Mar 26, 2024 Planning Commission

UM, THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM, UH, LET'S SEE, FEBRUARY 27TH.

UM, ALRIGHT, SO,

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

UM, THE MARCH 12TH MINUTES.

[00:05:01]

I AM, UM, NEED TO BE POSTPONED, UM, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, BUT ON THE FEBRUARY 27TH, MEANING MINUTES, ARE THERE ANY EDITS, HEARING NONE, WE'LL ADD THOSE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.

AND I'M RECOGNIZING THAT MOLER AND JOHNSON ARE, HAVE JOINED US VIRTUALLY.

CZAR, ARE YOU GOING TO HELP ME BY READING THE CONSENT AGENDA TONIGHT? THANK YOU.

UM, COMMISSIONER

[Consent Agenda]

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

THESE ARE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. UM, I NUMBER TWO, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 2018 DASH 0 21 0.02 SKYLINE ALT ALTER FOR MIXED USE DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT I NUMBER THREE IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA A DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 0 5 0 1 ON TOPLESS FAIRWAY MIXED USE DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.

I NUMBER FOUR IS AN N-P-A-N-P-A DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 2 0.01 CHRISTCHURCH PLANNING DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.

I NUMBER FIVE IS ALSO A PLAN AMENDMENT.

THIS IS NPA 2023 DASH 0 0 15 0 5 SH 1702 DELONY STREET DISTRICT ONE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.

THE ASSOCIATED REZONING CASE IS ITEM NUMBER SIX C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 4 1 SH 1702 DELONY STREET DISTRICT ONE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO AP APRIL 23RD AS WELL.

ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 2 0 0 1 INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD, ONTARIO LANE, DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.

THE ASSOCIATED REZONING CASE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 6 2 INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD, ONTARIO LANE, DISTRICT D THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.

ITEM NUMBER NINE IS A REZONING C 14 20 23 DASH 0 0 4 7 19 11 WILLOW CREEK DRIVE, DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.

APPROVAL ITEM NUMBER 10, REZONING.

UM, C 14, UH, SORRY, C EIGHT 14 DASH ZERO SIX DASH 0 1 0 9 0.03 LAKESHORE POD AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.

UM, ITEM 11 IS AN ALSO REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 9 4 3 2 3 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.

I NUMBER 12 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH NINE 600 KEM STREET, DISTRICT THREE, DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.

ITEM NUMBER 13 IS A RESTRICTIVE GOVERNANCE C 14 DASH 85 DASH 2 88 6 6 RCA TWO SUNSET BRIDGE DISTRICT EIGHT.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT TONIGHT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD REQUEST OF MAY 14TH AND THE APPLICANT OPPOSED.

ITEM NUMBER 14 IS A SITE PLAN, UM, SP DASH 2022 DASH 0 5 9 1 C.

AVALON FLATS AT SIX.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF AND APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 9TH.

I NUMBER 15 IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, UM, EQUITABLE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT TYPOLOGIES.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.

AND THEN IN ADDITION, THERE'S TWO OTHER CONSENT ITEMS ON ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION.

UM, ONE IS ITEM NUMBER 16 WITH DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION TO INITIATE REZONING FOR PROPERTY LOCALLY KNOWN AS 7,600 TO 76 16 BENNETT AVENUE.

THE SPONSOR FOR THIS ARE MYSELF, UH, VICE CHAIR HAREN, COMMISSIONER WOODS.

THIS ITEM IS PROPOSED FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA AND ITEM NUMBER 17, WHICH IS A DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT IN REZONING FOR PROPERTY, GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF THE CORNER OF HUDSON STREET INHIBITS ROAD.

THE SPONSORS FOR THERE ARE COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS AND COMMISSIONER HAYNES.

THIS ITEM IS ALSO PROPOSED FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER AZAR.

UM, NOTE TO, UH, OUR COMMISSIONERS AND THOSE THAT ARE WATCHING AND AN AUDIENCE AND ANY AGENDA ITEMS THAT ARE POSTPONED TO THE APRIL 23RD MEETING DATE.

THAT MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 4:00 PM UM, I ALSO WANT TO NOTE A MINOR CHANGE ON NUMBER 11, THE REZONING THAT IS A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO APRIL 23RD.

UM, OKAY.

ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT NEED TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS ON THE AGENDA? NO RECUSAL.

BUT I HAVE A QUESTION.

WE HAD, UH, ITEMS 16 AND 17 READ INTO THE AGENDA AND I APOLOGIZE, BUT I DON'T SEE THEM ON THE AGENDA THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE LIAISON.

OH, THEY SHOULD BE ON PAGE, UM, SIX.

UH, THE SECOND OR THIRD FROM THE LAST PAGE.

[00:10:04]

DID YOU FIND THEM? COMMISSIONER MUTAL? I'M LOOKING.

UM, PARDON? WELL, SHE'S LOOKING MADAM CHAIR.

UM, I HAD, UH, JUST CHECKING ON ITEM ITEM 9 23 0 0 4 7.

UM, I HAD THAT, IT WAS A, IT WAS A REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT.

I THINK THE VICE CHAIR READ IT.

IT WAS A, IT WAS A CONSENT AGREEMENT.

IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT, UM, THAT THINGS WORKED OUT.

BASTA AND THE, UH, THE APPLICANT WORKED, I APOLOGIZE.

I MM-HMM, , I CANNOT FIND THIS.

WHICH DOCUMENT ARE THESE OTHER ITEMS IN? SO THE TITLE IS CALLED REVISED PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA.

AND IT IS ON PAGE FOUR OF 11.

OR SORRY, I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY.

THAT'S THE WRONG PAGE NUMBER.

IT'S ON PAGE SIX OF 11.

AND, AND COMMISSIONER STOLLER, IN CASE IT'S CAUSING ANY CONFUSION.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, THESE ARE, THESE TWO ITEMS ARE NOT POSTED AS PART OF OUR, OUR, UM, UH, THEY'RE NOT PART OF OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, BUT THESE ARE ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION.

SO THESE WERE A NOMINATED BY BROUGHT FORWARD BY OUR COMMISSIONERS.

AND, UH, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND IT ON, UM, PAGE SIX OF THE AGENDA POSTED ON THE BACKUP ON THE WEBSITE AS WELL.

SO THESE ARE NOT PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS IN CASE YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT SECTION.

ANY OTHERS NEEDING TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN? COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR? ZA.

I, I WISH TO BE NOTED AS AN ABSTENTION ON ITEM NUMBER, UM, UH, 15, WHICH IS THE EQUITABLE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT TYPOLOGIES.

UM, I, I WON'T SPEAK TOO MUCH BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S A CONSENT ITEM, BUT I JUST WANNA SAY I RAISED SOME CONCERNS LAST TIME AND I THINK, I THINK WHILE I APPRECIATE THAT THERE'S A TIMELINE THAT WE NEED TO MEET AND THE STAFF FEELS LIKE, UM, THERE'S A TIME SENSITIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.

I DO NOT WANT TO HOLD UP THIS WORKS AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE IN THEIR CONVERSATION WITH ME.

BUT I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT I'M ABSTAINING ON THIS ITEM CHAIR.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO BE SHOWN AS ABSTAINING ON ITEM 15.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO BE SHOWN AS ABSTAINING ON ITEM 15.

DO THOSE ABSTAINING ON ITEM 15 OR COMMISSIONER? WOULD VICE CHAIR AZAR AND COMMISSIONER MR. M, WERE YOU ABLE TO FIND ITEM 16? NO MA'AM.

I AM NOT SEEING THE CONSENT.

I'M SORRY.

I SEE REVISED PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA AND THEN I SEE WHAT'S IN THE PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS.

THROUGH ITEMS 15 AND THEN OKAY.

AND THEN BELOW IT, THEN IT'S DOWN ON CON.

AND THEN, SO THESE ARE GOING TO THE CONSENT, BUT IT DOESN'T TELL US WHAT, SO THESE ARE CODE INITIATIONS, UM, BROUGHT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO I'LL, THIS IS DOING IS INITIATING THE PROCESS FOR THE REZONING OR, AND FOR NUMBER 16, AND THEN INITIATING THE PROCESS FOR THE AMENDMENT ON NUMBER 17.

SO IT OPENS THE PROCESS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I FOUND IT.

OKAY, YOU'RE WELCOME.

UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? YES, COMMISSIONER COX, REAL QUICK TO THE OTHER VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS ARE, ARE Y'ALL ABLE TO SEE CLEARLY THE CITY HALL FEED? IT? IT'S BLURRED OUT TO FOR ME.

UM, IT'S A LITTLE, IT'S A LITTLE HAZY FOR ME AS WELL, COMMISSIONER COX, BUT I CAN, IT'S NOT ANY BLURRIER THAN USUAL .

OH, OKAY.

IT'S EXTREMELY BLURRED OUT TO ME.

SO I'M JUST WATCHING A TXN LIVE ON MY BROWSER SO I, I CAN SURVIVE.

I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF ANY OTHER VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS WERE HAVING ISSUES.

BEGIN WITH OUR DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT CASE, THAT'S

CHAIR COMMISSIONER LEE'S ON ANDREW VE AND ALSO A TECHNICAL NOTE.

UM, A CAMERA THAT USUALLY CAPTURES THE PODIUM IS INOPERABLE THIS EVENING.

ALRIGHT, , LET'S ALL PRAY THE AIR CONDITIONING STAYS ON.

UM, OKAY.

DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS WANNA PULL CONSENT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE HAVE QUESTIONS ON CONSENT AGENDA? OKAY.

IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? VICE CHAIR SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY.

THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

UM, ALL RIGHT, THIS CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA.

WE'RE GOING TO

[13. Restrictive Covenant Amendment: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge; District 8]

[00:15:01]

NUMBER 13.

UM, SO THIS IS A REMINDER THAT THIS IS A NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.

UM, WE ARE NOT TO DELVE INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE.

WE ARE SIMPLY HEARING ABOUT THE REQUEST FOR THE POSTPONEMENT.

ALRIGHT, SO, UM, THOSE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONEMENT, WE'LL GO FIRST THANK YOU CHAIR.

I BELIEVE WE'LL HEAR FROM MR. S SEK, NATIVE AUSTINITE PRESIDENT OF TRAVIS COUNTRY WEST HOA.

IN ADDITION, I REPRESENT BARTON CREEK, UH, SOUTHWEST, H-O-A-H-O-A ES CERA, POAA TOTAL OF 837 HOMEOWNERS ADJACENT TO THIS PROPOSED PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION, ALSO IN OPPOSITION, OUR OAK HILL ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND SAVE OUR SPRINGS ALLIANCE.

ON BEHALF OF THESE PARTIES, I'M REQUESTING THE POSTPONEMENT OF THIS AGENDA ITEM UNTIL MAY 14TH.

ON THE BASIS OF ONE, THE CITY REPEATEDLY FAILED TO PROVIDE PROPER NOTIFICATION TO PARTIES WITHIN 500 FEET, UH, AS ACKNOWLEDGED BY CITY STAFF IN CASE DOCUMENTS THE POSTPONEMENT ISSUES.

FEBRUARY 7TH, THE POSTPONEMENT ISSUED FEBRUARY, FEBRUARY 27TH WAS RECORDED AS A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT WHEN THE FACT IS LACK OF NOTIFICATION REQUIRES A CITY POSTPONEMENT BASED ON THE AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT LAND CODE.

THE FIRST PROPER NOTIFICATION WE'VE RECEIVED ON THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN THIS ONE FOR THIS MEETING.

HENCE, WE REQUEST OUR REASONABLE AND CUSTOMARY NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT AT THIS TIME.

SECONDLY, THE APPLICANT HAS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE OUR COMMITTEE UNTIL 2:30 PM YESTERDAY.

AND THAT EVEN REQUIRED A NUDGE FROM A CITY OFFICIAL TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

THIS IS AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF BOTH THE GOOD NEIGHBOR CLAUSE AND THE COMMON DECENCY OF RESPECT.

THE APPLICANT ENGAGED THE CITY IN JUNE OF 23, AND THEN IN NOVEMBER OF 2023, THEY HAD SITE CONTROL AND THEY FIRST SPOKE TO OUR COMMUNITY YESTERDAY.

THIS INDICATES THE APPLICANT IS DISINTERESTED IN DIALOGUE TO FOSTER COLLABORATION.

PRIOR DEVELOPERS EVALUATING THIS PROPERTY HAVE CALLED ME BEFORE THEY HAD A SITE PLAN.

THIS ONE HAS DONE NOTHING.

THE PETITION SUBMITTED YESTERDAY BY MORE THAN 85% OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET SHOWS THAT WE CLEARLY NEED SOME TIME TO DISCUSS.

THIRD IS THE APPLICANT AND CITY STAFF ARE THEY'RE PROFESSIONALS IN WHAT THEY DO.

CALL IT FRANK.

CONVERSELY, THE AFFECTED PARTIES HAVE A FRACTION OF THE EXPERTISE AND WE'VE ONLY HAD THREE MONTHS TIME TO LEARN EVEN WORSE.

THERE HAVE BEEN FIVE SEPARATE CASE NUMBERS RELATED TO THIS WITH TWO DIFFERENT SITE PLANS.

TWO RCAS AND A ZONING CHANGE NOTIFICATION.

ZONING CHANGE CAUSING EXTENSIVE CONFUSION AMONGST RE RESIDENTS.

DISTRICT EIGHT WEBSITE HAS BEEN DOWN FOR WEEKS ON WATERSHED AND DATA AND OTHER INFORMATION THAT SHOULD BE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE TO US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT WE'RE WORKING WITH HERE.

AND LASTLY, WE JUST RETAINED LEGAL COUNSEL ONE WEEK AGO.

WE WOULD LIKE TIME FOR LEGAL COUNSEL TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND TO BE SET AS A CONTACT POINT MOVING FORWARD.

SO IN CONCLUSION, ANY DECISION ON THIS CASE SHOULD BE POSTPONED BY AWARDING OUR CUSTOMER AND NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT.

FURTHER, FURTHER, THE APPLICANT SHOULD ENGAGE WITH THE AFFECTED PARTIES, NOT RAPIDLY RUN THEM OVER WITH A PROJECT THAT'S THE WRONG SIZE, SCOPE, AND DENSITY FOR THE PARCEL IN QUESTION THEN.

AND ONLY THEN SHOULD THESE HEARINGS PRESUME.

FINALLY, CITY PROTOCOLS WOULD INDICATE AND NOTICES THAT THIS IS A ZONING CASE.

THIS IS NOT A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT CASE.

LET'S ADHERE TO THE EXISTING LAWS AND PROCESSES AND NOT CREATIVELY CURTAIL THEM.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR YOUR SERVICE, THE CITY.

BETTER OUTLINE THE DETAILS AND PROJECT CONSTRAINTS.

WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. LEE ZIEGLER, LEE ZIEGLER, CHAIR OF THE OAK HILL NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING CONTACT TEAM.

THE BACKUP FOR TODAY'S REVISION OF THE S-R-A-R-C-A FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS AN IMPORTANT GUIDELINE AND BASIS TO DRIVE LAND USE AND ZONING IN THE DEGREE OF EXCEPTION, WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THIS CASE, THIS APPLICATION IS ENCUMBERED BY NUMEROUS ERRORS, EMISSIONS CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS.

AND NOW CONSIDERING A DULY AMENDED RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WITH POSSIBLE RETENTION OF UNNECESSARY EXISTING ALLOWANCES ON THE 12.1 ACRES.

FURTHER COMPLICATED BY A 2010 ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGE FOR ONLY 9.6 OF THE 12.1 ACRES.

VERY CONFUSING WITHOUT A DESCRIPTIVE MAP, AT A TIME WHEN MORE ALLOWANCES WERE INTRODUCED BY CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, ALL EXCEPTIONAL ALLOWANCES UNDER A SINGLE OWNER, THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY VETTED FOR CONTINGENT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BALCONES ESCARPMENT IN HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY.

NOR DOES IT ADDRESS THE INADVERTENT ALLOWANCE ASSIGNED OUTSIDE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF THE CASE, WHICH REQUIRES TWO POORLY DEFINED, INTEGRATED LOTS, BOTH WITH PERMISSIVE CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS AND AT LEAST TWO ACRES REMAINING UNDEFINED.

A DELAY IS REQUESTED SO THE APPLICANT CAN

[00:20:01]

THERE HAS BEEN NO EXPLANATORY COMMUNICATION BY THE APPLICANT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE OAK HILL ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS OR THE CONTACT TEAM.

THIS WOULD PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FOCUS SO AS TO REDUCE GROSS ERRORS AND TO CLARIFY CONSTRAINTS AND EXISTING CONCERNS RELATIVE TO THE HEIGHT.

WELL, THE REASON FOR THE DELAY IS RELATIVE, UH, IS DOES BRING THAT FACTOR IN THE TWO COMPONENTS.

THE HEIGHT WITH IMP UH, BALANCING WITH IMPERVIOUS COVER.

WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION AT THE POSTPONEMENT.

MR. SETTLE CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, MY NAME IS RICHARD SU.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT TONIGHT.

UM, I'LL, I'LL REBUT JUST BRIEFLY SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT WERE MADE FOR, UH, A, A POSTPONEMENT, BUT IT'S NOT A ZONING CASE.

IT IS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT.

UH, WE DID HAVE A MEETING, UH, A CITY, UM, SPONSORED MEETING ON JANUARY 19TH.

IT WAS, UH, QUITE LIVELY.

AND YOU KNOW, THERE ARE JUST SOME CASES WHEN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S GOING TO BE AN IMPASSE.

I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THOSE REASONABLE MINES CAN DIFFER AS TO THE APPROPRIATENESS OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT ON SOUTHWEST PARKWAY.

I THINK THE NEIGHBORS REASONABLY THINK IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE.

I THINK MY CLIENT THINKS IT IS.

THE COUNTY THINKS IT IS BECAUSE THEY'RE PARTNERING.

THEY'RE THE PARTNER IN THE, UH, FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT.

THE CITY THINKS IT IS BECAUSE THEY'RE PUTTING MONEY IN.

AND ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR TONIGHT IS LITERALLY A CHANGE TO A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT HAS A LONG LIST OF USES THAT SAYS YOU CAN HAVE 65% IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THESE USES, 55% ON AN OFFICE IF YOU HAVE A SMALLER FAR.

AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS THE ABILITY TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL USE AS A PERMITTED USE ON THIS TRACK SO THAT WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED AND HAVE A VERY, VERY DEEPLY AFFORDABLE MULTIFAMILY PROJECT AT THIS LOCATION.

NOW, IN TERMS OF NOTICE, WE HAVE TO ASSUME THAT PROPER NOTICE WENT OUT BECAUSE THE CITY HANDLES NOTICE.

I KNOW THERE WAS AN ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION HAD A DIFFERENT ADDRESS AND THE CITY HAD THE WRONG ADDRESS WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASKED FOR THEIR POSTPONEMENT TWO WEEKS AGO.

I THINK THE CITY WENT AND AND GOT THE RIGHT ADDRESS.

SO EVERYBODY'S NOTIFIED.

EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.

AND I THINK IF YOU WOULD JUST HEAR THE CASE TONIGHT, YOU MIGHT DETERMINE THAT YOU HAVE AN AT LEAST ENOUGH INFORMATION TO, TO GIVE IT THUMBS UP OR THUMBS DOWN TONIGHT.

AND WE WOULD ASK THAT, THAT THAT HAPPENED.

NOW, THE REASON THAT WE FIND IT UNCOMFORTABLE TO EVEN ACQUIESCE TO A POSTPONEMENT, WHICH WE OFTEN DO IF IF IT DOESN'T MESS ANYTHING UP.

BUT WHEN YOU RUN THE CALENDAR OUT, THE DAY WE GET NOTICE FROM, IS IT HUD BOND REVIEW BOARD? WE HAVE 180 DAYS TO RUN AND GET OUR, ALL OUR PERMITS.

NOW WE COULD GET THAT LETTER TOMORROW, WE COULD GET IT NEXT WEEK.

BUT IF WE GOT IT TOMORROW AND WE, AND WE POSTPONE TONIGHT, WE ARE ON THE AGENDA FOR CITY COUNCIL ON THE FOURTH.

WE ARE ON THAT AGENDA.

IF WE DON'T GO THE FOURTH NOW WE'RE PUSHED TO MAY.

AT THE CITY COUNCIL LEVEL, THERE IS A CODE PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR A POSTPONEMENT.

YOURS IS A CUSTOM, THEIRS IS A, IS A CODE IF IT GETS POSTPONED INTO THE SUMMER.

NOW WE'RE PAST, WE'RE GETTING DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO THE 180 DAYS.

AND BY POSTPONING TONIGHT, I COULD MAKE A SCENARIO WHERE THIS COMMISSION STOPPED THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT.

THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THE POSTPONEMENT.

UM, SO AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO OUR DISCUSSION WILL BE ABOUT THE MERITS, UH, OR THE MERITS OF THE POSTPONEMENT.

AND, UM, THE POSTPONEMENT MUST BE WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM TODAY'S MEETING IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE BODY.

UM, OKAY.

SO WE'LL START UP WITH OUR, UH, ROUND ROBIN Q AND A COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER WOODS.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF IF SOMEONE IS AVAILABLE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE, WHICH IS, UM, I HEARD IT NOTED THAT MORE THAN 80% OF THE ADJACENT LANDOWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ARE OPPOSING.

BUT I AM A LITTLE HAZY ON WHAT THE VALID PETITION RULES ARE AS

[00:25:01]

CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT FOR ME? HI, I'M JOY HARDEN WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

JONATHAN TOMKO IS THE CASE MANAGER, BUT, UH, HE AND HIS WIFE HAD A BABY ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF AGO .

SO I AM DOING THE BEST TO FILL IN, UM, 'CAUSE I KNOW HE'S REALLY BUSY RIGHT NOW.

UM, SO A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT PER STATE LAW IS NOT, UM, DOES NOT HAVE, UH, PETITION RIGHTS.

THAT'S, AND THIS IS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT.

AND THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION THAT MR. TOMKO WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER FOR US, BUT, AND I DON'T WANNA PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE NOTIFICATION ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP? YES.

UM, SO MY UNDERSTANDING, UM, SO I'M SPEAKING FOR HIM IS THAT THE ORIGINAL NOTICE THAT WENT OUT TO THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION WENT TO THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION'S PREVIOUS ADDRESS.

THAT IS THE ADDRESS THAT WE HAD IN OUR SYSTEM.

AS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE MOVE IN AND OUT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A PROPERTY OR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS ADDRESSES CHANGE.

WE DO UPDATE OUR SYSTEM, BUT WE DO NOT UPDATE OUR SYSTEM DAILY.

SO WE MET THE INTENT OF OUR NOTIFICATION, UM, AT THAT TIME, HOWEVER, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION.

SO THIS CASE WAS POSTPONED, NOT TWO WEEKS, BUT FOUR WEEKS.

UM, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT.

'CAUSE I THINK SUBTLE SAID TWO WEEKS IN, I THINK IT'S BEEN SAID, IT WAS A POSTPONEMENT FOR FOUR WEEKS AND NOT TWO WEEKS.

AND, UM, IN THAT TIME, UM, WITH THE ADDITIONAL TIME, UM, WE AS A COURTESY MAKE SURE WE NOTIFIED WITH ALL THE ADDRESSES, THE ADDRESS WE HAD IN OUR SYSTEM AND THE ADDRESS THAT HAS BEEN CHANGED FOR THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

UM, SO IN THAT FOUR WEEKS TIME, WE DID, UM, MAKE THAT, UH, NOTICE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH MS. HARDEN.

AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPER IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS YOU WALK UP.

I'M WONDERING, SINCE IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE YOUR FINANCING FOR THIS PROJECT ALREADY IN ORDER, CAN YOU SPEAK TO HOW MANY SOURCES OF FINANCING THIS PROJECT HAS? ABSOLUTELY.

SO I'M TYLER GROOMS WITH MANIFOLD.

UM, THIS PROJECT IS COMPLICATED.

UM, WE'VE HAD TO LAYER A NUMBER OF SOURCES.

UH, THE, THE FOUNDATION SOURCE THAT WE HAVE IS A LOAN FROM HUD.

IT'S A SPONSORED LOAN FROM HUD.

IT'S A TWO 20 1D FOUR LOAN.

UM, THAT'S ABOUT $80 MILLION.

WE HAVE A TRANCHE OF, UH, DEBT FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN FROM THEIR RHODA FUND, THEIR RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FUND.

THAT'S ABOUT $9 MILLION.

WE HAVE, UM, THE BOND THAT RICHARD WAS SPEAKING ABOUT IS A, UM, BOND THAT ENABLES US TO GET LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS TO LAYER IN ON TOP OF THIS, THERE'S ALSO A DEFERRED DEVELOPER FEE AND WE WILL ALSO POTENTIALLY HAVE AN ADDITIONAL LOAN FROM THE DEVELOPER INTO THE PROJECT.

AND SO IN ADDITION TO THAT BOND, WHICH IS A, IS A 4% HOUSING BOND.

DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER, UH, DEADLINES ASSOCIATED WITH THESE FINANCING SOURCES WITH, UM, THE 180 DAYS IS OUR, UM, WHAT I CALL CRITICAL PATH RIGHT NOW.

BUT WE DO HAVE THE NECESSITY AT THE END OF THAT FOR HUD AND FOR THE 4% BOND DO HAVE OUR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IN HAND, OUR BUILDING PERMIT IN HAND.

I THINK THOSE ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE.

VICE CHAIR GOT ANSWERED.

OH, OKAY.

UM, CHAIR MY QUESTION FOR NOT GOT ANSWERED.

OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, I, I GUESS, UM, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, SO IF THE CASE MANAGER FOR THIS CASE IS NOT HERE TONIGHT, UM, DOES, DOES STAFF BELIEVE THAT THAT MAY MAKE IT DIFFICULT? UH, AND THAT, I MEAN, THAT, THAT ALONE, CONGRATULATIONS ON THE BABY.

THAT'S WONDERFUL NEWS.

BUT THAT ALONE KIND OF MAKES ME FEEL LIKE, UH, THAT THIS PROBABLY SHOULD BE POSTPONED AT LEAST A LITTLE WHILE BEFORE WE CAN HA BECAUSE THIS, THIS IS 700 PAGES OF BACKUP DOCUMENT.

I AM TRYING TO GET CAUGHT UP ON ALL OF THIS.

UM, SO DOES STAFF FEEL LIKE THAT THEY ARE EVEN PREPARED TO PICK UP THIS CASE TONIGHT? I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION FOR ME.

UM, I THINK I AM PREPARED ENOUGH, HOWEVER, A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS ARE ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS AND WE HAVE WATERSHED PROTECTION HERE TO ADDRESS THOSE QUESTIONS AS WELL.

UM, AND THEY HAVE BEEN VERY MUCH INVOLVED IN THIS CASE AND CAN SPEAK TO WHEN THIS CASE WENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, ET CETERA.

AND, AND SO YOU HAD INDICATED IN, IN, IN YOUR PREVIOUS ANSWER TO A QUESTION THAT THIS IS NOT A ZONING CASE, SO IT DOESN'T HAVE PETITION RIGHTS.

UM, IS IS THE REASON BECAUSE THE EXISTING ZONING IS G-O-C-O-N-P, CORRECT.

IS THE REASON THIS IS NOT A REASON ZONING IS BECAUSE OF THAT RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL?

[00:30:01]

NO, NOT AT ALL.

THAT THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL GOT INVALIDATED, UM, BY THE COURT.

UM, SO THEY ARE BUILDING UNDER AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED AND THAT DID NOT GET INVALIDATED BY THE COURTS.

AND SO UNDER THAT, UH, AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED, UM, THEY, IT'S NOT REALLY A ZONING BECAUSE, UM, IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE AND THAT COULD BE ALLOWED IN ANY, UH, ANY ZONING, CLASSIFICATION, AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED CAN.

SO I CAN SEE HOW THAT'S CONFUSING TO THE PUBLIC WHEN, WHEN YES, THE PROPERTY IS COMMERCIAL, UH, IS ZONED OFFICE, UH, THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT.

UM, AND, AND CAN YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT, NOTICE IT? SO IF THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE WRONG ADDRESS FOR THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION CORRECT.

FOR THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, IT WAS THAT, WAS THAT CORRECTED? YES, IT WAS.

UM, AND BUT ALL OF THE INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS THAT ARE WITHIN 200 FEET STILL GOT NOTICE? CORRECT.

UM, AND THEN QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPER, I GUESS I, I JUST WANTED TO HAVE A RESPONSE RELATED TO REACHING OUT TO, UH, THE ADJACENT COMMUNITY AND, AND, AND WHAT THAT TIMELINE LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT THAT TIMELINE LOOKS LIKE MOVING FORWARD.

UM, SO, UH, WE DID HAVE A MEETING WITH THE COMMUNITY IN JANUARY.

UM, AS MR. SETTLE HAD MENTIONED, WE HAD QUITE A FEW MEMBERS, UM, FROM THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY THERE.

UM, AND THEN ADDITION TO THAT, WE WERE RECENTLY TOLD THAT WE WERE TO BE COMMUNICATING THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY GOING FORWARD.

AND SO I'M NOT SURE, I HAVE NOT DISCUSSED ON OUR SIDE HOW WE CAN COMMUNICATE WITH THEM GOING FORWARD VIA THE ATTORNEY APPROPRIATELY.

UM, SO THERE WAS A COMMUNITY MEETING IN JANUARY? YES, SIR.

REGARDING THIS PROJECT.

DID YOU HAVE ALL OF THE DETAILS RELATED TO THE PROJECT? 'CAUSE WE'VE GOT A WHOLE BUNCH OF CORRESPONDENCE ABOUT HOW A LOT OF THINGS, A LOT OF INFORMATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE.

WE MADE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS WE HAD AVAILABLE AT THE TIME AVAILABLE IN THAT MEETING.

UM, WE HAD STAFF FROM THE CITY IN THAT MEETING TOO, TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS RELATED TO CODE.

A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS WE RECEIVED WERE RELATED TO HOW WE COULD DO THINGS PER THE CODE.

AND AND THE, THE SIX MONTH CLOCK THAT YOU'VE, THAT YOU'VE MADE REFERENCE TO, Y Y'ALL ARE NOT UNDER NOTICE YET FOR THAT SIX MONTH COUNTDOWN CLOCK, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

WE'RE NOT, BUT WE COULD GET NOTICE TOMORROW.

WE'RE LITERALLY THE NEXT PROJECT IN THE STATE.

AND SO IF THEY HAVE A PROJECT EITHER DROP OUT OR THEY REALLOCATE FUNDS, IT COULD COME TOMORROW, IT COULD COME NEXT WEEK.

WE DON'T KNOW WHEN IT COULD COME.

SO WHETHER, WHETHER YOU GO TO COUNSEL EARLY APRIL OR EARLY MAY, UM, THAT'S ONE MONTH OF THE SIX MONTH CLOCK COUNTDOWN? THAT'S CORRECT.

COVENANT WAS FILED FOR IN NOVEMBER.

AND THAT, THAT CLOCK IS TO GET YOUR, YOUR SITE PLAN PERMIT AND YOUR BUILDING PERMIT? CORRECT.

WE HAVE TO LINE UP EVERYTHING FOR THE CLOSING, WHICH INCLUDES SATISFYING HUD FOR THE LOAN.

HUD'S GONNA REQUIRE, UM, THAT ALL OF THE ENTITLEMENTS ARE IN PLACE TO CLOSE ON THE LOAN.

THEY NEED TO HAVE ALL OF THEIR CLOSING DOCUMENTS IN ORDER, USUALLY 60 DAYS BEFORE CLOSING.

AND SO THAT'S REALLY 120 DAYS PLUS OR MINUS 30 DAYS.

SO IS THERE, IS THERE A REASON WHY YOU DIDN'T COME TO THIS? OKAY.

SORRY.

WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE PICK UP THE QUESTION.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YEAH, A QUESTION FOR THE, UH, THE DEVELOPER APPLICANT.

I'LL, I'LL PICK UP WHERE COMMISSIONER COX LEFT OFF AND, UH, JUST ASK WHY, WHY IS IT THAT WE'RE, UM, WHY IS IT THAT YOU'RE SORT OF THAT CLOSE UP TO THE CLOCK? COULD YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT WHY THIS, UH, THIS HASN'T TAKEN PLACE EARLIER? OBVIOUSLY YOU TRIED TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION A MONTH AGO.

UM, BUT BUT EVEN BEFORE THEN, IS THIS JUST THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT'S TAKING TO PULL ALL THIS TOGETHER OR CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT? UNDERSTAND, I'M DOING MY BEST TO GUESS WHAT COMMISSIONER COX'S QUESTION WOULD'VE BEEN, SO HOPEFULLY I COVERED IT.

SURE, YEAH.

NORMALLY WHEN YOU'VE GOT A LAND USE CASE, UM, UNLESS YOU'VE GOT SOME EXTRAORDINARY CLOSING CONDITIONS OR WHATEVER, YOU'VE, YOU'VE GOT THE TIME TO, TO PUSH OFF AND ALL.

AND, AND NORMALLY ON SOME CASES THERE ARE, YOU, YOU KIND OF KNOW WHEN THERE'S ROOM FOR NEGOTIATION.

UM, THIS, THIS PROJECT WAS, OR THIS

[00:35:01]

NOVEMBER.

THE COVENANT AMENDMENT WAS FOR NOVEMBER.

THE, THE, THE NEW THING THAT'S HAPPENED IS WE HAVE AN AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED AND THERE ARE VERY FEW SITES THAT CAN MAKE THIS WORK.

SO, SO WHAT HAPPENS IS, IS THAT WHEN YOU GET TO THIS TIME OF YEAR, IT'S NOT JUST TWO WEEKS.

IT'S NOT JUST ONE MONTH BECAUSE YOU POSTPONE UNTIL APRIL.

NOW WE TECHNICALLY MISS OUR APRIL 4TH DATE FOR WITH COUNCIL, BUT I'M GONNA TELL YOU SOMETHING JUST SO EVERYBODY, NOBODY GETS SURPRISED IN A MINUTE.

BUT IF YOU MISS THE FOURTH AND NOW YOU'RE INTO COUNCIL INTO MAY, AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER POSTPONEMENT AND THEY GO ON BREAK, NOW YOU'RE TALKING JUNE, JULY, AUGUST, SEPTEMBER.

AND YOU'RE VERY, VERY MUCH IN DANGER OF LOSING THE ABILITY TO GET YOUR 180 DAYS DONE IF YOU GET THE CALL SOON.

SO, UM, NOW I WILL TELL YOU THAT MY READ OF THE CODE IS THIS DOESN'T HAVE TO COME TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND I'LL, I'M JUST GONNA BE UPFRONT WITH YOU NOW AND I'LL, YOU KNOW, I'LL PROBABLY GET BLOWN OUT.

BUT IF YOU POSTPONE TONIGHT, I AM GOING TO TRY TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL ON APRIL 4TH AND ASK THEM TO START THE PROCESS OF TAKING THIS UP ON APRIL 4TH WHEN IT'S ON THE AGENDA TO SEE IF WE CAN AVOID MISSING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR 107 UNITS AT 50% MFI AND 68 UNITS AT 60% MFI AND 44 UNITS AT 80% OFFI.

SO I JUST WANNA TELL YOU THAT UPFRONT.

I HOPE YOU'LL TAKE THIS UP TONIGHT.

THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL SET, THANK YOU.

OKAY, I SEE COMMISSIONER, UH, MOOSH AND THEN COMMISSIONER HAYNES.

AND THEN A COUPLE WEEKS LATER IT TURNED INTO A SECOND, UH, NUMBER OF SITE ON THE SITE PLAN.

UM, I'M GONNA TRY AND GO QUICKLY, UH, BECAUSE I'D, I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT AND I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION OF THE UM, UM, GENTLEMEN REPRESENTING THE NEIGHBORHOODS, UM, SO QUICKLY TO THE APPLICANT.

UM, CERTAINLY WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THIS PROPERTY, YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WAS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ON THIS PROPERTY THAT DID NOT ALLOW YOU TO DO WHAT YOU WANNA DO FOR THIS PROGRAM.

AND SO I GUESS I'M WONDERING WHY AND KNOWING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO CHANGE THE PROPERTY, THERE'S ALWAYS A CHANCE THAT POTENTIALLY IT DOESN'T HAPPEN.

AND SO WHY THIS PROPERTY AND WHY ARE WE MAKING A THREE ALARM FIRE WHEN YOU KNEW THIS WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN ALL ALONG? WELL, WHEN YOU FILE COMMISSIONER RICHARDS, AGAIN, IF YOU FILE A COVENANT IN AMENDMENT IN NOVEMBER, IT'S NOT REALLY A THREE ALARM FIRE IN OUR MIND TO BE COMING TO YOU AT THE END OF MARCH.

BUT THIS IS AN AREA OF TOWN THAT, UM, MAYBE DOESN'T HAVE QUITE AS MUCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS OTHER AREAS.

AND IT'S, AND IT'S NEED NO, BUT YOU'RE NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTION.

MY QUESTION IS, THIS PROPERTY HAS A VERY KNOWN RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO DO WHAT YOU'RE SEEKING TO DO.

AND YOU NEEDED TIME TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS TO CHANGE THAT COVENANT.

YOU KNOW, THAT ALWAYS TAKES TIME.

SO WHY WAS THIS PROPERTY SELECTED IN PROPOSITION TO THE HUD FOR YES, A VERY COMMENDABLE PROJECT, BUT A PROPERTY THAT'S ENCUMBERED WITH A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE CITY PROCESS BECAUSE THE ZONING IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE USE AND THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IS AN UNUSUAL COVENANT.

AND WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS ASKING YOU WHETHER YOU THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON SOUTHWEST PARKWAY.

AND YOU COULD TELL US THAT TONIGHT, YES OR NO.

OKAY, I UNDERSTAND.

THANK YOU, SIR.

AND THEN A QUESTION FOR THE, UM, I THINK IT WAS MR. SEK, I HOPE I HEARD THAT CORRECTLY.

I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED.

YOU REFERENCED A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT, UM, UH, PLANNING APPLICATIONS OR CASE NUMBERS AND UH, THERE WAS MENTION OF A ZONING CHANGE, BUT THIS ISN'T A ZONING CASE.

SO I, I'D LIKE TO KNOW FROM AT LEAST THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHAT THEIR UNDERSTANDING AND I'D LIKE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR TIMELINE AND WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THESE DIFFERENT CASE NUMBERS.

AND IF I NEED TO FLIP THAT OVER TO CITY STAFF, WE CAN, WE CAN DO THAT.

SURE.

I'LL DO THE BEST I CAN.

THIS IS JASON SPOT.

UM, SO WE, OR ORIGINALLY RECEIVED NOTICES, SOME I SAY WE, SOME RESIDENTS RECEIVED NOTICES.

UH, AND AT CHRISTMAS, DECEMBER 23RD OR 34TH OR 24TH AT THE ORIGINAL NOTICES.

UH, AND THAT WAS FOR US, UH, ACTUALLY JUST BEFORE THAT THERE WAS A ZONING SIGN CHANGE PLACED ON THIS PROPERTY IN THE MIDDLE OF DECEMBER.

AND THEN A COUPLE WEEKS LATER IT TURNED INTO A NOTICE OF A SITE PLAN CHANGE.

[00:40:01]

AND LIKE, JUST LIKE THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, THERE'S A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, A RCA AND THERE'S AN RCA TWO ATTACHED TO IT.

SO I'VE PERSONALLY SEEN FIVE DIFFERENT INSTANCES OF THIS.

UH, AGAIN, STARTING WITH IT BEING A ZONING CASE, UH, MR. HARRIS WOULD PROBABLY BE EVEN BETTER TO TALK TO THIS 'CAUSE HE'S THE ONE THAT DISCOVERED IT.

UH, IF YOU'D LIKE TO HEAR MORE ON THE DETAILS FROM HIM, HE'S, HE'S, HE'S THE HEAD OF OUR SPECIAL COMMITTEE THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO HELP OUR NEIGHBORHOODS WITH THIS CASE.

AND I MAY FLIP IT TO STAFF AND HEAR FROM CITY STAFF IF THAT'S OKAY.

IF WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME LEFT.

WHAT WAS, WHY ARE THERE ARE MULTIPLE POSTINGS ON THIS PROPERTY? I THINK WE ALSO HEARD THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PIECES OF THE PROPERTY.

SO I'LL FLIP IT TO STAFF AND SEE IF WE CAN GET THAT ANSWER FROM OUR STAFF.

UH, I AM NOT AWARE OF A REZONING, ONLY THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AS PRACTICE.

WE NOT PRACTICE.

'CAUSE IN THE CODE THAT WE PUT UP A SIGN, SO THERE WAS A SIGN UP, THIS IS THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, A SIGN WOULD'VE GONE ON THE PROPERTY.

I THINK THERE IS SOME CONFUSION BECAUSE THERE'S THE HILL COUNTRY THAT, THAT IT'S, THERE IS A SITE PLAN MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS.

THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS OR TOTALLY DIFFERENT PROCESS.

WE'RE NOT HERE TO DISCUSS THAT PROCESS.

SO THERE IS SOME CONFUSION.

UM, AND THERE WAS, UH, A MEETING THAT TALKED ABOUT THE SITE PLAN.

THE REZONING CASE MANAGER WAS THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT ZONING.

CASE MANAGER WAS THERE, BUT THERE ARE TWO APPLICATIONS WITH THIS PROPERTY, A SITE PLAN.

SO THERE IS, IT IS CONFUSING FOR, I MEAN, I COULD SEE THEY'RE LENDING ITSELF SOME CONFUSION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE SITE PLAN AND THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT.

AND I THINK I MAY BE A LITTLE CONFUSED 'CAUSE I THOUGHT IF WE HAVE TO WELL, CAN THE SITE, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A ZONING CASE, IS THAT WHY THE SITE PLAN CAN MOVE FORWARD? YES.

CONCURRENTLY, YES.

UHHUH, , THE RC, THEY'RE TOTALLY, TOTALLY SEPARATE.

COMMISSIONER HAW.

NORMALLY, NORMALLY ON OUR ZONING CASES, RIGHT, WE DON'T GET SITE PLAN AND WE ALWAYS GET PULLED.

THAT'LL BE HANDLED THIS SEPARATE, IT'S LIKE THE HILL COUNTRY ROAD, NOT A SITE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

NO, NOT AT ALL.

UM, I THINK IT'S THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY SITE PLAN AND NOT FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

THANK YOU FOR MAKING ME CLARIFY THAT.

YES, WE'RE WE'RE AT TIME.

JOY, JOY, I'LL, I'LL SAVE YOU UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET SOME STEPS TO COME BACK.

UH, MS. HARDEN, THANK YOU FOR, UH, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

UH, JUST BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I'M THE NEW GUY.

SO, UM, ARE ARE YOU ASKING US TO, SHE KNOWS WAY MORE THAN I DO.

, I'M STILL A NEW GUY.

UH, ARE IS, IS, YOU KNOW, IN, IN THE BACKUP I GET THE, THAT, UM, STAFF IS, IS RECOMMENDING THIS.

ARE YOU ASKING US TO CHANGE ANY ZONING TONIGHT? UH, WELL IT'S THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT THAT WOULD, UH, IT WOULDN'T CHANGE THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT.

NO.

SO YOU'RE NOT ASKING US TO CHANGE ANY? NO, NO.

SO, UM, AND THEN, UM, UH, IF, IF WE DON'T, IF SINCE WE, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE, ZONING IS AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE THAT THE DEVELOPER CAN USE.

UM, SO THE AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED IS ADMINISTERED FROM OUR, THROUGH OUR HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

UM, THEY ARE ASKING TO ALLOW TO PERMIT RESIDENTIAL IN THEIR RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT.

UM, SO TO ALLOW THAT USE, IF YOU'RE ASKING ME DO THEY NEED THAT USE TO DO AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT.

UM, THAT'S DONE THROUGH OUR HOUSING DEPARTMENT AND I'M NOT SURE OF THAT.

BUT IF THEY GET THE, IF THEY GET THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT CHANGE, CAN THEY DO, CAN THEY PARTICIPATE IN AN AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED? ABSOLUTELY, YES.

UH, OKAY.

AND, AND THEN, UH, YOU, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT, THAT Y'ALL HAD A, WHAT WAS THE TIMEFRAME OF THE MEETING THAT Y'ALL HAD? UH, THAT, THAT, WELL IT WAS ACTUALLY THE, UH, THE MEETING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ATTENDED WAS AC ACTUALLY CONDUCTED BY SITE PLAN.

CAN YOU REMIND ME WHEN THAT WAS? JA IT WAS IN JANUARY.

THE SITE PLAN CASE MANAGER, UM, FOR, I THINK, I BELIEVE IT'S THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY WAS THE LEAD ON THAT MEETING.

BUT WE, I DID HAVE, UM, STAFF THERE REPORTS TO ME IN THAT MEETING AS WELL.

PERFECT.

AND THEN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, I'LL GIVE YOU MY LAST MINUTE.

YOU SAID YOU'VE GOT SOME CLARIFICATION ON TIMEFRAMES.

UH, DECEMBER 7TH WAY THEY SHOW UP WITH A, UH, RCA AND IT HAS THE SAME CASE NUMBER FROM 2010.

AND THEN IT HAS A TWO ADDED TO IT.

SO IT'S THE SAME EXACT CASE NUMBER.

NANCY ESTRADA IS ASSIGNED TO THAT NANCY ESTRADA'S THEN MAGICALLY TAKEN OFF THAT AROUND THE 26TH OF FEBRUARY.

[00:45:01]

AND NOW JONATHAN TONKO HAS TAKEN THE CASE, WE, UH, GOT NOTICE OF FILING OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF A APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN ON DECEMBER 23RD.

UM, WE CALLED THE CITY, WE CALLED CHRIS EPPO, WE CALLED MACE CONE.

AND EVERY ONE OF THEM SAID, UM, NOTHING'S GONNA HAPPEN FOR YEARS.

AND I SAID, EXCUSE ME, I'VE SEEN THE APPLICATION, THEY'RE GONNA BREAK GROUND IN SEPTEMBER OF 2024.

THEY SAID, NO, NO, BUT IT'S YEARS OUT.

AND I SAID, LISTEN, IF I OPPOSE THIS, YOU SAY IT RIGHT NOW, YOU TELL ME THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN THIS YEAR.

AND THEY WOULD NOT ADMIT IT.

I'VE GOT IT ON A VIDEO.

WHEN I WAS REVIEWING THE SITE PLAN WITH MAE CONE AND THEY WERE DOING THAT TO EVERY RESIDENT THAT CALLED THEM.

AND SO FINALLY HE ADMITTED IT ON THAT VIDEO.

HE SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, IF YOU DON'T GET YOUR INTERESTED PARTIES REGISTERED BY JANUARY 10TH, YOU GUYS HAVE TO FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE.

SO WHAT THEY TRIED TO DO IS PUSH THIS THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL WITH SOMEBODY JUST SAYING, YEAH, IT'S GOOD TO GO.

NOBODY SEEMS INTERESTED.

AND THEN WHEN THAT DIDN'T WORK ON JANUARY 12TH, THEY SENT US A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PACKET ON A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY AND THEN IT BECAME A REAL GAME.

SO LET'S BE VERY CLEAR, THERE WERE DECEPTIVE MEASURES, NOT ONLY ON THE SITE PLAN, BUT ALSO ON THE OVERALL CASE ON THE RCA.

THERE'S TWO SEPARATE RCA CASES I CAN THINK OF AND THERE'S TWO SEPARATE SITE PLANS I CAN THINK OF.

AND THEY'RE ALL CONTINGENT UPON OUR UPRISING AND THE WAY WE HAVE RESPONDED DIRECTLY TO THE CASE.

THEY HAVE PIVOTED AND THEY HAVE TRIED TO CURTAIL THE SYSTEM NO DIFFERENT THAN THEY'RE TRYING TO DO TO YOU GUYS TODAY BY AMENDING THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND JUST KIND OF SLIPPING IN RESIDENTIAL LANGUAGE AND JUST KIND OF CASUALLY PUTTING THE FLORIDA AREA RATIO OF 1.1 TO ONE, WHICH IS 400% GREATER THAN ANYTHING IN OUR REGION ON TOP OF A CAVERNOUS PROPERTY WHERE THE SIDE OF THE US GEOLOGICAL SURVEYS CANYON SPRING, WHERE IT HAS A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT ASPHALT DUMP SITE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS PROPERTY WHERE THERE'S A SINKHOLE.

OKAY, I'M, I'M GONNA TAKE, I APPRECIATE THE, I APPRECIATE THAT.

UH, BUT IS IT FAIR FOR ME TO SAY THEN THAT YOU'VE BEEN AWARE OF THIS PROJECT SINCE DECEMBER ON OR ABOUT DECEMBER 15TH? I'M NOT GONNA QUIBBLE SEVENTH, 23RD I MIDDLE OF DECEMBER.

YES, SIR.

BUT THEY'VE BEEN, THEY, THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS WITH THE CITY SINCE JUNE AND WE JUST FIGURED THIS OUT AND THEN THEY KEEP CHANGING THE RULES AS WE'RE GOING.

SO REALLY LAST WEEK WE JUST FIGURED OUT THAT THERE'S ALL THESE CASE NUMBERS 'CAUSE THEY'RE ONE NUMBER DIFFERENT.

AND SO THE, THERE'S ONE LETTER DIFFERENT.

SO THE ORIGINAL PRESENTATION WAS THAT THE, THE CITY HAS JUST, OR I'M SORRY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS JUST LEARNED OF THIS PROJECT AND YOU'VE JUST HIRED AN ATTORNEY THAT AT LEAST SOME OF YOU KNEW IT FOR FOUR MONTHS.

