COMMUNITIES.
AND THAT WOULD, COULD BE DONE EVEN AT THE TIME WHEN WE REEVALUATE, UM, OR WHEN WE EVALUATE, UM, PHASE ONE, JUST TO BRING BACK THAT AS A RESOLUTION.
AND IF IT, THERE'S SOME BETTER LANGUAGE THAT ANYONE WANTS TO OFFER, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE IT.
UH, SO, UH, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS GENERAL RECOMMENDATION? I, I'M CURIOUS, AND I'D LIKE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND, UM, KIND OF THE DISPARITIES IN ENFORCING ANY SORT OF DEEDED RESTRICTIONS THAT EXIST.
SO EVEN IF DEEDED RESTRICTIONS DO EXIST IN, IN OUR DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES, THE ASSUMPTION IS, IS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO ACTUALLY PROTECT THOSE PRIVATE AGREEMENTS, WHEREAS WEST AUSTIN DOES.
AND SO NOT ONLY COULD IT BE A DISPROPORTIONAL
[11:40:01]
IMPACT OF JUST THEM EXISTING, BUT THEN WHERE THEY DO EXIST, THERE COULD BE A DISPROPORTIONAL IMPACT ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE.AND SO I, I WOULD SUGGEST IF, IF YOU'RE WILLING TO EXPAND THAT TO INCLUDE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THOSE DISPARITIES, UH, WHERE THEY DO EXIST, IF, IF IN TERMS OF ENFORCING THEM, I'LL ACCEPT THAT LANGUAGE.
SO HOW, UM,
COMMISSIONER COHEN, CHAIR COHEN, UH, QUESTION FOR STAFF VERY, VERY QUICK.
IS THERE CURRENTLY ANY TOOL FOR TRACKING PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS? IF NOT, COULD THAT BE INCLUDED IN THE LANGUAGE? SO MAYBE WE COULD AND ROLL IT INTO THAT EVALUATION? 'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE AWESOME.
UH, STEPH, I THINK WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION EARLIER.
AND ANYWAY, STEPH CAN ANSWER, BUT I THINK THE ANSWER IS NO.
AND WE WERE TRYING TO, I THINK MR. HAYNES IS TRYING TO BUILD IN A TOOL AND WE, WE TURNED THAT DOWN, GOT DOWN ONE TO 12, BUT WE'LL SEE WHAT THIS ONE'S GONNA GET.
CHAIR COHEN, JUST SO SOUNDS CLEAR, PLEASE, IS THERE A TOOL FOR TRACKING PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS? NOT THAT WE ARE AWARE OF.
I MEAN, THERE HAVE BEEN ACADEMIC THERE, THERE ARE VARIOUS WAYS TO RESEARCH THEM, BUT, UM, THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE A SYSTEM.
IS THAT SOMETHING WE COULD WORK INTO THIS, OR IS THAT ASKING TOO MUCH? I THINK WE ALREADY ADDRESSED IT AND WE VERY SIMILARLY, AND I WOULD HATE TO HANG UP THIS AMENDMENT, UH, ON THAT 'CAUSE WE TURNED IT DOWN.
TIMING THIS, THIS IS A GOOD AMENDMENT, BUT I'M NOT THE MOTION MAKER.
SO, UH, SO ANYWAY, UH, LET'S, I'M TRYING TO PUSH THINGS ALONG HERE.
WE GOT ONE MORE PUBLISHED AMENDMENT I'D LOVE TO GET TO.
SO WE HAD THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.
I DON'T KNOW, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO INTEGRATE THAT INTO WHAT WAS I, I THINK THE EASIEST WAY WOULD JUST HAVE, UH, UH, ANOTHER SENTENCE TO THE END THAT JUST SAYS, UM, AND IN ADDITION, UNDERSTAND THE DISPARITIES IN OUR COMMUNITIES AND ENFORCEMENT OF THESE RESTRICTIONS, UM, BASED ON COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND LOWER WEALTH NEIGHBORHOODS, DISPARITIES AND ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS WHERE THEY EXIST IN OUR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND LOWER WEALTH NEIGHBORHOODS.
ALL RIGHT, NOW I'M LOOKING AT COMMISSIONER ZA WHO'S TRYING TO TYPE THIS.
UM, SO I THINK IF I HEARD CORRECTLY, AND HOPEFULLY YOU CAN CORRECT ME.
UM, I THINK WHAT I HEARD IS THAT IN ADDITION TO WHAT COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS HAD, WE WOULD SAY IN ADDITION, UNDERSTAND THE DISPARITY IN OUR COMMUNITIES ENFORCEMENT OF THESE RESTRICTIONS IN OUR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES.
SO, UM, DID WE, SO DID WE HAVE A SECOND? WE DID.
YOU SECONDED THIS, WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT, SO WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.
LET'S GO TO THE AMENDMENT FIRST.
WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THE AMENDMENT.
UH, ANY OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDMENT? ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE TO THE AMENDED BASE MOTION.
UM, ANY OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDED MOTION? DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO IT? NO, IT'S OKAY.
THAT MOTION PASSES AS AMENDED.
