ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET DISTRICT: 1 CASE: C14-2020-0082 Springdale Road Residences ZONING FROM: GR-NP (as amended 07/29/2021) ADDRESS: 5800, 5900, 5920, 6000 Springdale Road SITE AREA: 4.70 Acres PROPERTY OWNER: Willie C. Lewis AGENT: Alice Glasco Consulting TO: GR-MU-V-NP (Alice Glasco) APPLICANT: Urban ATX Development LLC (Christopher Affinito) CASE MANAGER: Heather Chaffin (512-974-2122, heather.chaffin@austintexas.gov) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the Applicant’s request for rezoning to GR-MU-V-NP. For a summary of the basis of staff’s recommendation, see case manager comments on page 2. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION / RECOMMENDATION: September 14, 2021: CITY COUNCIL ACTION: TBD ORDINANCE NUMBER: 1 of 13B-9 C14-2021-0082 2 ISSUES: The rezoning request was initially filed for GR-MU-NP and was amended to GR-MU-V-NP on July 29, 2021. The rezoning tract is not located on an existing or future core transit corridor. Springdale Road is designated as an Activity Corridor in the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan. A petition request was filed on this rezoning request has been filed, but is pending authorization of signatures to determine whether or not it meet the minimum threshold of a Valid Petition. CASE MANAGER COMMENTS: The rezoning request is comprised of 5 lots located on the west side of Springdale Road between Rogge Road and Manor Road. The undeveloped lots are zoned GR-NP and are designated for mixed use on the future land use map. (FLUM). Immediately south of the rezoning area is a lot that is zoned GR-NP that is currently under review to change the zoning to GR-MU-NP. The property to the south was recommended by Planning Commission in August 2021 and is scheduled for public hearing at City Council on September 30, 2021. The applicant on that request has stated that they intend to build approximately 23 townhouse/ condominium land uses. Further south, at the intersection with Rogge Road, is an indoor and outdoor entertainment land use zoned GR-MU-CO-NP. The CO on that property prohibits drive-in services, Automotive rentals, Automotive repair services, Automotive sales, Automotive washing (of any type), Service station, and Pawn shop services. Immediately to the north of the rezoning tract is a townhouse-condominium development zoned GR-MU-NP. Further north toward Manor Road are undeveloped SF-6-NP and LR-NP lots. A SF-3-NP zoned residential neighborhood is also located north and northwest of the rezoning tract. Immediately west of the rezoning tract is property zoned SF-6-NP that is sparsely developed with what appears to be single family residential and related outbuildings. Further …
APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION DENIAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REVIEW SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION: HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION: March 22, 2021, postponed April 26, 2021, postponed May 24, 2021, feedback provided July 26, 2021, denied August 24, 2021 CASE NUMBER: HR-2021-085739 HISTORIC NAME: Mitchell-Robertson Building (C14H-2004-0008) DISTRICT: 9 ADDRESS: 909 Congress Avenue ZONING: CBD-H APPELLANT: Drenner Group, P.C. (Leah Bojo) AGENT: Drenner Group, P.C. (Leah Bojo) PROPERTY OWNER: H. Dalton Wallace PROJECT BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to carefully deconstruct, store, and reconstruct the building façades at 907, 909, and 911 Congress Ave. as part of a redevelopment project at a later date. The Grandberry Building (907 Congress Ave.) and Mitchell- Robertson Building (909 Congress Ave.) are historic landmarks and require a certificate of appropriateness for this work, which the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) has granted for 907 but not 909 Congress Ave. The building at 911 Congress Ave. is part of the Congress Avenue National Register historic district but has been too altered to be eligible for landmark designation. Per the applicant, stabilization and repair of the building façades in place is not technically feasible due to the extent of their deterioration, including mortar loss, shear failures and racking, and the infeasibility of shoring the façades during construction of a new tower behind them. The project will ultimately result in accurate reconstruction of the three façades to match their historic appearance, reusing historic materials to the greatest extent possible and accurately replicating missing or damaged elements. APPEAL REQUEST: The applicant has filed an appeal of the HLC’s July 26, 2021 denial of a certificate of appropriateness to deconstruct, store, and reconstruct the façade of 909 Congress Ave. and requests approval of this project. The appeals process for certificates of appropriateness is described in Land Development Code §25-11-247. The HLC’s decision may be appealed to the land use commission, and the land use commission’s decision may in turn may be appealed to City Council. BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION ACTION: March 24, 2021: The Building and Standards Commission issued orders for 907, 909, and 911 Congress Ave. requiring that conditions be remedied within 90 days or imposing fines on the property owner. That timeline expired on June 22, 2021. The orders require repairs to fully remedy violations, which include cracks and openings in exterior walls, roof and drainage issues, and missing windows, among other concerns. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION ACTION: March …
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Tuesday, September 14, 2021 The Planning Commission will convene at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at Austin City Hall, Council Chambers, Room 1001 301 W. Second Street, Austin, TX. Some members of the Planning Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Awais Azhar Joao Paulo Connolly Grayson Cox Yvette Flores – Secretary Claire Hempel – Vice-Chair Patrick Howard Jennifer Mushtaler Solveij Rosa Praxis Carmen Llanes Pulido Jessica Cohen – Ex-Officio Robert Schneider Todd Shaw – Chair James Shieh – Parliamentarian Jeffrey Thompson Richard Mendoza – Ex-Officio Arati Singh - AISD Ex-Officio EXECUTIVE SESSION (No public discussion) The Planning Commission will announce it will go into Executive Session, if necessary, pursuant to Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, to receive advice from Legal Counsel on matters specifically listed on this agenda. The Commission may not conduct a closed meeting without the approval of the city attorney. Private Consultation with Attorney – Section 551.071 Attorney: Steven Maddoux 512- 974-6080 Commission Liaison: Andrew Rivera, 512-974-6508 CITIZEN COMMUNICATION The first four (4) speakers signed up prior to the commencement of the meeting will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of August 24, 2021. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Plan Amendment: Location: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Request: Staff Rec.: Staff: NPA-2021-0026.01 - Grady & Brownie Mixed Use; District 4 10609, 10611, 10613, 10615 Brownie Drive (Tract 1) & 10610, 10612, 10614 Middle Fiskville Road (Tract 2), Little Walnut Creek Watershed and Walnut Creek Watershed;North Lamar Combined (North Lamar) NP Area Grady & Brownie Investments, LLC (Saleem Memon) Thrower Design (Ron T. Thrower & Victoria Haase) Single Family and Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use land use Recommended Maureen Meredith, 512-974-2695, maureen.meredith@austintexas.gov Housing and Planning Department 2. Rezoning: Location: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Request: Staff Rec.: Staff: C14-2021-0039 - Grady & Brownie Mixed Use; District 4 10609-10615 Brownie Dr. and 10610-10614 Middle Fiskville Road, Little Walnut Creek, Walnut Creek Watersheds; North Lamar Combined (North Lamar) NP Area Grady & Brownie Investments LLC (Saleem Memon) Thrower Design (A. Ron Thrower) Tract 1: SF-3-NP to MF-4-NP, Tract 2: LR-NP to CS-MU-NP Recommendation of MF-2-NP zoning for Tract 1 and LR-MU-NP zoning for Tract 2 Sherri Sirwaitis, 512-974-3057, sherri.sirwaitis@austintexas.gov Housing and Planning Department 3. Rezoning: Location: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Request: Staff Rec.: Staff: C14-2021-0009 …
AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 3:00 PM 2716 SPIRIT OF TEXAS DRIVE, ROOM 174-A AUSTIN, TEXAS 78719 (Note: The Mayor of the City of Austin Order No. 20210811-033 requires all individuals over the age of two to wear a face covering while present on or in City property unless expressly exempted in Section 2 of the order or by a City policy applicable to the premises or facility.) CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS: Eugene Sepulveda, Chair Scott Madole, Vice-Chair Jeremy Hendricks, Secretary Wendy Price Todd Vicky Sepulveda Chad Ennis Ernest Saulmon Jonathan Coon Billy Owens Frank Maldonado Raymond Young AGENDA CALL TO ORDER CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 10, 2021 meeting. 3. WRITTEN STAFF BRIEFINGS a) July 2021 Financial Results. (Prepared by Rajeev Thomas, Deputy Chief, Finance) b) AUS Air Service Update. (Prepared by Jamy Kazanoff, Air Service Development) 1 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. 1. INTRODUCTION OF COMMISSIONER CHAD ENNIS 4. VERBAL STAFF BRIEFINGS a) “Updates on the Airport Expansion and Development Program (AEDP)” presented by Tracy Thompson, Interim Chief of Planning and Development, and Shane Harbinson, Deputy Chief of Planning and Development. b) “Recap of 2022 Department of Aviation Budget” presented by Rajeev Thomas, Deputy c) “Update on Cargo Development Project” presented by Mookie Patel, Chief Officer of Chief, Finance. Business and Finance 5. ACTION ITEMS None. 6. FOR RECOMMENDATION, AVIATION DEPARTMENT a) Approve a resolution finding the use of the Construction Manager-at-Risk method of contracting, as authorized by Subchapter F, Chapter 2269 of the Texas Government Code, is the project delivery method that provides the best value to the City for the Airport Development Expansion Program, Airfield Construction project for airfield improvements. (Note: MBE/WBE goals will be established prior to issuance of this solicitation.) a) Review of Commission Recommendations and Actions to discuss with appointing 7. NEW BUSINESS City Council Member. b) Future Agenda Items. c) Next scheduled meeting October 12, 2021 at 3:00 PM. ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 days before the meeting date. Please …
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD September 14, 2021 – 6:00pm Zilker Botanical Garden Auditorium 2220 Barton Springs Road, Austin, TX 78746 PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS: Vacant (D-3) Dawn Lewis (D-10), Chair Richard DePalma (Mayor), Vice Chair Vacant (D-4) Nina Rinaldi (D-1) Anna L. Di Carlo (D-2) Sarah Faust (D-5) Lisa Hugman (D-6) AGENDA Nancy Barnard (D-7) Kim Taylor (D-8) Laura Cottam Sajbel (D-9) CALL TO ORDER CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first 10 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. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approve the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Board regular meeting of August 24, 2021. B. STAFF BRIEFING 1. Presentation on parkland dedication and overview of recent achievements in acquiring new parkland. Presentation material is available online at austintexas.gov/atxparkland and https://youtu.be/_m7dM94FSgw. (PARD Long Rang Plan Strategies – Relief from Urban Life, Urban Public Spaces, Park Access for All; SD23 Outcomes – Health and Environment and Government that Works for All) Presenter(s): Liana Kallivoka, Assistant Director; Randy Scott, Program Manager III; Thomas Rowlinson, Principal Planner and Robynne Heymans, Senior Planner, Parks and Recreation Department 2. Presentation regarding the implementation of the 2018 Bond Program. (PARD Long Rang Plan Strategies – Relief from Urban Life, Operational Efficiency, Urban Public Spaces, Park Access for All; SD23 Outcomes – Health and Environment) Presenter(s): Liana Kallivoka, Assistant Director; Steven Linett, Capital Improvement Program Manager, Parks and Recreation Department C. NEW BUSINESS: PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS 1. Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the applicant's appeal of the Parkland Dedication Requirements for 403 East Koenig Lane (SP-2020-0419C; Koenig MF). (PARD Long Rang Plan Strategies – Relief from Urban Life, Operational Efficiency, Urban Public Spaces, Park Access for All; SD23 Outcomes – Health and Environment, Government that Works for All) Page 1 of 2 Presenter(s): Scott Grantham, Principal Planner and Robynne Heymans, Senior Planner, Parks and Recreation Department 2. Presentation and discussion on the proposed 305 South Congress Avenue "Statesman" Planned Unit Development. (PARD Long Range Plan Strategies – Program Alignment; SD23 Outcomes – Government that Works for All) Presenter(s): Randy Scott, Program Manager III and Scott Grantham, Principal Planner, Parks and Recreation Department; Watershed Protection Department representative(s) 3. Discussion of potential Parks and Recreation Board Retreat. Presenter(s): Dawn Lewis, Chair D. FUTURE …
