All documents

RSS feed for this page

Library CommissionSept. 23, 2019

Summer Reading 2019 original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

Summer Reading Program 2019 Report Programs for ages 5-10 142 programs with 14,782 attendees We had a lot of fun this summer with some terrific programs! We had 7 different in-house created kit programs this year (Fairy Houses, Geronimo Stilton Party, Halloween in Summer, Magical Creatures, Space Camp, Super Narwhal and Jelly Party, Water Art). We hosted 16 different performers this year including the Austin Symphony, 123 Andres, All Rhythms, Austin Opera, Austin Reptile Show, Bernadette Nason, Bright Star Theatre, Buffalo Soldiers, Carolina Storyteller, Elizabeth Kahura, Magician John O’Bryant, Magik Theatre, Pollyanna Theatre, Rolie Polie Guacamole, Sandbank Shadow Factory, and Bill Balboa from Sea Grant Texas. APL’s in-house puppet troupe, Literature Live! also performed Jack and the Bean-stalk! Super Narwhal and Jelly Party Buffalo Soldiers Magical Creatures: How many more of these are there--can we go to all of the magical creatures programs? Halloween in Summer: "We had the best time OMG it was so much fun!!! Great program if this summer!! We have the best Library system around!!" Austin Opera: “The Austin Opera program for kids was great! Just the right mix of entertainment, fun and culture.” Buffalo Soldiers: "The Buffalo Soldiers were great. My grands loved participating in the storytelling activities. They gave informative in-formation about dangerous animals if ever in areas with them & what to do--we remained afterwards to ask more questions." Austin Symphony Partnership 7 programs at Central with 6,494 attendees “Loved having the Austin Symphony at the Milwood Library! My kids enjoyed having live music and touching/playing the instru-ments. This exposure is invaluable, and I appreciated it was available at the local library.” “A great exposure to kids to violin, cello, and other instruments in a very kid friendly manner. Thank you for the opportunity!” “We loved having Symphony events in North Austin!” Austin Symphony Art Park This was our second year of hosting this annual Austin tradition at the library and it was spectacular. We had an overwhelming response and are already planning for 2020 and 2021. The Austin Symphony creates 2 hours of programming that includes an instrument petting zoo for hands-on experience, 2 symphony performances per program, as well as storytelling and crafts. It is jam packed with experiences for all ages. This year we also had the opportunity to hold two symphony programs in the branches and they were so success-ful we are looking forward to expanding that to more …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 8:54 p.m.
Design CommissionSept. 23, 2019

Agenda original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

Page 1 of 3 DESIGN COMMISSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2019 AT 6:00 PM AUSTIN CITY HALL, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ROOM 1101 301 W. SECOND STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 Commission Members _____ David Carroll, Chair (District 1) _____ Aan Coleman (District 8) _____ Martha Gonzalez, Vice-Chair (District 2) _____ Beau Frail (District 6) _____ Samuel Franco (District 3) _____ Katie Halloran (District 7) _____ Melissa Henao-Robledo (District 5) _____ Ben Luckens (District 10) City of Austin Planning & Zoning Staff _____ Evan Taniguchi (Mayor) _____ Jorge Rousselin, Executive Liaison _____ Bart Whatley (District 9) _____ Nichole Koerth, Staff Liaison _____ Josue Meiners (District 4) ____ Aaron Jenkins, Staff Liaison AGENDA CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 1. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL a. The first five speakers, who shall sign up prior to the Call to Order, will each have three minutes to speak regarding items not on the agenda; 2. NEW BUSINESS (Discussion and Possible Action): a. Discussion and possible action to evaluate and make recommendations regarding whether The Travis project, addressed at 80 Red River Street, complies with the Urban Design Guidelines, a gatekeeper requirement for the Downtown Density Bonus Program (LDC §25‐2‐586(C)(1)(a)(ii)) (Leah Bojo, Drenner Group; Gordon Ip, Genesis Living; Mike Fraze, Studio Outside; Steve Drenner, Drenner Group); b. Courtesy briefing and discussion on the Walter E. Long Master Plan project (Ricardo Soliz, COA-PARD; Gregory Montes, COA- PARD; Kim McKnight, COA-PARD); c. Courtesy briefing and discussion of the Street Impact Fee proposal (Cole Kitten, COA-ATD; Liane Miller, COA- ATD); 3. OLD BUSINESS (Discussion and Possible Action): a. None; Page 2 of 3 4. COMMISSION-SPECIFIC BUSINESS (Discussion and Possible Action): a. Discussion and possible action on the August 26, 2019 meeting minutes; b. Liaison Reports; c. Appointment of Committee/Working Group members by Chair; d. Discussion of a letter to City Council regarding updating the Urban Design Guidelines (Vice-Chair M. Gonzalez); e. Discussion and possible action on the Memo Recommending Code Amendments related to the Downtown Density Bonus Program (Chair D. Carroll); 5. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: a. None; 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS: a. Chair Announcements; b. Items from Commission Members; c. Items from City Staff; 7. ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 9:04 p.m.
Design CommissionSept. 23, 2019

Play video original link

Play video

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 9:04 p.m.
Design CommissionSept. 23, 2019

