\.t'-SON "'1 * * ; A.M.N.A. �hooo ASSOCIATION * * Working for a Better Community I August 15, 2021 Mathias Richard 5800 Monmarte Cove Austin, TX 78744 Reference Name: 620 Project File Name #Cl4-2021 Country 10090 and Per it/Case -Center. Hill Number: 2021-065319 ZC, The Anderson Mill Neighborhoop a ,cepts Association the following: ! ' I • The applicant is to amend the appHcation 1 and remove the MU overlay from the GR use designation on both tracts (Lofs 6 and 8). recpmmendation, for tre except will agree \A{ith _the staff • The applicant I , of a car wash use. I prohibition _hood Association • The Neighbor oppose, prohibit, • If they are suc�essful or not ' and the cify staff will support, or restri,ct, a car wash ule on Lot 8 (1.88-acre tract). restriction on the Final from GR to the resi�ential change in re,moving a zoning f lot 6 (3.5 acre tract) would-support Plat, we MF2. � , l ty 1 This amendment the Restrictive owners. property is consistent ;ith the previol.l approved Covenant that w�s agreed to by he applicant subdivision and the surrounding plat and I ip R Denney P President Anderson Mill 512-925-2358 Neighborhood Association r8717, Austin PO Box L TX 78717
Zoning and Platting Commission Q & A Report B-02 C14-2021-0100 - Luby's Site Question Commissioner Denkler/ Response in blue. Does the Luby's site have to comply with current code requirements? Yes Pending Can Housing tell us what the rent maximums would be for an efficiency, a 1- bedroom or a 2- bedroom unit on the site for 2021 year? A representative of one of the neighborhood associations has complained the applicant is not using Flood Pro to model the site's drainage. Does the applicant have to use Flood Pro or can other modeling methods be approved? I reached out to Watershed Engineering Division staff and learned the following: The Applicant should definitely should be using the City’s effective floodplain model for the portion of the site impacted by Onion Creek that is available from our FloodPro website. The site is also impacted by an unnamed tributary to Onion Creek that is not currently studied (see attached map). The floodplain shown along this tributary in the current floodplain mapping is water that backs up from Onion Creek. Watershed Engineering Division staff is currently re-studying the Onion Creek watershed to incorporate Atlas 14 rainfall. This will include a study of the stream that runs through the site in question. Unfortunately, it will be at least 8 months before Watershed Engineering Division staff has an updated Onion Creek model and a new model for the unstudied tributary. In the interim, the Applicant should be using the 500-year floodplain from our regulatory Onion Creek model and performing their own study to delineate the regulatory floodplains for the unstudied tributary (since it has more than 64 acres of drainage their site). If the Applicant submits for site plan, they will need to have completed their own floodplain study of the unnamed tributary and consider the combination of the tributary and Onion Creek floodplains. Why does the applicant not have to plat? The Applicant isn’t required to plat because the configuration of the property hasn’t changed since annexation into the City limits and is eligible to receive City utility services. Review of environmental, drainage and utilities will occur with the site plan application. Has this part of the watershed been mapped for Atlas. The model has not yet been updated to include Atlas-14 rainfall. The City’s Watershed Engineering Division is in the process of performing a study update for Onion Creek, However it will be several …
ESB-MACC ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION Date: 17 August 2021 Subject: ESB-MACC Advisory Board Recommendation Opposing Red River Street Extension Motioned By: (name) Seconded By: (name) Recommendation Recommendation to stop any planning or consideration of an extension of Red River Street through the Mexican American Cultural Center which has received Dedicated Parkland status in perpetuity (Ordinance No. 20160128-086) as well as serving as the heart of the Rainey Street Historic District since 1985. Description of Recommendation to Council In 1956 when East Avenue was converted into I-35, the Rainey Street neighborhood began a transformation from a single-family, Mexican-American neighborhood to the most densely populated corner of Texas. Part of the symbolism that is ingrained in I-35’s legacy is the division of our community by way of a street. This legacy is at the heart of the current discussions and on-going community engagement sessions for the renovation of the I-35. An extension of Red River Street through the