Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Policy Plan City of Austin Public Review Draft - Not Adopted BAUSTINpaletas 6 Appendix BAUSTINpaletas BAUSTINpaletas paletas F. Comprehensive ETOD Policy Toolkit B AUSTIN How to use the Toolkit The ETOD Policy Toolkit provides a framework for Project Connect station- area planning and investment so that residents, businesses, and neighborhoods can fully and equitably realize the benefits of transit investment in Austin. The 6 ETOD goals guided the identification of 46 policies for pursuing equitable outcomes across five broad categories: small business and workforce, housing, mobility, land use and urban design, and real estate and finance strategies. includes four main Each policy tool sections. To the left of the toolkit, a sidebar includes details on the proposed implementation lead and partners, relevant goals, and policy timeline, prescription set. Description: This section provides a summary of the recommended tool and suggestions for what considerations should and the guide implementation of the tool. design At the end of each Description section, for tools that are not already active in Austin we provide a national example to help demonstrate what the tool can look like in Austin and offer any lessons learned where applicable. Does something like this exist in Austin today?...: This section describes how to update existing tools to reflect ETOD goals, lessons from similar existing tools in Austin, and information on feasibility. Some policy tools already exist but are recommended for expansion/updates, some tools don’t exist but could be modeled on existing Austin efforts, and some tools would be brand new to the Austin context. This Challenges and Implementation section outlines Considerations: any financial, legal, and programmatic considerations for the Implementation Lead to know when planning and designing the tool. Success Metrics: This section includes a small set of metrics that will be developed further by the Implementation Lead to measure the success of the tool over time. or Implementation organization who would create or manage the tool. Agency Lead: A24 DRAFT - ETOD Policy Plan Partners: Additional agencies or organizations who can support in tool implementation. Timeline: Details including how soon to begin preparing and designing the tool (within 1 year, 1-2 years, 3-4 years, and 5+ years) and when the tool should be used (before, during, or after construction of Project Connect). City Council Goals: Identifies which portion of the guidance in City Council’s June 2021 ETOD Resolution (Resolution 20210610-093) that a specific policy tool …
Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Policy Plan City of Austin Public Review Draft - Not Adopted BAUSTINpaletas BAUSTINpaletas Acknowledgements We would like to thank everyone involved in creating Austin’s Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Policy Plan, especially the Community Advisory Committee working group members and Community Connectors who put in countless hours engaging their networks and advising staff over the course of a year. We also appreciate the City of Austin, CapMetro, and Austin Transit Partnership staff who reviewed drafts of the policy tools and contributed key information on local context and implementation considerations. We could not have completed the ETOD Policy Plan without the hard work of our consultant team, including HR&A Advisors, Nelson\Nygaard, Perkins&Will, Asakura Robinson, Cultural Strategies, and Movitas Mobility. Lastly, we thank the people of Austin, especially historically marginalized communities, for joining us as partners. You helped envision the future we want and you’ll be the key to implementing ETOD so that we can achieve the equitable outcomes that everyone deserves. BAUSTINpaletas Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................5 1. Background.........................................................................................6 Introduction...................................................................................8 Planning History and Impact of Existing TODs in Austin...................9 Adding the “E” to TOD...................................................................12 2. ETOD Goals........................................................................................14 Approach to ETOD Goal Development.............................................16 ETOD Goals....................................................................................17 3. Station Area Typologies and Planning Priorities..................................18 Typologies Background.................................................................20 Elements of the ETOD Station Typologies......................................22 Austin’s ETOD Typologies..............................................................24 Station Area Planning Priorities.....................................................28 4. ETOD Policy Toolkit............................................................................38 Introduction to the Policy Toolkit..................................................40 Summary of Policy Tools................................................................41 5. Next Steps / Action Plan...................................................................48 