[00:00:03]
[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]
A QUORUM PRESENT.WE HAVE OUR VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS ONLINE.
I NOW CALL THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER AT 6:11 PM SO FIRST WE'LL TAKE ROLL CALL.
PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR PRESENCE WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME AND WE'LL GO IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER, LIKE IN THE AGENDA.
UM, NOT HERE YET, BUT I HEAR HE IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT LATE.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL IS ABSENT THIS EVENING.
I ALSO WANT TO RECOGNIZE OUR EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS THAT ARE PRESENT TONIGHT.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CHAIR JESSICA COHEN AND A ISD BOARD OF TRUSTEE CANDACE HUNTER.
UM, ALSO, MR. RIVERA SERVES AS AN EX-OFFICIO AND I ASK THAT IT BE REFLECTED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSPARENCY AND SOVEREIGNTY OF THE COMMISSION.
SO TONIGHT WE ARE WELCOMING OUR NEW COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.
SO COMMISSIONER SI SKIDMORE, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS.
THANK YOU, CHAIR OF THANK YOU OF WELL, I'M DANIELLE SKIDMORE, AND THIS IS, I JUST REALIZED IT'S MY 30TH YEAR LIVING IN AUSTIN OF 27 YEARS IN CENTRAL AUSTIN.
AND THE LAST 15 YEARS I'VE LIVED DOWNTOWN A FEW BLOCKS AWAY.
UH, PROFESSIONALLY, I'M A CIVIL ENGINEER WORKING TRANSPORTATION AND WATER RESOURCES FOR PUBLIC SECTOR CLIENTS.
I'VE DONE THAT, UH, AGAIN FOR 30 YEARS OF PERSONALLY, I'M A SPECIAL NEEDS PARENT TO, UH, A YOUNG MAN NAMED PETER.
AND, UH, I SPEND MY TIME WHEN I'M NOT WORKING AND HELPING TO, HELPING AUSTIN TO GROW IN A MORE SUSTAINABLE, EQUITABLE WAY OF HANGING OUT WITH PETER, MAKING SURE HE LIVES LARGE HERE IN OUR GREAT CITY.
I AM REALLY HAPPY TO SERVE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION THIS EVENING AND TO WORK WITH YOU AND THE WHOLE CITY.
SO, PER USUAL, TONIGHT'S MEETING WILL BE HYBRID, ALLOWING FOR A VIRTUAL QUORUM AS LONG AS THE COMMISSIONER SERVING AS CHAIRS IN AS PRESENT IN CHAMBERS.
SO AS SUCH, WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS HERE IN CHAMBERS AND ONLINE.
SIMILARLY, SPEAKERS CAN PRESENT FROM THE CHAMBERS OR PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS.
JUST REMEMBER TO HAVE YOUR, UM, GREEN, YELLOW, AND RED TO VOTE AND REMEMBER TO SEND YOUR SIGN IN SHEET TO, UM, MR. RIVERA PER THE CLERK'S GUIDELINES.
IF YOU ARE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, YOU WILL RECEIVE AN EMAIL PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION TAKING UP YOUR ITEM ITEM.
SPEAKERS CAN DONATE TIME, BOTH THE SPEAKER DONATING TIME AND THE SPEAKER RECIPIENT MUST BE PRESENT IN PERSON WHEN THE ITEM IS CONSIDERED.
UM, THOSE ONLINE, YOU KNOW THIS ALREADY, BUT PLEASE REMAIN MUTED WHEN YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING AND RAISE YOUR HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED.
AND WE STILL, UH, DON'T HAVE THE SCREENS RIGHT IN FRONT OF US QUITE YET.
SO PLEASE BE PATIENT WITH ME IF I HAVE TO SQUINT TO SEE YOUR VOTE.
UM, IF I MISS YOU, UM, AND YOU'RE TRYING TO SPEAK ONLINE, JUST VERBALLY LET ME KNOW.
UM, OUR, UH, BIWEEKLY REMINDER FROM, UH, ABOUT, UH, COMMENTING WITH, UM, WHEN THE SUBJECT IS GERMANE.
SO WITH RESPECT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ZONING, I REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS THAT ASIDE FROM OUR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, THE APPLICANT ELECTING TO INCLUDE OR NOT INCLUDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS IS NOT PART OF A ZONING OR REZONING REQUIREMENTS.
[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION]
DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK TODAY? THANK YOU, CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LADIES LIAISON, AND RIVERA.SO, YES, WE HAVE, UH, MS. NEL FREEMAN, MIKE KANATI, AND SANTIAGO IF ALL THREE CAN MAKE THEIR WAY.
AND THEN MS. UH, FREEMAN WILL BEGIN WITH THREE MINUTES, FOLLOWED BY MR. KANATI, FOLLOWED BY SANTIAGO.
I'M A REALTOR WITH UNITED REAL ESTATE AUSTIN.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MY 94-YEAR-OLD CLIENT, MS. ROBBIE JONES, WHO IS A RETIRED A ISD TEACHER.
MS. JONES OWNS A HALF ACRE PROPERTY THAT BORDERS SOUTH HIGHWAY 180 3.
IT HAS BEEN IN HER FAMILY SINCE 1955.
[00:05:01]
AS ONE ACRE AND TEX STOCK HAS ACQUIRED A PORTION TO EXPAND THE HIGHWAY BETWEEN 1959 AND 1964.MS. JONES WOULD LIKE TO PETITION THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP ON HER BEHALF.
IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE STAFF PREVIOUSLY MISIDENTIFIED THE HALF ACRE TRACK AS RIGHT OF WAY.
THIS LED TO AN INAPPROPRIATE LAND USE DE DESIGNATION DURING THE MLK 180 3 FUTURE LAND USE MAP PLACEMENT.
MY CLIENT IS REQUESTING THAT THE COMMISSION DIRECT STAFF TO RECTIFY THIS, ENABLING THEM TO PROCEED WITH THE ZONING CHANGE FROM INTERIM RURAL RESIDENTS TO COMMERCIAL WITHOUT ADDITIONAL BURDEN.
CURRENT STAFF HAS EXPRESSED THAT THEY WOULD NOT AC OPPOSE THIS REQUEST.
MS. JONES HAS EXPLAINED THAT SHE WOULD BE MOST GRATEFUL FOR ASSISTING HER TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER.
WHEN I HEAR FROM MR. KTI CHAIR, HEMPFIELD PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, UM, WELCOME COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.
I'M JUST HERE TO GIVE A SHORT STATEMENT OF GRATITUDE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPROVING THE, UH, BARTON SPRINGS BATHHOUSE REHABILITATION PROJECT.
IT IS NOW UNDERWAY AND IF WE COULD JUST CLICK THROUGH.
I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THE GROUNDBREAKING CEREMONY HAPPENED THIS PAST THURSDAY, UH, AND WE WERE, UH, IT WAS REALLY AN OP, A WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY FOR THE FRIENDS AND SUPPORTERS TO CELEBRATE THE LAUNCH OF THIS PROJECT.
AFTER ABOUT EIGHT YEARS OF WORK GETTING IT STARTED, THIS WILL BOTH REHABILITATE THE BATHHOUSE FACILITY AND IMPROVE THE VISITOR EDUCATION EXPERIENCE AS VISITORS COME TO THE POOL.
UH, THIS WAS A COMMUNITY-WIDE VISION FOR RENOVATING THE PLACE.
AND I WANT TO COMMEND THE CITY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, ALL FOR REALLY GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND THE TYPICAL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ON THIS PROJECT.
UH, WE LAUNCHED THIS CAMPAIGN IN 2014 AND WE QUICKLY LEARNED THAT GRATITUDE CHANGES EVERYTHING WHEN ALL OF THESE PRIVATE DONORS SHOWED UP TO SHOW THEIR LOVE FOR BARTON SPRINGS CONTRIBUTING OVER $3 MILLION TO THE PROJECT.
I JUST WANTED TO THANK THE COMMISSIONER AGAIN FOR APPROVING.
I THINK THERE WAS SOME SOS AMENDMENTS THAT WERE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT.
AND I WILL STOP THERE AND, UH, LET YOU GET ON TO YOUR REGULAR BUSINESS.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. SANTIAGO CHAIR.
THAT CONCLUDES THE, UH, PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
THE MINUTES.THE FIRST ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 23RD.
THE FEBRUARY 13TH MEETING MEETING MINUTES WILL BE POSTPONED UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY EDITS TO THOSE MINUTES? OKAY, HEARING NONE THOSE EDITS ARE, OR THE HEARING NINE WILL, UM, THOSE MINUTES WILL BE ADDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[Consent Agenda]
OUR FIRST ACTIVITY TODAY IS TO VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.ITEMS THAT ARE CONSENT APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL, POSTPONEMENTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, OR NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS. PLEASE NOTE THAT ANY AGENDA ITEMS THAT ARE POSTPONED TO THE APRIL 23RD MEETING DATE, THAT MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 4:00 PM COMMISSIONER CZAR WILL READ THE, THE PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA AND IDENTIFY THOSE THAT ARE CONSENT POSTPONEMENT AND NON-DISCUSSION AND COMMISSIONERS.
AS A REMINDER, YOU ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST CONSENT ITEMS TO BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
I'LL GO OVER OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS HERE.
SO THIS IS, UM, I NUMBER TWO PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 2023 DASH 0 0 1 4 0 4 4 3 0 2 KNUCKLES CROSSING DISTRICT TWO.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 9TH.
ITEM NUMBER THREE IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 2 5 0 1 57 25 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90 EASTBOUND DISTRICT EIGHT.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR AN APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS ALSO PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 0 5 0 2 600 CAMP DISTRICT THREE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.
I'M NUMBER FIVE IS ALSO A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 5 0 1 OP FAIRWAY MIXED USE DISTRICT THREE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 26TH I SIX IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 2 3 0 3 H 6 3 0 4 MAIN ROAD DISTRICT FOUR.
ASSIGNMENT IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.
I NUMBER SEVEN IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 9 2.
UH, UH, 0 0 2 9 0.02 HUMANE SOCIETY OF AUSTRIAN, TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT FOUR.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.
I NUMBER EIGHT IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 4 3 7300 METRO CENTER DISTRICT TWO.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT.
[00:10:01]
UH, FOR THE SAME CASE C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 9 3 7300 METRO CENTER DISTRICT TWO.THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION I NUMBER 10 IS A REZONING.
THIS IS, UM, C 14 DASH 2023 DASH EIGHT ZERO ANDERSON SQUARE, DISTRICT FOUR.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 9TH.
UM, I, NUMBER 11 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT.
THIS IS NPA DASH 2023 DASH ZERO 7.01 ANDERSON SQUARE, DISTRICT FOUR.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 9TH.
ITEM NUMBER 12 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 24 WESTLAND AT 12TH STREET DISTRICT NINE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT.
I'M NUMBER 13, IS ALSO A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH DASH 0 1 3 8 AND FIELD DISTRICT 10.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT.
I NUMBER 14 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 10 12 30 EAST 38TH AND HALF STREET DISTRICT NINE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 12TH.
I NUMBER 15 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 2 9 PINNACLE PLAZA DISTRICT ONE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 12TH.
THIS IS C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 4 17 25 TO ME, DISTRICT NINE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT.
I NUMBER 17 C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 4 7 1911 WILLOW CREEK DRIVE, DISTRICT E THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 26TH.
I NUMBER 18 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 48 3 8 0 5 RED RIVER DISTRICT NINE.
I NUMBER 19 IS A REZONING AS WELL.
C 14 DASH 2023 DASH THREE THREE.
THIS IS 55 55 NORTH LAMAR REZONING DISTRICT FOUR.
I NUMBER 20 IS REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 54.
THIS IS 81 20 RESEARCH BOULEVARD, A A LI DISTRICT FOUR.
ITEM NUMBER 21 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 85 DASH 2 88 6 RCA TWO.
THIS IS FOR SUNSET RIDGE DISTRICT EIGHT.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT.
UH, THIS IS IN, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONED REQUEST WAS TO APPLE NINTH.
APPLICANT IS IN AGREEMENT TO MARCH 12TH.
UM, AND SO WE WILL BE MARCH 26TH.
ARE WE DOING THIS? IT'S, YEAH.
SO ON CONSENT, THIS ITEM GOES FOR, UM, POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 26TH.
THIS IS AGAIN, ITEM NUMBER 21 I NUMBER 22 REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 5 6 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90, DISTRICT EIGHT.
ITEM NUMBER 23 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 9 4 MERRILL DISTRICT FIVE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.
ITEM NUMBER 24 IS HISTORIC ZONING, C 14 H DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 47 JOHNSON AND JOHNSON GROCERY AND HOME DISTRICT THREE.
I NUMBER 25 IS HISTORIC ZONING AS WELL.
C 14 H DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 45 YANKTON MOREHOUSE, DISTRICT NINE.
I NUMBER 26 IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SPC DASH 2023 DASH 0 3 4 1 A.
PINS MECHANICAL CUP DISTRICT THREE.
I NUMBER 27 IS ALSO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SPC DASH 2023 DASH 0 4 0 6 A YOGA P SCHOOL EAST DISTRICT ONE.
I NUMBER 28 IS A SITE PLAN SP DASH 2022 DASH 0 5 3 6 C KRAMER CONDOS.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 12TH.
I NUMBER 29 IS AN LDC AMENDMENT.
UM, C 20 DASH 2023 DASH 0 4 1 AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TITLE 25 RELATING TO THE NORTH BERNARD GATEWAY REGULATING PLAN DISTRICT SEVEN.
I NUMBER 30 IS ALSO AN LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2023 DASH ZERO THREE, BUT TRAIL AMENDMENTS, THAT ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT.
AND THEN FINALLY, UH, ITEM NUMBER 31, WHICH IS AN LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 1 ONSITE WATER REUSE.
THIS ITEM IS ALSO UP FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT.
UM, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS NEED TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS ON THE AGENDA? I'M NOTING THAT I'LL BE ABSTAINING FROM ITEM NUMBER.
ITEM NUMBER 30 SINCE I AM ON THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY AS THE BOARD CHAIR.
AND THIS ITEM RELATES TO THE BUTLER TRAIL.
ANY OTHERS? UM, MR. RIVERA, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS TO REQUEST ITEMS TO BE PULLED? CHAIR COMMISSIONER LEES ON EVERY I DO NOT, NO.
DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA CHAIR? YES.
IS IT POSSIBLE AT ALL FOR ME TO ASK JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT ON ITEM 12, THE WEST LINN AT 12TH STREET CASE? IF MR. THROWER IS HERE, I JUST WAS HOPING TO ASK HIM ONE QUICK QUESTION AND
[00:15:01]
THEN HOPEFULLY LEAVE IT ON CONSENT.SO WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS SIGNED UP ON THAT ONE, WHICH IS WHY IT'S PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? YES, SURE.
I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE TIME, BUT I'LL MAKE THIS VERY QUICK TODAY.
I JUST WANTED TO, UM, HIGHLIGHT, UH, WE HAVE A CASE TONIGHT FOR HISTORIC ZONING FOR 3 8 0 5 RED RIVER STREET IN THE WORK THAT PRESERVATION AUSTIN HAS DONE IN PRESERVING THAT LANDMARK AND ENSURING THAT WE CONTINUE TO ENJOY IT AND SEE IT IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO THANK THEM FOR THEIR EFFORTS.
UH, ON, UH, ITEM 29, I DO NOT WANT TO PULL IT OFF.
UM, IF IT WERE UP FOR DISCUSSION, I WOULD ULTIMATELY END UP VOTING FOR IT, BUT, UM, UH, I WILL NOT LET IT PASS WITHOUT, UH, COMMENT, UH, YET AGAIN.
UH, ONE MORE COMMISSION MEETING.
ONE MORE DEAL IN THE WORKS FOR, UH, THE NORTH BERNARD GATEWAY.
IT, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE OUR SECOND DOWN.
IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE OUR SECOND DOWNTOWN.
IT IS VITAL TO THE SUCCESS OF AUSTIN AS WE GO FORWARD.
AND IT IS THE DUTY OF THIS PLANNING COMMISSION TO PLAN IN COM IN TOTO, THE NORTH BURN GATEWAY.
YET EVERY WEEK WE COME WITH ANOTHER DEAL THAT IS BEING MADE.
IT'S TU UM, AND THERE'S A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT, WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE AUTHORITY TO ZONE UNIVERSITY LAND.
ANYWAY, NOT, NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT.
AND I APPRECIATE THE FOLKS AT, AT THE UNIVERSITY AND I APPRECIATE THE FOLKS, UM, UM, WORKING WITH WORKING, UH, TO COME UP WITH AN AMICABLE UH, SOLUTION.
BUT WE KEEP DOING THESE ONE-OFFS FOR OUR SECOND DOWNTOWN.
AND AS I WORK WITH CITY STAFF, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, THIS IS THE 10TH SUB-DISTRICT WE ARE CREATING IN THIS, IN THIS AREA IN DOWNTOWN.
WE HAVE TWO SUB-DISTRICTS, AND NOW WE HAVE 10.
WE KEEP PIECEMEALING THIS TOGETHER AND PRETTY SOON IT'S GONNA BE MORE CUMBERSOME TO BUILD IN THE DOMAIN AND Q2 AND THE AREAS ASSOCIATED THAN IT IS ANYWHERE IN THE CITY.
YET EVERY DIRECTIVE WE GET FROM THE COUNCIL, EVERY DIRECTIVE WE GET FROM ADVOCATES IS TO MAKE OUR PLANNING PROCESS AND MAKE OUR ZONING PROCESS EASIER TO UNDERSTAND AND LESS COMPLICATED.
AND WE'RE ADDING YET A 10TH SUB-DISTRICT TO OUR DOWNTOWN.
WE'VE GOTTA STOP MAKING PRIVATE DEALS IN PRIVATE OFFICES AND ZONE THIS AREA, GET IT DONE, AND GET A PLAN OUT THERE AND BE A PLANNING COMMISSION AND PLAN FOR THE COMPLETE AND, AND UNIVERSAL AND, AND HOPEFULLY UNIFORM, UM, UH, AMENDMENTS ACROSS THE ENTIRE DISTRICT.
THANKS SO MUCH COMMISSIONER HAYES.
SO, POINT OF CLARIFICATION, PLEASE.
'CAUSE, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, SAID THAT WE, THAT HE GETS THAT WE DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY TO ZONE UNIVERSITY PROPERTY.
BUT THAT'S NOT MY UNDERSTANDING.
CAN WE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE DO HAVE AUTHORITY TO ZONE STATE PROPERTY THAT FALLS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.
IS THAT, IS MY UNDERSTANDING INCORRECT MADAM CHAIR SINCE I MAY, THERE IT, IT'S A, I DON'T KNOW IF LEGAL'S HERE, BUT, UM, I'M, ANYWAY, UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S AN OPEN QUESTION.
THE CITY SAYS WE DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY.
BETTER, BETTER PERSON TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
GOOD EVENING, JORGE
IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN IT COMES TO STATE PROPERTY, IF IT'S USED FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES THAT ARE NON UNIVERSITY RELATED, THERE IS THE ABILITY FOR THE CITY TO APPLY ZONING JURISDICTIONS TO THOSE SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES.
WHEN THERE ARE UNIVERSITY RELATED ACTIVITIES, ZONING DOES NOT APPLY TO THOSE ACTIVITIES.
DID THAT HELP CLARIFY YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? OKAY.
UNLESS THERE'S OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA IN THE MINUTES? OKAY.
MOTION BY VICE CHAIR, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? COMMISSIONER COX.
[00:20:01]
OKAY.COMMISSIONER MUHAS OFF THE DIOCESE.
WE DO HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF DISCUSSION CASES TONIGHT.
SO I PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO OUR RULES.
UM, WE'LL HAVE A QUESTION AND ANSWER ROUND ROBIN INSTEAD OF OUR USUAL EIGHT COMMISSIONERS AT FIVE MINUTES EACH.
I'M PROPOSING FIVE MEMBERS AT THREE MINUTES EACH.
AND THEN DURING THE DEBATE, SPEAKING FOR AND AGAINST THE PRIMARIES WOULD GET TWO MINUTES EACH WITH THE SECOND AND THIRD SPEAKING FOR AND AGAINST ONE MINUTE EACH.
SO IT'LL HELP US SAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.
UM, IF THERE'S A, A MOTION AND A SECOND, UM, WE'LL JUST TAKE A VOTE ON THAT.
I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO CHANGE OUR RULES TONIGHT BASED ON WHAT I JUST SAID.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, MADAM CHAIR? IS THERE A DISCUSSION? UM, SURE.
UM, OTHER THAN THE LENGTH OF THE AGENDA AND I I WILL ADMIT IT LOOKS LONG.
UM, IS THERE A REASON THAT WE WOULD LIMIT PUBLIC DEBATE AND PUBLIC QUESTIONS TONIGHT? NO.
I MEAN, WE'RE LOOKING AT MIDNIGHT ALREADY.
CAN I, CAN I PROPOSE AN, AN AMENDMENT THAT WE, WE ACCEPT THE LIMITATIONS ON THE SPEAKING TIME FOR THE MOTION, BUT DO NOT LIMIT THE QUESTION TIME.
I COULD SUPPORT IT IF WE MADE THAT CHANGE.
JUST KNOW THAT WE CAN ALWAYS VOTE TO EXTEND THE QUESTIONS IF WE FIND THAT WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF SPACES.
UH, BUT YOU CAN STILL MAKE THAT MOTION AS A SUBSTITUTE.
I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION AS A SUBSTITUTE THERE A SECOND.
UM, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT COMMISSIONER COX? NO, I JUST THINK IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE GET ALL OF OUR ANSWERS, UH, ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
AND I'VE HEARD MANY TIMES WE CAN ALWAYS EXTEND, WE CAN ALWAYS EXTEND AND, AND, UH, SOMETIMES WE DON'T.
SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO KEEP THAT OPEN CHAIR CAN CLARIFY SOMETHING.
SO, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, ARE YOU SAYING EIGHT MEMBERS AT THREE MINUTES OR EIGHT MEMBERS AT FIVE MINUTES? EIGHT AT FIVE FOR THE QUESTIONING, WHICH IS OUR STANDARD, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
BUT THEN, UH, WHAT CHAIR HEMPEL HAD INDICATED FOR REDUCING THE TIME FOR SPEAKERS ON MOTIONS? SO EIGHT AT FIVE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON, UM, COMMISSIONER COX'S MOTION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? UM, COMMISSIONER MOELLER? I CAN'T TELL WHAT COLOR THAT IS.
COMMISSIONER HOWARD, WHAT WAS YOUR VOTE? OKAY, 2, 3, 4.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, WERE YOU? FOUR? OKAY, SO THAT'S FIVE.
UM, WE'LL GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL OF, UH, FIVE MEMBERS AT THREE WITH, UH, SHORTENED SPEAKING FOR AND AGAINST ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
OKAY, THAT PASSES NINE TO TWO.
[Items 8 & 9]
TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.MR. RIVERA, ARE YOU GOING TO MC OUR SPEAKERS? THANK YOU CHAIR.
I WILL FOR YOUR, WELL FIRST HEAR FROM STAFF AND OUR FIRST, UM, ITEM THIS EVENING IS, UM, SEVEN 300 METRO CENTER.
UH, IT'S A NPA AND A REZONING.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 23 0 0 1 4 0.0 3 7 3 0 0 METRO CENTER DRIVE WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA.
THE REQUEST IS A CHANGE TO FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM INDUSTRY TO MIXED USE LAND USE.
IT IS NOT RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
WE DID NOT RECEIVE A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION FROM THE SOUTHEAST COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM.
THE BASIS FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WE DO NOT SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND
[00:25:01]
USE MAP FROM INDUSTRY TO MIXED USE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 280 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE MCKINNEY JOBS CENTER WHERE RESIDENTIAL USES ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE DOMINANT INDUSTRIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA.INDUSTRIAL LAND USES SHOULD BE PRESERVED TO PROVIDE MUCH NEEDED SPACE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, WAREHOUSE MANUFACTURING, AND BLUE COLLAR JOBS.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER NINE ON YOUR AGENDA.
CASE NUMBER C 14 20 23 0 9 3 7300 METRO CENTER.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 70 7300 METRO CENTER DRIVE.
IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED LINP AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING L-I-P-D-A AND P.
THE SUBJECT REZONING AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 9.6 ACRES AND IS UNDEVELOPED.
THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED JUST SOUTH OF EAST BEND, WHITE BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF METRO METROPOLITAN, UH, DRIVE AND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE MCKINNEY JOB CENTER.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO L-I-P-D-A AND P DISTRICT ZONING FOR A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT THAT WILL INCLUDE 280 RENTAL UNITS WITH 441 PARKING SPACES AND 62 BICYCLE SPACES.
THE METRO CENTER DRIVE RIGHT OF WAY WILL BE EXTENDED TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR L-I-P-D-A AND P COMBINING DISTRICT SINCE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN AN IMAGINE AUSTIN JOBS CENTER WHERE THE DOMINANT CHARACTER, CHARACTER OF THE AREA IS INDUSTRIAL AND GENERALLY DOES NOT SUPPORT RESIDENTIAL USES.
THE SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SUPPORTS MAINTAINING THE INDUSTRIAL USES AND ENCOURAGES NEW INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES, WHICH WILL ALLOW SPACE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.
UM, I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
AND, UH, PLEASE NOTE, UH, IN YOUR INBOX YOU WILL FIND A, UH, EMAIL I AM SENDING YOU IN REGARDS TO THIS ITEM FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M LEAH BOJO WITH RENER GROUP HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, SO WE ARE, I WILL TRY NOT TO REPEAT WHAT MAUREEN DESCRIBED.
IS THIS THE, IS THIS THE RIGHT? OKAY, THAT SOUNDS GREAT.
UH, I'LL TRY TO, TO BE EFFICIENT WITH YOUR TIME.
SO THIS IS THE PROPERTY, UM, HERE OUTLINED IN BLUE.
UM, I'M SO SORRY, I THINK THIS ISN'T THE RIGHT PRESENTATION.
SO, UM, DO YOU THINK COULD YOU HELP? IS DID YOU GET ONE EARLIER TODAY? UM, OKAY, SO, UM, THE PROP.
OKAY, SO HERE'S THE PROPERTY AND I APOLOGIZE.
UM, AND THE REASON THIS IS IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THERE THAT THE SITE, SO, SO IT'S A LITTLE, IT'S AN A PRETTY UNDEVELOPED AREA.
YOU CAN SEE WHERE METRO CENTER DRIVE IS CURRENTLY BUILT, WHERE THE YELLOW LINE IS.
UM, AND THEN IT WILL, THAT IS DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY ADJACENT TO OUR PROPERTY.
SO RIGHT OF THE METRO CENTER DRIVE WILL HAVE TO BE BUILT ACROSS OUR PROPERTY.
SO THAT WOULD BE OUR ACCESS POINT.
AND THEN I WANTED YOU TO ALSO SEE THAT THERE IS, THAT THE TOP PART OF THE SITE IS ALREADY DEDICATED AS A PARKLAND EASEMENT.
SO IT'S ABOUT A 10 ACRE, UM, PARKLAND EASEMENT THERE TO THE NORTH OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN ALSO IMPORTANTLY TO THE SOUTH.
THERE YOU CAN SEE THE FUTURE, UM, STROM SPUR TRAIL, UM, WHICH IS PLANNED TO BE CREATE, UH, CONSTRUCTION IS GONNA BEGIN IN FALL OF 2025.
SO THE COMPLETION OF THAT WORK WILL BE HAPPENING SIMULTANEOUS WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE APARTMENTS IF THIS APPLICATION IS APPROVED.
UM, SO I, I SAY ALL OF THAT TO SET THE CONTEXT FOR THE SITE IS NOT REALLY, UM, AN, I WOULDN'T CALL IT REALLY AN INDUSTRIAL AREA.
I WOULD CALL IT, UM, AN AREA IN TRANSITION.
UM, THERE ARE SOME, THERE ARE SOME INDUSTRIAL SITES NEARBY, BUT THEY'RE GENERALLY COMMERCIAL USES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN CS.
THIS IS NOT REALLY, UM, THE KIND OF SITE THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT AN INDUSTRIAL AREA TO INCLUDE.
SO HERE YOU CAN ALSO SEE THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, TO THE WEST, THERE IS, UM, CSMU AND THERE'S ACTUALLY A PERMITTED PROJECT.
IF IT HASN'T BROKEN GROUND YET, IT'S ABOUT TO, UM, ADJACENT TO THE WEST.
YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE MF FORESIGHT, UM, TO THE NORTH.
THERE, THERE ARE ALSO HOTELS, FOR EXAMPLE, ALONG, UM, BEN WHITE THERE.
AND YOU CAN, UM, ON THE M ON THE LI SITE ON TO THE
[00:30:01]
WEST OF THE MF FOUR OR TO THE CS SITE ON THE WEST TO THE WEST OF THE M THE MF FOUR SITE.THERE ARE ALSO, UM, TWO VERTICAL MIXED USE BUILDINGS THAT ARE IN PERMITTING RIGHT NOW.
SO, UM, THIS IS A, AN AREA THAT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY HAS BEEN ZONED ALIVE FOR A LONG TIME, BUT IT IS NOT, UM, DEVELOPED WITH INDUSTRIAL USES.
AND IN FACT, THE PARCEL THAT WE'RE HERE ASKING TO RE TO REZONE, UM, HAS BEEN ZONED LI SINCE 1985 AND HAS BEEN VACANT THE WHOLE TIME.
UM, SO I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THIS SITE, FOR WHATEVER REASON, IS NOT, UM, A DESIRABLE, UM, LI OR EVEN COMMERCIAL SITE.
SO WE ARE ASKING FOR L-I-P-D-A.
UM, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE HEIGHT, THE, WE'RE KEEPING THE 60 FEET AND WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE FAR, WE'RE KEEPING THE ONE-TO-ONE.
WE'RE DOING WHAT I THINK Y'ALL SEE A LOT OF THE TIME, WHICH IS WE'RE ADDING MULTIFAMILY USES, UM, WITH MF FOUR SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS.
AND THEN WE'RE REMOVING, UM, THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES, UM, OUT OF IT THAT ARE PERMITTED TODAY, EVEN WITH THAT ADJACENCY TO PERMITTED AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION MULTIFAMILY.
UM, HERE IS A, A BIGGER MAP OF THE BERKSHIRE SPUR TRAIL.
UM, I I, I WANNA POINT THIS OUT BECAUSE THIS, AND YOU CAN SEE THE STAR OF WHERE WE'RE, WHERE OUR SITE IS LOCATED.
THIS TRAIL IS, UM, A, AN AMAZING PROJECT FOR SOUTH AUSTIN.
IT'S A SIX AND A HALF MILE LENGTH THAT IS GONNA CONNECT OTHERWISE, UM, SORT OF ISOLATED AREAS, UM, TO ALL KINDS OF USES, AMENITIES, JOBS, THE AIRPORT.
UM, IT'S PRETTY INCREDIBLE AND IT IS, UM, IT GOES WITHIN A SHORT DISTANCE.
I'M HAPPY TO GO BACK TO THAT SITE IF YOU'D LIKE OF THE SITE.
UM, I WOULD, I WOULD NOT KNOW WHY WE WOULDN'T WANNA PUT RESIDENTS WITHIN THIS ADJACENCY TO THIS SITE.
I MEAN, THIS IS AN EXCELLENT, THIS IS GONNA BE AN AMAZING CHANGE FOR SOUTH AUSTIN.
UM, SO THIS IS JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFICS ABOUT WHERE, HOW THE TRAIL IS GOING TO BE BUILT AND WHERE, UM, SO YOU CAN SEE HERE SOME OF THE USES, LIKE ONE OF THOSE LI USES THAT IS DEVELOPED, FOR EXAMPLE, IS AN INSURANCE OFFICE.
UM, OUR, OUR SITE IS JUST TO THE NORTH THERE.
UM, WE'VE ALREADY TALKED WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE CONNECTION FROM WHAT WILL BE METRO CENTER DRIVE THROUGH THE, THE EASTERN SIDE OF OUR SITE, AND THEN TO THE END OF THE BOTTOM CORNER OF OUR SITE.
AND THEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, WORK WITH THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS THERE TO CONNECT, GET A CONNECTION ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE BERGSTROM TRAIL.
SO AGAIN, WE WILL BE, WHILE WE'RE NOT EXACTLY ADJACENT, WE WILL BE, UM, ACCESSIBLE TO THE TRAIL.
UM, THESE ARE ALL OF THE SITES THAT HAVE RESIDENTIAL USES EITHER, UM, THEY'RE EITHER IN THE ZONING, THEY'RE UNDER PER, THEY'RE UNDER IN PERMITTING OR THEY HAVE APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS.
SO, UM, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF RESIDENTIAL ALREADY IN THIS AREA, UM, AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE, THE ONES, UM, OUTLINED IN RED.
UM, AND THEN THIS IS A MAP OF THE JOB CENTER THAT WAS REFERENCED BY STAFF.
UM, SO IT'S THE MCKINNEY CENTER, IT, THIS IS THE IMAGINE FROM THE IMAGINE AUSTIN PLAN.
IT'S VERY LARGE AS YOU CAN SEE HERE.
UM, YOU CAN SEE WHERE OUR SITE IS LOCATED.
IT'S, UM, I DON'T, I FIND IT HARD TO IMAGINE THAT WE WOULD SAY WE DON'T WANT ANY NEW RESIDENTIAL IN THIS ENTIRE AREA.
UM, THIS IS A, FIRST OF ALL, IT'S A HUGE PART OF THE CITY.
UM, IT'S OBVIOUSLY CO IT, IT, IT COVERS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE CITY THAT I THINK WE WOULD WANNA USE TO ABSORB RESIDENTIAL USES.
AND THEN WE ALSO, I THINK, WOULDN'T WANNA SET AN AREA LIKE THIS, UM, OFF LIMITS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL.
I'LL JUST, THIS IS THE LAST ONE ACTUALLY.
SO THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM DID EMAIL JUST THIS AFTERNOON.
UM, ANA GEARY WAS NOT ABLE TO BE HERE TONIGHT.
BUT I, WE DO HAVE THE NEIGHBOR'S SUPPORT ON THIS.
AND, UM, AND WITH THAT I'LL MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
SO THE ONLY OPPOSITION ON THIS MATTER WOULD BE, UH, STAFF AND THERE'S NO SPEAKERS IN, UH, IN OPPOSITION.
SO THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL IF THEY WISH TO, UM, UTILIZE THAT CHAIR.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM CHAIR.
SEE, TIM, WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY OF HIS, UH, VOCALS AND THE SPEAKERS UP HERE.
IT'S JUST A LITTLE MUDDY COMING FROM CHAIR.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? IS THAT BETTER? NO, TINY BIT BETTER.
HOW ABOUT, UM, CHAIR COMING? ARE YOU, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S COMING THROUGH THE SPEAKERS TOWARDS THE, UH, GALLERY AS OPPOSED TO THE DIOCESE, BUT I'LL MUDDLE THROUGH.
WE'LL WORK ON THAT THROUGHOUT THE EVENING.
IS THERE, UM, A MOTION TO CLOSE, UM, CHAIR? I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS DURING THE HEARING IF THAT'S OKAY.
I'M, SO THAT THEY'RE ON THE, THAT THEY'RE PART OF THE HEARING.
UM, ANDREW, HOW WOULD WE HANDLE THAT? WOULD JUST BE, I'M SORRY, I, I MISSED THE INQUIRY.
I, I WANT TO, I I WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANT.
I, I JUST WANTED, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS TO BE DURING THE HEARING AS OPPOSED TO QUESTION TIME.
SO, UM, BY YOUR ROLES, DO YOU, UH, THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED, THAT WOULD BE THROUGH YOUR Q AND A
[00:35:03]
COMMISSIONER HANDS.CAN WE USE YOUR Q AND A TIME FOR THAT? HOLD OFF FOR MICROPHONE PLEASE.
IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING A SECOND? UM, WE CAN MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
MOTION MAY BY, UH, COMMISSIONER BARR RAMIREZ.
AGAIN BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
LET'S MOVE TO OUR, UM, Q AND A.
SO FIRST, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER HAYNES? NO.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UM, SO THE EMAIL THAT WE GOT FROM THE CONTACT TEAM SAID THAT THEIR SUPPORT WAS CONDITIONED ON A REQUEST FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
HAVE YOU MADE AN AGREEMENT OF SOME SORT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO SATISFY THAT REQUEST? WHAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS THAT THESE MARKET RATES FOR THESE UNITS ARE EXPECTED TO BE 70 TO 80% MFI BASED ON THE LOCATION.
UM, WE HAVE NOT TALKED WITH THEM ABOUT SETTING SOME ASIDE, BUT WHAT WE DID TALK ABOUT TODAY AFTER MS. AGUIRRE SENT THAT EMAIL WAS THAT IF THERE'S ANY OTHER OUTSTANDING ITEMS THAT SHE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT BEFORE COUNSEL, WE COULD TALK ABOUT THEM.
BUT THEY'RE IN, THEY, SHE SAID THAT THEY ARE IN SUPPORT, SO THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO ACTUAL AGREEMENT TO CORRECT.
THEN, UM, THERE IS AN, I MEAN, THEY ARE SUPPORTING THE PROJECT AS WAS DESCRIBED IN THAT EMAIL.
AND THEY ASKED US WHAT THE LEVEL OF MULTIFAMILY OF AFFORDABILITY WOULD BE BY MARKET, AND WE TOLD THEM, AND THEN SHE SAID THAT WE WOULD, SHE WOULD LIKE TO TALK FURTHER ABOUT AN, AN AGREEMENT.
SO IF WE DO DECIDE TO DO THAT, WE WOULD HAVE IT BEFORE COUNCIL.
BUT THEY'RE SUPPORTING THE PROJECT REGARDLESS, WHICH IS WHY SHE SENT THAT NOTE.
OH, WELL, SHE SAID SOMETHING OTHERWISE THE WAY I READ IT.
BUT ANYWAYS, UM, IN, IN LIKE 30 SECONDS OR LESS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY YOU JUST AREN'T GOING FOR MF FOUR AND WHY WE'RE BUILDING AN MF FOUR PROJECT UNDER AN INDUSTRIAL ZONING? I CAN, UM, WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP AS MANY OF THE COMMERCIAL USES AS POSSIBLE.
UM, IN CASE THIS, SO I'M REPRESENTING THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY AND THEY ARE INTENDING TO DO MULTI-FAMILY.
UM, IF FOR SOME REASON WE'RE NOT ABLE TO CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY, THE SELLER WOULD RETAIN IT AND WOULD BE ABLE TO USE SOME OF THE COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE AVAILABLE STILL THROUGH THE L-I-P-D-A.
IS THERE NOT A MORE APPROPRIATE ZONING THAT PROVIDES FOR COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY MIXED USE THAT'S NOT INDUSTRIAL.
I MEAN IT'S INDUSTRIAL TODAY, WHICH IS WHY WE USED THAT MECHANISM.
WE JUST ADDED A PDA TO AN EXISTING ALLY SITE.
UM, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT, WE COULD, WE COULD TALK ABOUT IT.
BUT I HAVEN'T DONE A COMPARISON OF THE USES.
WELL, I JUST, I AM EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH BUILDING RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS ON AN INDUSTRIAL ZONING.
SO ALL OF THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES HAVE BEEN, HAVE BEEN PULLED OUT THE USES THAT ARE THERE TODAY.
I, I UNDERSTAND WE CAN CONDITION ZONING ALL WE WANT TO MAKE IT WHAT IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE.
BUT, BUT I JUST AM CONFUSED WHY WE WOULD DO L-I-P-D-A AND NOT SOME SORT OF MIXED USE ZONING THAT HAS ACTUALLY INTENDED FOR A MIX OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES.
IS THAT THE REQUEST IS WAS IT WAS BASED ON THE IDEA THAT IT'S ALLY TODAY AND THAT THE PDA WOULD CHANGE THE USES.
WELL, THAT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME, BUT, BUT THANK YOU.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, UM, ABOUT THE IMAGINE AUSTIN PLAN DESIGNATION FOR THIS SITE.
UM, WHEN YOU'RE INTERPRETING THE BOUNDARIES OF A PLAN DESIGNATION, UH, LOOKING AT THE MAPS IN THE ADOPTED PLAN, THEY'RE INCREDIBLY LOOSE.
I MEAN, THEY'RE JUST KIND OF BRUSHSTROKE BLOBS ACROSS THE CITY.
THEY'RE NOT PARCELIZED OR, OR MAPPED OUT ON A SORT OF CLEAR DELINEATED BOUNDARY.
SO HOW DO YOU KNOW WHERE EXACTLY YOU INTERPRET THOSE BOUNDARIES, UH, FOR, FOR PLAN DESIGNATIONS? WELL, FOR THIS, THIS PROPERTY IN PARTICULAR, IT IS NEAR, UH, THE HIGHWAY.
IT'S NOT TOO FAR FROM THE AIRPORT OVERLAY.
IT HAS INDUSTRIAL ZONING AROUND IT.
UM, SO WE FELT THAT WAS A PRETTY SOLID AREA WHERE, UM, INDUSTRIAL USES SHOULD BE PRESERVED AND RESIDENTIAL USES NOT BE ADDED.
I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST THAT THE BOUNDARIES ARE NOT LOT BY LOT, BUT GIVEN THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS WELL WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES
[00:40:01]
OF THAT, UH, MCKINNEY'S JOB CENTER, WE FELT THAT THERE WAS NO, UM, WISHY WASHINESS TO THIS PROPERTY.IS THERE A MOTION VICE CHAIR, CHERYL? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE WITH APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
THERE'S A SECOND POINT OF ORDER.
CAN YOU SPECIFY THAT IS FOR THE NEIGHBOR PLAN AMENDMENT? I APPRECIATE THAT.
UM, SEC, UH, OUR TREASURY PARLIAMENTARIAN FOR THAT REMINDER.
UM, THAT YES, THIS WAS BOARD FOR THE NP AND THE REZONING.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? UM, COULDN'T YOU REPEAT THAT? 'CAUSE LIKE MR. RIVERAS, MIKE, YOUR DIDN'T COME THROUGH ON THIS END OF THE DASH.
I'LL TRY TO MAKE THIS AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE.
SO I'M MOVING APPLICANT REQUEST IN BOTH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT AND ON THE REZONING FOR THE CASE.
UM, AND CHAIR, SIR, SPEAKING TO THE, UM, MOTION.
I'LL SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT A NEW ISSUE THAT HAS COME BEFORE US.
YOU KNOW, I BROUGHT THIS UP TO STAFF PREVIOUSLY AS WELL.
MULTIPLE TIMES NOW, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM HAS COME AND TOLD US THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE RESIDENTIAL USES IN A MOVE AWAY FROM INDUSTRIAL IN THIS PART OF THE CITY ALONG BEN WHITE.
I'LL ALSO BE HONEST, WE HAVE HEARD CLEARLY FROM RESIDENTS IN THE PAST THAT FRANKLY, IT, IT IS A BIT OF AN INJUSTICE THAT WHEN THIS AREA WAS, UH, WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WAS BEING DEVELOPED, THERE WAS THIS LARGE MASS OF INDUSTRIAL THAT WAS ADDED THERE THAT WE SOMEHOW CONTINUE TO FIGHT TO PRESERVE.
