[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]
[00:00:03]
PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR PRESENCE WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, AND I WILL CALL IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER PER THE AGENDA.
SERGEANT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
COMMISSIONER MOOSH TOLER WILL BE JOINING US A LITTLE BIT LATER.
I DON'T SEE ANY OF OUR EX OFFICIOS HERE YET, BUT WE'LL COME BACK IF THEY, UM, THEY COME.
PER USUAL, TONIGHT'S MEETING IS HYBRID, ALLOWING FOR A VIRTUAL QUORUM AS LONG AS THE COMMISSIONER SERVING AS THE CHAIR IS PRESENT IN 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 HAVE YOUR VERY VIVID COLORS OF RED, YELLOW, AND GREEN READY.
IF YOU ARE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, YOU'LL 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.
AND TONIGHT, WE DON'T HAVE HARD COPIES OF OUR SPEAKER REGISTRATION LIST, BUT YOU CAN FIND THAT ONLINE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WEBPAGE.
AGAIN, THAT'S THE REGISTERED SPEAKER LIST IS AVAILABLE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WEBPAGE.
UM, MR. RIVERA IS GOING TO HELP IN ANNOUNCING THE SPEAKERS DURING OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS TONIGHT.
UM, AND IF I MISS YOU ONLINE, REMEMBER, JUST COME OFF MUTE AND LET ME KNOW THAT YOU WOULD WISH TO SPEAK.
I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
IS THAT STILL THE CASE, MR. RIVERA? CORRECT.
THERE IS NO PUBLIC COMMUNICATION TODAY.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
TO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.THE FIRST ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 12TH AND APRIL 9TH MEETING, UH, 2024 MEETINGS.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY EDITS TO THOSE MINUTES OR QUESTIONS? OKAY.
HEARING NONE THOUGH, UH, THOSE MINUTES WILL BE ADDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[ Consent Agenda]
ACTIVITY TODAY IS VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.ITEMS THAT ARE ON, UH, CONSENT APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL, POSTPONEMENTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, OR NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS, VICE CHAIR ZA WILL READ THE PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA AND IDENTIFY THOSE THAT ARE CONSENT POSTPONEMENT AND NON-DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS.
YOU'LL ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST A CONSENT ITEM TO BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION, BUT PLEASE NOTE TONIGHT, IF YOU DO PULL AN ITEM, WE WILL HAVE TO MOVE IT TO THE MAY 14TH MEETING.
I'LL GO TO OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AT THIS TIME.
UM, ITEM NUMBER TWO IS THE LDC AMENDMENTS, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT, CITYWIDE COMPATIBILITY, ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING, AND HOME PHASE TWO.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT.
ITEM NUMBER THREE, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 2 0 2 5 0.0 1 57 25 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90 EASTBOUND DISTRICT EIGHT.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MAY 28TH.
I NUMBER FOUR IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 0 2 0.01 CHRISTCHURCH PLANNING DISTRICT THREE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MAY 14TH I.
NUMBER FIVE IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2022 DASH ZERO 0.02 2000 E SIXTH STREET, AND 2007 EAST SEVENTH STREET DISTRICT THREE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT I NUMBER SIX IS PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 5 0 1 OPS FAIRWAY MAKES USE DISTRICT THREE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MAY 28TH.
I NUMBER SEVEN, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 15 0 1 TRACER LANE, NBA DISTRICT ONE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT I NUMBER EIGHT, PLAN AMENDMENT NBA DASH 2023 DASH 23 3 SH.
UH, 63 0 4 MAIN ROAD DISTRICT FOUR.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MAY 14TH I.
NUMBER NINE IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 2 9 0.02 HUMANE SOCIETY OF FOSTER AND TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT FOUR.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONED TO JUNE 11TH.
I NUMBER 10 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2024 DASH 0 2 5 0 2 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90 DISTRICT EIGHT.
I NUMBER 11 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 30 56 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90 DISTRICT EIGHT.
ITEM NUMBER 12 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2022 DASH 2 0 1
[00:05:01]
INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD, ONTARIO LANE, DISTRICT THREE.THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO MAY 18TH.
ITEM NUMBER 13 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2022 DASH 0 6 2 INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD, ONTARIO LANE, DISTRICT THREE.
THIS ITEM IS OF APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO MAY 18TH.
ITEM NUMBER 14 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 5 0 2 600 CAMP DISTRICT THREE.
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT I, NUMBER 15 IS A REZONING C 1420 DASH 2023 DASH 0 9 600 KEMP STREET DISTRICT THREE.
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT.
ITEM NUMBER 16 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 5 5 SH 1702 DELONY STREET DISTRICT ONE.
THE IS UP FOR CONSENT, THE REZONING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CASE.
ITEM NUMBER 17 C 14 DASH 2023 4H, 1702 DELON STREET DISTRICT ONE.
I NUMBER 18 IS A PLAN MOMENT, MPA DASH 20 23 5 0 6 SPRINGDALE BEAUTY SALON DISTRICT THREE.
I NUMBER 19 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 56 10 35 SPRINGDALE BEAUTY SALON DISTRICT THREE.
I NUMBER 20 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 2 4 13 0 4 GRANDE REZONING DISTRICT NINE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT WITH THE FOLLOWING PROHIBITED USES BAIL BOND SERVICES, PAWN SHOP, LIQUOR, SALES COCKTAIL LOUNGE AND OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT.
ITEM NUMBER 21 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 3 1 21 0 5 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE, DISTRICT NINE.
ITEM NUMBER 22 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 2 9 27 0 6 GONZALES STREET AND 27 30 EAST SEVENTH STREET DISTRICT THREE.
I NUMBER 23 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 0 9, UH, 43 23 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE DISTRICT THREE.
ITEM NUMBER 24 IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 9 4 MERLE DISTRICT FIVE.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR POSTPONEMENT TO MAY 28TH.
UM, NUMBER 25 IS IN RCT, UM, C 14 DASH 96 DASH 0 27 R CT 5 52 0 9 SOUTH PLEASANT VALLEY DISTRICT TWO.
I NUMBER 26 IS SITE PLAN SP DASH 2023 DASH ZERO THREE C DC 24 22.
I NUMBER 27 IS AN LDC AMENDMENT TO THE NORTH BURN GATEWAY REGULATING PLAN, UH, GATEWAY REGULATING PLAN DISTRICT SEVEN.
THAT IS ALL THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THANK YOU.
DO ANY COMMISSIONERS NEED TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS ON THE AGENDA? MADAM CHAIR, I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS SINCE WE, SINCE WE JUST GOT, UH, THE KIND OF UPDATED ON 20, CAN WE ASK A QUESTION OR TWO OF THAT OR IS THAT ALLOWED, UM, OH, ON ITEM 20? SURE.
MM-HMM,
SO WHAT WAS, WHAT, WHAT WAS THAT? UH, IT JUST SAYS PROHIBITED USES WHAT WAS ADDED AND WHAT, WHAT CHANGED FROM YESTERDAY TO THE DAY ABOUT THAT QUESTION.
SO BILL, BOND SERVICES, BOND SHOP, LIQUOR, SALES, COCKTAIL LOUNGE, AND OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT.
CYNTHIA HAD, UH, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UM, THE ANA UM, AND THE APPLICANT BOTH AGREED TO THESE, UM, YESTERDAY, SO THAT'S WHY THEY WERE SUBMITTED LATE.
BUT THEY AGREED THEY, ANA WANTED THOSE PROHIBITED USES PUT ON THE SITE AND THE APPLICANT AGREED TO THEM.
OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, CHAIR, I DO WANNA MENTION I MADE AN ERROR IN READING THIS OUT, SO I JUST WANNA READ THIS OUT CORRECTLY.
UM, FOR ITEM NUMBER 12, THE PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2022 DASH 3 2 0 0.01 INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD, ONTARIO LANE, DISTRICT THREE, AND THE ASSOCIATED REZONING ITEM NUMBER 13 C 14 DASH 2022 DASH SIX TWO INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD, ONTARIO LANE, DISTRICT THREE.
THESE ITEMS ARE BOTH ARE FOR APPLICANT POSTWOMAN TO MAY 14TH.
UM, SEEING THE RECUSALS OR ABSTENTIONS MAD CHAIR, I'M, I'M GONNA ABSTAIN FROM ITEM 27.
UM, MS. CORONA, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS OR REQUESTING ITEMS TO BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION? NO.
UM, AND THEN LIKEWISE, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? OKAY.
IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND
[00:10:01]
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS CONSENT AGENDA AND APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM MARCH 12TH AND APRIL 19TH? I SEE.ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALRIGHT, THAT'S UNANIMOUS.
THIS CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[2. LDC Amendments Land Development Code Amendments: Citywide Compatibility, Electric Vehicle Charging and HOME Phase 2]
TO OUR BIG ITEM OF THE KNIGHT.UM, THIS IS ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS, CITYWIDE COMPATIBILITY, ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING, AND HOME PHASE TWO.
SO FIRST THIS EVENING, WE ARE GOING TO HEAR STAFF'S PRESENTATION ON ALL THREE OF THOSE ITEMS, AND THEN WE WILL HEAR OUR SPEAKERS THAT HAVE SIGNED UP.
AND SO WE, WE DID ASK STAFF, WE HAD THE 35 MINUTE LONG PRESENTATION AT THE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING.
AND SO THIS PRESENTATION WILL JUST HELP TO CLARIFY ANY QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP IN BETWEEN THEN AND NOW.
I'M ANDREA BATES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND I'M JOINED BY MY COLLEAGUES WHO ARE MANAGING THE CODE AMENDMENTS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
THOSE AMENDMENTS INCLUDE THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING USE HOME PHASE TWO, WHICH IS FOR A SMALLER LOT SIZE FOR ONE UNIT AND CITYWIDE CHANGES TO THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS.
NOT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, BUT PART OF THIS PACKAGE IS THE EQUITABLE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OR ETOD OVERLAY THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED NEXT TUESDAY AT THE APRIL 30TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
SO I WANTED TO START WITH AN OVERVIEW OF WHERE WE ARE IN THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR THESE CODE AMENDMENTS.
AS YOU KNOW, WE HELD THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON APRIL 11TH WHERE WE GAVE AN OVERVIEW OF ALL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
WE HAVE HELD TWO OPEN HOUSES FOR THE PUBLIC TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE AMENDMENTS.
ONE WAS IN PERSON AT THE CENTRAL LIBRARY ON APRIL 17TH, AND THE OTHER WAS VIRTUAL ON APRIL 20TH.
TONIGHT IS THE 23RD AND THREE OF THE FOUR AMENDMENTS ARE BEFORE YOU WITH THE ETOD OVERLAY TO FOLLOW.
NEXT WEEK, WE WILL THEN BE HOSTING TWO ADDITIONAL IN-PERSON OPEN HOUSES.
THESE ARE NEWLY ANNOUNCED, ONE ON MAY 6TH AND ONE ON MAY 8TH.
WE'LL HAVE MORE DETAILS ON TIME AND LOCATION IN A SUBSEQUENT SLIDE.
AND THEN FINALLY, THESE CODE AMENDMENTS WILL BE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL FOR POTENTIAL ACTION ON MAY 16TH.
WE HAVE BEEN GETTING THE WORD OUT ABOUT THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THROUGH MANY CHANNELS.
THAT INCLUDES MAILED NOTICE, THE PURPLE POSTCARD AS WE LIKE TO CALL IT FOR THE CITYWIDE NOTICE FOR THREE OF THE FOUR AMENDMENTS.
THE ETOD SPECIFIC NOTICE TO THE RELEVANT GEOGRAPHY.
THE CITY HAS DONE SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS ABOUT THE HEARINGS AND OPEN HOUSES, AND WE HAVE ALSO PLACED ADVERTISEMENTS IN LOCAL PUBLICATIONS.
THERE IS A PROJECT WEBSITE WITH EXTENSIVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSAL AS WELL AS AN EMAIL AND PHONE NUMBER WHERE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN CONTACT STAFF AND EITHER LEAVE COMMENTS OR ASK QUESTIONS AND RECEIVE A REPLY.
AND THEN, AS I MENTIONED, WE'VE ALSO HOSTED TWO OPEN HOUSES SO FAR WITH TWO TO COME.
IN TERMS OF THE NUMBERS, AS OF YESTERDAY, THE 22ND, THERE WERE OVER 670,000 CITYWIDE NOTICES MAILED OUT ABOUT THE THREE CITYWIDE AMENDMENTS AND OVER 39,000 ETOD SPECIFIC NOTICES.
THERE HAVE BEEN ALMOST 5,000 VISITORS TO THE PROJECT WEBSITE SO FAR.
OVER 200 PHONE CALLS OR EMAILS.
AND ADDITIONAL 150 COMMENTS LEFT ON SPEAKUP AUSTIN.ORG.
THERE WERE 181 SPEAKERS AT THE APRIL 11TH JOINT MEETING.
88 ATTENDEES AT THE FIRST IN-PERSON OPEN HOUSE, AND ABOUT 75 ATTENDEES AT THE VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE.
THESE ARE THE TWO ADDITIONAL OPEN HOUSES THAT I MENTIONED ON MAY 6TH FROM SIX TO 8:00 PM THERE WILL BE AN OPEN HOUSE AT ANDERSON HIGH SCHOOL AND ON MAY 8TH, ALSO FROM SIX TO 8:00 PM THERE WILL BE AN OPEN HOUSE AT GEORGE WASHINGTON CARVER MUSEUM AND CULTURAL CENTER.
AND THAT BRINGS US TO THE CLARIFICATIONS ABOUT THE THREE AMENDMENTS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
AND WE WILL START WITH ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING USE.
I'M ERIC THOMAS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND I'LL BE PROVIDING A COUPLE CLARIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED NEW ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING PRINCIPLE LAND USE.
PART OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING IS TO PROHIBIT THE USE UNDERGROUND.
THIS PROHIBITION WAS INCLUDED ON RECOMMENDATION BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE, AND THIS IS BECAUSE WHEN EVS CATCH FIRE, THEY BURN INCREDIBLY HOT AND GENERATE A GREAT AMOUNT OF SMOKE.
FURTHERMORE, UNDERGROUND SMOKE REMEDIATION CAN TAKE SEVERAL DAYS DURING WHICH TIME
[00:15:01]
ACCESS TO THE ENTIRE PARKING GARAGE WOULD BE PROHIBITED IN THE TIME SINCE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS FINALIZED.WE HAVE CONTINUED TO COORDINATE WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND HAVE COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING THAT EV CHARGING COULD BE ACCEPTABLE ONE LEVEL BELOW GRADE WITH CERTAIN DESIGN CRITERIA AND RESTRICTIONS ON PLACEMENT.
GIVEN THE TIMING STAFF IS DEFERRING THE OPTION TO AMEND THE PROPOSAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL.
ADDITIONALLY, AFTER REVIEWING PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT CONVERSATIONS, STAFF FEELS THE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT THE PROPOSED PRINCIPAL LAND USE WILL NOT CHANGE OR RESTRICT HOW EV CHARGING IS ALREADY PERMITTED AS PART OF AN ACCESSORY PARKING USE.
THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS ONLY APPLY TO EV CHARGING AS THE PRINCIPAL OR ONLY USE OF A SITE ACCESSORY PARKING WILL STILL BE PERMITTED FOR OTHER PRINCIPAL USES, STAFF DOES NOT AND WILL NOT RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF SPACES THAT MAY BE ELECTRIFIED SO LONG AS ACCESSORY PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.
I'M LAURA KEATING AND THE CASE MANAGER FOR HOME PHASE TWO.
UM, WE JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY SOME QUESTIONS WE'VE GOTTEN FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT OUR STAFF RECOMMENDATION IN REGARDS TO THE 40 45% IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT, IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS HELP ENSURE THAT THERE'S SPACE FOR RAINWATER TO BE ABSORBED OR DIRECTED INTO THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF 45% IMPERVIOUS COVER.
WE'VE ALSO RECEIVED SOME QUESTIONS ON EMERGENCY ACCESS.
ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE, WILL BE REVIEWED UNDER AND HAVE TO COMPLY WITH FIRE CODE STRUCTURES THAT ARE OUT OF, OUT OF REACH FROM THE STREET, FROM THE FIRE HOSE LENGTH WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS OR BE ACCESSIBLE BY A FIRE LANE.
IN GENERAL, THE HOSE LENGTH OF 150 FEET IS SUFFICIENT TO REACH THE MEDIAN LOT DEPTH CITYWIDE.
GOOD EVENING PLANNING COMMISSION.
I'M JONATHAN LEE, CASE MANAGER FOR THE CITYWIDE COMPATIBILITY CODE AMENDMENT.
I FIRST WANNA EMPHASIZE THAT THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER IS MUCH MORE FLEXIBLE THAN THE CURRENT NO BUILD SETBACK, THOUGH THEY BOTH HAVE THE SAME 25 FOOT WIDTH.
THE BUFFER ALLOWS A NUMBER OF LOW IMPACT USES, MANY OF WHICH ARE ON THE SLIDE RIGHT THERE.
THIS WILL ALLOW MORE BUILDABLE AREA ON SITES, UM, WHICH IN, IN THE CASE OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PROJECTS WILL TRANSLATE INTO ADDITIONAL HOUSING.
I ALSO WANT TO MENTION THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BUFFER ARE NOT IN CHAPTER 25 DASH TWO OF THE LDC, THE ZONING CODE.
THEY'RE IN A DIFFERENT CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 25 DASH EIGHT AND THAT THAT SECTION IS 25 DASH EIGHT DASH 700.
LASTLY, UM, A STATISTIC I'D LIKE TO SHARE IS THAT THE COMPATIBILITY CHANGES WOULD REDUCE THE OVERALL LAND AREA SUBJECT TO COMPATIBILITY BY NEARLY 94%.
THIS IS IN LARGE PART BECAUSE WE'RE ENDING COMPATIBILITY AT 75 FEET IN DISTANCE FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
UM, BUT IT'S ALSO BECAUSE OF THE UPDATED, UH, APPLICABILITY FOR COMPATIBILITY, UM, INCLUDING AN EXEMPTION FOR SITES WITH LOWER DENSITY MULTIFAMILY ZONING.
AND THAT BRINGS US BACK TO THE SCHEDULE FROM HERE.
AS YOU KNOW TONIGHT, UH, HOME PHASE TWO COMPATIBILITY AND EV CHARGING ARE BEFORE YOU.
ON THE 30TH, THERE WILL BE A COUNCIL WORK SESSION ABOUT THIS PACKAGE OF CODE AMENDMENTS AND ANOTHER PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING IN THE EVENING.
THAT WILL INCLUDE THE ETOD OVERLAY ON MAY 6TH AND MAY 8TH.
ADDITIONAL OPEN HOUSES MAY 6TH AT ANDERSON HIGH SCHOOL AND MAY 8TH AT THE CARVER MUSEUM.
ON MAY 14TH, THERE WILL BE ANOTHER COUNCIL WORK SESSION ABOUT THE CODE AMENDMENTS AND THEN FINALLY THEY COULD GO BEFORE COUNCIL FOR, UH, POTENTIAL ACTION ON MAY 16TH.
SO THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY A WHIRLWIND PRESENTATION AND OVERVIEW OF ONLY SOME PARTS OF THE CODE AMENDMENTS.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WE ENCOURAGE THE COMMUNITY TO VISIT SPEAK UP AUSTIN.ORG/LDC UPDATES THAT HAS EXTENSIVE INFORMATION ABOUT ALL OF THE CODE AMENDMENTS.
IT ALSO HAS A RECORDING OF THE VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE FOR A MORE IN-DEPTH PRESENTATION, THE RECORDING OF THE PRESENTATION FROM THE APRIL 11TH JOINT MEETING IS ALSO AVAILABLE ONLINE AT THE A TXN WEBSITE.
IF ANYONE HAS COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF TO ANSWER, THEY COULD EMAIL OR CALL AND LEAVE A VOICEMAIL AT THE NUMBER SHOWN ON THE SCREEN AND STAFF WILL REPLY TO ANY QUESTIONS WITHIN A FEW DAYS.
THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION FOR TONIGHT.
ALRIGHT, NOW WE'LL START WITH OUR SPEAKERS
[00:20:02]
AND MS. GRONER, ARE YOU HELPING ME WITH THE NAMES? YES.UM, WE'LL BE CALLING SPEAKERS OUT THREE AT A TIME.
UM, AND JUST A FRIENDLY REMINDER, UM, SPEAKERS WHO DONATED TIME, UM, MUST BE PRESENT WHEN THE RECEIVING SPEAKER IS CALLED MAD CHAIR.
CAN WE ASK STAFF QUESTIONS ON JUST THE, UH, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO LONG BACK AND FORTH AND LET THE PEOPLE GO, BUT JUST ON THE UPDATED INFO THAT THEY JUST, UH, YEAH.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON THE SCHEDULE ON THE EV CHARGING.
WHAT, WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA THAT THAT ALLOW US TO PUT IT UNDERGROUND? YOU JUST SAID THERE YOU HAD A CHANGE, ERIC THOMAS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
SO THE SITE SPECIFIC OR OR LEVEL SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ON THAT MATTER.
AND, UM, WE HAVE NOT AS STAFF IT WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION FULLY THOUGHT THROUGH THAT PROCESS, WHICH IS WHY WE DIDN'T DECIDE TO, UM, AMEND OUR PROPOSAL BEFORE TODAY.
UM, SO AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD FORMULATE IF SOMEBODY DOES ELECT TO PROVIDE AN AMENDMENT DOING SUCH.
UM, BUT I DO THINK WE HAVE SOMEONE FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HERE TODAY THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT QUESTION ALSO.
I BELIEVE HE'S IN ANOTHER ROOM.
UH, DIRECTOR MIDDLETON PRATT HAS GONE TO, UM, I FINE.
SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO ANOTHER QUESTION OR WE COULD, UM, FOLLOW UP WHEN THE FIRE REPRESENTATIVE IS ABLE TO JOIN US.
YEAH, I'D LIKE TO GET STARTED WITH THE SPEAKERS.
WE'LL BE STARTING WITH, UH, TELECONFERENCE SPEAKERS.
UM, THE FIRST SPEAKER IS STERLING KING, FOLLOWED BY ERIC WALLACE AND THEN MIKA ARM.
AND YOU'LL EACH TALK TO YOUR DIFFICULTIES WITH THE ONLINE.
WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH, UH, THE IN-PERSON, SPEAKERS FIRST.
SOUNDS LIKE WE JUST, UH, RESOLVED THE, UH, MATTER.
UM, SO
MY NAME THREE, I'M SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION, THE ADVOCATE, WHICH CONTRARY.
FURTHERMORE, THERE IS NO PUBLIC MANDATE AND NO SITTING AS
[00:25:24]
POLICY.AGAIN, THERE IS NO KAREN WOLF.
PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX IN PROCEED WITH YOUR MARKS ELIANA MADANO.
PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX IN PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
I THE CORRECT FULL TO LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME HOMEOWNER PRESERVATION OF HOMEOWNERSHIP FOR LOW INCOME HOMEOWNERS AND SUPPORT THE ANTI DISPLACEMENT OVERLAY THAT IS GOING TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PRODUCE TRULY AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE HIGH RISK OF REPLACEMENT.
SOMETHING I'VE NOTICED IS THAT THERE IS, UH, I'M SORRY, SOMETHING THAT I'VE NOTICED IN, FOR THOSE WHO ARE SUPPORTING THESE ZONING CHANGES, THEY'RE SAYING THAT THESE ZONING CHANGES WILL INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT RESPECT QUESTION, AFFORDABLE FOR WHO WITH LITTLE TO NO AFFORDABLE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AT HOME TO BOTH COMPATIBILITY CHANGES.
UH, HOUSING WILL CONTINUE TO BE BUILT TO DEVELOP THESE RESIDENTS.
UH, THIS ARGUMENT IS USED TO SUPPORT, UM, SAYING THAT IT'LL EVENTUALLY LEAD TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT EVENTUALLY ISN'T ENOUGH HOPING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND, AND IF WE LEAVE IT UP TO CHANCE AND UP TO DEVELOPERS, UH, TRULY AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
EVEN WHEN AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS ARE INCLUDED AND NOT ENOUGH.
WE NEED MORE AT BELOW 50% MFI AND BELOW 30% MFI THE PRODUCTION OF THESE HOUSEHOLDS, UH, WITH THE LOWEST INCOME CONTINUES TO BE LEFT BEHIND AND FORGOTTEN BETWEEN 2018 AND 2022.
ONLY 363 UNITS AT 30% OR BELOW MFI OR MILL VERSUS 14,140 THROUGH 43 AT 81 TO 121% MFI AND HIGHER.
THAT'S 38 TIMES MORE THAN 30% MFI OR BELOW.
THESE PLANS ARE INVESTOR AND MARKET DRIVEN AND REALLY NEED WILL BE IMPACTED, NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN
CURRENT PROCESS IS NOT ACCESSIBLE TO THOSE WILL BE IMPACTED MOST.
SO I AIR DUE TO POSTPONE FOR COMMUNITY BASED PROCESS TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING CRISIS WITH REAL SOLUTIONS AND SUPPORT COMMUNITY POWER'S, AMENDMENTS AND OVERLAY.
AND THE NEXT SPEAKER IS CASSANDRA SOLDER GREEN.
PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
I'M A RESIDENT AND RUN FOR LIVING IN A DUPLEX IN DISTRICT NINE.
I'M SPEAKING MY OPPOSITION OF THE HOME PHASE TWO INITIATIVE.
UM, THIS INITIATIVE IS GROUNDED THE ASSUMPTION THAT INCREASE IN HOUSING SUPPLY WILL DECREASE COST, AND WE BOTH CITING STUDIES, BUT IF YOU READ THOSE STUDIES, YOU CAN SEE WHERE INITIATIVES LIKE THIS HAVE FAILED.
I BELIEVE THE SUPPORTING THIS INITIATIVE IN GOOD FAITH ARE OVERLOOKING THE REASONS THAT THIS WILL FAIL.
WHEN A FAMILY MOVES THEIR HOME, IT'S A NEWER, MORE EXPENSIVE HOUSING.
IT'S BEING ASSUMED THAT THEIR OLD HOUSE NOW, THEY GREW FOR LOWER, A LOWER ECONOMIC STATUS FAMILY TO MOVE IN AND THE HOUSE THAT THAT FAMILY MOVED THAT UP TO THEN OPEN UP
[00:30:01]
HOUSING FOR EVEN LOWER SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS FAMILY AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.THIS COULD WORK IN A PLACE WITH A STABLE POPULATION SIZE, BUT ALSO THE POPULATION IS GROWING AND WEALTHIER.
SO WHEN A FAMILY MOVES OUT OF THEIR HOMES IN A MORE EXPENSIVE HOME, ANOTHER WEALTHY FAMILY OR DEVELOPER CAN COME IN AND BUY AND UPDATE THAT HOME, WHICH THEN GENIES NEIGHBORHOODS AND PUSHES PEOPLE OUT.
INSTEAD OF CREATING THIS ASPIRATIONAL UPWARD MOBILITY, WE'RE DOING THE OFFICE LAND AND LEAVING PEOPLE MORE VULNERABLE TO BECOMING UNHOUSED.
WHAT'S HER NAME? THANK YOU MS. CROSON.
YOU, UM, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.
UM, CAROLYN, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK.
PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PURSUE WITH YOUR REMARKS.
I LIVE IN DISTRICT SEVEN ON A STREET PRONE TO HOUSE TO HOUSE FLOODING THE HOME AMENDMENTS DO NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS, ADDRESS FLOODING ISSUES, ONSITE REUSE OF WATER OR IMPACT TO THE CANOPY IN AUSTIN.
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ARE THE SECOND LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR IN CANOPY COVERAGE.
MS. CRUM, UM, THIS IS THE, UH, COMMISSIONER, LADIES LIAISON, ANDREA VERA, MY APOLOGIES, BUT WE'RE HAVING SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE YOU PAUSE WITH YOUR REMARKS AND WE'RE GONNA GO TO IN-PERSON SPEAKERS.
UH, UNTIL THIS IS RESOLVED, UH, AGAIN, MY APOLOGIES FOR INTERRUPTING YOU AND IF YOU'LL JUST, UH, PLEASE, UM, UH, HANG TIGHT AND THEN, UH, WE'LL TAKE SOME, UH, IN-PERSON SPEAKERS.
I, I DID NOT HAVE MY CHANCE TO SPEAK MR. POLLIS.
OKAY, SO WE'LL BE CALLING ONE MOMENT.
WE'RE GONNA MOVE TO IN-PERSON SPEAKERS, WE'LL BE CALLING SPEAKERS THREE AT A TIME.
UM, THE FIRST SPEAKER IS MISSAEL RAMOS, FOLLOWED BY ADAM GREENFIELD AND THEN TOM ASHLEY.
AND TOM ASHLEY HAS RECEIVED TWO EXTRA MINUTES.
DIDN'T REALIZE I WAS FIRST UP.
I AM HERE AS A COMMUNITY MEMBER IN EAST AUSTIN.
I AM HERE IN OPPOSITION OF THE CURRENT, UH, LDC, UH, RIGHTS, UH, CODE REWRITES.
AND, UM, BASICALLY I JUST WANNA START OFF BY SAYING, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU TO THE COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO COMMUNITY AND HAVE BEEN ENGAGED AND INVOLVED, UH, WITH TRYING TO WORK ON SOLUTIONS TIME AND AFTER TIME.
WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT COMMUNITY DOESN'T COME WITH SOLUTIONS AND DOESN'T COME WITH PLANS.
UM, AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS ALL ACROSS AUSTIN.
AND, UH, WE HOPE THAT YOU ACTUALLY ENGAGE WITH US AND CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION SO THAT WE CAN MAKE A MORE INCLUSIVE AUSTIN.
UM, SOME OF THE SOLUTIONS THAT FOLKS ARE GOING TO BE PROPOSING AND ONE THAT, UH, SOME OF US ARE REALLY STRONG ABOUT ARE, IS CREATING AN ANTI DISPLACEMENT, UH, AND EQUITY OVERLAY, ESSENTIALLY.
AND THIS WOULD BE FOR ALL COMMUNITIES AND FOLKS WHO ARE IN VULNERABLE AREAS, UM, THAT ARE ACTUALLY LOOKING TO GET SOME TYPE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, THIS OVERLAY WOULD ALSO HAVE UNITS THAT ARE 50% BELOW MFI, MEDIUM FAMILY INCOME SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THE DEEPEST AFFORDABILITY IN THESE VULNERABLE AREAS.
WE ALSO REQUEST THAT THERE IS A MAKING FOR, UH, ADUS THAT ARE MORE ACCESSIBLE, UM, WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACTUAL HOUSING.
SO THIS WOULD BE MANUFACTURED ADUS, THIS WOULD BE ALL OTHER, OTHER TYPES OF SOLUTIONS AS WELL.
UM, AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT FINANCING OPTIONS, UH, THAT COULD POTENTIALLY HELP, UH, LOW INCOME FAMILIES, UH, ACTUALLY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SOME OF THE SOLUTIONS THAT Y'ALL ARE PROPOSING AND PUTTING FORTH.
UM, HONESTLY,
UM, SO HONESTLY, YOU KNOW, WE, WE WANT TO, WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AND CONTINUE TO ENGAGE AND THE VOICES OF THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY NEED TO BE HEARD.
AND THESE ARE SOLUTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TESTED, HAVE BEEN SURVEYED, AND ACTUALLY HAVE DATA TO REALLY BACK THEM UP.
AND WE'RE ASKING THAT YOU ACTUALLY ENGAGE
[00:35:01]
WITH US AND CONTINUE THAT CONVERSATION.UH, GOOD EVENING, UH, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
ADAM GREENFIELD HERE FROM SAFE STREETS AUSTIN.
UM, I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF REDUCING THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
UM, WE'VE SEEN, UH, EVIDENCE, UM, ACROSS MULTIPLE STUDIES FOR A LONG TIME NOW THAT THE HUMAN, UH, PEOPLE ARE VERY SENSITIVE TO DISTANCE IN SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS.
AND BASICALLY THE CLOSER YOU ALLOW PEOPLE TO GET, THE MORE LIKELY THEY ARE TO CONNECT WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS.
UH, SO THE CURRENT STAFF PROPOSAL FOR THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK IS 15 FEET.
UH, WE ARE ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT FOR A 10 FEET, UH, UH, DEFAULT WITH ALLOWING ENCROACHMENT FOR FIVE FEET, UH, WITH PORCHES.
UH, THERE IS A LOT OF EVIDENCE THAT THESE KIND OF DISTANCES REALLY SUPERCHARGE THE ABILITY FOR NEIGHBORS TO CONNECT WITH PEOPLE WALKING BY.
AND AT RISK OF REPEATING MYSELF FROM FROM THE LAST MEETING ON THIS SUBJECT.
UH, UH, CHEAPER HOUSING IS A FORM OF WEALTH, UM, BUT ALSO, UH, COMMUNITY IS A FORM OF WEALTH TOO.
AND WHEN WE ALLOW OUR NEIGHBORS TO COME CLOSER TO EACH OTHER, UH, THEY ESSENTIALLY BECOME MORE WEALTHY BY BEING ABLE TO HELP EACH OTHER OUT AND SOCIALLY CONNECT.
UH, IT WAS VERY ENCOURAGING TO SEE IN THE WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, UH, UH, ALLOWING PORCHES AND WALKWAYS TO BE, UH, EXEMPT FROM THE MINIMUM, UH, FROM THE FRONT, UH, SETBACK, UH, IMPERVIOUS COVER RESTRICTIONS.
UH, LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS OTHER AMENDMENT HERE.
UH, I'M JUST GONNA SPEAK, UH, FOR A SECOND AS AN INDIVIDUAL AS WELL, WHEN WE WENT AROUND TOWN LOOKING AT HOMES ALL OVER THE CITY THAT ALREADY HAVE 10 FEET SETBACKS, FIVE FEET SETBACKS, UM, WE ALSO CAME ACROSS A NUMBER OF, UH, PROPERTIES ON, UH, UH, SQUARE FOOT.
LOTS, MUCH SMALLER THAN 2000 FEET, 1600, 1500.
IN FACT, THERE'S A, THERE'S A HOUSE, UH, THREE BLOCKS FROM MY HOUSE THAT IS 807 SQUARE FEET.
AND I STARTED TO THINK, AND I HONESTLY HAVE NEVER THOUGHT THIS BEFORE, WHY DO WE HAVE THESE MINIMUM, UH, REQUIREMENTS IN THE FIRST PLACE? UH, WHY DID WE, WHY DID WE GET RID OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS? AND WE HAVE MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS.
THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY THERE.
SO JUST AN OBSERVATION, BUT GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR WORK AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP.
TOM, BEFORE YOU SPEAK, UM, IS JULES KANE PRESENT? NO.
TOM, YOU'LL HAVE A TOTAL OF FOUR MINUTES TO SPEAK.
I'M VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT AND UTILITY RELATIONS FOR VOLTERRA.
UH, WE ALSO SUBMITTED SOME COMMENTS IN WRITING.
UH, SO I'LL SAVE, UH, SOME OF MY REMARKS, UM, TO NOT BE OVERLY REPETITIVE.
UM, BUT, UH, SUFFICE IT TO SAY VOLT'S BUSINESS IS FOCUSED ON ENABLING, UH, SCALED ADOPTION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES.
UH, AND I WOULD ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT OUR CUSTOMERS, INCLUDING, UH, FLEET CUSTOMERS, UH, REALLY REPRESENT THOSE SPECIFICALLY TARGETED BY THE CITY'S, UH, CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN.
UM, I WANNA THANK THE WORK THAT CITY STAFF HAVE PUT INTO DRAFTING THE CURRENT AMENDMENT AND WANT TO THANK THIS COMMISSION FOR TAKING UP THIS AMENDMENT AND CONSIDERING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO STRENGTHEN THE LINKAGE BETWEEN THE DRAFT AMENDMENT AND THE CITY'S CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN AND THE PLAN'S ELECTRIFICATION GOALS, UH, INCLUDING THE PROS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT I'VE SEEN, UH, FROM, FROM THE COMMISSION.
UH, AS EVERYONE IS PROBABLY AWARE, THE PLAN SEEKS BY 2030 TO INCREASE 50% OF TRIPS IN AUSTIN TO PUBLIC TRANSIT, BIKING, WALKING, CARPOOLING, OR OBVIATING TRAVEL ALTOGETHER, THE PLAN TARGETS SIGNIFICANT ELECTRIFICATION OF THE REMAINING VEHICLES ON THE ROAD TO ACHIEVE THE 2030 GOAL OF 40% OF ALL MILES DRIVEN TO BE ELECTRIC, TO ACHIEVE THE ADOPTION OF THE NECESSARY APPROXIMATELY 460,000 EVS, WHICH WOULD BE A 10 PLUS FOLD INCREASE FROM CURRENT ADOPTION LEVELS.
THE PLAN FOCUSES ON TRANSITIONING 100% OF PRIVATE FLEETS, INCLUDING GIG, RIDE SHARE, AND DELIVERY VEHICLE FLEETS TO ELECTRIC AND ENVISIONS, UH, THE EQUITABLE GEOGRAPHIC DEPLOYMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 40,000 CHARGING PORTS, WHICH WOULD REPRESENT A ROUGHLY 20 FOLD INCREASE FROM CURRENT DEPLOYMENT.
THE CITY'S ACTION TO ESTABLISH AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING CODE AMENDMENT IS AN IMPORTANT STEP TO SETTING THE FOUNDATION FOR BUILDING THE NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE TO ACHIEVE THE CITY'S ELECTRIFICATION GOALS.
HOWEVER, TO MAKE EV OWNERSHIP AND ELECTRIC RIDES TRULY ACCESSIBLE POLICY TO GUIDE WHERE CHARGING STATIONS ARE LOCATED AND ENSURE CHARGING AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE, UH, AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE RIDE ACCESS, UH, TO LOW INCOME
[00:40:01]
AND DIVERSE COMMUNITIES WILL BE CRITICAL.FURTHER ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY IS LIKELY NEEDED TO BALANCE DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE GOALS, INCLUDING TO COMPLEMENT THE CITY'S TRANSIT VISION STAFF'S WORK TO DEVELOP THIS CODE AMENDMENT IS A STRONG STARTING POINT AND WE RECOMMEND STRENGTHENING THE CODE AMENDMENT TO BETTER ALIGN WITH THE CITY'S CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN GOALS, AS WELL AS DEVELOPING FURTHER POLICY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING TOOLS.
UH, INDEED THE CITY'S TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION GOALS ARE UNLIKELY TO BE FULLY ACHIEVED WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE AND WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL POLICY AND A ZONING FRAMEWORK TO ENABLE THAT INVESTMENT.
UM, WHILE VOLTERRA IS GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE CODE AMENDMENT, UH, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY CONSIDER ESTABLISHING MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR ACCOMMODATING THE NEEDS OF FLEETS AND MORE FLEXIBILITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE LEVEL OF CHARGING DENSITY LIKELY NEEDED TO ACHIEVE THE CITY'S ELECTRIFICATION GOALS.
UH, WE SHARED A NUMBER OF, OF RECOMMENDATIONS IN WRITING, UM, BUT I JUST WANNA HIGHLIGHT IT A COUPLE TODAY.
UH, WE SPECIFICALLY RECOMMEND INCREASING, UH, THE LIMIT IN THE PROPOSED CODE, UH, FROM 25,000 SQUARE FEET TO 50,000 SQUARE FEET TO BETTER, UH, SUPPORT INVESTMENT CONFIDENCE AND LARGER VEHICLES AND THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FLEETS THAT OPERATE THEM.
WE ALSO SPECIFICALLY RECOMMEND REMOVING OR MODERATING THE THOUSAND FOOT DISTANCE RESTRICTION SUCH THAT IT BETTER BALANCES THE CITY'S OVERALL DENSITY VISION WITH THE LIKELY DENSITY OF CHARGERS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE CITY'S ELECTRIFICATION GOALS.
AS AN EXAMPLE, AN APPROACH TO MODERATING UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES COULD BE TO REDUCE THIS TO 500 TO 750 FEET, UH, OR ESTABLISH A MINIMUM NUMBER OF CHARGES.
YOUR TIME IS UP OR CHARGING STALLS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
NEXT SPEAKER IS RON THROWER, COMMISSIONERS.
UM, I THINK MANY OF Y'ALL HEARD ME SPEAK IN THE PAST ABOUT HOW THERE'S BEEN AN ONSLAUGHT OF CODE AMENDMENTS DONE SINCE THIS CODE WAS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE CODE AMENDMENTS HAVE TAKEN AWAY FROM DEVELOPMENT YIELDS ON PROPERTIES, AND I AM SO HAPPY TO SEE THAT WE HAVE GOT A SITUATION WHERE COMPATIBILITY ALONE IS GONNA GET RELAXED AND BE ABLE TO UNLOCK A LOT OF PROPERTIES, ESPECIALLY ALONG CORRIDORS LIKE BURNETT ROAD.
UH, STEVE OLIVER AND I DID A STUDY ON BURNETT ROAD, A MILE LONG, UH, STUDY ON BURNETT ROAD LOOKING AT PROPERTIES ABOUT HOW MUCH YIELD CAN GET DONE.
WHAT WE FOUND WAS THAT 35% OF THE PROPERTIES GOT LESS FLOOR AREA RATIO ON THEIR PROPERTY ON A REDEVELOPMENT, UM, PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF COMPATIBILITY.
AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR NOW IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE THE, MOVE THE NEEDLE IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.
WE'RE THE COMPATIBILITY CHANGES THAT ARE COMING FORWARD THAT ARE, THEY ALL ARE BRINGING FORWARD, IS MOVING THE NEEDLE BACK BALANCING ALL OF THE REGULATIONS THAT HAVE COME ON, UH, SINCE 1984.
UM, THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF WITH HOME TWO THAT IS GONNA BE, UH, IN FUTURE CODE AMENDMENTS TO HELP UNLOCK THAT EVEN MORE.
BUT AGAIN, THE COMPATIBILITY CHANGES THAT Y'ALL ARE CONSIDERING TONIGHT IS A HUGE STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR LIKE, UH, AGAIN, PROPERTIES ON BURNETT ROAD.
WE'RE GONNA SEE PROPERTIES THAT CAN ACTUALLY GET REDEVELOPED INSTEAD OF REMODELED.
YOU LOOK AT 49TH STREET TO ALLENDALE, LOOK HOW MANY PROPERTIES IN THERE COULD NOT DEVELOP THAT BECAUSE OF COMPATIBILITY.
THAT'S WHY THEY REMODELED AND NOW THEY'RE GONNA BE OPENED UP FOR OPPORTUNITY TO BRING, UH, TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT.
SO WE'VE GOT THE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES RESOLVED.
WE WOULD LIKE TO, UM, REHEAR ALL THE TELECONFERENCE SPEAKERS.
OKAY, SO, UM, FIRST SPEAKER UP IS STERLING KING.
PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
NEXT SPEAKER IS ERIC, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK.
PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? HI ERIC.
I'M SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THE NEW HOME INITIATIVE.
I THINK IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE POLICY.
THERE'S NO RESEARCH OR DATA THAT SUPPORTS THE CLAIMS TO AFFORDABILITY OF THE ADVOCATES FOR THIS PROPOSAL.
[00:45:01]
PUBLIC MANDATE AS NO SITTING MEMBER RAN ON SUCH A DRASTIC ONE SIZE FIT ALL CHANGE TO OUR LAND CODE.AS A DIRECTOR OF AUSTIN'S OLDEST GRASSROOTS ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION, I'M GREATLY DISMAYED ABOUT THE FALSE CLAIMS THAT THIS POLICY IS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY AS IS.
WITHOUT A ROBUST MECHANISM TO SAFEGUARD AGAINST FURTHER DISPLACEMENT, THIS POLICY WILL DRIVE OUR POOR NEIGHBORS FURTHER AND FURTHER FROM THE CITY DRIVING SPRAWL TO EVER GREATER DISTANCES, RESULTING IN MORE AND MORE OF OUR LANDSCAPE CONVERTED OVER TO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT.
ADDITIONALLY, THIS POLICY WILL WORSEN THE HEAT ISLAND IN EFFECT, WHICH IS THE GREATEST IMMEDIATE THREAT FROM CLIMATE CHANGE THAT WE FACE AND WILL ONLY GET WORSE AS THIS CRISIS CONTINUES TO SPIRAL.
THE POLICY AS IS WILL RESULT IN LESS TREES AND MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER, AND THEREFORE MORE DESTRUCTIVE FLASH FLOODING, LESS WATER INFILTRATION, MORE SOIL EROSION, AND A DIMINISHED NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
ONCE AGAIN, THERE IS NO DATA TO SUPPORT THE CLAIMS OR THE PROPONENTS OF THIS POLICY.
