[00:00:03]
[Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]
THAT, WE WILL, UM, WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT.I'LL NOW CALL THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER.
SO FIRST I'M GOING TO TAKE ROLL CALL, GO IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER AS YOU SEE IN THE AGENDA.
COMMISSIONER RERO RAMIREZ WILL COME LATER.
COMMISSIONER COX IS NOT HERE YET.
COMMISSIONER MOALA NOT PRESENT YET.
AND COMMISSIONER WOODS IS ABSENT THIS EVENING.
I'LL, UM, ACKNOWLEDGE THE EX OFFICIOS IF WE, UH, WHEN THEY ARRIVE LATER ON IN THE MEETING.
UM, SO THE USUAL NOTE, TONIGHT'S MEETING IS HYBRID, ALLOWING FOR A VIRTUAL QUORUM AS LONG AS THE COMMISSIONER SERVING AS CHAIR IS, IS PRESENT IN CHAMBERS.
SO WE DO HAVE COMMISSIONERS HERE IN CHAMBERS AND VIRTUAL.
ALSO, SPEAKERS WILL PRESENT BOTH FROM CHAMBERS OR VIRTUALLY, UM, VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS.
PLEASE REMEMBER TO SIGN, SEND YOUR SIGN IN SHEET TO OUR STAFF LIAISON PER THE CLERK'S GUIDELINES AND REMEMBER TO HAVE YOUR RED, YELLOW, AND GREEN VIVID PLEAS, UM, FOR VOTING.
IF YOU ARE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, YOU'LL RECEIVE AN EMAIL PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION TAKING UP YOUR ITEM AND SPEAKERS CAN DONATE TIME.
BOTH THE SPEAKER DONATING TIME AND THE SPEAKER RECIPIENT MUST BE PRESENT IN PERSON WHEN THE ITEM IS CONSIDERED.
ALRIGHT, SO, UM, AS A NOTE TO OUR VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS, IF, UH, WE DON'T SEE YOU BECAUSE WE HAVE CODE ON THE SCREEN OR SOMETHING, JUST ACKNOWLEDGE ME, UM, COME OFF MUTE AND LET ME KNOW THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK.
[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION]
DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC COMMUNICATION CHAIR? COMMISSIONER LA RIVERA? WE HAVE, UM, MR. STEWART HURST PRESENT.THANK YOU CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
I WANT TO TALK TO TONIGHT ABOUT CODE AMENDMENTS IN 2024 AND AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENTS.
MY NAME IS STUART HARRY HIRSCH, AND I TELL PEOPLE I'M STEW FROM DISTRICT TWO.
UH, IF THOSE WHO OPPOSE ADOPTING MORE CODE AMENDMENTS TO INCREASE DENSITY THROUGH SUBDIVISION OF LARGE LOTS INTO SMALL LOTS, OR ALLOWING MORE HOMES ON LOTS WITH, WITH, UH, RESIDENTIAL ZONING, IF THOSE FOLKS PREVAIL.
ACHIEVEMENT OF THE SMART HOUSING BLUEPRINT GOALS OF INCREASING 135,000 HOMES OVERALL OVER 10 YEARS AND INCREASING 65,000 HOMES SERVING INDIVIDUALS AND OR HOUSEHOLDS AT 80% MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME OR BELOW WILL NOT BE ACHIEVED BASED ON TESTIMONY I'VE HEARD AT PLANNING COMMISSION AND OR CITY COUNCIL HEARINGS, AND I'VE BEEN WATCHING THEM ALL, UH, OVER THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS.
HERE ARE SOME POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'RE NOT POSTED FOR TONIGHT, AND THERE ARE AMENDMENTS TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COULD HELP PROPERTY OWNERS AND RENTERS MEET SMART HOUSING REASONABLY PRICED STANDARDS.
NUMBER ONE, SMART HOUSING RENTAL HAS 40 YEARS OF AFFORDABILITY INSTEAD OF FIVE YEARS OF AFFORDABILITY.
NUMBER TWO, BUILDING COVERAGE AND IMPERVIOUS COVER IS 40% RATHER THAN 45% IMPERVIOUS COVER ON SOME PROPERTIES SINCE IT'S CHEAPER TO PROVIDE OPEN SPACE THAN DRIVEWAYS AND OR GARAGES AND OR CARPORTS.
BULLET NUMBER THREE, TINY HOMES ALLOWED BY THE ADOPTED INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE BE ALLOWED ON ANY LOT THAT IS AT LEAST 1000 SQUARE FEET BECAUSE TINY HOMES, BY DEFINITION ARE 400 SQUARE FEET OR LESS.
AND THIS WOULD MEAN THAT IMPERVIOUS COVER WOULD NOT BE EXCEED 40%.
NUMBER FOUR, THAT MAXIMUM MANUFACTURED HOMES ALLOWED BY THE ADOPTED INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE BE ALLOWED ON ANY LOT WHERE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND BUILDING AND BUILDING COVERAGE DO NOT EXCEED 40% AND APPLICABLE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.
I UNDERSTAND THESE CHANGES MIGHT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARINGS SINCE THE PREVIOUS POSTING LANGUAGE DOES NOT EXPLICITLY MENTION THESE PROPOSED CHANGES.
AND I URGE YOU TO WORK WITH THE COUNCIL TO MAKE THOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS HAPPEN SO THAT WE REALLY TRY TO ACHIEVE, UH, THE GOALS OF THE STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT INSTEAD OF PRETENDING THAT THEY DON'T EXIST OR WE CAN ACHIEVE THEM IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR EXISTING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
IN FULL DISCLOSURE, I'M ONE OF THE STAFFERS WHO WROTE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN THE EIGHTIES AND HELPED WRITE THE
[00:05:01]
REVISED SIMPLIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN THE NINETIES.SO I'VE SEEN THIS EXERCISE A LOT OF TIMES AND I HOPE YOU WILL BE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND YOUR APPOINTEES, UH, AND YOUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL MOVE THIS FORWARD SO WE CAN REALLY MAKE HOUSING REASONABLY PRICED FOR MORE AND MORE AUSTINITES.
STOP PRESENTATION IS, THAT'S OUR, OUR ONLY, OKAY.
THAT WAS OUR ONLY, UM, PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
SO, UM, BOTH HEARINGS TODAY ARE UP FOR DISCUSSION, THOSE BEING THE NUMBER ONE LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2023 DASH 0 4 3, DOWNTOWN PARKING MODIFICATIONS PHASE ONE AND TWO, THE LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2023 DASH 0 0 4 E TODD OVERLAY, PHASE ONE LRT DUE TO THE NUMBER, NUMBER OF SPEAKERS SIGNED UP ON NUMBER TWO.
AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE STAFF PRESENTER ON NUMBER ONE UNTIL AFTER FIVE.
WE WILL TAKE THAT ITEM UP BEING NUMBER TWO, UH, FIRST WITHOUT OBJECTION.
SO BEFORE WE START, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS NEED TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS ON THE AGENDA? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, UM, WE WILL BEGIN WITH ITEM NUMBER
[2. LDC Amendment: C20-2023-004 - ETOD Overlay (Phase 1 LRT)]
TWO, THE E TODD OVERLAY HEARING STAFF PRESENTATION AND FOLLOWED BY OUR PUBLIC SPEAKERS.ALL RIGHT, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
I'M ANDREA BATES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
I'M JOINED BY WARNER COOK, THE CASE MANAGER FOR THE EQUITABLE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY CODE AMENDMENTS.
WE ARE GONNA START TONIGHT WITH AN OVERVIEW OF WHERE WE ARE IN THE CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS.
THE EQUITABLE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, OR ETOD OVERLAY IS ONE OF THE FOUR AMENDMENTS THAT WERE INCLUDED ON THE APRIL 11TH JOINT MEETING OF COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION.
AFTER THAT MEETING, STAFF HELD TWO OPEN HOUSES FOR THE COMMUNITY TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THESE AMENDMENTS.
THE FIRST WAS IN PERSON ON APRIL 17TH AT THE CENTRAL LIBRARY, AND THE SECOND WAS A VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE ON APRIL 20TH.
THEN LAST WEEK, PLANNING COMMISSION HEARD THREE OF THE FOUR AMENDMENTS FROM THE APRIL 11TH PACKAGE, AND THERE WAS ALSO A PRESENTATION TO THE HOUSING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE AND THE MOBILITY COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL A BRIEFING ON THOSE ITEMS EARLIER IN THE AFTERNOON.
TONIGHT IS OF COURSE, APRIL 30TH.
WE'LL BE TAKING UP THE ETOD AMENDMENTS AND THERE WAS A COUNCIL WORK SESSION ON THE PACKAGE EARLIER TODAY AS WELL.
NEXT WEEK WE HAVE TWO ADDITIONAL OPEN HOUSE OPPORTUNITIES, BOTH IN PERSON THE FIRST ON MAY 6TH AND THE SECOND ON MAY 8TH.
AND THEN FINALLY, THERE WILL BE A SECOND CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TO CONSIDER THESE AMENDMENTS ON MAY 14TH.
AND THEN FINALLY, POTENTIAL COUNCIL ACTION ON MAY 16TH.
WE'VE BEEN GETTING OUT THE WORD ABOUT THESE AMENDMENTS THROUGH MANY CHANNELS.
THERE HAVE BEEN MAILED NOTICE AND ETOD SPECIFIC NOTICE MAILED TO PROPERTIES IN THE RELEVANT GEOGRAPHY.
THERE'S ALSO BEEN NEWS COVERAGE OF THE AMENDMENT.
THERE HAVE BEEN SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS AND THE CITY HAS TAKEN OUT ADVERTISEMENTS IN LOCAL PUBLICATIONS.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE IS A PROJECT WEBSITE WITH DETAILS ABOUT ALL THE CODE AMENDMENTS INCLUDING THE ETOD AMENDMENTS AND AN EMAIL AND PHONE NUMBER WHERE THE COMMUNITY CAN LEAVE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
IN ADDITION TO THE OPEN HOUSES MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THESE ARE SOME ETOD SPECIFIC ENGAGEMENT NUMBERS AS OF THE 25TH, SO NEARLY OR OVER JUST OVER 39,000 NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT ABOUT THESE AMENDMENTS.
THERE HAVE BEEN OVER FIVE THOUSAND FIVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED VISITS TO THE WEBSITE AND OVER 2000 VISITS TO THE ETOD OVERLAY SPECIFIC PAGE, UH, 78 PHONE CALLS AND EMAILS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR SET OF CODE AMENDMENTS 35 COMMENTS ABOUT ETOD ON SPEAKUP AUSTIN.ORG.
THERE WERE 181 SPEAKERS TOTAL AT THE APRIL 11TH JOINT MEETING.
88 ATTENDEES AT THE IN-PERSON OPEN HOUSE, AND ABOUT 75 ATTENDEES AT THE VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE.
THESE ARE THE TWO ADDITIONAL OPEN HOUSES I MENTIONED.
COMING UP NEXT WEEK ON MAY 6TH, FROM SIXTH 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 AN OPEN HOUSE AT THE GEORGE WASHINGTON CARVER MUSEUM AND CULTURAL CENTER.
THESE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO TALK
[00:10:01]
ABOUT AND LEARN MORE ABOUT ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS, UH, BEING CONSIDERED THIS SPRING, ETOD, THE OTHER AMENDMENTS FROM THE APRIL 11TH JOINT MEETING, AS WELL AS A FEW THAT ARE MOVING ON THEIR OWN TIMELINES.HELLO, I'M WARNER COOK, THE CASE MANAGER FOR THIS AMENDMENT, AND WE WANTED TO OFFER SOME ADDITIONAL CLARIFYING INFORMATION AS WE'VE HEARD BACK FROM THE PUBLIC OR DIFFERENT, UM, QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME IN.
SO THE FIRST ONE THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS UNDERSTOOD IS THAT THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR A PROPERTY TO REDEVELOP JUST BECAUSE IT'S ZONED INTO THE COMBINING DISTRICT OF EO AND DBEO.
UM, IT WOULD ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL OPTION FOR THEM TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS BONUS PROGRAM, BUT THEY COULD DEVELOP UNDER THEIR BASE ZONE OR JUST NOT DEVELOP, UM, ANY NEW, UH, ON THE SITE TODAY.
IT WOULD ALSO ACTUALLY MAKE IT HARDER IN SOME CASES WHERE THERE'S EXISTING AFFORDABLE UNITS OR CERTAIN TYPES OF COMMERCIAL USES, UH, UNDER THE STAFF PROPOSAL TO REDEVELOP THOSE WITHOUT PROTECTIONS FOR THOSE EXISTING TENANTS.
ADDITIONALLY, WE'VE HEARD CONCERNS FROM BUSINESSES AND PROPERTY OWNERS, UH, ABOUT THE PROHIBITED USES ASPECT OF THE ETA OVERLAY, AND WE JUST WANNA, AGAIN, MAKE IT CLEAR THAT ANY EXISTING BUSINESS DOES NOT HAVE TO STOP OPERATING NEW BUSINESSES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO LOCATE ON THOSE PARCELS IF IT'S A PROHIBITED USE, BUT EXISTING BUSINESSES ARE LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USES THAT WOULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE JUST AS THEY ARE TODAY.
UM, WE'VE ALSO HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW COMPATIBILITY RELATES TO DBE TODD, BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO A CITYWIDE COMPATIBILITY CODE CHANGE THAT YOU ALL HEARD LAST WEEK AT THE COMMISSION.
UM, AND SO PROJECTS PARTICIPATING IN THE DB E TODD BONUS PROGRAM HAVE A SLIGHTLY RELAXED COMPATIBILITY STANDARD AS COMPARED TO THE STAFF PROPOSAL FOR THE CITYWIDE COMPATIBILITY STANDARD.
AND WHAT THAT WOULD BE IS THAT THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER OF 25 FEET WOULD STILL APPLY.
THAT'S UNDER THE CITYWIDE PROPOSAL, BUT HEIGHT LIMITATIONS ARE SLIGHTLY RELAXED AFTER THAT.
SO BETWEEN 25 FEET AND 50 FEET OF A TRIGGERING PROPERTY LINE, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO REACH 90 FEET IN HEIGHT AND AFTER 50 FEET FROM A TRIGGERING PROPERTY, A PARTICIPATING PROJECT THAT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE ABLE TO REACH 120 FEET IN HEIGHT.
UM, THIS RELAXATION OF COMPATIBILITY HELPS REDUCE ITS IMPACT ON OUR HOUSING CAPACITY NEAR TRANSIT, AND IT ALIGNS THE APPROACH WITH THE APPROACH STAFF RECOMMENDED IN OUR ANALYSIS OF COMPATIBILITY STUDY THAT WAS RELEASED IN THE FALL OF LAST YEAR, WHICH RECOMMENDED KIND OF RELAXING COMPATIBILITY AS PART OF DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS. UM, IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THERE'S, THIS IS THE FIRST PHASE OF WORK ON THE ETOD OVERLAY.
WE'VE HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY DOESN'T THIS APPLY TO MORE PLACES LIKE THE METRO RAPID AND METRO RAIL LINES.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS, HAS ALWAYS BEEN STAFF'S PLAN IS IN THE NEXT PHASE OF THIS WORK PLANNED FOR SPRING OF 2025, THAT WE WOULD BRING BACK THIS, UH, THIS TYPE OF COMBINING DISTRICT THAT WOULD APPLY TO MORE AREAS.
WE'VE ALSO HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY DIDN'T STAFF INCREASE THE ENTITLEMENTS BEYOND 120 FEET.
AND THE REASONING IS BECAUSE THAT, THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GONNA CONSIDER IN PHASE TWO WHEN WE ALSO AT THE SAME TIME CONSIDER ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS SUCH AS OPEN SPACE, UM, STREET SCAPE STANDARDS, YOU KNOW, AFFORDABLE COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSIT, SUPPORTIVE FEATURES, ALL OF THAT, THAT WASN'T ABLE TO BE PART OF PHASE ONE BASED ON CAPACITY OF STAFF.
AND THEN FINALLY, IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT ONCE THESE PROVISIONS, UH, IF THEY ARE ADOPTED BY COUNCIL, IF THAT'S THE WILL OF COUNCIL TO ADOPT THESE TWO NEW COMBINING DISTRICTS, UM, THEY WOULD, THAT WOULD MEAN THAT ADDITIONAL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE HALF MILE, UM, OF THE LIGHT RAIL AREA AND PRIORITY EXTENSIONS WOULD BE ABLE TO REQUEST INDIVIDUAL REZONING.
SO IF THEY'RE NOT PART OF STAFF'S PROPOSED REZONING, UM, ON THE MAY 16TH AGENDA ITEM, INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS COULD COME THROUGH AND ASK FOR PROPERTY SPECIFIC REZONING, UM, IF, AND THEN THAT WOULD COME TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNSEL FOR CONSIDERATION.
AND THAT BRINGS US BACK TO AN OVERVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FROM HERE FORWARD.
SO NEXT WEEK, AS I MENTIONED, THERE ARE THE TWO ADDITIONAL IN-PERSON OPEN HOUSES AT ANDERSON HIGH SCHOOL AND THE CARVER MUSEUM ON THE SIXTH AND THE EIGHTH.
THEN THERE'S THE COUNCIL WORK SESSION ON MAY 14TH, AND FINALLY, COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ON MAY 16TH.
WE ENCOURAGE THE COMMUNITY TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL BY VISITING THE WEBSITE@SPEAKUPAUSTIN.ORG SLASH LDC UPDATES.
THAT INCLUDES INFORMATION ABOUT ALL OF THE SPRING CODE AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING THE ETOD SPECIFIC CODE AMENDMENTS.
THE COMMUNITY CAN ALSO EMAIL STAFF AT LDC UPDATES@AUSTINTEXAS.GOV OR CALL THE PHONE NUMBER ON THE SCREEN WITH EITHER COMMENTS THAT WILL BE COMPILED, UH, FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OR WITH QUESTIONS.
[00:15:01]
IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, STAFF WILL RETURN THE EMAIL OR PHONE CALL WITHIN A FEW BUSINESS DAYS.THAT CONCLUDES OUR OVERVIEW FOR TONIGHT.
NOW WE WILL TAKE OUR, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS.
MADAM CHAIR, CAN WE ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS FIRST OR ARE WE GOING STRAIGHT TO, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THEN WE WILL DO OUR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN PERFECT THE Q AND A.
ALRIGHT, CHAIR, WE'LL HEAR, WE WILL HEAR FROM THE TELECONFERENCE SPEAKERS FIRST, UM, FIRST SPEAKER IS DWAYNE REED.
DWAYNE, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK.
HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
OKAY, WELL, I, THOSE HOME TOO.
UM, ONE THING DIDN'T GET US INTO THIS MESS, SO NO ONE SOLUTION COULD GET US OUT.
UM, I HATE ENABLE THE LABELS HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED TO PEOPLE.
I'M NOT, I I'M NO NIMBY OR NIMBY.
UM, AND I THINK THIS IS BEING ROUGH AND DATA'S BEING IGNORED.
LOOK AT NEW YORK, BOSTON, LONDON, SINGAPORE, ALL DENT PLACES, CITIES, AND STILL THE MOST EXPENSIVE PLACES TO LIVE.
THE ONLY WAY TO LOWER COST IS THROUGH GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.
UM, THIS GOES AGAINST PR, UH, PRIVATE SECTOR'S, MOTIVATION OF PROFIT.
UM, NO, NONE, NO PRIVATE SECTOR.
NO PERSON IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS GONNA BUILD HOUSING FOR A LAW.
UM, I THINK WE SHOULD, YOU KNOW, USE CARROTS AS WELL AS DICK'S, CARROTS BEING LOWERING AND ELIMINATING FEES FOR THOSE WITH LOWER, UH, BUILDING LOWER INCOME AND PARTNERSHIP PARTNER SHARING, UH, PARTNERING WITH PEOPLE WHO BUILD DIGNIFIED LOW INCOME HOUSING.
UH, WE COULD STICK TO THE LEGISLATION THAT'S ALREADY BEEN PROPOSED LIKE THE AIRBNB, UH, BANS AND, UH, AND LICENSING ACCORDING TO AIR B AND A, THERE'S 10, THERE'S ALMOST 11,000 AIRBNBS IN AUSTIN.
54% OF THEM VACANT, WHICH WOULD LEAVE ALMOST 5,900, UH, HOUSES WITHOUT PEOPLE IN THEM.
AND THEY'RE ONLY 4,968 FOR SALE.
SO AROUND 50% OF WHAT WOULD'VE BEEN WHAT ARE, UH, AIRBNBS WOULD DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING FOR SALE ALREADY, THEREFORE, DECREASING THE PRICING OF EXISTING HOUSING, WHICH IS THE CHEAPEST TYPE OF HOUSING TO HAVE.
WHEN YOU BUILD SOMETHING NEW, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO RECOUP YOUR COSTS AND THEN CHARGE THE NEXT PERSON SOMETHING ELSE.
THERE'VE ONLY BEEN TWO ACCORDING TO KX A N UH, UH, THERE'VE ONLY BEEN 22,000 LICENSES, BUT LIKE I SAID, THERE ARE 11,000 AIRBNBS OUT THERE.
NOW WE'LL BE SWITCHING TO IN-PERSON SPEAKERS.
UM, THE FIRST SPEAKER UP IS BETSY GREENBERG.
AND BETSY HAS RECEIVED, UM, A TOTAL OF SIX MINUTES DONATED TIME FROM SUSAN DENKO AND LEE ZEGAR.
SO YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES TO SPEAK.
IS HE REGISTERED OR HE'S REGISTERED? OKAY, BETSY, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES.
SO MY NAME IS BETSY GREENBERG.
I LIVE IN THE HERITAGE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I TOOK THE BUS TO GET HERE TODAY.
MY NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES ALONG WITH A MIX OF HOUSING TYPES, WHICH MEANS A LOT OF EOD DB E TODD ZONING HAS BEEN PROPOSED.
THE FT A LAND USE RATING IS BASED ON STATION DENSITIES, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THE STATIONS.
THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES GO WELL BEYOND THE GRANT ANALYSIS AREA.
THE JUSTIFICATION FOR RUSHING TO PASS THE EO AND ASSOCIATED DENSITY BONUS ZONING HAS BEEN THAT WE NEED TO MAKE THE FTA GRANT APPLICATION FOR PROJECT CONNECT MORE COMPETITIVE.
BUT WILL THIS WORK? AND IS THIS THE RIGHT TIME? SPOILER ALERT, THE ANSWER IS NO.
MY COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION FOUND IN THE MOST RECENT COPY OF THE FTA CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS
[00:20:01]
POLICY GUIDANCE DOCUMENT.I'M SORRY FOR THE SMALL PRINT ON THIS TABLE, BUT IF YOU'VE LOOKED AT THE GRANT CRITERIA, YOU KNOW THAT SCORING DEPENDS ON STATIONARY PLANS.
AS A MEMBER OF CAP METRO'S CUSTOMER SATISFACTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, I'VE HEARD BRIEFINGS ABOUT E TODD PLANNING FOR SEVERAL YEARS.
AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP RECEIVED FTA GRANTS TO PLAN THE NORTH LAMAR AND SOUTH CONGRESS TRANSIT CENTERS, AND MORE RECENTLY THE CRESTVIEW STATION AREA.
BUT THESE STATIONS WERE IN THE ORIGINAL PROJECT CONNECT PROPOSAL, BUT UNFORTUNATELY ARE NOT WITHIN THE CURRENT LIGHT RAIL ALIGNMENT.
THERE IS NO PLAN TO PLAN FOR ANY OF THE STATIONS WHERE E TODD AND DBE TODD ZONING IS PROPOSED BY ALLOWING AN EXTRA 60 FEET OF HEIGHT AND NEARLY ELIMINATING COMPATIBILITY.
DBE TODD ZONING MORE THAN DOUBLES CURRENT ENTITLEMENTS.
THIS INCENTIVIZES REDEVELOPMENT AND SPITE OF THE DISPLACEMENT THAT WILL AFFECT BOTH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES.
ONCE THE ENTITLEMENTS FOR A HUNDRED TO 120 FOOT TALL BUILDINGS ARE GRANTED, AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP WILL LOSE THE NEEDED FLEXIBILITY TO AVOID GENTRIFICATION AND TO PLAN FOR THE RIGHT MIX OF USES AND HOUSING TYPES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS.
THIS WILL HURT THE APPLICATION FOR FTA FUNDING.
THE AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP COULD STILL DO STATIONARY PLANNING ON THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT TO IMPROVE THE SCORE, BUT BEFORE THE FINAL FULL FUNDED GRANT AGREEMENT IS REQUESTED.
BUT THE PLANNING NEEDS TO BE DONE BEFORE DBE TODD ZONING IS GRANTED.
DBE TODD ZONING ENCOURAGES THE BUILDINGS OF TALL BUILDINGS, SORRY TO REPLACE OLDER EXISTING MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES WITH NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND EVEN SECTION EIGHT HOUSING.
THE PROPOSAL EVEN ALLOWS THE REQUIREMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO BE SATISFIED WITH FEE IN LIEU INSTEAD OF WITH ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I SEE CONCERN ABOUT THIS FROM SOME OF YOUR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, BUT PLEASE DO NOT COUNT ON AN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OR SORRY, BIANNUAL REPORTS OR EVEN 110% REQUIREMENT TO IMPROVE THIS.
QUITE SIMPLY, FEE AND LOSE SHOULD BE PROHIBITED.
LET THE CITY FIGURE OUT HOW TO DEAL WITH THE HOA FEES FOR H FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS AND DON'T, AND REALIZE THE CONDO UNITS ARE OFTEN RENTED ANYWAY.
TRANSIT USE IS INCOME DEPENDENT WHEN TRANSIT DEPENDENT RIDERS ARE REPLACED WITH RESIDENTS WHO CAN AFFORD TO LIVE IN NEW TOD BUILDINGS.
RIDERSHIP HAS BEEN SEEN TO DECREASE IN AUSTIN TODS AS WELL AS IN OTHER CITIES.
AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP IS STILL IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH CANNOT BE COMPLETED UNTIL SEVERAL DESIGN ISSUES LIKE WHETHER OR NOT TO ELEVATE ON SOUTH CONGRESS ARE RESOLVED.
SETTING UP NEW ENTITLEMENTS THROUGH DBE TAUGHT AT THIS STAGE IS NOT NEEDED TO MEET MEDIUM REQUIREMENTS FOR GETTING FDA APPROVAL FOR THE NEXT STAGE, WHICH IS ENGINEERING AND WHICH CANNOT START FOR OVER A YEAR.
SHOULD LEGAL CHALLENGES IMPACT THE PLAN, THE ZONING ENTITLEMENTS WILL BE CREATED AND THE LIGHT RAIL MAY NOT BE BUILT.
APPROVAL OF 50% FUNDING FROM THE FDA REQUIRES THE FINAL APPLICATION TO RANK MEDIUM HIGH OVER NINE CRITERIA THAT STAGE WILL NEED TO SHOW, AMONG OTHER THINGS, PLANS AND TOOLS IN PLACE TO ENCOURAGE ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND DEVELOPMENT WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE ALSO NEED A PREMIER PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT SO THAT PEOPLE CAN WALK TO THE STATIONS IN OUR CLIMATE.
THIS MEANS MORE THAN JUST SIDEWALKS, IT MEANS SHADE AS WELL.
ALL THAT IS NEEDED, BUT IN TWO OR THREE YEARS, NOT TODAY, TO IMPROVE THE SCORING OF THE FDA GRANT, AUSTIN SHOULD APPROVE DBE TAUGHT ONLY AS A ZONING DISTRICT FOR NOW AND WAIT TO APPLY THAT ZONING UNTIL AFTER STATION AREAS HAVE BEEN PLANNED.
ADDITIONALLY, THE EO OVERLAY SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE FTA EVALUATION AREA IE WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THE STATIONS ON THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT USE.
OF THE $300 MILLION OF ANTI DISPLACEMENT MONEY THAT THE PUBLIC APPROVED SHOULD ALSO BE LIMITED TO THE FDA EVALUATION AREAS.
AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, DO NOT ALLOW THE
[00:25:01]
USE OF FEE AND LIE.UM, I'M GONNA START CALLING SPEAKERS UP THREE AT A TIME.
THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS ARE JOHN TOVI, JASON HASKINS, AND KAREN MCGRAW.
I'M OPPOSED TO THE E TODD PROPOSAL, UH, BASED ON THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED.
UM, IS THIS NOT WORKING? OKAY.
UH, THIS TYPE OF, UH, BUILDING WOULD BE FINE, 30 TO 35 FEET.
UH, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
WE'VE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT 120 FEET.
UH, THAT WOULD BE A BUILDING OF 10 STORIES HIGH.
UH, IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR, UH, ABOUT EACH STORY, EACH STORY IS ABOUT 10 FOOT TALL.
THE CURRENT ZONING IN HYDE PARK ALLOWS FOR APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET ALONG GUADALUPE, AND THEN APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET ON EACH OF THE AVENUES THAT GO TO THE EAST.
SO IT LOOKS SOMETHING LIKE THIS RELATIVE TO THE SIZE OF THE 12 STORY BUILDING THAT YOU SEE.
THE TYPICAL CURRENTLY BU TYPICAL CURRENT BUILDINGS, OF COURSE, ARE SMALLER THAN THAT.
SOMETHING LIKE WHAT YOU WOULD SEE HERE, WHAT EAD WOULD PROPOSE IS ALMOST 10 TIMES HIGHER THAN MY HOUSE OR THE TYPICAL HOUSES IN THE AREA.
TRY TO IMAGINE LIVING IN THAT TYPE OF A SHADOW OF A HOUSE.
TRY TO IMAGINE HAVING INVESTED YOUR LIFE SAVINGS IN A SMALL RANCH HOUSE, WORKING FOUR YEARS TO, UH, RENOVATE THAT, AND THEN FINDING OUT THAT THE PROPERTY RIGHT NEXT TO YOU AND THE PROPERTY AROUND, UH, A LITTLE BIT BEHIND YOU IS GOING TO NOW BE THAT TALL.
UM, I, IT'S JUST MY OPINION, I THINK THAT'S UNREASONABLE.
I TOOK THE WEEKEND TO ASK OTHER PEOPLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD ALONG AVENUE C AND AVENUE D WHAT THEY THOUGHT.
I TALKED TO 50 HOMEOWNERS, 82% SAID THEY WERE AGAINST E TODD.
ONLY FOUR SAID THEY WOULD SIGN IT, UH, OR SAID THEY WERE FOR THE E TODD 14% NEEDED.
UH, WHY? BECAUSE 120 IS TOO TALL.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, JOHN.
60 SEEMS REASONABLE FOR LA GUADALUPE, UH, BUT IS STILL TOO TALL FOR, THAT WAS THE TIME.
I'M AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARCHITECT AND ADVOCATE.
UM, I WAS A LOT OF REALLY GREAT STUFF IN THE TODD STUDY THAT CAME OUT IN SEPTEMBER, 2023.
UM, WE KNOW THAT THE EXISTING TODD HAS HAD SOME SUCCESS, HAS HAD SOME FAILURES.
UM, SO WHEN WE WERE SEEING THAT, OH, WE'RE GONNA HAVE E TODD NOW, IT'S VERY EXCITING TO SEE THAT WE'RE GONNA TAKE TODD, THE EXISTING TODD AND MAKE IT MORE EQUITABLE, MAKE IT BETTER FOR AFFORDABILITY.
WHAT IS THIS DRAFT? WHAT IS, THIS IS WORSE THAN THE EXISTING TODD.
WE HAVE THE FEE IN LIEBE CONTINUED.
WE HAVE NOT RAISED THE NUMBER OF, UH, LIMITS THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED UNITS.
THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE ON THIS.
UM, WE'VE GOT, UM, I'VE SHARED SOME AMENDMENTS WITH, WITH SOME FOLKS, AND WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT CAN BE DONE TO MAKE THIS MORE, UH, RELATIVE TO THE PLANS, WHICH WERE VERY SITE SPECIFIC, HAD A LOT OF VERY SPECIFIC ACTIONS THAT COULD BE IN PLACE.
AND WHAT WE HAVE INSTEAD IS ONE BLANKET ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY WITH NO CONCERN FOR THE INDIVIDUAL PLANNING ASPECTS OF EACH STATION, WHICH WAS I THINK THE HEART OF THE E TODD STUDIES.
UM, WE HAVE FOLKS WHO KNOW HOW TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I KNOW THE DEVELOPERS KEEP COMPLAINING THAT IT'S HARD TO DO 10%.
WELL, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF FOLKS WHO THEY CAN PARTNER WITH, AND IT WOULD BE BETTER TO HAVE THE 25, 30, 40% CRITICAL MASS TO OPERATE THOSE UNITS IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE.
THERE ARE OTHER FUNDING SOURCES AVAILABLE.
WE WORK VERY HARD TO GET THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE HAVE.
WE NEED THESE TOOLS AND WE NEED THIS HELP.
WE DO NOT NEED TO BE ABANDONED TO BUILD ONE AFFORDABLE UNIT AND GET 120 FEET COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
I SEE NO SAFETY MECHANISM TO PREVENT
[00:30:01]
THAT IN THIS DOCUMENT.UH, YOU DID NOT PROVIDE THE FEE MECHANISM OR THE, UM, THE STANDARDS IN THE SUBMITTAL, SO YOU CANNOT SAY THAT THIS WAS NOTICED.
CAN KAREN MCGRAW, ARE YOU PRESENT? NEXT THREE SPEAKERS ARE BARBARA MACARTHUR, CINDY REED, BETHANY CARSON
CAN YOU START MY TIME WHEN THEY GET MY PRESENTATION? BARBARA, WE, WE DON'T HAVE YOUR PRESENTATION.
WE'RE WORKING ON GETTING IT UP.
I WANTED TO START WITH YOUR DATA, BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THIS YIMBY MOVEMENT, IT IS A PATERNALISTIC, RACIST VIEW THAT CO-OPS, THE BLACK, BROWN AND POOR PERSONS STRUGGLE, THIS FAKE, UH, WE WANT MORE HOUSING, LEGALIZED HOUSING.
BUT LET ME START OFF WITH YOUR DATA PLAZA AND THE MLK STATION ARE TODDS LOCATED IN CENSUS TRACKS THAT HAVE HISTORICALLY REPRESENTED A MAJORITY POPULATION OF BLACK, INDIGENOUS, AND PEOPLE OF COLOR WHERE NEW DEVELOPMENT HAS OCCURRED.
IN THESE TODDS, THERE'S BEEN A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN WHITE HIGH INCOME POPULATIONS AND AN ACTIVE DECREASE OF BIPOC PRESENCE OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS.
MOST OF THE POPULATION GROWTH IN ALL CENSUS TRACKS ENCOMPASS IN THESE TODDS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE GROWTH OF THE WHITE POPULATION.
THIS DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFT ILLUSTRATES THE DISPLACEMENT OF BIPOC RESIDENTS AND ULTIMATE, ULTIMATE INDICATOR OF CONTINUED RACIAL DISPARITY.
THE MIFI HAS ALMOST DOUBLED, AND IN SOME CASES TRIPLED.
AND HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT CHILDREN NOW OUTWEIGH HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN THROUGHOUT THESE CENSUS TRACKS.
DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS IN MINORITY BIPOC, CENSUS TRACKS ARE NOT UNIQUE TO TIDES, BUT INSTEAD CORRELATES TO THE DISPLACEMENT PATTERN ALONG THE EASTERN CRESCENT.
YOU GUYS KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AND YOU ARE WILLINGLY ALLOWING THIS, THIS IS A, THE THEORETICAL FREEWAY DESTROYING NEIGHBORHOODS.
WHAT YOU'RE VOTING FOR IS A MODERN DAY REDLINING.
AND YOU'RE NOT EVEN LOOKING AT ALL THESE PEOPLE COMING UP TO SPEAK.
BUT THE IRONY THAT HOME IS VERY ANTI HOME.
HOW CAN YOU RUSH THROUGH AND TRY TO GET, FEDERAL FUNDS ARE FUNDS THAT TAXPAYERS PAY FOR, FOR A DISPLACEMENT PLAN.
YOU WANNA BLATANTLY EMPOWER THE MIDDLE CLASS INCOME FOLKS TO COLONIZE AND DISPLACE TEACHERS, FIREFIGHTERS, LABORERS.
I'M IN D FOUR, A VERY POOR AREA.
EVERYBODY HAS A CAR BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE, UH, CLEANING YOUR HOUSE AND PAINTING YOUR HOUSE, THEY NEED THEIR CAR.
WE, IT'S NOT PRACTICAL TO HAVE ANY EXTREME.
YOU'RE SU YOU ARE SWAPPING ONE USE FOR ANOTHER BECAUSE YOU'RE STILL PUTTING IN, UH, RESTRICTIONS.
SO THERE'S NOTHING EQUITABLE ABOUT THIS.
THIS, THERE'S NO AFFORDABILITY.
AND LET IT BE SAID FOR, FOR THE RECORD.
YOU KNOW, TWO YOU'RE DOING AND WE'RE TELLING YOU NOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
DON'T DO A STUDY IN 10 YEARS AND WASTE MONEY ON CONSULTING.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, CINDY.
WE'RE MOVING ON TO THE NEXT SPEAKERS.
THANK YOU FOR LOOKING UP AT ME, BUT YOU GUYS ARE RACIST.
UM, DO WE HAVE BARBARA'S, BARBARA, WE HAVE YOUR PRESENTATION IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME UP, PLEASE.
WE CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE PRETTY QUICKLY, BUT THAT'S JUST, UM, TO SHOW YOU THAT EVEN IF YOU DRAW A CIRCLE, ONLY 64 PER 4% OF WHAT'S IN THE CIRCLE IS THE DISTANCE TO THE STATION.
I WANTED TO TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOUR MAPPING.
YOU'RE UPZONING OVER A THOUSAND PROPERTIES AND YOUR MAP IS INACCURATE.
UM, THE, THE FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION LOOKS AT STATION AREAS.
I MAP THIS AND IT WAS INTERESTING TO ME THAT A HALF A MILE FROM THE STATIONS WAS WELL WITHIN THE RED LINE YOU'RE USING TO UP ZONE PROPERTIES.
IN FACT, THE LINE YOU'RE USING IS CLOSER TO 1.2 MILES THAN ONE MILE.
SO YOU'VE GOT A BIG ERROR, ERROR IN YOUR MAPPING.
THERE'S MANY PROPERTIES THAT ARE WELL OUTSIDE OF ANY STATION AREA THAT YOU'RE UPZONING.
IN FACT, LESS THAN 20% OF THE LAND YOU'RE UPZONING IS WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF A STATION.
[00:35:01]
IF YOU WANNA SUPPORT TRANSIT, PUT THE UPZONING CLOSE TO THE STATIONS.THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF SECTION EIGHT AND LOW INCOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHERE I LIVE.
MANDY, MANDY DEO EVEN STOOD IN FRONT OF 1406 NORTH LOOP AND SAID HOW WONDERFUL IT WAS.
ALL OF THESE ARE SLATED FOR AUTOMATIC UP ZONE, WHICH WILL CAUSE THEM TO BE, TO BE DEMOLISHED.
I HAVE PRIS THAT SHOW THAT STAFF HAS TOLD DEVELOPERS HOW TO GET AROUND ANY RULES ABOUT DEMOLISHING EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND THEN I WANNA JUST REITERATE WHAT CINDY SAID BECAUSE I WAS GONNA SAY IT TOO.
YOU'RE CREATING TODDS FOR RICH WHITE PEOPLE.
BUT THE SECOND THING IS TRANSIT RIDERSHIP TO WORK IN THE CENSUS TRACKS OF TODD'S HAS SEEN SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION SINCE 2010 BY BETWEEN 41 AND 73%.
NEXT THREE SPEAKERS ARE BRAD MASSENGILL, KYLE MCCOLLUM, AND AMY FOREZ.
UM, I KIND OF DIDN'T GET FINISHED WITH WHAT I WAS SAYING LAST TIME I WAS HERE.
UM, BUT I, I SUPPORT EVERYTHING I'VE BEEN HEARING SO FAR.
UH, THIS DISPLACEMENT IS, IS KEY, UH, TO WHAT Y'ALL SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT HERE.
UM, BUT, UH, BUT WALKING HAND IN HAND WITH THAT, THERE'S SHOULD BE A ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY WITH ALL THIS AS WELL.
UM, IGNORING OUR, OUR, UH, NATURAL HERITAGE AND JUST PUTTING A BUNCH OF LINES EVERYWHERE IS NOT GONNA WORK.
UM, ONE THE HIDDEN COSTS OF THE DEPLETED WATER TABLE IS A STRESS ON TREES.
THE POWER OUTAGE WE HAD IN SOUTH AUSTIN THIS WEEKEND WAS EXACERBATED BY DOWN TREES TAKING OUT TRANSMISSION LINES.
IF YOU LOOK CAREFULLY AT THESE TREES, YOU CAN SEE THE DAMAGE THAT THE LAST FEW SUMMERS HAS HAD ON INDIVIDUAL TREES.
THEY AREN'T BENEFITING FROM NORMAL RAINFALL AS IT STANDS.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN EVEN LESS PERMEABLE AREAS AVAILABLE? THE CURRENT LAND CHANGES TO THE LAND USE CODE WILL MEAN LESS WATER TO TREES.
LESS WATER EQUALS MORE STRESS TO THE URBAN FOREST.
STRESS TREES ARE MORE LIKELY TO SNAP IN HEAVY DOWN DRAFTS.
SOME OF THE IMPACTED TREES WILL FALL ON POWER LINES USHERING IN THE FAMILIAR SCENARIO WE'VE WITNESSED IN CALIFORNIA, HAWAII, AND NORTH TEXAS.
IF WE DON'T TAKE IMMEDIATE MEASURES TO SLOW RAINWATER DOWN WHEN IT, WHEN IT'S HERE, INSTEAD OF LETTING IT, LETTING ALL THAT FAST MOVING STORM WATER COS INTO LADY BIRD LAKE WHERE IT'S CREATING OTHER ISSUES, UH, WE'RE SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR ECO CATASTROPHE.
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IS CRUCIAL IN THIS PROCESS.
Y'ALL NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT THIS STUFF AND IT WA IT'S HAND IN HAND WITH ALL THESE LIVABLE AREAS.
A LOT OF THIS INFILL THAT Y'ALL ARE THINKING IS JUST INFILL.
THERE'S A REASON IT HASN'T BEEN INFILLED.
THERE'S STUFF THERE, THERE'S CREEKS STREAMS, AND PEOPLE THINK ABOUT IT.
UM, I AM, UH, A RESIDENT ALONG BAYLOR.
I LIVE AT, UH, NINTH AND BAYLOR.
SO, UM, THE CONTEXT WITHIN WHICH I'M GONNA TALK IS A LITTLE BIT MORE RESTRICTED TO LIKE WHAT'S HAPPENING BETWEEN SAY, SIXTH STREET AND ROUGHLY 12.
UM, I'M ENCOURAGING THE PLANNING COMMITTEE TO, I'M GONNA PICK UP A LOT OF WHAT WAS BEING SAID HERE, IS THAT THERE IS A FORENSIC NEED FOR A, AN ACCURACY STUDY ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.
SO WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IS A LITTLE BIT MORE RESPECT.
THIS IS, UM, THE IDEA THAT A POTENTIAL REZONING EFFORT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF, OR THE, UH, THE WEST SIDE OF LAMAR COULD RESULT IN A KIND OF PROVERBIAL GLASS TOWER OVERLOOKING AUSTIN'S ONLY HISTORIC DISTRICT IS A KIND OF LAUGHABLE ASSUMPTION.
UM, BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THAT, UH, THE CAPITAL VIEW CORRIDOR IS ALSO PART OF THAT, THE RESTRICTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT THERE TOO, AS WELL AS THE, AS THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN.
SO, UM, BUT ESPECIALLY WITH THE TRANSIT STUFF, THESE LOTS ALONG THAT PART OF, OF LAMAR ARE THE MOST DISTANT FROM THE PROJECT CONNECT CORRIDOR.
AND SO WE NEED A MORE ACCURATE, AND IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DEPLOYMENT OF EQUITABLE SERVICES AND THE EXTENSION OF OPPORTUNITY TO THE AUSTIN AREA,
[00:40:01]
YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MORE ACCURATE AND RESPECTFUL UNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT IS THESE, WHAT THESE STATIONS ARE SERVING, HOW DO WE GET PEOPLE THAT NEED TO COME IN HERE TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN FOR THEIR OPPORTUNITIES SO THEY CAN GO AND BE A PART OF THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY AT LARGE.UM, THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME.
HELLO, I AM AMY VOORHEES AND I'M A RESIDENT ON WEST SEVENTH STREET IN CLARKSVILLE.
WE LOVE THE DENSITY OF CLARKSVILLE.
IT'S A UNIQUE MIX OF HISTORIC HOMES, MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, THE LIVELY MIX OF RESTAURANTS AND RETAIL AND MORE ALL OF THAT AT A HUMAN SCALE.
I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CHANGE THE MAP FOR THE ETOD OVERLAY TO OMIT THE PROPERTIES BETWEEN WEST SIXTH AND WEST SOUTH STREET, WEST 12TH STREET ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH LAMAR.
AND I HAVE FIVE REASONS I'LL RUN THROUGH THEM QUICKLY.
THESE LOTS ARE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO HOMES AND THEY'LL CREATE, AS YOU'VE SEEN IN OTHER PEOPLE'S PRESENTATIONS, A WALL OF HIGH RISES RIGHT NEXT TO FAMILY HOUSES AND YARDS.
THE CAPITOL VIEW CORRIDOR ALREADY CUTS THROUGH THIS AREA AND IT'S ALREADY LIMITING, LIMITING THE HEIGHT ALONG SEVERAL LOTS ANYWAY.
NUMBER THREE, THE AREA BETWEEN NINTH AND 12TH IS A FLOODPLAIN.
SO IF WE'RE RAISING THE HEIGHT OF THESE PROPOSED BUILDING OR ACCEPTABLE BUILDINGS TO 12 STORIES, WE'RE ONLY GOING TO WORSEN THE FLOODING PROBLEM WE HAVE DOWN THERE.
NUMBER FOUR, THESE LOTS ARE THE FARTHEST FROM THE, THE, UH, PROJECT CONNECT CORRIDOR.
AND FINALLY, DENSITY CAN BE ACHIEVED IN THIS AREA WITHOUT INCREASING, OH, WITH INCREASED HEIGHTS, BUT STILL PERMITTING.
UM, BETTER OPTIONS FOR COM COMPATIBILITY WITH OUR NEIGHBORS.
WE WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO INCREASED DENSITY OR DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK MY NEIGHBORS AND I ARE VERY HAPPY WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING ON ON WEST SIXTH, BUT THIS IS OUT OF CHARACTER WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, WE HAVE A TELECONFERENCE SPEAKER WHO'S JOINED US.
HELLO, THIS IS MEGAN MEISENBACH.
HELLO, THIS IS MEGAN MEISENBACH AND I WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME.
I THINK THAT, UH, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AT A HUNDRED PERCENT, EXCEPT FOR DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING, IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA.
UM, THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 15 FEET, THIS IS GONNA BE A BIG SURPRISE TO A LOT OF AUSTINITES WHO WILL REACT NEGATIVELY.
NO STREET FRONTAGE FOR LOTS THAT HAVE TO, UH, NEGOTIATE AN EASEMENT THROUGH OTHER PROPERTY.
I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY AWKWARD.
SIDE SETBACKS, REDUCED TO ZERO.
AGAIN, NOT A GOOD IDEA FOR, UH, COMFORTABLE LIVING.
UM, AND BASICALLY THERE'S SO MUCH DENSITY THAT'S BEING GIVEN AWAY WITH THESE PROPOSALS WITHOUT A REQUIREMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND I FEEL THAT THIS IS UNFAIR.
UM, AND GOING ON, UH, UM, THE 10 FOOT SETBACK, EXCEPT YOU CAN HAVE A PORCH ENCROACHED, FIVE FEET OF THE FRONT SETBACK IS NOT GOOD.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHY, UM, SOMEONE IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS, UM, A UNHAPPY FEELING ABOUT GRASS.
GRASS SLOWS DOWN THE WATER THAT RUNS OFF.
ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME.
DON'T GIVE AWAY DENSITY, UM, WITHOUT REQUIRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. PETER BRITTON.
YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES DONATED TIME FROM MR. ZACH FADI.
MR. FADI, ARE YOU PRESENT? I THANK YOU.
WE'LL ALSO HEAR FROM KAREN KREPPS AND FELIX PART TWO.
I AM A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT EIGHT, AND I'M SPEAKING TODAY ON BEHALF OF AURA AUSTIN.
DESPERATELY NEEDS ALL KINDS OF HOUSING MISSING MIDDLE MARKET RATE, DEEPLY AFFORDABLE
[00:45:01]
AND MORE.GOING BIGGER ON THIS POLICY CAN MEAN WE GET MORE OF ALL OF THEM ORA URGES, COUNCIL, CITY STAFF, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ENSURE THAT THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND INCENTIVES CHOSEN MAXIMIZE PROGRESS IN BOTH MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE UNITS.
AND TO SHOW THE WORK FOR THE CHOSEN LEVELS OF INCENTIVES AND REQUIRED AFFORDABILITY.
THIS WILL ALLOW THE COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND BETTER THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INCENTIVES FOR DEVELOPERS AND THE BENEFITS RECEIVED BY THE PUBLIC, AND IT WILL STRENGTHEN THE CASE FOR PASSING THIS POLICY.
THE SUCCESS OF UNO SHOWS THE POWER OF STEPPING AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND ONSITE VERSUS FEE IN LIEU REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ETOD DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU LOOK INTO REQUIRING SOME AMOUNT OF OWNERSHIP AND OR RENTAL UNITS BE PRODUCED ONSITE WITH ANOTHER TIER OR TWO OF AFFORDABILITY TO BE SATISFIED VIA FEE IN LIEU, DEPENDING THIS ADJUSTMENT MAY BE MORE ONEROUS FOR DEVELOPERS TO COMPLY WITH, AND WE SUGGEST INCREASING THE ENTITLEMENTS TO AN EQUILIBRIUM THAT MAXIMIZES PRODUCTION OF MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE UNITS.
OF COURSE, DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS ONE OF THE CITY'S BIGGEST HURDLES AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES ARE FACING THE HARSHEST BRUNT OF UNAFFORDABILITY.
THE CITY SHOULD LOOK INTO REQUIRING MORE DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS ONE OF THE STEPS ON THIS AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT LADDER, POSSIBLY WITH A SHORTER TIME REQUIREMENT FOR THOSE DEEPLY AFFORDABLE UNITS TO MAXIMIZE THEIR PRODUCTION AND REDUCE THE IMMINENT PRESSURE THAT OUR VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES ARE FACING.
THESE REFORMS, WHICH WILL LIKELY REQUIRE LARGER INCENTIVES THAN PROPOSED, WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE IF WE ARTIFICIALLY CAP THE PRODUCTION OF MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE UNITS THROUGH A HEIGHT LIMIT.
TO ENSURE THE LONG-TERM SUCCESS OF THE PROGRAM, AURA URGES THE CITY TO ELIMINATE THE 120 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT.
LASTLY, DENSITY BONUSES THAT REQUIRE THAT RELY ON HEIGHT INCENTIVES INHERENTLY BENEFIT LARGER DEVELOPMENTS OVER SMALL DEVELOPMENTS.
AURA RECOMMENDS EXPLORING AN ADJUSTMENT TO THIS POLICY THAT ADDS THE ABILITY TO OPT IN TO A FAR BASED INCENTIVE PACKAGE, REDUCING THE INHERENT DISINCENTIVE OF HEIGHT BONUSES ON SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS.
IN CLOSING, THIS CRITICAL POLICY MUST BE CONSIDERED CAREFULLY.
WE CANNOT SPARE 10 MORE YEARS OF ACUTELY UNAFFORDABLE HOUSING DUE TO MISCALIBRATED PROGRAMS AND RESTRICTIVE ZONING.
AUSTIN HAS BEEN DOWN THIS PATH OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS AND ITS CONSEQUENCES ALARMINGLY LOW PRODUCTION OF MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE UNITS IS P SEE.
WILL NOT HEAR FROM KAREN, UH, CROPS OR FELIX TU FOLLOWED BY SHAIR ERY.
I'VE LIVED IN AUSTIN, TEXAS AS A HOMEOWNER AND A BUSINESS OWNER FOR 30 YEARS.
I WAS OUT OF TOWN WHEN YOU APPROVED THE FIRST PHASE OF THIS HOME THING, AND I JUST THINK IT'S TOTALLY INSANE TO HAVE AS MUCH DENSITY AS YOU'RE NOW PROPOSING FOR THIS CITY.
UM, A 10 STORY BUILDING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS ONE TO THREE STORY HOUSES IS GOING TO BE EXTREMELY LOPSIDED.
IT'S GOING TO BRING IN SO MANY MORE CARS THAT WILL NOT HAVE PLACES TO PARK AND THERE IS NO WATER FOR IT.
I SAW IN THE NEWSPAPER THIS WEEK THAT THE WA THAT THE, THE WATER SUPPLY IS AT 31%.
HOW ARE THESE PEOPLE GOING TO DRINK AND SHOWER? THERE'S JUST TOO MUCH DENSITY, SEEMS THAT THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS COUCHED IN THE IDEA THAT IT'S GOING TO BRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
BUT I ONLY HEAR FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING DISPLACED AND CANNOT AFFORD THE RATES THAT HOUSES COST THESE DAYS THAT THEY'RE BEING SQUEEZED OUT.
SO I DON'T SEE HOW THIS IS GOING TO AID MORE PEOPLE TO HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND I DO GET THAT THERE'S A REAL RUSH TO APPROVE IT.
LET'S HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS OF EVERYTHING AND HAVE, AND, AND PUT A PRIORITY ON HAVING MORE GREEN SPACE, AS THE OTHER GENTLEMAN SAID ON HAVING GRASS ON MAKING THIS BE A A GREEN CITY.
I'M USED TO VERY TALL BUILDINGS.
BUT MANHATTAN HAS A, AN UNDER, UNDER A LAYER OF BEDROCK UNDER ITS BUILDINGS.
THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO BUILD THE DENSITY THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING.
WE'LL HAVE FROM FELIX DUPER TWO SHAKAR URI JANIS RANKIN.
IF YOU'LL MAKE YOUR WAY TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE.
HELLO? UH, MY NAME IS SHAKAR URI.
UH, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED, UH, EO UH, DENSITY BONUS
[00:50:01]
PROGRAM, BUT I THINK IT CAN BE MADE A LOT BETTER HOPEFULLY WITH THE FEW OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING.UM, FIRST OF ALL, UH, BEFORE COMING IN HERE, I TOOK A LOOK AT SOME OF THE, UH, KIND OF BEST RESULTS THAT HAVE BEEN SEEN IN OTHER CITIES WITH SIMILAR PROGRAMS, UH, NAMELY IN LIKE ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA AND IN VANCOUVER AS WELL IN HELPING BOTH TRANSIT RIDERSHIP AND PUTTING A LOT OF PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO LIVE CLOSE TO THEM.
UH, AND NEITHER OF THEM CAPS A HEIGHT AS LOW AS 120 FEET, LIKE RIGHT ON THE DOORSTEPS OF THE TRANSIT STATION.
UH, SO I THINK IF WE WANT TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND NOT JUST TRANSIT ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT, WE NEED, UH, WE NEED BOTH TO ALLOW POSSIBLY HIGHER HEIGHTS, MAYBE CLOSER TO THE STATIONS WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OR SOMETHING AS WELL AS, WHICH WILL HOPEFULLY HELP PRODUCE MORE UNITS.
AND WITH THAT AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT, HOPEFULLY MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS RIGHT NEXT TO IT, AS WELL AS KIND OF INCENTIVIZE THE DEVELOPMENTS TO ACTUALLY BE ORIENTED AROUND THE TRANSIT STATION AS IN LIKE, HAVE THEIR ENTRANCES, YOU KNOW, BE FACING THAT WAY AND, UH, AND NOT JUST KIND OF HAVE LIKE A, A PARKING GARAGE OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, FACING TOWARDS THE STATION.
UH, AND HAVE LIKE EASIER WALKING PATHS TO GET TO THESE LOTS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THESE LOTS ARE KIND OF SEPARATED BY A, BY A STREET OR A NEIGHBORHOOD FROM, UH, THE STATION.
SO IF WE WANT PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY USE THE TRANSIT, I THINK WE NEED TO INCENTIVIZE THAT.
SO PLEASE, UH, I SAW SOME AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED, SO PLEASE CAREFULLY CONSIDER THOSE.
WE'LL HEAR FROM MS. JANICE RANKIN.
I DIDN'T HEAR THE ORDER OF NAMES, SO I'M ASSUMING IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT ORDER WE GO IN.
UM, GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR HEMPEL AND ESTEEM COMMISSIONERS.
I'M MONICA GOSMAN, POLICY DIRECTOR OF GAVA GO AUSTIN BAMO AUSTIN.
UM, I'M GONNA KIND OF PICK UP WHERE ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES LEFT OFF REGARDING THE E TODD POLICY PLAN, COMMUTING AND CAR OWNERSHIP SHIFTS, TODDS ARE INTENDED TO INCREASE TRANSIT SYSTEM RIDERSHIP AND DECREASE THE NEED TO OWN A PERSONAL VEHICLE.
HOWEVER, TRANSIT RIDERSHIP TO WORK IN THESE CENSUS TRACKS OF STUDY HAVE SEEN SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION SINCE 2010 BY 40, EXCUSE ME, BY BETWEEN 41% AND 73%.
TODD'S ALSO AIMED TO INCLUDE A MIX OF BUSINESSES AND SERVICES THAT MEET DAILY NEEDS SO THAT HOUSEHOLDS CAN REDUCE THEIR RELIANCE ON A PERSONAL VEHICLE TO ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES.
CORRELATING WITH A REDUCTION IN OVERALL TRANSIT RIDERSHIP TO WORK IS THE INCREASING PRESENCE OF HOUSEHOLD MAKING OVER $200,000 AND THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WORKING FROM HOME.
THE AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT CARS HAS ALSO DECREASED ACROSS ALL TODD CENSUS TRACKS BY 60%.
AND I'M GONNA SHIFT REGARDING MULTIFAMILY.
WE ASK THAT YOU REMOVE MULTIFAMILY REGARDING UPZONING AND GIVE YOU SOME ADDRESSES.
IT'S 1406 NORTH LOOP 1201 HOUSTON STREET, 71 0 1 GUADALUPE WEST 51ST, 5,600 ROOSEVELT 9 0 3 EDIA, AND I'M SURE THERE ARE PLENTY MORE.
THESE ARE WORKING CLASS FOLKS, LOW INCOME, THEY'RE STRUGGLING, AND THEY HAVE A PLACE THAT THEY CAN AFFORD.
IF YOU GO THROUGH WITH THIS, YOU WILL BE BASICALLY LEADING THEIR, YOUR DECISION WILL LEAD TO THEIR DISPLACEMENT.
TAKE THE TIME TO FIND OUT WHO THEY ARE, HOW MUCH AT RISK.
AGAIN, THERE NEEDS TO BE ANTI DISPLACEMENT PROTECTIONS BUILT INTO THIS AS THERE WAS ON THE HEARING LAST WEEK ABOUT THE EXPLORATION OF AN EQUITY OVERLAY.
UPDATE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE? YES, I DON'T THINK MANY PEOPLE WILL DISPUTE THAT, BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE AN ANTI DISPLACEMENT PROTECTION.
THERE NEEDS TO BE DISPLACEMENT FROM GENTRIFICATION SO THAT WE CAN ALL CONTINUE TO LIVE HERE AND THRIVE.
ONE NOW HEAR FROM MR. TY HAKI, FOLLOWED BY CHRISTOPHER PHAGE.
UH, PAIGE, FOLLOWED BY OMAR VASQUEZ'S.
AZAR, IF YOU CAN MAKE YOUR WAY TO THE PODIUM.
HI, I'M TY HOKI, UH, FROM DISTRICT FIVE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE E TODD.
UM, BASICALLY I, I BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL ALLOW FOR, UM, BASICALLY THE MASSIVE INCREASE IN HOUSING THAT WE NEED IN OUR CITY.
UM, I THINK IT'S, THERE'S AN IDEA THAT LIKE DENSE DENSITY EQUALS UNAFFORDABILITY, BUT THAT IGNORES THAT MANY OF THE DENSEST CITIES IN AMERICA ARE ALSO EXTREMELY NIMBY.
UH, THEY'VE FOUGHT HOUSING AT EVERY TURN.
AND THE RESULT WE IN AUSTIN HAVE HAD THE LARGEST DECREASE IN RENT.
[00:55:01]
NOT, NOT THROUGH SOME LIKE, YOU KNOW, SHORT TERM RENTAL REGULATION LIKE NEW YORK OR, UM, SOME VACANCY TAX LIKE SAN FRANCISCO.INSTEAD, OUR JUST SIMPLY ALLOWING FOR MORE BUILDING MOVE THAT ALONG.
UM, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT IT'LL LEAD TO MORE WALKABLE, MORE TRANSIT ORIENTED SPACES, MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO GET AROUND WITHOUT NEEDING A CAR.