AT THE SAME TIME, A NUMBER OF OTHER INDUSTRIAL AREAS IN THE CITY, WE HAVE ACTUALLY MINIMIZED THEM AND ERADICATED THEM.
SO THIS SOUTHEAST, UH, COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM CONTINUES TO COME AND TELL US THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT THEY WOULD WISH TO DO.
AND I HAVE PREVIOUSLY ASKED STAFF TO LOOK INTO SEEING THAT IF THERE'S A WAY TO LOOK AT THE PLANNING FOR THIS AREA, TO CONSIDER THAT MORE HOLISTICALLY AND ENSURE THAT WE ARE MORE ALIGNED WITH THE VALUES THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS TODAY.
IN ADDITION, IF WE HAVE RESIDENTIAL ZONING AROUND IT, IT MAKES SENSE TO CONTINUE THAT.
AND AGAIN, OUR COMMISSION HAS PREVIOUSLY PASSED A NUMBER OF SIMILAR CASES, SO WE DO SEE THAT THERE'S A CERTAIN MOVE IN THIS PART OF THE CITY.
YEAH, I I'M JUST GONNA BELABOR THE POINT THAT I DON'T THINK WE WOULD, WE SHOULD BE USING L-I-P-D-A FOR WHAT IS REQUESTED AS A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT.
IT, IT, IT, IT JUST IS COMPLETELY COUNTER TO THE DEFINITIONS.
WE HAVE THE BASIC DEFINITIONS OF ZONING, ZONING, UM, ZONING.
I DO UNDERSTAND AND, AND, AND GENERALLY AGREE WITH THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S, UH, DESIRE TO MOVE TOWARDS RESIDENTIAL.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THIS PROJECT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL.
UM, AND SO I, I JUST, I JUST WISH THAT APPLICANTS WOULD COME TO US WITH A ZONING CATEGORY, WITH A ZONING REQUEST THAT ACTUALLY MEETS THE INTENT OF THEIR PROJECT AND NOT TRY TO FRANKENSTEIN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONING TO MAKE IT MORE PALATABLE, UH, TO PUT RESIDENTIAL IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INDUSTRIAL AREA.
SO I DON'T THINK I CAN SUPPORT THIS.
SO I TOOK A LOOK AT JUST KIND OF TRAVEL AROUND THE SITE AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S THREE QUARTERS OF A MILE TO THE NEXT CLOSEST BUS STOP, WHICH HAS 30 MINUTE SERVICE.
YOU CAN GET TO HEB, IT'S AN 11 MINUTE DRIVE TO HEB.
IT'S A 30 MINUTE BUS RIDE TO HEB, WHICH I THINK IS A, YOU KNOW, DESTINATION.
FOLKS HERE WILL WANT TO GO TO.
IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S, YOU CAN TAKE THE BUS TO A CC, THERE'S REALLY GREAT CONNECTIVITY IN THE AREA, EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T, IT SEEMS VERY INDUSTRIAL.
UM, ALSO IT'S A MILE FROM THE YELLOW JACKET STATION.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF, UM, POTENTIAL AND EVEN THE BERKSHIRE, UM, SPUR TRAIL, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A WHILE AWAY, I THINK, UM, YEAH, THERE'S A LOT OF GREAT CONNECTIVITY IN THE AREA AND I THINK FOR ME IT WAS THE PARK SEEING THE PARKLAND DEDICATION THAT SAID, OKAY, IT WILL BECOME MORE LIKE A PLACE WHERE YOU COULD LIVE AND NOT SO MUCH SURROUNDED BY PARKING.
UM, SO THE TRAIL AND THE PARKLAND REALLY HELPED ME TO VISUALIZE HOW IT COULD BE RESIDENTIAL.
ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER MU? I, I DON'T THINK, THINK THERE'S ANY QUESTION THAT THIS WOULD BE A, UM, THE CITY'S CHANGING A LOT AND THIS IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO BRING IN RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE THERE.
I, I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL GIVEN THE LOCATION, EVERYTHING THAT, UM, COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ SPOKE OF.
I, I DO HAVE TO SAY I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE L-I-P-D-A.
UM, I THINK THAT OPENS UP TO UNINTENDED USES AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
SO IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE BEING KIND OF ASKED TO SPECULATIVELY SPOT ZONE
[00:45:01]
ON THIS PROPERTY.THEY, THEY HAVE A DEAL THAT MAY OR MAY NOT TRANSACT AND EACH PARTY IN THE DEAL NEEDS A PARTICULAR WAY TO MAKE IT WORK FOR THEM.
AND SO WE'RE GETTING THE MISHMASH OF BOTH WITHOUT REALLY GETTING THE DESIRED END PRODUCT.
SO I'D RATHER SEE IT GET FLESHED OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE AND, AND COME TO US WITH A REAL CLEAR ZONING REQUEST.
I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE MIXING THE INDUSTRIAL THERE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S LIMITED.
I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE MIXING IT THERE.
IF WE WANNA CONVERT IT INTO RESIDENTIAL, I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE VERY CLEAR AND DISTINCT AND WE, WE HAVE A LOT OF OPTIONS TO ALLOW FOR SOME COMMERCIAL IN THAT AREA.
UM, AND TOOLS THAT COULD BE USED AND MAYBE WE'LL GET SOME OTHER TOOLS.
UM, BUT I'M STILL HOPEFUL THAT'S GONNA COME TO US.
SO I I JUST DON'T THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT ZONING REQUEST, UM, FOR THIS PROPERTY.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR MR. PHILLIPS? SO I HAVE A QUESTION REALLY ABOUT, UM, IS IT APPROPRIATE TO OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO COMMISSIONER R'S MOTION? IT'S APPROPRIATE.
UM, AND I, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THIS, BUT ALSO TO SUPPORT WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM BROUGHT TO US IN THE WAY OF WHAT THEY SAW IS SOMETHING OF A, A DEEP NEED.
AND I THINK WE WOULD ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.
UH, AND, AND EVEN THE APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGED AT THE 70% OF THE MFI CAN WE HAVE A, AN AMENDMENT THAT SAYS THAT THEY WILL WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO ACHIEVE THAT AGREEMENT IF WE GO FORWARD WITH THIS US UNFORTUNATELY, NO.
UM, WE CANNOT MAKE, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN PART OUR CONDITION OF ZONING, BUT I'M, I'M NOT DOING THAT.
THEY, THEY BROUGHT THE, THE APPLICANT BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD BROUGHT THIS UP AND SAID THAT THIS WAS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE GOING FORWARD.
AND I'M JUST ASKING THAT WE AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION HONOR THAT.
SO THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR.
IF, IF IT HAD NOT BEEN BROUGHT UP, THEN I, I WOULDN'T BE ASKING ABOUT IT.
I CAN COMMIT TO YOU THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TALKING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH, WITH MS, UH, AGUIRRE THIS AFTERNOON.
BUT I WOULD LIKE SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, YOU KNOW, FIRM THAN THAT IN THE WAY OF OUR, OUR AMENDMENT AND, AND IN THE WAY OF THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.
OH, I'M, I'M GETTING A SIGNAL THAT WE CANNOT, WE CANNOT MAKE THAT A PART.
OH, MS. ESTRADA JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT PER STATUTORY 25 2, IT'S, THAT IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE ADDED TO THE, UM, MOTION.
SO, SO WHAT'S THE, SO COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT FOR THE PUBLIC SO THAT YOU'RE NOT TALKING IN LEGALESE? THANK YOU FOR A, A, UH, OH GOD, JOY, HARD AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
SO FOR A ZONING CASE FOR PS OR UH, DENSITY BONUS, YOU CAN REQUIRE AFFORDABLE HOUSING 'CAUSE IT'S OUTLINED.
THIS IS A PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA.
AND SINCE A PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA DOES NOT REQUIRE AFFORDABILITY BY STATE LAW, WE CANNOT ADD IT OR MAKE ANY SORT OF MOTION THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE ZONING CODE.
SO EVEN SAYING SPEAK TO OR, UH, TALK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS NOT PART OF 25 2 OUR ZONING CODE.
AND SO THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED PER PART OF THE MOTION.
SO THEN WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO ASK FOR A POSTPONEMENT UNTIL THAT CONVERSATION HAPPENS AND THEN COMES BACK TO US? AND THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION.
CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LAY ON ANDREW.
SO JUST, UH, PART OF THAT IS THAT THIS, UH, YOUR RECOMMENDATION SHOULD STAND ALONE AND NOT, UH, APPEAR TO BE DEPENDENT ON THAT MATTER.
UM, AND WHAT I WILL DO IS RECENT A MEMORANDUM IN REGARDS TO THIS INQUIRY.
SO AM I HEARING CORRECTLY THOUGH THAT COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS COULD MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THE ITEM? NO, THE ITEM CAN BE, UH, POSTPONED, UH, THE DESIRE OF THE COMMISSION.
HOWEVER, YOUR RECOMMENDATION SHOULD NOT BE DEPENDENT ON THAT MATTER.
SO I'M REALLY CONFLICTED HERE BECAUSE WE'RE BEING TOLD LIKE SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS HERE AND, AND THEY DON'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO THE PUBLIC AND THEY DON'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME.
WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT EVEN THOUGH
[00:50:01]
WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASKED FOR IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THIS, THIS, UH, PROJECT, THIS DEVELOPMENT, THAT WE CAN'T DISCUSS IT AND WE CAN'T MAKE IT PART OF OUR MOTION BECAUSE OF THE STATUTE AND ET CETERA, ET CETERA.UM, WE CAN'T EVEN ASK FOR A POSTPONEMENT TO ACCOMMODATE BOTH THINGS COMING TOGETHER FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, FOR THE GOOD OF THE PUBLIC, FOR THE GOOD OF EVERYTHING THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO STAND FOR IN TERMS OF CREATING HOUSING, MORE HOUSING AND A CRISIS FOR EVERYONE.
SO THIS IS A, A VERY CONFLICTING SITUATION THAT EVERY TIME WE GET TO THIS POINT, WE ARE FACED WITH THIS, UH, LEGALESE ABOUT HOW WE CAN'T DO THIS EVEN THOUGH IT'S PART OF THE DISCUSSION.
SO I'M JUST GONNA ASK FOR A POSTPONEMENT FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE AND WHATEVER HAPPENS FROM THAT.
BUT THIS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YEAH, MAYBE A MEMO WILL, WILL, WILL.
I APPRECIATE A MEMO ON IT, BUT IT CONTINUES TO HAPPEN IN THIS SPACE.
WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT WE CANNOT LEGALLY DISCUSS CERTAIN THINGS EVEN IF THEY'RE ON THE TABLE.
SO I WAS GONNA SAY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, DO YOU HAVE A DATE AFFILIATED WITH YOUR POSTPONEMENT? I WOULD JUST SAY TO THE NEXT MEETING, YES.
UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? I THINK I PRETTY MUCH OUTLINED THE MOTION.
UM, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THE WORK OF THE PUBLIC HERE.
WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE LIFTING ALL BOATS HERE.
WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THAT.
WE SHOULD NOT IGNORE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES.
WE SHOULD BE BOLD AND WE SHOULD BE COURAGEOUS AND WE SHOULD ACT WITHIN OUR AUTHORITY.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST? ALRIGHT, JUST QUICK QUESTION.
UM, IS THIS, I'M HEARING THIS POSTPONEMENT BEING MADE IN HOPE OF GIVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD MORE TIME.
IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ANYONE ASKING FOR IT? I'M JUST CURIOUS.
WELL, THE APPLICANT DID TELL US THAT THEY ARE CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION.
THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TOLD ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE.
AND WOULDN'T IT BE WONDERFUL IF THAT COULD HAPPEN? WOULDN'T IT BE WONDERFUL IF THEY COULD HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY? OKAY.
AND WITHOUT THAT OPPORTUNITY, YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW SOME THINGS CAN JUST FALL OFF THE TABLE AND CAN I SAY APPLICANT DOES THIS DO ANYTHING TO THE PROJECT? IS THIS GOOD OR BAD? ARE YOU ACCEPTING OF THIS HONOR? IS THIS, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU NOT POSTPONE THE ITEM.
WE'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THE NEIGHBORS FOR PROBABLY THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF.
WE HAVE A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM.
THEY ARE NOT REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT.
THEY ASKED US EARLY ON TO GIVE US THE MARKET AFFORDABILITY, WHICH IS WHAT WE PROVIDED TO THEM, WHICH IS 70 TO 80%.
UM, YOU KNOW, THEY, WHEN I TALKED TO UH, THEM TODAY, THEY DID NOT REQUEST, UM, ANY MORE THAN WHAT IS HERE TODAY.
ANA WAS HOPING THAT SHE COULD BE HERE, SHE'S SICK, SO SHE COULDN'T, BUT, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY REASON TO POSTPONE IT BASED ON THIS.
UM, IN FACT, THE ONLY THING THAT SHE ACTUALLY ASKED THAT WE CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT IS THE, UM, IS IS SOME OF THE OTHER LIKE SETBACKS AND USES AND STUFF, WHICH I TOLD HER WE WOULD, BUT SHE'S NOT ASKING FOR A POSTPONEMENT CHAIR.
UM, WAS THERE ANY REQUESTS FROM ANYONE FOR POSTPONEMENT? SURE.
WE DID NOT RECEIVE A REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT.
YES, COMMISSIONER COX, SINCE WE'RE BACK IN THE Q AND A, CAN I ALSO ASK THE APPLICANT A QUESTION? UH, I'LL ALLOW IT.
WILL WE ALLOW, WE ALLOWED IT FOR ONE COMMISSIONER, SO WE HAVE TO ALLOW IT FOR ALL OF THEM TO BE FAIR.
UM, SO IF, IF YOU HAD MORE TIME AND WERE WILLING TO MEET THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S REQUEST, IS THERE A MECHANISM AVAILABLE TO YOU TO SATISFY THAT REQUEST BEFORE YOU COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? IF THIS COMMISSION WERE, WERE DECIDED TO POSTPONE THIS.
UM, SO BECAUSE L-I-P-D-A ALSO MF FOUR, ALSO CSMU, ALL OF ALL OF THE ZONING CATEGORIES THAT WOULD PERMIT THIS DO NOT HAVE AN AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT.
UM, WE WOULD HAVE TO TRY TO FIND A THIRD PARTY ENFORCING, UH, AGENT AGENCY.
UM, WE HAVE NOT, THIS, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONVERSATION WITH THE NEIGHBORS IS THAT THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT REGARDLESS.
UM, THAT HAS BEEN THE CONVERSATION SINCE THEY TOOK THE VOTE, WHICH I BELIEVE HAPPENED IN DECEMBER.
I'M NOT, UM, AND SO, AND, AND I AND I, YOU'VE, YOU SAID, I, I APOLOGIZE
[00:55:01]
FOR INTERRUPTING YOU.YOU SAID THAT MULTIPLE TIMES, BUT THE EMAIL THAT WE GOT, UH, DOESN'T SAY THAT IT, IT, IT HAS, IT LISTS ONE SPECIFIC CONDITION.
AND SO I'M JUST CURIOUS IF, IF YOU WERE GIVEN MORE TIME AND YOU WERE OPEN TO SATISFYING THAT CONDITION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S APPROVAL THERE, THERE IS INDEED A MECHANISM THAT YOU COULD DO PRIVATELY AND HAVE THAT WITH YOU WHEN YOU COME UP TO PLANNING COMMISSION, WHETHER IT'S THIS CASE OR ANOTHER CASE TO SHOW THAT YOU'VE MET THAT CONDITION FOR APPROVAL.
CORRECT? I, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN DO AN AGREEMENT OR NOT.
I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
UM, I YOU DON'T KNOW BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE THE, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WILL AGREE TO IT OR BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S LIKE A LEGAL, PRIVATE, ALL OF THOSE THINGS MECHANISM TO DO THAT? I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T KNOW WHO WOULD BE THE ENFORCING PARTY.
I DON'T KNOW, UM, IF THE CURRENT OWNER WOULD AGREE TO IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE SELLER CAN CAN DO THAT.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD, WOULD GIVE, WOULD GIVING YOU WOULD GIVING YOU TWO WEEKS ALLOW YOU TO PROVIDE COMMISSIONER COX? I'M SORRY, I FEEL LIKE THE APPLICANT TRULY HAS ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION AND CHAIR.
MIGHT I BE ALLOWED TO SAY A FEW WORDS? YES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
I I JUST WANNA SAY, I REALLY WANNA SAY THE RULES THAT WE HAVE FOR THIS COMMISSION ARE NOT BECAUSE SOMEONE IS TRYING TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OR SOMETHING.
IT IS TRULY TO BE RESPECTFUL TO EACH OTHER AND RESPECTFUL TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WAITING IN THIS ROOM.
THERE'S LIKE 50 PEOPLE SITTING HERE WAITING FOR SOMETHING THAT MIGHT COME AT 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 11.
TWO, WE HAVE RULES BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF EACH OTHER AND WE WANNA BE RESPECTFUL OF THE TIME OF OUR STAFF AND RESPECTFUL OF THE COMMUNITY THAT IS COMING TO SPEAK TO US REGARDLESS OF WHAT TIME WE'RE MEETING WITH THAT.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY WE DO HAVE TO SHOW A CERTAIN DEGREE OF DECOR AND RESPECT TOWARDS THE CHAIR.
I UNDERSTAND IF ONE PERSON ASKS A QUESTION, ANOTHER PERSON ASKS A QUESTION, WHERE DO WE INDIVIDUALLY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND SAY, IF SOMEBODY ELSE HAS BROKEN A RULE, I WILL NOT BE THAT PERSON AND I WILL STEP UP AND BE A BETTER PERSON.
OR HAVE WE ALL JUST DECIDED THAT WE'RE GOING TO TOGETHER, GOING TO THE ABYSS? SO ALL THAT SAID, ALL I'M GONNA SAY IS THAT HOPEFULLY WE CAN FOLLOW THE RULES AND BE RESPECTFUL OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE AND RESPECTFUL OF EACH OTHER BECAUSE THAT IS IMPORTANT.
UM, FOR THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, WHICH IS POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 12TH.
UM, ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR MR. COX? YEAH, I MEAN I THINK WE JUST HEARD, UM, THAT, THAT THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT NEED ANSWERS.
UM, SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE REQUEST THAT WE GOT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE HAVE A COMMISSIONER THAT WANTS TO PROVIDE TIME TO BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO PROVIDE THOSE ANSWERS TO US.
AND I THINK WE SHOULD AFFORD BOTH OF THOSE PARTIES TIME SO THAT WE HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS WE NEED, UH, BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS CASE.
THANK YOU THOUGH, SPEAKING AGAINST.
OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS MOTION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 12TH TWO.
UM, THOSE AGAINST, I SEE SEVEN AND AS ABSTAINING THAT RIGHT? WE HAVE 11.
SO THOSE FOR THE POSTPONEMENT.
1, 2, 3 AND THOSE AGAINST THREE SIX.
OKAY, SO THAT MOTION FAILS THREE TO SEVEN TO ONE.
UM, GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, WHICH IS FOR THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
I'M SORRY, I DID NOT SEE THAT.
SO THAT, THAT MOTION WAS 3, 4 7 AGAINST TWO ABSTAINING.
GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, UM, FOR APPLICANT'S REQUEST, UM, WE HAVE ONE MORE SPOT FOR SOMEBODY SPEAKING AGAINST OR WE CAN GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
THIS IS FOR APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR BOTH THE MPA AND THE REZONING.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, LET'S SEE.
[01:00:01]
ONE, TWO.WE ARE MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT DISCUSSION CASE, WHICH IS ITEM 12.
[12. Rezoning: C14-2023-0124 - West Lynn @ 12th Street; District 9]
REZONING AT WEST LIN.I TOMKO WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 12, CASE NUMBER C 14 2020 3 1 24 WEST LYNN AND 12TH STREET.
IT IS A REZONING REQUEST FOR 11 0 1 11 13, 11 15 WEST LYNN STREET AND 1102 AND 1104 EASTON STREET FROM C-S-M-U-C-O-N-P AND SF THREE NP TO C-S-M-U-C-O-N-P WITH A CHANGE TO A CONDITION OF ZONING, INCREASING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FROM 40 FEET TO 60 FEET.
STAFF IS MAKING A RECOMMENDATION OF GRANTING C-S-M-U-C-O-N-P WITH A CHANGE TO A CONDITION OF ZONING, INCREASING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FROM 40 FEET TO 60 FEET.
THIS ALSO INCLUDES THE LIST OF PROHIBITED AND CONDITIONAL USES AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE FEBRUARY 20, UH, FEBRUARY 15TH, 2024 LETTER, WHICH IS IN EXHIBIT C OF THE STAFF REPORT.
THE SUB SUBJECT TRACK IS A LITTLE MORE THAN THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 12TH STREET AND WEST LYNN STREET.
IT'S CURRENTLY INCLUDED, INCLUDES THE VACANT, UH, FORMER NOW'S DRUGSTORE, ANTHONY'S DRY CLEANERS, AND CAFE MEDICI COFFEE SHOP.
IT ALSO HAS TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT WERE BUILT IN THE 1940S.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY A THIRD OF A MILE FROM WEST SIXTH STREET AND A HALF MILE FROM NORTH LAMAR BOULEVARD, BOTH IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CORRIDORS AND A HALF MILE FROM DOWNTOWN AUSTIN, WHICH IS AN IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CENTER.
IT IS APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET FROM A CAPITAL METRO BUS STOP FOR THE LOCAL 18 ROUTE AT WESTLAND.
AND ENFIELD STREET STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE ZONING BASED ON THIS, UH, VERY CRITICAL PARCEL BEING IN THE HEART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEING REDEVELOPED.
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MORE THAN 70 YEARS, THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THERE WOULD BE UPGRADES TO THE PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE, INCLUDING NICER STREETSCAPES, WIDER SIDEWALKS AND STREET TREES, RESULTING IN A DECREASE IN IMPERVIOUS COVER.
UM, THERE ARE MANY OTHER CS ZONE PARCELS WITHIN A HALF MILE OF DOWNTOWN.
WHILE THERE ARE SEVERAL CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS THAT RESTRICT USES, IT IS NOT COMMON FOR A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO RESTRICT HEIGHT TO 40 FEET.
INSTEAD OF THE 60 FEET OF BASE ZONING, CS IS TYPICALLY GOVERNED TO, UH, STAFF SHOULD APPROVE THIS REQUEST TO PROMOTE EQUAL TREATMENT OF SIMILARLY LOCATED PROPERTIES WITHIN A HALF MILE OF DOWNTOWN AUSTIN.
AND WHILE THE INTERSECTION OF WEST 12TH STREET AND WESTLAND STREET IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INTENSE, IT IS MORE INTENSE RELATIVE TO THE OLD WEST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE.
IT IS CENTRALLY LOCATED SIGNALED INTERSECTION AT TWO A SMP LEVEL TWO CORRIDORS, AND THUS A PLACE WHERE RETAIL MIXED USE AND MORE INTENSIVE ZONING SHOULD BE LOCATED.
I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
WE WILL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT WE HAVE, UH, MR. RON THROWER AND MR. VICTORIA O HASI DONATING TIME.
SHE'S DONATING TIME TO MIGUEL.
OH, UM, MR. THROWER WILL TAKE, UH, THE, UH, NOT THE PRIMARY, PRIMARY SPOT, BUT WE'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, RON THROWER, REPRESENTING THE CURRENT LANDOWNER.
AND I ALSO WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE ALSO REPRESENTED THE PRIOR LANDOWNER FOR 25 YEARS.
THE CURRENT LANDOWNER HAS BEEN A CLIENT OF MINE FOR THE PAST 25 YEARS AS WELL.
UM, JONATHAN TOMKO, UH, RED END.
BASICALLY WHAT THE ENDEAVOR IS, WE WANT TO REMOVE THE 40 FOOT HEIGHT CAP AND WHAT IS CURRENTLY ZONED CS.
AND WE WANNA REZONE WHAT IS, UH, WHAT IS YELLOW ON THE MAP TODAY AS SINGLE FAMILY AND MAKE THAT CS AS WELL.
UM, THIS IS A MAP THAT SHOWS ALL OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THE GENERAL AREA THAT ARE ZONED CS.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE WEST SIDE OF WESTLAND, THERE'S A LOT OF CS THAT BACKS RIGHT UP TO THE RESIDENTIAL.
ON OUR PARTICULAR PROPERTY, WE HAVE, WE'RE BOUNDED BY THREE STREETS.
WE HAVE EASTON STREET THAT'S ON THE EAST WEST 12TH STREET ON THE NORTH, AND WESTLAND STREET ON THE WEST.
THIS IS A, A ZOOMED IN PICTURE OF THE AERIAL.
UH, YOU CAN SEE THE NOW'S PROPERTY, THE ANTHONY'S LAUNDRY.
THE TWO HOMES THAT JONATHAN HAD TALKED TO, THE SURFACE PARKING LOT THAT WE PERMITTED SOME 25 YEARS AGO FOR CAFE MEDICI TO EVEN BE IN EXISTENCE IN THIS LOCATION.
IF YOU'RE LOOKING NORTH ON EASTERN STREET, THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
THESE ARE, THERE'S TWO RESIDENCES THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY THAT ARE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE.
THOSE TWO RESIDENCES HAVE ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED UNDER HLC REVIEW TO HAVE A DEMO PERMIT ISSUED.
MOVING FURTHER UP ON EASTON STREET, YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT SIDE, YOU CAN SEE THE BACKSIDE OF NOWS AND ANTHONY'S LAUNDRY AND BASICALLY HOW UGLY
[01:05:01]
IT IS.AND THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN THERE FOR APPROXIMATELY 75 YEARS.
IF YOU LOOK NORTHWARD ON WESTLAND STREET ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE HERE, YOU CAN SEE THE CAFE MEDICI BUILDING THAT IS AN OLDER BUILDING FROM THE EARLY 19 HUNDREDS THAT IS GOING TO BE KEPT ON THE PROPERTY.
MOVING UP FURTHER, YOU CAN SEE THE PARKING LOT THAT'S ON THE RIGHT.
YOU CAN SEE THE ANTHONY'S LAUNDRY FACADE, AND YOU CAN SEE THE NOWS FACADE.
THIS IS LOOKING TOWARDS THE SOUTHEAST THAT SHOWS THE FACADE OF NOWS AND ANTHONY'S LAUNDRY.
AND I WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR HERE THAT THIS FACADE IS GONNA BE MAINTAINED WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S ACTUALLY A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE BY THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY THAT SAYS THAT THIS FACADE WILL BE MAINTAINED, AND WE ARE HONORING THAT.
UH, WE HAD WORKED A CONCEPT PLAN THROUGH THE CITY OF AUSTIN WITH A BUNCH OF GROUND LEVEL URBAN, UM, ASKS WITH THE CITY.
WE WERE ABLE TO GAIN APPROVAL WITH A VAST MAJORITY OF OUR ASKS.
SO WE CAN HAVE THESE NICE, VIBRANT URBAN STREET SCAPES, STREET LINE, UH, OR TREE LINE STREETS.
THE ONLY DRIVEWAY THAT WE'RE PRO PROPOSING COMING OFF OF WESLEY GOES INTO AN UNDER UNDERGROUND GARAGE.
UM, AND AGAIN, THE PICTURES THAT ARE ON THIS CONCEPT PLAN SHOW THE HISTORIC ELEMENTS THAT WE'RE GONNA BE MAINTAINING WITH THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
AT THIS POINT, I'M GONNA HAND IT OVER TO MIGUEL RIVERA, WHO'S THE ARCHITECT FOR THE PROJECT, AND THEN AFTER THAT WILL BE, UH, MR. CHRIS HURST, WHO'S WITH THE OLD WEST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, MR. RIVERA HAS THREE MINUTES.
DO ANYBODY, MS. HASI, HE'LL HAVE EIGHT MINUTES.
UM, MIGUEL RIVERA, LIKE HE SAID.
UM, I ALSO LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BE VERY INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT.
UH, THIS IS ONE CASE THAT WE WILL, UH, CONSIDER, UM, A GREAT SAMPLE OF SUCCESS OF WORKING TOGETHER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, UH, THE DEVELOPER.
I'M ALSO PART OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE FOR AWANA FOR ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE YEARS.
AND, UH, THROUGH THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO UNDERSTAND THAT CHANGE IS COMING.
THIS, UH, BUILDING AND THIS CORNER HAS BEEN IN DECAY FOR THE LAST 20 PLUS YEARS.
AND, UH, AND WE ALSO CONSIDER THIS, UH, THE HEART OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN, UH, ALL WEST AUSTIN.
SO THIS WOULD BE A GREAT EXAMPLE, UH, OF HOW, LIKE I SAID, WE ALL WORK TOGETHER, BUT THE DEVELOPER HAS, UH, WORKED WITH US, UH, WITH OUR PETITIONS.
UH, IN EXCHANGE, YOU KNOW, FOR THE ZONING WE ARE, WE ARE GOING TO, UH, RE UM, KEEP, UH, THE EXISTING FACADES OF THE BUILDING.
WE'RE GONNA BE, UH, ADAPTIVE REDUCE AND THE MEDICI LIKE THAT, UH, BUILDING LIKE THEY SAID.
BUT THAT WILL ALLOW US TO BREAK THE MASSING AND KEEP THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THIS, UH, NE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IN THE OTHER SIDE, THERE'S MANY CURB CUTS.
WE'RE GONNA ELIMINATE ALL THOSE CURB CUTS.
ONLY LEAVE ONE WHERE THE TRASH WILL COME IN.
YOU SAW THE PICTURE FROM BEFORE FROM THE BACK.
THAT WAS REALLY, YOU KNOW, A SAD, UH, PART.
SO THE IDEA IS THAT WE'LL KEEP ALL THAT RESIDENTIAL.
THERE'S A HERITAGE TREES IN THAT CORNER.
SO JUST THE IDEA OF LEAVING THE, THE TREE AND THIS, UH, GREEN SPACE IN BETWEEN, WE'RE ALLOWED FOR, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TO BREAK THE MASSING AND CONCENTRATE MOST OF THE HEIGHT TOWARDS WESTLING, WHICH IS ABOUT TO CHANGE THE BUILDING TO THE RIGHT OF MEDICI.
THEY'RE ABOUT TO START, UH, SOME POINT CONSTRUCTION.
THEY'RE GONNA DO THREE LEVELS IN THERE.
AND, UM, THIS SCHOOL, MATTHEWS ELEMENTARY, THAT MY DAUGHTERS WENT TO SCHOOL, UH, THERE LAST YEAR IS JUST WALKING DISTANCE FROM HERE.
AND ALL THIS SIDEWALK IS VERY IMPORTANT.
IF WE CAN CONTINUE TO IMPROVE, UH, THE PEDESTRIAN CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS FOR PEOPLE TO, TO ENJOY ALL THOSE, UH, UH, AREAS IN THE WESTLAND WILL BE, UH, EITHER A COMBINATION OF RESTAURANT AND RETAIL, WHICH WILL, UH, BE VERY GOOD FOR THE LIFE AND THE ENERGY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF RON, I THINK MENTIONED TOO, THERE WILL BE UNDERGROUND PARKING THAT WE ARE CONNECTING FROM THE ALLEY IN ACCESS.
SO, UM, THERE WILL BE APPROXIMATELY, UH, UH, TWO LEVELS OF PARKING THAT WILL ACCOMMODATE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL AND IT WILL ACCOMMODATE FOR THE BUSINESS WITH NO IMPACT AROUND, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, IN THE CORNER WHERE THE TRAFFIC LIGHT IS.
THERE'S A LOT OF PARKING THERE RIGHT NOW THAT IS, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE PHARMACY USED TO PARK.
SO IT'S A VERY SAFE AREA WHEN PEOPLE ARE GETTING THE RED LIGHT AND BACKING UP.
SO, UH, THAT WOULD BE, UH, VERY GOOD.
UM, IT WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE BACK SIDE.
AND THE, UH, THE REST, THE SECOND FLOOR
[01:10:01]
UP WILL BE, UH, RESIDENTIAL TOO.SO WE THINK THIS WOULD BE A GREAT ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, UH, THE PRESIDENT WILL TALK, UH, FROM THE AWANA PRESIDENT IS HERE IN SUPPORT OF, OF THIS PROJECT.
SO WE, UH, URGE YOU TO, UM, RECOMMEND TO VOTE POSITIVELY ABOUT THIS BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A GREAT ADDITION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
I'LL BE HERE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTION.
WE NOW HAVE MR. CHRISTOPHER HERTZ FOR THREE MINUTES.
I'M AN ARCHITECT AND I'M ALSO A CHAIR OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE FOR OLD WEST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS AWANA.
I WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY CLOSELY, UH, WITH THE ZYDECO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND THEY'VE TAKEN ON BOARD ALL OF OUR CONSIDERATIONS, UH, FOR THIS SITE.
AND AS MIGUEL HAD POINTED OUT, THEY'RE ALSO RESIDENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALONG WITH MIGUEL.
THIS IS VERY MUCH A HOMEGROWN DEVELOPMENT.
EVERYBODY, UH, PARTICIPATING IN IT WAS WITHIN A FEW BLOCK RADIUS.
UH, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT OF THIS AS WE FEEL IT IS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE FOR THE SITE.
UH, RIGHT NOW IT'S A PAVED PARKING LOT AROUND MORE OF A HISTORIC BUILDING.
THEY'RE INCORPORATING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF WHAT MAKES THAT CORNER GREAT, BUT IMPROVING UPON IT AND HEARING FROM OUR NEIGHBORS, THERE IS A, HAS BEEN CONCERN ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO OUR STREET, BUT WE ARE A MIXED, MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS STREET DOES SUPPORT THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AND WE'RE VERY ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT HAVING IT BUILT.
WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO, UM, HEARING FROM THE OPPOSITION.
WE WILL HEAR FROM MR. MICHAEL MULLEN.
MR. MULLEN, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
I HAVE LIVED ON THE CORNER OF EASTON STREET AND 10TH STREET FOR 28 YEARS AND, UM, AGAINST THE UPZONING OF THE EASTON LOTS.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT WITH THE CITY HELPS, IT CAN WORK.
FIRST, I WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR, I AM NOT A NIMBY.
I WANT MORE PEOPLE TO MOVE INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ONTO EASTON STREET, THEREBY KEEPING IT AS DIVERSIFIED AS IT'S BEEN FOR MOST OF ITS LIFE.
WHEN I MOVED INTO, UM, ON, IN MY HOUSE ON EASTERN STREET, UM, THERE WERE TWO, UH, BLACK FAMILIES AND THERE WERE TWO, UH, HISPANIC FAMILIES.
UH, NOT NOW, BUT THE CITY HAS STARTED ITS PREFERENCE TO ALLOW AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH THE HOME INITIATIVE.
AND I'M SURE Y'ALL KNOW, HOME OPTIONS FOR MIDDLE INCOME EMPOWERMENT, WHICH WOULD ALLOW TEACHERS AND FIRST RESPONDERS AND PEOPLE, ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE FROM DIFF DIFFERENT, UH, INCOMES TO MOVE ONTO EASTON, KEEPING THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON EASTON, WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL STREET, AND THE DEVELOPMENT, ZYDECO DEVELOPMENT TO BUILD THEIR HIGH END CONDOS ON WEST LYNN, WHICH IS A COMMERCIAL STREET.
IT'S A WIN-WIN WIN SITUATION, EXCEPT IT INVOLVES SOMETHING THAT'S VERY DIFFICULT NOWADAYS.
IT INVOLVES A COMPROMISE AND YES, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.
IT'S WHAT WE NEED IN ORDER TO KEEP AUSTIN, THE AUSTIN, WE ALL LOVE.
IT IS WHY THE DEVELOPMENT, ZICO DEVELOPMENT BOUGHT THE PLACE IN THE FIRST IN BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
IT'S TO HAVE A PIECE OF ONE OF THE BEST NEIGHBORHOODS IN OUR TOWN AND WE CAN KEEP IT.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND I, I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL Y'ALL DO.
WILL NOW HEAR FROM, UH, THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, SECOND COMMISSIONER WOODS, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY, THAT IS UNANIMOUS.
UM, LET'S GO TO OUR ROUND ROBIN.
SO FIRST OF FIVE COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTION COMMISSIONER MORE YOU HAVE A QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT OF HOW MANY UNITS ARE PROPOSED AND WHAT'S THE AVERAGE SIZE
[01:15:06]
WE'RE THINKING WE DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER.WE HAVEN'T DEVELOPED AS, YOU KNOW, THIS GOES FORWARD.
WE, WE CAN, BUT WE'RE THINKING THAT IT'S GONNA BE BETWEEN 25 AND 30 UNITS AND IT WILL RANGE FROM ONE BEDROOM TO THREE BEDROOMS. WE'RE ALSO TALKING TO REAL ESTATE AGENT ABOUT WHAT IS THE RIGHT PROPORTION, YOU KNOW, 40%, THREE BEDROOM X AMOUNT AND SO ON.
SO THAT'S THE, THE, THE INTENT.
OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH.
FOR THE APPLICANT, I WAS JUST NOTICING, UM, ALL THE, THE SF THREE SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY.
SO I WAS CURIOUS IF Y'ALL HAD ANY IDEA ON PRACTICALLY SPEAKING WHAT HEIGHT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO REACH FOR YOUR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERING COMPATIBILITY, THEY'RE MAKING THEIR WAY.
I THINK, UH, THE ZONING ALLOWS FOR 60, UH, ONE OF THE, UM, NEGOTIATIONS WE DONE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS THAT IN THE EASTERN, LIKE OUR FRIEND, UH, NEIGHBOR, UH, COMMENTED EVERYTHING IN THE BACK.
THERE WILL BE RESIDENTIAL PART OF THE ZONING HAVING TO GO, UH, TO, UH, THIS ONE IS, YOU KNOW, FOR THE HEIGHT, BUT ALSO FOR HAVING THE, THE MIXED USE.
SO IN TERMS THE HEIGHT, NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THE, BUT, BUT THE REAR OF YOUR PROPERTY HA HAS BOUNDED BY SF THREE, AND THEN I THINK YOU'VE GOT SF THREE ABOUT ONE PROPERTY OVER ON ALL THE OTHER SIDES.
UH, AND SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF Y'ALL HAD DONE ANY KIND OF QUICK CALC ON, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING WHAT HEIGHT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO REACH CONSIDERING THE COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.
WE ARE KIND OF SETBACK IN THERE, YOU KNOW, FROM THE BACK ABOUT, I THINK 75 FEET, UH, BEFORE WE REACH THE 60.
SO YOU, YOU, Y'ALL ARE THINKING YOU'LL BE ABLE TO REACH THE MAX 60 FOR THE MAJORITY OF YOUR PROPERTY? NO, THE MINORITY OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S THE LONG, THE SHORT WAY.
COMMISSIONER COX, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE RECOGNIZE THAT 60 FEET IS WHAT'S ALLOWED BY ZONING.
WE RECOGNIZE THE COMPAT COMPATIBILITY RULES THAT ARE IN PLACE TODAY.
WE'VE BEEN VERY UPFRONT IN OUR MULTIPLE MEETINGS WITH THE, UM, OLD WEST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT WE ARE VERY LIKELY TO BE BACK IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD ASKING FOR SOME RELAXATIONS AND COMPATIBILITY.
SO YOU'RE GONNA COME BACK WITH A REQUEST TO, FOR LIKE A VARIANCE OR, OR YOU'RE JUST HOPING THAT COMPATIBILITY RULES WILL BE RELAXED AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT? IT WOULD BE AN EITHER OR SITUATION.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KA, YOU HAD A LITTLE BIT OF TIME AND OTHER QUESTIONS.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? IS THERE A MOTION? UM, MR. PHILLIPS, I MOTION THAT WE ADOPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
IS THERE A SECOND? MR. SKIDMORE, YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? WELL, I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT, THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE ARCHITECTS HAVE ALL DONE IN, IN MY VIEW, A REALLY GOOD JOB OF WORKING TOGETHER TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT IS GOOD FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, THEY, UH, TO MY, UM, REALLY PLEASURE, THEY HAVE INCLUDED FLOOD PLAN,
UM, SOMETHING THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN IN SOME OF THE OTHERS, THEY HAVE INCLUDED AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN, IN, IN THEIR REQUEST.
UH, SO THEY HAVE, THEY TALKED ABOUT THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT WOULD GO TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN, IN TERMS OF CREATIVE SPACES AND, AND THE PROS AND WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE USED AND WHAT IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE USED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO IT, IT, IN MY VIEW IS ESPECIALLY MAINTAINING THE FACADES OF SOME OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT THAT'S REALLY OUTSTANDING.
SO IN MY VIEW, THIS IS THE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THAT REALLY DOES WHEN NOTHING IS EVER A HUNDRED PERCENT, BUT THIS GETS VERY CLOSE TO, TO DOING THAT.
ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION
[01:20:04]
FOR COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? YEP.JUST TO SPEAK BRIEFLY ON THE MOTION OF, SO 27 YEARS AGO WE BOUGHT PROPERTY ON WATERSTON AVENUE IN OLD WEST AUSTIN ACROSS THE STREET FROM CLARKSVILLE.
AND, UH, IT'S A AMAZING, WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD OF MY SON'S IN A WHEELCHAIR.
AND 15 YEARS AGO, WELL ACTUALLY STARTING 17 YEARS AGO, WE TRIED FOR TWO YEARS TO FIND A PLACE TO LIVE IN OLD WEST AUSTIN THAT WAS ACCESSIBLE THAT WOULD WORK FOR US AND THAT WE COULD AFFORD.
AND THERE WERE NO OPTIONS BECAUSE WHAT'S BEING, WHAT HAS BEEN BUILT IN OLD WEST AUSTIN IS VERY EXPENSIVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BY AND LARGE.
SO TO HEAR THAT AT THE CORNER OF WESTLAND AND 12TH STREET, THE POSSIBILITY OF MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH 25 UNITS THAT, UH, MAY BE APPROACHABLE, I WON'T USE THE WORD AFFORDABLE, BUT APPROACHABLE TO A WIDER CROSS-SECTION OF AUSTIN, UH, WARMS MY HEART AND I'M, UH, FULLY IN SUPPORT.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WISHING TO SPEAK OR, OR AGAINST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
THIS IS THE MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
AND COMMISSIONER MUELLER, JUST CONFIRMING THAT SCREEN.
UH, WE ARE UNANIMOUS ON THAT ONE.
ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT DISCUSSION
[13. Rezoning: C14-2023-0138 - Enfield; District 10]
CASE, WHICH IS NUMBER 13.UM, THIS IS THE INFIELD PROJECT.
HI, CYNTHIA HORY WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS ITEM 13 ON YOUR AGENDA, C 14 20 23 0 1 3 8 11 0 6 AND FIELD ROAD.
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS 0.2 ACRES DEVELOPED WITH ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME, HAS ACCESS TO INFIELD ROAD, WHICH IS A LEVEL ONE STREET AND IS CURRENTLY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SF THREE NP.