6. Appendix...........................................................................................56 A. ETOD Engagement Process.......................................................A2 B. Station Area Existing Conditions Analysis.................................A5 C. ETOD Goals Development.........................................................A6 D. ETOD Typology Methodology.....................................................A8 E. Station Area Planning Priority Methodology.............................A14 F. Comprehensive ETOD Policy Toolkit.........................................A24 How to Use the Toolkit........................................................A24 Small Business & Workforce Development...........................A27 Housing Affordability..........................................................A46 Mobility...............................................................................A74 Land Use & Urban Design.....................................................A95 Real Estate & Financial Strategies.....................................A117 BAUSTINpaletas City of Austin - DRAFT 5 BAUSTINpaletasExecutive SummaryPurpose of the PlanThe Equitable Transit-Oriented Development (ETOD) Policy Plan is a comprehensive framework to help the Austin community ensure that future development around the Project Connect transit system supports residents of all incomes and backgrounds, especially those who have been disproportionately burdened by past transportation and land use decisions. The City of Austin worked with our partners at CapMetro and the Austin Transit Partnership as well as the community to craft the goals of ETOD in Austin, the tools that can help us reach those goals, and the actions we must take to achieve equitable outcomes along the transit system. Ultimately, the …
Equitable Transit-Oriented Development ETOD Policy Plan Planning Commission - November 2022 Purpose of the Plan Provide a comprehensive framework to help the Austin community ensure that future development around the Project Connect transit system supports residents of all incomes and backgrounds, especially those who have been disproportionately burdened by past transportation and land use decisions. ETOD Resolution 20210610-093 • Prioritization of equitable outcomes • Categorization of TODs by tiers using context-sensitive criteria • Anti-displacement strategies • Preservation of existing and creation of affordable housing • Creation of market-rate housing • Compact, connected and transit-supportive • Mix of land uses • Codify community benefits What is ETOD? TOD vs. Equitable TOD Why we are going from this.... To this! 4 The ETOD Team 5 Austin’s ETOD Journey Corridor Bond, ASMP, and Project Connect ETOD Study ETOD POLICY PLAN REGULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION Established corridors of Establishes protypes for TOD Recommendations for focus, mode split goals, that reflect Austin’s vision to planning prioritization, and procured funding for equitably share the benefits typologies, policy tools, high-capacity transit of transit investments for and next steps to project delivery. residents of all income levels, implement ETOD in Austin. to zoning. Could be and backgrounds. Adopt ETOD station area plans and code amendments that may include updates expanded to other geographies in the future. WE ARE HERE 2016 - 2020 2021 - 2022 2022 - 2023 2023 - onward 6 ETOD Study • $1.65 million in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) TOD planning grants • 98 stations across all Project Connect lines 1 2 Quantitative analysis of existing conditions within ½ mile of station areas Qualitative data collection through robust community engagement 7 Dashboard – Existing Conditions Dashboard Home Page Multifamily Inventory Total Jobs by Industry Station Tour Interactive Data : • Population • Displacement Risk • Jobs • Urban Fabric • Real Estate • Mobility s c i m a n y D s c i t s i r e t c a r a h c l a i c o S l a c i s y h P 8 8 Engagement Touchpoints Community Presentation Large format meetings to present project milestones CAC Working Group Briefings Monthly meetings, Ongoing guidance throughout project and major milestones Tabling/Intercept Surveys In-person events to target specific neighborhoods or demographics Focus Groups & One-on-ones Guided discussions with groups to identify vision and needs and to build consensus amongst stakeholders …
November 10, 2022 -- Meeting Notes – Re: Brodie Oaks Development Austin Energy, COA Law Dept, Brodie Oaks Development Team, Planning Commissioner Greg Anderson • AE: Andy H., Stuart, Scott B., Lisa, Maria, Michael P., Reza, Nick S., Noelle, Pamela E. • COA: Kait • Armbrust & Brown: Jewel, David Lionheart: Rebecca, Abby • • Brodie Oaks Owner Rep: Milo • Engineers & Planners: Steven, Joe Longaro Intros Rebecca Leonard • Apologized for communication breakdowns; transparency and engagement have been cornerstones of the approach for the last 3 years • Have had many meetings with AE staff • Most recently Summer 2022; included Stuart and Jackie o Clear direction that only option was 1.5 acre substation site on property o Approx 1/3 of substation capacity would be for the Brodie Oaks development Left the mtg thinking that was AE's final say; didn't realize AE was still working on things • • Does not support substation on site • Have met with several entities and none of them