UM, I DO ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THAT IS A LITTLE MORE NEGATIVE, WHICH IS THE IDEA THAT IS THE LAWSUIT THAT'S HAPPENING AGAINST PROJECT CONNECT.
IN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO, IF THE LIGHT RAIL DOESN'T COME TO PASS, THEN WE IF AND, BUT WE DO END UP DOING EOD.
WELL, WE NOW HAVE A LOT MORE HOUSING UNITS.
THAT'S NOT THE END OF THE WORLD THAT WAY.
THAT'S NOT THE WORST, YOU KNOW, UH, AND THAT ALSO MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR MORE INVESTMENT IN OUR BUSES AND OTHER FORMS OF TRANSIT.
UM, OR THROUGH LIKE ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSIT SUCH AS BIKING.
UM, YEAH, IT CREATES A LOT MORE POSSIBILITIES.
I THINK ALSO WHEN I COMPARE CITIES THAT HAVE PLACES THAT HAVE INCREASED HOUSING, FOR EXAMPLE, UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY.
UM, I, I WAS READING ONE REPORT THAT SAID THAT LIKE THE AVERAGE RENTED INCREASE IN THAT AREA WAS MUCH LOWER THAN I THINK IT WAS, LIKE 15 TO 20 SOMETHING PERCENT THAN THE AVERAGE INCREASE OVER IN THE REST OF AUSTIN FROM 2020 TO 2022.
UM, WE HAVE A PRIME EXAMPLE RIGHT THERE THAT THIS WORKS.
UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO FOLLOW IT.
WE'LL HAVE HER HERE FROM CHRISTOPHER PAGE, FOLLOWED BY OMAR VASQUEZ, OFFICER FOLLOWED BY SHANE JOHNSON.
HEY THERE, PLANNING COMMISSION.
THANK YOU FOR HOLDING THE SPACE.
UH, APPRECIATE Y'ALL FOR DOING THIS.
UM, YEAH, BEFORE, UH, YOU KNOW, I RECENTLY LEARNED THESE THINGS CAN GET REALLY UGLY.
SO BEFORE I GO AHEAD, UH, I LOVE YOU GUYS.
SO ALL I WANT, AND I FEEL LIKE A LOT OF THIS ROOM ACTUALLY WANTS, IS JUST GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY.
UH, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT APPROACHES, WHICH HOPEFULLY WE CAN WORK THROUGH THIS.
UM, I'VE LIVED IN AUSTIN MOST OF MY LIFE AND I'M HERE TO ANNOUNCE THAT I AM AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT.
UH, I'VE ONLY HAD A QUICK CHANCE TO REVIEW IT, BUT JUST FROM A QUICK GLANCE, I CAN TELL THAT THIS ISN'T ENOUGH.
WE AREN'T, WE COULD DO BETTER.
AND I'LL ADMIT I AM SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
I COULD BE WRONG, BUT HOPEFULLY WE CAN ALL JUST TALK ABOUT THIS AND WE CAN MAKE SOMETHING BETTER FOR EVERYBODY THAT EVERYONE AGREES WITH.
'CAUSE I FEEL LIKE MOST OF THIS ROOM'S ACTUALLY AGAINST IT.
EVEN SOME PEOPLE HAVE SAID THEY'RE FOR IT, BUT WITH A LOT OF THINGS THEY CHANGE ABOUT IT.
THANK YOU FOR HOLDING THIS SPACE.
CHRIS PAGE, UH, PRESIDENT OF THE HOMEWOOD HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN EAST AUSTIN.
UM, I AM, UH, GREATLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THESE POLICIES ARE GONNA DO.
I GUESS TODAY I AM SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING ABOUT E TODD.
SO, UM, LET'S BE SERIOUS ABOUT WHAT THE EFFECTS ARE GONNA BE.
WE, WE'VE LOOKED AT A DEEPLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY STUDY, BASICALLY A 10 YEAR STUDY ON WHAT TODDS DID.
UH, WHERE DEVELOPMENT IS HAS OCCURRED IN THESE TODDS, THERE'S BEEN A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN WHITE HIGH INCOME POPULATIONS AND THAT, AND ACTIVE DECREASE IN BIPOC PRESENCE OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS.
IT ALSO SAYS, HOWEVER, TRANSIT RIDERSHIP TO WORK IN THESE CENSUS TRACKS OF STUDY HAS SEEN SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION SINCE 2010 BY BETWEEN 41 AND 73%.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODDS FOR TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE DENSITY.
WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPMENTS THAT DRIVE DOWN TRANSIT RIDERSHIP.
UH, IT GOES ON TO SAY IT CORRELATES WITH A REDUCTION IN OVERALL TRANSIT RIDERSHIP TO WORK, UH, INCREASED PRESENCE OF HOUSEHOLDS MAKING OVER $200,000, UH, PERCENTAGE.
UH, THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE THAT OWN CARS GOES UP BY ABOUT 60% ON THE SAME SIZE ROADS, AND THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE OUR TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE DENSITY.
YOU NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING IF YOU REALLY WANT TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE DENSITY.
WE KNOW THAT THE AFFORDABILITY RATES THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE BUILT INTO OUR DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS ARE WOEFULLY INADEQUATE TO THE POINT WHERE WE'VE SEEN RADICAL INCREASES IN HOMELESSNESS, RADICAL INCREASES IN HARDSHIP WHEN IT COMES TO ACTUALLY HAVING SECURE AND STABLE HOUSING.
AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT E TODDS IN GENERAL, HAVING IT MAPPED THE WAY IT IS, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING WHERE I'M SUPPOSED TO STEP OUTTA MY FRONT DOOR SPROUT WINGS AND FLY TO A MAGICAL TRACK THAT DOESN'T NEED A STATION FOR ME TO GET ON IT AND GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.
LIKE, WHO ARE WE KIDDING? DO WE THINK THE FT A IS JUST A BUNCH OF DUMMIES? YEAH.
[01:00:01]
FROM MR. SHANE JOHNSON, FOLLOWED BY LAUREN ROSS, FOLLOWED BY ELIANA MADANO, FOLLOWED BY JOE RIDDELL.SHANE JOHNSON, HE AND PRONOUNS DISTRICT SEVEN RESIDENT.
UH, I'LL REPEAT HOW I INTRODUCED MYSELF LAST TIME.
I WAS CO-CHAIR OF THE GROUNDBREAKING AUSTIN CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN.
UH, AND I URGE YOU ALL TO POSTPONE THE VOTE ON THE E TODD OR VOTE NO.
UH, WE, WE, UH, AND I'M WITH COMMUNITY PRIDE ET X, WE SUGGEST AN AMENDMENT TO COMPATIBILITY.
I WE WOULD NEED A SIMILAR SORT OF AMENDMENT OF OVERLAY TO PREVENT DISPLACEMENT SO THAT THIS, UM, YOU KNOW, WELL-INTENTIONED PLAN ACTUALLY, UH, HELPS PEOPLE INSTEAD OF DISPLACING, UH, LOWER AND MODERATE INCOME PEOPLE AND FAMILIES OF COLOR, ET CETERA.
UH, IT'S JUST NOT TRUE THAT WE BLANKETLY NEED MORE HOUSING.
UH, WE NEED MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND WHEN WE LOOK AT THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION THAT A LOT OF THIS MARKET RATE HOUSING COMES AT THE EXPENSE, WHETHER IT'S A DEMOLITION OF CURRENTLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR YOU'RE GIVING AWAY, UM, ENTITLEMENTS WITHOUT REQUIRING AFFORDABILITY, THAT'S OUR PROBLEM WITH IT.
RIGHT? YOU KNOW, WE ALL WANT MORE HOUSING THAT PEOPLE CAN TRULY LIVE IN.
IT'S JUST THAT THESE POLICIES ARE, ARE DESIGNED IN A HARMFUL WAY.
UM, MASSIVE UP ZONINGS THAT DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT DISPLACEMENT RISK.
AND OTHER SOCIAL ISSUES WILL ACCELERATE GENTRIFICATION DISPLACEMENT IN THESE HIGH RISK AREAS.
AND WE HAVE THE DATA, WE HAVE THE MAPS, THEY'RE FROM THE UPROOTED REPORT, AND THEY'RE UPDATED EVERY YEAR.
YOU CAN LOOK AND YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, TAKE THOSE INTO ACCOUNT IF YOU TRULY WANTED TO.
EQUITY BLIND OR MIRA MORE ACCURATELY.
RACE BLIND COLORBLIND APPROACHES ARE WELL KNOWN TO EXACERBATE STRUCTURAL RACISM.
AND THESE POLICIES CATER TO AFFLUENT PEOPLE AND CORPORATIONS FOR THE ARGUMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, SMALLER LOTS OR JUST MORE NEW MARKET RATE IS GOOD FOR EVERYONE, WHICH JUST IS FACTUALLY UNTRUE.
UH, AND SO I ALSO WANT TO, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS DOESN'T WORK.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU HELP LOW, VERY LOW INCOME PEOPLE FIRST, THAT'S, YOU NEED TO HELP AND I'LL HELP EVERYONE.
WE'LL HEAR FROM MS. LAUREN ROSS, FOLLOWED BY ELLIOT MADANO, FOLLOWED BY JOE RIDDELL, FOLLOWED BY MICHAEL WHALEN.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
I BELIEVE THE FEE IN LIEU IS BAD IN PRINCIPLE AND BAD IN PRACTICE.
BY PAYING THE FEE IN LIEU, A CONDO DEVELOPER CAN AVOID SETTING ASIDE ANY CONDO UNITS FOR LIMITED INCOME PURCHASERS WHILE STILL GETTING TO BUILD HIGHER AND DENSER IN PARTICULAR, GETS TO BUILD A HUNDRED FEET HIGH INSTEAD OF 60 FEET HIGH WHILE HE CREATES AN ECONOMICALLY SEGREGATED BUILDING.
I CALL THIS SITUATION NIMBY, NOT IN MY BUILDING.
ECONOMIC SEGREGATION ENTAILS RACIAL SEGREGATION.
THE SMELL TEST, THE FEE IS FORMULATED, IS ALSO BAD.
IT CREATES AN INCENTIVE TO BUILD ECONOMICALLY SEGREGATED HOUSING.
THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T SET THE ACTUAL FEE.
THE CHART ON THE NEXT SLIDE, IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE THAT SHOWS IT'S BASED ON THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDED FORMULA FOR COMPUTING THE FEE.
IT'S BASED ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE, THE CITYWIDE MEDIAN PRICE OF A CONDO AND THE SALE PRICE BASED ON AFFORDABILITY.
FOR ONE BEDROOM UNIT, IT'S 86,000.
AND FOR THREE BEDROOM IT'S 238.
NOW, THE FEE IS A WASH FOR THE DEVELOPER IF THE CONDOS BEING BUILT ARE PRICED AT THE CITYWIDE MEDIAN.
BUT AS THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS, THE DEVELOPER OF MORE EXPENSIVE CONDOS CAN MAKE MORE MONEY BY PAYING THE FEE INSTEAD, INSTEAD OF SELLING A FEW UNITS TO LOW INCOME PEOPLE.
OKAY, IF, IF I COULD HAVE THE NEXT SLIDE IT.
SO THE ON THE LEFT, UH, THIS, THIS EXAMPLE HAS, UH, THIS DEVELOPER SELLS 15 OF THE CONDO UNITS AND HE GETS IN A SLOW INCOME.
IF HE SELLS 'EM ALL AT MARKET PRICE, HE GETS 86 MILLION.
SO HE GETS MIXED 6 MILLION MORE BY SELLING, UH, BY PAYING THE FEE AND JUST SELLING TO RICH PEOPLE.
THE FEE IN LIEU IS A GREAT WAY FOR A DEVELOPER TO GET TO BUILD SIX STORIES HIGHER AND DENSER AND KEEP LESS WEALTHY FOLKS OUT AND MAKE MORE MONEY.
SO PLEASE REMOVE THIS SHAMEFUL LOOPHOLE THAT PROMOTES SEGREGATED HOUSING.
[01:05:02]
OKAY, WE'RE COMING DOWN TO THE LAST FEE SPEAKERS.UM, SO IF WE COULD HAVE MS. ELLIOT MEDRANO, MR. MICHAEL WHALEN, MR. ALEX CLARK AND CARLOS PINON, MAKE YOUR WAY TO THE PODIUM PLACE.
UH, MICHAEL WHALE ON BEHALF OF EON ENTERPRISES, LLC, DOING BUSINESSES SHELL OIL PRODUCTS, US ASKING YOU ALLOW, ASKING YOU TO ALLOW ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING USES IN THE E OVERLAY ON FORMER SERVICE STATION SITES, CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROACH THE CITY IS TAKING MORE GENERALLY IN THE DRAFT EV ORDINANCE.
AS YOU KNOW, THE CITY HAS A GOAL OF ELECTRIFYING 40% OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED IN AUSTIN BY 2030, 40% BY 2030, WHICH WILL REQUIRE AN ESTIMATED 37,000 CHARGING PORTS.
THE CHALLENGE WAS TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO SUPPORT THIS GOAL, WHILE ALSO ENCOURAGING HOUSING AND MIS AND MIXED USE GROWTH ALONG OUR CORRIDORS.
AND I THINK THE DRAFT EV POLICY ORDINANCE STRUCK THE RIGHT BALANCE ON THAT QUESTION.
THIS IS THE ORDINANCE FROM THE EV UH, ORDINANCE.
THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TOOK THE SAME APPROACH RECOMMENDED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WHICH WAS TO ALLOW ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING USES BY RIGHT FOR FORMER SERVICE STATION SITES.
SINCE THESE PROPERTIES OFTEN HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT MAY MAKE OTHER TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT MORE CHALLENGING, WE THINK THAT WE THINK THAT THIS APPROACH MAKES SENSE AND WOULD ASK THAT YOU PLEASE CONSIDER TAKING THE SAME APPROACH HERE IN THE EAD, UH, THAT YOU TOOK IN THE EV ORDINANCE.
CURRENTLY THE EAD DRAFT WOULD MAKE ALL ELECTRIC VEHICLE USES CONDITIONAL.
WE WOULD REQUEST CHANGING THAT BY ADDING ONE ADDITIONAL PROVISION STATING THAT ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING WOULD BE ALLOWED BY WRIGHT ON FORMER SERVICE STATION SITES, AS LONG AS THE PROPERTY HAS NOT SINCE BEEN CONVERTED TO A RESIDENTIAL USE OR A RESTAURANT USE EXACTLY AS YOU DID IN THE EV ORDINANCE THAT WOULD MATCH THIS PROVISION, UH, WITH WHAT THE CITY HAS ALREADY DONE OR IS CONSIDERING DOING ON THE EV ORDINANCE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH EPA RECOMMENDATIONS.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
OF COURSE, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE.
OKAY, GOOD TO GO OVER THESE NAMES AGAIN, MS. HE, ALANA MADANO.
ALEXIA CLERIC, CARLOS PINON CHAIR.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
CAN I GET A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? VICE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? CAN WE SPEAK ON THAT MOTION? YES, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK, UM, I JUST, I'M GONNA VOTE AGAINST CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, I'VE BEEN EXTREMELY FRUSTRATED WITH THIS ENTIRE PROCESS.
UM, I WAS TRYING TO LOOK BACK AND I DON'T THINK WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD A TIME AFTER FIVE OR SIX O'CLOCK, UH, WHERE THE PUBLIC WAS ABLE TO SPEAK TO THE TWO BODIES THAT ARE VOTING ON THIS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL.
YET I VERY MUCH HOPE THAT COUNCIL PROVIDES THAT OPPORTUNITY TO THE PUBLIC.
BUT THAT'S BASICALLY THE FINAL STOP.
UM, I THINK THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN EXTREMELY RUSHED.
I THINK IT'S, IT'S, I THINK WE SPEND MORE TIME ENGAGING THE PUBLIC WHEN WE PLAN OUT LOCAL PARKS THAN WE HAVE FOR THESE MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES.
AND SO I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO SEE THE PUBLIC HEARING KEPT OPEN, AND I'D VERY MUCH LIKE TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO A FUTURE DATE SO WE CAN WORK THROUGH AND ACTUALLY HAVE, SPEND THE TIME FOR THE WORKING GROUP AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO WORK THROUGH A LOT OF THE ITEMS WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT AND A LOT OF THE ITEMS THAT WE'VE BEEN EMAILED OVER THE PAST TWO DAYS.
ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THE MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING? ARE YOU ASKING FOR SPEAKERS? YES.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SPEAK BECAUSE I KIND OF FEEL THE SAME WAY AS MY COLLEAGUE GRAYSON COX.
AND I'M A LITTLE EXHAUSTED FROM THE PROCESS AS WELL, HAVING, UM, SPENT THREE, FOUR DAYS A WEEK WORKING ON THIS PROCESS.
UM, AND, AND I WILL ALSO SAY THAT IT'S LIKE, UH, IT'S LIKE BUILDING A BUS.
WE'VE BEEN HANDED THE PLANS TO BUILD THIS BUS, AND WE ARE BUILDING THIS BUS, BUT WE'RE NOT BUILDING IT FOR EVERYONE.
AND THAT HAS BECOME CRYSTAL CLEAR.
WE ARE BUILDING IT FOR PEOPLE WHO MAKE THE TOP INCOME SPECTRUM IN AUSTIN, BUT WE'RE NOT BUILDING IT FOR PEOPLE WHO MAKE THE BOTTOM HALF OF THE INCOME SPECTRUM IN AUSTIN.
AND THERE'S NOT BEEN MUCH DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.
[01:10:01]
AND MYSELF WE'RE TRYING TO DESIGN FEATURES TO SQUEEZE IN THE BOTTOM HALF OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE AT THE BOTTOM HALF OF THAT INCOME SPECTRUM.AND WE'RE DOING THAT ON THE BACK END BECAUSE THE BUS WAS NEVER DESIGNED TO CARRY THOSE PEOPLE WHO LOOKED LIKE ME, WHO LOOKED LIKE COMMISSIONER HOWARD, WHO LOOKED LIKE COMMISSIONER NADIA RA RAMIREZ.
IT WASN'T DESIGNED TO CARRY US IN THIS LAND USE CODE.
SO I WOULD AGREE WITH TAKING TIME, THE TIME WE NEED TO REDESIGN THIS BUS TO CARRY PEOPLE AT ALL INCOME LEVELS.
IF THERE'S NO OTHER SPEAKERS, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING? THAT'S SEVEN.
WE'RE GOING TO, PEOPLE ON THE PHONE VOTED.
WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO OUR ROUND ROBIN Q AND A.
SO WE'RE GOING IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER.
UM, I WILL START WITH QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, VICE-CHAIR ZA.
I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR STAFF THAT I'M HOPING STAFF CAN HELP ANSWER.
UM, STAFF, CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE, THE FEE, THE ONE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND THE FEE AND LIE FOR THE OWNERSHIP UNITS AND ALSO HOW WE'RE THINKING OF SETTING THE FEE, WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE, WHAT'S THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND THAT? I'M GONNA LET RACHEL TEER WITH THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
RACHEL TEER WITH THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.
SO THE, THE FEE IN LIE AND IT'S SPEC, IT WOULD ONLY APPLY TO OWNERSHIP UNITS.
RENTAL UNITS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE ON SITE.
BUT THE, WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS THAT, UM, BASICALLY WE SUBTRACT THE MEDIAN SALES, THE AFFORDABLE SALES PRICE THAT'S SET BY HUD ANNUALLY FROM THE MEDIAN SALES PRICE FOR THE CITY AS A WHOLE.
WE ARE CURRENTLY TWEAKING THAT METHODOLOGY SLIGHTLY, UM, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT IT BE SET BY, UM, UH, BY A SEPARATE ORDINANCE.
BUT WE ARE WORKING WITH ABOARD AND WE'RE, UM, CURRENTLY LOOKING AT LIMITING IT TO JUST NEW CONSTRUCTION, SO THE MEDIAN SALES PRICE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION, UM, AND THEN SUBTRACTING THE AFFORDABLE SALES PRICE FROM THAT TO ESSENTIALLY GET THE LOSS TO THE, TO THE DEVELOPER, THE EQUIVALENT COST OF THE LOSS OF LOSS TO THE DEVELOPER FOR SELLING THAT UNIT AT, AT THE AFFORDABLE SALES PRICE.
UM, AND THE IDEA IS TO GET, UM, KIND OF A, A HIGHER RATE, UM, THAN WE TYPICALLY GET FOR FEE AND LIE.
AND SO THAT IT SORT OF APPROXIMATES THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING THE UNIT.
UM, AND THAT'S, AND YEAH, SO THAT'S THE METHODOLOGY.
AND I'M SORRY, JUST TO CONFIRM, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT THE FEE ONE, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'LL SET TWO ESSENTIALLY SEPARATE ORDINANCE AND WE'LL GO THROUGH IT, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE CAPTURING SORT OF THAT DELTA MM-HMM.
UM, THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS, AND THIS IS, UM, I FEEL LIKE FOR STAFF GENERALLY, I KNOW, YOU KNOW, I REALLY WANNA HONOR SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM SPEAKERS, AND I REALLY JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND.
SO WOULD, WOULD A DEVELOPER BE ALLOWED TO WAIVE THE CAPITAL VIEW CORRIDOR REQUIREMENTS? NO.
AND STEVIE GREATHOUSE, DIVISION MANAGER PLANNING DEPARTMENT, A DEVELOPER WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO WAIVE THE CAPITAL VIEW CORRIDOR ORDINANCE.
MS. GREATHOUSE, WHAT ABOUT OUR FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS OR ABILITY TO BUILD WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN? IT WOULD NOT WAIVE ANY FLOOD POINT REQUIREMENTS.
IT WOULD ALSO NOT WAIVE ANY IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENTS.
WHAT ABOUT OUR HERITAGE TREE REQUIREMENTS? IT WOULD NOT WAIVE OUR HERITAGE TREE REQUIREMENTS, OUR PARKLAND REQUIREMENTS NO CHANGE, NO CHANGE TO PARKLAND REQUIREMENTS.
UM, AND I, AND I GUESS ALSO THEIR DESIGN OR STREET DESIGN STANDARDS, UM, THAT ARE PART OF OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MAJOR QUARTERS AS WELL, THOSE WOULD APPLY AS WELL? THAT IS CORRECT.
UM, I THINK I'M GONNA WITHHOLD MY QUESTION FOR MY SECOND TIME.
CHAIR COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ.
I JUST, UH, PARLIAMENTARY IN INQUIRY.
ARE, ARE WE ESTABLISHING UNDER THE EAD PROGRAM A, A SERIES
[01:15:01]
OF AMENDMENTS TO THE, THE CODE AMENDMENTS CHAPTER, TITLE TWO, CHAPTER 25, UM, ESTABLISHING A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY BY ORDINANCE? I BELIEVE SO, BUT STAFF CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.THIS WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WOULD MOVE ON TO COUNSEL IN THE FORM OF AN ORDINANCE.
AND THAT ORDINANCE WOULD INCLUDE BOTH AN ACTION TO CREATE THE REGULATIONS AS A CODE AMENDMENT AND TO APPLY THE REGULATIONS THROUGH PROPERTY SPECIFIC REZONING.
AND THEN, UH, PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.
UM, AND, AND THEN MAYBE I GOTTA DIRECT IT TO YOU, BUT IF STAFF CAN ANSWER, UH, AND THEN ON THE, THE DEVELOPMENT BONUS, THE, THE DB E TODD, UM, SIMILAR, WE'RE CREATING A SERIES OF CODE AMENDMENTS THAT THEN ALLOW US TO DO A, A DEVELOPMENT OR A DENSITY BONUS, I'M SORRY, DENSITY BONUS IN THE ZONE FOR MEETING CERTAIN CRITERIA.
BUT THAT'S DONE THROUGH, UH, ORDINANCES, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT YES.
AND, UM, PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRER.
UM, AND I'VE BEEN CAUTIONED, SO I'M NOT GONNA BRING UP SOMETHING THAT'S NOT POSTED.
BUT, UM, IN THE PAST, HAS THIS COMMISSION TAKEN UP CHANGES TO ORDINANCES, UM, THAT WERE, THAT WERE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL? UM, AND, AND THEN THE PROCESS THAT WAS FOLLOWED, UM, DURING TAKING UP THOSE, THOSE ORDINANCE CHANGES, UM, DID THAT GO THROUGH DIFFERENT COMMITTEES BEFORE IT CAME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, YOU'RE ASKING IF WE'VE TAKEN UP AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN BEEN TO OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS BODIES BEFORE COMING HERE? YES, MA'AM.
YOU SAID IT MUCH BETTER THAN ME.
UM, MADAM CHAIR, UM, ARE, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE E TODD PLAN THAT WE HAVE IN, IN THE DENSITY BONUS PLAN THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US CAME THROUGH THE, UH, COMBINED JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION BEFORE IT CAME TO, UM, PLANNING COMMISSION? DID NOT.
I CAN'T SAY FOR CERTAIN IF IT HAS OR NOT.
THESE ITEMS DID NOT GO TO ANY, UM, JOINT COMMITTEES ON THE WAY HERE.
THIS TYPICALLY, AN AMENDMENT TO THE CODE WOULD GO THROUGH THE CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE, UM, TRISH LINK WITH LAW CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THIS IF NEEDED.
BUT IT WAS, THAT REQUIREMENT WAS WAIVED THROUGH THE ALTERNATIVE NOTICE ORDINANCE THAT COUNSEL ADOPTED IN FEBRUARY.
I'M SORRY, I'M 'CAUSE I MISSED A, I'M ON THE COMBINED JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND I MISSED THE MEETING AND I WAS INFORMED BY MY CHAIR THAT, THAT WE TOOK UP EACH O WE, WE TOOK THE EQUITABLE TOD UM, AMENDMENT THAT'S BEING PROPOSED TO THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WOULD ADD THE EQUITABLE TOD TYPOLOGIES AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE IMAGINE AUSTIN PLAN.
IT IS ALSO RELATED TO EQUITABLE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, BUT IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEFORE THIS BODY THIS EVENING.
I JUST GOT MY, UM, WHEN ARE WE GONNA, WHEN DO WE EXPECT TO HAVE THAT PROVISION IN FRONT OF PLANNING COMMISSION? THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER ALREADY VOTED TO RECOMMEND THAT OTHER SEPARATE ITEM AT A MARCH MEETING, I BELIEVE.
THEY HEARD IT AND THEN THEY POSTPONED IT TWO WEEKS AND THEN IT WAS FORWARDED ON TO COUNCIL.
COUNCIL WILL TAKE IT UP ON MAY 30TH.
UM, I, UM, BUT I'M GOING TO MADAM CHAIR, UH, CALL A POINT OF ORDER AGAINST FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THIS ITEM IN THAT, UM, I DON'T BELIEVE, UH, WE HAVE FOLLOWED THE, UH, THE PROVISIONS AS OUTLINED BY THE CITY CHARTER AND OUTLINED BY THE BYLAWS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, IN ADVANCING TO THIS, THIS SPOT WITH E TODD.
AND, UM, WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE POSTPONE CONSIDERATION OF THIS UNTIL WE FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES THAT IS OUTLINED IN THE CITY CHARTER AND THE COMMISSION BYLAWS.
UM, STAFF, CAN YOU HELP WITH ANY FEEDBACK ON THAT? AND I DEFER, DEFER TO THE LAW DEPARTMENT ON PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS.
AND MADAM CHAIR'S LAW IS COMING UP.
I WILL, UM, I BELIEVE EVERYBODY ON THE COMMISSION IS IN RECEIPT OF A STAFF MEMO THAT WE GOT THIS WEEK,
[01:20:01]
SPECIFYING HOW WE HAVE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN THE PAST AND HOW IT PROCEEDED UP THROUGH, UH, VERY EITHER JOINT COMMISSION OR CODES IN ORDINANCES BEFORE IT GOT TO PLANNING COMMISSION.IS, UH, IS THE BASIS OF MY, UH, POINT OF ORDER.
THANK YOU TRISH LINK WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
THIS BODY HAS ALREADY MADE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT.
AND SO THAT PROCESS IS GOING THROUGH AS IT TYPICALLY DOES, AND NOW YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE ORDINANCES THEMSELVES.
SO WE HAVE FOLLOWED THE PROCESS WHEN IT COMES TO OUR JOINT COMMITTEE.
SO THE, UH, CODES AND ORDINANCES, JOINT COMMITTEE OR THE JOINT COMMITTEES FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IF COUNCIL CAN DIRECT US TO NOT TAKE THOSE STEPS AND CAN DIRECT US TO GO AHEAD AND BRING AN ITEM TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ITS CONSIDERATION.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION ON THAT? YES.
DO, DO YOU, DO WE UNDERSTAND WHY THAT DIRECTION WAS GIVEN TO TRUNCATE THAT PROCESS IN THIS INSTANCE, THE COMMISSION HAS, HAS ACTUALLY TAKEN UP THE PLAN AMENDMENT? SO IS YOUR QUESTION, THE, THE JOINT COMMITTEES? NO, THE, THE POINT OF ORDER IS RELATED TO THE FACT THAT THIS DID NOT GO THROUGH OUR JOINT COMMITTEE, THAT THIS SHOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH.
AND WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS THAT THE REASON IT DID NOT FOLLOW THE STANDARD PROCESS THAT'S DICTATED BY OUR CHARTER IS BECAUSE COUNCIL TOLD YOU NOT TO.
THE CITY CODE IS WHAT ESTABLISHES THOSE JOINT COMMITTEES.
AND THEN THAT IS THE, AND THAT IS DONE BY ORDINANCE AND COUNCIL ADOPTS THOSE ORDINANCES.
COUNSEL IN THIS INSTANCE HAS TOLD US TO COME STRAIGHT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THESE ITEMS. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.
AND, AND MY QUESTION WAS, DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHY THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED Y'ALL TO TRUNCATE THAT PROCESS? I DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT.
UM, SO HEARING FROM STAFF IN LEGAL, I'M GOING TO OVERRULE THAT MOTION.
SO WE'RE GOING BACK TO OUR Q AND A.
WE ARE AT COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ, WHO STILL IS NOT ON.
SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER COX.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO START.
UM, SO I WANTED TO SPEAK TO, IF I CAN FIND IT HERE REAL QUICK, THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT.
I WAS ACTUALLY REALLY SURPRISED TO READ THAT 19% OF THE REZONINGS WERE CONSIDERING AS PART OF THIS, OR CONSIDERED TO BE ACTIVE AND VULNERABLE AREAS THAT HAVE THE HIGHEST DISPLACEMENT RISK.
SO I JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND FROM STAFF WHAT WE'RE CONTEMPLATING HERE.
WE'RE, WE'RE CONTEMPLATING AN OVERLAY THAT WILL ENCOURAGE REDEVELOPMENT OF SITES, INCLUDING ALMOST A QUARTER OF THESE SITES BEING ACTIVE AND VULNERABLE IN TERMS OF DISPLACEMENT.
AND THE REQUIREMENT IS TO EITHER PAY FEE IN LIEU FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF THOSE UNITS OR PROVIDE 12 TO 15% OF ONSITE AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS.
IS THAT, AM I UNDERSTANDING CORRECT.
SORRY, RACHEL, ER WITH THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.
SO THE, UM, ETOD IS DRAFTED TO TRIGGER, UH, THE REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS IN CHAPTER FOUR 18, WHICH WILL REQUIRE REPLACEMENT OF AFFORDABLE UNITS.
UH, AND THAT NUMBER AS YOU, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS? REPLACEMENT OF AFFORDABLE UNITS? YEAH.
SO, UM, IN THE, UM, IN THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT, WE TALK ABOUT, UM, THE PROPOSED CHANGE THAT, THAT THE COUNCIL'S CONSIDERING THIS WEEK.
UM, BUT BASICALLY THE CHAPTER FOUR 18 REQUIRES THE REPLACEMENT OF, CURRENTLY REQUIRES A REPLACEMENT OF UNITS THAT ARE AFFORDABLE AT 80% MFI.
UM, AND WE ARE PROPOSING RE UH, REDUCING THAT REQUIREMENT TO 60% MFI, UM, TO ALIGN WITH OUR STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT GOALS TO GET AT DEEPER AFFORDABILITY LEVELS.
UM, AND IN THE REQUIREMENT, IT, UM, IT JUST SAYS TO REPLACE THE UNITS, UM, IT, IT DOESN'T HAVE A TERM LENGTH OF WITH IT, UM, STAFF WAS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT MEANT TO REPLACE THOSE UNITS AND INCOME RESTRICT THEM.
UM, AND WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON CLARIFYING THAT.
UM, 'CAUSE WE REALIZED THAT THE LANGUAGE ITSELF DOESN'T SAY THAT.
IS THAT THE, IS THAT CLARIFIED IN EO OR IS THAT SOMETHING COMPLETELY SEPARATE? IT WOULD BE CLARIFIED IN FOUR 18.
[01:25:01]
SO THAT'S AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE PROCESS THAT MIGHT COME BACK TO US WITHIN SIX MONTHS YEAR.IT'S, UM, IT'S IN A PART OF CODE THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE GOING TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
IT'S NOT IN THE ZONING CO CODE.
IT'S, UM, A PROGRAM REQUIREMENT FOR A DENSITY BENEFIT.
SO HOW QUICKLY WOULD THAT BE CLARIFIED? ACTUALLY, UM, COUNSEL'S CONSIDERING IT THIS THURSDAY.
UM, SO, SO IS THAT, THANK YOU.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
UM, FOR, UM, WELL, I'LL JUST ASK THE QUESTION.
UM, UM, AND I, I THINK I, I THINK I GOT MY ANSWER TO THIS FROM, UM, FROM OTHER, OTHER FOLKS ALREADY.
BUT, UM, AS WE NOTICED THE PROVISION AND, AND WE OUTLINED THE PROPERTIES TO WHICH, UH, E TODD AND, AND, AND THE DENSITY BONUS APPLIED, YOU KNOW, WE PUT SPECIFIC PROPERTIES ALONG LAMAR, ALONG GUADALUPE DOWN, DA, DA, DA.
BUT THERE ARE, THERE ARE SOME AREAS OF TOWN, MY HOOD, DISTRICT SEVEN, UM, WHERE BURNETT COMES IN CLOSE TO LAMAR.
IT, IT'S WITHIN THE HALF MILE, BUT THOSE PROPERTIES DIDN'T GET NOTICED.
SO WHAT IF, IF THEY DIDN'T GET NOTICED, WHAT'S THEIR STATUS TO THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO THOSE YET.
OR THEY COULD, BUT NOT TODAY, OR NOT TOMORROW OR NOT WHEN THIS IS CERTAINLY SO THEN THE NOTICE THAT WAS SENT OUT WAS SENT OUT FOR, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS AND UTILITY ACCOUNT HOLDERS WITHIN 500 FEET OF ANY OF THOSE PARCELS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE MAP AS WHERE THE E TODD AND DBE TODD WOULD APPLY UHHUH
UM, WE ALSO SENT NOTIFICATION TO THE OCCUPANTS OF THE PROPERTIES WHERE THOSE ZONES WOULD APPLY.
UM, IF WE ARE NOT PROPOSING APPLYING IT TO A PARTICULAR PARCEL IN THE FUTURE, SOMEBODY WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THE PHASE ONE LIGHT RAIL AND ITS EXTENSIONS COULD REQUEST REZONING THROUGH THE PROPERTY SPECIFIC REZONING PROCESS.
BUT AS FAR AS HOW THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT WAS NOTICED, WE DID SEND NOTIFICATION, UM, TO PROPERTIES AND UTILITY ACCOUNT HOLDERS WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE PROPERTIES INDICATED ON THE MAP AS BEING REZONED INTO E TODD AND DBE TODD.
SO MY WORDS, UH, IF YOU'RE NOT ONE OF THE BLUE PROPERTIES ALONG THE, ALONG THE MAP, THEN, THEN THIS DOESN'T APPLY.
EVEN IF YOU'RE IN THE HALF MILE, IT DOESN'T APPLY TO YOU IF YOU'RE NOT ONE OF THE BLUE PROPERTIES ON THE MAP.
THIS ACTION THAT IS BEING REQUESTED WOULD NOT BE REZONING YOUR PROPERTY TODAY.
IT, A FUTURE REZONING COULD IMPACT YOU, BUT THAT WOULD GO THROUGH THE NOTICE AND HEARING THIS PROCESS.
NORMAL, NORMAL REZONING PROCESS.
AND THEN, UM, UH, HELP ME, IT MIGHT BE RACHEL, BUT, UH, OR MS. ER, UH, IN TERMS OF THE, UH, WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF THE, UH, PRESENTERS IN THE, THE TESTIMONY TODAY FOCUS KIND OF ON THE FEE AND LOW.
ARE THERE REQUIREMENTS FOR, UH, IN THE DENSITY BONUS PRO, IF YOU, IF YOU DO THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, ARE THERE REQUIREMENTS FOR HAVING, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON SITE? OR CAN YOU DO ALL FEE IN LIE OH, GO FOR RENTAL PROPERTY WARNER COOK PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR A RENTAL FOR LEASE DEVELOPMENT.
ALL OF THE UNITS WOULD HAVE TO BE ON SITE.
IT'S ONLY FOR AN OWNERSHIP WHERE YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF PROVIDING ONSITE OR A FEE AND LIE.
AND, AND THAT'S AN BUT, BUT IS THERE A REQUIREMENT FOR OWNERSHIP ON SITE? CAN YOU DO A HUNDRED PERCENT FEE AND LIE? I GOT THAT IN I'LL, UM, IT'S MY TURN.
I'LL ACTUALLY PICK UP THAT QUESTION.
I HAD SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES.
YES, IT WOULD BE EITHER A HUNDRED PERCENT ONSITE OR A HUNDRED PERCENT FEE IN LIEU FOR THE OWNERSHIP OPTION.
UM, THERE WAS SOME OTHER, UM, PRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE, UM, FTA GRANT AND, UM, HOW THE OFFSET WAS FOR THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR AND NOT AROUND JUST THE STATIONS.
AND I THINK THIS MIGHT BE FOR MS. BODE.
UM, COULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT? THE PRESENTATION WAS SO QUICK, BUT I WANNA GET AN UNDERSTANDING FOR HOW THE E TODD WILL HELP SET UP THE FTA GRANT FOR SUCCESS.
YEAH, LET ME, UM, QUICKLY REPEAT THE QUESTION.
YOU'RE ASKING THE QUESTIONS BETWEEN, UM, WHY WE CHOSE A STATION RECOMMENDATION, RATHER, I MEAN, A CORRIDOR RATHER THAN A STATION DISTANCE? YES.
SO IN LOOKING AT, UM, THE STATION FIR, FIRST OF ALL, THE STATIONS, UM, ARE NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT, UH, DIALED IN.
THEY'RE STILL, THEY COULD BE SUBJECT TO, UM, MOVEMENT OR ADDING A STATION HERE AND HERE AND THERE PER THE
[01:30:01]
PLANS.THE OPTIONS THAT WE ARE, THAT ARE GOING THROUGH NEPA RIGHT NOW, UM, ADDITIONALLY WHEN LOOKING AT THE, UM, QUARTER AND A HALF MILE BUBBLE, SO TO SPEAK, AROUND WHERE THE PROPOSED STATIONS ARE TODAY, THERE'S A LOT OF OVERLAP AND THERE'S, IT, IT JUST CREATES, UM, THE WAY OUR, UH, LIGHT RAIL SYSTEM IS LAID OUT.
UM, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF SPACE IN BETWEEN AND IT JUST SEEMED LIKE A BETTER PRACTICE.
IT'S, IT IS A BETTER PRACTICE TO 'CAUSE WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY IN PROHIBITING, UM, AUTO ORIENTED USES AND NON-TRANS SUPPORTIVE USES.
HAVING THAT BE CONTIGUOUS ALONG THE CORRIDOR WOULD MAKE FOR A BETTER TRANSIT ENVIRONMENT.
UH, SO THAT'S WHY WE WENT AHEAD AND WENT WITH THE CORRIDOR RATHER THAN THE STATION AREA.
THERE WASN'T, THERE WASN'T MUCH DIFFERENCE AND WE SAW A BENEFIT TO INCLU CAPTURING THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR.
AND I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, UM, ON, UH, HOME PHASE TWO ABOUT, UM, CONDO, UH, HOA FEES AND, UM, HOW THE CITY MIGHT HELP OFFSET SOME OF THE, THE ISSUES OF OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT, UM, WITH THE HOA FEES.
HAS ANY MORE DISCUSSION HAPPENED WITH THAT? MUSICAL CHAIRS, UH, JAMIE MAY, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER WITH THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT, UM, WE CONTINUE TO HAVE, UH, CONVERSATIONS AROUND THAT.
HOWEVER, IT IS STILL A CHALLENGE, UH, LEGALLY AND RELATIONSHIP WISE.
UM, WE DO NOT HAVE, UH, A LEGAL IN WAY TO INFLUENCE, UH, HOA, UM, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE, UH, A LIMITED NUMBER OF UNITS ON DEVELOPMENT.
WHEN WE HAVE A HUNDRED PERCENT AFFORDABILITY, WE ARE MUCH MORE CONFIDENT THAT, UH, THOSE HOUSEHOLDS WILL NOT BE PRICED OUT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOWARD.
UM, SO THERE WAS, UH, ONE OF THE SPEAKERS RAISED THE ISSUE, I THINK IT WAS MR. WHALEN, ABOUT EV CHARGING STATIONS AT FORMER GAS STATIONS BECAUSE, UH, TYPICALLY MAYBE THE USES THAT THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE FUTURE WOULD BE LIMITED.
I DON'T KNOW IF HAVE HEARD ABOUT, HEARD THAT, UH, PRESENTATION, BUT WHAT ARE THEIR THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF EV CHARGING STATIONS? IT SEEMED LIKE A REASONABLE ONE.
SO IN THE STAFF PROPOSAL TODAY FOR THE ETOD OVERLAY, THE PROPOSAL IS THAT EV CHARGING WOULD BE A CONDITIONAL USE AND WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS IN FRONT OF YOU ALL AT PLANNING COMMISSION TO GET THAT.
UM, AND WE WORKED CLOSELY WITH ERIC, WHO'S ON THE EV CHARGING TO CRAFT THAT RECOMMENDATION.
THE PRIMARY CONCERN BEING THAT SOME FORM OR GAS STATIONS ARE GOING TO BE RIGHT ADJACENT TO FUTURE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT STATIONS.
AND SO THE EV CHARGING USE MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE AT ALL FORMER GAS STATIONS.
AND I, I DID HAVE A FOLLOW UP TO, UH, AND THIS IS JAMIE MAY, I THINK, UH, ASK ABOUT, SO WITH RESPECT TO THE FEE AND LIE, I MEAN, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OBVIOUSLY THE ISSUE OF PRECLUDING THE ABILITY, OR AT LEAST THE IMPEDIMENT OR CONCERN ABOUT HOA FEES AND FOLKS BEING PRICED OUT OF, YOU KNOW, UH, OWNERSHIP UNITS.
BUT COULDN'T, I MEAN, WE CREATE A FUND FOR THAT PURPOSE.
I MEAN, AS IT RELATES TO THE FEE IN LIEU, UH, COULDN'T THAT BE, COULDN'T SOME OF THAT MONEY BE EARMARKED FOR THE PURPOSES OF TRYING TO OFFSET THE COST OF HOA FEES GIVE, GIVEN THE KNOWN, YOU KNOW, NATURE OF WHAT THE, WHAT THAT TYPICALLY MIGHT LOOK LIKE? UM, AND, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON WHAT, YOU KNOW, AREA OF TOWN THAT THAT'S IN.
UM, THE JAMIE MAE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, THE, UH, UM, CHALLENGE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE IS THAT WOULD BE A DIRECT SUBSIDY TO A HOUSING HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION.
UH, AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE, UH, THAT IS NOT A PRACTICE THAT WE HAVE AT THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.
UH, WE DON'T HAVE A PAR PROGRAM SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT.
AND VETTING HOW THAT, UH, HOA, UM, QUALIFIES FOR THAT SUBSIDY, UH, WOULD BE CHALLENGING.
UM, NOT TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE, BUT, UH, THERE IS A CONCERN THAT YOU WOULD BE OVER SUBSIDIZING OR PROVIDING, UH, UH, PUBLIC FUNDS FOR A PRIVATE ENTITY THAT, UM, DOES NOT NEED THEM OR, UH, WOULD NOT, UH, OTHERWISE QUALIFY.
UH, WE WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE THAT RELATIONSHIP RESOLVED, UH, WITHIN THE HOA.
SO THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE TO BE INVOLVED.
HOWEVER, WE KNOW THAT, UH, INDIVIDUALS WITH VERY LIMITED POWER AS, UH, ONE OF, LET'S SAY 150 HOMEOWNERS IN AN HOA, UH, MAY NOT BE ABLE TO, TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST A DRAMATIC INCREASE IN THEIR HOA FEES.
[01:35:02]
SO IF THE BENEFIT WAS DIRECTLY TO THE PROSPECTIVE HOMEOWNER WHO MAY BE LOW INCOME, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT IF THE CITY WANTED TO CREATE A PROGRAM FOR HOMEOWNERS WHOSE INCOMES DON'T EXCEED A CERTAIN AMOUNT TO OFFSET COSTS LIKE HOA FEES, I MEAN, THAT'S A CREATIVE POSSIBILITY.COMMISSIONER HOWARD, YOUR TIME IS OVER.
UH, CAN YOU SUMMARIZE, AND THIS MIGHT BE FOR, UH, MS. TEER, CAN YOU SUMMARIZE THE EXISTING, UM, UH, ANTI-DISPLACEMENT OR, UH, REDEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS RELATED TO EXISTING, UM, SORT OF MARKET RATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROPERTIES? I THINK YOU SAID THEY WERE IN FOUR 18, BUT, UM, I HAVEN'T, I HAVEN'T.
WE'RE MAKING SURE WE GET THE RIGHT INFORMATION FOR YOU, COMMISSIONER.
COMMISSIONER, CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? APOLOGIES.
CAN YOU JUST SUMMARIZE THE, THE SORT OF TENANT, UH, PROTECTIONS AND, AND REDEVELOPMENT PROTECTIONS WE HAVE IN PLACE FOR, UM, PROPERTIES? I THINK THEY WERE REFERRED TO AS SECTION FOUR 18, BUT I'M, I MIGHT HAVE THE NUMBER WRONG.
SO, UM, WE HAVE A COUPLE THINGS.
IF IT'S REDEVELOPMENT, UM, YOU WILL BE, UM, FIRST OFF, THE PROPERTY OWNER'S GONNA HAVE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE BUILDING MEETS A CERTAIN LEVEL OF RE NEEDS FROM A REPAIR STANDPOINT.
UM, THERE'S ALSO SOME CAUSES ABOUT AVERAGE RENTS.
UM, IT REQUIRES REPLACEMENT OF ALL EXISTING UNITS THAT WERE AFFORDABLE, UM, AND HAVE AN EQUAL NUMBER OF BEDROOMS. UM, THEY'RE ALSO REQUIRED TO PROVIDE CURRENT TENANTS WITH NOTICE AND INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO RELOCATION BENEFITS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL UNIFORM RELOCATION ACT.
UM, GRANT TENANTS, CURRENT TENANTS THE OPTION TO LEASE A UNIT OF COMPARABLE AFFORDABILITY AND SIZE FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT.
ADDITIONALLY, ALL OF OUR DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE, UM, FOR INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING HAVE TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION ON THE PROHIBIT.
THE DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SOURCE OF INCOME REQUIRE DISPERSION OF UNITS, EQUAL ACCESS AND USE OF ONSITE AMENITIES, SHARED DRY OUT ROUTES, UM, INTERIOR COMPONENTS THAT ARE FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT TO MARKET RATES, UM, AND THEN ALSO OUR LEASE ADDENDUM.
AND SO DO THESE APPLY TO ALL REDEVELOPMENT OF ANY PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ANY ZONE? I MEAN, HOW, HOW, HOW DO THESE REQUIREMENTS, WHERE DO THESE REQUIREMENTS APPLY AND WHEN DO THEY NOT? OBVIOUSLY THE, THE TRIGGERS NOT WITHSTANDING IS IS IT BASED ON ZONING DISTRICT OR IS IT CITYWIDE? SO THESE REQUIREMENTS APPLY IF THE DENSITY BONUS THAT A DEVELOPER IS USING REQUIRES COMPLIANCE.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, FOR AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED, IT IS ALL ACTUALLY EMBEDDED WITHIN A FOR, UM, WITHIN THE PROGRAM FOR AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED.
UM, ONE OF THE LESSONS WE HAVE TAKEN FROM OUR RECENT, UM, EXPERIENCE WITH, UH, OTHER DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS IS TO HAVE A CHAPTER THAT IS DEDICATED TO PROCEDURES AND PROCESSES, WHICH IS WHERE ALL OF THAT LIES.
AND SO, AS DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS COME ONLINE, AS COUNCIL ADOPTS NEW ONES, THEY WOULD BE BECOME SUBJECT TO THESE PROVISIONS.
THE REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ONLY ARE TRIGGERED IF THE DENSITY BONUS TRIGGERS THEM.
AND, AND UNLESS MY TIME'S UP, IS THERE A REASON WHY WE DON'T REQUIRE THIS FOR CHRIS JOHNSON? YOUR TIME ACTUALLY IS UP.
THAT WAS A GOOD INTERNAL CLOCK YOUR TIME JUST TURNED OUT.
HOPEFULLY WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU.
UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? UH, YES.
I JUST HAVE A FEW, UM, RELATED TO THE COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT, CHANGING GEARS SLIGHTLY.
UM, SO FIRST OF ALL, I WANTED TO CLARIFY WITH STAFF RELATED TO, THERE'S SOME REFERENCES INTO THE VMU ORDINANCE AND SORT OF THE VERTICAL VERTICAL MIXED USE STANDARDS.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT PLEASE? YEAH, THAT'S IN REFERENCE TO THE SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE PART OF SUB-CHAPTER E FOR THE VERTICAL MIXED USE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
UM, BASED ON A SHORT TIMELINE RATHER THAN CREATING NEW SITE AND SIDEWALK AND BUILDING STANDARDS, WE REFERENCED THOSE EXISTING STANDARDS FROM ANOTHER PROGRAM.
AND IT SEEMED CLEAR IN YOUR PRESENTATION THAT THE HOPE IS THAT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY CREATE SOME TOD SPECIFIC SORT OF SITE STANDARDS RELATED TO WALKABILITY AND SORT OF STATION PLACEMENT.
WHAT DO YOU IMAGINE THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE? SORT OF LIKE OUR GREAT STREETS DOWNTOWN OR MAYBE UNO? DO YOU ALL HAVE, HAVE YOU ALL CONSIDERED THAT PART? WE'VE NOT GOTTEN INTO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL YET, COMMISSIONER, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF THE CODE WORK.
AND THEN JUST TO BE CLEAR, IF THAT IS ADOPTED, IT WOULD BE RETROACTIVELY APPLIED TO THIS AREA.
SO SOME OF THE SAME STREET STANDARDS THAT WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY SEEING HERE IN THIS VERSION OF THE DRAFT WOULD BE EVENTUALLY USED IN THE, THE SAME OVERLAY.
WE HAVEN'T STARTED DEVELOPING THE NEXT PHASE OF THE CODE WORK YET.
[01:40:01]
IT'S POSSIBLE THAT IT WOULD JUST EXPAND TO NEW GEOGRAPHIES.IT'S ALSO POSSIBLE THAT THERE COULD BE THINGS THAT WE'VE LEARNED FROM THIS PHASE THAT WE WOULD WANT TO TWEAK IN THE SECOND PHASE, SO WE'D SEE.
'CAUSE I THINK THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT IS RELATED TO COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY SOME THINGS WE'D LOVE TO SEE AS WE REDEVELOP THESE COMMERCIAL SPACES TO ENCOURAGE WALKABILITY AND USABILITY AND SORT OF THE OTHER THINGS BESIDES HOUSING ALONG THESE TRANSIT LINES.
BUT IT'S OBVIOUSLY A LITTLE BIT, I DON'T WANNA SAY UNDERDEVELOPED, BUT YOU KNOW, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY MORE WORK TO BE DONE, IT SOUNDS LIKE.
SO WE WOULD EXPECT THAT IN THE FUTURE WE WILL SEE THOSE SIDEWALK TREE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTATION, SORT OF THE MAKING IT ALL FEEL REALLY LOVELY WHEN YOU GET OFF THE TRAIN.
YES, AND TO BE CLEAR, UH, ANY COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT TODAY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SUBCHAPTER EAST STREET DESIGN STANDARDS.
UM, SO REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THIS DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM OR NOT, THERE IS A SLIGHTLY HIGHER, UM, ON CORE TRANSIT CORRIDORS AND ON CERTAIN ROADWAY TYPES KIND OF STREET DESIGN STANDARD.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY THAT, IF WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE VMU PROJECT IN ONE OF OUR MAJOR CORRIDORS, IT WOULD AT LEAST LOOK LIKE THAT GOING FORWARD.
AND THEN JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION RELATED TO ALL OF THIS, WHICH IS WE KNOW THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME DISPLACEMENT OF CURRENT EXISTING, UM, BUSINESSES AS THESE NEW COMMERCIAL SPACES COME IN, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S BEEN SOME WORK AND THOUGHT PUT INTO THAT.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT PLEASE? YEAH.
SIMILAR TO THE RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS, WE'VE ALSO GOT NON-RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE PART OF THE STAFF PROPOSAL THAT WOULD INCLUDE NOTIFICATION FOR EXISTING TYPES OF, UM, KIND OF PRIORITY TENANTS THAT THE CITY IS REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT PRESERVING CHILDCARE, UM, GROCERY CREATIVE SPACES, ET CETERA, ALL THE THINGS THAT WE ALWAYS HEAR THAT WE'RE LOSING A LOT OF.
SO IT WOULD PROVIDE NOTICE AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE TO THOSE COMMERCIAL TENANTS AS WELL AS THE KIND OF SAME RIGHT, TO RETURN TO A COMPARABLE AFFORDABLE COMMERCIAL LEASED SPACE IN THE FUTURE.
UM, WE'LL MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER ALDER.
UNFORTUNATELY, CANNOT CONTINUE TO GET OFF WORK.
UM, UH, I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT, UM, THE, THE AFFORDABILITY PIECE IN THIS, UM, FROM THE PRESENTATION THAT WE HAVE, AND JUST MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY.
SO WE'VE GOT, UM, I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS ON THE AFFORDABILITY ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS, IS BOTH OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL ARE BOTH OF THOSE REQUIRED IN THE PRESENTATION? IT HAS A BULLET POINT FOR OWNERSHIPS AND A BULLET POINT FOR RENTALS AND THE, THE WORD OR IS USED ON THE CHOICE OF RENTAL MIX, BUT I DON'T SEE AN OR BETWEEN OWNERSHIP OR RENTAL.
SO I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, ARE BOTH OF THESE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PIECE? IT WOULD BE BASED ON WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT WAS PLANNING TO OCCUPY THE UNITS WITH, WHETHER WITH LEASE OR SALES.
SO IF A DEVELOPMENT IS PLANNING TO BUILD OWNERSHIP, THEN IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IT ALL, THEY WOULD CHOOSE THE FEE IN LIEU, AND SO WE WOULD GET ZERO PORTABILITY OUT OF OWNERSHIP PROJECT, AND SO WE WOULD NOT GET ANY ONSITE AFFORDABILITY.
AND THEN, UM, SO THEN IT'S ALSO POSSIBLE THAT ALL THE PROJECTS REDEVELOPING ALONG THIS, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM COULD POSSIBLY CHOOSE OWNERSHIP OVER RENTAL.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE FINANCING LOOKS LIKE ON THAT FOR THE DEVELOPERS, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM COULD CHOOSE AND WE WOULD GET ZERO AFFORDABILITY ALONG THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR.
IT WOULD ALL GO TO FEE AND LIEU JAMIE MAY, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
UM, THE IMPACT ON THE MARKET, UH, TO THAT TYPE OF ACTIVITY WOULD BE, UH, I THINK, UH, CATASTROPHIC IS A PRETTY GOOD WORD.
UM, IT WOULD BE FLOODING, UH, THE SALES MARKET.
UH, SO THE INDIVIDUAL BUILDER WHO, UH, BUILDS THAT LAST, UH, FOR SALE PROPERTY, UH, THEN TAKES A, UM, A MAJOR HIT BECAUSE BASICALLY EVERYBODY WHO, UH, WANTED TO BUY A HOUSE ON THAT, ON IN THAT AREA WOULD HAVE, UH, HAD AN OPPORTUNITY.
THE, WELL, I I, WE DON'T, WE DON'T NEED TO EAT MY TIME WITH SPECULATION BECAUSE I'LL COUNTER SPECULATE WITH REALITY AND WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE AUCTION MARKET AT THE MOMENT.
BUT SO, SO IT IS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE THAT WE WOULD END UP WITH ZERO AFFORDABILITY ON THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR.
THE WAY THIS IS, THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY WORKED, IT'S NOT OUR INTENT, NOT OUR HOPE, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE IT WOULD BE THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE.
HOWEVER, MARKET FORCES WOULD DEMAND THAT THAT IS NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
AND THEN ON OUR FEE AND L PORTION, UM, DID WE PUT IN LANGUAGE THAT IF IT GOES TO FEE AND L THOSE FUNDS ARE GONNA BE USED WITHIN THIS
[01:45:01]
OVERLAY DISTRICT TO GET THAT HOUSING ALONG THE E TODD COMMISSIONER, YOUR TIME IS UP, BUT I'LL LET, UM, MR. MAY PLEASE JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION.UNLIKE WITH THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, UH, WE HAVE NOT DRAWN A BOUNDARY TO SPEND THOSE FEES, BUT, UM, WE WOULD BE AMENABLE IF THE COMMISSION WANTED TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION.
UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS HAVE QUESTIONS.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE FEE AND LIEU.
AND SO WHAT I WANNA KNOW IF, IF THE CITY HAS STUDIED AT ALL THE SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT OF THE FEE AND LIE, HOW, AND WHETHER OR NOT IT IS CREATING, AS SOMEONE TESTIFIED, UM, HOUSING THAT IS EVER MORE SEGREGATED, EVER MORE EXCLUDED, AFRICAN AMERICANS AND LATINO LOW INCOME PEOPLE EXCLUDED FROM ONSITE, UM, HIGH WEALTH DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY.
HAVE YOU STUDIED THAT ISSUE? I DO NOT BELIEVE SO, NO, MA'AM.
HOWEVER, WE CAN CHECK WITH OUR DISPLACEMENT PREVENTION OFFICER TO SEE IF THAT IS ON THEIR, UM, STUDY, BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A PRIORITY TO, TO DETERMINE HOW THIS FEE IN LIE IS IMPACTING THE SOCIAL FABRIC OF THE CITY.
IT IS, IS IT FURTHER SEGREGATING IT AS SOME HAVE SUGGESTED AND MAKING IT, UM, LESS INCLUSIVE AND MORE EXCLUSIVE BY WEALTH AND BY, UH, WHITENESS, IF YOU WILL, AND EXCLUDING PEOPLE OF COLOR.
SO I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT ANALYSIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE OR NO ONE EVER REALLY THOUGHT TO DO IT.
THE, THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE ABOUT FEE AND L HAVE YOU STUDIED WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING TO CREATE, UH, OWNERSHIP OF CONDOS IN HIGH RISE BUILDINGS? HAVE YOU STUDIED THAT? BECAUSE AS COMMISSIONER HOWARD POINTED OUT, HE POINTED OUT THAT THERE, THAT MAYBE YOU COULD DO THIS ONE WAY, BUT SOME CITIES ARE DOING IT ANOTHER WAY THAT ARE LEGAL TO DO IT.
HAVE YOU STUDIED THAT? WE DO NOT HAVE A STUDY AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW.
HOWEVER, WE ARE IN CONSTANT CONTACT WITH OUR OTHER REPRESENTATIVES FROM OTHER TEXAS CITIES, UM, AND HAVE, UH, CONTACTS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.
UH, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ASK ABOUT.
AND OUR CLT DIRECTOR, SHADA GEER IS DEFINITELY INVOLVED.
SO THE ANSWER IS NO, BECAUSE THERE ARE THOSE EXAMPLES OUT THERE, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THEM, WE DO NOT HAVE A STUDY AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW.
YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE EXAMPLES.
THE OTHER THING I WANNA ASK IS ABOUT THE E TODD, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT EQUITY INTO THE T.
SO FOLKS HAVE COME AND TESTIFIED TONIGHT ABOUT WHAT SOME OF THE TODDS RESULTED IN NOT IN EQUITY AT ALL.
IN FACT, BY THE CITY'S OWN DATA, THE EMPIRICAL DATA THAT WE HAVE, IT RESULTED IN, IN, UH, ACCELERATED DISPLACEMENT OF MOSTLY AFRICAN AMERICANS AND LATINOS.
AND THE PEOPLE COMING IN WERE MOSTLY WHITE AND HIGH INCOME AND DIDN'T USE PUBLIC TRANSIT MUCH, OR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PERHAPS AT ALL A ACCORD ACCORDING TO A ISD DATA.
SO HOW DOES THE EAD PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE ALSO GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY THAT OVERLAY? AND I'LL PROVIDE A VERY SHORT ANSWER SINCE I KNOW TIME IS, UH, THIS OVERLAY PROPOSAL THAT IS ON THE COMMISSION'S AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING IS ONE TOOL OF MANY.