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD Tuesday, August 24, 2021 – 5:30pm Via Videoconference MINUTES The Parks and Recreation Board convened in a regular meeting on Tuesday, August 24, 2021 via videoconference in Austin, Texas. Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 5:32pm. Board Members in Attendance: Chair Dawn Lewis, Vice Chair Richard DePalma, Nancy Barnard, Laura Cottam Sajbel, Anna Di Carlo, Sarah Faust, Lisa Hugman and Nina Rinaldi. Board Members Absent: Kimberly Taylor. Staff in Attendance: Kimberly McNeeley, Liana Kallivoka, Suzanne Piper, Anthony Segura, Gregory Montes, Ricardo Soliz, Christina Bies, Kevin Gomillion, Denisha Cox, Patricia Rossett, Christine Chute Canul, Leah Gibson, Christa McCarthy, Justin Schneider, Megan Eckard, Sammi Curless. Chair Lewis made a motion to modify Agenda Item speaker comment time to 90 seconds; Vice Chair DePalma seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-1 with Board Member Taylor absent and two vacancies. Those voting aye were Chair Lewis, Vice Chair DePalma, Board Members Barnard, Cottam Sajbel, Di Carlo, Hugman, and Rinaldi. Those voting nay were Board Member Faust. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Kevin Reinis – creation of a special committee to engage in rebuilding/relocation of the boat house. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes from the regular meeting of June 22, 201 were approved on Vice Chair DePlama’s motion, Board Member Barnard second on a 6-1 vote with Board Member Taylor absent and two vacancies. Those voting aye were Chair Lewis, Vice Chair DePalma, Board Members Barnard, Di Carlo, Hugman and Rinaldi. Those voting nay were Board Member Cottam Sajbel. Those abstaining were Board Members Faust. B. NEW BUSINESS: PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS CONSENT 1. Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding a recommendation to the City Council for the negotiation and execution of a partnership agreement with The Trail Page 1 of 3 Foundation for the operations, maintenance and programming for the Ann and Roy Butler Hike-and-Bike Trail at Town Lake Metropolitan Park. Board Member Faust pulled the item from the consent agenda. Following discussion, Vice Chair DePalma made a motion to recommend to the City Council the negotiation and execution of a partnership agreement with The Trail Foundation for the operations, maintenance and programming for the Ann and Roy Butler Hike-and-Bike Trail at Town Lake Metropolitan Park; Board Member Di Carlo seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0 with Board Member Taylor absent and two vacancies. NON-CONSENT 2. Discussion and possible action on Contracts and Concessions Committee and …
Austin Parks and Recreation Department 2018 Bond Program Implementation Update Parks and Recreation Board September 14, 2021 Steven Linett, Capital Improvement Program Manager Topics to Review • 2018 Bond Program Overview • Project Delivery Strategies • Program Progress • Proposition B • Proposition C Walnut Creek Metro Park Playground and Nature Play (D7) 2 2018 Bond Program Overview • Council’s Contract with the Voters for 2018 G.O. Bond • Eight-year completion timeline • Proposition B ($66.5 million) prescribed amounts by Proposition B ESB-MACC facility • Proposition C ($149.0 million) directed prioritization of projects and programs to: Improve access • • Renew and reinvest in aging facilities • • Advance the Health & Environment indicators in Improve equity the Strategic Direction 2023 Plan • Council approved first appropriation in March 2019 • 2.5 years into program implementation Proposition C Parkland Acquisition Aquatics Parkland Improvements Building Renovations Infrastructure Dougherty Arts Center Carver Museum, Cultural, and Genealogy Center Asian American Resource Center $7,000,000 $66,500,000 $27,000,000 $25,000,000 $7,500,000 $149,000,000 $45,000,000 $40,000,000 $25,000,000 $21,500,000 $17,500,000 3 Project Delivery Strategies Category Type Status Alternative Delivery Construction Manager at Risk Colony Park and Givens Pools, ESB-MACC, DAC, AARC awarded; Montopolis and Northwest Pools selection in progress Third Party Project Management Professional Service Agreements Project Delivery Contracts Competitive Sealed Proposal Seaholm Intake Rehab (June 2021) Partnerships Norwood Park Foundation (July 2021) Montopolis and Northwest Pools RCA September 30, 2021 Colony Park and Givens Pools Dougherty Arts Center Landscape Architecture Architecture Contract executed June 2020 Contract executed June 2020 $10.5M approved for 7 firms (Aug. 2019) $12M approved for 12 firms (June 2019) BuyBoard Cooperative - Park Amenities $22.5M for 3 years (Oct. 2019) BuyBoard - Aquatics $24.0M for 3 years (Dec. 2019) IDIQ – Asphalt Roadways/Lots $2M for 2 years + 3 $2M options (Mar. 2020) 4 Program Progress: Proposition B • Through 2021, PARD on pace with initial spending plan set in 2019 • Large projects required contracting on front-end • Significant spending will start in FY2023 as construction begins Facility Appropriated Spent Encumbered % Spent Mexican American Cultural Center Dougherty Arts Center Carver Museum, Cultural and Genealogy Center Asian American Resource Center Total 27.0 25.0 7.5 7.0 66.5 0.9 0.0 0.6 0.1 1.6 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.3 3% 0% 8% 2% 1.1 2% Millions of dollars Figures as of August 30, 2021 5 ESB-MACC Phase II Facility Expansion • Current Phase: Design • Total Project Budget: …
Austin Parks and Recreation Department Appeal of the Parkland Dedication Land Requirements for Koenig Multifamily (SP-2020-0419C) Parks and Recreation Board September 14, 2021 Robynne Heymans, Senior Planner, Parks and Recreation Department Overview • Consider an Appeal by the Applicant. • PARD is requiring land dedication. The developer requests to pay fee in-lieu. • PARD Recommendation to Parks and Recreation Board and Planning Commission: Support PARD's request for land dedication and deny the applicant’s request to pay fee in lieu (of land dedication). • Code Context • Site Plan Context • Application of Code Criteria • Additional Considerations • Park Alignments • Recommendation to Planning Commission 2 Code Context • City Code 25-1-605 (B) lists criteria for PARD’s requirement to dedicate parkland vs. pay fee in lieu. • Based on these criteria, PARD must require land, and does not have the authority to accept fee in lieu. • City Code 25-1-605 (F) indicates that PARD’s decision may be appealed to the Land Use Commission, and that PARD shall first present the case to the Parks and Recreation Board for a recommendation. • Applicant has appealed the decision. 