think this is a great location for a substation • Stuart Interested in hearing more from AE in terms of what options are available • Did not intend that meeting to be final • • We have not been approaching this as, this is a nice to have, so we can burden this site and Left the meeting with the intent that the teams would look for creative solutions together • serve other areas First and foremost, we need a substation to serve this site and we don't have the substation capacity elsewhere to serve it • All sites are not the same from an engineering perspective • Never encountered this issue at the zoning stage of the work • This is a long way out; why now? • What would AE do if Milo decided not to do this project? How would you serve S. Austin • Can't plan out too far due to 10 year rule associated with eminent domain • A load such as this, which is a few years out, is really right around the corner for us • Team provided very preliminary loading estimate; was very conservative on it • Expect they will come in lower than that • AE recognizes that load estimates are estimates and that load varies over time; thus, AE applies a diversification factor to load estimates; used to determine how to feed the …
Amend Commissi Section Pg # Proposed Amendment Proposed Text Change Text Change Included References and Notes (if WG Vote Tally ment # oner (Underline added text/Strikethrough deleted text) in Amendment (YES/NO) needed) 1 Shieh § 25-2-769.04 (D) 5 of 14 strike out "two stories" and "three stories" in this section The height limitation for Yes 5-0-0 and remove the reference to stories from all other parts of a structure is: the ordinance. (1) two stories and 35 feet, if the structure is 50 feet or less from a triggering property; (2) three stories and 45 feet, if the structure is more than 50 feet and not more than 100 feet from a triggering property; or 2 3 Thompson § 25-2-769.06 (F) 10 and 11 of 14 Fee in lieu funds must be used within 1 mile of the property and within 0.25 miles of a corridor. Shieh § 25-2-769.06 (F) 4 and 10 of 14 Allow the same compatibility standards on both light rail No No We want housing in 4-0-0 transit supported areas 5-0-0 4 Shieh § 25-2-769.06 (F) 4 and 10 of 14 The compatibility standards for medium corridors should No 5-0-0 (2) and (3), and § 25-2-769.04 (B) (2) (4), and § 25-2- 769.04 (B) (2) and large corridors. This standard should be the following: - a structure can reach allowable height if the structure is located at least 100 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an affordable housing program. - a structure can reach allowable height if the structure is located at least 200 feet from a triggering property if it is not participating in an affordable housing program. be the following: - a structure can reach a maximum height of 65 ft if the structure is located at least 100 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an affordable housing - a structure can reach a maximum height of 75 ft if the structure is located at least 150 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an affordable housing program. program. - a structure can reach the allowable height if the structure is located at least 200 feet from a triggering property, whether it is participating in an affordable housing program or not. 5 Shieh § 25-2-769.04 (C) 5 of 14 Define what is or is not allowed in the 25 foot compatibility No This …
1 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MOTION 20221005-003 Date: October 5, 2022 Subject: Park 290 Logistic, SP-2021-0095C Motion by: Jennifer Bristol RATIONALE: Seconded by: Kevin Ramberg WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the applicant is requesting to vary from LDC 25-8-342 to allow fill over 4 feet up to 28 feet and requesting to vary from LDC 25-8-341 to allow cut over 4 feet up to 22 feet and; WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the site is located in the Gilleland Creek Watershed, Suburban, Desired Development Zone; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes that Staff recommends this variance, with conditions having determined the required Findings of Fact have been met. THEREFORE, the Environmental Commission recommends the variance request with the following conditions: Staff Conditions: • Provide a tree-shaded outdoor seating area as to encourage employees to take breaks on-site, rather than driving to alternative locations. • Provide an on-site trail with drainage swales that naturally convey flows into existing on-site ponds. • Provide vegetative walls adjacent to the critical environmental feature located on the site. • Provide terraced landscaping area in the open space allocated on the site. and the following Environmental Commission Conditions: • • • • • • Recommend including solar technology where possible Recommend using A/C condensation catchment system to be used for landscaping Include at least one EV charging station for staff or visitors Encourage long-term tree care plan for the new and existing trees Utilize native plant standards for Blackland Prairie Utilize Dark Sky lighting in outdoor spaces The applicant will work with staff and landscape architect to increase the number of trees on site by 50 additional trees beyond what is on the plan set to the maximum extent practicable per site condition availability. Incorporate plants that support pollinators. The applicant will work with staff to review the reflective glass product they have proposed to ensure it is reducing bird strikes onsite. VOTE 9-0 For: Aguirre, Bedford, Brimer, Bristol, Ramberg, Schiera, Scott, Thompson, and Qureshi Against: None Abstain: None Recuse: None Absent: Barrett Bixler and Nickells Approved By: Kevin Ramberg, Environmental Commission Chair • • • 2
