[00:00:03]
CAN I GET ALL OF OUR VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS TO COME ONLINE?
[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]
OKAY.SO, UM, WHILE WE WAIT FOR OUR OTHERS TO COME ONLINE, I'M GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT 6:07 PM UM, FIRST WE'LL TAKE ROLL CALL.
SO I'M GOING TO CALL IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER, LIKE IN THE AGENDA.
CAN WE DOWN? CHECK? CAN'T HEAR YOU.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? NOT HERE YET.
CAN WE HEAR, UH, IF WE CAN HEAR YOU.
COMMISSIONER PER RAMIREZ YOU WANT? OKAY.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF OUR OFFICIOS HERE YET.
TONIGHT IS OUR USUAL HYBRID MEETING, ALLOWING FOR A VIRTUAL QUORUM AS LONG AS THE COMMISSIONER, SERVING AS CHAIR AS PRESIDENT CHAMBERS.
AS SUCH, WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS HERE IN CHAMBERS AND IN ATTENDANCE.
VIRTUALLY, SIMILARLY, SPEAKERS CAN PRESENT FROM THE CHAMBERS OR PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS.
PLEASE REMEMBER TO SEND YOUR SIGN IN SHEET TO OUR STAFF LIAISON PER THE CLERK'S GUIDELINES.
AND IF YOU ARE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, YOU WILL RECEIVE AN EMAIL PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION TAKING UP YOUR ITEM.
BOTH THE SPEAKER DONATING TIME AND THE SPEAKER RECIPIENT MUST BE PRESENT IN PERSON WHEN THE ITEM IS CONSIDERED.
SO, UH, WE, WE'LL HAVE ASSISTANCE TONIGHT FOR MR. RIVERA IN ANNOUNCING THE SPEAKERS DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR OUR VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS.
REMEMBER TO HAVE YOUR GREEN, RED, AND YELLOW ITEMS FOR VOTING AND PLEASE RE REMAIN MUTED WHEN YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING AND TO RAISE YOUR HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED.
IF I MISS YOU, PLEASE DO TRY AGAIN AND VERBALLY LET ME KNOW.
MR. RIVERA, DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
THE MINUTES.THE FIRST ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM MARCH 26TH, 2024.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY EDITS TO THOSE MINUTES? ALRIGHT, HEARING NONE, UM, THE MINUTES WILL BE ADDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA, UM, AS THEY ARE PRESENTLY.
[Consent Agenda]
OUR FIRST ACTIVITY TODAY IS TO VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.ITEMS THAT ARE CONSENT APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL, POSTPONEMENTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, OR NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS, COMMISSIONER CZAR WILL READ THE FIRST, THE PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA AND IDENTIFY THOSE THAT ARE CONSENT POSTPONEMENT AND NON-DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS.
YOU'LL ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST CONSENT ITEMS TO BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
I'LL GO TO OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, UM, AS THERE TO BE DISPOSED OFF TODAY.
ITEM NUMBER TWO, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 1 4 0 3 4 3 0 2 KNUCKLES CROSSING DISTRICT TWO.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MAY 28TH.
ITEM NUMBER THREE IS THE PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 20 20 20 23 DASH 0 0 1 8 0.0 6 67 25 SHIRLEY AVENUE.
UH, THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTWOMAN TO MAY 28TH.
I NUMBER FOUR IS ALSO A PLAN AMENDMENT AND DA DASH 2023 DASH 0 7 0 1 ANDERSON SQUARE, DISTRICT FOUR.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTWOMAN TO MAY 28TH.
I NUMBER FIVE IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 20 23 0 8 0 ANDERSON SQUARE, UH, DISTRICT FOUR.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MAY 28TH.
I NUMBER SIX IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 2 EAST SECOND STREET, 2300 BLOCK DISTRICT THREE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MAY 28TH.
I NUMBER SEVEN, PUT AMENDMENT.
UH, THIS IS C EIGHT 14 DASH 2014 DASH 0 0 8 3 0.01.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTWOMAN TO MAY 28TH.
[00:05:01]
A REZONING C EIGHT 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 5 7 200 EAST RIVERSIDE BUD, DISTRICT NINE.THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
UM, I, NUMBER NINE IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 2 0 2 1 0 6 AND 118 REDBIRD LANE DISTRICT THREE.
THE ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION I NUMBER 10 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 20 23 0 3 4, UH, 50, UH, 54 0 2 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE, DISTRICT E.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION AND ITEM NUMBER NINE AND 10 WILL BE HEARD IN TANDEM TONIGHT.
ITEM NUMBER 11 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 1 6 2 6, UH, TEN SIX OH ONE NORTH LAMAR BOULEVARD, DISTRICT FOUR.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO MAY 14TH I.
NUMBER 12 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 1 39 OAK CREEK, PHASE TWO, DISTRICT THREE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO MAY 28TH.
I NUMBER 30 IS A CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLAN, SPC DASH 2022 DASH 0 16 2 C DIRTY ART CENTER, REPLACEMENT DISTRICT NINE.
THE ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT I NUMBER 14 IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMPATIBILITY WAIVER.
SP DASH 2023 DASH 0 3 1 1 C, UH, 27 11 CESAR CHAVEZ, DISTRICT THREE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM NUMBER 15 IS ALSO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SP DASH 2023 DASH ZERO THREE C 27 30 CESAR CHAVEZ, DISTRICT THREE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM NUMBER 14 AND 15 WILL BE HEARD IN, UH, TANDEM TONIGHT.
THIS IS BETWEEN THE CITY OF BOSTON AND DELL VALLEY ISD ENTRY, LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DISTRICT TWO AND THREE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT, CITY OF FO AND UG ISD ENTRY LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, DISTRICTS ONE AND SEVEN.
I NUMBER 18 IS THE LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 3 SOUTH CENTER WATERFRONT COMBINING DISTRICT INTENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION AND THAT IS ALL OF OUR PUBLIC HEARING GUIDANCE CHAIR.
UM, AND I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT ITEM NUMBER 19, THE BRIEFING REGARDING THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT WILL BE POSTPONED UNTIL MAY 14TH.
IN CASE ANYBODY WAS WAITING FOR THAT, UM, I'D WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT.
COMMISSIONER HOWARD, CAN WE HEAR YOU AGAIN STILL? NO.
AND, UM, RECOGNIZING OUR EX OFFICIO CHAIR, COHEN.
ARE THERE, UM, ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT NEED TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? CHAIR? YES, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
I'LL BE ABSTAINING FROM ITEM SEVEN.
I WORK AT AUSTIN HABITAT FOR HUMANITY AND AUSTIN HABITAT FOR HUMANITY WILL BE BUILDING THERE.
SO I'LL RECUSE MYSELF FROM THAT ITEM.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? RECUSING OR ABSTAINING? OKAY.
UM, MR. RIVERA, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS IN REQUESTING ITEMS TO BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION? CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LADIES ON RIVERA, I KNOW YOU MAY, UH, PROCEED WITH THE DISPOSAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UH, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? OKAY.
WOULD WOULD NOW BE A TIME TO ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF ON ONE OF THE CONSENT ITEMS? UM, WHAT IS IT, UH, REGARDING COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS? UH, ITEM 1617 FOR DEL VALLEY, ISD VILLE, I ESTEEM, UM, PARLIAMENTARIAN, I WOULD ALLOW IT BASED ON THE NATURE OF THE QUESTION.
GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
YEAH, I GUESS IT'S JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
UM, IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME HOW LONG THE RENEWED, UH, ILAS WOULD BE IN EFFECT IF STAFF OR ANOTHER COMMISSIONER CAN JUST CLARIFY THAT.
WE HAVE STAFF HERE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.
KEITH MYS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
THE INTERLOCAL RE RESTARTS THE CLOCK ON THE 25 YEAR TERM FROM 1994 AND LY EXPIRED DURING COVID.
UH, ONCE IT CAME TO THE PARTY'S ATTENTION, THIS SIMPLY BRINGS THE INTERLOCAL BACK TO LIFE AND RESOURCE THE CLOCK.
SO THAT WOULD BE FOR ANOTHER 25 YEARS, UH, 20, 25 YEARS.
UM, I, I MAY WANT TO PULL THESE ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION.
I MEAN, THERE ARE PROVISIONS AND THESE AGREEMENTS THAT DON'T MATCH A LOT OF THE POLICY CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN THE LAST 30 YEARS.
UH, LIKE REQUIRING MULTIPLE PARKING SPACES PER TEACHER, UH, AND
[00:10:01]
PER STUDENT.AND, AND I THINK THESE COULD WARRANT DISCUSSION.
I UNDERSTAND THE TIME SENSITIVE NATURE, BUT THIS SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY BIG POLICY ITEM TO APPROVE FOR 25 YEARS IN THE FUTURE WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, DID YOU WANNA CLARIFY IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PULL 16 OR 17 OR BOTH? UH, BOTH.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? VICE CHAIR, CHAIR.
I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UH, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? 1, 2, 3.
UH, COMMISSIONER HAYES? OH, YES.
THIS CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS JUST WALKING ONTO THE DIOCESE.
RECOGNIZING COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS IS HERE.
LET'S MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST DISCUSSION CASE, WHICH IS GOING TO BE, UH, ITEMS NINE.
AND MADAM CHAIR, BEFORE WE GET THERE, A NOTE THAT WE HAVE, UH, LEMME PUT ON MY OLD MAIN GLASSES
UM, ITEMS 18 THROUGH 20 ARE ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE GONNA BE DOING OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS.
ARE WE GETTING A STAFF BRIEFING ON THESE TODAY? UH, NO.
I DIDN'T KNOW WHY THEY WERE ON THE AGENDA.
I THOUGHT MAYBE, UM, WE DO HAVE A PURPOSE ON NUMBER 18.
UM, THAT'S TO TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS MOVING FORWARD.
NUMBER 19 AND 20 ARE JUST STANDING ITEMS IN CASE ANYBODY WANTS TO JOIN THOSE WORKING GROUPS.
UH, CHAIR COMMISSION AND ANDREW RIVERA.
18 IS THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.
I, I I WAS JUST GONNA CLARIFY THAT YOU'RE SO, OH, MY BAD.
OH, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT YOU MEANT.
YEAH, THOSE, THOSE SHOULD BE FAIRLY BRIEF.
[Items 9 & 10]
NUMBER NINE AND 10.WE'LL FIRST HEAR FROM STAFF MARINE MEREDITH, PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
ITEM NUMBER NINE IS PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 23 0 0 2, 0 0.0 2, 1 0 6, AND 1 1 8 REDBURN LANE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTH CONGRESS COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA.
THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO MIXED USE LAND USE, AND IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
GOOD EVENING, NANCY ESTRADA WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 10 ON YOUR AGENDA.
CASE NUMBER SIX C 14 20 23 0 0 3 4 54 0 2 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE.
UM, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1 0 6 1 16 1 18 REDBIRD LANE, 54 0 2, 54 0 8 54 12 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE, AND ONE 11 WEST MOCKINGBIRD LANE.
THIS CASE WAS HEARD AT THE DECEMBER 12TH, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WHERE C-S-M-U-V-C-N-P WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION.
SINCE THEN, THE COURT'S RULING AND VALIDATED THE BONUSES AUTHORIZED FROM FOR A VM U2 BUILDING.
THEREFORE, AT THE JANUARY 18TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT IN ORDER TO AMEND THEIR REQUEST TO ADD THE NEW DB 90 COMBINING DISTRICT.
SO WE ARE BACK BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING WITH THIS CASE.
THE 2.72 ACRES SUBJECT REZONING AREA IS CURRENTLY ZONED SF TWO NMP, C-S-U-N-P AND S-M-U-C-O-N-P.
AND THE APPLICANT HAS AMENDED THEIR REQUEST TO C-S-M-U-V DB 90 CONP.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT A PETITION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WITH SIGNATURES FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS OPPOSING A REZONING OF THEIR PROPERTY TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN SF TWO, SF THREE, OR SF FOUR.
THE PETITION INCLUDES 15.93% OF ELIGIBLE SIGNATURES AND CURRENTLY DOES NOT MEET THE 20% UH, THRESHOLD FOR A VALID PETITION.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FOR A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD CONSIST OF 250 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS AND A 9,600 SQUARE 9,600 SQUARE FEET OF GROUND FLOOR PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED USES.
THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NEWLY CREATED DB 90 COMBINING DISTRICT BONUS PROGRAM IN WHICH THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS FOR SATISFYING DB 90 DEVELOPMENT.
AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECTS INCLUDING RENTAL UNITS.
ONE IS EITHER A MINIMUM IS EITHER A MINIMUM
[00:15:01]
OF 12% AT 60% MFI MUST BE MADE AFFORDABLE OR A MINIMUM OF 10% AT 50% MFI MUST BE MADE AFFORDABLE.THE STAFF ANALYSIS AND BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PREVIOUS V COMBINING DISTRICT IS THE SAME FOR THIS REZONING REQUEST TO ADD THE DB 90 COMBINING DISTRICT.
THEREFORE, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING CS M MU V DB 90 CO NP.
UM, I'M HERE FOR ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.
WE ALSO HAVE LIZ JOHNSTON FROM WATERSHED PROTECTION AND CURTIS BEATY WITH TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC'S WORK PUBLIC WORKS HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL.
I'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, MS. AMANDA SWAR.
MS. SW, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
UH, CHAIR AMANDA SWARNER GROUP HERE THIS EVENING ON THE, UH, I CALL IT FIFTY FOUR OH TWO SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE BECAUSE LIKE THE ALPHABET SOUP OF THE ZONING, THERE'S A MILLION ADDRESSES.
UH, IF THIS LOOKS FAMILIAR TO YOU, IT'S BECAUSE IT IS, AS STAFF MENTIONED, WE CAME BEFORE YOU IN DECEMBER.
SO THIS IS A REZONING AND A FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY THAT'S BOUND ON THE NORTH BY MOCKINGBIRD LANE, ON THE SOUTH BY REDBIRD LANE, AND ON THE EAST BY SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE.
IT JUST KINDA SHOWS WHERE THE SINGLE, SINGLE FAMILY PIECE IS, UM, AND THE, THE AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT YOU, UM, ALL APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY, UH, TO CHANGE THE YELLOW TO THE BROWN.
AND THEN THE REZONING ON THE LEFT.
THE, THERE WAS A LONG LIST OF CONDITIONAL OVERLAY USES THAT WERE ORIGINALLY RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
THOSE ARE ALL STILL CARRIED OVER INTO OUR EXISTING REZONING REQUEST.
SO STAFF HIT THIS, I, I WASN'T SURE HOW MUCH THEY'D GO INTO IT, BUT I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY THE FIRST OF YOUR DB 90 ZONING CASES TO COME THROUGH, WHICH IS, IS REALLY EXCITING.
THIS WAS A CASE THAT HAS BEEN IN REVIEW SINCE MARCH OF LAST YEAR.
SO WE HAVE BEEN, UM, TALKING ABOUT THIS CASE FOR OVER A YEAR.
UM, WE DO HAVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THAT IS IN REVIEW WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
UH, AS I MENTIONED, WE STARTED THIS AS A VM U2 CASE, UM, WHEN THE COURT'S RULING OF OVERTURNED VM U2, WE INDEFINITELY POSTPONE THIS CASE TO COME BACK TO YOU WITH THE DB 90 REQUEST.
UH, TRANSIT IS THE, IS, UH, ACTUALLY REALLY GREAT IN THIS PART OF TOWN.
THIS PROJECT WILL PROVIDE TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, UM, IN AN AREA THAT WILL NOT DISPLACE ANY EXISTING RESIDENTS.
THIS JUST SHOWS YOU HOW PRETTY IT IS ON A MAP WHERE ALL THE DIFFERENT PLACES YOU CAN GET, UM, WITHOUT A CAR.
AND THIS IS AN AREA THAT IS PROPOSED TO HAVE RAIL IN THE FUTURE.
UH, AS STAFF MENTIONED WITH THE DB 90, WE DO HAVE AN ONSITE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT, EITHER 10% OF THE UNITS AT 50% MFI OR 12% OF THE UNITS AT 60% MFI, THE NEIGHBORS ASKED US TO DO 10% AT 50%.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM.
THAT IS A COMMITMENT THAT WE MADE.
SO WE WILL BE DOING 10% OF THE UNITS AT 50% MFI FOR THIS PROJECT.
UM, I KNOW THAT YOU ALL HEARD LAST TIME A LOT OF ITEMS THAT ARE, FRANKLY SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT RELATED ITEMS. UM, WE DO HAVE OUR ENGINEERS HERE THAT CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT I WOULD JUST REITERATE THAT THIS IS A CONVERSATION ABOUT ZONING.
WE ARE HOPING THAT YOU'LL SUPPORT OUR REQUEST AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO ADD THE DB 90 OVERLAY AS PART OF THE ZONING REQUEST.
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION, BEGINNING WITH MR. BRAD MASSING.
MR. MA, MR. MASSING, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
UM, I, I JUST WANTED TO LET Y'ALL KNOW THAT WE WE'RE WAITING FOR, UH, ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS WHO'S OUT OF TOWN, WILL BE HERE ON SATURDAY, WHO'S GONNA BE, HAS 5% TO MAKE UP THE OTHER, UH, DIFFERENCE ON THAT, 20% ON THAT, UH, VALID PETITION.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE ACTUALLY THERE.
UM, MY, MY NAME'S BRAD MASSENGILL.
UM, I'M HERE REPRESENTING MY A HUNDRED YEAR OLD NEIGHBORHOOD, THE BIRD STREETS OF PLEASANT HILL AND THE FRIENDS OF CREEK.
I'M ALSO A BOARD MEMBER OF THE SOUTH AUSTIN CREEK ALLIANCE.
WE'RE HERE TO OBJECT TO THE TWO CASES PUT FORWARD TODAY.
WE AREN'T HERE TO OBJECT TO A PROJECT BEING BUILT ON THESE SUBJECTS.
THIS SITE, WE DO OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND THE FLUME.
WE ALSO OBJECT TO THE DB 90 OVERLAY BEING PROPOSED ON ENVIRONMENTAL GROUNDS.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS SURROUNDED BY WILDLIFE THANKS TO OUR EPHEMERAL STREAMS, INCLUDING MYSTERY CREEK.
MYSTERY CREEK IS FED BY A PERENNIAL POOLING SPRING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF REDBIRD LANE, LESS THAN 150 FEET FROM THE 1 0 6 REDBIRD LOT BEING CONSIDERED IN THE FLUME NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT CASE THAT PLACES ITS SQUARELY IN THE CATEGORY OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL
[00:20:01]
FEATURE AND WORTHY OF PROTECTION, AND A CLEAR ABOVE GROUND ROUTE TO LITTLE CREEK, A BLOCK AND A HALF NORTH OF THE PROPOSED SITE.THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S.
PREVIOUS INTERACTION WITH THE CITY REGARDING THIS CREEK'S RIGHT OF WAY, WE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED OUR LITTLE CREEK ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION.
CITY RECORDS WILL SHOW CONCESSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE CREEK.
LITTLE FORD ACROSS THE STREET ON MOCKINGBIRD HAD TO SIGNIFICANTLY DOWNSIZE THEIR TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS.
WHEN IT BROUGHT, WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO THEIR ATTENTION THAT THE PROPOSED PARKING LOT WAS IN THE PATH OF MYSTERY CREEK.
PUBLIC STORAGE SUBMITTED THEIR SITE PLAN SHOWING 50 FOOT OFFSETS FOR THE CREEK.
AFTER WE CHIMED IN, THEY ENDED UP DECIDING NOT TO BUILD THERE.
EPHEMERAL CREEKS LIKE MYSTERY CREEK, ARE NOT ONLY A VITAL LIFELINE TO NATURE, BUT ARE CAPILLARIES OF OUR WATERSHED.
THERE'S ESSENTIAL TO THE HEALTH OF OUR GREATER ECOSYSTEM AS THE CAPILLARIES ARE TO OUR OWN CIRCULATORY SYSTEMS. C THEM UP, ABUSE THEM, DENY THEM THEIR IMPORTANCE.
YOU'RE JUST ASKING FOR TROUBLE.
AUSTIN IS DRYING UP PARTIALLY BECAUSE WE INSIST ON CHANNELING VALUABLE SURFACE WATER INTO CONCRETE INSTEAD OF LETTING IT MATRICULATE INTO THE SOIL WHERE IT CAN REJUVENATE TREES AND SHRUBS THAT MAKE LIFE HERE POSSIBLE.
DENSITY HOUSING IS INTENDED TO ALLEVIATE STRESS ON THE ENVIRONMENT, NOT INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL WATERSHED DATA.
WHILE REZONING FOR THESE DB 90 PROJECTS IS ALLOWING THE POTENTIAL DESTRUCTION OF SENSITIVE HABITATS AND CRITICAL ENVIRONMENT FEATURES LIKE MYSTERY CREEK AND ITS SPRING, THAT SEEMS COUNTER TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANDATE THAT DENSITY BONUSES ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE.
PLEASE THINK THROUGH WHAT IT IS THAT IS TRYING TO BE ACCOMPLISHED HERE.
IS IT DENSITY FOR DENSITY SAKE OR IS IT A TRUE POLLUTION SOLUTION? DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT TO SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT IS A LOSE LOSE PROPOSITION.
WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DENY THESE ZONING CHANGES AND IT, UH, UNTIL A PROPER ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CAN BE CONDUCTED.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN ASK ME, I'LL BE HERE.
UM, CAN'T EVEN READ MY OWN NOTE HERE.
UM, I KNOW I'M NOT ALLOWED TO PASS OUT, UH, HANDOUTS OR ANYTHING, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL CAN SEE THIS STUFF.
UM, BUT I HAVE SOME THINGS HERE THAT, THAT, THAT BASICALLY SHOW THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT HERE, THIS LITTLE SQUARE, AND THIS, THIS IS FROM 1947.
THIS BIG MEADOW HERE HAS THREE CREEKS GOING ACROSS IT, LEADING TO LITTLE TURTLE CREEK RIGHT HERE.
IT'S PART OF WILLIAMSON CREEK.
AND MYSTERY CREEK IS RIGHT HERE.
IT GOES RIGHT THROUGH THESE PROPERTIES RIGHT HERE.
IT'S BEEN HERE FOR WAY SINCE BEFORE AUSTIN WAS HERE.
AND THIS IS THE LAST LITTLE BIT OF IT THAT EXISTS.
AND IT'S IMPORTANT WE SAVE THESE WATERSHED ASSETS.
UM, 'CAUSE WE'RE DEALING WITH THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT, WE'RE LOSING OUR TREES.
THIS, THIS IS THE LITTLE NITTY GRITTY STUFF OF THE, OF WATERSHED THAT MAKES IT WORK IN THE BIG PICTURE.
SO PLEASE, Y'ALL, UH, AT LEAST HOLD OFF UNTIL THE ZONING CHANGE UNTIL WE'VE, UH, GOT SOME MORE SCIENCE ON THIS.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. LAUREN ROSS.
MS. ROSS, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I'M AN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER AND I'M HERE TONIGHT REPRESENTING THE NEIGHBORS AROUND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO URGE YOU TO RECOMMEND AGAINST THE REQUESTED ZONING.
UM, I HAVE WRITTEN A LETTER AND I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO REPEAT EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE LETTER.
I DID HEAR STAFF SAY THAT THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE RAISED ARE CONCERNS THAT WOULD BE RAISED, THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.
THAT SITE PLAN PROCESS IS NOT A DISCRETIONARY PROCESS.
THE ONE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS, AND THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL NOT BE ADDRESSED BY THE SITE PLAN PROCESS SPECIFICALLY.
THE CHANGE IN IMPERVIOUS COVER WILL NOT BE ADDRESSED IN THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.
THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING NATURAL CREEK INTO, UH, UNDERGROUND CULVERTS AND THE LOSS OF THE ECOSYSTEM BENEFITS, THE LOSS OF THE INFILTRATION OF THE GROUNDWATER.
THE SUSTENANCE OF BASE FLOW INTO TURTLE CREEK ARE ALL ISSUES THAT WILL NOT
[00:25:01]
BE ADDRESSED BY THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.AS I ALSO SAID IN MY LETTER, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE INVENTORY WAIVER.
SO, UM, AS OF THE MATERIALS THAT I REVIEWED, THERE HAS BEEN NO INVESTIGATION OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE UNIQUE AND VALUABLE RESOURCES IN TERMS OF TREES, IN TERMS OF SPRINGS, IN TERMS OF WETLANDS.
AND IF THIS PROCESS GOES FORWARD IN THE WAY THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED, THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
THAT IS ALSO NOT A DISCRETIONARY PROCESS AT THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.
THIS IS THE CHANCE FOR YOU TO SAY TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS WE ARE BEHIND YOU ON YOUR FLOODING ISSUES TO A NEIGHBOR, A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS PATENTLY INADEQUATE DRAINAGE SINCE FOREVER.
WE'RE BEHIND YOU ON THE FLOODING ISSUES.
WE'RE BEHIND YOU ON THE PRESERVATION OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES THAT HAVE BEEN PART OF YOUR COMMUNITY SINCE FOREVER.
WE, I'LL HEAR FROM MR. JOHN ESTRADA.
MR. ESTRADA, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
UM, I WOULD JUST REITERATE THAT THERE ARE NO FLOODPLAINS ON THIS PROPERTY.
THERE ARE NO C EFS ON THIS PROPERTY.
UM, WE DO HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT'S IN REVIEW.
I DO HAVE MY, UM, ENGINEERS HERE IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR THEM.
UM, I KNOW THE CITY HAS REPRESENTATIVES HERE AS WELL, BUT THESE ARE NOT ZONING ITEMS. THEY ARE SITE PLAN ITEMS. UM, IF, IF DENSITY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE HERE TO SUPPORT TRANSITS OF SUPPORTED HOUSING, WHERE DOES IT MAKE SENSE? SO, UM, WITH THAT I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS CASE CHAIR.
THAT CONCLUDES THE ITEMS, THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
UM, IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? COMMISSIONER WOODS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 5 6 7 8 9.
UM, THAT'S UNANIMOUS AND RECOGNIZING COMMISSIONER MUS HALLER JOINED US.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? I, COMMISSIONER HAYES, I'LL, I'LL START.
UH, CAN I GET SOMEBODY, UH, PLANNING FIRST AND THEN WATERSHED SECOND OR I'LL OKAY.
I'M, UM, MY QUESTION RELATES TO, UH, ONE OF THE REASONS THAT STAFF IS SUPPORTING THIS IS THAT, UM, IT, IT MEETS TWO OF THE CRITERIA FOR IMAGINE AUSTIN.
ONE BEING IN A TRANSIT SUPPORTER, BUT ONE IS ALSO ALONG A CORRIDOR.
AND I NOTE THAT ONE OF THE PROPERTIES IS A BLOCK OFF OF THE CORRIDOR.
WHAT'S YOUR DEFINITION OF A LONG, WHEN IT COMES TO, AND THAT, AND, AND THAT'S WHY YOU HESITATE, THAT MAY BE A LEGAL QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW, BUT WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF A LONG A CORRIDOR MARINE MEREDITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT? SO, SPECIFICALLY, AS IT TURNS OUT IN THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE SECTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, IT DID A STUDY BETWEEN
AND ALL THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THIS ZONING CASE, INCLUDING THE ONE LOT THAT IS PART OF THE PLAN AMENDMENT, WAS INCLUDED AS PART OF A, UH, PROPO.
IT COULD BE A PRIME FOR REDEVELOPMENT.
SO LOOKING AT THAT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UM, I WOULD SAY THAT, UM, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED WITHIN THE CORRIDOR.
WE'VE NEVER, I'VE NEVER SAT DOWN AND SAID, OKAY, A CORRIDOR OFF A CORRIDOR IS EXACTLY X NUMBER OF FEET, BUT SINCE THIS PROPERTY IS PART OF A LARGER DEVELOPMENT AND IT WOULD BE BUILT COHESIVELY, WE FELT IT WAS CONSIDERED WITHIN THE, UH, A CORRIDOR RANGE.
SO, SO WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A FIRM DEFINITION OF THE WORD ALONG.
UM, WELL, THE, THE ZONING CASE HAS FRONTAGE ALONG SOUTH CONGRESS.
I KNOW ONE OF YEAH, THE ONE TO THE NORTH OF RED BIRD, THE ONE TO THE SOUTH RED BIRD'S A BLOCK OFF AT LEAST.
WELL, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT THAT'S PART OF THE PLAN AMENDMENT.
UM, THE, THE MAPS THAT I LOOK AT, THE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S TWO RED BIRDS SPLITS, THE TWO OF THEM.
[00:30:01]
OR AM I LOOKING AT IT INCORRECTLY? WELL, THERE'S PROPERTY ALONG REDBIRD AND THAT'S WHERE THE ONE PLAN AMENDMENT CASE IS.AND THEN THERE'S PROPERTY ALONG, I THINK MOCKINGBIRD, I CAN'T, I HAVE TO LOOK AT IT SO COHESIVELY.
THERE'S NOT ONE TO THE SOUTH ON REDBIRD? THERE'S NOT A LOT SOUTH OF REDBIRD? NOPE.
I'M GETTING A SHAKE IN THE HEAD THAT THEY'RE NOT.
I'M LOOKING AT THE MAP WRONG, BUT, UM, OKAY, THEN, THEN IT FITS BECAUSE IT'S GOT THAT PROPERTY THAT'S ALONG.
UH, AND THEN ON LET'S GET TO THE, UH, UH, IMAGINE CREEK OR WHATEVER THE UNNAMED CREEK MYSTERY.
UH, WE GOT A, DID YOU GET THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FROM THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP HAD AN ENGINEER.
DID YOU, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW HER REPORT? UH, YES.
LIZ JOHNSTON, WATERSHED PROTECTION.
I DID RE UH, READ THE REPORT OR EARLIER TODAY.
AND YOUR CONCLUSION, UM, NOT ASKING YOU TO REBUT HER, BUT YOUR CONCLUSION REVIEWING THE MYSTERY CREEK, THE UNNAMED CREEK? CORRECT.
SO THERE IS A DRAINAGE ON THE SITE.
IT DOES NOT RECEIVE 64 ACRES, UM, OF DRAINAGE.
AND SO IT IS NOT A PROTECTED CLASSIFIED WATERWAY.
UM, THERE ARE NO CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE, UH, BUFFERS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
UM, STAFF DID GRANT, UH, UH, ERI WAIVER AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE INVENTORY WAIVER A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO BASED ON THEIR PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT.
UM, I DID ASK A SUPERVISOR TO GO OUT THERE TO LOOK AT IT, JUST TO SET EYES AND VERIFY.
UM, HE DID LOOK AND, UM, WALKED THE CHANNEL LOOKING FOR WETLANDS SPRING SEEPS ON WITHIN THE SITE AND DID NOT FIND ANY.
SO, UM, THERE ARE NO, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, UM, BASED ON, YOU KNOW, STAFF WITH MANY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE THAT THERE ARE NO CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ALONG THE DRAINAGE AS WELL.
AND, UM, AND, AND YOU'LL GET ONE MORE LOOK AT THIS, DARREN, OR MAYBE TWO OR THREE MORE LOOKS, BUT YOU'LL GET AN ADDITIONAL REVIEW AND, AND ALL DURING THAT REVIEW.
SO THERE ARE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DSD STAFF WHO WILL LOOK AT IT, UM, BASED ON THE ERI WAIVER, UM, AND THE, THE CONDITIONS OF THE SITE THERE, WE DID NOT ASSIGN OURSELVES TO REVIEW IT FOR CEFS, UM, WHICH IS, UH, THE PREROGATIVE OF THE WATERSHED STAFF.
AND THEN FINALLY, UM, DO YOU KNOW, HOW DID THE, HOW DID THIS GET NAMED MR. CREEK? AS, AS I UNDERSTAND, IT'S NOT A CREEK.
THERE IS A DEFINITELY A DRAINAGE.
I DO NOT KNOW WHERE THE NAME CAME FROM, SO THANKS.
I'M TO OUT, WELL,
UM, SEEING NO QUESTIONS, NO QUESTIONS, IS THERE A MOTION CHAIR? YES.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, MOVE APPROVAL WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
IS THERE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.
UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? SURE.
UM, YOU 250 HOMES AND A VMU, OR EXCUSE ME, A DB 90 RIGHT ON AMAZING TRANSIT, 25% OF THESE HOMES AT 50%.
MFI, I MEAN, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, CHANGE ISN'T EASY FOR EVERYONE AND, UH, THIS AREA IS DEFINITELY ABSORBING A LOT OF HOUSING AND HAS AMAZING TRANSIT TO DO SO.
SO I THINK THIS CASE MAKES A LOT OF SENSE HERE AND IT'S GONNA BE GOOD TO SEE THIS BUILT.
ANY COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST OR OTHERS SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER
AND I FEEL LIKE AT THIS POINT WHERE WE ARE TO ASSESS THE CASE, WE'VE RECEIVED SATISFACTORY ANSWERS THAT THOSE CONCERNS CAN BE ADDRESSED.
UM, AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I'M IN FAVOR OF MOVING THIS FORWARD AND FOR ALL THE ADDITIONAL REASONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN STATED.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? I'LL SPEAK FOR JUST TO SAY, UM, I COMMEND THE, THE APPLICANTS FOR BRINGING FORWARD A, UM, UH, A PROJECT THAT IS GOING TO NOT ONLY CONTRIBUTE TO AFFORDABLE
[00:35:01]
HOUSING, BUT UH, IS GONNA DO SO ON SITE, AND THAT IS A GOAL FOR WHICH WE ALL SHOULD STRIVE AND I, I ABSOLUTELY COMMEND THEM FOR DUE.IF NO OBJECTIONS, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
THIS IS ON ITEMS NINE AND 10 TO MOVE FORWARD WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
UM, MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT IS UNANIMOUS.
SO, UH, 12 0 1 COMMISSIONER COX ABSTAINING.
THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY WHO CAME OUT FOR THAT.
[Items 14 & 15]
ITEMS NUMBER 14 AND 15.WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THESE UP TOGETHER.
I'M HEATHER CHAFFIN WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, AS YOU SAID, WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS BOTH OF THESE ITEMS TOGETHER.
14 IS SP 20 23, 0 3 1 1 C AT 27 11.
CESAR CHAVEZ HAS A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A COMPATIBILITY WAIVER.
15 IS SP 2023 DASH OH THREE ONE C AT 27 30 CESAR CHAVEZ.
THEY'RE ACROSS THE STREET FROM EACH OTHER PRETTY MUCH DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, AND THAT ONE IS REQUESTING JUST THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
SO SINCE IT'S SIMPLER TO START WITH JUST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, I'M STARTING WITH NUMBER 15.
THE SITE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN A HALF ACRE AND THEY'RE REQUESTING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR COMMERCIAL OFF STREET PARKING.
LAND USE STAFF SUPPORTS THE APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
IT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PROPERTIES ZONED C-S-M-U-C-O-N-P.
UM, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND BUILDING COVER INFORMATION IS PROVIDED THERE.
THEY'RE PROPOSING 72% IMPERVIOUS COVER.
THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT IS 95%, UH, IMPERVIOUS COVER.
THE SITE WILL ONLY TAKE ACCESS TO EAST CESAR CHAVEZ STREET.
IT'S CURRENTLY USED FOR GENERAL, OR IT'S LIKE I SAID, C-S-M-U-C-O-N-P.
CURRENTLY THERE'S AN VACANT BUILDING AND AN UNDEVELOPED LOT AND AN AREA USED FOR FOOD TRUCKS.
THIS AREA WAS REZONED AS PART OF THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD COMBINING DISTRICT REZONING IN 2001.
IT CHANGED THE PROPERTY FROM CS MU CS TO CS M-U-C-O-N-P.
THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE ADDED AT THAT TIME INCLUDED PROHIBITED AND CONDITIONAL USES.
COMMERCIAL OFF STREET PARKING WAS MADE A CONDITIONAL USE.
THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN INCLUDES A FORTY FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY SIX SQUARE FOOT MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND 45 PARKING STATION SPACES WITH ELECTRIC CHARGING STATIONS.
THE PROPERTY IS BOUNDED BY AN ALLEY TO THE NORTH PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD TO THE EAST CESAR CHAVEZ TO THE SOUTH VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN AXIS IS VIA EAST CESAR CHAVEZ.
UM, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO, EXCUSE ME, UH, COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS TITLE AS OUTLINED ON PAGE THREE.
AND THAT COVERS THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ASPECTS OF THESE TWO CASES.
SO FOR THE ONE ACROSS THE STREET, SP 20 23, 0 3 1 1 C, THIS ONE IS JUST UNDER A HALF ACRE.
THEY'RE REQUEST REQUESTING THE SAME CONDITIONAL LAND USE FOR COMMERCIAL OFF STREET PARKING.
THEY ARE ALSO ASKING FOR A COMPATIBILITY WAIVER.
THERE IS A REQUIRED 25 FOOT COMPATIBILITY SETBACK ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE.
THEY'RE REQUESTING IT TO BE REDUCED TO 16 FEET FOR THE PROPOSED PARKING AND RELATED STRUCTURES.
STAFF IS SUPPORTING, UH, BOTH ASPECTS OF THIS REQUEST.
UH, THE SAME HISTORY IN TERMS OF WHEN THIS PROPERTY WAS ZONED.
AND THEN THE, UH, ADDITIONAL THE AD OF THE M-U-C-O-N-P TO THE PROPERTY IN 2001.
THE PROPERTY ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE
[00:40:01]
IS ADJACENT TO SF THREE NMP ZONED AND USED PROPERTIES.THEY'RE PRIMARILY, UH, DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.
THE SITE PLAN COMPLIES WITH THE OTHER ELEMENTS OF COMPATIBILITY, UH, SCREENING, LIGHTING, UH, DUMPSTER LOCATION.
UM, BUT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS THAT 16 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WOULD BE A PAVED AREA THAT INCLUDES THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING STATIONS.
THEN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY, 23 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WOULD BE THE ACTUAL PARKING SPACES.
THIS SITE PLAN DOES NOT INCLUDE A BUILDING.
IT HAS 33 PARKING SPACES WITH ELECTRIC CHARGING STATIONS.
UM, THIS, UH, IS ALSO, AS I SAID, SOUTH OF THE OTHER SITE.
IT WILL ALSO BE TAKING ACCESS TO E CESAR CHAVEZ ONLY CURRENTLY LAND USES ON THE PROPERTY ARE UN OR VACANT BUILDINGS.
UM, I SKIPPED THAT IN THE EARLY PART.
SO THE, UM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DESCRIPTION IS THE SAME AS PREVIOUSLY.
AND THEN THE COMPATIBILITY WAIVER IS, UH, SHOWN ON THIS PAGE TWO AND, UH, OUTLINED FOR YOUR USE.
AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
MS. JULES KANE IS MR. CASEY CARSON PRESENT? OKAY, MS. KA, YOU'LL HAVE EIGHT MINUTES.
I'M A LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT WITH ARMREST AND BROWN, AND I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE DETAILS OF THEIR REQUEST ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER WHO IS VOLTERRA.
UH, VOLTERRA OWNS, OPERATES ELECTRIC BUILDS, OWNS AND OPERATES ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING FACILITIES.
UH, THEY'RE NOT NEW TO THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
UH, THEY HAVE SEVERAL PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE STATES.
UM, IT IS PRETTY EXCITING TO HAVE THEM PURSUE AUSTIN JUST TO HELP WITH THE CITY'S CLIMATE ACTION INITIATIVES AND HELP BRING THAT MUCH NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING.
UM, I DO HAVE A TEAM HERE WITH ME TO HELP ADDRESS ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, AND TOM ASHLEY WITH VOLTERRA WILL PRESENT AS WELL TO GO OVER MORE ABOUT WHAT THEY DO.
UM, LITTLE HISTORY ON THE SITE.
VOLTERRA HAD THE PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT EARLY MARCH LAST YEAR WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE USE WOULD BE COMMERCIAL OFF STREET PARKING BASED ON CONVERSATIONS THEY HAD EARLY ON WITH STAFF.
AND THEN IT WAS THE END OF APRIL WHEN STAFF CAME BACK AND CLARIFIED ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING USE.
WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND DO A CODE AMENDMENT, WHICH WE UNDERSTAND AND WE'RE ON SUPPORTIVE OF.
UM, SO SITE PLANS WERE SUBMITTED LAST YEAR WITH THE UNDERSTANDING OF THAT, BUT NOT KNOWING REALLY THE TIMING.
AND YOU KNOW, HERE WE ARE A LITTLE OVER A YEAR SINCE THAT PROCESS AND WE'VE GOT TWO SITE PLANS THAT ARE NEARLY APPROVED, UH, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT.
UM, AND SO WE WERE WORKING WITH STAFF ON HOW CAN WE KEEP THESE SITE PLANS MOVING FORWARD, UH, AHEAD OF THE CODE AMENDMENT.
AND STAFF CAME BACK AND SAID, YOU KNOW, GO AHEAD AND DO COMMERCIAL OFF STREET PARKING AS A CONDITIONAL USE CODE, DOES ALLOW THE DIRECTOR TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
UM, AND SO, AND I'LL SAY WITH THE EV CODE AMENDMENT, THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY DRAFTED, WE'D BE GOING THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS FOR THESE TWO SITES ANYWAY, UH, FOR VARIOUS REASONS.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK THROUGH THAT DRAFT ORDINANCE, BUT IT'S SORT OF TECHNICAL.
AND BASED ON THE ROADWAY DESIGNATIONS AND OTHER FACTORS, WE'D BE GOING THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS.
UH, ONCE WE HAD THAT CONFIRMATION FROM STAFF STAFF, WE BEGAN NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH IMMEDIATELY.
UH, SO EARLY MARCH OF THIS YEAR, WE STARTED KNOCKING ON DOORS, UH, CONTACTING ALL THE REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS, MADE OVER 40 TOUCH POINTS.
UM, SPOKE TO NOT ONLY THE ADJACENT RESIDENTS, BUT THE ALSO THE BUSINESS OWNERS JUST TO RAISE AWARENESS.
BUT WHAT OUR REQUEST IS, UM, AND, AND I'M, IT WAS REALLY EXCITING.
WE GOT AHEAD OF THE, EVEN THE CITY NOTIFICATION BEFORE THAT WENT OUT AND WE'RE MAKING MORE CONTACT THAN I THINK THE CITY NOTIFICATION DID.
SO WE FELT REALLY GOOD ABOUT THE OUTREACH THAT WAS CONDUCTED AND HOSTED AN ONSITE MEETING ON MARCH 21ST AND HAD NEARLY A DOZEN FOLKS SHOW UP ASKING QUESTIONS, GETTING MORE INFORMATION, AND EXPRESSING SOME CONCERNS.
THIS IS THE ZONING AS HEATHER JUST WENT THROUGH CSM, UNP ONE OF THE LITTLE LOTS THAT'S GOT CS ONE ON IT.
UH, THE COS THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ESTABLISHING COMMERCIAL OFF STREET PARKING, PARKING AS A CONDITIONAL USE.
THIS IS THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SHOWING, UM, MIXED USE ALL ALONG CAESAR CHAVEZ.
I DO WANNA MENTION THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE DID HAD A LOT OF COMMUNICATION WITH THEM AND I KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT TAKING A POSITION ON THESE PROJECTS, BUT THEY ALSO CHOSE NOT TO SPEAK TONIGHT.
I ALSO WANNA POINT OUT CAESAR CHAVEZ IN NORTH PLEASANT VALLEY ARE NOT DESIGNATED AS CORE TRANSIT CORRIDOR OR FUTURE CORE TRANSIT CORRIDOR.
WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT NORTH PLEASANT VALLEY IS ALONG A METRO RAPID BUS LINE,
[00:45:01]
AND I WAS READING THROUGH THE E TODD PLAN BEFORE THIS MEETING TRYING TO REALLY UNDERSTAND THE, WHAT'S HAPPENING FROM A MOBILITY STANDPOINT AT THIS INTERSECTION.AND WE BELIEVE THAT THESE PROJECTS WILL HELP MEET THAT FIRST LAST MILE CONNECTION POINT FOR FOLKS COMING TO AND FROM THE PROPOSED STATION, THE 27 11 SITE.
AGAIN, HEATHER DID A GREAT JOB GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS, SO I WON'T SPEND TOO MUCH TIME, BUT I, I WANNA JUST ARTICULATE AND HIGHLIGHT AGAIN, THE SETBACKS BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE MEETING THE DESIGN IS MEETING THE PROPOSED COMPATIBILITY ORDINANCE THAT'S GOING THROUGH THAT Y'ALL WILL BE REVIEWING ON THURSDAY.
UM, THERE IS A 9.2 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION ALONG CESAR CHAVEZ, JUST KIND OF CREATING THAT A NARROWING OF THE SITE.
AND THERE ARE DRIVE AISLE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS THAT REQUIRE CERTAIN WIDTHS, UM, NOT ONLY FROM A DRIVEWAY MOBILITY, BUT ALSO FOR, FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT.
SO THE CLOSEST FORM OF IMPROVEMENT IS, IS GONNA BE A SIDEWALK THAT'S OVER, UM, ALMOST 16 FEET FROM THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE UP UNTIL YOU GET TO THE PARKING, WHICH IS WELL OVER 23 FEET FROM THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE.
THIS IS THE LANDSCAPE, UH, SHEET.
YOU CAN SEE THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING OF TREES AND SHRUBS.
UM, A LOT OF DENSE LANDSCAPING BEING PROPOSED, AS WELL AS A SIX FOOT WOOD PRIVACY FENCE ALONG THE SHARED PROPERTY LINE.
AND THIS IS JUST AN AERIAL SHOWING THAT EXISTING OLD RESTAURANT, UH, THAT'S FULLY THE BUILDING AND THE SERVICE PARKING ARE FULLY ENCROACHING WITHIN THAT 20 FOOT SETBACK TODAY.
SO EXISTING CONDITIONS WILL BE IMPROVED QUITE A BIT.
THE 27 30 SITE, WE'RE ONLY ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL USE.
45 PARKING STALLS, 24 CHARGERS, AND IT'S AT THE CORNER, CAESAR CHAVEZ IN NORTH PLEASANT VALLEY.
BOTH OF THESE PROPERTIES PROVIDE A LOCATION THAT FIT THE NEEDS OF VOLTER CUSTOMERS, WHICH ARE LIGHT DUTY PASSENGER VEHICLE COMPANIES.
UM, AND ALSO THIS LOCATION PROVIDES THE, UH, UTILITY POWER THAT'S NEEDED FOR THESE PROJECTS.
THERE'S THE AERIAL, IT'S CURRENTLY VACANT, UH, NO LONGER FOOD TRUCK SITE, SO VACANT WITH AN OLD DILAPIDATED BUILDING.
AGAIN, UNDESIRABLE SORT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AS YOU CAN SEE IN THESE IMAGES HERE.
HERE'S A COUPLE RENDERINGS OF WHAT YOU MIGHT EXPECT WITH THIS PROPOSED PROJECT.
UM, WE VOLTERRA IS, UH, REPRESENTING A NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY QUIET DEVELOPMENT.
WE'VE CONFIRMED WITH THE MANUFACTURERS OF THE CHARGING FA CHARGERS THAT THEY'LL STAY BELOW OR WITHIN THE DECIBEL LIMITS THAT ARE ALLOWED WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, THE LIGHTING, AS YOU CAN SEE, IS UP UNDER THE CANOPIES FACING DOWN AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORS.
AND FROM A TRAFFIC STANDPOINT, THIS, THIS PROJECT DOES NOT EXCEED OR MEET THE THRESHOLDS THAT REQUIRE A TIA AND A PROJECT THAT'S MORE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL TYPE USE THAT COULD BE PERMITTED AND DEVELOPED BY WRIGHT, WOULD CERTAINLY PRODUCE, UM, FAR MORE TRIPS THAN WHAT THIS PROJECT WOULD.
SO, UH, JUST TO END, VOLTAIRE IS LOOKING TO DEVELOP IN A WAY THAT BENEFITS THE COMMUNITY BY HELPING THE OVERALL GOAL OF MOVING VEHICLES TO ELECTRIC AND HELPING CONNECT PEOPLE TO JOBS, SERVICES, AND OTHER DESTINATIONS VIA THAT FIRST LAST MILE SERVICE.
AND I'LL HEAR FROM MR. TOM ASHLEY.
MR. ASHLEY, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UH, TOM ASHLEY ON BEHALF OF VOLTERRA POWER.
UM, AS JULES SHARED, UH, OUR COMPANY SITES DEVELOPS AND OPERATES EV CHARGING FACILITIES, UH, FOR A RANGE OF CUSTOMERS.
UH, WE'RE REALLY EXCITED TO BE IN AUSTIN.
UH, WE INVESTED IN, IN THIS PROPERTY OVER A YEAR AGO, UM, AND HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF AND A RANGE OF STAKEHOLDERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
UM, IN OUR, OUR PLANNING PROCESS.
UM, AS JULES SHARED, UH, ONE ASPECT THAT WE'RE MOST EXCITED ABOUT IS THE FIT FOR OUR MISSION, MISSION-DRIVEN BUSINESS, UH, WITH THE CITY'S CLIMATE ACTION, OR EXCUSE ME, CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN.
UM, WHILE WE DON'T YET KNOW WHO OUR CUSTOMER OR CUSTOMERS, UH, MAY BE FOR THESE SITES, UH, WE KNOW THAT, UH, CHARGING IS UNFORTUNATELY, DESPERATELY NEEDED, UH, TO SUPPORT, UH, CERTAINLY THE 2030, UH, TIMEFRAME, UH, BOTH IN OVERALL VEHICLE, UM, MILES DRIVEN, AS WELL AS SPECIFICALLY IN SOME OF THE, UH, FLEET USES, INCLUDING RIDESHARE, FIRST MILE, LAST MILE, ET CETERA.
UH, SO JUST WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE WE'RE REALLY EXCITED TO BE HERE.
UM, WE'RE REALLY EXCITED TO INVEST IN AUSTIN.
UM, AND, UH, WE'VE, WE'VE REALLY APPRECIATED BEING ABLE TO ENGAGE WITH THE COMMUNITY AROUND THESE SITES, UH, AND HAVE GOTTEN A LOT OF, UH, GOOD FEEDBACK, A LOT OF, UM, WISHLIST ITEMS, UH, WHICH HAS BEEN REALLY HELPFUL FOR US TO UNDERSTAND, UM, AND INDEED, UH, SOME QUESTIONS AND, AND POTENTIAL CONCERNS WHICH WE'RE, UH,
[00:50:01]
HAPPY TO ADDRESS, UH, AS HELPFUL.UH, AND I'LL BE HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM, UH, MR. MICHAEL FALLON.
THANK FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
UM, I LIVE AT, UH, I LIVE ON THE 2,700 BLOCK OF WILLOW STREET, WHICH IS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THIS PROJECT.
THE PROJECT WILL NOT FIT WITH THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD AND INTERSECTION, OR THE EAST CAESAR CHAVEZ COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR.
THE INTERSECTION, THOUGH, CURRENTLY NOT DEVELOPED TO ITS POTENTIAL IS AND SHOULD BE AN IMPORTANT GATEWAY INTO AND OUT OF THE EAST OF THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD.
EAST CAESAR CHAVEZ IS ESSENTIALLY A MAIN STREET FOR THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD, AND ALONG WITH SEVERAL OF MY CLOSE NEIGHBORS, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PROJECT MOVE TO ELSEWHERE.
ALTHOUGH OVER 20 YEARS OLD, THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IS THE ONLY AVAILABLE PLAN AND IS STILL THE OFFICIAL PLAN.
THE PLAN INTENTIONALLY HAD CERTAIN TYPES OF USES, INCLUDING THIS ONE MARKED FOR SPECIFIC REVIEW BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ITS CITIZEN.
I WOULD LIKE YOU ALL TO TAKE A LOOK AT VOLTERRA INTENDED USE OF THIS SITE AND WHETHER IT REALLY DOES MATCH WITH WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD INTENDED AS A VIBRANT LOCAL BUSINESS CORRIDOR, AS WELL AS THE USER'S COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT RESIDENCE RESIDENTS.
I URGE THE COMMISSIONERS TO EXAMINE OBJECTIVE TWO OF THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PLAN SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES BUSINESSES THAT DO NOT FIT LOCAL USE REQUIREMENT.
APPLICANTS DESCRIBE THE USE AS OFF STREET COMMERCIAL PARKING, BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE AN INACCURATE DESCRIPTION THAT'S USED.
COMMERCIAL OFF STREET PARKING WOULD BE MORE ACCEPTABLE IF IT WAS FOR PEOPLE TO COME AND PARK AND USE FOR LOCAL BUSINESS.
THIS, HOWEVER, IS MORE LIKE A COMMERCIAL FLEET MOTOR POOL.
ONE CAN CERTAINLY ENVISION DRIVER SERVICING, VACUUMING, WASHING THEIR VEHICLES, OR CONDUCTING UP SOME OTHER BUSINESS OR DOWNTIME ACTIVITIES ON SITE WHILE THEY CHARGE THEIR VEHICLES.
I DO NOT THINK THIS BUSINESS IS GENUINELY OFF STREET PARKING, AND IT IS NOT FAIR TO MAKE A DECISION THAT EV CHARGING, CHARGING AND PARKING ARE THE SAME THING.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY'RE THE SAME AT ALL.
I APPRECIATE THAT VOLTERRA REPS MADE AN EFFORT TO REACH OUT TO SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS.
WHILE I FOUND PROJECT REPS TO BE FRIENDLY AND POLITE, I FOUND VOLT'S OUTREACH TO THE COMMUNITY TO BE TOO LITTLE AND TOO LATE.
I HAD A VOLTERRA REP COME AND KNOCK ON MY DOOR FOR A SHORT CONVERSATION AND AN INVITATION TO A MEETING THAT WAS HAPPENING WITHOUT REALLY MUCH NOTICE.
THE MEETING, UNFORTUNATELY, WAS HELD ON THE CORNER OF A BUSY INTERSECTION DURING A WINDY DAY DURING RUSH HOUR, WHILE RAIN WAS THREATENING THE SIZE AND POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THIS PROJECT.
IN LIGHT OF THE HISTORIC DISREGARD FOR THE WISHES OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD, OH, EXCUSE ME, I MISSPOKE THERE.
UH, MORE DISCUSSION AND INFORMATION IS NEEDED FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
AT THE VERY LEAST, VOLTERRA TOLD NEIGHBORS THEY EXPECTED THEIR CUSTOMERS WOULD OPERATE RIDESHARE.
FLEET VOLTERRA QUOTED ABOUT 100 ADDITIONAL CARS PER DAY TO THE SITE DUE TO THEIR ACTIVITIES.
THIS MEANS THEY EXPECT AN INBOUND OR OUTBOUND VEHICLE TO ENTER OR EXIT THE SITE EVERY SEVEN MINUTES IF IT WERE SPREAD EVENLY THROUGHOUT THE DAY.
NOT ACCOUNTING FOR RIDE SHARE DRIVERS THEMSELVES.
SPECIAL EVENTS, PEAK HOURS, OR ASSOCIATED SERVICE TRAFFIC IS MY BELIEF THAT THIS NUMBER WOULD BE ON THE EXTREME LOW END, ESPECIALLY IF THE AS AND IF VOLTERRA IS SUCCESSFUL IN ITS BUSINESS AT THE MAJOR HUB OF A CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK, THE INTERSECTION AND LOCAL STREETS WOULD EVENTUALLY SEE MUCH MORE TRAFFIC ON AN ALREADY BUSY INTERSECTION.