NO RESEARCH, NO DATA ONLY DOGMA POLICY WITHOUT DATA IS STUPID.
POLICY BASED ON DOGMA IS RECKLESSLY STUPID.
WE NEED MEANINGFUL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS, WHICH INCLUDES FIRST AND FOREMOST PROTECTIONS FROM DISPLACEMENT FOR US WORKING POOR WHO ARE THE BACKBONE OF THE CITY.
I URGE YOU TO DELAY THIS VOTE, SEEK MORE COMMUNITY INPUT AND WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY TO CREATE BETTER POLICY THAN THIS.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS CASSANDRA SOREEN.
CASSANDRA, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PURSUE WITH YOUR REMARKS.
I'M A RESIDENT AND RENTER LIVING IN A DUPLEX IN DISTRICT NINE.
I'M SPEAKING TONIGHT IN OPPOSITION OF HOME PHASE TWO.
THIS INITIATIVE IS GROUNDED IN THE ASSUMPTION THAT AN INCREASE IN HOUSING OR SUPPLY WILL DECREASE COST.
AND WE HEAR FOLKS CITING STUDIES TO PROVE THIS, BUT IF YOU READ THOSE STUDIES, YOU CAN SEE WHERE INITIATIVES LIKE THIS HAVE FAILED.
I BELIEVE, UH, THE COUNCIL NO SUPPORTING THIS INITIATIVE IN GOOD FAITH ARE OVERLOOKING THE REASONS THAT THIS WILL FAIL.
WHEN A FAMILY MOVES OUT OF THEIR HOME INTO NEWER, MORE EXPENSIVE HOUSING, IT'S BEING ASSUMED THAT THEIR OLD HOUSE NOW MAKES ROOM FOR A LOWER SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS FAMILY TO MOVE IN.
AND THE HOUSE THAT THAT FAMILY MOVED OUT OF CAN THEN OPEN UP FOR AN EVEN LOWER SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS FAMILY AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
THIS COULD WORK IN A PLACE WITH THE STABLE POPULATION SIZE, BUT AUSTIN'S POPULATION IS GROWING AND WEALTHIER.
SO WHEN A FAMILY MOVES OUT OF THEIR HOME INTO NEW OR MORE, A NEW OR MORE EXPENSIVE HOME, ANOTHER WEALTHY FAMILY OR DEVELOPER CAN JUST COME IN AND BUY AND UPDATE THAT HOME, WHICH THEN GENTRIFIES NEIGHBORHOODS AND PUSHES PEOPLE OUT.
SO INSTEAD OF CREATING THIS ASPIRATIONAL UPWARD MOBILITY, WE'RE DOING THE OPPOSITE AND LEAVING MORE PEOPLE VULNERABLE TO BECOMING UNHOUSED.
I'M DEEPLY CONCERNED THAT THIS INITIATIVE IS MARKET DRIVEN AND POSITIONED TO LINE THE POCKETS OF INVESTORS AT THE BARE MINIMUM.
WHERE ARE THE TRULY AFFORDABLE, THE TRULY AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS.
THESE PLANS ARE SYSTEMICALLY RACIST.
LOW INCOME BIPOC NEIGHBORHOODS WILL BE TARGETED FIRST BY DEVELOPERS BECAUSE LAND IS CHEAPER IN THE EASTERN CRESCENT GIVING HIGHER PROFIT MARGINS, PLEASE DO NOT DO MORE HARM.
DO NOT PASS HOME PHASE TWO, AS IT IS, ALLOW LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME HOMEOWNERS THE ACCESS TO FINANCING OPPORTUNITIES, MAKE ADUS MORE ACCESSIBLE, PRESERVE HOME OWNERSHIP FOR LOW INCOME HOMEOWNERS AND SUPPORT THE ANTI DISPLACEMENT OVERLAY PROPOSED BY COMMUNITY POWERED A TX.
AND THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ALEXIA CLE.
UH, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK.
PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
HELLO, MY NAME IS ALEXIA AND I'M AN ORGANIZER WITH BODA AND I'M HERE TO URGE YOU ALL TO VOTE NO ON HOME PHASE TWO AND THE CITYWIDE COMPATIBILITY CHANGES UNLESS THE COMMUNITY POWERED A TX AMENDMENTS ARE, ARE INCLUDED.
THIS IS BECAUSE AS WE'VE STATED, THESE CHANGES ARE ALL MARKET DRIVEN AND FOR INVESTORS WITH NO AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS.
SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT MEANS THAT INVESTORS WILL CONTINUE TO BUILD IN THE EASTERN CRESCENT WHERE LAND IS CHEAPER AND THEY WILL BUILD HOUSING THAT IS LUXURY AND UNAFFORDABLE FOR ANYONE THAT IS MIDDLE INCOME OR LOW INCOME AND THE BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES FROM EAST AUSTIN.
AND SO THIS WILL DRIVE GENTRIFICATION AND THE DISPLACEMENT OF THESE COMMUNITIES.
SO COMMUNITY POWERED A TX HAS WORKED WITH COUNTLESS COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND EXPERTS TO COME UP WITH SOME SOLUTIONS THAT WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE SURE THAT THOSE COMMUNITIES ARE NOT HARMED.
THIS INCLUDES AN OVERLAY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ANNIE STOCKTON, WHICH CAN PREVENT THE COMMUNITIES FROM BEING DISPLACED.
AND THIS OVERLAY WOULD GO TOWARDS THE EASTERN CRESCENT AND MAKE SURE THAT ANY HOUSING THAT IS BILLED HAS A MINIMUM OF 50% OF THE UNITS AT 30% MFI OR 50% MFI FOR THE CENSUS BLOCK GROUP.
AND THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE UPZONING
[00:50:01]
PROPOSED IN THE HOME PHASE TWO OR THE CITYWIDE COMPATIBILITY CHANGES WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE EASTERN CRESCENT UNLESS THERE IS THAT ACTUAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT IS BUILT.ADDITIONALLY, WE ARE ASKING FOR IT TO BE EASIER AND TO PROVIDE DIFFERENT CREATIVE FINANCE AND OPTIONS SO THAT LOW INCOME BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES CAN ACTUALLY BUILD ADUS.
BECAUSE THE DATA RIGHT NOW SHOWS THAT MOST OF THE A DU IS JUST BUILT BY LLCS AND THEY'RE BUILDING IT TO PROFIT, THEY'RE BUILDING IT FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS NOT FOR THE COMMUNITY.
AND SO WE REALLY HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES, WHO ARE WE BUILDING AUSTIN FOR? IS IT JUST FOR THE RICH OR IS IT ALSO FOR THE COMMUNITIES OF COLOR THAT HAVE CALLED THIS PLACE HOME FOR GENERATIONS? AND IF WE WANT TO BUILD AN AUSTIN FOR EVERYONE, THEN WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE AMENDMENTS ARE PASSED, THAT THERE IS AN ANTI DISPLACEMENT OVERLAY.
AND THE NEXT SPEAKER UP IS IRENE KART.
UM, IRENE, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK IRENE, IF YOU'RE THERE, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
I AM VERY HAPPY TO BE WITH YOU HERE TONIGHT.
I'M SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THE HOME INITIATIVE PHASE TWO.
WE HAVE NOT THOUGHT THROUGH THIS VERY CAREFULLY IN TERMS OF THE ENVIRONMENT, IN TERMS OF TREES IN OUR CITY, IN TERMS OF THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT, AND ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO KEEP OUR CITY TOGETHER, THE TEACHERS, THE NURSES, THE ROOFERS, THE PEOPLE WHO TAKE CARE OF LAWNS ALL THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
THEY LIVE, MANY OF THEM NEARBY NOW, BUT THIS WILL DRIVE THEM FURTHER AWAY.
ALTHOUGH EACH ONE OF YOU HAS ONLY LIMITED POWER, YOU DO HAVE POWER TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT, TO MAKE A SUGGESTION.
I URGE YOU TO VERY MUCH SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE A SPECIAL ZONING CATEGORY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, SOMETHING THAT WOULD SERVE AS A PILOT PROGRAM SO WE GET SOME DATA AND THAT WE DO NO HARM IN OUR CITY.
THIS, THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU CAN DO, IS DO NO HARM TO THIS BEAUTIFUL GREAT CITY WE LIVE IN.
NOW, I GREW UP IN A GREAT CITY, NEW YORK CITY, IN A MIDDLE CLASS HOME WITH A VEGETABLE GARDEN IN THE BACKYARD AND A LAWN OUT FRONT AND A NICE SETBACK.
THAT NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN PROTECTED BY NEW YORK CITY.
AS MANY NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE GREAT CITIES PROTECT THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.
I ASK YOU KEEP AUSTIN AS A GREAT CITY.
IT IS NOW DON'T LET US BE MOTIVATED BY SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE, THE WELLBEING OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE AND THE WELLBEING OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
AND THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ILEANA MADANO.
PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
A CURRENT MASTER CANDIDATE IN THE CTX SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK AND ALSO AN INTERN WITH GAVA AND COMMUNITY POWERED A TX.
I'M SPEAKING AGAINST THE CURRENT PROPOSED CHANGES.
I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT COMMUNITY.
WE DID NOT HEAR THE BEGINNING OF YOUR SENTENCE.
I AM AN INTERN WITH GAVA AND COMMUNITY POWERED A TX.
I'M SPEAKING AGAINST THE CURRENT PROPOSED CHANGES.
I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT COMMUNITY POWEREDS AMENDMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAKE ADUS MORE ACCESSIBLE TO LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME HOMEOWNERS PRESERVATION OF HOMEOWNERSHIP FOR LOW INCOME HOMEOWNERS AND SUPPORT THE ANTI DISPLACEMENT OVERLAY PROPOSED BY COMMUNITY POWERED A TX THAT IS GOING TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PRODUCE TRULY AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE HIGH RISK OF DISPLACEMENT.
SOMETHING I'VE NOTICED IS THAT THOSE IN SUPPORT OF THESE CHANGES ARE SAYING THAT
[00:55:01]
THIS WILL INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.BUT THIS BEGS THE QUESTION AFFORDABLE FOR WHO WITH LITTLE TO NO AFFORDABLE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS IN HOME PHASE TWO AND PROPOSED COMPATIBILITY CHANGES, THE HOUSING, UH, WILL BE CONTINUED TO BE BUILT FOR THE WEALTHIEST RESIDENTS IN AUSTIN.
THIS ARGUMENT OF TRICKLE DOWN OR FILTERING THEORY IS OFTEN USED TO SUPPORT UP ZONING CHANGES, UH, THAT MORE HOUSING WILL EVENTUALLY LEAD TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT EVENTUALLY ISN'T ENOUGH.
THIS HOPING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NAIVE AND IF WE LEAVE IT UP TO CHANCE AND UP TO DEVELOPERS, TRULY AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
UH, WE NEED MORE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS THAT INCLUDE MFI BELOW 50% MFI AND BELOW 30% MFI.
THE PRODUCTION OF THESE, UM, HOUSEHOLDS IS, UH, CONTINUES TO BE LEFT BEHIND AND FORGOTTEN.
UH, BETWEEN 2018 AND 2022, ONLY 363 UNITS WERE BUILT AT 30% OR BELOW MFI WHILE THERE WAS 14,143 UNITS BUILT AT 81 TO 121% MFI, THAT'S 38 TIMES MORE UNITS.
THESE PLANS ARE INVESTED IN MARKET DRIVEN AND WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS COMMUNITY-LED SOLUTIONS AND INPUT.
I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT COMMUNITY POWERED AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, AND THE INSIDE DISPLACEMENT OVERLAY.
AND THE COMMUNITY DESERVES TO BE INCLUDED AND HEARD, UH, WITH MEETING TIMES DURING THE WORKING WEEK AND WORKING DAYS.
SO I URGE YOU TO POSTPONE FOR COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS WITH REAL SOLUTIONS AND SUPPORT COMMUNITY POWERED A TX AMENDMENT AND OVERLAY.
AND THAT CONCLUDES THE TELECONFERENCE SPEAKERS.
WE'LL NOW BE SWITCHING BACK TO IN-PERSON SPEAKERS.
UM, WE'RE GONNA CALL THREE AT A TIME.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ROBIN, RATHER, FOLLOWED BY CHRISTOPHER PAGE, FOLLOWED BY CHRISTOPHER PAIGE AND RITA THOMPSON.
WE HAVE ONE MORE TELECONFERENCE SPEAKER, UH, CAROLYN AND CRUM.
UH, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
UM, AM I NEXT TO SPEAK OR NOT? HELLO? YES, MS. RUM, PLEASE, UH, PROCEED.
UM, I LIVE IN DISTRICT SEVEN ON A STREET PRONE TO HOUSE TO HOUSE FLOODING THE HOME AMENDMENTS DO NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS FLOODING ISSUES, ONSITE REUSE OF WATER OR IMPACT TO THE TREE CANOPY IN AUSTIN.
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ARE THE SECOND LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO CANOPY COVERAGE.
TREES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO THE URBAN FOREST, REDUCING FLOODING, REDUCING HEAT, REDUCING WATER POLLUTION, AND COMBATING CLIMATE CHANGE.
THE 2021 CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN HAS A GOAL OF ACHIEVING A 50% CITYWIDE TREE CANOPY COVER BY 2050.
PRESENTLY, THE CITY HAS ABOUT 40% COVER, NOT 50, AND WITH HOME THAT GOAL WOULD BE IN JEOPARDY.
PLEASE ADD CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS TO TRULY PROTECT AREAS, AREAS WITH TREES FROM BEING FURTHER DEVELOPMENT, FROM BEING FURTHER DEVELOPED IF IT WOULD REQUIRE TAKING DOWN PROTECTED TREES AND ALSO REQUIRE THAT RAINWATER STAY ON PROPERTY AND BE REUSED.
IN ADDITION TO INADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES, HOME CATERS TO INVESTORS AND DOESN'T REQUIRE TRULY AFFORDABLE DENSITY, MIDDLE AND LOW INCOME, HOMEOWNERS AND RENTERS WILL BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED.
ENTITLEMENTS TO DEVELOPERS, WHICH INCREASE THE MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTIES WILL ONLY ACCELERATE DISPLACEMENT OF LOWER INCOME RESIDENTS.
POLICE SUPPORT COMMUNITY POWERED AT X'S AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO COMPATIBILITY, REDUCING COMPATIBILITY WOULD PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE FOR DEMOLITION OF CURRENTLY AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS FOR LARGER MARKET RATE DEVELOPMENTS.
ADDITIONALLY, SHADING FROM VERY TALL PROPERTIES WOULD HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON NEARBY BUSINESSES AND HOMES WITH SOLAR INSTALLATIONS, LANDSCAPING AND GARDENS, WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT IN AUSTIN.
PLEASE DO NOT REDUCE COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.
PLEASE POSTPONE THIS PROCESS FOR MORE PUBLIC INPUT AND REAL SOLUTIONS TO AFFORDABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.
AND THE NEXT SPEAKERS ARE ROBIN RATHER.
CHRISTOPHER PAGE AND RITA THOMPSON RITA'S DONATING HER TIME.
UH, ROBIN, IF YOU'RE HERE AND CHRISTOPHER, WOULD YOU PLEASE COME UP?
[01:00:02]
OKAY.THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS ARE PETER BRENTON, JASON HASKINS, AND MICHAEL WADDLE.
I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT EIGHT.
DEAR COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
I URGE YOU TO, UH, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS.
AND THIS IS NOT MY, MY SLIDES JUST TO FYI.
UM, FIRST OFF, PLEASE REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO 1000 SQUARE FEET OR LOWER.
THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REGULATION ACTS AS A BARRIER TO ENTRY TO A NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THOSE THAT CANNOT AFFORD A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF LAND.
WHILE I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD BE ELIMINATED ENTIRELY IF A DEVELOPMENT CAN SATISFY THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS, A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION, UH, OVER THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL IS MORE THAN WELCOMED.
I SHARE THE SAME OPINION ON COMPATIBILITY.
IT IS A FUNDAMENTALLY INCOMPATIBLE, IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE VALUES THAT WE ESPOUSE.
IT PUSHES AWAY MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING TO THE BENEFIT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING OR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
ESPECIALLY, ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT IS THAT ANY NEW POTENTIAL UNITS THAT ARE FREED UP BY ELIMINATING COMPATIBILITY ARE DISPLACEMENT FREE.
WHILE IT SHOULD BE ELIMINATED ENTIRELY, I WELCOME ANY REDUCTION AND THE CURRENT CHANGE FINALLY BRINGS US IN LINE WITH OUR PEER CITIES ON SETBACKS.
I SUPPORT SAFE STREETS' AUSTIN'S PROPOSAL AND WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT WHILE PORCHES ARE VITALLY IMPORTANT TO OUR SOCIAL FABRIC, WE SHOULD ALSO BE THINKING ABOUT OUR BACKSIDES OR BACKYARDS ON SMALLER LOTS REDUCED SETBACKS CAN ALLOW FOR A LARGER BACKYARD AND IT EASES CONSIDERATIONS FOR SITING HOMES WHICH WOULD REDUCE OVERALL TREE REMOVAL ON NEW DEVELOPMENTS.
LASTLY, I WANNA MAKE CLEAR THAT I AND OTHERS, UH, THAT I KNOW WELCOME AMENDMENTS TO THESE POLICIES THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE DISPLACEMENT RISK FOR VULNERABLE RESIDENTS AND PREVENT AFFLUENT POWERFUL RE NEIGHBORHOODS FROM OPTING OUT OF THESE POLICIES.
IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE BUILD HOUSING WHILE WE PROTECT VULNERABLE RESIDENTS.
TO BE CLEAR, THESE POLICIES ARE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT WE CAN DO BETTER FOR, FOR OUR CURRENT RESIDENTS WHILE NOT DISADVANTAGING OUR FUTURE RESIDENTS BY NOT BUILDING HOUSING AND REPEATING THE FAILURES OF THE PAST 40 YEARS.
UM, YOU HAVE ONE PERSON DONATING TIME TO YOU, SO YOU WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF FOUR MINUTES.
UM, I FEEL LIKE I NEED TO CLARIFY, UM, SOME POSITION THAT, THAT I'VE TAKEN THAT HOME ONE AND HOME TWO WILL NOT INDUCE MARKET DRIVEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING BELOW 120% MFI.
THAT IS A RED HERRING AND A STRAW MAN.
THERE ARE OTHER TOOLS AND EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THAT MANY OF YOU KNOW, KNOW HOW HARD I AND MY COLLEAGUES WORK TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
AND I'M TIRED OF THE HYPOCRISY OF THE SAME PEOPLE BLOCKING THESE NECESSARY LDC TOOLS, ALSO BLOCKING EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR EFFORTS TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UH, FOR THE RECORD, I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND RIGHT NOW WEARING MY ROMAN CATHOLIC HAT.
UH, THE VERY NOTION THAT PROPERTY RIGHTS SHOULD EXTEND BEYOND ONE ONE'S PROPERTY 75 FEET, LET ALONE 540 FEET FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBJECTIVE PREFERENCE TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE COMMON GOOD IS ABHORRENT.
THE CATECHISM SAYS THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY ACQUIRED AND OR RECEIVED IN A JUST WAY DOES NOT DO AWAY WITH THE FACT THAT OF THE ORIGINAL GIFT OF THE EARTH TO THE WHOLE OF MANKIND, THE UNIVERSAL DESTINATION OF GOODS REMAINS PRIMORDIAL.
EVEN IF THE PROMOTION OF THE COMMON GOOD REQUIRES RESPECT FOR THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY POSSESSING GOODS AND LAND OBLIGES THEIR POSSESSORS TO EMPLOY THEM IN, IN WAYS THAT WILL BENEFIT THE GREATEST NUMBER.
NOW I'LL PUT ON MY ARCHITECT HAT.
UM, SPEAKING AS THE, UM, CHAIR OF THE HOUSING ADVOCACY COMMITTEE WITH A I A AUSTIN HOMOGENEITY IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE PLANNING GOAL.
IT IS SIMPLY NOT ACCEPTABLE TO REQUIRE THAT ANYONE'S RESIDENCE BE PROTECTED, SEPARATED, OR SEGREGATED FROM SOMEONE ELSE'S RESIDENCE SIMPLY BECAUSE THEIR INCOME OR LIFESTYLE, WHETHER BY CHOICE OR CIRCUMSTANCE, HAPPENS TO BE DIFFERENT OR DISTASTEFUL TO A HOMEOWNER BECAUSE THEY OWN LAND OR THEY WERE THERE FIRST.
SO IT WAS VERY ENCOURAGING TO SEE, UH, THAT THE RESOLUTION, UH, INITIATING THESE CHANGES, UH, HOW, HOW DO I PROGRESS THE SLIDE? OKAY.
UH, SET LIMITS, UM, SAID THAT WE SHOULD BE REDUCING THE RE THE, THE MINIMUM FEE OF THE NO BUILD SETBACKS SO THAT THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE EQUAL TO OR LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT APPLIES TO SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES.
THIS ESTABLISHES THE PRINCIPLE THAT A HIGHER DENSITY IMPACTED PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE PREVENTED FROM BUILDING WHAT A LOWER DENSITY TRIGGERING PROPERTY CAN BUILD.
[01:05:01]
UNFORTUNATELY, THE DRAFT ORDINANCE ENTIRELY DISREGARD TO THIS PRINCIPLE LEAVING THE NO BUILD BUFFER AT 25 FEET AND DOES EVEN THE EXACT OPPOSITE BY RE REMOVING THE SMALL SETBACK REDUCTIONS, YOU MUST FIX THIS, UH, TO LOOK AT WHAT THIS MEANS IN PRACTICE.WE NEED TO EXAMINE THE DIAGRAM USED IN THE STAFF REPORT SLIDE.
UM, WHETHER INTENTIONAL OR NOT, THIS IS WILDLY INCORRECT AND IRRESPONSIBLY MISLEADING.
LOOKING AT IT SCALED CORRECTLY, THIS SHOWS THE MINIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE OF THE COMMERCIAL OR THE MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE OF THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPARED TO AN ABSURDLY SMALL SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE.
INSTEAD OF COMPARING THE MAXIMUM BUILDABLE AREA OF BOTH MORE RIDICULOUS IS THE FACT THAT THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE HAS A 56 FOOT WIDE SETBACK, 110 TIMES THE MINIMUM ALLOWED THAT WOULD FIT AN ENTIRE OTHER LOT BETWEEN THESE TWO BUILDINGS.
WHY IS THIS A PROBLEM? WELL, 25 FOOT FEET SEEMS SO REASONABLE COMPARED TO THE SINGLE FAMILY SETBACK.
THIS OBSCURES THE FACT THAT THE SETBACK IS ARE ACTUALLY FIVE TIMES LARGER FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
HERE IS THE ADJUSTED VERSION WITH WHAT'S ACTUALLY POSSIBLE TO BUILD.
NOW THERE IS SOME, UM, AND THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF WE FOLLOWED THE PRINCIPLE OF THE RESOLUTION.
NOW THERE IS SOME CONFUSION REGARDING THE BUFFER.
AS THE ORDINANCE SAYS, IT MUST COMPLY WITH 25 8 700, BUT AS FAR AS I CAN SEE, THAT SECTION DOES NOT EXIST.
AND ALLOWING PARKING WITHIN 25 FEET DOES NOT CHANGE, DOES NOT FIX THE FUNDAMENTAL INJUSTICE OF COMPAT BIGOTRY.
NOW THERE REMAINS A FLAW IN THIS DIAGRAM BY THE VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT IT'S TWO DIMENSIONAL AND THE BUILDINGS ON THE COMMERCIAL ZONING ARE MORE LIKELY TO BUILD TO THE FULL HEIGHT FOR THE FULL LENGTH OF THE SETBACK.
UH, THIS IS MUCH LESS COMMON IN
SO I DO THINK THERE IS SOME REASONABLE ROOM FOR COMPROMISE AND FOR EXAMPLE, LIMITING BUILDING COVERAGE WITHIN THE BUFFER TO SOMETHING LIKE 75%.
IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO REMOVE COMPATIBILITY COMPLETELY, WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE RESOLUTIONS DESTRUCTIONS AND MAKE LESS RESTRICTIVE ZONING ZONING DISTRICTS LESS RESTRICTIVE, CRAZY, AND TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE CAN HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE MORE DIVERSE AND INTEGRATED IN THEIR BUILDING FORMS AND TYPES AS WELL AS THEIR INHABITANTS.
I ALSO HAVE, UM, INFORMATION ON THE, UH, FIRE WAS THAT THANK YOU JASON.
UM, I SEE THAT TWO SPEAKERS HAVE DONATED TIME TO YOU, ERIC PACE AND SARAH SMITH.
YOU'LL HAVE A TOTAL OF SIX MINUTES TO SPEAK.
I'M THE LAND USE CHAIR FOR THE EAST CESAR CHAVEZ NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM.
AND I'M SUPPORTED TODAY BY ECC MEMBER SARAH SMITH AND ERIC PACE, UH, CHAIR OF THE ECC GROUP.
SO EAST AEN AND THE EAST CESAR CHAVEZ NEIGHBORHOOD, WE WILL BE ONE OF THE MOST IMPACTED AREAS OF TOWN BY THE NEW HOME INITIATIVE AND COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS.
WE'VE ALREADY SEEN TREMENDOUS GROWTH AND WITH THESE CODE CHANGES WE ANTICIPATE THAT TO ONLY INCREASE.
WE'RE GENERALLY IN FAVOR OF CODE CHANGES THAT PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE HOUSING AND SPECIFICALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE CODE CHANGES THAT ACHIEVE THIS.
UM, BUT SPEAKING TODAY WE'RE IN OPPOSITION OR RATHER WE'RE REACHING OUT FOR SOME AMENDMENTS, UH, TO THE DRAFT LANGUAGE, UH, TO PROVIDE MORE BASIC PROTECTIONS FOR OUR MOST IMPACTED RESIDENTS.
SO IN THE ECC THERE ARE AROUND 171 SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES THAT DIRECTLY TRIGGER THE COMPATIBILITY SETBACK.
OF THESE 130 OF THEM ARE ACROSS A PUBLIC ALLEY AND 41 OF THEM SHARE A COMMON PROPERTY LINE.
SO WHY IS THIS SIGNIFICANT? FIRST WITH THE HOME INITIATIVE, THE ALLEYS OF EAST AUSTIN WILL BE AND ARE ALREADY HOME TO MANY OF OUR RESIDENTS.
WE ANTICIPATE AS MANY AS 200 PLUS HOUSEHOLDS CALLING THE ALLEYS ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, THEIR FRONT DOOR IN THE FUTURE, JUST IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE A NEW CODE LANGUAGE REQUIRES COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO SHARE A PROPERTY LINE FOR THE ALREADY STREAMLINED SCREENING NOISE AND DESIGN STANDARDS.
THESE 130 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ALONG ALLEYS WOULD NOT RECEIVE THESE BASIC PROTECTIONS FOR ISSUES SUCH AS NOISE AND LIGHT POLLUTION.
LOOKING ACROSS THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF AUSTIN, IT IS PREDOMINANTLY EAST AUSTIN, WHICH WITH ITS VAST NETWORK OF ALLEYS THAT WILL BE IMPACTED BY THIS EXCLUSION.
TO ADD TO THAT, THESE PROPERTIES ALSO DO NOT GET THE BENEFIT OF THE SUGGESTED LANDSCAPING BUFFER WITHIN THAT COMPATIBILITY SETBACK ZONE.
AND SO WHEN WE LOOK AT, UH, A SIMPLE CARTOON OF WHAT COMPATIBILITY LOOKS LIKE, UH, AND NOT TO SCALE OF COURSE, UM, WHAT COMPATIBILITY LOOKS LIKE WITH AN ALLEY OR WITHOUT, UM, OUR QUESTION IN LOOKING FOR AMENDMENTS IS TO CREATE A CONDITION THAT'S EQUITABLE TO BOTH CONDITIONS.
SO FOR THE MAJORITY OF OUR RESIDENTS WHO ARE IMPACTED DIRECTLY BY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT NEXT TO PUBLIC ALLEYS AS WRITTEN, THEY WOULD RECEIVE NO BUFFER LANDSCAPE, NO SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, NO NOISE REQUIREMENTS, AND LIMITED DESIGN STANDARDS.
[01:10:01]
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES WOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME BETWEEN THE TWO CONDITIONS, BUT ONE IS AFFORDED WITH EQUITABLE DESIGN STANDARDS AND THE OTHER IS NOT FURTHER.THE REQUIREMENT TO SCREEN THE VIEW FROM THE PROPERTY LINE DOES NOT ACTUALLY PRODUCE SCREENING FOR ROOFTOP MECHANICAL ISSUE AND MECHANICAL NOISE HAS BEEN ONE OF THE PREDOMINANT ISSUES THAT WE'VE FACED AS A NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.
SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A NEW PROJECT AT 1515 EAST CESAR CHAVEZ.
AND THIS MATCHES EXACTLY WITH THE INTENT OF THE CURRENT DRAFT OF THE CODE.
AND SO IF YOU'RE STANDING AT YOUR FENCE AND YOU LOVE TO HANG OUT YOUR AT YOUR FENCE ALL THE TIME, YOU NEVER SEE THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.
IF YOU TAKE 10 FEET BACK AND STEP INTO YOUR YARD, YOU SEE THE ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.
AND SO WHAT YOU SEE ON THIS PROJECT, THESE ARE FIVE 50 TON OF ROOFTOP MECHANICAL UNITS POINTED DIRECTLY AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
EACH ONE OF THEM PRODUCES PROBABLY AROUND 85 DECIBELS OF SOUND PRESSURE AT THEIR MAXIMUM WHEN TURNED ON FULL BLAST.
WHICH LEADS US TO OUR NEXT RECOMMENDATION.
THIS CURRENT SOUND LEVELS IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE, UH, NEED TO BE REVISITED.
I WOULD SAY THEY'RE ABOUT AS OUTDATED AS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SO AS A NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP, WE OFTEN MEET WITH, UH, RESTAURANT AND BAR OWNERS WHO SEEK TO HAVE AMPLIFIED OUTDOOR MUSIC PERMITS, AND WE APPROVE MANY OF THOSE PERMITS FOR 70 DECIBEL LIMITS WITH SET HOURS TO ENSURE QUIET HOURS FOR OUR RESIDENTS.
MEANWHILE, MECHANICAL UNITS RUN 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK.
UH, I KNOW THERE WAS A GREAT BENCHMARKING PROCESS TO LOOK AT THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS, AND WE'VE ALREADY STARTED TAKING A LOOK AT SOME OF THE SIMILAR CITIES.
CITY OF DALLAS IS 56 DECIBELS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, 70 IN INDUSTRIAL.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, OUR DENSE METROPOLIS IS 42 TO 45 DECIBELS PER HVA EQUIPMENT AND MANY OTHER JURISDICTIONS ARE IN THAT 50 TO 55 DECIBEL RANGE WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS FOR DAYTIME AND NIGHTTIME.
SO IN SUMMARY, HERE IS A, UH, UH, OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOME, I THINK SIMPLE EDITS OF THE COMPATIBILITY CODE, WHICH WOULD REALLY IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL RESIDENTS IN AUSTIN.
OUR GOAL IS NOT TO SADDLE DEVELOPERS WITH ADDITIONAL COSTS OR RECOMMEND THINGS THAT WOULD HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR HOUSING SUPPLY.
UM, AND SO THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE ONE TO REWRITE 25 DASH TWO DASH 10 63 TO APPLY TO TRIGGERING PROPERTIES ACROSS PUBLIC ALLEYS.
SO WHAT IF YOU HAVE AN ALLEY RIGHT NOW AS IT'S WRITTEN, UH, LIGHT WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE SCREENED, IT COULD JUST SHINE DIRECTLY INTO YOUR HOUSE, BUT IF YOU HAVE A SHARED PROPERTY LINE, THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
THE NEXT IS TO REVISE THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS TO ACTUALLY SCREEN ROUGH ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.
TYPICALLY, IF YOU CAN'T SEE THE EQUIPMENT, YOU CAN'T HEAR IT, IT WOULD, AND THIS WOULD REALLY HELP SOLVE ITEM NUMBER THREE, AND THIS WOULD REALLY TO BE REVISITING THE NOISE LEVEL LIMITS, UM, THROUGHOUT THE SOUND ORDINANCE TO A LEVEL THAT'S COMPATIBLE, COMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL USE.
AND ALSO JUST THINKING ABOUT AS WE ENCOURAGE MORE AND MORE DENSE INFILL WHAT THAT QUALITY OF LIFE IS, WHAT THE QUALITY OF OUR BUILT ENVIRONMENT IS.
UM, AND WE BELIEVE THAT PROVIDING INCREASED DENSITY AND HOUSING OPTIONS CAN GO HAND IN HAND WITH CREATING AN EQUITABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL AUSTINITES AND ESPECIALLY THOSE MOST IMPACTED BY THESE CODE CHANGES.
UM, AND IF ANYBODY HAS ANY FOLLOW UP, UH, PLEASE REACH OUT, GET IN TOUCH WITH US.
I KNOW WE'VE REACHED OUT TO Y'ALL AND IT'D BE GREAT TO, UH, TRY TO CRAFT A CODE THAT ADDRESSES THESE CONCERNS AND MAKES A BETTER.
UM, THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS ARE CHRIS GANNON, CELINE RENDON, AND CARMEN YEZ.
HELLO, MY NAME IS CHRIS GANNON.
I'M THE CO-CHAIR FOR AUSTIN'S A I A HOUSING ADVOCACY GROUP.
UM, I'M HERE TO SUPPORT, UH, HOME PHASE TWO AND COMPATIBILITY REFORM.
UM, I'M STRONGLY IN SUPPORT OF A REDUCED, UH, MINIMUM LOT.
UH, 2000 SQUARE FEET IS, UM, AT THE HIGHEST END OF WHAT, UH, UM, THE RESOLUTION CALLED FOR.
SO I THINK THAT WE COULD LOOK FOR SOMETHING SMALLER, UM, IF WE NEEDED A MINIMUM LOT SIZE AT ALL.
BUT IF WE DO, UH, SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1500 AND 1800 I THINK IS GOOD.
UM, I THINK THAT ALSO, UM, UH, THIS WAS KIND OF IN WHAT JASON WAS ABOUT TO SHOW THAT, UH, HE GOT CUT OFF, BUT IN THOSE, UH, SUBDIVISIONS WITH THE INTERNAL LOT LINES, WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT THOSE SETBACKS ARE.
SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A FIVE FOOT SETBACK BETWEEN BUILDINGS.
IF THE BUILDING IS NOT DIRECTLY ON THE LOT LINE, THE BUILDING CODES, UH,
[01:15:01]
TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, UM, A BUILDING SEPARATION.SO IF WE JUST LET THE BUILDING CODES HANDLE IT, THERE IS PROVISIONS FOR IF YOU WANNA PUT YOUR BUILDINGS CLOSER TOGETHER, HOW YOU FIRE RATE THE WALLS, HOW YOU FIRE RATE YOUR PROJECTION OR YOUR PRO UM, YOUR ROOFS AND ALL THIS STUFF.
SO IT'S, IT'S COVERED IN THE CODE.
WE DON'T NEED TO ZONE FOR IT AS WELL.
SO I THINK THAT IF WE HAVE A ZERO LOT LINE FOR ALL INTERNAL, UM, NEWLY SUBDIVIDED LOT LINES, UH, THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A LOT MORE HOUSING.
UM, UM, I AM IN STRONG SUPPORT OF A LOW INTEREST LENDING PROGRAM.
I KNOW THERE'S SEVERAL, UH, PROPOSITIONS OUT THERE.
UM, THIS WOULD BE AN ANTI DISPLACEMENT ACT.
I THINK IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO GET SOMETHING LIKE THAT ON THE BOOKS.
UM, UH, AND, UH, I AM STRONGLY IN SUPPORT OF SAFE STREET'S PROPOSAL TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS TO 10 FEET WITH A FIVE FOOT PORCH ZONE.
UM, I THINK IT'D BE REALLY NICE TO HAVE A, A NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, FULLY BUILT OUT WITH PORCHES AND NEIGHBORS AND EVERYTHING.
HELLO, MY NAME IS CELINE RENDON AND I RESIDE IN DISTRICT EIGHT AND I'VE BEEN LIVING AUSTIN FOR OVER SEVEN YEARS NOW.
I ORIGINALLY CAME TO UT STUDIED ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND IMMEDIATELY SAW HOW STUDENTS WERE BEING TAUGHT THE LEGACIES OF INSTITUTIONAL RACISM AND PLANNING EFFORTS PERPETUATED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN WITH NO TRUE ANALYSIS OF THE LIVED REALITIES FOR THE WORKING POOR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR IN AUSTIN.
AFTER GRADUATING, I WORKED AT THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
I HELPED LEAD THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S FIRST CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN AND EARLY RESILIENCE PLANNING EFFORTS WITH THE OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY AS THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SPECIALIST, I WAS A PART OF ALL THE ADVISORY GROUPS.
I FACILITATED MOST, IF NOT ALL, OF THE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT FOR THE PLAN AS WE DEVELOPED GOALS AND STRATEGIES FOR THE CITY TO TAKE THE LEAD IN CLIMATE EQUITY FOR THE FIRST TIME.
WHAT WERE THE BIGGEST CONCERNS AND PRIORITIES FOR PARENTS, STUDENTS, FAMILIES, AND YOUTH AFFORDABILITY IN 2019 LEADING INTO THE PANDEMIC, PEOPLE WERE CONSTANTLY SHARING ABOUT THEIR STRUGGLES TO AFFORD TO LIVE IN AUSTIN, AND THE SHARED FEELING THAT THE CITY TOKENIZES THEIR PARTICIPATION ONLY TO MARKET IDEAS THAT DO NOT ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSES OF DISPLACEMENT AND LOSS OF CULTURE HERE IN THE CITY THEY HOPE TO HOLD ONTO.
IT'S DISAPPOINTING TO SEE THE CITY AND STAFF NOT PUT TO TEETH ANY REAL POLICIES OR SOLUTIONS THAT ADDRESS THESE AFFORDABILITY CONCERNS OF LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES, BUT RATHER CATERS TO THE WEALTHY ELITE.
WE SAY ALL THE NICE BUZZWORDS HERE IN AUSTIN TO MARKET THESE FALSE SOLUTIONS AT THE EXPENSE OF LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, AND WE'RE STILL NOT GETTING IT RIGHT.
AS FOLKS HAVE MENTIONED, WE SAW WITH HOME PHASE ONE THAT EVEN STAFF HAVE AGREED WAS RUSHED, THAT THERE WAS NO ROOM FOR OUR CONCERNS TO BE HEARD.
MOST OF THE SPEAKERS AT DECEMBER 7TH HEARING VOTED AGAINST HOME AND A HUNDRED MORE PEOPLE SPOKE AGAINST THAN FOUR.
AND NONE OF THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY COMMUNITY POWERED A TX WERE CONSIDERED THE CURRENT PROCESS.
NOW FOR HOME PHASE TWO, THE EAU OVERLAYING COMPATIBILITY CHANGES IS COMPLETELY INADEQUATE.
TWO, PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS DURING THE WORKDAY, UM, WHERE THE FOLKS MOST IMPACTED BY ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS HAVE THE LEAST TIME TO ENGAGE SUPPORT COMMUNITY POWERED AT X'S AMENDMENTS TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S VULNERABLE TO GENTRIFICATION, AND THE ALTERNATIVES TO REQUIRE AFFORDABILITY.
WE'VE DONE THE WORK, WE'VE DONE THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, AND WE'VE CRAFTED REAL SOLUTIONS.
UH, I WANNA FIRST THANK YOU ALL, UH, FOR YOUR SERVICE AND TIME ON THE COMMISSION.
I'VE BEEN IN YOUR SHOES SOMETIMES ALONGSIDE A COUPLE OF YOU, UH, AND WE'VE ALL GIVEN A LOT TO THIS CONVERSATION.
WE'VE ALL GIVEN A LOT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE CRITICISM THAT YOU CONTINUE TO HEAR IS AROUND AFFORDABILITY.
I'M GLAD TO HEAR SOMEBODY WHO'S A PROPONENT ADMIT THAT IT'S NOT ABOUT AFFORDABILITY, BUT UNFORTUNATELY THAT IS THE URGENCY THAT WE ARE ALL FEELING AND THAT WE SEEM TO BE CALLED TO AGAIN AND AGAIN TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION.
UM, BUT WHAT WE REALLY WANT IS TRUE AFFORDABILITY, QUALITY OF LIFE AND DIGNITY, NOT GIVING AWAY OUR HOUSING ECOSYSTEM TO THE CASINO OF PRIVATE EQUITY, WHICH DISCRIMINATES BY INCOME AND RACE.
WE WANT A DENSE, WALKABLE CITY, BUT WE WANNA HAVE WATER TO DRINK.
WE WANT TRANSIT THAT'S ACTUALLY ACCESSIBLE TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DEPENDING ON IT.
RIGHT NOW, WE WANT LESS TRAFFIC, WHICH MEANS WE HAVE TO HAVE MIXED INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS.
OTHERWISE WE'RE JUST GONNA FORCE ALL THE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD THIS DEVELOPMENT TO SPRAWL.
WE WANNA MITIGATE THE HARM OF FLOODING AND HEAT, WHICH MEANS WE HAVE TO LIMIT IMPERVIOUS COVER.
THIS IS A PLANNING COMMISSION, NOT A DEVELOPER'S COMMISSION.
THIS IS A COMMISSION THAT'S SET UP TO HELP US PLAN THIS CITY.
WHERE'S THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT ON DB 90? WE NEED
[01:20:01]
TO SEE IT.WHAT CAN YOU DO RIGHT NOW? YOU CAN REQUIRE AFFORDABILITY WITH AN OVERLAY BEFORE YOU GIVE AWAY ALL THIS DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.
YOU CAN ASSESS THE LOCALIZED FLOODING AND THE URBAN CANOPY DISPARITIES BEFORE REMOVING REGULATIONS THAT PROTECT OUR CANOPY.
YOU CAN CREATE A DENSITY BONUS WITH ALL OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE BENEFITS WE DESIRE THAT WE FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT.
AND REAL QUICK, MINIMUM LOT SIZES AREN'T THE ANSWER, Y'ALL.
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS IN HOUSTON SAY WHERE THEY STILL HAVE 'EM IS WHERE THEY'RE RESISTING GENTRIFICATION.
BRENTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD, ONE OF YOUR PROPONENTS LAST TIME SUBDIVIDED ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT, SOLD IT FOR $4 MILLION.
UH, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS CHRISTOPHER PAGE, FOLLOWED BY SOL PRAXIS AND THEN SCOTT TURNER.
UM, CHRISTOPHER, YOU RECEIVED DONATED TIME FROM BARBARA MACARTHUR.
YOU'LL HAVE A TOTAL OF FOUR MINUTES.
OH, UM, CHRIS PAGE, PRESIDENT OF THE HOMEBOY KNIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
OUR MUNICIPAL POLICY MAKERS ARE TRAPPED IN A RECURSIVE LOOP WHEN IT COMES TO LAND USE.
POLICY REACTION TO DISPOSSESSION AND DISPLACEMENT IS DEREGULATION THAT CAUSES GREATER DISPOSSESSION AND DISPLACEMENT, ENDLESS CALL TO ACTION AGAINST, AGAINST THE SYNTHETIC EMERGENCY.
I LIVE IN 7 8 7 0 2 CENTRAL EAST AUSTIN.
WE'RE ONE OF THE LEAST REGULATED SUBMARKETS IN THE CITY.
CAME HERE TONIGHT TO REMIND YOU THAT THESE POLICIES WON'T REUNITE OUR DISPLACED RESIDENTS WITH THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY WERE TORN FROM.
IT'LL ENSURE THAT THEY NEVER COME BACK.
LIKEWISE, IT'LL ENSURE OUR YOUNG OPTIMISTS AND PROFESSIONALS CAN'T PUT DOWN ROOTS HERE.
YOU ALREADY SEE IT IN THE SHIFTING LANGUAGE FROM AFFORDABLE WITH A CAPITAL A TO A LITTLE A TO ATTAINABLE, AND SOON WE'LL CALL IT WHAT IT IS, WHICH IS MARKET RATE OR UNAFFORDABLE.
IF YOU WANT PROOF OF HOW THESE POLICIES WORK OUT, LOOK AT MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN HAS SMALL LOT AMNESTY.