UM, IT IS ONE TOOL THAT WE HAVE CRAFTED TO TRY TO ADDRESS THAT IN TERMS OF WHERE WE ARE APPLYING THE TOOL.
UM, YOU'LL NOTICE IT'S NORTH LAMAR AND SOUTH CONGRESS.
UM, WE ARE NOT PROPOSING APPLYING IT AT THIS POINT IN THE EASTERN CRESCENT.
UM, BUT I JUST WANNA EMPHASIZE THAT IT IS ONE TOOL OF MANY THAT INCLUDES THE $300 MILLION IN ANTI DISPLACEMENT FUNDING THAT'S BEING INVESTED AS PART OF THE PROJECT CONNECT, UM, INVESTMENTS, UM, AS WELL AS OTHER, UM, WORK AROUND SUBSIDIES AND PROGRAMS. AND THAT'S THE, THE PURPOSE OF EQUITABLE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IS TO TRY TO BRING ALL OF THOSE TOOLS TOGETHER, UM, TO TRY TO ADDRESS ISSUES THAT ARE VERY HARD TO ADDRESS.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.
MY QUESTION IS TO, UH, A TP, AND IT'S OF HOPING THAT Y'ALL CAN GIVE ME OF KIND OF A SUMMARY OF THE NEW STARTS PROJECT EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM, AND THEN PROBABLY MORE IMPORTANTLY TO ME IS WHAT THE TIMELINE IS RIGHT NOW FOR THAT AS IT RELATES TO OUR APPLICATION WITH FTA, UH, AN BODE CITY OF AUSTIN PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE, UH, THE FTA FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION NEW STARTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROJECT IS FOR, UM, LARGE SCALE CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LIKE LIGHT RAIL, COMMUNAL RAIL AND AND SUCH.
[01:50:01]
AND IT IS A MULTI MULTI-YEAR, UH, ITERATIVE PROCESS.AND THE AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP, THE NEW LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATION IMPLEMENTING, UM, PROJECT CONNECT AND THE LIGHT RAIL COMPONENT SPECIFICALLY IS THE APPLICANT FOR THAT PROCESS.
SO THE CITY OF AUSTIN PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE WORKS, UM, HAND IN HAND WITH, UH, WITH A TP FOR THAT PROCESS WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS.
UM, I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT FIRST AND THEN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CRITERIA.
SO IT'S ABOUT A THREE TO FOUR YEAR ITERATIVE PROCESS.
WE ARE, UM, IN, IN THE EARLY STAGES, IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THAT PROCESS, WE ARE ABOUT TO EMBARK ON A VERY IMPORTANT MILESTONE, WHICH IS OUR PRELIMINARY RATINGS AGAINST THE CRITERIA.
SO THAT IS THAT THAT WILL BE THIS SUMMER, A YEAR FROM THIS SUMMER, WE WILL THEN SUBMIT FOR OUR FINAL RATINGS.
AND SO THIS IS AN ITERATIVE PROCESS.
WE WILL GET FEEDBACK FROM THE FDA ON ALL COMPONENTS OF THE CRITERIA.
THAT BEING SAID, THE CRITERIA, I, I SENT AN EMAIL TO Y'ALL, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAW IT EARLIER THROUGH ANDREW, UH, RIVERA.
UM, IT HAS A FINANCIAL COMPONENT FOR 50%, AND THEN THE OTHER 50% IS, UH, VARIOUS, UM, DIFFERENT INPUTS, EXISTING AFFORDABLE UNITS, UM, PARKING SUPPLY COMPARED TO, UH, COMPARED TO EMPLOYMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, ALONG THE CORRIDOR.
BUT THERE'S TWO CRITERIA IN PARTICULAR.
ONE IS EXISTING LAND USE AND THE OTHER IS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, OR IN LAYMAN'S TERMS, FUTURE LAND USE.
WHAT, WHAT KI WHAT POLICIES AND ORDINANCES AND AND PLANS ARE IN PLACE THAT ARE SP THAT ARE GOING TO GUIDE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT? SHOULD THE, SHOULD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INVEST IN TRANSIT IN, IN A COMMUNITY, WHAT ASSURANCES DO WE HAVE THAT THE COMMUNITY WILL BE TRANSIT READY AND CONTINUE TO BE TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE? AND SO THE HOST OF AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEFORE, BEFORE THIS COMMISSION ARE OUR STAFF'S BEST FOOT FORWARD WITH THE TIMEFRAME THAT WE HAD, UH, AND BALANCING DIFFERENT PLANS AND PRIORITIES.
AND WE, UH, WE EXPECT THAT THE FEDERAL, THE FEDS ARE GOING TO LOOK AT A HOST OF DIFFERENT THINGS, NOT JUST THESE ITEMS, BUT A HOST OF DIFFERENT THINGS AS THEY LOOK AT OUR SCORE PRELIMINARILY THIS SUMMER.
I THINK I HAVE SOME HOUSING QUESTIONS.
SO, UH, WHAT, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN OUR AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS ARE TOO HIGH IN A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM? JAMIE MAY, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, UH, IF THE REQUIREMENTS ARE TOO HIGH, UM, FOR A DENSITY BONUS IN TEXAS, DENSITY BONUSES ARE VOLUNTARY.
UH, SO IF THE REQUIREMENTS ARE TOO HIGH, NO ONE WOULD PARTICIPATE, AND YOU WOULD HAVE MARKET RATE DEVELOPMENT AT A LOWER, AT A LOWER DENSITY, SMALLER SITE.
SO A FEW YEARS BACK, I KNOW WE RECEIVED SOME DATA SHOWING THAT ROUGHLY 37% OF UTILIZATION OF OUR AT THE TIME CURRENT DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS, THAT WAS WHEN THEY WERE AT 10%.
AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, ARE WE, IS OUR GOAL TO DO BETTER THAN 37%? THE GOAL IN SETTING THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND THE PROPOSAL AHEAD OF YOU TODAY WAS TO BALANCE THE TIMELINE THAT STAFF WAS BEING ASKED TO DEVELOP THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER KNOWING THAT WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO A FULL CALIBRATION.
AND SO INSTEAD, LOOKING TO EXISTING POLICY GUIDANCE FROM COUNCIL'S RECENTLY ADOPTED PROGRAMS. SO YOU'LL SEE THE OWNERSHIP AFFORDABILITY LIMITS ARE THE SAME AS THOSE ADOPTED IN DV 90 AND THE RENTAL ARE THE SAME AS THE PREVIOUSLY ON THE BOOKS NOW INVALIDATED VM U2 REQUIREMENTS FOR LIGHT RAIL PROPERTIES.
AND I WOULD JUST ADD TO THAT STEVIE GREATHOUSE DIVISION MANAGER AND THE BACKUP FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING AND THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE EQUITABLE TOD OVERLAY WORK, UM, THERE IS ANALYSIS THAT WE HAD OUR, UM, ECONOMIC CONSULTANTS DO ABOUT THE POTENTIAL SORT OF UPTAKE OF THIS PROGRAM THAT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IN SOME CASES IT WILL PENCIL AND OTHER CASES IT WILL NOT.
UM, AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS REALLY ATTEMPTING TO BALANCE MANY OF THE EQUITY CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE HEARD THIS EVENING AROUND DISPLACEMENT, UM, WITH A DESIRE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL, UM, HOUSING SUPPLY ALONG OUR COURT ORDERS AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL HOUSING UNITS ALONG OUR CORE ORDERS.
SO YOU MENTIONED, YOU MENTIONED THE INVALIDATED, AND THEN WHEN THAT CAME BACK, WE, WE BROUGHT, DID WE KEEP THAT AT THE SAME, OR DID WE CHANGE THAT? THERE WAS NOT A SPECIFIC LIGHT RAIL, UH, PROPERTY IN THE DB 90 ORDINANCE AS THERE WAS IN THE VM U2 ORDINANCE, BUT I, THERE, THE COUNCIL HAD ALREADY INITIATED WORK ON E TODD WHEN THEY VOTED TO ADOPT DB 90.
[01:55:01]
SO I THINK THAT YOU COULD ASSUME THAT THEY CONSIDERED THE LIGHT RAIL KIND OF TO BE TAKEN CARE OF BY DB E TODD.AND DO WE KNOW WHAT NEW STARTS HAVE DONE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS AS INTEREST RATES AND COSTS OF CAPITAL HAVE GONE UP? AND DO WE KNOW WHAT NEW STARTS IN AUSTIN HAVE DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS VERSUS THE TWO TO THREE YEAR PERIOD BEFORE THAT? YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING ABOUT THE NEW STARTS CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANT? CORRECT.
NEW STARTS OF MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS AROUND AUSTIN.
JUST MAKING SURE WE GET THE RIGHT PERSON.
YOU NEED A COUNT OF THE NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS UNDERWAY OR ACCOUNT OF, UH, SURE.
JUST WHAT'S HAPPENED TO NEWS STARTS AS THE COST OF CAPITAL HAS GONE UP WELL, AS THE COST OF CAPITAL HAS GONE UP.
UH, SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, UM, MARKET RATE, I'M SORRY.
SO, UM, I, I KNOW A LOT ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, NOT SO MUCH ABOUT MARKET, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE FORCES ARE SIMILAR.
UH, AND IF IT'S OKAY TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION, YES.
UM, THE, UH, AS, UH, INTEREST RATES HAVE INCREASED, UH, GAPS IN FINANCING HAVE GOTTEN BIGGER AND, UH, SOURCES OF FUNDING HAVE GOTTEN SMALLER, UH, IN THE CITY, WE PROVIDE GAP FINANCING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, HOWEVER, UH, THREE YEARS AGO OUR MAXIMUM AWARD WAS ABOUT 6 MILLION.
WE'RE COMING BACK, UH, WITH REQUESTS FOR 10 MILLION, 15 MILLION, UM, FOR A DEVELOPMENT THAT WE WOULD HAVE SPENT A THIRD OF THAT THREE YEARS AGO.
UH, THIS IS ALL DUE TO THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF, UH, OF INTEREST RATES.
UM, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF AND I'M, I'M HOPING STAFF CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND, UM, FOR THE USES, THIS IS MAYBE PERHAPS MORE OF A TECHNICAL QUESTION IN THE WAY WE'VE BEEN POSTED.
CAN, CAN YOU TELL US IN THE EO PORTION, WHAT CHANGES CAN PLANNING COMMISSION MAKE IN RELATION TO, UM, THE USES? SO BASED ON THE NOTICE THAT WAS SENT TO IMPACTED PROPERTIES AND THOSE WITHIN 500 FEET, THAT LISTED STAFF'S PROPOSAL FOR PROHIBITED AND CONDITIONAL WITH PROHIBITED BEING A MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN A CONDITIONAL USE.
SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TONIGHT COULD MAKE THINGS LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN THE NOTICE, BUT NOT MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT WAS NOTICED TO PROPERTY OWNERS, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
SO YOU CAN MOVE THINGS FROM PROHIBITED TO CONDITIONAL OR REMOVE THEM FROM THE LIST, BUT YOU CAN'T MOVE THINGS FROM CONDITIONAL TO PROHIBITED OR ADD NEW THINGS TO EITHER LIST, I'M SORRY, LESS RESTRICTIVE.
IS YOU CAN MAKE THINGS LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT WAS SENT IN THE NOTICE LETTER.
AND SO IF I JUST, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THIS RIGHT CORRECTLY, SO WE CAN MOVE FROM PROHIBITED TO CONDITIONAL USES OR CONDITIONAL USES TO PERMITTED USES.
CHURCH LINK, UM,
I, I, I GUESS IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN IT TO ME.
SO IF, IF SOMEONE COMES TO THE CITY AND ASKS TO BE ZONED, UM, GR WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO ALLOW THEM TO BE ZONED CS MM-HMM.
SO IF THEY WERE COMING IN AS MF SIX, THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE GR THERE'S NO ABILITY TO, UM, BASED ON THE NOTICE FOR ALL OF OUR ZONING CASES FOR CS TO BE ON THE TABLE, WHICH IS OUR MOST INTENSE AND LEAST RESTRICTIVE COMMERCIAL ZONE.
AND J IT'S JUST SO I CAN, AND ASK IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
SO IF THERE WAS A CONDITIONAL USE, WE CAN MAKE IT PROHIBITED, BUT WE CANNOT MAKE IT A PERMITTED NO, CORRECT.
NO, ANYTHING THAT'S ON THE CONDITIONAL LIST AND THE STAFF PROPOSAL COULD NOT BE MOVED TO PROHIBITED IN THIS ACTION DURING THIS MAY, BUT WE, BUT WITH THIS, I, I, UH, CHAIR, IF YOU'RE FINE WITH IT, I'M HAPPY TO SORT OF TAKE SOME TIME AND COME BACK TO MY QUESTION.
IF I CAN PAUSE MY TIME AND COME BACK.
I WANNA MAKE SURE STAFF HAS THE ABILITY TO FIGURE THIS OUT.
UM, COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ.
YOU CAN, YOU ARE, YOU DON'T HAVE A QUESTION? YOU CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES.
UM, SO MY QUESTION IS ABOUT CALIBRATION.
I THINK THAT CLEARLY, AS WAS EARLIER, INTEREST RATES CHANGE UP AND FLOW AND THAT IMPACTS WHETHER OR NOT A DEVELOPMENT CONTENT TOOL AS YOU HEARD.
AND I THINK MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE A WAY TO TIE THE CALIBRATION SO THAT WE'RE NOT STUCK AT THIS 15% OR 10% OR 12%, BUT THAT IT'S MORE TIED TO
[02:00:01]
INTEREST RATES OR SOMETHING THAT THAT IS ALSO CHANGING OVER TIME? YOU KNOW, WHEREAS FIVE YEARS AGO, 15% MADE SENSE, BUT TODAY IT MAY NOT.MY QUESTION FOR STAFF IS, IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE COULD CALIBRATE TO THAT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE? SO I WANNA CLARIFY.
I THINK RACHEL TEER WITH HOUSING IS GONNA TALK ABOUT KIND OF HOW WE CALIBRATE OVER TIME, BUT THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL HAS NOT BEEN CALIBRATED, SO I JUST WANNA INDICATE THAT AS A BASIS.
I WAS ACTUALLY GONNA, RACHEL TEER WITH THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT, I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO, TO SPEAK TO A, A FUTURE OR A, A PROJECT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW, A COMPREHENSIVE DENSITY BONUS ANALYSIS, UM, STUDY.
WE HAVE A CONSULTANT THAT'S GOING TO HELP US ACTUALLY TO, TO, YOU KNOW YOUR POINT, CREATE A BETTER SYSTEM.
WE KNOW WE HAVE TOO MANY DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS AND THEY'RE UNCALIBRATED AND, AND WE KNOW WE NEED TO IDENTIFY SOMETHING THAT IS MORE, THAT IS EASIER TO UPDATE OVER TIME.
UM, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT AT THIS TIME.
WE'LL GO OVER TO CHAIR COHEN PASS.
UM, I APPRECIATE, UM, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER ASKING THE QUESTION ABOUT THE F UH, THE FTA GRANT PROCESS.
'CAUSE IT KIND OF BLEW MY MIND.
WHAT I HEARD WAS THAT WE HAVE PRELIMINARY SCORING AT THE END OF SUMMER, BUT THEN WE HAVE OVER A YEAR BEFORE OUR FINAL SCORING AN DAY PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE.
BUT THE SCORES ARE NOT LIKELY TO CHANGE.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE DATA POINTS THAT GO INTO THE SCORING ARE EXISTING NOW.
IT'S THE, THERE'S A QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE NATURE OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND THE APPLICATION ITSELF, IT'S PAGES AND PAGES OF NARRATIVE, WHICH, WHICH I'VE ONLY GOT TWO MINUTES AND 16 SECONDS.
SO, SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS WE'RE TRUNCATING THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND THE APPROVAL PROCESS APPARENTLY, IN ORDER TO MEET THIS GRANT DEADLINE.
THAT, THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, BASICALLY THAT SOLE PURPOSE OF, OF TRYING TO PLAN OUR CITY AND TRANSIT CORRIDORS LIKE THIS, WHICH IS TERRIBLE.
BUT CAN WE NOT CONSIDER THIS MORE AND TRY TO SOLVE ALL THESE ISSUES THAT ARE COMING UP AND STILL HAVE THAT BE PART OF OUR FINAL SCORING ON THIS GRANT? NO.
SO IF WE, IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE NATURE OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE PRELIMINARY SCORING, THERE HAS TO BE ACTION BY MAY 30TH, OTHERWISE WE DON'T TALK ABOUT IT.
AND, AND THAT, THAT THE APPLICATION WILL MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSION OF WE'RE DISCUSS, YOU CAN'T ADD ANYTHING MORE AFTER MAY 30TH? NO, WE CAN, WE CAN, IF, IF THINGS HAPPEN AS THINGS ARE ITERATIVE, WE C WE CAN ADD, WE CAN ADD IT, YES.
BUT THAT WILL BE, BUT WE WON'T, WE ARE GETTING LOOKED AT, THIS IS A VERY COMPETITIVE PROCESS AND WE'RE GETTING LOOKED AT OTHER CITIES AT A POINT IN TIME, AND SO WE'LL GET LOOKED AT AND THAT DATE IS MAY 30TH.
IT'S THE SUMMER, BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE PENCILS DOWN IN JUNE.
IT, IT'S A HUGE STAFF EFFORT TO PUT TOGETHER THE APPLICATIONS.
AND SO YES, WE NEED TO HAVE PENCILS DOWN IN JUNE.
THAT'S OUR CURRENT SCHEDULE IN ORDER TO SUBMIT IN THE SUMMER.
NOTHING ELSE IN THE GRANT WILL BE CONSIDERED AFTER JUNE? CORRECT.
UM, CAN STAFF TELL US IF, UH, THERE, BASED ON OUR STUDY, UH, AND OUR RECENT EXPERIENCE DID, DID THE MFI LEVELS OF PEOPLE WHO MOVE INTO TODS, DID THE MFI TEND TO INCREASE, DECREASE, STAY THE SAME AS WAS MENTIONED IN SOME OF THE PUBLIC TESTIMONIES.
WE HAVE THREE EXISTING TDS THAT ARE NOT EODS AND ARE NOT SIMILAR IN APPROACH TO THE WAY THAT THE CITY HAS BEEN WORKING ON EODS FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS.
AND IN THOSE CASES, WE HAVE SEEN MFIS DOUBLE, OR IN SOME CASES TRIPLE.
WHICH WAS CONCERNING TO STAFF AND COUNCIL, WHICH IS WHY WE ARE NOT DOING THAT PROCESS.
SO I'VE GOT FIVE SECONDS LEFT.
DO, DO WE EXPECT TO PLACE DISPLACEMENT TO INCREASE, STAY THE SAME OR DECREASE ONCE THIS ETOD IS INSTITUTED? I'LL LET RACHEL WITH THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT ANSWER THAT AT THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT.
FOR THIS PROPOSAL IS POSITIVE.
WE HAVE STAFF PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS THAT OFFER A ONE-TO-ONE REPLACEMENT OF UNITS, WHICH IS, WOULD BE ONE OF THE STRONGEST ANTI DISPLACEMENT PROTECTIONS IN ANY DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
RACHEL, ER, I'LL JUST ADD THAT, UM, THIS E TWO OD PROPOSAL IS PRIMARILY NOT IN DISPLACEMENT RISK AREAS.
YOU DID SAY QUOTE IN THE BEGINNING, IT'S AT AROUND 19 20%.
IT'S IT'S LOWER THAN THE PERCENTAGE OF THE CITY OVERALL.
AND, AND SO THIS AREA, THIS PARTICULAR FIRST PHASE
[02:05:01]
IS SORT OF TARGETING LESS DISPLACEMENT RISK FOLKS IN THE CITY.COMMISSIONER HAYNES, THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
UH, FOR STAFF, PROBABLY MISS GREATHOUSE.
BUT, UM, I, SOMEBODY JUST SAID IN IT, IT, IT, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SCORING THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT FOR THE FEDERAL, BUT I I THINK YOU JUST SAID THAT THE, THAT WE HAVEN'T SCORED IT OR RATED THIS.
I, I USED THE TERM CALIBRATED CALIBRATED.
SO THIS DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM HAS NOT GONE THROUGH A MARKET ANALYSIS AND CALIBRATION PROCESS TO ARRIVE AT THE PERCENTAGES.
THE PERCENTAGES WE PULLED OUT OF A PREVIOUS DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THAT HAD BEEN ON THE BOOKS.
WE HAD OUR MARKET ANALYSIS DO WHAT THEY TERM A GUT CHECK LEVEL ANALYSIS THAT'S REFLECTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE RESULTS FROM THAT ANALYSIS TO KIND OF LOOK ABOUT WHAT THOSE PERCENTAGES COULD OR COULDN'T YIELD AND WHAT IT WAS SENSITIVE TO IN THE MARKET MOVING FORWARD.
AND THEN I'LL, YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS DO THIS, BUT I'LL SHOW MY NEW GUY STATUS.
I DID NOT LOOK AT WHAT IS THE AFFORDABILITY, UM, SCORE PROGNOSTICATION FOR, FOR, FOR THE RULE FOR ETOD.
AND SO THE STAFF ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT, UM, IT WOULD PROBABLY PENCIL IN MANY CONDITIONS TODAY FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE MOVING FROM 30 FEET EXISTING TO 60 FEET EXISTING BASED ON EXISTING MARKET CONDITIONS.
AND THAT WHEN YOU LOOKED AT AT LEAST ONE OF THE SENSITIVITY FACTORS SUCH AS BUILDING SLIGHTLY LESS PARKING, UM, INTEREST RATES GOING DOWN, ET CETERA, THEN IT WOULD PENCIL FOR ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS.
SO 30 TO 90 OR 60 TO ONE 20, KIND OF ANY OF THOSE.
AND THEN, AND THEN, SO AM I TO TAKE FROM THAT THEN, IF IT, IF IT, AND I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT PENCIL IS, BUT IF IT PENCILS THEN, THEN DOES THAT, THAT OBVIOUSLY THEN HELPS WITH AFFORDABILITY SCORE AND MAKES, GIVES US MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS OR BEING LU GIVES US MORE MONEY BEING YES.
ALTHOUGH WITH THIS PROPOSAL, I ALSO WANNA EMPHASIZE THAT WE WERE TRYING TO BALANCE DISPLACEMENT OF EXISTING UNITS AS WELL.
SO IN SOME CASES, TO MEET THE REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS, THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE INCURRED TO PROVIDE THAT ONE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT OF UNITS OR AFFORDABLE, SMALLER COMMERCIAL SPACE.
AND THE BALANCE IS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE, WHAT WE ARE INCENTIVIZING IN TERMS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT IS NOT PUSHING OUT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT THAT EXISTS ALONG THE CORRIDORS TODAY THAT IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE EQUITABLE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT GOALS.
BUT THAT WOULD, BUT THAT WOULD BE A CHOICE FOR THE DEVELOPER IF, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO COME IN AND, AND THEN GETS HIT WITH A HIGHER FEE OR WHATEVER, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY, THAT IS A CHOICE THE DEVELOPER IS MAKING UNDER A VOLUNTARY INCENTIVE BASED PROGRAM LIKE THIS ONE.
UM, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, UM, UH, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW.
UM, CAN STAFF VERY QUICKLY SORT OF DESCRIBE, UH, ROUGHLY HOW MANY UNITS OR HOW WE'VE USED AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEES IN LIEU THAT WE'VE COLLECTED SO FAR IN OTHER PROGRAMS? JAMIE MAY HOUSING A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, UH, FEES IN LIEU THAT HAVE BEEN CORRECT, UH, COLLECTED THROUGH OTHER DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN USED TO INVEST IN OTHER HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS, UH, WITHIN WHATEVER GEOGRAPHIC OR USE CONSTRAINTS ARE APPLIED TO THOSE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS. FOR EXAMPLE, PLAZA SALTILLO FEE AND LU HAS BEEN GONE, HAS GONE TO, UH, ASSIST TALAVERA LOFTS, WHICH IS A, UH, UH, 100% AFFORDABLE DEVELOPMENT NEAR PLAZA SALTILLO.
UM, AND SO DO YOU HAVE ANY SENSE OF, OF, FOR ANY GIVEN AMOUNT OF MONEY YOU COLLECT AS FEE AND LIEU, CAN YOU ROUGHLY SAY, AND IF THE ANSWER'S NO, THAT'S FINE.
LIKE HOW, HOW MANY HOUSING UNITS YOU'RE GETTING PER OBVIOUSLY NOT DOLLAR, BUT YOU KNOW, A HUNDRED THOUSAND OR PER MILLION DOLLARS OF FEE AND LIE? SURE.
WE, UM, WE LEVERAGE OUR INVESTMENT, OUR RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AND OWNERSHIP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE, WHICH ARE THE PROGRAMS THROUGH WHICH THOSE FUNDS ARE DEPLOYED.
WE LEVERAGE THOSE DOLLARS AS AGGRESSIVELY AS POSSIBLE WITH EITHER, UH, PHILANTHROPIC OR PUBLIC DOLLARS AS WELL AS PRIVATE LENDERS.
WHEN WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT APPLY FOR FUNDS, UH, WE TE SAY WE TARGET $50,000 PER UNIT AS OUR MAXIMUM SUBSIDY.
UH, WE ALSO SAY THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO BE, UH, THE LARGEST INVESTOR IN ANY DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND THAT WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DEEPLY AFFORDABLE UNITS.
SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE A MINIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WE WOULD INVEST IN, BUT 50,000 IS A GOOD TARGET.
IT'S NO LONGER OPERABLE BECAUSE OF INVEST, UH, INTEREST RATES RIGHT NOW.
UH, HOWEVER, THAT'S WHERE WE'D LIKE TO GET BACK TO.
AND, AND ROUGHLY HOW MUCH DOES IT COST IN TOTAL TO BUILD, UH, A HOUSING UNIT, AFFORDABLE OR OTHERWISE? AVERAGE? AVERAGE IN TODAY'S MARKET?
[02:10:01]
AVERAGE COST TO BUILD ONE AFFORDABLE, UH, ONE HOUSING UNIT, WHETHER IT'S MARKET OR AFFORDABLE, UM, IT'S RIGHT AROUND 250,000.UH, HOW THAT NUMBER WAS, UH, IS A COUPLE OF YEARS OLD.
UH, SO THAT NUM IT MIGHT BE CLOSER TO 300 AT THIS POINT.
UM, HOWEVER, 250 IS PRETTY OPERATIVE AT THIS POINT.
I ACTUALLY HAD A COUPLE OF QUE QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE, UM, MUSIC AND ARTS, UH, BONUS.
I, SORRY, I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS MY FIRST TIME AROUND.
UM, BUT IF, CAN YOU SHARE THE PROGRAM THAT'S CURRENTLY BEING WORKED ON RELATED TO CREATIVE SPACES? UM, I BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THE FELLOW COMMISSIONERS MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH IT.
GOOD EVENING, DON JACKSON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
COULD, COULD YOU PLEASE CLARIFY, WHICH DO YOU MEAN? THE CREATIVE DISTRICT? THE, THE CREATIVE DISTRICT.
AND I GUESS THE MAIN QUESTION IS HOW THIS WOULD INTERACT WITH THE, UM, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED FOR THE DENSITY BONUS O OVERLAY.
UM, THAT OVER, UH, THEY WOULDN'T BE, NOT GENERALLY NON OVERLAPPING.
UM, IT, IT ISN'T REALLY FEASIBLE TO COMBINE THAT DISTRICT WITH THE ETOD OVERLAY, SO, UM, IT, IT JUST WOULDN'T BE AVAILABLE IN THE ETOD AREAS.
THAT BEING SAID, UH, AS WE'VE, UH, RECOMMENDED THE ETOD ORDINANCE OR THE ETOD OVERLAY ITSELF WOULD ENTAIL VERY SIMILAR, UH, MEASURES TO, UH, PROTECT AND PRESERVE AND PROVIDE RELOCATION BENEFITS TO EXISTING CREATIVE SPACES.
AND WE INTEND TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN ETOD OF PHASE TWO TO EXPLORE OTHER WAYS WE CAN INCENTIVIZE AFFORDABLE, UH, CREATIVE SPACE IN ETOD AS WELL.
AND CAN YOU PERHAPS SHARE HOW THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE PLAN AS, AS OR CURRENTLY PROPOSED OR BEING WORKED ON WOULD WORK IN TERMS OF THOSE INCENTIVES AND WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE? TO CLARIFY, FOR THE CREATIVE DISTRICT BONUS, FOR THE, SORRY FOR THE CREATIVE DISTRICT, JUST SO FOR THE, BY, UH, SOME OF US HEARD THIS, UM, PROPOSAL AT THE JOINT CODES AND ORDINANCES MEETINGS, BUT YOU OBVIOUSLY, NOT EVERYONE IS FAMILIAR WITH WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY THAT, UH, YEAH, WE, WE PRESENTED THAT TO THE CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT, UH, COMMITTEE ALREADY THAT IS SLATED TO COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I BELIEVE THE 28TH OF MAY.
WELL, THE STUFF Y'ALL ARE WORKING ON NOW, UH, TOOK SOME PRECEDENT.
SO, UM, UH, WHAT THAT WOULD ENTAIL IS THE CREATION, THE, UH, CREATING, UH, A PAPER DISTRICT.
THIS WOULDN'T BE MAPPED ANYWHERE INITIALLY, BUT IT WOULD CREATE, UH, UH, A REGULATORY MECHANISM TO SUPPORT, UH, CREATIVE SPACE, UH, DISTRICTS, UH, CREATIVE DISTRICTS IN WHICH THERE ARE DENSITY BONUSES, UH, WITH A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM MODELED, UH, PRETTY SIMILARLY TO THE, UH, DB 90 ALLOWANCE WITH A FOCUS ON AFFORDABLE, UH, CREATIVE SPACE IN THE GROUND FLOOR OR LOWER FLOORS OF BUILDINGS.
UH, WITH THAT, UH, ENTAILING THE SAME SORT OF PRESERVATION AND RELOCATION, UH, REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING CREATIVE SPACES, UH, THAT'S INTENDED TO NOT BE A CITYWIDE TYPE OF, UH, PROGRAM SO MUCH AS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE USED IN VERY SPECIFIC AREAS.
THE ORIGINAL COUNCIL GUIDANCE, UH, SUGGESTED THERE COULD BE, YOU KNOW, A HANDFUL OF THESE, BUT REALLY FOCUSING ON, UH, CREATIVE COMPLEXES AND CLUSTERS WHERE THERE'S LOTS OF VENUES OR ART SPACES, ART WORKSHOPS, BOTH EXISTING AND TO HELP INCENTIVIZE NEW, SINCE I ONLY HAVE ONE SECOND HERE, I'LL JUST ASK, WOULD THIS BE ABLE TO BE USED FOR OTHER THINGS BESIDES CREATIVE SPACES, SAY SMALL BUSINESSES, COMMUNITY SPACES, THINGS LIKE THAT? IF THE COUNCIL DIRECTION HAD BEEN BROADER OR WE COULD USE A SIMILAR TYPE OF MECHANISM, JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE CREATIVE DISTRICT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BE USED FOR NON-CREATIVE USES.
BUT IN GENERAL, E TAUGHT PHASE TWO, SMALL BUSINESSES, CHILDCARE, TRANSIT, SUPPORTIVE, ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT YOU MENTIONED ARE SOMETHING WE'RE LOOKING AT.
OH, AND, UH, AND, AND ALSO TO BE CLEAR, THOSE OTHER TYPES OF PIECES CAN BE INSIDE A CREATIVE DISTRICT, BUT, UH, THE INCENTIVE PORTION WOULD BE SPECIFICALLY FOR, UH, UH, CREATIVE SPACES.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MUELLER.
AND, UM, CHAIR, I DON'T THINK, I THINK I'M GONNA RUN OUT TIME, SO I DO WANT A MOTION, UM, ANOTHER, UH, THAT WE EXTEND OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS.
UH, WHEN WE FINISH THIS ROUND, UM, I, WE GOT AN ANSWER ON SOME OF THE INITIAL GRANT STUFF.
I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT BECAUSE IT SAID THE, UH, THERE WAS PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND LOCAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENT ON THE PROJECT JUSTIFICATION.
UH, I DON'T SEE THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT IN THERE, AND SO I WANTED CLARIFICATION ON WHAT WE RECEIVED.
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, DATA POINT IS UNDER LAND USE COMPONENT OF THE CRITERIA.
[02:15:01]
THANK YOU.AND THEN, YEAH, SO WE'VE GOT, I, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THEIR CRITERIA, 16% MOBILITY IMPROVEMENT, 16% CONGESTION RELIEF, AND 16% ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS.
WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, I I PRESUME THEY'RE GONNA BE LOOKING AT THAT INITIAL, NOT THE CONTEMPLATED EXTENSIONS, BUT THE INITIAL THAT'S RUNNING ABOUT FROM 38TH DOWNTOWN AND THEN SLIGHTLY EASTWARD.
UM, SO I, I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK, OTHER THAN THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AND THE DELL MEDICAL CENTER, HOW MUCH INDUSTRY ARE WE CONNECTING TO WHERE THE EMPLOYEES ARE COMING FROM THAT GET TO THOSE INDUSTRY PLACES? LIKE HOW ARE WE LOOKING TO SEE THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY ACHIEVING, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY IT'S ABOUT 45% REQUIREMENT DEPENDING ON HOW YOU LOOK AT IT, RIGHT? YEAH.
AND THEN MY, MY SECOND, THE SECOND PART OF MY QUESTION TO THAT IS, UH, WHY ARE WE EXTENDING ALL OF THIS TO THE POSSIBLE EXTENSION AT THIS POINT WHEN WE HAVEN'T EVEN SECURED THE FIRST PART? WHY DON'T, I'M NOT SURE WHY THAT'S BEING COMPOSED AT THIS TIME.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
NO ONE'S THE PRIORITY EXTENSIONS ARE, ARE NOT WHAT'S BEING SCORED AT THIS POINT.
BUT THE, AND THIS MAY NOT BE A QUESTION FOR YOU, THIS MAY BE FOR THE PROGRAM, BUT THE EO OVERLAY IS BEING PROPOSED BEYOND THAT PRIORITY ONE EXTENSION FOR THE FT A GRANT.
AND, YOU KNOW, I'LL LET WARNER, UM, CHIME IN AS WELL, BUT AS BEING PART OF THE TEAM THAT PUT TOGETHER THE RECOMMENDATIONS, WE'RE TRYING TO DO GOOD PLANNING.
THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT PLANNING IS.
WE WERE TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF, UH, LAND USE, UM, PREDICAMENTS THAT ARE NOT TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE FOR OUR FUTURE, UH, PHASES OF LIGHT RAIL.
SO ON THE CONNECTING INDUSTRY AND RIDERSHIP, UM, WHERE EMPLOYEES ARE TRYING TO GET TO THESE DESTINATIONS, WHAT, HOW IS THAT LOOKING, WHAT DO WE HAVE TO SUPPORT THAT? I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DETAILS IN THE APPLICATION, BUT OVERALL, WE ARE SCORING, GIVE OR TAKE AROUND A MEDIUM ON MOST OF THE CRITERIA, EXCEPT IN THE PARKING AREA, WHICH IS SCORING THE LOWEST OF ALL OF THEM.
BUT OVERALL, WE'RE AROUND A MEDIUM, BUT I'D HAVE TO GET BACK TO THE COMMISSION ON MORE DETAIL ON THAT.
SO WE DON'T KNOW WHERE OUR RIDERSHIP IS COMING FROM TO GET TO THE INDUSTRY DRAW THAT WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE COMMUTERS OFF A ROADWAY.
I JUST DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW TO SHARE WITH YOU.
UM, WE'RE GOING TO COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
I'M SORRY, OTHER PEOPLE'S QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED EVEN WHEN THEIR TIME WAS UP.
CAN I PLEASE GET AN ANSWER ON THE EXTENSION STUFF THAT WAS GONNA BE ANSWERED BY SOMEBODY ELSE? I BELIEVE? OH, MS. BODAY HAD GIVEN AN ANSWER.
MS. BODE ANSWERED ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS, I BELIEVE.
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE, THE QUESTION WAS ANSWERED.
NO, I WAS JUST CLARIFYING AND, AND TRYING TO BE HUMOROUS ABOUT IT AS WELL.
UM, SO I DID ASK A LOT OF QUESTIONS IN WRITING ABOUT THE FEE IN LIEU, AND UNFORTUNATELY I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS.
BUT MAYBE YOU CAN TELL ME ABOUT HOW THE FEE IN LIEU HAS EXPANDED AFFORDABLE.
HAS IT, DOES MORE OF IT GO TO BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE CITY OR TO HOUSING VOUCHERS? JAMIE MAY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER? THE HOUSING, LOCAL HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM IS FINANCED THROUGH THE HOUSING TRUST FUND.
HOWEVER, THOSE DOLLARS ARE COMMITTED, UH, THROUGH THE GENERAL FUND.
THE FEE IN LIEU, UH, COLLECTED THROUGHOUT THE, THROUGHOUT THE CITY THROUGH ONE OF OUR 17 OR 25 OR HOWEVER MANY DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS WE HAVE AT THIS POINT, UM, ARE ALL EITHER GEOGRAPHICALLY OR USE RESTRICTED, FOR EXAMPLE, DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUSES RESTRICTED TO PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
AND SO, SO LET ME JUST ASK THIS MA'AM QUESTION? YES, MA'AM.
BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE GIVING ME AN ANSWER THAT'S NOT GONNA GET TO WHERE I'M TRYING TO GO.
UH, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT NONE OF THE FEE AND LIE, UM, FUNDS ARE GOING INTO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND? THAT IS NOT CORRECT.
THEY, THE, BUT YOU JUST SAID THE BMU FUNDS ARE HOUSED IN THE HOUSING TRUST FUND.
HOWEVER, THEY ARE A SEPARATE LINE ITEM FROM THE GENERAL RESERVE, WHICH, OR THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH FUNDS ARE LOCAL HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM.
SO DO YOU KNOW THEN, WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS THAT YOU LAID OUT, BECAUSE THESE WERE QUESTIONS I ASKED IN WRITING SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, HOW MUCH OF THEM ARE GOING INTO HOUSING VOUCHERS, WHEREVER THEY ARE, AND HOW MUCH ARE GOING INTO EXPANDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING SINCE THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE FEE IN LIEU? CURRENTLY, THE
[02:20:01]
FEE IN LIEU IS NOT FUNDING ANY VOUCHER AT ALL.CURRENTLY, NO HOUSING VOUCHER, NO FEE AND NO FEE.
AND LIE DOLLAR IS SPENT ON ANY HOUSING VOUCHER.
SO THEY'VE ALL GONE TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, WHICH HAD, UH, VOUCHER PROGRAM TIED TO IT, WHICH WAS, WHICH EXPIRED, I BELIEVE TWO, PERHAPS THREE YEARS AGO.
ALL DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS ARE FUNDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
UH, SECONDLY, THE EO DEVELOPMENT, UM, WE TALKED THERE, IT WAS SAID THAT THAT DEVELOPMENT WHERE THE E TODD OVERLAY WILL GO, THAT THAT AREA HAS THE LOWEST RISK FOR DISPLACEMENT OF VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES.
AM I CORRECT IN IN THAT? I DON'T KNOW THAT HOUSING STAFF SAID THAT IT WAS THE LOWEST RISK.
I BELIEVE THAT THEY SAID THAT THERE WAS 19% OF THE LAND AREA THAT WAS IN A, OF A ACTIVE OR VULNERABLE DISPLACEMENT RISK AREA.
AND THAT, THAT WAS, THAT 19% WAS LOWER THAN THE CITYWIDE AMOUNT OF LAND.
LOWER THAN THE CITYWIDE AVERAGE.
BUT, BUT WITHIN THAT, WITHIN THAT AREA, THERE ARE SOME AREAS THAT ARE MORE AT RISK THAN OTHERS.
BECAUSE IN LOOKING AT THE OVERLAY NORTH OF 15TH STREET TO CRESTVIEW, THOSE ARE VERY DIFFERENT KINDS OF, UM, NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE PEOPLE LIVE.
CAN YOU PROVIDE A BRIEF ANSWER? I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE QUESTION WAS.
IS THE QUESTION THAT 15TH TO CRESTVIEW IS A DIFFERENT AREA THAN ANOTHER AREA OF TOWN? WELL, WELL, THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE PROTECTED ANY BETTER THAN THE HIGH WEALTH AREAS SOUTH OF THOSE.
SO THE DISPLACEMENT FACTOR THERE IS GOING TO BE, WHO KNOWS THE SAME AS IT IS IN THE TOTS.
I MEAN, WE DON'T, THERE ARE NO PROTECTIONS THERE FOR THOSE, FOR THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS.
THE REDEVELOPMENT PROTECTIONS IN THE STAFF PROPOSAL WOULD APPLY REGARDLESS ON GEOGRAPHY, TO PROTECT AND GIVE THE RIGHT TO RETURN TO A TENANT AT 50% MFI OR BELOW.
BUT IT DOESN'T PROTECT THEM FROM BEING DISPLACED BY HIGHER LAND VALUES.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, WE NEED TO MOVE ON.
OH, WAS THERE A RESPONSE TO THAT? I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, THERE'S A WHOLE LOT IN OUR CURRENT ZONING THAT DOESN'T PROTECT FOLKS.
I MEAN, THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, UM, AND WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO TRY TO MOVE FORWARD.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE EQUITABLE TO OD OVERLAY PROPOSAL DOES MOVE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
SO MY QUESTION, I GUESS I'M GONNA REVISIT, COME BACK TO THE, THE NEW STARTS PROCESS AGAIN, BECAUSE I'M STILL A BIT CONFUSED.
SO FORGIVE ME FOR ASKING AGAIN, BUT IF WE HAVE A PRELIMINARY RATING THAT WE'LL SUBMIT THE SUMMER FOR, AND THEN A FINAL RATING OF, ARE WE NOT ALLOWED TO UPDATE OUR APPLICATION? I GUESS I, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PRELIMINARY RATING IN THE EYES OF FDA.
THE, THE PROCESS IS ITERATIVE.
AND SO AT A POINT IN TIME THIS SUMMER, THE FTA WILL EVALUATE US, UH, COMPETITIVELY AGAINST OTHER CITIES WHO ARE APPLYING FOR THE SAME PROGRAM.
THEY WILL LOOK AT A HOST OF, UH, QUANTITATIVE DATA POINTS, AS WELL AS QUALITATIVE, UH, DATA THAT INCLUDES OUR EXISTING VISION PLANS THAT WILL THEN BECOME IMPLEMENTABLE IN, YOU KNOW, IN CERTAIN
FORGIVE ME FOR STOPPING YOU, BUT I WANT TO GET TO THE POINT OF THE QUESTION HERE IN MY THREE MINUTES IS WHAT, FROM A TIME STANDPOINT, HOW, HOW IS THE PRELIMINARY RATING MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE FINAL RATING? AT THE POINT AFT AT A POINT AFTER THE PRELIMINARY RATING, THERE'S DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING THAT WILL BE ALLOCATED AMONGST ALL THE APPLICANTS.
IT'S A FINITE AMOUNT, AND YOU BEGIN TO BE PLACED IN THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET BASED ON, UH, YOUR, YOUR PRELIMINARY SCORING AND HOW YOU'RE DOING, YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY CONTINUE TO ADD TO THE, UH, APPLICATION AS YOU MOVE THROUGH THE PROCESS.
BUT THAT INITIAL, IT'S, IT'S KIND OF LIKE YOUR FIRST TIME TO MAKE A FIRST IMPRESSION TO THE FEDS ON WHETHER YOUR CITY IS TRANSIT READY.
AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT WITH REGARDS TO THE MATCH AND THE AMOUNT OKAY.
THAT THE, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO SPREAD THAT AMONG CITIES OF SIMILAR SIZES.
SO THEY'LL START DE AT DETERMINING THE SPLIT OR FUNDING GRANT BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY NUMBER? THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT COMES TO THE END OF OUR SECOND
[02:25:01]
ROUND OF QUESTIONS.COMMISSIONER MOTO, I HEARD A MOTION PROPOSAL EARLIER.
I, I WOULD LIKE TO MOTION WE GO ONE MORE ROUND OF QUESTIONS.
IS THERE A SECOND MR. PHILLIPS SECONDS? UM, CAN I MAKE A POINT, UM, ON THE SECOND, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER MICHELLE HAD TO JOIN LATE, SO IT JUST SEEMS OUT OF COURTESY WE WOULD GIVE HER A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION? ONE MORE ROUND? YES.
UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS.
CHAIR COHEN, DID YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND? OKAY.
UM, I, I'M, I'M GOING TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT LATER TONIGHT TO REMOVE ALL REFERENCES TO FEE AND LIEU.
UM, WITH THE HOPE THAT STAFF WOULD COME BACK WITHIN 90 DAYS WITH A PRESENTATION AND Q AND A, THAT WE CAN DISCUSS POTENTIAL WAYS TO MITIGATE THE COST OF A, OF ASSOCIATION FEES ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, UH, ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.
UM, IF WE WERE TO, LET'S SAY, LIKE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED, NOT HAVE A FEE IN LIE OPTION, AND THAT WAS THE GOAL, THAT'S WHERE WE SET IT AND WE KEPT IT FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS.
WHAT WOULD, WHAT DO YOU ANTICIPATE THE IMPACT WOULD BE? IF, IF WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING? IF WE JUST REMOVED ALL FEE IN LIE OPTIONS FOREVER, JAMIE MAY, HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, UH, IF WE REMOVED FEE IN LIEU OPTIONS FOR DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS, UH, ONE OF TWO POTENTIAL OUTCOMES PER SITE, UH, FIRST EITHER, UH, A PROPERTY WOULD NOT PART PARTICIPATE, UM, UH, THE, OR, UM, THE, UH, HOUSING DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT COLLECT THOSE FEES IN LOSE, AND WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO INVEST THEM INTO OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGHOUT THE CITY OR WITHIN THE AREA, UH, AS DEFINED.
UM, HOW DOES, HOW DOES AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED GET PARTICIPATION IF THEY DON'T HAVE A FEE? THEY DON'T HAVE A FEE IN LIEU, RIGHT.
WE'VE GOT, WE'VE HAD SEVERAL PROPERTIES, UH, PARTICIPATING IN FOREIGN IN, UH, AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED.
I WOULD HAVE TO, UH, DO SOME RESEARCH.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME, UH, HIGHER STANDARDS FOR AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED, I BELIEVE FOR, UH, DEPENDING ON THE TIER, IT'S UP TO 50% OF THE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO BE AFFORDABLE.
UM, AND THOSE NUMBERS DO, UH, GRANT THE AFFORDABLE OWNERS THE POWER TO, UH, UH, CONTROL THE, UH, AMOUNT OF HOW HOME HOA FEES WAIT, WHAT
SO WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION FEES.
IT'S A, IT IS A PRIVATE AGREEMENT.
HOWEVER, THE AFFORDABLE OWNERS, IF YOU HAVE A, UH, A MINIMUM CAPACITY OF AFFORDABLE OWNERS WITHIN THE HOA, THEN THEY CAN VOTE TO KEEP THE FEES LOW.
HOWEVER, WHEN YOU ONLY HAVE 10% OF A DEVELOPMENT, UH, HAVE AT A DEPRESSED PRICE, UH, THEN THAT MEANS THAT 90% OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS AT AN ELEVATED PRICE AND THEY CAN OUTVOTE THAT 10% RELATIVELY EASILY.
IS IT, IS IT COMMON FOR PEOPLE TO RAISE THEIR OWN FEES ON THEMSELF? YES.
TO AN UNAFFORDABLE LEVEL, YES.
WHY
WHY, WHY? WELL, UM, ONE EXAMPLE WOULD BE TO GET SOMEONE TO MOVE OUT.
UH, ONE EXAMPLE WOULD ALSO BE TO PAY FOR THINGS SUCH AS, UH, AMENITIES OR PAY FOR BILLS IF AN ELEVATOR BREAKS OR TO PAY FOR REPAIRS, UH, TO PAY FOR, UH, IF A BROKEN ELEVATOR OR IF, UH, THERE'S A, A LEAK OR A ROOF, UH, ISSUE.
HOAS NEED TO PAY FOR THOSE THINGS.
UH, SO THERE ARE REASONS TO RAISE FEES ON HOAS.
THE PRE THE QUESTION IS NOT DO SHOULD HOAS EXIST.
THE QUESTION IS, HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT THE INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY AN EXTRA $500 IN THEIR HOA ARE NOT PRICED OUT OF THEIR UNIT? BOY.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES? NO, COURSE.
UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, ALL THOSE, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? NO QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? NO QUESTIONS.
ACTUALLY, I'M, I'M, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA HOLD.
I HAVE A, A QUESTION, AND, AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE IF, IF, UH, STEVIE MIGHT, UH, GREATHOUSE MIGHT BE, UM, ANSWERING
[02:30:01]
THIS QUESTION BECAUSE, UH, IN DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF, UM, WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT AFFORDABILITY AND ABOUT, UM, DISPLACEMENT.AND AS, UH, COMMISSIONER GRAYSON COX CLAIMED AND NAMED THE LAST TIME WHAT I'M CLAIMING AND NAMING, UH, ALSO AS A DISPLACEMENT CRISIS, UM, A A CRISIS OF DISPLACEMENT OF VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES.
BUT ALSO THERE IS A CRISIS AROUND AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND LATINOS WHO WOULD BE CONSIDERED MIDDLE CLASS BY OUR STANDARDS BECAUSE THEY EARN A MEDIAN INCOME, AFRICAN AMERICANS, THAT'S ABOUT $50,000 AND LATINOS THAT ARE ABOUT $60,000 COMPARED WITH WHITES THAT ARE $93,000.
SO MY QUESTION TO YOU, BECAUSE YOU, YOU MADE AN OBSERVATION THAT HAD, THAT WAS A CLARIFYING MOMENT FOR ME.
AND I TOLD YOU AT THE TIME THAT IT, IT REMINDED ME OF SOMETHING THAT DR. MARTIN, THE KING TALKED ABOUT WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT THE GOOD SAMARITAN STORY, AND THAT THE ROAD TO SAMARIA WAS A DANGEROUS ROAD, AND PEOPLE DID NOT STOP TO, TO TRY TO TAKE CARE OF THIS MAN LYING IN THE ROAD BECAUSE THEY SAID, WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO ME? I COULD GET MUGGED, I CAN GET BEATEN DOWN.
BUT THE GOOD SAMARITAN STOPPED AND SAID, WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THIS MAN? AND YOU SAID THAT WE NEEDED TO FLIP THIS QUESTION AND THINK ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THESE PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE THAT I JUST OUTLINED, IF WE DON'T DO THE E TODD, BUT NOW I'M ASKING YOU, HOW DO WE DO THIS E TODD, IN THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE? I REALIZE IT'S ONE TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX, BUT I'M TAKING A PAGE FROM YOU TO FLIP THIS QUESTION.
AND I THINK STAFF WOULD SAY THAT THE PROPOSAL THAT IS BEFORE US HAS BEEN DEVELOPED BASED ON THE DIRECTION THAT WE WERE PROVIDED BY COUNSEL IN FEBRUARY TO APPLY AN EQUITABLE TOD OVERLAY TO NON SINGLE FAMILY ZONES WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THE COURT ORDERS.
THAT THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES THE DISPLACEMENT PREVENTION MECHANISMS THROUGH THE REQUIREMENT FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE UNITS, AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE COMMERCIAL SPACE, UM, THAT, THAT STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED.
UM, CERTAINLY IF THIS BODY FELT LIKE THOSE REDEVELOPMENT, UM, PROVISIONS ARE NOT STRIKING THE RIGHT BALANCE, BECAUSE THERE IS A BALANCE, THE EQUITABLE TOD OVERLAY IS DESIGNED TO STRIKE THAT BALANCE, UM, BETWEEN PROVIDING INCOME, RESTRICTED, AFFORDABLE UNITS AS AN INCENTIVE BETWEEN PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DENSITY ALONG OUR TRANSIT LINES SO THAT ADDITIONAL FOLKS CAN ACTUALLY LIVE, WORK, AND PLAY AND HAVE ACCESS TO THAT OPPORTUNITY.
AND BETWEEN MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE PREVENTING DISPLACEMENT TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN WITH THIS TOOL, UM, THAT THIS BODY CERTAINLY COULD MAKE CHANGES IN WHERE THE TOOL IS BEING APPLIED, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, OR LOOK AT, AT CHANGES IN THAT BALANCE IN TERMS OF WHAT'S BEING RECOMMENDED FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS.
I NOTED THAT, UH, CHAIR COHEN DID HAVE A QUESTION, SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT, ASK THAT.
JUST, JUST A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.
AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE, I PROMISE IT'S JUST MORE FOR MY OWN CURIOSITY.
IS THERE ANY DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE? ARE WE TRACKING THE NUMBERS WHERE DEVELOPERS WHO I KNOW WON'T BUILD IF THE COST IS TOO HIGH, BUT HAVE THEY, ARE WE TRACKING, LIKE WHEN THEY SAY NO, WE WON'T PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROGRAM BECAUSE A, B, C, OR D LIKE WE ACTUALLY DID DO KIND OF A SURVEY OF, UM, BUT THAT WAS COMPATIBILITY RELATED.
SORRY, I'M THINKING OUT LOUD AS I ANSWER, WHICH IS ALWAYS A, A CHALLENGE.
UM, BUT WE DEFINITELY, AS PART OF THE, THE COMPREHENSIVE WORK TO LOOK AT ALL OF OUR DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS ACROSS THE CITY, WE WILL BE DOING THAT ANALYSIS AND PROBABLY DOING THAT KIND OF SURVEY AND BRINGING THOSE RESULTS FORWARD TO THIS BODY.
UM, WE DO HAVE SOME ANALYSIS THAT MY COLLEAGUE, RACHEL, RACHEL TEER AT THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT, UM, HAS DONE ON THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS THUS FAR IN TERMS OF WHAT UNITS THEY'RE PRODUCING AND KIND OF SOME OF THE ANECDOTAL BARRIERS THAT WE KNOW, UM, AROUND WHY FOLKS AREN'T USING THEM.
AND THEN THERE'S A WHOLE SORT OF INFRASTRUCTURE OF MARKET ANALYSIS AND ECONOMIC, UM, CONSULTANTS OUT THERE THAT HAVE KIND OF HELPED TALK TO US ABOUT, UM, SORT OF MARKET UPTAKE OF THOSE UNITS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
SO, BUT MOVING FORWARD INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE DENSITY BONUS WORK, WE'LL DEFINITELY BE TARGETING THOSE KINDS OF QUESTIONS ACROSS ALL OF OUR DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS. OKAY.
I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK Y'ALL HAVE DONE ON THIS.
OKAY, WE'RE AT THE END OF OUR Q AND A.
SO, UM, LIKE WE DID LAST WEEK, UM,
[02:35:01]
WE HAVE THE RULES OF DELIBERATION THAT WERE SENT OUT, UM, AND WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THOSE, WITH THE, THE SAME TWEAK THAT WE HAD MADE LAST TIME, WHERE, UM, WE HAVE THE UNPOSTED INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS, UM, THE WILL OF THE BODY.WE CAN GO THROUGH MULTIPLE, UM, ROUNDS OF THOSE, UM, AS, AS, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION SEES.
SO FIRST, UH, WELL WITHOUT OBJECTION, UM, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE RULES.
UM, AND FIRST WE'LL ESTABLISH THE BASE MOTION, WHICH WILL BE TO, UM, FOR THE E TODD ITEM TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, UH, APPROVAL OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
SO VICE CHAIR, CHAIR, GO AHEAD AND, UM, MAKE A BASE MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
AND NOW WE'VE ESTABLISHED OUR BASE MOTION.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO PRESENTATION OF THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
UM, AND JUST A QUICK OVERVIEW OF WHERE WE'RE GOING.
WE'LL GO THROUGH THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS, UH, ONE BY ONE TO SEE WHICH ONES REMAIN ON CONSENT AND WHICH ONES ARE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
UM, WE'LL THEN GO THROUGH THE DISCUSSION OF THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED AND VOTE ON EACH.
UM, AND THEN WE WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN POSTED, THE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN POSTED, SAME PROCESS, UM, CONSIDERING WHICH ONES WILL REMAIN ON CONSENT AND WHICH ONES ARE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
AND THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH ANY, UM, UNPOSTED INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS.
SO, YES, SORRY, WOULD THIS BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME IF I WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE? YES, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO DATE CERTAIN, YES.
WHERE DID I HAVE THE DATES UP? UH, MOTION TO POSTPONE TO OUR MAY.
I WANNA SAY MAY 28TH, BUT I'M GONNA SAY MAY 14TH.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? YES.
UH, I WILL EXPRESS AGAIN, MY FRUSTRATION AT THE TRUNCATED PROCESS.
UM, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF REALLY, REALLY GOOD, UH, UH, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FROM STAFF IN OUR THREE MINUTE SEGMENTS, BUT, UM, THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP THAT I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO DIVE INTO AND HAVE A BIT MORE TIME, WHETHER THAT'S THROUGH THE WORKING GROUP OR THROUGH, UH, WORKING GROUP MEETINGS WITH STAFF, OR JUST PERSONAL ENGAGEMENT WITH, UH, ORGANIZATIONS THAT SPOKE TODAY THAT EMAILED US.
UH, AND ALSO, UH, CORRESPONDENCE WITH STAFF TO, TO WORK THROUGH SOME OF THESE REALLY GLARING ISSUES ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT AND THE DISPLACEMENT CONCERNS.
UM, WITHIN THIS, THIS EOD OVERLAY, IT SOUNDS LIKE STAFF, AND I'M SURE THEY WON'T ADMIT THIS IN A, UH, UH, WITH A MICROPHONE RECORDING, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE STAFF IS STILL ACTUALLY FIGURING OUT A LOT OF THINGS AS WELL.
AND SO I WOULD PREFER TO PROVIDE US AS MUCH TIME AS WE NEED TO ACTUALLY WORK THROUGH THESE AND HAVE THE BEST PRODUCT POSSIBLE FOR NOT ONLY THE FTA GRANT, BUT ALSO THE CITY.
UM, AND, AND, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE DEADLINES, SO, UH, THAT'S WHY I SELECTED MAY 14TH AND NOT MAY 28TH, UH, SO THAT WE AT LEAST TAKE THIS UP IN TIME FOR COUNSEL TO TAKE IT UP BEFORE, WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS A JUNE PENCIL DOWN DEADLINE FOR STAFF.
UM, PER OUR ESTABLISHED RULES, UM, THIS IS CONSIDERED A SUBSTITUTE.
SO WE WILL TAKE, UH, TWO COMMISSIONERS FOR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS UP TO TWO MINUTES EACH, AND THEN DO THE FOR AND AGAIN SPEAKING.
SO, ANY QUESTIONS, MR. PHILLIPS? SO ARE THE QUESTIONS, CAN THEY BE ASKED OF STAFF OR, OKAY.
STAFF, MOTION MAKER STAKEHOLDERS.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF TOO, BECAUSE IT GETS TO THE POINT I THINK OF, UH, POSTPONING.
UM, SO WHAT, WHO, WHO ARE SOME OF THE PARTNERS DID YOU WORK AT WORK WITH IN TRYING TO, TO DO THIS FOR THE EAD, ET CETERA? UH, DID YOU LOOK AT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE STUDY THAT WAS DONE FROM RICHARD HAMAN, AN URBAN PLANNER, PHD IN URBAN GEOGRAPHY, WHO HAS WRITTEN ABOUT THIS AND, AND WRITES THAT,
[02:40:01]
THAT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS WILL ACTUALLY INCREASE, UM, HOUSING, ESPECIALLY FOR PEOPLE WHO FALL AT THE BOTTOM HALF OF THE INCOME AUSTIN'S INCOME STRATA.HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THOSE KINDS OF STUDIES IN DOING THIS WORK? WE HAVE CERTAINLY REVIEWED PROFESSOR HAMAN'S WORK.
UM, I WILL SAY THAT MOVING INTO THIS WORK, THE ENGAGEMENT AND KIND OF THE STUDY WORK THAT PRECEDED THE CODE AMENDMENT REALLY RELATED TO THE EQUITABLE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT POLICY PLAN AS A WHOLE, WHICH IS A WHOLE HOST OF TOOLS AND INTERVENTIONS THAT ARE RECOMMENDED THAT WE WOULDN'T MOVE FORWARD IN ISOLATION WITH ANY ONE OF THOSE.
AND IN FACT, AS A CITY, WE ARE MOVING FORWARD, UM, UNDER OUR HOUSING DEPARTMENT AND OUR PARTNERS TO EXPEND $300 MILLION, UM, IN FUNDING THAT WAS AVAILABLE THROUGH PROJECT CONNECT TO SUPPORT INVESTMENTS IN SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, AS WELL AS PROGRAMS SUPPORTING FOLKS, UM, IN GENERAL ALONG THE CORRIDORS.
UM, WE HAVE ALSO BROUGHT ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO BEAR AS A CITY UNDER OTHER FUNDING SOURCES.
AND I THINK THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ON ALL OF THOSE IS THAT REGULATIONS ARE NOT GONNA GET US WHERE WE WANT TO GO AS A CITY.