IS THIS, IS THIS PART OF THE PERMITING PROCESS WHERE THE CITY WILL LOOK AT THESE? OR IS THIS JUST A GENERAL NO.
PHASE BEFORE PHASE TWO? THIS JUST A GENERAL.
AND SHE HAS, I DON'T EVEN THINK SHE SAID PHASE TWO.
SO JUST, YEAH, WE PROBABLY, SO IT'S, I HAD RECOMMENDED THAT IT COULD BE DONE AS PART OF THAT ANNUAL EVALUATION THAT COMES AFTER PHASE ONE.
SO WE'RE JUST GONNA HAVE THE CITY GENERALLY LOOK AT PRIVATE CONTRACTS BETWEEN HOMEOWNER.
SO, UH, HEARING NO OBJECTIONS.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, WE HAVE ONE MORE FROM YOU THAT YOU HAD SHARED EARLIER.
UM, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THE QUESTION ON A FINAL VOTE AND END THIS PROCESS.
UM, BUT I NEED A MAJORITY VOTE TO CALL THE QUESTION AND END IT 11.
SO, UH, DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR CALLING THE QUESTION, MR. MAXWELL? OKAY.
SO, WHAT THIS MEANS IS WE'RE, WE NEED TO GO AND WRAP UP THE FINAL VOTE.
SO IF FOLKS WANT ME TO LET YOU KNOW, THE MOTION BEFORE US IS THE BASE MOTION AS PRESENTED BY STAFF AND AS
[11:45:01]
AMENDED WITH WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS, PULLED WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS AND INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS THAT WE ADDED INTO ME.SO WE'RE ESSENTIALLY APPROVING THE HOME ORDINANCE, UM, AS AMENDED.
AND, UM, ARE WE CLEAR? SO I WANNA GIVE A CHANCE, I KNOW YOU'RE GONNA HATE ME.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE CLOSING REMARKS? UH, JUST WITH THE HARD WORK WE'VE DONE HERE? I'M NOT, I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE FOLKS ALL THE WORK YOU'VE DONE.
DON'T, AND WE CAN EXTEND FOR A FEW MORE MINUTES, BUT I THINK I LIKE TO DO THAT WHEN A LOT OF FOLKS HAVE INVESTED A LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY.
DON'T WE HAVE TO VOTE ON CALLING THE QUESTION? YES.
I THOUGHT WE, IF THERE'S AN, I THOUGHT I HEARD NO OBJECTION.
SO WHO ELSE? LET'S ROLL IT BACK.
I WASN'T CLEAR CALLING THE QUESTION, WHICH MEANS WE'RE GONNA WRAP UP AFTER WE VOTE CHAIR, IF I CAN REPEAT.
SO WE, SINCE IT HAS BEEN CALLED, SO WE HAVE, UM, WE ARE BEING, THERE'S A QUESTION HAS BEEN CALLED, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A VOTE ON ALL OF THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE, UM, WITH THE BASE AMENDMENT AND ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS.
AND SO ESSENTIALLY AT THIS POINT, UM, WE WILL BE TAKING A VOTE ON THAT.
AND WE NEED NINE, UH, VOTES IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD AND THEN GET TO IT.
SO THIS IS JUST SAYING, DO WE PROCEED WITH CALLING THE QUESTION, WHICH IS THAT WE WOULD GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON OUR MOTION.
AND AGAIN, WE WOULD BE NEEDING NINE VOTES TO PROCEED.
BEFORE WE GO THERE, CAN I PLEASE MAKE A REQUEST THAT WE EXTEND THE MEETING TO 1115? SECOND.
SO THIS IS JUST ON, UM, NO OBJECTIONS TO THE EXTENSION.
EXTENSION TO THE TIME EXTENSION.
SO NOW WE'RE CALLING THE QUESTIONS.
SO ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO CALLING THE QUESTION? WHY IS CALLING THE QUESTION I OBJECT? THREE, THREE QUARTER.
IT'S TWO THIRDS, ISN'T IT, MR. RIVER? IT'S, IT'S A SUPER MAJORITY.
DOES CHAIR COMMENT, MR. SO I'VE GOT ONE MORE AMENDMENT I REALLY WANNA GET IN, SO I'M GONNA OBJECT.
QUICK, QUICK POINT OF PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.
DOES THAT MEAN THAT DEBATE IS COMPLETELY CLOSED ONCE THE QUESTION IS CALLED? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
BUT CAN, CAN WE STILL MAKE CLOSING COMMENTS BEFORE WE VOTE? YES, WE, YES.
WE'RE GONNA MAKE A VOTE AND THEN CLOSING COMMENTS BEFORE WE WE LEAVE.
JUST TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS FIRST.
SO ANY OBJECTIONS TO CALLING THE QUESTION? I SEE COMMISSIONER CUTS.
SO WE HAVE JUST TAKE A VOTE ON CALLING THE QUESTION CHAIR.
WE'RE READY TO CALL, TAKE A VOTE ON IT.
OH, I'M JUST NOTING THE OBJECTION AND THEN WE'RE DONE.
SO I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE GOING.
I ONLY SAW ONE OBJECTION LOOKING FOR MORE HANDS SO IT PASSES.