THAT'S 2,500 SQUARE FOOT FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES.
IT'S GOT HIGH ENTITLEMENTS C-S-M-E-V AND A LOT MORE OF THAT LIGHT RAIL ON THE RED LINE.
WE'VE GOT BIKE LANES REDUCED COMPATIBILITY FOR A TIME, A DU BY RIGHT DUPLEXES, EVEN GEOLOGICAL FEATURES THAT ARE ONLY STABILIZED BY THESE POLICIES THAT WE HAVE TODAY.
AND WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THESE POLICIES? WE WERE THE FASTEST GENTRIFYING ZIP CODE IN THE COUNTRY, LITERALLY IN THE COUNTRY TWICE IN THE LAST SIX YEARS.
THE CITY DEMOGRAPHER AND CENSUS, UH, IS TRACKING CENSUS, UH, I'M SORRY, THE CITY DEMOGRAPHER AND CENSUS DATA SIGNALS ESCALATING LOSS OF ALL FORMS OF, OF DIVERSITY INFRASTRUCTURE FAILS REPEATEDLY WITHOUT ERCOT.
TRANSIT USE IS DECLINING BECAUSE MARKET RATE HOUSING COMES WITH PERSISTENT DRIVERS.
IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, TWO ELMS WERE STRUCK BY VEHICLES.
WE HAVE A QUILT OF ORPHAN SIDEWALKS.
WE HAVE EQUITY THEFT BY PREDATORY INVESTORS.
WE HAVE HOMES THAT ARE TRANSFORMING INTO AIRBNBS.
WE HAVE UNPRODUCTIVE SPECULATION GONE WILD, AND INSTEAD OF FILTERING, WE HAVE REVERSE FILTERING.
LOW INCOME RESIDENTS ARE ALWAYS BEING REPLACED BY HIGH INCOME RESIDENTS.
AND IT'S NOT JUST A PRODUCT OF ZONING, IT'S A PRODUCT OF BEING IN AN INTERNATIONAL MARKET WITH UNLIMITED FUNDS TO BUY A POPULAR CITY.
NO ONE IN CITY HALL GIVES A DAMN.
THE SPECTRUM OF EXCUSES FOR THIS KIND OF CARELESS POLICY MAKING ARE MYRIAD, BUT NONE OF IT HOLDS WATER.
THE THE CITY DECIDED WITHOUT US TO SACRIFICE THE MOST VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES ON THE ALTAR OF FTA GRANTS IT MIGHT NEVER RECEIVE.
OR VENTURE CAPITALISTS THAT DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE IRONY OF COME AND TAKE IT, OR INVESTORS THAT HAVE COME, UH, FROM A DISTANCE AND THEY'LL NEVER SET FOOT IN THIS CITY AND THEY NEVER INTENDED TO WHERE THEIR PASSIVE INVESTMENT.
IT WAS DESCRIBED BY A PERSON WHO SPECIALIZES IN SINGLE FAMILY RENTAL AND BUILD TO RENT IN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST.
IT WAS DESCRIBED AS WHY SLAUGHTER THE SHEEP WHEN YOU CAN SHEAR IT? WELL, WHO IS THE SHEEP IN THAT STATEMENT? IT'S US.
IT IS THE FASTEST GENTRIFYING AREA IN THE COUNTRY.
AND WHAT YOU'RE DOING IN TERMS OF AFFORDABILITY IS NOT ENOUGH.
YOUR AMNESIA ABOUT HAVING AN EQUITY OVERLAY AND RECENT LAND USE DEVELOPMENT, UH, REFINEMENTS OR REFORMS, YOUR AMNESIA ABOUT NEEDING AN EQUITY OVERLAY.
WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM? I KNOW WHERE IT COMES FROM.
[01:25:01]
IT COMES FROM THE LOBBYISTS, IT COMES FROM INVESTORS THAT LITERALLY SOLICITED PRIVATE INVESTMENT FROM ME TWO YEARS AGO WITH THIS PLAN.AND YOU GUYS ARE GOING ALONG WITH IT LIKE IT'S GONNA WORK.
YOU KNOW WHAT THIS DOES? THANK YOU CHRISTOPHER.
UM, SOL, YOU RECEIVED, UM, DONATION OF TIME FROM SARAH NER.
SARAH, ARE YOU PRESENT? UM, I ALSO GOT FROM JULIE.
UH, YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES TO SPEAK.
COMMISSIONER SOLE PRAXIS DISTRICT THREE WITH COMMUNITY POWERED A TX.
EVERYTHING I DO IS IN HONOR OF MY IMMIGRANT PARENT WHO EXPERIENCED HOMELESSNESS AND MY FRIENDS WHO ARE CURRENTLY UNHOUSED.
BEFORE ANY MORE MAJOR LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGES ARE MADE, WE NEED TO CREATE AN ANTI DISPLACEMENT AND EQUITY OVERLAY.
I WILL REMIND YOU THAT THE WAY WE ARE RUSHING INTO THESE ZONING CHANGES WITH NO REAL COMMUNITY-BASED INPUT IS ALL WRONG.
MANY ARE JUST NOW LEARNING THAT TECH BILLIONAIRES REAL ESTATE AND DEVELOPERS CAUSING THE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS HAVE CREATED AND PROMOTED THE SIMPLISTIC SUPPLY SIDE NARRATIVE.
PLEASE READ RICH HAMAN'S REPORT COMMISSIONED BY THE EQUITY OFFICE, WHICH REVIEWS EXISTING LITERATURE ON UPZONING AND SUPPLY SIDE THEORY AND DEBUNKS THE BASIS OF ALL OF THESE SWEEPING MARKET DRIVEN ZONING CHANGES.
READ DENSIFYING BERKELEY COMMISSIONED BY THE BERKELEY RENT STABILIZATION BOARD, WHICH SAYS QUOTE, UPZONING CAN LEAD TO SPECULATION, INCREASED VAL LAND VALUES AND DISPLACEMENT, AND RECOMMENDS A SPECIAL DISTRICT OVERLAY TO PROTECT VULNERABLE AREAS FROM THE IMPACTS OF UPZONING TO PRESERVE AND DEVELOP AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN VULNERABLE AREAS.
WE ARE IN A PROFOUND MOMENT, A SHIFT BREAKING THE FALSE BINARY OF YIMBYS AND NIMBYS TO DEMAND TRULY AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY AND NOT FALSE SOLUTIONS PUSHING MARKET DRIVEN PRODUCTION OF HOUSING THAT IS NOT AFFORDABLE TO OUR COMMUNITIES AND DISPLACES OUR COMMUNITIES.
THIS IS HAPPENING AROUND THE COUNTRY AND YOU'RE NOW WITNESSING IT IN AUSTIN.
SO HERE'S OUR AMENDMENT FROM COMMUNITY.
PART A TX PROTECT AND PRESERVE EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PRODUCE HOUSING THAT'S TRULY AFFORDABLE IN NEIGHBORHOODS IN WHICH RESIDENTS ARE VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT.
BY CREATING AN ANTI DISPLACEMENT AND EQUITY PROTECTIVE OVERLAY, IT WOULD PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT BY REQUIRING THAT ANY LAND USE OR ZONING CHANGE THAT INCREASES ENTITLEMENTS.
FOR EXAMPLE, REDUCING MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN PARTICULAR CASES, EAD OVERLAY, CITYWIDE COMP COMPATIBILITY REDUCTIONS, AND, UM, FUTURE CHANGES.
ANY OF THOSE APPLIED TO THE OVERLAY AREA WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 50% OF UNITS AFFORDABLE TO EXISTING RESIDENTS WHO ARE RENT BURDENED, HOUSING INSECURE, AND AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT.
THE EXACT BREAKDOWN OF THOSE 50% SHOULD BE DECIDED WITH COMMUNITY INPUT, BUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS UNITS BELOW 50% MFI AND 30% MFI OR 50% MFI FOR THE CENSUS BLOCK GROUP, WHICHEVER IS LOWER.
THIS PROPOSAL DEFINES AFFORDABILITY BASED ON WHAT IS AFFORDABLE TO RESIDENTS IN NEIGHBORHOODS VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT AND BEGINS TO ADDRESS THE INEQUITY OF AUSTIN'S HISTORICAL LDC AND DISPLACEMENT IMPACTS.
THIS MAY REQUIRE PRIVATE DEVELOPERS TO LEVERAGE EXISTING FUNDS FOR TRULY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IE PROJECT CONNECT ANTI DISPLACEMENT FUNDS.
THEY MAY NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE PARTNER WITH PHILANTHROPIC FUNDING, FUNDING AND OR A PUBLIC PARTNER THAT CAN PURSUE PUBLIC SUBSIDIES SUCH AS LITECH FUNDING.
WE ASK THAT THE PROTECTIVE OVERLAY COVER ALL OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS IDENTIFIED AS VULNERABLE IN THE UPROOTED REPORT BASED ON THE MAP OF THE MOST VULNERABLE CENSUS TRACTS.
UM, AND THIS MAP HAS BEEN UPDATED, UM, ANNUALLY SINCE 2016.
MORE RECENT CENSUS DATA CAN ALSO BE USED TO DETERMINE NEIGHBORHOOD VULNERABILITY.
BY THE WAY, THE UPROOTED AUTHOR THAT WE SPOKE TO SAID THAT THIS ANTI DISPLACEMENT OVERLAY IS REALLY NEEDED.
IT'S BEEN DONE IN OTHER CITIES AND IT IS LEGAL.
UM, DURING THE NEXT 16 MONTHS, THE CITY COULD ALSO REVIEW THE MAP WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDING ADDITIONAL CENSUS TRACKS BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE DATA AND NEIGHBORHOOD REQUESTS.
SO THIS WOULD CREATE A 16 MONTH PERIOD FOR RESIDENTS TO REQUEST A REVIEW FOR THEIR AREA TO BE INCLUDED IN THE OVERLAY IF THE AREA IS VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT.
WE UNDERSTAND THE INTEREST BEHIND ALL OF THESE ZONING CHANGES AND THE IMPACTS OF THESE CHANGES BECAUSE WE SEE THEM IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ALL OF THE TIME.
THEY'RE ALL ABOUT GIVING DEVELOPERS MORE ENTITLEMENTS TO BUILD MORE LUXURY AND MARKET RATE UNITS FOR MORE PROFITS.
THEY DRIVE UP HOUSING COSTS AND ACCELERATE THE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS FOR ALL RESIDENTS, BUT THE WEALTHY INCREASING SUPPLY OF MARKET RATE HOUSING ONLY INCREASES HOUSING COSTS.
BUT WHAT WE CAN DO IS PRODUCE DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH STABILIZES HOUSING COSTS IN OUR COMMUNITIES SOMEDAY IN HISTORY.
MARKET DRIVEN SUPPLY SIDE UPZONING WILL BE LOOKED BACK ON AS WE LOOK BACK ON SEGREGATED ZONING, REDLINING, HIGHWAYS, DESTROYING WORKING CLASS BIPOC COMMUNITIES.
THANK YOU SO MUCH PREDATORY LENDING AND MORE YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN HISTORY.
[01:30:08]
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS SCOTT TURNER.UM, SCOTT, YOU RECEIVED SOME DONATION OF TIME.
UM, YOU'LL HAVE A TOTAL OF SIX MINUTES.
UM, IS ARD AND BRIA HERE? MATTHEW ATKINSON? I DONATED TIME.
IS ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT DONATED TIME TO SCOTT? YES.
YOU'LL ONLY BE ABLE TO, UM, RECEIVE TWO OF THOSE DONATIONS, SO YOU'LL HAVE A TOTAL OF SIX MINUTES.
UH, UM, I'D LIKE TO TO TRY AND PROVIDE SOME DATA AROUND SMALL LOTS UNDER HOME.
TWO THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IN THE DISCUSSION TONIGHT.
UM, AS A HOME BUILDER, UM, I'VE SENT YOU, UH, THIS INFORMATION VIA EMAIL, BUT, UH, UM, I THINK THE ASSUMPTION THAT, UM, THAT WE ARE WORKING FROM HERE IS THAT LESS LAND FOR A HOUSE IS LESS EXPENSIVE THAN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A LARGER PIECE OF PROPERTY.
THAT THE, THE COST OF LAND MATTERS.
UM, SO, UM, THAT, THAT LAND DETERMINES FEASIBILITY.
AND THERE ARE THREE BASIC ELEMENTS TO FEASIBILITY FOR DECIDING WHETHER WE'RE GONNA BUILD ON AN EXISTING BIG LOT OR SUBDIVIDE INTO SMALLER LOTS, WHICH IS A GOAL OF HOME TWO.
UM, ONE IS THE NUMBER OF UNITS PER LOT AND, UM, IT'S VERY UNFORTUNATE THAT WE ARE NOT ABLE TO TALK ABOUT PERHAPS GETTING A DUPLEX ON THESE SMALLER LOTS THAT WOULD GO A VERY LONG WAY TOWARDS TRYING TO ADD AFFORDABILITY AND SHRINK UNIT SIZES, UH, IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, SO I HOPE THAT'S TAKEN UP AT A LATER DATE.
UM, I LIKE TO START BY TALKING ABOUT LOT SIZE THEN, UH, WHICH IS, UH, ALSO AN IMPORTANT PART OF FEASIBILITY.
THIS IS A STUDY DONE BY CEDAR.
UH, THEY ANALYZED 150,000 PARCELS AND RAN A MODEL FLAG LOT, SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION ON EACH ONE.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE DATA HERE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S VISIBLE ON THE SCREEN, BUT FOR 2000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE, ABOUT 12% OF THOSE PARCELS CAN BE DEVELOPED.
UM, IF YOU SHRINK THE LOT SIZE TO 1500 SQUARE FEET, UH, ALMOST TWICE AS MANY CAN BE DEVELOPED.
UH, AND THEN EACH ONE OF THOSE IS SUBDIVIDED INTO THREE MORE SMALL LOTS.
SO IT REALLY DOES ADD A LOT OF CAPACITY.
UH, WHEN IT COMES TO LOT SIZES.
PLEASE CONSIDER REDUCING THE LOT SIZE BELOW 2000 SQUARE FEET TONIGHT, UH, BECAUSE IT'LL GENERATE MORE HOUSING.
UM, THEY ALSO DID A STUDY OF, UH, YOU KNOW, OF PROTOTYPICAL FLAG LOT, UH, AND I JUST WANTED TO USE THIS.
UH, COULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE? I WANTED TO POINT OUT, UH, THE IMPACT THAT IMPERVIOUS COVER HAS ON HOME SIZE.
YOU SEE THAT THIRD LOT THERE, THAT LITTLE ORANGE SQUARE IN THE CORNER.
UM, THAT LITTLE, THAT LITTLE SPOT IS ALL THAT'S LEFT AFTER YOU PUT IN THE DRIVEWAY TO GET TO THAT THIRD LOT.
AND THERE'S ONLY 310 SQUARE FOOT FOOTPRINT THERE.
SO YOU CAN ONLY FIT A THREE STORIES 930 SQUARE FOOT HOME ON THAT 2000 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
EACH ONE OF THOSE LOTS IS 2000 SQUARE FEET OUTSIDE OF THE FLAG POLE.
SO, UM, IMPERVIOUS COVER REALLY IS A BIG LIMITER, UH, OF HOUSING, UH, ON ITS OWN.
UM, AND THERE'S ANOTHER BREAKDOWN ON THE NEXT SLIDE OF SOME, SOME MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER CALCULATIONS.
I KNOW ONE OF THE, THE DRAFT PROPOSED COUNTING THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THE FLAGPOLE, UH, IF YOU DO THAT, YOU, YOU ACTUALLY WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO BUILD ANYTHING ON THAT LOT IN THE BACK BECAUSE YOU WOULD USE ALL YOUR IMPERVIOUS COVER TO GET THERE.
UM, ALL RIGHT, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SO THIS IS JUST A COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS COVER AND HEIGHT ON A SMALL LOT USING SOME BASIC ASSUMPTIONS.
UM, AND AS YOU CAN SEE THERE ON THE RIGHT, UH, FOR LOTS THAT ARE AROUND 2,500 SQUARE FOOT OR LESS, UM, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GET TO THE MAXIMUM 2300 SQUARE FOOT, UH, HOME SIZE THAT'S IN THE PROPOSED DRAFT.
UH, SO THE SMALLER THE LOT, THE SMALLER THE HOUSE, SO TO SPEAK.
UM, AND, UH, THAT'S IMPORTANT AS WE LOOK AT, UH, SOME OF THE OTHER RESTRICTIONS ON HOME SIZE THAT ARE IN THE PROPOSED DRAFT.
SO, UH, WHAT I DID HERE WAS SIMPLY COMPARE A 9,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, UH, USING THE, THE, THE PROPOSED DRAFT, UH, UNDER HOME ONE.
HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE CAN I GET? JUST BUILDING THREE HOMES ON THAT LOT AT A 0.65 FAR VERSUS, UH, SUBDIVIDING INTO DIFFERENT LOT SIZES.
HOW MUCH, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH HOUSE, UH, YOU KNOW, CAN I, CAN I GET OUT OF THAT? BECAUSE I HAVE TO COMPARE THOSE TWO AS A HOME BUILDER.
UM, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE RESULTS ARE KIND OF SURPRISING.
FRANKLY, THIS MATH IS KIND OF TOO COMPLICATED TO JUST DO OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD.
UM, SO REALLY FOR ONLY THE SMALLEST SLOTS, DO YOU GENERATE ANY MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE, ANY MORE FAR
[01:35:01]
VERSUS, UH, JUST, YOU KNOW, BUILDING ON THE 9,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT THAT IS THE EXAMPLE HERE.UM, AND YOU CAN SEE THOSE LITTLE GRAY SQUARES THERE.
THOSE ARE THE, THE VARIOUS, UH, YOU KNOW, LIMITS, UH, SET BY THE ORDINANCE.
SO 1,450 SQUARE FOOT OR 0.55 FAR AND THEN UP TO 2300 SQUARE FEET, UH, AS A MAXIMUM UNIT SIZE.
SO I, I ADJUSTED THE MINIMUM UNIT SIZE ON THE FAR UPWARD TO 2000 SQUARE FEET AND 0.65.
AND, AND AS YOU CAN SEE IT, IT, IT DEFINITELY HELPS, UH, SO IT CREATES A LITTLE BIT MORE HOUSING AND, AND AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO BE ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO SAY, HEY, I'M GONNA GO THROUGH A SUBDIVISION PROCESS THAT TAKES TWO YEARS AND COSTS A A LOT OF MONEY, UH, IN ORDER TO, TO JUSTIFY IT.
SO, UM, AGAIN, THE, YOU KNOW, SIZE MATTERS WHEN IT COMES TO THESE UNITS.
UM, ALRIGHT, ON THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
THIS IS SIMPLY REMOVING THE FAR CAP AND THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE 0.55 FAR AND THE MINIMUM UNIT SIZE AND JUST GOING WITH A 2300 MAXIMUM UNIT.
UM, AND AS YOU CAN SEE THERE IN THAT, THAT COMPARISON COLUMN ON THE RIGHT, UM, IT, IT DEFINITELY HELPS TO MAKE THINGS MORE FEASIBLE, BUT IT'S JUST NOT POSSIBLE TO FIT A 2300 SQUARE FOOT HOME ON, ON A SMALLER LOT.
UM, I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT HERE THAT, THAT THE 2300 SQUARE FOOT, UM, MAXIMUM UNIT SIZE EFFECTIVELY REDUCES THE FAR COMPARED TO HOME ONE THAT, THAT REALLY, THAT THAT CAP MEANS YOU GET LESS THAN A 0.65 FAR.
AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE FAR COLUMN, IT DROPS DOWN AS YOUR LOT SIZE GETS LARGER.
SO, SO THERE'S ACTUALLY A, A REDUCTION IN ENTITLEMENTS WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, SORT OF LARGER SMALL LOTS.
UM, ALRIGHT, NEXT, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SO WHY DOES ALL THIS MATTER, RIGHT? WHY DOES THIS SQUARE FOOTAGE MATTER? UH, IN TERMS OF ME AS A HOME BUILDER TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT I'M GONNA DO? WELL, IT COSTS ABOUT 50 GRAND TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT ON THAT.
COULD YOU RUN THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE? JUST TO SHOW HIM? THANK YOU.
UM, NEXT SPEAKERS ARE MIRANDA BEST, UH, CAMPOS, SUSANNA ALMANZA, UM, AND VATA MENARD.
MY NAME IS MIRANDA BEST CAMPOS.
I'M A MASTERS CANDIDATE AT UT AUSTIN AND I'M IN OPPOSITION OF HOME PHASE TWO.
YOU MAY, YOU MAY REMEMBER ME FROM A FEW WEEKS AGO WHEN I PROVIDED YOU ALL WITH SOME DATA ABOUT A DU PERMITS AND HOW THE MAJORITY OF THEM ARE BEING OBTAINED BY LLCS RATHER THAN HOMEOWNERS.
IN CASE YOU DON'T REMEMBER, I WILL REMIND YOU THAT SINCE 20 15 90 PER 96% OF THE A DU PERMITS GIVEN FOR EAST AUSTIN LOTS WERE OBTAINED BY LLCS AND THAT IT COSTS AROUND $150,000 TO BUILD AN 850 SQUARE FOOT A DU FINANCING.
THAT EXPENSE FOR LOW IN LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME HOMEOWNERS IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE.
THE POLICIES AND SO-CALLED INITIATIVES TO ADDRESS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS IN AUSTIN, DO NOTHING BUT GENTRIFY AND DISPLACE OUR LONG-TERM RESIDENTS.
I KNOW YOU'VE HEARD THAT A THOUSAND TIMES BEFORE, SO I WANNA SHARE WITH YOU A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE THAT COMES FROM A SOCIAL WORK LENS STRESSING ABOUT UNAFFORDABILITY.
AND THEN THE DISPLACEMENT OF OUR LOW INCOME BIPOC COMMUNITIES IS A TRAUMATIZING EXPERIENCE, WHICH CAN HAVE LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS ON THEIR MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH.
THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING DISPLACED ALSO CAUSES ANXIETY AND TRAUMA, WHICH CAN MANIFEST IN OTHER HEALTH CONCERNS.
TEXAS IS ALREADY FACING A MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS WITH A SEVERE SHORTAGE OF MENTAL HEALTH WORKERS AND YOUR DECISIONS TO CONTINUE REZONING AND BENEFIT THE WEALTHY IS GOING TO CAUSE A LOT MORE MENTAL HEALTH CRISES AND TRAUMA FOR OUR COMMUNITIES.
UP TO THIS POINT, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT THE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL WELLBEING AND SAFETY OF OUR RESIDENTS.
SO IT'D BE WISE FOR YOU TO THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU PROCEED WITH HOME PHASE TWO, WE NEED COMMUNITY DRIVEN PLANNING AND SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS.
I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION TWO OPTIONS THAT COMMUNITY POWERED A TX HAS EXTENSIVELY RESEARCHED AND WE KNOW THAT THESE ACTIONS WILL SUPPORT THE CONTINUED GROWTH OF AUSTIN AND THE DEMAND FOR HOUSING, WHILE ALSO PROTECTING AND UPLIFTING OUR VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES.
THE CITY SHOULD IMPLEMENT AN AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT BY CREATING AN ANTI DISPLACEMENT AND EQUITY PROTECTIVE OVERLAY FOR NEIGHBORHOODS VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT.
AND TWO, THE CITY SHOULD PROVIDE CREATIVE FINANCING OPTIONS FOR ASTON'S ACTUAL RESIDENTS TO BE ABLE TO BUILD ON THEIR LOTS, GAIN A REVENUE STREAM FOR THEMSELVES AND KEEP THEM IN THEIR HOMES INSTEAD OF BEING PRICED OUT BY THOSE PESKY LLCS.
UM, AND YOU RECEIVED A DONATION OF TIME FROM RITA THOMPSON.
RITA, ARE YOU PRESENT? I'M RIGHT HERE.
UH, SUSANNA, YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES TO SPEAK.
[01:40:01]
COMMISSIONERS.MY NAME IS SUSAN, I'M THE DIRECTOR OF POED.
I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN.
IT WAS ENVISIONED AS A PLAN THAT EMPHASIZED A TRANSIT ORIENTED AND WALKABLE DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABLE PRACTICE THROUGHOUT THE CORRIDOR, WHILE ALSO MAINTAINING HOUSING OPTIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH A RANGE OF INCOMES.
THE EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE WAS DESCRIBED AS A COMMERCIAL CENTER TO AN ECONOMICALLY AND SOCIALLY DIVERSE GROUP OF RESIDENTS LIVING IN PROXIMITY TO THE ROADWAY AND A GATEWAY TO DOWNTOWN.
AT THE TIME OF THE MASTER PLANNED ADOPTION DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS SUGGESTED THAT THE POPULATION GROWTH IN THE CORRIDOR WOULD PRIMARILY ORIGINATE FROM GROWTH IN THE LATINO POPULATION AND THAT THE WHITE AND ASIAN POPULATIONS WOULD BE A SOURCE OF GROWTH DUE TO MIGRATION INTO THE CORRIDOR.
HOWEVER, THE FINDINGS SUGGEST OTHERWISE IN THAT THE GROWTH OF THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR IS PRIMARILY THE RESULT OF WHITE IN MIGRATION OF EDUCATED YOUNG ADULT AND HIGHER INCOME WHO LIVE ALONE OR WHO LIVE WITH OTHER UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS.
THIS POPULATION IS ALSO LIKELY TO BE RENTERS THAN HOMEOWNERS.
IN GENERAL, THE ERC AREA EXPERIENCED SIGNIFICANT PROPORTIONAL GROWTH OF THE WHITE POPULATION, INCLUDING ONE BLACK AREA THAT INCREASED 490%.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE OVERALL LATINO SHARE OF THE POPULATION DECLINED FROM 64% IN 2010 TO MINUS 56% IN 2017.
THE CHANGE IN DEMOGRAPHICS IN THE EAST, OUR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR AREA IS EVIDENCE OF THE DISPLACEMENT OF LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
THE ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR PLAN WAS NEGATIVELY IMPACTED LOW INCOME AND PEOPLE OF COLOR FOR INSTEAD BETWEEN 2010 AND 2017, THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR EXPERIENCE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN PER CAPITA INCOMES.
WHITES PER CAPITA INCOME INCREASED 20%.
LATINOS PER CAPITA INCREASED 9% AND THEN YOU CAN LOOK AT THE CORRIDOR, IT HAD REZONED IT TO CORRIDOR MIXED USE AND INDUSTRIAL MIXED USE AND URBAN RESIDENTIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL, OOPS, GO BACK ONE SEC.
NOW THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT EOPS, THERE ARE FOUR HUBS IN THE AIR WHERE THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS ENCOURAGING THE MOST INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES WHO WITHIN THE HUB BOUNDARY ELIGIBLE FOR DEVELOPMENT BONUSES IN EXCHANGE FOR SPECIFIED COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
AND IT GIVES DEVELOPERS A RIGHT TO BUILD A 60 FOOT BUILDING BUT COULD ALSO DOUBLE HEIGHT UP TO 120 FEET MAXIMUM.
THE CITY ADOPTED THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN AS IF THE CORRIDOR WAS A VACANT OF LIFE, OVER 1,700 LOW INCOME WERE NOW OVER 2000.
LOW INCOME WORKING POOR, MOSTLY PEOPLE OF COLOR HAVE BEEN DISPLACED TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE NEW HIGH DENSITY AND HIGH INCOME OR WAGE EARNERS.
THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE RESIDENTS THAT WERE DISPLACED.
I SAY THIS BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE DEJA VU AND I WANTED DEBUNK THIS WHOLE ISSUE THAT IF MORE HOUSING IS BUILT, IT'LL BE, IT WOULD BECOME AFFORDABLE.
BUT AGAIN, THE QUESTION IS AFFORDABLE FOR WHO.
'CAUSE WE'VE ALREADY SEEN IF YOU GO DOWN THE EAST RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR, WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT IS THERE NOW TODAY.
AND SO I WANNA MAKE SURE AND DEBUNK THAT THIS IS WHAT'S THERE TODAY.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AFFORDABILITY.
YOU SAW THE PEOPLE THAT WERE DISPLACED FROM THIS PARTICULAR AREA.
THIS IS NOW AND IT IS NOT FOR FAMILIES.
AND WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS WHOLE ISSUE, WE CAME UP WITH, UH, ALSO RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT WELL, WE SUPPORT THE A TX COMMUNITY POWER RECOMMENDATIONS.
I'M A HOMEOWNER IN DISTRICT ONE.
I'M HERE TO IN OPPOSITION OF HOME TWO AND TO ASK THAT YOU POSTPONE THE VOTE ON HOME TWO AND ALLOW TIME FOR PUBLIC INPUT AND REAL SOLUTIONS.
LIKE THE ANTI DISPLACEMENT OVERLAY PRESENTED BY COMMUNITY POWERED A TX TO BE CONSIDERED THE OVERLAY WOULD PROTECT, WOULD PROTECT AND PRESERVE EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PRODUCE HOUSING THAT IS TRULY AFFORDABLE IN NEIGHBORHOODS IN WHICH RESIDENTS ARE VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT.
BY CREATING AN ANTI-DISPLACEMENT EQUITY PROTECTIVE OVERLAY, THIS IS BASED ON BEST PRACTICES REGARDING UPZONING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRESERVATION AND PRODUCTION AND DISPLACEMENT MITIGATION.
THE OVERLAY WOULD ENCOURAGE TRULY AFFORDABLE DENSITY RATHER THAN
[01:45:01]
INCENTIVIZING MARKET RATE, UNAFFORDABLE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH ACCELERATES DISPLACEMENT AND DRIVES UP HOUSING COSTS AND INCENTIVIZES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.UM, AND NOW I WANTED TO SHARE SOMETHING PERSONAL, UH, AS A HOMEOWNER.
I DON'T REMEMBER HOW BIG A LOT WAS.
SO ACCORDING TO ZILLOW, I FOUND OUT THAT MY LOT SITS ON 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO ACCORDING TO ALL OF THIS RHETORIC AND CONVERSATION, I AM RICH AND I HAVE A MANSION.
I DUNNO WHO'S GOT MY MONEY, I DON'T HAVE IT.
I'D LIKE IT BACK, BUT I DON'T ALSO HAVE A MANSION ISN'T MODERATE FOUR TWO WITH VERY TINY BATHROOMS. THAT'S WHAT, 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
ACCORDING TO THIS, I SHOULD BE, I SHOULD HAVE A WHOLE LOT MORE HOUSE.
AND UM, NOW 5,000 IS THE CURRENT STANDARD.
LOOKING AT MY TOP 10,000 SQUARE FEET, THAT'S NOT A LOT.
I CAN, I MEAN, MY YARD IS NOT HUGE.
YOU MAYBE COULD BUILD TWO MORE, UH, UNITS ON MY LOT, BUT IT'S NOT HUGE.
AND THEN IF I DO SELL MY PROPERTY AND TO A DEVELOPER, WHOEVER BUYS IT CAN CUT IT INTO FOUR, MAYBE EVEN FIVE UNITS.
I DON'T THINK MY NEIGHBORS WOULD APPRECIATE THE, THAT THEY WOULD NOT APPRECIATE, UM, DESTROYING THE INTEGRITY OF UNIVERSITY HILLS.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO REALLY REVISIT THIS.
SO WE NEED TO REALLY PUT STOP.
THERE ARE GOOD SOLUTIONS OUT THERE.
UM, JUST, UH, TAKE THE TIME TO LISTEN AND, AND HEAR WHAT OTHER FOLKS ARE TELLING YOU.
WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF TIME TO DO THIS.
UH, THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS ARE PEDRO, PEDRO HERNANDEZ, UH, ADRIAN MACIAS AND CARLOS PINON.
I AM THE YOUTH COORDINATOR FOR PORTA.
I'M SPEAKING OFF BEHALF FOR THE YOUTH THAT LIVE IN EAST SIDE OF AUSTIN.
I'M HERE TO SAY THAT I, UM, OPPOSE HOME PHASE TWO.
PHASE TWO ISN'T ABOUT AFFORDABILITY, BUT INSTEAD A WAY TO KICK OUT LOW INCOME AND WORKING CLASS PEOPLE OF AUSTIN.
Y'ALL CLAIM THINGS ARE, ARE AFFORDABLE, BUT IN REALITY WILL RAISE PRICES FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED IN AUSTIN FOR YEARS AND SOON TO BE DISPLACED.
I'M IN GREAT FEAR OF THE, OF MY YOUTH SLASH STUDENTS I THAT COME FROM LOW INCOME AND WORKING CLASS FAMILIES.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I JUST DO HOPE THAT WITH THE COMMISSION'S HELP YOU GUYS VOTE NO OR AT LEAST POSTPONE THE VOTE FOR PHASE TWO.
OKAY, NEXT THREE SPEAKERS ARE MARIAN SANCHEZ, CEDAR STEVENS, AND LINDA OSI.
I LIVE IN UH, D NINE, UH, ON A SMALL LOT, UM, ON A HOUSE.
UM, BUILT IN 1925, SO 99 YEARS OLD.
UM, THAT HOUSE IS, OR THAT LOT IS CONSISTENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THAT, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS VERY INCONSISTENT AND I'M AFRAID THAT WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW, I SUPPORT HOME TWO.
HOW, HOWEVER, I'D LOVE TO SEE IT, UH, AS MR. TURNER SAID, TWEAKED AND, AND REVISED TO DEAL WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR THESE SMALL LOTS.
UH, THERE ARE DUPLEXES AROUND ME, TRIPLEXES, THERE IS A QUADRUPLEX AROUND THE CORNER.
IT WAS UNTIL IT WAS CONVERTED RECENTLY TO SINGLE FAMILY, BUT SINCE 19 39, 4 STORY ON A 0.10 ACRE LOT, 4,400 SQUARE FOOT JUST LIKE MINE, A FOURPLEX.
THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOREVER, UH, SINCE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WAS DEVELOPED ABOUT A HUNDRED YEARS AGO.
I CAN'T DO IT UNDER CURRENT RULES.
I CAN'T DO IT UNDER THE NEW HOME RULES.
WHEN THIS WAS ANNOUNCED, I THOUGHT, OKAY, SMALLER LOTS.
UH, TRIPLEX WOULD BE GREAT, DUPLEX WOULD BE GREAT, BUT UM, YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE.
SO I WOULD JUST WANNA TOSS OUT A COUPLE OF RANDOM THINGS
[01:50:01]
MAYBE THAT CAN HELP.UM, FIRST OF ALL, UH, FRONT YARD AVERAGING.
WE HAVE THAT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I BELIEVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTUALLY ADOPTED IT SPECIFICALLY, PLEASE KEEP IT OR KEEP IT AS AN OPTION IF YOU SAY, OKAY, WELL 15 FOOT SETBACKS.
MY AVERAGING IS, I HAD A SURVEY DONE, IS EIGHT FEET, FOUR INCHES.
I CAN'T BUILD TO THAT WITH A 10 FOOT SETBACK OR A 15 FOOT SETBACK.
LET ME HAVE WHAT I ALREADY HAVE, PLEASE AS AN OPTION, KEEP THAT.
UM, FURTHER SF FOUR IS A GREAT CATEGORY FOR SMALL OTS.
YOU'RE GONNA HAVE EASIER SUBDIVISION I THINK FOR SF ONE, TWO, AND THREE.
PLEASE INCLUDE A DEFAULT OR A, A WAY TO MAKE SF FOUR EASIER TO OBTAIN.
UH, IT FITS ME PERFECTLY AND IT FITS A LOT OF OTHER LOTS.
NOW I STILL DON'T GET A DUPLEX THAT WAY, BUT AT LEAST IT MAKES MY PROPERTY MORE USABLE, UH, FOR A CENTRAL, VERY CENTRAL LOCATION.
UM, IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE GRANT OF A ADDITIONAL 10% OF FAR BY ADMINISTRATIVE NEED, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
I SENT SOME OF YOU AN EMAIL, OTHER PARTICULAR SUGGESTIONS, BUT PLEASE KEEP IT MOVING FORWARD.
AND THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS ARE ANNA ROMERO, SHANE JOHNSON, AND ANTONIO ROMERO.
HELLO, MY NAME IS ANNA ROMERO OF DISTRICT THREE.
MY MOTHER AND I WERE DISPLACED FROM EAST AUSTIN.
WE NEED YOU TO SUPPORT THE ANTI DISPLACEMENT OVERLAY BY COMMUNITY PAR A TX SO THAT WE CAN BUILD HOUSING THAT IS TRULY AFFORDABLE TO RENTERS LIKE ME AND MY MOM.
WE NEED HOUSING BELOW 30% MFI, NOT A 60% OR HIGHER.
THESE ZONING PLANS ALSO CAUSE HOUSING COSTS TO RISE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE NEED YOU TO PASS THE OVERLAY AND STOP ZONING CHANGES THAT CAUSE DEVELOPERS TO PROFIT MORE WHILE WE LOSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THIS WOULD ALLOW THE UNHOUSED OF AUSTIN TO GET HOUSING AND NOT JUST PROMISES MANY OF THE UNHOUSED LIVING IN OUT TENS SUFFERING.
AUSTIN'S EXTREME HEAT AND FREEZING COLD HAVE LOST HOPE OF LIVING IN A HOME OF THEIR OWN.
MY MOTHER WHO IS DISABLED AND WAS DIAGNOSED WITH END STAGE KIDNEY DISEASE DURING OUR TIME, UNHOUSED AND I WERE THANKFULLY WERE LIVING ON THE STREETS OF AUSTIN FOR THREE YEARS.
THANKFULLY, I HAD A PAYING JOB TO HELP PROVIDE FOOD FOR THE TWO OF US, BUT EVEN THEN IT WASN'T ENOUGH AS WE WERE UNABLE TO SAVE MONEY OR APPLY FOR HOUSING.
AS MANY SO MANY OTHER APARTMENTS REQUIRE YOU TO MAKE MANY TIMES WHAT YOU ACTUALLY MAKE IN ORDER TO GET A FOOT IN THE DOOR.
MANY OF THE UNHOUSED DON'T HAVE A SOURCE OF INCOME AND GO HUNGRY FOR DAYS ON END.
AROUND THE TIME MY MOTHER AND I COULDN'T AFFORD RENT INCREASES AND WERE FORCED TO LIVE IN HOMELESSNESS, WE SAW LUXURY EXPENSIVE DEVELOPMENTS COMING UP IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THESE DRIVE PRICES UP AND THE IMPACTS ARE AND THE IMPACTS FOR THE HOMELESS.
ALL RIGHT, UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS SHANE JOHNSON, HE, HIM PRONOUNS.
I'M A DISTRICT SEVEN RESIDENT.
UH, FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW ME, I WAS CO-CHAIR OF THE GROUNDBREAKING AUSTIN CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN AND I URGE YOU ALL TO POSTPONE THE VOTE OR VOTE NO ON HOME.
PHASE TWO COMPATIBILITY REDUCTIONS IN THE EO AND PASS THE COMMUNITY POWERED A TX OVERLAY BEFORE GIVING THESE ENTITLEMENTS AWAY.
MASSIVE UP ZONINGS THAT DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT DISPLACEMENT RISK AND OTHER SOCIAL ISSUES ACROSS AUSTIN WILL ACCELERATE GENTRIFICATION AND DISPLACEMENT IN HIGH RISK AREAS AND ARE ALL ANTI-RACIAL EQUITY, INCLUDING THE SO-CALLED EO.
IN OTHER WORDS, THESE POLICIES ARE BAD FOR THE CLIMATE AS WELL.
EQUITY BLIND OR MORE ACCURATELY RACE BLIND COLORBLIND APPROACHES LIKE THE ONES BEFORE YOU ARE WELL KNOWN TO EXACERBATE STRUCTURAL RACISM.
THESE POLICIES CATER TO AFFLUENT PEOPLE AND CORPORATIONS FOR THE BOGUS CLAIM THAT SMALLER LOT SIZES ARE INHERENTLY MORE AFFORDABLE, WHICH IS NOT TRUE IN AUSTIN'S CONTEXT.
JUST ASK RICH HAMAN AT UT, THESE POLICIES ARE BAD FOR THE CLIMATE.
IN A COUPLE WAYS I'LL EMPHASIZE, UM, THAT CREATING MORE UNAFFORDABLE MARKET RATE HOUSING, UH, INSIDE THE CITY CAN FUEL DEMAND FOR URBAN SPRAWL OUTSIDE OF IT AND PEOPLE HAVE TO DRIVE IN.
UM, AND ADDITIONALLY, UH, I'LL SKIP MY E TODD POINT HERE SINCE YOU AREN'T VOTING ON IT TODAY, BUT, UH, LOW WATER INCOME FOLKS IN AUSTIN FORM THE CORE RIDERSHIP OF CAP METRO, WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE NEAR, UH, THE RAIL, THE RAIL LINE CURRENTLY OR THE PROPOSED RAIL LINE.
AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE BEING DISPLACED AND REPLACED TYPICALLY BY FOLKS WHO JUST DRIVE THEIR CARS.
[01:55:01]
IS ANOTHER WAY IN WHICH IT'S DRIVING.UM, DISPLACEMENT IS DRIVING, UM, EMISSIONS AND THINGS THAT ARE BAD FOR THE EN UH ENVIRONMENT.
SO PLEASE SUPPORT THE AMENDMENTS AND OVERLAY FROM CAN BE POWERED A TX IN ORDER TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE EQUITABLY.
UM, WE CANNOT JUST PASS THESE AS THESE ARE, THESE ARE NOT NEUTRAL POLICIES.
THEY'RE ACTIVELY HARMFUL, UH, BOTH BY SPENDING AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF OUR, UH, LIMITED CITY RESOURCES, BUT ALSO GIVING AWAY ENTITLEMENTS WITHOUT ANY REAL BENEFIT.
THEY CAN JUST PAY A FEE IN LIEU, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THERE CAN BE LITERALLY ZERO NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUILT OUT OF THESE.
SO PLEASE, UH, YEAH, THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT, NEXT THREE SPEAKERS ARE RICHARD HAYMAN, JANICE RANKIN, AND JESSICA BRAUN.
OKAY, JESSICA IS GOING TO SPEAK.
HI THERE, I'M JESSICA BRA, I'M AN ARCHITECT AND UM, I AM SPEAKING FOR HOME AND, BUT JUST WANTED TO OFFER A FEW, UM, OBSERVATIONS TO HELP DISCOURAGE DISPLACEMENT AND ENCOURAGE PRESERVATION.
UM, AS OTHER SPEAKERS HAVE MENTIONED, I'M NOT CONVINCED OF THE 2000 SQUARE FOOT LOT MINIMUM, BUT IF THAT'S THE ASSUMPTION, UM, THEN I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A TOOL TO ALLOW TWO UNITS ON LOTS THAT HAVE THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE.
SO A LOT THAT'S RIGHT UNDER 57 50 COULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A SECOND UNIT.
FOR INSTANCE, IF THERE WAS AN EXISTING RESIDENCE, SORT OF A PRESERVATION BONUS TOOL, UM, IN UNIT NUMBERS THAT MIGHT ALLOW A HOMEOWNER TO, UM, STAY IN THEIR HOME AND LEVERAGE THEIR ASSET, UM, AND OFFSET RISING PROPERTY COSTS.
UM, THIS WOULD REDUCE THE LAND COSTS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A SECOND UNIT TO ALMOST NOTHING AND OPEN THAT OPPORTUNITY TO HOMEOWNERS.
UM, IF BY FORCING SUBDIVISION TO ALLOW SECOND UNITS, UM, AT THAT, UH, LOT MINIMUM SIZE, YOU, YOU'LL EXCLUDE HOMEOWNERS WHO CAN'T REALLY TAKE ON THE ONEROUS SUBDIVISION COST AND TIMELINE.
UM, SECOND IN THE, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE SMALL LOTS MAY HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF ENDANGERING EXISTING RESIDENCES.
UM, MANY EXISTING HOMES ARE NON-COMPLIANT BASED ON SETBACKS.
SO WHEN, UM, A CHANGE OF USE TO THE SMALL LOT USE IS PROPOSED, NON-COMPLIANT AUTOMATICALLY RULES OUT, UM, USING THIS TOOL.
SO, UM, I THINK THAT NON-COMPLIANCE NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED EXPLICITLY IN THE CODE.
THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS ARE BETHANY CARSON, NOE S AND MONICA GUZMAN.
I'M A RENTER IN DISTRICT FOUR.
I SHARE THE GOALS OF A DENSE, A DENSER, WALKABLE CITY, BUT I WANT MYSELF AND MY FRIENDS AND COMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO LIVE HERE TO SEE IT.