THIS SITE IS IN THE CAPITAL VIEW CORRIDOR, OLD WEST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND THE NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT NORTH LAMAR BOULEVARD BOULEVARD IS A CORE TRANSIT CORRIDOR AND IN THE IMAGINE AUSTIN PLAN STAFF RECOMMENDS THE REQUEST FOR MF THREE AND P ZONING BECAUSE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ON INFIELD ROAD AND WEST 15TH STREET HAVE BEEN REZONED TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCES WITH THE SAME INTENT OF PROVIDING ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THIS AREA OF THE CITY.
THE TRANSPORTATION REVIEWER HAS PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS.
FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING, THE SITE ONLY GENERATES AN ADDITIONAL 49 TRIPS, SO NO NTA OR DTAS REQUIRED PER CODE.
THE THRESHOLD IS 302,000 RESPECTIVELY.
ALL OTHER TRANSPORTATION ITEMS ARE REVIEWED FOR A SITE PLAN.
IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HERE.
UH, JUST NEED A, UH, COUPLE OF MINUTES, UH, TO FORWARD THE, UM, PRESENTATION.
SHOULD WE TAKE A RECESS, MR. RIVERA? IF THAT'S THE COMMISSION'S DESIRE? OKAY.
WELL, WE'LL JUST NEED, UH, IF WE COULD JUST, UH, REMAIN AT EASE FOR ONE MINUTE OR TWO.
MY NAME IS RICKA KEEPER, SO I AM REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT HERE.
UM, WE ARE REQUESTING TO REZONE 1106 INFIELD.
UM, SO I WANNA TALK ABOUT A COUPLE THINGS.
WE DID MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, HAD A CONVER GOOD CONVERSATION WITH THEM.
YOU'LL HEAR LATER ON, UM, WHAT THIS, UM, THIS IS FROM THE OLD WEST NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND IT'S SHOWING YOU IN 2000
[01:25:01]
WHAT THE EXISTING LAND USE MAP WAS.AND YOU SEE ALL THE RESIDENTIAL THERE.
AND IN THEIR GOALS, THEY TALK ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT THEY KEEP THE MIDDLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MORE OF THEIR RESIDENTIAL CORE AND THE BOUNDARIES AND THE OUTLIER AREAS MORE SO MULTIFAMILY.
UM, YOU CAN SEE, SO IF YOU LOOK TOWARDS THIS PROPERTY IS LIKE ON THE VERY TOP RIGHT HAND CORNER, UM, WHERE YOU SEE INFIELD THERE LIVING 1106, THERE'S THREE PROPERTIES.
I'LL SHOW YOU A LITTLE BIT FURTHER IN A SECOND ON ANOTHER SLIDE.
BUT RIGHT THERE, YOU SEE THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF MULTIFAMILY ALREADY THERE.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DOES SHOW RESIDENTIAL, BUT THIS PROPERTY IS BARELY WITHIN THE OLA AUSTIN PLAN, UM, AND IS OUTSIDE OF THEIR RESIDENTIAL CORE.
SO IT REALLY FALLS IN LINE WITH THE OLA AUSTIN PLAN BEING ON THE BORDERS OF THE, UM, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
SKIP TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SO WHEN I MET WITH THEM, WE TALKED ABOUT THEIR GOALS.
WE TALKED ABOUT HOW THE PROPERTY IS A BOUNDARY AND IT DOES NOT REALLY AFFECT THE RESIDENTIAL CORE.
UM, AND ALSO GO TO THE NEXT SIDE PLEASE.
THE CIRCULATION I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
SO THIS IS A SNAPSHOT OF TODAY AND WHAT THE ZONING IS.
AND YOU SEE THAT MULTIFAMILY IS PRETTY MUCH SATURATED IN THAT SECTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
NOW YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY THERE, 1106 HIGHLIGHTED, THAT IS THE PROPERTY WE'RE ASKING FOR MULTIFAMILY THREE.
AND THE REASON I THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA IS YOU'VE ALREADY GOT MULTIFAMILY ON THE SIDE.
YES, THERE IS A CONDITION ON THERE, BUT THIS IS PERFECT FOR A SENIOR LIVING FACILITY OR YOU KNOW, JUST MORE APARTMENTS.
BUT WHEN I MET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OLD WEST AUSTIN, THEY WERE NOT AS AMENABLE TO THIS.
UM, THEY DIDN'T NECESSARILY WANT TO PROMOTE THIS OR SUPPORT THIS.
I THINK IT'S GOOD BECAUSE TRANS, YOU'VE GOT GREAT CIRCULATION, UM, TRANSPORTATION WISE, YOU'VE GOT A GOOD, UM, TWO-WAY ROAD ON INFIELD AND 15TH STREET AND YOU DON'T REALLY GET A LOT OF CIRCULATION ON THE OTHER SIDE BECAUSE THAT, UH, ROAD OFF OF LAMAR GOES DI DIRECTLY TO THE PARK.
SO IT'S REALLY GOOD CIRCULATION.
IT WON'T AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT ALL AS FAR AS ADDITIONAL DENSITY OR TRAFFIC.
UM, AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, AS A COMMISSION RESPECTFULLY LOOKING AT AREAS WHERE WE CAN PLAN AHEAD AND YOU CAN REALLY THINK ABOUT HOW DO WE SUPPORT BETTER SMART DEVELOPMENT, UM, IN AREAS THAT MAKE SENSE WHILE PROTECTING AND PRESERVING OLD WEST AUSTIN AND SOME OF THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION.
MR. TYNER, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
HELLO, HOW ARE Y'ALL? UM, SO MY NAME IS JOHN TYNER AND I'M HERE TO REPRESENT THE OLD WEST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION OF THE REQUEST OF THE REZONING.
UM, PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING SHE SAID IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE NOT FOR.
WE'RE NOT FOR THE MULTIFAMILY PERIMETER.
MULTIFAMILY IS ALL CHALK THROUGHOUT THERE.
A LOT OF DISCREPANCIES IN WHAT SHE SAID AND WHAT WE REPRESENT OANA IS BOUNDED BY INFIELD ROAD TO ITS NORTH LAMAR TO ITS WEST, EAST, WEST, FIFTH TO ITS SOUTH AND MOPAC ALONG THE WEST SIDE.
UM, FOR MANY YEARS OANA HAS DEALT PRODUCTIVELY WITH REZONING QUEST FROM BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS ALIKE WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
EACH OF THESE REQUESTS HAVE BEEN TRIGGERED WITH A SPECIFIC PROJECT IN MIND AND SPECIFIC REASONS FOR REQUEST.
MANY OF THESE OWNERS AND DEVELOPERS SHOW DETAILED PLANS AND HAVE PROVIDED COMMUNITY BENEFITS AS PART OF THE EFFORTS WHICH HAVE RESULTED IN WIN-WIN SITUATIONS FOR BOTH APPLICANTS.
AS YOU SAW IN THE PAST, UM, PRESENTATION BY THE 12TH AND WESTLAND, YOU SAW HOW THEY HAD PLANS AND HAVE WORKED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'RE VERY TROUBLED BY THE PRESIDENT THAT THIS REZONING CREATES.
THE OWNER'S AGENT HAS TOLD ANA THAT THE CHIEF REASON FOR THE REQUEST IS THAT THE OWNER WISHES TO SELL THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY WAS LISTED, UM, LAST JANUARY IN 23 AND UNLISTED FOR LACK OF OFFERS JULY, 2023.
THE HOUSE HAS BEEN VACANT FOR OVER A YEAR.
I LIVE A BLOCK AWAY AND UM, I KNOW THIS ALL TO BE TRUE AND I'M ALSO A REAL ESTATE BROKER WITH AUSTIN FUND PROPERTIES.
UM, ANA DOES NOT SUPPORT REZONINGS BASED ON SOLE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
RECENTLY APPROVED CODE CHANGE BY THE CITY NOW ALLOWS FOR THREE UNITS ON
[01:30:01]
SF ZONE PROPERTIES.SO THEY CAN GET THREE UNITS ON THERE ALREADY.
FUTURE CODE CHANGES WILL ALLOW EVEN MORE UNITS ON SF ZONE PROPERTIES MAKING THIS REZONING REQUEST OBSOLETE.
THE INTENT HERE IS THAT UPZONING WILL LEAD TO HIGHER PRICE ON THE PROPERTY.
THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY IS IMPACTED BY ITS LOCATION ON INFIELD.
IT'S BORDERED BY THE BRIDGE CONNECTING INFIELD STREET TO ITS NORTH, BUT RESIDENTIAL HOMES TO THE SOUTH.
ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY IS ON A SLOPED CURVED, ONE-WAY SECTION OF INFIELD THAT NEIGHBORS FIND DANGEROUS BECAUSE OF THE NEARBY NEIGHBORS OPPOSED THE REZONING WITHOUT SEEING PLANS OR ANY DRAWINGS.
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH IT, BUT IT SITS ON A REALLY FUNNY PLACE THAT'S, UM, WELL I'LL GET TO THAT.
UM, AS REAL ESTATE BROKER, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE CURRENT REAL ESTATE MARKET HAS SLOWED DUE TO RISING INTEREST RATES AND THERE ARE OTHER MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE MARKET FOR A WHILE AND ARE NOT SELLING DUE TO THE CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS AND DESIRED PRICES APPROVING THE ZONING REQUEST WON'T CHANGE THAT, BUT IT WILL CREATE NEW PRECEDENTS FOR LAND SPECULATION AND SPOT ZONING WHEN THE PROPERTY IS SOLD.
AND IF THE NEW OWNER WANTS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY, OWEN ONE LOOKS FORWARD TO, UM, REVIEWING THE PLANS AND DRAWINGS AT THE TIME AND SEE IF THEY CAN WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE OPPOSE A REZONING OF 1106 INFIELD OH ONE DOES NOT WANT TO SET A PRECEDENT OF UPZONING BASED ON PERCEIVED ECONOMIC HARDSHIP.
WE DON'T BELIEVE REZONING FROM SF TO MF WE'LL SOLVE THE MARKETABILITY OF THIS PROJECT.
I'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
I HAVE ONE THING TO SAY, UM, AND THEN YOU GUYS MAKE YOUR DECISION.
WHEN I DID MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, I THINK THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION THAT I PROBABLY WASN'T SUPPOSED TO HEAR, BUT I WILL SAY THAT ONE OF THE MEMBERS DID SAY HALF OF US LIVE IN APARTMENTS, SO ISN'T THIS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND? UM, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF MULTIFAMILY, UM, AND WE WANNA A SET OF PRECEDENCE FOR BETTER DEVELOPMENTS, SMARTER DEVELOPMENTS.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
UM, CAN I GIVE A VOTE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? IS THERE A MOTION VICE CHAIR SECOND BY, UM, COMMISSIONER AL? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY.
UH, LET'S GO TO OUR FIRST OF FIVE COMMISSIONERS WITH A QUESTION.
MR. AL, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVE AND WHILE YOU'RE COMING BACK UP, THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING TONIGHT.
BUT YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING AROUND AT WHAT STAFF HAS PROVIDED TO US FOR WHAT'S ZONED AROUND THE AREA AND THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF MF THREE IN THERE.
I I THINK I'M, I'M HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THE OBJECTIONS.
IT'S A VERY INTERESTING, IT'S A TRICKY PIECE OF PROPERTY AND SO I THINK WITH SOME OF THE SETBACKS AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH, THE SF THREE IS GONNA BE TOUGH.
UM, AND THAT MAY BE PART OF THEIR PROBLEM IN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW ANYBODY WOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK AT IT AND, AND SEE IT AS DEVELOPABLE IN A, IN A WAY OTHER THAN ITS CURRENT STATE.
BUT I'M NOT SEEING THAT THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT WHERE THEY'RE AT.
I'M NOT SEEING THAT THEY'RE GONNA GET A LOT.
AND THERE IS MF THREE THERE, SO I'M A LITTLE PERPLEXED WHY THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S UPSET BY IT.
UM, THERE IS MULTIFAMILY ZONE ZONING THROUGHOUT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, BACK IN THE LATE SEVENTIES, EARLY EIGHTIES, THE CITY CAME IN AND REZONED A LOT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY MULTIFAMILY.
THERE ARE QUITE A FEW MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES RIGHT AROUND THERE.
UM, BUT THERE ALSO ARE A LOT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES AROUND THERE.
BUT IF YOU HAVE THIS HUGE BLOCK OF SINGLE FAMILY OR MULTIFAMILY, IT'S GONNA CREATE PROBLEMS. AND THAT WHERE THAT PROPERTY IS, IT'S RIGHT ON THIS LITTLE ISLAND THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCESS.
I DUNNO HOW THEY'RE GONNA GET CONSTRUCTION IN THERE TO DO ANYTHING.
WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING IS EVEN IF WE GIVE THEM MF THREE, THEY'VE GOT SO MANY CHALLENGES.
THERE'S, YOU'RE NOT GONNA END UP WITH THE BIG IT'S, IT'S CRAZY.
AND ALSO FOR THE MORE, THERE'S QUITE A NICE HOUSE SITTING ON THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT SOMEONE COULD COME IN AND RENOVATE AND ADD ONTO AND IT WOULD BE A FAR SUPERIOR PROPERTY THAN TRYING TO STICK A ROUND SQUARE PEG IN A ROUND HOLE.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, YOU CAN STAY, SIR.
UH, COMMISSIONER GAINES HAS A QUESTION.
OH, FOR THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVE.
OH, DID I JUMP SOMEBODY? WAS THAT NO, GO AHEAD.
I, UM, I DRIVE EVERY DAY, RIGHT, RIGHT BY THIS.
AND RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET THERE IS A MULTI-FAMILY, UH, APARTMENT COMPLEX OR CONDOS,
[01:35:01]
SOMETHING GOING IN TODAY AND IT'S BEEN GOING IN FOR EIGHT MONTHS.THEY'RE GETTING CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT IN, THEY'RE ON THE SAME STREET AND IT'S, YOU'RE SHAKING IT.
I I DRIVE BY BEFORE YOU, I DRIVE BY EVERY DAY BECAUSE I DON'T, ANYWAY, TELL ME THAT PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE ONE UNDER CONSTRUCTION THAT IS RIGHT ON INFIELD AND WINDSOR.
I LIVE A BLOCK, ONE HOUSE IN FROM THAT.
UM, YOU HAVE ACCESS ON INFIELD, YOU INFIELD, THIS INFIELD IS ADDRESSED AS INFIELD, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY ON PARKWAY.
THEY CAN, THEY CAN COME UP PARKWAY.
YOU CAN, BUT IT'S GOT THAT ROUNDABOUT, IT'S A WAY SKINNY LITTLE STREET RIGHT THERE WITH THIS BIG ISLAND IN IT.
THERE'S NOT THE SAME ACCESS AS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AT ALL.
UM, OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UM, MS. KEEPERS, WITH THE RECENT PASSING OF THE HOME INITIATIVE, HAVE YOU DONE ANY QUICK BACK OF THE NAPKIN ANALYSIS ON WHAT YOU COULD ACHIEVE WITH THAT VERSUS WHAT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE WITH MF THREE? YEAH, I KNOW THAT YOU COULD STILL DO THREE UNITS ON THE PROPERTY WITH SINGLE FAMILY THREE, BUT I THINK THAT THERE IS A BETTER CHANCE TO DO MORE WITH THAT BLOCK AND TO CREATE A BETTER, YOU KNOW, BETTER AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN AN AREA THAT DOESN'T HAVE IT OR SENIOR LIVING.
AND I THINK THAT SETTING THE PRECEDENCE FOR THAT WILL HELP DEVELOPERS COME IN AND DO SOMETHING WITH THAT ENTIRE BLOCK.
AND SO THAT'S, I HAD, I ACTUALLY HAD 1101 INFIELD REACH OUT TO ME AS WELL AND I DIDN'T MENTION IT YET, BUT HE'S FOR THIS AND HE'S LOOKING TO REZONE AS WELL.
UM, AND THAT'S A SINGLE FAMILY THREE LOT.
UM, SO THERE'S A PRECEDENCE FOR THIS.
AND YES, THERE IS SINGLE FAMILY THREE SPARSE AND SPREAD OUT, BUT I GUARANTEE YOU MOST OF THOSE OWNERS ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING TO RE REZONE TO GET THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF THEIR PROPERTY VALUE.
SO I'M, I KIND OF SWAYED A LITTLE BIT FROM YOUR QUESTION.
SORRY ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
I'M FOR THE INITIATIVE AND I'M FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO ANYWAY, THAT'S IT FOR MY QUESTIONS.
IS THERE A MOTION ON THE TABLE? VICE CHAIR CHAIR WILL MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH STAFF, UH, STAFF, UH, RECOMMENDATION.
SARAH'S SECOND FISHER WOODS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? SURE, I'LL KEEP THIS BRIEF.
I THINK THERE'S MULTIPLE REASONS WHY THIS MAKES SENSE.
I ACTUALLY, UH, LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL, SO IT'S GREAT TO HAVE A NEIGHBOR ON THE DICE.
UM, AND I, THIS IS ACTUALLY MY REGULAR WALKING PATH AND I WANNA SAY PART OF THIS IS, THIS IS ONE OF OUR CORE TRANSIT CORRIDORS WEST OF LAMAR.
IF THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO EXPAND HOUSING IN A HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREA, MEET OUR GOAL AS A CITY TO AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING, THIS IS THE SPACE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.
AND I WANNA SAY IT USED TO BE A, IT WAS SLATED TO BECOME A 15 MINUTE, UH, BUS, BUT THEN IT WAS REALLY THE HOUSING CAPACITY AROUND IT THAT MEANT THAT IT HAD TO BE BASED OUT FURTHER.
I ALSO WANNA SAY THERE'S FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE COMING IN HERE FOR A BUS RAPID IN THE FUTURE.
SO ALL THAT SAID, THIS IS PART OF OUR CORE TRANSIT CORRIDORS GOING WEST OF LAMAR.
IT ALLOWS US TO AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING, EXPAND OUR HOUSING GOALS IN HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREAS, AND ENSURE THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE DIFFERENT KINDS OF HOUSING IN ALL PARTS OF OUR CITY.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST FOR FOUR? YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE THOUGH.
THIS IS FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM 13.
UM, MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER ZA, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? TWO, THREE.
OKAY, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO
[16. Rezoning: C14-2023-0114 - 1725 Toomey; District 9]
NUMBER 16.THIS IS THE 17 25 2 TOMI ROAD CASE CHAIR.
UM, I NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THIS ITEM.
I RECEIVE A MAJORITY OF MY INCOME FROM AUSTIN, HABITAT FOR HUMANITY AND HOME BASE IS A PART OF THE STEEL AND HOME BASE.
EVEN THOUGH I DON'T WORK THERE IS TECHNICALLY UNDER AUSTIN HABITAT.
[01:40:01]
CYNTHIA HADR AGAIN, PLANNING DEPARTMENT.THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 16 ON YOUR AGENDA CASE CC 14 2 2 3 4 1 7 1 7 2 5 TO ME ROAD.
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS 0.9 ACRES AND IS DEVELOPED WITH A MULTIFAMILY BUILDING ON ONE TRACK OF LAND.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TOME ROAD AND EAST OF STERING STREET.
BOTH ARE LEVEL ONE STREET, SPARTAN SPRINGS ROAD AND SOUTH LAMAR BOULEVARD ARE CORE TRANSIT CORRIDORS AND BOTH LEVEL THREE STREETS.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING MF SIX TO DEVELOP 203 MULTIFAMILY UNITS ON THE SITE.
THE ADJACENT ZONING USES TO THE EAST AND SOUTH ARE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCES AND RESTAURANTS.
ACROSS DING STREET, THERE IS A MIX OF OFFICE, COMMERCIAL AND RESTAURANT USES.
AND TO THE NORTH OF TOME ROAD IS LADY BIRD LAKE AND THE BUTLER SHORES PARK.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTH OF OUR COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE AN ADOPTED FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING TO GRANT THE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTS, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN DISTRICT ZONING AND REMOVE THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, WHICH RESTRICTS THE HEIGHT TO 75 FEET.
STAFF IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION AS THIS IS A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY AT THIS LOCATION AND IS, AND IT IS IN LINE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL'S GOALS AND INITIATIVES TO ADD MORE HOUSING IN THE CITY PER THE TRANSPORTATION REVIEWER.
A TIA WAS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF GENERATED TRIPS DOES NOT SURPASS THE SPECIFIED THRESHOLD.
MATTERS RELATED TO THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION RELATED ITEMS WILL UNDERGO REVIEW DURING THE SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS.
IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HERE.
WILL, I'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT WHO HAS DONATED TIME FROM KATE ZEKI.
THAT WILL BE A TOTAL OF EIGHT MINUTES.
I HOPE TO NOT NEED EIGHT MINUTES.
UM, GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME'S AMANDA S SWER WITH RENER GROUP HERE THIS EVENING ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.
PICTURE'S WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS.
SO, UM, THIS IS, UH, WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, AGAIN AT THE CORNER OF STEARING INTO ME, UM, JUST TO THE NORTH OF BARTON SPRINGS AND TO THE WEST OF LAMAR.
UM, BOTH OF WHICH ARE CORE TRANSIT CORRIDORS.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH, UM, 39 MULTIFAMILY UNITS THAT WERE BUILT IN THE SIXTIES.
THE PROPERTY IS, UM, LOOKING TO REDEVELOP.
THIS SITE IS AGAIN, UH, ZONED MF SIX CO WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT LIMITS THE HEIGHT TO 75 FEET.
THIS PROPERTY WAS ZONED THIS WAY IN JANUARY OF 2022.
UH, AS WE WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS, WE ENDED UP WITH SEVERAL AGREEMENTS THAT I'LL TALK THROUGH LATER, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
MF SIX CO WITH THE CO LIMITING THE HEIGHT TO 75 FEET.
OUR REQUEST IS TO REMOVE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ON THE SITE, ALLOWING THE PROPERTY TO BUILD TO THE FULL 90 FEET THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED AS PART OF THE MF SIX BASE ZONING DISTRICT.
THE, UH, PROPERTY TODAY DOES HAVE, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ON IT.
IT IS A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, BUT I DO MENTION IT BECAUSE IT EXISTS AND IT RUNS WITH THE LAND.
IT WAS PUT ON THE PROPERTY IN JANUARY OF 2002 WITH THE INITIAL REZONING.
THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT REQUIRES ANY PROPERTY, ANY PROJECT THAT REDEVELOPMENTS REDEVELOPS ON THE SITE AND HAS A RESIDENTIAL USE, UM, TO PROVIDE ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THAT IS 15% OF THE TOTAL UNITS.
THAT IS ONE 5% OF THE TOTAL UNITS TO BE PROVIDED AT 80% OF THE MFI.
IF IT IS OWNERSHIP, IT WOULD BE 5% AT 80% MFI.
THIS, UH, PROPERTY IS IN THE WATERFRONT OVERLAY.
THE REZONING REQUEST IS REALLY CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF THE CITY'S GOALS, THE HOUSING GOALS, AND, UM, EVEN THE LONGER TERM, LONGER RANGE GOALS.
SO AGAIN, THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE BUTLER SHO'S SUBDISTRICT OF THE WATERFRONT OVERLAY.
THIS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT.
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN THIS SUBDISTRICT WAS ESTABLISHED AT 96 FEET, UH, IN THE 1980S WHEN THIS, UH, WAS ADOPTED.
THE GOALS OF THE CITY ARE TO PROVIDE MORE HOUSING.
THIS HAS BEEN APPARENT WITH, UH, WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE HEARD.
THIS PROPERTY IS SITUATED LESS THAN A 10TH OF A MILE FROM EAST WEST TRANSIT, LESS THAN A THIRD OF A MILE FROM, UM, CONSISTENT NORTH SOUTH TRANSIT.
THIS IS A PLACE IN THE CITY WHERE YOU CAN ACTUALLY LIVE A CAR FREE LIFE.
YOU CAN WALK ACROSS THE STREET TO GET TO THE BIKE, HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL.
AND AGAIN, YOU DO HAVE CONSISTENT DAYTIME, WEEKEND AND NIGHT OWL SERVICE.
UM, BUS SERVICE IN THIS LOCATION.
UH, I WON'T, I WON'T BELABOR THIS.
I THINK WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT IT TONIGHT.
BUT THE, THE CITY'S GOALS AS PART OF THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT IS TO PROVIDE HOUSING IN HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREAS.
UM, AND THIS IS AN AREA OF TOWN THAT IS, IS REALLY BELOW THE GOALS OF PROVIDING ADDITIONAL HOUSING AND ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
BREAKING IT DOWN IN NUMBERS, RIGHT? 'CAUSE YOU SEE A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
WHAT, WHAT DOES THIS REALLY MEAN? SO THE REMOVAL OF THE HEIGHT WOULD ALLOW FOR AN ADDITIONAL 15 FEET, WHICH EQUATES TO ONE ADDITIONAL FLOOR.
[01:45:01]
WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 39 UNITS, UH, AND WOULD ALLOW FOR OF THOSE 39 6 OF THOSE UNITS WOULD BE AFFORDABLE.AND SO THE QUESTION THAT WE'RE ASKING OURSELVES TODAY IS IN THIS LOCATION FOR A PROPERTY THAT'S GONNA BE REDEVELOPED, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL FLOOR AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL HOUSING THAT OTHERWISE WOULDN'T BE THERE UNDER THE ZONING THAT WE HAVE TODAY? NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
UH, EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN 2002
SO WHEN SEVERAL OF YOU WERE ON THE DIOCESE WHEN THIS CASE ORIGINALLY CAME THROUGH, THIS IS A REZONING CASE THAT REALLY BECAME THE CATALYST FOR TENANT RELOCATION AND TENANT AGREEMENTS FOR, UH, PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN PROPERTIES THAT HAD LEASES AND WERE LIVING THERE WITHOUT KNOWING THAT A PROPERTY WAS GONNA BE DEVELOPED.
THESE ARE ALL ITEMS THAT WERE PUT INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE TENANTS THAT LIVED IN THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIME.
ALL OF THESE ITEMS STAY IN PLACE.
THEY WILL CONTINUE TO STAY IN PLACE.
I SAY THAT 'CAUSE ALTHOUGH WE WERE THE CATALYSTS, WE, WE MADE SOME MISTAKES
WE ARE WORKING WITH THE TENANTS TO UPDATE AND UPGRADE SOME OF THE LANGUAGE.
UM, SOME OF IT'S JUST AMBIGUITY, BUT NOTHING MAJOR HAS CHANGED.
SO THIS, UH, MOU IS IN PLACE AND IT STAYS IN PLACE WITH ALL OF THE TENANTS THAT STILL LIVE IN THE PROPERTY.
AND THERE'S STILL QUITE A FEW THAT LIVE THERE, UM, TODAY THAT LIVE THERE IN 2022.
UM, SEVERAL THAT LIVE THERE, BUT SEVERAL THAT ARE NEW.
AND SO WHEN WE PUT TOGETHER THESE PARAMETERS IN JANUARY OF 2022, UM, REALLY THAT WERE NEGOTIATED IN 2021, WE WERE THE FIRST ONES KIND OF GOING THROUGH THIS.
AND ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS WAS PROVIDING NOTIFICATION TO NEW TENANTS SO THAT THEY KNEW THAT REDEVELOPMENT WAS HAPPENING.
UH, WE MADE SURE THAT THAT HAPPENS, BUT AS WE STARTED TALKING WITH THE TENANTS GOING THROUGH THIS REZONING, THEY ASKED FOR SOME ITEMS TO BE, UM, PRESENTED TO THE EXISTING, TO THE TENANTS THAT ARE IN TODAY THAT WEREN'T THERE DURING THE ORIGINAL MOU.
UM, THESE ARE THOSE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE, UM, MADE SURE THAT WE EXTENDED THAT GO ABOVE AND BEYOND TENANT RELOCATION.
UM, SO IT TALKS ABOUT NOTIFICATION, NO TERMINATION WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE FOR FUNDING, SECURITY, DEPOSITS, ET CETERA.
SO WITH THAT, I AM THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
I FEEL LIKE I TALKED MORE THAN I NEEDED TO, BUT, UM, WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT AND WE HOPE THAT YOU CAN HELP SUPPORT HOUSING IN THIS, UM, IMPORTANT AREA OF THE CITY.
UM, WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION.
UH, BEGIN WITH MS. LAUREN, AN ANGEL.
MR. AN ANGEL WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT.
THE FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO SAY IS THAT THERE ARE SOME INCONSISTENCIES IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT THAT I'D LIKE TO BRING OUT.
FIRST OF ALL, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE HEIGHT IN THIS QUADRANT.
THE QUADRANT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS LAKE IS LAMAR FOUNDED BY BARTON SPRINGS ROAD, TOME ROAD AND STERING.
OKAY? THIS IS A PRETTY QUIET PART OF THE CITY.
IT HAS A NUMBER OF MULTI-STORY, UM, CONDOS AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS.
UH, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY OF THEM EXCEED 75 FEET OR 70 FEET.
COLD SPRING AND ZILKER WHERE I LIVE, UH, I BELIEVE ARE THERE ARE ONLY FIVE FLOOR BUILDINGS.
BARTON PLACE IS UH, SIX FLOOR BUILDING.
SO THIS TOWER THAT WILL BE BUILT ON THIS REQUESTED SITE WILL BE 90 FEET.
IT WILL BE A COMPLETE OUTLIER IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PLANNING DOCUMENT SAYS THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS CLEARLY NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
OKAY? IF THIS APPROVAL IS GRANTED TO BUILD A 90 FOOT TOWER HERE IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS, EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS QUADRANT, LAMAR BOUNDED BY BARTON SPRINGS AND TO ME AND STIR WILL BE 90 FEET TALL.
OKAY? THIS IS GONNA LOOK LIKE THE WEST END OF VANCOUVER IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN THERE.
OKAY? THE OTHER PROBLEM IS, BESIDES THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ROAD GRID CANNOT SUPPORT DENSITY LIKE THIS OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS.
SO IF YOU APPROVE THIS PROJECT FROM 75 TO 90 FEET, EVERYBODY ELSE IS GONNA BUILD THE 90 FEET.
YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TOWERS ALL OVER THE PLACE.
THERE'S VACANT LAND, THERE'S REDEVELOPMENT LOTS.
CHEWY'S IS GONNA GET REDEVELOPED.
YOU KNOW, LOU'S IS GONNA GET REDEVELOPED AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THIS
[01:50:01]
MASSIVE COM COMPLEX OF 90 STORY TOWERS.AND THERE'S NO MORE ROOM ON BARTON SPRINGS AND TOME ROAD.
YOU GO DOWN THERE TODAY ON BARTON SPRINGS ROAD SINCE IT WAS MADE ONE LANE.
IT'S CRAZY TODAY, WHAT'S IT GONNA LOOK LIKE IN 10 YEARS? YOU'RE OPENING PANDORA'S BOX HERE BY APPROVING THIS.
IT'S ALSO A JOKE THAT THIS IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UNFORTUNATELY THE CONDOMINIUMS IN THIS AREA ARE REALLY EXPENSIVE.
OKAY? I KNOW 'CAUSE I LIVE IN ZO OKAY? THAT DOESN'T MEAN I'M MORE BLESSED THAN OTHER PEOPLE IN, IN, IN THE IMMEDIATE NE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IF YOU GO TO BARTON PLACE, YOU KNOW THE, THAT'S NOT AFFORDABLE.
OKAY? ZILKER PARK IS NOT AFFORDABLE, OKAY? COLD SPRING IS A RENTAL UNIT.
SO I'M REALLY SURPRISED THAT THE VIRTUE SEEKING, UH, THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR THERE WILL BE SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THESE ARE GONNA BE VERY EXPENSIVE.
AND I WOULD POSIT THAT THIS FLOOR THAT'S BEING ADDED, THERE'S GONNA BE MILLION DOLLAR CONDOMINIUMS ON THAT FLOOR.
SO LET'S NOT, LET'S NOT SAY THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO GET THIS PASSED.
SO I'M THREE AND A HALF RIGHT NOW.
UH, MR. UH, ANGELA, I APOLOGIZE.
YOU HAD, YOU WERE A THREE MINUTE SPEAKER.
UH, MR. FULLER SAID FIVE IS THE PRIMARY SPEAKER SAID FIVE.
CAN I HAVE ONE MORE MINUTE JUST TO FINISH? UNFORTUNATELY NOT
UH, THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO THEM VERY MUCH.
NOW, MR. FULLER, UH, ON THE TELECONFERENCE, MR. FULLER, YOU'LL SELECT STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH EAR MARKS.
YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES AS PRIMARY SPEAKER, MR. FULLER.
UH, IF YOU'LL SELECT STAR SIX CHAIR, WE'RE GOING TO, UM, WORK ON THIS MATTER.
UM, THEN WE WILL, UH, COME BACK TO MR. FULLER.
UM, WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. LAURA GOLDSTEIN FOR THREE MINUTES.
I HAVE LIVED AT 1 7 1 7 TOMI ROAD, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY FOR NINE YEARS.
AND MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT WITH THE ADDITIONAL, WHICH ACTUALLY WILL BE BETWEEN TWO AND THREE FLOORS MORE THAN ALL THE BUILDINGS NEXT TO IT, THAT IS GOING TO BE, IF I LOOK AT MY MATH THAT I'VE DONE 120 NEW UNITS.
AND AS THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS HAVE ALLUDED TO THE DENSITY AND TRAFFIC IN THIS SPECIFIC AREA WITH THE INGRESS EGRESS OF THIS PARTICULAR ROAD, HAVING A HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY UNIT LIKE THIS IS GOING TO CREATE JUST A TRAFFIC PROBLEM THAT HONESTLY WE CANNOT SUPPORT.
AND IT'S REALLY FUNNY ACTUALLY THAT YOU CALLED BARTON SPRINGS A CORE TRANSIT CORRIDOR WHEN YOU TOOK IT FROM TWO LANES TO ONE.
SO IT IS NO LONGER THAT WE HAVE ACL TRAIL OF LIGHTS, BLUES ON THE GREEN, AND WITH EVERY SINGLE EVENT THAT IS ADDED TO ZILKER PARK WITH THE CONSTRICTION OF BARTON SPRINGS TRAFFIC HAS BECOME AN EVEN BIGGER ISSUE.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, IT JUST DOESN'T FIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
EVERY BUILDING ADJACENT TO THIS IS AT OR BELOW 65.
SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AS I'VE SEEN THIS GROW, LIKE WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A SIDEWALK FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS THAT I LIVED ON TOY ROAD.
I'M NOT OPPOSED TO GROWTH, BUT I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS ADDITIONAL OR GETTING RID OF THE CAP IS GOING TO BENEFIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM A STANDPOINT OF JUST CONGESTION AND MAKING IT AN EVEN BIGGER TRAFFIC ISSUE.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S SEE IF I HAVE ANY, OH, AT THE END OF THE DAY I BELIEVE THAT THESE HOUSING GOALS THAT AUSTIN HAS PUT FORTH ARE GREAT AND THEY CAN BE MET WITH THE CURRENT CAP, LIKE ALL THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL, UM, PROPERTIES.
SO THAT IS WHY I OPPOSE IT BECAUSE WE DON'T, WE DON'T NEED MORE TRAFFIC.
AUSTIN'S ALREADY AS BAD AS ENOUGH AS IT IS AND THIS IS JUST NOT GOING TO HELP WITH THE ADDITIONAL THREE, UM, THREE LEVELS.
[01:55:11]
MR. FULLER.IF YOU COULD SELECT STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR MARKS.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? THANK YOU, SIR.
MY WIFE AND I OWN A UNIT IN THE BUILDING LOCATED ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
THE CURRENT BUILDING AT 17 25 2 ME HAS 40 UNITS IN APPROXIMATELY 60 PARKING SPACES.
THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS EXPECTED TO HAVE APPROXIMATELY 200 UNITS WITH THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES UNDER, UNDER TERMED AT THIS TIME WHERE WE'RE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT.
BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED TRAFFIC AND INTERFERENCE WITH EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS, IT WOULD BRING TO BOTH TOY AND STERING ROADS.
TODAY, PARKING IS ALLOWED ON BOTH SIDES OF STERING, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED FOR TWO FULL LANES OF TRAFFIC.
CHEWY'S IS A POPULAR RESTAURANT FRIDAY, SATURDAY, AND SUNDAY EVENINGS DRAWS SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC TO THE STREET AS THEIR PARKING LOT IS ACCESSED FROM STERING TRAFFIC ON SATURDAY AND SUNDAY AFTERNOONS CAN BE EQUALLY BUSY.
THE PICTURE YOU SHOULD BE VIEWING WAS TAKEN FACING SOUTH ON STERING, LOOKING TOWARDS BARTON SPRINGS ROAD.
AND IS THAT PICTURE VISIBLE TO YOU FOLKS? BECAUSE IF IT ISN'T, IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT PIECE OF MY PRESENTATION HERE.
WE ARE NOT SEEING THAT, SO PLEASE HOLD.
SO I SENT IT, I SUBMITTED A PICTURE THIS AFTERNOON AND I RECEIVED AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT IT WAS RECEIVED.
CAN WE CHECK WITH OUR LIAISON? UH, WE WILL, UM, UH, HAVE IT UP.
UM, IF YOU'LL JUST, UH, KEEP PROCEEDING WITH YOUR MARKS.
OKAY, SO THIS PICTURE WAS TAKEN ON SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 3RD, FEBRUARY 23RD AT 3:26 PM AND IS TYPICAL IN THE TIMEFRAMES I HAVE MENTIONED.
THE SHORT TIME PRIOR TO THIS PICTURE BEING TAKEN, A FIRETRUCK WITH SIREN SOUNDING, STRUGGLED TO MAKE ITS WAY NORTHWARD THROUGH THE TRAFFIC.
MY CONCERN ALSO IS ON TOMI ROAD, WHERE YOU HAVE MULTIPLE MULTI-UNIT BUILDINGS WITH THEIR ACCESS ONLY ON TOMI ROAD.
ONE OF THE BUILDINGS PUTS ITS DUMPSTERS OUT ON THE STREET FOR THE GARBAGE PEOPLE TO PICK UP.
OTHER GARBAGE DUMPSTERS ARE PUT ON THE STREET ON GARBAGE DAY.
ALONG WITH THAT, YOU HAVE NUMEROUS MOVING TRUCKS BECAUSE THESE ARE ALL PROPERTIES THAT HAVE RAIL UNITS IN THEM, AND THAT COMBINED WITH THE AMAZON TRUCKS AND THE PEOPLE TRAFFIC AND THE BASEBALL GAMES AT THE ATHLETIC FIELDS ALSO ALLOWS TUMI TO BECOME QUITE A CONGESTED AREA.
SO THAT INCLUDES MY COMMENTS AND OPPOSITION TO THIS AMENDMENT, BUT I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE YOU CAN PUT THE PICTURE UP BECAUSE AS THE LADY PREVIOUSLY SAID, A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS.
SO IS SOMEONE WORKING TO FIND THAT PICTURE? YES SIR.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE PICTURE AGAIN NOW THAT WE HAVE IT UP? YES.
THE PIC, THE PICTURE IS TAKEN FROM MY BALCONY FACING SOUTH ON STERING ROAD, LOOKING TOWARDS BARTON SPRINGS ROAD.
THE PICTURE WAS TAKEN SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 23RD AT 3:26 PM AND IS TYPICAL OF TRAFFIC ON STERING ROAD ON FRIDAY, SATURDAY, AND SUNDAY NIGHTS, AS WELL AS SATURDAY AND SUNDAY AFTERNOONS IN A NORMAL PART OF THE YEAR.
WHEN YOU START TO ADD THE EVENTS THAT THE PRIOR SPEAKER SPOKE ABOUT, IT IS JUST A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TRAFFIC SITUATION.
I FIND IT SOMEWHAT INTERESTING THAT THERE WAS NO TRAFFIC STUDY REQUIRED ON THIS PROJECT WHEN THESE, THE PROPOSED UNIT IS NOT ON A MAIN ROADWAY AND AS THE EARLIER SPEAKER SAID, BARTON SPRINGS ROAD HAS NOW BEEN REDUCED TO ONE LANE EACH WAY.
THESE ARE NOT MAJOR ROADWAYS, WHICH YOU ARE LOOKING AT IS EXACTLY WHAT THAT ROAD LOOKS LIKE ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY EVENINGS AND ON, UH, AND SUNDAY EVENINGS AND ON SATURDAY AND SUNDAY AFTERNOONS.
THIS IS NOT A ONE OFF, UM, INSTANCE OF THE, THE, THE PICTURE.
SO I THINK THE PEOPLE ON THE WHO HAVE APPROVED THIS PROJECT, UH, OR ARE GOING TO VOTE ON THIS PROJECT, NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS IS WHAT YOU LIVE WITH.
AND, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, UH, WHAT REALLY CAUSED ME TO TAKE THIS PICTURE WAS THE FIRE TRUCK THAT COULDN'T GET DOWN THE ROAD.
AND IF SIREN WAS GOING, I THINK THIS IS A VERY CRITICAL MISS BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE APPROVING THIS PROJECT.
CHAIR WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
[02:00:07]
THANK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.UH, I WOULD JUST CLOSE WITH, UH, AGAIN, THE 96 FEET.
THE HEIGHT WAS CONTEMPLATED AND HAS BEEN SINCE THE EIGHTIES.
IT IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE AROUND THIS AREA.
UM, AND AGAIN, TRAFFIC IS, AS WE ALL KNOW, IS SOMETHING THAT'S HANDLED AT THE TIME OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AS WELL AS THOSE TRA TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION.
SO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALRIGHT.
AND, AND SECOND, COMMISSIONER RIVER RAMIREZ.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? WE ARE UNANIMOUS.
FIRST QUESTION, COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, I THOUGHT I WAS TAKING CRAZY PILLS FOR A SECOND.
'CAUSE I REMEMBER THIS CASE AND I REMEMBER US HAVING A VERY LONG CONVERSATION AND DEBATE AND HAVING A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM THE TENANTS AND, AND THE APPLICANT.
AND SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT IS, YOU, YOU WERE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CO WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS TWO YEARS AGO, WHAT'S CHANGED? WE, WE WERE BEGRUDGINGLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CEO AT THAT TIME.
THERE WAS A VALID PETITION FILED BY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
IT WAS A DIFFERENT COUNCIL WITH DIFFERENT PRIORITIES.
AND AT THE TIME, UM, WE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SECURE THE VOTES FOR THE 90 FEET.
WE HAVE INITIALLY APPLIED FOR 90 FEET THAT, THAT, UM, CHANGED RIGHT BEFORE CITY COUNCIL.
SO ALL OF OUR DISCUSSIONS THAT WENT THROUGH COMMISSION AT THAT TIME AND RIGHT BEFORE CITY COUNCIL, UM, WAS FOR 90 FEET.
IT, LIKE I SAID, IT CHANGED AT THE TIME RIGHT BEFORE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL.
UM, I FORGOT ABOUT THE VALID PETITION.
DID HAVE Y'ALL MADE A DEAL WITH THE ADJACENT OWNERS TO AVOID THAT SAME SCENARIO? THERE HAS NOT BEEN A VALID PETITION FILED ON THIS CASE.
UM, I AM CONCERNED, UH, I I OFTEN GET CRITICIZED FOR PUTTING ON MY NERDY ENGINEER HAT IN THESE CONVERSATIONS, BUT I HATE THESE REALLY LONG BLOCKS AND THIS BLOCK IS LIKE BETWEEN SIX AND 900 FEET LONG, WHICH IS JUST BLOWS MY MIND AND IT LEADS TO THOSE ISSUES THAT, THAT THESE, THESE, UH, RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN TELLING US ABOUT.