ADDITIONALLY, THE IDEA THAT VOLTERRA IS NOT PLANNING ON EXPANDING AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF QUOTED, UH, IS IMP IMPLAUSIBLE.
MONTERA SEEMS TO BE PURSUING A VERY WORTHY GOAL OF ADDING COMMERCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO FOSTER THIS LARGE SCALE ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION REVOLUTION.
IT IS MUCH NEEDED, UNFORTUNATELY, DUE TO THIS CIVIC LOCATION, THE CULTURE AND HISTORY OF THE ALI NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS PROJECT WILL ONLY TAKE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHILE OFFERING NOTHING IN RETURN EXCEPT FOR SECURITY FENCING, SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS, AND INCREASED VEHICLE TRAFFIC.
THE PROJECT AS DESCRIBED IN THE SITE PLAN AND SETBACK, VARIANCE REQUESTS PROVIDE TO THE NEIGHBORS WILL IN PROVIDE TO THE NEIGHBORS, WILL INVADE THE BACKYARDS OF HOMES, ESPECIALLY ON THE 2,700 BLOCK OF WILLOW STREET.
VOLTERRA COULD NOT OFFER ANY DETAILS AS TO HOW THEIR POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS WILL OPERATE BECAUSE THE CONTRACT DETAILS AND POTENTIAL CONTRACTORS COULD NOT BE PROVIDED.
THIS MEANS THAT WE HAVE NO IDEA OF WHO WILL BRING THE, BRINGING THIS GRAPHIC, HOW THEY WILL
[00:55:01]
OPERATE, OR IF, AND HOW SAID OPERATOR MIGHT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING.THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE SHUT OUT PHYSICALLY AS WELL AS ECONOMICALLY AND WILL NOT HAVE ANY INFLUENCE OVER THE OPERATIONS ON THE SITE.
THE PROPERTIES TO BE DEVELOPED SHOULD HOLD A PROMINENT POSITION IN THE COMMUNITY, AND SO THE INTERSECTION HAS NOT YET BEEN REDEVELOPED.
THIS PROJECT WILL PERMANENTLY REMOVE THE POSSIBILITY FOR SOMETHING THAT BETTER FITS THE COMMUNITY.
THE PROJECT IS LAUDABLE, BUT BRING BELONGS SOMEWHERE ELSE WITH LESS IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTS.
YOU'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
I JUST WANNA EMPHASIZE THE SIZES OF THE SITES ARE PRETTY SMALL.
UH, THE PROJECT SUPPORTS THE CITY'S OVERALL ELECTRIC VEHICLE GOALS, AND THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CODE AMENDMENT THAT'S GOING THROUGH REVIEW WILL NOT ALLOW ANOTHER EV CHARGING USE WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THESE SITES.
SO I'LL JUST END WITH THAT CHAIR.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
UM, IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? SECONDED.
IS THERE A SECOND, UH, VICE CHAIR.
UM, I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS FIRST.
OH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, WAS THAT A YELLOW ON VOTING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? GREEN.
UM, COMMISSIONER COX, WE'LL START WITH YOU.
MY ONLY CONCERN, UM, I'M AN EV OWNER, SO I, I VERY MUCH, UM, WANT TO SUPPORT A PROJECT LIKE THIS.
UM, BUT MY CONCERN IS THE TRANSFORMERS.
UM, THESE, THESE CHARGING STATIONS REQUIRE JUST AN AMAZING AMOUNT OF POWER, UH, TO, TO CHARGE ELECTRIC VEHICLES QUICKLY.
AND I'M LOOKING THROUGH THE SITE PLAN AND, AND KIND OF JUST LOOKING AT WHERE THE TRANSFORMERS ARE LOCATED.
I KNOW ONE OF THEM IS LOCATED AT THE VERY BACK CORNER OF THE SITE, AND THEN I BELIEVE THE OTHER ONE, THEY'RE LOCATED CLOSER TO, UH, THE ROAD, BUT ALSO OVER BY AN ADJACENT PROPERTY.
SO I'M JUST HOPING THE APPLICANT MAYBE CAN SPEAK TO, UM, THE NOISE ISSUE BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH WE MAY BE STAYING BELOW A CERTAIN DECIBEL LIMIT THAT'S REQUIRED BY CODE, THE, THE NOISE COMING FROM TRANSFORMERS ARE CONSTANT.
IT, IT, IT, IT ALMOST, IT, IT BASICALLY NEVER ENDS.
AND THAT COULD BE EVEN MORE ANNOYING AND MORE DAMAGING TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF RESIDENCES IN THIS AREA THAN HAVING JUST AN OCCASIONAL LOUD NOISE THAT THEY CALL CODE ENFORCEMENT ON VERSUS A CONSTANT NOISE THAT THEY'RE HEARING, EVEN IF IT REMAINS JUST BELOW THE DECIBEL LIMIT.
SO I'M HOPING YOU CAN CONVINCE US AND ME THAT YOU'RE GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CODE REQUIREMENT FOR NOISE AND MAKING SURE THAT THESE TRANSFORMERS ARE NOT GOING TO BE A CONSTANT BACKGROUND HUM FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE AND WORK AND PLAY.
UM, IN THIS AREA, WE HAVE OUR ENGINEER TEAM.
IS IT OKAY IF SOMEBODY FROM THE ENGINEER? OKAY, THANKS.
YEAH, GOOD AFTERNOON, JOSE CORREA.
UM, DO I HAVE TO GIVE MY ADDRESS OR ANY OTHER PERTAINING INFORMATION MYSELF? NO NAME IS GOOD.
UM, SO I REPRESENT THE ENGINEERING TEAM, KINLEY HORN, WHO WILL BE, UM, PERFORMING THE SITE CIVIL, UM, ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE DESIGN FOR THIS PROJECT.
UM, LOOKING INTO THE DECIBEL LEVELS, UM, WITH THE TRANSFORMER MANUFACTURER, WE FOUND THAT, UM, AT THE DISTANCE TO THE, THE NEIGHBORING, UM, RESIDENTIAL, UH, PROPERTIES, IT WOULD BE ABOUT THE 40 DECIBEL RANGE.
UM, DOING A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH SEEMS TO BE IN THE, THE AKIN TO, UH, THE BACKGROUND NOISE OF A, OF A LIBRARY.
SO STILL PRETTY, PRETTY DIM OVERALL.
THE TRANSFORMERS THEMSELVES WON'T JUST BE IN AN, IN AN OPEN LOT.
THERE'LL BE, UM, FENCING AND LANDSCAPING AS WELL, UM, TO KIND OF HINDER SOME OF THE, THE ANY NOISE AND, UM, LIGHTING FROM
[01:00:01]
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.I'M CURIOUS, UH, IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU CAN DO WITH THAT FENCING OR, OR THE, THE, THE STRUCTURE AROUND THE, THE TRANSFORMER THAT COVERS TO, TO, TO GO EVEN FURTHER AND ENHANCE THAT, THAT NOISE DEADENING OR NOISE DEFLECTION.
IS THAT, IS THAT POSSIBLE? DO, IS THAT KIND OF AN INDUSTRY THING, NOISE DEADENING AND, AND DEFLECTION FOR THESE TYPES OF TRANSFORMERS? GOOD QUESTION.
UH, MY EXPERIENCE REVOLVES HEAVILY AROUND ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING, UH, MUCH LIKE THE, THE INTENDED USE FOR, FOR THIS PROPERTY.
UM, TYPICALLY YOU DON'T SEE TOO MUCH OF A, LIKE, SOUND DAMPENING SYSTEM AROUND TRANSFORMERS.
HOWEVER, IN THE PAST AT, UM, EITHER THE OWNER'S REQUEST OR THE, UH, CUSTOMER'S REQUEST, WE'VE HAD, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL SOUND BARRIER SLITS FOUND IN THE, THE FENCING.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE MATERIAL FOR THE FENCING HAS BEEN NAILED DOWN.
SO WE'D BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH CITY STAFF DURING THE SITE PLAN PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS ADDRESSED.
OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ? DID I SEE YOUR HAND? OH, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER MUELLER.
AND THEN VICE CHAIR, I WAS JUST GONNA FOLLOW UP ON COMMISSIONER COX'S QUESTION.
IS THAT 45 DB PER TRANSFORMER OR IS THAT FOR THE SITE TOTAL? YOU'RE COMING BACK UP? SURE, SURE, SURE.
AND THEN DO WE KNOW HOW MANY TRANSFORMERS WILL BE NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE, THE GOAL OF SPACES? SURE THING.
I BELIEVE IT'S TWO, UM, LOCATED IN, UM, DIFFERENT LOCATIONS ON THE SITE.
AND THEN DO THEY NEED TO, DO THEY CYCLE ON OFF OR ARE THEY A CONTINUOUS RUN? UM, THERE'LL BE, UH, A CONTINUOUS RUN.
VICE CHAIR, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
UM, CHAIR, THIS IS A, A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, I'M NOT SURE WHO THE RELEVANT STAFF PERSON TO RESPOND.
UH, I, I GUESS I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, THIS WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT AS WELL.
UM, RECENTLY WE, GOSH, IT WAS AT OUR LAST MEETING, WE ADOPTED THE EO TYPOLOGIES, UM, AND THE ASSOCIATED MAP WITH IT.
AND PART OF IT WAS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, UH, DESIGNATING THIS AREA AS ONE OF THE EAD AREAS.
AND I WAS WONDERING IF STAFF COULD SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO HOW THAT WOULD WORK IN TANDEM.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE, OR I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE ANYBODY AVAILABLE WHO HAS DETAILS ABOUT
ERIC LEE, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UM, AS IF, IF YOU ALL HAVE STARTED DIVING INTO THE BACKUP, UM, FOR, UH, THE APRIL 11TH JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, UM, THE EAD OVERLAY THAT IS PROPOSED IS ALONG THE PROJECT CONNECT LIGHT RAIL PHASE ONE INVESTMENT AND PRIORITY EXTENSIONS.
UM, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY THIS IS, THIS IS NOT ALONG THAT AREA.
IT IS NOT, UH, WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THAT LINE.
SO, SO IT IS NOT THE SAME GEOGRAPHY THAT THAT'S OH, NOT QUESTION.
SO I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, HAS THIS BEEN DESIGNATED, DID WE DESIGNATE THIS AS AN EAD AREA WITHIN THE TYPOLOGIES THAT WE ADOPTED LAST TIME? YES.
UM, I DIDN'T, I I SHOULD HAVE, UH, HAD YOU RESTATE THE QUESTION.
IS, AND SO I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, RIGHT, WE, AS OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE'RE AMENDING TO LOOK AT THIS AREA WITHIN THE EO TYPOLOGIES.
HOW WOULD THIS USE FIT WITHIN THAT? AND THAT MIGHT NOT BE A CONSIDERATION YOU'VE MADE, SO I UNDERSTAND IF YOU DON'T HAVE A READY ANSWER.
SO WE HAVE NOT, UH, DEVELOPED SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS.
[01:05:02]
BUT GOING BACK TO, UM, THE EO OVERLAY THAT IS BEING PROPOSED ON APRIL 11TH, UM, WE ARE CURRENTLY PROPOSING THAT THE EV CHARGING LAND USE BE CONDITIONAL WITHIN THE PROPOSED ETO OVERLAY THAT IS NOT IN THIS GEOGRAPHY.UM, THAT IS OBVIOUSLY ALONG THE RAIL LINE VERSUS, UM, THE, THE RAPID BUS LINE.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW YET EXACTLY WHAT WILL BE PROPOSED, UM, IN THOSE AREAS.
UM, I GUESS MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO STAFF WOULD BE CAN STAFF SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO SORT OF THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND I APPROVING, UM, THE CONDITIONAL USE HERE? SURE.
UM, AGAIN, THIS AREA WAS ZONED IN 2001 FROM CS TO C-S-M-U-C-O-N-P.
I KNOW EVERYBODY IS FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORY OF E CESAR CHAVEZ, WHICH HAS BEEN TRANSFORMING SIGNIFICANTLY LUCKILY IN THE PAST DECADE OR TWO.
UM, A MIX OF USES INCLUDING COMMERCIAL USES RANGING FROM RESTAURANT TO OFFICE BUILDING.
AND THEN THE MU ALSO ALLOWS UP TO APARTMENTS, A WIDE RANGE OF LAND USES.
AND WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS, UH, AN APPROPRIATE LAND USE IN THE AREA.
UM, IT TAKES ACCESS TO ONE STREET.
IT DOESN'T APPEAR FROM OUR SITE PLAN EVALUATION TO HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
UM, SPEC SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE COMPATIBILITY WAIVER, THE CRITERIA OF THE, UH, FENCE, UH, WHICH IS ALSO PROVIDED ON THE OTHER PROPERTY.
IT HAS COMPATIBILITY BUT IT DOESN'T NEED A WAIVER.
THEY'RE ALSO DOING ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING, UM, AND ADDITIONAL EFFORTS TO KIND OF ALLEVIATE ANY IMPACT OR WHATEVER IMPACT THEY MIGHT HAVE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON COMMISSIONER COX'S AND COMMISSIONER AL'S.
UM, QUESTIONS REGARDING THE TRANSFORMERS.
AND MY QUESTION IS FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU SAID TWO TRANSFORMERS THAT WILL PUT OUT 40 DECIBELS EACH RUNNING 24 7.
SO MY QUESTION IS, WOULD THAT HAVE A CUMULATIVE EFFECT, LIKE COLLECTIVELY PRODUCING A LOUDER NOISE, OR WOULD THAT JUST BE THE REFRIGERATOR HUM NOISE? WOULD THAT BE LOUDER BECAUSE OF THE TUBE? IT WOULD, IT WOULD NOT BE LOUDER.
IT WOULD JUST BE A COLLECTIVE, UM, IN MY OPINION, MIXED WELL WITH THE, YOU KNOW, OVERALL NOISE OF CAESAR CHAVEZ AND TRAFFIC AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT GOES WITH THAT SIDE OF TOWN.
AND, AND HOW FAR IS IT FROM THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD? DO YOU KNOW? JUST WHERE THE TRANSFORMERS WOULD BE? UM, THE, OH, GO FOR IT.
SO THE TRANSFORMERS ON THE NORTH PROPERTY, WHICH IS 27 30, ARE ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER.
SO THEY ARE, UH, ADJACENT TO THAT BACK ALLEYWAY AND THEN PLEASANT VALLEY.
AND SO I WOULD IMAGINE THAT YOU WOULD GET MORE NOISE FROM THE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC THAN THE TRANSFORMERS.
UM, THEY'RE NOT CUMULATIVE TO WHERE THEY ADD UP OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT ON 27 11.
THE SOUTH PROPERTY, UH, THE TRANSFORMERS ARE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ALONG CAESAR CHAVEZ, UM, AND A BIT TO THE WEST CORNER, WHICH I BELIEVE IS STILL MORE OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
MAYBE IT WAS A HAIR SALON AT ONE POINT, AND THERE'S A BAR OVER THERE AS WELL.
MM-HMM,
ONE MORE QUESTION ACTUALLY, I GUESS ALSO OF THE APPLICANT AND THE ENGINEER.
SORRY, GOT US GOING SINCE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT NOISE, THE TRANSFORMERS.
I WAS WONDERING IF THE APPLICANT COULD SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THE OTHER DESIGN CONSTRAINTS RELATED TO ELECTRIC SERVICE.
I MEAN, THESE ARE BIG TRANSFORMERS.
YOU OBVIOUSLY NEED A LOT OF POWER COMING TO THE SITE, AND IF THAT IN IMPACTED THE LOCATION OF THESE SITES AT ALL.
SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING IN TANDEM WITH AUSTIN ENERGY, UM, NOT ONLY PROVIDING POWER TO THE SITE, BUT ALSO MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE MEETING ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR, UM, TRANSFORMER ACCESS AND, UM, UH, MAINTENANCE REQUIRES, UH, MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR
[01:10:01]
LONG-TERM USE.SO, UM, WE'VE, WE'VE ALREADY, UM, COVERED WITH THEM THAT WE HAVE THE AVAIL, THEY HAVE THE AVAILABLE POWER THAT WE'RE REQUESTING, UM, AND ARE WORKING WITH THEM TO, UM, THAT I SHOULD SAY THAT WE, WE HAVE WORKED WITH THEM IN DEVELOPING THE SITE PLAN AND, UM, THEY HAVE, UM, SEEN THE SITE PLAN NUMEROUS TIMES.
AND THEN, IS THAT PRIMARY POWER SERVICE, IS THAT ALONG PLEASANT VALLEY? I'M INTERPRETING THIS CORRECT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? THANK YOU.
UM, AND THIS IS SOMEWHAT OF A PROCESS QUESTION, BUT LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN FOR THE, UH, SOUTHERN PROPERTY, UM, IT LOOKS LIKE ABOUT HALF OF THE LENGTH OF SIDEWALK BEING BUILT IS ACTUALLY NARROWER THAN THAT SEVEN FEET REQUIRED BECAUSE IT, IT TAPERS TO MEET THE EXISTING SIDEWALKS ON EITHER SIDE.
HOW DO YOU DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH OF THAT SORT OF NARROWER PORTION OF SIDEWALK IS PERMISSIBLE, UM, AND HOW LONG THAT, THAT TAPER IS INSTEAD OF REQUIRING THE FULL SEVEN FOOT WIDTH? UM, I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE TRANSPORTATION STAFF FOR THAT QUESTION, BUT I I DO KNOW
CURTIS BEATTY, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS, RIGHT? WE DO, WE DO HAVE STANDARD DETAILS FOR TRANSITIONS FROM SIDEWALKS THAT ARE FROM OLDER EXISTING WIDTHS TO THE NEWER REQUIRED WIDTHS.
UH, TYPICALLY WE TRY TO MAKE THOSE SO THAT IT'S NOT ONLY EASY FOR WALKERS TO MAKE A TRANSITION FROM MAYBE TWO OR THREE BREATHS TO MORE SINGLE FILE, BUT ALSO FOR THOSE ON THE BIKE, THEY CAN MAKE A TRANSITION WITHOUT HAVING TO DO ANY SWERVES.
SO IT IS PRETTY STANDARD DETAIL THAT WE FOLLOW.
MAY NEED TO MAKE SOME FIELD ADJUSTMENTS IF THERE'S A UTILITY POLE OR SOMETHING, UH, A MANHOLE COVER IN THE WAY THAT WE MAY HAVE TO MODIFY THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.
AND SO IF, IF THE PROPERTY'S ON EITHER SIDE REDEVELOP IN THE FUTURE AND UPGRADE THEIR SIDEWALKS, WOULD THEY THEN BE REQUIRED TO, TO RETROFIT THAT SORT OF NARROW, NARROWER PORTION OR WOULD THEY ALSO TAPER TO MEET IT? SO YOU HAVE A SIDEWALK THAT'S SORT OF UNDULATING IN WIDTH AS YOU GO ACROSS? SOME OF THAT WILL DEPEND ON IF IT'S IN CITY RIGHT AWAY OR THROUGH AN EASEMENT.
IF IT'S ALL WITHIN CITY RIGHT AWAY, THE CITY STAFF CAN GO BACK THROUGH THAT TRANSITION AND WIDEN IT.
SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT BACK AND FORTH.
UH, DIFFERENT WIDTHS, UM, C WILL GO THROUGH AND TAKE, TAKE THAT, REMOVE THAT TAPER SO THAT IT'LL BE A CONTINUAL WIDTH SIDEWALK THROUGH THAT, UH, SECTION OF E CESAR CHAVEZ.
UM, SINCE WE HAVE TRANSPORTATION STAFF HERE,
AND I JUST, I, I GUESS I WAS CURIOUS WHEN YOU SEE THAT THERE'S ARE NEW MULTIMODAL OPPORTUNITIES COMING IN AND THEN YOU HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WHICH IS MAYBE PART OF THAT PLAN BUT DOESN'T TOTALLY ALIGN WITH SOMETHING LIKE THE BIKE BRIDGE, WAS THAT A CONSIDERATION? WHEN YOU LOOK AT A SITE LIKE THIS, OBVIOUSLY WE LIKE TO REALLY BE EMPHASIZING ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION, BUT HOW DOES THAT FIT IN WITH SORT OF WHAT WE'RE DOING ON THE PLEASANT VALLEY AREA AND THE TRANSFORMATION WE'RE DOING THERE? YEAH, UH, THESE FRONTAGES ARE PRETTY MUCH ONE OF THE PROPERTIES.
THE NORTH SIDE DOES HAVE FRONTAGE ON EAST, UH, EXCUSE ME, SOUTH PLEASANT OR NORTH PLEASANT VALLEY.
UH, AND WE WILL HAVE THE SIDEWALKS AND EVERYTHING ON ITS FRONTAGE.
UH, SO ON THE EAST FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY, THOSE WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED.
UM, AS FAR AS DEDICATED BIKE FACILITIES, IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARDER BECAUSE WE DO HAVE RIDE OF AWAY RESTRICTIONS IN THIS AREA.
UM, IF YOU WOULD SEE ON THE PROPOSED SITE PLANS, THEY ARE DOING SOME RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION ALONG EAST CESAR CHAVEZ.
UH, AND WE ALSO IN OUR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GROUP ARE LOOKING AT FOUR BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS ON E CESAR CHAVE ITSELF.
SO, UH, THAT GROUP IN PARTICULAR IS LOOKING HOW TO MAKE BETTER CONNECTIONS TO THE FUTURE WISHBONE BRIDGE.
AND THEN JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION, I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S FOR YOU OR SOME OTHER STUFF.
UM, HAVE WE SEEN THIS TYPE OF USAGE WHERE WE MIGHT HAVE FLEET SERVICES COMING THROUGH AN EV AND CHARGER VERSUS, AND HOW DOES THAT LOOK GET LOOKED AT VERSUS SAY, WHERE WE MIGHT HAVE RES, YOU KNOW, UH, JUST TYPICAL, UM, EV CHARGER USAGE MIGHT, WE MIGHT SEE IT LIKE AT THE LIBRARY OR SOMETHING ELSE.
SOME OF OUR OTHER MORE TRADITIONAL EV SAY THE ONES THAT'S OVER ON ELECTRIC STREET, I GUESS THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE A PLANNING STAFF QUESTION.
PLANNING, PLANNING STAFF ON THAT ONE.
SO I GUESS I'LL RESTATE THE QUESTION JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, OBVIOUSLY WHEN WE HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THE ELECTRIC CHARGING AVENUE, WHICH IS MOSTLY USED BY RESIDENTS OR YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN AUSTIN WHO HAPPEN TO HAVE EVS VERSUS WHAT WE HEARD THE CONCERN RELATED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAYING THAT THIS MIGHT BE USED FOR SOMETHING LIKE LYFTS AND UBERS AND MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT SORT OF USAGE PATTERN AS A RESULT.
[01:15:01]
HOW WOULD YOU ALL LOOK AT THAT DIFFERENTLY, IF THAT MAKES SENSE? WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY PROPOSED SITE PLANS LIKE THIS, BUT THERE ARE AREAS THROUGHOUT TOWN WHERE, UH, EXISTING BUSINESSES HAVE DECIDED TO REDEDICATE A CHUNK OF, SAY, 20 PARKING SPACES TO HAVE, UH, REGULAR PEOPLE COME AND GO AND USE THE SPACES.SO WE WERE FAMILIAR WITH A, A LEVEL OF THE ACTIVITY NOT JUST, UH, IN A SPECIFIC LOCATION THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE OTHER USES IN OTHER PARKING.
SO I GUESS LIKE, TO CLARIFY THE QUESTION THEN, UM, WE WOULD SAY THAT, UH, WHERE WE HAVE A RESIDENTIAL OR SORT OF PUBLIC USE OF EV THAT IS UNDERSTOOD TO BE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WHICH IT WOULD BE MORE TARGETED, SAY FLEET SERVICES OR MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT USAGE PATTERN.
SO YOU ALL DID CONSIDER THOSE DIFFERENCES? YEAH, DIFFERENT, UH, USAGE PATTERNS, OF COURSE COMPARED TO RESIDENTIAL.
I WAS THINKING OF SOME OF THE OTHER COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, UH, THE THINGS CLOSE TO DOWNTOWN WHERE THERE'S 20 SPACES, UH, PEOPLE USING THEM MORE ON A COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER BASIS THAN SOMEBODY COMING IN SLEEPING THERE OVERNIGHT.
UM, SO IT SEEMED MORE AKIN TO THOSE.
BUT AGAIN, THIS IS A NEW PRODUCT TYPE FOR AUSTIN.
OKAY, WE HAVE ONE MORE SPOT FOR QUESTIONS.
SEEING NONE, IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION? COMMISSIONER WOODS? I MOVE, WE DENY APPLICANT REQUEST ON ITEMS 14 AND 15.
IS THERE A SECOND? ONE SECOND.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? I WOULD.
AND I, I REALLY DO FEEL THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT AS A CITY WE HAVE ADEQUATE EV CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT I WOULD BE MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE IF THESE CHARGING STATIONS WERE SOME SORT OF CONVERSION FROM AN EXISTING AUTO ORIENTED USE, LIKE A GAS STATION RATHER THAN, IN THIS CASE, A MIXED USE SITE ON AN IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDOR.
AND I JUST REALLY DON'T FEEL THAT THIS DECIDEDLY AUTO ORIENTED USE IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS AREA THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED FOR WALKABILITY AND PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED USES IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AND WHERE, AS IT WAS POINTED OUT, WE HAVE A LOT OF NEW TRANSIT OPTIONS COMING IN NEARBY, ALONG PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD.
AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I, I THINK WE SHOULD DENY THIS REQUEST.
ANY COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION OR FOUR? BYE CHAIR.
I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS PRETTY MUCH SPOKEN TO IT.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT'S, UM, WORK ON THIS AND OUR STAFF'S WORK ON THIS.
AND I'LL BE HONEST, I THINK THIS IS A, IS A HARD DECISION TO MAKE, BUT I AGREE, I THINK THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR, FOR THIS KIND OF USE CONSIDERING IT IS ONE OF OUR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT SPACES THAT WE HAVE INCLUDED AS PART OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WE'RE ALSO LOOKING TO SEE, UM, HOW WE SORT OF INTEGRATE THESE USES WITH MORE MIXED USE, UM, TYPE USES.
SO THIS IS, THESE ARE SITES THAT ARE ALREADY ZONED FOR IT.
AND THEN WE ALREADY HEARD HOW THIS WORKS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE VERY MUCH ALIGNED WITH OUR PLANNING PRINCIPLES, UM, AND PLANNING DOCUMENTS.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT THIS AREA AS PERHAPS NOT BEING SUITABLE FOR THIS.
I THINK IF THERE WAS WAYS THERE WERE WAYS TO LOOK AT THIS AS A DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDED OTHER USES THAT COULD BE OF BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY, OR IF THERE WAS A WAY TO LOOK AT THIS AS A, UM, SOME KIND OF A QUASI PARK AND RIDE FACILITY, I THINK THINGS LIKE THAT COULD HAVE MADE IT, UM, MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AREA.
BUT AS SUCH, I, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE VOTING FOR IT, SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
THIS IS, UM, THE MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WOODS AND SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRS ARE TO DENY THE REQUEST ON ITEMS NUMBER 14 AND 15.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? 3, 4, 5, 6.
AND THEN I HAVE THOSE VOTING AGAINST ONE, TWO AND THOSE ABSTAINING.
THREE AGAINST AND THREE OR IT'S 7 3 3 13.
SO THE, THE VOTE TALLY ON THAT IS 7 4 3 AGAINST AND THREE ABSTAINING.
[Items 16 & 17]
TO ITEMS NUMBER 16 AND 17.THESE WERE PULLED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
[01:20:01]
DELL VALLEY ISDI INTERLOCAL DEVELOPMENT AG AGREEMENT FOR DISTRICTS TWO AND THREE AND PFLUGERVILLE, ISD, UH, INTERLOCAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DISTRICTS ONE AND SEVEN.WILL THAT BE YOU, MR. MARS? EVENING AGAIN, CHAIR COMMISSIONER KEITH MARS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
UH, HAPPY TO ANY ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE COMMISSIONERS MAY HAVE.
DID YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION THAT YOU WANTED TO GIVE OR NO? UH, I'M SORRY.
I I DO NOT, I CAN GIVE YOU, JUST GIVE YOU THE, THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS.
SO THE, THIS INTERLOCAL OR THESE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS ARE, UH, SIMILAR TO THE AUSTIN ISD AGREEMENT AND OTHERS, UH, THAT ORIGINATED IN 1994, UH, EARLIER OR THIS YEAR, ACTUALLY LAST YEAR, UH, COMMISSIONING COUNCIL HEARD CHANGES TO THE AUSTIN ISD INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
UH, THESE TWO, UH, WERE BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION BY BOTH PFLUGERVILLE, UH, ISD AND ALSO DEV VALLEY ISD THAT THEY INADVERTENTLY EXPIRED.
SO THE ORIGINAL INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS FROM 1994, UH, ARE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, UH, OR I SHOULD SAY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS AROUND SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.
UH, TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIRES, UH, TWO FORMS OF GOVERNMENT TO COME TOGETHER TO DEVELOP THESE STANDARDS.
SO ESSENTIALLY THE, UH, IF THE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, UH, WANTS REQUIREMENTS IN THE CITY CONCURS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS, THEN THOSE ARE MEMORIALIZED, THEN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
UH, THE PART OF THE CHALLENGE WITH THESE AGREEMENTS IN PARTICULAR ARE THAT THE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ITSELF IS BOTH IN CITY OF AUSTIN REGULATORY JURISDICTION, BUT ALSO LARGELY OUTSIDE OF OUR JURISDICTION.
THESE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS, WHEN I SAY THESE, I MEAN THE DELL VALLEY AND PFLUGERVILLE ISD AGREEMENTS ONLY APPLY TO THOSE SCHOOLS THAT ARE EITHER IN OUR ZONING JURISDICTION OR OUR PLANNING JURISDICTION, FULL LIMITED PURPOSE.
AND THEN ETJ PART OF THOSE CONDITIONS ALSO MEAN THAT FACILITIES THAT SERVICE THE SCHOOLS, SO ROADWAYS BY EXAMPLE, ARE NOT NECESSARILY CITY STREETS AND JUST FROM BACK OF NAPKIN, MANY OF THEM ARE NOT.
SO TRAVIS COUNTY ROADS WHERE THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY ROADS THAT SERVICE THESE SCHOOLS.
UH, WHEN THE, THE ISDS RECOGNIZED THAT THESE AGREEMENTS AGAIN INADVERTENTLY EXPIRED, UH, CITY STAFF AND THE DISTRICTS, UH, AGREED, LET'S, LET'S GET THESE BACK IN PLACE AND SHOULD CHANGES BE NECESSARY AT SOME POINT TO MEET THE NEEDS OF BOTH PARTIES, WE WOULD REVISIT MORE COMPREHENSIVE REFORM AT THAT TIME.
BUT IT WAS MOST IMPORTANT TO PUT THESE BACK IN PLACE.
UH, DELL VALLEY, ISD HAS A SITE PLAN CURRENTLY IN REVIEW FOR THE NEW HIGH SCHOOL.
UH, AND PFLUGERVILLE IS SOON TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN FOR A NEW SCHOOL.
UH, I THINK BOTH ARE FROM, FROM BOND MONIES.
BOTH ISDS HAVE SAID THAT THE DISTRICTS AS WRITTEN MEET THEIR NEEDS, UH, STAFF OF THE, UH, THE OPINION, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE NUANCES OF SOME OF THIS BEING IN THE COUNTY AND SOME OF THE WORK BEING BROADER THAN JUST CITY CONSIDERATIONS.
SO FOR THAT REASON AND FOR THE, FOR THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING THESE IN PLACE WHILE THE PLANS IN REVIEW AND CAN BE PERMITTED UNDER THOSE AGREEMENTS.
THAT'S WHY THESE, UH, THAT'S WHY THESE TWO INTERLOCALS ARE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
UM, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THESE ITEMS, SO I WILL, YES.
UH, I'LL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER 16 AND 17.
IS THERE A SECOND? I SEE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON IS SECOND, AND WE WILL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I'LL, OH, I'M SORRY.
UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? YES.
UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, SINCE YOU PULLED THESE ITEMS, I'LL SEE IF YOU HAVE THE FIRST QUESTION.
UM, YEAH, ONE QUESTION I HAVE, MR. MORRISS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IS, UM, WERE THERE ANY SCHOOL SITE PLANS IN DELL VALLEY OR VILLE ISD WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN LIMITS, UH, PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OR REVIEWED SINCE THE TIME THESE AGREEMENTS HAVE EXPIRED? AND IF SO, WHAT IMPACTS, IF ANY, WILL THIS HAVE ON THOSE? AND IF YOU DUNNO THE ANSWER, THAT'S FINE.
I THINK, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
SO THE, THE BOTH INTERLOCALS EXPIRED IN 2021.
UH, AND WELL, IN AN IMPORTANT CONTEXT OF THAT FOR THE, FROM THE COMMISSION TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT ACTUALLY THE, UH, THE AGREEMENTS EXPIRED IN, IN 2019,
[01:25:02]
UH, IN AT THAT, OR THEY WERE GOING TO EXPIRE IN 2019, STAFF BROUGHT FORWARD A TWO YEAR EXTENSION ON THE EXISTING AGREEMENTS TO LAST UNTIL 2021.THE REASON WHY THIS WAS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR A TWO YEAR AGREEMENT IS, UH, THE CITY WAS IN THE PROCESS OF REWRITING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND, UH, WE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE KNOW WHERE THAT IS NOW.
SO, UH, FAST FORWARD TO 2021, UH, THEY, AGAIN, THE AGREEMENTS INADVERTENTLY EXPIRED AND THEN WE'RE PICKING US UP AGAIN IN 2024.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE HAVE NOT BEEN PLANS SUBMITTED DURING THAT TIME, THAT FALL AND THAT KIND OF LAPSE PERIOD BETWEEN THE, WHEN THEY EXPIRED IN 21.
UH, AND TODAY, EXCEPT FOR THE PHIL VALLEY SITE PLAN CURRENTLY IN REVIEW, THAT IS HAVE IN IN LIMBO BETWEEN, UH, BETWEEN THE AGREEMENT.
UM, AND SO WHY, WHY IS THE CITY NOT CURRENTLY PURSUING ANOTHER SHORT TERM EXTENSION? UH, SINCE, AS YOU SAY, WE, WE SORT OF KNOW WHERE THE
UH, WE'VE MADE A NUMBER OF VERY, VERY SORT OF DRAMATIC POLICY CHANGES, UM, RELATED TO THINGS COVERED IN THESE
AND BASICALLY SAY THE 1994 TITLE 13 APPLIES, WHICH IS A PAIN TO READ WAY
UM, SO WHY IS, WHY IS THIS SITTING OUT CURRENTLY LOOKING TO UPDATE ILAS, UH, OR DO A SHORT TERM EXTENSION JUST TO GET THESE SITE PLANS APPROVED AND AN UPDATE BEFORE IN THE FUTURE, UH, THINKING OF, YOU KNOW, OTHER BOND INITIATIVES MIGHT TAKE PLACE.
I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
I, I, I THINK THE BEST ANSWER IS, UH, LEARNING OUR LESSONS FROM, FROM JUST APPLYING A TWO YEAR EXTENSION.
UH, THERE IS SOME SENSE OF A REASONABLE TIMELINE OF, WELL, WHAT, WHAT OUGHT THAT BE? UH, AND RATHER THAN AN ARBITRARY NUMBER OF, WELL, WHAT WAS ALREADY PROVIDED FOR IN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT, UH, IS WHAT WOULD MOVE FORWARD.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT BOTH PARTIES CAN'T COME BACK AND AMEND THE, THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, UH, AFTER IT'S, UH, AFTER IT'S BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE, SO TO SPEAK.
UH, BUT ALLOWING IT TO LIVE UNTIL IT, UNTIL IT DOESN'T LIVE, RATHER THAN A, A TWO YEAR EXTENSION TO KIND OF AVOID THAT PITFALL ONCE AGAIN.
AND CAN YOU SPEAK TO, UH, AND I'VE READ THE AGREEMENTS NOW, BUT THE PROCESS FOR AMENDING THESE, UM, I SEE A PROCESS FOR CANCELING THE AGREEMENT.
I THINK ONCE SEVEN YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE GRATIFICATION, EITHER PARTY CAN CANCEL THE AGREEMENT, UH, OTHERWISE IT LASTS 25 YEARS.
DOES THAT SAME WAITING PERIOD APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OR, OR HOW, HOW ARE AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENT HANDLED? COMMISSIONER, I'LL NEED TO LOOK AT THAT IN FURTHER DETAIL, BUT MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT BOTH PARTIES CAN COME TOGETHER AND PROPOSE AMENDMENTS.
I THINK THE IMPORTANT PART WITH THE INTERLOCAL IS THAT IT'S ENABLED BY A STATE LEGISLATION WITH THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH NECESSITATES THE TWO PARTIES AS, AS KIND OF PEER GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS TO COME TOGETHER, UH, WITH ANY, WITH ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
AND WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY NEED TO DO THAT, AND WE WOULD NEED TO DO THAT CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THAT THE, THE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT NEEDS CONTINUITY ACROSS ALL OF THEIR SCHOOLS, OF WHICH SOME OF THE SCHOOLS HAPPEN TO BE IN CITY OF AUSTIN REGULATORY JURISDICTION.
SO THERE NEEDS TO BE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION.
UH, BUT YES, ABSOLUTELY BOTH PARTIES COULD COME TOGETHER TO MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THIS INTERLOCAL.
I GUESS THERE'S SOMETHING LIKE, WHAT, 1214 SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT HAVE PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAVE STAFF STARTED TO LOOK AT ALL OF THOSE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS TO GET AHEAD OF WHEN THEY EXPIRE, UH, TERMS THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE RENEGOTIATED, POLICY CHANGES THAT THE CITY MIGHT WANNA MAKE? UH, A VERY TIMELY QUESTION, COMMISSIONER.
AND THAT KIND OF ALSO LED TOWARDS THE, WE HAVE TWO THAT ARE IN FRONT OF US THAT WE, THAT WE KNOW NEED REMEDY NOW.
UH, BUT THERE ARE OTHER INTER THERE ARE OTHER, UH, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT ARE PART OF CITY OF CITY OF AUSTIN IS A REGULATORY JURISDICTION THAT MM-HMM,
THIS IS REALLY JUST ABOUT SOLVING THE PROBLEM IN, IN FRONT OF US, RECOGNIZING THAT A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH IS NEEDED.
OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH
I THINK SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS WERE HERE WHEN WE, THE A ISD INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT CAME BACK TO US.
AND JUST TO SORT OF TOUCH ON THE CONVERSATION WE'RE HAVING OF THAT TOOK QUITE A WHILE TO NEGOTIATE AND SORT OF COME TO A, A PLACE.
AND I GUESS WHAT I'M CURIOUS IS, GIVEN THAT WE DO HAVE SEVERAL OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT MAY NOW ALSO NEED THIS, THE SAME SORT OF REMEDY
[01:30:01]
AND ADDRESSING, AND ARE WE FEELING LIKE THAT THAT IS NOW BEING PUT ON A TIMELINE, THAT THERE'S SUFFICIENT STAFF RESOURCES TO COME BACK? BECAUSE I, I THINK I SHARE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S CONCERN THAT WE'RE SORT OF, THIS IS A BANDAID, BUT WE, IT'S A GAPING WOUND MAYBE, AND WE DON'T WANNA NECESSARILY CONTINUE TO ONLY ADDRESS THE TOP, THE SURFACE LEVEL ISSUE, COMMISSIONER.WE, WE DON'T WANT TO TRANSACT THIS PIECE BY PIECE.
I'D RATHER ADDRESS THIS COMPREHENSIVELY.
UH, BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT A, A PLAN WAS IN, IN REVIEW AND KNOWING THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT TAKES TO NEGOTIATE THAT AND CAREFULLY NEGOTIATED WAS JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT, THAT, UH, THAT THAT WAS REALLY IN THE CARDS FOR, ESPECIALLY FOR THE DELL VALLEY THAT'S IN RIGHT NOW.
SO I GUESS JUST TO CLARIFY THE QUESTION, IS THIS, IS THERE A STAFF WORK PLAN TO SORT OF GO BACK AND START TO ADDRESS ALL OF THESE IN THE REVIEW PROCESS AND MAYBE WE'LL START TO SEE MORE OF THESE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS COME IN A WAY THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY REALLY BEGIN TO LOOK AT AMENDMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND BRINGING THEM MORE IN ALIGNMENT? IS THAT THE PLAN? YES.
AND, AND, AND I AM, I'M THAT, THAT PERSON WHO WILL BE BRINGING THOSE, THOSE FORWARD.
UM, AND THEN JUST ONE FINAL QUESTION BECAUSE I THINK WE DID SEE THIS LAST YEAR WITH THE A ISD BOND, AND THEN NOW OBVIOUSLY IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE HAD SOME SISTER SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHO'VE ALSO DONE THEIR BONDS.
WE WANT, OBVIOUSLY ALL OF OUR, OUR ISDS BONDING AND GROWING THEIR SCHOOL DISTRICT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN CONSTRAINTS AROUND EDUCATIONAL FUNDING.
SO I GUESS I'M JUST CURIOUS, IS YOUR TEAM SORT OF TRACKING WHEN THESE BONDS START TO HAPPEN THAT WE'RE IN THE RIGHT PLACE AND SO AGAIN, GETTING AHEAD OF THIS PROCESS? UH, ABSOLUTELY.
AND WE ARE ACTUALLY TIMING UP THE, THE, THE BOND WORK WITH THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE SO THAT WE KNOW WHEN DEVELOPMENT PLANS ARE GOING TO COME IN.
PART OF THAT IS JUST GOOD COMMUNICATION.
WE MEET WITH, UH, WITH BOTH ISD AND ALDE VALLEY REGULARLY ON, ON PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING THROUGH THE PIPELINE ON, ON DEVELOPMENT.
UH, SO WE CAN, WE CAN HAVE, WE KNOW WHAT THE VOLUME OF PERMITTING IS GOING TO BE AT THE TIME, SO WE CAN GET THIS PERMITTED QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY AND ALSO COMPLIANT WITH THE CODE.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON THIS.
IS THERE A MOTION VICE CHAIR, CHAIR, I WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON BOTH ITEMS. I SEE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MUTAL.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? I, I, I DO APPRECIATE MY COMMISSIONERS, UH, FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, UH, BRINGING THIS ITEM FOR DISCUSSION, GOING THROUGH THESE, SOME OF THESE ITEMS. AND I THINK HAVING HEARD STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THOSE, I FEEL COMFORTABLE.
I REALLY APPRECIATE STAFF'S EFFORTS TO SORT OF CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION WITH THE COMMISSION AND OUR PARTNERS.
AND OF COURSE, THESE ARE CRITICAL, UM, AMENDMENTS IN PARTS OF OUR AISLE IS TO ENSURE THAT OUR, UH, SCHOOL DISTRICTS CONTINUE TO SERVE OUR STUDENTS.
AND OF COURSE, THIS IS VERY EXCITING WORK.
SO THANK YOU ALL, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST SPEAKING FOR, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS, THIS, THE MOTION IS FOR ITEMS 16 AND 17 BY VICE CHAIR AZAR, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MOOSE TOLER FOR, UH, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON BOTH ITEMS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? SEVEN.
THOSE AGAINST AND THOSE ABSTAINING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS.
OKAY, SO OUR FINAL DISCUSSION CASE THIS EVENING IS NUMBER 18.
DO WE NEED A BREAK BEFORE? OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE 5, 10, 9, 13.
SO, UM, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON
[18. LDC Amendment: C20-2022-003 - South Central Waterfront Combining District and Density Bonus Program]
TO NUMBER 18 SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, AND WE WILL FIRST HEAR FROM STAFF.I WORK FOR THE CITY'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
MY TEAM AND MANY COLLEAGUES ACROSS CITY DEPARTMENTS.
MANY WHO, UH, ARE JOINING ME HERE TONIGHT HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT CODE.
AND WE'RE GLAD TO BE SPEAKING WITH YOU ABOUT THIS CODE TONIGHT.
THE CODE AMENDMENT FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT IS BASED ON TWO KEY ITEMS. THE FIRST IS THE 2016 ADOPTED SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION FRAMEWORK.
AND THE SECOND IS THE 2022 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION, SPECIFICALLY PERTAINING TO THIS AREA TO NAVIGATE COUNCIL'S REQUEST, OUR APPROACH TO THIS CODE HAS BEEN TO DEVELOP AN INCENTIVIZED SET OF REGULATIONS AND BONUS
[01:35:01]
PROGRAM THROUGH THE CREATION OF A COMBINING DISTRICT AND DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.THIS IS CONSIDERED A PAPER DISTRICT SIMILAR TO THE NORTH BURNETT GATEWAY, THEN A CITY INITIATED REZONING OF PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT WOULD OCCUR, UM, WITH SOME, UM, AND OUR INTENT TO STAFF IS TO REQUEST THAT COUNCIL REZONE ALL PARCELS WHEN THE WITHIN THE DISTRICT, WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS, UM, THAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU.
UM, STAFF ARE NOT SEEKING TO INITIATE REZONING OF EXISTING PUDS PDAS OR THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN THE AREA.
LANDOWNERS OF THESE SITES CAN INITIATE THEIR OWN REZONING PER TYPICAL PROCESSES.
UM, UH, BUT WE WOULD NOT BE ASKING TO INCLUDE THEM IN THE STAFF INITIATED REZONING.
SO BEFORE YOU IS THE STRUCTURE OF HOW THE CODE IS WRITTEN.
THE ELEMENTS OF THE DRAFT COMBINING DISTRICT ARE SHOWN ON THE LEFT HERE.
AND THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM ELEMENTS ARE SHOWN ON THE RIGHT.
THE COMBINING DISTRICT IS BROKEN DOWN INTO FIVE SUBDISTRICTS.
THE SUBDISTRICTS ARE DESIGNATED FROM AND DISTINGUISHED FROM ONE ANOTHER IN TERMS OF BOTH FLOOR AREA RATIO OR FAR AND HEIGHT LIMITS OF FOUR OF THE FIVE SUBDISTRICTS.
ADDITIONALLY, SINCE THE DISTRICT'S PARCEL SIZES VARY SO WIDELY, STAFF HAS INTRODUCED THE CONCEPT OF DENSITY DISTRIBUTION AREAS, REQUIRING THAT A SITE, UH, BEFORE AN INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTE WOULD BE TRIGGERED, MUST NOT HAVE MORE THAN 90,000 SQUARE FEET, UH, WHICH IS ROUGHLY THE SIZE OF A DOWNTOWN BLOCK.
WE HAD TWO ECONOMIC CONSULTING FIRMS SUPPORT US IN ANALYZING THIS PROGRAM.
ONE HYATT BROWN JOINS US TONIGHT, UM, OVER THE PHONE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THEIR SUPPORT IN THE PROGRAM'S ANALYSIS.
UM, BUT AS FOR THE PROGRAM, UH, AND HOW IT'S ORGANIZED TO ENTER INTO THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD BEYOND A BASE DENSITY, UH, TO A DENSITY SHOWN IN THE SUBDISTRICT MAP, A SITE MUST ADHERE TO THE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE FIRST THREE TO ONE FAR THEY ARE SEEKING.
UH, THOSE INCLUDE ENHANCED ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS, STREETS SCAPE AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT STANDARDS.
AND 5% OF HOUSING ONSITE MUST BE AFFORDABLE WITHIN THREE TO ONE FAR.
THE AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS MUST BE PROVIDED AT 60% MFI CONDO UNITS MUST TRANSLATE INTO EITHER AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP UNITS AT 80% MFI OR A FEE IN LIEU.
THEN TO ACHIEVE THE MAXIMUM DENSITY AS DESCRIBED IN THE SUBDISTRICT MAP, A SITE MUST CONTRIBUTE FEES IN AND OTHER ONSITE COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
70% OF THE DENSITY BONUS AREA AVAILABLE IN DEVELOPMENT MAY BE ACHIEVED THROUGH FEES IN LIEU AND DEDICATIONS.
AND THE FEES IN LIEU WOULD BE DIVIDED AMONG AFFORDABLE HOUSING PARKS AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY BENEFIT IMPACT.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PARKS FEES WOULD BE SPENT NEARBY AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY IMPACT FEE, UH, BENEFIT FEE WOULD BE SPENT TO SUPPORT THE DISTRICT ITSELF DIRECTLY.
THE OTHER 30% OF BONUS AREA AVAILABLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT MAY BE ACHIEVED THROUGH ADDITIONAL ONSITE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT YOU SEE THERE ON YOUR SCREEN.
SO TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT THIS MIGHT LOOK LIKE, UM, I, WE'VE PROVIDED AN EXAMPLE OF A PROJECT THAT'S IN THE DISTRICT AND HAS RECENTLY SUBMITTED THEIR DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT APPLICATION.
WHAT YOU CAN SEE HERE IS THAT THROUGH THIS PROGRAM, THE DEVELOPMENT IS ABLE TO ACHIEVE ROUGHLY SIX TO ONE FAR, AND THEN COMMUNITY WOULD RECEIVE AND RETURN 21 ONSITE AFFORDABLE UNITS AND $7.1 MILLION IN FEES IN LIEU FOR HOUSING PARKS.
AND, UH, THE INFRASTRUCTURE BASED ON THE SITE SIZE, UM, IT'S BROKEN DOWN INTO THREE DIFFERENT DENSITY DISTRIBUTION AREAS.
AND, UH, ADDITIONAL DENSITY IS GAINED THROUGH VARIOUS PROVIDED ONSITE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, UM, INCLUDING, UH, CERTAIN TYPES OF COMMERCIAL AND MUSIC ACTIVITIES, PUBLIC ART AND OPEN SPACE.
SO BASED ON THE PUBLIC COMIC FEEDBACK WE'VE RECEIVED ALONG THE WAY, STAFF HAS MADE SOME KEY ADJUSTMENTS TO THE, UH, INITIAL FEBRUARY DRAFT THAT WE PUT FORWARD OUT IN THE PUBLIC.
WE'VE INCLUDED SOME KEY UPDATES, UM, AS BACKUP DOCUMENT TO THE PACKAGE YOU RECEIVED FOR TONIGHT, BUT I'LL CALL OUT SOME OF THE CHANGES HERE.
WE'VE EXPANDED THE BOUNDARY TO THE WEST AND ADDED HEIGHT LIMITS, UH, TO FOUR OF THE FIVE SUBDISTRICTS.
WE'VE ADDED SOME BIRD FRIENDLY DESIGN, UH, CONSIDERATIONS.
THERE'S AN AFFORDABLE CREATIVE SPACE COMMUNITY BENEFIT THAT'S BEEN ADDED.
THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS,
[01:40:01]
AND WE'VE, UH, UH, TEMPORARILY ADJUSTED THE BONUS TO ZERO SQUARE FEET FOR SOME NON-RESIDENTIAL ONSITE COMMUNITY BENEFITS WHILE WE AS A CITY ARE ESTABLISHING A CITY COMPLIANCE STRUCTURE FOR THAT, THOSE TYPES OF USES.AND THEN FINALLY, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVESTMENT AREA WAS ADJUSTED IN A, A COUPLE OF SPECIFIC WAYS TO BE MORE TIED TOWARDS, UM, UH, PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT, UM, AND EXPANDING THE BOUNDARY SOUTH JUST A BIT.
FINALLY, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WE AS STAFF HAVE ON OUR IMMEDIATE TO-DO LIST FOR NEXT STEPS IN THIS CODE, UM, IDENTIFIED IN THE KEY HIGHLIGHTS DOCUMENT ALSO, UM, SOME OF THEM INCLUDE BUT AREN'T LIMITED TO THE EXPLORATION OF THE OPTION OF TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND FLAT DECK PARKING.
THE EXPLORATION OF THE OPTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION CODE TO MIMIC THAT OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND, UH, REEVALUATING THE BONUS STRUCTURE WITHIN ONE TO TWO YEARS BASED ON, UM, UPDATED ECONOMIC TRENDS.
WE THINK THESE THINGS ARE VERY IMPORTANT FOR CONSIDERATION, BUT TO SUPPORT THE FTA GRANT FOR PROJECT CONNECT AND ITS TIMELINE, WE FEEL THESE ITEMS CAN BE COMPLETE SOON INSTEAD OF NOW, UH, WITH LIMITED IMPACT TO THE REALIZATION OF THIS AREA OF THE CITY.
AS FOR THE TIMELINE, UH, HERE'S WHERE WE'RE HEADED NEXT, AND HERE'S WHERE WE'VE BEEN.
UM, WE ARE SCHEDULED TO SPEAK WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON APRIL 23RD, AND THEN FINALLY GO BEFORE COUNCIL ITSELF ON MAY 2ND.
SO AS WE MOVE ALONG, WE ASK FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS REVISED VERSION OF THE DRAFT CODE AND TO RECOMMEND IT FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL AND INITIATE REZONING WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
AND WITH THAT, WE'LL TAKE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
I THINK WE'LL HEAR FROM, UM, SOME SPEAKERS AND THEN GET INTO OUR Q AND A.
WE, I HEAR FROM MS. KAITLYN RYAN.
MS. RYAN, ARE YOU PRESENT? MS. RYAN, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
UM, IS THERE ANY WAY YOU CAN PULL UP THE MAP? I CAN'T GET MINE TO OPEN, UM, THE BOUNDARY MAP? SO I'M CAITLYN RYAN.
I'M WITH TURNBRIDGE EQUITIES, AND WE ARE A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.
UM, FIRST AND FOREMOST, WANNA THANK APRIL AND HER ENTIRE STAFF, THEY'VE DONE SUCH A PHENOMENAL JOB INTERACTING WITH ALL OF THE DEVELOPERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS TO DATE.
UM, SO WE'RE, THIS IS PERFECT.
UM, ONE THING WE REQUEST THAT YOU, UH, REVIEW IS OUR CURRENT PROPERTIES ARE ALL FACING THE RIVERSIDE SITE.
IF YOU CAN SEE, THEY'RE ALL IN SUBDISTRICT THREE, THE YELLOW PROPORTIONATE SHARE ON RIVERSIDE, UM, TO THE LEFT, SORRY, UH, FACING SOUTH CONGRESS AND ALL OF SUBDISTRICT ONE AND SUBDISTRICT TWO ARE CURRENTLY OUR PROPERTIES.
UM, ONE THING THAT SUBDISTRICT TWO SUBJECT TO ONE SPECIFICALLY, IS CURRENTLY THE MUSE APARTMENTS THAT SHE CURRENTLY OWN.
THOSE ARE 190 MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS.
THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT DATED, UH, FOR OUR SIGNIFICANT, UH, WHAT WE WANNA DEVELOP HERE, UH, THREE TO ONE FAR MAKES IT FINANCIALLY INFEASIBLE FOR US TO DEVELOP THIS, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE ARE ENCUMBERED BY THE, IF YOU SEE THE LIGHT RAIL AND THEN ALSO CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONES.