THE CURRENT PLAN SUBJECTS US TO THE WHIM OF MARKET DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WILL DESTROY THE LITTLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WE HAVE.
IN FACT, A DEVELOPER WHO SPOKE TODAY SHARED INFORMATION FROM A TECH COMPANY CALLED CEDAR THAT SAYS AS MUCH ON THEIR WEBSITE, CEDAR PULLS IN PUBLIC DATA AND MIXES IT WITH PROPRIETARY DATA AND GENERATIVE ALGORITHMS TO ASSESS A PIECE OF LAND OR PROPERTY AND GENERATE AN ARRAY OF POSSIBLE BUILDING DESIGNS TO MAXIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FIT FINANCIAL VALUE OF A PROPERTY.
AFFORDABILITY IS TOO IMPORTANT TO JUST HOPE THAT FOR-PROFIT COMPANIES CARE ABOUT US WHEN THEY'RE ACTIVELY TELLING US OTHERWISE.
PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT THESE CHANGES UNTIL THERE ARE PROVISIONS INCLUDED TO PROTECT EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PREVENT DISPLACEMENT OF LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME.
HOMEOWNERS SUPPORT THE ANTI DISPLACEMENT OVERLAY AND FOLLOWING PROPOSALS FROM COMMUNITY POWERED A TX PROVIDE LOW INCOME AND MIDDLE INCOME HOMEOWNERS ACCESS TO FINANCING OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDE CREATIVE FINANCING OPPORTUNITIES LIKE FORGIVABLE LOANS FOR LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME HOMEOWNERS WHO WOULD LIKELY BUILD WOULD LIKE TO
[02:00:01]
BUILD UNITS ON THEIR LOTS AS LONG AS RENTED UNITS ARE INCOME RESTRICTED AT 50% MFI OR BELOW AND ACCEPT SECTION SECTION EIGHT VOUCHERS.UM, SECOND, MAKE ADUS MORE ACCESSIBLE.
ALLOW MANUFACTURED HOUSING TO BE PERMISSIBLE AS AN A DU PROVIDED IT MEETS THE SAFETY STANDARDS, UH, AND STANDARDS FOR CLIMATE RESILIENCE.
AND THEN THREE, UH, PRESERVATION OF HOME OWNERSHIP FOR LOW INCOME HOMEOWNERS ADOPT STRATEGIES AND FUND PROGRAMS TO PROVIDE OPTIONS FOR HOMEOWNERS AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT DUE TO PROPERTY TAX INCREASES.
IDENTIFY FUND FUNDING SOURCES TO COMPENSATE HOMEOWNERS TO JOIN COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTS RUN BY OUTSIDE NONPROFITS.
THIS MEANS THAT HOMEOWNERS WHO WANT TO STAY IN THEIR COMMUNITIES AND HOMES AND OTHERWISE WOULD BE PRESSURED TO SELL AND MOVE OUT WOULD'VE THE OPTION OF TRANSITIONING THEIR HOME OWNERSHIP TO STAY IN THEIR COMMUNITIES AND HOME, UH, TO A CLT MODEL.
COMMUNITY LAND TRUST MODEL WHERE THEY, UH, WOULD OWN THE STRUCTURE AND THE CLT STEWARDS THE LAND AND OFFER TAX ABATEMENT TO HOMEOWNERS AT OR BELOW 50%.
I AM A DISTRICT DISTRICT THREE RESIDENT.
SO MY FAMILY MOVED TO MONIS WHEN I WAS EIGHT YEARS OLD AND I'VE LIVED THERE SINCE AND I'M RAISING MY FAMILY THERE.
I'M ALSO A TEACHER WITH AUSTIN ISD AND I TEACH IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I AM HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THESE, UH, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS, ESPECIALLY, UM, HOME PHASE TWO, THE E TODD AND THE, AND ALL THE OTHER ONES.
SO I BELIEVE THAT ALL THESE POLICIES ARE GOING TO DRIVE UP THE HOUSING COST AND IT'S GONNA MAKE THE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS WORSE FOR EVERYONE.
SO MY FAMILY, MY FRIENDS, MY NEIGHBORS, AND MY STUDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE DAILY STRUGGLING TO LIVE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
EVERY SCHOOL YEAR I LOSE ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE STUDENTS, UH, TO DISPLACEMENT.
AND ACTUALLY RIGHT NOW I HAVE THREE STUDENTS FAMILIES WHO ARE CONSIDERED HOMELESS AND WILL BE LEAVING AT THE END OF THE YEAR.
AND THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT THE FAMILIES CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY THE RENT OR THEIR MORTGAGE OR THEIR TAXES AND THEIR ONLY CHOICE IS TO LEAVE THE CITY AND GO LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE THAT'S MORE AFFORDABLE.
SO OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT IS LOSING STUDENTS EVERY SINGLE DAY WITH THESE POLICIES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE ON AND THAT YOU HAVE VOTED ON.
THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT BENEFIT OR THOSE INVESTORS THAT YOU KNOW ARE JUST TRYING TO MAKE MORE MONEY OFF OF OUR COMMUNITY, UH, THEY TARGET OUR COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF THE LAND PRICES AND THEY TRY TO MAKE THE MOST MONEY THAT THEY CAN.
AND THAT CAUSES THE DISPLACEMENT OF PEOPLE LIKE US, OUR MY STUDENTS, MY FAMILY, MY FRIENDS.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THESE POLICIES ARE BLATANTLY RACIST BECAUSE ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE BEING AFFECTED ARE BLACK AND BROWN NEIGHBORS THAT ARE BEING DISPLACED.
AND ALL THE HOUSING THAT IS BEING BUILT IS LUXURY AND MARKET RATE HOUSING AND THE HOUSING THAT'S BEING DISPLAYED, UH, SORRY, THE HOUSING THAT'S BEING DEMOLISHED IS, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO I ASK YOU THAT YOU SHOULD SUPPORT THE AMENDMENTS THAT, THAT HAVE, AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN READ HERE, UH, AMENDMENTS THAT COME FROM COMMUNITY POWERED A TX AND THAT YOU PROTECT THOSE THAT ARE MOST VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT.
YOU RECEIVED A DONATION OF TIME FROM LAUREN ROSS.
LAUREN, ARE YOU PRESENT? RIGHT THERE.
OKAY, MONICA, YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES TO SPEAK.
GOOD AFTERNOON PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR, HEMPEL AND ESTEEMED COMMISSIONERS.
I'M MONICA GUZMAN, POLICY DIRECTOR AT GAVA.
FIRST AS A POINT OF ORDER, I WANNA BE CLEAR THAT THIS SERIES OF POLICIES IS NOTHING LESS THAN CODE NEXT 3.0 REPACKED AND PUSHED THROUGH WITH AS LITTLE COMMUNITY INPUT AS POSSIBLE.
THE COMPATIBILITY ORDINANCE FROM NOVEMBER, 2022 WAS A MASSIVE CHANGE.
YET THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT WAS NEITHER TRANSLATED NOR LINK PROVIDED.
HOME PHASE ONE WAS VOTED THROUGH DESPITE THE CLEAR MAJORITY OF PUBLIC SPEAKERS OPPOSED HOME TWO INCLUDES FOUR ORDINANCES WITH ONLY TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK 30 SECONDS PER ORDINANCE.
IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE THE FEAR OF COMMUNITY VOICES BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THROUGH BEING EVICTED, EVICTED, OR DISPLACED DUE TO TAX INCREASES, OUR VOICES ARE LOUD AND SOMETIMES ANGRY.
WHAT IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT FRUSTRATION IS EXPERTISE AND A DEVELOPING PLAN TO ACCOUNT FOR GROWTH WHILE MITIGATING THE THREAT OF DISPLACEMENT.
THIS PLAN CREATED THROUGH THE HARD WORK OF THE FOLKS AT COMMUNITY POWERED A TX HAS BEEN VETTED THROUGH COMMUNITY MEMBERS PLANNING EXPERTS AT UT AND EVEN DEVELOPERS.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE TO SUPPORT THEIR ANTI DISPLACEMENT OVERLAY THAT WOULD PROTECT AND PRESERVE EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PRODUCE
[02:05:01]
HOUSING THAT IS TRULY AFFORDABLE IN NEIGHBORHOODS IN WHICH RESIDENTS ARE VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT.THAT IS BASED ON BEST PRACTICES REGARDING UPZONING AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRESERVATION AND PRODUCTION AND DISPLACEMENT MITIGATION.
THE OVERLAY WOULD ENCOURAGE TRULY AFFORDABLE DENSITY RATHER THAN INCENTIVIZING MARKET RATE.
UNAFFORDABLE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH ACCELERATES DISPLACEMENT, DRIVES UP HOUSING COSTS, AND INCENTIVIZES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THE PROTECTIVE OVERLAYS PROPOSED TO COVER ALL NEIGHBORHOODS IDENTIFIED AS VULNERABLE IN THE UPROOTED REPORT BASED ON THE MAP OF MOST VULNERABLE CENSUS TRACKS IN 2016.
MORE RECENT CENSUS DATA CAN ALSO BE USED TO DETERMINE NEIGHBORHOOD VULNERABILITY.
THE OVERLAY WOULD PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT BY REQUIRING ANY LAND USE OR ZONING CHANGE THAT WOULD INCREASE ENTITLEMENTS APPLIED TO THE OVERLAY AREA.
PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 50% OF UNITS AFFORDABLE TO EXISTING RESIDENTS WHO ARE RENT BURDENED, HOUSING INSECURE, AND AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT WITH UNITS BELOW 50% MFI 58,400 FOR A HOUSEHOLD OF FOUR AND 30% MFI 35,050 FOR A HOUSEHOLD OF FOUR OR 50% OF THE MFI FOR THE CENSUS BLOCK GROUP OR CENSUS TRACK.
IF BLOCK GROUP DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE, WHICHEVER IS LOWER, THE PROPOSAL DEFINES AFFORDABILITY BASED ON WHAT IS AFFORDABLE TO RESIDENTS IN NEIGHBORHOODS VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT AND BEGINS TO ADDRESS THE INEQUITY OF AUSTIN'S HISTORICAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DISPLACEMENT IMPACTS.
THIS MAY REQUIRE PRIVATE DEVELOPERS TO LEVERAGE EXISTING FUNDS FOR TRULY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IE PROJECT CONNECT ANTI DISPLACEMENT FUNDS, HAVE A PRIVATE PARTNER WITH PHILANTHROPIC FUNDING AND OR A PUBLIC PARTNER THAT CAN PURSUE PUBLIC SUB SUBSIDIES SUCH AS TAX CREDIT HOUSING.
IN CLOSING, AS A DISTRICT FOUR RESIDENT WITH NO REFLECTION ON GAVA OR ANY OTHER GROUP I WORK WITH OR REPRESENT, I WAS RAISED ROMAN CATHOLIC.
AND LET ME TELL YOU, JESUS NEVER PUT THE DOWNTRODDEN OR LEPERS IN MINIMALIST MINDED SPACES.
THE NEXT SPEAKER, THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS ARE FELIX TU YASIN SMITH AND ZACH VADIS.
UM, I HAVE TIME DONATE TO ME BY, UH, TY OVER THERE.
I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT NINE AND PRESIDENT OF AURA, A LOCAL ALL VOLUNTEER NONPROFIT WHO BELIEVES IN CREATING AN ABUNDANT AUSTIN WITH ROOM FOR ANYONE WHO WISHES TO CALL OUR CITY HOME AND A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CAPABLE OF MOVING US ALL WITHOUT THE GREAT EXPENSE OF CAR OWNERSHIP.
ONCE WE START BY EXPRESSING THE DEEP GRATITUDE I FEEL TOWARDS THIS COMMISSION, OUR CURRENT CITY COUNCIL AND EVERYONE STRIVING TO DISENTANGLE US FROM THE BRAMBLE OF EXCLUSIONARY POLICIES THAT IS MAKING IT HARD TO BUILD A LIFE IN THIS CITY, IT'S TAKEN US SEVERAL DECADES OF BAD POLICY TO GET US INTO THIS DEEP HOUSING DEFICIT WE FIND OURSELVES IN.
I FEAR IT MAY TAKE AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET US TO A PLACE OF ABUNDANCE WHERE NO AUSTINITE IS OVERBURDENED WITH RENT OR FIND THEMSELVES WITHOUT SAFE SPACE TO SLEEP AT NIGHT.
THE LENGTH OF THIS ROAD MAKES, MAKES IT ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT.
WE CELEBRATE EVERY INCH ALONG THE WAY AND FRIENDS, I BELIEVE WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY WITH HOME PHASE TWO AND COMPATIBILITY REFORM IS AT LEAST A MILE.
THIS HAS CAUSED A GREAT CELEBRATION, BUT I THINK WE HAVE THE ABILITY WITH A FEW TWEAKS TO GO AT LEAST A MILE MORE, WHICH IS IN THAT SPIRIT.
THE ORA LAND USE COMMITTEE HAS PREPARED A LIST OF, UH, AMENDMENTS THAT I HOPE YOU'LL CONSIDER WHILE DISCUSSING THIS EVENING.
LET'S START WITH THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
WHAT WE CHOOSE AS OUR MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS EFFECTIVELY WHAT WE BELIEVE THE BARRIER TO ENTRY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS TO BE.
IT SERVES NO HEALTH, SAFETY OR OTHER PRACTICAL PURPOSE.
THIS NUMBER IS PURELY ABOUT AESTHETICS AND VALUES.
HOW MUCH LAND MUST ONE BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO BE ABLE TO CALL THEMSELVES? YOUR NEIGHBOR? THE YOUNG PERSON STARTING OUT IN LIFE WANTS TO BUY A SMALL PIECE OF LAND IN HYDE PARK AND LIVE IN A TINY HOME.
WHO ARE WE TO TELL THEM THEY CAN'T? THAT PERSON MAY WELL BE ME IF I WAS GIVEN THE OPTION.
I FUNDAMENTALLY DON'T BELIEVE THIS NUMBER SHOULD EXIST, BUT I KNOW THAT WON'T BE THE OUTCOME OF TONIGHT.
SO INSTEAD, WE ARE ASKING YOU TO SET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO 1,399 FEET.
UH, YOU ARE RIGHT TO THINK THIS NUMBER IS ABSURD BECAUSE IT IS, BUT IT IS NO MORE ABSURD THAN 57, 50 OR 2000.
IT'S JUST AS ARBITRARY, BUT IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY LESS HARMFUL AND ALLOWS US TO BE ONE FOOT LOWER THAN HOUSTON'S.
WE ASK THAT YOU FOLLOW SAFE STREETS' RECOMMENDATIONS.
THEY HAVE A LOVELY WEBSITE Y'ALL SHOULD LOOK AT.
UH, ADDITIONALLY, WE ASK THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED TO FIND ALL AVAILABLE MEANS.
WE CAN USE THE CITY TO ALLOW ALL LAND OWNING CITIZENS TO UTILIZE THESE TWO NEW TOOLS FOR INFILL, DEVELOP INFIELD DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY THOSE AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT.
WE SHOULD BE HELPING AUSTINITES WITH MORE LAND AND
[02:10:01]
CASH, KNOW WHAT THEIR OPTIONS ARE, HELP THEM WITH FINANCING AND CONNECT THEM WITH THE RESOURCES NEEDED TO EMPOWER THEM.COUNCIL MEMBER OF VASQUEZ INITIATED AMENDMENT WITH SIMILAR DIRECTION AS PART OF HOME, HOME PHASE ONE, AND THAT WE ASK THAT REMAIN TOP OF MIND FOR BODY, FOR THIS BODY AND OUR STAFF.
FINALLY, FOR HOME PHASE TWO, WE ASK THAT YOU DON'T ALLOW N CCDS TO EXCLUDE THEMSELVES FROM THESE CHANGES.
THE BROADER WE MAKE OUR LAND USE CHANGES THE LESS IT IMPACTS ANY INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY BECAUSE NO LOT IS SPECIAL.
WHY THEN WOULD WE ALLOW SOME OF THE WEALTHIEST NEIGHBORHOODS MOST IN NEED OF GREATER AFFORDABILITY TO CONTINUE TO EXCLUDE THEMSELVES? UH, NEXT I'LL TALK ABOUT COMPATIBILITY.
THE BASIC IDEA OF COMPATIBILITY IS THAT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING AND THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THEM ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS.
AND THERE MUST BE A BUFFER TO SEPARATE THE TWO.
COMPATIBILITY SEPARATES NEIGHBORS ACROSS RACE, CLASS INCOME AND LIFE CIRCUMSTANCE.
IT MAKES US ALL THE LESSER BECAUSE OF IT.
THIS MINDSET IS NOT UNIQUE TO AUSTIN, BUT WE ARE AN OUTLIER IN JUST HOW MUCH SEPARATION WE BELIEVE THERE NEEDS TO BE.
REDUCING COMPATIBILITY FROM FOUR 50 TO 75 IS AN ACHIEVEMENT WE SHOULD ALL BE PROUD OF, BUT NOT ONE WE SHOULD BE SATISFIED WITH.
WE ASK THAT YOU BRING FORWARD AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD FURTHER REDUCE THE HARMS DONE BY THIS POLICY.
AND SPECIFICALLY, CONSIDER REDUCING COMPATIBILITY TO 50 FEET.
NONE OF THESE CHANGES WILL FIX ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS, NOR WILL THEY IN INDUCE DRASTIC CHANGE.
THE POSSIBILITIES THAT THESE CHANGES WILL UNLOCK, WILL PLAY OUT OVER GENERATION, SLOWLY, MAKING US A FRIENDLIER, MORE AFFORDABLE PLACE LOT BY LOT.
BORN AND RAISED AUSTINITE, VICE PRESIDENT OF JUSTICE AND ADVOCACY FOR THE AUSTIN AREA URBAN LEAGUE.
UM, AND I HAVE SENT YOU ALL SOME PROPOSED COMPANION LANGUAGE TO HOMES TWO LAST WEEK.
AS YOU ALL CONTEMPLATE TODAY'S AGENDA, WHICH INCLUDES HOME TWO POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU ALL HAD THIS ADJOINING POTENTIAL COMPANION LANGUAGE TO CONTINUE TO DIVERSIFY CONVERSATIONS REGARDING HOME AND FUTURE CODE AMENDMENTS.
WE HAVE WORKED ALONGSIDE BOTH DEVELOPER, COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND ANTI DISPLACEMENT COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN ORDER TO CREATE AN OVERARCHING AMALGAMATION REQUEST DOCUMENT THAT CAN BE PULLED APART AS YOU OR YOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS INDIVIDUALLY BY MERITORIOUS IN HOPES OF LAYERING ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY INPUT INTO THE EVOLUTION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THIS IS A NOT, THIS IS NOT A COMPLETE DOCUMENT, AS THERE ARE ALWAYS ADDITIONAL PARTNERS WE HOPE WILL PARTICIPATE.
THOUGH WE BELIEVE IN THE NECESSITY OF EVOLUTION WITHIN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE MARKET ALONE WILL SOLVE, SOLVE FOR AFFORDABILITY, AND THAT THE AMENDMENTS AS IS PROPOSED, DO NOT DO THE MOST TO PROTECT LOW MFI RESIDENTS OF AUSTIN.
THOUGH THESE ARE LAND MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE INTENDED TO BENEFIT THE MIDDLE CLASS, IT IS ESSENTIAL TO DUE DILIGENCE IN OUR COMMITMENT TO ALL THAT DICTATES.
WE MUST ALSO, BY THE SAME STROKE OF THE PEN, MITIGATE FUTURE FORESEEABLE HARMS, NOT ONLY TO THE LAND, BUT ALSO TO THE PEOPLE.
PLEASE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THIS IS NOT AN ALL OR NOTHING DOCUMENT AS THINGS SPEAK TO YOU, PLEASE, WE WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO PULL THOSE OUT.
WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY MAY BE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING SOME OF THESE ELEMENTS IN THE OFFICES, AND WE WELCOME SOME INTERACTION ON, ON THAT INPUT AS WELL.
ADDITIONALLY, WE HOPE A COMMISSIONER WILL BE SO BOLD, UM, AS TO PULL THE LANGUAGE WE HAVE SUBMITTED SO THAT YOU, SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN, UM, UH, ENGAGE WITH IT, UH, ENGAGE WITH THIS MATERIAL JUST AS THEY WILL WITH AMENDMENTS FOCUSED ON THE LOGISTICS OF HOME TWO.
AND IF IT, IF, IF IT'S NOT TO BE PLACED OR LATER UPON HOME, TWO, UM, WE CAN AT LEAST CREATE GUARDRAILS FOR FUTURE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE MODIFICATIONS.
OUR HOPE IS, OUR HOPE HERE IS SIMPLE CREATE DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT IDEOLOGIES WITHIN HOME.
TWO TWO, IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE A COMPLETE PICTURE OF LAND CODE MODIFICATIONS THAT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION COST BURDENED INDIVIDUALS TO A HIGHER LEVEL THAN CURRENTLY DRAFTED, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY CREATING SPACE FOR DIFFERENT COMMUNITY VIEW VIEWPOINTS TO ENGAGE TOGETHER IN OUR NEXT EVOLUTION OF OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
IF WE'RE GONNA OPEN THE DOOR, WE SHOULD ALL BE ABLE TO WALK THROUGH IT TO THE OPPORTUNITIES PROMISED.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS FELIX TU, DISTRICT FOUR.
UM, FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE ONGOING EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE COMPLEX CHALLENGES OF OUR LAND USE CODE.
THIS HAS NOT BEEN AN EASY ROAD, AND I BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE COMMITTED TO FOSTERING A TRULY LIVABLE CITY.
I BELIEVE THAT OUR LAND USE CODE HAS CREATED INNUMERABLE, UH, CHALLENGES FOR OUR CITY, AND THAT THE CHANGES BEING DISCUSSED HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BENEFIT AUSTIN AND BETTER POSITION US TO ACHIEVE OUR CLIMATE, TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING GOALS.
I ALSO APPRECIATE A LOT OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID TODAY.
I BELIEVE THAT IT IS VITAL THAT WE DO MORE TO PRESERVE THE DIVERSE CULTURAL FABRIC THAT DEFINES US, ENSURE THAT THE PROGRESS DOES NOT DISPLACE OUR MOST VULNERABLE NEIGHBORS.
TODAY, I'M HERE TO URGE YOU TO CONSIDER STRICTER ANTI DISPLACEMENT MEASURES TO PROTECT OUR MOST VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES AND MAXIMIZE THE USE OF CITY OWNED LAND.
FOR THIS PURPOSE, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WE REINFORCE SENATE PROTECTIONS
[02:15:01]
AND WE INCREASE CITY FUNDING FOR BOTH CONSTRUCTION AND PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO RECOMMEND DEDICATING MORE FUNDING TO PROVIDE LOANS AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO HOMEOWNERS AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT, HELPING THEM BENEFIT FROM THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED TODAY.
IN MY VIEW, THESE AMENDMENTS CAN HELP TO BALANCE THE URGENT NEED FOR MORE HOUSING WITH THE STABILITY OF OUR COMMUNITIES, ENSURING RESIDENTS CAN REMAIN IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS WITHOUT THE FEAR OF DISPLACEMENT.
IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE WORK, IT IS, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE WORK OUT THESE POLICIES CONCURRENTLY AND NOT POSTPONE THEM.
PLEASE USE EVERY TOOL AT YOUR DISPOSAL TO BUILD A COMMUNITY THAT EMBODIES EQUITY AND INCLUSIVENESS.
I WANNA THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR DEDICATION TO MAKING OUR CITY A PLACE WHERE EVERYONE CAN THRIVE, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR LEADERSHIP IN THIS ENDEAVOR.
IN THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS WILL BE KAI GRAY, CYRUS TARA AND BRAD MASSEN.
UM, I LIVE IN, UH, I LOOK AT MY WRONG NOTES HERE.
SORRY, I'M SIGHT IMPAIRED TOO.
JUST IN CASE Y'ALL WERE WONDERING.
I I LIVE IN, UH, DISTRICT THREE OH IN, UH, I REPRESENT THE BIRD STREETS AT PLEASANT HILL AND, UH, I'M WITH THE FRIENDS OF MR. CREEK.
UM, I WENT TO THE OPEN HOUSE AT THE LIBRARY THE OTHER DAY AND WAS, UH, STRUCK BY THE LANGUAGE THE CITY USES TO DESCRIBE THE PROCESS AND THEIR PART IN IT.
I DON'T REALLY RECALL SEEING THE PHRASE PEER CITIES USED AS MUCH BEFORE.
I BELIEVE THIS CASE, PEER IS STAND IN FOR RIVAL.
ARE WE BEING DRAGGED INTO A FIGHT TO COMPETE FOR FEDERAL DOLLARS WITH OTHER CITIES? IS THERE ANY GUARANTEE THAT WE WILL GET THE GRANTS Y'ALL ARE CHANGING THE WHOLE CITY FOR? WILL WE END UP WITH THIS DENSITY HOUSING IN A PERMANENTLY CHANGED CITY AND STILL FALL SHORT OF SOME MYSTERIOUS GOAL BEING SOUGHT AFTER BY THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL? ANOTHER THING THAT STOOD OUT WAS THE VAGUE LANGUAGE CONCERNING THE ENVIRONMENT.
IT SEEMS TO LEAVE EVERYTHING UP TO SITE REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH IS TOO LATE TO BRING UP SIGNIFICANT UNDERLYING ISSUES WITH A MASSIVE PROJECT BY THE TRI BY THE TIME A PROJECT MAKES IT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW.
THE APPLICANTS HAVE ALREADY SPENT A LOT OF MONEY, ENERGY, AND IMAGINATION ON THEIR RESPECTIVE PROJECTS.
PERENNIAL SPRINGS, EPHEMERAL CREEKS, AND OTHER NATURAL WATERSHED FEATURES ARE BEING TOTALLY IGNORED IN THE ZONING REVIEW PROCESS.
ONCE THE ZONING IS CHANGED ON A PROPERTY, IT CAN'T BE CHANGED BACK.
SO IGNORING NATURAL FEATURES AND SETTING UP THESE PROPERTIES TO FLOOD AND TO BE OBSTRUCTION TO MOVING WATER OR POSSIBLY BE BUILT ON TOP OF A SPRING OR A NATURAL FEATURE, WHICH CAN CAUSE FOUNDATION AND PLUMBING PROBLEMS, AS WELL AS POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS LEAKS TO, TO THE WATERSHED.
I THINK IT IS AT THIS POINT, THE CITY FEELS BEHOLDEN TO GIVE AN APPLICANT THEIR WAY REGARDLESS OF THESE UNDERLYING CONDITIONS.
EVEN THOUGH SOME, SOME WORK IN STAGES COULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, THE CITIZENS ARE CONCERNED BEFORE THEY'RE BAKED INTO THE PROCESS.
AND I SUPPORT COMMUNITY AT X'S, UH, AMENDMENT AS WELL.
UM, THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS ARE CYRUS, ANI, L ALLEN, AND CODY CARR.
I'M A MEMBER OF AURA AND ON THE BOARD OF THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I'M SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF HOME PHASE TWO AND COMPATIBILITY REFORM AS WELL AS WHAT ZACH LAID OUT AS PART OF AURA'S PLATFORM.
PERSONALLY, I DON'T THINK EITHER OF THOSE EVEN GO FURTHER ENOUGH.
I'VE ASKED THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHY 2000 FEET? WHY 75 FEET? I JUST GENERALLY THINK THE NUMBERS ARE ARBITRARY.
I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE ZERO WHEN IT COMES TO COMPATIBILITY.
I THINK IT SHOULD BE ZERO WHEN IT COMES TO MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
THE REASON I DO IS 'CAUSE WE WENT AND ASKED A COMMUNITY, WE TALKED TO FOLKS IN EAST AUSTIN, IN CHERRYWOOD, IN HYDE PARK.
AND MOST OF WHAT WE HEARD IS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT COMPATIBILITY IS.
WE LIKE, WHY DOES THIS EVEN EXIST?
[02:20:01]
WE SETBACKS, WE DON'T REALLY CARE.UM, WE HEARD FROM FOLKS ALL FROM THE MOST NEUTRAL STANCE OF, WELL, I GUESS MY BACKYARD IS A LITTLE BIGGER THAN HIS, OR MY FRONT YARD IS A LITTLE BIGGER THAN HIS.
GENERALLY, PEOPLE MADE THEIR OWN CHOICES OF WHERE THEY WANNA LIVE, AND I THINK THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT COMPROMISING IN NUMBERS, WHO ARE WE COMPROMISING WITH? IT'S LET'S CREATE A BUILT ENVIRONMENT WHAT WE WANT, NOT SOME MIDDLE, SLOWLY TEARING THE BANDAID OFF.
LET'S TEAR THE BANDAID OFF OF WHAT WE WANT.
AND IF YOU TALK ABOUT ROW HOUSES, THE DEMAND FOR ROW HOUSES, MULTI-FAMILY IS MASSIVE.
THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE THAT DEMAND ROW HOUSES THAT EVEN KNOW WHAT SETBACKS ARE, WHETHER IT'S SIDE SETBACKS OR FRONT SETBACKS.
I MEAN, I WOULD LOVE TO LIVE IN A ROW HOUSE.
UM, I KNOW OF ESSENTIALLY ONE REALLY NICE BLOCK BESIDES MUELLER ON JUNIPER LANE AND ESAU, AND THERE'S JUST VERY FEW.
AND WHEN PEOPLE POINT TO ROWHOUSE AND SAY, THOSE ARE EXPENSIVE, THOSE AREN'T AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE WE DON'T LEGALIZE 'EM.
IT'S JUST, IT, IT'S, IT'S A SCARCITY THAT WE HAVE AROUND HERE AND I HOPE THAT WE GO FURTHER, ESPECIALLY BASED ON THE SUPPORT THAT WE SAW IN THE FIRST MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL.
UM, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK HERE FOR HOME PHASE THREE, SO PLEASE SUPPORT COMPATIBILITY REFORM.
PLEASE SUPPORT MINIMUM ABOUT SIZE REFORM AS WELL AS SETBACKS IN HOME PHASE TWO.
UM, THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS ARE TRACY KELLY, JENNY GRAYSON, AND PAMELA BELL.
PAM, UM, PAMELA, YOU RECEIVED A DONATION OF TIME FROM HOMER PARIS.
HOMER, ARE YOU HERE? PGN? NO, I DON'T SEE HIM.
YOU ONLY HAVE TWO MINUTES AND HOMER IS NOT PRESENT.
UM, I'M PAMELA BELL, PRESIDENT OF THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR NUNA.
I'M SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THE ETOD AND HOME TWO, UM, CHANGES AND I'M SPEAKING FOUR NEIGHBORHOOD INVOLVEMENT.
YEARS AGO, THE CITY COUNCIL REQUIRED CENTRAL AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOODS TO BAND TOGETHER TO SUBMIT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS TO FEND OFF DEVELOPERS WANTING TO BUILD HIGH RISE APARTMENTS NEAR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
NUNA ELECTED TO DEVELOP AN NCCD.
WE SPENT HUNDREDS OF HOURS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS DOCUMENTING EVERY PROPERTY, WORKING WITH AN ARCHITECT TO DESIGN AN NCCD TO PRESERVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AT THE TIME, NUNA WAS THE SECOND DENSEST NEIGHBORHOOD WITH LOTS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR STUDENTS.
WE'RE SHOCKED BY THE LACK OF ENGAGEMENT WITH NEIGHBORHOODS DURING THE CITY'S EFFORTS TO CHANGE PROPERTY ZONING THROUGH THE ETOD AND HOME TWO INITIATIVES.
I'VE ATTENDED PUBLIC HEARINGS AND A RECENT OPEN HOUSE FOR THE PUBLIC TO LEARN MORE.
WHEN I ASKED CITY STAFF TO MEET WITH NUNA, I WAS TOLD WE DON'T DO NEIGHBORHOODS AND IF WE ATTENDED YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WE HAVE TO ATTEND ALL OF THEM.
THESE CON COMMENTS CONVEY THE CITY'S WILLFUL LACK OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT DURING THIS PROCESS.
AND ITS DETERMINATION TO ACT SWIFTLY TO MINIMIZE PUBLIC INPUT UNDER THE PRESENT PLANS, NUNA WILL SUFFER DETRIMENTAL CHANGES THAT WILL DESTROY OUR PEACEFUL NEIGHBORHOOD AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS ARE BEING GIVEN ONLY TWO MINUTES TO TESTIFY IN A PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THE NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THEIR PROPERTIES.
SUCH INPUT IS INADEQUATE TO ADDRESS THE HARM WE'LL EXPERIENCE IF THESE ZONING CHANGES ARE PASSED.
THE INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHTS AND SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTIES TO ACHIEVE MORE DENSITY.
DO NOT FOLLOW OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
WE DEMAND THAT THE CITY BEGIN A NEW, UH, PROCESS OF COLLABORATION AND WE WANT THEM TO EXPLAIN THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND HOW OUR NCCD WILL BE HONORED.
UH, THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS ARE MONTANA MCNAUGHTON, BILL MCCALLEY, AND LAUREN HARTNETT.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I THINK YOUR LAST SPEAKER FOR THE NIGHT.
UH, I AM A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT ONE A RENTER AND I'M ALSO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF TRANSIT FORWARD IN AUSTIN, 5 0 1 C3 WORKING ON EDUCATION AND ENGAGEMENT ABOUT TRANSIT AS A WHOLE WITH A REAL FOCUS ON PROJECT CONNECT.
[02:25:01]
I CAME BEFORE YOU A COUPLE WEEKS AGO AND TALKED ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF MORE DENSITY AND AFFORDABILITY TO A REALLY EFFECTIVE TRANSIT SYSTEM.AND WHEN HOME ONE WAS ACTUALLY BEING DISCUSSED.
A FEW MONTHS AGO YOU HAD DOTIE WATKINS ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE IN A PRESS CONFERENCE WITH US TALKING ABOUT HOW MORE DENSE NEIGHBORHOODS ALLOW FOR TRANSIT TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE.
AND SO THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT OVERLYING THEME OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TALKING ABOUT.
BUT WHAT I REALLY WANTED TO BRING UP TO YOU TONIGHT IS WORKERS.
I SIT, UM, ON SOME COMMITTEES THAT THE CAPITAL AREA WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS FOLKS HAVE PUT TOGETHER TO TALK ABOUT ALL THE WORKERS WE'RE GONNA NEED FOR ALL OF THE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS HERE IN AUSTIN.
WE'RE GONNA NEED 10,000 WORKERS EVERY SINGLE YEAR TO BE ABLE TO BUILD ALL OF THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON HERE IN AUSTIN.
THERE IS A REAL WORRY THAT THOSE FOLKS WILL NOT HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE.
MORE HOUSING ALLOWS FOR MORE WORKERS TO BE LIVING CLOSE TO WHERE THEIR JOBS ARE MORE AFFORDABLY.
AND YOU SEE THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE REPRESENTED BY LAUNA ON OUR BOARD.
THEY'VE COME OUT IN FAVOR OF THIS.
YOU HEARD A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, MEMBERS OF THE OTHER UNIONS COMING, THE BUILDING TRADES UNIONS IS ASKING FOR THIS.
YOU'VE HEARD LINA, SHE FROM AUSTIN EMS, WE ACTUALLY HAD HER AS PART OF A, A COMMITTEE WE DID A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, A DISCUSSION WE HAD SAYING THEIR PEOPLE HAVE TO LIVE OUTSIDE OF TOWN 'CAUSE THEY CAN'T LIVE IN TOWN.
WHAT HAPPENS? THEY'RE CREATING MORE TRAFFIC, WHICH CREATES MORE CRASHES, WHICH MAKES MORE WORK FOR THE PEOPLE FOR THE EMS UNION.
YOU HEAR THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT, YOU HEARD A COUPLE WEEKS AGO FROM OVER 30 UT STUDENTS THAT WANT TO BE ABLE TO LIVE HERE WHEN THEY GRADUATE.
AND THEY'RE WORRIED BECAUSE OF THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUES.
'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH HOUSING THAT THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
AND IN THE CLOSING, I HAD A CONVERSATION A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WITH THE CEO OF THE HAM GROUP, THE HEALTH ALLIANCE FOR AUSTIN MUSICIANS.
HE SAID SPECIFICALLY, HOUSING IS THE GIANT SUCK THAT AFFECTS MUSICIANS THE MOST.
WE APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU'RE DOING AND ALL THE CARE AND ATTENTION ON THESE SUBJECTS.
CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE ONE MORE.
IS THAT ME? LAUREN? LAUREN? HARD? YES.
HI, I AM, UH, LAUREN HARTNETT, AND I BELIEVE I'M SUPPOSED TO DISCLOSE THAT I WAS A MEMBER OF HARPER MA UH, HAR COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON'S OFFICE FROM JANUARY, 2019 TO MARCH, 2023.
BUT THE V THE HANDBOOK'S, FRANKLY VAGUE, UH, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
UH, I'M HERE TO SPEAK TODAY IN FULL SUPPORT OF THESE LONG OVERDUE CODE AMENDMENTS, ESPECIALLY IN REGARDS TO COMPATIBILITY.
I FIRMLY BELIEVE THEY WILL HELP US REACH SO MANY OF THE GOALS AND VISIONS SPELLED OUT IN THE COUNTLESS COMMUNITY VETTED PLANS THAT OUR COUNCIL HAS ADOPTED.
CURRENTLY, I'M PART OF A SMALL LOCAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TEAM.
THERE'S ONLY TWO OF US, UH, THAT SPECIALIZES IN MIXED INCOME URBAN INFILL DEVELOPMENT.
OUR MISSION IS TO SUPPORT AUSTINITES FACING HOUSING SCARCITY BY PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES.
I'M PROUD TO SAY THAT RIGHT NOW 25% OF THE UNITS IN OUR MODEST PORTFOLIO ARE INCOME RESTRICTED, BUT IT COULD BE MORE.
AND WHILE I CAN CERTAINLY STAND UP HERE AND TELL YOU HOW THE PROPOSED COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE OUR ABILITY TO DELIVER MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS IN OUR PROJECTS, I FIGURED IT MIGHT BE MORE IMPACTFUL TO SPEAK TO Y'ALL FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A HOMEOWNER IN CENTRAL AUSTIN.
MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE OWNED OUR HOME IN CHERRYWOOD FOR MORE THAN A DECADE NOW.
IT'S A BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WHAT MAKES IT SO SPECIAL ARE THE NEIGHBORS THEMSELVES.
I WANT MORE PEOPLE OF ALL INCOME LEVELS TO ENJOY OUR ANNUAL 4TH OF JULY PARADES AND HALLOWEEN BLOCK PARTIES.
UH, I WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO WALK AND BIKE TO THE RESTAURANTS AND BUSINESSES ALONG MAINOR ROAD.
I WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO CATCH THE RO UH, METRO RAPID LINE ON MAINOR.
CITIES LIKE HOUSTON AND DALLAS HAVE LESS RIGOR, UH, RIGID COMPATIBILITY AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS THAN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE TODAY.
AND THOSE CITIES STILL HAVE PLENTY OF CHARM AND CHARACTER.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, THOUGH, THEY HAVE MORE ATTAINABLE HOUSING, THESE CHANGES WON'T DESTROY OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND INSTEAD THEY WILL UNLOCK OUR NEIGHBORHOODS FROM MORE PEOPLE OF ALL INCOME LEVELS.
AND IF WE WANT TO BE THE WELCOMING, AFFORDABLE MOBILE AND CLIMATE FRIENDLY CITY THAT FOSTERS ART, MUSIC, AND CULTURE, THE CITY THAT WE ALL WANT IT TO BE, THEN THESE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS ARE EXACTLY WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU EVERYBODY THAT CAME TO SPEAK AND THOSE ON THE PHONE.
UM, WE ARE NOW GOING TO, UH, LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SECOND.
SO, UH, VICE CHAIR, UM, AND COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
[02:30:01]
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.SO BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO OUR Q AND A, UM, THERE WAS, UH, A POSTING ERROR ON ITEM NUMBER 11, WHICH WAS THE, UM, SH TWO 90 CASE.
SO IN ORDER TO CLEAN THINGS UP, UM, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER ITEM NUMBER 11, WHICH PASSED ON CONSENT EARLIER, SECOND, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR.
UM, AND SO LITTLE BIT OF DESCRIPTION HERE.
THE ITEM IS POSTED ON THE AGENDA AS L-I-P-D-A DASH NP, HOWEVER, ITEM NUMBER 11 SHOULD BE C-H-P-D-A-M-P-A TO MATCH THE MAILED NOTICE.
SO COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY BDA, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
UM, TO MATCH THE MAIL NOTICE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND APPLICANT REQUEST.
SO, UM, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, RECONSIDER, UM, THIS ITEM, WHICH WAS SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, UM, AGAINST ABSTAIN.
WE HAVE, UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS ABSTAIN.
AND THEN MY FOLLOW UP MOTION IS TO, UM, CON OFFER ITEM NUMBER 11 FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
THIS BE CH DASH PDA DASH NPA A.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, WELL TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT'S UNANIMOUS.
UM, SO FIRST WE'RE GONNA START WITH OUR Q AND A.
OR ARE WE DIVIDING THE ITEM FIRST? WE'RE DIVIDING IT.
SO TONIGHT WE, UM, ITEM NUMBER TWO IS, IS REALLY THREE ITEMS. IT'S COMPATIBILITY HOME PHASE TWO AND EV CHARGING.
SO, UM, TO MAKE OUR DISCUSSIONS AND AMENDMENT PROCESS AND DELIBERATIONS EASIER, UM, I'M PROPOSING TO SPLIT THOSE INTO THREE.
UM, AND SO WE'VE ALSO, UH, THE ORDER THAT I'LL GO IS THE ORDER THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO TAKE THE ITEMS TONIGHT.
SO THE FIRST WOULD BE COMPATIBILITY FOLLOWED BY HOME PHASE TWO, FOLLOWED BY EV CHARGING.
DO WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT? YES.
SO IS THERE A SECOND ON THIS? I'M MAKING A SECOND.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON SPLITTING THE ITEM.
SO NOW WE WILL START WITH OUR Q AND A.
UM, AND THIS CAN BE, EXCUSE ME, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, UH, TWO ROUNDS OF COMMISSIONER'S Q AND A.
SO ALL OF US AND, UM, CHAIR COHEN WILL GET A CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS.
UM, WE'LL DO THREE MINUTES EACH, UH, IN TWO ROUNDS SO THE QUESTIONS CAN BE ASKED OF STAFF, OTHER COMMISSIONERS, COMMUNITY MEMBERS, UM, AND TO MAKE THIS EASIER.
AND SO WE CAN TRACK AND MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S GETTING COVERED.
WE'LL GO IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER.
ANY QUESTIONS? IS THAT CLEAR? OKAY.
SO TO START, UM, COMMISSIONER ZA ANDERSON.
SORRY, UM, I DIDN'T HAVE MY AGENDA IN FRONT OF ME.
COMMISSIONER ZA ANDERSON, I'D LIKE TO MOVE WITH MY ITEM NUMBER TWO.
UM, WE'RE GONNA DO THE Q AND A FIRST.
SO THIS IS YOUR ROUND TO DO Q AND A.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON PASSED ON HIS QUESTION.
UM, I HAD A QUESTION RELATED TO EV CHARGING.
IF WE HAD, COULD HAVE STAFF AND I SEE, UH, STAFF IS WALKING UP.
UM, JUST QUICKLY, CAN YOU EXPLAIN, I KNOW THERE WAS SOME CONSIDERATION OF SEEING WHETHER
[02:35:01]
WE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE, UM, EV CHARGING FOR ONE LEVEL BELOW GROUND.CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT BIT TO THAT? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO OUR STAFF? UH, YES, THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO STAFF, UM, WITH THE CONSIDERATION THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WILL HAVE SITE SPECIFIC OR, OR SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT THEY'LL RECOMMEND INCLUDING, UM, EITHER IN THAT AMENDMENT OR AT THE STAGE OF SITE PLAN.
UH, THIS IS RELATED TO, UM, THE HOME ORDINANCE.
UM, AND I'M JUST, SOMETHING THAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS, CAN, CAN STAFF SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE AROUND SMALL LOT AMNESTY AND URBAN HOMES AND OTHER SORT OF REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE? AND I KNOW SF FOUR HAS COME UP AS WELL.
CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THAT? YES.
UM, IF THE MINIMUM LOT SIDE IS LOWERED, UM, MOST OF SMALL LOT AMNESTY WILL NOT BE NEEDED ANYMORE BECAUSE THOSE LOTS WILL NOW MEET THE REQUIREMENT.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD INFILL TOOLS FOR URBAN HOME AND COTTAGE HOME WILL REMAIN, UM, AS ANOTHER TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX.