20190923-02A: The Travis Project original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

David Carroll, ChairMartha Gonzales, Vice ChairAan ColemanBeau FrailSamuel FrancoKatie HalloranMelissa Henao-RobledoBen LuckensJosue MeinersEvan TaniguchiBart WhatleyJorge Rousselin,Executive LiaisonNichole Koerth,Staff LiaisonAaron D. JenkinsStaff LiaisonDesign Commission - Recommendation for The Travis ProjectPage 1 City of Austin Design Commission 1 of 1 DESIGN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20190923-02A Date: September 24, 2019 Subject: Design Commission recommendation for The Travis project, located at 80 Red River Street, to determine substantial compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines. Motioned By: Aan Coleman Seconded By: Evan Taniguchi Amendment 01: Katie Halloran Amendment 02: Beau Frail Amendment 03: Samuel Franco Recommendation: The Austin Design Commission recommends that the 80 Red River Street project, as presented on September 23, 2019, is in substantial compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines, with amendments. Rationale: Dear Director of Planning and Zoning, This letter is to confirm the Design Commission’s recommendation that the 80 Red River Street project, as presented to the body on September 23, 2019 substantially complies with the Urban Design Guidelines as one of the gatekeeper requirements of the Downtown Density Bonus Program. The recommendation included three friendly amendments: 1. Recommend that the applicant coordinates with Cap Metro on future transit connecting to Red River Street adjacent to the property. 2. Recommend that the applicant evaluate adding more public restrooms to serve the Café, the Art Space, the Dog Park, and the Food Truck dining area. Currently only one restroom is provided. 3. Recommend that the applicant evaluate the possibility of making the dog park open to the public. It could compliment the food truck dining area. Respectfully, City of Austin Design Commission Vote: 11 - 0 - 0 For: David Carroll, Aan Coleman, Katie Halloran, Evan Taniguchi, Ben Lukens, Beau Frail, Martha Gonzales, Samuel Franco, Melissa Henao-Robledo, Bart Whatley, Josue Meiners Against: n/a Abstain: n/a Absent: n/a Recused: n/a Attest: David Carroll, Chair of the Design Commission

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 9:04 p.m.
Design CommissionSept. 23, 2019

Item 2a- June 2019 Design Commission Memo (The Travis) original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

1/2 MEMORANDUM Date: June 11, 2019 To: City of Austin Design Commission From: Planning & Urban Design Working Group Subject: Downtown Density Bonus Program review of 80 Red River Street project for substantial compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines. Meeting Date: May 30, 2019; 12:00 pm, One Texas Center, Room 500 Applicant: Leah Bojo – Drenner Group Architect: GDA Architects The following is a summary of the comments from the City of Austin Design Commission Working Group in response to the follow-up presentation of the 80 Red River Street Project. The initial presentation to the Working Group was held on April 25. In general, the Working Group concluded that the project remains deficient in substantial compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines. The items below are the individual guidelines which the Working Group finds as non-compliant that contribute the most to the summary of overall non-compliance. (The items from the first meeting that do comply or are not applicable or were not discussed as high-concern have not been restated) AREA WIDE GUIDELINES • Create mixed-use development- The Working Group does not consider the project mixed use due to the primary use being residential/hotel with a very small retail use that is not placed or sized to emphasize accessibility to the public. With the location of the coffee shop on the opposite end of the primary public pedestrian path, the shop is “tucked-in” and away from the public eye and appears to be associated with the hotel and residences and not the public realm. GUIDELINES FOR THE PUBLIC STREETSCAPE • Reinforce pedestrian activity- Great Streets is not provided and as per COA staff is not required. However, the Working Group as stated in the prior memorandum still finds that the project could incorporate “Great Streets-like” features to meet the intent of this gate-keeper requirement for Density Bonus. A generous shaded sidewalk articulated with shade trees, pavers, benches (and/or seating nooks), pedestrian scale lighting, bicycle racks, trash and pet-waste receptacles, drinking fountains, and similar are encouraged to meet this urban infrastructure goal. • Enhance the streetscape- Great Streets is not provided, furniture and kiosks are not provided. Project does not comply and does not provide solutions that satisfy the intent of this section. (see comments above) • No street trees provided- Project does not comply with this section. (see above) • Provide pedestrian-scaled lighting- Project does not comply with this section (see above) …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 9:04 p.m.
Design CommissionSept. 23, 2019

Item 2a- May 2019 Design Commission Memo (The Travis) original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

