Equity Considerations in Contracts and Program Funding Historic Landmark Commission August 3, 2022 Neal Falgoust, Assistant City Attorney Purpose • Discuss legal risks associated with using race, gender and protected-class criteria in determining awards of contracts and program funding. 2 Why Now? • Recent federal court decisions that put race-focused programs at risk. • Law Department deliberative process. • Briefing to City Council. 3 Acknowledgement • History of intentional racial segregation – 1928 Master Plan and “Negro District.” • Oppression of BIPOC – 1954 Federal Housing Act, “urban renewal,” and seizing of Black-owned land. • City Council has committed the City to correcting its racist practices. (Resolution 20210304-067) 4 City’s Programs • As part of Project Connect, community members developed displacement mitigation strategies and an equity tool to guide decision making. (“Nothing About Us Without Us”) • EDD also wants an equity focus for the Cultural Arts and Heritage Tourism grant programs. 5 Legal Foundation • 14th Amendment – Equal Protection Clause • No government may “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 6 “Tiered Scrutiny” • Strict Scrutiny (Race, National Origin, Religion, Alienage) – Government must demonstrate the policy is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling purpose. • Intermediate Scrutiny (Gender, Sex, Sexual Orientation?) – Government must demonstrate the policy is substantially related to an important purpose. • Rational Basis (Age, Disability, Wealth, Felony Status) – The policy must have a rational connection to a legitimate interest. 7 Strict Scrutiny Any government program that takes race into consideration faces strict scrutiny by the courts. Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous judicial review. Courts start with presumption that policy is invalid and government must prove its interests. 8 Compelling Government Interest The government must demonstrate: • actual discrimination in the relevant market, and • that the government either actively or passively perpetuated the discrimination. 9 Narrowly Tailored The government must demonstrate: • it considered other race-neutral policies; • race-neutral policies failed to achieve the compelling interest. 10 City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. • “Generalized assertions” of past racial discrimination would not justify “rigid” quotas; • 30 percent quota could not be connected to “any injury suffered by anyone;” • Race-neutral measures must be seriously considered. 11 Evidence Acceptable to a Court Disparity studies are conducted to determine if there is discrimination in the studied market and if the government is an active …
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Subject: Jonas Partovi Wednesday, August 3, 2022 8:35 AM Allen, Amber; Hannah Partovi; 1601 Cedar ave pictures Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hi Amber, Here are pictures of the current state of the house. Darius who is attached has made the changes the board requested and Darius did send that to you in addition hannah as a back up resent it as well. Can you please confirm receipt as we really need the go to proceed as we purchased this property 8 months ago and with our finances being in jeopardy we need to move forward. Please confirm receipt of this email. Thank you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sent from my iPhone 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. 8
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Jackie Doyle Tuesday, August 2, 2022 2:16 PM HPD Preservation photos, etc., at 3107 Speedway Video.MOV Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hi Amber, Thanks for talking with me today. I'll be at the meeting tomorrow to speak. Other tenants might possibly speak, too, though a number of them have multiple jobs and could find it difficult to attend. Attached are a couple photos of what the topmost window in my apartment looks like now. I've also attached a video of when they broke the window (when they were hammering siding all day long onto this side of the building). I was recording the noise from them hammering the siding, and I happened to capture video of them actually breaking the window. (I was "lucky," because in another apartment, when they broke the window it shattered into the apartment and onto the tenant's table while he was there.) The contractors were going into apartments today to stuff these windows with insulation and cover them "permanently" from the inside. I will not be allowing them in my unit. Also, we were not given notice about this, and they have been using keys provided to them by management--they even covered the neighbor's security camera when they went in to do the "work" in her absence. I have something written to share with the Commission, which I'll send along later. Thank you for your help, Jackie 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. 1 2 3
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Subject: Jackie Doyle Wednesday, August 3, 2022 1:08 PM HPD Preservation Re: 3107 Speedway *** External Email ‐ Exercise Caution *** With attachments, this time 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. 1 2 : > On Aug 3, 2022, at 1:07 PM, Jackie Doyle > > Hi Amber, > > I’ve attached another photo (sorry it’s a bit blurry); it is from the apartment next to mine (201), where they entered her apartment yesterday while she was out and “finished over” the window. Also attached is a recent photo from apt 204, which is where the window was shattered into the apartment when they were doing the siding several weeks ago. They are probably finishing over that one today. It is despicable that, having left this for weeks, they are now hastening to do this just a day before the hearing. > > I will try to put something in writing to send you before the hearing since the time limit to speak is so short. > > Thanks for your help, > Jackie Doyle > 3