SO WE'VE CALLED THE QUESTION, NOW WE CAN MOVE TO THE VOTE.
DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION? SO THEN ESSENTIALLY NOW WE ARE AT THE, UM, WAIT, CAN WE WAIT FOR THAT? YEAH.
YEAH, I HAD A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
WHAT WAS YOUR OBJECTION BOARD? I HAVE ONE MORE AMENDMENT THAT I WANTED TO INCLUDE, BUT THAT'S FINE.
SINCE WE'RE, SO WE GOING TO ADJOURN AT 1115.
WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD LATE, WE, WE HAVE SEVERAL UNPOSTED AMENDMENTS.
'CAUSE WE ARE GETTING IT DONE TONIGHT.
SO I'M JUST, WE CAN, BUT THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
SO I'M JUST PUT, WE'RE TRYING TO WRAP THIS THING UP.
SO LET'S, UM, WE'RE GONNA, UH, HEARD ONE OBJECTION ANYMORE TO CALLING THE QUESTION.
WE HAVE AN OBJECTION NOTED BY COMMISSIONER COX.
NOW WE'RE GONNA MOVE TO THE VOTE.
SO AGAIN, THE MOTION IS THE BASE MOTION AS AMENDED, UH, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION SO FAR.
UH, SO LET'S GO AHEAD THIS, WE WILL TAKE A VOTE ON SHOW OF HANDS.
SO THOSE ON THE DAES IN FAVOR.
CAN WE NOT MAKE CLOSING REMARKS? SURE.
WE CAN SPEAK FOR AND AGAINST AND WE YES.
AND WE HAVE 15 MINUTES, SO WE'RE GOOD.
SO GOING FLOOR AGAINST, WE'LL GO.
EVERYBODY CAN HAVE A CHANCE IF THEY WANT.
IS THIS, ARE THESE JUST THE, IS THIS THIS A VOTE ON ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS OR ARE WE NOW DOWN TO THE BASE MOTION THAT AS AMENDED MOTION COMMISSIONER MR. WE ARE NOW AT THE BASE MOTION AS AMENDED.
SO THIS WILL BE OUR LAST VOTE OF THE EVENING, BUT WE'RE ALLOWING, THIS IS, WE'RE GONNA WRAP IN COMMENTARY TIME HERE.
PEOPLE CAN SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST.
UH, SO WE'LL START WITH I THINK COMMISSIONER COX.
I'LL START ON THE RIGHT AND WE'LL MOVE TO THE LEFT.
UM, BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE, WE DIDN'T GET THERE.
I, MY BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THAT THIS IS BAD POLICY RESULTING FROM BAD POLICY MAKING.
UM, I TRULY BELIEVE THAT THIS ENCOURAGES LARGER UNITS AT THE GREATER
[11:50:01]
FAR THAT WE, UH, THAN WE GET NOW.AND IT CREATES ECONOMIC MODELS THAT MAKE LARGER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES EVEN MORE VIABLE THAN THEY ARE NOW, WHICH IS NOT THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL HOME PROPOSAL.
I BELIEVE IT ENCOURAGES THE CONSTRUCTION OF GARAGES.
AND BASED ON FEEDBACK I GOT FROM ARCHITECTS YESTERDAY, IT'S OVER A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF EXEMPTED GARAGES THAT WE SOMEHOW MANAGE TO INCLUDE IN OUR AMENDMENTS.
IT DOESN'T PRODUCE REAL MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING THAT I DON'T SEE ANY INCENTIVES IN THIS WHATSOEVER THAT ACTUALLY PRODUCES REAL MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING.
AND WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING LIKE DUPLEXES AND TRIPLEXES ARE MORE AFFORDABLE.
AND THE DURABILITY OF THAT AFFORDABILITY LASTS LONGER.
I WISH WE WERE ABLE TO GET A REAL CONVERSATION AND REAL AMENDMENTS IN HERE TO GET REAL MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING.
AND THEN I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS THAT THIS SEEMINGLY WAS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY NEGOTIATED ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THIS BUILDING.
I DON'T REALLY KNOW OF ANY REAL STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH.
WE HAD, I THINK ONE OR TWO TOWN HALLS.
A TOWN HALL WAS NOT STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH.
IT WAS NOT COLLABORATIVE POLICY, UH, PLANNING.
AND THE BIGGEST ISSUE I HAVE IS THAT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THIS BECAUSE STAFF WASN'T EVEN GIVEN A MANDATE TO PRODUCE A RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE SUCH AN ABSENCE OF INFORMATION TO WORK FROM IN DEVELOPING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE THIS WAS NEGOTIATED ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THIS BUILDING WITH NO OTHER COLLABORATIVE PROCESS WITH THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY THAT I'M AWARE OF.
SO I THINK COUNCIL STILL HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THIS RIGHT.
I HOPE THAT THEY TAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY, THIS PLANNING COMMISSION UNFORTUNATELY DID NOT TAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY.
UM, MAYBE PHASE TWO WILL BE A MORE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS THAT I CAN SUPPORT.