1/4 MEMORANDUM Date: May 03, 2019 To: City of Austin Design Commission From: Planning & Urban Design Working Group Subject: Downtown Density Bonus Program review of 80 Red River Street project for substantial compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines. Meeting Date: April 25, 2019; 12:00 pm, One Texas Center, Room 500 Applicant: Leah Bojo – Drenner Group Architect: GDA Architects The project is located at the southwest corner of Red River and Davis Streets. Existing zoning for the property is CBD. It lies within the boundary of the Rainey Street Subdistrict of the Waterfront Overlay and the Rainey Street District of the Downtown Austin Plan. The lot area is 2.291 acres (99,796 SF) and the total proposed project area is 1,236,806 square feet. The proposed FAR for this project is 13:1, this is more than the 8:1 maximum allowed, so an increase in FAR of 5:1 is being requested. Two towers are being proposed. One with a building height of 695 feet and a second with a height of 575 feet. Per the Density Bonus Program ordinance, the applicant is required, at a minimum, to meet the three gatekeeper requirements: 1. Substantially comply with the City’s Urban Design Guidelines 2. Provide streetscape improvements that meet the Great Streets Program Standards. 3. Commit to a minimum of 2-Star rating under Austin Energy’s Green Building Program. WORKING GROUP COMMENTS REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES AREA WIDE GUIDELINES 1. Create dense development- 13:1 FAR being requested. Height is taller than most building in this area. Project complies with this section. 2. Create mixed-use development- The project has residential main use. The retail use is very small. There are not two uses per half block. This project does not comply with this section. Provide a greater amount of uses to comply. 3. Limit development which closes downtown streets- This project is not proposing to permanently close any streets. Project complies with this section. 4. Buffer neighborhood edges- Project has one way in and one way out on Red River Street. Vehicular access will have adverse effects on neighborhood traffic flow. The project does not comply with this section. 5. Incorporate civic art in both public and private development- Although unclear as to the final form, public art is being proposed at pedestrian trail head. This project complies with this section. 6. Protect important public views- Project is not within the Capitol View …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 9:05 p.m.
Design CommissionSept. 23, 2019

Item 2a- The Travis (Revised Backup) original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

AUSTIN BOAT HOUSETHE WALLER CREEK TUNNELTHE MEXICAN AMERICAN CULTURAL CENTERTHE VAN ZANDT HOTELTHE SHORE CONDOMINIUMRAINEY STREETSITE SITE EASEMENTS PRIOR FOCUSEXPANDED FOCUSPUBLIC REALM FOCUS TITLEPUBLIC REALM EXPERIENCES WATERLOO GREENWAY ACCESS POINT UPPER AND LOWER PROMENADE WATERLOO OVERLOOK RETAIL / CAFÉ SPACE PREVIOUS BICYCLE KAYAK FOCUS ARTIST IN RESIDENCE INDOOR / OUTDOOR GALLERY PUBLIC ARTIST IN RESIDENCE STUDIO PUBLIC ART OUTDOOR GALLERY WALL EXPANDABLE PUBLIC ART EVENT VENUE PUBLIC FOOD TRUCK PLAZAEXPANDABLE PUBLIC ART EVENT VENUEPUBLIC ART OUTDOOR GALLERY WALL TITLEPUBLIC REALM EXPERIENCES TITLESITE PLAN WITH INTERIOR BUILDING PLANS

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 9:05 p.m.
Design CommissionSept. 23, 2019

Item 2a- The Travis project original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

Backup

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 9:05 p.m.
Design CommissionSept. 23, 2019

Item 2b- Walter E. Long Master Plan briefing original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

WALTER E. LONG METROPOLITAN PARKMaster Plan Review –City CouncilOctober 2019 PARK MASTER PLAN3,695 ac. (overall)Develops an overall vision for the park for current and future guidance Identifies types of recommended recreation uses Prioritizes initial development phase(s) Serves as a reference for future developmentZilkerParkRoy G. Guerrero ParkWalter E. Long Park+/-350 ac. Technical Advisory Group Community Stakeholder Focus GroupsLocal/citywide individuals/entitiesMeetings with area communityPublic Events and Public InteractionIn-person intercept survey Four public meetings at Decker Middle School (March to December 2018)Online EngagementThree opinion surveysMap blogWorkshops with PARD StaffElected/Appointed Officials and BoardsBoards and CommissionsCity CouncilPUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS HISTORY OF THE PARKInitial Master Plan 1966Federally FundedInteresting SimilaritiesUses, Zones, Access POTENTIAL FUTURE SUPPLY OF RETAIL & OFFICE/COMMERCIAL USES (EPS)(1)Captures emerging development; may not represent all development within a 5-mile radius.Sources: ESRI; CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.(# of res. units)(sq. ft.)(sq. ft.)(# of rooms) Development PotentialHigh developability –potential for extensive construction (e.g., buildings, surface parking, athletic fields, infrastructure, etc.)Moderate developability –potential for condensed construction (e.g., playgrounds, picnic areas, etc.)Low developability –potential for low impact construction (e.g., trails, boardwalks, pavilions, etc.)Very limited development –very limited construction, if any (e.g., wetlands, trails, etc.)BACKGROUND –ANALYSIS ActiveActive sports and amenities, organized events, more significant infrastructure, often greater costPassiveLess development/infrastructure, casual activities & hobbies, often less costEnvironmental/NaturalPreservation of vegetation/wildlife, nature-based activities, less development/infrastructure, often less costArts and CulturalCommunity enrichment amenities, activities, and programs, infrastructure and costs range from very little to extensiveTYPES OF RECREATION (PARK USE ZONES) PREFERRED FRAMEWORK PLAN ILLUSTRATIVE MASTER PLANAny proposed park development will comply with applicable City codes and standards or will seek necessary variances. CIRCULATION AROUND THE PARK MASTER PLAN –AREA DETAILS Any proposed park development will comply with applicable City codes and standards or will seek necessary variances. DAY USE / EXISTING LAKESIDE PARK AREAAny proposed park development will comply with applicable City codes and standards or will seek necessary variances. Any proposed park development will comply with applicable City codes and standards or will seek necessary variances. EXPO CENTER AREAAny proposed park development will comply with applicable City codes and standards or will seek necessary variances. PROJECTED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT COST RANGES(1) POTENTIAL PHASE 1 (SOUTH SHORE) DEVELOPMENTPotential Cost Ranges:(1)Initial Phase 1(A) $10 to $20 millionCould include:Gate, Parking, Restrooms, Picnicking Facilities, Initial Infrastructure for Rowing Events Phase 1(B) $15 to $25 millionCould include: Play area, boathouse, day use facilities, Additional Event/Water Activities InfrastructurePhase(s) 1(C) and beyond Cost to TBDCould include: Central recreation area, pier, Lakeside …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 9:05 p.m.
Design CommissionSept. 23, 2019