SO, UM, AND, AND ESSENTIALLY JUST TO UNDERSTAND, RIGHT, WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES TO SMALL LOT AMNESTY OR URBAN HOME AT THIS POINT? THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, ANOTHER QUESTION THAT I HAD IN RELATION TO THIS WAS WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
UM, OH, MS. GARWOOD, DID YOU WANNA ADD SOMETHING TO THAT? APOLOGIES.
SO WE ARE, FOR SMALL LOT AMNESTY, WE ARE ADDING A PLA DATE.
UM, SO BASICALLY THE, YOU CAN'T SUBDIVIDE INTO A SMALL LOT AND USE THE HIGHER IMPERVIOUS COVER ALOUD THROUGH SMALL LOT AMNESTY.
UM, ANOTHER THING THAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HERE IS, UM, FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, DO WE HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR CERTIFI FIRE AND SAFETY STANDARDS FROM OUR FIRE CODE? AND, AND IF THERE'S OTHER STAFF THAT WOULD BE BETTER SUITED, DO RESPOND TO THIS? THAT'S FINE.
YEAH, WE DO HAVE, UM, FIRE STAFF HERE, BUT, UM, A GENERAL RULE IS THAT YOU CAN BE 10 FEET APART BEFORE YOU NEED ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, UM, FOR THE WALLS BETWEEN BUILDINGS.
AND IS THAT GENERALLY WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED SORT OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT BETWEEN IICC? WE HAVE RELEVANT STAFF AS WELL.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANTED TO ADD SOMETHING, SIR.
NO, I WAS JUST WAITING FOR YOU FINISH.
THE QUESTION WAS ESSENTIALLY CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OH, I AM COMING OUTTA MY TIME.
COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, UM, I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, BUT I I JUST WANT OUT THERE FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND IT.
IT, I FEEL LIKE FOR SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, WE DO MORE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATION, AND I FEEL LIKE THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN REALLY TRUNCATED WITH THE PUBLIC CAN, CAN STAFF HELP US UNDERSTAND THE SCHEDULING ISSUES WITH HAVING MORE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ON ALL OF THESE, ALL OF THESE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES, OR WE CAN JUST HAVE DEAD AIR AND WASTE MY THREE MINUTES.
LAURA MIDDLETON PRIDE, DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
AND YES, SO WE HAVE 23, UM, COUNCIL COMMITTEE COMMISSION MEETINGS THAT STAFF NEEDED TO PREPARE FOR JUST TO GET TO MAY 16TH, BETWEEN APRIL 4TH AND THE MAY 16TH, EVEN MAY 30TH DATE.
AND SO, AND WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THOSE DATES? UM, COUNCIL CONSIDERATION, COUNCIL ACTION BRIEFINGS, AND THEN JUST OTHER STAFF WORK.
SO IS THERE ANY REASON WHY WE CAN'T POSTPONE THIS AND PUSH BACK THE COUNCIL CONSIDERATION DATES? WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT THIS IS ALL GRANT DRIVEN, IS THAT CORRECT? WE'RE JUST, WE'RE TRYING TO PURSUE FTC GRANTS AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE UNDER SUCH A TRUNCATED PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS WITH ALL OF THIS.
SO THAT, THAT IS A LARGE PORTION OF IT.
I DON'T BELIEVE, UM, PROJECT CONNECT IS HERE THIS EVENING, BUT A LARGE, UM, PORTION OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S DRIVING THE TIMELINE IS THE FTA GRANT.
WHAT DO WE THINK THE LIKELIHOOD IS THAT WE'RE GONNA ACTUALLY GET THOSE FUNDS? I'M SORRY.
I, I'M NOT, I'M NOT IN A POSITION OR, UM, I DON'T WORK FOR A TP OR FOR PROJECT CONNECT.
[02:40:01]
I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.WE HAVE THAT DISCONNECT SINCE THIS IS ALL SEEMINGLY DRIVEN BY, BY GRANT APPLICATIONS.
UM, YEAH, SO, SO OUR, THE AMENDMENTS THAT STAFF IS PUTTING FORWARD THAT CITY STAFF IS PUTTING FORWARD IS IN SUPPORT OF THAT.
SO YEAH, WE ARE NOT SETTING THE TIMELINE.
WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE TIMELINE.
UM, I, I, I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT A LOT OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE HEARD RELATED TO ANTI DISPLACEMENT OVERLAYS.
CAN SOMEONE FROM STAFF, UH, HELP ME UNDERSTAND IF WE CONSIDERED AN ANTI DISPLACEMENT OVERLAY AS PART OF THESE CHANGES? AND IF WE DIDN'T, WHY NOT? AND IF WE DID CONSIDER IT AND DIDN'T INCLUDE IT, WHY NOT? DO WE HAVE A, A MEMBER OF OUR CODE AMENDMENT OR HOUSING STAFF THAT CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION? SURE.
STEVIE GREATHOUSE, DIVISION MANAGER PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UM, AS PART OF THESE CHANGES, WE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY LOOK AT THE EQUITY OVERLAY OR THE ANTI DISPLACEMENT OVERLAY AS A CONCEPT OF APPLYING DIFFERENT REGULATIONS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF TOWN.
THE DIRECTION WE RECEIVED FROM COUNCIL FOR THIS PARTICULAR SET OF AMENDMENTS WAS REALLY RELATED TO MAKING AMENDMENTS THAT APPLIED, UM, CITYWIDE.
THAT IS A CONCEPT THAT WAS IN THE LDC REWRITE DISCUSSION, UM, RELATED TO TRANSITION ZONES.
UM, AND IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT COUNSEL AND THIS BODY HAVE DISCUSSED IN THE PAST.
IT WAS NOT PART OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR THESE AMENDMENTS.
I AM GOING TO, UH, SKIP MY QUESTION, UH, ROUND AND COMMISSIONER HOWARD, I'M GONNA PASS COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UH, YEAH, I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS RELATED TO COMPATIBILITY
UM, SO I THINK YOU MENTIONED IN THE BRIEF UPDATED PRESENTATION ABOUT THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, AND WE HAVE HEARD SOME COMMUNITY FEEDBACK THAT THERE ARE NEW REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF, UM, I WOULD SAY PRESCRIPTIVE IN TERMS OF THE TYPES OF PLANTINGS THAT CAN BE USED AND WHATNOT.
AND SOMETIMES THAT THOSE DECISIONS ARE MADE BY NEIGHBORHOODS IN CONJUNCTION WITH DEVELOPERS.
UM, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT AND SORT OF HOW WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET SOME FLEXIBILITY SO THAT NEIGHBORHOODS STILL FEEL LIKE THAT THEY HAVE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES TO ENGAGE AS, AS APPROPRIATE? YES.
SO WE DEVELOP THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS JUST WITH THE GOAL OF ONE, PROVIDING A VISUAL BUFFER BETWEEN LARGER BUILDINGS AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
SO I THINK TO AN EXTENT WE NEED SORT OF SOMEWHAT RIGID REQUIREMENTS, UM, TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS OF THAT VI VISUAL SCREENING.
UM, I THINK WE WOULD BE OPEN TO AMENDMENTS TO INCREASE THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE VEGETATIVE, UH, BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, UM, UH, IF WHETHER IT'S THROUGH ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE OR, OR, OR SOME OTHER METHOD.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, WE ARE GIVING SOME FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF THINGS LIKE PATHS AND WALKWAYS AND BIKES AND TRAILS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SO THAT IT WOULD BE, THERE IS SOME ABILITY TO PUT SOMETHING BESIDES JUST SAY, PLANTS THAT MIGHT DIE IN THESE NEW ZONES.
IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, SO THERE, WITHIN THE 25 FOOT COMPATIBILITY BUFFER, THERE'S A 10 FOOT SCREENING ZONE ALONG THE TRIGGERING PROPERTY LINE.
UM, AND THEN THE NEXT 15 FEET OF THE BUFFER INCLUDES A NUMBER OF POTENTIAL OR ALLOWANCES FOR LOW IMPACT USES THAT COULD INCLUDE TRAILS.
UM, A NUMBER OF A NUMBER OF THINGS, UM, THAT ARE NOT GOING TO BE, UH, MUCH OF A DISTURBANCE, IF AT ALL, TO ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
BUT WE'LL GIVE THE, UH, DEVELOPER OF, UH, SAY A NEW HOUSING PROJECT, MORE FLEXIBILITY AND MORE POTENTIALLY MORE BUILDABLE AREA ON THEIR SITE.
AND THEN OBVIOUSLY WE HAD SOME QUESTIONS THIS EVENING REGARDING ALLEYWAYS AND SORT OF HOW THAT, CAN YOU DISCUSS HOW WE'RE GONNA BE MEASURING COMPATIBILITY ALONG LOT LINES? I THINK WE HEARD SOME OF THAT, BUT MAYBE IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN IT, I'D LOVE FOR EVERYONE TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE PLANNING TO DO.
UM, SO COMPATIBILITY, UH, THE HEIGHT LIMITS WILL APPLY ACROSS AN ALLEY.
REGARDLESS, THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER, THE 25 FOOT BUFFER WITH THE SCREENING AND THE RESTRICTED ZONE WOULD NOT APPLY ACROSS AN ALLEY.
UM, AND THEY'RE ALSO, UH, SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC ELEMENTS INCLUDING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, TRASH VEHICLE LIGHTS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
UM, THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE ACTUALLY MORE OR LESS REDUNDANT WITH EXISTING REQUIREMENTS IN SUB CHAPTER E.
SO IF YOU HAVE AN ALLEY, UM, EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUILD THE BUFFER, EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS WITH INCOMPATIBILITY, THERE'S EXISTING SCREENING REQUIREMENTS IN SUBCHAPTER E THAT WOULD SCREEN THINGS LIKE TRASH LOADING DOCKS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO YOU HAVE A, A LOT OF THAT PROTECTION FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT MAY BE ACROSS THE ALLEY.
AND THEN I THINK ONE LAST QUESTION.
WE DID HEAR SOME SUGGESTIONS OF MAYBE GOING DOWN TO AS LOW AS 50 FEET THIS, AND I KNOW THAT YOU ALL DID A STAFF REPORT THAT LOOKED AT SEVERAL DIFFERENT OPTIONS.
CAN YOU TALK THROUGH THAT PLEASE? YES.
[02:45:01]
YEAH, WE'LL MOVE ON.UM, SO JUST SO I UNDERSTAND KIND OF OUR PROCESS, THIS MAY BE A, A PROCESS QUESTION, THEN I'LL HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION.
RIGHT NOW FOR US, WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS AND WE'RE POSS ONCE WE'RE DONE WITH Q AND A, WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO THE POSSIBILITY OF CONSIDERING AMENDMENTS.
AND THOSE AMENDMENTS WOULD CHANGE THE PROPOSED CODE.
I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY.
THAT'S KIND OF A YES OR NO
AND THEN MAY MAYBE CHAIR CAN ANSWER THAT OR VICE CHAIR OR, OR OUR COMMENTARY.
UM, AFTER, IF COUNCIL WOULD, IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE COUNCIL PROCESS REVIEWING THE AMENDMENTS, AND THEN YES, CODE CHANGE, RIGHT? BUT THOSE AMENDMENTS ARE INITIATING CODE CHANGE.
SO MY, MY QUESTION IS ACTUALLY FOR LEGAL 'CAUSE WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION THAT CAME UP WHEN WE WERE DOING OUR CONSIDERATION FOR EXECUTIVE AND PARLEY REGARDING OUR EX OFFICIOS.
AND THAT CHANGED SOME OF OUR DISCUSSION TO, UM, THE SOVEREIGNTY OF PC.
AND SO MY QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT PC IS A SOVEREIGN BODY, IT WAS CERTAINLY MY UNDERSTANDING UNDER TEXAS CODE THAT WE ARE, AND THAT IS WHAT ENABLES US TO INITIATE CHANGES TO THE CODE.
BUT IF WE'RE NOT, UM, AND IF LEGAL TELLS US WE'RE NOT, THEN I WOULD MOVE THE, WE STOP THIS PROCESS BECAUSE WE HAVE NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO THIS.
SO MY QUESTION IS TO LEGAL, ARE WE A SOVEREIGN BODY? YES OR NO? CHURCH LINK WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT? UH, SOVEREIGN MEANS A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
UM, WE'VE USED IT AS SHORTHAND FOR A VARIETY OF DESCRIPTIONS IN THE CITY CODE, UH, OR FOR OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS HERE AT THE CITY.
STATE LAW REQUIRES US TO TAKE CHANGES TO OUR ZONING REGULATIONS, TO OUR ZONING COMMISSION.
COUNCIL HAS DESIGNATED THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CHANGES TO TITLE 25, PARTICULARLY THE ZONING REGULATIONS AS THE APPROPRIATE ZONING COMMISSION TO BRING THOSE TO.
SO WHATEVER ACTIONS YOU TAKE TODAY, OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ON CHANGES TO OUR ZONING REGULATIONS, WHICH THEN WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL.
BUT THIS IS THE LANGUAGE IN THE TEXAS CODE DICTATE THE, THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SOVEREIGN BODY.
IF SOMEBODY CAN PULL, I, I KNOW THERE ARE A FEW PEOPLE WHO HAVE THAT HANDY.
IF WE CAN LOOK AT, THAT ISN'T A VERY IMPORTANT PROCEDURAL QUESTION FOR US TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT WHAT THE ROLE IS OF THIS PLANNING COMMISSION UNDER OUR CITY CODE AND UNDER STATE LAW, THE ROLE OF THIS COMMISSION IS TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON CHANGES TO OUR ZONING REGULATIONS, ALSO FOR SITE SPECIFIC ZONING CHANGES.
BUT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE DIFFERENT FROM INITIATING CODE CHANGE.
AND SOVEREIGN BODIES NEED TO BE ABLE TO INITIATE CODE CHANGE.
WE ARE INITIATING CHANGES TO THE CODE THROUGH OUR AMENDMENT PROCESS.
WHAT IS BEFORE YOU ARE AMENDMENTS THAT COUNCIL HAS ALREADY INITIATED? NO, MY COLLEAGUES ARE GOING TO BRING UP WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS WHEN WE'RE DONE WITH Q AND A THAT THEY HAVE INITIATED THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM COUNCIL THAT ARE COMING IN FROM THE PUBLIC.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.
AND I THINK THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHETHER OR NOT THIS BODY IS SOVEREIGN, YES OR NO.
THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION IS TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED TO THIS BODY FOR RECOMMENDATION.
IF THE COMMISSION HAS, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT STAFF HAS BROUGHT FORWARD OR WHAT THE COUNCIL HAS INITIATED, IF THEY ARE IN THE SAME VEIN AND THEY RELATE TO THE SAME THING.
SO WE'RE ESTABLISHING THAT NO, WE DO NOT HAVE INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY AND WE ARE NOT SOVEREIGN.
WE CAN MAKE SUGGESTIONS, BUT WE CANNOT INITIATE CHANGES, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
THE ACTION BEFORE THE COMMISSION IS TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE ZONING CHANGES THE COMMISSION HAS IN THE PAST AND CURRENTLY AT DIFFERENT TIMES WILL INITIATE CODE AMENDMENTS, WHICH HAS TO COME FROM SOVEREIGN BODY COMMISSIONER.
WE USE SOVEREIGN IN A VARIETY OF WAYS AT THE CITY AND WE USE IT REALLY AS A SHORTHAND.
LET'S FOCUS ON HOW THE STATE WOULD INTERPRET IT.
COMMISSIONER MO UNDERSTANDING JUDGE, THAT THAT WAS THE END OF THE THREE MINUTES.
SO I WILL MOVE THAT WE CLOSE UNTIL WE UNDERSTAND THIS.
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR THIS BODY TO UNDERSTAND AND
[02:50:01]
WE'VE BEEN WEEKS WITHOUT AN UNDERSTANDING OF THIS.I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN INITIATE CODE CHANGE IF WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE TEXAS LAW SETS OUT FOR THIS BODY.
SO EXCUSE ME, I WILL SECOND REALLY UNCLEAR MICROPHONE PLEASE.
UM, I, I SECONDED, UH, COMMISSIONER M STYLE SCHOLAR'S, UM, MOTION BECAUSE WOULD THAT GIVE US THE ABILITY TO GET A AN ANSWER? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SHE ASKED THIS QUESTION WHAT, UH, MANY WEEKS AGO OR A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND IT'S NOT BEEN ANSWERED.
NOT IN AND OF ITSELF NOT A GOOD THING.
SO CAN WE GET MORE CLARITY BY SECONDING THE MOTION AND ASKING THAT DIRECT QUESTION? 'CAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT.
DO WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INITIATE AMENDMENTS THAT WE WORKED OUR BUTTS OFF, YOU KNOW, WORKING UP, UM, AT LEAST I AM AS PERHAPS ONE OF THE NEWEST MEMBERS NOW IN QUESTION AND, AND WHY WE DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER.
WHY, WHY DIDN'T WE? UH, NOW THAT THERE'S A SECOND WE CAN GO INTO Q AND A FOR THE MOTION MAKER AND STAFF.
UM, SO WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, PARLIAMENT INQUIRE.
UH, CAN I GET A CLARIFICATION FROM COMMISSIONER? I I HEARD SHE, I HEARD MOVE TO STOP.
IS THIS A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I MEAN, WHAT IS THE MOTION ON, WHAT'S THE MOTION BEFORE US MADAM CHAIR? I THINK THAT OR PARLIAMENT CHAIR.
THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER AL.
THE MOTION IS TO, UM, POSTPONE OUR DISCUSSION OF THIS UNTIL WE UNDERSTAND OUR ROLE.
DOES THAT CLARIFY YOUR QUESTION? COMMISSIONER HAYNES? COMMISSIONER AL, CAN YOU SPECIFY UNTIL WHAT POINT WE'RE POSTPONING THIS MATTER? WELL, WE'VE BEEN A NUMBER OF WEEKS WITHOUT AN ANSWER.
DO
SO I WOULD SAY WE'RE POSTPONING TO OUR SECOND MAY MEETING.
THAT SHOULD GIVE ENOUGH TIME TO HAVE CLARITY ON THE ANSWER IS THAT MAY 28TH.
I WASN'T SURE IF IT WAS THE 21ST OR THE 28TH.
THAT'S WHY I SAID THE SECOND MEETING.
AND COMMISSIONER TEL, CAN YOU CLARIFY THE, THAT SPECIFICALLY YOU'RE REQUESTING THAT WE POSTPONE CONSIDERATION OF THE EV CHARGING CONVERSATION OR ALL THREE, UH, DISCUSSION ITEMS, WHICH WE BROKE UP.
I AM, I'M PROPOSING THAT WE POSTPONE ANY, ALL DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO THE HOME INITIATIVE.
WE CAN'T MAKE, UM, WE CAN'T MAKE CODE CHANGES UNTIL WE UNDERSTAND IF WE'RE SOVEREIGN.
SORRY, I JUST HAVE JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
SO WE ARE, WE ARE, WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO COUNSEL CODE CHANGES.
WE ARE NOT AS A BODY MAKING THE CHANGES, RIGHT? WE'RE WE'RE NOT INITIATING A CODE CHANGE THAT'S EVEN CLARIFIED.
WE'RE WE, IT JUST OUR UNDERSTANDING, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING WHEN I CAME ON THIS BODY THAT IT WAS A SOVEREIGN BODY.
THAT WE HAVE CERTAIN FUNCTIONS THAT ARE SEPARATE AND NOT CHANGED BY COUNSEL AND THAT'S, AND THAT THAT'S WHAT MAKES US SOVEREIGN.
BUT OBVIOUSLY THERE'S, THERE'S DIFFERENT LAYERS OF INTERPRETATION TO OUR ROLE.
BUT OUR ROLE TONIGHT IS TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE AMENDMENTS.
SO JUST AS A POINT OF ORDER, I THINK WE HAVE CLARIFICATION ON WHAT THE MOTION IS.
AND CHAIR, UH, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD QUESTION FOR Q AND A.
SO WE'RE START INTO OUR Q AND A NOW WITH, DID YOU, YEAH.
I WASN'T SURE IF, IF YOU WANTED ME TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
UM, WHAT YOU ARE HERE ON YOUR AGENDA IS TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE, TO THE CHANGES.
MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON CHANGES TO OUR ZONING REGULATIONS.
COUNCIL IS THE ADOPTER OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS BECAUSE THEY ADOPT THE CODE, THEY ADOPT ZONING BECAUSE THEY ADOPT ORDINANCES.
[02:55:01]
AND OUR CODE IS A CODIFIED SET OF ORDINANCES.AND THEN WHEN INDIVIDUAL PIECES OF PROPERTY ARE REZONED, COUNSEL WILL PASS AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THOSE PROPERTIES.
SO THAT IS ALL DONE BY ORDINANCE COUNSEL IS THE BODY THAT APPROVES AN ORDINANCE.
WHAT YOUR ROLE HERE TODAY IS, IS TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU.
THAT STAFF HAS BROUGHT AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNCIL.
UM, SOME OF THEM ALSO OUR STAFF INITIATED, UM, SORRY, STAFF, UH, WORKED WITH THE COUNCIL TO GET SOME OF THE OTHER ITEMS IN FRONT OF YOU.
AND, UM, AND ACTUALLY APOLOGIES, I'M THINKING OF THE ETOD, WHICH WILL BE YOUR NEXT WEEK'S MEETING, BUT THE ANSWER'S STILL THE SAME.
YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TODAY IS TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE CODE AMENDMENTS THAT COUNSEL WILL CONSIDER AND ADOPT AT, UM, MAY 16TH.
COMMISSIONER COX AND I JUST, I JUST, I GUESS WANTED JUST EXPLICIT CONFIRMATION FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW IS FULLY COMPLIANT WITH TEXAS LAW, TEXAS REGULATIONS, HOW THEY SET OUT ALL OF OUR DUTIES.
WE HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.
WE ARE COMPLYING WITH THE STATE LAW REQUIREMENT TO COME TO THE ZONING COMMISSION BEFORE WE ASK THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE CHANGES.
IF NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M SORRY, I CHECK NO GA READING FAST.
I CAN, UM, A, A QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW WHO THIS IS FOR, BUT, UM, HOW DOES LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 2 11 0 0 7 APPLY TO THE, UH, UH, THIS BODY THAT WE'RE SITTING IN TONIGHT? IF YOU'LL GIMME ONE MOMENT TO PULL UP THE TEXT.
SO THE ROLE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TONIGHT IS THE ZONING COMMISSION THAT IS REFERENCED IN STATE LAW.
EXCUSE ME, I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
WHAT DOES IT ACTUALLY SAY SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN HEAR WHAT IT SAYS? IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A LONG PASSAGE.
SUBSECTION A TO EXERCISE THE POWERS AUTHORIZED BY THE SUBCHAPTER, THE GOVERNING BODY OF A HOME RULE MUNICIPALITY SHALL APPOINT A ZONING COMMISSION.
THE COMMISSION SHALL RECOMMEND BOUNDARIES FOR THE ORIGINAL ZONING DISTRICTS APPROPRIATE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR EACH DISTRICT.
IF, UM, AND BECAUSE WE HAD A PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE TIME, I THINK THIS WAS ADOPTED, IT IS CONSIDERED OUR ZONING COMMISSION.
SUBSECTION B, THE ZONING COMMISSION SHALL MAKE A PRELIMINARY REPORT REPORT AND HOLD AT LEAST ONE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT REPORT BEFORE SUBMITTING THE FINAL REPORT TO THE GOVERNING BODY.
THE GOVERNING BODY MAY NOT HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL IT RECEIVES A FINAL REPORT OF THE ZONING COMMISSION, UNLESS THE GOVERNING BODY BY ORDINANCE PROVIDES THAT A PUBLIC HEARING IS TO BE HELD AFTER THE NOTICE.
UH, STANDARDS ARE MET JOINTLY WITH THE PUBLIC, JOINTLY WITH A PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED TO BE HELD WITH THE ZONING COMMISSION.
SO THE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING THAT WE HAD, UM, SUBSECTION C BEFORE THE 10TH DAY BEFORE THE HEARING DATE, UH, WRITTEN NOTICE OF EACH PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ZONING COMMISSION ON PROPOSED CHANGE.
AND THE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS SHALL BE SENT TO EACH OWNER.
AND THAT'S THE INDIVIDUAL NOTICE REQUIREMENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO KEEP GOING.
SO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION NIGHT TONIGHT IS FULFILLING THE ROLE OF 2 11 0 7? YES.
LOOKS LIKE WE'RE READY TO TAKE A VOTE ON THIS MOTION.
THIS WAS THE MOTION TO POSTPONE ITEM NUMBER TWO, UM, TO MAY 28TH.
THAT WAS BY COMMISSIONER SAL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
ANY DISCUSSION FOR OR AGAINST? I'LL JUST, I'LL JUST MENTION THAT I'M SUPPORTING THIS FOR OTHER REASONS.
[03:00:01]
LAYERED.IT'S LAYERED ON OTHER ISSUES THAT WE'VE HAD AS A BODY AND IN OUR DISCUSSIONS OF OUR EX OFFICIOS AND HOW THIS BODY FUNCTIONS.
AND THAT TO ME IS AN IMPORTANT UNDERSTANDING THAT WE NEED TO HAVE TO UN TO, TO FULFILL OUR ROLES.
IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THAT CODE.
THERE'S FURTHER DESCRIPTION THAT TALKS ABOUT THIS BODY BEING A SOVEREIGN BODY.
AND WHILE WE MAY BE SKATING AROUND THAT DISCUSSION BY LABELING THIS AS A RECOMMENDATION EVENING, I THINK THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THIS BODY AND FOR OTHER THINGS THAT WE HAVE GOING ON.
SO I, I THINK WE, I THINK WE NEED THAT CLARITY.
WE'VE BEEN KIND OF HANDICAPPED TO DO SOME OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO DO WITHOUT IT.
AND THEN I THINK THAT PROVIDES MORE TIME FOR THE PUBLIC TO CONSIDER, WHICH HAS BEEN ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST, I'LL SPEAK AGAINST, I KNOW WE GET NERVOUS SOMETIMES WHEN WE'RE ABOUT TO MAKE IT EASIER TO BUILD MORE EFFICIENT HOUSING, BUT I DON'T WANNA DELAY THIS ANY FURTHER.
ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION? THREE, FOUR, THOSE AGAINST.
WE WILL CONTINUE ON WITH OUR Q AND A.
SO MY QUESTION IS, I THINK FOR STAFF THAT GIVEN MUCH OF THE TESTIMONY THAT WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT, IS IT WITHIN OUR PREVIEW, OUR, OUR PREVIEW HOPEFULLY, UH, OR PURVIEW, UM, AUTHORITY AS WE HAVE JUST GOT FINISHED TALKING ABOUT TO CONSIDER AN EQUITY OVERLAY AS PROPOSED BY SO MANY OF THE SPEAKERS HERE TONIGHT.
WE ARE NOT NECE, WE ARE NOT NOTICED.
SO THE INDIVIDUAL NOTICE, UH, THAT WE MAILED OUT IS NOT, NO, DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS EQUITY OVERLAY, UM, OR THE COMPONENTS OF POTENTIALLY THAT OVERLAY.
UM, BUT AT A FUTURE MEETING, IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO, UH, TALK ABOUT POTENTIALLY INITIATING A CODE AMENDMENT TO DO THAT, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT AT A FUTURE MEETING.
BUT FROM A NOTICE STANDPOINT, WE'RE NOT NOTICED FOR THAT.
SO WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT AT A FUTURE MEETING, BUT NOT AT THIS MEETING.
SO WE COULD DO IT AT THE E TODD, THE MEETING COMING UP FOR E TODD.
UM, YOU COULD PUT SOMETHING ON YOUR FUTURE AGENDA.
YOU COULD, WHEN YOU BRING UP YOUR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS TONIGHT, YOU COULD TALK ABOUT HAVING THAT AS AN ITEM ON A FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA, WHICHEVER, UM, AGENDA THE COMMISSION THINKS IS APPROPRIATE.
AND JUST TO FOLLOW UP, I KNOW THAT WE HEARD, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE THE RIGHT PERSON, I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE CLARITY THAT YOU'RE BRINGING TO US ON THESE VARIOUS ISSUES.
UM, I KNOW THAT'S NOT ALWAYS AN EASY, AN EASY TASK.
UM, BUT MY, THE QUESTION IS THAT WHEN WE WERE CONSIDERING HOME ONE AND HOME TWO, THESE, THESE WELL, UM, OVERHAULS OF ZONING FOR EVERYONE IN THE CITY, VIRTUALLY EVERYONE IN THE CITY, DID WE DO ANY KIND OF STUDY IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE TO NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT? DID WE DO THAT? I WILL TURN TO MY, UH, COLLEAGUES IN THE RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS.
STEVIE GREATHOUSE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UM, WE HAVE DONE A FAIR AMOUNT OVER THE YEARS OF KIND OF CONVERSATIONS WITHIN THE CITY, LOOKING AT THE DISPLACEMENT MAPS, LOOKING AT SORT OF ANALYZING OUR REGULATIONS IN TERMS OF, UM, AREAS THAT ARE VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT.
AND CERTAINLY AS PART OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEFORE THIS BODY AND ARE GONNA BE POTENTIALLY MOVING FORWARD TO COUNCIL, THEY HAVE BEEN ANALYZED IN TERMS OF WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED GEOGRAPHICALLY AND HOW THOSE AREAS RESULT TO DISPLACEMENT IN TERMS OF MODELING THE INDIVIDUAL, UM, SORT OF IMPACTS OF THE, THIS PARTICULAR SUITE OF CHANGES.
WE DEFINITELY HAVE, UM, STAFF THAT HAVE DONE SOME OF THAT EVALUATION
[03:05:01]
QUALITATIVELY SOME OF THAT EVALUATION IN THE PAST WITH QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS.UM, WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC PACKAGE OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS FOR THESE ONE, THE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT HOME ONE AND HOME TWO, I'M SORRY, NOT ABOUT WHAT HAD BEEN DONE IN THE PAST.
AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING LIKE THAT FROM YOU.
I'LL, WE'LL HAVE TO MOVE ON AND I'M GONNA HAVE TO DEFER TO THE CASE MANAGER ON HOME ONE TO SORT OF TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT HOME, BUT ACROSS THE FULL CODE PACKAGE, UM, WE'LL HAVE, THAT'S THE RESPONSE.
UM, COMMISSIONER GILLMORE, MADAM CHAIR, PROBLEM INQUIRY.
UM, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR, UH, SOMETIMES I HAVE TO WORK.
UM, ARE WE TAKING QUESTIONS ON ALL THREE THAT ARE, THAT ARE UP? OH, OKAY.
WHAT'S
I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IMPERVIOUS COVER AND SPECIFICALLY HEARD A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT FLOODING THIS EVENING AND AT THE JOINT HEARING.
CAN, IS THERE STAFF THAT CAN SPEAK TO HOW IMPERVIOUS COVER WILL BE CHANGED AS A RESULT OF THESE CODE CHANGES? GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
LIZ JOHNSTON WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION.
I'M THE ACTING ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER.
UM, THESE, UM, AMENDMENTS DO NOT ACTUALLY CHANGE, UH, IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENTS ON THE LOTS.
SO CURRENTLY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, UM, HAVE A ZONING IMPERVIOUS COVER IF THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN SUBDIVIDED AND, UM, THAT IS NOT BEING PROPOSED TO, TO CHANGE WITH THESE AMENDMENTS.
SO WOULD THE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THAT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE UNDER THESE AMENDMENTS RESULT IN INCREASED IMPERVIOUS COVER? UM, NO.
IT, WELL, TO CLARIFY, IT MAY BE AN INCREASED IMPERVIOUS COVER OVER WHAT EXISTS TODAY, BUT IT IS NOT INCREASED IMPERVIOUS COVER OVER THE ENTITLEMENT.
SO SOMEBODY COULD IN THEORY REPLACE A, AN EXISTING SINGLE HOME FAMILY HOME WITH A LARGER SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND, UM, GO UP TO 45%.
AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD ALSO DO TODAY? CORRECT.
I WAS JUST AGREEING EVERY, EVERYONE GETS A, A CHANCE FOR QUESTIONS.
ALRIGHT, WE'LL COME BACK TO, OH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON IS NOT HERE.
UM, ACTUALLY I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU MS. JOHNSTON.
SO I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO COME UP.
UM, BUT JUST IN TERMS OF TIME FOR THE COMPATIBILITY AUDIENCE, I HAVE A QUESTION RELATED TO THE INITIATION OF SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT ONLY AS DRAFTED, CAN ONLY COUNCIL INITIATE THOSE AMENDMENTS OR IS THAT SOMETHING THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD INITIATE AS WELL? I'M GOING TO DEFER TO YOU WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT,
SO THIS WOULD BE DONE IN THE SAME, UM, USING THE SAME APPROACH AS REZONING.
SO IT'S, DOESN'T SAY THAT EXPLICITLY, BUT THAT WOULD BE OUR EXPECTATION THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
AND HAPPY TO MAKE THAT A LITTLE BIT CLEARER IF THAT WOULD, UH, BRING COMFORT TO THE COMMISSION.
SO PLAN, UH, COMMISSION, CURRENTLY WE WE'RE UNDER PRACTICE, WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO INITIATE REZONING, CORRECT? WELL, I I SAY THAT I THINK YOU ACTUALLY MIGHT HAVE IN THE PAST, UM, HAVE INITIATED REZONING, INDIVIDUAL REZONINGS, UM, BUT COUNCIL INITIATES REZONING AS WELL.
UM, SO WE CAN MAKE IT CLEAR SO THAT THAT CAN ALL HAPPEN.
BUT THE THING I WILL, I WILL CAUTION THOUGH, SORRY TO USE MORE OF YOUR TIME, BUT THAT WILL HAVE TO BE NOTICED.
SO IF A ZONING CASE COMES TO YOU AND THEY HAVE NOT ASKED FOR IT, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET THE MODIFICATION, THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO REQUEST THAT SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE NOTICE.
AND I DO HAVE AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO THIS.
I'LL JUST MAKE SURE THAT WHAT I'LL, THE WAY I'LL DRAFT IT IS I MIGHT TWEAK IT TO SAY PENDING FROM THE REVIEW FROM LAW.
SO WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING YOU CAN REVIEW.
UM, MS. JOHNSTON, I JUST, UH, I FEEL LIKE I JUST WANNA CONFIRM SOMETHING FROM RELATED TO WHAT YOU SAID TO COMMISSIONER WOODS.
IS THIS ORDINANCE NOT ALLOWING 45% OF OUR YEARS COVER FOR SF ONE LOTS? ALTHOUGH THEY'RE CURRENTLY ZONED AT 40% IN PURPOSE COVER.
ACTUALLY HOME ONE ALREADY CHANGED THAT TO 45%.
SO, UM, SO THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY CHANGING THAT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
I FEEL LIKE I'M CONFUSING MY OWN SELF SELF.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WAS THAT NOT SPECIFICALLY TO THE USE OF THREE UNITS PER A LOT ME DEFER.
[03:10:01]
THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. AUSTIN.YEAH, JUST TO CLARIFY, SO THE BASE ZONING FOR SF ONE IS 40% HOME ONE CHANGED IT TO 45% FOR TWO TO THREE UNITS ON A LOT, AND THEN OUR PROPOSAL CHANGES IT TO 45% ONLY ON SMALL LOTS FOR ONE UNIT.
I'M SORRY, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE ONLY ON SMALL LOTS BID.
IF YOU'RE AN SF ONE AND YOU'RE ABOVE 57, 50, 40% WILL CONTINUE.
THANK YOU CHAIR COMMISSIONER BARRA RAMIREZ.
SORRY, I AM, I DO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE HEARD FROM A LOT OF OUR SPEAKERS TONIGHT ABOUT MAKING ADUS MORE ACCESSIBLE OR HAVING PROGRAMS FOR, UM, LIKE FORGIVABLE LOANS OR, UM, OTHER TYPE OF BUILDING, UM, HELP FOR PEOPLE THAT NEED THE HELP TO BUILD ADDITIONAL UNITS.
IT SEEMS AS THOUGH IF I'M LOOKING AT THE CODE CHANGES, THEY'RE VERY SPECIFIC TO MEASUREMENTS AND SETBACKS.
AND I'M CURIOUS IF STAFF HAS ANY, UM, ADVICE OR RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO INCLUDE SOME OF THE LANGUAGE FOR ADDITIONAL OR FOR MAKING ADUS MORE ACCESSIBLE AND EASIER TO BUILD, MORE AFFORDABLE FOR THOSE THAT NEED IT? YES.
SO, UM, ANY LIKE REDUCTION IN FEES WOULD BE DONE PROGRAMMATICALLY, UM, THROUGH DSD OR, OR THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.
UM, SO THEY WOULDN'T BE LOCATED IN THE ACTUAL CODE STANDARDS.
SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY, UM, RE ABILITY TO MAKE, WE COULD MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNSEL FOR MAKING THOSE CHANGES IN THE FUTURE IF WE WANTED TO DO IT AT A LATER DATE, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD DISCUSS TODAY OR IT'S NOT AN AMENDMENT WE WOULD MAKE TODAY AS PART OF THESE CHANGES.
YOU COULD RECOMMEND, UM, YEAH, FUTURE PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES, BUT IT, WE WOULD NOT INCLUDE IT IN ANY ZONING TEXT.
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, UM, HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC IS SO VALUABLE WHETHER YOU'RE, YOU'RE FOR OR AGAINST THINGS, AND I HEARD, I HEARD SOME REALLY POWERFUL STATEMENTS LIKE COMMUNITIES OF FORM WEALTH, I WANT MORE NEIGHBORS.
BUT THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE, WE HEARD THAT THIS COMMUNITY WEALTH AND THESE NEIGHBORS ARE BEING DISPLACED.
AND I LEARNED TONIGHT THAT WE HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS WITH THE FASTEST GENTRIFICATION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR IN THE, IN THE COUNTRY.
AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT DOESN'T COLOR EVERYTHING THAT WE TALK ABOUT HERE.
SO MY QUESTION TO STAFF IS, UM, ARE THESE CHANGES THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TONIGHT GOING TO INCREASE OR DECREASE THE RATE OF GENTRIFICATION, ERIC LEAK PLANNING DEPARTMENT? UM, FROM WHAT I HAVE READ AND HEARD, THERE IS A MIX OF INFORMATION ON THAT FRONT, AND I DON'T THINK THAT STAFF FEELS LIKE WE HAVE CONCLUSIVE, CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE EITHER WAY AT THIS POINT.
IS THAT BECAUSE WE JUST HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY IT IN MORE DETAIL AND HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PATTERNS OF GENTRIFICATION HERE IN AUSTIN? IT IT'S REALLY CHALLENGING TO, TO ACTUALLY MODEL WHAT THE CHANGES, WHAT THE IMPACT, WHAT THE IMPACT OF THE CHANGES WILL BE OVER TIME.
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT CITIES HAVE DIFFERENT REGULATIONS AND SO CHANGING ONE REGULATION IN ONE CITY IS NEVER EXACTLY THE SAME AS CHANGING EVEN THE SAME REGULATION IN ANOTHER CITY BECAUSE THERE'S A WHOLE OTHER SET OF REGULATIONS THAT IMPACT THOSE.
AND SO, AND, AND I, I, I GUESS, I GUESS THE, THE, IN THE BACKGROUND OF THAT QUESTION ON MY MIND IS THE FACT THAT WE WENT THROUGH HOME PHASE ONE SUPER FAST AND LEARNED THAT YOU REALLY HAVE TO HAVE A CONDO REGIME TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS OR, OR YOU BECOME A LANDLORD.
AND THAT'S NOT REALLY ACCESSIBLE TO MOST PEOPLE TO DO.
AND THEN WE'RE LEARNING FROM THIS THAT THE COST TO SUBDIVIDE YOUR PROPERTY IS GONNA BE ANYWHERE BETWEEN 50 AND A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS ACCESSIBLE FOR MOST PEOPLE TO DO.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE, IT SEEMS LIKE ALL THE THINGS WE'RE PASSING HERE, ALL THE THINGS WE'RE CONSIDERING HERE ARE TAILORED TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BANKS AND LOANS AND BIG MONEY BEHIND THEM TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS.
AND ALL OF THE REGULAR PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY THIS HAS BEEN MARKETED TO
[03:15:01]
NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS.AND SO I JUST, I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND, IS THIS, DO WE EXPECT THIS LARGELY TO JUST BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY OUR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY OR DO WE REASONABLY EXPECT THE AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL WITH A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS? DO I HAVE TIME TO RESPOND? UM, SO I WAS CHECKING ON THE, THE ACTUAL SUBDIVISION FEES THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS GONNA BE SOME ANALYSIS AND, AND WAYS TO SEE IF THAT CAN BE LESS IN THE FUTURE.
UM, I, I, I THINK WE DON'T KNOW.
UM, THAT'S, THAT'S PART OF THE CHALLENGE OF THIS WORK IS THAT YOU CAN'T ALWAYS TOTALLY PREDICT WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, WE'RE GOING ALPHABETICALLY FOR QUESTIONS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YES, MA'AM.
UH, AND IT'S, WELL, I'LL JUST, I'LL ASK IT, BUT IT'S PROBABLY FOR LAURA, BUT, UH, SO I GOT THE NEW GUY QUESTIONS.
UM, SO, SO BASICALLY THE GIST OF HOME AND IT'S SPECIFICALLY ON HOME.
UM, WE ARE TAKING, OR WE'RE GONNA GIVE THE ABILITY, IF, IF WE PASS THIS TONIGHT AND THE COUNCIL PASSES IT, WE'RE GONNA GIVE THE ABILITY OF FOLKS TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR LOTS TO SMALLER LOTS AND THAT'S GONNA CREATE DENSER HOUSING, MORE HOUSING AND LAST CONVERSATION NOTWITHSTANDING, HOPEFULLY THAT'S GONNA BRING DOWN THE PRICE.
BUT BASICALLY WE'RE TAKING BIG LOTS, DIVIDE 'EM IN SMALL LOTS AND THEN PUTTING UNITS ON THOSE LOTS.
IS THAT THE GIST OF HOME TWO AND DOING THAT THROUGH A REGULATORY PROCESS? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND THEN, AND, AND THOSE, UH, IN THE SMALL LOT CATEGORY, THOSE APPLY TO SF ONE, SF TWO AND SF THREE 'CAUSE IT'S, IT'S MORE RESTRICTIVE.
SEE, I LEARNED THAT, I LEARNED THAT THIS WEEK.
SO THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE SF FOUR AND DOWN.
SO IT'S, IT APPLIES TO THOSE THREE BASE ZONING DISTRICTS.
WELL, SO SF FOUR A IS, UH, IS ALREADY A SMALL LOT ZONING DISTRICT THAT HAS DIFFERENT STANDARDS AND IS DESIGNED FOR GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT.
AND THEN, UH, ON, YOU KNOW, WHERE I LIVE, MY HOOD SF ONE PREDOMINATES IS PREDOMINANT.
AND SO WE'VE GOT ONE HOUSE, BUT AN SF TWO, UM, OR, OR I'M SORRY.
CAN'T USE HOUSE ONE FAMILY, ONE HOUSING UNIT, AN SF TWO.
CAN YOU PUT A AN A DU EXISTING? CAN YOU PUT SOMETHING ON AN SF TWO ALREADY? SO HOME PHASE ONE ALLOWED YOU TO DO THREE UNITS ON ALL LOTS IN SF ONE, TWO, AND THREE.
ON THE NEW SMALLER LOTS, YOU CAN ONLY DO ONE UNIT, UH, ON THE NEW SMALLER MM-HMM,
BUT, BUT CURRENTLY YOU CAN DO THREE UNITS ON TWO AND THREE.
I'VE GOT A, I'VE GOT A QUESTION ON, ON THE PUBLIC NOTICE.
UM, THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WE SENT OUT, UM, SAYS THAT THE REGULATIONS THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING THAT WE DID AT THE, UM, JOINT HEARING THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING NOT APPLY TO LOTS WITH ONE HOUSING UNIT.
DID THESE APPLY TO SF TWO AND SF THREE LOTS? THEY DO ALL SF ONE, TWO AND THREE ALLOW UP TO THREE DWELLING UNITS, BUT WE ARE ONLY FOCUSED ON REGULATIONS THAT APPLY SOLELY TO A LOT WITH ONE UNIT.
BUT IT APPLIES TO SF TWO AND THREE.
BUT SF ONE, TWO, AND THREE ALL ALLOW UP TO THREE UNITS NOW BASED ON HOME.