1 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MOTION 20221005-003 Date: October 5, 2022 Subject: Park 290 Logistic, SP-2021-0095C Motion by: Jennifer Bristol RATIONALE: Seconded by: Kevin Ramberg WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the applicant is requesting to vary from LDC 25-8-342 to allow fill over 4 feet up to 28 feet and requesting to vary from LDC 25-8-341 to allow cut over 4 feet up to 22 feet and; WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the site is located in the Gilleland Creek Watershed, Suburban, Desired Development Zone; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes that Staff recommends this variance, with conditions having determined the required Findings of Fact have been met. THEREFORE, the Environmental Commission recommends the variance request with the following conditions: Staff Conditions: • Provide a tree-shaded outdoor seating area as to encourage employees to take breaks on-site, rather than driving to alternative locations. • Provide an on-site trail with drainage swales that naturally convey flows into existing on-site ponds. • Provide vegetative walls adjacent to the critical environmental feature located on the site. • Provide terraced landscaping area in the open space allocated on the site. and the following Environmental Commission Conditions: • • • • • • Recommend including solar technology where possible Recommend using A/C condensation catchment system to be used for landscaping Include at least one EV charging station for staff or visitors Encourage long-term tree care plan for the new and existing trees Utilize native plant standards for Blackland Prairie Utilize Dark Sky lighting in outdoor spaces The applicant will work with staff and landscape architect to increase the number of trees on site by 50 additional trees beyond what is on the plan set to the maximum extent practicable per site condition availability. Incorporate plants that support pollinators. The applicant will work with staff to review the reflective glass product they have proposed to ensure it is reducing bird strikes onsite. VOTE 9-0 For: Aguirre, Bedford, Brimer, Bristol, Ramberg, Schiera, Scott, Thompson, and Qureshi Against: None Abstain: None Recuse: None Absent: Barrett Bixler and Nickells Approved By: Kevin Ramberg, Environmental Commission Chair • • • 2
REGULAR MEETING of the PRESERVATION PLAN COMMITTEE of the HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18 – 11:00 A.M. STREET-JONES BUILDING, ROOM 400A 1000 E. 11TH STREET AUSTIN, TEXAS Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, call or email the board liaison at (512) 974-3393 or preservation@austintexas.gov. CURRENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS: x Beth Valenzuela, Chair x Harmony Grogan x Ben Heimsath ab Carl Larosche DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Speakers 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. There were no speakers APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. 2. June 29, 2022 August 15, 2022 MOTION: Approved the minutes on a motion by Commissioner Heimsath, seconded by Commissioner Valenzuela. Vote 3-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. ULI Technical Assistance Panel update • In future discussions with ULI TAP – stress the term “preservation” be solely connected to the Historic Preservation Program and current Preservation Plan initiatives. Not to be confused with projects or programs outside of our prevue. 4. Preservation plan handoff workshop recap • Meeting canceled due to lack of quorum. Informal conversations were recorded by staff. • City Council fully funded Preservation Plan proposed budget for FY23. 5. Project website updates • Summer Intern, Katherine Enders, developed and posted a survey to the website for public feedback and input. • Draft Recommendations for Preservation Plan will be posted to website within the next month. platforms. 6. Communications about draft plan this fall • Flyers will start to be posted around Austin. • Social media outreach and engagement videos will begin to appear on online • Press releases will be sent out regularly through the beginning of the year. • Reaching out to City Boards & Commissions to raise interest. 7. Engagement around draft plan • Hiring process has opened for consultant firm. • Newly created (temporary) staff position will begin hiring process early next year. • Look into combining Committee and Working Group meetings for future meetings. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS • Consultant scope • Community Ambassador recruitment • City Council …
Last week, staff did not address Commissioner Schneider’s question about “the 10 percent Opposition to Case C814-2021-0099, Brodie Oaks PUD AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND PUD BONUS CALCULATIONS Nov. 14, 2022 From: Lorraine Atherton, member, Zilker Neighborhood Association Zoning Committee 2009 Arpdale, Austin TX 78704 Council District 5 Over the three years that ZNA has been aware of this case, the affordable housing component has always come up at the end of the discussion, when everybody is ready to go home. If affordable housing is the Planning Commission’s and City Council’s top priority, however, the PUD requirements for affordable housing really should be examined more closely. standard in typical bonus programs.” They simply stated that the package met superiority. If the applicant did intend to develop on-site affordable units at the 10% standard, the PUD would be incorporating 170 affordable units (10% of 1,700) onsite, in addition to contributing an $8.6 million fee- in-lieu to cover the nonresidential bonus area. Also, it should be noted that the new standard for bonus height programs is 12% of units (in this case 204 affordable units). Please ask staff to explain how the value of the land under an unfunded future affordable housing complex of only 100 units can be higher than the value of 170 affordable units onsite and a cash contribution of $8.6 million to NHCD that could be used to support projects offsite immediately. The “stand-alone”affordable apartment building offered in the Brodie PUD is not a gift, and it is not even a reliable commitment. To make a long story short, Austin cannot rely on speculative rezoning agreements to provide affordable housing in the short-term. The history of the tiny PUD at Riverside and South Lamar (Taco PUD) is instructive. TACO PUD COMPARISONS To summarize: vaguely defined fee-in-lieu of less than $500,000 was deemed superior as an affordable housing contribution. The PUD ultimately delivered no housing and no fee-in-lieu. 108 hotel rooms and 27 luxury condos; plus, a direct, immediate cash donation was made to a deeply affordable 110-unit permanent supportive apartment project about one mile away from the PUD site. Construction on the nonprofit project began almost immediately, followed closely by the PUD hotel project, delivering $3.7 million to Austin’s affordable housing program. 2013 Taco PUD ordinance The Affordable Housing section of the 2013 PUD ordinance for 1211 W. Riverside (211 S. Lamar) reads: “PART 9. Affordable Housing Program. The …
From: To: Subject: Date: JJ Reinken Rivera, Andrew Janis Reinken comments for PC Mtg 11-15-22, Items 19 and 21 Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:33:39 AM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** 11-15-22 Dear Mr. Rivera, Please distribute these comments to the Planning Commission for the special called meeting today. I oppose Item 19 and Item 21, and urge the PC members to follow the city staff recommendation opposing Item 19, and reject the city staff recommendation that favors Item 21. PC members would be way off base to push these proposals forward without current, verifiable facts to support them. Population demographic information prepared by the previous City Demographer was ignored, and the alternate data used for these proposals is overly broad and out of date. Infrastructure needs to augment and improve water / wastewater capacity in Austin are being ignored, and the "notice" sent to a limited number of persons about encroachments in their vicinity fails for lack of sufficiently specific information to enable people to know what changes are afoot, and the notice is lacking about how to protest these actions. A thorough analysis of the labor market and earning power of workers within Austin city limits needs to be made and adjustments to the concept of “affordability” and the FPL limits need to be modified to include 10-50% levels. Fees in lieu of providing affordable units need to be removed. This undermines the goals of helping "working class" residents find adequate housing for their needs. Building tall towers of "Class A Luxury Apartments" does not address the affordability issue. It is time for the City Commissions and City Council to quit making sweeping decisions first, and thinking afterward about the adverse implications imposed on the residents and taxpayers of Austin. Sincerely, Janis Reinken reinken.austx@gmail.com Austin, Texas 78757 (CD 7, Precinct 220) CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov.
C20-2022-004 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET (Planning Commission 11/15/22) Amendment: C20-2022-004 Compatibility on Corridors Description: Consider an amendment to Title 25 of the City Code to modify compatibility standards as applied to certain projects on certain corridors. Proposed Language: See attached draft code language and background information. Summary of proposed code amendment • The proposed amendment will generally reduce compatibility for a residential or mixed-use project on a defined set of corridors: Medium, Large, or Light Rail Line. For all eligible projects on a corridor: o Compatibility will extend 300’in distance (vs 540’ today) o Compatibility will be triggered by zoning only (not use) o An additional 5’ of height will be allowed vs current standards • Projects providing affordable housing may be granted a further reduction in compatibility: o Maximum height at a distance of 100’ from a triggering property for projects on a light rail line o 65’ of height at a distance of 100’ from a triggering property and 90’ of height at 200’ from a triggering property on a large corridor o 65’ of height at a distance of 150’ from a triggering