Item 2c- Street Impact Fee Proposal briefing original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

Austin Transportation DepartmentStreet Impact FeesDesign Commission | September 23, 2019 2Topics•Street Impact Fee Overview•SIF Study Assumptions Report•Next Steps•Questions 3What are Street Impact Fees?•One-time fee for New Development•Calculation to determine the cost of growthfor street infrastructure 4Project Purpose: Why Street Impact Fees?•Determining a method for growth to pay for growth that is:•Equitable •Predictable•Transparent•Ultimate purpose is to develop a fair and reasonable fee development should pay for auto capacity improvements 5What Impact Fees Do•Impact Fees encourage a system that:•Funds transportation improvements: Continues to fund transportation improvements through the development process•Is fair among future developments: Fee is consistent and independent of when developers build (first or last)•Encourages building infrastructure: Allows flexibility to require infrastructure to be built up front•Is equitable in that all new development can contribute: All developments can contribute relative to their impact regardless of meeting a TIA threshold 6How do we calculate the “cost of growth for street infrastructure?”•Project new growth for the next 10 years•Establish Service Areas within which a maximum impact fee is determined•Develop Land Use Assumptions and corresponding growth within each Service Area •Project corresponding roadway capacity needs (Roadway Capacity Plan) to accommodate that growth within each Service Area 7What can Street Impact Fees pay for?Non Capacity Related Projects:•Projects not included in the Roadway Capacity Plan •Repair, operation and maintenance of existing or new facilities•Upgrades to serve existing development•Administrative costs of operating the programComponents that canbe paid forComponents that cannotbe paid for Capacity Related Projects:✓Construction cost of capital improvements in the Roadway Capacity Plan •Roadways –additional lanes, bridges, sidewalks and other “appurtenances” of roadways•Intersections –Signals, turn lanes✓Corridor Planning and Preliminary Engineering✓Survey and Engineering fees✓Land acquisition costs✓Debt Service of Street Impact Fee Plan✓Study/Update Costs 8DataCollectionOct -Dec Jan -Mar Apr -JunJul -Sep Oct-Dec Jan -Mar … Jul -Sep … Jan -Mar … Jul –Sep Oct -Dec Jan –Mar →201620172018Service Areas and Land Use AssumptionsFee Calculation and Policy DevelopmentSTREET IMPACT FEECOUNCIL TOUCHPOINTSEstablish Advisory CommitteeMobility CommitteeCouncil action on PolicyStreet Impact Fee StudyCouncil comments on Service Areas, Land Use AssumptionsCouncil approval of study assumptionsPhase 1Phase 32019Phase 2Roadway Capacity Plan Development(in coordination with ASMP)Mobility CommitteeCouncil approval of ASMPWe are here 9SIF Study Assumptions Report 10Report Materials•Service Areas•Growth Projections•Roadway Capacity PlanCouncilapprovedonAugust22,2019 11Roadway Capacity PlanDeveloped with the Austin Strategic Mobility Plan▪Street segment projects▪New roads▪Expand Roadway & Substandard Street (Widening)▪Access Management▪Intersection projects▪Signals▪Turn lanes▪Special intersections▪Bond Projects▪Capacity-related 12Street designs based on:•Street Network Table →ROW•Transportation Criteria Manual →Cross-sectionsLevel 3 -116’Level 3 -92’ 13Impact Fee Advisory Committee•Meeting Dates•December 1, 2016•February …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 9:06 p.m.
Design CommissionSept. 23, 2019

Item 4a - Draft Meeting Minutes for August 26, 2019 original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