3 Site Plan Context – District Scale 4 Site Plan Context – Neighborhood Scale 5 Site Plan Context – Site Scale • Proposing 434 Units, 10% affordable under VMU • Parkland demand generated by development: 6.93 acres • Site is 6.5 acres: 15% urban core cap is 0.98 acres 6 Application of Code Criteria – Fee in-lieu § 25-1-605 (A) - FEE IN-LIEU OF PARKLAND DEDICATION (A)The director may require or allow a subdivision or site plan applicant to deposit with the City a fee in-lieu of parkland dedication under Section 25-1-602 (Dedication of Parkland) if: (1) the director determines that payment of a fee in-lieu of dedication is justified under the criteria in Subsection (B) of this section; and (2) the following additional requirements are met: (a) less than six acres is required to be dedicated under Section 25-1-602 (Dedication of Parkland); or (b) the land available for dedication does not comply with the standards for dedication under Section 25-1-603 (Standards for Dedicated Parkland). § 25-1-605 (B) - FEE IN-LIEU OF PARKLAND DEDICATION (1) is located within the Deficient Park Area Map; (2) is adjacent to existing parkland; (3) has sufficient acreage to meet the standards for dedicated parkland under the Parkland Dedication Operating Procedures; (4) is needed to address a critical need …
ARMBRUST & BROWN, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S A N D C O U N S E L O R S 100 CONGRESS AVENUE, SUITE 1300 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701-2744 512-435-2300 FACSIMILE 512-435-2360 July 30, 2021 MICHAEL J. WHELLAN (512) 435-2320 mwhellan@abaustin.com Via Email Kimberly McNeeley, Director City of Austin Parks and Recreation Department 200 S. Lamar Blvd. Austin, TX 78704 Re: Parkland Appeal for SP-2020-0419C Director McNeeley, Please accept this letter as an official notice of appeal pursuant to Section 25-1-605(F) of the Land Development Code. I am submitting this appeal due to the decision made by the City of Austin Parks and Recreation Department (“PARD”) to reject the parkland dedication proposal described in this letter related to the Vertical Mixed-Use project with income-restricted affordable units proposed in site plan SP-2020-0419C (“the Project”). I am also providing the following information, as required by Section 25-1-183: Appellant Name: Appellant Address: Appellant Phone: Appellant Status: Appealed Decision: Date of Decision: Reasons for Appeal: Michael J. Whellan 100 Congress Ave., Suite 1300 512-435-2300 Agent for property owner. Parkland dedication determination (described below). July 27, 2021 As described below. Our team reached out to PARD last summer, in August 2020, to discuss the Project and the configuration of on-site parkland. We then officially submitted a site plan application in late November 2020, and received our first comments from PARD in February 2021. For nearly a year, we have engaged extensively with PARD regarding the configuration of our parkland and ways to meet PARD’s requirements, including obtaining Austin Energy’s approval to implement parkland improvements within an existing electrical easement area. This easement area – roughly 3,740 sf of amenitized space achieved through the applicant’s efforts – would expand the usable parkland area above and beyond the space owed by the applicant. The applicant undertook this effort to help meet PARD’s desire for additional space and is not requesting any parkland dedication credit for this area. {W1063188.4} The Project is located in an Imagine Austin Center (Highland Mall Station) and is surrounded on three sides by Transit Priority Network roadways, marking it as a priority area for additional housing, and especially for long-term, affordable, income-restricted housing, which the Project will provide. Fully embracing affordable housing in these areas is particularly important given that the city has progress to make on its affordable housing goals. …
305 S. Congress PUD Presentation to the Parks and Recreation Board September 14, 2021 Atha Phillips Environmental Program Coordinator Environmental Officer’s Office Scott Grantham Planner Principal, Park Planning Parks & Recreation Department Agenda • Proposed PUD environmental attributes and status • Proposed superiority • Code modifications • Staff evaluation • Staff proposed conditions for superiority Proposed PUD Lady Bird Lake Staff Evaluation - Environmental 1. PUD proposes to develop portions of the critical water quality zone and floodplain. Redundant concrete paths along with proposed vending in the future will exacerbate erosion. Proposing to cap impervious cover at 24.5% within the critical water quality zone, code allows 5% and Waterfront Overlay allows 15%. 2. Staff understands the need for a public viewing area and heavier programming on the west side of the park. Staff has offered in exchange for more development on the west side of the park , the east side should be restored to a more natural state. This would include relocating the trail a minimum of 25’ from the shoreline and moving all water quality to this area. 3. The restrictions proposed on the dedicated parkland by the applicant will not allow for the design necessary to achieve the environmental goals. There are areas on the west side of the property that are more suited to programming. This area near Congress bridge is full of ragweed and has no trees, it is where shoreline access including the pier and stairs should be located. There are areas throughout the shoreline that are eroding and need to be restored and protected with a split rail fence. There are areas along the trail where water is running downhill across the trail and causing erosion along the shoreline. On the eastern half of the property, the trail lies on the edge of the shoreline and is causing erosion downslope. Staff suggests that the trail be moved a minimum of 25’ from the shoreline in these areas. The area between the trail and the shoreline should be restored. Auditorium Shores example of restoration with access points In exchange for denser development on the west side for bat viewing, staff proposes moving the trail off the shoreline as shown. Staff also proposes moving all water quality ponds as shown and integrating the rain gardens with restoration, alleviating the need for a deep biofiltration pond in the bat viewing area. Staff Evaluation - Parkland 1. …