property and 90’ of height at 250’ from a triggering property on a medium corridor • Minimum parking requirements are reduced for residential or mixed-use corridor properties: o 25% of what would otherwise be required for a light rail line or large corridor o 50% of what would otherwise be required for a medium corridor Background: Initiated by City Council Resolution 20220609-066. The City of Austin’s current compatibility standards apply to sites that are within 540 feet (or nearly two downtown blocks) of the property line of an urban family residence (SF-5) or more restrictive zoning district. Compatibility standards also apply when a site is adjacent to a lot on which a use permitted in an SF-5 or more restrictive zoning district is located. Current compatibility standards include: • Height and Setback Limitations • Scale and Clustering Requirements • Screening Requirements 11/15/2022 1 C20-2022-004 The dimensional characteristics of the City’s current compatibility standards are shown in the image below, with annotations in pink text showing the proposed compatibility standards along light rail lines, large corridors, and medium corridors as defined in the ordinance: Existing Compatibility Standards and Proposed Compatibility Standards Along Specified Corridors In June 2022, City Council adopted a resolution that directed staff to modify the application of compatibility to projects on certain …
Amend Commissi Section Pg # Proposed Amendment Proposed Text Change Text Change Included References and Notes (if ment # oner (Underline added text/Strikethrough deleted text) in Amendment (YES/NO) needed) 1 Shieh § 25-2-769.04 (D) 5 of 14 strike out "two stories" and "three stories" in this section The height limitation for Yes and remove the reference to stories from all other parts of a structure is: the ordinance. (1) two stories and 35 feet, if the structure is 50 feet or less from a triggering property; (2) three stories and 45 feet, if the structure is more than 50 feet and not more than 100 feet from a triggering property; or 2 3 Thompson § 25-2-769.06 (F) 10 and 11 of 14 Fee in lieu funds must be used within 1 mile of the property Shieh § 25-2-769.06 (F) 4 and 10 of 14 Allow the same compatibility standards on both light rail and within 0.25 miles of a corridor. No No We want housing in transit supported areas (2) and (3), and § 25-2-769.04 (B) (2) and large corridors. This standard should be the following: - a structure can reach allowable height if the structure is located at least 100 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an affordable housing program. - a structure can reach allowable height if the structure is located at least 200 feet from a triggering property if it is not participating in an affordable housing program. [Proposed Amendment 1: Light rail not participating in an affordable housing program: 1) 65' @ >100' and <150' from triggering property, 2) 85' @ >150' and <200' from triggering property. This would allow by right density along light rail. 65' and 85' building heights are outside of line of sight with 35' and 45' heights at 25' and 50' from triggering property line respectively.] 4 Shieh § 25-2-769.06 (F) 4 and 10 of 14 The compatibility standards for medium corridors should No (4), and § 25-2- 769.04 (B) (2) be the following: - a structure can reach a maximum height of 65 ft if the structure is located at least 100 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an affordable housing program. - a structure can reach a maximum height of 75 ft if the structure is located at least 150 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an …
Palm District Planning Initiative Planning Commission November 15, 2022 Content Background and Study Area What We Heard Vision and Scenarios Implementation/Next Steps Background and Study Area Develop a shared vision for a complex, culturally rich, and rapidly transforming part of downtown Austin. 4 5 Resolution 20190523-029 Palm School Negotiations Rainey Street District Fund Fifth Street Mexican American Heritage Corridor Convention Center Expansion District Planning Process Improved Connectivity 6 WE ARE HERE 7 Equity-Based Goals Create a safe, welcoming place history Preserve and interpret Enhance educational and cultural assets Provide economic benefits Increase access to housing Improve mobility and access Improve access to nature, enhance natural systems, and support an equitable, sustainable, resilient future 8 What We Heard Participants • Visits to SpeakUp Austin! Webpage: 3,600 • Survey Responses: 700+ (3 Surveys) • Visioning Forum Attendees: 150+ • Targeted East Austin Outreach: 75 + (Individuals and Organizations) • AIA Event Participants: 60+ • Interactive Map Responses: 25+ 10 Survey Demographics 11 Visioning Forums 12 Targeted East Austin Engagement: • La Raza Roundtable • Current and Former Elected Officials • Greater Austin Hispanic Chamber of Commerce • Tejano Democrats • Palm School Alumni • The Emma S. Barrientos Mexican American Cultural Center (ESB-MACC) • La Pena Arts, Inc. • Mexic-Arte • Nuestro Grupo/Academia Cuauhtli • AHMIGA (Latina civic and social networking organization) • Café Con Letras • L.A.C.E. • PODER • Long-time East Austin residents 13 American Institute of Architects Recommendations: 14 Vision and Scenarios VISION The Palm District is a vibrant historic hub of downtown where the past is honored, culture is celebrated, and the future is shaped. Dense transit-oriented development is balanced with history and natural spaces creating physical connections that invite people to move easily to and through the district. The district is a dynamic place, growing and evolving, while actively retaining families and individuals who have traditionally called this place home. Creativity and innovation are cultivated, and people from Austin and beyond are welcome to live, relax, work, play, learn, and connect with others. 