ESB-MACC campus would repeat the mistakes of 1956 by dividing the community once again with the construction of a street. Recently, a variety of mobility studies and pilot programs have been executed by the Austin Transportation Department to help understand the effectiveness of mobility concepts that are intended to help the area adapt to the rapid increase in density. The ESB-MACC Advisory Board and community have found the conclusions on these reports to grossly mischaracterize the true concerns from MACC staff and patrons. It is therefore imperative, that the ESB-MACC Advisory Board clearly state our opposition to any recommendation set forth by any city department or partner that may use as reference the Rainey Street Pilot Program, Rainey Mobility Study, or any other document that did not deliberately or consistently engage with the MACC staff and patrons through a meaningful community engagement process. Furthermore, the MACC community intends to ensure that the city honors the Designated Parkland protection which was granted in perpetuity. The community is concerned that a Red River Street extension could set the precedent for other Designated Parkland sites in culturally sensitive areas to be converted into roadways thereby cementing the city’s practice of cars over people and developers over community.. Lastly, the ESB-MACC community embraces the opportunity to expand our center through a Phase 2 expansion and we do not want to see the advocacy and hard work that went into the creation of the MACC once again become compromised by …
1 ESBMACC BOARD RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSALS TO EXTEND RED RIVER STREET THROUGH THE EMMA S. BARRIENTOS MEXICAN AMERICAN CULTURAL CENTER (ESBMACC) DESIGNATED PARKLAND AND GUTTING RAINEY STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT WHEREAS the City of Austin designated the ESBMACC site as parkland “in perpetuity” principally as moral reparation for the City’s taking of Rainey Neighborhood and nearby East Austin properties from Mexican Americans founders through urban renewal and other City displacement processes in the 1950s and 1960s, and WHEREAS, the City of Austin historically only takes parkland for required utilities, it would be setting a dangerous precedent by taking ESBMACC parkland for the Red River Street extension, and WHEREAS, the proposed street extension would further devastate Rainey Street Historic District, designated as such for its distinctive history as a Hispanic enclave since the 1800s, and for its lovely and serene environmental quality protected thus far by Mexican American stakeholders participating throughout the Waller Creek Tunnel development, concurrent land development processes and the ESBMACC PHASE II planning, and WHEREAS, due to Rainey Street Neighborhood status as a Historic District, and the ESBMACC’s symbolic representation of 182-year presence of Hispanics in downtown Austin, for decades, the City has promised to respect Rainey Street Neighborhood’s integrity, the ESBMACC property, and the bucolic environment that the Hispanic community enjoyed and preserved for many generations, and which due to their diligence and care, Austinites throughout the city enjoyed, and WHEREAS Mexican American founders and stakeholders of ESBMACC advocated for this particular site, to commemorate our “antepasados” and honor our shared heritage, seeking the land’s designation as parkland expressively to protect the site and historic district in perpetuity, from encroachments and takings, to which the City enthusiastically acquiesced and legally supported, and WHEREAS, the ESBMACC site on designated parkland, and its stakeholders represent the Mexican American founders of Rainey Street Neighborhood and 2 nearby East Austin residents who created the Rainey Street Historic District and strongly oppose further gutting of the tiny historic neighborhood and its sacred lakefront by locating an intrusive and unnecessary roadway since frontage road of IH 35 (scheduled to be “sunk” in the next decades), Cesar Chavez Street, and River Street provide access to the dense environment recently created by the City, and WHEREAS, ESBMACC founders and stakeholders have done due diligence in actively participating in the Waller Creek Tunnel Project and in Waterloo Greenway Conservancy planning events for the past 20 years as …