2016 PLAN vs 2020 MODIFIED PLAN 2016 SCW Plan 2020 Modified SCW Plan DRAFT | October 19, 2020 DRAFT | October 19, 2020 2020 Modified Plan focuses on two properties - Statesman & Crockett. Combined, these two properties reflect 30 acres or roughly 30% of the properties in the SCW District. In the SCW Vision, these two properties contribute 65% of District’s Open Space through the Waterfront Park Sequence and Crockett Square; 70% of District’s New Streets - most notably extension of Barton Springs Road and accommodating the proposed alignment of CapMetro’s Blue Line; and 62% of Projected District Buildout. A fundamental difference between the 2016 Physical Framework and the 2020 Modified Physical Framework is in the location and alignment of future streets and the open space network on the two largest properties – colloquially known as the Statesman Site and the adjacent Crockett Property. R D T F A WAT ERFRONT PARK INT ERNAL ST REETS BARTON SPRINGS EXT ENSION CROCKET T SQUARE Barton Springs E Riverside S C o n g r e s s Statesman Property Crockett Property ENHANCED GREEN CONNECTOR T F ● A ● ● R D ● ● ● Block Structure reflects idealized district vision Barton Springs Alignment: ○ ○ 1.6 acres dedicated right-of-way, primarily on the “Crockett” property Requires co-development and City intervention and funding to complete as envisioned. Open Space Requirements (flexible layout): ○ Waterfront Park - 7.0 acres park ○ Plazas @ “Statesman” - 2.6 acres ○ Plaza @ “Crockett” - Crockett Square - 1.3 acre Block Structure follows the flexible guidelines laid out in the 2016 Plan and reflects on-the-ground realities Barton Springs Alignment: ○ 1.6 acres dedicated right-of-way, primarily on the “Statesman” property Open Space Requirements (flexible layout): ○ Waterfront Park - 7.0 acres - flexible layout ○ ○ ○ Plazas @ “Statesman” - 1.8 acres Plaza @ “Crockett” - Crockett Square - 1.6 acres Enhanced Green Connector @ “Crockett” - 0.6 acres The 2016 Physical Framework assumed a co-development of these two properties that would allow for the primary new collector street, East Barton Springs Road, to cross both properties but primarily built on the Crockett Property. According to the adopted SCW Plan in 2016, this new street and its location would have been facilitated by a recommended development corporation and funded through recommended tax-increment financing. Given that neither of these recommendations have been initiated, the 2016 recommended …
2016 PLAN vs 2020 MODIFIED PLAN 2016 SCW Plan 2020 Modified SCW Plan DRAFT | October 19, 2020 DRAFT | October 19, 2020 2020 Modified Plan focuses on two properties - Statesman & Crockett. Combined, these two properties reflect 30 acres or roughly 30% of the properties in the SCW District. In the SCW Vision, these two properties contribute 65% of District’s Open Space through the Waterfront Park Sequence and Crockett Square; 70% of District’s New Streets - most notably extension of Barton Springs Road and accommodating the proposed alignment of CapMetro’s Blue Line; and 62% of Projected District Buildout. A fundamental difference between the 2016 Physical Framework and the 2020 Modified Physical Framework is in the location and alignment of future streets and the open space network on the two largest properties – colloquially known as the Statesman Site and the adjacent Crockett Property. R D T F A WAT ERFRONT PARK INT ERNAL ST REETS BARTON SPRINGS EXT ENSION CROCKET T SQUARE Barton Springs E Riverside S C o n g r e s s Statesman Property Crockett Property ENHANCED GREEN CONNECTOR T F ● A ● ● R D ● ● ● Block Structure reflects idealized district vision Barton Springs Alignment: ○ ○ 1.6 acres dedicated right-of-way, primarily on the “Crockett” property Requires co-development and City intervention and funding to complete as envisioned. Open Space Requirements (flexible layout): ○ Waterfront Park - 7.0 acres park ○ Plazas @ “Statesman” - 2.6 acres ○ Plaza @ “Crockett” - Crockett Square - 1.3 acre Block Structure follows the flexible guidelines laid out in the 2016 Plan and reflects on-the-ground realities Barton Springs Alignment: ○ 1.6 acres dedicated right-of-way, primarily on the “Statesman” property Open Space Requirements (flexible layout): ○ Waterfront Park - 7.0 acres - flexible layout ○ ○ ○ Plazas @ “Statesman” - 1.8 acres Plaza @ “Crockett” - Crockett Square - 1.6 acres Enhanced Green Connector @ “Crockett” - 0.6 acres The 2016 Physical Framework assumed a co-development of these two properties that would allow for the primary new collector street, East Barton Springs Road, to cross both properties but primarily built on the Crockett Property. According to the adopted SCW Plan in 2016, this new street and its location would have been facilitated by a recommended development corporation and funded through recommended tax-increment financing. Given that neither of these recommendations have been initiated, the 2016 recommended …
DRAFT | October 19, 2020 DRAFT | October 19, 2020 2020 MODIFIED OPEN SPACES The SCW Framework Plan will add approximately 17 acres of open space to the South Central Waterfront. These new parks, plazas and trails serve as destinations for recreation as well as amenities for people who will live and work in the neighborhood. In addition, each park incorporates innovative strategies coordinated across the district to ensure that stormwater is managed and treated before flowing into Bouldin Creek and Lady Bird Lake. SCW Plan identifies four major open space opportunities that anchor the district’s public realm. The interconnected network of green streets and trails connect these open spaces. Code Major Open Spaces Acres Direct Costs* Indirect Costs Total Cost OS1 Waterfront Park & Plazas $33,048,700 $19,697,025 $52,745,725 Open Spaces make up 34% of the Physical Framework Infrastructure Costs at $85,250,220 T F $1,450,153 $864,291 $2,314,444 $5,596,072 $3,335,259 $8,931,331 $10,820,000 $6,448,720 $17,268,720 $2,500,000 $1,490,000 $3,990,000 TOTAL OPEN SPACE COSTS $85,250,220 A 0.58 8.79 5.22 1.6 0.17 R OS2 Green Connector OS3 Bouldin Creek Trail OS4 Crockett Square OS 5 Nightwing Plaza D T F A R D Executive Summary | Introduction | Physical Framework | Financial Framework | City Leadership | Appendices # Executive Summary | Introduction | Physical Framework | Financial Framework | City Leadership | Appendices #