Page 1 of 3 DESIGN COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 2019 6:00 PM AUSTIN CITY HALL, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ROOM 1101 301 W. SECOND STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 Meeting Minutes Call to order by: Chair D. Carroll at 6:02 p.m. Member List X David Carroll – Chair X Melissa Henao‐Robledo X Martha Gonzalez – Vice‐Chair X Ben Luckens X Aan Coleman X Evan Taniguchi X Beau Frail X Bart Whatley X Samuel Franco X Josue Meiners X Katie Halloran Support Staff in attendance: Jorge Rousselin (Executive Liaison; PAZ); Nichole Koerth (Staff Liaison; PAZ); Aaron Jenkins (Staff Liaison; PAZ) Commissioner B. Frail arrived at 6:07 p.m. 1. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: None. 2. NEW BUSINESS (Discussion and Possible Action): a. Discussion and possible action to evaluate and make recommendations regarding whether the 17th & Guadalupe Apartments project, addressed at 313 W. 17th Street, complies with the Urban Design Guidelines, a gatekeeper requirement for the Downtown Density Bonus Program (LDC §25‐2‐586(C)(1)(a)(ii)) (Brockett Davidson, Rhode Partners); Brockett Davidson presented and answered questions from Commissioners. The motion to recommend the project as it complies with the Urban Design Guidelines was made by Vice‐Chair M. Gonzalez and seconded by Commissioner J. Meiners. A friendly amendment regarding the possibility of contracting local artists for their exhibit area, and the decoupling of parking, to be included in the lease agreement, was made by Commissioner S. Franco; and accepted by Vice‐Chair M. Gonzalez and Commissioner J. Meiners. Page 2 of 3 The motion, with friendly amendments, was approved on a vote of [10‐1‐0]. Commissioner A. Coleman opposed. b. Discussion and possible action to evaluate and make recommendations regarding whether The Travis project, addressed at 80 Red River Street, complies with the Urban Design Guidelines, a gatekeeper requirement for the Downtown Density Bonus Program (LDC §25‐2‐586(C)(1)(a)(ii)) (Leah Bojo, Drenner Group; Michael Schooler, GDA Architects; Anna Hoge, Consort, Inc.); Leah Bojo presented, with assistance from Michael Schooler and Mike Fraze (Studio Outside) The motion to postpone this item until the September 23rd Design Commission meeting was made by Chair D. Carroll and seconded by Commissioner B. Luckens. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of [11‐0‐0]. c. Discussion and possible action on the Pedestrian Advisory Council recommendations for the Congress Avenue Urban seeking support from the Commission. Presenter: Vice‐Chair Adam Greenfield; Adam Greenfield presented. The motion to support the project was made by Vice‐Chair M. Gonzalez and seconded by Commissioner B. Luckens. …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 9:06 p.m.
Design CommissionSept. 23, 2019

Item 4d - Urban Design Guidelines City Council Letter original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

August 20,2019 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, The Design Commission would like to update you on the current state of the Urban Design Guidelines, the tool by which all projects are measured for substantial compliance. “Urban Design” influences the largest and most extensive part of people’s lives, it has been a tremendous challenge to approach the issue of updating the Urban Design Guidelines to reflect current needs and future conditions of our city. After numerous discussions beginning with staff and within the Commission, we have created what will be a clear process to craft the necessary changes to the Urban Design Guidelines to best serve our community. The Urban Design Guidelines have not been updated since January 29, 2009 through RESOLUTION NO. 20100819‐035 when City Council First adopted them  The Urban Design Guidelines serve as recommendations for all urban development and redevelopment projects by both the public and private sector  The Urban Design Guidelines recognize the significant impact of the built environment on the historic, iconic, and unique characteristics of Austin and its neighborhoods  Design Commission serves as a tremendous resource to the City Council to offer expert advice on how infrastructure and urban projects can enhance the built environment to be more equitable, vibrant, inclusive, and how to successfully engage community input We request assistance rewriting the Urban Design Guidelines to reflect the rapidly evolving built environment of the City of Austin. The Design Commission requests for the Urban Design Guidelines to be incorporated into the current rewrite efforts of the Land Development Code. The document will be a relevant and complimentary fit to the Land Development Code and shape its relationship to the urban landscape without prescribing technical requirements. We request that the City Manager be directed to work with the City of Austin’s Design Commission on recommendations for design guidelines and procedures to incorporate opportunities for public notification and input. The Design Commission will continue to interface with relevant departments to ensure inclusion and understanding of The Urban Design Guidelines’ proper use. it will be very difficult complete the Guidelines in a timely manner without assistance. Thank you very much for the opportunity to explore and address such an important issue of for the City. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us anytime. Sincerely, Martha Gonzalez Vice‐Chair City of Austin Design Commission

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 9:06 p.m.
Design CommissionSept. 23, 2019

Item 4e- Downtown Density Bonus Memo original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