UM, ABSOLUTELY.

YES SIR.

YEAH, WE, WE, WE ARE AWARE OF THIS CASE.

APPRECIATE.

OH, OKAY.

UM, OTHER COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE THREE SPOTS WITH QUESTIONS.

UM, I'LL GO, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, DID I SEE YOU RAISE YOUR HAND? NO.

UM, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND START.

UM, I TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO APRIL 9TH.

GET A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER COX.

UM, I'LL SPEAK TO THAT.

I THINK, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S REQUESTED MAY 14TH.

I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT.

UM, I DO BELIEVE IN THIS PROJECT AS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS VERY INTERESTED IN THIS CASE AND I THINK CONVERSATIONS COULD GO A LONG WAY.

AND SO TRYING TO MEET SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE, UM, IS APRIL 9TH IS OUR NEXT MEETING.

UM, AND SO THAT'S MY MOTION.

ANY OPPOSED? SURE.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO DENY THE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST.

POTENTIALLY FURTHERS THE CONTINUED INEQUITABLE DISPERSION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

MY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? YES.

UM, I, I'M AGAINST A DELAY MOSTLY ON THE BASIS OF THE FINANCING THAT THE DEVELOPER IS RELYING ON TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO BUILD THESE 220 AFFORDABLE UNITS ON THE SITE, INCLUDING 107 OF WHICH ARE GONNA BE AT OR BELOW 50% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME.

I KNOW THAT IT'S INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO PUT TOGETHER THE FINANCING NEEDED FOR THESE CAPITAL A AFFORDABLE PROJECTS AND REALLY WANNA BE CLEAR THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED TIER TWO PROJECTS, NOT MARKET RATE PROJECTS WITH AN AFFORDABLE COMPONENT, WHICH ARE OF COURSE IMPORTANT BUT HAVE MORE CASH FLOW AND ABILITY TO OFFSET THE COSTS OF THESE AFFORDABLE UNITS.

THESE TIER TWO PROJECTS ARE SO DIFFICULT TO MAKE PENCIL AND REQUIRE, AS WE HEARD, LAYERS AND LAYERS OF FINANCING, EACH OF WHICH COMES WITH ITS OWN REQUIREMENTS AND DEADLINES.

AND I FEEL THAT ANYTHING WE DO TO DELAY OR MAKE MORE DIFFICULT THE PROGRESS OF THESE PROJECTS RISKS PUTTING THE ENTIRE PROPOSED COMMUNITY IN JEOPARDY AND POTENTIALLY PREVENTING THESE FAMILIES FROM HAVING AFFORDABLE ACCESS TO SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITIES THAT EXISTING RESIDENTS ENJOY.

UM, I THINK IT

[00:50:01]

AND SO WHERE WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOW FOR THIS NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS IN DISTRICT EIGHT WHERE WE'RE ALREADY FALLING, SO WOEFULLY SHORT OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS THAT WE'VE SET AS A CITY, I FEEL STRONGLY THAT WE NEED TO AVOID DELAYING THAT DISCUSSION.

ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST CHAIR COX, COMMISSIONER COX? I'LL JUST SAY THAT, THAT, THAT THIS IS, THIS IS A QUITE COMPLICATED CASE.

I KNOW ULTIMATELY, UM, THE DISCUSSION ONCE WE TAKE UP THE MERITS IS LARGELY GONNA BE ONE OF, OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

BUT THIS, THIS SITE HAS A WHOLE BUNCH OF LAYERS THAT ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS RELATED TO THIS.

UM, AND THE WAY THAT THIS CAME ABOUT SEEMS A BIT, UH, IT WASN'T DIS I DON'T THINK IT WAS MEANT TO BE DECEPTIVE, BUT IT WAS VERY CONFUSING.

IT WAS CONFUSING TO, TO ME, IT WAS OBVIOUSLY CONFUSING TO THE RESIDENTS AND I THINK GRANTING A BIT MORE TIME WILL NOT JEOPARDIZE THIS PROJECT.

I HAVE WORKED ON THE DEVELOPER SIDE OF THESE THINGS AND SURPRISED NO ONE SHOULD BE SURPRISED THAT THAT IS OFTEN AN EXCUSE MADE TO TRY TO GET THINGS RUBBER STAMPED THROUGH THE COMMISSIONS AND THROUGH COUNSEL JUST CLAIM, OH, WE'RE GONNA BE IN JEOPARDY.

WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO DO THIS PROJECT, WHETHER IT'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR SOMETHING ELSE, SOME OTHER FINANCING THAT'S GONNA FALL THROUGH TO ME THAT THAT IS JUST AN EXCUSE TO GET US TO ACT QUICKER THAN WE SHOULD TO IN ORDER TO, TO GIVE THIS THING DUE CONSIDERATION.

AND SO SINCE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN NOTICED YET, THEY ARE NOT UNDER A PARTICULAR DEADLINE AT THIS TIME.

AND SO I THINK GRANTING A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA TIME TO UNDERSTAND THIS CASE THOROUGHLY AND GIVING IT THE CONSIDERATION IT DESERVES IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING.

UH, SO I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THE DENIAL OF THE POSTPONEMENT.

ANYONE SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UH, YES.

I'D JUST LIKE TO REMIND MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THAT AS OF THIS FRIDAY, WE'RE ABOUT TO HAVE A, UM, SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF LDC WORK COMING TO THE COMMISSION IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS.

WE HAVE A CONSENT ONLY AGENDA, I THINK FOR TWO MEETINGS COMING UP.

I'M EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT OUR ZONING CASELOAD AND THIS DOES SEEM A COMPLEX CASE AND WE UNFORTUNATELY DO HAVE A LIGHT LOAD THIS EVENING.

SO IN SOME WAYS, TO ME THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE A FULL HEARING TO THIS AND TO GIVE THE CONSIDERATION DUE TO THIS COMPLEX SITE, UM, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS WE'LL BE DOING A LOT OF OTHER WORK NOT RELATED TO ZONING CASES.

SO THIS MAY BE ONE OF OUR LAST OPPORTUNITIES TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT.

SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING MOVING FORWARD THIS TONIGHT.

ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST OR FOUR VICE CHAIR? THANK YOU CHAIR.

THERE'S NOT MUCH TO ADD APART FROM WHAT COMMISSIONER WOODS AND COMMISSIONER MAXWELL HAVE ALREADY SAID.

I THINK, UM, REALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT THE APRIL 9TH MEETING.

WE'RE ALREADY LOOKING AT ESSENTIALLY APPROVAL OF THE SOUTH CENTER WATERFRONT PLAN THAT WILL BE COMING BEFORE US AND IT IS GONNA BE TIME SENSITIVE AND WE'VE ALREADY HAD A CONVERSATION WITH STAFF AND WE'RE SEEING IT IN CODES AND ORDINANCES NEXT WEEK.

UM, WITH COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S POINT THAT FOLLOWING THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF OTHER ITEMS COMING.

SO FRANKLY POSTPONEMENT POTENTIALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT MAY 14TH.

LET'S JUST BE REALISTIC IN TERMS OF WHERE WE ARE AND OUR ABILITY TO GO THROUGH CASES.

I AND I, AT THE SAME TIME, I UNDERSTAND SORT OF THE CONCERNS, BUT I'LL BE HONEST, I I DON'T THINK I'M COMFORTABLE ADJUDICATING WHAT, WHEN A NOTICE WAS SENT OR WHAT WAS DONE.

I THINK I'VE HEARD SORT OF FROM BOTH SIDES ON SORT OF THE NEED FOR A POSTPONEMENT.

OF COURSE, IT, IT HELPS THAT WE ARE NOT THE FINAL DECISION MAKING BODY HERE.

SO AS THIS GOES TO COUNCIL, THE NEIGHBORHOOD STILL HAS THE ABILITY TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT HAS THE ABILITY TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.

AND OF COURSE FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER, UM, THOSE THINGS AS WELL.

AND CONSIDERING SORT OF THE TIME SENSITIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE FINANCES OF THE PROJECT AIM IN A CRITICAL SPACE WHERE WE WANT TO EXPAND AFFORDABILITY.

I DO THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO, UH, MOVE FORWARD WITH A DISCUSSION TONIGHT.

UM, FINAL COMMISSIONER SPOT FOR SPEAKING AGAINST.

OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS MOTION.

THIS IS DENIED POSTPONEMENT BY MADE BY COMMISSIONER WOODS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

I'M COUNTING EIGHT THOSE AGAINST 1, 2, 3, 4.

DID I COUNT RIGHT? WE HAVE 12.

OKAY, THAT MOTION PASSES.

IT'S EIGHT TO FOUR, UM, WITH COMMISSIONERS, HEMPEL, MARIA, RAMIREZ, MUTAL AND COX.

VOTING AGAINST I THINK SEVEN FOUR.

SEVEN FOUR.

[00:55:01]

I NEED BETTER GLASSES I THINK.

UM, OKAY, SO THAT MEANS THE, THE CASE WILL BE HEARD TONIGHT.

AND AS THIS IS OUR ONLY DISCUSSION CASE TONIGHT, WE ARE GOING TO GO INTO STAFF PRESENTATION, UM, ON THIS ITEM, ITEM 13, AGAIN, COULDN'T GET ANYTHING.

COMMISSIONER JOY HART WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STANDING IN FOR JONATHAN TOMKO, THE CASE MANAGER.

UM, THIS IS ITEM 13 ON YOUR AGENDA.

THE SUNSET RIDGE APARTMENT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT TWO LOCATED AT 84 0 1 AND 84 0 1 AND A HALF SOUTHWEST PARKWAY.

THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO ADD MULTI-FAMILY USE AS A PERMITTED USE TO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND INCREASE THE FLORIDA AREA TO ONE OH TO ONE TO ONE, WHICH IS THE PERMITTED FLORIDA AREA RATIO ALLOWED.

NGNG.

UM, I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THIS BEFORE, BUT GEO GENERAL OFFICE, THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THIS PROPERTY AND THESE REQUESTS ARE IN ORDER TO DEVELOP UNDER AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED PROGRAM.

THERE IS ALSO A REQUEST FOR IMPERVIOUS COVER OF 55%.

THE COVENANT TODAY STATES SENT AN OFFICE USE HAS AN IMPERVIOUS COVER OF 55%, BUT ALL OTHER USES HAVE AN IMPERVIOUS COVER OF 65%.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO MAINTAIN THE SAME IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT IS ALLOWED FOR THE OFFICE USE.

STAFF DOES RE RECOMMEND ALLOWING THE MULTIFAMILY USE AND INCREASE IN AN INCREASE IN THE FAR.

THIS SITE IS AN APPROPRIATE SITE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT IN 2017.

AND THE LAST ANNUAL REPORT, 2022 HOUSING WORKS, AUSTIN IDENTIFIED THAT COUNCIL DISTRICT EIGHT HAD ONLY ATTAINED 2% OF THE DISTRICT'S 10 YEAR GOAL FOR NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS APPROVING THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AGREEMENT WOULD HELP ADD ADDITIONAL INCOME, RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS TO COUNCIL DISTRICT EIGHT FURTHERING THIS ADOPTED GOAL.

AGAIN, THE ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY IS GOC NP, WHICH IS NOT ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, BUT THE APPLICANT DOES PLAN BUILDING UNDER THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED AND HAS RECEIVED A CERTIFICATION LETTER FROM THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

I WILL NOTE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, DURING THE, UH, DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT THAT WATERSHED, UH, THE WATERSHED DEPARTMENT STAFF IS ALSO HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

UH, THANK YOU.

THE ZONING, WE'VE GOT THE FLORIDA AIR RATIO UNDER THE ZONING, WE HAVE A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT, THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE.

WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, MR. SU, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES CHAIR MEMBERS, THE COMMISSION.

MY NAME'S RICHARD SU.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

BACK IN THE OLD DAYS WE DID SOME PLANNING AND SOME LAND USE BY RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.

AND THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THIS HERE TONIGHT.

IT'S A 1980S VINTAGE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.

IT BASICALLY SETS OUT WHAT, WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS APPLY TO DEVELOPMENT ON THIS TRACK.

IT GIVES YOU A LIST OF PERMITTED USES AND CONDITIONAL USES AND, AND IT SETS AN FAR CAP OF, UH, 0.25 ON SOME USES AND 0.5 ON OTHERS.

AND IF YOU STRIP AWAY ALL THE NOISE TONIGHT, IT'S A VERY SIMPLE CASE.

WE'RE ASKING TO ADD ONE USE RESIDENTIAL, THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND WE'RE ASKING TO HAVE THE SAME FLORIDA AREA RATIO AS OUR UNDERLYING ZONING, WHICH IS ONE-TO-ONE THAT IS THE ENTIRE CASE.

WE'RE NOT ASKING TO CHANGE ANYTHING ELSE.

UM, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR THE 65% IMPERVIOUS COVER, WHICH IS ALLOWED FOR ALL THE OTHER USES.

WE'RE WILLING TO STICK TO THE 55% GROSS FOR THE OFFICE.

WE'RE NOT CHANGING THAT A BIT.

SO WHAT IS THIS CASE REALLY ABOUT? THIS CASE IS REALLY ABOUT PROBABLY THE SITE PLAN.

AND I'VE SEEN IT A HUNDRED TIMES.

LIKE I SAID BEFORE, REASONABLE MINES CAN DIFFER.

NEIGHBORHOODS MAY OR MAY NOT WANT AN APARTMENT COMPLEX OF THIS SIZE, SCALE, OR DENSITY NEAR THEIR, THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND I GET THAT, I UNDERSTAND IT.

IT IT, THEY'RE NOT WRONG.

WE'RE NOT WRONG.

WE SAW AN OPPORTUNITY, WE, THE DEVELOPERS SAW AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WITH OUR NEW CITY POLICIES THAT COUNCIL HAS ENACTED, THAT IF YOU DO DEEP AFFORDABILITY, THE AFFORDABILITY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE AT 50%, 60%, 80%, THEN YOU, YOU GET SOME LEEWAY.

AND THE LEEWAY YOU GET IS YOU CAN DO IT IN AN OFFICE ZONE TRACK AND WHERE THE SAFETY RAILS ARE, ARE AT THE SITE PLAN STAGE.

BUT THE SITE PLAN IS DISTINCTLY A AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS UNLESS YOU NEED VARIANCES.

THE THE REASON EVERYTHING IS COMPRESSED ON THIS ONE, YOU, WE'VE GOT

[01:00:01]

AND WE'RE MOVING THROUGH THE PROCESS ON THE SITE PLAN AS AS WE SPEAK.

YOU WILL HEAR TONIGHT THAT, THAT THERE'S A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS QUESTION ON THE SITE PLAN, NOT AS PART OF THIS COVENANT, BUT ON THE SITE PLAN.

THAT IS TRUE.

THE SITE PLAN OR THE, THE TIA THRESHOLD IS 2000 TRIPS.

THE ORIGINAL THOUGHT WAS 428 UNITS.

AND I'LL GET THESE NUMBERS CLOSE, DON'T HOLD ME TO 'EM.

EXACTLY.

AND NOW THE SITE PLAN IS AT 4 38.

SO THERE'S 10 MORE UNITS THAT COULD BUMP OVER THE 2000 TRIPS FOR THIS SITE.

BUT WHEN YOU COMBINE IT WITH THE SITE NEXT DOOR, WE'RE LESS THAN 2000 TRIPS.

AND EVEN IF WE HAVE TO DO A TIA, THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL BE REQUIRED WILL BE A STOPLIGHT AT THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH WE ARE COMMITTED TO DO.

UM, YOU WILL HEAR THAT THIS SITE, IF IT GOES TO RESIDENTIAL, SHOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE STRICT CURRENT CODE.

THAT AGAIN, IS A SITE PLAN ISSUE.

IT'S NOT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT, UM, THAT THAT THESE PROPERTIES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THESE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO CURRENT CODE.

WHAT WE ARE DOING IS ESSENTIALLY, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF IMPERVIOUS COVER, WE'RE DOING THE SOS WATER QUALITY PROTECTIONS.

SO TONIGHT, WHEN YOU HEAR FROM THE FOLKS, AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND NOT WANTING THIS APARTMENT COMPLEX ON SOUTHWEST PARKWAY, BUT WE'VE TRIED TO MITIGATE THAT BY, BY SHOWING THAT WE WILL NOT TAKE ANY VEHICULAR ACCESS BACK INTO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THERE WILL BE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BUT NO VEHICULAR ACCESS.

IT COMES ALL OUT ONTO SOUTHWEST PARKWAY.

UM, IT'S GOT THE DEEP AFFORDABILITY AND ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR TONIGHT IS THE COVENANT AMENDMENT, AN OLD COVENANT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE USE AND TO ALLOW THE FAR.

WE'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE TONIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THIS UP AND I LOOK FORWARD TO A ROBUST DISCUSSION.

HELLO, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.

WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. CHANDLER HARRIS.

MR. HARRIS, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

UH, THANK YOU FOR HAVING US TONIGHT.

I AM NOT AGAINST AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHEN THIS HAPPENED, I STARTED AUTHORING POLICY PERSONALLY MYSELF TO WRITE WHAT HAPPENED WHEN COVID HIT AND CAUSED US ALL THIS HANGUP THAT IS CAUSING US TO PUSH THINGS LIKE THIS THROUGH.

I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF A COALITION OF NEIGHBORHOODS THAT BELIEVE THE LAND IN QUESTION IS WORTHY OF BEING DECLARED A CITY PARK, AND THAT WE SHOULD BE GATHERED HERE TODAY TO CONSIDER HOW THE CITY OF AUSTIN WILL RAISE FUNDS TO PROTECT AND SUPPORT SACRED LAND IN QUESTION.

AS THE APPLICANT KNOWS THIS LAND IS ONE OF THE BEST KEPT SECRETS IN OUR REGION.

PLEASE HEAR THE FOLLOWING.

THE 2023 ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY HEAVILY RELIES ON THE 2002 SURVEY.

THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE 2002 SURVEY HAS A CLEAR APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROTECTED LAND AND WAS NOT ONLY INADEQUATELY PERFORMED, IT WAS MISLEADING.

FOR THE SAKE OF TRANSPARENCY, A COMPLETE AND UPDATED SURVEY SHOULD BE PERFORMED NOW TWO DECADES LATER, EXAMINING ALL OF THE FEATURES IDENTIFIED ON THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO APPROVING ANY REQUESTED.

RCA ACTION ITEMS FOR THE PROPOSED SUNSET RIDGE APARTMENTS CONCERNS WITH THE 2002 SURVEY INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING.

THIS PROPERTY IS THE HIGHEST TOPOGRAPHICAL ELEVATION IN THE ENTIRE REGION.

WE ALL KNOW WATER FLOWS DOWNWARD.

THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY HAS IDENTIFIED CANYON SPRING ON THIS PROPERTY, SO AT THE VERY LEAST WE KNOW THIS PROPERTY IS CAVERNOUS.

THIS IS FURTHER EVIDENCED BY THE NUMEROUS KARST FEATURES IDENTIFIED IN THE 2002 SURVEY THAT WERE REFERRED TO AS POTENTIAL FEATURE POTENTIAL CANYON SPRING POSSIBLE.

SPRING CANYON SPRING WAS NEVER OFFICIALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY, A KNOWN CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE SINKHOLE HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED ON THE PROPERTY.

THE 2002 SURVEY REFERS TO THIS SINKHOLE AS A PIT.

THE SINKHOLE HAS A NOTABLE KARST FEATURE.

THE 2002 SURVEY REFERS TO THIS KARST FEATURE AS A VOID.

EVIDENCE OF GROUNDWATER FLOW IS PRESENT AT THE MOUTH WHERE GREEN VEGETATION SHOULD BE NOTED DURING A TIME WHERE NOTHING ELSE IN THE SURVEY WAS LUSH AND GREEN.

IT WAS PROBABLY DONE DURING THE SUMMER.

THE 2002 SURVEY FURTHER PROVIDES EVIDENCE OF KNOWN GROUNDWATER FLOW ON THE PROPERTY BY IDENTIFYING A WELL.

THE 2002 SURVEY SAYS THE WELL IS NO LONGER IN USE, BUT FAILS TO IDENTIFY WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS WATER IN THAT.

WELL, A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE VACANT EAST PARCEL WAS NEVER IDENTIFIED IN THE 2002 SURVEY.

IT EXTENDS SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET INTO A NATURAL DRAIN THAT MEETS WITH A MANMADE DRAIN IN THE TRAVIS COUNTRY

[01:05:01]

WEST NEIGHBORHOOD.

PLEASE SEE PHOTO OF A LARGE, NATURALLY DRAINING CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE WITH IMPRESSIVE LIMESTONE.

BEDROCK NOT INCLUDED.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD MAKE NO RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO THE USE OF THIS LAND UNTIL THE FOLLOWING MEASURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO PROTECT POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, POTENTIAL INHABITANTS, TRAVIS COUNTRY, WEST RESIDENTS, LOCAL NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES, AND THE FRESHWATER SUPPLY OF THE ENTIRE REGION WITH THE FOLLOWING.

ONE.

ALL PROCESSES REGARDING THE DISCOVERY AND INVESTIGATION OF A SINKHOLE SHOULD BE MADE PRIOR TO ANY FURTHER LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS.

TWO.

THE PROPERTY WELL SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED AND PUMPED BY A PROFESSIONAL TO RULE OUT GROUNDWATER PRIOR TO ANY LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS.

THREE.

THE NATURALLY DRAINING CEF WITH RECHARGE INDICATORS SHOULD BE NOTED IN A NEW SURVEY PRIOR TO ANY LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS.

FOUR.

THE RCA APPLICANT SHOULD PROVIDE MATERIALS NOTING HOW CANYON SPRING GOT ITS NAME AND ARCHIVAL FOOTAGE OF THE SPRING IN ITS FULL GLORY.

PRIOR TO ANY LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS, FIVE.

NICO HOER AND HIS TEAM OF REGIONAL CAVE AND GROUNDWATER EXPERTS SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO VISIT THE PROPOSED SITE PLANNED TO PERFORM A FULL INVESTIGATION FORMALLY IDENTIFYING THE SITE OF CANYON SPRING PRIOR TO ANY LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS.

SIX.

THE 4,000 SQUARE FOOT ASPHALT DUMP SITE NOTED IN THE 2002 SURVEY SHOULD BE VERY CAREFULLY EXCAVATED BY EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONALS TO RULE OUT ANY POSSIBLE CAVERNS THAT LAY BENEATH THIS SHOULD BE DONE PRIOR TO ANY LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS.

I'M RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT THIS PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT APPROVE ANY OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED SUNSET RCA UNTIL THE PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS HEREIN HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED.

I'M FURTHER USING THIS PLATFORM TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN PURCHASES THIS LAND FOR USE AS A CITY PARK OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

I DO APPRECIATE YOU AND IF YOU APPROVE THIS TONIGHT, YOU ARE ENDANGERING CITIZENS OF AUSTIN AND YOU ARE POLLUTING OUR WATERWAY AND THAT IS WHY OUR WATER TABLE IS AS LOW AS IT IS NOW AND IT'S ONLY GETTING WORSE.

I REALLY DO APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

WE NOW HERE FROM MR. JUSTIN JENSEN.

MR. JENSEN, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES AND WE WILL HAVE A CONTINUOUS PRESENTATION.

UM, SPEAKERS, IF YOU COULD JUST NOTE NEXT SLIDE.

THERE WE GO.

HELLO, MY NAME IS JUSTIN JENSEN AND I'M THE STEWARD OF 11 ACRES AT 54 15 TRAVIS COOK ROAD.

IS WHAT WE, I THINK WE MIS MISSED A SLIDE.

CAN YOU GO BACK ONE? ALL RIGHT, GO BACK.

I'LL JUST DEAL WITHOUT IT.

WE, WE MISSED ONE OUT OF THERE ANYWAYS.

UH, UH, I, I PUT A MAP RIGHT THERE.

YOU CAN SEE THE 54 15 IS OUTLINED IN GREEN RIGHT THERE.

THAT'S OUR 11 ACRES NEXT TO THE TWO SITES THAT ARE, UH, SUB THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

UH, WE CALL THIS LAND WEX , WHICH TRANSLATES TO FOX HILL FROM THE POTAWATOMI INDIAN LANGUAGE.

ALL THE IMAGES IN THIS PRESENTATION ARE WERE TAKEN THERE.

WE OPERATE A HONEYBEE FARM ON THE PROPERTY, AND DESPITE DEDICATED EFFORTS, IT'S DIFFICULT TO KEEP HIVES ALIVE.

NEARLY HALF OF US BEEHIVES ARE LOST EVERY YEAR WITH SIGNIF.

SIGNIFICANT CAUSES BEING LOSS OF NATIVE FORGING AREA AND PESTICIDES.

28% OF THE HUMAN DIET COMES FROM HONEYBEE POLLINATED PLANTS.