IT HAS TO BE A COMBINATION OF REGULATIONS AND POLICIES.
THE REGULATORY PROPOSAL THAT IS ON THE DAIS, UM, THIS EVENING FOR CONSIDERATION, DID COME AS A RECOMMENDATION OUT OF THE EQUITABLE TO OD POLICY PLAN THAT WAS ACCEPTED BY COUNCIL IN MARCH OF LAST YEAR, 2023 AFTER, UM, QUITE A BIT OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT LEADING INTO THAT WORK.
I SAW A HAND UP FOR VICE CHAIR.
UM, I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT, IF WE DID POSTPONE TO THE 14TH, AND I KNOW IT'S, CAN STAFF SPEAK TO THAT? SORRY, GO AHEAD.
COUNCIL IS SET TO CONSIDER THIS ITEM ON MAY 16TH.
SO POSTPONING THIS ITEM TO THE 14TH WOULD MEAN THAT STAFF HAD VERY LITTLE TIME TO ANALYZE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OUT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR FOR COUNCIL TO REACT TO THOSE AS WELL, OR FOR THE COMMUNITY RATHER.
CAN I, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WOULD, WHAT IS USUALLY THE PROCESS FOR, LET'S SAY, TAKING AMENDMENTS? I KNOW WE HAVE SOMEWHERE AROUND, LET'S SAY 25 ISH AMENDMENTS FROM THIS BODY.
WHAT IS THE REGULAR PROCESS BY WHICH THEY WOULD BE HANDLED AS THEY GET OUT OF THIS BODY AND AS IT GO TO COUNCIL? YEAH, TYPICALLY, IF NOTHING ELSE, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, PUT THE DOCUMENT REFLECTING AMENDMENTS INTO THE BACKUP FOR COUNCIL, AND THEN COUNCIL EVALUATES THEM.
BUT COUNCIL, DURING THEIR PROCESS OF EVALUATING THOSE AMENDMENT REQUESTS WILL BE TURNING TO STAFF AS YOU ALL ARE THIS EVENING AND ASKING US QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE AMENDMENTS.
UM, WE TYPICALLY NEED SOME TIME TO PROCESS AND UNDERSTAND THE AMENDMENTS TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT COUNCIL WOULD LIKELY ASK ABOUT THOSE AMENDMENTS.
SO IN THE EVENT THAT YOU POSTPONED TO MAY 14TH, UM, THERE IS, I WOULDN'T SAY A HUNDRED PERCENT LIKELIHOOD, BUT SOME STRONG DEGREE OF LIKELIHOOD THAT WE WOULD NEED TO REQUEST A OR THAT SOMEBODY ON THE DIOCESE COUNCIL WOULD REQUEST A POSTPONEMENT OF THIS ITEM.
UM, ANY SPEAKERS FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION? YES, COMMISSIONER COX.
UM, I APPRECIATE THAT IT WOULD COMPRESS THINGS, AND I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE ALL BEEN RIDICULOUSLY COMPRESSED.
UM, WE HAVE NOT HAD TIME TO INCORPORATE THE PUBLIC FEEDBACK AND ENGAGEMENT AND, AND, AND THINK THROUGH THAT AND BE ABLE TO ASK Y'ALL INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS AND THEN GIVE YOU TIME TO ACTUALLY ANSWER THEM AND THEN GIVE US TIME TO RESPOND.
IT, IT HASN'T HAPPENED, SO, SO I, I, I'M SURE THERE'S A WAY TO FIGURE IT OUT, BUT THE POINT OF POSTPONING THIS FOR TWO WEEKS IS TO TRY TO CREATE A WINDOW SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE AT A MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION AND, AND TRY TO RESOLVE SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT, THAT WE'VE HEARD HERE TONIGHT, THE ANY SPEAKERS AGAINST.
AND THEN COMMISSIONER MU I'LL COME BACK TO YOU.
UM, YES, AS OF ONE OF THE E-E-T-O-D, UM, PLANNING COMMISSION WORKING GROUP MEMBERS, I DO WANNA EMPHASIZE THAT IT HAS BEEN DIFFICULT TO GET UP TO SPEED ON THIS IN LIGHT, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF HOW MUCH WORK WE DID LAST WEEK WITH HOME AND COMPATIBILITY.
BUT I ALSO DO WANNA SAY THAT WE KNOW THAT THE E-E-T-O-D POLICY IS SOMETHING IT'S BEEN OUR CITY HAS WORKED ON FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THE STAFF HAS WORKED VERY DILIGENTLY TO GET THIS PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF US.
I AM REALLY NOT CLEAR WHAT ELSE WE COULD DO IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS.
WE DO HAVE THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
THERE WAS THE TIME TO DO THOSE THOUGHTFULLY.
AND I WILL SAY THAT WE HAVE TOLD EVERYBODY IN THE PUBLIC THAT WE'LL BE TAKING THIS UP AT COUNCIL ON A, ON MARCH 16TH, THEY'RE PLANNING TO COME AND SPEAK PRO AND AGAINST THIS.
SO THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THEIR THOUGHTS WITH COUNCIL AND DO THAT WORK WITH OUR COMMUNITY.
SO I'M REALLY NOT CLEAR HOW US POSTPONING TO THE 14TH HELPS THAT
[02:45:01]
OTHER THAN MAKING STAFF WORK MORE DIFFICULT TO ACCOMPLISH AND POTENTIALLY A ADDING THINGS INTO THIS PROPOSAL THAT CANNOT BE FULLY CONSIDERED BEFORE IT GOES TO THE PUBLIC ON THE 16TH.SO I WOULD PREFER THAT WE ACTUALLY DO THIS WORK THIS EVENING AND GET OUR WORK DONE.
COMMISSIONER AL, UH, HERE'S MY CONCERN.
UM, I GREW UP OUTSIDE OF HOUSTON, UH, IN THE AEROSPACE INDUSTRY.
MY DAD WAS WORKED FOR NASA CONTRACTOR, THEY RAN PROPOSALS THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR FEDERAL FUNDING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND HE CLOSED OUT HIS CAREER RUNNING A PLANT, UH, THAT RECEIVED FUNDING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR PRODUCING DEFENSE SATELLITE WAFERS.
UM, THE FEDERAL CONSIDERATION PROCESS IS PRETTY COMPLEX, AND I'M CONCERNED THAT BY RUSHING THIS, I, I, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE TO GET THIS GRANT, UM, AND WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US SUPPORTING THAT.
SO MY HOPE WOULD BE THAT IF WE EXTEND IT, WE'RE WORKING WITH STAFF TO SHORE UP SOME OF THESE HOLES WHERE THE GRANT WRITING IS GOING, BECAUSE I, I, I DON'T BELIEVE THE CITY HAS A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH WINNING FEDERAL GRANTS AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA CREATE AN OVERLAY AND CHANGES THAT ARE GOING TO GO IN PERPETUITY, AND THEN THERE'S A POSSIBILITY WE DON'T GET THIS GRANT, AND WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM SEEING THIS THROUGH TO EXECUTION.
SO, AS MUCH AS I'VE BEEN IN GENERAL AGAINST THE IDEA, 'CAUSE I HAVE OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THAT'S GOING.
THIS IS WHERE WE ARE AND TO MAKE IT WORK AND ACTUALLY TO WIN THIS GRANT AND MAKE THIS HAPPEN, WE NEED TO BE A LITTLE MORE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THIS.
AND, AND THIS REALLY NEEDS TO BE A BIPARTISAN EFFORT, UH, TO GET THIS UP THROUGH THE FEDS AND, AND WE NEED TO PLUG THESE HOLES.
AND I, I GUESS WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS PLANNING COMMISSION IS OFFERING TO DO THAT DILIGENT WORK SO THAT ON MAY 14TH, WE'RE NOT GIVING YOU STAFF.
WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT GIVING SOMETHING THAT'S BRAND NEW THAT THEY HAVE TO THEN GO AND CONSIDER AND VET OUT TO COUNCIL.
BUT THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY APPROVED SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS ARE ALL IN THE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL IN THE MIX ON THAT.
WE THINK, OKAY, WE ARE MUCH CLOSER TO A FINALIZED PRODUCT THAT YOU REALLY CAN MOVE FORWARD SUCCESSFULLY WITH THAT.
I, I, I'M A LITTLE WORRIED ABOUT THE FAITH OF THIS PROPOSAL AT THE MOMENT.
FINAL SPOT AGAINST, YES, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
IT'D ALWAYS BE GREAT TO HAVE MORE TIME, BUT WE REALLY HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF WORK TO DO.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE RECENT LAWSUITS KILLING VM U2, I KNOW, I KNOW THAT WE NOW HAVE A TON OF DB 90 CASES TO DO AND WE JUST HAVE A LOT OF WORK.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I I I HEARD SOME COMMENTS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, LECTURER HAMAN'S PAPER.
I HAD THE CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT HIS PAPER AND OTHER THINGS UP ON STAGE THE OTHER DAY AND BEFORE HE LEFT THE ROOM SHOUTING EXPLETIVES, UH, HIS SUGGESTIONS WERE TO CHANGE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE TAX POLICY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE THAT POWER.
SO WE DO HAVE THE POWER FOR SOME ZONING TOOLS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA LOOK TO DO, READY TO GET TO WORK.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS MOTION.
THIS IS TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM UNTIL OUR MAY 14TH MEETING.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HANDS.
UM, THOSE A AGAINST TWO, THREE AND THOSE ABSTAINING.
OKAY, THAT IS TWO TO EIGHT TO ONE.
SO WE'LL GO BACK TO OUR BASE, WHICH IS STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND WE'LL MOVE INTO OUR WORKING GROUP.
AND THEN JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT'S THREE TO EIGHT TO ONE BECAUSE COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, COX AND MUSH DOLLAR WERE IN FAVOR.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
VICE CHAIR, ARE YOU GONNA GO OVER THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS? THANK YOU CHAIR.
I'LL GO OVER THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
THESE ARE POSTED IN THE BACKUP AS WELL AND WERE SHARED IN ADVANCE.
UM, SO AGAIN, I THINK THE BEST WAY TO GO THROUGH THIS WOULD BE I'LL SORT OF, UM, IF, IF FOLKS ARE FINE WITH IT, WE'LL SORT OF DEVIATE A LITTLE AND I'LL GO THROUGH THEM AND IF SOMEBODY WISHES TO PULL THE ITEM OR I'LL GO THROUGH THEM ALL.
SO THE FIRST ONE, UM, WAS, UH, BY MYSELF.
THIS WOULD ASK STAFF TO MAKE SOME CHANGES.
THE GENERAL RECOMMENDATION ONLY.
THIS WOULD ASK STAFF TO MAKE SOME CHANGES TO CHAPTER FOUR 18.
UM, THESE WOULD LOOK LIKE ESSENTIALLY SEEING THAT THERE IS A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE EXISTING UNITS BE REPLACED AT CERTAIN MFI LEVELS, UH, WITH COMPARABLE AFFORDABILITY AND BEDROOM REQUIREMENTS, UH, ENSURING THAT CURRENT TENANTS HAVE THE, UH, PROPER NOTICE
[02:50:01]
REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY WOULD RECEIVE.THERE WOULD BE REQUIREMENTS FOR A RELOCATION, UM, BENEFIT THAT WOULD BE GIVEN TO TENANTS AS WELL.
UM, AND THEN GRANTING INCOME, ELIGIBLE TENANTS, THE OPTION TO LEASE ONE OF THE AFFORDABLE UNITS, UH, UPON RETURN IN ADDITION TO ALLOWING ALL TENANTS, UM, TO COME BACK AND GET, UM, UNITS OF COMPARABLE SIZE.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS A GENERAL REQUIREMENT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT FOUR 18 TODAY.
SO THIS IS JUST GIVING SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO STAFF TO SORT OF GO AND CONSIDER AS THEY WORK WITH COUNCIL.
THE SECOND ONE IS, UM, THIS IS CONTINGENT ON THE FIRST ONE PASSING.
SO THEY'RE SORT OF TIED TOGETHER IN SOME WAYS.
UM, BUT IN ADDITION TO THIS CREATIVE PROCESS BY WHICH SOME OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN THE ABOVE AMENDMENT, UM, COULD BE WAIVED OR APPEALED BASED ON VERY SPECIFIC, UM, REQUIREMENTS RUN, FOR EXAMPLE, HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD REQUIREMENTS AND SO ON.
THE THIRD ONE IS FROM COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
THIS WOULD ASK FOR A REPORT, UH, BIANNUAL REPORT.
UM, BASICALLY LOOKING AT THE EO BONUS PROGRAM, INCLUDING YIELDS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BOTH ONSITE AND FEE L, USAGE OF FEE, L FUNDS, NUMBER OF TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS CREATED, COMMERCIAL SPACE DEVELOPER REDEVELOPED, AND OTHER KEY METRICS INCLUDING LOOKING AT EQUITY IMPACTS.
THE FOURTH ONE IS FROM COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
UM, THIS WOULD ESSENTIALLY SAY THAT ONCE THE FINAL AUSTIN LIGHT REAL STATION SELECTION HAS BEEN MADE, UM, FOR STAFF TO COME BACK AND REVISE THE ORDINANCE TO ENSURE THAT IT IS ALIGNED WITH THAT STATION SELECTION.
UM, AGAIN, THIS IS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION.
WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT, UH, FROM COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UM, WHICH WOULD UPDATE CERTAIN PROHIBITED AND COMMERCIAL USES.
UM, AND YOU'LL LOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF THE POSTED DOCUMENT AND THERE'S A LIST OF THE PROHIBITED USES, UM, AND CONDITIONAL USES THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED.
THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT ARE BEING MOVED AROUND.
UM, I SUPPOSE WHEN WE GET TO THAT, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL CAN SPEAK BETTER TO THAT IF FOLKS WISH TO LEARN MORE.
BUT THE ENTIRE CHART IS AT THE BOTTOM.
THANK YOU STAFF FOR SCROLLING THERE.
UM, THIS GETS US TO, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S.
UM, UH, NUMBER SIX, THIS IS REMOVING THE EO REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS.
UM, AND THIS WOULD BE STRIKING, THIS IS A TEXT-BASED AMENDMENT.
THEN THERE'S A GENERAL AMENDMENT FROM MYSELF LOOKING TO FULLY IMPLEMENT THE EO POLICY PLAN, INCLUDING PROGRAMS REQUIRING FUNDING.
UM, AND THERE'S A LINK TO THE POLICY PLAN THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY OUR AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF HAS WORKED ON.
NUMBER EIGHT IS A, UH, FROM COMMISSIONER COX.
THIS WOULD, UM, ESSENTIALLY REQUIRE THAT THE FEE WILL BE SET TO A HIGHER BAR, SO IT WOULD BE 110% OF THE REQUIRED PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS, UM, INCLUDING THE MIX OF BEDROOMS REQUIRED.
THIS WOULD, UH, BE A TEXT AMENDMENT IN RELATION TO THE, UH, THE ITEM ITSELF.
UM, NUMBER NINE IS ALSO FROM COMMISSIONER COX.
THIS WOULD, UH, MATCH THE NOISE LEVEL LANGUAGE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUST PASSED FOR THE COMPATIBILITY AMENDMENT.
ESSENTIALLY WOULD SAY THAT BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10:00 PM AND 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.
SO THAT, UH, WOULD BE CARRIED FORWARD.
AND THIS WOULD ALSO BE A TEXT BASED AMENDMENT.
NUMBER 10 IS FROM, UH, COMMISSIONER COX'S, THE GENERAL AMENDMENT TO ASK THAT IN FUTURE EO EFFORTS, UM, STAFF LOOK AT THE BENEFITS AND FEASIBILITY OF ZONING STATE PROPERTY TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE PROPERTIES ARE BROUGHT AGAIN, INTO THE DESIRE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS, UM, IN CASE THERE'S A CHANGE TO THE USE OF THOSE PROPERTIES IN THE FUTURE.
NUMBER 11 IS ALSO FROM COMMISSIONER COX.
THIS WOULD RECOMMEND THE STAFF EVALUATE ADDING LANGUAGE TO THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW, UM, ESSENTIALLY ADDITIONAL SETBACK WHERE A PROPERTY MIGHT BE ADJACENT TO PROPOSED STATION AREAS TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY IN STATION DESIGN AND TO ENSURE THAT THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS IN THE FUTURE.
AND THIS IS ALSO A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION.
NUMBER 12 IS, UM, ALSO A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION FROM COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
THIS WOULD RECOMMEND THAT COMMERCIAL OFF STREET VICE CHAIR.
CAN I INTERRUPT YOU FOR ONE SECOND? YES.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE A TXN FEED IS FLAWED AT SOME POINT, AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT LOOKS LIKE THE LIBRARY PUBLIC'S ABLE TO WATCH.
I'LL PAUSE AND SEE THAT WE CAN CORRECT THAT.
MM-HMM,
[02:55:01]
IS MS. CORONA, DO YOU KNOW IF, IS SOMEBODY LOOKING INTO THIS? YES, I BELIEVE DANIEL WENT TO GO LOOK INTO IT.OKAY, LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
YEAH, MADAM CHAIR, WE NEED WATER
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE GONNA GET STARTED AGAIN.
THIS WAS, UM, LET'S WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS BACK ONLINE ONE.
OKAY, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR AZAR IS READING THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS AND WE CAN HEAR EVERYTHING IN THE ROOM.
UM, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, AMENDMENT NUMBER 12 FROM THE WORKING GROUP FOR COMMISSIONER FROM COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
THIS IS A GENERAL AMENDMENT RECOMMENDED THAT COMMERCIAL OFF STREET PARKING BE CATEGORIZED AS A PROHIBITED USE.
UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, UH, NUMBER 13 IS A AMENDMENT FROM COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
THIS WOULD ASSESS RISK FOR EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE EO AREA AND INCLUDE PROTECTIONS FOR THOSE AT RISK OF DEMOLITION, UM, AND ENSURING THAT THERE'S ENFORCEMENT OF THESE SIMILAR PROVISIONS PREVIOUSLY USED IN AFFORDABLY UNLOCKED AND CLOSE ANY LOOPHOLES.
UM, NUMBER 14 IS FROM COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
THIS WOULD USE PROJECT CONNECT.
UH, THIS WOULD, UH, RECOMMEND THAT WE USE PROJECT CONNECT ANTI DISPLACEMENT FUNDS FOR ACQUISITION OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT OR BELOW 50% MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME.
NUMBER 15 IS ALSO FROM COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
THIS WOULD, UM, ASK, THESE ARE ALL GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS, A RECOMMENDATION TO RECALIBRATE TO ENSURE THAT IT REFLECTS INCREASED MARKET VALUE AND RETURNS FOR DEVELOPER.
UH, ESSENTIALLY IF YOU WANNA SERVE BELOW 60% MEDIA FAMILY INCOME, THAT THE FEE AND U SHOULD NOT BE AN OPTION.
NUMBER 16 IS ALSO FROM COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
THIS WOULD, UM, ASK STAFF TO EXPLORE THE TAX ABATEMENT OR OTHER PROGRAMS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES FACING DISPLACEMENT.
UM, CHAIR THAT IS ALL THE AMENDMENTS FROM A WORKING GROUP.
AND I CAN GO THROUGH THE LIST OF PULLING CONSENT WHENEVER FOLKS ARE READY.
OKAY, SO WE'LL START AT THE TOP TO PULL ANY AMENDMENTS THAT, UM, PEOPLE WISH TO DISCUSS.
THE REST WILL REMAIN ON CONSENT.
IF WE DON'T HEAR FROM ANYBODY.
CHAIR, I KNOW THIS IS A LOT OF OUT OF ORDER, COULD I POTENTIALLY ASK OUR STAFF FOR A QUESTION RELATED TO THE TWO USE BASED AMENDMENTS? UM, WOULD THOSE BE OKAY OR DO WE NEED TO DISPOSE THOSE OR PULL THOSE? SO MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS IS THAT THERE'S ONE SET OF AMENDMENTS FROM COMMISSIONER MAXWELL THAT WOULD MOVE ITEMS FROM PROHIBITED ONTO CONDITIONAL, WHICH I THINK IS A TEXT BASE AMENDMENT THAT YOU ALL COULD RECOMMEND TONIGHT.
AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER GENERAL AMENDMENT THAT WOULD HAVE COMMERCIAL OFF STREET PARKING, MOVING FROM CONDITIONAL TO PROHIBITED, WHICH YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO AS A TEXT-BASED AMENDMENT, BUT COULD MAKE AS A RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE PHASES.
I APPRECIATE THAT AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION.
SO, OKAY, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE SHOULD BE GOOD.
UM, CHERYL, I'LL START GOING THROUGH THEM.
SO THE FIRST ONE IS THE, UM, REQUIREMENTS FOR MINIMUM, UH, FOR HAVING HIGHER STANDARDS FOR, UM, ESSENTIALLY REDEVELOPING EXISTING MULTIFAMILY HOUSING THAT MIGHT BE NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE TO ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO PULL THIS ITEM.
I KIND OF WANNA PULL IT JUST SO WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT.
THIS TAKES US TO, UM, THE SECOND ONE.
THIS WOULD CREATE A, CREATE A PROCESS BY WHICH SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND, UH, ESSENTIALLY THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT, UH, COULD BE WAIVED FOR SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
ANYBODY WISHING TO PULL THIS? OKAY, THIS STAYS ON CONSENT.
I'M SORRY, I'M JUST MAKING A NOTE OF THIS SO I DO NOT LOSE THIS LATER.
UM, THIS WOULD TAKE US TO COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S GENERAL RECOMMENDATION, UH, FOR A BIANNUAL REPORT.
ANYBODY WISHING TO PULL THIS? NOPE.
THIS MOVES FORWARD ON CONSENT.
THIS TAKES US TO, UM, ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
THIS IS ALSO A GENERAL ONE FROM COMMISSIONER HAYNES TO HAVE THE LIGHT RAIL SELECTION IN THE FUTURE INFORM THE ORDINANCE.
ANYBODY WISHING TO PULL THIS? OKAY, THEN THIS REMAINS ON CONSENT AS WELL.
UM, THIS TAKES US TO, UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S NUMBER FIVE ON UPDATING CERTAIN PROHIBITED AND COMMERCIAL USES.
CAN I PULL MY AMENDMENT PLEASE? THANK YOU.
SO THAT WILL BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
[03:00:01]
TO, UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S NUMBER SIX, WHICH IS REMOVING THE EO REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS.ANYBODY WISHING TO PULL THIS? AND OKAY.
THEN MOVES FORWARD IN CONSENT.
I JUST WANNA SAY, UM, COMMISSIONERS ONLINE, I REALLY WOULD ASK 'CAUSE WE CAN'T SEE YOU VERY WELL.
SO IF, IF YOU MIGHT HAVE TO SPEAK UP IF I, IT SEEMS LIKE I'M NOT NOTICING YOU AND I'M LOOKING TO, OH, THANK YOU SO MUCH HERE.
THIS TAKES US TO, UM, ESSENTIALLY LOOKING AT NUMBER, UM, SEVEN, WHICH IS THE GENERAL AMENDMENT, UH, TO FULLY IMPLEMENT THE EO POLICY PLAN FROM MYSELF.
ANYBODY WISHING TO PULL THIS? OKAY, THIS ITEM MOVES FORWARD ON CONSENT.
THIS TAKES US TO NUMBER EIGHT FROM COMMISSIONER COX, WHICH WOULD, UM, CONSIDER HOLDING THE FEE DUE TO A HIGHER BAR, THE 110% OF THE REQUIRED PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION ON THIS.
COMMISSIONER COX, FOR YOUR AMENDMENT, FOR YOUR OTHER AMENDMENT, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO PULL THIS BECAUSE IT WOULD LIKELY BE A SUBSTITUTE, THE ONE THAT YOU'VE SHARED AS AN INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT? OH, UH, SURE.
I'LL, UM, THIS TAKES US TO NUMBER NINE, WHICH IS THE NOISE LEVEL, UH, AMENDMENT MATCHING THE ONE THAT PLANNING COMMISSION JUST PASSED FOR COMPATIBILITY.
ANYBODY WISHING TO PULL THIS? OKAY, THIS MOVES FORWARD ON CONSENT.
UM, THIS TAKES US NUMBER 10, WHICH IS, UH, ALSO FROM COMMISSIONER COX, WHICH WOULD, UM, ASK STAFF TO EVALUATE THE BENEFITS AND FEASIBILITY OF ZONING STATE PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE.
ANYBODY WISHING TO PULL THIS? NOT SEEING ANYONE THAT GOES FORWARD ON CONSENT.
NUMBER 11, WHICH IS, UM, A RECOMMENDATION FOR STAFF TO EVALUATE ADDING LANGUAGE TO THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK, UM, TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY IN STATION DESIGN.
ANYBODY WISHING TO PULL THIS ONE? OKAY, THIS MOVES FORWARD ON CONSENT.
THIS TAKES US NUMBER 12, WHICH IS COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S GENERAL AMENDMENT.
UM, TO RECOMMEND THAT COMMERCIAL OFF STREET PARKING BE CATEGORIZED AS A PROHIBITED USE IN THE FUTURE.
I, I WANTED TO PULL THE PREVIOUS, UH, AMENDMENT ABOUT THE SETBACK FLEXIBILITY.
GENERAL RECOMMENDATION RE REGARDING COMMERCIAL OFF STREET PARKING.
OKAY, I HAVE QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE.
CAN WE PULL IT JUST SO AT LEAST WE CAN DISCUSS IT? YES.
UM, THIS TAKES US TO COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS'S ITEM OF ASSESSING THE RISK OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE EO AREA.
OKAY, WE'LL KEEP THAT ONE ON CONSENT AS WELL.
THIS TAKES US TO, UM, NUMBER 14, UH, WHICH WOULD, UH, GIVE A RECOMMENDATION TO USE ANTI DISPLACEMENT FUNDS.
ANYBODY WISHING TO PULL THIS ITEM MOVE FORWARD ON CONSENT.
UM, PHILLIPS, UH, WHICH WOULD RECALIBRATE TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS, UH, INCREASE IN MARKET VALUES ARE ESSENTIALLY, UM, CAPTURED WITHIN RECALIBRATION IN THE FUTURE.
THIS MOVES FORWARD ON CONSENT AS WELL.
THIS TAKES US TO THE LAST ONE FROM THE WORKING GROUP, WHICH WOULD BE, UM, EXPLORING TAX ABATEMENT FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.
ANYBODY WISHING TO PULL THIS? I SEE, UH, COMMISSIONER BRETT RAMIREZ.
I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS NUMBER THREE JOHNSON.
AND I'M SORRY I DIDN'T SPEAK UP EARLIER, BUT NUMBER NO WORRIES.
AND SO NOT NUMBER 16? CORRECT.
SO THE ORDER THAT I HAVE CHAIR RIGHT NOW IS, UM, NUMBER ONE FROM AZAR GETS PULLED.
NUMBER THREE FROM JOHNSON, GETS PULLED.
UM, NUMBER FIVE FROM MAXWELL GETS PULLED.
NUMBER EIGHT FROM NUMBER COMMISSIONER COX NUMBER SIX AS WELL.
NO, IT DID NOT, IT DID NOT GET PULLED.
SO NUMBER EIGHT FROM, UM, FI LOU, SORRY, SORRY, NUMBER FROM NUMBER COX.
THIS GOT PULLED BY COMMISSIONER COX.
THEN I HAVE NUMBER 11, WHICH IS, UM, FROM COMMISSIONER COX REGARDING THE FRONT SETBACK THAT'S PULLED.
AND NUMBER 12 AND SORRY, TWO MORE.
NUMBER 12, WHICH IS THE OFF STREET PARKING ONE AND NUMBER 16, WHICH IS THE NO NUMBER 16 IS NOT PULLED.
SO I'M SORRY, JUST TO GO OVER IT, I'M NOW LOOKING AT, ONE IS BOLD, THREE IS BOLD, FIVE IS BOLD, EIGHT IS BOLD, 11 IS BOLD, AND 12 IS BOLD.
THAT'S ALL THE BOLD AMENDMENTS.
[03:05:01]
SO WE WILL GO THROUGH OUR AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE WORKING GROUP CONSENT AMENDMENTS.
I WOULD NEED A SECOND ON THAT.
I'LL THANK YOU BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT WITHOUT OBJECTION? WE'LL, UM, HELP ME WITH THE LANGUAGE.
UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ADD THOSE INTO OUR BASE MOTION.
UM, OKAY, NOW BACK TO NUMBER ONE.
THIS IS VICE CHAIR OURS AMENDMENT.
AND WE'LL START OFF WITH JUST AN OVERVIEW OF THE AMENDMENT AND THEN OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, SO WE WERE LOOKING AT, UM, SEEING HOW DO WE SORT OF MINIMIZE THE IMPACT, UM, OF ANY REDEVELOPMENT PRESSURE THAT IT WOULD BE ON EXISTING MULTIFAMILY AND THOSE CHANGES AS STAFF HAS MENTIONED TODAY, EXISTING CHAPTER FOUR 18.
UM, SO THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY CHANGES THAT WE CAN MAKE HERE TODAY OURSELVES, BUT ESSENTIALLY WE'RE, IT'S FOUR PARTS OF THIS.
UM, THAT BEING CONSIDERED, THIS WAS A RECOMMENDATION THAT'S GENERAL FOR STAFF TO SORT OF FIGURE OUT.
ONE IS REALLY ENSURING THAT WE'RE REPLACING ALL EXISTING UNITS THAT ARE AFFORDABLE, UM, IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS AND 60% M AFI OR BELOW.
AND ESSENTIALLY TO HAVE AS MANY, UH, BEDROOMS AS THOSE UNITS.
SO SORT OF A REQUIREMENT TO, UM, REDEVELOP ANY LOST UNITS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE THROUGH NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT.
NUMBER TWO WOULD BE, UM, TYING IT TO, UM, ESSENTIALLY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.
SO WE ARE ASKING FOR ABOVE AND BEYOND THE EXISTING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE CITY HAS SORT OF ABOVE AND BEYOND THOSE EXISTING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.
HAVING, UM, THE PAYMENT FOR A TENT RELOCATION FEE.
I KNOW THERE'S SOME CONCERN FROM STAFF ON THIS AND I, YOU KNOW, IF IT COMES UP WE CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, BUT ESSENTIALLY TENANTS WOULD BE GETTING SOME KIND OF RELOCATION BENEFIT.
AND THEN THE LAST ONE WOULD BE A RIGHT TO RETURN FOR FOLKS TO THE AFFORDABLE UNITS, BUT ALSO OTHERWISE, UM, FOR UNITS IN COMPARABLE, UH, COMPARABLE SIZE.
QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER COX? YES, I'M, I'M WHOLLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF COMMISSIONERS ARE, IF YOU CAN ANSWER THESE OR IF STAFF NEEDS TO ANSWER THESE, BUT, UH, IS, IS THE REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE MARKET RATE AFFORDABLE UNITS, IS THAT IN ADDITION TO THE AFFORDABLE UNIT REQUIREMENTS OR WOULD THAT SATISFY THE 15% IF THEIR RENTAL, UM, BASICALLY I'M JUST WONDERING IF IT'S ADDITION TWO OR DOES IT SATISFY? SO ONE COULD COULD COUNT TOWARDS THE OTHER, SORRY, RACHEL TUPPER, THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.
SO TECHNICALLY YOU COULD USE YOUR SET ASIDE, UM, YOUR, YOUR, IF YOU WERE REQUIRED TO REPLACE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF UNITS, LET'S SAY 40 UNITS, AND YOU, UM, YOUR, YOUR ON YOUR REQUIREMENT, YOUR ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT WAS 20 UNITS, YOU WOULD ONLY HAVE TO PROVIDE 20 ADDITIONAL UNITS.
SO THE FULL, UM, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF UNITS WOULD BE, SO THESE REPLACEMENT UNITS COUNT TOWARDS THE THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THEN, UM, ALSO A QUESTION ABOUT THE 12 MONTHS.
FIRST OF ALL, I'M WONDERING IF, IF THERE'S ANY REASON FOR THE 12, IF WE CAN'T GO HIGHER TO 18 OR 24 JUST BECAUSE THE MARKET IN AUSTIN IS JUST CHANGING SO RAPIDLY.
AND THEN CLARIFICATION, IS IT, IS IT A TRIGGER IF, IF IF IT'S 60% MF, AFFORDABLE 60% MFI AT ANY POINT DURING THAT TIME PERIOD? OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE THROUGH THAT ENTIRE TIME PERIOD? STAFF WOULD SUPPORT GOING HIGHER? WE ARE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE INCREASED RENTS.
UM, AND THE PREVIOUS FOUR 18 REGULATIONS DO HAVE A, A CLAUSE ABOUT INCREASING THE BASICALLY LOOK, UH, LIMITING THE, UM, AMOUNT OF RENTAL INCREASES THAT CAN OCCUR.
UM, BUT WE WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF A A LONGER TIMEFRAME FOR THAT.
AND, AND THE, THE REASON I'M NOT WATCHING MY TIME, THE REASON I ASK THAT IS BECAUSE IT'S GONNA TAKE A YEAR FOR FINANCING AND DEVELOPERS TO GET STUFF IN ORDER ANYWAYS DURING THAT YEAR.
THEY COULD JUST JACK UP RENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T FALL UNDER THIS PROVISION.
SO I THINK SOMETHING LIKE 24 MONTHS MIGHT PROVIDE BETTER PROTECTION.
UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESTATE YOUR PROPOSALS A MOTION? THANK YOU CHAIR.
I'LL OFFER THIS AS A, AS A BASE, UM, ALTHOUGH IT SEEMS LIKE THERE MIGHT BE SOME COMMENT ON THAT.
I'M GONNA OFFER THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT ONE AS, UM, STATED WITH THE CHANGE OF 12 MONTHS TO 24 MONTHS.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX, ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR VICE CHAIR? DID YOU WANNA SPEAK? I I, I, YOU KNOW, I FEEL
[03:10:01]
LIKE I'M HOGGING SO MUCH TIME, SO I JUST WANNA BE RESPECTFUL.BUT I DO WANNA SAY I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD FROM FOLKS ABOUT SORT OF REALLY ENSURING HOW DO WE NOT DISPLACE EXISTING TENANTS, PARTICULARLY LOOKING AT SOME OF THIS NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
YOU KNOW, WE HAD PEOPLE TESTIFY ABOUT THIS TODAY.
WE ALSO HAD, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE SHOWED EXAMPLES AND PICTURES AND ALL OF THE SORT OF HOUSING STOCK THAT, THAT, THAT EXISTS TODAY.
AND THIS IS OUR WAY OF REALLY ENSURING THAT WE'RE PROTECTING THOSE FOLKS.
SO EVEN IF WE SEE THAT THERE CAN BE A BENEFIT TO HAVE NEWER HOUSING OR HAVING MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS TO A BONUS PROGRAM IN THE FUTURE, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE A NET LOSS IN THOSE UNITS.
AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.
AND I DO APPRECIATE, UM, STAFF FOR THEIR CREATIVITY ON SOME OF THIS AS WELL.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION FOR YES, CLARIFYING QUESTION PLEASE.
SO WOULD THIS BE IN THE ORDINANCE OR WOULD IT JUST LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE AS A POSSIBLE GOAL OR DESIRE? WHERE WOULD IT ACTUALLY BE ACTIONABLE? I WILL HONESTLY, MS. LINK, DO YOU WANNA RESPOND TO THAT? SO THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION ACTUALLY LIVES IN CHAPTER FOUR 18 OF THE CITY CODE TODAY.
UM, SO IT WOULD BE A CHANGE, THIS WOULD BE A CHANGE FROM 12 TO 24 MONTHS.
UM, COUNCIL ACTUALLY HAS ON THEIR AGENDA FOR THURSDAY, CONSIDERING CHANGES TO THE REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS IN CHAPTER FOUR 18.
AND BASED ON THE COMMENTS TODAY AT WORK SESSION, UM, AT LEAST ONE OR MORE OF THE MEMBERS ARE INTERESTED IN HEARING WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS TO SAY AND CAN POTENTIALLY BRING THOSE FORWARD FOR ADOPTION ON THURSDAY.
OR IT MAY END UP NEEDING TO COME BACK AT A, AT TIME.
YOU'RE SAYING THEY WANT TO HEAR WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY.
UNLESS THERE'S OTHERS WANTING TO SPEAK.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT.
UM, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, THAT'S UNANIMOUS, RIGHT? THAT AMENDMENT PASSES.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT HOLD AMENDMENT, WHICH IS NUMBER THREE JOHNSON'S AMENDMENT.
CHAIR, I'M PREPARED TO SPEAK TO THE RATIONALE FOR PULLING IT.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, I AM ALL FOR DATA.
I THINK ALL OF THESE ELEMENTS ARE GOOD INFORMATION.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS A FOLLOW UP REQUIREMENT FROM THE STAFF PERHAPS TO, UM, TO KIND OF PUT THE PIECE INTO THE REPORT.
UM, SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, ARE WHAT I'M, WELL I DUNNO, I'M SORRY I'M NOT
I DUNNO THE PROCESS, BUT THAT'S MY THINKING IS THAT I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF DIRECTION TOWARDS STAFF TO EITHER MOVE FORWARD AN ORDINANCE OR DISCUSS AN ORDINANCE OR TRY AND USE THE DATA TO REVISE THE ORDINANCE AS NEEDED TO MAKE IT APPLICABLE.
WELL, UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, DO YOU WANNA GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND ONTO YOUR PROPOSAL? SURE.
SO THE IDEA FOR THIS AMENDMENT WAS SIMPLY TO, UM, RECOMMEND THAT STAFF IN THE INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY AND, AND IMPROVING OUR FUTURE PLANNING EFFORTS.
UM, AND SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE DONE ON HOME AND HOME TWO, UH, TO PREPARE AND, AND SHARE A REPORT THAT ESSENTIALLY LOOKS AT WHATEVER FINAL ORDINANCE GETS ADOPTED AND, AND STARTS TO TRACK THE IMPACT IT ACTUALLY HAS IN TERMS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, FEE AND LIE, UH, MARKET RATE, HOUSING UNITS, COMMERCIAL DEVELOP, JUST THE ENTIRE SORT OF TOTALITY OF ITS IMPACT, UM, ON THE, UH, AREA OF FOCUS.
SO COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ, DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION OR DID YOU NEED ANY OTHER, UM, ANSWER FROM STAFF? UM, NO, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN ALTERNATE AMENDMENT.
UM, WELL, LET'S GO THROUGH MORE QUESTIONS, IF ANY ON COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S AMENDMENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF, UH, CARES TO RESPOND, BUT, UM, MY FEELING WITH ALL OF THIS IS THAT THIS DATA EXISTS.
IT'S HERE, WE HAVE IT, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF PUTTING IT IN A FORMAT THAT I THINK SHOULD BE AS LIVE AS POSSIBLE AND AS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE OUR POOR STAFF ARE ALREADY COVERED UP IN SO MANY THINGS THAT THEY HAVE TO DO.
BY MAKING THIS DATA AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IN AN ALMOST IMMEDIATE WAY, AS THE APPLICATIONS GO IN, AS THINGS GET APPROVED, THEN ENTITIES AT UT AND INTEREST GROUPS, COMMUNITY GROUPS CAN EVALUATE THAT STUFF AND PROVIDE LIVE FEEDBACK TO US AND TO COUNCIL WITHOUT RELYING ON STAFF TO SPEND 12 MONTHS DOING A REPORT OR
[03:15:01]
HIRING A CONSULTANT OR WHATEVER.AND SO WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS, IS THAT MAYBE, UM, WE INCORPORATE SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT THAT, THAT I HAD PROPOSED FOR HOME TWO TO, TO HAVE STAFF EVALUATE THE FEASIBILITY OF PUTTING THIS DATA UP ON A LIVE DASHBOARD, UM, UTILIZING THEIR GIS SYSTEM OR OTHER OTHER SYSTEM SO THAT, UM, EVERYONE HAS THIS INFORMATION AS IT COMES IN AND WE CAN UTILIZE THAT TO MAKE THINGS HOPEFULLY BETTER QUICKER.
STAFF, DID YOU WANNA RESPOND TO ANYTHING I SAID ON THAT
STEVE GREATHOUSE, DIVISION MANAGER, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UM, JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PART OF THE EQUITABLE TOD POLICY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION IN GENERAL INCLUDES DEVELOPING DASHBOARDS TO DESCRIBE KIND OF OUR PROGRESS MEETING THE GOALS OF THE EQUITABLE TOD POLICY PLAN, UM, THAT THIS DEFINITELY WOULD FIT FULLY WITHIN, UM, KIND OF OVERLAPS THE ADDITIONAL REPORTING THAT IT WAS TALKED ABOUT THE OTHER EVENING, UM, RELATED TO HOME, BUT DEFINITELY SUPPORTIVE OF THE NOTION OF PROVIDING REAL TIME DATA THROUGH A DASHBOARD.
LAST SPOT FOR A QUESTION, MADAM CHAIR.
UM, IT'S MORE ALONG THE, ALONG THE LINES OR A COMMENT, UH, OF MY GOOD FRIEND COMMISSIONER COX.
BUT YOU GOTTA REMEMBER THAT SOME OF HIS OLD FOGIES AREN'T QUITE AS NIMBLE ON THE COMPUTER OR THE CELL PHONE AS YOU ARE.
AND, UH, SO I, I'M, I'M OKAY WITH THE IDEA, THE IMMEDIATE AND THE DASHBOARD, BUT AT SOME POINT WE NEED JUST A, A OLD GUY PAPER COPY REPORT.
AND, AND I NOW WITH THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, I'M, I DO NOT WANNA PUT ANOTHER THING ON STAFF, BUT, BUT CAN WE, CAN WE SUMMARIZE THE DASHBOARD QUARTERLY OR CAN WE, CAN WE PUT IT IN A PAPER PRODUCT WHERE FOLKS THAT ONLY HAVE A CELL PHONE OR FOLKS THAT ARE OLD LIKE ME, THAT, THAT CAN'T MANAGE THE DASHBOARD? I'M SUPPORTIVE IF YOU PROVIDE STAFF YOUR FAX NUMBER.
I'M SURE THEY COULD, THEY COULD GET YOU THAT INFORMATION.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, MARK, MARK THE TAPE PLEASE.
SAY, WHAT IS A FAX MACHINE? POINT OF POINT OF, UH, CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I, I THINK THAT THIS IS ALL JOKING ASIDE.
I THINK THAT THIS IS A, AN A MATTER OF EQUITY.
IT TRULY IS A MATTER OF EQUITY.
AND WHEN I LISTENED TO THE MEETING LAST WEEK ABOUT NOTIFICATION AND HOW IT WOULD BE DONE, AND I HEARD PEOPLE SAY THAT, OH, WE CAN JUST PUT IT ON A DASHBOARD, YOU KNOW, IT'S AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
UM, IT MIGHT BE A BURDEN TO TAXPAYERS TO PAY MORE TO SEND OUT SNAIL MAIL.
I THOUGHT TO MYSELF, HOW ELITIST, HOW ELITIST.
YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW THAT THERE ARE A GREAT NUMBER OF SENIORS IN THIS COMMUNITY WHO ARE TAXPAYERS AND VOTERS WHO DON'T KNOW HOW TO GOOGLE STUFF, WHO DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE A DASHBOARD.
YOU MIGHT BE SURPRISED TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE MARGINALIZED AND UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES, THAT THE ONLY SMART DEVICE THEY HAVE ARE THEIR TELEPHONES THAT HAVE TO BE USED FOR SCHOOLWORK, HOMEWORK, COMMUNICATING WITH TEACHERS, DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENTS, AND EVERYTHING ELSE IN THEIR LIFE TO SURVIVE.
AND THE PRIORITY IS NOT TO GO TO THE DASHBOARD.
SO I JUST WANNA TAKE THE JOKE OUT OF IT FOR A MOMENT SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DESIGNING FOR ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS WHO PAY TAXES AND VOTE, WHO WORK IN THE CITY, AND NOT JUST FOR A POPULATION OF PEOPLE WHO ARE PRIVILEGED.
I HAVE FOUR COMPUTERS IN MY HOUSE, BUT MY NEIGHBOR WHO IS 80 HAS NONE.
WE'LL GO BACK TO COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO, UM, MAKE A MOTION? YEAH.
I'M IN THE AMENDMENT AS, UH, AS WRITTEN SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ.
YOU HAD SAID ABOUT SOMETHING ABOUT A SUBSTITUTE EARLIER.
SO MY SUBSTITUTE WOULD BE TO TAKE THE AMENDMENT AS WRITTEN AN AD.
UM, AND SO THE REPORT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE RECOMMENDING ASSOCIATED CHANGES TO THE LAND USE CODE SO THAT IT'S NOT JUST A REPORT, THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY A RECOMMENDATION THAT SAYS
[03:20:01]
THIS CHANGE SHOULD BE MADE GIVEN THE RESULTS OF THE REPORT.IS THERE A SECOND? SORRY, WAS THAT A, A SECOND.
OH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT COMMISSIONER BARRE RAMIREZ? NO, I MEAN, I THINK, WELL, I THINK THAT I JUST DON'T WANT IT TO BE A REPORT THAT JUST CRUNCHES A BUNCH OF NUMBERS, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S READILY AVAILABLE.
BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL FOR COUNCIL TO SEE AND FOR US TO SEE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF THAT SAYS, BASED ON THE DATA, WE RECOMMEND THESE LAND USE CHANGES.
BECAUSE I THINK WITHOUT THAT IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST THE DATA AND WE HAVE TO COME TO THOSE CONCLUSIONS ON OUR OWN.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SUBSTITUTE? SURE.
VICE, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER BAR RAMIREZ.
SO I THINK IT, WHAT I'M HEARING, AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I NOTE THIS CORRECTLY, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT IT AS IS WITH THE ADDITIONAL SENTENCE AT THE END, THE REPORT SHOULD INCLUDE RECOMMENDING MAKING ASSOCIATED CHANGES TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND THAT'S JUST ONE LEVEL OF AMENDMENT.
WE CAN'T GO BEYOND THAT AMENDING THE AMENDMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
THIS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE, THIS IS, UM, THE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S AMENDMENT AS WRITTEN, BUT WITH THE, UH, SENTENCE AT THE END ABOUT THE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT CODE RECOMMENDATIONS, THAT IS 12 ZERO.
THIS IS FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE, MAXWELL.
UM, AND I WENT AHEAD AND PULLED MY OWN AMENDMENT
'CAUSE I THINK WE JUST NEED SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE USES, UM, THAT WERE IN THERE.
UH, I THINK WE DID OUR BEST, AS SHOULD WE SAY, ALL NEW GUYS
UM, BUT, UH, AND IF, IF STAFF COULD ACTUALLY BRING UP THE LIST.
UH, I THINK IT'S AT THE BOTTOM OF THE AMENDMENT SHEET.
SO, UH, YOU CAN SEE THERE'S PROHIBITED USES AND THEN IF YOU MOVE DOWN TO THE CONDITIONAL USES, THE ONES IN BROWN, IN IN, UM, BOLD ARE THE ONES THAT WE HAVE ACTUALLY MOVED DOWN, WHICH WE UNDERSTOOD TO BE PERMISSIBLE.
AND THE REASON I WANTED TO SPEAK TO THIS WAS BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE MAY BE CONFUSED AS TO WHY WE HAD MOVED SOME AUTOMOTIVE USES DOWN, BUT IN OUR UNDERSTANDING IN SPEAKING TO STAFF WAS THAT THERE ARE SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS ONCE A USE IS PROHIBITED.
AND I WAS HOPING SOMEONE COULD SPEAK TO THAT.
ONCE A USE IS PROHIBITED IN OUR CODE, IT WOULD BECOME ILLEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE, WHICH ARE REGULATED IN THE CODE, UM, AS PART OF THE RECENT STATE LAW CHANGE.
AND I'LL ACTUALLY, UM, DEFER TO TRISH LINK HERE IN A SECOND TO EXPLAIN KIND OF STATE LAW AND WHAT WE'RE DOING TO ACCOMMODATE THE RE RECENT STATE LAW CHANGE PUTS LIMITATIONS ON HOW THE CITY OF AUSTIN CAN, UM, PROHIBIT USES MOVING FORWARD AND KIND OF WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN ORDER TO ALLOW LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING USES TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE.
UM, THAT WOULD APPLY TO THESE.
UM, THERE ARE DEFINITELY RESTRICTIONS IN CODE, UM, THAT MAY RELATE TO EXPANSION BEYOND A CERTAIN DEGREE AND CERTAINLY, UM, THAT WOULD RELATE TO, UH, DISCONTINUING THE USE FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME.
UM, WOULD REQUIRE THAT, THAT THE NEW USE THAT COMES BACK AFTER THE DISCONTINUED USE WOULD NO LONGER HAVE KIND OF THE CONTINUED RIGHTS, UM, TO OPERATE.
BUT IN GENERAL, OUR CODE ALLOWS EXISTING USES ON THE GROUND TODAY TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USES.
AND I'M LOOKING TO TRISH TO SEE IF I GOT ANYTHING WRONG.
UM, JUST TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE I THINK SOME FOLKS MAY UNDERSTAND THIS, MAYBE IF WE THINK ABOUT THE WAY WE THINK OF A HISTORIC PRESERVATION, THERE ARE LIMITATIONS TO HOW MUCH YOU CAN SORT OF IMPROVE OR MAINTAIN THE PRO PRO AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS WE CAME, CAME TO THE WORKING GROUP.
AND PERHAPS IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN THAT AND THAT IS ACCURATE AND I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OR TO TRISH TO EXPLAIN THE SPECIFICS.
BUT YES, THERE ARE LIMITATIONS IN THE CODE ABOUT HOW MUCH, UM, FOLKS CAN EXPAND OR REDEVELOP IN THE FUTURE.
AND THEN JUST RELATED, SINCE I MAY RUN OUTTA TIME HERE, UM, I DID WANNA UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE AGRICULTURAL USES, UM, BECAUSE THOSE ARE SPECIFICALLY, WE MOVED SOME DOWN BECAUSE WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WEREN'T PREVENTING THINGS LIKE GARDENING, YOU KNOW, SORT OF URBAN GARDENS AND NURSERIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO CAN YOU SPEAK TO THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY? I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE COMMISSION.
THE ONES THAT ARE ON THE PROHIBITED USE UNDER THE PROPOSAL INCLUDE ANIMAL PRODUCTION, CROP PRODUCTION, HORTICULTURE, AND INDOOR CROP PRODUCTION.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THOSE ARE ALL LARGER SCALE AGRICULTURAL USES THAT ARE MORE AKIN TO THE RURAL VERSION OF AN INDUSTRIAL USE.
SO IF WE DID NOT KEEP THOSE, IF WE DID NOT MOVE THOSE BACK TO, INTO THE CONDITIONAL USES, WE WOULD NOT BE PREVENTING THINGS LIKE COMMUNITY
[03:25:01]
GARDENS, UM, URBAN ROOFTOP GARDENS OR ANYTHING, NURSERIES, THINGS LIKE THAT.AND MANY OF THESE WOULD ACTUALLY BE PROHIBITED UNDER THE BASE ZONE.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS ON THIS AMENDMENT IN THE MADAM CHAIR? YES.
COMMISSIONER IN THE TRUST, BUT, BUT VERIFY MS. GREATHOUSE, UH, DO YOU KNOW, AND AND I'LL JUST, I'LL JUST BE JUST STRAIGHT UP AS I CAN BE.
SUNSHINE GARDENS, UH, I GET MY TOMATOES AND MY PEPPERS AND MY EVERYTHING THERE EVERY SPRING.
WHAT DO THEY OPERATE UNDER AND UH, ARE THEY, BECAUSE THEY'RE A BLUE, THEY, THEY ARE ONE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT'S BLUE AND SO THIS DOES APPLY TO 'EM.
AND WHAT DO THEY OPERATE UNDER? DO WE KNOW
THE ONE THING I, I'LL ADD THAT BASED ON THE AMENDMENT FROM WHAT I'M SEEING IN THE SHEET, UM, THE PROPOSAL WOULD MAKE COMMERCIAL OFF STREET PARKING PROHIBITED.
THAT'S IN A SEPARATE AMENDMENT THAT THAT'S SEPARATE.
SO THIS MS LINK WOULD, LET ME READ THIS OUT.
SO THE FOLLOWING USES WOULD NOW BECOME CONDITIONAL FROM PROHIBITED AUTOMOTIVE SALES, AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SERVICES, LIMITED WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION, CROP PROTECTION PRODUCTION, HORTICULTURE, AND INDOOR CROP PRODUCTION.
IF THOSE ARE ALL CONSIDERED, DID YOU SAY THEY WOULD MOVE TO CONDITIONAL? YES.
FROM PROHIBITED TO CONDITIONAL USES.
OH, THAT'S THE PROPOSED IS IS TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE THEM.
THAT IS THE AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED FROM THE WORKING GROUP UNLESS SOMEBODY CHANGES SOMETHING TO IT.
OH, I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST THE AUTOMOTIVE.
TO BE CLEAR TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, THAT'S WHY WE PULLED THIS AS WE WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT WE HAD GOTTEN IT CORRECT IN THE WORKING GROUP AND THERE HAS BEEN SOME QUESTIONS RELATED TO THESE, SO THAT'S WHY I WANNA MAKE SURE WE PASS THE AMENDMENT AS BEST SUITED.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY THE MOTION IT WOULD BE TO TAKE, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE USES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED AS PROHIBITED AND MAKE THEM CONDITIONAL? THAT IS CORRECT.
UH, BUT THAT WAS WHY I WAS ASKING THE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
SORRY TO TAKE THAT JUST SO THAT WE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE USES WERE FOR EACH OF THOSE.
UM, THIRD SPOT FOR OUR QUESTION, MR. COX.
DO WE, DOES STAFF HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY OF THESE USES CURRENTLY EXIST WITHIN THE E TODD BOUNDARY? WE HAVE NOT.
WE HAVE A CITYWIDE LAND USE INVENTORY THAT WOULD PROVIDE SOME OF THAT INFORMATION.
WE HAVE NOT DONE A PARCEL BY PARCEL ANALYSIS OF WHAT USES ARE ACTUALLY ON THE GROUND UNDER THIS LIST.
UM, WE HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE STATE LAW FOR NOTIFICATION BY NOTIFYING ALL OF THE OCCUPANTS OF THE PARCELS THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR REZONING, UM, OF THE POTENTIAL LIST OF PROHIBITED USES.
SO IN, IN, IN THE VEIN OF CONTINUING COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S QUESTIONING, CAN, CAN YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WOULD HAVE A NON-CONFORMING USE WHAT THEY COULD DO TO THEIR PROPERTY WHILE MAINTAINING THAT USE? SO UNDER THE CODE, UM, GOING A LITTLE OFF MEMORY, THEY CAN MAINTAIN IT, THEY CAN HAVE IT, UM, WHAT THE CODE GENERALLY ADDRESSES ARE EXPANDING THOSE USES BEYOND THE FOOTPRINTS THAT THEY EXIST TODAY.
THAT'S KIND OF THE GENERAL IDEA OF ONCE YOU GET TO A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE, UM, BUT SO THEY'D BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN IT, THEY'D BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO USE IT.
WE DO NOT, THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT INCLUDE A SPECIFIC CUTOFF.
SO SOME CITIES, WHEN THEY SAY YOU NO LONGER CAN DO A USE, THEY GIVE YOU A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME TO RECOVER YOUR INVESTMENT.
THIS ORDINANCE ALLOWS THEM TO BE CONTINUING, UM, LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USES.
THE EXCEPTION WOULD BE IF THEY ABANDON THE USE.
SO IF SOMEBODY STOPS USING IT FOR 180 DAYS, THEY LOSE THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE THAT USE.
UM, AND THAT'S A PRINCIPLE THAT IT'S IN OUR CODE, BUT IT'S ALSO THE STATE LAW FOR THE 180 DAYS.
UM, THE OTHER PIECE OF IT IS, IS COUNSEL WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A SPECIFIC DECISION TO STOP THOSE USES AND THAT'S GONNA BE A WHOLE SEPARATE PROCESS AND CREATE A, HAVE, HAVE A WHOLE DIFFERENT SET OF REQUIREMENTS.
IS THAT, IS THAT ONE SECOND? IS THAT A CODE ENFORCEMENT THING? IS THAT LARGELY JUST CODE ENFORCEMENT ENFORCING THOSE NON-CONFORMING USES? IF WE HAVE AN ABANDONED USE, WE HAVE HAD THAT COME UP IN DIFFERENT OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES AND IF THEY GO BACK TO TRY TO USE IT, WE WILL HAVE TO SHOW THAT THEY ABANDONED THE USE.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DO YOU WANT TO RESTATE YOUR MOTION? WOULD FOLKS MIND IF I MADE THE MOTION, THEN WE CAN AMEND IT AS A STAGE.
'CAUSE I JUST NEED TO POINT OUT A FEW THINGS.
SO THIS WOULD BE THE MOTION, UM, AS STATED WITH
[03:30:01]
AS STATED, WHERE WE'RE MO MOVING SEVEN ITEMS FROM PROHIBITED TO CONDITIONAL.THESE WOULD INCLUDE AUTOMOTIVE SALES, AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SERVICES, LIMITED WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION, CROP PROTECTION, HORTICULTURE, INDOOR CROP PRODUCTION.
ONE THING I WANT TO NOTE FROM AS STATED, SO THIS IS NOT AS STATED COMMERCIAL OFF STREET PARKING.
THERE'S NO CHANGE TO WHAT FROM WHAT STAFF HAD, UH, PROPOSED.
SO I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT THERE A SECOND.
CAN I IN STATE, CAN I MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION
NOW THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT WILL NOT BE IMPACTING THE SPECIFIC CASE STUDIES THAT WERE BROUGHT TO US.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY WITH EVERYTHING ELSE, AS WITH EVERYTHING ELSE IS YES.
CAN I GET A POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON YOUR CLARIFICATION? BECAUSE WE DIDN'T REALLY GET A POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON THE, UM, LIKE QUESTION OF SUNSHINE GARDENS AND SO THEY MAY VERY WELL BE UNDER WHAT WE INTENDED TO KEEP IN HERE UNDER USES.
SO, I'M SORRY, I, I THOUGHT MS. GRAY HAS TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THOSE THREE SPECIFIC USES ARE ACTUALLY FOR MUCH LARGER SCALE A AGRICULTURE AND WOULD NOT BE USED FOR URBAN OR GARDENS.
THAT'S WHAT I HAD ASKED EARLIER, TYPICALLY, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA NECESSARILY SPECULATE ON A SPECIFIC GARDEN.
AND WHAT HAS SHE SAID ALLOWED UNDER WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO ASK DSD TO WEIGH IN ON THAT AND SEE WHAT THEY'VE ACTUALLY GOTTEN THEIR COS AROUND.
SO WE DIDN'T GET A REAL ANSWER IN OTHER WORDS.
AND I'D BE HESITANT TO MOVE IT BACK TO PROHIBITED UNTIL, YOU KNOW, I WANNA KEEP IT HERE.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS SUGGESTED WHERE WE GO AHEAD AND MOVE THOSE THREE SPECIFIC USES BACK UP INTO PROHIBITED.
IS THERE A SECOND? VICE CHAIRS SECOND.
ALRIGHT, UM, QUESTIONS FOR THIS, UH, THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER, CAN WE HIT PAUSE ON ON AND JUST GO TO THE NEXT ONE WHILE, UH, LITERALLY CAN, CAN SOMEBODY LOOK UP IT? Y'ALL THAT KNOW HOW TO DO IT CAN LOOK IT UP.
WHAT IS, WHAT IS SUNSHINE GARDEN'S? I MEAN, IT IS A HUGE COMMUNITY ASSET AND A HUGE COMMUNITY BENEFIT.
UM, JUST HOW ARE THEY ZONED? IF THEY'RE ZONED SOMETHING OTHER THAN THOSE, I'M OKAY WITH IT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO CUT THEM OFF.
CAN SOMEBODY LOOK THAT UP AND WE MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE? AND THEN CAN NO CHAIR.
I WANNA SAY SINCE THE MOTION TO SECOND HAS BEEN MADE, WE CAN'T MOVE ON, BUT WE CAN PAUSE.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE, THEY'RE WORKING ON FINDING AN ANSWER THERE.
AM I ALLOWED TO ASK A QUESTION NOW? NO.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOUR MIC THERE.
KEITH MORRIS IS THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AT FIRST BLUSH ON PROPERTY PRO PROFILE.
IT IS SHOWN AS BEING UN ZONED.
IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE STATE PROPERTY.
THIS TYPE OF, OF DETERMINATION TAKES SOME, SOME THOUGHTFULNESS.
I DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU BAD INFORMATION.
THAT IS WHAT I'M SEEING PUBLICLY.
THAT IS AS GOOD INFORMATION I CAN PROVIDE AT THIS TIME.
MADAM CHAIR, THAT MAKES 'CAUSE IT IS ON THE BACKSIDE OF, OF HHS OR NOT HHS, BUT, UH, DHS.
SO IT PROBABLY IS A LONG-TERM LEASE FROM THE STATE OR SOMETHING.
UM, GUESS I GUESS, SORRY, I WAS JUST GONNA CLARIFY.
FOR UN ZONE PROPERTIES WE WOULD NOT HAVE RECOMMENDED AS PART OF THIS ACTION APPLYING THE, A AAD OVERLAY TO ANY UN ZONE PROPERTIES.