UM, AND ALL OF THE, UH, OTHER, AND THE THREE TO ONE DENSITY IS JUST A LITTLE BIT OVER OUR BASE DENSITY, SO IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
UM, THE MUSE APARTMENTS THEMSELVES ARE 190 UNITS WITH 130 OF THOSE UNITS BEING TWO TO THREE BED, TWO BEDROOMS AND THREE BEDROOM LARGE UNITS.
UM, THESE ARE NOT REALLY ACCESSIBLE AND ARE NOT REALLY DESIRABLE IN THE MARKET TODAY.
THEY DON'T GET LEASED THAT, THAT SIGNIFICANTLY.
AND ALSO THEY'RE GONNA BE GREATLY AFFECTED BY THE LIGHT RAIL ONCE THE INSTALLATION OF THE LIGHT RAIL COMES THROUGH.
UM, SO WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING IS THAT WE TAKE A, A LARGER LOOK AT SUBDISTRICT ONE AND TWO AND THOSE CURRENT RESTRICTIONS, ESPECIALLY 'CAUSE SUBDISTRICT ONE IS CURRENTLY THE MUSIC LANE DEVELOPMENT THAT JUST WAS DEVELOPED.
SO THERE'S NOT A FEASIBLE WAY FOR THAT TO BE DEVELOP TORN DOWN ANYTIME SOON.
UM, AND JUST FOR CONSIDERATION, LOOK THROUGH THAT AND JUST SEE IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO UP ZONE THESE AND MAYBE CONSOLIDATE SOME OF THE DISTRICTS TO GIVE A LITTLE MORE DENSITY TO SOME OF OUR PROPERTIES THAT MOST NOTABLY SUBDISTRICT ONE AND TWO, SINCE WE ARE OUT OF THE WHOLE DISTRICT.
UM, SOME OF THE MOST ENCUMBERED BY THE LIGHT RAIL CRITICAL CRITICAL WATER QUALITY.
AND WE ALSO ARE, IF YOU NOTICE THE LOWEST FAR IN THE DISTRICT, EVEN THOUGH WE'VE HAD TO BE EN UH, ENCUMBERED BY THE LIGHT RAIL, NOT IN A BAD WAY THOUGH.
SO, UM, BUT ANYWAY, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL YOUR APPRECIATION.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. STEWART KINS.
MR. KINS, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES CHAIR.
THAT CON CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
[01:45:01]
I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR MR. RUSSO WHILE THE HEARING'S STILL OPEN.UM, CAN WE DO IT DURING Q AND A? NO, I GOT, I NEED TO DO IT DURING THE HEARING.
IS THERE A REASON? YES, MA'AM.
UH, THANK YOU FOR GREAT PRESENTATION BY THE WAY.
UM, IS, IS IT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE, UM, THE, THE SOUTHWEST WATERFRONT PROPOSAL, UH, IS AN AMENDMENT TO IMAGINE AUSTIN.
IS THAT CORRECT? DO I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? THE VISION FRAMEWORK PLAN IS AN AMENDMENT TO IMAGINE AUSTIN.
SO THIS CODE WOULD BE, IS THE INEVITABLE FOLLOW UP TO THAT AMENDMENT, TO THE, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AND, UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THROUGH AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, WE TOOK THE 2000, I THINK, 16 VISION AND INCORPORATED THAT INTO IMAGINE AUSTIN, CORRECT? UM, YES, IN, UH, 2016 IT WAS AMENDED INTO IMAGINE AUSTIN.
AND I'M, UH, I'M, I'M SORRY, POINT OF ORDER.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHY THERE, WE NEED TO HEAR A COMPELLING REASON WHY THESE WOULDN'T BE QUESTIONS FOR Q AND A.
THESE FEEL LIKE THEY WOULD OKAY.
UM, MY COMPELLING, UH, I'LL
UH, MADAM CHAIR, UM, POINT OF ORDER, UM, AS MR. YSO HAS JUST TESTIFIED, THE, UM, UH, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, THE, THE VISION PLAN, THE FRAMEWORK IS AN AMENDMENT TO IMAGINE AUSTIN.
AND, UM, I BELIEVE THAT THE BYLAWS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION INDICATE THAT IF THERE IS AN AMENDMENT OR A CHANGE TO IMAGINE AUSTIN, THAT THOSE CHANGES HAVE TO COME THROUGH THE, UH, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.
AND, UM, I HAVEN'T, I'VE ONLY BEEN ON IT FOR ABOUT 11 MONTHS, SO I DON'T KNOW, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE, UH, THE SOUTHWEST WATERFRONT PROJECT CAME THROUGH, UM, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND JOINT COMMITTEE.
AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE A POINT OF ORDER FOR, UH, VIOLATING OUR BYLAWS.
AS A CLARIFICATION, THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.
I THINK THAT'S YOUR ANSWER IT.
WELL LOOK, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CALL LEGAL UP TO HELP ANSWER THE QUESTION? UM, THAT'S NOT MY CALL, THAT'S YOUR CALL AS THE CHAIR.
I'M NOT THE ONE WITH THE QUESTION, BUT IS LEGAL HERE TO HELP ANSWER THAT QUESTION? THEY'RE ON STANDBY.
IF WE HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP, UM, WE CAN CERTAINLY ASK FOR SOME CLARIFICATION.
CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LADIES ON ANNUAL, WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IF YOU, UH, CAN, UH, PROCEED WITH THE Q AND A AND I CAN CERTAINLY, UH, CONVEY THAT INQUIRY WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT AND WE CAN CIRCLE BACK.
MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT, IS I DON'T, I DON'T LOSE MY ABILITY TO ASK FOR THE POINT OF ORDER, THE POINT OF ORDERS.
IF YOU CLOSE THE HEARING, THEN YOU SHUT OFF MY POINT OF ORDER CHAIR, COMMISSION, LAY ON.
AND SO, UM, CUSTOM TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHILE YOU CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR TESTIMONY, YOU ARE STILL IN THE PUBLIC.
UM, YOU ARE IN STILL, UM, IN THE PHASE OF CONSIDERING THE ITEM.
SO YOUR POINT OF ORDER WOULD STAY.
I THINK IT CHAIR, IS THAT YOUR COMMISSIONER? COX? YOU NEED TO COME ON SCREEN.
I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW MY VIDEO WAS OFF.
UM, I THINK THE QUESTION IS, ARE WE SUPPO, SHOULD WE BE HEARING THIS TONIGHT WITHOUT IT GOING TO CPJC? AND SO I, I HAVE THE SAME CONCERN AS COMMISSIONER HAYNES THAT IF WE PROCEED THEN WE'RE HEARING THE CASE WHEN WE MAYBE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE ORDER IN WHICH IT CAME TO US.
[01:50:05]
UM, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A PAUSE SO THAT WE CAN CONFER WITH STAFF ABOUT THIS AND JUST COME UP WITH A REALLY CLEAR ANSWER, IF THAT'S OKAY.CAN WE TAKE A RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES? NOTED.
SO WE'LL COME BACK AT EIGHT 16.
MR. RIVERA, DO WE HAVE AN ANSWER? THANK YOU, CHAIR.
UH, I HAVE A STAFF, UH, TO PROVIDE INPUT.
I'M ANDREA BATES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
I'VE JUST BEEN IN CONTACT WITH CHRISSY MANN FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
HER TECH WAS KNOCKED OUT BY THE RECENT WEATHER.
SHE HAS ADVISED AS, UH, STAFF THINKS THAT THE CODE AMENDMENTS BEFORE YOU ARE NOT A DIRECT AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE PURPOSE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS TO GUIDE COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF IN EVALUATING AND PROPOSING AMENDMENTS LIKE THIS.
BUT THEY THEMSELVES ARE NOT AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WOULD REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.
THE PROCESS FOR CODE AMENDMENTS GOES THROUGH THE CODES AND ORDINANCES, JOINT COMMITTEE, AND THEN ON THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION, OF COURSE ON COUNCIL.
AND SO THAT IS STAFF'S POSITION THAT IS APPROPRIATE TO BE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
I BELIEVE WE WERE AT, EXCUSE ME.
SO CAN WE GET THAT IN WRITING PLEASE? I WANNA GET THAT IN WRITING.
I'D LIKE TO GET IT IN WRITING AND IF EVERYBODY ELSE DOESN'T WANT IT, I WOULD LIKE IT IN WRITING.
SO WE WERE AT CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, WAS THERE A MOTION ALREADY? OKAY, SO MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, VICE CHAIR AZAR, AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
UM, SO BEFORE WE GET STARTED ON OUR Q AND A, UM, CHAIR, DO WE NEED TO VOTE? I OKAY, I'M SORRY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING A PUBLIC HEARING? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
UM, THOSE, 1, 2, 3, 4 AGAINST, IS THAT A RED COMMISSIONER MO DOLLAR? YES, AND AGAINST ON THE DAES TWO, AND THEN I THINK ABSTENTION FROM COMMISSIONER.
UM, OKAY, SO THAT HELP ME WITH THE COUNT.
WE'VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, DO WE WANNA GO OVER THE AMENDMENTS PROCESS? WE WILL GO INTO OUR Q AND A, BUT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT OUR AMENDMENTS PROCESS FIRST.
UM, UM, SO CONSIDERING SORT OF HOW WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST, WE'RE SORT OF ADAPTING THAT TO SAY WE'LL HAVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY HAD.
WE'LL GO INTO OUR REGULAR Q AND A FOR THIS ITEM.
SO THAT WOULD BE EIGHT COMMISSIONERS UP TO FIVE MINUTES EACH.
UM, AFTER WHICH WE WILL, UM, GO INTO THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.
I DO NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS FROM OUR, UH, WORKING GROUP AT THIS TIME.
SO LIKELY HOW WE WILL PROCEED AT THAT POINT IS WE WILL GO THROUGH, UM, INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
SO WE'LL BE GOING ALPHABETICALLY, UM, ON THE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
UM, AND WE'LL GO THROUGH ONE ROUND AND THEN COMPLETE THE ONE ROUND AND THEN COME BACK.
UM, IF YOU DO NOT DO AN AMENDMENT, MAKE AN AMENDMENT DURING YOUR ROUND, UM, THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED.
ESSENTIALLY, YOU'LL BE FORFEITING YOUR SPOT IN THAT ROUND.
AND SO WE'LL START ON THE NEXT ROUND AND SO ON.
UM, I THINK OUR HOPE WOULD BE TO HAVE A, UM, TWO ROUNDS.
WE CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WHEN WE GET THERE.
JUST SORT OF KEEPING AN EYE ON TIME WHILE IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE MAKING REALLY GOOD TIME TODAY IN TERMS OF HOW THE AMENDMENTS WILL PROCEED, IS ONCE AN AMENDMENT HAS BEEN MADE, UH, ACTUALLY I SHOULD PULL THAT BACK.
SO WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE ASKING IS THAT A COMMISSIONER SHOULD NOT MAKE A MOTION TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT, BUT RATHER THE COMMISSIONER, UM, SHOULD STATE WHAT THEIR AMENDMENT IS AND SORT OF GET THE LOGIC BEHIND IT, AT WHICH POINT WE'LL GO INTO Q AND A FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS.
SO THREE COMMISSIONERS GET TO ASK QUESTIONS FOR UP TO THREE MINUTES.
THOSE QUESTIONS CAN BE FOR STAFF STAKEHOLDERS, FOR THE MOTION MAKER, HOWEVER YOU WISH TO PLEASE.
[01:55:01]
WHICH POINT, UM, AFTER THE QUESTIONS ARE DONE, THE COMMISSIONER WILL MAKE A MOTION AND IT HAS TO BE SECONDED.UM, THE MOTION ESSENTIALLY CONTINUES AS REGULAR MOTION WOULD.
SO IF PEOPLE WISH TO MAKE, UM, AMENDMENTS TO IT, THEY CAN, IF PEOPLE WISH TO DO A SUBSTITUTE THAT THEY CAN, AND WE'LL OF COURSE, SORT OF TIER IT HOW WE DO AFTER, UM, ESSENTIALLY THREE PEOPLE GET TO SPEAK IN FAVOR FOR UP TO THREE MINUTES AND THREE PEOPLE GET TO SPEAK AGAINST A MOTION FOR UP TO THREE MINUTES.
NO QUESTIONS ARE ALLOWED DURING THIS TIME EXCEPT TO ASK ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE MOTION MAKER.
UM, AND THEN AFTER WE'RE DONE WITH THE ROUNDS OF INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE BASE MOTION THAT WOULD'VE BEEN MADE PREVIOUSLY.
AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
'CAUSE I KNOW I WENT THROUGH THAT SOMEWHAT FAST.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENTS PROCESS THAT WILL FALL TONIGHT? COMMISSIONER MUELLER AND THEN COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
IF FOR SOME REASON THERE'S MORE, UH, QUESTIONING OR Q AND A FOR THREE, ARE WE ABLE TO EXTEND THAT? YES, IS THAT WOULD HAPPEN.
YES, WE WOULD LIKE TO AVOID REPEATS, UH, SO SOMEBODY HAVING MULTIPLE SPOTS, BUT DEFINITELY IF WE WANNA GIVE EVERYBODY A SPOT IF, IF NECESSARY.
OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HANS? NO, THAT WAS IT.
WELL, WE'LL START OFF WITH OUR Q AND A.
UM, WHO'S THE FIRST COMMISSIONER WITH A QUESTION? COMMISSIONER COX? I'LL JUST, I'LL JUST JUMP RIGHT INTO THE DEEP END, UM, AND ASK STAFF ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS.
AND I GUESS THE, THE TWO DOTS THAT I'M TRYING TO CONNECT HERE IS ON THE VERY FIRST PAGE OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET, IT SAYS, THE INTENT OF THE, THE VISION PLAN WAS TO PROVIDE 20% NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, OR APPROXIMATELY 527 AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THE DISTRICT.
I KEEP SEEING ALL OF THIS ELABORATE LANGUAGE OF HOW FEES CAN BE PAID TO AVOID ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND, CAN YOU, CAN YOU HELP CONNECT THE DOTS BETWEEN ACHIEVING 527 AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THE DISTRICT AND ALL OF THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE INCLUDED THAT ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO DO THE OBVIOUSLY PREFERRED OPTION, WHICH IS PAY A FEE AND NOT HAVE TO DO THAT ON SITE? IS THAT A QUESTION IN THE STAFF? UM, THIS IS RACHEL TEER, UH, WITH THE, UH, HOUSING DEPARTMENT PRINCIPAL PLANNER WITH THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.
UM, SO THERE IS AN ONSITE HOUSING REQUIREMENT.
UM, IT'S, UH, 5% AS APRIL WENT OVER, IT'S 5% IN THREE TO ONE FLOOR AREA RATIO.
IT'S A REQUIREMENT FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL, UM, THAT DO, UM, UH, RENTAL, UH, RENTAL UNITS.
WE DO ALLOW FEE IN LIEU, UM, FOR CONDOMINIUM UNITS.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT, UM, IT'S A MAJOR BARRIER FOR AFFORDABLE HOMES AND CONDO BUILDINGS BECAUSE HOME OWNERSHIP FEES AND ASSESSMENTS ADD UP AND MAKE IT TO THE POINT WHERE THAT, THAT, UM, THAT HOME IS NO LONGER AFFORDABLE BECAUSE THE HOMEOWNER, THE HOMEOWNER FEES ARE SO HIGH.
SO WE, UM, HAVE BEEN STUDYING THIS AND TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION TO THAT.
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, THE FEE IN LIE EQUIVALENT IS ACTUALLY GONNA BE A HIGHER FEE.
UM, IT'S GONNA BE A FEE THAT, UM, THAT IS THE KIND OF COST OF BUILDING THE UNIT OR THE ESSENTIAL LOSS TO THE DEVELOPER SELLING THAT UNIT AT A, AT A LOWER COST.
SO IT'LL BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, UH, THE MARKET, UH, THE, UM, MEDIAN SALES PRICE IN THE AREA.
SO IN DOWNTOWN OR IN THIS, UH, THIS DISTRICT, AND I, I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING YOU.
I JUST, I JUST DON'T WANNA RUN OUT OF TIME.
UM, AND, AND I'M SURE WE'LL GET INTO MORE ABOUT THE FEES IN LIEU AND HOW THOSE ARE CALCULATED, BUT DID I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY THAT THE, THE ON ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT FOR RENTAL IS ONLY 5%? YES, IT, BUT IT WILL RESULT IN AROUND 481 HOMES AT FULL BUILD OUT, WHICH IS ONLY A FEW SHY OF THE 527 ORIGINALLY ENVISIONED.
SO WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A PLAN TO GET TO THE, THE 20% NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS OR APPROXIMATELY 527 AFFORDABLE UNITS.
SO THIS IS ONE TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX.
UM, AGAIN, WE, THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT WILL
[02:00:01]
CONTINUE TO LOOK AT OTHER OPTIONS LIKE UTILIZING OUR CITY ON LAND OR, UM, OTHER, UH, LEVERAGING DOLLARS IN THE DISTRICT.WE'RE STILL USING THE, THE VISION PLAN AS A GUIDEPOST FOR, UM, ACHIEVING THE VISION.
UM, BUT THROUGH THIS TOOL, BECAUSE WE WANNA MAKE IT MARKET, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT CALIBRATED TO THE MARKET.
UM, WE'RE, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, JUST SHY OF THAT AT 4 481.
CAN YOU HELP UNITS, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY CALIBRATED TO THE MARKET? SO WE, WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOME, UM, UH, ECONOMIC EXPERTS THAT WE'VE WORKED WITH THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS.
AND, UM, ONE OF THE, OUR CONSULTANTS IS ON THE LINE, UM, BUT WE NEEDED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS FEASIBLE UNDER TODAY'S MARKET CONDITIONS, WHICH ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW, THE INTEREST RATES ARE HIGH AND OUR CAP RATES ARE NOT WHAT THEY, UM, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENTS ARE STRUGGLING TO PENCIL.
SO IF, IF WE'RE KIND OF ADJUSTING THESE THINGS BASED ON CURRENT INTEREST RATES, DOES THAT MEAN WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO ADJUST THEM AS INTEREST RATES GO DOWN? SO, THAT'S RIGHT.
SO WE ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THIS PLAN IN LESS THAN FIVE YEARS.
I THINK THE PLAN IS ONE Y ONE YEAR.
WE'RE GONNA BE REEVALUATING THIS IN ONE YEAR, UM, AND WE CAN MAKE ADJUSTMENTS.
UM, IF AT THAT TIME IT SHOWS WE HAVE MORE, UH, LEVERAGE TO DO SO.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S MY TIME, BUT IT, SO, SO THIS IS ON AN ANNUAL REVIEW BASIS, AND WE'RE GONNA ADJUST AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS FOR THIS PLAN.
THAT'S THE BELL COMMISSIONER COGS.
UM, VICE CHAIR ZA, I, I WAS GONNA SAY STAFF, YOU CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION 'CAUSE THE QUESTION HAVE BEEN ASKED.
SO YOU CAN FINISH THE TALK AND WE CAN PROCEED.
WE'VE BEEN, UH, DIRECTED TO REEVALUATE THIS PROGRAM AT LEAST EVERY FIVE YEARS.
AND SO INITIALLY OUR GOAL IS TO REEVALUATE WITHIN ONE TO TWO YEARS, UM, BASED ON UPDATED ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.
AND THEN FROM THERE WE WOULD REEVALUATE PERIODICALLY BASED ON ECONOMIC TRENDS AND ANY OTHER, UH, UH, REASONS TO SORT OF, UM, CONSIDER SOME ADJUSTMENTS, ADDITIONAL CODE OF EVENTS AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.
UM, THIS IS REGARDING PARKLAND AND, UM, AT THE CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE MEETING, THE PRESENTATION WE SAW INCLUDED, UH, CHANGE OUTLINED ON THE 10TH SLIDE, THAT PARK CAN REQUIRE UP TO 25% PROPERTY DEDICATION.
UM, BUT THIS CHANGE DIDN'T LOOK LIKE IT WAS IN THE PRESENTATION, UM, FOR TONIGHT.
IS THAT STILL IN THE STAFF VERSION OR IS IT, UH, WHERE IS THAT SCOTT GRANTHAM PARKS AND RECREATION? UH, THANK YOU CHAIR.
UM, IT, IT IS NOT IN THE CURRENT VERSION.
UM, THE CURRENT VERSION BASICALLY SAYS THAT, UM, YOU CAN, UM, THE, UH, THE ANY PARKLAND DEDICATION CAN CREDIT TOWARDS THE, UH, THE DENSITY BONUS FEE.
SO, UM, BUT IT'S, ITS STAFF'S UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ONLY REQUIREMENT THAT COULD BE MADE WOULD BE, UM, MORE OR LESS A BASELINE REQUIREMENT, UH, PER CURRENT CODE, WHICH WOULD BE 10% OF THE SITE.
SO HOW DOES THAT TRANSLATE TO ACHIEVING THE VISION OF PARKLAND IN FROM THE, THE ORIGINAL PLAN? WELL, THE ORIGINAL PLAN ENVISIONS 20 ACRES OF PARKLAND, UM, IN, WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
UM, ONE PARK OF, UH, APPROXIMATELY 9.6 ACRES OF THE WATERFRONT PARK, WHICH IS THE STATESMAN P CURRENTLY, UM, ANOTHER IS ALONG BOLDEN CREEK, UM, APPROXIMATELY SIX ACRES.
UM, THE OTHER, UM, ANOTHER PIECE IS CROCKETT SQUARE, WHICH IS, UH, UH, 1.6 TO 1.8 ACRES.
AND, UM, THEN THERE'S ASSORTED SMALLER PIECES, BUT THOSE ARE THE MAIN ONES.
AND, UM, IT, THAT, THAT VISION, UH, FOR SOMEONE OPTING INTO THE CODE AS IT IS WRITTEN, SOME, FOR SOMEONE OPTING INTO THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM AS WRITTEN, UM, THAT VISION WOULD NOT BE ACHIEVABLE.
UM, RATHER WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT ROUGHLY 10% OF VARIOUS SIZES OF SITE.
UM, SWITCHING GEARS A LITTLE BIT.
WE DISCUSSED THIS, UM, AT COJC AND IN OUR WORKING GROUP ABOUT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE, UM, AND
[02:05:01]
THIS MAY NOT BE FOR YOU, MR. GRANTHAM, UM, OF THE, THE PROGRAM AFTER, UH, IF IT WERE TO BE PASSED THROUGH COUNCIL, HOW, HOW WOULD THAT WORK? WOULD IT BE A BODY LIKE THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD OR SOMETHING DIFFERENT? SO IT, IT, THIS IS APRIL JSO FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.UM, IT COULD CERTAINLY BE THROUGH SOMETHING LIKE THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD OR SOMETHING LIKE THE DESIGN COMMISSION.
UM, IN ADDITION TO VARIOUS OTHER, UH, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, UH, THE PARKS BOARD GOES THROUGH THE, THE PARKS, UH, PROCESS.
SO A ANY, UM, EXISTING BOARDS THAT WOULD SORT OF TOUCH THE VARIOUS ELEMENTS WITHIN THE, UM, THIS AREA, UM, UH, WOULD REMAIN IN TERMS OF HOW THEY WOULD, UM, PROVIDE FEEDBACK, UM, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND FOR THE OVERALL, UH, OVERSIGHT, IT COULD BE THE, EITHER THE SCHWAB, THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD OR SOMETHING LIKE, UH, THE DESIGN COMMISSION IN THAT GROUP IN, ALONG WITH STAFF'S REVIEW, BUT THEY, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO GUIDE THE, THE VISION, UM, AS APPROVED BY COUNCIL, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PARKLAND DEDICATION AND MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION, KIND OF ALL OF THAT CAPTURED UNDER ONE IN ADDITION TO IT HAVING TO GO TO DESIGN COMMISSION AND, AND THE OTHER BODIES, OR WOULD IT, IT MAY, IT MAY NOT HAVE TO BE IN ADDITION TO SOMETHING LIKE DESIGN COMMISSION.
UM, UH, BUT FOR THAT I WOULD, UM, IT WOULD BE UP TO SORT OF THE BYLAWS OF THE VARIOUS COMMISSIONS.
UM, ANOTHER COMMISSIONER WITH QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
SO, UM, COULD YOU REMIND ME AGAIN THE 5% EQUALS HOW MANY AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS ON SITE? YEAH, WE, WE DID SOME ROUGH CALCULATIONS.
UM, WE HAD TO MAKE SOME ASSUMPTIONS.
SO THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT WE INCLUDED WERE THAT EVERY SINGLE PARCEL OPTED INTO THIS DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
UM, UH, AND, UH, PROVIDED THE, THE 5%, UM, UH, REQUIREMENT ONLY AND NOTHING ABOVE.
UM, THIS INCLUDES THE, UM, THE PARCEL THAT IS OWNED BY CITY LAND ONE TE TEXAS CENTER.
UH, UM, SO ACROSS THE BOARD, 5%, UM, IS ROUGHLY 481 UNITS, 4 81.
AND, UM, WOULD THE 5% BE THE AMOUNT, OR COULD IT BE LOWER THAN 5%? IT IS REQUIRED 5% WITHIN THREE TO ONE FAR.
AND IF THE CONDOS WERE ON SITE, HOW MANY CONDOS WOULD BE GENERATED AT THAT 80%? MFI? WELL, IT DEPENDS.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO JUST ASSUME.
SO IF WE ASSUME THAT 100% OF THE HOUSING UNITS WERE ON THAT SITE WERE, UM, UH, FOUR SALE UNITS ONLY, THEN THE OPTION COULD BE, UM, UP TO 100% OF THE AFFORDABLE UNITS, UH, FOR CONDOS WOULD BE AT THE 80% MFI, OR IT COULD BE 100% FEE IN LIEU OR SOME RANGE IN BETWEEN.
AND I WAS ASKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE NUMBER OF CONDOS THAT WOULD BE GENERATED WITHIN THE CONTEXT.
THIS, THE NUMBER WOULD BE THE SAME.
SO IF WE'RE ASSUMING, UM, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT, NUMBER ASSUMPTION WOULD BE THE SAME, 481 ON SITE, 481 CONDOS, UH, 481 AFFORDABLE UNITS ON SITE WITH SOME MIX, INCLUDING THE CONDOS WITH SOME MIX OF OKAY.
AND SO, UM, THE, THE OTHER STAFF PERSON AND I, I FORGET HER NAME.
DID YOU SAY YOUR NAME WAS AGAIN? UH, RACHEL TEER.
UM, YOU MENTIONED THAT, UM, YOU WERE LOOKING, THE FEE IN LIE IS, IS IS A BETTER OPTION BECAUSE OF, UM, CONDO FEES, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
HAVE YOU COLLECTED DATA ON THIS OR LOOKED AT THE MUELLER EXPERIENCE OR THE GROVE EXPERIENCE? UM, BECAUSE WE CONTINUE TO HEAR THAT IT'S A BETTER OPTION, AND YET WE'VE BEEN PROVIDED NO EMPIRICAL DATA ABOUT IF THERE WOULD BE TAKERS.
I MEAN, WE DO HAVE INDIVIDUAL ANECDOTAL STORIES, UH, FROM EVEN COMMISSIONERS AND FROM CITY, BUT, UM, I DO KNOW SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF HOME OWNERSHIP, AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP AT THE MUELLER AT THE 80%, AND, UM, OTHER PLACES WHERE THEY'VE DONE THAT.
AND OF COURSE, THEY'RE ABLE TO BUILD EQUITY IN THEIR PROPERTY AND IT, IT, IT INTEGRATES THE HOME
[02:10:01]
OWNERSHIP SPACE, UH, DOWNTOWN IN THIS CASE, UH, AND IN THE CORE CITY AREAS.SO WHAT, WHAT EMPIRICAL DATA DO WE HAVE ON THIS? SO, UH, JAMIE MAY, I'M THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER WITH THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.
UM, WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN MANAGING OUR OWNERSHIP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR MULTIPLE YEARS.
UM, THROUGH THAT WE'VE INVESTED IN, UH, UH, MULTIPLE PROPERTIES, BOTH, UH, SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, AS WELL AS THE CONDOS.
UM, THE CHALLENGE THAT YOU HAVE WITH CONDOS IS, UH, THE SAME THAT YOU HAVE WITH AN HOA OR A HOME HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION.
AS, UH, RACHEL MENTIONED, UM, AS THE CITY, WE CAN INVEST IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND WE CAN ENSURE THAT, UH, UNITS ARE SOLD TO INCOME ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS.
HOWEVER, THE CONDO ASSOCIATION, THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION INSIDE IS AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY, AND THE CITY HAS NO INFLUENCE, NO RIGHT, NO POWER, NO ANYTHING, UH, TO, IN, UH, TO INFLUENCE HOW THOSE, UH, UH, NEGOTIATIONS ARE OPERATING.
SO, UH, WHEN A, AN AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNER, UH, HAS A CONDO IN A DEVELOPMENT, AND THEN CONDO FEES ARE INCREASED BY $600 A MONTH OR $600 BEFORE THE YEAR, EXCUSE ME, BECAUSE THEY NEED TO, I ONLY HAVE SO MUCH TIME, BUT I UNDERSTAND, I WANNA ASK FOR THE EMPIRICAL DATA.
I, I KNOW, UNDERSTAND HOW THE PROCESS WORKS.
I, I KNOW ALL THAT YOU'LL LAY OUT, BUT I'M ASKING FOR THE EMPIRICAL DATA.
WE ONLY, WE DO NOT HAVE EMPIRICAL DATA PER SE IN TERMS OF LIKE STATISTICS AND NUMBERS, BUT WE CAN TELL YOU THAT WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE, UH, QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM HOMEOWNERS WHO HAVE BEEN PRICED OUT OF THEIR UNITS.
UM, SO WE HAVE SEEN THIS, NOT JUST ANECDOTALLY, HAVE YOU HAD TAKERS MULTIPLE AS WELL, OR JUST PEOPLE WHO JUST SAID NO I'M SORRY.
HAVE YOU ALSO HAD PEOPLE HAVE THAT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BUY INTO THE PROPERTIES? OH, ABSOLUTELY.
UM, WE, WE SELL OUR OWNERSHIP UNITS.
WE HAVE OUR COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTS, BUT THE CHALLENGE WITH THE CONDO IS IT'S THAT EXTRA ASPECT OF IT I THAT WE CANNOT CONTROL.
I DO UNDERSTAND IT, BUT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE EMPIRICAL DATA AND NOT JUST HAVE STORIES ABOUT WHAT THE CHALLENGES ARE.
'CAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO AFFORD THAT, AND THE CONDO OWNERS THEMSELVES WOULD BE MEMBERS OF THAT HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION AS WELL.
UM, MOVING ON TO HER NEXT QUESTION, CHAIR, VICE CHAIR.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY STAFF FROM THE PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE OR FROM OUR MOBILITY SIDE? I, I HAD A QUESTION, UM, AS STAFF IS WALKING DOWN, SO, UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, SO I KNOW THAT AS A PART OF THE BONUS REQUIREMENTS, WE'RE ASKING FOR A NUMBER OF MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURES.
UM, AND OUR HOPE WOULD BE THAT THAT WOULD OF COURSE INCLUDE THE STREET INFRASTRUCTURE AND SO ON, BUT ALSO SOME OF THE PROJECT CONNECTED INFRASTRUCTURE.
DOES THE A SMP OR OTHER PLANS CURRENTLY ARE THERE MARKED OUT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS THAT, THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO FUND THROUGH THIS PROCESS? I'M SHAVIA GAR FROM THE PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE.
UH, THE A SMP LAYS OUT THE ROAD NETWORK AND I CAN, UH, HAVE THE TRANSPORTATION, UH, REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TALK ABOUT IT.
UH, THE A SMP, UH, DOES SET ASIDE SOME, UH, ALIGNMENT FOR PROJECT CONNECT, AND THAT'S HOW WE WOULD ASK FOR, UH, A RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION.
UH, IN THIS DISTRICT THROUGH THE A SMP PROCESS, UH, THERE IS A SEGMENT, UH, OF THE LIGHT RAIL ALIGNMENT THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY IN THE A SMP.
UH, THAT WOULD BE BETWEEN EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND SOUTH CONGRESS.
SO JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, RIGHT, UM, AND IT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT AMENDED A SMP SINCE THE ROUTE WAS FINALIZED LAST MAY, IF I GOT THE DATES RIGHT.
UM, BUT ESSENTIALLY, SO WE DO NOT HAVE THE LATEST LIGHT RAIL ROUTE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN A SMP CURRENTLY.
UM, I'LL, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR PARKLAND STAFF NEXT.
UM, MR. GRANTHAM, AS YOU'RE WALKING DOWN, UM, I, IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, YOU ESSENTIALLY SAID THAT, UM, PARKLAND IN THE BASE REQUIREMENT WOULD APPLY PRETTY MUCH AS IT CURRENTLY DOES ELSEWHERE.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
THE, AND THE DIRECTOR WOULD HAVE THE, UM, OPPORTUNITY TO REQUIRE LAND OR FEES.
AND SO IT, UM, DEPENDING ON THE DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION, IT COULD BE ON ONSITE PARKLAND, OFFSITE PARKLAND OR FEE OR A COMBINATION OF THOSE? THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, AND, AND THEN CAN YOU SPEAK, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS, I GUESS WE WERE WAITING FOR THAT, WHAT THE DETERMINATION LOOKS LIKE, BUT WE HAVE THE DDAS AND SO WE HAVE THE SITE SPLIT UP.
IS THE IDEA RIGHT NOW THAT WE WOULD HAVE PARKLAND FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE SMALLER AREAS DEFINED WITHIN A LOT? OR WOULD THAT BE FOR THE SITE AS A WHOLE? AND I SEE MR. RUSO, YOU MIGHT HAVE A THOUGHT ON THIS AS WELL.
[02:15:01]
WOULD BE FOR THE SITE AS A WHOLE.THANK YOU BOTH FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
UM, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR OUR DENSITY BONUS CONSULTANT.
UM, AND I SAW THAT WE HAVE SOMEBODY ONLINE, UM, MR. PITTS, UM, I, I GUESS I'LL START JUST BY ASKING, SO IN THE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS SITE, WHAT IS GSF? UM, GSF? I'M SORRY, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, AND SORRY MA'AM.
CAN WE SHOW MY SON ANDREW, IF WE COULD, UH, UH, MISS, UH, THE CONSULTANT NEEDS TO BE, UM, CAMERA ON PLEASE.
SORRY, I'M, I'M DOING, DEALING WITH A LITTLE BIT CHILDCARE THIS EVENING, SO PLEASE EXCUSE THE FACT THAT I'M WAITING IN THE CAR.
NO, BUT YES, GSF IS GROSS SQUARE FEET.
IT'S, IT'S A MEASUREMENT OF THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT.
AND DOES THE, WHEN YOU'RE CALCULATING THE GSF OR THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT, DOES THAT INCLUDE, HAVE YOU ALREADY DEDUCTED THE PARKLAND REQUIREMENT FROM IT, THE 5% PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT FROM IT, THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTE REQUIREMENT? SO ARE THOSE ALREADY NOT INCLUDED WHEN THE GSF IS CALCULATED WITHIN THE TABLE? YEAH, THE GSF AND I'M, I'M, I'M SORRY, I'M NOT LOOKING, UM, EXACTLY AT THE, THE SLIDE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW.
BUT GSF IS TYPICALLY JUST THE, THE DEVELOPABLE SQUARE, THE DEVELOPED SQUARE FEET OF PROPOSED DEVELOPED SQUARE FEET OF THE PROJECT.
SO IT'S NOT GOING TO INCLUDE THO THOSE OTHER ELEMENTS.
THOSE OTHER ELEMENTS MAY BE CALCULATED BASED ON THE, THE GSF OF, OF EITHER THE, THE PROJECT ITSELF OR THE SITE.
UH, BUT THE GSF ITSELF DOESN'T NECESSARILY INCLUDE THOSE.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES, KIND OF.
I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, DID OUR, THERE ARE MODELING TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THERE'S OTHER KINDS OF LAND DEDICATION THAT IS REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS, SO THOSE WERE ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE MODEL? YES, THAT THAT IS CORRECT.
UM, THE SECOND QUESTION I HAD WAS, UM, AND I'M GONNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M LOOKING AT MY QUESTIONS RIGHT.
UM, IS THAT IN THE, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE, UM, THE, ESSENTIALLY THE SENSITIVITY METRICS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AND THINKING ABOUT IN THAT PERSPECTIVE, CAN YOU PLEASE TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THE IMPROVED ECONOMY ECONOMY SENSITIVITY SLIDE EXPLAINS? AND I'M SORRY, I KNOW YOU DID NOT HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT I WONDER IF YOU CAN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT KIND OF METRICS ARE WE LOOKING AT AS PART OF THAT IMPROVED ECONOMY SENSITIVITY? YOU GIMME ONE SECOND.
I'M GOING TO PULL UP SET OF SLIDES.
SO WHAT WE DID, UM, IT, WE ASSUMED SLIGHTLY LOWER INTEREST RATES.
UH, SO WE ADJUSTED THE RENTAL RATES, THE INTEREST RATES, AND SOMETHING CALLED THE CAP RATES.
AND SO WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO WAS TO CREATE A SCENARIO, UH, UM, THAT WHILE NIGHT, NOT QUITE AS BOOMING, AN ECONOMY IS, AS YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN SEVERAL YEARS AGO, BUT SOMETHING AKIN TO WHAT YOU MIGHT SEE IN A FEW MORE YEARS WHERE, WHERE THE COST OF BORROWING IS A BIT CHEAPER, WHICH MAKES DEVELOPMENT A BIT EASIER AND BUILD BECAUSE OF THAT, BUILDINGS ARE VALUED AT A HIGHER BASIS, UH, WHEN SOLD.
THEREFORE, MAKING IT EASIER FOR DEVELOPERS TO, TO REAP A PROFIT.
UH, DOES THAT KIND OF, IS, IS THAT, IS
NEXT QUESTION FROM A COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
UM, JUST A QUICK CLARIFICATION FOR, UH, PLANNING STAFF.
I THINK MS. TEER PROBABLY, UH, OR CARO.
UM, SO AS COMMISSIONER COX POINTED OUT ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE, THE STAFF SORT OF REVIEW SHEET FOR THIS ORDINANCE, UM, IT MENTIONS, QUOTE, 20% NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS OR APPROXIMATELY 527.
I UNDERSTAND NOW THAT 481 IS THE SORT OF ESTIMATED FULL BUILD OUT NUMBER OF UNITS.
WHAT IS THAT 20% OF? HAS THE FULL BUILD OUT KIND OF QUADRUPLED IN SIZE SINCE THAT NUMBER WAS MADE? AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE SEEING DIFFERENT NUMBERS.
I THINK IT WOULD HELP EVERYONE UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT'S REFERRING TO, TO APRIL JSO WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UM, YES, THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF THIS PARTICULAR AREA, UM, OF THE COMMUNITY HAVE CHANGED SUCH THAT, UM, WHAT WE ARE EXPECTING ARE NOT WHAT WAS PROPOSED, UH, IN THE 2016 VISION PLAN, BUT INSTEAD, UM, MUCH, UH, MORE TALL SORT OF DENSE URBAN ENVIRONMENT.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, THAT VISION PLAN IN 2016 WAS THINKING AROUND 2,600 TOTAL UNITS OF
[02:20:01]
HOUSING, AND NOW WE'RE THINKING AROUND 10,000 TOTAL UNITS OF THOUSAND.IS THAT MORE OR LESS ACCURATE? I HAVEN'T DONE THE MATH, BUT THAT SEEMS LIKE YOU DID.
UM, WELL THEN I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE PARKING STANDARDS AND CODE.
UM, LOOKING AT, AND I'LL JUST SAY IT WHILE WHOEVER NEEDS TO COME UP IS COMING UP.
IF SO, SO ON PAGE 22 OF THE DRAFT CODE ORDINANCE, UM, THERE'S A CALCULATION FOR A BASE ENTITLEMENT OF PARKING FAR.
UM, AND THESE RANGE FROM 0.45 TIMES THE INTERIOR FLOOR SPACE TO 3.6 TIMES THE INTERIOR FLOOR SPACE, DEPENDING ON USE.
HOW DID STAFF COME UP WITH THOSE RATIOS AND WHAT, WHAT LED TO THOSE? BECAUSE IN SOME CASES THEY, THEY WOULD SEEM TO BE ALMOST HIGHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES BY SOME GREAT FACTOR.
I'LL HAND IT OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE TYLER TRIP.
AND YOU'LL HAVE TO EXCUSE ME, I'M A LITTLE SICK.
I'M A SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UM, SO THOSE, UM, NUMBERS ARE BASED ON A CALIBRATION, UH, BASED ON THE APPROXIMATE, UH, GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE PER, UM, SPOT.
AND THEN, UH, THE ULI TAP RECOMMENDATIONS FROM RECENT PROJECTS, UM, BASED ON, UH, FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR, FOR PARKING, PARTICULARLY DOWNTOWN.
UM, SO THE, THE GENERAL IDEA WAS TO GIVE A, UH, DEVELOPMENT THE ENTITLEMENT TO WHICH THEY WOULD PROBABLY CURRENTLY HAVE UNDER A TWO TO ONE OF A PROPORTION OF DIFFERENT USES.
UM, MOST OF THESE PROPERTIES DEVELOP UNDER, UH, TWO TO ONE UNDER CURRENT ZONING, BUT THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE PARKING.
SO THAT WAS THE INTENT BEHIND HAVING THAT INITIAL, UM, ENTITLEMENT.
AND THEN PAST THAT PARKING WOULD COUNT TOWARDS FAR.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF, IF LOOKING AT RETAIL, FOR INSTANCE, A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL USE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO 36,000 SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL PARKING FLOOR AREA UNDER THAT BASE ENTITLEMENT.
AND THAT, THAT WOULD BE ROUGHLY HOW MANY SPACES? AROUND A HUNDRED? I DON'T, UH, IF YOU CAN'T DO THE MATH, THIS ONE, THAT'S FINE.
YEAH, I
I CAN'T DO IT IN MY HEAD, BUT YES, RETAIL WOULD BE THE HIGHEST, UM, YOU KNOW, ENTITLEMENT.
UM, BUT IF WE'RE LOOKING AT, AT SKYSCRAPERS HERE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE, YOU KNOW, AN ENTIRELY RETAIL SKYSCRAPER.
SO THOUGH THAT NUMBER IS LARGER, THAT'S GOING TO BE THE LOWEST USE IN MOST CASES.
UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, OFFICE, UM, RESIDENTIAL AND HOTEL.
OKAY, NEXT, COMMISSIONER WITH A QUESTION.
UM, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE AND THEN COMMISSIONER HAYNES, AND THEN COMMISSIONER AL.
I THINK MY QUESTION IS ACTUALLY ALSO RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING OF HAS, DID STAFF GIVE ANY CONSIDERATION AS FAR AS THE GATEKEEPER FOR THE BONUS REQUIREMENTS TO DECOUPLING PARKING OF SALE OF PARKING, UH, FROM ESSENTIALLY HOUSING UNITS? WE HAVE, AND I MIGHT BRING TYLER BACK ON, IF HE DOESN'T MIND.
UM, SO YES, IT WAS CONSIDERED EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS.
UM, WE, UH, I THINK ARE JUST WAITING ON SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR HAVING THAT POTENTIALLY AS A FUTURE AMENDMENT, UM, THAT IS, IS BEING CONSIDERED FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, OTHER PROJECTS WITHIN THE CITY, UH, INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, REEVALUATION OF, UH, STANDARDS IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS.
SO, UH, AS OF RIGHT NOW WE'RE WAITING ON, UH, FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS WITH THAT.
AND THEN, UH, THERE'S THE POTENTIAL TO KIND OF FOLLOW THE LEAD ON THAT WITH THIS, IN THAT, UH, ONE TO TWO YEAR, UH, REEVALUATION.
THAT IT, I GUESS I HAVE THREE MORE MINUTES, SO I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
UH, I GUESS ABOUT PARKING AGAIN OF DID STAFF CONSIDER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, UH, AT THIS TIME? I DON'T KNOW IF TYLER, YOU CAN SPEAK TO THAT AS AS WELL.
[02:25:01]
I I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT HAS BEEN A CONSIDERATION SPECIFICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, UM, COMBINING DISTRICT AND DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.THE CHALLENGE THAT WE'RE FACED WITH, I JUST BUILD OFF OF IS THAT THE, UM, EVERY SINGLE PARCEL IN THIS DISTRICT NEEDS TO BE, UM, SORT OF EXACTLY, UM, UH, ALLOWED TO HAVE THE SAME EXACT DENSITY BONUS OPPORTUNITY AS ONE ANOTHER.
AND SO SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE'VE BEEN, UM, WORKING WITHIN IS TRYING TO MAKE, UM, THESE DENSITY BONUS REGULATIONS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE SORT OF, UM, COLLABORATIVELY, UH, LOOKED AT AS A PLACE VERSUS, UM, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO SORT OF, UM, IF WE HAD MORE THAN ONE OF THOSE AREAS IN THIS DISTRICT, I'M NOT SURE HOW BENEFICIAL OR NOT IT MIGHT BE, OR IF WE WERE TO SAY HAVE 10 OR 15 OF THOSE IN THIS DISTRICT, UM, IT WOULD BE A CONSIDERATION THAT WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE.
UM, SO WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO PUT FORWARD ARE RECOMMENDATIONS WHERE THE DISTRICT AS A WHOLE IS SORT OF GETTING THE MOST POSSIBLE OUT OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED.
WE HAD COMMISSIONER HAYNES AND THEN COMMISSIONER SCHOLER.
WHO, UH, GETS THIS? SO I'LL ASK THE QUESTION FIRST.
UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS A, UH, A TURS IN PLACE FOR SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.
WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THAT TURS AND, UH, WHAT, HOW DOES, HOW DOES THAT IMPACT, I SEE SOMEBODY COMING, IT, IT DOES NOT IMPACT THIS, UM, UH, DENSITY BONUS CODE PROGRAM.
AND, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT, UH, MS. MCGUIRE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN A BIT MORE DETAIL.
I THOUGHT YOU DID A FINE ANSWER FOR THAT.
APRIL, CHRISTINE MCGUIRE WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THERE'S CURRENTLY LITIGATION ON THE EFFICACY OF THE TURFS, AND THE JUDGE HAS NOT RULED ON THAT.
WE DO NOT KNOW WHEN THE JUDGE WILL RULE ON THAT FOR A SUMMARY MOTION.
SO AS APRIL SAID, UH, VERY WELL, THAT THET IS NOT MATERIAL FOR THE REGULATIONS, UH, PROFFERED HEREBY STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD.
SO YOU GOTTA HELP ME A LITTLE BIT HERE 'CAUSE I'M, I'M THE NEW GUY UP HERE, SO TELL ME, YOU'RE, YOU'RE DOING GREAT, MAN.
UM, UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, UH, LET'S, AND I KNOW IT'S HYPOTHETICAL, LET'S JUST SAY THE JUDGE, YOU KNOW, WE WIN THE TURS AND THE TURS STAYS.
UM, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE IDEA OR THE CONCEPT BEHIND THE TURS IS THAT THE MONEY HAS BEEN REINVESTED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
AM I RIGHT ON THAT? YES, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ON THAT.
I ALMOST, I ALMOST MIGHT KNOW THAT.
UM, AND SO IF, UM, IF THE TURF SURVIVES AND THE MONEY IS THEN REINVESTED THE, THE INCREASE TAX INCREMENT, SO THE INCREMENT IS REINVESTED IN THE ZONE TUR, UM, THEN, UH, AND, AND THAT MONEY GOES TO UPGRADE INFRASTRUCTURE, THEN THE BONUS, THE DENSITY BONUS ALLOTMENTS FEES AND LOSE THAT GO TO INFRASTRUCTURE.
ARE WE NOT DOUBLE COUNTING THOSE? IT, IT DOES, AND THAT IS WHY THERE'S CURRENTLY LANGUAGE IN THE STAFF DRAFT DOCUMENT THAT SAYS THAT THIS CAN BE REVISED AND RE-LOOKED AT IN A FEW MONTHS.
IN REGARDS TO THE FEE STRUCTURE.
WE DO NOT KNOW HOW THE JUDGE IS GOING TO VOTE, OF COURSE, 'CAUSE THEY'RE JUDGES AND THEY GET TO DO THAT.
BUT WE DO KNOW THAT IN ORDER TO DELIVER THE VISION PER THE VISION PLAN, UM, AND WHAT WE DO KNOW FROM OUR MORE RECENT MARKET ECONOMICS WITH SOME VERY GOOD, REALLY GOOD ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE LOOKED AT THIS, IS THAT IN ORDER TO DELIVER THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT THE ACTUAL VISION PLAN DESIRED, THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE TOOLS THAN JUST THE REGULATION OF A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
IT IS, AS RACHEL TEPPER SAID, JUST ONE TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX AND, AND A REGULATORY PLAN THAT IS AN OPT-IN VOLUNTARY PLAN OR REGULATION IS A VERY BLUNT
[02:30:01]
INSTRUMENT.SO, BUT LET ME, MS. MCGUIRE, SO IN TERMS OF, AND IN TERMS OF THIS ACTUAL CODE AMENDMENT, IT IS, IT IS NOT MATERIAL FOR THIS CODE AMENDMENT TO BE PUT IN PLACE.
UM, IT, IN TERMS OF HOW THE JUDGE IS GOING TO RULE THAT WE DON'T KNOW, BUT WE CAN RE-LOOK AT THAT IF ABSOLUTELY.
AND WE'RE NOT JUST, JUST REMEMBER, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE HERE EARLIER, WE'RE NOT DOING THE VISION PLAN, WE'RE ONLY DOING REGULATIONS.
'CAUSE IF WE WERE DOING THE VISION PLAN, WE WOULD BE IN TROUBLE.
BUT YES, WE'RE ONLY DOING REGULATIONS TONIGHT.
THIS IS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
ABSOLUTELY NOT THE VISION PLAN.
UM, SO I GUESS KIND OF PERTINENT TO THAT, UM, THIS SAYS THAT THIS IS SAYING THAT THIS IS, DOES NOT INCLUDE THE CURRENT PUDS.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IS CAN THOSE PUDS PARTICIPATE IN THIS PLAN AND COME BACK AND BE ZONED FOR THAT? BECAUSE THIS IS JUST A REZONING OF THOSE PROPERTIES OUTSIDE OF IT.
THIS IS APRIL JSO FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT? YES, THE, ANY PROPERTIES WITHIN THIS DISTRICT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK, UM, AND ASKED TO BE REZONED.
AND THEN, UM, I THINK MY OTHER QUESTIONS ARE GONNA FALL TO WATERSHED OR ENVIRONMENTAL, UM, IF SOMEBODY'S AVAILABLE FOR THAT.
AND I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS, UM, UH, THIS REFERS TO, AND SORRY IF I LOOK GOOFY, I'M READING THE DOCUMENT.
THIS REFERS TO, IT SAYS THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE ALONG THE SHORELINE OF LADY BIRD.
LADY BIRD MEASURED FROM THE SHORELINE BOUNDARY.
THE BUFFER WIDTH IS A HUNDRED FEET OR 75 FEET FOR ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE.
WHAT IS IT FOR THIS KIND OF DENSITY? UH, GOOD EVENING, LIZ JOHNSTON WATERSHED PROTECTION.
SO YEAH, THE, THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONES ARE NOT PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED IN ANY WAY.
SO CURRENT CODE, IT'S A HUNDRED FEET FROM THE SHORELINE FOR, UM, ANYTHING THAT ISN'T SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
UM, SO IT WOULD BE A HUNDRED, A HUNDRED FEET FROM THE SHORELINE.
SOMEBODY OUGHT TO LOOK AT THE, AND THIS MAY BE JUST DRAFT LANGUAGE, BUT IT SAYS THE BUFFER WIDTH IS FOR A DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
SO THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING THAT QUESTION.
OH, SO SOMEBODY MIGHT JUST WANNA DOUBLE CHECK LANGUAGE THERE.
AND THEN
UM, SO THAT IS THE CURRENT STANDARD.
UM, SO THE, YOU KNOW, AS THESE COME IN, YOU KNOW, SITE PLAN BY SITE PLAN, EACH PROJECT WOULD HAVE TO, UH, COMPLY WITH WATER QUALITY TREATMENT.
SO IT ALSO SAYS, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECT, THAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR THESE SITES CAN GO TO 85%? THAT IS CORRECT.
UM, SO THEN THAT'S ONLY LEAVING 15% OF SITE AREA TO GET WATER RECAPTURE, RIGHT? SO THERE, YEAH.
SO IF, IF SITE, WE HAVE ENGINEERING TO ACHIEVE THAT HEAT.
SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OPTIONS.
SO IF THEY'RE UNABLE BECAUSE OF, UH, SITE CONSTRAINTS TO PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, GREEN STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE, THEY COULD ASK, YOU KNOW, AS ANYONE COULD FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE.
IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS TO, UM, PROVIDE SOME OTHER KIND OF POND, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, A SAID FILL POND UNDER THE INTERNAL TO THE BUILDING OR SOMETHING, OR UNDER THE PARKING GARAGE, FOR EXAMPLE.
THEY MAY BE, UM, QUALIFY FOR PAYMENT IN LIEU IF, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE, UM, THEY COULD, YEAH.
BUT THEY
UM, SO IT'S MONITORED, RIGHT? WE HAVE TO REPORT THAT.
SO WE DO HAVE, UM, IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PAYMENT IN LIEU FOR CERTAIN SITES.
[02:35:01]
IT DEPENDS ON DIFFERENT SITUATIONS, BUT NO, THAT, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS WIDELY AVAILABLE IN THE URBAN CORE.IT JUST, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE HAVE TO REPORT OUR WATER QUALITY FROM THE AREAS THAT WE OVERSEE ALONG THE LAKESHORE AND THAT GETS TURNED INTO THE, I DON'T, I DUNNO IF IT WAS TCQ OR LCRA OR IT IS PART OF OUR MS FOUR PERMIT.
SO YEAH, ALL OF OUR WA WATER QUALITY QUALITY REGULATIONS OF FEED INTO THAT MS FOUR PERMIT.
UM, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED ALREADY, SO.
BUT THAT APPROVAL WAS USING OLD PLAN.
I, I'M JUST, I'M, I'M LOOKING TO SEE WHAT DO WE HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS PROPOSED LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT.
UH, ONE OTHER OPTION FOR GREEN STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IS, UM, INTERNAL REUSE OF STORM WATERS SO THEY CAN CAPTURE THE STORM WATER AND USE IT IN THE BUILDING.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN GET WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FOR THAT AS WELL.
UM, SO WE'RE AT THE END OF OUR EIGHT COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS AND UNLESS THERE IS OBJECTION, I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP TO THE FIVE COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE NOT YET ASKED A QUESTION.
I SEE COMMISSIONER MAXWELL ANDERSON, I THINK.
AND THEN COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
UM, SO FIRST OF ALL, I REALLY DO WANNA THANK STAFF.
I'VE BEEN THE LUCKY PLANNING COMMISSIONER WHO'S BEEN WORKING ON THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN SINCE LAST YEAR SINCE I JOINED THIS COMMISSION.
AND I'M REALLY EXCITED TO HAVE THIS YEAR TONIGHT.