South Central Waterfront Illustrative Vision Plan 2020 IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE > Modified SCW PLAN (The Big Shift) WATERFRONT PARK INTERNAL STREETS BARTON SPRINGS EXTENSION CROCKETT SQUARE E Riverside 2016 SCW Plan ● Block Structure reflects idealized district vision ● Barton Springs Alignment: ○ ○ ○ ○ Requires City Leadership to facilitate cooperation between two major property owners - Cox & Crockett Requires City Initiative and Public Funding to complete the construction Park & Pedestrian Plazas - 9.6 acres; flexible layout Crockett Square - 1 acre plaza; flexible layout + Green Connector ● Open Space Requirements: ● Block Structure follows the flexible guidelines laid out in the 2016 Plan and reflects on- 2020 Modified SCW Plan the-ground realities ● Barton Springs Alignment: follows property boundary between Cox & Crockett Barton Springs on Cox property consistent w/ 2019 PUD proposal ■ This shift requires Cox to dedicate ~1.6 acres to Barton Springs Rd. that would otherwise have been on Crockett ● Open Space Requirements: Key Open Spaces change slightly to accommodate the altered grid structure Cox Property requirement ~ 9 acres Park & Pedestrian Plazas Crockett Property - 1.3 acre plaza; flexible layout + Green Connector 17 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ CATALYST OPEN SPACES > Placemaking Anchors – The Heart of the Plan 5 2 3 4 1 1. East Bouldin Creek Trail @ the Texas School for the Deaf 2. Barton Springs "Nightwing" Plaza 3. Crockett Square 4. Moton Lane Green Connector 5. Park & Open Spaces @ Statesman site 20 2020 IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE > Multimodal Transportation Network 18 2020 IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE > 7 Street Classifications & 5 Catalyst Open Spaces 19 The SCW Physical Framework provides substantial increases in open space and connectivity for the distrct. 8% 18% 13% 26% Existing Proposed 8% 18% 13% 26% Existing Proposed proposed open space property lines existing open space SCW boundary new right-of-way existing right-of-way Open Space Size (ac) 1.Waterfront Park 2. Bouldin Creek 3. Crocket Plaza 4. Rain Gardens 9.6 6.6 1.8 Bat Viewing Pier Trails and Boardwalks Amphitheater Canopy Walk Terrace Cafe Bridge to One Texas Center Pavilion Deck & Cafe Water Quality Ponds Wetland Preserve Bus Shelter and Bouldin Creek Overlook Performative and Educational Wetland Green Lawn and Amphitheater Marketplace and Cafe Fountain Plaza and Splashpad 1.2 Rain Gardens Ground Floor Retail and Outdoor Seating Sculpture Enhanced Pedestrian and Bike Crossings Key Features Kayak Launch & Rentals Disc Golf Course …
Background The Co-creation Team & Model Community Catalysts ● 30 people selected from a pool of 117 applicants. They are being compensated for their time ● Participants were selected based on displacement risk ● Catalyst group model used to center voices of people with lived experience and greatest risk of displacement 2 Evidence of Displacement: Central East Austin 17% Black 83% White 12% Black 23% Hispanic 62% White Source: “Austin Restricted” (Tretter, 2012) from U.S. Census data 8% Black 35% Hispanic 49% White 3 Evidence of Transit Oriented Displacement: Portland, OR 4 Vision With the help of the Equity Tool, we envision: Austin renowned for its strong communities and inclusive neighborhoods. It's economic and racial diversity as the foundation which fuels the City's innovative and entrepreneurial spirit. Austin that welcomes all incoming ethnic groups, new BIPOC transplants, and values its Native and long time BIPOC residents, businesses and community organizations. We see a future in which Austinites, regardless of race or means, thrive with the power to determine their futures. 5 Racial Equity Drivers Driver One: Prevent Residential, Commercial, and Community Displacement Driver Two: Advance Economic Mobility and Opportunity Driver Three: Build on Local Cultural Assets Driver Four: Promote Transportation Mobility and Connectivity Driver Five: Develop Healthy and Safe Neighborhoods Driver Six: Equitable Access to All Neighborhoods 6 People Black, Indigenous, and People of Color at risk of displacement 7 Places Displacement Risk Areas Image from the Project Connect Racial Equity Anti- Displacement Map Tool showing displacement risk categories and Project Connect lines (Link to online map: https://arcg.is/qr G8C) 8 Places Displacement Risk Areas Image from the Project Connect Racial Equity Anti- Displacement Map Tool showing displacement risk areas within 1 mile of a Project Connect station (Link to online map: https://arcg.is/qrG 8C) 9 Purposes Balanced Allocation Priorities for the Anti- Displacement Fund A balanced approach is needed to address the long history of public and private disinvestment in communities of color Illustration created by Racial Equity Catalyst Jasmine Willis 10 Racial Equity Anti-Displacement Tool Five sections: Community-Driven I. II. Community Priorities III. Community Guardrails IV. Reasonableness (funds only) V. Balanced Portfolio (funds only) Scoring criteria for each section informs project design and funding awards. Each criterion is scored on a range from 5 points for a strong response to 0 points for a weak response. 11 I. Community-Driven Does this proposal advance the community’s vision of racially equitable development, …
Housing Program Production & 2018 GO Bond Update September 2021 Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Housing Program Production Overview FY2020-2021 Production Summary 3 FY2020-2021 Production Summary 4 FY 2020-21 GO Repair Production (through July 2021) 5 FY 2020-21 GO Repair Production (through July 2021) 6 FY 2020-21 GO Repair Production (through July 2021) 7 FY 2020-21 Down Payment Assistance (through July 2021) 8 FY 2020-21 Down Payment Assistance (through July 2021) 9 FY 2020-21 Down Payment Assistance (through July 2021) 10 2018 GO Bond Update Proposition A 2018 Bond Ballot Language 12 2018 Affordable Housing Bond Spend Plan Project Name Prop A- Affordable Housing FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 FY21-22 FY22-23 Total Land Acquisition $ 20 million $30 million $30 million $20 million - $100 million RHDA OHDA $16 million $18 million $20 million $20 million $20 million $94 million $4 million $6 million $6 million $6 million $6 million $28 million Home Repair $2 million $5 million $6 million $7 million $8 million $28 million $42 million $59 million $62 million $53 million $34 million $ 250 million 13 2018 Affordable Housing Bond Encumbrances Project Name Prop A- Affordable Housing Land Acquisition RHDA OHDA FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 FY21-22 Total Balance* - $42,019,000 $35,023,890 $77,042,890 $22,363,564 $16,154,524 $19,653,504 $16,584,211 $52,392,239 $40,223,481 $3,290,000 $5,801,334 $6,225,000 $15,316,334 $12,002,953 Home Repair $1,659,803 $3,871,323 $927,066 $6,458,192 $5,238,359 $21,104,327 $71,345,161 $58,760,167 $151,209,655 $ 79,828,357 *Balance = Total GO Bond allocation – (encumbrances + legal fees + salaries and indirect costs) 14 - - - - - 2018 Affordable Housing Bond Investments Hotel Acquisitions • Texas Bungalows • Country Inn • Candlewood • Townplace 15 2018 Affordable Housing Bond Investments Vi Collina – AHFC Partnership • Oltorf at Pleasant Valley • 170 units • 100% Affordable • January 2022 16 Questions?