MADAM CHAIR PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRE.
UM, I HAVE MY WIFE'S PURPLE CARD 'CAUSE I, UM, ACTUALLY I HAVE MINE TOO.
UM, IF, IF THE NOTICE WENT OUT THAT SAID THE REGULATIONS, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE TO REVISE THE REGULATION THAT APPLIED TO LOTS WITH ONE HOUSING UNIT, AND THIS APPLIES TO SF ONE, TWO, AND THREE THAT CAN HAVE MULTIPLE, UM, HOUSING.
WELL, LET ME JUST, UH, MADAM CHAIR, I, I'LL CALL A POINT OF ORDER ON FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF HOME TWO IN THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WE SENT IS SUFFICIENT TO GIVE ADEQUATE PUBLIC NOTICE TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO RESIDE IN SF TWO AND THREE
[03:20:01]
THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO MORE THAN, UH, ONE HOUSING UNIT PER LOT.I DON'T THINK THEY RECEIVE SUFFICIENT NOTIFICATION OF THIS HEARING.
MS. LINK, CAN YOU HELP US ANSWER THIS? SURE.
UM, THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT FOR THE HOME, THE HOME PIECE FOCUS ON REGULATE ON A LOT THAT ONLY HAS A SINGLE UNIT.
THE FACT THAT IT'S ALLOWED IN SF ONE, TWO AND THREE ISN'T DETERMINATIVE OF THE REGULATIONS.
WHAT IS BEING CONSIDERED BY THIS COMMISSION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPOSED CHANGES FOR WHEN YOU HAVE A SINGLE UNIT ON THE LOT.
UM, IF THIS COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THOSE TO COUNCIL AND ANY CHANGES THAT YOU RECOMMEND TO THAT SET OF REGULATION CHANGES.
SO THE FACT THAT IT'S SF ONE, TWO AND THREE DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING FOR US BECAUSE SF ONE, TWO, AND THREE ARE ALL ALLOWED TO HAVE UP TO THREE UNITS BASED ON THE HOME ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED IN DECEMBER.
AND WE USE THE SAME LANGUAGE IN DEC IN TALKING ABOUT THOSE CODE CHANGES FOR TWO AND THREE UNIT.
AND HERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ONE UNIT.
SO THIS ONLY CHANGES REGULATIONS IF THERE IS A SINGLE HOUSING UNIT ON THE LOT.
IF THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE, THEN THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED THE ONE UNIT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.
PROBLEM IS YOUR INQUIREMENT MADAM CHAIR.
UM, AND, AND, AND NEW GUY MAY BE LEARNING SOMETHING COMPLETE THAT Y'ALL PROBABLY ALL UNDERSTOOD.
BUT AM I TO UNDERSTAND THEN THAT HOME TWO, IF THERE IS A, IF THERE IS A HOUSE IN AN A DU ON A LOT THAT HOME TWO WILL NOT APPLY TO THAT LOT.
IF THERE ARE TWO HOUSING UNITS ON A LOT HOME TWO WILL NOT.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT I JUST HEARD MS. LINK SAY YOU'RE CORRECT.
THIS ONLY ADDRESSES REGULATIONS THAT APPLY TO A LOT THAT HAS A SINGLE DWELLING UNIT.
SO I THINK I'M UNDERSTANDING THE POINT OF ORDER DOESN'T STAND BECAUSE WE HAVE A, I WOULD I WITHDRAW MY POINT OF ORDER.
SO WE UH, WE HAD FINISHED WITH COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S QUESTION TIME, I THINK.
MY QUESTION IS ABOUT THE, UM, TO WILDLY SWITCH GEARS IS ABOUT THE DECIBELS, THE DECIBEL LEVEL FOR EV CHARGING I THINK IS, UH, RECOMMENDED RIGHT NOW AT 70 DECIBELS.
I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE, UM, THERE WAS SOME RESEARCH THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD FROM ONE OF OUR PRESENTERS ABOUT IT BEING, UH, QUIETER IN SAY CITIES LIKE DALLAS.
UM, WONDERING ABOUT THE RESEARCH AND THE DECISION HOW YOU ARRIVED AT HAVING A 70 DECIBEL LEVEL.
UM, I KNOW THAT 80 DECIBELS IS ABOUT WHERE HIGHWAYS ARE VERY BUSY ROADS.
I, WE THINK YOU MEANT COMPATIBILITY.
YOU MAY HAVE SAID EV CHARGING.
UM, SO 70 DECIBELS IS THE CURRENT CODE, SO WE WEREN'T PROPOSING A CHANGE TO THAT, BUT, UM, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT WE, I I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE AN ACTUAL RECOMMENDATION EITHER WAY ABOUT WHETHER THAT IS THE RIGHT NUMBER OR NOT.
IT IS JUST THE CURRENT NUMBER.
UM, I THINK THAT'S IT FOR MY QUESTIONS SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER HOWARD.
UH, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
ON EV CHARGING, UM, WILL BICYCLE PARKING BE REQUIRED FOR THE NEW USE AS THE ORDINANCE IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED? UM, I KNOW THAT WE RECENTLY MADE, OR AT LEAST RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO BICYCLE PARKING, ERIC THOMAS FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
WE DO NOT HAVE THAT, UH, REQUIREMENT BAKED INTO THE ORDINANCE AT THIS POINT.
WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS CONSIDERED OR WAS THAT JUST SIMPLY O OMITTED? UM, THAT HAS NOT BEEN A, A PART OF THE ORDINANCE AT ALL DURING THIS PROCESS AND SO, UM, IT WOULD BE, AT THIS POINT, IT WOULD JUST BE SOMETHING THAT IF THE REQUIREMENT IS ALREADY THERE FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW, IT WOULD BE THE, THE SAME REQUIREMENT MOVING FORWARD.
UM, AND WAS ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO SPECIFICALLY, UH, THIS IS STILL ON EVS, UH, SPECIFICALLY CHARGING OR
[03:25:01]
ACCOMMODATIONS FOR ELECTRIC BICYCLES, UH, WHICH I KNOW ARE THE MOST COMMON ELECTRIC VEHICLE, UH, ON THE MARKET TODAY? SO WE HAVE NOT, I WOULD SAY WE HAVE NOT SPECIFICALLY REALLY CONSIDERED, UM, ELECTRIC BICYCLE FLEET CHARGING OR CHARGING AS A PART OF THE PRINCIPLE USE.HOWEVER, UM, I I WOULD SAY THAT WE, I WOULD DIRECT YOU TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, UH, DEFINITIONS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES.
UM, AND I, I'M GONNA HAVE TO CHECK MYSELF TO SEE IF, UM, A, AN ELECTRIC BICYCLE IS INCLUDED IN THAT LIST BECAUSE THERE ARE SEVERAL AND WE'VE INTENTIONALLY, UM, LEFT SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE SO THAT, UM, NOT ONLY THE ELECTRIC AUTOMOBILES THAT YOU'RE SEEING TODAY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS NEW USE.
YES, I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT COMPATIBILITY.
SO JUST BEFORE I FINISH MY QUESTIONS, THE FIRST TIME WE WERE DISCUSSING THE OPTION TO GO DOWN TO LOWER THAN 75 FEET, WHICH I KNOW THAT WAS A STAFF STUDY RELATED TO THIS.
IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO THAT PLEASE.
SO THE 75 FOOT RECOMMENDATION WAS A RESULT OF PEER CITY ANALYSIS.
WE, UH, LOOKED AT PEER CITIES TO AUSTIN AND IF THEY HAVE COMPATIBILITY LIKE STANDARDS, THAT 75 FOOT, UM, DISTANCE WAS, UH, ABOUT THE AVERAGE OF ALL THOSE PEER CITIES.
COUNCIL ALSO, UM, ASKED US TO COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF ENDING COMPATIBILITY AT A HUNDRED FEET OR LESS.
UM, AND THAT IS WHAT WE LANDED ON.
UM, IN THE STAFF REPORT, THERE IS, UM, A TABLE THAT SHOWS THE HOUSING CAPACITY GAINED AT VARYING DISTANCES, UM, FROM A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IF WE WERE TO INCOMPATIBILITY AT THOSE DISTANCES.
AND I THINK THAT COULD BE A HELPFUL REFERENCE, UM, AS YOU DELIBERATE.
AND RELATED TO THAT, IT IS THE NUMBER THAT I HEARD, IT'S A VERY BIG NUMBER BECAUSE OF THE BIG CHANGE WE'RE MAKING.
WHAT IS THAT, CAN YOU SHARE WITH THE PUBLIC WHAT, HOW MANY POTENTIAL NEW HOUSING UNITS WE MIGHT BE GAINING THROUGH THIS CHANGE? YES.
THE PROPOSED CHANGES, UM, COULD BRING A HOUSING CAPACITY OF 63,000 HOUSING UNITS, SO THAT'S 63,000.
SO WE KNOW THAT THIS WOULD HAVE A NET POSITIVE IMPACT ON CREATING NEW HOUSING IN THIS CITY.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THEN JUST TO CLARIFY ONE MORE TIME RELATED TO ALLEYWAYS, HOW ARE THEY CURRENTLY TREATED REGARDING COMPATIBILITY, THE MEASUREMENTS AND WHATNOT, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CHANGE IS? I BELIEVE IT'S THE SAME AS, UM, PROPOSED.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THE 25 FOOT, THE ALLEYWAY DOES COUNT AS THE 25 FEET OR SORT OF MEASURING FROM THE ALLEYWAY EDGE.
WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? LET ME CHECK REAL QUICK.
IT DOES START AT A TRIGGERING PROPERTY AND IT GOES OUT, UM, YEAH.
SO REALLY THERE'S NO CHANGE REGARDING ALLEYWAYS UNDER THE NEW SET OF REGULATIONS? YES.
THAT'S WHAT I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM.
AND I DID HAVE, SINCE I HAVE A ONE MINUTE LEFT, I DID HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING SITE PLANS.
I THINK I SAW SOMEONE WHO MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP US WITH THAT AND SORT OF SUB RE SUBDIVISIONS.
OH, THAT'S, LET ME, LINDY WANTS TO SPEAK TO THAT ONE.
LINDY GARWOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES? UH, YES.
I THINK WE JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE HEARD THAT THERE IS CHANGES COMING TO HOW WE DO SUBDIVISIONS AND SITE PLAN, SITE PLAN LIGHT.
UM, IF YOU COULD MAYBE SPEAK TO THAT AND EXPLAIN HOW THAT'S A COMPANION TO WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH HOME TWO.
SO WE ARE CURRENTLY, UM, IN PRODUCTION OF A NEW, UM, INFILL RE SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL THAT'LL ALLOW A CERTAIN SMALLER LOT, UM, OR SMALLER PROJECTS TO GO THROUGH A A DIFFERENT SUBDIVISION PATH.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE HOME TWO PROJECT MANAGER TO COORDINATE LOT SIZES AND KIND OF AREAS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR, UM, WHAT THE PROJECT SIZES SHOULD BE.
AND WE HAVE GONE TO THE CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE AND WE WILL BE, WE'RE SCHEDULED TO COME BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION, I BELIEVE ON MAY 14TH.
COMMISSIONER MOOSH, SHE'S OFF VIDEO.
ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
SO THIS I THINK IS AGAIN FOR LEGAL.
UM, UM, SO I JUST WANNA SAY THAT FROM WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM CITY STAFF, WE, WE DON'T KNOW IF HOME AND OR HOME TWO AND COMPATIBILITY WILL ACCELERATE GENTRIFICATION AND OR DISPLACEMENT.
YET WE REALLY ARE MARCHING FORWARD IS IF WE DON'T HAVE A HISTORY OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THIS CITY REGARDING ZONING, REDLINING, THE 1928 CITY PLAN AND PREDATORY LENDING.
SO LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN ABOUT THE EQUITY
[03:30:01]
OVERLAY.THIS TIME COMING AT IT FROM A DIFFERENT POSITION.
IF IT'S RELATED TO SOMETHING ON OUR AGENDA, IS IT NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO CONSIDER IT AS AN AMENDMENT? I THINK WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS LIMITING THE CHANGES IN HOME ONE TO CERTAIN GEOGRAPHIC AREAS IN THE CITY.
WELL, I'M, I'M PROPOSING IT FOR HOME TWO.
HOME TWO AND, AND OR COMPATIBILITY.
UH, AND IF IT'S RELATED TO LIKE SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAVE COMING OR SOME YEAH.
I'M ASKING CAN IT BE THEN PUT OUT AS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER OR DO WE STILL HAVE TO DO IT AT A FUTURE MEETING? SO IF THE COMMISSION DESIRES TO RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL THAT THEY LIMIT THE CHANGES BEING DISCUSSED TO CERTAIN GEOGRAPHIC AREAS, THE COMMISSION IS IN A POSITION TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION.
UM, BUT A SEPARATE KIND OF, UM, LIKE FULL BLOWN OVERLAY THAT IS, UM, NOT NECESSARILY LIMITING THE APPLICABILITY OF THESE CHANGES WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN AT A SEPARATE MEETING.
SO, SO IS IT A TWO-PARTER? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING,
SOME OF OUR OVERLAYS TEND TO BE MORE INVOLVED AND MORE COMPLEX BEYOND KIND OF WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.
IF YOU WANTED TO GO MORE COMPLEX OR CHANGED, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE DO THAT AT A FUTURE MEETING SO THAT WE CAN, UM, KIND OF HAVE, HAVE ALL THE PIECES, BUT YOU ARE WITHIN YOUR, UM, I'D SAY WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL THAT IT ONLY APPLIED TO CERTAIN GEOGRAPHIC AREAS IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.
AND I, SORRY, I DO WANNA RECOGNIZE THAT, UM, UM, MS. ANIQUE BODAY IS ON THE, THE LINE IN CASE ANYBODY HAD A PROJECT CONNECT QUESTION.
MY, MY QUESTION IS AROUND, UH, HOME TWO AND SETBACKS, FRONT SETBACKS.
I WAS HOPING YOU COULD SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THE RATIONALE OF THE SELECTION OF A 15 FOOT MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK OR, AND FIVE FEET IF THE LOT IS A FLAG LAY LOT.
SO THE 15 FOOT SETBACK, UM, ON THE FRONT IS IN LINE WITH HOME PHASE ONE.
AND SO THAT WILL BE A STREET FACING LOT FOR A FLAG LOT WHICH WILL BE LOCATED BEHIND A STREET FACING LOT.
YOU HAVE A REDUCED SETBACK THAT'S SIMILAR TO THE SIDE.
LET'S, UH, OKAY, SO IT'S IN LINE WITH HOME PHASE ONE FOR STREET FACING.
LOT OF, I'M SORRY, I WASN'T HERE FOR HOME PHASE ONE, BUT OF WHERE, WHY 15 FEET? UM, THE CURRENT SETBACK IS 25 FEET.
UM, AND STAFF SAW THE REDUCTION IN SETBACK TO GIVE MORE FLEXIBILITY AND MORE SPACE FOR UNITS ON A LOT.
UM, KIND OF STRIKING THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE CURRENT SETBACK AND REDUCE SETBACKS THAT YOU MIGHT SEE IN A MORE DENSE URBAN ENVIRONMENT.
I HAVE A QUESTION THAT I THINK IS FOR MR. MAY, BUT HE CAN FEEL FREE TO DEFER TO SOMEONE ELSE.
I HEARD A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO INCOME RESTRICTED UNIT REQUIREMENT AS PART OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
AND I KNOW THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF CITYWIDE PROGRAMS TO ALLOW FOR INCOME RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT.
AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN SPEAK TO HOW THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING UNDER HOME MIGHT IMPACT DEVELOPERS' ABILITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE CITYWIDE PROGRAMS. SPECIFICALLY THINGS LIKE OWNERSHIP, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE.
SO, UH, PARDON ME, JAMIE, MAY I AM THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
UH, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
UM, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY, UH, THE EASIEST WAY TO EXPLAIN THAT IS TO SAY THAT THERE ARE VERY FIXED INPUTS INTO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
UM, ONE OF THOSE FIXED INPUTS IS THE COST OF LAND.
UH, AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, UH, BY REDUCING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE YOU ARE OVERALL REDUCING THE TOTAL COST OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND WITH AN ABILITY TO, TO DEVELOP MORE.
UM, SO, UH, ON BALANCE, IF A DEVELOPER HAS, LET'S SAY 50 ACRES, UM, UNDER CURRENT PLANS, THEY COULD BUILD A HUNDRED UNITS UNDER THE NEW PROPOSAL, THEY COULD BUILD 200 UNITS.
[03:35:01]
COMMENSURATE TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DEVELOPABLE UNITS THAT THEY HAVE.UM, HOWEVER, THEY COULD ACTUALLY SEE A PROFIT BY SELLING THOSE UNITS AT A LOWER, AT A LOWER COST OVERALL OR SELLING SOME OF THOSE UNITS ON AN AFFORDABLE RATE.
UH, IF THEY WERE TO PARTICIPATE IN SOME OF OUR PROGRAMS, WHETHER IT'S AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED OR UH, SMART HOUSING, THEN THEY COULD ALSO REDUCE THEIR COSTS THROUGH FEE WAIVERS.
UM, OR IF IT IS A PROPERTY THAT, UH, IS BRINGING A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, UH, IT IS A DEVELOPMENT THAT, OR IT MAY BE A DEVELOPMENT THAT, THAT WE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN INVESTING IN THROUGH OUR OWNERSHIP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
UM, I WILL NOTE HOWEVER, THAT THOSE RESOURCES AREN'T LIMITED.
UM, AND THE COMPETITION, UH, THROUGH APPLICATION PROCESS IS VERY, UH, UH, HEATED, LET'S SAY.
SO KIND OF A CLARIFYING QUESTION, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NO INCOME RESTRICTED UNIT REQUIREMENT AS PART OF THIS, WOULD IT BE ACCURATE TO SAY THAT DEVELOPERS WHO BUILD INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS EXCLUSIVELY OR MOSTLY WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS PROGRAM IN ORDER TO BUILD MORE INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS ON SMALLER LOTS IN THE SAME AMOUNT OF SPACE? ABSOLUTELY.
AND CAN YOU SPEAK TO HOW THE, YOU KNOW, THAT LIMITED FUNDING THAT YOU SPOKE ABOUT MIGHT, UM, APPLY DIFFERENTLY OR STRETCH IN A DIFFERENT WAY IF THE AMOUNT OF LAND REQUIRED TO BUILD INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS WAS DIFFERENT THAN IT IS TODAY? SURE.
UM, AGAIN, THE UH, UH, THE COST OF THE LAND IS KIND OF A FIXED AMOUNT, UM, WHEN, UH, DEVELOPING THE COST OF THE UNIT ITSELF.
UH, IF WE ARE LOOKING AT 2020 5,000 SQUARE OR 2,500 SQUARE FOOT HOMES, THOSE ARE GONNA BE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN AN 800 SQUARE FOOT HOME.
UM, ON SMALLER LOTS, UH, WE CAN BUILD SMALLER HOMES, WE CAN BUILD, UH, TALLER HOMES AND UH, WE CAN SERVE POPULATIONS, UH, THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY SERVED BY THE 2000 SQUARE FOOT HOMES.
UM, WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE A, UH, DEFICIT OF, UH, HOUSING UNITS ACROSS THE INCOME SPECTRUM, ACROSS THE DEMOGRAPHIC SPECTRUM FAMILY SIZE.
UM, SO BY PROVIDING SMALLER UNITS, WE CAN ACTUALLY SERVE THE POPULATION, UM, AND STILL HAVE AVAILABLE RESOURCES TO PROVIDE LARGER UNITS FOR LARGER, UH, LARGER HOUSEHOLDS.
ALRIGHT, UM, SO THAT IS THE END OF OUR Q AND A ROUND VICE CHAIR IS AZAR.
CAN YOU HELP ME EXPLAIN THE PROCESS? WE'LL GO THROUGH COMING UP.
UM, I KNOW THIS HAD BEEN, UH, SHARED PREVIOUSLY WITH OUR COMMISSIONERS AND THERE WAS AN UPDATE, UH, SHARED TODAY AS WELL.
SO, UM, FOLKS, THE UPDATED ONE IS WHAT YOU WILL HAVE, YOU WILL NOTE CHANGES IN RED, WHICH WERE MADE BASED ON DIFFERENT FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED FROM COMMISSIONERS.
UM, SO NOW THAT WE'RE DONE WITH OUR Q AND A, ESSENTIALLY WE'LL WALK THROUGH THESE, UM, RULES OF DELIBERATION AND WE WILL THEN EITHER TAKE A VOTE ON THEM OR PASS THEM WITH NO OBJECTION.
SO ONE, WE'VE SPLIT THE ITEMS, SO WE'RE GONNA BE REPEATING THIS FOR EACH ITEM SEPARATELY.
AND AGAIN, AS THE CHAIR HAD POINTED OUT, WE WILL BE STARTING WITH COMPATIBILITY, MOVING ONTO HOME PHASE TWO AND THEN EV CHARGING.
UM, SO A BASE MOTION WILL BE ESTABLISHED, WHICH IS WHAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS, THAT WILL BE SECONDED.
SO WE CAN START OUR CONVERSATION ON THAT.
UM, AT WHICH POINT THE WORKING GROUP, UH, WILL BE PRESENTING ITS AMENDMENTS, UM, LIKELY BY THE CHAIR, WHICH WOULD BE MYSELF, WE'RE GIVING OURSELVES THE SAME TIME AS STAFF.
SO 10 MINUTES OF TO GO THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS ON COM.
ON THE HOME PHASE TWO, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, WE MIGHT GO BEYOND THAT JUST BECAUSE THERE'S MORE, UH, AMENDMENTS RELATED TO HOME PHASE TWO, WE WILL, ONCE THOSE HAVE BEEN LAID OUT, ALL THE COMMISSIONERS, UM, ESSENTIALLY WILL GO THROUGH ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS ONE BY ONE AND YOU CAN PULL ANY AMENDMENTS THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSED.
THOSE THAT DO NOT GET PULLED, MOVE FORWARD AS CONSENT WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
SO A MOTION IS MADE, SECOND IS DONE, AND THEN THEY GET ADOPTED WITHOUT OBJECTION INTO OUR BASE MOTION AT THAT TIME, WHICH IS A STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
AFTER THIS, WE START GOING THROUGH OUR, UM, DISCUSSION OF THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED FOR DISCUSSION ONE BY ONE.
WE WILL REPEAT THIS FOR ALL, UH, OF OUR AMENDMENTS.
SO FIRST OF ALL, THERE WILL BE Q AND A ON AMENDMENTS WITH THREE COMMISSIONERS ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS UP TO TWO MINUTES.
UM, THIS IS PER PERSON AND AT THAT POINT QUESTIONS CAN BE ASKED OF STAFF OR OTHER COMMISSIONERS OR COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
HOWEVER, FOLKS MIGHT BE, UM, THINK MAKES SENSE AFTER THIS.
UM, THE COMMISSION, THE MOTION MAKER MAKES A MOTION AND IT'S SECONDED.
WE ARE NOW ALLOWING AFTER THIS FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO COMMISSIONERS TO ASK QUESTIONS UP TO TWO MINUTES EACH.
UM, ANYTHING THAT MIGHT BE ASKED, I JUST WANNA BE VERY CLEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, WE OFTEN USE THE WORD CLARIFYING, UH, QUESTIONS.
SO CLARIFYING COMMES QUESTIONS ARE ONLY FOR THE MOTION MAKER.
IF WE NEED SOME UNDERSTANDING OF LANGUAGE OR WE WANT SOMEONE TO REPEAT THE MOTION, THAT IS FINE.
BUT BEYOND THAT, ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS HAVE TO GO INTO THESE
[03:40:01]
QUESTION SLOTS.UM, AT THIS POINT, IF SOMEBODY WISHES TO MAKE AMENDMENTS OR SUBSTITUTIONS, UH, WE CAN DO THAT.
AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS FOR THAT IN A SECOND HERE.
ONCE, SINCE WE'VE GONE THROUGH OUR QUESTIONS AND GONE THROUGH, UM, ANY OF OUR AMENDMENTS AND SUBSTITUTIONS, TWO COMMISSIONERS GET TO SPEAK IN FAVOR.
TWO COMMISSIONERS GET TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION, UH, FOR UP TO TWO MINUTES EACH.
WE TAKE A FINAL VOTE AND WE REPEAT THIS ESSENTIALLY FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE BOLD INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
AFTER THIS, UM, THE WORKING GROUP CHAIR WILL GUIDE THE COMMISSION THROUGH ALL THE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SHARED AS OF YESTERDAY MORNING AND THAT WERE POSTED TO THE WEBSITE.
SO THOSE ARE AVAILABLE, UM, ON OUR WEBSITE PLANNING COMMISSION WEBSITE.
AND ESSENTIALLY, ONCE AGAIN, WE'LL GO THROUGH THE SAME LIST OF GOING THROUGH IT ONE BY ONE AND SEEING WHICH ONES NEED TO BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSIONS AND WHICH ONES CAN MOVE FORWARD ON CONSENT.
AT WHICH POINT WE'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CONSIDER THESE AS A SLATE.
THE ONES THAT ARE ON CONSENT, THOSE WILL BE APPROVED AND ADDED TO THE BASE MOTION.
AND THEN WE MOVE ONE BY ONE ON THE, UH, AMENDMENTS THAT WERE POSTED BY MONDAY AND GO THROUGH THEM IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BY LAST NAME OF THE COMMISSIONER.
AND ESSENTIALLY WE'LL FOLLOW THE SAME PROCESS.
THE COMMISSIONER EXPLAINS THEIR MOTION.
I REALLY DO ASK AT THAT POINT THAT THE COMMISSIONER DO NOT SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THEIR OWN MOTION.
THE IDEA IS REALLY TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE INTENT OF THE MOTION IS.
YOU HAVE THREE COMMISSIONERS WHO CAN ASK QUESTIONS.
TWO MINUTES EACH, UM, AROUND THE COMMISSION, UH, AROUND THE AMENDMENT BEING PROPOSED.
THE COMMISSIONER THEN MAKES A FORMAL MOTION AND IT IS SECONDED, AFTER WHICH ANOTHER TWO COMMISSIONERS CAN ASK QUESTIONS UP TO TWO MINUTES AS WELL.
UM, AGAIN, IF AMENDMENTS AND SUBSTITUTIONS ARE MADE, I WILL TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IN A SECOND HERE.
TWO COMMISSIONERS CAN SPEAK IN FAVOR OF A MOTION AND TWO COMMISSIONERS CAN SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION FOR UP TO TWO MINUTES.
AND AGAIN, REPEAT THIS THROUGH ALL THE DISCUSSION AMENDMENTS BASED ON INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS POSTED.
AT THIS POINT, JUST SO YOU'RE FOLLOWING ALONG, WE HAVE DISPOSED OFF ALL THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
THOSE WERE CONSENT AND PULLED.
WE HAVE DISPOSED OFF ALL THE INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER AMENDMENTS THAT WERE POSTED BY MONDAY MORNING.
UM, THOSE THAT ARE CONSENT AND PULLED AT THIS POINT, WE MOVED TO AT LEAST ONE ROUND OF INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER AMENDMENTS THAT WERE NOT SHARED BY MONDAY.
UM, SO IF ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT SHARED AND HAS NOT BEEN POSTED, COMMISSIONERS CAN BRING THAT UP.
I WON'T REPEAT IT, BUT ESSENTIALLY WE'LL GO THROUGH THE EXACT SAME FORMAT THAT WE DID, UM, FOR, UH, THE PREVIOUS INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
SO WE'LL GO THROUGH THE SAME IDEA FOR THESE.
AGAIN, WE VOTE ON IT, MOVE BACK ALPHABETICALLY AND GO.
AFTER THIS, IF THE COMMISSIONER, IF THE COMMISSION OR ANY COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL ROUNDS OF INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS THAT WERE NOT POSTED ON MONDAY, THEY CAN ASK FOR A MOTION ON THAT AND WE CAN CONSIDER THAT MOTION OR MOVE FORWARD, UM, ON ESSENTIALLY A NO OBJECTION BOARD TO START GOING THROUGH THOSE AS WELL.
AND WE'VE HAD A REQUEST FOR THIS, SO WE'VE PUT IT IN.
AND THEN, UH, BEFORE I MOVE ON TO THE BASE MOTION, I WILL SAY FOR RULES FOR SUBSTITUTING OR AMENDING ANY AMENDMENT.
SO REMINDER, WE'RE GOING THROUGH ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS ALREADY.
WHAT WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT ARE AMENDMENTS.
SO REMINDER, PER OUR RULES, WE ONLY ALLOW YOU TO AMEND AN AMENDMENT ONCE.
SO YOU CANNOT AMEND AN AMENDMENT TO AN AMENDMENT, YOU CAN ONLY AMEND AN AMENDMENT.
SO WE DO ESSENTIALLY TWO LEVELS IN DEEP, OR YOU CAN SUBSTITUTE AN AMENDMENT, BUT WE DO NOT ALLOW AMENDMENTS OF A SUBSTITUTION.
SO AT THAT POINT, ESSENTIALLY YOU HAVE TO LET WHATEVER MOTION HAS BEEN MADE TO BE VOTED ON AND IT EITHER PASSES OR NOT.
IF IT'S NOT PASSED, YOU CAN CONTINUE TO MAKE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS.
SO WE'LL KEEP ON TRACKING THAT.
NOT TO CONFUSE PEOPLE TOO MUCH, BUT ESSENTIALLY THE IDEA IS IN THE NESTED NEST OF MOTIONS, PLEASE DON'T GO THREE LEVELS DEEP 'CAUSE IT STARTS, UH, GETTING CONFUSING AND YOU START LOSING THE ABILITY TO CATCH ONTO THAT.
AGAIN, SIMILAR IN THIS SIMILAR WAY, A COMMISSION MAKES A FORMAL MOTION FOR EITHER AN AMENDMENT OR A SUBSTITUTION.
WE HAVE TWO COMMISSIONERS WHO CAN ASK QUESTIONS ON THAT FOR UP TO TWO MINUTES.
AND THEN AFTER THAT WE, WE CAN HAVE THE TWO COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
TWO COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION.
WE TAKE A FINAL VOTE ON THAT AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTION TO AN EXISTING AMENDMENT.
AND THEN WE GO BACK IN THE NESTED NEST.
ONCE ESSENTIALLY WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THESE AMENDMENTS AND AMENDMENTS TO AMENDMENTS AND SUBSTITUTIONS TO AMENDMENTS, WE ESSENTIALLY HAVE THE BASE MOTION AS AMENDED.
WE WILL GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE FINAL VOTE ON THE BASE MOTION.
UH, AND WE'RE ESSENTIALLY GOING BACK TO SAYING THE THREE COMMISSIONERS CAN SPEAK FOR THE MOTION.
THREE COMMISSIONERS CAN SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION UP TO TWO MINUTES, AND THEN WE TAKE A FINAL VOTE ON THE BASE MOTION AS AMENDED.
AT THIS POINT, WE WILL HAVE GONE THROUGH ONE OF OUR SPLIT ITEMS AND WE WILL CIRCLE BACK WITH THE OTHER ITEM, DO EXACTLY THE SAME THING, AND GO BACK AND DO THAT WITH THE THIRD.
[03:45:01]
CHAIR, CHAIR.UM, MAYBE THIS IS INCORRECT, BUT I HEARD THAT WE MAY BE ADJOURNING AT A SET TIME OR IS THAT UNDETERMINED? NO MATTER WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS? WE, UM, GIVEN THE PROCESS, WE'RE ANTICIPATING THIS TO GO PRETTY LONG.
SO, UM, WE HAVEN'T SET A TIME ABOUT WHAT TIME WE WOULD ADJOURN, BUT WE'LL SEE HOW FAR WE GET.
SO, WILD EXAMPLE, IF WE WERE TO GET ALL THE WAY THROUGH EV CHARGING AND IT'S 1230 AND WE'RE ALMOST THERE, WE WOULD PROBABLY GIVEN THE TEMPERATURE OF THE, THE BODY CONTINUE ON UNTIL IT'S DONE.
HOWEVER, IF IT'S MIDNIGHT AND WE'RE ALMOST AT THE END OF, OF COMPATIBILITY, WE'LL ADJOURN PROBABLY RECESS, SORRY, RECESS AROUND MIDNIGHT AND PICK IT BACK UP AGAIN AT 6:00 PM TOMORROW.
AND THEN MY ONLY JUST COMMENT IS I HOPE THAT THIS BODY MIGHT BE WILLING TO LET MORE PEOPLE SPEAK FOR AND AGAINST THE FINAL MOTION, JUST BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THE BEST OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO SUMMARIZE THEIR THOUGHTS ON THIS.
AND THREE AND THREE MIGHT NOT ALLOW EVERYONE TO HAVE THEIR SAY, UH, WE SHOULD NOTE.
AND SOMETHING THAT'S NOT NOTED IN HERE.
AND I, I WONDER IF COMM UM, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, THAT WOULD ADDRESS YOUR ISSUE.
ONE THING THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED WITH OUR STAFF LI LIAISON WAS ONCE WE'RE DONE WITH ALL THE MOTIONS, WE DO WANT TO GIVE THE ENTIRE DI D INCLUDING OUR EX OFFICIAL TIME TO PROVIDE COMMENTS.
DO YOU THINK THAT, OR WOULD YOU WANT THAT FOR EACH ITEM? I, UH, I'M NOT ABLE TO BE HERE TOMORROW, SO I WOULD APPRECIATE, UH, PER ITEM BE JUST BECAUSE I HAVE A FEELING I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SPEAK ON WHATEVER FALLS TO TOMORROW.
UH, DO YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS THAT YOU WOULD WANT? SO CURRENTLY WE HAVE THREE.
DO YOU WANT TO EXPAND IT TO, I DON'T THINK I, HOPEFULLY WE CAN STICK TO THREE TO THREE, BUT IF THERE'S JUST SOMEONE ELSE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK, HOPEFULLY THIS COMMISSION WILL ALLOW.
AND ACTUALLY I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT AT ANY POINT WHILE WE'RE GOING THROUGH IT WITH THE SUPER MAJORITY, WE CAN CHANGE ANY OF THESE RULES AT ANY GIVEN POINT.
RIGHT? AND GIVEN OUR ATTENDANCE TONIGHT, A SUPER MAJORITY IS NINE VOTES.
UM, BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT NOTE.
SO WE'VE NOTED THAT AS A TWEAK.
UM, OTHER POTENTIAL EDITS, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, COMMENT, MS. MADAM CHAIR, UM, AT THE OUTSET OF, OF WHAT I FEEL IS PROBABLY GONNA BE A LONG NIGHT, I WANT TO ABSOLUTELY IN, UH, ON THE, AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.
SO MR. RIVERA, PLEASE HIT RECORD.
I WANT TO THANK YOU AND I WANT TO THANK THE VICE CHAIR FOR, UH, LISTENING TO CONCERNS AND ADDRESSING THOSE CONCERNS AND PUTTING FORWARD A SET OF RULES THAT I THINK, UH, DO A A, A DARN GOOD JOB.
GOOD JOB OF, OF KEEP CUTTING IT RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE.
AND I APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S EFFORT ON THAT AND UH, I APPRECIATE THE LOOK FORWARD, THE PROCESS.
EASY RULES, RIGHT? SO, UM, I WOULD FEEL BETTER IF WE, UM, IF WE VOTE ON THIS JUST TO SOLIDIFY THAT AND, UM, POTENTIALLY CARRY IT FORWARD TO NEXT TUESDAY.
UM, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, AS PRESENTED OUR RULES WITH THE, UH, THE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AS MANY COMMISSIONERS THAT WAS TO SPEAK FOR AND AGAINST ON THE FINAL MOTION.
UM, THE RULES SET FORWARD AS, UH, WHAT OUR PROCEDURE FOR THIS EVENING TO POSSIBLY TOMORROW EVENING, APRIL 30TH AND MAY 1ST.
UM, IS THERE A SECOND? GOOD MORNING.
AND ANY QUESTIONS DISCUSSION? YES, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? I HAVE A QUESTION.
I THINK I HEARD IT ANSWERED, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.
SO THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR ALSO, UM, AND I THINK, UM, VICE CHAIR AZAR SAID THIS.
JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT IF WE HAD SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T COME THROUGH THE WORKING GROUP OR DIDN'T COME BY MONDAY, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO TO STILL BRING THAT.
JUST TO CLARIFY THAT COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS ONE WITHOUT QUESTION, AND THEN IF WE WANNA DO MORE AMENDMENTS THEN THOSE WE CAN ALSO CONSIDER AT THAT TIME AND THAT'S IN THE PROCESS.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
UM, HERE WE'LL HEAR FROM OUR, WAIT, I'M GETTING USED TO THIS AS WELL.
UM, SO WE HAVE SPLIT OUR BASE MOTION ITEM NUMBER TWO INTO THE THREE, UM,
[03:50:02]
PRESENTATION OF WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.CHAIR, WE'LL MOVE INTO THE, UM, PRESENTATION OF THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS FOR EACH ONE.
SO BEFORE WE GO THERE, WE WILL HAVE TO, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND MAKE A BASE MOTION FOR THIS ITEM.
SO I'M GONNA MOVE AHEAD, UH, WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION POINT.
WE ARE DOING A COMPATIBILITY SPECIFICALLY.
SO WE HAVE A BASE MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON A COMPATIBILITY SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UM, WE DO NOT TAKE A VOTE ON IT.
UM, WE CAN ACTUALLY NOW START ON OUR, UM, Q UH, SORRY, OUR WORKING GROUP.
THANK YOU FOR KEEPING ME ON THERE.
SO WE DO HAVE A SPREADSHEET FOR, THIS WAS SHARED AND IS POSTED BACK OF STAFF.
THAT REALLY WOULD BE GREAT SO FOLKS CAN UH, SEE IT AS WE SORT OF CONTINUE THROUGH IT.
UM, THE FIRST ONE IS FROM COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
UM, THIS WAS APPROVED BY OUR WORKING GROUP.
THESE ARE ALL AMENDMENTS THAT WERE APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF WORKING GROUP MEMBERS.
UM, ASKING TO CLARIFY THAT EXISTING LANGUAGE, THAT COMPATIBILITY HEIGHT LIMITS DO NOT APPLY TO ZONING CATEGORIES WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF UP TO 40 FEET, ESSENTIALLY AN ASKED TO REMOVE REDUNDANCY.
THERE IS A PROPOSED TEXT CHANGE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.
I WON'T READ THAT IN THIS MOMENT.
UM, BUT FOLKS CAN AGAIN LOOK AT THAT IN THE BACKUP AND SEE IT ON SCREEN AS WELL.
AND AGAIN, IF YOU SOMEBODY PULLS IT FOR DISCUSSION, WE WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO ASK QUESTIONS.
UM, NUMBER TWO IS A SIMILAR ONE.
THIS IS ASKING FOR CLARIFYING EXISTING LANGUAGE REGARDING WHICH DISTRICT'S COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS APPLY TO.
AND SO WE WOULD BE, UH, REPLACING ESSENTIALLY CERTAIN LANGUAGE TO ENSURE.
SO BOTH OF THESE ARE NOT MEANT TO SUBSTANTIVELY CHANGE ANYTHING IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT ARE MEANT TO, UH, PROVIDE CLARIFYING LANGUAGE.
WE HAVE A THIRD ONE FROM COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
THIS WOULD REDUCE THE WIDTH OF A REQUIRED BUFFER ON A NARROW LOT, WHICH IS DEFINED AS A LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 75 FEET WIDE TO 15 FOOT WIDE SCREENING ZONE, ALLOWING UP TO 35 FEET OF HEIGHT NEXT TO THE INCREASED SCREENING ZONE.
AND AGAIN, THERE IS LANGUAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS THAT IS, UM, IN THAT, UM, COLUMN NUMBER FOUR IS BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
THIS WOULD CLARIFY LANGUAGE, UH, THAT THIS, UH, THE SECTION WE'RE LOOKING AT PAGE THREE, LINE 58.
THE SECTION APPLIES TO DISTANCES OF 75 FEET OR MORE.
SO ESSENTIALLY THIS IS A CLAUSE THAT SAYS THAT YOU CAN GO TO YOUR ALLOWABLE BASE HEIGHT WITHIN YOUR ZONE AND WE'RE JUST CLARIFYING THAT IT IS FOR 75 FEET OR MORE.
UM, AGAIN, CLARIFYING LANGUAGE WITHIN THE INTENT OF WHAT THE STAFF HAD ASKED FOR.
NUMBER FIVE IS A AMENDMENT BY MYSELF.
THIS WOULD REVISE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS IN 25 DASH EIGHT 700 TO PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO THE SCREENING ZONE, UM, TO ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY IN THE SCREENING CRITERIA.
NOTE THAT THIS IS ONLY A GENERAL AMENDMENT, IT IS NOT A TEXT AMENDMENT SINCE WE ARE NOT LOOKING AT, UH, 25 DASH EIGHT 700.
SO THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION GOING TO COUNCIL AT THIS TIME.
IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY PROPOSED TEXT CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
NUMBER SIX IS, AND ALSO AN AMENDMENT BY MYSELF.
THIS WOULD ENSURE THAT THE COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL EXISTING REVISED AND NEW DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS MATCH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NEW DENSITY PROGRAMS BEING CONSIDERED.
THIS IS AGAIN, A GENERAL AMENDMENT.
IT IS NOT HAVE TEXT ASSOCIATED WITH IT, AND I KNOW THAT THAT WOULD LIVE WITHIN ADDITIONAL, UM, ORDINANCES IN THE FUTURE.
THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION BEING FORWARDED TO COUNSEL.
I WILL SAY THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON HAS A SIMILAR AMENDMENT TO THIS, SO, OR A MATCHING AMENDMENT TO THIS.
SO WE MIGHT WANNA PULL THIS FOR DISCUSSION FOR THAT PURPOSE, UNLESS COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, YOU WISH TO WITHDRAW THAT AMENDMENT.
WE CAN GET TO IT WHEN WE GET TO IT.
THIS BRINGS US TO THE LAST AMENDMENT ON COMPATIBILITY FROM THE WORKING GROUP.
THIS WAS AN AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
IT PROVIDES REVIEW AND WAIVER PROCESS FOR SMALL SITES AND FOR ADDITIONAL USES IN THE COMPATIBILITY ZONE.
SO THE WAY, UM, STAFF HAD ESSENTIALLY, UH, UH, DRAFTED THIS, THERE WOULD BE A REVIEW AND WAIVER PROCESS FOR, UM, CERTAIN THINGS RELATED TO ESSENTIALLY, UH, THE COMPATIBILITY ZONE.
THIS WOULD EXPAND IT TO LOOKING AT THE BUFFER ZONES AS WELL.
AND THERE IS TEXT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS THAT IS IN THE COLUMN AS WELL.
I'LL PAUSE THERE AND SHARE AT ANY POINT.
I CAN START SEEING ONE BY ONE, WHICH ONES FOLKS WOULD WANT TO PULL FOR DISCUSSION.
YES, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, AND START THAT.
IF YOU HAVE A SIMILAR AMENDMENT, PLEASE PULL IT.
IF YOU HAVE, UH, SOMETHING YOU WANT CHANGED TO THE AMENDMENT, PLEASE PULL IT.
IF YOU'RE CONFUSED AND HAVE QUESTIONS ON IT, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO PULL IT.
IF YOU, IF NONE OF THOSE APPLY, WE CAN JUST MOVE FORWARD AND ADD THEM TO THE BASE.
UM, SO AGAIN, NUMBER ONE IS A CLARIFICATION REQUIREMENT FROM COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
[03:55:02]
WOULD ANYBODY WISH TO PULL THIS? I WAS JUST GONNA MENTION THAT I THINK PART OF IT IS MOOT BECAUSE THE VERSION TWO HAS PART OF THE AMENDMENT ALREADY INCORPORATED.I AT THAT POINT, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I WOULD LOOK TO YOU.
ARE YOU FINE WITH WITHDRAWING THAT AMENDMENT OR WOULD YOU WANT TO CONTINUE? IT'S, IT'S NOW LINE 68 THROUGH 70.
YEAH, UM, I THINK YES, I'D BE FINE.
UH, WITHDRAWING THAT AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER COX FOR CATCHING THAT.
SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO NUMBER TWO.
UM, THIS IS A CLARIFYING, UM, AMENDMENT FROM COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AS WELL.
ANYBODY WISHING TO PULL THIS ITEM NOT HEARING OTHERWISE, WE'RE GONNA KEEP THIS ON CONSENT.