BUT HOME PHASE ONE IN ITS CURRENT FRANKENSTEIN EDITION THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO VOTE ON IS NOT SOMETHING I CAN SUPPORT.
WE'LL JUST MOVE, UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY, DO YOU WANNA MAKE STATEMENTS? I DO.
UH, FOR AGAINST, I GUESS WE'RE MOVING DOWN THAT WAY.
UM, I THINK SOME OF THE, UH, CONCERNS AND CRITIQUES, UH, THAT MY, UH, FELLOW COMMISSIONER TO THE RIGHT, UM, HAS, UH, RAISED, UM, ARE, ARE VALID.
UM, I THINK FOLKS WHO KNOW ME, KNOW THE WORK I DO IN THE COMMUNITY, UM, UH, KNOW THAT I TOO SHARE, UM, A NUMBER OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE WAY DECISION MAKING AND POLICY MAKING IS HAPPENING IN THE CITY RIGHT NOW.
UM, THERE IS IN FACT, UM, A LACK OF TRANSPARENCY, A LACK OF CLEAR COMMUNICATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS.
AND I DO THINK THAT ALL OF OUR POLICYMAKING CITYWIDE COULD BENEFIT, UM, FROM A LOT MORE OF THAT.
HAVING SAID THAT, THIS SMALL BUT MEANINGFUL, UM, CHANGE TO THE CODE, UM, IS NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS HAPPENED IN A VACUUM.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS HAPPENED OUT OF THE BLUE.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS EMERGED OUT OF A PROCESS OF OVER A DECADE, UM, LONGER THAN A DECADE, GOING BACK TO THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MULTIPLE FAILED ATTEMPTS AT A COMPREHENSIVE CODE REWRITE, UM, AND MANY LAWSUITS THAT HAVE BLOCKED US FROM REALLY DOING THE KIND OF TRULY COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO LAND USE CHANGE THAT WE NEED IN THIS CITY.
UM, SO I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THERE IS STILL VERY MUCH A NEED TO LOOK AT THE LAND CODE HOLISTICALLY.
HOME PICKS A SMALL PIECE OF THAT.
IT PROVIDES MEANINGFUL CHANGE AND THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT IT.
UM, AND I ALSO WANT TO THANK, UM, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, UM, AND PARTICULARLY COMMISSIONER AZAR, UM, WHO CHAIRED THE WORKING GROUP THAT PUT IN SO MANY HOURS OF WORK AND TIME, LISTENING TO STAFF, TALKING TO STAKEHOLDERS, MEETING WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO, TO TRY TO MAKE THIS AS GOOD AS IT CAN BE.
AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE ALL ARE AWARE THAT WE NEED PHASE TWO, THAT SO MUCH OF THE MEAT OF HOME WILL BE IN FACT IN PHASE TWO.
AND THAT THIS IS FAR FROM THE END OF THE CONVERSATION.
I THINK THERE HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF HYPERBOLE, UM, IN SOME OF THE LANGUAGE BOTH FOR AND AGAINST THIS.
I THINK THIS IS MEANINGFUL, BUT IT IS NOT GOING TO BE A SILVER BULLET.
BUT I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS TODAY.
OKAY, COMM COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, THANK YOU CHAIR AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ZA.
I'M SITTING NEXT TO GREATNESS AND THEN IN THIS SEAT IS NORMALLY WHERE COUNCIL MEMBER POOL SITS.
I'M ALSO FEELING GREAT VIBES RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.
I REALLY APPRECIATE HER AND HER COLLEAGUES BRINGING THIS ITEM FORWARD.
UM, BY NO MEANS IS THIS A PANACEA.
I THINK WE'RE ALL QUITE CLEAR ON THAT.
BUT IT ALLOWS THREE HOMES, ONE ADDITIONAL HOME ON ALL THESE LOTS IN AUSTIN THAT WE NOW LIMIT TO TWO HOMES.
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF AUSTINITES CAN'T AFFORD THOSE HOMES, THOSE LIMITATIONS ARE GOING TO GET A LITTLE BIT LESS LIMITING TO THE NUMBER OF
[11:55:01]
FAMILIES AND THE AMOUNT OF INCOME EARNERS WHO CAN AFFORD TO LIVE THERE.AND THAT'S A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
SO IT SEEMS TO ME EVERY TIME WE HAVE A CHANCE TO TAKE THOSE LITTLE STEPS, WE GOTTA TAKE 'EM.
AND I'M REALLY EXCITED TO SUPPORT THIS AND I'D LIKE TO TALK FOR ANOTHER FIVE HOURS ABOUT HOW GREAT THIS ITEM IS.
BUT THANK YOU ALL FOR WORKING ON THIS AND MAKING IT BETTER THAN WHAT WE RECEIVED.
ALRIGHT, WE'RE GONNA LET, UH, COMMISSIONER ITAR GO LAST, KIND OF WRAP IT UP.
SO GO AND COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UM, YEAH, I HAVE SO MANY EMOTIONS TO SHARE, PARTIALLY BECAUSE I'M GOING THROUGH THE WORKING GROUP.