16 INCLUSIVE GROWTH Growth in the district will provide a prosperous future for longtime and recent residents and for established and new businesses. 17 CULTURE The district will become a destination that celebrates its multi- cultural heritage. 18 CONNECTION Physical, cultural and social connections will be strengthened within downtown and between …
From: To: Subject: Date: JJ Reinken Rivera, Andrew Janis Reinken comments for PC Mtg 11-15-22, Items 19 and 21 Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:33:39 AM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** 11-15-22 Dear Mr. Rivera, Please distribute these comments to the Planning Commission for the special called meeting today. I oppose Item 19 and Item 21, and urge the PC members to NOT follow the city staff recommendation opposing Item 19, and reject the city staff recommendation that favors Item 21. PC members would be way off base to push these proposals forward without current, verifiable facts to support them. Population demographic information prepared by the previous City Demographer was ignored, and the alternate data used for these proposals is overly broad and out of date. Infrastructure needs to augment and improve water / wastewater capacity in Austin are being ignored, and the "notice" sent to a limited number of persons about encroachments in their vicinity fails for lack of sufficiently specific information to enable people to know what changes are afoot, and the notice is lacking about how to protest these actions. A thorough analysis of the labor market and earning power of workers within Austin city limits needs to be made and adjustments to the concept of “affordability” and the FPL limits need to be modified to include 10-50% levels. Fees in lieu of providing affordable units need to be removed. This undermines the goals of helping "working class" residents find adequate housing for their needs. Building tall towers of "Class A Luxury Apartments" does not address the affordability issue. It is time for the City Commissions and City Council to quit making sweeping decisions first, and thinking afterward about the adverse implications imposed on the residents and taxpayers of Austin. Sincerely, Janis Reinken reinken.austx@gmail.com Austin, Texas 78757 (CD 7, Precinct 220) CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov.
$6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Customer Energy Solutions FY22 – Quarter 4 Report As of September 30, 2022 Quarterly Rebates by District and Outside of COA $3.7M $3.7M $4.4M $5.5M FY22Q1 1 FY22Q2 4 5 2 3 6 7 8 10 Outside COA FY22Q3 9 FY22Q4 DABI to provide graph. Reach out 3 work days days prior to due date. Solar PBI not included. Rebates paid may not align with AE Finance eCombs system as of September 30, 2022. Dollars are unaudited. Data is as of September 30, 2022 and is not a complete year. Energy Efficiency Services Residential Programs AE Weatherization (WAP) – Direct Install In Q1 of FY22, the Weatherization Assistance Program returned to performing final QC • inspections in the field with our third party vendors. This move will ensure that customers are receiving the highest quality of installations. • The Weatherization Assistance Program also launched the Medically Vulnerable Registry (MVR) AC (Air Conditioning) Pilot Program. This Pilot Program will provide CAP customers on the MVR with new or repaired AC units. Appliance Efficiency Program (AEP) FY22 Q1, The Appliance Efficiency Program is in the process of working on a new proposal and • processes for implementing an additional measure, Solar Screens, to the program. Target go live date is Spring of FY22. • The Appliance Efficiency Program is currently working on outreach material to target new potential contractors in the Austin Energy service area; to provide program eligibility, incentives, etc. Home Performance w/Energy Star (HPwES) 1 • The program team worked with Texas Gas Service in December to add them to FY22 the Limited Time Offer. Texas Gas Service joined the Limited Time Offer on 1/7/2022 with an $100 rebate for eligible Texas Gas Service customers. • To promote quality control, the Home Performance with ENERGY STAR program resumed Third Party QA /QC inspections in Q1. Instant Savings joined with Austin Water in Spring 2022 to run a pilot for hose-end timers, and SPUR – Instant Savings • it was a great success. In-store markdown participation for the water hose-end timers exceeded forecasts. We are planning to expand the offer to more stores Spring 2023, • The vendor field representative held three in-store events this quarter to bring awareness to Instant Savings, Power Partner and other EES programs. He was able to provide education on lighting (esp. Holiday lighting), the Power Partner Seasonal special …