AND I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, BUT I DID WANNA GIVE MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS A CHANCE TO REALLY DIVE INTO THIS BECAUSE IT IS REALLY TRYING TO BRING TO LIFE A REALLY, UH, I WOULD SAY UNDERUTILIZED AND NEGLECTED PART OF SOUTH AUSTIN.
SO WITH THAT, I WON'T WASTE ANY TIME BECAUSE I DO WANNA GET MY QUESTIONS IN, UM, FIRST OF ALL, PERHAPS SOMEONE FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CAN DISCUSS THE PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACES WITH THE EASEMENT, BECAUSE I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSELY.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE WILL BE HAVING THAT AS A, AS A REQUIREMENT FOR ALL OF THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND WHAT PERCENTAGE IS THAT IN TERMS OF WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT RELATED TO THE PRIVATE, UM, IN THE GATEKEEPER AND, AND REQUIREMENTS IN THE DISTRICT, IN THE PLAN? UM, TYLER, DO YOU HAVE THAT NUMBER IN FRONT OF YOU?
SO FOR, FOR GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS, THE, UH, PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE IS 5%.
UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, UH, IT'S OFFERED AS A BONUS AND, UH, RECENTLY ADDED, UH, THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES REQUIRED OF LONG DENSITY DISTRIBUTION AREAS, UH, WILL ALSO HAVE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS.
UM, SO IT'S 5% ASSOCIATED WITH THE GATEKEEPER ITSELF, BUT PAST THAT IT IS INCENTIVIZED.
UM, AND THE, THE REASON I WANTED TO IS JUST TO CLARIFY THAT THE PUBLIC EASEMENT IS SO THAT EVERYONE CAN HAVE ACCESS.
SO THIS COULDN'T BE SOMETHING LIKE A POOL DECK OR, YOU KNOW, A PRIVATE SPACE THAT WOULD ONLY REALLY BE FOR THE RESIDENTS.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THAT IS IN ADDITION TO THE 10% PARKLAND DEDICATION, WHICH WE WOULD EXPECT IS ALSO SO THAT WE WOULD'VE, THE 10% PARKLAND DEDICATION AND THEN THESE ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS THAT ARE BASICALLY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
IS THAT CORRECT AS WELL? CORRECT.
AND THEN JUST THE REASON I'M GETTING TO THIS IS BECAUSE WHEN WE LOOK AT BOTH THE ICRS, THE PARKLAND DEDICATION, AS WELL AS THE PRIVATE COMMON SPACES WITH THESE PUBLIC EASEMENTS, THAT IS QUITE A LOT OF LAND DEDICATION WE'RE LOOKING AT ON THESE SITES.
AND I THINK TO GO BACK TO THE CONSULTANT WHO WAS SPEAKING EARLIER, I THINK THAT THERE'S A CONCERN THAT THAT ACTUALLY IS NOT CORRECTLY CALIBRATED.
IF I'M LOOKING AT AGAIN, PAGE, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING EARLIER, UM, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THOSE WERE NOT IN THE INITIAL SET OF CALCULATIONS.
CAN WE GET A CONFIRMATION OF THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? AND THE REASON I'M ASKING ABOUT THIS IS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE INTENT HERE IS TO HAVE FOLKS COME OUT OF THESE PUDS AND PDAS AND USE THIS REGULATING PLAN SO THAT WE DO GET TO THE VISION AS LAID OUT BY SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT STAKEHOLDERS.
AND I GUESS I'M CONCERNED THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE CALIBRATIONS, WE'RE NOT REALLY THINKING THROUGH THE AMOUNT AMOUNT THAT'S BEING ASKED BEFORE, AND PARTICULARLY IN THE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS.
SO I DON'T KNOW, DOES THE CONSULTANT, CAN THE CONSULTANT SPEAK TO THAT MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE? I THINK SHE'S STILL THERE.
IS SHE IS SHE CAN COME BACK ONLINE.
SO I THINK WE JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THE ICRS PARK LANE AND PRIVATE SPACE WITH THAT, UH, PUBLIC EASEMENT IS CONSIDERED IN THE CALCULATION.
SO IN, IN THE CALCULATION, WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT IN FEASIBILITY DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.
SO IT IS CONSIDERED IN THE SCENARIO, BUT IT'S NOT AFFECTING THE FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS THAT WE DID, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT IS THE FEASIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF.
IF I'M, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THE, CORRECT THE QUESTION CORRECTLY, I THINK THAT DOES CLARIFY, AND I GUESS THIS IS A RELATED QUESTION BECAUSE WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS AT SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT HOW THE, BOTH, THE 70% AND 30% BONUSES WERE CALCULATED.
AND THAT'S RELATED SPECIFICALLY TO THE 30% BEING SORT OF JUST A GENERAL LIST OF ITEMS. UM, YOU
[02:40:01]
KNOW, I SAY CHILDCARE AND SORT OF ONSITE THINGS ARE COUNTED THE SAME AS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE MUCH MORE MAYBE USEFUL IN A TRANSIT DISTRICT, LIKE SAY BIKE LANES OR, AND SO I THINK WE'RE JUST CONCERNED, AND I THINK LOOKING AT YOUR DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS AND THOSE SET OF BENEFITS, THAT THIS IS MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OUT OF LINE WITH CALIBRATION AND THAT WE KNOW THAT YOU ALL ARE COMING BACK, BUT I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THOSE QUESTIONS AS SOMEONE WHO'S LOOKED AT THIS PLAN QUITE EXTENSIVELY.I, LIKE I SAID, I'M, I'M NOT LOOKING DIRECTLY AT THE, AT THE SAME VERSION THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, BUT WE CAN COME BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND, AND DETERMINE IF THERE, IF THERE'S ANY INCONSISTENCY OR, OR, OR ANY, UH, MISCALIBRATION.
I THINK THE BIGGEST THING OBVIOUSLY IS THAT WE DO WANT IT TO WORK FOR EVERYBODY AND HAVE AS MUCH UPTAKE OF THIS PLAN AS POSSIBLE.
UM, AND THEN GOING BACK TO THAT 30%, UM, YOU HAD NOTED THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE SOME ENFORCEMENT ISSUES RELATED TO THE 30%.
UM, HAS THERE BEEN A CONSIDERATION OF SORT OF, QUITE HONESTLY TABLING THAT? I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHAT THE PLAN IS, IS TO TABLE THAT 30% CONSIDERATION FOR THE TIME BEING UNTIL WE UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN SORT OF ENFORCE AND REALLY MANAGE THOSE TYPES OF ONSITE COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
IS THAT CORRECT? THE FEE SCHEDULE ON, UH, BONUS IN THE LAST PAGE, UM, DOES SHOW WHERE THOSE THINGS HAVE BEEN ZEROED OUT TO, UH, ZERO SQUARE FEET OF BONUS AREA FOR THOSE TYPES OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
SO IT'S OUR INTENT AS STAFF TO BE LOOKING AT THAT, UM, THIS SUMMER AND LATER THIS YEAR.
AND I JUST WANNA ADD, AS MY TIME RUNS OUT, THAT THAT SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, UM, DID ACTUALLY ASK FOR NOT JUST THE CALIBRATION, BUT ALSO SORT OF A PRIORITIZATION RELATED TO WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IN THE DISTRICT.
SO I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT FOR MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
UM, I DO RECALL, GOOD SHOUT OUT TO JIM CHIZLER WHO REPRESENTED THIS BODY ON THE SCHWAB FOR MANY YEARS.
I KNOW, UH, HE REALLY WANTED SIMPLICITY HERE.
SO LET, LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT IN A SECOND.
UH, I KNOW THERE WERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS A SECOND AGO.
I'D LOVE TO ASK ONE QUESTION OF WHOEVER FROM STAFF WAS TO TAKE IT.
UM, COULD YOU COMPARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE ON SITE TODAY VERSUS WHAT WE EXPECT THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE UNDER THE PLAN IN FRONT OF US, OR SOMETHING SIMILAR? GOOD EVENING, WATERSHED PROTECTION.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, CURRENTLY MOST OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ON SITE DOES NOT HAVE, UM, DOES NOT MEET CURRENT CODE AS FAR AS WATER QUALITY TREATMENT, CREEK BUFFERS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
SO AS IT REDEVELOPS, YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW, WATER QUALITY TREATMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
UM, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL, UM, THINGS RELATED TO THE TRAIL.
UM, UH, CURRENTLY THE PLAN HAS BIRD STRIKE REDUCTION, UM, AND, AND OTHER THINGS.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT IS, UH, IT IS, UM, A JUST MEETING CURRENT CODE IS BETTER THAN WHAT THERE IS NOW.
I MEAN, IT'S JUST, I SEE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF SURFACE PARKING THAT JUST KIND OF GUSHES INTO THE LAKE THE WAY IT IS.
SO IT'D BE GOOD TO REMEDY THAT.
AND THEN COULD WE PULL UP THE MAP AND, UM, THE, I THINK STAFF HAS A, A GOOD MAP THAT WAS PULLED UP EARLIER.
UM, I SEE, I SEE FIVE SUBDISTRICTS AND I TALKED ABOUT JIM'S HOPE OF SIMPLICITY.
HOW DID WE LAND ON FIVE SUBDISTRICTS? FOR SOME REASON, I FEEL THIS WAS SIMPLER.
ONCE UPON A TIME, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS.
I, I MIGHT DEFER OVER TO, UM, TYLER, BUT, UM, UH, IT WAS SIMPLER, UM,
BUT AS WE STARTED LOOKING FROM AN URBAN PLANNING, THIS IS APRIL, JERUSALEM, FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AS WE STARTED LOOKING AT, UM, SORT OF THE VARIOUS, UM, UH, UH, DISTANCES, UM, FROM VARIOUS DIFFERENT ELEMENTS, UM, NEARBY AND NEIGHBORHOODS, INCLUDING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING, AS WELL AS LOOKING AT PROXIMITY TO THE PROJECT CONNECT SITE AND CREATING A, UM, A A BIT OF A, A DENSITY TAPER, UM, AWAY FROM THAT DOWNTOWN, UH, AND TRANSIT ORIENTED AREA, UM, IT MADE SENSE TO CREATE, UM, MORE OF, OF A, A FLOW BASED ON FAR.
SO INITIALLY WHEN WE PUT FORWARD THE, UM, UH, DRAFT OUT IN FEBRUARY, FEBRUARY 20TH, WE HAD, UM, UH, SUBDISTRICTS WITH FAR, UH, DIFFERENCES ONLY.
AND THEN THE SUBDISTRICTS, UM, BASED ON FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED FROM, UH, BOTH BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AS WELL AS FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS, UM, WE ADDED SOME, UH, HEIGHT MAXIMUMS AND FOR FOUR OF THE FIVE SUBDISTRICTS.
UM, AND LET ME JUMP IN REAL QUICK IF I COULD.
SO I, I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY, MAYBE WHAT I'VE HEARD A LITTLE BIT THROUGH THE GRAPE GRAPEVINE, UM, IT, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES DIRECTLY NEXT TO DOWNTOWN, JUST BY DEFAULT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ONE TO $5 MILLION HOMES.
AND SO IF THESE WERE MULTI-FAMILY
[02:45:01]
HOMES, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TRIGGERED THIS AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE SET STEPPED DOWN QUITE AS MUCH, UH, IN TERMS OF THE, THE DENSITY AND THE HEIGHT.UM, I THINK THERE'S A NATURAL GRADIENT HAPPENING FROM, UH, THE DOWNTOWN AND AWAY FROM DOWNTOWN.
SO THAT'S SORT OF THE, THE URBAN PLANNING, UM, UH, FRAMEWORK THAT WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT WHEN WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT HOW TO THINK ABOUT THIS DISTRICT.
INITIALLY, THE, THE VISION PLAN, UM, IDENTIFIED THAT THESE, UH, BUILDINGS WOULD BE MUCH LOWER END DENSITY AND IN HEIGHT.
UM, BUT AS WE TALKED ABOUT, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE ARE THE MARKET DEMANDS.
IF YOU ARE ABLE TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WHICH DOES, UM, SHOW AN EXAMPLE OF THE OUTPUT, ACTUALLY THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
UM, SO AS YOU SEE, THIS IS ACTUALLY SIX TO ONE WITH THE, I MIGHT RUN OUTTA TIME HERE, SO I DO HAVE ONE MORE THING I WANNA TOUCH ON, BUT THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS UP.
UM, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND TAKE THIS DOWN.
HAVE YOU HAVE, WHERE ARE WE ON, AND KIND OF WHERE'S THE CONVERSATION ABOUT AT GRADE CROSSINGS? I KNOW I'VE HEARD FROM SOME FOLKS CONCERNED, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF PROJECT CONNECT IS AS SUCCESSFUL AS WE HOPE IT IS, AND THERE'S HIGH FREQUENCY BECAUSE WE WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S USING RAIL, ARE THOSE ARMS GONNA BE DOWN A LOT? AND, AND WHAT, WHAT KIND OF THOUGHT AND CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO WHETHER OR NOT THESE ARE GONNA BE AT GRADE OR IF WE KNOW FOR A FACT THEY WILL NOT BE? BECAUSE THE PROJECT CONNECT, UM, IS GOING THROUGH ITS OWN PUBLIC PROCESS THROUGH THE NEPA REVIEWS, THEY'RE LOOKING AT BOTH AT GRADE AND THE EXTENDED, UM, BRIDGE.
I, I CONTINUE TO GET THE, UM, UH, CONSIDERATION, UH, WORDING WRONG.
BUT, UM, BOTH OPTIONS RIGHT NOW, UH, ARE BEING CONSIDERED BY THE PUBLIC, AND THIS PROJECT WILL NOT BE IMPACTED, UM, UH, REGARDLESS OF THE OPTIONS THAT ARE SELECTED.
UM, AND IF THERE ARE IMPACTS TO IT, THEN WE WOULD BE GLAD TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS JUST BASED ON, UH, THE OUTCOME AND, AND WHAT'S SELECTED FOR THAT ALIGNMENT.
UM, SO WE HAVE COMMISSIONER WOODS, COMMISSIONER HOWARD AND COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ HAVE NOT YET ASKED QUESTIONS, AND I WANTED TO OPEN IT UP.
UM, COMMISSIONER CHAIR, CAN I ASK COMMISSIONER MAXWELL A CLARIFYING QUESTION? MM-HMM MM-HMM.
UH, BUT ON THE PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE, WOULD THAT BE BETTER LISTED AS ON SITE? SO THE PUBLIC, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT GARDENS BEHIND A LOCKED GATE.
IT'S ON SITE THAT THE PUBLIC CAN GET TO.
SO IT'S NOT REALLY PRIVATE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE BUILDING THAT IS NOT SPELLED OUT, AND THAT IS A GREAT IMPROVEMENT.
UM, I WILL POINT OUT THAT THE, UH, URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY ASKED THAT SOME OF THESE BE MADE INTO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY SO THAT PEOPLE DO, WHO ARE RIDING THEIR BIKES, FOR EXAMPLE, DIDN'T RUN INTO LOCKED GATES AND NOT BEING ABLE TO MAKE IT THROUGH CERTAIN PARTS.
SO THIS IS PARTIALLY A UTC RECOMMENDATION, BUT THERE IS ALSO A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE AN EASEMENT, WHICH IS WHY I ASK THOSE QUESTIONS, BECAUSE BASICALLY, UNLIKE IN DOWNTOWN OR CERTAIN OTHER PLACES WHERE YOUR PUBLIC SPACE MIGHT COUNT AS A POOL DECK, BUT THAT'S NOT ACCESSIBLE BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT EASEMENT PIECE IN THIS PLAN THAT IS SORT OF A DIFFERENT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
SO MAYBE WE, MAYBE WE LABEL THOSE AS ON SITE.
UH, SO COMMISSIONER WOODS, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, AND COMMISSIONER MARIA RAMIREZ IS OFF.
DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER HOWARD? OH, IF YOU'RE TALKING, WE CAN, YEAH, I HAVE, I HAVE.
SO IT'S FOR, UH, THE HOUSING STAFF.
UM, I KNOW THAT WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE GOAL FOR THE HOUSING, WE SAID THAT, UM, THE 5% WOULDN'T ALLOW US TO REACH WHAT WE ORIGINALLY THOUGHT RELATIVE TO THE NUMBER, BUT THERE ARE OTHER MEANS OF GETTING TO THAT NUMBER.
UH, WHAT ARE THOSE RULES? GOOD EVENING, JAMIE MAY, HOUSING DEPARTMENT.
UM, THE, UH, UH, OTHER TOOLS THAT WE HAVE INCLUDE OUR RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, WHERE WE PROVIDE GAP FINANCING FOR, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
UH, WE CAN ALSO, UH, THROUGH THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, UH, PURCHASE PROPERTIES AND DEVELOP, UH, INDIVIDUAL, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS, 100% AFFORDABLE.
UM, WE CAN ALSO, UH, USE, UM, SOME OF OUR OTHER DENSITY BONUSES.
WE CAN, UH, USE MULTIPLE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE AT PLAY IN ORDER TO INCENTIVIZE DEEPER AFFORDABILITY FOR THESE DEVELOPMENTS.
THE BIGGEST TOOLS IN THE BOX ARE OBVIOUSLY THE, THE, UM, THE PAYCHECK, THE
[02:50:01]
RHDA FUNDS AND, UH, BUYING PROPERTY OURSELVES.SO THERE'S SOME ASSUMPTION THAT THOSE WILL BE TAKEN ADVA TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF, I GUESS.
I MEAN, UH, TO REACH THE GOAL ULTIMATELY, WITH THE PLAN OUTLINED, I BELIEVE THAT THE PLAN, THE, UH, UM, THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS, UH, TO BUILD UP TO THAT 481 OR 4 82, UH, UNITS, UM, AT MAXIMUM, UH, BUILD OUT.
UH, SO WE WOULD LIKE TO, WE WORK AROUND THAT NUMBER, UH, TRY TO BUILD UP TO THAT NUMBER AND EVEN SURPASS IT, UH, THROUGH OUR PROGRAMS. I SEE YOU.
THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD.
THAT IS, UM, ALL OF OUR COMMISSIONERS WHO WANTED TO ASK QUESTIONS HAVE GONE.
UM, SO WE WILL MOVE TO, UM, CHAIR.
CAN I, IF, IF THERE'S A MOMENT, I I HAD ONE LAST QUESTION I, I WOULD LIKE TO THROW OUT THERE IF POSSIBLE.
UM, IF, IF MS. JOHNSON IS STILL AVAILABLE, I WAS WONDERING IF WE HAVE, IF WE'VE LOOKED AT ANY MODELING FOR STORM WATER RUNOFF WITH THIS NEW PROPOSAL OR WHEN THAT WOULD COME INTO PLAY.
UM, SO THE PROJECTS WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT CODE.
THEY WILL HAVE TO MEET ALL WATER QUALITY AND DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS INC.
YOU KNOW, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE POLLUTANT REMOVAL IF NECESSARY.
SO THAT WOULD HAPPEN AT THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.
SO THAT IS NOT ANY DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER PROJECT THAT WOULD COME IN.
NONE OF THAT IS GETTING CHANGED BY THIS, UH, CODE.
UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DO WE WANT TO GIVE A PRESENTATION FROM THE WORKING GROUP OR JUST OVERALL THOUGHTS AND THEN THAT CAN HELP SET US UP BEFORE WE GO TO AMENDMENTS? SURE, CHAIR.
UM, AND I THINK THAT I WAS HAPPY TO SHARE WITH THE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION, WORKING GROUP, SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAD BEEN RAISED BY BOTH SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT UTC.
UM, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION LOOKED AT THIS, UH, AS WELL.
SO I THINK BY THE TIME WE HAD MET SEVERAL OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, HAD HAD A CHANCE TO SEE THIS PRESENTATION AND SORT OF COME TOGETHER WITH THEIR CONCERNS.
I THINK SOME OF WHICH YOU MAY HAVE SEEN EITHER IN BACKUP OR EVEN IN YOUR, UH, BOARDS AND COMMISSION EMAIL.
UM, I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF KEY PIECES, WHICH ALL OF WHICH WE'VE DISCUSSED TONIGHT.
UM, PROBABLY THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT CAME OUT OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT A BOARD IS THAT, UM, THE BOARD IS BASICALLY BASED ON THE CREATION OF THIS PLAN AND GOING FORWARD, IT WAS UNCLEAR TO US WHAT WOULD BE HAPPENING WITH THAT BOARD.
UH, THAT'S ACTUALLY A COUNCIL DECISION, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
SO WE WOULD NEED TO TAKE ACTION IN ORDER OR MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO SUGGEST THAT THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT BOARD BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE, AND THAT THEY WOULD BECOME AN ADVISORY BOARD TO REVIEW THESE PROJECTS.
AND I THINK THE STRONG FEELING FROM, UM, BOTH THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AS WELL AS, UH, FELLOW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS WHEN I SPOKE ABOUT THIS, IS THAT WE DO WANT SOMEONE, AND, AND I MEAN THIS IN THE MOST, A COMMUNITY CENTERED SPACE WHERE WE CAN CONTINUE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE VISION OF THIS 2016 PLAN IS SEEN AS THE GUIDING LIGHT.
THAT WE HAVE A HOLISTIC REVIEW OF THESE PROJECTS, THAT WE HAVE A CHANCE TO WORK WITH DEVELOPERS AND HEAR NE NEIGHBORHOOD STAKEHOLDERS AS THESE BEGIN TO BE DEVELOPED.
SO THE DESIRE REALLY WAS TO CONTINUE THAT OVERSIGHT PIECE, POST THE CREATION OF THE PLAN.
AND I THINK THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU'VE HEARD THIS EVENING.
UM, I THINK CHAIR HEMPEL SPOKE TO THAT.
UM, OBVIOUSLY THE TWO OTHER BIG THINGS WHICH YOU'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT ARE BOTH PARKLAND AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING NUMBERS, I THINK ARE A CONCERN, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE WE HAD MAYBE THOUGHT AT ONE POINT WE WOULD BE GETTING MORE ON SITE.
I WOULD SAY THAT I FEEL VERY, UM, UH, COMFORT MAY NOT BE THE WORD, BUT, UM, PLEASED BY HOW HARD STAFF IS WORKING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET AS CLOSE TO THAT NUMBER AS POSSIBLE.
UM, WE DO KNOW THAT MARKETING CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED AND THAT WE ARE TRYING TO USE TO THE POINT THAT WAS JUST MADE ALL THE TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX TO REALLY ENSURE, AND I WOULD SAY AS SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN SOUTH AUSTIN, WE DID ACTUALLY VERY CLOSELY LOOK AT WHERE THIS MONEY WOULD BE USED.
AND SO THE IDEA IS THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO GET A FAIR NUMBER OF, UH, AFFORDABLE, ADDITIONAL, AFFORDABLE UNITS OUTSIDE OF THE DIRECT AREA OF THE PLAN.
UM, WE'VE ALREADY STARTED TO SEE THAT REINVESTMENT HAPPENING IN SOUTH AUSTIN, AND I THINK THAT THERE MAY BE SOME ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS RELATED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND THEN THAT LAST PIECE WAS REALLY PARKLAND.
UM, AND I WOULD STEP MENTION THIS ONE BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY KIND OF A COMPLEX PROBLEM, UM, THAT WAS BRIEFLY TOUCHED ON, WHICH IS WE UNDERSTAND THAT PARKLAND DEDICATION IS A GREAT REQUIREMENT THAT WE ARE VERY PROUD OF IN OUR CITY.
UM, WE DO HAVE SOME NEW CONSTRAINTS ON IT, UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S SITE BY SITE.
AND THERE IS, AGAIN, NO MECHANISM IN THIS PLAN FOR US TO REALLY UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN GET THOSE BIGGER, LARGER SITES PUT TOGETHER.
UM, THE ONE SITE THAT'S ALREADY IN THE PLAN, OR I SHOULD SAY IN THIS DISTRICT, IS ACTUALLY IN A PUD, IT'S NOT IN THIS REGULATING PLAN.
SO I THINK THERE'S A REAL CONCERN THAT AS WE MOVE
[02:55:01]
FORWARD WITH THESE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS, AND AS WE TRY TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW, WHICH OF COURSE WE WANT TO DO, WE ARE ALSO LOSING SOME, MAYBE SOME TOOLS THAT WE'VE HAD BEFORE TO SAY MORE HOLISTICALLY, WE WANT TO BUY PARKLANDS TOGETHER OR, YOU KNOW, COMBINE PIECES.SO WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, I DON'T WANNA SAY A WORKAROUND FOR THAT, BUT JUST THAT WHOLE UNDERSTANDING OF WE HAD A VISION FOR THE, WHERE THE PARKS WOULD BE IN THIS DISTRICT.
AND UNFORTUNATELY RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE GREAT TOOLS TO MAKE THAT VISION A REALITY.
SO AGAIN, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR WORKING GROUP.
UM, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT COVERS EVERYTHING ELSE.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU NO, THOSE WERE THE THREE MAIN GAPS.
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS.
AND I AM SO SORRY, I, I KNOW CHAIR COHEN HAS A QUESTION, SO I'D LIKE TO GO BACK AND CAPTURE THAT BEFORE WE MAKE OUR BASE MOTION.
QUESTION FOR STAFF, ANY STAFF, ALL THE STAFF, WERE THERE ANY POSSIBLE INTENT CONSIDERED THAT WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT THAT, UH, PEOPLE WOULDN'T PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM? WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT MAYBE COULD GET OFFERED UP AS AN AMENDMENT HERE THAT WOULD ENTICE BUILDERS TO BUILD MORE AFFORDABLY, AND THEN WE CAN WORK ON OTHER TOOLS LIKE A FUND TO HELP OFFSET HOMEOWNER OR CONDO OWNER ASSOCIATION FEES ARE WORKING WITH TRAVIS COUNTY TO CREATE A MUTUAL FUND TO LOWER PROPERTY TAXES? OR WERE THERE, WERE THERE ANY THINGS DISCUSSED OTHER THAN WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED, MAYBE EVEN MEDIOCRE IDEAS THAT WERE SHOT DOWN? YEAH.
WELL, THAT'S THAT, ISN'T IT,
THAT I WAS HOPING MAYBE SOMETHING WOULD GET PRESENTED THAT WE COULD MAKE AN AMENDMENT.
I'M LIKE, OH, THAT'S A GREAT IDEA.
WHY DIDN'T WE DO THAT? BUT, UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEAS LIKE THAT? ANYONE? ANYONE? BUELLER, JAMIE MAYE, HOUSING DEPARTMENT.
WE ARE CONSTANTLY LOOKING FOR WAYS TO BUILD MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN CHEAPER WAYS.
UM, UH, SUSTAINABLE QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
UH, WE RUN INTO PROBLEMS LIKE, UH, HOA AND COA FEES.
UM, THAT'S IT, IT'S A CHALLENGE.
SETTING OUT A SEPARATE FUND FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS, IS AN INTERESTING IDEA.
HOW IT GETS FUNDED, HOW IT GETS MANAGED, AND THEN HOW IT GETS PROTECTED SO IT'S NOT TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF.
UM, LETTING D FIGURE THAT OUT.
SO, UM, BUT YES, WE ARE, WE ARE, UH, CONSTANTLY REVIEWING, UH, WAYS TO INCENTIVIZE MORE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, UH, IN FACT, UH, UH, AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED IS A GREAT EXAMPLE.
UH, IT'S JUST OVER, IT'S ALMOST FOUR YEARS OLD NOW.
UM, AND IT HAS BEEN A FANTASTIC SUCCESS, UH, FOR, UH, DEVELOPERS, NOT ONLY FOR THE MARKET RATE DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT FOR THE AB AFFORDABLE, THE AFFORDABLE DEVELOPERS TO, UH, PROVIDE HOUSING IN AREAS WHERE THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO PREVIOUSLY, SUCH AS IN COMMERCIALLY ZONED AREAS.
SO WE'RE, WE ARE THINKING, TRYING TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX.
UM, AND, UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY IDEAS, WE'D LOVE TO, UH, KICK 'EM AROUND.
I'LL EMAIL YOU AFTER THE MEETING.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, WHEN COUNCIL PUT FORWARD THEIR RESOLUTION IN 2022, THEY, UM, UM, SET FORWARD STAFF TO COME UP WITH AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, PLAN AKIN TO DOWNTOWN.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE STARTED OUT WITH OUR, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS.
BUT, UM, BUILDING OUTSIDE OF THE BOX IS, IS CERTAINLY THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE BOX IS CERTAINLY ALRIGHT.
AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS FOR LETTING ME GET THAT QUESTION IN.
CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE, OUR MEETING TO 11:00 PM ONE SECOND.
OR COMMISSIONER MAXWELL SECOND.
UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, YOU JUST GIMME A THUMBS UP.
ALRIGHT, SO WE'RE AT 11 ONE AND CHAIR TO MOVE THE PROCESS FORWARD, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE BASE MOTION, WHICH WOULD BE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO START OUR AMENDMENTS.
UM, WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT.
AND JUST TO SIMPLIFY THIS, WE'LL GO IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER, UM, THAT YOU'LL FIND ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE AGENDA.
UM, WE ARE POTENTIALLY GOING TO GO FOR THREE ROUNDS,
[03:00:01]
UM, TIME PERMITTING, WE'LL JUST SEE HOW FAR WE GET.UM, BUT WITH THAT WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
DID YOU HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? NO, IT'S HARD TO BE FIRST CHAIR BEFORE WE PROCEED.
I, SOMEBODY MIGHT NEED TO MUTE THEMSELVES.
I'M NOT SURE WHO IT, THAT I JUST UNMUTED MYSELF.
I DO NOT NEED TO GO FIRST, BUT I DO WANT TO GO, BUT I'LL PASS IT TO WELL, YOU, YOU'LL, YOU'LL LOSE A SPOT.
IF, SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE GO FOR THREE ROUNDS AND IF YOU PASS, YOU'LL LOSE A, A TURN.
SO I WOULD SAY COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, PLEASE GO AHEAD WITH YOUR TURN.
I HAD SHARED SOME AMENDMENTS, UH, WITH FOLKS EARLIER.
DO, I'LL GO WITH THE FIRST ONE FIRST.
UM, THESE HAD BEEN FORWARDED BY MR. RIVERA, SO I CAN GO OVER THE FIRST ONE.
SO THIS WOULD BE INCLUDING, UM, THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS AND THE THOUSAND WATERFRONT AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS.
UM, AND I CAN SPEAK TO THEM IN A SECOND, BUT ESSENTIALLY ONE WOULD BE TO CREATE A BUY DOWN PROVISION SO THAT THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SUBSIDIZE ONSITE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PULLING THOSE UP.
UM, SO WE WOULD HAVE A BUY DOWN PROVISION.
SO THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SUBSIDIZE ONSITE AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A DEVELOPMENT PARTICIPATING IN THE BONUS TO FURTHER REDUCE THEIR RENT AND MEET COMMUNITY NEEDS.
THE SECOND WOULD BE, UM, THE TOTAL FEE AMOUNT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS BONUS PROGRAM WILL BE DIVIDED INTO FEES AND LIEU.
SO THIS IS THAT 70% FOR DIFFERENT AMENITIES OR INFRASTRUCTURE.
THE FOLLOWING RATES THAT WILL BE 50% OF THE FEE WILL BE ALLOCATED TO THE HOUSING TRUST FEE IN LU HOUSING TRUST FUND FEE IN LIE.
AND, UH, 50% OF THE FEE WOULD BE ALLOCATED TO THE PARKS FEE, LIE WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY IMPACT BENEFITS FEE IN LIE.
AND LASTLY, WE WOULD BE SAYING THAT WE WOULD PRIORITIZE THE FOLLOWING AS A PART OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEE NEW PROGRAM, THE PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THEN EXPENDITURES, UM, THAT WOULD SUPPORT HOMELESSNESS INITIATIVES SIMILAR TO WHAT IS CURRENTLY TRUE FOR THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS FEE.
UM, SO WE, SORRY, I LOST MY NOTES.
UM, DID YOU WANNA HAVE ANY MORE DESCRIPTION AROUND YOUR, UM, I'LL JUST MAKE A QUICK NOTE AND THEN WE CAN OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS.
SO IT'S A, IT'S A THREE PART AMENDMENT.
ONE IS REALLY THE HAVING THE ABILITY TO GO TO DEEPER AFFORDABILITY.
THIS WOULD OF COURSE REQUIRE SUBSIDY.
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SUCH PROGRAM CURRENTLY, BUT IT WOULD BE, UM, GIVING THE CITY A RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
UM, AND THE SECOND ONE REALLY IS, SO CURRENTLY THIS WOULD BE A CHANGE FROM, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT 70% FEE LIE REQUIREMENT AS PART OF THE BONUS, UM, CURRENTLY 33% GOES TO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND, 33% GOES TO THE PARKS FEE IN LIE, AND 33% GOES TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY IMPACT.
AND INSTEAD OF DOING THAT, I'M SAYING 50% GO TO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND AND THEN THE REST OF IT GO TO THE PARKS FEE, UH, IN LIEU AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND THEN LASTLY IS JUST, UM, CONVERSATIONS THAT HAD COME UP, BOTH IT GOES IN ORDINANCES AND THEN, UH, SCHWAB AS WELL.
AND I WANNA BE RESPECTFUL OF WHAT THEY WERE SAYING, ESSENTIALLY OF SAYING HOW DO WE, THIS IS JUST REALLY, UH, GIVING SOME DIRECTION TO STAFF TO, UM, INCENTIVIZE THE PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, AND LOOKING AT SOME HOMELESSNESS INITIATIVES.
SO AT, AT THIS POINT IT'S NOT YET A MOTION.
UM, WE WILL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONER.
SO I SAW COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
UM, QUESTION ON PART ONE OF THIS AMENDMENT.
IS THERE ANY POLICY OR CODE OR LEGAL DOCTRINE THAT PREVENTS THE CITY FROM SIMPLY BUYING DOWN RENTS ON SUBSIDIZED UNITS? I MEAN, DO WE NEED TO GIVE THIS RIGHT? OR CAN THE CITY ALREADY JUST DO THIS IF IT WANTS TO? I, I SEE, UH, MR. JAMIE MAYS WALKING DOWN.
MR. MAY, YOU CAN DEFINITELY WALK DOWN.
SO THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS, UH, BEING CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE LDC REVISION AS WELL.
SO, UM, THERE'S NOTHING THAT PROHIBITS IT, BUT WE'RE SORT OF AT THE WILL OF A PRIVATE LANDLORD, WHETHER THEY WOULD WISH TO PARTICIPATE.
THIS WOULD GIVE THE CITY THE FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL.
IN SOME WAYS IT'S SORT OF CONSIDERING ALMOST LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST RIGHT OF PURCHASE OR SOMETHING THAT MR. MAY DID YOU WANNA ADD SOMETHING? SO JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU JUST SAID, AND PLEASE STAY AT THE PODIUM, MR. MAY.
UM, YOU ARE BASICALLY SAYING THAT IF THIS WERE ADOPTED, A PROPERTY OWNER WOULD, WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SAY NO TO THE CITY FURTHER SUBSIDIZING ONSITE AFFORDABLE UNITS? YES, FOR THOSE AFFORDABLE UNITS, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO GO DOWN FURTHER.
UM, AND THE IDEA WOULD BE THAT SINCE SOMEBODY IS PARTICIPATING IN A VOLUNTARY BONUS PROGRAM, THAT IS A BONUS REQUIREMENT THAT THEY WOULD BE AGREEING TO WHEN PARTICIPATING IN THE BONUS REQUIREMENT.
SO IF CURRENTLY OUR RENTS ARE SET AT 60% MFI FOR RENTAL, THE CITY, IF IT HAD SOME KIND OF FUNDING, COULD GO DOWN TO THE 50% MFI, UM, AS WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO MAKE THAT RENT WORK.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR COMM OR
[03:05:01]
BY SHARE? ZA COMMISSIONER WOODS, A QUESTION ON PART TWO OF THIS AMENDMENT.SO JUST SO THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, THIS WOULD TAKE ALL OF THE FEE IN LIEU THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED FOR HOUSING PARKS AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY IMPACT BENEFITS.
THE AMOUNT OF FEE IN LIEU WOULD BE THE SAME, BUT WE WOULD JUST DIVIDE IT DIFFERENTLY INTO THIS 50% FOR HOUSING AND 50% FOR PARKS AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO THE FEE IN LIEU AMOUNT WOULD NOT CHANGE.
NEITHER WOULD THAT PROPORTION OF 70% GOING TO FEE 30% TO ONSITE COMMUNITY BENEFITS? SO WE WOULD NOT BE TOUCHING THAT.
IT JUST SAYS THAT WITHIN THAT, BEYOND THE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS, THAT 70% FEE IN LIE REQUIREMENT, YOU GET TO SPLIT IT 50 50, UM, 50 FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THEN 50 GOING TO PARKS IN, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY IMPACT BENEFITS.
AND I APOLOGIZE IF YOU ALREADY WENT OVER THIS, BUT CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT'S ALREADY REQUIRED OR FROM WHAT'S WRITTEN NOW? SURE.
SO THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY, UH, DONE IS 33% GOES TO HOUSING TRUST FUND, 33% GO TO PARKS, AND 33 GOES TO INFRASTRUCTURE.
SO I'M SAYING 50 GO TO HOUSING, AND THEN STAFF MAY DIVIDE IT IN A PARTICULAR WAY.
I DO SEE THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING THE PARKS INFRASTRUCTURE.
I DON'T WANNA, UM, UNDERMINE THAT, BUT THIS WOULD BE INCREASING THIS FEE SET ASIDE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, BY SOME DEGREE.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
WE'VE GOT SPOT FOR ONE MORE COMMISSIONER WITH A QUESTION FOR VICE CHAIR OURS AMENDMENT.
ARE THESE SEPARATE AMENDMENTS, BECAUSE THEY SEEM, THEY SEEM LIKE THEY'RE ADDRESSING SEPARATE ISSUES.
I'M PRESENTING IT AS ONE AMENDMENT, UH, THAT AMENDS THE, UH, BONUS PROGRAM IN THE FIELD.
YOU, I WOULD SAY IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION TO SPLIT IT, UH, PER OUR RULES, WE CAN SPLIT A MOTION, UH, IF THAT IS INDEED THE WILL OF THE BODY.
AND, AND AGAIN, LIKE I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT'S AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING SORT OF PACKAGE THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
'CAUSE THEY ALL SOMEWHAT RELATE TO EACH OTHER.
BUT IF IT MAKES IT EASIER, UH, FOR FOLKS TO SPLIT THE MOTION, I I I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERN WITH THAT.
THAT'S, AND THAT'S WITHIN OUR CURRENT WAY WE DO PROCEDURE.
UM, IS THERE A MOTION? WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? SURE.
UM, CHERYL, GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AMENDMENT ONE, UM, AS PROPOSED.
I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR DEBATE FOR AND AGAINST.
UM, CHAIR, THIS WOULD ALSO BE IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE OR HAS AMENDMENTS, THIS WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO SPLIT THE AMENDMENTS OR THE, THE AMENDMENT INTO, UH, TO SEPARATE THE PERCENTAGE ON THE FEE IN LIE FROM THE, UM, UH, BUY DOWN PLAN PROPOSAL.
AND, AND, AND I'M SORRY, JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, ARE YOU SPLITTING ALL THREE PIECES INTO THREE SEPARATE OR ARE YOU SAYING, SORRY, I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME AND I APOLOGIZE.
UM, I DON'T REMEMBER THE THIRD PIECE.
THAT WAS TO PRIORITIZE THE FEE FOR PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS INITIATIVES.
AND IF IT MAKES IT EASIER, WE CAN JUST SPLIT IT THREE WAYS.
IF, IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU.
SO CHAIR, I THINK JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, LET'S PUT IT THROUGH, THAT'S THE WILL.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT SUBSTITUTE? I SEE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER COX.
UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT COMMISSIONER MUHA? UM, I, I, I I THINK THERE MAY BE ELEMENTS OF DISCUSSION THAT, THAT FOLKS WANNA PARCEL OUT.
THAT MAY CHANGE AS WE DISCUSS THESE AMENDMENTS.
ANYBODY SPEAKING, UM, AGAINST, UM, I'M JUST GONNA RAISE A, A POINT OF ORDER OR PERHAPS A POINT OF PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.
BUT ARE WE NOW CONSIDERING THE FIRST OF THOSE THREE AMENDMENTS OR ARE WE SIMPLY CONSIDERING THE MOTION TO SPLIT THE AMENDMENT INTO THREE? JUST THE MOTION TO SPLIT THEM.
SO ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF SPLITTING INTO 3, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
[03:10:01]
THOSE AGAINST JUST IN CASE I DIDN'T CATCH ANYBODY.SO DO WE WANT TO NOW TAKE THE THREE INDIVIDUAL? YES.
SO THE WAY WE WOULD DO IT NOW IS WE WOULD START WITH ONE A AS A MOTION.
UM, AND THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY ME, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.
AND WE WOULD JUST GO TO THAT ONE FIRST.
SO THIS WOULD BE THE BUY DOWN PROVISION ITEM AND STAFF.
I'M, I DON'T, IS IT TOO DISTRACTING FOLKS? IF WE HAVE THE AMENDMENT UP AS WE'RE CONSIDERING IT? OR DO PEOPLE, WOULD PEOPLE LIKE TO SEE PEOPLE? I DON'T KNOW.
WHAT IS THE PREFERENCE? THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
I THINK WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHOEVER'S SPEAKING.
CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LAY ON ANDREW.
SO YES, WE CAN HAVE THE, UM, LANGUAGE UP.
AND THEN ALSO AS WE'RE DOING NOW, HAVE THE, UH, BOX AVAILABLE FOR, UH, PURRY CHAIR.
UM, I'M, UM, ESSENTIALLY A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE, UM, I'LL SPEAK IN FAVOR OF IT FIRST.
UM, UH, ALL ESSENTIALLY THIS WOULD BE DOING IS GIVING THE CITY THE RIGHT TO GO DOWN.
DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT.
WE DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE A FUNDING STREAM TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
UM, BUT IF SOME KIND OF SUBSIDY BECAME AVAILABLE IN THE FUTURE, WE COULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO TO LOWER RENT.
AND THE REASON THIS IS BEING DONE IS, YOU KNOW, WE HEAR AGAIN AND AGAIN, UM, YOU KNOW, FOLKS IN OUR COMMITTEE WANT TO HAVE SOME DEEPER AFFORDABILITY WITHIN UNITS.
AND THAT IS OF COURSE, A LAUDABLE GOAL.
WE ALWAYS RUN UP AGAINST THIS ISSUE OF WHETHER THAT CAN BE SUPPORTED WITHIN A BONUS PROGRAM FROM A, BASED ON A MARKET MECHANISM.
SO WE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE, UM, UH, LOOKING AT THE WAY IT'S BEEN SHAPED, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, WITHIN OUR CALIBRATION FOR THE BONUS PROGRAM.
SO ALL THAT SAID, THIS GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO FURTHER.
SO IF THE CITY WANTS TO GO FOR DEEPER AFFORDABILITY, THEN WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PURCHASE THOSE NOW AND THEN EXPAND IT FURTHER.
SO MY QUESTION, BECAUSE I COULDN'T HEAR REAL, UM, CLEARLY ON THIS END OF THE DAY AS, UM, SO WOULD THIS JUST BE FOR THE 4 81 OR WOULD THIS ALLOW, UM, THE CITY TO EXPAND THAT FOR 4 81 IN AFFORDABLE UNITS? SO, SO THE WAY I HAVE IT CURRENTLY WOULD ONLY BE FOR THE AFFORDABLE UNITS PARTICIPATING IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS PROGRAM.
SO YOU'RE SAYING FOR THE 4 81 YES, THE 5% FOR HOWEVER MANY, FOR THE 5%.
ANY COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ONE.
AM I COUNTING THAT CORRECTLY? YES.
COMMISSIONER ESCA MOORE IS BACK.
ALRIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO PART TWO OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
SO CHAIR, THIS WOULD BE, UM, 'CAUSE THIS IS A SPLIT MOTION, SO WE'RE GOING TO THE SECOND ONE.
THIS WOULD ESSENTIALLY SAY, UM, THAT THE FIEND LIE COLLECTED FOR THE BONUS PROGRAM WOULD BE SPLIT, UH, IN A WAY THAT 50% WOULD BE GOING TO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND FE LIE, AND THE REST OF THE 50% WOULD BE GOING TO THE PARKS FIEND LIE.
AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS BENEFITS V AND L.
AND THE REASONING FOR THIS IS, UM, AGAIN, I DO DO NOT WISH TO UNDERMINE, UM, THE PARKS FUND OR THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY IMPACT BENEFITS, BUT WE DO HAVE SOME ABILITY TO GET SOME OF THAT.
SO WE'RE ALREADY GETTING SOME INFRASTRUCTURE AS PART OF THE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE AND, UM, INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES, UM, AND SOME OF THE STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS.
WE ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET SOME OF THE PARK, UM, INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH THE PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT.
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS SORT OF, OUR INCENTIVE BONUS IS THE ONLY REALLY TRUE WAY FOR US TO ACHIEVE THAT IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
SO THIS GIVES US A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY TO EXPAND THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS, HOPEFULLY WITHOUT UNDERMINING THOSE OTHER PRIORITIES, WHICH I KNOW ARE COMMUNITY PRIORITIES.
ANY COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? I HAVE A QUESTION, CLARIFYING QUESTION.
SO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE FEE IN LIEU THAT, UH, CURRENTLY IS DE DESIGNATED TO CONDOS IN THIS PROJECT, OR NO? SO THAT FEE YOU, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF THE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS THAT HAS TO GO TO HOUSING, UM, THIS WOULD BE FOR THAT EXTRA BONUS.
SO IF YOU GO ABOVE THE TREATY ONE FAR, YOU SPLIT.
COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YEAH, I'D LIKE TO OFFER A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, UM, JUST TO ADD THE WORDS AT LEAST 50% OF THE FEE,
[03:15:01]
UH, TO LINE A AND UP TO 50% OF THE, OF THE FEE TO LINE B.I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND THAT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? OR SHOULD WE VOTE? UH, I'LL SPEAK TO IT VERY BRIEFLY.
I THINK IT'S SOMEWHAT SELF-EXPLANATORY.
I'D LIKE THE IDEA OF PRIORITIZING AFFORDABLE HOUSING MORE, UH, WITH THIS V AND L AS THE SORT OF GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS DO OFFER A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS TO PARKS AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
UM, AND I THINK IT, IT MAKES SENSE TO EMPOWER STAFF TO DETERMINE WITHIN THOSE SORT OF BOUNDARIES, UH, YOU KNOW, WITHIN ANY GIVEN PROJECT HOW MUCH FEE AND L WOULD BE MOST, UH, EFFICIENTLY USED BY THE CITY, WHETHER THAT'S FOR HOUSING OR PARK.
IT COULD BE THAT A MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE NEED COMES UP IN THE FUTURE THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT, AND THEY STICK TO THAT 50%.
IT COULD BE THAT DEVELOPMENTS ARE GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND ON INFRASTRUCTURE, COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND PARKS, AND IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO GIVE MORE OF THAT FEE TO HOUSING THAN 50%.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO CAP IT AT AT 50% FOR HOUSING.
IF WE COULD BE GETTING MORE, SINCE THAT'S, AS MANY PEOPLE HAVE POINTED OUT, SORT OF THE BIGGEST NEED IN THIS AREA AND PERHAPS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS MOST LACKING FROM, UH, THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AS COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL 2016, UH, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN.
IF NO OPPOSITION, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THAT.
COMMISSIONER, I, I GUESS CHAIR A QUESTION.
UH, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THE AMENDMENT CORRECTLY AND COMPARING IT TO, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS APPROPRIATELY.
SO THE AMENDMENT IS RELATED TO, PROBABLY THE EASIEST WAY TO DESCRIBE THIS WOULD BE SLIDE SIX OF THE PRESENTATION, THE BONUS PROGRAM STRUCTURE.
SO THIS WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY REPLACING THE WHOLE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT PROGRAM STRUCTURE WITH THE 50 50 SPLIT? NO, AS PROPOSED JUST, OR JUST SPLITTING THE 70 AND DEFINING WITHIN THAT 70%, 50 50, THE, THE LETTER SPLITTING THE 70 AND DEFINING WITHIN THAT, THE, THE ORIGINAL DRAFT ORDINANCE PROPOSED IN EQUAL THIRD, THIRD, THIRD SPLIT.
I JUST, I, I, I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE CASE, BUT I WANTED TO CONFIRM IT.
AND THEN JUST TO CLARIFY, IN TERMS OF THE ORDER THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW, OUR, OUR VOTE AND MOTION IS ONLY ON ADDING THE WORDS UP TO, AND AT LEAST WE'RE NOT VOTING ON THE ACTUAL CONFIGURATION.
I'M GONNA TRY TO COMPLICATE IT EVEN MORE.
UH, UM, ABSOLUTELY LIKE, UH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S AMENDMENT, BUT, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT AND IT, IT MAY NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE AMENDMENT MAKER, BUT, UH, I WILL OFFER IT AND CHANGE 50 TO 60 AND 50 TO FOUR, AND A 50 TO 60, AND B 50 TO 40.
WELL, I THINK, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, IS THIS AMENDMENT ALREADY BEING YES.
I, I HONESTLY, FOR CLARIFI, FOR CLARIFI, WE HAVE A SECOND, RIGHT? YES.
I THINK FOR THE CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, CAN WE, CAN WE GO THROUGH HIS MOTION FIRST OF JUST ADDING THE WORD AT LEAST AND UP TO, AND THEN COME BACK TO YOU? I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE CLA MOST, BUT, AND I GUESS WE CAN SEE IF THERE'S NO CONCERN WITH ADDING THOSE TWO WORDS, LET'S JUST DO THAT FIRST CHAIR.
I, I REALIZED THROUGH MY FUZZY FEED THE CITY HALL THAT Y'ALL MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO SEE ME WITH THE, WITH THE SETUP, BUT, UM, WE CAN SEE THAT.
I, I WAS GONNA MENTION, I WAS GONNA MENTION, UM, MY, MY INITIAL OPPOSITION TO THE ORIGINAL AZAR AMENDMENT, I THINK IS RESOLVED THROUGH THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.
BUT I GUESS, I GUESS MY HESITATION TO ANY OF THIS IS I THOUGHT THAT THE POINT OF THE TURS WAS TO TAKE CARE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS FOR ALL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO I, I'M VERY CONFUSED AS TO WHY THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT BONUS PROGRAM OR THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, WE WE'RE, WE'RE SPENDING SO MUCH TIME DIVERTING THESE FUNDS TO WHAT I THOUGHT THE TURS WAS SUPPOSED TO TAKE CARE OF.
SO THAT, THAT WAS MY INITIAL OPPOSITION.
BUT I THINK WITH THIS LOOSER LANGUAGE, MAYBE I FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE VOTING FOR THIS.
WELL, IF YOU WANTED TO SPEAK TO THAT BRIEFLY, I JUST WANNA PROVIDE A, A APRIL JSO WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
I WANNA PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION THAT WE
[03:20:01]
IN THE CODE HAVE TO PUT SPECIFIC PERCENTAGES DOWN, IF THAT'S HELPFUL TO YOU ALL TO KNOW.AND THEN WE MIGHT HAVE, UH, SOMETHING QUICKLY IN RESPONSE TO THE JUROR CHRISTINE MCGUIRE WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT THIS POINT THERE, DUE TO THE, DUE, THE LAWSUIT THERE, WE, AND WE DO NOT KNOW HOW THE JUDGE IS GOING TO RULE.
WE HAVE PLACEHOLDER LANGUAGE IN HERE, AND IT'S THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNSEL ON HOW THAT IS.
WE MIGHT NOT HAVE A TURS, BUT THERE IS, UH, IT'S, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE VISION PLAN CONTEMPLATED AND THE VISION PLAN CONTEMPLATED IN ORDER FOR THE VISION TO OCCUR, THERE NEEDED TO BE SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT.
AND THAT IS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS ARE WITH THE TOUR, UH, ARE WITH THIS REGULATING PLAN.
CHAIR, JUST CLARIFYING THE MOTION.
SO WE'RE ADDING AT LEAST IN FRONT OF 50% OF THE FEE FOR HOUSING TRUST FUND AND UP TO 50% OF THE FEE FOR PARKS IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
THAT IS THE ONLY MOTION WE'RE TAKING AT TO ACCOUNT AT THE MOMENT.
UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
CAN I JUST PLEASE ASK TO CLARIFY WHAT'S, UM, UH, STAFF MEMBER JSO MEANT BY, UH, THE CODE REQUIRES AN EXACT NUMBER? OR IS THAT SAYING THAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD NOT BE ADDING THE WORDS AT LEAST AND UP TO IS UNACCEPTABLE? UM, I'M JUST NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEANT BY THAT.
WE WOULD HAVE TO CHECK WITH LEGAL TO SEE IF ADDING THE WORDS AT LEAST AND UP TO WOULD BE FINE.
THIS WOULD BE GOING THROUGH LEGAL REVIEW, UM, NEXT ANYWAY.
UM, UH, BUT, UM, NUMBERS WOULD NEED TO BE PROVIDED.
SO, UM, IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT UP TO AND AT LEAST IS FINE AND CAN BE MAINTAINED.
IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT WE ARE TOLD THAT THEY NEED TO BE SPECIFIC PERCENTAGES.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR SIX ON THE, ON THE SCREEN AND THOSE AGAINST.
THAT IS 11 ONE COMMISSIONER MOTALA VOTING NOTE.
AND SINCE THAT AMENDMENT HAS BEEN DISPOSED OFF, IF, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT, THIS WILL BE THE TIME TO DO IT.
UH, AND SO, YES, I WOULD LIKE TO, IT'S GONE, BUT IN, UM, I THINK IT WAS ONE A, UH, CHAIN.
ONE A CHANGED 50 TO 60, AND THEN ONE B TWO.
I'M SORRY, TWO A SIX 50 TO 62 B.
DO YOU, UM, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT? WE NEED A SECOND.
I THOUGHT WE WERE STILL DOING OKAY.
DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT, UH, IN THE, UH, HOPES THAT I DON'T GET WRITTEN UP IN THE AUSTIN MONITOR FOR TELLING A JOKE? I'M NOT TELLING A JOKE.
UH, WE DO NOT HAVE A PARKS CRISIS.
WE DEFINITELY NEED MORE MONEY FOR THE WASTEWATER AND WATER SERVICE IN ALLENDALE.
AND SO I KNOW WE NEED MORE MONEY FOR THE WASTEWATER AND WATER IN DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT.
UH, BUT WE HAVE A HOUSING CRISIS, AND WE NEED TO PUT AS MUCH MONEY AS WE CAN TO, UH, UH, TO FIX AND TO ADDRESS OUR HOUSING CRISIS.
ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS SUBSTITUTE? OKAY.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
UH, THIS IS, UM, COMMISSIONER, UM, HAYNES'S AMENDMENT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER, UH, PHILLIPS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, 4 5 6 7 8 9, 10 11.
THOSE AGAINST, AND THOSE ABSTAIN.
THAT WAS 11 ONE WITH COMMISSIONER MOTALA VOTING NOTE CHAIR.
THIS TAKES US TO THE BASE MOTION THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.