UM, I THINK THAT IS WHO I'D LIKE TO START WITH MY THANK YOUS BECAUSE, UH, WE DID SPEND A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TIME ON ZOOM LAST WEEK AS A BODY AND I THINK ACCOMPLISHED SOME REALLY GREAT WORK, WHICH IS THE BASIS OF HOW WE GOT TO THESE AMENDMENTS.
SO I WANNA THANK MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WHO WERE IN THE WORKING GROUP AND ALL OF YOU AS YOU SUFFERED THROUGH THESE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS AND WHERE WE'VE ENDED UP.
AND I THINK THERE ARE SO MANY GREAT THINGS ABOUT WHAT WE ARE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED AND WHAT WE ARE NOW BRINGING FORWARD TO COUNCIL.
AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD SO MUCH TO HOPEFULLY ON DECEMBER 7TH, SEEING THIS GO FORWARD.
AND I DO, OF COURSE, WANNA THANK COMMISSIONER, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER POOLE FOR AND HER OFFICE FOR REALLY CHAMPIONING THIS AND MAKE THIS PROCESS AS TRANSPARENT AND STRAIGHTFORWARD AS POSSIBLE, GIVEN THE MANY, MANY ASPECTS OF THIS.
AND I WANNA SAY THERE ARE ONE THING, THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT WE HAVE OVERLOOKED, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UNITS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT OCCUP OCCUPANCY LIMITS IN TINY HOMES.
AND THOSE ARE EXCITING, EXCITING THINGS FOR OUR CITY.
I WANT TINY HOMES EVERYWHERE IN THE CITY.
AND I, I'M MAKE, I'M GONNA MAKE SHIRTS
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER WOODS.
I FEEL THAT SO MUCH HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT THIS ALREADY AND I'M AFRAID TO SAY TOO MUCH RIGHT NOW.
'CAUSE I FEAR I WILL NOT BE VERY ELOQUENT AT THIS HOUR.
UM, BUT I REALLY WANNA THANK STAFF AND MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND PARTICULARLY COMMISSIONERS ARE FOR, UM, OUR WORK ON THIS.
AND THANK COUNCIL MEMBER POOLE FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
FEEL REALLY STRONGLY THAT THIS CHANGES US, AN IMPORTANT STEP FORWARD IN AUSTIN THAT WILL ALLOW FOR A GREATER DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TYPES AND MANY ADDITIONAL HOUSING UNITS, WHICH WE DESPERATELY NEED.
SO I'M VERY EXCITED TO BE SUPPORTING THIS CHANGE.
COMMISSIONER HAYS, DITTO ON, UH, MY MAN COMMISSIONER CZAR AND THE LEADERSHIP HE PROVIDED.
AND THANK Y'ALL FOR THE RIDE
I WANNA THANK, UM, ALL THE COMMISSIONERS AND COMMISSIONERS ARE, AND THE CITY STAFF.
AND I WANT TO KIND OF ECHO SOME OF WHAT COMMISSIONER COX SAID ABOUT THE PROCESS.
AND I HAD, WHEN WE STARTED THIS JOURNEY, I POINTED OUT THAT THIS PROCESS WAS NOT VERY WELCOMING FOR PEOPLE OF COLOR, PEOPLE WHO LOOK LIKE ME, PEOPLE WITH MY LIVED EXPERIENCE BECAUSE OF HOW IT WAS PUT TOGETHER AND WHERE IT WAS HELD, AND THE FACT THAT WE WEREN'T TAKING THESE CONVERSATIONS TO THE COMMUNITY.
AND SO I STILL FEEL LIKE THE CONVERSATIONS WERE NOT TAKEN A APPRO, UH, UH, UH, WERE NOT TAKEN ENOUGH WELL AT ALL TO THE COMMUNITIES BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO REACH PEOPLE WHERE THEY LIVE.
AND SO I'M HOPING AS THIS GOES FORWARD, EVEN TO COUNCIL, THAT THEY WILL CONSIDER MAKING SURE THAT THEY ARE BEING INCLUSIVE AND NOT EXCLUSIVE BECAUSE WE ARE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEY ARE THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THEY HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT ALL THE CITIZENS AND ALL THE RESIDENTS IN AUSTIN.
NOT JUST THE WELL-HEELED, NOT JUST THE WELL-RESOURCED, BUT ALL.
AND LASTLY, I WANNA SAY THAT I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING AMENDMENTS TO WRITE IN BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE INTO THE HOME INITIATIVE, BUT THOSE AMENDMENTS WILL MEAN NOTHING.
AND WE WILL GET NO AFFORDABILITY IF THEY ARE NOT IMPLEMENTED, IF THEY JUST BECOME WORDS ON THE PAPER.
SO I WOULD ASK AND PLEAD AND BEG JUST AS FOLKS WHO CAME HERE DID THAT THESE THINGS BECOME REALITY, SO THAT WE ARE NOT FACING THE THIRD FORCED RELOCATION OF BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE IN THIS CITY OVER ANOTHER LAND USE PLAN.
UH, GOING TO, SO I'M GONNA LET THE OFFICERS, UH, KIND OF, UM, CLOSE THIS OUT.
SO WE'LL START WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, AND THEN GO TO COMMISSIONER MOOCH.