WE ALSO TREAT THE LAND AS A WILDLIFE REFUGE.

THE FLORIDA AREA RATIO IS LESS THAN 0.02, WHICH IS 50 TIMES LESS THAN THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING.

THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED AND CURATED WITH AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE ZONING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS OF THE NEIGHBOR PROPERTIES.

I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE DENSE FORESTED AREA HIGHLIGHTED IN RED BECAUSE I WALK, WALK ALONGSIDE IT DAILY.

IT'S INHABITED BY A WIDE VARIETY OF WILDLIFE AS ARE THE OTHER AREAS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

I PLACED A TRAIL CAMERA ALONG THE FENCE LINE AT THE LOCATION INDICATED BY THE WHITE CIRCLES OVER ONE WEEK.

THE CAMERA CAPTURED 107 ANIMAL IMAGES.

NEXT SLIDE, FOXES, BOBCATS, RACCOONS, COYOTES, RABBITS, APOSTLES, SKUNKS, DEER.

THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE ANIMALS THAT HAPPENED TO WALK BY MY CAMERA.

TRIGGERED THE CAMERA, BUT THE AREA IS ALSO PRIME HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES.

MOSTLY LARGER ANIMALS

[01:10:01]

NEXT, DESPITE MY REQUEST TO BE ADDED AS AN INTERESTED PARTY AND TO VIEW THE SITE PLAN, I WAS DENIED ACCESS TO THE SITE PLAN AND I WAS NOT INVITED TO A VIRTUAL MEETING.

THIS IS THE JANUARY 19TH MEETING THAT MR. SU AND MR. GROOM'S REFERRED TO.

I, THE NEIGHBOR WITH THE LARGEST SHARED BORDER WITH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS NOT NOTIFIED.

I WAS ALSO NOT INFORMED OF THE ENVIR ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING, AND THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN NON-RESPONSIVE TO MY INQUIRIES.

ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT THEY DIRECTED MY INQUIRIES TO THE HOA, WHICH I HAVE ZERO CONNECTION WITH.

SO PLEASE VOTE NO.

VOTE NO TO IMPERVIOUS COVER INCREASES NO TO FLORIDA AREA RATIO INCREASES, NO TO ZONING CHANGES REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY'RE AVAILED, NO TO PERMITTED USE VARIANCES AND NO TO HABITAT LOSS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. CHRIS NEWPORT, FOLLOWED BY VERLA MAC CLEMENTIS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT.

I'VE BEEN SICK, SO HOPEFULLY YOU CAN STRUGGLE WITH ME HERE.

UM, AS A CITY, WE'VE DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB, UH, OF TRYING TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT, UH, TO ENSURE THAT FUTURE GENERATIONS CAN ENJOY THE CITY THAT WE ENJOY.

NOW, UH, THE TRACK THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED TONIGHT, UH, IS IN THE DELICATE ECOSYSTEM OF EDWARDS AQUIFER CONTRIBUTING ZONE, WHICH IS SUBJECT TO 25% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE BASED ON THE SAFE OR SPRINGS ORDINANCE.

UH, IT'S DESIGNED TO PROTECT WILDLIFE HABITAT AND PROVIDE FOR WATER CONSERVATION.

UH, THIS DEVELOPMENT IS IN SUBSTANCE, A NEW PERMIT APPLICATION AND REZONING, UH, TO PROVIDE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

UH, ACCORDING TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN WEBSITE, IT WAS ON THERE RECENTLY.

UH, THE SET, THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS, THE SOS ORDINANCE, UH, WAS DEVELOPED IN 1992 AT THE, UH, INITIATIVE OF CITIZENS.

UH, AND THEY WERE TRYING TO RE, THEIR STATED PURPOSE WAS TO TRY TO RE, TO RESTRICT DEPARTURES FROM THE EXISTING ORDINANCES.

UH, TO SAVE OUR SPRINGS ORDINANCE DICTATES THAT THIS TRACK IS SUBJECT TO A 25% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE BASED ON THE NET SIDE AREA.

THE DEVELOPER HAS ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE'S ASKING FOR 55%.

IT'S MORE THAN A HUNDRED PERCENT INCREASE, UH, IN IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.

UH, IT'S IN CONFLICT, UH, WITH THE CURRENT CITY CODE.

UH, I'D ALSO MENTION THAT THE WILLIAMSON CREEK ORDINANCE PREDATES THE SOS, UH, PROVIDED A MAXIMUM MAXIMUM OF 40% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.

UH, IT ALSO STIPULATED THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT WHERE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, UH, EXCEEDED 18%, THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD PROVIDE NUMEROUS OTHER WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES, MEASURES.

AND FINALLY, I WOULD SAY THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WITH THE 55% GROSS IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE AND THE PROPOSED DENSITY, WHICH IS ONE-TO-ONE, UH, WOULD NOT ONLY EXCEED ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCES, BUT THE LITERALLY STACKING AS MANY PEOPLE ON TOP OF, UH, EACH OTHER AS POSSIBLE WOULD DO HARM TO THE ENVIRONMENT.

THERE IS OTHER ONE, OTHER MAJOR CONFLICT, AND THAT IS THAT THIS IS, UH, THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON AN OFFICIAL HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY, WHICH MEANS THAT 40% OF THE PROPERTY MUST BE LEFT IN A NATURAL STATE.

UH, IF THEY ARE, IF THEY'RE ALLOWED IN A 55% PER PREVIOUS COVERAGE, THIS WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE, UH, TO COMPLY WITH THIS MANDATE.

AS A RESULT, A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF HERITAGE TREES WILL BE REMOVED.

UH, THE DEVELOPERS ARE REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONES OF REMAINING TREES.

50% MUST BE PRESERVED AS A NATURAL GRADE ACCOUNTING FOR THE NATURAL GROUND LOSS THAT RESULTS IN ADDITIONAL FAGE LOSS.

AND THIS PROPOSAL WILL NOT SATISFY THESE REQUIREMENTS.

UH, AND LASTLY I WOULD MENTION WOULD OFFER THE ST.

JUNE APARTMENT COMPLEX AS A CASE STUDY.

IT'S RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.

IT'S DEVELOPED BY STRATUS, OPENED IN NOVEMBER OF 2023, UH, SO JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO.

UH, IT'S AT THE CORNER OF, OF PARK CREEK BOULEVARD AT SOUTHWEST PARKWAY.

UH, LITERALLY A HUNDRED YARDS FROM THIS PROPERTY.

UH, THEY PUT 182 UNITS ON 36 ACRES WITH LESS THAN A 20% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.

UH, THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR 438 UNITS ON 19 ACRES WITH 55% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.

SO THEY WANT TO ADD 256 UNITS, UH, WHICH IS ON ONE HALF OF THE LAND.

AND SO I WOULD ASK THAT YOU WOULD DE DENY THIS REQUEST, REQUEST OF THE SPEED AMENDMENT.

IT'S NOT GOOD FOR AUSTIN.

AND ACTUALLY, IF YOU LISTEN, IT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE THAT THEY'RE WANTING TO PUT IN THERE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO HELP.

THANKS.

AND, UH, PARTICIPANTS, IF YOU CAN MAKE YOUR WAY TO THE PODIUM, WE HAVE, UM, SOME SEATS AT THE FRONT AND THEN, UM, WE WILL GIVE HER ONE OF FIVE MINUTES.

NOTED.

DONATED TIME FROM CHRIS, MR. CHRIS MOORE.

WE'LL BEGIN WITH OVERLAY, UH, CLEMENTIS.

UH, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES, FOLLOWED BY ERIC GOMEZ, FOLLOWED BY DONNA CLEMENT.

UH, MS. CLEMENTIS, YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES

[01:15:01]

SCOTT MOORE.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, MY NAME ISLAY MCCLEMENTS.

IT'S A MOUTHFUL, .

UM, I'M STANDING HERE TONIGHT WITH MY NEIGHBORS AND WE WOULD LIKE TO URGE YOU TO REJECT THE AMENDMENT REQUEST.

AND HERE IS WHY I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT THE FAR THE FLOOR TO AREA RATIO THE APPLICANT HAS MENTIONED, AS MENTIONED BEFORE, IS REQUESTING A 400% AND WE CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT, OH, THAT'S THE GOOD SLIDE.

OKAY, GOT IT.

UM, THEY'RE ASKING FOR A 400% INCREASE IN THE FLOOR TO AREA RATIO, CURRENTLY 0.25 TO ONE, AND THEY WANNA MAKE IT ONE TO ONE.

AS THEY'VE MENTIONED, THIS LAND PARCEL THAT THEY WANT TO DEVELOP IS LOCATED IN A LOW INTENSITY ZONE ON A HILL COUNTRY COUNTRY ROADWAY.

BY CHANGING THE FLOOR TO AREA RATIO FROM 0.25 TO ONE, TO A ONE-TO-ONE RATIO WILL RESULT IN A VERY HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT IN AN EXTREMELY SENSITIVE EDWARDS AQUIFER CONTRIBUTING ZONE.

AS YOU KNOW, RUNOFF IN CONTRIBUTING ZONES ENTER THE RECHARGE ZONE WHERE IT EVENTUALLY PLUNGES INTO THE CAVES AND CHANNELS OF THE AQUIFER.

AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, THIS AREA IS ALSO HOME TO LOCAL WILDLIFE, WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED SPECIES.

AS RECENTLY AS 2023, THERE WERE POSTS ONLINE SHOWING SIGHTINGS OF THE GOLDEN CHEEK WARBLER.

THIS ENDANGERED SPECIES HAS A UNIQUE BREEDING HABITAT, ONLY LIMITED TO SEC CENTRAL TEXAS.

IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT IN A LOW INTENSITY AREA GENERALLY LIMITS THE FLOOR TO AREA RATIO AS FOLLOWS.

POINT TWO, FOR PROPERTY WITH A SLOPE GRADIENT OF 15% OR LESS 0.08 FOR BUILDING ON PROPERTY WITH SLOPE GRADIENTS OF GREATER THAN 15, BUT LESS THAN 25.

AND IF THE LAND USE COMMISSION GRANTS A DEVELOPMENT BONUS, 0.25% FOR PROPERTY WITH A SLOPE GRADIENT OF 15% OR LESS.

AS MENTIONED WITH MY PREVIOUS SPEAKER AND NEIGHBOR RECENTLY, THOSE ST.

JUDE APARTMENTS COMPLETED ACROSS THE STREET, LITERALLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM WHERE THIS PROPOSED UNITS ARE.

182 UNITS ON 36 ACRES VERSUS 438 ON A MERE 19.6 ACRES, 20% IMPERVIOUS COVER VERSUS 55%.

THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE 4.4 TIMES DENSER THAN THE SAME JUNE APARTMENTS.

THIS ALONE COULD NOT JUST LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF WATER FLOW DIRECTLY INTO THE RECHARGE ZONE, BUT COULD POTENTIALLY CAUSE FLOODING DOWNSTREAM.

AS YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING RUNS DOWNSTREAM AND COULD BE CONTAMINATED.

WATER BULLDOZING THIS HABITAT, CREATING A HIGH DENSITY INFRASTRUCTURE IN THIS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE RECHARGE ZONE IS AN AFFRONT TO THE SPIRIT OF SUSTAINABILITY AND ECOLOGICAL CONSCIOUSNESS THAT AUSTIN PURPORTS AND DESERVES.

SO PLEASE, ALONG WITH MY NEIGHBORS TONIGHT, I REQUEST THAT THE COMMISSION REJECTS THIS PROPOSAL, AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR, UM, SERVING ON THE COMMISSION.

WE APPRECIATE THAT.

CHAIR, HONORABLE COMMISSIONERS.

WE'RE GONNA HEAR FROM, UM, ERIC GOMEZ, FOLLOWED BY DONNA CLEMENT, FOLLOWED BY DAVINA DOE GOMEZ.

OKAY, GO AHEAD.

ERIC.

MY NAME IS ERIC GOMEZ AND I'M THE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR BARTON CREEK SOUTHWEST, POA AND TRAVIS COUNTRY WEST, HOA.

UM, MY CLIENTS UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE CITY.

THERE'S NO QUESTION.

THE QUESTION IS THOUGH, IS AT WHAT COST? THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN THE LAW OF THE LAND IN THIS CITY FOR 30 YEARS, DULY ENACTED BY ITS CITIZENS.

YOU HEARD ABOUT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENTS? THAT'S THE LAW.

THAT'S THE LAW.

LET ME GIVE YOU ANOTHER ONE.

LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 25 DASH EIGHT DASH FIVE 15 SAYS THERE CAN BE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THESE REGULATIONS.

NO EXEMPTIONS, NO WAIVERS.

SO IT'S INEXPLICABLE TO ME HOW CITY STAFF CAN SUPPORT SUCH A PROJECT ON THIS LAND WITH THESE REGULATIONS THAT FLIES IN THE FACE OF ITS OWN LAWS.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THEY CAN SUPPORT THAT.

BECAUSE OF THAT, I'M ASKING THAT THIS COUNCIL VOTE NO ON THESE AMENDMENTS, WHICH ARE A BACKDOOR VARIANCE.

EXCEED THE LESSER OF THE HEIGHT PERMITTED BY THE ZONING OR THE SITE PLAN APPROVED FOR THE PROPERTY OR 60 FEET.

WE'LL NOW HEAR FOR MS. DAVINA.

DO FOLLOWED BY CAT PATTY GIBSON, FOLLOWED BY SHEILA ANDERSON.

GIB, I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE MISSED DONNA CLE.

UM, I WANNA EMPHASIZE THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF SOUTHWEST PARKWAY WITHIN A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY CORRIDOR.

AND WITHIN THE LOW ZONE OF THIS CORRIDOR, PER SECTION 25 2 11 24 C OF THE AUSTIN CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE HEIGHT OF A BUILDING IN THE SOUTHWEST PARKWAY CORRIDOR MAY NOT

[01:20:01]

IN ADDITION, A BUILDING MUST BE AT LEAST 75 FEET FROM THE DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY OR DRAINAGE EASEMENT.

AND AT LEAST 40% OF THE SITE, EXCLUDING THE DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY, MUST BE LEFT IN A NATURAL STATE.

WE'VE NOT BEEN PRESENTED ANY PLANS BY THE DEVELOPER TO ADHERE TO THESE REQUIREMENTS, AND THEREFORE WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE COMMISSION SHOULD APPROVE THIS REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT.

AND I WANNA EMPHASIZE WHAT MR. GOMEZ SAID, THAT THE 40% IT HAS TO BE LEFT IN A NATURAL STATE.

AND WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED.

NO PLANS FOR THIS.

WE'RE DISCUSSING OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENT FEATURES.

NOW HEAR FROM MS. DINA.

DO ALL BY PATTY GIBSON.

HELLO, MY NAME IS DINA DO AND I LIVE WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPOSED APARTMENTS.

I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT CANYON SPRING.

IT'S A SPRING IDENTIFIED BY THE US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY THAT'S LOCATED ON THE PARCEL OF LAND.

ALSO LOCATED ON THIS PARCEL INCLUDE SINKHOLE AND CAR FORMATIONS.

AT A MINIMUM, BOTH HYDROGEOLOGICAL AND GEOLOGICAL STUDIES ARE REQUIRED TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF PROSPECTIVE RESIDENTS AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.

A-U-S-G-S STUDY IN MARCH, 2017 TITLED, CARS LANDSCAPES ARE MORE PRONE TO HAVE LAND SUBSIDIES.

AND SINKHOLE STATES THAT QUOTE COLLAPSED FEATURES TEND TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH SPECIFIC ROCK TYPES, INCLUDING LIMESTONE AND DOLOMITE.

WE ALL KNOW, UH, WE ALL KNOW THIS AREA IS LIMESTONE AND PRONE TO RISKS.

IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT THESE STUDIES ARE PERFORMED PRIOR TO MOVING ANY ACTIONS FORWARD.

I'M ALL FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, BUT IT'S NOT WORTH RISKING LOSS OF LIVES.

PLEASE, I REQUEST THE COMMISSION REJECT THIS AMENDMENT REQUEST UNTIL PROPER STUDIES ARE PERFORMED TO ENSURE PUBLIC SAFETY.

WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM PATTY GIBSON, FOLLOWED BY SHEILA ANDERSON.

UM, THE MOST RECENT TREE SURVEY WAS REQUESTED ON JANUARY 19TH, 2024, AND THEN AGAIN ON FEBRUARY 7TH, 2024.

WE WERE TOLD THE SURVEY WAS NOT AVAILABLE OUR ON FEBRUARY 23RD, 24, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVE WAS PROVIDED WITH TWO DOCUMENTS, THE TREE AND TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES INVENTORY BOTH DATED SEPTEMBER, 2023.

PRIOR TO JANUARY OR FEBRUARY, THE SURVEY DATED 20, UH, 2023 SEPTEMBER 19TH, 2023, DID NOT CATEGORIZE THE TREES ON THE PROPERTY AS PROTECTED HERITAGE OR HERITAGE WITH PUBLIC PROCESS BASED ON THE CITY GUIDELINES.

THE INFORMATION ON THE SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS THIS ISSUE.

THERE'S A TOTAL OF 53 PROTECTED AND HERITAGE TREES, 32 PROTECTED TREES, 16 HERITAGE TREES, AND FIVE HERITAGE TREES WITH PUBLIC PROCESS.

WHAT IS THE DEVELOPER'S PLANS FOR THESE TREES? WHEN WILL THE PUBLIC PROCESS BEGIN FOR THE FIVE HERITAGE TREES AND HOW WILL THE 50% CRITICAL ROOT ZONE BE PRESERVED AT NATURAL GRADE WITH NATURAL GROUND COVER? THOSE ARE ALL GOOD QUESTIONS, NONE OF WHICH WE HAVE.

HELLO, I'M SHEILA ANDERSON.

I LIVE AT 56 0 9 FORT BENTON.

OUR HOME IS WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

LAST YEAR ON JULY 27TH, IN A FIRST FOR OUR BACKYARD, I OBSERVED AND PHOTOGRAPHED A GOLDEN CHEEK WARBLER.

MY OBSERVATION WAS IDENT.

MY IDENTIFICATION WAS, UM, SORRY.

IT WAS CONFIRMED BY A FIELD BIOLOGIST AND REPORTED IN EBIRD.

THIS BIRD IS PROTECTED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

THE ESA PROHIBITS REMOVAL OF THEIR HABITAT MAKING SUCH REMOVAL, REMOVAL ILLEGAL WITHOUT PROPER PERMITS REGARDLESS OF THE TIME OF YEAR.

THE BALCONES CANYON LANDS CONSERVATION PLAN COMPRISES A 10 A ONE B PERMIT ISSUED JOINTLY TO TRAVIS COUNTY AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN, AND A HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT APPROVED BY US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE.

ACCORDING TO THE BCCP HABITAT MAP, THIS DEVELOPER'S PARCEL IS DESIGNATED GOLDEN CHEEK WARBLER.

ZONE TWO, MITIGATION PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT IS REQUIRED YET NOT EVIDENCED.

OKAY, FROM THE TELECONFERENCE, MR. HUNTER BECK, SELECT STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.

YOU'LL HAVE ONE MINUTE TALK.

UM, HIGH, THAT ENVIRONMENT VARIANCE WILL BE REQUIRED.

UM, AT THIS POINT, THE PROPOSED EMERGENCY VEHICLE EXIT ON SUNSET ROAD MAY ALSO REQUIRE PROPERTY LIVE BOTH AND THE EDWARD AQUIFER CONTRIBUTED ZONING INTO WILLIAMS WATERSHED.

THE CONTINUED NEGLECT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN WILL ERODE VIABILITY OF THIS AREA AND IMPOSE INCREDIBLE RISKS

[01:25:01]

TO WATER TEXAS.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS USED TO QUANTIFY THE MAGNITUDE OF ANY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL CO VARIANCES AND RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE, AS WELL AS AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF REQUISITE SELECT ALONG ROADWAY REQUIREMENTS.

THE REASON REQUEST ADVICE, THANK YOU.

UH, WILL NOW HEAR FROM MR. PA.

MY NAME IS JASON BIBLE.

I AM, UH, THE TRAVIS COUNTY OR TRAVIS COUNTRY WEST, UH, VICE PRESIDENT OR HOA VICE PRESIDENT.

UM, AS WE HEARD TONIGHT, THE, UH, SAVE OUR SPRINGS ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED IN AUGUST, 1992, AND IT STRICTLY LIMITS THE ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVER FROM 15 TO 25% DEPENDING ON YOUR LOCATION.

THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION LIES ON THE EDWARDS AQUIFER CONTRIBUTING ZONE IN THE WILLIAMSON CREEK WATERSHED, AND IS SUBJECT TO 25% IMPERVIOUS COVER.

UM, THAT'S, UH, WITHOUT THE RESTRICTED COVENANT, UM, THAT'S IN PLACE CURRENTLY.

UM, THE AMENDMENT OF THE RESTRICTED COVENANT SHOULD MAKE NULL AND VOID OF THE, THE, THE, UH, 55%, UM, GROSS IMPERVIOUS COVER, UM, OF AVAILABILITY.

THE, UH, IT SHOULD NOT, UH, SHOULD NOT APPLY IN THIS IN THIS SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE.

THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS AT A TOP OF A HILL WHERE MOST OF THE NATURAL DRAINAGE FLOWS OVER LAND TO THE SOUTH THROUGH THE TRAVIS COUNTRY WEST NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSING A HIGHER THAN ALLOWED IMPERVIOUS COVER, WHICH WILL RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN RUNOFF VOLUMES AND A DECREASE IN STORMWATER QUALITY.

UNDERSTANDING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE REQUIRED TO INSTALL WATER QUALITY AND DETENTION BASINS ON SITE.

THE NATURAL DRAINAGE PATTERNS WILL BE MODIFIED BY IMPOUNDING THE STORMWATER THE DEVELOPER IS MODIFYING THE RUNOFF MECHANISM.

WHAT WAS OVERLAND AND SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW OF CLEAN STORMWATER FROM THE TOP OF THE HILL IS PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF IMPOUNDING DIRTIER STORMWATER FROM PAR PARKING LOTS BUILDINGS AND DRIVEWAYS, AND CONCENTRATING THE STORM WATER INTO A WATER QUALITY POND OR INDOOR DETENTION POND OUTLET.

ADDITIONALLY, THE MODIFIED DRAINAGE PATTERNS WILL LEAD TO THE DEGRADATION OF THE WATER QUALITY DRAINAGE AND CONSERVATION EASEMENTS SURROUNDING TRAVIS COUNTRY WEST NEIGHBORHOOD BY ELIMINATING THE NATURAL OVERLAND FLOW PATHS OF STORM WATER AND DEGRADING THE WATER QUALITY FLOWING THROUGH THE CONCENTRATED POND OUTLET.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THE WATER QUALITY DRAINAGE AND CONSERVATION EASEMENTS SURROUNDING THE TRAVIS COUNTRY WEST SUBDIVISION WERE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE IMPERVIOUS COVER WITHIN THE COMMUNITY BELOW THE 25% IMPERVIOUS COVER AS REQUIRED BY THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS OR ORDINANCE.

I SEE NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL COMPLY WITH THESE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS.

AS SUCH, IT'S NECESSARY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO OPPOSE REVISION OF THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PREEXISTING STATUTES, LAWS, AND ORDINANCES RELATED TO THIS PARCEL.

THANK YOU, MR. ROBERT DULOW, FOLLOWED BY DON MODE.

GOOD EVENING.

I'M ROBBIE LOWE.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE AWARE THERE ARE NO WATER QUALITY PONDS INCLUDED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT TO REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.

THE 2010 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRED WATER QUALITY PONDS ON THIS PROPERTY TO REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.

THE CURRENT APPLICANT HAS REMOVED THIS OBLIGATION FOR THE REZONING OF THE COMMERCIAL TRACK TO A RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT.

IN 2009, A SERIES OF PERMEABLE TESTS WERE CONDUCTED.

THE RESULTS INDICATE THAT THERE IS ENOUGH LAND AREA TO PROVIDE SAVE OUR SPRINGS WATER QUALITY PONDS ON THE PROPERTY.

CITY OF AUSTIN EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL STATES THAT SOME STUDENTS MAY THINK THE EDWARDS AQUIFER IS GOOD AT FILTERING POLLUTION, BUT CAST AQUIFERS DO NOT FILTER OUT POLLUTION.

WELL, FAILURE TO PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES PUTS THE WHOLE OF THE EDWARDS AQUIFER AT RISK.

GIVEN THIS PARTIALS LOCATION IN THE EDWARDS AQUIFER CONTRIBUTING ZONE FOR THIS REASON AND THE MANY OTHER REASONS PROVIDED TO YOU TONIGHT, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE COMMITTEE REJECT THIS AMENDMENT.

WELL, I'LL HEAR FROM MR. , FOLLOWED BY DON GIBSON.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.