UM, OTHER QUESTIONS? I JUST HAD A QUICK CLARIFYING QUESTION.
UH, WITH RESPECT TO SUNSHINE GARDENS, 'CAUSE WE ALL LOVE IT.
UH, IT, REGARDLESS IT WOULD BE A NON-CONFORMING USE THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? IF IT FALLS UNDER ONE OF THE PROHIBITED USE CATEGORIES, YES, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO CONTINUE, UM, AS A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE.
AND I SAW COMMISSIONER MO TOLER AND, AND COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE RAISE THEIR HANDS AT THE EXACT SAME TIME.
SO GO AHEAD MS. COMMISSIONER COMM TOLER.
I, I GUESS I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND, UH, WHY WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO, UH, MAKE THIS MOTION.
[03:35:01]
A PROHIBITED USE.UM, MAYBE AT THIS TIME IT MIGHT BE MORE COMFORTABLE TO LEAVE IT OUT WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT COUNSEL CONSIDER IF THIS USE SHOULD BE PROHIBITED VERSUS OUR PRESCRIBING IT.
UH, IT, SORRY, COMMISSIONER, IT WAS ORIGINALLY PROHIBITED.
WE ONLY MOVED IT INTO PROHI INTO CONDITIONAL BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO CLARIFY THE SPECIFIC URBAN GAR GARDENS AND NURSERY TYPE SITUATIONS.
SO THIS IS A WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT.
WE WERE UNCLEAR WHICH ONE OF THESE WOULD APPLY TO IT, BUT STAFF HAS INDICATED THAT THESE ARE ALL ACTUALLY AGRICULTURAL SCALE, LARGE SCALE FARMING, WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING IT SEEMS LIKE WE WOULD WANT ON OUR ETOD.
AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS ORIGINALLY ON THE PROHIBITED LIST.
SO I'M JUST SUGGESTING WITH THE SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT THAT WE MOVE IT BACK TO WHERE IT STARTED BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE CLARITY ON WHAT THE USES WERE WHEN WE MADE THIS ORIGINAL VERSION.
AND I I MISSED THAT CLARITY FROM STAFF.
IT SOUNDED LIKE THEY WERE STILL CONFUSED.
SO, UH, IS THERE A CLEAR DEFINITION OF THAT USE THAT STAFF CAN GIVE US AT THE MOMENT SO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON? WELL, LIKE HOW, HOW IS THAT USED? DEFINED? YEAH.
WELL, WHILE STAFF DOES THAT, CAN I JUST, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, IT'S NOT BLUE.
I WAS EXPRESSING RELIEF BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT PROPOSED REZONING ANY UN ZONE PROPERTIES AND IT IS CLEAR THAT THAT PARTICULAR CASE IS UN ZONE IN TERMS OF THE SPECIFICS OF THE EXISTING CODE AND WHAT IS ALLOWED IN EACH OF THESE FOUR AGRICULTURAL USES.
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PHONE A FRIEND THAT HAS THESE MORE MEMORIZED THAN I DO, OR I WILL NEED TO HAVE A MOMENT TO ACTUALLY LOOK THEM UP IN OUR CODE.
AS I, I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE DEFINITION IS, I, I DON'T WANT US TO BE PROHIBITING A USE THAT, YOU KNOW, ADDRESSES SOME FOOD DESERT ISSUES OR THINGS LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, OR ACCESS TO QUALITY, YOU KNOW, GROWN STUFF VERSUS JUST THE SHOPPING GROCERY STORE OPTIONS.
ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE THE LIVE, LIVE WORK COMMUTE WITHOUT HAVING TO HAVE CAR THERE THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT KNOCKING OUT A FUNCTIONALITY WE NEED TO MAKE THIS WORK.
STAFF'S WORKING ON THIS AND SO WE'LL WAIT FOR THEIR ANSWER.
OR IF WE WANNA LET, UM, ANOTHER COMMISSIONER GO WHILE THEY'RE GETTING THAT, THAT'S FINE TOO.
OR WHATEVER'S PROTOCOL CHAIR COMMISSIONER LAYS ON ANDREW RIVERA, YOU CAN CONSIDER TABLING THE AMENDMENT AND THEN COME, UH, BRINGING IT BACK UP.
DOES THAT REQUIRE I WOULD, HONESTLY, I WOULD PREFER TO JUST STICK TO IT AND GET IT DONE.
I UNDERSTAND MR. VERA THAT WE COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT.
AND IF WE, UH, NEED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MORE TIME, WE CAN CERTAINLY TABLE IT AND COME BACK.
CHAIR, I'VE MOVED TO CALL THE QUESTION, UM, WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A QUESTION.
WE, WE HAVE A SECOND HAS BEEN CALLED AND WE HAVE A SECOND.
SO NOW WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE ON I THINK THERE'S SUPER MAJORITY THEN WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.
THIS IS, AND WE'RE VOTING TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE YES.
ON THIS PARTICULAR, SO WE'RE VOTING BEFORE WE GET THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION WE'RE CALLING, THE QUESTION IS TO, UM, TO VOTE.
AND SO WE'RE, WE'RE FIRST VOTING WITH A SUPER MAJORITY TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE.
IF WE DON'T GET A SUPER MAJORITY, THEN WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND WAIT FOR ASK.
BUT MY MY POINT WAS WE'RE INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR STAFF TO BRING US BACK THE INFORMATION, I THINK WE ARE CALLING THE QUESTION.
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS COMPLICATED AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE.
WE, WE HAVE, WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT.
SO FOLKS, JUST TAKE A VOTE TO THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT IT FAIL.
NO, THOSE IN FAVOR OF CALLING THE QUESTION FOR A VOTE.
ONE THOSE I DON'T EVEN SEE THE PEOPLE THAT MADE THE MOTION AND SECOND VOTING ON IT.
SO STAFF, SO THERE ARE FOUR AGRICULTURAL USES ON THE LIST THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED TO MOVE FROM THE EAD PROPOSAL PROHIBITED TO CONDITIONAL.
TWO OF THOSE ARE ANIMAL PRODUCT OR ANIMAL PRODUCTION IS ONE OF THOSE.
[03:40:01]
USE IS THE USE OF A SITE FOR THE RAISING OF ANIMALS OR PRODUCTION OF ANIMAL PRODUCTS, INCLUDING EGGS AND DAIRY PRODUCTS ON AN AGRICULTURAL OR COMMERCIAL BASIS.THIS USE INCLUDES GRAZING, RANCHING, DAIRY FARMING, AND POULTRY FARMING.
CROP PRODUCTION USE IS THE USE OF A SITE FOR THE RAISING AND HARVESTING OF TREE CROPS, ROW CROPS, OR FIELD CROPS ON AN AGRICULTURAL OR COMMERCIAL BASIS, INCLUDING PACKING AND PROCESSING.
HORTICULTURE USE IS THE USE OF A SITE FOR THE GROWING OF HORTICULTURE OR FLORA CULTURAL SPECIALTIES, INCLUDING FLOWERS, SHRUBS AND TREES INTENDED FOR ORNAMENTAL OR LANDSCAPING PURPOSES, BUT EXCLUDING RETAIL SALES, THIS USE INCLUDES WHOLESALE, PLANT, NURSERIES AND GREENHOUSES.
AND THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST, INDOOR CROP PRODUCTION USE IS THE USE OF A SITE FOR THE RAISING AND HARVESTING INDOORS OF TREE CROPS, ROW CROPS, OR FIELD CROPS ON AN AGRICULTURAL OR COMMERCIAL BASIS, INCLUDING PACKING AND PROCESSING.
DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? OKAY.
SO IT IS MORE SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S FUNCTION, IT'S, IT'S FUNCTIONALLY DEFINED, NOT SCALE, DEFINED SIZE AND SCOPE.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY ELSE UNDER HEARD WHAT I HEARD.
YEAH, THE DEFINITIONS ARE DEFINED AS A FUNCTION.
OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING, MOVING BACK TO VOTING ON THE SUBSTITUTE, UH, AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR.
AND GERALD, I'LL JUST, UM, ESSENTIALLY SAY, SO WHAT WE'RE, THE ONLY THING THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS DOING IS, UM, THAT IT IS MOVING AUTOMOTIVE SALES, AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SERVICES, LIMITED WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION TO CONDITIONAL USES.
IT MAKES NO CHANGES TO COMMERCIAL OFF STREET PARKING, CROP PRODUCTION, HORTICULTURE, INDOOR CROP PRODUCTION PROBLEM.
CAN I SUBSTITUTE OR ARE WE, WE'RE WE'RE ALREADY ONE DOWN, SO I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THE BASE MOTION GOT A SECOND.
SO THIS IS THE FIRST AMENDMENT CONDITIONAL, EVERYTHING ELSE.
CAN I OFFER OUR SUBSTITUTE, UH, TO LEAD TO RE REMOVE, REMOVE, UH, HORTICULTURE BACK AS CONDITIONAL, BUT LEAVE THE OTHER THREE AS PROHIBIT, UH, ANIMAL REDUCTION, CROP PRODUCTION AND INDOOR CROP PRODUCTION AS PRE, BUT OKAY.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? WELL, I THINK THAT WITH THE HORTICULTURE, IT'S CLEAR THAT, THAT THAT CAN BE A VERY SMALL USE OR, OR WHATEVER.
IT COULD JUST BE FOR GROWING FLOWERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND THINGS THAT HELP OUR ENVIRONMENT.
SO, UM, I WOULD SAY THAT I WOULD GO ALONG WITH MOVING OUT ALL THE OTHERS BACK TO WHERE THEY WERE, BUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE GREEN SPACE AND THE BUTTERFLIES AND THE BEES THAT HOLD HORTICULTURE BRING TO OUR COMMUNITIES.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS SUBSTITUTE.
I BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THOSE AGAINST AND THOSE OH, THAT WAS UNANIMOUS.
IS WE ARE MOVING ON TO NUMBER EIGHT.
THIS IS COMMISSIONER COX'S CONSIDERING HOLDING FEE IN LIEU TO A HIGHER BAR.
AND I BELIEVE HE HAS A, A SUBSTITUTE FOR THIS.
SO THIS WAS EMAILED IF YOU WANT TO READ THE TEXT, BUT WHAT I'M PROPOSING, UM, AND I HOPE I'LL GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THIS, IS TO REMOVE ALL REFERENCES TO FEE IN LIEU FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND REQUEST STAFF RETURN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN 90 DAYS FOR A PRESENTATION IN Q AND A ON THE TOPIC OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO MITIGATE ASSOCIATION FEE COST IMPACTS TO ONSITE INCOME RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.
ALRIGHT, QUESTIONS FOR, UH, ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT? I, I HAVE A QUESTION.
WHEN YOU SAY ALL REFERENCES TO, YOU MEAN ALL REFERENCES IN EO? YES.
WHICH THE ONLY REFERENCE IN E TODD IS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OWNERSHIP UNITS.
[03:45:05]
ALL RIGHT.COMMISSIONER MU I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE 90 DAY THING.
UM, SO A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER COX.
UM, HOW ARE WE'RE GONNA GET THAT RESOLVED BEFORE MAY 16TH? SO MY THOUGHT PROCESS ON THIS IS WE'RE NOT GONNA GET IT RESOLVED BEFORE MAY 16TH OR BEFORE WE SUBMIT THE FDA GRANT APPLICATION.
I, I HAVE A FEELING THAT REQUIRING MORE ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WILL BE BETTER FOR THE FDA GRANT APPLICATION THAN ALLOWING FEE IN LIEU.
UM, AND WE'RE PLANNING EVERYTHING BASED ON THE GRANT APPLICATION POINTS.
BUT, UM, MY, MY THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND THIS IS WE NEED TO PUT SOME MOTIVE, WE NEED TO PUT SOME FIRE INTO THAT TOPIC.
UM, AND I THINK BY PUSHING THIS FORWARD, BY REMOVING FEE AND LIE, HAVING THE CONVERSATION WITH STAFF RELATED TO EVERYTHING THAT THEY'VE CONTEMPLATED AND POSSIBLY IDEAS THAT THEY HAVEN'T, WE'LL AT LEAST GET THE CONVERSATION GOING.
UH, AND THAT WILL INFORM POTENTIALLY FUTURE, UH, THINGS THAT WE DO TO EITHER CRAFT, UH, UH, A FEE AND LIE THAT'S MAYBE BETTER AT ACHIEVING ON SITE, UM, OR, OR DETERMINING THAT THERE'S SOME OTHER WAY TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE COST IMPACTS TO OWNERSHIP.
I SHARE THE CONCERNS THAT WE'RE BASICALLY RELEGATING, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE E TODD AREA TO RENTAL UNITS.
SO WE'RE NOT ALLOWING, UH, THAT SEGMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF, OF THE BENEFITS OF OWNERSHIP, UH, ESPECIALLY IN PROXIMITY TO THE LIGHT RAIL, WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS.
SO THAT, THAT'S PRIMARILY THE POINT OF, OF THIS IS TO PUT SOME IMPETUS BEHIND THAT TOPIC.
LET'S MOVE FORWARD AND TRY TO, TO SOLVE THIS ISSUE.
SORRY, WHERE ARE WE? CHAIR? WE ARE UP TO QUESTIONS IF FOLKS HAVE ON THIS SUBSTITUTE.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? QUICK QUESTION.
UNDERSTAND, UM, MAYBE A QUESTION FOR STAFF ON THIS STAFF.
IS THERE ANY WAY YOU COULD SHARE WITH US KIND OF SOME OF THE ISSUES YOU'VE SEEN WITH DENSITY BONUS, AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP? SURE.
THE, UH, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, UM, DENSITY BONUSES ARE, UH, A CHALLENGE IN OVERALL, UM, UH, WITH LIMITED NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS, UH, IN A LARGE POPULATION.
YOU ARE DEALING WITH THIS, UH, UH, MUCH SMALLER SUBSET OF DEVELOPMENT, MEANING THAT IF, UH, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT, UH, RENTAL HOUSING, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, WHEN, UH, WE GO TO PROPERTY MANAGERS AND, UH, DO THE INSPECTION, DO OUR MONITORING CAMPAIGN, UM, NINE TIMES OUTTA 10, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HECK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UM, SO THERE IS A, THERE'S AN EDUCATIONAL ASPECT, THERE'S A, UH, ENFORCEMENT ASPECT, AND THERE'S A MONITORING ASPECT WHEN IT COMES TO AFFORDABLE, UH, OWNERSHIP PRODUCT.
UH, THE CHALLENGE TRULY IS, UM, IN TERMS OF NUMBERS, UM, WHERE YOU HAVE A HUNDRED PEOPLE AND, UH, THE 90 OF THEM DECIDE THAT THEY WANT TO INCREASE THEIR, UH, THEIR PAYMENT, UH, TO PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT THEY NEED OR SOMETHING THAT THEY WANT, WHETHER IT'S, UH, A NEW AIR CONDITIONING UNIT OR, UH, NEW LANDSCAPING, UM, THEY WILL, THEY CAN MAKE THAT DECISION.
SO, UH, THEY OUTVOTE THOSE LOWER INCOME INDIVIDUALS WITH LOWER, UH, WITH THE, UH, AFFORDABLE UNITS.
ARE YOU COMFORTABLE IN KEEPING THOSE UNITS AFFORDABLE OR, AND HAVE YOU HAD ANY ISSUES WITH TCAD THAT YOU CAN SHARE BRIEFLY? UM, WE ARE VERY, I MEAN, WE DO WANT TO KEEP THOSE, UH, UNITS AFFORDABLE.
UH, WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL NEEDS TO SELL, WE, UH, HAVE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL TO PURCHASE THAT UNIT SO WE CAN MAINTAIN AFFORDABILITY.
UM, WE'VE ALSO WORKED WITH TCAD TO, UM, ENSURE THAT THOSE AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE, UH, TAXED AT THE AFFORDABLE RATE.
UM, IT IS REALLY JUST THAT HOA QUESTION AND THAT REALLY ONLY COMES UP WHEN YOU HAVE A VERY LARGE, UH, UM, MARKET RATE POPULATION AND A VERY SMALL, AFFORDABLE, UH, POPULATION.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UM, COMMISSIONER COX, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESTATE YOUR MOTION? WE'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND.
MY MOTION IS TO REMOVE ALL REFERENCE TO FEE IN LIEU FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND REQUEST STAFF RETURN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN 90 DAYS FOR A PRESENTATION AND Q AND A ON THE TOPIC OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO MITIGATE ASSOCIATION FEE COST IMPACTS TO ONSITE INCOME, RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.
[03:50:01]
OKAY.I THINK WE'VE HEARD THAT EXPLANATION AT LEAST FIVE OR SIX TIMES.
UM, I UNDERSTAND IT, I'M NOT MAKING THESE AMENDMENTS BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES I'M MAKING THIS AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THE IMPETUS TO FIND SOLUTIONS.
WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE CHALLENGES.
I'M SURE STAFF HAS SPENT HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS TRYING TO DEVISE A WAY TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.
I WOULD LIKE US TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THEM ON THAT AND TO CONTRIBUTE TO THAT CONVERSATION AND FIND A SOLUTION IF WE NEED TO, TO CRAFT A WAY TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE OR CRAFT A FEE IN LIE OPTION THAT DOES NOT BASICALLY LEAVE US WITH A BUNCH OF APARTMENTS OR A BUNCH OF CONDOS WITH ZERO AFFORDABLE UNITS WITHIN THE ETOD.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YEAH.
UM, YOU KNOW, I WOULD HONESTLY SUPPORT, UH, GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF TO EXPLORE AND COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS FOR, UH, STRATEGIES TO ACCOMMODATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING HOME OWNERSHIP.
UM, BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL NOTION THAT SOMEHOW HAVING A FEE AND LIE OPTION IN THIS CASE FOR ONLY SOME TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, IT'S NOT FOR RENTAL UNITS, UH, ONLY FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP UNITS.
UH, I DON'T AGREE THAT THAT'S NECESSARILY A BAD THING.
I THINK THAT IT PROVIDES MORE FLEXIBILITY.
WE DON'T KNOW IF THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS WILL PENCIL FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT AFFORDABLE OR NOT, YOU KNOW, HOME OWNERSHIP OR RENTAL.
AND SO I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF BUILT-IN FLEXIBILITY TO SAY, UH, YEAH, YOU CAN, YOU CAN DO A MARKET RATE, UH, CONDO PROJECT IF YOU PAY THIS FEE.
WHICH BY THE WAY, WE RECOMMENDED RAISING THE FEE, UH, TO, TO MORE THAN THE TOTAL VALUE OF WHAT WOULD'VE BEEN REPLACED.
SO, UM, YEAH, I I JUST DON'T AGREE WITH THE NOTION THAT HAVING A FEE IN LIEU FOR SOME DEVELOPMENTS IS INHERENTLY A BAD THING, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'VE SEEN EVIDENCE AS WE DID EARLIER TODAY FROM MR. MAY, THAT IT IS ACTUALLY CREATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND CAN BE LEVERAGED TO PRODUCE FAR MORE THAN ITS FACE VALUE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? SO I'M GONNA AGREE TO DISAGREE WITH COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
AND MY DISAGREEMENT IS AROUND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE NO IDEA IF WE ARE CONTINUING TO SEGREGATE THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S DOWNTOWN AREA, HIGH WEALTH, UH, AREAS THAT WHERE WE ARE USING FEE AND LOO SO THAT CONDOS, LOW INCOME, LOW INCOME CONDOS, INCOME RESTRICTED, AS WE SAY, ARE NOT BEING BUILT ON SITE.
AND FOR THE RECORD, WE'VE ASKED FOR, AND I'VE ASKED FOR EMPIRICAL DATA, DATA, NOT JUST PEOPLE SAYING SOMETHING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY CAN BUY THESE CONDOS AND AFFORD TO PAY THESE FEES.
I'VE SEEN IT DONE BEFORE BY, BY FAMILIES CHIPPING IN TO PROVIDE THE MONEY WHEN THE MONEY IS DUE.
BECAUSE BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THOSE PEOPLE DO UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF OWNERSHIP AND BUILDING WEALTH.
THERE ARE OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE SOLUTIONS TO THIS THAT WE HAVE NOT LOOKED AT.
SO WHEN YOU SAY ALL OF THAT, I WOULD RATHER DEAL WITH EMPIRICAL DATA.
SO I BELIEVE THAT THE, THE, THE IDEA THAT WE CONTINUE TO SEGREGATE DOWNTOWN CONTINUE TO SEGREGATE CORE AREAS OF THE CITY BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT LOOKED TO DATA OR TO OTHER PLACES FOR SOLUTIONS.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE DO THAT HERE IN TEXAS.
LAST SPOT AGAINST MS. ANDERSON.
I LIKE THE ORIGINAL ITEM THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE THING TO INCREASE FEES I CAN GET BEHIND THAT.
UM, I LOVE THE IDEA OF, OF RECOMMENDING THE COUNCIL THAT WE CONTINUE TO STRIVE TO FIX THESE ISSUES.
UM, SADLY, I'M ALREADY IN MY DAY-TO-DAY LIFE ON COPY TO EMAILS GOING OUT TO TCAD TRYING TO FIX THEIR ISSUES.
I WAS HOPING MR. MAY WOULD RUN WITH THIS.
HE DIDN'T QUITE RUN WITH THIS, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
SO THEY, THEY ARE ALREADY SENDING OUT INCORRECT VALUATIONS AND THEY MISS THESE VALUATIONS YEAR AFTER YEAR, ESPECIALLY IN YEAR ZERO, WHERE THEY WILL SEND DOUBLE TO TRIPLE TO THREE TO FOUR TIMES TO FIVE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF, OF A TAX BILL THAT AN AFFORDABLE UNIT SHOULD BE TAXED AT.
[03:55:01]
THEN WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT THEIR MORTGAGER GETS A HOLD OF THAT INFORMATION AND THEN THEY'RE LIKE, OH MY GOD, NOW WE HAVE TO REDO EVERYTHING.AND SO WE, THEY INCREDIBLY BUMP THEIR, THEIR, THEIR, THEIR, UM, THEIR PAYMENTS FOR THE NEXT YEAR.
AND EVENTUALLY IN YEAR ONE AND TWO, WE CAN FIGURE OUT THAT PIECE OF IT.
BUT THEN WE HAVE THE OTHER ISSUES OF HOAS AND ASSESSMENTS, AND I LIKE THE IDEA OF A FAMILY THAT CAN CHIP IN, BUT YOU KNOW, I DON'T, IT, IT JUST DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT TO PUT PEOPLE IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO ENSURE THAT THEY CAN AFFORD THAT HOME WITHOUT OUTSIDE HELP.
AND IT, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO STRIVE TOWARDS FIXING THESE ISSUES.
I THINK THAT'D BE GREAT, BUT WE HAVE TO GET A LOT OF HELP FROM FIXING TCAT ISSUES AND KNOCK ON WOOD, SOME HELP AT THE STATE OF TEXAS LEVEL.
DO YOU WANNA MAKE A SUBSTITUTE? YES.
OR MAY I, MAY I
UM, AND I, I THINK I, I'M HOPING I HEARD STAFF CORRECTLY THAT THEY WOULD LIKELY SUPPORT THIS OR SOME VARIATION TO TAKE TO ACCOUNT.
I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THE FEE AND IF, IF THE FEE AND LIE OPTION IS GOING TO BE UTILIZED, THAT, UM, IT MUST REQUIRE THAT THOSE FUNDS ARE UTILIZED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF OWNERSHIP HOUSING WITHIN A HALF MILE OF A PLAN STATION, AND THAT IT WILL RESULT IN A MINIMUM OF THE EQUIVALENT 12% OF UNITS THAT WOULD'VE BEEN ONSITE.
SO WE'RE SETTING THE MINIMUM AT WHAT WE EXPECTED, AND IT HAS TO BE WITHIN THE HALF MILE.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT? I, I'M SO SORRY,
I, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE, I THINK BECAUSE IT'S DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IS ALREADY BEING PROPOSED, I THINK IT MIGHT NOT BE CONSIDERED IF THIS AMENDMENT FAILED.
AND I THINK IN THE, IN THE FUTURE ROUNDS OF AMENDMENTS, YOU SHOULD BRING THAT UP.
IF I UNDERSTOOD YOUR AMENDMENT CORRECTLY, I, AND I CAN WAIT AND BRING IT UP.
I, I SENT IT IN EARLIER, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO MAKE IT AS A SUB.
AND I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT PROCESS REAL QUICK.
SO, UM, IF MY MOTION FAILS, DO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS AND VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL WORKING GROUP MO AMENDMENT? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER MUELLER, I MIGHT RECOMMEND THAT WE SAVE YOURS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT.
WE'LL GO BACK TO THE SUBSTITUTE A MOTION.
THAT WAS, UM, COMMISSIONER COX IS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? THREE, FOUR, THOSE AGAINST FIVE.
SO THAT TAKES US BACK TO THE, UM, WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT NUMBER EIGHT AS WRITTEN IN THE DRAFT.
AND I BELIEVE WE WERE LOOKING FOR COMMISSIONER COX, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO IT? UM, I THINK WE'RE LOOKING FOR A SECOND.
UM, I, I MEAN, I, DID FOLKS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK? YES, WE WOULD STILL HAVE ABILITY TO ASK QUESTIONS.
ONCE A, A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE.
SO I'M HAPPY JUST BECAUSE I'M HAPPY TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION.
I'M SORRY, THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
SO THIS IS, UM, COX AND PHILLIPS.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I HAVE A SUBSTITUTE.
I WANNA CHANGE ONE 10 TO 1 25.
COMMISSIONER HAYES, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? CAN, UM, JUST PROVIDING A LITTLE MORE WELL, LET'S GO TO EXCUSE.
I WAS GONNA MAKE A SUGGEST WELL, IT'S SECONDED.
SO YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE MOTION AT THIS POINT, CORRECT.
UM, I MEAN, MY, UH, SINCE THE LAST EFFORT FAILED, I, I OBVIOUSLY WAS IN SUPPORT OF THAT.
UM, AND, AND THE, THE WILL OF THIS COMMISSION IS TO KEEP FEE AND LIE.
I LET, LET'S GO DOWN THIS ROAD, BUT I WANT INCENTIVIZE IT.
LOOK, IF, IF YOU'RE GONNA DO FEE AND LIE AND YOU'RE NOT GONNA PROVIDE ONSITE HOUSING, THEN YOU'RE GONNA PAY A PREMIUM.
AND THAT'S WHAT, WHAT MY CHANGE TRIES TO DO.
[04:00:01]
YES.COMMISSIONER COX, ARE WE ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS TO STAFF? YES.
UH, SO QUESTION TO, TO STAFF AND, AND ACTUALLY SOME, I I CAN'T REMEMBER THE COMMISSIONER WAS KIND OF GETTING TO THIS, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF WE GOT TO THE ANSWER I WAS LOOKING FOR IN THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING WAS, DO WE HAVE ANY GRASP ON, OBVIOUSLY THE FEE IN LIEU IS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED ON SITE.
DO WE HAVE ANY GRASP ON WHAT THE FEE IN LIEU IS PRODUCING IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF UNITS? AND IS THAT NUMBER OF UNITS EQUIVALENT TO WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BUILT ON SITE UNDER OUR DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS? JAMIE MAY, THE, UH, HOUSING FEE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, THE, UM, FEE IN LIEU IS DEPLOYED THROUGH OUR, UH, GAP FINANCING PROGRAM, WHICH IS, UH, LEVERAGED AGAINST OTHER FUNDING SOURCES.
WE HAVE MADE, UH, BOTH, WE HAVE BOTH RENTAL AND OWNERSHIP.
WE TRY TO TARGET $50,000 PER UNIT IN TERMS OF SUBSIDY.
UM, THAT MEANS THE DEVELOPER HAS TO FIND THE ADDITIONAL APPROXIMATELY $200,000 PER UNIT IN ORDER TO BUILD THAT PROPERTY.
UM, FOR THE OWNERSHIP SIDE, BECAUSE THE RETURN IS SO IMMEDIATE AND, UH, THE FINANCE, THE FINANCES ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
UH, WE HAVE TO SUBSIDIZE AT A HIGHER RATE AT ABOUT 80,000 PER UNIT.
SO, SO BEFORE MY TIME EXPIRES, YES.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.
IS THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION THAT NO, WE ARE NOT REPLACING THE NUMBER OF UNITS BASED ON THE FEES THAT WE ARE COLLECTING WITH THE PROPOSAL FOR, UH, E TODD RIGHT NOW AT 83,000 FOR AN EFFICIENCY, I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE ABOUT OUR AVERAGE SUBSIDY FOR AN OWNERSHIP UNIT.
SO THE DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE TO BRING THE OTHER, UH, THE, THE BALANCE IN ORDER TO BUILD THAT UNIT.
UH, IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME BECAUSE AREN'T WE USING FEE AND LIE FEES TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS? YES, WE ARE USING THOSE FEES AS GAP FINANCING FOR DEVELOPERS TO BUILD THE DEVELOPMENT FOR US.
ONE MORE SPOT FOR A QUESTION ON THIS.
UH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YES.
UM, JUST TO, TO BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW THE FEES IN LIEU ARE WORKING.
UM, SO WHEN YOU, AND, AND WE SAW A PRESENTATION FROM A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC EARLIER, AND I WASN'T SURE IF IT WAS CORRECT, BUT WHEN YOU ARE CALCULATING THE FEE IN LIE, THE AMOUNT PAID, IS IS THE, IS IT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, UH, THE, THE SALE PRICE AT THE INCOME LIMIT AND THE ACTUAL SALE PRICE OR THE MEDIAN SALE PRICE? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
AND WE HAVE SOME UPDATED NUMBERS.
SO BY THE WAY, THIS FEE WILL BE SET IN THE CITY BUDGET, UM, AND WE HAVE SOME UPDATED NUMBERS.
IT'D BE ABOUT 91,000 FOR A ONE BEDROOM, 144,000 FOR A TWO BEDROOM.
AND THAT'S USING TODAY'S HUD SALES PRICE AS WELL AS THE MEDIAN INCOME OR MEDIAN SALES PRICE FOR THE CORRECT CITY.
AND SO IF AN AMENDMENT LIKE THIS WERE TO PASS, SAY, WHATEVER THE NUMBER 10% OR 25% ABOVE, WOULD, WOULD IT ESSENTIALLY BE SAYING THAT YOU WOULD CALCULATE THAT NUMBER BY INCREASING THE, THE MEDIAN SALE PRICE BY 10 OR 25%? I MEAN, HOW WOULD IT ACTUALLY WORK IF, IF THE COUNCIL SETS THE FEE? THAT'S NOT HOW I WOULD INTERPRET IT.
IT WOULD JUST BE THAT YOUR SET ASIDE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE 10 OR 25% HIGHER.
SO IT'S, IT, THIS WOULD BE A CHARGE ON A PER UNIT BASIS.
SO IF YOUR SET ASIDE WAS, YOU KNOW, 15% ON UNITS, IT WOULD NOW BE 110 OR CORRECT.
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THE SUBSTITUTE, UH, COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, UM, I'LL SPEAK FOR IT.
UM, FOR SOME REASON WE SEEM TO BE VERY AGAINST ONSITE OWNERSHIP, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, FOR A VARIETY OF VALID REASONS.
BUT, UM, BUT ANYWAYS, UH, I, I THINK INCREASING THIS FEE NO MATTER WHAT WE INCREASE IT TO, BUT INCREASING THIS FEE IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT IN TWO WAYS.
ONE, IT'S STILL GONNA BE USED EVEN IF IT'S 25% HIGHER BECAUSE OF THE NUMBERS THAT WE'VE SEEN.
I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN AT ANYWHERE IN AUSTIN BUILD AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT FOR THE PRICES, FOR THE FEES THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY CHARGING.
UH, SO WE SHOULD BE CHARGING MORE.
AND THIS IS ONE WAY THAT WE CAN ACHIEVE THAT ON, ON THIS DAIS.
UH, BUT THE OTHER THING IS THAT WE ARE INCENTIVIZING SITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND I KNOW WE'RE ALLERGIC TO THAT FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, BUT I WOULD RATHER THAT FEE BE AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE SO THAT WE EITHER ACHIEVE ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
[04:05:01]
OR WE MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY CAN ACTUALLY GET A AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS BUILT FOR THE FEE WE'RE COLLECTING IN HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREAS, NOT ON THE OUTSKIRTS WHERE IT'S CHEAP TO BUILD, BUT IN HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREAS LIKE WITHIN THE E TODD BOUNDARY.ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? I, I SAW YOU COME ONTO YOUR MIC, RIGHT? AND I, I'M JUST TRYING TO CATCH, I, I'M READING ONE 10, BUT I JUST HEARD 1 25 AND I YES, THAT'S THE SUBSTITUTE.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS SUBSTITUTE BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? SIX THOSE AGAINST, OH, I SAW SEVEN COMMISSIONER HA OR HOWARD, THOSE AGAINST AND THOSE ABSTAINING, THAT'S SEVEN TO TWO TO ONE WITHERS BARR, RAMIREZ, ANDMORE.
UM, LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER 11.
UM, I'LL LET YOU SPEAK TO THIS AMENDMENT.
OH, OH, I THINK, I THINK IT WAS COMMISSIONER JOHNSON THAT PULLED IT.
UM, SO THE, WE'VE ALL SEEN THE HEADLINES OF HOW THE COSTS, THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE LIGHT RAIL IS EXPLODING.
UM, A HUGE FACTOR IN, IN EXPLODING COSTS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IS ALWAYS DEALING WITH CONFLICTS.
WHETHER IT'S STRUCTURES THAT ARE CONFLICTING, WHETHER IT'S UTILITIES THAT ARE CONFLICTING, WHETHER IT'S ANYTHING THAT'S CONFLICTING BECAUSE IT COSTS A LOT OF MONEY TO MOVE PEOPLE, MOVE BUILDINGS, MOVE UTILITIES, WHATEVER HAS TO BE MOVED IN ORDER TO BUILD WHAT WE WANT TO BUILD.
SO THIS, THIS IS NOT DICTATING ANY SORT OF ADDITIONAL FRONT SETBACK.
ALL I WANTED TO DO WAS, WAS HAVE STAFF CONSIDER POTENTIALLY ADDING SOME FLEXIBILITY TO THE LANGUAGE, PARTICULARLY FOR THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE RIGHT UP AGAINST THE PROPOSED STATION AREAS THAT ALLOW THEM SOME FLEXIBILITY IN REQUIRING AN ADDITIONAL SETBACK IF THEY FEEL LIKE THAT FLEXIBILITY'S NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT WE DON'T END UP BUILDING CONFLICTS TO THE PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE THAT DON'T ALREADY EXIST NOW.
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YEAH, I, I DID PULL THIS ONE MOSTLY, YOU KNOW, I, I SUPPORTED THE INTENT AND I VOTED FOR THIS IN THE WORK GROUP, BUT THE MORE I THINK ABOUT IT, I, I GUESS QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, ONE, IS THERE ANY LIKE LEGAL OR OTHER CONCERN WITH ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY TO DETERMINE SETBACKS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS? I MEAN, I CAN SEE THAT GOING AGAINST THE NOTION OF SORT OF TREATING SIMILAR PROPERTIES EQUALLY WHEN THEY HAVE THE SAME ZONING.
UM, AND THEN KIND OF TAKING A STEP BACK, WE AREN'T DOING STATIONARY PLANNING RIGHT NOW.
THIS, THIS IS SORT OF A BROAD OVERLAY THAT IS AGNOSTIC TO STATIONARY.
SO IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE BETTER CONSIDERED DURING THAT AREA PLANNING PROCESS WHERE WE COULD, WE WOULD KNOW WHERE THE STATIONS ARE GONNA BE AND WE COULD SIMPLY SAY THESE PROPERTIES, YOU KNOW, HAVE A DIFFERENT ZONING DESIGNATION WHEN YOU'RE ADJACENT TO THE STATION THAT MIGHT REQUIRE A LARGER SETBACK.
SO THOSE ARE SORT OF TWO QUESTIONS, PROBABLY ONE FOR LEGAL AND ONE FOR PLANNING.
YOU KNOW, SO WHAT WE NEED TO HAVE WITHIN THIS, WITHIN THE OVERLAY IS UNIFORM TREATMENT OF THE PROPERTIES.
SO TO YOUR POINT, COMMISSIONER HAVING A VARIED MIN MINIMUM SETBACK WOULD BE, UM, WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC FOR US AT THIS POINT IN TIME BECAUSE THE COMBINING DISTRICT NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENT AND UNIFORM.
AND THEN, UH, WARNER COOK WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM A TRANSPORTATION AND RIGHT OF WAY KIND OF PLANNING, UH, ASPECT, THE RIGHT OF WAY NEEDS FOR THE LIGHT RAIL ARE BEING COORDINATED THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS EVERY DAY ALREADY.
SO WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT THAT NTPW IF THEY, UH, IF WE HAVE SOMEBODY HERE MAY BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT, BUT THEY'RE NOT RIGHT IN THE ROOM RIGHT NOW.
UM, A MINIMUM SETBACK IS BEHIND THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT WE'RE ALREADY ESTABLISHING THE PROPERTY LINE THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AS NECESSARY FOR THE LIGHT RAIL.
I'M SORRY THAT MADE SENSE TO COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, BUT IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME, WHICH IS TYPICAL.
[04:10:01]
UM, YES, VERY TYPICALTHANK YOU COMMISSIONER JOHNSON FOR YOUR CONFIDENCE.
UH, SO THE ONLY REASON I BROUGHT UP THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK WAS BECAUSE IT'S A SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THIS CODE, UM, THAT YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH YOUR BASE ZONING MINIMUM SETBACK WITHIN THE ETOD DISTRICT.
SO WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS THAT THE CITY HAS ALL THE RIGHT OF WAY ABSOLUTELY.
THAT IT KNOWS THAT IT NEEDS TO BUILD THESE STATIONS WITHOUT ANY FUTURE CONFLICTS FROM ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON THESE QUARTERS.
THAT IS NOT WHAT I WAS SAYING, COMMISSIONER.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT RIGHT OF WAY NEEDS ARE BEING DETERMINED AS REDEVELOPMENT REQUIRES THROUGH THE STANDARD TRANSPORTATION PROCESS AND NOT THROUGH ZONING DISTRICTS.
SO WHEN, WHEN A PROPERTY REDEVELOPS UNDER EAD, THEY DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH ZONING 'CAUSE WE'VE ALREADY REZONED THEM.
THEY'RE NOT GONNA REPL BECAUSE THEY PROBABLY ALREADY HAVE A PLAT.
SO, SO YOU, THE CITY STILL HAS A MECHANISM TO REQUIRE A DEDICATION OF EASEMENTS OR, UM, RIGHT OF WAY.
SO DURING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS, UM, WHATEVER STREET IMPACT FEES OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE PART OF OUR TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS ARE HANDLED AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THE RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, LIKE WHAT I THINK YOU'RE DESCRIBING WOULD GO POTENTIALLY BEYOND MAYBE WHAT THAT DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE BECAUSE WE BASE OUR REQUIREMENTS ON ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY, SO THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO THERE'S SOME DIFFERENT FACTORS COMING INTO PLAY, BUT THAT ISN'T HANDLED IN ZONING.
IT IS HANDLED DURING SITE PLAN AND IN THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS.
BUT THE POINT IS THAT WE'RE REMOVING ALL FRONT SETBACKS AS PART OF THIS ETOD RECOMMENDATION.
THE RECOMMENDATION ALLOWS COMPLYING PROJECTS TO NOT COMPLY WITH A MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK.
DO I HAVE A SUBSTITUTE TO THIS MOTION? BUT BEFORE THAT, SUBSTITUTES MADE, UH, COMMISSIONER MTEL HAD HER HAND UP.
AND MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF 'CAUSE WE'RE, THE ZONING WE'RE DOING IS GOING, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON HOW, UH, COUNCIL DECIDES TO GO, THIS MAY EXTEND BEYOND THE, THE FIRST RAIL PHASE, RIGHT? WE'RE GONNA REZONE STUFF AHEAD OF THAT IN HOPES OF AN EXTENSION.
BUT SO THE, I GUESS I'M ALSO CONFUSED HOW WE HAVE THE PROTECTION IN PLACE.
IF YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE FUTURE STUFF AND WE'VE ZONED THEM AND GETTING THEM DEVELOPMENT THERE, HOW, HOW, HOW ARE WE MAKING SURE THAT WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU NEED TO GET THE RAIL IN.
UH, ANIQUE BODE CITY PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE, OUR CITY TRANSPORTATION PLAN IS UPDATED, UH, FREQUENTLY TO KEEP UP WITH THE NEEDS OF, UM, OUR, OUR GROWING COMMUNITY AS WELL AS OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.
AND SO WE'RE VERY AWARE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY NEEDS OF OUR, OF OUR ROADS AND WE UPDATE OUR TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLAN, WHICH IS, WHICH HAS A STREET NETWORK TABLE AND WHICH HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY, UM, NEEDS AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT IN TIME FOR ALL THE PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE.
SO PROJECT CONNECT HAS BEEN WELL THOUGHT THROUGH AND THE NEEDS ARE IN OUR TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND WE, WE KNOW EXACTLY HOW MUCH RIGHT OF WAY WE NEED.
AND AS MS. COOK POINTED OUT EVERY DAY AS DEVELOPMENTS COME IN, JUST AS ASSURANCE TO THE COMMITTEE, WE ARE THE PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE ALONG WITH DSD AND THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ARE REVIEWING AND MAKING SURE ARE BOTH REVIEWING.
AND, AND THEN, AND THEN THE, ALL THE, LIKE I SAID, THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN HAS ACCOUNTED FOR ALL FUTURE NEEDS, UM, WHETHER IT BE FOR LIGHT RAIL OR ANY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS OR, OR WHATEVER OTHER TRANSPORTATION, UM, ENHANCEMENTS ARE, ARE RECOMMENDED IN THE PLAN AND ANTICIPATED FOR.
SO, UM, COMMISSIONER COX, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? UM, DID WE HAVE A, SO IT WASN'T A MOTION YET.
OH, YOU HAD JUST STATED THE PROPOSAL.
THIS IS WHERE YOU MAKE THE MOTION, ALONG WITH ANY POTENTIAL EDITS YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD DURING DISCUSSION.
[04:15:01]
I WAS, SORRY.I'M CONTEMPLATING IF I, IF I CAN MAKE ANY EDITS TO THIS ON THE FLY, BUT I I'LL JUST, I'LL JUST RESTATE IT.
UM, RECOMMEND THAT STAFF EVALUATE ADDING LANGUAGE TO THE EAD CODE THAT ALLOWS THE CITY TO REQUIRE A FRONT SETBACK FOR PROPERTIES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO PROPOSED STATION AREAS TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY AND STATION DESIGN AND HELP AVOID ANY CONFLICTS WITH FUTURE LIGHT RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES SLASH STRUCTURES THAT DON'T EXIST ALREADY.
SO THAT DOES NOT MOVE FORWARD.
THIS IS A MAXWELL AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DO YOU WANNA DESCRIBE THIS ONE? YES, I'M JUST GONNA BRING UP THE EXACT LANGUAGE.
SO THIS IS A RECOMMEND THAT COMMERCIAL OFF STREET PARKING BE CATEGORIZED AS A PROHIBITED USE.
UM, AND YES, THIS IS, UH, RELATED TO OUR EARLIER DISCUSSION REGARDING THE USE TABLES.
AS WAS CLARIFIED BY STAFF, WE ARE UNABLE TO MOVE CERTAIN ITEMS IN CERTAIN DIRECTIONS.
SO THAT'S WHY THIS IS JUST MADE AS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION.
UM, I THINK THE CONCERN THAT WAS THAT GIVEN THAT WE KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT, SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PARKING ALONG THIS COURT TRAIL TRAIN, UH, TRANSIT CORRIDOR ALREADY.
AND THAT WE WOULD EXPECT WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT, THERE WILL BE AT LEAST SOME PARKING INCLUDED IN THOSE NEW DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE IDEA THAT WE WOULD NEED A COMMIS COMMERCIALLY PERMITTED, UM, OFF STREET PARKING SEEMED LESS THAN OPTIMAL.
SO WE WERE HOPING TO MOVE THIS INTO THE PROHIBITED IS CERTAINLY AS A RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER FOR FUTURE ET ETOD WORK.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER, AND YOUR INTENTION IS, IS FOR, UH, FOR THE PRIMARY USE SO THAT IF I GOT A PARKING STRUCTURE AND I CHARGE ON THE WEEKENDS AS A SECONDARY, THAT'S OKAY.
AND I THINK THAT WAS WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO REALLY SAY IS THAT WE DON'T WANT SOMEONE TO COME IN AND POTENTIALLY BUILD A PARKING GARAGE BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO CHARGE FEES, FOR EXAMPLE, RELATED TO THE TRANSIT.
SO THAT'S A LESS THAN OPTIMAL USE AND SEEMS LIKE IT SHOULD BE PROHIBITED.
OTHER QUESTIONS? WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION? WE'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION AS, UH, RECOMMENDED BY THE WORKING GROUP SECOND BY VICE CHAIR.
UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? UH, I THINK WE'VE COVERED IT.
ANY OTHERS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THIS MOTION? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? THIS IS, UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S, UH, RECOMMENDATION AND SECOND BY VICE CHAIR.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 10 THOSE AGAINST.
THAT'S 10 TO ZERO TO ONE, RIGHT? WE ARE THROUGH OUR WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
SO, UM, ARE WE VOTING ON THESE FIRST? UM, OR WE ARE GOING INTO INDIVIDUAL NO, WE'VE ALREADY POSTED ON THEM.
SO CHAIR, THIS IS WHERE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON WOULD REMIND ME THAT I'M OFF MY OWN RULES.
SO, UM, WE, I'M GONNA GO THROUGH ALL THE INDIVIDUAL I WOULD, BUT I DIDN'T,
UM, SO I WILL GO THROUGH THE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN POSTED AND WE WILL, UM, SEE WHICH ONES DO WE WANT TO PULL OR NOT.
I'LL GO WITH COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS'S, UM, AMENDMENTS FIRST.
SO, SO I'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S FIRST.
AND THIS IS, AGAIN, REMINDER THIS.
WE'RE ONLY DECIDING WHETHER WE'RE PULLING AN AMENDMENT FOR DISCUSSION OR NOT.
THAT'S THE ONLY DISCUSSION WE'RE HAVING AT THIS TIME.
SO THIS IS, UH, FROM, THIS IS, AND I BELIEVE THESE WERE THE ONLY TWO POSTED AMENDMENTS.
AM I CORRECT? AM I MISSING ANYBODY ELSE? IT WAS MAXWELL AND PHILLIPS.
SO THIS IS NUMBER ONE FROM MAXWELL.
THIS IS A REQUIRING UPDATED LANGUAGE FOR THE EAD REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS.
UM, IF SITE INCLUDES AN EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL USE, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MUST PROVIDE CURRENT NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE OPERATORS WITH NOTICE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON A FORM APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR.
AND GRANT, A NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE OPERATOR, THE OPTION TO LEASE A NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF REDEVELOPMENT.
ANYBODY WISHING TO PULL THIS? SORRY, I JUST HAVE A, AN, UH, I GUESS PROCEDURAL
[04:20:01]
QUESTION.UM, IF, IF, SO, ONE OF THE CONSENT AMENDMENTS JUST COMPLETELY ARE RECOMMENDED TO STRIKE THIS SECTION ENTIRELY.
SO DO WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING TO RECONCILE THAT? I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT THIS EARLIER, BUT, UM, MAY I CLARIFY? GO AHEAD.
UH, SO YES, THAT IS ACTUALLY CORRECT.
IN THE WORKING GROUP, WE STRUCK THAT LANGUAGE.
THIS WOULD BE THE REPLACEMENT AND I'M HAPPY TO CLARIFY THAT.
UM, I THINK THAT'S CLEAR ENOUGH FOR ME.
THIS TAKES US TO, UM, MAXWELL TWO.
THIS WOULD BE, UM, RELATED TO REMOVING LANGUAGE, REMOVE LANGUAGE RELATED TO LOCATION OF COMMERCIAL SPACE.
SO WE WOULD BE STRIKING LINE ONE 90 TO 1 92 AND REPLACED WITH, MAY NOT HAVE MORE THAN TWO STORIES OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
ANYBODY WISHING TO PULL THIS LANGUAGE? I, I, I, I GUESS I'LL THROW THAT IN THERE JUST BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH LINES WE'RE DELETING AND I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT THIS DOES AND I, I, OKAY, WELL LET'S PULL THIS ONE.
UM, THIS TAKES US TO NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS RELATED TO FOUR C.
THE MIX OF USES WE WOULD BE ADDING.
UM, SO THE FOUR C WOULD BE ADD MORE INTERNAL USES, INCLUDING ESTABLISHING COMMERCIAL USES ON INTERNAL STREET POTENTIAL BONUSES FOR CREATIVE SPACES.
CIVIC USES CULTURAL USES OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, NONPROFIT COMMUNITY SPACES, PUBLIC BATHROOMS AND SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL SPACES EXPAND TO INCLUDE OUTDOOR USES SUCH AS SIDEWALKS, INTERNAL WALKWAYS, BIKE LANES, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC PARKS, PLAZAS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND RECREATIONAL FEATURES THAT ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC IN CONJUNCTION WITH PARKLAND.
DEDICATION, INCENTIVIZED TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE AND FEATURES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BUS STOPS, BUS CHARGING FACILITIES, ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT NEEDED BY TRANSIT AND COORDINATION WITH CAP METRO, A DP CREATE AND D CREATE, UM, INTENSIVE PROGRAM FOR LEGACY BUSINESSES AND COMMERCIAL USES AS OUTLINED IN SECTION F.
ANYBODY WISHING TO PULL THIS? OKAY, THIS TAKES US TO MAXWELL FOUR.
THIS IS RELATED TO STREETS STANDARDS IN INCORPORATE SPECIFIC STREET STANDARDS IS OUTLINED IN THE GREAT STREETS PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD, OVERLAND AND SOUTH CENTER WATERFRONT, AND APPLIES APPROPRIATE TO THE DBE TODD OVERLAY.
THIS IS A GENERAL AMENDMENT ONLY.
ANYBODY WISHING TO PULL THIS? I JUST HAVE A, A QUESTION.
SO, UM, INCORPORATING THE WOULD UM, WOULD YOU HAVE TO INCORPORATE THOSE STANDARDS AS PART TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DB AND STAFF CLARIFIED THAT THAT WAS ACTUALLY WHY? THAT WAS BASICALLY, THIS SOUNDS LIKE THIS WILL COME LATER, BUT IT'S UNCLEAR HOW IT'LL BE INCORPORATED INTO ETOD, SO THAT, OR THIS DB SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'LL HAVE TO BE RESOLVED LATER.
BUT IT, THIS IS A GENERAL AMENDMENT ONLY, BUT IT IS NOT A CONDITION TO PARTI.
THIS MOVES US TO NUMBER FIVE FROM MAXWELL.
STAFF SHALL CONSIDER UPDATED AND REVISED STANDARDS FOR SECTION 4.3 0.3 C IN SUBCHAPTER E ENSURING BEST PRACTICES FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT FOR VMU BUILDINGS.
I'M NOT SEEING ANYONE, THIS STAYS ON CONSENT AS WELL.
THIS TAKES US TO MAXWELL SIX, CONSIDER PROJECT CONNECT TRANSIT SUPPORTED INFRASTRUCTURE AS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT WITH A DENSITY BONUS REQUIRE.
IF IT'S RELATED TO THE MOTION, YOU CAN ASK FOR IT, BUT, OR OR IS IT IT'S PROBABLY FOR STAFF.
SO THEN WHAT I HAVE RIGHT NOW IS FROM MAXWELL.
WE HAVE, UM, 1, 3, 4, AND FIVE ARE CONSENT, WHICH I THINK JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE CLEAN IN THE MOTION MAKERS HAVE THEIR COMMISSIONER.
MAXWELL, DO YOU WANNA MAKE A MOTION TO YOUR 1 3 4 5? UH, YES.
SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT, UH, UH, MAXWELL AMENDMENTS 1, 3, 4, AND FIVE.
DID I GET THAT RIGHT? CORRECT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OR WITHOUT OBJECTION, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE PEOPLE ARE VOTING SO MIGHT AS WELL.
WE'LL MOVE THAT ONTO THE CONSENT.
SO WE DO HAVE DISCUSSION BEFORE WE GET THERE.
WE DO NEED TO GO THROUGH COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS' DE SENT AS ONE.
UM, I JUST WANNA, I WANTED TO SPLIT THE MOTION SO THAT I WOULD NOT WANNA STEAL SOMEONE'S, UM, AMENDMENTS.
SO WE'RE GOING TO COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS' EO AMENDMENTS.
UM, I'LL BE READING THOSE OUT AND FOLKS CAN DECIDE IF THEY WISH LIKE TO PULL IT.
SO ONE IS CREATE A FEE U OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE THAT WOULD REVIEW THE USE OF FEE U AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE USE OF FEE U FUNDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING VOUCHERS, ET CETERA.
THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD BE MADE UP IN PART BY COMMUNITY MEMBERS DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THE DISPLACEMENT CRISIS, LOW INCOME HOME HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE PROPERTY TAX BURDEN, RENTERS WHO ARE RENT BURDEN AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS WITH
[04:25:01]
LIVED EXPERIENCE OF HOMELESSNESS, AS WELL AS FRONTLINE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS THAT WORK WITH THESE COMMUNITIES.NOT SEEING THAT I'M GONNA, UH, GO AHEAD AND THAT MOVE THAT FORWARD.
BY THE WAY, AS CONSENT NUMBER TWO, CREATE THE NORTH AND SOUTH ZONES IN THIS ETOD TAKE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SOUTH ZONE.
CREATE NEW DENSITY BONUS AFFORDABILITY BANK MA BENCHMARKS FOR NORTH ZONE SEGMENTS OF LAMAR BURNETT THAT RUNS NORTH OF 15TH STREET TO CRESTVIEW.
AMEND THE EO DENSITY BONUS TO REQUIRE THAT UNITS ARE AFFORDABLE AT 40% MI TO 60% MFI AND CAP THE MFI AT THE CURRENT LEVEL FOR 2024.
OR ASSESS THE INCOME LEVEL OF RESIDENTS AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT IN HOUSING INSECURITY ANNUALLY TO SET INCOME REQUIREMENTS AT THAT LEVEL.
THAT MOVES FOR, OH, SORRY THAT THAT ONE GETS PULLED.
THIS TAKES US TO NUMBER THREE, UM, WHICH IS THE FEE LIE IF AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE AT OR BELOW 50% MFI UNITS SHOULD BE BUILT ONSITE IN THE E-O-D-B-E TODD AND NOT SUBJECT TO FEE LIE, EXCEPT WHERE ALTERNATIVE AREAS FOR EXPANDED AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARE IDENTIFIED.
SO THE FEE LIE IS ACTUALLY GOING TO EXPANDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND NON STEERED TO HOUSING VOUCHERS THAT CAN'T BE USED READILY OR TIMELY BECAUSE OF LARGE WAITING LISTS.
THE EXCEPTION WOULD BE FOR THE DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR PROVISIONS THAT PROVIDE FEE U TO PERMANENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR HOUSING VOUCHERS TO HOUSE UNSHELTERED AUSTIN RESIDENTS.
ANYBODY WISHING TO PULL THIS? NOT SEEING ANY, THIS MOVES FORWARD ON CONSENT AS WELL.
UM, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO YOUR ONE AND THREE? I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND THAT CHAIR.
UM, WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE'LL ADD THAT TO THE BASE MOTION CHAIR.
THIS TAKES US TO, UM, DISCUSSION OLD AMENDMENTS AND WE'LL BE GOING ALPHABETICALLY.
SO WE WILL BE GOING THROUGH MAXWELL TWO, PHILLIPS TWO, AND THEN MAXWELL SIX.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DO YOU WANNA BRIEFLY RESTATE THE PROPOSAL? UM, YES, THIS IS, UH, UM, MY SECOND AMENDMENT, WHICH IS RELATED TO HOW AND WHERE YOU CAN LOCATE COMMERCIAL SPACES IN OUR, UM, DBO, UH, THE, IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED.
AND I'M GONNA PULL UP THE EXACT LANGUAGE BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD ACTUALLY HELP TO CLARIFY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT SECTION, UM, AND THE CONCERN WAS BASICALLY RELATED TO WHEN WE HAD A DISCUSSION IN, ON DB 90.
THERE WAS, UH, IF YOU ALL REMEMBER THIS AS A COMMISSION, WE WERE CONCERNED THAT YOU WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM PUTTING CERTAIN, USING PART OF YOUR, YOUR BUILDING FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE IF IT WASN'T ON THE GROUND FLOOR.
SO I WAS JUST REALLY TRYING TO ENSURE THAT WE HAD THE SAME LANGUAGE REFLECTED HERE.
UM, SO IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE, THE BOTTOM OF PAGE EIGHT, UM, BASICALLY IT'S, UH, LETTER I SAYS MAY NOT BE LO LOCATED ABOVE A RESIDENTIAL USE AND THEN DOUBLE, I MAY NOT BE LOCATED ON OR ABOVE THE THIRD STORY OF THE BUILDING.
AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT STAFF IS PROBABLY TRYING TO CREATE, CREATE CRAFT A BALANCE HERE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMISSION WAS AWARE THAT WE'D HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT A POTENTIALLY ROOFTOP, SAY ART GALLERIES OR THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO MAKING SURE THAT WE HAD BUILT IN THAT FLEXIBILITY INTO THIS ORDINANCE AS WELL.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER, UH, GOX, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
UM, I'M NOT INHERENTLY OPPOSED TO COMMERCIAL BEING ON WHATEVER FLOOR OF A BUILDING, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE, THE, THE CODE WAS DRAFTED TO PUT THAT COMMERCIAL ON THE FIRST TWO FLOORS AT MOST.
AND I GUESS I'M CONCERNED, AND I'M HOPING YOU CAN MAYBE HELP ME UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S A WAY TO CRAFT THIS WHERE WE ALLOW SOMETHING LIKE A ROOFTOP ART GALLERY, BUT MAYBE NOT A ROOFTOP BAR SINCE THESE PROPERTIES ARE GOING TO BE RIGHT UP AGAINST AND VERY HIGH ABOVE EXISTING, UH, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES, THAT THAT MAY BE PROFOUNDLY IMPACTED BY ROOFTOP BARS WITH LIVE MUSIC AND THAT SORT OF THING, WHICH I THINK WOULD BE GREAT
SO I'M HOPING STAFF CAN MAYBE HELP WITH THAT IF THERE'S A WAY TO CRAFT THAT MAYBE OR, OR NOT.
I THOUGHT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED THIS WITH LIKE, LANGUAGE ON ROOFTOP GARDENS AND WE DID, WE DID.
I REMEMBER THIS CONVERSATION AND WE SPENT SOME TIME ON IT, BUT I THOUGHT OUR SOLUTION WAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THIS WE DID THROUGH DB 90, BUT, BUT THIS IS, BUT THIS IS TOTALLY SEPARATE DIFFERENT AND, AND I, TO BE CLEAR, I I FULLY APPRECIATE YOUR POINT CON UH, COMMISSIONER COX BECAUSE IF I HAD HAD AN ELEGANT
[04:30:01]
SOLUTION FOR ALLOWING MORE FLEXIBILITY WITHOUT ALLOWING LOG BARS, WHICH I THINK IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE STRUGGLED WITH WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST TIME, I WOULD'VE DEFINITELY OFFERED THAT.AND I'M VERY OPEN TO SUBSTITUTES.
SO, UM, STEVE GREATHOUSE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
I THINK THE INTENTION OF THESE PROVISIONS ARE TWOFOLD.
ONE IS TO ACTIVATE USES ALONG THE STREET, AND THE SECOND IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS THAT WE'RE PROVIDING THIS BONUS FOR.
AND YOU DON'T END UP WITH A LARGE COMMERCIAL PROJECT GETTING A BONUS THROUGH FEE AND LIE, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS SOMETHING NOBODY ON THIS DIOCESE WANTS.
THE PROVISIONS, I BELIEVE HAVE BEEN PULLED OVER FROM WHAT IS IN THE EXISTING VERTICAL MIXED USE REQUIREMENTS.
AND SUBCHAPTER E UM, IF PLANNING COMMISSION HAS COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT APPROACH, THE DB 90 REGULATIONS, UM, I'D DEFER TO LAW AND WHETHER THERE'D BE AN ISSUE WITH APPROVING THAT, BUT I THINK THAT POLICY INTENT WOULD STILL BE THERE.
IF THE CONCERN IS SOLELY COCKTAIL LOUNGES AND PERFORMANCE VENUES, THEN YOU COULD SAY YOU CAN'T HAVE A PERFORMANCE VENUE OR A COCKTAIL LOUNGE, UM, ABOVE THE THIRD FLOOR.
UM, MR. SKIDMORE, DID I SEE YOUR HAND UP? NO, I'M SORRY IT WASN'T A QUESTION.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO STATE THE MOTION? WE'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND AND I CAN HELP DO IT.
SO WE WOULD BE SAYING, UM, ESSENTIALLY AS IS WITH THE REQUIREMENT, UM, THAT THERE BE NO PERFORMANCE VENUE COCKTAIL LOUNGE USE ABOVE THE SECOND FLOOR.
