02, 03 and 04 Backup submitted by Chair Shaw.pdf — original pdf

Backup

November 10, 2022 -- Meeting Notes – Re: Brodie Oaks Development Austin Energy, COA Law Dept, Brodie Oaks Development Team, Planning Commissioner Greg Anderson • AE: Andy H., Stuart, Scott B., Lisa, Maria, Michael P., Reza, Nick S., Noelle, Pamela E. • COA: Kait • Armbrust & Brown: Jewel, David Lionheart: Rebecca, Abby • • Brodie Oaks Owner Rep: Milo • Engineers & Planners: Steven, Joe Longaro Intros Rebecca Leonard • Apologized for communication breakdowns; transparency and engagement have been cornerstones of the approach for the last 3 years • Have had many meetings with AE staff • Most recently Summer 2022; included Stuart and Jackie o Clear direction that only option was 1.5 acre substation site on property o Approx 1/3 of substation capacity would be for the Brodie Oaks development Left the mtg thinking that was AE's final say; didn't realize AE was still working on things • • Does not support substation on site • Have met with several entities and none of them think this is a great location for a substation • Stuart Interested in hearing more from AE in terms of what options are available • Did not intend that meeting to be final • • We have not been approaching this as, this is a nice to have, so we can burden this site and Left the meeting with the intent that the teams would look for creative solutions together • serve other areas First and foremost, we need a substation to serve this site and we don't have the substation capacity elsewhere to serve it • All sites are not the same from an engineering perspective • Never encountered this issue at the zoning stage of the work • This is a long way out; why now? • What would AE do if Milo decided not to do this project? How would you serve S. Austin • Can't plan out too far due to 10 year rule associated with eminent domain • A load such as this, which is a few years out, is really right around the corner for us • Team provided very preliminary loading estimate; was very conservative on it • Expect they will come in lower than that • AE recognizes that load estimates are estimates and that load varies over time; thus, AE applies a diversification factor to load estimates; used to determine how to feed the site • The driver for the substation is the load of Brodie Oaks; there is no other way to serve this load • You don't want to put a load this large at the end of a feeder • Also one feeder serves 10-12 MVA, if you're talking 20-30 MW, then we need more than one feeder available David • This is in the SOS area, which has impervious cover limitations otherwise? Stuart David Rebecca Maria • Across Lamar, that is not in the SOS zone • Of all the sites in S. Austin, it gets very difficult once you get into an SOS zone • True, that may be why we didn't plan for a development such as this one in this location It has to work from an engineering standpoint: connect into T and D system • Re why this is coming up now, we need to plan ahead to serve load • • Acquiring properties is 18-24 months just to get the land • We do operate with power of eminent domain; it still takes a lot of time • Need civic use to be included in this zoning phase • Have added those as permitted uses; from a zoning perspective, we're good • We still don't agree that this is the best site for a substation • You normally assess those things at site plan or building permit • We just want to get through the zoning phase • Are we good from a zoning perspective or is AE going to step in and hold things up? Pamela • • We can't stop the conversation there, though, b/c it takes time to prepare and be ready to serve If civic use is included, we're golden from a zoning perspective • There were two other sites off-PUD, one is no longer viable and the other is needed for another your load substation • What is the best way to discuss potential sites? o Pamela explained the AE team structure • What is before the Planning Commission? Is the PUD document included? • PUD documents include a site plan; don't plan on having substation on site • • If we changed it, would require PUD amendment SOS amendment is limiting impervious cover to 54%; if AE wanted to come in later and add a substation, it would require an additional SOS amendment • We should discuss now b/c timing requires action now • Planning Commission 11/15; Council at 12/1 • There isn't time to site a substation prior to that; would take months Greg (Planning Commission) • 10 of 17 acres taken up here (???) • Across Lamar, means a lot less land needed; believes less cost • Don't let the substation be a poison pill that kills this project Maria Pamela Rebecca David Stuart Milo Stuart David Stuart David Stuart • Can see your point about looking elsewhere; Makes sense logically • There may be creative solutions on-site that allow for a substation while still meeting your other requirements (e.g., reduce building footprint to reduce impervious cover but go higher) • Using another site assumes use of eminent domain elsewhere for the benefit of this site Milo Rebecca Pamela • This is a difficult situation and we appreciate it • We've been trying to please a whole lot of interests in this PUD • Adding on top of the height may be the straw that breaks the camel back • PUD takes 50% vote; SOS ordinance takes supermajority vote to pass • If there is any solution that doesn't affect the SOS ordinance … • Adding substation now will make it impossible to pass now, on 12/1 at Council • Andy H. is SPOC for AE for substation, PUC, site plan; please ensure all communications involve him and he will coordinate up and down internally