AS PART OF THE, UH, SMART GRANT REQUIREMENTS, UH, THE REQUEST IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IN QUESTION BE WITHIN ONE MILE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

SUNSET RIDGE IS, IS 1.4 MILES AWAY FROM THE NEAREST TRANSIT STOP.

IT'S A BUS STOP THAT IS ACROSS HIGHWAY 71.

IN ORDER TO WALK FROM SUNSET RIDGE TO THAT BUS STOP, A PEDESTRIAN MUST WALK ACROSS THREE STREETS.

TRAVIS CROOK, ALBY, CRAS ROAD, AND FLETCHER LANE THAT HAVE ZERO, I REPEAT ZERO PEDESTRIAN CAPACITY, NO SIDEWALKS, NO SHOULDERS, NO NOTHING.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY WOULD THEN HAVE TO CROSS HIGHWAY 71.

IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN ON HIGHWAY 71, NOT A FRIENDLY PEDESTRIAN AREA.

BASED OFF THIS AND MANY OF THE OTHER, UH, ISSUES THAT WE'VE BROUGHT TO THIS COMMISSION'S TABLE, I ASK THAT YOU REJECT, REJECT THE REQUEST TO PRO PROCEED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS MR. SCOTT DALMAN PRESENT.

AND, UM, LET'S SEE.

[01:30:03]

OKAY, UM, MR. GIBSON, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

ONE OF THE BEST THINGS OF LIVING IN TRAVIS COUNTRY WEST IS THE NATURE TRAIL THAT WE HAVE.

AND AS THE DEVELOPERS COUNCILS POINTED OUT, THEY'RE UH, NOT ALLOWING VEHICULAR ACCESS OUTTA THE BACK OF THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT.

BUT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WILL BE ALLOWED AS RIGHT NEAR THE TRAIL HEAD OF A, UM, BEAUTIFUL NATURE TRAIL THAT ALL OF US IN TRAVIS COUNTRY WEST PAY TO MAINTAIN AND UP AND KEEP UPDATED AND CLEAN.

AND WE PAY THROUGH OUR HOA DUES FOR THAT.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE ALSO HAVE OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND THE TRAILS, AND THIS WILL INVITE TRESPASSING AND, YOU KNOW, JUST CAUSE ALL KINDS OF PROBLEMS WITH THESE TRAILS.

THE PROPOSED REVISION TO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS INDICATES THAT EVEN THOUGH VEHICULAR ACCESS ISN'T PERMITTED ON SUNSET RIDGE, THAT UH, EMERGENCY ACCESS WILL BE ALLOWED, WHICH WE'RE FINE WITH, BUT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IS NOT EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED.

THE LIMITED ROAD SHOULDERS IN THE AREA AND NARROW ROADWAYS POSE AN UNACCEPTABLE SAFETY RISK, UH, AND INCURSION INTO OUR ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY.

IT'S NOT MADE FOR THIS LEVEL OF TRAFFIC AND, UH, PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC.

AND THE OTHER THING I POINT OUT TO THE COMMISSION IS THAT THE, UH, AUSTIN TRAFFIC AND PUBLIC, UH, WORKS, UH, VISION ZERO INITIATIVE, UH, TO REDUCE TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN DEATHS HAS IDENTIFIED SOUTHWEST PARKWAY AS BEING PART OF THE 8% OF AUSTIN'S ROADWAYS THAT CONTRIBUTE 70% OF THE FATALITIES AND INJURIES IN THE CITY.

SUNSET RIDGE DEVELOPMENT WILL ONLY WILL SUBSTANTIALLY ADD TO THE TRAFFIC ON, UH, SOUTHWEST PARKWAY AND DRAMATICALLY INCREASE THE TRAFFIC, FATALITY AND INJURY POTENTIAL.

WE ALL HEAR FROM MR. WAYNE KAISER.

THE PROPOSED INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT HAS GRADES MORE THAN 15% AS SHOWN ON THE TOPO TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP.

AND ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE IS VERY LIKELY REQUIRED FOR SIGNIFICANT CUT AND FILL.

PROPOSED EMERGENCY VEHICLE EXIT ON SUNSET RIDGE ROAD MAY ALSO REQUIRE CUT AND FILL INGRESS AND EGRESS WILL BE ON A PARKWAY THAT HAS SPEED LIMIT OF 50 PLUS MILES PER HOUR, MORE LIKELY ABOUT 60 TO 70 MILES AN HOUR.

HEADING WEST TO EAST ON SOUTHWEST PARKWAY, THERE IS A CURVATURE IN THE ROADWAY AND OUTCROP THAT LIMITS THE VISIBILITY TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS INGRESS AND EGRESS, RESULTING IN A SIGNIFICANT SAFETY CONCERN.

WE WILL NEED TO HAVE A ROAD SAFETY ASSESSMENT CONDU CONDUCTED OF THE PROPOSED INGRESS AND EGRESS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT CONDUCTED AS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF REQUIRED CUT AND FILL ACTIVITIES AND ASSESS POTENTIAL ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPER.

THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT AS WE'LL.

MORE THAN LIKELY SEE AN UPTICK IN ACCIDENTS.

I'M A CLAIMS ADJUSTER OF OVER 20 YEARS EXPERIENCE.

I'VE HAD MULTIPLE ACCIDENTS ON SOUTHWEST PARKWAY.

THIS WILL INCREASE IT.

THANKS, MR. MATTHIAS BROS.

I FOLLOWED BY BRAD JOHNSON.

HI, MY NAME IS MATTEL BOZA AND I LIVE IN CHOICE COUNTRY WEST.

I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE IN THE SANDRIDGE RIDGE APPLICATION THAT HANDLES THE MATERIAL THAT WORKER IS A BICYCLE ROUTE, AND THAT AS, AS WE HEARD, THERE'S A BUS STOP NEARBY.

MY WORKPLACE IS TWO AND A HALF MILES FROM, UH, FROM ON SOUTH ON SOUTHWEST PARKWAY.

I WOULD LOVE NOT TO USE MY CAR, BUT THE TRUTH IS THERE ARE NO BUSES, THERE ARE NO BICYCLE PATHS AND THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS OUTSIDE, OUTSIDE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, NEAR WHERE THIS CONSTRUCTION IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.

AND THERE ARE NO PLANS TO ADD ANY OF THEM.

SO TO ME, AFFORDABLE TRANSPORTATION IS A REQUIREMENT FOR, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

PLEASE DENY ANY PROGRESSIVE AMENDMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED IES DEPARTMENT.

DEVELOPMENT BONUS CERTIFICATION, THE CIA WORKSHEET INDICATES 1,995 UNADJUSTED DAILY TRIPS BASED ON 428 UNITS.

STUART GOODMAN, I'M SORRY, BRAD JOHNSON FOLLOWED BY STUART GOODMAN.

HELLO, MY NAME.

HELLO, MY NAME IS BRAD JOHNSON.

THANK YOU FOR, I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DETERMINATION WORKSHEET.

WELL, THE TA WORKSHEET INDICATES IT WAS BASED ON 428 UNITS.

THE SMART HOUSING CERTIFICATION INDICATES 4 38 UNITS AND RCA APPLICATION FOR ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT ALSO DISCLOSES 438 UNITS.

AS OF AFFORDABILITY ON

[01:35:01]

HOWEVER, IT APPEARS IT WOULD EXCEED 2000 ON ADJUSTED DAILY TRIPS TO 4 38 UNITS WAS USED, WHICH BASED ON THE GUIDELINES WOULD REQUIRE A TRAFFIC STUDY.

EVEN USING THE LOWER FIGURE, THE CI WORKSHEET INDICATES MORE THAN A 13,000 INCREASE IN DAILY TRIPS, LOCATIONS ON A SPEED GRADE WITH A WARRANT RATE SAFETY ANALYSIS.

RESPECTFULLY CORNERS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

HELLO, MY NAME'S STEWART.

UH, MY NAME'S STUART GOODMAN.

I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE BARTON CREEK SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY.

UM, AS YOU KNOW, WE VIEW THIS CLEARLY AS A REZONING CASE AND IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH.

UM, WHAT THE APPLICANT'S TRYING TO DO CLEARLY IS EXPAND, UH, THE, UH, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS TO INCLUDE RES UH, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN A COMMERCIAL IMPORTANT COMMERCIAL PIECE OF LAND.

AND THAT IS CLEARLY IT HAS NO PLACE.

NOW, WHAT THE APPLICANT'S CAN SAYS IS THE APPLICANT SAYS THIS ISN'T A REZONING CASE.

WELL, IF THIS ISN'T A REZONING CASE, THEN WHY DON'T WE JUST REMOVE THAT INSERTION THAT'S TRYING TO BE MADE TO INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL.

AND I'M SURE THAT THE APPLICANT WOULDN'T ACCEPT THAT JUST BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT'S A REZONING CASE AND THERE'S A SAYING, RIGHT, IF IT, IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK AND IT QUACKS LIKE A DUCK, IT'S A DUCK.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THESE TACTICS, I THINK SEVERELY UNDERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE CITY PLANNING AND APPROVAL PROCESS.

AND WITH SOCIAL MEDIA THESE DAYS.

I HAVE TWO MINUTES, BY THE WAY.

I HAVE A MINUTE.

DONATED PROCEED.

UM, IT'S IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THESE, AGAIN, THESE TACTICS SEVERELY UNDERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE CITY.

AND WITH SOCIAL MEDIA THESE DAYS, THESE INCIDENCES WIND UP, YOU KNOW, GETTING WIDELY COMMUNICATED AND REALLY ADVERSELY IMPACT PEOPLE'S CONFIDENCE IN THE CITY.

WE NEED INTEGRITY IN THE PLAN.

UH, THE CITY PLANNING AND REZONING PROCESS.

THIS CLEARLY IS A REZONING CASE AND THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE REJECTED.

MS. WILCOX, UM, ARE YOU PRESENT ON THE TELECONFERENCE? OKAY, CHAIR, I'LL PROCEED TO THE NEXT SPEAKER.

IMMATERIAL CONCESSIONS PROVIDED BY APPLICANT FOR THE RC CHANGES.

AS PER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL, ALL SITES WITHIN THE BARTON SPRINGS ZONE, WHICH INCLUDE THIS SITE ALREADY NEED TO COMPLY WITH THIS STANDARD.

AS PER SMART HOUSING, A MINIMUM ONE STAR REQUIRED RATING IS REQUIRED FOR DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROGRAM.

A ONE STAR RATING IS THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM WITH RATINGS GOING UP TO A FIVE STAR RATING.

AUSTIN CODE ALREADY REQUIRES INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A MINIMUM OF 40% EV CAPABLE PARKING SPACES TO SUPPORT FUTURE EV CHARGING.

IN ADDITION, AUSTIN ENERGY PROVIDES THE DEVELOPER WITH A $2,500 REBATE PER STATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.

THIS IS AN UNDEVELOPED NATURAL TRACT WITH MINIMUM INVASIVE SPECIES AT 55% INVER INVA IMPERVIOUS COVER.

THE PROVISION WOULD ENABLE 11% OF COVER OF ANY ONE PARTICULAR INVASIVE SPECIES IN NON PERVIOUS AREAS OF THE TRACT.

THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF INVASIVE SPECIES IN AUSTIN, SO A COVENANT TO MANAGE ANY ONE INVASIVE SPECIES BELOW 11% NON PERVIOUS COVER IS A NON-ISSUE.

THE COMMITTEE CAN DO BETTER AND SHOULD REJECT THIS AMENDMENT REQUEST.

THANK YOU MS. KAREN DALMAN.

I'M KAREN DALMAN AND I LIVE ON SUNSET RIDGE.

I'M ADDRESSING THE LOW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION SCORE.

THE APPLICANT RECEIVED A FINAL QUANTITATIVE SCORE OF 85 OUT OF A POSSIBLE 600 POINT MAXIMUM SCORE.

THE BARE MINIMUM IS A 50.

THE SCORE OF 85 INCLUDES POINTS FOR HAVING METRO ACCESS SERVICE WITHIN THREE QUARTERS OF A MILE, WHICH IS NOT TRUE.

IF THE SCORE IS CORRECTED TO REFLECT THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO METRO ACCESS SERVICE WITHIN THREE QUARTERS OF A MILE.

THE CORRECTED QUANTITATIVE SCORE MAY FALL WELL BELOW THE 50 POINT MINIMUM THRESHOLD.

IT IS INCREDIBLY CONCERNING THAT THE CITY WOULD EVEN CONSIDER A PROJECT WITH SUCH A LOW SCORE.

FURTHER INVESTIGATION NEEDS TO BE PERFORMED TO CALCULATE THE CORRECT SCORE.

THIS PROJECT HAS SO MANY RED FLAGS.

IT IS CONCERNING THAT IT HAS MADE IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S AGENDA.

DUE TO THE EXTREMELY LOW APPLICATION SCORE, THE COMMISSION SHOULD REJECT THE SMART FUNDING REQUEST AND SHOULD NOT APPROVE THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU, MS. CYNTHIA WILCOX, FOLLOWED BY MARY SWANSON, FOLLOWED BY BILL BELL, BIBLE

[01:40:18]

UM, MS. MARY SWANSON.

HELLO, MY NAME IS MARY SWANSON.

I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF THE TRAVIS COUNTRY WEST FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS.

MY CONCERNS ARE MY PERSONAL CONCERNS OF INCREASED TRAFFIC.

I LIVE RIGHT BY THE ENTRANCE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE STOP SIGN RUN SO FREQUENTLY.

I HAVE A FEAR OF GETTING HIT WHILE WALKING MY DOG.

IT ALMOST HAPPENED A FEW TIMES ALREADY.

MY FEAR WAS HEIGHTENED LAST WEEK WHEN I COME HOME, WHEN THERE WAS A DEAD SQUIRREL IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET AND I THOUGHT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ME OR ONE OF MY CHECKS.

SO I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE INCREASE OF TRAFFIC AND, UH, PEOPLE CUTTING THROUGH TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET TO WHERE THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.

UM, I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT MY SAFETY FOR, UM, THE TRAIL AND, UH, OTHER PEOPLE USING OUR TRAIL THAT NOT FROM THE PUBLIC ABUSING IT.

SO I HAVE CONCERN ABOUT THAT AS WELL.

SO I JUST OPPOSE THIS REQUEST.

AND AGAIN, THANK YOU, UH, MS. WILCOX, SELECT STAR SIX.

PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.

OKAY, WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU MR. BELL.

BIBLE.

UH, MY NAME IS OKAY.

UM, WE'RE GONNA GO BACK.

UM, THAT WAS A LIST PROVIDED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE DO HAVE ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS, SO BEAR WITH ME.

ALISON TRU, ARE YOU PRESENT? HMM.

AUSTIN TRILLO, RESIDENT OF TRAVIS COUNTRY WEST.

AS SOMEONE WHO WAS BORN AND RAISED IN AUSTIN AND ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS CITY, I HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT.

IN ADDITION TO THE ONES ALREADY DISCUSSED, I'D LIKE TO BRING UP THE FACT THAT THIS AREA IS ESSENTIALLY A FOOD DESERT.

THERE ARE NO FOOD OR GROCERY STORES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.

THE NEAREST MAJOR GROCERY STORE IS OAK HILL, HEB, AND IT'S 3.3 MILES AWAY.

THE NEAREST NEIGHBORHOOD MARKET IS 1.2 MILES AWAY.

THE NEXT NEAREST ONE IS ALMOST THREE MILES AWAY.

THE CLOSEST RESTAURANTS ARE SHORE RAW BAR, GRILL CARB, AMERICAN GRILL, LING, WU LA POPULAR, AND JACK ALLENS ALL OVER A MILE OR MORE FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

AND WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THERE'S NO PUBLIC TRANSIT OR SIDEWALKS NEARBY FOR PEOPLE TO WALK PRECISELY ZERO OF THESE RESTAURANTS.

NEIGHBORHOOD MARKETS OR GROCERY STORES ARE SAFELY ACCESSIBLE BY PEDESTRIANS.

THERE AREN'T ANY CONNECTING SIDEWALKS FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE TRIP.

NO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION EITHER.

ALL OF THE RESTAURANTS MENTIONED ARE HARDLY WHAT MOST PEOPLE WOULD CONSIDER AFFORDABLE DINING WITH AVERAGE PRICES RANGING FROM $20 TO OVER $40 IN ENTREE.

THIS FAILS TO MEET THE SMART INITIATIVE, IGNORING THE ACCESSIBLE, REASONABLY

[01:45:01]

PRICED TRANSIT ORIENTED PIECES OF THIS PROGRAM BASED ON THE LACK OF FOOD OR GROCERY IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA, AS WELL AS THE OTHER NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS.

PLEASE RESCIND THIS, UH, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AGREEMENT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

MS. ROBERTA LOWE.

THANK YOU FOR THE HONESTY.

WELL, MS. MISS LEAH ZIGLAR, LEE ZIGLAR, UM, I'M NOT A RESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED BECAUSE OF THE OAK HILL NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING CONTACT TEAM.

AND THE REASON FOR OFFICE USED RESTRICTED TO THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY AND THE SCENIC VISTA IS PROBABLY BECAUSE THE HEIGHT WAS RESTRICTED.

AND SO AN ALLOWANCE WAS GIVEN TO THE IMPERVIOUS COVER.

UM, AND SO THEY MADE THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TO ENABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.

BUT NOW I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE REMOVED AND GO BACK TO THE 25% IMPERVIOUS COVER UNLESS THERE'S A BETTER REASON THAT I'M NOT SEEING FOR DEVELOPMENT.

KEEP IN MIND THAT IF THERE ARE BETTER SITES UNDERWAY FOR AGGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT, NOT ON A SCENIC VISTA AT A THOUSAND FEET WITH CAST FEATURES SPRINGS AND CEFS, THE RESULTING IN DEGRADATION OF SHEET FLOW DURING FLASH FLOODING FROM ELEVATED PROPERTIES ALLOWING EXCESSIVE IMPERVIOUS COVER HEIGHT COULD EXACERBATE EROSION.

ALSO, THERE'S A PLAN UNDERWAY, IF YOU'LL JUST LET ME MENTION IT, THAT'S COMING BEFORE YOU.

UM, IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT THAT IS AN AGGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT ON A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, WHICH IS SOUTHWEST.

UH, I MEAN MS. SIGLER, WE HAVE TO KEEP IT TO THIS CASE.

RIGHT.

BUT YOU THANK YOU SOMEONE THERE WAS FALSE INFORMATION GIVEN THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER AREAS BEING DEVELOPED FOR, FOR THOUSANDS OF DATA.

WE NEED TO MOVE ON.

THANK YOU ROBERTA LOWE AND CURTIS LOWE.

NOTED.

MS. KAREN GOODMAN.

HI.

HI, I AM KAREN GOODMAN.

I LIVE WITHIN 500 FEET RESIDENT AND I'M GONNA TAG ALONG ON THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN ANNOUNCED.

THE MARSON, WHICH IS AT SOUTHWEST PARKWAY IN VEGA, 2.54 MILES FROM THIS SITE IN VEGA TWO, WHICH IS AT VEGA AND PATTON RANCH ROAD, CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION 2.8 MILES AWAY.

BOTH OF THEM HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENTS WITHIN THEM.

SO WHEN SOMEONE MENTIONED THERE WAS NOTHING ON SOUTHWEST PARKWAY, THESE ARE TWO, UH, PROJECTS JUST ANNOUNCED ON KXAN ONE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND ONE OPENED.

THE OTHER THING IS THE ST.

JUNE APARTMENTS IS RIGHT DIAGONAL AT 53 21 BARTON CREEK BOULEVARD IN SOUTHWEST PARKWAY.

SO THERE IS MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENTS, UM, MARKET RATE AS WELL AS AFFORDABLE WITHIN 2.4 MILES OF THIS SITE.

AND THE OTHER THING IS ON TYPE TWO REQUIREMENTS, YOU SAID THAT IT WAS THE OVERLAY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNDER AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED TYPE TWO REQUIREMENTS, SAY IMPERVIOUS COVER.

AND I'M READING FROM YOUR WEBSITE, IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT, NOT IS IN BOLD WAIVED IN THIS PROGRAM.

SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AND ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSE THIS PROJECT.

THANK YOU ERIN.

HARD, BRET, RJ BEATERMAN.

MR. DAVID MCC BECAME NOTED.

ALAN DOE OKAY, GO BACK TO THE SLIDE.

CYNTHIA SLIDE.

I WAS GONNA READ IT SINCE ON HER BEHALF.

MY NAME'S RJ BEATERMAN.

I LIVE 500 FEET FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IS THAT OKAY? OKAY.

LAND PARCEL INCLUDED IN THE OAK HILL COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AS A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT REQUESTS TO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS IS NOT IN LINE WITH THE OAK HILL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA.

RESIDENTS ARE SUPPORTIVE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT OPPOSED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT, GIVEN ITS CURRENT SIZE, SCOPE, AND DENSITY IN THIS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA, THERE NEEDS TO BE A BETTER BALANCE BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVING THE ENVIRONMENT.

SURROUNDING HOAS AND ENTITIES THAT OPPOSE THE DEVELOPMENT IN ITS CURRENT FORM INCLUDE

[01:50:01]

OAK HILL ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS I'M REPRESENTING TODAY TRAVIS COUNTRY.

TRAVIS COUNTRY WEST HOA, BARTON CREEK, SOUTHWEST, HOA LANTANA, HOA, ESCAN, HOA AND SAVE OUR SPRINGS.

THE SOS ALLIANCE.

A PETITION OPPOSING THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN SIGNED BY 85% OF RESIDENTS WITHIN 200 FEET.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

UH, CHAIR.

WE'RE TRYING TO GET MISS, UH, WELL COX, UM, WE'RE GONNA SEE IF SHE WOULD CALL BACK IN.

UM, SHE'S UNMUTED RIGHT NOW.

MS. WILCOX, UH, SELECT STAR SIX.

UM, YOU MAY HAVE BEEN MUTED, BUT I MAY HAVE JUST MUTED.

YOU.

SELECT, SELECT STAR SIX CHAIR.

UM, IF IT'S OKAY, UM, WE COULD PROCEED WITH THE APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL AND THEN IF WE GET MS. WILCOX BACK ON.

OKAY, WILCO.

THANK YOU MS. WILCOX.

PLEASE PROCEED.

FINANCING IS NOT IN JEOPARDY.

WE ALL KNOW THAT THIS IS A REZONING CASE.

AS INITIALLY INDICATED BY THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO AVOID THE REZONING PROCESS BY FOOLING COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS AND STAFF.

THIS IS NOT A GOOD LOOK FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE CITY OR THE APPLICANT.

THE SO-CALLED PUBLIC MEETING WAS NOT EVEN FOR THE CASE BEING PRESENTED TONIGHT.

DISTRICT EIGHT HAS HAD MORE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING ADDED THAN ANY OTHER COUNCIL DISTRICT AND HAS A FOUNDATION COMMUNITY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT.

THE FIRST CASE MANAGER WAS REMOVED AFTER THE ACKNOWLEDGED NOTIFICATION FAILURE AND HER CASE MANAGER IS NOT EVEN HERE TONIGHT.

VOTE NO AND ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO FOLLOW THE LEGAL ESTABLISHED PROCESS MINUS THE SHE GAINES AND CYNICAL ATTEMPTS TO PUBLICLY HUMILIATE COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS.

PLEASE VOTE NO.

UM, DOCUMENTED ENDANGERED SPECIES.

AND WE DO HAVE MR. EK WHO WILL BE, UH, UH, THE LAST SPEAKER FOR THE OPPOSITION.

THREE MINUTES.

RIGHT.

NOTED.

COUNSEL, THANKS FOR BEING HERE.

I'M GONNA TRY NOT TO BE SO SCRIPTED THIS TIME AND MAYBE NOT QUITE AS NERVOUS.

LET YOU SEE MY REAL PERSONALITY.

UM, I WAS A LITTLE NERVOUS THE FIRST TIME AROUND BEING HONEST.

LOOK, UH, LIKE A RESIDENT SAID EARLIER, I ALSO AM A NATIVE AUSTINITE.

BEEN 44 YEARS HERE.

I HAVE SEEN WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE CITY OVER TIME AND I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH THE REASON TO HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

MY WIFE IS A SCHOOL TEACHER.

I SEE THE SCHOOL TEACHER SHE WORKS WITH AND I SEE THAT THEY HAVE TO COMMUTE FROM KYLE TO GET TO THEIR SCHOOL HERE WHERE MY KIDS GO.

I'M NOT FIGHTING THAT AT ALL.

WE'RE NOT AGAINST IT.

I THINK THAT MY NEIGHBORS HAVE SHOWN HERE IS WE'RE WILLING, WE'RE THE ONLY PEOPLE IN THIS BUILDING THAT CAME HERE FOR FREE TONIGHT TO SHOW YOU HOW PASSIONATE AND INTEREST YOU WERE IN THIS PROJECT BECAUSE IT MEANS A LOT.

WE LIVE HERE, WE PLAY HERE.

WE RAISE OUR FAMILIES HERE.

WE KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS AREA.