[03:25:01]
UM, GONNA BE SPLITTING THAT, UH, INFRAS THE REQUIREMENTS SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE AT LEAST 60% OF THE FEE FOR THE HOUSING TRUST FUND AND UP TO 40, 40% OF THE FEE GO TO PARKS AND VIEW AND INFRASTRUCTURE.SO I THINK WE'RE READY TO VOTE UNLESS SOMEBODY WISHES TO SPEAK TO IT.
SEEING NO RAISED HANDS, UM, OH, COMMISSIONER COX? I, I'M, I'M PROBABLY GONNA ABSTAIN JUST BECAUSE, UM, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE ACTING LIKE THE TURS IS GONNA BE SHOT DOWN IN COURT, AND I DON'T, I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT.
UM, IF THE TURS REMAINS IN EFFECT AND IS LEGAL, THEN I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE USING THIS DEVELOPMENT BONUS ON TOP OF WHAT THE TS IS ALREADY MEANT TO DO.
SO MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE, LET'S ASSUME THE TURS IS LEGAL AND THAT THE TURS IS THERE, AND THEN IF IT DOES GET SHOT DOWN, WE CAN ALWAYS REVISIT THIS TO, TO INCREASE FEES AND LOSE AND TRY TO TRY TO ABSORB WHAT THE TURS WAS MEANT TO DO.
SO I JUST, I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE GOING ABOUT THIS THE WRONG WAY, ASSUMING THAT THE TURS IS GONNA BE SHOT DOWN IN COURT WHEN THAT, THAT JUST HASN'T HAPPENED YET.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M PLANNING TO, UH, TO ABSTAIN FROM THIS AMENDMENT.
UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS, UH, QUESTION.
SO CAN IT WORK THE OPPOSITE WAY IF THE JURORS IS NOT SHOT DOWN IN COURT, WOULD WE, WOULD THERE BE THE ABILITY TO REVISE THE NUMBER FOR INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PARKS IN IN THE FUTURE? YES, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A CODE CHANGE.
SO IT, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE INITIATED AS A CODE CHANGE, GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND ADOPT IT AS A CODE CHANGE.
WOULD, WOULD WE BE THE BODY THAT WOULD DO THAT, OR WE CAN INITIATE A CODE CHANGE AT THAT TIME? IT, IT WOULD EITHER HAVE TO BE US AS A BODY OR, OR COUNCIL AS A BODY.
OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE OUR VOTE, WASH YOUR HANDS.
ARE YOU SURE? OKAY, LET'S TAKE A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? IS THAT A YELLOW? OKAY, I'M SEEING TWO YELLOWS, ONE RED, AND THAT PASSES NINE TO ONE TO TWO.
UM, CHAIR, I'D JUST LIKE TO RAISE A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.
UM, THINKING ABOUT THE PORTION OF THE CODE, AND THIS IS JUST SORT OF A NOTE FOR STAFF.
UM, REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH OUR AMENDMENTS AND ULTIMATELY COUNCIL'S, UH, ADOPTION OR NOT, UM, THE CURRENT DRAFT, THE PERCENTAGES OF DISTRIBUTION OF THOSE FEE AND L DO NOT ADD UP TO A HUNDRED PERCENT.
SO NO MATTER WHAT, I HOPE THAT WE DON'T LEAVE 1% OF THAT FEE AND L IN LIMBO IN PERPETUITY.
THIS GOES TO THE THIRD PIECE OF THE SPLIT MOTION.
SO THIS IS THE PRIORITIZE THE FOLLOWING.
TWO, AS PART OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEE, LEAVE THE PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, AND THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO SUPPORT HOMELESSNESS INITIATIVES IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO THE CURRENT UTILIZATION OF THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS FEE.
AND AGAIN, THESE ARE JUST, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAD COME FROM THE SOUTH CENTER WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD, AND I'M HONORING THAT REQUEST AND ADDING THOSE TWO IN AS PRIORITIES FOR STAFF TO CONSIDER.
AND YOU HAVE A SECOND ON THIS? YES.
CAN I ASK A, A CLARIFYING QUESTION ABOUT THE PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING? UM, COULD, COULD SOMEONE HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT, IN, IN REAL TERMS THAT MEANS? DOES THAT MEAN WHAT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
AND I, I KNOW I CAN SPEAK TO IT AS WELL, ACTUALLY, UH, VICE CHAIR, YOU WOULDN'T MIND.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT THE QUESTION IS.
SO THIS WOULD BE LOOKING AT NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IF WE COULD HAVE THE PRESERVATION OF THAT.
SO SIMILAR TO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PURCHASES THAT WE DID WITH THAT DISPLACEMENT FUNDING FROM PROJECT CONNECT, UM, TO PURCHASE EXISTING NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT DO NOT HAVE LEGALLY INCOME RESTRICTING REQUIREMENTS TODAY, WE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO PURCHASE THEM, UH, AND MAINTAIN THAT AFFORDABILITY IN THE LONG TERM.
DOES THAT HELP ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER COX? IT, IT, IT DOES.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS AMENDMENT? COMM, COMMISSIONER MUELLER? DID I SEE YOUR HAND? YEAH.
[03:30:01]
YOU.UM, IS THIS INTENDED TO BE OUT USING THE FEE IN LIEU OUTSIDE OF THIS PARTICULAR DISTRICT? NO.
SO WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE INVESTMENT BOUNDARY THAT ALREADY HAS BEEN DRAWN UP BY THE SOUTH CENTER WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD.
IT, THE, THE BOUNDARY THAT THEY HAVE DOES, I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR, THE BOUNDARY THAT THEY HAVE DRAWN UP DOES GO BEYOND THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.
UM, BUT IT DOES NOT GO TO THE ENTIRE CITY OF AUSTIN, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
UM, SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, LOOKING AT WHAT WE HAD IN TERMS OF, OR WHAT WE THINK WE HAVE IN TERMS OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHIN THIS DISTRICT.
I THINK SOMEBODY WHO SPOKE AT THE BEGINNING DURING COMMENTS MENTIONED THEY HAVE A PROPERTY, BUT IT, IT IS IN SERIOUS NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT.
IS THERE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY WITH THE EXTENDED BOUNDARY THAT'S BEING PROPOSED FOR HOUSING? I, I THINK THERE WOULD BE SOME.
SO THE BOUNDARY IS RIGHT NOW THE LAKE, UM, SOUTH TO BEN WHITE BETWEEN YEAH.
AND SO THOSE INCLUDES CORRIDORS LIKE LAMAR CONGRESS.
UM, SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAVE APARTMENT COMPLEXES JUST SOUTH OF ALTAR FUND CONGRESS, UM, IF WE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO PURCHASE THOSE.
SO AGAIN, I'M NOT CHANGING THE DESIGNATION THAT THOSE, UM, THAT SOUTH CENTER WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD WANTED.
I'M JUST ASKING FOR SOME PRIORITIZATION WITHIN THOSE.
SO UNLESS THERE'S ANY OPPOSITION, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
THOSE AGAINST, AND THOSE ABSTAINING NINE ONE, SO THAT'S 9 1 2.
THAT IS ALL MY AMENDMENTS FOR THE FIRST ROUND.
UM, GOING IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER, UH, COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ IS STILL OFF SCREEN.
SO WE WILL GO TO COMMISSIONER COX.
I'VE GOT ONLY ONE, AND I WROTE IT DOWN BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE COMPLICATED.
UH, SO MY PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TO DIRECT STAFF TO CREATE AND INCLUDE A FRAMEWORK IN THE CODE THAT ALL AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIRED BY THE CODE SHALL BE ONSITE.
AND ANY DECISION BY AN APPLICANT TO PURSUE FEE IN LIEU FOR REQUIRED AFFORD AFFORDABLE HOUSING SHALL BE PROCESSED IN A SIMILAR MANNER TO A CODE VARIANCE WHERE THE APPLICANT APPLICANT PRESENTS THEIR CASE ON WHY ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS EITHER NOT VIABLE OR NOT PREFERRED.
STAFF SHALL REVIEW THE APPLICANT'S CASE FOR FEE IN LIEU, AND STAFF SHALL PRESENT A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.
SO WE'LL OPEN IT UP IF YOU WANTED TO DESCRIBE A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE THOUGHT BEHIND IT.
I'M JUST, I'M JUST ALWAYS FRUSTRATED THAT WE SEEM TO HAVE GIVEN UP ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN OUR URBAN CORE.
WE, WE, WE, WE TALK A LOT ABOUT 15% ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ALL OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE IN SOUTH AUSTIN AND EAST AUSTIN AND NORTH AUSTIN.
AND I WISH MORE IN WEST AUSTIN
'CAUSE WE'RE SO TERRIFIED OF, OF, UH, ASSOCIATION FEES AND THAT SORT OF THING.
I'VE HAD LONG CONVERSATIONS, PARTICULARLY DURING THE STATES INPUT WORKING GROUP ABOUT THOSE CHALLENGES.
BUT LIKE COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS HAS SAID, I, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE LACKING ACTUAL DATA AND THERE MAY BE OPPORTUNITIES, UH, DOWN THE LINE TO, TO RESOLVE THOSE ISSUES, UH, IN, IN CREATIVE WAYS OR, OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
AND SO I FEEL LIKE THE DEFAULT, PARTICULARLY IN THE URBAN CORE, NEEDS TO BE ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT ALLOW FOR A VARIANCE PROCESS SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY MAKE A VERY, UH, CONSCIOUS DELIBERATIVE DECISION ON WHETHER FEE AND LIE IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT THAN, THAN ON SITE.
UM, I JUST DON'T WANT EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPER OUT THERE IN THIS DISTRICT BOUNDARY CHOOSING FEE AND LIE.
AND THAT'S, I THINK, HOW WE'RE SETTING IT UP.
WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS TO THE MOTION MAKER, VICE CHAIR.
CAN STAFF SPEAK TO THIS AS, DO WE
[03:35:01]
HAVE SOME SIMILAR PROVISIONS TO THIS SOMEWHERE ELSE THAT WE COULD BE ABLE TO, FROM A CODE PERSPECTIVE, BE ABLE TO MANAGE? THANK YOU, MS. DE, UH, RACHEL HEPPER WITH, UM, THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.AND SO WE, IF YOU'RE ASKING AVIS, MAYBE YOU CAN, OR, UH, COMMISSIONER, UM, AZAR, IF YOU COULD CLARIFY, ARE YOU ASKING, ARE THERE SIMILAR, UM, PROVISIONS FROM OTHER DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS THAT DO THE, THE FEE IN LIE FOR CONDOMINIUM UNITS? I, I GUESS JUST FROM A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE, DOES THIS SEEM, I GUESS, WORKABLE? LET ME JUST PUT IT MORE BROADLY.
CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT, CAN YOU RESPOND TO SORT OF THE AMENDMENT? OH, RIGHT.
UM, ACTUALLY MAYBE, OH, AND WHILE WE HAVE STAFF RESPOND TO THAT, IF I COULD ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION, MR. UH, COMMISSIONER COX, WHICH IS, UM, IS THE IDEA THAT WE WOULD BE, THAT PC WOULD BE MAKING THE FINAL DETERMINATION FOR A VARIANCE SUCH AS THAT, SO SIMILAR TO THE WAY WE DO CURRENTLY WITH C PS, OR WOULD THAT BE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WOULD THEN GO TO COUNCIL THEN FOR COUNCIL TO, TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION? I'M GLAD YOU ASKED THAT BECAUSE UNDER MY WRITTEN AMENDMENT, I THEN PUT CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS QUESTION MARK.
SO, SO I, I OPTED FOR THE WORD VARIANCE, BUT IF IT'S, IF IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO TREAT IT LIKE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MY THINKING WAS THAT THAT WOULD BE KIND OF THE PROCESS THAT THAT FEE IN LIEU FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING WOULD GO THROUGH.
AND MR. MASAR, YOU CAN CONTINUE WITH THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.
SO, UM, WE HAVE SEVERAL, UH, DENSITY BONUSES THAT REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL, UH, FOR THE FEE IN LIEU.
UM, IF WE KNOW THAT THAT IS A, UM, LET'S SAY CUMBERSOME, UH, JUST BE GETTING ON A COUNCIL AGENDA.
UM, SO IT'S, IT'S DEFINITELY A, A STOP, UH, TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN'T DO.
UM, BUT IT WOULD DELAY THE OVERALL PROCESS.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS ON THIS PROPOSAL? UM, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? YEAH, I THINK MY QUESTION IS, IF WE'RE GOING TO ESSENTIALLY ESTABLISH THIS AS A CONDITIONAL USE AND REQUIRE SPECIFIC APPROVAL, HOW, HOW, HOW WILL THE CITY GUARANTEE LONG-TERM SUBSIDY OF CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION FEES TO THESE AFFORDABLE UNITS? 'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW.
OR ARE WE ALSO, ARE WE EXPECTING THAT WE WILL ENCUMBER THAT TO THE DEVELOPER AS WELL? WELL, WHILE WE WAIT ON STAFF, UH, I JUST WANTED TO OFFER THAT.
I THINK THAT'S WHY I WANTED THIS TO BE A DELIBERATIVE PROCESS.
IF WE DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION TO EXCESSIVE, UH, CONDO ASSOCIATION FEES, THEN THEN, THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD OPT TO, TO ALLOW FEE IN LIEU.
UM, BUT I JUST WANTED IT TO BE A CONSCIOUS DECISION THAT WE MAKE ON A, ON A PER DEVELOPMENT BASIS WHERE FEE AND LOW'S REQUESTED JAMIE MAY HAVE
NO, I WAS GONNA SAY YOUR MICROPHONE WASN'T ON, BUT IT'S WORKING NOW.
UM, WITH RESPECT TO, UH, CONDOS AND, UH, BUILDING MORE OWNERSHIP UNITS ON, UH, WITHIN THE DISTRICT, THE CHALLENGE REALLY IS A, IT'S A NUMBERS QUESTION.
UM, IT, YOU HAVE A HUNDRED CONDOS AND THREE OF THEM ARE AFFORDABLE, THEN 97 TO THREE MEANS THAT THEY'RE GONNA, UH, VOTE TO RAISE THOSE CONDO FEES.
IF YOU HAVE 50 50, IF YOU'RE SPLIT DOWN THE MIDDLE, THEN UH, IT'S MUCH MORE LIKELY THAT THE CONDO FEES AND THE, UH, THE ADDITIONAL FEES AS PART OF THAT CONDO ASSOCIATION ARE NOT GOING TO ADVERSELY IMPACT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OWNERS.
UM, SO WHEN WE'RE, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN PROVIDE SUBSIDY TO A CONDO ASSOCIATION THAT, UH, HAS AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, THAT'S NOT A PROGRAM THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
UM, AND IT'S A PROGRAM THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO THINK ABOUT VERY, UH, VERY SERIOUSLY, UH, JUST TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE NOT, UH, CREATING A, CREATING A PROCESS WHERE WE'RE, UH, SUBSIDIZING EVERY CONDO ASSOCIATION AND EVERY HOA IN THE CITY.
UH, AND THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHERE OUR, UH, OUR WORKFLOW OR OUR WORKLOAD, UH, SHOULD FOCUS.
UM, BUT, UH, WE CAN EXPLORE, UH, WAYS TO HELP ENSURE THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IN, UH, MIXED INCOME DEVELOPMENTS ARE PROTECTED.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT ABOUT, UH, FOR A LONG TIME NOW.
HOWEVER, WE JUST HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO SQUARE THE CIRCLE.
UH, IT IS A CHALLENGE OF WE ARE NOT PARTY TO THE CONTRACT TO THE AGREEMENT OF A CONDO ASSOCIATION OR OWNERSHIP ASSOCIATION.
THE ONLY REAL WAY THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE, UH, TO HAVE AN IMPACT IS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE
[03:40:01]
HOUSING OR AFFORDABLE OWNERS IN THAT ASSOCIATION SO THAT THEY HAVE VOTING CAP, UH, VOTING POWER, UH, TO KEEP THOSE FEES LOW.THAT WOULD REQUIRE A DEEP SUBSIDY ON THE CAPITAL IN THE CONSTRUCTION SIDE.
UM, LAST SPOT FOR A QUESTION ON THIS ITEM.
THIS PROPOSAL THOUGH DOESN'T NECESSARILY CONTEMPLATE BY, BY MAKING IT A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE THE AFFORDABLE ON AND TO REQUEST VARIANCE CONDITIONAL, WHATEVER TO TAKE IT OFF, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SET THAT THESE HAVE TO BE CONDO UNITS.
WE STILL HAVE, UM, AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING TOO.
SO AGAIN, IF WE'RE GIVING, WE'RE SETTING THE PRIORITY AS ON SITE, THEN THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IF ALLOWING THEM TO DO FEE IN LIE.
UH, RACHEL TUPPER, THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT, JUST A REAL CLAR A QUICK CLARIFICATION.
THE RENTAL UNITS ARE REQUIRED TO BE ON SITE.
SO IF THEY'RE DOING A RENTAL PROJECT, UM, WE DO REQUIRE THAT THOSE UNITS BE BUILT ON SITE.
IT'S ONLY IN THE CASE OF THE OWNERSHIP AND BECAUSE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT JAMIE MENTIONED.
SO, UM, COMMISSIONER COX, DID YOU WANT TO, UM, RESTATE YOUR MOTION AND WE'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND? YEAH.
SO MY MOTION IS TO DIRECT STAFF TO CREATE AND INCLUDE A FRAMEWORK IN THE CODE THAT ALL AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIRED BY THE CODE SHALL BE ON SITE.
AND ANY DECISION BY AN APPLICANT TO PURSUE FEE IN LIEU FOR REQUIRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING SHALL BE PROCESSED IN A SIMILAR MANNER TO A CODE VARIANCE OR CONDITIONAL USE WHERE THE APPLICANT PRESENTS THEIR CASE ON WHY ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS EITHER NOT VIABLE OR NOT PREFERRED.
STAFF SHALL REVIEW THE APPLICANT'S CASE FOR FEE IN LIEU, AND STAFF SHALL PRESENT A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION AND ACTION.
IS THERE A SECOND, MS. MUTO? ALRIGHT, ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION OR SHOULD WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE? I CAN COMMENT.
UH, I, I AGREE WITH POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP PRIOR THAT, UM, WHILE THIS IS A POTENTIAL CONCERN AND A POTENTIAL FALLOUT ON OWNERSHIP, I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE GOOD, CLEAR DATA TO TELL US THAT THIS DOESN'T WORK.
IF WE, IF WE LOOK AT HOUSING AND, UM, UH, INSTABILITY, OWNERSHIP IS A VERY KEY PART OF THAT.
UH, AND SOMETIMES IT'S THE DOWN PAYMENT OR OTHER THINGS BASED ON THAT, THAT THEY CAN'T QUALIFY THAT THOSE ARE THE HOLDBACKS AND NOT NECESSARILY ONGOING COSTS PER SE.
I JUST DON'T THINK WE OUGHT TO DISCOUNT PEOPLE OUT OF THESE OPTIONS UPFRONT.
I THINK IF WE SEE CLEAR DATA THAT IT'S NOT WORKING, THEN WE CAN ADJUST.
I THINK WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO GET THE HOUSE WHERE WE NEED IT.
AND IN THESE DENSE CORES, PEOPLE NEED TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO LIVE THERE.
WE NEED TO MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE FOR EVERYONE.
UM, I APPRECIATE THE COMMISSIONER COX PULLING THIS FORWARD, BUT I JUST REALLY DO WANNA EMPHASIZE THAT WE'RE IN A COMPLEX SITUATION WITH THIS DISTRICT.
UM, WE HAVE SEVERAL PUDS AND PDAS ALREADY.
THE INTENT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE VISION AS LAID OUT IN 2016 IS WHAT MOVES US FORWARD.
UM, I WOULD JUST HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING THAT COMPLICATES THESE GATEKEEPER AND BASE REQUIREMENTS OR FURTHER COMPLICATES, UH, PARTICIPATION REALLY GIVES ME A LOT OF CONCERN.
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO ENSURE THE RIGHT LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY IN THE RIGHT PLACES, BUT I JUST, IT GIVES ME A LOT OF ANXIETY TO SAY THAT WE MIGHT SET, ASK FOR SOMETHING AS COMPLEX AS A VARIANCE REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN A DISTRICT WHERE WE KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT.
AND IF WE DON'T GET THIS PASSED IN THE RIGHT WAY, IT'S GONNA BE PUDS AND PDAS WHERE WE HAVE FAR LESS CONTROL.
OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
SO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, I HEAR YOUR CONCERNS AND I CAN APPRECIATE THAT.
'CAUSE I KNOW THAT YOU'VE WORKED ON THIS A VERY LONG TIME, BUT I DO HOPE THAT YOU CAN HEAR THE CONCERNS OF OTHERS AS WELL.
UH, AND TO THAT POINT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT IS COMPLICATED AND
[03:45:01]
IT IS, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE DO REALLY NEED TO ADDRESS OWNERSHIP, HOME OWNERSHIP, BUILDING EQUITY HAS TO BE PART OF WHAT WE DO WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING.WE CAN'T SAY THAT EVERYONE, UH, THAT GETS AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS TO BE A RENTER FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.
WE, WE CAN'T SAY, IN MY VIEW, PATERNALISTIC THAT, OH, YOU CAN'T AFFORD THIS, YOU CAN'T AFFORD THE CONDO FEES.
WE DON'T, WE HAVE, WE ARE NOT EVEN WILLING TO TEST THE WATERS.
SO I THINK THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO TEST THE WATERS.
BUT I HEAR YOUR POINTS ABOUT IT BEING, YOU KNOW, A BIT CONVOLUTED.
I, I HOPE MAYBE WE CAN LOOK AT SOMETHING WHERE WE CAN GET TO, TO A BETTER PLACE WITHOUT MAYBE BEING SO CONVOLUTED AS WE GET THERE.
SO THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE MY COMMENT.
I MAY VOTE FOR THIS, BUT WE CAN TALK ABOUT HOW WE DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT AS WELL.
ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? I'D LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST ANDERSON.
I, I FEEL THAT THIS AMENDMENT HAS GOOD INTENTIONS.
I, I DEFINITELY FEEL THAT IT'S GOING TO HAVE THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF JUST ADDING ANOTHER HOOP TO FOLKS WHO ARE LOOKING TO BUILD FOR SALE OWNERSHIP CONDOS.
AND WE KNOW THROUGH THE PROCESSES, IF YOU ADD MORE HOOPS AND MORE REQUIREMENTS AND MORE MEETINGS, THEN WE GET LESS OF THAT.
AND SO I DON'T WANT LESS OR FEWER CONDOS HERE.
UM, I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE STAFF.
UM, AND I, I'M GETTING A LOT OF FEEDBACK OVER HERE.
UH, I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE STAFF, UM, WEIGHING IN ON THIS AND, AND CONSIDERING ALL OF THE, YOU KNOW, MANY EXAMPLES WE HAVE OVER THE YEARS OF, UM, ESPECIALLY HIGH RISE, AFFORDABLE CONDOS, WHEN IT'S A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF AN OVERALL, WITH ALL THE LIMITATIONS WE HAVE IN STATE LAW, THERE AREN'T PROTECTIONS FOR THOSE FOLKS.
AND I SAY THIS AS A HABITAT EMPLOYEE, AND WE HAVE HOME BASE, AND WE'RE SELLING THE MAJORITY OF THESE HOMES.
SO THESE HOMES NOT BEING BUILT OR FEWER HOMES AT HOME BASE IS SELLING.
BUT THAT'S A GOOD THING IN THIS SITUATION BECAUSE THESE THINGS HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES.
AND MAYBE WHAT WOULD MAKE SENSE HERE, INSTEAD OF US ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, I FEEL THIS, OR I FEEL THAT AND NOT LISTENING, OR, YOU KNOW, HAVING THE EXPERIENCE THAT WE HAVE AND THE STAFF HAS HAD WITH THE FAMILIES THAT HAVE DEALT WITH THESE ISSUES, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE A PRESENTATION AND I COULD TALK TO FOLKS, OR MAYBE STAFF CAN, AND COMMISSIONER AZA, MAYBE WE CAN GET A PRESENTATION AT THE HOUSING COMMITTEE OF REALLY GETTING IN, YOU KNOW, AND DIVING INTO THIS AND PLANNING COMMISSION CAN BE INVITED TO THAT AND UNDERSTANDING THIS ISSUE AND WHY IT IS.
BUT IT'S A BIGGER ISSUE THAT THIS AMENDMENT, I THINK DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD.
SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS.
ANYBODY ELSE? SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST CHAIR? I KNOW WE'RE IN DEBATE.
MAY I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION OF MR. MAY THAT I THINK IS PERTINENT TO THE CONVERSATION? IS IT ACCURATE THAT THE FEE IN LIEU DOLLARS THAT GO INTO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND WOULD ONLY BE SPENT ON RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE? OR WOULD SOME OF THAT BE SPENT ON OWNERSHIP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE? IT WOULD BE SPENT, UH, ON OWNERSHIP OR RENTAL, UH, WHICHEVER THE DEVELOPER, UH, THAT MEETS THE GEOGRAPHIC REQUIREMENTS AND THE INCOME VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, UH, PROPOSES SO THAT THE, THE FUNDING IN THE TRUST FUND AND HOW IT IS SPENT IS COMMENSURATE WITH THE TYPE OF HOUSING THAT WOULD HAVE THAT, THAT FEE IN LIEU IS COMING FROM.
UH, WE DO HAVE, WE HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY IN THE HOUSING TRUST FUND TO SPEND THE DOLLARS, UH, PER THE APPLICATION.
SO IF WE GOT ONLY OWNERSHIP APPLICATIONS, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE A, A COUPLE OF OWNERSHIP PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT, UM, THEN WE WOULD SPEND ALL THE DOLLARS ON OWNERSHIP.
SO IF FEE IN LIEU IS PAID, THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY A REASON TO THINK THAT WE ARE ONLY CREATING AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS WITH THAT FEE.
THERE COULD ALSO BE AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP UNITS CREATED WITH THAT FEE.
AND REALLY THE CHALLENGE IS IT'S THOSE THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS AFTER THE FACT, THE CONDO ASSOCIATION FEES THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ANY INFLUENCE OVER.
UM, WHERE WE HAVE A LARGE SCALE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS MORE THAN FIVE OR 10%, UH, AFFORDABILITY IN THE OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE, UH, WE ARE MUCH MORE CONFIDENT IN THOSE BEING MAINTAINED AS A SUSTAINABLE, AFFORDABLE, LONG-TERM, UH, PROPERTY.
SO ARE ONSITE AFFORDABLE UNITS THE ONLY WAY TO GET AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP UNITS? NO, I, I DO NOT BELIEVE.
WE HAVE MULTIPLE, UH, AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP DEVELOPERS IN THE CITY, HABITAT BEING ONE, UH, BUT WE ALSO HAVE OTHER, UH, FOR-PROFIT DEVELOPERS OF AFFORDABLE, UH, OWNERSHIP PROPERTY.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THAT QUESTION.
CHAIR, CHAIR, CAN I FOLLOW UP? UH, THAT WAS A REALLY GOOD LINE OF QUESTIONING, AND I JUST HAD
[03:50:01]
ONE LAST QUESTION.UM, IT IS, DO WE HAVE ANY EXAMPLES OF OWNERSHIP IN THESE PARTICULAR TYPE OF DOWNTOWN BUILDINGS THAT WERE NOT ACHIEVED THROUGH, UH, ON ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS? I'M NOT SURE I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, SIR.
UH, AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT WERE NOT ACHIEVED THROUGH ONSITE IN, UH, LIKE THE DOWNTOWN AREA OR, YEAH.
UH, YOU KNOW, IN, IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, YOU MEAN, DO WE HAVE ANY DEVELOP, UH, DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE'VE IN, INVESTED IN, UM, THROUGH OUR RENTAL HOUSING OR OUR OWNERSHIP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE IN THIS AREA? OWNERSHIP, YES.
YES, WE HAVE, WE'VE GOT, UH, SEVERAL PROPERTIES.
ONE IS ON, UH, SOUTH CON SOUTH CONGRESS, I BELIEVE IT IS, UH, JUST SOUTH OF RF.
AND IT IS AN OWNERSHIP PROPERTY.
IT'S 50%, UM, AFFORDABLE, 50% MARKET.
AND IT IS, UH, I BELIEVE IT IS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, UH, THROUGHOUT THE AREA, 71 UNITS.
UM, SO WE DO INVEST IN THE AREA AND WE INVEST IN OWNERSHIP PROPERTIES IN THE AREA.
WELL, I WAS THINKING MORE CBD, BUT, BUT, BUT YEAH.
YES, FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, WE, FOR DOWNTOWN, WE ALSO HAVE, UH, UH, SEVERAL PROPERTIES.
PRIMARILY, THOSE ARE IN INCENTIVIZED THROUGH THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS IN THE RAINY STREET AREA.
UM, AND THAT'S REALLY WHERE, UH, I THINK, UM, MR. ANDERSON MENTIONED, UH, THE, THE HIGH RISES, THAT'S WHERE THINGS GET CHALLENGING BECAUSE YOU HAVE SEVERAL HUNDRED UNITS, SEVERAL HUNDRED OWNERS ALL LIVING IN THE SAME PLACE, AND THEN ONLY 10% OF THOSE OWNERS ACTUALLY HAVE THE INCOME RESTRICTIONS, UH, UH, THAT, UH, MAY PRICE THEM OUT OF THOSE UNITS IF THE CONDO FEES ARE ELEVATED TO A, TO AN EXTENT.
LET'S GO BACK TO TAKING A VOTE ON THIS MOTION.
THIS IS COMMISSIONER COX'S MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MOLER.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? 3, 4, 5.
AND THOSE ABSTAINING IS MYSELF.
SO THAT IS FIVE TO SIX TO ONE.
SO LET'S MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
AND, UH, FOR MY FIRST AMENDMENT, UH, I'VE GOT SEVERAL, BUT I WILL DO ONE.
UM, YOU KNOW, STILL LEARNING ALL THIS STUFF, BUT YOU KNOW, THE ONE THING I'VE ALREADY LEARNED IS THAT WHEN COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SPEAKS, YOU LISTEN, AND WHILE AGO, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TALKED ABOUT, I GUESS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL FOLKS THAT, UH, WERE ON THE, THE, THE PLAN AND THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, SAID, KEEP THIS SIMPLE, KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID, AND THAT'S ME STUPID.
UH, AND SO, UH, IN LIGHT OF COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SAYING THAT WE SHOULD KEEP THIS, UM, THAT SIMPLICITY, UM, IS, IS THE, IS THE GOOD THING HERE.
I WANT TO, UM, AND, AND YOU'RE GONNA, I'M GONNA HAVE TO PROBABLY GET COMMISSIONER AZAR TO HELP ME WITH SOME OF THE LANGUAGE HERE, BUT I WANT TO, UH, STRIKE, UH, ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DENSITY BONUS AND, AND EVERYTHING, AND THEN REPLACE THOSE WITH THE, BASICALLY, UH, NOT, BASICALLY I WANNA REPLACE THOSE WITH, UM, SECTION 25 2 5 8 6, WHICH IS THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, SO THAT DEVELOPERS KNOW IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE BUILDING, IF YOU'RE WORKING DOWNTOWN, THEN YOU GOT ONE SET OF DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS TO DO.
WE DON'T, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER YOU'RE NORTH OF THE RIVER, SOUTH RIVER, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE YOU ARE.
NOW WE'LL HAVE TO, WE'LL HAVE TO GET A COUPLE OF THOSE.
UH, WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE OUT THE LIVE MUSIC, WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE OUT THE RAINY STREET, UM, REFERENCES.
BUT WE'VE GOT, UM, UH, WE'VE GOT DAYCARE, WE'VE GOT GREEN BUILDING, WE'VE GOT GATEWAY PROGRAMS. UH, AND AGAIN, IT'S SIMPLE AND IT FITS.
UM, OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.
CAN WE HEAR THAT ONE MORE TIME? YES,
[03:55:01]
YES.UM, I AM BASICALLY PROPOSING TO REPLACE, UH, THE, THE DEVELOPING THE NEWLY DEVELOPED DENSITY, UH, CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE BEFORE US AND REPLACE THOSE WITH, UM, THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BROKE BONUS PROGRAM, WHICH IS 25 2 5 8 6 OF THE CODE, UH, WITH THE EXCEPTION IN WORKED IN THERE, RAINY STREET AMENDMENTS AND LIVE MUSIC AMENDMENTS.
SEVERAL THINGS THAT WOULDN'T FIT IN THE, UM, THE, UH, SOUTHWEST WATERFRONT, UH, ZONE, BUT, UH, BUT BASICALLY TAKE THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY PROGRAM THAT EXISTS FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND APPLY IT TO THE SOUTHWEST WATERFRONT.
YOU'RE, ARE YOU PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE, UH, HEIGHT AND FAR LIMITS WITHIN THE SUBDISTRICTS AS WELL, OR JUST THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BONUS PROGRAM AND KEEP THE REST OF THE, THE, BASICALLY, ARE YOU SAYING CHANGE LIKE THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE OR JUST REPLACE THE ACTUAL NUMERICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE DENSITY BONUS ITSELF? WELL, PROVISIONING WOULD BE SECTION SIX IN THIS DRAFT, THAT COMMUNITY BENEFIT SECTION OF THE, OF THE, UH, DRAFT ORDINANCE WE'RE LOOKING AT, UH, YOU, YOU DO WAY MORE, UH, UH, REGULATORY AND, AND FAR WORK THAN I DO.
AND SO, BUT, SO YOU GOT ME ON KIND OF SOME OF THE SPECIFICS HERE.
BUT THERE ARE FAR AND, AND DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS AND ALL IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN ARE THE ONES THAT ARE PROPOSED IN THE SOUTHWEST WATERFRONT.
AND SO THOSE ARE LIKE LITERALLY MAPPED OUT IN THAT DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM CODE, SO RIGHT.
WE WOULD HAVE TO PROPOSE A NEW MAP.
THEN, I GUESS FOR THE, FOR WHERE THOSE APPLY IN THE WATERFRONT, I WILL, UM, ASK A QUESTION JUST TO SEE WHAT STAFF'S REACTION IS TO THAT PROPOSAL, APRIL JERUSALEM WITH A PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UM, I THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE HIGHLY SPECIFIC TO THIS AREA THAT AREN'T, THE CONDITIONS AREN'T MET BY THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, INCLUDING THE RAINY STREET PROGRAM.
UM, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE, THE VARIATION IN SITE SIZES, UM, ARE SO VASTLY DIFFERENT IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT DISTRICT THAT WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO IS CREATE A DENSITY BONUS STRUCTURE THAT CAN, UH, ACCOMMODATE VERY SMALL SITES AS WELL AS VERY LARGE SITES.
UM, AND, UM, AND SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE DENSITY DISTRIBUTION AREAS CONCEPT IS SOMETHING THAT IS SPECIFIC TO THIS AREA OF, UH, THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT BECAUSE WE WANT TO CREATE A WALKABLE, UM, UH, AREA.
AND IF WE WERE TO MIMIC A CODE OUTSIDE OF THIS DISTRICT THAT DOES NOT SORT OF ACCOMMODATE FOR THE VARYING NATURE, UM, OF, OF, UM, UH, OF THOSE SITE SIZES, UM, THEN WE WOULD, UH, MISS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A MORE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED SPACE.
ANOTHER CONCEPT THAT'S, UM, IN, UH, INCLUDED AND, AND JUST SORT OF, UM, THINKING THROUGH THE OPEN SPACE, THE OPEN SPACE WAS, UM, UH, AND, AND, AND PARKS.
UM, WHILE WE ARE LIMITED AS STAFF AS TO WHAT WE CAN DO AND, AND, AND BE REQUIRED TO OFFER IN A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, WHAT WE HAVE CREATED HERE IS, IS SOMETHING, UM, AND THOSE ITEMS WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE INCLUDED IF WE WERE TO GO TO A DEFINITE DENSITY BONUS, UH, STRUCTURE LIKE DOWNTOWN, EXCEPT THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY PROGRAM IN, UH, EIGHT, I'M SORRY, NINE, UH, HAS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE ONSITE COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
10 IS OFFSITE OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT BONUS FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
UH, 11 IS GREEN ROOF BUILDING.
SO A LOT OF THE COMPONENTS IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM MIRROR,
[04:00:01]
OR AT LEAST ARE CONCEPTUALLY SIMILAR TO WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS FOR THE SOUTHWEST WATERFRONT.THE, THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, UM, ARE A AKIN, UM, BUT THE STRUCTURE OF THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM IS, UM, SPECIFICALLY TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE, UM, THE, THE, THE NATURE OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT DISTRICT.
UM, SO SOME OF IT IS OVERLAPPED, SOME OF IT IS VERY SPECIFIC BASED ON THINGS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE VISION FRAMEWORK AND THROUGH COMMUNITY, UM, UH, INPUT OVER TIME.
AND I SHOULD HAVE SAID IT'S ONLY PART ONE.
UM, I HAD, I HAD MENTIONED TAKING OUT THE RAINY STREET AND THERE ARE SEVERAL, BUT IT'S ONLY PART ONE OF THAT, OF THAT SECTION OF APPEAL.
UM, THIRD COMMISSIONER WITH A QUESTION ON THIS PROPOSAL.
UM, CAN WE HEAR FROM, I'D LOVE TO HEAR THE TAKE OF PROPERTY OWNERS, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S FOLKS IN THE CROWD WHO HAVE BUILT UNDER CBD RULES AND FOLKS HAVE BEEN IN INVOLVED IN THESE CONVERSATIONS.
I'M CURIOUS WHAT PROPERTY OWNERS OR ANYONE REPRESENTING A PROPERTY OWNER MIGHT THINK ABOUT THIS VERSUS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
IF THERE'S NO VOLUNTEERS, THEN THAT'S FINE, BUT I CAN'T SEE WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BE THERE.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF, UH, I'M GUESSING PROBABLY 80% OF THE LANDOWNERS IN THIS DISTRICT,
I AM TOLD SO FAR THAT THE SYSTEM STILL NEEDS CALIBRATING THAT THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM AS PRESENTED BY CITY STAFF DOESN'T WORK FINANCIALLY.
I HAVE DONE A LOT OF DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS AND, AND THEY DO WORK.
I AM CURIOUS, AND I WOULD ALSO HAVE A, A QUESTION OF THE STAFF IS HAVE THEY HAD ALL OF THEIR FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS RUN THE NUMBERS ON THIS? BECAUSE IN THE STATESMAN EXPERIENCE, WHAT WE FOUND IS WHEN WE FINALLY RAN IT AGROUND AND EVERYBODY KNEW THE NUMBERS AND WHAT IT TAKES TO FINANCE THE PROJECT AND WHAT IT CAN AFFORD TO GET, THE RETURNS AND I'LL, AT THE ASSUMPTIONS AT THE START OF THE PUD PROCESS, WERE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THAN THE ASSUMPTIONS AT THE END AND WHAT WAS FINALLY APPROVED.
SO THAT BEING SAID, I DON'T THINK IT WORKS YET THE WAY IT'S BEING PROPOSED.
MR. RIVERA, WILL YOU MARK THIS TAPE? MR. SU, ACTUALLY, HE DIDN'T SAY HE LIKED MY IDEA, BUT HE WAS CLOSED.
HE'S, I'M, I'VE GOT HIM DOWN HIS LEANING.
YOUR APPROACH IS TRIED AND TRUE AND SIMPLER, AND I WOULD THINK THAT IT WOULD BE SOMETHING GOOD TO LOOK AT.
AND WERE THERE ANY OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS THERE THAT WERE HOPING TO SPEAK? AGAIN? I CAN ONLY SEE THE DAYS, WHICH IS FINE.
JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS SOMEONE ELSE THERE, IF NOT, I'M, I'M FINISHED.
UM, CAITLIN RYAN TURNBRIDGE, I'VE ACTUALLY DEVELOPED, UM, IN THE CURRENT SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT AND I'VE DEVELOPED DOWNTOWN.
UM, WHAT I WILL SAY TO THAT POINT IS THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM IS VERY SIMPLE.
YOU KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN YOU'RE UNDERWRITING THE PROPERTIES, WHEN YOU'RE ACQUIRING THESE PROPERTIES.
UM, I DO THINK THE, UH, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT METHODOLOGIES, IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, HAS A, A COUPLE TWEAKS THAT STILL NEEDS SOME IRONING OUT AS FAR AS IMPERVIOUS COVER, TAKINGS, PARKLAND, ALL ALL THE FEES THAT ARE BEING MENTIONED.
THEY ADD UP OVER TIME, AND THEY ADD UP MOST OF THE TIME WHEN THEY'RE NOT CLEARLY DEFINED AS THEY ARE IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY CITY PROGRAM TO AN, IN FEASIBLY A PROJECT THAT'S NOT FEASIBLE TO CAPITALIZE OR FEASIBLE TO BUILD.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, DO YOU WANNA RESTATE YOUR MOTION AND WE'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND? SURE.
UM, I WILL, AND I'LL CLARIFY THAT, THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT PART ONE, UM, OF SECTION 25 2 5, UH, 5 8 6, UH, THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, PART TWO, UH, MAINLY RELATES TO RAINY STREET.
THERE ARE A FEW, UH, PROVISIONS THAT, THAT ALSO RELATE TO LIVE MUSIC AND TO
[04:05:01]
RAINY STREET.AND SO MY MOTION WOULD BE TO STRIKE THOSE OUT.
AND, AND I KNOW I'M DOING THIS ON THE FLY, I APOLOGIZE.
SO WE'LL HAVE TO, WE'LL HAVE TO, UH, RELY ON LEGAL HERE, BUT IT IS BASICALLY KEEP IT SIMPLE AND APPLY THE, AND THAT WAY IF YOU'RE A DEVELOPER AND YOU'RE DEVELOPING DOWNTOWN, YOU KNOW WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE AND OF FOR THE BONUS PROGRAM.
I'LL GIVE, WE GOTTA DISCUSS THIS.
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER, I'M NEVER BORING.
UM, WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR DEBATE FOR AND AGAINST THE MOTION.
DID YOU WANT A ANOTHER SPOT TO TALK ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT MORE? I'M FOR IT.
YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER HAYES FOR BRINGING THIS.
I, I 100% AGREE WITH THE IDEA THAT SIMPLER IS BETTER, AND THAT IN MANY WAYS THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS LIKELY TOO COMPLICATED AND UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATED.
UM, BUT I THINK THAT THIS AMENDMENT, WHICH ESSENTIALLY WOULD INSTRUCT STAFF TO REWRITE THE ENTIRE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM AND SCRAP THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, WOULD BE JUST AS COMPLICATED, UH, GIVEN HOW MUCH OF THE LANGUAGE IN THAT EXISTING CODE IS, IS SPECIFIC TO SITES DOWNTOWN OR IN RAINY STREET, UM, HOME MAPS WOULD BE, NEED TO BE MAPPED OUT.
UH, AND I'D WORRY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE WOULD END UP WITH FAR NUMBERS, HEIGHT LIMITS, UM, WE WOULD LOSE SOME OF THE BENEFITS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THIS SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.
UM, RESTRICTIONS ON ABOVE GRADE PARKING, THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO, UM, I THINK SIMPLER IS BETTER.
I THINK THAT IS, UH, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS AT ONCE TOO SIMPLE AND WAY, WAY TOO COMPLICATED.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER MUSH? YOU KNOW, THESE ARE JUST REALLY, AS THIS GOES AND THIS PROCESS GOES, THESE ARE JUST SUGGESTIONS AND THINGS THAT, THAT STAFF AND COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER AS IT MAKES ITS WAY OVER THERE.
AND SO IT DOESN'T, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF STICK TO ANYTHING WE DO
UM, WE'VE SEEN SOME OF OUR THINGS REALLY GET TURNED AS OVER KEY KETTLE ONCE THEY GET TO COUNCIL, BUT I, I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY AN IMPORTANT, UM, ELEMENT AND, UH, I, I KIND OF LIKING IT AND I'M LIKING THE CONSISTENCY.
AND IF WE'RE LOOKING AT A DOWNTOWN CORE THAT'S UNIFIED, THIS BEGINS TO MAKE SENSE.
AND IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE DON'T LIKE IN OUR DOWNTOWN DENSITY PROGRAM THAT AREN'T WORKING, YOU KNOW, WE CAN, WE CAN CHANGE IT ACROSS THE BOARD.
AGAIN, THINGS GET CHANGED A LOT ONCE THEY GET TO COUNCIL, BUT AT LEAST AS AN IDEA, OR EVEN IF THIS GOES DOWN AND DOESN'T MAKE IT MAYBE AS A THOUGHT FOR THEM TO CONSIDER AS THEY DELIBERATE, HOW DO WE UNIFY THESE? UM, I, I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S, IT IS INTERESTING
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UM, AS THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER APPOINTEE YOU, THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT? I VERY BOARD, I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT THERE HAVE BEEN THOUSANDS, PROBABLY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF INPUT INTO BOTH THE ORIGINAL 2016 PLAN AS WELL AS THIS NOW REVISED PLAN.
UM, COMMUNITY INPUT MEETINGS THAT WE'VE HAD, STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS.
AND WHILE I 1000% ECHO WITH COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SEARS, AND THE INTENT OF THIS, I DO ALSO WANNA BE EXTREMELY RESPECTFUL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND OF SOUTH AUSTIN IN PARTICULAR.
YOU KNOW, WE DON'T OFTEN GET THIS TYPE OF INVESTMENT IN MY PART OF TOWN, AND I'M GONNA SAY THAT.
AND SO I FIND IT A LITTLE FRUSTRATING THAT YOU ALL WANT TO SCRAP WHAT HAS BEEN CLEARLY MADE, OUTLINED AS PRIORITIES, YOU KNOW, THE THINGS THAT WE CARE ABOUT IN SOUTH AUSTIN AND REPLACE IT WITH THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY PROGRAM, WHICH WE DO KNOW HAS SPECIFIC ISSUES.
AND I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT HERE IS NOT NECESSARILY TO UNDERMINE THOSE THOUSANDS OF HOURS, BUT IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T FEEL LIKE A VOTE OF CONFIDENCE.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR, I'LL BE THE LAST FOUR.
COMMISSIONER COX? COMMISSIONER COX.
YEAH, I, I, I, UM, I ALSO APPRECIATE THIS PLOT TWIST.
UM, AND, AND ACTUALLY A
[04:10:01]
BONUS PROGRAM KIND OF MAKES ME SUPPORT THIS EVEN MORE BECAUSE THEN I FEEL LIKE IF WE'RE EXPANDING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, THERE MAY BE MORE IMPETUS TO, TO ACTUALLY EVALUATE THOSE ISSUES AND, AND RESOLVE THEM.SO I'M ALL, FOR SIMPLER IS, IS BETTER, UM, EVEN THOUGH I DO LIKE THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS, BUT, UH,
BUT YEAH, I, I THINK I, I THINK I'M GONNA SUPPORT THIS PRIMARILY JUST TO TRY TO GET STAFF TO THINK ABOUT IT AND, AND MAYBE EVALUATE WHAT, WHAT THE COMPARISON LOOKS LIKE BETWEEN, BETWEEN THE TWO OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE HERE.
OH, I WAS GONNA SPEAK IN FAVOR.
I THINK WE'VE HAD THREE, UM, COMMISSIONER, UM, HAYNES DIDN'T, DIDN'T USE HIS TIME FOR THAT, SO.
I MEAN, JUST BRIEFLY, I MEAN, I ALSO SERVED ON THE SCHWAB FOR A LONG TIME, AND I, I DO WISH WE WOULD'VE JUST ZONED AT CBD 10 YEARS AGO, AND WE HAD ALREADY HAVE A LOT OF BUILDINGS GOING UP.
UM, I REALLY LIKE THE WAY COMMISSIONER COX JUST PHRASED IT.
I MEAN, WHATEVER ISSUES WE HAVE IN DOWN OR IN IN CBD ZONING, THEY, YOU KNOW, LET'S UPDATE THEM.
AND IN SOUND, IT'S TIME TO UPDATE THE DOWNTOWN PLAN.
THERE'S ALWAYS A NEED TO UPDATE, AND IT JUST SEEMS SO MUCH SIMPLER.
LIKE, I JUST STILL HA THERE'S JUST SO MANY ISSUES WITH THIS AND I'M, I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM ANYONE WHO'S LIKE, THIS WORKS.
SO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WITH SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS WE'RE ABOUT TO HEAR FROM COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AND OTHERS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE'LL GET THERE.
BUT THIS DOES SEEM LIKE A SIMPLER WAY AND I, I LIKE SUPPORTING SIMPLE.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
UM, UNLESS THERE'S ANYBODY WHO WANTED TO SPEAK ONE MORE SPOT AGAINST.
ALL THOSE, UM, IN FAVOR OF COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S MOTION, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MUTO.
LET'S SEE, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, THOSE AGAINST 1, 2, 3, 4.
AND THOSE ABSTAINING ONE, TWO.
I'M GONNA MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO MIDNIGHT.
I'LL SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
THIS IS EXTENDING THE MEETING TILL MIDNIGHT.
I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU.
I THINK THE LAST MOTION DID NOT PASS.
BUT BEFORE WE CAN, CAN YOU READ THE, UH, VOTE COUNT AGAIN FOR THE PREVIOUS MOTION? YES.
THAT WAS 6 6 4 4 AGAINST AND TWO ABSTAINING.
COMMISSIONER BARRE RAMIREZ IS OFF THE DIET CHAIR.
HEMPEL, I, I WANNA MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.
I KIND OF MISSED SOME OF THE DISCUSSION GOING BY AND GOT CAUGHT NOT VOTING AND THEN GOT CAUGHT WITH, WITH THE, UM, PUTTING MY HAND UP FOR ABSTAINING AND, AND MY BAD.
UM, SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND SECOND THAT.
UM, SO CAN WE TAKE A VOTE ON IT CHAIR? YES.
AND THEN TO CLARIFY, THIS IS TWO A VOTE TO RE-VOTE, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND WE HAVE THE SUPER MAJORITY.
SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND RECONSIDER THAT VOTE AT THIS TIME.
SO AGAIN, WE'RE VOTING ON COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S AMENDMENT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MOTO.
IS THAT RIGHT? COMMISSIONER GUERRA RAMIREZ IS BACK ON THE DATES.
SO COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ, DID YOU VOTE OKAY? I, YEAH.
SO THAT MOTION PASSES EIGHT TO FIVE.
UM, CHAIR, I CAN MAKE A REQUEST, WHICH IS, UH, FOR, UH, AMENDMENTS THAT ARE PASSING COMMISSIONERS, CAN YOU PLEASE DO US A FAVOR AND SEND THOSE TO MR. RIVERA, UM, BY THE MORNING SO THAT HE HAS A RECORD OF THE MOTIONS AS YOU HAD DRAFTED?
[04:15:04]
OKAY.MY FIRST AMENDMENT IS TO, UH, ABOUT THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD OR SCHWAB.
THIS IS TO ENSURE THAT THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD CONTINUES TO SERVE AS AN ADVISORY BODY OFFERING REVIEW OF FUTURE PROJECTS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION.
UM, SO I'LL SPEAK TO THE PROPOSAL IS THAT, UM, RIGHT NOW IT'S A LITTLE MUDDY AS TO WHAT THE OVERSIGHT BODY WOULD BE.
UM, WE HEARD THAT IT WAS, UM, GOING TO AT ONE POINT BE DESIGN COMMISSION, UM, AND IT JUST NEEDS MORE TEETH, ESPECIALLY WITH ALL OF THESE ELEMENTS THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING TONIGHT.
AND, UM, THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD IS CURRENTLY MADE UP OF VARIOUS, UM, BODIES OF, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION AND, AND OTHER GROUPS.
UM, AND SO THE MAKEUP COULD CHANGE, BUT THE, THIS IS SIMPLY A RECOMMENDATION TO, UM, TO STAFF TO THINK ABOUT HOW WE CAN ENSURE THAT THE, THE VISION PLAN AND THE REGULATION OF THE THE VISION PLAN, UM, MEETS, MEETS THE STANDARDS THAT IT NEEDS TO.
SO WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.
I REALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF THE WORD IMPLEMENTATION WITH THESE PLANS.
'CAUSE 'CAUSE I OFTEN FEEL LIKE, PARTICULARLY WITH, WITH VERY COMPLEX PUDS THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH, IT, IT JUST, IT JUST KIND OF GOES BEHIND THE SCENES IN TERMS OF ACTUALLY EXECUTING ALL THE 50 MILLION PUD REQUIREMENTS THAT WE NEGOTIATED.
UM, AND, AND I NEVER, I NEVER REALLY UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS OF HOW THAT STUFF IS, IS TRACKED AND MADE SURE THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING THROUGH.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, I, I'M CURIOUS IF YOU OR STAFF KNOWS OF ANY OTHER BODY THAT'S KIND OF CHARGED WITH IMPLEMENTATION RATHER THAN, UM, RATHER THAN WHAT WE DO, WHICH IS VERY MUCH ON THE FRONT END OF, OF THESE SORTS OF THINGS.
I PERSONALLY TO, WELL, UH, UM, I THINK, UH, SOMETHING THAT'S A FEW SHADES DIFFERENT, BUT PERHAPS SIMILAR IS IF YOU THINK OF THE MILLER, UM, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE, UM, AGAIN, THAT WAS A PUT AND HIGHLY DETAILED OUT, BUT THERE'S, UH, A BODY THAT REVIEWS ALL OF THE VARIOUS DEVELOPMENTS TO MAKE SURE IT COMPLIES WITH STREET SCAPE STANDARDS AND THE PARK STANDARDS AND THE VARIOUS DESIGN INITIATIVES.
I THINK THIS WOULD BE A MORE ROBUST VERSION, A MUCH MORE ROBUST VERSION OF THAT.
UM, BUT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT I, THAT CAME TO MY MIND WHEN WE WERE THINKING ABOUT THIS.
AND IF I MIGHT ADD TO IT, THE DESIGN COMMISSION WORKS SIMILARLY FOR DOWNTOWN AS WELL.
OTHER QUESTIONS? AND IF YOU'RE ON THE SCREEN, JUST CALL OUT 'CAUSE I, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN SEE EVERYBODY MAKE THE MOTION, I THINK.
SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION, UM, REPEATING THIS AGAIN TO ENSURE THAT THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD CONTINUES TO SERVE AS AN ADVISORY BODY OFFERING A REVIEW OF FUTURE PROJECTS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION.
I SEE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
ANY DISCUSSION FOR OR AGAINST OR SHOULD WE GO TO A VOTE? A LOOK.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON IS OFF THE D MM-HMM,
MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT COMMISSIONER THAT IS, UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD.
DO YOU HAVE, OH, WAIT, DO, OH WAIT.
WE STILL HAVE COMMISSIONER HOWARD, DO YOU HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS? COMMISSIONER HOWARD? DID I, SORRY, I COULDN'T HEAR YOU.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
UH, YES, I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION ON THE PROCESS.
SO ARE WE, ARE THESE AMENDMENTS BEING INCORPORATED SORT OF IN ORDER? SO IN OTHER WORDS, ARE WE NOW CONSIDERING
[04:20:01]
THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AS AMENDED SO FAR, OR ARE WE STILL AMENDING THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED ORDINANCE? SO, THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THE ORDINANCE AT THIS POINT IS ESSENTIALLY NOTHING.
UM, SO ESSENTIALLY, UM, CURRENTLY WE'RE MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE BASE, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT THAT WE MIGHT END UP PASSING SOME AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THEM.