Plan Amendment Case #: NPA-2021-0026.01 Zoning Case #: C14-2021-0039 Property Addresses: 10609, 10611, 10613, 10615 Brownie Dr. and 10610, 10612, 10614 Middle Fiskville Rd. Applicant: Brownie & Grady Investments LLC (Mohammad Memon) Agent: Thrower Design Application Proposing: Tract 1 - SF-3-NP (Family Residence District—Neighborhood Plan) to MF-4-NP (Multifamily Residence Moderate-High Density district—Neighborhood Plan) Tract 2 - LR-NP (Neighborhood Commercial district—Neighborhood Plan) to CS-MU—NP (General Commercial Services district—Neighborhood Plan) for multifamily residential and commercial uses. Detrimental Impacts ● Displacement of long-term and life-long residents ● Gentrification ● Further Oppression and systematic racism ● Negative Environmental Impacts including flooding in crease, increased heat, removal of green space and shadowing effect ● Diminished quality of life and health ● Incompatibility with current neighborhood culture and infrastructure ● Traffic & Safety concerns ● Not affordable ● Benefiting Demographic is not to current resident base ● Against what Austin says it stands for Systematic Challenges ● Severe Inequity of Experience and system navigation ● Civic Bullying ● Misleading and incomplete information passed to residents by city staff members, to prevent community involvement Lack of true community engagement with community Severe Inequity of Experience and system navigation Policies that hinder community input Severe Inequity of Experience and system navigation compared with high dollar developers ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Socioeconomic Oppression Systematic Racism Prey on highly minority, english as a second language community Exploitation of blue-collar working class neighborhood Further overlooking of an already dismissed and uncared for minority neighborhood ● Outreach to build community base from scratch ● Learning Curve ● Covid-19 Challenges Environmental, Quality of Life and Health Factors The City of Austin has identified North Austin as a prominent heat island in Austin, with up to 15 degrees hotter than other areas in the city. According to the Office of Sustainability, and outlined in the Climate Equity Plan. 0 3 The shadow effect posed to nearby homes pose to increased illnesses and decline in overall physical and mental health of current long-term residents, including depression, increase suicide rates, diabetes, high blood pressure and migraine headaches. This property is located in the Little Walnut Creek Watershed and development at the proposed scale poses life and property threatening flooding concerns. Heat Mapping - Austin Urban Heat Island Study Area in case review** Average land surface temperatures are shown. Red areas are hottest. Dark blue areas are coolest. Notice the high heat …
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND A NEIGHBORIIOOD PLAN Mailing Date of this Notice: $epl3,2021 Case Number: NPA-20 1 9-0022.01 Este aviso es para informarles de una junta priblica sobre un cambio en el uso de la tierra indicado abaio. Si usted desea recibir informaci6n en espafiol por favor llame al (512) 974-3531. The Housing and Planning Department has received an application for an amendment to the Greater South River City Combined Neighborhood Plan for properfy(ies) referenced below. This notice has been mailed to you because you own property, are a registered environmental or neighborhood organization, or have a utility service address within 500 feet of the subject property. The requested plan amendment will be reviewed and acted on at two public hearings: First, before the Planning Commission and then before the City Council. At a public hearing, the Planning Commission reviews and evaluates City stafPs recommendation and public input and then sends its recommendation to the City Council. For additional information on the City of Austin's Land Development Process, visit our website, http://www.austintexas.gov/planning or to find out more about the Greater South River City Combined Neighborhood Plan, go to h@e/neighborhood-plannins-areas. Owner/Annlicant: Agent: Proiect Name: Proiect Address(es): Related Zonins Case: SPEARHEAD ACADEMY LTD (Chris Wallin) Weiss Architecture Inc (Richard Weiss) - (512\ 924-0433 200 Academy 146%,200,200Y2and204% AcademyDrive and 1006 & 1020 MelissaLane c14-2020-0147 AMENDMENT REQUEST: To change the future land use designation for the specified property within the Greater South River City Combined Neighborhood Plan from Mixed Use/Office to Mixed Use (refer to attached map). LAND USE DEFINITIONS: Mixed Use/Office - An area that is appropriate for a mix of residential and office uses. Mixed Use - An areathat is appropriate for a mix of residential and non-residential uses. This application is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on September 14,2021 beginning at 6:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in-person at City Hall Council Chambers, 301 West 2nd Street but may be viewable online at http://wu,a,v.atxn.ty. Public participation for this Public Hearing will be in-person only and no remote (by telephone) participation will be offered. To participate at this meeting, you must go to City Hall at 301 West 2nd Street and attend in-person. For additional information on how to participate in the meeting, please contact the case manager listed below by email or phone or go to the Planning Commission website: http :iiwrnw.austintexas. govlcontent/planning-commission. If you …