AND SO I'M JUST CURIOUS IF, IF YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE AND, AND TRAFFIC AND, YOU KNOW, PUTTING, UH, A, A LARGER BUILDING WITH MORE RESIDENTS IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION CONSIDERING ALL OF THE CHALLENGES THAT THE LOCATION HAS RIGHT NOW.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE HAD SOME VERY PRELIMINARY CONVERSATIONS WITH AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT.
YOU KNOW, WHEN WHEN YOU SUBMIT A ZONING CASE, IT GOES TO EVERYBODY
AND SO WE HAD SOME HIGH LEVEL CONVERSATIONS AND YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY EVERYONE DECIDED AT THE TIME THAT THESE ARE SITE PLAN QUESTIONS.
UM, AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT GOING TO DIG INTO THE DETAILS HERE.
UM, WE KNOW THAT THIS IS A SITE THAT YOU ACTUALLY CAN HAVE PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE CARS.
SO ALTHOUGH WE'RE ADDING ADDITIONAL UNITS, WILL WE INCREASE THE, THE ACTUAL TRIPS PER DAY? WE DON'T KNOW IN THIS AREA.
RIGHT? IT'S A PLACE THAT YOU ACTUALLY CAN LIVE WITHOUT A CAR.
UM, I WAS ACTUALLY TALKING TO ONE OF THE, UM, TENANTS HERE AND SHE SAID SHE DID IT FOR MANY YEARS THAT SHE LIVED HERE WITHOUT A CAR WITH THE BUS ACCESS AND THE TRANSIT ACCESS.
AND SO MY LAST QUESTION, UM, IS YOU MENTIONED THAT THAT WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING, UH, MATCHES THE, THE SURROUNDING, UH, DEVELOPMENT, BUT I COULD NOT FIND ANY STRUCTURES.
THE HEIGHT THAT, THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING IS, AM I MISSING SOMETHING OR ARE Y'ALL, AREN'T Y'ALL REQUESTING A HEIGHT THAT'S THAT'S TALLER THAN EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND IT? WE'RE REQUESTING 90 FEET.
THE PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY THAT IS AT TOME AND SOUTH LAMAR IS 96 FEET.
THAT'S ALSO WITHIN THIS SUBDISTRICT OF THE WATERFRONT OVERLAY AS WELL AS THE LAUREN, WHICH IS CONDOS AND HOTEL ACROSS LAMAR.
ALL THOSE ARE ALL WITHIN THE OKAY.
WELL, WELL, LAMAR LAMAR'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY THAN BARTON SWINGS TO ME
OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. MTEL? THANK YOU.
YEAH, I, I, THIS THIS WAS A, THIS WAS A ROBUST CASE AND IT REALLY WASN'T THAT LONG AGO.
DO WE, WE HAVE, UM, SOMEBODY FROM STAFF OR DO, CAN WE SEE A COPY OF THE NOTICE THAT WENT OUT ON THIS HEARING AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE FOR THIS REZONING REQUEST? BECAUSE THIS IS LESS THAN I I'M, ARE WE, I'M NOT EVEN SURE WE'RE UP ON TWO YEARS FROM WHEN WE WENT THROUGH A BIG CASE HEARING ON THIS.
[02:05:02]
THEY'RE, THEY'RE LOOKING, SHERIFF COMMISSIONER LAYS ON VERA.UM, WE, UM, SHOULD BE ABLE TO, UH, PULL THAT UP.
UM, AND DO WE, AND THOSE NOTICES GO OUT BY STATUTE, HOW FAR IN ADVANCE OF THE, OF OUR COMMISSIONER M HOLLER SHERRY HERWE WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOTICES ARE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO GO OUT 11 DAYS PRIOR TO A PUBLIC HEARING.
AND, AND THIS IS OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING FOR IT.
SO IT WOULD BE FOR THIS, FOR THIS CASE, YES.
AND DO WE KNOW WHAT, UH, WHAT LANGUAGE, WHAT THAT, WHAT NOTICE WENT OUT? SO THE LANGUAGE IN THE NOTICE IS THAT THE TYPICAL LANGUAGE IN A ZONING NOTICE TALKS ABOUT THE PROJECT LOCATION OWNER AND APPLICANT, AND THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE, THE FROM AND TO WHICH LISTS THE MF SIX CO, THE DEFINITIONS FOR MF SIX AND CO AND THEN TO THE MF SIX CATEGORY.
AND THEN IT OF COURSE PROVIDES THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE AND TIME AND LOCATION.
AND WE ALSO INCLUDE, OBVIOUSLY THE CASE MAP, BUT WE ALSO INCLUDE A RESPONSE FORM THAT THE APPLICANTS CAN SEND BACK AND A QR CODE WITH INFORMATION OR IF THEY WANNA MAKE COMMENTS.
SO THAT GOES THROUGH THE POST BOX.
SO MAYBE A WEEK PEOPLE MAYBE HAVE GOT IT IN THEIR POST BOXES.
AND I KNOW IN LOOKING AT, LIKE, IT TOOK MYSELF A MINUTE TO, UM, TO KIND OF FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THIS CASE.
UM, AND OBVIOUSLY COMMISSIONER COX SAID THE SAME THING.
AND WE LOOK AT OUR CASE PREP, WE'VE GOT MF SIX CO TO MF SIX.
SO THEN YOU HAVE TO WONDER WHAT'S BEING CHANGED.
I'M, I'M CONCERNED WE HAD A REALLY ROBUST PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS ON THIS NOT THAT LONG AGO, AND IT'S CRICKETS TONIGHT.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S AN HONEST REFLECTION OF THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE REMOVING THE CO AND GIVING THEM UNLIMITED HEIGHT.
WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT AND, UM, AND STUFF LIKE THAT ALONG THE WATERWAY.
I DO WANNA CLARIFY THAT THIS NOTICE DID GO OUT ON FEBRUARY 2ND BECAUSE THE CASE WAS ON YOUR AGENDA, UM, FOR THE FEBRUARY 13TH MEETING, AND THEN IT WAS POSTPONED.
SO THERE HAS BEEN AMPLE TIME THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN OUT FOR THE PUBLIC'S REVIEW LONGER THAN THE BASE REQUIREMENT OF THE STATE STATUTE WHO POSTPONED IT LAST TIME.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD REQUESTED THE POSTPONEMENT LAWSUIT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
UM, A, A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, PLEASE.
YOU KIND OF ZOOMED THROUGH THE TENANT PROTECTIONS AND I'D LIKE TO GO BACK AND SEE THOSE, IF YOU COULD BRING THEM BACK UP AND TALK ABOUT THE RIGHT TO RETURN.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.
CAN I PLEASE HAVE THE PRESENTATION? YOU CAN ONLY TALK SO FAST.
SO THIS IS THE TENANT PROTECTIONS THAT WERE, OR IN THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THAT WERE, UH, DONE AS A LEASE ADDENDUM TO ALL OF THE TENANTS THAT WERE PART OF THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION, WHICH TO COMMISSIONER SCHILLER'S POINT, WE WAS A VERY ROBUST DISCUSSION AND IT REALLY FOCUSED A LOT AROUND TENANTS, WHICH IS WHY THIS BECAME THE CATALYST FOR WHAT IS, UM, NOW THE STANDARD, UH, FOR NEW PROJECTS.
AND SO IT, IT TALKS ABOUT THE 180 DAY NOTICE OF DEMOLITION AS WELL AS AN ADDITIONAL 90 DAYS.
ONCE THAT 90 DAY NOTIFICATION IS GIVEN, UH, THERE IS, THOSE LAST 90 DAYS ARE RENT FREE TO THE, TO THE TENANTS IN GOOD STANDING.
UM, THIS IS A BIG ONE THAT THERE'S NO TERMINATION OF LEASES WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE.
I, YOU KNOW, IE WE CAN'T TELL SOMEBODY THEY CAN'T RENEW THEIR RENT UNLESS THERE'S A GOOD REASON.
LIKE THEY'RE NOT RENEW THEIR LEASE UNLESS THERE'S A GOOD REASON.
LIKE THEY'RE NOT PAYING RENT, UM, REFUNDING OF ALL SECURITY AND PET DEPOSITS AT THE TIME OF FINAL MOVE OUT.
UM, THE PROPERTY'S GONNA BE DEMOLISHED.
WE DON'T NEED THE DEPOSITS TO REHAB THE PROPERTY, UM, PAYMENT FOR MOVING EXPENSES AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATIVE FEES, AS WELL AS PAYING THE FIRST MONTH'S RENT TO A NEW PLACE UP TO $2,000.
UM, ONCE WE GIVE THAT NOTIFICATION OF DEMOLITION, SOMETIMES IT TAKES A LITTLE WHILE TO FIND A, A NEW HOME.
AND SO THIS ALLOWS, IF SOMEONE FINDS A NEW PLACE TO TERMINATE THEIR LEASE WITHOUT ANY PENALTY.
AND THEN FINALLY THE RIGHT TO RETURN.
UM, AS WE MENTIONED, THERE ARE GOING TO BE BOTH MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY.
IT WOULD ALLOW THOSE TENANTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY THERE THE RIGHT TO THE FIRST RIGHT TO RETURN TO THOSE UNITS.
YOU SAID THIS SAYS RIGHT TO RETURN FOR ONE YEAR.
SO AFTER THE NEW UNITS OPEN, BASICALLY IN FIVE YEARS, SOMEBODY COULDN'T COME BACK AND SAY, HEY, I USED TO LIVE THERE.
[02:10:01]
FROM THE TIME THAT THE PROPERTY OPENS TO ELECT THAT.AND, AND DO YOU STAY IN TOUCH WITH THE TENANTS TO LET THEM KNOW THE PROGRESS DURING THAT YEAR? THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE MOU AND I THINK IT'S IN THE LEASE AMENDMENT AS WELL, THAT TALKS ABOUT, UM, KIND OF GETTING ON A LIST AND MAKING SURE THAT, UH, UPDATES ARE PROVIDED AND KIND OF HOW THAT COMMUNICATION IS HANDLED.
AND ALSO, I, I NOTICED THAT THE AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT, I, I THINK I'M ALLOWED TO ASK ABOUT, UM, WHO KNOWS.
UM, BUT UH, COULD YOU TALK ABOUT THAT ONCE MORE? YES, MA'AM.
SO THERE IS A, AN EXISTING RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, SO I CAN TALK ABOUT THAT.
UM, AN EXISTING RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY THAT REQUIRES THAT 15% OF NEW, UH, FOR RENT UNITS BE RESERVED FOR HOUSEHOLDS EARNING UP TO 80% OF THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME.
IT'S FIF IT ENDED UP BEING 15.
WE UPPED IT TENANTS CHAIR POINT OF ORDER, SO WE CAN GET, THIS NEEDS TO BE MICROPHONE, SO IT CAN BE RECORDED IN, UM, UM, THIS IS, UH, MARKED ONE OF THE TENANTS.
WHAT HE'S SAYING IS THAT THE TENANTS, UM, AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M, I'M INACCURATE, BUT THAT THE TENANTS AGREED TO NOT OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT SO THAT THEY COULD GET THE SETTLEMENT, UM, AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL REZONING.
AND, AND THIS WAS 80% OF THE MFI OR LESS? YES, MA'AM.
WE HAVE TWO MORE SPOTS FOR QUESTIONS.
OH, CAN WE GET THE, UM, THE SCREEN DOWN SO WE CAN SEE THE COMMISSIONERS? I'LL TAKE ONE OF 'EM AS YES.
MADAM CHAIR, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, UH, FOR, FOR THE APPLICANT, UH, AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT
UM, SO THE TENANT AGREEMENTS, UH, THAT YOU JUST HAD UP, UH, EVERYTHING EXTENDS THROUGH.
WE GOT THAT TWO YEARS AGO, AND I KNOW SOME OF MY, I'M THE NEW GUY ON THE, I CAN'T SAY I'M THE NEW GUY ANYMORE.
UH, I'M STILL LEARNING GUY ON THE DA.
UH, SO I WENT IN HERE A COUPLE YEARS AGO.
UM, BUT SO THE, THE AGREEMENTS THAT YOU PUT IN PLACE IN THE MOU EXTEND TO THIS NEXT PHASE, IF, IF IT'S GRANTED.
SO THE MOU THAT APPLIES TO THE TENANTS THAT WERE THERE AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL REZONING APPLIED, CONTINUES TO APPLY TO THOSE TENANTS.
THE TENANTS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THERE WAS A, A FEW PIECES OF LANGUAGE THAT TALKED ABOUT LIKE ABANDONMENT OF A PROJECT.
WE HAVE AGREED TO TAKE THAT OUT.
AGAIN, IT WAS KIND OF THE CATALYST OF IT.
SO THERE'S SOME CLEANUP ITEMS, BUT EVERYTHING OF SUBSTANCE STAYS.
IT ACTUALLY, IT CLEANS UP SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT THE TENANTS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION.
AND I HEARD THE D AM I ALREADY OUT OF TIME? NO, YOU'RE GOOD.
UH, AND THEN, UM, I MEAN, THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE, I'M SITTING HERE IN, IN A LITTLE BIT OF AMAZEMENT.
UM, HOW IN THE WORLD IS THIS PROJECT FINANCIALLY VIABLE WITH 15% AFFORDABILITY,
YOU, YOU CAN'T BUILD WITH ANYTHING.
YOU CAN'T EVEN BUILD 10% AND WE'LL GRANT IT BACK.
HOW DO YOU MAKE ANY MONEY WHATSOEVER WITH 15% AFFORDABILITY? I AM NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT THE WAY THAT YOU OH MY GOSH.
BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABILITY.
AND AT THE TIME, GIVEN WHERE THIS LOCATION IS, THE DECISION WAS MADE TO GO WITH A LARGER PERCENTAGE AT A HIGHER MFI STAYING AT THE 80% MFI VERSUS THE 60% MFI, IT MADE IT 15% AT 60% IS NOT SURE, IS NOT DOABLE.
UM, THIS DEAL WAS ALSO MADE IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MARKET.
THE, THE MARKETS WERE TOTALLY DIFFERENT, BUT, BUT YOU'RE EXTENDING THE 15% TO YES, SIR.
IT'S ON THE, IT'S A RESTRICTIVE COVER.
IS THERE A MOTION? MADAM CHAIR? CAN I MAKE A, A REQUE? UM, IT, IT IS PROBABLY GONNA BE RULED OUT OF ORDER BY OUR PARLIAMENTARIAN, BUT SHE'S NICE.
UM, I'LL ASK, I, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF FOLKS HERE AND NOBODY, I, I MEAN, MAYBE THEY'RE, EVERYBODY'S JUST, IF THIS WAS SUCH A BIG CASE, CAN WE HAVE ANYBODY TO COME UP AND SAY A PIECE OR
[02:15:01]
THEY WOULD'VE HAD TO HAVE SIGNED UP EARLIER.COMMISSIONER SKIMO MOTION TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE REZONING OF 1725 TOMI ROAD.
ALRIGHT, IS THERE A SECOND? OH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION JUST BRIEFLY OF, I THINK WHEN WE LOOK IN THE CITY AND WE LOOK AT PAR PLACE, PARTS OF THE CITY THAT WOULD SUPPORT DENSITY SUPPORT, UH, AND INCLUDING ADDITIONAL HEIGHT SO THAT MORE PEOPLE CAN LIVE CLOSE TO TRANSIT, CAN LIVE CLOSE TO RECREATION ACTIVITIES, EDUCATION, ET CETERA, OF THIS IS THE PLACE.
AND I REALIZE THAT IN ORDER TO AFFORD THESE PROJECTS, SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO GO TALLER.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ADDING IMPERVIOUS COVER, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GOING A LITTLE BIT TALLER, 15 FEET TALLER, SO THAT WE CAN, UH, INCREMENTALLY BUILD ADDITIONAL HOUSING.
AND WE KNOW GOING A LITTLE BIT TALLER IS GONNA ALLOW THE PROJECT, EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT TO BE LESS EXPENSIVE TO CONSTRUCT.
SO THIS SEEMS LIKE THE PLACE WHERE GROWING A BIT TALLER MAKES SENSE TO ME.
AND I'LL GO FURTHER TO SAY THAT IF IN THE FUTURE THERE ARE ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS THAT ARE AT 90 FEET IN THIS PART OF THE CITY, I, FOR ONE, THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE WILL DRIVE LESS, EVEN IF THEY, WHETHER THEY OWN CARS OR NOT, BECAUSE THEY HAD, THEY LIVE IN A WALKABLE PART OF THE CITY.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING IT.
ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER MUELLER? THANK YOU.
I, I JUST, WE HEARD EXACTLY WHY THEY'RE DOING THIS BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T GET THEIR WAY WITH THE MAKEUP OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL THE WAY IT WAS A YEAR AGO.
I'M CONCERNED THAT THE PUBLIC IS NOT AWARE.
WE HAD A VERY ROBUST CONVERSATION WITH SOS IN BARTON SPRINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS IN THIS AREA.
AND THE, UH, WE WERE VERY PROUD OF THIS
WE WERE VERY PROUD OF THAT, AND WE PROUDLY SENT THAT FORWARD TO COUNCIL AS A GOOD COMPROMISE OF THE COMPETING INTERESTS BETWEEN OUR NEEDS FOR MORE HOUSING, OUR NEEDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE FACT THAT WE WERE TAKING DOWN WHAT WAS CURRENTLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PROTECTING THOSE TENANTS AND BRINGING SOMETHING BACK INTO THE AREA THAT WOULD FIT PROPERLY, BOTH FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTENCY AND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY.
AND I, I DO NOT APPRECIATE THIS.
I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A KID GOING BACK TO THE OTHER PARENT, THE ONE WHO CAVES OVER AND GIVES OVER TO THE YES ANSWER AFTER THE OTHER PARENT JUST SAID, NO, YOU CAN'T HAVE DESSERT, AND NOW WE'RE COMING BACK FOR DESSERT.
AND IT'S, IT'S, I DON'T LIKE THIS PRECEDENT.
I THINK WE GOT IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR VICE? SURE.
UM, CHERYL, I'LL JUST SPEAK TO THE FACT THIS IS NOT A CONDITION OF ZONING.
UM, BUT I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT SORT OF VOLUNTARILY EXTENDING SOME OF THE TENANT PROTECTIONS TO ADDITIONAL TENANTS AS WELL.
UM, AND, AND I DO, I THINK WANNA, UH, UNDERSCORE THAT THIS IS A SPACE WHERE WE CAN ADD MORE AFFORDABLE OR HOUSING IN GENERAL IN OUR CITY BECAUSE IT IS CLOSED TO MANATEES BECAUSE IT IS CLOSED TO A CORE TRANSIT CORRIDOR.
AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT HOPEFULLY A NUMBER OF THOSE ISSUES RELATED TO TRAFFIC IMPACT CAN PARTICULARLY BE ADDRESSED AT THE SITE TIME OF SITE PLAN.
SO WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT ACCESS TO THIS PROJECT AND THE STREET SURROUNDED REMAINS OPEN TO THE COMMUNITY.
THEY'RE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? SORRY.
SO I'M NOT SPEAKING AGAINST THE PROJECT.
UH, I THINK I'M SPEAKING FOR IT.
UM, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION.
I WAS NOT ON THIS BODY WHEN THE FIRST PROLONGED, MASSIVE, ROBUST HEARING WAS HAD.
WE WERE NOT GIVEN ACCESS TO ANY OF THAT INFORMATION AND WE'RE BEING ASKED TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY.
SO, UM, I I REALLY JUST ON THE FACE OF IT, REALLY FEEL GOOD ABOUT SOME OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED, THE FACT THAT RESIDENTS ARE HERE IN SUPPORT OF, OF THIS THE RIGHT TO RETURN AND THE TENANT PROTECTIONS.
SO UNFORTUNATELY I HAVE TO GO WITH WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US.
[02:20:02]
THANK YOU.ANY OTHER SPEAKING? UH, COMMISSIONER COX? I WON'T, I WON'T REPEAT WHAT COMMISSIONER LER UH, SAID, BUT, BUT I DO AGREE WITH, WITH EVERYTHING THAT SHE SAID.
UH, IT SEEMS LIKE WE, WE HAMMERED OUT A GOOD COMPROMISE BEFORE.
I DON'T REALLY LIKE THE THOUGHT OF, OF US JUST REVISITING EVERY SINGLE CASE THAT DOESN'T DEVELOP EVERY YEAR TO SEE IF THE DEVELOPER CAN GET A LITTLE BIT MORE OUT OF THE CURRENT POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT.
BUT WHAT I DO WANNA HIGHLIGHT IS THAT THIS EVENING WE'VE BEEN TOLD ON AN MF PROJECT, OH, YOU KNOW, AFFORDABLE HOUSING? NO, WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT THAT.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T COMPUTE.
AND THEN WE HAVE A CASE HERE ON A MF PROJECT THAT HAS AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WE NEED TO HOLD ALL OF OUR CASES TO A VERY HIGH STANDARD WHEN IT COMES TO TENANT PROTECTIONS AND VOLUNTARY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UH, WE CAN DO THAT AS A COMMISSION.
SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE DON'T, UM, AND, AND HOPEFULLY MANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE DON'T.
UM, BUT I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT SINCE IT'S, IT'S, IT'S EXTREMELY POIGNANT TONIGHT, UH, THAT WE'VE HAD TWO, UH, DIFFERENT CASES THAT HAVE TOLD US TWO DIFFERENT THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.
THIS IS, I'LL, I'LL ASK, I'LL TAKE THE SPOT AND ASK A QUESTION.
CAN WE HAVE A, A, AND THIS MAY NOT BE PROPER, BUT CAN WE AT LEAST START PUTTING IN THE BACKUP WHEN, YOU KNOW, THE LAST TIME A CASE CAME FORWARD OR SOMETHING? I MEAN, I, I, I HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AND I'M SEEING LOTS OF NODDING HEADS THAT THIS CAME BACK LAST YEAR.
UM, SO IN YOUR STAFF REPORT ON PAGE FOUR, THERE'S AREA CASE HISTORIES AND RELATED CASES.
IT DOES STATE THAT THE PREVIOUS CASE DID COME FORWARD.
IT SHOWED THAT PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR CITY COUNCIL.
AND THEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVED IT ON THE SECOND AND THIRD READINGS WITH THE COS.
NO, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT, YEAH, THAT'S A LITTLE, THAT'S A LITTLE, IT'S PRETTY VAGUE, COULD SAY, BUT IT'S A PRETTY VAGUE, OKAY, THANKS.
IF YOU'RE NEW AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE, THAT DOESN'T REALLY GIVE YOU THE NUT OF THE MATTER AT ALL.
IT'S A LITTLE SU I, I'M, I'M, I'M SORRY, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S CORRECT, THAT THE STAFF, THE BACKUP SAYS THAT WE APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF MF SIX CO.
AND THE CO WAS TO LIMIT THE HEIGHT 75 FEET AND THEN COUNCIL APPROVED THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.
ISN'T THAT CORRECT CHAIR? I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE QUESTION.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
THIS IS FIRST AFRICAN NATION, THE MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? FIVE EIGHT.
UM, VIRTUALLY AND THOSE AGAINST AND THOSE ABSTAINING.
THAT'S NINE TO TWO WITH COMMISSIONERS, MOALA AND COX VOTING AGAINST THAT.
OKAY, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO OUR
[30. LDC Amendment: C20-2023-013 - Butler Trail Amendments]
CODE AMENDMENTS.SO ITEM 30, COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR ZA, IS GOING TO LEAD THIS DISCUSSION CHAIR.
WE DO HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION.
GOOD EVENING PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
I AM YOUR CITY OF AUSTIN ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF WATERSHED PROTECTION.
I YIELD MOST OF MY TIME TO LESLIE LILLY.
UH, BUT STAFF IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON PROCESS OR CONTENT OF THIS CODE RESOLUTION.
UH, ORIGINALLY INITIATED BY COUNCIL DISTRICT EIGHT WITH CO-SPONSORS TO REALLY AIM TO PROVIDE A CLEAR PATHWAY TO CODE COMPLIANT, UH, TRAILS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO LADYBIRD LAKE.
AND GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS AND CHAIR.
I'M LESLIE LILLY WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION, AND I'M GONNA BE SPEAKING ON THE BUTLER TRAIL CODE AMENDMENT THIS EVENING.
UH, SO A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE BUTLER TRAIL AND WHY, UH, THE ALIGNMENT OF IT IS IN QUESTION RIGHT
[02:25:01]
NOW.UH, WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED IN THE 1970S, THERE WAS NOT CLEAR LANGUAGE IN, UH, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT DESCRIBED THE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED IN CREEK SETBACKS OR THE PLACEMENT OF TRAILS.
UM, SO THIS TRAIL WAS PLACED BEFORE THOSE THINGS WERE CLARIFIED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IN THE WATERSHED PROTECTION ORDINANCE.
AND THEN FURTHER, FURTHER CLARIFIED IN 2017.
ADDITIONALLY, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, WHICH MAY BE MOST OF YOU KNOW, HOW, UH, HEAVILY TRAFFICKED THIS PARTICULAR TRAIL IS RECEIVING APPROXIMATELY 5 MILLION VISITS EVERY YEAR.
UM, AS KATIE MENTIONED THIS, WHY WE'RE BRINGING THIS AMENDMENT FORWARD IS IT WAS IN ORIGINALLY INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL LAST SPRING DIRECTING, DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO, UH, EXAMINE THREE IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS, UH, DEVELOPED BY THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
AND THOSE THREE DOCUMENTS INCLUDE THE BUTLER TRAIL, URBAN FORESTRY AND NATURAL AREA MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES, THE BUTLER TRAIL PARKLAND OPERATIONS MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, AND THE BUTLER TRAIL SAFETY AND MOBILITY STUDY.
SO, A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THOSE THREE DOCUMENTS IS THE URBAN FORESTRY AND NATURAL AREA MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES GIVES INFORMATION ABOUT THE ECOLOGY AND THE ELEMENTS OF, UH, THE NATURAL AREAS THAT SURROUND THE TRAIL THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE NATURAL BEAUTY AND THE ECOLOGY THAT, UH, EXISTS THERE.
AND THEN ALSO SOME OF THE CONCERNS, ISSUES AND IMPACTS RELATED TO THE TRAIL, SUCH AS EROSION, INVASIVE SPECIES, USER IMPACT, ET CETERA.
THE SAFETY AND MOBILITY STUDY DESCRIBES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, UM, THAT WERE, UH, BASED OUT OF A, A VERY LARGE STUDY LOOKING AT THE WAYS THAT PEOPLE ACCESS THE SITE, WHETHER IT'S ACCESS FROM ADJACENT, UH, TRAIL SYSTEMS OR, UH, YOU KNOW, THE WIDTH OR THE JUST AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT'S ON THE TRAIL.
AND THEN LASTLY, THE PARK LAND OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT IS A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY AND THE CITY THAT DESCRIBES THE OBLIGATION THAT THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY HAS TO FULFILL, UM, MAINTENANCE OF THE NATURAL AREAS AND PROVIDE SERVICES TO SUPPORT AND STEWARD THIS TRAIL.
UM, THIS IS, UH, A MAP OF THE TRAIL SYSTEM THAT EXTENDS FROM MOPAC IN THE WEST TO LONGHORN DAM IN THE EAST.
A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TRAIL SYSTEM IS WITHIN THE 500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
UH, 85% OF THE TRAIL IS WITHIN THE 50 FOOT SETBACK, WHICH IS, UH, A, A PART OF THE CODE AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE BEING, THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TONIGHT.
AND THERE ARE ALSO SEVERAL CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES INCLUDING SPRINGS, RIM, ROCKS, AND WETLANDS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THIS TRAIL.
UM, SO ONTO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THERE ARE THREE ELEMENTS TO THE AMENDMENT.
THE FIRST ONE BEING TO 25 8, 2 61 B THREE C.
AS IT RELATES TO THE TRAIL WIDTH.
AS A PART OF THE SAFETY AND MOBILITY STUDY, IT WAS RECOGNIZED THAT SECTIONS OF TRAIL, UH, LESS THAN 12 FEET WOULD NEED, UM, INTERVENTIONS TO, OR SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS THE HEAVY TRAFFIC.
UM, SO THAT PARTICULAR STUDY RECOMMENDS THAT THERE BE SOME INTERVENTION, NOT NECESSARILY EXPANSION, BUT SOMETHING DONE TO ADDRESS THE HEAVY TRAFFIC ON THE TRAIL.
UM, SO THAT IS A PART OF OUR PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
AND THEN RELATED TO 25 8 2 61 B THREE F THROUGH G, WE ARE PROPOSING TO ALLOW THE BUTLER TRAIL TO EXIST WITHIN THE 50 FOOT SETBACK OF LADYBIRD LAKE WITH A BASELINE ONE-TO-ONE RESTORATION AND UP TO TWO TO ONE RESTORATION.
THIS IS A, UH, CHANGE IN LANGUAGE FROM WHAT WAS PROPOSED AT THE CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE DUE TO SOME FEEDBACK FROM BOTH SHAREHOLDERS COUNCIL OFFICES AND AN EXAMINATION OF SOME OF THE CONSTRAINTS THAT MIGHT EXIST ON THE SITE, INCLUDING JUST PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS SUCH THAT WE WANT TO PROVIDE, UH, FLEXIBILITY WITH THE INTENT TO ALWAYS REACH UP TO TWO TO ONE RESTORATION.
BUT UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS OF EACH SITE MIGHT CAUSE, UM, SOME, UH, ISSUES WITH ACTUALLY HAVING THE RESTORATION REQUIREMENTS BE MET WITHIN THE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION OF A SITE PLAN PERMIT.
AND THEN LASTLY, RELATED TO 25 8 2 61 C TWO, WE ARE ALSO RECOMMENDING TO REMOVE A REQUIREMENT, UH, ADDRESSING RESTORATION FOR SHORELINE DISTURBANCE BECAUSE IT'S REDUNDANT AND NOT NECESSARILY, UM, ALIGNED WITH THE TYPE OF RESTORATION WE'RE PROVIDING OR WE'RE, WE'RE PROPOSING.
WHICH SPECIFICALLY RELATES TO THE FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT SCORE OF FLOODPLAIN HEALTH AND DESCRIBES DIFFERENT KIND OF RESTORATION, UH, ACTIVITIES THAT YOU WOULD DO TO IMPROVE THE FLOODPLAIN.
UM, I'M GONNA SKIP THROUGH THESE THREE SLIDES, THESE THREE SLIDES BECAUSE THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL RED LINE LANGUAGE THAT WE PROVIDED.
BUT WITH, UM, SOME FEEDBACK FROM OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT, WE HAVE, UH, PROVIDED ALSO IN BACKUP THIS SECTION OF
[02:30:01]
LANGUAGE THAT KIND OF PULLS ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS INTO ITS OWN SUBSECTION K, THAT ANY SEGMENT OF THE TRAIL AND A PART OF THE ROY BUTLER HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL AS DEFINED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, IS NOT SUBJECT TO BARGA PARAGRAPH B THREE C, WHICH IS THE WIDTH LIMITATION OR SUBDIVISION C TWO, WHICH IS THE RESTORATION ASSOCIATED WITH SHORELINE DISTURBANCE AND MAY BE LOCATED WITHIN 50 FEET OF LADYBIRD LAKE AS DEFINED BY SECTION 25 8 92 CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONES ESTABLISHED IF ONE RESTORATION AS DETERMINED BY A FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF FLOODPLAIN HEALTH AS PRESCRIBED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL.MANUAL INCLUDES A RESTORED AREA AT A MINIMUM RATIO OF ONE TO ONE OF RESTORED AREA TWO, DISTURBED AREA TWO DISTURBED AREA, AND A MAXIMUM RATIO OF TWO TO ONE OR TWO ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE AS APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR.
THAT SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO POTENTIAL OFFSITE RESTORATION TO MEET THAT TWO TO ONE, UH, RATIO, OR, UH, OPPORTUNITIES TO PROVIDE OTHER INTERVENTIONS THAT IMPROVE WATER QUALITY, THAT IMPROVE, UM, THE PROTECTION OF OTHERWISE UNPROTECTED, UH, CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES OR OTHER THINGS THAT GENERALLY BOOST THE ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF THE SITE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT.
SO, UH, I WANTED TO GO OVER THE ACTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO DATE.
SO THIS ITEM WAS HEARD BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 6TH, 2023.
AND AT THAT TIME, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION APPROVED THIS AMENDMENT WITH A VERY SIMPLE, UH, LANGUAGE THAT JUST APPROVED WITH TWO TO ONE, UH, RESTORATION IN EXCHANGE FOR ALLOWING THE TRAIL TO EXIST IN THE 50 FOOT SETBACK.
ADDITIONALLY, THE CODES AND ORDINANCE, CODE AND ORDINANCE JOINT COMMITTEE ALSO SAW THIS AMENDMENT AND, UH, VOTED ON IT, UH, IN DECEMBER 13TH, 2023, AND APPROVED THE SAME LANGUAGE AFTER WHICH WE RECEIVED AND DISCUSSED WITH SHAREHOLDERS, INCLUDING THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY AND, UH, THE SPONSORING COUNCIL OFFICES.
THE, UH, CONCERNS ABOUT PROVIDING FLEXIBILITY FOR THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT AND, UH, WENT AND, UH, PRESENTED THIS ITEM AT PARKS BOARD LAST NIGHT WHERE THEY APPROVED THE LANGUAGE WITH A BASELINE OF TWO TO 1 2, 1 TO ONE, MAKING THE BASELINE.
TWO TO ONE CONCERNS CAME OUT OF THE PARKS BOARD MEETING LAST NIGHT RELATED TO WIDTH AND RELATED TO SURFACE, UH, THAT BEING A CONCERN ABOUT PAVING, UH, OCCURRING ACROSS THE ENTIRE TRAIL.
NEITHER ONE OF THOSE MOTIONS CARRIED SO DID NOT MAKE IT INTO THE ENVIRONMENT, I MEAN, INTO THE PARKS BOARD, UH, RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS PASSED LAST NIGHT.
AND THIS WILL BE HEARD AT CITY COUNCIL NEXT THURSDAY.
AND WITH THAT, UM, STAFF RECOGNIZES THE NEED TO ACCOMMODATE THE NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS AND UPDATES TO THE BUTLER TRAIL FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY THOSE RELATED TO SAFETY AND MOBILITY.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE CODE AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
THE CURRENT TRAIL IS NONCOMPLIANT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS.
RESTORATION FOR IMPACT TO THE INNER CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE PROVIDES ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS, AND THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PROVIDES A PATHWAY FORWARD TO ALLOWED APPROVAL OF FUTURE BUTLER TRAIL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.
WITH THAT, I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND OTHER WATERSHED STAFF AND PARTS STAFF ARE ALSO AVAILABLE.
UH, MR. VER, DO WE HAVE PUBLIC SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM CHAIR? COMMISSIONER LARO? YES.
SO WE DO HAVE, UH, SPEAKERS BEGINNING WITH MS. ASHLEY, ASHLEY FISHER.
MS. FISHER, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
HI, GOOD EVENING PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
I'M ASHLEY FISHER AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY.
THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY IS PROUD TO BE A PARTNER OF THE CITY TO PROTECT, ENHANCE, AND CONNECT THE A N ROY BUTLER HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL.
FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL, WE SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDED CODE AMENDMENTS.
THESE CODE AMENDMENTS ARE IN RESPONSE TO A RESOLUTION THAT CITY COUNCIL PASSED LAST SPRING.
THEY WILL HELP BRING THE CURRENT TRAIL ALIGNMENT AND WIDTH INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CITY CODE AND WILL ALLOW THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY TO CONTINUE WITH TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS LIKE THOSE OUTLINED IN THE 2021 SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN.
THESE COULD INCLUDE THINGS LIKE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS, TRAILHEAD CONNECTIONS, AND SAFETY LIGHTING.
AS AN OFFICIAL PARTNER OF THE CITY, THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY CONSERVANCY CURRENTLY PERFORMS SIGNIFICANT ONGOING RESTORATION WORK THAT IS REPORTED TO THE CITY EACH YEAR.
WE DO THIS RESTORATION WORK ON AN ONGOING BASIS,
[02:35:01]
NOT JUST ASSOCIATED WHEN ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECTS.THEREFORE, WE SUPPORT THE FLEXIBILITY PROVIDED IN THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE RESTORATION REQUIREMENTS, TTCS FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
UM, HANNAH FER, OUR INTERIM, CEO, AND I ARE BOTH HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS DURING THE DISCUSSION LATER IF NEEDED.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. KEVIN LANZA.
MR. LANZA, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
HI, GOOD EVENING PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
I'M AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT UT HEALTH SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH IN AUSTIN, UM, TRAINED IN CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING.
AND I'M HERE ON THE BEHALF OF THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY AS, UM, WE, I'M SUPPORTING AND ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THE CODE AMENDMENTS.
UH, SPECIFICALLY AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 30.
THERE'S A MOUNTAIN OF RESEARCH, INCLUDING MY OWN, THAT SHOWS THE HEALTH AND WELLBEING BENEFITS OF ENGAGING IN PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, SOCIAL INTERACTION, AND EXPOSURE TO NATURE.
THE TRAIL BRINGS ALL OF THAT TO THOSE WHO USE IT OVER 5 MILLION ANNUALLY, BOTH RESIDENTS AND VISITORS ALIKE.
AND THESE AMENDMENTS ARE GONNA ALLOW FOR BRINGING THE TRAIL INTO COMPLIANCE, BOTH WITH THE WIDTH AND THE ALIGNMENT, AND ALLOW FOR CONTINUED IMPROVEMENTS GOING ON FORWARD.
WE'LL NOT HEAR FROM MR. ANDY AUSTIN.
MR. AUSTIN, GOOD EVENING, UH, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
UH, I'M THE IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIR OF THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY AND A CURRENT BOARD MEMBER, AND I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT THE BUTLER CHEN BIKE TRAIL CODE AMENDMENTS, THE NUMBER 30 ITEM ON YOUR AGENDA.
UM, THIS IS A COUNCIL DIRECTED ITEM, AS YOU'VE HEARD, UM, TO ADDRESS THE INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE 2017 AND THE CODE PROVISIONS THAT WERE ADDED TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE LOCATION OF THE TRAIL ITSELF, WHICH IN 2017 HAD BEEN WHERE IT IS FOR ROUGHLY 45 YEARS.
UM, AS ADOPTED, THE 2017 AMENDMENTS MADE 85% OF THAT 45-YEAR-OLD TRAIL, UH, NON-COMPLIANT WITH THAT 50 FOOT SETBACK.
UH, THE AMENDMENTS BEFORE YOU ARE INTENDED TO FIX THIS.
WITHOUT THESE AMENDMENTS, THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY WOULD BE UNABLE TO MAKE, UH, ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO MOST OF THE TRAIL, AS IN MOST OF THESE AREAS.
THIS 85% OF THE TRAIL AREAS, IT'S UNFEASIBLE TO RELOCATE THE TRAIL.
UH, AS FOR THE, THE LEVEL OF RESTORATION REQUIRED, WE'VE SPENT AT THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY 50 YEARS PROTECTING, UH, WELL OUR, OUR PREDECESSORS AND OURSELVES PROTECTING THE SHORELINE OF LADY BIRD LAKE AND RESTORING THE PARKLAND AROUND THE TRAIL.
AND WE INTEND TO KEEP DOING THIS, AS YOU'VE HEARD, UH, THROUGHOUT ALL OF OUR WORK.
AND WE, UH, WE SPEND A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY ANNUALLY ON ECOLOGICAL REST RESTORATION.
AND WE, UH, WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
THESE AMENDMENTS WILL ALLOW THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY TO CONTINUE ITS IMPORTANT WORK TO MAKE THE TRAIL A BETTER PLACE FOR ALL OF US.
AND WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE SUPPORT THESE AMENDMENTS.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BY COM? MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECONDED BY, UH, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, UM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, UH, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, ARE YOU IN FAVOR? I'M GONNA ASSUME YES.
AND ALL THOSE VIRTUALLY THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY ABSTAINING.
AND WITH, UM, CHAIR HEMPEL ABSTAINING ON THIS ITEM, SO THAT PASSES 11.
UM, THIS TAKES US TO OUR RON ROBIN QUESTIONS.
SO COMMISSIONER, I OPEN IT UP TO ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ASK QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? YES, SIR.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. LILY.
I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES OF WHERE THAT TWO TO ONE RESTORATION IS NOT FEASIBLE OR REALISTIC, AND WHERE THE ONE-TO-ONE IS NEEDED.
SO THERE ARE, UM, TWO DIFFERENT SCENARIOS IN WHICH A TWO TO ONE RESTORATION WOULDN'T BE FEASIBLE.
AND THE TWO SCENARIOS ARE THE PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS OF THE PROJECT.
SO FOR INSTANCE, THERE ARE SOME VERY PHYSICALLY CONTR CONSTRAINED SECTIONS OF THE TRAIL NEAR, UH, ZILKER PARK WHERE THERE'S VERY, VERY STEEP SLOPES.
AND SO THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE TRAIL FOR THE PURPOSE OF EROSION OR, YOU KNOW, SHORING UP THE, YOU KNOW, THE EDGES OF THE TRAIL OR CREATING, UH, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, A SMALL BOARDWALK OVER THE, AN EXISTING WETLAND THAT'S CLOSER TO MOPAC, THAT THERE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY ACTUALLY BE PHYSICAL ROOM FOR THE RESTORATION TO HAPPEN.
SECONDARILY, THE WAY THAT WE DEFINE RESTORATION
[02:40:01]
HAS TO, UH, START WITH A FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF FLOODPLAIN HEALTH AND THE RESTORATION HAS TO QUALIFY FOR BEING RESTORED.SO IF IT ALREADY SCORES AS HIGH, THEN IT DOESN'T QUALIFY FOR RESTORATION.
SO IF THERE'S A SECTION OF TRAIL THAT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED, A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AS PROPOSED BY THE SAFETY AND MOBILITY STUDY, AND IT'S ALREADY SURROUNDED BY SECTIONS OF VEGETATION THAT ARE HIGH, LIKE THAT SCORE HIGH ACCORDING TO THE FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF FLOOD PLAIN HEALTH, THEN THAT AREA DIRECTLY SURROUNDING THE TRAIL WOULDN'T BE COUNTED.
'CAUSE WE WOULDN'T WANT TO TOUCH IT OR RESTORE IT, WE WOULD JUST LEAVE IT AS IS.
AND CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN FOR MY BENEFIT HOW, A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW YOU CALCULATE THAT RESTORATION RATIO? IS THAT AN, IS THAT A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF AN AREA? IT, IT IS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF AREA THAT IS, UM, LIKE NEWLY IMPACTED AREA.
SO FOR EVERY SQUARE FOOT, THE RATIO IS EITHER ONE.
SO ONE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOT OF AREA THAT WOULD BE RESTORED OR TWO, TWO SQUARE FEET OF AREA THAT IS RESTORED.
DO WE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, COMMISSIONER PER RAMIREZ, MY QUESTION IS ABOUT THE WIDTH.