AND I SUPPOSE WE WILL LEAVE IT TO STAFF TO CONSIDER HOW TO RECONCILE THIS.
AND I SEE MS. RUSO IS WALKING UP.
UH, I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO PROBABLY GO BACK AS STAFF TO BRING SOMETHING BACK TO THIS GROUP, UM, TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE BASE REQUEST BECAUSE WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT INTEGRATES WITH THE, HOW WE MIGHT ACCOMMODATE THE BASE.
AND SO, UM, WE WOULD NEED TO COME BACK TO THIS BODY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
IF I CAN JUST CLARIFY MS. RUSSO.
SO YES, STAFF WOULD HAVE TO SORT OF RECONCILE THOSE, BUT, UM, IF WE TAKE A VOTE TODAY, THEN IT JUST GOES TO COUNCIL.
AND COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO RECONSIDER WHATEVER YOU GIVE FORWARD.
SO ONCE THIS BODY HAS VOTED ON IT, IT WOULD TECHNICALLY NOT COME BACK BEFORE THIS BODY, UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO CORRECT ME.
BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
YOU WILL HAVE TO RECONCILE SOME RATHER ODD DIFFERENCES.
WELL, GIVEN THAT WE ARE AMENDING BASE MOTION, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO STRIKE.
UH, SO LOOKING AT EVERYONE'S CONTEXT, PAGE 22 OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, THAT'S, I THINK IT WAS PAGE 37 OF THE PDF DOCUMENT.
WE GOT, UM, SECTION 3.5 0.2, FLORIDA AREA RATIO CALCULATION FOR STRUCTURED PARKING.
UM, AND SO I WOULD MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO STRIKE EVERYTHING FROM LINE A AFTER THE WORD CALCULATION, SO THAT LINE A WOULD SIMPLY READ ABOVE GROUND STRUCTURED PARKING SHALL BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE OVERALL FLOOR TO AREA RATIO CALCULATION PERIOD.
AND THEN IT WOULD CONTINUE TO B THAT'S CURRENTLY WORKING.
DO YOU WANNA SPEAK A LITTLE MORE TO YOUR PROPOSAL? YEAH.
UM, LOOK, I, I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT WE ARE FINALLY AS A CITY LOOKING AT, UH, SOME OF THESE SORT OF URBAN DESIGN IMPACTS OF, OF LARGE PARKING GARAGES AND OTHER CAR CENTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE.
UM, I JUST THINK THAT THE PROPOSED ALLOWANCES FOR SORT OF A BASE PARKING ENTITLEMENT, I THINK THE NOTION THAT YOU WOULD ALLOW AN ABOVE GROUND PARKING ENTITLEMENT AT ALL IN WHAT IS, I WOULD SAY, INARGUABLY THE SINGLE MOST TRANSIT RICH AND WALKABLE DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED RIGHT NOW.
NOT NOT, BUT WITH PROJECT CONNECT, PUTTING A STATION IN THIS SITE, UH, WITH ACCESS TO BUS LINES, BIKE LANES, SIDEWALKS, BUSINESSES, ALL WITHIN EASY WALKING DISTANCE, THIS IS THE ONE PLACE WE SHOULD BE THE ABSOLUTE MOST AGGRESSIVE ON REDUCING CAR DEPENDENCY.
AND SO I THINK IT'S NOT NEARLY AMBITIOUS ENOUGH TO ALLOW ANY ABOVE GROUND PARKING TO NOT COUNT TOWARDS YOUR FAR.
YOU COULD STILL DO IT IF A DEVELOPER REALLY WANTED A PARKING GARAGE IN THEIR BUILDING ABOVE GROUND WITH MY PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THEY COULD STILL DO IT, BUT IT WOULD COUNT AGAINST THE OVERALL SIZE THEY'RE ENTITLED TO BUILD.
INSTEAD THEY COULD BUILD UNDERGROUND PARKING, UH, AND NOT IMPACT THAT FAR WHERE THEY COULD SIMPLY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING AND IF THERE'S ANY ONE SITE IN THE ENTIRE CITY OF AUSTIN WHERE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF PARKING IS.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON WHAT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON IS PROPOSING? UH, WHILE THE CHAIR IS AWAY, I'M TAKING OVER DUTIES.
COULD YOU JUST REPEAT THE LAST SENTENCE THAT YOU SAID? YEAH, I SAID IF THERE'S ANY ONE SITE IN THE ENTIRE CITY OF AUSTIN WHERE PUSHING THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF PARKING POSSIBLE IS VIABLE, IT WOULD BE THIS SITE WITH ITS INCREDIBLE RICHNESS OF PUBLIC TRANSIT, BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE, PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE, UH, AND PROXIMITY TO THOUSANDS OF OTHER HOMES, BUSINESSES, JOBS, SHOPS, RESTAURANTS UNIQUE.
[04:25:02]
AND I'LL ASK YOU A FOLLOW UP QUESTION, AND APOLOGIES IF THIS IS VERY CLEAR, IT'S JUST LATE.UH, IS, IS WOULD THIS IN ANY WAY INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPERS TO BUILD ABOVE GROUND OVER UNDERGROUND STRUCTURED PARKING? THIS WOULD DO, MY PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD DO THE OPPOSITE.
IT WOULD INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPERS TO BUILD UNDERGROUND PARKING OR NO PARKING, YOU KNOW, OR LESS PARKING IN GENERAL AS OPPOSED TO ABOVE GROUND PARKING.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE, THE CURRENT CODE, PROPOSED CODE GIVES A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF ABOVE GROUND PARKING AS AN ENTITLEMENT.
MY AMENDMENT WOULD REMOVE THAT ENTITLEMENT FOR ABOVE PARKING.
APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION.
UM, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WOODS.
DO WE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER COX.
UM, FOLLOWING ON THAT QUESTION, WHICH WHICH GOT ME THINKING ISN'T, ISN'T THIS A GRADUATED SCALE? THAT'S A 1, 2, 3, 4.
AND IF I'M, I MUST BE MISUNDERSTANDING THIS 'CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S DISINCENTIVIZING STRUCTURED ABOVE GROUND STRUCTURED PARKING FOR OFFICE SPACE AND REAL RETAIL SPACE, BUT THEN MAKING IT OKAY FOR HOTEL AND RESIDENTIAL.
AM I COMPLETELY OFF ON THAT? SO, AS I UNDERSTOOD FROM MY QUESTION TO STAFF EARLIER, WHAT THIS IS BASICALLY SAYING IS THAT THEY TRIED TO APPROXIMATE, UM, THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT THESE USES TYPICALLY GENERATE WITHIN THESE RATIOS.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, HOTELS TYPICALLY GENERATE ABOUT HALF THE PARKING AS RESIDENTIAL USES, WHICH TYPICALLY GENERATE ABOUT HALF THE PARKING OF, UM, OFFICE USES, WHICH AGAIN, ARE ABOUT HALF THE PARKING RETAIL.
AND SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S THAT GRADUATED SCALE.
SO THEY'RE BASICALLY TRYING TO SAY THAT NO MATTER WHAT MIX OF USES, EACH MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE ABOUT THE SAME ENTITLEMENT FOR THE TOTAL AREA OF PARKING.
AND IT, IT BASICALLY REFLECTS THE CURRENT OR THE PREVIOUS CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING, WHICH HAD MUCH HIGHER REQUIREMENTS FOR RETAIL THAN IT DID FOR HOTEL BASED ON FLOOR AREA.
SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS JUST SAY, GET RID OF THAT.
IF YOU WANT TO PUT PARKING ABOVE GROUND, IT WILL COUNT AGAINST YOUR FLOOR AREA RATIO FULL STOP.
WHEREAS THIS GRADUATED LIST SAYS IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE AN OFFICE AND YOU'RE PUTTING PARKING ABOVE GROUND 1.8 TIMES THE FLOOR AREA OF YOUR OFFICE, THAT MUCH PARKING DOES NOT COUNT AGAINST YOUR FLOOR AREA RATIO.
SO IF YOU HAD A A HUNDRED THOUSAND FOOT OFFICE, YOU COULD BUILD 180,000 SQUARE FOOT PARKING GARAGE AND IT WOULDN'T COUNT AGAINST YOUR FAR.
SO THE, SO THE A ONE THROUGH FOUR ARE JUST THE, THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT'S EXEMPTED FROM COUNTING AGAINST FAR? EXACTLY.
SO ALL OF THEM, ALL OF THEM PROVIDE SOME LEVEL OF INCENTIVE FOR THE ABOVE GROUND PARKING.
MOTION, ARE THE COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I KNOW WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE STAFF.
UH, I GONNA ASK, WE CAN STAFF, STAFF, STAKEHOLDERS, MOTION MAKER.
UM, PROBAB, I, I'LL ASK THE QUESTION AND IT'S PROBABLY MS. JOHNSON, BUT, UM, I'M, I'M JUST CONCERNED SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIVERFRONT PROPERTY HERE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, JUST OFF THE RIPARIAN IS, IS THERE A LIMITATION FOR UNDERGROUND PARKING? I'M SURE IT'S MORE DIFFICULT IN THIS AREA.
UH, DID I GUESS RIGHT? WHO'S THE RIGHT PERSON TO ANSWER? UH, YEAH, I CAN TAKE A STAB AT THAT.
LIZ JOHNSTON WATERSHED PROTECTION.
UM, SO THERE ISN'T NECESSARILY A LIMIT TO UNDERGROUND PARKING.
UM, WE KNOW THAT THEY WILL DEFINITELY HIT GROUNDWATER AND WE'LL HAVE TO MANAGE THAT.
UM, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT DOES HAPPEN IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, FOR EXAMPLE.
UM, SO OUR DISCHARGE, UH, FOLKS WILL TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S, UM, UP TO, UH, YOU KNOW, UP TO REQUIREMENTS BEFORE IT IS DISCHARGED.
BUT, SO IT IS MORE COMPLICATED, BUT IT'S NOT, UH, IT'S NOT PREVENTED OR ANYTHING.
I, I WOULD JUST SAY, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, THE CITY HALL PARKING GARAGE IS ONLY ABOUT 150 FEET FROM THE, FROM THE RIVERBED AND IT'S UNDERGROUND.
HEY, DON'T BRING FACTS INTO THIS
UM, SO COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, DO YOU WANNA RESTATE YOUR MOTION AND WE'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND.
SO THE MOTION IS TO STRIKE, UH, EVERYTHING IN 3.5 0.2 A AFTER THE WORD CALCULATION.
[04:30:01]
WAS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS FOR OR AGAINST SEEING? NO OBJECTION.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ALL OF THOSE IN SKIDMORE, I THINK BETTER HAND RAISED COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.
I'LL KEEP IT SHORT AND SIMPLE.
I MEAN, UH, WHOLEHEARTEDLY, A HUNDRED PERCENT AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
UM, THERE IS NO BETTER PLACE IN THE CITY TO ASSERT OUR VALUES TO SUPPORT TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT.
SO A HUNDRED PERCENT SUPPORTING.
OKAY, LET'S, UH, GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 2 3 4 6 7 8, 9, 10.
COMMISSIONER, OH NO, I'M SORRY.
NO, COMMISSIONER HOWARD'S OFF THE DIETS.
OH WAIT, YOU VOTED AGAINST 11 11 1, 1 0 1 OFF THE, OKAY.
UM, NOW WE WILL GO TO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UM, AND IF STAFF COULD BRING UP, UH, MAXWELL
UM, IF YOU CAN GO SCROLL DOWN TO THE MAP.
UM, IF YOU MOVE DOWN, I THINK, OH YEAH, I'LL LET STAFF BRING THIS UP.
UM, I THINK YOU ALL HAVE HEARD SOME CONCERNS REGARDING THE DISTRICT.
AND FIRST OF ALL, I'M GONNA POINT OUT, GIVEN SOME EARLIER DECISIONS, I HAVE NO IDEA HOW THIS MAP FITS INTO ANYTHING AT THIS POINT, BUT WE'LL MOVE FORWARD.
UM, SO I THINK BOTH FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS ARE HERE THIS EVENING AS WELL AS INPUT THAT WE'VE RECEIVED, UM, THAT THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS OBVIOUSLY, THAT WE HAD AT ONE POINT ONLY HAD THREE ZONES AND WENT UP TO FIVE.
UM, AFTER CONSIDERING SOME OF THAT INPUT, I, I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THIS AS AN ALTERNATE MAP.
AND WHAT YOU CAN BASICALLY SEE HERE IS THAT WE ARE ESSENTIALLY ELIMINATING SUBDISTRICT ONE.
SO EVERYTHING STARTS AT SUBDISTRICT TWO.
UM, BUT WE DON'T GO TO THE LOWEST LEVEL.
SO ONE AND TWO BASICALLY JUST BECOME TWO.
THEN THERE ARE PLACES WHERE WE FELT, UM, YOU CAN SEE.
SO BASICALLY WE WOULD STEP SOME PLACES UP TO SUBDISTRICT FIVE.
AND THAT'S PRIMARILY RELATED TO THEM BEING THEIR PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT AND KEY CORRIDORS.
AND THEN YOU CAN SEE A COUPLE OF PLACES, SPECIFICALLY THE LITTLE HOOK THAT'S OVER HERE ON THE CORNER THAT WOULD GO DOWN TO, UH, SUBDISTRICT TWO JUST BECAUSE WE DO WANNA BE SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT THAT IS, UM, ADJACENT TO SOME CULTURAL RESOURCES AS WELL AS A NEIGHBORHOOD AND SOME OTHER, UM, UH, CURRENTLY EXISTING, UH, MULTIFAMILY.
SO THAT WOULD STEP DOWN TO TWO.
AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE A FEW OTHER PLACES WHERE WE WOULD BASICALLY GO TO SUBDISTRICT FOUR.
SO ESSENTIALLY ELIMINATING ONE IN THREE AND THEN ADJUSTING AS NEEDED.
AND I'M HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE SPECIFIC PARTIALS.
'CAUSE I'VE LOOKED AT THIS MAP PRETTY EXTENSIVELY.
SO IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS.
OKAY, WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.
SO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE PARCELS THAT HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN SUBDISTRICT FOUR BETWEEN SOUTH FIRST STREET AND SOUTH CONGRESS WOULD BECOME SUBDISTRICT FIVE? YES.
AND THAT IS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE FACT THAT, UM, THE PROJECT CONNECT RAIL LINE, YOU CAN SEE IS GOING UP SOUTH CONGRESS.
AND SO WHILE WE APPRECIATE THE NEED FOR A STEP DOWN THERE, IT IS ACTUALLY THE TEXAS SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF IS THERE.
SO WE'RE NOT DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WE WOULD HOPE THAT, UH, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S A WONDERFUL PLACE AND WE'D HAVE THE HOPE THAT IT IS FOR MANY, MANY MORE YEARS GOING TO BE IN THAT EXACT LOCATION.
BUT SHOULD IT ACTUALLY END UP BEING REDEVELOPED AT SOME LATER POINT IN TIME, WE WOULD WANT THAT ADDITIONAL DENSITY ADJACENT TO IT.
UM, SO THE NEED FOR THIS STEP DOWN ISN'T AS GREAT.
AND THAT IS ALONG A KEY TRANSIT CORRIDOR OF BOTH THE PROJECT LIGHT RAIL AS WELL AS, AS YOU SEE THE, THE NUMEROUS A SMP CONNECTIONS THERE.
SO IT FELT LIKE IT WAS MORE COHESIVE AND CONSISTENT TO HAVE THAT ALL BE THE SAME, BUT ALSO LEAVE OUT THAT LITTLE HOOK EDGE, WHICH HAS ASKED THE, THE, TO INCLUDE IT, BUT NOT NECESSARILY GIVE IT THAT SAME HEIGHT AND DENSITY.
AND CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE PORTION WEST OF SOUTH FIRST STREET THAT WOULD BE CHANGING FROM SUBDISTRICT FOUR TO SUBDISTRICT TWO? AND KIND OF THE RATIONALE BEHIND THAT? I'M SORRY, WHICH SPECIFIC? SORRY, ONE MORE TIME.
THE BURGER SIDE? YEAH, THAT WAS, SORRY, THE HOOK THAT, THAT'S WHAT I WAS JUST MENTIONING.
SO THAT WE HAVE SOME, UM, I WOULD SAY OLDER MULTI MULTIFAMILY THERE AS WELL AS TWO COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
AND THAT IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE LONG CENTER.
UM, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE CURRENTLY IN A VISIONING PROJECT AS WELL AS SORT OF RECONSIDERING WHAT WE WANT TO HAVE ON THAT SORT OF KEY CORNER.
UM, I THINK THE IDEA WAS THAT IF WE KEPT THE INTENSITY ACROSS THE STREET, THAT THAT WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A STEP DOWN AND ALSO ENSURE THAT WE DIDN'T END UP CROWDING OUT A CULTURAL RESOURCE THAT'S RIGHT THERE.
THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, SEEING NONE.
SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION? UM, YES.
[04:35:01]
I'D LIKE TO, UM, MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE MAP, UM, AS ILLUSTRATED IN THE BACKUP AS PROVIDED.AND REMOVING THE SUBDISTRICTS ONE AND THREE AND REMAPPING THE EXISTING PARCELS AS NOTED.
I SEE A SECOND FROM SECOND, BUT I HAVE ONE CHANGE THAT I HOPE WE CAN MAKE BEFORE WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH MY ENTIRE THING.
UM, IS THERE ANY CHANCE THAT THE WHATABURGER SITE, EVERYTHING WEST OF SOUTH BIRST COULD GO TO SUBDISTRICT THREE INSTEAD OF TWO? IT IS SUBDISTRICT FOUR TODAY, SO IT WOULD STILL BE GOING DOWN FROM FOUR TO THREE.
SUBDISTRICT THREE DOESN'T EXIST.
YEAH, WE ARE, I WAS TRYING TO KEEP THE SIMPLIFICATION AT THE KEY HERE, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
WITH THAT, WITH THAT CHANGE, YES.
UM, I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR, UM, FOR AND AGAINST ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS OR SHOULD WE GO AHEAD AND GO VOTE? OKAY.
SO SUB TWO AND WHATEVER'S JUST TO THE WEST, BUT STILL EAST OF SOUTH, THOSE WOULD BOTH BE SUBDISTRICT THREES.
IS THAT WHAT UH, NO, I THINK JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE WHATABURGER SITE, SO THAT CORNER THAT WE WERE KEEPING, WE WERE TRYING TO KEEP IT A SLIGHTLY LOWER, IT IS CURRENTLY S UH, ZONE FOR SUBDISTRICT FOUR.
WE WERE GOING TO BRING IT DOWN TO SUBDISTRICT TWO IN THE HOPES OF ELIMINATING SUBDISTRICT THREE.
BUT THERE HAS BEEN A REQUEST FROM COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO BUMP THAT UP TO SUBDISTRICT THREE AND KEEP IT SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT PARCEL.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT SAYS GREEN 1, 2, 3, 4.
AND THEN COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ, YOU DISAPPEARED.
UH, THOSE AGAINST, THERE WE GO.
WERE YOU FOUR? HOW MANY? YELLOW.
UH, I SEE ONE AGAINST AND THEN THREE YELLOW, 6, 9, 8, 9.
UM, THOSE AGAINST, WHERE DID THERE WAS LIKE AN ONE AGAINST, IT'S GONE NEUTRAL.
SO ONE, TWO, IT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
'CAUSE PATRICK, UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD IS OFF, SO THAT PASSES EIGHT TO ZERO TO FOUR.
OH, COMMISSIONER MUELLER, DO YOU HAVE A, AN AMENDMENT YOU'D LIKE TO PROPOSE? NO, THANK YOU
UM, PLEASE BEAR WITH ME A MINUTE.
UM, MY, MY HEALTH APP JUST TOLD ME I SHOULD BE WINDING DOWN FOR BEDTIME.
SO, UM, ANYWAY, UH, I WANTED TO, UH, TO, TO MAYBE TRY TO BRIDGE SOME OF THE CONCERNS RAISED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL IN TERMS OF V AND L WITH MY OWN.
UH, AND I KNOW THAT WE ALL VALUE ECONOMIC AND RACIAL DIVERSITY, AND WE ALL WANT TO CREATE OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES, EVEN IN ALL HIGH RISE BUILDINGS.
WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO BUILD EQUITY AND BE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE OWNERSHIP SPACE.
SO I WANNA PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD KIND OF SET UP A, I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD CALL IT A PILOT, BUT IT WOULD STEER 30% OF THE FEE IN LIEU FOR OWNERSHIP AND OR CONDOS TO ONSITE CONDOS TO, TO REALLY KIND OF TEST THE WATERS IN PROVIDING OWNERSHIP UNITS IN THIS REALLY AMAZING DEVELOPMENT THAT EVERYONE HAS WORKED ON.
AND, AND REALLY BEFORE I CAME TO THE COMMISSION,
[04:40:01]
SO MUCH OF THE WORK WAS DONE, AND I DON'T WANNA UNDO THAT OR MAKE IT CONVOLUTED.AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS LOOKING AT WAS A REPORT THAT WAS PUT OUT BY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS INTER, AND IT'S, UH, TITLED, UM, ROADBLOCKS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS AND TO CONDO OWNERSHIP.
AND AS STAFF SAID, WELL, WHAT COULD BE DONE? AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY RECOMMEND IS TO SET A SALES PRICE CAP FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT ADEQUATELY ACCOUNTS FOR CONDO ASSESSMENTS AND PROVIDES A STRONGER BUFFER FOR ASSESSMENT INCREASES.
SO THERE ARE WAYS OF GOING ABOUT THIS AND WE, WE MAY OR MAY NOT EVEN HAVE TO, TO DO THAT, BUT MY MY HOPE IS THAT WE WON'T SHUT THIS KIND OF OWNERSHIP DOWN TO EVERYONE AND JUST PRESUME AND ASSUME THAT NOBODY CAN DO THIS BECAUSE OF WHATEVER EXPERIENCES THAT WE'VE HAD.
THERE ARE REALLY GOOD REASONS TO TRY IT.
AT LEAST MAYBE BY DOING A VERY SMALL PORTION, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO, TO GET BEYOND SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS.
AND SO THAT'S MY, MY AMENDMENT.
WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.
VICE CHAIR AND THEN COMMISSIONER WOODS.
SO, SO JUST TO CLARIFY, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT, UM, THE CONDOS WOULD BE REQUIRED ON SITE? YES.
JUST, BUT JUST, UH, 30% OF THAT FEE IN LIEU WOULD BE GOING TO, TO HOWEVER MANY CONDOS THAT COULD MAKE ON SITE? YES.
SO THE 70% WOULD STILL GO ELSEWHERE.
SO I'M, I'M JUST GOING TO, UH, CONTINUE THAT QUESTION.
I APOLOGIZE THAT I'M NOT FULLY UNDERSTANDING.
THE DEVELOPER WOULD PAY, WOULD, WOULD NOT BE BUILDING THE UNITS ON SITE, BUT WOULD BE PAYING A FEE IN LIEU AND 30% OF THAT FEE IN LIEU WOULD NEED TO BE USED WITHIN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT DISTRICT FOR ONSITE CONDOS.
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS COMING OUT OF NOT UNDERSTANDING, IF THE CONDOS ARE BUILT ONSITE, THEN, WOULD THAT FEE IN LIE STILL BE REQUIRED? SO THE FEE IN LIE WOULD BE SPLIT LIKE 30 70 FOR, FOR FOR 30% TO GO TO OWNERSHIP ON SITE? DOES THAT, AM I CLEAR? I, I'M, I'M KIND OF, I COULD BE MISUNDERSTANDING.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE FEE IN LIEU WOULD NOT BE TRIGGERED IF ONLY 70% OF THE FEE IN LIEU WOULD BE TRIGGERED BECAUSE 30% OF THE UNITS WOULD BE BUILT ON SITE.
APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION.
SO IT WOULD ALLOW, UH, US TO REALLY GET SOME DATA AND TO GET SOME EXPERIENCE AND TO MAYBE HAVE TO USE SOME OF WHAT ISN'T OTHER, THIS IS APPARENTLY BEING DONE IN WASHINGTON DC WHAT, WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
AND SO MAYBE WE COULD TRY TO GO ABOUT IT THAT WAY.
IT WOULD NOT CONVOLUTE THINGS OR SLOW THINGS DOWN.
UM, JUST, JUST TO UNDERSTAND, SO IS THE IDEA THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD PAY THE FEE AND THEN THE CITY WOULD PURCHASE CONDOS WITH 30% OF THE FEES IN THE DISTRICT? GOOD QUESTION.
SO, UM, I DON'T REALLY HAVE AN ANSWER.
UM, SO, UH, BUT, BUT HOWEVER THAT WOULD WORK, I DON'T KNOW IF WE, IF IT COULD WORK THAT WAY, IT COULD WORK THAT WAY, WHATEVER WOULD BE THE CLEANEST, SIMPLEST WAY TO DO IT SO THAT WE'RE NOT SLOWING THINGS DOWN, WE'RE NOT MAKING THINGS COMPLICATED, BUT WE ARE PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE.
AND IF THEY CAN'T, THEN IT REVERTS BACK TO A HUNDRED PERCENT REVERTS BACK TO THE, THE FEE IN LIEU.
DO YOU HAVE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS? OKAY.
UM, COMMISSIONER MUELLER, HOW DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA HOW THIS INTEGRATES WITH, UH, THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT TO DO THIS? LIKE THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY? I, I, I CANNOT SPEAK FULLY TO HOW THIS WOULD INTEGRATE 'CAUSE I WOULD HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE MOTION, BUT JUST A REMINDER THAT THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY UNITS ON SITE RENTAL OR OWNER.
SO ONCE WE TOOK THE RAINY ACTUALLY PIECE OUT OF IT, UM, OR THAT AMENDMENT, THERE'S NO ONSITE REQUIREMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE ENTIRE DISTRICT.
[04:45:02]
THANKS, ADAM.BUT WE CAN AMEND THAT TO INCLUDE, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS DOES.
RIGHT? AND, AND THAT'S WHY I HAD ASKED MY QUESTION.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE IDEA WOULD BE, SINCE THERE'S NO ONSITE REQUIREMENT, THE CITY WOULD COLLECT THE FEE AND THEN USE THE FEE TO PURCHASE CERTAIN CONDOS AND DISTRIBUTE THEM.
I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE.
I, I WOULD LOOK TO THE MOTION MAKER, I GUESS.
WELL, SO, SO WE, WE HAVE, WE HAVE AS A BODY ELIMINATED AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON SITE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ON SITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
DOWNTOWN BONUS DOES NOT HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT.
UM, WHAT IS, HELP ME OUT HERE THEN WITH, UH, 25 2 89 E ONE A ONE, TWO, AND THREE, WHICH IS TITLED, AFFORDABLE COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
AFFORDABLE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AN APPLICANT MAY USE ON ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THAT'S ONE, TWO FRIENDLY, FAMILY FRIENDLY HOUSING PROVIDING ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THAT'S TWO AND THREE DEVELOPMENT BONUS FEE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THE PROJECT MAY ACHIEVE BY PAYING A DEVELOPMENT BONUS FEE.
UM, AND I WOULD LOOK TO MR. MAY TO CONFIRM WHAT I'M SAYING, BUT BECAUSE THE WORD IS MAY IN BOTH OF THOSE CLAUSES, UM, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE ONSITE REQUIREMENTS.
SO ONLY IN THE RAINY DISTRICT, UH, WITHIN THE EIGHT TO ONE FLOOR TO AREA RATIO, IS THERE A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE ONSITE, UH, UNITS, UM, BUT NOT WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN BONUS, MR. MAY.
THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL.
HOWEVER, I WOULD, UH, ASK, ASK AN ATTORNEY, UM, FOR, UH, SPECIFIC QUESTIONS LIKE THAT.
MAY I SEE THAT AS A, AS A POSSIBILITY AS OPPOSED TO SHALL OR WILL I, I GUESS IF I MIGHT CLARIFY THIS WAY, MR. MR. MAY WE ARE, WE DO CURRENTLY WE DO HAVE DEVELOPMENTS DOWNTOWN THAT HAVE USED THE BONUS AND HAVE NOT HAD TO PROVIDE ANY ONSITE UNITS, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO, UM, WELL, I CAN SAY THAT THAT'S DISAPPOINTING INFORMATION, INFORMATION THAT I WISH I HAD, HAD
UM, AND, UH, BUT I STILL WOULD LIKE TO PUT MY MOTION FORWARD AS SOMETHING, UH, MAYBE, UH, CITY STAFF COULD, COULD HELP US WITH HOW IT SHOULD BE WORDED GIVEN, GIVEN WHAT WE KNOW NOW.
UM, DO YOU WANNA RESTATE YOUR, AND WE'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND.
I, I WANT TO, TO HAVE, I WANT AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD PERMIT A PORTION OF THE, WELL, 30% OF THE FEE IN LIEU BECAUSE, AND I DON'T THINK ANYTHING IN THE OTHER ORDINANCE PREVENTS THIS TO BE USED FOR ONSITE CONDOS IN THE WAY THAT I PROPOSED.
UH, 70% WOULD STILL GO TO THE REGULAR FEE IN U BUT 30% WOULD GO TO ONSITE OWNERSHIP UNITS.
AND THAT COULD BE DONE EITHER WITH THE CITY'S INTERVENTION OR IN, IN THE WAY THAT IT'S TYPICALLY DONE, IN MY VIEW.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL GO AHEAD.
UM, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK ANYMORE TO THAT COMMISSIONER PHYLLIS? NO.
JUST SO TO MAKE SURE, 'CAUSE WE CAPTURED CORRECTLY, AND I CAN SHARE THIS ON YOUR BEHALF.
SO I THINK WHAT I HEARD IS PERMIT 30% OF THE BONUS FEE AND LIE TO BE USED FOR ONSITE CONDOS, EITHER THROUGH CITY INTERVENTION OR THROUGH MECHANISM SIMILAR TO OTHER BONUSES.
ANYONE SPEAKING, EXCUSE ME, FOR OR AGAINST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS MOTION.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
THOSE AGAINST ONE, TWO, AND THOSE IN ABSTAINING.
[04:50:01]
TWO TO TWO.WE'LL MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.
I DON'T HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS AT THIS TIME.
AND COMMISSIONER WOODS? I DON'T HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS.
I KNOW WE ORIGINALLY SAID THREE ROUNDS.
I AM CURIOUS IF ANYBODY STILL FEELS LIKE WE NEED TO DO THREE ROUNDS
UM, BUT I'M PROPOSING THAT WE DO ONE MORE ROUND TO SEE IF ANYBODY HAS ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS.
UM, AS A REMINDER, WE STILL DO HAVE ELECTIONS, OFFICER ELECTIONS THIS EVENING,
UM, WE'LL GO BACK TO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
UH, I HAVE HOPEFULLY ONE THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED PRETTY FRIENDLY.
SO UNDER THE SECTION LABELED TRANSPORTATION AND PROJECT CONNECT, I MOVE THAT WE INCLUDE A RECOMMENDATION THAT STATES THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT COMBINING DISTRICT SHOULD INCLUDE A PROVISION THAT REQUIRES THE RAIL BRIDGE COMING ACROSS LADY BIRD LAKE TO BE EXTENDED ACROSS RIVERSIDE DRIVE TO ELIMINATE AT GRADE CROSSINGS.
SO THE, THE GOAL HERE IS JUST TO NOT HAVE AT GRADE CROSSING.
SO HOWEVER THAT IS ACCOMPLISHED, SO BE IT.
BUT JUST PUTTING THAT FORWARD AS STRONGLY AS POSSIBLE.
IF IT'S ONLY RECOMMENDATION, SO BE IT, BUT WHATEVER IT COULD BE.
QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION MAKER COMM, UH, SORRY.
VICE CHAIR AND, UH, COMMISSIONER COX.
I WOULD LIKE TO, WE HAVE SOME PROJECT CONNECT STAFF HERE.
I'M NOT SURE IF Y'ALL COULD SPEAK, UH, TO THIS MOTION OR IF WE HAVE OTHER TRANSPORTATION STAFF THAT COULD SPEAK TO THIS MOTION.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT WE'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING IS THAT, UM, I KNOW THAT ADP'S CURRENTLY LOOKING AT THAT CONSIDERATION.
SO WE WOULD BE, UM, SAYING THAT WE WOULD BE FAVORING THE NON-AD GRADE, UM, RECOMMENDATION.
UH, AT THIS TIME, A TP IS, UH, CURRENTLY STUDYING BOTH AT GRADE OPTION AND THE EXTENDED BRIDGE OPTIONS.
UH, AND AS PART OF THE NEPA PROCESS, THEY WOULD BE TAKING BOTH THOSE OPTIONS FOR, UH, THROUGH PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, THROUGH THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROCESS.
UH, AND THEN THE, UH, AND AFTER THAT, THROUGH THE, AFTER THE NEPA PROCESS IS WHEN THEY'D BE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION.
SO, UH, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ESSENTIALLY RECOMMENDING ONE OPTION OVER THE OTHER.
IS THAT, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.
AND COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, I, I, UH, MY EYES GOT REAL BIG WHEN COMMISSIONER ANDERSON WAS SAYING THAT BECAUSE I KNOW THE COST OF BRIDGES
UM, AND, AND SO I'M WONDERING IF, IF THERE'S A WAY TO TWEAK THIS THAT JUST RECOMMENDS, UH, ELIMINATION OF THAT GRADE CROSSINGS FOR PEDESTRIANS RATHER THAN ALSO INCLUDING AUTOMOBILES.
'CAUSE THERE MAY BE A MECHANISM IN THERE WHERE, UH, WE MAY ACCEPT AN AT GRADE CROSSING FOR VEHICLES, BUT STILL HALF WAYS FOR PEDESTRIANS TO CROSS, UH, OVER THE RAIL, UNDER THE RAIL UNDER RIVERSIDE, WHAT, WHATEVER IT ENDS UP BEING.
UM, 'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE A HECK OF A LOT CHEAPER THAN, THAN ENTIRELY GRADE SEPARATING EVERYTHING.
AND SO I WAS JUST, I GUESS, I GUESS I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF THIS WAS FOCUSED ON VEHICLES ON RIVERSIDE OR IF IT WAS MORE PEDESTRIAN FOCUSED, CROSSING THE RAIL OPEN TO INPUT, BUT MAINLY JUST THE TRAINS IS MY CONCERN.
SO PUTTING TRAINS AT, AT WHAT IS HOPEFULLY A VERY HIGH FREQUENCY WITH ARMS GOING DOWN EVERY TWO TO THREE MINUTES.
UM, MY BROTHER LIVES RIGHT NEXT TO THE MLK STATION, THAT'S JUST THE RED LINE, AND IT'S AMAZING HOW MUCH IT STOPS MLK.
SO JUST THINKING OF MULTIPLE LINES CROSSING RIGHT THERE AND JUST TRYING TO, SO ONLY THING ABOUT TRAINS, YOU KNOW, PEDESTRIANS AND VEHICLES LIKE, SO BE IT, ESPECIALLY PEDESTRIANS, DON'T WANNA HINDER THAT IN ANY WAY, BUT JUST TRYING TO SEPARATE THE TRAINS.
AND WHATEVER LANGUAGE WE NEED TO GET THERE, OPEN THE CRAFTING.
THIS QUESTION, I THINK TO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, MAYBE IT'S THE STAFF, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AT RIVERSIDE ESSENTIALLY WOULD BE A JUNCTION BETWEEN THE, THE LEG OF INITIAL SEGMENTS THAT GO DOWN CONGRESS AND THE ONE THAT IT GOES DOWN, UH, RIVERSIDE.
SO, UH, NECESSARILY, AGAIN, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER THINKING IF
[04:55:01]
WE'RE GRADE SEPARATING AT RIVERSIDE, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO, UH, RETURN THE LIGHT RAIL TO GRADE AS YOU WENT FURTHER EAST ON RIVERSIDE.SO, I KNOW I'M DOWN INTO THE WEEDS HERE, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE GEOMETRY WORKS, ESPECIALLY, WELL, WE, WE COULD, WE COULD GRADE SEPARATE RIVERSIDE.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ROADWAY.
WELL, AND THEN I ALSO, LIKE, I, I THINK THAT ONE, I'M NOT SURE THAT IT, IT WORKS WITH ACCESS TO ALL THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND ALL HAVING DONE DOWN THAT HARD NET ON ROAD BEFORE OF ACTUALLY ACHIEVING A GREAT SEPARATION ON AN URBAN STREET AND HOW, HOW THAT ACTUALLY INTERFACES WITH THE REST OF THE URBAN REALM FOR THE ROADWAY.
UH, I MEAN, QUITE FRANKLY, WE CAN'T GRADE SEPARATE RIVERSIDE THERE AND HAVE IT BE AT GRADED RIVERSIDE OF CONGRESS.
I MEAN, THE VERTICAL CURVES, IT SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK GEOMETRICALLY.
BUT I THINK THAT THAT'S MY CONCERNS HERE, IS THAT I UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF REDUCING, UH, OPERATIONAL CONFLICTS BETWEEN STREET RUNNING LRT AND, AND THE ROADWAY, BUT I DON'T SEE HOW THE, THE, HOW THE PROFILE, HOW YOU ACTUALLY ACHIEVE THIS GREAT SEPARATION WITHIN THE PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS THAT EXIST.
SO, CHRISTIAN COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, I KNOW THAT, UM, I KNOW THAT MR. SU REPRESENTS TWO OF THE FOLKS THAT I'VE HEARD FROM HOPING FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
I DON'T KNOW IF MAYBE YOU'D LIKE TO ASK HIM TO MAYBE SHARE THE THOUGHTS THAT THEY SHARED TO ME, BUT THEY'RE NOT IN THE ROOM, SO HOPEFULLY HE CAN SUMMARIZE.
I THINK WE'RE OUTSIDE QA THOUGH.
I THINK WE'RE STILL IN TO THE PUBLIC COMMISSIONER.
SKIDMORE, IF, IF YOU, YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF ANYONE.
SO WE HAVE A, A STAFF MEMBER COMING OUT TO HELP ANSWER.
UH, THIS IS RAVI GAR FROM THE PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE.
I JUST WANTED TO OFFER SOME CLARIFICATION HERE.
UH, CURRENTLY A TP UH, DEEMS BOTH THE OPTIONS DESIGN OPTIONS TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE AT THIS STAGE.
THEY ARE EVALUATING, UH, THE DESIGN THEY'RE EVALUATING, UH, HOW THAT, HOW, HOW THE GREAT CHANGES WOULD HAPPEN.
AND THAT INFORMATION WOULD BE AVAILABLE LATER THIS YEAR.
UH, AND THAT'S WHEN, UH, INFORMATION WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHICH, UH, OPTION IS FEASIBLE.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
MR. SETTLE, DID YOU WANNA MAKE A STATEMENT? WHY NOT? JUST, JUST A QUICK STATEMENT.
IMAGINE THE TRAIN AT GRADE AT RIVERSIDE AND BUSES TRYING TO GO EAST WEST ON RIVERSIDE TO GET TO THE EAST RIVERSIDE AREA, OR I 35.
THE, THE, THE GATES WILL BE DOWN MORE THAN THEY'RE UP AND TRAFFIC, WHETHER IT'S CARS, PEDESTRIANS, BIKES, OR BUSES WILL BE STOPPED.
IF YOU COME ACROSS THE RIVER AT, YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY ABOVE GRADE COMING ACROSS THE RIVER.
THE WAY THE TOPOGRAPHY WORKS, IF YOU JUST KEEP THAT GOING, IT WILL ACTUALLY HIT ACROSS RIVERSIDE, CLOSE TO CONGRESS AVENUE.
AND IT ALSO, WHEN YOU GO EAST ON RIVERSIDE, YOU'VE GOT THE NATURAL GRADE RISING TO IT.
SO IT ACTUALLY WORKS OUT GREAT.
WE'VE, WE'VE HAD OUR ENGINEERS LOOK AT IT.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT IF THE GATES, IF IT'S AT GRADE AT RIVERSIDE, THIS PLAN DOES NOT WORK BECAUSE YOU CANNOT GET BUSES, PEDESTRIANS, OR ANYTHING ELSE GOING EAST WEST ON RIVERSIDE.
WE'RE OUTTA SPOTS FOR QUESTIONS.
UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, DO YOU WANNA RESTATE YOUR AMENDMENT AND WE'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND? YOU'RE ON MUTE.
HAPPY TO STOP ON THIS, BUT JUST, YOU KNOW, PUTTING FORWARD THE, THE, THE STRONG PREFERENCE OF GRADE SEPARATION BEFORE BETWEEN RAIL AND RIVERSIDE.
HOWEVER, THAT COULD BE MOST BEAUTIFULLY WORDED.
I LOOK TO COMMISSIONER AS OUR FOR HELP RIGHT HERE.
UM, ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO TO COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST.
SO JUST SO I CAN, UM, THIS IS WHAT I, I HAVE JUST SO FOLKS CAN UNDERSTAND.
SO IT'S PRIORITIZING THE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT CONNECT SECTION THAT SOUTH CENTER WATERFRONT REQUIRES A REAL BRIDGE CROSSING LADY BIRD LAKE TO BE EXTENDED ACROSS RIVERSIDE DRIVE TO ELIMINATE AT GRADE CROSSINGS.
ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, WE'LL GO TO A VOTE.
[05:00:01]
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.THOSE VOTING AGAINST AND ABSTAINING 9 0 2.
UM, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, HOW DID YOU VOTE? GREEN.
THERE WERE I, I COUNTED THREE ABSTENTIONS, MYSELF, COMMISSIONER COX AND COMMISSIONER RERO RAMIREZ.
I MIGHT SUGGEST ON THE COLORS, LIKE SOMETHING REALLY VIVID
I'LL GO TO MY, UM, SECOND AMENDMENT IF STAFF CAN PULL THAT UP.
SO THIS IS, BEAR WITH ME FOR A SECOND.
ESSENTIALLY, FOLKS, REMEMBER AS PART OF DB 90, THERE WAS A CONSIDERATION, UM, AND CURRENTLY, UH, AS DRAFTED WITHIN, UM, WITHIN THE EO ORDINANCE AS WELL.
THE FOLKS HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT.
WE'RE LOOKING AT A MULTI-FAMILY REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENT.
UM, AND THERE IS, UM, A VERSION THAT STAFF HAD PASSED AS PART OF FOUR 18.
I'M ASKING FOR AN ADAPTED VERSION OF THAT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE SOUTH CENTER WATERFRONT, UM, DISTRICT.
AND I CAN TALK THROUGH WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE.
UM, THIS WOULD ESSENTIALLY ASK TO REPLACE ALL EXISTING UNITS THAT WERE AFFORDABLE TO HOUSEHOLD EARNING 80% OF A FIRE BELOW IN THE PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS, AND HAVE AT LEAST AS MANY BEDROOMS AS THOSE UNITS.
SO THIS IS FROM THE EXISTING, UH, REQUIREMENT, UM, AS DRAFTED IN OTHER PIECES OF THE CODE, PROVIDE CURRENT TENANTS WITH NOTICE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON A FORM APPROVED BY THE HOUSING DIRECTOR, AND ALLOW TENANTS TO TERMINATE LEASES WITHOUT PENALTY DURING THE PERIOD.
PROVISION NOTIFICATION IS PROVIDED.
PROVIDE CURRENT TENANTS WITH RELOCATION BENEFITS THAT ALLOW FOR TENANT STABILIZATION GRANT CURRENT, AND THIS OPTION TO LEASE A UNIT OF COMPARABLE AFFORDABILITY AND SIZE FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF REDEVELOPMENT IN A MANNER APPROVED BY THE HOUSING DIRECTOR.
CREATE A PROCESS BY WHICH THESE REQUIREMENTS CAN BE WAIVED OR APPEALED IN A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THE EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURE REQUIRES EXTENSIVE REPAIRS.
AND LASTLY, INCLUDE AMEND CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS REQUIREMENT TO ALIGN WITH THE REQUIREMENTS BEING CONSIDERED FOR OTHER BONUS PROGRAMS. AND YOU'LL NOTICE THAT AT THE START OF THIS, I'M SAYING VERY CLEARLY IF APPROPRIATE AND POSSIBLE, MOST OF THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY LAW, BUT THERE ARE SOME NEW PROVISIONS.
SO IF THERE IS, UM, SOME CONSTERNATION AND THERE'S SOME LEGAL PROVISIONS THAT I'M UNAWARE OF, I JUST WANNA, UM, MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THAT.
WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.
SORRY, I THOUGHT I, I DIDN'T RAISE MY HAND VERY QUICKLY.
UM, YEAH, JUST TO CLARIFY, SO THIS WOULD, UM, THIS WOULD APPLY TO ANY, ANY EXISTING UNITS THAT ARE LIKE EXISTING TODAY.
I MEAN, THIS ISN'T FOR, I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS HOW WOULD THIS BE ADMINISTERED, UM, FOR THE EXISTING UNITS THAT MIGHT BE
I FEEL LIKE OUR STAFF COULD SPEAK BETTER TO THAT, BUT ESSENTIALLY, I I'LL WITHDRAW THAT QUESTION.
SO THE IDEA WOULD BE IF SOMEBODY PULLED, PUT IN A PERMIT AND WITHIN THE PAST 12 MONTHS THEY HAD RENTS THAT WERE 80% FIRE LOWER, UM, ESSENTIALLY THEY WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON THESE REQUIREMENTS.
AND MS. TEPER IS HERE, I DUNNO, MS. TEPER, IF YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING.
UH, RACHEL TEER, THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT, UM, THE ONLY THING THAT I WANTED TO MENTION WAS THAT THE, UH, STAFF, UM, IS PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO FOUR 18 TO REDUCE THE, UM, THE REQUIREMENT TO REPLACE ALL EXISTING UNITS THAT WERE AFFORDABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING 60%.
UM, BECAUSE THAT ALIGNS MORE WITH WHERE, UH, WE'RE PRIORITIZING DEEP AFFORDABILITY AND A LOT OF OUR FUNDS.
SO THAT'S THE ONLY THING I WOULD ASK.
AND I THINK IT'S SIX NUMBER SIX COVERS THAT.
BUT, UM, IF HE DID WANNA MAKE THAT AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ALIGN WITH OUR, UM, UPCOMING AMENDMENT TO THAT ORDINANCE, I APPRECIATE THAT MS. DEPAR, WHEN I MAKE THE MOTION, I'LL UH, COUNT THAT IN.
AND THE OTHER ONE THAT ACTUALLY I REALIZED ONCE REREADING THE MOTION, I DID NOT CLARIFY THIS ONLY APPLIES TO, UM, THE RENTAL MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
[05:05:01]
UM, LET'S GO TO MAKE AN MOTION AND LOOKING FOR A SECOND.SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION, UM, PRETTY MUCH THE SAME LANGUAGE WITH TWO MINOR ADJUSTMENTS.
ONE IS, I WOULD SAY, IF APPROPRIATE AND POSSIBLE INCLUDE AN ADAPTED RENTAL MULTIFAMILY REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENT WITHIN THE SOUTH UNDER WATERFRONT DISTRICT THAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING, REPLACE ALL EXISTING UNITS THAT WERE AFFORDABLE TO A HOUSEHOLD EARNING 60% MFI OR BELOW IN THE PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS.
AND THEN AFTER THAT, THE AMENDMENT WOULD CONTINUE AS DRAFTED.
ANY DISCUSSION FOR OR AGAINST THIS COMMISSIONER? SIR? I'LL, I'LL JUST SPEAK QUICKLY TO THIS.
I, I DO THINK, UM, THIS DISTRICT DOES NOT HAVE A LOT OF SIGNIFICANT EXISTING RENTAL MULTIFAMILY HOUSING.
SO THE CONCERN IS NOT VERY BIG.
BUT AS WE'RE INCREASING ENTITLEMENTS, I THINK THIS, UM, PROVIDES US WITH A COMFORT OF KNOWING THAT IF THERE IS A CONCERN FOR DISPLACEMENT OF RENTAL, UM, RENTERS AND TENANTS, THAT THIS SORT OF HELPS US ADJUST THAT.
AND MY HOPE HERE IS, UM, I KNOW THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE A 14 SECTION THAT I THINK IS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY SOME STAKEHOLDERS.
SO HOPE THIS IS HONESTLY JUST A PLACEHOLDER TO SAY WE SHOULD CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION AND HOPEFULLY HAVE SOMETHING, UM, DRAFTED THAT WORKS WITH ALL STAKEHOLDERS AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FOR OR AGAINST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? ONE SECOND.
YES, IT IS COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WITH COMMISSIONER MUTAL AND HOWARD IZED.
UM, COMMISSIONER RERA RAMIREZ, DID YOU HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS? OKAY, COMMISSIONER COX.
YEAH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS MOTION TO OUR NEXT MEETING ON APRIL 23RD SO WE CAN GET TO OTHER REQUIRED BUSINESS BEFORE MIDNIGHT, AND SO THAT STAFF CAN PROVIDE A CONSIDERED RESPONSE TO THE AMENDMENTS WE'VE MADE THUS FAR.
SO THIS WOULD BE POSTPONING TO WHICH MEETING?
SO APRIL 23RD IS POSTED ONLY FOR THE LDC ITEMS AS WELL AS THE APRIL 30TH SPECIAL CALL MEETING.
SO THIS WOULD GO TO THE MAY SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME OUT HERE.
STAFF WOULD APPRECIATE THE TIME TO RESPOND.
UM, COULD I ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF AS TO WHETHER THERE ARE ANY, UM, DEADLINES THAT WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF WHEN CONSIDERING TABLING THIS DISCUSSION? AS THIS IS, UM, PART OF AN AREA THAT IS PART OF PHASE ONE OF PROJECT CONNECT, UM, WE ARE CONSIDERATE OF THE FTA GRANT AND GRANT TIMELINE.
UH, AT THE END OF, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE SUBMITTING OUR GRANT APPLICATION MATERIALS AT THE END OF MAY.
WOULD, UH, TABLING THIS DISCUSSION UNTIL MAY 14TH GIVE YOU ENOUGH TIME TO THEN BRING THIS TO COUNCIL AND SUBMIT GRANT MATERIALS? I AM GETTING HEAD SHAKES.
OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, LET'S RESTATE THE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER COX, AND WE'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND.
MY MOTION IS TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE MAY 14TH MEETING.
CAN WE FOR A SECOND JUST, UH, I HAVE A, A CLARIFYING QUESTION UNLESS MR. RUSO WANTS TO GO FIRST.
UM, I'VE BEEN INFORMED THAT IF YOU WERE TO ACT ON THIS TODAY, THEN WE WOULD HAVE MORE TIME, UH, TO COME BACK TO YOU ALL.
I'M SORRY, WHAT? ANDREA BATES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
WHEN YOU WERE SPEAKING OF THE POTENTIAL RAMIFICATIONS AND TURNAROUND TO GO TO COUNCIL, I WAS THINKING THAT ACTION TONIGHT WOULD ACTUALLY ALLOW STAFF MORE TIME TO PREPARE, UH, BASED ON
[05:10:01]
THE AMENDMENTS YOU MAKE, TRYING TO RECONCILE ALL OF THEM.UH, THE REFERENCE TO THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM WITH THE MORE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE THAT'S BEFORE YOU, WE WOULD HAVE MORE TIME TO THINK THROUGH THOSE AND COMPILE DOCUMENTS FOR COUNCIL'S REVIEW THAN IF, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION WERE DEFERRED UNTIL MAY 14TH AND THEN NEEDED TO GO TO COUNCIL VERY QUICKLY ON MAY 30TH.
THE OTHER THING ABOUT THE GRANT CONSIDERATION IS THAT DEFERRING COUNCIL ACTION TO THE VERY LAST MEETING BEFORE THE, UH, JUNE BREAK WOULD MEAN THAT THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL WIGGLE ROOM FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION TO STILL MAKE THE GRANT DEADLINE.
WE'RE LOOKING FOR A SECOND ON THE, UH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
YEAH, I JUST GOT A CLARIFYING QUESTION ABOUT THE DATE.
UM, ARE WE ALLOWED TO PROPOSE, UH, SPECIAL CALL MEETINGS OR, OR DATES THAT AREN'T SCHEDULED ON OUR CALENDAR? OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT ONLY I DON'T KNOW WHO CAN DO THAT.
UM, MR. RIVERA, CAN YOU SPEAK THAT CHEROKEE COMMISSIONER LARA THE, UH, CHAIR CAN CALL A SPECIAL CALL OR, UH, UH, I BELIEVE IT'S TWO OR THREE MEMBERS CAN CALL A SPECIAL CALL AS WELL.
UM, I WOULD NOTE THAT IT DOES TAKE SOME WRANGLING, UH, BECAUSE, UM, UH, MEETING PLACE AND, UH, NOTICE IS INVOLVED.
UM, SO, UH, JUST, UH, KEEP THAT IN MIND.
UM, THE SPEAKING FOR AND AGAINST, I'M SORRY, BEFORE WE GO INTO DEBATE, I'M GONNA MOTION TO EXTEND THIS MEETING TO 1230.
SECONDED ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, THOSE AGAINST.
UM, THOSE SPEAKING FOR AND AGAINST THIS MOTION, COMMISSIONER COX.
COMMISSIONER COX, I JUST WANNA EXPRESS MY FRUSTRATION THAT WE'RE, AGAIN, BEING TOLD THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO MAKE THESE REALLY IMPORTANT DECISIONS ON THIS VERY COMPLICATED STUFF ABSOLUTELY.
RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE EVERYONE'S WAITED TO THE VERY LAST MINUTE TO BRING IT TO THIS COMMISSION.
I MEAN, SERIOUSLY, GUYS, COME ON.
UH, I, I, WE, WE NEED TIME TO CONSIDER THIS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE'VE MADE A LOT OF REALLY INTERESTING AMENDMENTS AND WE HAVE A LOT OF IMPORTANT BUSINESS THAT WE NEED TO GET TO, AND IT'S ALREADY MIDNIGHT.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE OURSELVES THE TIME, ALLOW STAFF TO RESPOND TO A LOT OF OUR AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE MADE SO THAT WE CAN MAKE A VERY CONSIDERED DELIBERATIVE DECISION ON WHAT WE MOVE FORWARD TO.
THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST PROBLEM IN JURY IN INQUIRY IS A MOTION TO TABLE TWO THIRDS OR SIMPLE MAJORITY.
IS THAT CORRECT, MR. RIVERA? YES.
THEY SPEAKING AGAINST FOR I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
SORRY, GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
SO IF YOU'RE AGAINST YOU WOULD BE BEFORE.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION THAT IT IS 1156 AND WE'RE DEALING WITH A VERY COMPLEX SET OF AMENDMENTS.
AND BELIEVE ME, IF WE COULD HAVE BROUGHT THIS WEEKS AGO, I THINK WE WOULD'VE, BUT IT DID GO THROUGH THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PROCESS.
UM, I THINK THE INTENT, AND I DO REALLY WANNA RESPECT STAFF'S WORK HERE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN HUSTLING TO GET THIS MOVING THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND TURN AROUND BLUE LINES IN AS LITTLE AS TWO DAYS, RED LINES, WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL THEM.
SO I JUST, I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO THIS IN A DIFFICULT SITUATION WHEN WE KNOW WE HAVE MORE WORK IN FRONT OF US.