FAR MORE THAN WE COULD EVER EXPECT YOU TO FIGURE OUT IN 700 PAGES OF GOBBLY GOOP OR THE DEVELOPER THAT'S RECENTLY BEEN LOOKING AT, AT THE LAST SIX MONTHS.

WE UNDERSTAND.

AND SO WE DO NOT OPPOSE A DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PLACE.

WE BELIEVE IN PROPERTY RIGHTS.

WE BELIEVE IN PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO MAKE, MAKE MONEY.

WE ARE AGAINST ANY DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SIZE, SCOPE, AND DENSITY IN THIS AREA.

I DON'T CARE IF IT'S AFFORDABLE, I DON'T CARE IF IT'S LUXURY APARTMENTS, I DON'T CARE IF IT'S A GROCERY STORE.

ANYTHING OF THIS SIZE, SCOPE, AND DENSITY IS UNCALLED FOR IN THIS AREA.

YOU HEARD FROM MY PEOPLE TONIGHT, ALL OF THE MANY, MANY REASONS WHY.

BUT JUST IN CASE YOU DIDN'T WANNA MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, I HEARD IT EXCEEDS SOS THERE'S CARS FORMATIONS, THERE'S A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY REQUIREMENTS BEING IGNORED THERE.

FLORIDA AREA RATIO IS BEING 400% INCREASED.

HERITAGE TREES ARE DISREGARDED WITH NO PLAN TO MITIGATE ERRONEOUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES.

THE USGS RECOGNIZED SPRING, UH, POLLUTION OF MULTIPLE WATERSHEDS ADJACENT DEVELOPMENTS HAS A THIRD OF THE UNITS AND TWICE THE PROPERTY TO BUILD IT ON.

ZERO PUBLIC TRANSFERRED LI ACCESS LIMITED, UH, TO HEALTHCARE GOOD NEIGHBOR CLAUSE HAS BEEN COMPLETELY DISREGARDED UNTIL YESTERDAY AT TWO 30.

THE DEVELOPMENT SCORE IS, IT'S A JOKE ON A SCALE OF A HUNDRED, IT SCORES A 6.3 IF YOU WERE TO NORMALIZE ALL THE NUMBERS ON IT.

6.3 OUT OF A HUNDRED NO PUBLIC INFORMATION.

NO THE, THE ONE ONE EV CHARGER FOR 110 UNITS.

I MEAN, BOTTOM LINE IS STEP

[01:55:01]

OUTSIDE THE CITY GOALS FOR A MINUTE.

WE SUPPORT HOUSING, WE SUPPORT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

IF THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO TALK TO US ABOUT A PLAN TO GET RID OF THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND PUT 75 UNITS IN THERE, A HUNDRED UNITS ALL DAY.

BUT THEY HAVEN'T APPROACHED US TO ASK US WHAT OUR NEEDS ARE.

AND I WANTED TO HAVE THAT KIND OF CONVERSATION WITH THESE PEOPLE BEFORE IT JUST GETS RAMROD THROUGH THE CITY AND RUBBER STAMPED IN THE NAME OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

WE SUPPORT IT.

THERE ARE LOTS OF LOCATIONS THAT WE WILL SUPPORT IT IN.

BUT THIS EVEN PUSHING THIS FORWARD, IT'S, IT'S ENDANGERING FAMILIES AND TAXPAYERS.

THE CITY IS, IS ENDANGERING EM FURTHER.

I MEAN, MY OPINION WOULD BE IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE STORY, I MIGHT RUN OUTTA TIME.

IT GOT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER BECAUSE IT WAS GONNA BE A PLACE OF WORSHIP BACK IN THE DAY.

THAT'S HOW IT GOT CHANGED OVER TO 55% IMPERVIOUS COVER.

AND UNDER THAT GUISE IT GOT IN.

AND THEN MAGICALLY WHEN THE PLACE OF OF WISDOM CAME IN, THEY WERE, THEY, THEY TURNED INTO A COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING AND HERE WE STAND.

SO VOTE AGAINST IT.

MAKE IT A REZONING CASE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME CHAIR.

I ACTUALLY HAVE, UH, MR. MICHAEL SCHAFF ON THE LINE AS WELL.

UM, MR. SCHAFF, I SEE YOU ARE ON THE LINE.

IF YOU'LL SELECT STAR SIX, PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.

THANK, MY NAME IS MIKE.

I URGE YOU TO REJECT THIS AMENDMENT.

SO RALPH, WITH LEGAL, PROCEDURAL AND OMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONS MISREPRESENTATION, PLEASE MAKE NOTE OF MR. GOMEZ CITATION TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN LAND CODE.

WE LAW, LAW THIS HERE.

I WILL READ IT INTO THE RECORD.

SECTION 25 DASH EIGHT DASH FIVE 15 OF LAND CODE READ NO EXEMPT SECTION.

SECOND WAIVERS OR VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT THIS ARTICLE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE EXEMPTIONS.

WAIVERS OF VARIANCE ALLOW BY RP ONE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE APPLICATION.

THIS ARTICLE TO A SPECIFIC PROJECT MAY GRADE ONLY AND SET UP IN SECTION FIVE B FIVE 18 LIMITED ADJUSTMENTS TO RESOLVE CONFLICT OF LAW.

NOTE, THERE IS NO CONFLICT OF LAW INVOLVED.

THE CITY MUST COMPLY SECTION 5 8 5 15.

PLEASE DO NOT.

TWO HOUSEKEEPING MEASURES.

I ALSO WANT TO SEE IF MR. JANE HOLMAN IS PRESENT ON THE TELECONFERENCE, MS. JANE HOLMAN.

OKAY, WE'RE GONNA PROCEED WITH THE APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL CHAIR MEMBERS.

COMMISSIONER RICHARD SU ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

UM, I SPOKE EARLIER ABOUT THE, THE SITE PLAN BEING PURELY ADMINISTRATIVE.

THAT WAS INCORRECT.

I SPOKE WITH FOLKS IN MY OFFICE FAR, FAR SMARTER THAN ME.

IT'S A HILL COUNTRY SITE PLAN.

YOU WILL GET TO SEE THE SITE PLAN WHEN IT COMES BACK IN ITS NORMAL COURSE.

SO I WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR.

AND THEN TWO, I WANTED TO THANK THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP AND ALL THE FOLKS THAT CAME OUT TONIGHT.

'CAUSE THAT WAS A VERY PROFESSIONAL AND COURT COURTEOUS PRESENTATION FOR THE MOST PART.

FACTUAL.

I DON'T THINK THERE WAS, THERE WERE SOME THINGS THAT WERE SAID THAT WEREN'T SO, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY MALICE INVOLVED.

IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED PROCESS.

BUT I WANTED TO THANK THEM AND I WISH WE HAD MORE DISCOURSE LIKE THIS IN OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING OF YOU TONIGHT.

ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USE ON THIS, ON THIS PROPERTY, THE ONLY WAY IT'S ALLOWED IS IF IT'S DONE WITH AFFORDABILITY AND LOCK.

BUT WE'RE ASKING FOR THE RESIDENTIAL USE TO BE ADDED AND WE'RE ASKING FOR THE SAME FLORIDA AREA RATIO THAT OUR ZONING CATEGORY ALLOWS THE ONE-TO-ONE.

AND AS A CONDITION OF OF THIS ASK, WE ARE PROVIDING DEEP AFFORDABILITY IN THE FORM OF 107 UNITS AT OR BELOW 50% MFI 69 UNITS AT OR BELOW 60% MFI 44 UNITS AT OR BELOW 80% MFI AND AN ADDITIONAL 218 MARKET RENT, UH, APARTMENTS.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, IN ADDITION TO THESE CONDITIONS, WE ARE WILLING TO ABIDE BY ALL SEVEN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH INCLUDE LIMITING THE IMPERVIOUS COVER TO 55% COMPLYING WITH CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL CODE INCLUDING SOS EXCEPT FOR THE IMPERVIOUS COVER DEVELOPMENT, ACHIEVING A ONE STAR AUSTIN ENERGY GREEN BUILDING A MINIMUM OF FOUR EV CHARGING SPACES, WHICH I'M GONNA REFERENCE AGAIN IN A MOMENT.

INVASIVE SPECIES WILL BE MANAGED TO RESULT IN LESS THAN

[02:00:01]

5% COVER OF ANY PARTICULAR SPECIES WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR AREAS.

DEVELOPMENT WILL COMPLY WITH THE AUSTIN GREEN BUILDING.

ST SEVEN LIGHT POLLUTION REDUCTION CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT WILL COMPLY WITH THE AUSTIN ENERGY GREEN BUILDING, S-T-E-L-S FIVE BIRD COLLISION DETERRENCE.

SO WE'RE DOING ALL SEVEN OF THOSE.

UH, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION HEARD HAD A HEARING AND WE'RE WILLING TO COMPLY WITH ALL FIVE OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS.

THEY INCLUDE IN INCREASING THE EV STATIONS FROM FOUR TO EIGHT REQUESTING THE, UH, CITY OF AUSTIN PROVIDE A PR TRANSIT STOP WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF THE ENTRANCE.

WE'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT ALSO DOING THE RIDE SHARE PROGRAM WITH CAP METRO.

THEY ASKED, I DON'T REMEMBER THIS AS PART OF IT, BUT IT'S IN THE, IN THE MINUTES THAT THEY WANT THE PARKLAND ON SITE.

WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO DO PARKLAND ON SITE.

WE'LL FOLLOW UP WITH THE ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED.

WE'LL FOCUS ON PLATING, PLANTING NATIVE PLANTS THAT SUPPORT NATIVE POLLINATORS.

WE'LL WORK WITH THE LOCAL GROUP TO HARVEST NATIVE SEEDS AND PLANTS PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT.

RESTRICT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO SUNSET VALLEY.

WE CANNOT REDUCE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIKE THEY ASKED US TO, AND WE'LL DO THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCK.

SO TONIGHT WE ASK THAT YOU DELIBERATE ON THIS.

WE'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND HOPE WE CAN SEND THIS ON TO THE NEXT STEP OF A LENGTHY PROCESS TO TRY TO ACHIEVE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT.

THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU TO ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS.

IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? VICE CHAIR SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

ALL IN FAVOR? OKAY.

WE'RE UNANIMOUS ON THAT.

UM, LET'S GO TO OUR FIRST COMMISSIONER WITH A QUESTION.

VICE CHAIR.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK MY QUESTIONS.

UM, THIS IS A QUESTION I THINK LIKELY FOR OUR, UM, WATERSHED STAFF AND I REALLY APPRECIATE, UM, OUR STAFF BEING AVAILABLE TODAY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

UM, THE BACKUP ESSENTIALLY MENTIONS THAT, UH, IN EXCHANGE FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS, THE PROJECT WILL PROVIDE WATER QUALITY CONTROLS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS INITIATIVE.

CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THOSE ARE AND EXPLAIN THOSE TO US? UM, YES, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.

THIS IS LIZ JOHNSTONE WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT.

I'M THE DEPUTY ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER.

UM, SO THE SAVER SPRINGS ORDINANCE, UM, DOES REQUIRE NONDEGRADATION POLLUTION REMOVAL, UM, FOR WATER QUALITY TREATMENT STANDARD.

AND SO THEY ARE, UM, PROPOSING TO MEET THAT STANDARD.

IT'S THE HIGHER STANDARD WATER QUALITY TREATMENT STANDARD THAT WE HAVE, UM, IN THE CITY.

MS. JOHNSON, I'M SO SORRY.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE IN EFFECT? OKAY, SO BASICALLY ALL OF THE WATER DRAINING FROM DEVELOPED SURFACES, SO NOT JUST IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THE BARN SPRING ZONE, ANY AREA THAT HAS BEEN, UM, DEVELOPED, UM, NEEDS TO BE CAPTURED.

AND THEN, UM, THE, UH, THE FORM OF WATER QUALITY TREATMENT IS IN THIS AREA IS, UH, CALLED RETENTION RE IRRIGATION.

SO ALL THE STORM WATER THAT'S DIRTY GETS CAPTURED AND THEN REIR IRRIGATED, UH, UM, BY SURFACE LAND APPLICATION SO THAT IT, UH, THE WATER INFILTRATES INTO THE GROUND, IT DOESN'T RUN OFF.

I I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

UM, IS, DOES THAT ALSO ADD AS A FLOOD CONTROL OR ARE THERE SEPARATE LOCALIZED FLOOD CONTROLS AS WELL? YEAH, SO THE DETENTION REQUIREMENT IS SEPARATE FROM THE WATER QUALITY TREATMENT STANDARD.

AND SO, UM, THAT STANDARD IS A NO ADVERSE IMPACT.

UM, IT'S A DETENTION POND THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE AND ENGINEERING TO DETERMINE TO, UH, DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE WILL BE NO ADVERSE FLOODING IMPACT ON UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM NEIGHBORS.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

THERE WAS ALSO A QUESTION THAT CAME UP AND, UM, OFF THE, I'M SORRY, THE CANYON SPRING.

WAS PART OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT STAFF HAS ASSESSED? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT GETS HANDLED AT SITE PLAN? LIKE HOW WOULD SOMETHING LIKE THAT BE HANDLED? RIGHT.

SO CANYON SPRING IS IDENTIFIED ON THE USGS MAP.

IT'S EVEN ON OUR PROPERTY PROFILE VIEWER.

IT HAS BEEN LOOKED AT, UM, MORE THAN ONCE.

SO ONCE IN 2014 AND ANOTHER TIME HERE IN JANUARY, BOTH HYDROGEOLOGY STAFF INVESTIGATED THAT AND OTHER KIND OF, UH, DEPRESSIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY QUALIFIED AS A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE.

THERE IS NO FLOW AT CANYON SPRING.

UM, THERE WASN'T 10 YEARS AGO EITHER.

UM, SO THAT SPRING IS NO LONGER CONSIDERED A A, A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE.

THERE HAS TO BE FLOW AT THE SPRING IN ORDER FOR IT TO QUALIFY.

SO IT IS NOT A CEF.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S ASSESSED WHEN, AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN OR IT IT IS, UM, ASSESSED AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN? UM, UH, WE WOULD'VE ASKED FOR AN ERI WITH THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT AS WELL, UM, JUST TO VERIFY THAT.

SO WE WOULD'VE LOOKED AT IT AT EITHER TIME, BUT IT

[02:05:01]

I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND IF IT DOES, IT IS FOUNDED, IT MIGHT BE GETTING MY TERMINOLOGY WRONG, BUT IF IT'S FOUND TO HAVE FLOW AND, UM, BE A CRITICAL WATER QUALITY FEATURE, WHAT ARE, WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE DEVELOPER REQUIRED TO DO? SO A A SPRING CEF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE HAS A STANDARD 150 FOOT BUFFER.

UM, AND THEN STAFF ARE ABLE TO MODIFY THE BUFFER DOWN TO 50 FEET IF, UM, IF THE FEATURES OF THE, UM, IF, IF THEY DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD NOT HARM THE FEATURE.

SO, UM, IT WOULD BE BETWEEN SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 50 AND 150 FEET, UH, BUFFER OR SURROUNDING THAT SPRING.

I, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

AND, AND JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING IF IT IS FOUND INDEED THAT IT MEETS THAT STANDARD, THE DEVELOPER VIEW REQUIRED TO MEET THOSE CRITERIA AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN.

OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER WHITE.

UM, CAN YOU ALSO, UH, TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE, IT SAYS REMOVE THE INVASIVE SPECIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN INVASIVE INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT ITEM TO ME AS WELL? RIGHT.

SO IF THERE INVASIVE SPECIES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY, UM, BERMUDA GRASS IS ONE THAT WE KNOW IS THERE, UM, THEY WOULD REMOVE IT, UM, USING AN, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, LEASED AND, UH, NEGATIVE, UH, USING AN IPM PLAN BASICALLY.

SO THE LEASE, UM, HARMFUL METHOD FIRST TO REMOVE IT AND THEN HAVE A MANAGEMENT PLAN SUCH THAT, UM, IT IS CONTINUALLY ADDRESSED SO THAT IT DOESN'T INVADE KIND OF THE MORE NATURAL AREAS ON THE SITE.

AND I'M PROBABLY GONNA RUN OUT OF TIME, BUT I'LL MAKE THIS QUICK.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE REQUIRE OF MOST DEVELOPMENTS OR IS THAT SPECIFIC? THAT IS, UM, NOT SOMETHING WE TYPICALLY REQUIRE THAT WOULD BE A, A ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT CURRENT CODE REQUIRES.

AND IT'S BEING ASKED BECAUSE THE RESTRICTED GOVERNANCE CHANGE AT THIS TIME.

UM, I HAVE LOTS OF QUESTIONS, SO APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE IF I CUT ANYONE OFF, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. HARDIN FIRST.

UM, WHICH IS, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROCESS AND WHEN THAT WOULD BE TRIGGERED AND WHAT WOULD TRIGGER IT? WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE HERE FROM TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC WORKS TO SPEAK TO THAT.

UM, THEY'RE DEVELOPED.

UM, THEY WILL HAVE TO, UM, WELL THEY MAY BE REQUIRED TO GET THE TIA I'M JUST NOT SURE OF THAT.

UM, AND THAT WOULD BE DONE AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH, WITH WHATEVER THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OR WHATEVER, UM, ANALYSIS THAT THEY HAVE TO DO FOR TRAFFIC.

AND I JUST WANNA CONFIRM THAT THE, AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN, THE TRIGGERING MECHANISM WOULD BE THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING AT THE TIME OF SAFETY? YEAH.

THE DEVELOPMENT, YES.

IS THAT CORRECT? UHHUH.

AND THEN, THANK YOU.

I ALSO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR MS. JOHNSTON.

AND IF, IF THE, I HEARD SEVERAL CONCERNS ABOUT THERE BEING MULTIPLE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ON THIS SITE IS CANYON SPRING, WHICH YOU JUST KIND OF HELPS EXPLAIN TO US THE, THE ONLY ONE THAT WATERSHED IS AWARE COULD HAVE BEEN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE.

UM, SO THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE AND INVENTORY IDENTIFIED, UM, A COUPLE OF DEPRESSIONS, I THINK MAYBE THREE DEPRESSIONS, UM, KIND OF LOW SPOTS THAT COULD HAVE POTENTIALLY BEEN A POINT RECHARGE FEATURE.

THEY WERE INVESTIGATED AGAIN, BOTH BY BOTH HYDROGEOLOGISTS WITHIN THE LAST 10 YEARS.

UM, BOTH HAVE FOUND THE SAME THING THAT THEY ARE NOT, UM, SINKHOLES OR ANY OTHER KIND OF POINT RECHARGE FEATURE.

AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, WOULD WE BE GRANTING ANY ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCES AS A PART OF THIS REQUEST? NO VARIANCES.

SO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT DOES ALLOW THEM TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF PREVIOUS AGREEMENT THAT WAS, UM, AGREED TO PRIOR TO THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS INITIATIVE.

THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS INITIATIVE, THEY WERE CORRECT, DOES NOT ALLOW VARIANCES IF, IF THEY WERE SUBJECT TO SOS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT OR MEETS OS.

SO THIS IS NOT THE ONLY RESTRICTED COVENANT AMENDMENT IN THE OAK HILL AREA.

THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF, UM, THOSE THAT HAVE COME THROUGH RESTRICTED COVENANT AMENDMENTS.

UM, AND WE, THIS IS SIMILAR TO THOSE SIMILAR AMOUNTS OF, UM, IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT ALLOWED AND, UM, WATER QUALITY TREATMENT PER SOS UM, SO IT IS NOT TECHNICALLY, TECHNICALLY OF VARIANCE, BUT IT IS, UM, ALTERNATIVE OR DIFFERENT, UH, UH, STANDARDS THAN IS CURRENT CODE.

WE'VE BEEN, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE ARBORISTS.

UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPER IF THEY'RE AVAILABLE.

UM, CAN YOU SPEAK TO ANY PLANS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE TO REMOVE HERITAGE TREES ON THIS SITE OR FOR THE APPLICANT?

[02:10:01]

THERE ARE SOME TREES THAT ARE DEAD OR DISEASED THAT MAY QUALIFY AS A HERITAGE TREE.

THE ARBORIST WILL ANALYZE THOSE AND, AND, AND THEY'LL BE ABLE TO BE TAKEN OUT IF THEY ARE DEAD OR DISEASED.

THERE'S ALSO SOME EVIDENCE OF ELK OAK WILT IN THE AREA AND AN EFFORT WILL BE MADE IN THE TREE MITIGATION PLAN TO STOP THE SPREAD OF THE OAK WILL.

AND THEN WHAT ABOUT HEALTHY HERITAGE TREES? I WOULD SAY THEY WILL BE PRESERVED.

THEY WOULD ALL BE PRESERVED.

AND, AND, AND ANOTHER QUESTION, MR. SO THAT MAYBE YOU CAN ANSWER FOR ME IS, UM, HOW ARE THE RENT RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT ARE ALLOWING FOR THIS TO BE DEVELOPED UNDER AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED REGULATED TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE IN FACT AFFORDABLE AND WOULD REMAIN AFFORDABLE? YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S DONE THROUGH A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND AN AGREEMENT WITH THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT AND, AND THEY, THE CITY ACTUALLY STEPS IN AND MONITORS THOSE.

AND MAYBE FOR THE DEVELOPER, ARE THERE OTHER, UH, WAYS THAT THOSE UNITS ARE REGULATED BASED ON THE FINANCING SOURCES THAT YOU'RE USING? I HAVE ONE MINUTE LEFT.

I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS.

UM, SO YES, WE WILL HAVE, UH, ALL LURA THAT WILL MANAGE, UM, WHAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO CHARGE ON THOSE UNITS.

AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, IT MANAGES EXTRA FEES THAT WE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO CHARGE ON THOSE UNITS, WHICH IS NOT TYPICALLY THE CASE FOR ALL OF THOSE AFFORDABLE UNITS.

UM, AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, UM, WE HAVE RESPONSIBILITY WITH OUR LOAN FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE UNITS ARE AT THOSE PRICES.

FOR WHAT AMOUNT OF TIME? UH, I BELIEVE OUR RESTRICTION IS, UM, 40 YEARS, BUT I'M, THE ONLY REASON I'M SECOND GUESSING THAT IS BECAUSE OUR PARTNER, TRAVIS COUNTY, IS REQUIRED POTENTIALLY UP TO 99 YEARS.

FINALLY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE GENTLEMAN WHO'S A STEWARD OF THE SITE THAT'S NORTHWEST OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

I'M SORRY, I CAN'T REMEMBER YOUR NAME.

CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT CATS WERE SHOWN ON THE GAME CAMERA THAT ARE ON THIS SITE? I SAW SOME MAYBE SMALL CATS, SO I HAVE TO COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE TO ANSWER.

SOMEONE MAYBE CAN PICK UP MY YEAH.

MY QUESTION FROM THERE.

OH, YEAH.

UH, YOU CAN, YOU CAN ANSWER QUESTION.

SO THE, THE CAT ON THE, IN THE PICTURES WERE BOBCATS ARE, UH, BOBCAT LINKS AND THOSE ARE HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THIS DEVELOPMENT? YEAH, THAT, THAT PICTURE WAS LIKE FIVE DAYS AGO.

OR THE, A SET OF THREE PHOTOS AND WELL ON.

NEXT YOU CAN.

SO COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ AND IS DONATING HER TIME, IS THAT ALL Y'ALL HAVE FOR ME OR, OKAY.

SHE'S GOOD.

UM, OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, COMMISSIONER AL, THANK YOU.

UM, WE JUST RECEIVED A LATE MATERIAL ON THE PLUM AND THE CAP METRO MAP.

I WAS WONDERING IF SOMEBODY COULD, UM, HELP US ORIENT AND WHERE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ON THOSE MAPS WE RECEIVED.

I'M NOT BURNING MY TIME IN THE SILENCE.

I GOT LOTS OF QUESTIONS.

ALSO, COMMISSIONER ME TELLER, IF YOU LOOK AT TRAVIS COOK ROAD ON THAT MAP, IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT EAST OF THAT.

SO ESSENTIALLY SOUTH, SOUTH OF SOUTHWEST PARKWAY.

BUT IT IS INCLU IT IS INCLUDED IN THE PICKUP ZONE.

JUST FOR EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM, YOU CAN TAKE PICKUP.

IT'S A DOLLAR 25, 7 TO SEVEN WEEKDAYS WHERE THAT'S ON THE CAP METRO MAP AND THEN ON THE PLUMB, SORRY, UH, WHICH SITE IS IT ON THE PLUM OR WHICH SITE IS ON THE YEAH, ON THE, UH, THE PLUMB MAP AS WELL THAT WE RECEIVED.

IT'S THE PINK.

IT'S PINK.

IT'S ON SOUTHWEST PARKWAY.

SOUTH OF SOUTHWEST PARKWAY, BUT THE YEP, I SEE IT NOW.

THANK CATME.

THANK VERY MUCH THE OAK HILL PICKUP, THIS AREA.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UM, I HAVE A, I A QUESTION FOR MR. SUBTLE.