AUS AAC - 2022 Budget FY22 Aviation – Budget Highlights Revenues Revenues going up $35.6M from FY21 Budget to FY22 Proposed, driven by higher enplanements and higher aircraft operations. Enplanements projected to be at 6.8M versus FY21 estimate of 3.7M. Revenue per enplanement: $21.77 in FY21 Budget to $23.53 in FY22 Budget. Operating Requirements No increase to budgeted FTE’s. Instead, reducing vacancies from 99 to 40 in FY22 to maintain service levels. Airport operating expenses going up $1.2M from FY21 to FY22 Proposed. City allocations down ($1.9M). Debt (net of PFC) is going up $6.7M year over year. Cares Act and CRRSA federal funds application to debt estimated to go down from $30.1M in FY21 Budget to $14.6M in FY22 Budget. No ARPA funds budgeted in FY22 due to FAA guidance delay and final figures allocation to airports. 1 Enplanement Forecast FY21-25 FY22 Mid case enplanements forecasted to be 81% of 2019; 6.8M enplanements Projections based on A4A and rating agency reports FY22 Budget based on Mid case enplanements High trajectory scenario will put us at 7.4M passengers in FY22 versus 8.5M in 2019 2 Operating Revenues 2019 - 2022 FY22 revenues are significant improvement over FY21 3 Actual 2018-2019 Actual - P13 2019-2020 Approved Budget 2020-2021 Current Estimate 2020-2021 Proposed 2021-2022 30,827,114 46,398,412 77,225,525 41,278,183 6,369,975 14,784,393 16,303,523 2,648,154 16,363,787 97,748,014 1,758,413 1,758,413 24,318,648 49,381,268 73,699,917 -4.57% 23,409,088 3,912,754 10,259,195 10,286,314 2,108,648 15,677,727 65,653,725 -32.83% 812,924 812,924 16,720,000 37,697,000 54,417,000 21,107,271 4,487,041 11,069,553 16,683,098 1,750,000 14,598,015 69,694,978 6.16% 1,208,114 1,208,114 17,426,753 43,679,223 61,105,976 -17.09% 18,337,134 2,019,053 11,026,850 16,768,861 1,897,783 14,812,320 64,862,001 -1.21% 318,429 318,429 26,030,400 48,629,417 74,659,817 22.18% 36,056,647 4,983,334 11,586,297 15,711,619 2,059,095 15,532,040 85,929,032 32.48% 353,379 353,379 • Landed Weights – 75% of 2019 • Rental car and Food, Bev and Retail revenue at MAG for FY21 CYE and Fy22 proposed • Parking and GT revenue based on enplanements Airport Revenues FY22 REVENUE AIRLINE REVENUE Landing Fees Terminal Rental & Other Fees TOTAL AIRLINE REVENUE yoy growth % NON-AIRLINE REVENUE Parking Ground Transportation Rental Cars Food, Bev & Retail Advertising Other Rentals and Fees TOTAL NON-AIRLINE REVENUE yoy growth % Interest Income TOTAL INTEREST INCOME & BOND PROCEEDS 4 TOTAL REVENUE yoy growth % 176,731,952 140,166,565 -20.69% 125,320,092 -10.59% 126,286,406 -9.90% 160,942,228 27.44% Revenue per enplanements $20.88 $29.67 $21.77 $34.43 $23.34 AUS Budget – Operating Fund Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 …
Airport Expansion and Development Program Update to AAAC September 14, 2021 Overview Airport Expansion and Development Program (AEDP) • Grant Strategy • The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act • What does this mean for Airports • Application Criteria • AEDP Grant Eligible Projects • Focus projects: Passenger Processing Projects • New Concourse B • AEDP Upcoming Council Action Items • Terminal Optimization, Baggage Handling System, Airline Ticketing and AEDP Program Summary 1 Long-range Airport Program Utilities and Airfield Infrastructure New Concourse B AEDP Program Summary Future Roadway and Landside Improvements Future Barbara Jordan Terminal Expansion Optimize Barbara Jordan Terminal 2 AEDP Grant Strategy AEDP Program Summary 3 The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act • Airport Infrastructure Grants • $3 billion/year for 5 years • Formulaic allocation with a few specific set-asides • PFC-project eligibility criteria apply • Airport Terminal Program • $1 billion/year for 5 years • Competitive allocation within hub categories • Limited to terminal projects AEDP Program Summary 4 What does this mean for Airports • Use or lose funding provisions will drive focus on “shovel ready” projects • Planning is complete • Project on an approved ALP • Environmental review underway • Terminal program priorities broaden set of projects for consideration • Local share requirements still need to be considered • Minimum local shares range from 5% to 25% of project costs depending on hub classification, program, and project type • Collaboration with the FAA is critical essential to success • Clear implementation guidance • Straightforward application and compliance processes • Early and frequent airport engagement • Need for sponsor empowerment AEDP Program Summary 5 The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Consideration to be given to projects that: Increase capacity and passenger access 1. 2. Replace aging infrastructure 3. Achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act/ 4. 5. expand accessibility for persons with disabilities Improve airport access for historically disadvantaged populations Improve energy efficiency, including upgrading environmental systems, upgrading plant facilities, and achieving Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) accreditation standards Improve airfield safety through terminal relocation 6. 7. Encourage actual and potential competition AEDP Program Summary 6 Grant Eligible Projects AEDP Program Summary 7 Airport Expansion & Development Program Demand Capacity Initiatives Enabling Infrastructure • Passenger processing improvements • Apron and airfield improvements/connections • Upgrade utility infrastructure • Demolition, storm water, and environmental site preparation Optimize Barbara Jordan Terminal Gates, Ticket Counters and Processing …