SO THE CURRENT AMENDMENT AS IT IS TODAY SAYS NO WHITER THAN, OR IT WOULD BE A NOT PART OF THE, NO WIDER THAN 12 FEET.
AND I GUESS THE STAFF HAVE A CAP IN WHICH THEY THINK IS REASONABLE, A REASONABLE WIDTH, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT I HEARD FROM FOLKS IS THAT THEY'RE CONCERNED THAT THERE'S NO LIMIT AND SO IT COULD GO 50 FEET OR SOMETHING.
IS THERE A SENSE FROM STAFF ABOUT HOW, WHY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE? SO I THINK THAT THERE IS GUIDANCE BOTH IN THE, UM, SAFETY AND MOBILITY STUDY THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY PRESCRIBE AN ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM WIDTH.
AND THEN IN THE URBAN TRAIL PLAN THAT WAS REACHED RECENTLY ADOPTED BY COUNCIL IN THE FALL OF 2023.
SO RELATED TO THE SAFETY AND MOBILITY STUDY, IT DOES SAY IN THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY SAFETY MOBILITY STUDY THAT SINGLE TRAILS SHOULD NOT EXCEED, UH, 20 FEET IN WIDTH UNLESS THEY ALREADY ARE WIDER THAN 20 FEET.
THERE ARE SEVERAL EXAMPLES AROUND THE TRAIL WHERE THERE THE SINGLE TRAIL IS ALREADY WIDER THAN 20 FEET.
UM, SO THAT'S ONE KIND OF GUIDANCE.
AND THEN THE URBAN TRAIL PLAN HAS GUIDANCE AROUND, UH, SINGLE TRAILS FOR HIGH TRAFFIC SYSTEMS BEING UP TO 16 FEET.
ALTHOUGH THAT PLAN WAS NOT MEANT FOR THE VERY HIGH TRAFFIC TRAIL THAT IS THE BUTLER TRAIL, BUT IT DOES DIRECT, UH, DUAL TRACK TRAILS TO BE 10 TO 12 FEET WIDE FOR THE PEDESTRIAN SECTION AND UP TO 16 FEET FOR, UH, OR 14 FEET FOR THE, UH, CYCLING SECTION.
SO THAT GIVES YOU ABOUT 20 TO 25 FEET WIDE.
AND THEN, UM, I GUESS MY OTHER QUESTION IS ABOUT THE SURFACE OF THE TRAIL.
CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT, UM, ANYTHING IN THE AMENDMENT THAT DISCUSSES THE SURFACE FOR THIS TRAIL IN PARTICULAR? SO THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT PRESCRIBE SURFACE.
UM, THE AMENDMENT TO THIS SECTION OF CODE IS TO HARD SURFACE TRAILS.
UH, AND THERE'S A SECTION OF, UH, THIS SECTION OF 25 8 2 61 THAT ALSO DIRECTS, UH, STAFF TO LOOK AT, UH, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL THAT EXPLAINS HOW THE SAME SECTION OF CODE APPLIES THROUGH THE LOCATION AND WIDTH OF EARTH AND SURFACE TRAILS.
AND SINCE THIS TRAIL IS BOTH HARD SURFACE, CONCRETE SECTIONS AND EARTH AND SURFACE, IT APPLIES TO THE TRAIL COLLECTIVELY.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE, YOU KNOW, AMENDING THIS.
IT'S A, IT CAN BE KIND OF CONFUSING 'CAUSE THE EARTH AND SURFACE SECTION, BUT WE ARE NOT PRESCRIBING THE TYPE OF SURFACE.
UM, AND WE ALSO, UH, KNOW THAT THERE IS NOT A LOT OF INTEREST BY OUR STAFF, BY THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY OR BY THE PUBLIC TO PA THE WHOLE TRAIL.
PEOPLE LIKE THE DECOMPOSED GRANITE.
AND WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR THAT TO HAPPEN UNLESS THERE IS A REASON TO IMPROVE DRAINAGE REINFORCE THE TRAIL BECAUSE IT IS FALLING APART.
UM, IF I CAN ALSO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT, THIS IS LIZ JOHNSTON WITH, UH, WATERSHIP.
WE MIGHT NEED A DIFFERENT COMMISSIONER TO PICK UP THOSE.
UH, MY TIME IS MR. HAYNES, GO AHEAD.
UH, GO AHEAD AND MR. JOHNSON, GO AHEAD AND FINISH YOUR THOUGHT.
UM, SO THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION LAST NIGHT ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE SECTION OF THE CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT HARD SURFACE TRAILS AND OUR, UM, OUR DISCUSSION WITH LAW STAFF TODAY.
UM, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO MOVE IT OUT AND MAKE IT ITS OWN SECTION, SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PART OF THE HARD SURFACE TRAIL LANGUAGE.
IT'S GOING TO BE ITS OWN THING.
[02:45:01]
REALLY CLEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING WHAT SURFACE IT IS.UM, THERE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DESIRE TO PAVE THE BUTLER TRAIL, BUT THERE COULD BE SOME AREAS WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE PAVED BECAUSE OF EROSION OR OTHER REASONS.
THANKS, MR. UM, MS. LOW, YOU, YOU CAN STAY.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, I WANNA PUBLICLY THANK YOU, UM, ANSWERED MY QUE WHILE YOU WERE, I THINK OUT IN THE FIELD
I, I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE, UH, YOUR EFFORTS TO DO THAT.
UM, WE'LL GET TO A, A PARTICULAR SOER POINT.
I, I'LL ACTUALLY DO IT ON A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE, UH, BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE BRAND NEW LANGUAGE, UH, DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU AND I WERE TALKING AND, AND WORKING ON LANGUAGE TO COME UP WITH, UH, SOME THINGS TO ADDRESS SOME OF, UH, COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ'S CONCERNS MY CONCERNS, SOME OF THE OTHER CONCERNS AND A OVERALL LIMIT.
AND, UH, IF WE EXPAND, UH, SO I'M GONNA WORK SOME OF THOSE UP.
UM, BUT, UM, CAN YOU TELL ME IF, IF WE, IF WE PUT IN A MAXIMUM DISTANCE, UH, A MAXIMUM WIDTH, UM, AND NOW I SEE WE'RE GONNA DO IT IN A SUBCHAPTER.
I, I, I READ CODE FOR A LANGUAGE SOMETIMES AND SO, UH, I'LL WORK THAT UP.
BUT, UH, IF WE WERE TO, TO SAY, UH, 20 FEET A A MAXIMUM WIDTH OF 20 FEET, UH, FOR THE, FOR THE OVERALL TRAIL, WOULD THAT, FROM, FROM A PROGRAM PERSPECTIVE, WOULD THAT MEET YOUR CONS? WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE WITH US PUTTING A LIMIT ON IT? UM, I, I THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BOTH DISCUSSED WITHIN OUR DEPARTMENT AND WITH OUR, UH, PARTNER DEPARTMENT AT PAR.
AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE, WE ARE CERTAINLY NOT AGAINST PUTTING A LIMIT PERFECT ON IT.
AND THEN IF WE ALSO MADE A PROVISION THAT SAID, UM, IF THE TRAIL WERE TO BE EXPANDED, THAT THE EXPANSION WOULD HAPPEN AND, AND I'LL ASK, YOU KNOW, LEGAL IS, IS ALWAYS TOPNOTCH WITH THE CITY OF OF AUSTIN, AND SO I'LL ASK THEM FOR THE LANGUAGE, UH, BUT IF WE DID THAT INLAND AS OPPOSED TO THE SHORELINE, SO IF WE DID IT ON THE, ON THE SIDE OPPOSITE THE SHORE, UH, WOULD, WOULD THAT MEET YOUR PROGRAM? WOULD, WOULD THAT MEET YOUR CONCERNS OR NOT CONCERNS? BUT WOULD, WOULD, WOULD THAT LIMIT YOUR FLEXIBILITY FROM A PROGRAM STANDPOINT? YES.
SO THAT THAT PARTICULAR, UH, SUGGESTION CERTAINLY PROTECTS THE SHORELINE BETTER.
THERE WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO BE SOME INCORPORATION OF LANGUAGE THAT SPECIFIES THAT, SAY IF THE INLAND SIDE HAS A HERITAGE TREE OR IT CAUSES AN INCREASE IN NON-COMPLIANCE FOR PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, THAT THERE CAN BE SOME WAY TO NAVIGATE THAT.
UM, BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY HERITAGE TREES ON THE EDGE OF THE ENTIRE TRAIL.
UM, SO IF THERE'S SOME NEED TO EXPAND TOWARDS THE SHORELINE FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING THE ACTUAL DRAINAGE OR FIXING A PROBLEM, UH, OF THE, LIKE PHYSICAL STRUCTURE OF THE TRAIL, UM, WE WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO IT AS AN IDEA.
AND THEN IF WE USED AWARE AT END OF TIME I DIDN'T HEAR A BELL.
UM, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER WHO HAS QUESTIONS? UH, GO AHEAD.
COMMISSIONER TAL UM, REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE WORK THAT'S, THAT'S COMING.
I, I, UM, MARATHON ON THIS TRAIL.
I'VE TRAINED FOR THE AUSTIN MARATHON.
I RUN THE 3M ALMOST EVERY YEAR.
I KNOW THIS TRAIL BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS AND I WORK ON IT.
I ALSO KNOW WHERE WE HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS, A LOT OF TRASH, A LOT OF EROSION ISSUES, THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, THIS IS KIND OF OUR CROWN JEWEL OF OUR CITY AND IT, IT GOES FROM EAST TO WEST ACROSS MULTIPLE COMMUNITIES.
I WAS GONNA ASK, I I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO POSTPONE ACTION ON THIS.
I'D LIKE TO GET US A WORKING GROUP AND DROP TO THAT.
THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD THINGS THAT ARE COMING UP IN THIS DISCUSSION AND I, I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH, UH, WHICHEVER COMMISSIONERS ARE INTERESTED TO DEVELOP SOME AMENDMENTS ON THE LANGUAGE AND, AND BRING BACK, UH, BRING THAT BACK TO, UM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND, AND THEN GET THAT ON COUNCIL.
I'M, I'M, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE DOING ALL THIS IN ONE SHOT TONIGHT, SO I'M HOPING I'LL HAVE SOME SUPPORT FOR THAT TO GIVE US A CHANCE TO WORK ON IT A LITTLE BIT.
WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THE WATERFRONT PROJECTS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, AND I THINK A LITTLE TIME TO TAKE OUR BREATH AND UNDERSTAND IT A LITTLE DEEPER AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION MIGHT BE REALLY HELPFUL.
SO THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO OFFER UP.
MR, MR, CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR QUESTION FOR STAFF? UM, WELL I GUESS IT'S, I GUESS I'LL HAVE TO WAIT TILL WE'RE MAKING MOTIONS.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR, UH, POSTPONEMENT IN A WORKING GROUP.
[02:50:01]
STILL COUNT AS A QUESTION.SO YOU HAVE FOUR QUESTIONS DOWN.
GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER COS YEAH, WE TALKED ABOUT WIDTH AND, AND, UH, THE RESTORATION RATIO, BUT I, I'M CONFUSED AS TO WHY WE WOULD, UH, NOT WANT TO, TO RESTORE DISTURBED AREAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUTLER TRAIL SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR ECM.
CAN, CAN YOU HELP ME EXPLAIN WHY WE WANT TO EXEMPT THE BUTLER TRAIL SYSTEM FROM THAT? YEP.
UM, SO I THINK, UH, IF I CAN CLARIFY YOUR QUESTION, IT'S IN RELATIONSHIP OR IN RELATION TO 25 8 2 61 C THAT DESCRIBES SHORELINE DISTURBANCE.
IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT THE PIECE THAT WE'RE TAKING OUT? OKAY, SO YEAH, THAT PARTICULAR, UH, KIND OF RESTORATION REFERS TO SIMPLY ADDING PLANTS TO RE-VEGETATE A DISTURBED AREA.
THE WAY THAT WE ARE DESCRIBING RESTORATION IS MUCH MORE COMPLEX AND MUCH MORE LIKE HOLISTIC TO EXAMINE THE FLOODPLAIN HEALTH OF AN AREA AND INTERVENTIONS THAT EXCEED PLANTING, BUT WOULD INCLUDE ISSUES AROUND SOIL COMPACTION, UH, IMPROVING DEAD WOOD, IDENTIFYING AND REMOVING INVASIVES IN IMPROVING THE, UH, THE DIVERSITY OF WETLAND INDICATOR SPECIES AND OTHER DIFFERENT METRICS THAT KIND OF ALL COME TOGETHER.
AND SO THAT WOULD BE, INSTEAD OF JUST HAVING A, YOU KNOW, NUMBERS, SO, SO YOU'RE, SO YOU'RE SAYING SECTION, THE SECTION 25 8 92 RESTORATION IS, IS, IS REDUNDANT TO THE SECTION C.
IT NOT ONLY REDUNDANT, BUT IT EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION C AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE CONCLUDING THAT THAT EXEMPTION? YES.
AND THAT PARTICULAR SECTION IS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO DISTURBANCE ASSOCIATED WITH BOAT DOCKS AND BULKHEADS THAT KIND OF REMOVE THE REST, REMOVE VEGETATION AND THE REQUIREMENT JUST REQUIRES, YOU KNOW, SOME PLANTINGS AT A MINIMUM NUMBER.
AND, AND APOLOGIES FOR INTERRUPTING YOU THAT TIME'S LIMITED.
UM, SO IS THERE A REASON WHY WE SHOULDN'T DEFAULT TO A TWO TO ONE RESTORATION AND THEN IF THE FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF THE FLOODPLAIN HEALTH DICTATES THAT THAT'S NOT NECESSARY, THEN ALLOW THE DIRECTOR TO GO DOWN TO ONE-TO-ONE, BUT HAVE THE DEFAULT BE TWO TO ONE UNLESS THE FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT SAYS OTHERWISE? WELL, YOU KNOW, WE STARTED WITH THAT AND THROUGH SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH BOTH COUNCIL OFFICES AND OUR SHAREHOLDERS CAME UP WITH, UH, AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITE CONSTRAINTS THAT THERE'S A GENERAL AGREEMENT WE WANNA GET TO TWO TO ONE, BUT WE WANNA PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY.
SO THAT'S WHERE WE LANDED WITH THE MOST RECENT UPDATED LANGUAGE.
YEAH, AND I JUST, I JUST THINK THAT WE SHOULD ALWAYS DEFAULT TO THE HIGHEST BENCHMARK AND THEN ALLOW OURSELVES TO STEP DOWN IF, IF THE SITUATION REQUIRES IT.
SO THAT'S WHY I'D LIKE TO SEE CHANGES TO THAT LANGUAGE, TO DEFAULT TO TWO TO ONE, BUT LET THAT FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT KIND OF DICTATE IF WE NEED TO PULL THAT BACK FOR, FOR TECHNICAL REASONS.
UM, AND THEN I I, THAT'S ALL YOUR TIME.
I, I WONDER IF YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO HEAR THE, THE GARBAGE? NO, I WASN'T.
THAT'S THE END OF ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS, SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? YEAH, I, I HAD SOME QUESTIONS.
I HAD RAISED MY HAND BEFORE, BUT I GUESS I WASN'T SEEN.
OH, I GUESS WE COULD, WE, UNLESS WE'RE HERE OTHERWISE, ARE FOLKS FINE WITH EXTENDING BY ONE MORE QUESTION OR I'LL ASK TWO QUESTIONS JUST TO BE CLEAR AND FAIR TO FOLKS.
DO I HAVE ANY DISAGREEMENT FOR EXTENDING BY TWO MORE QUESTIONS AT THREE MINUTES? I'M SEEING NODS.
SO COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, GO AHEAD.
ARE YOU SAYING I HAVE I GET TO ASK TWO QUESTIONS? UH, NO MA'AM, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ASK AS MANY QUESTIONS AS YOU WANT.
UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF THE AMENDMENTS WOULD ALLOW CUTTING DOWN OF ANY TREES TO ACCOMMODATE TRAIL EXPANSION? UH, SO THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT MODIFY ANY OF THE CURRENTLY EXISTING CODE THAT PROTECTS TREES.
UM, IT, IT DOESN'T, UH, ALLOW OR DISALLOW ANY PARTICULAR TREES IN EXCESS OF WHAT IS ALLOWED BY CURRENT CODE.
AND ARE THERE ANY SURVEYS, I KNOW THAT THE PARKS BOARD AND THE CONSERVANCY, WHICH ARE YOUR SHAREHOLDERS, ARE THERE SURVEYS FROM PEOPLE AND RESIDENTS ABOUT WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE FROM THE TRAIL?
[02:55:02]
UM, THE SAFETY AND MOBILITY STUDY THAT WAS, UM, DEVELOPED IN, UH, IN COLLABORATION WITH PAR AND PUBLIC WORKS DID A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF, UH, PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND THAT IS, UH, REFLECTED IN THAT REPORT.AND ANOTHER QUESTION I HAD, YOU TALKED ABOUT AND, AND SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS ON THE DAY HAS TALKED ABOUT THE CONCERNS AROUND WIDTH AND OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING HAPPENED AT THE PARKS BOARD LAST NIGHT ABOUT CONCERNS ABOUT WIDTH AND PAVEMENT.
CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ON THAT? AND I DO THINK THAT THE DEFAULT SITUATION WOULD STILL ALLOW FLEXIBILITY, BUT COULD YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ON THAT? BECAUSE ENVIRONMENTALLY SPEAKING, A WIDER TRAIL OR COMPACTED TRAIL OR PAVED TRAIL IS GONNA CREATE MORE RUNOFF AND PERHAPS THEN A TRAIL THAT ALREADY EXISTS.
SO COULD YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT? SURE.
REGARDING THE WIDTH, UH, THE PARKS BOARD MEMBERS DECIDED TO NOT, UM, CARRY THAT MOTION ABOUT RESTRICTING THE WIDTH TO, UH, THE, UM, UH, PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE AMENDMENT THAT THEY PASSED.
AND I BELIEVE IT MOSTLY FOCUSED ON THE FACT THAT A LOT OF THE TRAIL IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF EXAMPLES OF THE TRAIL ALREADY BEING 20 FEET WIDE AND THEN ALSO EXCEEDING 20 FEET.
AND YEAH, AND I JUST WANNA INTERRUPT 'CAUSE I ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES, BUT HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF WIDENING IT 20 FEET OR MORE AND HOW THAT'S GOING TO CREATE, YOU KNOW, MORE RUNOFF? UM, CERTAINLY IN ADDING ANY IMPERVIOUS COVER DOES CREATE MORE ISSUES WITH, UH, WATER QUALITY AND WE ARE NOT PROPOSING FOR THE TRAIL TO NECESSARILY BE WIDENED, BUT RATHER TRYING TO ALLOW FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT OF THE EXISTING TRAIL.
UM, AND ITS CURRENT WIDTH, BUT A WIDENED TRAIL IS A TRAIL THAT CREATES MORE RUNOFF.
THANK YOU COMM THANK THANK YOU.
UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, YOU HAVE THE LAST QUESTION.
UM, SO THROUGHOUT TIME IT SEEMS THAT WHENEVER THERE WAS A MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT, WE WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK TO THE APPLICANT AND STAKEHOLDERS, BUT FOR SOME REASON HERE LATELY WE'VE BEEN, I THINK LOOKING AT THAT VIEWPOINT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY.
SO I DID JUST HEAR COMMISSIONER SAY THAT SHE WAS LOOKING TO MAKE A POSTPONEMENT REQUEST, SO I'D LOVE TO CHAT WITH THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY AND SEE HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THE IDEA OF A A, THE NEED FOR A WORKING GROUP OR NOT, AND MORE TIME ON THIS OR NOT.
AND JUST KIND OF, YOU'VE HEARD A LOT TONIGHT AND I'M JUST KIND OF LOVE TO GET SOME CLOSING REMARKS FROM THIS ORGANIZATION THAT DOES SO MUCH FOR ONE OF MY MAIN TRANSPORTATION MODES.
I THINK I WAS ON IT FOR ABOUT 10 MILES JUST TODAY.
ASHLEY FISHER WITH THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY.
UM, THE RESOLUTION FROM COUNCIL PASSED LAST SPRING.
UM, SO IT'S BEEN SORT OF A LONG PROCESS ALREADY TO GET HERE, SO WE WOULD PREFER FOR IT TO, TO MOVE FORWARD.
DO I GET TO ASK KATIE AND LIZ IF THEY'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH ME? UH, COMMISSIONER AL, YOU DO NOT GET TO ASK THAT QUESTION UNLESS COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, WHOSE TIME THIS IS WISHES TO ASK THAT QUESTION ON YOUR BEHALF.
STAFF, WILL YOU CONTINUE TO WORK WITH ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO REACH OUT TO WORK WITH YOU ALL ABOUT ANY ITEM, WHETHER OR NOT WE PASS IT OR NOT? THANK YOU.
UM, ALWAYS HAPPY TO WORK WITH COMMISSIONERS, BUT I THINK FOR THIS PARTICULAR CODE AMENDMENT, IT FEELS LIKE THERE IS RELATIVELY GOOD CONSENSUS WITH MANY STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING OUR INTERNAL PART, STAKEHOLDERS AND, UH, TTC AMONG OTHERS.
UM, SO HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE FEEDBACK, UM, BUT I I WOULD PREFER NOT TO DEDICATE MORE STAFF TIME TO, UH, FURTHER HASH THIS OUT.
IT FEELS LIKE THERE'S A GOOD PATH FORWARD.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
DO WE HAVE ANY MOTIONS AT THIS TIME? UM, COMMISSIONER BAR RAMIREZ? UM, YEAH, CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LADIES ON ANDREA, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.
UM, BUT, UM, IN TAKING UP THIS ITEM, I BELIEVE THAT SOME COMMISSIONERS MAY HAVE AMENDMENTS, SO, UM, THE COMMISSION MAY WANT TO CONSIDER A BASE MOTION AND THEN TAKING UP THE, UH, AMENDMENTS.
UM, SO JUST I GUESS IN TERMS OF CLARITY, I MIGHT JUST GO AHEAD AND DO THIS, SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
WE WOULD NOT BE TAKING A VOTE ON IT AT THIS TIME.
WE'LL BE OPENING IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.
DO I HAVE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? UM, YOU KNOW, I'M THE PRIMARY SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
COMMISSIONER BAR RAMIREZ SUBSTITUTE MOTION PLEASE.
[03:00:01]
COMMISSIONER AL.I'D LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE.
I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A POSTPONEMENT FOR FOUR WEEKS AND I WOULD LIKE TO FORM A WORKING GROUP.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? SECOND, UH, BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF YOUR MOTION? YES, PLEASE.
I WE NEED TO DEFINE STAKEHOLDERS.
THERE'S OVER A MILLION PEOPLE IN THIS AREA WITH LOTS OF INTEREST, AND I DON'T THINK WE'VE APPROPRIATELY ENGAGED ALL OF THOSE RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS ON LADY BUTLER HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL.
I REALIZE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE VERY SMALL CHANGES TO CODE, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN ENOUGH QUESTIONS COME UP THAT WE OUGHT TO TAKE A BREATH AND FINE TUNE IT AND DO IT THE RIGHT WAY.
WE'LL GET IT THROUGH, WE'LL GET IT TO COUNCIL.
THERE ARE NOT FINANCIAL PROJECTS THAT ARE GONNA BE HELD UP.
THERE ARE NOT THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE AT RISK.
WE'RE NOT LOSING HOUSING OVER THIS.
THIS AFFECTS NEIGHBORHOODS ACROSS EAST AND WEST.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT AND I THINK WE OUGHT TO SLOW IT DOWN AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT BY A FEW WEEKS.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S ASKING A LOT, AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY FOR ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDERS.
COMMISSIONER, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST THIS MOTION? COMMISSIONER
JUST A QUESTION, DID THIS GO TO THE CODES AND ORDINANCES, JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE FOR REVIEW? YES, IT DID.
IT WAS, UH, APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE IN DECEMBER 13 OF LAST YEAR.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER FOLKS SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION TO POSTPONE? UH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
YEAH, I, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER SALA IN TERMS OF DEFINING STAKEHOLDERS.
THE CHARTER ACTUALLY DE DEFINES STAKEHOLDERS AS ALL AUSTIN RESIDENTS WHEN IT COMES TO OWNERSHIP OF OUR PARKS, OUR CITY PARKS.
UM, SO WE FIND OFTENTIMES THE DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE WORKING ON THINGS IN THE WORKING GROUP THAT I'M PART OF, TO ENGAGE COMMUNITIES THAT HISTORICALLY BEEN MARGINALIZED IN THESE KINDS OF DISCUSSIONS.
AND IT REALLY WOULD NOT BE, UH, SET ANYTHING BACK TO TAKE TIME TO GET MORE INPUT ON THIS.
WE ALREADY HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS TONIGHT ABOUT WIDTH, AND THAT'S A BIG CONCERN TO I THINK MANY OF US ON THE DEUS BUT ALSO MANY PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY.
SO I HOPE THAT WE CAN TAKE THAT TIME THAT WE CAN ENGAGE STAKEHOLDERS BEYOND THE CONSERVANCY, BEYOND THE PARK BOARD, BEYOND THE SAFETY COMMITTEE.
I HOPE THAT WE CAN DO THAT BECAUSE THE PARKS, ACCORDING TO THE CHARTER, BELONG TO EVERY ONE RESIDENT, EVERY SINGLE RESIDENT IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WE CAN DO BETTER.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? UM, I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
UH, JUST TO CONFIRM, THE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST IS DUE, UH, MARCH 26TH.
COMMISSIONER AL YOU HAD REQUESTED FOUR WEEKS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A, A, UM, A PARLIAMENT, I GUESS A PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION.
UM, DID THE LANGUAGE, WE, WE HAD, WE HAD A RED LINE IN OUR BACKUP AND THEN WE RECEIVED RED LINE AT DIFFERENT RED LINE AT 3:43 PM THIS AFTERNOON.
DID THE RED LINE THAT WE HAD IN OUR BACKUP GO BEFORE JOINT CODES AND PARKS, OR DID THE RED LINE THAT WE'VE GOT AT THREE O'CLOCK THIS AFTERNOON GO BEFORE JOINT AND PARKS? AND I WILL BE HONEST, COMMISSIONER, UM, HAYNES, THAT IS NOT A PARLIAMENTARIAN INQUIRY.
AND SINCE STATUTE THAT ISN'T, ISN'T THAT FOR THE PAR? WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, MR. CHAIRMAN, ISN'T THAT FOR THE PARLIAMENTARIAN THAT MAKE THAT DETERMINATION? WELL, WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO A PARLIAMENTARIAN.
UM, THE, UH, CODES AND ORDINANCE JOINT COMMITTEE SAW A DIFFERENT RED LINE ORDINANCE, WHICH WAS CHANGED AFTER WE RECEIVED FEEDBACK.
UM, THE RED LINE ORDINANCE THAT YOU GOT BEFORE 3 45, 3 43, UM, WAS, UH, THE INTENDED LANGUAGE.
AND THEN THE ONE THAT WE ADDED TO BACK UP WAS OUR LAW DEPARTMENT'S INTERPRETATION OF OUR LANGUAGE KIND OF MADE BETTER IN IT IN ITS OWN SUBSECTION.
AND THEN, AND WHAT WAS DIS AT PARKS LAST NIGHT? WHAT DID THEY, WHAT DID THEY REVIEW? UH, THEY REVIEWED THE RED LINE
[03:05:01]
LANGUAGE THAT WASN'T, THAT, THAT WAS BEFORE IN OUR BACKYARD, 3 45 TODAY.THAT WAS THE LAW DEPARTMENT'S, UH, TRANSLATION OF OUR THANK YOU MISS LILY.
WE'LL GO BACK TO OUR ORDER AND I'LL ASK ARE THERE ANY OTHER FOLKS SPEAKING AGAINST OR FOR THIS MOTION? UH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER COX.
I'LL SPEAK FOR IT FOR, FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.
I, I AM, I AM, I AM ACTUALLY NOW CONFUSED AS TO WHICH RED LINE IS THE MOST UPDATED, BUT ALSO, UM, I REALLY, I'M REALLY, UH, BLANKET EXEMPTIONS TO OUR CODE SHOULD ALWAYS RAISE RED FLAGS.
AND THERE'S A BLANKET EXEMPTION IN HERE FOR THE BUTLER TRAIL SYSTEM RELATED TO WIDTH, RELATED TO THE PROXIMITY TO THE SHORELINE, RELATED TO, UH, UH, TO, TO RESTORATION.
UH, AND, AND I THINK, UM, WHILE SOME VERY IMPORTANT STAKEHOLDERS WERE A PART OF THIS PROCESS, AND, AND I, AND I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THEIR CONTRIBUTION, UM, I, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS INTENDED FOR SOME SPECIFIC PROJECTS AND WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY TALKED ABOUT ANY OF THAT.
AND, AND INSTEAD OF PROVIDING BLANKET EXEMPTIONS TO A, A VERY IMPORTANT ASSET, ENVIRONMENTAL, RECREATIONAL ASSET TO THIS CITY, I THINK WE NEED TO DIVE INTO THE DETAILS A LITTLE MORE AND TIGHTEN THIS UP.
AND SO I THINK A POSTPONEMENT AND WORKING GROUP WOULD BE THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT AND MAKE SURE WE WE GET IT RIGHT.
UM, SINCE I DO NOT SEE ANYONE'S GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, I'M GONNA BE AGAINST THIS MOTION.
UM, SEEMS TO ME THAT WE SPENT A WHOLE LOT OF TIME WORKING ON THIS AND I SEE A LOT OF HEADS OF DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS AND STAFF HERE TONIGHT, AND I DON'T CARE TO DRAG THEM BACK OUT HERE.
AGAIN, I'M NOT HEARING THIS REQUEST FROM FOLKS OUTSIDE OF THIS BODY FOR THIS REQUEST.
AND SO I THINK IT'S GOOD FOR US TO GO AHEAD AND PASS THIS ALONG TO COUNCIL AND LET'S GET THIS MOVING.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS MOTION.
THIS IS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER AL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS TO POSTPONE TO MARCH 26TH AND CREATE A WORKING GROUP.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, ALL THOSE AGAINST THAT MOTION FAILS FOR SEVEN WITH WELL, UH, COMMISSIONER MUTO, COMMISSIONER COX, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, AND COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS IN FAVOR, UH, AND THE REST OF THE DIRES AGAINST.
SO THAT MOTION FAILS, WE'LL GO BACK TO THE BASE MOTION, BUT I BELIEVE THERE ARE AMENDMENTS TO THE BASE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER BARRY RAMIREZ, DID YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT? I DID.
UM, AND THIS IS BASED UPON JUST KIND OF BEST PRACTICES AND TRAIL PLANNING AND DESIGN AND CONSIDERING WHAT'S IN THE URBAN TRAIL MASTER PLAN, THE DUAL TRACK TRAIL, UM, CONFIGURATION, ACKNOWLEDGING THE USE THAT THE ROY AND ANN BUTLER TRAIL GET ON A DAILY BASIS.
I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, A, THE SIZE OF A PERSON IS APPROXIMATELY THREE FEET AND THE SIZE OF BICYCLE NEEDS IS APPROXIMATELY FOUR FEET.
AND IMAGINING THAT SPATIAL ALIGNMENT 25 FEET SEEMS A REASONABLE AMOUNT AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE WHY THE A TRAIL SHOULD BE ANY WIDER.
UM, SO MY AMENDMENT IS ALONG THOSE LINES, ACKNOWLEDGING, UM, LEMME FIND IT
SO, UH, THIS IS FOR NUMBER OR LETTER K AT THE BOTTOM.
SO ANY SEGMENT OF TRAIL THAT IS PART OF THE ANNE AND ROY BUTLER TRAIL.
ANNE AND ROY BUTLER HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL AS DEFINED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, BE NO WIDER THAN 25 FEET AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO SUBDIVISION C TWO AND MAY BE LOCATED WITHIN 50 FEET, ET CETERA.
SO JUST SAYING THAT THE TRAIL WILL BE NO WIDER THAN 25 FEET.
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT LAST NIGHT THE PARKS BOARD TRIED TO PASS A 20 FOOT WIDTH OF THE TRAIL AND THAT DIDN'T PASS.
AND ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING WHAT WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT, THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL PARTS OF THE TRAIL TODAY THAT ARE WIDER THAN 20 FEET.
AND WHEN I THINK ABOUT EXPERIENCING THE TRAIL AND WHERE IT FEELS THE MOST COMFORTABLE, IT IS WHERE IT'S MORE THAN 20 FEET WIDE.
SO THOSE PLACES THAT ARE NARROW AND THERE'S A DOG AND KIDS AND STROLLERS AND BIKES AND IT'S SUPER UNCOMFORTABLE, YOU FEEL LIKE YOU MIGHT CRASH AND FALL.
UM, THAT'S THE RATIONALE BEHIND WANTING TO HAVE IT WIDER, BUT THEN I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A, A CAP ON THE WIDTH.
I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR AMENDMENT.
SO, WHICH I TRULY SUPPORT AND I AGREE ABOUT BEST PRACTICES.
I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE ABOUT THE NARROW SPACES THAT'S PART OF THE EXPERIENCE.
UM, SO IT'S NOT MEANT FOR EVERYBODY, BUT SOME PEOPLE GET GREAT PLEASURE OUT, OUT OF THOSE EXPERIENCES AS WELL.
BUT I WOULD ASK THAT, UM, MIGHT IT BE TWEAKED TO SAY THAT, UH, 25 FEET, UH, WHERE IT'S ALREADY 20
[03:10:01]
FEET AS OPPOSED TO JUST EVERYTHING GOING TO THE MAXIMUM OF 25 FEET? NO.I WILL SAY THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL BRIDGES ON THE TRAIL THAT WILL LIKELY NOT BE RECONSTRUCTED BECAUSE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, EXPENSIVE OR WHATEVER, HISTORIC EVEN.
SO IT IS, UM, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE THOSE BOTTLENECKS ON THE TRAIL AND THERE ARE OTHER, UM, TOPOGRAPHIC THINGS THAT WILL CAUSE IT TO REMAIN NARROW.
UM, BUT I THINK AS I, AS I MENTIONED THAT IT'S FOR THE PURPOSES AND THE USE THAT IT'S EXPERIENCED ON THE TRAIL TODAY, IT NEEDS TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY BE WIDER.
CAN I OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT HERE, AMENDMENT? SURE.
UM, I, I WAS, I, I WAS THINKING OF THE EXACT SAME THING THAT YOU WERE THINKING, BUT THE APPROACH THAT I WAS KIND OF GOING AT IT WITH WAS I, I'M SORRY FOLKS.
WE REALLY ARE ALL OUT OF ORDER RIGHT NOW.
SO EITHER WE CAN GO AHEAD AND MAKE AMENDMENTS TO SOMEONE'S MOTION THAT HAS NOT BEEN SECONDED, OR IF YOU WANT THEM TO CONSIDER SOMETHING, KEEP IT SHORT AND BRIEF AND TELL THEM WHAT IT IS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO CONSIDER.
SO, COMMISSIONER COX, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO YOU AGAIN, KEEP IT SHORT, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE TIME TO SPEAK ON THE MOTIONS.
WE ARE RIGHT NOW JUST STATING THE MOTION SO WE CAN GET SECONDS.
THE LANGUAGE THAT I WAS CONTEMPLATING WAS, UM, A MAXIMUM WIDTH OF 20 FEET, EXCEPT WHERE THE EXISTING TRAIL EXCEEDS 20 FOOT WIDTH AND AT LOCATIONS DESIGNATED FOR GATHERING OR AT JUNCTIONS.
THAT ISN'T, THAT'S NOT, I, THAT'S NOT FAIRLY GOOD.
UM, BUT MR. SKIDMORE, I SAW YOUR HAND.
UM, SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER BREWER RAMIREZ.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? UM, I HAVE A QUESTION OR MAYBE A FRIENDLY, UM, SO SOMETIMES WHEN YOU HAVE A PORTION OF TRAIL THAT CONNECTS TO ANOTHER PORTION, UM, WHERE HAVE THE CONFLUENCE OF TWO TRAILS, UH, I DON'T THINK WE'D WANT THE MAIN TRAIL TO THE HAVE TO REDUCE IN SIZE TO HAVE THE OTHER TRAIL JOIN.
SO IS THERE A WAY TO EXEMPT OR, YOU KNOW, EXCLUDING WITHIN 50 FEET OF CONFLUENCES OF THE TRAIL? SURE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO WRITE THAT THOUGH.
UM, YOU KNOW WHAT, I THINK HONESTLY, LET'S JUST, UH, CONTINUE AT THIS POINT.
SO WE DO, WE HAVE A SECOND TO THIS MOTION.
FOLKS ARE HONESTLY MAKING WHAT ARE SUBSTITUTES OR AMENDMENTS? THESE ARE NOT FRIENDLY.
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IN OUR LANGUAGE.
THERE IS EITHER AN AMENDMENT OR NO AMENDMENT.
SO, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? FOR LACK OF A SECOND, THAT MOTION FAILS.
SO ANY OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE PRESENTED SOMETHING, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE MR. CHAIRMAN? I HAVE A, UH, COMMISSIONER COX HAD HIS HAND UP.
WELL, I WAS GONNA OFFER THE MOTION, UH, THAT I, THE, THE VERSION I'M LOOKING AT IS 25 8 2 61 B THREE C THAT TALKS ABOUT LIMITED WIDTH.
UM, SO I WAS GONNA HAVE THE LANGUAGE BE, UM, MAXIMUM OF 20 FEET WIDE, EXCEPT WHERE THE EXISTING TRAIL ALREADY EXCEEDS 20 FEET WIDE AND AT LOCATIONS THAT ARE CONSIDER, THAT ARE CONSIDERED GATHERING SPACES AND WITH JUNCTIONS TO OTHER TRAILS.
AND THAT'S A BIT MESSY, BUT HOPEFULLY THAT GOT ACROSS.
SO I GUESS I'LL OPEN IT UP TO SEE, DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THIS MOTION, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? IS THAT A SECOND TO THE MOTION? OKAY, WE HAVE A SECOND TO THE MOTION.
UM, COMMISSIONER COX, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? NO, I JUST, WE GOT A BUNCH OF PUBLIC FEEDBACK CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THESE CHANGES EXEMPT ANY WIDTH LIMITATION TO THE TRAIL.
AND I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED, UH, MANY INSTANCES WHERE THE EXISTING TRAIL ALREADY EXCEEDS 12 FEET IN WIDTH OR MAYBE NEEDS TO EXCEED, UH, 12 FEET.
UH, IF YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE GATHERING IN A SPACE OR IF IT'S AT A JUNCTION WITH ANOTHER TRAIL OR MANY JUNCTIONS LIKE, LIKE WE HAVE ALREADY.
BUT ONE THING THAT WE HAVEN'T SAID YET IN THIS CONVERSATION IS THE WIDTH OF THE TRAIL REALLY MATTERS IN TERMS OF HOW PEOPLE USE IT.
A LOT OF US ARE ADVOCATES FOR ROAD DIETS AND NARROWING LANES ON STREETS BECAUSE IT TENDS TO SLOW VEHICLES DOWN.
THE SAME EXACT THING APPLIES TO TRAILS.
AND I'VE BEEN ON THE BUTLER TRAIL MANY TIMES, ALMOST GETTING RUN OVER BY BICYCLISTS THAT ARE GOING WAY TOO FAST, DARTING BETWEEN DOGS AND STROLLERS AND EVERYONE ELSE TRYING TO ENJOY THE TRAIL.
AND I DON'T WANT TO JUST MAKE THIS AN EXTREMELY WIDE TRAIL TO ACCOMMODATE THAT TYPE OF USE BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER PLACES WHERE BICYCLISTS CAN, CAN GAIN SPEED.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL WITH THAT.
AND HOPEFULLY MY AMENDMENT CAPTURES, UH, SOME LIMITATIONS ON THAT WITH
[03:15:01]
THANK YOU.DO WE HAVE COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST THIS MOTION? MR. CHAIRMAN? I HAVE A SUBSTITUTE.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, UH, AFTER WORKING WITH, UH, STAFF ON THIS FOR A, A COUPLE OF DAYS, AND AGAIN, I COMMEND MS. LILY FOR HER WORK ON THIS EFFORT.
UH, I'D LIKE TO PRESENT THE FOLLOWING.
I'VE TRIED TO WORK WHAT, UH, I HAD WORKED UP FOR THE, THE RED LINE THAT WE HAD FOR THREE OR FOUR DAYS, AND THEN WE GOT THE RED LINE TODAY AT, AT 3:43 PM UH, FROM LEGAL.
UH, SO I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE ALL THE PUBLIC NOTICE AND THE, AND THE WORK THAT LEGAL HAS DONE TO PROVIDE AMPLE NOTICE OF, OF THESE CHANGES.
UH, BUT WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND, UM, UH, 25 8 2 61, THE NEW, THE PROPOSED NEW K, UH, AND ADD IN A BRAND NEW, UH, K TWO THAT READS THE WIDTH OF THE TRAIL WILL HAVE A MAXIMUM WIDTH OF 20 FEET UNLESS THE, THE WIDTH EXCEEDS 20 FEET, UH, OR I'M SORRY, UNLESS THE WIDTH, UH, EXCEEDS THAT.
AS OF THREE ONE, UH, THERE WOULD BE A NEW K THREE THAT SAYS ANY REPAIRS TO THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT OF THE TRAIL, UM, AS IT EXISTS ON 3 1 20 24, WILL USE SIMILAR SITUATED MATERIALS, UH, IN THE, UM, UH, AS IT EXISTS, UH, ON THAT DATE.
AND A NEW K FOUR, WHICH WOULD READ ANY EXCEPTION TO THE TRAIL, WILL BE ON THE UPLAND SIDE OF THE TRAIL, NOT THE LAKESIDE NEAR, UH, NOT THE LAKESIDE NEAR THE SHORELINE.
AND THEN WE WOULD RENUMBER, UH, THERE WOULD BE A K FIVE THAT WOULD READ THE ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCES, APLU APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR AS PROVIDED.
SO WE WOULD ADDRESS THE WIDTH 20 FEET UNLESS IT EXCEEDS TODAY.
SO WE WOULD TAKE CARE OF ALL THE, UH, JOINING PARTS, THE PARTS THAT ARE EXCEED 20 FEET.
UH, I'M TRYING TO DO THIS IN PLAIN LANGUAGE, MR. CHAIRMAN, SO BEAR WITH ME.
UM, UH, ANY REPAIRS, UH, WOULD USE IF IT'S CONCRETE, IF IT'S BOARD, IF IT'S CRUSHED GRANITE, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD USE.
SIMILARLY SITUATED MATERIALS AS THEY EXIST.
AND THEN FINALLY, UH, EXPANSION WOULD BE ON THE UPLAND SIDE, NOT THE SHORELINE SIDE.
AND IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO ADD HERITAGE TREE PROTECTION IN THERE, I THINK WE'RE ALREADY COVERED.
STAFF SAID WE THINK THEY'RE ALREADY COVERED, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ADD HERITAGE TREE PROTECTION IN THERE TOO.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THIS MOTION? UH, WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
UM, DO WE, DOES ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK AGAINST, UH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER AL, I, I GUESS, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, HMM, IS THERE ANY WAY TO ASK A QUESTION ON IT? I'M JUST WONDERING WHY THAT WOULDN'T BE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE LAKE.