UM, NUMBER THIRD IS A, UH, AMENDMENT FROM COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AS WELL, WHICH IS REDUCING THE WIDTH OF A REQUIRED BUFFER ON NARROW LOTS DEFINED AS LESS THAN 75 FEET TO 15 FOOT WIDE SCREENING ZONE, ALLOWING UP TO 35 FEET OF HEIGHT NEXT TO THE INCREASED SCREENING ZONE.
ANYBODY WISHING TO PULL THIS AMENDMENT? AND, AND I AM SORRY, I SHOULD SAY SINCE WE HAVE IT PULLED UP, I CAN SEE YOU COMMISSIONER HOWARD.
SO IN CASE WE'RE MISSING SOMEBODY ONLINE, PLEASE DO JUST UNMUTE YOURSELF AND SPEAK.
I I DON'T WANNA MISS SOMEBODY.
OKAY, SO THIS ONE STAYS ON CONSENT AS WELL.
THIS COMES TO NUMBER FOUR BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
CLARIFYING LANGUAGE THAT THE SUBSECTION ON PAGE THREE, LINE 58, IT APPLIES TO 75 FEET OR MORE.
SO THIS IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT YOUR BASE ZONING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS APPLY AFTER 75 FEET.
MR. UH, MR. VICE CHAIR, UH, I AM PROUD TO SAY THAT I CAUGHT SOMETHING THAT STAFF ALSO CAUGHT.
I THINK IT'S COVERED IN THE AMENDMENT OR IN THE VERSION TOO.
UH, BUT SOMEBODY CHECKED ME THERE AND IF IT IS 53, I'M HAPPY TO PULL IT.
I'M SEEING A NOD FROM STAFF THAT INDEED IT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED, SO WE'LL THANK YOU COMMISSIONER AND I FOUND SOMETHING THERE.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAYNES AND THANK YOU STAFF.
UM, SO THAT ITEM GETS WITHDRAWN.
SO THIS TAKES US TO NUMBER FIVE, WHICH IS BY MYSELF.
UM, THIS IS TO REVISE THE MINIMUM.
AGAIN, THIS IS GENERAL AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY SPECIFICALLY TO THIS ORDINANCE.
THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL TO REVISE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS IN 25 DASH EIGHT 700 TO PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY.
WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO PULL THIS FOR DISCUSSION? I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION.
UH, AND SO IT MIGHT HAVE TO GET PULLED.
I VOTED FOR IT IN COMMITTEE AND I'LL VOTE FOR THIS ONE.
BUT I WOULD LIKE IT TO ALSO SAY, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T GET LESS RESTRICTIVE FLEXIBILITY, THE BASE STAYS AS IS.
AND ANYTHING IN THAT YOU CAN GET, YOU CAN GET LESS, YOU CAN GET MORE FLEXIBLE, BUT THE THE MINIMUM STAYS.
SO, UH, THAT, I'M GONNA PULL THAT JUST BECAUSE THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE AN AMENDMENT AT THIS POINT.
UM, SO THAT'S PULLED, THIS TAKES US TO NUMBER SIX, ENSURES THAT THE COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL EXISTING REVISED AND NEW DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS MATCH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NEW DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM BEING CONSIDERED IN 2024.
AND WAS I HEARING FROM YOU, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, THAT YOU'RE FINE WITH THIS ONE PROCEEDING? IT SEEMS TO ME THERE'S NUANCED DIFFERENCES.
AND IF WE CAN JUST, I'M OKAY WITH THIS PASSING AND IF WORK GROUP LIKES IT AND THEN I CAN BRING UP MINE.
AND I THINK ACTUALLY THOSE CAN GO FORWARD SINCE ONE IS MORE RESTRICTIVE.
THIS IS JUST A GENERAL AMENDMENT AT THIS TIME.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO PULL THIS AMENDMENT? OKAY, THAT ONE STAYS ON CONSENT.
THIS TAKES US TO, OOPS, SORRY.
THIS TAKES US TO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S AMENDMENT.
SO THIS IS PROVIDES REVIEW AND WAIVER PROCESS FOR SMALL SITES AND FOR ADDITIONAL USES IN THE COMPATIBILITY ZONE.
IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO PULL THIS ITEM? UM, CAN WE, CAN WE TALK ABOUT THAT ONE? OKAY.
SO CHAIR, AT THIS POINT WE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE AHEAD WITH, UM, WORKING GROUP NUMBER, UH, WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO, WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE, WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX ON CONSENT.
AND I WILL NEED A SECOND ON THAT MOTION.
SECOND THAT SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS.
WE CAN, WELL, UNLESS IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, WE'LL JUST APPROVE IT, BUT WE CAN TAKE A VOTE ON IT AS WELL.
[04:00:01]
ALL RIGHT.UM, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I KNOW THE MAYOR USES AND FORMER CHAIR SHAW USED.
IT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE RICKETY AT FIRST, BUT YOU'RE GONNA TRY IT OUT.
'CAUSE I THINK IT'LL SAVE US A LITTLE, A FEW SECONDS HERE.
IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, THEN WE WILL CONTINUE ON.
SO IF YOU HAD AN OBJECTION AND WANTED TO VOTE ON IT, THIS WOULD BE YOUR TIME TO RAISE YOUR HAND.
UM, THIS TAKES US BACK TO THE DISCUSSION ON EACH ONE OF THE POLLS.
SO WE HAVE TWO POLLS STARTING WITH, UM, WHAT I HAD.
SO THIS IS NUMBER FIVE, AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE FROM THE WORKING, UM, GROUP.
THIS IS TO REVISE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS IN 25 DASH EIGHT 700 TO PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO THE SCREENING ZONE TO ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY IN THE SCREENING CRITERIA.
UM, AT THIS POINT WE ARE OPEN FOR THREE COMMISSIONERS TO ASK QUESTIONS UP TO TWO MINUTES.
UH, COMMISSIONER AZAR, WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH JUST ADDING, UH, ADDING THE WORDS ANYWHERE IN THERE? OR AT LEAST ADDING THE CONCEPTS SINCE IT'S GENERAL? AND YOU MAY NOT WANT TO GET LOCKED DOWN TO WORDS THAT SAYS THE, UH, FLEXIBILITY MEETS THE MINIMUM STANDARDS IN, UM, OR, OR AT LEAST MEETS THE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF 25 8 700? I, I DON'T, I'LL BE HONEST, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
SINCE FLEXIBILITY WOULD MEAN WE WOULD BE LOOSENING THE REQUIREMENT.
AND IF WE SAY YOU CAN LOOSEN THE REQUIREMENT BUT NOT LOOSEN THE REQUIREMENT, I'M NOT SURE.
WELL, YOU CAN AND, AND AND MY THOUGHT IT IT LOOSENS IT.
FLEXIBILITY IS NOT, IS NOT MINIMIZING.
IF, IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU WANNA MINIMIZE THE STANDARDS, THEN I, I SHOULD NOT HAVE VOTED FOR THIS.
IF YOU'RE SAYING YOU WANT TO, YOU WANT FLEXIBILITY IN THE STANDARDS, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.
BUT DO YOU WANT TO, SO DO YOU WANT FLEXIBILITY OR DO YOU WANNA MINIMIZE? I WOULD THINK THAT SOME FLEXIBILITY MIGHT REQUIRE MINIMIZE, SO I WOULD BE UNCOMFORTABLE AT THIS POINT FOR SAYING OKAY, PERFECT STANDARDS.
COULD I OFFER A SUGGESTION, UM, THAT ACTUALLY STAFF HAD USED IN ONE OF THEIR ANSWERS IS THE TERM ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT THAT WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT.
SO LET'S GO THROUGH THE Q AND A.
UNLESS THAT'S A QUESTION FOR STAFF OR FOR MYSELF.
WELL, I GUESS, I GUESS PART OF COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S Q AND A TIME.
DID YOU WANNA ASK MORE QUESTIONS AND FOLLOW UP ON THAT? I GUESS I'M CURIOUS BECAUSE MY INTERPRETATION OF OF ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN WE'RE INCREASING OR DECREASING THE STANDARDS.
WE'RE JUST ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY TO ACHIEVE THE SAME GOAL.
SO WOULD THAT KIND OF ACHIEVE THE POINT OF, OF THE AMENDMENT THAT WE'VE PROPOSED HERE AS THE WORKING GROUP? I'LL BE HONEST, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT MAKING A RED LINE AMENDMENT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
BUT I WOULD ALSO LOOK TO STAFF TO TELL US WHAT DOES, WHAT WOULD ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE LOOK LIKE IF WE WERE CHANGING REQUIREMENTS FOR 25 DASH EIGHT 700.
SO IT WOULD LOOK LIKE SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, UH, PERHAPS IF A SITE FOR REASONS EITHER THAT YOU STATE OR, OR JUST GENERALLY CANNOT ACHIEVE THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, THEN THEY COULD MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN A WAY THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPROVES.
UM, SO THAT WOULD BE KIND OF A CASE BY CASE NEGOTIATION WITH STAFF.
SO IN THAT CASE, UM, I WOULD SAY THAT WOULD NOT BE WHAT THE INTENT OF MY AMENDMENT WAS, BUT WE CAN OF COURSE SEE THAT AS AN AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTE.
THIRD QUESTION, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, YES.
CAN I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION, JUST STAFF, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S SOME CONFUSION HERE.
OBVIOUSLY THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING RELATED TO THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER, WHICH I CHURCH, UM, TOUCHED ON EARLIER, ARE IN A DIFFERENT SECTION OF CODE, WHICH WE ARE NOTICED NOT NOTICED FOR.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT IS IN THAT SECTION AND SORT OF THE PRESCRIPTIVENESS OF WHAT YOU ALL HAD PUT IN THAT, JUST BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS WHERE THIS CONCERN IS COMING FROM.
SO THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A COMPATIBILITY BUFFER, THAT'S THE 25 FOOT BUFFER.
THAT INCLUDES VEGETATIVE SCREENING AND ALSO A RESTRICTED ZONE WHERE YOU'RE ALLOWED CERTAIN USES IS LOCATED IN SECTION 25 DASH EIGHT DASH 700.
THIS IS NOT IN THE ZONING CODE AND WE ARE NOT NOTICED FOR CHANGES TO THIS THOUGH.
UM, STAFF WILL CONSIDER RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE THE COMMISSION, UM, ON THIS.
SO PART OF WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE IN THIS SECTION ARE MINIMUM PLANTING REQUIREMENTS IN THE SCREENING ZONE.
SO THAT'S ONE TREE, ONE LARGE TREE PER 25 FEET, ONE SMALL TREE PER 25 FEET AND 10 SHRUBS PER 25 FEET.
UM, THERE ARE ALSO ALLOWANCES WITHIN THE RESTRICTED ZONE FOR, FOR CERTAIN USES INCLUDING LANDSCAPING, GARDENS, FENCES, WALLS,
[04:05:01]
BERMS, PARKING LOTS, DRIVEWAYS, ALLEYS, FIRE LANES, UM, AND, AND OTHER LOANS AND CITIES USESAND THEN JUST A FOLLOW UP QUESTION, ARE ALL OF THOSE PLANTINGS REQUIRED TO BE NATIVE OR DROUGHT RESISTANT? I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAD HEARD IS THAT DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES HAD REQUESTED DIFFERENT THINGS IN THOSE PLANTING ZONES.
SO WE FELT THAT BEING SO, UM, SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT WAS HAVING TO BE PUT IN THESE ZONES MIGHT ACTUALLY BE A DETRIMENT.
YES, ALL THE PLANTS WITHIN THE SCREENING ZONE WOULD HAVE TO BE NATIVE PLANTS AND THERE'S A LIST OF THAT IN OUR CODE.
UM, SO, SO THAT IS THE, THE LIST OF PLANTS THAT, THAT AN, UH, DEVELOPER WOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE FROM.
THOSE ARE PLANTS THAT ARE, ARE WELL ADAPTED DROUGHT TOLERANT, UM, TO THE CENTRAL TEXAS CLIMATE.
SO, UM, CHAIR IN THE PROCESS, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION AND I WOULD NEED A SECOND, UM, TO REVISE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS IN 25 DASH EIGHT DASH 700 TO PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO THE SCREENING ZONE TO ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY IN THE SCREENING CRITERIA.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
AND AT THIS POINT WE WOULD ENTERTAIN ANY SUBSTITUTIONS OR AMENDMENTS.
UH, I'LL DEFER TO Y'ALL AND IF THIS IS A SUBSTITUTION OR AMENDMENT, BUT ALL I WOULD LOVE TO DO IS JUST APPEND AT THE END OF THE AMENDMENT THAT SAYS TO ALLOW FLOOR FLEXIBILITY IN THE SCREENING CRITERIA AND ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE, WHETHER THAT'S AN AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTION, YOU'LL TELL ME THAT WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT.
ALRIGHT, I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND THAT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPLANATION ON IT? NO, I MEAN, I THINK WE CAN GET HUNG UP ON HOW MANY TREES, HOW MANY BUSHES THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT I UNDERSTAND IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO ACTUALLY PLANT AND SUSTAIN, YOU KNOW, TREES, UH, IN CERTAIN AREAS.
AND SO IF THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO ACHIEVE SCREENING THAT THIS PART OF THE CODE, UH, DESIRES TO DO, THEN I THINK, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE ALLOWED AT, AT THE, UH, DIRECTOR'S DISCRETION.
UM, QUESTIONS, WE, WE COULD, IF PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT, YES, WE CAN HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT.
AND AGAIN, JUST TO STATE IT, AND COMMISSIONER COX, CORRECT ME IF I'M, IF I'M MISSING THIS, THE AMENDMENT WOULD NOW BE IF FER AMENDED REVIEW THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS IN 25 DASH EIGHT DASH 700 TO PROVIDE CREATIVE FLEXIBILITY, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO THE SCREENING ZONE.
DO ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY IN THE SCREENING CRITERIA AND ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE.
SO WE CAN HAVE QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT IF FOLKS WISH.
I AM GONNA PRACTICE THIS SEEING NO QUESTIONS, UM, WITHOUT OBJECTION THAT AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
UM, OTHER AMENDMENTS OR SUBSTITUTIONS TO THIS BASE AMENDMENT? I SEE NONE.
I THINK WE CAN TAKE A VOTE ON THE BASE AMENDMENT AS AMENDED.
SO THE BASE AMENDMENT AS AMENDED, UM, WITHOUT OBJECTION BASE, RIGHT, THIS AMENDMENT IS ADO, ADOPTED
OKAY, WE'LL MOVE ON TO NUMBER SEVEN.
I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE MAKING SOME GOOD PROGRESS HERE.
SO THIS WOULD BE, UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S AMENDMENT.
UM, IT, IT PROVIDES REVIEW AND WAIVER PROCESS FOR SMALL SITES AND FOR ADDITIONAL USERS IN THE COMPATIBILITY ZONE.
AND THERE IS, UM, A TEXT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AMENDMENT.
WE HAVE IT UP ON THE SCREEN AS WELL.
UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THIS.
SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.
SO QUESTIONS? OH, COMMISSIONER COX.
YEAH, AND JUST A REAL QUICK QUESTION 'CAUSE I SUPPORTED THIS IN THE WORKING GROUP AND I, I STILL SUPPORT IT NOW, BUT I DID GET SOME QUESTIONS, UM, ABOUT ITS INTENT AND, AND NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.
SINCE THIS IS A SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT, I'M KIND OF ENVISIONING THE SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS WE DO FOR, FOR OTHER THINGS, UH, LIKE SOS.
AND SO NOTICE WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE SITE-SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO CLARIFY.
THE MOTION IS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY
[04:10:01]
THE WORKING GROUP.THIS WOULD BE PROVIDES REVIEW AND FAVOR PROCESS FOR SMALL SITES AND FOR ADDITIONAL USES IN THE COMPATIBILITY ZONE WITH TEXT INCLUDED AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.
SO THAT WAS VICE CHAIR AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER.
NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR INDIVIDUAL WORKING OR INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED.
THAT IS CORRECT BY YESTERDAY MORNING.
SO, UH, THE, IF WE'RE GOING, UM, BY ORDER OF, UM, LAST NAME ALPHABETICALLY, THIS TAKES US TO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT, WHICH I CAN READ OUT BECAUSE I HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME AND STAFF.
CAN I PULL IT UP? I'M PREFER TO START WITH MY THIRD AMENDMENT.
SO YOU'RE STARTING WITH THE THIRD.
DO YOU WANT TO JUST STATE THE INTENT OF IT? DO NOT MAKE A MOTION.
UM, EXCLUDING MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE UP TO 16 UNITS FROM COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS.
SO THIS WOULD COVER EVERYTHING UNDER SITE PLAN LIGHT COMING FORWARD BY CITY STAFF.
WE WILL OPEN THAT UP FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, CHAIR, JUST A POINT PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY, DON'T THE RULES WE ADOPTED SAY THAT, UH, THE WORKING GROUP CHAIR, CHAIR WILL GUIDE COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ALL INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS AND THEN WE'LL PULL INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION.
UM, SO ACTUALLY THAT IS CORRECT.
SO I'M GONNA GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM ACTUALLY THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
SO WE HAVE THE THIRD ONE FROM COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
WE ALSO HAVE THE SECOND ONE FROM COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, WHICH IS THE COMPATIBILITY DOES NOT GO BEYOND 50 FEET FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT WITH INCOME RESTRICTED, RESTRICTED HOUSING.
UM, AND COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, PLEASE DO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT YOU'RE ONE AND FOUR RELATE TO HOME SPECIFICALLY, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND I SEE THAT HE SAID THAT IT IS CORRECT.
THIS WOULD CHANGE, UH, THIS WOULD TAKE US TO MY AMENDMENT.
THERE WOULD BE INITIATING SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS FOR SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS.
ENSURE THAT BOTH PLANNING COMMISSIONER AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL CAN INITIATE AMENDMENTS.
UM, WHICH TAKES US TO TWO AMENDMENTS FROM COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
THE CITY OF AUSTIN SHALL DEVELOP A PLAIN LANGUAGE S UH, SUMMARY OF THE COMPATIBILITY REGULATIONS, APPLICATIONS, AND IMPACTS, AND MAKE THIS SUMMARY PROMINENTLY AVAILABLE ON THE SITE'S WEBSITE PAGES RELATED TO BUILDING APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS, CITY LIBRARIES AND COMMUNITY CENTERS, DEVELOPMENT OFFICES, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, AND CITY HALL 30 DAYS PRIOR TO FINAL IMPLEMENTATION.
THE CITY OF AUSTIN SHALL ALSO MAKE THE DOCUMENT AVAILABLE TO ALL ISD LIBRARIES, NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CON, NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAMS, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS, SOCIAL JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS, AND CIVIC AND COMMUNITY GROUPS THAT REQUEST A COPY.
A SECOND ONE FROM COMMISSIONER HAYDEN.
ALSO A GENERAL AMENDMENT FOR A MINIMUM OF ONE YEAR AFTER FINAL IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPATIBILITY REGULATIONS.
CITY OF AUSTIN STAFF SHALL PRIORITIZE MEETINGS WITH NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAMS, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, SOCIAL JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS, AND CIVIC AND COMMUNITY GROUPS TO OFFER PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARIES AND DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF THE APPLICATION PERMITTING AND PLANNING REQUIREMENTS, FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS, AND OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION.
UM, AND THEN WE HAVE ONE FROM COMMISSIONER MAXWELL THAT SAYS, REDUCE THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES THAT ARE 40 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT, EVEN IN MIXED USE ZONES IN HIGHER DENSITY MULTIFAMILY ZONES.
BEFORE WE PROCEED IS, I'M NOT MISSING ANY AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SHARED ON COMPATIBILITY BY MONDAY.
AM I CORRECT? IS CORRECT, CHRISTOPHER, WE'RE WRONG.
SO IN THAT CASE, AGAIN, WE'RE GONNA GO STARTING AT THE TOP, UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S AMENDMENT.
SO THE COMPATIBILITY GOES, DOES NOT GO BEYOND 50 FEET FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT WITH INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING.
WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO PULL THIS? I I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR LEGAL ABOUT IT, SO LET'S PULL THAT ONE.
I MEAN, IF IT'S A QUICK QUESTION THEN IF IT COULD STAY ON, I'M JUST
I WOULD SAY IF UNLESS SOMEBODY HAS AN ISSUE, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND ASK A QUICK QUESTION.
WOULD SOMEBODY HAVE A CONCERN WITH THAT NOT HEARING, UH, I GUESS MS. LINK IF YOU WOULD BE THE CORRECT PERSON.
I I'M, I'M CURIOUS, UM, IF THIS COMPLICATES THINGS LEGALLY IF WE TRIED TO DO THIS, WHETHER IT'S NOTIFICATION OR ANYTHING ELSE.
UH, WHEN, WHEN I, WHEN I SAW THIS, UH, I IMMEDIATELY JUST THOUGHT, OH, OH SNAP IS THAT A LAWSUIT? JUST LINK WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
SO WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY INCOME RESTRICTED OR DENSITY BONUS OR INCENTIVE PROGRAM.
UM, CHANGES TO COMPATIBILITY AS PART OF COMPATIBILITY AS WE BRING FORWARD THE PROGRAMS TO THE COMMISSION, TO THE COUNCIL,
[04:15:01]
THEY, AND WITHIN THOSE WE ARE POTENTIALLY MODIFYING COMPATIBILITY.SO FOR EXAMPLE, DB 90, WHICH COUNCIL ADOPTED IN FEBRUARY, UM, THAT THE COMMISSION HEARD EARLIER THAT MONTH, THERE WERE SOME CHANGES TO COMPATIBILITY.
UM, ETOD THAT'S COMING FORWARD NEXT WEEK WILL HAVE SOME CHANGES.
SO AS WE ADOPT THIS SPECIFIC DENSITY, BONUS, OR INCENTIVE PROGRAM, WE ARE ADDRESSING COMPATIBILITY WITHIN THAT, NOT WITHIN ARTICLE 10 ITSELF.
SO AM I INTERPRETING THAT AS THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE PLACE TO DO AN AMENDMENT LIKE THIS? WE WOULD NOT INCORPORATE IT INTO THIS PARTICULAR SET OF AMENDMENTS.
AND ACTUALLY I'LL ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION OF, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
DID YOU MEAN FOR IT TO BE, IS IT A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION OR IS IT MEANT TO BE SOMETHING THAT GETS ADOPTED WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE? I'D PREFER IT TO BE ADOPTED INTO THE ORDINANCE.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD YIELD MORE HOUSING
AND I'M GLAD WE WERE TOLD THAT.
SO THAT AMENDMENT GETS WITHDRAWN.
UM, SO IT'S NOT BOLD, IT'S JUST WITHDRAWN.
THIS TAKES IT TO NUMBER THREE, EXCLUDE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE UP TO 16 UNITS FROM COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS.
UM, THIS IS ANOTHER COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, ANYBODY WISHING TO PULL THIS? OH, SO WE'RE PULLING THIS.
UM, THIS TAKES US TO MY AMENDMENT.
INITIATING SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS FOR SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS.
ENSURE, AND I SHOULD HONESTLY, I'M GONNA CHANGE THAT FROM INSURE TO CLARIFY 'CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THAT MIGHT ALREADY APPLY.
UM, SO WE'RE GONNA SAY CLARIFY THAT BOTH PLANNING COMMISSIONER AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL CAN INITIATE AMENDMENTS.
ANYBODY WISHING TO PULL THIS? OKAY, THEN THIS CAN GO FORWARD ON CONSENT.
THIS TAKES US TO, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
UM, I'M NOT GONNA READ THE ENTIRE AMENDMENT AGAIN, BUT ESSENTIALLY THIS IS THE ONE THAT ASKED FOR A PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY OF THE REGULATIONS TO BE MADE AVAILABLE.
ANYBODY WISHING TO PULL THIS? OKAY, WAIT, I'M SORRY.
I THINK THIS THEN GOES FORWARD ON CONSENT.
UM, WHICH BRINGS US TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S SECOND AMENDMENT, WHICH IS ALSO A GENERAL AMENDMENT, UM, TO SAY THAT STAFF WOULD MAKE THEMSELVES AVAILABLE, UM, TO COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS OF VARIOUS KINDS, UH, TO PROVIDE THE, THOSE PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARIES.
ANYBODY WISHING TO BUILD THIS CLARIFYING QUESTION? WOULD THIS BE AN ANNUAL REPORT OUT OR IT SAYS ONE FOR A MINIMUM ONE YEAR AFTER IMPLEMENTATION? PRIOR PRIORITIZE MEETINGS.
I WAS ASKING THE PROBLEM CHAIR.
UM, NOW MY IDEA IS THAT FOR AS WE IMPLEMENT, UM, UH, COMPATIBILITY HOME AND, AND, AND WHATEVER WE'RE GONNA DO TONIGHT, THAT STAFF MAKES ITSELF AVAILABLE AND, AND MAKE SURE THAT, AND I, AND I DID PUT IN THERE PRIORITIZE, UM, UH, AND I'LL, I'LL TOUCH ON THAT, BUT FOR, FOR THE FIRST YEAR, TALK TO THE COMMUNITY, TALK TO FOLKS, TALK TO NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS, TALK TO OTHER, SAYING THIS IS WHAT, THIS IS WHAT WE DID AND THIS IS HOW IT IMPACTS YOUR AREA.
'CAUSE ON A THURSDAY NIGHT, IF THEY GET A, UH, IF THEY GET A REQUEST, AND I'M SURE THEY WILL GET LOTS OF REQUESTS, BUT IF THEY GET A REQUEST FROM, AND, AND I'M NOT PICKING, UH, WELL, I WAS ABOUT TO MENTION A GROUP.
IF, IF THEY GET A REQUEST FROM A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION IN A NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP, THEY GO TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP.
ARE WE FINE WITH LEAVING THAT ON CONSENT? OKAY.
UM, THAT TAKES US TO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S AMENDMENT.
THIS WOULD REDUCE THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES THAT ARE 40 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT, EVEN IN MIXED USE ZONES AND HIGHER DENSITY MULTIFAMILY ZONES.
ANYBODY WISHING TO, UH, PULL THIS? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, YOU'RE PULLING THIS ITEM.
OKAY, I'M JUST GONNA MAKE THIS, UM, ONE THING I REALIZED IN MY PREVIOUS MOTION WAS THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE RULES THAT I'M HOGGING ALL THE AMENDMENTS.
SO, WHICH MEANS WHEN I MAKE A MOTION, I TAKE OVER SOMEONE ELSE'S AMENDMENT.
COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, I FEEL LIKE I DID THAT TO YOU IN THE LAST ROUND.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION FOR THE CONSENT? OKAY, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MO COMMISSIONER THE ITEM THAT I WITHDREW.
[04:20:01]
PULL THAT BECAUSE NOW I THINK ABOUT IT, IT'S OKAY THAT STAFF DOESN'T RECOMMEND IT, AND I THINK IT'D BE VERY GOOD FOR HOUSING.SO RIGHT NOW WE WOULD JUST BE, SO JUST TO CLARIFY, I MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, UM, THE INITIATING THE SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS FROM MYSELF.
THE, UM, PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES, AND THEN THE STAFF DOING PRIORITIZING MEETINGS WITH COMMUNITY ON THE PLANE.
SO THOSE THREE ARE THE ONES I'M MAKING A MOTION FOR ON CONSENT.
I, I WOULD NEED A SECOND, I GUESS.
AND THAT WOULD MEAN UNLESS ANYBODY HAS AN OBJECTION CHAIR, YOU CAN GO AHEAD.
UM, UNLESS THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS, THIS, UM, SET OF AMENDMENTS PASSES IS OKAY.
UM, CHAIR, THAT TAKES US TO THE OLD ITEM.
SO WE'LL START GOING THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE.
UM, AND STARTING WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, YOUR, SINCE ACTUALLY WE SAID WE WOULD GO ALPHABETICALLY ON IT.
YOU HAVE A CHOICE BETWEEN EITHER CHOOSING YOUR TWO OR THREE.
WHICH ONE WOULD YOU LIKE TO, WE, WE CAN GO IN ORDER.
SO, YEP, WE'RE ON COMPATIBLE, WHICH DOES NOT GO BEYOND 50 FEET FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT WITH INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING.
SO, AT THIS CHAIR, TO BE CLEAR, ARE WE GONNA JUST GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM? WE WILL.
SO ESSENTIALLY IT WOULD BE ALPHABETICALLY, BUT WE WILL GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM.
BUT HONESTLY I WAS, WHAT I WAS NOT TRYING TO DO WAS I HAVE FOUR AMENDMENTS AND ONE I'M NOT GONNA HOG AND BORE EVERYBODY TO DEATH WITH MY AMENDMENTS IN A ROW.
SO WE'LL STARTING WITH YOUR FIRST POLL ONE, AND WE, THIS IS THE POINT.
WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS, RIGHT.
THIS IS FOR COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NUMBER TWO, LEADING, CORRECT.
SO THAT, UM, JUST TO REMIND, ITS COMPATIBILITY DOES NOT GO BEYOND 50 FEET FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT WITH INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING.
MADAM CHAIR, UH, PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY, DID WE PROVIDE NOTICE FOR, UH, INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING FOR, UH, WITHIN THE COMPATIBILITY ORDINANCE? IT'S A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
YOU CAN CERTAINLY RESPOND TO THAT.
THIS ISN'T REALLY, IT'S NOT AN ISSUE OF NOTICE.
UM, 'CAUSE COMPATIBILITY AS A WHOLE IS ON THE TABLE.
THIS IS MORE OF AN ISSUE WITH US COMPLYING WITH THE COURT'S ORDER RELATED TO OUR DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS. SO WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING CHANGE IN COMPATIBILITY TO ADDRESS INCOME RESTRICTED, UH, UNITS WITHIN ARTICLE 10 AS EACH BONUS PROGRAM AS CREATED.
THAT IS WHERE WE CAN ADDRESS CHANGES TO COMPATIBILITY, JUST NOT AS A WHOLE.
I'LL GO AT IT THIS WAY, MADAM CHAIR, UM, CALL POINT OF ORDER ON FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF ARTICLE OR, UH, AMENDMENT TWO IN THAT IT'S NOT GERMANE TO THE BODY OF THE ORDINANCE THAT IS BEFORE US.
UH, I MIGHT MAKE IT EASIER INSTEAD OF US HAVING TO DEBATE, THEN I'M HAPPY TO DO NUMBER THREE FIRST.
SO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, AT THIS POINT, YOUR, YOU WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO EITHER MAKE IT INTO A GENERAL AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL OR WITHDRAW IT.
DO YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE ON ONE OR THE OTHER? A GENERAL AMENDMENT? OBVIOUSLY I DON'T WANT US, I, I KNOW IF PEOPLE LIKE TO SUE US EVERY TIME WE MAKE HOUSING EASIER TO BUILD AND I DON'T WANT THAT.
SO A GENERAL AMENDMENT WOULD BE FINE IN, IN WHICH CASE RECOMMENDATION WE WOULD FINE SINCE WE'RE SENDING A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL AND IT IS NOT NECESSARILY MAKING A CHANGE TO THE DRAFT ORDINANCE.
OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS? UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UH, YEAH, I HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
IS, UM, CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW COMPATIBILITY CURRENTLY WORKS WITH SOME OF OUR, UM, PROGRAMS INCLUDING SUCH AS LIKE AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED AND OTHER, I KNOW IN DB 90 WE ALSO DID SOMETHING SIMILAR.
SO FOR AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED COMPATIBILITY IS COMPLETELY WAIVED.
UM, FOR DB 90, A DB 90 PROJECT WOULD HAVE TO BUILD THE 25 FOOT COMPATIBILITY BUFFER.
THEN AFTER 25 FEET BETWEEN 25 FEET AND 50 FEET, THEY COULD GO UP TO 90 FEET NINE AFTER THAT COMPATIBILITY WOULD NOT APPLY.
UM, THAT SAME REQUIREMENT IS, UM, PROPOSED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE EOD OVERLAY.
UM, AND LEMME JUST CLARIFY, UM, THAT, UM, YES.
SO JUST TO FOLLOW UP QUESTION, UM, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN REGARDING HOW WE'RE DOING DENSITY BONUSES AND COMPATIBILITY WAIVERS, WHAT ABOUT PROGRAMS THAT
[04:25:01]
HAVE ALREADY BEEN, I GUESS WE'RE, WE'RE JUST GONNA HAVE TO COME BACK AND AMEND THIS SORT OF COMPATIBILITY FOR EACH OF THE DENSITY PROGRAMS. IS THERE A SCHEDULE OR PLAN FOR THAT? BECAUSE IT SEEMS UNFORTUNATE THAT THESE AFFORDABLE UNITS WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO HIGHER LEVELS OF COMPATIBILITY, WHICH CLEARLY IS NOT IN LINE WITH OUR ACTUAL HOUSING GOALS.SO STAFF IS CURRENTLY UNDERTAKING A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF OUR EXISTING DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS, UM, WITH AN EYE TOWARDS STREAMLINING THOSE REQUIREMENTS, UM, TO ACHIEVE TWO GOALS, UM, MAXIMIZING AFFORDABLE UNIT PRODUCTION, UM, AND ALSO INCREASING, UM, THE NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS OVERALL THAT COULD BE BUILT, TRYING TO GET AS MUCH BUILT AS POSSIBLE.
PART OF THAT STUDY WE'LL BE LOOKING AT CHANGES TO SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO, TO ACHIEVE THOSE GOALS.
AND COMPATIBILITY IS ONE OF THOSE SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT WE LOOK TO MODIFY.
SO THEORETICALLY IN THE FUTURE, IF WE DO THIS RECONSIDERATION OF DENSITY BONUSES, EVERYTHING RELATING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING WOULD BE AT 50 FEET OR LESS FOR COMPATIBILITY.
MR. KOS, I I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED.
WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY WAS THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY MOOT BECAUSE WE ALREADY DO THIS.
WE ARE PROPOSING TO CARRY THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY DEVELOPED IN DV 90 AND ARE PROPOSING AS PART OF ES O, POTENTIALLY TO OTHER DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS THAT WE WILL MODIFY OR NEW DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS THAT WE WILL CREATE AS PART OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE DENSITY BONUS ANALYSIS.
SO THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THAT WE RETOOLED IN RESPONSE TO LITIGATION HAS THIS.
AND THEN Y'ALL ARE IN THE PROCESS OF RETOOLING EVERYTHING ELSE TO ALSO HAVE THIS? THAT'S CORRECT.
WE'RE AT THE END OF OUR QUESTIONS.
UM, YOU WANNA, MR. ANDERSON, DID YOU, DID YOU WISH TO MAKE A MOTION AT THIS TIME MOVE TO APPROVE AS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION? JUST TO CLARIFY? RIGHT.
UM, I HAVE A, WE HAVE A, FROM SKIDMORE, UH, SORRY, FROM MAXWELL.
CAN I HAVE A QUEST? UH, CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF? YES.
UM, STAFF, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND, YOU JUST SAID SOMETHING, UM, FOR DB 90, ARE YOU SAYING FOR 25 FEET YOU HAVE THE NO BILL BUFFER? AFTER THAT YOU CAN GO TO 90 FEET AND THEN, AND FOR ANOTHER 25 FEET, IS THAT THE UNDERSTANDING? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THEN AFTER THAT, YOU CAN GO TO YOUR BASE.
IT WOULD, IT WOULD JUST BE 90 FEET BECAUSE DB 90 ALLOWS 90 FEET.
BUT I GUESS IF WE WERE TO ALIGN THIS WITH DB 90, WOULD WE BE SAYING AFTER 25 FEET YOU CAN GO TO BASE ALLOWANCE? IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? YES.
THE, THE DB 90 ORDINANCE DOES NOT APPLY.
HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, COMPATIBILITY RELATED HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS BEYOND 50 FEET DISTANCE FROM A SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY, 50 OR 25.
I'M SEEING MR. BROOKS, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO, SO THERE ARE NO COMPATIBILITY RELATED HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS APPLIED AT ANY DISTANCE.
SO THERE'S ONLY THE SCREENING AND RESTRICTED ZONE 25 FOOT BUFFER REQUIREMENT.
SO THERE ARE NO HEIGHT RELATED, UH, COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, ALTHOUGH YOU CAN'T BUILD A 90 FOOT STRUCTURE WITHIN THOSE, UM, TWO ZONES THAT I DESCRIBED.
UM, SO I APPRECIATE THAT MR. BURKS.
DO WE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, ALL RIGHT.
I'M GONNA MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOR THIS.
THIS IS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION, UM, THAT SAYS THAT COMPAT DOES NOT, OR I SHOULD SAY A COMPATIBLE B, OH, I'M GONNA HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A SECOND ON THE SPOT, BUT BEYOND A COMPATIBILITY BUFFER OF 25 FEET FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT, UH, THERE SHOULD BE NO OTHER COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT WITH INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING.
UH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? UM, WE CAN HAVE Q AND A BEFORE I SPEAK TO IT.
UM, QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONERS ARE OR ANYBODY ON THAT SUBSTITUTE QUESTION? SURE.
UM, SO THE AMENDMENT, MY SUBSTITUTE IS BEYOND A COMPATIBILITY BUFFER OF 25 FEET, THERE SHOULD BE NO COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT WITH INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING.
COMMISSIONER COX DOES, DOES THAT ALIGN WITH WHAT'S, OKAY, IT DOESN'T ALIGN.
SO THAT DOESN'T ALIGN WITH WHAT'S PROPOSED UNDER THE, UH, D-B-E-T-O-D, UH, POLICY.
[04:30:01]
THE DBE ETOD PROPOSES A STEP, STEP UP.SO DB 90 ALLOWS 90 FEET IN HEIGHT, BUT IT DOESN'T, DOESN'T ACTUALLY SPEAK TO COMPATIBILITY RELATED HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, BUT, UH, D-B-E-E-T-O-D ALLOWS 120 FEET IN HEIGHT.
SO IT KIND OF MIRRORS, UH, THE, THE ALLOWANCE UNDER DB 90 BY ALLOWING 90 FEET UP TO 50 FEET AND THEN ALLOWING 120 FEET AFTER THAT.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE, THE, I GUESS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING TIER APPROACH THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED.
SO I WILL SAY, SINCE MY INTENTION WAS TO DO THAT, NOW WE CAN EITHER GO THROUGH THIS MOTION OR IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, I CAN WITHDRAW MY MOTION.
UH, CAN I AMEND IT? NO, I CAN'T AMEND IT.
NO, YOU CANNOT AMEND A SUBSTITUTION.
BUT WOULD, BUT YOU CAN WITHDRAW IT.
I CAN WITHDRAW IT IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION.
'CAUSE THE SECOND HAS BEEN MADE.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND OFFER ANOTHER SUBSTITUTE, WHICH WOULD SAY, UM, FOR, AND I'M GONNA HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A SECOND, BUT FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT WITH INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE THE 25 FOOT BUFFER AND FOR AND HEIGHT UP TO 90 FEET FOR AN ADDITIONAL 25 FEET.
SO UP TO 50 AND POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THAT'S A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION STILL.
THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION.
IT CANNOT BE SPECIFIC AT THIS TIME.
UM, CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT THAT? YES.
UM, SO ESSENTIALLY WE'LL BE SAYING FOR ANY, AND I'M GONNA HAVE TO COME BACK AND TYPE THIS UP IN THE PROPER WAY, BUT FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT WITH INCOME CIRCUIT HOUSING, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A 25 FOOT BUFFER AND THEN HIDE UP TO 90 FEET FOR AN ADDITIONAL, UH, 25 FEET.
AND THEN AFTER 50 FEET, YOU'RE ALLOWABLE BASE ZONING HEIGHT.
IT WOULD, IT WOULDN'T BE BASE, IT WOULD BE BONE, THE DENSITY BONUS HEIGHT, RIGHT? YEAH, THAT IS CORRECT.
SO ALLOWABLE HEIGHT, THANK YOU FOR THAT CATCH.
SINCE THE SECOND HAS NOT BEEN MADE.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, UM, QUESTIONS FOR ABOUT THIS MOTION.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YEAH, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION AND THAT CITY LEGAL IS PERHAPS NOT THRILLED ABOUT IT TO BEGIN WITH.
UM, IF THE INTENT IS TO ADDRESS THE IMPACT OF COMPATIBILITY REGULATIONS ON THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING, WHY WOULDN'T WE JUST PROPOSE TO WAIVE COMPATIBILITY ENTIRELY FOR ONSET INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING? I MEAN, WHY HAVE A, A 25 FOOT BUFFER IF WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL TO BOOST UP THAT COMPATIBILITY RELATED INCENTIVE FOR ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING? I, I WOULDN'T ANSWER THAT.
JUST THE FACT THAT WE DO DO THAT WITH AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED.
AND SO, BECAUSE THIS IS PROBABLY MORE DEVELOPER DRIVEN AND NOT SUBSIDIZED, LIKE AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED THAT, THEN THAT WOULD JUST BE A FURTHER ENTICEMENT FOR AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED.
OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER COX, JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS BEING EXECUTED IN OTHER WAYS, SO THIS AMENDMENT IS JUST BASICALLY TELLING Y'ALL TO CONTINUE EXECUTING IT IN THE WAY YOU INTENDED.
UM, YES, GERALD, REPEAT IT AGAIN.
SO THE WORK PLEASE, SINCE WE'VE HAD THE TWO QUESTIONS, WE ARE GOING BACK TO THIS IS A SUBSTITUTE BY MYSELF, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
AND IT WOULD BE FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT WITH INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING.
A DEVELOPMENT MUST BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A 25 FOOT COMP, UH, COMPATIBILITY BUFFER AND THEN ALLOW 90 FOOT FOR ADDITIONAL 25 FEET AND REACH A ALLOWABLE HEIGHT AT 50 FEET FROM A TRIGGERING PROPERTY.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE? I FEEL LIKE GO AHEAD.
I, I'LL JUST MAKE A QUICK COMMENT TO, TO SAY, I, I THINK MR. JOHNSON, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK HOPEFULLY AS WE COME TO THOSE ORDINANCES, WE CAN CONSIDER AND COUNSEL CAN CONSIDER AT THIS POINT.
I, IT JUST FELT COMFORTABLE AT LEAST ALIGNING IT WITH WHAT OUR STAFF IS ALREADY PROPOSING IN OTHER PLACES.
BUT I THINK THE POINT THAT YOU MAKE IS A GOOD POINT.
UM, I FEEL LIKE THIS ONE, I I NEED TO DO A FOUR FOUR AGAINST ABSTAINED VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
[04:35:01]
ABSTAINING.ALRIGHT, THAT PASSES 11 0 1 1 0 2.
COMMISSIONER COX ALSO ABSTAIN.
YOU STILL LOOK JI FRAY ON THE SCREEN.
I THINK IT MUST BE 10, SO IT'S RIGHT.
'CAUSE COMMISSIONER MOVES TALLERS OFF.
OKAY, THAT WAS 10 0 2 THAT PASSED.
UM, THIS TAKES US TO, LET ME SEE, OKAY, WHERE, WHERE WE ENDED UP.
OKAY, THIS ACTUALLY TAKES US TO THE COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, YOUR POLL AMENDMENT.
SO THIS WAS REDUCE THE COMP BUFFER REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES THAT ARE 40 FEET OR LESS AND HIGH, EVEN IN MIXED USE ZONES IN HIGHER DENSITY MULTIFAMILY ZONES.
SO WE'RE AT QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
WHAT ABOUT ANDERSON NUMBER THREE? SINCE WE'RE DOING ALPHABETICAL, WE'LL GO BACK TO ANDERSON.
COULD WE SCROLL DOWN TO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S AMENDMENT? THANK YOU.
THE TOP ONE IS THE COMPATIBILITY ONE, ACTUALLY.
IT SAYS REDUCE, IT STARTS WITH REDUCE, REDUCE THE CAPACITY BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, FORAL STRUCTURES THAT ARE 40 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT, EVEN IN MIXED USE ZONES AND HIGH INTENSITY MULTIFAMILY ZONES.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DO YOU WANNA EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT? UM, YES.
SO THE QUESTION THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING WAS, UM, I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT WE DO A GREAT JOB THROUGH AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED AND SOME OF OUR, YOU KNOW, MORE COMPLEX AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS OF LARGER, UM, AFFORDABILITY, UH, UNITS AND BIGGER DEVELOPMENTS.
SO THIS IS DESIGNED TO GIVE SOME COMPATIBILITY FLEXIBILITY TO SMALLER MULTIFAMILY.