I, I, I FEEL HONORED TO BE A PART OF THIS GROUP.
I, I TELL YOU FOLKS, I, I MEAN, I GO TO CONFERENCES AROUND THE COUNTRY TO TALK ABOUT HOUSING AND OTHER THINGS, AND I TELL YOU WHAT I MEAN, IT, THIS, THESE CONVERSATIONS RIVAL ANY OTHER CONVERSATIONS I HAVE.
[12:00:01]
I KNOW THAT WE'RE BEING PART ABOUT SOME OF WHAT HASN'T HAPPENED AS IT RELATES TO BEING INCLUSIVE.BUT I TELL YOU WHAT, US IS MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
I FEEL GREAT ABOUT BEING A PART OF THIS.
SO I THINK WE'LL ONLY GET BETTER.
I MEAN, THERE'S A, THERE'S A LARGE ANIMAL THAT WE'RE TACKLING AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT SOMETIMES FEELS A LITTLE PIECEMEAL SO OF WHAT WE'RE DOING, BUT IT'S, IT'S GONNA MAKE AN EFFORT, IT'S GONNA MAKE A CHANGE.
AND ULTIMATELY, UH, WE'LL SEE THESE CHANGES COME TO FRUITION.
SO LET'S FEEL GREAT ABOUT WHAT WE'VE DONE AND CONTINUE TO PUSH THE ENVELOPE.
SO THANK YOU ALL FOR ALL THE WORK, AND, UH, THANK YOU FOR BEING GREAT LEADERS.
UH, NOW WE'LL MOVE TO COMMISSIONER MUSH.
I DON'T THINK IT WILL BE A SURPRISE THAT I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS.
UM, WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT, FROM OUR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, WE'VE HEARD A LOT FROM PHD ENVIRONMENTALIST.
WE'VE HEARD A LOT FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT WAS LEFT OUT.
UM, THIS WAS NOT THE DIRECTION THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT OPENING UP HOUSING AND ZONING.
WE'VE HAD OTHER CONVERSATIONS ABOUT REDUCING LOT SIZES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THIS DOESN'T LAY OUT A PLAN WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND A CLEAR PATH FOR THE DESIRED OUTCOMES.
AND I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT IT WILL CONTINUE TO DISENFRANCHISE AND MARGINALIZE FURTHER AND VICTIMIZE FURTHER, UM, GROUPS THAT HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS IN THE PAST.
AND VERY CONCERNED THAT AREAS OF OUR CITY THAT ARE AT RISK HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BE FURTHER AT RISK.
UM, AND I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT THE WAY IT'S BEING LAID OUT RIGHT NOW DRIVES IT SO THAT THE ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IS REALLY GOING TO BE VERY LIMITED TO, TO THOSE WITH THE POCKETBOOKS.
AND I, I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE WE'RE GOING TO GET THE, THE FAMILY COMMUNITIES THAT, THAT WE'RE HOPING FOR.
AND I'M NOT SURE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET THE KIND OF MIDDLE HOUSING THAT WE NEED.
THIS ISN'T LENDING ITSELF TO OWNERSHIP AND PERMANENCE AND STABILITY FOR FAMILIES THAT NEED THAT.
UM, AND ARE LOOKING FOR THAT TO BE CLOSE IN THE CITY AND WORK IN OUR CITY AND LIVE IN OUR CITY.
I THINK THERE WERE ELEMENTS HERE THAT REALLY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO FLY.
BUT I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF PITFALLS.
I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE HOUSING OCCUPANCY STUFF.
I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HUMAN TRAFFICKING, SEX TRAFFICKING, AND SOME OF OUR RESIDENTS HERE WHO MAY NOT EVEN BE LEGAL AND WILL FALL VICTIM TO THINGS THAT ARE NOT PROTECTED HERE.
I STRONGLY URGE COUNSEL TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THAT.
UM, I'M, I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS CHAIR.
CAN I, UM, MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO 1130 TO ALLOW EVERYONE A TIME TO SPEAK.
ANY OBJECTION, SECOND HEARING? NO OBJECTIONS WILL CONTINUE.
AND NEXT I'LL RECOGNIZE, UM, OUR SECRETARY, UM, COMMISSIONER RETA RAMIREZ.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I, UM, I APPRECIATED ALL THE PEOPLE THAT CAME OUT.
IT WAS, I DIDN'T EVEN STAY FOR THE FIRST, UM, SESSION, BUT THERE WERE SO MANY PEOPLE AND THE PEOPLE THAT SENT US EMAILS AND THE CORRESPONDENCE AND MY, UH, CONVERSATION I HAD WITH FOLKS FROM ANCI LEARNED A LOT.
I WAS ABLE TO APPLY SOME OF THAT DURING THE CONVERSATION AND THE, THE DEBATE NEGOTIATIONS, ET CETERA.
AND I HOPE THAT THEY CONTINUE TO REACH OUT TO THEIR COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CONTINUE TO PUSH FOR ANY CHANGES.
AS WE'VE HEARD, THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, THERE CAN ALWAYS BE IMPROVEMENTS.
I THINK WE GOT AS CLOSE AS WE COULD WITH THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WE HAVE.