UH, I MOVE THE, UM, MOTION GO.
CAN I MAKE ONE MORE SUGGESTION? YES,
IS THAT NOT ALLOWED? NO, GO AHEAD.
AGAIN, THERE'S NO SECOND AGAIN.
SO WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ACTIVATING THE GROUND FLOOR.
SO I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S A WAY WE CAN SAY IF RETAIL IS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT, IT THEY, THEN YOU CAN DO IT AGAIN.
YOU, YOU HAVE TO PUT RETAIL ON A COMMERCIAL ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND THEN THERE'S THAT FLEXIBILITY ABOVE IT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE COCKTAIL LOUNGE.
I'M SO SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT
SO, SO REALLY SINCE I DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF ME, ESSENTIALLY WE WOULD BE SAYING IT MAY NOT HAVE MORE THAN TWO STORIES OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USE WITH WHAT KIND OF USES ON THE FLOOR? IT, IT MUST HAVE RESIDENTIAL USE ON THE, ON THE GROUND FLOOR.
IT MUST HAVE COMMERCIAL USES ON THE GROUND FLOOR.
AND MAY NOT INCLUDE COCKTAIL OR LIVE MUSIC ABOVE THE, UH, IS SECOND FLOOR.
SO THEN WE'RE SAYING ESSENTIALLY WE WERE REPLACING THAT SECTION WITH SAYING MAY NOT HAVE MORE THAN TWO STORIES OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES WITH COMMERCIAL USES REQUIRED ON THE GROUND FLOOR.
UM, I'M SORRY, I'M TYPING AS I SPEAK.
AND WITH THE REQUIREMENTS, THERE BE NO PERFORMANCE VENUE OR COCKTAIL LOUNGE USE ABOVE THE SECOND FLOOR.
THANK YOU
SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED BY VICE CHAIR AZAR SECOND.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION AT HAND? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YEAH.
AM I ABLE TO ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF OR IS THIS JUST FOR THE MOTION MAKER? NOPE, YOU CAN ASK FOR STAFF.
IS THERE, UM, UNDER THE CURRENT EITHER DRAFT ORDINANCE OR WHATEVER STANDARDS APPLY FOR THE MIXED USE IN D-B-E-T-O-D, IS THERE ALREADY A REQUIREMENT THAT GROUND FLOOR USES HAVE TO BE COMMERCIAL? I MEAN, WERE WE NOT REQUIRING THAT AT ALL BEFORE THERE IS A REQUIREMENT? HIGH WARNER COOK PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT IN THE STAFF PROPOSED DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT 75% OF THE FRONTAGE OF THE GROUND FLOOR BE A PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED COMMERCIAL SPACE FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE COMMERCIAL.
[04:35:01]
THAT ARE A HUNDRED PERCENT RESIDENTIAL.BECAUSE WE ARE APPLYING THIS TO RESIDENTIAL BASIN ZONES, THERE WOULD NOT BE A COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT.
WE CAN'T CHANGE IT, BUT I HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS SECOND QUESTION.
UM, SO THIS WOULD CHANGE IT TO SAY AS STATED AND REPLACE WITH, MAY NOT HAVE MORE THAN TWO STEWARDS OF NOT RESIDENTIAL USES WITH COMMERCIAL USES REQUIRED ON AT LEAST 75% OF THE CROWN FLOOR AND WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE NO PERFORMANCE VENUE OR COCKTAIL LOUNGE USE ABOVE THE SECOND FLOOR.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
ALRIGHT, QUESTIONS ON THIS SUBSTITUTE.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? UM, SURE.
IT'S ESSENTIALLY EXACTLY THE, UM, WHAT WAS PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AND COX.
IT WOULD JUST ALIGN WITH THE STAFF REQUIREMENT THAT THE GROUND FLOOR BE 75% COMMERCIALIZED WAS 200%.
ANY OTHER SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, ARE YOU HOLDING ANYTHING UP? OKAY.
AND THOSE AGAINST AND THOSE ABS UH, OKAY.
WE HAVE ONE AGAINST AND THEN ONE ABSTAINING.
RIGHT? THAT MOTION PASSES 8 1 1.
SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER MA.
EXCUSE ME, I WAS OFF THE DAY, BUT WOULD YOU COUNT ME AS A YES ON THAT? OKAY.
SO THAT TOTAL VOTE IS NINE TO ONE TO ONE.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, THIS TAKES US TO PHILLIPS TWO.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT ITEM AND I'LL READ IT WHILE, UM, SHE'S PULLING IT.
SO THIS WOULD CREATE NORTH AND SOUTH ZONES IN THIS ETOD, TAKE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SOUTH ZONE, CREATE A NEW DENSITY BONUS SLASH AFFORDABILITY BENCHMARKS FOR THE NORTH ZONE SEGMENTS OF LAMAR AND BURNETT THAT RUNS NORTH OF 15TH STREET TO CRESTVIEW.
AMEND THE EO DENSITY BONUS TO REQUIRE THAT UNITS ARE AFFORDABLE AT 40 TO 40 M PERCENT MFI TO 60% MFI AND CAP THE MFI AT THE CURRENT LEVEL FOR 2024, OR ASSESS THE INCOME LEVEL OF RESIDENCE AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT AND HOUSING INSECURITY ANNUALLY TO SET INCOME REQUIREMENTS AT THAT LEVEL.
AND I DO WANNA THANK THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS IN THE WORKING GROUP.
UM, ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS HELPED ME LEARN SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT I WAS, UH, RATHER IGNORANT ABOUT AND GAVE ME MORE INFORMATION SO THAT I COULD GET UP TO SPEED AND I THINK DO BETTER THAN I WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO WITHOUT THEIR HELP.
SO I WANT TO THANK THEM FOR THAT, EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM.
AND, UM, THAT, THAT WAS A HARD SLOG, BUT WE MADE IT.
UH, AND AND THE RATIONALE FOR THE THIS IS BECAUSE WE HAVE HEARD FROM MANY PEOPLE WHO TESTIFIED TONIGHT, WE HAVE HEARD EVEN FROM STAFF THAT ESSENTIALLY THERE ARE THERE, THERE WE HAVE MADE MISTAKES IN THE PAST IN HOW WE HAVE DESIGNED TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE HAVE, WE THOUGHT WE GOT IT RIGHT, BUT IN THE, IN THE END WE GOT IT WRONG BECAUSE WE TREATED AREAS A CERTAIN WAY.
AND SO WE ACCELERATED DISPLACEMENT, WE DROVE UP LAND VALUES.
THE PEOPLE WHO MOVED IN HAD MUCH HIGHER INCOMES, TWO AND THREE TIMES THE INCOMES OF THE BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE MOVED OUT.
UM, AND THEY DIDN'T USE PUBLIC TRANSIT MUCH, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE IN A TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT.
SO THESE ARE TWO AREAS IN THIS EOD DB EO ZONE, THIS OVERLAY AS WE'RE CALLING IT.
WE KNOW THAT WE NEED MORE AFFORDABILITY IN ONE SECTION TO ADDRESS WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN TO THE LAND VALUES OF PEOPLE WHO ARE IN, UH, WHO ARE LOWER WEALTH, MODERATE TO LOWER WEALTH, AND BUSINESSES THAT ARE MODERATE TO LOWER WEALTH AS OPPOSED TO THE AREA SAY BETWEEN, UM, CONGRESS AVENUE AND, AND ALL THE WAY, UH, WELL NOT, YOU KNOW, THE, FROM SOUTH OF THE RIVER UP LAMAR TO 15TH STREETS.
SO THIS IS DESIGNED SO THAT WE CAN DESIGN CUSTOM PROGRAMS MORE DEEPLY AFFORDABLE PROGRAMS FOR THE VERY SECTION OF THIS OVERLAY THAT NEEDS IT.
[04:40:04]
THANK YOU FOR THAT.COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, UM, FIRST QUESTION, MR. MAXWELL.
UH, YEAH, AND I WAS, UM, I REALLY DO APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS BRINGING THIS FORWARD BECAUSE WE DID HAVE AN EXTENSIVE CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS, UH, ISSUE IN OUR WORK GROUP.
AND I THINK WHAT I REALLY WANTED TO UNDERSTAND FROM STAFF, AND PERHAPS THIS IS, UM, MS. TEPPER FROM THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT, BUT WHOMEVER CAN SPEAK TO IT, IS HAVE WE DONE DEMOGRAPHIC STUDIES ALONG THESE, THIS PROPOSED ETOD OVERLAY, AND DO WE UNDERSTAND WHERE THERE MIGHT BE SORT OF INCREASED POCKETS OF SORT OF AFFORDABILITY VERSUS NON AFFORDABILITY? AND I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS, LIKE YOU LOOK AT DOWNTOWN, THAT'S A VERY DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT SAY THAN YOU SEE AT THE VERY END OF THIS ETOD LINE.
SO UNDERSTANDING HOW WE CAN NOT THINK OF THIS, UM, AS ONE UNIFORM LINE, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE VARIATIONS IN HOUSING AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ALONG THIS LINE.
YEAH, RACHEL'S TALKED ABOUT THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.
SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE MAPS, WE HAVE A DISPLACEMENT RISK MAP.
IT'S, UM, FOR PROJECT CONNECT SPECIFICALLY, WE HAVE A DASHBOARD AND WE, WE DO UPDATE ANNUAL AND ANNUALLY, UM, UH, OR NOT ANNUALLY, EVERY TWO YEARS.
AND IT'S GETTING UPDATED RIGHT NOW.
UM, BUT THIS AREA, THIS, THE NORTHERN EXTENSION, I WILL SAY ON OUR MAPS, DOES NOT SHOW A DISPLACEMENT RISK.
I KNOW THERE ARE POCKETS, UM, AND CERTAINLY IF YOU'RE ABOVE 180 3, BUT IN TERMS OF WHERE THIS TERMINUS IS, CRESTVIEW, UM, BRENTWOOD, UM, HYDE PARK, THOSE AREAS ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AS A DISPLACEMENT RISK.
WE, IT'S BASED ON THE UPROOTED REPORT.
SO WE USE, UM, THE INDICATORS OF VULNERABILITY, UM, AT THE AT ARE IDENTIFIED IN THAT REPORT.
UM, SO NOT TO SAY THERE AREN'T POCKETS, AND CERTAINLY IF WE DID AN ANALYSIS THAT WAS MORE FINE GRAINED, YOU WOULD SEE POCKETS OF THESE AREAS.
UM, BUT WITH OUR CURRENT METHODOLOGY, UM, WE, WE DON'T NECESSARILY SEE DISPLACEMENT RISK IN THAT AREA.
AND, AND THEN I GUESS RELATED TO THAT EXACT QUESTION, AS YOU GO FURTHER SOUTH, ARE YOU SEEING THE DISPLACEMENT RISKS THERE? CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT AS WELL? THERE, THERE'S THAT, THAT SORT OF 19% THAT'S NOTED IN THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT.
IT'S, UM, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT KIND OF WHERE ST.
UM, AND THERE'S A SMALL PACKET ON THE NORTHERN EDGE, UM, JUST EAST OF LAMAR.
UM, AND, AND YOU ALL CAN LOOK AT THAT MAP.
I THINK IT'S, YEAH, JUST SOUTH OF 180 3 AND EAST OF LAMAR.
HOW DO WE FIND THIS
COMMISSIONER COX, IT'S ON A DASHBOARD,
YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY DOWNLOAD PRINTOUTS IN SPANISH AND ENGLISH.
AND, AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'M SEEING THIS ACTUAL MAP.
I, I HAVE JUST DRIVEN THE AREA AND LOOKED TO SEE WHAT'S IN THE AREA.
AND I NOTICED THAT SOME OF THOSE, UM, LOWER SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROJECTS ARE IN THAT NORTHERN AREA, UM, NOT EXACTLY IN THE OVERLAY BUT ADJACENT TO THE OVERLAY.
UM, AND SO WHERE WOULD THE LARGEST CONCENTRATION SAY OF COMMUNITY, OF, OF COLOR BE IN THIS MAP HERE THAT WE'RE SEEING THIS, THIS MAP HERE IN THIS WHOLE MAP? OR ARE YOU SPECIFIC SPECIFICALLY? I'M TALKING ABOUT THE OVERLAY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW.
WHERE WOULD THE COMMUNITIES OF COLOR BE LOCATED IN THE EAD OVERLAY? SO THIS MAP DOES CONSIDER COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, AS YOU KNOW, ONE INDICATOR, ALSO LOW INCOME CHILDREN IN POVERTY.
YOU CAN SEE RENTERS AND UM, PEOPLE WITHOUT A BACHELOR'S DEGREE.
UM, AND YOU CAN SEE THE YELLOW IS THE MOST VULNERABLE.
THE PINK IS CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING KIND OF DYNAMIC CHANGE.
UM, BUT THIS IS NOT OUR OVERLAY MAP.
IT'S NOT SO THE ANOTHER MAP NEEDS TO SHOW.
DO WE HAVE ONE? WE DON'T HAVE.
WE WE DO WE HAVE ONE? CAN THEY PULL THIS UP AT THE SAME TIME? I DUNNO.
WARNER HAS BOTH KIND OF, YOU KNOW, UM, UP ON HER SCREEN.
UM, BUT WE DON'T, WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY MADE A COMPOSITE MAP OF THE ETOD OVERLAY ON THIS DASHBOARD.
SO I GUESS IT'S, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE ARE THE CONCENTRATIONS OF NOT JUST THE MOST VULNERABLE, BUT PEOPLE, LIKE I SAID, WHO MAKE THAT MEDIAN INCOME, WHO WOULD BE AFRICAN AMERICAN LATINO? BECAUSE THE DISPLACEMENT PRESSURES ARE GONNA BE GREATER ON THOSE COMMUNITIES AS WELL,
[04:45:01]
NOT JUST THE VERY LOW INCOME.PERHAPS WE CAN PROVIDE THAT TO YOU.
UM, LET'S GET THE VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS BACK UP ON THE SCREEN, NOT SEEING ANY QUESTIONS.
I, I GUESS I ASKED STAFF A QUESTION.
I KNOW THIS HAS COME UP BEFORE FROM SORT OF DIFFERENT PROPOSALS, BUT IS THERE SOME CONCERN REGARDING SEGREGATION OR FAIR HOUSING WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SORT OF DIFFERENTIAL INCOME REQUIREMENTS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CITY? OH, I, JAMIE MAY, HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
UH, PRIMARILY IT'S LESS OF A FAIR HOUSING CONCERN.
UM, IT IS, THERE IS A CONCERN ABOUT CONCENTRATION OF POVERTY AND, UH, AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES.
UH, SO WE WOULDN'T WANT TO, UH, CONCENTRATE ALL OF OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN ONE AREA.
UM, WE DO ACTIVELY TRY TO, UH, SPREAD THAT THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY IN ALL, UH, COUNCIL DISTRICTS.
UM, I, MY CONCERN THAT JUMPS RIGHT OUT IS ADMINISTRATION.
UM, UH, THE MORE LIKE, LIKE WE'VE MENTIONED BEFORE, WE HAVE 22, UH, DIFFERENT DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS THAT IS A LOT TO MANAGE.
UM, AND, UH, PART OF THE REASON WHY WE, UH, ARE YOU'RE ASKING QUESTIONS, AND THESE ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONS, AND WE MIGHT NOT HAVE THAT DATA AVAILABLE BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO MANAGE 22 PROGRAMS. SO, UH, BY ADDING MORE REGULATIONS, BY, BY ADDING MORE THINGS FOR US TO MANAGE IS MORE DIFFICULT FOR US TO MANAGE THOSE THINGS.
UM, SO THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE ONLY REAL LIMITATION.
WE CAN MANAGE THE, UH, THE FAIR HOUSING QUESTIONS.
WE CAN MANAGE THE, UH, THE CONCENTRATION OF POVERTY.
UM, BUT, UH, WHEN THEY'RE, IF YOU CONSIDER EVERY PROGRAM NEEDS STAFF, WHEN WE HAVE 22 PROGRAMS AND ONLY THREE STAFF, SOMETHING'S GOT A GIFT.
MR. MAY, SORRY, MR. MAY, JUST TO CONFIRM, I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT THERE, I KNOW THAT IS NOT THE INTENTION AT ALL, BUT THERE COULD BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF CONSEQUENCE OF, UH, CONCENTRATION OF POVERTY POTENTIALLY.
THERE COULD BE IF, UH, UM, WE'VE HAD, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COM, UH, MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, UH, TO FOCUS, UH, MFI OR MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME ON CENSUS TRACT.
UM, WHAT IS CHALLENGING FOR THAT IS TWOFOLD.
FIRST, UH, IT IS WAY MORE, UM, VARIABLE THAN JUST THE CITYWIDE, UH, MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME.
AND SECOND, UH, IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT 30% OF THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME FOR A CERTAIN CENSUS TRACT, UH, THAT KINDA LOCKS THAT POPULATION INTO THAT PRICE BRACKET.
UH, BECAUSE 30% INCOME ON OLD WHARF IS NOT THE SAME AS 30% INCOME AT 15TH AND LAMAR.
SO IT IS A QUESTION OF EQUITY AND A QUESTION OF, UH, UH, TREATING ALL AREAS.
UH, UM, THE SAME WITH JUSTICE.
ALRIGHT, WE'RE AT THE END OF OUR QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER.
UM, THIS IS COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO STATE THE MOTION AND WE'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND? OKAY.
UH, COMMISSIONER AZAR WOULD, WOULD YOU STATE THE MOTION FOR ME PLEASE? SURE, I CAN.
I NEED MY BATTERY SOUTH ZONES IN THIS ETOD TAKE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SOUTH ZONE, CREATE NEW DENSITY, BONUS AFFORDABILITY BENCHMARKS FOR NORTH SOUTH FOR NORTH ZONE, UH, SEGMENTS OF LAMAR AND BURNETT THAT RUNS NORTH OF 15TH STREET TO CRESTVIEW.
AMEND THE EAU DENSITY BONUS TO REQUIRE THAT UNITS ARE AFFORDABLE AT AFFORD PERCENT MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME TO 60% MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME AND CAP THE MFI AT THE CURRENT LEVEL FOR 2024, OR ASSESS THE INCOME LEVEL OF RESIDENTS AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT AND HOUSING INSECURITY ANNUALLY TO SET INCOME REQUIREMENTS AT THAT LEVEL.
UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
ANY QUESTIONS? FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FOR ON THE MOTION? THIS CAN BE TO STAFF, MOTION MAKERS, STAKEHOLDERS.
THOSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST.
SO, UH, YEAH, SO ONCE AGAIN, AND I'M, I'M GLAD THAT STAFF CAME AND TALKED ABOUT TREATING AREAS DIFFERENTLY AND, UM, AND THESE AREAS ARE VERY DIFFERENT, EVEN IF IT'S, IF YOU'RE NOT SEEING THE MOST VULNERABLE POPULATIONS IN THESE AREAS, THEY SOON WILL BE IN, IN HARM'S WAY
[04:50:01]
FROM SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WE ARE MAKING.UM, AND, AND I THINK THAT IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN, WE, WE CAN RECOGNIZE THE, THE HUGE WEALTH GAPS BETWEEN THE AREAS ALONG NORTH LAMAR, UM, BETWEEN THE, THE RIVER AND, UH, 15TH STREET AND THEN THE STRETCH OF LAMAR THAT GOES NORTH TO CREST, TO CRESTVIEW.
THERE'S NO QUESTION, THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THERE'S A HUGE WEALTH GAP BETWEEN THE FOLKS WHO LIVE SOUTH AND THE FOLKS WHO LIVE NORTH.
AND SO WHAT I WAS JUST TRYING TO DO WAS TRYING TO DESIGN SOMETHING THAT WOULD REFLECT THOSE DIFFERENCES SO THAT WE DON'T CREATE ADDITIONAL PRESSURES AS WE DID IN AT PLAZA SATIO AND MLK STATION AS WE CREATED THERE AND CAUSED A LOT OF DAMAGE AND DISPLACEMENT.
SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO.
MAYBE I DIDN'T HIT THE TARGET AS WELL AS I COULD HAVE, UM, UM, WISH THAT I COULD HAVE SOME MORE HELP
AND WE SPEAKING AGAINST, OR SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UM, AND AGAIN, I, I REALLY DO WANNA APPLAUD COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS FOR BRINGING THIS BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME SERIOUS QUESTIONS REGARDING, UM, THESE TWO MAPS, WHICH, UH, SOMEHOW HAVE NOT BEEN OVERLAID
AND I WOULD REALLY HOPE THAT IN OUR FUTURE ETOD WE SEE THESE MORE CLEARLY MAPPED AND SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHERE THE DEMOGRAPHICS ARE AROUND IN THIS.
AND I'M GONNA SAY THE ONLY REASON I ACTUALLY DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING THIS IS BECAUSE I DO FEEL LIKE I DON'T HAVE CLARITY ON EXACTLY WHERE THE DISPLACEMENT WOULD BE TAKING PLACE AND HOW THIS OVERLAY IMPACTS THAT.
SO I THINK THE INTENT IS EXCELLENT.
I THINK I'M JUST REALLY STRUGGLING WITH, I KNOW FOR EXAMPLE IN SOUTH AUSTIN, FAR SOUTH AUSTIN, THERE ARE REAL ISSUES AROUND THESE AND THAT WOULD NOT BE COVERED UNDER THIS AMENDMENT.
SO I THINK, AGAIN, THAT THE INTENT IS EXCELLENT.
I'D LOVE TO SEE STAFF DO MORE WORK ALONG THIS LINES SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT ACROSS THE ETOD OVERLAY.
UM, I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR VERSION.
YEAH, I ACTUALLY KIND OF WILL MIRROR A LITTLE BIT WHAT COMMISSIONER MAXWELL SAID, BUT I HESITATED ON THIS ITEM IN THE WORKING GROUP PRIMARILY BECAUSE I WAS, I WAS LOCKED IN MY BRAIN ON EXECUTION AND WHAT THE EXECUTION WOULD LOOK LIKE.
BUT THE MORE I LOOK AT THIS AND THE MORE I, I LOOK AT THIS MAP, AND THEN ACTUALLY THE MORE I THINK BACK TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND HOW WE HAD THESE, THESE KIND OF TARGET DESCRIPTIONS AND IDENTIFIERS OF EACH STATION WITH RESPECT TO KIND OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING WITHIN A DISTANCE OF, OF EACH STATION.
I THINK THE ONLY CHANGE THAT I WOULD MAKE WITH, TO, TO THE PROPOSAL IS TO MAYBE DO IT MORE IN LINE WITH THE, THE STATION CLASSIFICATIONS THAT WE, THAT WE REVIEWED DURING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.
BUT SINCE THIS IS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION, I THINK IT CAN BE MASSAGED BY STAFF TO KIND OF FIGURE OUT WHAT THE MOST APPROPRIATE WAY IS TO, TO TRY TO REFLECT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IN TERMS OF AFFORDABILITY AND ANTI DISPLACEMENT AND HOW WE DEFINE THOSE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS BASED ON EACH STATION OR BASED ON THE BOUNDARIES IN THIS MAP OR WHAT, WHAT HAVE YOU.
SO I'M VOTING BASED ON THE INTENT AND TRYING TO IGNORE, I'LL ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND, AND, AND TRYING TO IGNORE KIND OF THE EXECUTION CHALLENGES, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT'S RECOMMENDATIONS AS WELL.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT STAFF IS EXPERT AT IS, IS EXECUTION CHALLENGES.
SPEAKING AGAINST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
THIS IS COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, THOSE AGAINST ONE, TWO, AND THEN, UH, ABSTAINING MISSING 1 0 3, COMMISSIONER 5 5 2 5.
IS THAT CORRECT?
WE ARE MOVING ON TO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S SECOND PULLED ITEM.
THIS IS THE NUMBER SIX ABOUT PROJECT CONNECT INFRASTRUCTURE.
CONSIDER PROJECT CONNECT TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE AS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT WITHIN A DENSITY BONUS REQUIREMENT.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DESCRIBE THAT A LITTLE MORE? YEAH.
AND THIS IS SPECIFICALLY A GENERAL MAN BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE, WE ARE NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR ON WHAT, WELL, THAT'S JUST, LEMME START AGAIN THERE.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WILL BE TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE
[04:55:01]
ITEMS RELATED TO PROJECT CONNECT THAT WE'LL NEED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT ALONG THIS, ALONG THIS CORRIDOR.AND I THINK THE IDEA IS THAT AS WE MAYBE ASK FOR SOME OF THOSE THINGS RELATED TO PROJECT CONNECT, THAT WE OFFER DENSITY BONUSES OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF BONUS, UM, TO ENCOURAGE THOSE EX THOSE USES AND THAT INFRASTRUCTURE BE BUILT IN A WAY THAT WORKS FOR EVERYONE, BOTH THE PROJECT CONNECT TEAM AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPERS.
UM, ESSENTIALLY INCENTIVIZING GOOD TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE, UM, AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS OVERLAY.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOTION? COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, THE, THE REASON, THE REASON I PULLED THIS WAS THAT I'M ALWAYS SENSITIVE TO, UM, ALLOWING THINGS THAT WE WOULD OTHERWISE REQUIRE TO BE, TO SATISFY, LIKE BONUSES, COMMUNITY BENEFITS, THAT SORT OF THING.
SO I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND FROM STAFF, UH, WHAT IS THE PROCESS THAT, THAT THE CITY IS, DOES HAVE OR WILL HAVE TO REQUIRE ANY SORT OF PROJECT CONNECT, TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE AS THESE PROPERTIES GET REDEVELOPED AROUND, AROUND OUR STATIONS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WILL AUTOMATICALLY HAPPEN AND THEY'LL BE REQUIRED TO DO IT? OR SHOULD THIS TRULY BE CONSIDERED KIND OF A A TO SATISFY SOME SORT OF BONUS REQUIREMENT? SURE.
STEVIE GREATHOUSE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND I'D SAY THERE'S A MIX OF THINGS THAT WE CAN REQUIRE AND THINGS THAT WE NEED TO, OF COURSE THERE IS
I DON'T WANNA TAKE UP ALL YOUR TIME WITH THE MIX, BUT ANIQUE WOULD HAVE KIND OF BETTER ANSWERS ON WHAT WE CAN REQUIRE.
THIS PARTICULAR BONUS IN TERM OR THIS PARTICULAR DIRECTION IS PART OF GENERAL DIRECTION IS PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE GENERAL DIRECTION.
AND WE'VE BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE AND AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP ABOUT HOW OUR INCENTIVE PROGRAMS CAN DO A BETTER JOB DELIVERING SOME OF THE AMENITIES THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR THAT WE CAN'T REQUIRE.
SO, SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE'S A MIX.
SO WE COULD, WE COULD FORMAT THIS LANGUAGE TO BASICALLY DIRECT YOU FOR THINGS THAT ARE NOT ALREADY REQUIRED.
THOSE THINGS COULD BE CONSIDERED PART OF A COMMUNITY BENEFIT THAT WOULD BE TOTALLY APPROPRIATE.
I AGREE WITH, WITH STEVIE AND YOU KNOW, FOR THE MOST PART THERE'S A LOT OF COORDINATION THAT HAPPENS EVERY DAY.
AND WE ARE MAXIMIZING WHAT WE NEED FOR THE PROJECT CONNECT PROGRAM FOR BOTH BUS AND RAIL AND PARK AND RIDE AND ALL THE COMPONENTS WITH THE TOOLS WE HAVE IN THE CODE.
WE HAVE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TOOLS IN THE CODE.
WE HAVE OTHER EXISTING DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS THAT ARE GOING TO BE LOOKED AT, UM, HOLISTICALLY.
AND WE WILL MODERNIZE THOSE FOR THE DEEDS OF, OF PROJECT CONNECT.
WELL, LET'S, LET'S TAKE AN EXAMPLE IN 30 SECONDS.
SO IF THERE'S A PROPERTY THAT'S CLOSE TO THE STATION AND, AND PROJECT CONNECT WANTED TO HAVE LIKE A HIGH TRANSIT BUS, HIGH CAPACITY BUS STOP THERE NEXT TO THAT PROPERTY, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY CAN JUST REQUIRE ALREADY OR WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU NEGOTIATE AS KIND OF A BONUS OR COMMUNITY BENEFIT? WE CAN REQUIRE MITIGATION AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AS LONG AS IT'S ROUGHLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE IMPACT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS MAKING.
AND WE DO THAT, UM, THROUGH VARIOUS METHODS.
SOMETIMES A TRA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED.
SOMETIMES IT'S THROUGH OTHER MEANS.
OTHER QUESTIONS? MADAM CHAIR, I, I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT NOTICE ON THIS ONE.
UM, AND I MEAN MY QUESTION GOES ARE WE GOES TO MAYBE MS. GRUB, BUT GO, MIGHT GO TO LAW.
WE ARE NOTICED FOR UH, DBOT TO ALLOW AND PRESERVE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DA DA DA IN EXCHANGE FOR INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING.
WE'RE ADDING A PROVISION HERE IS SO MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS AMENDMENT AND THE AMENDMENT MAKER CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION IS THAT IT WOULD BE A GENERAL, UM, AMENDMENT, GENERAL REQUIREMENT AMENDMENT THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT AS WE DEVELOP THE SECOND PHASE OF THIS WORK THAT WILL COME BACK AFTER THIS PHASE AND THAT WOULD GO THROUGH ITS OWN NEW NOTIFICATION PROCESS.
UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, OH, I'M SORRY.
IF I SHARE, IF I MIGHT JUST, MR. MAX, WOULD YOU OPEN TO ME TWEAKING SOME OF THE LANGUAGE BASED ON SOME THE YES, ABSOLUTELY.
SO THIS WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO, AND I'M HAPPY, HAPPY TO MAKE THIS AS A GENERAL AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER ALLOWING A DEVELOPMENT TO MEET ITS BONUS REQUIREMENTS IN THE DBE E DO OR IN, I'M NOT GONNA SAY THAT.
SO REQUIREMENTS TO THE PROVISION OF PROJECT CONNECT INFRASTRUCTURE BEYOND, BEYOND WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED AS A BASE REQUIREMENT AS DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE.
[05:00:01]
I DO HAVE A QUESTION.SORRY, I DON'T KNOW IF I MISSED THAT OPPORTUNITY.
WE HAVE TWO SPOTS NOW THAT THE MOTION'S BEEN MADE.
IS THAT BEYOND BASED OR QUESTION? YES, GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER AL.
UM, I GUESS I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IF WE, IF WE VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS, THAT WE'RE NOT GIVING A PATH, ANOTHER PATHWAY TO GET OUT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO I'M WONDERING IF, IF IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THIS IS PROVIDING ANOTHER PATHWAY OUT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THEN DO WE NEED TO UM, MODIFY OR SUBSTITUTE THIS AMENDMENT TO STATE SUCH THAT IT CANNOT MOVE TO GET OUT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING? I, I BELIEVE, UH, COMMISSIONER AL, SO THIS ESSENTIALLY, SINCE WE ARE ASKING THAT IT COULD REPLACE THE BONUS REQUIREMENT SO SOMEBODY COULD DO IT, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE AND THAT'S WHY I PUT IT IN THERE.
SO IT'S NOT A DETERMINATION THAT A DEVELOPER CAN MAKE ON ITS OWN.
IT WOULD TRULY BE OUR PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE THAT IS IN CHARGE OF COORDINATING WITH THE LIGHT RAIL PROJECT COMMISSIONERS.
I SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT UM, FOLLOWING UP WITH THE COMMISSIONER AL'S QUESTION.
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE WAY IT IS STRUCTURED WOULD BE A BASE REQUIREMENT TO PARTICIPATE IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THAT.
UM, SO THIS IS JUST A GENERAL AMENDMENT FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION.
IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE BASE ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING TODAY.
BUT WITH THE TRANSIT ASKED ANOTHER WAY, WOULD THE TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITY BENEFITS BEING CONSIDERED REPLACE OR BE IN LIEU OF A AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMUNITY BENEFIT OR ADDITIVE? IT WOULD BE IN LEO.
I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE INTENTION AND I'M CARRYING THAT FORWARD.
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A GENERAL AMENDMENT THEN.
THIS IS, YEAH, WE'RE NOT, OKAY.
UH, LAST SPOT FOR OUR QUESTION.
THOSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? YEAH, I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK.
I, I THINK, UM, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE MANY TWEAKS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THE E THE, UM, EAD PROGRAMS AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
AND WE JUST WANNA BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THEIR INTERACTION WITH PROJECT CONNECT AND THE SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE GONNA BE RELATED TO THAT.
AND I'M JUST REALLY HOPEFUL THAT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO INCENTIVIZE GOOD DEVELOPMENT RELATED TO THOSE ITEMS AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE NEW PROJECTS.
UM, AND THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO GET THE TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE WE NEED, UM, AND THAT WE SEE SOME REALLY BEAUTIFUL DESIGNS AND OUTCOMES AS A RESULT.
COMMISSIONER MI BELIEVE IF WE UNDERSTOOD STAFF CORRECTLY, THEY WERE PRETTY EMPHATIC THAT THEY HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE STUFF COVERED.
'CAUSE THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING THAT WITH COMMISSIONER COX'S, BUT THOSE AMENDMENT, SO I'M, I'M, I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT ANYTHING THAT FURTHER DEPLETES WHAT LIMITED AFFORDABLE HOUSING WE HAVE IN THIS AT THE MOMENT.
ESPECIALLY SINCE STAFF TOLD US THEY HAVE THE PROJECT CONNECT STUFF AND TRANSPORTATION STUFF ALL COVERED IN THE, THEY SAY A S ANYWAY, I THOUGHT I UNDERST CLEARLY FROM STAFF GOT COVERED.
CHAIR AND, AND I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER MICHELLE, YOUR POINT COMPLETELY AND I THINK WE WOULD NOT WANT SOMEONE TO BE ABLE TO, I'M TRYING TO LOOK FOR A BETTER WORD, BUT CHEAT OUT OF PROVIDING THEIR AFFORDABLE HOUSING BENEFIT.
BUT I THINK CONSIDERING THIS WOULD BE PART OF THAT SORT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY BENEFIT THAT WE WOULD HAVE, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE AND I THINK THAT'S WHY PARTICULARLY I FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO ADD IN THE RESTRICTION THAT THIS IS BEYOND WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED AS A BASE REQUIREMENT AND THAT THE DETERMINATION IS BEING MADE BY OUR CITY STAFF WHETHER SOMEONE CAN DO THIS OR THAT WE WOULD NOT ALLOW A DEVELOPER TO THEMSELVES MAKE THIS.
SO THE HOPE WOULD BE THAT WHATEVER BENEFIT THEY'RE PROVIDING IS A TRUE COMMUNITY BENEFIT, INCLUDING LOOKING AT MOBILITY OPTIONS, UM, WHICH OF COURSE ARE NECESSARY TO BRING DOWN HOUSEHOLD AFFORDABILITY CONCERNS.
I I REALLY APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER MUTAL AND STAFF BRINGING UP THAT SUBJECT 'CAUSE I WAS WHOLEHEARTEDLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
UM, BUT AS I THINK THROUGH IT, I KIND OF FEEL LIKE WE, WE WE'VE, WE'VE PASSED A BOND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE HAVE GRANTS THAT WE GET FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WE REQUIRE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS PART OF DEVELOPMENT.
WE PASSED A BOND FOR TRANSIT, WE GET GRANTS FOR TRANSIT AND WE REQUIRE CERTAIN THINGS AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE.
[05:05:01]
AS I THINK MORE THROUGH IT, I KIND OF FEEL LIKE WE WE'RE AT RISK OF, OF HURTING ONE OVER THE OTHER.WHEN WE START TO ALLOW THOSE TWO THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED EQUAL IN SOME WAY AND THEN START TRADING THE CHESS PIECES BETWEEN AFFORDABLE AND BETWEEN TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, WE NEED BOTH.
AND THAT'S THE ULTIMATE TRUTH.
AND SO I THINK I'M GONNA ABSTAIN ON THIS SIMPLY BECAUSE I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH STARTING TO CREATE THAT EQUIVALENCY BETWEEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, BOTH OF WHICH WE NEED.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE ON THIS.
THIS IS COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S NUMBER SIX, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR MADE BY ME.
THAT WAS MADE BY VICE CHAIR AZAR, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, THOSE AGAINST AND THOSE ABSTAINING.
DID I GET YOUR VOTE? SORRY, I MIGHT HAVE BEEN OUT OF FRAME.
SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO THE INDIVIDUAL UN HOST.
SO WE'RE GOING TO GO, UM, ALPHABETICALLY.
AND I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO 1130.
HOPEFULLY WE DON'T NEED IT, BUT IT'S BETTER THAN CONTINUALLY EXTENDING TIME.
I, I SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON WITHOUT OBJECTION.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS' INJECTION.
UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, DO YOU HAVE AN OTT AMENDMENT? I DO.
WHAT UP? OKAY, I'M GONNA READ IT OUT.
HOPEFULLY THIS MAKES SENSE ON.
SO I'M, I'M LOOKING TO ALTER THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND I'LL READ THEM OUT NOW.
ON LINE 96 CHANGED 12% TO 10% ON LINE ONE 10 CHANGE 15% TO 12%.
AND ONLINE ONE 14 CHANGED 12% TO 10% AND ADDING A RECOMMENDATION TO CALIBRATE THOROUGHLY IN THE NEXT 24 MONTHS AND ON AN ONGOING BASIS.
QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION MAKER OR STAFF? I HAVE A QUESTION.
COMMISSIONER MUELLER, WHY
YEAH, SO THANK YOU COMMISSIONER.
UH, TALK TO A LOT OF FOLKS AROUND AUSTIN AND AROUND TEXAS.
AND YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW, UH, NEW MULTIFAMILY STARTS ARE STALLED AND AT THE SAME TIME, INFLATION REMAINS PERSISTENT, LEAVING HIGH RATES.
UH, THERE'S NO MARKET DATA SHOWING THAT OUR STAFF'S NUMBERS WORK AND ETD MUST WORK.
WE HAVE TO PRODUCE A TON OF HOUSING ON OUR CORRIDORS.
UH, IN 2021, ONLY 36% OF OUR VMU SITES WERE OPTING IN.
AND THAT WAS AT THE TIME WHEN, YOU KNOW, WE WERE IN A BOOM TIME IN AUSTIN.
UH, WE LOOK AT MAXIMIZING OUR UTILIZATION IN 2016 AND WE FOUND THAT UH, FIVE TO 7% OF THE INCREASE SHOULD BE THE TARGET FOR MOST CENSUS TRACK WITH ZILKER BEING THE BIG OUTLIER AT 12%.
AND THAT WASN'T THE ENTIRETY, THAT WAS OF JUST THE INCREASE.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE COULD ALL SAY, HEY, 35% DOESN'T THAT LOOK GREAT AND BE REALLY NICE TO HOLD THAT UP ON A NEWSPAPER, BUT THEN WE'D SEE ZERO HOUSING UNITS CREATED AND THAT WOULD BE A BIG FAIL.
SO WE HAVE TO GET A LOT OF DENSITY ON OUR CORRIDORS AND THIS IS A GOOD WAY TO SEE UTILIZATION GET UP.
OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER COX QUESTIONS TO STAFF? UM, I RECALL NOT TOO LONG AGO THAT WE HAD A CASE THAT INCLUDED, WAS IT 15% AFFORDABLE HOUSING? UM, THEY CAME BACK TO US TO GET SOME SORT OF HEIGHT LIMIT UNDONE THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY.
AND SO I GUESS MY THING IS THAT I, I'M, I'M HEARING FROM FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND OTHER PEOPLE THAT, OH, THIS ISN'T, THIS DOESN'T PENCIL, BUT I'M ALSO SEEING CASES COME TO US WHERE IT DOES PENCIL IN SOME OF THE HIGHEST VALUE LAND IN THE CITY.
SO DON'T WE HAVE CASES THAT COME BEFORE US WITH 15% AFFORDABLE HOUSING? SO I'M NOT GONNA TRY TO SPEAK TO SPECIFIC CASES.
I CAN DEFER TO SOMEBODY AT HOUSING IF THEY HAVE THE ANSWER FOR THE SPECIFIC CASE.
I CAN SAY THAT THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR THIS ITEM INCLUDES SOME
[05:10:01]
MARKET ANALYSIS ABOUT THE PERCENTAGES THAT LOOKS AT SENSITIVITY TO DIFFERENT PRICE, UM, FACTORS.AND THE BIGGEST SENSITIVITY THAT THE CONSULTANTS THAT DID THAT ANALYSIS SAW WAS REALLY THE COST OF PROVIDING PARKING, THE IMPACT ON THE PROJECT AROUND CURRENT INTEREST RATES.
UM, AND STAFF BELIEVES THAT IN THE SHORT TERM THIS WILL PENCIL AT THE 30 TO 60 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AND THAT AS MARKET CONDITIONS CHANGE AND WE PROVIDE LESS PARKING ALONG THESE COURT ORDERS, WHICH IS A POLICY GOAL OF THE CITY, UM, IT WOULD BECOME MORE LIKELY TO PENCIL ON ADDITIONAL SITES.
AND STAFF HAS TRIED TO, TO DEVELOP THIS TO BALANCE MULTIPLE GOALS, INCLUDING AFFORDABILITY ALONG THE LINES, INCREASES IN TRANSIT, SUPPORTIVE DENSITIES, AND MINIMIZING DISPLACEMENT PRESSURE.
SO, SO WHAT I'M GATHERING IS THAT STAFF IS LOOKING TO THE FUTURE TO TRY TO ESTABLISH THE HIGHEST BASELINE POSSIBLE AND NOT BASICALLY TARGET THE LOWEST BASELINE BASED ON THIS MONTH'S INTEREST RATES.
LAST SPOT FOR A QUESTION? YES.
UM, ONE IS A CLARIFYING QUESTION, COMMISSIONER.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I CAPTURE THIS CORRECTLY.
YOU'RE SAYING, I'M GONNA READ THIS.
PLEASE TELL ME IF THIS MAKES SENSE.
ALTER THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS IN THE EO ORDINANCE IN LINE 96 FROM 12% TO 10%, LINE 110 FROM 15 TO 12% AND LINE ONE 14 FROM 12 TO 10% AND ADD A RECOMMENDATION TO CALIBRATE THOROUGHLY IN THE NEXT 24 MONTHS.
AND ON AN ONGOING BASIS, WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE, AND AN ONGOING BASIS.
UM, ONE, UH, THE ONE QUESTION THAT I WOULD HAVE FOR YOU IS, WOULD YOU CONSIDER SAYING THAT WE ESSENTIALLY SAY NINE MONTHS, SO BY THE END OF THIS YEAR THAT WE DO THE CALIBRATION COME BACK? I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN THAT YOU'RE RAISING AND I DID NOT WANT TO MINIMIZE THAT, BUT IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE CAN SORT OF CALIBRATE AND BRING THOSE CHANGES AND ESSENTIALLY MAKE ANY RECOM ANY CHANGES THAT WOULD BE RECOMMENDED AS PART OF THE CALIBRATION SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
SO IS, UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, I'D LIKE TO MOVE WHAT WE'VE JUST SAID TWICE AND I COULD SPEAK TO IT IF THERE'S A SECOND OR OTHER FOLKS CAN SPEAK WITH THE CLARIFICATION.
ARE YOU SAYING 24 MONTHS OR NINE MONTHS? AS FREQUENTLY AS POSSIBLE? AS, AS FREQUENTLY AS STAFF IS COMFORTABLE.
SO WHAT I, I LOOK AT YOU, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE A MASTER OF WORDS HERE.
I'M GONNA SAY THIS IS, I'M SORRY.
SO WE WOULD BE SAYING, UM, ALTER THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS IN THE ETO ORDINANCE IN LINE 96 FROM 12% TO 10%, LINE 110 FROM 15 TO 12%, LINE 114 FROM 12 TO 10% AND ADD A RECOMMENDATION TO CALIBRATE THOROUGHLY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND ON AN ONGOING BASIS.
IS THERE A SECOND MR. MAXWELL? YES.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS? FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION? WE HAVE TWO SPOTS.
LET'S GO TO, UH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
SO YEAH, JUST A A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, DID YOU, OR IN ANY CASE, HAVE YOU DONE AN ANALYSIS THAT COMPARES THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS, AFFORDABLE AND MARKET RATE THAT ARE PRODUCED WITH HIGHER AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND LOWER AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS? WARNER COOK, WE'VE NOT DONE THAT ANALYSIS.
OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION.
YES, MR. PHILLIPS? IT, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE ARE HEARING STAFF SAY DIFFERENT THINGS AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M HEARING WHAT STAFF IS SAYING THAT THEIR RECOMMENDATION, THEY HAVE SAID EVEN THOUGH, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON HAS DISAGREED, BUT STAFF HAS SAID THAT THEIR RECOMMENDATION PENCILS IN THE NOW AND PENCILS IN THE FUTURE.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL HEARING THE SAME THINGS.
'CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE FROM WHAT COMMISSIONER AZAR WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT HE DID NOT HEAR THAT THE SAME WAY.
AND I SAY THAT 'CAUSE YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT NINE MONTHS FROM NOW THAT QUESTION.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL HEARING THE SAME INFORMATION.
IS THAT A QUESTION OF STAFF? I TO CLARIFY? YES, PLEASE.
I GUESS STAFF, THE QUESTION IS, WAS CALIBRATION DONE IN SETTING THAT NUMBER
[05:15:02]
CALIBRATION WAS NOT DONE IN SETTING THAT NUMBER A HIGH LEVEL FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY UPTAKE ANALYSIS WAS DONE AFTER SETTING THE NUMBER IN THE STAFF PROPOSAL THAT SHOWED THAT IN SOME CASES TODAY IT DOES PENCIL AND IN MORE CASES IN THE FUTURE IT DOES PENCIL.SPEAKING FOR, SO ARE WE OUT OF QUESTION SPOTS? YES.
AFTER THE MOTION'S MADE, WE HAVE TWO SPOTS.
SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST MR. COX, UM, WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGAINST THIS CHANGE, I REALLY HOPE THIS COMMISSION DOES NOT APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT.
UM, THIS IS YET ANOTHER, ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF LOWERING THE BAR AND, AND GETTING LESS THAN OUT OF OUR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY THAN, THAN WHAT I THINK THIS CITY DESERVES.
UM, THE TRUTH IS, IS THAT IT'S NOT A GREAT TIME TO BUILD RIGHT NOW.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE.
IT TOOK US HOW MANY DECADES TO GET HERE, LIKE THREE, I THINK, TO MAKE THESE CHANGES TO OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE BASING OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS CRITERIA OFF OF A COUPLE OF MONTHS OR A YEAR'S WORTH OF DATA IN PROBABLY THE WORST ENVIRONMENT THAT IT IS TO BUILD BECAUSE LET'S ALL HOPE THAT IT'S NOT LIKE THAT.
AND I WOULD BE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF ASKING STAFF IN A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO PROVIDE A CALIBRATION SO WE KIND OF UNDERSTAND WHAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SAYS VERSUS WHAT THE MARKET CRITERIA IS SAYING.
BUT WE SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTING THE LOWEST BAR POSSIBLE FOR TODAY.
WE SHOULD BE THINKING THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE IN PLACE FOR DECADES.
AND SO I THINK IT'S A HUGE MISTAKE TO SET SUCH A LOW BAR JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE HIGH INTEREST RATES RIGHT NOW.
SO I'M VERY MUCH AGAINST THIS SPEAKING.
SO I KNOW WE HEARD SUCH AS AN EXAMPLE IN THE ZILKER NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE ONE CASE WANTED TO COME BEFORE US AND THEY WERE WILLING TO GO TO 15 AND AND THAT'S AWESOME.
THAT'S AWESOME WHEN SOMEBODY CAN DO THAT.
OF COURSE, THAT WAS THE ONE OUTLIER NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS DEEMED BY STAFF BACK IN 2016 TO BE ABLE TO GO HIRE.
AND WE DON'T KNOW INDIVIDUALLY WHAT EACH AND EVERY CASE IS ABOUT.
SO WE HAVE TO BE THINKING HOLISTICALLY ABOUT ALL THESE CORRIDORS AND MAKING SURE THAT NOT JUST SOME OF THEM, PENCIL AS STAFF HAS MENTIONED MULTIPLE TIMES, BUT THAT MOST OF THEM PENCIL WHEN WE ONLY HAVE 35% UTILIZATION, EXCUSE ME, 36% UTILIZATION OF VMU AND THAT'S AT 10%.
WE HAVE TO DO A WHOLE LOT BETTER THAN THAT.
AND LOOKING AT 15% AS AN ARBITRARY OUT OF THE AIR NUMBER WHEN NO OTHER DENSITY BONUS IN THE CITY IS THAT HIGH, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF UNO AND AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED, WHICH WE EXPECT TO BE SUBSIDIZED.
WE HAVE TO GET A LOT MORE UNITS OUT OF THIS.
AND WHAT WE GET, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1,500, YOU KNOW, SUDDENLY WE'RE TALKING BIG NUMBERS WHEN YOU HAVE A THOUSAND AT 12% VERSUS 500 YIELDING 15%, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, IT'S A GREAT NEWSPAPER HEADLINE PERHAPS, BUT IF THE UL ULTIMATE YIELD IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT LESS, THAT'S A BIG FAIL.
SO I'M HOPEFUL, HOPEFUL THAT WE PASS THIS AND WE GET TO MOVING ON A LOT OF HOUSING.
SPEAKING AGAINST, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST COMMISSIONER FEST.
SO I WANNA SAY THAT ANYTHING THAT LOWERS THE BAR FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS E TODD, WE SHOULD JUST THROW OUT ON THE MERITS AND THE MORAL VALUE OF THAT.
AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN HANDED, UM, THESE PARAMETERS TO BUILD A BUS AND THE BUS AT THIS POINT IS BEING BUILT FOR CERTAIN POPULATIONS THAT ARE AT THE TOP HALF, THE TOP HALF OF AUSTIN'S INCOME SPECTRUM.
WHAT WE HAVE TRYING TO DO HERE IS PRESERVE SOME OF THE FEATURES THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED AT THE END OF THE PROCESS OF BUILDING THIS BUS TO ACCOMMODATE THE PEOPLE AT THE BACK HALF OF AUSTIN'S IN INCOME SPECTRUM.
AND CONSTANTLY WE ARE BEING TOWED.
THERE'S NO ROOM ON THIS BUS FOR PEOPLE WHO LOOK LIKE ME AND WHO MAKE LESS THAN THE MEDIAN INCOME IN AUSTIN.
AND THAT CAN'T BE THE MESSAGE THAT WE ARE SENDING HERE.
WE HAVE GOT TO SEND THE MESSAGE THAT WE ARE BUILDING A BUS FOR EVERYBODY AND BY LOWERING THE PERCENTAGES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
[05:20:02]
IN THIS EO THAT'S THE MESSAGE THAT WE'RE SENDING.WE ARE BUILDING IT FOR CERTAIN POPULATIONS AND NOT FOR OTHERS.
WE'RE BUILDING ON IT ON THE BACKS OF THOSE, AT SACRIFICES OF THOSE POPULATIONS.
LAST SPOT FOUR, BISHOP MAXWELL.
UM, I JUST REALLY WANNA ECHO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S CONCERNS.
AND THE REASON I'M REALLY SPEAKING UP ON THIS IS BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN DBE TODD, WHICH WE CAME, CAME TO BECAUSE OF A LAWSUIT AND RELATED TO VMU, WHICH VMU HAD BEEN ONE OF OUR MOST SUCCESSFUL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS. WE HAD TO REPLACE IT BECAUSE OF A LAWSUIT.
WE ARE TRYING TO CALIBRATE THAT PROGRAM SO IT GETS UPTAKE.
WE KNOW THE DB 90 IS BEGINNING TO SUCCEED AND NOW WE'RE COMING IN WITH A BOARD BONUS THAT IS MUCH HIGHER.
AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS ABOUT LONG-TERM VALUE IN THIS CORRIDOR.
WE NEED TO START THIS PROCESS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
THESE UNIT UNITS NEED TO BE ON THE GROUND WHEN WE ACTUALLY HAVE TRAINS.
SO I UNDERSTAND THE IDEAL SITUATION, BUT WE MAY NOT BE THERE FOR FIVE OR 10 YEARS.
AND WE HAVE PROGRAMS IN FRONT OF US IN OUR CITY THAT BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING TODAY, THAT PENCIL TODAY.
AND THOSE NUMBERS AREN'T THE NUMBERS RECOMMENDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
SO I WILL BE WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORTING THIS.
UM, FOR REASONS THAT WITHOUT RESTATING EVERYTHING COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS SAID, UM, WHEN WE'RE, THIS IS ALL BEING RUSHED AND THIS IS ALL HAPPENING, SO WE CAN GET THE GRANT, WE CAN PUT TOGETHER AN APPLICATION AND GET THE GRANT FOR THE TRAINING AND THE INITIAL INITIAL EVALUATION FOR THAT, AT LEAST ACCORDING TO THE NUMBERS WE HAD, IT WAS 16% TIMES THREE CATEGORIES.
THIS AFFORDABILITY AND UTILIZATION IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE.
SO I MEAN, IF IT'S, IF IT'S THAT OBVIOUS TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON THIS COMMISSION THAT WE ARE TURNING OUR BACK IN THE GOAL OF AFFORDABILITY, IT'S GONNA BE DARN OBVIOUS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, YOU'RE GONNA LOSE THE, AND THEN YOU'RE GONNA HAVE NOTHING.
WE NEED TO GET THE AFFORDABILITY IN THERE AND, AND I, I JUST, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE TRY AND SELL A FEATURE THAT'S GOING TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THEN WE PULL THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR OWNERSHIP RIGHT OUT OF THE PROJECT THAT YOU JUST SOLD TO EVERYBODY.
COUNCIL CAN CHANGE IT, CHANGE SUMMER IF IT'S NOT, BUT I DON'T THINK LOWERING IT IS GONNA REFLECT WELL ON THIS PROJECT.
OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CAN I MAKE A SUBSTITUTE OR IS THAT PASSED? UH, YOU CAN MAKE A SUBSTITUTE.
MY SUBSTITUTE IS THE, TO INCLUDE THE NINE MONTH CALIBRATION, BUT REMOVE THE LOWERING OF THE PERCENTAGES.
IS THERE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? COMMISSIONER COX? I'M JUST DOING WHAT I SAID I, I COULD SUPPORT, WHICH IS ASKING STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A CALIBRATION WITH NUMBERS, BUT NOT SUPPORTING, LOWERING THE BAR AT THIS VERY EARLY STAGE OF ADOPTING AN EQUITABLE TOD DISTRICT.
ALRIGHT, QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION MAKER OR STAFF? OKAY.
SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? I'M GONNA SPEAK FOR THIS BECAUSE WHAT WE WERE TOLD IS WE, WE BLEW THE TODD, THE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT.
WE BLEW THAT WHEN WE HAD THE, UH, CHANCE TO DESIGN THAT BECAUSE WHAT WE DID WAS ACCELERATE DISPLACEMENT OF BIPOC COMMUNITIES, PEOPLE WHO MADE, AND, AND, AND PEOPLE WHO MADE LOWER THAN THE MEDIAN INCOME, THE VERY PEOPLE WHO WERE USING PUBLIC TRANSIT AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF COMING BACK HERE WITH AN E TODD, I WANT TO REMIND, WAS TO PUT THE EQUITY IN TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT.
AND WE ARE NOW GOING TO A PLACE WHERE WE ARE BEGINNING TO DIMINISH AND TAKE THAT OUT, TAKING OUT THE EQUITY.
WELL, IF ALL WE'RE GONNA DO IS THE SAME THING THAT WE'VE DONE BEFORE, THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE SAME RESULTS AS WE HAD BEFORE.
AND, AND, AND THE FACT THAT WE NEED ALL OF THIS HOUSING, BUT WE'RE WILLING TO SACRIFICE PEOPLE WHO WON'T BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HOUSING BECAUSE THIS IS MARKET BASED.
I REMIND YOU, WE WOULD, THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A PROCESS IN WHICH WE COULD PUT EQUITY BACK INTO THE GAME.
SO I'M SUPPORTING THIS AND I HOPE THAT WE WILL, WE WILL BE REMINDED OF WHY WE ARE DOING AN E TODD,
[05:25:03]
THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST SHARON.I DIDN'T DO PROBABLY AS GOOD A JOB AS I COULD HAVE DONE IN, UH, SHARING THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE HAD WITH THE FOLKS THAT I REACHED OUT TO ABOUT THIS.
SO, SIX RANDOM PROPERTY OWNERS AND DEVELOPERS IN THE CITY WITH ALL WITH DIFFERENT HATS ON TALKING TO THEM ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY LOOK TO DO WHEN THEY LOOK TO DO IT, AND NOT REALLY SHARING KIND OF WHAT WE ARE ALL WORKING ON.
AND THE ANSWER IS ACROSS THE BOARD, THINGS JUST SIMPLY AREN'T MOVING.
AND SO AGAIN, WE CAN PUT THE BIGGEST REQUIREMENT THAT WE WANT AND IT DOESN'T PENCIL AND IT YIELDS NOTHING.
OR WE CAN TRY AND CREATE SOMETHING THAT CAN ACTUALLY HAPPEN AND WE CAN SEE THESE HOMES GET BUILT.
SO I, I LOVE THE IDEAS OF BIG NUMBERS IF THEY PENCIL AND IF THEY WORK, BUT IF THEY DON'T, THEN THEY'RE WORTHLESS.
AND SO I WILL BE VOTING THIS DOWN AND I HOPE THAT WE PASS THE MOTION THAT WE WERE ABOUT TO VOTE ON A MOMENT AGO.
SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER COX.
I, I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE THINGS, MANY THINGS NOT MOVING FORWARD, AND THAT IS BECAUSE OF MARKET DYNAMICS THAT ARE COMPLETELY OUT OF OUR CONTROL.
I DON'T THINK IT'S BECAUSE OF A PERCENTAGE POINT HERE OR THERE IN A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
UM, THE INTENT OF MY SUBSTITUTE IS TO GET THE DATA FROM STAFF, NOT BASE OUR DECISIONS ON SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH WHOEVER WE'RE TALKING TO.
BUT LET'S GET THE DATA FROM STAFF, A MARKET CALIBRATION, AND THEN WE CAN ADJUST.
IF WE NEED TO ADJUST BASED ON THE MARKET CALIBRATION, THEN WE CAN ADJUST.
BUT LET'S NOT START WITH A LOW BAR AND THEN HAVE THAT LINGER FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS.
LET'S START WITH A HIGH BAR AND THEN WE CAN ADJUST DOWN IF WE NEED TO BASED ON THE MARKET DATA.
LAST SPOT AGAINST COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
YEAH, I, I WANNA ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SAID.
AND, AND JUST PUT REAL SIMPLY, YOU KNOW, I, I DO THINK MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS BETTER THAN LESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I WOULD RATHER HAVE 10% OF A THOUSAND THAN 12% OF 500.
IT'S, IT'S JUST SIMPLE MATH TO ME.
THE, THE HIGHER REQUIREMENT WE PUT IN THIS ORDINANCE, THE FEWER PEOPLE WILL CHOOSE TO USE IT.
AND WE'RE LOSING OUT ON ALL OF THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, NOT JUST THAT DIFFERENTIAL.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE BY COMMISSIONER COX SETTING.
MY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR.
SORRY, CAN WE RESTATE THE MOTION? NADIA NADIA'S ASKING TO RESTATE THE MOTION.
OH, SO THE RESTATED MOTION IS, I'LL READ IT HERE.
SO THIS WOULD, UH, IT'S A MOTION TO REQUIRE STAFF TO CALIBRATE THE BONUS WITHIN NINE MONTHS.
AGAIN, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? FIVE.
AND THOSE ABSTAINING TWO, THAT MOTION FAILS.
SO WE GO, GO BACK TO THE
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS MOTION.
DOES ANYBODY NEED IT RESTATED, MR. JOHNSON, TO RESTATE IT? BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT LOWERS THE PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? GOING FROM 15 TO 12? I'LL 12 READ IT TO THE ALTER.
THE AFFORDABLE TO REQUIREMENT IN THE EO ORDINANCE IN LINE 96 FROM 12% TO 10%.
LINE 110 FROM 15% TO 12% AND LINE 114 FROM 12% TO 10% AND ADD A RECOMMENDATION TO CALIBRATE THOROUGHLY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
EXCUSE ME, POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR TRANSPARENCY SAKE.
THE PUBLIC IS NOT REALLY FAMILIAR WITH ALL OF THE NUMBERS AND THE, UH, ACRONYMS THAT WE USE HERE.
AND I'VE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC, AND I'VE SHARED THAT WITH STAFF AND I'VE SHARED IT WITH THIS BODY.
SO CAN WE HEAR IN PLAIN LANGUAGE WHAT THIS, UH, MOTION DOES? THANK YOU.
SINCE IT'S NOT MY MOTION, I WILL NOT BE SPEAKING TO THAT.
I KNOW COMMISSIONER ANDERSON OR STAFF, IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THAT.
I, I DON'T, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH US CHANGING THE WAY WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING FOR THE LAST TWO WEEKS RIGHT NOW IN THIS MOTION.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, DO YOU, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON? WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT WE STATE MOTIONS SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE
[05:30:01]
VOTING ON.AND WHAT I'M BEING TOLD BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON IS THAT NO, HE IS UNWILLING TO DO THAT.