My name is Jackie Doyle, I live at 3107 Speedway, Apt. 202, one of the sixteen apartments at this address. I am chagrined to learn that this property’s developer/owner/landlord (Amir Kalantari) defied the Historic Landmark Commission and undertook the demolition/construction work at this address before the Commission could hold this hearing, notice of which I received only last week. Along with a number of other residents, I started reporting the extreme noise and hazardous conditions caused by the demolition and construction activities at this complex to Code Compliance in early June. The Code inspector informed us that there was no building permit, and he came to the property on numerous occasions, documented violations, and told the crews to stop work—which they nevertheless resumed when he was not there. A number of tenants, including myself, started taking photos and videos of the work and hazardous conditions. While this developer (Amir Kalantari), apparently contemptuous of the Commission’s and the City’s authority, clearly views the process of securing a permit as a bureaucratic inconvenience, his tenants have very painfully experienced how un-permitted, unregulated, and unmonitored demolition and construction activities cause havoc, creating very dangerous conditions at an occupied property and destroying the unique, defining characteristics of a building. In June, the Code inspector sent (to the name and address on file) a certified letter concerning this un-permitted work; the building permit application gave only “Parker at Hyde Park LLC” as the name, and a PO box as the owner’s address. The name of the owner/developer/landlord is Amir Kalantari, and he continued to have the contractors perform the work. The Code inspector spoke directly with Amir’s representative, Solé, telling her the work must stop; at one point, she deceitfully attempted to pass off an old permit as current. This work did not involve any repairs whatsoever. None of the work was necessary. It did not represent an improvement in any way, shape, or form. In fact, the construction activities themselves made the property dangerous for everyone: there was debris strewn everywhere, including large blades for cutting metal; welding work was undertaken right outside our doors, leaving us exposed to potentially blinding welding arcs when we came out of our apartments; stairways and breezeways were often blocked in both directions, forcing us to maneuver around workers metal railings were being cut all day (for many days) right outside our doors—the excruciatingly painful noise made it …
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Subject: M Shuman Tuesday, August 2, 2022 10:10 PM HPD Preservation 1514 Newton Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hello, I would like to speak against the demolition of 1514 Newton. I live next door ( 15 feet from our bedroom) and am very worried about the demolition as my wife is sick with major cancer and undergoing chemo at the moment. I realize I missed the noon deadline to speak remotely but I hope you can make an exception as she is immuno compromised and I am not going in public at the moment. There are several other reasons I oppose this demo and I would like the opportunity to share them with the commission. Thank you for any help you can offer. Mark Shuman 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. 1
PR-2022-064526 Proposed Demolition of 1514 Newton. To : Historic Preservation Office I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed demolition of 1514 Newton St. I am asking the commission to please consider a postponement or deny the request for the following reasons. I have a very big concern about the developer rushing into this demolition. This house is 15 feet away from our house and my wife has a serious health condition and we are concerned about asbestos and lead paint dust (among other contaminants) coming over to our property next door. We already had dust this week from a house torn down 150 feet from where we live. If demolition is the only option, I would like time to discuss this with the developer and develop a plan of action to contain the potential hazards to our health. I believe that the developer should consider saving the existing house, which was constructed by the same person (Mr. Polvado) who built our house next door in 1920. He was the uncle of the woman (Dorothy Polvado) who we purchased our house from in 2003 and lived here her entire life. I would like more time to research the historical significance of Mr. Polvado’s life and the construction of these two historical housed. The house at 1514 was updated in period style circa 2006 by local architects Michelle and Eric Van Hyte who are current Austin residents. I would like the developer to consider preserving the current house and possibly adding an ADU in the back, as opposed to erasing the history of our neighborhood. When we remodeled our house next door in 2009, we retained the historic look and feel of the neighborhood. I recently visited another property the 1514 developer is developing and I am concerned about the height of the building he built on it. If that is the intention here, I hope he will consider what is next door when designing the new building. (Please see photos on page 2) I also have a concern about 110 year old pecan trees, which we share as neighbors. There are a couple that hang over my house that the base of the tree is on the border of 1514 Newton and my fence line. Our intersection (Newton & Monroe) is one of the last areas with multiple historic style bungalows, which have been preserved by their respective …