BUT THE REALITY IS WE ARE UNDER A SET OF, UM, I WOULD SAY CONSTRAINTS RELATED TO THE GRANT AND OTHER THINGS ALSO TIMING OF, OF, YOU KNOW, VACATIONS BY COUNCIL AND WHATNOT, OUR OWN WORK THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
SO I JUST HAVE A REAL FRUSTRATION THAT THIS IS THE THING WE'RE GONNA TABLE AND HAVE TO COME BACK TO.
I FEEL WE'RE HERE NOW AND WE'RE ALMOST DONE WITH THIS WORK.
MR. JOHNSON? YEAH, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO TABLE THIS TO A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, UH, LATER IN APRIL OR EARLIER IN MAY.
UH, IF I COULD GET TWO OTHER COMMISSION MEMBERS TO SUPPORT THAT, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AND OTHERS HAVE SAID ABOUT THE URGENCY OF THIS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, I KNOW SEVERAL OF US HAVE OTHER AMENDMENTS WE WANT TO HAVE CONSIDERED.
IT IS MIDNIGHT, WE HAVE TO HAVE ELECTIONS TODAY, YESTERDAY, ALMOST.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S SORT OF A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE HERE.
DO WE RUSH THROUGH AND MAYBE NOT DO AS THOROUGH A JOB AS THIS REQUIRES, OR DO WE, YOU KNOW, GET DOWN TO BRASS TACKS, FIND A DATE LATER IN APRIL
[05:15:01]
OR EARLY IN MAY THAT CAN WORK FOR EVERYONE? MAYBE IT'S NOT IDEAL, BUT MAYBE IT WORKS.UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DO THAT AND, AND GIVE THIS THE TIME THAT IT'S DUE.
MR, CAN I MAKE AN INQUIRY TO STAFF? YES.
IS IT, IT, IT, I GUESS TO, UM, IS IT OKAY IF WE WERE TO TABLE THIS TO AN UNDEFINED, UH, SPECIAL MEETING DATE AND THEN ALLOW STAFF TO WORK THROUGH SETTING THAT DATE, CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LAY AND ANDREW VERA? SO, UM, YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY TABLING AN ITEM.
YOU, YOU WOULD BE POSTPONING AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE POSTPONED TO A SPECIFIC DATE.
AND THE ISSUE WITH A SPECIAL CALLED IS WE DO NOT HAVE GUARANTEED SPACE, UM, AND, UM, A TIME, SO AT THE MOMENT, THE ONLY THING YOU COULD DO IS POSTPONE IT TO A SPECIFIC MEETING THAT'S ALREADY SCHEDULED FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO YOU'RE SAYING WE COULD NOT POSTPONE TO A SPECIFIC MEETING AND THEN TAKE IT UP BEFORE THEN AT A, A SPECIAL CALL MEETING THAT WE WOULD SCHEDULE LATER.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE POSTPONED TO MAY 14TH NOW, WE COULDN'T THEN CALL A SPECIAL MEETING ON JUST THROWING IT OUT APRIL 30TH AND TAKE IT UP THEN.
I'M SORRY, YOU SAID MAY 14TH AND THEN APRIL 30TH, RIGHT? YEAH.
WE HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING ON APRIL 30TH.
YEAH, SO YOU HAVE THE APRIL 30TH.
UM, BUT I JUST, THAT IS A LDC ONLY AMENDMENT ON MEETING.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT WHEN WE POST, IF WE POSTPONE THIS ITEM, IT HAS TO BE TO A, AN ALREADY SCHEDULED MEETING IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? CORRECT.
AND I HAVE A QUESTION PLEASE, OF STAFF AS WELL.
SO I, I UNDERSTAND THE CONSTRAINTS AROUND SPACE, BUT COULD IT BE A VIRTUAL MEETING OR WOULD, WOULD THAT NOT BE, UH, SOMETHING WE COULD DO THE CHAIR.
SO THE CHAIR HAS TO BE IN PERSON, BUT COULD THE REST STATE GOVERNANCE REQUIREMENTS? YEAH.
BUT COULD THE REST OF US BE VIRTUAL? SO IT WOULD BE A VIRTUAL MEETING WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CHAIR.
THE THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO MUST BE RECORDED.
SO THERE'S ONLY REALLY TWO LOCATIONS THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE THAT.
CURRENTLY? MM-HMM,
WELL, THREE, UH, TWO IN CITY HALL AND THEN ONE IN AT THE PD CI KIND OF FEEL LIKE WE'RE, WELL NOT AS INFORMED ON SOME THINGS.
UM, AND I REALLY FEEL, UH, LIKE WE, WE NEED TO TAKE MORE TIME, BUT THEN I UNDERSTAND THE CONSTRAINTS THAT YOU HAVE THAT EVERYONE HAS LAID OUT TOO.
CAN I, CAN I OFFER A, AN IDEA THAT WE, THAT, THAT WE AMEND THE MOTION TO POSTPONE TO APRIL 23RD, KNOWING THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE UP THE ISSUE ON APRIL 23RD, BUT WE CAN SET A SPECIAL MEETING DATE PRIOR TO MAY 14TH ON APRIL 23RD.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'D BE POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE NOTICE BETWEEN APRIL 23RD FOR ANY DATE FOR MAY 14TH, BECAUSE THE CITY WOULD'VE TO MAIL NOTICE AGAIN, CHAIR COMMISSIONER LAVAR.
SO AS LONG AS YOU POSTPONE TO A CERTAIN DATE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SEND RE NOTICE.
ACCORDING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS, THE CHAIR SHALL CALL A SPECIAL MEETING IF REQUESTED BY THREE OR MORE MEMBERS.
YOU HAVE THREE, UNFORTUNATELY.
WELL, THE, THE MOTION ISN'T MADE FOR A SPECIAL CALL.
BUT YOU'VE HAD THREE ASKS FOR A SPECIAL CALL MEETING.
BUT THE ONLY ISSUE WITH THAT IS THAT YOU CAN'T CALL A SPECIAL CALL BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE LOCATION IDENTIFIED.
I THOUGHT THE BYLAWS TRUMP EVERYTHING.
I, I THINK THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE BUSINESS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
I'M JUST READING WHAT IT SAYS.
UM, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE WONDERING, SO LET'S, UM, GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
[05:20:01]
QUESTION? I'M SORRY.HOW MANY MORE AMENDMENTS DO WE HAVE SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5? THAT, THAT WOULD BE INFORMATION.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO ALL OF US.
WELL, WE'RE GOING ALPHABETICALLY, RIGHT? WE'RE BEING FAIR.
SO THERE'S STILL NINE MORE BECAUSE WE'RE ON COMMISSIONER COX.
SO I'M NOT SURE EVERYBODY OF THE NINE IS GOING TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT, BUT IT WOULD BE UP TO NINE.
AND, AND THAT IS WITH THE CONSIDERATION THAT WE'RE NOT DOING A THIRD ROUND, SO EVERYBODY GETS TO ONLY MAKE TWO AMENDMENTS AND THEN AFTER THAT WE, WE MOVE TO THE FINAL VOTE.
SO ARE YOU SAYING POTENTIALLY NINE AMENDMENTS? UM, YES.
UNDER OUR CURRENT PROCEDURE, UNLESS WHAT I'M HEARING FROM COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS HE WOULD LIKE TO GO.
UM, SO THAT WOULD MEAN A CONSIDERATION.
THE, IN THAT CASE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, GOSH, I'VE LOST ALL THE ABILITY TO DO MATH
AT THAT POINT, POTENTIALLY MAXIMUM, IF EVERYBODY DOES A THIRD AMENDMENT, IT'S WAY TOO MANY.
CAN I CALL THE QUESTION? UH, YES.
ON THE MOTION TO POSTPONE TO APRIL, UH, SORRY.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
AND THOSE ABSTAINING TWO THAT FAILS.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT? YES, MADAM CHAIR.
AND UNLIKE MY LAST ONE, THIS ONE'S HARD.
UH, MY MOTION IS TO, UH, AMEND THE FIRST HAYES AMENDMENT BY AMENDING 25 2 5 8 6 E ONE.
I, I, I, SO ONE, TWO, AND THREE.
I, I, I, UH, FOR THE SOUTHWEST ZONING, UH, DISTRICT TO INCLUDE 15% OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS DENSITY SHALL BE ACHIEVED ON SITE.
DO YOU GUYS, YOU GOT THAT COMMISSIONER ZA YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? UM, WE ARE, ARE TAKING THE COMPONENTS OF THE RAINY STREET AND PUTTING SOME OF THOSE BACK IN SO THAT THE, UH, 15% OF THE BONUS IS ON SITE.
QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER HAYNES OR STAFF OR STAKEHOLDERS? OKAY.
UM, IS THERE, YES, COMMISSIONERS ARE.
UM, JUST, JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, SO WE'RE SAYING THAT, UM, WE WOULD AMEND THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT BY AMENDING SECTION 25 DASH TWO DASH 5 86 TO ADD E ONE A ONE? NO, NO, NOT TO ADD AMENDING, UH, E ONE, A ONE, TWO, AND THREE TO, UH, INCLUDE 15% OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS DENSITY SHALL BE ACHIEVED ON SET.
UM, OTHER QUESTIONS OR IS THERE A SECOND FOR THIS MOTION? OKAY, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS SECONDS.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, JUST TO CONFIRM, YOU SAID 15% AND IS THAT, UM, I KNOW THAT IN RAINY IT'S 5%.
WAS THERE A REASON YOU HAD PICKED THE 15 I CONFERRED WITH STAFF.
CAN YOU SAY THAT I CONFERRED WITH STAFF AND THAT WAS THE NUMBER WE, WE CAME UP WITH.
UH, MAY I INQUIRE, WAS THAT HOUSING STAFF OR EDD OR HOUSING STAFF.
SO, AND I'M OPEN TO A MOTION IF YOU'RE GONNA AMEND.
UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS.
OH, I HAVE A QUESTION OF OUR STAFF LIAISON.
WOULD THIS BE CONSIDERED A REPEAT OF A PREVIOUS MOTION THAT HAS BEEN MADE? CHAIR COMMISSIONER, LIAISON ANDOVER, BECAUSE, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, UM, FIRST MOTION,
[05:25:02]
UM, WAS NOT MATERIALLY AMENDED ON THE SECOND RECONSIDERATION.AN AMENDMENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TWICE UNLESS IT WAS MATERIALLY AMENDED AFTER ITS FIRST RECONSIDERATION.
SO, SO I GUESS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS COUNT IS MATERIALLY AMENDING OR I, ARE WE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE THIS CHANGE AT THIS TIME? IT WOULD BE TO THE PREVIOUS MOTION, UH, RE OF RECONSIDERATION.
SO, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO RECONSIDER THE PREVIOUS MOTION ESSENTIALLY.
SO I DON'T THINK IT'S ALLOWED TO.
YOU'RE ALLOWED TO GO BACK TO IT.
SO YES, IN THAT CASE, WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE THIS MOTION FOR ROBERT'S RULES.
PARLIAMENTARIAN POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
UH, CAN TELL ME AGAIN WHY? BECAUSE IT WAS RECONSIDERED.
I CAN'T, SO WHEN YOUR MOTION WAS RECONSIDERED, IT WAS NOT MATERIALLY UM, AMENDED.
YOU JUST BASICALLY RESTATED YOUR AMENDMENT AND THAT WAS RECONSIDERED.
IF IT WAS MATERIALLY AMENDED, THEN AT THIS POINT YOU COULD RECONSIDER.
I'M NOT ASKING FOR A RECONSIDERATION, I'M OFFERING AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT HERE.
THIS ISN'T A RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION.
THIS IS CAN YOU AMEND AMENDMENTS? YEAH, THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT TO AN AMENDMENT, BUT WE HAVE DISPOSED OFF THE BASE AMENDMENT RIGHT.
SO THE BASE AMENDMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN VOTED ON WHEN WE WERE DOING IT IN THE ORDER.
IF SOMEBODY HAD MADE THIS AMENDMENT TO YOUR BASE AMENDMENT, THEN IT WOULD'VE BEEN PART OF IT.
BUT NOW I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA SPEAK IN THE MICROPHONE JUST SO FOLKS CAN HEAR IT.
COMMISSIONER HANS, DID YOU WANT TO OFFER ANOTHER AMENDMENT? UH, YES I DO.
I WANT TO, UH, FOR THE, MY MEMO WOULD READ FOR THE SOUTHWEST ZONING DISTRICT, UM, AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE 15% OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS SHALL BE ACHIEVED ON SITE.
AND DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? UH, NOPE.
WE CAN OPEN IT UP FOR JUST FIX MY OWN PROBLEM.
ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER HAYNES? COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? YEAH, JUST A QUICK ONE.
I JUST WANNA, IF YOU RESTATE IT AGAIN, YOU SAID FOR THE SOUTHWEST DISTRICT? FOR THE SOUTH? UM, FOR THE SOUTH, YEP.
COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL, UH, WATERFRONT ZONING DISTRICT.
I DID SAY SOUTH, UH, BECAUSE I HAVE SW SO SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ZONING DISTRICT.
AND IS THAT ZONING DISTRICT ALREADY DEFINED IN 25? I'M SORRY, I FORGOT THE EXACT SECTION NUMBER.
I'M JUST TRYING TO CONNECT THE DOTS HERE.
I'M NOT, I'M, I'M NO LONGER REFERENCING 25 2 5 8 6.
I'M SAYING THE, THE ZONING DISTRICT AS AMENDED SHALL, SHALL ACHIEVE 15% OF THE HOUSING, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS DENSITY, UH, SHALL BE ACHIEVED ON SITE.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER? GO? NO, GO AHEAD.
UM, JUST TO, CAN I GET A STAFF MEMBER, MAYBE SOMEBODY FROM HOUSING? SO SORRY, MAY MS.
UM, I KNOW WE'RE IN THE UPSIDE DOWN RABBIT HOLE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF SOME OF OUR PREVIOUS AMENDMENTS, BUT, UM, JUST TO BE CLEAR, 15% IS PRETTY CHALLENGING IN TERMS OF, UM, ATTAINABILITY.
IS THAT CORRECT? FOR ONSITE AFFORDABILITY AND WHAT WE WOULD SEE ACROSS THE, AND PERHAPS, UH, MR. MAY WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS.
I JUST, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT NUMBER.
UM, RACHEL TEPPER WITH THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT, JUST TO CLARIFY, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, ARE YOU SAYING 15% OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE, OF THE BONUS REQUIREMENT OR OF THE ONSITE REQUIREMENT, OR IT SHOULD BE 15% TOTAL, BECAUSE 15% TOTAL IS, WE HAVEN'T, ISN'T FEASIBLE.
I MEAN, WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT PENCILING.
WE COULD BARELY GET 5% TO PENCIL.
AND WE'RE STILL GETTING FEEDBACK FROM DEVELOPERS THAT EVEN THAT IS MAKE IS, IS POTENTIALLY
[05:30:02]
CHALLENGING.UM, FOR IT TO WORK IN THIS MARKET, IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY JUST SIT UNTIL MAYBE THE MARKET CONDITIONS GET BETTER.
YOU'RE JUST IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CALL THE QUESTION BECAUSE WE, I AM NOW LOOKING AT THE TIME AGAIN.
SO CAN I OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT WE GO BACK TO THE 5%? UM, PROCEDURALLY, I'M TRYING TO THINK HERE.
THE QUESTION REQUIRES A VOTE IF IT'S, I WAS GONNA SAY, SO NOW WE'RE PROCEDURALLY STUCK.
SO WE'RE VOTING ON, WE, DIDN'T WE HAVE A SECOND QUESTION? YEAH, JUST CALL THE QUESTION.
I'M SORRY, BUT WHAT ARE WE VOTING ON?
THE, I WAS LOOKING FOR THE SECOND ON COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S AMENDMENT.
OKAY, NOW WE'RE CALLING THE QUESTION ON THIS AMENDMENT.
IF WE DIDN'T HAVE A SECOND, THEN WE CAN'T CALL THE QUESTION.
I I HAD A QUESTION, QUESTION CHAIR.
YOU GOTTA, UH, TAKE THE VOTE FOR THE CALL.
THE QUESTION, UH, SUPERSEDES SAY, UM, INQUIRY SECOND.
WE HAVE A SECOND ON THIS CALL OF THE QUESTION.
UM, SO WE'RE GOING AHEAD AND VOTING ON THE COMMISSIONER HAYNES AMENDMENT.
AND WAS THAT COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS THAT HAD SECONDED THAT, THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR.
SO THIS IS HAYNES SECONDED BY COX, AND WHAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME IS, UH, FOR THE SOUTH CENTER WATERFRONT, 15% OF DENSITY BONUS WILL BE ACHIEVED BY PROVIDING HOUSING ON SITE.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION? WE'VE CALLED THE QUES OR SOMEBODY HAS ASKED TO CALL THE QUESTION.
SO WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS.
WAIT, SO HOW DOES THAT WORK? ANYONE CAN JUST SAY, CALL THE QUESTION AND THEN THAT SHUTS DOWN.
AND IT WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, BUT IF IT'S SECONDED, IT HAS TO BE VOTED ON.
THE CALL THE QUESTION, IT'S LIKE A MOTION AND THE CALL, THE QUESTION HAS TO GET, AND, AND IT'S DEBATABLE.
SO CHAIR, AT THIS TIME, WE JUST NEED TO SEE IF YOU HAVE NINE VOTES.
WE'RE, WE'RE VOTING ON CALLING THE QUESTION AND ENDING THE DEBATE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AND MADAM CHAIR? UH, YES.
JUST TO MAKE SURE, UH, UH, I HEARD COMMISSIONER AZAR SAY THE DENSITY BONUS.
I RE I WROTE OUT AND READ 15% OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS DENSITY SO THAT IT'S 15% OF THE BONUS HAS TO BE DONE.
THAT IS, THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
NOT 15% OF THE TOTAL OF THE TOTAL PROJECT, 15% OF THE BONUS DENSITY HAS TO BE DONE ON, YEAH, ON SITE.
SO WE'RE STILL VOTING ON CALLING THE QUESTION, THOUGH.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THIS IS ENDING DEBATE AND GOING TO A VOTE ON THE HAYNES COX AMENDMENT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8.
COMMISSIONER COX, IS YOURS GREEN OR YELLOW? YELLOW.
UM, CHAIR, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 1:00 AM SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ALL THOSE AGAINST THREE.
OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE HAYNES COX AMENDMENT.
AND WE WERE CONSIDERING FOR AND AGAINST DEBATE ON THIS ITEM DISCUSSION.
WE VOTED ON CALLING THE QUESTION AND IT FAILED.
IS IT NOT TWO THIRDS? IT IS TWO THIRDS.
[05:35:03]
COMMISSIONER COX.YEAH, MY, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORDING OF THIS AMENDMENT WAS THAT IT WAS DEFINING 15% OF THE REQUIRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING BASED ON THE BONUS AREA TO BE DESIGNATED AS ON SITE.
AND SO THAT'S, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY MY UNDERSTANDING AND THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTIVE OF, OF THIS.
WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT, THERE IS NO, THERE'S ZERO HOUSING BONUS DENSITY OR WHATEVER WE'RE CALLING IT.
WHAT IS THIS 15% OFF? WHAT IS THE DENOMINATOR? WHAT ARE WE MULTIPLYING THIS INTO? WE ARE MULTIPLYING THIS INTO, EVEN THOUGH I CAN'T SAY THE CODE SECTIONS, BUT I'LL JUST BE HONEST.
I, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE GOING, BUT AT THIS POINT I'D RATHER JUST LET STAFF, WE'VE MADE A MISTAKE.
WE'VE MADE A MISTAKE, REALLY, AND PEOPLE SHOULD EITHER KNOW WHAT THEY'RE PRESENTING OR VOTING ON OR PREPARE AND LIKE, HONESTLY, WE'VE JUST MADE A MISTAKE.
LET'S, LET'S STAFF RECONCILE IT.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE BECAUSE WE CANNOT MAKE AN AMENDMENT.
WE'RE TRYING TO GO AROUND IT SOMEHOW MAKE AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
AND BY DOING SO, WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE AT THIS POINT.
SO I'M NOT SURE WHY WE'RE JUST CONTINUING AT THIS POINT.
NO SPEAKING FOUR OR AGAINST, OKAY, LET'S, SO I WAS TRYING TO AMEND BEFORE, UM, AND I, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT COMMISSIONER AZAR IS SAYING ABOUT OWNING THE MISTAKE, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE MISTAKE WAS A WHILE BACK WHEN WE VOTED ON SOMETHING WITHOUT KNOWING THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT WE WERE DOING.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU PUT HUMPTY DUMPTY BACK TOGETHER AGAIN, IS REALLY WHAT I'M LOOKING TO DO.
NOW, CAN WE DO THAT THROUGH THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT I PROPOSED TO GO BACK TO THAT 5%? AND I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE ANY, UH, GUIDANCE THAT STAFF CAN GIVE US TO GET US BACK TO A REQUIRED AMOUNT BY THE AMENDING THE, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S AMENDMENT.
AND HE SAID HE WAS ACCEPTABLE TO THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
I KNOW IT'S, IT SOUNDS VERY CONVOLUTED, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.
DOES STAFF HAVE, UM, ANY HELP OR GUIDANCE ON THIS? WE NEED A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING AT A LATER DATE.
WE HAVE THINGS WE NEED TO FIX, WE NEED STAFF'S HELP.
UH, ERIC LEE, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN, IN PLAIN WORDS, PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION OF WHAT YOU'RE HOPING TO ACCOMPLISH, WE THINK WE CAN WORK WITH THAT.
THAT UNLIKE THE REQUIREMENTS IN 25 2 5 86 E ONE A-I-I-I-I-I-I THAT SAY MAY I WANT IT TO SAY 15% OF THE PROJECT MAY ACHIEVE THE BONUS AREA BY PROVIDING ON ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH, UH, WITH SHELL, UH, ACHIEVE THE BONUS AREA BY PROVIDING 15% OR 5% OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHIN THE PROJECT.
[05:40:02]
IN THAT, IN THAT PART OF THE CODE ANYMORE BECAUSE MR. RIVERA RULED AGAINST ME.MR. HAYNES, CAN I, CAN I TRY TO PARAPHRASE YOUR LANGUAGE INTO PLAIN ENGLI ENGLISH? SURE.
SO, AND I'LL PHRASE IT AS A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
IS YOUR INTENT TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT THAT ACHIEVES THE GOAL OF WHATEVER THE BONUS PROGRAM LOOKS LIKE, HOWEVER MUCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHETHER IT'S FEE AND LIE OR WHATEVER IS REQUIRED, THAT 15% OF THAT AMOUNT OF BONUS HOUSING REQUIRED IS ON SITE.
YOU WANT 15% OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDED ON SITE AND THE REST CAN BE FEE AND LIE.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION, WHICH IS WHEN I SAID 15% OF THE BONUS DENSITY, I WAS TOLD THAT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM THAT MR. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? IT IS NOT DIFFERENT.
I THINK THERE WAS JUST A MISUNDERSTANDING, BUT THAT, AS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND I I'M REFERRING TO THE, UH, MOTION MAKER TO BORROW MY LANGUAGE, THE GOAL OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO, UH, ACHIEVE 15% OF THE REQUIRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON SITE, CORRECT.
AS PART OF THE ULTIMATE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT BONUS DENSITY PROGRAM.
AND THAT HAD BEEN SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COX.
WE WERE IN DEBATE FOR AND AGAINST, AND COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS OFFERED AN AMENDMENT FOR THE 15 TO 5%.
UM, BASED ON WHAT CITY STAFF SAID, WE HAVE A REALITY THAT WE ARE CONFRONTING THAT IT'S NOT FEASIBLE THAT WE CAN'T GET THERE.
UM, SO I I DO WE HAVE CITY STAFF COMING, RACHEL TAPPER WITH THE, UH, WITH THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.
I ALSO WAS CONFUSED ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS THE 15% OF THE BONUS VERSUS OF THE, OF THE TOTAL.
I'M STILL HONESTLY A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED ABOUT IT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WHAT, WHAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS PROPOSING IS 15% OF THE REQUIREMENT IN THE DOWN ANCY BONUS PROGRAM, 15% OF THE TOTAL THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED OF THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
WHICH IS, WHICH IS A LOT LESS THAN THE 5%.
UM, IT, IT, I I ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MATH WOULD BE, BUT IT'S, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S A LOT LESS THAN WHAT I WAS SPEAKING TO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL ABOUT THE CALIBRATION.
SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
DO WE NEED TO, WE'RE SO FOLKS, HELP ME OUT HERE.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE GONE TO BACK TO NO MORE.
WELL WE'RE, I GUESS AMENDING OR IT WILL BE A SUBSTITUTE BECAUSE WE'RE RADICALLY CHANGING IT.
SO WE'RE AT A SUBSTITUTE RIGHT NOW, AND I THINK WHAT I HEAR IS SOMEONE, I JUST TRIED TO CAPTURE THIS, ACHIEVE 15% OF THE REQUIRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS PART OF THE DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS ON SITE AS PART OF THE SOUTH WATERFRONT BONUS PROGRAM.
SO, POINT OF CLARIFICATION, DID I HEAR CITY STAFF SAY THAT THAT 15% WOULD BE LOWER THAN IN REAL NUMBERS THAN THE 5% THAT WE HAD ON THE TABLE? UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, IF I COULD PROVIDE MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT CITY STAFF SAID, UH, AND MS. TEPPER, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IT'S THAT 15% OF ALL HOUSING UNITS IN THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT IS UNFEASIBLE.
UH, BUT WHAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS PROPOSING IS THAT 15% OF JUST HOWEVER MANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ARE REQUIRED WOULD BE ON SITE.
SO IT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUE.
WHAT MS. TEPPER ANSWERED EARLIER WAS WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM FEASIBLE PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, WHETHER THEY'RE ON ONSITE OR FEE L OR WHATEVER.
UH, WHAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS PROPOSING, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS SIMPLY A REQUIREMENT THAT 15% OF THOSE UNITS BE ON SITE AS OPPOSED TO FEE AND LU.
SO MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS, AGAIN, WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS THAT WE DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND HERE BECAUSE WHAT I HEARD CITY STAFF SAY IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU HEARD.
AND SO WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO IN OFFERING A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WAS TO GET US BACK TO WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY ON THE TABLE
[05:45:01]
BEFORE WE CHANGED THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE SWAPPED IT OUT.THAT WAS THE INTENT OF WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO BECAUSE CITY STAFF SAID TO ACHIEVE IT WAS NOT FEASIBLE, IT WAS NOT DOABLE TO GO HIGHER THAN THAT.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHETHER COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS, UM, IF, IF HIS FIGURE GOES HIGHER THAN THAT, BUT I HEARD CITY STAFF SAY THAT IT WOULD BE LOWER THAN THE 5% WHERE WE ORIGINALLY STARTED.
UH, RACHEL, TOP OF THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT, I THINK, UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON HAD WAS, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT IN HOW YOU SUMMARIZED WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY.
AND, UM, I THINK WHAT WE MIGHT NEED TO DO AS STAFF IS TO GO BACK AND UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM AND HOW MUCH, HOW MUCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS REQUIRED, AND THEN TO BE ABLE TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS SAYING ABOUT THE PORTION THAT WOULD NOW THEN BE REQUIRED ON SITE.
I MEAN, THAT'S A, THERE'S A LOT TO SORT OF CONSOLIDATE HERE, BUT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT THERE'S NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIRED, AS YOU JUST SAID IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
IT'S ALL MAY NOT SHALL, THAT'S WHAT WE LEARNED HERE TONIGHT.
WELL, THERE'S, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT JUST NOT ON SITE.
AND THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO FIX THIS.
THAT'S WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO.
SO PERHAPS AS CLARIFICATION AS PART OF THE RAINY SUBDISTRICT OF THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, I WAS JUST GOING THERE, 5% OF THE, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT'S, IF IT'S SQUARE FOOTAGE OR UNITS WITHIN THE FIRST EIGHT TO ONE FAR, UH, HAVE TO BE ON SITE UNITS AND THEN ABOVE EIGHT TO ONE, IT'S, UM, FEE IN LIEU.
BUT, BUT I, I DIDN'T TOTAL, I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO TOTALLY FOLLOW WHAT'S BEING AMENDED.
SO IT'S HARD TO, HARD TO KNOW WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
I I WILL SAY, I WILL TAKE A NOTE DOWN ON WHATEVER WE SAY.
I, I'M GONNA SAY AT THIS MOMENT, I THINK REGARDLESS, I'M GONNA BE VOTING IT DOWN.
I THINK THIS IS BECOMING VERY ARBITRARY BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS IS WE NOW, WE CAN'T REFER BACK TO RAINY BECAUSE WE SPECIFICALLY REMOVE RAINY BY NAME IN THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT.
THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT LITERALLY SAID TAKING OUT REFERENCES THAT MAY NOT BE PERTINENT, SUCH AS RAINY STREET RELATED PROVISIONS AND LIVE MUSIC PROVISIONS.
SO I DON'T KNOW, I I, I WILL TAKE DOWN WHATEVER WORD WE WANT AND I THINK WE SHOULD JUST, I KNOW WE DON'T, FOLKS ARE NOT READY TO CALL THE QUESTION, BUT AT SOME POINT WE JUST HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE.
UM, WELL, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS HAD OFFERED A SUBSTITUTE OR AN AMENDMENT AND A SUBSTITUTE, A SUBSTITUTE ONLY IF IT GETS US BACK TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE.
I I CAN'T PUT THAT, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS SOMEONE ELSE CAN HELP WITH PHRASING THAT I, I, I DON'T WANNA PASS 15% IF THAT'S NOT DOABLE.
UM, I'D LIKE TO GET BACK TO WHAT WAS DOABLE AND WHAT WAS ON THE TABLE.
SO HOW CAN WE, WE DO THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, RIGHT.
WELL, WE'LL NEED A SECOND FOR YOURS BEFORE WE GET THE SECOND.
WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THE LANGUAGE IS CORRECT.
DO YOU WANNA STATE THE LANGUAGE? I, I CAN READ WHAT I HAVE, BUT I THINK WHAT I HAVE IS WRONG.
WHAT I HAVE IS ACHIEVED 15% OF THE REQUIRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS PART OF THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS ON SITE AS PART OF THE SOUTH CENTER WATERFRONT BONUS PROGRAM.
BUT I THINK THIS IS INCORRECT.
SO IF WE JUST HAVE THE RIGHT LANGUAGE, WE CAN, I THINK GET A SECOND AND PROCEED.
I'M ELECTED COMMISSIONER JOHNSON FOR HELP.
I'M HAPPY TO, TO WAIT FOR A SECOND ON THAT.
WE HAVE A SECOND? NO, YOU SHOULD COX, I ALREADY, I ALREADY SECONDED THAT MOTION.
SO WE THEN HAVE A SUBSTITUTE BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS OFFERED INSTEAD OF 15 TO SAVE 5%.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, A SUBSTITUTE OR A SECOND ON.
SO THEN WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, SECONDED
[05:50:01]
BY COMMISSIONER, UM, COX, WHICH IS ACHIEVED 5% OF THE REQUIRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS PART OF THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS ONSITE AS PART OF THE SOUTH CENTER WATERFRONT BONUS PROGRAM.IF NO OBJECTION, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS ONE.
CAN WE SAY THE NUMBER LIKE 4 81 TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE CLEAR, UM, SINCE THAT WAS NO, WE CAN'T.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? TWO THREE THOSE AGAINST, WHAT'S YOUR VOTE? ABSTAINING.
AND THEN ABSTAINING ABSTENTION.
IS THAT TWO? UM, PLEASE HELP ME WITH THE COUNT.
IS THAT THREE TO SIX TO TWO THREE ASSUMPTIONS? ASSUMPTION? UH, I SEE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON NODDING, SO I THINK IT'S 360 2.
SO THAT MEANS WE'RE GOING BACK TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S ORIGINAL WITH SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX.
THIS IS WITH WHAT WE HAD JUST CONSIDERED, BUT INSTEAD OF 5%, 15%, IF NO OBJECTION, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
1, 2, 3, 4, THOSE AGAINST 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
AND THOSE ABSTAINING ONE THAT IS FOUR TO SIX TO ONE, THAT AMENDMENT ALSO FAILS.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO MY SECOND AMENDMENT.
THIS IS ABOUT MOBILITY PLANNING AND REQUIREMENTS.
SO THE GENERAL RECOMMENDATION IS TO ENSURE THAT THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN AND ANY OTHER ESSENTIAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS INCLUDE THE CRITICAL MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS THAT MAY BE CREATED TO MEET THE BONUS REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPROVED STREETSCAPE AND BUILDS ENVIRONMENT, THE IN LIE FEES AND DEDICATIONS AND ONSITE COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
AND ALL THIS IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING IS THE A SMP NEEDS TO BE UPDATED TO INCLUDE THE MOBILITY TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS THAT ARE IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN.
SO I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER COX, I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THERE'S, UH, A LINK IN THERE TO THE WHOLE PROJECT CONNECT THAT SHOULD BE MADE, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THIS WHOLE AREA IS GONNA KIND OF REVOLVE AROUND THAT.
SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF ANY THOUGHT WAS WHAT TO THAT I THINK WE TRIED TO CAPTURE ANY, UM, THE, THE TERM AND ANY OTHER ESSENTIAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS, UM, THAT WOULD, UH, INCLUDE THINGS LIKE THAT.
YOU JUST MENTIONED THE PROJECT CONNECT PLAN.
AND I WOULD, I WOULD ADD, I THINK THE WAY I READ IT WHEN WE SAY THE CRITICAL MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS, THAT WOULD INCLUDE EVERYTHING INCLUDING LIGHT RAIL, UM, TRANSIT SIDEWALK, WHATEVER, UH, OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION.
IT MIGHT BE BIKE URBAN TRAILS, RIGHT? OTHER QUESTIONS? YES.
OH, I THOUGHT YOU HAD RAISED YOUR HAND.
I I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, ARE WE JUST THAT THERE'S MONEY DEDICATED FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND ARE WE WORRIED THAT IT WILL NOT BE SPENT ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY TO BUILD OUT SOUTH CENTRAL? THAT'S THE POINT OF THIS AMENDMENT.
I, I GUESS I'LL SAY, YOU KNOW, WE WERE, EARLIER WE ASKED STAFF THIS QUESTION AS WELL, SO I THINK IT'S, WE KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE GOING TO THE CITY, SO THE CITY WOULD BE SPENDING ON MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE A DELINEATED, WE HAVE NOT DELINEATED WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
UM, AND CURRENTLY OUR, OUR STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL THE DETAILS OF THE LIGHT RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE THAT WAS JUST APPROVED MAY OF LAST YEAR.
SO THIS WOULD BE OUR WAY OF SAYING THAT WE'RE ALREADY ASKING FOR THOSE FUNDS AND WE WOULD HAVE A SEPARATE, WITHIN OUR PLANNING DOCUMENTS, BE ABLE TO CLARIFY WHERE THAT MONEY CAN BE SPENT JUST TO MAKE
[05:55:01]
SURE IT'S ALL ALIGNED, UH, WITH EACH OTHER.CHAIR COMMISSION,
SO I GUESS THE QUESTION WOULD BE CAN WE DO IT AS GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO SAY WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO COUNSEL OR ARE WE NOT? 'CAUSE THAT IS, WE'RE ALLOWED TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNSEL TO MAKE A CHANGE TO A PLANNING DOCUMENT.
THAT WOULD BE NEWS TO ME TO SAY WE'RE NOW NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNSEL TO LOOK AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THIS IS A NEW INTERPRETATION OF LAW.
I THINK YOUR ONLY, THE, THE ISSUE IS THAT THIS ONLY, UM, FOCUSES ON A SMP, WHICH YOU'RE NOT ENTERTAINING THIS EVENING, EVEN THOUGH IT SAYS, AND ANY OTHER ESSENTIAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS THAT INCLUDE THE CRITICAL MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS CAN ASK A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
UM, IF THIS REFERENCE SPECIFICALLY LIKE THE UTC, 'CAUSE WE DO KNOW THAT, THAT WE'RE GONNA BE PUTTING TRAILS AND WHATNOT IN THERE.
IS IT JUST BECAUSE IT SAYS THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN, IF WE SAID ANY MOBILITY PLANS AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN, I THINK THAT THE CONCERN IS THAT WE ARE NOT ALIGNING THOSE PLANS WITH THE PLAN THAT IS BEFORE US RELATED TO THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.
UM, IS THAT SORT OF ADJUSTMENT HELPFUL? I'M GETTING BLINKING DOTS FROM LAW, SO, UH, JUST BEAR WITH ME.
UH, BUT I, I THINK IF YOU DO MAKE IT, UM, UM, VAGUE AND NOT SPECIFIC TO THE AS AND P, UM, THEN, UM, YOU'RE NOT FOCUSING ON AN, ON AN ITEM THAT YOU'RE NOT NOTICED FOR.
SO ENSURE THAT ESSENTIAL MOBILITY RELATED PLANNING DOCUMENTS, I THINK JUROR WE CAN, WE CAN JUST SIMPLIFY TO SAY THERE'S A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL.
UM, SO WE CAN MAKE SURE, ENSURE THAT CITY OF AUSTIN PLANNING DOCUMENTS INCLUDE THE CRITICAL MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS THAT MAY, MAY BE CREATED TO MEET THE BONUS REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPROVED STREETSCAPE AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT, THE IN LIE FEES AND DEDICATIONS AND ONSITE COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
SO JUST CITY OF AUSTIN PLANNING DOCUMENTS.
UM, WE GOT SPOT FOR ONE MORE QUESTION, I THINK THE LATE HOUR, BUT IT, I'M STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF THE, THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE INTENT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE MONEY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IS SPENT WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
THEN WHY DON'T WE JUST SAY THAT? SO IT, IT HAS TO BE SPENT PLANNING DOCUMENT.
SO COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, IT IS TO BE SPENT WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
THE QUESTION IS ON WHAT? YEAH, WE LITERALLY DON'T HAVE A LIST.
WE'RE JUST SAYING GIVE US MONEY AS A CITY.
LET ME KEEP IT, LET ME MAKE A DECISION LATER ON HOW TO SPEND THAT MONEY BECAUSE I NEED SOME MONEY.
THIS IS A WAY OF SAYING THAT IT ALIGNS WITH OUR OVERALL PLANNING TO SAY WE ARE LOOKING AT SOME CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS PART OF OUR APPLYING DOCUMENTS AND WE'RE USING IT IN THAT SENSE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
ALRIGHT, IF NO OTHER QUESTIONS, UM, COMMISSIONER ARZA, WOULD YOU MIND READING THE, THE UPDATED LANGUAGE? SURE.
THIS IS GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL.
ENSURE THAT CITY OF AUSTIN PLANNING DOCUMENTS INCLUDE THE CRITICAL MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS THAT MAY BE CREATED TO MEET THE BONUS REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPROVED STREETSCAPE AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT, THE IN LIEU FEES AND DEDICATIONS AND ONSITE COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
IS THERE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THIS? NOT SEEING ANY HANDS, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
CAN YOU TAKE DOWN AND MAKE THE GALLERY BIGGER? 7, 8, 9, 10, 10 WITH THREE COMMISSIONERS OFF THE DAIS.
COMMISSIONER HOWARD IS OFF SCREEN.
YEAH, ONE OTHER AMENDMENT TO, UH, THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTE OPTIONS, UH, PRESENTED IN THE ORDINANCE.
SO THIS WOULD ACTUALLY BE TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS.
UH, IT REFERENCES A MINIMUM 15 FOOT CIRCULATION ROUTE.
UM, AND I WOULD JUST DELETE, UH,
[06:00:01]
THE WORDS MINIMUM 15 FOOT WIDE FROM 3.5 0.1 0.83.THERE'S NO NEED TO DUPLICATE THAT 'CAUSE IT THEN REFERENCES THE STANDARDS THAT TELL US THE DIMENSIONS.
UH, AND THEN IN 4.4 WHERE THOSE STANDARDS ARE, I WOULD CHANGE 15 FOOT TO A MINIMUM 20 FOOT WIDE.
UH, AND THEN FOR OPTION ONE, A MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR ZONE, SO A 15 FOOT WIDE PATHWAY AND THAT'S 10.
AND FOR OPTION TWO, A MINIMUM OF TWO 7.5 FOOT CLEAR ZONES INSTEAD OF FIVE.
UM, THE INTENTION JUST BEING THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVING FIVE FOOT SIDEWALKS NEXT TO UH, YOU KNOW, PRETTY BIG BUILDINGS JUST REALLY CRAMS YOU UP IN THERE IS, IS NOT REALLY KEEPING WITH BEST PRACTICES.
SAME WITH A 10 FOOT WIDE SHARED USE PATH.
UM, YOU KNOW, NATO AND OTHER BEST PRACTICES IN THE INDUSTRY CONSISTENTLY RECOMMEND 12 TO 14 FOOT MINIMUMS, UH, AND EVEN MORE FOR VERY HIGH ACTIVITY AREAS.
AND WE DO DEFINITELY EXPECT THIS TO BE A, A HIGH PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE ACTIVITY AREA.
UH, SO THE BIGGER THE BETTER THEY'RE, UM, WHILE STILL NOT MAKING THESE ICRS TOO WIDE THAT THEY'RE TURNING INTO OLD STREETS.
I'M SORRY, MR. JOHNSON, CAN YOU HELP ME FIND WHAT, WHAT THE SECTION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? SECTION 4.4? YES.
SO IT'S PAGE 25 OF THE DRAFT CODE OR PAGE 40 OF THAT PDF FROM STAFF.
UM, SO IT'S ARTICLE FOUR DESIGN STANDARDS SECTION 4.4 INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES.
AND I HATE LITTLE, COULD YOU REPEAT, COULD YOU SUMMARIZE REAL QUICK THE EDIT? YEAH, IT'S BASICALLY ADDING FIVE FEET TO THE, TO THE FIRST TWO OPTIONS.
SO GOING FROM 15 FOOT TO 20 FOOT FOR THE WHOLE WIDTH AND THEN ADDING FIVE FEET TO THE ACTUAL CLEAR ZONE, WHICH IS THE PATHWAY ITSELF, THE SIDEWALK OF THE TRAIL.
SO A MINIMUM 15 FOOT TRAIL OR CLEAR ZONE IN OPTION ONE.
AND THEN MINIMUM SEVEN AND A HALF FOOT SIDEWALKS ON EACH SIDE FOR OPTION TWO.
YEAH, AND THAT'S AGAIN, JUST TRYING TO GET THESE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO OUR, YOU KNOW, OTHER URBAN AREA STREETSCAPE STANDARDS.
UM, AND JUST THINKING ABOUT THE REALITY OF WALKING DOWN A, A 10 FOOT WIDE STRIP OF PAVEMENT WITH ONLY 15 FEET BETWEEN YOU AND TWO, YOU KNOW, A HUNDRED PLUS FOOT TALL BUILDINGS.
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
SO WHEN I HAVE HAYDEN BLACK WALKER INTO MY CLASS EACH SEMESTER, SHE TALKS ABOUT CLEAR ZONES AS BEING, UM, THE TEXT DOT DEFINITION OF JUST NOT ALLOWING POLES AND BENCHES AND ALL THE THINGS.
AND SO SHE'S LIKE, OKAY, SO NOW WE HAVE A MOTOR VEHICLE AND ALL IT CAN BE CUSHIONED BY BEFORE IT HITS A TREE WAY OVER HERE ARE PEOPLE.
SO I'M MISSING SOMETHING LIKE, SO THE WAY I UNDERSTAND CLEAR ZONES IS THEY'RE NOT GOOD.
SO IN THIS DOCUMENT, THE TERM HOW MANY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS? I LOVE IT.
BUT, BUT YOU KNOW, I WOULD JUST SAY IN THIS DOCUMENT THEY'RE USING THE TERM CLEAR ZONE AND THE CITY CODE DOES TOO AND 25 DASH TWO SUB CHAPTER E TO REFER TO THE ACTUAL WALKING PATH OF A SIDEWALK OR TRAIL, REGARDLESS OF IF IT'S ADJACENT TO A ROADWAY.
AND SO WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT HERE ARE AREAS THAT ARE EXPLICITLY NOT NEXT TO ROADWAYS AND NOT OPEN TO MOTOR VEHICLES AT ALL.
SO THIS DOES NOTHING TO INCREASE.
THIS IS, THIS IS INCREASING THE WIDTH OF PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE ONLY PATHWAYS.
AND WHAT STAFF, UM, CAN I JUST GET A THUMBS UP FROM STAFF? DO YOU GUYS INTERPRET THIS THE WAY IT'S, IT'S LAID OUT, I SEE UNANIMOUS THUMB SET.
WE, WE, UM, DO, UH, HAVE, THAT'S IT'S SIDEWALK, IT'S CLEAR SIDEWALK AND THEN THERE'S USUALLY ALSO AN AMENITY AND PLANTING ZONE THAT SERVES AS A BUFFER, UM, FROM THE ACTUAL STREET.
UM, COMMISSIONER COS YEAH, I JUST, I I GUESS I WANT TO GET SOME CLARITY 'CAUSE I THINK THE GRAPHICS AND THE DOCUMENT MAY BE MISLEADING.
WHEN I THINK OF CLEAR ZONE RELATIVE TO THE TEXAS ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS, IT'S, IT'S SIMILAR IN THAT IT HAS TO BE A CLEAR SPACE.
YOU CAN'T HAVE ANYTHING PROTRUDING INTO IT.
IF THESE, IF YOU'RE GONNA MEET THE FIRE CODE, THE BUILDING CODE, THAT THAT THESE FIVE FOOT CLEAR ZONES WOULD BE OBSTRUCTED BY DOORS THAT ARE IN THE BUILDINGS.
AND I GUESS I'M, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, I'VE ACTUALLY NEVER HEARD OF SIDEWALKS CALLED CLEAR ZONES, BUT, BUT IS, IS THE CLEAR ZONE
[06:05:01]
TRULY CLEAR IN THESE, IN THESE GRAPHICS OR, OR THIS FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK, FIVE FOOT PLANNING ZONE, FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK, THOSE FIVE FOOT SIDEWALKS COULD BE OBSTRUCTED BY BASICALLY DOORS AND OTHER THINGS OFF OF THE BUILDINGS.IS THAT FOR ME OR STAFF? UM, WHOEVER WANTS TO TRY TO CLARIFY WHAT THESE GRAPHICS MEAN,
SO LIKE IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE SUB CHAPTER E THE, THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN OUR CURRENT CODE, THEY DEFINE A SIDEWALK AS COMPRISED OF A CLEAR ZONE AND A PLANTING ZONE.
AND, AND THAT'S, AND THAT'S FINE, BUT, BUT WITH THE GRAPHICS, IT DOORS HAVE TO OPEN OUT BECAUSE OF FIRE CODE.
SO, SO YEAH, THE
WELL THE WAY, THE WAY THESE ARE DEPICTED, THESE FIVE FOOT CLEAR ZONES ARE GONNA BE OBSTRUCTED BY A SERIES OF DOORS OF PEOPLE GOING IN AND OUT OF CAFES AND THAT SORT OF THING.
SO YOU ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE, YOU END UP HAVING LIKE TWO FEET OF WALKING.
SO I GUESS I'M JUST CURIOUS IF STAFF, IF STAFF HAS AN INTERPRETATION OF THIS EXHIBIT, IF THE CLEAR ZONES ARE REALLY CLEAR OR IF WE TRULY, DESPERATELY NEED COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S AMENDMENT TO ACTUALLY PROVIDE ENOUGH SPACE TO WALK BETWEEN THESE BUILDINGS.
WE'RE PULLING UP SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NOW, BUT WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT THESE ARE ARTIST RENDERING OF, UM, AND, AND NOT EXACT SPECIFICATIONS.
UM, AND THIS, THE CLEAR ZONE IS INTENDED TO BE, AS IT IS WRITTEN IN CODE AND INTERPRETED IN, UH, CURRENT CODE.
COMMISSIONER COX, I WOULD ALSO OFFER THAT THE, THE CITY OF AUSTIN STANDARD DETAIL FOR SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION, UH, LABELS THE CLEAR ZONE AS FROM THE BUILDING FACE OUT, NOT FROM THE DOOR SWING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
WELL, GEEZ, WE, WE NEED MORE THAN YOUR FIVE FOOT OFFERING THEN, BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S JUST CRAZY.
UM, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE AND THEN COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S HAD OUR HAND UP FOR A WHILE TOO.
I THINK THAT, I MEAN, I AM IN GENERAL AGREEMENT WITH THE, UH, THE AMENDMENT, PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CREATE MORE SPACE BETWEEN THESE BUILDINGS, ESSENTIALLY FIVE MORE FEET GENERAL IS WHAT I'M HEARING.
AND, UH, ALL OF THESE OTHER QUESTIONS AS IT RELATES TO LIKE, UH, A DA FACILITY OR TEXAS TAS STANDARDS AND ALL ARE SORT OF SITE DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS THAT WE KNOW WILL HAVE TO BE MET.
I MEAN, I THINK AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THESE BUILDINGS ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE FURTHER APART THAN THE MINIMUMS THAT WE'RE ESTABLISHING HERE.
I MEAN, I THINK IT'S USEFUL AS A PLANNING DOCUMENT THAT WE, UH, MAKE SURE THAT WE, WE HAVE THIS SPACE FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION.
SHOULD IT BE A BIT WIDER THAN
BUT ALL THE REST OF THE DETAILS ABOUT WHAT THE CLEAR ZONE AND WHAT'S THE AMENABLE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE, THE DOORS AND ALL, I THINK GOES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER AS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UM, JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR STAFF, UH, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THESE INTERNAL WALKWAYS THAT WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO, THERE'S SOME DIFFERENT OPTIONS AND WHATNOT.
UM, AND I THINK THIS WAS SOMETHING WE KIND OF TOUCHED ON EARLIER.
THOSE ARE NOT CURRENTLY, THOSE ARE CURRENTLY IN THE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS AS PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED IN THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
UM, SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S REQUIRED AND THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITY IN WHAT CAN BE BUILT, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THESE WOULD BE THE MINIMUM STANDARDS.
UM, AND ADHERING TO A DA REQUIREMENTS AND IS THE CURRENT SETUPS THAT IS, THAT THERE IS A BONUS TO GO TO A HIGHER STANDARD? SO FOR EXAMPLE, COMMISSIONER JOHNSTON MIGHT BE, WE MIGHT ACCOMPLISH SOME OF WHAT HE'S LOOKING TO IF WE WERE BONUSING ADDITIONAL? NO, THERE'S NO CURRENT BONUS BONUS.
SO THIS IS, I THINK ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WAS RAISED IN ONE OF OUR DISCUSSIONS WAS THAT WE WOULD GET A LOT OF THE MINIMUM STANDARDS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY COUNTING THIS IN ANY, I DON'T WANNA SAY MEANINGFUL WAY, BUT IT'S BASICALLY A GATEKEEPER.
IT'S A VERY BASIC, SO THEY'RE THREE TO ONE FAR.
THEY HAVE TO DO A LOT OF WORK TO GET THAT, AND THAT AS A RESULT, WE MIGHT END UP WITH THE LOWEST VERSION OF THESE VERSUS SOME OF THE NICER RENDERINGS AND MORE SPACE BECAUSE THERE'S NO INCENTIVE REALLY TO GO TO THAT HIGHER LEVEL.
IS THAT CORRECT? AND INCENTIVE MAY BE THE WRONG, WE'RE NOT, UM, OFFERING A BONUS TO GO TO THOSE HIGHER LEVELS OF INTERNAL CONSTRUCTION.
THERE'S NO CURRENT EXTRA BONUS FOR HIGHER LEVELS OR WIDER INTERNAL.
I'M GONNA MOTION THAT WE EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL ONE 32ND.
[06:10:05]
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ONE 30.UH, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7 TO YOU COUNTED EIGHT.
I SEE, I SEE THREE ON SCREEN VOTING.
AND COMMISSIONER HAYNES? I WAS, YES, HE WAS.
OKAY, SO SEVEN, SORRY, EIGHT TO TWO.
SO COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, CAN YOU PLEASE RESTATE YOUR MOTION AND WE'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND.
SO THE MOTION IS TO STRIKE THE WORDS, UH, MINIMUM 15 FOOT WIDE FROM 3.5 0.1 A THREE, AND THEN TO, IN OPTIONS ONE AND TWO UNDER SECTION 4.4, INCREASE THE MINIMUM WIDTH TO 20 FEET BY ADDING FIVE FEET TO THE CLEAR ZONES.
SO GOING FROM 10 TO 15 FOOT CLEAR ZONE OPTION ONE GOING FROM TWO TIMES FIVE TO TWO TIMES SEVEN AND A HALF.
OKAY, I SEE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER COX.
ANYBODY WANTING TO SPEAK FOR AND AGAINST COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH.
UH, I JUST WANNA SAY THIS IS DESPERATELY NEEDED NOW THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING THESE, THESE, THESE EXHIBITS, UM, AND ESPECIALLY WHAT COMMISSIONER I, I THINK IT WAS MAXWELL SAID, UM, YOU KNOW, SINCE IT'S DEVELOPERS CAN'T CHARGE FOR THESE CLEAR ZONES, SO THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY GONNA MINIMIZE THEM, BUT WHAT'S, WHAT, WHAT THE MINIMUM IS IS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE.
IT'S NOT A COMFORTABLE PLACE TO BE.
SO I THINK FIVE FEET IS THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM WE NEED TO ADD.
I I, I WOULD SUPPORT SOMETHING MORE, BUT WE DESPERATELY NEED TO, TO DO THIS.
UNLESS CHAIR, I'M JUST GONNA SPEAK AGAINST THIS MOTION.
I THINK I, I UNDERSTAND THE SPIRIT OF THE MOTION AND I THINK IT MAKES SENSE AND I WOULD EVEN AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER COX, THAT, UM, I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE, UH, CERTAIN THINGS, I FEEL LIKE I WOULD FEEL VERY DIFFERENTLY ABOUT IT IF THIS WAS PART OF A BONUS REQUIREMENT.
THIS IS REALLY PART OF THE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENT.
ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE NOW SAYING IS THAT YOU WERE ALREADY HAVING INTERNAL STREETS THAT THE CITY WAS REQUIRING BEYOND YOUR STREET REQUIREMENTS FOR 15 FEET.
NOW WE'RE EXPANDING IT FURTHER.
SO LET'S JUST HONESTLY STEP BACK FOR A SECOND AT THIS LATER.
UM, IT'S MY TIME TO TURN TO SPEAK, SO I'LL SPEAK FOR FIVE SECONDS, WHICH IS TO SAY, WE ARE SAYING YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE 10% OF YOUR SITE TOWARDS PARKLAND, THEN WE'RE SAYING 5% OF YOUR SITE HAS TO GO TOWARDS PRIVATE OPEN SPACES.
THEN WE'RE SEEING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF YOUR, UH, SITE ACTUALLY HAS TO GO TO THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES, AND NOW WE'RE EXPANDING THOSE INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES TO A CERTAIN DEGREE.
SO YOUR DEVELOPABLE SPACE IS NOW LESS THAN WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE.
AND THEN WHEN WE GET TO THE DEVELOPABLE SPACE, WE'RE LIKE, OH, WAIT, BUT WHERE IS THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT? SO NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
AND NOW WE HAVE THE 70% FEE YOU REQUIREMENT, THE 30% COMMUNITY BENEFIT REQUIREMENT.