HE IS UNWILLING TO STATE THIS VOTE IN PLAIN LANGUAGE THAT THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE MOTION IS.
AND WHY IS THAT? I'M HAPPY TO TAKE A CRACK AT IT.
THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO GET A BETTER UTILIZATION OF THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS. AND THAT IS THE GOAL HERE.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ABOUT TO VOTE ON.
AND THEN I'VE READ OUT THE LINES AND ALL THE LINES ARE IN BACKUP.
THAT WAS BACK, THE BACKUP WAS POSTED MANY DAYS AGO.
AND FOR THE FOLKS THAT ARE HOME, I I DO HOPE THAT THEY'RE CHECKING OUT BACKUP RIGHT NOW.
AND, AND AGAIN, ONCE AGAIN, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, NOT JUST FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE MONEYED AND POWERFUL AND PEOPLE WITH TECHNOLOGY SITTING AT THEIR FINGERTIPS, BUT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO, WHO ALSO PAY TAXES LIVE IN THIS CITY AND VOTE, WHAT DOES, WHAT DO THESE NUMBERS DO? I MEAN, WHY ARE WE TRYING TO HIDE THAT POINT OF ORDER? WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE THAT'S BEEN SECONDED.
SO WE DO HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
WE'VE HAD ALL THE QUESTIONS AND THE FOR AND AGAINST, SO THE MOTION AS STATED AND SECONDED BY, REMIND ME WHO THE SECOND WAS.
THOSE AGAINST AND THOSE ABSTAINING.
LET'S MOVE ON TO UNPOSTED AMENDMENTS.
LET ME, I WAS JUST MAKING A NOTE HERE.
UM, CHAIR THIS, UM, IS, I'M SORRY, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, UM, I HAVE A MOTION.
THIS WAS SHARED, UH, VIA EMAIL EARLIER.
THIS WOULD CREATE A BUY DOWN PROVISION SO THAT THE CITY RESERVES A RIGHT TO SUBSIDIZE ONSITE AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN A DEVELOPMENT, PARTICIPATING IN THE BONUS TO FURTHER REDUCE THE RENT AND MEET COMMUNITY NEEDS AROUND DEEPER AFFORDABILITY.
AND THIS IS, UM, ACTUALLY VERBATIM THE SAME AMENDMENT THAT I HAD BROUGHT FORTH AT THE SOUTH CENTER WATERFRONT.
UM, QUESTIONS FOR ABOUT THIS MOTION? MR. COX? I'M, I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM STAFF, 'CAUSE I THINK THIS IS A GREAT THING TO DO.
I'M JUST CURIOUS IF WE HAVE PROVISIONS LIKE THIS ALREADY AND, AND OTHER PROGRAMS AND, AND, AND WHAT THE UTILIZATION IS.
JAMIE MAY, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
UH, YES, WE HAVE, UH, THE ABILITY TO DO THIS NOW.
UM, WE HAVE DONE IT IN THE PAST.
UH, WE HAVE NOT DONE THIS IN ABOUT FIVE YEARS BECAUSE IT IS MORE EXPENSIVE TO BUY DOWN, UH, A UNIT AS OPPOSED TO INVESTING IN PROPERTY EITHER AT ACQUISITION OR AT DEVELOPMENT.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, OUR, UM, OUR, UH, GOAL FOR SUBSIDIZING UNITS IS ABOUT $50,000 AS I STATED.
UM, IF WE WERE TO BUY DOWN A UNIT, LET'S SAY A THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH IN RED, REDUCED RENT PRICES, THAT'S $12,000 A YEAR.
YOU GET FOUR YEARS FOR THE SAME $50,000 THAT WE WOULD GET 40 YEARS FOR WITH OUR RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT COMES ALONG WITH OUR INVESTMENT.
AND I'M CURIOUS, I I FEEL LIKE PARTICULARLY IN THE, THE TRANSIT AREA, THE PROPERTY VALUES ARE GONNA SKYROCKET, ESPECIALLY IF WE ACTUALLY GET THE TRANSIT.
UM, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS POTENTIALLY IS MORE USEFUL THAN TRYING TO ACTUALLY BUILD NEW AFFORDABLE UNITS WITHIN THE ACTUAL TRANSIT DISTRICT.
LIKE IT'S, IT WOULD BE PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE FOR THE CITY TO FIND A PROPERTY WITHIN THE EAD BOUNDARY AND ACTUALLY BUILD 200 AFFORDABLE UNITS IN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX THAN THAN POTENTIALLY TRYING TO BUY DOWN UNITS THAT ARE BUILT ON SITE.
IF WE WERE TO BUILD IT OURSELVES WITH NO ASSISTANCE FROM ANYONE ELSE AND NO FUNDING FROM ANYONE ELSE, THAT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC.
HOWEVER, UM, AS WITH ALL OF OUR DEVELOPMENTS, EITHER IF WE ARE INVESTING OR IF WE ARE A PARTNER, UM, A GROUND LESSOR, UH, WE WILL LEVERAGE, UH, LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS, PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS, ALL FUNDING SOURCES THAT WE CAN FIND BOTH, UH, WITHIN THE CITY, FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK, THE STATE OF TEXAS, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
WE WILL LOOK EVERYWHERE AND FIND THE DOLLARS.
AND THAT'S WHY WE PARTNER WITH, UH, EXPERIENCED DEVELOPERS WHO KNOW WHERE TO FIND THOSE DOLLARS SO THAT WHEN WE LEVERAGE OUR FUNDS, IT'S AT A SEVEN TO ONE RATIO AS OPPOSED TO A THREE TO ONE RATIO THAT SOME OTHER JURISDICTIONS WOULD HAVE.
SEVEN TO ONE AS IN SEVEN CITY, ONE ELSEWHERE, OR ONE CITY SEVEN.
FOR EVERY $1 THAT WE PUT INTO A DEVELOPMENT, WE GET $7 FROM OTHER SOURCES, WHETHER THAT'S THE FEDERAL, STATE, OR PRIVATE FUNDING.
[05:35:02]
GREAT.UM, ZA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESTATE YOUR MOTION? WE'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND.
CHAIR, I'M MAKING A MOTION THAT THE CITY, WE CREATE A BID PROVISION, UM, WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE SO THAT THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SUBSIDIZE ONSITE AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN A DEVELOPMENT, PARTICIPATING IN THE BONUS TO FURTHER REDUCE THE RENT AND MEET COMMUNITY NEEDS AROUND DEEPER AFFORDABILITY.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX, ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS? TWO SPOTS.
I KNOW WE HAD ALREADY DISCUSSED IT OUTSIDE OF WATERFRONT, SO I JUST WANNA BE VERY CLEAR.
THIS IS, THIS WOULD CREATE AN OPTION FOR THE CITY TO DO THAT.
IT WOULD NOT BE A REQUIREMENT IF AT SOME POINT IT FEELS LIKE THIS MIGHT BE A FEASIBLE WAY TO ALLOW THAT DEEPER AFFORDABILITY THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR WITHIN THESE AREAS.
THAT THIS BECOMES AN OPTION FOR THE CITY TO EXPLORE.
UM, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S AN EXPLORATORY, UM, ITEM THAT WOULD BE SORT OF MOVING FORWARD.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
THIS IS ON VICE CHAIR AZAR BY DOWN PROVISION AMENDMENT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COX.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, THOSE, UH, AGAINST AND THOSE ABSTAINING.
COMMISSIONER HOWARD? I DON'T HAVE ANY.
THIS WAS ONE, UH, COMMISSION LEE ON RIVERA CIRCULATED BY EMAIL A FEW HOURS AGO.
UM, IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO ALIGN PARKING STANDARDS IN THE E TODD AND DB E TODD AREA.
UH, ALIGN THOSE TO THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN PARKING CHANGES, UM, INCLUDING A 40% SOFT CAP, 80% HARD CAP, AND THEN REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING UNCOUPLING PARKING, UH, FROM A BUILDING FOR RENT OR FOR SALE.
QUESTIONS ON THIS, COMMISSIONER COX.
SO WE JUST HAD A, A LIVELY AND HEATED DEBATE ABOUT THINGS THAT WE DO THAT POTENTIALLY CREATES PROBLEMS FOR FINANCING PROJECTS AND GET THEM MOVING FORWARD.
WE'VE CONSISTENTLY HAD DEVELOPERS AND THEIR LAWYERS TELL US THAT TO GET FINANCING FROM BANKS, THEY HAVE TO HAVE PARKING.
THAT THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT THEY CAN GET THEIR PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD.
SO, DOES ISN'T, ISN'T THERE THE, A SIMILAR CONCERN, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, THAT THAT THIS SORT OF PROVISION MIGHT ACTUALLY HURT DEVELOPMENT FROM MOVING FORWARD WITHIN THE EAD BOUNDARY? MOST OF WHICH, WHICH FALLS OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN? UH, NO.
I WOULD SAY THERE'S NOT A CONCERN.
UM, WE SEE THESE REQUIREMENTS WORK FOR DOWNTOWN PROJECTS.
UM, A LOT OF THE DB EAD OVERLAY IS NOT DOWNTOWN, BUT IT'S IDEALLY WILL BECOME THE NEXT CLOSEST THING TO DOWNTOWN.
SO THERE'S, I DON'T REALLY SEE ANY REASON TO THINK THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD NOT WORK, UH, IN THOSE AREAS WHEN THEY DO DOWNTOWN.
THIS DOES NOT PROHIBIT A DEVELOPER FROM BUILDING PARKING IF THEY CHOOSE TO.
UH, IT JUST ENCOURAGES THEM TO BUILD LESS OF IT.
I'M, I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A HARD CAP AND ALSO A SOFT CAP FOR PARKING.
SO A HARD CAP WOULD BE AT 80% OF THE PREVIOUS REQUIREMENT, UH, IN THE OLD PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
SO THAT AGAIN, DOES NOT PROHIBIT SOMEBODY FROM BUILDING PARKING.
IT JUST ENCOURAGES THEM TO BUILD LESS THAN THEY OTHERWISE COULD.
UH, CAN I, UM, MS. COOK, MAYBE IF YOU COULD ANSWER A QUESTION FOR ME RELATED TO THIS, BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS A REALLY CRITICAL POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE IS CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD BY READING ON THE COMMISSION.
UM, WHEN YOU ALL DID YOUR SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS, YOU SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT LESS PARKING IN ALL OF THESE BUILDINGS WOULD HELP THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PENCIL.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND CAN I BE CLEAR THAT IN THE ORDINANCE AS IT EXISTS CURRENTLY, THERE ARE NOT PARKING REQUIREMENTS OR INCENTIVES TO LOWER PARKING TO GET THAT TO PENCIL? IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT WAS CONSIDERED A, A PHASE TWO ITEM THAT WE WERE GOING TO LOOK INTO MORE.
SO THEREFORE, IF WE WERE TO ADOPT SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WE MIGHT ACTUALLY BE
[05:40:01]
ALLOWING SOME OF THESE, UH, AFFORDABLE REQUIREMENTS TO PENCIL MORE ACTIVELY.UM, I'M GONNA BRING TRISH WITH THE LAW UP WITH LAW UP TO TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS FOR TRISH WITH THE LAW
WE STILL HAVE ANOTHER CODE AMENDMENT TO GO.
SO THE CONCERN IS THIS DOESN'T ACTUALLY FIT WITHIN THE ETOD BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND WE DO NOT WANT TO ADD PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO 25 2 TO OUR ZONING REGULATIONS.
MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE WHEN YOU TAKE UP THE DOWNTOWN PARKING ITEM THAT YOU CONSIDER AN COMING BACK AT A FUTURE TIME WITH AN INITIATION TO ADD DB OR ETOD TO THE SAME PROVISIONS.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT MAKES SENSE, BUT I SORRY, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
I JUST DON'T REALLY SEE THE ISSUE WITH MAKING IT A RECOMMENDATION HERE VERSUS ON THE OTHER ORDINANCE.
IF EITHER WAY IT'S NOT PART OF THAT ORDINANCE AND WOULD HAVE TO BE A RECOMMENDATION FOR GENERAL ACTION.
DOESN'T MATTER WHICH ORDINANCE WE MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION WITH.
SO IS THE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE THAT WILL BE BEFORE COUNSEL ON THE 16TH.
SO I, FROM YOUR FIRST RESPONSE, I UNDERSTOOD THAT WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SAY ANYTHING RELATED TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS SINCE WE WEREN'T NOTICED FOR IT FOR THIS EAU ORDINANCE.
IS THAT CORRECT? CHERYL? TAKE OVER THE QUESTION AND ANSWER TIME.
SO THE ISSUE IS WE DON'T HAVE PARKING REQUIRE.
WE TRY NOT TO HAVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND OUR ZONING REGULATIONS.
WHAT YOU ARE CONSIDERING IS AN ITEM THAT ACTUALLY MORE APPROPRIATELY GOES IN OUR TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS THE ITEM THAT YOU HAVE AFTER THIS ITEM TONIGHT.
UH, MS LINK, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
IF THIS WERE TO BE BROUGHT WITH THE NEXT ITEM, COULD IT BE APPLIED TO THE DP E AUDITOR OR ARE YOU SAYING IT WOULD, IT WOULD STILL BE A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION, CORRECT.
IT WOULD STILL BE A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION FOR STAFF TO COME BACK WITH THAT FOR ETOD.
SO, MR. JOHNSON, I'M JUST HEARING TONIGHT, ALL YOU CAN DO IS DO A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION WHETHER YOU DO IT HERE OR IN THE NEXT ORDINANCE.
THIS CAN BE WORDED AS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION.
UM, WELL WE'RE OUT OF SPOTS FOR THE THREE QUESTIONS.
SO MR. JOHNSON, DID YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION AND THEN WE'LL HAVE TWO MORE SPOTS FOR QUESTIONS? YEAH, SO THE MOTION WILL BE TO MAKE A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO ALIGN IN THE DBE TODD REQUIREMENTS WITH, UM, OR DEVELOPMENTS WITH THE DOWNTOWN PARKING, UH, MAXIMUMS AND, AND OTHER, UH, ITEMS MARICE RESTATED.
JUST FOR A CLARIFICATION, SO THIS IS GENERAL RECOMME IN THIS WHOLE MAP, OR ARE YOU SPECIFIC SPECIFICALLY? I'M TALKING ABOUT THE OVERLAY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW.
WHERE WOULD THE COMMUNITIES OF COLOR BE LOCATED IN THE EAD OVERLAY? SO THIS MAP DOES CONSIDER COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, AS YOU KNOW, ONE INDICATOR, ALSO LOW INCOME CHILDREN IN POVERTY.
YOU CAN SEE RENTERS AND, UM, PEOPLE WITHOUT A BACHELOR'S DEGREE.
UM, AND YOU CAN SEE THE YELLOW IS THE MOST VULNERABLE.
THE PINK IS CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING KIND OF DYNAMIC CHANGE.
UM, BUT THIS IS NOT OUR OVERLAY MAP.
IT'S NOT SO THE ANOTHER MAP NEEDS TO SHOW.
DO WE HAVE, WE DON'T HAVE, WE WE DO WE HAVE ONE? CAN THEY PULL THIS UP AT THE SAME TIME? I DUNNO.
UM, BUT WE DON'T, WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY MADE A COMPOSITE MAP OF THE ETOD OVERLAY ON THIS DASHBOARD.
SO I GUESS IT'S, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE CONCENTRATIONS OF NOT JUST THE MOST VULNERABLE, BUT PEOPLE, LIKE I SAID, WHO MAKE THAT MEDIAN INCOME, WHO WOULD BE AFRICAN AMERICAN LATINO, BECAUSE THE DISPLACEMENT PRESSURES ARE GONNA BE GREATER ON THOSE COMMUNITIES AS WELL, NOT JUST
[05:45:03]
THE VERY LOW INCOME.PERHAPS WE CAN PROVIDE THAT TO YOU.
LET'S GET THE VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS BACK UP, UP ON THE SCREEN, NOT SEEING ANY QUESTIONS.
I, I GUESS I ASKED STAFF A QUESTION.
I KNOW THIS HAS COME UP BEFORE FROM SORT OF DIFFERENT PROPOSALS, BUT IS THERE SOME CONCERN REGARDING SEGREGATION OR FAIR HOUSING WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SORT OF DIFFERENTIAL INCOME REQUIREMENTS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CITY? OH, IT'S JAMIE MAY, HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
UH, PRIMARILY IT'S LESS OF A FAIR HOUSING CONCERN.
UM, IT IS, THERE IS A CONCERN ABOUT CONCENTRATION OF POVERTY AND, UH, AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES.
UH, SO WE WOULDN'T WANT TO, UH, CONCENTRATE ALL OF OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN ONE AREA.
UM, WE DO ACTIVELY TRY TO JUST, UH, SPREAD THAT THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY IN ALL, UH, COUNCIL DISTRICTS.
UM, I, MY CONCERN THAT JUMPS RIGHT OUT IS ADMINISTRATION.
UM, UH, THE MORE LIKE, LIKE WE'VE MENTIONED BEFORE, WE HAVE 22, UH, DIFFERENT DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS THAT IS A LOT TO MANAGE.
UM, AND, UH, PART OF THE REASON WHY WE, UH, ARE YOU'RE ASKING QUESTIONS AND THESE ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONS, AND WE MIGHT NOT HAVE THAT DATA AVAILABLE BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO MANAGE 22 PROGRAMS. SO BY ADDING MORE REGULATIONS, BY, BY ADDING MORE THINGS FOR US TO MANAGE IS MORE DIFFICULT FOR US TO MANAGE THOSE THINGS.
UM, SO THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE ONLY REAL LIMITATION.
WE CAN MANAGE THE, UH, THE FAIR HOUSING QUESTIONS.
WE CAN MANAGE THE, UH, THE CONCENTRATION OF POVERTY.
UM, BUT, UH, WHEN THEY'RE, IF YOU CONSIDER EVERY PROGRAM NEEDS STAFF, WHEN WE HAVE 22 PROGRAMS AND ONLY THREE STAFF, SOMETHING'S GOTTA A GIVE MR. MAY, SORRY, MR. MAY, JUST TO CONFIRM, I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT THERE, I KNOW THAT IS NOT THE INTENTION AT ALL, BUT THERE COULD BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF CONSEQUENCE OF, UH, CONCENTRATION OF POVERTY POTENTIALLY.
IF, UH, UM, WE'VE HAD, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COM, UH, MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, UH, TO FOCUS, UH, MFI OR MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME ON CENSUS TRACT.
UM, WHAT IS CHALLENGING FOR THAT IS TWOFOLD.
FIRST, UH, IT IS WAY MORE, UM, VARIABLE THAN JUST THE CITYWIDE, UH, MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME.
AND SECOND, UH, IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT 30% OF THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME FOR A CERTAIN CENSUS TRACT, UH, THAT KINDA LOCKS THAT POPULATION INTO THAT PRICE BRACKET.
UH, BECAUSE 30% INCOME ON TWF IS NOT THE SAME AS 30% INCOME AT 15TH AND LAMAR.
SO IT IS A QUESTION OF EQUITY AND A QUESTION OF, UH, UH, TREATING ALL AREAS, UH, UM, THE SAME, THE JUSTICE.
ALRIGHT, WE'RE AT THE END OF OUR QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER, UH, THIS IS COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO STATE THE MOTION AND WE'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND? OKAY.
UH, COMMISSIONER AZAR WOULD, WOULD YOU STATE THE MOTION FOR ME PLEASE? SURE, I CAN.
I NEED MY BATTERY SOUTH ZONES IN THIS ETOD TAKE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SOUTH ZONE, CREATE NEW DENSITY, BONUS AFFORDABILITY BENCHMARKS FOR NORTH SOUTH FOR NORTH ZONE, UH, SEGMENTS OF LAMARR AND BURNETT THAT RUNS NORTH OF 15TH STREET TO CRESTVIEW.
AMEND THE EO DENSITY BONUS TO REQUIRE THAT UNITS ARE AFFORDABLE AT 40% MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME TO 60% MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME AND CAP THE MFI AT THE CURRENT LEVEL FOR 2024, OR ASSESS THE INCOME LEVEL OF RESIDENTS AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT AND HOUSING INSECURITY ANNUALLY TO SET INCOME REQUIREMENTS AT THAT LEVEL.
UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
ANY QUESTIONS? FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FOR ON THE MOTION? THIS CAN BE A STAFF MOTION MAKERS, STAKEHOLDERS.
THOSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST.
SO, UH, YEAH, SO ONCE AGAIN, AND I'M, I'M GLAD THAT STAFF CAME AND TALKED ABOUT TREATING AREAS DIFFERENTLY AND, UM, AND THESE AREAS ARE VERY DIFFERENT, EVEN IF IT'S, IF YOU'RE NOT SEEING THE MOST VULNERABLE POPULATIONS IN THESE AREAS, THEY SOON WILL BE IN, IN HARM'S WAY
[05:50:01]
FROM SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WE ARE MAKING.UM, AND, AND I THINK THAT IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN, WE, WE CAN RECOGNIZE THE, THE HUGE WEALTH GAPS BETWEEN THE AREAS ALONG NORTH LAMAR, UM, BETWEEN THE, THE RIVER AND, UH, 15TH STREET AND THEN THE STRETCH OF LAMAR THAT GOES NORTH TO CREST, TO CRESTVIEW.
THERE'S NO QUESTION, THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THERE'S A HUGE WEALTH GAP BETWEEN THE FOLKS WHO LIVE SOUTH AND THE FOLKS WHO LIVE NORTH.
AND SO WHAT I WAS JUST TRYING TO DO WAS TRYING TO DESIGN SOMETHING THAT WOULD REFLECT THOSE DIFFERENCES SO THAT WE DON'T CREATE ADDITIONAL PRESSURES AS WE DID IN AT PLAZA SATIA AND MLK STATION AS WE CREATED THERE AND CAUSED A LOT OF DAMAGE AND DISPLACEMENT.
SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO.
MAYBE I DIDN'T HIT THE TARGET AS WELL AS I COULD HAVE, UM, UM, WISH THAT I COULD HAVE SOME MORE HELP
AND WE SPEAKING AGAINST, OR SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UM, AND AGAIN, I, I REALLY DO WANNA APPLAUD COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS FOR BRINGING THIS BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME SERIOUS QUESTIONS REGARDING, UM, THESE TWO MAPS, WHICH, UH, SOMEHOW HAVE NOT BEEN OVERLAID
AND I WOULD REALLY HOPE THAT IN OUR FUTURE ETOD WE SEE THESE MORE CLEARLY MAPPED AND SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHERE THE DEMOGRAPHICS ARE AROUND IN THIS.
AND I'M GONNA SAY THE ONLY REASON I ACTUALLY DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING THIS IS BECAUSE I DO FEEL LIKE I DON'T HAVE CLARITY ON EXACTLY WHERE THE DISPLACEMENT WOULD BE TAKING PLACE AND HOW THIS OVERLAY IMPACTS THAT.
SO I THINK THE INTENT IS EXCELLENT.
I THINK I'M JUST REALLY STRUGGLING WITH, I KNOW FOR EXAMPLE IN SOUTH AUSTIN, FAR SOUTH AUSTIN, THERE ARE REAL ISSUES AROUND THESE AND THAT WOULD NOT BE COVERED UNDER THIS AMENDMENT.
SO I THINK, AGAIN, THAT THE INTENT IS EXCELLENT.
I'D LOVE TO SEE STAFF DO MORE WORK ALONG THIS LINES SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT ACROSS THE ETOD OVERLAY.
UM, I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR VERSION.
YEAH, I ACTUALLY KIND OF WILL MIRROR A LITTLE BIT WHAT COMMISSIONER MAXWELL SAID, BUT I HESITATED ON THIS ITEM IN THE WORKING GROUP PRIMARILY BECAUSE I WAS, I WAS LOCKED IN MY BRAIN ON EXECUTION AND WHAT THE EXECUTION WOULD LOOK LIKE.
BUT THE MORE I LOOK AT THIS AND THE MORE I, I LOOK AT THIS MAP, AND THEN ACTUALLY THE MORE I THINK BACK TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND HOW WE HAD THESE, THESE KIND OF TARGET DESCRIPTIONS AND IDENTIFIERS OF EACH STATION WITH RESPECT TO KIND OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING WITHIN A DISTANCE OF, OF EACH STATION.
I THINK THE ONLY CHANGE THAT I WOULD MAKE WITH, TO, TO THE PROPOSAL IS TO MAYBE DO IT MORE IN LINE WITH THE, THE STATION CLASSIFICATIONS THAT WE, THAT WE REVIEWED DURING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.
BUT SINCE THIS IS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION, I THINK IT CAN BE MASSAGED BY STAFF TO KIND OF FIGURE OUT WHAT THE MOST APPROPRIATE WAY IS TO, TO TRY TO REFLECT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IN TERMS OF AFFORDABILITY AND ANTI DISPLACEMENT AND HOW WE DEFINE THOSE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS BASED ON EACH STATION OR BASED ON THE BOUNDARIES IN THIS MAP OR WHAT, WHAT HAVE YOU.
SO I'M VOTING BASED ON THE INTENT AND TRYING TO IGNORE, I'LL ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT
MR. 'CAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT'S RECOMMENDATIONS AS WELL.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT STAFF IS EXPERT AT IS, IS EXECUTION CHALLENGES
SPEAKING AGAINST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
THIS IS COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAYNES.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, THOSE AGAINST ONE, TWO, AND THEN, UH, ABSTAINING MISSING 1 0 3, COMMISSIONER 5 5 2 5.
IS THAT CORRECT? WOW, THAT MOTION FAILS.
WE ARE MOVING ON TO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S SECOND PULLED ITEM.
THIS IS THE NUMBER SIX ABOUT PROJECT CONNECT INFRASTRUCTURE.
CONSIDER PROJECT CONNECT TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE AS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT WITHIN A DENSITY BONUS REQUIREMENT.
COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DESCRIBE THAT A LITTLE MORE? YEAH.
AND THIS IS SPECIFICALLY GENERAL MEN BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE, WE ARE NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR ON WHAT WELL, THAT'S, LEMME START AGAIN THERE.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WILL BE TRANSIT
[05:55:01]
SUPPORTIVE ITEMS RELATED TO PROJECT CONNECT THAT WE'LL NEED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT ALONG THIS, ALONG THIS CORRIDOR.AND I THINK THE IDEA IS THAT AS WE MAYBE ASK FOR SOME OF THOSE THINGS RELATED TO PROJECT CONNECT, THAT WE OFFER DENSITY BONUSES OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF BONUS, UM, TO ENCOURAGE THOSE THOSE USES AND THAT INFRASTRUCTURE BE BUILT IN A WAY THAT WORKS FOR EVERYONE, BOTH THE PROJECT CONNECT TEAM AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPERS.
UM, ESSENTIALLY INCENTIVIZING GOOD TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE, UM, AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS OVERLAY.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOTION? COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, THE, THE REASON, THE REASON I PULLED THIS WAS THAT I'M ALWAYS SENSITIVE TO, UM, ALLOWING THINGS THAT WE WOULD OTHERWISE REQUIRE TO BE, TO SATISFY, LIKE BONUSES, COMMUNITY BENEFITS, THAT SORT OF THING.
SO I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND FROM STAFF, UH, WHAT IS THE PROCESS THAT, THAT THE CITY IS, DOES HAVE OR WILL HAVE TO REQUIRE ANY SORT OF PROJECT CONNECT, TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE AS THESE PROPERTIES GET REDEVELOPED AROUND, AROUND OUR STATIONS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WILL AUTOMATICALLY HAPPEN AND THEY'LL BE REQUIRED TO DO IT? OR SHOULD THIS TRULY BE CONSIDERED KIND OF A A TO SATISFY SOME SORT OF BONUS REQUIREMENT? SURE.
STEVIE GREATHOUSE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND I'D SAY THERE'S A MIX OF THINGS THAT WE CAN REQUIRE AND THINGS THAT WE NEED TO EMPHASIZE.
OF COURSE THERE IS
I DON'T WANNA TAKE UP ALL YOUR TIME WITH THE MIX, BUT ANIQUE WOULD HAVE KIND OF BETTER ANSWERS ON WHAT WE CAN REQUIRE.
THIS PARTICULAR BONUS IN TERM OR THIS PARTICULAR DIRECTION IS PART OF GENERAL DIRECTION IS PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE GENERAL DIRECTION.
AND WE'VE BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE AND AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP ABOUT HOW OUR INCENTIVE PROGRAMS CAN DO A BETTER JOB DELIVERING SOME OF THE AMENITIES THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR THAT WE CAN'T REQUIRE.
SO, SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE'S A MIX.
SO WE COULD, WE COULD FORMAT THIS LANGUAGE TO BASICALLY DIRECT YOU FOR THINGS THAT ARE NOT ALREADY REQUIRED.
THOSE THINGS COULD BE CONSIDERED PART OF A COMMUNITY BENEFIT THAT WOULD BE TOTALLY APPROPRIATE.
I AGREE WITH, WITH STEVIE AND YOU KNOW, FOR THE MOST PART THERE'S A LOT OF COORDINATION THAT HAPPENS EVERY DAY.
AND WE ARE MAXIMIZING WHAT WE NEED FOR THE PROJECT CONNECT PROGRAM FOR BOTH BUS AND RAIL AND PARK AND RIDE AND ALL THE COMPONENTS WITH THE TOOLS WE HAVE IN THE CODE.
WE HAVE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TOOLS IN THE CODE.
WE HAVE OTHER EXISTING DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS THAT ARE GOING TO BE LOOKED AT, UM, HOLISTICALLY.
AND WE WILL MODERNIZE THOSE FOR THE NEEDS OF, OF PROJECT CONNECT.
WELL, LET'S, LET'S TAKE AN EXAMPLE IN 30 SECONDS.
SO IF THERE'S A PROPERTY THAT'S CLOSE TO THE STATION AND, AND PROJECT CONNECT WANTED TO HAVE LIKE A HIGH TRANSIT BUS, HIGH CAPACITY BUS STOP THERE NEXT TO THAT PROPERTY, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY CAN JUST REQUIRE ALREADY OR WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU NEGOTIATE AS KIND OF A BONUS OR COMMUNITY BENEFIT? WE CAN REQUIRE MITIGATION AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AS LONG AS IT'S ROUGHLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE IMPACT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS MAKING.
AND WE DO THAT, UM, THROUGH VARIOUS METHODS.
SOMETIMES A TRA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED.
SOMETIMES IT'S THROUGH OTHER MEANS.
OTHER QUESTIONS? MADAM CHAIR, I, I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT NOTICE ON THIS ONE.
UM, AND I MEAN MY QUESTION GOES ARE WE GOES TO MAYBE MS.
WE ARE NOTICED FOR UH, DBOT TO ALLOW AND PRESERVE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DA DA DA IN EXCHANGE FOR INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING.
WE'RE ADDING A PROVISION HERE IS SO MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS AMENDMENT AND THE AMENDMENT MAKER CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION IS THAT IT WOULD BE A GENERAL, UM, AMENDMENT, GENERAL REQUIREMENT AMENDMENT THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT AS WE DEVELOP THE SECOND PHASE OF THIS WORK THAT WILL COME BACK AFTER THIS PHASE AND THAT WOULD GO THROUGH ITS OWN NEW NOTIFICATION PROCESS.
UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, OH, I'M SORRY IF I SHARE, IF I MIGHT JUST COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, WOULD YOU OPEN TO ME TWEAKING SOME OF THE LANGUAGE BASED ON SOME, PLEASE, YES.
SO THIS WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT DO AND I'M HAPPY HAPPY TO MAKE THIS AS A GENERAL AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER ALLOWING A DEVELOPMENT TO MEET ITS BONUS REQUIREMENTS IN THE DBED OR IN, I'M NOT GONNA SAY THAT'S A REQUIREMENTS TO THE PROVISION OF PROJECT CONNECT INFRASTRUCTURE BEYOND, BEYOND WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED AS A BASE REQUIREMENT, AS DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE I'D.
[06:00:01]
I DO HAVE A QUESTION.SORRY, I DON'T KNOW IF I MISSED THAT OPPORTUNITY.
WE HAVE TWO SPOTS NOW THAT THE MOTION'S BEEN MADE.
IS THAT OKAY? BEYOND BASED REQUEST? YES, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER AL.
UM, I GUESS I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IF WE, IF WE VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS, THAT WE'RE NOT GIVING A PATH, ANOTHER PATHWAY TO GET OUT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO I'M WONDERING IF, IF IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THIS IS PROVIDING ANOTHER PATHWAY OUT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THEN DO WE NEED TO UM, MODIFY OR SUBSTITUTE THIS AMENDMENT TO STATE SUCH THAT IT CANNOT BE MOVED TO GET OUT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING? I, I BELIEVE, UH, COMMISSIONER AL, SO THIS ESSENTIALLY, SINCE WE ARE ASKING THAT IT COULD REPLACE THE BONUS REQUIREMENT SO SOMEBODY COULD DO IT, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE AND THAT'S WHY I PUT IT IN THERE.
SO IT'S NOT A DETERMINATION THAT A DEVELOPER CAN MAKE ON ITS OWN.
IT WOULD TRULY BE OUR PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE THAT IS IN CHARGE OF COORDINATING WITH THE LIGHT RAIL PROJECT COMMISSIONERS.
I SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT UM, FOLLOWING UP WITH THE COMMISSIONER AL'S QUESTION.
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE WAY IT IS STRUCTURED WOULD BE A BASE REQUIREMENT TO PARTICIPATE IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THAT.
UM, SO THIS IS JUST A GENERAL AMENDMENT FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION.
IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE BASE ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING TODAY.
BUT WITH THE TRANSIT ASKED ANOTHER WAY, WOULD THE TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITY BENEFITS BEING CONSIDERED REPLACE OR BE IN LIEU OF A AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMUNITY BENEFIT OR ADDITIVE? IT WOULD BE IN LIEU OF, I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE INTENTION AND I'M CARRYING THAT FORWARD.
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A GENERAL AMENDMENT THEN.
THIS IS, YEAH, WE'RE NOT, OKAY.
UH, LAST BUT FOR OUR QUESTION, RIGHT.
THOSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? YEAH, I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO, I, I THINK, UM, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE MANY TWEAKS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THE E THE, UM, EAD PROGRAMS AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
AND WE JUST WANNA BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THEIR INTERACTION WITH PROJECT CONNECT AND THE SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS THAT CAN BE RELATED TO THAT.
AND I'M JUST REALLY HOPEFUL THAT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO INCENTIVIZE GOOD DEVELOPMENT RELATED TO THOSE ITEMS AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE NEW PROJECTS.
UM, AND THAT REALLY WILL BE ABLE TO GET THE TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE WE NEED.
UM, AND THAT WE SEE SOME REALLY BEAUTIFUL DESIGNS AND OUTCOMES AS A RESULT.
COMMISSIONER MU, I BELIEVE IF WE UNDERSTOOD STAFF CORRECTLY, THEY WERE PRETTY EMPHATIC THAT THEY HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE STUFF COVERED.
'CAUSE THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING THAT WITH COMMISSIONER COX'S PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
SO I'M, I'M, I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT ANYTHING THAT FURTHER DEPLETES WHAT LIMITED AFFORDABLE HOUSING WE HAVE IN THIS AT THE MOMENT.
ESPECIALLY SINCE STAFF TOLD US THEY HAVE THE PROJECT CONNECT STUFF AND TRANSPORTATION STUFF ALL COVERED IN THE, THEY SAY A ANYWAY, I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD THAT VERY CLEARLY FROM STAFF THAT GOT IT COVERED.
ANYBODY, UH, VICE CHAIR, CHAIR IN AND I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER MICHELLE, YOUR POINT COMPLETELY AND I THINK WE WOULD NOT WANT SOMEONE TO BE ABLE TO, I'M TRYING TO LOOK FOR A BETTER WORD, BUT CHEAT OUT OF PROVIDING THEIR AFFORDABLE HOUSING BENEFIT.
BUT I THINK CONSIDERING THIS WOULD BE PART OF THAT SORT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY BENEFIT THAT WE WOULD HAVE, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE AND I THINK THAT'S WHY PARTICULARLY I FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO ADD IN THE RESTRICTION THAT THIS IS BEYOND WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED AS A BASE REQUIREMENT AND THAT THE DETERMINATION IS BEING MADE BY OUR CITY STAFF, WHETHER SOMEONE CAN DO THIS, THAT WE WOULD NOT ALLOW A DEVELOPER TO THEMSELVES MAKE THIS.
SO THE HOPE WOULD BE THAT WHATEVER BENEFIT THEY'RE PROVIDING IS A TRUE COMMUNITY BENEFIT, INCLUDING LOOKING AT MOBILITY OPTIONS, UM, WHICH OF COURSE ARE NECESSARY TO BRING DOWN HOUSEHOLD AFFORDABILITY CONCERNS.
I I REALLY APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER MUTAL AND STAFF BRINGING UP THAT SUBJECT 'CAUSE I WAS WHOLEHEARTEDLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
UM, BUT AS I THINK THROUGH IT, I KIND OF FEEL LIKE WE, WE WE'VE, WE'VE PASSED A BOND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE HAVE GRANTS THAT WE GET FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WE REQUIRE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS PART OF DEVELOPMENT.
WE PASSED A BOND FOR TRANSIT, WE GET GRANTS FOR TRANSIT AND WE REQUIRE CERTAIN THINGS AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE.
[06:05:01]
AS I THINK MORE THROUGH IT, I KIND OF FEEL LIKE WE WE'RE AT RISK OF, OF HURTING ONE OVER THE OTHER.WHEN WE START TO ALLOW THOSE TWO THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED EQUAL IN SOME WAY AND THEN START TRADING THE CHESS PIECES BETWEEN AFFORDABLE AND BETWEEN TRA TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, WE NEED BOTH.
AND THAT'S THE ULTIMATE TRUTH.
AND SO I THINK I'M GONNA ABSTAIN ON THIS SIMPLY BECAUSE I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH STARTING TO CREATE THAT EQUIVALENCY BETWEEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, BOTH OF WHICH WE NEED.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
THIS IS COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S NUMBER SIX, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR MADE BY ME, SECONDED BY HER.
SORRY FOR THE RECORD THAT WAS MADE BY VICE CHAIR AZAR, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, THOSE AGAINST AND THOSE ABSTAINING.
DID I GET YOUR VOTE? SORRY, I MIGHT HAVE BEEN OUT OF FRAME.
SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO THE INDIVIDUAL UN HOST UNPOSTED.
SO WE'RE GOING TO GO, UM, ALPHABETICALLY.
AND I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO 1130.
HOPEFULLY WE DON'T NEED IT, BUT IT'S BETTER THAN CONTINUALLY EXTENDING TIME.
I, I SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON WITHOUT OBJECTION.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS'S INJECTION.
UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, DO YOU HAVE AN EO AMENDMENT? I DO.
HOPEFULLY THIS MAKES SENSE ON.
SO I'M, I'M LOOKING TO ALTER THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND I'LL READ THEM OUT NOW.
ON LINE 96, CHANGE 12% TO 10% ON LINE ONE 10 CHANGE 15% TO 12% AND ONLINE ONE 14 CHANGE 12% TO 10% IN ADDING A RECOMMENDATION TO CALIBRATE THOROUGHLY IN THE NEXT 24 MONTHS AND ON AN ONGOING BASIS.
QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION MAKER OR STAFF? I HAVE A QUESTION.
COMMISSIONER MUHA, WHY
YEAH, SO THANK YOU COMMISSIONER.
UH, TALK TO A LOT OF FOLKS AROUND AUSTIN AND AROUND TEXAS.
AND YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW, UH, NEW MULTIFAMILY STARTS ARE STALLED AND AT THE SAME TIME, INFLATION REMAINS PERSISTENT, LEAVING HIGH RATES.
UH, THERE'S NO MARKET DATA SHOWING THAT OUR STAFF'S NUMBERS WORK AND ETS MUST WORK.
WE HAVE TO PRODUCE A TON OF HOUSING ON OUR CORRIDORS.
UH, IN 2021, ONLY 36% OF OUR VMU SITES WERE OPTING IN.
AND THAT WAS AT THE TIME WHEN, YOU KNOW, WE WERE IN A BOOM TIME IN AUSTIN.
UH, WE LOOK AT MAXIMIZING OUR UTILIZATION IN 2016 AND WE FOUND THAT UH, FIVE TO 7% OF THE INCREASE SHOULD BE THE TARGET FOR MOST CENSUS TRACK WITH ZILKER BEING THE BIG OUTLIER AT 12%.
AND THAT WASN'T THE ENTIRETY, THAT WAS OF JUST THE INCREASE.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE COULD ALL SAY, HEY, 35% DOESN'T THAT LOOK GREAT AND BE REALLY NICE TO HOLD THAT UP ON A NEWSPAPER, BUT THEN WE'D SEE ZERO HOUSING UNITS CREATED AND THAT WOULD BE A BIG FAIL.
SO WE HAVE TO GET A LOT OF DENSITY ON OUR CORRIDORS AND THIS IS A GOOD WAY TO SEE UTILIZATION GET UP.
OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER COX QUESTIONS TO STAFF? UM, I RECALL NOT TOO LONG AGO THAT WE HAD A CASE THAT INCLUDED, WAS IT 15% AFFORDABLE HOUSING? UM, THEY CAME BACK TO US TO GET SOME SORT OF HEIGHT LIMIT UNDONE THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY.
AND SO I GUESS MY THING IS THAT I, I'M, I'M HEARING FROM FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND OTHER PEOPLE THAT, OH, THIS ISN'T, THIS DOESN'T PENCIL, BUT I'M ALSO SEEING CASES COME TO US WHERE IT DOES PENCIL IN SOME OF THE HIGHEST VALUE LAND IN THE CITY.
SO DON'T WE HAVE CASES THAT COME BEFORE US WITH 15% AFFORDABLE HOUSING? SO I'M NOT GONNA TRY TO SPEAK TO SPECIFIC CASES.
I CAN DEFER TO SOMEBODY AT HOUSING IF THEY HAVE THE ANSWER FOR THE SPECIFIC CASE.
I CAN SAY THAT THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR THIS ITEM INCLUDES SOME MARKET
[06:10:01]
ANALYSIS ABOUT THE PERCENTAGES THAT LOOKS AT SENSITIVITY TO DIFFERENT PRICE, UM, FACTORS.AND THE BIGGEST SENSITIVITY THAT THE CONSULTANTS THAT DID THAT ANALYSIS SAW WAS REALLY THE COST OF PROVIDING PARKING, THE IMPACT ON THE PROJECT AROUND CURRENT INTEREST RATES.
UM, AND STAFF BELIEVES THAT IN THE SHORT TERM THIS WILL PENCIL AT THE 30 TO 60 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AND THAT AS MARKET CONDITIONS CHANGE AND WE PROVIDE LESS PARKING ALONG THESE COURT ORDERS, WHICH IS A POLICY GOAL OF THE CITY, UM, IT WOULD BECOME MORE LIKELY TO PENCIL ON ADDITIONAL SITES.
AND STAFF HAS TRIED TO, TO DEVELOP THIS TO BALANCE MULTIPLE GOALS, INCLUDING AFFORDABILITY ALONG THE LINES, INCREASES IN TRANSIT, SUPPORTIVE DENSITIES, AND MINIMIZING DISPLACEMENT PRESSURE.
SO, SO WHAT I'M GATHERING IS THAT STAFF IS LOOKING TO THE FUTURE TO TRY TO ESTABLISH THE HIGHEST BASELINE POSSIBLE AND NOT BASICALLY TARGET THE LOWEST BASELINE BASED ON THIS MONTH'S INTEREST RATES.
LAST SPOT FOR A QUESTION? YES.
UM, ONE IS A CLARIFYING QUESTION, COMMISSIONER.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I CAPTURE THIS CORRECTLY.
YOU'RE SAYING, I'M GONNA READ THIS.
PLEASE TELL ME IF THIS MAKES SENSE.
ALTER THE AFFORDABLE YEAR REQUIREMENTS IN THE EO ORDINANCE IN LINE 96 FROM 12% TO 10%, LINE 110 FROM 15 TO 12% AND LINE ONE 14 FROM 12 TO 10% AND ADD A RECOMMENDATION TO CALIBRATE THOROUGHLY IN THE NEXT 24 MONTHS.
AND ON AN ONGOING BASIS, WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE, AND AN ONGOING BASIS.
UM, ONE, THE ONE QUESTION THAT I WOULD HAVE FOR YOU IS, WOULD YOU CONSIDER SAYING THAT WE ESSENTIALLY SAY NINE MONTHS, SO BY THE END OF THIS YEAR THAT WE DO THE CALIBRATION COME BACK? I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN THAT YOU'RE RAISING AND I DID NOT WANT TO MINIMIZE THAT, BUT IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE CAN SORT OF CALIBRATE AND BRING THOSE CHANGES AND ESSENTIALLY MAKE ANY RE ANY CHANGES THAT WOULD BE RECOMMENDED AS PART OF THE CALIBRATION SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
SO IS, UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, I'D LIKE TO MOVE WHAT WE'VE JUST SAID TWICE AND I CAN SPEAK TO IT IF THERE'S A SECOND OR SO OR OTHER FOLKS CAN SPEAK TO IT WITH THE CLARIFICATION.
ARE YOU SAYING 24 MONTHS OR NINE MONTHS? AS FREQUENTLY AS POSSIBLE? AS, AS FREQUENTLY AS STAFF IS COMFORTABLE.
SO WHAT I, I LOOK TO YOU, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE A MASTER OF WORDS HERE.
SO CHAIR, I'M SORRY, I'M GONNA SAY THIS IS, I'M SORRY.
SO WE WOULD BE SAYING, UM, ALTER THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS IN THE ETO ORDINANCE IN LINE 96 FROM 12% TO 10%, LINE 110 FROM 15 TO 12%, LINE 114 FROM 12 TO 10%, AND ADD A RECOMMENDATION TO CALIBRATE THOROUGHLY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND ON AN ONGOING BASIS.
IS THERE A SECOND? MR. MAXWELL JOHNSON.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS? FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION? WE HAVE TWO SPOTS.
LET'S GO TO, UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
SO YEAH, JUST A A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, DID YOU, OR IN ANY CASE, HAVE YOU DONE AN ANALYSIS THAT COMPARES THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS, AFFORDABLE AND MARKET RATE THAT ARE PRODUCED WITH HIGHER AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND LOWER AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS? WARNER COOK, WE'VE NOT DONE THAT ANALYSIS.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS? I HAVE QUESTIONS.
MR. PHILLIPS, IT, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE ARE HEARING STAFF SAY DIFFERENT THINGS AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M HEARING WHAT STAFF IS SAYING THAT THEIR RECOMMENDATION, THEY HAVE SAID, EVEN THOUGH, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON HAS DISAGREED, BUT STAFF HAS SAID THAT THEIR RECOMMENDATION PENCILS IN THE NOW AND PENCILS IN THE FUTURE.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL HEARING THE SAME THINGS.
'CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE FROM WHAT COMMISSIONER AZAR WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT HE DID NOT HEAR THAT THE SAME WAY.
AND I SAY THAT 'CAUSE YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT NINE MONTHS FROM NOW THAT QUESTION.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL HEARING THE SAME INFORMATION.
IS THAT A QUESTION OF STAFF TO CLARIFY? YES, PLEASE.
I GUESS STAFF, THE QUESTION IS, WAS CALIBRATION DONE IN SETTING THAT NUMBER
[06:15:02]
CALIBRATION WAS NOT DONE IN SETTING THAT NUMBER A HIGH LEVEL FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY UPTAKE ANALYSIS WAS DONE AFTER SETTING THE NUMBER IN THE STAFF PROPOSAL THAT SHOWED THAT IN SOME CASES TODAY IT DOES PENCIL AND IN MORE CASES IN THE FUTURE IT DOES PENCIL.SPEAKING FOR, SO ARE WE OUT OF QUESTION SPOTS? YES.
AFTER THE MOTION'S MADE, WE HAVE TWO SPOTS.
SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST MR. COX, UM, WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGAINST THIS CHANGE, I REALLY HOPE THIS COMMISSION DOES NOT APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT.
UM, THIS IS YET ANOTHER, ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF LOWERING THE BAR AND, AND GETTING LESS THAN OUT OF OUR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY THAN, THAN WHAT I THINK THIS CITY DESERVES.
UM, THE TRUTH IS, IS THAT IT'S NOT A GREAT TIME TO BUILD RIGHT NOW.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE.
IT TOOK US HOW MANY DECADES TO GET HERE, LIKE THREE, I THINK, TO MAKE THESE CHANGES TO OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE BASING OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS CRITERIA OFF OF A COUPLE OF MONTHS OR A YEAR'S WORTH OF DATA IN PROBABLY THE WORST ENVIRONMENT THAT IT IS TO BUILD BECAUSE LET'S ALL HOPE THAT IT'S NOT LIKE THAT.
AND I WOULD BE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF ASKING STAFF IN A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO PROVIDE A CALIBRATION SO WE KIND OF UNDERSTAND WHAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SAYS VERSUS WHAT THE MARKET CRITERIA IS SAYING.
BUT WE SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTING THE LOWEST BAR POSSIBLE FOR TODAY.
WE SHOULD BE THINKING THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE IN PLACE FOR DECADES.
AND SO I THINK IT'S A HUGE MISTAKE TO SET SUCH A LOW BAR JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE HIGH INTEREST RATES RIGHT NOW.
SO I'M VERY MUCH AGAINST THIS SPEAKING.
SO I KNOW WE HEARD SUCH AS AN EXAMPLE IN THE ZILKER NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE ONE CASE WANTED TO COME BEFORE US AND THEY WERE WILLING TO GO TO 15 AND AND THAT'S AWESOME.
THAT'S AWESOME WHEN SOMEBODY CAN DO THAT.
OF COURSE, THAT WAS THE ONE OUTLIER NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS DEEMED BY STAFF BACK IN 2016 TO BE ABLE TO GO HIGHER.
AND WE DON'T KNOW INDIVIDUALLY WHAT EACH AND EVERY CASE IS ABOUT.
SO WE HAVE TO BE THINKING HOLISTICALLY ABOUT ALL THESE CORRIDORS AND MAKING SURE THAT NOT JUST SOME OF THEM, PENCIL AS STAFF HAS MENTIONED MULTIPLE TIMES, BUT THAT MOST OF THEM PENCIL WHEN WE ONLY HAVE 35% UTILIZATION, EXCUSE ME, 36% UTILIZATION OF VMU AND THAT'S AT 10%.
WE HAVE TO DO A WHOLE LOT BETTER THAN THAT.
AND LOOKING AT 15% AS AN ARBITRARY OUT OF THE AIR NUMBER WHEN NO OTHER DENSITY BONUS IN THE CITY IS THAT HIGH, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF UNO AND AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED, WHICH WE EXPECT TO BE SUBSIDIZED.
WE HAVE TO GET A LOT MORE UNITS OUT OF THIS.
AND WHAT WE GET, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1,500, YOU KNOW, SUDDENLY WE'RE TALKING BIG NUMBERS WHEN YOU HAVE 1012% VERSUS 500 YIELDING 15%, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, IT'S A GREAT NEWSPAPER HEADLINE PERHAPS, BUT IF THE ULT ULTIMATE YIELD IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT LESS, THAT'S A BIG FAIL.
SO I'M HOPEFUL, HOPEFUL THAT WE PASS THIS AND WE GET TO MOVING ON A LOT OF HOUSING.
SPEAKING AGAINST, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
SO I WANNA SAY THAT ANYTHING THAT LOWERS THE BAR FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS E TODD, WE SHOULD JUST THROW OUT ON THE MERITS AND THE MORAL VALUE OF THAT.
AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN HANDED, UM, THESE PARAMETERS TO BUILD A BUS, AND THE BUS AT THIS POINT IS BEING BUILT FOR CERTAIN POPULATIONS THAT ARE AT THE TOP HALF, THE TOP HALF OF AUSTIN'S INCOME SPECTRUM.
WHAT WE HAVE TRYING TO DO HERE IS PRESERVE SOME OF THE FEATURES THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED AT THE END OF THE PROCESS OF BUILDING THIS BUS TO ACCOMMODATE THE PEOPLE AT THE BACK HALF OF AUSTIN'S IN INCOME SPECTRUM.
AND CONSTANTLY WE ARE BEING TOWED.
THERE'S NO ROOM ON THIS BUS FOR PEOPLE WHO LOOK LIKE ME AND WHO MAKE LESS THAN THE MEDIAN INCOME IN AUSTIN.
AND THAT CAN'T BE THE MESSAGE THAT WE ARE SENDING HERE.
WE HAVE GOT TO SEND THE MESSAGE THAT WE ARE BUILDING A BUS FOR EVERYBODY AND BY LOWERING THE PERCENTAGES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
[06:20:02]
IN THIS E TODD, THAT'S THE MESSAGE THAT WE'RE SENDING.WE ARE BUILDING IT FOR CERTAIN POPULATIONS AND NOT FOR OTHERS.
WE'RE BUILDING ON IT ON THE BACKS OF THOSE, AT SACRIFICES OF THOSE POPULATIONS.
UM, I JUST REALLY WANNA ECHO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S CONCERNS.
AND THE REASON I'M REALLY SPEAKING UP ON THIS IS BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN DBE TODD, WHICH WE CAME, CAME TO BECAUSE OF A LAWSUIT AND RELATED TO VMU, WHICH VMU HAD BEEN ONE OF OUR MOST SUCCESSFUL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS. WE HAD TO REPLACE IT BECAUSE OF A LAWSUIT.
WE ARE TRYING TO CALIBRATE THAT PROGRAM SO IT GETS UPTAKE.
WE KNOW THAT DB 90 IS BEGINNING TO SUCCEED AND NOW WE'RE COMING IN WITH A BOARD BONUS THAT IS MUCH HIGHER.
AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS ABOUT LONG-TERM VALUE IN THIS CORRIDOR.
WE NEED TO START THIS PROCESS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
THESE UNIT UNITS NEED TO BE ON THE GROUND WHEN WE ACTUALLY HAVE TRAINS.
SO I UNDERSTAND THE ID IDEAL SITUATION, BUT WE MAY NOT BE THERE FOR FIVE OR 10 YEARS.
AND WE HAVE PROGRAMS IN FRONT OF US IN OUR CITY THAT BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING TODAY, THAT PENCIL TODAY, AND THOSE NUMBERS AREN'T THE NUMBERS RECOMMENDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
SO I WILL BE WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORTING THIS.
UM, FOR REASONS THAT WITHOUT RESTATING EVERYTHING COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS SAID, UM, WHEN WE'RE, THIS IS ALL BEING RUSHED AND THIS IS ALL HAPPENING, SO WE CAN GET THE GRANT, WE CAN PUT TOGETHER AN APPLICATION, GET THE GRANT FOR THE TRAINING AND THE INITIAL INITIAL EVALUATION FOR THAT, AT LEAST ACCORDING TO THE NUMBERS WE HAD, IT WAS 16% TIMES THREE CATEGORIES.
THIS AFFORDABILITY AND UTILIZATION IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE.
SO I MEAN, IF IT'S, IF IT'S THAT OBVIOUS TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON THIS COMMISSION THAT WE ARE TURNING OUR BACK ON THE GOAL OF AFFORDABILITY, IT'S GONNA BE DARN OBVIOUS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, YOU'RE GONNA LOSE THE FRANCE AND THEN YOU'RE GONNA HAVE NOTHING.
WE NEED TO GET THE AFFORDABILITY IN THERE AND, AND I, I JUST, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE TRY AND SELL A FEATURE THAT'S GOING TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THEN WE PULL THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR OWNERSHIP RIGHT OUT OF THE PROJECT THAT YOU JUST SOLD TO EVERYBODY.
COUNCIL CAN CHANGE IT SUMMER IF IT'S NOT, BUT I DON'T THINK LOWERING IT IS GONNA REFLECT WELL ON THIS PROJECT.
OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND SO, UM, CAN I MAKE A, A SUBSTITUTE OR IS THAT PASSED? UH, YOU CAN MAKE A SUBSTITUTE.
MY SUBSTITUTE IS THE, TO INCLUDE THE NINE MONTH CALIBRATION, BUT REMOVE THE LOWERING OF THE PERCENTAGES.
IS THERE A SECOND? MR. PHILLIPS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT COMMISSIONER COX? I'M JUST DOING WHAT I SAID I, I COULD SUPPORT, WHICH IS ASKING STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A CALIBRATION WITH NUMBERS, BUT NOT SUPPORTING, LOWERING THE BAR AT THIS VERY EARLY STAGE OF ADOPTING AN EQUITABLE TOD DISTRICT.
ALRIGHT, QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION MAKER OR STAFF? OKAY.
SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, I'M GONNA SPEAK FOR THIS BECAUSE WHAT WE WERE TOLD IS WE, WE BLEW THE TODD, THE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT.
WE BLEW THAT WHEN WE HAD THE, UH, CHANCE TO DESIGN THAT BECAUSE WHAT WE DID WAS ACCELERATE DISPLACEMENT OF BIPOC COMMUNITIES, PEOPLE WHO MADE, AND, AND, AND PEOPLE WHO MADE LOWER THAN THE MEDIAN INCOME, THE VERY PEOPLE WHO WERE USING PUBLIC TRANSIT AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF COMING BACK HERE WITH AN E TODD, I WANT TO REMIND, WAS TO PUT THE EQUITY IN TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT.
AND WE ARE NOW GOING TO A PLACE WHERE WE ARE BEGINNING TO DIMINISH AND TAKE THAT OUT, TAKING OUT THE EQUITY.
WELL, IF ALL WE'RE GONNA DO IS THE SAME THING THAT WE'VE DONE BEFORE, THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE SAME RESULTS AS WE HAD BEFORE.
AND, AND, AND THE FACT THAT WE NEED ALL OF THIS HOUSING, BUT WE'RE WILLING TO SACRIFICE PEOPLE WHO WON'T BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HOUSING BECAUSE THIS IS MARKET BASED.
I REMIND YOU, WE WOULD, THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A PROCESS IN WHICH WE COULD PUT EQUITY BACK INTO THE GAME.
SO I'M SUPPORTING THIS AND I HOPE THAT WE WILL, WE WILL BE REMINDED OF WHY WE ARE DOING AN E TODD,
[06:25:03]
THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST THANK YOU CHAIR.I DIDN'T DO PROBABLY AS GOOD A JOB AS I COULD HAVE DONE IN, UH, SHARING THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE HAD WITH THE FOLKS THAT I REACHED OUT TO ABOUT THIS.
SO SIX RANDOM PROPERTY OWNERS AND DEVELOPERS IN THE CITY WITH ALL WITH DIFFERENT HATS ON TALKING TO THEM ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY LOOK TO DO WHEN THEY LOOK TO DO IT AND NOT REALLY SHARING KIND OF WHAT WE ARE ALL WORKING ON.
AND THE ANSWER IS ACROSS THE BOARD, THINGS JUST SIMPLY AREN'T MOVING.
AND SO AGAIN, WE CAN PUT THE BIGGEST REQUIREMENT THAT WE WANT AND IT DOESN'T PENCIL AND IT YIELDS NOTHING.
OR WE CAN TRY AND CREATE SOMETHING THAT CAN ACTUALLY HAPPEN AND WE CAN SEE THESE HOMES GET BUILT.
SO I, I LOVE THE IDEAS OF BIG NUMBERS IF THEY PENCIL AND IF THEY WORK, BUT IF THEY DON'T, THEN THEY'RE WORTHLESS.
AND SO I WILL BE VOTING THIS DOWN AND I HOPE THAT WE PASS THE MOTION THAT WE WERE ABOUT TO VOTE ON A MOMENT AGO.
THIS SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER COX, I, I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE THINGS, MANY THINGS NOT MOVING FORWARD AND THAT IS BECAUSE OF MARKET DYNAMICS THAT ARE COMPLETELY OUT OF OUR CONTROL.
I DON'T THINK IT'S BECAUSE OF A PERCENTAGE POINT HERE OR THERE IN A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
UM, THE INTENT OF MY SUBSTITUTE IS TO GET THE DATA FROM STAFF, NOT BASE OUR DECISIONS ON SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH WHOEVER WE'RE TALKING TO, BUT LET'S GET THE DATA FROM STAFF, A MARKET CALIBRATION, AND THEN WE CAN ADJUST.
IF WE NEED TO ADJUST BASED ON THE MARKET CALIBRATION, THEN WE CAN ADJUST.
BUT LET'S NOT START WITH A LOW BAR AND THEN HAVE THAT LINGER FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS.
LET'S START WITH A HIGH BAR AND THEN WE CAN ADJUST DOWN IF WE NEED TO BASED ON THE MARKET DATA.
LAST SPOT AGAINST COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
YEAH, I I WANNA ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SAID.
AND, AND JUST PUT REAL SIMPLY, YOU KNOW, I, I DO THINK MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS BETTER THAN LESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I WOULD RATHER HAVE 10% OF A THOUSAND THAN 12% OF 500.
IT'S, IT'S JUST SIMPLE MATH TO ME.
THE, THE HIGHER REQUIREMENT WE PUT IN THIS ORDINANCE, THE FEWER PEOPLE WILL CHOOSE TO USE IT.
AND WE'RE LOSING OUT ON ALL OF THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, NOT JUST THAT DIFFERENTIAL.
OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE BY COMMISSIONER COX, SETTING BY COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
SORRY, CAN YOU RESTATE THE MOTION? NADIA NADIA'S ASKING TO RESTATE THE MOTION.
OH, SO THE RESTATED MOTION IS, I'LL, I'LL READ IT HERE.
SO THIS WOULD, UH, IT'S A MOTION TO REQUIRE STAFF TO CALIBRATE THE BONUS WITHIN NINE MONTHS.
AGAIN, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? FIVE.
AND THOSE ABSTAINING TWO, THAT MOTION FAILS.
SO WE GO, GO BACK TO THE
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS MOTION.
DOES ANYBODY NEED IT? RESTATED HAS TO RESTATE IT BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT LOWERS THE PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? GOING FROM 15 TO 12 AND 12? I'LL READ IT TO THE ALTER, THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT IN THE EOD ORDINANCE IN LINE 96 FROM 12% TO 10%.
LINE 110 FROM 15% TO 12% IN LINE 114 FROM 12% TO 10%, AND ADD A RECOMMENDATION TO CALIBRATE THOROUGHLY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR TRANSPARENCY SAKE.
THE PUBLIC IS NOT REALLY FAMILIAR WITH ALL OF NUMBERS AND THE, UH, ACRONYMS THAT WE USE HERE.
AND I'VE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC, AND I'VE SHARED THAT WITH STAFF AND I'VE SHARED IT WITH THIS BODY.
SO CAN WE HEAR IN PLAIN LANGUAGE WHAT THIS, UH, MOTION DOES? THANK YOU.
SINCE IT'S NOT MY MOTION, I WILL NOT BE SPEAKING TO THAT.
I KNOW COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, OR STAFF, IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THAT.
I, I DON'T, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH US CHANGING THE WAY WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING FOR THE LAST TWO WEEKS.
RIGHT NOW IN THIS MOTION, IT'S TIME TO VOTE.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, DO YOU, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON? WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT WE STATE MOTIONS SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE
[06:30:01]
VOTING ON.AND WHAT I'M BEING TOLD BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON IS THAT NO, HE IS UNWILLING TO DO THAT.
HE IS UNWILLING TO STATE THIS VOTE IN PLAIN LANGUAGE THAT THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE MOTION IS.
AND WHY IS THAT? I'M HAPPY TO TAKE A CRACK AT IT.
THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO GET A BETTER UTILIZATION OF THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS. AND THAT IS THE GOAL HERE.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ABOUT TO VOTE ON.
AND THEN I'VE READ OUT THE LINES AND ALL THE LINES ARE IN BACKUP.
THE BACKUP WAS POSTED MANY DAYS AGO.
AND FOR THE FOLKS THAT ARE HOME, I I DO HOPE THAT THEY'RE CHECKING OUT BACKUP RIGHT NOW.
AND, AND AGAIN, ONCE AGAIN, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, NOT JUST FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE MONEYED AND POWERFUL AND PEOPLE WITH TECHNOLOGY SITTING AT THEIR FINGERTIPS, BUT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO, WHO ALSO PAY TAXES LIVE IN THE CITY AND VOTE, WHAT DOES, WHAT DO THESE NUMBERS DO? I MEAN, WHY ARE WE TRYING TO HIDE THAT POINT OF ORDER? WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE THAT'S BEEN SECONDED.
SO WE DO HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
WE'VE HAD ALL THE QUESTIONS AND THE FOR AND AGAINST, SO THE MOTION AS STATED AND SECONDED BY, REMIND ME WHO THE SECOND WAS.
THOSE AGAINST AND THOSE ABSTAINING.
LET'S MOVE ON TO UNPOSTED AMENDMENTS.
LET ME, I'M JUST MAKING A NOTE HERE.
UM, SHARE THIS, UM, IS, I'M SORRY, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, UM, I HAVE A MOTION.
THIS WAS SHARED, UH, VIA EMAIL EARLIER.
THIS WOULD CREATE A BUY DOWN PROVISION SO THAT THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SUBSIDIZE ONSITE AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN A DEVELOPMENT, PARTICIPATING IN THE BONUS TO FURTHER REDUCE THE RENT AND MEET COMMUNITY NEEDS AROUND DEEPER AFFORDABILITY.
AND THIS IS, UM, ACTUALLY VERBATIM THE SAME AMENDMENT THAT I HAD BROUGHT FORTH AT THE SOUTH CENTER WATERFRONT.
UM, QUESTIONS FOR ABOUT THIS MOTION? MR. COX? I'M, I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM STAFF, 'CAUSE I THINK THIS IS A GREAT THING TO DO.
I'M JUST CURIOUS IF WE HAVE PROVISIONS LIKE THIS ALREADY AND, AND OTHER PROGRAMS AND, AND, AND WHAT THE UTILIZATION IS.
JAMIE MAY, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
WE HAVE, UH, THE ABILITY TO DO THIS NOW.
UM, WE HAVE DONE IT IN THE PAST.
UH, WE HAVE NOT DONE THIS IN ABOUT FIVE YEARS BECAUSE IT IS MORE EXPENSIVE TO BUY DOWN, UH, A UNIT AS OPPOSED TO INVESTING IN PROPERTY EITHER AT ACQUISITION OR AT DEVELOPMENT.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, OUR, UM, OUR, UH, GOAL FOR SUBSIDIZING UNITS IS ABOUT $50,000 AS I STATED.
UM, IF WE WERE TO BUY DOWN A UNIT, LET'S SAY A THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH IN REDU, REDUCED RENT PRICES, THAT'S $12,000 A YEAR.
YOU GET FOUR YEARS FOR THE SAME $50,000 THAT WE WOULD GET 40 YEARS FOR WITH OUR RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT COMES ALONG WITH OUR INVESTMENT.
AND I'M CURIOUS, I I FEEL LIKE PARTICULARLY IN THE, THE TRANSIT AREA, THE PROPERTY VALUES ARE GONNA SKYROCKET, ESPECIALLY IF WE ACTUALLY GET THE TRANSIT.
UM, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS POTENTIALLY IS MORE USEFUL THAN TRYING TO ACTUALLY BUILD NEW AFFORDABLE UNITS WITHIN THE ACTUAL TRANSIT DISTRICT.
LIKE IT'S, IT WOULD BE PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE FOR THE CITY TO FIND A PROPERTY WITHIN THE ETOD BOUNDARY AND ACTUALLY BUILD 200 AFFORDABLE UNITS IN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, THEN, THEN POTENTIALLY TRYING TO BUY DOWN UNITS THAT ARE BUILT ON SITE.
IF WE WERE TO BUILD IT OURSELVES WITH NO ASSISTANCE FROM ANYONE ELSE AND NO FUNDING FROM ANYONE ELSE, THAT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC.
HOWEVER, UM, AS WITH ALL OF OUR DEVELOPMENTS, EITHER IF WE ARE INVESTING OR IF WE ARE A PARTNER, UM, A GROUND LESSOR, UH, WE WILL LEVERAGE, UH, LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS, PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS, ALL FUNDING SOURCES THAT WE CAN FIND BOTH, UH, WITHIN THE CITY, FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK, THE STATE OF TEXAS, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
WE WILL LOOK EVERYWHERE AND FIND THE DOLLARS.
AND THAT'S WHY WE PARTNER WITH, UH, EXPERIENCED DEVELOPERS WHO KNOW WHERE TO FIND THOSE DOLLARS SO THAT WHEN WE LEVERAGE OUR FUNDS, IT'S AT A SEVEN TO ONE RATIO AS OPPOSED TO A THREE TO ONE RATIO THAT SOME OTHER JURISDICTIONS WOULD HAVE.
SEVEN TO ONE AS IN SEVEN CITY, ONE ELSEWHERE, OR ONE CITY SEVEN.
FOR EVERY $1 THAT WE PUT INTO A DEVELOPMENT, WE GET $7 FROM OTHER SOURCES, WHETHER THAT'S THE FEDERAL, STATE, OR PRIVATE FUNDING.
[06:35:03]
OKAY.UM, COMMISSION ZA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESTATE YOUR MOTION? WE'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND.
CHAIR, I'M MAKING A MOTION THAT THE CITY, WE CREATE A BY PROVISION, UM, WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE SO THAT THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SUBSIDIZE ONSITE AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN A DEVELOPMENT, PARTICIPATING IN THE BONUS TO FURTHER REDUCE THE RENT AND MEET COMMUNITY NEEDS AROUND DEEPER AFFORDABILITY.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX, ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS? TWO SPOTS.
I KNOW WE HAD ALREADY DISCUSSED IT OUTSIDE OF WATERFRONT, SO I JUST WANNA BE VERY CLEAR.
THIS IS, THIS WOULD CREATE AN OPTION FOR THE CITY TO DO THAT.
IT WOULD NOT BE A REQUIREMENT IF AT SOME POINT IT FEELS LIKE THIS MIGHT BE A FEASIBLE WAY TO ALLOW THAT DEEPER AFFORDABILITY THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR WITHIN THESE AREAS.
THAT THIS BECOMES AN OPTION FOR THE CITY TO EXPLORE.
UM, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S AN EXPLORATORY, UM, ITEM THAT WOULD BE SORT OF MOVING FORWARD.
ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST FOUR? LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
THIS IS ON VICE CHAIR AZAR BY DOWN PROVISION AMENDMENT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COX.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, THOSE, UH, AGAINST AND THOSE ABSTAINING.
COMMISSIONER HOWARD? I DON'T HAVE ANY.
THIS WAS ONE, UH, COMMISSION LEE ON RIVERA CIRCULATED BY EMAIL A FEW HOURS AGO.
UM, IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO ALIGN PARKING STANDARDS IN THE E TODD AND DP E TODD AREA.
UH, ALIGN THOSE TO THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN PARKING CHANGES, UM, INCLUDING A 40% SOFT CAP, 80% HARD CAP, AND THEN REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING UNCOUPLING PARKING, UH, FROM A BUILDING FOR RENT OR FOR SCALE.
QUESTIONS ON THIS? COMMISSIONER COX.
SO WE JUST HAD A, A LIVELY AND HEATED DEBATE ABOUT THINGS THAT WE DO THAT POTENTIALLY CREATES PROBLEMS FOR FINANCING PROJECTS AND GET THEM MOVING FORWARD.
WE'VE CONSISTENTLY HAD DEVELOPERS AND THEIR LAWYERS TELL US THAT TO GET FINANCING FROM BANKS, THEY HAVE TO HAVE PARKING.
THAT THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT THEY CAN GET THEIR PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD.
SO, DOES ISN'T, ISN'T THERE THE, A SIMILAR CONCERN, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, THAT THAT THIS SORT OF PROVISION MIGHT ACTUALLY HURT DEVELOPMENT FROM MOVING FORWARD WITHIN THE EAD BOUNDARY? MOST OF WHICH, WHICH FALLS OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN? UH, NO.
I WOULD SAY THERE'S NOT A CONCERN.
UM, WE SEE THESE REQUIREMENTS WORK FOR DOWNTOWN PROJECTS.
UM, A LOT OF THE DB E TODD OVERLAY IS NOT DOWNTOWN, BUT IT'S IDEALLY WILL BECOME THE NEXT CLOSEST THING TO DOWNTOWN.
SO THERE'S, I DON'T REALLY SEE ANY REASON TO THINK THESE REQUIREMENTS WILL NOT WORK, UH, IN THOSE AREAS WHEN THEY DO DOWNTOWN.
THIS DOES NOT PROHIBIT A DEVELOPER FROM BUILDING PARKING IF THEY CHOOSE TO.
UH, IT JUST ENCOURAGES THEM TO BUILD LESS OF IT.
I'M, I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A HARD CAP AND ALSO A SOFT CAP FOR PARKING.
SO A HARD CAP WOULD BE AT 80% OF THE PREVIOUS REQUIREMENT, UH, IN THE OLD PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
SO THAT AGAIN, DOES NOT PROHIBIT SOMEBODY FROM BUILDING PARKING.
IT JUST ENCOURAGES THEM TO BUILD LESS THAN THEY OTHERWISE COULD.
UH, CAN I, UM, MS. COOK, MAYBE IF YOU COULD ANSWER A QUESTION FOR ME RELATED TO THIS, BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS A REALLY CRITICAL POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE IS CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD BY IRE ON THE COMMISSION.
UM, WHEN YOU ALL DID YOUR SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS, YOU SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT LESS PARKING IN ALL OF THESE BUILDINGS WOULD HELP THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PENCIL.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND CAN I BE CLEAR THAT IN THE ORDINANCE AS IT EXISTS CURRENTLY, THERE ARE NOT PARKING REQUIREMENTS OR INCENTIVES TO LOWER PARKING TO GET THAT TO PENCIL? IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT WAS CONSIDERED A, A PHASE TWO ITEM THAT WE WERE GOING TO LOOK INTO MORE.
SO THEREFORE, IF WE WERE TO ADOPT SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WE MIGHT ACTUALLY
[06:40:01]
BE ALLOWING SOME OF THESE, UH, AFFORDABLE REQUIREMENTS TO PENCIL MORE ACTIVELY.UM, I'M GONNA BRING TRISH WITH THE LAW UP WITH LAW UP TO TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS FOR TRISH WITH THE LAW
WE STILL HAVE ANOTHER CODE AMENDMENT TO GO.
SO THE CONCERN IS THIS DOESN'T ACTUALLY FIT WITHIN THE ETOD BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND WE DO NOT WANT TO ADD PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO 25 2 TO OUR ZONING REGULATIONS.
MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE WHEN YOU TAKE UP THE DOWNTOWN PARKING ITEM THAT YOU CONSIDER AN COMING BACK AT A FUTURE TIME WITH AN INITIATION TO ADD DB OR ETOD TO THE SAME PROVISIONS.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT MAKES SENSE, BUT I SORRY, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
I JUST DON'T REALLY SEE THE ISSUE WITH MAKING IT A RECOMMENDATION HERE VERSUS ON THE OTHER ORDINANCE.
IF EITHER WAY IT'S NOT PART OF THAT ORDINANCE AND WOULD HAVE TO BE A RECOMMENDATION FOR GENERAL ACTION.
DOES IT MATTER WHICH ORDINANCE WE MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION WITH? SO IS THE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE THAT WILL BE BEFORE COUNSEL ON THE 16TH.
SO I, FROM YOUR FIRST RESPONSE, I UNDERSTOOD THAT WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SAY ANYTHING RELATED TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS SINCE WE WEREN'T NOTICED FOR IT FOR THIS EAU ORDINANCE.
IS THAT CORRECT? CHERYL? TAKE OVER THE QUESTION AND ANSWER TIME.
OH, SO THE ISSUE IS WE DON'T HAVE PARKING REQUIRE.
WE TRY NOT TO HAVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND OUR ZONING REGULATIONS.
WHAT YOU ARE CONSIDERING IS AN ITEM THAT ACTUALLY MORE APPROPRIATELY GOES IN OUR TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS THE ITEM THAT YOU HAVE AFTER THIS ITEM TONIGHT.
I, MS. LINK, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
IF THIS WERE TO BE BROUGHT WITH THE NEXT ITEM, COULD IT BE APPLIED TO THE DP E TODD DATA OR ARE YOU SAYING IT WOULD, IT WOULD STILL BE A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION, CORRECT.
IT WOULD STILL BE A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION FOR STAFF TO COME BACK WITH THAT FOR ETOD.
SO, MR. JOHNSON, I'M JUST HEARING DENIED.
ALL YOU CAN DO IS DO GENERAL RECOMMENDATION WHETHER YOU DO IT HERE OR IN THE NEXT ORDINANCE.
THIS CAN BE WORDED AS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION.
UM, WELL, WE'RE OUT OF SPOTS FOR THE THREE QUESTIONS.
SO COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, DID YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION AND THEN WE'LL HAVE TWO MORE SPOTS FOR QUESTIONS? YEAH.
SO THE MOTION WILL BE TO MAKE A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO ALIGN THE DBE TODD REQUIREMENTS WITH, UM, OR DEVELOPMENTS WITH THE DOWNTOWN PARKING, UH, MAXIMUMS AND, AND OTHER, UH, ITEMS. MIGHT I RESTATE IT JUST FOR CLARIFICATION? SO SHIR? SURE.
THIS IS GENERAL RECOMMENDATION ALIGNED PARKING STANDARDS IN THE EAU DBE TODD AREA TO BE PROPOSED TO THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN PARKING CHANGES, INCLUDING A 40% SOFT CAP, 80% HARD CAP IN REQUIREMENTS TO UNCOUPLED PARKING FROM BUILDING RENT OR SALE.
IS THERE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
OKAY, TWO SPOTS FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, I'M, I'M NOT TRANSPORTATION.
UM, DID YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SOFT CAP AND THE HARD CAP? I GUESS I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED 'CAUSE I KNOW WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE SAME DEVELOPERS IS THAT IF WE LIMIT, IF WE GIVE THEM THE, IF WE DON'T REQUIRE IT, THAT GIVES THEM THE FLEXIBILITY.
BUT IF WE ACTUALLY PUT DOWN A HARD LIMIT, THEN THAT CAN IMPEDE THEIR GETTING FUNDING.
AND SO, I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN THE SOFT AND THE HARD WITHOUT TRYING TO GUESS AT IT.
COLE KITTEN TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
UM, THE SOFT CAP IS, UM, CONSIDERED THE FIRST TIER OF, UH, WHAT PARKING WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED OR IN THIS CASE.
UM, THERE ARE NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
SO IN ORDER TO GO OVER THAT FIRST TIER OR 40%
[06:45:01]
CAP, UM, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A CONDITION FOR THAT APPROVAL.UM, WHEREAS THE MAXIMUM, UM, THE UPPER CAP, THE HARD CAP IS A VALUE THAT CANNOT BE EXCEEDED NO MATTER, UM, WHAT CONDITION OR, OR, UH, REQUEST AND, SORRY, WHAT'S THE MECHANISM? SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A, A CAP A, WHAT YOU'RE CALLING THE SOFT CAP AT 40%.
SO IF, IF THE DEVELOPER IS WANTING TO GO HIGHER THAN THAT OR THEY FEEL THEY HAVE A NEED TO GO HIGHER THAN THAT, WHAT'S THEIR PROCESS FOR DOING THAT? UM, CURRENTLY THERE ARE NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
UM, AND PREVIOUSLY THERE WERE, UM, UH, EVEN ALLOWANCES TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT, UM, ALONG COURT TRANSIT CORRIDORS.
UM, BUT IT'S UP TO THE APPLICANT ENTIRELY TO MAKE A REQUEST, UM, UH, TO IDENTIFY THE AMOUNT OF PARKING.
YEAH, NO, WHAT I'M ASKING IS IF, IF THEY WERE TO MAKE THAT REQUEST, THAT WHERE DOES IT GO? WHO DOES, IS IT SOMETHING THAT COMES BACK TO US OR DOES IT GO THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OR WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT REQUEST? IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS.
YES, COMMISSIONER COX? UH, UH, SORRY, I DIDN'T CATCH YOUR NAME.
UM, THE, THE CONDITIONS, THE CONDITIONS THAT YOU STATED TO GO FROM THE SOFT TO THE HARD, DO THOSE CONDITIONS INCREASE THE COST TO CONSTRUCT THESE BUILDINGS? UM, MANY OF THE CONDITIONS LIKE SHARED PARKING, UH, DECOUPLING, THE PARKING, UM, AREN'T, UM, ADDITIONAL PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS, BUT IT'S MORE OF AN OPERATIONAL, UM, AND MANAGEMENT, UM, ISSUE.
AND THEN ARE THERE OTHER ONES, UM, CONDITIONS LIKE, UM, PROVIDING PARKING UNDERGROUND, UM, INSTEAD OF ABOVE GROUND TO QUALIFY FOR THE INCREASE WOULD INCREASE THE, THE COST OF THE PARKING.
AND THEN TO THE SAME STAFF MEMBER WHO ANSWERED THE QUESTION ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING COSTS RELATED TO PARKING, SORRY, WHAT'S HER NAME? MS. COOK OR SOMEONE? WE, WE HEARD IN PREVIOUS QUESTIONS THAT, THAT OBVIOUSLY BUILDING PARKING MAKES IT MORE EXPENSIVE ABSOLUTELY.
DID THAT ANALYSIS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'RE GETTING ABOUT IT BEING HARDER TO SECURE FINANCING WHEN WE DON'T ALLOW FOR PARKING? THE ANALYSIS THAT THE FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS DID WAS REALLY JUST LOOKING AT THE COST OF PROVIDING THE PARKING, NOT THE DIFFICULTY OF SECURING FINANCING BASED ON PARKING.
SO THAT ANALYSIS WITH WAS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PROJECT PENCILING WITH BANKS AND STUFF LIKE THAT, THEY DIDN'T DO A SPECIFIC ANALYSIS ABOUT WHETHER SOMEBODY COULD GET FINANCING.
THEY WERE REALLY LOOKING AT THE COSTS OF DELIVERING THE PROJECT.
I I HAVE A CLARIFIED QUESTION.
I DIDN'T THINK I UNDERSTOOD YOUR LAST COMMENT.
YOU WERE SAYING THAT THE ANALYSIS THAT OUR CONSULTANTS DID WAS NOT BASED ON ABILITY TO FINANCE.
I'M SORRY, COULD YOU JUST EXPLAIN THAT AGAIN? THEY, THEY WERE LOOKING AT THE COST OF DELIVERING A PROJECT THAT MET THE PROPOSAL IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS, THE POTENTIAL LOCATIONS OF THESE PROJECTS, AND SUBMARKETS ALONG THE LINE, AND LOOKING AT SORT OF THE, THE COST AND THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE THOSE UNITS.
SO NOW WE ARE AT, UH, SPEAKING FOR AND AGAINST OR AGAINST, UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, AND THEN I SEE COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I SAID BEFORE, UH, ON A FEW OF THE OTHER CODE AMENDMENTS WE'VE LOOKED AT THAT, YOU KNOW, NEXT TO TRANSIT IN, IN THE CENTRAL OUR CITY, THESE ARE THE AREAS WHERE IT REALLY MAKES SENSE TO HAVE LESS PARKING OR TALKING ABOUT AREAS WITHIN WALKING OR EASY BIKING DISTANCE OF LIKE RAIL STATIONS, EXACTLY WHERE WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO BE DRIVING LESS AND TO BE OWNING FEWER CARS.
UM, NOTHING IN THIS PROPOSAL PRECLUDES THE ABILITY OF A DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE PARKING.
THEY CAN STILL PROVIDE UP TO 80% OF WHAT WE PREVIOUSLY REQUIRED, WHICH WAS SOMETIMES AS MANY AS FOUR CARS PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT, DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS. SO 80% OF A LUDICROUSLY HIGH NUMBER MEANS PEOPLE COULD STILL, IF THEY'RE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT, PROVIDE MORE THAN ENOUGH PARKING THAN THEY'LL EVER NEED.
WHAT THIS IS SIMPLY DOING IS ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO PROVIDE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF PARKING, ESPECIALLY FOR A TRANSIT ORIENTED AREA
[06:50:01]
WHERE IT'S IMPORTANT TO BALANCE, UH, THE AFFORDABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT WITH, UH, ENSURING A REALLY HIGH QUALITY PUBLIC REALM WITH PLEASANT STREETSCAPES THAT PEOPLE WILL ACTUALLY USE TO GET TO THEIR TRANSIT STATIONS.COMMISSIONER COX? UH, TWO POINTS.
I'M, I'M TRYING TO FIND SOME CONSISTENCY HERE, AND I'M STRUGGLING TO DO THAT.
UM, WE, WE'VE HEARD FROM SOME OF OUR DEVELOPER FRIENDS THAT PENCILING PROJECTS WITH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT IS TOO DIFFICULT.
WE'VE ALSO HEARD FROM THOSE SAME DEVELOPER FRIENDS THAT PENCILING PROJECTS WHEN WE LIMIT PARKING, IS ALSO DIFFICULT.
SO I I, I, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, I, I WOULD, I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING THIS IF IT WAS MORE LIMITED TO THOSE PROPERTIES, CLOSER TO THE ACTUAL TRANSIT STATIONS.
UM, BUT THE EAU BOUNDARY IS ACTUALLY QUITE, QUITE LARGE.
WE'VE HAD QUITE A BIT OF FEEDBACK THAT IT'S TOO LARGE IN SOME CASES.
SO I, I THINK THIS IS TOO SWEEPING.
UM, BUT I ALSO JUST AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, UM, WHAT DECISIONS WE'RE MAKING HERE AND HOW THAT'S GONNA IMPACT PENCILING PROJECTS LIKE WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT.
AND I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THEM THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY HURT ON THAT FRONT.
COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, LET'S KEEP MY COMMENTS BRIEF, BUT OF, YEAH, I MEAN, IF WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR CORE TRANSIT CORRIDOR, AND IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO ACTIVELY LIMIT PARKING ON THESE CORRIDORS, I DON'T KNOW WHERE, UH, WE'VE BEEN TALKING TONIGHT ABOUT WHY WE HAVE TO GET THIS DONE FOR THE FDA GRANT APPLICATION.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT SCORING CRITERIA, PARKING IS THE AREA WHERE WE ARE STRUGGLING THE MOST.
SO A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF TO MOVE THE NEEDLE IN THIS REALM OF, IN THE ETOD AREA.
IT JUST MAKES COMPLETE SENSE TO ME.
LAST SPOT AGAINST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
UM, OKAY, THIS IS FOR COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S.
I, I'M, I'M NOT NECESSARILY AGAINST THE IDEA.
I THINK THERE'S JUST SOME INTERESTING QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP.
CAN WE SOFTEN? I WONDER IF THE MOTION MAY, I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT LANGUAGE.
I THINK IF WE CAN SOFTEN A BIT SO THAT WE SEND THE MESSAGE WE WANT THEM TO LOOK AT, AT OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE PARKING, UM, AND, AND AT LEAST GIVE THEM THE FLEXIBILITY A BIT.
I'M JUST NOT QUITE SURE HOW TO WORD THAT, SO I'M LOOKING FOR A SECOND.
IF THERE'S A SECOND, I'LL, I'LL TRY AND FLUSH IT OUT A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
IF NOT, WE'LL JUST, JUST GO WITH THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.
CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION? COMMISSIONER AL? I'M OPEN.
I WOULD BE SUPPORT NOT THE TRANSPORTATION PERSON.
I KNOW WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GET, I JUST DUNNO HOW TO DO IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ACHIEVES WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT YOU'RE GOING FOR MR. M VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS FUTURE PLAN.
WELL, VERSUS EVERY, EVERYTHING ELSE WITHIN THE UTAH BOUNDARY, WHICH A LOT OF IT IS, IS FURTHER AWAY FROM A HALF MILE OF THE ACTUAL STATIONS.
I WAS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE, THE CAPS AND WHAT IT'S GONNA DO FOR PROJECTS.
UH, I'LL WITHDRAW AND YOU CAN MAKE A SUBSTITUTE IF YOU LIKE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S AMENDMENT? THIS WAS SECONDED BY MAXWELL COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, THOSE AGAINST.
AND THOSE ABSTAINING, THAT MOTION PASSES NINE TO TWO TO ONE.
MOVING ON TO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
YEAH, I'LL COME BACK TO WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET OUT EARLIER.
SO I'D LIKE TO, UM, GET AN AMENDMENT THAT, UH, WHEN THE FEE IN LIEU OPTION, UH, FOR OWNERSHIP WILL BE UTILIZED IT, THE FUNDS NEED TO GO WITHIN A HALF MILE
[06:55:02]
OF THE PROJECT AND THAT THEY NEED TO EQUATE TO A MINIMUM OF 12% UNITS OF THE TOTAL NUMBER, NO MAXIMUM SET.SO WE COULD CERTAINLY TRY AND GET BETTER OUTTA IT.
UM, CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE MOTION MAKER.
UH, I UNDERSTAND THE HALF MILE EXPENDITURE.
I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE RESULT IN A MINIMUM OF THE 12% OF THE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT OPTING FOR FEE.
AND I, I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT PART.
SO, UH, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM STAFF THAT WHEN THEY'RE GOING FOR FEE IN LIEU, THE MONEY GOES INTO FUNDING THAT CAN BE UTILIZED.
AND IN THIS CASE, WE WOULD BE SAYING FOR OWNERSHIP WITHIN A HALF MILE, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT ACTUALLY RESULTS IN THE EQUIVALENT NUMBER OF REQUIRED UNITS THAT WOULD'VE BEEN AT, AT AN, AT A MINIMUM THAT WOULD'VE BEEN REQUIRED IN THE PRO IN THE DEVELOPMENT, EVEN IF IT'S GETTING LOCATED ELSEWHERE IN THE EOD.
AND MAYBE I DIDN'T WORD THAT REALLY WELL, BUT THAT'S MY GOAL IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING LESS, THAT WE'RE GONNA GET AT LEAST AT A BA.
IDEALLY WE'D BE GETTING MORE, YOU KNOW.
UM, COMMISSIONER AL, I THINK I, I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT AND I'M WONDERING IF IT'S, IF IT WOULD BE BETTER TO STATE IT LIKE STAFF TO CALIBRATE THE ACTUAL FEE, UH, TO ACHIEVE THE, THE 12% OF AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN REQUIRED ON SITE, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO ACHIEVE THAT NUMBER OF UNITS IS IF WE NEED TO ADJUST THE FEE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GETTING THE NUMBER OF UNITS.
I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT LANGUAGE, BUT I MEAN, STAFF AND LEGAL CAN TAKE IT FROM THERE.
AND IT SEEMED THAT WHEN WE JUST, WHEN THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION EARLIER, STAFF SEEMED SUPPORTIVE OF THE IDEA OF REQUIRING A FEE AND LIE OPTION TO BE EXERCISED WITHIN THE REGION SO THAT WE'RE TAKING FULL ADVANTAGE OF THE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR.
SO HOWEVER THEY WANNA WORK WITH IT IS FINE.
COMMISSIONER HAYNES? YEAH, JUST CLARIFY, COMMISSIONER, JUST TO MAKE SURE, UM, YOU SAID THAT, THAT THE PROJECT HAD TO BE USED WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THE, OF THE SITE? UM, DO YOU MEAN I WAS AT A STATION, BUT YOU MEAN INSIDE THE EAD ZONE? UH, YES.
BECAUSE IF IT'S JUST WITHIN A HALF MILE, IT COULD BE A HALF MILE OUT AND THEN A HALF MILE FROM THAT COULD BE A MILE AWAY FROM THE STATION, SO RIGHT.
IF YOU SAY WITHIN THE EAD ZONE OR, OR HALF MILE.
WITHIN A HALF MILE OF EACH STATION.
I'M, I'M HAPPY TO PUT LANGUAGE TO THAT EFFECT IN THE FINAL MOTION.
WELL, IT'S THAT TIME FOR THE FINAL MOTION,
MR. HAYNES, ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS? TWO SPOTS.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
THE FEE AND LIE OPTION SHALL UTILIZE FUNDS WITHIN A HALF MILE OF A PLANT STATION AND RESULT IN, UH, SORRY.
READING, ACTUALLY THE ONE THAT WAS DRAFTED BEFORE.
I'M SIMPLY SAYING ALL FEES IN LIE SHOULD BE UTILIZED WITHIN THE E-A-D-B-E TODD DEFINED BOUNDARIES.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
QUESTIONS ON THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION? COMMISSIONER COX, UM, QUESTION FOR STAFF.
I, I, I TYPICALLY SUPPORT THAT TYPE OF, OF GOAL, UM, BUT I'M CURIOUS IF STAFF SUPPORTS THAT TYPE OF GOAL, UM, BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING WITHOUT THE SEVEN TO ONE LEVERAGE THAT, THAT YOU WERE SPEAKING TO EARLIER, THAT THAT THE
[07:00:01]
COST TO ACTUALLY HAVE THE CITY BUILD WITHIN THE E TODD BOUNDARY WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN SOMETHING SAY A MILE AWAY ON A BUS LINE THAT LEADS TO ONE OF OUR LIGHT RAIL STATIONS,UM, THE STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF, UH, UH, RESTRAINING THE FUNDS TO BE USED WITHIN THE ET E TODD BOUNDARY.
UH, THAT FALLS WELL WITHIN LINE OF, UH, OTHER DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE.
UH, SPEAKING OF THE, UH, UH, USING THE FEE IN LIEU TO CREATE THE REQUISITE 12% THAT OTHERWISE WOULD'VE BEEN ON SITE WOULD BE A CHALLENGE, UM, BECAUSE OF THE LEVERAGE, BECAUSE OF THE CALIBRATION OF THOSE, UH, FUNDS.
UNLESS WE WERE TO, UM, CHARGE, UH, THE FULL DEVELOPMENT COST FOR AN AFFORDABLE UNIT AS THE FEE IN LIEU, WHICH I THINK MIGHT GET A LITTLE PUSHBACK.
UM, THEN NOW WE WILL HAVE TO FIND FUNDS FROM OTHER, FROM OTHER SITES IN ORDER TO BUILD THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE ON SITE.
WELL, THAT, THAT IS AN INCREDIBLY INTERESTING POINT THAT YOU JUST MADE.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE BASICALLY ADMITTING IN THIS PUBLIC FORUM THAT ANYTIME A DEVELOPER OPTS TO USE A FEE IN LIEU, WE'RE GETTING LESS UNITS.
NO, I WOULD NOT ACTUALLY SAY THAT.
I WOULD SAY THAT IF A DEVELOPER OPTS TO USE THE FEE IN LIEU, THEN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS MAY GO UP, UH, BECAUSE THEY ARE BENEFITING FROM THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
SO THEY ARE, BUT DEVELOPING MORE UNITS, HOWEVER, THE AFFORDABILITY MAY NOT BE ON SITE, AND IF WE CAN CALIBRATE THE AFFORDABILITY APPROPRIATELY SO THAT OUR SUBSIDY IS AT AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL, THEN WE, WE WOULD HAVE A, UH, NET BONUS, A NET BENEFIT, UH, ACROSS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS CREATED.
SO, AND, AND THANK YOU FOR THAT ANSWER.
SO, SO PRESUMABLY COULD YOU USE LIKE PROJECT CONNECT FUNDS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS OR SOME OTHER KIND OF GAP FUNDING AS YOU CALLED IT TO ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL? THAT'S ONE QUESTION.
AND THE OTHER THING IS, SINCE WHAT THE DATA SHOW, THE DATA THAT WE HAVE SHOW THAT THE PEOPLE WHO MOVE INTO THESE, UH, TRANSIT ORIENTED, UM, UH, DEVELOPMENT AREAS, THAT THESE OVERLAYS USE PUBLIC TRANSIT FAR LESS THAN THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN DISPLACED.
AND SO, DOESN'T IT MAKE SENSE THAT WE WOULD TRY TO KEEP THE VERY PEOPLE WHO USE PUBLIC TRANSIT WITHIN THAT CORRIDOR BECAUSE THEY KEEP THE NUMBERS UP? SO THE TWO QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW IT COULD BE FINANCED AND, AND WOULDN'T IT MAKE SENSE SO THAT WE DO HAVE A HEALTHY FUNCTIONING, UM, TRANSIT SYSTEM? THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS.
I FEEL CONFIDENT IN ANSWERING THE FIRST, BUT COMPLETELY OUT OVER MY SKIS FOR THE SECOND ONE.
SO I'LL PASS THAT TO SOMEBODY BEHIND ME.
UM, THE FIR TO ANSWER YOUR FIRST QUESTION, UH, YES.
THE FEE IN LIE, UH, WOULD BE, UH, USED IN JUST THE SAME WAY THAT WE USE OUR GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, OUR PROJECT CONNECT ANTI DISPLACEMENT FUNDS, OUR HOUSING TRUST FUND AND OUR FEDERAL GRANTS, UM, WE WOULD NOT CONSIDER THAT TO BE LEVERAGED AGAINST EITHER ONE OF THEM.
SO WE WOULDN'T LEVERAGE OUR GEO BONDS AGAINST OUR HOUSING TRUST FUND BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME MONEY.
UM, WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR OTHER FUNDING SOURCES.
UH, WE'D BE LOOKING FOR, UH, TAX CREDITS FOR, UH, PHILANTHROPIC DOLLARS, UH, IN ORDER TO MAKE OUR DOLLARS GO FURTHER AND FAR FURTHER AND WIDER.
AND I SEE MS. GREATHOUSE APPROACH FOR A CHANGE OF PACE.
I WILL APPROACH THE PODIUM STEVIE GREATHOUSE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN TERMS OF THE SECOND QUESTION THAT RELATES TO SORT OF WHETHER THE POLICY GOAL WOULD BE TO GET THOSE UNITS AS CLOSE TO THE RAIL TRANSIT AS POSSIBLE.
I THINK THAT IS DEFINITELY CONSISTENT WITH STAFF'S POLICY GOAL.
UM, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY WE WOULD BE COMPLETELY AMENABLE TO THE RECOMMENDATION TO GEOGRAPHICALLY FENCE WHERE THE FUNDING GOES.
PER OUR RULES, WE HAVE TWO SPOTS ON FOR QUESTIONS ON SUBSTITUTES.
SO, UM, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND SPEAK FOR AND AGAINST THIS MOTION.
THIS IS THE VICE CHAIR IS OUR SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL MOTION.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR VICE CHAIR? COMMISSIONER AL HAD THEIR HAND UP, PLEASE.
COMMISSIONER MUELLER? YEAH, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO ACCEPT, I THINK THE, THE INTENDED DESIRE IS WELL UNDERSTOOD AND THE MESSAGE THAT WE WANNA SEND, WHICH IS WE DO WANNA GET, UH, AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP IN THE DISTRICT IS, IS BEING SENT.
ANYBODY AGAINST MORE CHAIR WON'T SAY MUCH EXCEPT TO SAY THANK YOU TO COMMISSIONER AL FOR BRINGING THIS.
I THINK, UM, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION, REALLY PART OF THE CONVERSATION
[07:05:01]
THAT WE'VE HAD TONIGHT, SO THANK YOU.ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT IS UNANIMOUS.
COMMISSIONER MUTAL, WE WILL MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
WE WILL CLOSE OUT OUR INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS UNLESS I'M HEARING, ARE WE ALLOWED TO MAKE MORE OR ARE WE LIMITED TO ONE ROUND? WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR ANOTHER ROUND? I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR ANOTHER ROUND
ALL THOSE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, AND ENTERTAIN ANOTHER ROUND.
SO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, I'LL PASS VICE CHAIR.
I, I WOULD LOVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO QUADRUPLE THAT GUY'S STAFF
AND WITH LEGAL TELLING ME I CAN'T DO THAT.
UM, I'LL PASS COMMISSIONER HOWARD PASS.
UM, I, I WOULD, I, I GUESS I'LL SPEAK TO IT AFTER I MAKE THE MOTION.
MY, MY MOTION IS THAT, UH, AT THIS TIME WE LIMIT THIS TO THE, THE PHASE ONE TIED WITH THE GRANT AND NOT THE EXTENSION AREAS THAT WERE ON THE, UH, MAPS.
LET'S OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS BEFORE THIS BECOMES A MOTION.
THIS WON'T COUNT AS A QUESTION.
COMMISSIONER MU, CAN YOU RESTATE THE PROPOSAL? SO I RESTATE IT IN, COMMISSIONER, YOU TELL ME IF THIS SOUNDS RIGHT.
SO WE ARE SAYING LIMIT THIS ORDINANCE TO PHASE ONE OF THE RAIL ALIGNMENT TIED TO THE GRANT AND NOT THE EXTENSION AREAS THAT WERE ON THE MAPS.
AND SO WHEN IN THE PRESENTATION WE HAD, WE HAVE THE PHASE ONE, UH, OF THE ACTUAL, I GUESS EIGHT TO NINE MILES OF RAIL.
AND THEN OBVIOUSLY WE'RE HOPING TO GET EXTENSIONS.
AND THAT RIGHT NOW THE PROPOSED E TODD GOES AROUND THAT.
I ASKED STAFF ABOUT THAT EARLIER.
SO I'M, MY MOTION IS THAT WE LIMIT IT TO, UH, THE NINE MILES WE'VE GOT DEFINITIVELY PLANNED FOR AT THE MOMENT.
WHY? FIRST QUESTION MR. COX, WHY
AND SO WE, YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND THAT ALL THIS IS TIED NEATLY TOGETHER.
UM, I DON'T WANT TO GRANT ALL THIS CHANGING AND ENTITLEMENT IN THIS WAY TO AREAS THAT ARE NOT DEFINITIVELY GONNA BE TIED TO THE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR.
AND I THINK ONCE, YOU KNOW, IF WE GET THIS OFF THE GROUND, WE GET THE FEDERAL FUNDING AND WE SEE IT GO, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE'VE CALLED FOR REPORTS AND ACTIONS, THEN WE CAN EXPAND IT AND EXTEND IT ALONG THE EXTENSION LINES AND IT'LL MAKE PERFECTLY GOOD SENSE.
BUT I THINK TO PUT ALL THAT STUFF OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, I, I'M CONCERNED THAT WE'RE GRANTING A BUNCH OF DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENT THAT'S NOT GOING TO REALLY, UH, SPELL OUT WHAT OUR INTENDED GOALS ARE.
AND, AND IT MAY END UP CAUSING SPECULATION AND INCREASED PRESSURES ON COMMUNITIES, PARTICULARLY SINCE STAFF TALKED ABOUT NORTH OF THAT 180 3 AREA.
WE'RE GETTING INTO SOME AREAS THAT ARE GONNA FACE SOME HEAVY PRESSURE.
SO IN THE 30 SECONDS I HAVE LEFT, I'M CURIOUS, UM, THAT THAT DOES ACTUALLY MAKE SENSE TO KIND OF LEARN IN PHASE ONE AND THEN CARRY THE LESSONS LEARNED FORWARD WITH FUTURE PHASES.
IS THERE A REASON WHY STAFF INCLUDED PHASE ONE PRIORITY EXTENSION WITHIN THIS KIND OF INITIAL EAD DRAFT OR INITIAL E TODD
[07:10:01]
EFFORT? YES.STEVIE GREATHOUSE PLANNING, WE INCLUDED IT, UM, A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT REASONS.
ONE WAS SORT OF THE REASON THAT AN BIDE FROM PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE ALLUDED TO OF DOING PLANNING IN ADVANCE OF NEEDING IT SOMETIMES.
UM, THE OTHER, FRANKLY, WITH THIS ONE COUNCIL DIRECTED US TO DO THIS SPECIFICALLY IN THE RESOLUTION.
THEY HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION ON THE DAIS ABOUT WHY THEY WANTED TO EXTEND BEYOND THE PHASE ONE LIGHT RAIL TO THE EXTENSIONS.
SO THAT IS WHAT, UM, WE MOVE FORWARD WITH.
I DID WANNA JUST MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S CLARITY ON THE GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT OF THE EXTENSIONS.
THEY DON'T ACTUALLY GO NORTH OF 180 3.
SO THE PRIORITY, UM, EXTENSIONS FOR PHASE ONE LIGHT RAIL GET YOU NORTH TO THE CRESTVIEW STATION, UM, AND SOUTH IT IS YELLOW JACKET ULT WHARF AND SOUTH TO ULT WHARF.
UM, COMMISSIONER MUELLER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO OR HAVE VICE CHAIR RESTATE YOUR MOTION? I'M SORRY.
PLEASE, VICE CHAIR, GO
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX, ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS? TWO SPOTS.
SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.
UH, I, WELL, I'M HAPPY TO HEAR, I MEAN, STAFF CLARIFYING THAT THIS CAME DIRECTLY FROM COUNSEL, UH, MAKES, UH, EXPLAINS A LOT TO ME.
AND ALSO LIKE THE, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, WHEN I LOOK AT THE MAP, THIS REALLY ONLY APPLIES TO THE NORTHERN EXTENSION 'CAUSE THE OTHER EXTENSION IS OUT TO THE AIRPORT AND NO PARCELS ARE PROPOSED TO BE REZONED.
AND I THINK A COUPLE OF POINTS IS THAT EVEN IF RAIL STOPS AT 38 AND A HALF STREET PLUS OR MINUS OF, THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE ROBUST HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT CONNECTING TO THAT RAIL.
I MEAN, BUT BRT THAT WE ALREADY HAVE, METRO RAPID WILL BE THERE AND WILL BE EVEN BETTER.
AND QUITE FRANKLY, GOING BEYOND THE E TODD ZONE AS IT'S DEFINED.
AND, AND I ALSO AM HOPEFUL THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE GET OUR FUNDING, THAT WE'LL ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO MAKE IT WORK TO BUILD IT UP TO AIRPORT IN THIS FIRST PHASE.
SO I'M INCLINED TO FOLLOW, UH, COUNCIL AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS TAKING FOUR, UM, COMMISSIONER MUELLER.
YEAH, I, I HAD MENTIONED IT A COUPLE OF TIMES TONIGHT.
I, I, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS GRANT APPLICATION GOING, UM, I, I HOPE IT DOES.
UM, AND I, AND I HOPE WE TAKE THE MEASURES AND GET THE RED TEAM EDITS AND, AND GET THE PROPER CONSULTANTS IN TO MAKE THAT GO AND WORK AT IT FROM A BIPARTISAN VIEWPOINT, BECAUSE IT'S GONNA TAKE THAT TO GET THIS GRANT.
UM, BUT UNTIL WE HAVE IT, I JUST CAN'T SEE EXTENDING ALL OF THIS BEYOND THIS PROJECT AT THIS, AT THIS TIME.
ALRIGHT, FINAL SPOTS FOR OR AGAINST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE OF COMMISSIONER MOOSH TOS, UH, MOTION.
WHO? COMMISSIONER COX WAS THE SECOND ON THAT.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, THOSE AGAINST AND THOSE ABSTAINING.
THAT MOTION FAILS THREE TO SEVEN TO ONE.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON IS OFF THE DAIS.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.
UM, VICE CHAIR, CAN YOU HELP ME WITH WHERE WE ARE? YES.
WE ARE AT THE BASE MOTION AS AMENDED.
SO ALL THE AMENDMENTS INCLUDED, AND WERE NOW JUST SPEAK TO AND FOR THE BASE MOTION AND TAKE VOTE.
SO WE'RE OPENING UP FOR FOUR AND AGAINST, THIS IS THE E TODD AS AMENDED.
ANYBODY SEEKING FOR OR AGAINST? ALL RIGHT.
WE READY TO TAKE A VOTE? OH, COMMISSIONER COX, SORRY.
I AM GONNA TAKE EVERY OPPORTUNITY.
UH, I STRONGLY DISAGREE THAT THIS IS THE PROPER WAY TO, TO MAKE THESE SORT OF CHANGES AND TO PLAN OUR CITY AND TO PLAN THE MOST VALUABLE PARTS OF OUR CITY.
UM, I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY HOPE THAT COUNCIL TAKES THE OPPORTUNITY TO INCORPORATE
[07:15:01]
SOME OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED FROM COMMUNITY GROUPS, UM, WHO ARE BOTH FOREIGN AGAINST THIS.UM, IT SEEMED LIKE WE HEARD FROM, FROM FOLKS THAT HAD ALL SORTS OF ISSUES, ISSUES WITH THIS.
UM, I THINK WE'VE MADE A BUNCH OF GOOD AMENDMENTS HERE, UH, IN THE WORKING GROUP AND, AND, AND ON THE DAIS.
UM, BUT I JUST THINK THAT THIS NEEDED MORE TIME TO COOK IN THE OVEN, TO ACTUALLY GET SOMETHING THAT, THAT I COULD SUPPORT MORE, MORE ENGAGEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY, UH, MORE ATTENTION GIVEN TO DISPLACEMENT CONCERNS.
UM, AND, AND UNFORTUNATELY NOBODY STAFF THE WORKING GROUP OR THIS COMMISSION OR THE PUBLIC HAD REALLY HAD TIME TO DO THAT.
SO WE ARE BEING HANDCUFFED BY THIS GRANT DEADLINE.
UM, AND, UH, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A FOREGONE CONCLUSION.
THIS COMMISSION'S GONNA VOTE FOR IT.
COUNCIL'S GONNA VOTE FOR IT, BUT I'M GONNA PROTEST BEING HANDCUFFED BY, UH, NOT VOTING FOR IT.
SO, UH, I, I AM STILL PRETTY DISAPPOINTED OF THE FACT THAT I'M LOOKING AT THE STAFF REPORT, ATTACHMENT B NUMBER EIGHT, SHOWING CLEARLY THAT THIS CALIBRATION DOES NOT WORK.
THAT BEING SAID, UM, I GUESS WE'RE JUST GONNA BE HOPEFUL ON THIS AND HOPE THAT SEEING THINGS CHANGE AND THAT WE CAN, UH, SEE SOME THINGS CHANGE IN THE ECONOMY, BUT HOPE IS BETTER THAN NOTHING.
AND I DO HOPE THAT BEFORE THIS GETS TO COUNCIL, WE WORK ON THESE NUMBERS MORE.
ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? SO I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER COX, THAT, AND ESPECIALLY IN THE WORKING GROUP, AND AGAIN, I'M THANKING EVERYBODY THAT WAS IN THAT GROUP.
WE WORKED SO HARD,
I LEARNED A LOT FROM COMM COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AND IN PARTICULAR, WHO IS REALLY KNOWS THIS, UH, KNOWS, KNOWS CODING BETTER THAN I THINK.
UM, I, I KNOW, UH, ANYONE KNOWS BECAUSE HE DOES THIS FOR A LIVING IN OTHER SPACES.
AND HE'S BEEN ON THE ZONING AND PLATING BOARD.
UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, WHO REALLY HAD A LOT OF GOOD THINGS THAT SHE BROUGHT TO THE TABLE AND KIND OF SCHOOLED ME UP ON WHY SOME OF MY IDEAS WERE JUST WAY OUT THERE.
AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE, APPRECIATE THAT AND THE LEADERSHIP OF COMMISSIONER AZAR AS WELL.
UM, AND OF COURSE THE COMMISSIONERS, UH, HAYES AND, AND COX.
BUT I DO FEEL LIKE WE'RE JUST NOW STARTING TO GET ENGAGEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY AND THAT HAS, IT HAS NOT HAD TIME TO FULLY MARINATE WITH THEM.
UM, I HAVE MET WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
I HAVE MET WITH VERY, UH, RICH PEOPLE.
I HAVE MET WITH SOME DEVELOPERS.
I HAVE MET WITH, UM, PASTORS IN CHURCHES.
I HAVE MET WITH A LOT OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND, UM, GOTTEN A LOT OF INPUT BECAUSE I TRIED TO REALLY REACH OUT AND LISTENED TO EVERYBODY BEFORE MAKING DECISIONS.
BUT I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT WE HAVE A BUS THAT HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO CARRY ALL OF THE POPULATION.
AND I THINK IF WE HAD MORE TIME, WE COULD DESIGN A BETTER BUS, WE COULD PUT MORE E IN THE TODD.
UM, BUT I, UM, I DO APPRECIATE WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH THIS AT THIS POINT.
SO FOR THAT REASON, I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST IT.
UM, LAST SPOT FOUR, OR SORRY, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.
UH, I ACTUALLY WANTED TO ALSO THANK MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ON THE WORKING GROUP.
UM, FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW THAT WE ARE THE SAME WORKING GROUP, ALSO DID HOME AND COMPATIBILITY AND THEN TURNED AROUND AND DID ETOD.
SO, UM, TRULY THE VOLUNTEER WORK THAT IS GONE INTO MAKING ALL THESE ORDINANCE IN SOME SORT OF WORKING SHAPE FOR THE, UH, OUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS IS TRULY TREMENDOUS AND SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS REALLY JUST A SERVICE TO THIS CITY.
UM, AND I DON'T JUST SAY THAT ABOUT MY, I SAY THAT REALLY IN AWE OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WHO WORKED ON THE WORKING GROUP.
AND, UM, THANK YOU FOR THAT INPUT BECAUSE IT HAS MADE THIS ORDINANCE STRONGER.
AND I AM ACTUALLY DELIGHTED TO SAY THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'RE TRYING TO DO THE THINGS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT FOR A LONG TIME SINCE WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT DOING PROJECT CORRECT CONNECT.
SINCE WE'VE HAD PAST FAILED RAIL BONDS, THIS IS A REALLY EXCITING MOMENT FOR US TO ACTUALLY BE SAYING AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, AS A CITY, HERE'S WHAT WE WANT TO SEE IN OUR TRANSIT CORRIDORS.
HERE'S HOW WE WANT TO DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
HERE'S WHAT WE WANT OUR COMMERCIAL SPACES TO LOOK LIKE.
HERE'S HOW WE WANT TO DEVELOP THE NEXT PHASE OF OUR CITY AND OUR LIGHT RAIL.
AND I ACTUALLY FIND IT TREMENDOUSLY EXCITING, AND I HOPE SINCERELY THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD
[07:20:01]
WITH THIS APPLICATION, SO DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, SO DOES OUR SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION AND ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THESE DECISIONS, BECAUSE WE ARE A CITY THAT'S MOVING FORWARD.AND THIS IS SUCH A GOOD DIRECTION.
AND OF COURSE, THERE'S THINGS I'D LOVE TO SEE IMPROVED, BUT WE KNOW THAT THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY RIGHT, BECAUSE WE'RE MAKING INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT, WE'RE MAKING AN INVESTMENT IN HOUSING, WE'RE MAKING INVESTMENT IN OUR CITY, AND I CANNOT WAIT TO SEE WHERE THIS GOES.
1, 4, 1 AGAINST COMMISSIONER MUELLER.
I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST.
SO SOME THINGS THAT ARE, I HAVE A NUMBER OF CONCERNS.
UM, ONE IS THAT WHEN WE ASK WHAT, HOW WE, HOW THIS IS GOING TO CONNECT REGULAR COMMUTERS TO MAJOR EMPLOYERS, WHAT THOSE ROUTES ARE AND WHERE PEOPLE ARE COMMUTING, WE DON'T GET A STRAIGHT AND CLEAR ANSWER.
UM, AND THAT IS CONCERNING TO ME.
UM, THE, THE INITIAL NINE MILES.
I, I JUST DON'T SEE THAT IT IS IMPACTING LARGE COMMUTING POPULATIONS THE WAY WE HOPE.
AND IN THE PROCESS IT'S GOING THROUGH IMPORTANT AREAS OF TOWN IN CREATING A RIPPLE EFFECT.
AND WE'RE GONNA SEE SOME POSITIVES, AND WE'RE GONNA SEE SOME NEGATIVES FROM IT.
I'M CONCERNED THAT WHEN WE GET INTO THESE DISCUSSIONS, AND EVEN WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT A FEDERAL PROJECT THAT HAS AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND USABILITY REQUIREMENTS, WE'RE, WE'RE FAILING TO HAVE CLEAR DATA.
COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS HAS CALLED THAT OUT A FEW TIMES, SAYING, WHERE'S THE DATA TO SUPPORT? AND WE'RE HAVING THESE REALLY, YOU KNOW, UH, THOUGHTFUL AND INTENSE DISCUSSIONS ON, ON THIS BODY ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO ACHIEVE HOUSING STABILITY AND EQUITY.
AND I, YOU KNOW, MY BACKGROUND, I, I LIKE, I LIKE GOOD CONCRETE DATA TO WORK WITH.
WE'RE NOT MODELING AFTER OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE DONE THESE THINGS SUCCESSFULLY.
WE KEEP THROWING THINGS AT THE WALL AND NOT LOOKING AT THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
THAT'S ANOTHER IMPORTANT PIECE THAT DIDN'T GO ADDRESSED AT ALL.
I DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, NORMALLY I'M ON A HOBBY HORSE ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE HERE, AND WE'RE GOING RIGHT THROUGH OLD CENTRAL AREAS OF BOSTON WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION AT ALL FOR THAT.
WE DIDN'T EVEN GET INTO THAT ASPECT AND THAT PIECE OF IT.
AND THEN WE'RE TAKING THIS IDEA AND EXTENDING IT OUTSIDE OF AREAS OF ITS INTENDED USE IN THE INTERIM FOR WHAT REASON? BECAUSE WE HOPE IT'S A GOOD IDEA IN THE FUTURE, AND WE HOPE IT HAPPENS.
WHY DON'T WE START WITH A PIECE, LET'S GET IT WORKING AND THEN EXPAND IT AND GROW IT FROM THERE.
BUT I THINK THIS PHILOSOPHY IS WORKING AGAINST US.
I THINK WE'RE SEEING IT, YOU KNOW, IN OUR LACK OF EMPLOYERS AND LOSING COMPANIES.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S A PHILOSOPHY HERE THAT'S NOT QUITE WORKING FOR US.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE THERE, AND I'M CONCERNED WITH HOW WE'RE DOING THIS.
I, I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S EFFORTS AND I KNOW WE ALL WANNA SEE THAT POSITIVE RESULT, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO CONSIDER HOW WE'RE GETTING THERE.
UM, I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DID NOT THANK THIS WORKING GROUP AND THE HARD WORK THAT THEY DID ON THIS AS, UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL MENTIONED, I KNOW PEOPLE WORKED REALLY HARD TO GET IT DONE, UM, AND THERE WAS A LOT TO CARRY.
THE GOOD NEWS IS WE DO NOT HAVE ANY WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS ON THE NEXT ITEM
UM, THE OTHER PIECE OF THAT IS TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WE, WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF THE WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE.
WE HAVE HIGHER STANDARDS OF AFFORDABILITY HERE.
WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO REDEVELOP MULTIFAMILY AND ENSURE THAT TENANTS HAVE THE ABILITY TO RETURN BACK TO THE HOUSING IF IT IS, UH, YOU KNOW, REDEVELOPED AT AFFORDABLE LEVELS.
WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR ENSURING THAT WE HAVE WALKABLE COMMERCIAL SPACES ON THESE CORRIDORS.
WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR ENSURING, UM, THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, OTHER COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT COME WITH THIS, SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, ELEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH STREET SCAPES AND SOME OF THOSE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.
WE ARE ALSO LOOKING AT ENSURING THAT, YOU KNOW, EXISTING PRE HERITAGE ORDINANCES AND FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCES AND ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS REMAIN AND ARE PROTECTED.
I WILL SAY, IF WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT THIS IS PART OF THE PROJECT CONNECT AND THAT, YOU KNOW, ENSURING THE SUCCESS OF PROJECT CONNECT, I CANNOT MINIMIZE HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS.
58% OF OUR VOTERS SUPPORTED THAT INITIATIVE TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE THIS KIND OF TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND I ALWAYS REMIND FOLKS, AS SOMEBODY WHO DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO DRIVE, WHO HAS USED TRANSIT IN THIS CITY AND WHO HAS ACTUALLY LIVED IN THE RIVERSIDE AREA AND IN THE NORTH LAMAR AREA, LET ME TELL YOU, THOSE BUS WRAPS RIGHT NOW, THEY OFTEN HAVE STANDING ROOM ONLY THE AMOUNT OF TIMES I HAVE STOOD IN THEM BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SPACE LEFT FOR ME TO SIT DOWN.
WELL, A LIGHT TRAIL THAT IS MORE FREQUENT, THAT HAS MORE CAPACITY, WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO CARRY PEOPLE TO OUR DOWNTOWN, TO OUR WORKING PLACES, TO THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, TO THREE OF OUR LARGEST EMPLOYERS IN OUR CITY, WHICH IS THE STATE OF TEXAS, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, AND THE CITY ITSELF.
[07:25:01]
AN IMPORTANT PROJECT AND WE SHOULD ALL BE PROUD OF THIS.ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
THIS IS FOR THE BASE EAD AMEN.
OR ORDINANCE AS AMENDED THIS EVENING.
SO ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, THOSE AGAINST TWO AND THOSE ABSTAINING MISSING TWO.
I WANNA MAKE SURE I GET THIS RIGHT.
THAT MOTION PASSES NINE TO THREE.
UM, WE DO STILL HAVE ANOTHER CODE AMENDMENT THIS EVENING.
UM, I'LL PROPOSE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS.
[1. LDC Amendment: C20-2023-043 - Downtown Parking Modifications Phase 1]
WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NUMBER ONE ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, WHICH WAS THE DOWNTOWN PARKING MODIFICATIONS.I NEED YOUR THUMB FINGERS OUT.
UM, I'M GOING TO START THIS ITEM BY MAKING A MOTION THAT WE, WE FOREGO STAFF PRE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP? CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, ER, WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM CHAIR.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, WITHOUT OBJECTION.
UM, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO MY MOTION IS TO, UM, FOREGO STAFF'S PRESENTATION ON DOWNTOWN PARKING MODIFICATIONS AND, UM, SORRY, IT'S LATE.
UM, THE BASE MOTION WOULD BE THE DOWNTOWN PARKING MODIFICATIONS, HER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE AMENDMENTS, UM, AS POSTED IN THE BACKUP, WHICH WERE TWO AMENDMENTS FROM MYSELF.
ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THIS MOTION? OKAY.
OH NO, Y'ALL WOULD JUST LISTEN TO THE CHAIR.
SHE JUST MADE A MOTION AND PASS IT.
AND JUST BE QUIET AND GO TO THE HOUSE.
THAT FEELS STRANGELY ODD THAT THAT PASSED
UM, ALL RIGHT, WELL, THANK YOU EVERYBODY.
UM, WITH THAT, WE HAVE NO FURTHER BUSINESS AT THIS MEETING, AND I WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:57 PM YEP.