H2@Scale “in Texas and Beyond” Proto-Hub + Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs Brian Weeks, P.E. bweeks@gti.energy 281.235.7993 November 2022 DOE’s Hydrogen at Scale Vision Hydrogen can Fuel a Sustainable Energy Transition by enabling U.S. energy security, resiliency and decarbonize the energy sector • Hydrogen can be produced from diverse domestic resources for use in multiple sectors, or for export. • Hydrogen has the highest energy content by weight of all known fuels – 3X higher than gasoline - and is a critical feedstock for the entire chemicals industry, including liquid fuels. • Hydrogen and fuel cells can enable zero or near zero emissions in transportation, stationary or remote power, and portable power applications. • Hydrogen can be used as a “responsive load” on the grid to enable grid stability and gigawatt-hour energy storage, and increase utilization of power generators, including nuclear, coal, natural gas, and renewables. • Hydrogen can enable innovations in domestic industries (such as steel manufacturing and energy storage) and in transportation (e.g. in vehicles, rail, aviation, and marine applications) and iron making. https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2scale H2@Scale relevant for Texas Texas ideal to lead H2 production for a sustainable energy system • Excellent resources of natural gas, solar and wind for RH2 • Largest H2 producer in the nation • Major industry leaders on Hydrogen Council have significant presence in Texas 3 Approach Show H2@Scale benefits 1. Demonstrate multiple RH2 generation options, co-located with vehicle fueling and a large base load consumer to enable cost-effective H2 energy solutions 2. Develop framework for actionable H2@Scale pilot plans in Texas, Port of Houston and Gulf Coast region, including energy storage 4 • 40 kg/d from 2 PEM electrolyzers in H70 & H35 SimpleFuel units: MHI, SoCalGas, TACC, TCEQ Demonstration activities at UT (Track 1) ~100% renewable H2 generation • 75 kg/d SMR: GTI, OneH2, ONE Gas, WM • RNG credits from landfill in Texas • Solar power and emulated wind power through UT CEM microgrid Large scale, industry H2 user • 100 kW fuel cell powering Texas Advanced Computing Center Vehicle refueling • Published SAE J2601-4 fueling of 7-10 Toyota Mirai’s (Gen 1) • Hydrogen powered drones 5 Port of Houston H2 Framework (Track 2) • Identify policy and regulatory barriers • Define use and implementation plans leveraging existing industry resources • Develop actionable plan for H2@Scale and FCEV rollout in region Partnering with other synergistic activities currently underway in Texas Image …
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION Resolution Supporting Electric-Ready and EV-Ready Amendments to the Energy Conservation Code WHEREAS, it is the purpose of the Resource Management Commission to “review and analyze the City Code to identify potential amendments that encourage the use of alternate energy technologies and renewable energy sources, and the conservation of energy” and to“[a]dvise the city council regarding appropriate City Code amendments that encourage the use of alternate energy technologies and renewable energy sources, and the conservation of energy.” and WHEREAS, the Austin Climate Equity Plan, adopted by city Council on September 30, 2021, sets a goal for the entire Austin community to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 and states that carbon “offsets should constitute no more than 10% of the baseline. This 10% should be reserved for sectors where emission reductions are cost-prohibitive or impossible to reduce with existing technology.” and WHEREAS, the Austin Climate Equity Plan sets the goal to “achieve net-zero carbon for all new buildings” by 2030, states that “A net-zero operational carbon building is highly efficient and entirely powered by on- or off-site renewable energy.” and establishes a strategy to “Achieve goal milestones for net-zero carbon buildings through new building energy codes, amendments, and other methods.” and WHEREAS, the Austin Climate Equity Plan includes the strategy to “Adopt new energy and building codes that address future EV charging needs and enable a more equitable approach by simplifying the charging network and lowering barriers to entry for installing EV charging.” and WHEREAS, electrification of buildings and transportation, paired with renewable electricity production are highly effective strategies for addressing the climate crisis and outdoor and indoor air pollution, and WHEREAS, including proper wiring and electric service to accommodate future use of electric appliances in homes and electric vehicle charging at homes and businesses is more affordable than retrofitting buildings after they are built; and WHEREAS, studies show homes and buildings that are built electric ready provide the necessary electrical infrastructure at significantly reduced costs to the building owner; and WHEREAS, electric-ready provisions ensure that homes and apartments built with gas or propane can easily accommodate future electric appliances and such capabilities provide homeowners with greater flexibilities in appliance selections and protect homeowners from future costs, should they wish to utilize electric appliances; and WHEREAS, both the public comments during the process to adopt the 2021 Energy Conservation Code and during the recent public input process …