City of Austin Design Commission Memo Recommending Code Amendments related to Downtown Density Bonus Program September XX, 2019 Esteemed City of Austin Council Members and Mayor Adler and, City of Austin Council Members Today in Austin, skyscraper projects that apply for and comply with the City’s Downtown Density Bonus Program (“Program”) are awarded sometimes triple the number of floors, building mass, and parking spaces, in exchange for arguably modest design improvements. We are advocates for downtown density, but we find the City’s Program and Urban Design Guidelines to be outdated. We don’t think the City or its residents are receiving enough in return for the millions of dollars in ‘bonus’ development entitlements awarded by this Program. We are specifically concerned that the City’s Program is not well aligned with important adopted policy goals including mobility1, pedestrian safety2, climate and sustainability3, livability and affordability4. We propose Code amendments to ensure new downtown skyscraper construction is proportionally helping the City to achieve these adopted goals. We recommend a resolution directing the City Manager to assign multi-departmental staff5 to assist the Design Commission to draft Code amendments to address these shortcomings. Public input from developers and financiers will be important to ensure the Downtown Density Bonus Program remains functional and attractive.  For example, a developer may approach the Design Commission with entitlements for an eight story commercial building, and if compliant with the Program, walk away with the ability to construct 24 stories of hotel space (hundreds of housing units), and 8 stories of parking garages (thousands of additional parking spaces), in exchange for modest street level improvements6, and a somewhat more energy efficient building design7.  The Downtown Density Program’s gatekeeper requirements do not plan for:  Design for ride share queuing and associated pedestrian safety  Public access to structured parking garages or parking demand management systems  Parking structures designed for future re-use as livable space  Downtown mobility planning, i.e. support for alternative mobility options through funding, and discouragement of parking structures, especially if not designed to support transit system. 1 Austin Strategic Mobility Plan 2 Vision Zero 3 Austin Community Climate Plan 4 Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan 5 Austin Transportation Department, Office of Sustainability, Neighborhood Housing and Community Development with Capital Metro partnership. 6 City of Austin Great Streets Program, http://www.austintexas.gov/department/great-streets-program. 7 Two star rating from Austin Energy Green Building Program. Commented [DC1]: Should address to Mayor …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 9:06 p.m.
Human Rights CommissionSept. 23, 2019

Location: Executive Session Conference Room (Room 1027)(Note: This meeting is open to the public.) original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

1 a E, j HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, September 23, 2019 5:30 p.m. – Adjournment City Hall Executive Session Conference Room (Room 1027) (This meeting is open to the public.) 301 W. Second St. Austin, TX 78701 CURRENT COMMISSION MEMBERS:Sareta Davis, Chair Kristian Caballero, Vice Chair Jared Breckenridge Garry Brown Jamarr Brown Isabel Casas Idona Griffith Maram Museitif Courtney Santana Alicia Weigel Nathan White CALL TO ORDER 1. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Citizens signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Consider approval of the minutes from the Human Rights Commission’s August 26, 2019 Regular Meeting. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Review of By-laws that address proper decorum (Chair Davis). 4. NEW BUSINESS a. Presentation by the City Attorney regarding the Human Rights Commission’s public hearing and appeal processes (Caballero/Weigel). Ann Skowronski, Assistant City Attorney b. Presentation by the City Attorney on City Code Chapter 5-2, Discrimination in Public Accommodations (Caballero/Weigel). Patricia Link, Assistant City Attorney c. Consideration, discussion, and possible appropriate action on a letter from the City of Austin Human Rights Commission to the Austin Independent School District Board of 2 Trustees in support of their work on creating a new human sexuality curriculum (Garry Brown/Casas). d. Discussion on the decriminalization of homelessness (Caballero/Weigel). e. Discussion on the prevention of homelessness (Caballero/Weigel). f. Discussion regarding the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act: the prevention and prohibition of discrimination in employment based on reproductive rights, including but not limited to the right to an abortion, the right to utilize in-vitro fertilization, and the right to pregnancy and childbirth outside of marriage (Weigel/Caballero). Amanda Beatriz Williams, Repro Power Austin; Erika Galindo, Repro Power Austin; Aimee Arrambide, Repro Power Austin; Heidi Gerbracht, Repro Power Austin; Emily Martin, Repro Power Austin 5. OLD BUSINESS a. Commissioners will report on and discuss the status of the Commission’s key priority areas of concern for 2019-2020, including plans and strategies for meeting those key priority areas of concern: i. Institutional Equity ii. Environment & Land Use iii. Health Access & Nutrition iv. Autonomy & Human Rights ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:22 p.m.
Human Rights CommissionSept. 23, 2019