UM, AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN KEEP MAKING IT AS GOOD AS WE CAN SO THAT IT CAN GET PASSED QUICKLY.
UH, I NEED A BIG APOLOGY TO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
BECAUSE, UH, YOU'RE, HE IS OUR SECRETARY.
UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
UH, SO NEXT TIME I'M GONNA MOVE TO VICE CHAIR HEMPEL.
UM, I WANNA THANK THE WORKING GROUP.
YOU GUYS ARE ROCK STARS, ESPECIALLY COMMISSIONER AZAR.
UM, REALLY FANTASTIC JOB IN USHERING THROUGH ALL OF THESE IDEAS.
UM, AND I'M REALLY HUMBLED TO HAVE BEEN PART OF THE FIRST JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN THE CITY'S HISTORY.
UM, SO WE MIGHT BE SEEING MORE OF THAT WITH SOME RECENT RULINGS.
I DON'T LOVE THAT WE HAD TO DO THIS PIECEMEAL LIKE THIS.
WE'VE TRIED TO DO IT HOLISTICALLY, UM, THAT FAILED TWICE.
UM, SO THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.
UM, AND I WILL BE PROUDLY SUPPORTING THESE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE PEOPLE THAT I EMPLOY WHO CANNOT BUY HOMES NOW HAVE, THERE'S JUST NO WAY FOR THEM TO DO THAT, UM, AND STAY IN AUSTIN.
SO IT REALLY, UH, IS A THREAT TO MY BUSINESS AND WHAT
[12:05:01]
WE DO.UM, I'M DOING THIS, GONNA VOTE YES FOR MY DAUGHTER, FOR MY NIECE, NIECES AND NEPHEW THAT LIVE IN DISTRICT TWO AND HOPES THAT THEY CAN POSSIBLY STAY HERE, UM, ONCE THEY GRADUATE.
I THINK THERE'S, WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT SURE.
PEOPLE THAT ARE IN AUSTIN NOW AND MAYBE HAVEN'T FOUND THEIR PLACE HERE YET.
WE HEARD FROM ALL THE STUDENTS THAT WANNA STAY HERE BUT CAN'T.
SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE CAN DO.
SURE, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT WILL PROBABLY NEED TO BE, GET FIXED AFTER THESE, UM, ARE IMPLEMENTED.
UM, BUT I START SOMEWHERE AND WE CAN'T MAKE THE PERFECT ENEMY OF THE GOOD.
SO I'LL BE VOTING YES, THANK YOU.
AND I'LL LET, UH, COMMISSIONER AZAR AS A WORKING GROUP, UH, CHAIR, UM, UH, GO LESS.
SO, FIRST OF ALL, I WANNA, AS MANY OF RECOGNIZE HERE, UM, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER POOLE, I THINK WE NEED TO THE INTENTION, 'CAUSE I SEE SO MUCH OUT THERE AND I THINK THEY HAVE IT SO WRONG.
I MEAN, THERE'S A GENUINE INTENT HERE.
IF YOU, YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT HAS A SHIFT, UH, A SHIFT IN, YOU KNOW, THEY SEE SOMETHING AROUND THEM, THEY SHIFT AND THEY RECOGNIZE THAT THEY NEED TO DO SOMETHING AND THEY ARE IN A POSITION OF POWER TO DO IT.
AND SHE'S BROUGHT THIS TO THE COMMUNITY FOR DEBATE AND, YOU KNOW, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, I THANK YOU.
I THANK COMMISSIONER ZA FOR YOUR HARD WORK AND LEADERSHIP, WONDERFUL JOB.
AND WHAT YOU DO ON THE DAIS IS AMAZING.
WE ALL BENEFIT, UH, FROM YOUR WRITING SKILLS AND YOUR THINKING SKILLS.
BUT REALLY GIVE THE COMMISSIONER, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER POOL CREDIT.
'CAUSE UM, THIS, YOU DON'T SEE THIS EVERY DAY.
PEOPLE GET FIXED IN THEIR BELIEFS AND THEY NEVER CHANGE.
AND THERE'S POWER IN BEING ABLE TO SEE AND REALIZE THAT YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
WE ADDED 19, WE'RE WHAT, FIVE DECADES? WE'RE A 10TH LARGEST CITY WITH STARTING TO FEEL LIKE I'M SPEAKING LIKE COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
WE HAVE A LAND CODE THAT'S 50 YEARS OLD, FOLKS, THAT'S, THAT'S GOTTA ALARM YOU.
YOU CAN'T BE THE 10TH LARGEST CITY AND DEPEND ON THAT FOR YOUR NEEDS WITHIN THE CITY.
WE WERE, IT'S, CAN WE AT LEAST AGREE ON THAT, THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE THE LAND CODE IN SOME WAY.
WE WEREN'T ABLE TO HANDLE, YOU KNOW, MANAGE THE BIG THING.
WE TRIED AGAIN, COULDN'T GET ANY MOVEMENT ON IT.
SO WE'RE TRYING IT INCREMENTALLY.