Board of Adjustment Deep Dive: Key Topics & Issues Development Services Department August 17, 2021 1 Agenda ● General Background & History of BOA ● Core BOA functions & requirements: Variances Special Exceptions Appeals BOA Process Issues ● Boat Dock Regulations ● Environmental & Lake/Shoreline Regulations ● Residential Review 2 …..but first, introductions: BOA Members Michael Von Ohlen Kelly Blume Melissa Hawthorne Brooke Bailey Jessica Cohen Barbara McArthur Richard Smith Daryl Pruett Agustina Rodriguez Carrie Waller Rahm McDaniel Nicholl Wade Thomas Ates City Staff Jennifer Verhulst Chris Johnson Elaine Ramirez Diana Ramirez Lyndi Garwood Susan Barr Liz Johnston Keith Mars Lee Simmons 3 • • Zoning Boards of Adjustment Included in the 1929 model “state zoning enabling act,” promulgated by U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Intended to provide greater flexibility by authorizing “variation” of zoning regulations and provide administrative oversight. • Unlike municipal planning/zoning commissions, which performs a mix of advisory and decision-making functions, all BOA functions are quasi-judicial. 4 Austin’s Board of Adjustment • Austin’s BOA established by 1931 zoning ordinance: 5 Zoning Variances 6 Variance Criteria per Land Development Code Findings for Approval Guidelines No Reasonable Use The requirement does not allow for a reasonable use of property. Determined by context. Landowner needn’t prove a “taking” (i.e., loss of all economically viable use), but desire for “highest & best” use is insufficient. Harship Area Character Harship is unique to the property and is not generally characteristic of the area in which the property is located. Typically involves features of the property itself, but overall context of development may also be considered. Development under the variance does not: (a) alter the character of the area adjacent to the property; (b) impair the use of adjacent property; or (c) impair the purposes of the applicable zoning district regulations. Considers how development allowed by variance would impact properties differently than development without a variance, as well as well as development patterns in the surround area and goals of the regulations 7 Variance Standard per State Law Per Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code, a board of adjustment may: “[A]uthorize in specific cases a variance from the terms of a zoning ordinance if the variance is not contrary to the public interest and, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of the ordinance is …
Site Plan Review for Boat Docks What Site Plan reviews… • Site information - Zoning and use - Plat - Size of the lot • Setbacks - 10’ from adjacent property line - 75’ or 25’ if platted prior to April 22, 1982 or lot less than 200’ deep. Structure Information • Square footage - A maximum of 1,200 sq. ft. • Dock height – 30 ft. • Extension into the lake – 30 ft. • Navigational safety light at furthest extension • Maximum of 20% of the shoreline in width • Allowed up to 2 motorboats • Must be at least 66% open on all sides. • Allowed 48 sq. ft. of storage space. • Cluster docks allowed 600 sq. ft. for each unit Non-complying Structures • Removal of no more than 50% of walls and • Replacement or repair of structural elements supporting structures including framing. • Damaged or destroyed structures may be restored to its original footprint within 12 months. - Evidence of original foot print - Insurance claim for structure Thank You! Clarissa Davis Clarissa.Davis@austinrtexas.gov (512)974-1423
Environmental Considerations for Austin’s Lakes Presented to: Board of Adjustment August 17, 2021 Liz Johnston, Deputy Environmental Officer LAKE AUSTIN - Finding the Balance • Drinking Water • Residential • Commercial • Boating/Marina • Parkland • Fishing • Passive Recreation Environmental Issues Zebra Mussels Bank Erosion Shoreline Erosion Poor Shoreline Habitat Non-Complying Structures Compliance/Work Without Permits Wave Impacts Riparian Zone Functions A robust shoreline vegetative community improves water quality, prevents erosion, and aids in flood control. Trees & deep-rooted plants prevent erosion. Dense shoreline development degrades shoreline health. Poor Riparian Function VS Good Riparian Function Poor Functioning Good Functioning Costs of Degraded Water Quality ▪ Water treatment costs due to suspended sediment ▪ Algae proliferations ▪ Poor fishery ▪ Lowered Austin Lake Index scores in ▪ Habitat ▪ Invertebrates ▪ Vegetation Environmental Review • Site plan & Subdivision compliance with LDC 25-8 Subchapter A • Boat docks/shoreline modifications/shoreline access require site plans • DSD environmental review staff • CWQZ compliance • Erosion controls • Restoration • Cut/Fill • WPD environmental review staff • CEF setbacks • Bulkheads • Dredging • Land capture/fill in the lake • Floodplain modifications & restoration (riparian functioning) § 25-8-261 Critical Water Quality Zone Trams Stairs CWQZ on all Lakes: - 75’ from shoreline (492.8 msl) for single family - 100’ for all other uses (1) A dock, bulkhead or marina, and necessary access and appurtenances, are permitted in a critical water quality zone subject to compliance with Chapter 25-2, Subchapter C, Article 12 (Docks, Bulkheads, and Shoreline Access) Gangways § 25-8-281(C) Critical Environmental Features Canyon Rimrock and 150’ CEF Buffer Canyon Rimrock Wetland Seep Spring § 25-8-652 – Restrictions on Development Impacting Lakes Unpermitted fill in Lake (A) The requirements of this section apply to development on or adjacent to Lake Austin, Lady Bird Lake, or Lake Walter E. Long. (B) Except as otherwise provided by this section, placing fill or dredging in a lake is prohibited. (C) A retaining wall, bulkhead, or other erosion protection device may not capture or recapture land from a lake unless doing so is required to restore the shoreline to whichever of the following boundaries would encroach the least into the lake: (1) the shoreline as it existed 10 years prior to the date of application, with documentation as prescribed by the Environmental Criteria Manual; or (2) the lakeside boundary of the subdivided lot line. (D) A bulkhead may …
Residential Review at the City of Austin Susan Barr Board of Adjustment Board Members – August 17, 2021 Building a Better Austin Together TOPICS • Overview • Zoning Review • Technical Review • Community Outreach o What Can be built o Red Flags o o o o o Helpful Tips Permit History Search Expired Permits Exempt Work Permit Requirements Building a Better Austin Together OVERVIEW We permit residential building types that fall under the International Residential Code (IRC) and their accessory structures. a. One and two family dwelling units no more than (3) stories above grade b. Townhouses that are no more than (3) stories above grade and don’t have overlapping units c. Pools d. Garages & carports Building a Better Austin Together Zoning Review 1. Zoning a. Common classifications i. ii. iii. iv. v. LA RR DR SF-1, SF-2, SF-3, SF-4A, SF-5, SF-6 MF b. (+/- 60) neighborhood plans c. (6) NCCD’s d. Conditional Overlays e. Subchapter F f. PUDs g. Driveway & Sidewalk h. Parking i. Use i. ii. iii. iv. Single family Secondary apartments Two family Accessory Uses Building a Better Austin Together Technical Review 1. International Residential Code - Chapters 1-3, 5, 6, 8 2. Fire Resistance Rated Construction 3. Visitability Ordinance Building a Better Austin Together Community Outreach – What can be built? • • • Depends on the zoning classification and the existing conditions a. Impervious cover b. Building cover c. Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) How to find a property’s zoning: http://www.austintexas.gov/gis/ propertyprofile/ Building a Better Austin Together Community Outreach – Red Flags 1. Converted garage 2. Windows &/or the interior does not match the age of the house 3. No permit found for date on equipment Unpermitted work needs to be permitted and is to be included with the proposed scope of work. Building a Better Austin Together Community Outreach - Permit History Search https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/permit/public-search-other BACK DATE TO 1980 Building a Better Austin Together Community Outreach – Expired Permits • • • • If solely a remodel or stand alone trade permit before March 2007, the permits can be voided Can be reactivated if they have not been reactivated in the past If previously received a reactivation, a review of the project will need to be conducted before reactivation Age of permit might qualify for a life safety inspection once reactivated Building a Better Austin Together Community Outreach – Exempt Work City …
BOARD RECOMMENDATION Emma S. Barrientos Mexican American Cultural Center Recommendation Number: 20210817-03b: Support for Academia Cuahutli Budget Proposal WHEREAS, since its founding in 2013, Academia Cuauhtli (originated by Nuestro Grupo, community- based volunteers) was established at the ESB-MACC as a free Saturday culture and language revitalization academy for elementary school children and their parents, with curriculum focused on indigeneity, social justice, social history, traditional arts, and danza Mexica and since July 2014, Academia Cuauhtli has served as an official educational enterprise of the ESB-MACC; and WHEREAS, Academia Cuauhtli was instituted as an integral part of the ESB-MACC and promotes its mission further to instill in our children and their families a deep appreciation for the arts, social justice, and in action projects to preserve and develop our cultural resources, focusing on the ESB-MACC and other Latino cultural arts institutions; and WHEREAS, the