UM, AND THE IDEA IS THAT THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET SOME OF THAT, WHAT WE WOULD CALL MISSING MIDDLE SIXPLEX, APEX TRIPLEX TYPE, UH, PLEX.
UM, AND THAT THOSE TYPES OF BUILDINGS WOULD THEN BE ALLOWED SOME ADDITIONAL COMPATIBILITY.
SO ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE SMALLER DEVELOPMENT, THAT THAT WOULD GET THIS SORT OF FLEXIBILITY IN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPATIBILITY AND TO NOTE THAT THOSE ARE NORMALLY NOT AS IN, I WOULDN'T, I WOULDN'T SAY EVEN SAY INTRUSIVE, BUT THAT THE SIZE AND SCALE OF THOSE ARE DIFFERENT.
AND I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FURTHER TOO MUCH.
COMMISSIONER COX A AS I READ THE CODE, THIS IS ALREADY ACHIEVED IS, ISN'T IT? BECAUSE IT, UH, COMPAT COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS 25 2 10 62 DOES NOT APPLY TO CONDOMINIUM RESIDENTIAL USE TOWN TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL USE.
SO I THINK THAT THIS IS A CLARIFICATION BASED ON THE CONVERSATION BECAUSE AS YOU REMEMBER, WE HAD A DISCUSSION AROUND THIS IN THE WORKING GROUP.
SO THIS IS BASICALLY JUST TO CALL IT OUT SPECIFICALLY FOR MULTIFAMILY THAT WOULD BE SMALLER IN SCALE, ESSENTIALLY.
OH, SO, SO APPLYING TO MULTIFAMILY IN ADDITION TO CONDO AND TOWNHOUSE AND COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, YOU CAN SPEAK TO THE WAY I READ IT.
THIS WOULD ACTUALLY MEAN, AND I'M SORRY, WHERE IS MY, I HAVE IT SOMEWHERE.
UM, BUT I THINK THE WAY YOU HAD IT IN YOUR LANGUAGE, IT WOULD APPLY TO MF FIVE, MF SIX AND THE MU ZONES.
SO ESSENTIALLY, I, I THINK WHAT SHE'S SAYING, REGARDLESS OF YOUR BASE ZONING, IF YOUR BUILDING HEIGHT IS 40 FEET, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THE COMPATIBILITY APPLIED IN FASHION.
AND I DON'T SPEAK FOR YOUR REMEM SO PLEASE GO AHEAD.
BUT THOSE, BUT THOSE BASE ZONING HEIGHTS ARE WAY HIGHER THAN 40 FEET, AREN'T THEY? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND I THINK WHAT SHE'S SAYING IS THAT IT WOULD ONLY APPLY IF SOMEONE BUILT TWO 40.
IF THEY GO ABOVE THAT, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE REGULAR COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS APPLIED TO THEM.
IT JUST, SORRY, IT JUST SAYS REDUCE.
SO DO YOU WANNA BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT YEAH, SORRY.
LET IF, IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK, PULL UP THE TEMPLATE THAT WAS PUT IN THE BACKUP AND I'LL READ IT OUT MORE SPECIFICALLY JUST SO THAT EVERYONE'S VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS.
SO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS REDUCE THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES THAT ARE 40 FEET OR LESS IN THE HEIGHT, EVEN IN MIXED USE ZONES AND HIGHER DENSITY MULTIFAMILY ZONES.
AND, UM, SO THEN THE ACTUAL TEXT CHANGE WOULD BE THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF COMPATIBILITY BUFFER IS 15 FEET FOR A STRUCTURE THAT IS 40 FEET OR LESS, OR THE SITE IS ZONED MULTIFAMILY HIGH DENSITY MF FIVE MULTIFAMILY HIGH DENSITY MF SIX MULTI-USE COMBINING DISTRICT MU AND PDA, UH, UH, SO PLAN DEVELOPMENT EVERY PDA VERTICAL MIXED USE V OR DENSITY BONUS NINE DV 90.
SO ESSENTIALLY IT COVERS ALL OF THOSE SECTIONS.
UM, AND AGAIN, JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE REDUCTION IN COMPATIBILITY IS TO ENCOURAGE THE SMALLER SCALE SITES AND TO ALLOW SOME FLEXIBILITY, ESPECIALLY FOR MULTIFAMILY.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES? UH, YEAH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UM, 'CAUSE I LOOKED AT MY BIBLE
BUT WHEN I, WHEN, WHEN MY GOOD FRIEND POINTS OUT TO ME,
[04:40:01]
WHAT IF, IF WE COULD CHANGE MIXED USE ZONE AND, AND I DON'T WANT, I HATE DOING ALL THE ALPHABET SOUP, BUT IF WE CAN PUT THE ALPHABET SOUP IN THERE RATHER THAN THE PHRASE MIXED USE ZONE, YOU CAN GET ME.AND IF YOU CAN GIVE ME THAT'S, IT'S, THAT'S SAYING, SO, SO IN THE ACTUAL TEXT AMENDMENT, IT'S ACTUALLY MIXED USE COMBINING DISTRICT, WHICH IS MU IS THAT THE ONE, IS THAT YOUR CONCERN? WHERE, WHERE, CAN YOU POINT ME TO THE EXERCISE? I MEAN, IT'S JUST MIXED USE ZONE IS NOT AS, IS, IT'S NOT A DEFINED CATEGORY, ITS A DEFINED, SO JUST A REMINDER TO FOLKS, I'M SORRY, UH, TWO THINGS.
SO ONE, I DO WANNA, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, IF YOU GO TO OUR BACKUP TO THE WEBSITE, SO WHAT WE'RE PULLING UP RIGHT NOW IS A WORD DOCUMENT JUST TO CLARIFY AND SEE IT ALL IN ONE PLACE.
BUT IF YOU GO TO OUR BACKUP ON OUR WEBSITE, YOU'LL SEE, UM, THAT EVERYONE'S INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS ARE POSTED THERE.
SO IF YOU GO TO MAXWELL, SHE SHARED IT AS A SPREADSHEET, INCLUDING TEXT.
UM, AND, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES TO YOUR QUESTIONS, THE MIXED USER, MU COMBINING DISTRICT IS A COMBINING DISTRICT ALLOWED IN OUR CURRENT ZONE.
SO IN WHAT SHE HAS IN HER AMENDMENT CURRENTLY, MF SIX, MF FIVE ARE BASE ZONES AND MU PDAV DB 90 ARE ALL COMBINING DISTRICTS.
SO THEN MY CLARIFYING QUESTION EITHER FOR COMMISSIONER MAXWELL OR FOR THE PARLIAMENTARIAN COMMISSIONER WOODS IS ARE WE VOTING ON THE WORDS ON THE SCREEN? ARE WE VOTING ON THE WORDS IN THE PROPOSED TEXT CHANGE? MAXWELL? YEAH.
THE, THE WORDS IN THE PROPOSED ONE.
AND I SH I THINK WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE IF WE CAN, TO PULL THOSE UP BECAUSE THIS IS JUST A CHEAT SHEET, QUITE HONESTLY, SO THAT WE CAN KEEP TRACK OF IT.
SO I WOULD PREFER IF WE DID VOTE IT ON AS AS WRITTEN, BECAUSE IT IS MUCH CLEARER.
ALRIGHT, SO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DO YOU WANNA MAKE THAT INTO A MOTION? UM, YES, I'D LIKE TO, BEFORE YOU GO AHEAD, CAN I JUST SAY ONE THING JUST TO PROVIDE CLARITY ON THAT QUESTION? THANK YOU.
UM, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, WHEN PEOPLE MAKE THEIR MOTION, JUST MAKE SURE IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO THE FULL WITH THE ADDED LANGUAGE OR NOT.
SO JUST MAKE THAT AS YOU GO ALONG AS I'VE BEEN DOING FOR THE WORKING GROUP.
UH, SO I'D LIKE TO, I THINK THERE, THERE IT IS.
UM, I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE, UH, UM, ADOPT THE MAXWELL AMENDMENT, UM, AS NOTED IN AS AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO FOR THE DRAFT ORDINANCE RELATED TO REDUCING THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES THAT ARE 40 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT, EVEN IN MIXED USE ZONES AND HIGHER DENSITY MULTIFAMILY ZONES.
AND THAT THE SPECIFIC TEXT BE CONSIDERED AS WRITTEN IN THE AMENDED DOCUMENT PROVIDED ON THE SCREEN.
UM, CLARIFYING QUESTION IS, UM, I WAS GONNA SUGGEST AN AMENDMENT OKAY.
UM, 'CAUSE I FEEL LIKE THIS IS JUST PLUGGING A HOLE IN ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL USES.
WE'VE COVERED TOWN HOME, WE'VE COVERED CONDO, NOW WE'RE ADDING MULTIFAMILY.
SO TO ME IT'D BE A LOT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND IF WE SAID THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF A COMPATIBILITY BUFFER IS 15 FEET FOR A STRUCTURE THAT IS 40 FEET OR LESS AND CONTAINS A RESIDENTIAL USE.
AND THEN THAT JUST COVERS ALL RESIDENTIAL USES AS LONG AS IT'S 40 FEET OR LESS.
IS THAT A
SO YEAH, IT'S NOT AN AMENDMENT.
AND IF YOU REPEAT IT, I CAN NOTE IT AGAIN, THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF A COMPATIBILITY BUFFER IS 15 FEET FOR A STRUCTURE THAT IS 40 FEET OR LESS AND CONTAINS A RESIDENTIAL USE.
DO WE NEED A SECOND FOR THAT TO GO LIVE
YEAH, I'LL, I'LL GIVE YOU THE SECOND.
AND I'M JUST GONNA ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION OF OUR TWO CODE EXPERTS HERE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY COVER EVERYTHING BECAUSE, UH, AND I TO TO COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AND, UM, WE ACTUALLY HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT WAS ALREADY CALLED OUT IN THE WORKING GROUP AND THAT AMENDMENT IS NOT INCLUDED IN HERE.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY THAT THIS WOULD THEN COVER EVERYTHING THAT HAS A RESIDENTIAL USE AND WE'VE, I THINK SO IT SEEMS LIKE WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
AND, AND SORRY, IT, I'LL JUST RESPOND TO THAT, THAT, THAT WE'VE ALREADY PASSED RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.
SO, SO BASICALLY ANY COMMERCIAL, THE, THE, THE COMMERCIAL THAT'S ALREADY EXEMPTED, LIKE THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, IF THAT HAS RESIDENTIAL ON THE SECOND FLOOR, THAT WOULD BE COVERED BY JUST SAYING ALL RESIDENTIAL USE.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
I THINK WE HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR MOTION.
UM, OR SUBSTITUTE, SORRY, THAT, UH, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THAT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION AND OKAY.
[04:45:01]
AND COMMISSIONER HOWARD IS A GREEN.OKAY, GREEN ALL THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THIS TAKES US BACK TO, UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S, UM, THIRD AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS ALSO PULLED, WHICH SAYS EXCLUDE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE UP TO 16 UNITS FROM A COMPATIBILITY FROM COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, DO YOU WANNA GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THAT? SURE.
SO JUST LOOKING AT WHAT'S COMING FORWARD FROM STAFF AND LOOKING AT SITE PLAN LIGHT THIS, I TALKED TO A LOT OF FOLKS WHO BILL AND ASKING THEM WHAT TRIPS THEM UP WITH THE SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS.
UM, I HAD A STUDENT WRITE A PAPER CALLED CONDOS IN THE NEW STARTER HOME.
AND SO JUST WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO MAKE THESE NEW KIND OF SMALLER DEVELOPMENT'S EASIER TO BUILD.
AND I HAD QUITE A FEW PEOPLE KIND OF TELL ME THAT THIS IS A GREAT THING JUST BECAUSE IT STOPS A LOT OF HOUSING.
QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER ANDERSON OR ANYBODY ABOUT THIS? THIS, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENT? UH, COMMISSIONER MUELLER.
UM, COMMISSIONER, SORRY, I, I WAS TRYING TO LISTEN IN, UM, EVEN THOUGH I WAS OFF SCREEN WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS AND TRYING TO DRIVE THINGS TO AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED, IS THIS, IT, IT SOUND, IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, IT SOUNDED LIKE WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY WANNA DO THAT IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS BECAUSE WE WANNA DRIVE TOWARDS AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED, IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY.
SO IT SEEMS THAT THIS WOULD TAKE US THE OTHER WAY AND NOT DRIVE US TOWARDS AFFORDABILITY ON LOCK.
I, I WANNA GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN 'CAUSE I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THAT.
SO MOST OF THE, MOST OF THE AFFORDABILITY ON LOCK PROJECTS THAT WE'RE SEEING ARE VERY LARGE.
SO TWO TO 300 HOMES AND THIS WOULDN'T AFFECT THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER M NO, THAT ANSWERS IT.
OKAY, OTHER QUESTIONS? JUST A CLARIFICATION QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
SO YOU SAY COMPATIBILITY BUFFER.
SO WHAT PARTS WOULD YOU IMAGINE WOULD BE, IS THERE SOME PART OF COMPATIBILITY WE WOULD STILL KEEP OR YOU'RE SAYING WAIVE IT COMPLETELY? I GUESS JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT THE LANGUAGE IS FOR THE AMENDMENT.
SO MY GOAL ON THE WORD EXCLUDE IS JUST TO COMPLETELY EXCLUDE, JUST BASICALLY SAY HOUSING IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH HOUSING, ESPECIALLY SMALLER SCALES SUCH AS THIS.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
UH, VICE CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION.
IS THIS FOR THE MOTION MAKER AND ACTUALLY MIGHT BE STAFFER AS WELL.
SO WHEN THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER GETS WAIVED, YOU ESSENTIALLY GO TO WHATEVER THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ARE WITHIN YOUR BASE ZONE.
SO JUST SO FOLKS AND, AND COMMISSIONER, I UNDERSTAND, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WAS INDEED YOUR INTENT.
SO AS YOU'RE SAYING THAT FOR THESE HO SINGLE FAMILY HOME SIZED AMENDMENTS, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T HAVE THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER, THE SETBACKS WOULD STILL BE THERE.
IT'S NOT AS IF YOU GET TO GO TO ZERO SETBACK, CORRECT? IF I COULD, I WOULD.
BUT THAT'S NOT HAPPENING HERE, CORRECT? THAT IS, WE'RE NOT POSTED FOR THAT.
ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, CAN YOU RESTATE YOUR MOTION AND WE'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND? YOU BET.
CHAIR LOOKING TO, UH, MOVE TO EXCLUDE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE UP TO 16 UNITS FROM COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS.
IS THERE A SECOND? UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE? OKAY, QUESTION.
YES, COMMISSIONER, SOMEONE ASKED AND WE STARTED TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON, UH, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SETBACKS AND THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS.
BUT COULD SOMEBODY PLEASE REMIND ME WHAT, WHAT IT, WHAT SPECIFICALLY TRIGGERS THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER? THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER IS TRIGGERED BY, UH, IF YOUR PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO A TRIGGERING PROPERTY, WHICH IS A PROPERTY ZONED SF FIVE SINGLE FAMILY OR, OR MORE RESTRICTIVE.
UM, AND, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, A SHARED PROPERTY LINE, UM, WITH, UM, ONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES, UM, AND THAT PROPERTY THAT IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY MUST CONTAINED BETWEEN ONE AND THREE HOUSING UNITS.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION FOR OR AGAINST? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS, UH, THIS MOTION FOR ANDERSON'S NUMBER THREE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, THOSE AGAINST ONE, TWO, AND ABSTAINING.
[04:50:02]
THAT PASSES.WHO IS THE OTHER ABSTAIN PEOPLE? IT WAS COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS AND MS. THANK YOU.
OKAY, WE'RE MOVING ON TO INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT.
THIS IS UN BOASTED INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
SO WE START AGAIN, UM, ACT, UM, ALPHABETICALLY AND WE GO THROUGH ANY ONES THAT HAD NOT BEEN POSTED PREVIOUSLY.
UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? I'M GOOD, THANK YOU CHAIR.
I DO NOT HAVE ANY COMMISSIONER COX? YES.
UM, APOLOGIES I HAVEN'T REALLY WRITTEN THIS OUT, BUT I WANT TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO 25 2 10 63 B FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MAY NOT PRODUCE SOUND IN EXCESS OF 70 DECIBELS MEASURED AT THE SITE'S PROPERTY LINE THAT IS SHARED WITH A TRIGGERING PROPERTY.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT PROVISION ANOTHER SENTENCE THAT SAYS, UM, DURING THE HOURS OF 10:00 PM TO 10:00 AM MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MAY NOT PRODUCE SOUND IN EXCESS OF 45 DECIBELS MEASURED AT THE SITE'S PROPERTY LINE THAT IS SHARED WITH A TRIGGERING PROPERTY OR WITHIN 25 FEET OF A PROPERTY LINE ACROSS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
I JUST MADE THAT UP ON THE SPOT, SO HOPEFULLY THAT MAKES SENSE,
ALRIGHT, DID YOU WANNA PROVIDE ANY MORE BACKGROUND ON THAT OR OPEN IT UP? YEAH, SO, UM, THERE'S A BUNCH OF STUFF OUT THERE, UH, DONE BY REALLY SMART PEOPLE AT THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AND THE EPA AND THE CDC THAT SAYS PEOPLE DO NOT GET GOOD SLEEP IF THEY ARE SUBJECT TO NOISE THAT IS OVER 40 DECIBELS AT THE OUTSIDE THE BEDROOM.
AND I THINK ONE THING THAT WE FAIL TO CONSIDER IN QUALITY OF LIFE A LOT IS NOISE, ESPECIALLY AS THE MUSIC CAPITAL OF THE COUNTRY.
WE, WE, WE WANNA SUPPORT, UH, MUSIC AND NOISE AND ALL THAT FUN STUFF, BUT FOR PEOPLE TO GET GOOD QUALITY SLEEP, THEY CANNOT BE LISTENING TO HVACS RUNNING ALL DAY DURING THE HEAT OF THE SUMMER AND ALL NIGHT DURING THE HEAT OF THE SUMMER AT 70 DECIBELS.
AND SO, UM, I PROPOSE 45 AT THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY, ASSUMING THAT IT WOULD GET DOWN TO 40 OUTSIDE SOMEONE'S BEDROOM SO THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY HAVE A DECENT NIGHT'S SLEEP.
TRUTH TO BE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, I'M NOT SURE IF STAFF YOU ALL MIGHT HAVE THIS ANSWER AS WELL, BUT I'M JUST WONDERING IF, IF IT WAS 45 DECIBEL, DO WE KNOW WHAT A REGULAR HVAC UNIT THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH A, YOU KNOW, THE KIND OF BOX ONES THAT ARE OFTEN WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR WITH MULTIFAMILY AS WELL? DO WE KNOW WHAT THE DECIBEL FOR THAT IS? SO I AM NOT AN HVAC EXPERT, BUT WE HAVE GOOGLED THIS QUESTION AND SAW OUR RANGE BETWEEN 50 AND 70 DECIBELS FOR RUNNING HVAC.
UM, AND THAT WAS FOR A COMMERCIAL GRADE.
AND I, I KNOW YOU'RE NOT IN HVAC OR A SOUND I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH OF A DISTANCE WOULD THIS WORK? AND I GUESS WE CAN'T TELL BECAUSE IT WOULD BE 45 DECIBEL FROM A CERTAIN PROPERTY LINE.
IT'S HARD TO KNOW IF, IF I CAN, IF I CAN OFFER A, A BIT OF FEEDBACK ON THAT.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE ARE QUITE A FEW MAJOR OTHER URBAN CITIES THAT HAVE DECIBEL LIMITS IN THE FORTIES AND LOW FIFTIES.
AND, UM, THE EQUIPMENT ITSELF MAY PRODUCE A HIGHER DECIBEL LEVEL, BUT OBVIOUSLY DISTANCE LOWERS THE DECIBEL LEVEL AND THEN YOU CAN ALSO SCREEN THOSE UNITS, WHICH THEN ACTUALLY IS REALLY ADVANTAGEOUS TO LOWERING DECIBEL LEVEL.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS YOU CAN DO TO ACTUALLY LOWER THE, THE SOUND OF THAT MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.
I APPRECIATE OFFER ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION ON THAT.
THERE IS A, UM, I THINK THERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHERE TO FIND IT.
I KNOW THERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD OR SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY IN CITY CODE THAT ACTUALLY USES THIS AS WELL.
THAT LANGUAGE ALMOST PULLS EXACTLY FROM THAT WHERE IT'S 45 DECIBELS TAKEN FROM THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
[04:55:01]
ITSELF CAN PRODUCE THAT AMOUNT OF DECIBEL, BUT THE READINGS ARE AT THE PROPERTY LINE.AND SO AS COMMISSIONER, UM, COX SUGGESTED THAT THE SOUND WILL FALL OFF LINEARLY ON THE, ON THE LOG.
NOBODY WANTS ALL THAT EXPLANATION, BUT THERE, THERE ARE PLENTY OF WAYS TO SCREEN IT WHEN IT'S TAKEN AT THE PROPERTY LINE AND NOT PER THE PRODUCTION OF THE EQUIPMENT ITSELF.
AND SOMEWHERE IN THE AREA OF OUR CODE, I JUST CAN'T OFF THE TOP REMEMBER EXACTLY WHERE IT IS.
I I ACTUALLY THINK THAT THAT'S WHERE I GOT THE 10 TO 10 FROM WAS, WAS A SIMILAR PROVISION AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
UM, JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION ON THE SUBSECTION.
YOU SAID 25 DASH TWO DASH 10 63? CORRECT.
YEAH, IT'S ITEM B UNDER THAT PROVISION.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER COX, DO YOU WANT TO, UM, MAKE YOUR MOTION OFFICIAL AND WE'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND? YES.
I MOTION TO AMEND 25 2 10 63 ITEM B.
DO YOU WANT ME TO RESTATE IT? YES, PLEASE.
SO YOU SAID ADD TO SUBSECTION 25 DASH TWO DASH 10 63 B, THE PROVISION THAT DURING HOURS OF 10:00 PM TO 10:00 AM MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MAY NOT PRODUCE SOUND IN EXCESS OF 45 DECIBEL ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE ADJOINING ANOTHER PROPERTY OR 45 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, ADJOINING A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODS AND ANYBODY.
ANY AMENDMENTS TO THAT? ANYBODY WANTING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? CAN, CAN I JUST MAKE ONE POINT THAT THE REASON WHY I THINK THIS IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT AS PART OF THIS CONVERSATION IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS IS TO HAVE HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENT RESIDENTIAL CLOSER TOGETHER.
SO WE'RE GONNA SEE A LOT MORE COMMERCIAL SCALE, HVAC AND OTHER MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.
IT'S NOT LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME HVAC UNIT.
SO I THINK, I THINK THIS IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE IN, IN THIS SORT OF COMPATIBILITY DISCUSSION.
THEY'RE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST COMMISSIONER MUTO FOUR, BASED ON THE, THE MEDICAL DATA THAT IS CONTINUING TO EVOLVE, UM, AND HAS BEEN WELL ESTABLISHED ABOUT THE EFFECT OF NOISE POLLUTION ON HEALTH.
I THINK THIS HAS COME UP IN OUR DISCUSSION OF, OF, UH, INDICATION AND, AND STAFF HAS ALLUDED TO THIS TOO, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE DANGERS OF PUSHING DENSITY ALWAYS TO THE HIGHWAYS, UM, BOTH DUE TO NOISE AND OTHER POLLUTANTS, BUT THERE IS REALLY GOOD MEDICAL LITERATURE ON THIS AND AND THAT'S WHY I'LL BE SUPPORTING JERRY.
I JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION HERE.
AND I JUST QUICKLY GOOGLED HOW MANY DECIBELS IS THE AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL HVAC AND IT COMES BACK, THE MOST MODERN RESIDENTIAL AIR CONDITIONERS COME OUT OF THE BOX AROUND 72 TO 82 DECIBELS.
AND I JUST KNOW SO MANY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES PLACE IT RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE NEXT TO THEIR PROPERTY.
BUT THIS IS SOMETHING WE'RE LOOKING TO DO TO MULTIFAMILY.
I FEEL WE ALWAYS COME UP WITH A REASON TO DO THINGS TO MULTIFAMILY.
AND SO I'D LOVE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS AND MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN KIND OF DIG INTO FURTHER MAKING, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT MAKES SENSE MOVING FORWARD AT THIS POINT.
I WILL BE ABSTAINING MR. SEYMOUR.
I GUESS I'D LIKE TO ECHO SIMILAR CONCERNS OF I AGREE IN PRINCIPLE THAT HAVING ACQUIRED OR SLEEPING ENVIRONMENT IS A REALLY GOOD THING.
AND I MEAN Y'ALL, I LIVE DOWNTOWN ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE AUSTIN ENERGY CHILLING STATION, AND I, UH, I KNOW THAT'S NOT PRODUCING 45 DECIBELS
UH, WE'VE GROWN ACCUSTOMED TO IT.
SO I DO WANNA SEE US AS A CITY LOOK FOR WAYS TO, UH, REDUCE NOISE.
I AM CONCERNED, HOWEVER, AT SETTING A NUMBER AT THIS MOMENT, 45 DECIBELS.
UH, I WANNA BELIEVE IT'S ACHIEVABLE, BUT I WORRY ABOUT PUTTING IT INTO CODE RIGHT NOW, SO I'LL BE UPSTANDING AS WELL.
UM, WE HAVE TWO AND TWO, UH, CHAIR.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE YES,
IF THIS FAILS, THEN IT GOES BACK TO THE REGIONAL.
UM, THIS WOULD BE, DO YOU HAVE A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER ADDING TO THE 25 DASH TWO DASH 10 63 B, THE PROVISION THAT DURING THE HOURS OF 10 8:10 PM TO 10:00 AM MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MAY NOT PRODUCE SOUND IN EXCESS OF 45 DECIBEL ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE ADJOINING ANOTHER PROPERTY OR 45 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, ADJOINING A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
AND I CAN SPEAK TO WHY I DID THAT.
HOW IS THAT COMMISSIONERS ARE, I SAID, DID YOU SAY 45? 45? MY ORIGINAL WAS, UH, 25 AND I APOLOGIZE IF I DIDN'T CLEARLY STATE THAT.
SO THEN ACTUALLY, HOLD ON A SECOND.
THE 25 FEET FROM PROPERTY LINE, UH, ACROSS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
ACROSS THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF ABOVE.
[05:00:01]
UM, I, I WAS GONNA SAY, SO THAT'S FINE BY ME.AND I, I KNOW, UM, I HEARD, SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS RATHER THAN DOING IT AS A TEXT AMENDMENT AT THIS TIME, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN THAT WE'RE NOT SURE IF 45 DECIBEL OR THE 25 FEET MAKES SENSE, BUT THIS SENDS A SIGNAL FOR OUR STAFF TO HOPEFULLY GO AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT REASONABLE DECIBEL SOUND REQUIREMENT IS.
I AGREE WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THAT WE DO NEED TO HAVE SOME UNDERSTANDING OF SOUND AND NOT HAVE THAT IMPACTED ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
I JUST AM UNSURE OF WHAT THAT WOULD BE.
SO HOPEFULLY THIS GIVES STAFF ENOUGH GUIDANCE TO GO AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT IS AND, UM, LOOP THAT INTO THE, UM, INTO THE AMENDMENT AS THIS MOVES FORWARD TO COUNCIL.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE EXACTLY HOW THE SUBSTITUTE'S DIFFERENT FROM ORIGINAL? SURE.
SO THE, THE ORIGINAL WAS ADD TO SUBSECTION, THE PROVISION THAT, RIGHT.
SO IT'S REALLY A TEXT AMENDMENT AND I'M SAYING A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER ADDING TO THE SUBDIVISION.
I'M MAKING IT A MORE, YOU'RE SOFTENING IT.
I'M SOFTENING IT, GIVING OUR STAFF THE MORE ABILITY TO GO AND DO SOMETHING ELSE BECAUSE IT'S NOT A RED LINE.
THIS GIVES A CLARITY OF INTENT.
UM, BUT HOPEFULLY IT ALLOWS OUR STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD.
COMMISSIONER COX? I'LL SECOND.
UM, SO WE'VE GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER COX.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, WELL, IS THAT COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? NO, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT, BUT I'LL WAIT TILL WE VOTE.
MR. PHILLIPS, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YES.
SO THIS WOULD BE A GENERAL AMENDMENT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? AND IT WOULD JUST BE TO, FOR STAFF TO GO IN A CERTAIN DIRECTION BECAUSE THE EPA ALSO KIND OF SETS HEALTH NOISE LEVELS AND THEIR, ONE OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS IS THAT 55, IF YOU DON'T WANNA GET HEARING LOSS.
SO WE SHOULD REALLY I AGREE, GET, UM, SOME MORE INFORMATION ON THIS BECAUSE IT IS ABOUT PEOPLE'S HEALTH AND, AND I WOULD COMPLETELY SECOND THAT.
SO YES, MY HOPE WOULD BE RIGHT, WHETHER IT'S 45, 55, 35, I DON'T KNOW RIGHT.
WHAT IT WOULD BE, BUT HOPEFULLY OUR STAFF AND STAFF, HOPEFULLY THE DISCUSSION IS GIVING YOU ENOUGH UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT OUR INTENT IS.
WHATEVER THOSE BELT BEST PRACTICES ARE FOR HEALTH STANDARDS, WE WOULD LIKE TO UPDATE THAT.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
CAN I SPEAK A FAVOR? I'M SORRY.
OR AGAINST, I JUST WANNA POINT OUT, NEW YORK CITY'S REGULATION IS IN THE FORTIES.
I THINK DALLAS IS IN THE LOW FIFTH FIFTIES.
SO THIS IS DEFINITELY FEASIBLE.
UM, EQUIPMENT, EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS ARE USUALLY LIKE AT THE EQUIPMENT AND THOSE NOISE LEVELS DROP PRETTY DRAMATICALLY AS YOU MOVE AWAY AND THEN UNDER DIFFERENT INSTALLATION ENVIRONMENTS AND THAT SORT OF STUFF.
SO I GUARANTEE YOU 45 IS ACHIEVABLE WITH MODERN HVAC EQUIPMENT.
UM, CHAIR, I CAN SPEAK IN FAVOR.
I DO WANNA SAY, UM, I REALLY WANNA APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER COX FOR YOU TO BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
I THINK WE HEARD TESTIMONY TO THIS.
I THINK THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT.
AND I FORGET WHO MADE THE COMMENT, BUT THEY WERE RIGHT AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HAVING DENSITY OR HAVING LOWER PROXIMITY, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE QUALITY OF LIFE STANDARDS ARE MAINTAINED.
SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK IN THIS AND MY HOPE WITH DOING IT AS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION IS THAT STAFF CAN GO AND FIGURE OUT WHAT BEST PRACTICES ARE AND ALSO HOPEFULLY HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO PASS THIS BECAUSE I DO THINK THIS IS A GOOD AMENDMENT.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST, GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
THIS IS A SUBSTITUTE MADE BY VICE CHAIR ZA, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT, THAT'S UNANIMOUS.
GOING BACK TO OUR ALPHABETICAL UNPOSTED, COMMISSIONER HAYNES COMP COMPATIBILITY.
I DO NOT HAVE ANY, I WAS GOING TO BRING UP THE DECIBEL, BUT, UM, THAT WE GOT A GOOD ONE THERE.
AND I THINK THAT, UM, I SIGNALED THAT WHEN I WAS TALKING TO LEGAL AND I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT AND I DON'T, I NEED SOME HELP.
WOULD THIS BE A GENERAL AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL THAT WE LIMIT HOME TO AND LIMIT AND HOME TO AND COMPATIBILITY TO CERTAIN GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF THE CITY SO THAT WE COULD EXPLORE
[05:05:01]
AND EQUITY OVERLAY TO HOPEFULLY REDUCE THE IMPACT OF GENTRIFICATION IN VULNERABLE NEIGHBORHOODS? SO, AS A POINT OF ORDER, WE MAY NEED TO SPLIT THAT INTO TWO MOTIONS AND JUST FOCUS ON COMPATIBILITY.ALL RIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS OR OR STAFF ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL? VICE CHAIR AND THEN COMMISSIONER WOODS.
AND THEN I SAW COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ.
THIS IS A, UH, CLARIFICATION ONLY, SO THIS SHOULD NOT TAKE UP ON THE SLOTS.
UH, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, THIS WOULD BE A GENERAL AMENDMENT, SINCE WE'RE STAFF HAS ALREADY INDICATED IS WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO IT TODAY.
SO LIMIT COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS TO CERTAIN, UH, CHANGES TO COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS, IS WHAT I SHOULD SAY, A LIMIT CHANGES TO COMPETITIVE STANDARDS TO CERTAIN GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF THE CITY WITH THE INTENT TO EXPLORE INEQUITY OR RELATED TO REDUCE DISPLACEMENT IMPACTS IN VULNERABLE NEIGHBORHOODS.
I WOULD SAY DISPLACEMENT AND GENTRIFICATION, PLEASE.
THIS IS A QUESTION OF THE MOTION MAKER, BUT MAYBE ALSO JUST A GEN GENERAL QUESTION IS, AS IT'S A GENERAL AMENDMENT, DO WE NEED TO SPECIFY WHICH AREAS WE'RE LIMITING IT TO AS THE MOTION MAKER? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPECIFY? WELL, WE WERE TOLD BY LEGAL THAT WE SHOULD LEAVE IT GENERAL AND, AND BROAD AND THEN, UH, HAVE THAT ON A FUTURE AGENDA TO LOOK AT THE ACTUAL DETAILS OF WHERE WE WOULD BE RECOMMENDING THIS.
SO I WANNA FOLLOW, UH, THE DIRECTION THAT LEGAL GAVE WHEN I ASKED THE QUESTION.
THAT I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION ABOUT WHERE, BUT I THINK, UM, THAT MAKES HER RESPONSE MAKES SENSE.
ONE MORE SPOT FOR OUR QUESTION.
WOULD THIS BE ENVISIONED AS SOMETHING THAT MAKES IT MORE PERMISSIVE TO ALLOW FOR MORE HOUSING OR LESS PERMISSIVE LIMITING HOUSING? SO I, I THINK IT WOULD BE EITHER, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT COULD GO EITHER WAY.
IT, SO I, I REALLY CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION WITHOUT TAKING UP THE OTHER PART.
FOR HOME TWO AND LOOKING AT THE GEOGRAPHIC IMPACT, THE GOAL IS TO, UM, FOR DISPLAY TO REDUCE DISPLACEMENT PRESSURES, UH, REDUCE GENTRIFICATION, AND THEREFORE THE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE PUSH OUT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE IN VULNERABLE NEIGHBORHOODS TO, TO REDEVELOPMENT.
WE DO KNOW AS EVEN, EVEN STAFF SAID THIS EVENING, THEY DON'T KNOW THE IMPACT.
THEY DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL ACCELERATE GENTRIFICATION.
AND THAT'S NOT A GOOD THING, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER WE ARE THE FASTEST CITY IN THE NATION THAT GOING THROUGH GENTRIFICATION, WE'VE SEEN THE CANARIES IN THE COAL MINE, IN THE DATA IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WHERE WE ARE LOSING AFRICAN AMERICANS AND LATINOS IN TERMS OF SCHOOL POPULATION WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND A ISD.
SO WE HEARD FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE TONIGHT THAT WE WANT TO PROTECT VULNERABLE NEIGHBORHOODS FROM CONTINUED DISPLACEMENT PRESSURES.
SO I CANNOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE IDEALLY IT SHOULD HELP.
IDEALLY IT SHOULD HELP, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO.
WE'RE LOOKING TO TO, TO BUILD THAT MID, UM, THAT MISSING MIDDLE AS A LOT OF FOLKS HERE WANT, BUT WE'RE ALSO LOOKING TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM THE PRESSURES OF DISPLACEMENT AND GENTRIFICATION.
I'M SORRY IF I COULDN'T BE MORE CLEAR.
UH, CHAIR, IF I MIGHT ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
'CAUSE I THINK ACTUALLY, UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, I MIGHT HAVE CAUSED THE CONFUSION 'CAUSE I SAID LIMIT CHANGES TO COMPATIBILITY.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO CHANGE IT? TO MODIFY CHANGES TO COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS? OKAY, THANK YOU.
I SHOULD NOT HAVE USED THE WORD LIMIT.
UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESTATE YOUR MOTION MAYBE WITH ASSISTANCE OF MEASURE
IS THERE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? I THINK WE HEARD A LOT OF TESTIMONY THIS EVENING.
I'M NOT GOING TO, UM, TRY TO BOG THINGS DOWN AT THIS TIME OF NIGHT.
UH, BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ALL VALUE AS A BODY AND AS A CITY.
AND, AND SO THEREFORE, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD LOOK TO
[05:10:01]
DO THIS AS WE ARE CH OVERHAULING ZONING.WE WANNA PROTECT VULNERABLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND VULNERABLE RESIDENTS SO THAT WE DO HAVE A, A DIVERSE POPULATION, UM, IN AUSTIN, UH, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARDS TO AFRICAN AMERICANS AND LATINOS.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? GO AHEAD.
I WOULD JUST SUGGEST, AGAIN TO THE BODY THAT THIS IS A VERY GENERALIZED SUGGESTION TO COUNSEL.
AND SO AGAIN, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE WE'RE, WE'RE RAISING THE ISSUE SO THAT THERE IS AWARENESS AND HOPEFULLY COUNSEL WILL THEN WORK WITH STAFF TO TAKE APPROPRIATE DIRECTION ON THAT SO THAT WE CAN FIND THAT RIGHT BALANCE TO GET THE HOUSING WE NEED, UM, WITHOUT DISPLACING FOLKS MOST AT RISK.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
11 AGAINST, WERE YOU AT FOUR? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? SORRY.
12 THOSE AGAINST AND ABSTAINING.
COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, ANY UNPOSTED INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS? NOPE.
AT THIS POINT, DOES THE BODY WANT TO CONSIDER GOING FOR ANOTHER ROUND OF UNPOSTED INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS? CAN WE ASK FIRST IF ANYONE HAS ANY ADDITIONAL UNPOSTED AMENDMENTS? AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS WOULD BE RELATED TO A COMPATIBILITY ONLY AT THIS TIME, I'M SEEING NONE.
SO WE ARE BACK TO OUR BASE MOTION AS AMENDED.
SO THAT INCLUDES THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS, THE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS THAT WERE POSTED, AND THE UNPOSTED INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
THE, THAT BASE MOTION WAS MADE BY VICE CHAIR CZAR AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UM, WE'LL OPEN UP FOR, FOR AND AGAINST, WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION? OKAY.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
OH, I I WHAT WHAT MOTION? SORRY.
THIS, SO THIS IS FOR THE ENTIRE COMPATIBILITY AS AMENDED.
UM, I'M, I, THE, I'M GONNA ABSTAIN.
I'M NOT GONNA VOTE FOR AGAINST IT.
I THINK THAT THERE IS GOOD STUFF IN HERE.
COUNSEL, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY A FOREGONE CONCLUSION AT THIS POINT.
UM, THE REASON I AM NOT VOTING FOR IT IS BECAUSE I'M JUST INCREDIBLY DISAPPOINTED THAT THIS IS THE PROCESS.
UH, I, I BELIEVE THE SPEED IN WHICH THIS TRAVELED THROUGH COUNCIL, UH, THIS, WE HELD A, A, A PUBLIC HEARING FROM BASICALLY 9:00 AM TO, I THINK IT WAS 3:00 PM UH, THE PUBLIC HEARING HERE STARTED AT FOUR.
UH, I'M ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND I COULDN'T BE HERE AT FOUR.
AND SO I JUST THINK THAT THIS WHOLE PROCESS HAS BEEN RUSHED.
I IT'S BEEN RUSHED ON PURPOSE FOR THE EXPRESSED PURPOSE OF TRYING TO SCORE EXTRA POINTS ON GRANT APPLICATIONS.
AND, AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING CITYWIDE PLANNING IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO SCORE POINTS ON AN APPLICATION THAT'S DUE IN A MONTH AND A HALF.
SO, I, I'M REGISTERING MY PROTEST BY ABSTAINING, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE THINGS IN HERE THAT I AGREE WITH, I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY HOPE THAT WE CAN AVOID THIS IN THE FUTURE.
I KNOW THAT IT'S NOT STAFF'S FAULT.
I KNOW THAT IT'S NOT GENERALLY COUNCIL'S FAULT, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO BE PLANNING FOR PLANNING'S SAKE, NOT FOR GRANT APPLICATION'S SAKE.
ANY OTHER SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST COMMISSIONER MUELLER? UM, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THESE CHANGES AS THEY'RE UNIVERSALLY APPLIED TO THE CITY.
I THINK STAFF TOLD US THEMSELVES, THERE ARE ASPECTS OF THIS THAT ARE UNKNOWN AND UNSTUDIED, UH, AND QUANTIFIABLE.
I RAISE AGAIN, MY CONCERNS AND OBJECTIONS THAT THESE CHANGES DO NOT TIE IN AND ALSO ADDRESS OUR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND OUR CLIMATE CHANGE NEEDS.
[05:15:01]
THINK THAT'S THE ABSOLUTE OPPOSITE OF PLANNING.I I THINK THIS IS A TOTAL LACK OF PLANNING AND HOPE.
AND HOPE IS, HOPE IS NOT A PLAN.
OTHERS? SPEAKING FOR AGAINST COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UM, I WANNA START BY THANKING STAFF AND PARTICULARLY THE D FOUR STAFF WHO HAVE WORKED VERY TIRELESSLY TO BRING FORWARD THE COMPATIBILITY CHANGES BEFORE US.
UM, I ALSO WANNA RECOGNIZE THAT THERE HAS BEEN EXTENSIVE STUDY OF COMPATIBILITY IN THE CITY.
WE LOOKED AT PEER CITIES, WE LOOKED AT HOW THIS WAS IMPACTING OUR HOUSING, AND I BELIEVE THE NUMBER WE CAME UP WITH WAS 67,000 NEW UNITS.
AND THAT TO ME IS A LOT OF HOPE.
IT'S A LOT OF HOUSING, IT'S A LOT OF CHANGES.
IT'S CORRIDORS THAT WILL BE UNLOCKED, TRANSFORMED, EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AS A CITY.
AND IN FACT, I THINK IT'S BENEFICIAL FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE THOSE ARE PLACES WHERE WE ALREADY HAVE EXISTING PLACE, UH, EXISTING LAND THAT NEEDS TO BE USED IN A BETTER WAY.
AND THAT'S THE POINT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THAT'S THE POINT OF CHANGING COMPATIBILITY.
THAT'S THE POINT OF DOING THESE PROCESSES.
SO I'M THRILLED, THRILLED TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS WHOLEHEARTEDLY, PARTICULARLY WITH THE EXCELLENT AMENDMENTS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THIS BODY.
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THIS AT COUNCIL AND REALLY SEEING THE CHANGES WE'RE GOING TO SEE ACROSS OUR CITY BECAUSE WE HAVE DECIDED THAT OTHER HOUSING DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SHARED, SAVED FROM OTHER HOUSING.
'CAUSE AS MANY PEOPLE CLEAN OUT THIS EVENING, IT'S ALL THE SAME.
IT'S ALL OUR CITY AND WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BLOCK EACH OTHER.
WE SHOULD SHARE THIS SPACE AND MAKE IT THE BEST IT CAN BE.
MR. ANDERSON, THANK YOU CHAIR.
AND DEFINITELY WANNA REITERATE A HUGE THANK YOU TO STAFF.
ALL THE GRAPHS THAT STAFF CREATED, JUST SHOWING THE FACT THAT HAVING THE MOST RESTRICTIVE FORM OF COMPATIBILITY IN THE COUNTRY AS WE ARE BARRELING INTO UNAFFORDABILITY EVERY SINGLE DAY, IT JUST MADE ZERO SENSE.
AND IT'S AMAZING TO KNOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO ADJUST THE RULE THAT COSTS US MORE HOUSING THAN ANY OTHER RULE ON THE BOOKS.
AND FOR WHAT TO PROTECT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FROM CHANGE, RIGHT? IF THAT, IF, IF WE DIDN'T HAVE AN AFFORDABILITY CRISIS, SURE, THAT'D BE GREAT.
BUT WE DO AND WE HAVE TO LEGALIZE HOUSING AND THIS IS A BIG STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
I KNOW THERE'S ENDLESS LAWSUITS AGAINST HOUSING AND THIS IS HOPEFULLY DONE IN THE CORRECT WAY WHERE WE GET TO KEEP THESE HOMES BECAUSE 63,000 HOMES IS A REALLY BIG DEAL.