UH, COMMISSIONER MICHELLE, YOU CAN ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
SO I HOPE COMMISSIONER HAYNES THAT CLARIFIES IT.
IF I DIDN'T MAKE IT CLEAR, I'M, IT'S PROBABLY MY EAST TEXAS DRAW, BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT BOTH SIDES OF THE LAKE.
SO THAT MEANING WHAT, SORRY, GIMME, GIMME, NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST
YOU GO, YOU GO TOWARD THE, REGARDLESS OF WHICH SIDE, NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, OR WEST, YOU GO TOWARD THE CITY, NOT TOWARD THE WATER.
TOWARD THE, TOWARD THE LAND, TOWARD THE, YOU GO OUT.
SO AGAIN, SO AGAIN, I WOULD JUST ASK WHY WOULDN'T, WHY WOULDN'T WE INCLUDE ALL? I THINK THAT LANGUAGE IS CONFUSING.
WE'VE GOT, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANNA BUILD CLOSER TO THE LAKE, WE DON'T WANT THE TRAIL EXPANDED CLOSER TO THE WATER.
WE WANT THE TRAIL EXPANDED OUT TOWARD THE CITY, OUT TOWARD THE LAND.
I'M NOT SURE THE ACCOMPLISHES THAT.
COMMISSIONER STALLER, DO WE HAVE ANY FOLKS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THIS MOTION? UM, SO I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER, HES, CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT YOUR MOTION AGAIN? I FEEL LIKE IT MIGHT HELP FOLKS.
CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT YOUR MOTION? DO REPEAT.
CAN YOU REPEAT, REPEAT YOUR MOTION.
AND SO JUST SO FOLKS ARE NOTING IT.
'CAUSE I'M HEARING FROM FOLKS THEY'RE NOT GETTING IT.
I'M SORRY, MY, OH, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA TALK TO
COMMISSIONER ROMERO FERRE ASKED ME TO TALK SLOWLY.
UH, BECAUSE I TALK, TALK SLOWLY.
SO WE WOULD REPLACE, UH, I'M SORRY.
WE WOULD NOT REPLACE, WE WOULD ADD, UH, A NEW K 2K THREE K FOUR, AND THEN RENUMBER AS A K 5K
[03:20:01]
TWO.THE WIDTH OF THE TRAIL WOULD'VE A MAXIMUM, OR I'M SORRY, THE TRAIL WILL HAVE A MAXIMUM WIDTH OF 20 FEET UNLESS THE CURRENT WIDTH EXCEEDS THAT DISTANCE AS OF 3 1 20 24.
THE NEW K TWO, THE NEW K THREE.
ANY REPAIRS TO THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT OF THE TRAIL AS IT EXISTS ON 3 1 20 24 WILL USE SIMILARLY SITUATED MATERIAL AS EXISTS.
THE NEW K FOUR, ANY EXPANSION OF THE TRAIL WILL BE ON THE UPLAND SIDE.
OPPOSITES THE LAKESIDE NEAR THE SHORELINE.
BUT THERE HAS, I HAVE HEARD A SUGGESTION THAT WE SAY OPPOSITE THE RIPARIAN AREA, I'M OKAY WITH THAT LEGAL LANGUAGE, BUT I'LL LET LEGAL, 'CAUSE I HAVE ALL THE CONFIDENCE IN THE WORLD IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, LEGAL STAFF.
AND THEN THE NEW K, OR I'M SORRY, THE K, WHAT EXISTS AS K TWO WILL NOW BE NUMBERED K FIVE ALTERNATIVE CLIENTS COMPLIANCE AS APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR IS PROVIDED.
I, I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION.
AND, AND JUST ONE OTHER QUICK QUESTION ON THAT IS, SO K ONE REMAINS UNCHANGED IN YOUR K ONE.
K ONE REMAINS AS PROPOSED BY, UH, AS, AS WE HAVE.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, UM, UM, COMMISSIONER BARR RAMIREZ, DOES THAT CLARIFY THE MOTION TO YOU? YES.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER FOLKS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THIS MOTION? OBJECT? YES, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO SPEAK FOR NOW.
I'M, I'M SPEAKING AGAINST, UM, I, I DO BELIEVE THAT WHEN IMPROVEMENTS AND PROJECTS ARE BEING DONE, THE LAKE, THE STAFF AND THE CHOKE, UM, I ALWAYS WANNA CALL YOU ALL TTF CONSERVANCY ARE GOING TO BE WORKING TOGETHER TO PRODUCE THE BEST POSSIBLE PRODUCT.
AND I JUST FEEL THAT THIS IS PUTTING IN A LOT OF CONSTRAINTS THAT COULD JUST LEAD TO THEN MORE TIME AND THEN HAVING TO GO TO NEW BODIES AND HAVING TO DO ALL THESE NEW THINGS.
AND I JUST, I SEE THIS BEING GOOD INTENT.
I I, I SEE THIS PLAYING OUT POORLY AND SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS.
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR THIS MOTION? UH, GO AHEAD.
COMMISSIONER LER NO, THIS, THIS IS IMPORTANT TO GIVE THE RIGHT CONSIDERATION.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES WAS WORKING ON THIS WITH OUR CITY STAFF FOR VERY GOOD REASON, AND THIS HELPS THREAD SOME OF THE NEEDLE ON CONCERNS THAT WE WERE HEARING EARLIER.
IT, IT IS NOT GOING TO HAMPER PROGRESS AND DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S AN IMPORTANT PIECE THAT HELPS TO MAKE SURE IT'S DONE IN THE RIGHT WAY.
ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER BAR RAMIREZ? GO AHEAD.
OH, I DON'T, I'M NOT SPEAKING AGAINST, OH, ARE YOU SPEAKING FOR GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ.
YEAH, I THINK THAT IT REALLY DOES, IT'S A BALANCE OF WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED.
I'M NOT CRAZY ABOUT THE 20 FOOT WIDTH, BUT IT SAYS UNLESS THE CURRENT WIDTH EXCEEDS, SO THAT GIVES THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO UTILIZE THE SPACES WHERE IT'S ALREADY 20 FOOT IN WIDTH.
UM, THAT'S THE ONLY PIECE THAT I'M KIND OF NOT THAT, UM, IN FAVOR OF, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE REPAIRS OF THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT AND SIMILAR SITUATED MATERIALS.
UM, THE EXPANSION ON THE UPLAND SIDE I THINK IS FINE AS DISCUSSED FROM AS WE HEARD FROM STAFF.
AND THEY WOULDN'T GO TOWARDS THE WATER UNLESS THERE WAS, THERE WAS SOME NEED TO, UM, UM, BOLSTER UP AND PREVENT EROSION.
UM, SO I THINK IT, IT TOUCHES ON A LOT OF THE THINGS WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BAR RAMIREZ.
IF THERE'S NOBODY ELSE SPEAKING AGAINST, I, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND TAKE A SPOT ON THAT.
UH, I'LL JUST SAY I THINK I HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THE 20 FOOT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, OUR OWN STAFF IN Q AND A CLEARLY SAID THAT 2025 IS SORT OF WHAT IS BEING CONSIDERED AS PART OF OUR VARIOUS DIFFERENT STANDARDS.
I CERTAINLY CANNOT FOLLOW IT ALONG AS WELL AS THEY OR SOME OTHER FOLKS ARE MORE WELL-VERSED IN THIS.
BUT I DO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT LIMITING IT TO 20 FEET.
AND I'LL BE HONEST, I KNOW THAT THERE'S A REAL CONCERN ABOUT SORT OF THE IMPACT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE TRAIL CAN HAVE ON WATER RUNOFF AND OTHER THINGS.
BUT THIS IS ALSO ABOUT ACCESSIBILITY.
I'LL JUST BE HONEST, RIGHT? PART OF OUR REPAIRS TO OUR, UH, TRAIL AND THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DO, EVEN IN UPGRADED MATERIALS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE MAKING THINGS MORE ACCESSIBLE WITH, YOU KNOW, BIKES, FORMING GROOVES AND OTHER THINGS.
IT HAS MEANT THAT PEOPLE WITH MOBILITY IMPAIRMENTS OR BALANCE ISSUES ARE NOT ABLE TO UTILIZE OUR TRAIL.
I'LL BE HONEST, I THINK BACK TO MY GRANDFATHER AND HE LOVED NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS SUCH AS THIS, BUT A SURFACE THAT WAS UNEVEN IN THAT WAY OR HAD GROOVES OR HAD NOT NARROW OR HAD PEOPLE RUNNING BY HIM, HE WOULD'VE TOTALLY LOST HIS BALANCE.
[03:25:01]
AS SOMEBODY WHO IS A CARETAKER, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE OUR CITY HAVE SPACES THAT WOULD BE INCLUSIVE OF HIM AND OTHER FOLKS WHO ARE SENIORS IN OUR COMMUNITY OR OTHER FOLKS WITH MOBILITY IMPAIRMENTS.SO AGAIN, I THINK I UNDERSTAND, I AGREE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE NOTION BEHIND IT AND I APPRECIATE THE SORT OF THOUGHTFULNESS, BUT I ALSO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO CREATE A TRAIL THAT DOES INCLUDE THAT MILLION PEOPLE, INCLUDING FOLKS WHO MIGHT NOT OTHERWISE HAVE THE, UH, MOBILITY TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE IT.
SO I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS.
WE HAVE ONE SPOT LEFT AGAINST IF SOMEBODY WISHES TO SPEAK.
IF NOT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
THIS IS A, FOLKS, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT I'M RIGHT ON THIS.
I BELIEVE THIS WAS A SUBSTITUTE, ISN'T IT? IT WAS AN AMENDMENT, BUT I THINK IT'S, IT WAS A SUBSTITUTE AND WE STILL HAVE COX'S.
SO YES, THIS IS A SUBSTITUTE BY TO THE COX AMENDMENT.
THIS IS A SUBSTITUTE BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
I WILL NOT RESTATE IT, UM, BUT IT HAS A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ITEMS AS STATED VERY WELL BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE, OR RAISE YOUR HANDS, ALL THOSE AGAINST.
SO THIS AMENDMENT, UM, FAILS AS WELL.
THAT IS COMMISSIONER HAYNES, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, COMMISSIONER COX, AND COMMISSIONER MUSH DAHLER THE BOUNCE OF THE DAIS.
AND THEN WE HAVE, UM, CHAIR ESSENTIALLY, UM, ABSTAINING OR RECUSING ON THIS ABS ABSTAINING ON THIS ITEM.
AND WE HAVE COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE OFF THE DICE AT THIS TIME.
THAT TAKES US BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER COX, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
COMMISSIONER COX, I'M GONNA HAVE TO ASK YOU TO RESTATE YOUR, UM, MOTION THERE AS WELL.
UM, OKAY, SO IT, IT IS, IT IS TO LIMIT THE WIDTH OF THE TRAIL TO 20 FEET, EXCEPT WHERE THE TRAIL CURRENTLY EXCEEDS 20 FEET AND ACCEPT WHERE AREAS ARE DESIGNATED AS GATHERING SPACES AND AT JUNCTIONS WITH OTHER TRAILS.
I APPRECIATE THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO SPEAK FULLY IN FAVOR AGAINST, UH, PARLIAMENTARIAN.
CAN YOU HELP ME? HOW MANY DO YOU, I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD ANY SPEAKER.
UM, COMMISSIONER, UH, COX, DO YOU WISH TO GO AHEAD AND SPEAK IN FAVOR OF YOUR MOTION? I, I THINK I'VE SAID EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE SAID.
UH, UH, YOU KNOW, ACCESSIBILITY WAS BROUGHT UP AND I WILL JUST GO BACK TO THE FACT THAT THE WIDER WE MAKE THIS TRAIL, THE FASTER BICYCLISTS ARE GOING TO USE IT.
AND THAT IS GOOD FOR SOME BICYCLISTS, BUT IT'S BAD FOR EVERYONE ELSE.
AND, AND SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING WIDER WIDTH WHERE PEOPLE CONGREGATE, WHERE WE HAVE JUNCTIONS.
AND I THINK THIS AMENDMENT, UH, PROVIDES THAT FLEXIBILITY, BUT WE SHOULD NOT BE GIVING CARTE BLANCHE TO WHOEVER IMPROVES THIS TRAIL TO MAKE IT AS WIDE AS POSSIBLE.
COMMISSIONER COX, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST THIS MOTION? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
UM, WHERE I FIND THIS TRAIL THE MOST FRUSTRATING ARE THE NARROW SPOTS, AND I'M 99% OF THE TIME ON MY BICYCLE, AND IT IS THE LARGE OPEN AREA SPOTS WHERE KIND OF EVERYONE SEEMS TO HAVE THE MOST ENJOYABLE OF, OF TIMES.
AND, YOU KNOW, THE PINCH POINTS REALLY ARE THE DANGEROUS POINT POINTS THAT I ALWAYS SEE.
AND I JUST, I TRUST STAFF AND THE, UH, THE CONSERVANCY TO WORK TOGETHER TO, TO FIGURE THESE THINGS OUT.
AND, UM, I HEAR OUR PARKS BOARD CONSIDER THIS AND ALSO VOTED THIS DOWN.
SO I JUST DON'T SEE THE VALUE IN ADDING THIS CONSTRAINT TO OUR ENTIRE TRAIL NETWORK IN A VERY FAST GROWING CITY, IN A SPACE WHERE WE WANT PEOPLE TO UTILIZE THE TRAIL AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? NO, I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
UM, I THOUGHT WE, UH, HEARD FROM STAFF EARLIER, DID WE HEAR FROM STAFF EARLIER THAT WHAT WAS PRESENTED AT PARKS BOARD WAS NOT ACTUALLY WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, BUT ACTUALLY WHAT WE HAD IN OUR BACKUP MATERIAL.
SO DID, DID PARKS CONSIDER THIS OR DID THEY CONSIDER SOMETHING ELSE? UM, STAFF, CAN WE CLARIFY THAT? I WOULD NOT WANNA SPEAK FOR YOU.
UM, THE PARKS BOARD CONSIDERED INTENDED LANGUAGE THAT STAFF WORKED ON.
UH, YOU ARE CONSIDERING AS OF 3 45, THE, UH, INTENTION RUN THROUGH LEGAL.
UH, SO SAME INTENTION, UM, JUST WITH LEGAL APPROVING OF LANGUAGE TO AFFIRM THE INTENTION.
DID, DID THE PARKS BOARD CONSIDER THE LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF US LAST NIGHT? THEY CONSIDERED THE LANGUAGE NOT THE MOST RECENT BACKUP.
IF I MIGHT ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION AS WELL.
UM, CAN YOU SPEAK TO, IS THERE A SUBSTANTIVE
[03:30:01]
CHANGE BETWEEN WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO, UH, THE PARKS BOARD AND WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? OR CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHAT THE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES ARE? JUST SO WE CAN NOTE THEM? THE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES OCCURRED BETWEEN, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AND CODES AND ORDINANCES.THERE WAS SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE AFTER THAT LIMITED THE, THE CODE PROPOSAL TO JUST THE BUTLER TRAIL INSTEAD OF THE ENTIRETY OF THE LAKE.
AND THAT, UH, CHANGED IT TO ONE TO 1 2, 2 TO ONE INSTEAD OF JUST FLAT OUT TWO TO ONE.
THOSE ARE THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES.
THE CHANGES BETWEEN THE PREVIOUS BACKUP AND THEN THE 3 45 NEW BACKUP THAT YOU'RE IN, YOU'RE CONSIDERING NOW.
I WOULD NOT CONSIDER OUR SUBSTANTIVE, THEIR LEGAL HELPING US GET IT.
CAN, CAN SOMEONE PLEASE CLARIFY TO ME WHEN THE LATEST VERSION WAS SENT? I HAVE OPENED UP EVERYTHING AND I DON'T SEE A K ON ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS.
SO, UM, YOU RECEIVED, UM, BACKUP YESTERDAY AND, UH, ALTHOUGH IT DIDN'T HAVE THE LINKS, IT HAD YOUR USUAL LINK TO THE PC PAGE, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS POSTED AT THAT TIME.
SO, UM, YESTERDAY AFTERNOON YOU DID RECEIVE ANOTHER, UM, REITERATION OF YOUR, UM, PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA, AND NOW IT'S LISTED, UH, AGAIN, COMMISSIONER COX, DOES THAT, YOU STILL LOOK A LITTLE CONFUSED? DOES THAT CLARIFY YOUR QUESTION? UH, NO, I, I AM, CAN CAN I OFFER, IF YOU GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WEBSITE, IT'S THE ONLY LABEL I, I HAVE, I HAVE, AND I, IT'S THE ONLY LABELED DRAFT ORDINANCE, SO IT ENDS IT'S DOCUMENT ID 4 2 4 1 1 2.
SO IT'S THE FIRST ARTICLE OF BACKUP.
SO DRAFT ORDINANCE, IT'S THE VERY LAST ON PAGE FOUR AND FIVE.
OKAY, WELL, I DID, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT EDITING A K AND THERE'S NO K IN THAT BACKUP.
UM, I THINK THERE WAS A NOTE THAT GOT ADDED THAT IS COVERING THE K ON SOME OF THEM, SO YOU MAY NOT SEE IT.
OH, THIS STICKY NOTE IS THE STICKY NOTE.
THANK, YEAH, I CAN'T MOVE THAT.
THANK YOU MS. JOHNSTON FOR HELPING CLARIFY THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER BRA RAMIREZ.
WERE YOU GONNA ASK A QUESTION? UM, UM, NO, I DON'T WANNA ASK ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, EXCUSE ME, I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
SO IF WE RECEIVED THE FINAL LANGUAGE AT 3 45 TODAY, IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? WE RECEIVED THE FINAL LANGUAGE AND THAT LANGUAGE WAS NOT THE LANGUAGE THAT WENT BEFORE THE PARKS BOARD.
I'M, I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE, THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IN THIS PROCESS, BECAUSE THAT'S JUST NOT ACCEPTABLE TO, TO DO THAT.
THERE'S NO REASON TO DO THIS AND, AND HAVE THIS COME TO US AT 3 45 WITHOUT THE LANGUAGE THAT WENT TO THE PARKS BOARD.
THERE IS NO URGENCY TO IT OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT IS NOT GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE.
THAT IS GOVERNMENT IN THE DARK.
MS. JOHNSON? UM, YES, UH, I DID CONFIRM THAT IT WAS UPLOADED YESTERDAY, NOT TODAY.
UM, WE STILL HAVE SPOTS FOR AND AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER COX, UM, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, NOT SEEING ANY, CAN WE GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT? UM, AND SO THIS AMENDMENT, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, CAN YOU PLEASE RESTATE IT? OH, I, I, I JUST, THE GIST OF IT, THE GIST OF IT IS TO LIMIT THE WIDTH OF THE ANNE AND ROY BUTLER HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL SYSTEM TO A MAXIMUM OF 20 FEET, EXCEPT WHERE IT EXCEEDS 20 FEET ALREADY.
AND ACCEPT IN AREAS THAT ARE DESIGNATED, UH, AS, AS AREAS OF CONGREGATION AND AT INTERSECTIONS INJUNCTIONS WITH OTHER TRAILS.
UM, COMMISSIONER COX, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE, OR RAISE YOUR HANDS, ALL THOSE AGAINST.
SO THAT MOTION ALSO FAILS, UH, WITH COMMISSIONER COX, UM, COMMISSIONER LER, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, COMMISSIONER BARR RAMIREZ IN FAVOR, AND THE BALANCE OF THE DICE AGAINST, UH, WITH COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE BEING BACK ON THE DICE AND THE CHAIR ABS STANDING.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS ON THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME? GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER COX.
[03:35:01]
I'LL MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO, I THINK IT'S K ONE, UM, OR STICKY NOTE ONE, UH, THAT SAYS, UM, RESTORATION AS DETERMINED BY A FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF FLOODPLAIN HEALTH AS PRESCRIBED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA.MANUAL INCLUDES A RESTORED AREA AT A RATIO OF TWO TO ONE, UNLESS OTHERWISE DETERMINED BY THE FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT, BUT NO LESS THAN A MINIMUM RATIO OF ONE-TO-ONE.
COMMISSIONER COX, DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? I'LL SECOND TO HEAR IT, BUT WHAT'S THE, WHAT, WHAT'S THE, WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
UM, COMMISSIONER COST, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? I, I SPOKE ABOUT THIS DURING THE Q AND A.
I THINK OUR DEFAULT SHOULD BE TWO TO ONE.
WE SHOULD ALWAYS STRIVE TO DO THE BEST AND PARTICULARLY IN THIS LOCATION, BUT IF A FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF THE FLOODPLAIN HEALTH DETERMINES THAT TWO TO ONE IS NOT REASONABLE OR NOT NEEDED, THEN THEY CAN GO DOWN TO A MINIMUM OF ONE TO ONE.
BUT THE BASELINE SHOULD BE TWO TO ONE AS IT'S, AS I'M READING IT IN THE RED LINE.
IT BASICALLY GIVES WHOEVER'S DOING THESE IMPROVEMENTS, A WIDE BER BETWEEN A ONE-TO-ONE AND A TWO TO ONE FOR RESTORATION.
AND, AND I, AND I MEAN, EVEN WITH PEOPLE WITH THE BEST INTENTIONS, BUDGETS ARE TIGHT, WHATEVER, WHATEVER THE REASON, THEY'RE ALWAYS GOING TO TEND TO SHOOT TO THE MINIMUM.
UH, AND SO WE SHOULD BE CREATING A DEFAULT MINIMUM OF TWO TO ONE, BUT ALLOWING THAT TO GO TO ONE-TO-ONE, UH, IF THE TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION SUPPORTS IT.
UM, I'LL ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION OF STAFF.
IS WHAT IS REQUIRED OF OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT TAKES PLACE RIGHT NOW? IS IT ONE TO ONE OR IS IT TWO TO ONE? UH, LIZ JOHNSTON, UM, WITH WATERSHED, UM, SO THIS IS, MOST DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED FROM THIS PART OF THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.
UM, IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE CODE, UTILITY LINES ARE ALLOWED WITH ONE-TO-ONE MITIGATION IN THE OUTER HALF.
AND SO, UM, GIVEN THE IMPACTS, THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER AREAS BEYOND BOAT DOCKS AND, YOU KNOW, SHORELINE ACCESS THAT IS ALLOWED TO OCCUR IN THIS AREA.
UM, SO THIS IS KIND OF A NEW, A NEW CONCEPT TO MITIGATE THE IMPACTS IN THE INNER HALF OF THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.
JUST, JUST TO CLARIFY, KATIE, CO ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, THE OUTER HALF WOULD BE 50 TO 100 FEET NOT AS CLOSE TO PROXIMITY.
AND THAT ONE-TO-ONE MITIGATION FOR SOMETHING LIKE UTILITY LINE COULD ALSO BE RE-VEGETATED ON TOP.
SO IT'S A LESS SENSITIVE AREA AND HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE RE-VEGETATED IN A WAY THAT A TRAIL WOULD NOT.
DO WE HAVE ANY FOLKS SPEAKING AGAINST THIS MOTION? FOLKS BE SO COMM COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE ONLINE.
GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.
I GUESS MY, UH, UH, WE WE'RE, WE'RE, I THINK I'M, OF COURSE I'M COMING UP TO SPEED ON ALL OF THESE CHANGES, RIGHT? AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A CODE FRAMEWORK TO ALLOW US TO FIX THE PROBLEMS THAT THE TRAIL HAS TODAY.
AND I CAN THINK OF PLENTY OF INSTANCES BECAUSE I ALSO USE THE TRAIL ALL THE TIME WITH MY SON.
WHERE OF IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE MORE THAN A ONE-TO-ONE RESTORATION WITHIN THE SPACE AVAILABLE.
SO I I, I DON'T WANNA SEE US GET TO A PLACE WHERE WE DON'T FIX PROBLEMS THAT ARE THERE TODAY BECAUSE WE'RE STUCK IN A BUREAUCRACY LOOKING AROUND TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A TWO TO ONE RESTORATION.
I THINK ONE-TO-ONE IS WHERE WE'RE BASICALLY MITIGATING OUR IMPACTS AND ALSO IMPROVING ALL OF THESE THINGS TODAY, YOU KNOW, THESE, THESE HUGE EROSION PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACES TODAY WHERE I, WHAT I'M SEEING IS THAT THE BUREAUCRACY IS NOT LETTING US DO IT.
AND SO I AM, I'M RELUCTANT TO BE ANY MORE PRESCRIPTIVE THAN WHAT'S, WHAT'S LISTED IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE.
COMMISSIONER S SKIDMORE, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER FOLKS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THIS MOTION? WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER COX, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HANDS.
ALL THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST THAT AMENDMENT ALSO FAILED FOR SEVEN WITH COMMISSIONERS HAYNES PHILLIPS COX, AND MUTO, UH, VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE BALANCE OF THE DYE AGAINST ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS AT THIS TIME.
IF NOT, I THINK WE CAN CLOSE OUT THIS ITEM.
[03:40:01]
AT THE BASE MOTION, WHICH WAS STAFF RECOMMENDATION.DO WE HAVE ANY FOLKS WHO WISH TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS MOTION? MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 11:00 PM THANK YOU.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 11.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HANDS.
AND THAT WAS JUST STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UH, I'M SORRY, UH, COMMISSIONER HANDS WE'RE JUST EXTENDING THE MEETING TIME, SO EXTENDING THE MEETING TIME TO 11.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? WE HAVE TEN FOUR ONE AGAINST, UH, COMMISSIONER STROLLER WILL NOTE YOU AGAINST AND WILL CONTINUE.
SO THIS TAKES US BACK TO OUR BASE.
THAT'S ALSO AGAINST, OH, DO WE HAVE TWO AGAINST? MY BAD.
SO WE HAVE 9 4 2 AGAINST THE MOTION TO EXTEND.
THIS TAKES US BACK TO OUR BASE MOTION.
ARE FOLKS FINE WITH ME GOING AHEAD AND TAKING A VOTE ON THIS AT THIS TIME? YES.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.
ALL THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST THAT MOTION PASSES SEVEN FOUR WITH COMMISSIONER, UH, AL COX, HAYNES, AND PHILLIPS AGAINST.
AND I WILL PASS THAT AND THANK YOU STAFF AND I'LL PASS THAT BACK TO YOU CHAIR.
YEAH, WE'LL TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
LET'S COMING BACK ONLINE, WE WILL COME
[31. LDC Amendment: C20-2024-001 - Onsite Water Reuse]
BACK TO ORDER TO HEAR OUR LAST PUBLIC HEARING.UM, THIS IS THE ONSITE WATER REUSE.
SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS, BUT WE ARE GONNA HEAR FROM STAFF AND THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GO INTO OUR Q AND A.
MY NAME IS SHAY RAWSON AND I'M THE DIRECTOR OF AUSTIN WATER.
AND WE'RE HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT, UH, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO, UH, THE ONSITE WATER REUSED AND RECLAIMED WATER CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS.
SO THIS, THESE, UH, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES ARE A PART OF, UH, OUR EFFORTS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR WATER FORWARD PLAN, WHICH IS AUSTIN'S 100 YEAR INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN.
UM, THE PLAN INCLUDES 18 TO 20 STRATEGIES, UH, THAT ARE A DIVERSE SET OF STRATEGIES, UH, INTENDED TO BE AN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN TO ADDRESS GROWTH, DROUGHT AND CLIMATE CHANGE IN OUR COMMUNITY FOR SUSTAINABILITY, RESILIENCY, EQUITY, AND IMPORTANTLY AFFORDABILITY.
UM, YOU CAN GENERALLY CATEGORIZE THOSE STRATEGIES INTO THESE FOUR ICONS THAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU.
UM, PARTNERSHIPS IS TALKING ABOUT, UM, OUR WORK WITH LCRA AND WITHIN THE STATE WATER PLAN SUPPLY IS ADDING ADDITIONAL SUPPLY, UM, TO THE COLORADO RIVER SUPPLIES THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
CONSERVATION IS REDUCING OUR DEMAND, AND THEN REUSE IS REALLY OUR SWITCH HITTER.
SO IT'S A SUPPLY BECAUSE IT'S, UH, ADDITIONAL WATER MOLECULES.
UM, AND IT'S A DEMAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY BECAUSE EVERY DROP OF RECLAIMED WATER THAT, UH, THAT WE USE IN OUR COMMUNITY IS LESS POTABLE WATER THAT WE NEED.
UM, THE WATER FORWARD PLAN WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY COUNCIL IN NOVEMBER OF 2018.
UM, AND, UH, IMPORTANTLY IT WAS DEVELOPED WITH A COUNCIL APPOINTED WATER FORWARD TASK FORCE THAT WE CONTINUE TO WORK WITH AS WE UPDATE THE PLAN ON FIVE YEAR CYCLES.
UM, AND THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TECHNICAL WORK THAT HAS GONE INTO THIS PLAN, UM, IN TERMS OF ENGINEERING, UH, CLIMATE SCIENCE AND HYDROLOGY.
SO THERE ARE ALREADY, UH, REUSE PROVISIONS, UM, CURRENTLY IN CODE, UH, EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1ST, 2021.
UM, THERE WERE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONNECTING TO THE CENTRALIZED RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM THAT IS WHERE WE, UH, COLLECT WATER USED IN OUR COMMUNITY, CONVEY IT TO ONE OF OUR, UH, WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS, TREAT IT FURTHER, POLISH IT, AND PUMP IT BACK UP.
UH, FOR USE FOR NON-POTABLE USES SUCH AS IRRIGATION, TOILET FLUSHING, UM, COOLING TOWERS, UH, AND SIMILAR USES.
UM, UH, THERE WERE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDED AT THAT TIME, UM, TO IMPLEMENT ONSITE WATER REUSE.
SO THIS IS WHERE A DEVELOPMENT CAPTURES THE WATER THAT, UH, THAT COMES TO THEIR SITE.
SO THAT WOULD BE, UM, UH, WATER PRODUCED FROM THEIR HVAC SYSTEM, CONDENSATE WATER, UH, RAINWATER STORM WATER, UM,
[03:45:01]
AND TREATS THAT AND THEN REUSES IT ON SITE.UM, THOSE REQUIREMENTS WERE INTENDED TO GO INTO EFFECT ON DECEMBER 1ST, 2023.
UH, WE WERE INSTRUCTED BY CITY COUNCIL TO GO DO AN ASSESSMENT OF THE AFFORDABILITY.
WE CAME BACK LAST FALL AND SAID, UH, WE'VE, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A, A BROAD DISCUSSION HAPPENING IN OUR COMMUNITY AROUND AFFORDABILITY.
SO WE, UH, ASKED FOR SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO ADDRESS THAT.
UM, AND NOW WE HAVE, UM, PUT TOGETHER THE FULL PACKAGE OF AFFORDABILITY, FINANCIAL INCENTIVES AND FUNDING MECHANISMS, UM, THAT, UH, THAT WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL NEXT THURSDAY.
UM, SO THESE REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO NEW SITE PLAN PERMITS SUBMITTED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE.
UM, SO FOR THE NEW REQUIREMENTS, THAT'LL BE APRIL 1ST AND GENERALLY REQUIRE A DUAL PLUMBING ON THE SUPPLY SIDE IN BUILDINGS SO THAT TOILETS CAN BE FLUSHED WITH NON-POTABLE WATER.
UM, AND IT ADDS NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
ONLY SMALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ARE ALREADY IN EFFECT.
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT LARGE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, ONE OR MORE MULTIFAMILY MIXED USE OR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ON ONE OR MORE PARCELS IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PHASED PLAN OR APPROVED SITE PLAN WITH A TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA OF 250,000 SQUARE FEET OR MORE.
SO THIS CAN BE HIGH-RISE OFFICE, MID-RISE OFFICE, UM, HIGH-RISE, MID-RISE OR SUBURBAN MULTIFAMILY.
UM, AND ON THE SUBURBAN MULTIFAMILY, THAT'S FOUR OR MORE BUILDINGS WITH A FLORIDA AREA RATIO.
SO JUST TO, UM, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT, UH, CONFIGURATIONS THAT, THAT WE MIGHT SEE, THIS TABLE IS JUST INTENDED TO TRY TO PROVIDE A VISUAL THAT CLARIFIES IT A LITTLE BIT.
UH, ALL DEVELOPMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO DO WATER BENCHMARKING, WHICH IS A PROCESS BY WHICH A NEW DEVELOPMENT LOOKS AT WHAT ITS WATER NEEDS ARE GOING TO BE, AND QUANTIFIES THOSE SO THAT WE CAN THEN DETERMINE HOW, UH, NON POTABLE USES NEEDS MAY BE MET WITH NON POTABLE SUPPLY.
UM, AND SO SMALL DEVELOPMENTS, UH, ARE REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO OUR CENTRALIZED RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM IF THEY'RE WITHIN 250 FEET OF IT.
UM, AND THERE ARE NO CHANGES IN THE PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL DEVELOPMENTS.
LARGE DEVELOPMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO, UH, THAT DO NOT HAVE MULTIFAMILY ARE REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO CENTRALIZED RECLAIMED WATER WITHIN 500 FEET.
THAT REQUIREMENT STAYS IN PLACE, OR EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT WITHIN 500 FEET, THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO DUAL PLUM AND INSTALL ONSITE WATER REUSE, UM, TO PROVIDE FOR SOME PORTION OF THEIR NON-POTABLE WATER USES.
LARGE DEVELOPMENTS WITH MULTIFAMILY, UH, CURRENTLY ARE REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO CENTRALIZED RECLAIMED WATER IF THEY'RE WITHIN 250 FEET.
UM, UNDER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, UH, THAT CONNECTION DISTANCE WOULD BE 500 FEET, UM, OR THEY, UH, ARE, IF THEY'RE NOT WITHIN 500 FEET, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO INSTALL AN ONSITE WATER REUSE SYSTEM.
AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO EXCLUDE LARGE DEVELOPMENTS WITH MULTIFAMILY THAT ARE ACCREDITED FOR AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED OR THE STATE LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT.
SO, UM, WHEN WE WENT AND LOOKED AT THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACTS, UM, IN THE REPORT THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN OUR MEMO TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL IN OCTOBER OF 2023, UM, WE FOUND THAT THESE, UH, NEW REQUIREMENTS WILL HAVE NEAR TERM IMPACTS TO MARKET RATE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING RANGING FROM ESSENTIALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, 0 0 0 0.02, UH, TO 1.4%, WHICH IS IN THE RANGE OF 800 TO ABOUT $7,000 PER UNIT.
UM, SO THAT, UH, WAS THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON THAT WE RECOMMENDED CODE CHANGES TO EXEMPT PROJECTS THAT QUALIFY AS AFFORDABLE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND WE CHOSE THESE TWO PROGRAMS BECAUSE THEY ARE, UH, WE WORKED WITH HOUSING TO IDENTIFY PROGRAMS THAT HOUSING, UM, MONITORS AND, AND CONFIRMS THAT THESE DEVELOPMENTS, UM, THEY MANAGE THE PROCESS OF MAKING SURE THESE DEVELOPMENTS MEET THE REQUIREMENT.
UM, AND SO, UH, SO OUR GOAL IS TO TARGET HOUSING FOR INCOMES BELOW 50% OF THE MEDIAN, UM, FAMILY INCOME.
AND SO EXEMPTING THOSE PROJECTS WOULDN'T IMPACT THEIR DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY.
SO, UM, SINCE, UH, OCTOBER, WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK AROUND OTHER WAYS THAT WE CAN INCENTIVIZE, UM, AND, UH, COST SHARE ON THESE RECLAIMED AND REUSE REQUIREMENTS.
AND OUR REASONS FOR THAT ARE, ARE
[03:50:01]
PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.UM, WE NEED FOR OUR WATER FUTURE TO HAVE A REALLY ROBUST RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM WHERE WE ARE USING NON-POTABLE WATER FOR NON-POTABLE USES.
AND THAT BENEFITS ALL OF OUR CUSTOMERS.
IT BENEFITS ALL OF OUR, UM, ALL OF THE RESIDENTS OF AUSTIN BECAUSE IT EXTENDS OUR WATER SUPPLIES.
UM, SO, UM, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF INCENTIVES AND GRANTS FOR REUSE AND CONSERVATION.
UM, WE INTEND TO, UH, HELP THESE DEVELOPMENTS GET INTO THE EXPEDITED BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS.
UM, WE'VE IDENTIFIED THE CONCEPT OF A LOW INTEREST LOAN PROGRAM, WHICH WOULD BE ADMIN DEVELOPED AND ADMINISTERED BY THE FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, AND SOME ADDITIONAL, UM, COST SHARING WHERE WE WOULD SHARE IN THE COST OF EXTENDING, UH, UH, PIPELINES TO, BETWEEN THE CENTRALIZED RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM IN THE DEVELOPMENT.
IN ORDER TO FUND THESE, UM, THESE STRATEGIES, WE'VE IDENTIFIED A COMMUNITY BENEFIT CHARGE.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT CHARGE OF 15 CENTS PER THOUSAND GALLONS THAT FUNDS OUR COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR OUR MOST VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS.
WE PROPOSE TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL 15 CENTS PER THOUSAND GALLONS IN WHAT WE WERE CALLING THE GO PURPLE COMMUNITY BENEFIT CHARGE, WHICH WOULD BE, UM, ALLOCATED SPECIFICALLY TO RECLAIMED, UH, WATER, UM, UH, DEVELOPMENT AND, UH, AND THAT OUR CAP CUSTOMERS DO NOT PAY THE CBC, SO IT WOULD NOT, UH, THIS NEW CHARGE WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO OUR, OUR, UM, UH, CUSTOMERS THAT ARE IN THE COMMUNITY, UH, CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
WE'VE ALSO IDENTIFIED, UM, UH, A VOLUNTARY RATE THAT WE'RE CALLING PURPLE CHOICE.
IF YOU REMEMBER AUSTIN ENERGY'S GREEN CHOICE PROGRAM, IT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THAT.
MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY WHO WANNA BE A PART OF THIS WORK, UH, WOULD BE ABLE TO VOLUNTARILY PAY, UM, THIS HIGHER RATE.
UM, AND, UH, WE ALSO HAVE, UM, IDENTIFIED A FEE IN LIEU FOR, UH, DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE FARTHER THAN, UH, 500 FEET FROM THE CENTRALIZED RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM.
UM, AND GO AHEAD AND MAKE THEIR BUILDINGS, UM, READY FOR RECLAIMED WATER, BUT DON'T WANNA BUILD AN ONSITE WATER REUSE SYSTEM.
UH, THAT WOULD ALSO BE ONE OF OUR FUNDING MECHANISMS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
UM, AND SO I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE AND, AND JUST IN CASE YOU'RE WONDERING, UH, WHY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THIS BEING PURPLE, UH, IT'S BECAUSE THAT'S THE COLOR CODE IN THE WATER INDUSTRY FOR RECLAIMED WATER.
ANYTIME YOU SEE A PURPLE PIPE LIKE THIS, IT'S, IT'S RECLAIMED WATER.
THAT'S IT FOR SPEAKERS, CORRECT.
CHAIR COMMISSIONER LEE? I HEAR THAT'S CORRECT.
SO YOU'RE, UM, WELCOME TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLICLY HEARING? UM, VICE CHAIR IS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE OUR FIRST QUESTION, COMMISSIONER COX.
UM, I WAS SO FRUSTRATED DURING YOUR PRESENTATION BECAUSE YOU SPOKE SO CALMLY ABOUT ALL OF THIS
UM, AND I FEEL LIKE, UH, OUR FUTURE ONLY EXISTS WITH EXTREME CONSERVATION AND EXTREME WATER REUSE.
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO SUSTAIN, UH, OUR, OUR WATER SUPPLY HERE IN AUSTIN WITHOUT THOSE TWO THINGS, UNLESS WE WANNA PAY A CAJILLION DOLLARS TO PIPE IT IN SOMEWHERE AND THEN END UP PAYING 15 TIMES MORE ON OUR WATER BILLS.
AND SO, WITH THAT BACKDROP, I'M, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE WAY WE'RE APPROACHING THE AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT HERE.
UM, I FEEL LIKE, UH, BY EXEMPTING, UH, AFFORDABLE PROJECTS, WE'RE CREATING THIS NEW INEQUITY THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN THE ELECTRIC SPHERE, THE POWER SPHERE, WHERE PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD TO, TO UPGRADE THEIR HOUSE WITH INSULATION AND HAVE SOLAR PANELS PAY A LOT LESS IN ELECTRICITY BILLS.
BUT BY EXEMPTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FROM WATER REUSE REQUIREMENTS, WE'RE KIND OF CREATING THE STAGE OF HAVING OUR LOW INCOME RESIDENTS HAVE TO PAY MORE ON THEIR WATER BILLS.
AND SO I'M CURIOUS IF YOU CAN TALK ME THROUGH
[03:55:02]
HOW YOU ENDED UP WITH THESE EXEMPTIONS VERSUS SOMETHING MORE ON THE GRANT FUNDING SIDE FOR THE, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS.YES, HAPPY TO, AND, AND, UH, AND SORRY, AND I WAS A LITTLE TOO CALM.
I, I ACTUALLY GAVE A SIMILAR PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCIL 13 HOURS AGO.
SO
AND SO, YOU KNOW, OUR INTENTION IS FOR AFFORDABILITY, AFFORDABLE DEVELOPMENTS TO BE, UM, ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS WORK THROUGH THE GRANTS AND INCENTIVES SO THAT WE CAN HAVE, UM, RECLAIMED WATER, UH, USE THROUGHOUT AND SO THAT ALL OF OUR CUSTOMERS CAN GET THE BENEFITS OF IT.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT THERE ARE, THAT THERE ARE UPFRONT COSTS TO, UM, INSTALLING DUAL PLUMBING TO PUTTING IN THESE SYSTEMS. AND WE WANNA RECOGNIZE THAT, THAT WE ARE IN A PHASE OF ADOPTION AND UPTAKE OF RECLAIMED WATER USE, AND WE WANT TO, UM, MAKE THIS AS SUCCESSFUL AS POSSIBLE AND GET AS MANY PEOPLE HOOKED UP TO IT AS WE CAN.
UM, AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE BALANCE THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR HERE.
IS, IS THERE ANY, UH, I, AND I DON'T KNOW, COMMISSIONER COX? SORRY, IS THERE ANY, THAT WAS THE BELL.
SO WE'LL MOVE ON, BUT I HAVE A FEELING WE MAY BE EXTENDING QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
UM, I DO HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT, UH, THE RELATIVE COSTS OF THE RECLAIMING WATER SYSTEMS. SO, UH, AT LEAST IN TERMS OF TAPPING INTO THE CITY'S, UH, SORT OF REGIONAL RECLAIMED WATER, UH, WOULD USERS OF THAT SYSTEM PAY MORE OR LESS OR THE SAME FOR THE USE OF THAT NON-POTABLE WATER AS THEY WOULD DRINKING WATER? THE RECLAIMED WATER RATES ARE LOWER THAN THE POTABLE WATER RATES.
AND, AND HAVE YOU DONE ANY ANALYSIS OF TO WHAT EXTENT THOSE LOWER RATES COULD OFFSET THE, THE COSTS OF INSTALLATION? I MEAN, IS THERE A PAYBACK PERIOD OF A YEAR, 10 YEARS, A HUNDRED YEARS? SO WHERE YOU START TO SEE A, AN OVERALL BENEFIT? YES.