Advisory Board of the ESB-MACC is entrusted with protecting the best interests of the citizens of Austin with regard to the patrimony that our hard-fought institution represents for the most vulnerable of its citizens, namely, the Mexican American, and other Latino, communities, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ESB-MACC ADVISORY BOARD, supports and presents this recommendation to the City Council to provide funding as requested by Academia Cuauhtli. Date of Approval: August 17, 2021 Record of the vote: Unanimous on an 8.0 vote For: David Goujon, Chair Art Navarro, Vice Chair Gerardo Gandy, Member Wayne Lopes, Member Ricardo Maga Rojas, Member Claudia Massey, Member Tomas Salas, Member Endi Silva, Member Attest: _____________________________________________ Michelle Rojas, Staff Liaison
BOARD RECOMMENDATION Emma S. Barrientos Mexican American Cultural Center Advisory Board Recommendation Number: (20210817-03c) Joint Venture Design Contract Whereas the ESB MACC Phase 2 project programming phase has concluded and in order for the project design firm of the Joint Venture of Miro Rivera Architects and Tatiana Bilbao Studio to move to the next phase, an approved design contract must be in place. The ESB-MACC Advisory Board recommends to the City Council that there not be a delay in approving the contract by Friday, August 20, 2021. Date of Approval: August 17, 2021 Record of the vote: Unanimous on an 8.0 vote For: David Goujon, Chair Art Navarro, Vice Chair Gerardo Gandy, Member Wayne Lopes, Member Ricardo Maga Rojas, Member Claudia Massey, Member Tomas Salas, Member Endi Silva, Member Attest: __________________________ Michelle Rojas, Staff Liaison
BOARD RESOLUTION Emma S. Barrientos Mexican American Cultural Center Advisory Board Resolution Number: (20210817-03a) Opposing the Red River Extension ESB MACC BOARD RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSALS TO EXTEND RED RIVER STREET THROUGH THE EMMA S. BARRIENTOS MEXICAN AMERICAN CULTURAL CENTER (ESB MACC) DESIGNATED PARKLAND AND GUTTING RAINEY STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT WHEREAS the City of Austin designated the ESB MACC site as parkland “in perpetuity” principally as moral reparation for the City’s taking of Rainey Neighborhood and nearby East Austin properties from Mexican Americans founders through urban renewal and other City displacement processes in the 1950s and 1960s, and WHEREAS, the City of Austin historically only takes parkland for required utilities, it would be setting a dangerous precedent by taking ESB MACC parkland for the Red River Street extension, and WHEREAS, the proposed street extension would further devastate Rainey Street Historic District, designated as such for its distinctive history as a Hispanic enclave since the 1800s, and for its lovely and serene environmental quality protected thus far by Mexican American stakeholders participating throughout the Waller Creek Tunnel development, concurrent land development processes and the ESB MACC PHASE II planning, and WHEREAS, due to Rainey Street Neighborhood status as a Historic District, and the ESB MACC’s symbolic representation of 182-year presence of Hispanics in downtown Austin, for decades, the City has promised to respect Rainey Street Neighborhood’s integrity, the ESB MACC property, and the bucolic environment that the Hispanic community enjoyed and preserved for many generations, and which due to their diligence and care, Austinites throughout the city enjoyed, and WHEREAS Mexican American founders and stakeholders of ESB MACC advocated for this particular site, to commemorate our “antepasados” and honor our shared heritage, seeking the land’s designation as parkland expressively to protect the site and historic district in perpetuity, from encroachments and takings, to which the City enthusiastically acquiesced and legally supported, and WHEREAS, the ESB MACC site on designated parkland, and its stakeholders represent the Mexican American founders of Rainey Street Neighborhood and nearby East Austin residents who created the Rainey Street Historic District and strongly oppose further gutting of the tiny historic neighborhood and its sacred lakefront by locating an intrusive and unnecessary roadway since frontage road of IH 35 (scheduled to be “sunk” in the next decades), Cesar Chavez Street, and River Street provide access to the dense environment recently created by the City, and WHEREAS, ESB MACC founders and …