SO LOOK FORWARD TO MORE OF THESE, UH, CODE AMENDMENTS AND WORKING WITH FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
UH, I THINK WHAT IS POWERFUL HERE IS I LIKE THE TONE.
YES, THERE'S, WE DIDN'T GET OUR WAY ALL THE TIME, BUT WE RESPECT EACH OTHER.
AND WHAT I LIKE IS I THINK WE CAN MOVE FORWARD IN THE FUTURE AND STILL WORK GOOD AS A TEAM.
'CAUSE IF WE START GETTING DIVIDED, WE'RE NOT GONNA ACCOMPLISH MUCH AT ALL.
I'VE BEEN THERE ON THIS COMMISSION, IT DOESN'T FEEL GOOD.
YOU DON'T GET TO A PLACE WHERE YOU CAN BE EFFECTIVE.
SO PLEASE CONTINUE TO WORK TOGETHER.
AND, UM, I THINK THAT'S MY ASK HERE IS WE CAN DO GOOD THINGS FOR THE CITY WORKING TOGETHER.
UM, HONESTLY, IF I, I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S KIND WORDS AND I DO WANNA THANK YOU ALL AND DEFINITELY MY WORKING GROUP MEMBERS AND STAFF AND OUR STAKEHOLDERS WHO'VE ENGAGED IN THIS PROCESS.
UM, I OF COURSE WANNA THANK COUNCIL MEMBER POOLE AS WELL FOR BRINGING THIS ITEM FORWARD AND BRINGING FORTH THE CONVERSATION THAT HONESTLY, UM, A LOT OF FOLKS FOR HAVING FOR A DECADE AND MORE, RIGHT? SO THIS IS A VERY OLD CONVERSATION IN SOME WAYS, BUT A VERY NEW CONVERSATION FOR A LOT OF FOLKS AS WELL.
AND WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
I THINK FOLKS MIGHT KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN I FIRST CAME TO THE CITY, UM, I WAS AN INTERN AT HOUSING WORKS HOSTED, AND I LOOKED AT DATA AROUND OWNERSHIP AND ACCESS TO OWNERSHIP.
AND AT THE TIME WE TALKED ABOUT HOW FOLKS, UM, AT ESSENTIALLY, UM, LOW 80% MFI COULD NOT GAIN ACCESS TO OWNERSHIP.
SO WE WERE TALKING ABOUT GAINING ACCESS TO THEM.
AND THEN OVER THE YEARS WE'VE SEEN THAT INCH TO 90% AND A HUNDRED PERCENT, 110%, 120%.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOLKS WHO EARNED SIX DIGITS IN THIS CITY WHO CANNOT ACCESS OWNERSHIP OR WHO CANNOT AGE IN PLACE, OR WHO CANNOT DECIDE TO STAY IN THEIR COMMUNITIES OR LIVE IN HOUSEHOLDS WITH THEIR PARENTS OR THEIR CHILDREN.
YES, I THINK WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THE IMPACT THAT IT CAN MA MAKE ON OUR COMMUNITY.
AND I WILL ALWAYS FIGHT FOR THAT.
BUT WE ALSO TALK ABOUT MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE WHO ALSO NEED THEM.
[12:10:01]
ELIGIBLE FOR HOUSING SUBSIDIES, BUT ALSO MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE IT INTO OUR MARKET.HOW DO WE KEEP THOSE PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY AS WELL? AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT AND WE SHOULD BE PROUD.
I REALLY HOPE THAT TODAY FOLKS ARE PROUD OF THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT RACIAL EQUITY, AFFORDABILITY, FLOOD RISK, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUSTAINABILITY, HISTORIC PRESERVATION, DESIGN STANDARDS, YOU NAME IT.
WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF THE WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO COLLECTIVELY HERE.
AND I WOULD SAY THIS IS DEMOCRACY AT ITS MESSIEST, BUT IT'S ALSO AT ITS MOST BEAUTIFUL.
I COME FROM PAKISTAN, FOLKS DON'T GET EVEN THIS DEGREE OF VOICE IN THE PROCESS, LET ALONE PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO CAN ENGAGE IN IT.
SO REALLY WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS SOMETHING THAT I REALLY HOPE CAN HELP OUR COMMUNITY MOVE PAST THE IMPASSE THAT WE'VE HAD FOR NEARLY A DECADE TO REALLY ENGAGE IN THIS PROCESS AND REALLY WORK FOR A SINGULAR VISION FOR OUR COMMUNITY WHERE WE WANT EVERYONE TO BE INCLUDED.
ALL APPLAUSE FOR, SO I DON'T WANNA FORGET THAT.
SO ANYWAY, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UM, TAKE, UM,
ALL RIGHT, UH, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE BASE MOTION AS AMENDED ON THE DAAS.
UH, LET'S SEE YOUR HANDS GOING ALL THE WAY.
OKAY, THOSE ON IN FAVOR VIRTUALLY.
AND THOSE OPPOSED ON THE DAAS AND THOSE OPPOSED VIRTUAL.
SO THAT, UH, HELP ME WITH THE COUNT HERE.
WE GOT EVERYTHING THAT'S 11 TO TWO, SO THAT MOTION PASSES.
AND, UH, ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO ADJOURNING THIS MEETING?