UM, YOU REFERENC, THIS WENT THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, UH, RECENTLY AND WE ALSO RECEIVED THEIR REPORT THIS EVENING AND YOU SAID YOU GUYS WERE HAPPY TO COMPLY WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS.

I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT CORRECTLY.

ALL BUT TWO OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, UM, CONDITIONS, ONE OF THEM, I DON'T REMEMBER THEM SAYING PARKLAND ON SITE, BUT WE CAN'T DO PARKLAND ON SITE.

AND THE OTHER WAS THEY ASKED US TO REDUCE IMPERVIOUS COVER FROM 55% TO 50% AND

[02:15:01]

WE CAN'T DO THAT EITHER.

BUT, BUT THE OTHER SEVEN WE CAN.

AND SO, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO POSTPONE THIS OBVIOUSLY IS THE FINANCING AND EVERYTHING AND THAT THIS PROJECT IS GOING WITH, UM, THE HOUSING.

SO I GUESS I'D LIKE TO KNOW EITHER FROM YOU OR, OR, OR THE, THE, UH, APPLICANT IF THEY'RE THERE THEMSELVES THIS EVENING.

SORRY.

UM, THEN WOULD IT BE REASONABLE TO TIE THIS TO THE DEVELOPMENT USING AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED AND TIE IT TO THIS PROJECT SINCE THAT'S THE REASON FOR OUR RUSH? HURRY? I THINK IT WOULD BE IF I WERE A PLANNING COMMISSIONER, THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT I WOULD DO.

, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UM, AND THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS.

UM, I'LL JUMP IN WITH A QUESTION.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE CAP METRO PICKUP FROM COMMISSIONER BAR RAMIREZ.

, WHAT, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR? WELL, I, THAT'S YOUR QUESTION.

THINK, UM, YOU HAD TO EXPLAIN ALL OF THAT IN LIKE TWO SECONDS.

BUT FOR THOSE WHO MAY NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS, WHAT, WHAT IS THAT? THE LOW COST, WHERE DOES IT GO? SURE.

HOW DOES IT WORK? SO IF YOU GO TO CAT METRO.ORG AND YOU LOOK FOR PICKUP, IT'LL SH THERE'S LOTS OF, THERE'S NINE DIFFERENT ZONES, I THINK.

AND ONE OF THEM IS OAK HILL AND IT PICK YOU, THIS PROPERTY IS INCLUDED IN THE ZONE, AND YOU CAN TAKE PICKUP SERVICES BY CALLING THE NUMBER, OR YOU CAN GET THE PICKUP APP AND IT'S JUST LIKE USING AN UBER.

IT COSTS A DOLLAR 25.

UM, AND IT'S A ONE FOR A ONE WAY RIDE AND YOU CAN GET IT FROM THIS AREA TO HEB TO NXP, TO A MD, TO ST.

ANDREW'S, TO AUSTIN AQUATICS AND SPORTS ACADEMY, SOUTHWEST TRAILS APARTMENTS, SEVERAL APARTMENTS IN THE AREA TO THE HOSPITAL, TO THE YMCA.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, LIKE I SAID, IT'S ONLY, IT'S ONLY AVAILABLE WEEKDAY SEVEN TO SEVEN, BUT I THINK THAT IS A USEFUL SERVICE.

THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

YES, SURE.

UM, AND THERE, COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS, HERE'S YOUR MASK.

WELL, UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF IF THEY CAN JOIN US, .

UM, MY QUESTION IS JUST I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEARLY ABOUT AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED AND, UH, OUR DISTRICT EIGHT GOALS REGARDING HOUSING .

UH, AND SPECIFICALLY I MAYBE IF YOU CAN GIVE US SOME CONTEXT OF HOW AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED PROJECTS GENERALLY WORK IN TERMS OF THESE, THE TYPES OF SORT OF, I DON'T WANNA SAY VARIANCES, BUT EXCEPTIONS THAT MAY BE MADE FOR THESE TYPES OF DEEPLY AFFORDABLE UNITS AND PROJECTS.

AND ALSO THAT WE HAVE SOME SPECIFIC GOALS FOR EACH DISTRICT RELATED TO AFFORDABILITY.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

UH, SO I'M IN PLANNING AND ALL THOSE ARE HOUSING QUESTIONS, SO I CAN'T REALLY ANSWER THOSE IN DETAIL.

UM, UH, SO FOUR 40 BUILDING UNLOCKED, YOU CAN DO THAT UNDER YOUR CURRENT ZONING IN ANY ZONING CLASSIFICATION.

SO IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAM, UM, AND IT IS, UM, ADMINISTERED BY A HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

AND SO IF I HAD, UM, SF THREE ZONING, I COULD BUILD MULTIFAMILY UNITS WITH A 45% IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE HEIGHT LIMITS.

SO ALL THAT IS DONE, BUT YOU HAVE TO MEET THE, UH, DEEP LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY.

UM, SO THAT'S A, UH, THAT'S, YEAH, SO THAT'S ADMINISTERED BY OUR HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

AND AS FAR AS IT RELATES TO OUR HOUSING GOALS, UM, AS YOU KNOW, THAT OUR, OUR, UH, COUNCIL DEVELOPED, UM, HOUSING GOALS AND THEY WANTED A PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN EACH COUNCIL DISTRICT.

AND WE, UM, UM, CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS GO THROUGH AND THEY MEASURE THOSE AFFORDABILITY UNITS.

NOW, OF COURSE, THOSE AFFORDABILITY UNITS ARE MAINLY THROUGH OUR V PROGRAMS AND OUR DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, NOT PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.

UM, BECAUSE, UM, THE CITY DOES NOT MONITOR THOSE.

AND SO WE KEEP UP WITH THE GOALS OF CITY AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WE TRY TO MEASURE THOSE GOALS IN THE LAST TIME WE MEASURE 'EM FOR DISTRICT EIGHT IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY FALLS WITHIN.

THEY WERE WAY LOW OF THEIR TARGETED GOALS.

AND THEN JUST TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE SEEN SOME OTHER AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED PROJECTS OR DISCUSSED THAT CERTAINLY FROM THE DIOCESE MM-HMM.

, WE SEE A NUMBER OF THESE PROJECTS GOING THROUGH, BUT IT IS QUITE UNUSUAL TO SEE THEM IN DISTRICT EIGHT MOSTLY BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE TRANSIT AND OTHER SITUATIONS.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

THAT IS TOTALLY CORRECT.

SO, SO THAT IT'S UNUSUAL TO HAVE THIS SORT OF OPPORTUNITY JUST BECAUSE OF THE WAY DISTRICT EIGHT IS SORT OF THE LAND USE IN THAT DISTRICT.

UM, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE SEEN NUM NUMEROUS AFFORDABILITY PROJECTS SIMILAR TO THIS SIZE.

IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT.

RECENTLY WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT SORT OF THAT HIGHER LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY AT 80 OR EVEN 110 AS WORKFORCE HOUSING IS SOMETIMES KNOWN.

AND THEN, UM, I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, UH, BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED THE LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY, AND I JUST WANTED TO HEAR THAT ONE MORE TIME BECAUSE I KNOW THAT PARTICULARLY

[02:20:01]

BUT YOU HAD NOTED THAT THE NUMBER OF THE AFFORDABLE UNITS WOULD ACTUALLY BE DEEPLY AFFORDABLE.

COULD YOU REMIND ME OF WHAT THOSE NUMBERS WOULD BE? SURE.

THE WAY THE SITE PLAN IS RIGHT NOW, IT'S 107 UNITS WOULD BE AT 50% MFI OR LESS.

WE HAVE 69 UNITS AT 60% MFI OR LESS AND 44 UNITS AT 80% MFI OR LESS, AND THEN 218 AT MARKET.

THAT'S WONDERFUL TO HEAR.

AND JUST TO, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, JUST SO PEOPLE HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT, DO YOU HAVE A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF WHAT SORT OF THE MOST AFFORDABLE UNITS IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IN SORT OF NUMBER-WISE IN TERMS OF THE, WHAT THAT WOULD COST OF THE, THE, OF THE RENT ? SORRY TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT QUESTION, BUT IT'S SOMEWHERE AROUND 1200 FOR, TO GET IT ON, ON THE RECORD.

IT'S, WE'RE, WE'RE THINKING AROUND $1,200.

AGAIN, THAT IS ALL.

YES, ABSOLUTELY.

THAT ALL MOVES AROUND.

AND, AND PER ALL OF OUR AFFORDABILITY PROJECTS, THIS WOULD HAVE A MIX OF UNITS, SO IT WOULDN'T JUST BE, SAY, STUDIOS OR SMALLER UNITS, IT WOULD BE FAMILY SIZED AND WHATNOT.

UM, I KNOW THE SCHOOLS ARE 70% OF THE AFFORDABLE SIDE ARE TWO BEDROOM OR BETTER.

THAT'S WONDERFUL BECAUSE THESE ARE EXCELLENT SCHOOLS AND A GIRLY GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD, IT SEEMS LIKE, BASED ON THE WONDERFUL PEOPLE HERE TONIGHT.

SO NICE TO GIVE THEM OTHER PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE THERE AS WELL.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

JUST AS A COMPARISON, THERE WAS MENTION OF ANOTHER APARTMENT COMPLEX AND WE CHECKED THE RENTS ON THAT TODAY, AND THEY'RE, THE CHEAPEST IS LIKE 1900 BUCKS AND IT GOES TO 3000 BUCKS.

I HAD ACTUALLY JUST NOTICED THAT'S AT THE ST.

JUNE, CORRECT? PARDON? THANK YOU.

THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS, CHAIR.

WE HAVE THREE MORE SPOTS FOR QUESTIONS.

WE OKAY.

BEFORE I LET ANYBODY GO AGAIN, JUST CHECKING TO MAKE SURE.

NO HANDS UP VICE CHAIR.

THANK YOU CHAIR, MS. JOHNSON.

I'M SORRY.

GONNA HAVE A FEW MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

UM, ONE WAS, YOU TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS ALREADY, A LITTLE BIT EARLIER.

YOU MENTIONED THIS, WE'VE HAD, WE'VE HAD OTHER RC AMENDMENTS SIMILAR IN THE AREA WITH SIMILAR IMPERVIOUS COVER RECORDS.

CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THESE EMPLOYEE COVER REQUIREMENTS AND, BUT, BUT Y'ALL, Y'ALL'S ASSESSMENT, IS THERE A SORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT HERE OR FLOODING THREAT? I KNOW YOU TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DETENTION REQUIREMENTS AS WELL, BUT CAN YOU WALK US A LITTLE BIT THROUGH THAT? RIGHT, SO THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF THESE RESTRICTED COVENANTS OUT HILL OUT IN THE OAK HILL AREA.

UM, WHEN THEY COME THROUGH AND ASK FOR ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS, IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR, UM, BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES.

UM, THIS IS THE SECOND, UM, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE.

UM, TYPICALLY THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE VARYING LEVELS OF, UM, DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT ARE APPLICABLE.

BUT, UM, THE, YOU KNOW, 55 50, 55 TO 60 IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE ASKED FOR, UM, IN THE PAST ON OTHER PROJECTS.

UM, WHAT WE TYPICALLY DO ASK FOR IS CURRENT CODE EXCEPT FOR THAT AND INCLUDING WATER QUALITY TREATMENT STANDARDS.

OF COURSE, THE, UH, THE DARK SKY LIGHTING AND BIRD STRIKE REDUCTION ARE VERY KIND OF, UH, IMPORTANT TOPICS AS WELL FOR, UH, BIODIVERSITY.

UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS, BUT WE ALSO LOOK AT MORE SITE SPECIFIC, UM, ISSUES AS WELL.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND WITHIN THAT, IS THERE ANY ASSESSMENT OF THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES ON A SITE? IS THAT, UM, SO ENDANGERED SPECIES IS A LITTLE TRICKY BECAUSE WE CAN'T ENFORCE THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

BUT AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW, UM, THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWER, IF IT'S AN, AN AREA THAT COULD HAVE ENDANGERED SPECIES, DOES REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO REACH OUT TO THE APPLICABLE, UH, REGULATING AUTHORITY, EITHER BAES CANYON LANDS FOLKS OR, UH, FISH AND WILDLIFE.

AND SO IT'S SITE PLAN, IF THERE'S KNOWLEDGE OF SPECIES ON SITE, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO, THEY LOOK AT A MAP AND SAY IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO BE THERE.

SO THIS IS DEFINITELY IN ONE OF THOSE AREAS.

AND WE DID LOOK IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWER HAS MADE THAT COMMENT.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

UM, I, I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

I THINK, UH, THIS MIGHT BE MS FOR MS. HARDEN, UM, AND MS. HARDEN, ACTUALLY, YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, UM, BECAUSE THIS MIGHT BE A TRANSPORTATION QUESTION, BUT IN THE BACKUP IT VERY CLEARLY SAYS, UM, RESTRICT ACCESS TO SUNSET RIDGE.

UP TO THE MICROPHONE SO FOLKS CAN HEAR YOU SAY? YES.

, THAT OF COURSE MEANS VEHICULAR ACCESS.

DOES THAT INCLUDE EMERGENCY VEHICLES AS WELL, OR WOULD, OR IS THAT, I DON'T KNOW.

I THOUGHT THEY WERE RESTRICTED, BUT I'M NOT SURE.

I HAVE TO FOLLOW UP WITH YOU.

DO YOU KNOW THEY ARE RESTRICTED? EV EVERYBODY FEEL FREE TO COME

[02:25:01]

UM, ZONING STAFF IS SAYING EMERGENCY VEHICLES ARE PROHIBITED.

OH, THEY'RE, OH, THEY'RE NOT PROHIBIT.

OH, THEY ARE NOT PROHIBITED.

EXCUSE ME.

OKAY, GOT IT.

SO ALREADY WE WOULD ALLOW EEM.

UHHUH EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS WOULD BE ALLOWED.

UHHUH .

GOT IT.

THANK I, I APPRECIATE IT FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

UHHUH, , UM, AND THEN I THANK YOU MS. HARDEN.

I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

UM, SO FROM THE APPLICANT'S SIDE, MR. SETTLE, AS YOU'RE WALKING UP, I SORT STATE MY QUESTIONS IS, IS THERE A CONSIDERATION FOR LOOKING AT NATIVE PLANTS OR NATIVE POLLINATORS OR HARVESTING LOCAL SEEDS OR SORT OF THAT ANY VEGETATIVE, I GUESS? UM, YES.

THINGS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SPECIFICALLY, SO THAT IS PART OF THE, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF THAT'S, THAT'S PART OF THE, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION.

AND WE AGREE TO THAT.

I I APPRECIATE THAT.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.

SO YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT, AND THEN Y'ALL WOULD BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE, OR Y'ALL OR HOW MANY EV CHARGING STATIONS IS YOUR CLIENT LOOKING TO PROVIDE ON SITE? SO WE HAD ORIGINALLY TALKED ABOUT DOING AT LEAST FOUR.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF OR ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION IS ASKED TO GO FOUR TO EIGHT, AND WE'RE IN AGREEMENT TO THAT.

YOU'RE IN, YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT TO THAT.

AND WHILE I HAVE 40 SECONDS, LET ME MAKE SURE I HAVE THIS DOWN.

SO WE COVERED THE EV STATIONS, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE PUBLIC TRANSIT ACCESS, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE, YOU CANNOT PROVIDE THE PARKLAND ON, ON SITE AND YOU CANNOT REDUCE THE IMPIOUS COVER, BUT YOU'RE SAYING TO THE OTHER ITEMS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION REQUIREMENTS, YOU'RE WILLING TO MEET THOSE? YES.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU MR. SUTTON.

ALL RIGHT, MR. HAYS, UH, FOR WATER QUALITY, I KNOW WE TREAT GENERALLY AND, AND I'M, I'M THE NEW GUY.

SO GENERALLY WE TREAT, UH, RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.

CAN YOU GIVE THE 32ND, THE 64,000 FOOT, WHY DO WE DO THAT? AND THEN IN THIS INSTANCE, IF WE'RE GONNA ALLOW RESIDENTIAL TO GO UP TO 55, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, NOW IT'S A COMMERCIAL, UM, WHAT WOULD THE, WHAT WOULD THE IMPACT OF THAT BE? IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, WHY ARE THERE DIFFERENT IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS BASED ON THE USE? YES.

RIGHT.

SO COM THAT'S, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WANNA SAY.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

UM, SO TYPICALLY, UM, RESIDENTIAL, UM, MULTIFAMILY, UM, TYPICALLY HAVE LOWER IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS, RIGHT? UM, IN OTHER WATERSHEDS IN THIS WATERSHED, UM, IT'S BETWEEN BARTON AND WILLIAMSON.

IT'S ON THE DRAINAGE DIVIDE.

SO IT WOULD BE BETWEEN 25 OR 20, NO MATTER WHAT THE USE IS, UM, FOR SAVE OUR SPRING.

SO IN OTHER WATERSHEDS, THERE ARE DIFFERENCES, AND I THINK IT'S, UM, MOSTLY RELATED TO, UH, HAVING MORE OPEN SPACE FOR RESIDENTS, UM, THAT ARE THERE SO THEY CAN ENJOY IT AND HAVE TREES AND WHATNOT, AND YEAH.

SO THEY GET TO GO HIGHER BECAUSE THEY'RE A GRANDFATHERED IN.

BUT DOES THE NO DEGRADATION CLAW, DOES THAT CATCH THAT THEN IN THAT, I MEAN, I, I WOULD NOT.

IT, IT DOESN'T, YES.

WELL, OKAY.

SO THERE IS ROOM ON THE SITE BETWEEN BOTH TWO HA THERE'S ENOUGH LAND FOR THEM TO DO THE RETENTION, RE IRRIGATION, UM, WATER QUALITY POND.

SO, UM, OFTEN IT TAKES UP A LOT OF SPACE.

AND SO WHEN YOU HAVE HIGHER IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM TO FIT EVERYTHING.

BUT THEY DO HAVE THAT HERE, SO THEY ARE ABLE TO CAPTURE IT ALL AND, AND TREAT IT TO THE SOS STANDARD.

THANKS.

UM, AND THEN FOR THE APPLICANT, WHEN IT, WHEN IT COMES TO THE PARKLAND, I, I KNOW WE'VE, WE'VE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS AND, AND, UH, THAT YOU, THAT YOU CAN'T DO IT ON SITE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT.

HAVE YOU, HAVE Y'ALL TALKED, HAVE YOU DISCUSSED A FEE IN LIE? WE HAVE, WE'VE COME TO AN AGREEMENT, I BELIEVE, WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT ON HOW THAT WILL, HOW THAT WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF.

OH, WELL THAT'S NEW INFO.

WHICH INCLUDES FEE AND LIE OR LAND, WHICH WE WILL COMPLY WITH.

DO TELL PLEASE.

WELL, PART OF THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, AND YOU'LL, YOU'LL GET TO SEE IT, PART OF THE SITE PLAN PROCESS IS YOU'VE GOT TO SHOW HOW MANY UNITS YOU'RE DOING, AND I THINK THEY GIVE YOU A BREAK ON YOUR AFFORDABLE UNITS AS TO THE FEES OR THE AMOUNT THAT YOU HAVE TO DEDICATE.

AND THEN FOR THE MARKET RATE, YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN PARKLAND ORDINANCE,

[02:30:01]

AND THE PARKS DEPARTMENT'S HAPPY.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

UM, LAST SPOT FOR A QUESTION? NO.

IS THERE A MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER MUELLER? YEAH, I WOULD, SORRY, I WAS JUST CURIOUS, UM, INITIALLY WHEN WE HEARD THERE WAS, UM, A HUD APPLICATION PENDING, BUT THEN WE ALSO HEARD THAT THERE'S, UM, STUFF COMING FROM CITY AND COUNTIES.

I WAS JUST CURIOUS A LITTLE BIT MORE HOW CITY AND COUNTY WERE WORKING ON THAT TO HELP SUPPORT THE AFFORDABILITY PIECE.

UM, SO THE COUNTY'S INVOLVED BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO BE ISSUING OUR, UH, TAX EXEMPT BONDS, WHICH ALLOW US TO GET THE LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS.

THEY'RE ALSO A PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT PARTNER, AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS PARTICIPATING WITH THEIR RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND A, UH, LOAN TO THE PROJECT, AND THEN HUD IS INVOLVED FOR THE SENIOR LOAN.

COMMISSIONER, VICE CHAIR.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE AT THE END OF OUR QUESTIONS.

QUESTIONS.

IS THERE A MOTION, VICE CHAIR, CHAIR? I WILL MOVE, UM, STAFF REQUEST AND I BELIEVE THERE'S AN AMENDMENT TO THAT AS WELL.

SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UM, IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE, AND I CAN SPEAK TO THAT IN A SECOND.

I SEE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.

GO AHEAD.

UM, THANK YOU CHAIR.

I, I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT, UM, UM, CASE BECAUSE WE'RE ABILITY TO MEET OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS AND IN ADDITION TO MEETING OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, HOUSING REQUIREMENTS IN A PART OF OUR CITY THAT DOES NOT, UM, ALWAYS HAVE THE SAME ABILITY TO CREATE AFFORDABLE OPPORTUNITIES BECAUSE OF VARIOUS SORT OF STRUCTURAL REASONS.

AND AS A CITY, WE HAVE UNDER THE FAIR HOUSING ACT AND UNDER GUIDANCE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WE HAVE A COMMITMENT TO AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING IN OUR COMMUNITY.

UM, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY, AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD THINK OF VERY CLEARLY.

UM, AND WHAT THAT MEANS AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IS REALLY THAT IT IS INCUMBENT, INCUMBENT UPON US TO REALLY ENSURE THAT AREAS OF OUR CITY THAT HAVE HISTORICALLY NOT SEEN SUCH KIND OF HOUSING OR HAD, UH, PLACES WHERE FOLKS WHO WOULD OTHERWISE LIVE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARE ABLE TO LIVE, IS REALLY CRITICAL.

SO THAT IS INCUMBENT UPON US TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING OUR FAIR HOUSING, UM, ABILITIES.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF WAYS TO DO IT.

ZONING HAPPENS TO BE ONE OF THEM, AND WE'RE HOPEFULLY LIVING UP TO THOSE COMMITMENTS TONIGHT.

IN ADDITION, I, I DO WANNA THANK ALL THE RESIDENTS AND FOR A LOT OF THE DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED, UM, I AM HAPPY AND THANKFUL HONESTLY FOR OUR, UM, WATERSHED STAFF BEING AVAILABLE TODAY TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS AROUND LOCALIZED FLOODING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.

UM, WHICH HAVING HONESTLY GOTTEN SOME OF THOSE ANSWERS, I FEEL MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE.

AND I, AND I KNOW THIS WILL BE AN AMENDMENT, BUT I, I, I ALSO APPRECIATE, UM, THE APPLICANTS STEPPING UP AND AGREEING TO, UM, SOME OF THOSE, UH, IDEAS AND COMMITMENTS THAT ARE COMING FROM OUR ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.

SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN ACTUALLY FURTHER AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT THAT MEETS OUR GOALS, THAT EXPANDS HOUSING, UM, AFFIRMATIVELY IN OUR CITY.

AND AT THE SAME TIME, WE'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE PROTECTIONS TO OUR ENVIRONMENT THAT ARE CRITICAL AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT.

THAT TRULY IS SOMETHING WE CAN BE PROUD OF AS A COMMUNITY.

CHAIR.

ANY COMMISSIONERS? SPEAKING AGAINST, I'D LIKE TO OFFER A SUBSTITUTE COMMISSIONER AL.

SORRY, COMMISSIONER MUELLER.

THAT'S OKAY.

UM, WE, HOWEVER YOU WANNA HANDLE IT.

CHAIR.

I WAS GOING TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO THE BASE MOTION.

TO RESTRICT VEHICULAR ACCESS, UH, TO SUNSET BRIDGE TO EMERGENCY VEHICLES ONLY.

BUT IF YOU WANNA TRY A SUBSTITUTE INSTEAD FIRST, I'M, I'M WILLING TO LET YOU GO FOR IT.

, SEE WHICH ONE OF US HAS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO CAPTURE.

WHY DON'T YOU GO, AND WE MAY HAVE THE SAME ONE, BUT, OKAY.

I, I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S A SUBSTITUTE.

I WAS GOING TO AMEND THE MOTION, UH, HOPEFULLY I'M GETTING THIS CORRECT.

UM, I'D LIKE TO GO WITH THAT AND THEN I'D LIKE TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDIT, UH, CONDITIONS THAT WERE FROM ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.

AND THAT WAS TO INCREASE THE EV CHARGING STATIONS FROM FOUR TO EIGHT.

THAT WAS TO, UM, HAVE THE STAFF FOLLOW UP AND REGARD TO THE ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES ON THE PROPERTY.

THAT WAS TO HAVE THE, UM, APPLICANT FOCUS ON PLANTING NATIVE PLANTS AND SUPPORTING NATIVE POLLINATORS.