I'LL BE HONEST, WE'VE HEARD FROM STAKEHOLDERS, WE'RE NOT SURE IF THIS PENCIL'S OUT AND BY, AND I THINK OUR STAFF HAS REALLY FINITE WORKED ON THE CALIBRATION TO PERHAPS MAKE IT WORK.
AND THEY HAVE CONSULTANTS WHO HAVE LOOKED AT IT NOW AS WE'RE EXPANDING THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN DECREASING DEVELOPABLE SPACE.
I'LL BE HONEST, I'M JUST CONCERNED OF THE IMPACT THAT WE'RE MAKING AT THIS LATE HOUR.
SO I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS THANK YOU CHAIR.
UM, OTHERS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST OR YES.
YEAH, I WOULD SPEAK IN FAVOR BY, YOU KNOW, POINTING OUT THAT IN OUR CURRENT DEVELOPMENT CODE, WE ALREADY REQUIRE INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES ON MANY SITES.
WE REQUIRE DEVELOPERS TO BUILD ESSENTIALLY ONSITE STREETS THAT ARE MUCH LARGER AND MUCH MORE AUTO ORIENTED THAN WHAT'S BEING COMPOSED EITHER IN THE BASE MOTION HERE THAT THE ORIGINAL DRAFT ORDINANCES WERE IN MY AMENDMENT.
AND SO I THINK WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CREATING INCREDIBLY INTENSE URBAN WALKABLE BIKEABLE TRANSIT FORWARD DISTRICT, I THINK IT'S, IT'S PRETTY BOGGLING TO ME TO THINK THAT FIVE FOOT SIDEWALKS CRAMMED IN LITTLE WINDY HOLES BETWEEN BUILDINGS IS, IS ACCEPTABLE.
I THINK WE SHOULD BE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS AND TO WHERE WE CAN REQUIRE DEVELOPERS TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND THE SORT OF TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODEL AND REALLY ENCOURAGE WALKING, BIKING, AND BEING OUTDOORS.
UH, AND I THINK GOING FROM A FIVE FOOT TO A SEVEN AND A HALF FOOT SIDEWALK IS PROBABLY THE MOST MODEST CHANGE ONE COULD MAKE, UH, IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THOSE GOALS.
AND, AND FRANKLY, IF A DEVELOPER CAN'T
[06:15:01]
MAKE A PROJECT PENCIL WITH A SEVEN AND A HALF FOOT SIDEWALK INSTEAD OF A FIVE FOOT, UM, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THEY COULD CHANGE VERY EASILY TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.THAT'S A, THAT'S A PRETTY, PRETTY SMALL ASK IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS.
UNLESS OBJECTIONS, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS, UH, AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? LET'S SEE.
AND THOSE ABSTAINING ONE, THAT ONE PASSES.
UM, YES, STAFF CAN, SORRY ABOUT THAT.
STAFF CAN BRING UP, UH, THE MAXWELL OR OUR AMENDMENTS.
WE WILL CONSIDER THE FIRST ONE THAT I HAD LISTED.
AND IN SOME WAYS I DO APOLOGIZE, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I WISH WE HAD DONE THIS ONE FIRST BECAUSE THEN I PROBABLY WOULD'VE FELT MORE COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING WHAT YOU HAD JUST SUGGESTED.
UM, AND IF WE BRING IT UP ON SCREEN, YOU'LL SEE EXACTLY WHAT WE, I THINK COMMISSIONER ZA AND I WERE JUST DISCUSSING OR POINTING TO, WHICH IS THAT THE ICRS, IN ADDITION TO THE ON SITE DEDICATION REQUIRED FOR PARKLAND, IN ADDITION TO THE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE THAT HAS TO HAVE AN EASEMENT AND BE ACCESSIBLE, MEANS THAT THERE IS QUITE A LOT OF BUILDABLE LAND BEING GIVEN OVER TO INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND THE CREST IS REALLY RELATED TO HOW CAN WE AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOME OF THIS, PARTICULARLY IF WE WANT BETTER OUTCOMES AND MORE HIGH LEVEL OF SORT OF THESE INTERNAL ICRS IN PARTICULAR, THAT WE WOULD OFFER THAT AS AN INCENTIVE AND POTENTIALLY REALLY GET DEVELOPERS TO GO TO THOSE HIGHER LEVELS AND BETTER STREETS SCAPES.
AND I GUESS IT'S, THERE'S NO WAY TO BRING UP MY SURE.
COMMISSIONER LEE, LIAISON ANDREW.
UH, MY, UH, TECH, I JUST STEPPED OUT FOR A FEW MINUTES.
UM, WELL IT IS IN YOUR BACKUP AND I'M HAPPY TO READ IT IF THAT'S HELPFUL.
SO AMENDMENT ONE IS, UM, I, INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES ICRS AND PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, UM, ENSURE THAT
AND THEN THE THREE, THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION, RIGHT? ICRS MUST BE CREDITED TOWARDS THE INFRASTRUCTURE FEE AND LIE REQUIRED TO BE CONTRIBUTED TO ACHIEVE 70% OF THE BONUS AREA THROUGH THE FEE AND LIE AND THE DEDICATION NECESSARY TO GO BEYOND THE THREE TO ONE FAR.
SO THAT IS, AS I MENTIONED, IS REALLY GETTING IT INTO THAT 70% BONUS SO THAT WE ARE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS SIGNIFICANT UPGRADES AND THAT WE SHOULD BE COUNTING IT AS SUCH.
COMMISSIONER COX, I'M HAVING DRAMATIC FLASHBACKS TO THE GROWTH PUSH NEGOTIATIONS.
UM, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS TO THE MOTION MAKER AND, AND POSSIBLY TO STAFF ABOUT YOUR VIEW RELATED TO THE, THE INTENT BEHIND INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES VERSUS PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE.
I DON'T VIEW THEM AS, AS THE SAME THING.
THEY PROVIDE DIFFERENT USES AND DIFFERENT BENEFITS.
I ALSO VIEW THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES AS KIND OF LIKE SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN ALMOST ANYWAYS, IT'S KIND OF JUST A REQUIREMENT FOR CIRCULATING AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT.
SO I'M NOT SURE WHY WE WOULD GIVE UP THE REQUIREMENT FOR PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE, WHICH PROVIDES A DIFFERENT BENEFIT THAN THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION.
AND I'M JUST CURIOUS THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND, BECAUSE IT'S, IT, I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THERE MIGHT BE SO MUCH SPACE AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION BECAUSE THEY'VE GONE ABOVE THE MINIMUM THAT, THAT, THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY ELIMINATE THE PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AS WELL.
I MEAN, IT WAS ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THAT.
SO I, I WILL SAY THEY, THEY WERE INTENDED TO SERVE DIFFERENT PURPOSES.
UH, PRIVATE, COMMON OPEN SPACE IS, IS, YOU KNOW, SPACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN LINGER AND ENJOY.
UM, AND THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES WERE KIND OF OUR SOLUTION TO, UH, YOU KNOW, MIDBLOCK SIDEWALKS IN OTHER PARTS OF TOWN UNDER OTHER CODES AND ZONING.
UM, AS STATED EARLIER, THE BLOCKS OR THE, THE LOCKS IN THIS, UH, DISTRICT ARE VERY ODDLY SIZED, VERY ODDLY SHAPED.
SO WE COULDN'T REALLY, YOU KNOW, BASE INTERNAL WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS ON LIKE FRONTAGE LENGTH OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
[06:20:01]
YOU KNOW, OTHER TOOL WE CREATED TO DISTRIBUTE DENSITY TO ALSO ADD THE, THAT INTERNAL CIRCULATION.UM, SO THAT WAS THE GENERAL PHILOSOPHY.
UM, AND I WILL ALSO SAY, UM, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE INTERNAL, UH, CIRCULATION ROUTES ARE ONLY GONNA AFFECT THE LARGER SITES THAT WILL NEED TO SPLIT INTO AREAS OF NO LARGER THAN 90,000 SQUARE FEET, UNLESS A SMALLER SITE WANTS TO, YOU KNOW, SPLIT THEMSELVES UP REGARDLESS.
UM, SO, AND, AND, AND, AND JUST BUILDING OFF OF THAT, THOSE LARGER SITES THAT ARE GONNA REQUIRE THE ICRS ARE PROBABLY THE ONES WHERE THE PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE IS THE MOST VIABLE BECAUSE THERE'S THE LARGER SITES.
SO ANYWAYS, A I I, IF I HAVE ANY MORE TIME, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE FROM PART IS HERE, BUT I REMEMBER WHEN WE WERE, UH, WHEN THE DEVELOPER FOR THE GROVE WAS TRYING TO GET ALL THEIR CIRCULATION CREDITED TOWARDS THE PARKLAND REQUIREMENT, PARD KIND OF TOOK THE POSITION THAT IT HAD TO SERVE A PARKLAND USE.
AND I'M WONDERING IF, IF THERE'S A, THERE'S A DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN WHEN AN TERMINAL CIRCULATION ROUTE COULD BE CONSIDERED A PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE, UH, IN THE VIEW OF PARK SCOTT GRANTHAM FROM PARKS AND RECREATION.
UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER.
I THINK THAT, UM, IN DOING A, UM, WE HAVE THE, UH, PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE, WHICH IS REQUIRED OF ALL SITES THAT ARE OPTING IN.
UM, A FEW COMMISSIONERS HAVE SAID THAT 10% IS REQUIRED FOR PARKLAND.
IN CASES WHERE THE DIRECTOR DETERMINES THAT PARKLAND, UH, WOULD BE REQUIRED, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'D BE LOOKING AT.
SO THERE'S A DIFFERENCE THERE.
UM, IT'S A, UH, IT'S A DETERMINATION THAT CAN BE MADE BY THE DIRECTOR.
I DON'T THINK OUR TIMER IS, IS WORKING, BUT, UM, VICE CHAIR, MR. KHAM, MY QUESTION IS IF 10% IS NOT REQUIRED, WILL SOMEBODY BE PAYING A FEE IN YOU OR ARE YOU JUST FORGIVEN? SO THE DIRECTOR CAN SAY YOU GIVE 0% PART LAND? YES.
THE DIRECTOR CAN MAKE THAT DETERMINATION NO FEE AS WELL? NO, THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD PAY A FEE AT THAT POINT.
SO JUST TO UNDERSTAND, YOU EITHER HAVE TO PROVIDE IT ON SITE OR YOU HAVE TO PAY THE EQUIVALENT DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR DOING IT ON SITE, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO REGARDLESS, IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAVE TO DO? YES.
SO WHEN I SAID THAT 10% IS REQUIRED, WHETHER AS A FEE OR ONSITE, WAS I INCORRECT? NO, SIR.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF OUR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE US, UM, IF FOLKS ARE WILLING AT THIS HOUR TO WRITE US SOME, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EXPANDING OUR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES.
DOES THIS IMPACT DEVELOPMENT AND THE ABILITY TO PENCIL OUT THE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS OF THE BONUS IF WE HAVE SOMEBODY WHO WOULD BE WILLING TO SPEAK TO THAT? I'M NOT SURE.
UM, TO YOUR POINT, IT ABSOLUTELY DOES.
UH, SO FOR US, IT'S KIND OF LIKE A DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS WHERE YOU KEEP INCREASING THE SIZE OF YOUR CIRCULATION ROUTE, YOU KEEP INCREASING YOUR SIZE OF YOUR PARKLAND, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S JUST, YOU'RE LEFT WITH A VERY SMALL BUILDABLE ENVELOPE.
AND SO AS MUCH AS I VERY MUCH SUPPORT WIDER SIDEWALKS, PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY AREAS, SIDEWALK CAFES FOR RETAIL, I THINK TO YOUR POINT, IT WOULD BE SO MUCH BETTER SERVED AS A, UH, DENSITY AS A BONUS OR ANYTHING THAT YOU'RE REALLY ENCOURAGING DEVELOPERS TO, BECAUSE THEN EVEN THE SITES THAT NORMALLY ARE, YOU KNOW, JUST A RESTRICTION ON THE GATEKEEPER AREAS, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE MORE DEVELOPERS TRYING TO FIND CERTAIN REASONS TO REALLY MAKE A WALKABLE PEDESTRIAN SCAPE THAT COULD EVEN OUTDO THE BASE REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING OF.
I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR, OUR STAFF, UM, WHICH WOULD BE, UM, DOES CURRENTLY WE WERE TOLD RIGHT, THAT WE CURRENTLY REQUIRE INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, DOES SUBCHAPTER E CURRENTLY REQUIRE INTERNAL, UH, INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES FOR SITES THAT ARE LESS THAN FIVE ACRES? I BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS NO, IT DOES NOT, BUT THIS PLAN DOES.
SO WE'RE GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT IS UNDER CURRENT ROUTE.
I DUNNO, MR. RUSO, IF YOU WANNA ADD SOMETHING THAT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING AS WELL, BUT WE'RE CHECKING SUB CHAPTER E.
SECTION 2.2 0.4 OF SUB CHAPTER E.
[06:25:03]
LET'S MOVE ON TO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DO YOU WANNA FORMALIZE YOUR AMENDMENT? UH, YES.
SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION, UM, AS LAID OUT IN AMENDMENT ONE, THAT THE ICR AND PROMINENT PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, UH, RELATED TO ENSURING THAT ICRS BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT AND PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE THAT MEETS PARKLAND REQUIREMENTS MAY BE COUNTED TOWARDS PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT.
AND THREE INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES MUST BE CREDITED TOWARDS THE INFRASTRUCTURE FEE AND LIE, LIE REQUIRED TO BE CONTRIBUTED TO ACHIEVE THE 70% OF THE BONUS AREA THROUGH FREE AND LIEU AND DEDICATIONS NECESSARY TO GO BEYOND THE THREE TO ONE FAR.
OKAY, WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER WOODS.
DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THE, YOUR AMENDMENT? UH, YEAH, I THINK WE JUST UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY WHAT WAS SITTING HERE.
IS THAT IT'S THAT DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS.
WE OF COURSE, WANT THE BEST OUTCOMES FOR THIS DISTRICT.
UM, WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE BEING THOUGHTFUL ABOUT HOW WE ACHIEVE THOSE AND REALLY INCENTIVIZING THE, THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF SORT OF ICRS PARKLAND AND AS WELL AS THESE PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACES.
AND I DO THINK FLEXIBILITY AND BONUSING ARE A GREAT WAY TO ACHIEVE THAT.
SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER COX, UH, I'LL JUST MAKE A POINT THAT DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS GOES BOTH WAYS.
AND THIS IS EXACT, THE ONLY THING THAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES IS IT REDUCES THE PARKLAND REQUIREMENT, IT REDUCES THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE GUESS WHAT? THE DEVELOPER'S ALREADY GOING TO DO INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES.
SO YOU'RE JUST LETTING THEM COUNT WHAT THEY'RE ALREADY GONNA DO AS SATISFYING OTHER REQUIREMENTS, OTHER BENEFITS, AND, AND, AND THAT IS A DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS ON OUR OPEN SPACE AND PARKLAND IN THIS AREA, IN THIS AREA THAT WE WANT TO BE VERY DESIRABLE, URBAN WALKABLE.
YOU'RE BASICALLY JUST SAYING ALLEYWAYS ARE NOW OPEN SPACE AND PARKLAND.
AND THAT TO ME MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE AND I, I FEAR THAT IT'S GONNA HAVE A VERY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE DESIRABILITY OF THIS AREA.
IS SPEAKING FOUR AGAINST, BRIEFLY SPEAK FOUR.
UH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
I JUST THINK THIS HELPS TO OFFSET KIND OF THE PREVIOUS ITEM THAT WE DID THAT WAS DEFINITELY MORE OF A GOBBLING UP A LITTLE BIT MORE LAND FOR, FOR A REALLY GOOD THING.
AND THIS IS GONNA KINDA HELP BALANCE THAT OUT.
SO I ALSO WISH WE COULD HAVE DONE THIS ONE PRIOR, BUT I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE WE CAN RECONSIDER THE OTHER ONE IF THIS ONE DOESN'T PASS.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YEAH, I'M REALLY, UH, CONCERNED MOSTLY ABOUT NUMBER ONE WITHIN THIS AMENDMENT THAT ICRS MAY BE COUNTED TOWARDS PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE.
UH, BECAUSE ONE OF THE ICR OPTIONS IS TO BUILD A STREET.
I MEAN, IT'S TO BUILD A TWO-WAY DRIVING LANE WITH FIVE FOOT SIDEWALKS.
THAT'S NOT OPEN SPACE BY ANY DEFINITION.
SO, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LEAVE AND I MIGHT MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, BUT I, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE COUNTING DRIVEWAYS OR PARKING GARAGES AS OPEN SPACE.
I DON'T MIND COUNTING TOWARDS V AND LI DON'T EVEN MIND, UH, PRIVATE COMMON TO OPEN SPACE THAT ISN'T ICRS COUNTING TOWARDS PARKLAND IF THE DEPARTMENT ACCEPTS IT.
BUT IT REALLY CONCERNS ME THAT WE'RE SAYING, HEY DEVELOPER, IF YOU'RE GONNA PUT A VEHICULAR ACCESS TO YOUR UNDERGROUND, HOPEFULLY PARKING GARAGE AND CALL IT AN ICR, YOU GET TO COUNT IT AS YOUR PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE.
WE ONLY ARE OFFERING 85% IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THIS ENTIRE DISTRICT.
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, TAKING 10% POTENTIALLY AS PARKLAND DEDICATION OR BETWEEN LIE TAKING 5% FOR PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE, AT LEAST SOME OF THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THAT, UH, PERVIOUS COVER, THAT 15% PERVIOUS SITE AREA.
SO I DON'T REALLY, I GET DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS.
I REALLY DO, BUT THE SIZE OF THE CUT ALSO MATTERS, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S PROPORTIONATE TO SAY THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO COUNT STREETS AS PRIVATE, COMMON OPEN SPACE.
WHAT ARE FUNCTIONALLY STREETS AS PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE? UH, THAT'S JUST A COP OUT IN MY MIND.
YOU KNOW, WE, WE, WE SHOULDN'T BE CALLING A PRIVATE DRIVE ON A PROPERTY OPEN SPACE.
IT'S NOT, UM, ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? 2, 3, 4, 5, 5 THOSE AGAINST
[06:30:01]
1, 2, 3, 4 AND THEN ABSTAINING MYSELF.THAT FAILED FIVE TO FOUR TO ONE.
COMMISSIONER MO TOLER, ARE YOU CALLING FOR AMENDMENTS? SORRY.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS IS OFF THE DIAZ COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, NOTHING FURTHER FROM ME.
AND COMMISSIONER WOODS? YES, I DO HAVE AN AMENDMENT, WHICH IS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL TO CREATE A PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT DISTRICT.
ALRIGHT, YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT ANYMORE? UH, I CAN SPEAK TO IT A LITTLE BIT.
I THINK THIS WOULD INCENTIVIZE THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION TO GET TO AND TO USE WITHIN THE DISTRICT BY NOT OFFERING FREE PARKING AND ALSO PROMOTE PARKING TURNOVER AND REDUCE HIGH COMMUTER IDLE AND CREATE FUNDS TO BE USED WITHIN THE DISTRICT FOR MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS.
QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER WOODS? ALRIGHT, UM, YOU WANNA FORMALIZE YOUR, UH, AMENDMENT? SURE.
SO MY AMENDMENT READS, CREATE A PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT DISTRICT.
IS THERE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER MAXWELL IS THE SECOND.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL? YES.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? YES.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
AND THOSE AGAINST COMMISSIONER VALER? IS THAT THAT GREEN? OKAY.
AM I MISSING ONE? DID ANYBODY VOTE OTHER THAN YES, IT WAS ALL GREEN.
SO THAT, THAT AMENDMENT PASSES.
ALL RIGHT, WE ARE AT THE END OF OUR AMENDMENTS.
UM, WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO THE BASE MOTION.
I DON'T HAVE, I HAVE ONE MORE.
WE'RE ONLY DOING TWO PER COMMISSIONER.
WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE BASE MOTION POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
WASN'T IT OUTLINED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS THAT WE WERE DOING THREE? IT WAS, AND THEN IT, WE'VE EXTENDED TIME MULTIPLE TIMES AND WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO TWO ROUNDS.
SO BY JUST STATING THAT WE'RE ONLY GONNA DO TWO ROUNDS, THE RULES CHANGED OR DO, DID WE VOTE ON THAT? I SAID UNLESS THERE'S NO OBJECTION OR ANY OBJECTION.
WELL, I WOULD SUPPORT AMES OFFERING HIS THIRD AMENDMENT, BUT, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, WOULD YOU ALSO THEN SUPPORT ME OFFERING A, UH, THIRD AMENDMENT AS WELL BECAUSE I I HAVE ADDITIONAL MINUTES? ABSOLUTELY.
NO, I, I THINK WE SHOULD OFFER EVERYONE.
THEN I WOULD EXTEND THE MEETING TO 3:45 AM AND WE CAN CONTINUE.
IF, IF THAT IS INDEED THE WILL OF THE BODY.
I'LL BE HONEST, I'M HAPPY TO STAY HERE AND CONSIDER A THIRD ROUND AND TO THROW BY AMENDMENT.
I'M SORRY, DID YOU SAY TILL 3:45 AM I'M BEING FACETIOUS, BUT I DO HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS TIME.
OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE BASE AMENDMENT.
UM, CAN YOU PLEASE HELP ME WITH THIS? UM, SO OUR BASE MOTION WAS STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND AS IT HAS BEEN AMENDED BY THIS BODY TONIGHT, THAT IS THE MOTION.
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY MYSELF AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UM, AND THAT IS WHERE WE'RE AT.
AND WE ARE STILL, WE CAN, IF PEOPLE WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THAT BASE MOTION, WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT YET.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THE PACKAGE OF AMENDMENTS IN THE BASE THAT WE HAVE WORKED ON? COMMISSIONER COX AND THEN COMMISSIONER MUTAL.
UM, I'M LIKELY END UP STAINING.
UH, I DON'T THINK THIS, THIS IS READY.
UM, I THINK WE MADE SOME REALLY, REALLY GOOD MOTIONS.
UM, I THINK WE CAN MAKE SOME MORE GOOD MOTIONS AND I WOULD LOVE TO WORK A LITTLE BIT MORE COLLABORATIVELY WITH, COLLABORATIVELY WITH STAFF TO CRAFT THOSE THINGS.
UM, BUT WE JUST WEREN'T GIVEN THE TIME TODAY
[06:35:01]
OR EVER TO DO THAT, SO, UH, THAT'S WHY I'LL BE ABSTAINING.UM, LIAISON, DO WE HAVE A, I SENT A SCREENSHOT OR SLIDE, CAN THAT COME UP? CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LIAISON.
ANDREW, WHICH EXHIBIT ARE WE, UH, PULLING UP OR JUST SORRY TO THE TOPOGRAPHIC.
UH, CHAIR, IF, IF, IF WE COULD AUSTIN TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, IF WE COULD COME BACK TO COMMISSIONER MUTAL, WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE WANTING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST AND I'M SORRY, CAN I JUST CLARIFY, WE ARE DISCUSSING THE COMBINED RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE WE'RE APPROVED NOW, IS THAT RIGHT? NO, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE VOTING, WE'RE MAKING OUR FINAL VOTE ON THIS ITEM.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON IS THE BASE MOTION, WHICH IS STAFF RECOMMENDATION ALONG WITH ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE PASSED THIS EVENING.
OH, SO WE'RE NOT HEARING A THIRD ROUND OF AMENDMENTS? NO.
I'LL SPEAK IN FAVOR BRIEFLY WHILE STAFF LOOKS FOR THAT.
UM, I THINK THAT, UH, CITY'S BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A LONG TIME AND ANYONE WHO'S VISITED THIS SITE REALIZES WHAT A AMAZING OPPORTUNITY THIS IS FOR AUSTIN AND IT'S BEING SQUANDERED EVERY SINGLE DAY IN ITS CURRENT STATE.
AND SO IT'S GONNA BE REALLY GREAT TO PASS THIS, IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE MORE TIME, BUT IT IS A GOOD THING I THINK, TO GO AHEAD AND GET THIS TO COUNCIL AND THEIR AIDES AND THEIR OFFICES AND THERE'S A LOT OF FOLKS AT CITY HALL READY TO ROLL UP THEIR SLEEVES AND WORK FURTHER ON THIS.
SO I FEEL THAT WE ARE SENDING IT TO CAPABLE HANDS AND HAPPY TO SUPPORT.
THIS IS COMMISSIONER AND I THANK COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AND STAFF ROCK AND ROLL.
IT IS THE EXHIBIT ANYWHERE CHAIR.
UM, I'LL JUST SAY, UM, THAT I THINK, UM, I WOULD AGREE, I THINK THAT WE COULD HAVE DONE MORE WORK ON THIS ITEM AND I WOULD SAY WE HAD ASKED STAFF FOR MORE TIME PREVIOUSLY TO THIS, UM, ITEM CONSIDERING TODAY AS WELL.
OF COURSE, WE DO HAVE CERTAIN TIMELINES AND WE'RE LOOKING AT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO COUNCIL IN ADVANCE OF, UM, THE MAY 30TH MEETING, WHICH WOULD BE THEIR LAST MEETING BEFORE THEIR SUMMER BREAK.
AND AT THE SAME TIME, WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO, UM, CONSIDER MOVING FORWARD ITEMS THAT I THINK OUR STAFF AND OUR COMMUNITY HAS BEEN WORKING ON FOR QUITE A WHILE, INCLUDING, I WOULD SAY WE HAD A WORKING GROUP THAT LOOKED AT THIS ITEM.
UM, FOLKS WANT TO ENGAGE IN THINGS.
THEY SHOULD DEFINITELY CONSIDER WORKING IN THE WORKING GROUPS BECAUSE THAT DOES ALLOW US SPACE TO CONSIDER THESE THINGS AND CAN TALK TO STAFF AND MOVE FORWARD.
UM, CERTAINLY THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT I THINK WE COULD HAVE DONE MORE AND THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT THIS IS NOT THE IDEAL DIME NOR WAY TO BE DOING THIS.
UM, HAVING SAID THAT, I ALSO WANNA SAY, I THINK OUR STAFF HAS, UM, SEEN SORT OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE FOCUSING ON.
AND I THINK ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS I'M, UM, GONNA BE SUPPORTING THIS ITEM AND MOVING IT FORWARD IS TO SAY THAT WHILE WE LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS, I HOPE WHAT STAFF CAN CONSIDER IS THAT THERE WAS A, UM, COMMITMENT IN WISH FROM THIS BODY TO SEE, UM, A CONSIDER CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.
AND I HOPE THAT THERE'S A WAY AS STAFF RECONCILES THEIR DIFFERENCE, DIFFERENT SORT OF AMENDMENTS THAT, THAT, UM, IS SORT OF KEPT FRONT AND CENTER.
BECAUSE I THINK OUR INTENT ON THAT WAS CLEAR, EVEN IF WE COULD NOT FULLY GET THERE, UM, IN TERMS OF OUR AMENDMENTS.
AND I REALLY DO WANT TO THANK OUR STAFF FOR THE WORK THEY'VE DONE ON THIS AND THE SOUTH FRONT ADVISORY BOARD AS WELL.
I'LL WHAT MY FRIEND COMMISSIONER AZAR JUST SET.
I WILL SECOND THAT AND I WILLER I'LL THIRD, FOURTH, AND FIFTH TO STAFF.
HOW'S THAT EXHIBIT COMING? UM, MY, UM, COMPUTER'S, UH, IS ACTING AS SLOW AS I AM RIGHT NOW,
WELL, IN THE MEANTIME, I'LL, I'LL TAKE A MOMENT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS WELL AND THANK EVERYONE INVOLVED.
UM, AND, AND REITERATE WHAT VICE TRIAR SAID ABOUT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, I THINK RELATIVELY CLEAR WILL OF THE BODY HERE, UH, ON SOME OF, UH, THE AMENDMENTS WE'VE MADE.
UM, AND IN GENERAL SUPPORT, UH, CONTINUING TO IMPROVE OUR CODE AND OUR, OUR ZONING FRAMEWORK THROUGHOUT THE CITY, ESPECIALLY WITH AN EYE TOWARDS SIMPLIFICATION, UM, EASE OF USE, MAKING THINGS MORE ACCESSIBLE TO, UH, REGULAR PROPERTY OWNERS, RENTERS, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC,
[06:40:01]
UH, WHOEVER MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN THESE ISSUES.UM, AND YEAH, TO CONTINUE PUSHING FORWARD, I'LL DEFINITELY SUPPORT, UH, WHATEVER IT IS.
THIS MOTION THAT WE'RE MAKING,
UH, AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL BE ABLE TO, TO SEE THIS.
IT'S SHOWING ELEVATIONS AROUND AUSTIN.
UM, THE DARK BLUE ARE THE LOWEST ELEVATIONS.
UM, THE GREEN, UH, GOES TO THE HIGHEST ELEVATIONS AND THE RED IN BETWEEN.
UM, AS AN ENGINEER, AND WE HAVE A FEW OF THEM ON THE COMMISSION HERE, I'M SURE WE ARE ALL AWARE OF FLUID FLOW AND SOLID STATE PRINCIPLES.
THINGS TAKE THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE, INCLUDING WATER GRAVITY WORKS.
SO THE WATER RUNS DOWN FROM THE HIGHEST POINT OF ELEVATION TO THE LOWEST POINTS OF ELEVATION THROUGH ALL OF ITS TRAPS AND THINGS THAT IT GOES.
AND AT THAT LOWEST POINT OF ELEVATION ON THAT DARK BLUE IS OUR DRINKING WATER FOR NOT ONLY AUSTIN, BUT MOST OF THE CENTRAL TEXAS REGION THAT'S REGULATED BY LCRA GOES UP THROUGH TCEQ IN THE STATE.
UM, AND WE'RE CONCENTRATING OUR HIGHEST DENSITY DEVELOPMENT RIGHT ALONG THE SHORES OF OUR DRINKING WATER SUPPLY.
WE HAVE NO STUDIES AND MODELING LOOKING AT HOW WE'RE CLEARING THIS WATER AND THE STORM WATER RUNOFF.
AND WHILE WE CAN TALK ABOUT IMPERVIOUS COVER AS ONE ASPECT OF THAT, WE ALSO HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR DENSITY DISTURBANCES OF THE SOILS, EVERYTHING ELSE THAT GOES.
AND WE DON'T HAVE THE MODELING TO SHOW THAT ALL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AND ALL OF THIS THAT EVERYBODY'S BEEN ASKED TO DO AND POUR THEIR HEART AND SOUL INTO IS PREDICATED ON A CHOO CHOO TRAIN AND GETTING FEDERAL FUNDING AND A GRANT TO FUND A CHOO TRAIN THAT WAS MIS-SOLD TO THE PUBLIC IN 2020 AND ONLY PASSED BY SLIGHTLY OVER 50% AND ALSO HAS NOT BEEN MODELED TO SHOW THAT IT'S GOING TO REDUCE THE CLIMATE CHANGE PROBLEMS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
SO WE ARE RIPPING UP NEIGHBORHOODS, WE ARE RIPPING UP OUR AREAS.
WE ARE DESTROYING OUR NATURAL RESOURCES FOR NINE MILES OF CHOO TRAIN OVER A FEDERAL GRANT AND VOTING AGAINST IT.
I SUGGEST EVERYBODY ELSE THINK ABOUT WHERE THEY'RE GONNA TAKE THEIR NEXT BIG DRINK OF WATER.
ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING AGAINST, UM, YOU WE'RE OUTTA SPOTS
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
THIS IS FOR THE BASE MOTION, UM, WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS EVENING.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 3, 4, 5, THOSE, LET'S SEE, IT WAS SIX, SEVEN, UM, EIGHT.
THOSE AGAINST ONE, AND THAT'S AN ABSTENTION.
I'M GONNA MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 1 45.
MAY I JUST HAVE A QUICK POINT OF PRIVILEGE? VERY QUICK, I PROMISE.
UM, I REALLY DO WANNA THANK STAFF WHO'VE STAYED HERE WITH US ALL NIGHT AND REALLY TRIED TO WORK THROUGH SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS. AND I ALSO DO WANNA THANK, UM, MY FELLOW, UH, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD COMMISSION MEMBERS WHO HAD SUCH GREAT SUGGESTIONS, AND FOR EVERYBODY WHO ACTUALLY DID STICK WITH US AND GETTING THIS DONE, I'M REALLY EXCITED TO SEE THIS GO ON TO COUNCIL.
WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT EXTENSION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 5 3 4 5 6 7 7.
NUMBER 19 WAS A BRIEFING THAT IS, HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO MAY.
[20. Discussion pertaining to upcoming Land Development Code amendments meetings. (Sponsors Chair Hempel and Vice Chair Azhar)]
20.UM, THIS, UH, ITEM IS A STANDING ITEM.
IT'S ABOUT OUR UPCOMING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS.
UM, I REALIZE THERE WAS BACKUP POSTED TO THIS ITEM, AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE BACKUP, UH, AND THE AGENDA ITEM RELATES TO MEETINGS TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THE DRAFT AMENDMENTS INCLUDED IN BACKUP FOR THIS ITEM ARE INCLUDED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT BEING CONSIDERED OR DISCUSSED AS PART OF THIS ITEM.
SO, UM, JUST QUICKLY, BECAUSE I KNOW WE WANT TO GET TO ELECTIONS, THE AMENDMENT PROCESS MOVING FORWARD FOR THE, UM, APRIL 23RD AND THE APRIL 30TH MEETINGS, UM, WE WANT TO TRY TO GET INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS IN
[06:45:01]
BY 9:00 AM ON MONDAYS BEFORE THE MEETING.UM, AND WE'RE THINKING THAT WE WILL CONSIDER INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS THE DAY OF THE MEETING IN ONE ROUND ONLY, UM, BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA HAVE, UM, A, SOME VERY, A LOT OF CASES TO CONSIDER, A LOT OF CODE AMENDMENTS TO CONSIDER.
UM, SO TO HELP ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS WITH THE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT PROCESS IN ADDITION TO THE WORKING GROUPS, UM, VICE CHAIR AZAR IS GOING TO SHARE A WORKSHEET, UM, THAT THE WORKING GROUPS HAVE USED THAT WILL HELP YOU OUTLINE THE, THE CODE, UM, THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT ON AND HELPING FILL IN RELEVANT INFORMATION.
SO WE'LL BE SHARING THAT TOOL SOMETIME SOON.
ANY, ANY OTHER, UM, THOUGHTS ON UPCOMING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS AND CHAIR? JUST TO CLARIFY ON SOMETHING THAT YOU SAID, I THINK WE'RE ASKING THAT FOLKS, UH, SHARE THEIR AMENDMENTS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETINGS OF THE DAY BEFORE BY 9:00 AM SO THAT MR. RIVERA CAN ACTUALLY POST THOSE AND FOLKS CAN REVIEW THEM BEFORE COMING ONTO THE DAAS.
SO LIKELY WE WILL NOT WANT TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SHARED PREVIOUSLY.
I THINK IT DOES CREATE A LOT OF CONFUSION AS HONESTLY WE SAW TODAY.
SO I THINK WHAT WHAT IT ALLOWS US TO DO IS REALLY PREPARE, UM, AND BE ABLE TO CONSIDER EACH OTHER'S AMENDMENTS TO BE ABLE TO DO OUR HOMEWORK.
THE OTHER THING, JUST A REMINDER TO FOLKS, IS THAT, UM, EVEN THOUGH OUR MEETINGS ARE SCHEDULED FOR THE 23RD AND 30TH, WE ARE AT THIS POINT ASKING THAT FOLKS SEMI HOLD THE DAYS NEXT IN CASE WE DO NEED TO CONTINUE, UH, DELIBERATION THE NEXT DAY.
SO AGAIN, UM, OUR HOPE WOULD BE THAT WE CAN GET THROUGH ITEMS, BUT WE ALSO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO RUSH THROUGH THINGS IN AN UNREASONABLE WAY.
SO PLEASE DO, UM, HOLD OFF ON THOSE DAYS.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE 24TH AND THE FIRST, UM, TO PARTIALLY BE ABLE TO DO THAT, UM, INSTEAD, LET'S SAY LATE AFTERNOON, EVENING.
AND MORE DETAILS OF THAT WILL BE SHARED AS APPROPRIATE.
SO IF I'M HEARING CORRECTLY, THE, THE RULES ARE BEING SET RIGHT NOW, THAT, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS NOT GOING TO CONSIDER ANY AMENDMENTS THAT WERE NOT SUBMITTED ON THIS FORM PRIOR TO THE MEETING? YES.
HAS THAT EVER BEEN DONE? I I WOULD ARGUE YES, IT HAS DURING THE, AT LEAST.
SO I GUESS I'LL ASK YOU A QUESTION.
COMMISSIONER COX, DO YOU THINK THE WAY THAT WE WORKED THROUGH TODAY WAS OPTIMAL? DO YOU THINK JUST CREATING AMENDMENTS ON THE FLY, NOT BEING ABLE TO READ THEM, DO YOU THINK THIS WORKED? WELL? I OFFERED MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO, UH, TO, TO, TO ALLOW US TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE DELIBERATIVE AND THEY WERE VOTED DOWN.
BUT MY QUESTION BEING, DO YOU THINK HAVING AMENDMENTS MADE ON THE MOMENT, DO YOU THINK THIS WAS HELPFUL? IT'S LATE.
MY POINT IS THAT AS WE WORK THROUGH AMENDMENTS, SOMETIMES THAT BRINGS UP OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, WOULD THERE? AND SO BY SHUTTING DOWN ALL CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS, UNLESS THEY WERE SUBMITTED ON THIS FORM PRIOR TO THE MEETING, I FEEL LIKE THAT'S OVERLY CONSTRAINING.
COMMISSIONER COX, WE WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE AMENDMENTS AND SUBSTITUTE TO ITEMS THAT ARE ON CONSIDERATION.
SO IF YOU HAVE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO SOMETHING OR A SUBSTITUTE, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO STILL DO THAT AS PER REGULAR RULES, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BRING ITEMS FORTH THAT ARE NOT GERMANE TO THE THINGS THAT ARE UNDER DISCUSSION AT THAT MOMENT, IF THAT, I HOPE THAT HELPS CLARIFY.
CHAIR COMMISSIONER LEE LANDOUR AND, UH, JUST, UM, FROM BEING YOUR, UM, COMMISSIONER LIAISON THROUGHOUT THE YEARS, WE HAVE CERTAINLY DONE THAT IN THE PAST.
WE DID IT WITH CODE NEXT, WE DID IT WITH THE LAST CODE AMENDMENTS AND ALSO, UM, COUNCIL PROCEEDS IN THAT MATTER AS WELL.
I'M SORRY, ANDREW, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? SURE.
UH, YOU, UH, THIS BODY HAS DONE THAT, UM, IN THE PAST WITH, UH, CODE NEXT.
WE DID THAT WITH THE LAST, UH, ROUND OF CODE AMENDMENTS AND, UH, COUNSEL ALSO PROCEEDS IN THAT MANNER AS WELL.
UM, MOVING ON TO ITEMS, UNLESS THERE'S OTHER DISCUSSION ON 20.
JUST TO CLARIFY MY QUESTION, I'M, I'M KIND OF, I, I I GUESS IF WE CAN STILL MAKE AMENDMENTS TO ITEM OR OFFER SUBSTITUTES THAT ARE GERMANE TO THE DISCUSSION, HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN OUR NORMAL RULES? I PLAYED THE NEW GUY CARD HERE.
I THINK THE FIRST TIME I'M TAKING IT FROM THE COMMISSIONER, BUT, SO IF I CAN, LIKE, WHAT ARE WE CHANGING? UM, SO THE IDEA IS ESSENTIALLY, LET'S SAY CONSIDERING TODAY WE DID MAKE SUBSTITUTE TO, LET'S SAY, ICR OR THE AFFORDABILITY
[06:50:01]
REQUIREMENTS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.UM, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BRING FORTH AN AMENDMENT THAT SAYS, WE WILL NOW REQUIRE EVERYBODY BE GIVEN FREE ICE CREAM IN THE SOUTH CENTER WATERFRONT DISTRICT.
SO THAT WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THAT MOMENT, BECAUSE THAT WOULD NOT BE GERMANE TO WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING.
SO THE IDEA WOULD BE YOU KEEP WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND BE ABLE TO CONSIDER DIFFERENT OPTIONS OF THEM.
ESSENTIALLY, AS COMMISSIONER COX WAS SAYING, AS THINGS COME UP IN RELATION TO AN ITEM UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE CAN DO THAT.
WE JUST CANNOT CONSIDER SOMETHING THAT IS NOT UNDER CONSIDERATION THAT MOMENT.
AND, AND WHO MAKES THAT DETERMINATION OF WHAT IS OR IS NOT GERMANE? IS THAT THE CHAIR? UH, TECHNICALLY THAT IS THE PARLIAMENTARIAN'S POSITION.
OTHER DISCUSSIONS ON ITEM 20? COMMISSIONER MUELLER? YEAH, JUST TO CLARIFY, WHEN ARE THOSE AMENDMENTS DUE? THEY'LL BE DUE THE MONDAY BEFORE THE MEETING, SO THAT WOULD BE MONDAY THE 22ND AT 9:00 AM AND THEN MONDAY THE 29TH AT 9:00 AM AND WE WILL WORK TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR, UM, UH, WE WORK TO HAVE THAT SENT OUT VIA WRITING, SO EVERYBODY HAS IT IN FRONT OF THEM, AND YOU CAN CONSIDER IT AND PLAN ACCORDINGLY.
[Items 21 & 22]
NUMBER 21 AND 22 ARE STANDING ITEMS TO ADD ANY MEMBERS TO THE WORKING GROUPS.UM, IF, IS THERE ANYONE THAT WANTS TO JUMP INTO EITHER OF THESE WORKING GROUPS THIS EVENING? UM, JUST A NOTE ON ITEM 22, WHICH IS THE AUSTIN BUILDINGS WORKING GROUP.
UM, THE WORK FOR THAT WORKING GROUP REALISTICALLY WON'T GET STARTED UNTIL JUNE AFTER WE'RE THROUGH THE LDC CODE UPDATES.
ANY OTHER THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS ON THOSE TWO? NUMBER 21, 22.
[23. Nomination and election of officers.]
ELECTIONS.SO THIS IS OUR ANNUAL NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR PARLIAMENTARIAN, SECRETARY, VICE CHAIR, AND CHAIR.
I HAVE HAD SOME NOMINEES EMAILED TO ME.
UM, SO I'LL CONSIDER THOSE IN THE ORDER.
UM, AND THEN WE'LL ALSO TAKE ANY NOMINEES THIS EVENING.
UM, AND WE'LL GO IN ORDER OF HOW THEY WERE NOMINATED, AND THEN WE'LL GO AND VOTE IN ORDER THAT I SEE YOU ON THE DA AND ON THE SCREEN.
UM, SO REMEMBER, DON'T VOTE FOR YOURSELF AND, UM, YOU ONLY VOTE ONCE.
NOMINATIONS DO NOT NEED A SECOND.
ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GET STARTED? WE'RE GONNA START WITH PARLIAMENTARIAN.
I'M JUST, IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR YOURSELF, DOES THAT MEAN YOU JUST DON'T VOTE FOR ANYONE OR YOU HAVE TO VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE? YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO VOTE FOR, UM, SOMEONE, SO YOU CAN JUST ABSTAIN IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO VOTE FOR YOURSELF.
UM, AND THE ELECTIONS OF THE ROLES THAT WILL START IN MAY, MAY 14TH AND LAST UNTIL MAY, 2025.
FOR PARLIAMENTARIAN, I DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL NOMINATION FOR COMMISSIONER WOODS, UM, AND I ALSO RECEIVED, UH, A NOMINATION, WELL, I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR OTHER NOMINATIONS FOR PARLIAMENTARIAN.
COMMISSIONER COX, A NOMINATE, UH, OUR EX OFFICIO, UH, JENNIFER OR JESSICA COHEN.
ANY OTHER NOMINEES? ALRIGHT, SO WE'LL GO COMMISSIONER HAYES, WE'LL START WITH YOU.
AND REMEMBER, WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR THE VOTES TO REACH THE COUNT OF SEVEN.
UM, AND THAT MEANS THAT PERSON HAS WON THE ROLE.
WHY ARE WE STARTING WITH ME? I'M JUST GOING IN ORDER OUT DIETS.
UH, SIX MAJORITY, RIGHT? SEVEN.
SO WE'RE GONNA, SORRY, WE'RE GONNA START WITH COMMISSIONER WOODS.
OH, SO YOU WOULD VOTE I, I OR NO, YOU, SORRY.
NOW I'M, WELL, YEAH, WE'LL GET THIS.
[06:55:01]
HOW IT WORKS.I THOUGHT WHEN YOU, IT'S NEW PEOPLE ARE CONFUSED, RIGHT? IT'S NEARLY 2:00 AM.
UM, I'M VOTING OR I PASS FOR COMMISSIONER WOODS.
UM, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, I'M GOING TO GO IN ORDER AS I SEE YOU.
WE'RE STARTING WITH COMMISSIONER WOODS AS THE NOMINATION, AND WE'RE VOTING ON COMMISSIONER WOODS.
I KNOW, OR ABSTAIN, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO VOTE.
ONCE WE REACH SEVEN, THEN THAT PERSON HAS WON.
SO IF WE DON'T GET TO SEVEN WITH COMMISSIONER WOODS, WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER OR CHAIR COEN.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES PASSED PASS.
UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? AYE.
AYE, UH, COMMISSIONER MOTALA ABSTAIN.
AND COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AYE.
AND COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE GREEN.
UM, MR. RIVERA, PLEASE HELP ME BECAUSE THIS IS, THIS HAPPENED BEFORE WE DIDN'T REACH SEVEN, AND IF WE ONLY VOTE ONCE, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH COMMISSIONERS TO GET TO SEVEN.
SO IT'S BEST PRACTICE IF THE, UM, INDIVIDUAL DOES A VOTE FOR THEMSELVES.
HOWEVER, UM, YOU HAD SET THE PRECEDENT AT THE LAST MEETING OR THE LAST ELECTION, OR THE, UH, NOMINEE DID, UH, TAKE A VOTE.
UM, SO DO WE START OVER AGAIN? OR
SINCE YOU STARTED WITH THE PROCEDURE, I WOULD GO, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU, UH, PROCEED, UM, AS YOU DID WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER WOODS, UH, THAT YOU WOULD, UH, PROCEED WITH, UH, CHAIR COHEN.
UM, WE'LL GO WITH CHAIR COHEN.
JENNIFER, JENNIFER, COMMISSIONER WOODS ABSTAIN.
UM, COMMERS ARE ALREADY VOTED.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, YOU'VE ALREADY VOTED.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, YOU'VE ALREADY VOTED AND COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE HAS ALREADY VOTED.
SO NOW PROCEED WITH, UM, IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER ALLOWING THE NOMINEE TO VOTE FOR THE, FOR, UM, FOR A, UM, NOMINEE.
DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND? BECAUSE WE ARE LOW ON COMMISSIONERS RIGHT NOW, JIM, SO WE SHOULD POSTPONE UNTIL WE HAVE MORE COMMISSIONERS.
SO, YOUR BYLAW STATE THAT YOU SHOULD, UM, VOTE FOR YOUR OFFICERS AT YOUR FIRST MEETING IN, IN APRIL, CHAIR WILL GO AHEAD AND EXTEND THE MEETING TO DU SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, ARE YOU AN ABSTENTION, OR, OR FOUR.
UM, SO GO AROUND AGAIN FOR PARLIAMENTARIAN.
UH, BUT I THINK, UM, YOU MAY, UH, CONSIDER ALLOWING THE NOMINEE TO VOTE.
AND WITH ESTABLISHING THAT PRECEDENT, WE'LL THEN OPEN IT UP FOR ANY FUTURE NOMINEE TO VOTE FOR THEMSELVES.
SO AGAIN, FOR COMMISSIONER WOODS.
SUSTAIN COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? YES.
AND COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? YES.
[07:00:01]
OKAY.AND COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ.
BUT YELLOW, IS THAT A YELLOW
SO COMMISSIONER WOODS IS OUR PARLIAMENTARIAN.
UM, I RECEIVED AN EARLIER NOMINATION FOR COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, WHO'S CURRENTLY SERVING AS SECRETARY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? MADAM CHAIR? I MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEED THIS UP.
DO YOU HAVE ONE PERSON FOR EACH OFFICE? UM, WELL, I ACTUALLY, PARLIAMENTARIAN AND SECRETARY ARE THE ONLY ONES I'VE RECEIVED ANY NOMINATIONS FOR.
SO, BECAUSE I WAS GONNA SAY, LET'S MOVE BY ACCLIMATION AND JUST GO, I, YEAH, I LIKE THAT.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE NOMINATIONS FOR DANG DANG
YOU, YOU COULD ASK IF THERE'S ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS.
IF, IF THERE AREN'T TWO OF YEAH, THAT.
SO THAT'S WHAT I'M, WE CAN KEEP IT MOVING ALONG.
ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS FOR SECRETARY? OKAY.
UM, HOW WOULD I, I GUESS WHAT WE'RE CALLING IS, UM, UH, IF IT'S VOTE BY ACCLAMATION, IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO DISAGREES, WE WOULD NOTE THAT THIS IS FOR COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AS SECRETARY.
DO YOU HAVE ANY ABSTENTIONS OR ANY NAS ABSTAIN? OKAY.
THAT MOTION PASSES WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES ABSTAINING.
CAN YOU, CAN YOU INDICATE HE WAS ABSTAINING AS WELL? SEE, THIS IS WHY I WANTED TO GO ROUND FOR THE VOTE.
I, I THINK LET'S JUST TAKE THE VOTE.
SO WE, THIS IS A MOTION TO, UM, UM, HAVE COMMISSIONER ANDERSON APPOINTED AS THE, UH, SECRETARY.
COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ? YES.
UH, COMMISSIONER COX? ABSTAIN.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON ABSTAIN.
AND COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? YES.
SO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON IS OUR SECRETARY.
UM, WE'LL MOVE ON TO VICE CHAIR.
ANY NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR? I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE VICE CHAIR IS OUR INTERIM VICE CHAIR IS OUR, AS OUR VICE CHAIR,
UM, ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE CLAIRE PIMPLE.
UM, ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE ORDER THAT WE HEARD THEM.
SO, VICE CHAIR AZAR, UM, COMMISSIONER ESS ABSTAIN.
UM, VICE CHAIR HEMPEL IS, YES.
COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMEZ? YES.
CAN YOU COME ON CAMERA? MAKE THIS OFFICIAL? OH, I, I SEE ME AS BEING ON CAMERA.
UM, REMEMBER WE NEED TO REACH SEVEN.
DO YOU ACCEPT THE NOMINATION? OH, SURE.
UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, THIS IS FOR MYSELF.
[07:05:01]
I CAN'T, I HAVE TO ABSTAIN.UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YES.
SO COMMISSIONER BARRE RAMIREZ, CAN YOU STAND? WHAT ARE WE DOING? COMMISSIONER COX ABSTAIN.
AND COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? YES.
I THINK YOU CAN ONLY VOTE ONCE, SO WE'LL CATCH.
WELL, I, I GUESS TECHNICALLY HOW, HOW'S THIS GONNA WORK IF IT'S FIVE FIVE? YES.
AND NOMINEES CAN VOTE FOR THEMSELVES.
OH, YOU DIDN'T SAY NUMBER BOTH.
I STILL DON'T HAVE THE WORDS, BUT LET'S DO IT.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO NOMINATE YOU FOR VICE CHAIR AND INVESTORS AZAR FOR CHAIR AND VOTE ON THOSE TOGETHER? IF NOT, THAT'S OKAY.
UM, SEEING NO FROM MR. RIVERA.
CAN I, CAN I ADD A NOMINATION? YES, YOU CAN.
CAN I NOMINATE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON FOR VICE CHAIR? YES.
DO YOU ACCEPT THAT NOMINATION? SURE.
AND ANDREW, DO WE THEN GO AROUND AGAIN OR DO WE GO TO COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? GO START AGAIN.
I, I BELIEVE YOU WOULD GO AGAIN WITH ALL YOUR NOMINATIONS.
UH, INCLUDE ALL THE NOMINATIONS.
WE'LL GO WITH, UM, THIS IS FOR VICE CHAIR, UH, AND COMMISSIONER AZAR.
AND COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? YEAH.
CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE, UM, CURRENT CHAIR.
UM, LET'S GO AROUND JUST TO MAKE IT OFFICIAL.
COMMISSIONER COX, SUSTAIN COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? YES.
AND COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? YES.
SO OUR NEW EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE IS PARLIAMENTARIAN WOODS.
UM, SECRETARY ANDERSON, VICE-CHAIR ARE AND CHAIR HEMPEL.
WE HAVE EIGHT MINUTES TO THANK YOU.
SO, UM, BEFORE WE HAVE TO EXTEND AGAIN, UM, BOARDS, COMMITTEES, WORKING GROUP UPDATES, UM, CHAIR, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH, UH, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. ITEM NUMBER 24.
ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? OKAY.
[BOARDS, COMMITTEES & WORKING GROUPS UPDATES]
ON TO UPDATES CODES AND ORDINANCES.UM, I'LL MAKE A QUICK, UH, CHAIR.
WE WENT OVER THE SOUTHSIDE WATERFRONT PLAN AND WE HEARD ABOUT THE SITE PLAN AND, UM, THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS CHANGES.
[07:10:01]
PLAN.JOINT COMMITTEE MEET TOMORROW.
MEETING GREAT JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE.
WE WILL BE MEETING ON THE 24TH AND THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL MEETING ON THE 30TH TO VOTE ON THE, UM, I'M SORRY.
THERE'LL BE A SPECIAL MEETING ON THE 30TH.
JOIN COMMITTEE COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ.
I THINK YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE LEFT THIS EVENING.
SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD.
I THINK WE'VE COVERED THAT TONIGHT.
UM, CITY OF AUSTIN BUILDINGS WORKING GROUP HAS NOT YET MET.
WE MENTIONED WE'LL START MEETING IN THE SUMMER.
OUTREACH AND PROCEDURES WORKING GROUP.
I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA WAIT TILL WE'RE DONE WITH OKAY.
WE'RE UP IN THE MIDDLE OF A STRING.
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS WORKING GROUP.
WE'VE HAD ONE MEETING AND WE'RE SCHEDULING MORE IN PREPARATION OF THE NEXT ITEMS. UM, AND SO I DO WANNA TELL THE WORKING GROUP, UM, I HAVE HEARD NOW FROM EVERYBODY AND EXPECT AN EMAIL TOMORROW FROM ME FOR SOME SCHEDULING.
UM, WE HAVE MET AND HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS.
WILL WE BRING YOU TO THE COMMITTEE AT COMMISSIONER A LATER DATE? OKAY.
UM, THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR STICKING WITH IT.
AND I'LL ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 1:54 AM GOOD NIGHT, Y'ALL.
CHECK ONE, CHECK TWO, CHECK TWO, CHECK THREE.
I'LL CHECK YOU IF YOU CHECK ME.
CHECK ONE, CHECK TWO, CHECK TWO.
TWO HOUSES, SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF.