[00:00:02]
[CALL TO ORDER]
SIX OH ONE.I'M GONNA CALL TO ORDER THE REGULAR MEETING AND THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.
TODAY IS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19TH.
WE ARE IN AUSTIN CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, ROOM 1001.
I WILL START WITH A ROLL CALL CHAIR.
PARLIAMENTARIAN ALEJANDRA FLORES.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM DAVID FLOYD PRESENT.
I'M GOING TO COVER EVERYTHING THERE.
UH, COMMISSIONER LONNIE STERN EMAILED THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO BE PRESENT.
UM, WE HAVE NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS, SO NOTHING TO DISCUSS THERE.
UM, ON THE AGENDA WE HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
[Consent Agenda]
ITEM ONE, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION FOR OCTOBER 15TH, 2024.DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THOSE? OKAY, SEEING NONE THAT WILL STAY ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UH, READING THROUGH THE REST OF THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS.
ITEM TWO, REZONING C 14 20 24 DASH 0 1 4 8 DASH AT 4,007 BUNNY RUN IS A REZONING FROM INTERIM RR TO SF ONE ITEM THREE C 14 20 24 DASH OH 1 42 AT 1001 WEST HOWARD LANE.
IT IS A REZONING CASE FROM CS TO LICO.
ITEM FOUR, REZONING C 14 20 24 DASH 0 0 6 9:00 AM STATION.
IT'S SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT 7,010 JOHNNY MORRIS ROAD.
IT IS A REZONING FROM G-R-M-U-C-O TO C-S-M-U-C-O AND CSMU DB 90 CO AS AMENDED ITEM.
THAT'S THE STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 3RD.
SO THAT CASE WILL NOT BE HEARD AS A POSTPONE TO DECEMBER 3RD.
ITEM FIVE, UM, IS C 14 20 24 DASH 0 1 15 HAYES CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL.
IT IS AT THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH TURNERSVILLE ROAD.
IT IS REZONING FROM IRR TO LR.
ITEM SIX C 14 84 0 2 2 RCA DER RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT.
IT IS AT 56 36 AND A HALF, 56 21 AND HALF 57 0 5, 57 29 AND A HALF DIAL TRAIL.
UM, AND AGAIN, IT IS A TO AMEND A PUBLIC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT WAS RECORDED IN ASSOCIATION WITH ZONING CASE C 1484 DASH 22 TO REMOVE 30 ACRES PER UNIT MAXIMUM.
ALL OF THOSE ARE RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
AND ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, AGAIN, ITEM FOUR IS A POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 3RD.
THE DISCUSSION ITEM WE HAVE IS ITEM SEVEN, SITE PLAN.
HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY S PC 2023 DASH 0 3 5 7 C NORTH TRAIL OFFICE PARK AT 66 0 1 NORTH CAPITAL TEXAS HIGHWAY.
IT IS TO APPROVE A SITE PLAN AND A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY OVERLAY ZONE FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT'S RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND IT MEETS ALL CODES AND ORDINANCES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE TECHNICALLY UNLESS IT DOESN'T MEET ALL CODES AND ORDINANCES, WE HAVE TO APPROVE IT.
UM, SO WE WILL LISTEN TO INPUT AND UNLESS SOMEBODY CAN FIGURE OUT WHY IT DOESN'T MEET CODES, WE ARE KIND OF HAVING TO APPROVE IT.
UM, SO ITEMS CONSENT ITEM ONE, CONSENT ITEM, SORRY, MINUTES TWO.
ITEM TWO AND THREE ARE STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL ON CONSENT.
ITEM FOUR IS A REZONING, BUT IT'S A POSTPONEMENT TO 12 THREE.
ITEM FIVE AND SIX ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? SO MOVED.
TAYLOR, YOU WERE GONNA POST TO ABSTAIN FROM YEAH, ITEM NUMBER FIVE.
I HAVE BUSINESS WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, SO I'M GONNA, WE SO SHALL TAYLOR MEASURE ABSTAINING ON ITEM FIVE.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM IS APPROVED.
[7. Site Plan - Hill Country Roadway: SPC-2023-0357C - North Trail Office Park]
PLANT HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY, SPC 2023 DASH 0 3 5 7 C AT 66 0 1 NORTH CAPITAL TEXAS HIGHWAY.DO WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION? ANYONE? ANYONE? IF NOT, DO WE WANT TO GO STRAIGHT TO THE APPLICANT? OH, IS IT ONLINE? OKAY.
[00:05:01]
HAVE BLINKED.AND UH, THIS ISN'T THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY.
IT'S A NORTH TRAIL OFFICE PARK.
IT'S A WITHDRAWAL RESUBMITTAL OF AN EARLIER SITE PLAN.
AND UH, WHAT IS PROPOSED IS A APPROXIMATELY THREE STORY PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING, UM, ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS.
IT'S IN THE MODERATE INTENSITY LOOP ZONE OF THE LOOP 360 WHOLE COUNTRY ROADWAY OVERLAY.
AND SO IT HAS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION FOR EITHER YOUR APPROVAL OR DENIAL.
UM, YOU CAN'T ADD ANY CONDITIONS, IT'S JUST APPROVE OR DENY.
UH, IT IS IN AN AREA WITH A LOT OF TOPOGRAPHY AND IT IS NEAR BULL CREEK.
HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN FULLY REVIEWED AND VETTED BY DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL, UM, ALL OF THEIR COMMENTS AND ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED WITH THE, THE SITE PLAN AS HAVE TRANSPORTATION AND THE PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING WILL BE PRETTY SIMILAR IN SCALE AND USE AND SIZE AND DESIGN TO, UH, OTHER OFFICE BUILDINGS IN THE AREA.
AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UH, JUST, JUST ONE MY STANDARD QUESTION.
WHEN WE HAVE THESE CONDITIONAL PERMITS, UH, IT IS STAFFED POSITION THAT THIS SITE PLAN KIND OF SATISFIES ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY ORDINANCE.
WE HAVE THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION GLASSES.
HOLD MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
LEMME GO TO THE NEXT, OH, SHOULD I DO THE SLIDE? UH, THANKS.
UM, I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT ON A SITE PLAN FOR A LOW PROFILE, LOW DENSITY OFFICE USE ON LOOP 360 AS YOU MO AS YOU KNOW, MOST SITE PLANS ARE HANDLED ADMINISTRATIVELY THROUGH, THOUGH IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES APPLICANTS PRESENT THEM TO THIS LAND USE COMMISSION AS WELL.
IN THIS CASE, OUR LOCATION AS A COMMISSIONER MAJOR JUST NOTICED OR JUST COMMENTED, IS LOCATED ON A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY.
IT REQUIRES US TO PRESENT THE SITE PLAN TO THIS COMMISSION.
AS STAFF HAS MENTIONED, THE SITE PLAN MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR APPROVAL AND IN FACT GOES ABOVE AND BEYOND CODE REQUIREMENTS IN A NUMBER OF WAYS THAT I'M GONNA DISCUSS IN A MOMENT.
BUT FIRST, WHY I'M HERE TODAY.
UM, AS I MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO, THE CITY REQUIRES APPLICANTS TO PRESENT SITE PLANS ALONG THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY TO THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.
AS YOU CAN SEE THE CODE REFERENCES ON THE SCREEN HERE.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT ONE KEY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY APPROVAL PROCESS AND OTHER TYPES OF APPROVAL PROCESSES THAT THIS BODY OFTEN SEES IN OTHER APPROVAL PROCESSES SUCH AS REZONING APPLICATIONS AND CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLANS.
THE CODE GRANTS, THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION, THE AUTHORITY TO APPLY CONDITIONS OR MAKE DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS IN FAVOR OR AGAINST A REQUEST FOR HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY SITE PLAN.
HOWEVER, AS SHOWN HERE IN 25 DASH FIVE DASH 1 47, THE CODE CHARGES ZAP WITH A SINGLE NARROWER GOAL, WHICH IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SITE PLAN COMPLIES WITH THE CODE.
AND IN THIS CASE, YOUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT IT DOES COMPLY.
I THINK YOU'LL ALSO NOTE THAT UH, IT'S BEEN IN PROCESS FOR OVER A YEAR AND A HALF WITH LOTS OF CHANGES AT STAFF'S, UH, SUGGESTION.
SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I'D LIKE TO JUST HIGHLIGHT A FEW THINGS THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT OUR PROJECT IS A LOW PRI LOW PROFILE COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT OF OUR HILL COUNTRY ROADWAYS AND PROVIDES BETTER OUTCOMES THAN WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED.
HERE YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY, IT'S ABOUT 10 ACRES ALONG 360.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS IN SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A LOW PROFILE, LOW DENSITY OFFICE USE LOCATED IN THE AREA MARKED ON THE SCREEN.
SO YOU CAN SEE IT'S CLOSER TO 360, UH, VERSUS, UH, THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
AND WHEN I SAY LOW, UH, PROFILE LOW USE, I WANNA TALK ABOUT WHAT I MEAN FIRST.
UH, THESE ARE BASIC METRICS THAT YOU OFTEN SEEN WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING A PROPOSED PROJECT.
THINGS LIKE IMPERVIOUS COVER BUILDING COVERAGE AND MORE.
AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THIS PROJECT IS VASTLY SMALLER AND MORE MODEST THAN MANY PROJECTS THAT ARE PRESENTED TO THIS BODY WITH LESS THAN 16% IMPERVIOUS COVER, LESS THAN 9% BUILDING COVERAGE AND FAR OF ONLY 0.26 TO ONE AND A HEIGHT OF ONLY 28 FEET, WHICH IS SHORTER THAN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'RE ALSO PROVIDING GREATER WATER QUALITY AND DETENTION OUTCOMES THAN ARE REQUIRED.
IN OTHER WORDS, OUR PROJECT IS LESS INTENSE THAN OTHERWISE ALLOWED AND PROVIDES BETTER OUTCOMES THAN OTHERWISE REQUIRED.
WE ALSO TAKE OUR ACCESS OFF OF LOOP 360, WHICH WILL AVOID DISTURBING INTERIOR LOCAL ROADWAYS.
WE ALSO ABUT A LOOP 360 CUT WALL LIMITING THE PROJECT'S VISIBILITY FROM THE HIGHWAY, WHICH HELPS US ENSURE THE SPIRIT OF THE
[00:10:01]
HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY REG REGULATIONS.HERE YOU CAN SEE THE LOOP 360 CUT WALL I'M REFERRING TO, WHICH WILL MEANINGFULLY BLOCK VIEWS OF OUR PROJECT.
AND HERE YOU CAN SEE A CROSS SECTION OF THE SITE LINES FROM THE ROADWAY CONFIRMING THAT THE WALL WILL BLOCK VIEWS OF THIS LOW PROFILE BUILDING, UH, OFFICE BUILDING.
AS NOTED HERE, PARKING WILL PRIMARILY BE BELOW GRADE AND THE BUILDING ITSELF WILL BE PRIMARILY TWO STORIES ABOVE GRADE, AGAIN FOR A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 28 FEET.
AGAIN, LESS THAN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN TERMS OF RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY, UH, WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.
AND UH, AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE HERE WE'RE MEANINGFULLY REMOVED FROM THE CLOSEST RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOR.
I BELIEVE THIS IS OVER 350 FEET.
SO I THINK THE KEY TAKEAWAYS JUST TO RECAP IS WE COMPLY WITH ALL THE APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS AS CONFIRMED BY CITY STAFF, WHICH MEANS THAT WE MEET, WE MEET THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES THRESHOLD FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
OUR LOW PROFILE LOW DENSITY OFFICE PROJECT ALSO PROVIDES LOWER INTENSITY THAN OTHERWISE ALLOWED WHILE COMMITTING TO BETTER OUTCOMES THAN OTHERWISE REQUIRED.
FINALLY, THERE IS ONE REMAINING ITEM I'D LIKE TO TOUCH ON QUICKLY.
DURING THE SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS, WE WORKED THROUGH A SOLUTION FOR SEWAGE SURFACE SEWAGE SERVICE WITH CITY STAFF.
THERE'S A LOT OF MEAT MOVING PIECES TO THIS, BUT BASICALLY THERE WERE INITIALLY MANY LOGISTICAL ISSUES RELATED TO WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE, INCLUDING POT POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO ADJACENT NEIGHBORS, BULL CREEK AND A NEARBY ROADWAY AND NUMEROUS HERITAGE TREES.
UH, TO GET TO THE UH, WASTEWATER LINE, WE WERE, WE RESOLVED THOSE ISSUES BY AGREEING WITH STAFF'S APPROVAL TO INSTITUTE A SEPTIC SYSTEM WHILE THE CITY AGREES THAT THIS IS THE SOLUTION TO THESE ISSUES.
IN THIS INSTANCE, A NUMBER OF NEIGHBORS HAVE REJECTED STAFF'S APPROVAL ON THE BASIS THAT THERE IS A SEPARATE PRIVATE AGREEMENT PROHIBITING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS.
WE DISAGREE WITH THEIR INTERPRETATION, BUT THE RELEVANT POINT FOR THIS BODY IS THAT SORTING OUT A PRIVATE DISPUTE OVER WHAT A PRIVATE AGREEMENT MEANS IS OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF WHAT A PUBLIC SITE PLAN PROCESS CONSIDERS.
SO TO REITERATE, WE MEET THE CITY'S STANDARDS FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND WE'RE COMMITTED TO BETTER OUTCOMES THAN OTHERWISE REQUIRED.
AND BOTH STAFF AND I CAN SPEAK TO THAT, UH, ANY PRIVATE DISPUTE THAT MIGHT EXIST WILL BE RESOLVED CLEARLY IN A DIFFERENT VENUE.
AND, UH, ULTIMATELY, UM, YOU KNOW, WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL, UH, SUPPORT THIS SITE PLAN WITH YOUR APPROVAL.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN FAVOR IS JEFFREY DOIN.
JEFFREY, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
HELLO, MY NAME IS, UH, JEFFREY DOIN AND I'M ONE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE NORTH TRAIL PROJECT.
UH, FIRST AND FOREMOST, HOWEVER, I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT Y'ALL DO FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVING THE NORTH TRAIL SITE PLAN.
AS IS, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PENDING VARIANCES OR WAIVERS BEFORE YOU TODAY.
JUST THE SITE PLAN, WHICH YOUR STAFF HAS ALREADY CONFIRMED, COMPLIES WITH UH, THE CODE.
BUT BEYOND JUST COMPLYING WITH THE CODE, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO SEVERAL REASONS WHY I BELIEVE THIS IS JUST FUNDAMENTALLY A GOOD PROJECT.
THIS SITE PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER LAND USES ALONG CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY.
THERE IS AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER TO THE SOUTH OF US AND EXISTING OFFICE BUILDINGS TO THE NORTH.
AND WE FELT WE FIT WELL WITHIN THIS CONTEXT.
THE BUILDING WON'T EVEN BE VISIBLE FROM THE HIGHWAY, AND NOISE AND LIGHT POLLUTION ARE MINIMIZED.
WE HAVE ALSO GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT.
WE WILL REDUCE RUNOFF FROM THE SITE RELATIVE TO EXISTING CONDITIONS DUE TO THE STORM WATER DETENTION PONDS.
THE ENGINEERED WATER QUALITY STRUCTURES AND EROSION CONTROLS, INCLUDING THE FILTRATION PONDS CODE, REQUIRES THAT 40% OF THIS LAND BE LEFT NATURAL.
OUR PLAN LEAVES OVER 56% OF THE LAND TO BE LEFT NATURAL.
THAT IS OVER 5.6 ACRES LEFT IN ITS NATURAL STATE AND WE'RE KIND OF PROUD OF THAT.
IT HAS ALSO COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT QUESTIONS MAY BE RAISED REGARDING A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT RELATED TO THE PROPERTY.
SO LET ME SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON THIS ISSUE.
WE HAVE BEEN AWARE OF A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT RELATED TO THIS PROPERTY AND ARE FULLY AWARE OF ITS REQUIREMENTS AND WE
[00:15:01]
COMPLY WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS.SOME INDIVIDUALS HAVE OFFERED A DIFFERENT AND WE BELIEVE UNFOUNDED INTERPRETATION OF THAT DOCUMENT.
BUT THE APPROPRIATE VENUE FOR DEBATING A PRIVATE AGREEMENT IS NOT THE CITY'S PUBLIC SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS.
THAT DISCUSSION IS NO BASIS IN CITY CODE OR CITY REGULATIONS.
WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO DISCUSS HOW OUR SITE PLAN COMPLIES WITH THE CODE AND THE BENEFITS OUR PROJECT OFFERS.
WE HAVE WORKED VERY, VERY HARD OVER THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF WITH OUR ENGINEER RICK THOMPSON AND THE CITY STAFF TO BRING THAT SITE PLAN FORWARD WITH STAFF SUPPORT.
WE NOW ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT AS WELL.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, UH, AS IS OUR ENGINEER.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BILLY MULLINS.
BILLY, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UH, DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT TO SAY, BUT I DID WANNA TAKE THE TIME TO COME DOWN AND VOICE MY SUPPORT PROJECT.
UH, I THINK I COULD JUST HAVE DONE THAT ONLINE, BUT I WANTED TO COME DOWN AND SEE YOU IN PERSON AND SAY, I DO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.
I THINK THEY'VE GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND EVERYTHING THEY'VE BEEN ASKED TO DO.
THEY'RE DOING MORE THAN THEY'RE ACTUALLY DOING LESS WITH THE LAND THAN THEY COULD DO WITH THE LAND.
AND THEY'VE MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CODE AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER IT AND VOTE FAVORABLY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION, MARCUS SCHAFFEL.
MARCUS WILL BE RECEIVING THREE MINUTES OF DONATED TIME FROM STEWART ROOL.
STEWART, ARE YOU PRESENT
I LIVE ON BROWNWOOD COURT IN DISTRICT 10.
THE FOLLOWING PETITION LANGUAGE THAT I'M GONNA READ TO YOU WAS SIGNED BY 66 AUSTIN DISTRICT 10 CITIZENS.
I'M A MEMBER OF LAKEWOOD CLUB, A 5 0 1 C SEVEN ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND CARETAKING OF A PARCEL OF UNDEVELOPED LAND ALONG BULL CREEK, JUST SOUTH OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S BULL CREEK PARK.
BULL CREEK MARKET LLC OWNS THE LAND AT 66 0 1 NORTH CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY.
THE OWNER IS PURSUING APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN HAS BEEN MENTIONED HERE TONIGHT.
THE SITE PLAN INCLUDES AN ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEM.
THE LAKEWOOD CLUB IS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE PARCEL OF LAND.
AND THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IS ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY.
THE RC WAS SIGNED ON MARCH 9TH, 2000, AND DOES INCLUDE A PROHIBITION FOR UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS.
THE CITY IS NOT A PARTY TO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
WE DIDN'T KNOW HOW HELPFUL THAT WOULD'VE BEEN WHEN WE NEGOTIATED THE RC WITH THE CHAMPION SISTERS ATTORNEY MICHAEL WHALEN.
MICHAEL WHALEN REPRESENTED THE CHAMPION SISTERS IN 2000 AND HE ALSO REPRESENTS BULL CREEK MARKET LLC AND JEFFREY DOIN TODAY.
THE SITE PLAN INCLUDES SIGNIFICANT CUT AND FILL THAT'S GRADING ON THE PROPERTY AND THE PLAN IS FOR A THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH TWO LEVELS OF PARKING BENEATH THE OFFICE SPACE.
THE ONSITE SEPTIC SYSTEM OR OSSF INCLUDES MULTIPLE SEPTIC TANKS AND THREE LEACH FIELDS.
THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT IS ON A BLUFF TONIGHT.
MR. WAYLON AND JEFFREY DOIN TALKED ABOUT THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE DEVELOPMENT FROM THE 360 ROADWAY.
HOWEVER, THE ENTIRE BACK OF THE DEVELOPMENT HAS A TOPOGRAPHY THAT LEADS DIRECTLY INTO BULL CREEK PARK AND IS SLOPING DOWN IN THAT DIRECTION.
SO MENTIONS OF 28 FEET HEIGHT ARE TRUE FROM 360, BUT NOT FROM THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS EVIDENT TO THE NEIGHBORS, THE PARK AND DOES AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT IS ON THIS BLUFF AND THE BLUFF IS 75 FEET ABOVE BULL CREEK.
THE BLUFF IS LIMESTONE AND THERE ARE NO RULES THAT WE HAVE THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO FIND THAT WOULD RESTRICT A SEPTIC SYSTEM LIKE THIS ONE BEING PLACED ABOVE A WATERWAY.
MASSIVE RAIN EVENTS ARE BECOMING MORE FREQUENT.
LIMESTONE IS POROUS AND BRITTLE, CUTTING INTO IT AND GRADING IT AND CLEARING THE LAND AS THE SITE PLAN PROPOSES WILL NATURALLY INCREASE THE AMOUNT, FORCE AND INTENSITY OF RAIN THAT SEEPS INTO THIS LIMESTONE AS IT ALSO POURS OVER THE EDGE OF THE BLUFF.
A LEACH FIELD IN THIS AREA MAY MEAN THAT THE EFFLUENT WILL BE PART OF WHAT SEEPS AND FLOWS INTO OUR BULL CREEK.
THIS PORTION OF BULL CREEK SUPPORTS HAWKS, HERON TURTLES AND FISH CHILDREN PLAYING THE NATURAL WATERFALL ON THE PARK.
THE CREEK FLOWS DOWN PAST THE COUNTY LINE RESTAURANT AND INTO OUR COLORADO RIVER.
IT'S FOR THIS CONCERN THAT THE PROHIBITION OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS WAS INCLUDED IN THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, A COVENANT TO WHICH THE DEVELOPER AGREED.
THE SITE PLAN VIOLATES THE COVENANT AND AN OPTION FOR US IS TO FILE SUIT FOR BREACH OF
[00:20:01]
THAT COVENANT.THE LAKEWOOD CLUB'S A SMALL ORGANIZATION WITH AN ANNUAL BUDGET OF $6,000.
THESE FUNDS ARE CONSUMED BY MOWING, CLEANING, AND ARBOR SERVICES EACH YEAR.
AS SUCH, WE ARE NOT IN THE BEST POSITION TO FILE SUCH A SUIT.
WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD USE THE COURTS TO OUTSPEND OUR MODESTLY FUNDED GROUP RATHER THAN WORK WITH US.
WE ASK THAT YOU NOT APPROVE THIS PLAN AND GRANT A POSTPONEMENT AS WE EXPLORE THE COMPLEX PLANS AND PERHAPS HAVE OTHER SOLUTIONS THAT WE CAN FIND TOGETHER WITH THE DEVELOPER THAT ARE NO CODE RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD BLOCK SUCH A BUILDING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A WATERWAY.
BUT THERE SHOULD BE SHOULDN'T THERE.
AS AUSTIN CONTINUES TO GROW, CODE SHOULD BE REVISITED AND UPDATED TO GUARANTEE PROTECTION OF OUR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
THE DEVELOPER MAY HAVE SATISFIED EXISTING CITY CODE AND IF THE SITE PLAN'S APPROVED IT'S TACIT APPROVAL FOR THEM TO IGNORE THE RC AND BUILD SOMETHING THAT HAS A HIGH POTENTIAL TO IRREVERSIBLY AND PERMANENTLY DAMAGE BULL CREEK AND BEYOND.
WE ASK THAT YOU POSTPONE YOUR DECISION ON THIS PLAN TONIGHT.
66 RESIDENTS OF LAKEWOOD CLUB AND DISTRICT 10.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE MINE AND MINE PRIVATELY.
JUST TODAY THE DEVELOPER'S ATTORNEY CALLED ME TO DISCUSS MY CONCERNS.
I DID SHARE THAT WE BELIEVE THE SITE PLANS WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND THE CONCERNS THAT I'VE MENTIONED IN THE LETTER AND PETITION.
I JUST READ Y'ALL THE CALL TODAY WAS TIME LATE AND IT FAILED TO INCLUDE ANY SOLUTIONS TO THE CONCERNS WE HAVE ABOUT THE WATER.
I MET WITH THE DEVELOPER JEFFREY DOIN WHO SPOKE EARLIER IN APRIL.
HE CLOSED THAT LINE OF COMMUNICATION DOWN AFTER I REQUESTED HE SHARE A COPY OF THE SITE PLANS.
I'M OPEN TO FURTHER DISCUSSION AND SOLUTION SEEKING.
HOWEVER, ANY AGREEMENTS MUST BE REACHED BEFORE OUR GROUP SUPPORTS THE APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN.
THOSE AGREEMENTS MUST CONSIDER THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND MUST CONSIDER AND PROTECT BULL CREEK.
THE SITE PLANS IN THEIR CURRENT FORM DO NEITHER.
IN MEETINGS WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE COMPLIANCE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEWERS, WE LEARNED THAT OUR CONCERNS ABOUT WASTEWATER, EFFLUENT AND RAINFALL RUNOFF WERE VALID.
HOWEVER, GAPS EXIST IN OUR CITY CODES FOR A SITUATION LIKE THIS.
AS SUCH, THE CITY REVIEWERS HANDS WERE TIED AND YOU'VE HEARD THAT STATED MULTIPLE TIMES THAT IT'S BEEN APPROVED.
AGAIN, PLEASE EITHER DENY THIS SITE PLAN BASED ON ITS KNOWN VIOLATION OF THE RC OR THE THREATS TO BULL CREEK OR POSTPONE THIS ITEM SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT WITH THE DEVELOPER AND FIND A PATH FORWARD.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION THIS EVENING.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ALEJANDRO RETA.
ALEJANDRO, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS NISH KUMAR NISH.
MEMBERS OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE LIVE AT 55 0 2 LAKE MOORE DRIVE.
I'M PRESENT HERE AS A MEMBER OF THE LAKEWOOD CLUB, REPRESENTING ONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS ALONG THE BULL CREEK AND A NEIGHBORHOOD LIKELY TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
I'M ALSO ON THE BOARD OF NORTHWEST AUSTIN CIVIC ASSOCIATION, ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP WHOSE AREA OF INTEREST INCLUDES THIS DEVELOPMENT.
I HAVE A PHD IN GEOLOGY FROM COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN NEW YORK AND AN MBA FROM UT DALLAS.
I HAVE BEEN A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGIST IN THE STATE OF TEXAS AND HAVE TAUGHT GEOLOGY AT UT ARLINGTON AS ANYBODY WHO DRIVES ALONG 360 NOTICES.
THE SOIL COVER ALONG THE SCARFS ON EITHER SIDE IS VERY, VERY SHALLOW OVER TIME.
THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF THIS PROJECT HAVE BEEN CONNECTED TO CENTRALIZED SEWER SYSTEMS BECAUSE OF THEIR CONVENIENCE AND EASE OF MANAGEMENT.
THIS PROJECT WILL TAKE PLACE ON A LIMESTONE.
THAT'S FINE-GRAINED WITH THIN SANDY AND SILTY LAYERS.
SUCH LITHOLOGY IS PRONE TO DIFFERENT RATES OF EROSION BETWEEN HARD AND SOFT LAYERS.
INFILTRATION OF UNDERGROUND WATERS IS SUBJECT TO FLOWAGE ALONG IMPERVIOUS LAYERS THAT ARE LIABLE TO LEAK AT HIGHER LEVELS ALONG THE BLUFF AT BULL CREEK, ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED PROPOSAL MENTIONS
[00:25:01]
A SETBACK WITH MORE THAN 60 OR EVEN MORE FEET OF HYDRAULIC HEAD FROM THE TOP TO THE BOTTOM NEAR BULL CREEK, ANY AMOUNT OF SETBACK MAY NOT BE ENOUGH TO PREVENT LEACHING AND LEAKING ALONG THE BLUFF.EXPENDABLE CLAYS IN THE ROCKS MAY FURTHER IMPEDE SEA EDGE INTO THE GROUND.
THE PROPOSED SEPTIC FIELDS ARE LOCATED ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY FAIRLY CLOSE TO ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS WHO HAS ACCESS FROM LAKEWOOD DRIVE.
THIS PROPOSAL MENTIONS VARIOUS REASONS WHY THIS PROJECT CANNOT BE CONNECTED TO THE NEAREST WASTEWATER MAIN DOWN ALONG THE BULL CREEK.
THESE REASONS MAY BE VALID, BUT THIS JUST MIGHT MEAN THAT THE CONNECTION TO WASTEWATER MEANS MIGHT HAVE TO BE MADE IN ANOTHER LOCATION TO AVOID THE LONG-TERM IMPACT OF SEPTIC TANK LEAKAGE AND RISK TO THE BULL CREEK HABITAT AND THE LAKEWOOD VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IN LIGHT OF THE POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD MENTIONED ABOVE, AND IN LIGHT OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AGREED TO BY THE PREVIOUS OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY, WE REQUEST THAT THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL BE AT LEAST POSTPONED AND THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE PURSUED AT A MINIMUM BEFORE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO THIS PLAN.
ADDITIONAL STUDY TO INVESTIGATE CONNECTING THIS FACILITY TO CENTRAL SEWAGE SYSTEM AT THIS TIME AS ALL HONOR STATES SEA, WHICH FACILITIES HAVE A LIMITED TIME.
IF THE OSSF IS THE ONLY OPTION, OTHER TECHNIQUES AVAILABLE IN OSS FS SUCH AS UV OR SYSTEMS THAT MINIMIZE OR ELIMINATE LEACH FIELDS, YOU CAN WRAP UP.
THAT WAS YOUR THREE MINUTE BUZZ THING WRAP UP.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MATTHEW ROBINSON.
MATTHEW, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I ACTUALLY LIVE IN THE HOUSE THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE ONLY HOUSE THAT'S ADJACENT.
IT WAS ON THE MAP AND HE CIRCLED, UH, THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY FIRST APPROACHED ME IN 2020 BEFORE THEY HAD BOUGHT THE PROPERTY TO DISCUSS A POTENTIAL WASTEWATER EASEMENT, UH, SEWER EASEMENT DOWN MY DRIVEWAY, WHICH WE DID COME TO AN AGREEMENT AND THEY AT LEAST AT SOME POINT ABANDONED THAT, UH, PROCESS.
THEY SAY 'CAUSE OF HERITAGE TREES.
BUT THERE ARE PLENTY OF CLEAR PATHS THROUGH THERE THAT ARE VERY APPARENT IF YOU WALK ONE TIME THROUGH THERE.
UH, AND THEY ALSO HAVE OTHER OPTIONS AND HE MENTIONED THIS ADJACENT PROPERTY OF BULL CREEK MARKET WHERE WATERLOO ICE HOUSE IS.
AND THAT PROPERTY IS CONNECTED TO CITY SEWER, I'M PRETTY SURE.
AND THERE IS ACTUALLY A DIRT ROAD THAT CONNECTS WHERE THEY'RE SHOWING THE OFFICE BUILDING ON THE MAP TO WATERLOO ICE HOUSE.
SO THERE REALLY SHOULD BE NO REASON THEY COULDN'T GO THAT WAY DOWN MY DRIVEWAY OR TO THE ADJACENT OFFICE BUILDING THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR PROBABLY 20 YEARS AND HAS A CONNECTION ONTO LAKEWOOD DRIVE.
UH, IT'S A SMALLER PIPE, BUT YOU CAN ACTUALLY STILL CONNECT.
THERE'S NO OTHER REASON THAT THEY COULDN'T DO A SIGNIFICANT OR A LEGITIMATE SOLUTION BESIDES SOMETHING THAT DIRECTLY VIOLATES THE RESTRICTED COVENANT THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PUT ON THE PROPERTY 20 YEARS AGO.
DONE BY THE SAME ATTORNEY THAT'S SITTING BACK HERE AND PRESENTED TODAY AND IS NOW SAYING HE DOESN'T WANT TO HONOR WHAT HE SIGNED OR PUT TOGETHER 20 YEARS AGO, WHICH IS KIND OF STRANGE TO ME.
AND MY OTHER CONCERNS ARE, AND PEOPLE PROBABLY NEVER SEEN THIS, BUT ONE BULL CREEK I THINK IS ONE OF THE PRETTIEST CREEKS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN ON THIS PROPERTY.
THERE'S ABOUT A 40 FOOT LIMESTONE OVERHANG THAT'S ABOUT 150 YARDS LONG.
AND THEY'RE GOING TO DIG DOWN, WHAT WAS THAT, TWO OR THREE STORIES RIGHT NEXT TO THAT 40 FOOT LIMESTONE OVERHANG.
AND WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL PROBABLY HAPPEN WHEN THAT DOES? JUST LIKE WHEN THEY BLASTED 360, IT COLLAPSED EVERYBODY'S WELLS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHAT'LL HAPPEN NOW, MOST LIKELY IS THAT LIMESTONE OVERHANG WILL COLLAPSE AND FALL INTO BULL CREEK, PROBABLY BLOCKING A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF IT.
AND THIS HAS BEEN A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S IN THE CREEK THAT'S BEEN PROTECTED FOR A WHILE.
I OWN FOUR AND A HALF ACRES RIGHT THERE THAT GOES DOWN THE CREEK.
AND I SPENT THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF OWNING THE HOUSE, CLEANING THE CREEK, GETTING RID OF INVASIVE SPECIES.
AND I'M JUST AFRAID THIS IS GONNA HAVE A REALLY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THAT.
AND ON TOP OF THAT, THEY SAID THAT THEIR BUILDING IS 300 AND FEET FROM MY PROPERTY LINE OR 300 AND SOMETHING.
I BELIEVE IT'S REALLY THEIR BUILDING MIGHT BE.
BUT THEIR HUGE WATER RETENTION FACILITY IS ABOUT 75 FEET FROM MY HOUSE, FROM MY FENCE AT LEAST.
AND WHAT HAPPENS IF THAT RUPTURES TO MY HOUSE? 'CAUSE IT'S STRICTLY, I MEAN, VERY DOWNHILL DOWN A STEEP SLOPE.
AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, I HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS AS THE NEIGHBORS OF THE, THE SEPTIC IMPACT ON THE, ON THE, ON THE CREEK ITSELF, AS WELL AS POTENTIALLY MY HOUSE AND MY YARD.
IF THERE'S LEAKS, IT'LL ROLL WHICH DIRECTION DOWNHILL.
THAT'S DIRECTLY WHERE MY HOUSE IS.
[00:30:01]
HAS BEEN THERE.THEY, I BOUGHT MY HOUSE FOR THE SAME PERSON THEY BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY FROM.
UH, THAT PERSON IS THE ONE THAT PLACED THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ON THE PROPERTY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ROBIN ABBOTT.
ROBIN, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
R YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UH, OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS LUIS OLT.
LUIS, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
CAN WE, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, IS THAT CORRECT? THREE PLUS THREE.
LOUISE, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES FOR HIS TIME.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT.
AS UH, YOU KNOW, MY NAME IS LOUISE GALLUP OLT AND I LIVE ON LAURELWOOD DRIVE IN DISTRICT 10.
I'M ONE OF THE APPROXIMATELY 70 PEOPLE THAT SIGNED THE PETITION TO WHICH MARCUS REFERRED.
I'M ALSO ON THE LAKEWOOD CLUB BOARD.
THAT BOARD WAS, IS A NONPROFIT FORMED TO CARE FOR THREE ACRES THAT RUN ALONG LAKEWOOD DRIVE THAT WAS DEEDED TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN 1969 WITH THAT CONDITION THAT WE, UH, SET UP A NONPROFIT TO MAINTAIN AND CARE FOR THE PARK IN THAT LAND.
I DIDN'T LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BACK IN 2000 WHEN MEMBERS OF THE LAKEWOOD CLUB ATTENDED A MEETING MUCH LIKE THIS ONE.
AND THE DEVELOPERS BACK THEN WERE FOCUSED ON THE SOUTH END OF THAT PROPERTY.
AND THE LAKEWOOD CLUB MEMBERS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE TYPES OF BUSINESSES THAT WOULD BE DEVELOPED AND WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT SUCH BUSINESSES HAD THE LEAST IMPACT ON THE CREEK AND ON THE PROPERTY THAT RUNS ALONG THE CREEK.
AND THE RESULT THAT NIGHT CREATED THAT NIGHT WAS THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TO WHICH THE DEVELOPERS AGREED.
AND THAT IS IN, IN FORCE, NOT JUST FOR THAT WATERLOO PROPERTY, THE SOUTH END OF THIS PROPERTY, BUT EXTENDS TO THIS ENTIRE TRACT OF PROPERTY OF WHICH THIS NORTH END IS PART.
SO THERE TODAY, THEIR PLANS, UH, IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, UH, THAT IS MATTHEW ROBINSON'S PROPERTY RIGHT THERE TO WHICH, AND THAT'S HIS HOME THAT'S SHOWN THERE.
SO YOU CAN SEE JUST BEYOND THAT SIGHT LINE THAT BLUFF YOU SEE IN THE VERY BACK, THAT'S THE OTHER SIDE OF 360.
AND SO NOW LET'S SEE IF I CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THE NEXT SCREEN UP HERE.
SO IN THIS SLIDE THEN I WENT INTO THE MIDDLE OF BULL CREEK TODAY AND TOOK THIS PICTURE.
THAT ARROW SHOWS YOU WHERE MATTHEW, APPROXIMATELY, WHERE MATTHEW ROBINSON'S HOUSE IS THAT HE JUST REFERRED TO.
YOU CAN SEE THIS SHOWS BETTER.
THOSE DRAWINGS DO SHOW THE TOPOGRAPHY THERE AND THE HEIGHT.
BUT THIS ACTUALLY SHOWS YOU PHYSICALLY WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
AND IT ALSO ILLUSTRATES MARXIST'S POINT OF HOW THE BUILDING ON THE OTHER SIDE, 'CAUSE IT SLANTS LIKE THIS, IT'S NOT GONNA LOOK THAT TALL FROM 360, BUT FROM THIS SIDE AND EVERYTHING SLOPING BACK, YOU CAN SEE HOW TALL IT ACTUALLY IS GOING TO LOOK.
SO TODAY, THE DEVELOPER'S PLANS, UH, WHEN THEY DID SPEAK WITH MATTHEW, THEY DID MENTION THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
AND THEY MENTIONED AT THAT TIME THAT THEY INTENDED TO COMPLY WITH IT.
THEY ARE COMPLYING WITH PARTS OF IT.
THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT COMPLYING WITH ALL OF IT BECAUSE IT DOES STATE NO STORAGE TANKS AND A SEPTIC TANK IS A STORAGE TANK AND I THINK
AND SO THEY DO HAVE OTHER OPTIONS TO US.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THEY COULD TIE INTO THE WAYS THAT MATTHEW DESCRIBED.
UM, AND INSTEAD THEY WANNA VIOLATE THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND PUT IN THAT SEPTIC TANK AND A LEACH FIELD.
AND THE PICTURES SHOW THE PROPERTY UNDERNEATH THERE THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY WHAT, UH, WHAT NSH DESCRIBED AND THE RISKS OF THAT.
AND SO THOSE SAME LIMESTONE BLUFFS ARE THE ONES THAT INSPIRED THE, THE ARCHITECT OF THIS BUILDING.
THE, UH, WHAT HIS NAME WAS, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BRUCE MCCRACKEN SAID BACK IN JANUARY OF 2007.
THE BUILDING WE ARE IN IS DESIGNED FROM BULL CREEK PARK.
THIS IS NO MERE PLACE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
THIS BUILDING IS DESIGNED FROM ANTOINE PREOC SKETCHES OF BULL CREEK PARK, THESE LIMESTONE WALLS.
THE LAST THING WE WANT TO SEE UP THERE, AND PART OF OUR CONCERN ABOUT THE STORAGE TANKS WAS A LEACH FIELD UP THERE, POTENTIALLY A SEPTIC TANK THAT MIGHT FAIL BECAUSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REASONS OR ANY OF THAT DRILLING.
BULL CREEK COMING DOWN IN THERE AND EFFLUENT COMING DOWN THE SIDE OF THAT BLUFF INTO BULL CREEK FLOWING DOWN, GOING PAST THE COUNTY LINE AND INTO THE COLORADO RIVER.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO DEBATE THIS AND SAY, YOU KNOW, LET'S, LET'S SHUT IT DOWN.
THAT'S OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THESE CHAMBERS FOR SURE.
[00:35:01]
IN 2000, THEY DID AGREE TO THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, AND NOW WE NEED TIME TO INVESTIGATE ALL THE OTHER ISSUES OR WHATEVER SOLUTIONS SO THAT THERE CAN BE A MORE NEIGHBORLY AND A MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE AND, UH, ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM THAT WE SEE.THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOT AGREEING TO, THAT THEY'RE NOT ADHERING TO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
AND WE WOULD LIKE THE TIME, THAT'S WHY WE ASK FOR A POSTPONEMENT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY HAVE SATISFIED ALL THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS, BUT WE NEED TIME TO DISCUSS WITH THEM AND TRY TO COME UP WITH A BETTER SOLUTION THAT PRESERVES BULL CREEK NOW AND FOR THE FUTURE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, CHAIR.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
THANK YOU, UH, COMMISSIONERS MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, I THINK I'LL START WHERE WE ENDED.
UM, I, I THINK YOU'VE HEARD, UH, FROM EVERYBODY THAT WE, WE DO SATISFY ALL THE CODE REQUIREMENTS.
THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS NOTORIOUS IN A GOOD WAY FOR HAVING SOME OF THE STRICTEST ENVIRONMENTAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, UM, IN TEXAS, MAYBE IN THE NATION, UH, CERTAINLY IN THE TOP, UH, 25% OF THE NATION.
AND I THINK AS A RESULT, THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF CONFIDENCE AND OUR PLAN, AND FROM THE FEEDBACK WE'VE GOTTEN FROM CITY STAFF, WHICH IS, UH, REQUIRED US TO ADJUST AND ADJUST, YOU SAW GREATER DETENTION, YOU SAW LESS IMPERVIOUS COVER.
THE BUILDING IS LOCATED NEAR THE CORNER OF THE, OF THE, UH, OF THE, UH, BUILDING UP NEAR 360.
WE'VE HAD LOTS OF COMMUNICATION WITH TDOT.
THERE'S GONNA BE A TDOT, UH, BIKE PATH THAT GOES THROUGH HERE.
THEY'RE PLANNING A MULTI-USE PATH.
SO WE HAVE 50 BICYCLE PARKING, UH, SPOTS, UH, ON THE PROPERTY AS A RESULT OF ACCOMMODATING THE, UH, MULTI-USE TRAIL.
WE'VE ALREADY TALKED TO 'EM ABOUT A DRIVEWAY, DESAL LANE, ET CETERA.
SO THIS HAS BEEN, UH, A YEAR AND A HALF IN THE MAKING MORE THAN A YEAR AND A HALF IN THE MAKING WITH LOTS OF OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, UM, HAVE DISCUSSIONS AND, UH, FIGURE OUT, UH, OTHER ALTERNATIVES.
THEY HAVE BEEN EXPLORED WITH CITY STAFF, WHICH IS WHY, UH, OTHER OPTIONS, UM, UH, WERE REJECTED.
AND THE PIVOT WAS TO THE SYSTEM, THE OSS SYSTEM, SYSTEM THAT EXISTS NOW WITH ALL THE PROTECTIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE.
SO, UH, HAPPY TO GO OVER OR ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS, BUT, UH, I THINK VITALLY IMPORTANT IS THAT WE MEET ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS.
NOBODY'S POINTED OUT ANY CODE THAT WE'RE VIOLATING.
WE ABSOLUTELY ARE NOT VIOLATING ANY CODE WE WOULDN'T POSSIBLY BE IN FRONT OF YOU IF WE WERE SUGGESTING OR WERE DOING SO.
UH, MR. WAYLON, IF, IF YOU DON'T MIND, SIR, UM, YOUR INITIAL PRESENTATION, YOU CITED CITY CODE, UM, 25 DASH FIVE DASH 1 47 DASH 1 47.
ANY QUESTIONS? YES, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, I SEE ONE OF THE MAJOR CONCERNS IS THAT REGARDING THE LEACH FIELD, UH, WHAT IS BEING DONE TO MITIGATE THAT EFFLUENT GOING INTO THE CREEK AND AFFECTING THE NEIGHBORS, PARTICULARLY, UH, THE HOME RIGHT ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY? YEAH, I'M, UH, I'M GONNA HAVE TO TURN THIS BRICK HERE.
WHERE'S, UH, YEAH, I'M GONNA HAVE TO TURN, LET OUR, UH, UH, OUR ENGINEER, IF YOU DON'T MIND RESPOND.
UH, UH, ALLOW ME TO ADD ONTO YOUR QUESTION.
I'D LOVE TO HEAR ALSO THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE, UH, SEPTIC TANK ITSELF AND ANY, UM, ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THAT DESIGN.
JUST THE DESIGN WHERE, WHERE IT'S AT.
I'M WITH THOMPSON LAND ENGINEERING.
UM, I, I DIDN'T DESIGN THE SEPTIC SYSTEM.
UH, A SEPTIC GUY DID THAT, SO I DON'T KNOW ALL THE TECHNOLOGY, BUT IT IS A DRIP SYSTEM, UM, WHICH THEY'RE ALL OVER THE WHOLE COUNTRY, ALL OVER WESTLAKE AND BOWLING.
UM, IT, UH, I I'M NOT USED TO HEARING OF ANY FAIL ACTUALLY.
I LIVE ON A HOUSE WITH SEPTIC.
UM, MY OFFICE ACTUALLY IS EVEN ON A SEPTIC.
UM, BEEN DOING IT FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS, 30 YEARS AND NO PROBLEMS. UM, THAT, THAT'S, YEAH.
THAT SAID, THE FIELD IS DOWN DOWNHILL OF THE BUILDING.
UM, AND IF, IF ANYTHING WERE TO HAPPEN, GOD FORBID, UH, IT WOULD ACTUALLY FLOW INTO THE WATER QUALITY POND.
AND SO IT'D BE TREATED IN THE WATER QUALITY POND.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT TREATMENT? IT'S BIOFILTRATION.
UM, THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE THAT, UH, WASN'T REALLY REQUIRED, BUT WE WENT, DID THE, SINCE AUSTIN NOW REQUIRES
[00:40:01]
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, WE WENT WITH THE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUT IN BIOFILTRATION.IS THIS SITE OVER THE, UH, AQUIFER? UH, NO.
UM, IN THE CASE OF EXTREME FLOODING WHERE, YOU KNOW, WORST CASE SCENARIO, THAT EXTRA, YOU KNOW, STORM WATER RUNOFF POND GET OVERFLOWS, WHAT'S THEN TO STOP THE EFFLUENT FROM GOING WITH IT? THAT, THAT WOULD BE, YOU WERE DESCRIBING AN EVENT WHERE THE SEPTIC FAILS, WHICH IS DEFINITELY NOT EXPECTED.
UM, BUT THEN AT THE SAME TIME YOU HAVE AN EXTREME STORM EVENT, THAT WOULD BE STATISTICALLY SUPER UNLIKELY.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT A 500 YEAR FLOOD OR A THOUSAND YEAR FLOOD? UH, NO PARTICULAR NUMBER.
BUT A SCENARIO WHERE THAT OVERFLOW, YOU'RE USING ATLA OVERFLOW.
WHAT IS THEN TO STOP THE EFFLUENT FROM, SO WE'RE USING ATLAS 14, WE'RE USING THE LATEST RAINFALL DATA TO COMPLY AND WE'VE INCREASED THE SIZE BY 10%.
THE STORMWATER DETENTION IS A EXTRA MEASURE OF PROTECTION.
SO IS IT RATED FOR, LET'S SAY A 500 YEAR FLOOD OR A THOUSAND YEAR FLOOD? LET, LET ME ASK A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WAY.
D WHAT IS THE DRAINAGE AREA COMING DOWN ABOVE THE, THE SITE? HOW MUCH DRAINAGE AREA DRAINS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? PLANT WITH ME.
I WANT TO SAY IT'S LIKE, UH, THREE ACRES.
IT'S A FAIRLY SMALL DRAINAGE AREA RIGHT ABOVE THE SITE BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU HAVE THE BLUFF AT 360, SO THERE'S NOT A LOT OF DRAINAGE AREA ABOVE THE SITE.
SO IF WE DO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT RAINFALL, THERE'S NOT GONNA BE A MASSIVE FLOOD COMING DOWN BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH DRAINAGE AREA.
YEAH, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING NOW, COMMISSIONER F IT ISN'T LIKE WE HAVE 200 ACRES ON THIS UPHILL AREA ABOVE US.
IT'S A VERY SMALL AREA THAT'S DRAINING DOWNHILL.
SORRY, COULD I, COULD I ADD SOMETHING? UM, MAYBE HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY, WHY A SEPTIC SYSTEM AND NOT CONNECTING TO SEWAGE DIRECTLY? THE PROBLEM WE WERE HAVING WAS, UH, GOING DOWN THE EASIEST WAY OR THE MOST, UM, REASONABLE WAY WAS TO GO ACROSS, UH, MR. ROBINSON'S PROPERTY, BUT, AND, AND GO DOWN THE DRIVEWAY, LIKE YOU SAID.
UM, THE PROBLEM IS THERE ARE, THERE ARE SEVERAL HUGE TREES, YOU KNOW, AND WE HAVE TO STAY OUTTA THE ROOT ZONES OF THOSE.
AND WE WERE, UH, WE ACTUALLY TURNED IN A PLANE FOR IT, BUT WE WERE GETTING PUSHED BACK ON THAT, AS YOU MIGHT EXPECT.
UM, WE'RE ALSO GOING THROUGH A SHED OF HIS, I DON'T THINK HE WANTED TO MOVE THE SHED.
UM, AND WE MAY BREAK UP HIS DRIVEWAY, BUT THEN YOU GO DOWN AND WE'RE PUTTING IT, IF WE TIED IN, WE'D BE TYING IN, IN THE FLOOD PLAIN DEEP IN THE FLOOD PLAIN AT BULL CREEK AND DEEP IN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.
SO ACTUALLY THIS KEEPS US OUT OF ALL THAT KEEPS US OUTTA THE HERITAGE TREES, KEEPS US OUTTA THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE, KEEPS US OUTTA THE FLOODPLAIN.
AND, AND I'LL JUST ADD ON, UH, HE MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A ROAD, UM, ALONG THE TOP OF THE BLUFF.
WHY CAN WE TAKE THAT AND GO AROUND THE OTHER WAY? THAT 75 FOOT SETBACK ACTUALLY HOOKS UP AND GOES ACTUALLY INTO THE TEXT OUT RIGHT AWAY.
THAT ROAD, UH, THAT CALICHE ROAD IS ACTUALLY IN THE TEXT OUT RIGHT AWAY, ALONG THE TOP.
AND THERE'S ACTUALLY A, A BIG WATER MAIN, A 24 INCH, I THINK IT IS WA UH, AUSTIN WATER MAIN DOWN IN THERE TOO.
SO TRYING TO PUT WASTEWATER IN TEXT OUT RIGHT AWAY OVER THE TOP OF WATER MAIN, UH, WE CAN'T, COULDN'T MAKE IT WORK.
BETH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE LAST SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION.
SORRY, I DON'T REMEMBER YOUR NAME.
YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A POSTPONEMENT REQUEST.
IT'S JUST MY US ASKING THAT THE DECISION TONIGHT BE POSTPONED.
WHO DID YOU ASK? WE DID NOT RECEIVE A POSTPONEMENT REQUEST.
NO, THAT'S THEN IF I MAY HAVE USED THE WRONG WORDING, I DIDN'T SUBMIT A POSTPONEMENT REQUEST.
I JUST OFFERED THAT AS A SOLUTION TONIGHT OR AS A WAY TO, TO STAY THIS HEARING UNTIL WE, SO WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO INVESTIGATE ALL THE SOLUTIONS, UH, WITH I SEE THE DEVELOPERS, WE JUST LEARNED TONIGHT THAT YOU COULD DO THAT IN WRITING AND THAT YOU ASK US TO DO IT BY MONDAY.
BUT AGAIN, WE'RE, WE'RE LEARNING AS FAST AS WE CAN WITH OUR DAY JOBS AND TRYING TO YEAH.
SO, UM, WE DIDN'T GRANT A POSTPONEMENT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T RECEIVE A POSTPONEMENT REQUEST.
WE PRETTY MUCH ALWAYS GRANT POSTPONEMENT REQUESTS AT LEAST THE FIRST TIME.
AND I THINK A POSTPONEMENT IS REASONABLE IN THIS CASE.
WE WOULD ASK FOR, BECAUSE THERE ARE THINGS THAT COULD BE WORKED OUT.
I MEAN, IT, IT'S TO ME BOTHERSOME THAT THIS IS VIOLATING EVEN A PRIVATE DISTRICT
[00:45:01]
COVENANT THAT WE HAVE.THIS, THESE DETAILS PERHAPS COULD BE WORKED OUT AND, UM, I WOULD FAVOR A POSTPONEMENT.
LET ME, LET ME DO A COUPLE OF THINGS JUST PROCEDURALLY, UM, THANK YOU.
LET ME GET A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I'D STILL LIKE TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION NOW.
WE WE CAN CONTINUE DISCUSSION.
I JUST WANNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, SO I GET A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ARE WE ALLOWED TO STILL ASK QUESTIONS? YES.
UH, I'LL MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO I HEAR A SECOND? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THAT'S JUST A PROCEDURAL, NOT THAT WE CAN'T CONTINUE DISCUSSING AND ASK QUESTIONS, BUT PROCEDURALLY IN THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
OTHER QUESTIONS WE HAVE? GO AHEAD.
YOU WANNA MAKE A MOTION OR DO WE WANT TO CONTINUE DISCUSSING? YEAH, I CAN GO NEXT.
WE HAVE SOME MORE COMMENTS, SO I JUST, I THINK WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS.
I WONDER, UM, WHO IS ANYONE HERE FROM AUSTIN WATER TODAY? DO WE HAVE ACCESS TO ANY STAFF FROM AUSTIN WATER? UNFORTUNATELY, I'M THE ONLY ONE HERE TODAY FROM THE CITY.
UM, IF IT IS POSTPONED, WE CAN ASK SOMEONE FROM AUSTIN WATER TO BE, I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER GOOD REASON TO POSTPONE BECAUSE I, THESE CONVERSATION, YOU KNOW, I JUST DOING THE RESEARCH AND, AND I, I KNOW THIS IS A, A STRANGE, UM, PROCESS FOR THIS COMMISSION.
THE HILL COUNTRY ORDINANCE IS A LITTLE UNUSUAL.
UM, WE DIDN'T GET THE FULL SITE PLAN IN OUR BACKUP.
UM, SO THERE'S NO INFORMATION AT ALL AROUND THIS ISSUE FOR US TO LOOK AT.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST IN DOING SOME HOMEWORK, I NOTICED THERE IS A PIPELINE RENEWAL PROJECT IN BULL CREEK.
AND I'M JUST CURIOUS TO, TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE WASTEWATER OPTIONS.
AND I JUST WILL ALSO REMARK THAT, UH, SEPTIC TANK LEAKAGE IS A PRIMARY THREAT TO WATER QUALITY IN HILL COUNTRY.
NOT, NOT THAT THIS ONE WILL LEAK, BUT IT'S A LEGITIMATE CONCERN.
AND, UM, AND ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS.
SO I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS BACK AND FORTH WAS AROUND THIS ISSUE IF POSSIBLE.
UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY, I WOULD LIKE TO DO TWO THINGS.
UH, FIRST I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UM, I THINK LOUISA, I, I THINK WAS YOUR NAME, MA'AM.
UM, SO IT, IT APPEARS AT LEAST TWO OF MY, MY COLLEAGUES HERE SUPPORT POSTPONING.
UM, MY, MY QUESTION WOULD BE, UH, IF A POSTPONEMENT IS GRANTED, ARE, ARE YOU GUYS GOING TO EXPEND RESOURCES TO INVESTIGATE THIS FURTHER? ARE YOU GONNA HIRE GEOLOGISTS? ARE YOU GONNA GET AN OPINION LETTER FROM AN ATTORNEY TO ADVISE YOU GUYS ON, ON CONTRACT INTERPRETATION WITH THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT? LIKE, HOW WOULD YOU USE THAT TIME? LET, LET ME, LET ME, SORRY.
WE CANNOT POSTPONE BASED ON A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
SO I DON'T WANNA HAVE DISCUSSION LEADING, LEADING UP, UP TO A POSTPONE AGREE.
SO DON'T, I DON'T, YEAH, I JUST WANNA, I'M GONNA KIND OF CUT OFF ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT NEGOTIATION ON THAT AS IT RELATES TO A POSTPONEMENT, BECAUSE WE, I I COULD NOT, I DON'T WANNA BE THOUGHT THAT WE'RE POSTPONING IT BECAUSE OF THE PROPER 'CAUSE.
SO AGAIN, THE QUESTION STILL STANDS, ARE YOU GUYS PREPARED TO EXPEND RESOURCES TO, UH, IN YOUR WORDS, INVESTIGATE THIS FURTHER? OKAY.
AND THEN FROM A DISCUSSION STANDPOINT, UM, I, I ALWAYS LIKE TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO KIND OF THANK JUST YOU, YOU GUYS.
UM, IT'S, IT'S TOUGH WHEN YOU LIVE THERE.
UH, I, I LIKE TO PROVIDE JUST A LITTLE BIT OF COLOR.
UH, THE FIRST THING IS THIS BODY IS NOT QUALIFIED TO GET INTO MATTERS OF CONTRACT INTERPRETATION AND WHAT IS AND IS NOT AN UNDERGROUND STORAGE UNIT.
UM, THE SECOND THING I WOULD SAY TO PROVIDE SOME COLOR, UH, A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT SEPTIC TANK, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
UH, SEPTIC TANKS ARE TCQ, UH, TEXAS COMMISSION ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY HAS A SET OF RULES FOR SEPTIC TANKS.
UH, AND THEN THEY USUALLY ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH JURISDICTIONS, UH, TO ENFORCE THOSE RULES.
UH, SO MY POINT IS WITH SEPTIC SEPTIC TANK CONCERNS, THIS IS SOMETHING THE STATE IS INVOLVED IN AND THEY'VE DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
UH, SO, SO MAYBE, HOPEFULLY, I GUESS TO KIND OF REASSURE YOU GUYS ESSENTIALLY IS WHAT I'M SAYING HERE WITH SEPTIC TANKS.
UM, AND THEN THE O THE OTHER BIG ISSUE, ONE OF THE GENTLEMEN MENTIONED LIKE, HEY, WE, WE KEEP HEARING, THERE'S NOTHING TO STOP IT.
UH, I WOULD CONCUR WITH THAT, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T ENGAGE YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS.
UH, AND I THINK WE HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT DEALS WITH ZONING AND, AND ORDINANCES.
I, I THINK, RIGHT, UH, POINT BEING YOU CAN ENGAGE THE PROCESS TO, TO HAVE RULES CHANGES FOR, FOR THINGS DOWN THE LINE.
UM, BUT JUST PERSONALLY, I I, I, I CAN'T, I, I, I DON'T SEE A WAY WHERE I, I I CAN VOTE FOR THIS.
I, I LIKE, I I'VE READ THE ORDINANCE SEVERAL TIMES AND YEAH, SO JUST, JUST MAYBE GOING FORWARD, ENGAGE
[00:50:01]
THE PROCESS AND MAYBE YOU CAN SEE CHANGES FOR, FOR FUTURE PLANS AND THEN HAVE A, A ZONING CHANGE IN, IN CITY CODE.BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, ONE GREAT EXAMPLE, THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY ORDINANCE CAPS HEIGHT AT 28 FEET, I BELIEVE.
AND, AND YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT HOW IT LOOKS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE VALID, BUT THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT ADDRESS IT.
LIKE THAT IS NOT SOMETHING WE'RE REQUIRED TO LOOK AT.
SO FEEL FREE TO ENGAGE DOWN THE LINE, BUT JUST, JUST KIND OF RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S NOT THE BEST NEWS FOR YOU GUYS, BUT JUST FULL DISCLOSURE, I, I DON'T SEE A WAY TO WHERE I, I COULD VOTE AGAINST THIS RIGHT NOW.
SO JUST, JUST, JUST BEING HONEST WITH YOU.
OTHER QUESTIONS? I, UM, WE HAD, GO AHEAD THEN LET'S MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE.
I THINK WE PRETTY MUCH ALWAYS GRANT POSTPONEMENT REQUESTS AND THEY WERE KIND OF UNAWARE.
PLUS THE DESIRE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF AUSTIN WATER IS REASONABLE TO HAVE A POSTPONEMENT.
THE TRICKY THING AT THIS TIME OF YEAR IS HOW LONG OF A POSTPONEMENT, UM, BECAUSE OF HOLIDAYS.
I MEAN, DECEMBER 4TH IS PROBABLY NOT ENOUGH TIME TO, WELL, WE HAVE A MEETING NEXT WEEK.
THAT'S, AND DECEMBER 4TH IS PROBABLY EVEN THEN NOT ENOUGH TIME.
AND THEN DECEMBER 18TH IS MAYBE TOO CLOSE TO HOLIDAYS.
UM, MAYBE PERSON ASKING FOR THE POSTPONEMENT COULD SUGGEST WE WOULD REQUEST EIGHT WEEKS.
WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED THE BOARD EXPENDITURE.
I'M SORRY, YOU, I, IF YOU'RE GONNA TALK, I NEED TO COME UP TO THE FRONT
OH YEAH, WE HAVE MIKE, YOU CAN'T YELL IN THE BACK.
UH, WE WOULD ASK FOR AN EIGHT WEEK POSTPONEMENT.
THE LAKEWOOD CLUB BOARD HAS ALREADY AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO SEEK PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT TO INVESTIGATE THE RC, WHICH IS NOT A MATTER FOR THIS BOARD.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY TO US, PROTECTION OF BULL CREEK AND UNDERSTANDING THE WAY THE EFFLUENT WILL LEAVE THE LEACH FIELD IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE BLUFF.
THAT, THAT'S THE MAIN CONCERN HERE IS TYPICALLY A SEPTIC FIELD IS ON GRADE, EVERYTHING GOES DOWN AND OUT BEING RIGHT NEXT TO A 75 FOOT BLUFF, AS SOON AS IT HEADS OUT, IT WILL CEASE TO MOVE THROUGH, UH, THROUGH THE SOIL.
SO, SO WE'D LIKE APPRECIATE EIGHT WEEKS.
LET ME, SO YOU'RE SAYING JANUARY 21ST, CORRECT? I DON'T WANNA TAKE OUT MY DEVICE.
I FEEL LIKE THAT'S BAD MANNERS.
WELL, JANUARY, THERE'S JANUARY 7TH AND JANUARY 21ST, 21ST WOULD BE LOVELY.
I FEEL LIKE JANUARY 7TH IS AT LEAST MR. CHAIRMAN, THE WEEK OF THE HOLIDAY, IF WE'RE GONNA CONSIDER A MOTION TO POSTPONE, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO GIVE THE APPLICANT A CHANCE TO, TO MAYBE SAY HOW THE POSTPONEMENT, OF COURSE, IF WE'RE GONNA POSTPONEMENT MOTION, WE WANNA SAY, SAY A DATE.
UM, I MEAN, I HAVE A PROBLEM GOING THAT FAR OUT ON THE POSTPONEMENT.
I, WE, WE GENERALLY DO GRANT POSTPONEMENTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN THEY ASK FOR IT.
THE HOLIDAYS, I WOULD SAY JANUARY 7TH IS AFTER HOLIDAYS.
IF, IF THIS WERE ANY OTHER TYPE OF CASE, I WOULD TEND TO AGREE.
BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT MEETS ALL CODES AND ORDINANCES.
AND THE ONLY THING WE WOULD WANT TO HEAR FROM IS FROM WHOEVER DID THE REVIEW OF THE OSSF AND DID THEY DO A REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE REGULATIONS AND CITY REGULATIONS AND COUNTY REGULATIONS? AND IF THEY DID, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WHOLE LOT MORE THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT.
UM, IT, SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LOOK FOR.
AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT TONIGHT, SO I I'M, WE'RE MISSING THAT PIECE.
UM, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE FAIRLY EASY TO GET SOMEBODY UP HERE SOONER THAN JANUARY TO EXPLAIN TO US THE PROCESS THEY WENT THROUGH TO DESIGN THE OSSF AND THEN THE PERMITTING REVIEW PROCESS TO DO THAT.
IS THAT, I'M LOOKING KIND OF A STAFF, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE THROUGH DECEMBER 17TH? MIGHT BE MORE REASONABLE? YES.
IN, IN MY MIND, I'M GONNA LOOK AT THE APPLICANT TO SEE WHAT, WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.
I MEAN, AND AGAIN, WE GENERALLY GRANT EVERY PARTY A CONTINUOUS WHEN IT'S ASKED.
I, I UNDERSTAND, UM, SURPRISE TO ME THAT, UH, A POSTPONEMENT IS BEING REQUESTED.
UH, SAME AT THE MIC, UH, HAVEN'T HAD THAT HAPPEN.
AND, AND, UH, AND, AND YET HERE WE ARE.
YOU KNOW, THE, THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE IS I, I DO NOT, I KNOW WE'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR
[00:55:01]
ANYTHING OTHER THAN WE ARE IN FULL COMPLIANT.WE SPENT A YEAR AND A HALF, RIGHT, GETTING IN FULL COMPLIANCE.
YOU HEARD THE ENGINEER TALK ABOUT THE MEASURES THAT WERE TAKEN TO COMPLY AND OVER COMPLY AND BUILD BIGGER AND BETTER THAN WAS REQUIRED.
UM, YOU KNOW, ALL THE GEOLOGICAL STUDIES IN THE WORLD AREN'T GONNA CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE ARE FULLY COMPLIANT.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I I, I, UH, APPRECIATE THE REQUEST.
I, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY, UH, NEXT WEEK WORKS AND I THINK WE CAN GET SOMEBODY HERE FROM OSSF TO TALK ABOUT IT, UH, NEXT WEEK.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WE, I CAN'T STAND UP HERE AND SAY THAT ANYTHING'S GONNA CHANGE.
'CAUSE NOTHING'S GONNA CHANGE IN TERMS OF STAFF REVIEW.
WE, WE'VE INVESTED IN EXTRAORDINARY EFFORT AND AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET INTO COMPLIANCE.
YEAH, I THINK, I THINK THE QUESTION IS, ARE YOU WILLING TO, TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND, AND BRING THEM TO A PLACE WHERE THEY, THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE, THE PROCESS? WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE WILLING TO CON, WE'RE WILLING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY CODE AND MORE, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY DONE.
SO THAT'S A NO
UH, TRY AND FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET AROUND A HUGE WATER LINE THAT'S IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
AND WE'VE IN, WE'VE, WE'VE INVESTIGATED THAT BEFORE AND THEY DON'T WANNA BELIEVE US.
SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, I, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO, WHAT TO, WHAT TO SAY.
SO YOU, SO YOU HAVE MET WITH THE COMMUNITY? PARDON? YOU HAVE MET WITH THE CI HAVE NOT MET WITH THE COMMUNITY.
I'M NOT, SO, SO I, I FEEL LIKE THAT'S A LITTLE DISINGENUOUS TO PUT WORDS IN THEIR MOUTH WHEN YOU HAVEN'T HAD THAT MEETING.
WELL, I, I THINK THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE MEETING, AND THAT'S PRETTY STANDARD PROCESS.
I'M, I'M HAPPY IF, IF, IF, IF THAT IS, UH, UH, SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP, UM, THIS BODY KNOW THAT WE'VE MET AND WE CLEARLY HAVE A DISAGREEMENT ON WHETHER THIS DOES OR DOES NOT VIOLATE A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA REACH, THAT'S WHY I'M CONFIDENT WE'RE NOT GONNA REACH AGREEMENT.
I CLEARLY, AS YOU KNOW, AS MARCUS INDICATED, MR. SHEFFIELD INDICATED WE'VE HAD THAT DISCUSSION.
WE'RE NOT, THAT'S AN IMPASSABLE ISSUE FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE.
SO SETTING ASIDE THAT ISSUE, IF YOU WOULD FOR A MOMENT, YES, COMMISSIONER AND COGNIZE.
I DIDN'T UP THAT ISSUE, SIR, THAT ISSUE, BUT THAT ISSUE IS IMPASSABLE.
NO ONE HAS, I'M NOT BRINGING UP THAT ISSUE.
I THINK THE CONVERSATION I HEARD WAS AROUND THE WASTEWATER MATTER, RIGHT.
AND A LOT OF THE COMMENTARY WAS AROUND THE WASTEWATER MATTER.
AND, AND YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK TO THE SEPTIC AND NOR DID THE CITY.
SO I, I THINK IT'S A LEGITIMATE REQUEST E EXCEPT THAT THE ONE FACT THAT MATTERS THE MOST IS WE FULLY MEET CODE AND WE FULLY MEET.
WELL, WHEN I READ THE ORDINANCE, IT'S ASKING FOR MY RECOMMENDATION OF THE SITE PLAN.
I THINK IT SAYS A LITTLE BIT MORE THE NEXT SENTENCE IF YOU KEEP READING THE SENTENCE, BUT THAT'S HERE AND NOR THERE, I MEAN, THE WAY I AM LOOKING AT IT IS JUST TO KIND OF EDUCATE EVERYBODY.
IT SAYS IF IT MEETS ALL CODES AND ORDINANCES, YOU SHALL APPROVE.
AND WE'VE GONE THROUGH, AND IT'S BEEN LOOKED AT AND REVIEWED BY THE OSS DEPARTMENT AND THEY'VE APPROVED IT, AND IT'S BEEN LOOKED AT AND REVIEWED BY DRAINAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL, AND THEY'VE LOOKED AT IT AND THEY'VE APPROVED IT.
SO FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, EVERYTHING HAS BEEN REVIEWED, EVERYTHING HAS BEEN APPROVED.
IT MEETS ALL CODES AND ORDINANCES.
AND I'M NOT GONNA GO BACK AND SAY THAT I'M A BETTER PERSON TO REVIEW IT AND DECIDE ON THAT THAN THE STAFF IS.
NOR AM I, I'M RELYING ON STAFF TO SAY, NOR AM I, BUT I'M NOT GONNA VOTE ON AN INCOMPLETE PACKAGE.
AND THAT'S, I, I'M NOT SAYING I'M NOT GONNA SUPPORT A CONTINUOUS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT CAN BE LOOKED AT AND WE CAN LOOK AT THE OSSF.
I DON'T THINK JANUARY IS THE APPROPRIATE TIMEFRAME.
UH, NEXT WEEK, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE EVEN GONNA HAVE A MEETING, UM, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE'S NOTHING SCHEDULED FOR NEXT WEEK.
SO I'D HATE TO PUT IT ON NEXT WEEK AND NOT HAVE A MEETING.
SO I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT THE FIRST MEETING IN DECEMBER.
UM, AND I THINK IT'S GONNA BE, MY QUESTIONS ARE GONNA BE NARROWLY LOOKED AT IN TERMS OF SOMEONE FROM THE OSSF TO SAY, WAS IT REVIEWED? WHAT KIND OF SYSTEM WAS INSTALLED, WAS IT REVIEWED BY THE OSSF AND WAS IT PERMIT APPROVED AND PERMITTED? AND I'M SURE IT WAS.
AND THAT'S, AND IT'S, WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY HERE FROM O WATER UTILITY TO STAND UP AND SAY THAT.
UM, SO I THINK IF WE HAD THAT AVAILABLE TO US AT THE NEXT MEETING, THAT WOULD BE THE MISSING PIECE THAT I'M, THAT I'M NOT SEEING.
SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS, UM, THE APPLICANT WANTS ZERO POSTPONEMENT.
THE NEIGHBORS WOULD LIKE EIGHT WEEKS.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THE COMPROMISE OF FOUR WEEKS, UM, WHICH WOULD PUT US AT DECEMBER 17TH.
SO I MOVE THAT WE POSTPONE THIS CASE UNTIL DECEMBER 17TH.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE, GO AHEAD.
SO WE JUST HEARD FROM OUR LAW, OUR LAW DEPARTMENT, THAT IF WE POSTPONE LONGER THAN 14 DAYS, WE WILL NEED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THEN LET'S NOT, CAN WE AMEND THE MOTION? I THINK, I THINK DECEMBER 3RD IS, IS APPROPRIATE.
THAT'S WHAT SHE SAYING THE SAME, THAT'S SAYING, YEAH.
[01:00:03]
YES.LIKE, DOES THAT MEET THE 14 DAYS AND GIVE TIME TO GET SOMEONE FROM THE OSSF DEPARTMENT TO LOOK AT IT? YES.
SO POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 3RD.
WE'VE POSTPONED THINGS NOW MICHAEL WEIGH ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
I JUST WANT TO ASSURE COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, I'M, I'M HERE STRAIGHT THROUGH THE HOLIDAYS.
I'LL MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE ANY DAY OR EVENING.
THEY MENTION THEY WORK, I'M AVAILABLE ANY EVENING.
THEY, THEY, THEY JUST NEED TO, THEY HAVE MY PHONE NUMBER.
THEY, I'M AVAILABLE ANY EVENING.
CAN YOU GIVE US THE PHONE NUMBER OF A GEOLOGIST AND AN ATTORNEY THAT WAS WORKING DURING THANKSGIVING, BECAUSE ALMOST NO, AGAIN, PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSED.
UM, BUT JUST THAT'S, I THINK IF WE ARE TOLD BY STAFF TO THAT, RIGHT.
WE NEED TO POSTPONE ONLY TO DECEMBER 3RD, THEN WE NEED TO POSTPONE ONLY TO DECEMBER 3RD.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN GIVEN GOOD REASON, IT COULDN'T BE POSTPONED AGAIN.
BUT THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE GOOD REASON.
UM, SO I WOULD LIKE TO, AND THE QUESTION BEING ASKED OF STAFF IS TO LOOK AT THE OSSF ISSUE SPECIFICALLY IN AUSTIN WATER UTILITY ABOUT THE FEASIBILITY OF CONNECTING INTO THE SYSTEM.
JUST, JUST THAT'S VERY NARROW.
IT, IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT THAT'S BEEN REVIEWED.
AND, AND, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE ALTERNATIVE OF RUNNING WASTEWATER GRAVITY PIPE WAS REVIEWED AND, AND CITY HAD ISSUES AGREE ABOUT IT BECAUSE OF THE HERITAGE TREES.
SO I I, I THINK TWO WEEKS IS, I, I, I'M PREPARED TO VOTE TODAY, BUT, BUT TWO WEEKS IS FAIR TO WHERE, YOU KNOW, THIS BODY CAN GET SOME MORE INFORMATION ON, ON, ON THE SEPTIC SYSTEM AND HOW IT WORKS.
UM, NO, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE.
SO I, IS THERE ANY ISSUES WITH THE STAFF POSTPONING TO DECEMBER 3RD? NO NEED TO MOTION.
WELL, I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE SURE STAFF CAN, CAN HAVE THEIR OSSF REVIEW.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT, AT STAFF.
CAN THEY HAVE SOMEONE HERE FROM AUSTIN WATER UTILITY OR AT LEAST MEET WITH THEM AND, UM, WHOEVER DID THE OSSF REVIEW, I'LL MAKE SURE TO HAVE EITHER THE AUSTIN WATER REVIEWER HERE OR HAVE A, A DETAILED EXPLANATION FROM THEM EXPLAINING HOW THEY ARRIVED AT THAT CONCLUSION.
I KNOW IT'S NOT SOMETHING THEY TAKE LIGHTLY TO DO SEPTIC, AND I DON'T KNOW WHO DID THE OSSF REVIEW IN, IN THIS JURISDICTION.
IT COULD HAVE BEEN LCRA, IT COULD HAVE BEEN TRAVIS COUNTY.
IT COULD HAVE BEEN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
UM, THE JURISDICTIONS ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE.
SO WHOEVER DID THAT REVIEW JUST GIVE US CONFIRMATION THAT YES, IT WAS DONE AND IT'S APPROVED.
I THAT'S WHAT I, THERE'S SEVERAL JURISDICTIONS THAT LOOK AT THESE.
SO IT'S WHOEVER IT WAS, I, I READ THROUGH LIKE FIRE AND ALL IT, IT WAS THE CITY.
UM, SO IT SHOULD BE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
I'D LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO POSTPONE TO DECEMBER 3RD.
ANY MORE DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR COMING OUT.
[8. Discussion and action to recommend that Council adopt the Equity-Based Preservation Plan and support its timely implementation. Presentation by Cara Bertron, 512-974-1446, cara.bertron@austintexas.gov, Planning Department.]
ON THE AGENDA.WE HAVE DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM EIGHT, DISCUSSION, ACTION.
RECOMMEND THE COUNCIL ADOPT AN EQUITY BASED PRESERVATION PLAN IN SUPPORT.
AND WE HAVE A PRESENTATION BY KARA BERTRAN, AND IT'S BEING SPOOLED UP ON THE TV.
UH, I'M SORRY I CAN'T JOIN YOU IN, IN PERSON, BUT I'M GETTING OVER A NASTY COLD, AND BELIEVE ME, YOU DO NOT WANT ME THERE OR TO, TO HAVE WHAT I HAVE.
UM, BACK TO PRESENT ON THE EQUITY BASED PRESERVATION PLAN.
I WAS LAST, UH, AT YOUR FEBRUARY MEETING TO SHARE ABOUT THE DRAFT PLAN AND INVITE YOU TO PARTICIPATE AND, UM, PROVIDING FEEDBACK ON THE DRAFT PLAN.
SO THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSE THE LOOP ON THAT, TO TALK ABOUT THE FINAL PLAN, WHICH IS HEADED TO COUNCIL ON THURSDAY, AND TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY IF YOU WISH, TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL REGARDING ADOPTION OF THE PLAN.
SO, AS YOU MAY RECALL, THE PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE EQUITY BASED PRESERVATION PLAN IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN MOST CITY PLANS.
THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION CREATED A 26 MEMBER COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP IN THE SPRING OF 2021, UM, AND CHARGED THAT GROUP WITH CREATING A DRAFT, UH, EQUITY BASED PRESERVATION PLAN.
THAT GROUP, UM, BROUGHT A, A RANGE OF EXPERTISE CAME FROM ALL OVER AUSTIN, REFLECTS THE CITY'S RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY.
UH, IT WAS AN INCREDIBLE GROUP TO, UH, AND REALLY, REALLY COMMITTED.
THEY WORKED OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR AND THEY HEARD TO CREATE THE DRAFT PLAN, AND THEY HEARD FROM ABOUT 275 OTHER FOLKS.
YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT, THERE WAS A SURVEY.
WE HAD A TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP.
UM, WE DID A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANEL WITH THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH PRESERVATION AUSTIN AND THE CITY'S DISPLACEMENT PREVENTION DIVISION.
[01:05:01]
UM, SO, UH, A VERY COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS TO DEVELOP THIS PLAN.THIS IS THE VISION FOR THE PLAN.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN AUSTIN ACTIVELY ENGAGES COMMUNITIES IN PROTECTING AND SHARING IMPORTANT PLACES AND STORIES.
PRESERVATION USES THE PAST TO CREATE A SHARED SENSE OF BELONGING AND TO SHAPE AN EQUITABLE, INCLUSIVE, SUSTAINABLE, AND ECONOMICALLY VITAL FUTURE FOR ALL.
THIS IS A MUCH BIGGER VIEW OF PRESERVATION THAN, THAN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE AND HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION HAVE HISTORICALLY OPERATED WITH.
IT WAS DRAWN FROM RESPONSES TO THE COMMUNITY HERITAGE SURVEY AS PART OF THE PLANNING PROCESS, AND I THINK COMMUNITY MEMBERS HAD A REALLY EXCITING AND BIG VISION OF, OF WHAT PRESERVATION CAN CAN BE AND WHAT ROLE IT CAN PLAY IN A, A RAPIDLY CHANGING CITY.
THERE ARE 14 GOALS, THERE ARE 107 RECOMMENDATIONS.
I WON'T RUN THROUGH ALL OF THESE.
I'LL JUST NOTE THAT THEY'RE VERY BROAD AND THAT ALSO IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES THAT MAY LOOK FAMILIAR TO YOU.
UM, BECAUSE, UH, WHAT WE, WHEN WE DID OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT AROUND THE DRAFT PLAN, WHICH I'LL TALK ABOUT MORE IN A FEW SLIDES, UM, WHAT WE HEARD FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND STAKEHOLDER ORGANIZATIONS WAS THAT THEY REALLY AGREED WITH THE GOALS AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO THERE WERE SOME CHANGES THAT WERE MADE THAT I'LL TALK ABOUT.
BUT IF YOU'RE LIKE, HAVE I SEEN THESE SLIDES BEFORE? YOU PROBABLY HAVE SEEN SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO THEM NINE MONTHS AGO.
UH, I'M GOING TO TALK RATHER THAN RUNNING THROUGH, UH, IN DETAIL ALL OF THESE GOALS.
I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT THREE THEMES, WHAT WE PRESERVE, WHO PRESERVE, AND HOW WE PRESERVE, UM, WHAT WE PRESERVE INCLUDES THE FIRST FIVE GOALS, HOW WE PRESERVE, UM, OR SORRY, WHO, WHO PRESERVES INCLUDES THE GOAL SIX THROUGH EIGHT, AND HOW WE PRESERVE HIS GOALS NINE THROUGH 14.
SO WHAT WE PRESERVE, THE BIG IDEA HERE IS REALLY TO THINK BROADLY ABOUT WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO BETTER RECOGNIZE THE CITY'S RICH AND COMPLICATED HISTORY THROUGH WORKING WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND INTERPRETING, UM, WHY PLACES ARE, ARE SIGNIFICANT TO BETTER RECOGNIZE AND PROTECT CULTURAL HERITAGE, LIKE LEGACY BUSINESSES AND MURALS, AS WELL AS ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
AND TO USE PRESERVATION TOOLS TO SUPPORT OTHER, UH, OTHER COMMUNITY PRIORITIES LIKE DISPLACEMENT PREVENTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY.
NOT AS A PANACEA, NOT AS THE END ALL BE ALL, BUT AS ONE TOOL THAT CAN HELP WITH THESE PRESSING ISSUES.
UNDER WHO PRESERVES? THE BIG IDEA HERE IS REALLY TO INVITE MORE PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE, WHETHER THAT'S HOMEOWNERS, TENANTS, OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS, YOU KNOW, CRAFT PEOPLE, COMMISSIONERS, STAFF, OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN THE, THE BROADER, UH, AUSTIN COMMUNITY.
AND THEN REALLY, AND THEN TO SUPPORT THEM AS THEY PARTICIPATE BY PROVIDING NEW, UM, NEW AND BETTER, UH, RESOURCES FOR THEM AND PROVIDING PRACTICAL HANDS-ON ASSISTANCE.
I'LL SAY THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE STARTED DOING WITH THE, UM, OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT AROUND THE PLAN IS REACHING OUT TO, TO MORE AND BROADER AUDIENCES AND THAT, WE'LL, WE'LL KEEP DOING WITH IMPLEMENTATION.
THE LAST THEME IS HOW WE PRESERVE THIS IS KIND OF THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF HOW WE DO HISTORIC PRESERVATION NOW.
SO THE IDEA HERE IS TO BE MORE STRATEGIC AND MORE EFFECTIVE.
UPDATE OUR DESIGNATION CRITERIA, SUPPORT THE STEWARDS OR HISTORIC PROPERTIES, MOSTLY PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS.
BE MORE STRATEGIC WITH THE REVIEW THAT WE'RE DOING.
IMPROVE ENFORCEMENT IS ALWAYS A CHALLENGE AND TO IMPLEMENT THE PLAN COLLABORATIVELY.
SO HERE'S SOME SELECTED RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, THAT MAY BE OF PARTICULAR INTEREST TO ZAP.
UM, THEY TALK ABOUT ARCHEOLOGICAL, UM, OR EXPLORING THINK, YOU KNOW, THINKING ABOUT, UH, INCORPORATING ARCHEOLOGICAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS IN, UM, PROJECTS, UH, FOR LARGE PROJECTS IN AREAS WITH KNOWN OR HIGH PROBABILITY FOR ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES.
UM, LOOKING AT HOW TO, UH, CREATE AND IMPROVED TOOLS FOR KEEPING EXISTING BUILDINGS WHEN YOU'RE PUTTING MULTIPLE UNITS ON A PROPERTY.
INCENTIVIZE MORE IN SMALLER DWELLING UNITS, UH, SUPPORT THE RETENTION OF OLDER BUILDINGS, SURVEY BUILDINGS, AND IN AREAS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY.
AND ENABLING NON-CONTIGUOUS HISTORIC DISTRICTS IN MULTIPLE PROPERTY DESIGNATIONS.
RIGHT NOW, OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS ARE LIMITED TO, UH, SINGLE GEOGRAPHIC AREA WITH NO DONUT HOLES IN IT.
SO, UM, THIS RECOGNIZES THAT THE COMMUNITIES AND AND EVENTS CAN BE LINKED ACROSS SPACE, UM, ACROSS THE CITY OR ACROSS MULTIPLE NEIGHBORHOODS.
UH, AND OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS TO, I I WANTED TO KEEP THIS TO ONE SLIDE THAT I THINK A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT MAY BE OF INTEREST.
NOW, AND WE'LL GO ONTO THE NEXT SLIDE.
NOW I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT THAT WE DID THIS SPRING.
IT WAS A FOUR MONTH ENGAGEMENT WINDOW.
WE ENGAGED, UM, 2,500 PEOPLE, IS A VERY CONSERVATIVE
[01:10:02]
ESTIMATE.WE DID NOT COUNT, UM, THE PEOPLE WHO, WHO WERE AT THE PRESENTATIONS SAY THE, THE PRESENTATIONS IN THE NEXT LINE.
WE DIDN'T COUNT ALL, ALL THE FOLKS WE TALKED TO AT COMMUNITY EVENTS.
UM, SO WE DID A LOT, UH, TO LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT THE DRAFT PLAN EXISTED AND TO ASK FOR THEIR FEEDBACK.
UM, WE DID A RANGE OF THINGS THAT YOU CAN READ HERE.
I THINK THE PROCESS WAS PARTICULARLY SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE WE HAD SUBSTANTIAL PARTNER PARTNERSHIPS WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS.
SO WE WORKED WITH NINE COMMUNITY MEMBERS AS PAID AMBASSADORS FOR THE PLAN TO REACH OUT TO THEIR NETWORKS.
AND WE AWARDED MANY GRANTS TO FIVE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, UH, TO REACH OUT TO THEIR NETWORKS.
AND THOSE, BOTH OF THOSE PROGRAMS WERE, UM, ADDED ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO, UM, ENGAGE HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES IN ADDITION TO THE WORK THAT STAFF AND OUR CONSULTANTS WERE DOING.
THIS IS WHO WE HEARD FROM THE MOST PEOPLE PARTICIPATED IN THE PLANNING PROCESS OR PROVIDING FEEDBACK ON THE DRAFT.
AND THROUGH A SHORT ONLINE SURVEY, TOOK FIVE MINUTES OR SO.
WE ALSO HAD PAPER COPIES OF ALL THE EVENTS.
AND YOU CAN SEE, UM, ON THE LEFT THIS TABLE OF HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES.
WE HAD ROUGHLY THE SAME SHARE OF COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AS AUSTIN AS A WHOLE.
WE HAD A MUCH HIGHER SHARE OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AND LGBTQ PLUS COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO RESPONDED TO THIS SURVEY THAN AUSTIN.
WE HAD A LOWER SHARE OF RENTERS.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, NEARLY 30% IS STILL PRETTY GOOD FOR A CITY PROCESS, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING WE WANNA KEEP WORKING ON AND THINKING ABOUT AS WE IMPLEMENT THE PLAN, HOW TO, HOW TO ENGAGE MORE RENTERS.
YOU CAN SEE ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT, WE, WE, THAT PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER AUSTIN RESPONDED TO THIS SURVEY.
MOST OF THE, OF THE PRESERVATION ACTIVITY TO DATE HAS HAPPENED IN CENTRAL AND WEST AUSTIN, UH, SOME IN EAST AUSTIN.
BUT WE WANTED THE PLAN TO BE A PLAN FOR THE WHOLE CITY.
AND IT WAS GREAT TO SEE FOLKS FROM AROUND THE CITY PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS.
AND THEN ON THE TOP RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE THAT WE HAD A LOT OF FOLKS WHO'VE BEEN IN AUSTIN A. LONG TIME, UH, WHO, WHO PARTICIPATED IN WANTED TO THINK ABOUT HOW, HOW THE CITY IS SHAPED MOVING FORWARD, BUT ALSO PEOPLE WHO ARE, WHO ARE MORE RECENT HORIZONS.
SO THIS IS THE LIST OF COMMUNITY PRIORITIES IN THE, THAT SHORT COMMUNITY SURVEY.
UM, HOPEFULLY MANY OF YOU TOOK THAT SURVEY AND SO THIS ALSO LOOKS FAMILIAR TO YOU.
UM, THESE ARE AN AGGREGATED VERSION OF THE PLAN'S GOALS.
AND YOU CAN SEE A VERY QUICK TAKEAWAY FROM THIS SLIDE IS THAT, UH, PEOPLE SAID ALL THESE ARE IMPORTANT.
UM, WITH LOWEST SCORE BEING AROUND 73% WHEN WE TRIED TO GET, YOU KNOW, WE'LL START WORKING ON MULTIPLE GOALS SIMULTANEOUSLY, BUT WE WANTED TO GET A SENSE OF PRIORITIES.
SO WHEN WE ASKED PEOPLE WHAT WE SHOULD START WORKING ON FIRST, UM, A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE SAID, YOU KNOW, KEEP PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES IN PLACE.
ANOTHER 20% SAID KEEP HOW PHYSICAL PLACES FEELING LIKE AUSTIN.
SO THAT, I THINK THAT IS A REFLECTION OF, OF, UH, CHALLENGES THAT THE CITY FACES RIGHT NOW.
WE ALSO GOT SOME COMMENTS SPECIFICALLY ON THE DRAFT.
UM, SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS DID NOT REQUEST ACTION ABOUT, UH, SOME OF THEM WERE NOT IN THE PURVIEW OF THE PLAN, BUT ABOUT HALF OF THE COMMENTS WERE ACTIONABLE.
UM, AND THE PLAN DURING PLAN REVISIONS, UH, ABOUT HALF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE DRAFT PLAN WERE REVISED BASED ON THAT COMMUNITY FEEDBACK.
AND EIGHT NEW RECOMMENDATIONS WERE ADDED, UM, INCLUDING HISTORIC CEMETERIES, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, IMPROVEMENTS FOR OLDER PROPERTIES, BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND EDUCATION, EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR HISTORIC PROPERTY OWNERS AND TENANTS, UH, AND OLDER PROPERTY OWNERS AND TENANTS AND HERITAGE TOURISM SITES.
SO THINGS THAT, THAT WE HAD MISSED IN DRAFTING THE PLAN.
AND IT WAS GREAT THAT PEOPLE POINTED THOSE OUT.
THIS IS THE PRESERVATION PLAN AND TIMING IN A NUTSHELL.
IT'S BEEN A THREE AND A HALF YEAR PROCESS.
UM, THE WORKING GROUP DEVELOPED A PLAN OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR.
UM, WE DID THAT, UH, THERE WAS A, A KIND OF LOW SLASH NO BUDGET, UH, AWARENESS RAISING CAMPAIGN BETWEEN FALL OF 2022 AND SPRING OF 2024.
AND THEN WE DID THAT INTENSIVE OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT.