Rodriguez, Lisa From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: HPD ICRC Commissioners Tuesday, August 17, 2021 8:10 PM HPD ICRC Commissionsers DL FW: District 5 homework Baulch_document_606DC795-F9C4-5998-1DA17C7581FD7EB6.pdf Categories: Summary of Action Items From: S Baulch < Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 1:10:11 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik To: HPD ICRC Commissioners <ICRC.Commissioners@austintexas.gov> Subject: District 5 homework *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Thank you for volunteering to redraw our districts! I appreciate your non-partisan effort to prevent gerrymandering to favor any candidate (gerrymandering doesn't have to favor a member of a political party...I guess my neighbor didn't remember details from government class, but that was a long time ago for most of us.) Attached is my homework assignment. Power to the people, Sally Baulch 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 Name:_____________________________________ Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission Public Forum #10: District 5 | Aug. 17, 2021 | Zip codes: 78704, 78735, 78744, 78745, 78747, 78748, 78652 Ann Kitchen, Council Member, district5@austintexas.gov, 512-978-2105 Directions: Examine the map for common areas of interest (e.g. neighborhoods, schools, churches, shopping centers, or your grocery store). Mark their locations with points on the map. Then, draw a circle around the unique characteristics of the community that you believe should remain intact within the district. You may also leave written comments below that explain your reasoning, as well as any other thoughts about redistricting in Austin generally. Please return this document to the Commission when you are finished. It will be saved for the purpose of redrawing maps once Census data arrives. Thank you for being with us today. (Map may not include some newly annexed portions of Austin.) Sally Baulch Name:_____________________________________ Comments:________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ May we contact you? NAME _____________________________________________ ADDRESS_ EMAIL ___________________________ Street Address City ________________________________________________________________ Zip Code State To create your own proposed maps for the City of Austin, go to districtr.org. Send the link to the finished map to matthew.dugan@austintexas.gov. Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission Sally BaulchThat being said, I also like sharing a council member with nearby neighborhoods so that our neighborhoods can elevate a local issue with a member's staff. I support a more compact districtbecause …
Rodriguez, Lisa From: Sent: To: Subject: HPD ICRC Commissioners Tuesday, August 17, 2021 9:22 AM HPD ICRC Commissionsers DL FW: Meeting on August 18, 2021, Item 3A From: Stefan Haag < Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 2:21:27 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik To: HPD ICRC Commissioners <ICRC.Commissioners@austintexas.gov> Subject: Meeting on August 18, 2021, Item 3A > *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Commissioners, I was wondering why the briefing on the 2020 Census is being conducted by Dr. Valencia, the Austin City Demographer, rather than your legal counsel or your mapper. The independence of the commission is greatly influenced by the source of the commission’s information. Your legal counsel was the legal counsel to the first ICRC and is familiar with the current districts, their boundaries, and relevant information concerning the boundaries for the districts. Also, your mapper should have the capability to brief you on the population of each district after the 2020 census as well as the VTDs that are included in the districts. The same argument could be made concerning your briefing on the open meetings and open records acts and your responsibilities under those acts. Being briefed by the City Attorney is similar to my concerns about the briefing by the City Demographer. The City of Austin should not be providing legal advice to the commission. On September 4, 3021, the action by Governor Abbott that delayed the requirement to complete the training expires, and you are required to complete the training. Although the online training doesn’t take long to complete, it should be done quickly and the certificate of completion provided to Christine. I also think that Christine needs to be aware that communications between citizens and the commission should be available as a backup to a meeting, ensuring that the process is open and transparent. Sincerely, Stefan Haag Resident of SMD 8 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 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