WE, UM, THOSE NUMBER, THE NUMBERS THAT I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER ABOUT COST PER UNIT, UM, AND INCREMENTAL COSTS, THOSE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN YOU IMPLEMENT RECLAIMED WATER, YOU, UM, YOU THEN AREN'T GONNA NEED AS MUCH POTABLE WATER.
AND SO YOU GET A SMALLER METER AND YOU PAY FOR A SMALLER WATER METER, AND THEN YOUR POTABLE WATER USAGE IS DOWN AND YOU PAY LESS FOR RECLAIMED WATER.
UM, ALL OF THAT, UH, HELPS MAKE IT MORE AFFORDABLE.
BUT IT, UM, DEPENDING ON THE COST TO ACTUALLY CONSTRUCT THE SYSTEM, IT CAN BE A VERY LONG PAYBACK PERIOD.
SO IT DOESN'T ALWAYS KIND OF PENCIL OUT, IF YOU WILL, ON THE, ON THE BASICS OF, UM, KIND OF THE COST FRAMEWORK AS IT EXISTS TODAY.
AND SO IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OR MAYBE PERSONAL OPINION, DO YOU EXPECT THE, THE COST DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN RECLAIMED WATER AND AND PURIFIED DRINKING WATER SUPPLIED, DO YOU EXPECT THAT TO REMAIN THE SAME OVER TIME? OR DO YOU THINK THAT RECLAIMED WATER WILL BECOME A LITTLE MORE EXPENSIVE OR EVEN MORE AFFORDABLE COMPARED TO DRINKING WATER? UH, I DON'T KNOW IF I, UH, I'M GONNA LET, UH, OUR, UM, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
JOSEPH GONZALEZ, UH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OVER FINANCIAL SERVICES.
AND, UM, THE, THE WAY WE PRICE RECLAIMED WATER TODAY IS, IS AT A PERCENTAGE OF OUR, OUR POTABLE WATER RATES.
SO IT'S ROUGHLY 65% OF OUR POTABLE WATER RATES.
UH, YOU KNOW, WE ARE EARLY IN, IN TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR RECLAIM SYSTEM, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPED, UH, BEGAN DEVELOPMENT ROUGHLY 25 YEARS AGO.
AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF UPFRONT COST, UM, AND THE, THE NUMBER OF CONNECTIONS AND, AND REVENUES GENERATED, YOU KNOW, DON'T QUITE PENCIL OUT YET FOR US IN TERMS OF BEING SELF-SUSTAINING.
UH, SO WE DO ANTICIPATE THAT, UH, CERTAINLY OVER, UM, YOU KNOW, THE FORESEEABLE NEAR TERM THAT WE WOULD MAINTAIN THAT COST STRUCTURE, UH, YOU KNOW, WHO'S, WHO'S TO, TO KNOW WHERE, WHAT WILL BE 20 YEARS FROM NOW.
BUT, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, WE ANTICIPATE MAINTAINING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT RATIO OF, OF RECLAIMED TO PORTABLE WATER.
UM, CAN YOU PLEASE SHARE, UM, IS WHAT IS WE'RE TAKING ACTION ON TODAY? IS IT THE SAME DRAFT THAT WAS SHARED WITH THE COURTS AND ORDINANCES
[04:00:01]
JOINT COMMITTEE? WE HAVE, UM, THE UPDATED DRAFT THAT WAS SHARED WITH YOU TODAY HAS THE, UM, FEE, UH, THE FEE IN LIEU GOT IT INCLUDED IN IT.AND WHEN WAS THAT DRAFT SHARED WITH US TODAY? DO WE HAVE A TIMESTAMP ON WHEN TODAY? CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LAY? SO I BELIEVE THAT WAS IN YOUR AFTERNOON, UH, BACKUP.
I APPRECI THAT MR. FER, I HOPE THE FOLKS WHO HAD, UH, ISSUES WITH MAKING SURE THAT WE HAD BACKUP AVAILABLE HAVE THE SAME IDEA ON DIFFERENT ITEMS. UM, WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THIS ON SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TODAY? UM, THIS IS NOT, UH, AT THIS TIME INTENDED FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
UM, AND SO THIS IS FIVE UNITS OR MORE, UM, IS OUR SUBJECT TO THE SMALL DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS.
UM, AND I KNOW THAT IT CODES AND ORDINANCES, I HAD BROUGHT UP THE IDEA OF LOOKING AT THE RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AND OWNERSHIP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. DID YOU DISCUSS THAT WITH OUR HOUSING STAFF? WE HAVE DISCUSSED THAT WITH HOUSING STAFF AND, UM, AND WE'RE OPEN TO, TO ADDING THOSE.
WAS THERE A REASON THAT WAS NOT ADDED IN THE UPDATED DRAFT THAT WAS SHARED WITH US TODAY? I'M GONNA LET CATHERINE GSKI ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
I WILL RUN OUT OF TIME, MA'AM, SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET AN ANSWER SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
UH, THE REASON IT WASN'T IS BECAUSE WE WOULD NEED TO WORK WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT TO KIND OF WORK THROUGH THAT PARTICULAR LANGUAGE.
IT'S SORT OF, UM, THE, THE EXEMPTIONS FOR AFFORDABILITY AND LOCK AND LITECH ARE, YOU KNOW, STANDARD PROGRAMS THAT ARE ABLE TO BE CERTIFIED BY THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.
AND THESE ONES ARE, MAYBE THEY NEED SOME MORE, AND THE FEE U WE COULD, WE COULD GET THAT APPROVED FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? THE, UH, FEE U SECTION THAT WAS ADDED, WE WERE ABLE TO GET THAT APPROVED BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
WE GOT THE FEE APPROVED BY LAW.
I GUESS THAT'S THE END OF MY TIME.
NEXT QUESTION, ADAM, MADAM CHAIR, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, AND THEN COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
UM, THANK YOU MAD AND, UH, YES, UH, COMMISSIONER ZA, I WILL MAKE THE SAME.
I AM AS I TRY TO BE AS CONSISTENT AS POSSIBLE, AND I'M AS CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING THIS AT 3 43 AS I WAS EVERYTHING ELSE.
UM, AND WITH THAT SAID, I, I AM FAMILIAR WITH AND, AND APPRECIATIVE OF PURPLE PIPE AND, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I APPLY THE SAME URGENCY THAT COMMISSIONER COX DID, BUT, UH, I THINK WE NEED TO DO IT.
BUT, BUT ONE THING, UM, THE, YOU, YOU MENTIONED THE 50 DOUBLING, THE 15 CENTS TO 30 CENTS IS THAT FOR EVERY WATER METER IN THE CITY.
AND SO HOW ARE YOU GONNA DEAL WITH THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE AFFORDABILITY THAT, I MEAN, THERE ARE GOING TO BE PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT IN AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT ARE ALSO 60, 40, 20, 80, 50% MFI THAT ARE NOW GONNA GET A DOUBLE FEE.
ANYONE WHO, UH, PARTICIPATES IN OUR CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM THAT WILL NOT PAY THIS FEE, UH, FOR THE AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER, UM, OUR ESTIMATE IS A DOLLAR 47 PER MONTH FOR THIS ADDITIONAL 15 CENTS PER THOUSAND GALLONS.
UM, BUT YOU ARE CORRECT, IT WILL APPLY TO EVERY RETAIL CUSTOMER.
AND THEN, UM, UH, HOW IS THIS GONNA RELATE TO IF, IF YOU'VE GOT A PROJECT THAT GOES FORWARD IN, LET'S SAY, PARTICIPATES IN THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED OR WHATEVER THE NEXT THING WE'RE GONNA CALL VM U2, WHICH IS NOT VMU, BUT WHATEVER THAT'S GONNA BE AND THEY'VE GOT SOME AFFORDABLE UNITS IN IT, IS THAT WHOLE PROJECT GONNA BE EXEMPT? HOW, HOW ARE YOU GONNA DEAL WITH THOSE SITUATIONS? I, IF IT QUALIFIES FOR THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED PROGRAM OR THE LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT, THEN IT WOULD, IT WOULD QUALIFY AS AFFORDABILITY AND BE EXEMPT.
SO EVEN IF THEY SAY WE'LL DO 10%, SO THEY'RE GONNA HAVE 90% THAT ARE MARKET RATE AND 10% AFFORDABLE, WILL THEY BE EXEMPT? UH, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THAT SCENARIO WOULD GET THEM THE CERTIFICATION OF AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED IS NOT SOMETHING I CAN ANSWER.
IF THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT QUALIFIES THEM AS AFFORD FOR AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED OR FOR, OR IF THEY QUALIFY FOR THE LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT, THEN THEY, THEY WOULD BE EXEMPT UNDER THESE RULES.
WELL, LOTS OF US FIGHT FOR MORE, BUT YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPMENT C COMMUNITY SWEARS THAT THE BEST THEY CAN EVER DO IS 10%.
AND, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER, BUT SO, SO IF, IF THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT SAYS THAT, THAT THE ENTIRE PROGRAM WOULD BE EXEMPT, THAT'S FROM THIS.
[04:05:02]
GREAT.UM, DO YOU, COULD YOU TALK THROUGH THE TYPICAL WATER USAGE OF SOMEBODY LIVING IN AUSTIN MULTIFAMILY COMPARED TO SOMEONE LIVING IN SINGLE FAMILY? I, UH, DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
DO WE? DO WE DON'T, UH, SARAH, I'M SORRY.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO ASK YOU TO COME TO THE MICROPHONE SO FOLKS VIRTUALLY CAN HEAR.
AND YOU CAN SPEAK IN BROAD TERMS, SINGLE FAMILY, MORE SINGLE FAMILY LESS, UM, SINGLE FAMILY USES APPROXIMATELY 5,800 GALLONS OF, OF WATER A MONTH.
UM, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK GENERALLY, UH, APARTMENTS USE LESS, BUT I DON'T HAVE THAT SPECIFIC INFORMATION AT, AT MY HANDS TODAY.
AND DO WE HAVE AN IDEA OF THE AVERAGE WATER USAGE OF THE AVERAGE AUSTINITE VERSUS THE AVERAGE PERSON OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN, BUT WITHIN OUR METRO? UH, THE AVERAGE AUSTINITE USES GENERALLY USES LESS THAN, YOU KNOW, SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.
AND WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS TO THIS WATER? I'VE HEARD FROM SOME FOLKS THAT WERE TOLD THAT THEY CAN'T USE IT FOR LANDSCAPING IN CERTAIN AREAS.
NO, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
IT'S USED FOR LANDSCAPING ALL OVER THE CITY.
IT'S, UM, NEARLY ALL THE PARKS, ALL THE GOLF COURSES USED RECLAIMED WATER EVERYWHERE.
AND WHAT'S THE CAPACITY OF PURPLE PIPE? IF TESLA WANTS 300 MILLION GALLONS, ARE WE GONNA BE ABLE TO DO EVERYTHING THEY WANT PLUS EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE REQUIRING OF FOLKS? WE, WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT CAPACITY, UM, BASED ON THE SOURCE BEING THE WASTEWATER THAT WE TREAT AT OUR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS.
UM, WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT CAPACITY TO, TO SERVE OUR FUTURE NEEDS.
UM, SO OVER 300 MILLION? OH NO, I MEAN THEY, NO, NOT OVER 300 MILLION.
WE, WE USE, UM, ABOUT IN THE SUMMERTIME ABOUT, UH, I THINK OUR ACTUALLY ALL YEAR ROUND, OUR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS PROBABLY TREAT ABOUT 120 MILLION GALLONS A DAY AT OUR CURRENT POPULATION.
AS FAR AS COST SHARING GOES, UM, KIND OF WHERE ARE WE ON THAT AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, ARE WE, ARE WE EXPECTING THEM TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING IN THIS NEW LOOKS LIKE WE'RE DOUBLING FROM 250 TO 500? WHAT ARE WE EXPECTING TO, ARE WE GONNA PAY FOR THAT? ARE WE JUST PUTTING THAT ON THEM OR HOW'S THAT GONNA HAPPEN? SO OUR, OUR COST SHARING PROPOSAL RIGHT NOW LOOKS LIKE, UM, FUNDING, UH, IT, IT, WE'VE KIND OF GOTTEN IN DIFFERENT TIERS DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, HOW FAR THEY ARE FROM THE CENTRALIZED RECLAIM SYSTEM.
BUT THE IDEA IS WE WOULD ASSIST WITH FUNDING UP TO ABOUT 50%, UM, UP TO $500,000 PER PROJECT.
UM, SO, AND WHAT IF AT THE END OF THE DAY THEY FIGURE OUT FOR, FOR WHATEVER REASON IT'S 2.5 MILLION, ARE WE STILL CAPPING AT 500? YES, $500,000 PER PROJECT IS WHAT'S PROPOSED.
DID ANYBODY HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? UM, I WILL PROPOSE YEAH.
MAKING, UH, EXTENDING OUR SPOTS FOR ANOTHER THREE, UM, COMMISSIONERS.
SO COMMISSIONER COX AND VICE CHAIRS ARE, AND THEN COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.
I DON'T THINK COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE HAS ASKED QUESTIONS YET IF SHE WANTS TO GO FIRST.
COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO? YEAH, JUST ONE MORE QUESTION TO AUSTIN WATER.
YOU SPOKE TO A CAPACITY OF ABOUT APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED MILLION GALLONS A DAY BASED ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT.
WHAT'S OUR CURRENT DEMAND FOR THE SYSTEM? UM, GENERAL, DO WE KNOW THE CURRENT DEMAND FOR THE SYSTEM? ABOUT 4 MILLION GALLONS A DAY.
ABOUT 4 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY.
UM, SO WE USE ABOUT 120 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY OF POTABLE WATER IN THE WINTERTIME.
AND, UM, AND WE'RE LOOKING BY 2040 TO BE ABLE TO USE ABOUT 16 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY IN CENTRALIZED RECLAIMED AND ONSITE WATER REUSE.
SO GETTING UP TO ABOUT 10% OF OUR WATER USE.
COMMISSIONER COX, I JUST WANTED TO CARRY ON THE DISCUSSION ABOUT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT SOME OTHER COMMISSIONERS BROUGHT UP.
UM, I, I THINK, I THINK EVENTUALLY WE HAVE TO EXTEND THIS TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, BUT I'M ASSUMING, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE REASON WE HAVEN'T INCLUDED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IS BECAUSE THE AUSTIN WATER INFRASTRUCTURE REALLY JUST ISN'T THERE IN, IN THOSE AREAS.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT.
I HAVE, I WOULD LOVE TO SHOW YOU A MAP.
IF I, UM, COULD OF OUR, OF OUR RECLAIMED DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, WHICH EXTENDS FROM MORE WASTEWATER PLANTS, SORT OF INTO THE CENTER, CENTRAL CITY AND, AND HITS, UH, DROP OFF POINTS ALONG THE WAY, IF YOU WILL.
AND WE CONTINUE TO PUT MORE PIPE IN THE GROUND EVERY YEAR, BUT IT WILL BE A LONG, LONG TIME BEFORE OUR RECLAIMED SYSTEM LOOKS LIKE OUR POTABLE WATER SYSTEM IN TERMS OF ITS REACH.
BUT, BUT I ASSUME THERE'S CONCEPTUAL PLANS AT SOME POINT WHEN THAT INFRASTRUCTURE GETS BUILT
[04:10:01]
OUT AND, AND CAN CONSERVE THAT, THAT SORT OF, UH, GEOGRAPHIC AREA THAT, THAT WE WILL EXTEND THIS EVENTUALLY TO SINGLE FAMILY HOME.WE, WE CONTINUE TO, I WOULD SAY THE WHAT, WHERE THE STAGE WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW IS EXTENDING THE, THE SKELETON, IF YOU WILL, THE BACKBONE OF OUR RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM.
UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, AS TIME MARCHES ON, WE WILL CONTINUE TO, TO EXPAND IT.
AND, AND IF I'VE GOT TIME, I I, I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE EQUITY ISSUE.
UM, IS THERE ANY PLANS TO, TO TRY TO KEEP TRACK OF ANY SORT OF DEVELOPING INEQUITY IN OUR WATER UTILITY BILLS? UH, WITH, WITH THESE LOW INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO USE WATER REUSE AND ARE THEREFORE SOLELY USING MORE EXPENSIVE POTABLE WATER? WE, WE DO A, AN EVALUATION OF OUR AFFORDABILITY, UM, ANNUALLY.
UH, AND WE LOOK AT, UM, EIGHT TO 10 DIFFERENT AFFORDABILITY METRICS.
AND SO WE, WE, WE HAVE A, UM, A, A PRETTY GOOD HANDLE ON WHERE WE STAND WITH OUR AFFORDABILITY MEASURES AND WE USE THAT TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO OUR PROGRAMS AND, AND, AND MAKE SURE THAT OUR RATES ARE TAKEN CARE OF OUR MOST VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS.
I'LL PICK ON UP ON SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS.
I DO HOPE THAT TIME WILL BE RESTARTED FOR ME 'CAUSE I WILL HAVE MORE THAN, IS IT TWO MINUTES OR THREE MINUTES? I BELIEVE I WAS GIVEN TWO MINUTES.
LAST TIME I HAD TO AS WELL, I BELIEVE.
UM, I, I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE WHERE IT'S AVAILABLE TODAY.
I GUESS THE RECLAIM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, MY QUESTION WOULD BE, I KNOW I'D ASKED FOR THAT MAP AS WELL.
DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA IS MOST OF OUR MULTIFAMILY RIGHT NOW WITHIN THAT 250 FEET? DO WE, NO, WE WOULD SAY, NO, IT'S NOT.
MOST OF OUR MULTIFAMILY IS NOT WITHIN 250 FEET OF THE CENTRALIZED.
LESS THAN 50% OR MORE THAN 50%.
SO, SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, LIKE WE SAID WITH A SINGLE FAMILY, THAT THE ISSUE IS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE THE SAME CONNECTION.
WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT MORE THAN 50% OF OUR MULTIFAMILY IS NOT CONNECTED TO RECLAIMED INFRASTRUCTURE AS WELL.
UM, I KNOW I HAD ASKED A QUESTION REGARDING THE LOCAL AFFORDABLE PROGRAMS. DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERN WITH STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS? YOU KNOW, WE HAVE HUD PROGRAMS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT HAVE THEIR OWN CERTIFICATION, UH, NOT NECESSARILY CERTIFIED BY THE CITY.
THERE IS, YOU KNOW, STATE BONDS AND SO ON.
DO WE HAVE ANY CONCERN WITH ADDING THOSE AFFORDABLE PROGRAMS? OUR APPROACH IS TO WORK WITH THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT IN TERMS OF WHAT QUALIFIES WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AS AFFORDABLE.
SO WE WOULD LOOK TO HOUSING TO VALIDATE, UM, THAT A DEVELOPMENT IS, IS PART OF AN AFFORDABILITY PROGRAM.
SO DID OUR HOUSING DEPARTMENT SAY THAT WE SHOULD ONLY LOOK AT LITECH AND AFFORDABILITY AND LOCK? WAS THAT THEIR SUGGESTION? WE TRIED TO MAKE IT MORE OF LIKE A BROAD, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE PROVIDING 50% OF THE UNITS AT, AT NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT POINT AT THIS POINT, BUT THE, BUT THEN THE SORT OF THE LAW WE HAD TO BE CONSTRAINED TO BE LIKE, YOU KNOW, BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
AND SO WE, IT WAS SORT OF LIKE A, I, I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS WE WILL GO WITH WHAT OUR HOUSING DEPARTMENT, DID, OUR HOUSING DEPARTMENT SAY, ONLY THOSE TWO PROGRAMS AND NO MORE PROGRAMS. UM, I THINK IT WAS A, A DECISION THAT IT'S, YOU HAVE TO HAVE CODE LANGUAGE THAT YOU CAN IMPLEMENT AND ENFORCE.
AND SO THOSE WERE LIKE ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS THAT WE CERTIFY.
AND SO I AM SURPRISED BECAUSE WE HAVE RHODA PROGRAM, WHICH IS OUR, FROM OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND AND OUR BONDS.
WE HAVE THE OA PROGRAM, WHICH IS FROM OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND AND OUR BONDS.
WE HAVE MULTIFAMILY TAX, UH, BONDS THAT ARE DONE BY THE STATE AND, UH, AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY.
WE HAVE FEDERAL PROGRAMS FOR FOLKS WITH DISABILITIES.
I'M HONESTLY KIND OF SURPRISED THAT OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FELT THAT WE SHOULD EXCLUDE ALL OF THOSE PROGRAMS. ONLY KEEP THESE TWO PROGRAMS. YEAH.
I DON'T THINK THEY WANTED TO EXCLUDE THEM.
I JUST THINK IT WAS FROM A PRACTICAL ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION.
AND IS THAT THE LAW DEPARTMENT OR HOUSING DEPARTMENT? WE WORKED WITH BOTH TO DRAFT THE LANGUAGE FOR THE EXEMPTIONS.
THE COST SHARING ITEMS, ARE THOSE IN PLACE OR ARE THOSE PROPOSED, OR DO WE HAVE A COST SHARING PROGRAM READY TO GO TOMORROW? THEY'RE SET FOR APRIL 1ST.
IT'S A, UH, FOR THE ONSITE REUSE SYSTEM THAT'S, WE'VE HAD THAT SINCE 2021.
SO WE WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING TO DO THIS WORK.
THERE ARE GRANTS AVAILABLE THAT THIS IS THERE ELIGIBILITY FOR THAT.
UM, WE'RE AT THE END OF OUR Q AND A PERIOD, SO IS THERE A MOTION THAT ANYBODY WANTS TO ENTERTAIN? I'LL MOVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UM, AND IS ARE, ARE YOU THE SECOND COMMISSIONER COX.
[04:15:01]
UM, SO NOW THAT WE HAVE OUR BASE MOTION, UM, WE WILL ENTERTAIN AMENDMENTS.MR. COX? UM, I'M GONNA TRY, UH, I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A SUNSET PROVISION IN THIS CODE AMENDMENT THAT, UM, ON APRIL 1ST, 2028, ALL EXEMPTIONS TO THE WATER REUSE CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS WILL END UNLESS EXTENDED BY COUNCIL.
AND I'LL EXPLAIN, IF I CAN GET A SECOND WHY.
I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A SUNSET PROVISION FOR THE EXEMPTIONS.
DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? YEAH.
SO I, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE, THE DESIRE AND NEED FOR EXEMPTIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS.
UM, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT CAPITAL COST TO CONNECTING TO REUSE, BUT I FEEL LIKE IN THIS INITIAL ATTEMPT TO GET THIS GOING, WE'RE APPROACHING THIS INCORRECTLY.
WE'RE, WE'RE CREATING A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE GONNA HAVE A NEW INEQUITY OF WHO'S PAYING REALLY HIGH WATER BILLS FOR PURELY PORTABLE WATER, WATER USE.
AND THOSE WHO ARE CONNECTED TO THE SYSTEM HAVE PAID THOSE CAPITAL COSTS, BUT ARE NOW IN THE LONG TERM PAYING MUCH LESS, UH, WATER BILLS BECAUSE THEY'RE USING A LOT MORE RECLAIM WATER.
UM, WE ALREADY SEE THAT ON THE ELECTRIC SIDE OF THINGS.
WE DON'T WANT TO PERPETUATE THAT ON THE, ON THE WATER SIDE OF THINGS.
AND IF WE HAVE A SUNSET PROVISION THAT REALLY THE INTENT IN MY MIND OF THE SUNSET PROVISION IS ONE, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE EVALUATING ANY SORT OF EQUITY CONCERNS THAT ARE DEVELOPING THROUGH THESE EXEMPTIONS, BUT ALSO ALLOWING THE CITY ENOUGH TIME TO GET THESE FUNDING ASSISTANT PROGRAMS REALLY ROBUST AND WELL FUNDED SO THAT WE DON'T NEED THE EXEMPTIONS.
WE CAN JUST APPLY GRANT FUNDING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS TO ALLOW THEM TO CONNECT TO WATER REUSE SYSTEMS. WE HAVE FLEDGLING, UH, ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AND, AND I FEEL LIKE THE SUNSET PROVISION WILL, WILL GIVE US TIME TO, TO MAKE THOSE WELL-FUNDED AND ROBUST SO THAT WE NO LONGER NEED ALL OF THESE EXEMPTIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH IS JUST GONNA CREATE PROBLEMS DOWN THE FUTURE, UH, DOWN THE LINE.
UM, ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST THIS? I, I FEEL LIKE COMMISSIONER HAYNES WAS, I'LL GO AHEAD AND, UM, SPEAK AGAINST IT.
UH, WELL JUST TO SAY, YOU KNOW, A FELLOW COMMISSIONER OF MINE MENTIONED EARLY THAT WE'RE CREATING A NEW INEQUITY, AND I WOULD AGREE WITH THEM WHOLEHEARTEDLY.
WE ARE CREATING A NEW EQUITY AND WHAT AN AWFUL INEQUITY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES HOMEOWNERS DO NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WILL BE USED BY THE CITY.
DO NOT GET ME WRONG, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, HAVING SUSTAINABLE WATER RESOURCES IS CRITICAL FOR OUR FUTURE.
BUT WHAT AN INEQUITY TO TAKE THE COST OF THAT REQUIREMENT FOR A CLIMATE DISASTER THAT WE'RE ALL FACING AND PUT IT ONLY ON TENANTS WHO LIVE IN LARGE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING.
IF THERE WAS ANY OTHER EXAMPLE OF AN INEQUITY THAT PERHAPS WOULD BE IT, WE HAVE LITERALLY SINGLED OUT CERTAIN USERS IN OUR CITY WHO WILL PAY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE FUTURE OF OUR WATER RESOURCES, THE REST OF THE CITY WILL NOT PAY FOR THEM.
AND LO AND BEHOLD, IT SO HAPPENS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PAYING FOR IT ARE THE VERY PEOPLE WHO HAPPEN TO BE SOME OF THE MOST LOW INCOME PEOPLE WITH THE MOST HOUSING PRECARITY.
AND THAT IS WHY I CANNOT SUPPORT SOMETHING LIKE THIS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST.
DID YOU, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DID YOU WANT TO COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE VOTE? I WE CAN'T HEAR YOU DOWN HERE.
I I ONLY HEARD PIECES OF WHAT COMMISSIONER AZAR SAID, UM, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHY THE SOUND SYSTEM'S SO BAD TONIGHT, BUT WHEN HE'S, AND FOLKS DOWN THAT END ARE SPEAKING, WE'RE HAVING TROUBLE ON THIS END SPEAKING, SO IF YOU COULD REPEAT THAT, UM, I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
YEAH, YOUR, YOUR COMMENTS BECAUSE I, I THINK I HEARD PIECES OF IT, BUT I, I'LL KEEP IT TIGHT AND HOPEFULLY FOLKS CAN HEAR ME CLEARLY.
BUT I THINK I'M ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, YES, THIS IS VERY CRITICAL WORK AND WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE FUTURE OF OUR WATER SUSTAINABILITY IN OUR CITY AND IN OUR NATION, IN OUR WORLD, FRANKLY.
BUT IT IS AN INEQUITY TO SAY THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GONNA PAY FOR THIS WATER, YOU KNOW, ISSUE THAT WE'RE RESOLVING ARE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN LARGE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING FOLKS WHO LIVE IN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
HOPE MOST FOLKS WHO ARE HOMEOWNERS IN OUR CITY WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT INFRASTRUCTURE.
THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE PAYING FOR THAT INFRASTRUCTURE ARE TENANTS.
TENANTS ARE PAYING FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE FUTURE FOR OUR CITY.
[04:20:01]
LO AND BEHOLD, IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT THOSE ARE THE VERY PEOPLE WHO ARE THE MOST PRECARIOUS IN TERMS OF THEIR HOUSING, WHO DO HAPPEN TO BE THE MOST LOW INCOME IE TENANTS WHO LIVE IN LARGE HOUSING.AGAIN, I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS WORK IS NOT IMPORTANT, BUT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS CRITICAL TO CARVE OUT CERTAIN THINGS BECAUSE IT IS NOT JUST A SIMPLY A QUESTION OF WHETHER WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE THOSE KIND OF DEVELOPMENTS, HAVE THAT KIND OF PROVISIONS OR NOT.
I THINK THE QUESTION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MYSELF IS HOW ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO CONSIDER THIS MOVING FORWARD IN A WAY THAT IS TRULY EQUITABLE TO EVERYBODY IN OUR CITY? AND WE'RE NOT PUTTING THE BURDEN OF THIS ON CERTAIN PEOPLE.
COMMISSIONER COX, I JUST, JUST FOR EVERYONE'S INFORMATION I POINT OF ORDER CHAIR THAT WOULD BE OUT OF ORDER 'CAUSE WE'RE GOING IN COMMENTS AND COMMISSIONER COX HAS MADE HIS COMMENT, AND IF WE WISH, WE CAN ASK OUR PARLIAMENTARIAN TO RULE ON IT.
COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? YEAH, I JUST HAVE A, A COMMENT AND SORT OF FOLLOWING UP ON THE VICE CHAIR'S COMMENTS OF, YOU KNOW, I, UH, ALSO AN ENGINEER RIGHT ON THE D AND I GOT CURIOUS LOOKING AT THE, THE CURRENT SYSTEM MAP.
AND I KNOW THAT AUSTIN WATER DOESN'T HAVE ONE AVAILABLE TO PULL UP RIGHT NOW, BUT I JUST LOOKED AT BEST I COULD FIND FROM 2020 AND THE, THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THAT NETWORK AND IT, IT MAKES SENSE, RIGHT? BUT IT IS BASICALLY EAST OF I 35 EXCEPT FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AND DOWNTOWN AREAS.
SO, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, WHEN I'M LOOKING AT WHO WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THIS, IT'S UH, ABSOLUTELY EAST AUSTIN AND I ECHO SIMILAR CONCERNS ABOUT, OF THE MEANS AT WHICH WE'RE TRYING TO EXPAND THE USAGE OF THIS SYSTEM.
CLEARLY WE HAVE PLENTY OF EXTRA CAPACITY, SO WE WANNA GET MORE PEOPLE CONNECTED AND THE CURRENT ORDINANCE HAS, YOU KNOW, REQUIREMENTS FOR PROXIMITY FOR CONNECTION.
WE WANNA GO A BIT FURTHER SO WE CAN GET MORE PEOPLE CONNECTED, BUT I, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, I DO THINK WE, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER POINT OF ORDER.
COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, APOLOGIES.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR THIS AMENDMENT, MR. JOHNSON? I'M, I'M PRETTY ON THE FENCE.
UM, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL ADD A 15 CENT PER THOUSAND GALLON CHARGE TO ALL CUSTOMERS, NOT JUST MULTIFAMILY, UH, CUSTOMERS.
SO THAT, WHILE I HEAR THE EQUITY CONCERNS ABOUT THE CAPITAL COSTS, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE QUITE AS SEVERE AS, UH, STATED.
ALSO LOOKING AT THE MAP, UH, AND I APPRECIATE YOU COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE FOR BRINGING THAT UP.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM IS SOURCED FROM A TREATMENT PLANT PHYSICALLY LOCATED IN EAST AUSTIN.
SO I THINK IT IS A BIT OF A LEAP TO SAY THAT THERE'S A SORT OF INTENTIONAL, UH, INEQUITY IN THAT THE ONLY INEQUITY IS THAT THE PLANT WAS LOCATED IN EAST AUSTIN TO BEGIN WITH.
I MEAN, THE PIPES HAD TO ORIGINATE FROM THERE FURTHER, IF I UNDERSTAND THE AMENDMENT CORRECTLY OR THE ORDINANCE CORRECTLY, ALL PROJECTS LOCATED, UH, NOT JUST THOSE LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF A, OF AN EXISTING PIPE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE ON SITE, UH, RECLAMATION.
SO THEY WOULD STILL BE FACING THAT SAME CAPITAL BURDEN.
UM, WE'VE GOT ONE MORE SPOT FOR AND, AND AGAINST, LET'S SEE, ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR AND AGAINST COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER WOODS.
DO YOU WANNA TAKE IT? UH, NOPE, GO AHEAD.
UM, I WILL WANNA SPEAK AGAINST THIS AND JUST ADDRESS A SPECIFIC POINT THAT COMMISSIONER COX MADE THAT THERE COULD BE CREATED THIS INEQUITY WHERE THERE ARE SAVINGS THAT LOW INCOME RESIDENTS OF AFFORDABLE A CAPITAL A AFFORDABLE UNITS DON'T GET TO HAVE.
AND I WANNA TALK ABOUT WHY LI E SPECIFICALLY NEEDS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THIS AND WHY I THINK THAT ALL AFFORDABLE, RESTRICTED, AFFORDABLE UNITS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED.
BUT SPECIFICALLY LITECH, AND I KNOW THAT WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT DEVELOPMENTS WHERE THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT 10% AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
LITECH DEVELOPMENTS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 90 TO A HUNDRED PERCENT AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT ARE RESTRICTED AT 60% AND BELOW.
OFTEN THESE ARE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING UNITS.
THESE DEVELOPERS ABSOLUTELY CANNOT BEAR THESE, THE ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COSTS AND THE RESIDENTS IN LITECH UNITS EITHER HAVE THEIR UTILITIES COVERED BY THE DEVELOPER AND OWNER OR REIMBURSED THROUGH UTILITY ALLOWANCES.
SO ANY UTILITY SAVINGS THAT WOULD COME FROM THIS SYSTEM WOULD JUST BE A, A BENEFIT TO THE OWNER AND DEVELOPER.
AND I KNOW VICE YEAR YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT, BUT THIS IS AN AMENDMENT.
[04:25:02]
WAS, SHOULD WE NOT GO DOWN? CAN WE DO AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT OR NO? COULD YOU OFFER A SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT CHAIR, COMMS ON ANDREW? IS THIS AN AMENDMENT TO THE COX TEMPLE AMENDMENT OR IS IT A SUBSTITUTE? SO THIS WAS THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE BASE MOTION.UM, WOULD THIS BE A SUBSTITUTE OR JUST ANOTHER NEW AMENDMENT? I'M HAPPY TO DO A SUBSTITUTE.
I DO WANNA SAY, I BELIEVE IN THE PAST, IF YOU, IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO THE BASE.
WE HAVE ALLOWED ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO IT, BUT I'M FINE DOING A SUBSTITUTE.
SO THE SUBSTITUTE WOULD BE, UM, WHAT ESSENTIALLY COMMISSIONER COX WAS SAYING AT SUNSET IN 2022 FOR ALL EXEMPTIONS.
MY ADDITION IS ONLY IF THEY REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN AN EXISTING CITY OF AUSTIN COST SHARING PROGRAM TO ACHIEVE THESE REQUIREMENTS.
JUST, JUST A CLARIFICATION, COMMISSIONER ZA, MY SUNSET DATE WAS ACTUALLY GONNA BE FOUR YEARS FROM 4 28.
THE, SORRY, I'M TRYING TO FIND THE DATE.
UM, AND THEN I'D HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THAT.
SO THE SUNSET WOULD STILL BE 4 1 28, UM, FOR THE EXEMPTIONS, AND I'M SAYING ONLY IF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN AN EXISTING CITY OF AUSTIN COST SHARING PROGRAM TO ACHIEVE THESE REQUIREMENTS.
MAY I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION OF THE MOTION MAKER? UH, THE, THOSE COST SHARING PROGRAMS, WHAT WAS OUTLINED, THE 50% COST SHARING UP TO $500,000 PER PROJECT? I WOULD HONESTLY, FOR THESE CAPITAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THANK YOU FOR CATCHING THAT.
I WOULD PROBABLY WANT, SINCE IT'S NOT BEEN SECONDED, I WOULD SAY A HUNDRED PERCENT COST SHARING.
IS THERE A SECOND? CAN? SORRY, I WAS JUST HOPING TO GET CLARIFICATION.
SO THE, THE IDEA IS TO REMOVE THE EXEMPTIONS FOR THOSE, UH, QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE NOT PARTICIPATING WITHIN A FUTURE 100%, UH, COST PROGRAM.
AND I AM HAPPY TO CHANGE AROUND THE WORDS.
THE IDEA IS, I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS WE'LL HAVE A COST SHARING PROGRAM.
HOPEFULLY IT'LL BE A HUNDRED PERCENT FOR THESE.
LIKE, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS IS SAYING THE 4 BILLION LOCK PROGRAM IS A REQUIREMENT FOR MORE THAN 50%.
THERE IS NO 10%, IT'S MORE THAN 50% IT'S REQUIRED BY CODE OR LITECH PROJECTS, WHICH AGAIN, UNDER STATE RULES HAVE REQUIREMENTS TO HOW MUCH AFFORDABLE WE HAVE.
THE POINT IS, IS WE'RE SUNSETTING THE EXEMPTION FOR THEM.
THERE SHOULD BE A HUNDRED PERCENT COST SHARING FOR THOSE PROJECTS.
UM, SO ESSENTIALLY, OKAY, IF YOU'RE PARTICIPATING IN COST, IF YOU'RE REFUSING TO COST PARTICIPATE IN COST SHARING, THEN REALLY YES, YOU SHOULD NOT BE EXEMPT.
BUT IF THERE IS A COST, IF THERE'S NO COST SHARING PROGRAM, THEN FRANKLY, WHY ARE WE PENALIZING PEOPLE AFTER 2028 WITH THE SIMPLE REMINDER THAT, I'LL BE HONEST, A LOT OF THE THINGS WE TALK ABOUT ON THIS DAIS WERE BEING TALKED ABOUT IN 2010 IN THIS CITY.
I'LL, I'LL SECOND THAT BECAUSE YEAH.
MADAM CHAIR, CAN I STAFF A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS? UM, I'LL ALLOW IT.
UM, I WILL, I WILL ADMIT THAT IT'S CAMPAIGN SEASON AND I DIDN'T DO MY HOMEWORK AND POOR PLANNING ON MY PART DOESN'T NSTITUTE AN EMERGENCY ON ANYBODY'S PART.
BUT I SEE IN HERE THAT THERE'S A COUPLE OF PLACES WHERE THE VARIANCE ENDS ON APRIL THE FIRST 2024.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
WE'VE GOT AFFORDABILITY QUESTIONS.
IS, IS THERE SOMETHING DRIVING THIS THAT WE, WE'VE GOTTA GET THIS TO COUNCIL BY APRIL 15TH? OR BY WHAT, WHAT'S DRIVING THIS CHANGE? THE, UH, THESE REQUIREMENTS, THE REQUIREMENTS TO CONSTRUCT ONSITE WATER REUSE AND TO CONNECT TO RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM WENT INTO EFFECT IN 2021 WITH AN IMPLEMENTATION DATE OF DECEMBER 1ST, 2023.
SO WE WENT BACK TO COUNSEL IN OCTOBER OF 23 AND SAID, WE NEED MORE TIME TO PUT THESE MATERIALS TOGETHER AND COUNSEL PASSED A CHANGE TO MAKE THE IMPLEMENTATION DATE APRIL 1ST.
SO, AND IS THAT A CITY REQUIREMENT OR IS THAT A FEDERAL, IS THERE A FEDERAL MANDATE THAT'S MAKING US DO THIS? IT'S, IT'S THE APRIL 1ST IMPLEMENTATION DATE IS IN CITY CODE RIGHT NOW.
WE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE IT IN CITY CODE IN ORDER TO EXTEND IT.
SO WE'RE DOING THIS BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO AND THE CITY IS SAYING, LET'S DO THIS 'CAUSE YOU OKAY.
WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO FORD AGAIN.
SO, VICE CHAIR, DO YOU FEEL YOU SPOKE TO THE MOTION? I'LL SPEAK TO THE MOTION AGAIN.
I THINK, UM, TO MY MOTION, I'LL JUST SAY I THINK THE SUNSET PROVISION MAKES SENSE.
I AGREE WITH THE FACT THAT I THINK WE DON'T WANNA HAVE THAT INEQUITY WHERE FOLKS LIVING IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DO NOT HAVE THE SAME ACCESS TO HONESTLY IMPROVE WATER SERVICES OR THE COST, UH, BENEFITS THAT MIGHT COME FROM THAT.
BUT I ALSO, AT THE SAME TIME, WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT THAT THIS WOULD HAVE ON DEVELOPMENT.
[04:30:01]
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON WITH YOUR QUESTION ON THE CAPITAL COSTS, BUT I WANNA SAY BY OUR STAFF'S OWN ASSESSMENT, AND I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR THAT ASSESSMENT, OVER $7,000 PER UNIT IS THE IMPACT PER UNIT.$7,000 IS THE, AND LO AND BEHOLD, THAT IMPACT ACTUALLY HAPPENS TO BE THE HIGHEST ON STICK BUILT TEXAS DONUT ON OUR CORRIDORS.
SOME OF OUR MOST AFFORDABLE MULTIFAMILY WOULD HAVE THE HIGHEST IMPACT.
AND THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE WAY WE'VE DRAFTED THE PROGRAM, IT'S JUST HOW THE TECHNOLOGY WORKS.
SO ALL THAT SAID, I WORRY ABOUT ASKING OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE SOMETHING, WHICH WILL MEAN THAT EITHER WE WILL BE USING AFFORDABLE FUNDS THAT OUR TAX, UH, PAYERS APPROVE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THIS PURPOSE OR OTHERWISE.
MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, UM, RON AND A SUBSTITUTE, I HAVE A SUBSTITUTE TO A SUBSTITUTE
UM, SO, UH, THAT'S, UM, KINDA GETTING AWAY FROM, UM, THE, UH, AMENDMENTS AT HAND.
SO IF YOU COULD, UM, RESOLVE THIS MATTER WHAT IT IS.
UM, I WANNA POSTPONE THIS ITEM.
OKAY, LET'S VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT.
WHAT WERE YOU GONNA SAY? I, I WAS JUST GONNA CONFIRM THAT I DID HAVE A SECOND AND I DID.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND, AND MAKE OUR WAY THROUGH THIS AMENDMENT AND THEN VOTE ON POST.
I, I THOUGHT SUBSTITUTE AUTOMATICALLY.
I THINK, I THINK IT'S A PRIVILEGED MOTION, BUT I SHOULD THIS, CAN WE ASK THE PARLIAMENTARIAN, CAN YOU SUBSTITUTE FOR A SUBSTITUTE MOTION? I'M GONNA DE DEFER TO THE STAFF LIAISON ON THIS ONE.
CHAIR COMMISSION LIAISON, ANDREW.
SO IF YOU SHOULD, UM, TAKE UP THIS ITEM, UH, OR THIS AMENDMENT AND THEN PROCEED TO THE NEXT, BUT I, I GUESS LIAISON RIVERA, THE QUESTION IS, IS A MOTION TO POSTPONE PRIVILEGED OVER THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION AT HAND? THAT'S, THAT'S MY MOTION.
IT'S CUSTOMARY TO THE COMMISSION THAT YOU, UM, TAKE UP THE AMENDMENT THAT'S BEF ON THE DAES ON THE TABLE, AND THEN, UM, DIS UM, DISSOLVE THAT AND THEN, UH, MOVE TO THE POSTPONEMENT INQUIRY.