UH, ALSO TO WORK WITH A LOCAL GROUP TO HARVEST THE NATIVE SEEDS AND PLANTS PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT

[02:35:02]

UH, AND TO MODIFY THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TO PERMIT, UM, THE, THESE, UH, RELAXED IMPERVIOUS COVERS ONLY FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PARTICIPATING IN AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THOSE? SURE.

UM, I, I THINK, UM, VICE CHAIR SPOKE TO, UM, A GOOD BIT OF THIS ALREADY.

I, I THINK MY ONLY POINT WOULD BE IT, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF PREP WORK THAT HAS GONE INTO THIS.

WE HAVE A LOT OF PARTNERS INVOLVED.

UM, AND SO THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT PROJECT.

I GUESS I WISH ONLY THAT WE, WE WILL CONTINUE TO IMPROVE OUR TRANSPARENCY, UM, SO THAT WE DON'T END UP WITH THE CONFUSION WE HAD EARLIER THIS EVENING.

AND THAT ANY ISSUES AROUND THESE THINGS CAN BE RESOLVED ON THE FRONT SIDE, UH, INSTEAD OF THE BACKSIDE.

BUT I, I, I, HOPEFULLY WE'RE MAKING SOME GOOD STEPS TOWARDS THAT IN THIS DISCUSSION TONIGHT.

SO THANK YOU EVERYONE WHO PARTICIPATED ON BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE COMMUNITY SIDE.

ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST, HOW, HOW EXACTLY WILL THOSE CHANGES OCCUR TO IMPROVE TRANSPARENCY? I'M SORRY, WE'RE IN THE, UM, MOTION PROCESS OF THE MEETING, UM, CHAIR GOING.

SORRY, I I JUST HAD A QUICK, UH, POINT OF CLARIFICATION, UH, FROM THE MOTION MAKER.

IF I WASN'T SURE WHICH OF THE THINGS THAT WERE LISTED, UH, WEREN'T AGREED TO BY THE APPLICANT.

'CAUSE I THOUGHT EVERYTHING THAT WAS LISTED WAS ALREADY AGREED TO.

I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.

IT'S JUST IT.

I DON'T WANNA, IS THIS THE ONE THAT WASN'T LISTED OR, UH, THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL HAD RECOMMENDED THAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER GO FROM 55% TO 50%, AND THE APPLICANT HAD ANSWERED MY QUESTION THAT THEY CAN'T MAKE THAT WORK.

I THINK CHAIR, UH, VICE CHAIR ASKED THAT AS WELL.

AND THEN I THINK THE OTHER ONE, OH, PARKLAND, THOSE WERE THE TWO, WE COULDN'T, IT DIDN'T SEEM WE WERE GONNA BE ABLE TO MAKE THOSE WORK TONIGHT.

THAT THAT WAS THE ONE.

WE'RE LOOKING FOR ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST, UM, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF TRANSPARENCY, SINCE THAT'S WHAT, UM, Y'ALL ARE SPEAKING TO, LAW WILL DETERMINE WHAT CAN BE INCLUDED AND WHAT CANNOT BE INCLUDED.

BUT I, I WILL STATE THAT BECAUSE WE CANNOT, THE CITY CANNOT REQUIRE AN APPLICANT PARTICIPATE IN AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED.

THEY RECOMMEND THAT THAT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT.

HOWEVER, BECAUSE THEIR ZONING DOESN'T ALLOW RESIDENTIAL, IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BILL RESIDENTIAL, THEY'D HAVE TO BUILD UNDER AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED.

I JUST WANNA SHARE THAT.

ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THIS? YES, GO AHEAD, CHAIR.

I WAS JUST GONNA SAY I WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONER AL FOR BRINGING THOSE ITEMS FORWARD AND FOR HONESTLY OUR, OUR ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FOR RECOMMENDING THOSE AS WELL.

I ALSO DO THANK THE APPLICANT FOR AGREEING TO THOSE.

I THINK THIS IS A GOOD HOST OF THINGS THAT ALLOW US TO MOVE FORWARD IN A WAY THAT REALLY RESPECTS AND HONORS SORT OF THE TRULY UNIQUE SITUATION OF THIS LOT AND THE WAY THAT IT FUNCTIONS WITHIN THE LARGER ECOSYSTEM.

SO LOOKING AT THOSE ENDANGERED SPECIES NATIVE PLANTS AND HARVESTING NATIVE SEEDS, I THINK OUR GREAT ABILITY TO MOVE FORWARD.

AT THE SAME TIME, I APPRECIATE, UM, THE ABILITY TO HAVE MORE EV CHARGING STATIONS ON SITE, AND I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF, UM, SORT OF INTEREST IN DOING THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO HOPEFULLY THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN REALLY ADVANCE THAT.

IN ADDITION, I DO WANNA THANK SOME OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FOR, UM, ADDRESSING SOME OF OUR THOUGHTS AROUND HAVING ACCESS TO TRANSIT AND LOOKING AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED AND OUR STAFF CLARIFYING OTHER THINGS AROUND, UM, RELATED TO ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND OTHER THINGS.

SO I DO APPRECIATE THESE AND I, AND I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT AGREEING TO THESE.

VERY COMFORTED TO HEAR THAT WATERSHED DEPARTMENT HAS INVESTIGATED THESE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, UM, THAT WERE RAISED BY THE COMMUNITY.

COMMISSIONER WOODS.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

UM, I'M SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION, AND I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERNS FOR THE SAFETY, WELLBEING, ACCESS TO TRANSIT AND GROCERIES OF FUTURE RESIDENTS OF THIS PROPOSED COMMUNITY.

AND IT'S CLEAR THAT THESE NEIGHBORS TAKE A LOT OF PRIDE IN THEIR HOMES AND TRAIL AND THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF THE AREA.

AND WHILE I WOULD CERTAINLY LOVE TO SEE SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND WALKABILITY OF THIS AREA, I DON'T THINK THAT MEANS THAT WE SHOULD PROHIBIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTS FROM HAVING THE OPTION TO LIVE AFFORDABLY NEAR THE AMENITIES, JOBS, AND THE NATURAL BEAUTY THAT THE CURRENT RESIDENTS ENJOY.

UM,

[02:40:01]

AND I APPRECIATE THE ADDITIONAL ITEMS COMMISSIONER MU IS BROUGHT FORWARD AND THAT WERE RECOMMENDED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.

AND I JUST WANNA NOTE THAT AFFORDABLE DEVELOPMENT OFTEN DOES OCCUR ON THESE LOTS THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON ARE CHALLENGING TO BUILD ON AND HAVE BEEN PASSED OVER BY MARKET RATE DEVELOPERS.

AND THIS IS WHY WE HAVE PROGRAMS LIKE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED IN PLACE TO KIND OF UNLOCK AFFORDABLE DEVELOPMENT WHERE IT MIGHT NOT OTHERWISE EXIST.

AND I THINK THAT THIS CASE IS REALLY A TESTAMENT TO THE IMPORTANCE AND SUCCESS OF THAT PROGRAM BECAUSE IT WILL ALLOW FOR 220 AFFORDABLE UNITS IN DISTRICT EIGHT WHERE THEY ARE VERY MUCH NEEDED.

SO I'M VERY EXCITED TO SUPPORT THIS OTHER COMMISSIONERS, I THINK WE JUST HAVE AGAINST SPOTS OTHERWISE, UM, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.

THIS IS THE, UM, AMENDMENT, UM, PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER MOHA, SECONDED BY MYSELF.

UM, THAT IS STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS AS COMMISSIONER SALLER READ, UM, AND THE ADDITION OF LIMITING THE, UH, RESIDENTIAL TO AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED.

UM, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, C MADAM CHAIR, COMMISSIONER HAYNES.

UM, I'M LATE TO GET THIS 'CAUSE I JUST, I'VE BEEN TRYING, I'VE BEEN MUDDLING IT AROUND, UM, TO THE AMENDMENT MAKER.

WILL, WOULD YOU ACCEPT SOMETHING THAT ALSO SAYS THE, THE APPLICANT TALKED ABOUT THE BE ON SITE PLAN, BUT TALKED ABOUT FEE IN LIEU OF FOR PARKLAND.

COULD WE ALSO, WOULD YOU TAKE AN AMENDMENT TO ADD, UH, PARKLAND CONSIDERA FEES FOR PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATION TO YOUR AMENDMENT? COMMISSIONER MOALA? I'M, I'M OPEN TO THAT.

I THINK IT'S REQUIRED IN THE PROJECT ANYWAY, BUT I'M , I'M, I'M OPEN TO THAT.

IF, IF YOU, IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, WE WERE PUTTING A LOT IN HERE THAT, THAT WAS REQUIRED THAT THEY WERE AGREEING TO, UH, AND DIDN'T MENTION THAT.

BUT IF YOU'RE, IF YOU THINK IT'S REQUIRED, THEN CAN I, CAN I, JUST FROM A PROCEDURAL PERSPECTIVE, AND MR. VERA, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BECAUSE WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT'S BEEN SECONDED, YOU CAN MAKE THAT AS AN AMENDMENT.

SO IT CANNOT, WE CANNOT AT THIS POINT MAKE A CHANGE TO THE BASE MOTION.

I CAN'T AMEND THE AMENDMENT.

NO, NO.

YOU CAN MAKE THE AMENDMENTS.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING.

YEAH, YEAH.

YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION AND THEN SOMEBODY WOULD SECOND IT.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY, UH, COMMISSIONER MOLER WOULD NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO AMEND HER BASE MOTION, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

I SEE.

I SEE.

BUT OTHERWISE, YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO, IF Y'ALL ARE, IF, IF I SAW A LOT OF FOLKS NODDING HEADS SAYING THAT.

DO YOU THINK THAT'S ALREADY, I'M ALL THANK YOU.

I THINK WE WERE, UH, ABOUT TO VOTE ON THIS MOTION.

SO ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR.

THANK YOU SO MUCH TO EVERYONE THAT SHOWED UP TODAY.

I REALLY APPRECIATE MOTION, BASE MOTION.

OH, WE HAVE TO STILL VOTE ON THE BASE MOTION, I THOUGHT.

YEAH, I'M SO SORRY.

THAT WAS THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.

WE STILL HAVE TO VOTE ON THE BASE MOTION, WHICH WAS, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION BY COMMISSIONER ZAS, SECONDED BY ME.

COMMISSIONER WOODS.

UM, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR.

3 4, 5 9 7 8, 9, THAT'S, UM, UNANIMOUS AS WELL.

REMEMBER 16 AND 17 WE'RE VOTED THROUGH ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

SO THANK YOU CHAIR.

QUICK POINT OF PRIVILEGE.

YES, Y'ALL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING OUT IN THE SIX YEARS.

I'VE SAT UP HERE AS CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND AS PLANNING COMMISSIONER, I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH A WELL ORCHESTRATED, ORGANIZED AND INTELLIGENT OPPOSITION.

AND I, I REALLY WISH WE COULD HAVE MORE PUBLIC DISCOURSE LIKE THIS.

AND I'M SORRY THAT IT DIDN'T GO YOUR WAY, BUT THANK Y'ALL SO, SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

IT WAS VERY IMPRESSIVE.

UM, CHAIR, IF I CAN ALSO THANK OUR STAFF, UM, OF COURSE, BIG CONGRATULATIONS TO MR. TOMKO AND I REALLY WANNA THANK MS. HARDEN AND HER TEAM FOR STEPPING UP AND FILLING THE GAPS.

AND, UH, WE APPRECIATE THEIR PROFESSIONALISM AND COMMITMENT TO ENSURING THAT WE CONTINUE OUR WORK EVEN AS WE FACE UNANTICIPATED THINGS.

ALL RIGHT, I'M PULLING UP MY AGENDA.

SO WE ARE THROUGH OUR DISCUSSION CASES TONIGHT.

UM, WE ARE GOING TO GO TO ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION.

THIS IS ITEM, UH, 19 IF YOU, SORRY, 18.

IF YOU

[18. Discussion pertaining to upcoming Land Development Code amendments meetings. (Sponsors Chair Hempel and Vice-Chair Azhar)]

[02:45:01]

UM, THIS IS REGARDING, UH, DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO THE UPCOMING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT MEETINGS.

UM, THIS IS A REGULAR STANDING ITEM UNTIL WE GET THROUGH THOSE MEETINGS.

AND I ONLY NOTE ON THIS, AND THEN I CAN OPEN IT UP FOR ANY OTHER COMMENTS, IS THAT THE MEETING AND, UM, BACKUP INFORMATION WILL BOTH BE POSTED ON THIS FRIDAY, MARCH 29TH, 2024.

SO IF YOU RECALL, THAT'S 48 HOURS MORE, UM, THAN WE WERE ORIGINALLY INDICATED.

WE WERE GOING TO GET THAT BACKUP MATERIAL.

AND WITH THE IMMENSE AMOUNT OF, UM, CODE AMENDMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERING THE, I WOULD ENCOURAGE US ALL TO USE THOSE TWO DAYS, UM, TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW THE MATERIALS.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THE UPCOMING MEETINGS? MADAM CHAIR, SINCE VICE CHAIR AZAR IS GONNA BE THE CHAIR OF OUR WORK GROUP.

HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT YET, BUT HE IS GOING TO BE, HAS HE GIVEN ANY THOUGHT TO SCHEDULING OUR FIRST MEETING? EXPECT AN EMAIL FROM ME TOMORROW TO GET A SCHEDULING REQUEST.

THANK, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

UM, IF NO OBJECTION, I'LL

[19. Discussion and possible action appointing additional members to working group tasked with providing recommendations regarding South Central Waterfront Overlay. (Sponsors: Chair Hempel and ViceChair Azhar]

MOVE ON TO NUMBER 19.

UM, THIS IS THE DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO WORKING GROUPS TASKS WITH PROVIDING RECOMMENDATION REGARDING SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT OVERLAY.

ANY DISCUSSION OR ADDITION OF, UM, YES, CHAIR.

I HAVE A, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS FOR MR. ARRA.

JUST TO CONFIRM.

THIS, UH, WORKING GROUP RIGHT NOW CONSISTS OF, UM, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

THIS CONSISTS OF, UH, CHAIR, HEMPEL, COMMISSIONER, HOWARD, SKIDMORE AND AL.

SO IS IT FOUR COMMISSIONERS, MAX AND MAXWELL AS WELL? CORRECT.

AND MAXWELL.

SO IT'S FIVE COMMISSIONERS.

UM, THANK YOU.

AND SINCE IT HAS THE CHAIR ON IT, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT WE STILL HAVE SPACE FOR ONE MORE.

COMMISSIONER ON HERE IF SOMEBODY'S INTERESTED.

SEEING NO DISCUSSION ON NUMBER 19, WE WILL MOVE ON

[20. Discussion and possible action appointing additional members to the Outreach and Procedure Working Group. (Sponsors Commissioners Phillips and Mushtaler)]

TO 20.

UM, THIS IS THE, UH, THE WORKING GROUP CHAIRED BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.

UM, AND I'M SCROLLING DOWN TO SEE HOW MANY MEMBERS WE HAVE SO FAR.

1, 2, 3, WE HAVE FOUR.

UM, SO THERE IS ROOM IF ANYONE WANTS TO JOIN THAT WORKING GROUP.

WHICH IS THE DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO THE BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 24, 25 RECOMMENDATIONS WORKING GROUP, UM, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED AT THE LAST MEETING THAT I MISSED.

SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON TO

[21. Discussion and possible action appointing additional members to the City of Austin Buildings Working Group. (Sponsors: Chair Hempel and Vice-Chair Azhar)]

ITEM 21.

THIS IS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN BUILDINGS WORKING GROUP.

UM, HOW MANY DO WE HAVE NOW? FIVE.

FIVE? YEAH, I THINK WE'RE AT FIVE ON THAT.

SO ONE SPOT I BELIEVE.

AND IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO NUMBER 22,

[22. Discussion and possible action appointing additional members to the Budget Fiscal Year 24 – 25 recommendations Working Group. (Sponsors: Vice-Chair Azhar and Commissioner Maxwell)]

I THINK.

SO WE HAVE, UH, TWO MEMBERS ON THAT WORKING GROUP NOW.

ANY OTHERS WANTING TO VOLUNTEER? SORRY, CHAIR.

JUST A NOTE.

I IS, I THINK, UM, COMMISSIONER WOODS IS SUPPOSED TO ALSO BE ON THAT.

IS THAT A DIFFERENT BODY? DID I, I I THOUGHT I SAID NO, IT'S, IT'S LISTED INCORRECTLY I THINK ON THE AGENDA.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS, OR IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY.

SO JUST SO TO BE NOTED THAT COMMISSIONER WOODS IS ACTUALLY ON THAT BODY.

I'M SEEING NUMBER 32 AND YEAH.

[BOARDS, COMMITTEES & WORKING GROUPS UPDATES]

TO THE BOARD'S COMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUP UPDATES, STARTING WITH NUMBER 23 CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE.

WE DID MEET LAST WEEK OR THIS WEEK, LAST WEEK.

UM, YOU WERE NOT THERE.

UM, AND THE ONLY ITEM WE DISCUSSED WAS THE, UH, IF YOU RECALL THE MUSIC, UM, DEFINITIONS, PHASE ONE THAT CAME THROUGH A MONTH OR TWO AGO.

UM, THIS IS THE PHASE TWO OF THAT, UM, COMBINING PLAN.

UM, SO A LOT OF GREAT WORK DONE BY THE BY STAFF.

UM, AND THEY'RE DOING SOME

[02:50:01]

ADDITIONAL OUTREACH ON THAT.

UM, ALONG WITH AN UPDATE TO OUR VERY BUSY, UH, SPRING AND GOING TO SUMMER CALENDAR OF CODE AMENDMENTS, UM, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.

I'LL TAKE IT.

SINCE COMMISSIONER COX HAS GONE, WE, UH, HAVE NOT MET SINCE THE, SINCE OUR LAST MEETING.

AND THEN OUR NEXT MEETING IS APRIL 10TH.

SO, UM, UH, WE ARE GOING TO BE HERE THE NINTH, 10TH, AND 11TH.

HMM.

LOOK FORWARD TO IT.

UM, I SHOULD MENTION ON CODES AND ORDINANCES, UM, BECAUSE OF THE ADDITIONAL MEETINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE HAVING IN APRIL REGARDING THE CODE AMENDMENTS, WE ARE CANCELING OUR APRIL 17TH MEETING AND WHO HAVING A SPECIAL CALLED CODES AND ORDINANCES MEETING ON APRIL 1ST.

UM, SO THAT'S IN AN EFFORT TO ACCOMMODATE ALL OF THESE OTHER MOVING PIECES.

UH, MOVING ON TO JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE, YES, WE WILL BE MEETING TOMORROW EVENING AND WE'LL BE HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION AROUND AN ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENT PLAN.

AND WE'LL HEAR, UM, SOME IDEAS FROM THE COMMUNITY AROUND WHAT SPECIFIC ITEMS AND FUNDING NEEDS THERE ARE FOR THAT PLAN.

THE SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE, THAT MEETING GOT POSTPONED AND WE'RE WAITING ON THE DATE FOR THAT IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS.

NO UPDATE AT THIS TIME.

SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD, UM, AS YOU ALL HAVE HEARD, THE, THIS PLAN IS MOVING FORWARD AT A RAPID PACE.

UM, WE HAVE A SPECIAL CALL MEETING ON MONDAY REGARDING FINAL, UM, APPROVAL OR SORT OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE ADVISORY BOARD REGARDING THE CURRENT PLAN.

UM, IT IS THEN COMING TO BOTH CODES, JOINT CODES AND ORDINANCES, I BELIEVE ON APRIL 1ST AS WELL.

UM, AND THEN COMING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHORTLY THEREAFTER.

I THINK APRIL, OUR APRIL 9TH MEETING.

UM, WE, IT'S A PRETTY COMPLEX PLAN AND THERE ARE SOME AREAS I THINK OF UM, REALLY GREAT IDEAS AND AREAS OF MAYBE POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENT.

SO HOPEFULLY, I THINK AFTER THE APRIL 1ST MEETING WE'LL HAVE SOME CLARITY ON NEXT STEPS AND, UM, HERE, LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING IT HERE AT PC.

THE CITY OF AUSTIN BUILDINGS WORKING GROUP, WE HAVE NOT YET MET, UM, OUTREACH AND PROCEDURES WORKING GROUP.

COMMISSIONER HAYNES.

I WAS LOOKING TO SEE IF COMMISSIONER AL WAS GONNA JUMP IN.

WE HAVE, UH, WE HAVE NOT HAD A, UH, NEXT STEP AND SO DON'T, DON'T HAVE AN UPDATE TODAY.

THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS WORKING GROUP, UM, CHAIR JUST MENTIONED.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND SEND, START SCHEDULING FOR THAT.

UM, AND AS WE HAVE THE ITEMS COME BEFORE US, WE'LL BE ABLE TO REVIEW THEM.

THANK YOU ALL.

THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT AMENDMENTS WORKING GROUP, UM, WE HAVE NOT MET, UM, BUT THAT IS A GOOD NOTE TO, UM, SCHEDULE, UH, SOME MEETINGS WITH OUR WORKING GROUP BEFORE THAT APRIL 9TH MEETING AND THE BUDGET WORKING GROUP.

UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS AND I HAVE OUR FIRST MEETING SCHEDULED FOR LATER THIS WEEK.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

AND SORRY, JUST TO ADD TO THAT, IF COMMISSIONERS HAVE THOUGHTS ABOUT THE 2024 BUDGET OR IDEAS THAT THEY'D LIKE US TO CONSIDER, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO EMAIL US BECAUSE WE ARE VERY OPEN TO THOSE SUGGESTIONS.

WITH A CLARIFICATION, THEY HAVE TO BE EMAILED ONLY TO MR. RIVERA AND HE WILL FORWARD THOSE.

UM, DO NOT EMAIL EACH OTHER.

A BRIEFING FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE, BUT WE CAN, I, WE CAN REQUEST THAT AGAIN AND I'D BE HAPPY TO CO-SPONSOR THAT.

UM, MOVING ON TO FUTURE AGENDA

[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]

ITEMS. CHAIR COHEN.

CHAIR COHEN.

UH, QUICK POINT OF INFORMATION, UH, FROM THE STAFF LIAISON.

AM I UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY THAT ON THE NEXT AGENDA THE COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE PART OF THE WORKING GROUPS WILL BE INCLUDED ON THE AGENDA TO MAKE 'EM A LITTLE EASIER TO FIND CHAIR? UH, COMMISSIONER LADIES ON ANDREW? SO, UM, WITH THE LAST PROTOCOL FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THEY ARE NOTED AS SPONSORS, BUT I WILL ALSO, UM, TO INCLUDE, UM, EX OFFICIALS AS WELL.

I'LL JUST INCLUDE A RED BOX WITH, UM, ALL THE MEMBERS.

GREAT, THANK YOU.

THAT'LL BE HELPFUL.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, UM, COMMISSIONER MUELLER AND THEN VICE-CHAIR ARE, UM, WE HAD SOME EMAILS GOING AROUND , IT'S JUST BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, UH, PC, THE EX OFFICIOS, THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE LAND USE COMMISSIONS, ET CETERA.

ARE ARE, DO WE NEED TO PUT SOMETHING ON FOR A BRIEFING REGARDING ALL OF THIS SO THAT THERE'S SOME CLARITY? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

I BELIEVE WE HAD REQUESTED

[02:55:01]

UM, SO IT WOULD BE A BRIEFING FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE, UM, REGARDING, UM, SOVEREIGNTY OF THE, THE, WOULD IT BE FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE OR LEGAL? I GUESS IT WOULD, IT COULD BE OR BOTH .

BOTH SEEMS LIKE WE NEED TO GET EVERYBODY ROWING IN THE SAME DIRECTION.

I AGREE.

OR AT LEAST INVITED TO ATTEND THE BRIEFING IF THEY'RE NOT PRESENTING.

UM, ANY OTHER AGENDA ITEMS? VICE CHAIR, CHAIR, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A NOTE.

THIS IS NOT A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM.

THIS IS FOR THE SOUTH CENTER WATERFRONT, UM, WORKING GROUP THAT'S WORKING ON THOSE AMENDMENTS.

THOSE AMENDMENTS ARE GOING BEFORE THE CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE, UM, ON THE FIRST, BUT THAT'S NEXT MONDAY.

UM, THE UPDATED CHANGES WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS WILL, I, I, I BELIEVE BE PUBLISHED BY THURSDAY MORNING.

UM, AND SO THIS SHOULD BECOME AVAILABLE AND THE CURRENT PLAN TIMELINE FOR THAT IS TO COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON APRIL 9TH.

SO, UM, I HAD ALREADY TOLD STAFF TO REACH OUT TO THE WORKING GROUP AS WELL AND I HOPE Y'ALL WILL UM, LOOK AT THAT AS WELL SINCE THAT TIMELINE SEEMS A LITTLE SHORTER THAN WE WOULD'VE EXPECTED.