Approved Minutes original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

1 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, September 23, 2019 The Human Rights Commission convened in a regular meeting on Monday, September 23, 2019 at 301 West Second Street in Austin, Texas. Chair Sareta Davis called the Board Meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Board Members in Attendance: Chair Davis, Vice Chair Caballero, Commissioner Breckenridge, Commissioner Garry Brown, Commissioner Casas, Commissioner Griffith, Commissioner Museitif, Commissioner Santana, Commissioner Weigel, and Commissioner White. Staff in Attendance: Monika Arvelo, Assistant Director, Human Resources Department (HRD); Jonathan Babiak, Human Resources Coordinator, HRD 1. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL None. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes from the regular meeting of August 26, 2019 were approved on a vote of 6-0: Commissioner Museitif motion, Commissioner Garry Brown second. Voting in favor were Chair Davis, Vice Chair Caballero, Commissioner Garry Brown, Commissioner Casas, Commissioner Griffith, Commissioner Santana, Commissioner Weigel, and Commissioner White. Commissioner Breckenridge and Commissioner Jamarr Brown were absent. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Davis reviewed bylaws that address proper decorum. 4. NEW BUSINESS a. Presentation by the City Attorney regarding the Human Rights Commission’s public hearing and appeal processes (Caballero/Weigel). Ann Skowronski, Assistant City Attorney Ann Skowronski, Assistant City Attorney, presented to the Commission and answered questions from the Commission. The Commission discussed this item. The Commission took no action on this item. b. Presentation by the City Attorney on City Code Chapter 5-2, Discrimination in Public Accommodations (Caballero/Weigel). Patricia Link, Assistant City Attorney Patricia Link, Assistant City Attorney presented to the Commission and answered questions from the Commission. The Commission discussed this item. The Commission took no action on this item. 2 c. Consideration, discussion, and possible appropriate action on a letter from the City of Austin Human Rights Commission to the Austin Independent School District Board of Trustees in support of their work on creating a new human sexuality curriculum (Garry Brown/Casas). The Commission discussed this item. The Commission took no action on this item. d. Discussion on the decriminalization of homelessness (Caballero/Weigel). The Commission discussed this item. The Commission took no action on this item. e. Discussion on the prevention of homelessness (Caballero/Weigel). The Commission discussed this item. The Commission took no action on this item. f. Discussion regarding the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act: the prevention and prohibition of discrimination in employment based on reproductive rights, including but not limited to the right to an abortion, the right to utilize in-vitro fertilization, and the …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:23 p.m.
Human Rights CommissionSept. 23, 2019

Meeting Audio original link

Play audio

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:23 p.m.
Human Rights CommissionSept. 23, 2019

Backup 20190923-4a original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

AUSTIN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONPublic Accommodations Appeal Hearings Code of City Ordinances Title 5, Civil RightsThe Commission investigates charges of discrimination which occur within the City, including:•Fair Housing•Public Accommodations•Employment•Discrimination against People with AIDS•Disability Discrimination Comparison of Legal AuthorityHousing•Texas Local Gov’t Code, Chapter 214 (Fair Housing Ordinances)•Texas Property Code, Chapter 301 (Fair Housing Act)•City Ordinances, Part 5, Civil Rights, Section 5-1Employment•Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21 (Local Commissions)•City Ordinances, Part 5, Civil Rights, Chapter 5-3Public Accommodations•City Ordinances, Part 5, Chapter 5-2•No other state law authority Charge Investigation •File charge within 180 days of alleged occurrence•Notice to Responding Party•Staff determines if charging party made an allegation covered under Chapter 5-2.•Reasonable Cause Determination Staffs Reasonable Cause DeterminationReasonable Cause Found •Staff makes efforts to resolve the matter through informal methods, including conference, conciliation, and persuasion.No Reasonable Cause•Dismissal of the charge and notification to the charging party and the respondent.•Charging party may file a “request for review”of the dismissal within 10 days of receiving notice. This request triggers the hearing before the Commission. Open Meetings Act, City Ordinancesand ResolutionsHearing Process and Procedures Open Meetings Act: Rights of the Public•A meeting that is “open to the public” under the Act is one that the public is permitted to attend.•The Act does not entitle the public to choose the items to be discussed or to speak about items on the agenda. A governmental body may, however, give members of the public an opportunity to speak at a public meeting. If it does so, it may set reasonable limits on the number, frequency, and the time allotted to each speaker. Austin City Ordinance: 5-2 Civil Rights•City Ordinance requires the Commission to hear from the charging party. •The Commission, “shall conduct a hearing and provide the charging party an opportunity to appear to present evidence.”•Open Meetings Act permits limits on the time and scope of the statements made at an open meeting. Resolution 20170518-015•Procedures for Austin City Council Meetings, Public Hearings, and Appeals.•Members of the public are required to register before being permitted to speak, EXCEPT:•City Ordinance 5-2 requires the Commission to permit the charging party to speak.•Resolution 20170518-015, Division 2. Appeals also requires the Commission to permit the charging partyto speak. •Other speakers must register to speak for or against the charging party’s appeal. Order of Proceedings1.Report from City Staff2.Presentation from charging party, limited to 5 minutes. In the 5 minutes, the charging party may call witnesses for examination. 3.Comments …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:23 p.m.
Human Rights CommissionSept. 23, 2019