www.montopolis.org ∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆∇∆ On Aug 16, 2021, at 15:55, Calderon, Sara ‐ BC <BC‐Sara.Calderon@austintexas.gov> wrote: Hello please see attached (and below) for live and virtual event information, updates, as well as additional options for public feedback on redistricting from the ICRC. Thank you, ‐ Commissioner Sara Inés Calderón ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ PRESS RELEASE Aug. 16, 2021 For Immediate Release Sara Inés Calderón bc‐sara.calderon@austintexas.gov (512) 931‐1477 Camellia Falcon bc‐camellia.falcon@austintexas.gov Redistricting commission poised, ready for census data drop AUSTIN, TX (Aug. 16, 2021) – With the release of the new U.S. Census data Aug. 12, 2021, the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (ICRC) has a strong team in place awaiting useable numbers and comments from the public to draw new city council boundaries for Austin residents. "It's going to be a least week or ten days before it's usable," said George Korbel, ICRC mapping specialist. "At least that's been my experience from the last several redistricting maps I've been involved in." Korbel is no stranger to redistricting. He was instrumental in challenging the fairness of at‐large elections in Texas in the '70s. He and the ICRC's legal counsel David Richards were part of the team that ligated the landmark case known as White v. Regester. The case, which made it all the way to the Supreme Court in 1973 and won, found the urban voting district in Dallas and Bexar County reduced Latino representation in the Texas House of Representatives. The case also expanded into other counties with large urban districts in the state including, Tarrant, Nueces, McLennan, Travis, Galveston, Jefferson, Lubbock and El Paso. 2 "(The case) set down the proof pattern for litigation in almost literally all redistricting that dealt with at‐large elections," Korbel said. Since then, Korbel and Richards have been involved in redistricting over 50 jurisdictions such as cities, counties and school districts. Most recently, they redistricted education institutional boundaries in Houston and for Lone Star College, one of the largest community college districts in the nation. In Austin, Korbel, who has attended all but one ICRC public forum, plans to use the public's input in his map making process. "They're giving suggestions as to what changes should be made, and when I get access to the data, we will determine what the population of each one of the current city districts will be," Korbel said. "Based on that information, we'll start making changes to the districts, but I really …
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, August 17, 2021 The Resource Management Commission convened via videoconference on Tuesday, August 17, 2021 in accordance with social distancing protocols necessitated by the COVID 19 pandemic. Commissioners in Attendance: Jonathon Blackburn, Chair (District 8); Kaiba White, Vice Chair (District 2); Sam Angoori (District 3); Shane Johnson (District 4); Tom “Smitty” Smith (District 5); Kelly Davis (District 7); Dana Harmon (District 9); Rebecca Brenneman (District 10); Lisa Chavarria(Mayor); Vacancy (District 6) Commissioners Absent: Nakyshia Fralin (District 1) CALL TO ORDER – Chair Blackburn called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: Paul Robbins commented on green building and natural gas programs. Consent Items: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve minutes of the June 22, 2021 meeting. A motion to recommend was on Commissioner Chavarria’s motion, Commissioner Harmon’s second; passed on a 7-1-1 vote, with Commissioners Angoori abstaining, Commissioner White voting against, Commissioners Fralin absent, and one vacancy. STAFF REPORTS AND BRIEFINGS 2. Quarterly update from Texas Gas Service. Jasmine King-Bush, Energy Efficiency Program Supervisor of Texas Gas Service presented the Quarterly update from Texas Gas Service along with Larry Graham, Community Relations Manager. 3. Quarterly update from Austin Water. Kevin Kluge, Environmental Conversation Division Manager presented the Quarterly update from Austin Water. 4. Commercial Solar Incentives Program, Shared Solar, and Solar Meter and Permit Fees Presentation. Tim Harvey, Customer Renewable Solutions Manager presented the Commercial Solar Incentives Program, Shared Solar, and Solar Meter and Permit Fees Presentation. ITEMS from COMMISSIONERS 5. Discussion and possible action regarding solar meter and permit fees. No action taken. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 6. Discuss potential future agenda items • Texas Gas Service Climate Gas Inventory • EV Ready Update • CES Budget • Water Loss ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:38 p.m.