I KNOW THAT THIS MOTION NOW BELONGS TO THE BODY, BUT THE OTHER WAY TO DO THIS WOULD BE, UM, ALTHOUGH WE'LL HAVE TO PULL TWO AMENDMENTS AT THE SAME TIME.
UM, BUT WHAT I SAYS, I HAVE ANY SUBSTITUTE UNLESS I HEAR OTHERWISE FROM FOLKS.
I'M GONNA PULL THIS, I KNOW IT BELONGS TO THE BODY, BUT IF BY CONSENT WE CAN PULL THIS SUBSTITUTE, THEN ANOTHER SUBSTITUTE COULD BE MADE IF THAT IS INDEED THE WILL OF THE BODY.
ARE YOU ASKING IF THERE'S ANY OBJECTIONS TO WITHDRAWING? YES.
I'M WITHDRAWING MY AMENDMENT AT THIS TIME.
MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 1115.
SECOND, I I MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 1130.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT, SO GOING BACK SINCE WITH NO OBJECTION, MY SUBSTITUTE HAS BEEN REMOVED.
UM, WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE A SUBSTITUTE 'CAUSE WE'RE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT.
SO COMMISSIONER HAYNES, YOUR MOTION, MOTION IS TO POST, I, I HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS.
I IN OR I CAN MOVE, WHICH TO ADJOURN TO WHICH, I MEAN THAT IS CERTAINLY PRIVILEGED, BUT TO WHICH DATE? UH, TILL THE 20, MARCH THE 26TH.
AND IN THE MEANTIME, UH, DEAL WITH THE AFFORDABILITY QUESTIONS, DEAL WITH WHO THIS APPLIES TO, DEAL WITH THE FEES AND HOW THAT ALL APPLIES TO ACROSS THE BOARD AND ANSWER SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS RATHER THAN DOING IT AT 11 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT WHEN WE'RE EXTENDING BY 15.
IS THERE A SECOND? I SEE COMMISSIONER WOODS.
UM, ANY MORE YOU'D LIKE TO SAY TO THIS ONE? COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? YEAH, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN PROVIDE ALL QUESTIONS TOO IF THE MOTION PASSES THAT WE CAN PROVIDE THE QUESTIONS SO THAT WE CAN GET THE ANSWERS AHEAD OF TIME? OH, CERTAINLY, YES.
MADAM CHAIR, CAN YOU ADD THAT TO YOUR MOTION? WHAT SHE SAID?
I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO MR. RIVER, MR. RIVERA, THAT WILL HAVE ANSWERS BEFORE OUR NEXT MEETING.
AND THEN HOPEFULLY THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.
UM, ANY SPEAKING, ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 26TH? MR. JOHNSON? YEAH, YOU CAN SAY IT'S AGAINST, BUT REALLY IT'S, YOU KNOW, IF WE POSTPONE ON MARCH 26TH AND THESE CHANGES TAKE EFFECT APRIL 1ST AND THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING ISN'T UNTIL APRIL 4TH, YOU KNOW, I'D JUST LIKE TO FLAG THAT THAT WOULD MEAN THERE'S, AT THE VERY LEAST
[04:35:01]
THAT WEEK OR SO WHERE APPLICATIONS WILL SUDDENLY BE SUBJECT TO THESE RULES, WHICH MIGHT THEN BE REVERSED.YEAH, IT'S ONLY A FEW DAYS, THEORETICALLY, MAYBE A WEEK.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I'M HESITANT TO CREATE THAT EXTRA UNCERTAINTY, UH, INSTEAD OF JUST SETTLING THE ISSUE TONIGHT.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR, OH, COMMISSIONER COX.
I WAS GONNA SPEAK, I GUESS AGAINST IF, IF THAT'S ALLOWED.
WELL, AND, AND SORRY, THIS WAS PARTLY MORE OF A QUESTION, WHICH I KNOW WE'RE PAST THAT, BUT, BUT IT, I AM CONCERNED THAT BY POSTPONING THIS, WE NOW, 'CAUSE THIS IS ALREADY IN EFFECT, SO BY POSTPONING THIS, WE ARE NOW REQUIRING ALL AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE ORDINANCE WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS.
AND I KIND OF SEE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR STAFF TO CLARIFY THAT AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCESS.
AND JERRY, I GUESS IF I MIGHT ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION, STAFF, IS THIS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT, THE ORDINANCE ITSELF? IS IT CURRENTLY IN EFFECT? YES.
DIFFERENT PARTS, UM, HAVE DIFFERENT EFFECTIVE DATES, BUT THE RECLAIMED CONNECTIONS, UM, ARE, HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT SURE, THE REC CONNECTION, BUT ESSENTIALLY EVERYTHING THAT WOULD IMPACT WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON TODAY, I GUESS EXCEPT FOR THAT EXCEPTION, FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR RECLAIMED CONNECTION, THAT WILL GO IN EFFECT ON APRIL 1ST.
THE VARIANCE FOR MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS EXPIRES APRIL 1ST AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR ONSITE WATER REUSE WOULD GO INTO EFFECT APRIL 1ST.
EVERYTHING ELSE IS ALREADY IN EFFECT.
DO YOU WANT, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, HONESTLY, AM I HEARING IF WE DON'T PASS THIS TODAY, THERE'S SOMETHING BAD HAPPENING THAT WE'RE UNAWARE OF
BUT DOES THAT, BUT ARE THEY DOING THAT? DO THEY, HAVE THEY BEEN DOING THAT FOR TWO YEARS? YES.
THE SMALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, I, I FEEL LIKE I'M MORE, I'M, I DON'T WANNA TAKE UP EVERYBODY'S TIME.
I FEEL LIKE I'M MORE CONFUSED NOW THAN I WAS BEFORE.
IF, IF I CAN RAISE A, A POINT OF PRIVILEGE AND JUST EXPLAIN WHY I BROUGHT THAT UP.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE DRAFT ORDINANCE OR THE EXISTING ORDINANCE, PART OF IT WAS DELAYED WITH A VARIANCE PROCESS UNTIL APRIL 1ST, 2024.
AND SO THAT VARIANCE PROCESS, WHICH ALLOWS FOR MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS WITHIN EITHER THE 250 OR 500 FEET OF A, OF AN EXISTING RECLAIMED WATERLINE TO WAVE OUT OF THAT REQUIREMENT, THAT WAIVER WILL NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE AFTER APRIL 1ST.
SO UNDER THE CURRENT ADOPTED ORDER, I APPRECIATE THAT.
SO WHAT I THINK WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING FROM YOU THOUGH, IS THAT THE VARIANCE DOES EXIST TILL APRIL 1ST, RIGHT? SO THE LANDSCAPE CURRENTLY AS IT IS, DOES NOT CHANGE UNTIL APRIL 1ST.
THERE'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS, I WOULD SAY MIDNIGHT TONIGHT, BUT THAT'S AN HOUR.
IS THERE ANOTHER THING THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN AT MIDNIGHT TONIGHT THAT ISN'T GONNA BE DIFFERENT FROM APRIL 1ST? UM, CAN, CAN I CLARIFY ONE THING? YES.
I THINK WE'RE ALL CONFUSED RIGHT NOW.
HOPEFUL THAT, THAT, THAT EXEMPTION IS ONLY FOR THOSE THAT ARE 250 FEET OR MORE FOR LARGE DEVELOPMENT WITH MULTIFAMILY.
THE, THE REQUIREMENTS ARE ALREADY IN EFFECT FOR THOSE THAT ARE WITHIN 250 FEET AND THAT ARE CLASSIFIED AS, AS SMALL DEVELOPMENT AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
AND I GUESS THEN MY QUESTION WOULD BE THAT FOR THE IMPACT THAT HAS BEEN EXISTING FOR THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR 23 MONTHS, HOW AWFUL IF WE EXTENDED BY ONE MORE MONTH, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE FOR 23 MONTHS AGO, WE MADE A DECISION TO IMPACT AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEGATIVELY.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO THE, I'M GONNA RECAP WHAT'S IN EFFECT RIGHT NOW.
UM, SO SMALL DEVELOPMENTS THAT'S LESS THAN 250,000 SQUARE FEET, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT TYPE IS REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO THE CENTRALIZED RECLAIMED SYSTEM, IF THEY ARE WITHIN 250 FEET, AND USE IT FOR ESSENTIALLY OUTDOOR USE AND COOLING TOWERS, IRRIGATION AND TOOL COOLING TOWERS, NOT DUAL PLUMBING, NOT TOILET FLUSHING.
THAT'S THE SAME REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN EFFECT FOR LARGE DEVELOPMENTS WITH MULTIFAMILY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THAT MULTIFAMILY IS AFFORDABLE OR NOT.
[04:40:01]
IN EFFECT, TODAY, LARGE DEVELOPMENTS WITH MULTIFAMILY THAT ARE WITHIN 250 FEET OF THE CENTRALIZED RECLAIMED SYSTEM HAVE TO CONNECT AND USE IT FOR IRRIGATION AND COOLING TOWERS.SO WHAT AND RIGHT NOW, LARGE DEVELOPMENTS, YOU CAN KEEP GOING WITHOUT MULTIFAMILY.
LARGE DEVELOPMENTS WITHOUT MULTIFAMILY THAT ARE WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE RECLAIMED SYSTEM HAVE TO CONNECT AND USE IT FOR COOLING TOWERS AND IRRIGATION.
HOW AM I DOING? OKAY, COME CORRECT ME, CATHERINE, YOU CAN COME HELP.
SO EFFECTIVE APRIL 1ST, THE ONSITE WATER, THE REQUIREMENT TO IMPLEMENT AN ONSITE WATER REUSE SYSTEM WAS INTENDED TO GO INTO EFFECT DECEMBER 1ST, 2023.
IT WILL NOW GO INTO EFFECT APRIL 1ST, 2024.
THAT IS WRITTEN IN CODE RIGHT NOW.
SO THAT ONCE THAT HAPPENS, THEN LARGE DEVELOPMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO INSTALL AN ONSITE WATER RE SYSTEM AND USE OR CONNECT TO THE CENTRALIZED RECLAIM SYSTEM.
BUT IF THEY'RE NOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO CENTRALIZED RECLAIM SYSTEM, THEY STILL HAVE TO DO ONSITE, WHICH COLLECTS RAINWATER, CONDENSATE, AND THEN REUSES IT FOR TOILET FLUSHING AS WELL AS IRRIGATION AND COOLING TOWERS.
UH, AND THAT WILL GO INTO EFFECT FOR LARGE DEVELOPMENTS WITH AND WITHOUT MULTIFAMILY, WITH AN EXCLUSION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON APRIL 1ST.
MIGHT I SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION? UM, YES, WE HAVE ONE MORE SPOT FOR THAT.
UM, I THINK, I'LL BE HONEST, I'M NOT CONVINCED THERE'S ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TODAY AND APRIL 1ST.
THE ONLY REASON I'LL VOTE AGAINST IT, I THINK THERE WAS, I'M NOT SURE WHO RAISED THE QUESTION.
I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD, GOOD POINT, WHICH IS IF WE GO TO MARCH 26TH AND WE'RE CUTTING IT CLOSE.
SO I THINK IF THIS MOTION FAILS, I WILL BE MAKING A MOTION, UM, TO GO TO MARCH 12TH.
ANYBODY ELSE? OR JUST AMEND MY MOTION? I'M OKAY.
WE'RE WE'LL RUN TO THE SAME PROBLEM.
I'LL WITHDRAW MY MOTION WITH NO, I GUESS WE, WE WOULD HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THIS MOTION BEING WITHDRAWN? OBJECTION.
OKAY, THEN I'M GONNA SAY, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION OR DO YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION TO MARCH 12TH? OKAY.
I'M MAKING A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO MARCH 12TH SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.
ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS? PICKING FOR OR AGAINST? OKAY, LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON THIS IS JUST TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM UNTIL MARCH 12TH, WHICH IS OUR NEXT MEETING.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AND ONLINE? OKAY.
UM, SO WE ARE POSTPONING THAT TO MARCH 12TH.
OKAY, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON.
WE'RE IN THE, WE'RE CLOSE TO THE END.
SO, UM, ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION.
[32. Discussion pertaining to upcoming Land Development Code amendments meetings. (Sponsors Chair Hempel and Vice-Chair Azhar)]
THE FIRST ONE IS ABOUT OUR UPCOMING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT MEETINGS.SO, UM, THERE WAS AN EMAIL FORWARDED FROM, UH, MS. LEAK, UH, BY MR. RIVERA THAT WAS SENT TO US, UH, TODAY AT 1240 THAT HAS A LOT OF DETAIL ABOUT THE UPCOMING LDC CODE AMENDMENTS AND WHEN THE NOTICES ARE GOING OUT.
UM, I'LL TRY TO SUMMARIZE FOR ANYBODY LISTENING IF YOU'RE TAKING NOTES.
UM, BUT I WON'T READ THE ENTIRE EMAIL.
UM, THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CODE WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AND PUBLIC REVIEW STARTING ON APRIL 1ST.
SO THE TIMELINE IS AS FOLLOWS.
COMMUNITY COMMUNITY NOTICES WILL GO OUT ON MONDAY, APRIL 1ST.
UM, THERE WILL BE, UH, A POSTCARD THAT COVERS THREE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, THOSE BEING HOME.
PHASE TWO, THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING AND CITYWIDE COMPATIBILITY.
THERE WILL BE A SECOND NOTICE, UM, SENT TO, UH, AFFECTED PROPERTIES.
THOSE WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE EQUITABLE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY PHASE ONE PROPOSED CODE CHANGES.
UM, THERE WILL BE, UM, A WEBPAGE THAT WILL BE LAUNCHED THAT WILL PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE CODE CHANGES
[04:45:01]
MEETING DAYS AND HOW TO PARTICIPATE.AND THEN WE WILL MOVE INTO THE JOINT COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ON THURSDAY, APRIL 11TH.
THAT WILL BE HERE AT CITY HALL STARTING AT 9:00 AM.
UM, THAT WILL BE TO HEAR PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON HOME PHASE TWO ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING, CITYWIDE COMPATIBILITY AND E TODD OVERLAY PHASE ONE.
OPEN HOUSES WILL BE AT THE AUSTIN CENTRAL LIBRARY ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17TH FROM SIX TO EIGHT AND A VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE ON SATURDAY, APRIL 20TH FROM 10 TO NOON.
AND THEN OUR PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS TUESDAY, APRIL 9TH.
WE WILL HAVE, UH, PUBLIC, UH, HEAR PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNSEL ON THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT COMBINING DISTRICT ON TUESDAY, APRIL 23RD.
WE WILL HEAR TESTIMONY AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL FOR THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS FOR HOME PHASE TWO EV CHARGING AND CITYWIDE COMPATIBILITY.
THE NEXT TUESDAY, APRIL 30TH, WE'LL HEAR TESTIMONY AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL FOR CODE AMENDMENTS FOR E TODD OVERLAY, PHASE ONE AND DOWNTOWN PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING DATES WILL BE THURSDAY, MAY 2ND FOR SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT COMBINING DISTRICT AND DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM ORDINANCE THURSDAY MAY 16TH FOR HOME, PHASE TWO EV CHARGING COMPATIBILITY, AND E TODD OVERLAY PHASE ONE, AND THEN THURSDAY, MAY 30TH FOR THE DOWNTOWN PARKING REQUIREMENTS ORDINANCE.
SO I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.
I KNOW I JUST READ A TON OF INFORMATION AND DATES, UM, BUT THIS IS IN YOUR EMAIL FROM THIS AFTERNOON.
UM, THERE'S A LOT OF WORK AHEAD OF US.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, WHAT ARE THE OPEN HOUSES? IS THAT JUST A PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EVENT OR IS THAT A FUNCTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION? I JUST, I WASN'T, I DIDN'T GO TO THOSE FOR HOME PHASE ONE, SO I'M NOT REALLY SURE HOW THOSE WORK AND LIKE, WHAT OUR OBLIGATION IS FOR THAT SPECIFIC PIECE THAT CITY STAFF, UM, RUNS THOSE.
UM, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ARE OF COURSE WELCOME TO GO, UM, BUT STAFF WILL BE ANSWERING QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER COX, UH, WILL THE OPEN HOUSES BE NOTICED TO ALLOW THE QUORUM TO ATTEND? GOOD QUESTION.
MR. RIVERA? N NO, I NOTICE CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LAY ON, I BELIEVE THEY ARE ON THE, UM, LDC, UM, SPEAKER PAGE AND, UM, THAT'S A FORM OF NOTICE, BUT, SO I SHOULD, UM, BE A LITTLE MORE CAREFUL IN MY COMMENT ABOUT PLANNING.
COMMISSIONERS ARE WELCOME TO ATTEND THERE, THERE, WE DO HAVE TO WATCH OUT FOR QUORUMS, UM, ESPECIALLY QUORUMS OF THE EXECUTIVE, UM, UM, SEATS.
SO, UM, MAYBE, MAYBE COORDINATE IF WE'RE GOING TO O ATTEND THE OPEN HOUSES, UM, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT REACHING A QUORUM INADVERTENTLY.
I ASSUME THE VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE ISN'T A PROBLEM, BUT THE IN-PERSON ONE MIGHT BE.
UM, AND, AND I NOTICED THE JOINT MEETING IS AT 9:00 AM THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, SO I'M A LITTLE CURIOUS IF IT'S GONNA BE STRUCTURED IN A WAY TO MAKE IT EASY FOR THE PUBLIC WHO ACTUALLY WORK A NORMAL JOB, UM, TO BE ABLE TO ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE IN THAT PUBLIC MEETING.
UM, UNFORTUNATELY WE DON'T HAVE MS LEAK HERE TONIGHT TO EXPLAIN THE DETAILS OF HOW THAT WILL BE SET UP.
UM, MR. RIVERA, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER INFORMATION? CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LAY LIAISON, ANDREW, ANDREW RIVERA.
I BELIEVE IT WILL JUST BE LIKE, UH, HOW YOUR, UM, UH, JOINT MEETING WITH COUNSEL WITH THE, FOR THE HOME AMENDMENTS.
UM, IT'LL JUST BE A, UM, PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT WITH COUNSEL.
RIGHT? SO YOU CAN CALL IN, YOU CAN BE IN PERSON AND THERE'S NO END TIME.
SO THEORETICALLY IT GOES UNTIL YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MORE SPEAKERS.
I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT YOU HAD TO SIGN UP THOUGH, UH, PRIOR TO THE MEETING STARTING IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE.
AND THEN YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW WHEN YOU'RE GONNA FALL WITHIN, YOU KNOW, THEY COULD CALL YOU UP AT 1145 WHEN YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF WORK.
[04:50:01]
MM-HMM,SO I JUST THINK THAT'S A BIT UNFAIR 'CAUSE I THOUGHT OUR PREVIOUS JOINT MEETING STARTED LATER.
UM, REAL QUICK, UH, MAKING A MOTION TO EXTEND TO 1130 SECOND.
LET'S JUST, JUST SO THIS BE SAFE, CAN WE GO AHEAD AND EXTEND TO 1130? SECOND.
WE'RE, WE'RE WE REASONS STEVE? MY, MY, MY LAST, SORRY.
I'M, I'M, I'M DRAGGING ON, UH, MY LAST, UH, QUESTION IS, UM, WILL WE HAVE A WORKING GROUP LIKE WE DID FOR HOME PHASE ONE? I AM SO GLAD YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION BECAUSE THE NEXT ITEMS ON OUR ITEM FROM THE COMMISSION ARE ABOUT FORMING WORKING GROUPS FOR THESE VERY HEFTY ITEMS. THERE IT IS.
CAN I JUST ASK ABOUT THE 9:00 AM START TIME? WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT, UM, WE WERE CONSULTED ON? BECAUSE SOME OF US WORK AND CAN'T BE AVAILABLE THAT EARLY AND IT, IT MAKES NO SENSE TO DO IT AT A TIME WHEN PEOPLE CAN'T PARTICIPATE BECAUSE OF OTHER OBLIGATIONS.
AND I MYSELF WILL BE UNABLE TO ATTEND.
UM, BUT THAT WAS CAME FROM COUNCIL.
WE CONSULTED ON THE COUNCIL MADE THAT DECISION, SO WE WEREN'T CONSULTED ON IT.
UNILATERAL DECISION CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LAY, I, I BELIEVE THERE WAS A SURVEY THAT WAS, UH, SUBMITTED TO, UH, THE COMMISSION FOR THE DATES, BUT NOT THE START TIME.
I DON'T THINK WE WERE, WE WERE VOLUNTOLD.
BUT WHAT IF THERE ISN'T A QUORUM FOR PC? OH, AM I BIASED? SORRY, I JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.
I DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE EVERYBODY HERE.
YEAH, I'M PRETTY SURE AUSTIN WOULD GET SUCKED INTO A BLACK HOLE OF OBLIVION.
UM, OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? UH, JUST LOOKING BACK AT THE SURVEY, DID ASK DATES AND TIMES, SO I DON'T REMEMBER SAYING 9:00 AM MYSELF, BUT
AND, AND I'LL SAY THAT IT DID ASK, I ANSWERED THAT SURVEY AND IT, IT JUST SEEMED PRO FORMA.
IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THEY PROBABLY TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT WE PUT ON THE SURVEY BECAUSE I I HAD WRITTEN COMMENTS ON MINE.
UM, IF NO OTHER COMMENTS, WE'LL GO TO
[Items 33 & 34]
NUMBER 33.UM, I KIND OF WANTED TO TAKE UP NUMBERS 33 AND NUMBER 34 AT THE SAME TIME.
UM, SO THIS IS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO ESTABLISH A WORKING GROUP TASKED WITH PROVIDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UPCOMING LDC CODE AMENDMENTS.
AND NUMBER 34 IS FOR THE SAME FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT OVERLAY.
AND, UM, WE AT THE CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE GOT A PREVIEW OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT OVERLAY.
AND REALLY FEEL STRONGLY THAT, THAT BOTH OF THESE ITEMS, 33 AND 34 NEED, UH, WORKING GROUPS TO VET AS MUCH AS WE CAN FROM THE PC BEFORE THEY COME TO US FOR ACTION.
UM, BECAUSE THERE, THERE'S SO MUCH CONTENT TO GO THROUGH ON BOTH OF THESE ITEMS. DID YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING? VICE CHAIR? UM, NO, EXCEPT, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT WE DO THE TIMELINE FOR THE CODE AMENDMENTS HAS BEEN LAID OUT.
WE DON'T HAVE THE EXACT TIMELINE FOR SOUTHLAND WATERFRONT AS FAR AS I KNOW.
UM, BUT IT IS ROUGHLY AROUND THE SAME TIME AS WHAT WE WERE KIND OF TOLD BY COJC.
UM, AND I WOULD SAY THAT ALREADY THE SOUTHERN WATERFRONT CHANGES ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE IF SOMEBODY WISHES TO GO LOOK AT THOSE, THOSE DRAFTS ARE AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME.
UM, SO I'LL OPEN IT UP AND WE'LL START WITH, LET'S START WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS AND UNDERSTANDING THAT WE DON'T HAVE ALL OF OUR COMMISSIONERS HERE TONIGHT.
BUT, UM, I'LL GET YOU IN JUST A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER COX, WE'LL HAVE FIVE SPOTS AVAILABLE, UM, WITH THE SIX BEING POSSIBLY THE CHAIR, UM, JUST HOLDING THAT SPOT IF I NEED TO, UM, BE A PART OF ANY OF THE GROUPS OR ANYTHING REALLY, FIVE SPOTS FOR EACH.
AND, UM, THE, THE CHARGE WOULD BE TO COME UP WITH AMENDMENTS TO, UM, THESE,
[04:55:01]
THE FIVE GROUP OR THE FIVE CODES THAT ARE COMING THROUGH THAT I, I READ ABOUT THE DOWNTOWN PARKING E TODD COMPATIBILITY, UM, AND, AND HOME PHASE TWO.SO, UM, WHO, AND YEAH, I, I WANNA CALL ON COMMISSIONER COX.
I WAS JUST GONNA MAKE A POINT, UH, TO EVERYONE THAT BASED ON THE SCHEDULE, WE HAVE THE WORKING GROUP FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS, WE'LL ESSENTIALLY NEED TO HAVE THEIR BUSINESS DONE THE WEEK OF APRIL 14TH.
UM, IN ORDER TO MEET THE SCHEDULE WE HAVE LAID OUT FOR THE PC HEARINGS.
UM, SO THAT'S A VERY AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULE.
SO I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO KEEP THAT IN MIND.
IT'S VERY AGGRESSIVE KNOWING THAT WE WON'T GET THE, THE INFORMATION UNTIL APRIL 1ST AS STATED IN THE EMAIL.
AND, AND IF I MIGHT MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT, I'LL BE HONEST, I CANNOT TELL Y'ALL HOW HARD ONE EVEN SPLITTING THAT IS.
WE WERE ASKED TO DO IT ALL ON ONE DATE, PREFERABLY BY, WITHIN THAT LAST WEEK.
REALLY, I CANNOT TELL YOU ALL HOW MUCH OF A FIGHT WE'VE HAD TO PUT IT UP TO EVEN SPLIT INTO.
AND WE'VE REQUESTED IT AGAIN AND AGAIN.
WE REQUESTED COJC AS WELL TO SAY COULD STAFF SHARE THE WORKING DRAFTS WITH US.
WE UNDERSTAND DRAFTS HAVE TO BE FINALIZED, BUT COULD WORKING DRAFTS BE SHARED PUBLICLY AND WITH US BY MID-MARCH? UM, AND AT COJC, WE WERE TOLD THAT MIGHT NOT BE POSSIBLE.
COMM COMMISSIONER, UH, AZAR, YOU SAID THAT IT MIGHT NOT BE, OR IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE, MIGHT NOT BE.
OR I, I, THAT WAS WHAT WE HAD HEARD AT COJC.
WHAT WE CAN BE CERTAIN OF THAT IT WILL BE SHARED WITH US IN ADVANCE OF THE APRIL 11TH, UM, JOINT MEETING.
I'LL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND STAKE AN INTEREST IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT.
CODE WORKING GROUP, AS WILL I, UM, JONATHAN AND AZAR AND CHAIR, I KNOW COMMISSIONER MAXWELL HAD REQUESTED TO BE ON THAT AS WELL.
I KNOW SHE'S NOT PRESENT TODAY.
THE LDC, THAT JUST MEANS I CANNOT, OH, NO, NO, NO CHAIR.
IT HAS TO BE EITHER FIVE WITHOUT YOUR, OR SIX WITH YOU.
SO ONE PERSON, LET'S, LET'S HOLD THAT AND LOOK AT SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, UM, WHICH HAS THE INFORMATION.
I'M NOT, I'M GONNA BUTCHER THIS, BUT IT'S NO LONGER A REGULATING PLAN.
AND SO THERE'S A LOT TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT HOW THAT IMPACTS AFFORDABILITY AND, UM, THE, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT THIS GROUP WOULD BE CONSIDERING? UM, THE SUBDISTRICTS, THE DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS, SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS.
UM, I THINK THERE'S ALSO WHAT THE PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND CAR INFRASTRUCTURE LOOKS LIKE.
AND THEN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, BONUS PROGRAM AS WELL, WHICH ALSO HAS MULTIPLE TIERS.
UM, SO AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S, I AGREE WITH WHAT THE CHAIR IS SAYING.
IT'S AN EXTREMELY COMPLEX, UM, ITEM.
AND, UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL HAS BEEN OUR LIAISON ON THAT COMMITTEE.
UM, WOULD SHE WANNA SERVE ON THIS ONE? UM, SHE ACTUALLY WANTED TO SERVE ON THE CODE ONE AND WAS WILLING TO SERVE ON THE SECOND ONE IF NEEDED.
SO I'LL TAKE A STRAW POLL ON WHO'S INTERESTED IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.
THE HOWARD COMMISSIONER, HOWARD, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, ERIC COHEN.
AND WE HAVE, UM, THE COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE MISSING RIGHT NOW ARE BRERA, RAMIREZ AND MOALA AND, AND MAXWELL.
UM, SO THERE MAY BE SOME INTEREST FROM, UH, ONE OR MORE OF THOSE.
THIS WAS ONE THAT I WAS GOING TO, UM, JUMP IN ON.
UM, SO WITH THE LDC
WHAT ARE THE THOUGHTS FOR SPLITTING UP TO EO AND DOWNTOWN PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR ONE LDC GROUP AND THEN THE REMAINDER TAKING THE OTHER CHUNK? OR IS IT JUST TOO CONFUSING PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY? WHY
[05:00:01]
DOES IT HAVE TO, WHY DOES THE WORK GROUP HAVE TO BE FIVE? WE'RE NOT IN VIOL FOUR, BUT IT'S NOT FIVE, SIX IS NOT FOUR.SO OUR QUORUM IS SIX ESSENTIALLY.
BUT THE CHALLENGE WE'VE RUN INTO IS THAT WHEN WE START, WHEN THE WORKING GROUP CHAIR START COORDINATING WITH THE CHAIR, WE RUN, OH, THAT'S SEVEN.
SO, SO THAT'S WHY EITHER THE CHAIR, IF THE CHAIR CHAIR CAN BE THE SIXTH PERSON, OR WE CAN DO FIVE WITHOUT THE CHAIR, BECAUSE OTHERWISE COORDINATION FOR SETTING THE AGENDA BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE.
IS, IS IT POSSIBLE, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER CZAR SINCE, SINCE YOU VOLUNTEERED FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT, UH, AMENDMENT WORKING GROUP? I, IS THAT, ARE YOU ABLE TO, TO ACCOMPLISH THAT COORDINATION SINCE YOU'RE ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, MR. RIVERA CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LA LIAISON, VER SO, UH, THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, AS LONG AS IT'S A, UM, YOU'RE FUNCTIONING TO, UM, UM, CREATE DIFFERENT WORK THAN THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AS OPPOSED TO A WORKING GROUP, I BELIEVE THAT IS.
SO FOR THE LDC WORKING GROUP, WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS, COX JOHNSON, AZAR, MAXWELL HAYNES, AND PHILLIPS.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, UH, COMMISSIONER LEE IS ON RIVERA, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO HAVE SIX, INCLUDING COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR AZAR, OR IT WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO HAVE SIX WITH VICE CHAIR AZAR SERVING AS THE LIAISON WITH THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
THE ONLY ISSUE YOU RUN INTO IS WHEN YOU ARE EXCEEDING, UM, SEVEN TO SPEAK WITH THE CHAIR.
SO IF I'M HEARING CORRECTLY, I GUESS WE CAN GO AHEAD AND FORM THIS CHAIR BETWEEN YOU AND ME.
WE'LL JUST HAVE TO BE EXTRA CAREFUL THAT ANY COORDINATION, I JUST MAKE SURE THAT I COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE, WITH MR. RIVERA.
INCLUDING THE SETTING OF THE AGENDA ITEMS. I'LL MAKE SURE THAT I GO THROUGH MR. RIVERA ON THAT ONE.
AND MR. RIVERA, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO THEN SPLIT OUR AGENDA SETTING MEETING.
SO I'M IN EVERYTHING EXCEPT FOR THE CONVERSATION ON THAT ITEM NOTED.
SO THE, WE'LL HAVE UP TO THREE SPOTS FOR SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.
UM, UNLESS I'M MISSING ANYBODY WHO HAD ANOTHER THOUGHT.
SO, UM, TO KEEP THIS MOVING CHAIR, I WAS JUST GONNA MENTION, UM, COMMISSIONER MOALA HAS EXPRESSED A LOT OF INTEREST IN THAT, SO I DON'T WANNA VOLUNTEER HER FOR THE WORKING GROUP, BUT IF, IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO RESERVE A SPOT, 'CAUSE I THINK SHE'LL LIKELY HAVE A LOT OF INTEREST IN IT.
I'LL, I'LL PENCIL HER IN AND WE WILL CIRCLE BACK WITH HER.
UM, THANKS WHEN SHE'S IN ATTENDANCE.
SO, UM, WE'LL MAKE A MOTION, UM, TO FORM THESE GROUPS.
SO WE'LL NEED A, UH, MOTION MAKER AND A SECOND, AND THEN WE'LL VOTE ON IT.
MR. JOHNSON AND CHAIR CAN, MIGHT, I JUST RECOMMEND THAT WE GO AHEAD AND PLACE COMMISSIONER MUTAL IN THE WORKING GROUP AT THIS TIME.
AND MR. RIVERA, IF WE COULD HAVE THE ITEM ON THE NEXT AGENDA.
SO IF SHE NEEDS TO BE TAKEN OFF, IT'LL BE EASIER THAN PUTTING HER ON, TO BE HONEST.
UM, WELL, SO I HAVE A QUESTION.
SO HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ON THE SOUTH CENTRAL WORKING GROUP RIGHT NOW? WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS, HOWARD SKIDMORE, CHAIR COHEN, WHO DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS QUORUM, MYSELF AND THEN COMMISSIONER MOTO.
WELL, IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE FOR, FOR ME TO TRANSFER TO THAT, UH, WORKING GROUP.
UM, IF, BECAUSE OF ALL THE ISSUES WE DISCUSSED AROUND, UM, THOUGH I'M CONCERNED ABOUT REPRESENTATION ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT THAT WE DO HAVE DIVERSITY ACCORDING TO RACE, ETHNICITY, CLASS, AND ANY OTHER KIND OF DIVERSITY THAT WE CAN BRING TO THAT.
SO I'M KIND OF CONFLICTED ON THOSE.
I THINK COMMISSIONER HOWARD IS ON, YOU SAID ON THE SOUTH CENTRAL, SO WE WOULD HAVE REPRESENTATION AT LEAST FROM AN AFRICAN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE THERE.
BUT, UM, ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IF I SWITCHED, WE WOULDN'T HAVE THAT REPRESENTATION THERE.
UM, WELL I THINK WITH THE, THE LEAST THE NUMBER ISSUE, WE'VE CLEARED THAT.
SO YOU CAN STAY ON THE LDC UNLESS YOU WISH TO CHANGE OVER TO SOUTH CENTRAL.
[05:05:01]
OKAY.ARE YOU GOOD WITH LDC OR? OKAY, SO I'LL MAKE THE MOTION FOR, UM, ITEM 33 FOR THE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS.
MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 1145.
MEMBERS, COMMISSIONERS, COX JOHNSON, UM, AZAR, MAXWELL, HAYNES, AND PHILLIPS.
IS THERE A SECOND? MR. JOHNSON? ANY DISCUSSION AROUND THIS? SOUNDS GREAT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? UH, 1, 2, 3.
WHERE DID COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS GO? 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
UM, MR. HOWARD, IS THAT GREEN? NINE.
AND THEN SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.
WORKING GROUP RIGHT NOW HAS COMMISSIONER HOWARD'S SKIDMORE, CHAIR COHEN, UH, CHAIR CLAIRE OR CHAIR AND, UH, COMMISSIONER MUELL, ALL OF THOSE, UH, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND VICE CHAIR.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THANK YOU SO MUCH.
PEOPLE VOLUNTEERING FOR THOSE GROUPS.
[Items 35 & 36]
AND NUMBER 36.UM, THESE ARE FOR, UH, THE OUTREACH AND PROCEDURE WORKING GROUP IN CASE ANYBODY WANTS TO JOIN.
AND THE AUSTIN BUILDINGS WORKING GROUP IN CASE ANYONE WANTS TO JOIN.
COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, THIS WAS, UM, OPEN FOR YOU IF YOU WANTED TO JOIN ANY OF THESE.
THESE ARE OPEN ITEMS THAT WE'VE BEEN CARRYING ON OUR AGENDA.
UM, AND WE ALSO HAVE, I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A PREVIEW TO NUMBER 37.
NOMINATE A MEMBER TO SERVE ON SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE, UM, THAT WAS ALSO IN HOPES THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO JOIN THAT COMMITTEE.
UH, COMMISSIONER KENMORE CHAIR.
UM, ARE ALL OF THESE ITEMS GONNA DROP OFF WITH THAT GUIDANCE THAT WE GOT FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE? OH, CAN OPEN ITEMS? YEAH.
COMMISSIONER OR, UM, MR. RIVERA.
SO THIS MIGHT, THIS MIGHT BE COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE'S, LIKE LAST ONE OPPORTUNITY, SINCE THESE ITEMS MAY NOT BE ON FUTURE AGENDAS.
IS THAT TRUE MR. RIVERA? I'M GONNA SAY YES TO CONVINCE, UH, SKIDMORE TO, UH, AGREE TO VOLUNTEERING
WE HAVE REVIEWED THE AGENDA WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE LAW DEPARTMENT AND, UM, OUR AGENDAS ARE, UH, MEET THE LATEST, UH, PROTOCOL.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO THINK ABOUT THOSE WORKING GROUPS, UM, UH, THE ITEM NUMBER 36 REALLY HASN'T GOTTEN STARTED YET.
UM, ANY OTHER ITEM OR DISCUSSION ON ITEMS 35 36? COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? DID YOU WANNA THINK ABOUT THOSE OR ARE YOU WILLING TO JUMP IN ON ONE OR BOTH? I THINK I'M, I'M GOING TO, GIVEN THE LATENESS OF THE EVENING, I WANNA THINK ABOUT IT.
I WANNA LEARN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT A COMMITMENT.
I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I COMMIT TO SOMETHING THAT I CAN DO FROM A SCHEDULE PERSPECTIVE, QUITE FRANKLY.
[37. Nominate a member to serve on the Small Area Planning Joint Committee.]
NUMBER 37.UM, THIS IS THE NOMINATION OF A MEMBER TO SERVE ON THE SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
SO THIS IS A NOMINATION FROM PC THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY COUNSEL.
UM, AND THIS IS THE ONE JOINT COMMITTEE THAT HAS, UH, AN OPENING RIGHT NOW.
SO, AGAIN, YOU CAN THINK ABOUT THAT.
THIS ONE, UNLESS YOU WOULD, UM, WANT TO JUMP ON RIGHT NOW.
I'M GONNA THINK ABOUT IT AGAIN.
I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT WORKS.
AND THIS IS A JOINT COMMITTEE BETWEEN PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL, I PRESUME? NO, THIS IS, UM, WITH ZAP AND, UH, PC.
YEAH, YEAH, I DO, WE, THAT'S A STANDING COMMITTEE ALREADY.
IS THERE, UH, IT IS COMMISSIONER HOWARD, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MEETING TIMES ARE.
YEAH, SO WE, WE MEET BIMONTHLY, UM, AT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING, UH, ON UH, MIDDLE FISCAL.
AND, AND RIGHT NOW, EXCUSE ME, PER THE, UH, WHAT WE HAVE ON THE WEBSITE IS ALTERNATING FIRST AND SECOND WEDNESDAY, UM, OF EVERY OTHER MONTH THAT'S, THAT'S RIGHT.
AT 11:30 AM UH, SIMILAR TO WHAT COMMISSIONER HOWARD WAS SAYING IN THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT IT DOES,
[05:10:01]
IF YOU SCROLL BELOW, YOU'LL ACTUALLY SEE THAT ON OUR AGENDA AS WELL.UPDATE REGARDING RECOMMENDATION AS THE ISSUES SURROUNDING PLANNING AND ZONING IN SUCH AS DOES DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR CENTERS, NEIGHBORHOODS, THE WATERFRONT PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENTS AND DODS.
LET ME, LET ME COORDINATE ON SCHEDULES FOR ALL OF THESE.
I MEAN, I WILL ABSOLUTELY JOIN, UH, JOIN SOME COMMITTEES.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THEY'RE THE RIGHT FIT.
[BOARDS, COMMITTEES & WORKING GROUPS UPDATES]
ON TO OUR FINAL, THIS IS, UM, UPDATES FROM OUR WORKING GROUPS AND JOINT COMMITTEES.I'LL START WITH NUMBER 38 CODES AND ORDINANCES.
JOINT COMMITTEE WE MET LAST WEEK DISCUSSED THE WATER REUSE THAT WE HEARD TONIGHT ALONG WITH SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT COMBINING DISTRICT.
AND THE, UM, UPCOMING AN ACTIVE CODE AMENDMENTS.
UM, AND VERY SHORT TO SAY ON THE CODE AMENDMENTS, JUST BUCKLE UP FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR.
UM, AFTER, UH, COUNCIL GETS BACK IN JUNE, I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT MORE WORK TO DO IN THE FALL.
UM, LET'S GO ON TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.
WE HAD A GOOD MEETING LAST WEEK, UM, THAT WAS DOMINATED BY A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN THAT'S BEING IMPLEMENTED FOR THE IMAGINE AUSTIN UPDATE.
UM, AND THEN ALSO A DISCUSSION ABOUT, AND I'M GONNA GET THE TERMINOLOGY WRONG, BUT THE CLASSIFICATIONS RELATED TO HOUSING NEEDS FOR TRANSIT STOPS.
UM, THAT I BELIEVE IS GONNA FACTOR INTO THE EAD DISCUSSION.
UH, IT WAS A VERY HIGH LEVEL DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW CITY STAFF IS CLASSIFYING THE HOUSING NEEDS FOR THOSE PARTICULAR TRANSIT, UH, STOPS.
SO, UM, ALL THAT WILL BE TRICKLING DOWN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, AT SOME POINT.
NUMBER 40, JOINT COMMI SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE.
UM, WE WILL BE MEETING TOMORROW AND COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS IS GONNA BE KIND ENOUGH TO ATTEND AS ALTERNATE.
AND THE JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE HAS BEEN TASKED BY COUNSEL WITH LOOKING AT HOW TO PUT TOGETHER AN ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENT PLAN.
SO THERE WILL BE DISCUSSION OF THAT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR, UH, WHAT THAT PLAN SHOULD LOOK LIKE AT TOMORROW'S MEETING.
A SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
YEAH, WE HADN'T MET SINCE THE LAST, UH, OUR LAST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BUT AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING WE OBVIOUSLY TALKED ABOUT THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, UM, PLAN AND THEN WE WILL BE MEETING NEXT MONTH.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL IS NOT HERE THIS EVENING TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD.
UM, CITY OF AUSTIN BUILDINGS WORKING GROUP HAS NOT MET YET.
MR. CHAIR AND CHAIR, WE'LL LIKELY HONESTLY PAUSE WORK ON THAT WORKING GROUP, UM, UNTIL AFTER SOME OF THESE CODE ITEMS ARE DONE, SINCE I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GONNA BE DOING DOUBLE DUTY.
AND THE OUTREACH AND PROCEDURES WORKING GROUP.
UH, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS ASKED ME TO, WE, UH, HAVE MET, UH, AGAIN, UH, SINCE OUR LAST MEETING AND WE HOPE TO HAVE A PROPOSAL TO YOU.
UH, UM, BY, I THINK WE SAID APRIL 23RD.
UH, WE WERE DELAYED BY CAMPAIGNS.
UH, WE HOPE TO HAVE SOMETHING TO YOU BY APRIL 23RD, BUT IN THE VEIN OF OUTREACH AND PUBLIC AND TRANSPARENCY, WE'RE GONNA HAVE YOU A DRAFT TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THAT SO WE CAN REVIEW IT AND ALL COMMENT BEFORE WE ASK YOU TO TAKE A VOTE ON IT.
AND WE HOPE THAT CONTINUES TO BE THE PROCESS THAT WE GO FORWARD ON THE COMMISSION.
ALRIGHT, WELL THANKS EVERYBODY.
THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT 1135.