UM, THIS SPRING, THIS SUMMER, THE PRESERVATION PLAN COMMITTEE OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AND THE PRESERVATION PLAN WORKING GROUP THAT DEVELOPED THE PLAN HAD, UH, HELD FOUR JOINT MEETINGS TO REVISE THE PLAN.
AND, UM, HERE WE ARE AT BOARD AND COMMISSION BRIEFINGS, AND AS I MENTIONED, WE'LL BE GOING TO COUNCIL ON THURSDAY FOR REVIEW AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN.
THE LAST, I THINK, YEAH, SO NEXT STEPS.
UM, I JUST, WE'LL, WE'LL START, WE'LL START IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN, UM, AS, AS SOON AS IT'S ADOPTED.
UH, WE'LL START WITH HIGH IMPACT
[01:15:01]
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE HAVE THE RESOURCES TO, TO DO NOW, AND LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR INITIATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL, UH, FUNDING OR STAFF RESOURCES AND HOPEFULLY START THOSE NEXT FALL.WE ARE WORKING ON A PUBLIC DASHBOARD TO TRACK PROGRESS ON THE PLAN.
WE'LL KEEP WORKING WITH, UH, OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS ON IMPLEMENTATION AND WE'LL CONTINUE ENGAGEMENT AND PARTNERSHIP BUILDING, WHICH HAVE REALLY BEEN AT THE BACKBONE OF AND, AND THE HEART OF THIS PROCESS.
I THINK THAT'S THE, THERE'S A ONE MORE SLIDE WITH THE PLAN WEBSITE IF YOU WANT TO LEARN MORE.
UM, BUT I'M, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FINAL PLAN OR THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS OR IF, IF, IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK ON THIS.
ANY QUESTIONS, ANY COMMENTS? UH, KARA'S HEARD THIS BEFORE.
I JUST WANNA COMMEND YOU ON YOUR PROCESS, KARA, AND, UM, I KNOW HOW HARD YOU'VE WORKED AND, AND SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE WORKED TO SEE THIS PLAN COME TO LIFE.
DO YOU NEED ANYTHING FROM US? IF THE COMMISSION, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL, TO, TO ADOPT THE PLAN, UM, A NUMBER OF OTHER COMMISSIONS HAVE, HAVE DONE SO.
AND BE GLAD TO ADD YOUR SUPPORT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GIVE IT, BUT, UM, NOT A REQUIREMENT.
THE JOINT PLANNING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMITTEE.
YES, WE DID MAKE SUCH AN ENDORSEMENT YES.
OKAY, SO YOU SORT OF GOT ONE FROM BOTH COMMISSIONS.
WOULD IT, WOULD IT BE HELPFUL TO HAVE AN ENDORSEMENT FROM THIS COMMISSION? I THINK IT WOULD NOT HURT.
AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID MAKE A SEPARATE RECOMMENDATION.
WELL, I'M HAPPY TO OFFER A RECOMMENDATION.
UM, IF THERE'S A SECOND, I'LL SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN EVER SAY AYE.
MOVING ON TO ITEM NINE, DISCUSSION
[10. Discussion and action to approve the Zoning and Platting Commission 2025 meeting schedule. ]
ACTION.TO APPROVE THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION 2025 MEETING SCHEDULE THAT WAS POSTED ONLINE.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE SCHEDULE? UM, THIS REFLECTS OUR CONVERSATIONS FROM A MONTH AGO, RIGHT? UH, THAT WAS MORE SO FOR STAFF.
YES, THE SCHEDULE, UM, IT AS AN ADDRESS.
WHAT ABOUT THE RULES? ITEM NINE DOES THE NEXT OH, HALF ADAM.
THE, I THINK YOU'RE, IT DOESN'T MATTER, BUT WE CAN TAKE WHOOP.
I'M, I'M ON AN OLD AGENDA THAT WAS SENT OUT.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN? MAY I ASK WHAT DOES IT MEAN? MARCH 3RD? MARCH 4TH OR MARCH 5TH.
I WAS ABOUT TO ASK THE SAME QUESTION.
SO WE WERE TOLD TO KEEP THOSE DAYS OPEN.
SO WE WERE OFFERING Y'ALL SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVE DATES TO LOOK AT.
'CAUSE THAT WAS A SIMILAR PROCEDURE THAT WE TOOK WITH PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND SO, OH, MARCH 4TH IS THE TUESDAY OF THE ELECTION.
IS THAT THE PROBLEM? UH, WE BELIEVE SO.
I'M NOT SURE OF ANY, THAT'S WHAT WE SAID.
SO THEY OPENED UP SOME DATES THAT ARE AVAILABLE AS OPTIONS FOR US.
AS WE GET CLOSER, WE CAN DECIDE WE CAN'T MEET DURING, IF THERE IS AN ELECTION.
NO, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO CHOOSE NOW.
PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT CHOOSE EITHER.
WE JUST, THEY JUST AGREED TO THOSE BEING THE RANGE OF DATES.
I'M SORRY, I READ IT IN WRONG.
SOUNDS LIKE YOU NEED A MOTION.
I'LL MOVE TO, UH, APPROVE THE SCHEDULE AS PRESENTED.
SO GOING BACK TO ITEM NINE, DISCUSSION
[9. Discussion and action to approve the Zoning and Platting Commission revised Rules of Procedure. (Sponsors: Chair Smith and Vice Chair Greenberg) ]
IN ACTION TO APPROVE THE REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURES, UM, THAT WERE POSTED AS BACKUP.AND YOU HAVE A SET OF RULES THAT WERE POSTED BOTH A RED LINE AND A HARD LINE COPY.
I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING REAL CONTROVERSIAL IN THERE.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THOSE? IF YOU WANT, I CAN SUMMARIZE THE CHANGES WE ACTUALLY MADE A LOT.
RIGHT? UM, OR IF PEOPLE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THEY READ WITH WHAT
[01:20:01]
THEY READ, I'M EASY.EITHER WAY, I DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT.
I READ THROUGH THEM ALL AND WAS COMFORTABLE WITH THEM.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS? I HAVE ONE COMMENT.
YEAH, I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THESE PROPOSED RULE CHANGES.
MY MY ONLY COMMENT IS THAT WITH THE, THE BACKUP POSTING, YOU KNOW, IT STILL SEEMS LIKE WE'RE, WE ARE GETTING THINGS FROM STAFF LIKE THE DAY OF IN VIOLATION OF OUR PROPOSED CURRENT RULES AND OUR PROPOSALS.
UM, IT, WELL, LET'S LEAVE THAT IN.
UM, AND WE'RE NOT, IF, IF IT IS A, IF SOMETHING IS LAID BACK UP AND WE WANT TO USE THAT AS A REASON TO POSTPONE, WE CAN, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO.
AND SO THE WAY IT'S WORDED IS TRY TO GET EVERYTHING IN THERE ON TIME.
IF WE CAN'T, THEN IT'S UP TO US HOW WE PROCEED.
WE ARE ALWAYS RECEIVING LIKE PUBLIC COMMUNICATION AND WE'RE ALWAYS RECEIVING BACKUP UNTIL THE DAY OF.
SO YOU'LL, YOU'LL ALWAYS GET BACK UP UP UNTIL THE DAY AS THEY GET INFORMATION ENDS.
ALL OF OUR INITIAL BACKUP IS POSTED ON THE THURSDAY BEFORE THIS MEETING, SO.
TYPICALLY WE APPRECIATE THAT ANY BACKUP WE'RE GETTING IS JUST STUFF THAT'S COME IN AS AFTER THAT DATE.
AND ONE OF THE CHANGES WE MADE IS TO IMPOSE THAT REQUIREMENT ON OURSELVES, OURSELVES.
UM, ONE ISSUE THAT WASN'T ADDRESSED IS IN THE PAST WE USED TO HAVE POSTING OF ADVANCED QUESTIONS TO STAFF BY THE COMMISSIONERS.
THERE WAS KIND OF A Q AND A MM-HMM.
WE NOW ACTUALLY HAVE THE, UM, ONLINE PORTAL THAT WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS ONLINE IF WE WANT TO CORRECTLY OR NOT.
DO WE HAVE A I THOUGHT I SAW SOMETHING GOING AROUND ABOUT THAT.
WE ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT PROCESS.
I JUST REMEMBER GETTING AN EMAIL SEVERAL MONTHS AGO THAT ABOUT THAT.
I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG'S MENTIONING A PAST PROCESS WHERE RIGHT, IF I WERE TO SEND YOU A QUESTION, YOU WOULD SHARE THAT ANSWER WITH THE ENTIRE COMMISSION SO THAT EVERYBODY WOULD KNOW THAT THAT INFORMATION WAS OUT THERE AND AVAILABLE AND THAT THERE WAS EVEN A, A CONGLOMERATION OF ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED AND THEY GOT POSTED PUBLICLY.
WE ARE HAPPY TO CONTINUE DOING THAT MOVING FORWARD.
SO IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, ALWAYS GO TO STAFF STAFFING TO SUBMIT.
THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF OUR OPEN RECORDS ACT.
SO EMAIL STAFF STAFFING TO DISSEMINATE THAT INFORMATION NOW TO EVERYBODY.
ONE OTHER THING I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT BECAUSE IT WAS KIND OF A SURPRISE TO US AS WE REVIEWED THE RULES, IF YOU GO TO THE VERY BOTTOM ON THE PUBLIC HEARING TABLE, UM, WE DID MAKE A DISTINCTION THAT UH, I THINK WHAT SOMETIMES HAS BEEN HAPPENING IS THAT THE APPLICANT IS GETTING SIX MINUTES AND THEN SOMETIMES THE PERSON, THE PRIMARY IN FAVOR SPEAKER IS ALSO GETTING SIX.
SO WE MADE THAT, UM, CLARIFICATION THAT WE BELIEVE IT SHOULD JUST BE ONE, ONE ENTITY GETTING THE SIX MINUTES RIGHT ON EITHER SIDE.
AND THAT'S WHAT WAS GIVEN TONIGHT FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT? YEAH.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS ON OUR AGENDA.
I THINK ON OUR AGENDA IT SAYS SIX MINUTES FOR THE APPLICANT AND SIX MINUTES FOR THE FIRST.
I DIDN'T ACTUALLY LOOK, UM, BUT IN THE PAST THE AGENDA SAID SIX, SIX MINUTES.
SIX MINUTES FOR THE PRIMARY SPEAKER IN FA FAVOR AND PRIMARY SPEAKER IN, UH, OPPOSITION.
SO THE PRIMARY SPEAKER IN FAVOR WOULD BE THE APPLICANT OR IF NOT JUST ONE GETS THE RIGHT SIX MINUTES.
SO WE ADDED THAT TABLE AND THAT'S THE TABLE THAT SHOULD BE ON THE AGENDA.
AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED A RULES CHANGE FOR THE POSTING OF Q AND A.
UM, IF WE DECIDE IN THE FUTURE A RULES CHANGE IS NEEDED FOR THAT, THAT CAN BE DONE.
BUT Q AND A POSTING WOULD BE AWESOME.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE? MOTION TO APPROVE.
UM, LEMME GO BACK TO THE AGENDA ONLINE BECAUSE THAT'S DIFFERENT TO THE ONE I'VE GOT.
[WORKING GROUP/COMMITTEE UPDATES]
ITEM 11 CODES AND NOTICE OF JOINT COMMITTEE.WE HAVEN'T HAD A MEETING SINCE THE LAST ONE.
UM, NO, THE MOST RECENT MEETING WAS CANCELED.
AND THEY SAID NEXT MEETING WE WILL HAVE BUSINESS INCLUDING POSSIBLY THE DISCUSSION OF, UM, THE RESOLUTION THAT CAME FROM THIS COMMISSION ON COMMERCIAL ON QUARTERS.
[01:25:01]
PLANNING, JOINT COMMITTEE.LET ASK A QUESTION OF ALL THE COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE ADJOURN.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
WE ARE ON THE SCHEDULE TO HAVE A MEETING NEXT TUESDAY BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ONE THE FIRST TUESDAY OF THE MONTH.IS ANYBODY NOT GOING TO BE HERE NEXT TUESDAY? THAT'S THE WEEK OF THANKSGIVING.
SO IT'S THE TUESDAY BEFORE THANKSGIVING.
SO ONE, TWO, I WON'T BE 1, 2, 3, 4, 2 ON THE TV.
Y'ALL WILL BOTH BE HERE NEXT TUESDAY IF NEEDED.
SO WE HAVE SIX IF YOU NEED TO HAVE A MEETING, BUT IF YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE A MEETING, WE DON'T NEED TO BE HERE.
AND, AND I MEAN I, I CAN ALWAYS, I'LL BE IN DC BUT I CAN ALWAYS DO VIRTUAL IF WE NEED COURT.
THE STAFF THAT WANTED TO KNOW IS THAT ONE.
I ACTUALLY AM NOT GONNA BE HERE.
SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE, IF IT'S ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, I I I CAN GET ON VIDEO AND WELL IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ONLY HAVE FIVE TO MEETING.
I CAN ARRANGE TO BE HERE, BUT I DON'T.
BUT I THINK IF YOU ABSOLUTELY HAD TO HAVE A MEETING DOESN'T SOUND SOUND.
WE MAY BE ABLE TO, WE MAY BE ABLE TO SCROUNGE YOU UP SIX PEOPLE, BUT I DOUBT IT.
UM, WITH THAT I THINK WE'RE ADJOURNED.