1 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MOTION 20220803-003 Date: August 3, 2022 Subject: Case No. C814-2009-0139.03; Bull Creek Planned Unit Development Amendment #3 Motion by: Jennifer Bristol RATIONALE: WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the applicant is requesting an amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD); WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the site is located in the Lake Austin and Bull Creek/ Water supply Suburban Watershed; and Seconded by: Kevin Ramberg 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: Staff Conditions: 1. This applicant completes the restoration plan prior to the conversion of the property to civic use as established by the PUD (and referenced in site plan SP-2021-0249D) such that any further development or redevelopment is subject to current code at the time of site development permit application. 2. This project shall comply with 25-8-261, except for the relevant code modifications included in the 3. This project shall comply with the environmental superiority elements included in the PUD PUD amendment. amendment. and the following Environmental Commission Conditions: 1. Include language addressing the CEF buffer, stormwater, that was agreed upon by staff, neighborhood groups, and the applicant on August 3, 2022 so it is reflected in the PUD and site plan. 2. Include language approved by staff on August 3, 2022 prior to the Environmental Commission meeting to be included in the forthcoming site plan to address the CEF including engaging geotechnical and structural experts to design the proposed building to the highest standard of care for the preservation and protection of the CEF. 3. Include the commitment to meet with TXDOT to finalize concerns regarding the entrance and 4. Include language that was agreed upon by the neighborhood group, applicant, and staff regarding 5. Include language to agree to keep the shoreline clean of trash and provide recycling options 6. Encourage the applicant to meet with necessary parties to establish a no-wake zone. exit to the property. sound. throughout the property. VOTE 9-0 For: Aguirre, Bedford, Brimer, Bristol, Nickells, Ramberg, Schiera, Scott, and Qureshi Against: None Abstain: None Recuse: None Absent: Thompson and Barrett Bixler Approved By: Kevin Ramberg, Environmental Commission Chair 2
1 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MOTION 20220803-004 Seconded by: Perry Bedford Date: August 3, 2022 Subject: 5709 Sam Houston Circle Boat Dock, SP-2021-0300D Motion by: Jennifer Bristol WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the applicant is requesting to vary from LDC 25-8-281(C)(2)(b) to allow the construction within 150-foot of a rimrock and seep Critical Environmental Feature (CEF). WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the site is located in the Lake Austin and Bull Creek Watersheds, Water Supply Suburban, Drinking Water Protection 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: Staff Conditions: 1. All construction to occur via barge. Remove existing boat dock as specified on plans; restore disturbed areas per City Standard Specification 609S; provide wetland mitigation plantings specified on plans. and the following Environmental Commission Conditions: 1. Remove invasive plant species in the disturbed area. VOTE 9-0 For: Aguirre, Bedford, Brimer, Bristol, Nickells, Ramberg, Schiera, Scott, and Qureshi Against: None Abstain: None Recuse: None Absent: Thompson and Barrett Bixler Approved By: Kevin Ramberg, Environmental Commission Chair 2
1 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MOTION 20220803-005 Date: August 3, 2022 Subject: Borders Boat Dock 1, SP-2021-0084D Motion by: Jennifer L. Bristol Seconded by: Perry Bedford RATIONALE: WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the applicant is requesting a variance request as follows: vary from LDC 25-8-281(C)(2)(b) to allow the construction within 150-foot of a rimrock Critical Environmental Feature (CEF). WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the site is located in the Lake Austin watershed, and Taylor Slough South Watershed, Water Supply Suburban, Drinking Water Protection Zone; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes that staff recommends this variance with conditions, having determined the findings of fact to have been met; THEREFORE, the Environmental Commission recommends the variance request with the following: Staff Conditions: 1. Mitigation plantings upslope of rimrock to assist in soil stabilization. 2. Signed PG Letter for long-term stability of rimrock from new walkway. and the following Environmental Commission Conditions: 1. Remove invasive plant species in the disturbed area and use native plants in restoration and planter areas. VOTE 9-0 For: Aguirre, Bedford, Brimer, Bristol, Nickells, Ramberg, Schiera, Scott, and Qureshi Against: None Abstain: None Recuse: None Absent: Thompson and Barrett Bixler Approved By: Kevin Ramberg, Environmental Commission Chair 2