Backup 20190923-4b original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

DISCRIMINATIONS IN PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONSAUSTIN CITY CODE CHAPTER 5-2CITY OF AUSTIN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONSEPTEMBER 23, 2019 POLICYIt is the policy of the City to bring about through fair, orderly and lawful procedures, the opportunity of each person to obtain goods and services in a public accommodation without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, or disability.DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS -AUSTIN CITY CODE CHAPTER 5-2 -AUSTIN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION -9/23/20192 POLICYThis policy recognizes that individuals possess the right to obtain goods and services in a public accommodation without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, or disability. This policy also recognizes that denying such rights because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, or disability: is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the City and constitutes an unjust denial or deprivation of these inalienable rights within the power and the proper responsibility of government to prevent. DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS -AUSTIN CITY CODE CHAPTER 5-2 -AUSTIN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION -9/23/20193 DISCRIMINATION The direct or indirect exclusion, distinction, segregation, limitation, refusal, denial or any other differentiation in the treatment of a person because of the individual’s race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, or disability in a public accommodation. DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS -AUSTIN CITY CODE CHAPTER 5-2 -AUSTIN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION -9/23/20194 PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONan inn, hotel, motel or other lodging establishment for transient guests, excluding an establishment: located in a building with five or less rooms for rent or hire and occupied by the owner or operation as a primary residence;a restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including a facility located on the premises of a retail establishment or a gasoline station;a movie theatre, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS -AUSTIN CITY CODE CHAPTER 5-2 -AUSTIN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION -9/23/20195 PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONa bar, tavern, pub, drinking establishment, or facility where alcoholic beverages are served for consumption on the premises;a retail establishment that sells goods or services; andan establishment within an establishment and an establishment which holds itself out as serving patrons of a covered establishment. DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS -AUSTIN CITY CODE CHAPTER 5-2 -AUSTIN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION -9/23/20196 REQUIRESA person, including …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:23 p.m.
Human Rights CommissionSept. 23, 2019

Backup 20190923-4c original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

September 23, 2019 To the Trustees of the Austin independent School District: We, the Undersigned, are members of the City of Austin Human Rights Commission. Some of the Commission’s duties include the following: 1. Advise and consult the Austin City Council on all matters involving racial, religious or ethnic discrimination and devise practices to promote equal opportunity. 2. Advisory body on non-discrimination policies, investigate complaints of prejudice and discrimination and conduct educational programs. 3. Secure for all individuals in the City freedom from discrimination because of race, color, disability, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or age. In light of #3 above, and after hearing some of the discussions by a few members of the public in response to the new AISD Human Sexuality curriculum, we write to add our voice in support of your work. Not only are we pleased to see that these studies cover the usual discussions of anatomy, physiology, puberty, reproduction, and HIV and STDs, but it also includes conversations about healthy relationships, the need for personal safety, and gender identity and expression and sexual orientation. In a state where anyone can be fired for any reason, including for just loving someone of their choice, these conversations are vital. In response to some of the hateful things said at the AISD Board of Trustees meeting on August 26, 2019, the Austin HRC felt the need to especially mention our strong support in making sure that transgender lives are a part of this curriculum. At last count, 18 transgender individuals have been killed so far this year in this country; 24 were killed in the United States last year. In fact, the American Medical Association has said that the violence facing the transgender community is an “epidemic” and is especially amplified for transgender people of color. Let’s be very clear here. Every person, be they straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, intersex, non-binary, transgender, or whatever anyone wants to identify as, regardless of color, is a human being. The Austin HRC applauds what you are trying to do here. Thank you so much for your very important work. Sincerely, Sareta Davis, Chair Kristian Caballero, Vice Chair Jared Breckenridge, Commissioner Garry Brown, Commissioner Jamarr Brown, Commissioner Isabel Casas, Commissioner Idona Griffith, Commissioner Maram Museitif, Commissioner Courtney Santana, Commissioner Alicia Weigel, Commissioner Nathan White, Commissioner

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:23 p.m.
Human Rights CommissionSept. 23, 2019

Backup 20190923-4f (1) original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

Background The Austin City Council has a long history of boldly supporting reproductive rights. With their passage of “Rosie’s Resolution” (2018) and the “Abortion is Healthcare” resolution (2017), the Mayor and Council Members affirmed abortion as a critical form of reproductive health care and uplifted the importance of comprehensive coverage of abortion care—denouncing racist and classist coverage bans. Most recently, Council ​unanimously passed a resolution to study the impact of a possible boycott of the state of Alabama in response to the state’s passage of an abortion ban. Furthermore, Austin has been at the forefront of protecting against employment discrimination. In this moment of crisis, the time is now for the Austin City Council to take the next steps in strong support of reproductive health and abortion care in our city. Austin-based grassroots organizations Lilith Fund and NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, with support from the National Institute for Reproductive Health (NIRH) and the Equity Agenda, are suggesting the Austin Human Rights Commission address the problem of employment discrimination against individuals for their reproductive health decisions by expanding the current employment NDO to include protections related to reproductive health decisions. The recommendations are also informed by NIRH’s ​Local Reproductive Freedom Index​, a 2017 report that evaluated 40 cities based on their policies related to reproductive health, rights, and justice. ​Austin​ received a score of 3 stars, out of a possible 5 stars. Alignment with City priorities ●City of Austin Strategic Direction 2023 ○Economic opportunity and affordability ○Health and environment ○Government that works for all Austin already has a robust NDO ordinance in place; we are asking that the language be amended where appropriate to explicitly include ​reproductive health decisions​ in the list of protections. Austin deserves a non-discrimination ordinance that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of reproductive health decisions: ●The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act ​(RHNDA) protects individuals from being fired or facing other repercussions in the workplace because of decisions around their reproductive health. There have been a number of disturbing examples across the country of employers discriminating against employees because of their reproductive health decisions, such as having an abortion, using in vitro fertilization or birth control. ●In this current climate of attacks on abortion, this protection is needed more than ever. People need to know that accessing the abortion care they need – especially if it requires taking time off to travel long-distances to reach a provider – won’t …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:23 p.m.